Volume V 1962-1964 - Technical Bulletins

Volume V 1962-1964 - Technical Bulletins

Сообщение auditor » 27 дек 2016, 16:36

Web auditing in any place on the planet http://webauditing.org/

The
Technical Bulletins
of
Dianetics and Scientology

by
L. Ron Hubbard
FOUNDER OF DIANETICS AND SCIENTOLOGY

Volume
V
1962-1964
_____________________________________________________________________

I will not always be here on guard.
The stars twinkle in the Milky Way
And the wind sighs for songs
Across the empty fields of a planet
A Galaxy away.

You won’t always be here.
But before you go,
Whisper this to your sons
And their sons —
“The work was free.
Keep it so. “


L. RON HUBBARD


L. Ron Hubbard
Founder of Dianetics and Scientology

EDITORS’ NOTE


“A chronological study of materials is necessary for the complete training of a truly top grade expert in these lines. He can see how the subject progressed and so is able to see which are the highest levels of development. Not the least advantage in this is the defining of words and terms for each, when originally used, was defined, in most cases, with considerable exactitude, and one is not left with any misunderstoods.”

—L. Ron Hubbard

The first eight volumes of the Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology contain, exclusively, issues written by L. Ron Hubbard, thus providing a chronological time track of the development of Dianetics and Scientology. Volume IX, The Auditing Series, and Volume X, The Case Supervisor Series, contain Board Technical Bulletins that are part of the series. They are LRH data even though compiled or written by another.

So that the time track of the subject may be studied in its entirety, all HCO Bs have been included, excluding only those upper level materials which will be found on courses to which they apply. If an issue has been revised, replaced, or cancelled, this has been indicated in the upper right-hand corner along with the page number of the issue which should be referred to.

The points at which Ron gave tape recorded lectures have been indicated as they occurred. Where they were given as part of an event or course, information is given on that event or course on the page in the chronological volumes which corresponds to the date. The symbol “**” preceding a tape title means that copies are available from both Publications Organizations. A tape preceded by “*” means that it will soon be available. No asterisk (*) means that neither Publications Organization nor Flag has a master copy of that lecture. If you have, or know anyone who has, copies of these tapes, please contact the Flag Audio Chief, P.O. Box 23751, Tampa, Florida, 33623, U.S.A. The number in the tape title is a code for the date; example: 5505C07—55 = year, 1955; 05 = month, May; C = copy; 07 = day, 7th; 7 May 1955. The abbreviation tells what group the tape is a part of. For an explanation of the abbreviations see Volume X, page 539.

At the back of this volume is a Subject Index covering only the material in this volume. Use the index to locate the LRH source material in context, don’t just get data from the index. This index has been combined with indexes from other volumes to form the Cumulative Index which is in Volume X, starting on page 287.

TECHNICAL BULLETINS
1962-1964



CONTENTS


1962

6 Jan. Laudatory Withholds (HCO PL)
9 Jan. 3D Criss Cross (HCO Info. Ltr.) 4
11 Jan. Security Checking—Twenty-Ten Theory 6
17 Jan. Responsibility Again (HCO PL) (reissued 7 June 1967) 8
22 Jan. 3D Criss Cross—Method of Assessment (HCO Info. Ltr.) 10
22 Jan. Crash Programme (HCO PL) OEC Vol. 4— 26
25 Jan. Flow Process 14
Feb. Flows, Basic 16
Feb. 3D Criss Cross—Assessment Tips (HCO Info. Ltr.) 17
3 Feb. 3DXX Flows Assessment (HCO Info. Ltr.) 19
8 Feb. Missed Withholds 20
12 Feb. How to Clear Withholds and Missed Withholds 23
13 Feb. 3D Criss Cross Items (HCO PL) 25
15 Feb. Co-Audit & Missed Withholds 25
22 Feb. Withholds, Missed and Partial 26
27 Feb. Clean Hands Clearance Check (HCO PL) OEC Vol. 5—358
1 Mar. Prepchecking 28
8 Mar. The Bad “Auditor” 32
15 Mar. Suppressors 36
21 Mar. Prepchecking Data—When to Do a What 39
29 Mar. CCHs Again—When to Use the CCHs 43
5 Apr. CCHs—Auditing Attitude 45
11 Apr. Determining What to Run 48
12 Apr. CCHs—Purpose 50
26 Apr. Recommended Processes HGC 51
29 Apr. Routine 3G (Experimental) (HCO Info. Ltr.) 53
3 May ARC Breaks—Missed Withholds 58
10 May Prepchecking and Sec Checking 62
10 May Routine 3GA (Experimental) (HCO Info. Ltr.) 64
14 May Case Repair 67
21 May Missed Withholds, Asking About 71
21 May Training—Classes of Auditors (HCO PL) OEC Vol. 4—315
22 May Model Session Change 72
23 May E-Meter Reads—Prepchecking—How Meters Get Invalidated 73

1962 (cont.)

24 May Training—Session Cancellation—Auditing Section
(HCO PL) OEC Vol. 4—318
24 May Q and A 74
25 May E-Meter Instant Reads 77
26 May Training Drills Must Be Correct (HCO PL) 79
June Auditing—Rudiments Check Sheet (HCO PL) 81
8 June Rudiments Checking 82
11 June Prepchecking the Middle Rudiments 83
14 June Checking Needle in Rudiments Checks 84
23 June Model Session Revised (canceled—see 398) 85
24 June Prepchecking 88
25 June E-Meter Standards 91
27 June Rundown on Routine 3GA 92
28 June Dirty Needles—How to Smooth Out Needles 93
30 June ARC Process 95
ca. June How to Study Scientology (Ability 139) see footnote Vol. III—426
2 July Repetitive Rudiments—How to Get the Rudiments In 96
3 July Repetitive Prepchecking 98
4 July Bulletin Changes 101
4 July Coachless Training—Use of a Doll 103
14 July Auditing Allowed (HCO PL) 104
15 July Goals Prepcheck Form—Routine 3GA (HCO PL) 106
17 July Routine 3GA—HCO WW R-3GA Form 1—Listing Prepcheck
(HCO PL) 109
19 July Clearing—Free Needles (HCO PL) 112
21 July Instant Reads 113
21 July Rudiments, Repetitive or Fast see footnote—113
22 July Routine 3GA—Listing Wording (HCO PL) 114
24 July R3GA—HCO WW Form G3—Fast Goals Check (HCO PL)
(revised—see 165) 115
30 July A Smooth HGC 25 Hour Intensive 116
Aug. Routine 3GA—Goals—Nulling by Mid Ruds 118
Aug. Routine 3GA—Nulling Drills for Nulling by Mid Ruds
(replaced—see 196) 122
2 Aug. CCH Answers 126
7 Aug. Running CCHs 127
10 Aug. How It Feels to Go Clear 128
13 Aug. Rock Slams and Dirty Needles 129
13 Aug. Clearing (HCO PL) OEC Vol. 4—553
21 Aug. 3GA—Line Wording 130
22 Aug. 3GA—Dynamic Assessment by Rock Slam—Dynamic Assessment Tip
(canceled—see footnote on 132) 131

1962 (cont.)

23 Aug. 3GA—Dynamic Assessment by Rock Slam see footnote—132
30 Aug. Order of Prepcheck Buttons 133
31 Aug. 3GA—Expanded Line Wording 134
31 Aug. 3GA—Dynamic Assessment by Rock Slam 135
Sept. 3GA—Dynamic Assessment by Rock Slam 135
Sept. Clearing Success Congress Lectures (1 Sept.—3 Sept.) 136
2 Sept. Account of Congress Goal 137
3 Sept. 3GA—Dynamic Assessment by Rock Slam 138
8 Sept. 3GA—To Be Goals Line Listing 139
12 Sept. Security Checks Again 140
12 Sept. Authorized Processes (HCO PL) 141
17 Sept. An Arrangement of the Academy (HCO PL) OEC Vol. 4—327
19 Sept. 3GA—Tips on Dynamic Assessment—Rules of Thumb 142
23 Sept. A 40-Line List on a Doingness Goal 143
27 Sept. Valid Processes (HCO PL) 145
27 Sept. Problems Intensive Use 146
Oct. 3GA—Listing by Tiger Buttons—114 New Lines for Listing 147
2 Oct. When You Need Reassurance 149
3 Oct. Tiger Drilling 150
8 Oct. HGC Clearing (HCO PL) 152
13 Oct. Processes 156
15 Oct. Goal Finder’s Model Session (canceled—see 243) 157
16 Oct. Routine 3GA—Listing 159
17 Oct. Auditor Failure to Understand 161
18 Oct. 3GA—Listing by Prehav 163
19 Oct. R3GA—HCO WW Form G3, Revised—Fast Goals Check (HCO PL) 165
29 Oct. Pre-Clearing Intensive 166
7 Nov. Wrong Goals, Importance of Repair of 167
7 Nov. Routine 3-21—The Twenty-One Steps—Finding Goals 170
7 Nov. “Roll Your Own” Prehav 173
8 Nov. Somatics—How to Tell Terminals and Opposition Terminals 175
11 Nov. 3GAXX—Straightening up 3GAXX Cases 179
12 Nov. 3GAXX—Dirty Needles and Incomplete Lists—How to Assess 180
17 Nov. Routine 3-21 182
23 Nov. Routine Two-Twelve—Opening Procedure by Rock Slam
—An HPA/HCA Skill 185
24 Nov. Routine 2-12—List One—Issue One—The Scientology List 191
28 Nov. R2-12—Practical Drills 193
29 Nov. Routine 2-12—List One—Issue Two—The Scientology List 195
29 Nov. Routines 2-12, 3-21 and 3GAXX—Tiger Drill for Nulling
by Mid Ruds 196

1962 (cont.)

Dec. Goals & Prepchecking (HCO PL) 201
Dec. V Unit—New Students—Saint Hill Special Briefing Course
(HCO PL) OEC Vol. 4—421
2 Dec. Instructors’ Stable Data (HCO PL) OEC Vol. 4—161
4 Dec. Routine 2-12—List One—Issue Three—The Scientology List 202
5 Dec. 2-12, 3GAXX, 3-21 and Routine 2-10—Modern Assessment 203
6 Dec. R2-10, R2-12, 3GAXX—Data, The Zero A Steps and
Purpose of Processes 210
8 Dec. Training—Saint Hill Special Briefing Course—Summary of
Subjects by Units (HCO PL) OEC Vol. 4 —423
8 Dec. Training—X Unit 214
8 Dec. Corrections—HCO Bulletin of December 5, AD12 see footnote—209
9 Dec. Routine 2-12—List One—Add to List One Issue Three 215
15 Dec. R2-12—The Fatal Error 216
17 Dec. Correction to HCO Bulletin of December 5, 1962 see footnote—209
30 Dec. Routines 2-12 & 2-10—Case Errors—Points of Greatest Importance 217

1963

Jan. Academy Curriculum—How to Teach Auditing and Routine 2 227
3 Jan. Routine 2—Opposition Lists—Right and Wrong Oppose 230
15 Jan. Routine 2-12 (HCO PL) OEC Vol. 4—563
27 Jan. Routine 2—Simplified 233
8 Feb. Curriculum Change (HCO PL) OEC Vol. 4—424
11 Feb. Current Auditing 239
12 Feb. Routines 2-12, 3-21 and 3GAXX—Tiger Drill for Nulling
by Mid Ruds (Franchise reissue) 196
13 Feb. V Unit (HCO PL) OEC Vol. 4—427
13 Feb. Academy Taught Processes (HCO PL) OEC Vol. 4—339
15 Feb. R2—R3—Listing Rules 241
20 Feb. Routine 2 & 3 Model Session (canceled—see 278) 243
21 Feb. Goals Check (HCO PL) 246
4 Mar. Routine 2-10, 2-12, 2-12A 247
8 Mar. Use of the Big Middle Rudiments 248
10 Mar. Routine 2-10, 2-12, 2-12A—Vanished RS or RR 249
14 Mar. Routine 2—Routine 3—ARC Breaks, Handling of 251
18 Mar. R2—R3—Important Data—Don’t Force the Pc 255
23 Mar. Classification of Auditors—Class II & Goals (HCO PL) OEC Vol. 4—340
23 Mar. Clear & OT 260
13 Apr. Routine 2-G—Original Routine 2, 3GA, 2-10, 2-12, 2-1 2A and
Others Specially Adapted—Goals Finding—Designation of Routines 262
25 Apr. Meter Reading TRs 264

1963 (cont.)

29 Apr. Modernized Training Drills Using Permissive Coaching
(canceled—see Vol. VII, 8) 266
15 May The Time Track and Engram Running by Chains—Bulletin 1 273
21 May Routine 3—R-3 Model Session (canceled—see 381) 278
27 May Cause of ARC Breaks 281
8 June The Time Track and Engram Running by Chains—Bulletin 2
—Handling the Time Track 287
10 June Scientology Training—Technical Studies (HCO PL) OEC Vol. 4—342
24 June Routine 3—Engram Running by Chains—Bulletin 3
—Routine 3-R—Engram Running by Chains 292
25 June Routine 2H—ARC Breaks by Assessment 297
1 July Routine 3R—Bulletin 4—Preliminary Step 299
5 July ARC Break Assessments 306
5 July CCHs Rewritten (replaced—see Vol. VI, 118) 310
9 July A Technical Summary—The Required Skills of Processing and Why 314
11 July Auditing Rundown—Missed Withholds—To Be Run in XI Unit 318
21 July Co-Audit ARC Break Process 319
22 July You Can Be Right 321
22 July Org Technical—HGC Processes and Training 324
23 July Auditing Rundown—Missed Withholds—To Be Run in XI Unit 328
25 July Diagrams for LRH Lecture to the SHSBC on 25 July 1963 see—339
28 July Time and the Tone Arm 329
29 July Scientology Review 332
30 July Current Planning (HCO PL) OEC Vol. 4—344
2 Aug. Public Project One (HCO PL) OEC Vol. 2— 93
4 Aug. E-Meter Errors—Communication Cycle Error 334
7 Aug. Diagrams for LRH Lecture to the SHSBC on 7 Aug. 1963 see—339
8 Aug. Diagrams for LRH Lecture to the SHSBC on 8 Aug. 1963 see—339
9 Aug. Definition of Release 338
11 Aug. ARC Break Assessments 338
14 Aug. Lecture Graphs 339
19 Aug. How to Do an ARC Break Assessment 345
20 Aug. R3R—R3N—The Preclear’s Postulates 349
21 Aug. Change of Organization Targets—Project 80 (HCO PL) OEC Vol. 2— 95
22 Aug. Project 80—The Itsa Line and Tone Arm 351
Sept. Routine Three SC 353
6 Sept. Instructing in Scientology Auditing—Instructor’s Task
—D of P’s Case Handling 357
9 Sept. Repetitive Rudiments and Repetitive Prepchecking 361
22 Sept. Prepcheck Buttons(canceled—see 446) 363
23 Sept. Tape Coverage of New Technology 365

1963 (cont.)


25 Sept. Adequate Tone Arm Action 367
Oct. Assists in Scientology (Ability 154) see footnote Vol. III—264
1 Oct. How to Get Tone Arm Action 369
2 Oct. GPMs—Experimental Process Withdrawn 376
8 Oct. How to Get TA—Analysing Auditing 377
16 Oct. R3SC Slow Assessment 379
19 Nov. Routine 3—R-3 Model Session Revised (canceled—see 420) 381
25 Nov. Dirty Needles 384
26 Nov. Certificate and Classification Changes—Everyone Classified
(HCO PL) OEC Vol. 4—360
26 Nov. A New Triangle—Basic Auditing, Technique, Case Analysis 385
14 Dec. Case Analysis—Health Research 388
28 Dec. Indicators—Part One: Good Indicators 390
30 Dec. Saint Hill Staff Course Lectures (30 Dec.—1 June 1964) 393

1964

21 Jan. Meter Level Warning—How to Kill a Pc in Level 5 394
24 Jan. Case Supervisor (HCO PL—excerpt) 395
Mar. Meter Reads, Size of 396
4 Mar. Class II Model Session (canceled—see 428) 398
15 Mar. Overwhelming the Pc 400
15 Mar. Meter—Everything Reading 402
18 Mar. HGC Allowed Processes (HCO PL) 406
2 Apr. Two Types of People (HCO Info. Ltr.) 407
7 Apr. Q and A 410
10 Apr. Auditing Skills 411
13 Apr. Tone Arm Action 413
20 Apr. Model Session—Levels III to VI (canceled—see 448) 420
23 Apr. Auditing by Lists (replaced—see Vol. VII, 316) 423
May The Workability of Scientology (The Auditor 1) 425
5 May Summary of Classification and Gradation and Certification
(HCO PL) OEC Vol. 4—373
19 May Class II Model Session (canceled—see Vol. VI, 44) 428
27 May Auditing Assignments 431
29 June Central Org and Field Auditor Targets 432
30 June Field Auditor Targets see footnote—435
7 July Justifications 436
8 July More Justifications 437
10 July Overts—Order of Effectiveness in Processing 438
12 July More on O/Ws 441

1964 (cont.)

24 July TA Counters, Use of 443
29 July Good Indicators at Lower Levels 445
14 Aug. Prepcheck Buttons 446
14 Aug. Model Session—Levels III to VI (canceled—see Vol. VI, 60) 448
17 Aug. Clay Table Work in Training and Processing 451
18 Aug. Clay Table Work Covering Clay Table Clearing in Detail 456
23 Aug. HQS Course 461
24 Aug. Session Must-Nots 463
7 Sept. Clay Table Levels 466
7 Sept. PTPs, Overts and ARC Breaks 468
8 Sept. Overts, What Lies Behind Them? 471
9 Sept. Clay Table Healing 472
9 Sept. Clay Table Clearing 475
12 Sept. Clay Table, More Goofs 476
24 Sept. Instruction & Examination: Raising the Standard of (HCO PL) 478
27 Sept. Clay Table Clearing 483
28 Sept. Clay Table Use (HCO PL) 487
4 Oct. Theory Check-out Data (HCO PL) (reissued 21 May 1967) 488
17 Oct. Clay Table Data 490
17 Oct. Getting the Pc Sessionable 491
17 Oct. Clearing—Why It Works—How It Is Necessary 493
27 Oct. Policies on Physical Healing, Insanity and Potential
Trouble Sources (HCO PL) (reissued 23 June 1967) OEC Vol. 1—517
Nov. The Book of Case Remedies 495
Nov. More Clay Table Clearing Goofs 496
6 Nov. Styles of Auditing 498
12 Nov. Definition Processes 505
16 Nov. Clay Table Label Goofs 509
10 Dec. Listen Style Auditing 511
11 Dec. Curriculum for Level 0—HAS 514
11 Dec. Scientology 0—Processes 516
26 Dec. Routine 0-A (Expanded) 520

Subject Index 522
Alphabetical List of Titles 552

LONG CONTENTS



HCO PL 6 Jan. 1962 LAUDATORY WITHHOLDS,

Know to Mystery Processing Check,

HCO Info. Ltr. 9 Jan. 1962 3D CRISS CROSS, 4

3D Criss Cross steps, 4

HCO B 11 Jan. 1962 SECURITY CHECKING—TWENTY-TEN THEORY, 6

Withholds cut havingness down, 6
Requisites for Twenty-Ten, 6
Twenty-Ten procedure, 6
Application of Twenty-Ten procedure to Goals Problem Mass, 7

HCOPL 17 Jan. 1962 RESPONSIBILITY AGAIN, 8

Common denominator of the Goals Problem Mass is “no responsibility”, 8
Responsibility as the concept of being able to care for, to reach or to be, 8

HCO Info. Ltr. 22 Jan. 1962 3D CRISS CROSS—METHOD OF ASSESSMENT,10

Proper sequence of action in a 3D Criss Cross Assessment, 10
List a list, 10
Run Havingness, 10
Differentiate the list, 11
Null the list, 11
Check the item, 12
Terminal gives pain, oppterm gives sensation, 12
Errors in assessment, 13

HCO B 25 Jan. 1962 FLOW PROCESS, 14

Compulsive outflow and obsessive withhold are alike aberrated, 14
List of most important flows, 14
Commands of Flow Process, 15

HCO B 1 Feb. 1962 FLOWS, BASIC, 16

CDEI Scale on inflow and outflow, 16

HCO Info. Ltr. 1 Feb. 1962 3D CRISS CROSS—ASSESSMENT TIPS, 17

Complete list in 3DXX, 17
Ways to start a 3DXX line, 17
Differentiation step in 3DXX, 18

HCO Info. Ltr. 3 Feb. 1962 3DXX FLOWS ASSESSMENT, 19

HCO B 8 Feb. 1962 MISSED WITHHOLDS, 20

What is a missed withhold, 20
How to audit missed withholds, 21
Sample missed withhold session, 21

HCO B 12 Feb. 1962 HOW TO CLEAR WITHHOLDS AND MISSED WITHHOLDS, 23

Auditor objective, 23
Withhold system (difficulty, what, when, all, who), 23
Use a Mark IV, 23
The questions of the withhold system, 24

HCO PL 13 Feb. 1962 3D CRISS CROSS ITEMS, 25

HCO B 15 Feb. 1962 CO-AUDIT & MISSED WITHHOLDS, 25

HCO B 22 Feb. 1962 WITHHOLDS, MISSED AND PARTIAL, 26

Natterings, upsets, ARC breaks, critical tirades, are restimulated but missed or partially missed withholds, 26
Knowledge to the average person is only this: a knowledge of his or her withholds, 26

HCO B 1 Mar. 1962 PREPCHECKING, 28

Mechanics of Prepchecking, 28
Administration of Prepchecking, 29
The magic phrase of Prepchecking, 29
Prepcheck example, 29
Control pc’s attention, 30
Don’t use O/W, 30
How to derive Zeros and Zero A questions, 30
Asking the What question, 31

HCO B 8 Mar. 1962 THE BAD “AUDITOR”, 32

The natural auditor and the dangerous auditor described, 32
Remedies for the dangerous auditor, 34
Revelation Process X1, 34
Prepchecking Zero Question, 34
3D Criss Cross, 34

HCO B 15 Mar. 1962 SUPPRESSORS, 36

“Afraid to find out” type of case, 36
The rough pc, 36
“Suppressor”—the impulse to forbid revelation in another, 37
“Dangerous auditor” symptoms, 37
Commands of Revelation Process X2, 38

HCO B 21 Mar. 1962 PREPCHECKING DATA—WHEN TO DO A WHAT, 39

Prechecking example, 39
Moving tone arm, 40
Overts depend on social mores, 40
Don’t forget “guilty” in Zero questions, 40
Add “appear, not appear” after “all” in withhold system, 41
Whole track, 41
Unknown incident pins chains, 41
Recurring withholds, 41
Missed withholds, 42
Rudiments in Prepchecking, 42

HCO B 29 Mar. 1962 CCHs AGAIN—WHEN TO USE THE CCHs, 43

Three major processes: the CCHs, Prepchecking, 3D Criss Cross, 43
CCHs must be run right, 44

HCO B 5 Apr. 1962 CCHs—AUDITING ATTITUDE, 45

Description of how to run CCHs properly, 46
Purpose of the CCHs, 47

HCO B 11 Apr. 1962 DETERMINING WHAT TO RUN, 48

Tone arm action as indicator of what to run, 48
Tone arm moves because mass is changing, 48

HCO B 12 Apr. 1962 CCHs—PURPOSE, 50

Purpose of the CCH drills—getting the pc out of the past and into present time, 50

HCO B 26 Apr. 1962 RECOMMENDED PROCESSES HGC, 51

CCHs, Prepchecking and 3D Criss Cross combination, 51
Alternating CCHs and Prepchecking, 51
Limitations of use of Prepchecking and 3D Criss Cross, 52

HCO Info. Ltr. 29 Apr. 1962 ROUTINE 3G (EXPERIMENTAL), 53

Routine 3G steps in brief, 53
How a goal is checked, 54
Steps of Routine 3D Criss Cross, 55
Steps of Routine 3G, 56
Cautions regarding Routine 3G and 3D Criss Cross, 57

HCO B 3 May 1962 ARC BREAKS—MISSED WITHHOLDS, 58

All ARC breaks stem from missed withholds, 58
Picking up missed withholds keeps pcs in session, 58
Pc manifestations cured by asking for missed withholds, 59
Missed withhold commands, 60

HCO B 10 May 1962 PREPCHECKING AND SEC CHECKING, 62

Combining Sec Checking with Prepchecking, 62
Use of rudiments in Prepchecking, 63
Help the pc, 63

HCO Info Ltr. 10 May 1962 ROUTINE 3GA (EXPERIMENTAL), 64

Difficulties and liabilities in a Routine 3 process, 64
Routine 3GA steps, 64
Step one, find a goal, 64
Step two, list four lists, 65
Step three, null each list, 66
Step four, find a new goal, 66

HCO B 14 May 1962 CASE REPAIR, 67

Routine 1 a, 67
Sec Checking, 67
CCH blowy pcs, 67
Prepchecking repair, 67
CCHs, 68
S-C-S, 68
Op Pro by Dup, 68
Routine 2, 68
Routines 3, 3A and 3D, 69
Routine 3D Criss Cross, 69
General repair, 70

HCO B 21 May 1962 MISSED WITHHOLDS, ASKING ABOUT, 71

HCO B 22 May 1962 MODEL SESSION CHANGE, 72

Beginning rudiments withhold question change, 72

HCO B 23 May 1962 E-METER READS—PREPCHECKING—HOW METERS GET INVALIDATED, 73

Questions to handle missed meter reads, 73

HCO B 24 May 1962 Q AND A, 74

The 3 Qs and As, 74
The double question, 74
Changing because the pc changes, 75
Following the pc’s instructions, 76

HCO B 25 May 1962 E-METER INSTANT READS, 77

Major thought and minor thought, 77
Reactive mind is composed of: timelessness, unknownness, survival, 78

HCO PL 26 May 1962 TRAINING DRILLS MUST BE CORRECT, 79

All TRs must contain the correct data of auditing, 79

HCO PL 1 June 1962 AUDITING—RUDIMENTS CHECK SHEET, 81

Rudiments check, 81

HCO B 8 June 1962 RUDIMENTS CHECKING, 82

Two protests sometimes occur when checking a pc’s rudiments, 82

HCO B 11 June 1962 PREPCHECKING THE MIDDLE RUDIMENTS, 83

List of Prepchecking Zero questions to be prepchecked, 83

HCO B 14 June 1962 CHECKING NEEDLE IN RUDIMENTS CHECKS, 84

Needle characteristics defined, 84

HCO B 23 June 1962 MODEL SESSION REVISED, 85 [CANCELED]

Start of session, 85
Beginning rudiments, 85
Start of process, 86
Middle rudiments, 86
End rudiments, 86
End of session, 86
End of process non-cyclical, 86
End of process cyclical, 87
Patter on rudiments, 87

HCO B 24 June 1962 PREPCHECKING, 88

Prepcheck procedure, 88
The What question, 89
Testing What questions, 90

HCO B 25 June 1962 E-METER STANDARDS, 91

HCO B 27 June 1962 RUNDOWN ON ROUTINE 3GA, 92

HCO B 28 June 1962 DIRTY NEEDLES—HOW TO SMOOTH OUT NEEDLES, 93

Reasons for dirty needle, 93

HCO B 30 June 1962 ARC PROCESS, 95

Commands of ARC Process, 95

HCO B 2 July 1962 REPETITIVE RUDIMENTS—HOW TO GET THE RUDIMENTS IN, 96

Repetitive rudiment cycle, 96
Fast checking on rudiments, 97

HCO B 3 July 1962 REPETITIVE PREPCHECKING, 98

Repetitive Prepchecking replaces Prepchecking by the withhold system, 98
Repetitive Prepchecking procedure, 98
Zero questions time limiter, 99
Middle rudiments, 99
Prepchecking the middle rudiments, 99
O/W assists, 99

HCO B 4 July 1962 BULLETIN CHANGES, 101

Havingness rud, 101
Missed withholds rudiment, 101
General Overt/Withhold before session, 101
End words of rudiments questions, 102
Double cleaning of rudiments, 102

HCO B 4 July 1962 COACHLESS TRAINING—USE OF A DOLL, 103

HCO PL 14 July 1962 AUDITING ALLOWED, 104

Auditors must be perfect on a meter—defined, 104
What is perfect meter reading, 104

HCO PL 15 July 1962 GOALS PREPCHECK FORM—ROUTINE 3GA, 106

HCO PL 17 July 1962 ROUTINE 3GA—HCO WW R-3GA FORM 1—LISTING PREPCHECK, 109

HCO PL 19 July 1962 CLEARING—FREE NEEDLES, 112

State of a ‘‘first goal clear”, 112

HCO B 21 July 1962 INSTANT READS, 113

Instant read anticipated on rudiments, 113

HCO PL 22 July 1962 ROUTINE 3GA—LISTING WORDING, 114

HCO PL 24 July 1962 R3GA—HCO WW FORM G3—FAST GOALS CHECK, 115 [REVISED]

HCO B 30 July 1962 A SMOOTH HGC 25 HOUR INTENSIVE, 116

Pattern for a new Problems Intensive, 116

HCO B 1 Aug. 1962 ROUTINE 3GA—GOALS—NULLING BY MID RUDS, 118

The goals list, 118
Test for charge, 118
Nulling by mid ruds, 119

HCO B 1 Aug. 1962 ROUTINE 3GA—NULLING DRILLS FOR NULLING BY MID RUDS, 122 [REPLACED]

Drill on new nulling procedure for Routine 3GA (Tiger Drill), 122

HCO B 2 Aug. 1962 CCH ANSWERS, 126

How to handle originations on CCHs, 126

HCO B 7 Aug. 1962 RUNNING CCHs, 127

Correct version of CCHs, 127

HCO B 10 Aug. 1962 HOW IT FEELS TO GO CLEAR, 128

Success stories on Routine 3GA, 128

HCO B 13 Aug. 1962 ROCK SLAMS AND DIRTY NEEDLES, 129

What rock slams and dirty needles mean, 129

HCO B 21 Aug. 1962 3GA—LINE WORDING, 130

Listing session, 130

HCO B 22 Aug. 1962 3GA—DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT BY ROCK SLAM —DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT TIP, 131 [CANCELED]

Goals formulae, 132

HCO B 30 Aug. 1962 ORDER OF PREPCHECK BUTTONS, 133

HCO B 31 Aug. 1962 3GA—EXPANDED LINE WORDING, 134

HCO B 31 Aug. 1962 3GA—DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT BY ROCK SLAM, 135

HCO B 1 Sept. 1962 3GA—DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT BY ROCK SLAM, 135

HCO B 2 Sept. 1962 ACCOUNT OF CONGRESS GOAL, 137

Demonstration of Dynamic Assessment by rock slam, 137

HCO B 3 Sept. 1962 3GA—DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT BY ROCK SLAM, 138

HCO B 8 Sept. 1962 3GA—TO BE GOALS LINE LISTING, 139

HCO B 12 Sept. 1962 SECURITY CHECKS AGAIN, 140

Security Check by rock slam, 140

HCO PL 12 Sept. 1962 AUTHORIZED PROCESSES, 141

Assists, Problems Intensives (modern version), ordinary 3GA, 3GA by Dynamic Assessment, 141

HCO B 19 Sept. 1962 3GA—TIPS ON DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT—RULES OF THUMB, 142

HCO B 23 Sept. 1962 A 40-LINE LIST ON A DOINGNESS GOAL, 143

HCO PL 27 Sept. 1962 VALID PROCESSES, 145

HCO B 27 Sept. 1962 PROBLEMS INTENSIVE USE, 146

What Problems Intensive does for pc, 146

HCO B 1 Oct. 1962 3GA—LISTING BY TIGER BUTTONS—114 NEW LINES FOR LISTING, 147

Directions for 3GA listing by Tiger buttons, 148

HCO B 2 Oct. 1962 WHEN YOU NEED REASSURANCE, 149

HCO B 3 Oct. 1962 TIGER DRILLING, 150

Altered goal wording prevents clearing, 150
New line listing success story, 151

HCO PL 8 Oct. 1962 HGC CLEARING, 152

Auditing sold by intensives, 153
Clearing assembly line, 153
Pc forms, 154
Accidental goal finding, 154

HCO B 13 Oct. 1962 PROCESSES, 156

SHSBC X Unit processes, 156
SHSBC Y Unit processes, 156
SHSBC Z Unit processes, 156

HCO B 15 Oct. 1962 GOAL FINDER’S MODEL SESSION, 157 [CANCELED]

Mid Ruds, 157
Ending the session, 157
End of session, 158

HCO B 16 Oct. 1962 ROUTINE 3GA—LISTING, 159

Dominant rules of Routine 3GA listing, 159
Scale of answering comm lags, 159

HCO B 17 Oct. 1962 AUDITOR FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND, 161

Invalidation, avoid use of “you” to pc, 161
Evaluation, auditor repeating what pc says, 161
Driving in anchor points, 161
Rock slammer, 161

HCO B 18 Oct. 1962 3GA—LISTING BY PREHAV, 163

3GA listing by Prehav, directions, 164

HCO PL 19 Oct. 1962 R3GA—HCO WW FORM G3, REVISED—FAST GOALS CHECK, 165

HCO B 29 Oct. 1962 PRE-CLEARING INTENSIVE, 166

Assessment for clearing intensive, 166

HCO B 7 Nov. 1962 WRONG GOALS, IMPORTANCE OF REPAIR OF, 167

Symptoms of a right goal listed wrongly, 167
Symptoms of a wrong or improperly cleaned goal unlisted, 168
Symptoms of a wrong goal listed, 168
Symptoms of a right goal unlisted, 169

HCO B 7 Nov. 1962 ROUTINE 3-21—THE TWENTY-ONE STEPS—FINDING GOALS, 170

Rock slamming items, 172

HCO B 7 Nov. 1962 “ROLL YOUR OWN” PREHAV, 173

How to do “Roll Your Own” Prehav, 173
Terms defined, 173
The most accurate assessment, 173
Doing the Prehav assessment, 174

HCO B 8 Nov. 1962 SOMATICS—HOW TO TELL TERMINALS AND OPPOSITION TERMINALS, 175

Definitions of important terms, 175
Testing for the character of an item, 177
Ways of asking for terminal and opposition terminal, 177
Using Tiger Drill buttons, 177
The line plot, 178

HCO B 11 Nov. 1962 3GAXX—STRAIGHTENING UP 3GAXX CASES, 179

HCO B 12 Nov. 1962 3GAXX—DIRTY NEEDLES AND INCOMPLETE LISTS —HOW TO ASSESS, 180

Assessment steps of 3GAXX, 180

HCO B 17 Nov. 1962 ROUTINE 3-21, 182

By-passed item defined, 182
Exact way to do Routine 3-21 Step 6, 183

HCO B 23 Nov. 1962 ROUTINE TWO-TWELVE—OPENING PROCEDURE BY ROCK SLAM—AN HPA/HCA SKILL, 185

The slow-gain, no-gain cases, 185
Routine Two-Twelve procedure, 186
Questions for the second pair, 188
R2-12 lists, 1 88
Skills required to accomplish a 3GAXX for rock slammers, 189
Fast step resume, 190

HCO B 24 Nov. 1962 ROUTINE 2-12—LIST ONE—ISSUE ONE —THE SCIENTOLOGY LIST, 191

HCO B 28 Nov. 1962 R2-12—PRACTICAL DRILLS, 193

Basic auditing skills needed to audit with 2-12, 193
Coaching notes, 194

HCO B 29 Nov. 1962 ROUTINE 2-12—LIST ONE—ISSUE TWO —THE SCIENTOLOGY LIST, 195

HCO B 29 Nov. 1962 ROUTINES 2-12, 3-21 AND 3GAXX—TIGER DRILL FOR NULLING BY MID RUDS, 196

Drill on new nulling procedures, 196


HCO PL 1 Dec. 1962 GOALS & PREPCHECKING, 201

HCO B 4 Dec. 1962 ROUTINE 2-12—LIST ONE—ISSUE THREE —THE SCIENTOLOGY LIST, 202

HCO B 5 Dec. 1962 2-12, 3GAXX, 3-21 AND ROUTINE 2-10—MODERN ASSESSMENT, 203

What assessment is prevented by, 203
Definitions of important terms, 203
Writing the list, 204
Nulling, 206
List appearances, 207
Assessments, 208
Routine 2-10 (R2-12 short form for beginners), 208

HCO B 6 Dec. 1962 R2-10, R2-12, 3GAXX—DATA, THE ZERO A STEPS AND PURPOSE OF PROCESSES, 210

Zero list questions or R2-12, 21 1
“Never RSing” pcs, 212
Rocket reads vs. RSes, 212
Purpose of processes, 213

HCO B 8 Dec. 1962 TRAINING—X UNIT, 214

HCO B 9 Dec. 1962 ROUTINE 2-12—LIST ONE—ADD TO LIST ONE ISSUE THREE, 215

HCO B 15 Dec. 1962 R2-12—THE FATAL ERROR, 216

HCO B 30 Dec. 1962 ROUTINES 2-12 & 2-10—CASE ERRORS—POINTS OF GREATEST IMPORTANCE, 217

Auditing errors, 217
The errors of Routine Two, 218
Auditor responsibility, 219
Duration of process, 219
No auditing, 219
Failure to save records, 220
Failing to find RSs on List One, 220
Representing an RSing item, 221
Oppose RIs, 221
Incomplete lists, 221
Wrong way oppose, test for, 222
Lists that won’t complete, 223
Long long lists, 223
Case remedy, 226

HCO B 1 Jan. 1963 ACADEMY CURRICULUM—HOW TO TEACH AUDITING AND ROUTINE 2, 227

Check sheets, 227
V Unit Class 0, first phase, 227
W Unit Class Ia, second phase, 227
X Unit Class Ib, third phase, 228
Y Unit Class IIa, fourth phase, 228
Z Unit Class IIb, fifth phase, 229
Post Graduate Unit—Class II, sixth phase, 228

HCO B 3 Jan. 1963 ROUTINE 2—OPPOSITION LISTS—RIGHT AND WRONG OPPOSE, 230

Potential miscalling a reliable item, 230
Oppose list, right way indications, 231
Oppose list, wrong way oppose indications, 231
On an oppose list, what a dirty needle means, 232

HCO B 27 Jan. 1963 ROUTINE 2—SIMPLIFIED, 233

Tone arm, 233
List beyond last rock slam, 233
Test list both ways, 233
Wrong way list, 234
Vanished RS, 234
Four item packages, 234
Packaging, 234
Nulling, 235
Wrong item signs, 236
Right item signs, 236
Dirty needle, 236
Rock slam matching, 236
Using ARC breaks, 237
Case repair, 237
Dope-off, 237
Never represent a rock slam item, 237
Allow no self listing of goals, 238
Never steer items, 238

HCO B 11 Feb. 1963 CURRENT AUDITING, 239

R3-MX becomes R3-M, 239
R2- 12A, 240
Valid processes list, 240

HCO B 15 Feb. 1963 R2—R3—LISTING RULES, 241

Rules of a complete list for R2 or R3, 241

HCO B 20 Feb. 1963 ROUTINE 2 & 3 MODEL SESSION, 243 [CANCELED]

Session preliminaries, 243
Start of session, 243
Rudiments, 244
Running O/W, 244
Running the mid rudiments, 244
Running the random rudiment, 244
End of session, 245

HCO PL 21 Feb. 1963 GOALS CHECK, 246

Goals and reliable items found on students, staff or HGC pcs must be checked out, 246

HCO B 4 Mar. 1963 ROUTINE 2-10, 2-12, 2-12A, 247

Cease to use Routine 2-10, 2-12 and 2-12A in the HGC and Academy and on staff clearing, with two exceptions, 247

HCO B 8 Mar. 1963 USE OF THE BIG MIDDLE RUDIMENTS, 248

Order of big mid rud buttons, 248

HCO B 10 Mar. 1963 ROUTINE 2-10, 2-12, 2-12A—VANISHED RS OR RR, 249

What makes rocket reads and rock slams vanish, 249
Restoring the RR & RS, 249
All items count, 250
Four RIs, 250

HCO B 14 Mar. 1963 ROUTINE 2—ROUTINE 3—ARC BREAKS, HANDLING OF, 251

The R2 or R3 ARC break, 251
Cause of R2 and R3 ARC breaks, 251

ARC break rule, 251
Mid rud rule, 251
The sad effect, 251
Sad effect rules, 252
ARC break cause rule, 252
The fifteen principal causes of ARC break in R2 and R3, 252
The cycle of the ARC break, 253
The auditor’s view on ARC break, 253
The D of P’s view on ARC break, 253
R2 and R3 Drill One, 254

HCO B 18 Mar. 1963 R2—R3—IMPORTANT DATA—DON’T FORCE THE PC, 255

Listing, wrong way to symptoms, 255
Body vs. thetan, 255
How listing a wrong item can happen, 256
Travelling rocket read, 257
Wrong wording of item or goal, 257
Item from another GPM, 258
Minimize goal oppose lists, 258
Clear test, 259

HCO B 23 Mar. 1963 CLEAR & OT, 260

GPM left uncleaned gives liabilities, 261

HCO B 13 Apr. 1963 ROUTINE 2-G—ORIGINAL ROUTINE 2, 3GA, 2-10, 2-12, 2-12A AND OTHERS SPECIALLY ADAPTED—GOALS FINDING—DESIGNATION OF ROUTINES, 262

Routine 2-G1, 262
Routine 2-GPH, 262
Routine 2-2, 262
Routine 2-G3, 262
Routine 2-G4, 262
Routine 2-G5, 262

HCO B 25 Apr. 1963 METER READING TRS, 264

E-Meter TR 20—Reach and withdraw on the E-Meter, 264
E-Meter TR 21—Reading E-Meter accurately, 265

HCO B 29 Apr. 1963 MODERNIZED TRAINING DRILLS USING PERMISSIVE COACHING, 266 [CANCELED]

TR 0, Confronting Preclear, 266
TR 0 (A), 267
TR 0 (B), 267
TR 0 (C), 267
TR 0 (D), 267
TR 1, Dear Alice, 268
TR 2, Acknowledgments, 269
TR 3, Duplicative Question, 269
TR 4, Preclear Originations, 271
Coaches’ Drill, 272

HCO B 15 May 1963 THE TIME TRACK AND ENGRAM RUNNING BY CHAINS —BULLETIN 1, 273

Engram running simplified, 273
Why people have trouble running engrams, 273
The time track, 274

Definitions, 274
The influence of the time track, 275
The creation of the time track, 275
Apparent faults in the time track, 275
The origin of the time track, 276

HCO B 21 May 1963 ROUTINE 3—R-3 MODEL SESSION, 278 [CANCELED]

Session preliminaries, 278
Start of session, 278
Rudiments, 278
Running O/W, 279
Running the mid rudiments, 279
Order of big mid rud buttons, 279
Pulling missed withholds, 279
Body of session, 280
End body of session, 280
Smooth out session, 280
Goals and gains, 280
Havingness, 280
Ending session, 280

HCO B 27 May 1963 CAUSE OF ARC BREAKS, 281

How charge can be by-passed, 281
How Q and A causes ARC breaks, 283
ARC Break Processes, 284
Rudiments, 284
Q and A ARC breaks, 285
Echo metering, 285
Missed withholds, 285
Apparent bad morale, 285

HCO B 8 June 1963 THE TIME TRACK AND ENGRAM RUNNING BY CHAINS —BULLETIN 2—HANDLING THE TIME TRACK, 287

Reasons why some cannot run engrams on pcs, 287
Three ways to move a time track, 287
Charge and the time track, 289
State of Case Scale, 289
Charge, 290
Auditing theory of charge erasure, 291

HCO B 24 June 1963 ROUTINE 3—ENGRAM RUNNING BY CHAINS—BULLETIN 3—ROUTINE 3-R—ENGRAM RUNNING BY CHAINS, 292

Example of Q and A, 292
ARC breaks, 293
Early engram running, 294
Routine 3-R, 294
R3-R by steps, 294

HCO B 25 June 1963 ROUTINE 2H—ARC BREAKS BY ASSESSMENT, 297

R2H by steps, 297
R2H assessment form, 298

HCO B 1 July 1963 ROUTINE 3R—BULLETIN 4—PRELIMINARY STEP, 299

R3R procedure of assessment, 300
ARC breaks in preliminary step, 300
Development of assessments, 300

Three most important visible factors in R3R, 301
R3R assessment, 302


HCO B 5 July 1963 ARC BREAK ASSESSMENTS, 306

General ARC break assessment—List L-1, 307
Assessment sessions—listing sessions—preliminary step R3 R
—the ARC break for assessments list—List L-2, 307
Routine R3R—engram running by chains—List L-3, 308
Routine 3N—GPMs, all goals sessions—List L4, 308

HCO B 5 July 1963 CCHs REWRITTEN, 310 [REPLACED]

CCH 1, Give Me That Hand, 310
CCH 2, Tone 40 8-C, 311
CCH 3, Hand Space Mimicry, 312
CCH 4, Book Mimicry, 312

HCO B 9 July 1963 A TECHNICAL SUMMARY—THE REQUIRED SKILLS OF PROCESSING AND WHY, 314

Auditor skills by case level, 314
Basic skills of an auditor, 315
Former training was not wasted, 316
Hours of processing required, 317
Difficulty of clearing, 317

HCO B 11 July 1963 AUDITING RUNDOWN—MISSED WITHHOLDS —TO BE RUN IN XI UNIT, 318

HCO B 21 July 1963 CO-AUDIT ARC BREAK PROCESS, 319

Despatch regarding ARC Break 1963 Process, 319

HCO B 22 July 1963 YOU CAN BE RIGHT, 321

Overt acts, 321
Asserting rightness vs. being right, 322
Rehabilitating the ability to be right, 322

HCO B 22 July 1963 ORG TECHNICAL—HGC PROCESSES AND TRAINING, 324

Programming pcs, 324
Pc gains, 325
Auditing precautions, 325
Auditor skill, 326

HCO B 23 July 1963 AUDITING RUNDOWN—MISSED WITHHOLDS —TO BE RUN IN X1 UNIT, 328

HCO B 28 July 1963 TIME AND THE TONE ARM, 329

Tone arm motion, 329
The mechanics of time, 330
Programming cases, 331

HCO B 29 July 1963 SCIENTOLOGY REVIEW, 332

Wins on PTPs of Scientology, 332
Between lives implants, 333

HCO B 4 Aug. 1963 E-METER ERRORS—COMMUNICATION CYCLE ERROR, 334

E-Meter dependence, 334
Dating dependence, 334
RIs and use of E-Meter, 334
E-Meter invalidation, 335
Cleaning cleans, 335
Dirty needle, 335
Basic error of the auditing cycle (diagram), 337

HCO B 9 Aug. 1963 DEFINITION OF RELEASE, 338

HCO B 11 Aug. 1963 ARC BREAK ASSESSMENTS, 338

HCO B 14 Aug. 1963 LECTURE GRAPHS, 339

SHSBC LRH Lecture 25 July 63 graph—Comm Cycles in Auditing, 340
SHSBC LRH Lecture 7 Aug. 63 graph—R-2H Fundamentals, 343
SHSBC LRH Lecture 8 Aug. 63 graph—R-2H Assessment, 344

HCO B 19 Aug. 1963 HOW TO DO AN ARC BREAK ASSESSMENT, 345

ARC break assessment by steps, 345
Purpose of ARC break assessment, 346
Two conditions of living, 347

HCO B 20 Aug. 1963 R3R—R3N—THE PRECLEAR’S POSTULATES, 349

Don’t leave postulates charged, 349

HCO B 22 Aug. 1963 PROJECT 80—THE ITSA LINE AND TONE ARM, 351

SHSBC lectures necessary for great technical improvement in the organization, 351
Keep staff attention squarely on: the itsa line, the tone arm, proper use of ARC break assessments, and directing pc’s attention adroitly, 352

HCO B 1 Sept. 1963 ROUTINE THREE SC, 353

What a service facsimile is, 353
What a service facsimile is used for, 354
Steps to make a Clear, 354
Completing clearing, 355
Faults present in the auditing if clearing did not occur, 355

HCO B 6 Sept. 1963 INSTRUCTING IN SCIENTOLOGY AUDITING— INSTRUCTOR’S TASK—D of P’s CASE HANDLING, 357

Drawing A—auditor’s perception of the pc as limited by auditor’s own service facsimile, 357
Drawing B—auditor’s perception of the pc with service fac removed, 357
Drawing C—safe assumptions, 357
Drawing D—instruction which produces Drawing B, 358
Auditor’s conditions of observation of pc: Drawings A, B, C and D, 360

HCO B 9 Sept. 1963 REPETITIVE RUDIMENTS AND REPETITIVE PREPCHECKING, 361

How to get the rudiments in, 361
Fast checking on rudiments, 361
Repetitive Prepchecking, 361
End words, 362
Double cleaning of rudiments, 362

HCO B 22 Sept. 1963 PREPCHECK BUTTONS, 363 [CANCELED]

18 Prepcheck buttons, 363
Big mid ruds, 363
Two useful pairs—suppress and invalidate, and protested and decided, 364
Dirty needle, 364
The old order of Prepcheck buttons, 364

HCO B 23 Sept. 1963 TAPE COVERAGE OF NEW TECHNOLOGY, 365

List of tapes containing a full progressive summary of modem Scientology, 365

HCO B 25 Sept. 1963 ADEQUATE TONE ARM ACTION, 367

TA amount per session, 367
TA amount per intensive, 367

HCO B 1 Oct. 1963 HOW TO GET TONE ARM ACTION, 369

New data on the E-Meter, 369
Tone arm assessment, 369
What tone arm action comes from, 370
Over-restimulation, 371
Sources of restimulation, 372
List for assessment, 372
Measure of auditors, 373
Slow assessment means letting the pc itsa while assessing, 373
How to get TA action, 374
What is itsa, 374
The theory of tone arm action, 375

HCO B 2 Oct. 1963 GPMs—EXPERIMENTAL PROCESS WITHDRAWN, 376

R4MTA has been canceled, 376

HCO B 8 Oct. 1963 HOW TO GET TA—ANALYSING AUDITING, 377

Data of listen style auditing, 377
Basic crimes of listen style auditing, 377
Listen style auditing, steps to learn, 378

HCO B 16 Oct. 1963 R3SC SLOW ASSESSMENT, 379

Report from SHSBC student on auditing success, 379

HCO B 19 Nov. 1963 ROUTINE 3—R-3 MODEL SESSION REVISED, 381 [CANCELED]

Session preliminaries, 381
Start of session, 381
Rudiments, 38l
Running O/W, 382
Running the mid rudiments, 382
Order of big mid rud buttons, 382
Pulling missed withholds, 382
Body of session, 382
End body of session, 383
Smooth out session, 383
Goals and gains, 383
Havingness, 383
Ending session, 383

HCO B 25 Nov. 1963 DIRTY NEEDLES, 384

Cause of dirty needles, 384

HCO B 26 Nov. 1963 A NEW TRIANGLE—BASIC AUDITING, TECHNIQUE, CASE ANALYSIS, 385

Basic auditing, 385
Auditing techniques, 385
Case analysis, 386

HCO B 14 Dec.. 1963 CASE ANALYSIS—HEALTH RESEARCH, 388

Steps for case analysis, 388
Example of case analysis on chronic bronchitis, 388

HCO B 28 Dec.. 1963 INDICATORS—PART ONE: GOOD INDICATORS, 390

List of good indicators on R6, 390
R6 auditor musts, 392

HCO B 21 Jan. 1964 METER LEVEL WARNING—HOW TO KILL A PC IN LEVEL 5, 394

Breath and body motion, 394

HCO PL 24 Jan. 1964 CASE SUPERVISOR, 395

Establishment and purpose of Case Supervisor, 395

HCO B 1 Mar. 1964 METER READS, SIZE OF, 396

Reads are bigger on higher levels, 396
How to get TA action, 397

HCO B 4 Mar. 1964 CLASS II MODEL SESSION, 398 [CANCELED]

Session preliminaries, 398
Start of session, 398
Beginning rudiments, 398
Running O/W, 398
Start of process, 399
Middle rudiments, 399
End rudiments, 399
Goals and gains, 399
End of session, 399
End of process non-cyclical, 399
End of process cyclical, 399

HCO B 15 Mar. 1964 OVERWHELMING THE PC, 400

Consequences of pc being overwhelmed, 400
Examples of overwhelm, 400

HCO B 15 Mar. 1964 METER—EVERYTHING READING, 402

E-Meter ability, 402
The abandoned item or goal—another way everything reads, 403
Wrong goals, 404

HCO PL 18 Mar. 1964 HGC ALLOWED PROCESSES, 406

ARC ‘63; Recall a Terminal and Problems Intensive, alternated with R-2H; 8-C and any older processes the auditor has confidence in, 406
Avoid R-2-12, R-3 and R-4 type processes, 406

HCO Info. Ltr. 2 Apr. 1964 TWO TYPES OF PEOPLE, 407

Two types of behavior—that calculated to be constructive and that calculated to be disastrous, 407
The same being at different lifetimes is good and evil, 408

HCO B 7 Apr. 1964 Q AND A, 410

Q and A is a failure to complete a cycle of action on a preclear, 410
Cycle of action is redefined as start—continue—complete, 410

HCO B 10 Apr. 1964 AUDITING SKILLS, 411

Auditing skills by Scientology levels, 411
Things a Class VI auditor should know, 412

HCO B 13 Apr. 1964 TONE ARM ACTION, 413

Auditor failure to understand, 414
Invalidation, 414
Evaluation, 414
Dirty needles, 414
Cleaning cleans, 415
Echo metering, 415
Don’t echo invalidate, 415
E-Meter invalidation, 415
E-Meter dependence, 416
Charge, 416
By-passed charge, 417
The cycle of the ARC break, 417
ARC break assessment, 418
Q and A ARC breaks, 419
Pc tone, 419

HCO B 20 Apr. 1964 MODEL SESSION—LEVELS III TO VI, 420 [CANCELED]

Session preliminaries, 420
Start of session, 420
Rudiments, 420
Running O/W, 420
Running the mid rudiments, 421
Order of big mid rud buttons, 421
Pulling missed withholds, 421
Body of session, 421
End body of session, 421
Smooth out session, 422
Goals and gains, 422
Havingness, 422
Ending session, 422

HCO B 23 Apr. 1964 AUDITING BY LISTS, 423 [REPLACED]

Auditing by lists—L.1 and L.4, 423

The Auditor, Issue 1, May 1964 THE WORKABILITY OF SCIENTOLOGY, 425

Auditor becomes an auditor when he or she finds out that it’s the basics that count, 425
Auditor makes the session always and the preclear never, 425
What is a good auditor, 426

HCO B 19 May 1964 CLASS II MODEL SESSION, 428 [CANCELED]

Session preliminaries, 428
Start of session, 428
Beginning rudiments, 428
Running O/W, 428
Start of process, 429
Middle rudiments, 429
End of process non-cyclical, 429
End of process cyclical, 429
End rudiments, 429
Goals and gains, 429
End of session, 430

HCO B 27 May 1964 AUDITING ASSIGNMENTS, 431

Student auditing assignments, 431
Student auditor training, 431

HCO B 29 June 1964 CENTRAL ORG AND FIELD AUDITOR TARGETS, 432

Master one action and center people’s attention upon it, 433
Drawbacks of Level VI, 433
Type A and Type B pcs, 434
Your programme, 43 5

HCO B 7 July 1964 JUSTIFICATIONS, 436

The reasons overts are overts to people is justifications, 436
New overt process, 436

HCO B 8 July 1964 MORE JUSTIFICATIONS, 437

List of Scientology justifications, 437

HCO B 10 July 1964 OVERTS—ORDER OF EFFECTIVENESS IN PROCESSING, 438

Responsibility, 438
ARC breaks, 438
Forbidden words, 439
Why overts work, 439

HCO B 12 July 1964 MORE ON O/Ws, 441

Itsa processes for O/W, 441

HCO B 24 July 1964 TA COUNTERS, USE OF, 443

How to record TA motion, 443
How often one reads and notes TA action, 444

HCO B 29 July 1964 GOOD INDICATORS AT LOWER LEVELS, 445

List of good indicators, 445

HCO B 14 Aug. 1964 PREPCHECK BUTTONS, 446

18 Prepcheck buttons, 446
Big mid ruds, 446
Two useful pairs: suppress and not-ised, protested and decided, 447
Dirty needle, 447
The old order of Prepcheck buttons, 447

HCO B 14 Aug. 1964 MODEL SESSION—LEVELS III TO VI, 448 [CANCELED]

Session preliminaries, 448
Start of session, 448
Rudiments, 448
Running O/W, 448
Running the mid rudiments, 449
Order of big mid rud buttons, 449
Pulling missed withholds, 449
Body of session, 449
End body of session, 449
Smooth out session, 449
Goals and gains, 450
Havingness, 450
Ending session, 450

HCO B 17 Aug. 1964 CLAY TABLE WORK IN TRAINING AND PROCESSING, 451

The construction of clay tables, 451
Clay table use on courses, 452
Clay table work in processing, 453
Clay Table Healing, 453
Intelligence, 454
Clay Table IQ Processing, 454
Handling clay, 455

HCO B 18 Aug. 1964 CLAY TABLE WORK COVERING CLAY TABLE CLEARING IN DETAIL, 456

Hidden standard mechanism, 456
Clay Table Clearing, 457
The steps of Clay Table Clearing, 458

HCO B 23 Aug. 1964 HQS COURSE, 461

Purpose of HQS Course, 461
“Therapeutic” TRs, 461
End product of HQS Course, 462

HCO B 24 Aug. 1964 SESSION MUST-NOTS, 463

Never tell a pc what his present time problem is, 463
Never set a goal for a pc, 463
Never tell a pc what’s wrong with him physically or assume that you know, 463
Permitted auditor statements, 464
In the overt-motivator sequence, 464
In the ARC break, 465

HCO B 7 Sept. 1964 CLAY TABLE LEVELS, 466

Clay table work is Level III, 466
What clay table work handles, 466

HCO B 7 Sept. 1964 PTPs, OVERTS AND ARC BREAKS, 468

How to handle present time problems, 468
Overts must be handled, 468
Handling ARC breaks, 469

HCO B 8 Sept. 1964 OVERTS, WHAT LIES BEHIND THEM?, 471

Cycle of an overt, 471
Overts and misunderstood words, 471

HCO B 9 Sept. 1964 CLAY TABLE HEALING, 472

Clay Table Healing and Clay Table Clearing are different, 472
Clay Table Healing steps, 472
Clay Table Healing don’ts, 473

HCO B 9 Sept. 1964 CLAY TABLE CLEARING, 475

Clay Table Clearing goof in “didn’t understand” step two, 475

HCO B 12 Sept. 1964 CLAY TABLE, MORE GOOFS, 476

Not using correct wording, 476
Not using data pc gives, 476
Auditing over an ARC break, 476
Not knowing the full definition—misunderstanding—overt—motivator cycle, 476
Turning the get-the-word into a kind of listing session; not accepting the word the pc thinks it is, 477
Failure to get a label written and placed on the object, 477

HCO PL 24 Sept. 1964 INSTRUCTION & EXAMINATION: RAISING THE STANDARD OF, 478

Instruction is done on a gradient scale, 479
Bulletin checkouts, 480
First phenomenon of misunderstood word, 480
Second phenomenon of misunderstood word, 480
Demonstration, 48l

HCO B 27 Sept. 1964 CLAY TABLE CLEARING, 483

Clay Table Clearing don’ts, 483
Clay Table Clearing steps, 484
Routine auditing vs. remedies, 485
Future errors, 486
E-Meter, 486
Session form, 486

HCO PL 28 Sept. 1964 CLAY TABLE USE, 487

Who may use clay table auditing, 487

HCO PL 4 Oct. 1964 THEORY CHECK-OUT DATA, 488

Theory check-out system, 488
The “bright” ones, 488
Coaching in theory, 489
Dictionaries, 489

HCO B 17 Oct. 1964 CLAY TABLE DATA, 490

Importance of getting auditing questions answered in clay table auditing, 490

HCO B 17 Oct. 1964 GETTING THE PC SESSIONABLE, 491

The liabilities of auditing new pcs, 49l Covert auditing, 491

HCO B 17 Oct. 1964 CLEARING—WHY IT WORKS—HOW IT IS NECESSARY, 493

Mechanics of the reactive bank, 493 Gradient scale of auditing, 493

HCO B 1 Nov. 1964 MORE CLAY TABLE CLEARING GOOFS, 496

Goof is that the pc did not represent the word, 496
Causes of a pc just doodling in clay, 496
Resolutions of pc doodling in clay, 497
Auditing cycle vital in Clay Table Clearing, 497

HCO B 6 Nov. 1964 STYLES OF AUDITING, 498

Listen style auditing, 498
Muzzled auditing, 499
Guiding style auditing, 500
Abridged style auditing, 501
Direct style auditing, 502
All style auditing, 503

HCO B 12 Nov. 1964 DEFINITION PROCESSES, 505

Auditing style, 505
Assists, 505
Secondary styles, 50 5
Remedies, 506
Guiding style, 506
Guiding secondary style, 506
Definitions processing, 506
Remedy A patter, 506
Remedy B, 507
Purpose of Definitions Processing, 507
Understanding, 508
Cycle of mis-definition, 508

HCO B 16 Nov. 1964 CLAY TABLE LABEL GOOFS, 509

Pc must label everything he or she makes in clay table work, 509

HCO B 10 Dec. 1964 LISTEN STYLE AUDITING, 511

Listen style co-audit, 511
Procedure for running listen style co-audit, 511
Listen style auditing for an individual, 512
Prompters, 5 12

HCO B 11 Dec. 1964 CURRICULUM FOR LEVEL 0—HAS, 514

Theory requirements, 514
Practical requirements, 514
Auditing requirements, 515
Study goal, 515
Goals as an auditor and as a pc, 515

HCO B 11 Dec. 1964 SCIENTOLOGY 0—PROCESSES, 516

Pc end phenomena of Level 0, 516
Routines, 5 17
Wordings of routines, 518
Routine 0-0 (Zero-Zero), 518
Routine 0-A, 518
Routine 0-B, 518
Routine 0-C, 519

HCO B 26 Dec. 1964 ROUTINE 0-A (EXPANDED), 520

Steps of Routine 0-A (Expanded), 520
Listen style co-audit, 521


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 6 JANUARY 1962
CenOCon
Franchise

HCO SECURITY FORM 19


LAUDATORY WITHHOLDS

Know to Mystery Processing Check
(A Class II Auditor’s Skill)


This is a most interesting and revelatory processing check. It may be done at any time but preferably after the last two pages of the Joburg (Form 3) and Form 6 on old Scientologists and Form HCO B 21 September 1961, Children’s Sec Check, on others. Doing this check at once on brand-new people engages their interest and eases the way to more severe checks.

This check is run as follows:

Run 3 questions or 20 minutes of the check. Then run 10 minutes of the pc’s havingness process. On any particularly hot trio of this check, go over the three again and again. It will be noticed that the check is divided in sections of 3 questions each for that purpose.

Use the current HCO British E-Meter. Many withholds dc; not show on other meters even when their electrical responses are the same as the British meter. The mental responses are not the same.

NEVER LEAVE A QUESTION UNFLAT ON ANY PROCESSING (SECURITY) CHECK. Nul the needle reaction before leaving any question (although an unflat question can be interrupted to run havingness).

Run in Model Session 21 December 1961 or later with Rudiments IN. Short session a pc to keep them in when the pc is restive. Do a thorough job on the withhold question in the rudiments even when doing a Processing (Sec) Check.

Use only instant reads. Repeat question exactly as written and see if it is nul before leaving it.

1. Have you ever withheld a vital piece of information?

2. Have you ever made anyone guilty of withholding vital information?

3. Have you ever prevented anyone from making others give vital information?

4. Have you ever withheld looking?

5. Have you ever made anyone guilty of not looking?

6. Have you ever prevented anyone from making others look?

7. Have you ever withheld emotion?

8. Have you ever made anyone guilty of being emotional?

9. Have you ever prevented anyone from making others emotional?

10. Have you ever withheld effort?

11. Have you ever made anyone guilty of using effort?

12. Have you ever prevented anyone from making others use effort?

13. Have you ever withheld thinking?

14. Have you ever made anyone guilty of thinking?

15. Have you ever prevented anyone from making others think?

16. Have you ever withheld symbols (words)?

17. Have you ever made anyone guilty of using symbols (words)?

18. Have you ever prevented anyone from making others use symbols (words)?

19. Have you ever withheld eating?

20. Have you ever made anyone guilty of eating?

21. Have you ever prevented anyone from making others eat?

22. Have you ever withheld sex?

23. Have you ever made anyone guilty of sex?

24. Have you ever prevented anyone from making others have sex?

25. Have you ever withheld a mystery?

26. Have you ever made anyone guilty of a mystery?

27. Have you ever prevented anyone from causing others a mystery?

28. Have you ever withheld waiting?

29. Have you ever made anyone guilty of waiting?

30. Have you ever prevented anyone from making others wait?

31. Have you ever withheld unconsciousness?

32. Have you ever made anyone guilty of unconsciousness?

33. Have you ever prevented anyone from making others unconscious?

34. Have you ever withheld anything?

35. Have you ever made anyone guilty of withholding?

36. Have you ever prevented anyone from telling a withhold?

37. Have you ever withheld security checking?

38. Have you ever made anyone guilty of security checking?

39. Have you ever sought to prevent another from security checking?

--------------

The check may be continued using any specific knowledge, any perception, any emotion (see Tone Scale), any version of effort (force, strength), any version of thinking including doubt and suspicion, any version of symbols (including books), any version of sexual actions, any eating or consumption of anything (including money), any version of mystery including stupidity, any version of waiting, and any version of unconsciousness including sleep and chemical or physical means of producing sleep.

By running the general version first and then doing a survey of any pc’s announced difficulties along the Know to Mystery Scale and then by putting down these items on the appropriate places in the check, great case gains can be made.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH: sf jh
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO INFORMATION LETTER OF 9 JANUARY 1962
Sthil Course
3D List


3D CRISS CROSS


To prevent misassessment I have been developing some new methods of obtaining a 3D package. Because goals lists get lost there is need also for ways of getting a 3D package without having the goal.

One of these is to run O/W on self, list the pc’s answers and then ask the pc, “Who would you treat like that?” Bleed the meter and nul and you will find an item of the 3D package you can then use, either as criss cross or to get a goal and modifier. This is very workable and useful. It is most useful in 3D Criss Cross.

Further, if a pc blows clear on assessment, you can do the above, find his goal and modifier and get the Goals Problem Mass keyed back in again. The GPM will always key back in by finding the modifier to a goal.

-------------

Criss Cross, complete, consists of the following steps:

1. Ask the pc “What kind of person or being haven’t you liked?” and make a complete list.

2. Nul the list and locate one item that remains in (or was the last in). (Make sure ruds are in in all nulling.) (There may be more than one item staying in. If so take strongest read.)

3. Ask the pc “What kind of person or being have you liked?” and make a complete list.

4. Nul the list and locate one item as in 2.

The two resulting items are called TEST ITEMS. They are not necessarily 3D package items.

5. Write the item found in 2 at the top of a sheet of paper. Ask the pc “Who or what would oppose (item)?” Make a complete list. (Never suggest any item to a pc ever.) Bleed the meter for all items.

6. Nul this list down to one item (assessment by elimination as always, of course).

7. Write the item found in 4 down at the top of a sheet of paper and proceed as in 5.

8. Nul this list down to one item.

9. Write the item found in 5 at the top of a sheet and proceed as before.

10. Nul the list to one item.

11. Write the item found in 8 at the top of a sheet and proceed as before.

12. Nul down to one item as before.

Continue to do lists and items as in 9, 10, 11 and 12.

BE VERY ACCURATE IN FINDING THE RIGHT ITEM EACH TIME.

The two lists will eventually collide as a solid package. It will not be easy (or perhaps even possible) to find anything else on the case. When this condition is reached, you have 3D package items of high level, capable of being run.

When doing listing and nulling, carefully note whenever an item gave the pc a painful somatic or a dizziness. It will be the painful somatic type of item that is the terminal, the dizzy or “winds of space” item that is the oppterm.

13. Select which is terminal, which is oppterm by usual tests.

14. Find the goal, oppgoal and Modifier for the package.

15. Run with 3D type commands.

When this package is well discharged or blows, do another 3D Criss Cross using the items that were being run in 15 as the starting points for steps 5 on.

You will be rather amazed how much this type of assessment does for the case and how low a level case it can be done upon.

You’re welcome.


L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:cw.rd
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


























SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
9—10 January 1962


** 6201C09 SHSBC-97 Twenty-Ten—3DXX

** 6201C10 SHSBC-98 Sec Checks—Withholds

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 11 JANUARY 1962
CenOCon
Franchise



SECURITY CHECKING
TWENTY-TEN
THEORY



All valences are circuits are valences.

Circuits key out with knowingness.

This is the final definition of havingness.

Havingness is the concept of being able to reach. No-havingness is the concept of not being able to reach.

A withhold makes one feel he or she cannot reach. Therefore withholds are what cut havingness down and made runs on havingness attain unstable gains. In the presence of withholds havingness sags.

As soon as a withhold is pulled, ability to reach is potentially restored but the pc often does not discover this. It requires that havingness be run to get the benefit of having pulled most withholds.

Therefore on these principles, I have developed Twenty-Ten. Providing the following items are observed and the procedure followed exactly, Twenty-Ten will appear to work miracles rapidly.

REQUISITES

1. That the auditor is Class II (or Class IIb at Saint Hill).

2. That a British HCO WW Tech Sec approved meter is employed and no other.

3. That the auditor knows how to find the pc’s havingness process (36 Havingness processes).

4. That the havingness process is tested for loosening the needle at the beginning of each time used.

5. That standard HCO Policy Letter Form Sec Checks are used. The last two pages of the Joburg and Form 6 for Scientologists, the childhood check and Form 19 for newcomers, the remainder of the Joburg and other checks for all

6. That the procedure of Twenty-Ten is exactly followed.

TWENTY-TEN
A Class II Auditor’s Skill

1. Use Model Session HCO B of 21 December 1961 or as amended.

2. For every Twenty Minutes of Security Checking run Ten Minutes of Havingness.

3. If the Security question is not nul when the Twenty Minutes period is ended, say to the pc, “Although there may be withholds remaining on this question, we will now run Havingness.”

4. If an unflat question is left to run havingness, return to it after Ten Minutes of havingness and complete it.

5. Run by the clock, not by the state of the question or meter on both security questions and havingness.

6. Be prepared to have to find a new havingness process any time the one being used fails to loosen needle after 8 to 10 commands. Do can squeeze test before first havingness command and after 8 to 10 questions every time havingness process is used.

7. Do not count time employed in finding a havingness process as part of time havingness is to be run.

8. Use “Has a withhold been missed on you?” liberally throughout session. Use it heavily in end rudiments.

-------------

Application to Goals Problem Mass

The GPM is often curved out of shape by present life enturbulence to such an extent that only lock valences are available for assessing. This gives “scratchy needle” and also can lead to finding only lock valences.

Lock valences are appended to a real GPM 3-D item. They register and even seem to stay in but are actually impossible to run as 3-D items. An item found by an auditor and then proven incorrect by a checker was usually a lock item. If this happens, even the new item found by the checker may also be a lock item.

To uncover correct 3-D items it is better to run Twenty-Ten and other preparatory processes for 75 to 200 hours before attempting to get a 3-D package.

If the whole GPM keys out, one need only find a goal and MODIFIER to key it in again.

Preparatory time is not wasted as the same or greater amount of time is all used up anyway, at a loss to the pc, if a pc has a twisted GPM with earlier lock circuits abundantly keyed in in present time. In such cases (the majority) the preparatory time would be eaten up in keeping the pc in session, let alone improper items.

--------------

Twenty-Ten is urgently recommended for immediate use in all HGCs.


L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:ph.cden
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
11—16 January 1962

** 6201C11 SHSBC-99 How to Audit

** 6201C16 SHSBC-100 Nature of Withholds

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 17 JANUARY 1962
Reissued on 7 June 1967

Gen Non
Remimeo
Qual Hats
Tech Hats
Level VI Students
& Above


RESPONSIBILITY AGAIN


The common denominator of the Goals Problem Mass is “No Responsibility”. This is the end product that continues any circuit or valence.

This is a deterioration of Pan Determinism over a game into “No responsibility” as follows:

No Previous or Current Contact — No responsibility or liability.

Pan Determinism — Full responsibility for both sides of game.

Other Determinism — No responsibility for other side of game.

Self Determinism — Full responsibility for self, no responsibility for other side of game.

Valence (Circuit) — No responsibility for the game, for either side of the game or for a former self.

The Goals Problem Mass is made up of past selves or “valences”, each one grouped and more or less in a group.

Therefore, the characteristic of the part (the valence) is the characteristic of the whole, the collection of valences known as the Goals Problem Mass.

----------------

The way a being is hung with persistent masses is the mechanism of getting him to believe certain things are undesirable. These, he cannot then have. He can only combat or ignore them. Either way, they are not as-ised. Thus they persist.

Only undesirable characteristics tend to persist. Therefore the least desirable valences or traits of valences persist.

The way not to have is to ignore or combat or withdraw from. These three, ignoring or combatting or withdrawing sum up to no having. They also sum up to no responsibility for such things.

Thus we can define responsibility as the concept of being able to care for, to reach or to be. To be responsible for something one does not actually have to care for it, or reach it or be it. One only needs to believe or know that he has the ability to care for it, reach it or be it. “Care for it” is a broader concept than but similar to start, change or stop it. It includes guard it, help it, like it, be interested in it, etc.

When one has done these things, and then had failures through overts and withholds, one cycles down through compulsive and obsessive care, reach and be and inverts to withdraw from, combat or ignore.

Along with ignore goes forgetting or occlusion. Thus a person has occlusion on past valences and past lives go out of sight. These return to memory only when one has regained the concept that they can be reached, or that one dares be them again or that one can care for them.

Herein is the cause and remedy of whole track occlusion.

---------------

There are many uses of these principles.

Sec Checking gets off the overts and withholds and opens the gates.

All chronic somatics and behavior patterns are contained in valences and are not traceable to the current lifetime since one can reach present life, is caring for present life and is being present life, so present life is an area of responsibility.

All real difficulty stems from no responsibility.

However, one can use these principles even on present life with considerable gain.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder






LRH:sfjp.cden
Copyright © 1962, 1967
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED





















SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
17—18 January 1962


** 6201C17 SHSBC-101 Anatomy of 3D GPM

6201C18 SHSBC-102 3D Criss Cross—GPM

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO INFORMATION LETTER OF 22 JANUARY 1962
Sthil
CenOCon
3D CRISS CROSS
METHOD OF ASSESSMENT

The proper sequence of action in a 3D Criss Cross Assessment is as follows:

(1) LIST LIST

However the test item of a list is determined, the essence of the first step is to list a list. This can be the list to determine a test item or an opposition list.

There are several LINES in 3D Criss Cross. Each line is derived from a test item and is thereafter continued by opposition items. LINES are lettered. Each line is an independent zig-zag of opposition items. A line can begin by using any terminal established in old Routine 3, 3A or original 3D. Or it can begin by a test item derived from an arbitrary list such as Dislike, Like, Who by O/W, Dynamic Assessment, a Pre-hav level assessment on the pc and Who or what would________, a list of withholds or outflows.

The essence of all this is that one takes a button and pushes it to get a list.

The List is always derived from the pc, without suggestion by the auditor. It is the pc’s list and what happens to it is up to the pc.

The auditor pushes the button and thereafter is an interested writer of a list (while keeping the pc in session).

We do not care how short or how long this list is. The average list is about 25 items. If less than 12, we consider the pc is ARC broke. If more we only know that the “can’t reach phenomenon” has set in. In the “can’t reach phenomenon” the pc keeps listing because he “can’t quite say exactly what it is”. This is an actual sensation. The answer is to go on listing until the pc has expressed it to his satisfaction. The phenomenon is: the pc couldn’t reach the right wording as it is too heavily charged and only by giving more and more items is the charge bled off and then the pc, able to reach it, can say it.

The essence is to get a list as thorough as possible without putting the pc under a strain. Pc must remain interested. Forcing pc to list more and more and more when he’s had enough wrecks the value of 3D Criss Cross.

The list should be numbered, should be on legal (foolscap) in two columns. Readable. You don’t recopy lists.

Date the list, put the pc’s name on it, and the full question the pc is being asked to get it at the top of the page. The back side of the paper can be used.

Additional sheets can be used. But if so, name, date and item from which list is coming must be written at the top of second sheets.

Numbering the items has little value but it may be done.

Do not keep pc on meter while listing.

(2) RUN HAVINGNESS

You will see a pc getting dopey or drowsy while listing or nulling. It is good auditing to run the pc’s havingness process each time you notice this. Nulling is

accurate even when the pc is anaten, but things blow much faster if havingness is run.

After listing (or during listing if, as rarely happens, pc goes drowsy) run some havingness.

Put pc on meter while running havingness. Test havingness process each time used.

(3) DIFFERENTIATE THE LIST

Assessment in 3D Criss Cross is aimed at straightening up the bank as much as obtaining items.

Lists which won’t nul on repetitive assessment by elimination have not been differentiated, or the ruds are out, or the list is incomplete in that the wanted item isn’t on it. A 3D item is heavily charged and when mentioned discharges much of the list.

The essence of this Differentiation Step is to read each item to the pc and have pc briefly explain how the item__________(whatever the list came from).

This is done easily and in a friendly and interested fashion. It’s the pc’s list. The answer that must be ascertained by the auditor is whether the pc wants the item left on or taken off the list. This makes the pc look. And it blows charge rapidly.

This step is done with the pc off the meter. The atmosphere is easy and pleasant.

When the differentiation is in progress pc may want to add to the list. Let the pc add what he or she likes. Put whatever is added always at the bottom of the list.

Pc is taken off the meter for this step.


(4) NUL LIST

Put the pc on the meter. Make sure there are no session invalidations or withholds (as different from life invalidations and withholds) and begin nulling out the list.

This action is done in a brisk, business-like, staccato fashion. Each item on the list is said exactly three times with only enough pause to see if there is an instant read (about l/2 second between speaking the item each time). The auditor then acknowledges and says, “It’s in” or “It’s out.” Patter would be, “Tiger, Tiger, Tiger. Thank you. It’s in.” Mark.

“Cat, Cat, Cat. Thank you. It’s out.” Mark. No interval between items read except the split second necessary to mark.

Pc is expected to be silent during nulling. One does not consult the pc unless the ruds go out. One answers the pc if the pc originates but then only TR 4. One doesn’t enter into discussions with the pc. If ruds go out all will go nul. If this happens, quickly pull session invalidations or withholds, and get going with nulling.

If the item clearly reads in any one of the three reads leave it in. If in doubt leave it in.

Nul with sensitivity at 16.

If consecutive items which have heretofore been live vanish, suspect session invalidations and withholds, clear them, and pick up the earliest consecutive X where this might have happened and carry forward with nulling as before.

Treat the list as a wheel. When you arrive at the bottom begin at once at the top.

Use a slash mark / before the item if it is in. Use a cross if the item goes out. If whole list goes bad and you have to re-nul it, use other side of item (to right of item), then use a different coloured ball-point. Black for original and second nulling. Red for third nulling. Green for fourth nulling. A second nulling goes after the item. This code applies only to flubbed lists as a whole—for instance whole list goes nul.

You can be left with two items in a list derived from a test item. Use both, but only if they are clearly of opposite character, not the same thing in another form.

At the end of nulling a test item list (first item of a line), you should have one or two live items. If one, put it under the line you’re doing on a Line Plot. If two, put one under the line you are doing and use the other for a new line. There are rarely two left on opposition lists.

(5) CHECK ITEM

When the item is found, check it out.

Get ruds in, run a bit of havingness.

See if item is still registering. If not get the ruds in better and do so until item reads well.

Now read an already nulled item on the list, then read the found item, then read a nulled item, then the found item.

Do this until you are sure all items on the list except the found item are nul.

If found item goes out, get the ruds in.

--------------

When you have found the item and checked it out, put it under its proper Line on the Pc’s Line Plot.

The Line Plot is a sheet of white foolscap (legal) with three columns across the top of each side, Line A, Line B, etc, with an indication of how each line was derived (Dislike, Like, Who O/W, Dynamic Assessment, etc).

Every one of these lines is itself. It does not cross over to other lines.

A Line is a list of found 3D items each in opposition to the last item on that Line. The Line is a series of zig-zags, with an item at each zig and at each zag. Any pair, a zig plus a zag, could be a 3D package that would run. We want at least five lines. We want all the items we can get on one line.

Inevitably, sooner or later, all lines will either coincide into a 3D package that will only derive itself when listed or the pc goes to OT by assessment.

There is a basic problem between every pair of items on one line in a Line Plot. Getting the pc to describe that problem helps blow charge.

--------------

When listing, differentiating or nulling, every time the pc gets a pain, write “PN” after the item. Every time an item makes a pc feel dizzy or he gets winds of space, write “SEN” after that item. When you finally come to run a package you could tell what is the pc’s term (pain) and what is the pc’s oppterm (sen) by studying the lists to see what type of item consistently gives the pc pain or sensation. Thus no error is made on selecting the terminal or further test needed.

ERRORS IN ASSESSMENT

The whole action 1 to 5 above is called Assessment.

The first error is poor E-Meter skill.

The second error is just lousy, ARC breaky auditing.

The third error is carrying a line by oppterms too deep beyond the other lines. Do lines one at a time in rotation. Don’t keep oppterming a line on and on and forget the other lines.

Fourth error is failing to note the ruds going out and getting off session invalidations and withholds.

Fifth error is not getting a long enough list to include the 3D item you’re after.

--------------

You can unburden a case of hundreds of found 3D items (thousands of list items). This makes terrific case gains, item by item found. You have never seen such fast case gains as a well done 3D Criss Cross by assessment alone providing the auditing is well done and these steps are followed.

--------------

Use only a Mark IV E-Meter. The others don’t register well enough to detect 3D Criss Cross reads.

--------------

Chanting a Modifier is not done in 3D Criss Cross.

--------------

Don’t let anybody not a Class II even attempt to learn 3D Criss Cross.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:sf.rd
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED











SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
23 - 25 January 1962


** 6201C23 SHSBC-103 Basics of Auditing
** 6201C24 SHSBC-104 Training—Duplication
** 6201C25 SHSBC-105 Whole Track

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 25 JANUARY 1962
Franchise
Sthil

FLOW PROCESS

(A Class I or Class IIb Skill)


First mentioned at the June Congress 1952 at 1407 North Central, Phoenix, Arizona (the first Scientology Congress), compulsive outflow and obsessive withhold are alike aberrated.

With the advent of Security Checking as a process (as opposed to a prevention of subversion) and the 1960 work on overt-withhold and responsibility, still continuing, means of “cracking cases” now lie open to the skilled auditor which, if expertly done, are capable of cracking the most resistant case.

The main emphasis has been lately upon withholds. These, coming after the confusion of an overt, of course hang up on the track and tend to stop the pc in time. The overt is the forward motion, the withhold coming after it is the inward motion.

While not ranking with the power of the O/W mechanism, there are, however, some very important flows which could be released and which, if released from the bank, could assist Security Checking. These are “laudable outflows” and some others.

The most important flows can be listed as follows:

1. Outflow.

2. Restrained Outflow.

3. Inflow.

4. Restrained Inflow.

All ridges and masses develop around these flows.

You recognize in 1, Outflow, the overt act, as its most important item. In 2, Restrained Outflow, you recognize all withholds. In 3, Inflow, we have a less well studied flow and in 4, Restrained Inflow, we have a newcomer to Scientology.

In that we have heretofore considered Inflow as Other-Determined it has not seemed aberrative on the basis that all acts that influence a thetan are done by himself.

But Inflow and Restrained Inflow can be Self-Determined Actions, as well as Other-Determined and therefore merit study.

Thus all four principal flows can be Self-Determined or they can be Other Determined. Thus all four flows can be aberrative.

In an effort to speed up Security Checking as class of processes, I am now studying 3. Inflow and 4. Restrained Inflow.

An example of Inflow would be Eating. An example of Restrained Inflow would be Dieting.

A general process which covers all four of these flows in the most general form would be:

FLOW PROCESS

WHAT HAD TO BE OUTFLOWED?

WHAT HAD TO BE WITHHELD?

WHAT HAD TO BE INFLOWED?

WHAT HAD TO BE HELD OFF?

This process is a safe process for a Class IIb or an auditor in training to run on HGC pcs or others.

It is a cyclic process and is ended with the cyclic wording in Model Session.


L. RON HUBBARD


LRH:sf.rd
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED































SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
30 January—1 February 1962


** 6201C30 SHSBC-106 In-sessionness
** 6201C31 SHSBC-107 Usages of 3DXX
** 6202C01 SHSBC-108 Flows

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 1 FEBRUARY 1962
Franchise
FLOWS, BASIC

A flow is a progress of energy between two points. The points may have masses. The points are fixed and the fixedness of the points and their opposition produce the phenomena of flows.

There are two flows, when viewed from one point.
(a) Outflow.
(b) Inflow.

These flows are modified by being accelerated and restrained.

The acceleration and restraint as applied by a thetan can be classified by many attitudes. The basic attitudes are covered in the CDEI Scale—Curiosity, Desire, Enforce, Inhibit.

For purposes of processing these attitudes become
1. Permissible.
2. Enforced.
3. Prohibited.
4. Inhibited.

This scale inverts from outflow to inflow so that you have
PERMISSIBLE
ENFORCED
PROHIBITED
INHIBITED
INHIBITED
PROHIBITED
ENFORCED
PERMISSIBLE.

This gives us eight attitudes toward flows. We have two flows, Inflow and Outflow and so there are then sixteen Basic Flows that affect a case strongly. As we add brackets (another for another, self for others, etc) we get additional flows, of course. But these sixteen are basic.

Since it is an inversion, expressed in the same way above and below Inhibited, we can list flows for processes, rudiments, assessments, sec checks and other purposes as eight, remembering we have an inversion that will occur in the processing, but the lower and upper harmonic covered by the same words.

For all general purposes, these then are the listed flows that are actually used by the auditor in lists, commands, etc.
PERMISSIBLE OUTFLOW.
PERMISSIBLE INFLOW.
ENFORCED OUTFLOW.
ENFORCED INFLOW.
PROHIBITED OUTFLOW.
PROHIBITED INFLOW.
INHIBITED OUTFLOW.
INHIBITED INFLOW.

If you wish to “see” this better, make a point on a piece of paper and draw the flows. Or audit them or get audited on them.

The basic aberration is withheld flow and all of these flows in a session are aberrative only if the pc is withholding telling the auditor about the flow.

LRH:jw.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO INFORMATION LETTER OF 1 FEBRUARY 1962

All Auditors doing
3DXX


3D CRISS CROSS
ASSESSMENT TIPS


LISTING: To get a list to Differentiate and Nul rapidly, the list must be complete.

It is assumed there will be one or more heavily charged items on a list. Unless this charge is blown, a SCRATCHY NEEDLE, DISINTEREST IN DIFFERENTIATION and HARD NULLING may result. The bulk of the list consists, not of errors, but of LOCK VALENCES. When the lock valences are off the top of the Item, the pc can state the item.

There is a phenomenon here wherein the pc “can’t quite say it”, “can’t reach it”,
“hasn’t said it right .. “ All this adds to an actual feeling of distance from the
item, or wrongness. It is a feeling. It has flows connected with it. So long as the pc has
this feeling of not quite right, the list does not contain the actual item. And if it does
not, then disinterest in Differentiation, hard nulling and scratchy needle may result.

The answer to this phenomenon (call it Incompleteness) is to get more items listed. Do not let the pc just sit and comm lag and reject wordings. Take them all down. Every one rejected is really a lock valence, so get it down on the list. Keep the pc giving items, “trying to phrase it right”. And put down whatever pc says.

If pc is on meter during listing, you’ll see a heavy fall when the item comes on.

Don’t consider a list complete until the pc can answer an unequivocal “Yes” to this question: “Are you sure that you’ve stated the correct item yet?” or “Are you satisfied we’ve got all the things that would______?” or “Have you phrased the item to your complete satisfaction?”

This is the complete list. It is better to complete a list by questioning the pc about its completeness than by bleeding meter, as an unskilled auditor can get a read on ARC Break and keep asking for items each time he gets the ARC Break read caused by asking for items.

A poor list can be caused by:

1. Line being started is of no possible interest to pc. (True only of the start of a line and for the question being used to get a line.)

2. A dissatisfaction on the part of the pc as to having stated the item correctly.


METHODS FOR LINES

The best ways to start a line in order of workability are:

1. Assessment of the 8 flows for the pc’s chronic flow and use it for a line “Who, what would (flow)”. This can be done over and over, getting one flow, then another, each time by assessment of remaining flows.

2. Assessment of Pre-Hav Scale on “You” for a level and getting items for that PH Level. (Aux PH Scale.) Listing “Who—what would______” or appropriate wording. Then doing new PH assessment for next line.

3. A Problems Intensive to locate chronic problems, etc, and listing “Who— what would oppose _______”.

4. Dynamic Assessment.
Finding Dynamic, listing “Who or what would represent (dynamic)”. Finding new Dynamic when first items found.

5. The direct question, “What do you really consider is wrong with you?” or “What are you being audited to change?” (Best for new HGC pcs on their first intensive.)

6. Assessing whole Know-to-Mystery Scale for most reaction. Then “Who or what would_______?”

7. Arbitrary selection, dislike, like, first dynamic o/w, etc.

--------------

DIFFERENTIATION

There is no pat wound-up doll question for Differentiation. The more the wound-up doll repetitive question approach is used the less good the pc gets out of Differentiation.

In Differentiation of a list, we want the pc to:

1. Look.

2. Decide if item belongs or doesn’t.

3. What the item named is in relation to the item the list came from.

To do Differentiation, the pc must be in session.

Differentiation blows the lock valences. A pc with ruds out blows nothing. Therefore, there is no substitute for ruds in and pc in session.

Auditors who interpret this on their own flow patterns, think In session means different types of flow from pc. It’s just “Willing and able to talk to the auditor”. And “Interested in own case”.

An auditor who’s interested in the pc is also interested in the list. Stiff, rugged, mechanical formality and Differentiation just don’t go together.

During Differentiation remove any item from the list that the pc says to remove, add any new item pc wants added.

Don’t suggest any item to pc ever or suggest the removal of an item.

--------------

Nulling and Checking are covered earlier.


LRH:sf.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO INFORMATION LETTER OF 3 FEBRUARY 1962

All Sthil Students

3DXX FLOWS ASSESSMENT


Assess the following by elimination (as in nulling).

List “Who or what would (line found)”. Complete list. (Continue listing until pc knows he’s said it.) Find item by usual steps.

Do whole operation twice for two items. Both go on same line.

All items on a flow line are done by assessing flows not by oppterming as in other lines. You can continue to repeat the same operation for item after item:

PERMISSIBLE OUTFLOW
ENFORCED OUTFLOW
PROHIBITED OUTFLOW
INHIBITED OUTFLOW
PERMISSIBLE INFLOW
ENFORCED INFLOW
PROHIBITED INFLOW
INHIBITED INFLOW

PERMISSIBLE OUTFLOW FROM SELF
ENFORCED OUTFLOW FROM SELF
PROHIBITED OUTFLOW FROM SELF
INHIBITED OUTFLOW FROM SELF
PERMISSIBLE INFLOW ON SELF
ENFORCED INFLOW ON SELF
PROHIBITED INFLOW ON SELF
INHIBITED INFLOW ON SELF

PERMISSIBLE OUTFLOW FROM ANOTHER
ENFORCED OUTFLOW FROM ANOTHER
PROHIBITED OUTFLOW FROM ANOTHER
INHIBITED OUTFLOW FROM ANOTHER
PERMISSIBLE INFLOW ON ANOTHER
ENFORCED INFLOW ON ANOTHER
PROHIBITED INFLOW ON ANOTHER
INHIBITED INFLOW ON ANOTHER

PERMISSIBLE OUTFLOW FROM OTHERS
ENFORCED OUTFLOW FROM OTHERS
PROHIBITED OUTFLOW FROM OTHERS
INHIBITED OUTFLOW FROM OTHERS
PERMISSIBLE INFLOW TO OTHERS
ENFORCED INFLOW TO OTHERS
PROHIBITED INFLOW TO OTHERS
INHIBITED INFLOW TO OTHERS

There are thirty-two flows on a flows assessment for sec checks, or 3DXX.

LRH:sf.rd
Copyright © 1962 L. RON HUBBARD
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 8 FEBRUARY 1962

Franchise

URGENT


MISSED WITHHOLDS


The one item Scientologists everywhere must get an even greater reality on is MISSED WITHHOLDS and the upsets they cause.

EVERY upset with Central Orgs, Field Auditors, pcs, the lot, is traceable to one or more MISSED WITHHOLDS.

Every ARC Breaky pc is ARC Breaky because of a Missed Withhold. Every dissatisfied pc is dissatisfied because of MISSED WITHHOLDS.

We’ve got to get a flaming reality on this.


WHAT IS A MISSED WITHHOLD?

A missed withhold is not just a withhold. Please burn that into the stone walls. A Missed Withhold is a withhold that existed, could have been picked up and was MISSED.

The mechanics of this are given in the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course Lecture of 1 February 1962.

The fact of it is stated in the Congress Lectures of the D.C. Congress of December 30-31, Jan. 1, 1962.

Since that Congress even more data has accumulated. That data is large, voluminous and overwhelming.

The person with complaints has MISSED WITHHOLDS. The person with entheta has MISSED WITHHOLDS. You don’t need policies and diplomacy to handle these people. Policy and diplomacy will fail. You need expert auditing skill and a British Mark IV meter and the person on the cans and that person’s MISSED WITHHOLDS.

A MISSED WITHHOLD is a withhold that existed, was tapped and was not pulled. Hell hath no screams like a withhold scorned.

A MISSED WITHHOLD programme would not be one where an auditor pulls a pc’s withholds. A MISSED WITHHOLD programme would be where the auditor searched for and found when and where withholds had been available but had been MISSED.

The withhold need not have been asked for. It merely need have been available. And if it was not pulled, thereafter you have a nattery, combative, ARC Breaky or entheta inclined person.

THIS is the only dangerous point in auditing. This is the only thing which makes an occasional error in the phrase, “Any auditing is better than no auditing.” That line is true with one exception. If a withhold were available but was missed, thereafter you have a bashed-up case.

HOW TO AUDIT IT

In picking up Missed Withholds you don’t ask for withholds, you ask for missed withholds.

Sample question:

“What withhold was missed on you?”

The auditor then proceeds to find out what it was and who missed it. And the Mark IV needle is cleaned of reaction at Sensitivity 16 on every such question.

Gone is the excuse “She doesn’t register on the meter.” That’s true of old meters, not the British Mark IV.

And if the pc considers it no overt, and can’t conceive of overts, you still have “didn’t know”. Example: “What didn’t an auditor know in an auditing session?”


SAMPLE MISSED WITHHOLD SESSION

Ask pc if anyone has ever missed a withhold on him (her) in an auditing session. Clean it. Get all reactions off the needle at Sensitivity 16.

Then locate first auditing session pc had. Flatten “What didn’t that auditor know?” “What didn’t that auditor know about you?”

For good measure get the ruds in for that first session. In auditing an auditor, also do the same thing for his or her first pc.

Then pick up any stuck session. Treat it exactly the same way. (If you scan the pc through all his auditing ever from the cleaned first session to present time, the pc will stick in a session somewhere. Treat that session the same as the first session. You can scan again and again, finding the stuck sessions and get the withholds off in that session and the ruds in as above.)

Clean up all sessions you can find. And get what the auditor didn’t know, what the auditor didn’t know about the pc, and for good measure, get in the other ruds.

Cleaning up an old session will suddenly give you all the latent gain in that session. It’s worth having!

This can be extended to “What didn’t the org know about you?” for those who’ve had trouble with it.

And it can be extended to any life area where the pc has had trouble.

SUMMARY

If you clean up as above withholds that have been missed on any pc or person, you will have any case flying.

This then is not just emergency data for use on flubbed intensives. It is vital technology that can do wonders for cases.

ON ANY CASE THAT HAS BEEN AUDITED A PART OF AN INTENSIVE, BEFORE GOING ON THE AUDITOR SHOULD SPEND SOME TIME LOCATING WITHHOLDS HE OR SHE MIGHT HAVE MISSED ON THAT PC.

Any pc that is ending a week’s auditing should be carefully checked over for withholds that might have been missed.

Any pc that is ending his or her intensives should be most carefully checked out for missed withholds. This makes sudden auditing gains.

Any case not up to recognizing overts will respond to “didn’t know about you” when the case doesn’t respond to “withhold”.

Any student should be checked weekly for missed withholds.

Any person who is giving an auditor, the field, the Organization, a course or Scientology any trouble should be gotten hold of and checked for missed withholds.

It is provenly true on five continents that any other meter reaches only occasionally below the level of consciousness and the British Mark IV reaches deeply and well. It is dangerous to audit without a meter because then you really miss withholds. It is dangerous to audit without knowing how to really use a meter because of missing withholds. It is dangerous to audit with any other meter than a British Mark IV. It is SAFE to audit if you can run a meter and if you use a British Mark IV and if you pull all the withholds and missed withholds.

EVERY blow-up you ever had with a pc was due ENTIRELY to having missed a withhold whether you were using a meter or not, whether you were asking for withholds or not.

Just try it out the next time a pc gets upset and you’ll see that I speak the usual sooth.


L. RON HUBBARD


LRH: sf.rd
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED





















SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
2—8 February 1962

** 6202C06 SHSBC- 111 Withholds
** 6202C07 SHSBC- 112 Missed Withholds
** 6202C08 SHSBC- 109 3DXX Assessment

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 12 FEBRUARY 1962
sthil
CenOCon

HOW TO CLEAR WITHHOLDS AND MISSED WITHHOLDS

I have finally reduced clearing withholds to a rote formula which contains all the basic elements necessary to obtain a high case gain without missing any withholds.

These steps now become THE way to clear a withhold or missed withhold.

AUDITOR OBJECTIVE

The auditor’s object is to get the pc to look so that the pc can tell the auditor.

The auditor’s objective is not to get the pc to tell the auditor. If the pc is in session the pc will talk to the auditor. If the pc is not in session, the pc won’t tell the auditor a withhold. I never have any trouble getting the pc to tell me a withhold. I sometimes have trouble getting the pc to find out about a withhold so the pc can tell it to me. If the pc will not tell the auditor a withhold (and the pc knows it) the remedy is rudiments. I always assume, and correctly, that if the pc knows about it the pc will tell me. My job is to get the pc to find out so the pc has something to tell me. The chief auditor blunder in pulling withholds stems from the auditor assuming the pc already knows when the pc does not.

If used exactly, this system will let the pc find out and let the pc get all the charge off of a withhold as well as tell the auditor all about it.

Missing a withhold or not getting all of it is the sole source of ARC break.

Get a reality on this now. All trouble you have or have ever had or will ever have with ARC breaky pcs stems only and wholly from having restimulated a withhold and yet having failed to pull it. The pc never forgives this. This system steers you around the rock of missed withholds and their bombastic consequences.

WITHHOLD SYSTEM

This system has five parts:

0. The Difficulty being handled.
1. What the withhold is.
2. When the withhold occurred.
3. All of the withhold.
4. Who should have known about it.

Numbers (2) (3) and (4) are repeated over and over, each time testing (1) until (1) no longer reacts.

(2) (3) and (4) clear (1). (1) straightens out in part (0).

(0) is cleaned up by finding many (1)’s and (1) is straightened up by running (2) (3) and (4) many times.

These steps are called (0) Difficulty, (1) What (2) When (3) All (4) Who. The auditor must memorize these as What, When, All and Who. The order is never varied. The questions are asked one after the other. None of them are repetitive questions.

USE A MARK IV

The whole operation is done on a Mark IV. Use no other meter as other meters may read right electronically without reading mental reactions well enough.

Do this whole system and all questions at sensitivity 16.

THE QUESTIONS

0. The suitable question concerning the Difficulty the pc is having. Meter reads.

1. What. “What are you withholding about ............?” (the Difficulty) (or as given in future issues).

Meter reads. Pc answers with a w/h, large or small.

2. When. “When did that occur?” or “When did that happen?” or “What was the time of that?”

Meter reads. Auditor can date in a generality or precisely on meter. A generality is best at first, a precise dating on the meter is used later in this sequence on the same w/h.

3. All. “Is that all of that?” Meter reads. Pc answers.

4. Who. “Who should have known about that?” or “Who didn’t find out about that?” Meter reads. Pc answers.

Now test (1) with the same question that got a read the first time. (The question for (1) is never varied on the same w/h.)

If needle still reads ask (2) again, then (3), then (4), getting as much data as possible on each. Then test (1) again. (1) is only tested, never worked over except by using (2), (3) and (4).

Continue this rotation until (1) clears on needle and thus no longer reacts on a test.

Treat every withhold you find (or have found) in this fashion always.

SUMMARY

You are looking at a preview of PREPARATORY TO CLEARING. “Prepclearing” for short. Abandon all further reference to security checking or sec checking. The task of the auditor in Prepclearing is to prepare a pc’s rudiments so that they can’t go out during 3D Criss Cross.

The value of Prepclearing in case gain, is greater than any previous Class I or Class II auditing.

We have just risen well above Security Checking in ease of auditing and in case gains.

You will shortly have the ten Prepclearing lists which give you the (0) and (1) questions. Meanwhile, treat every withhold you find in the above fashion for the sake of the preclear, for your sake as an auditor and for the sake of the good name of Scientology.

(Note: To practise with this system, take a withhold a pc has given several times to you or you and other auditors. Treat the question that originally got it as (1) and clean it as above in this system. You will be amazed.)


LRH:sf.cden L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED




SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURE
13 February 1962

** 6202C13 SHSBC-110 Prep Clearing

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 13 FEBRUARY 1962

Sthil


3D CRISS CROSS ITEMS


All items found by 3D Criss Cross must be checked out for consistent read by an Instructor before being placed on a pc’s Line Plot.

The item must be checked out by the pc’s auditor first as usual before being checked out by an Instructor.

An Instructor is only to see if Item reads consistently on meter and to instruct student appropriately if it does not. The Instructor is not to find the correct item but direct that it be found.

Completeness of list is not to be otherwise checked or checked separately.


LRH:sf.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 FEBRUARY 1962
CenOCon
Franchise
Co-audit Centres
CO-AUDIT & MISSED WITHHOLDS


It could be that Co-Audit falls off because of missed withholds.

Drop at once any general O/W on the Co-Audit or any effort to pull withholds except by an Instructor.

This should improve Co-Audit attendance.

Use the old Comm process or responsibility process or any other Co-Audit instead.


LRH:sf.cden L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


** 6202C14 SHSBC-117 Directing Attention
** 6202C15 SHSBC-118 Prepchecking
** 6202C20 SHSBC-113 What Is a Withhold?
** 6202C21 SHSBC-114 Use of Prepchecking

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 22 FEBRUARY 1962

Franchise
CenOCon



WITHHOLDS, MISSED
AND PARTIAL


I don’t know exactly how to get this across to you except to ask you to be brave, squint up your eyes and plunge.

I don’t appeal to reason. Only to faith at the moment. When you have a reality on this, nothing will shake it and you’ll no longer fail cases or fail in life. But, at the moment, it may not seem reasonable. So just try it, do it well and day will dawn at last.

What are these natterings, upsets, ARC breaks, critical tirades, lost PE members, ineffective motions? They are restimulated but missed or partially missed withholds. If I could just teach you that and get you to get a good reality on that in your own auditing, your activities would become smooth beyond belief.

----------------

It is true that ARC breaks, present time problems and withholds all keep a session from occurring. And we must watch them and clear them.

But behind all these is another button, applicable to each, which resolves each one. And that button is the restimulated but missed or partially missed withhold.

----------------

Life itself has imposed this button on us. It did not come into being with security checking.

If you know about people or are supposed to know about people, then these people expect, unreasonably, that you know them through and through.

Real knowledge to the average person is only this: a knowledge of his or her withholds! That, horribly enough, is the high tide of knowledge for the man in the street. If you know his withholds, if you know his crimes and acts, then you are smart. If you know his future you are moderately wise. And so we are persuaded towards mind reading and fortune telling.

All wisdom has this trap for those who would be wise.

Egocentric man believes all wisdom is wound up in knowing his misdemeanors.

IF any wise man represents himself as wise and fails to discover what a person has done, that person goes into an antagonism or other misemotion toward the wise man. So they hang those who restimulate and yet who do not find out about their withholds.

This is an incredible piece of craziness. But it is observably true.

This is the WILD ANIMAL REACTION that makes Man a cousin to the beasts.

A good auditor can understand this. A bad one will stay afraid of it and won’t use it.

----------------

The end rudiment for withholds for any session should be worded, “Have I missed a withhold on you?”

----------------

Any ARC broke pc should be asked, “What withhold have I missed on you?” Or, “What have I failed to find out about you?” Or, “What should I have known about you?”

----------------

An auditor who sec checks but cannot read a meter is dangerous because he or she will miss withholds and the pc may become very upset.

----------------

Use this as a stable datum: If the person is upset, somebody failed to find out what that person was sure they would find out.

----------------

A missed withhold is a should have known.

----------------

The only reason anyone has ever left Scientology is because people failed to find out about them.

----------------

This is valuable data. Get a reality on it.


L. RON HUBBARD


LRH :sf.cden
Copyright ©1962
L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED









SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
22—27 February 1962


** 6202C22 SHSBC-119 Prepclearing and Rudiments
** 6202C27 SHSBC-115 Prepchecking
** 6202C27 SHSBC-116 Auditor’s Code

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 1 MARCH 1962

Franchise


PREPCHECKING
(A Class II Skill)


A new way of cleaning up a case in order to run Routine 3D Criss Cross has suddenly emerged as more powerful in obtaining case gains than any previous process in Scientology.

I developed Prepchecking in order to get around an auditor’s difficulty in “varying the question” in pulling withholds. Auditors had a hard time doing this, hence Prepchecking.

But Prepchecking became quickly more important than a “rote procedure for Sec Checking”. The potentiality in really cleaning up a case’s withholds is Mest Clear! If, of course, done by Prepchecking.

Any goal Freud ever had is easily achieved by Prepchecking in a relatively few hours if done by a thoroughly trained Class IV auditor. Goals Freud never dreamed of rise beyond that point.

In Prepchecking one uses the Withhold System, HCO Bulletin of February 12, 1962. But Prepchecking has exact targets and exact procedure.

In Prepchecking one uses the rudiment questions one at a time as the body of Model Session. Havingness, however, is taken up last as a Prepcheck question.

----------------

The target of a Prepcheck question is a chain of withholds.

A withhold chain behaves exactly like any chain. The bottom of the chain is the basic. The withholds on the chain will stay partially alive, even when covered, until the basic (first) withhold on the chain is fully recovered. Then the entire chain goes nul.

The definition of a Chain is: A series of incidents of similar nature or similar subject matter. (See Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health.)

The first incident of any chain is fully or partially unknown to the person.

----------------

THE MECHANICS OF PREPCHECKING

One uses the whole subject to be cleared as the zero question. Sub zero questions are marked 0A.

Each 0A has a Number One question which is taken from a withhold given on asking the 0A question.

The Number One question is worked with the When All Who of the Withhold question until it either disappears or obviously won’t clear easily. Many withholds may be given relating to Number One. If it doesn’t clear, one steers earlier by asking Number 1A, text taken from the withholds given in Number One. If 1A’s What question doesn’t clear on the meter after several withholds and When All Who is used liberally on each, one asks Question Number 1B.

Continuing What questions are asked and worked with the Withhold System, until the earliest incident of the chain is found and cleaned up. This should clear the whole chain.

One then reworks all the previous What questions on the Zero A Chain and leaves Zero A when all the previous Whats are clear.

One can clean some of the What questions, find a new branch and ask more What questions.

----------------

ADMINISTRATION

The auditor writes down only what the auditor says (the Zero and What questions) plus any cognitions of the pc he cares to write.

He doesn’t do a steno record of what the pc says, only the Zeros and Whats the auditor asks.

----------------

THE MAGIC PHRASE

The magic question is “Is there any incident like that earlier?” Or any version of it.

The pc’s attention tends to stick near present time.

The auditor must press the pc gradually back down the Chain to basic, cleaning up what he can as he goes, realizing, if the Chain is long and hot, that it won’t clean until basic is reached.

The pc, on a charged chain, cannot go earlier until charge is moved off it by using the withhold system on each withhold the pc gives, (When All Who, test What. If What still charged on meter, another When All Who).

Basic is sometimes wholly unknown to pc, sometimes known only as a picture.

Unknown parts exist throughout the chain.

----------------
Sample:

0. Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?

0A. Have you ever done anything to an organization? (Zero A found by Dynamic Assessment.)

1. What about being jealous of a leader?
(1. Question found from a withhold given by pc in response to the Zero A being asked, “I was jealous of my lodge president.” This is enlarged at once by auditor to be more general.)

Several withholds come off, all about leaders, each withhold well worked by the When All Who of the withhold system.

Then the 1 is still alive but pc gives a withhold about stealing money from an organization. This is a new type of withhold, but is similar on the chain as it’s still about organizations.

1A. What about stealing money from an organization? (Question 1A derived by pc’s given withhold.)

This 1A is worked by the Withhold System until pc gives a withhold still on organizations but having to do with wrecking a car belonging to a company.

1B. What about damaging organization property? Etc. Etc.

When the first overt is found and fully revealed by the When All Who of the Withhold System (maybe 1F) then 1F will clear fully as a What question. One then reworks the 1E, 1D, 1C, 1B, 1A and one. The auditor may clean 1E, 1D and find a new

series on the same chain, giving him a new 1E and 1D after which all Whats including the Number One will go clean if worked a bit more. This up and down may happen more than once. This ends the chain labelled in Zero A as Organizations, providing Zero A is now nul.

----------------

CONTROL PC’S ATTENTION

Work only one subject at a time. Keep pc on the subject of the chain.

Try not to start new chains when old Zero A’s exist uncleared.

Start new Zero A’s only when an old Zero A is cleared fully.

----------------

The pc is doing well only when you have TA action. Complete chains started always but choose those that will give TA action during Prepchecking.

----------------

DON’T USE O/W

Use no version of withholds to clean up rudiments for a Prepcheck session. You’ll find yourself steered off yesterday’s Zero A. Use only old non O/W processes to clean rudiments in a Prepcheck session. For withhold rud, add “Since last session”.

----------------

HOW TO DERIVE ZEROS

The modern Model Session Rudiments are the Zeros in all cases.

----------------

HOW TO DERIVE ZERO A’s

Derive Zero A’s as follows:

For “Are you willing, etc” do a Dynamic Assessment on pc and use its results. When this is cleared, do another Dynamic Assessment. Etc. Finally pc will talk to auditor about anything.

----------------

For Withhold rudiment, use the Joburg and (on a Scientologist) Form 6A as 0A questions.

----------------

For Present Time Problem use the whole of the Problems Intensive HCO Bulletin of November 9, 1961.
----------------

For Half Truth use “Have you ever told a half truth?”

For Untruth, use “Have you ever told a lie?”

For Impress Anyone use “Have you ever tried to impress anyone?”

For Damage use “Have you ever damaged anyone?”

----------------
For Meter, use itself.

For Withholds, use “What withhold have you only partially revealed?”

----------------

For Goals use “Have you ever set impossible goals for anyone?”

For Gains, use “Have you ever propitiated anyone?”

For Orders and Commands, use “Have you ever made anyone obey?”

----------------

The purpose of Prepchecking is to set up a pc’s rudiments so they will stay in during further clearing of the bank.
----------------

If a pc goes back track and out of this lifetime, let him or her go back track using the same system. Don’t persuade pc to go back track.

----------------

Asking the What question is the most skilled action of Prepcheck. The rule is as follows:

The What question must ask about the part of the withhold most dangerous to the pc’s survival, and must not be too broad to miss the chain or too narrow to get only that one withhold. The supposition is that the pc has done similar things; the What question must also be capable of getting these.

There is only one exception to converting the pc’s withhold to a What question directly.

If the pc does one of four things, the auditor asks a What question directly relating to the subject mentioned by the pc.

These four things are:

Pc gives Somebody else’s withhold, gives a MOTIVATOR, gives a CRITICISM of someone or an EXPLANATION, then Auditor gives a What question, in each case, as follows: “What have you done to (subject mentioned by pc)?”
----------------

Learning to Prepcheck is like learning to ride a bicycle. All of a sudden you can ride it.

Prepchecking gives high pc gains when done well, higher than any previous process.

----------------

The auditor expects the pc to talk to him. The auditor does not prevent the pc from giving up withholds. Pcs, unlike in Sec Checking, talk glibly and easily while being Prepchecked.

----------------

The only middle ruds you use are (frequently) “Have I missed a withhold on you?” and the half truth, etc, end rud question.

Use “Have I missed a withhold on you?” in the end rudiments rather than “Are you withholding anything?” while Prepchecking.
----------------

There are some tapes extant on Prepcheck Sessions I have given.

Good hunting.


LRH:sf cden
Copyright © 1962 L RON HUBBARD
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

[This HCO B is corrected by HCO B 24 June 1962, Prepchecking, page 88.]


** 6203C01 SHSBC- 120 Model Session I
** 6203C01 SHSBC-121 Model Session II.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 8 MARCH 1962
Franchise
Sthil
CenOCon
THE BAD “AUDITOR”


It is time we spent time on improving auditing skill.

We have the technology. We can make clears and OTs with it as you will find out. Our only remaining problem is getting it applied skillfully.

This is why I started the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course. The extremely high calibre of auditor we are turning out is causing gasps of amazement whenever these fine graduates return into an area. We are not trying for cases at Saint Hill. I can always make clears. We are trying for skilled auditors. But we are getting there on cases, too, faster than anywhere else on the average.

This training has been almost a year in progress. I have learned much about training that is of great benefit to all of us, without at the same time skimping the training of the Saint Hill student.

Looking over incoming students I find we have, roughly, two general categories of auditor, with many shades of grey between:

1. The natural auditor.

2. The dangerous auditor.

The natural auditor ties right into it and does a workmanlike job. He or she gets lots of bulletin and tape passes in ratio to flunks, absorbs data well and gets it into practice, does a passable job on a pc even at the start of training, and improves casewise rapidly under the skilled training and auditing at Saint Hill. This is true of the clears and releases that come on course as well as those who have had much less case gains prior to this training. These, the natural auditors, make up more than half the incoming students.

The other category we will call the “dangerous auditor”. The severe examples of this category make up about 20% of the incoming students and are very detectable. In shades of grey the other 30% are also, at the start, to be placed in the category of “dangerous auditor unless tightly supervised”.

At Saint Hill, with few exceptions, we only get the cream of auditors and so I would say that the overall percentage across the world is probably higher in the second category than at Saint Hill.

Thus it would seem we must cure this matter at the Academies and cure it broadly throughout Scientology, and if we do, our dissemination, just on this effort alone, should leap several thousand percent. If all pcs audited everywhere were expertly audited, well, think of what that would do. To accomplish this we need only move the dangerous auditor out of the danger class.

I have found out what makes a pc suffer a deterioration of profile (missed withholds) and have found out why a dangerous auditor is dangerous. Therefore, there are no barriers to our handling the matter as even the dangerous auditor, oddly enough, wants to be a good auditor but doesn’t quite know how. Now we can fix it up.

The difference between a natural auditor and a dangerous auditor is not case level as we have supposed, but a type of case.

The earliest observation on this came in ACCs. About 1% of the students (say two students every ACC) could be counted on to be miserable if his or her pc made gains and happy if the pc was collapsing. This was an observation. What were these students trying to do? What did they think they should accomplish in a session? They are an extreme case of “dangerous auditor”.

This is how to detect a “dangerous auditor” in any shade of grey:

Any auditor who (a) cannot achieve results on a pc, (b) who finds items slowly or not at all, (c) who gets low marks on tape tests, (d) who has a high flunk-to-pass ratio on taking tests for classification, (e) whose own case moves slowly, (f) who does not respond well to a “think” process, (g) who chops a pc’s comm, (h) who prevents a pc from executing an auditing command, (i) who obsessively changes processes before one is flat, (j) who apologizes or explains why he or she got no results session after session, (k) who tries to make pcs guilty, (I) who blames Scientology for not working, (m) whose pcs are always ARC breaking, or (n) who will no longer audit at all, is suffering not from withholds but from the reverse of the withhold flow, “Afraid to find out”.

The person with withholds is afraid he or she will be found out. The other type of case may have withholds but the dominant block is exactly the reverse. Instead of being afraid he or she will be found out, the opposite type of case is afraid to find out or afraid of what he or she may find out. Thus it is a type of case that makes a dangerous auditor. He or she is afraid of finding out something from the pc. Probably this case is the more usual in society, particularly those who never wish to audit.

A person with withholds is afraid to be found out. Such a person has auditing difficulties as an auditor, of course, because of restraint on their own comm line. These difficulties sum up to an inability to speak during a session, going silent on the pc, failures to ask how or what the pc is doing. But this is not the dangerous auditor. The only dangerous thing an auditor can do is miss withholds and refuse to permit the pc to execute auditing commands. This alone will spin a pc.

The dangerous auditor is not afraid to be found out (for who is questioning him or her while he or she is auditing?). The dangerous auditor is the auditor who is afraid to find out, afraid to be startled, afraid to discover something, afraid of what they will discover. This phobia prevents the “auditor” from flattening anything. This makes missed withholds a certainty. And only missed withholds create ARC breaks.

All cases, of course, are somewhat leery of finding things out and so any old-time auditor could have his quota of ARC breaks on his or her pcs. But the dangerous auditor is neurotic on the subject and all his or her auditing is oriented around the necessity to avoid data for fear of discovering something unpleasant. As auditing is based on finding data, such an auditor retrogresses a case rather than improves it. Such an auditor’s own case moves slowly also as they fear to discover something unpleasant or frightening in the bank.

Today, the increased power of auditing makes this factor far more important than it ever was before. Old processes could be done with minimal gain but without harm by such an auditor. Today, the factor of fear-of-discovery in an auditor makes that auditor extremely dangerous to a pc.

In Prepchecking, this becomes obvious when an auditor will not actually clean up a chain and skids over withholds, thus “completing” the case by leaving dozens of missed withholds and an accordingly miserable pc.

In Routine 3D Criss Cross this becomes obvious when the auditor takes days and weeks to find an item, then finds one that won’t check out. An item every three sessions of two hours each is a low average for 3D Criss Cross. An item a week is suspect. An item a month is obviously the average of an auditor who will not find out and is dangerous. The auditor who uses out-rudiments always to avoid doing 3D Criss Cross is a flagrant example of a no-discovery-please auditor.

In the CCHs, the dangerous auditor is narrowed down to prevention of executing the auditing command. This, indeed, is the only way an auditor can make the CCHs fail. In any of the CCHs, the commands and drills are so obvious that only the prevention of execution can accomplish not-finding-out. The dangerous auditor is never satisfied the pc has executed the command. Such an auditor can be seen to move the pc’s hand on the wall after the pc has in fact touched the wall. Or the pc is made to do a motion over and over which is already well done. Or the pc is run only on processes that are flat and is halted on processes that are still changing.

The pc is never permitted to reveal anything by the dangerous auditor. And so “auditing” fails.

The remedies for the dangerous auditor, by class of process, are:

Class I—Repetitive Process, run in sequence

REVELATION PROCESS X1

What could you confront?
What would you permit another to reveal?
What might another confront?
What might another permit you to reveal?
What would you rather not confront?
What would you rather not have another reveal?
What might another hate to confront?
What might another object to your revealing?
What should be confronted?
What shouldn’t anyone ever have to confront?

(Note: This process is subject to refinement and other processes on the same subject will be released.)

Class II—Prepchecking Zero Question

Have you ever prevented another from perceiving something? (Other such Zero Questions are possible on the theme of fear-of-discovery.)

CCHs should be used if tone arm action during any Prepchecking is less than 3/4 of a division shift per hour.

Class III—Routine 3D Criss Cross

Find Line Items as follows:

Who or What would be afraid to find out? (then get oppterm of resulting item)
Who or What would prevent a discovery? (then oppterm it)
Who or What would startle someone? (then oppterm it)
Who or What would be unsafe for you to reveal? (then oppterm it)
Who or What would be dangerous for another to reveal? (then oppterm it)

Note: Well run CCHs, run according to the very earliest data on them, given again on two Saint Hill Briefing Course Tapes (R-10/6106C22SH/Spec 18, “Running CCHs” and R-12/6106C27SH/Spec 21, “CCHs—Circuits”), benefit any case and are not relegated to the psychotic by a long ways. The CCHs do a remarkable job in making a good auditor for various reasons. The first CCH (Op Pro by Dup) was invented exclusively to make good auditors. The CCHs 1 to 4 are run each one in turn,
only so long as they produce change and no longer, before going on to the next. When is a CCH flat so that one can go on to the next CCH? When three complete cycles of the CCH have a uniform comm lag it can be left. My advice in straightening out or improving any auditor is to first flatten the CCHs 1 to 4, and then flattening all in one run Op Pro by Dup. This would be regardless of the length of time the auditor had been auditing in Dianetics and Scientology. Then I would do the Class II and Class III processes above, preferably doing the Class III items first, then the Class II so it could go whole track, or doing the Class II, then the Class III and then the Class II again.

----------------

SUMMARY

Following out any part of this programme in any organization, in the field and on any training course will vastly improve the results of auditing and enormously diminish auditing failures.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:jw.rd
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED





[This HCO B is added to by HCO B 15 March 1962, Suppressors, which is on the following page.]























SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
19—20 March 1962


** 6203C19 SHSBC-122 The Bad “Auditor”
** 6203C19 SHSBC-123 Mechanics of Suppression
** 6203C20 SH TVD-1 3DXX Assessment
** 6203C20 SH TVD-2 3DXX Assessment (cont.)

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 MARCH AD 12
Franchise
Sthil
CenOCon
ADD HCO BULLETIN 8 March 1962
THE BAD “AUDITOR “

SUPPRESSORS


The discovery of the “other side of withholds” type of case, the person who is afraid to find out, brings to view the reason behind all slow gain cases.

My first release was directed at auditing because good auditing is, of course, my primary concern at the moment.

But let us not overlook the importance of this latest discovery. For here is our roughest case to audit, as well as our roughest auditor.

Every case has a little of “afraid to find out”. So you may have taken HCO Bulletin of March 8, 1962, more personally than you should have. BUT everyone’s auditing can be improved, even mine, and adding a full willingness to find out to one’s other auditing qualities will certainly improve one’s auditing ability. Here probably is the only real case difference I have had. My own “afraid to find out” is minimal and so I had no reality on it as a broadly held difficulty. Where I ran into it was in trying to account for differences amongst students and in auditors who sought to audit me. Some could, some couldn’t. And this was odd because my ability to as-is bank is great, therefore I should be easy to audit. But some could audit me and some couldn’t. Two different auditors found me reacting as two different pcs. Therefore there must have been another factor. It was my study of this and my effort to understand “bad auditing” on myself as a pc that gave us the primary lead in. I made a very careful analysis of what the auditor was doing who couldn’t or wouldn’t audit me, an easy pc. The answer, after many tries and much study of students, finally came down, crash, to the “afraid to find out” phenomena. Thus my first paper on this (HCO Bulletin of March 8, 1962) enters the problem as a problem of auditing skill.

THE ROUGH PC

The characteristic of the rough pc is not a pc’s tendency to ARC Break and scream, as we have tended to believe, but something much more subtle.

The first observation of this must be credited to John Sanborn, Phoenix, 1954, who remarked to me in an auditor’s conference, “Well, I don’t know. I don’t think this pc is getting on (the one he was staff auditing). I keep waiting for him to say, ‘Well, what do you know!’ or ‘Gosh!’ or something like that and he just grinds on and on. I guess you’d call it ‘No cognition’ or something.” John, with his slow, funny drawl, had put his finger on something hard.

The pc who makes no gain is the pc who will not as-is. Who will not confront. Who can be audited forever without cogniting on anything.

The fulminating or dramatizing pc may or may not be a tough pc. The animal psychologist has made this error. The agitated person is always to blame, never the quiet one. But the quiet one is quite often the much rougher case.

The person whose “thought has no effect on his or her bank” has been remarked on by me for years. And now we have that person. This person is so afraid to find out that he or she will not permit anything to appear and therefore nothing will as-is? therefore, no cognition!

The grind case, the audit forever case, is an afraid to find out case.

We need a new word. We have withholds, meaning an unwillingness to disclose past action. We should probably call the opposite of a withhold, a “suppressor”. A “suppressor” would be the impulse to forbid revelation in another. This of course, being an overt, reacts on one’s own case as an impulse to keep oneself from finding out anything from the bank, and of course suppresses as well the release of one’s own withholds, so it is more fundamental than a withhold. A “suppressor” is often considered “social conduct” in so far as one prevents things from being revealed which might embarrass or frighten others.

In all cases a suppressor leads to suppression of memory and environment. It is suppression that is mainly overcome when you run havingness on a pc. The pc is willing to let things appear in the room (or to some degree becomes less unwilling to perceive them). The one-command insanity eradicator, “Look around here and find something that is really real to you” (that sometimes made an insane person sane on one command), brought the person to discharge all danger from one item and let it reveal itself. Now, for any case, the finding of the suppressor mechanism again opens wider doors for havingness processes. “Look around here and find something you would permit to appear” would be a basic havingness process using the suppressor mechanism.

Thus we have a new, broad tool, even more important in half the cases than withholds.

Half the cases will run most rapidly on withholds, the other half most rapidly on suppressors. All cases will run somewhat on withholds and somewhat on suppressors, for all cases have both withholds and suppressors.

Withholds have been known about since the year one, suppressors have been wholly missing as a pat mechanism. Thus we are on very new and virgin search ground.
----------------

Additionally adding to the data in HCO Bulletin of March 8, 1962, another symptom of a dangerous auditor would be (o) one who Qs and As with a pc and never faces up to the basic question asked but slides off of it as the pc avoids it and also avoids it as an auditor. All dangerous Q and A is that action of the auditor which corresponds to the pc’s avoidance of a hot subject or item. If the pc seeks to avoid by sliding off, the auditor, in his questions, also slides off. Also, the auditor invites the pc to avoid by asking irrelevant questions that lead the pc off a hot subject.

Also add (p) who fails to direct the pc’s attention. The pc wants to cut and run, the auditor lets the pc run.

Also add (q) who lets the pc end processes or sessions on the pc’s own volition.
Also add (r) who will only run processes chosen by the pc.
Also add (s) who gets no somatics during processing.
Also add (t) who is a Black Five.

The common denominator of the dangerous auditor is “action which will forestall the revelation of any data”.

Because the auditor is terrified of finding out anything, the whole concentration of the auditor is occupied with the suppression of anything a process may reveal.

Some auditors suppress only one type of person or case and audit others passably. Husbands as auditors tend more to fear what their wives may reveal to them and wives as auditors tend to suppress more what their husbands may reveal to them. Thus husband-wife teams would be more unlucky than other types of auditing teams as

a general rule, but this is not invariable and is now curable if they exclusively run on each other only suppression type processes.


Add Class I
REVELATION PROCESS X2

What wouldn’t you want another to present?
What wouldn’t another want you to present?
What have you presented?
What has another presented?

Class II—Added Zero Question:

Have you ever suppressed anything?

Class III—Add Lines:

Who or What would suppress an identity? (oppterm it)
Who or What would make knowledge scarce? (oppterm it)
Who or What would not want a past? (oppterm it)
Who or What would be unconfrontable? (oppterm it)
Who or What would prevent others (another) from winning? (oppterm it)
Who or What should be disregarded when you’re getting something done?
(oppterm it)
Who or What would make another realize he or she hadn’t won?
(oppterm it)

(In choosing which one of the above to oppterm first, read each one of all such Class III Lines [including those of HCO Bulletin of March 8] once each to the pc watching the meter for the largest reaction. Then take that one first. Do this each time with remaining Lines. One does the same thing [an assessment of sorts] on Line Plot Items when found to discover the next one to oppterm.)


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:jw.cden
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 MARCH 1962
Franchise


PREPCHECKING DATA
WHEN TO DO A WHAT


Prepchecking can be defeated by failing to ask a What question at the proper time.

If you ask the What question when a pc gives you a vague generality, you will find yourself doing a “shallow draft” Prepcheck that never gets any meat.

When you obtain a generality early on after the Zero question, you make it a Zero A.

You never ask a What question until you have managed to get a single specific overt.

Only when the pc has been steered into stating an actual overt, do you ask the What question and write it down.

And when the pc gives you a specific overt, you frame the What question so as to take in the whole possible chain of similar overts. A chain is a repetition of similar acts.

Example:

Wrong: Pc says, “I used to disconcert my mother.” Auditor says and writes down, “What about disconcerting your mother?” as his What question. Of course the prepchecking goes lightly nowhere.

Right: Pc says he used to disconcert his mother. Auditor steers pc into a specific time. Pc finally says, “I jumped out on her and startled her one time and she dropped a tray of glasses.”

Now the auditor has a specific overt. The chain will be startling his mother. The What question, then, which is written down and asked is, “What about startling your mother?” and the first incident the pc gave is worked over. If the needle doesn’t fall when this What is asked, then the auditor asks for an earlier time he startled his mother. This What question is worked on different startlings of mother and only on startlings of mother until the needle is cleaned on that What question.

Then one asks the Zero A, “Have you ever disconcerted your mother?” The needle reacts. The auditor fishes around for a specific other incident. Finally gets, “I used to lie to her.” Now it would be an awful goof to give the What question on this one, as the pc has given no specific incident. But the needle reacted, so the auditor writes a Zero B, “Have you ever lied to your mother?” and then nags away at the pc until a specific time is recovered: “I told her I was going out with boys when in actuality, I dated a girl she hated.” Now write the What question: “What about lying to your mother about dating girls?” and work over that one time the pc gave with the When A11 etc. If the needle reacts on the What question after a couple times over the When A11 etc, ask for an earlier time. Get another specific incident, work it over.

Test the What question, work over exact withholds and find more incidents earlier until that What question is clean on the needle. Then ask the Zero B. If it’s clean write nul after it. If not find a new What on that subject as above.

When the Zero B is clean, ask the Zero A. If that’s clean, write nul after it. If not, find a new chain. And that’s the way it goes.

Working only generalities and never specific incidents wrecks all value of prepchecking and upsets the pc with missed withholds.

If the pc does come up with a withhold not on the chain (example: while doing above What, pc says, “I also lied to my father”) write notation (“Lied to father”) on margin for later reference and leave it alone. Don’t pursue it. Work only one chain at a time.

Q and A is a serious thing in Prepchecking.

----------------

Moving Tone Arm

If you fail to get tone arm action while working a chain of overts on a pc (less than .25 division per 20 minutes) you are working a profitless chain. Clean it up a bit and leave it. Your Zero A is probably quite wrong. Be sure and ask, “Have I missed a withhold on you?” and clean it before so abandoning a chain.

You want TA motion in Prepchecking. Find Zero and Zero A questions that do move the TA.

It is a violation of the Auditor’s Code to continue to audit processes that do not produce change. Or to stop processes that do produce change. This applies to chains and subjects selected for Prepchecking.

----------------

Social Mores

The criteria of what is a hot withhold depends utterly on the pc’s idea of What Is An Overt. It does not depend on what the auditor thinks an overt is.

The pc is stuck in various valences in the Goals Problems Mass. Each has its own Social Mores. They may m t agree with or apply to current life morality at all. This can cause trouble in Prepchecking.

Example: Pc is stuck in the valence of a Temple Priestess. Auditor is a bit fuddy on being a school principal. Auditor keeps looking for sexual misconduct with small boys. It isn’t on pc’s case. Result, no TA action. Finally almost by accident, knowing nothing about the pc’s GPM yet, the auditor disgustedly asks, “Have you ever failed to seduce anybody?” and bang! That’s a Zero A to end all Zero A’s and the pc gives up “overt” after “overt”, failed to seduce her husband’s friend, her sister’s boyfriend, her kindergarten teacher, etc, etc, etc, with two divisions of TA motion.

“Have you ever tried to cure anyone?” is a fine Zero question for all killer types.

Prepchecking is at its best after one knows some GPM items from doing 3D Criss Cross.

What are the mores of a Temple Priestess and how has the pc violated them in this life?

Prepchecking is wonderful at any time but it really soars when one knows some of the pc’s terminals.

This lifetime hasn’t added anything to the GPM. It’s just keyed it in. We live in quiet times.

----------------

Don’t Forget “Guilty”

A fine Zero question is “making others guilty”.

“Have you ever tried to make anyone guilty?” Pc says Policemen, he guesses. Needle reacts. Auditor writes Zero A, “Have you ever tried to make a policeman

guilty?” He fishes for an actual incident, finds the pc bawled out a traffic officer, writes the What, “What about bawling out cops?” and we’re away.

----------------

Add Appear

In the Withhold System, add “Appear, Not Appear” after All.

The question sequence becomes for any one incident:

When?
All?
Appear?
Who?

The next time around use “Not Appear”

When?
All?
Not Appear?
Who?

The phrasing of this is, “What appeared there?” or some such wording. And “What failed to appear?” for the next round.

This injects “Afraid to find out” into Prepchecking with great profit and knocks the Not-Is off the withhold.

This will run a whole track incident.

----------------

Whole Track

If the pc goes back of this lifetime, let him or her go back. Now that Appear is part of the Withhold System, it’s unlikely the pc will hang up and get stuck. But the golden rule of Prepchecking is to always work specific incidents, work them one at a time, and go to an earlier incident if an incident doesn’t clear easily on the needle.

Two times through When, All, Appear, Who should free locks, ten times through should clean any engram.

If the chain you’re working isn’t moving the TA, you’re up to your neck in red herrings. Clean “Have I missed a withhold on you?” and abandon it.

----------------

Unknown Pins Chains

There is always an unknown-to-the-pc incident or piece of incident at the bottom of every chain. Only an unknown incident can make a chain of incidents react on the needle.

You will always find that a chain will be sticky until the unknown incident or piece of incident at the bottom of it is revealed. When you’ve got it fully revealed, the chain will go nul. The chain will not go nul until its basic is reached. It can be this lifetime or a former life. But it sure is unknown to the pc. That’s “Basic on a Chain”.

----------------

Recurring Withholds

The pc that gives the same withhold over and over to the same or different auditors, has an unknown incident underlying it. All is not revealed on that Chain.

Missed Withholds

If you ask a pc if another auditor has missed a withhold on him or her and find one, you have a profitable chain to work in many cases.

----------------

Rudiments in Prepchecking

When you are running a chain and in the next session you find rudiments out and use any form of withhold question, the pc throws the session into a new chain and you will find yourself unable to get back to yesterday’s session.

This utterly defeats Prepchecking. Do not let it happen. In a Prepcheck session, when getting rudiments in, avoid any suggestion of withhold questions. Use only processes that avoid O/W entirely. See early Model Sessions.

Example: Pc has Present Time Problem. It won’t resolve with two-way comm. Don’t ask for withholds about it or you’ll ruin your control of what’s to be Prepchecked. Use Responsibility or Unknown on the problem. For Room use Havingness. For Auditor use “Who would I have to be to audit you?’.’

Exception: In a Prepcheck Session Ruds ask for Withholds since last session. Ask this pointedly. “Since the last session, have you done anything you are withholding from me?” If you get a needle reaction, ask the same question again, very stressed. Buy only an exact answer to that question.

If you use any version of O/W in the rudiments in a Prepcheck session you open the door to a new chain and you’ll spend the whole session on new chains without completing yesterday’s session. This results in a scrambled case. You have lost control of the session.

----------------

Prepchecking is a precious tool.

This bulletin covers errors being made or material evidently needed for successful Prepchecking.

I can tell you that if Prepchecking doesn’t make a case fly for you, you need training on meters and auditing. This is one process that’s a doll and if you can make it work you can do more for a case per session than any being in history.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:phjh
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED





SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
21 March—3 April 1962

** 6203C21 SHSBC-124 Prepchecking
** 6203C21 SHSBC-125 Prepchecking
** 6203C27 SHSBC-130 Prepchecking Data
** 6203C29 SHSBC-126 CCHs
** 6203C29 SHSBC-127 Q-and-A Period
** 6204C03 SHSBC-131 The Overt-Motivator Sequence

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 29 MARCH 1962
Franchise


CCHs AGAIN
WHEN TO USE THE CCHs


We have today three major processes (and are about to get the bit of Class IV).

These processes are:

1. The CCHs
2. Prepchecking
3. 3D Criss Cross
4. Running 3D Criss Cross Items

Into this scheme of things the CCHs loom largely. They are our foremost “familiarization” processes that permit the pc to confront control and duplication.

In actual fact 3D Criss Cross goes “further south” than Prepchecking. And the CCHs go, of course, much further south than 3D Criss Cross.

The whole criteria is tone arm motion. If you do not get more than a quarter of a division of tone arm motion in 20 minutes of Prepchecking or 3D Criss Cross, the pc probably should be run on the CCHs.

Here is a matter of no matter why there is no tone arm action, just put the pc on CCHs. As Mary Sue has said, this is a boon to any D of P. The D of P simply sees that the pc is getting only slight tone arm action after a session or two and then puts the pc on CCHs with no further reasoning or figure-figure on the case.

It does not matter why the pc gets slight tone arm action. It could be that the auditor is running the wrong Zero questions. It could be the way the auditor or the pc is doing or not doing. Don’t try extensively to figure out why no Tone Arm Action, just transfer the pc to the CCHs.

For how long? Until all CCHs (1 to 4) are runnable without somatics and reasonably flat.

This way you’ll get more wins, better gains.

Here is a typical case in point. A case was audited on Routine 3D, 3D XX, Sec Checking and Prepchecking for 260 hours. In all that time one half a tone arm division was all the change except during one series of 4 sessions when she got one tone arm division on one particular Zero question. At the end of this time the pc had made some small gains but was still incapable of recognizing her own overts. It would have been far better to have run a hundred hours of the CCHs first.

On this case, and others, the only significant tone arm action was achieved by tactile havingness (touching things), which always brought the tone arm down one division. Tactile havingness, as you will see, is a CCH type of process.

Thus one concludes that the CCHs (even though pcs are not metered of course while doing CCHs) produced tone arm action while the higher level processes did not.

Therefore, a helpful (but not final) test. If you get no real tone arm action on Prepchecking or 3D Criss Cross listing and nulling, and you do get tone arm action asking the pc to touch things (laying down and picking up the cans often to check the TA position) you have a CCH pc. But this test is not needful if you just follow the rule, “No TA action on 3D Criss Cross or Prepchecking more than a quarter of a division every 20 minutes, transfer the pc to CCHs.”

Here is another test, which has sense but again is not vital to make. If the pc gets tone arm motion just discussing being audited, and relatively little in Prepchecking or 3D Criss Cross, it’s timesaving to transfer the case to the CCHs.

If you notice lots of TA action on Havingness and little tone arm action on Prepchecking or 3D Criss Cross, you have a clear indication that CCHs will be all that will move the case.

If you notice lots of TA action on trying to clear the auditor in the rudiments it’s probably best to use the CCHs. Now if only rudiments type Zero questions (beginning and end rudiments) move the TA in Prepchecking, but other things don’t, it’s a CCH case.

If the pc, for whatever reason, doesn’t get tone arm action from any verbal process, old-time, or current, don’t investigate the reason. It may lie with the auditor or pc. Just change over to the CCHs.

If you like, you can use a meter to handle beginning and end rudiments on a pc you’re running on the CCHs. It would probably help and make things run faster. This is not mandatory, but knowing what we do about withholds, it might be safer.

Remember, the CCHs must be run right. The two bulletins best covering them are:

HCO Bulletin of November 2, 1961, “Training CCHs” HCO Bulletin of June 23, 1961, “Running CCHs”

Even if you think you know all about the CCHs, read these two bulletins again before you attempt them.

The CCHs expired in value after 1957 because the original method of running them was altered. There’s only one way to run the CCHs and you have both the above bulletins to tell you how. They’re the original CCHs and the original method of running them.

This then is the third bulletin in this sequence. It tells you when to run the CCHs. HCO Bulletin of November 2, 1961, tells you how each one is run. HCO Bulletin of June 23, 1961, tells you how they’re run as a series on a pc. And now we can state here When.

A lot of stuff about CCHs being only for psychos has not helped their use. We now find that cases a long way from psycho won’t move easily unless the CCHs are used first.

“A lot of Tone Arm Motion” is defined as at least three-quarters of a division motion on the Tone Arm dial in any 20 minutes of auditing.

“Not much Tone Arm Motion” is defined as one-quarter of a division of Tone Arm Motion in 20 minutes of auditing.

Judgment must be used in this, of course. You can have a pc who usually gets good Tone Arm Motion but, for a session, gets little. That doesn’t mean jump to the CCHs. If the pc is routinely subject to Not Much Tone Arm Motion, you must switch to the CCHs.

Ds of P, Staff Auditors, and Field Auditors, watch the auditor’s reports and look back through the pc’s file. You’ll find a lot of enlightenment on why the pc was “tough”. No Tone Arm Motion.

I hope this sorts it out for you. It has for me.


L. RON HUBBARD


LRH:ph.rd
Copyright © 1962 [HCO B 2 Nov. 61, Training CCHs, was not by LRH and is not
by L. Ron Hubbard in these volumes. See page 310 for the revision of HCO B
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 2 Nov. 61.]



** 6204C05 SHSBC-129 As-isness, People Who Can and Can’t As-is

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 5 APRIL 1962
Franchise


CCHs
AUDITING ATTITUDE


This is an important bulletin. If you understand it you will get results on hitherto unmoving cases and faster results (1 hour as effective as a former 25) with the CCHs.

Here is what happened to the CCHs and which will continue to happen to them to damage their value:

The CCHs in their most workable form were finalized in London by me in April 1957. That was their high tide of workability for the next five years. After that date, difficulties discovered in teaching them to auditors added extraordinary solutions to the CCHs (not by me) which cut them to about one twenty-fifth of their original auditing value. Pcs thereafter had increasing difficulty in doing them and the gain lessened.

How far were the CCHs removed from original CCH auditing? Well, the other night on TV I gave a demonstration of the proper original CCHs which produce the gains on pcs. And more than twelve old-time auditors (the lowest graded ones out of 36) thought they were watching a demonstration of entirely foreign processes.

Although these auditors had been “well trained” on the CCHs (but not by me) they did not see any similarity between how they did them and how they saw me do them. Two or three students and two instructors thought they were being done wrong. Even the higher ranking students were startled. They had never seen CCHs like this.

Yet, the pc was very happy, came way up tone, lost a bad before-session somatic and within 48 hours had a complete change in a chronic physical problem, all in 11/2 hours of proper original CCHs.

The students and instructors “knew they weren’t watching the correct CCHs” because there was no antagonism to the pc, because the Tone 40 was not shouted, because there was no endurance marathon in progress. There was just quiet, positive auditing with the pc in good, happy 2-way communication with the auditor and the auditor letting the pc win.

In the student auditing of the next two days, some shadow of the demonstration’s attitude was used and the cases audited gained much faster than before. Yet at least two or three still feel that this is far too easy to be the CCHs.

In five years, the CCHs, not closely supervised by me, but altered in training, had become completely unrecognizable (and almost resultless).

Why?

Because the CCHs were confused with Op Pro by Dup which was for auditors. Because the CCHs became an arduous ritual, not a way to audit the pc in front of you. The CCHs became a method of auditing without communicating, of running off strings of drills without being there. And the CCHs are so good that even when done wrong or even viciously they produced some slight gain. The CCHs shade from bright white to dark grey in results, never to black.

Having been perverted in training to a system to make auditors audit them, they became something that had nothing to do with the pc.

What these students saw demonstrated (and which upset them terribly) was this:

The auditor sat down, chatted a bit about the coming session with the pc, explained in general what he was about to do. The session was started. The auditor explained the CCH 1 drill in particular and then began on it. The pc had a bit of embarrassment come off. The auditor took the physical reaction as an origination by the pc and queried it. The routine CCH 1 drill went on and was shortly proved flat by three equal responses. The auditor went to CCH 2. He explained the drill and started it. This proved to be flat. The pc did the drill three times without comm change. The auditor explained and went to CCH 3. This also proved flat and after a three times test, the auditor came off it, explained CCH 4, and went to CCH 4. This proved unflat and was gradually flattened to three equally timed correct responses by the pc on a motion the pc could not at first do. About 50 minutes had elapsed so the auditor gave a ten minute break. After the break the auditor went back to CCH 1, found it flat, went to CCH 2 and found the pc jumping the command and, by putting short waits of different lengths before giving commands, knocked out the automaticity. The auditor went on to CCH 3, found it flat, and then to CCH 4 which was found unflat and was accordingly flattened. The auditor then discussed end ruds in a general way, got a summary of gains and ended the session.

All commands and actions were Tone 40 (which is not “antagonism” or “challenge”). But the pc was kept in two-way comm between full cycles of the drill by the auditor. Taking up each new physical change manifested as though it were an origin by the pc and querying it and getting the pc to give the pc’s reaction to it, this two-way comm was not Tone 40. Auditor and pc were serious about the drills. There was no relaxation of precision. But both auditor and pc were relaxed and happy about the whole thing. And the pc wound up walking on air.

These were the CCHs properly done. With high gain results.

The viewers saw no watchdog snarling, no grim, grim PURPOSE, no antagonistic suspicion, no pc going out of session, no mauling, no drill-sergeant bawling and KNEW these couldn’t be the CCHs. There was good auditor-pc relationship (better than in formal sessions) and good two-way comm throughout, so the viewers KNEW these weren’t proper CCHs.

Well, I don’t know what these gruelling blood baths are they’re calling “the CCHs”. I did them the way they were done in April 1957 and got April 1957 fast results. And the processes aren’t even recognized !

So somewhere in each year from April 1957 to April 1962 and somewhere in each place they’re done, additives and injunctions and “now I’m supposed to’s” have grown up around these precise but easy, pleasant processes that have created an unworkable monster that is called “the CCHs” but which definitely isn’t.

Not seeing the weird perversions but seeing the slow graph responses, the vast hours being burned up, I began to abandon recommending the CCHs after 1959 as too long in others’ hands. I didn’t realize how complicated and how grim it had all become.

Well, the real CCHs done right, done the way they’re described here, are a fast gain route, easy on auditor and pc, that goes all the way south.

Take a reread of the June and November bulletins of last year (forget the 20 minute test, 3 times equally done are enough to see a CCH is flat) and, not forgetting your Tone 40 and precision, laying aside the grim withdrawn militant auditor attitude, try to do them as pleasantly as you find them described in the above outlined session, and be amazed at the progress the pc will make.

The CCHs easy on auditor and pc? Ah, they’d observed a lot of CCHs and never any that were easy on auditor or pc. Everybody came to know it was a bullying, smashing, arduous mess, a fight in fact. The only trouble was, the gains vanished when the ARC ran out.

Today, put any pc on the original CCHs done as above until they’re flat, then go to 3D Criss Cross and the pc will fly.

Surely you don’t have to look and sound so hungry, disinterested and mean when you audit the CCHs. You want to clear this pc, not make him or her into a shaking wreck. The CCHs are easily done (when they’re done right).

They’ll get lost again, too, unless you remember they can get lost.

I believe Upper Indoc should be canceled in Academies and extra time put on just the CCHs as it is the Upper Indoc attitude carried over that makes the CCHs grim.


SUMMARY

The PURPOSE of the CCHs is to bring the pc through incidents and into present time. It is the reverse of “mental” auditing in that it gets the pc’s attention exterior from the bank and on present time. By using Communication, Control and Havingness this is done. If you make present time a snarling hostility to the pc, he of course does not want to come into present time and it takes just that much longer to make the CCHs work.

You do the CCHs with the Auditor’s Code firmly in mind. Don’t run a process that is not producing change. Run a process as long as it produces change. Don’t go out of 2-way comm with the pc.

Complete every cycle of the process. Don’t interject 2-way comm into the middle of a cycle, use it only after a cycle is acknowledged and complete.

Don’t end a process before it is flat. Don’t continue a process after it is flat.

Use Tone 40 Commands. Don’t confuse antagonistic screaming at the pc with Tone 40. If you have to manhandle a pc, do so, but only to help him get the process flat. If you have to manhandle the pc you’ve already accumulated ARC breaks and given him loses and driven him out of session.

Improve the ability of a pc by gradient scale, give the pc lots of wins on CCH 3 and CCH 4 and amongst them flatten off what he hasn’t been able to do.

The CCH drills must be done precisely by the auditor. But the criteria is whether the pc gets gains, not whether the auditor is a perfect ritualist.

Exact Ritual is something in which you should take pride. But it exists only to accomplish auditing. When it exists for itself alone, watch out.

Audit the pc in front of you. Not some other pc or a generalized object.

Use the CCHs to coax the pc out of the bank and into present time.

Take up the pc’s physical changes as though they were originations. Each time a new one occurs, take it up with 2-way comm as though the pc had spoken. If the same “origination” happens again and again only take it up again occasionally, not every time it happens.

Know what’s going on. Keep the pc at it. Keep the pc informed. Keep the pc winning. Keep the pc exteriorizing from the past and coming into present time.

Understand the CCHs and what you’re doing. If it all deteriorates to mere ritual you’ll take 25 to 50 times the time necessary to produce the same result as I would.

The auditing is for the pc. The CCHs are for the pc. In auditing you win in the
CCHs only when the pc wins.

LRH:jw.rd
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard L. RON HUBBARD
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


** 6204C05 SHSBC-128 Sacredness of Cases—Self-Determinism, Other Determinism and Pan-Determinism

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 11 APRIL 1962
Central Orgs
Franchise

DETERMINING WHAT TO RUN


Here is some good news for you. Recently I completed surveys on pcs establishing the general workability of processes. From there I found there was a simple way of establishing what should be run on a given pc.

The entire test is by tone arm action.

The table follows:

Considerable tone arm action during rudiments—do CCHs.

No tone arm action during rudiments and no decent tone arm action on prepchecking or 3D Criss Cross—do CCHs.

Considerable tone arm action during havingness processes—do CCHs.

Minimal tone arm action during 3D Criss Cross—do CCHs.

Minimal tone arm action during prepchecking—do CCHs.

Good tone arm action during listing in 3D Criss Cross—do 3D Criss Cross.

Good tone arm action during prepchecking—do prepchecking or 3D Criss Cross.

There is a phenomenon known as the “Drift Down” which is not actual tone arm action. The pc starts in on prepchecking or 3D Criss Cross with the tone arm high, and as listing goes on the arm gradually drifts down and lingers on and on at the lower read. This is not really tone arm action. The pc is just drifting toward the read of an item . In this the tone arm does not go up or down, back and forth. It just drifts slowly and evenly down over the first half hour period of listing and stays there.

Similarly, there is the “Drift Up” of the tone arm during prepchecking or listing. The constantly rising needle gradually raises the tone arm up to a high read which finally just stays there. This “Drift Up” is not actually tone arm motion. It is just the pc’s refusal to confront.

By “considerable”, “good” or “adequate” tone arm action, we mean about three-quarters of a division change in twenty minutes of auditing. Judgement has to be used in establishing this action, as for many minutes a tone arm may hang up even on an easy case before it begins to move again.

By minimal tone arm action we mean a quarter of a division change in twenty minutes of auditing, or less.

The secret is this. When the tone arm moves it is because mass is changing. When a pc is being the mass and no other mass or thing he cannot view it, as there is nothing there to view the mass but the mass. Thus we get cases that cannot as-is. These cases are just being the one valence or the mass or the somatic without being or seeing anything else.

The pc can be a mass or a valence however and still view another mass or valence.

When the pc can do this we get reaction between two masses and therefore tone arm change. Also a pc who is being himself and is capable of viewing a mass will get tone arm change.

It requires two locations to get a tone arm change—the location of the pc and the location of the mass. If two such points of reference do not exist the pc cannot view anything outside of what he is being, and thus there is no as-isness of mass. When the pc is what the pc needs to have audited and cannot view it, then we get no as-ising and therefore no change of mass, since it is a one point situation as opposed to a two point situation.

When we have a pc who is being a mass and cannot see anything or be anything but that mass, then we get no tone arm action on any subjective process. Everything we ask the pc to think we get little or no action on the tone arm because there is no shift of mass—and there is no change of case either and won’t be. But when we have this same pc looking at the auditor we do get the viewing of an outside mass and so we do get tone arm action. Hence when rudiments produce tone arm action it is obvious that the pc gets his change by viewing things in the room and the CCHs are indicated. When this same pc does not get tone arm motion on a thinkingness process, that clinches the matter for the CCHs.

Also, in doing the CCHs, we have to take a somatic or a twitch or any pc reaction as an origin by the pc and call the pc’s attention to it by asking him quietly about it. This makes the pc view it and when the pc does the pc gets exterior to it and so the mass changes. Thus two way comm of this type is vital to the pc’s progress and lack of it multiplies the time in processing tremendously.

-----------------

Any Director of Processing must follow these rules in studying daily case reports. By looking over the pc’s tone arm action, providing the auditor has recorded it frequently in prepchecking or 3D Criss Cross, the Director of Processing can tell at once what progress is being made.

It goes further than that. You just mustn’t run a pc on prepchecking or 3D Criss Cross where the pc is getting minimal tone arm action session after session. Only the CCHs can be run. Do not let an auditor audit 3D Criss Cross if the auditor takes two weeks to find an item routinely. And don’t let a pc be run on prepchecking or 3D Criss Cross unless good tone arm action routinely results. To do otherwise than follow these indications is to flagrantly waste auditing.

The only exception to this is that every pc must be regularly checked out for missed withholds. Only if this is done will the pc stay in session or be happy about his auditing.
----------------

This will greatly lessen your worries as an auditor and as one supervising other auditing. Use it.


LRH:jw.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright ©1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


** 6204C17 SHSBC-132 Auditing
** 6204C17 SHSBC-133 How and Why Auditing Works
** 6204C19 SHSBC-134 Gross Auditing Errors
** 6204C19 SHSBC-135 Determining What to Run
** 6204C24 SHSBC-136 Rundown on 3DXX, Part I
** 6204C24 SHSBC-137 Rundown on 3DXX, Part II.
** 6204C25 SH TVD-3 Checking Line Plots

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 12 APRIL 1962

Franchise

CCHs
PURPOSE

A long time ago—in 1949—while doing research in Dianetics, I experienced considerable trouble in getting some pcs “up to present time”.

As you know, a pc can get “stuck in the past”, and if you can get a pc out of his engrams and reactive mind (his perpetuated past) he becomes aware of the present. He or she is unaware of the present to the degree that shock or injury has caused an arrest in time.

After running an engram, we used to tell the pc to “Come to present time” and the pc would, ordinarily, but sometimes no.

By telling the pc to examine the room, the return to present time could be accomplished on many.

I observed that a common denominator of all aberration was interiorization into the past and unawareness of the present time environment.

Over the years, I developed what became the CCHs.

Control, In-Communication-With, and Havingness of Present Time became feasible through certain drills of Control, Communication and Havingness, using the present time environment.

This is the purpose of the CCH drills—getting the pc out of the past and into present time. Any drill which did this would be a CCH drill, even “Come Up to Present Time!” as a single command.

The pc is stuck not just in engrams but in past identities. In fact the pc out of present time is being the past.

The pc can be made to see he is being the past and that there is a present.

Thus when the pc “has a somatic” and you ask the pc what it was, you get him or her to differentiate between self and past by looking. A being who is something, cannot observe it. A being who looks at something, ceases to be it. A pc can even be a somatic!

Hence the CCHs must be run with a non-forbidding present time, with queries about somatics and changes.

It’s all as simple as that, basically. That’s why they work—they get the pc to Present Time. But only if they are run right. Only if they invite the pc to progress.

Run wrong, the CCHs can actually drive a pc out of present time or park him or her in the session.

Do you see, now?


LRH:jw.cden L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


** 6204C26 SHSBC-138 Rundown on Prepchecking (Professional Attitude)
** 6204C26 SHSBC-139 Rundown on Routine 3: Routine 3DXX

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 26 APRIL 1962
Franchise



RECOMMENDED PROCESSES HGC


After considerable study of various results I have come to the conclusion, which may be refined later, that the best shotgun for all cases is a combination of the CCHs, Prepchecking and 3D Criss Cross used in a certain specific and definite way with certain and specific indicators as to when and how they are employed.

At this time there are no better processes than these three. Properly processed on these three there are no cases which cannot be moved. Whereas many old-time repetitive processes achieved wonderful results on this or that special case, no such process ever achieved results on all cases. Therefore it could be said that we have only this combination of processes which give us remarkable results on all cases—the CCHs, Prepchecking and 3D Criss Cross.

The only liability which these three types of processing have is that they require very well trained auditors and very precise application. But training skills are now such that certainly at Saint Hill all difficulties in teaching these processes have been overcome. Given some six months a student can be taught to use these with such skill as to cause a preclear to gape in wonder at the rapidity of his advance. The beauty of these processes is that they are susceptible to precision training and are precision actions. If a preclear has peculiar and special things wrong with him or if the preclear is very difficult these three processes properly administered will achieve success without special understanding of the case by the auditor.

But make no error about the precise nature of administration. There are very few maybe’s in the administration of these three processes. There are definite answers to every problem or difference in preclears that may be encountered. Therefore if we are to attain high level sweeping clearing in Scientology we cannot compromise with the level of auditor training. I do not say that all auditors need to be trained at Saint Hill, but I do say that all auditors so far arrived as students at Saint Hill were far, far below any required level of skill to make these processes broadly work. But we can and are overcoming this skill factor, not only at Saint Hill but in Central Orgs which have Saint Hill graduates in their technical divisions. The only real technical trouble I have seen lately occurred in Orgs where no graduate of Saint Hill was yet posted.

METHOD OF USE

The CCHs, according to my latest finding, should be used in company with Prepchecking. The CCHs use the extroversion factor of present time. Prepchecking gives us the introversion factor.

The system is to prepcheck the pc to a win, in one, two or three sessions, and then CCH the pc to a win in one, two or three sessions. Use one then the other, then the first again then the second. Alternate these two skills, each time to a win. Use neither more than four sessions consecutively. Don’t use them both in one two-hour session. Devote the whole of any session to either one or the other. Use a meter and rudiments only in the Prepcheck sessions. Use no meter or rudiments in the CCHs sessions.

In doing Prepchecking use the precise system developed to date, but use only rudiments questions as the zero questions. The end product of Prepchecking used this way is to achieve better tone arm action and rudiments that will stay in when we come to 3D Criss Cross.

If the pc, while being given his preclear assessment, shows excellent tone arm action on the think type of assessment question (which is most of it), then the pc could be put directly onto 3D Criss Cross, and the CCHs and Prepchecking by-passed. But if after a while or at any time the pc’s tone arm action became poor and rudiments became very hard to keep in, the pc would be returned to or started on again CCHs and Prepchecking until a session was more possible on 3D Criss Cross.

If minimal tone arm action was present during the preclear assessment then the pc would be put at once on CCHs and Prepchecking as above.

This is how these three activities, CCHs, Prepchecking and 3D Criss Cross, should be used. Use the CCHs against Prepchecking until rudiments go in very easily or stay in and the tone arm has excellent action. Then go into 3D Criss Cross. But if rudiments on 3D Criss Cross become consistently difficult and tone arm action drops, the auditor should return the pc to CCHs and Prepchecking until tone arm action is regained and 3D Criss Cross can be continued.

Thus we see that the CCHs and Prepchecking are used to get the pc into session and keep him easily in session, and the 3D Criss Cross is used for longrange permanent case gain. One does not try for real case gain with CCHs and Prepchecking even though real gain exists in the use of these processes. One tries for real gain with 3D Criss Cross.

LIMITATIONS OF USE

Oddly enough it has been found that 3D Criss Cross is easier to learn than Prepchecking, and any auditor who can prepcheck can rapidly learn 3D Criss Cross. But it is also interesting that Prepchecking is necessary to know before one does 3D Criss Cross, due to meter experience and rudiments. It is easier to read a meter under Prepchecking than under 3D Criss Cross. But one has to be more skilled as an auditor in pressing home to do Prepchecking than to do 3D Criss Cross.

If an auditor can do skilled Prepchecking and get results his battle with auditing is three-quarters over. The rest is very easy.

A FINAL WORD

There is nothing less than complete precision required of today’s auditor. That precision can be learned and is being learned. It is marvellous to be audited by an Auditor who knows his Model Session and TRs, who doesn’t Q and A and who just goes on and gets the job done, who stays in two-way comm with his pc during the CCHs, and who doesn’t flinch at asking embarrassing questions in Prepchecking. It is NOT difficult to obtain this perfection. Its attainment guarantees the success of sessions and the future of Scientology.

In an Academy teach the fundamentals of Scientology, Axioms, Codes, Scales, TRs, Meter and Model Session, etc. Teach such a student to do the CCHs, old repetitive processes such as ARC Straight Wire, and Prepchecking and let him get his results on graduation with CCHs and Prepchecking as used herein. And graduate him with those skills well learned. Then later teach him a Class II Course bringing his TRs, Model Session and Metering to perfection and teach 3D Criss Cross. Then we’ll have good auditors.

Don’t compromise with auditing skill. And the combination of processes given herein will make every pc you audit thrilled with the results you will obtain.


L. RON HUBBARD
LRH :jw.rd
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO INFORMATION LETTER OF 29 APRIL 1962
All Saint Hill
Graduates
All Saint Hill
Students
General to Orgs
Franchise
Additional Mailing
ROUTINE 3G (EXPERIMENTAL)
(A preview of a Clearing Process)


We are engaged in piloting through fast clearing.

Using the data and experience of 3D Criss Cross (which remains valid and all mistakes of which can be cleaned up as per this Info Letter) we should get faster results and, more important, obtain a continuing gain on the pc until the pc is clear.

The best locator of the Goals Problem Mass is from goals. On any pc (whose rudiments can be kept in), even pcs being run on 3D Criss Cross, the fastest road to clear is probably as follows:

ROUTINE 3G STEPS IN BRIEF

1. Do a goals assessment.

2. List and nul for an item obtained from the goal found, by complete listing.

3. Oppterm the item found by listing, nulling and finding the oppterm by complete listing.

4. Repeat 1, 2 and 3 many times.

------------------

New data which makes this possible is as follows:

1. Listing is auditing.

2. Goals locate more deeply in the Goals Problem Mass than any other line.

3. Other types of line are less accurate and can give the pc more discomfort than goals items.

4. Finding a goal was blocked by out-rudiments, invalidations and missed withholds.

5. What a complete list is has been discovered and tests developed conditionally.

6. Pcs can become upset (given heavy somatics) by incomplete lines and by oppterming wrong items.

------------------

In theory if an Item list is handled as a process, it must be completed.

All charge probably does not bleed off a goals list and these tests do not apply to a goals list as (in goals) a pc is facing no mass, only ideas. In items he faces up to mass. Items are charged, not goals. The following conditional tests are applied to Lists of Items (not a goals list) to establish if a list is complete.

(a) All tone arm action has ceased by list end, but was present and adequate at list beginning, just as in any repetitive process.

(b) By reading the first 12 items of the list back to the pc, as differentiation, no Tone Arm Action is produced. (Use the second 12 for next test.) (No thorough differentiation is done on the list.)

(c) The first 12 items of the list produce no great needle action in nulling and all but one or two go out on reading them the first time. (Use the second 12 for next test, third 12 for third test, etc.)

(d) Almost all the list vanishes on the first nulling of it. No items grind out.

(e) The meter does not respond to a question: “Are there any more terminals?”

Coax the pc into completing the list by these tests. Keep off ARC break reactions by asking for missed withholds and invalidations.

In theory, when the terminal is attained by a goals assessment and a resulting list of items, and when the opposing item is obtained, if both lists were complete, the two items should “blow” and the goal cease to react. This then would make repetitive auditing unnecessary.

------------------

The safest action on any case that has been run on 3D Criss Cross is to take any goal ever found on the case and check it out. If it checks out, ignore the former terminal and complete the goals terminal list as per the above five tests and then oppterm it.

3D Criss Cross is a good training ground.

Any new auditor on Routine 3 processes should be put on 3D Criss Cross with Pre-Hav Levels as a source and be made to complete his list, find an item and do a complete oppterm list.

Incomplete listing, invalidations and out-rudiments are the main faults of Routine 3 processes. A new auditor should be cured of them before messing with a goals assessment, which is the touchiest to do and hardest on a case.

Values gained in receiving or giving 3D Criss Cross are great. Values from Routine 3G are probably much greater and much more comfortable.

------------------

In doing 3D Criss Cross or Routine 3G omit Differentiation as a step except to stir up the pc for more items or to test the completeness of a list.

------------------

A goal is checked (whether new or old) by:

1. Nulling down to one goal.

2. Getting rudiments carefully in.

3. Taking off any invalidations (invalidations when present read the same as the goal or item while the goal or item does not read).

4. Reading the goal, then a goal that went out only after a second nulling of the list, then the goal found, then a nul goal, etc. The goal should continue to read.

A goal or item reads constantly, each time it is said. It reads tick, tick, tick, always the same and every time, providing invalidations are off and rudiments are in.

An item is checked out the same way as a goal.

No item on a complete list should have more than one or two nulling marks after it. If an auditor has to cover a list 25 times to get it nul, it’s laughably incomplete. An auditing supervisor can simply look at a list’s nul marks and tell if it’s complete or not. Too many nul marks equals an incomplete list always.

A complete list, in theory, just fades away and leaves an item.

Perhaps an oppterm list will just fade out and the original item and goal will vanish.

------------------

Routine 3G is an effort to exploit the assess to clear phenomena without auditing any items and to keep the pc continually gaining without slumps.

------------------

Routine 3 failed only because of out-rudiments, poor meter handling, bad TRs and Model Session. It never failed because of its theory or technology.

------------------

It is recommended that, when an auditor is skilled, the pc be placed on Routine 3G regardless of anything found by 3D Criss Cross.

Ignore all previously found or run items. Take up only a goal found (that still checks out as above) or a new goals list.

If a goals list has been lost, reconstruct it by taking invalidations off the subject of goals and having the pc list newly.

------------------

Goals lists run from 100 to 1000, sometimes more.

Item lists seldom run less than 300, usually more.

------------------

Use the same goals list for Step 4 of Routine 3G. Add to it. Nul the whole thing again. Don’t try to get all TA action and charge off a goals list.

Always get all action and charge off an items list.

------------------

The steps of Routine 3D Criss Cross now are:

1. Get a Pre-Hav Level by usual Pre-Hav Assessment.

2. List for the item.

3. Test for completeness with above Completeness tests.

4. Complete if not complete.

5. Nul list to one item.

6. Check out item (as above).

7. Oppterm the item at once.

8. Test oppterm list for completeness.

9. Nul oppterm list.

10. Check out item.

Put anything found on a Line Plot.

------------------

The steps of Routine 3G are:

1. Do or recover a goals list.

2. Nul the list to one goal.

3. Check out the goal.

4. List for an item from the goal. (Use the wording: “Who or what would want to [goal] ?”)

5. Test for completeness (as above).

6. Complete list if not complete. (Do 5 and 6 until the list is complete.)

7. Nul the list to one item.

8. Check out the item.

9. Oppterm list the item. (Use: “Who or what would oppose [item] ?”)

10. Test for completeness of list.

11. Complete list. (Do 10 and 11 until list is complete.)

12. Nul list.

13. Check out item.

14. Assess for a new goal as above and do each of these steps in order.

Keep an accurate Line Plot record of all goals and items found.

------------------

Repairing a case that has had bad or erroneous assessment or running of items on Routine 3 or 3A or 3D or 3D Criss Cross is done by the Routine 3G steps above. The errors should vanish.

------------------

Note that the word “want” is used to get an item list from a goal. “Who or What
would want to .......(goal) .......?” (Not “Who or What would [goal] ?”)

------------------

A pc can be coaxed into completing a list by differentiation, which consists of asking him “Would a (item) want to (goal)?” for each item he or she has listed. But only differentiate a few until pc is going again.

------------------

Don’t Tone 40 ack items or goals a pc gives you. It stops the pc by completing the cycle. Just murmur at him or her when you get a goal or item. Ask the question that is getting items only as a prompt when pc runs down. Not while a pc is talking goals or items. Try to get several goals or items for one question. Coax the pc. Keep the missed withholds picked up.

If the pc gets a “dirty needle” in listing 3D Criss Cross, an earlier item is wrong. (This is a pc “needle pattern”.) A wrong item found constitutes a missed withhold. Backtrack to earlier items. A wrong goal found can cause a “dirty needle”. Otherwise a “dirty needle” is caused by missed withholds. If you can’t clean up a “dirty needle” with missed withhold questions, a goal or item was wrong and you had better backtrack to it at once, no matter what else you were doing.

The way to do it is re-check all items on the Line Plot and correct the earliest item that won’t now check out (unless it and its oppterm blew, of course).

------------------

You will receive more data on Routine 3G as it is found.

------------------

The Modifier is part, it seems, of the oppterm so its use is dropped. It is not found now.

------------------

CAUTIONS

DO NOT LET ROUTINE 3G BE RUN AS THE FIRST ROUTINE 3 PROCESS BY ANY INEXPERIENCED AUDITOR. LET AUDITORS BECOME PERFECT USING ROUTINE 3D CRISS CROSS AS CONTAINED HEREIN. A goals assessment is tougher than 3D Criss Cross and goals are more easily invalidated than items. Further Routine 3G should clear off any errors run into a case by 3D Criss Cross. Therefore don’t train with the only cure. 3D Criss Cross does well with cases too! Train Auditors to do Routine 3 processes with Routine 3D Criss Cross from Pre-Hav Levels. Only when they’re perfect, let them go to more advanced routines. Routine 3D Criss Cross can be run on staffs and HGC pcs with great advantage to the pc and no unremediable risk to the pc.

Requisite to run Routine 3D Criss Cross is good gains with Prepchecking and the CCHs.

We have developed a good process to graduate the auditor to clearing without fouling up pcs too badly in Routine 3D Criss Cross. And the pcs will win too if it is well and thoroughly done.

------------------

All this should be good news to people whose goals have been found.



L. RON HUBBARD


LRH :jw.rd
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED




** 6205C01 SHSBC-140 Missed Withholds
** 6205C01 SHSBC-141 Routine 3G, Experimental Preview of a Clearing
Process
** 6205C02 SH TVD-4A Prepchecking (Aud: LRH), Part I
** 6205C02 SH TVD-4B Prepchecking, Part 11
** 6205C03 SHSBC-142 Craftsmanship—Fundamentals
** 6205C03 SHSBC-143 Prepchecking

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 MAY 1962
Franchise
ARC BREAKS
MISSED WITHHOLDS

(HOW TO USE THIS BULLETIN.

WHEN AN AUDITOR OR STUDENT HAS TROUBLE WITH AN “ARC BREAKY PC” OR NO GAIN, OR WHEN AN AUDITOR IS FOUND TO BE USING FREAK CONTROL METHODS OR PROCESSES TO “KEEP A PC IN SESSION”, THE HCO SEC, D OF T OR D OF P SHOULD JUST HAND A COPY OF THIS BULLETIN TO THE AUDITOR AND MAKE HIM OR HER STUDY IT AND TAKE AN HCO EXAM ON IT.)

After some months of careful observation and tests, I can state conclusively that:

ALL ARC BREAKS STEM FROM MISSED WITHHOLDS.

This is vital technology, vital to the auditor and to anyone who wants to live.

Conversely:

THERE ARE NO ARC BREAKS WHEN MISSED WITHHOLDS HAVE BEEN CLEANED UP.

By WITHHOLD is meant AN UNDISCLOSED CONTRA-SURVIVAL ACT.

By MISSED WITHHOLD is meant AN UNDISCLOSED CONTRA-SURVIVAL

ACT WHICH HAS BEEN RESTIMULATED BY ANOTHER BUT NOT DISCLOSED.

This is FAR more important in an auditing session than most auditors have yet realized. Even when some auditors are told about this and shown it they still seem to miss its importance and fail to use it. Instead they continue to use strange methods of controlling the pc and oddball processes on ARC Breaks.

This is so bad that one auditor let a pc die rather than pick up the missed withholds! So allergy to picking up missed withholds can be so great that an auditor has been known to fail utterly rather than do so. Only constant hammering can drive this point home. When it is driven home, only then can auditing begin to happen across the world; the datum is that important.

An auditing session is 50% technology and 50% application. I am responsible for the technology. The auditor is wholly responsible for the application. Only when an auditor realizes this can he or she begin to obtain uniformly marvellous results everywhere.

No auditor now needs “something else”, some odd mechanism to keep pcs in session.

PICKING UP MISSED WITHHOLDS KEEPS PCS IN SESSION.

There is no need for a rough, angry ARC Breaky session. If there is one it is not the fault of the pc. It is the fault of the auditor. The auditor has failed to pick up missed withholds.

As of now it is not the pc that sets the tone of the session. It is the auditor. And the auditor who has a difficult session (providing he or she has used standard

technology, model session, and can run an E-Meter), has one only because he or she failed to ask for missed withholds.

What is called a “dirty needle” (a pc’s needle pattern) is caused by missed withholds, not withholds.

Technology today is so powerful that it must be flawlessly applied. One does his CCHs in excellent 2 way comm with the pc. One has his TRs, Model Session and E-Meter operation completely perfect. And one follows exact technology. And one keeps the missed withholds picked up.

There is an exact and precise auditor action and response for every auditing situation, and for every case. We are not today beset by variable approaches. The less variable the auditor’s actions and responses, the greater gain in the pc. It is terribly precise. There is no room for flubs.

Further, every pc action has an exact auditor response. And each of these has its own drill by which it can be learned.

Auditing today is not an art, either in technology or procedure. It is an exact science. This removes Scientology from every one of the past practices of the mind.

Medicine advanced only to the degree that its responses by the practitioner were standardized and the practitioner had a professional attitude toward the public.

Scientology is far ahead of that today.

What a joy it is to a preclear to receive a completely standard session. To receive a text book session. And what gains the pc makes! And how easy it is on the auditor!

It isn’t how interesting or clever the auditor is that makes the session. It’s how standard the auditor is. Therein lies pc confidence.

Part of that standard technology is asking for missed withholds any time the pc starts to give any trouble. This is, to a pc, a totally acceptable control factor. And it totally smooths the session.

You have no need for and must not use any ARC Break process. Just ask for missed withholds.

Here are some of the manifestations cured by asking for missed withholds.

1. Pc failing to make progress.
2. Pc critical of or angry at auditor.
3. Pc refusing to talk to auditor.
4. Pc attempting to leave session.
5. Pc not desirous of being audited (or anybody not desirous of being audited).
6. Pc boiling off.
7. Pc exhausted.
8. Pc feeling foggy at session end.
9. Dropped havingness.
10. Pc telling others the auditor is no good.
11. Pc demanding redress of wrongs.
12. Pc critical of organizations or people of Scientology.
13. People critical of Scientology.
14. Lack of auditing results.
15. Dissemination failures.

Now I think you will agree that in the above list we have every ill we suffer from in the activities of auditing.

Now PLEASE believe me when I tell you there is ONE CURE for the lot and ONLY that one. There are no other cures.

The cure is contained in the simple question or its variations “Have I missed a withhold on you ? “

THE COMMANDS

In case of any of the conditions l. to 15. above ask the pc one of the following commands and CLEAN THE NEEDLE OF ALL INSTANT READ. Ask the exact question you asked the first time as a final test. The needle must be clean of all instant reaction before you can go on to anything else. It helps the pc if each time the needle twitches, the auditor says, “That” or “There” quietly but only to help the pc see what is twitching. One doesn’t interrupt the pc if he or she is already giving it. This prompting is the only use of latent reads in Scientology—to help the pc spot what reacted in the first place.

The commonest questions:

“In this session, have I missed a withhold on you?”
“In this session have I failed to find out something?”
“In this session is there something I don’t know about you?”

The best beginning rudiments withhold question:
“Since the last session is there something you have done that I don’t know about?”

Prepcheck Zero Questions follow:

“Has somebody failed to find out about you who should have?”
“Has anyone ever failed to find out something about you?”
“Is there something I failed to find out about you?”
“Have you ever successfully hidden something from an auditor?”
“Have you ever done something somebody failed to discover?”
“Have you ever evaded discovery in this lifetime?”
“Have you ever hidden successfully?”
“Has anyone ever failed to locate you?”

(These Zeroes do not produce “What” questions until the auditor has located a specific overt.)

When Prepchecking, when running any process but the CCHs, if any one of the auditing circumstances in l to 15 above occurs, ask for missed withholds. Before leaving any chain of overts in Prepchecking, or during Prepchecking, ask frequently for missed withholds, “Have I missed any withhold on you?” or as above.

Do not conclude intensives on any process without cleaning up missed withholds.

Asking for missed withholds does not upset the dictum of using no O/W processes in rudiments.

Most missed withholds clean up at once on two way comm providing the auditor doesn’t ask leading questions about what the pc is saying. Two way comm consists of asking for what the meter showed, acknowledging what the pc said and checking the meter again with the missed withhold question. If pc says, “I was mad at my wife,” as an answer, just ack and check the meter with the missed withhold question. Don’t say, “What was she doing?”

In cleaning missed withholds do not use the Prepcheck system unless you are Prepchecking. And even in Prepchecking, if the zero is not a missed withhold question and you are only checking for missed withholds amid other activities, do it simply as above, by two way comm, not by the Prepcheck system.

To get auditing into a state of perfection, to get clearing general, all we have to do is:

1. Know our basics (Axioms, Scales, Codes, the fundamental theory about the thetan and the mind);

2. Know our practical (TRs, Model Session, E-Meter, CCHs, Prepchecking and clearing routines).

In actual fact this is not much to ask. For the return is smooth results and a far, far better world. An HPA/HCA can learn the data in l above and all but clearing routines in the material in 2. An HPA/HCA should know these things to perfection. They are not hard to learn. Additives and interpretations are hard to get around. Not the actual data and performance.

Knowing these things, one also needs to know that all one has to do is clean the E-Meter of missed withholds to make any pc sit up and get audited smoothly, and all is as happy as a summer dream.

We are making all our own trouble. Our trouble is lack of precise application of Scientology. We fail to apply it in our lives or sessions and try something bizarre and then we fail too. And with our TRs, Model Session and meters we are most of all failing to pick up and clean up MISSED WITHHOLDS.

We don’t have to clean up all the withholds if we keep the Missed Withholds cleaned up.

Give a new auditor the order to clean up “Missed Withholds” and he or she invariably will start asking the pc for withholds. That’s a mistake. You ask the pc for Missed Withholds. Why stir up new ones to be missed when you haven’t cleaned up those already missed? Instead of putting out the fire we pour on gunpowder. Why find more you can then miss when you haven’t found those that have been missed.

Don’t be so confounded reasonable about the pc’s complaints. Sure, they may all be true BUT he’s complaining only because withholds have been missed. Only then does the pc complain bitterly.

Whatever else you learn, learn and understand this please. Your auditing future hangs on it. The fate of Scientology hangs on it. Ask for missed withholds when sessions go wrong. Get the missed withholds when life goes wrong. Pick up the missed withholds when staffs go wrong. Only then can we win and grow. We’re waiting for you to become technically perfect with TRs, Model Session and the E-Meter, to be able to do CCHs and Prepchecking and clearing techniques, and to learn to spot and pick up missed withholds.

If pcs, organizations and even Scientology vanish from Man’s view it will be because you did not learn and use these things.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :jw.rd
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

[This HCO B is changed by HCO B 4 July 1962, Bulletin Changes, page 101.]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 10 MAY 1962
Franchise


PREPCHECKING AND SEC CHECKING


How do you use Form 3 (the Joburg), Form 6A and other forms with Prepchecking?

These forms have great value in improving a case, they dig up things. They get off the overts against Scientology that hold up many a case.

Now that Prepchecking is here, with all its vast ability to clean up this life, you still need these forms. For the most general auditor fault in Prepchecking is going too shallow. By using these forms this is to a large measure remedied by the use of all our Sec Check forms as released on HCO Policy Letters or even in Information Letters.

An old auditor, for instance, will make much faster case progress (or even make case progress) if given the Saint Hill Special “last 2 pages of the Joburg and a Form 6A”.

Prepchecking and Sec Checking come together with a simple formula:

IF A SEC CHECK QUESTION DOESN’T AT ONCE CLEAR ON THE METER BY SIMPLE REVELATION, THE AUDITOR PREPCHECKS IT.

The smoothest way to clean a Sec Check question is to ask the pc to consider it carefully, then clean the needle of any response to it and go on. There is no varying the question.

If a question doesn’t clear on one or two revelations, you then swing straight into a formal Prepcheck of the question.

This specific drill, shortly to become a TR, should be precisely followed.

Auditor (watching meter) (using Sec Check Form question): “Have you ever stolen anything?”

(Auditor may tell pc if needle reacted and steer pc’s attention.)

Pc: “I stole a watch once.” (Or whatever response.)

Auditor: “Thank you. I will now check the question: ‘Have you ever stolen anything?’ “

IF NEEDLE DOESN’T REACT:

Auditor: “That seems clear at the moment.” (Asks next Sec Check question.)

IF NEEDLE STILL REACTS:

Auditor: “There’s still something on this.”

(Auditor writes down the question on his report as a Zero A question. Auditor probes for a specific single overt, finds one, forms the What question for use in a chain, writes it on his report and goes straight into routine Prepchecking. When the What question is null, the auditor returns to the same Sec Check question as above, tests it for now being clean. If not, more Prepchecking on it is indicated. If clean now he goes to next question on Form.)

If the auditor knows this drill his progress down a form will be relatively rapid.

The theory of this is that if a question doesn’t promptly clear on the needle then it is part of a chain and must be Prepchecked to get all of it.

The phrasing of the What question for Prepchecking is not the Sec Check question. The What question is derived only from the overt discovered.

Any Sec Check question Prepchecked is tested before leaving it just as though it were found reacting in the first place (same drill as above).

USE OF RUDIMENTS IN PREPCHECKING

Do not continually ask the pc, “In this session have I missed a withhold on you?” while doing any Prepchecking. In Prepchecking one asks for missed withholds only after cleaning a What question and in End Rudiments.

Prepchecking sends the pc down the track. If an auditor says during Prepchecking a chain, “In this session have I missed a withhold on you?” it yanks the pc back to present time and out of whatever incident he or she is in.

In doing a Routine 3 Process one asks for missed withholds often and at any time, but not in a Prepcheck session.

If you do five or so Sec Check questions without a single one having to be Prepchecked, it is, however, good policy to ask for missed withholds. Ask for missed withholds in Prepchecking only after a What question is nul, but always ask and clean it then.

In Routine 3 processes ask for missed withholds at any time.

HELP THE PC

In general, when getting rudiments in or getting off missed withholds or invalidations, help the pc by guiding his attention against the needle.

This is quite simple. The auditor asks the question, the needle instantly reacts, the pc (as he or she usually does) looks puzzled if the auditor says “It reacts.” The pc thinks it over. As he or she is thinking, the auditor will see the same reaction on the needle. Softly the auditor says “That” or “There” or “What’s that you’re looking at?” As the pc knows what he or she is looking at at that instant, the thing can be dug up.

This is auditor co-operation, not triumph.

Most often the pc does not know what it is that reacts as only unknowns react. Therefore an auditor’s “There” when the needle twitches again, before the pc has answered, co-ordinates with whatever the pc is looking at and thus it can be spotted and revealed by the pc. This is only done when the pc comm lags for a few seconds.

Remember, the pc is always willing to reveal. He or she doesn’t know What to reveal. Therein lies the difficulty. Pcs get driven out of session when asked to reveal something yet do not know what to reveal.

By the auditor’s saying “There” or “What’s that?” quietly each time the needle reacts newly, the pc is led to discover what should be revealed.

Auditors and pcs get into a games condition in Prepchecking and rudiments only when the auditor refuses this help to the pc.

New auditors routinely believe that in Prepchecking the pc knows the answer and won’t give it. This is an error. If the pc knew all the answer, it wouldn’t react on the meter.

Old-timers have found out that only if they steer by repeated meter reaction, giving the pc “There” or “What’s that?” can the pc answer up on most rudiments questions, missed withholds and so on.

This is the only use of reads other than instant reads on the E-Meter.

Help the pc. He doesn’t know. Otherwise the needle would never react.

Even if doing a Sec Check form still call it Prepchecking when done this way. This is “Prepchecking on Forms.” The Zero for the whole lot of course is “Are you withholding anything?” Thus Sec Check form questions, when they do not nul at one crack become Zero A questions, and the What formed from the overt found becomes the No. 1 question.


LRH :jw.cden L. RON HUBBARD
copyright ©1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO INFORMATION LETTER OF 10 MAY 1962
Students,
sthil
Franchise
Central Orgs
ROUTINE 3GA (EXPERIMENTAL)

(A Clearing Procedure
Intended to Handle the GPM
Accurately without Liability)


As the commonest difficulties auditors are having and the greatest errors that can be made on a Routine 3 process are the same, I have been working to get around these and may have done so in Routine 3GA.

The difficulties are:

1. Getting a pc to complete a list.
2. Getting the right item.

The greatest liabilities in a Routine 3 process are:

1. Incomplete list.
2. Wrong item.

As you can see (aside from getting the correct goal), the greatest dangers in the processes are unfortunately the most difficult for an auditor to do correctly by recent experience.

Therefore in Routine 3GA we have the same end product as in Routine 3G (as per HCO Information Letter of 29 April 1962) but, if it works smoothly, without the liabilities.

As listing can be considered processing, I have made it follow the rules of processing in Routine 3GA, to wit, plus and minus and possible stuck flows should be regarded. The principle of the four basic flows is therefore used in Routine 3GA (HCO Bulletin of 25 January 1962).

ROUTINE 3GA

This has four steps only:

1. Find a goal (done as in Routine 3 and Routine 3G).

2. List four lists simultaneously to no TA action on any list.

3. Nul each list once in rotation, then twice in rotation, then three times, etc, to try to locate items.

4. Find a new goal and repeat 2 and 3.

STEP ONE

This is the most difficult and is done exactly as in Routine 3 or 3G. The goal must check out to a constant instant tick.

If the goal has an instant “Dirty needle” get the missed W/Hs off it before checking. It will probably vanish as a goal and another goal is the correct one.

Goal finding is made easier by keeping the subject of listing, auditing, the session and the goal free of missed withholds, including the overt of missing withholds on others.

A good, clean instant ticking, constantly reacting each time it is said goal is what we want in Step One.

Once it is checked out as THE GOAL we don’t check it again until Step 3 is complete.

STEP TWO

This is the innovation. We do not oppterm an item. We oppterm the goal itself. Thus we never really have to find an item in order to oppterm. And even if we found a wrong item, it would not further upset the case.

Further, we use FOUR versions of the goal for our lists. And we do Four lists at the same time.

We take items down on one list until the pc seems draggy. Then we pick up any missed withhold and go to the next list. And so on through four lists, around and around until each list shows no TA action on a few items being read to the pc.

The words “Who or What would WANT ....” inserted before the original goal for the first list, the words “Who or What would oppose ....” for the second list. The words “Who or What would not oppose ....” for the third list. And the words “Who or What would not want ....” for the fourth list.

Example:

Goal: To Catch Catfish.

List One: Who or What would want to catch catfish? (Outflow.)
List Two: Who or What would oppose catching catfish? (Inflow.)
List Three: Who or What would not oppose catching catfish? (Restrained Inflow.)
List Four: Who or What would not want to catch catfish? (Restrained Outflow.)

Use four sheets of paper or four double sheets, legal (foolscap) length, ruled or not. Put the page number and the list question, the date and pc’s name at the top of the first sheet, and the page number and list question on subsequent pages. Don’t tangle up on labelling and numbering as it will be a trick keeping four lists going anyway. And if you fail to label them right or list on wrong sheets, you’ll confuse the session horribly. So be neat and try to shift paper quietly in the session to reduce pc’s getting attention on auditor. When a sheet is full drop it on a common pile on the floor, do a new sheet for that list. Separate the floored lists afterwards.

List a list as long as the pc does it easily. Whether this is 3 items or 30 on one list. Then check for missed withholds: “In this session have I missed a withhold on you?” Clean it as necessary and go on to the next list.

Give the pc the list question only often enough to keep the pc going, not for every item he or she gives.

Put anything on the list the pc wants on it. Don’t let pc mutter and claw around for “the exact item”, just keep the pc naming items.

Try to keep the lists vaguely equal in length.

If the “winds of space” turn on (if pc is getting his or her face pushed in) go a little stronger on Lists l and 3. That takes the pressure off.

If pc thinks they’re all complete, pull any session missed withhold, test one or two lists for TA action by reading a few items to pc, and if TA action is present or if the list question reacts (or other tests including finding if the pc still has somatics or pressures), continue listing.

When lists do not produce TA action, etc, the listing can be considered complete.

Do NOT test goal for complete list as a test.

Lists may go to several hundred items each.

Learn to list rapidly. Don’t upset the pc by calling for repeats of earlier items you missed. The pc probably will have forgotten them and get confused.

Don’t pretend you’ve heard an item when you haven’t. Get it correct from pc. He or she will only feel more acknowledged.

Pcs go groggy, lose interest and refuse to list only when session withholds are missed. Running too long on one flow, however, is conducive to withholds developing.

STEP THREE

Nul each list with three repeats of the item. Mark it with a slant for “In”, use an X for “Out”. Tell the pc it’s in or out and go on.

If a list is at all live, listing is incomplete. This is not likely to happen in Routine 3GA unless the auditor has made very short lists.

Nul all lists. Try to isolate an item on each.

Be fully prepared to find, with all rudiments well in, no items and to have the goal vanish. You will have made a long step toward clear if all goes out.

If all doesn’t go out and items and goal hang, lists are incomplete.

The goal may also fail to react on only partially completed lists using Routine 3GA, so make sure the TA action is out of the lists before nulling is begun.

Nul List One once down, List Two once down, List Three once down, List Four once down. Then nul List One through any items still reacting, List Two similarly, etc.

It may be found on further data that nulling one page of each list at a time in sequence, List 1, 2, 3, 4, is easier on the pc than nulling a whole list. This is permissible.

STEP FOUR

Find a new goal as in Step One. You may have to add more goals. You may only need to get missed withholds and invalidations off goals lists and various goals to have a new one pop up.

Repeat Steps 2, 3 and 4.
------------------

If the pc has been run extensively on 3D Criss Cross, Routine 3GA should push off all such charge without further attention according to preliminary findings.

------------------

A good auditing maxim applies hard to 3GA. When the auditor is faced with the unusual, do the usual.

Use Routine 3GA in preference to any other Routine 3 activity.

------------------

Lengthy as this may seem, it is far shorter than finding and auditing items on processes.



L. RON HUBBARD


LRH :jw.rd
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 14 MAY 1962
CenOCon
Franchise
Sthil Students
Sthil Graduates
CASE REPAIR

We, for some time now, have been moving in spheres of higher level auditing which reached deeper into a case than old processes could repair. The definition of a master process would be one which ran out all other processes and processing. We now have such processes.

As there have been several Routines run on various cases, and as there is a new way of Sec Checking called Prepchecking, it is time I issued data on case repair in case any of these routines were done wrong by auditors or left unflat.


Routine 1a

The best remedy for any bracket process on problems is to flatten the exact process that was run and left unflat.

The auditor should explore this and get the exact version.

Only the exact problems process that was left unflat will flatten that problems process.

Sec Checking

Unflat Sec Checking, where material was overlooked, is best remedied by a combination of CCHs and Prepchecking, using the exact Sec Check form originally left unflat and covering it completely again, but using HCO Bulletin of May l0, 1962 which combines Sec Checking and Prepchecking. This will get off all the rough edges that are left over from Sec Checking only. It is quite revealing how much auditors left untouched during the Sec Checking days. And how many missed withholds were generated.

CCH Blowy Pcs

Pcs who give an appearance of blowing while being run on CCHs or who are nattery to their auditors are best run on the CCHs in complete Model Session form, with full beginning and end rudiments on the meter. The body of the session is, of course, run without a meter when Model Session is used on the CCHs.

Never ask the pc if you’ve missed a withhold on him or her with the pc off a meter. Don’t ask it socially either. You can lose more friends that way!


Prepchecking Repair

When a pc has been getting a lot of Prepchecking from one or several auditors and the pc has begun to look withdrawn or misemotional in life, a lot of What questions have been left unflat.

The best remedy, and the proper one, for this is to take all the pc’s Prepcheck auditors’ reports and, in session, test every What question from the earliest one ever asked for needle reaction.

If a What question reacts, no matter what it was, clean it up by the routine

Prepchecking system until the original What question is nul, then ask for missed withholds in the session and go on to the next What question in the reports. Don’t vary the What questions you find in the reports. Just work the chain until you get the chain fully blown.

This cleaning up of every What question left not nul can do wonders for a pc.

Some What questions will be found to be silly. Clean them up anyway.

If another auditor did it, ask, after a What question is nul, “In that session, did the auditor miss a withhold on you?” and clean it off the needle.


CCHs

Where the CCHs have been done wrong or have been left unflat, just do more good CCHs with proper two way comm about Physical originations by the pc. The CCHs done right flatten CCHs done wrong.


SCS

Where SCS has been done wrong or left unflat, just do it right with two way comm about physical originations by the pc and it should come right.

In one case SCS was never flattened on Start because the pc considered the body already started and thus the pc could never execute the command. The remedy was to flatten Stop much better.

Op Pro by Dup

Old Opening Procedure By Duplication has been left unflat on a lot of Scientologists.

One way is to just flatten it.

Another way is to add it to the CCHs as a fifth CCH in sequence and run it only until it ceases to produce change and then go to CCH l. However, I think it’s best just to grind it flat, as it was and is a test of endurance in duplication unlike the CCHs.


Routine 2

If left unflat just ignore. There are things you can do with it such as to add want, not want, oppose, not oppose to the level and list four lines with You or Your as the terminal.

Example: Original level found was “blame”.

Who or what would want to blame you?
Who or what would oppose blaming you?
Who or what would not oppose blaming you?
Who or what would not want to blame you?

Only if a worsening of case was directly traceable to having had a Pre-Hav level run would one recover that level and treat it as above.

The listing would have to be complete on every one of the four lists and it would be done as in Routine 3GA, Information Letter of May l0, 1962.

As the auditor might not have had the right level at the time, repairing Routine 2 should be done only after careful review and probably not even then.

Routines 3, 3A and 3D

The original Routine 3 began with finding the pc’s goal. This also applies to Routine 3A and 3D.

All these are repaired the same way.

You ignore everything but the goal. You skip the terminal or oppterm or the modifier or oppgoal. You use only the goal. Choose the First Goal Ever Found. The FIRST, FIRST, FIRST, no matter who found it or where.

All invalidations, suppressions and missed W/Hs on:

(a) The routines,

(b) The auditor or auditors who did any assessments on the pc,

(c) Scientology,

(d) Listing in general (goals, items),

(e) Nulling any list (including Pre-Hav Scale),

(f) The goal found,

are carefully picked up. The goal itself is worked over hardest. When the goal is clean, it is carefully checked against the rest of the goals list.

If the goal checks out, you then use the current goals routine on it (Routine 3GA at this time of writing) and go on from there.

If the goal does not check out even after the most careful cleaning up of its invalidations, suppressions or missed withholds, add to the goals list and start in to find the right goal and then use it in the current routine and continue with that routine.

This repair is highly specific, is very important, and will have to be done on every person on whom a goal was ever located.

THIS INCLUDES ALL CLEARS.

There is no other method of salvage.

If more than one goal was found, take the first and treat it as given here, then take the second goal ever found, clean it up and so forth.


Routine 3D Criss Cross

Because auditors had so much trouble getting lists completed, Routine 3D Criss Cross is the most important to patch up.

In fact, many cases run on it will not progress on a current Goals Routine until 3D Criss Cross is cleaned up.

The process was powerful and only cleans itself up. But, cleaned up, it gives fantastic case resurgences.

Take all the items found and scrap them.

Take a list of the lines from which the items came, written in the sequence they were used. With the pc on a meter in Model Session, query the pc for his or her reactions on each line at the time it was done.

Take the earliest line source that was done on the pc that gave the pc sensation, pain, heat or cold. In other words, the earliest line source that produced somatics. It must be the earliest. In some cases a goal was the earliest thing from which a list was taken but the listing of a goal, if it was not productive of somatics, can be left, just as any other line source can be left alone on repair—no somatics, neglect the line.

Now comes the only tricky part. Convert the line source into four line sources by entering into its wording want, oppose, not oppose, not want, in that order. These four lines must include the original source line that was listed.

Now list the three hitherto unlisted lines up until they are in even length with the original line done and then, as in Routine 3GA, keep the four abreast of each other. List all TA action out of all lines. Use 3GA tests to find this out.

When no charge of any kind is left, skip the lot. No need, so far as I know at this writing, to nul them as this is just a repair job. When all lines that were formerly active (had somatics during listing) are so repaired, get on with the current Routine 3 Process. (At this writing, Routine 3GA.)

The case gain you’ll get on the pc from this alone will be startling—providing the four lines you list from any single 3DXX source formerly used are now complete.

Note: If pc confused as to which was it, the lines probably aren’t complete. Pull missed withholds on assessments, listing, items and get pc to list further.

Note: Unless you do this repair well, the case may bog when you try to get a goal.

Note: In case you missed it, you throw away all items ever found before doing anything else and you oppterm no items.

On Pre-Hav levels used for 3DXX see Routine 2 above. For flow lines do the expansion with want, oppose, not oppose, and not want as contained herein.


General Repair

Repair of earlier auditing than those processes specifically mentioned here is best done by Prepchecking combined with CCHs. The best Zero question for such repair is any one of those calculated to unearth missed withholds.

A general process on missed withholds, repetitive, will be the subject of another HCO Bulletin and it is permissible to use this to repair all earlier sessions in which the above-mentioned routines were not run.

In general repair you can get nice gains by Prepchecking all rudiments, beginning and end, in a general way. You will be amazed how many have been out on old pcs. I found one who had not answered even one havingness command although auditors had given the pc thousands. That’s thousands of failures to answer the auditing command—and no havingness worked on this pc until I’d discovered and remedied this.

Case repair is a task for a skilled auditor. No case will repair if it continues to be audited badly.

If you want to be sure you can repair cases—and audit them—take an Academy retread or apply for Saint Hill—or both.

LRH:jw.aa .rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 MAY 1962

Central Orgs
Franchise


MISSED WITHHOLDS,
ASKING ABOUT


Since a pc can give a motivator response to the question, “Have I missed a withhold on you?” and since a pc’s case can be worsened by permitting the pc to get off motivators rather than overts, the following becomes a must in asking for Missed Withholds:

“What have you done that I haven’t found out about?”

Use “done”, not “missed a withhold” in all missed w/h questions.

The prior confusion aspect will be found to operate also if this is followed and the missed withhold will blow.

In short use done not “missed withhold” in rudiments and middle rudiments questions and stress doingness rather than withholdingness.


L. RON HUBBARD




LRH :jw.cden
Copyright ©1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED









SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
15—22 May 1962


** 6205C15 SHSBC-144 New Training Sections
** 6205C15 SHSBC-145 New TRs
** 6205C16 SH TVD-5A Patching Up 3DXX Cases, Part I (LRH MTS-3)
** 6205C16 SH TVD-5B Patching Up 3DXX Cases, Part II.
** 6205C17 SHSBC-146 Auditing Errors
** 6205C17 SHSBC-147 Prepchecking
** 6205C22 SHSBC-150 Administration of Courses
** 6205C22 SHSBC-151 Missed Withholds

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 22 MAY 1962

Central Orgs
Franchise


MODEL SESSION CHANGE




In Beginning Rudiments the withhold question should be worded “Since the last time I audited you have you done anything you are withholding?”

This must be answered exactly as asked. It cannot be answered with a “They did to me” or your end command rud will go out.

In the first session the auditor gives the pc the line is omitted.


L. RON HUBBARD



LRH:jw.bh
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED























SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
23 May 1962


** 6205C23 SH TVD-6 Check on “What” Questions and Havingness Probe
(LRH MTS-4)

** 6205C23 SH TVD-7 Fish and Fumble—Checking Dirty Needles
(LRH MTS-5)

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 MAY 1962
Central Orgs
Tech Depts
VERY IMPORTANT

E-METER READS

PREPCHECKING
HOW METERS GET INVALIDATED

Due to the fantastic number of instant needle reactions missed by poorly trained auditors, it would be well to check this question out on any preclear who has been previously audited:

“Has any auditor ever failed to find a meter read on you that you thought should have reacted ?”

Or any version thereof.
“As an auditor have you ever deliberately ignored a significant meter response?”
Or any version thereof.
“Have you ever invalidated an E-Meter?”
Or any version thereof.

“As a preclear have you ever successfully persuaded an auditor the meter was wrong?”
Or any version thereof.

“Have you ever attempted to invalidate a meter read in order to keep something secret?”
Or any version thereof.

Pcs who have routinely had meter reads missed on them become so unconfident of the meter that they are perpetually ARC broke. Only ARC breaks stop a meter from reacting. Therefore this unconfidence in the meter can cancel meter reads!

It is utterly fatal to pass up an instant reaction on a pc. It invalidates the meter and may cancel further reads.

Meters work. They work every time. Only auditors fail by failure to use the meter reactions to guide a session. Only the auditing question or the auditor’s inability to read can be wrong.

Because of bad metering many pcs get the secret opinion that meters do not in fact work. This is caused by sloppy auditors who miss instant reads and fail to clean up hot questions.

If the pc knows it is hot and the auditor fails to see the meter react, the pc thinks he can “beat the meter” and is thereafter harder to audit because of this specific phenomenon.

This is exactly how meters get invalidated—auditors who fail to read them and meters that aren’t Mark IVs. There have been plenty of both in the past, so clean up the above question. It’s all that keeps some pcs from winning.

And, oh yes, don’t miss meter reads! And, oh very yes, be sure you are well trained on meters!

LRH:gl.cden L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 24 MAY 1962
Franchise

Q and A

A great deal has been said about “Q and A-ing” but few auditors know exactly what it is and all auditors have done it without exception up to now.

I have just completed some work that analyses this and some drills which educate an auditor out of it. With a better understanding of it, we can eradicate it. Q and A means ASKING A QUESTION ABOUT A PC’S ANSWER.

A SESSION IN WHICH THE AUDITOR Qs and As IS A SESSION FULL OF ARC BREAKS.

A SESSION WITHOUT Q and A IS A SMOOTH SESSION.

It is vital for all auditors to understand and use this material. The gain for the pc is reduced enormously by Q and A and clearing is not just stopped. It is prevented.

The term “Q and A” means that the exact answer to a question is the question, a factual principle. However, it came to mean that the auditor did what the pc did. An auditor who is “Q and A-ing” is giving session control over to the pc. The pc does something, so the auditor also does something in agreement with the pc. The auditor following only the pc’s lead is giving no auditing and the pc is left on “self audit”.

As nearly all auditors do this, no auditing is the rule of the day. Therefore I studied and observed and finally developed a precision analysis of it, for lack of which auditors, although they understood Q and A, nevertheless “Q’d and A’d”.

THE Qs AND As

There are 3 Qs and As. They are:

1. Double questioning.

2. Changing because the pc changes.

3. Following the pc’s instructions.

The Double Question

This occurs on Rudiment Type questions and is wrong.

This is the chief auditor fault and must be cured.

The auditor asks a question. The pc answers. The auditor asks a question about the answer.

This is not just wrong. It is the primary source of ARC Breaks and out rudiments. It is quite a discovery to get this revealed so simply to an auditor as I know that if it is understood, auditors will do it right.

The commonest example occurs in social concourse. We ask Joe, “How are you?” Joe says, “I’ve been ill.” We say, “What with?” This may go in society but not in an auditing session. To follow this pattern is fatal and can wipe out all gains.

Here is a wrong example: Auditor: “How are you?” PC: “Awful.” Auditor: “What’s wrong?” In auditing you just must never, never, never do this. All auditors have been doing it. And it’s awful in its effect on the pc.

Here is a right example: Auditor: “How are you?” PC: “Awful.” Auditor: “Thank you.” Honest, as strange as this may seem and as much of a strain on your social machinery as you’ll find it, there is no other way to handle it.

And here is how the whole drill must go. Auditor: “Do you have a present time problem?” PC: “Yes” (or anything the pc says). Auditor: “Thank you, I will check that on the meter. (Looks at meter.) Do you have a present time problem? It’s clean.” or “.........It still reacts. Do you have a present time problem? That ......That.” PC: “I had a fight with my wife last night.” Auditor: “Thank you. I will check that on the meter. Do you have a present time problem? That’s clean.”

The way auditors have been handling this is this way, very wrong. Auditor: “Do you have a present time problem?" PC: “I had a fight with my wife last night.” Auditor: “What about?” Flunk! Flunk! Flunk!

The rule is NEVER ASK A QUESTION ABOUT AN ANSWER IN CLEANING ANY RUDIMENT.

If the pc gives you an answer, acknowledge it and check it on the meter. Don’t ever ask a question about the answer the pc gave, no matter what the answer was.

Bluntly you cannot clean rudiments easily so long as you ask a question about a pc’s answer. You cannot expect the pc to feel acknowledged and therefore you invite ARC Breaks. Further, you slow a session down and can wipe out all gain. You can even make the pc worse.

If you want gains in a session never Q and A on rudiments type questions or Form type sec check questions.

Take what the pc said. Ack it. Check it on the meter. If clean, go on. If still reacting, ask another question of a rudiments type.

Apply this rule severely. Never deviate from it.

Many new TR drills are based on this. But you can do it now.

Handle all beginning, middle and end rudiments exactly in this way. You’ll be amazed how rapidly the pc gains if you do and how easily the rudiments go in and stay in.

In Prepchecking you can get deeper into a pc’s bank by using his answer to get him to amplify. But never while using a Rudiment or sec check type question.

Changing because the Pc changes

This is a less common auditor fault but it exists even so.

Changing a process because the pc is changing is a breach of the Auditor’s Code. It is a flagrant Q and A.

Getting change on the pc often invites the auditor to change the process.

Some auditors change the process every time the pc changes.

This is very cruel. It leaves the pc hung in every process run.

It is the mark of the frantic, obsessive alteris auditor. The auditor’s impatience is such that he or she cannot wait to flatten anything but must go on.

The rule of auditing by the tone arm was the method of preventing this.

SO LONG AS YOU HAVE TONE ARM MOTION, CONTINUE THE PROCESS.

CHANGE THE PROCESS ONLY WHEN YOU HAVE RUN OUT ALL TONE ARM MOTION.

Rudiments repair processes are not processes in the full sense of the word. But even here the rule applies if to a limited extent. The rule applies this far: If a pc gets too much tone arm motion in the rudiments, and especially if he or she gets little tone arm motion in the session, you must run Prepchecking on the rudiments questions and do CCHs on the pc. Ordinarily, if you run a rudiments process in getting the rudiments in, you ignore the Tone Arm Motion. Otherwise you’ll never get to the body of the session and will have Q’d and A’d with the pc after all. For you will have let the pc

“throw” the session by having out rudiments and will have let the pc avoid the body of the session. So, ignore TA action in handling rudiments unless you are Prepchecking, using each rudiment in turn in the body of the session. When a rudiment is used as a rudiment, ignore TA action. When a rudiment is used in the session body for Prepchecking, pay some attention to TA action to be sure something is happening.

Don’t hang a pc up in a thousand unflat processes. Flatten a process before you change.

Following the Pc’s Instructions

There are “auditors” who look to the pc for all their directions on how to handle their cases.

As aberration is composited of unknowns this results in the pc’s case never being touched. If the pc only is saying what to do, then only the known areas of the pc’s case will get audited.

A pc can be asked for data on what’s been done by other auditors and for data in general on his reactions to processes. To this degree one uses the pc’s data when it is also checked on the meter and from other sources.

I myself have had it bad in this. Auditors have now and then demanded of me as a pc instructions and directions as to how to do certain steps in auditing.

Of course, snapping attention to the auditor is bad enough. But asking a pc what to do, or following the pc’s directions as to what to do is to discard in its entirety session control. And the pc will get worse in that session.

Don’t consider the pc a boob to be ignored, either. It’s the pc’s session. But be competent enough at your craft to know what to do. And don’t hate the pc so much that you take his or her directions as to what to do next. It’s fatal to any session.

SUMMARY

“Q and A” is slanguage. But the whole of auditing results depends upon auditing right and not “Q and A-ing”.

Of all the data above only the first section contains a new discovery. It is an important discovery. The other two sections are old but must be discovered sooner or later by any auditor who wants results.

If you Q and A your pc will not achieve gains from auditing. If you really hate the pc, by all means Q and A, and get the full recoil of it.

A session without ARC Breaks is a marvellous thing to give and to receive. Today we don’t have to use ARC Break processes if we handle our rudiments well and never Q and A.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:jw.rd
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
24—30 May 1962


** 6205C24 SHSBC-148 E-Meter Data—Instant Reads, Part I
** 6205C24 SHSBC-149 E-Meter Data—Instant Reads, Part II.
** 6205C29 SHSBC-152 Question-and-Answer Period
* * 6205C29 SHSBC-153 Security Check Prepchecking
** 6205C30 SH TVD-8A Getting Rudiments In (LRH auditing demo), Part I
** 6205C30 SH TVD-8B Getting Rudiments In, Part II.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 25 MAY 1962
Central Orgs
Franchise
E-METER
INSTANT READS

An instant read is defined as that reaction of the needle which occurs at the precise end of any major thought voiced by the auditor.

The reaction of the needle may be any reaction except “nul”. An instant read may be any change of characteristic providing it occurs instantly. The absence of a read at the end of the major thought shows it to be nul.

All prior reads and latent reads are ignored. These are the result of minor thoughts which may or may not be restimulated by the question.

Only the instant read is used by the auditor. Only the instant read is cleared on rudiments, What questions, etc.

The instant read may consist of any needle reaction, rise, fall, speeded rise, speeded fall, double tick (dirty needle), theta bop or any other action so long as it occurs at the exact end of the major thought being expressed by the auditor. If no reaction occurs at exactly that place (the end of the major thought) the question is nul.

By “major thought” is meant the complete thought being expressed in words by the auditor. Reads which occur prior to the completion of the major thought are “prior reads”. Reads which occur later than its completion are “latent reads”.

By “minor thought” is meant subsidiary thoughts expressed by words within the major thought. They are caused by the reactivity of individual words within the full words. They are ignored.

Example: “Have you ever injured dirty pigs?”

To the pc the words “you”, “injured” and “dirty” are all reactive. Therefore, the minor thoughts expressed by these words also read on the meter.

The major thought here is the whole sentence. Within this thought are the minor thoughts “you”, “injured” and “dirty”.

Therefore the E-Meter needle may respond this way: “Have you (fall) ever injured (speeded fall) dirty (fall) pigs (fall)?”

Only the major thought gives the instant read and only the last fall (bold-italic type in the sentence above) indicates anything. If that last reaction was absent, the whole sentence is nul despite the prior falls.

You can release the reactions (but ordinarily would not) on each of these minor thoughts. Exploring these prior reads is called “compartmenting the question”.

Paying attention to minor thought reads gives us laughable situations as in the case, written in 1960, of “getting P.D.H.ed by the cat”. By accepting these prior reads one can prove anything. Why? Because Pain and Drug and Hypnosis are minor thoughts within the major thought: “Have you ever been P.D.H.ed by a cat?” The inexpert auditor would believe such a silly thing had happened. But notice that if each minor thought is cleaned out of the major thought it no longer reacts as a whole fact. If the person on the meter had been P.D.H.ed by a cat, then only the discovery of the origin of the whole thought would clean up the whole thought.

Pcs also think about other things while being asked questions and these random personal restimulations also read before and after an instant read and are ignored. Very rarely, a pc’s thinks react exactly at the end of a major thought and so confuse the issue, but this is rare.

We want the read that occurs instantly after the last syllable of the major thought without lag. That is the only read we regard in finding a rudiment in or out, to find if a goal reacts, etc. That is what is called an “instant read”.

There is a package rudiment question in the half truth, etc. We are doing four rudiments in one and therefore have four major thoughts in one sentence. This packaging is the only apparent exception but is actually no exception. It’s just a fast way of doing four rudiments in one sentence.

A clumsy question which puts “in this session” at the end of the major thought can serve the auditor badly. Such modifiers should come before the sentence, “In this session have you ........?”

You are giving the major thought directly to the reactive mind. Therefore any analytical thought will not react instantly.

The reactive mind is composed of:

1. Timelessness.
2. Unknownness.
3. Survival.

The meter reacts on the reactive mind, never on the analytical mind. The meter reacts instantly on any thought restimulated in the reactive mind.

If the meter reacts on anything, that datum is partly or wholly unknown to the preclear.

An auditor’s questions restimulate the reactive mind. This reacts on the meter.

Only reactive thoughts react instantly.

You can “groove in” a major thought by saying it twice. On the second time (or third time if it is longer) you will see only the instant read at the exact end. If you do this the prior reads drop out leaving only the whole thought.

If you go stumbling around in rudiments or goals trying to clean up the minor thoughts you will get lost. In sec checking you can uncover material by “compartmenting the question” but this is rarely done today. In rudiments, What questions, et al, you want the instant read only. It occurs exactly at the end of the whole thought. This is your whole interest in cleaning a rudiment or a What question. You ignore all prior and latent reactions of the needle.

The exceptions to this rule are:

1. “Compartmenting the question”, in which you use the prior reads occurring at the exact end of the minor thoughts (as above in the pigs sentence) to dig up different data not related to the whole thought.

2. “Steering the pc” is the only use of latent or random reads. You see a read the same as the instant read occurring again when you are not speaking but after you have found a whole thought reacting. You say “there” or “that” and the pc, seeing what he or she is looking at as you say it, recovers the knowledge from the reactive bank and gives the data and the whole thought clears or has to be further worked and cleared.

You can easily figure-figure yourself half to death trying to grapple with meter reads unless you get a good reality on the instant read which occurs at the end of the whole expressed thought and neglect all prior and latent reads except for steering the pc while he gropes for the answer to the question you asked.

That’s the whole of reading an E-Meter needle.

(Two Saint Hill lectures of 24 May 1962 cover this in full.)

LRH:jw.rd
Copyright © 1962 L. RON HUBBARD
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED [HCO B 21 July 1962, Instant Reads, adds to this HCO B.]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 26 MAY 1962
Franchise
Central Orgs
Tech Depts
Post Conspicuously IMPORTANT
in Training Office
and on Student Board

TRAINING DRILLS
MUST BE CORRECT


TRs which give an incorrect impression of how auditing is done may not be taught.

All TRs must contain the correct data of auditing.

THIS IS VITAL. There have been two broad instances where TRs gave an impetus to improper auditing which all but crippled the forward advance of Scientology.

These were:

Upper Indoc TRs which caused students to conceive that the CCHs were run without 2-way comm and with a militant, even vicious attitude. (See HCO Bulletins of April 5 and 12,1962.)

E-Meter Needle drills which caused the student to believe that every action of the needle was a read and prevented three-quarters of all Scientologists from ever getting rudiments in or questions cleared (see HCO Bulletin of May 25,1962 and 2 Saint Hill Lectures of May 24,1962).

In the matter of the CCHs, we were deprived of their full use for 5 years and extended the time in processing 25 times more than should have been consumed for any result. This came from TRs 6-9 which are hereby scrapped.

In the matter of the E-Meter it is probable that all auditing failures and widely extended false ideas that Scientology did not work stem from the improper conception of what action of the needle one cleaned up. This came from needle reading TRs where instructors had students calling off every activity of the needle as a read, whereas only the needle action at the exact end of the question was used by the auditor. Auditors have thought all needle actions were reads and tried to clean off all needle actions except, in some cases, the end actions. This defeated the meter completely and upset every case on which it was practised. This accounts for all auditing failures in the past two years.

CCHs must be taught exactly as they are used in session, complete with two-way comm-and no comm system added, please.

E-Meter drills must be used which stress only meaningful and significant instant reads coming at the end of the full question.

Other actions of the needle may be shown to a student only if they are properly called prior and latent reads, or meaningless action. From his earliest training on meters the student must be trained to consider a read only what he would take up in session and clear or use, and must be taught that mere actions of the needle are neglected except in steering the pc, fishing or compartmenting questions.

ONLY TEACH PROPER USE. ONLY USE TRS WHICH EXACTLY PARALLEL USE OF SCIENTOLOGY IN SESSION AND DO NOT GIVE AN IMPRESSION THAT SOMETHING ELSE IS USED.

I have seen clearly that Scientology’s effectiveness could be destroyed by teaching via TRs which can be interpreted by a student as the way to audit when in fact one does not audit that way or use the data in auditing.

There are many valuable TRs. There will be many more valuable TRs. But an invalid TR is one which gives a wrong impression of auditing. These must be kept out of all training.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:gl.rd
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF I JUNE 1962
Sthil Form
All Academies
All HGCs
AUDITING
RUDIMENTS CHECK SHEET

(This is the only Rudiments Check Sheet
to be used in straightening up HGC pcs
or cancelling sessions on Students.)

The following check sheet should be used by Ds of P, supervisors and instructors seeking to establish whether or not the HGC or student auditor got the rudiments in during a session.

This check is not done in Model Session. Only the R factor is put in and “End of Check” is given at end.

Only a British Mark IV Meter is used. Sensitivity is at 16 throughout check.

Note:

During the first two sessions of a pc by that auditor randomity can be expected and the auditor should not be rebuked, as it sometimes takes two or three sessions for the rudiments to be put in solidly for an auditor and for a pc’s needle to get smooth enough to be read by a checker.

Note:

See HCO Bulletin of May 25, 1962 on needle reading.

The checker should carefully repeat at least once any rudiment on which he or she gets a read, stressing “By the end of your last session”. And at first even ask the pc when that was.

As auditing continues for several sessions, if the auditor is putting rudiments in every session, the needle will smooth out and checks become highly accurate. If this does not take place, then the rudiments are not ever being put in by the auditor.

RUDIMENTS CHECK

(Repeat the leading line before each numbered item.
Mark those that give an instant read [HCO B May 25, 1962] .)

By the end of your last session had your auditor failed to find and clear

1. A half truth?
2. An untruth?
3. An effort by you to impress him (her)?
4. An effort by you to influence the E-Meter?
5. Something you were withholding?
6. An unanswered question?
7. An unanswered command?
8. An unwillingness to talk to him (her)?
9. A problem?
10. An unwillingness to be audited in that room?

LRH :dr.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

** 6205C31 SHSBC-154 Value of Rudiments
** 6205C31 SHSBC-155 Middle Rudiments

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 8 JUNE 1962

Central Orgs
Tech Depts

RUDIMENTS CHECKING



It will be found that checking a pc’s rudiments leads to occasional arguments.

Rudiments checking is done after the session by another auditor, more usually a leading auditor or instructor, using HCO Policy Letter of June 1, 1962 to find if the rudiments were in during a session just past.

The rudiments check, especially early in a pc’s auditing when the needle is rougher, or after very poor auditing, often discloses that certain rudiments were not in during the session just past.

Two protests sometimes occur when rudiments have been found to have been “out” on the session just past.

The first is a possible protest from the auditor who did the auditing. The auditor sometimes claims loudly that the rudiments were in but that the checker mysteriously threw them out and that the checker is in error. The auditor has been known to get the pc back on the meter before friends and show one and all that the rudiments check was in fact nul—and it has been nul. But this does not mean the rudiments were in fact in in the session or that the checker erred. It means only this: the auditor’s TR 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 are very weak and there was no impingement on the pc by that auditor. Exception: a pc early in auditing or who has been badly audited doesn’t get the rudiments check question—cure: ask the check question again if you get a read.

The second is a possible protest by the pc whose rudiments have been found out by the checker. The pc seeks to “protect” the auditor and claims the rudiments were “in” in session even if found “out” by the checker. This pc is seeking to validate the stupidity of the auditor. The pc actually has something he consciously or unconsciously wishes to hide from the auditor and so wants the auditor to find the rudiments in, regardless of all evidence.

Pcs have even been known to gradually raise the fingers off one can to attempt to get a rising needle and obscure rudiments reads!

A rudiments checker is more concerned with a pc’s needle getting smoother early on in auditing than in rudiments check results. But after a few days of sessions on a pc a rudiments checker must believe his rudiments check, not the protests.

Students who fight instructors are, anyway, in sufficiently low tone to be able to fight only their friends. As they come up they can have friends and fight an actual enemy, not us.


L. RON HUBBARD



LRH:dr.rd
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 11 JUNE 1962
Central Orgs
Tech Depts
PREPCHECKING THE MIDDLE RUDIMENTS


The Routine Three Auditor (not the Prepcheck Auditor), as the first action in finding a goal and before listing (or before the auditor adds to list), is to prepcheck the following Zero questions in a regular prepcheck session.

Thereafter this same prepcheck is run on the pc about every fifth R3 session.

On goals have you ever suggested anything?
On goals have you ever had anything suggested?
On goals have you ever suppressed?
On goals have you ever had anything suppressed?
On goals have you ever invalidated?
On goals have you ever had anything invalidated?
On goals have you ever failed to reveal anything?
On goals have you ever been careful of anything?
On goals have you ever told any half truths?
On goals have you ever told any untruths?
On goals have you ever influenced a meter?
On goals have you ever tried not to influence a meter?

Now the same list endings with:

On listing ditto above.
On items ditto above.

The word “goal” and the word “listing” are also cleared.

The whole thing can be preceded with the whole list above after “on Auditing”.

This whole scheme is known as “Prepchecking the Middle Ruds”.

The reason for this care and the use of Middle Ruds every time you check a goal or the pc stops listing, is because a goal can stay in with a tick when only invalidated, but would go out if the invalidation is listed. A goal then will go nul if the Middle Ruds are out, or a wrong goal will get active if the Middle Ruds are out.

I have seen so many bum findings on goals that I have finally worked out the above as a solution to being double sure.

I have seen no valid goals where the list was less than 850 goals. I think it takes 850 goals in most cases to get goals as a subject enough discharged to reveal a right one even though it appeared in the first hundred and fifty.

When a wrong goal is used for further auditing the pc gets dizzy and quite uncomfortable. When a right goal is listed it’s all very easy. So you can easily tell if you are listing a wrong one.


LRH:dr.cden L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright ©1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


** 6206C12 SHSBC-160 How to Do Goals Assessment
** 6206C12 SHSBC-161 Middle Rudiments
** 6206C13 SH TVD-9 Checking Out a Goal, Part I
** 6206C13 SH TVD-10 Checking Out a Goal—Fish and Fumble—Part II.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 14 JUNE 1962
Central Orgs
Tech Depts



CHECKING NEEDLE IN RUDIMENTS CHECKS


The following types of needle characteristic are defined and published here as a guide to all rudiments checkers.

CLEAN NEEDLE.

Responsive to instant reads only.

MEDIUM CLEAN:

Offers many prior and latent reads, but reads instantly when a question is asked.

MEDIUM DIRTY:

Agitated throughout check but with periods of no agitation when a read can be obtained easily. Reacts to checker’s voice.

DIRTY NEEDLE.

Agitated throughout check, making reading difficult. Pc’s attention obviously dispersed.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH: dr.cden
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED










SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
14—21 June 1962


** 6206C14 SHSBC-156 Future Technology
** 6206C14 SHSBC-157 Listing
** 6206C19 SHSBC-158 Do’s and Don’ts of R3GA
** 6206C19 SHSBC-159 Question-and-Answer Period
** 6206C21 SHSBC-162 Model Session Revised
** 6206C21 SHSBC-163 Question-and-Answer Period

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 JUNE 1962

Sthil Students
Franchise
CenOCon
MODEL SESSION REVISED

(Amplified in Sthil Lecture June 21, 1962)
(Cancels all previous Model Session Scripts)


A new, far better Model Session has been under development for some months and now that it is stabilized it is released as the official Model Session.

This version has the benefit of requiring no other Rudiments process (except in the Havingness Questions) than the question itself. There are, therefore, no additional processes except Havingness.

Beware of any Q and A in using this script (HCO B May 24, 1962 [ 1 ] ).

Ask a question only until it is clear on the needle. Don’t say it is clear when it isn’t. Don’t ask it again if it is clear. If you couldn’t read it and don’t know if it was clear or reading, say, “The read was equivocal” and say the same question again. Use HCO B May 25, 1962 in reading the needle.

Don’t stray off Model Session into unusual questions or processes to “get in rudiments”.

If you don’t get an instant read, say, “That’s clear” and leave it. If you do get an instant read, say, “That reads” and ask the second half of the Rudiments line. Omit the second half (“What was it?”) if you don’t get an instant read.

Continue to ask the rudiments same question until the read is clear. Don’t ask anything else. If a pc has a badly behaving needle, do a perfect Model Session on pc for 2 or 3 sessions using Havingness or, better, Prepchecking in the body of the session, and you will see the needle smooth out. Don’t expect the needle to become smooth all on one question or even in one session. Just do an excellent Model Session and clean up whatever instant reads and the pc will get better and better. Be careless and unusual in cleaning ruds and the pc will feel worse.

START OF SESSION

“Is it all right with you if I begin this session now?”

“START OF SESSION.”

“Has this session started for you?” (If pc says, “No”, say again, “START OF SESSION. Now has this session started for you?” If pc says, “No”, say, “We will cover it in the rudiments.”)

BEGINNING RUDIMENTS:

GLL: “What goals would you like to set for this session?”
“Are there any goals you would like to set for life or livingness?”

Env: “Tell me if it is all right to audit in this room?” (If not, run hav.)

Aud: “Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?”
“What difficulty aren’t you willing to talk to me about?”

W/h: “Since the last time I audited you, have you done anything you are withholding?” “What was it?”

Ptp: “Do you have a present time problem?” “What is the problem?”

START OF PROCESS:

“Now I would like to run this process on you (name it).”
“What would you say to that?”

MIDDLE RUDIMENTS:

“In this session is there anything you have suppressed, invalidated, failed to reveal, or been careful of?” “What was it?”

END RUDIMENTS:

1/2-unT: “In this session, have you told me any half-truth, untruth, or said something only to impress me, or tried to damage anyone?” “What was it?”

E-M: “In this session, have you deliberately tried to influence the E-Meter?” “How did you try to influence the E-Meter?”

? or C: “In this session, have you failed to answer any question or command?” “What question or command did you fail to answer?”

Dec: “In this session, is there anything you have decided?” “What was it?”

W/h: “In this session, have you thought or done anything I have failed to find out about?” “What was it?”

Aud: “In this session, have you been critical of me?” “What have you done?”

Env: “In this session, was the room all right?” (If question reacts or can squeeze denotes down havingness, run hav.)

G/g: “Have you made any part of your goals for this session?” “Have you made any other gains in this session that you would care to mention?”

END OF SESSION:

“Is there anything you would care to ask or say before I end this session?”

“Is it all right with you if I end this session now?”

“Here it is. END OF SESSION. Has this session ended for you?” (If pc says, “NO”, repeat, “END OF SESSION.” If session still not ended, say, “You will be getting more auditing. END OF SESSION.”)

END OF PROCESS NON-CYCLICAL:

“If it is all right with you, I will give this command two more times and then end this process.” (gives command two more times)

“Is there anything you would care to ask or say before I end this process?”

“End of process.”

END OF PROCESS CYCLICAL:

“Where are you now on the time track?”

“If it is all right with you, I will continue this process until you are close to
present time and then end this process.” (After each command ask, “When?”)

“That was the last command. Is there anything you would care to ask or say
before I end this process?”

“End of process.”

Most flagrant errors that can be made:

1. Not being expert on Meter.
2. Fumbling with script, not knowing Model Session.
3. Asking a question a second time when it was clear the first time.
4. Not asking the question a second time when it read on the Meter.
5. Not saying you could not tell what the read was when you couldn’t. (If you couldn’t you say it again.)
6. Failing to get in the R factor by telling pc what you are going to do at each new step.
7. Doing what the pc suggests.
8. Adding unusual questions or remarks or making sudden irrelevant statements.


PATTER ON RUDIMENTS

(Question) “That reads. What was it. There, that (steering pc by needle).”

(Question) “That’s clean.” (Go to next question without adding “What was it?”)

After a question gets an instant read:

Whatever pc says in answer, then say, “I’ll check that on the Meter,” and ask the same question again.

If question is clean and then pc answers, do not check it on Meter. Just ack and
go to next question.


L. RON HUBBARD




LRH:dr.bh
Copyright ©1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED









[ This HCO B is changed by HCO B 4 July 1962, Bulletin Changes, page 101, and is amended and canceled by HCO B 4 March 1964, Class II Model Session, page 398. ]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 24 JUNE 1962
Franchise
Sthil
PREPCHECKING

(Correction of HCO Bulletin 1 Mar 1962
and to be included as a change in all
Theory Checking of that HCO Bulletin)


The Withhold System of When, All, Appear, Who must not be applied to the overt found for the formulation of the What Question. This System is only applied to the earliest overt one can discover on the chain opened by the What Question.

The exact Prepcheck procedure becomes as follows:

1. Ask the Zero Question. (See HCO Policy Letters and Information Letters for Sec Check Forms. These are “Zero Questions”.)

2. If the Meter gives an Instant Read (see HCO Bulletin May 25, 1962 for Instant Read) then the auditor says, “That reads. What have you done?”

3. The pc gives the overt. (If the pc doesn’t, the auditor can coax or demand until an overt is given, saying such as, “But you must have done something because the Meter reads—What have you done?” until the pc does give the overt on the subject of the Zero Question. A pc well in session will give it. (Note: A severe ARC Break can cause a Meter to react on a Zero Question. Just ask if there’s an ARC Break if you suspect it and ask the Zero again.)

4. The auditor says, “I will check that on the Meter” and reads the Zero Question again. If the Zero Question still gives an instant read the auditor says, “I will formulate a broader question.”

5. The auditor forms and tests What Questions until one gives an instant read the same as the Zero Question did.

6. Addressing the pc directly, the auditor asks the What Question he has composed and verified by Meter test.

7. The pc is permitted to answer the What Question, giving as many incidents in a general way as he cares to. He is never cut off short. Let him talk as long as the pc can give overts.

8. The auditor asks if there are any earlier incidents. The auditor, without a Meter, gets the pc down the track until the pc says that’s the earliest.

9. The auditor now applies the Withhold System, When, All, Appear, Who, to this earliest incident, going through When, All, Appear, Who several times.

10. The auditor now says, “I will check the What Question on the Meter,” and does so, asking it and watching for a read.

11. If there is an instant read, the auditor repeats steps 8, 9 and 10 above until there is no instant read on the What Question.

12. When the What Question reads nul the auditor says, “That is clean. I will now do the Middle Rudiments.” Note: Various end rudiments can be added to Middle Ruds in extreme cases of pc ARC Breaks.

13. The auditor checks the Middle Rudiments and gets them clean.

14. The What Question is tested again. If clean, the auditor says, “It is clean.” And then reads the Zero Question. If it is clean (gives no instant read), the auditor goes on to the next Zero Question. If it is not clean the auditor repeats steps 4 onward to 14 until the Zero Question is clean, at which time he goes to the next Zero Question on the list.

------------------

All What Questions are asked to expose and clean a chain of Overts. If the Zero didn’t clean at once originally, there is a Chain of such overts. Therefore the What Question must be asked so that it can be answered with a number of overts if they exist.

It is fatal not to permit the pc to fully answer the What Question to his complete satisfaction before shoving at him with demands for earlier material. To cut off his effort to give several incidents is to leave him with missed withholds and a probable ARC Break.

Don’t ask the Withhold System of When, All, Appear, Who, on any late incidents. Use this system only to blow the earliest incident the pc can easily recall. This opens Up earlier track if any exists. And if none exists it blows the whole chain.

The pc can experience the effect of collapsing track if the auditor applies the Withhold System, When, All, Appear, Who, to an incident late (closer to pt) on the chain. Or if the auditor won’t let the pc fully answer the What Question when found.

THE WHAT QUESTION

The formulation of the What Question is done as follows:

The pc gives an overt in response to the Zero which does not clean the needle of the Instant Read on the Zero.

The auditor uses that overt to formulate his What Question.

Let us say the Zero was “Have you ever stolen anything?” The pc says, “I have stolen a car.” Testing the Zero on the Meter, the auditor says, “I will check that on the Meter. Have you ever stolen anything?” (He mentions nothing about cars, Heaven forbid!) If he still gets a read, the auditor says (as in 4 above), “I will formulate a broader question.” And, as in 5 above, says, to the Meter, “What about stealing cars? What about stealing vehicles? What about stealing other people’s property?” The auditor gets the same Zero Question read on “What about stealing other people’s property?” so he writes this down on his report. All of 5 above is done with no expectancy of the pc saying a thing.

The auditor does it all in a testing tone of voice with a testing attitude.

Now in 6 above, as he has his question, the auditor sits up, looks at the pc and says, meaning it to be answered (but without accusation), “What about stealing other people’s property?”

Now, as in 7 above the pc will probably mention the car, the auditor gives a half acknowledgment (encouraging mutter), the pc then recalls an umbrella and then a dressing gown and seems to think that’s it. The auditor now fully acknowledges all of these with an “All right!” or a “Thank you, that’s fine.” The auditor does this only when the pc appears to be sure that’s it.

And then the auditor goes into 8 above with, “Now are there any earlier incidents of stealing other people’s property?” and 7 and 8 are played out until the pc finally says something like, “Well, I stole a mirror from a little girl who lived in our block, and that really is the first time.” The auditor now does 9. The pc with track opened by the

When, All, Appear, Who Questions, is again asked, as in 10, “I will check that on the Meter. What about stealing other people’s property? That still reads. Is there an earlier incident (as in 8)?” The pc recalls one, saying, “I almost forgot. In fact I had forgotten it. I used to steal my father’s car keys when I was three!” The auditor says (as in 9), “When was that?” “Is there any more to that?” “What might have appeared there?” “Who failed to find out about it?” asking these four questions in order and getting an answer each time, asking them again and perhaps again. The auditor then says, “I will check this on the Meter (as in 10). What about stealing other people’s property? That’s clean.” And goes on into 12.

The auditor says, “I will now do the Middle Rudiments” (HCO Bulletin June 23, 1962), cleans them and again says, “I will check the What Question. What about stealing other people’s property? That’s clean. “ And immediately does the Zero Question asking, “Have you ever stolen anything? That’s clean. Thank you.” And then asks the next Zero Question on the list.

Note: The pc can go back track as far as he likes without auditor interference.

------------------

TESTING WHATS

To test any auditor’s auditing, and to be sure all is well with a field or HGC pc, the What Questions should be checked out on the pc by another auditor and the pc turned back to the auditor to get them flat. Don’t test Zeros for flatness. Increasing responsibility will unflatten Zeros. Only What Questions become forever nul if done right. So only test What Questions for nul reads. A What Question left alive can really raise mischief, as it constitutes a series of missed withholds.

So test all What Questions formulated for that pc after an intensive or close to its end to be sure. And be sure every What Question used is written legibly on the auditor’s report.
------------------

This improvement in Prepchecking will increase speed, save ARC Breaks and make an easier and more thorough job of it.

Use this version of Prepchecking for all Theory and Practical tests and drills and on all pcs.

Prepchecking still combines with the CCHs more or less session for session.

Form 3 and Form 6A are the most productive Zero Question Lists. For auditors, “The last two pages of the Joburg (Form 3) and Form 6A” is a required prerequisite for higher classes.


L. RON HUBBARD










LRH :dr.rd
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 25 JUNE 1962
Franchise
CenOCon

E-METER STANDARDS


The Mark IV E-Meter is just sensitive enough at sensitivity 16 to get a pc’s rudiments in so the pc knows it and to check out a goal.

No earlier British or American meter is this sensitive.

The use of a meter which does not so register will not detect out rudiments and will not find a goal.

A pc audited on a meter even slightly less sensitive than this will have answers to rudiments questions although the meter says they are clean. Therefore the pc is nerved up with missed withholds and you get an ARC breaky or unsatisfactory session.

This is the most fruitful source of “dissatisfied” or “difficult” pcs. They are being audited with rudiments out when an insensitive meter indicates the rudiments “clean”.

The needle gets dirtier. It becomes hard to read the meter. And, due to lack of sensitivity alone, the meter will find no goals. And as the needle is wilder, goals are even less likely.

Model Session and havingness sessions which are properly run by the auditor will result in an even, clean needle. But if the meter is bad, even when auditing is good, the needle will get wilder as the ruds are actually out even when they seem to be in.

You are doing earlier auditing and Prepchecking to clean up the wildness of a needle so Routine 3GA can be run. If auditing is good and the needle is getting worse, there’s something wrong with the meter or the operator’s meter reading.

Only the Mark IV shows if a rudiment is clean. All others ruin sessions and needles and give you ARC breaky pcs.


L. RON HUBBARD




LRH:gl.bh
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED







SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
26 June 1962

** 6206C26 SHSBC-164 E-Meter Quality
** 6206C26 SHSBC-165 Prepchecking

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 27 JUNE 1962
Central Orgs
Franchise


RUNDOWN ON ROUTINE 3GA


3GA has cleared or is clearing everyone on whom it has been run. It’s a clean sweep. These include several famous rough cases so this one is really there.

Procedure is to get a goal and then make awful sure it is the goal. A goals list is at least 850 long and shows, if complete, no TA action when nulling (aside from a slight drift of the TA normal in any session). Thirty or forty goals that persisted in and didn’t go out are then separately listed and done at sensitivity 16. You have to catch this point in the session.

Then the goal found is checked. This is done by giving the pc a full prepcheck on the Middle Rudiments. Then the Mid Ruds are also done against the goal itself with great care. If the goal remains in solidly ticking every time except when read against a swooping needle, that’s it. It’s best for another auditor to do the checkout.

Then the lines are phrased up as per HCO Information Letter of May 10, 1962. A negative goal can be phrased “Not want the goal quote, etc”, for example, “Who or what would not want the goal quote not to be detected”, “Would oppose the goal quote not to be detected”, etc.

Now here’s an important datum. As many as twenty-five hundred items per line, or ten thousand items in all, have been listed before a needle went free on every line. This was Halpern. Others are of similar length. It won’t do any good to stop short and in fact would lose everything; you have to list to free needle on the first goal found.

The goal doesn’t vanish utterly during listing. The tick read of it transfers off to one or another of the lines in turn.

Ten thousand items means about 200 hours of auditing at the slowpoke rate of 100 items found per two hour session.

So you see there’s considerable listing to be done, and also it’s fatal to list a bum goal.

The cure for listing a bum goal is just to find the right goal and list it.

Listing a bum goal results in a pc’s getting sick and dizzy. The bank goes solid after a dozen hours of listing and the pc has motion sensations or the winds of space.

So we really got it. What we need is accurate auditing to find the pc’s goal in the first place and accurate checkout to make sure that is the goal, and then you’ve got easier clearing than we have ever had and you’ve got 100 per cent clearing.

More and more pcs are getting into listing here and it’s all going by the book.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:dr.rd
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 28 JUNE 1962

Franchise



DIRTY NEEDLES
How to Smooth Out Needles


Quite often a pc is found whose needle is jerky, random, gives many prior and latent reads and goes into small scratchy patterns or wild, continuing rock slams.

Such a needle is hard to read—and such a pc is a long way out of session a lot of the time.

An auditor, seeing such a needle, and faced with the task of reading the instant read through all these prior and latents and scratchy patterns, tends to think in terms of heroic measures. It is “obvious” that this pc has W/Hs, Missed W/Hs, overts and secrets to end all reactive banks and that the thing one ought to do is pick each one of these random needle reactions up as soon as possible. BUT when you try to do this you find the needle gets even more confused. It reads something all the time!

An extreme case of a dirty, random needle is not solved by any ‘‘fish and fumble” or heroic measures.

The pc’s needle reacts that way because of no-confidence, which induces a sort of auto-control in session which induces a dirty needle. Ability to predict equals confidence.

The thing to do is give this pc about 3 sessions of rudiments and havingness just Model Session severely with no Q and A or added chit-chat. The sessions should be each one about one hour long.

All one does is do Model Session, getting the rudiments in carefully exactly by the textbook. Use Model Session, HCO Bulletin 23 June 1962. Use instant reads only as per HCO Bulletin 25th May 1962. And avoid any Q and A as per HCO Bulletin 24 May 1962, “Double Questioning”.

Use Middle Rudiments somewhere during the havingness session.

By doing this perfect, predictable textbook auditing session three times on the pc, most of these prior and latent reads will drop out and the needle will look much cleaner. Why? Because the pc is off auto or in session.

You can make a pc’s needle get dirty and react to many odd thoughts by the pc by doing the following:

1. Try to clean off prior reads and avoid instant reads in getting ruds in (going against HCO Bulletin 25 May 1962).

2. Use a scruffy and ragged session pattern (going against HCO Bulletin 23 June 1962).

3. Double question any rudiments question (as per HCO Bulletin 24 May 1962).

The pc’s needle, even if very clean at the start and loose, will tighten up, develop patterns and dirt if an auditor fails to use a textbook session. This includes raw meat

that never heard of a textbook session. Raw meat particularly requires a severely textbook session. Don’t think because they’re new they won’t know. And too much coffee shop type auditing can rough a needle.

A pc who has become unwilling to be audited is best cured by three textbook flawless sessions of havingness as above. Don’t plunge for what is wrong. Just establish a standard of excellence the pc can predict. And up will come the pc’s confidence.

After the three sessions you can prepcheck or fish and fumble and get things really clean. And providing you continue to use a textbook session, the pc will get better and better.

If a pc still has a dirty needle with many prior reads after an auditor has audited that pc three sessions, then we can conclude that that auditor

1. Is not using HCO Bulletin 25 May 1962 in reading a meter.

2. Is not handling questions as per HCO Bulletin 24 May 1962, and

3. Is not using Model Session HCO Bulletin 23 June 1962.

There are no difficult pcs now. There are only auditors who do not give textbook sessions.


L. RON HUBBARD












LRH :jw.cden
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED














SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
28 June 1962

** 6206C28 SHSBC-166 Rudiments
** 6206C28 SHSBC-167 Question-and-Answer-Period

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 30 JUNE 1962
Central Orgs
Tech Depts

ARC PROCESS


The ARC Straight wire process now used in training is the old
Recall a time.........

This is hereby changed for the following reason:

Students and co-audit pcs go out of session when permitted to answer only “yes” to the command, as two-way comm is deleted and the definition of “In Session” is violated.

With the advent of Repetitive Rudiments the student should be otherwise (and better) trained on a repetitive process.

A second question is thereby added to the ARC process and any co-audit process that can be answered merely “yes”.

The new process:

RECALL A COMMUNICATION. WHAT WAS IT?

RECALL SOMETHING REAL. WHAT WAS IT?

RECALL AN EMOTION. WHAT WAS IT?

Do not use the older versions or any process that can be answered only with “yes” without adding the second question.


L. RON HUBBARD




LRH:dr.rd.bh
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED















[This HCO B is corrected by 27 September 1968, Issue II, ARC Straight Wire, Volume VI-26 1.]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 2 JULY 1962
Franchise

REPETITIVE RUDIMENTS
How to Get the Rudiments In

I am in a hurry to get this bulletin to you and to get it into use for all except CCH sessions.

For a long time I’ve been urging you to get rudiments in. For the past ten days I have been working hard to analyze and resolve why you sometimes cannot.

Just as an E-Meter can go dead for the auditor in the presence of a monstrous ARC break, I have found it can go gradiently dull in the presence of out rudiments. If you fail to get one IN then the outness of the next one reads faintly. And if your TR1 is at all poor, you’ll miss the rudiment’s outness and there goes your session.

To get over these difficulties, I have developed a Model Session that can be used, in the rudiments, as a series of repetitive processes.

Then, with this, I’ve developed Repetitive Rudiments.

The auditor at first does not consult the meter, but asks the rudiments question of the pc until the pc says there is no further answer. At this point the auditor says, “I will check that on the meter.” And asks the question again. If it reads, the auditor uses the meter to steer the pc to the answer, and when the pc finds the answer, the auditor again lays the meter aside and asks the question of the pc as above until the pc has no answer. The auditor again says, “I will check that on the meter” and does so.

The cycle is repeated over and over until the meter is clean of any instant read (see HCO Bulletin of May 25, 1962 for Instant Read).

The cycle:

1. Run the rudiment as a repetitive process until pc has no answer.
2. Consult meter for a hidden answer.
3. If meter reads use it to steer (“that” “that” each time the meter flicks) the pc to the answer.
4. Lay aside the Meter and do I and 2 and 3.

The process is flat when there is no instant read to the question.

One does not “bridge out” or use “two more commands”. When the meter test of the question gets no instant read, the auditor says, “Do you agree that that is clean?” covertly looking at the needle as he or she says “clean”. If the question really isn’t clean, there will be an instant read on “Do you agree the question is clean?” If there is such a read, do 1, 2 and 3 again.

The trick here is the definition of “In Session”. If the pc is in session the meter will read. If the pc is partially out the meter will read poorly, and the rudiment will not register and the rudiment will get missed. But with the pc in session the meter will read well for the auditor. Thus you get the pc to talk to the auditor about his own case, the definition of “in session”, before consulting the meter by using the repetitive process.

What a relief to the pc to have his rudiments in! And goodbye ARC breaks and no auditing results!

Use this system always on the beginning rudiments for every type of session.

Use this system on the Middle Rudiments in a havingness and sometimes on the Prepcheck type of session. But seldom on a Routine 3 (goals) type of session.

Use this system always on the End Rudiments of a havingness session. Do not use it on the End Rudiments of a Prepcheck or Routine 3 type of session unless the session has been full of screaming pc (which with this system it won’t be).

Havingness Type Session:

Repetitive Rudiments System on Beginning, Middle and End Rudiments.

Prepcheck Type Session:

Repetitive Rudiments on Beginning and sometimes Middle Rudiments. Ask End Rudiments against meter as in step 2 and 3 of cycle (Fast Checking, see below).

Routine 3 Type Session:

Use Repetitive Rudiments on Beginning Rudiments. Use 2 and 3 only (Fast Checking) for Middle and End Rudiments unless Session very rough.

So that’s where Repetitive auditing processes wind up. Addressed to rudiments!

A tip—you can ARC break a session by overuse of Middle Rudiments on Routine 3 processes. Never use the Middle Rudiments just because the pc is talking about his or her own case. That’s the definition of In Session. Use Middle Rudiments in Routine 3 when you have not had any meter needle response on three goals read three times (not one goal read disturbed the needle). Then get your Middle Rudiments in and cover the first consecutive nul goal above (the three that gave no response). Don’t use Middle Ruds just because 3 goals went nul. Only if no reading of a goal disturbed the needle for three goals in a row. Also use Middle Ruds when the pc “can’t think of any more” in listing of goals or items. Don’t use every time you shift lists now. Only if the pc “can’t list more”.

--------------

In Prepchecking use Middle Ruds Repetitively after 3 Zero questions have each been nul on a list of Zeros and recheck those Zeros if Middle Ruds were out. Use Middle Ruds after each What question was nulled and check the What question again and rework it if alive. Also check the Zero questions if a What went nul. If a Zero advanced to a What, both What and Zero must be checked for nullness and found nul before leaving them.

One Middle Rudiments use may suffice for both unless one was found still alive after the Middle Ruds were gotten in. Repair it and recheck if so.

--------------

FAST CHECKING

A Fast Check on the Rudiments consists only of steps 2 and 3 of the cycle done over and over.

Watching the meter the auditor asks the question, takes up only what reads and, careful not to Q and A, clears it. One does this as many times as is necessary to get a clean needle. But one still says, “Do you agree that that is clean?” and catches up the disagreement by getting the additional answers. When both the question and the agreement are seen to be clean, the question is left.

In using Fast Checking NEVER SAY, “THAT STILL READS.” That’s a flunk. Say, “There’s another read here.”
-----------------

You cannot easily handle a transistor type meter more sensitive than a Mark IV. The needle would be so rapid in its swings you would find it nearly impossible to keep it centred. Therefore a more sensitive meter was no answer. The TR 1 of many auditors lacks any great impingement. And this is remediable only when “altitude” can also be remedied. There had to be a better answer to getting out rudiments to read better on a Meter for all auditors and all pcs. Repetitive Rudiments is the best answer to this.

(Note: I am indebted to Mary Sue, when I was working on this problem, for calling my attention back to this system which I originally developed for Sec Checking and where it worked well.)


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :dr.cden
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 JULY AD 12
Central Orgs
Franchise

REPETITIVE PREPCHECKING


As the Prepchecking we have been doing is a complicated skill and as recent rudiments developments open the door to simplified handling of overts, you may lay aside all versions of previous Prepchecking and Security Checking and substitute the following.

This is in the interests of improvement of auditing and keeping pcs from being enturbulated by unskilled auditing. The version herein is far easier to train students into as it uses the same actions as Repetitive Rudiments.

REPETITIVE PREPCHECKING

We will still use the term “Prepchecking” and do all Prepchecking by repetitive command.

We will refer to the older version as “Prepchecking by the Withhold System” and abandon it as of this date as too complicated and too susceptible to restimulation of pcs in semi-skilled hands.

THE AUDITING PROCEDURE

We handle any Zero question exactly as in repetitive rudiments, (HCO Bulletin of July 2, 1962).

The session is started exactly as per Model Session, HCO Bulletin June 23, 1962, (or as may be amended). A Mark IV Meter is used (using earlier meters on Prepchecking can mean disaster as they miss withholds).

The auditor then announces for the body of the session, that a Prepcheck will be done on such and such a subject or Form.

The auditor then takes an already prepared Form (such as Form 3, 6A, Prepcheck Mid Ruds, Goals Prepcheck Form [not yet released] ).

STEP ONE

Without now looking at the Meter, the auditor asks the Form question repetitively until the preclear says that’s all, there are no more answers.

STEP TWO

The auditor then says, “I will check that on the meter” and does so, watching for the Instant Read (HCO Bulletin May 25, 1962).

If it reads, the auditor says, “That reads. What was it?” (and steers the pc’s attention by calling each identical read that then occurs). “There... That... That . . .” until the pc spots it in his bank and gives the datum.

STEP THREE

The auditor then ignores the meter and repeats Step One above. Then goes to Step Two, etc.

STEP FOUR

When there is no read on Step Two above, the auditor says, “Do you agree that that is nul?” The auditor watches for an Instant Read on this and if there is an Instant Read on it, does Step Two above, then Step Three. This gives a double check on the flatness of a question.

This is all there is to Repetitive Prepchecking as a system. Anything added in the way of more auditor questions is destructive to the session. Be sure not to Q and A (HCO Bulletin of May 24, 1962).

Be sure your TR4 is excellent in that you understand (really, no fake) what the pc is saying and acknowledge it (really, so the pc gets it) and return the pc to session. Nothing is quite as destructive to this type of auditing as bad TR4.

THE ZERO QUESTIONS TIME LIMITER

There must be a time limit on all Zero questions. Although it says, “Have you ever stolen anything?” the auditor must preface this with a TIME LIMITER such as “In this lifetime . . .” “In auditing. . .” or whatever applies. Form 3 (the Joburg) has to be prefaced with “In this lifetime . . .” on every question. Form 6A, as it speaks of preclears, etc, is already limited in Time.

In Prepchecking the Middle Ruds, use “In auditing . . .” before each question or other appropriate limitations.

The Zero must not swing the pc down the whole track as Middle Rudiments then become unanswerable and a fruitful source of missed withholds.

MIDDLE RUDIMENTS

In Repetitive Prepchecking the Middle Rudiments can be Fast Checked (HCO Bulletin of July 2,1962), (using the package question “In this session is there anything you have suppressed, invalidated, failed to reveal or been careful of?” If one of the four reads, use it singly to clean it in the same worded question and do the remainder of the Middle Ruds singly: “In this session is there anything you have failed to reveal?”).

Use the Middle Rudiments Fast Checked every time you clean a Zero Question, whether the pc had answers for it or not.

PREPCHECKING THE MIDDLE RUDIMENTS

To begin or end a series of sessions (such as an intensive), Prepcheck also the Middle Rudiments.

In such Prepchecking the Middle Ruds, for havingness sessions, the Zeros are as follows:

“Since I have been auditing you is there anything you have suppressed?” “Since I have been auditing you is there anything you have invalidated?” “Since I have been auditing you is there anything you have failed to reveal?” “Since I have been auditing you is there anything you have been careful of?”

To these standards add, in the same question form, “suggested” “failed to suggest” “revealed” “told any half truths” “told any untruths” “damaged anyone” “influenced the E-Meter” “failed to answer a question” “failed to answer a command” and “Since I have been auditing you have you shifted your attention?” Flatten off with O/W as below.

O/W ASSISTS

As a Prepcheck by form and even beginning rudiments are not calculated to handle a pc who is very distraught before the start of session by reason of upsets in life (howling PTPs accompanied by misemotion) or who is too ill physically to settle into auditing, an earlier rudiment immediately after start of session can be used. This is general O/W (Overt-Withhold):

“What have you done?” “What have you withheld?”

These are run alternately. This is never run on a terminal (i.e. What have you done to George? etc). Only the general type command is now used.

When the pc is much better, go into the usual rudiments.

(Note: This is, by the way, the best repetitive process for an assist.)

This is run to a nul needle on both questions. If either gives an Instant Read, continue to run both until both are nul, much as in steps One, Two, Three and Four of Repetitive Prepchecking.

When used to flatten off a Prepcheck on the Middle Rudiments, whether for Prepchecking or for goals type or ordinary Repetitive Prepchecking, the O/W command wording is as follows:

“Since I have been auditing you, what have you done?” “Since I have been auditing you, what have you withheld?”

Both must be nul to conclude the process. If either is found alive on the needle, run both.

When used to begin a session, or when used to Prepcheck the Middle Ruds, O/W must be followed by a Fast Check of the Mid Ruds.

SUMMARY

This type of Prepchecking—Repetitive Prepchecking—is more easily done and more thorough than Prepchecking by the Withhold System and its earlier forefather Security Checking. It replaces both of these.

In view of the fact that the same system is used for Repetitive Rudiments (HCO Bulletin of July 2, l962), by learning one, the student also learns the other, thus saving a lot of time in study and training.

Repetitive Prepchecking replaces former auditing requirements for Class IIa and is the Class II skill.

It should be thoroughly instilled in the auditor that extra doingness by the auditor is detractive from the system and that every additive is a liability, not required in the system and liable to upset the pc. It is a must that the auditor be very capable with TR4 and that the auditor makes no attempt to shut off routine pc originations as the intensity of “In Sessionness” generated by modern Model Session used with Repetitive Rudiments and Repetitive Prepchecking is such as to make the ARC breaks quite shattering to the pc if TR4 is bad.

If Repetitive Prepchecking is run right, with good metering, the only remaining source of missed withholds is the inadvertent withhold caused by bad TR4. (The pc said it but the auditor didn’t understand it.)

This bulletin culminates three years of exhaustive research into the formation of Model Session, Rudiments and the handling of overts, and overcoming the limitations of the auditor and student in handling sessions. This, coming with the broad success of Routine 3GA, rounds out auditing from raw meat to clear for all cases capable of speech. These techniques represent a data span of 13 years and a general research of 32 years.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:dr.cden
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED











[This HCO B is changed by HCO B 4 July 1962, Bulletin Changes, which is on the following page.]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 4 JULY 1962
Central Orgs
Franchise


BULLETIN CHANGES

(Changes in Model Session
HCO Bulletin June 23, 1962, HCO Bulletin May 3, 1962
and HCO Bulletin July 3, 1962)



(Note: Make changes on your copies of HCO Bulletin May 3, 1962, HCO Bulletin June 23, 1962 and HCO Bulletin July 3, 1962 so that students passing these bulletins do not have to give the outdated data in their Theory Examination of HCO Bulletins May 3, 1962, June 23, 1962 and July 3, 1962. This HCO Bulletin July 4, 1962 is to be passed also in Theory as it gives Why.)

HAVINGNESS RUD

The Room Rudiment is dropped from Model Session in the Beginning Rudiments but remains in the End Rudiments.

Abolish its use in Beginning Rudiments. Retain its use in End Rudiments in all HGCs, Academies, staff auditing and the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course.

The Room Rudiment spoils the evenness of Repetitive Rudiments and as often as not takes the pc’s attention out of session.

MISSED WITHHOLDS

The question: “In this Session have you thought, said or done anything I have failed to find out?” is to be used in all Model Sessions as a Random Rudiment to be used in strict accordance with HCO Bulletin May 3, 1962, “ARC Breaks—Missed Withholds”. It remains also as part of End Rudiments.

The word “about” is deleted from the end rudiment question as it is unnecessary.

Change your copy of HCO Bulletin May 3, 1962 to give the above as the standard command.

This is used whenever the pc starts to get tense or tries to explain urgently. Don’t let the pc get into a full ARC Break. See it coming. But if pc does get into a heavy ARC Break it is of course used. It means the auditor was slow observing.

Its use is always repetitive as in any other Repetitive Rudiment.

The “said” is added to prevent upset from poor TR4.

OVERT/WITHHOLD

At the start of any session, after starting the session, General O/W may be used on any pc who is feeling ill or misemotional before session beginning by reason of heavy restimulation or acute PTPs. This is run only until the pc feels better and has cycled to present time. It is not run until both questions are nul (as given in HCO Bulletin July 3, 1962).

Use the cyclic type ending on the process.

Follow this action by Repetitive asking of the Missed Withhold Rudiment above to prevent a missed withhold from occurring.

END WORDS

The E-Meter has two holes in it. It does not operate on an ARC broken pc and it can operate on the last word (thought minor) only of a question. Whereas the question (thought major) is actually nul.

A pc can be checked on the END WORDS OF RUDIMENTS QUESTIONS and the charge on those single words can be made known and the question turned around to avoid the last word’s charge.

Example: “Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?”

The word “difficulties”, said to the pc by itself gives an Instant Read. Remedy: Test “Difficulties”. If it reads as itself then change the question to: “Concerning your difficulties, are you willing to talk to me?” This will only react when the pc is unwilling to do so.

Caution: This trouble of END WORDS reading by themselves occurs mainly in the presence of weak TR1 and failure to groove in the question to a “thought major”. With good TR1, the END WORDS read only when the question is asked.

IN PRACTICE you only investigate this when the pc insists strongly that the question is nul. Then test the end word for lone reaction and turn the question about to make it end with another end word (question not to have words changed, only shifted in order). Then groove it in and test it for Instant Read. If it still reacts as a question (thought major) then of course, it is not nul and should be answered.

CLEAN

Change HCO Bulletin July 3, 1962 to read: Do not pay attention to any reaction consequent to asking “Do you agree that that is clean?”

Trying to handle a reaction to this second question is too involved for ordinary handling. If the main question reads nul, ignore a read on “Do you agree that is clean?”

DOUBLE CLEANING

“Cleaning” a rudiment that has already registered nul gives the pc a Missed Withhold of nothingness. His nothingness was not accepted. The pc has no answer. A missed no-answer then occurs. This is quite serious. Once you see a Rudiment is clean, let it go. To ask again something already nul is to leave the pc baffled—he has a missed withhold which is a nothingness.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:dr.aap.cden
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 4 JULY 1962
Central Orgs
Tech Depts



COACHLESS TRAINING
USE OF A DOLL


As it is better in the absence of good coaches to do many drills (but not TR0, 1, 2, 3, 4) with the student solo, mocking up the session as he goes, we are using this at Saint Hill.

A student, many of whom feel the emptiness of the empty chair he or she is facing, should make or buy and use a doll.

The doll need not be elaborate but should be at least a foot tall, preferably two feet.

The drills of spitting out rapidly Model Session Repetitive Rudiments, Fast Rudiments, Listing, Nulling, etc, are at this time being done Coachless and great progress is being made.

But the empty chair “gets” some auditors. Therefore the doll. Dolls were used in training first in 1957.


L. RON HUBBARD


LRH:gl.cden
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED












SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
10 - 12 July 1962


** 6207C10 SHSBC-168 Repetitive Rudiments and Repetitive Prepchecking,
Part I

** 6207C10 SHSBC-169 Repetitive Rudiments and Repetitive Prepchecking,
Part II

** 6207C12 SHSBC-174 Meter Reading

** 6207C12 SHSBC-175 Meter Training

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 14 JULY 1962

Sthil Students
CenOCon
All Sthil Grads
URGENT

AUDITING ALLOWED


I want every auditor auditing to be perfect on a meter. To be otherwise can be catastrophic.

By perfect is meant:

1. Auditor never tries to clean a clean read;

2. Auditor never misses a read that is reacting.

One mistake on M.S. or TRs may not ruin a session. One mistake on a meter read can ruin a session. That gives you the order of importance of accurate never-miss meter reading.

All bad auditing results have now been traced to inaccuracy in meter reading. Other aspects of a session should be perfect. But if the session, even vaguely following a pattern session, comes to grief, IT IS ONLY METER READING ACCURACY THAT IS AT FAULT.

I have carefully ferreted this fact out. There is only one constant error in sessions that produce no results or poor results; inaccurate meter reading. This is also true for student and veteran auditors alike.

When an auditor starts using unusual solutions, he or she was driven to them by the usual solution not working. The usual solution always works unless the meter needle reading is inaccurate.

If an auditor is using unusual solutions, then THAT AUDITOR’S METER READING IS INACCURATE. Given this, consequent ARC breaks and failures drive the auditor to unusual solutions.

A D of P who has to dish out unusual solutions has auditors who are missing meter reads.

Meter reading must be perfect every session. What is perfect?

1. Never try to clean a read that is already clean.

2. Never miss an instant reaction of the needle.

If you try to clean a clean rudiment, the pc has the missed withhold of nothingness. The auditor won’t accept the origination or reply of nothingness. This can cause a huge ARC break, worse than missing a somethingness. A nothingness is closer to a thetan than somethingness.

If you miss an instant reaction you hang the pc with a missed withhold and the results can be catastrophic.

If you fumble and have to ask two or three times, the read damps out, the meter can become inoperative on that pc for the session.

If you miss on one rudiment, the next even if really hot can seem to be nul by reason of ARC break.

A meter goes nul on a gradient scale of misses by the auditor. The more misses, the less the meter reads.

Meter perfection means only accurate reading of the needle on instant reads. It is easily attained.

An auditor should never miss on a needle reaction. To do so is the basis of all unsuccessful sessions. Whatever else was wrong with the session, it began with bad meter reading.

Other auditing actions are important and must be done well. But they can all be overthrown by one mistake in metering.

1. Never clean a clean needle.

2. Never miss a read.

Unless metering perfection is attained by an auditor, he or she will continue to have trouble with preclears.

The source of all upset is the missed withhold.

The most fruitful source of missed withholds is poor metering.

The worst TR 4 is failure to see that there is nothing there or failing to find the something that is there on an E-Meter.

This is important: Field Auditors, Academies and HGCs are all being deprived of the full benefit of processing results by the one read missed out of the 200 that were not missed. It is that critical!

A good pro, by actual inspection, is at this moment missing about eight or nine reads per session, calling one that is clean a read and failing to note a read that read.

This is the 5 to 1 ratio noted between HGC auditing and my auditing. They miss a few. I don’t. If I don’t miss meter reads, and don’t have ARC breaky pcs, why should you? With modern session pattern and processes well learned, all you have to acquire is the ability to never miss on reading a needle. If I can do it you can.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:dr.cden
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 15 JULY 1962
Sthil Students
CenOCon

GOALS PREPCHECK FORM
ROUTINE 3GA


It is mandatory that this form be completed after a goal has been found and before any listing is begun. ALL DONE AT SENS 16 on a Mark IV Meter.


_________________________________________ ________________________
Pc’s Name Date

_________________________________________
Organization

GOAL FOUND


A. MODEL SESSION REP. RUDS: Auditor_______________________

W/Hs______________________ PTP______________________

B. READ goal to pc: Reacts____________ Reacts______________

Reacts____________

C. READ GOAL ONCE AND THEN ONE OF THE LAST 30 goals that stayed in well, back and forth, until none of the long list goals react and the goal stays in at Sensitivity 16.

LIST of 30 All Nul___________________

READ GOAL TO PC: Reacts___________ Reacts______________

Reacts___________

D. Is the Instant Read exactly at the end of the last word in the goal or does it occur across the last word? If it occurs at the end of the last word consistently, neither prior nor latent, continue the check. If the read is prior or latent and not exactly at the end of the last word, even when the goal is read several times, do not go on with this check. Do not try to use the fragment to compile a new goal. Continue goals listing.

---------------

PREPCHECK

Use Repetitive Prepcheck System only:

E. On goals is there anything:

Another has suggested___________

You have failed to suggest___________

You have suggested___________

You have suppressed___________

You have failed to suppress___________

You have protested___________

Another has invalidated___________

You have invalidated___________

You have failed to reveal___________

You have been careful of___________

F. On the goal___________is there anything:

Another has suggested___________

You have failed to suggest___________

You have suggested___________

You have suppressed___________

You have failed to suppress___________

You have protested___________

Another has invalidated___________

You have invalidated___________

You have failed to reveal___________

You have been careful of___________

-----------------

G. READ GOAL TO PC: Reacts____________ Reacts_____________

Reacts____________

(If goal does not react when read in Section G, do Section H.)

H. Do you get a reaction when you ask pc—Has this goal been:

Suppressed___________

Invalidated___________

If no reaction do I.
If reaction, clean with Rep. Prepcheck.

I. Read goal to pc: Reacts____________ Reacts____________

Reacts____________

J. If reaction is a multiple reaction and not a clean single tick (if needle reacts as a dirty needle on the Instant Read) ask Repetitive “Are you withholding the goal from anyone?” Clean off any read.

K. Read goal to pc: Reacts____________ Reacts____________

Reacts____________

L. Do Mid Ruds Repetitive.

M. Read goal to pc: Reacts____________ Reacts____________

Reacts____________

(Note: Do any goal found up to this point, if it got past D above. If the goal does not give a clean single tick every time it is read except against a fast rise, abandon it. If goal reads in Section L use it for listing as it is the goal.)

N. Compose list wording: (Do not change pronouns. If “Myself” or some such word invites you to do so, use the goal just as it is. If goal is negative use just as it is.)

1. Who or what would want to
___________________________

2. Who or what would not want to
___________________________

3. Who or what would oppose
___________________________(Change verb in goal to “ing” form.)

4. Who or what would not oppose
___________________________(Change verb in goal to “ing” form.)

Lines formed all reacted like the goal___________________

If not do a repetitive check on Mid Ruds and test again. Get pc to agree to lines or find out why not.

When all lines react as an instant read, it is safe to list goal.

Comments:____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

__________________ _________________________________
Date Auditor


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:gl.rd
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 17 JULY AD12
CenOCon
Sthil Students


ROUTINE 3GA
HCO WW R-3GA Form 1
LISTING PREPCHECK


Before and during listing of goals, and before beginning to list items for any goal from the four lines, and during listing, the following Prepcheck must be completed as a form for the pc. It must thereafter be done every fifth session. The form must be made out for the pc and included in his or her folder.

The Prepcheck is done Repetitive (HCO Bulletin of 3 July AD12) in Model Session with a Mark IV Meter.


______________________________________________ ____________________
Pc’s Name Date

______________________________________________
Location of Org

Mark when clean:

A: In auditing is there anything you have

Suggested________ Protested________
Failed to suggest________ Done to anyone________
Suppressed________ Tried to make anyone guilty of________
Invalidated________ Altered________
Revealed________ Decided________
Failed to reveal________ Blamed________
Regretted________

B: Since you have begun auditing is there anything another has failed to find out about you?________

Since your arrival at (location) is there anything you have done to another that we have failed to find out?________

C: In this lifetime, on listing is there anything you have

Suggested________ Protested________
Failed to suggest________ Done to anyone________
Suppressed________ Tried to make anyone guilty of________
Invalidated________ Altered________
Revealed________ Decided________
Failed to reveal________ Blamed________
Regretted________

D: Since you have started Scientology listing has anything shifted your attention?

Since you have started Scientology listing is there anything you have

Suggested________ Protested________
Failed to suggest________ Done to anyone________
Suppressed________ Tried to make anyone guilty of________
Invalidated________ Altered________
Revealed________ Decided________
Failed to reveal________ Blamed________
Regretted________


E: FOR LINE LISTING AFTER GOAL HAS BEEN FOUND.

1. On the line “Who or what would want to______(goal)” is there anything you have

Suggested________ Protested________
Failed to suggest________ Done to anyone________
Suppressed________ Tried to make anyone guilty of________
Invalidated________ Altered________
Revealed________ Decided________
Failed to reveal________ Blamed________
Regretted________

2. On the line “Who or what would not want to_______(goal)” is there anything you have

Suggested________ Protested________
Failed to suggest________ Done to anyone________
Suppressed________ Tried to make anyone guilty of________
Invalidated________ Altered________
Revealed________ Decided________
Failed to reveal________ Blamed________
Regretted________

3. On the line “Who or what would oppose________ing (goal)” is there anything you have

Suggested________ Protested________
Failed to suggest________ Done to anyone________
Suppressed________ Tried to make anyone guilty of________
Invalidated________ Altered________
Revealed________ Decided________
Failed to reveal________ Blamed________
Regretted________

4. On the line “Who or what would not oppose__________ing (goal)” is there anything you have

Suggested________ Protested________
Failed to suggest________ Done to anyone________
Suppressed________ Tried to make anyone guilty of________
Invalidated________ Altered________
Revealed________ Decided________
Failed to reveal________ Blamed________
Regretted________

F: USE ONLY AFTER GOAL HAS BEGUN TO BE LISTED:

On the goal_________(goal) is there anything you have

Suggested________ Protested________
Failed to suggest________ Done to anyone________
Suppressed________ Tried to make anyone guilty of________
Invalidated________ Altered________
Revealed________ Decided________
Failed to reveal________ Blamed________
Regretted________

Date completed__________________________ Auditor_____________________


L. RON HUBBARD
LRH: dr.rd
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED




[This HCO PL is changed by HCO PL 22 July 1962, Routine 3GA-Listing Wording.]














SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
17 July 1962


** 6207C17 SHSBC-170 E-Meter Reads and ARC Breaks

** 6207C17 SHSBC-17 1 Anatomy of ARC Breaks

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 19 JULY 1962

Sthil Students
CenOCon
CLEARING—FREE NEEDLES


Any auditor running a Routine 3 process and obtaining a free needle on an E-Meter should, on the Saint Hill course, have an Instructor observe and verify that condition and in a Central Organization should have it observed by an HCO Area Secretary.

Any auditor obtaining a free needle on all lines continuously (the state of a first goal clear) should, on the Saint Hill course, demonstrate that condition to an Instructor and, in a Central Organization, to an HCO Area Secretary.

An Instructor or HCO Area Secretary should make a statement on the auditing report testifying to the fact and existence of the free needle.

In short, there are two stages of observation—the first free needle obtained on one line and the state of continuous free needle on all lines.

No verbal statement by an auditor, not otherwise confirmed as above is to be given credence or be used to establish the condition of a case.

The early observation on one line being difficult to maintain for observation is not mandatory, but if not verified as above may not be claimed.

The state of a “first goal clear” is established by:

1. A free needle on each line ]listed from the goal.

2. No reaction of the goal on the meter after a final prepcheck on that goal as per HCO Policy Letter 15 July 1962.

3. Tone Arm near Clear Read.

A free needle is not a stage 4 needle or an inverted stage 4. It is floating and free.

In Routine 3GA we have actual, lasting clearing. It is accomplished by expert and exact auditing. There is no reason to fake the condition or rumour that someone is clear when he or she is not, or to tell someone he or she is clear when they are not.

----------------

We are on solid ground with technology and procedure. Let’s keep it that way. The goal has been sought on Earth for 2,500 years. We have achieved 8 first goal clears on the Saint Hill course in the last two months. People, with reason, trust a clear. We have attained the state of clear in Man. We must not upset that Trust.


LRH :gl.cden L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


** 6207C19 SHSBC-172 The E-Meter
** 6207C19 SHSBC-173 Question-and-Answer Period

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 JULY 1962

Franchise
Sthil Students

URGENT


INSTANT READS
(Adds to HCO Bulletin of 25 May 1962)


On Rudiments, repetitive or fast, the instant read can occur anywhere within the last word of the question or when the thought major has been anticipated by the preclear, and must be taken up by the auditor. This is not a prior read. Preclears poorly in session, being handled by auditors with indifferent TR One, anticipate the instant read reactively as they are under their own control. Such a read occurs into the body of the last meaningful word in the question. It never occurs latent.

In other words all reads occurring when the major thought has been received by the preclear must be taken up and cleaned. This does not mean all needle reactions occurring while question is being asked must be cleaned, but it does mean that the instant read is often to be found before the last meaningful word is spoken fully, and it is catastrophic not to take it up and clean it.

Goals and items are however read only when the read occurs exactly at the end of the last word.

This will give you cleaner sessions and smoother needles.


L. RON HUBBARD





LRH:dr.pm rd
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
















[This HCO B was cabled to the Hubbard Communications Office in Washington, D.C., who issued it on the same date as above under the title of Rudiments Repetitive or Fast.]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 22 JULY 1962
Sthil Students
CenOCon

ROUTINE 3GA
LISTING WORDING

(Changes HCO Policy Letter 17 July 1962, “Listing Prepcheck”
and HCO Policy Letter 15 July 1962, “Goals Prepcheck Form”)


The wording of the four lines for listing out a goal should be as follows:

Line One: “Who or what would want to (goal) ?”

Line Two: “Who or what would oppose (goal -ing form) ?”

Line Three: “Who or what would pull back opposition to (goal -ing form) ?”

Line Four: “Who or what would pull somebody or something back from (goal -ing form) ?”

It will be noted that lines One and Two remain the same.

Also it should be noted that there is no alternate to “pull back” (restrain, retard, give different vectors).

It should be noted also that the goal changes in form on three lines to the “ing” form of the verb in the goal. Example: Goal—”to fish” changes to “fishing”.

These changes are for all goals. If a goal is currently being listed, change the list wording to the above.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH: dr.rd
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


[See HCO B 21 August 1962, 3GA-Line Wording, page 130, which changes earlier issues on 3GA lines.]






SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
24 - 26 July 1962


** 6207C24 SHSBC-176 Routine 3GA, Part I
** 6207C24 SHSBC-177 Routine 3GA, Part II.
** 6207C26 SHSBC-178 Routine 3GA
** 6207C26 SHSBC- 179 Prepchecking

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 24 JULY 1962
Sthil Students
CenOCon
R3GA
HCO WW FORM G3
FAST GOALS CHECK

(Keep completed form in pc’s folder)

This is a rapid check out of a goal for use by Auditors and particularly Instructors and Auditing Supervisors. By an Auditor it is done in Model Session. By an Instructor or Supervisor it is done as a simple check out.

ALWAYS COMPLETE WHOLE CHECK.

___________________________________________ _____________________
Pc’s Name Date

___________________________________________
Org Location

Goal_________________________________________________________________

A: Read goal rapidly to pc three times __________ __________ ___________
Note reaction and inform pc if in or out.

B: Repetitive Ruds. (Early reads are acceptable as instant reads on ruds, not on goal which must be instant only.)

On the goal _______________________________________________________
has anything been
Suppressed______________ Invalidated ______________
Suggested_______________ Withheld ________________

Only when each is clean, go to next and when all clean go to C.

C: Read goal rapidly to pc three times Note reaction and tell pc if in or out.

D: Do fast ruds: Is there anything you have suppressed, suggested, invalidated, failed to reveal. When all nul, go to E.

E: Do fast ruds plus goal with no pause between ruds and goal.

On the goal _______________________________________________________
is there anything you have suppressed, suggested, invalidated or failed to reveal.
(Goal)___________ (Goal) ____________ (Goal)____________

If none of ruds read in this section and goal did read, providing the meter reading of the check was flawless it is the right goal.

This section must be read all in one sweep to be valid, with no read on any rud and a sharp downward tick each time exactly at end on the goal read. Don’t add in the goal until all four ruds items read nul in one sweep. Then read the ruds line and the goal 3 times in one breath.

Goal checked out_______________ ________________________________
Auditor
Goal didn’t check out____________


LRH:dr.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 30 JULY 1962
Franchise



A SMOOTH HGC 25 HOUR INTENSIVE



Here is the pattern for a new Problems Intensive that can be given by HGC or field auditors and which will get them marvellous results on new or old pcs.

This arrangement makes prepchecking come into its own, for if it is well done then the pc is fairly well set up for having his goal found.

This intensive is amazingly easy to run providing that the auditor does it pretty well muzzled and does not violate repetitive prepchecking drill. Of course if the auditor’s meter reading is not perfect and if the auditor is not cognizant of recent HCO Bulletins on the meter and if the auditor misses as many as two reads in a session, this whole result can wind up in a fiasco. If the pc doesn’t feel better on this one then the auditor just didn’t read the meter or miserably flubbed current drill. Of these two the D of P had better suspect the meter readings if anything goes wrong.

The first thing to do is complete the old case assessment form. We do this in Model Session and check after each small section of it as to whether we’ve missed a withhold on the pc.

We then assess the self-determined change list (and don’t goof and put other determined changes on the pc’s change list, or we’ll be assessing engrams).

We find the most important, most reacting change in the pc’s life by the largest read. This can also be done by elimination.

We then locate the prior confusion to that change. In no case will it be earlier than two weeks from the incident. These confusions, so often missed by the auditor, take place from two weeks to five minutes before the actual decision to change.

Having located the time of the prior confusion, but not done anything else about it, no lists of names or anything like that, we then go one month earlier in date.

This gives us an exact date for our questions. Let us say the self-determined change was June 1, 1955. The prior confusion was May 20, 1955, and the arbitrary month earlier was April 20, 1955. We get the pc to spot this arbitrary date more or less to his own satisfaction.

We now form a question as follows: “Since (date) is there anything you have.......?”

The endings are in this order: Suppressed, Suggested, Been careful of, Invalidated and Failed to reveal.

The question with one end is completely cleaned by Repetitive Prepchecking. One asks it off the meter until the pc says there is no more. Then one checks it on the meter and steers the pc with any read, and then continues the question off the meter, etc, etc.

In turn we clean each one of the buttons above. This will take many hours in most cases. It is vital not to clean anything that’s clean or to miss cleaning a read that reacts. In other words, do a clean meter job of it all the way at sensitivity 16.

When we have in turn cleaned each of the buttons above, we do a new assessment of the change list and get us a new time just as before and handle that just as before.

When the second area is clean we assess for a third.

Frequently, particularly if the needle gets dirty, we ask for missed withholds. Indeed one can use all the Middle Rudiments at least once each session.

With expert needle reading that intensive will give the pc more gain per hour of auditing than anything else short of Routine 3GA.

I wish you lots of success with it. Remember, the more variables you introduce into such a system the less confidence the pc will have in you.

Good hunting.


L. RON HUBBARD
LRH: dr.rd
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED




[The order of Prepcheck buttons is amended by HCO B 30 August 1962, Order of Prepcheck Buttons, page 133.]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 1 AUGUST AD12
Sthil Students
CenOCon
ROUTINE 3GA
GOALS
NULLING BY MID RUDS

Now that 3GA has been proven time and again to make clearing a certainty for all in the hands of a good auditor who knows his meter and drills, I have been spending much time smoothing out any rough spots in finding and being certain of the pc’s goal. Only a wrong goal or opposition goal can get the pc in real trouble. Therefore goals listing and nulling and testing become of great importance.

THE GOALS LIST

The pc is asked to do a goals list. This can occur before or after a goals Prepcheck, HCO Policy Letter of July 15, 1962.

The list must be at least 850 goals long, one column per foolscap (legal size) page. (Folders of 4 pages, 1 sheet, of ruled 13 inch x 8 inch paper can be bought in most stationers.) The pc is asked to get that many (850) goals written legibly and numbered.

The pc must be warned not to read the list back to himself or herself to try to find the goal, and not to attempt any nulling on self. (Pcs can become quite ill doing this foolish reading or trying to nul on self. If a method is ever developed for this, I’ll release it, but no such method exists and all attempts to find it on self have ended in failure. )

The auditor then does the goals Prepcheck form, HCO Policy Letter of July 15, 1 962.

It is understood that the pc will have received at least a Problems Intensive well done and have a fairly smooth needle.

TEST FOR CHARGE

The auditor tests the list now for needle charge. TA action on reading half a page of goals to pc does not matter but will probably be absent.

What is important is the needle action. This must not exceed a quarter of an inch rapid fall, instant, for any goal read on test. (A sudden wild rock slam a half dial wide on a goal or two per page does not matter. It is not always seen on a pc but happens on some.) Further, at least five goals out of eight or ten have no instant read on them. In other words, the list is flat on the needle.

If the list is not flat at 850 goals, then do a four line goals list, one or four goals on each list, until the original goals list does react as above.

This special goals listing uses the lines as follows:

1. What goal might you have?

2. What goal would oppose your goal?

3. What goal would retard opposition to your goal?

4. What goal would pull back your goal?

About sixty items or so, at a guess, put down one to four in rotation, on each of these lists should discharge the goals list of superfluous needle reaction. Occasional bursts of goals on these lines will be encountered. Take them down. But try to keep the lines even in number, letting only line I run on over length.

Carefully note any pain or sensation the pc gets on any goal on any line. (Pn or Sen written after the goal.) This will help rule out opposition goals.

When the main goals list in its early part, on the test, acts as above, desist on the four lines of goal. Scrap (or at least put away) lines 2, 3 and 4. Do not use or nul them. But use line one as an added line to the pc’s goals list. Now ask the pc if the list is complete in addition to the above test for needle action. Make sure pc seems happy that his goal is somewhere on the goals list.

This then is a complete goals list and can be nulled.

NULLING BY MID RUDS

Nulling by repeater technique was the original method of nulling just as repeater technique was the earliest form of Dianetic Auditing. It has now been superseded by “Nulling by Mid Ruds”.

If you did the Mid Ruds on every goal on the list you would be sure to have the goal when you came across it. But this is too tedious. I have worked out a much faster method using the Mid Ruds, faster even than repeater technique.

There are only a few things that can hide a goal or make one read falsely. These are:

“READ” throughout means “INSTANT READ”.

SUPPRESSED—Can keep a goal or an invalidation, suggestion, mistake, assertion or missed withhold on the goal from reading.

INVALIDATED—Can make a wrong goal read or can steal the read from a right goal.

SUGGESTED—This is evaluation. It can do the same as “INVALIDATED”—make a wrong goal read or steal the read from a right goal.

FAILED TO REVEAL—This is the missed withhold on the goal. It reads as a minute rock slam and can absorb all other reads or make a wrong goal read with a minute rock slam. We call this a “dirty needle”.

MISTAKE BEEN MADE—This is a combination of the auditor or the pc asserting and the other denying that it is or is not the goal. It is a conflict of positive negative opinion and forms a ridge impossible to dispel unless the auditor asks for “MISTAKE” .

ASSERTED—Another name for suggested, used mainly in check out, to be sure, and occasionally in routine nulling when pc is declaring, “It is my goal.”

The auditor should learn the above by rote and by sight and by experience.

These are the only things that can give a wrong goal or submerge a right one.

-------------

In actual use on nulling, each has a priority over the rest. Suppressed is king, Invalidated is next, Suggested is third, Failed to Reveal is fourth and Mistake been made is fifth.

These are used in nulling only as needed.

Example: The auditor reads a goal from the list once (with good TR 1 and no flubs and pc in session). If the goal does not read, the auditor asks on the meter, “Has this goal been suppressed?” If no reaction of needle on either goal or “suppressed” the auditor says, “Thank you. That is out.” And marks the goal off the list.

Why? Because if it (1) was the goal it would have read. (2) If it was an invalidated goal it would have read. (3) If a failed to reveal was present it would have read a dirty needle. (4) If a mistake had been made it would have read. So that leaves only Suppressed as possible. And if Suppressed doesn’t read, then that isn’t the goal.

But if Suppressed reacted and was cleaned, the goal would have to be read again.

If the goal read (originally or after Suppressed was cleaned), then it may be not a goal read but an Invalidation, Suggestion, a Failed to reveal (if dirty) or a Mistake. So one asks for an Invalidation. If that reads, the auditor cleans it, and then asks the goal again, and if it now doesn’t read, the auditor asks Suppressed and if Suppressed doesn’t read, the auditor marks the goal off as “Out”.

However, if the goal still read, after Invalidated was cleaned, the auditor asks for Suggested. If that reads, the auditor cleans it and asks the goal again. If it does not now read, the auditor asks Suppressed and if it doesn’t read, then the auditor marks the goal “Out”.

If the last Suppressed read and was cleaned, the auditor reads the goal again and if it reads, then the auditor asks for a Failed to reveal. If that reads, the auditor cleans it and asks the goal again and if the goal reads, the auditor asks if a Mistake has been made and if that reads the auditor cleans it and asks the goal again, and if the goal does not read the auditor asks Suppressed. If Suppressed doesn’t read, the auditor marks the goal “Out”.

Also, this sequence applies, or any part of it. The auditor asks the goal. It reads. The auditor, after a goal reads, never asks Suppressed at once but the others. Suppressed is only asked after the goal is not reading and the goal is marked “Out” only when both goal and Suppressed are found clean one after the other without cleaning anything.

After a goal reads, ask Invalidated. If that doesn’t read, ask Suggested, if that doesn’t read ask “Failed to reveal”. If that doesn’t read, ask “Mistake been made”. If that doesn’t read ask Suppressed again to be sure and then read the goal three times to see if it kicks after each read. If it kicks only once or twice now, ask Suppressed and the rest and try to get it to read each time as that would be the goal if it did!

This is like running in a maze, with doors suddenly opening to the right and left and the auditor making a fast correct choice for the next question. The more exact is his choosing, the faster the nulling. A full bulletin of drills will be published on all this to give you the hang of it.

And every goal behind you is not the goal and won’t be examined again, and every goal ahead may be.

Drilling with this system does marvels to pick up an auditor’s speed on this nulling.

A keen meter reader and a fast handling of this system can dispose of a hundred goals in a couple of hours with no further re-nulling to do.

And the pc stays relaxed! No anxiety. That came from the built-up charge of invalidations, etc, and the fact that the pc had no certainty for 15 hours or more of nulling. At least the pc is now certain of the goals he or she doesn’t have. And the charge is gone from them.

Intricate at first glance, requiring drill; this is a very rewarding system. For you may find the pc’s goal in the first 300 goals. And when you have by this system, that’s it. You go no further.

If you find this too hard at first, just do the Mid Ruds complete on every goal until you can grasp this shortened system. It would be better than repeater nulling.

If you use Mid Ruds until you learn this system (don’t use repeater technique any more on lists of goals, it’s too long and too inaccurate) use this form: Read the goal once. Then use this Mid Rud form, “On this goal has anything been suppressed, invalidated, suggested, withheld, or mistaken?” Watch for any fall on these words and clean it off until whole question is clear. Then read the goal 3 times to see if it reacts. And mark it in or out accordingly. If it still reads well, clean it up further. If it finally reads with a sharp 1/16th of an inch more or less fall, exactly at the end every time, it’s the goal. Go no further on list.

When you study this HCO Bulletin well and drill on the drills HCO Bulletin that goes with it, you will be able to make the goals fly.

Good hunting.

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH: dr jh
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 1 AUGUST AD12
Issue II
Sthil Students
CenOCon
ROUTINE 3GA
NULLING DRILLS
for
NULLING BY MID RUDS
(Accompanies HCO Bulletin of 1 August AD12)

(Note: In an actual session, in addition to Model Session script, only the words below are used. No additive words or departures are necessary except to clean up a constant dirty needle with session Mid Ruds if that misfortune occurs. And use session Mid Ruds only when you can’t go on otherwise.)

Drill on New Nulling Procedure for Routine 3GA

Position for this drill is the usual auditor-coach position. The coach only has the drill form and follows it exactly until the student auditor has each example down perfectly. When the student auditor and the coach have these drills down exactly, then the coach can give different reads and different goals for the student auditor to work on, the only caution being that the goals selected be those which would be most unlikely on anyone’s goals list. The goal used in this drill is: TO BE A TIGER. On the drills below “A” is for auditor, “C” is for coach. Student and coach use only the words in the drill except when student errs at which coach says, “Flunk!” and “Start”, at which student starts at the beginning.

Drill 1:

A: To be a tiger.
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Null
A: Thank you. That is out.

Drill 2.

A: To be a tiger.
C: Read
A: On this goal has anything been invalidated?
C: Read
A: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been invalidated?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger.
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Read
A: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger.
C: Null
A: Thank you. That is out.

Drill 3:

A: To be a tiger.
C: Null

A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Read
A: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Read
A: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger.
C: Null
A: Thank you. That is out.

Drill 4:

A: To be a tiger.
C: Read
A: On this goal has anything been invalidated?
C: Null
A: Thank you. On this goal has anything been suggested?
C: Read
A: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been suggested?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger.
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Null
A: Thank you. That is out.

Drill 5:

A: To be a tiger.
C: Read
A: On this goal has anything been invalidated?
C: Null
A: Thank you. On this goal has anything been suggested?
C: Null
A: Thank you. On this goal is there anything you have failed to reveal?
C: Read
A: What was it? Thank you. On this goal is there anything you have failed to reveal?
C: Null
A: Thank you. To be a tiger.
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Null
A: Thank you. That is out.

Drill 6:

A: To be a tiger.
C: Read
A: On this goal has anything been invalidated?
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suggested?
C: Null
A: On the goal to be a tiger is there anything you have failed to reveal?
C: Null
A: On this goal has any mistake been made?
C: Read
A: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has any mistake been made?
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Null
A: Thank you. That is out.

Drill 7.

A: To be a tiger.
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Read
A: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Read
A: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger.
C: Read
A: On this goal has anything been invalidated?
C: Read
A: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been invalidated?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger.
C: Read
A: On this goal has anything been suggested?
C: Null
A: On this goal is there anything you have failed to reveal?
C: Null
A: On the goal to be a tiger has any mistake been made?
C: Read
A: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has any mistake been made?
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Read
A: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger.
C: Read
A: On this goal has anything been invalidated?
C: Read
A: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been invalidated?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger.
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Null
A: Thank you. That is out.

Drill 8:

A: To be a tiger.
C: Read
A: On this goal has anything been invalidated?
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suggested?
C: Null
A: On this goal is there anything you have failed to reveal?
C: Null
A: On this goal has any mistake been made?
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger.
C: Read
A: To be a tiger.
C: Read
A: To be a tiger.
C: Read (Note that this goal is now ready to be checked out.)

Drill 9:

A: To be a tiger.
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Read
A: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been suppressed.
C: Null
A: To be a tiger.
C: Read
A: On this goal has anything been invalidated?
C: Read
A: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been invalidated?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger.
C: Read
A: On this goal has anything been suggested?
C: Read
A: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been suggested.
C: Read
A What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been suggested?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger.
C: Read
A On this goal is there anything you have failed to reveal?
C: Read
A What was it? Thank you. On this goal is there anything you have failed to reveal?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger.
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Null
A: Thank you. That is out.

Drill 10:

A: To be a tiger.
C: Null
A: On this goal is there anything you have suppressed?
C: Read
A: What was it? Thank you. On this goal is there anything you have suppressed?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger.
C: Read
A: On this goal is there anything you have invalidated?
C: Null
A: On this goal is there anything you have suggested?
C: Read
A: What was it? Thank you. On this goal is there anything you have suggested?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger.
C: Null
A: Thank you. That is out.


LRH :jw jh L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 2 AUGUST 1962

CenOCon



CCH ANSWERS


The following queries and my reply are useful in the CCHs.

Ron from Ray = 1/8 = 335L

Thanks for Telexes 233L2 and 334L2. That’s fine.

Some queries have come up about CCHs. Could we have the latest stable data on

1. When is a physical origination picked up—after command is executed and before acknowledgement, or after acknowledgement?

2. Does one pick up by saying—”How are you doing?” “What happened then?” or “I noticed—so and so—happened. What’s going on?”—or is there any other method that we don’t have and which is better than any of these?

Love
Ray

Ray from Ron = 15.30 = 2/8 = 335L2

1. When it happens.

2. Only by a two way comm query like “What’s happening?”

Never designate the origin.

Don’t make a system out of queries. Three commands nicely done is flat.

Don’t take spoken data from PC about somatics as a reason to keep on.

Also the process that turns something on turns it off.

Love
Ron.


L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:dr.cden
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 7 AUGUST 1962
Sthil Students
Course
Franchise


RUNNING CCHs


CCHs being run terribly wrong.

Correct version follows: Run a CCH only so long as it produces change in the pc’s general aspect.

If no change in aspect for three commands, with the pc actually doing the commands, go on to next CCH.

If CCH producing change do not go on but flatten that CCH.

Then when for three commands executed by the pc it produces no change go on to next CCH.

Run CCHs One Two Three Four, One Two Three Four, One etc.

Use only right hand on One.

The CCHs are run alternated with Prepchecking session by session depending upon whether or not the pc has had a win on either and whether the CCHs in the CCH Session were not left with the pc stuck in one CCH which was producing terrific change and thusly very unflat as a process.

CCHs are not run in Model Session, nor run on the E-Meter, nor are goals set. The reality factor is established before the first command is given.

It is code break clause thirteen to run a CCH that is producing no change or to not flatten in same or subsequent session a CCH that is producing change.

Some pcs get no reaction at first on any CCH; therefore run each one as above, CCH One Two Three Four, One etc, and with Prepchecking being given in alternate sessions, or as stated above in case one of the CCHs has to be flattened off in another session on the CCHs.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:jw.rd
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



** 6208C07 SHSBC-180 Routine 3GA Data on Goals, Part I
** 6208C07 SHSBC-181 Routine 3GA Data on Goals, Part II.
** 6208C08 SH TVD-11 Routine 3GA Nulling Goals (LRH auditing demo)
** 6208C09 SHSBC-182 Clearing
** 6208C09 SHSBC-183 Goals Listing

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 10 AUGUST AD12
Magazine
Franchise
HOW IT FEELS TO GO CLEAR


Jean Kennedy of Bulawayo, Southern Rhodesia, wrote me a note after her first goal was cleared. She had been cleared once on Routine 3 and was cleared again on the same goal at Saint Hill with Routine 3GA. Her subjective reality on these two processes is of great value to all Scientologists.

These are in actual fact two notes. I give you both with her permission.

She has now had her second goal found and is listing on it and will soon be the first 3GA 2nd goal clear. She graduates this week from the Saint Hill course with honours.

“Dear Ron,

I feel tip top at the moment, and really couldn’t have asked for more out of auditing, if this was as far as one could go it would be enough. I must say there are two big basic differences in the way I feel now and the way I felt after the 3rd S.A. ACC. (1 ) This time I have a bigger certainty, and a very ‘comfortable’ feeling, and while R3 processed you up to more confidence each session, I found on R3GA (just before the lines went free), that I had never felt so stripped bare, and at one stage I didn’t know who I was or where I was going until I realized that ‘I’ had to do things not wait for something else to do them! So all in all listing on the goal was fun, pictures and track recall were very vivid and I sailed right back to the beginning of ‘body moulding’, but the biggest thrill of all was the basic cognition where I thought I was going to find the answer to why I decided to be that way—and guess what, there wasn’t any reason !

Jean.”

---------------

On receipt of the above I asked her for permission to issue and she wrote the following expansion:

“This is the basic difference between R3 and R3GA. Being run on R3 had a limiting effect inasmuch as you didn’t run with enough depth and could never really get at the reason why you chose to be the way you are. It processed you towards greater confidence each session and finally left you feeling tip top, mass-less but still no real answer—and one was always a little vulnerable, if you knew the right button. Pictures and cognitions were also limited.

Now, R3GA was very different and had much more punch behind it, and you could ‘get’ at things you would never have got at on R3. At the start of listing everything seemed innocent enough and I couldn’t see any difference between the two, and suddenly the track opened up and vivid pictures and recall in detail on the track came from all directions, cognitions shot off the body in little spark forms and one could feel the masses just exploding all around, at times making the rings so hot on my hands they had to be taken off. There was a steady feeling of cycling backwards (to the start of body moulding) and one’s habit patterns, fixed ideas and attitudes just went flying by. The most fascinating part was the lines transferring over and viewpoints changing totally.

The worst part comes just before the end, two days before the needle went free I dug my heels in and refused to give another item—why, because I didn’t know who I was, where I was and least of all why I made that postulate. I have never felt so stripped bare of everything and suddenly realized that nothing was automatically going to swing into place and do things for me, ‘I’ would have to do them.

My auditor gently coaxed me into more items, and then at the bottom I found the answer I have been looking for, for so long—’nothing’—how foolish can a thetan be! But what a certainty.

Jean Kennedy.”

L RON HUBBARD

LRH:jw.bh
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 13 AUGUST AD 12
Central Orgs
Franchise

ROCK SLAMS AND DIRTY NEEDLES


I have been lucky enough and you have been fortunate enough to trace the source of the persistent dirty needle and also the wide rock slam.

A criminal I had my hands on showed me clearly that the wide rock slam was an overt. The dirty needle is a small rock slam. And so we benefit.

The reason a rock slam is a rock slam is that I found it on many pcs in an effort to locate the rock.

It now turns out that it is also the sign of an overt. For instance all failed to reveals read with a small dirty needle which is in fact a smaller edition of the rock slam.

If you have a wide rock slam then the goal does not exist on the list and that list may be scrapped.

If you find this on a pc it means either that the pc has fantastic personal overts against you or that the pc’s goal is such as to be an overt against Scientology.

Therefore on a pc whose needle is doing a large or a small rock slam all you have to do is ask for “What goal might you have that would be an overt against Scientology?” and you will be able to run the rock slam off by so listing, and when it is gone you will have the pc’s goal on that list.

In the case of a small occasional dirty needle you have missed a withhold or the goal lies under your pencil while nulling or a few goals earlier.

When the dirty needle is persistent and is always recurring, the solution is to list goals with the question as stated above.

The actual formula for this is as follows, for a dress parade action on raw meat.

Do a Dynamic Assessment. Ask the question: “What goal might you have that would be an overt against (dynamic found)?”

It turns out amongst Scientologists that the roughest case is thereby now the shortest case to do, as the goal will lie on a specific list which, when nulled by Mid Ruds (Tiger Drill), will disclose the pc’s goal.

These principles should be put into effect at once.


LRH:dr.cden L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright ©1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



** 6208C14 SHSBC-184 Rock Slams and Dirty Needles
** 6208C14 SHSBC-185 World Clearing
** 6208C15 SH TVD-12A 3GA Dynamic Assessment—Listing Items for
Dynamics, I
** 6208C15 SH TVD-12B 3GA Dynamic Assessment—Listing Items for
Dynamics, II.
** 6208C16 SHSBC-186 3GA Dynamic Assessment

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 AUGUST AD12
Sthil Students
Franchise Airmail

3GA
LINE WORDING
(Changes all earlier Policy Letters and HCO Bulletins on Lines, 3GA)


Lines must read after the goal is checked out and before listing.

The optimum line wording is probably as follows:

LINE ONE: WHO OR WHAT WOULD WANT ( goal ).

LINE TWO: WHO OR WHAT WOULD OPPOSE ( goal ing form for verb ).

LINE THREE: WHO OR WHAT WOULD OPPOSE OPPOSITION TO ( goal ing form ).

LINE FOUR: WHO OR WHAT WOULD NOT WANT ( goal ).

The line must read on the pc, firing like the goal, each time.

LISTING SESSION

The goal must be made to fire at least at the beginning of every listing session.

The button “Suppress” can be too heavily charged to read at first on a goal unless it is repetitively used as opposed to fast checking. All other Mid Rud buttons can be fast checked.

DURING LISTING

Before listing any one line, the goal should be made to fire and the line made to fire, both by the Tiger Drill (HCO Bulletin 1 August 1962). The line is then listed. This may be found more time-consuming than timesaving in listing but is a good thing to do.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:dr.rd
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED







SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
21 August 1962


** 6208C21 SHSBC-187 Finding Goals by Dynamic Assessment

** 6208C21 SHSBC-188 Basics of Auditing

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 22 AUGUST 1962
Central Orgs
Franchise Airmail
3GA
DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT BY ROCK SLAM
DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT TIP



To get a complete list for a Dynamic Assessment ask for “any additional parts of the dynamics”, after giving pc a broad list of them.

Then ask for “anything the pc can think of that should not be a part of existence” and carefully put down everything pc says isn’t or shouldn’t be a part of existence.

DATUM: THE ONLY REASON GOAL FINDING BY DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT FAILS IS BECAUSE THE ITEM IS NOT ON THE LIST. THIS IS TRUE OF THE LIST OF DYNAMICS AND THE LIST OF ITEMS. NO WIDE ROCK SLAM WILL DEVELOP IF THE LIST IS NOT COMPLETE. USE PC’S LIST OF DYNAMICS PLUS THINGS HE SAYS AREN’T. GET LOTS OF “DYNAMICS” FROM THE PC UNDER ANY DYNAMIC HE WANTS TO LEAVE OUT. “WHAT PARTICULARLY SHOULDN’T BE A PART OF THAT DYNAMIC?”

Assess by tiny Rock Slam, or wide Rock Slam, asking some version of this thought on each Dynamic, “Consider committing overts against
(dynamic).” Read by Instant RS (dirty needle or wide slam).

Assess out the Dynamic that Rock Slams most.

Now list this Dynamic by asking the question, “What represents (dynamic found) to you?”

Bleed meter for any more items. If list complete meter will be quiet.

During this writing of items a wide Rock Slam will turn on, diminish to a dirty needle as you list and vanish when list is complete. Carefully note on Auditor’s Report if this happened as it will never happen again!

Assess list with the question, “Consider committing overts against (list item being tested).”

Keep in all instant Rock Slams or dirty needles. Assess down to one Item. This, like the Dynamics assessment is ordinary Assessment by Elimination.

Find Item.

Prepcheck Item. Be very careful to keep Suppress button clean.

Ask the pc for a list of goals with the following question: “What goal might you have that would be an overt against______(Item)?” As you list you will get a wide RS dwindling as you list to a dirty needle and vanish. List this first line out to a clean needle before listing goals on any of the remaining lists.

You want only a few goals on each of these lists except List One. On List One list off the Rock Slam. Note on report that this happened.

GOALS FORMULAE

What Goal might you have—

1. that would be an overt against (item)? (Poor)
2. that (item) would consider impossible? (Check)
3. that (item) might consider was an overt?
4. that (item) would consider undesirable (also for itself or themselves)? (Good) (Check)
5. that (item) would prevent you from doing? (Good) (Check)
6. that would be impossible to realize if you were (item or part of item). (Best)
7. that would be impossible if (item) were you? (Check)
8. that couldn’t be achieved because (item) acted as a barrier?
9. that (the item) would make too difficult?
10. Just list some more goals.

List all lists in order above until Rock Slam and all tendency to a dirty needle vanishes.

Pc will probably know his goal. Or his goal will recur on several of the lists.

Assess List Six above first, being very careful of Suppress, working it over hard.

If not on List Six use List Five. If not on Five, go over List Four. If not on List Four, nul remaining list.

If the pc has any dirty needle (minute Rock Slam) or lots of Fail to Reveal answers, lists above were not completed to clean needle and a bled meter.

If your pc’s Dynamic was on the Dynamic List, if the pc’s Item was on the Item List, and if your pc’s goal was put down on the above lists, and if the Dwindling Wide Rock Slam was found on Listing Items and Listing Line One above on goals, you’ll have pc’s goal on list for sure.

If you turn on the above phenomena, write it on a report giving Dynamic and Item to HCO WW as it can never be turned on again.

The goal must be checked out by a Class IV auditor before it can be listed.


L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:dr.rd
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


[This HCO B incorporates HCO B 23 August 1962, 3GA-Dynamic Assessment by Rock Slam, the only text of which said to add the tenth line in the Goals Formulae above. This HCO B is added to by HCO B 31 August 1962, 3GA-Dynamic Assessment by Rock Slam, page 135, and modified by HCO B 3 September 1962, 3GA-Dynamic Assessment by Rock Slam, page 138. It is canceled by HCO PL 25 February 1963, R2-R3-Routine 3-M-Goal Finding by Method B, which has a limited distribution so is not in these volumes.]


** 6208C22 SH TVD-13A Dynamic Assessment and Item Assessment, Part I
** 6208C22 SH TVD-13B Dynamic Assessment and Item Assessment, Part II.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 30 AUGUST 1962

Central Orgs
Franchise Airmail




ORDER OF PREPCHECK BUTTONS


This is the following order of buttons for all Prepcheck forms, including those of July 15 and all Problems Intensives. A11 buttons must be cleaned before leaving any section even if they have to be gone over several times in sequence.

The first question to be asked is “What have you been careful of?”

The subsequent questions are: “What has been______________?”

The endings are now as follows and in the order:

Agreed upon.
Suppressed.
Asserted.
Invalidated.
Suggested.
Protested.
Revealed.
Mistaken.
Withheld.
Done by you.
Decided.

Finally: “What goals have been set?”

These buttons are done over and over until nothing is made to read and the suppressed button has been worked hard every time it is covered.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :dr.cden
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 31 AUGUST 1962
Central Orgs
Franchise Airmail
3GA
EXPANDED LINE WORDING

The following are expanded line wordings for listing on a found and checked goal in Routine 3GA:

GOAL: “To Sneeze”, which is used as an example.
Line One: Who or what would want to sneeze?
Line Two: Who or what would oppose sneezing?
Line Three: Who or what would not oppose sneezing?
Line Four: Who or what would not want to sneeze?
Line Five: Who or what would sneeze?
Line Six: Who or what would not sneeze?
Line Seven: Who or what would oppose opposition to sneezing?
Line Eight: Who or what would pull back somebody or something from sneezing?
Line Nine: Who or what would want to be sneezed at?
Line Ten: Who or what would oppose being sneezed at?
Line Eleven: Who or what would not oppose being sneezed at?
Line Twelve: Who or what would not want to be sneezed at?
Line Thirteen: Who or what would be sneezed at?
Line Fourteen: Who or what would not be sneezed at?
Line Fifteen: Who or what would cause somebody or something to be sneezed at?
Line Sixteen: Who or what would help somebody or something not to be sneezed at? Line Seventeen: Who or what would someone or something have to be in order to sneeze?
Line Eighteen: Who or what would someone or something have to be in order to oppose sneezing?
Line Nineteen: Who or what would someone or something have to be in order not to oppose sneezing?
Line Twenty: Who or what would someone or something dare not to be in order to sneeze?

Lines Seventeen through Twenty are not vital to list, and Lines Nine through Sixteen, which are the effect wording of the goal, may not be broadly workable.

Lines One through Eight are vital. By listing four items at a time on the first eight lines or the first sixteen lines, the case stays balanced, the goal can be kept firing, and clearing is speeded.

So use eight or sixteen lines on goal listing.

As regards pain, it can occur on any line in listing. The only dangerous indication is if no pain occurs on any line, only sensation, which indicates that rudiments are out or that the goal is wrong. Pain can even occur on Lines Two and Four and sensation on Lines One and Three, and all still be okay.


L. RON HUBBARD


LRH:dr.-h
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 31 AUGUST 1962
Central Orgs
Franchise Airmail

3GA
DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT BY ROCK SLAM
(Second addition to HCO Bulletin of 22 August 1962, same title)


If a routine Dynamic Assessment by Rock Slam fails, the preclear should be prepchecked on “On Auditing is there anything you have suppressed?” etc.

Then the preclear can be listed on “What isn’t a part of the Dynamics?” and “What part of life have you regretted?”

Completing and assessing these lists, will give you the Dynamic.


LRH:dr.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
1812 19th Street, N.W., Washington 9, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 1 SEPTEMBER 1962
Central Orgs
Franchise Airmail

3GA—DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT BY ROCK SLAM

The following is a step list which modifies earlier HCO Bulletin.

List persons the preclear has considered opinionated and has detested. Assess by “Consider committing overts against______.”

List “What part of existence does (person found) represent?” Assess by “Consider committing overts against______.”

Take Dynamic found. List “What represents (Dynamic found) to you?” (dwindling Rock Slam). Assess by “Consider committing overts against______.”

Take item found. List “What goal have you had that would be an overt against (item found)?” (dwindling Rock Slam).

Do list 6 by listing “What goal might you have that would be impossible to achieve if you were______or (part of______)?”

If item not on first lists above, list all remaining lists in HCO Bulletin August 22, ‘62, and examine for goals in common to a majority of lists and Tiger Drill these.


LRH:rahjh L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

CLEARING SUCCESS CONGRESS LECTURES
Washington, D.C.
1—3 September 1962


L. Ron Hubbard gave nine lectures at the Clearing Success Congress, which was held in Washington, D.C., at the Shoreham Hotel.

6209C01 CSC-1 Presentation of the GPM
** 6209C01 CSC-2 The Point Where the Pc Begins to Get Clear
6209C01 CSC-3 Basic Purpose
6209C02 CSC-4 The Healing Effect of Preparatory Auditing
(Suppress Button)
6209C02 CSC-5 Staff Introduction—Demo: J. Fudge
** 6209C02 CSC-6 The Problems Intensive, Mechanics and Buttons
6209C03 CSC-7 World Clearing and You
6209C03 CSC-8 Slides Shown by Reg Sharpe
** 6209C03 CSC-9 Your Scientology Orgs and What They Do for You

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
1812 19th Street, N.W., Washington 9, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 2 SEPTEMBER AD12

Franchise


ACCOUNT OF CONGRESS GOAL


It was offered at the Clearing Success Congress in Washington, September 1st to 3rd, that we would find a goal on someone at the Congress whose name would be drawn at random from a basket. We drew six names from a basket, and the subsequent interview demonstrated that four of these people had rock slams on asking for a short list of people they detested.

Jim Skelton did the interviewing and auditing and goal finding. Lieutenant Colonel Voight was selected as the most likely candidate.

Every available moment of auditing time from the first intermission to the beginning of the third day was thereafter utilized.

It was impossible to turn the rock slam back on after it had been demonstrated by the PC in the interview. Standard dynamic assessment steps were taken without avail.

A dynamic (group) was equivocally located as the dynamic the PC had overts on, and the item Scientology appeared on that list. Earlier than this, I requested Jim to ask the PC what would be the consequences of our clearing him. The PC’s answers indicated that he would have to change his whole life. On the strength of this, we used the following two questions to list goals.

1. “What goal might you have that would be an overt against Scientology?”

2. “If you were part of Scientology, what goal of yours would be impossible to achieve?”

Jim listed some 49 goals on the first question, and then happened to be looking at the meter, and out of the clean flowing meter suddenly appeared a rocket read. He asked the PC what the PC was thinking of, and the PC said, “Immortality, and things like that,” and Jim said, “What goal might be associated with this?” And the PC said, “To live.”

Jim wrote the goal down and Tiger Drilled it at once, ignoring the remaining goals. The goal read sporadically with ticks and one half dial drop, and seemed very alive. It was interesting that no TA action whatsoever occurred during the listing of the goals on the first question above, and that the second question was never asked. It could be speculated that the goal might have appeared on the second list, but this is of course speculation.

Jim came to my room to tell me about this, and I asked him where the pain and rock slam were. Jim said there had been none, and returned to the auditing room. Much to our relief on Jim’s return to the auditing room, the preclear informed him that he had an excruciating pain in his arm which had made him weep, so great was the intensity of it. Jim put him back on the meter, and once more resuming Tiger Drill a wide rock slam turned on, on the goal.

In the check-out session, it was obvious to the auditor that the PC needed a great deal of prepchecking to smooth him out; when he did the end rudiments on the PC, the rock slam continued straight on through the end rudiments, or would have if the auditor had not said, “Floor, floor, floor,” several times and gotten the rock slam off so that he could get the end rudiments in.

The PC’s cognitions were extreme and numerous, and the behaviour of the needle was strong and persistent, and there is no slightest doubt but what this was the PC’s goal.

This demonstration of dynamic assessment by rock slam and finding a PC’s goal with this “slight” deadline was a very adventurous activity, and we held our breaths until it had been done. As a matter of fact, we began a second PC on the second day, in hopes of at least getting one on one of the persons offered, and on the second PC were able to get a complete dynamic list as per the standard steps. This PC, on listing on the detested persons’ names, listed about a hundred and fifty items, dove straight into his bank, and had extreme manifestations of insanity, and excruciating pain. The dynamic was speculated to be the eighth, but this dynamic assessment was not complete. However, this PC’s life changed remarkably just by doing the first bit of dynamic assessment.


LRH:rah.bh L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED








HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 SEPTEMBER 1962

Central Orgs
Franchise Airmail

3GA
DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT BY ROCK SLAM


The following is a step which modifies the HCO Bulletin of 22 August 1962:

List persons the preclear has considered opinionated and has detested. Assess by “Consider committing overts against ______.”

List “What part of existence does (person found) represent?” Assess by “Consider committing overts against______.”

Take Dynamic found. List “What represents (Dynamic found) to you?” (dwindling Rock Slam). Assess by “Consider committing overts against ______.”

Take item found. List “What goal have you had that would be an overt against (item found)?” (dwindling Rock Slam).

Do list 6 by testing “What goal might you have that would be impossible to achieve if you were______or part of______?”


LRH: dr.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
1812 19th Street, N.W. , Washington 9 , D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 8 SEPTEMBER AD 12
CenOCon
Franchise Airmail

3GA
TO BE GOALS LINE LISTING

The following is a 24 line listing for a beingness type goal.

The method of running is to place the heading on 24 consecutive legal length pages so that one exists for each line.

The method of running is to clean up the goal so that it fires three times at the beginning of session and then simply list for the remainder of session, putting in Middle Rudiments only at such times as the pc has obviously gone out of session.

These lines are listed exactly four items on each line in rotation. After the four items have been written a short strike mark is put under the beginning of the last item written so that the auditor can easily see when he has listed the next four.

The above directions will apply to all types of lines listed, beingness, doingness and havingness goals, but different wordings have to be used for doingness and havingness goals. NOTE: These lines are not ordinarily prepchecked or made to fire before being used on a pc.

Line One Who or what would want to be a catfish?
Line Two Who or what would not want to be a catfish?
Line Three Who or what would oppose being a catfish?
Line Four Who or what would not oppose being a catfish?
Line Five Who or what would be a catfish?
Line Six Who or what would not be a catfish?
Line Seven Who or what would oppose opposition to being a catfish?
Line Eight Who or what would pull back somebody or something from being a catfish?
Line Nine Who or what would want a catfish?
Line Ten Who or what would not want a catfish?
Line Eleven Who or what would oppose wanting a catfish?
Line Twelve Who or what would not oppose wanting a catfish?
Line Thirteen Who or what would make a catfish?
Line Fourteen Who or what would not make a catfish?
Line Fifteen Who or what would oppose making a catfish?
Line Sixteen Who or what would not oppose making a catfish?
Line Seventeen Who or what would have to be a catfish?
Line Eighteen Who or what would not have to be a catfish?
Line Nineteen Who or what would have to oppose a catfish?
Line Twenty Who or what would not have to oppose a catfish?
Line Twenty-One Who or what would have to have a catfish?
Line Twenty-Two Who or what would not have to have a catfish?
Line Twenty-Three Who or what would oppose having to have a catfish?
Line Twenty-Four Who or what would not oppose having to have a catfish?


L. RON HUBBARD


LRH:jb jh
copyright ©1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
1812 19th Street, N.W., Washington 9, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 12 SEPTEMBER AD12
CenOCon




SECURITY CHECKS AGAIN



With the advent of Dynamic Assessment a new method of Security Checking, far better than any previous Security Checking, has emerged.

Nothing in this bulletin of course detracts in any way from the value of missed withholds, pulling missed withholds or handling missed withholds on preclears or other persons in the Organisation.

If the following questions are asked of a person on a meter it can be at once established whether or not this person will inadvertently, covertly, or unknowingly attempt to ruin, wreck, stop and otherwise interfere with an Organisation, Scientology, or an Auditor. The questions are as follows:

Consider committing overts against Scientology.
Consider committing overts against Ron.
Consider committing overts against the Organisation.
Consider committing overts against me. (the auditor)

It will be found that such a person has a goal which the person considers to be impossible to achieve so long as any one of the above four exist, therefore destructive actions will at all times be manifested no matter how “constructive” they appear.

The Rock Slam produced must be a wide Rock Slam to be decisive. By wide Rock Slam is meant a quarter of a dial Rock Slam to a full dial Rock Slam.

The action which should be taken if this condition is found to exist is to suspend the person or otherwise put the person away from communication lines until such time as the person’s Dynamic, Item, and Goal are found. Sometimes it is almost enough merely to find the Item, as the foolishness of the conclusion that Scientology stands immediately and directly in their road will appear to the preclear at that time.

By “A Goal which is an overt against Scientology” is meant something which the pc considers to be a goal which is an overt against. When you finally see such goals appear they will not be apparent to the auditor as overts. However, the pc so interprets them. For instance a pc may have a fixed idea against any spiritual activity, interpreting it as a harsh activity which forbids dancing, and the pc may have a goal to dance. However the person’s Item lying above the goal to dance will be found to be a spiritual group and this of course would make Scientology appear to the person to be highly antipathetic to the goal to dance.

I cannot too strongly urge the fact that when the above occurs no possible good will result until the Dynamic, Item, and Goal are found. Therefore this should be expedited. All care should be taken not to punish the person unduly, but to carry on because often the person is unaware of the destructiveness of his or her own actions.

In a marriage, if the husband were to place the wife on an E-Meter and ask the question “Consider committing overts against me” and find a wide Rock Slam immediately results, he will be then in total possession of what has been wrong with his marriage. Similarly, a wife finding this manifestation on a husband would also be informed.

The remedy in such a case is not to sack somebody, to shoot somebody, to divorce somebody or take some drastic final action, because we now have all the answer we need to resolve this and it will be found that as soon as the person’s goal has been found the condition of hostility will cease.

The Rock Slam produced must be at sensitivity 16 on the meter. If a dirty needle occurs it is necessary to pull the person’s missed withholds because these obviously exist. This should not be neglected. By Dirty Needle is meant a quarter of an inch agitation of the needle as an instant response to the asking of the above questions.

This is the new security programme. Any person responsible for maintaining security in an Organisation or a home should perform the above tests and take the remedial action.

I cannot too strongly urge that while this is absolute, or near as it can be, and positive in its diagnosis, it is not permanent because we can now clear, and clearing consists of doing away with the Rock Slam and not the offending person.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:jb.cden
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED





HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
1812 19th Street, N.W., Washington 9, D.C.

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 12 SEPTEMBER AD 12
Issue III
CenOCon


AUTHORIZED PROCESSES


Only the following processes are authorized for use on Staff Members and on HGC Preclears:

Assists.
Problems Intensives (Modern Version).
Ordinary 3GA.
3GA by Dynamic Assessment.

No other processes are to be used on Staff or HGC Preclears.


L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:jb.rd
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


** 6209C18 SHSBC-189 Directing Pc’s Attention

** 6209C18 SHSBC-190 3GA Dynamic Assessment by Rock Slam

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 19 SEPTEMBER 1962
Central Orgs
Franchise Airmail


3GA
TIPS ON DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT
RULES OF THUMB


1. If the system does not work, it is invariable that the item is not on the list.

2. If an item, dynamic, or person can be found that will RS broadly, only list “What represents” from it. Do not use another form of listing (goals being a “represents” also).

3. The pc’s interest follows the RS.

4. Carefully record the presence of a RS or any dwindling of the RS on any item, dynamic or, most important, during the course of listing.

5. If the pc has no cognitions the item is not on the list.

6. The dynamic and/or item will be accompanied by heavy pain or sensation if on the list.

7. A RS is a convulsion of the mind and can reflect as a convulsion of the body.

8. A pc’s needle may be dirty until the goal is on the list.

9. A goal sometimes cannot be checked out until the charge is listed off on various goals lists derived from the item.

10. The item is more valuable than the person found or dynamic found.

11. An item is proven by its overt goals list (No. 1 ) producing a dwindling slam.

12. The real item when listed itself on “What represents” gives no further slams on the new list.


L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:gljh
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED




SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
19—20 September 1962

** 6209C19 SH TVD-14A Tiger Drill, Part 1
** 6209C19 SH TVD-14B Tiger Drill, Part 2
** 6209C20 SHSBC-191 Listing Lines
** 6209C20 SHSBC-192 Geriatrics

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 SEPTEMBER AD12
Central Orgs
Franchise Airmail


A 40 LINE LIST ON A DOINGNESS GOAL


Using the create CDEI scale a system of writing lines for goals listing has been attempted.

This gives us Create, Interest, Desire, Enforce and Inhibit.

We have four flows for each word positive and four flows for each word at effect. The goal: To impress people. And the lines are:


Who or what would create an impression on people?
Who or what would not create an impression on people?
Who or what would create opposition to impressing people?
Who or what would not create opposition to impressing people?

Who or what people would want an impression created?
Who or what people would not want an impression created?
Who or what people would oppose an impression being created?
Who or what people would not oppose an impression being created?

Who or what would be interested in impressing people?
Who or what would not be interested in impressing people?
Who or what would oppose interest in impressing people?
Who or what would not oppose interest in impressing people?

Who or what people would be interested in being impressed?
Who or what people would not be interested in being impressed?
Who or what people would oppose interest in being impressed?
Who or what people would not oppose interest in being impressed?

Who or what would want to impress people?
Who or what would not want to impress people?
Who or what would oppose impressing people?
Who or what would not oppose impressing people?

Who or what people would want to be impressed?
Who or what people would not want to be impressed?
Who or what people would oppose wanting to be impressed?
Who or what people would not oppose wanting to be impressed?

Who or what would have to impress people?
Who or what would not have to impress people?
Who or what would have to oppose impressing people?
Who or what would not have to oppose impressing people?

Who or what people would have to have an impression made on them?
Who or what people would not have to have an impression made on them?
Who or what people would have to oppose an impression being made on them?
Who or what people would not have to oppose an impression being made on them?

Who or what would inhibit impressing people?
Who or what would not inhibit impressing people?
Who or what would inhibit opposition to impressing people?
Who or what would not inhibit opposition to impressing people?

Who or what people would inhibit an impression being made on them?
Who or what people would not inhibit an impression being made on them?
Who or what people would inhibit opposition to an impression being made on them?
Who or what people would not inhibit opposition to an impression being made on them?

Similar goals, all of a doingness type, can be patterned as above.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:dr.Jh
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



































SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
25—27 September 1962


** 6209C25 SHSBC-193 Current Trends
** 6209C25 SHSBC-194 3GA Assessment
** 6209C27 SHSBC-195 3GA Listing
** 6209C27 SHSBC-195A 3GA Listing

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 27 SEPTEMBER 1962

Franchise
CenOCon


VALID PROCESSES
(Changes all earlier Issues)


The following processes should be used by all Scientologists and other earlier processes should be discarded except for research.

Class I: Assists.

Class I: CCHs, Op Pro by Dup and SCS.

Class I: ARC Straight Wire.

Class II: Problems Intensives (Modern).

Class II: Prepchecking Auditing, goals, etc.

Class II: Goals Listing.

Class III: 3GA Ordinary.

Class IV: 3GA by Dynamic Assessment.

Class II: Items Listing.

Classes II, III and IV: Tiger and Big Tiger Drills on goals, items, lines, single words, names, persons.

All except Assists, CCHs, Op Pro by Dup and SCS are done in Model Session.

If a process is not mentioned above, do not use it.

NOTE: Any of the above Processes, except 3GA ordinary goals finding and 3GA Dynamic Assessment may be done in Co-audits under direct supervision of classed auditors.

For the greatest gain achievable by an auditor in his class, use the above. An auditor attempting processes above his class will have failures and spoiled cases.

Use of processes above Classification can result in cancellation of certificates.

We can clear Earth. Why spoil cases in the process?


L. RON HUBBARD




LRH:dr.cden
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 27 SEPTEMBER AD 12

Franchise

PROBLEMS INTENSIVE USE

The only fully valid lower level process today that achieves enormously effective results, is the Modern Problems Intensive.

It does the following:

Eradicates feelings of illness
Adds years to life
Subtracts years from appearance
Increases IQ.

It is very easy to run as it can be done with errors and, so long as the Tone Arm moves, will achieve marvellous results.

It is the ideal HGC process for HCA/HPA staff auditors as it gives them countless wins.

It is a natural for the field auditor who knows his Model Session and the rundown.

It can be combined with the CCHs or used without.

Its rundown is simple.

One does a Case Assessment. Assesses for the Change, predates it by a month and runs the Prepcheck Buttons on it over and over, flattening each one so far as possible.

When one assessed change is run, another list of changes is made and assessed and it is all done again.

It can be interrupted by an end of intensive without consequences to the pc if something was left unflat.

The public may scream to get clear, but most of it could only be audited on a Problems Intensive anyway.

Unlike partially completed or badly done goals assessments, there is no liability to a Problems Intensive.

All the gains envisioned in Book I can be achieved with enough Problems Intensives, even a 1st Dynamic clear in many cases.

So don’t risk your pc’s health and good will if you’re not a Saint Hill graduate. Get good, solid gains with the Modern Problems Intensive. Only if you fail to find and pull his or her Missed Withholds in the course of sessions could you estrange a pc.

You may have to clear the buttons for the pc who doesn’t understand the words, but other than that it’s all plain sailing.

People are suddenly losing all manner of things they thought were illnesses and were calling arthritis and ulcers and what not. They weren’t sick. They were just suppressed.

Please realize what you’ve got here in a Modern Problems Intensive. I’ll be giving you lots of data on how it’s done.


LRH:dr.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 1 OCTOBER AD12

Sthil Students
Franchise Airmail
3GA
LISTING BY TIGER BUTTONS
114 NEW LINES FOR LISTING
(Cancels all earlier HCO Bs on Listing)

(A student under Theory Examination is not supposed to know the lines by heart,
only the directions, and how to put lines together sensibly.)


This is probably excellent as the later lines are the same buttons that make goals fire.

The first four lines are well tried. Remember that many have gone Clear on the 1st four with smooth auditing. The next four are also well tried. The next four are taken from the ACC that cleared 15 people.

The remaining lines are the buttons that make goals fire.

The first Twelve Lines can be gone through more often during the course of the next 102.

(NOTE: Before doing this listing, make sure the pc knows what his goal is and Tiger Drill nul any old goal found on pc or any goal wording pc thought was his. To get pc’s goal to fire at each session beginning, use “In Auditing on the goal____has anything been ____?” Goal also should be made to fire at session end just before room rud with same drill to clear up session.)

(NOTE: Any trouble with listing stems from (1) Rough Auditing, auditors challenging answers or mixing up questions, pc not in session and ruds out. (2) Wrong lines. (3) Goal not cleaned. (4) Consequences of being Clear feared by pc. (5) Wrong goal. (6) Pc protesting about Lines and Listing.)

(NOTE: Signs of above are (1) TA mostly at 4.5 or 5.0 and doesn’t come down. (2) Pc ARC breaky even after missed withholds clean [the items are now withheld] . (3) Pc looking bad, eyes watery. (4) No pain in session [a right goal on checkout always gives pain] . (5) All sen on listing [comes from pc suppressing or being careful of or failing to reveal, these being the Sensation buttons, or from wrong goal] . (6) Bank getting more solid. (7) Pc sick and nauseated. [6 and 7 only occur with a wrong goal.] )

(NOTE: The Tiger Drill buttons or any button or word can itself be Tiger Drilled using the ordinary 6 buttons, all with good effect.)

l. WHO OR WHAT WOULD WANT
2. WHO OR WHAT WOULD NOT WANT
3. WHO OR WHAT WOULD OPPOSE
4. WHO OR WHAT WOULD NOT OPPOSE
5. WHO OR WHAT WOULD (Effect wording of goal)
6. WHO OR WHAT WOULD NOT (Effect wording of goal)
7. WHO OR WHAT WOULD OPPOSE (Effect wording of goal)
8. WHO OR WHAT WOULD NOT OPPOSE (Effect wording of goal)

(Effect wording can include “be the effect of”)

9. WHO OR WHAT WOULD HELP SOMEONE OR SOMETHING (goal)
10. WHO OR WHAT WOULD NOT HELP SOMEONE OR SOMETHING (goal)
11. WHO OR WHAT WOULD HELP OPPOSE SOMEONE OR SOMETHING (goal)
12. WHO OR WHAT WOULD NOT HELP OPPOSITION TO SOMEONE OR SOMETHING (goal, ing)

Now into the next blank spaces fit the following buttons, one full consecutive set of lines for each button; make the line (both goal and button) make sense if it does not:

Suppress Protest about Damage
Invalidate Hide from Withdraw from
Be Careful of Reveal things to Create
Suggest things to Make a mistake about Destroy
Withhold from Assert things to Agree with
Change (or alter) Ignore

(Each button is used on each of the following lines consecutively through all lines before the next button is put in the lines.)

WHO OR WHAT WOULD (goal, ing)_____?
WHO OR WHAT WOULD (goal, ing) NOT_____?
WHO OR WHAT WOULD_____(goal, ing)?
WHO OR WHAT WOULD NOT _____(goal, ing)?
WHO OR WHAT WOULD (goal, ing) HELP______?
WHO OR WHAT WOULD HELP______(goal, ing)?


DIRECTIONS

Make the button form and the goal form into a sensible sentence in each line. Pc must be able to answer it.

Don’t take up the lines with the pc out of session or in session before you list. Do the lines very well before you even go near a session with your pc. Then, in actual auditing and listing the first time through, after pc has answered the last line fully to his or her satisfaction, clear the command of the next line with the pc. Don’t alter its sense. Just arrange its word-form so pc can answer it. Then list it and so on. Take up the lines with the pc as you come to them in auditing and not before.

Take a number of stiff cards, any standard size such as 5” x 7”. Write a line across the top of each card, the long way.

Number the cards in the upper right-hand corner, consecutive from the first lines above.

In auditing place the card stack on the table. As each card is answered with any items pc has, turn it over, face down, on top of the last cards done so as to preserve numerical order.

Take a pencil or ball-point. Make a small slant mark (/) for each item pc gives you in answer to auditing question.

Take more than one item per question if given. Take items until pc begins to comm lag. Then turn card to next question and use that as before. Do not leave items unaccepted.

Do not write down items. Only make a small slant mark (/) for each item given. For every fifth item, cross out the preceding four.

For the first run of slant (/) marks use a black pencil. For the second run when the whole card is filled with black, overstrike with a red pencil using the same system. For the third run when the card is black and red filled, start again with a green pencil. This should give around 800 items to one card, which should be enough. Cards that drop behind can then be spotted in cleaning up free needles and questioned. Only the 1st 12 cards should have parity.

Pcs should buy their own cards or pay for them in student auditing.

Use rubber bands to enclose cards between sessions. Mark pc’s name and date on the 1st card.

Don’t challenge pc’s answers. Take all the items pc will give you. Don’t force pc to give you items.

If pc objects to the wording of a line as unanswerable try to make it answerable by rewording or omit it. Mark F on card each time the line produces a Free Needle. Don’t list beyond a Free Needle. Leave card in stack and test each time through.

Make the goal fire well by Tiger Drill at the start of each listing session and at the end after end ruds and before room rud.

Get in Mid Ruds with “Since the last time I audited you”, if pc is upset or can’t seem to get on with listing.

If a line continues Free Needle after a question is asked, don’t force pc to answer it.


LRH :drjh L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 2 OCTOBER AD12
BPI

WHEN YOU NEED REASSURANCE

(Cancels HCO Bulletin of September 27, AD12, “Dream Come True”.)

When you hear people growling, when the lines are all awry, when the auditor has flubbed and the world of Scientology looks black, just remember that in the dozen years of sometimes despairing work and heart-breaking set-backs, the dream has yet come true. We have it now. We can and are clearing them all—and you.

In Scientology just remember this when all looks dark:

IT WILL ALL COME OUT ALL RIGHT.


LRH:jw.bh L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright Q 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


** 6210C02 SHSBC-196 3GA Listing Lines by Tiger Buttons

** 6210C02 SHSBC-197 3GA Listing Session—Listing Lines by Tiger
Buttons—2nd Lecture
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 OCTOBER 1962
Central Orgs
Franchise Airmail
TIGER DRILLING


I recently noticed that a pc's goal at start of listing sessions was only rock slamming or ticking, and the pc's TA very high.

I told the auditor to clean it up so it would read with rockets. I told her to stress failed to reveal, invalidate and careful of.

Here is the auditor's note giving result.


Dear Ron,

Thanks for your note re Jane.

The RS on her goal showed up during the 13 buttons + and-, in the body of the question, and I had seen it earlier in tiger drill on the goal, but not since.

I did work those 3 buttons (f to r, careful of and inval) hard in yesterday's session; got a cleaner read on the goal, but no rocket. Today, I reworked specifically the auditing in which the goal was found, after which it read with a slow only; then the listing, and got one small rocket a trifle latent; then did instructor's check and got a small instant fall. (The auditor who found the goal RSed. Uncovered more invalidations in that bit of auditing, and got the rest of the inadvertent missed W/H from the time during listing when she thought the goal had blown.)

TA came down to 2.25, and we listed about 900 goals in the remaining 1l/4 hours with TA 2.25 - 3.25, (.5 - .65 per 20 min), needle looser and clean.

Love,
Donna.


GOAL WORDING

Here is the case of an altered goal wording which kept the pc from going clear over four months of constant auditing:

Dear Ron,

Further to my letter of yesterday I had a wonderful session with Esta today. The Tone Arm came down from 5 - 3 and a stuck needle went free.

I was running "Since April 1962 (1 month before goal was found) on the goal 'To express myself' what has been agreed upon," and the stuck point and the missed withhold emerged and I pulled it.

After the goal was found in May (by another auditor) Esta was run on 4 lines but the goal was altered from "Myself" to "Himself". Esta agreed to this but thereafter ran himself instead of herself. She cognited she had partially gone into her son's valence and had been trying all the time to clear her son and other sons. She had been sitting there wanting to get clear herself and instead was running himself. Since then she had been avoiding auditing until now, and searching for herself. The missed withhold was herself as a result of the substitution of himself.

This also restimulated her Rock—for this was a Sun—but her goal was before the Rock.

There was an RS on Son/Sun. Esta cognited she had switched valences from "Myself" to "Himself".

So there has been this missed W/H since last May. She had identified with Son/Sun as a first creation.

Her goal is now reading well.

So it proves over and over again the terrible importance of not altering goal wordings and getting the lines exactly right.

It was a Session which seemed like a miracle.

All my love, Ron,
Anne.

NEW LINE LISTING

And here is what happens when a goal is right and is made to read well at session beginning and is listed as per HCO Bulletin of 1 October 1962:

Dear Ron,

I listed on the new lines today. It really was marvellous. I must have listed around about 1500 items and on one line I went up to 75 items before I comm-lagged. The big thing I noticed, Ron, was that I didn't have to "think" or figure-figure on what the lines were about. I just dealt the items off my bank (like you say). Once my auditor cleared the questions with me and I had the understanding of it, I was away. I knew when I had given him all the items and I just stopped. It really was very textbook. Not much 2-way comm, my auditor occasionally asking me—"How I was doing" and me just sitting there chanting items. Marvellous—Thanks Ron.

Love,
Irene.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:dr.rd
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED








SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
3—4 October 1962


** 6210C03 SH TVD-15A Prepchecking a Goal, Part I
** 6210C03 SH TVD-15B Prepchecking a Goal, Part II.
** 6210C04 SHSBC-198 Modern Security Checking
** 6210C04 SHSBC-199 Making a Goal Fire

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 8 OCTOBER AD 12
CenOCon
Sthil Students
Registrars IMPORTANT
Saint Hill Grads
HCO Secs
Assn & Org Secs
HGC CLEARING


The plan of HGC Clearing is simple and direct but unless it is scrupulously followed, it will cause upset and dissatisfaction.

If a Central Org is not clearing the public, the public will be upset with it. This is the simple matter of the penalty of not-auditing.

You can make lots of Clears on the staff or in special cases but if you do not do routine clearing in an HGC you will continue to have trouble.

As only recent Saint Hill Graduates are qualified to find goals—in actual fact, they are the only ones who safely can—the backbone of an HGC is a Saint Hill Graduate.

No Saint Hill Graduates can be D of P or D of T at this time, and may be Technical Directors or Association or Organization Secretaries only with my specific permission. This will hold true until the scarcity is solved.

The primary appointment of a Saint Hill Graduate in an Organization is "Goal Finder" in the HGC. When enough exist in an Organization to fill the bare needs of the HGC, then a Saint Hill Graduate will be appointed Staff Staff Auditor as per Staff Clearing Program HCO Policy Letter of September 10,1962.

The HGC system is therefore as follows:

HPA or HCA Staff Auditors do the following:

1. Handle any CCH case.
2. Give Problems Intensives.

3. Give the "In Auditing" and "On Goals" and past goals Goals Prepcheck (TV Demo tape 3 October 1962 and other lectures of the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course). This includes all old goals that were found or went out hard.
4. Do the required 850 goals list.
5. List goals to clear.

At this point, unless the goal was found in 3 above (not 4 above), the HPA/HCA staff auditor turns the pc over to the Goal Finder. This can happen at any time that the Goal Finder has time available.

Once the pc is turned over to the Goal Finder he or she receives no further auditing from other staff auditors, only the Goal Finder. The Goal Finder takes the new pc the moment the last pc's goal was found.

There is no extra charge for the Goal Finder's Auditing and the auditing time of a Saint Hill Graduate may not be sold as such by an HGC. The Goal Finder's Units may be high. The Goal Finder may not take private pcs on his or her own. There may be no part-time HGC Goal Finders. Any Sthil Graduates willing to work part-time to help the Organization should be assigned to the Staff Training Program or the Academy to heighten the level of technology. An exception is the auditing of staff members,
particularly the Organization or Association Secretary. Part-time Saint Hill Graduates may not be used in the HGC.

FEES

A Central Organization or City Office does not sell auditing hours by the hour ever. It sells (1) Clearing (2) De-Suppression (3) Longevity. It sells these by Intensives as always. It cannot sell "Ten Hours from a Saint Hill Graduate" or charge fees "for special auditing by a Saint Hill Graduate".

Goals finding by an HGC is only undertaken as a part of the clearing assembly line. One cannot come into an HGC just to have a goal found or checked and get other auditing elsewhere. The practice would be very pernicious and result in few clears and many wrecked cases.

A Saint Hill Graduate's auditing time is available in the HGC only if the pc signs the Clearing Contract ("We take Full Responsibility for Clearing you"). Then the person who signed the contract is put on the assembly line for clearing. This policy is not to be varied in any way.

Casual pcs coming in for intensives who do not sign the Clearing Contract must sign up for Intensives as always.

All former "Estimate of number of hours" procedures are now abandoned due to effectiveness of pulling Missed W/Hs and a modem Problems Intensive.

A pc signing up for health reasons is just given a routine Missed W/H check and a Problems Intensive. The same is done for Geriatric Cases (longevity of life).

So a pc signs up in the HGC either for Clearing and is put on the Assembly Line, or for Intensives and is given Missed Withholds and a Problems Intensive by an HPA/HCA and is made satisfied by good technical application in either case.

Single hours of auditing may not be sold by a Central Organization, City Office or District Office "to see how it goes". It's Intensives or nothing.


CLEARING ASSEMBLY LINE

Clearing is sold by Intensives, purchased when auditing is available. A careful log of time is kept. This is TIME IN THE HGC, not time for this or that.

The pc buys one or more intensives and is handed over to the D of P.

The D of P thereafter tells the pc what the pc gets and assigns the pc as necessary.

The line is regulated by the number of Goal Finders and the Goal Finder time available.

Care is taken not to waste the pc's time. Depending on state of case and lack of Goal Finder time available, the pc has the following, some of it or all of it, done.

1. Missed Withholds and Hav process found.

2. Problems Intensive.

3. (For a long-time pc, Dianeticist or Scientologist.) One or more Intensives cleaning up "In Auditing" and "In Self-Auditing", Prepchecks.

4. Do an 850 goals list.

5. (For pcs who have had former goals found, wrongly or otherwise.) Prepcheck on the goal or goals, each one chronologically cared for (1st one taken up first, etc).

6. (For pcs who have been listed on goals or wrong goals and not to clear.) Prepcheck on the Auditing of goals, listing, etc.

7. Tiger Drill on every button (on suppress has anything been suppressed, etc).

8. Straighten up pc's HGC time with a Prepcheck.

All the above are HPA/HCA actions. They are not done by the Goal Finder. If they have to be done, the Goal Finder turns the pc back to HPA/HCAs.

The moment a Goal Finder has completed finding and checking a goal or finding one which must wait for checking by another Goal Finder, the Goal Finder grabs another pc out of the HGC or has one called in. No Goal Finder time is wasted. This may become the source of much sweat and urgency by HGC Admin, but Goal Finder time must be salvaged by grabbing up pcs for him or her.

The Goal Finder uses current methods to find the goal and check it out.

The moment that action is done the pc is returned to an HPA/HCA for a Prepcheck on the goal and listing it.

The Goal Finder must review the lines and personally see the goal fire before permitting it to be listed and must see the pc's folder routinely to make sure it is going well.

All further Prepchecking and listing is done by HPA/HCAs.

The freeness of needle is checked by the D of P.

The goal is fully Tiger Drilled and Prepchecked after the needle goes free on all lines.

This is the Assembly Line for Clearing. The Goal Finder is on no other line, does no other auditing. The only way the pc can be on this line is by signing a Clearing Contract.

FORMS

A form for each pc undergoing clearing, giving the steps, must be part of the pc's folder and kept up by the auditor. This is based on the above data.

If a pc has had a recent Problems Intensive and now signs a Clearing Contract this is made part of the Clearing rundown. If done, however, by an outside auditor, the pc must be given another Problems Intensive.

A Special Form showing all steps and evidence of a clear must be sent to me.

The idea is to get results, to turn out clears and to keep HPA/HCAs well occupied and at a high technical level.


ACCIDENTAL GOAL FINDING

It will happen that in cleaning up old goals found or even by sudden disclosure, the HPA/HCA staff auditor may find a goal that fires and is the goal. If so, it is checked out by the Goal Finder and listed unless other orders are given regarding the pc (such as unburdening the goal).

HPA/HCAs are not, however, to attempt to find goals at this time and it is highly illegal for an HGC to employ non-Saint Hill Graduates to find goals no matter what the public pressure. It could be very destructive to Scientology to have a lot of wrong goals about or getting listed.

In due course this last injunction will be released so far as Tiger Drilling the 850 list by HPA/HCAs is concerned. But wait until technology is better. This will apply only to experienced staff auditors.

METERS

Only the latest Mark Meters are to be used by Goal Finders. Mark IV and onwards may be used by HPA/HCAs.

It would be dishonest to use less.


SUMMARY

HGCs must afford public Clearing of individuals. Clearing Co-Audits of the public are a special role and are to be relegated to District Offices as soon as possible. It is no part of my plans to retain them in a Central Org or City Office.

Only the highest technology and most exact adherence to policy can keep us afloat at this time. These are not ordinary policies. These are survival itself for Scientology.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:dr.rd
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
































SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
9—11 October 1962

** 6210C09 SHSBC-200 Future Org Trends
** 6210C09 SHSBC-201 Instructors' Bugbear
** 6210C11 SHSBC-202 3GA Goals Finding
** 6210C11 SHSBC 203 3GA Goals Finding

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 13 OCTOBER AD 12
sthil

PROCESSES

Saint Hill Special Briefing Course
(Effective at once)

X Processes

The X Unit Processes shall consist of processes as follows:

1. Security Check by Rock Slam, with an adequate report of results in the student's folder. This is done in Model Session with Meter.

2. Model Session and Havingness Processes. All with Meter.

3. Liberal use of Random Rudiments and Middle Rudiments.

All X Processes are done with full use of the E-Meter.

Rudiments and results will be routinely observed and reported on by the Auditing Supervisor.

Students apparently not yet capable of getting rudiments in, handling auditing cycle and making the pc feel and look better will be promptly G.A.E.ed without waiting for end of week.

Rock Slammers, before being so designated, must be retested by the Auditing Supervisor. Rock Slammers may be specially designated in auditing assignment.

Y Unit Processes

The Y Unit carries out the following schedule only:

1. With Meter, in metered Model Session, fully clean missed withholds from the pc with any version of the following questions: "What have we failed to find out about you?" "What has an auditor failed to find out about you?" "What have I failed to find out about you?"

2. With Meter, in otherwise unmetered Model Session, list and assess by elimination the following question, "In this lifetime what change have you decided to make? When was that?"

3. Complete the Problems Intensive (Routine 2A) using the Meter only to make sure of TA action, otherwise the Model Session and running to be done without recourse to needle.

The above should be less than 25 hours of auditing, 3 to 5 hours for missed w/hs and 20 to 22 for the Problems Intensive.

Leaving withholds missed, a wrong assessment, failure to get TA motion, or failure to get spectacular results on the pc will G.A.E. the student to the X Unit.

This Problems Intensive and the pulling of missed withholds are and will be fundamental Academy and HGC actions, so the student should become expert in them.

Z Unit Processes

The Z Unit is totally concerned with current rundown of Routine 3GA.

If the student fails to get the Detested Person, Dynamic and Item of the pc within 30 auditing hours, the student is G.A.E.ed to the Y Unit.



LRH :gl.cden L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 OCTOBER AD12
Sthil
Franchise Airmail


GOAL FINDER'S MODEL SESSION


Where the pc has been well Prepchecked and is well under auditor control, a Goal Finder in a 3GA session may omit rudiments in Model Session, using only goals for session, and havingness, goals and gains at end and General O/W, Mid Ruds and Random Ruds where needed in the session. This salvages about an hour's auditing time per day. Start and end of session commands are used, just no rudiments; General O/W may be found necessary on some pcs at session start in lieu of rudiments to get a cleaner needle.

This does not apply to Rudiments and Havingness Sessions or Prepcheck Sessions and Problems Intensives.

For a pc who is well smoothed out by staff auditors, then, and who is well under the Goal Finder's control, the following may be used, particularly with a Mark V Meter.

GOAL FINDER'S MODEL SESSION

Usual session start, adjust chair, squeeze cans and put in the R Factor:

GOAL FINDER: "Is it all right if I start this session now?" (If so) (Tone 40) "START OF SESSION."
"Has this session started for you?" (If pc says No, say again, "Start of Session. Now has this session started for you?" If pc says No, say, "We will cover it in a moment," and run General O/W after goals are set.)

GOAL FINDER: "What goals would you like to set for this session?" "Are there any goals you would like to set for life or livingness?"

Goal Finder inspects needle. If rough, or if session didn't start for pc:
GOAL FINDER: "If it is all right with you, I am going to run a short general process." "The process is 'What have you done?' 'What have you withheld?'" (Runs it very permissively until needle looks smooth.) "If it is all right with you I will give these questions two more times and then end this process."

"Is there anything you would care to ask or say before I end this process?" (Not Tone 40.) "End of Process. We will now (whatever it is they were going to do)."

Mid Ruds

Use either "Since the Last Time I audited you ......" (usually the first time used in the session) or "In this session ....." for the Middle Rudiments "has anything been ......" (suppressed, invalidated, suggested) and "is there anything you have ......." (failed to reveal, been careful of).
Random Rudiment: "Have I missed a withhold on you?" or "In this session have you
thought, said or done anything I failed to find out?"

Ending the Session

The Goal Finder closes the body of the session with "Is it all right with you if we
end off ........now?" "Is there anything you would care to ask or say before I do so?" "End of ........."

(Goal Finder observes pc. If pc very agitated Goal Finder does General O/W as above. If needle rough but pc not bad, Goal Finder puts in Mid Ruds with "In this session".)

GOAL FINDER: (Adjusting Meter) "Please squeeze the cans." (If squeeze test not all right, Goal Finder runs pc's havingness until can squeeze gives an adequate response.)

GOAL FINDER: "Have you made any part of your goals for this session?" "Have you made any other gains in this session that you would care to mention?"

End of Session:

"Is there anything you would care to ask or say before I end this session?" "Is it all right with you if I end this session now?"

"Here it is: (Tone 40) END OF SESSION."

"Has the session ended for you?" (If not, repeat it. If session still not ended, say, "You will be getting more auditing.") "Tell me I am no longer auditing you."


L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:gl.rd
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 16 OCTOBER 1962
Central Orgs
Franchise
ROUTINE 3GA
LISTING


The reason some pcs go to clear on listing and the reason some don't at once lies entirely with the auditor.

The dominant rules are two:

1. Don't force the pc to list more items than he has, and
2. Don't prevent the pc from giving items.

The number of ways an auditor can dream up, or overlook, to violate 1 and 2 above are countless.

Example:

If pc can't answer the line easily skip, omit or change it, DON'T Tiger Drill it to force an answer.

LISTING IS NOT PREPCHECKING. You don't wait for the pc to say he has no more before you stop asking a line. THE AUDITOR REGULATES HIS QUESTION BY THE PC'S COMM LAG. When the pc first comm lags (without asking for a repeat of the Line wording) the auditor comes off the line. The auditor doesn't ask the line again just "to make sure" or ask the pc "do you have any more". Asking it again when the pc has comm lagged leaves, amongst other things, an unanswered auditing question.

The line is asked. The pc answers until he or she comm lags. The auditor then acks and goes instantly to next line. If the pc says he has more on the old line, the auditor says "sorry" and takes them.

A LINE IS RUN TO FIRST COMM LAG. How long is a comm lag? It is the pause before the strained grope.

A pc's decline in answering goes as follows:

1. Bright rapid giving.
2. Comm lag while looking.
3. Groping for more.
4. Comm lag while groping.
5. Can't quite say it.
6. Starts picking up and rejecting.

From 3 above onward the auditor is at fault. Right at the end of 2 the auditor acks and gives the pc the next line.

The auditor takes only the bright, easily gotten flows.

If the pc goes fumbling and groggy the auditor is at fault and is doing wrong.

Listing is a rapid action. The way to keep it rapid is to deftly see that the pc has given all and then get out of there!

Auditors whose pcs dope and grope will soon have pcs that mope.

The auditor avoids Q and A. The auditor never repeats an item back to the pc or asks if it fits on the line. The auditor's role is permissive with good presence.

If the auditor does not understand an item he or she says so but does not include any repeat of the item in saying so. That's evaluation.

Listing is slightly contrary to early auditing philosophy. Then, if the pc protested, the auditor forced the pc to answer. In listing this is never done.

Then, if the pc comm lagged, the auditor flattened it. In listing one never flattens a comm lag. One shifts the moment the first comm lag appears, but without startling the pc.

Listing auditing is different. The pc is always right. In listing if you trick a pc into more items and prevent the pc from giving those items he has readily to hand, the whole case may have to be patched up before it will clear.

It is so easy to list right as an auditor that many will fumble all over the place before they get the knack. And almost all errors will be additive errors.

Listing is the biggest barrier to clear now that we can find goals.

Other listing methods may appear, but these will only alter What lines. Nothing is going to alter the above, so you better learn it.


L. RON HUBBARD





LRH: gl.rd
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 17 OCTOBER 1962

Central Orgs
Franchise

AUDITOR FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND


If a pc says something and the auditor fails to understand what the pc said or meant, the correct response is:

"I did not (hear you) (understand what was said) (get that last)."

To do anything else is not only bad form, it can amount to a heavy ARC break.


INVALIDATION

To say, "You did not speak loud enough_____" or any other use of "you" is an invalidation.

The pc is also thrown out of session by having responsibility hung on him or her.

The Auditor is responsible for the session. Therefore the auditor has to assume responsibility for all comm breakdowns in it.


EVALUATION

Far more serious than invalidation above, is the accidental evaluation which may occur when the auditor repeats what the pc said.

NEVER repeat anything a pc says after him, no matter why.

Repeating not only does not show the pc you heard but makes him feel you're a circuit.

The highest advance of 19th Century Psychology was a machine to drive people crazy. All it did was repeat after the person everything the person said.

Children also do this to annoy.

But that isn't the main reason you do not repeat what the pc said after the pc. If you say it wrong the pc is thrown into heavy protest. The pc must correct the wrongness and hangs up right there. It may take an hour to dig the pc out of it.

Further, don't gesture to find out. To say, pointing, "You mean this item, then," is not only an evaluation but a nearly hypnotic command, and the pc feels he must reject very strongly.

Don't tell the pc what the pc said and don't gesture to find what the pc meant.

Just get the pc to say it again or get the pc to point it out again. That's the correct action.

DRIVING IN ANCHOR POINTS

Also, do not shove things at a pc or throw things to a pc. Don't gesture toward a pc. It drives in anchor points and makes the pc reject the auditor.

ROCK SLAMMER

The reason a person who Rock Slams on Scientology or auditors or the like can't audit well is that they are wary of a pc and feel they must repeat after the pc, correct the pc or gesture toward the pc.

But Rock Slammer or not, any new auditor may fall into these bad habits and they should be broken fast.

SUMMARY

A very high percentage of ARC breaks occur because of a failure to understand the pc.

Don't prove you didn't with gestures or erroneous repeats.

Just audit, please.


L. RON HUBBARD
LRH: dr.rd
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED







[This HCO B is reissued verbatim as HCO B 23 May 1971, Issue VI, Basic Auditing Series 6, Auditor Failure to Understand It is also edited for use on the HQS Course as HCO B 25 October 1971, Issue III, Auditor Failure to Understand.]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 18 OCTOBER AD 12
Central Orgs
Franchise Airmail


3GA
LISTING BY PREHAV


If your pc is not doing well in listing the goal on any earlier system (particularly the 114 lines which haven't done well at all in auditors' hands) the following line system should work. Prehav levels were the original breakthrough on clearing.

Take the old Auxiliary Prehav Scale. Just do an ordinary Assessment by Elimination (no reference to the goal). (It is possible some change will be made in this but it will do for now.)

Fit the resulting level into the following lines. Make sure it makes sense and makes sense to the pc. Any alteration of the word must register as well as the original word found when you add (ing) or vary its participle:

(System of Marking Cards same as 114 Line HCO Bulletin)

(Blanks refer to Prehav Level)

1. Who or what would________(goal)?
2. Who or what would not________(goal)?
3. Who or what would (goal)________?
4. Who or what would (goal) not________?
5. Who or what would oppose________(goal)?
6. Who or what would not oppose________(goal)?
7. Who or what would________opposition (goal)?
8. Who or what would not________opposition (goal)?
(Omit effect wording lines of goal if no effect wording exists.)
9. Who or what would________(effect wording of goal)?
10. Who or what would not ________(effect wording of goal)?
11. Who or what would (effect wording of goal)________?
12. Who or what would (effect wording of goal) not________?
13. Who or what would oppose________(effect wording of goal)?
14. Who or what would not oppose________(effect wording of goal)?
15. Who or what would________opposition (effect wording of goal)?
16. Who or what would not________opposition (effect wording of goal)?
17. Who or what would help________(goal)?
18. Who or what would not help________(goal)?
19. Who or what would (goal) help________?
20. Who or what would (goal) not help________?
21. Who or what would help oppose________(goal)?
22. Who or what would not help oppose________(goal)?

23. Who or what would help________opposition (goal)?
24. Who or what would not help________opposition (goal)?
25. Who or what would want (goal)?
26. Who or what would not want (goal)?
27. Who or what would oppose (goal)?
28. Who or what would not oppose (goal)?
(Effect wording lines may be omitted if none exist for goal.)
29. Who or what would want (effect wording of goal)?
30. Who or what would not want (effect wording of goal)?
31. Who or what would oppose (effect wording of goal)?
32. Who or what would not oppose (effect wording of goal)?

Directions

Flatten every level found by going over and over lines until TA action stops.

Use strike marks as in 114 Line HCO Bulletin. Four slants and a long cross. Don't use fully written down lists of things pc gives.

Don't demand more than pc has. Don't prevent pc from giving what he has (such as stopping automaticities of flow). Don't Q and A. Be Permissive with Presence. Don't get the pc into Protest as Sen will turn on. Fix lines so pc can answer cleanly, without confusion.

If pc is being shifted from another system of lines, give auditing on goal a rapid Prepcheck before using this system.


L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:gl.jh
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED















SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
23—25 October 1962


** 6210C23 SHSBC-202X 3GA Criss Cross
** 621 0C23 SHSBC-203X 3GAXX Following the Rock Slam
** 6210C25 SHSBC-208 3GAXX
** 6210C25 SHSBC-209 3GAXX Secondary Pre-Hav Scale

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 19 OCTOBER 1962
Sthil Students
CenOCon R3GA
Franchise Airmail
HCO WW FORM G3, REVISED

FAST GOALS CHECK

(Keep completed form in pc's folder)

This is a rapid checkout of a goal for use by Auditors and particularly Instructors and Auditing Supervisors. By an Auditor it is done in Model Session. By an Instructor or Supervisor it is done as a simple checkout.

ALWAYS COMPLETE WHOLE CHECK.

__________________________________________ _____________________
PC's Name Date

__________________________________________
Org Location

Goal_________________________________________________________________

A: Read goal rapidly to pc three times Note reaction and inform pc if in or out.

B: Repetitive Ruds. (Early reads are acceptable as instant reads on ruds, not on goal which must be instant only.)

On the goal is there anything you have

1. Suppressed ___________ 4. Invalidated ____________
2. Been careful of ___________ 5. Suggested ____________
3. Withheld ___________ 6. Mistaken ____________

Only when each is clean, go to next and when all clean go to C.

C: Read goal rapidly to pc three times Note reaction and tell pc if in or out.

D: Do Fast Ruds: In this session (or checkout) is there anything you have suppressed, suggested, invalidated, failed to reveal or been careful of? When all nul, go to E.

E: Section E must be read all in one sweep to be valid, with no read on any rud and a rocket read (sharp downward tick at least 1/4 Of an inch) each time exactly at end of reading the goal. Don't add in the goal until all six ruds items read nul in one sweep. Then read the ruds line and the goal 3 times in one breath.

On the goal __________is there anything you have suppressed, suggested, invalidated, withheld, mistaken or been careful of? (Goal)___________ (Goal)___________(Goal)___________

If none of ruds in this section reads and goal did read, providing the meter reading of the check was flawless it is a listable goal.

Goal Checked Out___________________________

Goal Didn't Check Out________________________


LRH :jw.rd _________________________________
Copyright ©1962 (Auditor, Auditing Supervisor, Instructor)
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 29 OCTOBER 1962

Central Orgs
Franchise Airmail

PRE-CLEARING INTENSIVE
(Most appropriate to Z Unit Sthil or HGCs)


On cases that have been run on many clearing procedures or goals or types of lines or who have had frequent changes of auditors, to speed eventual clearing, the following can be done:

1. Assess the Pre-Clearing Scale (below) by elimination.

2. Choose a period one month before the first session the person ever had in Dianetics and Scientology. Use only the month and year.

3. Run the seventeen buttons by Prepcheck on the Command "Since______(date) in (or on)______(subject from Scale below) is there anything (or has anything been, as appropriate)______(button)?"

4. Clean once through the buttons only and assess again.

5. Keep the Mid Ruds in.


ASSESSMENT FOR CLEARING INTENSIVE

Auditing Processing
Self-Auditing Working
Clearing Preclears
Dissemination Auditors
Practising Talking
Teaching Goals
Learning Hopes
Living Helping
Intention Finance
Sessions Problems
Courses Sex
Training Dianetics
Processes Scientology
Organizations

LRH:dr.bh
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard L. RON HUBBARD
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


** 6210C30 SHSBC-204 Pre-Hav Scales and Lists
** 6210C30 SHSBC-205 Listing Goals
** 6211C01 SHSBC-206 The Missed Missed Withhold
** 6211C01 SHSBC-207 The Road to Truth

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 7 NOVEMBER AD12
CenOCon
Franchise


WRONG GOALS,
IMPORTANCE OF REPAIR OF


(Use of this HCO Bulletin. Get it hat checked on all auditors whether classed or not. If an auditor is found to have found a wrong goal, make him or her pass this HCO Bulletin again.)

If a wrong goal has been found on a pc and has been ''confirmed'' as correct but later refuted, that goal must be Big Tiger Drilled out of existence, all pain and sensation and meter reaction off, at once.

If a wrong goal has been found on a pc, checked out as correct and listed, that wrong goal must be Prepchecked out of existence, and all pain, sensation and reaction on the meter removed and immediately.

These are first, primary, important and mandatory actions. They must be done at once on the discovery of the wrongness of a goal.

No other action may be done until the above is done. And the above must be done right now, not "next month when we have an auditor available". And poetically it should be done by the person who "found" the goal if immediately available, and should be done in addition to that person's regular auditing. Even finding the right goal does not straighten out the "found" wrong ones.

If more than one wrong goal has been found and listed or not, the wrong goals must be eradicated chronologically, the first wrong goal found is the first one to be done. The above rules apply as to whether the goal was listed or not (in other words, what is to be done with each wrong goal is governed by the first two paragraphs of this HCO Bulletin).

Now these rules are not because of policy. They are technical. And the technical is extreme in its validity and so this HCO Bulletin becomes policy because it has such heavy technical validity.

Finding and running wrong goals is very destructive and very dangerous to a pc's life and health.

The most effective treatment a pc who has had a wrong goal found or run can have is the eradication of the goal by Big Tiger or Prepcheck. The pc will get a gain beyond mere repair.

In the presence of a wrong goal found or found and run, no other processes will work. I.e., a Problems Intensive or General O/W or Missed W/Hs. The presence of a wrong goal found or found and run will develop a PTP that stops all further progress. An auditor will just make no headway on a case that has had a wrong goal found or found and run until one or the other of the first two paragraphs of this HCO Bulletin has been done properly.

-------------

SYMPTOMS OF A RIGHT GOAL LISTED WRONGLY

1. TA getting High and Sticky (4.5 or 5) and nothing brings it down, or TA staying below 2 and nothing brings it up.

2. Pc looking bad, old, grey, weight increasing.
3. Pc acting blowy.
4. More sen than pain on pc.


SYMPTOMS OF A WRONG OR IMPROPERLY CLEANED GOAL UNLISTED

1. Doesn't rocket read and no Prepcheck can make it rocket read even once out of three times.

2. Checking it gives pc sen only, and no pain during check-out.
3 . Pc blowy.
4. Pc says or feels goal is overwhelming.
5. Pc can't wrap his or her wits around goal.
6. It's not something pc really wanted in this life.
7. Pc has had no pain while auditor was cleaning goal up by Prepcheck.
8. Pc tries to fit goal into life.
9. Pc has had no cognitions on goal.
10. Pc looks worse than usual.

11. Pc very upset during check-out or in total apathy. (Pc's often nervous on a right goal during check-out, but with a wrong one pc is a wreck and very ARC breaky or totally uncaring.)
12. Pc very doubtful as to whether it is or isn't the goal.
13. Pc rock slamming during check-out.
14. Pc has no reality on goal.

15. Pc has to get into a certain position or spot on the time track to make goal read.

16. Pc very worried about being checked—a lot of anxiety. This sign also accompanies a goal which is very charged because of poor prepchecking. When it's the right goal pc is usually calm.

(The above 16 are taken from HCO Tech Letter of October 22, 1962.)


SYMPTOMS OF A WRONG GOAL LISTED

1. TA mostly at 4.5 or 5 (or could be below 2).
2. Pc ARC breaky.
3. Pc blowy.
4. Pc looks very bad, older, greyer, skin tone poor.
5. Pc's eyes watery.
6. Only sensation predominant on list.
7. Pc dizzy.
8. Pc nauseated, or vomiting.
9. Bank getting more solid.
10. Pc gaining weight.

11. Rudiments can't be kept in.
12. Missed W/Hs even when pulled, fail to get pc cheerfully into session.


SYMPTOMS OF A RIGHT GOAL UNLISTED

1. Goal rocket reads 2 out of three on Instructor's check.
2. Goal rocket reads 2 out of three on check after a Prepcheck on it.
3. Goal won't go out entirely and if it does it bobs back up.

4. Pc relaxed during check-out, co-operative but not selling the goal particularly.
5. Pc gets cognitions on the goal.
6. Tiger Drilling, Prepchecking or checking gives pc pain.
7. If sen is on, a clean-up wipes it off and turns it to pain.

8. Pain never wholly vanishes. Handling goal doesn't wipe out all its pain for very long. Pain always returns even when briefly departed.
9. Goal goes out and in, sometimes does, sometimes doesn't read.

10. Right goal reads are different. Wrong goal reads are very constant and rarely rocket after maybe once or twice when found.

11. A rocket read can always be recovered on a right goal even when it has vanished, right up to the time it vanishes and the pc goes clear. The rocket read gets shorter, gets early or late, but it doesn't vanish entirely until the goal is blown.
12. Pc looked better after goal was found.
13. Rudiments easier to keep in.
14. Pc co-operative.
-------------

It is hard for an auditor to get a reality on a goal until he or she has found a goal.

For experience the auditor tends to hope his or her way through and trust that "even if it doesn't read, the pc will be disappointed" or the auditor feels he or she would look bad. To our shame, auditors have faked a goal to a pc or instructor. Also, an auditor who is green tends to throw the burden on the checker and do a job that's "good enough for a check". Only the right goal, reading properly, is "good enough for a check".

An auditor who finds a goal and doesn't get it to read properly before a check, or who finds a goal and doesn't get it checked by another auditor who is expert, is irresponsible. And an auditor who will not immediately sweat to clean up a wrong goal or work overtime and on his own time too to clean up a wrong goal that's been listed is just not worthy of the name.

--------------

Wrong goals are dynamite.

Prevent them by being properly trained and by doing a good job.

With goals processing in our hands we can deliver results greater than any ever achieved before anywhere. Thus, such a powerful weapon must also be respected and used right.


LRH:gl.jh L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 7 NOVEMBER AD12
Issue II
CenOCon
Franchise Airmail
ROUTINE 3-21
THE TWENTY-ONE STEPS
FINDING GOALS


I have been doing considerable research auditing and case inspection and have worked out the following method of clearing.

THE TWENTY-ONE STEPS

The first reliable clearing method, 3GA, is to be found, improved, in 3-21, carrying the pc who can be handled this way, all the way to OT goal by goal. For the difficult pc it is only varied in Step 4 below, which is changed on difficult pcs to 3GA XX or variations of it.

Clearing has been improved by the advent of Tiger Drilling and Goals Prepchecking and by new data on finding goals and on listing. The greatest hold-up in clearing was lack of an adequate Prehav Level finding system. I have now developed this in HCO Bulletin 7 November, Issue III. This will be of enormous help both in finding Rock Slams to find goals and running out goals when found.

There is, however, no substitute for a well trained, accurate auditor out to help the pc. This is a fully understood requisite to this method.

The method is briefly as follows:

1. Tiger Drill or Prepcheck out of the way any earlier found goals in accordance with HCO Bulletin 7 November AD12, Issue I.

2. Prepare the pc with a Problems Intensive, new style.

3. Have pc do a goals list 850 long.

4. Tiger Drill goals from goal 1 on forward. (Do not preselect goals to be TDd ever on any list just do the list.) Stop at that goal which won't go out by TD, and which can be made to Rocket Read occasionally. (Only this step (4) is changed on a tougher pc when it includes different goal finding methods.)

5. Prepcheck that goal until it Rocket Reads with consistency.

6. Take the basic four lines

1. WHO OR WHAT WOULD WANT______________________

2. WHO OR WHAT WOULD NOT WANT _________________

3. WHO OR WHAT WOULD OPPOSE_________________ING

4. WHO OR WHAT WOULD NOT OPPOSE ____________ING

and list and nul each one to an Item.

Do a list of around 100.

Do a routine assessment on each. If more than one stay in, take the one that reads best as the Item. (If the pc's early lists, on a pc whose goal has been found for some time, are missing or unavailable do this step just as above. Otherwise use old written lists as in footnote below.)

7. Repeat 6 above.

8. When pc's tone arm ceases to be active (with all rudiments in and goal firing on 6 and 7) do a Roll Your Own Prehav Assessment (see next HCO Bulletin) on the goal.

9. Use the lines

1. WHO OR WHAT WOULD (GOAL) (LEVEL)?
2. WHO OR WHAT WOULD (GOAL) NOT (LEVEL)?
3. WHO OR WHAT WOULD (LEVEL) (GOAL)?
4. WHO OR WHAT WOULD NOT (LEVEL) (GOAL)?

and do a written list for each and assess as in 6 above. The lines must make sense to the auditor as well as the pc and be answerable without distorting goal. If the PH Secondary Level is changed in prefix or suffix or tense make sure it reads as well as the original.

10. When TA ceases to move on 9 do a new Roll Your Own Prehav and repeat 9.

11. Continue as in 9 and 10 until pc is having no trouble whatever in spotting and blowing items.

12. When last PH Level has taken all motion out of TA by 9, 10, and 11 is evident, get a new Roll Your Own Prehav and proceed using the lines of 9 but no longer writing down items, using the pages of composition book and four slant marks with a fifth crossing them out as a tally.

13. When neither old nor new Prehav Levels can any longer be made to react on the goal and the needle is free, Prepcheck the auditing on the goal.

14. When the auditing is clean, Prepcheck the goal.

15. Test all previous Prehav Levels for the goal and have somebody qualified inspect and attest the absence of goal read and the freeness of the needle. This is a first goal clear.

16. Repeat all above steps for the second goal.

17. Repeat steps 1 to 15 for the third goal as feasible.

18. Repeat steps 1 to 15 for the fourth goal as feasible.

19. Repeat steps 1 to 15 for the fifth goal as feasible.

20. Repeat steps 1 to 15 for the sixth goal as feasible.

21. Find consecutive goals as feasible and run them out.

Tips: The cardinal rule of listing is to never demand more than the pc has and never prevent the pc from giving items he or she does have.

Keep the pc in session, but don't use the Mid Ruds to punish the pc every time the pc originates.

If the pc gets very ARC Breaky and missed W/Hs don't cure it, then in Step 4 you have passed the pc's goal in the last page or two, so get Suppress and Protest clean and redo them.

In Tiger Drilling the goal is always ahead of you, never behind you. You leave nothing behind you on the goals list.

Keep a careful record of the PH Primary and Secondary Levels run or used in any way.

Treat a pc's goals and Items lists like jewelry. Don't lose them.

-------------

Above, we have a highly standard clearing procedure, the best of everything that has worked. Only the four lines in 6 and 9 are subject to change.

On the easy case this is the best rundown for finding goals and clearing.

More difficult cases are characterized by two things—(a) pc's needle is occasionally very dirty, or (b) goals go out hard on Tiger Drilling. These are the only two guiding points which dictate a change. Even so only Step 4 above is changed (finding the goal).

Even if some other method than Step 4 is used to attain the goal, the rest of the above is still followed. I surmise that on less easy pcs only the first goal will require other goal finding than Step 4 and that the above holds good for all second goals onward for all pcs. This however is only a surmise and other means than Step 4 may be needed on some second goals.

Therefore, today, we have no variation from the above except in actually finding the goal. Further about 50% (at a guess) of one's pcs require no variation from the above to find or run a goal.

As more data becomes available some of the above can be expected to be modified in the interests of speed and positive results. But the Twenty-One Steps are based on vast quantities of experience and data.

--------------

Note: Where a pc has had his goal found some time ago and written lists exist for the first four lines, recover these lists and take them in consecutive sections of 100 and nul them by usual means to an Item.

Then, again in rotation, take the next 100 and nul each to an Item. The lists however must be from the correct wording of the goal, not an earlier variation as they then would not apply. In the latter case do only the steps as above.

--------------

ROCK SLAMMING ITEMS

Note: Items in the Twenty-One Steps which Rock Slam when found in listing the goal may have to be opposed or otherwise handled to discharge them. (See forthcoming HCO Bulletins on 3GA XX.)



LRH :jw.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 7 NOVEMBER AD12
Issue III
CenOCon
Franchise Airmail
"ROLL YOUR OWN" PREHAV
(Cancels all earlier HCO Bulletins on how
to do a Prehav Assessment)

Roll Your Own Prehav Assessment has been developed:

(a) To avoid lengthy Prehav Assessments,
(b) To get much more accurate levels for the pc for use in both finding and listing out goals, and
(c) To enter the Rock Slam channel easily.

The assessment is done on any available or special Prehav Scale for the purpose of the assessment. (For instance the 1st 65 levels of the Auxiliary Prehave Scale.)

The assessment follows the exact steps below:

HOW TO DO ONE

It is very easy to do a Prehav Assessment. It is not so easy to do a completely accurate one.

When clearing is going hard, the most likely source of error is the Prehav Assessment. It is ridiculously easy for an auditor to make a bad one. The Preclears attention hangs up on a button he tells himself isn't it and the invalidation makes it stay in and voila you have a wrong assessment.

Like goals, a Prehav Assessment must be kept clean of Tiger Drill buttons.

You get a wrong assessment if the pc has invalidated or protested a button. Or if he or she has suppressed the right one. Also if too many levels are staying in or too many are going out, the Mid Ruds are out.

A Prehav Assessment requires careful auditing. Only experience can give an auditor the full data.

TERMS

Prehav Scale = Any scale giving degrees of doingness or not doingness.
Level = Any doingness or not doingness on the scale. Any word in the scale itself.
Assessment = Any method of discovering a level on the scale for a given pc.

Read = Any reaction of the needle different from its regular action for the pc, occurring during or slightly after a level has been called.
Mid Ruds = The middle rudiments of the current model session.

Tiger Drill = That series of buttons which are capable of preventing a right goal or level from reading or making a wrong level read, combined in an appropriate exercise.

THE MOST ACCURATE ASSESSMENT

Realize that the most accurate assessment of a Prehav Scale would be by the Tiger Drilling of each level in turn.

By average, on a rough pc, this would require about one minute per level. This would be three hours for a 180 level scale.

Unless scales are shorter, assessment by elimination would normally be faster, if done with due care.

But Tiger Drilling a scale to find a level cannot be ruled out as a means of finding the real level with superb accuracy.

DOING THE ASSESSMENT

One puts the pc in session, gets the Mid Ruds in, takes a Prehav Scale and calls out each level once, noting its reaction on the meter.
If the auditor was not sure or didn't see it, the level is called a second or a third time.

If too many levels go out consecutively, there is a suppress. If too many levels are staying in, there is another Mid Rud out.
One marks only those that read. Those that do not read are not marked.
A pc has his own Prehav Scale mimeo copy in his folder. This is used over and over.
The pc's name and date of the first assessment is written at the top of the mimeo sheet.

A new symbol is used for each consecutive assessment and the level found on the mimeo sheet and that symbol is marked at the top at the end of the assessment.
The list is covered once. Those that read are marked in.
The Mid Ruds for the session are put in at the end of the first nulling.

The list is covered again but only those that stayed in the first time are now read. If they read again they are again marked in, using the same symbol.

The list is covered a third time but only those that stayed in the second time are read and marked in, using the same symbol.

When the list has not more than eight (on a rough pc) and not less than three levels left in, the remaining levels are Tiger Drilled.

One level will remain—or will react better than the others. Take this as the PRIMARY LEVEL and mark it in at the top of the mimeo sheet with its symbol.

ROLL YOUR OWN

In times past, this Primary Level would have been enough, but using the Prehav to locate the Rock Slam Channel or to list out goals requires a SECONDARY LEVEL.
To "Roll Your Own" is to get the pc to give you a secondary scale that is in its turn assessed.
This is done as follows:

Take the Primary Level, found as above. Put it in the sentence "If somebody were fixated on (or 'wanted to' or 'intended to' or 'wished to')_______ (Primary Level) what would that person do?" Or use the sentence "What would ________(Primary Level) represent to you?" The sentence must cause the pc to give doingness. Otherwise it must be changed, using the Primary Level, so that the pc does give doingness.

The auditor, as in any assessment, lists down the pc's answers on a 13" (foolscap or legal) sheet with the pc's name, the date and the question at the top of it.

When the pc says that's all, the auditor puts in the Mid Ruds and lists the question against the meter. If the meter reads on the question, the list is incomplete and must be completed.

When the question gives no read with Mid Ruds in, the list is complete. This list is now handled exactly as the original scale above.

The resulting level is the pc's level and is used for finding Items in 3GA-XX or in listing out goals. The Primary Level is not otherwise used.

The Secondary List is not used again. A new Primary Assessment is done for the next full operation. Only these Secondary Levels are actually used in auditing.

Various Primary Prehav Scales may from time to time be developed for various purposes.

LRH:gl.bh
Copyright © 1962 L RON HUBBARD
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 8 NOVEMBER AD 12
CenOCon
Franchise

SOMATICS
HOW TO TELL TERMINALS AND
OPPOSITION TERMINALS


It is important that a clearing auditor be able to distinguish pain from sensation, terminals from opposition terminals, and to have the data at the level of instant knowledge. To understand it less is to invite serious errors in clearing. Failure to sort terminals from opposition terminals can confuse the pc or even degrade the case. All a pc’s somatics, deformities and distortions proceed from terminals, opposition terminals and combination terminals. Thus they are of vast importance to the pc and the auditor.


DEFINITIONS

SOMATICS = This is a general word for uncomfortable physical perceptions coming from the reactive mind. Its genus is early Dianetics and it is a general, common package word, used by Scientologists to denote “pain” or “sensation” with no difference made between them. To understand the source of these feelings, one should have a knowledge of engrams, ridges and other parts of the reactive bank. To the Scientologist anything is a SOMATIC if it emanates from the various parts of the reactive mind and produces an awareness of reactivity. Symbol SOM.

PAIN = PAIN is composed of heat, cold, electrical, and the combined effect of sharp hurting. If one stuck a fork in his arm, he would experience pain. When one uses PAIN in connection with clearing one means awareness of heat, cold, electrical or hurting stemming from the reactive mind. According to experiments done at Harvard, if one were to make a grid with heated tubes going vertical and chilled tubes going horizontal and were to place a small current of electricity through the lot, the device, touched to a body, would produce the feeling of PAIN. It need not be composed of anything very hot or cold or of any high voltage to produce a very intense feeling of pain. Therefore what we call PAIN is itself, heat, cold and electrical. If a pc experiences one or more of these from his reactive mind, we say he is experiencing PAIN.

“Electrical” is the bridge between sensation and PAIN and is difficult to classify as either PAIN or sensation when it exists alone. Symbol PN.

SENSATION = All other uncomfortable perceptions stemming from the reactive mind are called SENSATION. These are basically “pressure”, “motion”, “dizziness”, “sexual sensation”, and “emotion and misemotion”. There are others, definite in themselves but definable in these five general categories. If one took the fork in the pain definition above and pressed it against the arm, that would be “pressure”. “Motion” is just that, a feeling of being in motion when one is not. “Motion” includes the “winds of space”, a feeling of being blown upon, especially from in front of the face. “Dizziness” is a feeling of disorientation and includes a spinniness, as well as an out-of-balance feeling. “Sexual sensation” means any feeling, pleasant or unpleasant, commonly experienced during sexual restimulation or action. “Emotion and Misemotion” include all levels of the complete tone scale except “pain”; emotion and misemotion are closely allied to “motion”, being only a finer particle action. A bank solidity is a form of “pressure”, and when the sensation of increasing solidity of masses in the mind occurs, we say “the bank is beefing up”. All these are classified as SENSATION. Symbol SEN.

TERMINAL = An Item or Identity the pc has actually been sometime in the past (or present) is called a TERMINAL. It is “the pc’s own valence” at that time. In the Goals Problem Mass (the black masses of the reactive mind) those identities which,

when contacted, produce pain, tell us at once that they are TERMINALS. The person could feel pain only as himself (thetan plus body) and therefore identities he has been produce pain when their mental residues (black masses) are recontacted in processing. Symbol TERM.

OPPOSITION TERMINAL = An Item or Identity the pc has actually opposed (fought, been an enemy of) sometime in the past (or present) is called an OPPOSITION TERMINAL. As the person identified himself as not it he could experience from it only sensation. An OPPOSITION TERMINAL, when its mental residues (black masses) are recontacted in processing, produces only sensation, never pain. Symbol OPPTERM.

COMBINED TERMINAL = An Item or Identity the pc has both been and opposed produces therefore both pain and sensation when it is “late on the track”, which is to say, after the fact of many Terminals and Opposition Terminals. The Combination Terminal is the closure between Terminal and Opposition Terminal lines which possesses attributes of both and the clarity of neither. It signifies a period toward the end of a game. It is found most commonly when the pc’s case is only shallowly entered. They exist on all cases but are fewer than terminals and opposition terminals. Symbol COTERM.

ITEM = Any terminal, opposition terminal, combination terminal, significance or idea (but not a doingness, which is called “a level”) appearing on a list derived from the pc. Symbol It.

RELIABLE ITEM = Any Item that Rock Slams well on being found and at session end and which was the last Item still in after assessing the list. Can be a terminal, an opposition terminal, a combination terminal or a significance, provided only that it was the Item found on a list and Rock Slammed. Symbol RI.

ROCK SLAM = That needle agitation which erratically covers more than three quarters of an inch on the E-Meter dial.

A Rock Slam is the response of an E-Meter to the conflict between terminals and opposition terminals. It indicates a fight, an effort to individuate, an extreme games condition which in the absence of auditing would seek unsuccessfully to separate while attacking.

As the pc’s attention is guided to the Items involved the games condition activates and is expressed on the meter as a ragged, frantic response. The wider the response the more recognizable (to the pc) is the reality of the games condition and the violence of the conflict.

The Rock Slam Channel is that hypothetical course between a series of pairs consisting of terminals and opposition terminals.

If the conflict is too great for the pc’s reality no Rock Slam results. Later in auditing as the pc’s confronting rises, Items which did not react earlier in auditing now begin to be real and so express themselves on a meter as a Rock Slam. The pc with the lowest reality level is the hardest to attain a Rock Slam on, but in contradiction a pc who has the least control over himself in certain zones of life has the largest Rock Slams.

The Rock Slam vanishes under Suppression and activates on Invalidate or Withhold or on other Prehav Levels.

This is the most difficult needle response to find or attain or preserve. And it is the most valuable in clearing.

All Rock Slams result from a pair of Items in opposition, one of which is a terminal, the other being an opposition terminal.

It can exist in present time where the pc is the terminal and what the pc is faced with is the opposition terminal. Symbol RS.

INSTANT ROCK SLAM = That “Rock Slam” which begins at the end of the major thought of any Item. Symbol IRS.

DIRTY NEEDLE = That erratic agitation of the needle which covers less than a quarter of an inch of the E-Meter dial and tends to be persistent. Symbol DN.

DIRTY READ = That more or less instant response of the needle which is agitated by a major thought; it is an instant tiny (less than a quarter of an inch) agitation of the needle and is in fact a very small cousin of a Rock Slam but is not a Rock Slam. It does not persist. Symbol DR.

TESTING

The method of testing for the character of an Item whether Term, Oppterm or Coterm is extremely simple.

If the Item, when said to the pc in any way, turns on PAIN in the pc’s body it is a TERMINAL.

If the Item, when said to the pc in any way, turns on SENSATION around or in the pc’s body it is an OPPOSITION TERMINAL.

If the Item, when said to the pc in any way, turns on both PAIN and SENSATION in or around the pc’s body it is a COMBINATION TERMINAL.


WAYS OF ASKING

The rule is, “Give the Terminal Cause, the Opposition Terminal Effect in any listing, wording or use.”

The simplest form is, of course, just chanting the Item at the pc a few times. This is not always workable.

The simplest but not always workable form is:

For a Terminal — “Would a__________commit overts”

For an Opposition Terminal — “Consider committing overts against__________”
Using PH Level.

Instead of “Committing Overts” the Prehav Level by which the Reliable Item was found is normally used:

For a Terminal — “Would a_____________(Item)____________(PH Level)” or “Consider a______________(Item)_______________ing (PH Level)”

For an Opposition Terminal — “Consider_______________ing (PH Level) a_______________(Item)”.


USING TD BUTTONS

The above sentences may also be used, or their rough approximation, with a Tiger Drill or Prepcheck Button, and if a Rock Slam is present, it may develop.

No matter what method is being used in saying the Item being tested to find out if it is a Terminal, Opposition Terminal or Combination Terminal, the rules of Sensation and Pain apply. Sensation means Oppterm. Pain means Terminal.

It is important to know if an Item is a Term, Oppterm or Coterm, as its character as one of the three determines the listing question.

The same rule for testing applies in listing. If it is a terminal, it (Prehav Levels). If it is an opposition terminal it is (Prehav Leveled).

Example: For a Terminal, A Waterbuck, Prehav Level Snort. Proper Listing question: “Who or what would a waterbuck snort at?”

Example: For an Oppterm, A Tiger, Prehav Level Snort. “Who or what would snort at a tiger?”

Of course the reverse can be listed but is rarely necessary except to get a longer list when the pc stalls.


THE LINE PLOT

A Line Plot must be made up for any pc for his 3GAXX or the Listing the Goal Steps of Routine 3-21 (Steps 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and II. of 21 Steps).

This consists of a heavy Blue 13” (foolscap or legal) sheet of paper, kept in the pc’s folder and kept up to date every time a Reliable Item (or even last Item in) is found.

On this Line Plot one column, the left-hand one, is reserved for Oppterms. The right-hand column is reserved for Terms and lines indicate whenever Terms or Oppterms are derived from each other.

A Reliable Item is designated as such on this Line Plot with the symbol RI. Non-Reliable Items are not designated.

The date each Line Plot Item was found is added after the Item so it can be found again in the auditor’s reports without a scramble.

The full behaviour and character of any Item found is written into the auditor’s report of that session in which it was found. The width of the Instant Rock Slam in inches, whether the slam turned on every time the Item was read, what wording turned it on, and whether it would still RS by session end are all made part of the auditor’s report.

About 20% or 25% of the cases that appear for clearing can have Reliable Items found on them at once by exploring the words “Scientology”, “A Scientology Organization”, “An Auditor”, “Me (the auditor)”, “Ron”, or the head of the local Scientology organization by name. These are considered to be oppterms by any pc whose realization of his goal would be interfered with, he or she feels, by Scientology. It does not matter what wording (see above) turns on the RS so long as it can be consistently turned on for a bit. If it is at first only a Dirty Read, it is Tiger Drilled to try to make it Rock Slam. Only in this peculiar instance is the person called a Rock Slammer or is considered a Security Risk. Everyone alive RSs on something. In any event, if Items such as those in this paragraph turn on a Rock Slam, they are put on the Line Plot as Reliable Items and used in handling the case.

The above material is in actual fact a partial anatomy of the Goals Problems Mass, its identification in auditing and the behaviour of an E-Meter towards it.

As it has never before been viewed by any practice, mental science or religion, it has to have special terminology.

The terminology has been stably in use for quite some time in Scientology. I have made the definitions more precise in this HCO Bulletin.

Anyone working in clearing should have this HCO Bulletin data at his instant call without referral to the HCO Bulletin.

With very few additions, this is the track one walks in clearing and going clear.

Know it.


L. RON HUBBARD


LRH :gl.rd
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 11 NOVEMBER AD 12
Central Orgs
Franchise Airmail

3GAXX
STRAIGHTENING UP 3GAXX CASES

(This is an interim HCO Bulletin issued
while the Main HCO Bulletin on Step 4 of
3-21 is in composition.)

All cases being run on Dynamic Assessment must at once begin the following actions to speed progress.

This applies to cases both before and after the goal has been found.

Any slowdown of a case in running stems from failure to oppterm every Reliable Item, when found.

Cases develop a “phantom Rock Slam” when this is not done. Further, the pc is to a greater or lesser degree puzzled as to “what was the package”.

Do the following:

1. Make a complete Line Plot for your pc (HCO B 8 November AD12) and get your already found Terms and Oppterms in the right places and every Reliable Item noted with RI.

2. Oppterm every Reliable Item found to date, whether in searching for or listing out the goal.

3. Represent every RI which still has an RS after being opptermed.

Your pc’s Line Plot probably currently looks like this:



In short, fill in all the blanks where no oppterming was done before.

See HCO Bulletin 8 November AD 12 for all details of how it’s done.

Your pc’s attention is hung up where you haven’t made a pair. The GPM is full of pairs of terms and oppterms.

The rule is on all future Items: Oppose every Reliable Item. Represent every one that still RSes when the oppterm or term matching it is found.

LRH: dr.rd
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard L. RON HUBBARD
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 12 NOVEMBER AD 12
Central Orgs
Franchise Airmail
3GAXX
DIRTY NEEDLES AND INCOMPLETE LISTS
HOW TO ASSESS


I have long been aware of the penalties of making Incomplete Lists for nulling. But only last week did I find the only sources of the DIRTY NEEDLE.

Most auditors are sitting there beating their pcs to death with Mid Ruds every time the needle dirties up. This is a Gross Auditing Error. The auditor who neglects this manifestation of DIRTY NEEDLE is going to wind up with no Item or RS on his or her pc.

With the single exception of the first entrance to a case, when cleaning a needle depends on finding an Item, or Item No.1, all DIRTY NEEDLES STEM FROM INCOMPLETE LISTS OR MISSED ITEMS.

On even rough cases, the complete listing of the first line that will produce an RS will banish chronically dirty needles. And the dirty needle won’t return until the auditor fails to complete a list.

The best test for a complete list is to nul the first ten items and if a dirty needle shows up at all (which is to say if the Mid Ruds go out) then the list must be added to, the Mid Ruds put in and nulling resumed. DON’T just put Mid Ruds in. You’ll ruin them for the pc, get a protest going and never get anything done.

If the last 6 or 8 Items suddenly collect a necessity to put in Mid Ruds before you can go on, do the same operation: add to the list, then put in the Mid Ruds.

It is timesaving to complete the list. Even if it seems longer to nul a longer list, how can you do it with a Dirty Needle? And you’ll come to nothing anyway.

Sometimes you have to use your judgment and get the Mid Ruds in enough to coax the pc to list more. But the easy way is to list more and then get the Mid Ruds in.


ASSESSMENT STEPS

The basic procedure of Assessment is:

(a) Determine the line to be listed (the question).

(b) Clear the question as needful with the pc.

(c) Ask the question often enough to keep the pc going but don’t use it to stop the pc from listing, acknowledge softly if at all while writing Items or Levels.

(d) When pc says no more, put in the Mid Ruds and see if the question (a) reacts on the meter. If it does and the reaction is not an ARC break, continue the listing. If an ARC break, clean it up and test again. If the question reacts, continue the listing until pc says no more, get in Mid Ruds and test question.

(e) Repeat (d) if question still reacts after listing.

(f) Start nulling.

(g) If Dirty Needle develops at any stage of nulling, add to list, get in Mid Ruds and continue nulling.

(h) Nul down to 3 to 8 Items or Levels in. Tiger Drill each Item or Level in turn. If Dirty Needle develops continue listing, get in Mid Ruds, come down again to 3 to 8 Items or Levels in and start Tiger Drilling.

(i) Choose the last Item in. It won’t go out if all the above were done right.

Don’t use Mid Ruds or any part of them as a response to a pc origin. Don’t punish the pc for originating or commenting.

DIRTY NEEDLES mean incomplete lists. They don’t mean anything else.

A dirty needle can be turned on by very lousy CCHs and very lousy 3GAXX. The usual answer is a good Problems Intensive.

However, one good assessment with the right question, listed to a complete list and a Reliable Item will turn off the dirtiest needle in Christendom or China either.

What is a Complete List?

COMPLETE LIST = Any list listed for assessment that does not produce a Dirty Needle while nulling or Tiger Drilling.


L. RON HUBBARD


LRH:gl.jh
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

















SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
13—15 November 1962


** 6211C13 SHSBC-210 The Difficult Case
** 6211C13 SHSBC-211 Entrance to Cases
** 6211C15 SHSBC-212 Terminals
** 6211C15 SHSBC-213 Clearing Technology

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 17 NOVEMBER AD12
CenOCon
Franchise Airmail

ROUTINE 3-21



The following data and other R3-2 1 HCO Bulletins to follow are an expansion of Routine 3-21 HCO Bulletin of November 7, AD12, Issue II. It requires a full understanding of that Bulletin as well as HCO Bulletin November 7, AD12, HCO Bulletin November 8, AD12, HCO Bulletin November 11, AD12, and HCO Bulletin November 12, AD12.

It is VITAL that pcs being cleared be run only on Routine 3-21 as many cases have “lost their goals” or become hung up on listing or have failed to go clear in a reasonable length of time. These difficulties are now overcome in Routine 3-21, providing the auditing is good. One can get the pc into difficulties that need repair or skilled re-do by failing to write down Items listed from the goal as in 114 lines. Routine 3-21 handles all cases and all cases must be shunted over to it in order to prevent any hang-up.

DEFINITION: BY-PASSED ITEM

When a list has been made, either in 3GAXX or R3-21 and includes a Reliable Item (HCO Bulletin November 8, AD12) and that Reliable Item was not used to find an item in Opposition to it, the Item which was not so found is called a BY-PASSED ITEM. See HCO Bulletin November 11, AD12. On the picture in that bulletin the Items with balloons around them are BY-PASSED ITEMS until found. It is this Item which causes the goal to submerge when finding or listing. It is this Item (or bad auditing) which causes the TA to go up and stick. It is the BY-PASSED Item which turns on the constant sen or pain that does not relieve.

The rule is: Whether in finding items before or after the goal has been found, all lists must be used to find items and all Reliable Items found must be used to find their Opposition Item. In short, always nul lists to a Reliable Item whether listing to find the goal or listing from the goal. Auditing of the GPM must result in a LINE PLOT no matter how that Line Plot is achieved. (HCO Bulletin November 8, AD12.) Whether listing Items from lines to find Rock Slams or from the goal to find them you must wind up with a written picture of the pc’s GPM. This is the Line Plot. It is begun by 3GAXX in trying to find the goal. It is continued after the goal is found right down to the Rock and Opposition Rock, the two basic Items of the GPM. This also applies to goals found in some other way than 3GAXX.

RELIABLE ITEMS (HCO Bulletin November 8, AD12) are ALWAYS IN PAIRS. Leave one side of these pairs unlocated and you have left the BY-PASSED ITEM raising the devil with the pc. Always oppose a reliable item whenever found and you will never leave a BY-PASSED ITEM and the case will run and clear. This applies both before and after finding the goal.

The difference between the case that lists Items easily to clear and the case that doesn’t is this: The case that just listed to clear without fuss was able to assemble the pairs (terms and oppterms) as it went. The case that didn’t list straight to clear didn’t get the pairs straight and needed help; this case had BY-PASSED ITEMS, so the Tone Arm went up and stuck and the goal, overwhelmed, ceased to fire. Using HCO Bulletin November 11, AD12 version of listing, this shouldn’t happen. The pc won’t by-pass one side of a pair and so won’t hang up. It is understood that bad auditing or a wrong goal would also cause a mess.

Thus the second case above—the case where the goal has been listed on and is hung up and won’t fire—is a case of either wrong goal or By-Passed Items. The remedy is to take the first written lists from the goal and nul sections of them. Take, for instance, the “Who or What would want the goal” list and nul down just calling each item out once, about a hundred. When you have assessed an item on this list (HCO Bulletin November 12) and have a good Reliable Item, you oppose it (HCO Bulletin November 8) and find, by making the list of items that would oppose it or it would oppose, the other part of the pair.

If you don’t find the pairs the pc won’t go clear but will hang up on the BY-PASSED ITEM or ITEMS. The more that hang up (by-passed items) the more unclear your pc will feel.

I’ve really been lifting the roof trying to find the reason for this hang-up and there it is. The By-Passed Item keeps cases from going clear.

The exact way to do Routine 3-21 Step 6 is as follows:

(a) Compose the basic four lines using the pc’s goal or the goal to be proven by listing.

(b) Put each line wording at the top of a sheet of paper, a separate sheet for each basic line. Put pc’s name and date and page number on each sheet.

(c) Take Sheet One and get Items from pc until pc runs out of Items for that line.

(d) Take next sheet in rotation and list until pc runs out. Continue to do this until an RS occurs. See next step.

(e) Keep pc on meter, turn sensitivity down a bit so you have no trouble keeping needle on dial but can still see an RS. (HCO Bulletin November 8 definitions page 2.) As soon as you see an RS continue with that list. (Be sure RS wasn’t just a body movement.) List it down until the dwindling Rock Slam, if any, is gone. List out any Dirty Reads. In short, complete any list that RSes. Don’t go on to the next list.

(f) Nul the list that RSed. (Get Mid Ruds in, call off each Item once, leave in all that react on meter. Eliminate these the same way. TD the last few Items, as per HCO Bulletin November 12, AD12.) Nul to a Reliable Item.

(g) Establish as per HCO Bulletin November 8 whether RI found is term or oppterm.

(h) List a list in opposition to it. (If a Term, Who/What would it oppose; if an Oppterm, Who or What would oppose it.)

(i) Nul list as in (f) and obtain a Reliable Item.

(j) Establish with pc that these two RIs oppose each other and put on PC’S LINE PLOT.

(k) Nul the remaining lists rapidly looking for an RSing Item. If one found, repeat step (f) to (g) above. (Experience will tell if this is necessary on your pc. It may be possible to abandon all lists of Items done from goal. If so just get four fresh sheets and start again, using as the first line to list the one most likely to now have a potential RS.)

(l) Repeat (b) to (k) over and over.

This is New Step 6 Listing.

Keep your rudiments in, don’t upset the pc, be sure to note, find and run out RSes.

URGENT

On ALL pcs whose goals have been found or found and listed by any earlier procedure, relocate the earliest item lists written from the first four lines and nul these and oppose the Reliable Items found in every list. The pc will brighten up and start to make fast progress.

The Goals Problem Mass becomes, in the pc’s folder, the Line Plot.

It is safe to do the above on any goal that consistently produces pain as well as some sen. But beware the moment it goes all sen.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :jw.rd
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


































SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
20—22 November 1962


** 6211C20 SHSBC-214 The GPM
** 6211C20 SHSBC-215 Fundamentals of Auditing
** 6211C22 SHSBC-216 Q & A Period, Part 1
** 6211C22 SHSBC-217 Q & A Period, Part 2

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 NOVEMBER AD12
CenOCon
Franchise
URGENT

ROUTINE TWO-TWELVE
OPENING PROCEDURE BY ROCK SLAM
AN HPA/HCA SKILL

Note: Hat Check this HCO Bulletin with a stiff examination before permitting its use.

Note: This Procedure is to be done on every HGC pc, every course student of every course as a pc, as early as possible and definitely before Prepchecking or CCHs. Done correctly it will end the no-results or slow result case and guarantee faster gain to the fast case. ALL Cases must have this done at once.

The slow student as well as the slow gainer is always a Rock Slammer.


THE SLOW-GAIN, NO-GAIN CASES

The slow or never gain case has been a target with me for twelve years.

I have now made a breakthrough on this. It is, I’m afraid I have to tell you, the breakthrough. You could straighten up the head of the Medical Association with it, it’s that powerful. It undercuts all the reasons why. It must be done on all students. And also every HGC pc.

Unfortunately the solution is similar to a Routine 3 process, but there’s nothing for it but HPAs/HCAs must learn the steps in this HCO Bulletin if we are to survive. For these skills encompass more than 50% of the cases, in some areas up to 80%. And these will clear slowly or not at all unless this first step is taken first. Even a Problems Intensive will fail on about 30% of these cases.

Here are the progressive data which led to this breakthrough:

DATUM 1953 - A Problem is postulate-counter-postulate.

DATUM 1954—Persons with heavy overts on Scientology make no case progress. No Case Gain = Suspected Person.

DATUM 1955—A person with a present time problem will get no graph change.

DATUM 1961—The Goals Problem Mass consists of Items (valences) in opposition to one another. Any pair of these Items, in opposition to each other, constitute a specific problem.

DATUM 1961—A person with a hidden standard won’t go clear.

DATUM 1962—Rock Slammers. Persons who Rock Slam on Scientology or associated Items are Security Risks.

DATUM Nov 1962—When a GPM Item Exists in Present Time It Constitutes a Present Time Problem. If one of the opponents in a Problem (Item versus Item) is part of the Goals Problem Mass, that problem will not resolve without resolving at least a portion of the GPM.

DATUM Nov 1962—All non-gain or slow-gain cases have a GPM Item in their present time environment. The companion or opposing Item to the PTP Item is buried out of sight.

CONCLUSION—All slow-gain or non-gain preclears have to have the GPM Item that is in the present time environment located and opposed before they will make adequate gains in processing or study.

Suddenly it becomes of vital technical interest whether a person is any variety of

Rock Slammer or not. Before, it and other security measures were only of administrative interest. Now it is a question of whether or not the case will ever improve.

Thus we have to have (a) a broadened definition for a Rock Slammer, (b) an easy method of detecting one and (c) quick procedures to remedy the condition. We have all these now.

DEFINITION—A ROCK SLAMMER is a preclear who Rock Slams on a Present Time GPM Item in his or her Immediate Environment.

Until this Item is located and opposed the Rock Slammer will make slow gains or no gains in clearing.

The Routine 2-12 method of discharging the influence of a Rock Slamming Item is actually taken from 3GA Criss Cross (3GAXX), and is a specialized routine from Routine 3. We will, however, since it does not touch goals, designate it as Routine 2.

This routine will have to be learned by all HPAs/HCAs and used by all staff Auditors. It does not include clearing. It includes only Item Assessment. By labelling it Routine 2 it comes within the reach of all trained auditors.

ROUTINE TWO-TWELVE

1. Make or use a list of Scientology Items. This includes Scientology, Scientology Organizations, an Auditor, clearing, auditing, Scientologists, a session, an E-Meter, a practitioner, the auditor’s name, Ron, other Scientology persons, parts of Scientology, past auditors, etc. (See HCO Bulletin November 24 and subsequent HCO Bulletins for “Scientology Lists”.) The list need not be endless as it will be easy to catch a trace of the GPM if the person is a Rock Slammer. The list is composed by the auditor, not the pc.

2. Assess the list, calling each item once (or until auditor is sure of the read). Eliminate down to the last 3 or 4 items.

3. Tiger Drill the Items still in. Select the one with the biggest dirty read or the last one to go out or the one that went out hardest. No matter how faintly or sporadically the Item found now reads, if the last one in stayed in at all, use it for Step 4 below. If, however, the Item found in this step produced a good Rock Slam (Reliable Item) omit Steps 4, 5 and 6 below and do the tests in Step 7 and continue with the remaining steps. If two RIs are found in this first step, oppose each one as in Steps 7 onward.

4. Using the Item selected, list a list from the line question “Who or what does (the Item found in 3) represent to you?” (It can happen that Steps 4, 5 and 6 are unnecessary. If the Item in Step 3 consistently Rock Slammed a third of a dial to a dial wide and kept on doing it when the auditor said “Consider committing overts against _____(the Item found)”, use it instead of doing the Step 4 List. If this Rock Slam is on and then vanishes even with “Suppress” clean, do Step 4, using the Item that so slammed but vanished. In doing listing beware of stopping listing while the needle is still dirty or stopping just because the pc says the last item was it. (The real RS Item you want usually comes after the pc says the last one he put on was IT.) (If the pc stops or refuses to go on, get in your Mid Ruds and continue to list until there is no dirty needle or RS when pc thinks of Items before saying them to the auditor.) Mark every Item that RSed or DRed on Listing. While listing keep the meter at about Sens 8 and keep an eye on it to note RSs and DRs.

5. Nul the list, saying each Item on it once (or more if the auditor didn’t catch the read). Be sure the Mid Ruds are in. If a dirty needle turns on while nulling, add to the list, get the Mid Ruds in and test the question for reaction. If needle reacts to question the list is incomplete or the pc is protesting the question. Leave any Item in that reacts. Eliminate all but the last 3 or 4 Items.

6. Tiger Drill the last Items in. Select one Item with the biggest needle reaction or Rock Slam. (Two Items can appear on any list. If they both Rock Slam equally and neither goes out, you have found two Items, in which case you must do the following steps to each.)

7. Find out if Item turned on Pain or Sensation when being Tiger Drilled, or say it to the pc and find out. If Pain, say to pc, “Consider_____(Item) committing overts.” If Sensation, say, “Consider committing overts against _____.” This should turn on a Rock Slam if it isn’t on already whenever the Item was said or Tiger Drilled. This is called a Reliable Item if it Rock Slammed. The Rock Slam is very touchy sometimes and has to be Tiger Drilled back on. If an Item slammed while being nulled it is probably it. Those that RS while being listed do not have to RS flicker at all while being nulled, and usually don’t.

8. If the Reliable Item found turned on Pain, list “Who or what would_____(the Reliable Item) oppose?” If it turned on Sensation, list “Who or what would oppose_____(the Reliable Item)?” Complete the list as in any listing. Don’t stop just because the pc nattered or wept. Get the Mid Ruds in and get a list which gives no dirty needle (not dirty reads, there’s a difference) while nulling. In case of a Coterm, test to see if there’s more Pn than Sen or Sen than Pn and classify accordingly. If you can’t decide, list both as opposed and oppose and nul as one list.

9. Nul the list saying each Item once, down to 3 or 4 Items.

10. Tiger Drill the last 3 or 4 that were left in. Select the last one left in.

11. Test and turn on the Rock Slam on the last one in (as in Step 7 above). Be sure to properly determine which is Term and which is Oppterm.

Get pc to examine and align the package for correctness (and any Bonus Package) and put on the pc’s Line Plot.

12. Go over the list used in Step 1 to see if there are any more dirty reads or traces of reads on the Scientology List. If so, repeat the above Eleven Steps on the pc. If not, make a list for the Step 1A etc, using questions given further on in this HCO Bulletin. Note: Only the Scientology List is tested again. Other lists for Step I are used only once.

----------------

This is the only action known in auditing which will undercut the bank of a slow moving or non-gain pc. Every such pc is a Rock Slammer.

Why is this? Well, these two Items (a terminal and oppterm of the GPM) make a Present Time Problem. The pc is obsessively trying to solve this problem, not trying to get well or go clear. The pc won’t come off trying to solve this sub-surface problem. He or she doesn’t even “know” about it. So there’s the Auditor trying to make somebody well, but the pc is trying to die “to prove Scientology doesn’t work” or to get sick “to make my boss realize what he’s done to me”, etc, etc.

It’s pathetic. In the largest percentage of cases, the auditor is opening the door to the next two hundred trillion years and the pc is reactively trying to get even with grasshoppers.

This disagreement between auditor and pc brings about the upsets and no gains.

No other technique known will get at this key problem or problems.

This technique doesn’t try to diagnose the problem. Indeed the problem won’t be known to the pc (or the auditor) until the action is complete. And then the auditor doesn’t even have to ask for it or about it.

----------------

What do you do with these two Items? Well, this will prove to be the third biggest source of falls from grace in using Routine 2-12. You don’t do anything with the Items except establish which is the terminal and which is the oppterm and put them on the pc’s Line Plot. The thing that could be done with them would be to get “Represent Lists” from them to find more Items. You can ask for missed W/Hs, saying, “When did
(oppterm found) nearly find out about you?” But it’s best to leave the RS on for a goal finder as the goal finder will want to use them in 3GAXX. (Step 4A—Routine 3-21.) So don’t spoil the RS. The pc will cognite all over the place and that’s the benefit, and the pc won’t be trying to chop up auditors and orgs, and should respond very well to CCHs and Prepchecking after the Two Items are found.

The biggest error that will be made is trying to do R2-12 with the Rudiments out,

and conversely, putting the Mid Ruds in every time a pc originates (a sure way to ruin a pc).

The second biggest source of error is making Incomplete Lists. These go out hard and give a dirty needle and result in no Item. The unschooled auditor will usually chicken out whenever the pc says, “That’s all,” or “I’ve just put it on the list. That last Item is IT,” at which the auditor stops listing. And the Item that will Rock Slam is never put on the list and so is never found. And the auditor is left fighting a dirty needle and trying to read through it. The rule is, while nulling, if a simple question “What did you want to say?” fails to smooth out a suddenly dirty needle the list is incomplete. Complete it and then put in Mid Ruds. The average list runs 80 or more Items. (Get the precise difference between a dirty needle and a dirty read in HCO Bulletin November 8, AD 12.)


QUESTIONS FOR THE SECOND PAIR

If you have found a pair of Reliable Items and can’t find anything now on the basic list of Step One, and you want to continue Routine 2-12, the following questions will produce lists on which Reliable Items can be found. You ask the pc the question and write down whatever he says. You never correct the pc or refuse an Item. You only use one of these questions at a time for a full coverage with all 12 Steps.

LISTS

List R2-12—1. The Basic Scientology List as given in Step 1. It is essential not to omit it as the first action in Routine 2-12. It may be done again, and should be, after other lists are used to get Reliable Items. (After other Items have been found, List 1 may come alive again as pc’s case unburdens.)

List R2-12—1A. Special List for pc’s environment. General Question, “In present time, who or what have you been upset about?” This, whatever the question, must get things like wife, husband, marriage, job, home, myself, my case, police, this country, machines, etc, etc. It is an effort to locate PT Items that keep the GPM keyed in. Use only after List 1. Pc gives the Items for this List.

List R2-12—1B. General Question, “Who or what would you prefer not to associate with?” Listed from pc. This list heading was developed for pcs who won’t say they have enemies. It can be used on any pc. Use only what pc lists. Be sure list is complete.

List R2-12—1C. General Question, “Who or what have you detested?” Use only what the pc gives. Be sure list is complete.

List R2-12—1D. General Question, “Who or what isn’t part of existence?” Use only what pc gives. Be sure list is complete.

List R2-12—1E. (General Question, “What Problem have you had?” Use only what pc gives. Be sure list is complete.

List R2-12—1F. General Question, “Who or what have you had to be careful of?” Use only what pc gives. Be sure list is complete.

List R2-12—1G. General Question, “Who or what have you invalidated?” Use only what pc gives. Be sure list is complete.

List R2-12—1H. General Question, “Who or what has nearly found out about you?” Use only what pc gives. Be very very very sure that list is complete or you’ll have missed a withhold on the pc.

The above lists are numbered and lettered for proper sequence in use on the preclear.

In other words you could do Routine 2-12 many times (plus doing Step 1 on the Scientology List more than once) on a preclear. But always do the first step with Scientology Items as many times as you can get one of its Items to react and you’ll never miss.

It is this first list of Scientology Items which holds up cases, so it must be used for all 12 steps again and again.

Further questions can be had from Prehav assessments.

The rule is: “If you get a Reliable Item always get its opposing item.” Then you will never get a BY-PASSED ITEM, the thing that hangs up cases.

In getting any Reliable Items and their opposition, you are of course cleaning up the GPM and therefore clearing the pc. So this is a road to clear.

Items have many other uses, so never fake one and never fail to record one on the Line Plot.

----------------

Occasionally you get a BONUS PACKAGE off one list. In addition to the Item you are looking for, sometimes two RSing Items will show up on the same list opposing each other and blow. They oppose each other, not what you’re listing. Point this out to the pc when found and put these also on the Line Plot, marked BP (Bonus Package), one as a terminal and one as an opposition terminal. And go on and find your regular Item.

----------------

Routine 2-12, coupled with Problems Intensives and CCHs, gives the HCA/HPA a full kit that can handle the worst cases, knock out the no-gain cases and can clear. So I haven’t forgotten the HCA/HPA.

-----------------

Don’t try to cover up the fact that somebody has a Rock Slam or a Dirty Read on Scientology etc. You’ll have set him or her up to never have gains.


SKILLS REQUIRED

To accomplish a 3GAXX for Rock Slammers, an auditor needs to be drilled and thoroughly examined on the following:

1. The E-Meter and what is a Dirty Read, a Dirty Needle and a Rock Slam. Practical.

2. HCO Bulletin November 8, AD12, “Somatics”. Theory.

3. Any future HCO Bulletins on Assessment for Rock Slamming Items. Theory and Practical.

4. Tiger Drilling. Theory and Practical.

5. This bulletin. Theory and Practical.

If the auditor can’t do 3GAXX for Rock Slammers, it will be because he did not know or was badly examined on the five things above. There’s neither difficulty nor mystery about the above 12 steps.

So study up and don’t miss. This, but no Routine 3 process, is declared an HPA/HCA skill. If an auditor can’t do it, he’ll have a slow go or a no-win on about eighty per cent of all cases.

With the above, properly studied and well drilled, there will be great success on anybody who can be persuaded to begin a session.

And also this must be done on every case that hasn’t gone clear already even after their goal has been found. It’s a certainty that such a case is by-passing at least one side of a Present Time Problem that is part of and suppressing the whole GPM.

This is THE PC’s BIGGEST MISSED WITHHOLD of all.

Note: There are no variations on the order of steps or actions above. One doesn’t sometimes do this, sometimes that. This is a very rote procedure.

Note: On some very, very rough cases this system may not work fully until some regular 3GAXX is run by a Class IV auditor. In any event, a case on 3GAXX should be tested again as above after every 6 or 8 RIs are found.

Note: And just to clear up any possible misunderstanding you do R2-12 on all pcs first and you never vary its steps or sequence.

Note: No preclear will achieve a lasting case gain with overts on Scientology and allied Items. No free needle will stay free in the presence of these overts. Routine 2-12 removes the unwanted valences that commit such overts rather than endlessly sec checking the pc. The most insidious By-Passed Items are those that remain in present time prompting the pc to commit senseless overts to the dismay of his good sense and the peril of his case condition. He will make no fast gain until the Scientology List is worked over and over for any reaction.


FAST STEP RESUME

1. USE OR COMPILE A LIST 1, 1 A, 1 B, etc.

2. ASSESS LIST.

3. TIGER DRILL THE LAST 3 OR 4 ITEMS LEFT IN. TAKE THE ONE WITH LARGEST OR ANY REMAINING ACTION. IF ITEM FOUND IS AN RI OMIT STEPS 4 AND 5.

4. USING ITEM IN 3, LIST “WHO OR WHAT DOES_____REPRESENT TO YOU?”

5. NUL LIST.

6. TIGER DRILL LAST 3 OR 4 ITEMS LEFT IN, SELECT ONE.

7. DETERMINE IF ITEM FOUND IS A TERMINAL OR OPPOSITION TERMINAL.

8. LIST FROM ITEM USING PROPER WORDING FOR A TERMINAL OR OPPOSITION TERMINAL AS ESTABLISHED IN 7. TERM = PAIN = W/W WOULD_____OPPOSE? OPPTERM = SEN = W/W WOULD OPPOSE _____ ?

9. NUL LIST.

10. TIGER DRILL LAST 3 OR 4. SELECT LAST ONE LEFT IN.

11. TEST PACKAGE (AND ANY BONUS PACKAGE) WITH PC, MAKE SURE WHICH IS TERM AND OPPTERM AND IF THEY OPPOSE EACH OTHER AND PUT ON LINE PLOT.

12. DO ALL ABOVE STEPS AGAIN ON SCIENTOLOGY LIST UNTIL IT HAS NO GHOST OF A REACTION. THEN DO 1A, 1B, ETC, EACH ON ALL STEPS.

Note: This is a primary training skill. Do not give students more than instruction on the check sheet of Class IIb before turning them loose on Routine IIb as a heavy time auditing activity. They will learn little or nothing before being clean on R2-12. Put Comm Course and other instruction after R2-12 and the student will have a chance to learn it. Give the student further heavy instruction on R2-12 toward course end. Classify only on the end of course repass of the IIb check sheet. The point is don’t waste instruction on basic Scientology until the student is cleaned up on Routine 2-12, particularly the Scientology List. I don’t care how this is accomplished in the Academy or in the HGC. Just get it done.


L. RON HUBBARD


LRH:dr.rd
Copyright ©1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 24 NOVEMBER AD12
Central Orgs
Franchise
ROUTINE 2-12
LIST ONE—ISSUE ONE
THE SCIENTOLOGY LIST

This is the List One of Routine 2-12. You can lengthen but do not shorten this list for Step 1 of R2-12. This list is used over and over on all 12 Steps until no reaction of any kind can be gotten off of it. If an Item on it reads sporadically, even, use it on the 12 Steps.

The Scientology List is called LIST ONE. Others, 1A, 1B, are called by their designations. All lists, including the Scientology List, are referred to in general as “A first list”, or “The first list”.
______________________________ _________________________________
PC NAME DATE
______________________________ ________________________________
AUDITOR LOCATION (CITY)

SCIENTOLOGY A DIANETIC ORGANIZATION
SCIENTOLOGISTS ORG SURVIVAL
AN AUDITOR A CENTRE
AUDITORS FIELD AUDITORS
STUDENTS HCA’S
AN E-METER D. SCN’S
METERS HGC PCS
A SESSION ACC’S
CLEARING MENTAL SCIENCE
A CLEAR A SCIENCE OF MIND
A RELEASE MENTAL DOCTORS
A PRECLEAR SAINT HILL
A PATIENT COURSES
INSANITY STATEMENTS
THE MIND UNITS
MINDS SCIENTOLOGY PAY
MENTAL HEALTH WORLD CLEARING
DIANETICS RON
BOOK ONE L. RON HUBBARD
DIANETIC BOOKS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
SCIENTOLOGY BOOKS THE GOVERNING DIRECTOR
A SCIENTOLOGY MAGAZINE THE FOUNDER
RON’S ARTICLES MARY SUE
A SCIENTOLOGY CONGRESS MARY SUE HUBBARD
A BULLETIN THE ASSOCIATION SECRETARY
A POLICY LETTER THE ORGANIZATION SECRETARY
A HAT THE HCO SECRETARY
HATS SECURITY
A SCIENTOLOGY ORGANIZATION WITHHOLDS FROM SCIENTOLOGY
STAFF MEMBERS OVERTS AGAINST SCIENTOLOGY
A REGISTRAR YOUR CASE
SCIENTOLOGY LETTERS PEOPLE’S CASES
INSTRUCTORS TECHNIQUES
STAFF AUDITORS PROCEDURES
THE D OF P A SQUIRREL
THE D OF T PSYCHOLOGISTS
HCO PSYCHIATRISTS
HASI HUMAN RIGHTS
THE CHURCH ENTHETA
THE FOUNDATION RUMOURS
THE CENTRAL ORG BAD AUDITORS
THE ACADEMY BAD AUDITING
THE HGC SECURITY RISKS
HDRF ROCK SLAMMERS
THE CO-AUDIT NO RESULTS
CO-AUDITING

____________________________________ ______________________________________
A bad Person in Scientology The worst Auditor pc had



____________________________________ ______________________________________
A bad Person in Scientology A Scientology Exec



____________________________________ ______________________________________
A bad Person in Scientology A Scientology Exec



____________________________________ ______________________________________
Auditor’s formal name A Prominent Scientologist



____________________________________ ______________________________________
Auditor’s informal name Something in Scientology worrying pc



____________________________________ ______________________________________
An Auditor pc had Something in Scientology worrying pc



____________________________________ ______________________________________
The first Auditor pc had Something in Scientology worrying pc



____________________________________
The best Auditor pc had


Note: Fill in all blanks with pc’s help.

Note: The above when found can be Terms or Oppterms. It doesn’t matter which. All that matters is meter reaction unless an RI is found on this list. If so Identify for Term or Oppterm as in Step 7 and continue R2-12.


L. RON HUBBARD


LRH:gl.rd
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED







SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
27 November 1962


** 6211C27 SHSBC-218 Routine 2-12
** 6211C27 SHSBC-219 Routine 2-12

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 28 NOVEMBER AD12
Central Orgs
Academies

R2-12
PRACTICAL DRILLS


The following drills were prepared by Brian Pope, Practical Supervisor Saint Hill Special Briefing Course. These drills may be used in any Academy or Course.

R2- 12
TRAINING DRILL

To teach a student to audit with 2-12 he must have certain basic auditing skills. These are:

G.F. Model Session.
Getting in Mid Ruds.
Anti Q&A & TR4.
Missed Withholds detection and cleaning.
Completing a list. Tiger Drill.
Nulling a list.
Meter reading.

When an auditor has these skills he is capable of running 2-12 and can produce results without exception.

----------------

The Coach has the student use the 12 steps of 2-12 in Model Session. His purpose is to give the student a reality on the mechanics of what he is doing and coach him to be able to stick to the rote procedure without variation. The coach uses the HCO Bulletin November 23 step by step giving the student on a gradient scale anything he is likely to have to handle during R2-12.

Student uses a dummy meter and coach uses a pen as a needle during listing and nulling Items.

Drills

1. The coach has student assess List 1 calling off each Item one at a time and makes sure that the student can null this list using a standard marking system and marking in any meter or pc phenomena which may be of value to him, i.e., Rock Slams, Pn or Sen, Dirty Reads, etc.

2. Coach has student drilled in Tiger Drilling the last 3-4 Items in as per “Tiger” (HCO Bulletin August 1, 1962).

3. Coach shows student various things that could happen on a List One assessment. E.g. 2 Rock Slamming Items stay in, 1 RS Item stays in, Sporadic Item stays in, nothing stays in, and teaches student what to do with the Item he is left with (Step 3 of 2-12).

4. Coach shows student how to get a represent list from a reading Item (Step 4, 2-12) coaching him on marking his list with any useful data that shows up during listing or nulling. Coach gives student reality on dirty needles and incomplete lists by “turning on” dirty needles during nulling, also gives student reality on out

rudiments during nulling causing Items to stay in—3 Items in a row stay in shows a Mid Rud out somewhere—coach has student have a complete list before nulling.

5. Coach has student null the list by saying each Item once until only 3 or 4 react.

6. Coach has student TD last few Items as in Step 2 to a Reliable—or 2 Reliable Items.

7. Coach has student do Step 7 of 2-12 practising all he has learned regarding needle behaviour and coaches student to recognise a term or an oppterm (HCO Bulletin November 8, 1962).

8. Coach has student complete the Steps 8-12 of R2-12 having him handle anything which may come up during a session and find a package or recognise a blown Item.

Instructor passes student when he can run the whole 2-12 steps and find a “package” on Instructor without any variation from procedure.

Coach uses HCO Bulletin on 2-12 throughout as his reference for coaching.


COACHING NOTES

Coach should look for:

1. Poor marking system in nulling.

2. Incomplete lists.

3. Too many Mid Ruds.

4. Failure to get in Mid Ruds.

5. Failure to add Items to list.

6. Poor Tiger Drilling (Tiger Drill is a dust-off not a full-scale cleaning up job like a prepcheck).

7. Student failure to note RS Items during listing or nulling also failure to note any Pn or Sen pc originates.

8. Poor R factor—not keeping pc informed.

9. Failure to recognise a blown Item or package.


L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:dr.rd
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
29 November 1962


** 6211C29 SHSBC-220 R2-12 Theory and Practice, Part I
** 6211C29 SHSBC-221 R2-12 Theory and Practice, Part II

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 29 NOVEMBER AD12
Central Orgs
Franchise ROUTINE 2-12
LIST ONE—ISSUE TWO
THE SCIENTOLOGY LIST

This is List One Issue Two. Do not add to it or change it. This list is used over and over on all 12 Steps until no reaction of any kind can be gotten off of it. If an Item on it reads sporadically, even, use it on the 12 Steps.
_____________________ _____________________ _____________________
PC’S NAME AUDITOR’S NAME DATE
SCIENTOLOGY THE DYNAMICS
SCIENTOLOGISTS THE REACTIVE MIND
AN AUDITOR PAST LIVES
AUDITORS A CENTRE
AUDITING FIELD AUDITORS
STUDENTS CERTIFICATES
AN E-METER HCAs
METERS HPAs
A SESSION DSCNs
CLEARING HGC PCs
A CLEAR ACCs
A RELEASE MENTAL SCIENCE
A PRECLEAR A SCIENCE OF MIND
A PATIENT MENTAL DOCTORS
INSANITY SAINT HILL
THE MIND COURSES
MINDS STATEMENTS
MENTAL HEALTH UNITS
DIANETICS SCIENTOLOGY PAY
BOOK ONE WORLD CLEARING
DIANETIC BOOKS RON
SCIENTOLOGY BOOKS L. RON HUBBARD
A SCIENTOLOGY MAGAZINE THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
RON’S ARTICLES THE GOVERNING DIRECTOR
A SCIENTOLOGY CONGRESS THE FOUNDER
A BULLETIN MARY SUE
A POLICY LETTER MARY SUE HUBBARD
A HAT THE ASSOCIATION SECRETARY
HATS THE ORGANIZATION SECRETARY
A SCIENTOLOGY ORGANIZATION THE HCO SECRETARY
STAFF MEMBERS SECURITY
A REGISTRAR YOUR CASE
SCIENTOLOGY LETTERS PEOPLE’S CASES
INSTRUCTORS TECHNIQUES
STAFF AUDITORS PROCEDURES
THE D OF P A SQUIRREL
THE D OF T PSYCHOLOGISTS
HCO PSYCHIATRISTS
HASI AUDITORS
THE CHURCH AUDITING
THE FOUNDATION ROCK SLAMMERS
THE CENTRAL ORG THETANS
THE ACADEMY
THE HGC
HDRF
THE CO-AUDIT
CO-AUDITING
A DIANETIC ORGANIZATION
Auditor’s Name_______________
LRH :jw.bh
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 29 NOVEMBER AD12
Reissued to Franchise 12 February 1963
Sthil Students
CenOCon
Franchise
ROUTINES 2-12, 3-21 and 3GAXX
TIGER DRILL
for
NULLING BY MID RUDS
(Replaces HCO Bulletin 1 August AD12)


(Note: In an actual session, in addition to Model Session script, only the words below are used. No additive words or departures are necessary except to clean up a constant dirty needle with session Mid Ruds if that misfortune occurs. And use session Mid Ruds only when you can’t go on otherwise.)

DRILL ON NEW NULLING PROCEDURES

Position for this drill is the usual auditor-coach position. The coach only has the drill form and follows it exactly until the student auditor has each example down perfectly. When the student auditor and the coach have these drills down exactly, then the coach can give different reads and different goals for the student auditor to work on, the only caution being that the goals selected be those which would be most unlikely on anyone’s goals list. The goal used in this drill is: TO BE A TIGER. On the drills below “A” is for auditor; “C” is for coach. Student and coach use only the words in the drill except when student em at which coach says, “Flunk!” and “Start,” at which student starts at the beginning.

Use of Tiger Drill: This drill is used in Routine 2-12 to sort out the last 3 or 4 Items left in on each nulling. It is used in Routine 3-21 to null the Goals list and on the last 3 or 4 Items left in. In 3GAXX it is used on the last 3 or 4 Items left in and on any Goals list. This is the Small Tiger Drill. It is however simply called the Tiger Drill. Big Tiger is always called Big Tiger.

Buttons used: Only the following buttons are used in Small Tiger: Suppressed, Invalidated, Suggested, Failed to reveal and Mistake.

Big Tiger is the same drill except that it additionally uses Nearly found out, Protest, Anxious about and Careful of. One shifts to Big Tiger when making sure of the last Item in on the list or a goal that fires strongly.

Tiger and Big Tiger compare in buttons used to Mid Ruds and Big Mid Ruds.

Drill 1:

A: To be a tiger
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger
C: Null
A: Thank you. That is out.

Drill 2:

A: To be a tiger
C: Read
A: On this goal has anything been invalidated?

A: That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been invalidated?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Read
A: That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger
C: Null
A: Thank you. That is out.

Drill 3:

A: To be a tiger
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Read
A: That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Read
A: That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger
C: Null
A: Thank you. That is out.

Drill 4.

A: To be a tiger
C: Read
A: On this goal has anything been invalidated?
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suggested?
C: Read
A: That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been suggested?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger
C: Null
A: Thank you. That is out.

Drill 5:

A: To be a tiger
C: Read
A: On this goal has anything been invalidated?
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suggested?
C: Null
A: On this goal is there anything you have failed to reveal?
C: Read
A: That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal is there anything you have failed to reveal?
C: Null

A: To be a tiger
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger
C: Null
A: Thank you. That is out.

Drill 6:

A: To be a tiger
C: Read
A: On this goal has anything been invalidated?
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suggested?
C: Null
A: On the goal to be a tiger is there anything you have failed to reveal?
C: Null
A: On this goal has any mistake been made?
C: Read
A: That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has any mistake been made?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger
C: Null
A: Thank you. That is out.

Drill 7:

A: To be a tiger
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Read
A: That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Read
A: That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger
C: Read
A: On this goal has anything been invalidated?
C: Read
A: That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been invalidated?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger
C: Read
A: On this goal has anything been suggested?
C: Null
A: On this goal is there anything you have failed to reveal?
C: Null
A: On the goal to be a tiger has any mistake been made?
C: Read
A: That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has any mistake been made?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger

C: Read
A: That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger
C: Read
A: On this goal has anything been invalidated?
C: Read
A: That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been invalidated?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger
C: Null
A: Thank you. That is out.

Drill 8:

A: To be a tiger
C: Read
A: On this goal has anything been invalidated?
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suggested?
C: Null
A: On this goal is there anything you have failed to reveal?
C: Null
A: On this goal has any mistake been made?
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger
C: Read
A: To be a tiger
C: Read
A: To be a tiger
C: Read (Note that this goal is now ready to be checked out.)

Drill 9:

A: To be a tiger
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Read
A: That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger
C: Read
A: On this goal has anything been invalidated?
C: Read
A: That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been invalidated?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger
C: Read
A: On this goal has anything been suggested?
C: Read
A: That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been suggested?

C: Read
A: That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been suggested?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger
C: Read
A: On this goal is there anything you have failed to reveal?
C: Read
A: That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal is there anything you have failed to reveal?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger
C: Null
A: Thank you. That is out.

Drill 10:

A: To be a tiger
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Read
A: That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger
C: Read
A: On this goal has anything been invalidated?
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suggested?
C: Read
A: That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been suggested?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger
C: Null
A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C: Null
A: To be a tiger
C: Null
A: Thank you. That is out.

Acks—These are used to complete and end a whole Drill Cycle. They can be used during the Drill if pc needs them, but only if pc needs them. It’s better to use the Drill as is.
Suppress—Suppress is not used repetitively in Tiger Drilling, only in Mid Ruds and Prepchecking.
“Do you agree that that is clean”—This is not used.
“I will check that on the meter”—This is not used.

After doing Suppress always check the Goal.
If the pc has a tendency to lose sight of the goal on a long run you can always change, for a command, the wording to “On the goal To be a tiger has anything been_______ ?


LRH :jw.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright ©1962, 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 1 DECEMBER 1962
CenOCon



GOALS & PREPCHECKING



In Prepchecking pcs through Problems Intensives, it commonly occurs that the pc presents his or her goal to the Auditor.

When this occurs the goal should not be given vast importance or suppressed, either way.

The pc should be taken to a Class IV Auditor and checked out. The Prepcheck may then be shifted to the goal itself.

The usual actions of Routine 3-21 are then followed, of which the goals prepcheck is a part, so long as the auditing is done under the supervision of a Class IV Auditor.

It is a very bad action to just take the pc’s goal and run it without its being thoroughly checked out. The health and even the life of the pc can be put at risk if it is not the pc’s goal.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :jw.rd jh
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 4 DECEMBER AD 12
Central Orgs
Franchise
ROUTINE 2-12
LIST ONE—ISSUE THREE
THE SCIENTOLOGY LIST

Do not add to list or you will get incomplete list phenomena.
_____________________ _____________________ ____________________
PC’S NAME AUDITOR’S NAME DATE
SCIENTOLOGY SOMATICS
SCIENTOLOGISTS PAIN
AN AUDITOR ENGRAMS
AUDITORS CIRCUITS
AUDITING VALENCES
STUDENTS THE DYNAMICS
AN E-METER PAST LIVES
METERS A CENTRE
A SESSION FIELD AUDITORS
CLEARING CERTIFICATES
A CLEAR HCAs
A RELEASE HPAs
A PRECLEAR D.SCNs
A PATIENT MINISTERS
INSANE PEOPLE HGC PCs
THE MIND ACC s
MINDS MENTAL SCIENCE
MENTAL HEALTH A SCIENCE OF MIND
DIANETICS MENTAL DOCTORS
BOOK ONE SAINT HILL
DIANETIC BOOKS COURSES
SCIENTOLOGY BOOKS STATEMENTS
A SCIENTOLOGY MAGAZINE UNITS
RON’S ARTICLES SCIENTOLOGY PAY
A SCIENTOLOGY CONGRESS WORLD CLEARING
A BULLETIN RON
A POLICY LETTER L. RON HUBBARD
A HAT THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
HATS THE GOVERNING DIRECTOR
A SCIENTOLOGY ORGANIZATION THE FOUNDER
STAFF MEMBERS MARY SUE
A REGISTRAR MARY SUE HUBBARD
SCIENTOLOGY LETTERS THE ASSOCIATION SECRETARY
INSTRUCTORS THE ORGANIZATION SECRETARY
STAFF AUDITORS THE HCO SECRETARY
THE D of P SECURITY
THE D of T YOUR CASE
HCO PEOPLE’S CASES
HASI TECHNIQUES
THE CHURCH PROCEDURES
THE FOUNDATION ROUTINE 2-12
THE CENTRAL ORG A SQUIRREL
THE ACADEMY PSYCHOLOGISTS
THE HGC PSYCHIATRISTS
THE PE ROCK SLAMMERS
HDRF THETANS
THE CO-AUDIT TESTS
CO-AUDITING EXAMINERS
A DIANETIC ORGANIZATION GOALS
THE DYNAMICS TAPES
THE REACTIVE MIND LECTURES
ABERRATION
_________________________
Auditor’s Name
LRH:dr.rd
Copyright © 1962 L. RON HUBBARD
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED [Added to by HCO B 9 December 1962.]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 5 DECEMBER AD12
Central Orgs
Franchise


2-12, 3GAXX, 3-21
AND
ROUTINE 2-10
MODERN ASSESSMENT


The only actual test of a list is “Is it nullable?” Can it be nulled? Or will a dirty needle take over?

Assessment is prevented by the following:

(1) List taken from erroneous source.
(most corny)

(2) List is incomplete.
(most common)

(3) Missed missed withholds.
(least common)

(4) List Mid Ruds out.
(most overworked)

(5) Session Mid Ruds out.
(most neglected)

----------------

DEFINITIONS

ASSESSMENT—The whole action of obtaining a significant Item from a pc.

LISTING—The auditor’s action in writing down Items said by the pc in response to a question by the auditor.

NULLING—The auditor’s action in saying Items from a List to a pc and noting the reaction of the pc by use of an E-Meter.

ROCKSLAMMER—One who produces a Rockslam during the nulling of the Scientology List on that list. Persons who produce Rockslam reactions on other lists are not Rockslammers. This is designated because a certain behaviour pattern can be expected of a Rockslammer and because this person, having a PTP from the GPM on Scientology or allied Items, especially will make no gain in other auditing or studying of any kind until that Item is properly opposed by R2-10 or R2-12 and the case further cleaned on 2-10 or 2-12. 3GAXX and R3-21 are no help to this case. Without 2-12 this case is condemned to the next two hundred trillion years in misery. So never miss in spotting a Rockslammer.

NULLABLE—The condition a list must be in in order to have an Item found on it.

A DEAD HORSE—A list which even with good auditing, failed for any other reason to produce a Reliable Item.

SKUNKED—A list with RSs on it in listing that failed to produce a Reliable Item.

WRITING THE LIST

The list is written on 8” x 13” or 8l/2’’ x 13l/2’’ paper, on two sides of the paper, in one or two columns, depending on size of the writing. A fold of four pages is sometimes used, 8” x 13”.

The pc’s name in brief, the date and page number of the list and the question being asked are put on every sheet on the first side of that sheet or on the first page of a set of four pages unseparated.

The question is repeated only as often as actually needed by the pc.

Items are softly acknowledged now and then, not each Item.

All Items are written down that the pc gives.

The list is done with pc on the meter at sensitivity 8. The auditor keeps an eye on the meter. As the pc first thinks of an Item, the Item RSs or gives a DR. The auditor marks “RS” or “DR” after each such Item.

The auditor must be alert for a pc saying, “That’s the Item. Now the list is complete.” Invariably the RSing Items lie just after such a statement. Such a statement is acknowledged well and the auditor says, “We’ll have to continue just to be sure I have a clean needle.”

The list is complete when the needle is clean and flowing (but this won’t happen with the Session Mid Ruds out).

An auditor never repeats Items to the pc after the pc says them. If the auditor doesn’t understand he asks pc to spell it or if it is singular or plural. Don’t fake an understanding. The list must be accurate or it will foul up the needle on nulling.

The danger sign of overlisting (there are three but this is the only one used in 2-12 and 3GAXX) is the pc invalidating or questioning Items as he or she says them. When this happens near the beginning of a list, it indicates a wrong source for the list. After a hundred Items or more it means that the list is as complete as it will ever be and the auditor should stop and try to null it.

If a first step 2-12 list produces no RSs one completes it anyway and uses it. In short, first step lists don’t have to RS. However, a first step list that does RS is far more likely to produce results.

If a step 4 2-12 list produces no RS after being stretched on and on it is definitely a dead horse and should be abandoned. An RS usually occurs before 50 Items on a live list but this is a guess and some RSs have not turned on before 100 Items or more were listed.

In short, Represent and Opposition lists must produce an RS somewhere or they will not give a Reliable Item. These should be abandoned without nulling.

If an Item is an RSing Item it should only be opposed, represented (in 3GAXX) only after being opposed. Representing an RSing Item rather than opposing it will fail, as in representing an RSing Item the Reliable Item for the list is, of course, the Item the auditor already has.

The commonest flub is to fail to get in the Session Mid Ruds before writing or nulling a list and thereby getting a clean needle. Auditors who fail are auditors who won’t clean up a dirty needle before nulling. A needle can be dirty before and during the writing of a list without harming anything. But the needle must be clean or cleaned up when the completion test (d) below is given.

The commonest source of a dirty needle is out list Mid Ruds, but a new case with no Items found may have a dirty needle until a good live list is listed out to complete. Then magically the DN vanishes.

Various shifts, all common to auditing, may have to be employed to clean up a needle for the first assessment. But if it is too hard, just do a Zero One 2-12 List and use it before the Scientology List and the needle will usually clean, especially when the first Reliable Item is found.

--------------

Don’t try to bat a perfect score of one list = an RI. An auditor often has dead horses. But when the average rises above 50% dead horse there is something wrong with the auditing. Excellent auditing gives less than 20% dead horses.

--------------

Because an Item RSs when given in writing the list is no reason it will RS when nulling even with the Mid Ruds in. One RSing Item on a list will impart its RS to a dozen Items during the listing step.

--------------

Don’t harass the pc about a dirty needle. It’s the auditor who dirtied it up with wrong sources for lists or incomplete lists or cleaning clean reads.

--------------

If when getting the Rudiments in, an RS is noted, take no different action. RSs seen in the Ruds merely mean the pc is hot on a PTP that goes hard into the GPM and nothing but 2-12 will relieve it permanently. Other measures such as O/W turn it off for the moment but never permanently; only 2-12 can do that. Don’t run 3-21 on a pc who RSs in the Ruds. Only 2-12 or 2-10.

--------------

Never say “Floor. Floor. Floor,” to turn off an RS or DN or DR. You don’t care if things RS and a DN is cured only with Session and/or List Mid Ruds.

--------------

It is fatal to fail to oppose an RSing Item found on List One or a first list of 2-12. If a Rockslammer test disclosed an RS on the Scientology List on Tuesday and another auditor on Wednesday just does a new List One Assessment and ignores the RS test result and doesn’t oppose the List One RI, the case may breed dead horses thereafter. Use RSing Items when known or when found for opposition lists.

--------------

How wide is an RS? This is a silly question as an RS is a repetitive slashing of the needle of any width. A DR is a different looking read, tiny in its strokes. One or two slashes make an RS. There isn’t such a thing as an incipient RS. If it slashed up or down once call it an RS. A Rocket Read looks entirely different in velocity and decay.

--------------

A common source of trouble in finding a Reliable Item is missing an in Item that is marked in and not re-nulling it. The auditor misses the slant / .

Each page of a list is examined carefully for all Items X before being abandoned. It is then marked with a big X in the upper left corner, meaning “all nulled”. This saves an inspection of it again in going over the list.

NULLING

When a list is said to be complete by the preclear (does not apply to Scientology List) the auditor

(a) Gets in Session Big Mid Ruds.

(b) Gets in the List Big Mid Ruds.

(c) MAKES SURE THE NEEDLE IS CLEAN BEFORE DOING ANYTHING ELSE THAN (a) and (b).

(d) Says the question of the list and sees if it reacts on the meter or upsets needle flow.

(e) If meter reacts auditor completes list and does test of question as in (d) again until either the needle is smooth (c) or dirty. If dirty and won’t clean by listing, does Session Mid Ruds (a) and List Mid Ruds (b) and checks needle (c).

(Until the (a) to (e) steps have been gone through carefully the auditor hasn’t a prayer of nulling a list properly.)

(A pc can become harassed by an auditor trying to smooth a smooth needle with unnecessary Mid Ruds.)

The auditor now starts to null the list by the following steps:

(f) Calls each Item on the list one time (or more times if read was missed by auditor the first time). (No committing Overts against, etc, is now used. Only the Item itself.)

(g) Marks each Item that goes out with an X .

(h) Marks each Item that stays in with a / .

(i) If three or four Items stay in in a row, the auditor concludes that an Item earlier on the list has been invalidated and politely turns the list so the pc can see it and, indicating the already passed over Items, says, “Which one of these might you have had thoughts on?” The pc looks at list and answers. The auditor simply acknowledges politely and goes on nulling. He does not re-state the “falsely in” (/) Items.

(j) Every ten or so Items that go out consecutively (X) the auditor asks for a possible suppress, “On this list has anything been suppressed?” If it reacts on meter it is cleaned up and the auditor draws a line down the side of the (X) Items from moment of the suppress to where he now is as a group to null them again next time. The auditor does not re-null them until the next time around.

(k) At the end of the first time through the auditor gets in the List Mid Ruds until the needle is clean and flowing. It may sometimes be necessary to get the Session Mid Ruds in to accomplish a fully clean needle.

(l) The auditor starts down the list again, calling off each Item left in (/) one time (or until he sees the reaction or lack of it).

(m) Items now out are marked X and Items that are still in are marked / . Don’t forget the X groups that were marked suppressed.

(n) When the auditor has gone through the list a second time the List Big Mid Ruds are put in swiftly.

(o) Do steps (1), (m) and (n) until the list is down to 3 or 4 Items.

(p) Briefly Tiger Drill the remaining Items. Take the one that RSs as an RI.

(q) If no Item now RSs and none can now be made to RS get in the Session Big Mid Ruds and do (p) again.

(r) If no RS results, take the Items still reacting and ask the pc’s opinion (packaging step of 2-12).

Don’t oppose an Item that did not RS when found. Don’t endlessly Tiger Drill an Item until it dies. Don’t fail to oppose an Item that RSs.

LIST APPEARANCES

A nulled list does not look like this (this is the result of Incomplete Lists or out ruds or improper source):

Tiger///////////X
Waterbuck // X
Wind//////////////X
Willow wand///////////////////
Catfish/////X///X/////X
Game Warden///////////X

A nulled list also does not look like this:

Tiger
Waterbuck
Wind /
Willow wand //
Catfish
Game Warden

This is how a rightly nulled list should look:

Tiger DRX
Waterbuck X
Wind RSX
Willow wand RSpn/RS/RS/RS
Catfish X
Game Warden sen/X

If a pc’s List Mid Ruds (On this list has anything________) go out and if pc Inspection Step (i) above is not done, this is what happens:



If a pc suppresses an Item or something else this is what happens:



This is the way the list just above is marked when the suppress factor is found on check as in Step (j) above:




---------------

ASSESSMENTS

Assessment by greatest Reaction is the earliest method of Assessment. It still works but is used now only to decide on last two or three Items that were Tiger Drilled. It is not terribly inaccurate but is no tool for a really skilled auditor as RSs transfer about on some lists.

Assessment by Elimination depends wholly on the right Item being charged enough to peer through the out rudiments. One just goes over and over the list marking things in or out as above until one stays in. This is crude but it works. It is no tool for a trained auditor.

ROUTINE 2-10
(R2-12 Short Form for Beginners)

The Short Form of R2-12 can be used by untrained auditors with some effect until they are trained in Mid Ruds and other niceties.

Do not use Model Session or Goal Finder’s Model Session. Just use “Start of Session” and “End of Session”. No Ruds, havingness or other actions.

Step One: Assess first lists by Elimination above, taking whatever survives and reads. If an RS is found oppose it at once. Except for Scientology List, list a standard first list question to get this first list. Label paper as in Step Six below. Be sure to list until needle looks smooth or pc has really run out.

Step Two: Using the Item found in Step One above, list a “Who or What does ______ (Item found) represent to you?” list, marking “RS” all Items that RSed before being said by pc or when said by pc. List until needle looks very smooth.

Step Three: Null list by RS. Neglect everything that didn’t RS when said to pc. Go over Items that RSed again until only one does.

Read all Items to pc. Don’t mark Items that don’t RS with an X as the list actually hasn’t been nulled.

Step Four: Circle Item or Items that still RSed on Nulling on the list. (Get it checked out by the Instructor if one is present.) Choose whatever continues to RS now and then when said.

Step Five: Establish if Item made pc sick or dizzy (sen) or hurt or hot or cold (pn)

Step Six: If Item in Five above was sen, list question is “Who or What would oppose_____(Item found)?” If Item was pn, list question becomes “Who or What would a_____(Item found) oppose?” Write proper question and pc’s name, date and page number at the top of each sheet.

Step Seven: List the question in Six until needle looks clean and isn’t Ticking or kicking as pc thinks of Items. Get the list complete. Be sure that every Item that RSed when pc thought of it or said it was marked “RS” after it.

Step Eight: Read list Items once each to pc and note any Item that RSs when said to the pc. Go over RSing Items again.

Step Nine: Circle the Item or Items that still RS. (Get it checked out by Instructor if one is present.)

Step Ten: Find out with pc’s help which opposes which in the Items found, or if anything opposed anything, and mark them on pc’s Line Plot.

Repeat all steps using same first list until it is clean on Step One and then obtain a new first list from another question.

The above Routine is far less reliable than 2-12 but if a student or auditor does not know Model Session, Mid Ruds or Tiger Drilling, it will be less upsetting to the pc and get more done. Of course RSing Items will get lost by suppression but probably can be refound if the student just keeps working at it. A rather difficult (“never” RSing case) will get minimal gain on R2-10. There really are no “never” RSing cases except for a horribly inept auditor.

The percentage of dead horses with 2-10 will be found much greater than with R2-12. But 2-10 does work somewhat.

R2-10 can be used by new students, old auditors who are not recently trained and in Clearing Co-audits under Instructors, but should not be used by trained auditors. These should use R2-12. Others should use 2-10 only until they can be trained in 2-12,


L. RON HUBBARD


LRH:dr.jh.rd
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED







[The above HCO B incorporates HCO B 8 December 1962, Corrections-HCO Bulletin of December 5, AD12, and HCO B 17 December 1962, Correction to HCO Bulletin of December 5, 1962, which simply corrected errors in the writing, typing and proofreading of the original mimeo issue.]
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 6 DECEMBER AD12
CenOCon
Franchise


R2-10, R2-12, 3GAXX
DATA, THE ZERO A STEPS AND PURPOSE
OF PROCESSES


RULE: WHEN AN RSING ITEM IS FOUND ON LIST ONE THE SCIENTOLOGY LIST IT MUST BE OPPOSED.

COROLLARY: WHEN AN RSING ITEM IS FOUND ON LIST ONE AND IS NOT OPPOSED THE CASE WILL TEND THEREAFTER TO PRODUCE NO ROCKSLAMMING LISTS.

The Rule and Corollary are so much fact that if the auditor fails to oppose an RSing Item on List One and only represents it, the case will produce dead horses thereafter.

This is true mainly for The Scientology List. As Scientology is what is helping the pc, having a GPM type present time problem about it will prevent any further case gain.

On four cases now, where no RS was found on List One, The Scientology List, although DR Items were found and represented, no RSes occurred on the lists.

Thereafter the history of these cases was gone into, older auditor reports were examined and it was found that in each of these cases during a Security Check that an Item like “Scientology” or “Auditor” or “LRH” had RSed. The case then fully suppressed it and it did not come up on a new assessment of The Scientology List.

As soon as these Items were opposed RSes turned back on on the Lists and all went well thereafter.

Further, the nattery nature of the pc was extreme until this was done.

So it can be concluded that a BIG 2-10 or 2-12 goof is to fail to oppose Items that RS on List One, The Scientology List.

It is an INDICATOR that if a pc is very nattery or upset on 2-10 or 2-12, it is probable that somebody overlooked and didn’t oppose something that RSed on List One.

It is an Indicator that if a pc is producing Dead Horses on listing, somebody overlooked and failed to oppose an RSing Item on List One or that the pc should be run on List Zero-One or List Zero-Two.

A common form of missing an RSing Item on a represent and being unable to make a list nullable, is that the Item from which the represent list was taken, being unburdened by the listing, now begins to RS and becomes the Reliable Item.

Rule: When having difficulty getting a clean needle on a represent list at the end of listing, and before nulling, always Tiger Drill briefly the Item the list is coming from to see if that Item is now RSing. If it is, don’t bother to null the represent list just made. Do an oppose list on the original Item.

Example: List One Item found—The Church. Gives a DR. A represent list is written 200 or more Items. Meter still rough. Check The Church. It will occasionally be found to be RSing and is therefore taken as the RI and now should be opposed. The represent list made is abandoned.

In trying to run R2-12 on a first goal clear, use R2-10 instead and use any tick an Item gives instead of an RS in order to oppose that Item. A persistent tick or reaction = RS on a 1st goal clear.

ZERO LIST QUESTIONS
OR R2-12

Where a pc is producing Dead Horses on List One, there are Zero Lists that can be used.

The procedure is this:

R2-Step 02—

Check up on the pc’s record to see if an RS was ever observed on Scientology, the orgs, auditor, LRH and if so oppose that Item at once.

R2-Step 01—Lists 0A

If a Dead Horse is produced by (1) above, then assess the following for largest read on the meter:

List 0A0 Keep Hidden
List 0A1 Be Reasonable About
List 0A2 Rather not think about
List 0A3 Rather not know about
List 0A4 Ignore
List 0A5 Avoid
List 0A6 Stay away from
List 0A7 Not Communicate with
List 0A8 Hold off
List 0A9 Rather not have appear
List 0A10 Have to help
List 0A11 Fail to help
List 0A1 2 Dislike
List 0A13 Fight
List 0A14 Advise others to Attack
List 0A15 Attack
List 0A16 Do away with

Then use the result (largest read or RS) in the blank of the following question:

“In present time who or what would you_____________________”

Step 1-0A:

Make your first List by asking the pc the question formed in (02).

Proceed then with the usual remaining steps of R2-12 (or R2-10).

Note: These steps do not replace the 1-A series in the original issue. The Zero A series as given above are all prior to List One, The Scientology List, which must be done after the Zero A series.

The Zero A series can be assessed several times for new lists.

But remember, the pc who has a hot List One (The Scientology List) will make minimal progress on Routine 2-12.

On a pc newly on R2-12 or 2-10, if an RS was missed on List One, and nobody can discover if this pc ever RSed on it, and List One gives two Dead Horses in a row, fall back on the Zero A List. Then after two or three packages are found from it, re-assess List One. The List One RS will have been caught by the Zero A Lists or will be there on List One again.

“NEVER RSing” PCs

If a pc cannot be made to RS on Represent Lists taken from List One, then List One was already RSing or the Zero A List must be resorted to.

There are no never RSing pcs. All pcs RS. Those that are mediumly bad off RS very easily. Those that are way down RS less easily. Those that are in fair shape RS well but the RS is rather moderate (less wide) and their RS turns on every time an RSing Item is said to them. The bad off pc’s RS suppresses very easily. The mediumly bad off pc has a wide, wild frantic RS that sometimes RSes within the RS as it slashes.

The progress of a pc can be marked by this cycle:

Horrible shape = Hard to find RS.

Mediumly bad off = Frantic wide, sporadic RSs easily suppressed.

Not too bad = Easy to find RS turns on easily on auditor’s statement of Item. Mediumly wide.

Fair shape = Easy to find, easy to turn on, doesn’t suppress, fairly narrow and regular.

Good shape = Very easy to find, very easy to turn on by command, blows on cognition.

A pc in horrible shape goes through all these phases. Any other case on the scale moves up.

The GPM RS is the pathway through the GPM. Any Item that RSes was part of the GPM and has another Item in opposition to it.

Thus, you could, in theory, clear a pc by just finding Items on and on.

However, the goal sooner or later presents itself, usually in the form of a Rocket Reading Terminal. By listing what goal that terminal may have one gets a goals list that can be assessed. (The RR Item still must also be opposed.)

But wrong goals are so deadly and R2-12 Items are so beneficial when found that a Class II Auditor takes his pc’s health and life in his hands to fool about with goals. Leave that to Class IVs and go on finding Items.


ROCKET READS vs RSes

The Rocket Read is superior in value to an RS. The RS is superior in value to a DR. A DR is superior in value to a fall.
A beginning RS is sometimes mistaken for a Rocket Read. But it won’t repeat itself. And a Rocket Read always goes to the right with a fast spurt which rapidly decays. The slash of an RS is all of the same velocity and doesn’t decay, it just ceases.

The Rocket Read is the Read of the goal or the Rock itself.

The RS is the read of the Rock vs the Opposition Rock and every pair above them on the cycle of the GPM. It marks the path to the Rock.

Just below the Rock lies the pc’s goal.

The ROCK SLAM CHANNEL is the pathway through the pairs of Items that compose a cycle of the GPM and lead to the Rock and goal.

The Rock Slam marks the path of Interest of the pc. RS = Interest = Cognitions. No RS = No Cognitions.

Below the 1st Goal is a whole new undisclosed GPM. The 1st goal clears off a cycle of the GPM. The second goal a 2nd cycle, earlier and stronger. And so on. This is therefore the road to Theta Clear and Operating Thetan.

But the first goal is too heavily overburdened to be found easily or run on the vast majority of cases. Therefore R2-12 is needed and 3GAXX.


PURPOSE OF PROCESSES

The target of R2-10 is fast result in the pc and greater reality for the auditor.

The target of R2-12 is the packages in Present Time which bend the GPM out of shape and give the pc PTPs and Hidden Standards.

The target of 3GAXX is Items on which goals lists can be compiled and unburdening.

The target of Routine 3-21 is Clear, Theta Clear and Operating Thetan. Second goals are easily found by R3-21 alone without Step 4A (3GAXX).

This then is the whole road from Homo Sapiens to Homo Novis to Operating Thetan.

It requires only precision and the auditing skill now taught on the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course.


L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:gl.rd
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
11—13 December 1962


** 6212C11 SHSBC-222 R2- 12 Data
** 6212C11 SHSBC-223 Phantom R/S
** 6212C13 SHSBC-224 R2-12 Data—Needle Behavior
** 6212C13 SHSBC-225 Repair of R2-12—Clean Needle

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 8 DECEMBER AD 12
Sthil Students
Academies
TRAINING
X UNIT

The biggest hole in student auditing is the inability to clean up a needle.

Students who try to do assessments fail to get results when they attempt to null with a needle that is already filthy.

It is rather easy to clean a needle and the results on the pc are highly beneficial.

The basis of an inability to read a meter is state of case. This is remedied by R2- 12’s List One cleaning. When List One is burnished bright, the student will be able to read a meter.

In V unit the auditing is heavily supervised and the student’s reality is raised by accurate R2-12 or R2-10.

In X unit therefore, the first indicated step is to teach the student to use the Mid Ruds.

This is done by Havingness by Mid Ruds.

The pattern of the session is Goal Finder’s Model Session.

The Purpose of the X unit Sessions is to clean a needle and to demonstrate that a needle can be cleaned.

The Auditor notes the pc’s can squeeze before session start.

The session is started with the usual Goal Finder’s pattern.

The Rudiments are put in by Big Mid Ruds, “Since the last time I audited you ............” (or “Since the last time you were audited ....... “ if this is the auditor’s first session, or “Since you decided to be audited .. ..” for raw meat).

The general missed W/Hs of the pc are pulled in the body of the early sessions. When this has been done, remaining sessions are devoted to havingness.

The pc’s havingness process is tested for and found, or is run.

The body of the session is closed.

The Big Ruds for the session are then put in.

The pc is then asked with meter at Sens 16 “In this session was the room all right?” and this is cleaned. The can squeeze test is then made with Sens 1.

Goals and gains are taken up and the session is ended.

By end of session the needle should be without pattern and the pc should be cheerful.

LRH:jw.cden L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright ©1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 9 DECEMBER AD12
Central Orgs
Franchise
ROUTINE 2-12
LIST ONE
ADD TO LIST ONE ISSUE THREE
(HCO Bulletin December 4, AD 12)

Correction: Auditor’s name at end of second column is part of second column and is used in assessment.

DIRECTIONS: If anything has ever Rockslammed on List One itself it must be opposed even if it doesn’t Rockslam now. The data of all observations and security checks is used to find if anything Rockslammed. The case will give dead horses if a Rockslamming Item is by-passed. Cases that give dead horses on R2- 12 had a Rockslamming Item on List One that was never opposed. On cases that have been giving lists on which no RSs occur, Tiger Drill List One until you get an RS on any button or pain or sensation on any Item and just oppose it.

After a List One Item has been represented always check it again to see if it now is Rockslamming. If so, do an opposition list to it in accordance to whether it gave pn or sen.

Add these additional Items to List One Issue 3:

FRANCHISE FAMILY
10%s HOME
SCIENTOLOGY GROUPS LOVE
GROUP AUDITING PARENTS
MEMBERSHIPS FATHER
REPORTS MOTHER
DISSEMINATION A GROUP
INFRACTIONS GROUPS
PABs GOVERNMENT
ASSESSMENTS ORGANIZATIONS
MID RUDS COMPANY
CHECK OUTS MANAGEMENT
EXAMINERS LABOUR
GLASSES A CLUB
HEALTH PEOPLE
MEDICINE MANKIND
MEDICAL DOCTORS SPECIES
HEALING SYSTEMS LIVING THINGS
PROCESSING MATTER
TESTS MASSES
I.Q. ENERGY
TRAINING SPACE
YOURSELF TIME
YOU FORM
ME (meaning pc) FORMS
ME (meaning auditor) AUDITING ROOMS
SEX THETANS
SEXUAL PRACTICES SPIRITS
A MAN GHOSTS
MEN KNOWLEDGE
A WOMAN THOUGHT
WOMEN RELIGION
A CHILD GODS
CHILDREN GOD
MARRIAGE SUPREME BEING

LRH :dr.rd
Copyright © 1962 L. RON HUBBARD
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 DECEMBER AD12

Franchise URGENT

R2-12
THE FATAL ERROR

The surest way to retard and upset a case with Routine 2-12 is to find a Rock Slam on List One, Tiger Drill it down to a dirty needle and then represent it.

That case will then hang up, 2-12 can be pronounced as unworkable and the whole thing can be skipped.

Yes, the represent list so taken will RS. Yes, the List One Item tested again will probably now RS. Yes, the auditor has followed the rules of R2-12. A11 except one, and that rule is:

IF AN ITEM ROCKSLAMS WHEN CALLED ON LIST ONE OR AT ANY TIME DURING TIGER DRILLING, NO MATTER HOW BRIEFLY, THAT ITEM MUST BE GIVEN AN OPPOSITION LIST.

And another rule:

IF YOU AREN’T SURE IF A LIST ONE ITEM GAVE PAIN OR SENSATION, THE OPPOSITION LIST MUST BE MADE BOTH WAYS, “WHO OR WHAT WOULD IT OPPOSE” AND “ WHO OR WHAT WOULD OPPOSE IT”.

If more than one Item RSed on List One you take what RSed longest or was closest to the session.

List One Items do not have to continue to Rockslam forever in order to do opposition lists to them.

Most pcs who know the rules lie about pain or sensation in order to pretend List One Items are terminals. Do the opposition lists both ways as above and nul all.

Routine 2-12 has only this frailty: Rockslammers will not find rock slams on List One. And Tiger Drilling can be counted on, in inexpert hands, to suppress the RS.

A case BOGS when you represent an RS-ing Item.

NEVER represent an RS-ing Item. Always oppose it.

Hear me, now. Almost 100% of R2- 12 cases will fail if no attention is paid to the above.

If you get a case that gets only dead horses, don’t go to the Zero A List. Just write an opposition list to Scientology. You’ll be right ninety percent of the time. The other ten percent RS on Scientology Orgs and Auditors.

Opposition Lists only on RS-ing Items. Hear me now.

If a case EVER ROCKSLAMMED ON A LIST ONE ITEM, whether on an old Security Check, a Joburg, a Rock Slam Sec Check, and you now do only represent lists from List One, that case will hang, or make small gain on R2-12 until somebody is smart enough to look at the record and oppose that RS-ing Item.

Honest, the case is finished right now, kaput, wrecked, smashed, ended, snarled, messed up, ruined, stopped and skewered until a List One Item that RSed ever so briefly is opposed. Represent Lists will get it nowhere until this is done.

Hear me, please.

LRH: dr.vmm.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 30 DECEMBER AD12

Central Orgs
Franchise
URGENT
IMPORTANT


ROUTINES 2-12 & 2-10
CASE ERRORS
POINTS OF GREATEST IMPORTANCE



The errors in doing Routine 2-10 and Routine 2-12 are divided into two broad divisions:

(a) Those of auditing itself;

(b) Those deriving from errors in doing the exact skills of Routines 2-10 and 2-12.


AUDITING ERRORS

This bulletin touches only briefly on the errors of (a) Auditing Errors. These consist of sloppy form, bad TRs, inability to read a meter, Auditor Code breaks, Q and A-ing, missing missed W/Hs, doing bad Mid Ruds or Tiger Drilling and using Auditing form to hold up results.

One remedies bad auditing (as different from bad 2-10 or 2-12) by following this prescription:

The poorer the auditor, the more a supervisor or instructor takes away from him the tools of auditing. In short, if an auditor makes bad auditing errors, one simplifies the auditing to prevent the errors. Don’t let him or her do 2-12. Make such an auditor use only 2-10. Then, as the auditor’s skill in basic auditing improves, the more he or she can be trusted with 2-12.

Do NOT let an auditor who can’t do any kind of a job of basic auditing do 2-12. Let such an auditor do only 2-10. And then as that auditor’s case improves on 2-10 or 2-12, and as training drills are passed, let the auditor graduate up to 2-12.

Remember this: 2-12 works all by itself with no auditing niceties. And it can be prevented from working (but only to some degree) by bad auditing form or intention.

Strip off Model Session, Mid Ruds, Tiger Drilling, and two-way comm, demand it be run muzzled, muzzled, muzzled, use the meter only to find Rockslams, and modern Routine 2 works like a dream, a dream, a dream even for an auditor whose auditing skill is terrible.

Let a Q and A artist clean cleans on a meter, muck up the Mid Ruds, yap at the pc, and Routine 2 won’t work because it never gets done.

So the training stress and the use stress of Routine 2 is first on Routine 2, its rules and how it’s done, and when the auditor has case gains and wins, auditing form is then entered upon.

The backwards way is to insist on a good hard study of form before training on Routine 2. Always hammer Routine 2 home first and get it done, not fooled with by the Mixed-up Kid from Mid Rud Gulch.

Your main trouble will come from not teaching Routine 2 hard just as itself before entering upon the niceties of auditing. You have to show the wild man it’s a house before you teach him to serve French Pastry a la Partie.

Of course nothing in this HCO Bulletin should be used to degrade the value of good auditing form.

Good metering, a smooth command of the TRs, a grip on the basics and a firm knowledge of fundamentals are vital in an auditor.

You can’t get all there is to get out of Routine 2-12 with rough auditing.

Auditing skill is not just something to acquire. It’s the only thing that gets real auditing done. And good auditors are scarce and I appreciate them. I’ve had my share of rough auditing and I know the diamonds and gold of a smooth, flawless auditor.

But Routine 2, at the time of this writing, and for always in some area of the world as we expand, will be handled with rough auditor skill. Therefore, for the purposes of this HCO Bulletin, we will consider the auditing skill to be rough and show what Routines 2-10 and 2-12 can do in unpolished hands.

And never fear, when their cases are better and the training can be stepped up, they’ll become polished, never fear. And appreciate being so. It’s my brag I can get a pc out of anything with just auditing skill. That makes me pretty brave as an auditor. But this “Bring on your lions” attitude is born out of auditing skills, taught, not “native”. I use the same pattern and patter as you do if you audit text book. But I don’t clean cleans often or miss reads ever and I don’t Q and A. You can audit just as well as I can with practice and study. Why do I know this? Well, auditing is not my main forte, not even close to my appointments and goals.

We’re probably all Rockslammers somewhere on List One and this is Man pulling himself out of the mud indeed.

So don’t run down pure auditing skill. It’s more precious than anything in this universe.

But you can acquire it as you do Routine 2 and after.

Meanwhile don’t overrate the power of Routine 2 to work with rough auditing, so long as the Routine 2 is done right.

-------------


THE ERRORS OF ROUTINE TWO

Routine Two (by which is meant 2-10 & 2-12) has its own rules and these must be learned first and learned well.

Routine 2 today is a powerful process. And if it can straighten up a pc so fast, it can also cave him in fast. However such cave-ins, while dramatic, are very easy to remedy even though they must be remedied with accuracy. (The remedies are all contained in this HCO Bulletin.)

Remember, in doing Routine 2, the primary pc upset is from badly done Routine 2, not badly done auditing. To repair a car don’t look for paint scratches when somebody has removed the engine. Auditing form is paint scratches. The removed engine is flubbed Routine 2.

Routine 2 must be taught hard, not just as a version of auditing but as itself. It is its own technical package and it doesn’t even infringe on the basics of auditing.

AUDITOR RESPONSIBILITY

Routine 2 has several hills to climb. One of them is Auditor responsibility. This process has the peculiarity of handing all responsibility for case gain or worsening to the auditor.

You will hear people who haven’t a clue on Routine 2 crying about bad pcs, bad D of P-ing, bad Ron and blaming everyone but themselves. Investigate and you’ll find only an auditor flub on Routine 2.

All Routine 2 auditor flubs consist of:

(a) Not knowing Routine 2.

(b) Not doing Routine 2.

There are no other Routine 2 auditor flubs.

In Routine 2 all gain or lack of gain is assignable directly and only to the auditor.

Frightening isn’t it?

But encouraging too. For it puts the auditor at cause, wholly and completely, over the pc’s case. You might have known that would happen with the first all case fast gain process.


DURATION OF PROCESS

Routine 2 is here to stay. You’ve been used to the changing face of processing.

That discouraged learning any process very well and setting up to get it done by one and all. Well, Routine 2 is here to stay. It isn’t going to change. You can invest a great amount of time and effort on learning it.

It’s here to stay because where it doesn’t get results, the auditor didn’t know it or didn’t do it, and we can always remedy that.

It only produces mediocre or worsening results when it either isn’t known or isn’t needed.

Further, it is quite easy to do.

And it produces fast, stable results, very startling to even raw meat. There is more miracle in 50 hours of well done Routine 2 than in the entire history of the church.

Further it has to be done on every case before a goal can easily or reliably be found, or even if found, before it can be run.

So there it is. Learn it.


NO AUDITING

The first and greatest error of Routine 2 is No-Auditing.

Yes, the auditor may be sitting there like a one-man band, busy as free beer at the boiler works and yet not be auditing Routine 2.

Example: Eat up two-thirds of every session with needless beginning, middle and end rudiments.

Example: Spend two hours Prepchecking the Mid Ruds and then find the reason the needle is dirty is an incomplete list.

Example: Spend three sessions full of general O/W trying to calm an ARC breaky pc when in actual fact the auditor has been opposing an Item off an incomplete list.

It’s not just Audit the pc in front of you. That’s vital enough. But Audit the pc in front of you with correct Routine 2.

Auditors have been known to spend hours, days, running old processes to get the pc “up to running 2-12” when five minutes of 2-12 would have had the pc sailing.

NO AUDITING means “While seeming to deliver auditing, actually get nothing done.” It’s the greatest crime in Routine 2 or Routine 3. NO AUDITING can be reduced to the finest art. Doing a wrong list, re-doing a dead horse, these aren’t no-auditing. Auditing may have been wasted or may be slow, but it’s still auditing. No, NO AUDITING means going through endless, useless motions, perhaps in top form, perhaps perfectly, none of which are calculated to advance the pc’s case one inch. Doing havingness every half page, endlessly Tiger Drilling, doing Mid Ruds just because it’s “good form”, all these and a thousand more add up to NO AUDITING. Absolute essentials, bare bone, and bounteous correct 2-12 are AUDITING.

Mid Ruds, Tiger Drilling are necessary to good auditing but using them an inch beyond necessity is NO AUDITING.


FAILURE TO SAVE RECORDS

Almost the only way to completely bar the door on the pc is to lose his case folder or fail to put all lists and reports in it.

Every sheet of every list must have on it the pc’s name, date of the list and the question from which the list comes.

This is the biggest MUST in Routine 2: Preserve the records and make them identifiable and usable.


FAILING TO FIND RSs ON LIST ONE

Failing to find and utilize an RS on List One is the most common (but not the most destructive to the pc’s health) error in Routine 2.

Example: Auditor has three dead horses. Abandons case. Another auditor assesses List One, Tiger Drills the RSs out, represents a tick. Gets another dead horse. Abandons case. Pc now known as a “tough pc”. A third auditor gets cunning, looks over the original assessment, sees “Auditor” RSed once long ago. It doesn’t now, having been Tiger Drilled to death. Opposes it. Gets a beautiful RSing List. Case starts to fly

This error has been done over, and over and over and is the source of all dead horses.

Rule: Oppose Every RS found on List One or IA or a “PT consists of” list. Oppose them even when they only RSed on Tiger Drill buttons. Take the RSing Item most intimate to the actual session as the first one to use. If in further doubt take the RSing Item closest to the session the pc is interested in.

List One, I A or “PT consists of” lists do not have to be RIs to be opposed. They are locks on RIs. They only need to briefly RS, or to have been seen to RS at some time, to be opposed. If they RSed at any time they must be opposed according to whether they are terms or oppterms.

I have seen a case fail to give more than dead horses until somebody recalled that on a Sec Check test a year before the case had RSed on “Scientology Orgs” (now not even a tick). When that was opposed, a dial-wide RS turned on for 55 consecutive pages of Items, a high record.

One remedy is to Tiger Drill “On List One_____”, but it isn’t infallible.

REPRESENTING AN RSing ITEM

One of the three most destructive actions to the pc is Representing an RSing Item. (The other two are opposing the wrong way and opposing an RSing Item taken from an incomplete list, both included below.)

Representing an RSing Item puts a terrible strain on the pc’s attention. The list may even RS, probably will. But the opposing Item, now hidden, wreaks havoc on the pc all the time its companion is being listed on a represent list. A real calm pc can turn into a screamer if an RSing Item is listed with a represent list, whether it has been opposed or not.

(Note: This is contrary to a 3GAXX action which could be done only because a detested person wasn’t a vital oppterm. It should not be done even in 3GAXX.)

Rule: Only do opposition lists on RSing Items. Never represent them.


OPPOSE RIs

Always oppose an RI and continue to oppose RIs until you get a satisfactory package. Never leave a BY-PASSED Item.

To do so is destructive to the preclear. This is not the greatest source of destructiveness and not every RI by-passed will ruin the preclear. But once out of three times the pc will be upset.

Example: “Scientology” RSes. A Reliable Item “A slavemaster” is found on the opposition list. It is not then itself opposed. Pc is upset by presence of a hidden Item that opposes “A slavemaster”. Pc stays upset until “A slavemaster” is opposed and its RI companion Item “A freedom Fighter” is found. “Slavery” shows up on the “Opp Scientology” List as the thing that actually fronted up to “Scientology” when the whole thing was packaged.

Rule: When a First List RSing Item is opposed and an RI is found, then Routine 2 steps are incomplete until the found RI is itself opposed.

It goes Represent—oppose—oppose or Oppose, Oppose.

It will be seen that First List RSing Items are usually locks into PT on actual RIs. It will also be seen that the Rockslams on the First List, the first opposing RI and the RI that opposes that all match. They have the same width and speed and pattern. They seldom all RS at the same time but in sequence of when first found.

Rule: All Items found must be completely packaged.

Rule: All RSs in a package must match in character and vanish when fully packaged.

Leaving a by-passed Item is also possible because of incomplete lists. (See below.)


INCOMPLETE LISTS

If, after nulling, you have several Rockslamming Items remaining, your list is always incomplete.

Bonus packages vanish as soon as spotted. They occur once in a while. They can be ignored in this rule:

Rule: If you find more than one RS in nulling a list that list is incomplete and must be completed.

Example: “Preclear (pn)” once RSed so it is opposed. The “Who or what would a preclear oppose” list is listed and a dozen RSs were seen on listing (OK so far). The list tested without reaction on the question. The auditor starts to null the list. Some of the Items that RSed while being listed, RS now on nulling. List is nulled down to 3 (!) RSing Items. Auditor chooses one. It RSes nicely. This is “A control device (sen)”. Auditor now lists “Who or what would oppose a control device?” List RSes well. However, masses tend to close in on pc. Havingness drops. Pc possibly ARC breaky. Auditor continues On listing. And on. And on. Finally gets to nulling. Very hard job. Pc cutting up. Auditor tries to pull missed withholds. After much blood auditor finds four RSing Items left on list, chooses “A wild man” and tries to package. Pc glum. Very little cognition. TWO Items have been By-passed. How? Auditing supervisor sees that several Items on the “Who or what would a pc oppose” list RSed on nulling. Assumes rightly list was incomplete. Directs it to be completed. Pc smiles brightly and with a suddenly clean needle lists 80 more Items (several of which RS on listing). Masses fall away from pc again. No ARC breaks. This time only one Item RSed on nulling. “A controller (sen).” (Only new list is nulled of course. You never re-null in 2-12.) RS has mysteriously (and correctly) vanished off every other RSing Item on that list. The list “Who or what would oppose a control device?” is wholly scrubbed, being wrong. The auditor now lists “Who or what would oppose a controller?” The pc happily lists 200 Items (many RSing). The needle goes clean. The auditor starts nulling. Finds he has two Items on the first three pages that RS. Has learned his lesson and, leaving off nulling for the moment, gets pc to add 50 Items. Auditor goes on nulling. Nulls down to one RSing Item, “An Insane Idiot”. The RS on “A Preclear”, “A Controller” and “An Insane Idiot” all matched when seen each in turn (but “a preclear” doesn’t RS any more). Pc cogniting like mad. Very happy. Masses all moved off and havingness up.

Rule: If in nulling more than one RS is seen on list, that list is incomplete and must be completed.

There are no exceptions to this rule. Bonus packages blow off on a completed list.

Also, to clarify, keep in mind this rule:

Rule: If a list does not RS now and then or at least once when being listed, it will become a dead horse.

That some list Items RSed when the pc said them during listing is natural.

If, with Suppress clean, more than one of them RSes during nulling, that list is incomplete.

Also, in passing, don’t finish nulling a list before adding to it as a general practice. Add to it when the pc’s needle is dirty or when you see more than one RS on it during nulling. The pc ARC breaks if you keep completing the nulling of the existing list and then adding.


WRONG WAY OPPOSE

Pcs are not always right when telling you it’s a terminal (pn) or oppterm (sen). They even sometimes lie to try to save their face (to keep from looking bad in an auditor’s eyes or the world, or to seem even more villainous than they are).

The only real test of a right way oppose is whether or not the list lists easily with IMPROVED SKIN TONE in the pc and improved cheerfulness, and if it produces one RSing Item that packages later.

If you just can’t tell which way to oppose, oppose both ways and then decide on pc’s appearance which way was right and continue it.

Wrong way opposition is not usual. Usually the pc tells the truth and all is well. But when a list is listed wrong way to on opposition it’s long, horrible and deadly.

The pc goes faintly grey, green yellow or blackish, looks worse, and the list gets endless. A wrong way list will RS. So it’s only pc appearance that tells the story. Routine 2 is beneficial. Pcs that are listed with right way opposition look brighter, younger, with a more translucent skin tone. You won’t make a mistake if you can tell the difference between a young boy and an old man, it’s that distinct. (Remember, a pc will also look worse as above if you took an Item from an Incomplete list or committed any of the other R2 errors in this HCO Bulletin.)


LISTS THAT WON’T COMPLETE

The only reasons a list will not complete are:

(a) Wrong Source

(b) Wrong Way To Oppose.

In either case there is something wrong with the source of the list.

That a list in listing RSes is no guarantee of rightness of source. A wrong way to list will RS. Some lists taken from a wrong source cycle RS, DR, Clean needle, RS, DR, Clean needle.

Wrong sources are:

1. A First List Item is opposed that didn’t ever RS,

2. An “RI” grabbed off an incomplete list that must be completed,

3. An Item that was a terminal being opposed as though it were an oppterm and vice versa,

4. On a represent list, the Item being represented actually was an RSing Item,

5. On a represent list the Item being represented was badly chosen and of no interest to the pc.

There are no other wrong sources and thus no other R2 way to get a list that won’t complete. But when you do get a list that won’t complete, be very careful to look over the above 5 reasons and pick out the right one. You may have to complete an earlier list first and scrub the one you’re on.

Incompleting lists are usually abandoned without further patch-up.

How long is an Incomplete List? How long is a piece of string?


LONG LONG LISTS

Don’t ever be afraid to have a long list, only be afraid of short ones. But when a list is running up toward thousands, something is wrong.

Endless Lists stem basically from wrong source as above or from the auditor’s failure to understand what indicates a complete list.

If, on close study of the case folder and pc, Routine 2 errors seem to be absent—the source is right and not something taken from another list itself incomplete, if the oppose is right way to, then look for the following:

(a) Pc is not answering auditing question or

(b) Pc has decided something was his Item and is representing it or is otherwise operating on a decision.

The remedies are to get Decide in well and to make sure, without upsetting him, that the pc is answering the auditing question.

And if that is all OK, then it’s just a long list, so complete it.

Rule: A list is complete when it can be nulled and when it produces just one RI that RSes on Tiger Drilling and stays in.

A list can be nulled only when a needle is clean (except in 2-10).

The definition of a CLEAN NEEDLE is one which flows, producing no pattern or erratic motions of the smallest kind with the auditor sitting looking at it and doing nothing. A CLEAN NEEDLE is not just something that doesn’t react to a particular question. It’s a lovely slow flow, usually a rise, most beautifully expressed on a Mark V at 64 sensitivity.

A list has to be listed until this needle flow is observed (with no Mid Ruds put in). But ruds or no ruds, a CLEAN NEEDLE always appears when a list is complete.

A DIRTY NEEDLE is one that jerks, tips, dances, halts, is stuck or has any random action on it with the auditor sitting looking at it doing nothing.

There are the Auditing methods of converting a dirty needle to a clean needle, both as defined above. These are all the skills of auditing used with Big Mid Rud buttons.

Now entirely and distinctly separate from Auditing skills for cleaning a needle, there are the Routine 2 methods for converting a dirty needle to a clean needle.

Usually both Auditing and Routine 2 methods are used to clean a needle so that one can nul, the former briefly, the latter abundantly.

However, do not overlook the demonstrable fact that Routine 2 methods for cleaning a needle are very beneficial and lasting in results, whereas purely auditing methods (like Mid Ruds) have value only for the moment and, even though auditing methods are desirable in this operation, when the Routine 2 is in error, the clean needle is really impossible to achieve longer than seconds with auditing methods.

The obvious solution to cleaning a needle is to first have Routine 2 as perfect as possible (the errors outlined in this HCO Bulletin uncommitted or being rapidly corrected) and then use auditing methods.

Try it in reverse (auditing methods first and then using corrections of Routine 2) and you will not only fail to get a needle clean longer than seconds, you may also waste the better part of an intensive trying to do it.

So spend hours straightening up Routine 2 errors and doing it right and brief minutes with auditing methods when necessary.

And don’t revile a pc for having a dirty needle. It’s the auditor who dirties it up with incorrect or inaccurate Routine 2, not the pc.

Now a clean needle is vital in order to nul a list. Don’t ever try to nul a list with the needle dirty. If the Routine 2 is right, the needle will clean up with two minutes’ work of Big Mid Ruds. If Routine 2 errors (wrong list source, list incomplete, wrong way oppose, etc, as per this HCO Bulletin) exist and Routine 2 is being done wrong, then two hours’ worth of Big Mid Ruds will not clean a dirty needle.

Any of the Routine 2 errors taken up in this HCO Bulletin will create a dirty needle and keep it dirty and leave the auditor sweating over Mid Ruds and the pc going mad trying to answer the questions. Yes, the Mid Ruds are out. But why? Because one or more serious Routine 2 errors as described in this HCO Bulletin are present.

So see the light. If you sweat on Mid Ruds as an auditor, curse them as a pc or see a co-auditor dripping exasperation over Mid Ruds and the needle won’t stay clean, look

at the Routine 2, not the difficulty with Mid Ruds. Look for the errors here described. Check them off on the case, one by one, and don’t even be satisfied that it’s only “No-Auditing”. Check all the errors off, section by section. You’ll be startled.

So in general, difficult Mid Ruds and dirty needle indicate wrong Routine 2, not bad auditing. Somebody has flubbed the Routine 2 before the auditing was flubbed. Once the Routine 2 is in error, auditing becomes impossible.

This gives no excuse for bad metering, cleaning cleans, trying to look like an auditor but ignoring results. Auditing errors do exist. And can be serious, but a pc running on right Routine 2 would forgive the Pope for having a forked tail. You almost can’t muddy up a pc running on right Routine 2.

Here’s a trick. Don’t try to nul a list until you’ve seen a clean flowing needle for a lot of Items, maybe 50. Then get in fast Mid Ruds on the list and do it without cleaning any cleans. Then start nulling. If the needle dirties up after 30-40 Items, skip Mid Ruds, just show the pc the page and have him spot any big thoughts he had on it. Then immediately get back to nulling. If the needle is dirty still, resume listing until it’s clean. Just do those actions and (given error free Routine 2 as per this HCO Bulletin) you’ll have a smooth, smooth happy time of it in nulling.

Do anything you don’t have to do in auditing Routine 2 and you’re in trouble in the auditing department. Bang out almost total Routine 2 and you’re in clover. Give 1/10th of the session over to goals, Mid Ruds and other auditing actions and 9/10ths of the session to pure Routine 2 Actions and you’ll really win. And that l/10th includes any Mid Ruds on the list as well. Give half the session to auditing and half to Routine 2 and you’ll be in continuous trouble.

The righter the Routine 2, the less auditing you’ll have to do.

So how long is a list? Can you nul it with a needle that requires only a pc inspection of a page to keep it clean? Are all but one of the RSs that happened in auditing dead when you nulled? Are your pages long streams of X’s? Did you have to use suppress only once per page (fast check) to keep it clean?

Well, that’s a complete list. If it gave you an RI. Just one.

So how long is a list?

But if all the above is true and a pc’s lists are still very long, another thing can be wrong.

That wrongness usually is the pc’s confronting ability being driven down by auditor unconfrontability. (But also can be caused by a wrong RI or other errors gone before it as covered in this HCO Bulletin.)

The auditor Qs and As, yap, yaps, nags the pc, blames, gets in endless Mid Ruds, cleans cleans, misses reads or does something else.

The length of an auditor’s pc’s lists is to some degree proportional to the Rough auditing or no-auditing done by the auditor. (And also by a failure to use Mid Ruds and TD in the right places when necessary.)

We have known since ‘55 that rough auditing reduces havingness. Here’s why: Rough auditing lowers the pc’s ability to confront in the session. The pc’s havingness is proportional to his ability to confront in the session. If a pc’s havingness by can squeeze test is lower at session end than at beginning on Routine 2, then there’s something wrong with the auditing or with the way Routine 2 is being applied (one of the above Routine 2 errors is being made).

The remedy for the bad auditing is to make the auditor only acknowledge anything and everything the pc says or put it on the list. Tear out all Rudiments, Tiger

Drills, two-way comm, and forbid any chance to comment or act on an Origin by the pc, and get only Routine 2 done.

The remedy for Routine 2 errors (and the errors themselves) are given above in this HCO Bulletin.


CONCLUSION

Routine 2 does not have an endless parade of DO-NOTS. They are basically just those above.

Simple, really.

And I’ve not seen one session on Routine 2 that was going really wrong, go wrong on auditing errors alone. Routine 2 sessions go wrong on bad Routine 2. The auditing form and meter errors start to pile up after Routine 2 has been balled up. One or more of the above Routine 2 errors has been done and overlooked.

The reason why Routine 2 errors are more deadly than purely auditing errors is that Routine 2 is handling the pc by batches of lifetimes. All the stress and gore- and agony of generations exist on the lists of any one package. An auditing error can be gross and get by unless it is sitting on a Routine 2 error. Then the tiniest auditing flub can produce a reaction like an earthquake. The charge is all coming from Routine 2 mishandling and is evident on the surface only by the auditing error.


CASE REMEDY

Routine 2 case patch-up is elementary, done with a knowledge of the above errors. Just find out which one of the above sections is being violated. And get it done. The error will only be one of the above to cause case non-progress or worsening.

The sections are given in order of importance.

I will shortly work up a series of actual case history case repairs. So save the records and you save all.


SUMMARY

Routine 2-10 and 2-12 are their own technology and must be learned as such.

Routine 2 errors are more shaking to a case than errors in form and meter (except where the auditor can’t even see a Rock Slam!) and where a case is not winning on Routine 2 auditing it is the Routine 2 that must be reviewed—and fast. The elements to be reviewed are all listed above by sections in order of importance. Of course many other smaller fantastic errors can be done and will be invented but they will be junior in value to those listed above and will be reported when found.

Routine 2 will be with us a long, long time and it is worth learning well. It takes the toughest case apart and is the only process that can start the actual clearing of 805’o or more of all cases.

I have done or reviewed thousands of hours of auditing in forming and organizing and testing Routine 2.

It is the most gratifying (and sometimes hair-raising) auditing I have ever done or viewed. You can’t oversell Routine 2. You just can’t. For it is the first gateway to light, life and liberty for all Mankind at last.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH: dr.rd
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 1 JANUARY AD13
Central Orgs
ACADEMY CURRICULUM
HOW TO TEACH AUDITING AND ROUTINE 2

INTRODUCTION

With the placing of a clearing technology into HCA/HPA hands, we must revise our concept of training.

Routine 2-12 is complicated and exact. But as it is the only thing known which cracks all cases, we have no choice in the matter. We can and must learn it well. It must not be indifferently learned. But as it is not going to change as is well proven, time and effort can be spent upon it and must be.

We must rise to the occasion. We must use all we know to learn and teach all we have to teach to get Routine 2 done.
CHECK SHEETS

There are two distinctly different series of check sheets for doing Routine 2 processes and auditing. These are:

(a) Those that apply to Routine 2, the GPM and data listing, nulling and case errors and repair;
(b) Those that apply to auditing, its basics, skills, the meter.
Although these associate and interlock, they are two separate subjects of study.

For years we have faced the arbitrary that those whose cases got in the road of their auditing yet had to assimilate auditing theory and practice.
Routine 2 well done removes with some rapidity these case barriers to auditing.
Therefore there are several phases desirable in studying auditing and Routine 2.

V UNIT CLASS 0
FIRST PHASE

For a new student, doing Routine 2-10 precedes study of auditing and Routine 2. This is done under close supervision on a co-audit basis with the Co-audit Supervisor taking a hand on cases, checking out Items, correcting cases, etc.

This is done until the student has found in another and has had found in himself 2 or 3 packages. Accuracy is the essence of this first step, otherwise the wasted time and wrong Items will give the whole action the tone of despair.
Only good results are stressed, not the form of how they are achieved.

In this first phase we want the student to see that Routine 2 produces changes for the better in himself and the pc and is worth learning. This is what we’re trying to show.
We remove, if the Routine 2 is good, the barriers to learning auditing and Scientology.
All we want then from the first phase is:

(a) Reality on the benefits of the process and auditing; and
(b) Removal of the barriers to being a good auditor.

W UNIT CLASS Ia
SECOND PHASE

This phase actually starts the training of a Scientologist. He or she, however, should have started its check sheets in the V unit.

We teach the basics of Scientology, its history, the Auditor’s Code, Axioms, the ARC triangle and Tone Scale out of the old Notes on Lectures booklet.
In practical and auditing we teach and do objective processes, Op Pro by Dup and the CCHs.

We wish to accomplish this in this phase:

(a) A Reality that Scientology is a real subject and very precise, not a mixture of Indian philosophy and cute tricks, and give the student solid grounding on pure Scientology basics, disrelated from auditing; and
(b) Get the student capable of repetition of commands and unafraid in actual physical handling of other bodies.

X UNIT CLASS Ib
THIRD PHASE

We now enter the student upon a phase of formal auditing consisting of theory and practical, using all the basics of auditing, the TRs, the meter, fine points.

This phase should specialize in basic auditing skills, very precisely applicable to handling an auditing session, a meter, meter drills, anti Q and A, TRs 0-4, Model Session, Mid Ruds, Missed Withholds, etc.

And we get the student to run formal processes on the Meter until he or she understands a meter. These processes consist only of ARC Straight Wire, comm processes, nothing that will disturb 2-12 or run out Rockslams. The idea of this auditing is to get the student used to handling a session with competence.
From this phase we expect:
(a) The basics of auditing in theory and practical; and
(b) Confidence in confronting a bank and handling a pc on a meter with good form.

Y UNIT CLASS IIa
FOURTH PHASE

In the fourth phase our interest is in Prepchecking as an action and a prelude to lists in the form of a Problems Intensive.

In theory and practical we teach how to do a Problems Intensive, advanced metering, how to detect case changes, better sessioning, more TRs 0-4, more basics of Scientology such as Axioms and Logics.

In auditing, the student does a Problems Intensive and receives one. The stress is on good sessioning and RESULTS.
From this phase we expect:

(a) A good command of a Problems Intensive theory and practical, how to detect case changes; and
(b) The ability to actually audit to a good result and keep Mid Ruds in and CLEAN A NEEDLE.

Z UNIT CLASS IIb
FIFTH PHASE

This is a theory and practical phase for Routine 2-12.
The student also audits Routine 2-12 under supervision.

The whole check sheet for Routine 2-12 is thrown at the student. The long HCO Bulletins are segmented into a page or two and thereby made into several passes (the student studies and is examined on them in segments).

In auditing, the student is permitted to do full 2-12 and the stress is on RESULTS with accurate Routine 2-12.
PG UNIT—CLASS II
SIXTH PHASE

This is a post-graduate phase on Routine 2-12. It was formerly known as “Interne”.

The theory and practical are all on the stress of CASE REPAIR and how to supervise Routine 2.


The student is used to help supervise V unit students as his auditing activity with stress on case errors.

The remainder of the student’s time is taken up with preparation for examination for his HCA/HPA.
The student may be used for charity cases and what was formerly Interne work.

SUMMARY

This is about a three months’ course if steamed through. If it takes longer, then the V unit was flubbed.

If a student hangs up longer than a reasonable time in any upper phase, he is returned to the V unit and is required to do and receive Routine 2 while continuing to try to pass upper level check sheets so as not to hold him up.
Students are, of course, expected to study evenings and week-ends.
The three section course plan is adhered to of Theory, Practical and Auditing.

Auditing in the Auditing Section is done for RESULTS, not to teach auditing. Practical is where they practise.
Students are progressively assigned to their units and are re-classed as they pass out of a unit.
The Model of this Course is Saint Hill but it may not be so advertised.

The chief difference of course is the necessary re-introduction of a student body tape programme such as in the old days. The last hour of the day is used for this. A sequence of about 75 tapes, mainly of general historical or auditing interest, are played to the whole student body, assembled in the main assembly hall, one tape each day, regardless of the students’ classification. They are given quizzes on these tapes, very brief. No other tape use is made in an Academy. There are no headphone recorders. If tape play speakers are not good the students won’t learn anything from the tapes. When tapes are omitted as a whole class activity, the whole direction, meaning and ethic of Scientology goes sour in an area and the students haven’t a clue what Scientology is for and you find them idling about driving off pcs with nutty chatter.

This Academy Curriculum requires a D of T and two instructors. To this can be added a Training Admin who is also Extension Course. The D of T becomes Auditing Supervisor, the other two instructors are the Theory Supervisor and Practical Supervisor.

The Classes are awarded on the Completion of the phase and designate the check sheets. Students get canceled out of units but not off check sheets.

The only things that can keep students from passing through this course rapidly are (a) failure to schedule precisely, (b) failure to demand and obtain auditing results in all units, (c) local non-comprehension of R2-12, (d) capricious and unreal theory and practical examinations and (e) failure to enforce the course regulations. A full Academy will attend to all these things. An empty one will have ignored them.

It is no real sin to do a lousy job of auditing. It is a terrible crime to do a bad job of training and dissemination because then there’s nothing left to pick the cases up in this life or the next. Every bad auditor we turn out costs us a hundred preclears. Every good one puts us closer to our objectives.

An Academy Class II should be good enough to go to work at once as an HGC auditor without causing the HGC a moment’s worry.
It can be done because it must be.

LRH:jw.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

** 6301C08 SHSBC-226 R2-10 and R2-12
** 6301C08 SHSBC-227 Case Repair
** 6301C10 SHSBC-228 R2-12
** 6301C10 SHSBC-229 How to Audit

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 JANUARY AD13

Central Orgs
Franchise
ROUTINE 2

IMPORTANT

OPPOSITION LISTS
RIGHT AND WRONG OPPOSE


Most PT terminals and oppterms look more like Coterms than clean Terminals or Opposition Terminals when first contacted. They become more definite Terms or Oppterms after they have been listed a page. While you should be able to make the right choice in most cases by the usual test given in the 2-12 steps you can err.

Your lists will become endless and unnullable and your pc will go downhill if you oppose an RI wrong way to.

Therefore, while listing, carefully observe the needle and the pc. The TA is meaningless in this test. The Indications for testing “Right Way Oppose” and “Wrong Way Oppose” are the subject of this bulletin.

In opposing a Reliable Item you can consider it a Terminal (because pc said it gave pain) and list “Who or What would a Catfish oppose?” Whereas in actual fact it was an Oppterm and should have been listed “Who or What would oppose a Catfish?” Or Vice Versa. Sad consequences follow a wrong choice.


POTENTIAL MISCALLING AN RI

Even the best auditor can make a mistake in calling an RI he’s gotten a Terminal or an Oppterm. The pc is foggy as to what’s pain or sensation. The RI may have both. Sometimes Terminals are so covered with Sen there is no pain at first. Sometimes the hidden Terminal is so hard down on the Oppterm RI it seems like a Terminal.

Further, you can be doing an Opposition to an RI list, expecting a Terminal to come up and get, in fact, another Oppterm. This is fine. Accept it if the list only RSed once on nulling. But the opposing Terminal is still hidden and must be gotten. Pcs, you see, often put Terms and Oppterms on the same list.


STABLE DATUM:

Always regard the identity of an RI as a Term or Oppterm as potentially wrong until listed and tested as per this HCO Bulletin. Do the best you can with usual tests to tell what it is before you start listing and choose your oppose question accordingly. But be ready to find that what was a Terminal is really an Oppterm or vice versa and should have been opposed “the other way around”.

You have only two list questions to use in opposing a Reliable Item. These are “Who or What would oppose a ?” and “Who or What would a
oppose?” For every Reliable Item there is only one of the above that is right. The other is wrong. There are no true Coterms—they only seem to be both a Terminal (pain) and an Oppterm (sensation).

When it comes to listing you will benefit the pc only by listing the right way. The other oppose question then is the wrong way.

If you list the “wrong way” (using the wrong question), you’ll get an ENDLESS LIST that never completes and won’t nul.

You therefore have a choice of two questions and one of them is right and the other wrong, always. If you choose the right one and list it, the pc benefits. If you choose the wrong one and list it the pc will get worse rapidly, right in the session before your eyes.

It often happens that you start listing the wrong way. This is because you failed to find out correctly if the RI you were about to list an opposition list to was a Terminal (pain) or an Opposition Terminal (sensation). The pc said he had “sen” but actually felt “pain”. Or the pc did have “sen” and the pain appeared afterward. In short, because PT Terminals look like Coterms very often, neither the pc nor the auditor can tell on some RIs. This happens to some RIs on every case.

The solution to the dilemma is to test by listing a page or two.

There are certain definite signs of wrong way opposition. They can be seen with half an eye. There is no need to go on until your pc is caved in and you have 99 pages of Items to find out you can’t nul and should have opposed the other way around.

A list right way to or wrong way to will Rockslam, so that’s no test in itself. The tests, five in number, are a little more delicate:

Aside from original tests for Term or Oppterm, how to tell if an oppose list is right way to:

RIGHT WAY INDICATIONS

1. In Listing needle is loose and gets looser;

2. Pc’s skin tone gets progressively better as he or she lists;

3. Masses move out off pc;

4. Pc gives Items easily;

5. List completes easily.


WRONG WAY OPPOSE INDICATIONS

If List is wrong way oppose (which is to say the wording is reversed, such as “Who or What would oppose a Catfish?” as different from “Who or What would a Catfish oppose?”) these things will always happen:

1. In listing, the needle gets tighter, stiff and tends to jerk. It goes in cycles, DR, RS, DR, clean, DR, RS, DR, clean, etc;

2. The pc’s skin tone gets progressively worse, darker and off colour and the pc looks older;

3. Masses move into the pc and make him feel more or less squashed;

4. Pc gives Items with some small difficulty and tends to invalidate them and RI being listed from;

5. List doesn’t ever complete. You may be able to nul a while but the needle will dirty up and no amount of Mid Ruds will clean it.

Whether your list is right way oppose or wrong way oppose the pc may get pain and sensation, even nausea. Indeed, be worried only if the pc doesn’t. These don’t

count. Pain and Sensation are used for the first test you make in selection. But aren’t used beyond that test given in the Steps of 2-12. It’s the darkening colour of the pc and his or her apparent age that count. Your tests above are visual not getting data from the pc. Pcs will list wrong way to and plow themselves right on in with no complaint.

If you start listing wrong way to, and then turn it around, the pc will have trouble giving right way to Items for a bit, and then they come at a rapid easy flow and you get all the above 5 things for the right way list. Unless you change around to the right way and continue to list the wrong way you will continue to get the 5 indications given for wrong lists.

Sometimes an RI is so fouled up you have to test by listing one way, then the other and then back to the first way again.

A little experience is solid gold, for you begin to see the 5 indications for right lists and the 5 indications for wrong lists and recognize them more quickly.

When you have opposed wrongly and then, in opposing right way to you get a complete list, you never bother to nul the wrong way list. You just abandon it. The RI won’t be on it. You only nul the right way oppose list.

Rule: Never nul lists taken from wrong sources. Just abandon.

No list ever went to 50 pages that was right way to. Right Way Oppose Lists that can be completed are probably all below 500 Items, the usual being around 250 Items.

Wrong Way Oppose is the chief source of difficulty for any opposition list, rivalled only by Incomplete Lists as a trouble maker in Routine 2.

A wrong way oppose list is of course “Wrong Source” as one is using “Catfish” as a Terminal instead of “Catfish” as an Oppterm or vice versa.

Endless lists also come from just continuing to list on and on and on, the pc’s needle being dirty by “Protest”. This is just silly. Some supervisor may develop as a stable datum, “If the needle is dirty, just continue listing.” And this is wrong. A needle does get clean when a right way oppose list is completed. But wrong way oppose or Mid Ruds Out can also make a needle dirty.

On an oppose list, if a needle is dirty three main things can be wrong:

1. List is right way oppose but incomplete. Remedy: Complete it to one RS only seen on nulling.

2. List is wrong way oppose. Remedy: Oppose it the other way and watch the signs (above) until you’re sure. Then go on and complete.

3. Mid Ruds are out—pc protesting the session or overlisting.

Wrong Source (opposing a wrong item) can mess up a pc also. But why’d you take an Item from an incomplete or wrong way list in the first place and then oppose it? The remedy of this one lies before the fact of wrong way oppose, so is not the subject of this HCO Bulletin.


L. RON HUBBARD



LRH:dr.rd
Copyright © 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 27 JANUARY 1963
CenOCon
Franchise URGENT
Students

ROUTINE 2—SIMPLIFIED

(Communicator: Mimeo AT ONCE and
RUSH TO ALL TECH DIVISIONS)


I will shortly release Routine 2-12A which will incorporate Routine 2-10 and 2-12 with enormous simplification.

While the basic processes and purposes remain the same, I have worked out a number of simplifications that are greatly needed.

Having seen some of the trouble with R2- 10 and 12, I have been furiously working to improve Indicators. I’ve now proved out some invariable indicators that will completely wipe out flubs if followed exactly as given in this HCO Bulletin. If they don’t work for you, the R2 being done is from wrong source. These indicators are not wrong.

I have also succeeded in developing a system in 2-12A that eliminates nulling, thus saving half the auditing time, and eliminates Tiger Drilling—a weak spot for HPAs. As the sessions can be run with almost no Mid Ruds or ruds, this leaves auditors with only an RS to see on the meter and cuts out almost all other meter reading. R2 then comes much more easily into the realm of Co-Audit.

If you don’t get results from R2 it’s being done wrong. I’ve got the variables pretty well licked.

Until the full release of R2-12A, incorporate these changes which belong to 2-12A into any R2 you are doing or supervising. Change over at once. Abandon the old way where it conflicts as these data below will keep you out of trouble and stop some of the glaring errors being done. Apply these below to any 2-10 or 2-12 currently being done.

TONE ARM

The Tone Arm is used in R2- l 2A.

On any list done on a preclear, whether source, represent or oppose, RUN ALL THE TONE ARM ACTION OUT OF THE LISTING. LIST AT LEAST 50 ITEMS BEYOND THE POINT THE TONE ARM BECAME MOTIONLESS.

Keep the tone arm readings in the left margin of the list column. Note TA action about every 5 Items or at every change.

In a wrong-way-to oppose list, the TA tends to be more stationary.

If you don’t run the TA action out and at least 50 Items beyond, plus 50 Items beyond the last RS seen on listing, the list will be incomplete.

Sometimes several pages have to be listed with a motionless TA before the final RS comes on the list but ordinarily the final RS comes within 50 Items after the TA has been motionless for 50 Items.
LIST BEYOND LAST RS

List at least 50 Items beyond the last RS on the list. Do not stop listing with the last RSing Item. If you do you can be fooled. If you get a new RS in the 50, list 50 more beyond that and so on.

TEST LIST BOTH WAYS

List a few Items on each way oppose as a conclusive test to find right way oppose. The needle gets stiffer on the wrong way oppose. THE NEEDLE LOOKS LOOSER ON RIGHT WAY OPPOSE. If you still can’t decide, again test either way until you are sure.

Use all normal tests but list a little each way to be sure.

WRONG WAY LIST

A list is wrong way to if

1. The list doesn’t RS.

2. The RSes on the list increase in incidence—more RSes per Item on later pages. (The number is quite marked.)

3. The pc looks darker and mass is pulling in on the pc.

4. The list is inordinately long—40-50 pages.

5. The needle gets tighter and stiffer as you list (the most noticeable test). (A needle also gets tighter on an added to list if you didn’t read the right Item to the pc.)

VANISHED RS

If a case has RSed and suddenly can’t be made to no matter what you do, the RS is swallowed into some earlier incomplete or fumbled action.

Go back and handle the earlier action correctly.

Sometimes an Item grabbed off an incomplete source list (but never use one that was found by representing an RSing Item) has to be handled fully to get the RS back. Example: Incomplete Parts of Existence List. “God” RSed heavily on it. Some auditor grabbed it and opposed it. List abandoned when directions came to use Items only from complete source lists.

Eight Reliable Items later, RSes on the case vanish or get tiny. Pc’s PTPs heavy and not being resolved by R2. Solution: Go back and get the “God” package complete. The big RS will come back on. (Make sure it’s opposed right way to this time.)

FOUR ITEM PKGS

The biggest change from 2-12 to 2-12A is the four Item Package.

Always get four Items in a row.

Complete any existing 2 or 3 Item packages on a case to 4 Items whether the last Reliable Item found still RSes or not.

The four are:

(1) Reliable Item taken from a completed source list.

(2) Reliable Item taken by opposing (1).

(3) Reliable Item taken by opposing (2).

(4) Reliable Item taken by opposing (3).

It will be found that (4) is in opposition also to ( I ) if all was done correctly.

All lists (1) to (4) must be complete, to no TA action and beyond, right-way-to opposition in each case. Where a represent enters in (which is seldom), there are five lists for four Items. These are:

(1) Source list (complete to no TA for 50 Items but no RS).

(2) Represent list from last Item in on source list. This is RSing Item. This is the first RI. List must be complete.

(3) Oppose list on RI found in (2) just above. This gives second RI.

(4) Oppose list on RI found in (3). This gives third RI.

(5) Oppose list or RI found in (4). This gives fourth RI.

Whether you get your first RI from an oppose or represent list, you always wind up with 4 RIs.

PACKAGING

A package always consists of Two RIs that are terminals and Two RIs that are oppterms.

The terminals oppose either oppterm, one better than the other.

This is two packages 2-12 style, one pkg 2-12A style.

The Term-Oppterm of each pair must be of same order of magnitude.

The auditor has no business with the significances of Items. He never suggests an Item or goal. He never rejects one because of significance.

Here is an actual package. 1st RI found, Oppterm RELIGION; 2nd RI found, Terminal A CONQUEROR; 3rd RI found, Oppterm PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS; 4th RI found, Terminal A DISEMBODIED SPIRIT.


In a 2-12A package you have to have 2 terminals and two oppterms, opposing and cross opposing as above.

Otherwise you’ve goofed and will the pc hedge and ARC break! Oh, my!

The sequence may be (1)Oppterm RI, (2)Term RI, (3)Oppterm RI, (4)Term RI, or it may be (1) Represent Item, (2) Oppterm RI, (3 ) Term RI, (4) Oppterm RI, (5) Term RI. Or it may be (1) Term RI, (2) Oppterm RI, (3) Term RI, (4) Oppterm RI, or (1) Represent Item, (2) Term RI, (3) Oppterm RI, (4) Term RI, (5) Oppterm RI.

Always 4 RIs, always 2 Terms, always 2 Oppterms.

If they don’t come out that way then one of the lists was wrong way to or incomplete or both.

NULLING

R2-12A doesn’t nul a full RSing list. Only a non-RS list to be represented gets nulled. And these are infrequently needed.

One completes the list to no TA action plus 50 or more Items and then 50 Items beyond the last RS seen on listing. The 50-50 rule is minimum, not maximum. It sometimes must be more.

One tells the pc that one is going to read him the next to last RS and does so. If it RSes, one adds to the list until a new RSing Item is seen and 50 Items beyond it. Then one reads the now next to last RSing Item again. (No Tiger Drill.) Auditor tells pc: “This is the next to the last RSing Item, not THE Item.”

When the next to last RSing Item does not RS on reading it to the pc (no TD), one then tells the pc that his or her Item will now be read and reads the LAST RSing Item to the pc. It should RS without TD. If the next to the last Item did RS, one does not read the last RSing Item to the pc but just returns to listing. If the RS is off the last Item seen to RS read the non-RSing Items just before and just after it, always to be sure. The RS could have been noted for the wrong Item.

When one has read it to the pc and seen it RS, the auditor says, “That Rock Slams” and watches the pc. The auditor does no other action for a while, says nothing else. To speak or engage in new actions will rip the pc’s attention to shreds. This is a critical moment. One watches the pc’s face to see if it darkens or lightens. Darkness= wrong Item. Lightens = right Item. (Watch the area below the pc’s eyes, the eye pouches.) Pc doesn’t know if it’s his Item or not = wrong Item. Pc knows it’s his Item = Right Item. Pc ARC breaks shortly or gets critical of auditor = wrong Item. Pc happier = right Item. Pc doesn’t cognite = wrong Item. Pc cognites = right Item.

While pc is cogniting auditor will see the Item continue to RS on the meter. The RS may fade out or narrow as pc cognites. This does not mean wrong Item necessarily.

Even if the RS vanishes after a good bit (5 minutes?) (no TD) it is still opposed. (3) is more likely to fade than (1) and (2) RIs. (2) is more likely to fade than (1) RI. (4) fades almost at once.

The Item must always be the last RS on the list and must always RS the first few times read without Tiger Drill (providing session rudiments are even vaguely in).

If you aren’t sure of the RSes while listing, nul for RS only from the one above the next to last Item to the end of list. Don’t nul whole list ever.

If an added portion has an RS on it there is no need to nul earlier than it either as no earlier RS will exist. However always test next to last RS. If two RSes appear before a list is added to (next to last and last) or if any two Items on a list RS before a list is added to, that list is incomplete and does not have the Item on it.

WRONG ITEM SIGNS

A wrong Item given to the pc as his Item does the following:

1. Darkens pc’s eye shadows and face;

2. Pc immediately has more mass than before pc was told Item;

3. TA tends to stay up and stuck;

4. Pc slightly or greatly ARC breaks;

5. Pc doesn’t cognite at all or cognites briefly and stops (and ARC breaks);

6. Pc can’t really understand how it is his Item, but sometimes is propitiatively agreeable with no cognitions;

7. Pc can’t really see how it fits in package but may say so diffidently.

RIGHT ITEM SIGNS

A right Item given to the pc as his Item does the following:

1. Lightens pc’s eye shadows and face;

2. Pc has no more mass about him than before Item was read to him;

3. TA usually blows down;

4. Pc feels more cheerful;

5. Pc cognites, usually at length;

6. Pc sees just how it is his Item;

7. Pc sees how it fits against other Items in any package.

The auditor must check up on all 7 points above as well as the RS, making 8 points in all.

If the wrong indicators aren’t present and neither are the right ones, list on further. Don’t be a niggardly lister. Another hour’s listing can save 50 hours case repair.

DIRTY NEEDLE

Lists that never go clean needle are wrong way to.

You never end up a list with a Dirty needle if you run all the TA action out on a right way oppose list.
You don’t have to have a clean needle anyway on this type of nulling.

RS MATCHING

The RS you see on the first RI of any package exactly repeats itself in width and speed on each one of the other 3 RIs in a 4 RI package.

It is the same RS when listed and when called, also.

A package has a characteristic RS. If one of the Items doesn’t match the RS, it’s wrong. If none of the 4 RSes seen are similar, run don’t walk to the nearest Academy and as soon as the pc gets out of the hospital send him to an HGC.

The RSes in one package all match exactly when first seen and first called to pc. Of course after a few cognitions RI (3) and RI (4) of the package may lose their RSes, but not for a while and usually only after being listed.

An RS is gone when it’s listed against.

You only have one RS of a package of 4 RIs RSing at any one time.

RI (1) RSes until listed. Then RI (2) RSes until listed, etc.

RSes that grind out on packaging were wrong Items.

You never audit an RI in any way but listing for another RI.

Your memory and a note of width are your only tools in matching RSes on a package.

USING ARC BREAKS

Use any ARC Break to determine that the R2 is wrong. There is no other reason for an ARC break, no matter what the pc says. The R2 is wrong. That’s the reason for the ARC break.

You use ARC breaks to verify the R2. The pc will not ARC break on right R2 no matter what provocation exists in the auditing.

ARC Break always equals Wrong Routine 2.

Wrong Item, Item wrong way to in oppose. List Incomplete. These are what cause ARC breaks, not the auditing. Never forget that.

Never try to cure an R2 ARC break with Mid Ruds or missed W/Hs. Go back to work on the R2 line-up.

Example: “Your Item is ‘A Cat’.” Pc says ok, soon begins to chop auditor. Correct action, “Your Item is not ‘A Cat’. I will examine this.” That’s the end of the ARC break just like that. Pc doesn’t realize the wrong Item is it. He thought it was the auditor. The auditor now looks over his list to see if it’s wrong source or wrong way to or incomplete and proceeds accordingly.

The Rule is ALWAYS GO BACK FROM AN ARC BREAK. NEVER UNDERTAKE A BRAND NEW ACTION such as changing the universe.

New lists do not cure ARC breaks. Only doing the old list right or finding the right Item cures them.

This is also the dominant rule in case repair: Find the earliest ARC break and remedy what was being done just before it.

Use ARC breaks to guide your R2. Don’t ever Q and A with them or try to handle with auditing. Never stop the auditing on one. Just correct the R2 fast.

CASE REPAIR

In repairing cases all you do is look over earlier reports until you find the session where the goals went sour and correct what was done in that or the immediate earlier session. Very simple. You’ll also find the RS if it has vanished off the case.

Never start new actions on a case that needs repair. Only repair old ones. It’s a screaming auditing goof, a major error to start a new action on such a case.

DOPE OFF

All dope off and boil off while listing or nulling comes from ordinary garden variety missed withholds. Pull them rapidly and go on. In R2 you only pull missed W/Hs when you can’t get pc into

session at all or when the pc dopes off. You don’t pull missed W/Hs in case of an ARC break-you correct the R2.

Pc going into apathy is also an ARC break you know. Also propitiation.

NEVER REP AN RS ITEM

Never represent an RSing Item. But NEVER. Don’t handle or use “RIs” that came from representing an RSing Item. Some were gotten this way in 3GAXX. They’re wrong. Abandon them fast.

Always test a source you are going to use for a represent list for an RS. If it RSes don’t represent it. Don’t oppose it either as it’s off some incomplete list. Find a non-RSing thing to represent instead.

There’s another version of this also. A pc asked to extend a list (or seeing the auditor’s paper as the auditor lists) will use Items that RS to try to get the RSing Item on the list. This is fatal and will increase the number of RSes on the list and make the pc ill, give him the wrong item and so on.

When you see a pc doing this tell him or her, “Just answer the auditing question. Please just answer it. The Item we’re looking for probably isn’t even related to any RS gotten so far.”

Make the pc answer the auditing question only.

A pc may also seek to package when listing Items, not answer the auditing question. An educated pc knows that RI (4) must match RI (1). Get the pc off it. “Just answer the auditing question.” And you’ll be out of trouble.

Some pcs have listed 40 pages without once answering the auditing question.

SELF LISTING

Getting the pc to list out of session as in goals is a poor idea in R2.

Give the pc an Item wrong way to and he’ll wrap himself around a telephone pole out of session.

List R2 processes in session only.

You would have to nul the whole list if it’s listed out of session. Where’s the time saved?

NEVER STEER ITEMS

Some eager beavers have started steering the pc to Items while listing, using the needle flicks.

Never do it.

You get Items that don’t belong and all sorts of things.

Just be simple, huh?

Routine 2 is as good as you simply audit simply. So relax and start clearing.


LRH: dr.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
15 January—7 February 1963

** 6301C15 SHSBC-230 R2-12 Dead Horses
** 6301C15 SHSBC-231 R2-12 Nevers
** 6301C16 SHSBC-232 TVD-16, TR 0 Demo
** 6301C16 SHSBC-233 TR 0 Lecture
** 6302C07 SHSBC-234 R-3 MX, Part I
** 6302C07 SHSBC-235 R-3 MX, Part II.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 11 FEBRUARY 1963
Franchise
CenOCon


CURRENT AUDITING


Current Auditing has been unsettled due to the sudden breakthrough on R3-MX.

What I was looking for was

1. A process that invariably cleared pcs easily;

2. That had very precise and invariable rules;

3. That could be taught by rote; and

4. Would not be subject to change.

This process turned out to be R3-MX. The X at this writing is dropped as the process has proven itself and it becomes Routine 3-M. The designation of “M” is simply its consecutive letter in the development series, but it could stand for “Mary Sue” as she did the actual auditing under my direction that proved its rules.

The rules of 3-MX were worked out in Routine 2-12 and 2-12A and then by examining Rocket Reading Item behaviour in 3-MX.

The first thing you should know about 3-M is that it is more precise in application than any process you have handled. When it says “List the Tone Arm Action out and then 25 Items more” it means exactly that. (Surges of the needle don’t count in TA action as you couldn’t follow them with the TA and back that fast.) When R3-M says “List 25 Items Beyond the last RR or RS on a list” it means 25, not 24.

In 3-M it says Rocket Reading Item and that’s what it means. And a Rocket Read is a Rocket Read not a fall.

R3-M is therefore a masterpiece of precision. Do it wrong—not exactly by the rules—and it becomes a real nightmare. So know it before you do it, and do what it says only.

In both R2-12A and R3-M an Item can appear anywhere on a source list so long as 2 Items do not RS or RR. One Item RSing and one RRing also means list is incomplete.

On the w/w wd goal opp list (the 3-M Source List) you have to make sure list is complete to 50 Items beyond last RSing or RRing Item and 50 beyond no TA action point (where TA stops moving). This is true for both 3-M and 2-12A. You read every RRing Item back to pc from the 3-M Source List (goal opp) and every RSing Item on the 2-1 2A source list.

A source list is of course the primary list from the goal from which you get the first RRing RI. In 2-1 2A the source list is what you choose to get your first list from or List One.

All other lists in 3-M are extended 25 Items beyond the last RR or RS and the Item is always the last RR on the list—if not you’ve goofed, didn’t get the TA action out of this or the just prior list. In 2-12A you go 50 Items beyond the last RS and 50 beyond the 1st still TA.

The 8 tests for mass increase, etc, must be done on every Item found in 3-M and 2- 12A.

The best coverages of R-3M are the HCO Bulletin of Feb 1, 1963, “Routine 3”, and the two hours of lecture of Feb 7, 1963, where it is covered. HCO Bulletins and other lectures will be forthcoming.

R2-12A

If R3-M emerges so suddenly, then what of Routine 2-10, 2-12 and 2-12A?

With the single caution that you must not try to package a small RS and only use a wide RS (1/3 of a dial or more) as your source list’s RI, 2-12A is very successful just as laid down. It will continue to be taught, and used. In it you have some very precise Rules. A list is continued 50 Items beyond the last RS. Never represent an RSing Item. Always carry a wide RSing RI around to a package of 4. It is not important how you get your first RI so long as it didn’t come from representing an RSing Item. The last RS on the list opposing an RI is the Right Item always unless you’ve goofed. There must not be 2 RSing Items on a list (except List One where you choose the biggest RS as your first RI). If two appear, your list is incomplete or you let the pc (as you must never do) Represent an RR or RS he’s heard or seen on the list.

You don’t nul in 2-12A (or 3-M), you just read the next to last, then the last RS or RR Item.

Tough cases, the RS grabbed off List One Issue 3, will change with 2-12A. Rockslammers sit back and get relaxed. The process is valuable. Therefore it must be taught and used.

But as R3-M is even easier than 2-12A, it also must be taught in Academies and used in HGCs.

Valid Processes, then, are

1. The CCHs. 5. Prepchecking.

2. Assists. 6. Problems Intensives.

3. Ruds and Havingness. 7. R2-12A.

4. Pulling Missed W/Hs. 8. R3-M.


Know these and you can crack or handle any case and clear.

So know them. I’ll do my best to make all the data available.


LRH:jw.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


[ R3M and R3N as developments are not included in these volumes. They will be found on courses to which they apply.]


** 6302C12 SHSBC-236 Routine 3M
** 6302C13 SHSBC-237 TVD-16, Mid Rud. and Hav.
** 6302C13 SHSBC-238 Discussion by LRH of TVD
** 6302C14 SHSBC-239 Routine 3M

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 FEBRUARY 1963
Central Orgs
Franchise

R2—R3
LISTING RULES

An idiocy of long long lists can creep into Routine 2 and Routine 3. This is not as harmful as under-listing but it can make pcs pretty green or black and certainly holds up auditing.

You must realize that “listing to a still Tone Arm” takes several things for granted:

1. That the auditor has his sensitivity at about 4 (Mark IV about 6) during listing.

2. That the auditor does not adjust the TA for surges (cognitions, etc).

3. That the TA is adjusted only when it has to be to get the needle into a readable position.

4. That the pc is answering the auditing question and not varying it or running havingness on himself.

5. That the rudiments are reasonably in, particularly SUPPRESS, INVALIDATE, PROTEST and DECIDE.

6. That the pc is capable of being in session.

7. That the pc isn’t fiddling with the cans, yawning, stretching, etc.

In other words, if an auditor has his pc under calm control the TA rule applies. As the control of the pc diminishes the TA rule grows less workable.

But even so all is not lost.

TA shifts because of body motion, yawning, asking questions, and particularly because of PROTESTS! do not count in reading TA position. The TA position that must be steady is for the list. So if you read it “TA position for the list must be motionless” you have it absolutely correct. The TA will also read for other attention positions such as on the auditor, on the room, on the body. The pc shifts his attention from the list and you get TA motion. The thing we want to know is: did the TA go right back to List Position when the pc put his attention back on the List. Or, with the pc’s attention on the list, did the TA now move. If so, that’s TA motion for the list and the list is incomplete.

It’s really very easy even if the pc is out of session, to find a motionless TA on the list. Understand this and you’ll stop endless listing.

“TA action out” is, however, not the first rule of a complete list.

The rules of a complete list for R2 or R3 are:

1. TWO ITEMS (RR and RS) ARE NOT FIRING WHEN THE LIST RR AND RS ITEMS ARE READ BACK TO THE PC.

2. ONLY ONE ITEM RSes or RRs ON THE LIST WHEN RRs AND RSs NOTED DURING LISTING ARE READ BACK TO THE PC. THE OTHERS DO NOT READ.

3. THE LIST HAS THE RELIABLE ITEM ON IT.

In Routine 2 these Rules apply:

4. ON A COMPLETED R2 SOURCE LIST, ONE RSing ITEM ONLY WILL RS WHEN READ BACK TO THE PC.

5. ON A COMPLETED R2 LIST TAKEN BY OPPOSING (EITHER WAY) A ROCKSLAMMING ITEM, THE RELIABLE ITEM WILL BE THE LAST ROCKSLAMMING ITEM ON THE LIST. IF IT IS NOT, THE ITEM BEING OPPOSED IS WRONG OR THE OPPOSITION WORDING IS WRONG WAY TO OR THE LIST IS INCOMPLETE.

In Routine 3 these Rules apply:

7. ON A COMPLETED R3 SOURCE LIST, ONE ROCKET READING ITEM ONLY WILL RR WHEN READ BACK TO THE PC. NO RS OR OTHER RR ON THE LIST SHOULD NOW READ.

8. ON A COMPLETED R3 LIST TAKEN BY OPPOSING (EITHER WAY) A ROCKSLAMMING ITEM, THE RELIABLE ITEM WILL BE THE LAST ROCKET READING ITEM ON THE LIST. IF IT IS NOT, THE ITEM BEING OPPOSED IS WRONG OR THE OPPOSITION WORDING IS WRONG WAY TO OR THE LIST IS INCOMPLETE.

9. AN ITEM OR GOAL WHICH WAS SEEN TO ROCKET READ WHEN BEING WRITTEN DOWN BUT WHICH RSes WHEN READ BACK TO THE PC WILL ROCKET READ AGAIN IF GIVEN A BRIEF BIG MID RUDS PREPCHECK.

The above are the rules which must apply.

As some variability can result in various auditors’ interpretation of a “still TA” and in how good a session the auditor can run, the TA rule is secondary. It still applies, it is still valid. But a pc on PROTEST! varies his TA all over the place and an auditor that can’t handle a pc with a few deft mid ruds or get his question answered will get TA action when the list is flat. When you get the hang of it you will see that listing to a motionless TA is valid, but that of course is in an auditing session.

On one of these overlong lists, you can tell if it’s overlong by seeing if you have gone 50 Items (25 Items opposing RR RIs) past the last RS or RR, making sure that you don’t get two Items on the list that fire, and thus find your Reliable Item.

It’s finding RIs that counts, not how long can we list.

Also, avoid buying a pc’s “hard sell” on an Item or condition. If it follows the above rules buy it. If not, just ack and go on. Auditors with low sales resistance need not apply. Often the pc says “It’s a terminal” when it’s an Oppterm. Apply the tests and do a decent test list before you make up your mind. Pcs don’t really know—RIs have an aberrative value you know—so why buy a dramatized sales talk. The auditor is necessary because an auditor isn’t in the RI and can think. So an auditor who buys a sales talk isn’t an auditor. Get it?

Audit R2 and R3 by the rules. If the rules don’t seem to apply, take a walk and think over why. Don’t just keep on in haggard hope.

LRH:gl.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright (© 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

** 6302C19 SHSBC-240 Rundown on Processes

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 20 FEBRUARY AD13
Central Orgs
Franchise
ROUTINE 2 & 3 MODEL SESSION


Here is a needed revision of Goal Finder’s Model Session which is canceled herewith.

The changes are:

1. Omitting Life or Livingness Goals completely.

2. Running general O/W until PC comes back up to PRESENT TIME and not just until needle is smooth.

3. Added—Run “Since the last time I audited you” Mid Ruds if TA is in a higher position from the last session pc had.

4. Put Havingness after goals or gains for the session.

5. Added a note that suppress is always done repetitively, as is the Random Rud.


SESSION PRELIMINARIES

All auditing sessions have the following preliminaries done in this order.

1. Seat the pc and adjust his or her chair.

2. Clear the Auditing room with “Is it all right to audit in this room?” (not metered)

3. Can squeeze “Squeeze the cans, please.” And note that pc registers, by the squeeze on the meter, and note the level of the pc’s havingness. (Don’t run hav here. )

4. Go into the session start.


ROUTINE 2 & 3 MODEL SESSION

Where the pc has been well Prepchecked and is well under auditor control, an Auditor in a Routine 2 or Routine 3 session may omit rudiments in Model Session, using only goals for session, and havingness, goals and gains at end and general O/W, Mid Ruds and Random Ruds where needed in the session. This salvages about an hour’s auditing time per day. Start and end of session commands are used, just no rudiments; general O/W may be found necessary on some pcs at session start in lieu of rudiments to get a cleaner needle.

This does not apply to Rudiments and Havingness Sessions or Prepcheck Sessions and Problems Intensives.

For a pc who is well smoothed out by staff auditors, then, and who is well under the goal finder’s control, the following may be used, particularly with a Mark V Meter.

START OF SESSION:

Is it all right with you if I begin this session now?

START OF SESSION. (Tone 40)

Has this session started for you? If pc says, “No,” say again, “START OF SESSION. Now has this session started for you?” If pc says, “No,” say, “We will cover it in a moment.”

RUDIMENTS:

What goals would you like to set for this session?

Please note that Life or Livingness goals have been omitted, as they tend to remind the pc of present time difficulties and tend to take his attention out of the session.

At this point in the session there are two actions which could be undertaken: the running of General O/W or the running of Mid Rudiments using “Since the last time I audited you”.

One would run General O/W if the pc was emotionally upset at the beginning of the session or if the session did not start for the pc, the latter being simply another indication of the pc’s being upset or ARC broken, but those symptoms must be present, as sometimes the session hasn’t started merely because of poor Tone 40 or because the pc had something he wanted to say before the auditor started the session.

RUNNING O/W:

If it is alright with you, I am going to run a short, general process.
The process is: “What have you done?” “What have you withheld?”
(The process is run very permissively until the needle looks smooth and the pc is no longer emotionally disturbed.)

Where are you now on the time track?
If it is alright with you, I will continue this process until you are close to present time and then end this process. (After each command, ask, “When?”)
That was the last command. Is there anything you would care to ask or say before I end this process?
End of process.

RUNNING THE MID RUDIMENTS:

One would use the Middle Rudiments with, “Since the last time I audited you”, if the needle was rough and if the Tone Arm was in a higher position than it was at the end of the last session.

Since the last time I audited you has anything been suppressed? (This is always done by the repetitive system.)
Since the last time I audited you, has anything been invalidated? Since the last time I audited you, has anything been suggested?
Since the last time I audited you, is there anything you failed to reveal?
Since the last time I audited you, is there anything you have been careful of? (These latter four rudiments are done by fast check.)

The “In this session” Mid Ruds can be used to straighten up a session that has completely gone out of the Auditor’s control, after he has gotten in the Random Rudiment. “On this list” Mid Ruds, particularly with suppressed or invalidated can be used to get a pc to continue listing.

RUNNING THE RANDOM RUDIMENT:

In this session have I missed a withhold on you? In this session is there anything I failed to find out about you?

In this session have you thought, said, or done anything I failed to find out? In this session have I nearly found out something about you?

Any of the above versions may be used. The Random Rudiment is always run repetitively.

END OF SESSION:

Is it alright with you if we end off ......now? Is there anything you would care to ask or say before I do so?
End of ........

If the pc from the Auditor’s observation is very agitated or upset, the Auditor would run General O/W as given above.

If the session has been an extremely difficult session with the pc having been ARC broken badly and frequently, one would get in the “In this session” Mid Ruds in order to clean up the auditing, even though the pc may now be alright.

Have you made any part of your goals for this session?
Have you made any other gains in this session that you would care to mention?

(After adjusting the meter) Please squeeze the cans.
(If the squeeze test was not alright, the Auditor would run the pc’s Havingness process until the can squeeze gives an adequate response.)

Is there anything you would care to ask or say before I end this session? Is it alright with you if I end this session now?
Here it is: END OF SESSION (Tone 40). Has this session ended for you?
(If the pc says, “No,” repeat, “END OF SESSION.” If the session still has not ended, say, “You will be getting more auditing. END OF SESSION.”) “Tell me I am no longer auditing you.”

Please note that Havingness is run after Goals and Gains as this tends to bring the pc more into present time and to take his attention to a degree out of the session.

(Bulletin done by Mary Sue Hubbard after we worked it out)


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:dr.bh
Copyright © 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED





SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
20—28 February 1963


** 6302C20 SHSBC-241 Talk on TV Demo—Finding RRs
** 6302C21 SHSBC-242 R-2 and R-3 Current Auditing Rundown
** 6302C26 SHSBC-243 R-3M Current Rundown by Steps
6302C27 SHSBC-246 TVD-17 Case Repair (Aud: LRH)
6302C27 SHSBC-246A TVD-17A Case Repair (Aud: LRH)
6302C28 SHSBC-244 Goals Problems Mass

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 21 FEBRUARY AD13

CenOCon
URGENT




GOALS CHECK



Issue as Secretarial Executive Director:


All Goals and Reliable Items found on students, staff or HGC pcs must be checked out and seen to rocket read by a qualified executive or staff Class IV before being run.

Only Routine 3M is permitted as a clearing procedure and exactly as given in bulletins and tapes.

All Clears must be checked out by a qualified executive before being pronounced Clear by the Organization or reported to me as such.

No auditor may be permitted to audit staff members or HGC pcs or students who is not a regular staff member.

No auditor may use Routine Three unless qualified by the Staff Training Officer or the Academy.

No auditors not staff members may frequent the premises of the Organization for the purposes of obtaining private preclears.


L. RON HUBBARD


LRH:jw.rd
Copyright © 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 4 MARCH 1963
Central Orgs
URGENT


ROUTINE 2-10, 2-12, 2-12A


Cease to use Routine 2-10, 2-12 and 2-12A in the HGC and Academy and on staff clearing except as follows:

Cases that RS on List One and whose goal cannot be found.

Cases that need R2- 10, 2-12 or 2-12A completed or repaired.

Why?

3M suddenly emerged and is simpler than R2-10, 2-12 or 2-12A.

An auditor can turn off somebody’s RS and RR by using Routine 2-10, 2-12 and 2-12A wrongly, thus making it harder to find the goal and do 3M.

Routine 2-10, 2-12 and 2-12A can help find a goal. It can also submerge a goal when packages are not completed.

R2-10, 2-12, 2-12A Case Repair consists of completing any obvious package from Existing RIs.

3M, I repeat, emerged after Routine 2 and is easier to teach and use.

Do not leave a Routine 2 package of 4 from already found RIs incomplete because of this HCO Bulletin. Complete it. Avoid Long, Protested Listing as only this can mess up a pc’s RR or RS.

Routine 2-12 may be taught in an Academy but not used on students’ cases.

I am working on easily done Routine 2-GX which is a Goal Finding Routine consisting of the nearly exact pattern of a Problems Intensive but asking a different question, which adds up to listing times in the pc’s life when his purpose was baulked and assessing and running as in a Problems Intensive.

More goals are being delivered by ordinary Problems Intensives than by Routine 2- 12.

R2-12 is a highly successful process but fails in some hands.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH gl.bh
Copyright © 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED





** 6303C05 SHSBC-245 R-2 and R-3 Urgent Data

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 8 MARCH AD 13
Central Orgs
Franchise
USE OF THE BIG MIDDLE RUDIMENTS

The Big Mid Ruds can be used in the following places:

At the start of any session. Examples:
“Since the last time I audited you_________”
“Since the last time you were audited_________”
“Since you decided to be audited_________”
In or at the end of any session. Example:
“In this session_________”
On a list. Examples:
“On this list_________”
“On (say list question)_________”
On a goal or item. Example:
“On (say goal or item)_________”
Never say
“On the goal, to catch catfish_________” or
“On the item, a catfish_________”
Say simply the goal itself or the item itself.

ORDER OF BUTTONS

Here is the correct wording and order of use for the Big Mid Ruds.

“ has anything been suppressed?”
“ is there anything you have been careful of?”
“_________is there anything you have failed to reveal?”
“_________has anything been invalidated?”
“_________has anything been suggested?”
“_________has any mistake been made?”
“_________is there anything you have been anxious about?”
“_________has anything been protested?”
“_________has anything been decided?”

In using the first three buttons (Suppressed, Careful of and Failed to Reveal), the rudiment question should be asked directly of the pc off the meter (repetitive). When the pc has no more answers, check the question on the meter. If the question reads, stick with it on the meter like in Fast Rud checking until it is clean.

The last six buttons are cleaned directly on the meter as in Fast Ruds.

LRH:dr.bh
Copyright ©1963 L. RON HUBBARD
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 10 MARCH 1963
Central Orgs
Franchise URGENT

ROUTINE 2-10 2-12 2-12A
(Also applies to Routine 3-M)

VANISHED RS OR RR

A preclear whose Items while listing or whose Items when found Rockslam, can be said to be “capable of Rocket Reading or Rockslamming”.

If no RRs or RSes are seen on a preclear’s list or any list while listing and also if no Items RS when called back, the preclear can be said to be “incapable of Rocket Reading or Rockslamming”.

Some preclears are incapable of producing an RS or RR except on the first GPM goal when found. No matter how much Item listing is done, no matter from what source, no RR or RS is seen while listing and none is found when the list is complete. No technique to turn on a pc’s RS or RR will ever be found except one: Find the pc’s goal for the 1st GPM.

WHAT MAKES RRs & RSes VANISH

The thing which turns off a pc’s RR or RS is TOO MANY RELIABLE ITEMS FOUND WITHOUT FINDING THE PC’S GOAL.

This can be done by life or by Auditing. As it can be done by life, some raw meat pcs will not RR or RS. It can be surmised that they have been set about in life by too many Reliable Items in full view. For instance a pc has an RI, FATHER, an RI, POLITICIAN, an RI, CITY. His father is politician who insists on living in a city. These and others in his bank, although undisclosed, are yet restimulated, and this pc will not be seen to RS or RR on listing, and no RS or RR is likely to be seen even if an actual RI is found.

There is no use here for a more forceful way to get RIs. The rules are very plain, unvaried and uncompromising:

RULE. WHEN A PC’S RS OR RR IS OFF, STOP TRYING TO FIND MORE RIs.

No matter if you could find them, the RR or RS would just go more thoroughly off if you did.

RULE: FINDING MORE RIs WILL NOT TURN AN RR OR RS BACK ON.

There is a danger signal in this. The pc’s RR or RS starts getting smaller, Item by Item, RI by RI, get off fast. Let the last RI be the last one looked for. If just one more is found, bang, no RR or RS on this pc no matter what is “found” in the way of RIs.

RULE: COMPLETING R2 OR R3 PACKAGE WILL NOT TURN ON THE RR OR RS.

However don’t let the pc ARC Break on an incomplete list by starting one.

It may be possible to find one more RI that gives a feeble slam, but then you’ve had it.

However the picture is not all black. Pcs who were “incapable of RR or RS” have been subjected to 26 lists after with no RR or RS seen and still have recovered.

RESTORING THE RR & RS

The Rockslam and Rocket Read are brothers. A pc will Rockslam and yet not Rocket Read because the Rocket Read is the frailer brother. A pc going down hill toward no RR or RS first loses his RR. It now shows only as an RS. Then the RS vanishes too.

You can’t Prepcheck an RS into an RR on some pcs if the pc is on the way down toward no RR or RS. Ordinarily, however, a lot of RSes can be Prepchecked into RRing if there is an RR there to fire.

An RR as it expires may become an RS.

The ability to RR, then, goes out first. There is only one thing that restores the pc’s ability to RR or RS.

RULE: THE ONLY THING THAT WILL RESTORE THE ABILITY OF A PC TO RR OR RS IS TO FIND THE PC’S FIRST (or next) GPM GOAL.

Naturally it is far easier to find a Rocket Read on a goal before the pc loses his ability to Rocket Read. It is far from impossible however to find a goal on a pc that is “incapable of RRing or RSing” and far from impossible to get it to RR by Prepcheck as the pc will always RR again on the right goal. Just listing goals eases the condition of “no RR or RS”. And once an RR or RS that has been shut off is found again on the goal, the pc’s RR or RS is “on again” on everything.

On some pcs, the goal is so charged that you will find an immediate Rocket Firing Blow Down of the TA. You get long Rocket Reads one after another as the pc realizes it is the goal. This is particularly true on some pcs who have had a lot of RIs found. In such a case you no more find the goal and Prepcheck it than you have to find another for the next GPM.

ALL ITEMS COUNT

ANY ITEM found by 3DXX, 3GA, 3GAXX, or even earlier “for running processes on” are ALL part of the GPM and must be put on the pc’s Line Plot. It doesn’t matter how they were found or by whom, or if they were checked out or not. They belong on the Line Plot and can be used to find goals.

RULE: PUT ANY ITEM EVER FOUND ON THE PC BY ANY PROCESS ON THE LlNE PLOT. EVERY ONE WILL ADD UP TO A GOAL.

Therefore even “bad Items”, Items that were found from representing RSing Items, backwards oppose Items, all belong on the Line Plot. It is understood here that there was some kind of an assessment. Whatever was found by any kind of an assessment since 1954 belongs on the Line Plot and can be used to help find goals.

FOUR RIs

In R2- 10, 2-12 and 2-12A you are allowed only four RIs before the pc’s goal must be found.

If the RS or RR is seen to get smaller from one Item to the next, abandon 2-12 and begin 3-M goal finding at once. When you find the pc’s goal, and when you are adding up and Prepchecking the first GPM, you will discover that everything found on the pc for the last nine years was part of his first or another GPM. So, old auditing paid off!

In view of this, on old pcs, it’s safest to go for the goal as your first auditing action. You can use any Item ever found to help get that goal.

On raw meat pcs get a couple RIs if you can by R2-12 and use that to help find the goal. With luck one will even RR. But find the goal before opposing it.

SUMMARY

This discovery of what monitors the RS and RR of a pc is a very important one. I’ve worked ceaselessly on this since the first of the year and finally isolated it.

Even a 3rd goal clear isn’t immune to losing his RS and RR if you keep finding scores of Items with no goal or a wrong goal.

So treat the RS and RR with respect when found, and find the pc’s goal when he won’t RS or RR and you’ve got it made. You don’t need a better meter. Only the pc’s goal.

This rules out unlimited R2-10, 2-12 and 2-12A on a pc. But these give you the two or four RIs necessary for easy goal finding so R2 is of value after all!

And I’ve a Prepcheck coming up that helps loosen up the pc’s goal, so we’re still all right.


LRH:dr.bh L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 14 MARCH 1963
Central Orgs
Franchise URGENT

ROUTINE 2—ROUTINE 3
ARC BREAKS, HANDLING OF

(HCO Secs: Check this out thoroughly on all students and staff. D of T: Use this drill early in Practical, add to all Check Sheets.)

Some day you will be awfully glad you read and learned this HCO Bulletin.

The only things that can ruin the future of R2 and R3 are:

1. ARC Breaks because of bad R2 and R3; and

2. The Sad Effect.

THE ARC BREAK

There is nothing more nerve-racking to an auditor than an R2 or R3 ARC Break. They are not like other ARC Breaks from a common missed withhold. They are nerve-shattering and far reaching in consequence.

If you can’t handle an R2 or R3 ARC Break you have no business using the techniques as you’ll wrap more than one pc around a telephone pole. The only real damage R2 and R3 can do to a case is when one fails to handle an R2 or R3 ARC Break. Good R2 or R3 repairs bad R2 or R3, but one sometimes has to be awfully clever to repair a case once the auditor has let an ARC Break go by.

Indeed, so important is the ARC Break in R2 and R3 that it is actually used as one means of testing the correctness of the R2 or R3.

CAUSE OF ARC BREAKS

The untried auditor is always sure the R2 or R3 ARC Break happens because of auditing blunders (Mid Ruds, etc), failure to pull ordinary missed withholds or auditor auditing goofs. This is not true.

The truth is that R2 and R3 ARC Breaks are caused by a mistake in Goals, Items or GPMs, and that’s the whole cause.

The pc, however, unable to grasp this, turns his reasoning upon the auditor and blames the auditing. Therefore, this rule must be thoroughly learned and experienced by the auditor before he or she is “safe” in auditing R2 and R3.

ARC BREAK RULE

IN R2 AND R3 WHEN THE PC CRITICIZES OR ATTACKS THE AUDITOR OR GOES INTO GRIEF OR APATHY, AN R2 OR R3 ERROR HAS JUST OCCURRED. THE AUDITOR MUST IGNORE THE PC’S STATEMENTS AS TO THE CAUSE OF THE ARC BREAK AND QUICKLY REMEDY THE R2 OR R3 AND DO NOTHING ELSE.

There are no exceptions to this rule in R2 and R3. The auditor, having goofed in some other way, is liable to see reason in what the pc is saying, do something like missed withholds or Mid Ruds and drive the ARC Break into heights that can make the pc much more upset.

MID RUD RULE

IN AN R2 OR R3 ARC BREAK, MISSED WITHHOLDS AND MID RUDS ARE USED, IF AT ALL, ONLY AFTER THE ARC BREAK HAS BEEN HEALED BY CORRECTING THE R2 AND R3.

If an auditor tries to get in his Mid Ruds or pull missed withholds in the face of an ARC Break in an R2 or R3 session the pc is likely to be driven down to the Sad Effect which is harder to salvage.

THE SAD EFFECT

We could call this Tearaculi Apathia Magnus and everyone would be in great awe of it. But I see no reason to follow the Latinated nonsense of yesterday’s failured sciences. Call it something simple and the auditor will feel he can do something about it and even the pc will cheer up a bit. So it’s “the Sad Effect”.

This is a state of great sadness, apathy, misery and desire for suicide and death.

I have been on the trail of the causes of this condition for about 20 years. Like nearly everything else in Scientology this is a new high point in achievement. We have the highest state, OT, and we have the lowest states of being recognized and know the roads to them.

RULE

NEGLECT OR OVERWHELM AN R2 OR R3 ARC BREAK (PC ANGER OR ANTAGONISM) AND YOU WILL CAUSE THE PC TO DROP INTO THE SAD EFFECT.

THE SAD EFFECT IS CAUSED BY NEGLECTING OR OVERWHELMING AN R2 OR R3 ARC BREAK AND THE STATE WILL CONTINUE UNTIL REMEDIED BY CORRECTING THE R2 OR R3.

ALL PCS WHO ARE SAD, HOPELESS, ETC HAVE HAD THEIR R2 OR R3 MISHANDLED BY LIFE OR AUDITING.

ARC BREAK CAUSE RULE

ALL R2 OR R3 ARC BREAKS STEM FROM WRONG ITEMS OR GOALS, INCOMPLETE LISTS, WRONG WAY TO OPPOSE OR NO AUDITING.

ALL THESE ARE IN ESSENCE MISSED WITHHOLDS OF THE GREATEST POSSIBLE MAGNITUDE AND THEREFORE CAUSE ARC BREAKS OF THE GREATEST POSSIBLE MAGNITUDE.

Bad auditing only serves to key in an existing R2 or R3 Error.

In actual fact, a missed withhold can amount to a whole section of the GPM (goal error or leaving the GPM section before it is clean), a wrong goal, a wrong Item, a wrong way to Item or, of lesser degree, not finding an Item.

THE COMMON DENOMINATOR OF ALL R2 R3 ARC BREAKS CONSISTS OF A MISSED OR WRONGLY DESIGNATED GPM, GOAL OR RELIABLE ITEM. THERE ARE NO OTHER SOURCES OF R2 OR R3 ARC BREAK.

Bad sessioning, poor auditing, ordinary life missed withholds are only contributive to R2 and R3 ARC Breaks and are incapable of doing more than keying in and intensifying the magnitude of the ARC Break which has already been caused by errors in R2 and R3.


THE FIFTEEN PRINCIPAL CAUSES

The fifteen principal causes of ARC Break in R2 and R3 are:
1. Failure to complete a list;
2. By-passing an Item;
3. Giving the pc a wrong Item;
3a. Opposing an Item wrong way to;
4. Giving the pc an Item with altered wording;
5. Giving the pc no Item;
6. Failure to complete a goals list;
7. By-passing the pc’s goal;
8. Giving the pc a wrong goal;
9. Giving the pc a goal with altered wording;
10. Giving the pc no goal;
11. Failure to complete a GPM before going to the next;
12. By-passing a GPM;
13. Getting the pc into the wrong GPM;
14. Going too far into a GPM without finding a goal;
15. No auditing.

The fifteen apply to both R2 and R3, all of them.

They can be made up into an assessment list (shortly to be issued), which list, assessed by elimination, will give you the exact cause of the ARC Break (which I think is pretty clever of me) and permit you to heal it rapidly. While you will feel on occasion that the assessment result is no more easily interpreted then fortune telling, you will find that it is always right. It spots the missed R2-R3 missed withhold. If it comes up “By-Passed Item” you’ll have a scramble trying to find it, but you at least know why the pc ARC Broke and the pc will permit you to look (even while screaming at you).

THE CYCLE OF THE ARC BREAK
STAGE ONE:

The ARC Break starts always in the same way. The pc finds something wrong with the auditor, the subject, or tools of auditing or the auditing room. He does this in varying intensity, ARC Break to ARC Break.

STAGE TWO:

This is followed by misemotion, also directed at the auditor, subject, tools or room.

STAGE THREE:

If the auditor continues on with auditing the pc will drop into grief, sadness or apathy.

This is an inevitable cycle and may be followed by the pc with greater or lesser intensity of emotion, or loudness or lack of response.

A skilled auditor will recognize and stop it at Stage One above. It is sometimes not possible to stop the cycle because it enters the stages and completes them too swiftly, but it must be cared for, and no further R2 or R3 may be done until the R2 or R3 is corrected.

THE AUDITOR’S VIEW

The auditor must realize that the ARC Break is caused by an error which has just occurred—within seconds or minutes, and must not go back a half a dozen sessions unless the pc has been pretty upset all along. Something has just happened, usually, that is wrong R2 or R3.

The auditor must stop all forward action and must not do anything except correct what has already happened. Do not continue on, do not get in Mid Ruds, do not pull missed withholds or do anything else but correct the R2 and R3. Do not do new lists or new approaches or new actions until the old action is straightened up.

To continue is to produce the Sad Effect. If the pc is already in the Sad Effect at session start, treat it as an ARC Break with the Drill given.

The pc does not realize that anything has been missed. He or she thinks it’s the auditor, the subject or the tools and will target only these. The fact of the ARC Break must be noted and the substance of the criticism must be ignored by the auditor.

If the pc knew what had been missed there would be no ARC Break. The missed withhold of the Item or whatever is not only missed by the auditor but by the pc. The pc won’t ever spot it, left on his own. It’s up to the auditor.

The auditor only must make up his or her mind as to what’s wrong. The directions of the pc (even a skilled Scientologist as a pc) are nearly always wrong. The auditor is there to listen and compute. As it’s the pc’s bank, the pc can’t compute on his or her own case. Taking the pc’s directions will always involve and prolong the ARC Break. What really caused it will be occluded to the pc. Don’t always do something different than what the pc says. By averages the pc might have accidentally hit on it. Just do what is necessary to straighten out the R2 and R3. Just don’t depend on the pc to tell you. Know your R2 and R3. You, the auditor, are the only one present who can think clearly. That’s what you’re for.
THE D OF P’S VIEW

The D of P has a different view of an ARC Break. It is by sessions according to auditors’ reports.

To get a case going again that has gone into Stage Three, examine yesterday’s reports. Look for a change in pc’s goals and gains and correct the session before the one in which they changed.

When an auditing supervisor becomes an auditor he or she carries this habit forward into auditing and presented with an ARC Breaking pc in session, tends to look to yesterday. But in a session, the ARC Breaking action usually occurs only seconds or minutes before the ARC Break. Look there when auditing.
THE DRILL

This drill is to be used in all Practical Sections before the student is turned loose on R2 or R3.

Designation: R2 and R3 Drill One.

Purpose: To prevent errors in R2 and R3 and to prevent upsets in the pc’s case.

Theory: The effort of a pc at the start of an ARC Break is to stop the auditor. The pc’s effort is aimed at the auditor’s skill, person, the subject, auditing tools or the room. The comments are critical, whether jocular or misemotional. When this effort fails to stop the auditor, and the auditor presses on with auditing, the pc is overwhelmed and goes rapidly down tone scale. In a severe R2 or R3 ARC Break the pc will stay down scale for minutes, hours, days, weeks or months until the ARC Break is repaired by correcting the R2 or R3 error made immediately before the ARC Break. The correct action is to prevent all possibility of the auditor becoming too enturbulated to think, prevent all engagement in refutation of the pc’s accusations, give the auditor time and calm to correct the R2 or R3, test the correction by seeing if it stops the ARC Break, and only then re-commence the session. The key is that even the most startled auditor, seeing an ARC Break begin, can associate it with the word “Break”.

The drill is always used in actual sessions even when the auditor thinks he knows the reason for it.

Drill:

Auditor: List the Items in this room.

Coach: Privately makes up his mind which of the ARC Break points is wrong. Does auditing command briefly and then unexpectedly criticizes (with greater or lesser violence) auditor, room, tools, subject or self or drops into simulated tears or apathy.

Auditor: Thank you. We will now take a short break. (Gathers papers and leaves room. Shuffles papers and returns into room.)

Auditor: I would like to do a short assessment on you.

(Auditor does actual E-Meter assessment from a standard HCO Bulletin question list which will be provided from time to time, based on the Principal Causes of R2-R3 ARC Breaks. Finds the one the coach was hiding by actual meter reaction.)

Auditor: I find we have (gives cause found) and we will now locate it. Is that all right with you?

Coach: Okay.

Auditor: The session is resumed.

Coach: That’s it.

In actual practice the auditor would have examined the papers of the pc to come to some conclusion about the case in private and seen what was wrong or seen the D of P or somebody else for help. And then would have confirmed it by assessment.

History: Developed at Saint Hill by L. Ron Hubbard in March AD 13, to prevent severe upsets in R2 and R3.


LRH:gl.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



** 6303C07 SHSBC-247 When Faced with the Unusual, Do the Usual

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 18 MARCH 1963
Central Orgs
Franchise
R2—R3
IMPORTANT DATA
DON’T FORCE THE PC


Never force a pc to list when doing R2- 12 or 3-M, especially 3-M.

If the pc has difficulty listing, three things may be wrong:

1. The Item being listed is wrong way to;

2. It may be a Wrong Item (even from another GPM);

3. It may be an Item from some other GPM.

A pc actually can’t help but list easily if it’s the right Item that the list is coming from.

In the usual case, listing from a right Item requires only the most occasional giving of the auditing question by the auditor. Once at the start of the list, once after each interruption to check something. Between, the pc just gives Items in a steady flow. Occasionally the pc asks for the question.

If the auditor has to give a question for each Item he gets, Man there’s one of the above 3 wrong.

WRONG WAY TO

Mass moves in on a wrong way to list question. It’s being given, “Who or what would loud voices oppose” and it should be “Who or what would oppose loud voices”.

If it’s wrong: (1) the mass moves in; (2) the pc starts to discolor; (3) the pc has to continuously repeat the question to himself; (4) the pc can’t wrap his mind around the question; (5) the pc discolors or darkens; (6) the tone arm goes unreasonably high (above 5 in some cases); (7) the pc may ARC Break.

If in the presence of such symptoms the auditor forces the pc to go on listing, real trouble can then develop, as the mass caves in on the body.


BODY VS THETAN

To understand this trouble we have to review what we have known for years about bodies and thetans. The thetan is not the body.

The bank belongs to the thetan, not to the body.

You are running a thetan and his bank while helped and hindered by the body.

The body helps the auditor because it provides a communication relay to a thetan who cannot yet speak, hear or act without a body. The E-Meter cans are held by the body’s hands, the body’s voice box magnifies the thetan’s speech and body lips, larynx, etc, add diction. The ears magnify the auditor’s voice. The body relays various senses and somatics to the thetan. The body discolors when mass from the bank is brought in on it.

Further, because he is in a body you can tell if the pc is sitting in the pc’s chair (joke).

The body hinders the auditor by being fragile.

Life, long before auditing, has been keying the thetan’s masses in on this body.

In auditing, masses are released off the body and out of the thetan’s bank.

The body, accustomed after all to masses keying in on it in life, can still survive a lot of bad auditing. But why?

As you go earlier and earlier in the bank the “power” of the thetan’s mock-ups increases. Earlier on the track the thetan was more powerful and made more formidable mock-ups.

Thus the earlier the GPM you are addressing (certainly beyond the 3rd), the more care you have to use not to pull masses in on the body, which is to say the more accurate you have to be.

Now, as the thetan, by clearing GPMs, becomes more and more able to handle and recognize goals and Items, the auditor tends to more and more abandon the safety points of R3-M. These are, testing the goal, making the oppterm-terminal test for each RI, watching the tendency of the needle to tighten, watching for pc’s darkening. Abandoning these, the auditor tends to race on, finding more GPMs, goals and RIs, cleaning up nothing behind him. This is wrong.

Test the goal after every RI you find; test every RI you find for terminal or oppterm; really stay alert for the tightening needle and high TA that shows an error; watch carefully for pc darkening. The more advanced the GPM, the more careful you have to be of the body.

Don’t go plunging on after an ARC Break. Find why by the ARC Break assessment and straighten it up.

When you complete a GPM, go about 2 Items deep into the next one, find its goal and then go back and put in the BMRs on every Item in the former line plot. and give the gone goal an 18 button prepcheck. Only then, proceed on into the next GPM whose goal has been found.

Items get easier to find as you advance into new GPMs, lists get shorter, but the RIs are harder and harder on the body when done wrong.

So be sure and then proceed.

And if the pc won’t list for any reason (even his own balkiness) find out what’s wrong before the current action and be sure that was it before proceeding. It’s easier to lose session time in looking for former errors than in trying to revive a pc or heal a screaming ARC Break.

Even the most accurate auditing gives the pc heavy somatics. That’s ok. Just don’t force the pc beyond where he can easily go. The real howling ARC Breaks only come after you have forced the pc onward after something has gone wrong.

If you have howling ARC Breaks with a pc you have forced the pc into a channel where the pc cannot easily go.

WRONG ITEM

Listing a completely wrong Item (which did not fire or which did) can happen in a number of ways:

If you list an RI wrong way to you will get a high TA and fewer RRs on the list. Further, you may just run out of RRs on the next list or one or two lists down.

And, a real catastrophe, you can find, on a wrong way oppose, an Item out of an adjacent GPM for which you have no found goal. The Item you find won’t fit the goal of the GPM you are supposed to be running. Best thing to do is abandon it (but put on the plot) and go back and find which RI behind you was wrong way oppose (it will tick or fire), put in the BMRs on it and list it the other way to.

On later GPMs the pc will easily overlist and list beyond the one you are trying for and get the next in line. The way to tell is test the listing question for clean every five Items the pc gives. The moment it’s clean, stop listing.

For instance, in the 4th GPM, you are listing “Somebody Who Can’t Whisper” (Line plot HCO Bulletin of March 13) and you overlist. You will get “Loud Voices” on the list but you will find “A Whisperer” as the last RRing Item which will read. Then, if you omit the term-oppterm test and assume “A Whisperer” is an oppterm, you will do a wrong way oppose and may get into another GPM entirely.

However, especially after BMR on it, “A Whisperer”, wrong way opposed, will now fire again with an RR.

But the pc still ARC Breaks. Why? You overshot on the “Somebody Who Can’t Whisper” oppose list and you have a by-passed RI, “Loud Voices”.

BMR the RRs earlier on the “Somebody Who Can’t Whisper” oppose list and you’ll find “Loud Voices” probably fires now. Or do it by pc’s recognition (but the Item recognized has to fire with an RR). Or when you do “A Whisperer” right way oppose, you’ll also get “Loud Voices”.

Auditing on 3-M is like threading through a mine field with the pc ready to explode if you stray.

Experience will let you relax.


TRAVELLING RR

In Listing the RR travels down the list. It comes from the goal charge. Therefore it can travel. You can sometimes bring it back up a list with enough BMR to an earlier RR seen on listing.

The most weird thing in 3-M is the Goal as an RI behaviour (on Mar 13 HCO Bulletin, “To Scream” as an RI, bottom of plot, page 2).

As you list it, as an RI in its proper sequence on the plot, not as a goal oppose, it behaves as an RI oppose list, not as a source list.

On it the pc will put, usually, the goal of the next GPM. On it will usually be found, as the last RR Item on the list, “Happy People”. But the goal of the next GPM on that list will not RR when said to pc! Not until you take all the goals off the RI oppose list and nul them as a goals list. Then the goal of the next GPM will fire and prove out.

In short, only the last RR seen on nulling on an RI oppose list, will fire with an RR.

This does not mean the remaining Items seen to RR while listing are not RIs in their own right. It only means that on any list, the RR travels to the last RRing Item seen on listing when the list is complete.

Items which RRed on listing will not fire as part of the list but, taken off the list and known by the pc to be off the list and called as themselves will RR.

When you get a pc into the 5th GPM this becomes very invariable and gets vastly in your road, as you can by-pass the next RI you should get and find the one after that, or you can lose the next GPM’s goal as it doesn’t RR on the RI oppose list from the last goal while still on that list.

It’s okay if you know it can happen. It will help you cure an ailing line plot or goals list in a hurry.

RRs travel on 3-M lists down to the last RR. And if it has travelled, the earlier RRs (Items or Goals on an RI List) seen on listing will not RR until they have been taken off that list and are called in their own right.


WRONG WORDING

Always be sure you have the right wording for an Item or a goal.

A slightly wrong wording for a goal will cause it to RS and fizzle out.

Get the pc to change the wording on it and it may RR on and on.

If a pc ARC Breaks on a goals list, you had and passed the goal or you had the goal with a slightly wrong wording. The pc still ARC Breaks on a wrong wording as it’s a missed withhold.

Pcs usually put down varied wordings on goals lists. Encourage it, even though it’s representing an RRing Item. If a goal fires, RSes, fizzles, vanishes, get other wordings for it. And it may RR beautifully.

Example: To Succeed. On checking, RRed six times, blew TA down, RSed madly. RSed, dwindled and then ticked. Auditor went on. Pc ARC broke. Auditor went back over list, got wording for To Succeed as “To be successful”. Goal RRed beautifully. No ARC Break. Onward bound into next GPM.

Items with the article “A” or “The” omitted or added, or plural for singular, will not fire well or at all.

Example: Item listed “A Sensation”. Checked out as “Sensation”. No fire. Pc recalls it should be “A Sensation”. Item fires and is an RI.

Accuracy of listing exactly what the pc said is important. He usually said it right the first time. Say it back and check it out the same way.

Sometimes a pc wants to change a word in an Item being called. Always let him but check both versions, the one listed and the one changed. The one listed is usually right if recorded right by the auditor.


ITEM FROM ANOTHER GPM

A STRAY RI is an RI from a GPM of another goal than the one being worked.

You can get a goal or Item from another GPM by backwards oppose or overlisting.

In finding the goal of another GPM than the one you want to enter, this is easy. It fires very badly, ticks and fools around.

An RI from another GPM on the other hand fires well. When you do the “How does the goal relate to “ step and the pc can’t relate it, or mass appears when he tries, watch it. You probably have a backwards oppose behind you or have by-passed an RI by overlisting or underlisting, or, more probably, both.

What to do? Put the stray RI on the plot marked as a “Stray” and locate the wrong way oppose or by-pass on your Line Plot and correct.

It will do no harm to 4 way package the STRAY RI. But it probably won’t do any good either. Two GPMs later you suddenly find it as a new RI.

The pc will probably ARC Break at this time. But the reason for the ARC Break lies in an earlier wrong way oppose or a by-passed RI or RIs.

Use the STRAY RI as a signal that a wrong way oppose exists behind you or an RI has been by-passed.

The proper order of actions, if the above happens, is to

1. Locate the By-Passed Item;

2. Use it to continue your RI oppose (spiral staircase);

3. Ignore the wrong way oppose Item (don’t instantly right way oppose it) and any stray RI, letting them come up in their proper sequence, no matter how much later that is.

MINIMIZE GOAL OPPOSE LISTS

Only do a goal oppose list at the start of the first GPM and that’s it. You don’t

need any more if you go right. You’ll go into GPMs in proper sequence on the spiral staircase with no further goal oppose lists for any goal.

You will find, however, that the goal as an RI (see “To Scream” as an RI, page 2, HCO Bulletin March 13, 1963) operates as an RI oppose list and will be done in its proper time and place. This is not a source list and behaves as an RI oppose list.

Take the goals off it to another list and nul them for the next GPM.

Only one Goal Oppose List is needed for a case.

After that, always use the last RI that still fires with an RR as your source for RI oppose lists.

CLEAR TEST

You don’t need to do a Clear Test. It might mess up the bank.

A natural free needle without prepcheck begins to appear around the fifth GPM.

Check out a first goal clear by his or her Line Plot. If it compares in all respects to that of HCO Bulletin March 13, and the goal is clean saying it to the pc, call it a first goal clear.

A bracelet clear would be, actually, a theta clear, and would emerge after the 5th to 8th GPM had been cleaned up.

By present calculation a free needle, totally stable theta clear emerges after the 8th GPM has been run.

No calculation on Operating Thetan exists at this moment, but at a guess, it’s well beyond the 8th GPM.

Up to the 6th GPM a clear test is liable to foul up the case a little. So save it for later and really send up rockets in celebration.

Thetans have done a lot of living.

----------

Routine 3-M is complex and, unless the auditor is well trained, has pitfalls.

But we have years to learn it.

Clearing is the real thing.

It’s worth it.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:dr.rd
Copyright © 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED




SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
19—21 March 1963

** 6303C19 SHSBC-250 R-3M How to Find Goals
** 6303C20 SH TVD-18 Rudiments and Havingness Session and Short Lecture
(Aud: LRH)
** 6303C21 SHSBC-251 R-2G Series

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 MARCH AD13

Franchise

CLEAR & OT


DON’T TRY TO MAKE AN OT BEFORE YOU MAKE A CLEAR.

One of the enduring observations which has arisen in clearing and which will always remain true is summed up in this line:

DON’T TRY TO MAKE AN OT BEFORE YOU MAKE A CLEAR.

Stressing this conclusion is vitally important and will always be important. Why?

In their understandable enthusiasm to do “the most for the pc” and obtain the “highest gain” auditors tend to get as many RIs and goals as possible. The “face” acquired in making a “third goal clear” also operates.

On the part of the pc there is always some pc pressure to “get on with it”, find more RIs, find more goals. There is also “face”. “I’m a 3rd goal clear.”

The auditor, in his own enthusiasm for more GPMs, heeds the pc’s protest against case repair and prepchecks and commits the following crime:

WITHOUT MAKING A FIRST GOAL, ATTEMPTS TO MAKE AN OT.

He does this in gradients. Without making an actual first goal clear, the auditor, with the pc’s full insistence, makes a “Third Goal Clear”.

This law takes over in the face of such “press on” tactics:

RULE: YOU CANNOT HAVE AN ANY GOAL CLEAR WITHOUT CLEARING THE GOAL AND ALL ITS GPM.

To do this it is necessary to observe this rule:

RULE. A GOAL IS NOT CLEAR UNTIL ALL ROCKET READING ITEMS IN THAT GOAL HAVE BEEN FOUND, PROPERLY ALIGNED AND DISCHARGED, AND THE GOAL HAS BEEN FULLY PREPCHECKED.

The next Goal is available and easily found, RIs in the next GPM are readily found, there seems to be no reason to waste auditing time by cleaning up the last GPM. This is true of any next GPM.

However, just going on and on carries its penalties.

IF WE PERSIST IN FAILING TO FULLY CLEAR EACH GPM, WE CAN EXPECT A GENERAL BOG DOWN IN ALL OF SCIENTOLOGY.

Why? Because we will all become subject to the very real penalties of failing to clear GPMs before going on.

It is alright to find 2 RIs into the next GPM and to find its goal. That is as it should be. But it is not alright not to go back and fully polish up the GPM just left. This is true for all GPMs.

You haven’t got a first goal clear if you haven’t cleared the first GPM and Goal.

So don’t announce first goal clears if you haven’t cleared fully the first goal. Having the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc, goals and some RIs in each still doesn’t make a first goal clear.

The following liabilities occur when the GPM just left is not fully cleaned up:

1. The pc drags mass from the last GPM into the next GPM;

2. Accuracy of RI finding in the next GPM is diminished;

3. The pc, being more subject to errors in auditing, is far more likely to heavily ARC Break;

4. Body mass (weight) does not diminish;

5. Pc’s reality on the next GPM RIs is diminished;

6. A feeling of lassitude (a shadow of the Sad Effect) comes over the pc and he or she does his own work in life with less enthusiasm;

7. The pc’s health and actions are better but one does not see what one expects from clearing. Therefore clearing is downgraded by the auditor and pc and others;

8. The actual soaring gains of clearing are not observed, since the GPM and its goal are not actually cleared but only de-intensified.

Clear tests, which will be issued from time to time, should be scrupulously passed before going on to the actual running of the next bank.

If these simple precautions are observed, clearing is formidable to behold. If they are not observed, then clearing won’t be observed-because it hasn’t been done.

Don’t try to make an Operating Thetan before you make a clear. The results will be far, far below that of just first goal clear.

A lot of time and agony went into discovering these things. I hope you will benefit by them.


L. RON HUBBARD




LREl:dr.bh
Copyright © 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED




SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
26 March—4 April 1963


** 6303C26 SHSBC-252 Case Repair
** 6303C27 SHSBC-254 TVD-19 Sec Checking, Talk by LRH
6303C28 SHSBC-253 The GPM
** 6304C02 SHSBC-256 Line Plot, Items
** 6304C04 SHSBC-255 Anatomy of the GPM

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 13 APRIL AD13
Franchise


ROUTINE 2-G
ORIGINAL ROUTINE 2, 3GA, 2-10, 2-12,
2-12A AND OTHERS SPECIALLY ADAPTED

GOALS FINDING
DESIGNATION OF ROUTINES


Now that Class II Auditors may find goals, a great deal of material about goals finding can be released to them.

Goal finding activities are now designated as follows:

ROUTINE 2-G1

Special Goals Prepcheck administered before a goal is found. This is a refined version of the Problems Intensive, slanted directly at goals.

ROUTINE 2-GPH

Special Goals Prepcheck done by Pre-Hav levels with a new assessment for each button. This is a refined use of the original Routine 2.

ROUTINE 2-G2

Listing and nulling goals lists, using Left-Hand Buttons on last ones in and Big Mid Ruds on the final goal left in. Done in short lists, a couple pages listed and nulled at a time. This is a refined version of the oldest goals finding process.

ROUTINE 2-G3

Using any Items ever found on pc to list goals against, and using the method of R2-G2 to find the goal. This is a refined version of 3-GA and 3-GAXX and also uses all 2-10, 2-12 RIs ever found.

ROUTINE 2-G4

Listing special lists for RSing or RRing Items without nulling and using the RSing or RRing Items seen on listing to list goals against. This is a new use of 3D, 3GA, 2-10, 2- 12.

ROUTINE 2-G5

This is Routine 2-10, 2-12, 2-12A wherein everything known about or gained by those processes is used to find RIs and list goals against all RIs found.

It can be seen from the above that everything known about the original Routine 2 and goals finding is now reworked into these Routine 2-Gs for rapid and positive goal finding by Class II Auditors.

Subsequent HCO Bulletins will detail each of these routines in turn. They are quite stable as processes and have been in use for some time.

Note: Everything released or known about Routines 2-10, 2-12 and 2-12A is valid, and the results of these on preclears and any RI ever found on a preclear is used for the purpose of listing goals and finding the preclear’s goal. None of this material or study of it has been wasted. Any RI ever found on a pc is useful in goals listing.

Further, every Problems Intensive brought the pc closer to his or her goal and an easier run on Routine 3 processes.

Whereas R2-10, 2-12 and 2-12A worked in their own right, they are even more useful in finding goals. The only danger of 2-10, 2-12 and 2-12A was: If too many RIs were found without finding the pc’s goal for that GPM, the ability of the pc to RR and RS would shut off. The RR and RS turn back on the moment the goal for that GPM is found.

A close study of the R2-Gs is necessary to their workability. And needless to remark, the only reason any Scientology process works lies in adherence to the highly specialized auditing skill of Scientology with its TRs and complete attention to the precise form of the session itself.

Without this pure auditing form, Scientology processes will not work. Scientology processes do not work when administered outside the Auditor’s Code and without skillfully practised TRs. The loose “disciplines” of psychoanalysis, psychiatry, medicine and psychology are completely inadequate in the administration of Scientology processes. Completely aside from the fact that Scientology does not address healing, no psychologist, psychiatrist, psychoanalyst or medical doctor is authorized to use Scientology by reason of a medical or philosophical degree. Only a fully qualified auditor, properly certificated by an authorized Academy may lawfully use Scientology processes or data.

Only auditors trained to the level of Class II may use Routine 2 processes.

Routine 2 and Routine 3 processes are designed for use in clearing the human spirit and are not to be used in healing or physical treatment.

HGCs may only clear and may not otherwise apply Scientology processes.

The public is warned not to accept Scientology processing except from Academy trained auditors and is additionally warned not to embark on being cleared except by a properly certified auditor in consultation with a Class IV clearing consultant The rewards of clearing are enormous. The perils of clearing in unskilled hands are too numerous to mention.

It is with these understandings that the Routine 2-Gs are released to Class II Auditors.


LRH:gl.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


6304C16 SHSBC-257 Top of GPM
** 6304C18 SHSBC-258 Directive Listing
6304C20 PAC- 1 Clearing
6304C20 PAC-2 Clearing
** 6304C23 SHSBC-259 Goals Problems Mass
** 6304C25 SHSBC-260 Finding Goals
** 6304C30 SHSBC-261 Directive Listing

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 25 APRIL 1963
Central Orgs
Academies
METER READING TRS


DEFINITIONS

An Instant Read

An instant read is defined as that reaction of the needle which occurs at the precise end of any major thought voiced by the auditor.

HCO B May 25, 1962

An Instant Rudiment Read

On Rudiments, repetitive or fast, the instant read can occur anywhere within the last word of the question or when the thought major has been anticipated by the preclear, and must be taken up by the auditor. This is not a prior read. Preclears poorly in session, being handled by auditors with indifferent TR One, anticipate the instant read reactively as they are under their own control. Such a read occurs into the body of the last meaningful word in the question. It never occurs latent.

HCO B July 21, 1962

A Needle Reaction

Rise, fall, speeded rise, speeded fall, double tick (dirty needle), theta bop or any other action.

HCO B May 25, 1962

By “major thought” is meant the complete thought being expressed in words by the auditor. Reads which occur prior to the completion of the major thought are “prior reads”. Reads which occur later than its completion are “latent reads”.


HCO B May 25, 1962

By “minor thought” is meant subsidiary thoughts expressed by words within the major thought. They are caused by the reactivity of individual words within the full words. They are ignored.

HCO B May 25, 1962

E-METER TR 20

PURPOSE.

To familiarise student with an E-Meter.

POSITION:

Coach and student sit facing each other with an E-Meter in front of the student, either on a table or a chair.

COMMANDS:

“Reach for the meter” “Withdraw from the meter”. Questions given alternately.

TRAINING STRESS:

Coach to see that student does command each time. Coach asks from time to

time, “How are you doing?” Coach also takes up any comm lag or physical manifestation with a “What happened?”

HISTORY:

Developed by L. Ron Hubbard, September 1962, at Saint Hill. Recompiled by Reg Sharpe, Course Secretary Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, April 1963.


E-METER TR 21

PURPOSE:

To train student to read an E-Meter accurately, speedily and with certainty.

POSITION:

Coach and student sit facing each other. Student has an E-Meter (switched on) and coach holds the cans.

PATTER:

Coach: “Define a needle reaction.”

Coach: “Define an instant read.”

Coach. “Define a rudiment instant read.”

Student should give with a high degree of accuracy the definitions in this bulletin. If it is not so, coach reads definition and has student repeat it.

Coach: “Take a phrase from the bulletin, say it to me and observe the meter.”

When the student has done this coach asks the following questions:

1. “Did you get a needle reaction?” “What was it?” “Where was it?”

2. “Did you get a rudiment instant read?” “What was it?”

3. “Did you get an instant read?” “What was it?”

TRAINING STRESS:

Coach needs to keep control of the coaching session. He should not depart from the above questions. If student is in any doubt at any time coach asks for a definition of whatever is being handled. Example: Student: “I’m not sure if I had a reaction.” Coach: “Define a needle reaction.” When student has done so, coach repeats question, “Did you get a needle reaction?” and continues thus until student gives a definite answer.

Any hesitancy or any failure on the part of the student to observe a read is queried with a “What happened?” Occasionally ask student, “How are you doing?”

This drill needs to be coached exactly as outlined above. Student is very likely to start blowing confusion. Don’t Q & A with it. No flunks, no evaluation or invalidation.

HISTORY:

Developed by Reg Sharpe from the materials of L. Ron Hubbard at Saint Hill, April 1963, to improve E-Meter reading rapidly and without student being invalidated by another student who does not know how to read a meter.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:dr.rd
Copyright © 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 29 APRIL 1963

Central Orgs
Academies

MODERNIZED TRAINING DRILLS
USING PERMISSIVE COACHING


Much of the difficulty experienced in teaching the TRs and getting students proficient in the TRs is due to bad coaching. This bulletin is issued to overcome this difficulty. It is in fact an amendment of HCO Bulletin of April 17, 1961, which as itself remains valid.

The essence of this bulletin is that the drills do not permit the coach to “flunk” a student, instead an exact patter is laid down for the coach and instructors should ensure that the coach keeps to the patter.

TR 0 has been subdivided into 4 parts.

One new drill is introduced—”The Coaches’ Drill”.

The TRs are important because:

1. The auditing skill of any student remains only as good as he can do ]his TRs.

2. Flubs in TRs are the basis of all confusion in subsequent efforts to audit.

3. If the TRs are not well learned early in the HPA/HCA BScn/HCS Courses, THE BALANCE OF THE COURSE WILL FAIL AND INSTRUCTORS AT UPPER LEVELS WILL BE TEACHING NOT THEIR SUBJECTS BUT TRS.

4. Almost all confusions on Meter, Model Sessions and SOP Goals stem directly from inability to do the TRs.

5. A student who has not mastered his TRs will not master anything further.

6. SOP Goals will not function in the presence of bad TRs. The preclear is already being overwhelmed by process velocity and cannot bear up to TR flubs without ARC breaks.

Academies were tough on TRs up to 1958 and have since tended to soften. Comm Courses are not a tea party.

These TRs given here should be put in use at once in all auditor training, in Academy and HGC and in the future should never be relaxed. Seven weeks on a Comm Course until he does the TRs perfectly lets the student receive at least one week’s training in the eight. A poor Comm Course in one week can wipe out the whole eight weeks.


NUMBER: TR 0. Revised 1961 and 1963.

NAME: Confronting Preclear.

COMMANDS: None.

POSITION: Student and coach sit facing each other a comfortable distance apart— about three feet. Student has an E-Meter.

PURPOSE: To train student to confront a preclear with auditing only or with nothing. The whole idea is to get the student able to hold a position three feet in front of a preclear, to BE there and not do anything else but BE there.

TRAINING STRESS: Have student and coach sit facing each other, neither making any conversation or effort to be interesting. Have them sit and look at each other and say and do nothing for some hours. Student must not speak, fidget, giggle or be embarrassed or anaten. It will be found the student tends to confront WITH a body part, rather than just confront, or to use a system of confronting rather than just BE there. The drill is misnamed if Confront means to DO something to the pc. The whole action is to accustom an auditor to BEING THERE three feet in front of a preclear without apologizing or moving or being startled or embarrassed or defending self. After a student has become able to just sit there for two hours “bull baiting” can begin. Anything added to being there is queried by the coach with a “What happened?” Twitches, blinks, sighs, fidgets, anything except just being there is promptly queried with the reason why, if necessary. TR 0 has been divided into four parts. Each part is drilled for about 15 minutes in turn and then begun over again and again.


TR 0 (A)

This is exactly as given above except that “bull baiting” is omitted. Whenever student speaks, fidgets, giggles, is embarrassed or goes anaten coach says, “That’s it, what happened?” Coach listens carefully to what student has to say, acknowledges and says, “Start.” In fact, coach will do the foregoing whenever he sees any physical action or change, however small, manifested by the student. It is also desirable from time to time that the coach says, “That’s it, how are you doing?”, listens carefully to what student says, acknowledges and then says start.

No flunks, no invalidation or validation other than giving a win from time to time as merited.


TR 0 (B)

Exactly as TR 0 (A) with the addition that student is required by coach to answer the following questions which are given alternately:

“What can you see about me that you like?”
“What can you see about me that you don’t like?”

Coach acknowledges each answer without invalidation, validation or evaluation. Coach asks “What happened?” whenever there is any physical manifestation on the part of the student or whenever there is an overlong comm lag. Coach also asks from time to time “How are you doing?”


TR 0 (C)

In this part bull baiting is introduced, otherwise it is exactly as TR 0 (A). Patter as a confronted subject: The coach may say anything or do anything except leave the chair. The students’ “buttons” can be found and tromped on hard. Any words not coaching words may receive no response from the student. If the student responds, the coach is instantly a coach (see patter above).

Instructors should have coaches let students have some wins (coach does not mention these) and then, by gradient stress, get the coaches to start in on the student to invite flunks. This is “bull baiting”. The student is queried each time he or she reacts, no matter how minutely, to being baited.


TR 0 (D)

This drill has been designed to put the finishing touches to a TR 0. It needs to be done very thoroughly and with plenty of interest on the part of the coach. It is run as follows:

1. Coach says to student, “Define a good auditing attitude.” He accepts student’s definition.

2. Coach says, “Show me a good auditing attitude.”

3. After a few minutes coach asks the following questions:

(a) “Did you show me a good auditing attitude?”
(b) “What did you do?”
(c) “What happened?”

4. Actions 2 and 3 are repeated two or three times, then start over again at 1.

5. When the “Good auditing attitude” is being done well substitute “an interested attitude” or “a professional attitude” or “an understanding attitude”. All these “attitudes” should be drilled thoroughly. Further, coach should take any attitude the student presents, e.g. if student uses in his definition the words “It’s being there” coach makes a mental note to use it later. Example: “Define a ‘being there’ attitude.” “Show me a ‘being there’ attitude. “

The whole of TR 0 should be taught rough-rough-rough and not left until the student can do it. Training is considered satisfactory at this level only if the student can BE three feet in front of a person without flinching, concentrating or confronting with, regardless of what the confronted person says or does.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington in March 1957 to train students to confront preclears in the absence of social tricks or conversation and to overcome obsessive compulsions to be “interesting”. Revised by L. Ron Hubbard April 1961 on finding that SOP Goals required for its success a much higher level of technical skill than earlier processes. Revised 1963 by Reg Sharpe.


NUMBER: TR 1. Revised 1961 and 1963.

NAME: Dear Alice.

PURPOSE: To train the student to deliver a command newly and in a new unit of time to a preclear without flinching or trying to overwhelm or using a via.

COMMANDS: A phrase (with the “he saids” omitted) is picked out of the book “Alice in Wonderland” and read to the coach.

POSITION: Student and coach are seated facing each other a comfortable distance apart. Student has an E-Meter.

TRAINING STRESS: The command goes from the book to the student and, as his own, to the coach. It must not go from book to coach. It must sound natural not artificial. Diction and elocution have no part in it. Loudness may have.

(A) When student has delivered a phrase coach asks student the following:

1. “Did you own the phrase?”
2. “Did you deliver it in a new unit of time?”
3. “Where did the communication start from?”
4. “Where did the communication land?”

If student is in difficulty or confused by the drill, coach reads the purpose of the drill and the training stress and has student clear the purpose and the training stress.

(B) After a short while the following is introduced.

Coach tells student, “Create the space of the coaching session by locating 4 points in front of you and four points behind you.” This is done on a gradient scale until student is doing the drill comfortably. Coach just asks, “Did you do that?”

Then “A” above is reintroduced and the coach asking from time to time, “Did you create the space?” If student has difficulty coach goes back to getting student to locate the four points in front and the four points behind.

This drill is passed only when the student can put across a command naturally, without strain or artificiality or elocutionary bobs and gestures, and when the student can do it easily and relaxedly.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London, April 1956, to teach the communication formula to new students. Revised by L. Ron Hubbard 1961 to increase auditing ability. Revised 1963 by Reg Sharpe with the advices of L. Ron Hubbard.

NUMBER: TR 2. Revised 1961 and 1963.

NAME: Acknowledgments.

PURPOSE: To teach student that an acknowledgment is a method of controlling preclear communication and that an acknowledgment is a full stop. Also that an acknowledgment lets a pc know that he has answered an auditing command.

COMMANDS: The coach reads lines from “Alice in Wonderland” omitting “He saids” and the student thoroughly acknowledges them.

POSITION: Student and coach are seated facing each other at a comfortable distance apart. Student with an E-Meter.

TRAINING STRESS: To teach student to acknowledge exactly what was said so preclear knows it was heard. To ask student from time to time what was said. To curb over and under acknowledgment. To teach him that an acknowledgment is a stop, not beginning of a new cycle of communication or an encouragement to the preclear to go on.

To teach further that one can fail to get an acknowledgment across or can fail to stop a pc with an acknowledgment or can take a pc’s head off with an acknowledgment. Patter: The coach says, “Start,” reads a line and says after student has acknowledged:

1. “What did I say?”
2. “Did you understand it?”
3. “Did your acknowledgment let me know I had originated something?”
4. “Did it end cycle?”
5. “Where did the acknowledgment start from?”
6. “Where did the acknowledgment land?”
7. “Did you own the space?”

In questions 5 and 6 student must indicate as in TR 1. Ask “What happened?” as required in previous TRs. Coach checks carefully, “Are you really satisfied that you are giving good acknowledgments?” He reads the purpose of the TR and the Training Stress for the student to check over.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in April 1956 to teach new students that an acknowledgment ends a communication cycle and a period of time, that a new command begins a new period of time. Revised 1961 by L. Ron Hubbard. Revised 1963 by Reg Sharpe with the advices of L. Ron Hubbard.

NUMBER: TR 3. Revised 1961 and 1963.

NAME: Duplicative Question.

PURPOSE: To teach a student to duplicate without variation an auditing question, each time newly, in its own unit of time, not as a blur with other questions, and to acknowledge it. To teach that one never asks a second question until he has received an answer to the one asked.

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

POSITION: Student and coach seated a comfortable distance apart. Student has an E-Meter.

TRAINING STRESS: One question and student acknowledgment of its answer in one unit of time which is then finished. To keep student from straying into variations of command. Even though the same question is asked, it is asked as though it had never occurred to anyone before.

The student must learn to give and receive an answer and to acknowledge it in one unit of time.

The student should not fail to get an answer to the question asked, or fail to repeat the exact question.

Coach instructs student to run the command “Do birds fly?” or “Do fish swim?” etc. Student is required to acknowledge in such a way that the coach knows he has answered the command and if he doesn’t answer the command to repeat the command, letting the coach know it is a repeat. Coach just answers the command to start. Patter is as follows:

S. “Do birds fly?”
C. “Yes.”
S. “Good.”
C. “Did I answer the command?”
S. “Yes.”
C. “Did you feel that you had let me know that I had answered the command?”
S. “No” or “Yes.”
C. “OK, start again.”

This patter is repeated over and over until student has a certainty that he is doing the drill.

Then coach starts giving commands which are not answers. These communications must all be directed at the student, i.e., something to do with the pc’s attitude, appearance, private life (real or imaginary).

Example of patter:

S. “Do birds fly?”
C. “Your breath stinks.”
S. “I’ll repeat the question. Do birds fly?”
C. “That’s it. Did I answer the question?”
S. “No.”
C. “Did you let me know I hadn’t?”
S. “By not acknowledging, repeating the command.”
C. “OK, start.” And so on.

Coach continues until student is easily doing the drill and with great certainty. Coach can use such originations always directly concerned with the student personally and if he finds a button he continues until the student is tolerating it quite happily. If student breaks up or becomes misemotional coach merely asks “What happened?”

No flunks. No evaluation, invalidation or validation.

Ask “What happened?” as required. When the question is not answered, the student must say gently, “I’ll repeat the auditing question,” and do so until he gets an answer. Anything except commands, acknowledgment and, as needed, the repeat statement is queried. Unnecessary use of the repeat statement is queried. A poor command is queried. A poor acknowledgment is queried. Student misemotion or confusion is queried. Student failure to utter the next command without a long comm lag is queried. A choppy or premature acknowledgment is queried. Lack of an acknowledgment (or with a distinct comm lag) is queried.
“Start”, “Flunk”, “Good” and “That’s it” may not be used to fluster or trap the student. Any other statement under the sun may be. The coach may try to leave his chair in this TR. If he succeeds it is queried.

The coach should not use introverted statements such as “I just had a cognition.” “Coach divertive” statements should all concern the student, and should be designed to throw the student off and cause the student to lose session control or track of what the student is doing.
The student’s job is to keep a session going in spite of anything, using only command, the repeat statement or the acknowledgment.
The student may use his or her hands to prevent a “blow” (leaving) of the coach.
If the student does anything else than the above, it is queried. By queried is meant coach asks student “What happened?”

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in April 1956 to overcome variations and sudden changes in sessions. Revised 1961 and 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard. The old TR had a comm bridge as part of its training but this is now part of and is taught in Model Session and is no longer needed at this level. Auditors have been frail in getting their questions answered. This TR was redesigned to improve that frailty.


NUMBER: TR 4. Revised 1961 and 1963.

NAME: Preclear Originations.

PURPOSE: To teach a student not to be tongue-tied or startled or thrown off session by originations of preclear and to maintain ARC with preclear throughout an origination.

COMMANDS: The student runs “Do fish swim?” or “Do birds fly?” on coach. Coach answers but now and then makes startling comments from a prepared list given by Instructor. Student must handle originations to satisfaction of coach.

POSITION: Student and coach sit facing each other at a comfortable distance apart.

TRAINING STRESS: The student is taught to hear originations and do three things: (1) Understand it; (2) Acknowledge it; and (3) Return preclear to session. If the coach feels abruptness or too much time consumed or lack of comprehension, he corrects the coach into better handling.
Patter: All originations concern the coach, his ideas, reactions or difficulties, none concern the auditor. Otherwise the patter is the same as in earlier TRs. The student’s patter is governed by:

1. Clarifying and understanding the origin.
2. Acknowledging the origin.
3. Giving the repeat statement “I’ll repeat the auditing command,” and then giving it.

Anything else is queried. The auditor must be taught to prevent ARC breaks and differentiate between a vital problem that concerns the pc and a mere effort to blow session. (TR 3 Revised.) If the student does more than (1) Understand, (2) Acknowledge, (3) Return pc to session, he is in error.
Coach may throw in remarks personal to student as on TR 3. Student’s failure to differentiate between these (by trying to handle them) and remarks aimed only at the student is queried.
Student’s failure to persist is always queried in any TR but here more so. Coach should not always read from list to originate, and not always look at student when about to comment.
By Originate is meant a statement or remark referring to the state of the coach or fancied case.
By Comment is meant a statement or remark aimed only at student or room. Originations are handled, Comments are disregarded by the student.

TR 4 and anti-Q & A is what bothers auditors the most. Q & Aing is a fault which causes ARC breaks and therefore throws the pc out of session. The reason is that when you Q & A the pc is not permitted to let go of an origination and is therefore left with a Missed Withhold. Q & A = Missed Withholds = ARC Breaks.

Coach starts by asking student to define TR 4. If student doesn’t know it then coach gives the definition as follows: TR 4 is to hear an origination, to understand it, to acknowledge it and return pc to session. Similarly coach asks for a definition of Q& A, which is: Double questioning, changing because pc changed, following pc’s instruction.

Coach then tells student to run the process “Do birds fly?” or “Do fish swim?” Coach frequently introduces an origination. When student has dealt with origination or has tried to deal with it, coach asks searchingly the following questions:

1. “Were you tongue-tied? startled? thrown off session?”
2. “Did you hear origination?”
3. “Did you understand it?”
4. “Did you acknowledge it?”
5. “Did you return me to session?”
6. “Did you double question me?”
7. “Did you change because I had changed?”
8. “Did you follow my instruction?”
9. “What did you do?”
10. “What happened?”

Question 10 can be asked randomly throughout the drill whenever coach sees or hears something that indicates student is in trouble of any sort.
Coach is permitted to “lead student up the garden path” for a little while before asking the above question.
This drill needs to be done very thoroughly. If coach notices that student is using a method or pattern, coach can add in the question “Are you using a method or pattern in this drill?”
The drill is continued over and over until student is doing it comfortably and happily. HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in April 1956 to teach auditors to stay in session when preclear dives out. Revised by L. Ron Hubbard in 1961 to teach an auditor more about handling origins and preventing ARC breaks. Revised 1963 by Reg Sharpe with the advices of L. Ron Hubbard.

Coaches’ Drill

Coach and student (who is in this case the student coach) seated as in the normal TR drills.

Coach has the copy of the drill in front of him. He tells student to coach a TR. Whenever student departs from the script coach says, “That’s it. The correct question there should be_____.” “The correct action there should be_____. “ This is continued until student coach is thoroughly conversant with the script.

Coach keeps student on the drill and at the end of each cycle asks student, “Did you notice any physical changes on my part?” “What were they?” “Did you ask me ‘What happened?’ each time?”

Drill is continued with each TR in turn until student is administering all the TRs efficiently, interestedly and competently.

Ask “What happened?” as required.

HISTORY: Developed by Reg Sharpe with the advices of L. Ron Hubbard in April 1963 at Saint Hill to teach students how to coach the TRs.


Training Note

It is better to go through these TRs several times getting tougher each time than to hang up on one TR forever or to be so tough at start student goes into a decline.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :jw.rd
Copyright © 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


6305C02 SHSBC-262 Running the GPM
** 6305C14 SHSBC-263 Implant GPMs

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 MAY AD13
Central Orgs
Franchise
THE TIME TRACK
AND
ENGRAM RUNNING BY CHAINS
BULLETIN 1


It has been so many years since engram running was a familiar tool of the auditor that it is hard to know where to begin to teach this skill all over again. Actually, millions of words have been written or spoken on the subject of running engrams. However, oddly enough there was not one condensed, summary HCO Bulletin on the subject. Engram running, developed, was never then summated. I will therefore attempt to remedy the matter.

ENGRAM RUNNING SIMPLIFIED

No recapitulation or summation of materials was ever done on engram running. Therefore while all lectures and books on it are true, not one contains a final survey of engram running including everything vital to this skill and the laws which govern it. The material in books and tapes should be reviewed. But the material in these HCO Bulletins should be learned thoroughly as it takes precedence over all earlier material.

WHY PEOPLE HAVE TROUBLE RUNNING ENGRAMS

I have gotten very impatient with the constant plea for a rote set of commands to run engrams. The need for such commands is a testimony to the Auditor’s lack of knowledge of the mechanics of the Time Track and the pc’s behavior during an engram running session.

An auditor must know the basic laws and mechanics of the Time Track in order to run engrams. There is no rote procedure and never will be that will be successful on all cases in absence of a knowledge of what a Time Track is.

There is no substitute for knowing what engrams are and what they do. Knowing that, you can run engrams. Not knowing that, there is nothing that will take the place of such knowledge. You have to know the behavior of and data about engrams. There is no royal road that avoids such knowledge. If you know all about engrams you can run them. If you don’t, you’ll make a mess regardless of the commands given for use.

Therefore the essence of engram running is a knowledge of the character and behavior of engrams. This is not a vast subject.

However, these three things stand in the way of learning about engrams:

1. Engrams contain pain and unconsciousness; fear of pain or inflicting pain causes the auditor not to confront the pc’s engrams and unconsciousness is after all a not knowing condition; and

2. The auditor is so accustomed to projectionists reeling off movies and TV programs for him or her that the auditor tends to just sit while the action rolls forward, acting like a spectator, not the projectionist.

3. Failure to handle Time in Incidents.

On (1) you can remedy this just by knowing about it and realizing it and surmounting it, and on (2) you can remedy the attitude by realizing that the auditor,

not the pc (or some installed movie projectionist), is operating the pc’s bank. (3) is covered later.

Take a pocket movie projector and any bit of a reel of film and wind it back and forth for a while and you’ll see you are moving it. Then give a command and move the film and you’ll have what you’re doing as an auditor. Many drills can be developed using such equipment and (2) will be overcome. (1) requires just understanding and the will to rise superior to it.

THE TIME TRACK

The endless record, called the TIME TRACK, complete with 52 perceptions, of the pc’s entire past, is available to the auditor and his or her auditing commands.

The rules are: THE TIME TRACK OBEYS THE AUDITOR; THE TIME TRACK DOES NOT OBEY A PRECLEAR (early in auditing).

The Time Track is a very accurate record of the pc’s past, very accurately timed, very obedient to the auditor. If motion picture film were 3D, had 52 perceptions and could fully react upon the observer, the Time Track could be called a motion picture film. It is at least 350,000,000,000,000 years long, probably much longer, with a scene about every 1/25 of a second.

DEFINITIONS

That part of the Time Track that is free of pain and misadventure is called simply the Free Track, in that the pc doesn’t freeze up on it.

Any mental picture that is unknowingly created and part of the Time Track is called a FACSIMILE, whether an engram, secondary, lock or pleasure moment.

Any knowingly created mental picture that is not part of a Time Track is called a MOCK-UP.

Any unknowingly created mental picture that appears to have been a record of the physical universe but is in fact only an altered copy of the Time Track is called a DUB-IN.

Those parts of the Time Track that contain moments of pain and unconsciousness are called ENGRAMS.

Those parts of the Time Track which contain misemotion based on earlier engramic experience are called SECONDARIES.

Those parts of the Time Track which contain the first moment an earlier engram is restimulated are called KEY-INS.

Those parts of the Time Track which contain moments the pc associates with Key-ins are called LOCKS.

A series of similar engrams, or of similar locks, are called CHAINS.

A BASIC is the first incident (engram, lock, overt act) on any chain.

BASIC BASIC is the first engram on the whole Time Track.

Incidents are not in piles or files. They are simply a part of the consecutive Time Track.

By INCIDENT is meant the recording of an experience, simple or complex, related by the same subject, location or people, understood to take place in a short and finite time period such as minutes or hours or days.

A CHAIN OF INCIDENTS makes up a whole adventure or activity related by the same subject, general location or people, understood to take place in a long time period, weeks, months, years or even billions or trillions of years.

An incident can be an engram, secondary, key-in or lock. A chain of incidents can therefore be a chain of experiences which are engrams, secondaries, key-ins and locks.

A chain of incidents has only one BASIC. Its BASIC is the earliest engram received from or overt act committed against the subject, location or beings which make it a chain.

THE INFLUENCE OF THE TIME TRACK

Shakespeare said all life was a play. He was right in so far as the Time Track is a 3D, 52 perception movie which is a whole series of plays concerning the preclear. But the influence of it upon the preclear removes it from the class of pretense and play. It is not only very real, it is what contains whatever it is that depresses the pc to what he is today. Its savageness relieved, the preclear can recover, and only then. There is no other valid workable road.

There are valences, circuits and machinery in the reactive mind, as well as Reliable Items and Goals. But these all have their place on the Time Track and are part of the Time Track.

The preclear, as a thetan, is the effect of all this recorded experience. Almost all of it is unknown to him.

There are no other influencing agencies for the preclear than the Time Track and Present Time. And Present Time, a moment later, is part of the Time Track.

THE CREATION OF THE TIME TRACK

The preclear makes the Time Track as time rolls forward. He does this as an obsessive create on a sub-awareness level. It is done by an INVOLUNTARY INTENTION, not under the pc’s awareness or control.

The road to clear by making the preclear take over the creating of the Time Track was long explored and proved completely valueless and chancy.

The road to clear by making the preclear leave the Time Track (exteriorization) lasts only for minutes, hours or days and has proven valueless.

The road to clear, proven over 13 years of intense research and vast numbers of auditing hours and cases, lies only in an auditor handling the Time Track and removing from it, by means governed by the Auditor’s Code, the material, both motivators and overts, which, recorded on it, is out of the control of the pc and holds the pc at effect. Listing for goals and reliable items, engram running, Prepchecking, Sec Checking, recall processes and assists all handle the Time Track successfully and are therefore the basis of all modern processing.

APPARENT FAULTS IN THE TIME TRACK

There are no faults in the recording of the Time Track. There are only snarls caused by groupers, and unavailability and lack of perception of the Time Track.

A Grouper is anything which pulls the Time Track into a bunch at one or more points. When the grouper is gone the Time Track is perceived to be straight.

Unavailability is caused by the pc’s inability to confront or BOUNCERS and DENYERS. A BOUNCER throws the pc backward, forward, up or down from the track and so makes it apparently unavailable. A DENYER obscures a part of track by implying it is not there or elsewhere (a mis-director) or should not be viewed.

Groupers, bouncers and denyers are material (matter, energy, space and time in the form of effort, force, mass, delusion, etc) or command phrases (statements that group, bounce or deny). When a grouper, bouncer or denyer are enforced by both material and command phrases they become most effective, making the Time Track unavailable to the pc.

Unless the Time Track is made available it cannot be as-ised by the pc and so remains aberrative.

The Time Track is actual in that it is made of matter, energy, space and time as well as thought. Those who cannot confront Mest think it is composed only of thought. A grouper can make a pc fat and a bouncer thin if the pc is chronically stuck in them or if the track is grouped or made unavailable through bad auditing.

THE ORIGIN OF THE TIME TRACK

Through a great deal of study, not entirely complete, the following surmises can be made about the Time Track, the physical universe and the pc.

The tendency of the physical universe is condensation and solidification. At least this is the effect produced on the thetan. Continued dwelling in it without rehabilitation causes the thetan to become less reaching (“smaller”) and more solid. A thetan, being a static, may become convinced he cannot duplicate matter, energy, space, or time or certain intentions and so succumbs to the influence of this universe. This influence in itself would be negligible unless recorded by the thetan, stored and made reactive upon the thetan as a Time Track, and then maliciously used to trap the thetan.

Recent researches I have done in the field of aesthetics tend to indicate that rhythm is the source of present time. The thetan is carried along both by his own desire to have, do or be and by having been overwhelmed in the distant past by a continuous minute rhythm. This is a possible explanation of a thetan’s continuous presence in Present Time. Present Time, then, can be defined as a response to the continuous rhythm of the physical universe, resulting in a hereness in nowness.

In response to this rhythm, undoubtedly assisted by overts and implants and convictions of the need of recording, the thetan began to respond to the physical universe in his creations and eventually obsessively created (by means of restimulatable involuntary intentions) the passing moments of the physical universe. But only when he began to consider these pictures important could they be used to aberrate him.

These are only partly permanently created. Other moments of the past become re-created only when the thetan’s intention is directed to them, on which these parts spontaneously appear, the thetan not voluntarily creating them.

This forms the Time Track. Some parts of it, then, are “permanently” in a state of creation and the majority of it becoming created when the thetan’s attention is directed to them.

The “permanently created” portions are those times of overwhelm and indecision which almost entirely submerged the thetan’s own will and awareness.

Such parts are found in implants and great stresses. These parts are in permanent restimulation.

The mechanism of permanent restimulation consists of opposing forces of comparable magnitude which cause a balance which does not respond to current time and remains “timeless” .

Such phenomena as the overt act-motivator sequence, the problem (postulate counter-postulate), tend to hold certain portions of the Time Track in “permanent creation” and cause them to continue to exist in present time as unresolved masses, energies, spaces, times and significances.

The intention of the physical universe (and those who have become degraded enough to further only its ends) is to make a thetan solid, immobile and decisionless.

The fight of the thetan is to remain unsolid, mobile or immobile at will, and capable of decision.

This in itself is the principal unresolved problem and it itself creates timeless mass which accomplishes the basic purpose of a trap.

The mechanism of the Time Track can then be said to be the primary action in making a thetan solid, immobile and decisionless. For without a record of the past accumulating and forming a gradient of solidification of the thetan, the entrapment potential of the physical universe would be negligible and the havingness which it offers might be quite therapeutic. It probably requires more than just living in the physical universe to become aberrated. The main method of causing aberration and entrapment is therefore found in actions which create or confuse the Time Track.

A thetan has things beyond Matter, Energy, Space and Time which can deteriorate. His power of choice, his ability to keep two locations separate, his belief in self and his ethical standards are independent of material things. But these can be recorded in the Time Track as well and one sees them recover when no longer influenced by the Time Track.

As the thetan himself makes his own Time Track, even if under compulsion, and commits his own overts, even on provocation, it can be said, then, that the thetan aberrates himself. But he is assisted by mammoth betrayals and his necessity to combat them. And he is guilty of aberrating his fellows.

It is doubtful if another type of being built the physical universe and still lurks within it to trap further. But older beings, already degraded, have continuously been about to help newer beings to go downhill.

Each Thetan had his own “Home Universe” and these colliding or made to collide, probably are the physical universe. But of this origin and these intentions we are not at this time certain.

It is enough for us to resolve the problem of the aberrative nature of this universe and provide a technology which assuages that aberration and keeps one abreast of it. This is practical and we can already do it. Further insight into the problem will be a further bonus. And further data is already in view.

(Bulletin 2 on The Time Track and Engram Running will follow.)


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH: dr.rd
Copyright © 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

** 6305C15 SHSBC-264 TVD-20, Blocking Out and Dating Items and
Incidents Prior to Implants
** 6305C16 SHSBC-265 The Time Track
** 6305C21 SHSBC-266 The Helatrobus Implants
** 6305C22 SHSBC-267 TVD-21, Engram Running—Helatrobus Implant
(Aud: LRH)
** 6305C23 SHSBC-268 State of O.T.
** 6305C28 SHSBC-269 Handling ARC Breaks

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 MAY AD13
Central Orgs
Franchise

ROUTINE 3
R-3 MODEL SESSION


Here is the new Routine 3 Model Session as outlined in HCO Bulletin May 13, AD13. All other Model Sessions are canceled herewith. This form is to be used in all auditing in the future.

SESSION PRELIMINARIES

All auditing sessions have the following preliminaries done in this order.

l. Seat the pc and adjust his or her chair.

2. Clear the Auditing room with “Is it all right to audit in this room?” (not metered).

3. Can squeeze “Squeeze the cans, please.” And note that pc registers, by the squeeze, on the meter, and note the level of the pc’s havingness. (Don’t run hav here.)

4. Put in R Factor by telling pc briefly what you are going to do in the session.


START OF SESSION.

5. “Is it all right with you if I begin this session now?”

“START OF SESSION.” (Tone 40)

“Has this session started for you?” If pc says, “No,” say again, “START OF SESSION. Now has this session started for you?” If pc says, “No,” say, “We will cover it in a moment.”


RUDIMENTS:

6. “What goals would you like to set for this session?”

Please note that Life or Livingness goals have been omitted, as they tend to remind the pc of present time difficulties and tend to take his attention out of the session.

7. At this point in the session there are actions which could be undertaken: the running of General O/W or the running of Mid Rudiments using “Since the last time I audited you”, or pull missed W/Hs as indicated. But if pc cheerful and needle smooth, just get down to work.

One would run General O/W if the pc was emotionally upset at the beginning of the session or if the session did not start for the pc, the latter being simply another indication of the pc’s being upset or ARC broken, but these symptoms must be present, as sometimes the session hasn’t started merely because of poor Tone 40 or because the pc had something he wanted to say before the auditor started the session.

RUNNING O/W:

“If it is all right with you, I am going to run a short, general process. The process is: ‘What have you done?’, ‘What have you withheld?’ “ (The process is run very permissively until the needle looks smooth and the pc is no longer emotionally disturbed. )

“Where are you now on the time track?”
“If it is all right with you, I will continue this process until you are close to present time and then end this process.” (After each command, ask, “When?”) “That was the last command. Is there anything you would care to ask or say before I end this process?”
“End of process.”

RUNNING THE MID RUDIMENTS:

One would use the Middle Rudiments with, “Since the last time I audited you”, if the needle was rough and if the Tone Arm was in a higher position than it was at the end of the last session.

ORDER OF BUTTONS

Here is the correct wording and order of use for the big Mid Ruds.

“ has anything been suppressed?”

“ is there anything you have been careful of?”

“ is there anything you have failed to reveal?”

“ has anything been invalidated?”

“ has anything been suggested?”

“ has any mistake been made?”

“ is there anything you have been anxious about?”

“ has anything been protested?”

“ has anything been decided?”

“ has anything been asserted?”

In using the first three buttons (Suppressed, Careful of and Failed to Reveal), the rudiment question should be asked directly of the pc off the meter (repetitive). When the pc has no more answers, check the question on the meter. If the question reads, stick with it on the meter like in Fast Rud checking until it is clean.

The last six buttons are cleaned directly on the meter as in Fast Ruds.

PULLING MISSED WITHHOLDS

Use: “Since the last time you were audited has a withhold been missed on you’?”

“Since the last time you were audited is there anything someone failed to find out about you?”

“Since the last time you were audited has someone nearly found out something about you?”

Any of the above versions may be used. They are always run repetitively. They

can also be used without the time limiter, e.g. “Is there anything someone failed to find out about you?”

BODY OF SESSION.

8. Now go into the body of the session.

END BODY OF SESSION:

9. “Is it all right with you if we end off ...........now?” “Is there anything you would care to ask or say before I do so?” “End of .........”

SMOOTH OUT SESSION:

10. Smooth out any roughness in the session if there has been any, favouring Suppress, Failed to Reveal, Protest, Decide, Overts, Assert, using prefix “In this session .......?”

GOALS & GAINS.

11. “Have you made any part of your goals for this session?”
“Have you made any other gains in this session that you would care to mention?”

HAVINGNESS:

12. (After adjusting the meter) “Please squeeze the cans.” (If the squeeze test was not all right, the Auditor would run the pc’s Havingness process until the can squeeze gives an adequate response.)

ENDING SESSION:

13. “Is there anything you would care to ask or say before I end this session?”

14. “Is it all right with you if I end this session now?”

15. “Here it is: END OF SESSION (Tone 40). Has this session ended for you?” (If the pc says, “No,” repeat, “END OF SESSION.” If the session still has not ended, say, “You will be getting more auditing. END OF SESSION.”) “Tell me I am no longer auditing you.”

Please note that Havingness is run after Goals and Gains as this tends to bring the pc more into present time and to take his attention to a degree out of the session.

Wording for the above follows the tradition of earlier model sessions.

Adhere severely to this session form. It is nearly an irreducible minimum and is very fast, but it is all necessary.

The Random Rudiment here is “What happened?”

Session Mid Ruds are simply “Protest, Assert and Decide”.

RI rudiments are “Suppress and Invalidate”.

ARC Break handling is in accordance with HCO Bulletin of March 14, 1963. Don’t continue a session until you find out why the ARC Break.


LRH:jw.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 27 MAY 1963
CenOCon
Franchise
ALL AUDITING
STAR RATING HCO BULLETIN FOR ACADEMIES AND SHSBC

CAUSE OF ARC BREAKS


LUCKY IS THE PC WHOSE AUDITOR HAS UNDERSTOOD THIS HCO BULLETIN AND LUCKY IS THE AUDITOR, MAY HIS OWN CASE RUN WELL.

I have just narrowed the reason for ARC Breaks in auditing actions down to only one source.

RULE: ALL ARC BREAKS ARE CAUSED BY BY-PASSED CHARGE.

RULE: TO TURN OFF AN ARC BREAK FIND AND INDICATE THE CORRECT BY-PASSED CHARGE.

Charge can be By-Passed by:

1 . Going later than basic on any chain without further search for basic.

Example: Looking for the pc’s first automobile accident, finding the fifth instead and trying to run the fifth accident as the first accident, which it isn’t. The By-Passed Charge here is the first accident and all succeeding accidents up to the one selected by the auditor as the first one or the one to run. To a greater or lesser degree depending on the amount the earlier material was restimulated, the pc will then ARC Break (or feel low or in “low morale”). One can run a later incident on a chain briefly but only to unburden earlier incidents, and the pc must know this.

2. Unknowingly ignoring the possibility of a more basic or earlier incident of the same nature as that being run after the pc has been restimulated on it. Or bluntly refusing to admit the existence of or let the pc “at” an earlier incident.

3. Cleanly missing a GPM, as one between two goals run consecutively in the belief they are consecutive.

4. Missing an earlier GPM and settling down to the assertion there are no earlier ones.

5. Cleanly missing one or more RIs, not even calling them.

6. Failing to discharge an RI and going on past it.

7. Accidentally missing a whole block of RIs, as in resuming session and not noticing pc has skipped (commoner than you’d think).

8. Accepting a wrong goal, missing the right one similarly worded.

9. Accepting a wrong RI, not getting the plot RI to fire.

10. Misinterpreting or not understanding data given to you by the pc and/or acting on wrong data.

11. Misinforming the pc as to what has or has not fired and discharged.

12. Locating the wrong By-Passed Charge and saying it is the source of the ARC Break.

13. Failing to follow the cycle of communication in auditing.

These and any other way charge can be restimulated and left prior to where the auditor is working can cause an ARC Break.

Charge left after (later) (nearer pt) than where the auditor is working hardly ever causes an ARC Break.

The burden of skilled auditing then, is to get RIs (and GPMs and incidents) discharged as close to basic (first incident) as possible. And always be prowling for something earlier.

In contradiction of this is that any GPM fairly well discharged by RRs unburdens the case, ARC Break or no ARC Breaks. And any incident partially discharged lets one go earlier.

The pc never knows why the ARC Break. He may think he does and disclaim about it. But the moment the actual reason is spotted (the real missed area) the ARC Break ceases.

If you know you’ve missed a goal or RI, just saying so prevents any ARC Break.

An ARC Breaky pc can always be told what has been missed and will almost always settle down at once.

Example: Pc refuses to come to session. Auditor on telephone says there’s a more basic incident or RI or GPM. Pc comes to session.

The auditor who is most likely to develop ARC Breaks in the pc will have greater difficulty putting this HCO Bulletin into practice. Perhaps I can help this. Such an auditor Qs and As by action responses, not acknowledgments after understanding. Action can be on an automaticity in the session. So this HCO Bulletin may erroneously be interpreted to mean, “If the pc ARC Breaks DO something earlier.”

If this were true then the only thing left to run would be Basic Basic—without the pc being unburdened enough to have any reality on it.

A drill (and many drills can be compiled on this) would be to have a lineal picture of a Time Track. The coach indicates a late incident on it with a pointer and says, “Pc ARC Break.” The student must give a competent and informative statement that indicates the earlier charge without pointing (since you can’t point inside the reactive bank of a pc with a pointer).

Drawn Time Tracks showing a GPM, a series of engrams along free track, a series of GPMs, all plotted against time, would serve the purpose of the drill and give the student graphic ARC Break experience.

The trick is TO FIND AND INDICATE the RIGHT By-Passed Charge to the pc and to handle it when possible but never fail to indicate it.

It is not DO that heals the ARC Break but pointing toward the correct charge.

RULE: FINDING AND INDICATING AN INCORRECT BY-PASSED CHARGE WILL NOT TURN OFF AN ARC BREAK.

An automaticity (as covered later in this HCO Bulletin) is rendered discharged by indicating the area of charge only.

This is an elementary example: Pc says, “I suppressed that.” Auditor says, “On this incident has anything been suppressed?” Pc ARC Breaks. Auditor indicates Charge by saying, “I’m sorry. A moment ago I didn’t acknowledge your suppression.” ARC Break ceases. Why? Because the source of its charge that triggered an automaticity of above the pc’s tone, was itself discharged by being indicated.

Example: Auditor asks for a Joburg overt. Pc gives it. Auditor consults meter at once asking question again, which is protested giving a new read. Pc ARC Breaks. Auditor says, “I did not acknowledge the overt you gave me. I acknowledge it.” ARC Break ceases.

Example: Auditor asks for RI No. 173 on First Series Line Plot. Pc ARC Breaks, giving various reasons why, such as auditor’s personality. Auditor asks meter, “Have I missed an Item on you?” Gets read. Says to pc, “I’ve missed an Item.” ARC Break ceases. Whether the missing item is looked for or not is immaterial to this HCO Bulletin which concerns handling ARC Breaks.

If an auditor always does in response to an ARC Break, such as instantly looking for specific earlier Items, that auditor has missed the point of this HCO Bulletin and will just pile up more ARC Breaks, not heal them.

Don’t be driven by ARC Breaks into unwise actions, as all you have to do is find and indicate the missing charge that was By-Passed. That is what takes care of an ARC Break, not taking the pc’s orders.

If the ARC Break does not cease, the wrong By-Passed Charge has been indicated.

The sweetest running pc in the world can be turned into a tiger by an auditor who always Qs and As, never indicates charge and goes on with the session plan.

Some Qs and As would be a source of laughter if not so deadly.

Here is a Q and A artist at work (and an ARC Breaky pc will soon develop) (and this auditor will soon cease to audit because it’s “so unpleasant”).

Example: Auditor: “Have you ever shot anyone?” Pc: “Yes, I shot a dog.” Auditor: “What about a dog?” Pc: “It was my mother’s.” Auditor: “What about your mother?” Pc: “I hated her.” Auditor: “What about hating people?” Pc: “I think I’m aberrated.” Auditor: “Have you worried about being aberrated?” Pc: @!!*?!!.

Why did the pc ARC Break? Because the charge has never been permitted to come off shooting a dog, his mother, hating people, and being aberrated and that’s enough By-Passed Charge to blow a house apart.

This pc will become, as this keeps up, unauditable by reason of charge missed in sessions and his resulting session dramatizations as overts.

Find and indicate the actual charge By-Passed. Sometimes you can’t miss it, it has just happened. Sometimes you need a simple meter question since what you are doing is obvious. Sometimes you need a dress parade assessment from a list. But however you get it, find out the exact By-Passed Charge and then INDICATE IT TO THE PC.

The violence of an ARC Break makes it seem incredible that a simple statement will vanquish it, but it will. You don’t have to run another earlier engram to cure an ARC Break. You merely have to say it is there—and if it is the By-Passed Charge, that ARC Break will vanish.

Example: Pc: “I think there’s an incident earlier that turned off my emotion.” Auditor: “We’d better run this one again.” Pc ARC Breaks. Auditor: (Consults meter) “Is there an earlier incident that turns off emotion? (Gets read) Say, what you just said is correct. Thank you. There is an earlier incident that turns off emotion. Thank you. Now let’s run this one a few more times.” Pc’s ARC Break ends at once.

Don’t go around shivering in terror of ARC Breaks. That’s like the modern systems of government which tear up their whole constitution and honor just because some hired demonstrators howl. Soon they won’t be a government at all. They bend to every ARC Break.

ARC Breaks are inevitable. They will happen. The crime is not: to have a pc ARC Break. The crime is: not to be able to handle one fast when it happens. You must be

able to handle an ARC Break since they are inevitable. Which means you must know the mechanism of one as given here, how to find By-Passed Charge and how to smoothly indicate it.

To leave a pc in an ARC Break more than two or three minutes, is just inept.

And be well-drilled enough that your own responding rancor and surprise doesn’t take charge. And you’ll have pleasant auditing.

ARC BREAK PROCESSES

We had several ARC Break processes. These were repetitive processes.

The most effective ARC Break process is locating and indicating the By-Passed Charge. That really cures ARC Breaks.

A repetitive command ARC Break process based on this discovery I just made would possibly be “What communication was not received?”

Expanding this we get a new ARC Straight Wire:

“What attitude was not received?”

“What reality was not perceived (seen)?”

“What communication was not acknowledged?”

This process IS NOT USED to handle SESSION ARC BREAKS but only to clean up auditing or the track. If the pc ARC Breaks don’t use a process, find the missed charge.

Indeed this process may be more valuable than at first believed, as one could put “In auditing ......” on the front of each one and straighten up sessions. And perhaps you could even run an engram with it. (The last has not been tested. “In auditing” + the three questions was wonderful on test. 2 div TA in each 10 mins on a very high TA case.)

“ARC Break Straight Wire” of 1958 laid open implants like a band saw, which is what attracted my attention to it again. Many routine prefixes such as “In an organization” or “On engrams” or “On past lives” could be used to clear up past attitudes and overts.

We need some repetitive processes today. Cases too queasy to face the past, cases messed up by offbeat processes. Cases who have overts on Auditing or Scientology or orgs. Cases pinned by session overts. The BMRs run inside an engram tend to make it go mushy. And Class I Auditors are without an effective repetitive process on modern technology. This is it.

A Repetitive Process, even though not looking for basic, implies that the process will be run until the charge is off and therefore creates no ARC Breaks unless left unflat. Therefore the process is safe if flattened.

RUDIMENTS

Nothing is more detested by some pcs than rudiments on a session or GPM or RI. Why?

The same rule about ARC Breaks applies.

The Charge has been By-Passed. How?

Consider the session is later than the incident (naturally). Ask for the suppress in the session. You miss the suppress in the incident (earlier by far). Result: Pc ARC Breaks.

That’s all there is to ARC Breaks caused by Session BMRs or Mid Ruds.

Example: “Scrambleable Eggs” won’t RR. Auditor says, “On this Item has anything been suppressed?” Pc eventually gets anxious or ARC Breaks. Why? Suppress read. Yes, but where was the suppress? It was in the Incident containing the RI, the pc looked for it in the session and thereby missed the suppress charge in the incident of the RI which, being By-Passed Charge unseen by pc and auditor, caused the ARC Break. Remedy? Get the suppress in the incident, not the session. The RI RRs.

Also, the more ruds you use, the more you restimulate when doing Routine 3, because the suppress in the incident is not basic on Suppress, and if you clean just one clean, even to test, bang, there goes the charge being missed on Suppress and bang, bang, ARC Break. Lightly, auditor, lightly.

Q AND A ARC BREAKS

Q and A causes ARC Breaks by BY-PASSING CHARGE.

How? The pc says something. The auditor does not understand or Acknowledge. Therefore the pc’s utterance becomes a By-Passed Charge generated by whatever he or she is trying to release. As the auditor ignores it and the pc re-asserts it, the original utterance’s charge is built up and up.

Finally the pc will start issuing orders in a frantic effort to get rid of the missed charge. This is the source of pc orders to the auditor.

Understand and Acknowledge the pc. Take the pc’s data. Don’t pester the pc for more data when the pc is offering data.

When the pc goes to where the auditor commands, don’t say, “Are you there now?” as his going is thereby not acknowledged and the going built up charge. Always assume the pc obeyed until it’s obvious the pc did not.

ECHO METERING

The pc says, “You missed a suppress. It’s ......” and the auditor reconsults the meter asking for a suppress. That leaves the pc’s offering an undischarged charge.

NEVER ASK THE METER AFTER A PC VOLUNTEERS A BUTTON.

Example: You’ve declared suppress clean, pc gives you another suppress. Take it and don’t ask suppress again. That’s Echo Metering.

If a pc puts his own ruds in, don’t at once jump to the meter to put his ruds in. That makes all his offerings missed charge. Echo Metering is miserable auditing.

MISSED WITHHOLDS

Needless to say, this matter of By-Passed Charge is the explanation for the violence of missed withholds.

The auditor is capable of finding out. So the pc’s undisclosed overts react solely because the auditor doesn’t ask for them.

This doesn’t wipe out all technology about missed withholds. It explains why they exist and how they operate.

Indication is almost as good as disclosure. Have you ever had somebody calm down when you said, “You’ve got missed withholds”? Well it’s crude but it has worked. Better is, “Some auditor failed to locate some charge on your case.” Or, “We must have missed your goal.” But only a meter assessment and a statement of what has been found would operate short of actually pulling the missed withholds.

APPARENT BAD MORALE

There is one other factor on “Bad Morale” that should be remarked.

We know so much we often discard what we know in Scientology. But way back in Book One and several times after, notably 8-80, we had a tone scale up which the pc climbed as he was processed.

We meet up with this again running the Helatrobus Implants as a whole track fact.

The pc rises in tone up to the lower levels of the tone scale. He or she comes up to degradation, up to apathy.

And it often feels horrible and, unlike an ARC Break and the Sad Effect, is not cured except by more of the same processing.

People complain of their emotionlessness. Well, they come up a long ways before they even reach emotion.

Then suddenly they realize that they have come up to being able to feel bad. They even come up to feeling pain. And all that is a gain. They don’t confuse this too much with ARC Breaks but they blame processing. And then one day they realize that they can feel apathy! And it’s a win amongst wins. Before it was just wood.

And this has an important bearing on ARC Breaks.

Everything on the whole Know to Mystery Scale that still lies above the pc finds the pc at effect. These are all on Automatic.

Therefore the pc in an ARC Break is in the grip of the reaction which was in the incident, now fully on automatic.

The pc’s anger in the incident is not even seen or felt by the pc. But the moment something slips the pc is in the grip of that emotion as an automaticity and becomes furious or apathetic or whatever toward the auditor.

None is more amazed at himself or herself than the pc in the grip of the ARC Break emotion. The pc is a helpless rag, being shaken furiously by the emotions he or she felt in the incident.

Therefore, never discipline or Q and A with an ARC Broken pc. Don’t join hands with his bank to punish him. Just find the By-Passed Charge and the automaticity will shut off at once to everyone’s relief.

Running Routine 3 is only unpleasant and unhappy to the degree that the auditor fails to quickly spot and announce By-Passed Charge. If he fails to understand this and recognize this, his pcs will ARC Break as surely as a ball falls when dropped.

If an auditor has ARC Breaky pcs only one thing is basically wrong—that auditor consistently misses charge or consistently fails to anticipate missed charge.

One doesn’t always have to run the earliest. But one had better not ignore the consequences of not pointing it out. One doesn’t have to discharge every erg from an RI always but one had better not hide the fact from the pc.

The adroit auditor is one who can spot earlier charge or anticipate ARC Breaks by seeing where charge is getting missed and taking it up with the pc. That auditor’s pcs have only the discomfort of the gradually rising tone and not the mess of ARC Breaks.

It is possible to run almost wholly without ARC Breaks and possible to stop them in seconds, all by following the rule: DON’T BY-PASS CHARGE UNKNOWN TO THE PC.


LRH :jw.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


** 6305C29 SHSBC-270 Programming Cases, Part 1
** 6305C30 SHSBC-271 Programming Cases, Part 2

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 8 JUNE AD13
Central Orgs
Franchise
THE TIME TRACK
AND
ENGRAM RUNNING BY CHAINS
BULLETIN 2
HANDLING THE TIME TRACK


Although finding and curtailing the development of the Time Track at genus is not improbable, the ability of the preclear to attain it early on is questionable without reducing the charge on the existing track. Therefore, any system which reduces the charged condition of the Time Track without reducing but increasing the awareness and decisionability of the preclear is valid processing. Any system which seeks to handle the charge but reduces the preclear’s awareness and decisionability is not valid processing but is degrading.

According to early axioms, the single source of aberration is Time. Therefore any system which further confuses or overwhelms the preclear’s sense of time will not be beneficial.

Thus the first task of the student of engram running is to master the handling of Time on the preclear’s Time Track. It must be handled without question, uncertainty or confusion.

Failing to handle the Time in the pc’s Time Track with confidence, certainty and without error will result in grouping or denying the Time Track to the pc.

The prime source of ARC break in engram running sessions is by-passing charge by Time mishandling by the auditor. As a subhead under this, taking and trying to run incidents which are not basic on a chain constitute an error in Time and react on the pc like By-Passed RIs or GPMs.

An ARC break-less session requires gentle accurate time scouting, the selection of the earliest Timed incident available and the accurate Time handling of the incident as it is run.

There are only a few reasons why some cannot run engrams on pcs. These are:

1. Q and A with the pain and unconsciousness of incidents;

2. Failing to handle the Time Track of the pc for the pc;

3. Failure to understand and handle Time.

2 and 3 are much the same. However, there are three ways to move a Time Track about:

(a) By Significance (the moment something was considered);

(b) By Location (the moment the pc was located somewhere);

(c) By Time alone (the date or years before an event or years ago).

You will see all three have time in common. “The moment when you thought _____” “The moment you were on the cliff______” “Two years before you

put your foot on the bottom step of the scaffold” are all dependent on Time. Each designates an instant on the Time Track of which there can be no mistake by either auditor or pc.

The whole handling of the Time Track can be done by any one of these three methods, Significance, Location, Time.

Therefore all projectionist work is done by the Time of Significance, the Time of Location or Time alone.

The track responds. Those auditors who have trouble cannot grasp the totality and accuracy and speed of that response. The idiotic and wonderful precision of the Time Track defeats the sloppy and careless. They wonder if it went. They question the pc’s being there. They fumble about until they destroy their command over the Time Track.

“Go to 47,983,678,283,736 years 2 months, 4 days 1 hour and six minutes ago.” Well, a clear statement of it, unfumbled, will cause just that to happen. The tiniest quiver of doubt, a fumble over the millions and nothing happens.

Fumbled dating gets no dates. One must date boldly with no throat catches or hesitations. “More than 40,000? Less than 40,000?” Get it the first read. Don’t go on peering myopically at the meter asking the same question the rest of the session. Accurate, Bold, Rapid. Those are the watchwords of dating and Time Track handling.

In moving a Time Track about, move only the track. Don’t mix it and also move the pc. You can say “Move to .” You don’t have to say (but you can) “The somatic strip will move to .” But never say “You will move to .” And this also applies to Present Time. The pc won’t come to Present Time. He’s here. But the Time Track will move to the date of present time unless the pc is really stuck. In getting a pc to Present Time (unimportant in modern engram running) say “Move to (date month and year of PT).”

In scouting you always use To. “Move To_____.” In running an engram or whatever, you always use THROUGH. “Move through the incident_____.”

If an auditor hasn’t a ruddy clue about the Time Track and its composition, he or she won’t ever be able to run engrams. So, obviously, the first thing to teach and have passed in engram running is Time Track Composition. When the auditor learns that, he or she will be able to run engrams. If the auditor does not know the subject of the Time Track well, then he or she can’t be taught to run engrams, for no rote commands that cover all cases can exist. You couldn’t teach the handling of a motion picture projector by rote commands if the operator had never imagined the existence of film. An auditor sitting there thinking the pc is doing this or that and being in a general fuddle about it will soon have film all over the floor and wrapped about his ears. His plea for a rote command will just tangle up more film so long as he doesn’t know it is film and that he, not the preclear, is handling it.

If an auditor can learn this, he will then be able to learn to run those small parts of the Time Track called engrams. If an auditor can’t run a pc through some pleasant Time Track flawlessly, he or she sure can’t run a pc through the living lightning parts of that Track called Engrams.

An auditor who cannot handle the Time Track smoothly can scarcely call himself an auditor as that’s all there is to audit besides postulates, no matter what process you are using, no matter what process you invent and even if you tried what is laughingly called a “biochemical approach” to the mind. There’s only a Time Track for the bios to affect.

There’s a thetan, there’s a Time Track. The thetan gets caught in the Time Track. The job of the auditor is to free the thetan by digging him out of his Time Track. So if you can’t handle what you’re digging a thetan out of, you’re going to have an awful lot of landslides and a lot of auditing loses for both you and preclears.

Invent games, devices, charts and training aids galore and teach with them and you’ll have auditors who can handle the Time Track and run engrams.

CHARGE AND THE TIME TRACK

Charge, the stored quantities of energy in the Time Track, is the sole thing that is being relieved or removed by the auditor from the Time Track.

When this charge is present in huge amounts the Time Track overwhelms the pc and the pc is thrust below observation of the actual Track.

This is the State of Case Scale. (All levels given are major levels. Minor levels exist between them.)

Level ( 1 ) NO TRACK — No Charge.

Level (2) FULL VISIBLE TIME TRACK — Some Charge.

Level (3) SPORADIC VISIBILITY OF
TRACK — Some heavily charged areas.

Level (4) INVISIBLE TRACK — Very heavily charged areas
(Black or Invisible Field) exist.

Level (5) DUB-IN — Some areas of Track so
heavily charged pc is
below consciousness
in them.

Level (6) DUB-IN OF DUB-IN — Many areas of Track
so heavily charged, the
Dub-in is submerged.

Level (7) ONLY AWARE OF OWN — Track too heavily charged
EVALUATIONS to be viewed at all.

Level (8) UNAWARE — Pc dull, often in a coma.

On this new scale the very good, easy to run cases are at Level (3). Skilled engram running can handle down to Level (4). Engram running is useless from Level (4) down. Level (4) is questionable.

Level ( 1 ) is of course an OT. Level (2) is the clearest clear anybody ever heard of. Level (3) can run engrams. Level (4) can run early track engrams if the running is skilled. (Level (4) includes the Black V case.) Level (5) has to be run on general ARC processes. Level (6) has to be run carefully on special ARC processes with lots of havingness. Level (7) responds to the CCHs. Level (8) responds only to reach and withdraw CCHs.

Pre-Dianetic and Pre-Scientology mental studies were observations from Level (7) which considered Levels (5) and (6) and (8) the only states of case and oddly enough overlooked Level (7) entirely, all states of case were considered either neurotic or insane, with sanity either slightly glimpsed or decried.

In actuality on some portion of every Time Track in every case you will find each of the Levels except (l ) momentarily expressed. The above scale is devoted to chronic case level and is useful in Programming a case. But any case for brief moments or longer will hit these levels in being processed. This is the Temporary Case Level found only in sessions on chronically higher level cases when they go through a tough bit.

Thus engram running can be seen to be limited to higher level cases. Other processing, notably modern ARC processes, moves the case up to engram running.

Now what makes these levels of case?

It is entirely charge. The more heavily charged the case, the lower it falls on the above scale. It is charge that prevents the pc from confronting the Time Track and submerges the Time Track from view.

Charge is stored energy or stored or recreatable potentials of energy.

The E-Meter registers charge. A very high or low tone arm, a sticky or dirty needle, all are registrations of this charge. The “chronic meter of a case” is an index of chronic charge. The fluctuations of a meter during a session are registering relative charge in different portions of the pc’s Time Track.

More valuably the meter registers released charge. You can see it blowing on the meter. The disintegrating RR, the blowing down of the TA, the heavy falls, the loosening needle all show charge being released.

The meter registers charge found and then charge released. It registers charge found but not yet released by the needle getting tight, by DN, by a climbing TA or a TA going far below the clear read. Then as this cleans up, the charge is seen to “blow”.

Charge that is restimulated but not released causes the case to “charge up”, in that charge already on the Time Track is triggered but is not yet viewed by the pc. The whole cycle of restimulated charge that is then blown gives us the action of auditing. When prior charge is restimulated but not located so that it can be blown, we get “ARC Breaks”.

The State of Case, the Chronic Level, as given on the above scale, is the totality of charge on the case. Level (I) has no charge on it. Level (8) is total charge. The day to day condition of a case, its temper, reaction to things, brightness, depends upon two factors, (a) the totality of charge on the case and (b) the amount of charge in restimulation. Thus a case being processed varies in tone by (a) the totality of charge remaining on the case (b) the amount of charge in restimulation and (c) the amount of charge blown by processing.

Charge is held in place by the basic on a chain. When only later than basic incidents are run charge can be restimulated and then bottled up again with a very small amount blown. This is known as “grinding out” an incident. An engram is getting run, but as it is not basic on a chain, no adequate amount of charge is being released.

Later than basic incidents are run either (a) to uncover more basic (earlier) incidents or (b) to clean up the chain after basic has been found and erased.

No full erasure of incidents later than basic is possible, but charge can be removed from them providing they are not ground out but only run lightly a time or two and then an earlier incident on the chain found and similarly run. When the basic is found it is erased by many passes over it. Basic is the only one which can be run many times. The later the incident is (the further from basic) the more lightly it is run.

There is no difference in the technology required to run a basic or a later incident. It is only the number of times THROUGH that differs. Basic is run through many times. A somewhat later engram is run through a couple of times. An engram very late on the chain is gone through once. Otherwise all engrams whether basic or not are run exactly the same.

Engrams are run to release Charge from a case. Charge is not released to cure the body or to cure anything physical and the meter cures nothing. Charge is released entirely to return to a thetan his causation over the Time Track, to restore his power of choice, and to free him of his most intimate trap, his own Time Track. You cannot have decent, honest or capable beings as long as they are trapped and overwhelmed. While this philosophy may be contrary to the intentions of a slavemaster or a degrader it is nevertheless demonstrably true. The universe is not itself a trap capable only of degradation. But beings exist who, beaten and overwhelmed themselves, can utilize this universe to degrade others.

The mission of engram running is to free the charge which has accumulated in a being and so restore that being to appreciated life.

All cases, sooner or later, have to be run on engrams, no matter what else has to be done. For it is in engrams that the bulk of the charge on the Time Track lies. And it is therefore those parts of the Time Track called engrams which overwhelm the thetan. These contain pain and unconsciousness and are therefore the record of moments when a thetan was most at effect and least at cause. In these moments then the thetan is least able to confront or to be causative.

The engram also contains moments when it was necessary to have moved and most degrading to have held a position in space.

And the engram contains the heaviest ARC Break with a thetan’s environment and other beings.

And all these things add up to charge, an impulse to withdraw from that which can’t be withdrawn from or to approach that which can’t be approached, and this, like a two pole battery, generates current. This constantly generated current is chronic charge. The principal actions are:

(a) When the attention of the thetan is directed broadly in the direction of such a track record the current increases.

(b) When the attention is more closely (but not forcefully) and accurately directed, the current is discharged.

(c) When the basic on the chain is found and erased, that which composes the poles themselves is erased and later incidents eased, for no further generation is possible by that chain and it becomes incapable of producing further charge to be restimulated. The above are the actions which occur during auditing. If these actions do not occur despite auditing, then there is no case betterment, so it is the auditor’s responsibility to make sure they do occur.

As the Time Track is created by an involuntary response of the thetan, it is and exists as a real thing, composed of space, matter, energy, time and significance. On a Level (8) Case the Time Track is completely submerged by charge even down to a total unawareness of thought itself. At Level (7) awareness of the track is confined by extant charge to opinions about it. At Level (6) charge on the track is such that pictures of pictures of the track are gratuitously furnished, causing delusive copies of inaccurate copies of the track. At Level (5) charge is sufficient to cause only inaccurate copies of the track to be viewable. At Level (4) charge is sufficient to obscure the track. At Level (3) charge is sufficient to wipe out portions of the track. At Level (2) there is only enough charge to maintain the existence of the track. At Level (1) there is no charge and no track to create it. All charge from Level (1) and up into higher states that is generated is knowingly generated by the thetan, whose ability to hold locations in space and poles apart results in charge as needful. This would degenerate again as he put such matters on automatic or began once more to make a Time Track, but these actions alone are not capable of aberrating a thetan until he encounters further violent degradation and entrapment in the form of implants. Aberration itself must be calculated to occur. The existence of a Time Track only makes it possible for it to occur and be retained. Thus a thetan’s first real mistake is to consider his own pictures and their recorded events important, and his second mistake is in not obliterating entrapment activities in such a way as not to become entrapped or aberrated in doing so, all of which can be done and should be.

Engram running is a step necessary to get at the more fundamental causes of a Time Track and handle them.

So it is a skill which must be done and done well.


LRH: dr jh L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

** 6306C11 SHSBC-272 Engram Chain Running

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 24 JUNE AD13
Central Orgs
Franchise

ROUTINE 3
ENGRAM RUNNING BY CHAINS
BULLETIN 3
ROUTINE 3-R
ENGRAM RUNNING BY CHAINS


Given a knowledge of the Composition and Behaviour of the Time Track, engram running by chains is so simple that any auditor begins by overcomplication. You almost can’t get uncomplicated enough in engram running.

In teaching people to run engrams in 1949, my chief despair was summed up in one sentence to the group I was instructing: “All auditors talk too much.” And that’s the first lesson.

The second lesson is: “All auditors acknowledge too little.” Instead of cheerily acking what the pc said and saying “continue”, auditors are always asking for more data, and usually for more data than the pc ever could give. Example: Pc: “I see a house here.” Auditor: “Okay. How big is it?”

That’s not engram running, that’s just a lousy Q and A.

The proper action is: Pc: “I see a house here.” Auditor: “Okay. Continue.”

The exceptions to this rule are non-existent. This isn’t a special brand of engram running. It is modern engram running. It was the first engram running and is the last and you can put aside any complications in between.

The auditor is permitted ONE question per each new point of track and that is ALL. Example: Auditor: “Move to the beginning of the 88 plus trillion year incident. (Waits a moment.) What do you see?” Pc: “It’s all murky.” Auditor: “Good. Move through the incident.”

Wrong Example: Auditor: “Move to the beginning of the 88 plus trillion year incident. (Waits a moment.) What do you see?” Pc: “It’s all murky.” Auditor: “Can you see anything in the murk?” FLUNK! FLUNK! FLUNK!

The rule is ACKNOWLEDGE WHAT THE PC SAYS AND TELL HIM TO CONTINUE.

Then there’s the matter of being doubtful of control. Wrong Example: Auditor: “Move to yesterday. Are you there? How do you know it’s yesterday? What do you see that makes you think ....” FLUNK FLUNK FLUNK.

Right Example: Auditor: “Move to yesterday. (Waits a moment.) What do you see? .....Good.”

Another error is a failure to take the pc’s data. You take the pc’s data. Never take his orders.

Right Example: Auditor (meter dating): “Is it greater than eighteen trillion, less than eighteen trillion (gets contradictory reads or a DN). (Off meter.) Are you thinking of something?” Pc: “It’s less than 18 trillion.” Auditor: “Thank you. (On meter.) Is it greater than seventeen trillion five hundred billion. Less than ....” Pc: “It’s seventeen trillion, nine hundred and eight billion, four hundred and six million, ninety-five thousand, seven hundred and six years ago.” Auditor (having alertly written it all down): “Thank you.” (Ends dating.)

Wrong Example: Auditor: “Is it greater than eighteen trillion, less than eighteen tr....” Pc: “It’s less than eighteen trillion.” Auditor: “OK. Is it greater than eighteen trillion, less than eighteen ....” FLUNK FLUNK FLUNK.

In dating, the pc’s contrary data unspoken and untaken can give you a completely wrong date. Your data comes from the pc and the meter always for anything. And if the pc’s data is invalidated you won’t get a meter’s data. If the pc says he has a PTP and the meter says he doesn’t, you take the pc’s data that he does. In dating, an argument with the pc can group the track.

So take the pc’s data. And if the pc is a dub-in, you should be running the ARC processes not engrams anyway as the case is over-charged for engrams. If the pc isn’t a dubin then the pc’s data is quite reliable.

Also, minimize a pc’s dependency on a meter. Don’t keep confirming a pc’s data by meter read with, “That reads. Yes, that’s there. Yes, there’s a rocket read ....” Just let the pc find his own reality in running an engram. “All auditors talk too much.” You can date on a meter but only so long as the pc doesn’t cognite on the date. You can help a pc identify or choose an area of track but only if he specifically asks you to. Example: Pc: “I’ve got two pictures here. Can you find out which one is the earlier? One is of a freight engine, the other is a whole train.” Auditor: (on meter) “Is the freight engine earlier than the whole train? Is the whole train earlier than the freight engine? (To pc) The whole train reads as earlier.”

Now, however, if the pc has two facsimiles, your problem is only that you’ve missed something.

RULE: WHENEVER CHARGE IS MISSED THE TIME TRACK TENDS TO GROUP.

This does not mean the Auditor has to do something about it unless the pc gets confused and asks for help, at which time the only action is to spot on the meter what charge has been missed and tell the pc.

ARC BREAKS

All Routine 3 ARC Breaks, including R3-N and R3-R, are handled the same way, an exact way. There is no deviation from this.

If the pc becomes critical of anything outside the engram (room, auditor, Scientology, the technology) it is an ARC Break. ARC Breaks are of greater and lesser magnitude ranging throughout the misemotional band of the tone scale.

The handling of ARC Breaks always follows this rule:

ARC BREAK RULE l: IF THE PC ARC BREAKS, ISSUE NO FURTHER AUDITING COMMANDS UNTIL BOTH PC AND AUDITOR ARE SATISFIED THAT THE CAUSE OF THE ARC BREAK HAS BEEN LOCATED AND INDICATED.

Do not issue more orders, do not run a process, do not offer to run a process, do not sit idly letting the pc ARC Break. Follow this rule.

ARC BREAK RULE 2: WHEN A PC ARC BREAKS OR CAN’T GO ON FOR ANY REASON, DO AN R3-R ARC BREAK ASSESSMENT AND LOCATE AND INDICATE TO THE PC THE BY-PASSED CHARGE.

The only harm that can be done in R3-R (or R3-N) is issuing further orders to the pc or trying to run something before the by-passed charge has been located and indicated.

Given this handling of ARC Breaks and an exact adherence to the rote of R3-R, all former problems of engram running vanish!

EARLY ENGRAM RUNNING

No auditor who knew earlier than June 1963 engram running should consider he or she knows how to run engrams.

Routine 3-R is itself. It has no dependence on earlier methods of running engrams. Failure to study and learn R3-R “because one knows about engram running” will cause a lot of case failure.

Early engram running was often attempted on cases below Case Level 4. The technology, further, was too varied. Too much was demanded of the pc. Too little effort was put into finding the basic on a chain. Too many forcing techniques were used. Too often the auditor ran just any engram he could get. These and other faults prevented engrams from being run.

R3-R is a rote procedure. That is a victory in itself. But it is a better procedure.

If you know old-time engram running, there is no attempt here to invalidate you or that knowledge or make you wrong in any way. Those are all ways to run engrams and gave you a better grasp on it. I only wish to call to your attention that R3-R is not old-time engram running but is a Scientology Routine designed to achieve the state of OT and is not designed for any other use than freeing the spirit of man.

Therefore, study and use R3-R and don’t mix it with any earlier data on engram running. Anything you know about engram running will help you understand R3-R. But it won’t help your pc if mixed in with R3-R. I couldn’t put this too strongly. You’ll trace any failure in the auditor with R3-R to:

1. Inability to execute the auditing cycle;

2. Inability to run a session;

3. Failure to study and understand the Time Track;

4. Failure to follow R3-R exactly without deviation;

5. Failure to handle ARC Breaks as above;

6. Using R3-R on lower level cases not prepared by pre-engram running processes.
ROUTINE 3-R

Engram Running by Chains is designated “Routine 3-R” to fit in with other modern processes.

It is a triumph of simplicity. It does not demand visio, sonic or other perception at once by the pc. It develops them.

The ordinary programming of the lowest level case would be Reach and Withdraw Processes, CCHs, Repetitive Processes, R3-R, R3-N, R3-R.

Routine 3-R is the process that leads to Case Level 2. Only some additional exercises are needed, then, to attain the next level, OT.

So R3-R is the fundamental bridge step to OT. And we’re going only for OT now for various reasons including political. We have by-passed clear which remains only as a courtesy title denoting one or more GPMs run.

Many cases, even the Black V, can begin at once on R3-R.

R3-R BY STEPS

R3-R is run in the 3N model session.

PRELIMINARY STEP.

Establish the type of chain the pc is to run by assessment.

STEP ONE.

Locate the first incident by dating.


STEP TWO:

Move pc to the incident with the exact command, “Move to (date).”

STEP THREE:

Establish duration (length of time) of incident.
(An incident may be anything from a split second long to 15 trillion trillion years or more long.)

STEP FOUR:

Move pc to beginning of incident with the exact command, “Move to the beginning of the incident at (date).” Wait until meter flicks.

STEP FIVE.

Ask pc what he or she is looking at with the exact command, “What do you see?” (If pc’s eyes are open, tell pc first, “Close your eyes.”)

Acknowledge whatever pc says.

Do not ask a second question, ever.

STEP SIX:

Send the pc through the incident with the exact command, “Move through the incident to a point (duration—) later.”

STEP SEVEN:

Ask nothing, say nothing, do nothing (except observe meter or make quiet notes) while pc is going through the incident. If the pc says anything at all, just acknowledge and let him continue, using this exact command softly, “Okay, Continue. “

Do not coax, distract, or question pc during this period.

Exception: only if the pc ARC Breaks, take action and then only do the R3-R ARC Break Assessment.

If the pc gets stuck, bounces, gets into another incident or if the somatic strip sticks or refuses to obey the auditor, only do an ARC Break Assessment. Do not force the pc onward by any command or question.

STEP EIGHT:

When the pc reaches the end of the incident (usually pc moves or looks up) say only, “What happened?”

Take whatever pc says, acknowledge only as needful. Say nothing else, ask nothing else. When pc has told little or much and has finished talking, give a final acknowledgement.

STEP NINE:

Repeat exactly and only Steps Two to Eight.

Continue to do so until pc either

(a) Spots an earlier incident or

(b) Gets no change on a run through the incident from the run just before.

In event of either (a) or (b) do Steps One to Eight exactly and only on the new incident.


STEP TEN:

At the end of any session of R3-R leave the pc where he is on the time track. Do not attempt to bring the pc to present time or take the pc to a rest point, as these actions may very well by-pass charge. End any R3-R session with very careful goals, gains (as the pc is usually rather anaten) and any needed havingness, but keep the havingness very brief, only enough to restore can squeeze. Do not end a session on a boil-off or ARC Break.

STEP ELEVEN:

At the beginning of any new R3-R session, if you finished the last engram you were working on, begin precisely and anew with Step One. If you are still working on an engram already found, begin precisely with Step Four and carry on.

STEP TWELVE:

If the pc gets into trouble in the session do not use Mid Ruds or ask for missed withholds. Mid Ruds will mush an engram. Missed withholds, unless found as part of the ARC Break Assessment, may move the pc violently about through recently found engrams.

Do only the ARC Break Assessment, and locate and indicate charge accordingly if the session goes wrong.

(Since the last time I audited you Mid Ruds and missed withholds are permissible at session start before any R3-R action is taken in that session.)

STEP THIRTEEN:

When encountering a goals engram such as the Helatrobus Implants lay aside R3-R and use R3-N.

When encountering a goals engram prior to the Helatrobus Implants or subsequent to them use R3-M2 but only when such an engram has RIs.

STEP FOURTEEN.

When Basic on any chain is found flatten it fully and permit it to be stripped of any lock engrams or earlier incidents that appear. (In finding basics remember that the Time Track by my most recent measurements considerably exceeds a trillion, trillion, trillion years.

Basics may occur as early as they occur but seldom nearer PT than 200 trillion years ago, and quite ordinarily at 15 trillion, trillion years ago.)

END OF STEPS

There is no variation of these steps for any reason. This is the most exact procedure known. And there you have it, rote engram running, superior to any engram running ever done and giving superior and faster results.

Future HCO Bulletins will expand the reasons for these steps, give exact methods of dating, give the ARC Break Assessment for R3-R, the assessment for types of chains,
and the administration.


LRH :jw.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


** 6306C12 SHSBC-273 ARC Straightwire
** 6306C13 SHSBC-274 Levels of Case
** 6306C18 SHSBC-275 Beingness
** 6306C19 SHSBC-276 Summary of Modern Auditing

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 25 JUNE AD 13
Central Orgs
Franchise


ROUTINE 2H
ARC BREAKS BY ASSESSMENT


This is not just a training process. It is a very valuable unlimited process that undercuts Repetitive Processes and produces tone arm action on cases that have none on repetitive processes.

R2H, however, is a training must before an auditor is permitted to run engrams. It does not have to be run on a pc before engrams are run. Only when an auditor can produce results with R2H should he or she run engrams on any pc. For R2H combines the most difficult steps of engram running, dating, assessing, locating and indicating by-passed charge. If an auditor can date skillfully and quickly handle ARC Breaks (and handle the Time Track) he or she is a safe auditor on R3R. If not, that auditor will not produce results with R3R or make any OTs.

In Academies and the SHSBC, R2H is placed after skill is attained in Model Session and repetitive processes. In auditing programming R2H comes immediately after Reach and Withdraw and the CCHs.

For sweetening a pc’s temper and life, R2H has had no equal for cases above but not including level 8.

ARC stands for the Affinity—Reality—Communication triangle from which comes the Tone Scale and is best covered by the booklet “Notes on Lectures”.

By-passed charge is covered very fully in recent HCOBs on ARC Breaks.


R2H BY STEPS

The auditing actions of Routine 2H are complex and must be done with great precision.

The actions are done in Routine 3 Model Session. Mid Ruds and Missed Withholds may be used.

STEP ONE:

Tell the pc, “Recall an ARC Break.”

When pc has done so acknowledge that the pc has done so. Do not ask the pc what it is. If pc says what it is, simply acknowledge. It is no business of R2H to know what the ARC Break consists of!

STEP TWO:

Date the ARC Break on the meter. If the pc volunteers the date do not verify it on the meter further. Accept it at once and write it down. The date is more important than the content of the ARC Break.

STEP THREE:

Assess the ARC Break for by-passed charge, using the attached list.
Find the greatest read.

The assessment is seldom gone over more than once as a whole and those that read are then read again until one remains.

This is a rapid action on the meter. Look only for tiny ticks or falls or a small left to right slash of the needle. Do not expect large reactions. The Mark V meter is indispensable.

STEP FOUR:

Indicate to the pc what charge was missed in that ARC Break he or she has recalled .

The pc must be satisfied that that was the charge missed.

The pc may try to recall what it was that was indicated. This is not a vital part of the drill but THE PC MUST BE SATISFIED THAT THE LOCATED BY-PASSED CHARGE WAS THE SOURCE OF THE ARC BREAK.

There is a danger here of a great deal of auditor ad-libbing and tanglefoot. If the pc is not satisfied and happier about it, the wrong by-passed charge has been found and Step Three must be re-done.

It is no part of this process to run an engram or secondary thus located.

THE ASSESSMENT FORM

This is a sample form. It may be necessary to add to it. Some lines of it may eventually be omitted. However, this form does work. The auditor may add a few lines to it.

In asking the questions preface the whole assessment with, “In the ARC Break you recalled_____.” Do not preface each question so unless pc goes adrift.

A dirty needle means pc has started to speculate. Ask, “Have you thought of anything?” and clean needle.


Had an engram been missed? Had a withhold been missed’? Had some emotion been rejected’? Had some affection been rejected? Had a reality been rejected? Had a communication been ignored? Had a similar incident occurred before? Had a goal been disappointed? Had some help been rejected? Was an engram restimulated? Had an overt been committed? Had an overt been contemplated? Had an overt been prevented? Was there a secret?

Routine 2H is a skilled operation. Practice gives the auditor a knack of doing it rapidly.

An ARC Break should be disposed of about every fifteen minutes of auditing
time. Longer shows ineptitude.


LRH:dr.cden L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


** 6306C20 SHSBC-277 History of Psychotherapy
** 6306C25 SHSBC-278 Routine 2H
** 6306C26 SHSBC-279 TVD-22, Listing Assessment for Engram Running, 1
** 6306C27 SHSBC-280 TVD-23, Listing Assessment for Engram Running, 2

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 1 JULY AD 13
Central Orgs
Franchise

ROUTINE 3R
BULLETIN 4
PRELIMINARY STEP


The R3R Preliminary Step is done to assure that the correct incident chain is run on the pc for that pc.

Many chains, locks, secondaries and engrams, are available on any pc. But some of them are beyond the pc's reality and ability and some of them are too featherweight to get any case gain.

The basic problem in starting a case on R3R is to run the pc on a chain that will (a) improve the case, (b) hold the pc's interest, (c) be within the pc's current ability to handle.

The establishing of the correct chain was a missing element in all earlier engram running. Almost any pc from Level 7 upwards could have run engrams if the exact chain necessary to resolve the case could have been established. This is accomplished now by an accurate assessment using a sensitive E-Meter and the following form and procedure.

It does not matter if the pc begins on a chain of locks, secondaries or engrams so long as running it does (a), (b) and (c) above. You do not have to specify in R3R whether you are running engrams, secondaries or locks. The word "Incident" covers all.

Also, it does not matter if the pc stays within this lifetime or goes whole track so long as the assessed chain is followed and a basic eventually discovered for it. The chain leads where the chain leads.

But once having found the proper chain the auditor must follow that chain, not skip about. To do this, the auditor, when asking for an earlier incident in later R3R steps always specifies the proper chain found in this assessment by the Level + Item result of this Preliminary Step Assessment. For example, if the chain found here in the Preliminary Step is "Decisions to die" (Level found = Decided + Item Found = To die), one obtains earlier incidents by always saying, "Is the next earlier decision to die more than .......years ago? Less than .......years ago?"

Thus the result obtained in the Preliminary Step is used on and on until an actual basic is reached. This may be fifty or more engrams run and perhaps even some R3N in the middle of the chain if the chain leads into a GPM by normal rote use of R3R.

When a basic is reached and discharged and the chain being run now gives little or no TA action (or even free needle), a new Preliminary Step is done. But until that happens, this Preliminary Step is not repeated with the other steps. Once it has happened (a basic found and run), however, a new Preliminary Step is done exactly as given here for the first chain assessment.

You find the chain.

You run engram after engram on that chain (or lock after lock or secondary after secondary) .

You find a basic.

You run the basic thoroughly.

With TA action now gone on the chain found you do a new Preliminary Step.

RULE: TA ACTION EXISTS ON THE CORRECT CHAIN.

RULE: A CHAIN ONCE ASSESSED MUST BE FULLY RUN.

RULE: TA ACTION CEASES ON A DISCHARGED CHAIN.

RULE: A NEW ASSESSMENT IS DONE ONLY WHEN A CHAIN IS DISCHARGED.

RULE: ANY PROPERLY ASSESSED CHAIN WILL PRODUCE TA ACTION.

RULE: IF A CHAIN ASSESSED DOES NOT PRODUCE IMMEDIATE TA ACTION WITH SKILLED R3R THE ASSESSMENT (OR THE RESULTING QUESTION FORMED) IS INCORRECT.

The exact procedure of assessment is:

1. Assess pc by elimination as below for a R3R Form Level.

2. List the Form Level found to a completed List.

3. Nul the completed list to a single subject.

4. Use the Form Level plus subject to designate the character of the incident to be found every time an incident is looked for.

All rules of listing as developed in R2-12 apply to this Preliminary Step. They are not repeated here.

One is not looking for RRs or RSes in the Preliminary Step Assessment. Any type of read is valid.

ARC BREAKS

When doing this step of R3R use the ARC Break Assessment for Listing Form, not the R3R ARC Break Assessment Form. The main sources of ARC Breaks in the Preliminary Step are:

1. Wrong level assessed.
2. The listed list incomplete.
3. The wrong Item taken from the list.
4. A former chain or engram abandoned to do a new assessment.
5. Earlier levels restimulated (old Pre-Hav auditing).
6. Earlier listing restimulated.

Such forms will be published from time to time as they tend to change and improve.

EARLIER ASSESSMENTS DONE

The very earliest assessment (1948) used was “What the pc could see” when he closed his or her eyes. This was then run.

This was followed by an arbitrary method of assigning necessary incidents to be run such as birth and prenatals.
The next earliest assessment ( 1949) was to ask each time for “the incident necessary to resolve the case”. An automaticity known as the “File Clerk” was depended upon, impinged into action by finger snapping.

The next period ( 1951) concerned whole track exploration running whatever you could get to read on a meter.

The next period (1952) concerned overt engrams located by what the pc seemed to be doing physically.

This ended the Dianetic period where engrams were run to clear but mainly to cure psychosomatic illnesses.

Variations of these assessments were revived from time to time in Dianetic uses culminating in the 5th London ACC where overt engrams were run with confront and er and shrewd guesses pla getting the postulates out of them. The meter and shrewd guesses played their part in assessments.

Up to this time there was a great dependence on “insight” and judgment. We were barred to some degree by my own ability to see other people’s pictures which made engram running very easy for me to do, along with my general knowledge of the whole track and the mind. This led me to be very hard to convince that engram assessment was a subject at all or that most auditors couldn’t do it.

With the advent of Scientology with its complete shift from Dianetic goals, healing went out as a reason for running engrams and concern about the body vanished as an auditing target. This led to stresses on exteriorization of the spirit, moving it away from the body. As the reactive bank was thought to be part of the body, its engrams received no further attention.

Eventually I discovered that the thetan had engrams and that these were being automatically (involuntarily) created by him.

Engram running has vanished as a healing process. Engram handling by chains has emerged as an entirely reoriented subject, not even vaguely connected with the body and with the target not of a human clear but of Operating Thetan.

The assessment for engram chains (or any kind of chain) emerges finally in Routine 3R. This assessment technology from beginning to end is Scientology. None of it was ever heard of in Dianetics. Therefore we have crossed a bridge. I have finally understood that precise assessment is vital for an auditor and that an auditor can learn the exact chain to be run on the pc without any intuition or second sight and that even my own auditing is bettered thereby, and that the thetan cannot be freed and re-empowered without an assessment and rote technology for engram running. This is R3R.

The earliest R3R assessment for chains was done by pc interest and the button Protested. The pc was merely asked, “In this Lifetime what have you protested?” and with no listing, whatever the pc said and seemed interested in was taken.

This however did not often produce adequate TA action when the chain was then run.

The next improvement was using the 18 Prepcheck buttons. This drew a blank on some pcs, no level reacting.

Accordingly, I then developed a new Pre-Hav Scale, based mainly on flows. It is Protest that is basically responsible for making a mental image picture. However, very few cases are up to this level. In order to bring more levels of case under engram running and to get more TA action for any case, I developed this Preliminary Step Scale.

The present scale takes some account of (1) The old Pre-Hav Scale, (2) The Know-to-Mystery Scale, (3) The Chart of Attitudes, (4) The 18 Buttons and (5) The Flows Scale, as well as some old well-known buttons.

Several possible levels (such as Create) have been left out because they would go at once into the GPM or Implant Goals. It may not be important that they do. Indeed, with experience we may even come to guide the pc at them. But for the moment they are left out.

There would be nothing wrong in borrowing further from these sources to draw up a longer Preliminary Step Scale, but I think this should cover most pcs.

The three most important visible factors in R3R are:

(a) Pc’s interest.
(b) Tone Arm Action.
(c) The ability of the pc to run the incidents.

If the auditor can see these he knows his Preliminary Assessment was right.

Interest does not mean happiness and joy. Interest is only absorbed attention and a desire to talk about it. Tears, terror or agony may be present without the Interest factor being absent. A chain of engrams is expected to produce pain and anaten. A chain of secondaries is expected to produce misemotion. These have nothing in them to head an auditor off a chain.

Equally, significance and story content have no bearing on the rightness or wrongness of a chain selected. They are entirely incidental to judging the correctness of a chain.

All the auditor is interested in is whether (a) the pc is interested; (b) the TA action is good and (c) can the pc run the incidents on the chain with correct and exact R3 R.

That careless auditing and bad R3R can influence (c), leaves us with only two exact criteria for a correct assessment:

(a) Pc’s Interest and

(b) TA Action while running incidents.

Only these two things tell us the assessment was right. The assessment can be right and unskilled R3R can wreck both in the later steps, a fact which has to be taken into account in reviewing cases in progress.


R3R ASSESSMENT

This is the Assessment for R3R Preliminary Step.

In this form will be recognized the old Pre-Hav Scales and others, but improved for the purpose of engram chain assessment.

This assessment must be done accurately. It is hard to do if the pc doesn’t understand a level during assessment, is startled by one or disagrees. These will make the assessment inaccurate. If the assessment is inaccurately done, the pc will ARC Break or the resulting engram chain will not give TA action when being run.

The final level assessed will probably give TA action at once when found if right.

The key sentence in assessing is “In this lifetime have you mainly .......(level).” This is repeated for each level called. Levels are called once, as in ordinary elimination. Those that stayed in are reassessed the same way. The one form can be used for many additional assessments on the same pc as chains are run out.

The use of this form brings R3R down to Case Level 7 in workability. A chain of engrams being run must give TA action. If none is present in running engrams and the TA stays high or low the assessment was wrong.

The level found here is used to make and complete a list with the question, “In this lifetime what have you .....(level found)?” “In this lifetime” is used not because we only want chains in this lifetime but to keep pc from going all over the track during the preliminary assessment, this making it too long. The chain you want comes into this lifetime. All rules of listing apply as in R2-12A in doing this list.

In event of an ARC Break while doing the Preliminary Step, use the ARC Break Assessment for Listing.

If needle dirties up in assessing this form, give form to pc and ask “What happened?” and if that fails, get in BMRs “On this Assessment”.


SUPPRESSED WITHHELD
FAILED TO SUPPRESS FAILED TO WITHHOLD
NOT SUPPRESSED NOT WITHHELD

INVALIDATED PROTESTED
FAILED TO INVALIDATE FAILED TO PROTEST
NOT INVALIDATED NOT PROTESTED

BEEN CAREFUL WITHDRAWN
FAILED TO BE CAREFUL FAILED TO WITHDRAW
NOT BEEN CAREFUL NOT WITHDRAWN

SUGGESTED CONVINCED
FAILED TO SUGGEST FAILED TO CONVINCE
NOT SUGGESTED NOT CONVINCED

PROVEN AGREED
FAILED TO PROVE FAILED TO AGREE
NOT PROVEN NOT AGREED

HIDDEN DISAGREED
FAILED TO HIDE FAILED TO DISAGREE
NOT HIDDEN NOT DISAGREED

REVEALED IGNORED
FAILED TO REVEAL FAILED TO IGNORE
NOT REVEALED NOT IGNORED

MADE MISTAKES DECIDED
FAILED TO MISTAKE FAILED TO DECIDE
NOT MADE MISTAKES NOT DECIDED

ASSERTED PROPITIATED
FAILED TO ASSERT FAILED TO PROPITIATE
NOT ASSERTED NOT PROPITIATED

CHANGED HELD OFF
FAILED TO CHANGE FAILED TO HOLD OFF
NOT CHANGED NOT HELD OFF

DAMAGED PULLED IN
FAILED TO DAMAGE FAILED TO PULL IN
NOT DAMAGED NOT PULLED IN

REMAINED HELPED
FAILED TO REMAIN FAILED TO HELP
NOT REMAINED NOT HELPED

PREVENTED KNOWN
FAILED TO PREVENT FAILED TO KNOW
NOT PREVENTED NOT KNOWN

PRESSED ON CAUSED
FAILED TO PRESS ON FAILED TO CAUSE
NOT PRESSED ON NOT CAUSED

BEEN RIGHT BELIEVED
FAILED TO BE RIGHT FAILED TO BELIEVE
NOT BEEN RIGHT NOT BELIEVED

BEEN WRONG CURED
FAILED TO BE WRONG FAILED TO CURE
NOT BEEN WRONG NOT CURED

WON LIKED
FAILED TO WIN FAILED TO LIKE
NOT WON NOT LIKED

LOST AVOIDED
FAILED TO LOSE FAILED TO AVOID
NOT LOST NOT AVOIDED

BLOCKED BEEN BORED
FAILED TO BLOCK NOT BEEN BORED
NOT BLOCKED
BEEN ANTAGONISTIC
RETREATED NOT BEEN ANTAGONISTIC
FAILED TO RETREAT
NOT RETREATED ENDURED
FAILED TO ENDURE
REACHED NOT ENDURED
FAILED TO REACH
NOT REACHED ABANDONED

ATTACKED FAILED TO ABANDON
FAILED TO ATTACK NOT ABANDONED
NOT ATTACKED
GIVEN UP
STOPPED FAILED TO GIVE UP
FAILED TO STOP NOT GIVEN UP
NOT STOPPED
BEEN SANE
CONFRONTED FAILED TO BE SANE
FAILED TO CONFRONT NOT BEEN SANE
NOT CONFRONTED
BEEN CURIOUS
COMMUNICATED FAILED TO BE CURIOUS
FAILED TO COMMUNICATE NOT BEEN CURIOUS
NOT COMMUNICATED
DESIRED
BEEN PRIDEFUL FAILED TO DESIRE
FAILED TO BE PROUD NOT DESIRED
NOT BEEN PRIDEFUL
ENFORCED
SYMPATHIZED FAILED TO ENFORCE
FAILED TO SYMPATHIZE NOT ENFORCED
NOT SYMPATHIZED
INHIBITED
RECOVERED FAILED TO INHIBIT
FAILED TO RECOVER NOT INHIBITED
NOT RECOVERED

HAD BEEN ANGRY
FAILED TO HAVE FAILED TO BE ANGRY
NOT HAD RESENTED

LOOKED FAILED TO RESENT
FAILED TO LOOK NOT RESENTED
NOT LOOKED FEARED

BEEN SERENE FAILED TO FEAR
FAILED TO BE SERENE NOT FEARED

BEEN ENTHUSIASTIC BEEN IN GRIEF
FAILED TO BE ENTHUSIASTIC FAILED TO CRY

BEEN CONSERVATIVE BEEN APATHETIC
FAILED TO BE CONSERVATIVE FAILED TO BE APATHETIC

INFLOWED THOUGHT
FAILED TO INFLOW FAILED TO THINK
STOPPED INFLOW NOT THOUGHT
OUTFLOWED EVALUATED
FAILED TO OUTFLOW FAILED TO EVALUATE
STOPPED OUTFLOW NOT EVALUATED

HAD OPINIONS ABOUT
FAILED TO HAVE OPINIONS ABOUT
NOT HAD OPINIONS ABOUT


In nulling this scale the pc may suddenly break down emotionally or get an overpowering reaction. (Not just a twinge or an interest in a level, since the pc will not know the real level until it is found.) If so, STOP, don’t go on. Go back to above the point where pc was all right and then carefully null back down to where you stopped. Go over this area getting in suppress and invalidate if needful and you’ll have the pc’s level found. You may lead into ARC Breaks if you persist in going on as you have by-passed charge. But the pc’s reaction must be large for you to use this mechanism. Beware of a “sell” by the pc. A pc doesn’t know the level until it is actually found. Some pcs will decide on a level and it will then read. In such a case get in Protested and Decided with “On this scale have you ......” by fast check. Don’t let your pc mess up an assessment by a “sell” or decision. But don’t keep on down a long assessment of this scale with the pc shattered by pain or emotion as the pc will suppress the right level.

When you have found the pc’s level on the above scale by elimination, then list the following question, using that level found: “In this lifetime what have you ...... (level found)?”

List the list to a clean needle so that it nuls very easily, leaving a very few in on the first nulling, only two or three in on the second nulling of what has been left in. Put mid ruds in on these if necessary. Nul out to the final Item.

Combine the Level found and the Item found. This is a very simple step. The wording may have to be altered in tense but not in sense. “Decided” may become “Decision”. “Failed to think” may become “Failure to think”. In the Item found some shift of the pc’s wording may be needful. But be very careful that you get a combination of Level and Item that makes sense to the pc and reads on the meter without protest reading too. These reads are often not very large and at best assume steep falls with TA action. So be careful to add up the Level and the Item found to a sensible statement that does not alter the sense. For instance you can err greatly if the Level was “Fear” and the Item was “Entrapment” if you vary it to “Fear of Traps”. That won’t give you the same chain at all. The correct one is “Fear of Entrapment” of course.

You can have a correct Level, a correct Item and then fail to combine the two sensibly. If so you will get (a) A confused pc and (b) A wrong chain. Either way you’ll get little TA action and no R3R done.

The Level “Failed to Convince” and the Item “Father” had better be left just that way. It gives a short chain, this lifetime, soon done. By changing the Item “Father” to “Fathers” you would go whole track but the significance is wildly altered and might not run at all. The less alteration the better. And never alter the sense of it.

Use the question: “Is the first available (Level) (Item) incident earlier than five years ago? Later than five years ago?” And using times to suit, go on with Step One of R3R.

(Note: The above scale is in random order of arrangement at this time and positions of levels on the scale have no significance.)


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :dr.rd
Copyright © 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 5 JULY AD13
Franchise
Academies ALL ROUTINES
CenOCon
BPI (HCO Secs: Check out all ARC Break
Assessment HCO Bulletins on all
executives including registrars and on
all staff auditors and Instructors)


ARC BREAK ASSESSMENTS


These lists are valuable. Intelligently used they put an auditor or Scientology staff or executive at cause over all session ARC Breaks and Scientology upsets.

The following Assessments are for use in finding by-passed charge in various auditing activities.

The source of all ARC Breaks is by-passed charge. There is no other source of ARC Breaks. The type of charge that can be by-passed varies from one auditing activity to another (R3R, 3N, etc). Therefore different lists for assessment are necessary for different Routines in auditing. Another list for general auditing is also necessary.

Everything that has been written about by-passed charge is valid. All by-passed charge is in some degree a missed withhold, missed by both auditor and pc.

Having these lists for assessment, there is no excuse for an ARC Break to long continue in a session or for anyone to remain ARC Broken with Scientology.

The following assessments find what kind of charge has been missed. It is then up to the auditor to locate it more precisely as to character and time and indicate it to the pc. The pc will feel better the moment the right type of by-passed charge is identified by assessment and indicated by the auditor. If the pc does not feel better but further ARC Breaks then the assessment is either incomplete or incorrect.

Many complicated ways exist for a charge to be by-passed. There is no reason to go into these. You will find it is always by-passed charge and that it could have been located and indicated in any ARC Break.

R2H is the training process for use of these lists. In R2H devoted to “In auditing” or when an ARC Break is found in a past auditing session during an R2H session the type of list that applied to that session is used.

There are four ways of using these lists. The first is to assess by elimination and come up with one list line still reading on the meter and indicate it as the charge to the pc. The second is to go down a list taking each one that reads and clearing it up with the pc, finishing the whole list and then finally indicate what read the most. The third way is like the second except that the pc is required to help find what made the type of charge read and actually identify it as a particular thing. The fourth way is to assess only for biggest read or one line and have the pc help spot it.

The third way is the one most commonly used at the end of a session where it is just cleaning up the session, and each question is completely cleaned on the needle in turn. The first way is most used on violent ARC Breaks. The second or the fourth ways are used in R2H.

Assessment often has to be done through a dirty needle. No effort is made to clean it up before assessment. And just because the needle is dirty is no reason to call them all “in”. Learn to read through a DN for both ARC Break Assessments and dating. It is rather easy to do with a Mark V meter as the characteristic of the DN shifts when one is “in”.

No effort has been made here to convert the words to non-Scientology language, as the sense would be lost to a Scientologist.

These lists are all bare-bone and contain only the usual types of by-passed charge. They may be added to as experience with them increases. They become too unwieldy when they are too long. The only way you can get confused as to how to locate and indicate charge is by finding the wrong charge.


GENERAL ARC BREAK ASSESSMENT

Used in general sessions of all kinds where an ARC Break has occurred, or at session end in all routines and for R2H.

The prefix sentence “In this session has???” is used when cleaning up a session at its end or during the session. “At that time had???” is used for R2H. The actual date may be occasionally substituted for “time” to keep the pc oriented but only if necessary.


LIST L—1

a withhold been missed?
some emotion been rejected?
some affinity been rejected?
a reality been refused?
a communication been cut short?
a communication been ignored?
an earlier rejection of emotion been restimulated?
an earlier rejection of affinity been restimulated?
an earlier refusal of reality been restimulated?
an earlier ignored communication been restimulated’?
a wrong reason for an upset been given?
a similar incident occurred before’?
something been done other than what was said?
a goal been disappointed?
some help been rejected?
a decision been made?
an engram been restimulated?
an earlier incident been restimulated?
there been a sudden shift of attention?
something startled you? a perception been prevented?
a willingness not been acknowledged?
there been no auditing?

(Note: If “overt” is added to this list or any BMR buttons, the scale cannot be used in an R3R or 3N session as these “mush” up engrams.)

(Note: If this list is used do not also use any other end rudiments except goals, gains and pc’s havingness.)


ASSESSMENT SESSIONS
LISTING SESSIONS
PRELIMINARY STEP R3R
THE ARC BREAK FOR ASSESSMENTS LIST

When doing any listing step or type of auditing use the following list for ARC Break Assessment in event of an ARC Break in the session or at session end.

The prefix “In this session has ...” is used for a listing session, and “In that session had . . .” if a listing session ARC Break is recalled by the pc doing R2H.


LIST L—2

an incorrect level been found?
an incorrect item been found?
a list not been completed?
a level abandoned? an item abandoned?
you not given items you thought of?
a goal been restimulated?
an implant been restimulated?
an engram been restimulated?
a withhold been missed?
earlier listing been restimulated?
earlier wrong levels been restimulated?
earlier wrong items been restimulated?
earlier listing ARC Breaks been restimulated?


ROUTINE R3R
ENGRAM RUNNING BY CHAINS

In all engram running sessions, and those combined with 3N in that session, use the following list.

Prefix each question with “In this session have . . .” in event of an ARC Break or at session end. For R2H where an ARC Break is discovered in an earlier engram running session (clear back to 1950), prefix with “In that session had the auditor . . .” and omit “I” and “we”.


LIST L—3

I found an incorrect date?
I found an incorrect duration?
I demanded more than you could see?
two or more engrams been found on the same date?
you skidded to another incident?
we moved to another chain?
we gotten to a goals implant?
we scanned through a GPM?
we restimulated an earlier incident?
we restimulated an earlier implant?
we restimulated an earlier ARC Break on engrams?
we failed to find the real beginning of the incident?
we by-passed important data?
we skipped an incident?
two or more incidents been confused?
I missed a withhold on you?
we left an incident too heavily charged?
we scanned through one or more series of goal implants?
we abandoned a chain? we abandoned an incident?
I prevented you from running an incident?
I changed processes on you?

(Note: Do NOT use any BMR buttons during engram running or add overts to this list as they will “mush” engrams.)



ROUTINE 3N
GPMs, ALL GOALS SESSIONS

When a session is being run on GPMs or goals no matter with what routine, use the following ARC Break assessment when any ARC Break, great or small, occurs (or when pc becomes critical of the auditor even “playfully”). If R3R and R3N are both run in the same session, do both L—3 and L—4.

Prefix the lines with “In this session have . . .”, or for R2H ARC Breaks found in goals sessions “In that session had the auditor . . .” and omit “I” or “we”. In event that the current pc was the auditor in that session and ARC Broke (applies also to List L—3 above) use List L—1.


LIST L—4

I given you an incorrect item?
I given you a wrongly worded goal?
I given you a wrong goal?
I left an Item charged?
I skipped an Item?
I skipped more than one Item?
I skipped a goal?
I skipped more than one goal?
we restimulated an earlier wrong goal?
we restimulated an earlier wrong item?
we restimulated an earlier implant?
I failed to give you a goal?
I failed to give you an item?
I misdated a goal?
you run items out of different GPMs (or goals)?
we run more than one series of goals?
we restimulated an earlier goals series?
we restimulated an earlier engram?
you skidded on the time track?
we gone over an engram inside this GPM?
we restimulated another GPM?
we missed part of the incident?
I given you no auditing?
I missed a withhold on you?
we missed some other kind of charge?
we abandoned a goal?
we abandoned an item?
I given you more Items than are here?
I given you more goals than are here?
we listed an item wrong way to?
I restimulated earlier errors in running GPMs?
we slipped into a later goals series?
I changed processes on you?

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:jw.cden
Copyright © 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


[The above lists have been later revised by HCO Bs 19 March 1971, List-l-C, Volume VII, page 203; 11 April 1971RA, Revised 8 March 1974, L3RD Dianetics and Int RD Repair List, Volume VIII, page 265; and 15 December 1968R, Revised 2 June 1972, L4BR-For Assessment of All Listing Errors, Volume Vlll, page 138.]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 5 JULY 1963
CenOCon
Franchise
CCHs REWRITTEN

(Replaces HCO Bulletin of 2 November 1961, “Training CCHs”
and HCO Policy Letter of 15 May 1962, “CCHs Rewritten”)


The following revised rundown on the CCHs is to be used by all Students in Scientology Orgs.

CONTROL—COMMUNICATION—HAVINGNESS PROCESSES

The following rundown of CCH 1, 2, 3 and 4 has been slightly amended. They are for use in training. CCHs are run as follows:

CCH I to a flat point then CCH 2 to a flat point then CCH 3 to a flat point then CCH 4 to a flat point then CCH 1 to a flat point, etc.

To bring the CCH training into line with current methods of teaching TRs, etc, at the end of each drill a list of Coach’s questions is given. In addition Coach should take instructions from the “Commands” and “Training Stress” and frame them in the form of questions. For example, in CCH I Coach could ask, “Did you make every command and cycle separate?”

Coach must avoid invalidating Student and not ask questions on what Coach thinks the Student has done wrong. The correct method is to ask a few questions at a time choosing and forming questions at random. On the other hand Coach should not ask a question about something that has not happened in the drill. For example, in CCH 3, if Coach has not manifested a “dope-off”, Coach would not ask, “When I doped off did you take my hand and execute the command one hand at a time?”


No. CCH 1.

NAME. GIVE ME THAT HAND. Tone 40.

COMMANDS. GIVE ME THAT HAND.

Physical action of taking hand when not given and then replacing it in the Coach’s lap. Making physical contact with the Coach’s hand if Coach resists. THANK YOU ending each cycle.
All Tone 40 with clear intention, one command in one unit of time. Take up each new physical change manifested as though it were an origin by the Coach, when it happens, and querying it by asking “What’s happening?” This two-way comm is not Tone 40. Run only on the right hand.

POSITION: Student and Coach seated in chairs without arms. Student’s knees on outside of both Coach’s knees.

PURPOSE. To demonstrate to pc that control of pc’s body is possible, despite revolt of circuits, and inviting pc to directly control it. Absolute control by auditor then passes over towards absolute control of his own body by pc.

TRAINING STRESS. Never stop process until a flat place is reached. Freezes may be introduced at end of cycle, this being after the THANK YOU and before the next command, maintaining a solid comm line, to ascertain information from the Coach or to bridge from the process. This is done between two commands, holding the Coach’s hand after acknowledgement. Coach’s hand should be clasped with exactly correct pressure. Make every command and cycle separate. Maintain Tone 40, stress on intention from Student to Coach with each command. To leave an instant for Coach to do it by own will before Student decides to take hand or make contact with it. Stress

Tone 40 precision; can be coached for some time silently with Coach looking for silent Student intention. Student indicates hand by nod of head.

COACH’S QUESTIONS.

CCH 1. 1. What is a Tone 40 Command?
(Intention without reservation)
2. Did you give me a Tone 40 Command?
3. Was the command executed?
4. What is a change?
(Any physical observed manifestation)
5. Did you notice any change?
6. What was it?
7. Did you take it up with me?
8. Did you introduce a freeze at end of cycle to ascertain information
from me or to bridge from the process?

HISTORY. Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in the 17th ACC Washington DC, 1957.

No. CCH 2.

NAME. TONE 40 8C.

COMMANDS. YOU LOOK AT THAT WALL. THANK YOU.
YOU WALK OVER TO THAT WALL. THANK YOU.
YOU TOUCH THAT WALL. THANK YOU.
TURN AROUND. THANK YOU.

Take up each new physical change manifested as though it were an origin by the Coach, when it happens, and querying it by asking “What’s happening?” This two-way comm is not Tone 40. Commands smoothly enforced physically when necessary. Tone 40, full intention.

POSITION: Student and Coach ambulant, Student in physical contact with Coach as needed.

PURPOSE: To demonstrate to pc that his body can be controlled and thus inviting him to control it. To orient him in his present time Environment. To increase his ability to duplicate and thusly increase his Havingness.

TRAINING STRESS: Absolute Student precision. No drops from Tone 40. No flubs. Total present time. Student on Coach’s right side. Student’s body acts as block to forward motion when Coach turns. Student gives command, gives Coach a moment to obey, then enforces command with physical contact of exactly correct force to get command executed. Student does not block Coach from executing commands. Method of introduction as in CCH 1. Freezes may be introduced at the end of cycle, this being after the THANK YOU and before the next command, maintaining a solid comm line, to ascertain information from the Coach or to bridge from the process, this being the acknowledgement “THANK YOU” after the command “TURN AROUND”.

COACH’S QUESTIONS.

CCH 2: 1. What is a Tone 40 Command?
(Intention without reservation)
2. Did you give me a Tone 40 Command?
3. Was the command executed?
4. What is a change?
(Any physical observed manifestation)
5. Did you notice any change?
6. What was it?
7. Did you take it up with me?
8. Did you introduce a freeze at end of cycle to ascertain information
from me or to bridge from the process?

HISTORY. Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington DC, in 1957 for the 17th ACC.

No. CCH 3.

NAME. HAND SPACE MIMICRY.

COMMANDS: Student raises 2 hands palms facing Coach’s about an equal distance between the Student and Coach and says “PUT YOUR HANDS AGAINST MINE, FOLLOW THEM AND CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR MOTION.” He then makes a simple motion with right hand then left. “DID YOU CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR MOTION?” Acknowledge answer. Student allows Coach to break solid comm line. When this is flat, the Student does this same with a half inch of space between his and the Coach’s palms. The command being “PUT YOUR HANDS FACING MINE ABOUT l/2 INCH AWAY, FOLLOW THEM AND CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR MOTION.” “DID YOU CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR MOTION?” Acknowledge. When this is flat, Student does it with a wider space and so on until Coach is able to follow motions a yard away.

POSITION. Student and Coach seated, close together facing each other, Coach’s knees between Student’s knees.

PURPOSE: To develop reality on the auditor using the reality scale (solid communication line). To get pc into communication by control and duplication. To find auditor.

TRAINING STRESS: That Student be gentle and accurate in his motions, all motions being Tone 40, giving pc wins. To be free in 2-way communication. That process be introduced and run as a formal process. To teach student that if coach dopes off in this process Student may take Coach’s wrist and help him execute the command one hand at a time. That if Coach does not answer during anaten to question “DID YOU CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR MOTION?”, Student may wait for normal comm lag of that Coach, acknowledge and continue process.

COACH’S QUESTIONS.

CCH 3: 1. What is a Tone 40 motion?
(Intention without reservation)
2. Did you give me a Tone 40 motion?
3. Was the motion executed?
4. What is a change?
(Any physical observed manifestation)
5. Did you notice any change’?
6. What was it?
7. Did you take it up with me?
8. Did you do a simple movement?
9. Define two-way communication.
(One question—the right one.)
10. Did you receive a verbal origination?
11. Did you understand it?
12. Did you acknowledge it?
13. Did you return me to session?
14. Did you double question me?
15. Did you change because I had changed?
16. Did you follow my instruction?
17. What did you do?
18. What happened?

HISTORY. Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington DC, 1956, as a therapeutic version of Dummy Hand Mimicry. Something was needed to supplant ‘Look at me’ ‘Who am I?’ and ‘Find the auditor’ part of rudiments.

No. CCH 4.

NAME. BOOK MIMICRY.

COMMANDS: THERE ARE NO SET VERBAL COMMANDS.

Student makes simple motions with a book. Hands book to the Coach. Coach makes motion, duplicating Student’s mirror-image-wise. Student asks pc if he is satisfied that the Coach duplicated the motion. If Coach is and Student is also fairly satisfied,

Student takes back the book and goes to next command. If Coach is not sure that he duplicated any command, Student repeats it for him and gives him back the book. If Coach is sure he did and Student can see duplication is pretty wrong, Student accepts Coach’s answer and continues on a gradient scale of motions either with the left or right hand till Coach can do original command correctly. This ensures no invalidation of the Coach. Tone 40, only in motions, verbal 2-way quite free.

POSITION: Student and Coach seated facing each other, a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE: To bring up pc’s communication with control and duplication (control and duplication = communication).

TRAINING STRESS: Stress giving Coach wins. Stress Student’s necessity to duplicate his own commands. Circular motions are more complex than straight lines. Tolerance. of plus or minus randomity are apparent here and the Student should probably begin on the Coach with motions that begin in the same place each time and are neither very fast nor very slow, nor very complex. Introduced by the Student seeing that Coach understands what is to be done, as here is no verbal command, formal process.

COACH’S QUESTIONS:

CCH 4: 1. What is a Tone 40 motion?
(Intention without reservation)
2. Did you give me a Tone 40 motion?
3. Was the motion executed?
4. What is a change?
(Any physical observed manifestation)
5. Did you notice any change?
6. What was it?
7. Did you take it up with me?
8. Did you do a simple movement?
9. Define two-way communication.
(One question—the right one.)
10. Did you receive a verbal origination?
11. Did you understand it?
12. Did you acknowledge it?
13. Did you return me to session?
14. Did you double question me?
15. Did you change because I had changed?
16. Did you follow my instruction?
17. What did you do?
18. What happened?

HISTORY: Developed by L.R.H. for the 16th ACC in Washington DC, 1957. Based on duplication. Developed by L.R.H. in London, 1952.


L. RON HUBBARD




LRH: dr. rd
Copyright © 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED









[This HCO B is replaced by HCO B I December 1965, CCHs, Volume VI, page 118. See also HCO PL 17 May 1965, CCHs, Volume VI, page 40, which says that processes may not be used as drills.]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 9 JULY 1963
Central Orgs
Franchise
A TECHNICAL SUMMARY
THE REQUIRED SKILLS OF PROCESSING
AND WHY


Here is where we stand and where we’re going.

An auditor, to make a Clear or OT, has to be able to handle confidently certain skills.

Today we assume that every successful process we ever had is and was a valid process. We are at a point of summation and valuation as we are achieving excellent and steady progress even on the most unlikely cases. I consider that the period of basic mental research has ended and the period of adjustment of skills, on which I will for some time be engaged, has been entered upon.

I list here the auditor skills which are requisite to handle any case.

SKILLS BY CASE LEVEL

Case Levels 8, 7 and 6
Objective Processes
Reach and Withdraw Commands
CCHs
Havingness Processes

Case Levels 7, 6 and 5
Model Session
Repetitive Command Processes
R2H
Meter Reading
Simple Assessment of a form

Case Levels 6, 5, 4 and 3
Assessment of Levels
Listing and Nulling Lists
R3R
3N

These constitute, to use another table, the following exact skills:

Handling the pc’s body (as in Reach and Withdraw or 8c).
Ability to execute the auditing cycle.
Ability to give repetitive commands.
Ability to handle a meter.
Ability to run a Model Session and keep the pc in session.
Ability to read a Tone Arm.
Ability to accurately meter date.
Ability to run R2H.

Ability to locate and handle ARC Breaks.
Ability to assess a simple form.
Ability to find a level.
Ability to list, complete and nul a list.
Ability to run R3R.
Ability to do 3N.
Ability to do a form Line Plot for a GPM.
Ability to do a Line Plot for an off-beat GPM.
Ability to list for and find a goal.
Ability to list for and find a top oppterm.
Knowledge of the Time Track.
Knowledge of the Thetan.
Knowledge of the basics of Life.
A General Knowledge of Scientology.

(Note: The abilities of R3R, R3N and R2H are also listed separately in the above.)

These, briefly, are the skills required to make an OT. They are well taught at Saint Hill. They are practised in Central Orgs as fast as released. HCO Bulletins exist on nearly all this material, except some fine points of R3R which are known but not yet written up, and some of the R3N Line Plots not yet issued.


BASIC SKILLS

If you examine the above you will find that where the auditor cannot do the required skill the faults are only one or more of the following:

Cannot execute the auditing cycle.
Cannot execute an auditing cycle repetitively.
Cannot handle a session.
Cannot read a meter.
Cannot study and apply Scientology data.

Given the ability to execute the auditing cycle once or repetitively, handle a session, read a meter and study and apply procedures, all the above listed auditing skills are easily acquired and successfully done.

Therefore in looking for the reasons for no results, one finds the failure to apply the required procedure and in tracing that, one inevitably finds one or more of these five basics amiss in the auditor.

It is no longer a question of whether Scientology works, it is only a question of whether the auditor can work Scientology. If he or she can’t, then the trouble lies in one or more of these basics.

The trouble does not lie with the procedure or with the pc. Of course some procedures above are harder to do than others and some pcs can worry an auditor far more than others, but these are incidental and are very junior to the five basics above.

The lower the case level of the auditor, the harder time he or she will have grasping the know-how and using it. For instance a squirrel is only a dramatizing Case Level 6 or 7. A student having a rough time is a Case Level 6 or 5. Somebody almost heartbreaking to teach is a Case Level 7 or 8. BUT, with alert guidance and even making mistakes, I have seen Case Levels from 3 to 8 alike getting wins and finally smoothing out on the five basics above. I’ve seen it myself in the past two years of training at Saint Hill. So I’ve discarded Case Level as an index of auditing ability, it is only an index of how-hard-to-train.

The question of psychotic or neurotic does not enter. These are artificial states and have no real bearing, surprisingly enough, on Case Level. My belief in an auditor’s ability to audit has far more bearing on his auditing than his or her aberrations.

The only factor left is auditor judgment. This varies about and improves with wins. But processes are so arranged that it is a question only of what is the highest process that gives TA action, rather than pre-session case estimation. Trial and error is the best test. I would use it myself, for I have often found the most unlikely preclear (at first glance) capable of running high level processes and some very “capable” people (at casual inspection) unable to see a wall. So I always run the highest level that I hope pc can run, and revise on experience with the pc if necessary.


FORMER TRAINING

As all modern courses and Academies have stressed basic skills as above for some time, no past training has been lost.

Those who learned R2-12 are much better fitted to do R3R and 3N than those who did not.

We look on any auditor today to be able to do repetitive processes but remember, that was sometimes a hard-won ability and old Book and Bottle was developed to assist it.

People who learned Pre-hav assessing or goals finding are definitely well progressed.

Anyone who can do the CCHs successfully will always find them handy.

So I count no training lost. And I am about to collect all earlier processes that worked on psychosomatic ills and publish them, since being careful not to do healing has not protected us at all and we might as well take over the medical profession for I now find that only their trade association has been firing at us in the press. So that opens up a use for almost all training on processes ever given.

If an auditor has learned the above basics he or she can easily do the long list of skills required for Clearing or OT.

CLEARING

We can clear to keyed-out clear or clear stably. I have considered it necessary to stress thorough clearing. We are on a longer road but a more certain and stable road when we erase the Time Track or sections of it. Clear is now Case Level 2.

The main goal, however, is OT, due to the general situation. When we were attacked I decided on a policy of:

1. Hold the line on the Legal Front and
2. Accelerate research to OT as our best means of handling the situation.

Both these policies are being successful in the extreme and I hope you agree with them.

By courtesy, one GPM run gives a first goal clear. No further test is done.

One chain of engrams completed is an R3R one-chain clear. This is easier than you might think.

Theta clear at this time is a Case Level 2 that is exterior.

OT is a Case Level 1 complete with skills rehabilitated.

The route to these states is very well established and is contained in the first list above.
HOURS OF PROCESSING

Cases require as many hours as they are located on the Case Level Scale. The lower they are the more hours they require. The higher they are the less they require.

As some index, I have had about 800 hours lately including all techniques from R2-12 forward, much of it purely research auditing on myself as a pc, developing procedures and getting line plots. Barely 250 hours of this was effective auditing. And I am definitely on the easy last half to OT.

In a period of about half that, Mary Sue achieved 10 goal clear and has just completed her first assessed R3R chain. This included all the R3 goals work, the research of R2-12 on her as a pc, as well as R3N and R3R. Effective Auditing, given the data now known, amounted to about 150 hours or less.

A guess to OT, given a skilled auditor and training on all modern data as above, and an able pc, would be less than 500 hours to a one chain R3R clear. This expectancy is being fulfilled on the Saint Hill Course for those now in Z Unit. To this would have to be added any processing time necessary to get the pc up to R3R. I consider that OT lies on the sunny side of 1,000 hours of processing now for cases that can be audited.

DIFFICULTY OF CLEARING

No case is really easy. A higher state attained is an uphill fight. So don’t underestimate the difficulty of clearing.

We went too long on the Time Track before developing and working at Scientology .

BUT we can do it. And it is a lot more than worthwhile—it is vital that we do do it. If we miss now, we may be finished. For there is no help elsewhere and there never has been this technology or any successful mental technology. And just now nobody cares but us. When we’ve succeeded all the way everybody will want on. But not yet.

My own job is very far from an end. The job of getting the purely technology developed and organized is practically over, unless you consider a recording of the full technology as part of the job. I’ve only recorded essentials and am just writing the last bulletins on those. But ahead is a vast panorama of research on other dynamics and enormous amounts of other technology.


LRH:dr.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


** 6307C09 SHSBC-281 The Free Being
** 6307C10 SHSBC-282 Auditing Skills for R-3R
** 6307C10 SHSBC-284A Preliminary Steps of R-3R, Part 1
** 6307C10 SHSBC-284B Preliminary Steps of R-3R, Part 2

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 11 JULY 1963
Sthil
SHSBC

AUDITING RUNDOWN
MISSED WITHHOLDS
TO BE RUN IN X 1 UNIT


1. Complete a list on the following question:

“In this lifetime what have you done that you have withheld from someone?”

2. On each withhold listed ask:

(a) “When was it?”

(b) “Where was it?”

(c) “Who failed to find out about it?”

(d) “Who nearly found out about it?”

(e) “Who still doesn’t know about it?”

Each answer must be written down and the sheet of answers showing to which withhold they relate must be turned in with the auditing report.

The answer sheet will be made available to all instructors on the Course.

The above suggestion was made by Bernie Pesco, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course student, and accepted for use.


L. RON HUBBARD
LRH: gl.bh
Copyright © 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED




[This HCO B is superseded by HCO B 23 July 1963, Auditing Rundown-Missed Withholds-To be Run in XI Unit.]




SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
11—18 July 1963


** 6307C11 SHSBC-283 ARC Breaks
** 6307C16 SHSBC-285 Tips on Running R-3R
** 6307C17 SHSBC-286 Dating
** 6307C18 SHSBC-287 Errors in Time

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 JULY 1963
Central Orgs
Franchise for info
CO-AUDIT
ARC BREAK PROCESS


A despatch from Dennis Stephens, DScn, Acting Assoc Sec Sydney, is informative in handling a co-audit on the ARC Break Process.

The Commands of the ARC Break Process are not entirely fixed at this time but are more or less as follows, each command being called a “leg”.

What Attitude has been rejected?
What Reality has been refused?
What Communication has been ignored?

In private sessions each leg of this process is run flat (more or less) before the next is run and so on and on, around and around, some effort being made to give each leg an equal time. The rules of ARC (to raise one that is low, raise the other two) apply so that no great stress is given an inability on one leg, but all are treated equally.

The process fits in at Case Level 5, is a bit higher than R2H.


L. RON HUBBARD

The despatch follows:

Dear Ron,

The new ARC 1963 Process is producing good results here in Sydney.

We have recently introduced it onto our public co-audit. Certain problems introduced themselves in the application of this process to a . group of unskilled auditors who were not trained in the use of E-Meters, etc. The process as given was to be run a leg at a time, each leg to quiet TA or 3 equal comm lags, or a cognition.

Now to run it against the TA on public co-audit meant each student had a meter (which they haven’t) and the idea was rejected as impractical. Similarly training them in spotting cognitions and comm lags was also rejected as being time consuming. The other possibility was the supervisors go around continuously and take TA reads. Now this system is not good because the supervisor coming up and taking reads disturbs the pc and so disturbs the TA and so defeats its own purpose. The other possibility was an elaborate series of wiring where each pc is switched in to a Master Board and the supervisor, by switches, plugs each pc onto the meter at his desk. We haven’t got such equipment and can barely afford its installation. Anyway that was discarded too.

How to run it? Well, I tried the following system out and it works like a dream. Other orgs might find it useful too.

The pc runs the first leg until he has no more answers, he then goes to second leg until he has no more answers, and similarly with the 3rd leg. He then returns to the first leg, etc, etc. If the pc should ever (heaven forbid! and it’s never happened yet) have “no more answers” for each and every leg he either has a thumping ARC Break or needs a “prod” from the meter. So the supervisor would just meter check one of the legs and steer the pc’s attention to the answer and he’s off on another chain!

The system works OK because the pc is going round and round the same series of commands and always gets another chance to look at each question. Run in this manner the process becomes virtually unlimited.

This system of running the process is particularly applicable where raw people are concerned, with not even a comm course under their belt and fresh from PE course.

Anyway it works very well.

Very best,

DENNIS

LRH: dr jh
Copyright ©1963 L. RON HUBBARD
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 22 JULY 1963
MA
Franchise
BPI

YOU CAN BE RIGHT


Rightness and wrongness form a common source of argument and struggle.

The concept of rightness reaches very high and very low on the Tone Scale.

And the effort to be right is the last conscious striving of an individual on the way out. I-am-right-and-they-are-wrong is the lowest concept that can be formulated by an unaware case.

What is right and what is wrong are not necessarily definable for everyone. These vary according to existing moral codes and disciplines and, before Scientology, despite their use in law as a test of “sanity”, had no basis in fact but only in opinion.

In Dianetics and Scientology a more precise definition arose. And the definition became as well the true definition of an overt act. An overt act is not just injuring someone or something: an overt act is an act of omission or commission which does the least good for the least number of dynamics or the most harm to the greatest number of dynamics. (See the Eight Dynamics.)

Thus a wrong action is wrong to the degree that it harms the greatest number of dynamics. And a right action is right to the degree that it benefits the greatest number of dynamics.

Many people think that an action is an overt simply because it is destructive. To them all destructive actions or omissions are overt acts. This is not true. For an act of commission or omission to be an overt act it must harm the greater number of dynamics. A failure to destroy can be, therefore, an overt act. Assistance to something that would harm a greater number of dynamics can also be an overt act.

An overt act is something that harms broadly. A beneficial act is something that helps broadly. It can be a beneficial act to harm something that would be harmful to the greater number of dynamics.

Harming everything and helping everything alike can be overt acts. Helping certain things and harming certain things alike can be beneficial acts.

The idea of not harming anything and helping everything are alike rather mad. It is doubtful if you would think helping enslaves was a beneficial action and equally doubtful if you would consider the destruction of a disease an overt act.

In the matter of being right or being wrong, a lot of muddy thinking can develop. There are no absolute rights or absolute wrongs. And being right does not consist of being unwilling to harm and being wrong does not consist only of not harming.

There is an irrationality about “being right” which not only throws out the validity of the legal test of sanity but also explains why some people do very wrong things and insist they are doing right.

The answer lies in an impulse, inborn in everyone, to try to be right. This is an insistence which rapidly becomes divorced from right action. And it is accompanied by an effort to make others wrong, as we see in hypercritical cases. A being who is apparently unconscious is still being right and making others wrong. It is the last criticism.

We have seen a “defensive person” explaining away the most flagrant wrongnesses. This is “justification” as well. Most explanations of conduct, no matter how far-fetched, seem perfectly right to the person making them since he or she is only asserting self-rightness and other-wrongness.

We have long said that that which is not admired tends to persist. If no one admires a person for being right, then that person’s “brand of being right” will persist, no matter how mad it sounds. Scientists who are aberrated cannot seem to get many theories. They do not because they are more interested in insisting on their own odd rightnesses than they are in finding truth. Thus we get strange “scientific truths” from

men who should know better, including the late Einstein. Truth is built by those who have the breadth and balance to see also where they’re wrong.

You have heard some very absurd arguments out among the crowd. Realize that the speaker was more interested in asserting his or her own rightness than in being right.

A thetan tries to be right and fights being wrong. This is without regard to being right about something or to do actual right. It is an insistence which has no concern with a rightness of conduct.

One tries to be right always, right down to the last spark.

How then, is one ever wrong?

It is this way:

One does a wrong action, accidentally or through oversight. The wrongness of the action or inaction is then in conflict with one’s necessity to be right. So one then may continue and repeat the wrong action to prove it is right.

This is a fundamental of aberration. All wrong actions are the result of an error followed by an insistence on having been right. Instead of righting the error (which would involve being wrong) one insists the error was a right action and so repeats it.

As a being goes down scale it is harder and harder to admit having been wrong. Nay, such an admission could well be disastrous to any remaining ability or sanity.

For rightness is the stuff of which survival is made. And as one approaches the last ebb of survival one can only insist on having been right, for to believe for a moment one has been wrong is to court oblivion.

The last defense of any being is “I was right”. That applies to anyone. When that defense crumbles, the lights go out.

So we are faced with the unlovely picture of asserted rightness in the face of flagrant wrongness. And any success in making the being realize their wrongness results in an immediate degradation, unconsciousness, or at best a loss of personality. Pavlov, Freud, psychiatry alike never grasped the delicacy of these facts and so evaluated and punished the criminal and insane into further criminality and insanity.

All justice today contains in it this hidden error—that the last defense is a belief in personal rightness regardless of charges and evidence alike, and that the effort to make another wrong results only in degradation.

But all this would be a hopeless impasse leading to highly chaotic social conditions were it not for one saving fact:

All repeated and “incurable” wrongnesses stem from the exercise of a last defence: “trying to be right”. Therefore the compulsive wrongness can be cured no matter how mad it may seem or how thoroughly its rightness is insisted upon.

Getting the offender to admit his or her wrongness is to court further degradation and even unconsciousness or the destruction of a being. Therefore the purpose of punishment is defeated and punishment has minimal workability.

But by getting the offender off the compulsive repetition of the wrongness, one then cures it.

But how?

By rehabilitating the ability to be right!

This has limitless application—in training, in social skills, in marriage, in law, in life.

Example: A wife is always burning dinner. Despite scolding, threats of divorce, anything, the compulsion continues. One can wipe this wrongness out by getting her to explain what is right about her cooking. This may well evoke a raging tirade in some extreme cases, but if one flattens the question, that all dies away and she happily ceases to burn dinners. Carried to classic proportions but not entirely necessary to end the compulsion, a moment in the past will be recovered when she
accidentally burned a dinner and could not face up to having done a wrong action. To be right she thereafter had to burn dinners.

Go into a prison and find one sane prisoner who says he did wrong. You won’t find one. Only the broken wrecks will say so out of terror of being hurt. But even they don’t believe they did wrong.

A judge on a bench, sentencing criminals, would be given pause to realize that not one malefactor sentenced really thought he had done wrong and will never believe it in fact, though he may seek to avert wrath by saying so.

The do-gooder crashes into this continually and is given his loses by it.

But marriage, law and crime do not constitute all the spheres of living where this applies. These facts embrace all of life. The student who can’t learn, the worker who can’t work, the boss who can’t boss are all caught on one side of the right-wrong question. They are being completely one-sided. They are being “last-ditch-right”. And opposing them, those who would teach them are fixed on the other side “admit-you are-wrong”. And out of this we get not only no-change but actual degradation where it “wins”. But there are no wins in this imbalance, only loses for both.

Thetans on the way down don’t believe they are wrong because they don’t dare believe it. And so they do not change.

Many a preclear in processing is only trying to prove himself right and the auditor wrong, particularly the lower case levels, and so we sometimes get no-change sessions.

And those who won’t be audited at all are totally fixed on asserted rightness and are so close to gone that any question of their past rightness would, they feel, destroy them.

I get my share of this when a being, close to extinction, and holding contrary views, grasps for a moment the rightness of Scientology and then in sudden defence asserts his own “rightnesses”, sometimes close to terror.

It would be a grave error to go on letting an abuser of Scientology abuse. The route is to get him or her to explain how right he or she is without explaining how wrong Scientology is, for to do the last is to let them commit a serious overt. “What is right about your mind” would produce more case change and win more friends than any amount of evaluation or punishment to make them wrong.

You can be right. How? By getting another to explain how he or she is right—until he or she, being less defensive now, can take a less compulsive point of view. You don’t have to agree with what they think. You only have to acknowledge what they say. And suddenly they can be right.

A lot of things can be done by understanding and using this mechanism. It will take, however, some study of this article before it can be gracefully applied—for all of us are reactive to some degree on this subject. And those who sought to enslave us did not neglect to install a right-wrong pair of items on the far back track. But these won’t really get in your way.

As Scientologists, we are faced by a frightened society who think they would be wrong if we were found to be right. We need a weapon to correct this. We have one here.

And you can be right, you know. I was probably the first to believe you were, mechanism or no mechanism. The road to rightness is the road to survival. And every person is somewhere on that scale.

You can make yourself right, amongst other ways, by making others right enough to afford to change their minds. Then a lot more of us will arrive.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :gl.Jh.cden
Copyright © 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



(Note: This is the first in a series of HCO Bulletins designed for publication in Continental Magazines. I am developing a whole presentation of Scientology at this level for general use in life. Follow this HCO Bulletin with the next in magazines.)

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 22 JULY 1963
Issue II
Central Orgs
Tech Depts

ORG TECHNICAL
HGC PROCESSES
AND TRAINING

(HCO Secs: Check out on all technical staff Star Rating.)


It is of the utmost importance that HGC Technical continues to be maintained as the world’s best auditing.

The whole repute of Scientology on a continent ultimately depends on the quality of technical delivered by Central Organizations.

In times of shifting technology this may be considered difficult. However, nothing in the book maintains that an HGC must only deliver “the latest”. The book only says the best.

Staff morale, the unit, broad dissemination depend basically upon technical quality.

If you will look into even the oldest HGC files you will find profiles with firm gains. This does not mean, then, that today’s research line has to be installed at once to get gains on pcs.

Of course to attain clear or OT today’s research line is vital.

But the problem is not upper echelon processing in HGCs, it is lower level cases.

If you go not on the basis of “make clears and OTs” but solely on the basis of “get maximum Tone Arm Action on the pc” you will have very happy pcs and eventual OTs.

To get Tone Arm Action it is necessary to

1. Have pcs who are getting wins and

2. Have staff auditors doing processes they can do successfully.

HGC Gains then depend on:

A. Getting Tone Arm Action on every pc; and

B. Training Auditors to handle the five basics well.

Programming for HGC pcs depends on the pc and the auditor available.

PROGRAMMING PCS

The stable datum for programming a pc is:

RULE: RUN THE HIGHEST LEVEL PROCESS ON THE PC THAT CAN BE RUN THAT PRODUCES GOOD TONE ARM ACTION.

The stable don’t for programming a pc is:

RULE: DON’T RUN A PROCESS A PC FEELS HE OR SHE CANNOT DO OR THE AUDITOR CANNOT DO.

You don’t need to predetermine (and sometimes downgrade) a pc’s level in order to process him or her.

Programming has nothing to do with tests or hope or critical opinion.

Programming is a trial and error proposition based on:

C. What highest process gives the pc TA Action?

D. What process has the pc been interested in?

E. What process can the auditor do confidently?

PC INTEREST is a nearer certainty of needle reads on the meter and Tone Arm Action than many other methods of assessment.

Any pc who has had earlier auditing can tell you what was or was not interesting. A discussion of this with the pc will establish which type of process it was. Don’t necessarily just go on doing that process. But use it to classify what type of process the pc will most likely have wins doing—i.e. objective processes, repetitive processes, engram running, etc. A lot of pcs are audited at levels they have no idea they can do. They will do them, but a simple discussion about processes they have been interested in doing will reveal to them and the auditor where they are most likely to get TA Action with no strain.


GAINS

Gains on a pc can be measured in terms of charge discharged, not necessarily in goals run out or some specific action done.

You can run out goals with no TA Action, run out engrams with no TA Action and yet the pc does not change.

The goals set by the pc at session beginning change on a changing pc. In reviewing cases watch those goals on the auditor’s report. If they deteriorate the auditor has messed it up, leaving by-passed charge. If they remain the same session after session there was no real TA Action. If the goals change session by session there’s lots of TA Action, too.

You can just get lots of TA Action, whatever you run, and eventually see a cleared pc.

No matter what is run, lack of TA Action will clear no one.

Wrong time is the exclusive source of no TA Action. Therefore as a pc’s time concept is improved or his dates corrected you will see more TA Action. But many things contribute to wrong time, including bad meter dating and time disorienting implants. The question is not what corrects the pc’s time so much as: is the pc getting the Tone Arm Action that shows Time is being corrected. Well done auditing cycles alone correct a flawed Time Concept.

So you have PC INTEREST, and TONE ARM ACTION that tell you the programming is right and if the pc is going Clear and OT. Buck these things and the pc won’t go anywhere no matter what is run.


PRECAUTIONS

Wrong dates, wrong goals, wrong Items, by-passing charge, never flattening a process, running a pc beyond regaining an ability or cogniting the process flat account for most upset in auditing.

There is no valid reason for a pc getting upset now that ARC Break assessments exist, providing that the auditor is auditing as per the next section.

AUDITOR SKILL

Basic Auditor Skill consists of five things. If an auditor can do these five, little further trouble will be found.

Any staff training programme, any Academy basic goal, any HGC Auditing that produces results depend on these five basics.

If you review staff auditors or examine students on these basics by themselves, all auditing would rest on solid ground and get gains. Where any one of the following are out in an auditor there is going to be trouble all along the line. No fancy new process will cure what is wrong in a session if these things are not present.

The Basic Auditing Skills are:

1. ABILITY TO EXECUTE THE AUDITING CYCLE.

2. ABILITY TO EXECUTE THE AUDITING CYCLE REPETITIVELY.

3. ABILITY TO HANDLE A SESSION.

4. ABILITY TO READ A METER.

5. ABILITY TO STUDY AND APPLY SCIENTOLOGY DATA.

It takes very little to establish the presence or absence of these abilities in an HGC Auditor or a Student. Each one can be reviewed easily.

View an auditor’s ability to audit in the light of the above only. Put him on TV for a half-hour rudiments and havingness actual session of any Model Session he or she is trained to use, and watch l to 4 above. Then give him or her an unstudied short HCO Bulletin and see how long it takes for the auditor to pass a verbal exam on it.

A comparison of this data with a number of the staff auditor’s HGC case reports will show direct co-ordination. To the degree that few results were obtained the auditor missed on l to 5 above. To the degree that good results were obtained the auditor could pass l to 5 above. Inspection of half a dozen different cases the auditor has done is necessary to see a complete co-ordination.

There is your training stress for staff training programmes. Only when the above skills are polished up do you dare to go into involved processes with the auditor. For a more complicated process further throws out any existing errors in the above five abilities and makes hash out of the lot.

During such a period, one can fall back on auditor confidence. What process is the auditor confident he or she will get wins with? Well let him or her run it on the current pc. And meanwhile, with training, smooth the auditor out and get him or her genned in on higher level or more recent processes.

Without an auditor, a case will not progress. And a case will progress more with a confident auditor who can do something of what he or she is doing than with an auditor who is shaky. For the shakiness will magnify any faults in the five skills that the auditor has.

Auditors do by and large a pretty fine job. It takes a while to gen in a new skill. I can do it in one or two sessions so it’s not causing me any strain. Mary Sue can get one straight in about four sessions. So nobody expects a new skill to appear magically perfect in no time at all. But the length of time it will take to groove in on a new skill depends on the five abilities above.

The main auditor faults will be found in auditors who are trying so hard themselves to be right that thee and me must be proven wrong. That shows up most strongly in No. 5 above. The degree of disagreement an auditor has with data measures the degree of unworkability that auditor will enter into processing and this is the same degree that that auditor thinks he or she has to preserve his or her survival by making

others wrong. This also enters into the other four abilities by a covert effort to make the pc wrong. This is rare. But it is best measured by an inability to accept data, and so can be tested by No. 5 above.

Processing on rightness and wrongness remedies this. Other processing remedies it. And just practice remedies it. This factor is easily disclosed as unhandled in some training courses where a blowing student sometimes gives long dissertations on “What they don’t agree with in Scientology.” That what they say doesn’t exist in Scientology does not deter them from believing it does, for their last spark of survival demands that only they be right and all others wrong. Such a state of mind doesn’t make a good auditor since both Scientology and the pc must be made wrong. Squirrels are only Case Levels 7 or 6 dramatizing alter-is on Scientology instead of their track. Even they can be made to audit by long training even in the absence of processing. They aren’t just trying to make others wrong. Essentially that is the characteristic of a Case Level 8, Unaware. There aren’t many of these around. Auditing and training can handle them, even if it takes a long time. Such people would almost die literally if they found they had ever been wrong and they get quite ill with aplomb just to prove you are wrong; it goes that far.

Case Level or sanity have little to do with anything when it comes to training auditors. Insanity is a goal “To be Insane”, not an index of potential auditing ability. And only Case Level 8 does a complete shatter of a session as an auditor.

Take these factors into first account in an HGC.

Don’t keep a staff upset by shifting processes continually. Processing is pretty stable which is why I can give you this expectancy for a new high level performance in HGC. Groove the staff auditor in for wins and TA Action. And all will be well. Groove them in by processes only and all will be chaos.

And in the Academy stress this data and teach the five abilities above beyond all other data and you’ll have auditors. If the HGC could expect from an Academy graduates who had the five abilities listed above, everyone would get more comfortable.

An HGC need not have to run a school of its own to provide itself with auditors.


SUMMARY

The data I have given you in this HCO Bulletin is not subject to change or modification.

HGC pcs will only win if they are run so as to obtain good TA Action.

The HGC will have trouble achieving that only to the degree that its staff has not achieved the five abilities above.

We are building on very solid ground. All actions we now undertake in the HGC and Academy should contribute to successful auditing, for out of that alone can clearing be achieved.


L. RON HUBBARD







LRH:dr.rd
Copyright © 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 JULY 1963
Central Orgs
for info
Sthil
SHSBC


AUDITING RUNDOWN
MISSED WITHHOLDS
TO BE RUN IN X 1 UNIT

(supersedes HCO Bulletin of July 11, 1963, same title,
which was issued to Sthil SHSBC only)



1. Ask pc following question:

“In this lifetime what have you done that you have withheld from someone?”

2. When pc has answered ask:

(a) “When was it?”

(b) “Where was it?”

(c) “Who failed to find out about it?”

(d) “Who nearly found out about it?”

(e) “Who still doesn’t know about it?”

Each withhold and answer must be written down and the sheet of withholds and answers must be turned in with the auditing report.

The sheet will be made available to all instructors on the Briefing Course.

The above suggestion was made by Bernie Pesco, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course student, and accepted for use.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :jw jh
Copyright © 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
23 - 25 July 1 963


** 6307C23 SHSBC-288 Between Lives Implants
** 6307C24 SHSBC-289 ARC Breaks and the Comm Cycle—The Revised Model
Session
** 6307C25 SHSBC-290 Comm Cycles in Auditing [see page 340 for graphs]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 28 JULY AD13
Central Orgs
Franchise

STAR RATING TIME AND THE TONE ARM

(HCO Secs: Check out on all Technical staff except
for percentage of cases which is not Star Rated)


I recently completed a study begun many years ago which gives us new hope and easier auditing of difficult cases.

We have known for many years (Dianetic Axioms) that Time is the Single Source of human aberration. This did not have the importance it deserved.

To make an OT one has to clear the Time Track.

This seemed very easy when I discovered a few months ago that anybody can run an engram. The reasons one can’t are just (1) wrong time of the incident, (2) wrong duration of the incident, (3) incident may contain an implanted GPM or (4) it may be false track (therefore having wrong time and wrong duration).

So anybody that can be put into an auditing session can run Time Track with good perception. If the perceptions aren’t there it’s just wrong time or wrong duration or both, or it’s a GPM in which case one reverts at once to R3N, or it’s false track in which event one finds accurately when it was installed and the duration of that incident.

All apparent grouping of the track comes either from wrong time or false track (which is also wrong time). Either one looks like incidents are grouping.

Well, that seemed to wrap up clearing and OT, but I still didn’t broadly release it; I wanted to be sure. I don’t mind being wrong but I dislike making you wrong in your auditing, it’s already happened too often.

So I carefully researched this all over again and found it was not enough just to clean track. One had to run track with TONE ARM MOTION.

That’s the real barrier to clear and OT, given the above data. One can run incidents and GPMs but do these when run give Tone Arm Motion?

Without Tone Arm Motion no charge is being released and no actual case betterment is observed beyond a few somatics removed. The pc’s session goals stay the same. The pc’s life doesn’t change.

So the clue to OT (and clear) is Tone Arm Motion. It must exist during the session. If it doesn’t something is wrong.

At first I thought that a dating prepcheck “On Dating” or “On Dates” would re-establish all ceased TA action. It will up to a point and is valuable.

Repair of cases must contain such a Prepcheck and also discovering wrong dates and durations on engrams and GPMs. This is vital.

But it will not make some cases continue to get TA motion on the Time Track.

If a case, even when cleaned up on dating and properly assessed for level and Item in R3R or on R3N, does not then get TA motion on running track, another factor is present.

What is that factor? The pc has a “fragile Tone Arm”. Just one wrong date or duration in R3R or just one wrong RI in R3N and Tone Arm Action ceases, the TA going way up or down and staying there. Stuck TA cases then give us a type of case.

So I knew there was another factor involved rather than Time alone. Time remains the single source. But a pc’s regard for or attitude about Time can make it difficult for the auditor to run R3R or R3N.

Regard for Time sums up, of course, into ARC about Time, or just ARC.

THE MECHANICS OF TIME

As in earlier writings Time is actual but is also an apparency. (See Dianetics ‘55 or other similar material.) Time is measured by motion. Motion is Matter with energy in space. Thus a person can conceive of Time as only Matter and energy in space. Such as a clock or a planetary rotation. Time is actual. But the person has become so dependent on Matter moving in space to tell Time that his Time Sense has become dependent on Matter, energy and space.

We care only for TA action. Our opinion of a pc’s Time Sense is unimportant. Does the pc get TA action on R3R and/or R3N? If so, the pc’s Time Sense is okay for making OT straight away. If not, if the TA is “fragile” (sticks easily high or low) then the pc’s Time Sense needs improving.

Time Sense deteriorates to the degree that one has depended upon Matter, energy and space to tell Time (and on Time Confusing Implants such as false track; however, running out false track on a no TA motion case is not an answer).

The dwindling spiral was as follows:

State A — Time Sense.

State B — Time Sense dependent upon Matter, Energy and Space.

State C — ARC Breaks with Matter, Energy, Space and other beings.

State D — Deteriorated Time Sense.

By the time State D is thoroughly reached, you have a pc who gets no TA motion running track, as energy will not flow in the absence of Time.

There are four degrees of “Poor Time Sense”. The first is average and common but is not enough to impair TA action. The TA sticks but getting wrong dates off restores TA action which then continues. The second is a case that has to be continuously repaired and delicately handled to get any TA action at all. The third is a case that gets TA action on repetitive processes or rudiments but not on GPMs or engram running (while silently moving through an engram few people get TA action; this comes when they answer “What happened?”: the third under consideration doesn’t get any TA even when answering “What happened?” and rarely if ever RRs). The fourth is a case that gets no TA action on repetitive processes and very little if any on Rudiments.

The four types of “Poor Time Sense” compare to

Case Level 5—(first type above) Gets TA action only when wrong dates are cleaned up.

Case Level 6—(second above) Gets TA action only with constant careful handling and TA action always packing up.

Case Level 7—(third above) TA action only on some repetitive processes and rudiments.

Case Level 8—(fourth above) No TA action on repetitive processes and only now and then on rudiments.

Case Levels 2 to 4 get TA action no matter what happens.

This then (TA Action) is your best index of Case Levels. IQ, graphs, tests, behaviour in life are all incidental.

Identification (A=A=A) is most easily present when Time Sense is awry, therefore, the degree a person Identifies different things establishes the degree of aberration.

PROGRAMMING

Cases are programmed only against TA Action obtainable in auditing.

A case must not be run without TA Action or with minimal TA Action.

A case may be a Case Level 5 and need only a few wrong dates and durations corrected to get good TA Action. But it may also be a Case Level 6, 7 or 8.

Trial and error programming is best. Programme high and drop low, no matter what the morale factor may be.

Try to run GPMs, the Goal to Forget, etc, with R3N. If it can’t be done, assess for R3R (Preliminary Step) and run a chain of engrams. If still no TA, drop to processes for Case Level 7. If still no TA, drop to processes for Case Level 8.

You may see by the pc’s past auditor’s reports what the Case Level is. How stuck has that TA been?

Don’t run a case lower than it easily gets TA Action.

And don’t brand a case at a low case level and then never graduate it upwards. When the lower process is flat, the upper process should now be runnable.

The story is told by the TA with one exception—auditor ability and training. But Case Levels 2, 3, 4 are not all that influenced by the auditor ability. The auditor’s skill has to be pretty good to run Case Level 5 on R3R and R3N.

The auditor doesn’t live who can run R3R or R3N on Case Levels 6, 7 or 8. It just won’t run.

In the guess department the bulk of the cases about are 4s and 5s. A good-sized percentage are 6s and 7s. About 10% are Case Level 8. About 10% are Case Level 3. Therefore about 30% of a usual group of pcs will run with good TA on the Time Track, given trained auditing, without trouble. Another 30% will run with good TA on the Time Track with careful coddling and no serious date goofs. Except for the 1% Case 3, the rest will fall into Case Levels 6, 7 and 8, meaning that about 39% of the cases in Scientology won’t run at once on R3R or R3N, and another 30% (Case Level 5s) need a Saint Hiller hanging over the auditor’s shoulder or in the chair. And the other 30% (Case Level 4s) will run very well and easily on R3R and R3N.

So the biggest percentage group (Case Levels 6, 7, 8 combined) need special processes to graduate up to action with R3R and R3N.

These Case Level 6, 7 and 8 processes now exist and are being released as rapidly as they are demonstrated workable. R2H for Case Levels 5 and 6 has already been released. R2HL for Case Levels 6 and 7 is being readied up for bulletin. The Corner Process and others for Case Level 8 are tested and the data is being assembled. And other advances can be made.

To audit easily and relaxed with good TA Action on the pc is my immediate desire for auditors and auditing supervisors. I feel we are over the hump on this. The fundamental solution to it—Time and the Tone Arm—is contained in this HCO Bulletin.

Don’t audit a pc without getting TA Action. Either repair the wrong dates and durations before going on or drop to processes of a lower case level or both.

ARC Breaks in session won’t stop a TA. Only Time errors.


L. RON HUBBARD



LKH:jw.rd
Copyright © 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 29 JULY 1963
Central Orgs
Franchise


SCIENTOLOGY REVIEW

(HCO Secs, take up at a Staff Meeting.
Field Auditors, take up at group meetings.)


Exactly where are we technically, personally and organizationally?

It may be of some surprise to you that we have just about arrived. We’ve been so long on the road that some fainter hearts have begun to despair and less high case levels have begun to gloom.

Since last October I have been cracking through trying to get there before we were got.

It now is obvious that we have made it and even if we were hard hit socially or politically we would still make it. For we have the data.

I have not had time to get it all to you yet, but the data is now assembled for OT for everyone who can be audited at all. You already have most of it.

On the various PTPs of Scientology we have had some very significant wins as follows:

1. The discoveries about Time and the Tone Arm (HCO Bulletin of July 28, AD 13) related to case levels tells us if a case is winning, why it isn’t winning and how to make it win, and gives us far less worries as auditors auditing cases. For some time now, overlooking four score of cases, many very rough, I have been breathing easy. And they’re all winning.

2. Getting cases to RR on GPMs is entirely a matter of auditing those cases who don’t on current basic processes until they do. So it isn’t a worry about getting the case to RR. It’s only how to get the case to run with TA action and get high enough to RR and run GPMs. We have the patterns and technology needful now.

3. ARC Breaky Cases. The ARC Break Assessments correctly done finish the problem of the consequences of ARC Breaks and put the Auditor at cause over ARC Breaks.

4. Natter. Persons who get auditing and natter, staff members who snap and snarl, bad morale, all wrap up in the ARC Break Assessments. This, done weekly in any group on group members, clearing every line, restores a theta atmosphere.

5. Incredulity of our data and validity. This is our finest asset and gives us more protection than any other single thing. If certain parties thought we were real we would have infinitely more trouble. There’s actual terror in the breast of a guilty person at the thought of OT, and without a public incredulity we never would have gotten as far as we have. And now it’s too late to be stopped. This protection was accidental but it serves us very well indeed. Remember that the next time the ignorant scoff.

6. The cold war has gotten less threatening, differences are less violent. We have had the time we needed.

7. Government attacks have entered a more desultory stage. Meters will go to jury trial eventually and we will certainly win. The U.S. Government Attorney handling the case became terribly ill and had to resign it.

8. Economic Problems. In organizations gross income is generally on the increase throughout the world, and shows no signs of dwindling and all this in the face of bad press. Personal income depends upon steady organizational gains and more positive results on pcs. Future personal income is without ceiling.

9. Personal States of Case. If you heed HCO Bulletin of July 28, AD13 and are getting good Tone Arm action on any process you will eventually make OT. OT is wholly a matter of consistent Tone Arm motion, session after session, not the significance of what is run.

10. State of Training as Auditors. Although I would like to see more auditors trained at Saint Hill, general training has improved and training data is complete. Shortened training time will soon be a reality. A new positive goal for HPA/HCAs will make more good auditors. I feel very good about general auditing ability. I recently summed up the basic skills of auditing and find that over the years we have been working right along and winning on training. All training done has been to the good. Changing technology has not influenced the basic skills and forthcoming material follows the pattern in which we have been trained.

OTHER PROBLEMS

Solutions unexpectedly leaped up in fields where we were only vaguely aware of problems.

We bought an awful lot of time with the discovery of the exact nature of between lives implants and how it’s worked. Using this data it is possible to keep any Scientologist from ever getting another one of those implants. As the general course of living is therapeutic, it takes violent implants such as Earth people get at every death to keep people unaware of former lives and aberrated. Just by omitting those implants and using their reporting technology to keep in touch amongst ourselves, we would salvage the lot in a few hundred years in any event. Our data is too widely disseminated to be re-collected and burned.

And just the other day I was personally looking over their shoulders.

World clearing is possible without extensive Auditing if we just keep our own show on the road and keep track of each other.

This was a breakthrough I didn’t expect. And it’s all ours.

The discovery of false pasts and futures was also a bonus. For it means more TA action on more cases and faster clearing. It’s doubtful if ordinary track ever hurt anybody.

SUMMARY

All we’ve got to do is keep going as we are for things to improve now.

The only thing which could slow us down is our own self-created dissidence. All we have to do is do our jobs and keep the peace and we’ve got it.

The make-break point is behind us. Ahead are only better days, improving little by little, day by day.

We’ve made it over the worst part.


L. RON HUBBARD






LRH :dr.cden
Copyright © 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 4 AUGUST 1963

Central Orgs
Franchise
A II. ROUTINES

E-METER ERRORS
COMMUNICATION CYCLE ERROR


The E-Meter has its role in all processing and must be used well. However an E-Meter can be misused in several ways.

METER DEPENDENCE

The meter in actual fact does nothing but locate charged areas below the awareness of the pc and verify that the charge has been removed. The meter cures nothing and does not treat. It only assists the auditor in assisting the preclear to look and verify having looked.

A pc can be made more dependent upon the meter or can be made more independent of the meter, all in the way a meter is used by the Auditor.

If a pc’s case is improving the pc becomes more independent of the meter. This is the proper direction.

Meter dependence is created by invalidation by or poor acknowledgement of the Auditor. If the Auditor seems not to accept the pc’s data, then the pc may insist that the Auditor “see it read on the meter”. This can grow up into a formidable meter dependence on the part of the pc.

The rise of the TA is a “What’s It?” The Fall of a meter TA is an “It’s a _____.” To get maximum charge off, the pc’s groping (What’s It) must become a pc’s finding (It’s a). If the pc asks the Auditor what or which reads on the meter and the Auditor always complies, the pc’s TA will rise more and fall less as the pc is saying, “What’s It?” and only the meter is saying, “It’s a_____.”

A pc must be carefully weaned of meter dependence, not abruptly chopped off. The pc says, “What’s It?” The Auditor must begin to ask occasionally, “Well, What’s It seem to you?” and the pc will find his own “It’s a _____” and the TA will fall—as it would not if only the meter were employed.

Milking the TA of all the action you can get requires that the pc get most of the “It’s a’s” for his “What’s Its”. (See diagram attached.)

DATING DEPENDENCE

RULE: USE THE METER TO DATE AND VERIFY DATE CORRECTNESS BY ALL MEANS BUT ONLY AFTER THE PC HAS BEEN UNABLE TO COME UP WITH THE DATE.

Example: Pc can’t decide, after much puzzling, if it was 1948 or 1949. Finally, the Auditor says, “1948” “1949” and sees the meter reads on 1948 and says, “It was 1948.” But if the pc says, “It was 1948,” the Auditor only checks it if the TA sticks up higher, meaning probably a wrong date. He checks with, “In this session have we had a wrong date? That reads, what date was wrong?” and lets the pc argue it out with himself—TA action will restore.

RIs

Reliable Items have to be clean. The pc can usually tell. But the pc can’t tell the right RI out of a list or the right goal unless the Auditor sees it RR or fall. But sometimes the Auditor thinks an RI is clean (no longer reads having read) when it still has somatics on it. In this case it’s suppressed and the Auditor checks it for suppress.

The pc saying the RI is not clean (should still be reading) carries more weight than the meter.

As the pc gets along in running Time Track and GPMs with their goals and Reliable Items he or she often becomes better than the meter as to what is right or wrong, what is the goal, what RI still reads.

METER INVALIDATION

An Auditor who just sits and shakes his head, “Didn’t Rocket Read” can give a pc too many loses and deteriorate the pc’s ability to run GPMs.

In a conflict between pc and meter, take the pc’s data. Why? Because Protest and Assert and Mistake will also read on a meter. You can get these off, but why create them?

The meter is not there to invalidate the pc. Using the meter to invalidate the pc is bad form.

You’ll have less trouble by taking the pc’s data for the pc will eventually correct it.

The meter is invaluable in locating by-passed charge and curing an ARC Break. But it can be done without a meter, just by letting the pc think over each line read to him or her from the ARC Break Assessment and say whether it is or isn’t and if it is, spotting the thing by-passed.

CLEANING CLEANS

The Auditor who cleans a clean meter is asking for trouble.

This is the same as asking a pc for something that isn’t there and develops a “withhold of nothing”.

Example: Ask “Do you have a present time problem?” Get no needle reaction. Ask the pc for the PTP that hasn’t read. That is impossible for the pc to answer. That’s what’s meant by cleaning a clean.

DIRTY NEEDLE

All dirty needles are caused by the Auditor failing to hear all the pc had to say in answering a question or volunteering data.

Charge is removed from a case only by the Comm Cycle pc to Auditor.

The Auditor’s command restimulates a charge in the pc. The only way this charge can be blown is by the pc telling the Auditor.

“Auditor” means “A listener”. The Auditor who has not learned to listen gets:

First — Dirty Needle

Next — Stuck Tone Arm

Finally — ARC Break

The most important line in Auditing is from pc to Auditor. If this line is open and not hurried or chopped you get no Dirty Needles and Lots of TA Action.

To continuously get in Auditor to pc and impede the line pc to Auditor is to pile up endless restimulated charge on a case.

RULE: TONE ARM ACTION OF ANY KIND WITHOUT ANY SIGNIFICANCE OF WHAT’S BEHIND IT WILL TAKE A PC TO OT EVENTUALLY.

RULE: THE MOST CORRECT TRACK SIGNIFICANCES RUN BUT WITHOUT TA ACTION WILL NOT CHANGE BUT CAN DETERIORATE A CASE.

RULE: THE CORRECT TRACK SIGNIFICANCES RUN WITH TA ACTION WILL ATTAIN OT FASTEST.

Thus we see that an Auditor can get everything right except TA action and not make an OT. And we see that TA action without running specific things will make an OT, (though it might take a thousand years).

Therefore TA action is superior to what is run. Running the right things with TA action is faster only.

Thus the line pc to Auditor is somewhat senior to the Comm Line Auditor to pc. (See diagram.)

Don’t get the idea that the process is not important. It is. People were made to talk in psychoanalysis without getting anywhere but there they probably had no TA and ran the wrong significances. It takes the right process correctly run to get TA action. So don’t underrate processes or the action of the Auditor.

Realize that the answering of the process question is senior to the asking of another process question. A pc could talk for years without getting any TA action. Got it? So listen as long as a TA moves.

Learn to see if the pc has said everything he or she wants to say before the next Auditor action, never do a new Auditor action while or if the pc wants to speak and you’ll get superior TA action. Cut the pc off, get in more actions than the pc is allowed to answer and you’ll have a Dirty Needle, then a stuck TA and then an ARC Break.

See the attached drawing of this. And all will suddenly get clearer about any pc you’ve audited. And trouble will evaporate.

By cutting the “Itsa Line” an Auditor can make case gain disappear.

“Learn To Listen.” That’s what “Auditor” means.

It has taken me so long to see this in others because I don’t cut the pc’s line very often and repair it fast when I do. So forgive me for bringing it up so late.

When the pc is talking and you’re getting no TA, you already have an ARC Break or are about to get one. So assess the by-passed charge.

RULE: DON’T DEMAND MORE THAN THE PC CAN TELL YOU.

RULE: DON’T RECEIVE LESS THAN THE PC HAS TO SAY.

Watch the pc’s eyes. Don’t take auditing actions if the pc is not looking at you.

Don’t give acknowledgements that aren’t needed. Over acknowledgement means acknowledging before the pc has said all.

SUMMARY

Running the right process is vital. Getting TA action on the right process is skilled auditing.

Listening is superior to asking.

Build up the pc’s confidence in his own knowingness and continuously and progressively reduce the pc’s dependence on a meter.


LRH:dr.cden L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


** 6308C06 SHSBC-291 Auditing Comm Cycles—Definition of an Auditor
** 6308C07 SHSBC-292 R-2H Fundamentals [see page 343 for graph]
** 6308C08 SHSBC-293 R-2H Assessment [see page 344 for graph]


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 9 AUGUST 1963

HCO Secs
Org Secs
Franchise
Field
BPI
DEFINITION OF RELEASE
(Cancels HCO Bulletin of 14 January 1963)


A RELEASE is one who knows he or she has had worthwhile gains from Scientology processing and who knows he or she will not now get worse.


L. RON HUBBARD


LRH :dr.rd
Copyright © 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED





HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 11 AUGUST 1963

Central Orgs
Franchise



ARC BREAK ASSESSMENTS


In a session don’t ever do an ARC Break Assessment until the pc has given up trying to untangle it. This particularly applies to R3R and 3N.

DATES R2H

Don’t ever date anything for the pc until the pc has completely given up trying himself.

DON’T USE METERING, ARC BREAK ASSESSMENTS, DATING, or incomprehensible or new commands to CUT THE ITSA LINE. Let it run. Help only when it’s stopped.


L. RON HUBBARD


LRH :dr jh
Copyright © 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 14 AUGUST 1963

Central Orgs





LECTURE GRAPHS



The following graphs accompany Saint Hill Special Briefing Course Lectures of:


July 25, AD 13
August 7, AD 13
August 8, AD 13



L. RON HUBBARD






LRH:dr.cden
Copyright © 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED




















SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
14—15 August 1963


** 6308C14 SHSBC-294 Auditing Tips
** 6308C15 SHSBC-295 The Tone Arm

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 19 AUGUST AD13
Central Orgs
Franchise

SCIENTOLOGY TWO
STAR RATED HCO BULLETIN

HOW TO DO AN ARC BREAK ASSESSMENT


(HCO Secs: Check out on all technical Executives and Personnel. Tech Dir: Check out on HCO Secs and Assn Org Secs.)

The successful handling of an ARC Break Assessment is a skilled activity which requires:

1. Skill in handling a Meter.
2. Skill in handling the Itsa Line of the Auditing Cycle.
3. Skill in Assessment.

The lists given in HCO Bulletin of July 5, AD13 “ARC BREAK ASSESSMENTS”, are used, either from that HCO Bulletin or amended.

There are several uses for ARC Break Assessments.

1. Cleaning up a session ARC Break.
2. Cleaning up auditing in general.
3. Cleaning up a pc’s or student’s possible ARC Breaks.
4. Cleaning up a member of the public’s possible or actual ARC Breaks.
5. Regular use on a weekly basis on staff or organization members.

There are others. Those above are the chief uses.

For long time periods the standard 18 button prepcheck is faster, but an ARC Break Assessment is still useful in conjunction with it.

The drill is simple. If complicated by adding in R2H material, dating, and other additives, the ARC Break Assessment ceases to work well and may even create more ARC Breaks.

If used every time a pc gets in a little trouble in R3N or R3R the ARC Break Assessment is being used improperly. In R2H, R3N, R3R sessions it is used only when the pc shows definite signs of an ARC Break. To use it oftener constitutes no auditing.

Unnecessary use of an ARC Break Assessment may ARC Break the pc with the Assessment.

The ARC Break Assessment may be repaired by an 18 Button Prepcheck “On ARC Break Assessments ......”.

ARC BREAK ASSESSMENT BY STEPS

STEP ONE:

Select the proper list. This is done by establishing what the pc has been audited on. If more than one type of by-passed charge is suspected, do more than one list. If the ARC Break is not completely cured by one list, do another kind of list. (All lists have been in HCOBs as “L”.)

STEP TWO:

Inform the pc that you are about to assess for any charge that might have been restimulated or by-passed on his or her case. Do not heavily stress the ARC Break aspect. Right: “I am going to assess a list to see if any charge has been by-passed on your case.” Wrong: “I’m going to try to cure (or assess) your ARC Break.”

STEP THREE:

Without regard to pc’s natter, but with quick attention for any cognition the pc may have during assessment as to by-passed charge, assess the list.

Phrase the question in regard to the reason for the Assessment—”In this session........” “During this week .......” “In Scientology ........” etc. Call each line once to see if it gives an instant read.

The moment a line gives a reaction, stop, and do Step Four.

STEP FOUR:

When a line reacts on the needle, say to the pc, “The line ........reacts. What can you tell me about this?”

STEP FIVE:

Keep Itsa Line in. Do not cut the pc’s line. Do not ask for more than pc has. Let pc flounder around until pc finds the charge asked for in Step Four or says there’s no such charge. (If a line reacted because the pc did not understand it, or by protest or decide, make it right with the pc and continue assessing.)

STEP SIX:

In a session: If pc found the by-passed charge, ask pc “How do you feel now?” If pc says he or she feels OK, cease assessing for ARC Breaks and go back to session actions. If pc says there’s no such charge or gets misemotional at Auditor, keep on assessing on down the list for another active line, or even on to another list until the charge is found which makes pc relax.

In a routine ARC Break check (not a session but for a longer period), don’t stop assessing but keep on going as in Step Five, unless pc’s cognition is huge.

END OF STEPS


Please notice: This is not R2H. There is no dating. The auditor does not further assist the pc with the meter in any way.

If the pc blows up in your face on being given a type of charge, keep going, as you have not yet found the charge. Typical response to wrong charge found: Pc: “Well of course it’s a cut communication! You’ve been cutting my communication the whole session. You ought to be retreaded .. etc.” Note here that pc’s attention is still on auditor. Therefore the correct charge has not been found. If the by-passed charge has been found the pc will relax and look for it, attention on own case.

Several by-passed charges can exist and be found on one list. Therefore in cleaning up a week or an intensive or a career (any long period) treat a list like rudiments, cleaning everything that reacts.

Blow down of the Tone Arm is the meter reaction of having found the correct by-passed charge. Keep doing Steps One to Six until you get a blow down of the Tone Arm. The pc feeling better and being happy about the ARC Break will coincide almost always with a Tone Arm Blow Down.

You can, however, undo a session ARC Break Assessment by continuing beyond the pc’s cognition of what it is. Continuing an assessment after the pc has cognited, invalidates the pc’s cognition and cuts the Itsa Line and may cause a new ARC Break.

Rarely, but sometimes, the ARC Break is handled with no TA blow down.


PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT

The purpose of an ARC Break Assessment is to return the pc into session or into Scientology or into an Org or course. By-passed charge can cause the person to blow out of session, or out of an Org or a course or Scientology.

WITH A SESSION (formerly “in”): Is defined as “INTERESTED IN OWN CASE AND WILLING TO TALK TO THE AUDITOR”. AGAINST SESSION: Against session is defined as “ATTENTION OFF OWN CASE AND TALKING AT THE AUDITOR IN PROTEST OF AUDITOR, PT AUDITING, ENVIRONMENT OR SCIENTOLOGY”.

WITH SCIENTOLOGY: With Scientology is defined as “INTERESTED IN SUBJECT AND GETTING IT USED”. AGAINST SCIENTOLOGY: Against Scientology is defined as “ATTENTION OFF SCIENTOLOGY AND PROTESTING SCIENTOLOGY BEHAVIOUR OR CONNECTIONS”.

WITH ORGANIZATION: With organization can be defined as “INTERESTED IN ORG OR POST AND WILLING TO COMMUNICATE WITH OR ABOUT ORG”. AGAINST ORGANIZATION: Against organizationness is defined as “AGAINST ORGANIZATION OR POSTS AND PROTESTING AT ORG BEHAVIOUR OR EXISTENCE” .

The data about ARC Breaks can be expanded to marriage, companies, jobs, etc. Indeed to all dynamics—With Dynamic, Against Dynamic.

What it boils down to is this: There are only two conditions of living, but many shades of grey to each one.

These conditions are:

1. LIFE: NOT ARC BROKEN: Capable of some affinity for, some reality about and some communication with the environment; and

2. DEATH: ARC BROKEN: Incapable of affinity for, reality about and communication with the environment.

Under One we have those who can disenturbulate themselves and make some progress in life.

Under Two we have those who are in such protest that they are stopped and can make little or no progress in life.

One, we consider to be in some ARC with existence.

Two, we consider to be broken in ARC with existence.

In a session or handling the living lightning we handle, people can be hit by a forceful charge of which they are only minutely aware but which swamps them. Their affinity, reality and communication (life force) is retarded or cut by this hidden charge and they react with what we call an ARC Break or have an ARC Broken aspect.

If they know what charge it is they do not ARC Break or they cease to be ARC Broken.

It is the unknown character of the charge that causes it to have such a violent effect on the person.

People do not ARC Break on known charge. It is always the hidden or the earlier charge that causes the ARC Break.

This makes life look different (and more understandable). People continuously explain so glibly why they are acting as badly as they are. Whereas, if they really knew, they would not act that way. When the true character of the charge (or many charges as in a full case) is known to the person the ARC Break ceases.

How much by-passed charge does it take to make a case? The whole sum of past by-passed charge.

This fortunately for the pc is not all of it in constant restimulation. Therefore the person stays somewhat in one piece but prey to any restimulation.

Auditing selectively restimulates, locates the charge and discharges it (as seen on the action of a moving Tone Arm).

However, accidental rekindlings of past charge unseen by pc or auditor occur and the pc “mysteriously” ARC Breaks.

Similarly people in life get restimulated also, but with nobody to locate the charge. Thus Scientologists are lucky.

In heavily restimulated circumstances the person goes OUT OF. In such a condition people want to stop things, cease to act, halt life, and failing this they try to run away.

As soon as the actual by-passed charge is found and recognized as the charge by the person, up goes Affinity and Reality and Communication and life can be lived.

Therefore ARC Breaks are definite, their symptoms are known, their cure is very easy with this understanding and technology.

An ARC Break Assessment seeks to locate the charge that served, being hidden, as a whip-hand force on the person. When it is located life returns. Locating the actual by-passed charge is returning life to the person.

Therefore, properly handling ARC Breaks can be called, with no exaggeration “Returning Life to the person”.

One further word of caution: As experience will quickly tell you, seeking to do anything at all with an earlier by-passed charge incident which led to the ARC Break immediately the earlier incident is found will lead to a vast mess.

Let the pc talk about it all the pc pleases. But don’t otherwise try to run it, date it or seek to find what by-passed charge caused the earlier incident. In assessing for ARC Breaks, keep the Itsa Line in very well and keep the What’s It out in every respect except as contained in the above Six Steps.


SUMMARY

An ARC Break Assessment is simple stuff, so simple people are almost certain to complicate it. It only works when kept simple.

Old auditors will see a similarity in an ARC Break Assessment List and old end rudiments. They can be handled much the same but only when one is covering a long time period. Otherwise assess only to cognition and drop it.

The trouble in ARC Break Assessments comes from additives by the auditor, failure to keep on with additional lists if the type of charge causing the ARC Break isn’t found on the first list chosen, failure to read the meter, and failure to keep the Itsa Line in.

Doing ARC Break Assessments to cure ARC Breaks is not the same drill as R2H and confusing the two leads to trouble.

Handled skillfully as above, ARC Break Assessing cures the great majority of woes of auditing, registraring, training and handling organization. If you find you aren’t making ARC Break Assessments work for you check yourself out on this HCO Bulletin carefully, review your meter reading and examine your handling of the Itsa Line. If you want live people around you, learn to handle ARC Break Assessments.

Don’t worry about pcs getting ARC Breaks. Worry about being able to cure them with assessment until you have confidence you can. There’s nothing so uplifting as that confidence, except perhaps the ability to make any case get TA motion.

Don’t ever be “reasonable” about an ARC Break and think the pc is perfectly right to be having one “because ......”. If that ARC Break exists, the pc doesn’t know what’s causing it and neither do you until you and the pc find it! If you and the pc knew what was causing it, there would be no further ARC Break.


LRH:dr.cden L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 20 AUGUST AD 13
Central Orgs
Franchise SCIENTOLOGY THREE & FOUR

R3R—R3N
THE PRECLEAR’S POSTULATES


We have long known that the preclear’s postulates made at the time of the incident contained charge.

As the preclear is moved back on his time track beyond Trillions Three, you will find that incidents and Reliable Items contain less charge proportionately to the pc (who was stronger then) and that the pc’s postulates made then contained more charge.

In short as you go earlier on the Time Track, the incidents seemed weaker to the pc then and the pc, being more capable, had stronger postulates.

Thus it is not uncommon to find a GPM on the early track producing only falls on the pc and the pc’s postulates made at that time rocket reading (or falling).

This, in fact, gets even more disproportionate so that on the very early track you might find that running RIs out of a GPM produces no TA motion, but taking the pc’s postulates out produces a TA blow down that “goes through 7” (around the whole TA dial and back up).

In my recent surveys of the Tone Arm and its relationship to auditing, it became apparent that three types of charge existed in a GPM.

1. Charge as an engram.

2. Charge as Reliable Items.

3. Charge as postulates.

All three must be removed from a GPM.

Any incident, wherever it is on the track, contains postulates (comments, considerations, directions) made by the pc at that time.

Thus in all incidents the pc’s postulates must be called for and removed.

To remove a postulate from any incident, have the pc repeat it until it no longer reacts on the needle of the meter. If it comes down to a persistent tick get suppress off it and get it repeated again, just as in the case of any RI in a GPM.

DON’T LEAVE POSTULATES CHARGED.

Treat them like GPM Items whether in a GPM or an engram.

Add to your ARC Break L lists L3 and L4, “Have we by-passed any postulates?”

There are implants which tell the pc not to erase his own postulates. There is also a Bear Series Goal “To Postulate”

Sometimes the postulate lies ahead of the actual engram in R3R. Example: A man decides to get hurt, then enters into an engramic situation. The engram does not wholly free until the postulate is removed.

Occasional calling for “any postulates, considerations or comments you had in this incident” while running R3R engrams or R3N will keep the incident going well. When the pc says one, have him or her repeat it until it no longer reacts on the needle.

I bring this up at this time as I have found a case that got no TA action on engrams or GPMs or RRs on RIs until the postulates were given special attention, at which time TA action of an excellent kind occurred.


SUMMARY

A stuck TA is always caused by running the pc above the pc’s tolerance of charge. You can stop any TA by ramming the pc into incident after incident without cleaning them up. A postulate is only one kind of charge.

At any position on the Time Track also look for the pc’s postulates. Early on the Time Track expect them to occasionally “blow the Meter apart”.

Flatten any postulate found by getting it repeated until the reaction is gone off the needle. And all charge, of course, on anything, whether falls or RRs, must be removed from engrams or GPMs.


L. RON HUBBARD




LRH: dr.bh
Copyright © 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

























SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
20—21 August 1963

** 6308C20 SHSBC-296 The Itsa Line
** 6308C21 SHSBC-297 The Itsa Line (cont.)

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 22 AUGUST AD13
Route Copy to:
HCO Area Sec
Org/Assn Sec TECH PREPARATION
D of P FOR HCO POL LTR 21 AUG AD 13
Head of Staff Co-audit
PE Director
PROJECT 80


THE ITSA LINE AND TONE ARM


The HCO Area Secretary should cause to be played to staff the SHSBC LRH lectures of:

14 August AD 13
15 August AD 13
20 August AD 13
21 August AD 13
22 August AD 13

These lectures contain all the material necessary for great technical improvement in the organization in both training and processing and particularly on the staff co-audit.

Public Dissemination via PE and outside unskilled co-audit is resolved in these lectures.

A great many questions, complications and additives can grow up around the Itsa Line so as to amount to several brands of Scientology. These are taken up in great detail in these lectures.

This is part of a programme to bring home to Central Organizations the current ease of getting acceptable results in the Academy, on the HGC and in the Co-audit by use of only the Tone Arm and Itsa Line. And carry forward the groundwork for outside co-auditing and broader dissemination.

We are building all future processing, training and dissemination on the very firm foundation of the definition of an auditor (one who listens), the Itsa Line (listen to the preclear) and the solution of problems (the preclear is always right). This communicates with extreme ease and simplicity.

We are building all professional auditing on the Itsa Line, plus directing pc’s attention plus the Tone Arm.

We are building all top skill auditing on the Itsa Line, directing the pc’s attention to what must be audited to make clear and OT and the Tone Arm.

These tapes contain all the vital basic information.

If you are having any difficulties with income, results, staff co-audit or public dissemination, the broad technical data contained in the Itsa Line, ARC Break Assessments and Tone Arm Action will rapidly resolve them.

This begins a new era for Scientology.

Get the data known to staff by holding these tape plays for me, at least two of these tapes a week, with all staff attending.

Stressing any other data or reviewing any other material, playing any other tapes broadly to staff or students at this time will retard your forward progress by overloading the line.

So I’m counting on you as HCO Area Sec to take care of this for me and keep staff attention squarely on:

1. The Itsa Line

2. The Tone Arm

3. Proper use of ARC Break Assessments

4. Directing pc’s attention adroitly.

This does not affect what we already know and does not outmode such things as metering, Auditor’s Code, etc.

If you take care of this one for me on the technical end, you’ll get a lot of gains and prosperity.


L. RON HUBBARD


LRH :jw.rd
Copyright © 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



[HCO PL 21 August 1963, Change of Organization Targets-Project 80, referred to above is in OEC Vol. 2, page 95. ]


















SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
22—29 August 1963


** 6308C22 SHSBC-298 Project 80
** 6308C27 SHSBC-299 Rightness and Wrongness
** 6308C28 SHSBC-300 The TA and the Service Facsimile
** 6308C29 SHSBC-301 The Service Facsimile (cont.)

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 1 SEPTEMBER 1963

Central Orgs
Franchise

SCIENTOLOGY THREE

CLEARING—CLEARING—CLEARING




ROUTINE THREE SC



There has been such a rush on in technical that it may have looked to you that we were in a state of rapid change. This was occasioned by a speed-up caused by various events. You are getting about a century of research (or more) in a very few months. So bear with me. The end is not only in sight. It’s here. My job is mainly now to refine and get the data to you.

The order brought into our work by making FIVE LEVELS OF SCIENTOLOGY is paying off rapidly. Level One is in development. Level Two is well away. Level Four is complete. And suddenly Level Three leaped to a final phase.

We can CLEAR, CLEAR, CLEAR.

This has been a stepchild for months, even years now. It has been mauled, messed up, invalidated and rehabilitated and knocked around. But a BOOK ONE CLEAR was what most people came into Scientology to obtain. And now I’ve done it. I’ve found out why not and how.

And this HCO Bulletin is a hurry-skurry outline of the steps so you can do it. There will be lots of HCO Bulletins on this. The tapes of August 27, 28 and 29, AD13, give most of its theory.

CLEAR DEFINED—Book One definition holds exactly true. A Clear is somebody with no “held down fives” in this lifetime (see Evolution of a Science).

CLEAR TEST—Clear sits at Clear read on the TA with a free needle. No natter. No upsets. No whole track keyed in. No SERVICE FACSIMILE.

CLEAR STABILITY—We are not concerned with stability. But we can now key out so thoroughly that we need not stress “keyed out clear”. I have found the means, I am sure, to make this state far more stable and recreate it easily if it slips.

So forgive me for being indecisive about clear states for these past many months.

The breakthrough is stated as follows: IF YOU CANNOT MAKE A CLEAR IN A 25-HOUR PREPCHECK THE PC HAS ONE OR MORE SERVICE FACSIMILES.

The barrier to clearing and the reason for fast relapse when clear was attained has been the SERVICE FACSIMILE.

SERVICE FACSIMILE defined: Advanced Procedure and Axioms definition accurate. Added to this is: THE SERVICE FACSIMILE IS THAT COMPUTATION GENERATED BY THE PRECLEAR (NOT THE BANK) TO MAKE SELF RIGHT AND OTHERS WRONG, TO DOMINATE OR ESCAPE DOMINATION AND ENHANCE OWN SURVIVAL AND INJURE THAT OF OTHERS.

Note that it is generated by the pc, not the bank. Thus the pc restimulates the bank with the computation; the bank, unlike going to OT, does not retard the pc in this instance.

The Service Facsimile is usually a this lifetime effort only. It might better be called a SERVICE COMPUTATION but we’ll hold to our old terms. The pc is doing it. In usual aberration the bank is doing it (the pc’s engrams, etc). Where you can’t clear the pc by auditing just bank, you have to get out of the road what the pc is doing to stay aberrated. If you clear only what the bank is doing the clear state rapidly relapses. If you clear what the pc is doing the bank tends to stay more quiet and unrestimulated. It is the pc who mostly keys his bank back in. Therefore the pc who won’t go free needle clear is himself unconsciously preventing it. And by knocking out this effort we can then key out the bank and we have a fast clear who pretty well stays clear (until sent on to OT).

The state is desirable to attain as it speeds going to OT.

All this came from studies I’ve been doing of the Tone Arm. The Tone Arm must move during auditing or the pc gets worse. All those pcs whose Tone Arms don’t easily get into action and hang up are SERVICE FACSIMILE pcs.

Note that the SERVICE FACSIMILE is used to:

FIRST: Make self right.
Make others wrong.

SECOND: To Avoid Domination.
To Dominate Others.

THIRD: To Increase own survival.
To hinder the survival of others.

The Service Facsimile is all of it logical gobbledegook. It doesn’t make good sense. That’s because the pc adopted it where, in extreme cases, he or she felt endangered by something but could not Itsa it. Hence it’s illogical. Because it is senseless, really, the computation escapes casual inspection and makes for aberrated behaviour.


TO MAKE A CLEAR

The steps, in brief, are:

1. ESTABLISH SERVICE FAC. This is done by Assessment of Scientology List One of 2-12 and using that for a starter and then using the Preliminary Step of R3R as published (HCO Bulletin of July I, AD 1 3). One uses only things found by assessment, never by wild guesses or pc’s obvious disabilities. These assessments already exist on many cases and should be used as earlier found.

2. AUDIT WITH RIGHT-WRONG. Ask pc with Itsa Line carefully in, FIRST QUESTION: “In this lifetime, how would (whatever was found) make you right?” Adjust question until pc can answer it, if pc can’t. Don’t force it off on pc. If it’s correct it will run well. Don’t keep repeating the question unless pc needs it. Just let pc answer and answer and answer. Let pc come to a cognition or run out of answers or try to answer the next question prematurely and switch questions to: SECOND QUESTION: “In this lifetime, how would (whatever was found) make others wrong?” Treat this the same way. Let the pc come to a cog, or run out of answers or accidentally start to answer the first question. Go back to first question. Do the same with it. Then to second question. Then to first question again, then to second.

If your assessment was right pc will be getting better and better TA action. But the TA action will eventually lessen. On any big cognition, end the process. This may all take from 2 hours to 5, I don’t think more. The idea is not to beat the process to

death or sink pc into bank GPMs. The pc will have automaticities (answers coming too fast to be said easily) early in the run. These must be gone and pc bright when you end. You are only trying to end the compulsive character of the Service Facsimile so found and get it off automatic and get pc to see it better, not to remove all TA action from the process.

3. AUDIT SECOND PROCESS. Using the same method of auditing as in 2. above, use the THIRD QUESTION: “In this lifetime how would (same one used in Step 2) help you escape domination?” When this seems cooled off use FOURTH QUESTION: “In this lifetime how would (same one) help you dominate others?” Use THIRD QUESTION and FOURTH QUESTION again and until pc has it all cooled off or a big cognition.

4. AUDIT THIRD PROCESS. Using the same method as in 2. above use the FIFTH QUESTION: “In this lifetime, how would (same one) aid your survival?” and then SIXTH QUESTION: “In this lifetime how would (same one) hinder the survival of others?” Use FIVE and SIX as long as is necessary to cool it all off or to produce a big cognition.

5. PREPCHECK WITH BIG MID RUDS, using the question, “In this lifetime, on (same one) has anything been . .. ?” and get in Suppress, Careful of, Failed to Reveal, Invalidate, Suggest, Mistake been made, Protest, Anxious about, Decided.

If the pc has a really shattering cognition just halt Prepcheck and end it off.

This Prepcheck is done of course off the meter until the pc says no, then checking it on the meter and cleaning it off. Once you’ve gone to meter on a button stay with meter for further queries. But don’t clean cleans and don’t leave slows or speeded rises either. And don’t cut pc’s Itsa Line.


That should be the end of a Service Facsimile. But a pc may have several, so do it all again through all steps as often as is needed.

Pcs who have had Scientology List One of R2- 12 should be given these as the first things used. Pcs who have had assessments done for R3R chains should have these assessment results used (or as much of them as apply) for the next runs. Even if the chain assessment has been run on R3R still use it for R3SC.


COMPLETING CLEARING

To complete clearing then, it is only necessary to give a permissive In This Lifetime 18 button Prepcheck making the pc look hard for answers, short of ARC Breaking pc.

And you should have a beautiful free needle and TA at the clear read and the pc shining.

If clearing did not occur these following faults were present in the auditing:

1. Pc did not agree with assessment, it read only because pc did not understand it or protested it.

2. The assessment was wrong.

3. The atmosphere of auditing was critical of pc.

4. The Itsa Line was not in.

5. The auditor let the Itsa Line wander to early track.

6. The auditor Q’ed and A’ed and went off process and into engrams on pc’s “sell”.

7. The process was not done.

8. The assessment was done by physical disability inspection or by choosing pc’s habits, not by actual assessment.

9. The auditing did not produce TA action (wrong assessment and/or Itsa Line out would be all that could produce no TA action).

10. Pc already sitting in a heavy ARC Break by reason of whole track by-passed charge.

11. This process used instead of an ARC Break Assessment well done, thus making this process a punishment.

12. Questions phrased wrong.

13. Questions were over-run.

14. Questions were under-run.

15. Auditor too choppy on Prepchecking.

16. ARC Breaks in these sessions were not cleaned up.

17. Pc trying to plunge into early track and stay restimulated.

18. Pc trying to get early track GPMs or engrams run to avoid giving up Service Facsimile.

19. Auditor missed withholds accumulated during clearing.

20. Process end product “clear” overestimated by auditor, pc or supervisors.
The keynote of clearing a Service Facsimile is INTEREST. If pc isn’t interested in it, the assessment is wrong.

The keynote of auditing tone is permissive, happy, easy, not militant. Let pc run on and on.

On phrasing question, no matter what is assessed it is always IT MAKES PC RIGHT AND OTHERS WRONG. Pc is not trying to make it wrong.

--------------

An ordinary Prepcheck, done with a Service Facsimile present, will turn on mass on the pc. Why? Pc is asserting Service Facsimile.

--------------

Well that’s the fast rundown on R3SC (Routine Three, Service Facsimile Clear). And that’s clearing. A lot of theory is missing in this HCO Bulletin but not one essential step. You can do it.

If a person is cleared before going on to OT they make it hundreds of hours faster !

(NOTE: All OT processes will shortly be released with R4 designations but with little other change.)


LRH:jw.cden L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

** 6309C03 SHSBC-302A R3SC
** 6309C04 SHSBC-302 How to Find a Service Facsimile
** 6309C05 SHSBC-303 Service Fac Assessment

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 6 SEPTEMBER 1963
DofT, DofP
Five copies to
each Org SCIENTOLOGY FIVE
Orgs do not re
stencil INSTRUCTING IN SCIENTOLOGY AUDITING
INSTRUCTOR’S TASK
D of P’s CASE HANDLING


As given at the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course Instructors Conference of this date, the task of the Scientology Auditing Course Instructor (and D’s of P handling cases through uncleared staff auditors) is to accomplish training and processing and therefore auditing with uncleared students or auditors.

The following drawings and explanations were made.

In Drawing A we see the auditor’s perception of the pc as limited by auditor’s own Service Facsimile.

In Drawing B we see the Auditor’s perception of the pc the way it would be if the Service Fac were removed.

Thus we see judgement missing because of lack of perception of the pc or his or her condition or case in Drawing A, thus permitting only processes not requiring high level perception or decisions based upon the momentary condition of the pc.

In Drawing B we see that perception is not limited, judgement can be exercised by the auditor because the pc can actually be observed by him. Higher level processes can only be run by an auditor approximating the observation condition shown in Drawing B.

In Drawing C we see the actual observation limitations of auditor or pc in an aberrated condition. The keynote is SAFE ASSUMPTIONS as per Service Fac. Thus only Safe Assumptions will be entertained and no real auditing occurs. Only ineffective assumptions or questions are likely to be asked or viewed. Example: “What about thinking about stealing a paper clip from HASI?” This actual question was once asked in O/W, and its prototypes keep real auditing from occurring since neither pc nor auditor get close to any real aberration. (That either auditor or pc consider the assumption safe does not mean it is not aberrated and subject to fault.) So no real auditing of the case is undertaken and when something worth while auditing is contacted, either auditor draws off or pc (unobserved by an aberrated auditor) draws off. This reduces processing results to next to nothing. It also sometimes leads both auditor and pc in over both their heads as little is observed and all these “Safe Assumptions” are also aberrated .

The Instructor’s (and Case Supervisor’s) Solution is seen in Drawing D.

Auditing at lower stages, done by aberrated auditors (who have Service Facs in place) must be assumed to be independent of observation of the PC Occurrences (since observation of the pc as in Drawing A does not exist).

The Instructor therefore directs the Student Auditor’s attention toward the Scientology Body of Data in order to get effective auditing done. So does any Case Supervisor. This body of data is designed to accomplish auditing independent of Observation of the pc and the many varieties of changes and differences amongst pcs. The Instructor uses such mechanisms as “If you can breathe you can audit,” “Do it exactly by the Bulletin.” He instructs only in broadly workable processes and along

definite rote lines. He uses the habit patterns of discipline to enforce the auditor’s attention to and compliance with workable drills and data.

If this is done (and only if this is done) will auditing occur that is capable of producing effective results independent of the condition shown in Drawing A.

If the condition shown in Drawing C is permitted to occur, then all manner of squirrel processes and actions will occur in sessions, wild solutions will reign and general chaos will result. But more importantly the auditing necessary to produce the ideal condition shown in Drawing B can occur only in the presence of Instruction or Supervision shown in Drawing D.

Thus one produces cleared auditors by operating only as per Drawing D. These facts are not the result of theoretical supposition, but of careful empirical observation and test. Therefore, Instruction and performance of uncleared auditors must follow Drawing D.

The accomplishment of Classes II and III auditing and Levels II and III results is possible by following Drawing D. It fails only when Drawing D is not understood and followed by Instructors and Auditing Supervisors.

The liability is that the student’s or auditor’s Service Fac may contest Instruction as shown in Drawing D. There is no liability if the student is already capable of Drawing B observation (which is rare in uncleared persons). If a Service Fac is in the road of Instruction as per Drawing D, it still has been and can be overcome far more easily than overcoming various erroneous and varying observations of pcs, as to confront the pc is to confront aberration directly and to confront the Body of Data is to confront only an orderly and pleasant arrangement of truthful facts that will still hold good when the student is cleared, whereas the pc’s aberration, unstable before processing, will be gone.

Thus we study valid workable data that is broadly true and enforce compliance with it rather than studying or classifying Individual Cases and their aberrations as was done exclusively in older Mental Sciences (which failed where we have already succeeded for years).

Class IV material (OT and Whole Track) is sometimes too much for the uncleared auditor since it is complex. It requires strict adherence to the Body of Data as well as some observation of the pc. Thus Class IV materials (OT and Whole Track) are best done when the conditions of Drawing B and Drawing D both be present in the session.

This establishes levels of data and classification of its use. Some auditors with Service Facsimiles in place will be unable to successfully handle Class IV data. And some pcs unless cleared of the added restimulation of this life and the environment before being put on Whole Track will be unable to climb the hill.

Therefore all instruction and use of Scientology Auditing Skills and Materials are most successfully done as per Drawing D and have proven unsuccessful when auditor observation of the pc was assumed or auditor judgement relied upon while the auditor or student was in an uncleared state as per Drawings A and C.

This shows an Instructor in or Supervisor of Scientology Auditing his surest route to success with students without blocking those students already in condition to observe pcs. Those students whose Service Facsimiles revolt at Drawing D will also most surely prevent their observation of the pc and Instruction and Supervision Methods as per Drawing D can overcome the barrier whereas nothing will actually surmount the failure to observe the pc, short of clearing the auditor’s Service Fac. This last is a matter, also, of close observation of students over a period of two years.

The object is to get auditing done under supervision and both during and after Instruction. Only then can we ever broadly attain cleared auditors or any of our objectives.

Instruction fails when these principles are not present or when done without heavy stress on the Body of Data and compliance with good auditing practice.

This is in no way critical of students or uncleared auditors. It is simple observation. It is effective.

It is no mean development to accomplish auditing without observing the more subtle conditions of the pc. We have done just that. Therefore, as the student or auditor does not usually observe the pc because of his own Service Fac, and as Level II and III can be done entirely by data, drills and rote procedures, all but Class IV can be attained without cleared auditors. If only cleared auditors were permitted to audit then nobody would be able to start the clearing. This shortage of cleared auditors will exist to nearly the end of this universe. So it is a good thing to have the problem resolved, as it is in this HCO Bulletin.

Of course, the most valid reason for using this approach is that only the disciplined Body of Data used exactly is capable of resolving cases and no amount of confront of PC Occurrence would by itself resolve anything.

It’s the Body of Data exactly and precisely used that resolves the human or any other mind. And that’s the main reason to make the student concentrate upon it. So this is a safe thing to do—concentrate on the Body of Data—no matter why.


L. RON HUBBARD


LRH: dr.bh
Copyright © 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


[Drawings A, B, C and D discussed in the above HCO B are on the following page.]















SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
10—19 September 1963

** 6309C10 SHSBC-304 Destimulation of a Case
** 6309C11 SHSBC-306 Service Facs and GPMs
** 6309C12 SHSBC-305 Service Facs
** 6309C17 SHSBC-307 What You Are Auditing
** 6309C18 SHSBC-308 St. Hill Service Fac Handling
** 6309C19 SHSBC-309 Routine 4M TA [HCO B 2 Oct. 63 cancels R4M TA]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 9 SEPTEMBER AD13
Central Orgs
Franchise

REPETITIVE RUDIMENTS AND REPETITIVE PREPCHECKING
(Compiled from HCO Bulletins of July 2, 3 and 4, AD12)


HOW TO GET THE RUDIMENTS IN

Just as an E-Meter can go dead for the auditor in the presence of a monstrous ARC break, I have found it can go gradiently dull in the presence of out rudiments. If you fail to get one IN then the outness of the next one reads faintly. And if your TR1 is at all poor, you’ll miss the rudiment’s outness and there goes your session.

To get over these difficulties, I’ve developed Repetitive Rudiments.

The auditor at first does not consult the meter, but asks the rudiments question of the pc until the pc says there is no further answer. At this point the auditor says, “I will check that on the meter.” And asks the question again. If it reads, the auditor uses the meter to steer the pc to the answer, and when the pc finds the answer, the auditor again says, “I will check that on the meter” and does so.

The cycle is repeated over and over until the meter is clean of any instant read (see HCO Bulletin of May 25, 1962, for Instant Read).

The cycle:

1. Run the rudiment as a repetitive process until pc has no answer.

2. Consult meter for a hidden answer.

3. If meter reads use it to steer (“that” “that” each time the meter flicks) the pc to the answer.

4. Stay with the Meter and do (2) and (3).

The process is flat when there is no instant read to the question.

One does not “bridge out” or use “two more commands”. When the meter test of the question gets no instant read, the auditor says, “The meter is clean”.

The trick here is the definition of “With Session”. If the pc is With Session the meter will read. If the pc is partially against session the meter will read poorly, and the rudiment will not register and the rudiment will get missed. But with the pc with session the meter will read well for the auditor.


FAST CHECKING

A Fast Check on the Rudiments consists only of Steps (2) and (3) of the cycle done over and over.

Watching the meter the auditor asks the question, takes up only what reads and, careful not to Q and A, clears it. One does this as many times as is necessary to get a clean needle. But one still says “The meter is clean” and catches up the disagreement by getting the additional answers.

When the question is seen to be clean, the question is left.

In using Fast Checking NEVER SAY, “THAT STILL READS.” That’s a flunk. Say, “There’s another read here. “

REPETITIVE PREPCHECKING

We will still use the term “Prepchecking” and do all Prepchecking by repetitive command.

STEP ONE

Without now looking at the Meter, the auditor asks the question repetitively until the preclear says that’s all, there are no more answers.

STEP TWO

The auditor then says, “I will check that on the meter” and does so, watching for the Instant Read (HCO Bulletin May 25,1962).

If it reads, the auditor says, “That reads. What was it?” (and steers the pc’s attention by calling each identical read that then occurs). “There .....That .....That .....” until the pc spots it in his bank and gives the datum.

STEP THREE

The auditor then ignores the meter and repeats Step One above. Then goes to
Step Two, etc.

STEP FOUR

When there is no read on Step Two above, the auditor says, “The meter is clean.”

This is all there is to Repetitive Prepchecking as a system. Anything added in the way of more auditor questions is destructive to the session. Be sure not to Q and A (HCO Bulletin of May 24, 1962).

Be sure your TR4 is excellent in that you understand (really, no fake) what the pc is saying and acknowledge it (really, so the pc gets it) and return the pc to session. Nothing is quite as destructive to this type of auditing as bad TR4.

END WORDS

The E-Meter has two holes in it. It does not operate on an ARC broken pc and it can operate on the last word (thought minor) only of a question. Whereas the question (thought major) is actually null.

A pc can be checked on the END WORDS OF RUDIMENTS QUESTIONS and the charge on those single words can be made known and the question turned around to avoid the last word’s charge.

Example: “Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?”

The word “difficulties”, said to the pc by itself gives an Instant Read. Remedy: Test “Difficulties”. If it reads as itself then change the question to: “Concerning your difficulties, are you willing to talk to me?” This will only react when the pc is unwilling to do so.

Caution: This trouble of END WORDS reading by themselves occurs mainly in the presence of weak TR1 and failure to groove in the question to a “thought major”. With good TR1 the END WORDS read only when the question is asked.

IN PRACTICE you only investigate this when the pc insists strongly that the question is nul. Then test the end word for lone reaction and turn the question about to make it end with another end word (question not to have words changed, only shifted in order). Then groove it in and test it for Instant Read. If it still reacts as a question (thought major) then, of course, it is not nul and should be answered.

DOUBLE CLEANING

“Cleaning” a rudiment that has already registered nul gives the pc a Missed Withhold of nothingness. His nothingness was not accepted. The pc has no answer. A missed no-answer then occurs. This is quite serious. Once you see a Rudiment is clean, let it go. To ask again something already nul is to leave the pc baffled—he has a missed withhold which is a nothingness.


LRH :jw.bp.cden L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 22 SEPTEMBER AD13
Central Orgs
Franchise
SCIENTOLOGY TWO


PREPCHECK BUTTONS
(Cancels HCO Tech Ltr of Oct 1, AD12)



The following order and number of Prepcheck Buttons should be used wherever “an 18 button Prepcheck” is recommended. Do not use the old order of buttons, not because of any danger, but these below are slightly more effective. The old order of buttons may still be used.

The full command is usually “(Time Limiter) (on subject) has anything been____” or “is there anything you have been_____” for some of them which don’t fit with “has anything been _____”. The (on_____may be omitted. The Time Limiter is seldom omitted as it leads the pc to Itsa the Whole Track. On an RRing goal found and used in R3SC the Time Limiter “In this Lifetime” can be used with good effect. All Service Fac questions or Prepchecks must have a Time Limiter.

In running R4 (R3M2), pc’s actual GPMs, the goal and RIs are Prepchecked without a Time Limiter as pc is on the whole track anyway. But in all lower levels of auditing, particularly when using a possible goal as a Service Fac, the Time Limiter, usually “In this Lifetime _____”, must be used or pc will become Over Restimulated.

For all uses the 18 Prepcheck Buttons now are:

SUPPRESSED
CAREFUL OF
FAILED TO REVEAL
INVALIDATED
SUGGESTED
MISTAKE BEEN MADE
PROTESTED
ANXIOUS ABOUT
DECIDED
WITHDRAWN FROM
REACHED
IGNORED
A FAILURE
HELPED
HIDDEN
REVEALED
ASSERTED
SOLVED

BIG MID RUDS

It will be noted that the first 9 are the Big Mid Ruds used as “Since the Last Time I audited you has anything been_____?”

A USEFUL TIP

To get the Meter clean on a list during nulling the list the easiest system is to show the pc the list and just ask, “What happened?” This saves a lot of Mid Ruds.

TWO USEFUL PAIRS

When trying to get an Item to read the two buttons Suppress and Invalidate are sometimes used as a pair.

To get a pc easier in session the buttons Protested and Decided are sometimes used as a pair.

DIRTY NEEDLE

Mid Ruds (called because Middle of Session was the earliest use + Rudiments of a Session) are less employed today because of the discovery that all Dirty Needle phenomena is usually traced to the auditor having cut the pc’s communication. To get rid of a Dirty Needle one usually need ask only, “Have I cut your Communication?” or do an ARC Break assessment if that doesn’t work. A Dirty Needle (continuously agitated) always means the auditor has cut the pc’s Itsa Line, no matter what else-has happened.

Chronically comm chopping auditors always have pcs with Dirty Needles. Conversely, pcs with high Tone Arms have auditors who don’t control the Itsa Line and let it over-restimulate the pc by getting into lists of problems or puzzlements, but a high Tone Arm also means a heavy Service Fac, whereas a Dirty Needle seldom requires Mid Ruds or Prepchecks. It just requires an auditor who doesn’t cut the pc’s Itsa Line.

THE OLD ORDER OF PREPCHECK BUTTONS

The following buttons and order were the original buttons and may still be used, particularly if the pc is allergic to Mid Ruds:

SUPPRESSED
INVALIDATED
BEEN CAREFUL OF
SUGGESTED
WITHHELD
PROTESTED
HIDDEN
REVEALED
MISTAKE (BEEN MADE)
ASSERTED
CHANGED (OR ALTERED)
DAMAGED
WITHDRAWN (FROM)
CREATED
DESTROYED
AGREED (WITH)
IGNORED
DECIDED


LRH:jw.bh L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 SEPTEMBER 1963
Central Orgs
SCIENTOLOGY 0 TO V

TAPE COVERAGE OF NEW TECHNOLOGY

Due to certain pressures in the world at the end of 1962, I deemed it advisable to speed up research as a means of handling developing situations.

This activity proved fruitful beyond any expectations for the period devoted to it.

To increase an already burdened personal time schedule was not without repercussion. It was in the first place impossible to crowd more action into the crowded hours but somehow I did so. I cut out all social engagements, almost all appointments and even reduced time spent talking to students. I canceled all lecture appearances abroad. I let my cars and motorcycles rust and my cameras gather dust. I kept Mary Sue up all night auditing or being audited. And somehow, through the devotion of staff, everywhere, kept the show on the road and handled the legal front also.

The stepped up schedule period has not ended but the golden knowledge has been gathered in and all targets hoped for have been exceeded.

This period has also been hard on staff, students and all Scientologists due to shifting technology.

One of the ways of reducing research time is omitting written records. Therefore I have relied on the Saint Hill Course Lecture tapes to bear the burden of collecting the data together.

On these tapes over a certain period we have a full record of the results of this stepped up period of research.

What one is greeted with, in listening to these tapes, is a whole new clarification of Scientology including breaking it into progressive classes or levels of data.

Hardly any HCO Bulletins mirror this period. It is all on tapes.

A full progressive summary of Modern Scientology from the lowest to the highest levels is to be found on the following tapes:

24 July ‘63 — ARC Breaks and the Comm Cycle.
25 July ‘63 — Comm Cycles in Auditing.
6 August ‘63 — Auditing Comm Cycles.
7 August ‘63 — R2-H Fundamentals.
8 August ‘63 — R2-H Assessment.
14 August ‘63 — Auditing Tips.
15 August ‘63 — The Tone Arm.
20 August ‘63 — The Itsa Line.
21 August ‘63 — The Itsa Line (continued).
22 August ‘63 — Project 80.
27 August ‘63 — Rightness and Wrongness.
28 August ‘63 — The TA and the Service Facsimile.
29 August ‘63 — Service Facsimile (continued).

3 September ‘63 — R3SC.
4 September ‘63 — How to Find a Service Facsimile.
5 September ‘63 — Service Fac Assessment.
10 September ‘63 — Destimulation of a Case.
11 September ‘63 — Service Facs and GPMs.
12 September ‘63 — Service Facs.
17 September ‘63 — What You Are Auditing.
18 September ‘63 — St Hill Service Fac Handling.
19 September ‘63 — Routine 4M-TA.
24 September ‘63 Summary—
25 September ‘63 (These three lectures not yet given at time
26 September ‘63 of writing this HCO Bulletin.)

Additionally we have some earlier tapes that amplify the material of the pc’s Actual GPMs and the theory behind them in:

20 November ‘62 — The GPM.
28 March ‘63 — The GPM.
2 April ‘63 — Line Plot, Items.
4 April ‘63 — Anatomy of the GPM.
16 April ‘63 — Top of GPM.

Other tapes made up to 24 July 1963 carry the full story of Implant GPMs, their patterns and handling and the Whole Track. These have only passing importance as a pc’s Actual Goals and GPMs are a thousand thousand times more aberrative and important than Implants. But one has to know the extent and nature of Implant GPMs in order not to get them confused with Actual GPMs.

The road into Scientology, the road to Clear and the road to OT are all delineated on the tapes listed above between 24 July ‘63 and 26 September ‘63, a total of 25 tapes. (I anticipate 3 of these lectures for this week in order to get out this HCO Bulletin. )

Thus in 25 1/2 hour tapes we have a summary and clarification and new data on Modern Scientology for all levels and classes.

Auditing has been redefined, comm cycles have been inspected, Service Facsimiles have been unearthed and clarified. Most old auditing problems have been swept away and the road has been opened.

This has been a fantastic and dramatic period in the history and development of Scientology and I’m proud that it came off.

And I thank you from the bottom of my heart for the floods of congratulations that have been pouring in from everywhere as these tapes have been released.

History has been made. Scientology is capable of fully freeing Man.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :jw.cden
Copyright © 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 25 SEPTEMBER 1963
Central Orgs
Franchise
SCIENTOLOGY I to IV


ADEQUATE TONE ARM ACTION


Now that it has been established fully that a pc’s gain is directly and only proportional to Tone Arm Action, the question of how much Tone Arm Action is adequate must be answered.

These are rough answers based on direct observation of pcs after sessions.

Tone Arm action is measured by DIVISIONS DOWN PER 2l/2 hour session or per hour of auditing.

TA action is not counted by up and down, only down is used. Usually the decimal system is used. But fractions can also be employed. Needle falls are neglected in the computation, only actual motion of the Tone Arm is used.

One can add up or approximate the TOTAL DOWN TONE ARM MOTION. After a session, if an auditor is keeping good reports of TA motion, one adds up all the divisions and fractions of division of Down Motion (not up) and the result is known as TOTAL TA FOR THE SESSION.

A needle gives about a 10th of a Division of motion in one sweep across the dial but, as above, is not used in his computation. Needle action is neglected in the add-up.

Example: As noted in the TA column of an auditor’s report, 4.5, 4.2, 4.8, 4.0, 3.5 gives you .3 + .8 + .5 gives you 1.6 Divisions of TA action for that period of time. When this is done for a full 2.5 hour session the following table gives you a rough idea of what is expected and what will happen to the pc.

Amount Per Session Session Rating PC Reaction

25 Divs Excellent Feels wonderful
20 Divs Good Feels good
15 Divs Acceptable Feels “Better”
10 Divs Poor Slight Change
5 Divs Unacceptable No Change
0 Divs Harmful Gets Worse

Anything from 10 Divs to 0 Divs of Down Tone Arm for a 21/2 hour session is something to do something about. One gets very industrious in this range.

For a 25 hour intensive the scale of TA divisions down for the entire intensive would be:

Amount Per Intensive Session Rating PC Reaction

250 Divs Excellent Feels wonderful
200 Divs Good Feels good
150 Divs Acceptable Feels “Better”
100 Divs Poor Slight Change
50 Divs Unacceptable No Change
0 Divs Harmful Gets Worse

The preclear’s case state can be completely predicted by the amount of TA action received in a session or an intensive.

The only exception is where the pc in running R4 (old R3) processes can get into a “creak” of by-passed goals or RIs which make him uncomfortable although TA action has been good or even excellent. A case analysis will locate the by-passed charge. On any auditing where charge has been by-passed but TA action was good the pc’s subjective reality on gain will not seem to compare with the TA action gotten in the auditing, but the moment the by-passed charge is located the gain attributable to TA action will be felt.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :jw.rd
Copyright © 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED






































SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LECTURES
25—26 September 1963


** 6309C25 SHSBC-310 Summary II. Scientology 0

** 6309C26 SHSBC-311 Summary III About Level IV Aud.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 1 OCTOBER 1963
Franchise
CenOCon
SCIENTOLOGY ALL

HOW TO GET TONE ARM ACTION


The most vital necessity of auditing at any level of Scientology is to get Tone Arm Action Not to worry the pc about it but just to get TA action. Not to find something that will get future TA. But just to get TA NOW.

Many auditors are still measuring their successes by things found or accomplished in the session. Though this is important too (mainly at Level IV), it is secondary to Tone Arm Action.

l. Get good Tone Arm Action.

2. Get things done in the session to increase Tone Arm Action.


NEW DATA ON THE E-METER

The most elementary error in trying to get Tone Arm action is, of course, found under the fundamentals of auditing—reading an E-Meter.

This point is so easily skipped over and seems so obvious that auditors routinely miss it. Until they understand this one point, an auditor will continue to get minimal TA and be content with 15 Divisions down per session—which in my book isn’t TA but a meter stuck most of the session.

There is something to know about meter reading and getting TA. Until this is known nothing else can be known.


TONE ARM ASSESSMENT

The Tone Arm provides assessment actions. Like the needle reacts on list items, so does the Tone Arm react on things that will give TA.

You don’t usually needle assess in doing Levels I, II and III. You Tone Arm Assess.

The Rule is: THAT WHICH MOVES THE TONE ARM DOWN WILL GIVE TONE ARM ACTION.

Conversely, another rule: THAT WHICH MOVES ONLY THE NEEDLE SELDOM GIVES GOOD TA.

So for Levels I, II and III (and not LEVEL IV) you can actually paste a paper over the needle dial, leaving only the bottom of the needle shaft visible so the TA can be set by it and do all assessments needed with the Tone Arm. If the TA moves on a subject then that subject will produce TA if the pc is permitted to talk about it (Itsa it).

Almost all auditors, when the Itsa Line first came out, tried only to find FUTURE TA ACTION and never took any PRESENT TA ACTION. The result was continuous listing of problems and needle nulling in an endless search to find something that “would produce TA action”. They looked frantically all around to find some subject that would produce TA action and never looked at the Tone Arm of their meter or tried to find what was moving it NOW.

This seems almost a foolish thing to stress—that what is producing TA will produce TA. But it is the first lesson to learn. And it takes a lot of learning.

Auditors also went frantic trying to understand what an ITSA LINE was. They thought it was a Comm Line. Or part of the CCHs or almost anything but what it is. It is too simple.

There are two things of great importance in an auditing cycle. One is the Whatsit, the other is the Itsa. Confuse them and you get no TA.

If the auditor puts in the Itsa and the preclear the Whatsit, the result is no TA. The auditor puts in the Whatsit and the pc the Itsa, always. It is so easy to reverse the role in auditing that most auditors do it at first. The preclear is very willing to talk about his difficulties, problems and confusions. The auditor is so willing to Itsa (discover) what is troubling the preclear that an auditor, green in this, will then work, work, work to try to Itsa something “that will give the pc TA”, that he causes the pc to “Whatsit Whatsit Whatsit that’s wrong with me”. Listing is not really good Itsa-ing; it’s Whatsit-ing as the pc is in the mood “Is it this? Is it that?” even when “solutions” are being listed for assessment. The result is poor TA.

TA comes from the pc saying, “It IS” not “Is it?”

Examples of Whatsit and Itsa: Auditor: “What’s here?” (Whatsit) Pc: “An auditor, a preclear, a meter.” (Itsa)

Itsa really isn’t even a Comm Line. It’s what travels on a Comm Line from the pc to the auditor, if that which travels is saying with certainty “It IS”.

I can sit down with a pc and meter, put in about three minutes “assessing” by Tone Arm Action and using only R1C get 35 Divisions of TA in 2% hours with no more work than writing down TA reads and my auditor’s report. Why? Because the pc is not being stopped from Itsa-ing and because I don’t lead the pc into Whatsit-ing. And also because I don’t think auditing is complicated.

Tone Arm Action has to have been prevented if it didn’t occur. Example: An auditor, noting a Whatsit moved the TA, every time, promptly changed the Whatsit to a different Whatsit. Actually happened. Yet in being asked what he was doing in session said: “I ask the pc for a problem he has had and every time he comes up with one I ask for solutions to it.” He didn’t add that he frantically changed the Whatsit each time the TA started to move. Result—9 Divisions of TA in 21/2 hours, pc laden with by-passed charge. If he had only done what he said he had he would have had TA.

If it didn’t occur, Tone Arm Action has to have been prevented! It doesn’t just “not occur”.

In confirmation of auditors being too anxious to get in the Itsa Line themselves and not let the pc is the fad of using the meter as a Ouija Board. The auditor asks it questions continually and never asks the pc. Up the spout go Divisions of TA. “Is this Item a terminal?” the auditor asks the meter. Why not ask the pc? If you ask the pc, you get an Itsa, “No, I think it’s an oppterm because .....” and the TA moves.

Now to give you some idea of how crazy simple it is to get in an Itsa Line on the pc, try this:

Start the session and just sit back and look at the pc. Don’t say anything. Just sit there looking at the pc. The pc will of course start talking. And if you just nod now and then and keep your auditor’s report going unobtrusively so as not to cut the Itsa, you’ll have a talking pc and most of the time good TA. At the end of 21/2 hours, end the session. Add up the TA you’ve gotten and you will usually find that it was far more than in previous sessions.

TA action, if absent, had to be prevented! It doesn’t just fail to occur.

But this is not just a stunt. It is a vital and valuable rule in getting TA.

RULE: A SILENT AUDITOR INVITES ITSA.

This is not all good, however. In doing R4 work or R3R or R4N the silent auditor lets the pc Itsa all over the whole track and causes Over-Restimulation which locks up the TA. But in lower levels of auditing, inviting an Itsa with silence is an ordinary action.

In Scientology Levels I, II and III the auditor is usually silent much longer, proportionally, in the session, than he or she is talking—about 100 of silence to 1 of talking. As soon as you get into Level IV auditing however, on the pc’s actual GPMs, the auditor has to be crisp and busy to get TA and a silent, idle auditor can mess up the pc and get very little TA. This is all under “controlling the pc’s attention”. Each level of auditing controls the pc’s attention a little more than the last and the leap from Level III to IV is huge.

Level I hardly controls at all. The rule above about the silent auditor is employed to the full.

Level II takes the pc’s life and livingness goals (or session goals) for the pc to Itsa and lets the pc roll, the auditor intruding only to keep the pc giving solutions, attempts, dones, decisions about his life and livingness or session goals rather than difficulties, problems and natter about them.

Level III adds the rapid search (by TA assessment) for the service facsimile (maybe 20 minutes out of 2l/2 hours) and then guides the preclear into it with R3SC processes. The rule here is that if the thing found that moved the TA wouldn’t make others wrong but would make the pc wrong, then it is an oppterm lock and one Prepchecks it. (The two top RIs of the pc’s PT GPM is the service facsimile. One is a terminal, the pc’s, and the other is an oppterm. They each have thousands of lock RIs. Any pair of lock RIs counts as a service facsimile, giving TA.) A good slow Prepcheck but still a Prepcheck. Whether running Right-Wrong-Dominate-Survive, (R3SC) or Prepchecking (the only 2 processes used) one lets the pc really answer before acking. One question may get 50 answers! Which is One Whatsit from the auditor gets 50 Itsas from the pc.

Level IV auditing finds the auditor smoothly letting the pc Itsa RIs and lists but the auditor going at it like a small steam engine finding RIs, RIs, RIs, Goals, RIs, RIs, RIs. For the total TA in an R4 session only is proportional to the number of RIs found without goofs, wrong goals or other errors which rob TA action.

So the higher the level the more control of the pc’s attention. But in the lower levels, as you go back down, the processes used require less and less control, less auditor action to get TA. The Level is designed to give TA at that level of control. And if the auditor actions get busier than called for in the lower levels the TA is cut down per session.


OVER-RESTIMULATION

As will be found in another HCO Bulletin and in the lectures of summer and autumn of 1963, the thing that seizes a TA up is Over-Restimulation. THE RULE IS: THE LESS ACTIVE THE TA THE MORE OVER-RESTIMULATION IS PRESENT. (THOUGH RESTIMULATION CAN ALSO BE ABSENT.)

Therefore an auditor auditing a pc whose TA action is low (below 20 TA Divisions down for a 2l/2 hour session) must be careful not to over-restimulate the pc (or to gently restimulate the pc). This is true of all levels. At Level IV this becomes: don’t find that next goal, bleed the GPM you’re working of all possible charge. And at Level III this becomes: don’t find too many new Service Facs before you’ve bled the TA out of what you already have. And at Level II this becomes: don’t fool about with a new illness until the pc feels the Lumbosis you started on is handled utterly. And at Level I this becomes: “Let the pc do the talking”.

Over-Restimulation is the auditor’s most serious problem.

Under-Restimulation is just an auditor not putting the pc’s attention on anything.

The sources of Restimulation are:

1. Life and Livingness Environment. This is the workaday world of the pc. The auditor handles this with Itsa or “Since Big Mid Ruds’ and even by regulating or changing some of the pc’s life by just telling the pc to not do this or that during an intensive or even making the pc change residence for a while if that’s a source. This is subdivided into Past and Present.

2. The Session and its Environment. This is handled by Itsa-ing the subject of session environments and other ways. This is subdivided into Past and Present.

3. The Subject Matter of Scientology. This is done by assessing (by TA motion) the old Scientology List One and then Itsa-ing or Prepchecking what’s found.

4. The Auditor. This is handled by What would you be willing to tell me, Who would you be willing to talk to. And other such things for the pc to Itsa. This is subdivided into Past and Present.

5. This Lifetime. This is handled by slow assessments and lots of Itsa on what’s found whenever it is found to be moving the TA during slow assessment. (You don’t null a list or claw through ten hours of listing and nulling to find something to Itsa at Levels I to III. You see what moves the TA and bleed it of Itsa right now. )

6. Pc’s Case. In Levels I to III this is only indirectly attacked as above.

And in addition to the actions above, you can handle each one of these or what’s found with a slow Prepcheck.

LIST FOR ASSESSMENT

Assess for TA motion the following list:

The surroundings in which you live.

The surroundings you used to live in.

Our surroundings here.

Past surroundings for auditing or treatment.

Things connected with Scientology (Scientology List One).

Myself as your auditor.

Past auditors or practitioners.

Your personal history in this lifetime.

Goals you have set for yourself.

Your case.


At Level II one gets the pc to simply set Life and Livingness goals and goals for the session, or takes up these on old report forms and gets the decisions, actions, considerations, etc., on them as the Itsa, cleaning each one fairly well of TA. One usually takes the goal the pc seems most interested in (or has gone into apathy about) as it will be found to produce the most TA.


Whatever you assess by Tone Arm, once you have it, get the TA out of it before you drop it. And don’t cut the Itsa.

MEASURE OF AUDITORS

The skill of an auditor is directly measured by the amount of TA he or she can get. Pcs are not more difficult one than another. Any pc can be made to produce TA. But some auditors cut TA more than others.

Also, in passing, an auditor can’t falsify TA. It’s written all over the pc after a session. Lots of TA = Bright pc. Small TA = Dull pc.

And Body Motion doesn’t count. Extreme Body Motion on some pcs can produce a division of TA! Some pcs try to squirm their way to clear! A good way to cure a TA conscious body-moving pc is to say, “I can’t record TA caused while you’re moving.”

As you may suspect, the pc’s case doesn’t do a great deal until run on R4 processes. But destimulation of the case can produce some astonishing changes in beingness. Key-out is the principal function of Levels I to III. But charge off a case is charge off. Unless destimulated a case can’t get a rocket read or present the auditor with a valid goal. Levels I to III produce a Book One clear. Level R4 produces an O.T. But case conditioning (clearing) is necessary before R4 can be run. And an auditor who can’t handle Levels I to III surely won’t be able to handle the one-man band processes at Level IV. So get good on Levels I to III before you even study IV.


THE FIRST THING TO LEARN

By slow assessment is meant letting the pc Itsa while assessing. This consists of rapid auditor action, very crisp, to get something that moves the TA and then immediate shift into letting the pc Itsa during which be quiet! The slowness is overall action. It takes hours and hours to do an old preclear assessment form this way but the TA flies.

The actual auditing in Level III looks like this—auditor going like mad over a list or form with an eye cocked on the TA. The first movement of the TA (not caused by body motion) the auditor goes a tiny bit further if that and then sits back and just looks at the pc. The pc comes out of it, sees the auditor waiting and starts talking. The auditor unobtrusively records the TA, sometimes nods. TA action dies down in a couple minutes or an hour. As soon as the TA looks like it hasn’t got much more action in it the auditor sits up, lets the pc finish what he or she was saying and then gets busy busy again. But no action taken by the auditor cuts into the TA action. In Levels I to III no assessment list is continued beyond seeing a TA move until that TA motion is handled.

In doing a Scientology List One assessment one goes down the list until the TA moves (not because of body motion). Then, because a TA is not very pinpointed, the auditor covers the one or two above where he first saw TA and, watching the pc for interest and the TA, circles around that area until he is sure he has what made the TA move and then bleeds that for TA. by Itsa or Prepcheck.

Yes, you say, but doesn’t the auditor do TRs on the pc? One question—one answer ratio? NO!

Let the pc finish what the pc was saying. And let the pc be satisfied the pc has said it without a lot of chatter about it.

TA NOT MOVING SIGNALS AUDITOR TO ACT.

TA MOVING SIGNALS AUDITOR NOT TO ACT.

Only the auditor can kill the TA motion. So when the TA starts to move, stop acting and start listening. When the TA stops moving or seems about to, stop listening and start acting again.

Only act when the TA is relatively motionless. And then act just enough to start it again.

Now if you can learn just this, as given here, to act when there’s no TA and not act when there is TA, you can make your own start on getting good TA on your preclear.

With this you buy leisure to look over what’s happening. With half a hundred rules and your own confusion to worry about also, you’ll never get a beginning. So, to begin to get TA on your pc, first learn the trick of silent invitation. Just start the session and sit there expectantly. You’ll get some TA.

When you’ve mastered this (and what a fight it is not to act, act, act and talk ten times as hard as the pc) then move to the next step.

Cover the primary sources of over-restimulation listed above by asking for solutions to them.

Learn to spot TA action when it occurs and note what the pc was saying just then. Co-ordinate these two facts—pc talking about something and TA moving. That’s Assessment Levels I to III. Just that. You see the TA move and relate it to what the pc is saying just that moment. Now you know that if the pc talks about “Bugs” he gets TA action. Note that down on your report. BUT don’t otherwise call it to pc’s attention as pc is already getting TA on another subject. This pc also gets TA on Bugs. Store up 5 or ten of these odd bits, without doing anything to the pc but letting him talk about things.

Now a few sessions later, the pc will have told all concerning the prime source of over-restimulation I hope you were covering with him or her by only getting the pc started when he or she ran down. But you will now have a list of several other things that get TA. THE HOTTEST TA PRODUCER ON THIS LIST WILL GET A PC’S GOAL AS IT IS HIS SERVICE FAC. You can now get TA on this pc at will. All you have to do is get an Itsa going on one of these things.

ANY TA is the sole target of Levels I to III. It doesn’t matter a continental what generates it. Only Level IV (R4 processes) are vital on what you get TA on (for if you’re not accurate you will get no TA at Level IV).

From Levels I to III the pc’s happiness or recovery depends only on that waving TA Arm. How much does it wave? That’s how much the case advances. Only at Level IV do you care what it waves on.

You’re as good an auditor in Levels I to III as you can get TA on the pc and that’s all. And in Level IV you’ll get only as much TA as you’re dead on with the right goals and RIs in the right places and those you don’t want lying there inert and undisturbed.

Your enemy is Over-Restimulation of the pc. As soon as the pc goes into more charge than he or she can Itsa easily the TA slows down! And as soon as the pc drowns in the over-restimulation the TA stops clank! Now your problem is correcting the case. And that’s harder than just getting TA in the first place.

Yes, you say, but how do you start “getting in an Itsa Line?” “What is an Itsa?”

All right—small child comes in room. You say, “What’s troubling you?” The child says, “I’m worried about Mummy and I can’t get Daddy to talk to me and ....” NO TA.

This child is not saying anything is it. This child is saying, “Confusion, chaos, worry.” No TA. The child is speaking in Oppterms.

Small child comes in room. You say, “What’s in this room?” Child says, “You and couch and rug ....” That’s Itsa. That’s TA.

O