Страница 1 из 1

Volume III 1957-1959 - Technical Bulletins

Добавлено: 27 дек 2016, 16:39
auditor
Web auditing in any place on the planet http://timecops.net/english.html

The
Technical Bulletins
of
Dianetics and Scientology

by
L. Ron Hubbard
FOUNDER OF DIANETICS AND SCIENTOLOGY

Volume
III
1957-1959
_____________________________________________________________________

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
1957 - 1959



CONTENTS


1957

Jan The Code of a Scientologist (PAB 103)
2 Jan 16th American Advanced Clinical Course Lectures(2 Jan—11 Feb) 3
15 Jan Dissemination (PAB 104) OEC Vol 6—457
Feb The Story of a Static (PAB 105) 4
6 Feb Procedure CCH (HCO Training Bulletin) 5
15 Feb Good Processes (PAB 106) 9
25 Feb 17th American Advanced Clinical Course Lectures (18 Feb—31 Mar) 13
Mar Specific for Terror Stomach (PAB 107) 14
8 Mar Goal of Indoctrination Course 16
15 Mar Learning Rate (Part 1) (PAB 108) 17
Apr Learning Rate (Part 2) (PAB 109) 20
8 Apr Group Auditing 23
9 Apr List of “Purposes” 25
10 Apr HPA/HCA Course Curriculum 26
12 Apr London Congress on Nuclear Radiation and Health Lectures
(12 Apr—15 Apr) 27
15 Apr Education (PAB 110) 28
ca Apr Today’s Riches in Scientology (Ability 45) 32
May Eyesight and Glasses (PAB 111) 36
3 May Training—What It Is Today—How We Tell People About It 40
3 May Ministerial Qualifications (FC PL) see OEC Vol 5—281
15 May The Rights of the Field Auditor (PAB 112) 41
17 May Definitions (HCO Training Bulletin) 42
15 May Hubbard Certified Auditor Course Lectures (15 May—30 May) 42
20 May Interim Process (HCO Training Bulletin) 43
ca May The Radiation Picture and Scientology (Ability 47) 44
May All About Radiation 49
24 May Stable Data for Instructors 50
June Rights of the Directors of Training and Processing, Staff Auditors,
and Instructors Regarding Preclears and Students (HCO Info Bull) 51
3 June Explanation of Aberrative Character of Radiation 52
3 June Auditing a 10-Year Old Child 53
ca June The Hubbard Certified Auditor Course (Ability 48) 54
8 June The Teaching of the 18th ACC 58

1957 (cont.)

10 June What to Tell New HGC Auditors to Process on Preclears
(HGC Processing Bulletin) 60
11 June Training and CCH Processes (reissued 12 May 1972) 61
13 June Student Intensives and Co-Auditing Processes 75
15 June Group Processing (PAB 114) see footnote— 24
16 June People’s Questions see— 75
18 June People’s Questions 75
ca June What About Validation? (Ability 49) 76
July The Rehabilitation of Abilities (PAB 115) 79
July Addition to the Auditor’s Code 82
ca July Levels of Skill (Ability 50) 83
4 July Freedom Congress Lectures (4 July 7 July) 86
15 July Solids and Chronic Somatics (PAB 116) 87
15 July 8-C on Students (HCO Training Bulletin) 90
15 July 18th American Advanced Clinical Course Lectures (8 July—16 Aug) 90
17 July Changes in Training Drills (HCO Training Bulletin) 91
ca July The Adventure of Communication (Ability 51 ) 92
29 July Withholds and Communication 93
31 July More Workable Commands for Testing 95
1 Aug Confronting Present Time (PAB 117) 96
10 Aug CCH 18 (ACC Bulletin) 99
ca Aug Confronting (Ability 52) 100
15 Aug Ministerial Qualifications (FC PL) see OEC Vol 5—281
15 Aug Validation Committee (PAB 118) 102
ca Aug Communication (Ability 53) 104
29 Aug Government Project Stable Data 106
1 Sept The Big Auditing Problem (PAB 119) 107
2 Sept When a Verbal Direction Is Given 111
3 Sept HCA/HPA Course Processes (HCO Training Bulletin) 111
4 Sept Stable Data for Instructors (HCO Training Bulletin) 112
5 Sept All Preclears Are Expected to (HASI PL) OEC Vol 4—498
ca Sept More Confronting (Ability 54) 113
9 Sept Processes to Be Run on HGC Preclears from This Date 117
15 Sept Control Trio (PAB 120) 119
24 Sept Curriculum of CCH (HCO Training Bulletin) 121
1 Oct Rudiments and Goals (PAB 121) 122
ca Oct The Eighteenth ACC (Ability 56) 126
15 Oct The Five Levels of Indoctrination and Procedure CCH (PAB 122) 128
29 Oct A Basic Chart of Process Types 131
ca Oct Escape (Ability 57) 133

1957 (cont.)

1 Nov The Reality Scale (PAB 123) 136
2 Nov Intensive Processes for Use in Operation Clear and Operation
Staff Clear (HCO Training Bulletin) see Vol VIII--393
13 Nov Project Clear Check Sheet 143
ca Nov We Are the Free People (Ability 58) 145
15 Nov Communication and Is-ness (PAB 124) 146
1 Dec The Parts of Man (PAB 125) 149
ca Dec Scientology: The Philosophy of a New Age (Ability 60) 153
3 Dec Clear Procedure—Definitions, Goals 155
4 Dec Clear Procedure Continued—Step One: Participation in Session
by the Pc 157
7 Dec HGC Procedure 162
15 Dec Problems: Handling and Running (PAB 126) 164
16 Dec Present Time Problem 168
18 Dec Psychosis, Neurosis and Psychiatrists 169
Dec Scientology: Clear Procedure—Issue One 172
29 Dec Ability Congress Lectures (29 Dec—31 Dec) 193
Dec Control and the Mechanics of S.C.S 194


1958

Jan The Threat to Havingness (PAB 127) 195
11 Jan HGC Procedure 197
13 Jan HGC Running of Pcs 198
15 Jan The Factors Behind the Handling of IQ (PAB 128) 199
18 Jan Control 204
20 Jan 19th American Advanced Clinical Course Lectures (6 Jan—14 Feb) 204
21 Jan Mest Clear Procedure 205
21 Jan ACCs—HPA/HCA 206
25 Jan Inept Students (Org PL) OEC Vol 4—148
25 Jan Reviewing Week’s Profiles 207
26 Jan Future Plans 208
28 Jan Future Plans see—208
Feb Clearing of Fields 209
1 Feb Confronting (PAB 129) 211

3 Feb Free Clearing Project 216
ca Feb The Attainment of “Clears” (Ability 66) 217
6 Feb CCH Ob—Help in Full—Starting Session 219
13 Feb Rules Governing the Running of CCH Ob “Help” 220
ca Feb Man’s Contest with the Machine Age (Ability 67) 221
15 Feb “Death” (PAB 130) 223

1958 (cont.)
1 Mar Processes 229
Mar The Scale of Withhold (PAB 131) 230
15 Mar Report on Two Cases That Have Received Psychiatric and
Euro-Russian Therapy from the Government (PAB 132) 234
22 Mar Clearing Reality 235
ca Mar Does Clearing Cancel the Need for Training? (Ability 70) 236
1 Apr Procedure CCH (PAB 133) 238
2 Apr ARC in Comm Course 242
8 Apr Auditing the Pc on Clear Procedure 243
8 Apr A Pair of Processes 245
11 Apr CCH 88—Enforced Nothingness 246
11 Apr Staff Members’ Outside Auditing Regulation OEC Vol 4—609
15 Apr Procedure CCH Continued (PAB 134) 247
23 Apr Vital Training Data for Training Hats and Registrar 250
ca Apr How We Work on the Third Dynamic (Ability 72) 251
May Signs of Success 253
May Procedure CCH Continued (PAB 135) 254
2 May Beingness Again 257
ca May Assists in Scientology (Ability 73) 259
9 May Who Should Take Which Class 264
15 May Procedure CCH Continued (PAB 136) 265
22 May Enemies of the Pc 268
ca May Scientology and the Reactive Mind (Ability 74) 269
24 May A Comment on Beingness Processing 271
28 May Procedure for Certifying Clears see—289
29 May Standard Clear Procedure and an Experimental Road:
Clearing by Valences 273
29 May An Example of Clearing by Valences 276
June Some More CCH Processes (PAB 137) 278
3 June Amendment to HCO B 11 April 1958 see OEC Vol 4—609
ca June “Offbeat” Processing (Ability 76) 282
4 June Running Valences 284
12 June Ministerial Qualifications (FC PL) OEC Vol 5—281
14 June Standardization of Clear Procedure 285
15 June Standard Clear Procedure and an Experimental Road:
Clearing by Valences (PAB 138) see footnote—275
ca June Learning How to “Clear” (Ability 77) 286
30 June Procedure for Certifying Clears 289
July An Example of Clearing by Valences (PAB 139) see footnote—277
4 July Clearing Congress Lectures (4 July—6 July) 290
7 July Contents and Coverage of HCA/HPA Course 291
9 July Staff Clearing 291

1958 (cont.)

12 July Standardization of Clear Processes 292
14 July 20th American Advanced Clinical Course Lectures (7 July—15 Aug) 293
14 July 20th ACC Training Procedure 294
15 July Carrying On 295
28 July Clear Procedure 296
29 July The Rock 299
Aug Beingness Again (PAB 141) see footnote—258
5 Aug The Basic Locating Question of the Rock 300
10 Aug ACC Auxiliary Procedure 301
15 Aug Auditing the Pc on Clear Procedure (PAB 142) see footnote—244
20 Aug Present Time Problem—Running of 303
20 Aug Out of Sessionness 304

ca Aug The Axioms of Scientology—The Prelogics—The Logics—The Axioms
of Dianetics (Ability 80) see—305
Aug Axioms and Logics 305
28 Aug Change Auditor’s Code 306
Sept A Pair of Processes (PAB 143) see footnote—245
3 Sept HCA Course Examination 306
12 Sept Post Case Analysis Routine 307
12 Sept Havingness—New Commands 307
15 Sept More on Training Drill Two 308
15 Sept Psychosis, Neurosis and Psychiatrists (PAB 144) see footnote—171
29 Sept Vital Training Data 309
Oct HCO Board of Review (HCO PL) OEC Vol 4—269
Oct More on Training Drill Two (PAB 145) see footnote—308
5 Oct Abbreviations see—334
9 Oct Correction of HCO Policy Letter 1 Oct 1958 see OEC Vol 4—271
15 Oct ACC Clear Procedure 311
15 Oct Procedure CCH (PAB 146) 323
ca Oct New HCA Course You Can Begin at Home (Ability 83) 328
18 Oct London Clearing Congress Lectures (18 Oct—20 Oct) 332
25 Oct Abbreviations 334
27 Oct 5th London Advanced Clinical Course Lectures (21 Oct—29 Nov) 333
ca Oct The Axioms of Scientology—The Prelogics—The Logics—The Axioms
of Dianetics (Certainty Vol 5, No 21 ) see—305
27 Oct HPA Courses for Staff see—339
27 Oct How to Read Profiles on OCA: Comparing Current Week Profile
with Week Before 334
Nov Communication Course (PAB 147) 335
3 Nov American College of Personnel Efficiency, Dublin 338
7 Nov HPA Courses for Staff 339

1958 (cont.)

11 Nov ACC Schedule 339
13 Nov TR 9 (b) and TR 9 (c) 340
17 Nov Clear Bracelets 341
25 Nov Step 6 341
25 Nov Techniques to Be Used on HGC Preclears (Academy Training Bull) 342
ca Nov Violence (Certainty Vol 5, No 22) 343
ca Nov The Theory of Training in Scientology (Ability 85) 344
26 Nov ACCs 347
1 Dec People Permitted to Audit Engrams by Scientology Processes 348
1 Dec Dummy Auditing-Step Two: Acknowledgment (PAB 149) 349
6 Dec How to Run an Engram 352
7 Dec Training Drill Change 353
15 Dec Academy Training Curriculum & Examination (HCO PL) OEC Vol 4—274
15 Dec Dummy Auditing—Step Three: Duplication (PAB 150) 354
16 Dec Extension Course Curriculum 357
17 Dec Basic Postulate of Overt Act-Motivator Sequence 359
17 Dec Auditing ARC Breaks on Registrar and Assistant Registrar 360
20 Dec Processing a New Mother 361
22 Dec New HGC Process—A New Straight Wire 363
ca Dec Something Has Happened!!! (Ability 86 M) 365
26 Dec BScn/HCS Course 366
27 Dec The First First Dynamic Process 367
28 Dec Short Sessioning 368
31 Dec ACC Clear Procedure Change 369
31 Dec Routing of Profiles (HCO Secretarial Letter) OEC Vol 4—502


1959

Jan Dummy Auditing—Step Four: Handling Originations (PAB 151) 370
3 Jan 1950 Success Congress Lectures (3 Jan—4 Jan) 374
5 Jan 21st American Advanced Clinical Course Lectures (5 Jan—13 Feb) 374
ca Jan What Are Clears? (Ability 87) 375
ca Jan The 1959 HCA Course Becomes a Clearing Course (Ability 87) 376
6 Jan Field Activities 378
6 Jan Change of HCO Policy Letter of 15 December 1958 380
7 Jan Anti-Q & A TR (21st ACC Training Drill) see Vol VIII—221
10 Jan HGC Allowed Processes 381
11 Jan An Amusingly Effective Process 383
12 Jan Tone of Voice—Acknowledgement 383
15 Jan The Five Levels of Indoctrination (PAB 152) 384
18 Jan ACC Preparatory Processes for Running Engrams see—389

1959 (cont.)

19 Jan New HCA/HPA Course 387
20 Jan ACC Preparatory Process Schedule for Running Engrams 389
22 Jan Not-Is Straight Wire 390
ca Jan A Campaign for Ethical Auditing (Ability 88 M) 391
23 Jan Ethics (HCO PL) OEC Vol 1—361
24 Jan Scientology Axiom 58 393
Feb CCH (PAB 153) 394
3 Feb HGC Current Procedure 397
3 Feb Flattening a Process 398
4 Feb Op Pro by Dup 399
9 Feb Auditor’s Code No l9 see footnote-417
15 Feb CCH (Concluded) (PAB 154) 400
16 Feb HGC Processes for Those Trained in Engram Running or Trained
in These Processes 402
16 Feb Staff Auditors’ Conference of February 16, 1959 404
19 Feb Auditor’s Code No 19 417
24 Feb Selected Persons Overt Withhold Straightwire 417
26 Feb Identification 418
26 Feb Engram Running on Old Dianetic Cases or Restarted Cases 419
ca Feb How to Study Scientology (Ability 90 M) 420
27 Feb How to Select Selected Persons 427
28 Feb Analysis of Cases 428
28 Feb ARC Breaks with Auditors 430
28 Feb Clearing Commands 430
Mar Two Rules for Happy Living 431
Mar Processes Used in 21st ACC (PAB 155) 433
4 Mar HGC Allowed Processes (cancelled—see 468) 436
6 Mar Training Drills 437
6 Mar How to Do a Diagnosis on Dynamic Straightwire 438
10 Mar Supplemental Data Sheet to HCO Bulletin of Feb 16, 1959 and
Staff Auditors’ Conference of Feb 16, 1959 439
13 Mar Muzzled Auditing 440
15 Mar Processes Used in 21st ACC (PAB 156) 441
17 Mar An Insanity Questionnaire 443
17 Mar Do It Yourself Therapy 444
23 Mar An Insanity Questionnaire see—443
ca Mar The Subject of Clearing (Ability 92 M) 445
24 Mar HAS Co-Audit 449
24 Mar Minimum Standards 450
25 Mar HAS Co-Audit - Comm Course 451
31 Mar Know to Mystery Straight Wire for Extreme Cases see—460

1959 (cont.)

Apr Processes Used in 21st ACC (Concluded) (PAB 157) 453
3 Apr HAS Co-Audit and Comm Course 456
6 Apr Special Hubbard Professional Auditor’s Course Lectures
(6 Apr—1 May) 457
8 Apr Emotional Tone Scale Expanded see—459
14 Apr Letter from Australia 458
15 Apr Emotional Tone Scale Expanded 459

17 Apr Know to Mystery Straight Wire for Extreme Cases 460
17 Apr The Credo of a Good and Skilled Manager see footnote Vol I— 97
22 Apr The Credo of a Good and Skilled Manager see footnote Vol I— 97
22 Apr Old and New Reality Scale 461
23 Apr Definitions 462
3 May Solution to Solutions 462
4 May An Affinity Process 463
4 May How to Write a Curriculum 464
7 May New Process 465
8 May An Un-doable Command 467
12 May 6th London Advanced Clinical Course Lectures (4 May—13 June) 467
21 May HGC Allowed Processes and ACC Processes as of May 21, 1959 468
26 May Man Who Invented Scientology 470
5 June Formula 10 472
6 June When Cases Crack Well on Selected Persons Overts Withhold 473
9 June Needed Material 474
10 June Co-Audit Formula 475
11 June The Dates of the Australian ACC 475
22 June How to “Sell Scientology” 476
23 June Clear Test 476
23 June What Is Scientology 477
2 July Add Formula 10 (HCO PL) 478
3 July General Information 479
4 July Theta Clear Congress Lectures(4 July—6 July) 490
9 July Definition of Scientology—Written by LRH for Legal When
Setting Up HASI Ltd. 491
14 July Special Information for Franchise Holders 492
17 July Africa Over the Top 494
18 July Technically Speaking 494
18 July Income Tax Reform 495
21 July HGC Allowed Processes 497
22 July Actual Working Definition of Psychology 499
26 July HGC Regimen see footnote—502
28 July Our Goals 500

1959 (cont.)

5 Aug HGC Processes 502
7 Aug The Handling of Communication Processes—Some Rapid Data 503
12 Aug A Second Type of Franchise 506
13 Aug Suggested HCA Course Schedule 509
13 Aug Franchise Holders 512
19 Aug HAS Co-Audit—Finding Terminals 513
19 Aug How to Handle Work see OEC Vol 0—122
19 Aug To a Roman Catholic 514
27 Aug Growth with Competence 515
3 Sept Why “Victim” Works as a Process 518
9 Sept A Short Story by Cable 521
9 Sept Organizational Health Chart see footnote OEC Vol. 7—115
14 Sept News Bulletin 522
15 Sept Dissemination Tips OEC Vol 6—101
23 Sept The Perfect Dissemination Program OEC Vol 6—105
25 Sept HAS Co-Audit 524
26 Sept Data on Clearing a Staff Member After Specific Terminals Are
Flat with Overt-Withhold Straight Wire 525
28 Sept Technical Notes on Child Processing 526
29 Sept The Organization of a PE Foundation 527
29 Sept Universe Processes 529
5 Oct Universe Processes 530
5 Oct Universe Processes see—529
13 Oct A Useful Process 532
13 Oct DEI Expanded Scale 533
14 Oct London Up 535

15 Oct My Whereabouts in November 535
20 Oct An Experimental Process 536
25 Oct Psychoanalysis Goes Capitalistic 537
30 Oct To Retain Co-Audit Pc’s Interest in Case 538
31 Oct Create Processes—Dangers & Advantages 539
ca Nov On Bringing Order (Ability 107) 541
7 Nov Melbourne Congress Lectures (7 Nov—8 Nov) 542
9 Nov 1st Melbourne Advanced Clinical Course Lectures (9 Nov—30 Nov) 542
12 Nov Acknowledgements in Auditing 543
18 Nov 1st Melbourne ACC Material 545
18 Nov Congratulations HASI—South Africa 546
30 Nov Allowed Processes 1st Melbourne ACC 547
4 Dec Allowed Processes 1st Melbourne ACC see—547
11 Dec New Horizons in Scientology 548
15 Dec HAS Co-Audit 550
15 Dec Urgent Change in All Co-Audit Courses 551
16 Dec Responsibility for O/Ws 552
ca Dec Techniques of Child Processing (Ability 110) 553
23 Dec Responsibility 555
31 Dec Blow-offs 557

Subject Index 561
Alphabetical List of Titles 593


PERIODICALS BY ISSUE NUMBER


PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

No
103 1 Jan 57 The Code of a Scientologist
104 15 Jan 57 Dissemination OEC Vol 6—457
105 1 Feb 57 The Story of a Static 4
106 15 Feb 57 Good Processes 9
107 1 Mar 57 Specific for Terror Stomach 14
108 15 Mar 57 Learning Rate (Part 1) 17
109 1 Apr 57 Learning Rate (Part 2) 20
110 15 Apr 57 Education 28
111 1 May 57 Eyesight and Glasses 36
112 15 May 57 The Rights of the Field Auditor 41
114 15 June 57 Group Processing see footnote- 24
115 1 July 57 The Rehabilitation of Abilities 79
116 15 July 57 Solids and Chronic Somatics 87
117 1 Aug 57 Confronting Present Time 96
118 15 Aug 57 Validation Committee 102
119 1 Sept 57 The Big Auditing Problem 107
120 15 Sept 57 Control Trio 119
121 1 Oct 57 Rudiments and Goals 122
122 15 Oct 57 The Five Levels of Indoctrination
and Procedure CCH 128
123 1 Nov 57 The Reality Scale 136
124 15 Nov 57 Communication and Is-ness 146
125 1 Dec 57 The Parts of Man 149
126 15 Dec 57 Problems: Handling and Running 164
127 1 Jan 58 The Threat to Havingness 195
128 15 Jan 58 The Factors behind the Handling of IQ 199
129 I Feb 58 Confronting 211
130 15 Feb 58 “Death” 223
131 1 Mar 58 The Scale of Withhold 230
132 15 Mar 58 Report on Two Cases That Have Received Psychiatric
and Euro-Russian Therapy from the Government 234
133 1 Apr 58 Procedure CCH 238
134 15 Apr 58 Procedure CCH Continued 247
135 1 May 58 Procedure CCH Continued 254
136 15 May 58 Procedure CCH Continued 265
137 1 June 58 Some More CCH Processes 278

138 15 June 58 Standard Clear Procedure and An Experimental
Road: Clearing by Valences see footnote—275
139 1 July 58 An Example of Clearing by Valences see footnote---277
141 1 Aug 58 Beingness Again see footnote—258
142 15 Aug 58 Auditing the Pc on Clear Procedure see footnote—244
143 1 Sept 58 A Pair of Processes see footnote—245
144 15 Sept 58 Psychosis, Neurosis and Psychiatrists see footnote—171
145 1 Oct 58 More on Training Drill Two see footnote—308
146 15 Oct 58 Procedure CCH 323
147 1 Nov 58 Communication Course 335
149 1 Dec 58 Dummy Auditing Step Two: Acknowledgment 349
150 15 Dec 58 Dummy Auditing—Step Three: Duplication 354
151 1 Jan 59 Dummy Auditing—Step Four: Handling Originations 370
152 15 Jan 59 The Five Levels of Indoctrination 384
153 1 Feb 59 CCH 394
154 15 Feb 59 CCH (Concluded) 400
155 1 Mar 59 Processes Used in 21st ACC 433
156 15 Mar 59 Processes Used in 21st ACC 441
157 1 Apr 59 Processes Used in 21st ACC (Concluded) 453


ABILITY MAGAZINE

Issue
45 ca Apr 57 Today’s Riches in Scientology 32
47 ca May 57 The Radiation Picture and Scientology 44
48 ca June 57 The Hubbard Certified Auditor Course 54
49 ca June 57 What About Validation? 76
50 ca July 57 Levels of Skill 83
51 ca July 57 The Adventure of Communication 92
52 ca Aug 57 Confronting 100
53 ca Aug 57 Communication 104
54 ca Sept 57 More Confronting 113
56 ca Oct 57 The Eighteenth ACC 126
57 ca Oct 57 Escape 133
58 ca Nov 57 We Are the Free People 145
60 ca Dec 57 Scientology: The Philosophy of a New Age 153
66 ca Feb 58 The Attainment of “Clears” 217
67 ca Feb 58 Man’s Contest with the Machine Age 221
70 ca Mar 58 Does Clearing Cancel the Need for Training? 236
72 ca Apr 58 How We Work on the Third Dynamic 251
73 ca May 58 Assists in Scientology 259
74 ca May 58 Scientology and the Reactive Mind 269
76 ca June 58 “Offbeat” Processing 282

77 ca June 58 Learning How to “Clear” 286
80 ca Aug 58 The Axioms of Scientology—The Prelogics
—The Logics—The Axioms of Dianetics see- 305
83 ca Oct 58 New HCA Course You Can Begin at Home 328
85 ca Nov 58 The Theory of Training in Scientology 344
86 M ca Dec 58 Something Has Happened!!! 365
87 ca Jan 59 What Are Clears? 375
The 1959 HCA Course Becomes a Clearing Course 376
88 M ca Jan 59 A Campaign for Ethical Auditing 391
90 M ca Feb 59 How to Study Scientology 420
92 M ca Mar 59 The Subject of Clearing 445
107 ca Nov 59 On Bringing Order 541
110 ca Dec 59 Techniques of Child Processing 553
125 ca Feb 61 Personal Integrity Vol IV- 203
129 June 61 The Sad Tail of PDH Vol IV- 321


CERTAINTY MAGAZINE

Vol-No
5-21 ca Oct 58 The Axioms of Scientology-The Prelogics
—The Logics-The Axioms of Dianetics see--305
5-22 ca Nov 58 Violence 343


LONG CONTENTS


PAB No. 103, 1 Jan. 1957 THE CODE OF A SCIENTOLOGIST, 1
The A.M.A.’s proposed principles of medical ethics, 2

PAB No. 105,1 Feb. 1957 THE STORY OF A STATIC, 4
Thetan, trying to prove he is not simple, 4

HCO Training Bulletin 6 Feb. 1957 PROCEDURE CCH, 5
Goal of CCH, 5
HPA/HCA Processes, 5
Communication Processes, 5
Location-Control Processes, 6
Duplication Processes, 7
Havingness Processes, 7
Objective Havingness, 7
Subjective Havingness, 8
Thought Processes, 8

PAB No. 106, 15 Feb. 1957 GOOD PROCESSES, 9
Best processes, 9
Control, 9
Fight the Wall, commands and how to run, 9
Opponents [process], commands, 10
Individuality [process], 10
Can’t Have [process], 1 0
Lie about Effect [process], 1 0
Problem, when is it flat, 10
Solids [process], 11
Vacuums, 11
Remedy of restimulation, 11
How to split valences, 11
Out of valence, how to handle, 11

PAB No. 107, 1 Mar. 1957 SPECIFIC FOR TERROR STOMACH, 14
Anatomy of confusion, 14
Stomach, guilty of the overt act of eating, 14

HCO B 8 Mar. 1957 GOAL OF INDOCTRINATION COURSE, 16

PAB No. 108, 15 Mar. 1957 LEARNING RATE (Part 1), 17
Process lag and learning lag, 18
Aberration in education, 18

PAB No. 109, 1 Apr. 1957 LEARNING RATE (Part 2), 20
Learning rate—consequences, 20
Power of choice over data, 21
Learning rate used to sell Scientology, 21
Difference between education and Scientology, 22

HCO B 8 Apr. 1957 GROUP AUDITING, 23
Control factors available to the auditor, 23
Group Processing model processes, 23
Assistant Group Auditor, 24


HCO B 9 Apr. 1957 LIST OF “PURPOSES”, 25
Purposes posted on Org Board, 25

HCO B 10 Apr. 1957 HPA/HCA COURSE CURRICULUM, 26
HPA/HCA full Course, 26
Five Levels of Indoctrination, 26

PAB No. 110, 15 Apr. 1957 EDUCATION, 28
Learning rate, the rate one will permit ideas to inflow, 28
The trouble with education, 28
Education and aberration, 29
University students, suicide and nervous breakdown, 29
Necessities of education, 29
Knowledge isn’t recalling, 30
Child education, 3 0
Five Learning Processes, 31

Ability Issue 45, ca. Apr. 1957 TODAY’S RICHES IN SCIENTOLOGY, 32
Significance of mechanics of the mental image picture, 32
Importance of various truths, 33
Then and Now Solids, 33
Age and auditing, 34

PAB No. 111, 1 May 1957 EYESIGHT AND GLASSES, 36
Gold discs, 3 6
Eyes, how they function, 36
Effort Processing and eyesight, 36
Eyesight and havingness, 37
Eyesight and confronting, 37
Blindness, 38

HCO B 3 May 1957 TRAINING—WHAT IT IS TODAY—HOW WE TELL PEOPLE ABOUT IT, 40
Stable datum of all training, 40
HPA/HCA training, 40

PAB No. 112, 15 May 1957 THE RIGHTS OF THE FIELD AUDITOR, 41

HCO Training Bulletin l7 May 1957 DEFINITIONS, 42
Definitions of consultant, instructor, coach, 42

HCO Training Bulletin 20 May 1957 INTERIM PROCESS, 43
Objective Show Me, commands and how to run, 43

Ability Issue 47, ca. May 1957 THE RADIATION PICTURE AND
SCIENTOLOGY, 44
Hysteria and radiation, 44
Russian propaganda, 45
Danger of radiation, 45
Wundtian psychology, 46
Reaction to radiation is wholly mental, 46
Worry about radiation, 47
Surviving radiation, 48

HCO B 24 May 1957 STABLE DATA FOR INSTRUCTORS, 50


HCO Info. Bulletin 1 June 1957 RIGHTS OF THE D of T and D of P, STAFF AUDITORS, AND INSTRUCTORS REGARDING PRECLEARS AND STUDENTS, 51

HCO B 3 June 1957 EXPLANATION OF ABERRATIVE CHARACTER OF RADIATION, 52
Radiation, invalidation of solids, 52

HCO B 3 June 1957 AUDITING A 10-YEAR OLD CHILD, 53
CCH I session, 53

Ability Issue 48, ca. June 1957 THE HUBBARD CERTIFIED AUDITOR
COURSE, 54
Goals of Scientology, 55
HCA curriculum, 55

HCO B 8 June 1957 THE TEACHING OF THE 18TH ACC, 58
Communication Course, 5 8
Upper Indoctrination Course, 58
CCH Course, 5 8

HGC Processing Bulletin 10 June 1957 WHAT TO TELL NEW HGC AUDITORS TO PROCESS ON PRECLEARS, 60
Stable datum, 60

HCO B 11 June 1957 TRAINING AND CCH PROCESSES, 61
Training 0, Confronting Preclear, 61
Training 1, Dear Alice, 61
Training 2, Acknowledgments, 61
Training 3, Duplicative Question, 62
Training 4, Preclear Originations, 62
Training 5, Hand Mimicry, 63
Training 6, Plain 8-C, 63
Training 7, Hi-School Indoc, 63
Training 8, Tone 40 on an Object, 64
Training 9, Tone 4() on a Person, 64
CCH 0, Rudiments, Goals and Present Time Problem, 65
CCH 1, Give Me Your Hand, Tone 40, 65
CCH 2, Tone 40 8-C, 66
CCH 3, Book Mimicry, 66
CCH 4, Hand Space Mimicry, 66
Training 10, Locational Processing, 67
CCH 5, Location by Contact, 67
CCH 6, Body-Room Contact, 67
CCH 7, Contact by Duplication, 68
CCH 8, Trio, 68
CCH 9, Tone 40 “Keep it from going away”, 69
CCH 10, Tone 40 “Hold it still”, 69
CCH 11, Tone 40 “Make it a little more solid”, 69
Training 11, ARC Straight Wire, 69
CCH 12, Limited Subjective Havingness, 70
CCH 13, Subjective Solids, 70
CCH 14, Then and Now Solids, 71
Training 12, Think a Thought, 71
CCH 15, Rising Scale Processing, 72
GP Nos. I through 15, 72
Training 13, Fishing a Cognition, 73


HCO B 13 June 1957 STUDENT INTENSIVES AND CO-AUDITING PROCESSES, 75

HCO B 18 June 1957 PEOPLE’S QUESTIONS, 75
Answer people’s questions, 75

Ability Issue 49, ca. June 1957 WHAT ABOUT VALIDATION?, 76
Training skills, 76
Need of training, 77
Problem of retraining, 78

PAB No. 115, 1 July 1957 THE REHABILITATION OF ABILITIES, 79
Willingness to learn, 79
Importance of willingness to do, 80
Power of choice, 81
How to handle children, 81
Using good 8-C on children, 82
Technique for rehabilitation of abilities, 82

HCO B 1 July 1957 ADDITION TO THE AUDITOR’S CODE, 82

Ability Issue 50, ca. July 1957 LEVELS OF SKILL, 83
Book auditor, 83
Certified auditor, 83
Specially trained auditors, 83
Staff auditors, 83
Levels of auditors and levels of processes, 84
Importance of book auditor, 85

PAB No. 116,15 July 1957 SOLIDS AND CHRONIC SOMATICS, 87
Chronic somatic handling, 87
Master cognition, “I knew it all the time”, 88

HCO Training Bulletin 15 July 1957 8-C ON STUDENTS, 90
Error of instructor softness, 90

HCO Training Bulletin 17 July 1957 CHANGES IN TRAINING DRILLS, 91
Training 5, Sit in that Chair, 91
Training 6, 8-C, 91

Ability Issue 51, ca. July 1957 THE ADVENTURE OF COMMUNICATION, 92
Success level of a person is his communication level, 92
Communication, be, do and have, 92
CCH and ARC, 92

HCO B 29 July 1957 WITHHOLDS AND COMMUNICATION, 93
Rehabilitation of communication, 93
Withhold Process, 93

HCO B 31 July 1957 MORE WORKABLE COMMANDS FOR TESTING, 95

PAB No. 117, 1 Aug. 1957 CONFRONTING PRESENT TIME, 96
Unreality of processes too high for a preclear, 96
Confronting and irresponsibility, 96
Disconnection from present time, 97
Connectedness [process], 97
Time shift, 98

Total responsibility, 98
Anchor points and pain in the head, 98

ACC Bulletin 10 Aug. 1957 CCH 18, 99

Ability Issue 52, ca. Aug. 1957 CONFRONTING, 100
Training 0, Confronting Preclear, 100
Definition of Scientology Clear, 101

PAB No. 118, 15 Aug. 1957 VALIDATION COMMITTEE, 102
Game of life, 102
Professional auditor, 102
Doctors of Scientology, 102

Ability Issue 53, ca. Aug. 1957 COMMUNICATION, 104
ARC triangle, the way it is used, 104
Games conditions, 104

HCO B 29 Aug. 1957 GOVERNMENT PROJECT STABLE DATA, 106

PAB No. 119, 1 Sept. 1957 THE BIG AUDITING PROBLEM, 107
Auditing does require stamina, 107
Increased awareness is the only factor which offers any road out, 107
Effects of radiation, 108
Native state, 109
Retrograded state of children and natives, 109
Child requires understanding and assistance in controlling the environment around him, 110

HCO B 2 Sept. 1957 WHEN A VERBAL DIRECTION IS GIVEN, 111
Verbal direction from LRH, 111

HCO Training Bulletin 3 Sept. 1957 HCA/HPA COURSE PROCESSES, 111

HCO Training Bulletin 4 Sept. 1957 STABLE DATA FOR INSTRUCTORS, 112

Ability Issue 54, ca. Sept. 1957 MORE CONFRONTING, 113

First step of handling anything, 113
Basic anatomy of problems, 113
State of man regarding human spirit, 114
Confronting and mental image pictures, 114
Problems of Comparable Magnitude, 114
TR 0, how it is run, 115
Confronting, 11 6

HCO B 9 Sept. 1957 PROCESSES TO BE RUN ON HGC PRECLEARS FROM THIS DATE, 117
Processes to run on preclears who have points below zero line of OCA/APA, 117
Processes to run on preclears who have most points above zero line of OCA/APA, 117
How to run Trio, 117
OCA/APA: nervous-depressed, 118
OCA/APA: critical, 118

PAB No. 120,15 Sept. 1957 CONTROL TRIO, 119
Control of thinkingness, 119
Undercut in Trio, 119
Recall a moment of loss, 120

HCO Training Bulletin 24 Sept. 1957 CURRICULUM OF CCH, 121


PAB No. 121, 1 Oct. 1957 RUDIMENTS AND GOALS, 122
Clearing commands, 122
Clearing the Auditor, 122
Subject of goals, 123
Goals Process, 123
How to clear up a goal, 124
Future Process, 125
Help and goals, 125

Ability Issue 56, ca. Oct. 1957 THE EIGHTEENTH A.C.C., 126

World crisis, 126
Past civilizations have vanished, 126
Scientology can win, one man at a time, 127

PAB No. 122, 15 Oct. 1957 THE FIVE LEVELS OF INDOCTRINATION AND
PROCEDURE CCH, 128
Need of training, 128
Target of CCH, 129
Make-or-break point of case, 129
Background theory of CCH, 130

29 Oct. 1957 A BASIC CHART OF PROCESS TYPES, 131

Ability Issue 571 ca. Oct. 1957 ESCAPE, 133
Escape from this universe, 134
Scientology, the way out, 134

PAB No. 123, 1 Nov. 1957 THE REALITY SCALE, 136
Two-way comm, 136
Hello and Okay Process, 136
Survival of things, who causes it, 137
Loss, why it is held on to, 137
Sound in communication, 138
Condemning facts of psychoanalysis, 138
Reality Scale, 139
Postulates and considerations, 139
Lines and terminals, Reality Scale, 139
Breaking a solid communication line, 140
Havingness Scale, part of Reality Scale, 141
Waste, what you can’t have, 141

HCO B 13 Nov. 1957 PROJECT CLEAR CHECK SHEET, 143
Information sheet on Project Clear, 144

Ability Issue 58, ca. Nov. 1957 WE ARE THE FREE PEOPLE, 145

PAB No. 124, 15 Nov. 1957 COMMUNICATION AND IS-NESS, 146
Being dangerous toward environment, 146
Inflow and outflow, prevention of, 146
Consequences of defense, 147
Mechanism of disease, 147
Consequences of cut communication, 148

PAB No. 125, 1 Dec. 1957 THE PARTS OF MAN, 149
Exteriorization, 149
Mind, 150
Association-Differentiation are the two principles of the mind, 150
Body, subject of, 151
Electronic structure around body, 151


Ability Issue 60, ca. Dec. 1957 SCIENTOLOGY: THE PHILOSOPHY OF A
NEW AGE, 153
Period of instability and change, 153
Clears are the lucky, 153

HCO B 3 Dec. 1957 CLEAR PROCEDURE—DEFINITIONS, GOALS, 155

Three possible goals in processing (defines mest clear, theta clear, Operating Thetan), 155
Operating Thetan, our actual goal, 155

HCO B 4 Dec. 1957 CLEAR PROCEDURE CONTINUED—STEP ONE: PARTICIPATION IN SESSION BY THE PC, 157
Present time problem is a highly vital point of preclear participation, 158
What CCH 0 consists of, 158
Getting special cases to participate in session, 159
Process which turns on a somatic must be continued until it no longer turns on somatics, 159
Basic difference amongst cases lies in ability to knowingly cause, 160
How to gain participation of the pc, 161

HCO B 7 Dec. 1957 HGC PROCEDURE, 162
Present time problem running, 162
S-C-S steps, 162
Spotting steps, 163

PAB No. 126, 15 Dec. 1 957 PROBLEMS: HANDLING AND RUNNING, 164

Difference between condition and terminal, 164
Problems of Comparable Magnitude, 165
Necessity to have evaluation by others, 166
Responsibility and automaticity, 167

HCO B 16 Dec. 1957 PRESENT TIME PROBLEM, 168
Definition and example of present time problem, 168
Things to audit PT problem with, 168

HCO B 18 Dec. 1957 PSYCHOSIS, NEUROSIS AND PSYCHIATRISTS, 169
Difference between neurosis and psychosis, 169
Aspects of thetan, 169
Madness is compounded of disarranged abilities, 170

Dec. 1957 SCIENTOLOGY: CLEAR PROCEDURE—ISSUE ONE, 172

Clear Procedure steps, 173
Auditing truths, 174
Three possible goals in processing (defines mest clear, theta clear, Operating Thetan), 175
Step One: Participation in session by the pc, 176
Loss of ARC is more important than loss of havingness, 177
Present time problem is a highly vital point of preclear participation, 177
What CCH 0 consists of, 178
Getting special cases to participate in session, 178
Process which turns on a somatic must be continued until it no longer turns on somatics, 179
Basic difference amongst cases lies in ability to knowingly cause, 180
How to gain participation of the pc, 181
Step Two: Placing the preclear at cause, 182
Running CCHs, 183
Step Three: Establish control of pc’s body by pc, 184

S-C-S Processes, 185
Reason for holding on to body, 186
Step Four: Find the auditor, 188
Step Five: Pc versus mest, 189
Spotting Processes, 189
Step Six: Creative Processing, 191
Step Seven (Optional): Establish pc’s control over his “bank”, 191
Step Eight: Make some time, 191
An intensive in brief for practical use, 191
Present time problem running, 192
S-C-S steps, 192
Spotting steps, 192

PAB No. 127, 1 Jan. 1958 THE THREAT TO HAVINGNESS, 195
Threat to havingness is present time problem, 195
How to handle threat to havingness, 196

11 Jan. 1958 HGC PROCEDURE, 197
HCO B 13 Jan. 1958 HGC RUNNING OF PCS, 198

PAB No. 128, 15 Jan. 1958 THE FACTORS BEHIND THE HANDLING
OF IQ, 199
Testing, a very old subject, 199
Difference between personality and IQ, 200
Theory behind IQ change, 201
Why psychotherapy never worked, 201
Reach and withdraw mechanism, 201
Traps, how you are kept in one, 202
Basic mechanism of valence closure, 202

HCO B 18 Jan. 1958 CONTROL, 204
Find the Auditor is part of Control, 204

HCO B 21 Jan. 1958 MEST CLEAR PROCEDURE, 205
CCH 0, 205
S-C-S, 205
Control Connectedness, 205
Clean-up of field, 205
Creative Processing, 205

HCO B 21 Jan. 1958 ACCs—HPA/HCA, 206

HCO B 25 Jan. 1958 REVIEWING WEEK’S PROFILES, 207

HCO B 26 Jan. 1958 FUTURE PLANS, 208

HCO B 1 Feb. 1958 CLEARING OF FIELDS, 209
Rules of fields, 209
Testing for fields, 209
Clearing fields, 210
Solution to automaticity of form, 210

PAB No. 129, 1 Feb. 1958 CONFRONTING, 211
What made governments persevere, 211
Good and bad 8-C, 212
Why teenagers revolt, 212
Confronting drama, 213
Things which are worth confronting, 213


HCO B 3 Feb. 1958 FREE CLEARING PROJECT, 216

Ability Issue 66, ca. Feb. 1958 THE ATTAINMENT OF “CLEARS”, 217
Clear defined, 217
State of Bodhi, 217

HCO B 6 Feb. 1958 CCH Ob—HELP IN FULL—STARTING SESSION, 219
Help 9-way bracket, 219

HCO B 13 Feb. 1958 RULES GOVERNING THE RUNNING OF CCH Ob
“HELP”, 220

Ability Issue 67, ca. Feb. 1958 MAN’S CONTEST WITH THE MACHINE AGE, 2
Industrial technology vs. mental technology, 221

PAB No. 130, 15 Feb. 1958 “DEATH”, 223
Parts of man-thetan, mind, body, 223
What happens when man dies, 224
Death and havingness, 225
Death and exteriorization, 225
Picking up a new body, 226
Death, handling of dead bodies, 227
Theta body, 228

HCO B 1 Mar. 1958 PROCESSES, 229
How to run Problems of Comparable Magnitude, 229
Connectedness command with “you” added, 229

PAB No. 131, 1 Mar. 1958 THE SCALE OF WITHHOLD, 230
Why mental machinery is made, 230
Facsimiles are control mechanisms, 231
Ability to hold on to things, 232
Scale of withhold, 233

PAB No. 132, 15 Mar. 1958 REPORT ON TWO CASES THAT HAVE RECEIVED PSYCHIATRIC AND EURO-RUSSIAN THERAPY FROM THE GOVERNMENT, 234

HCO B 22 Mar. 1958 CLEARING REALITY, 235
Rule regarding reality on terminal, 235

Ability Issue 70, ca. Mar. 1958 DOES CLEARING CANCEL THE NEED FOR
TRAINING?, 236
Clear needs training, 237
Why Scientology is senior to life, 237

PAB No. 133,1 Apr. 1958 PROCEDURE CCH, 238
Steps and purpose of CCH Zero, 238
CCH I known as “Give me that hand”, 240
Reality Scale and CCH 1, 240

HCO B 2 Apr. 1958 ARC IN COMM COURSE, 242
Formal auditing and Tone 40 auditing, two different types of auditing, 242

HCO B 8 Apr. 1958 AUDITING THE PC ON CLEAR PROCEDURE, 243
Two processes clear a pc: Help, CCH Ob and Step 6, Mock-ups, 243
Barriers to auditing, 244

HCO B 8 Apr. 1958 A PAIR OF PROCESSES, 245

Op Pro by Dup, 245
Forgetting, 6-way bracket, 245

HCO B 11 Apr. 1958 CCH 88—ENFORCED NOTHINGNESS, 246
Enforced Nothingness, CCH 88, increases havingness, 246
OCA/APA high critical cured by CCH 88, Enforced Nothingness, 246

PAB No. 134,15 Apr. 1958 PROCEDURE CCH CONTINUED, 247
Commands and goal of CCH 2 (Tone 40 8-C), 247
Product, purpose and procedure of CCH 3 (Book Mimicry), 247
Purpose and procedure of CCH 4 (Hand Space Mimicry), 248
A CCH case history, 249

HCO B 23 Apr. 1958 VITAL TRAINING DATA FOR TRAINING HATS AND REGISTRAR, 250

Ability Issue 72, ca. Apr. 1958 HOW WE WORK ON THE THIRD DYNAMIC, 251
Barbarian societies, 251
Insanity of governments, 251
How to cure barbarism, 252

HCO B 1 May 1958 SIGNS OF SUCCESS, 253
What is a squirrel, 253

PAB No. 135, 1 May 1958 PROCEDURE CCH CONTINUED, 254
Purpose, procedure and commands of CCH 5 (Tone 40 Locational Processing), 254
Purpose, procedure and commands of CCH 6 (Opening Procedure by Duplication 1957), 254
CCH 7, 8, 9: Tone 40 8-C processes, 255
How to bring preclear’s thinkingness under control, 255
Commands of CCH 12 (Limited Subjective Havingness), 256
Commands of CCH 13 (Subjective Solids), 256

HCO B 2 May 1958 BEINGNESS AGAIN, 257
Best solution to valences is beingness processing, 257
Assumption of beingness, 257

Ability Issue 73, ca. May 1958 ASSISTS IN SCIENTOLOGY, 259
Difference between formal session and assist, 260
What techniques comprise an assist, 260
How to help in an emergency, 261
How to handle confusion, 262
Example of an assist on an accident, 263

HCO B 9 May 1958 WHO SHOULD TAKE WHICH CLASS, 264

PAB No. 136, 15 May 1958 PROCEDURE CCH CONTINUED, 265
CCH 14, Then and Now Solids, 265
Procedure and purpose of CCH 14, 265
Procedure CCH (long form), 267

HCO B 22 May 1958 ENEMIES OF THE PC, 268
Run Help on enemies of pc, 268

Ability Issue 74, ca. May 1958 SCIENTOLOGY AND THE REACTIVE MIND, 269
Primary characteristic of reactive mind, 269
Clearing in Dianetics vs. clearing in Scientology, 270


HCO B 24 May 1958 A COMMENT ON BEINGNESS PROCESSING, 271
Beingness again, 271
Assumption of beingness, 271

HCO B 29 May 1958 STANDARD CLEAR PROCEDURE AND AN
EXPERIMENTAL ROAD: CLEARING BY VALENCES, 273
Description of 1947-1949 clearing, 273
Standard Clearing Procedure, 274
Clearing by Valences, 274

HCO B 29 May 1958 AN EXAMPLE OF CLEARING BY VALENCES, 276
LRH session, Clearing by Valences, 276

PAB No. 137, 1 June 1958 SOME MORE CCH PROCESSES, 278
Commands of and how to run Control Trio, 278
How to establish goals, 279
Losses and exteriorization, 280
Characteristics of a Scientologist, 281

Ability Issue 76, ca. June 1958 “OFFBEAT” PROCESSING, 282
Experimental auditing and standard techniques, 282
Goal of Scientology, 283

HCO B 4 June 1958 RUNNING VALENCES, 284
Commands for Wasting Valence, 284
Never run pro-survival valences, 284

HCO B 14 June 1958 STANDARDIZATION OF CLEAR PROCEDURE, 285
Four points of auditing error, 285
What Clear Procedure consists of, 285
Standardize valences, 285
Eliminate Wasting Help, 285

Ability Issue 77, ca. June 1958 LEARNING HOW TO “CLEAR”, 286
Know-how in auditing to clear, 286
Hubbard Clearing Scientologist Course, 287
Ladder of courses, 288

HCO B 30 June 1958 PROCEDURE FOR CERTIFYING CLEARS, 289

HCO B 7 July 1958 CONTENTS AND COVERAGE OF HCA/HPA COURSE, 291

HCO B 9 July 1958 STAFF CLEARING, 291

HCO B 12 July 1958 STANDARDIZATION OF CLEAR PROCESSES, 292
Four points of auditing error, 292
What Clear Procedure consists of, 292
Standardize valences, 29 2

HCO B 14 July 1958 20TH ACC TRAINING PROCEDURE, 294
CCH 0, 294
ARC Straight Wire, 294
Start-C-S oldest version, 294
Connectedness, control version, 294
Help—5 or 9 way bracket, 294
Step 6 as in Clear Procedure, 295

HCO B 1 5 July 1 958 CARRYING ON, 295
Org staffs carrying on while some of their members attend 20th ACC, 295


HCO B 28 July 1958 CLEAR PROCEDURE, 296
CCH 0—Starting session, 296
ARC break, 296
Start—Change—Stop, 296
Use and commands of Connectedness, 297
Scouting and running Help, 297
How to clear commands, 298
Clear Procedure, Step Six, 298

HCO B 29 July 1958 THE ROCK, 299

HCO B 5 Aug. 1958 THE BASIC LOCATING QUESTION OF THE ROCK, 300
Rock bracket, 3 00

HCO B 10 Aug. 1958 ACC AUXILIARY PROCEDURE, 301
Start session, 301
Clear auditor with pc, 301
Get pc into session, 301
Clear key words, 301
Clear up psychosomatics, 302
Clear up states of mind, 302
Isolate basic rock, 302
Run general Help and Step 6, 302

HCO B 20 Aug. 1958 PRESENT TIME PROBLEM—RUNNING OF, 303

HCO B 20 Aug. 1958 OUT OF SESSIONNESS, 304

HCO B 28 Aug. 1958 CHANGE AUDITOR’S CODE, 306

HCO B 3 Sept. 1958 HCA COURSE EXAMINATION, 306

HCO B 12 Sept. 1958 POST CASE ANALYSIS ROUTINE, 307
Clearing auditor with the pc after D of P interview, 307

HCO B 12 Sept. 1958 HAVINGNESS—NEW COMMANDS, 307
Factual Havingness, 307

HCO B 15 Sept. 1958 MORE ON TRAINING DRILL TWO, 308
Avoidance of double acknowledgement, 308
Mis-acknowledgement of pc, 308

HCO B 29 Sept. 1958 VITAL TRAINING DATA, 309
Case of a student, 309
Academy training, 309

HCO B 15 Oct. 1958 ACC CLEAR PROCEDURE, 311

ARC in auditing, 311
Theory of auditing, 312
Reality level of pc, 312
CCH 1, Give me that hand, Tone 40, 313
CCH 2, Tone 40 8-C, 313
CCH 3, Hand Space Mimicry, 314
CCH 4, Book Mimicry, 314
CCH 0, 314
Present time problem, 315
TR 11, ARC Straight Wire, 316

Start—Change—Stop, 317
Connectedness, 317
CCH 3(c), S-C-S on a person, 317
Commands of GP-3, Connectedness, 318
Factual Havingness commands, 318
Confrontingness, 318
Body Confrontingness, 319
Subjective Confrontingness, 319
Participation, 319
Survival, 320
Creating, 320
Help, 320
Help on the rock, 320
General Help bracket, 321
Responsibility, 321
Answers, 321
Origins (originations), 321
The buttons, 321
How to run Clear Procedure, Step 6, 322

PAB No. 146, 15 Oct. 1958 PROCEDURE CCH, 323

Commands of and how to run Trio, 323
Exteriorization and loss, 324
Think of something you might withhold from (valence) [process], 325
Locational Processing and Problems of Comparable or Incomparable Magnitude, which to run, 325
Goals as a process, 326
Clearing up a goal, 327

Ability Issue 83, ca. Oct. 1958 NEW HCA COURSE YOU CAN BEGIN AT HOME, 328

A Scientologist in his training must approximate the route of actual research and discovery, 328 Length of time to become an auditor, 329
Training plan, 330
Frailties of “correspondence courses” , 331
Scientologists can get the job done, 332

HCO B 25 Oct. 1958 ABBREVIATIONS, 334
Abbreviations of Director of Processing and Director of Procurement, 334

HCO B 27 Oct. 1958 HOW TO READ PROFILES ON OCA: COMPARING
CURRENT WEEK PROFILE WITH WEEK BEFORE, 334

PAB No. 147, 1 Nov. 1958 COMMUNICATION COURSE, 335
TR One and Tone 40 on an Object, 335
Communicating to a specific individual, 336
How to communicate to a group, 336
How to do TR One, 337
Can you own ideas, 337

HCO B 3 Nov. 1958 AMERICAN COLLEGE OF PERSONNEL EFFICIENCY, DUBLIN, 338

HCO B 7 Nov. 1958 HPA COURSES FOR STAFF, 339

HCO B 11 Nov. 1958 ACC SCHEDULE, 339


HCO B 13 Nov. 1958 TR 9 (b) AND TR 9 (c), 340
Training 9 (b), Starting the session, 340
Training 9 (c), Ending the session, 340

HCO B 17 Nov. 1958 CLEAR BRACELETS, 341

HCO B 25 Nov. 1958 STEP 6, 341

Academy Training Bulletin 25 Nov. 1958 TECHNIQUES TO BE USED ON HGC PRECLEARS, 342

Certainty Vol. 5, No. 22, ca. Nov. 1958 VIOLENCE, 343
Violence leads to barbarianism, 343

Ability Issue 85, ca. Nov. 1958 THE THEORY OF TRAINING IN SCIENTOLOGY, 344
How students are handled, 344
Gradient scale in training, 345
Evaluation of importance of data in philosophy, 346

HCO B 26 Nov. 1958 ACCs, 347
Schedules of ACCs, 347

HCO B 1 Dec. 1958 PEOPLE PERMITTED TO AUDIT ENGRAMS BY SCIENTOLOGY PROCESSES, 348

PAB No. 149, 1 Dec. 1958 DUMMY AUDITING—STEP TWO: ACKNOWLEDGMENT, 349
Acknowledgment is a control factor, 349
Reason for obsessive talking, 350
How TR Two is done, 350

HCO B 6 Dec. 1958 HOW TO RUN AN ENGRAM, 352
Locating the engram, 352

HCO B 7 Dec. 1958 TRAINING DRILL CHANGE, 353
TR 5N to replace TR 5 as Comm Course drill, 353

PAB No. 150,15 Dec. 1958 DUMMY AUDITING—STEP THREE: DUPLICATION, 354
Theory of TR Three, 355
Auditor must be able to duplicate, 355
How TR Three can unjam the track, 356

HCO B 16 Dec. 1958 EXTENSION COURSE CURRICULUM, 357
How to write an Extension Course section, 358

HCO B 17 Dec. 1958 BASIC POSTULATE OF OVERT ACT-MOTIVATOR SEQUENCE, 359

HCO B 17 Dec. 1958 AUDITING ARC BREAKS ON REGISTRAR AND
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, 360

HCO B 20 Dec. 1958 PROCESSING A NEW MOTHER, 361
Ideal conditions for birth, 361
How to run out the delivery, 361
How to handle new baby, 361


HCO B 22 Dec. 1958 NEW HGC PROCESS—A NEW STRAIGHT WIRE, 363
Commands of and how to run ARC Break Straight Wire, 363
Good and bad points of ARC Break Straight Wire, 364
Cause of husband and wife quarrel, 364

Ability Issue 86 M, ca. Dec. 1958 SOMETHING HAS HAPPENED!!!, 365
Technical advances—engram running, TRs, styles of auditing, 365

HCO B 26 Dec. 1958 B.SCN/HCS COURSE, 366

HCO B 27 Dec. 1958 THE FIRST FIRST DYNAMIC PROCESS, 367
Invent something worse than you [process], 367

HCO B 28 Dec. 1958 SHORT SESSIONING, 368
Short sessioning as a technique, 368

HCO B 31 Dec. 1958 ACC CLEAR PROCEDURE CHANGE, 369
Omit “What part of that can you confront best?” from ACC Clear Procedure, 369

PAB No. 151, 1 Jan. 1959 DUMMY AUDITING—STEP FOUR: HANDLING
ORIGINATIONS, 370
What is an origination of the preclear, 370
How to handle originations, 371
Three steps in handling an origin, 372
What is a communication bridge, 373

Ability Issue 87, ca. Jan. 1959 WHAT ARE CLEARS?, 375
Three grades of Clear, 375
Mest clear, 375
Theta clear, 3 7 5
Operating Thetan, 375
Difference between mest clear and theta clear, 376
The 1959 HCA Course becomes a Clearing Course, 376
Clearing processes for mest clear, 377

HCO B 6 Jan. 1959 FIELD ACTIVITIES, 378
Bringing order is keynote of handling any area, 378
Auditor confidence, 379
Key rehabilitation process, 379
Group recruiting, 379

HCO B 6 Jan. 1959 CHANGE OF HCO POLICY LETTER OF 15 DECEMBER 1958, 380

HCO B 10 Jan. 1959 HGC ALLOWED PROCESSES, 381
OCA/APA low pcs, 381
OCA/APA medium pcs, 381
OCA/APA high pcs, 381
Other processes for all, 381
Result retarders, 3 82
Clearing procedures, 382

HCO B 11 Jan. 1959 AN AMUSINGLY EFFECTIVE PROCESS, 383
Invent a Problem, 383

HCO B 12 Jan. 1959 TONE OF VOICE—ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, 383


PAB No. 152,15 Jan. 1959 THE FIVE LEVELS OF INDOCTRINATION, 384
Five dummy auditing processes, 384
8-C, 384
High School Indoctrination, 384
How to flunk Upper Indoc TRs, 385
Tone 40 on an Object, 385
Tone 40 on a Person, 386

HCO B 19 Jan. 1959 NEW HCA/HPA COURSE, 387

HCO B 20 Jan. 1959 ACC PREPARATORY PROCESS SCHEDULE FOR
RUNNING ENGRAMS, 389
Commands of and how to run Selected Persons Overt Acts, 389
Commands of and how to run Overt Act Straight Wire, 389
Commands of and how to run ARC Break Straight Wire, 389
Dating incidents with E-Meter, 389

HCO B 22 Jan. 1959 NOT-IS STRAIGHT WIRE, 390
Pcs divide into three general classes, 390
Commands of Not-Is Straight Wire, 390

Ability Issue 88 M, ca. Jan. 1959 A CAMPAIGN FOR ETHICAL AUDITING, 391
Ethical standards in America, 391
“Bring Order”—the motto of HCO, 391
What an ethical auditor does, 392
What an unethical auditor does, 392

HCO B 24 Jan. 1959 SCIENTOLOGY AXIOM 58, 393

PAB No. 153, 1 Feb. 1959 CCH, 394
Order of training processes, 394
Simple 8-C, 394
Locational Processing, 394
Locational, Body and Room, 394
Objective Show Me, 39 5
Attention by Duplication 9, Number 4, 395
Opening Procedure by Duplication, fatal to interrupt process, 396

HCO B 3 Feb. 1959 HGC CURRENT PROCEDURE, 397
Selected Persons Overts Straightwire, 397
Auditor crimes, 397
Gradual scale of processes, 397

HCO B 3 Feb. 1959 FLATTENING A PROCESS, 398

HCO B 4 Feb. 1959 OP. PRO. BY DUP., 399
Commands of and how to run Opening Procedure by Duplication, 399

PAB No. 154,15 Feb. 1959 CCH (Concluded), 400
Subjective Havingness, 400
Book Mimicry, 400
Hand Space Mimicry, 401
Trio, 401

HCO B 16 Feb. 1959 HGC PROCESSES FOR THOSE TRAINED IN ENGRAM RUNNING OR TRAINED IN THESE PROCESSES, 402
Starting a case, 402
Present time problem by Selected Persons O/W Straight Wire, 402

Dynamic Straight Wire, 402
Past and Future Experience, 403
Engram Running, 403
Not-Is Straight Wire, 403

16 Feb. 1959 STAFF AUDITORS’ CONFERENCE OF FEBRUARY 16,1959, 404
Undercutting cases, 404
Confront Scale is the scale of disintegrating reality, 404
Reality Scale and engram running, 405
Present time problem handling, 405
Commands of and how to run Selected Person Overt-Withhold, 406
How to run Dynamic Straight Wire, 407
Past and Future Experience, 408
Engram Running, 409
Past deaths of famous historical figures, 411
Commands of and how to run Not-Is Straight Wire, 412
Effects of withholds, 413
Questions and answers, 414
Overt and motivator engrams, 414
Dynamic Straight Wire, 414
Recall a time vs. Recall something, 415
Magnitudes of overt and motivator, 416
Muzzled auditing of engrams, 416

HCO B 19 Feb. 1959 AUDITOR’S CODE No. 19, 417

HCO B 24 Feb. 1959 SELECTED PERSONS OVERT WITHHOLD STRAIGHTWIRE, 417

HCO B 26 Feb. 1959 IDENTIFICATION, 418

HCO B 26 Feb. 1959 ENGRAM RUNNING ON OLD DIANETIC CASES OR
RESTARTED CASES, 419
Running incidents, 419
Running out bad auditing, 419

Ability Issue 90 M, ca. Feb. 1959 HOW TO STUDY SCIENTOLOGY, 420

Two ways man ordinarily accepts things, 420
Evaluation of data, 421
A look at the sciences, 423
How war can come about, 423
Fundamentals, 424
Learning isn’t memorizing, 424

HCO B 27 Feb. 1959 HOW TO SELECT SELECTED PERSONS, 427

HCO B 28 Feb. 1959 ANALYSIS OF CASES, 428

Definitions of results, better, ability gain and intelligence gain, 428
Unfixing attention, 428

HCO B 28 Feb. 1959 ARC BREAKS WITH AUDITORS, 430

HCO B 28 Feb. 1959 CLEARING COMMANDS, 430

HCO B 1 Mar. 1959 TWO RULES FOR HAPPY LIVING, 431
Be able to experience anything, 431
Cause only those things which others are able to experience easily, 431

PAB No. 155,1 Mar. 1959 PROCESSES USED IN 21ST ACC, 433
Dynamic Straightwire, 433
Reality of terminals, 433

Choosing terminals, 434
Commands of and how to run Selected Person Overts, 434
Commands of General Overts and Not-Is Straightwire, 435

HCO B 4 Mar. 1959 HGC ALLOWED PROCESSES, 436 [CANCELLED]
Processes on gradient scale from unconscious pc to theta clear, 436
When muzzled auditing should be used, 436

HCO B 6 Mar. 1959 TRAINING DRILLS, 437
ARC break handling, 437

HCO B 6 Mar. 1959 HOW TO DO A DIAGNOSIS ON DYNAMIC
STRAIGHTWIRE, 438

HCO B 10 Mar. 1959 SUPPLEMENTAL DATA SHEET TO HCO BULLETIN OF FEB. 16, 1959 AND STAFF AUDITORS’ CONFERENCE OF FEB. 16, 1959, 439
Route Theta Clear, list of processes, 439
HAS Co-Audit processes, 439

HCO B 13 Mar. 1959 MUZZLED AUDITING, 440

PAB No. 156; 15 Mar. 1959 PROCESSES USED IN 21ST ACC, 441
Straightwire processes run muzzled, 441
Muzzled auditing, 441
Overts, 442

HCO B 17 Mar. 1959 AN INSANITY QUESTIONNAIRE, 443

HCO B 17 Mar. 1959 DO IT YOURSELF THERAPY, 444
Successful way for the untrained person to make it all the way to release, 444

Ability Issue 92 M, ca. Mar. 1959 THE SUBJECT OF CLEARING, 445
State of release, 445
Mest clearing, 446
Confrontingness Scale of Reality, 447
Theta clearing, 447
Length of time used in processing, 447

HCOB 24 Mar. 1959 HAS CO-AUDIT, 449
Magazine—majors and minors, 449

HCO B 24 Mar. 1959 MINIMUM STANDARDS, 450
Minimum inflow of students and preclears, 450

HCO B 25 Mar. 1959 HAS CO-AUDIT & COMM COURSE, 451
Communication Course, 451
HAS Co-Audit Course, 451
How to run a co-audit, 452

PAB No. 157,1 Apr. 1959 PROCESSES USED IN 21ST ACC (Concluded), 453
Engram commands, 453
ARC Break Straightwire, 453
SCS Control Process, Thinking version, 454
Valences, 454

HCO B 3 Apr. 1959 HAS CO-AUDIT AND COMM COURSE, 456


HCO B 14 Apr. 1959 LETTER FROM AUSTRALIA, 458

HCO B 15 Apr. 1959 EMOTIONAL TONE SCALE EXPANDED, 459

HCO B 17 Apr. 1959 KNOW TO MYSTERY STRAIGHT WIRE FOR
EXTREME CASES, 460
Know to Mystery Scale expanded, 460

HCO B 22 Apr. 1959 OLD AND NEW REALITY SCALE, 461

HCO B 23 Apr. 1959 DEFINITIONS, 462
Definitions of consultant, instructor and coach, 462

HCO B 3 May 1959 SOLUTION TO SOLUTIONS, 462
Problems and solutions, 462
Penalty of solving problems, 462

HCO B 4 May 1959 AN AFFINITY PROCESS, 463

HCO B 4 May 1959 HOW TO WRITE A CURRICULUM, 464

HCO B 7 May 1959 NEW PROCESS, 465
Picture of aberration, 465
Why a thetan makes his postulate fail to stick, 465
A new process: Locational Communication, 466

HCO B 8 May 1959 AN UN-DOABLE COMMAND, 467

HCO B 21 May 1959 HGC ALLOWED PROCESSES AND ACC PROCESSES AS
OF MAY 21, 1959, 468
Theta clear schedule, 468
Case remedies, 468
HAS Co-Audit allowed process, 469

HCO B 26 May 1959 MAN WHO INVENTED SCIENTOLOGY, 470
Career of L. Ron Hubbard, 470
Dianetics, the branch of Scientology which deals with mental anatomy, 470
Translations of Scientology books, 471

HCO B 5 June 1959 FORMULA 10, 472
Formula 10-an approach to OT, 472

HCO B 6 June 1959 WHEN CASES CRACK WELL ON SELECTED PERSONS
OVERTS WITHHOLD, 473
Route for staff processing, 473

HCO B 9 June 1959 NEEDED MATERIAL, 474
HPA/BScn Course lectures, 474
6th London ACC tapes tell how to run an HAS Co-Audit Course, 474

HCO B 10 June 1959 CO-AUDIT FORMULA, 475

HCO B 11 June 1959 THE DATES OF THE AUSTRALIAN ACC, 475

HCO B 22 June 1959 HOW TO “SELL SCIENTOLOGY”, 476
Disseminate Scientology without telling what it is, 476

HCO B 23 June 1959 CLEAR TEST, 476


HCO B 23 June 1959 WHAT IS SCIENTOLOGY, 477

HCO PL 2 July 1959 ADD FORMULA 10, 478
Process S2—”From where could you communicate to a victim?”, 478
Process S22—”Think of a place from which you could communicate to a victim”, 478

HCO B 3 July 1959 GENERAL INFORMATION, 479
Six basic process types, 479
Starting and Ending Sessions, 479
Control Processes, 479
Duplication Processes, 479
Subjective Processes, 479
Objective Processes, 480
Straight Wire, 480
Definitions of thetan, mind and body, 480
The CCH Processes—Tone 40 auditing; their commands and procedure, 480
CCH 1, Give me that hand, Tone 40, 480
CCH 2, Tone 40 8-C, 481
CCH 3, Hand Space Mimicry, 481
CCH 4, Book Mimicry, 482
Method of running CCH 1, 2, 3, 4, 482
ARC Straight Wire as a training process, 483
Terminal Assessment for Overt-Withhold Process, 484
Dynamic and Know to Mystery scouting, 484
Selected Persons scout, 484
Overt-Withhold Selected Persons Straight Wire as a training process, 485
Factual Havingness, 486
Third Rail, a special form of Factual Havingness, 486
Rudiments, 487
Mock up a picture for which you can be totally responsible [process], 487
Re-experience and Experience Process, 488
Present Time Problems, 488
ARC Break Straight Wire, 489
Not-Is Straight Wire, 489
Scale of processes taught in HCA/HPA, 489

HCO B 9 July 1959 DEFINITION OF SCIENTOLOGY—WRITTEN BY LRH FOR LEGAL WHEN SETTING UP HASI LTD, 491

HCO B 14 July 1959 SPECIAL INFORMATION FOR FRANCHISE HOLDERS, 492
Addresses, 492
Interim franchise, 492

HCO B 17 July 1959 AFRICA OVER THE TOP, 494

HCO B 18 July 1959 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING, 494
Victims, 494

HCO B 18 July 1959 INCOME TAX REFORM, 495

HCO B 21 July 1959 HGC ALLOWED PROCESSES, 497
Case remedies, 497
HAS Co-Audit, 498

HCO B 22 July 1959 ACTUAL WORKING DEFINITION OF PSYCHOLOGY, 499


HCO B 28 July 1959 OUR GOALS, 500
Exact plan of a centre, 500
Clearing Earth, 501

HCO B 5 Aug. 1959 HGC PROCESSES, 502
Regimen to be followed, 502

HCO B 7 Aug. 1959 THE HANDLING OF COMMUNICATION PROCESSES
—SOME RAPID DATA, 503
Essentials of use of Communication Processes, 503
Generalized terminals vs. proper names, 503
Use of E-Meter, 504
Cautions regarding Communication Processes, 505

HCO B 12 Aug. 1959 A SECOND TYPE OF FRANCHISE, 506
HCO Processing Franchise, 506
Exchanging types of franchises, 506
Percentages to be sent to HCO WW, 507
Cable, don’t phone, 508
Buttons we want flat on everybody in Scientology: victim, money, 508

HCO B 13 Aug. 1959 SUGGESTED HCA COURSE SCHEDULE, 509

HCO B 13 Aug. 1959 FRANCHISE HOLDERS, 512
What UK franchise holders need to do, 512

HCO B 19 Aug. 1959 HAS CO-AUDIT—FINDING TERMINALS, 513

HCO B 19 Aug. 1959 TO A ROMAN CATHOLIC, 514
Scientology demands no belief or faith and thus is not in conflict with faith, 514

HCO B 27 Aug. 1959 GROWTH WITH COMPETENCE, 515
A central org can succeed as far as it can service, 515
Victim is central button of overt act-motivator sequence, 516
How to audit victim item, 516
Organization and victim button, 517

HCO B 3 Sept. 1959 WHY “VICTIM” WORKS AS A PROCESS, 518
Cases not to run on victim process, 519
Pcs have service facsimiles so they can be victims, 519
When is victim flat, 520

HCO B 9 Sept. 1959 A SHORT STORY BY CABLE, 521
Fast dispatch lines handle awkward situations, 521

HCO B 14 Sept. 1959 NEWS BULLETIN, 522
Saint Hill Manor, 522
Application of Scientology to the fifth dynamic, 522

HCO B 25 Sept. 1959 HAS CO-AUDIT, 524
How to run Comm Processes on assessment, 524
Universal Processes, 524

HCO B 26 Sept. 1959 DATA ON CLEARING A STAFF MEMBER AFTER SPECIFIC TERMINALS ARE FLAT WITH OVERT WITHHOLD STRAIGHT WIRE, 525


HCO B 28 Sept. 1959 TECHNICAL NOTES ON CHILD PROCESSING, 526
Processes for different types of children, 526

HCO B 29 Sept. 1959 THE ORGANIZATION OF A PE FOUNDATION, 527
PE Course curriculum, 527
PE Foundation personnel, 528

HCO B 29 Sept. 1959 UNIVERSE PROCESSES, 529
Universe O/W, 5 29

HCO B 5 Oct. 1959 UNIVERSE PROCESSES, 530
Universe O/W, 530
Universe Comm Process, 531

HCO B 13 Oct. 1959 A USEFUL PROCESS, 532
For pcs who cannot seem to plumb an overt/motivator sequence, 532

HCO B 13 Oct. 1959 D.E.I. EXPANDED SCALE, 533
Evolution of the D.E.I. Scale, 533
Basic scale of selling, 533
Comm Processes and D.E.I. Scale, 534

HCO B 14 Oct. 1959 LONDON UP, 535

HCO B 15 Oct. 1959 MY WHEREABOUTS IN NOVEMBER, 535

HCO B 20 Oct. 1959 AN EXPERIMENTAL PROCESS, 536
Comm Recall Process, 536
Know Mystery Recall Processes, 536
Basic Affinity Process, 536

HCO B 25 Oct. 1959 PSYCHOANALYSIS GOES CAPITALISTIC, 537

HCO B 30 Oct. 1959 TO RETAIN CO-AUDIT PC’S INTEREST IN CASE, 538

HCO B 31 Oct. 1959 CREATE PROCESSES—DANGERS & ADVANTAGES, 539
What would you like to create [process], 539
What would you like to confront [process], 539
What would you like to destroy [process], 539

Ability Issue 107, ca. Nov. 1959 ON BRINGING ORDER, 541

HCO B 12 Nov. 1959 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS IN AUDITING, 543
Avoidance of double acknowledgement, 543
Misacknowledgement, 543

HCO B 18 Nov. 1959 1ST MELBOURNE ACC MATERIAL, 545

HCO B 18 Nov. 1959 CONGRATULATIONS HASI—SOUTH AFRICA, 546

HCO B 4 Dec. 1959 ALLOWED PROCESSES 1ST MELBOURNE ACC, 547
Melbourne 1, 547
Melbourne 2, 547
Melbourne 3, 547
Melbourne 4, 547
Melbourne 5, 547

HCO B 11 Dec. 1959 NEW HORIZONS IN SCIENTOLOGY, 548
Scientology organizational goals, 548


HCO B 15 Dec. 1959 HAS CO-AUDIT, 550
Process to use on HAS Co-Audit, 550

HCO B 15 Dec. 1959 URGENT CHANGE IN ALL CO-AUDIT COURSES, 551
Full responsibility, 551
PE Co-Audit process, 552

HCO B 16 Dec. 1959 RESPONSIBILITY FOR O/Ws, 552

Ability Issue 110, ca. Dec. 1959 TECHNIQUES OF CHILD PROCESSING, 553
Type of Child Processing session, 553
Short sessioning works very well with a child, 553
Assists on children, 554
Routine Child Processes, 554
Children with rough cases, 554
Instilling confidence in children, 554
Recall Processes on children, 554

HCO B 23 Dec. 1959 RESPONSIBILITY, 555
Responsibility and past lives, 555
Reason for blows, 555

HCO B 31 Dec. 1959 BLOW-OFFS, 557
The reason behind blow-offs, 557
Blowing can cause repercussions, 558
































































P.A.B. No. 103
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 January 1957




So we’re cause again. Here is the Code of a Scientologist being used as a pattern for the medicos in the United States.


“The Code of a Scientologist”


As a Scientologist, I pledge myself to the Code of Scientology for the good of all:

l. To hear or speak no word of disparagement to the press, public or preclears concerning any of my fellow Scientologists, our professional organization or those whose names are closely connected to this science.

2. To use the best I know of Scientology, to the best of my ability, to better my preclears, groups and the world.

3. To refuse to accept for processing, and to refuse to accept money from, any preclear or group I feel I cannot honestly help.

4. To punish to the fullest extent of my power anyone misusing or degrading Scientology to harmful ends.

5. To prevent the use of Scientology in advertisements of other products.

6. To discourage the abuse of Scientology in the press.

7. To employ Scientology to the greatest good of the greatest number of dynamics.

8. To render good processing, sound training and good discipline to those students or peoples entrusted to my care.

9. To refuse to impart the personal secrets of my preclears.

10. To engage in no unseemly disputes with the uninformed on the subject of my profession.”


Using it, the A.M.A. has now proposed the following code for all medicos as given in “The Doctor’s New Conscience” in Look Magazine, December 11, 1956. You see, they aren’t completely brave:

“The A.M.A.’s Proposed Principles of Medical Ethics”


These principles are intended to serve physicians, individually or collectively, as a guide to ethical conduct. They are not laws; rather they are standards by which a physician may determine the propriety of his own conduct. They are intended to aid physicians in their relationship with patients, with colleagues, with members of allied professions and with the public, to maintain, under God, as they have through the ages, the highest moral standards.

l. The prime objective of the medical profession is to render service to humanity with full respect for both the dignity of man and the rights of patients. Physicians must merit the confidence of those entrusted to their care, rendering to each a full measure of service and devotion.

2. Physicians should strive continuously to improve their medical knowledge and skill and should make available the benefits of their professional attainments.

3. A physician should not base his practice on an exclusive dogma or a sectarian system, nor should he associate voluntarily with those who indulge in such practices,

4. The medical profession must be safeguarded against members deficient in moral character and professional competence. Physicians should observe all laws, uphold the dignity and honor of the profession and accept its self-imposed disciplines. They should expose, without hesitation, illegal or unethical conduct of fellow members of the profession.

5. Except in emergencies, a physician may choose whom he will serve. Having undertaken the care of a patient, the physician may not neglect him. Unless he has been discharged, he may discontinue his services only after having given adequate notice. He should not solicit patients.

6. A physician should not dispose of his services under terms or conditions which will interfere with or impair the free and complete exercise of his independent medical judgment and skill or cause deterioration of the quality of medical care.

7. In the practice of medicine, a physician should limit the source of his professional income to medical services actually rendered by him to his patient.

8. A physician should seek consultation in doubtful or difficult cases, upon request or when it appears that the quality of medical service may be enhanced thereby.

9. Confidence entrusted to physicians or deficiencies observed in the disposition or character of patients, during the course of medical attendance, should not be revealed except as required by law or unless it becomes necessary in order to protect the health and welfare of the individual or the community.

10. The responsibilities of the physician extend not only to the individual but also to society and demand his cooperation and participation in activities which have as their objective the improvement of the health and welfare of the individual and the community.”



We are advising them to use our Number 3. You see how they recoiled from it.

16TH AMERICAN ADVANCED CLINICAL COURSE LECTURES
Washington, D.C.
2 January—11 February 1957


L. Ron Hubbard gave the following lectures to students attending the 16th American ACC in Washington, D.C:


5701C02 16ACC-1 Course Outline
5701C03 16ACC-2 Reality Scale in Action
5701C05 16ACC-3 Havingness: Particles, Solids, Spaces
5701C07 16ACC-4 Learning Process: No-Game Condition
5701C08 16ACC-5 Agreements and Postulates of the 8 Dynamics
** 5701C09 16ACC-6 Obnosis
** 5701C10 16ACC-7 The Postulate of Game
5701C11 16ACC-8 Postulates of Action-Reaction
** 5701C14 16ACC-9 Control
5701C15 16ACC-10 Evil
5701C16 16ACC-11 Havingness
** 5701C17 16ACC-12 Communication, Randomities of
5701C18 16ACC-13 Auditing Techniques: Self-Denial, Responsibility
5701C22 16ACC-14 Auditing Techniques: Order of Processes
5701C23 16ACC-15 Auditing Techniques: Scale of Processes
** 5701 C24 16ACC-16 Auditing Techniques: Altering Cases
5701C25 16ACC-17 Auditing Techniques: Specifics
5701C28 16ACC-18 Auditing Techniques: Stimulus response
5701C29 16ACC-19 Auditing Techniques: Action, Reaction
5701C30 16ACC-20 Auditing Techniques: Workable and Unworkable
5701C31 16ACC-21 Auditing Techniques: Solids
5702C01 16ACC-22 Auditing Techniques: Games Conditions
5702C04 16ACC-23 Auditing Techniques: Procedure CCH
** 5702C05 16ACC-24 Auditing Techniques: How Far South?
5702C06 16ACC-25 Demonstration
5702C07 16ACC-26 Summation
5702C08 16ACC-27 General Use of Procedure
5702C11 16ACC-28 Question and Answer Period
5702C11 16ACC-29 Final Lecture—Question and Answers


All 16th American ACC lectures are listed above for convenience. They are also listed on the following pages in date order sequence.

P.A.B. No. 105
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

l February 1957

THE STORY OF A STATIC


Once upon a time there was a thetan, and he was a happy little thetan and the world was a simple thing. It was all very, very simple.

And then one day somebody told him he was simple.

And ever since that time he has been trying to prove that he is not.

And that is the history of the Universe, the Human Race, the Fifth Invaders, the Fourth Invaders, the 31/2 Invaders, the people on Mars, Saturn, Jupiter, Arcturus, the Markab Galaxy, the Markab System, the Psi Galaxy, Galaxy 82—

I don’t care where you look—that’s the story.

Only it’s too simple a story, much too simple a story, because a thetan would have to admit he was simple if he understood it.

L R H









LRH TAPE LECTURE
Washington, D.C.
1—6 February 1957


5702C01 16ACC-22 Auditing Techniques: Games Conditions
5702C04 16ACC-23 Auditing Techniques: Procedure CCH
** 5702C05 16ACC-24 Auditing Techniques: How Far South?
5702C06 16ACC-25 Demonstration

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE


HCO TRAINING BULLETIN OF 6 FEBRUARY 1957


The following procedure is not for general release to the field, and is to be released only to organizational staff. The reason it is not being generally released to the field is that very few auditors have the skill necessary to run these techniques. The entirety of this will be released, somewhat modified, and much more expanded, some time in the future, and forms the backbone of a book. Therefore, I will appreciate your courtesy in not releasing these techniques to anyone, but keeping them in the Clinic until the book can be written, since you will scoop me if you do not, and the book will have that much less meaningfulness and appeal. The reason I am releasing these at this moment is that we need them, and we have every right to use them, but I do not wish them to be generally released, since they are actually so powerful that an auditor who is badly schooled would not be able to handle them at all on preclears. He is better off using that in which he has been trained. It will take a book to get him totally oriented on this subject.

PROCEDURE CCH

This procedure has two forms, it has the long form and the short form. The long form is omitted here since it is not necessary in any broad number of cases, and the short form is entirely right out through the top.

The name, “CCH”, is taken from Communication-Control-Havingness. These are the immediate exercise targets of this procedure.

The goal of this procedure is to take the preclear from as far south as preclears can be reached, straight on through as far north as a preclear can be pushed. Therefore, the breadth of Procedure CCH is much greater than any other auditing procedure ever released.

This procedure is covered rather adequately in the long series of lectures of the 1 6th ACC which specifically cover technique. This does not mean the entirety of the 16th ACC lectures, it means that section of the 16th ACC lectures which was immediately addressed to technique. A study of these lectures is recommended before extensive use of Procedure CCH is engaged upon in the Clinics. Copies of these lectures are being made available to Washington and London.

The goal of the Auditor is to discover an ability in the preclear and improve it.

The first discoverable ability of a preclear is communication in one form or another. This even applies to a person in a comatose state. Such a person quite ordinarily responds to tactile if you do not expect him to acknowledge. He is not able to acknowledge our communication to him by tactile since he at first cannot sufficiently or adequately control the body in order to make the reply.

HPA/HCA PROCESSES

Group 1: Communication Processes, taught in Indoctrination:

* Parts of Communication

*A. “Look at me. Who am l ?”

*B. Hand contact mimicry. Commands: “Put your hands against mine,” then “mimic and contribute to the motion of my hands.” Acknowledge when the preclear has completed the command. Then say “Put your hands in your

*- indicates to be taught in HPA & EICA Classes.

lap.” Then the auditor does the same. Repeat this process.

*C. Hand Mimicry (gradient scale of spaces). Hand mimicry is run the same as hand contact mimicry, with the following changes in the commands: “Put your hands up facing mine, with about one inch distance between your hands and mine.” Then, “Mimic and contribute to the motions of my hands, while maintaining the same distance between our hands.” Acknowledge. Then, “Put your hands in your lap.” Auditor then puts his hands in his lap. When this level of the process is flat, the auditor then puts more space between himself and the preclear, on a gradient scale, and changes the distance part of the command accordingly. Use a gradient scale to a limit of 3 feet.

*D. Mirror image hand mimicry. The commands are “Put your hands up facing mine.” “Mimic my commands mirror-wise; that is, when I move my hand back, you move your hand back on the same side of the body, and when I move my hands forward, you move your hands forward correspondingly.” “Good. Put your hands in your lap.”

E. Full body mimicry. The auditor picks two spaces in the auditing room, marking them out with chairs or other objects, or using the rug. One space is for the preclear, and the other for the auditor. The auditor explains to the preclear as follows: “I am going to step into my space and deliver a command to you which will consist of a series of body positions. When I have finished executing this command I will step out of the space. You are then, without any further command on my part, to step into your space and mimic the command I have given. When you have finished doing that, then you step out of that space and that will be the end of that command.” The process is then repeated. If the preclear is not doing a good job of mimicking the auditor or is thrown into inordinately long communication lags, the process may be run with the auditor stepping into his space and giving the command while at the same time, the preclear steps into his space and mimics the command. That is to say, the command is executed simultaneously by the auditor and the preclear instead of the auditor first executing it and then the preclear following it, with a mimic.

Group II. Location-Control Processes:

Parts of Control

A. Locational. “Locate the __.” The auditor has the preclear locate the floor, the ceiling, the walls, the furniture in the room, and other objects and bodies.

*B. Connectedness. “Look around here and find something you wouldn’t mind making connect with you.” Make sure while running this process that the preclear is making (causing) things to connect with him rather than he connecting with the things. If he connects with the things, it is a no-games condition. It is important that this be stressed in the session.

*C. 8-C Solids. “Do you see that ____over there?” “Good.” “Walk over to it.” “Good.” “Touch it.” “Good.” “Now, make it a little more solid.” “Good.” “Let go of____.” “Good.” The process is then repeated, with the auditor selecting the object each time.

D. S-C-S. “I am going to tell you to start the body. Then I want you to start the body.” “All right.” “Start the body.” If the preclear has started the body, he acknowledges the execution of the command. The auditor then repeats this process. Note: These commands must be used exactly, and be duplicated by the auditor. You should also get the preclear’s agreement to do it each time. The change portion of S-C-S is run as follows: The auditor picks and arranges with the preclear the location of three spots in the room. The auditor then designates these spots as Spot A, Spot B, and Spot C, and

has the preclear stand in one of them. The command, duplicated each time, is as follows: “I’m going to tell you to change the body from Spot ___ to Spot___. Then you change the body from___to___. Okay?” When the preclear indicates that he has heard this and understood, the auditor then gives the command, “Change the body from___to___.” Spots A, B and C may be chosen by the auditor in any order. The Stop portion of S-C-S is run as follows: “I’m going to tell you to get the body moving in that direction.” The auditor indicates a direction across the room. “I then want you to get the body moving, and somewhere along the line I’ll tell you to stop. I then want you to stop the body.” When the preclear has stopped his body, the auditor then acknowledges and repeats the process and commands. As in the previous two, the auditor always duplicates the commands and gets the agreement of the preclear to make sure that he has started, changed and stopped the body himself, while running the above three processes.

Group III. Duplication Processes:

A. Opening Procedure by Duplication. “Go over to the___.” “Look at it.” “Pick it up.” “What is its colour?” “What is its temperature?” “What is its weight?” “Put it down in exactly the same place.” The preclear obeys each command and answers each question in turn. The auditor then says, indicating the other object, “Go over to the___.” “Look at it.” “Pick it up.” “What is its colour?” “What is its temperature?” “What is its weight?” “Put it down in exactly the same place.” The auditor using the same words, same objects, and the same formula over and over again. This process must be run with good ARC at all times, and with a good duplication of the commands, and with good control.

*B. Keep it from going away. The auditor asks the preclear to select a number of objects in the room which appear real to the preclear. The auditor then selects two of these objects. These objects should be of a size that is easy to handle with the hands, and of a significance as non-restimulative as possible to the preclear. The auditor then selects two of these objects and places them either on a table in front of the preclear within easy reach and with some distance between them, or else on the arms of the preclear’s chair, one object on each arm. The commands of the process are: “Pick up the___.” “Good.” “Keep it from going away.” “Good.” When the preclear has kept it from going away for at least an instant and with certainty, the auditor then says, “Put it back exactly where you found it.” “Good.” The auditor then says, indicating the other object, “Pick up the___.” “Good.” “Keep it from going away.” “Good.” “Put it back exactly where you found it.” “Good.” The process is repeated.

*C. Hold it still. The commands for this process and the execution of it are the same as the process “Keep it from going away”, with the following exceptions: the command “Hold it still” is used in place of the command “Keep it from going away”.

Group IV. Havingness Processes:

Objective Havingness

A. Terrible Trio “Look around here and find something you would be willing to have.” “Look around here and find something you would be willing to permit to remain where it is.” “Look around here and find something you would be willing to dispense with.”

B. Trio on Valences. “Look around here and find something___can’t have.” Run this command until flat then run “Look around here and find something you can have.” (NOTE: should be a person, such as mother, father, sister, etc.)

C. Objective Solids. “Look around here and find something.” “Okay.” “Make it a little more solid.”

Group V. Subjective Havingness:

A. Subjective Havingness. “Mock up___.” “Make it a little more solid.” “Do what you like with the mock-up.” 1. Confusions; 2. Wasting havingness.

B. Straight Wire. “Tell me something you would be willing to forget.” Preclear answers, auditor acknowledges. Repeat until flat.

*C. Then and Now Solids. “Get a facsimile.” “Make it a little more solid.” “Look at the environment.” “Make it a little more solid.” Repeat this process.

Group VI. Thought Processes:

A. Rising Scale. This run on emotion and/or attitude charts, by running from the lowest to the top of the respective scale. “Put into the wall.” Preclear answers, auditor acknowledges. (Example, “Put apathy into the wall,” etc.)

*B. Present-time problem. “Invent a problem of Comparable Magnitude to ___.” “How could that be a problem to you?” The blank in this case being a terminal; best to use a single terminal with a minimum of condition.

C. Find a spot. “Look around here and find a place you could light.” Preclear answers, auditor acknowledges. “Invent a consequence of your having lighted.” Preclear answers, auditor acknowledges.

*D. Thoughts in Walls.
(1) “Have the front wall say to you, ‘This means go to___.” Preclear supplies the blank, the blank being a location. This is run on front, back, right, left, ceiling and floor—use same order throughout. After one round, you alternate “Have the front wall say to you, ‘This means don’t go to ___.” When these alternates are flat, run:
(2) “Have the front wall say to you, ‘This means stay in ___,” which is alternated with “Have the front wall say to you, ‘This means don’t stay in___”
Run pairs (1) and (2) comparatively flat—this is the only process for terror stomach.

E. Objective Not Know. “Look around here and find something you wouldn’t mind not knowing.”


L. RON HUBBARD


This Bulletin subject to
correction

LRH: rs.lnd.rd
Copyright (©)1957
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Feb 6, 1957.



5702C07 16ACC-26 Summation
5702C08 16ACC-27 General Use of Procedure
5702C11 16ACC-28 Question and Answer Period
5702C11 16ACC-29 Final Lecture—Question and Answers

P.A.B. No. 106
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

15 February 1957

GOOD PROCESSES

Prepared from the research papers of L. Ron Hubbard


The material in recent PABs, much of it, has come from an LRH research paper that still contains material, not covered, on some modern processes and general theory of primary value. In the research paper it is given in extremely staccato fashion, as the paper was the basis for conferences where the material could be expanded. Here is some more of the material.

The best processes are those which fastest convert unknowing games conditions to knowing games conditions. This does not disregard the fact that one’s goal of processing might be, at a very far reach, the static. No-games conditions do describe the static and various harmonics of the static. The no-games conditions list does not anywhere describe workable processing tools. Games conditions, and games conditions only, do that.

Here are some of those fastest processes:

CONTROL. Start, Change and Stop on objects or preclear’s body, emphasis on stop. Why emphasis on stop? It has long been known in Scientology (see Scientology 8-80) that the ability to hold points, locations, masses and objects, including bodies, in space at one’s own direction and choice is the essence of control. Without the ability to fix locations in space there is no self-determinism. Where one is concerned with the physical universe he collapses if he cannot hold space.

The exact commands and procedure of control processes are contained in recent PABs as well as in early Bulletins to be released.

The effectiveness of any processing is as great as the extreme of good control is exercised by the auditor. A corollary to this is that how well one lives life is measured by the extent of his good control of the things within his actual boundaries of interest.

FIGHT THE WALL. This is a very fascinating process. The auditor makes (he has to make him) the preclear fight the wall bodily. Since there is no accepted social behavior in man on this subject, the way that a preclear will DO this process varies somewhat wildly. What his running of the process does is to bring him up to a confrontingness of walls and environment. It does this through exercising a games condition (fighting) and causing the preclear to exercise this games condition knowingly. It is not designed to 7 nor does it, run out the preclear’s ability to fight.

The total command is, having directed the preclear’s attention to a wall, “Fight the wall.” You don’t tell them how to fight it, you tell them to fight it. The amount of


Copyright(©) 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

bruised knuckles and holes in plaster can be cut down by providing the preclear with a mattress or other protector and it works just as well. The purpose of the process is not damage, although preclears are known to go into fighting walls with a peculiar enthusiasm.

This can also be run by mock-ups but not as a substitute for making the preclear use his body. Do not make a thinkingness process of this, it is a doingness and a confrontingness process. It can be run outdoors on trees, etc., as well as in the auditing room.

OPPONENTS. The main thing about opponents is that there are not enough of them. An opponent is a games condition. Have the preclear tell lies about the subject of opponents. That is a good process. Have the preclear invent opponents. Of these two, Invent is best, but Lie is a lower harmonic of Invent and can be run all the way south.

When opponents become scarce to an individual they become so precious and valuable that he will neither confront, have, nor let go of anything he considers to be one. He will fight himself and do all sorts of things but he will not do these things. He becomes extremely aberrated on this point and will attempt to “discover” enemies or “find out” or some such thing. This is a compulsive games condition, with unknownness. Havingness is extremely poor on such an individual.

The exact commands are “Tell me a lie about an opponent,” “Tell me a lie about opponents,” “Invent an opponent.”

INDIVIDUALITY. A lot is said about individuality. Indeed it is a highly important subject. Either individuality is a very bad thing and causes human troubles, is a very good thing, or it is a games condition. The truth is that individuality is an aberration and a games condition. It therefore, good or bad, processes, whereas namelessness (unidentifiedness) does not. An extreme or exaggerated view on the subject of individuality is a havingness upset and contains unknowingness. Knowingness about identity includes awareness of game. A good process is “Invent an individuality that would impress people.” Run it for all eight dynamics. Examples: “Invent an individuality that would impress animals,” “Invent an individuality that would impress God.”

CAN’T HAVE. An interesting little creative processing process is “Mock up a mockup” and then “Say that bodies can’t have it” or “Say that your body can’t have it.” A further use of this is to say that the MEST universe can’t have it. Auditors call this “Escape Processing.”

EFFECT. Lie about an effect you are having. Examples: “I’m not having any effect from my tooth,” “I’m not having any effect from that wall” or “That wall is giving me some money.” Lie about an effect you are having on (any dynamic).

PROBLEMS. Problems must be handled in auditing. Never leave the present time problem unhandled. This does not mean that the problem is flat when the preclear says he now knows what to do about it or can solve it, etc. The problem is not flat until he can tolerate it solved or not solved. If he MUST solve it then he is not able to tolerate the problem and it is not flat. People think that all problems or some problems MUST be solved. They think this because they cannot tolerate or confront the problems.

Problems are processed by “Invent a problem of comparable magnitude to (the problem).” Until preclear can have the problem.

Undercutting the above, is, having the preclear tell lies about the problem.

Inventing problems of comparable magnitude must each time be questioned as to “How could that be a problem to you?”

Another process related to problems is “Consequences of Solutions.” Since a problem not confronted persists and confronted does not persist, then preclears can discover that they have been not solving problems because they were scarce.

SOLIDS. “What are you looking at?”, “Make it solid,” “What are you looking at?”, etc.

VACUUMS. A vacuum is a super-cold object which, if brought into contact with bank, drinks bank. Objects at 25°F or less have high electrical capacitance, low resistance. This was psychiatry before Earth. Shocks, ether, can act similarly. This is how one mechanically forgets the past. He depends on pictures, loses pictures to a vacuum incident. Vacuums drink up the preclear’s havingness. They are just incidents and they are brainwashing. You encounter these running solids. Opponents, individualities, more solids, problems, undo them.

RESTIMULATION. When one violates a games condition, intends to have an effect on something and doesn’t, one often puts the effect on the body. One thus gets “no-effect” on opponent, makes an effect on self. This is restimulation. It is also stimulus-response.

“Effect you could have on (people, preclears, any dynamic)” remedies this. The condition of self-auditing while auditing is the above restimulation. The same process resolves it.

TO SPLIT VALENCES

A term that really makes a psychiatrist feel like somebody is “schizo,” their nickname for the schizophrenic. It is an odd misnomer in that it means split personality and the trouble with a schizo is that he needs splitting, not that he’s split. He’s in another’s valence, and what is required is to remove or split the preclear out of that other’s valence.

STEPS. A series of steps rather than a single process or command worked best by test at the Hubbard Guidance Center and the London HASI Clinic.

1. Get the preclear under control with Start-Change-Stop. Lots of it. This can’t be slid over or brushed through carelessly. The total reason for getting the preclear under good control is that he is under bad control or he wouldn’t be a preclear, even though the bad control is his own. Though it is his own it is not knowing. The auditor’s job is to make the preclear CAUSATIVE throughout. The preclear must be CAUSE toward all things in the session. The control by the auditor is necessary because, left to his own devices, as he has been for aeons, the preclear will be EFFECT of his reactive bank, pictures, circuits and figure-figure. The one thing, of course, that the preclear is effect of in session and not causative toward is the auditing. The auditor pan-determines the whole thing.
2. Unjam the track with “What are you looking at? Make it solid.” Anything jamming (sticking, holding) the track (time) can be run AS A VALENCE in the following steps. Examples could be: Mother, dog, book, machine, town, house, gun, etc. You can readily see in this command “Make it solid” that the preclear is being CAUSE toward the thing or person. It is of considerable relief to the preclear.
3. Choose valence or valences, weakest universe preferred. At this point skill comes into great demand. The OBVIOUS here would be usually the correct valence to run. Obvious to the AUDITOR. It won’t be obvious to the preclear. For example,

the weakest universe would be to the preclear the one that gives no trouble. He never gets bothered or upset about that person. He never even thinks about that person or when he does it is only with the mildest feelings. Why? Because he’s “wearing the head” of that person! He’s looking FROM, not AT. If you find you have picked the wrong valence to run, go back to ( 1 ) and choose again at (3).
4. “What would interest (universe so chosen)?” Run this flat.
5. “Invent an opponent of comparable magnitude to .” You are getting a games condition here. Scarcity of opponents is the stickiest condition there is in human relations. Run this until preclear does it well and comm lag is flat.
6. “What would get the attention of ?” Here the preclear will name or invent things that would get the attention of the universe being run. What you know about the SERVICE FACSIMILE will apply here. Run it out this way. “What would get the attention of ?”
7. “Look around here and find something that can’t have.” Answers must be things physically observable in the auditing environment. This must be run very, very flat. A key process.
8. “What could you protect from?” This actually could be run as above, having the preclear look around the room and find what he could protect____from. However, if (7) has been run flat as a pancake it can be run as a subjective process as given.
9. “What communication could you prevent from originating?” You will see that this gives the preclear a games condition and an opponent. It isn’t flat when the preclear is still giving answers from the bank. He should make some.
10. Problems of Comparable Magnitude. The command is: “Invent a problem of comparable magnitude to .” This is an important process. Note that it has to be flattened well and that it is not flat when the preclear says he feels better about it or will handle it. It is flat when the preclear can HAVE the problem, does not HAVE TO solve it. Could have it, permit it to remain, or dispense with it. Problems: games condition. Solutions: no-game condition.
11. “Invent a game you could play with .” This light-hearted little process is dynamite. Don’t neglect it. Run it on the preclear and you’ll see what a high-level process looks like when it really bites. (It will bite if you have properly run the preceding ten steps.)
12. “Make fight the wall.” This is done, of course, with mock-ups, until the preclear does them extremely well and with full control of the mock-ups and comm lag is flat.
13. Run (4) to ( 12) again to check.

This procedure cleans up universes and valences. When running this, keep the preclear at it and do not lapse into discussion or excessive two-way comm aside from the processes themselves. Use two-way communication in delivering the process to the preclear, not in getting the preclear to deliver the bank to the auditor.

This is a lot of processes for one bulletin, but we can include more detailed material on these in future PABs.

17TH AMERICAN ADVANCED CLINICAL COURSE LECTURES
Washington, D.C.
18 February—31 March 1957


L. Ron Hubbard gave the following lectures to students attending the 17th American ACC in Washington, D.C:


** 5702C25 17ACC-1 Opening Lecture, CCHs, the Future of Scientology
** 5702C26 17ACC-2 ARC Triangle and Associated Scales
** 5702C27 17ACC-3 Communication and Isness
5702C27 17ACC Inflow/Outflow
** 5702C28 17ACC-4 The Parts of Man
* * 5703C01 17ACC-5 Problems: Their Handling and Running
5703C01 17ACC Problems of Comparable Magnitude
(could be same tape as above)
** 5703C04 17ACC-6 Control
** 5703C05 17ACC-7 The Scale of Techniques
5703C06 17ACC-8 Reaching the Lowest Possible Level
5703C07 17ACC-9 “Ought to Be”
** 5703C10 17ACC-10 Valences
** 5703C11 17ACC-11 Summary of Techniques
5703C11 17ACC-11A Comments and Question-and-Answer Period
5703C12 17ACC-12 Survival
5703C12 17ACC-12A Question-and-Answer Session on Lecture
** 5703C13 17ACC-13 Techniques in Practice
5703C14 17ACC-14 A Summary of an Intensive
** 5703C15 17ACC-15 Exact Control
5703C19 17ACC-16 Outline of Modern Intensive
** 5703C20 17ACC-17 Games Conditions
** 5703C21 17ACC-18 The Assist
5703C22 17ACC-19 Effect: Axiom 10
5703C25 17ACC-20 The Uses of Control
5703C26 17ACC-21 Rest Points and Confusions
** 5703C27 17ACC-22 Extroversion—Introversion, Its Relationship to
Havingness and Communication
5703C28 17ACC-23 Valences and Control
5703C29 17ACC-24 The Professional Scientologist
5703C31 17ACC-25 Techniques in Practice


All 17th American ACC lectures are listed above for convenience. They are also listed on the following pages in date order sequence.

P.A.B. No. 107
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 March 1957

SPECIFIC FOR TERROR STOMACH


There is a specific process which goes this way. You ask the preclear to put into the six sides of the room, the four walls, the ceiling and the floor, in regular order, the statement to him or to some part of his body “This means go to “ and the preclear furnishes the location. He does this with each wall, the floor and the ceiling, in rotation. Now you had better let him have the walls, etc., first of all say it to him, then after a while say it to his body. Now the next time round you get him to put into the walls, etc. “This means don’t go to .” Then the next time we go around to “This means go to ,” and finally we get this thing flat. These commands are run in alternation until it seems fairly flat.

Now the reason why you ask him to supply the name of the location each time is simply to see how his communication lag is coming along. If you didn’t ask him to add the name you would not see his comm lag. When you ask him to originate a location this puts a little stopper on the line. Now when we have that pair of commands fairly flat we go on into the next pair. “This means stay in “ is completed with all the six sides of the room, and the alternation command in this case is “This means don’t stay in ,” and we run these alternately covering the six sides of the room each time.

Now, of course, this is essentially the anatomy of the confusion—the confusion basically of a person doing, or trying to do, two things at once. So we get him to sort out the stable data. This is a technique which has been with us for some time. It is what we call one of our specifics, and it is a specific for a terror stomach.

Now this is something for you to have because these terror stomachs can cause you some difficulty. For instance, one of the commonest things that you find in prison work or in people who are under pressure from the police in one way or another is the terror stomach. With some people just the thought of possibly being arrested would turn one on. Now just why the police are the commonest restimulator of the terror stomach lies, of course, on the back track.

The stomach is guilty of the overt act of eating, it is continuously guilty of this act and becomes quite frantic on the whole subject of being incarcerated. This is rather funny, because the stomach is already incarcerated and is continually incarcerating—it puts food into jail three times a day; and so we get police putting somebody away as being the commonest restimulator of the terror stomach. A terror stomach is simply a confusion in a high degree of restimulation in the vicinity of the vagus nerve. This is one of the larger nerves and it goes into agitation under this restimulation. Now medical science has already solved this, already knows how to take care of it: they simply cut the vagus nerve—that it brings on a fairly early death and completely


Copyright (©) 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

disrupts the entirety of the gastric system is, of course, not considered. It is comparable with electric shock, which, incidentally, is almost uniformly followed by an early stroke.

Now here we have a specific and this somatic has not had any alleviation from any other process prior to Spring, 1956. At that time some other processes came in which are, to some degree, faster. But they have not yet been tested on a terror stomach with any thoroughness. They are more powerful, but they have not been thoroughly tested against this specific somatic.

With good auditing and good communication we can, apparently at any tone level, seem to be able to use this process successfully. This is quite remarkable. The terror stomach flattens out and if it does recur, it will be quite minor. But the preclear should be warned about this so that if it does recur he can come in again to see the auditor, who can continue the process and flatten it further.

It is a specific and for a long time I figured out the confusion of where to go and where to stay, and figured out the disenfranchisement of the game somewhat. Disenfranchisement brought about a condition of confusion which was best expressed in the stomach evidently. We can handle that today. I can tell you with some confidence that the only thing that would interrupt your ability to handle this would, of course, be your communication with the preclear. This would have to be pretty good before you could use this process. To establish communication with a preclear suffering from the terror stomach is, of course, one of the more interesting things to do because the preclear is quite frantic. He leaps around, goes in and out of session, etc. Nevertheless, in spite of this, the process does level out the terror stomach which is just a bundle of confusion.

With this process one would apparently be dealing with a no-games condition, because something is talking to the preclear. But remember that the preclear is making something talk to him for the first time. The walls are always telling people something, and when walls become warnings and when the various items of the physical universe become associated all under the headings of warnings, then you have a terror stomach. Well the common denominator of a warning is not conditional actually, it is a warning about change of position. What has deteriorated in the preclear is the ability to differentiate messages so that all messages mean “Go to , don’t go to____’ stay in , and don’t stay in .” The process runs out, in essence, the bad 8-C of the universe and you just turn it into good 8-C.

When running the process, ask the preclear if he is putting the postulate behind the wall, in the wall, just ahead of the wall, ask him how it is going now, what is the progress of the various points, how much space is the postulate occupying now, has he any inclination to put the postulate into the whole building, or compulsion to do this or that, and so on. You just go on policing it you see, but don’t slow it down with too much policing because this process is a quantity process—unlike almost any other process we have—it’s very low scale and so is quantitative, i.e. how many times he gets it into the wall. So you want him to do as many of these commands as possible.

Now the reason I bring up this process is to acquaint you with it and also because it is so wonderfully illustrative of the relationship between aberration and learning rate, a subject which I will be continuing in another PAB.

L. RON HUBBARD

HCO BULLETIN OF 8 MARCH 1957

COPIES TO:
Director Of Training
Indoc Instructor
Asst Indoc Instructor
HCO—LONDON

GOAL OF INDOCTRINATION COURSE



1. To give new student a reality on Scientology.

(No matter what this takes- should include a couple hours professional auditing.)

2. The Communication formula.

3. The Positions of Auditing.

4. The Communication formula used in the positions of auditing. Theoretical Material taught. The Codes of Scientology.


L. RON HUBBARD




LRH:rds jh




LRH TAPE LECTURES
Washington, D.C.
1—15 March 1957


** 5703C01 17ACC-5 Problems: Their Handling and Running
5703C01 17ACC Problems of Comparable Magnitude
(could be same tape as above)
** 5703C04 17ACC-6 Control
** 5703C05 17ACC-7 The Scale of Techniques
5703C06 17ACC-8 Reaching the Lowest Possible Level
5703C07 17ACC-9 “Ought to Be”
** 5703C10 17ACC-10 Valences
** 5703C11 17ACC-11 Summary of Techniques
5703C11 17ACC-11A Comments and Question-and-Answer Period
5703C12 17ACC-12 Survival
5703C12 17ACC-12A Question-and-Answer Session on Lecture
** 5703C13 17ACC-13 Techniques in Practice
5703C14 17ACC-14 A Summary of an Intensive
** 5703C15 17ACC-15 Exact Control

P.A.B. No. 108
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

15 March 1957

LEARNING RATE
(Part 1 )


This is one of the more important things with which we have to do. Scientology has always been the science of knowing how to know. With some diffidence I tell you it is also the basic science of education. Education happens to be just one part of a large whole. Education is seldom creative and is, therefore, just a middle ground of activity. Getting people to know something rather than getting people to invent something to know, you will see are quite different. In Scientology itself, however, we engage in a great number of educational activities and just for that reason alone you should understand education.

Education really takes off from a series of basics which we have a good grip on, and nobody ever knew where education took off from before. Well, it takes off from Scientology. This is factually true: nobody ever before had these basics. It is quite amazing. If you asked an educator about these things—on how you taught people and so forth—he would be flabbergasted. Some of his ideas are interesting and complicated enough to be fascinating, but they are not sufficiently effective. In order to educate somebody you had to know what the mind was all about, and unless you knew the nearly total anatomy of the mind you could not hope then to do much educating, and the educational world did not know the anatomy of the mind and so they didn’t do much educating. That is the simple background of the situation. But the funny part of it is, that if you tell an educator some of the basics of education he will agree with you all the time. He knew these things all the time, he will tell you, but a little conversation will show you that these things are not aligned properly and are tied up with all sorts of extraneous data and that he has no idea of relative importance of the various data, both pertinent and extraneous. He could not evaluate for you the data you have fed him, but would be in such total agreement with the basics that you feel that he would be rather apt to go anaten, stagger, yawn, etc., but he would know for sure that he had met someone who could tell him about his business.

If you know about the mind you can educate a mind. This is certain and quite true. Now here is the coordination: You have a wall say to yourself, “This means go to_____.” What are you actually doing? You are really running out the total significance of a wall. You are evidently doing about half a hundred different things while doing this process. If you listed the things which make this process work you would be likely to have a couple of sheets of foolscap. But let us take one of them here and let us see how walls are always teaching you something, how fire plugs are always teaching you something, and how grass is always teaching you something, etc. The least that a wall teaches you is that it is a wall. Now when you ask a preclear to walk over and touch that wall as in Step A of 8-C, he finally finds out that there is a wall there, which is the goal of the process. Now what is this but learning that he has a wall there?


Copyright (©) 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

Now process lag and learning lag would be the same thing for these purposes. It takes him this long to find out there is a wall. You will understand that the wall gets more solid to the preclear and a lot of other parts of Scientology immediately accrue that are off the subject of learning rate, but we are just taking up this one thing. We call this thing a learning lag. A learning lag is how long it takes the wall to get the message through to the preclear. Well, it takes as long as the preclear is in a high unknowing games condition. High unknown games condition is “no effect on self and effect on other things,” and yet his ability in the universe depends upon his differentiation amongst objects. For the wall says to him “This is a wall,” but because there can be no effect on self in a very obsessive way, the wall saying to him “This is a wall” means of course “This is a hospital spittoon.” No differentiation in perception. This is sometimes quite evident in a sudden exteriorization because of a loss of havingness which occurs at that time.

It is not that his MEST body is what gives him perception—this is not true—but the havingness of the MEST body makes his perception possible. You reduce his havingness by exteriorizing him suddenly and his perception goes by the board and of course he goes downscale, and LOOK is way up there at the top of the Know to Mystery Scale just below KNOW and you drop him down the scale to NO-LOOK, and sometimes in a sudden exteriorization you may drop him down to a delusory look. They not only don’t see what is there, they see something that is not there. Well what is this in essence but an inability to perceive, which is an inability to learn?

Suddenly exteriorized, with havingness dropped, they look at the ceiling and it is the same ceiling they were looking at a moment before with their MEST body’s eyes. But it is now a hospital ceiling. Well some via is occurring between themselves and the lesson the ceiling is trying to give them, and that lesson is “This is a ceiling.” They don’t perceive that, they perceive a “better” lesson. What do we mean by a “better” lesson? We mean a more convincing one. The hospital ceiling was a far better lesson, it was much more convincing. It was saying “This is a ceiling” to somebody who was so anaten and fogged out that he just could not resist learning that lesson or differentiate, and so the hospital ceiling kept saying to a person in this condition “This is a ceiling” until it became all possible ceilings. The moment you reduce his havingness he drops in tone and picks up the most dominant lessons.

As we go downscale, then, with a preclear, he can be expected to pick up more and more dominant lessons. And what is aberration? Aberration would simply be a pattern of convictions, and we could say for the purposes of education that aberration is really a series of lessons that were learned too well. For example, a fellow was raised in a tough neighborhood and was taught that the thing to do to get on in life was to bash everybody over the head, and he learnt this lesson very very well. But he never learnt another lesson which was presented to him later in life that the way to get on in life was to be able to live with the people. Therefore, we find that what is wrong with him is a lesson learned too well—a wrong lesson. The schoolboy who studies his lessons very often reads something which is not in the book and learns it much better than what is in the book. This is because we get into alteration and change of location at once. Now a wrong location and a wrong datum are more or less the same thing. When we move data into solids we get the most dominant thing they perceive—location. First we have postulates and then we have located postulates. That is a lower order of postulate, but is still higher than most people’s heads.

We find out, then, that aberration consists of a number of lessons which a person has learned too well. That would be an interesting way to talk about it and would certainly grip the imagination of an educator. But there is something else riding alongside of it which wipes it out as a total explanation, and that is his willingness to learn a wrong lesson and that is his learning lag. Now why is he willing to learn these wrong lessons? He just is. He has decided some time or other without any prompting that this

was the way things were. Now many people, simply by getting into the band of agreement are way up tone scale from where they were before, but remember people can go downscale into agreement too. So the datum is confirmed, he generated it himself, and then it was agreed.

Now and only now do we enter the field we could call learning rate or learning lag, or education. Just for no reason at all, he assumed, for instance, that his mother was a bad woman. He had no reason, he just assumed it—no prenatals in other words. One day he decided she was a beast and went along playing the game that he was a sad little orphan, just out of “thin air,” and then one day (he had been postulating this all the time) she blows up which she never did before and does something dreadful to him like sending him to bed without supper, or issuing threats, etc., and this confirms his assumed belief. Now take the reversal that he has postulated his mother as an angel and all of a sudden she turns and becomes a drunkard, etc. He is then always trying to convince people that she is a good woman and yet he knows that she is a bad one. Then one day he gives up entirely and he now has another conviction, only he didn’t generate this conviction, it was exterior to him.

Now one of the fondest things that your preclear thinks is that he caused everything everywhere but he covers this up and advertises to one and all, including himself, that he is not responsible for anything that ever happened to him. Now this is quite remarkable, because it is a complete reversal. In advertising that he is totally irresponsible he yet really believes that he basically caused everything. Now you know from old-time Ownership Processing that if you misown something it gets very real and solid-so at least 50% of the things that happened to him have been from exterior sources. If they are in restimulation they are the things that didn’t happen to him, you see, and the things that did happen to him are misowned the other way. He is misowning both ways. He says he caused something but this was really caused by someone else if it is in heavy restimulation. In other words, there are other things that work in the universe besides the preclear. He not only has to discover that he exists but that other things exist too.

The random factors in a case lead us, then, to conclude that the premises of education and conviction only go for a short distance. They go up to self-generated data, and that’s quite a way, but it doesn’t take us the whole distance. Therefore, handle this thing as far as it goes—handle the premise of learning rate and lag and other material of this character just as far as it goes. It is terribly effective as far as it goes—it is so effective that you are likely to go completely overboard and then wonder what happened—but what happened is that you moved out of that range into the range of self-generated non-caused attitudes. Non-caused attitudes are undone by communication, so we find communication vastly superior to education. Communication will always undo education, but it has to be terrible communication to do nothing but fix ideas.

What do we have in terms of processes here? Well, we have a lot of processes. I am not trying to give you anything but a decent resume here of the exact place something occupies before I tell you about it, because this is so good you will possibly try to supplant communication with education. You must not do that because self-generated data can supplant education. Now where do we go, then, with this thing called education, learning rate, learning lag and so forth? Well, let us become glib—not me, but all of us-with regard to such a thing as industry and learning rate. We will take that up in the next PAB.

L. RON HUBBARD

P.A.B. No. 109
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication In Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 April 1957

LEARNING RATE
(Part 2)


To continue with how we use this factor of learning rate and learning lag and so forth. You can interest an industrialist by telling him that it is learning rate that is impeding his own operation. How many instructions has he put out that have not been followed? You can say that these people really do want to cooperate with him but that the learning rate is so poor that these people cannot absorb the instructions. This is the stable datum—something he will understand—a better stable datum than anyone else will ever give him. “Labor is all bad” is the usual stable datum given to him. You will explain to him the trouble with his executives and foremen, etc., the reason why his production curve is down, or his machinery busted up, etc., is entirely because the learning rate varies from person to person. You can remind him of the stupid child and the bright child in the same classroom—one child doesn’t learn as much as the other simply because it takes one child too long to learn what the other child learns rapidly. But it is learning rate; it isn’t learning quantity. Now you get very technical at this point and explain the difference between these two children is the learning rate.

Do not go into quantity—but he will assume at once that the length of time it takes somebody to learn something establishes then how much he knows. That is not quite true, but it is awfully convincing. You can say to him, “Now actually there are not thirty people, Mr. Industrialist, in the thousands in your plant, who are really the cause of your labor difficulties. Certainly not more than thirty. These people are against you because they don’t know you.” Immediately he will say, “That is so true.” You continue, “They don’t know you because their learning rate is so poor that they have no idea what you are trying to do or what you want them to do. They are merely in revolt and they don’t know against what.” This will make sense to the industrialist. You tell him, “Now, I could pick these people out with the greatest of ease.” You could do this through the use of Personality Analysis tests which should make it quite clear to you, and he could check these against their service records, and you can be quite sure that the records would agree with your analysis. He will wonder how you could establish their learning rate so rapidly when you didn’t even talk to these people. Just use “learning rate” as a substitute conversationally for aberration, comm lag, etc., and it translates. So we are in communication with him even if it is a bit of a stretch. We are in communication.

I’ll give you an example. A stupid judge is one who can’t learn the rights and wrongs, the in’s and out’s, from the witnesses, and all the attorneys will tell you at once that this man is a stupid judge because his decisions are incorrect. But sometimes they take a person who is simply a stupid judge and they say he is a vicious judge, but actually you could say his difficulty in learning is so great that he becomes emotionally disturbed at the thought of learning and therefore exerts punishment in revenge on the


Copyright (©) 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

people who have brought this torture upon him. His learning faculties are so poor that it becomes painful for him to learn.

You see how you could just talk to somebody and without accusing anybody of being insane or aberrated, etc., you could probably sell him processing for the whole of his executive and foremen levels of his staff to increase their learning rate. And the reason for this? So that his postulates will stick; that is, what he can see will happen. But this is not what you do.

At this point, you have a point of agreement and you as a Scientologist take departure from it. You have made a point of agreement that it is learning rate and learning lag that causes randomity on his communication lines. You can tell him this and convince him because it is almost true, and it is certainly true within the realm of his experience. But you, in actually processing people, depart from it. You’re not interested exclusively in the employer’s postulates sticking. You’re not interested at all in this. You are interested in giving the person determinism over data. You’re not interested in a person’s learning rate really, but in his power of choice to establish or review the importance of data. This is what you re-establish with the person. You don’t teach him, then, to get into a state of hypnotic impulse; you teach him power of choice over data, and only then will the data become of use to him, and then only can he become social in his behavior.

The answer to the question is in total disagreement with the industrialist’s modus operandi. It is not in agreement at all. I have talked to some of these boys within the last year, and it is quite interesting that the moment I started to establish the fluidity and the right to think for labor, the right to live, and the right to be for labor, we were talking on different planets, and this is the secret of their failure. If their system of money control was a successful system there would be more of it today than there is, and it would be an increasing system, and it is not. It is a decreasing system. They must have a short glance at something, but you’re not going to involve yourself with this short glance. Management will buy learning rate completely. They will buy this whole thing because they themselves cannot face communication, but they can face learning. Communication is too high for them, and we have tried to sell them this for several years. It is too high for them because you are trying to make them face a Static. They will not do this, but they will, however, face learning rate.

So what do you tell them, knowing this full well? You say you are going to increase the learning rate of their staff members. You don’t discuss technically how you do it. You just give him wonderful examples, e.g., ask how long it takes a person to learn to use one of his machines well. He may say it needs an apprenticeship of five years. Then you can reply, what a long time, obviously due to the very slow learning rate. Then ask him, how does he know the man can really run the machine—ask him about his repair and maintenance bill. You can tell him that certainly, he, personally, knows about these machines, but that is why he is sitting at the top in an administrative post. But what about these other people? How does he know that they know?

Take the junior executive who is not very effective, doesn’t get things done. His learning rate is so poor that he doesn’t understand what his employer wants done. It could be that he is very willing to do anything for him, but he never finds out what. Now let’s have a conference with this employee and see if this is the case. And sure enough, it always is the case. If you’re dealing with somebody who can’t get things done, you are for sure dealing with someone who cannot absorb data. And you just prove it by getting into communication without mentioning communication. You will talk about learning rate and learning lag. I’ve tried this out and found that you can do wonders with it in ordinary conversation.

The definition of you, as a Scientologist, in such a circumstance would be someone who decreases the learning lag of people—increases their speed of assimilation of

data. This is how you could describe your job. You can talk about reaction time and the vast amount of data that the environment demands of people, etc. Take a professional football team; one of the most difficult things here is that they have to learn new plays all the time. What if they have a good player who cannot learn new plays and always uses the old ones? That is where they lose their games. Well, what do we do? We speed up the ability of learning new plays. Now you can really start to get technical. You have some agreement here, your listener has not yet begun to suspect that you can do something for him, but that will be a matter of just a short time.

Learning rate is important to the truck driver. He has to learn that there is a truck in front of him on the road before he can put his brakes on. Now, suppose it takes him a long time to learn this—he has a wreck. So people with low learning rates are accident prone. Your job as a Scientologist is to make sure that people have fast reaction time by increasing their learning rate. But do not forget that this is purely a method of obtaining agreement and introducing your subject—it is not an end in itself.

This occupies a fairly interesting section in Scientology, but its accomplishment is not effected by direct drill. This is never done. Why did it take people nine months to learn to recognize an aircraft in 1/1 25th of a second on the aircraft recognition courses? Because it was done by drill and the recognition officer very, very often was not so good at recognizing planes. But increasing learning rate by drill, etc., usually only increases familiarity and automaticity.

Learning rate governs reading time. There are many systems which speed up your reading time, but the practice of reading or the practice of acting simply increases the familiarity with what you are doing to a point where you can neglect it, and that is never the goal of a Scientologist. His goal is not to get something more automatic, his goal is to establish or re-establish power of choice over data.

A totally fixed datum is in the past. Where would a person have to go to recover it? In the past, of course. A person, to stay in present time, has to have all his data in a relatively fluid condition, so the re-establishment of the power of choice over data—to be able to accept it or reject it at will—comes first, and the whole process of increasing learning rate, which is a secondary thing, is the process of recovering power of choice over data.

All education is trying to do is fix data and all Scientology is trying to do is fix or unfix it at will. This is what a Scientologist is doing and that is the goal of the processes used, and incidentally, they are the only things that will increase learning rate and cut down learning lag and increase reaction time, etc.

But the final product in the framework of the society itself is actually coming from something else than the society believes it is coming from. Now anybody will happily let you come in and teach or process a person as much as you please about his job if they think this is the drill to increase his learning rate, and so you have freedom to process people. But what you are doing, is re-establishing his power of choice over the data he has. He always then winds up knowing more about it, and his learning rate depends upon that power of choice to fix or unfix data at will, and some processes which I will be giving you in future PABs will be aimed at doing this very precisely.

L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W. 1
Phone: LANgham 3601

HCO BULLETIN OF 8 APRIL 1957



GROUP AUDITlNG


Group Auditing is as effective as we can continue control over the group. As therapeutic as the control can be bettered.

Control can be of attention, person (body) and thinkingness. Should any of these break down, auditing value stops.

Attention is easiest—thinkingness is hardest.

Order of control factors available to the auditor, group or individual auditor, are:

1. ATTENTION
2. PERSON
3. THINKINGNESS.

Thus the group auditor has only available to him in any group which contains new or unclear people

1. ATTENTION
2. PERSON.

Thus we see at once that a significance process or any process aimed at thinkingness in a new or rugged group or one which contains any rough case must NOT BE run.

Let’s audit the WHOLE group always, not just the disciplined ones. So we must delete all thinkingness processes from group auditing—and that is quite a trick.

Model Processes in order.

1. “Look at (indicated wall, etc).”

2. “Take your right hand and touch your head (chair, right foot, left hand, etc).”

3. “Feel your chair,” “Look at the front wall.” Run one command then the other one time each (alternating).

4. Put up two objects, right and left sides of room in view of group. “Look at object one.” “Look at object two.”

5. Hand mimicry mirror image from Group Auditor.

6. Hand each of group an object. Auditor also takes one. Then group is made to do a simple mimicked motion of his object by the auditor. Auditor repeats his motion with the object until WHOLE group has done it right.

7. Group standing mimicking auditor.

8. Verbal mimicry—beware of repeater techniques.

As each one of these could be itself a total of group auditing, the length of time it

is to be run is long. You would be surprised how a group’s interest stays up. (The reason Group Auditors vary commands is they’re afraid interest will flag.)

The institution of the Assistant Group Auditor must here come into its own. Group chairs are widely spaced so the Assistant Group Auditor can walk through. Anyone not doing the command is manually guided into doing it (not verbally) by the Assistant Group Auditor.

The auditor asks only “Did he do the command?” not “Did the command have an effect upon his health?” If the former persists, the latter follows.

The use of significance in a command puts thinkingness beyond the auditor’s control. Hence “See that wall, put it there” is wrong with the “put it there”. The pc has to THINK that. The auditor cannot be sure he did and cannot enforce it easily.

All group auditing is done from tone 40.0.

NOTE: I have never written a book about group auditing. Now that we’ve found that from control proceeds communication ability, I can.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :jt.rs.nm
Copyright (©) 1957
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


[PAB 114, Croup Processing, 15 June 1957, is taken from this HCO B.]







LRH TAPE LECTURES

Washington, D.C.
19—31 March 1957


5703C19 17ACC-16 Outline of Modern Intensive
** 5703C20 17ACC-17 Games Conditions
** 5703C21 17ACC-18 The Assist
5703C22 17ACC-19 Effect: Axiom 10
5703C25 17ACC-20 The Uses of Control
5703C26 17ACC-21 Rest Points and Confusions
** 5703C27 17ACC-22 Extroversion—Introversion, Its Relationship to
Havingness and Communication
5703C28 17ACC-23 Valences and Control
5703C29 17ACC-24 The Professional Scientologist
5703C31 17ACC-25 Techniques in Practice

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
1812 19th Street, N.W., Washington 9, D.C.

HCO LONDON BULLETIN OF 9 APRIL 1957


LIST OF “PURPOSES”
as posted on Org Board

Purpose of Organization. To disseminate Scientology. To advance and protect its membership. To hold the lines and data of Scientology clean and clear. To educate and process people toward the goal of a civilized age on Earth second to none. To Survive on all Dynamics.
L. Ron Hubbard. To develop and disseminate Scientology. To support and assist Scientologists. To write better books. To act as a court of appeals in all organizational disputes. To form and to make official policies and orders affecting the FC.
Org Secty. To execute policies and orders. To coordinate organizational activities. To care for legal and public concerns of the organization.
Mary Sue Hubbard. To carry on Scientology. To be certain the organization remains solvent.
Accounting Unit. To expedite, handle and police the financial items from the moment they enter the organizational comm lines to the moment they depart.
HCO. To be the office of LRH. To handle and expedite the comm lines of LRH. To prepare or handle the preparation of all manuscripts and other to-be-published material of Scientology. To keep, use and care for LRH’s office equipment. To assist the organizations of Scientology and their people. To set a good example of efficiency to organizations.
Advisory Council. To advise the executives of the organization as to needed changes and policies. To act as a meeting ground of department heads. To assemble and report the statistics of finance and action to the Exec Dir. To advance ideas for promotion and improvement.
Staff Mtg. To gather agreement and permit staff origination upon matters relating to personnel and duties. To report on performance of duties. To suggest promotional, maintenance and organizational changes to FC executives.
Technical Division: To insure good training and processing, good service and ARC inside and outside the organization.
Administrative Division. To insure good and accurate communication inside the organization. To handle business and administrative affairs. To insure good working quarters and conditions for and good work from organizational personnel.
Academy of Scientology: To train the best auditors in the world.
HGC. To do more for people’s health and ability than has ever before been possible and to give the best auditing possible. To help people.
PE Unit. To make a better worker of the worker, a better executive of the executive, a better Homo Sapiens on all dynamics.
Dept. of Registrar. To communicate what we have to offer to those who care to be better and to help and to respond effectively when they reply.
Secretarial Unit. To expedite the communications of the organization.
Shipping Unit. To swiftly and competently furnish the public with the materials of Scientology.
Maintenance Unit. To maintain suitable quarters, clean and in repair, for the organization.
Indoc Instructor. To give people a reality on Scientology and to teach the communication formula by Dummy Auditing.
HPA Course. To create a competent auditor with a good grasp of theory and practice of Scientology. All 5 levels of indoc.


L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:-.mek jh
Copyright (©) 1957
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
LONDON

HCO BULLETIN OF 10 APRIL 1957




HPA/HCA COURSE CURRICULUM


TO: DIRECTOR OF TRAINING.


The HPA/HCA full Course must teach entirely—

Communication
Control
Havingness

Indoctrination HPA/HCA teaches Communication.

HPA/HCA teaches Control and Havingness.

Indoctrination teaches 1st steps (Dummy Auditing) on communication and a reality on Scientology. Textbooks: Self Analysis and Dianetics ‘55!.

HPA/HCA teaches remaining 4 steps of Indoc. Textbook: Scientology. The Fundamentals of Thought.

FIVE LEVELS OF INDOCTRINATION

1. Dummy Auditing
Communication formula learned old style.

2. 8C
Commands and walkabout with pc learned old style.

3. Hi School Indoc
Co-Auditor basis. If auditor fails to make a command stick he’s done.

4. Tone 40.0 on an object.

5. Tone 40.0 8c on a person.
Upper Hi School Indoc (Hi Hi Indoc). Co-Auditor basis. If auditor
mentions or acknowledges anything but commands he’s dead!

The Procedure taught on HPA/HCA Course is PROCEDURE CCH.


L. RON HUBBARD





LRH:rs.nm
11.4.57

LONDON CONGRESS ON NUCLEAR RADIATION AND HEALTH LECTURES

London, England
12—15 April 1957


The London Congress on Nuclear Radiation and Health met at the Royal Empire Society Hall in London, Friday, April 12th, through Monday, April 15th, 1957. L. Ron Hubbard gave the following lectures covering the latest advances in Scientology, as well as nuclear radiation and health:


** 5704C12 LCNRH-1 Control, Communication and Havingness—I
5704C12 LCNRH-2 Control, Communication and Havingness—ll
5704C12 LCNRH -3 Control Processes
5704C12 LCNRH-4 Demonstration “Dr. Ash”
5704C12 LCNRH-4A Havingness
5704C12 LCNRH-4B Flying Saucers
5704C13 LCNRH-5 Radiation and the Scientologist
5704C13 LCNRH-6 Radiation in Peace
5704C13 LCNRH-7 Radiation in War
5704C13 LCNRH-8 Group Processing: Emphasis on Control
5704C13 LCNRH-9 Group Processing: Emphasis on Control (cont.)
** 5704C14 LCNRH-10 The Reality Scale and the Effect Scale
5704C14 LCNRH-11 The Reality Scale and the Effect Scale (cont.)
5704C14 LCNRH-12 Scientology and Children
5704C14 LCNRH-15 Group Processing—”Sit in your chair, Wear a
Head, Have two feet, etc.”
5704C14 LCNRH-16 On Auditing
5704C15 LCNRH-17 The Control of Hysteria
5704C15 LCNRH-18 Effective Dissemination


Note: Lectures 13 and 14 were given by speakers other than L. Ron Hubbard.

P.A.B. No. 110
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

15 April 1957

EDUCATION

Education—point of agreement.

The learning processes are all of them extremely interesting to the auditor because they bring to his attention at once that the common denominator of communication and aberration is at once “telling somebody something.” You say to somebody “hello”-you mean in essence “I am here, you are there and I recognize it.” It’s the relay of an idea. Well, now, learning itself has been, for I don’t know how long, very compartmented, it’s been very carefully grooved, so that learning as we speak of it then prior to 1956 meant what they meant in school—and that was “the inflow of ideas.”

Now when you speak to somebody out in the public about learning he thinks you’re talking about inflow of ideas, from some source or another either from a book or a teacher. That is a very narrow look, and when I talked to you about this before I was using learning in that definition—an inflow of ideas.

It is not true that learning rate or the rate one will permit ideas to inflow is the common denominator of aberration or anything else, but it looks like it. The truth of the matter is, if you only considered inflow it would be like considering the motivator without the overt act. Now you know as an auditor how important it is to look at the overt act rather than the motivator. Don’t look at these inflows all the time. If you continue to look at these inflows and nothing but these inflows you will make as many mistakes as have been made in the past umpteen thousands of years in the field of education; and let’s not make these mistakes all over again.

Education could have been defined this way: “Education is the process of placing data in the recalls of another.” Do you see that? That’s what education thought it was doing. It thought it was placing ideas in the recalls of another and making a recall possible by somebody else of data related to him. Now that’s not very complicated, and that is the trouble with it: it is not complicated enough for educators. Now we deal with simplicities and this is the first time we really find fault on the line of simplicity—it’s an idiot’s definition—and that’s the process that is being carried on at this moment at Yale, Princeton, Harvard and Columbia; down here at George Washington, at Oxford, Cambridge and the Sorbonne—any place across the world at which they consider themselves tops in education—they are placing ideas in the recall of others.

A few schools departed from this from time to time, almost by accident, and usually under duress from their student bodies. Heidelberg is an example of this. Heidelberg never considered the relay of ideas important; it considered having been to Heidelberg important, and that was quite different.

As long as we maintain this idea of “inflow only” we are in trouble. Education does not happen. If education means inflowing ideas then you are also talking about hypnotism. You see, there’s no differentiation there; we are talking about beating

Copyright (©)1957
by L. Ron Hubbard.
All Rights Reserved.

somebody up and laying in an engram. This too would be education, wouldn’t it? So we have education and aberration very, very closely associated.

In fact, education WAS aberration. Life was busy teaching somebody a lesson and the lesson it succeeded in teaching him was not to do any more living. And that little lesson, then, was always at the base of education and it was done so that education itself could be considered aberration. In other words educational systems did the lazy thing, they did the easy thing: they simply paralleled the game of the MEST universe in teaching somebody not to live, and living paralleled it. Why, they then thought they were doing a good job. But let’s look at education as it was done. You taught somebody something by saying “Pigs have snouts.” They’re not supposed to say “Yes,” the classroom is supposed to be quiet. Later on you put an examination in front of them and it says: “What do have?” and they’re supposed to immediately answer and write: “ have snouts.” You’re supposed to be able to associate this completely. So it’s just a test of recall.

Now as you know, therapeutically, recalls—and by the way, if you don’t know this try it some time: just sit and ask somebody to recall something about some person and do nothing but that and notice that you get a decline of case. That’s an interesting thing. You had to use the whole of the ARC formula, something really real, some time you were in communication with, and the reverse side of it too—in other words, the entirety of the straight-wire formula, inflow and outflow—to get away with it. But if you just asked somebody to remember something about George, remember something else about George, remember something else about George—if you asked him what he was doing, he’s picking up every moment he ever saw George motionless. This erases, you see, all the rest points of George and leaves nothing but the confusions and the halfway feeling that George is there, so we sort of move George as a disembodied entity into present time and confirm the valence. Now this is quite a trick, but you just knock these rest points out and George becomes a confusion. Therefore, nothing but recall used therapeutically and educationally would wind somebody up in rather a confused state. He would be sort of half hypnotized, just nothing but recalls. So if you give people data like “Pigs have snouts” and then ask them “What has a snout?” or “What has a ?” you have given them a stable datum and now you’re taking it away from them.

You might look up some time a university record as to suicide and nervous breakdown; such a record is honestly kept, I know. I did this once and I had a lot of trouble. I wanted to know how many students had committed suicide in that university and they wouldn’t own up to it, but I found out there had been quite a few and there’d been a great many nervous breakdowns, all at examination time. They spend the whole semester giving somebody some stable data and then at examination time they take that all away suddenly. In other words, simply implanting the recall and then pulling it back out again has been defined as education; but it is nothing but a black operation—nothing but. To do this to little kids is to do away with their initiative; therefore a time for revolution in the field of education is definitely at hand.

Education would have to be defined much more broadly. But remember in the old logics about action definitions. Well, you’d have to give it an action definition; it would have to be a real definition that gave its use and a purpose for it, to be of any kind of a game itself. The reason why teachers go into a no-game condition is because teaching itself is not really a game. It is putting a bunch of other people in a no-game condition, and of course that’s only part of a game. To teach a subject it would be necessary for the person being taught to be able to receive a non-significant, disrelated idea from another person. You see, that would be a necessity in order to teach somebody something.

The next condition that we would have to meet would be making certain that person could maintain his power of choice over the data given to him. So we would

give him some data which were incorrect, and giving him these incorrect data we would find out if he could remember them and if he could reject them. The idea of being able to reject a datum and still remember it, to know that it’s untrue and non-factual and still be able to recall it, is of course bettered by a further action: being able to wipe it out completely or not even recall it; and that is a skill.

The next thing would be to feed him a datum, have him give objective examples and active examples of this datum so that it’s not then just a string of words, and then ascertain whether or not he could still reject it or accept it and then ask him to rephrase it, and eventually he will form something which will to him be an agreeable stable datum, and having done this we would then have accomplished power of choice over a datum. To get him to remember or repeat a non-significant datum would be the longest haul at first, and you may find people who have a terribly long haul on the subject of incorrect data. You give him an incorrect datum and he can’t reject it, but when you have made that possible you can then give him a datum, have him give objective examples of the datum, have him rephrase it, give objective examples of his datum, accept it, reject it, handle it, throw it around, and the next thing you know he has something which will buff the entirety of confusion surrounding that subject. You have created there something which is armor plate as far as he is concerned. He KNOWS a datum. Now he doesn’t KNOW it as recall; that’s the trick, you see. This is entirely different.

Now it’s hard to describe how he knows it, because there’s nothing there to describe except the datum itself, so to write long chapters on this new type of knowingness would be an impossibility—it’s something that is experienced, it easily goes on beyond the field of description.

All right, let’s take a look then at education and find out why you would do this that way—rather than to just place something in somebody’s recalls, to have him really know it as a datum. Why would you do this? Would there be any sense in this at all? Well, yes, there certainly would be. The individual would be able to USE that datum. He would be able to evaluate its importance, he would be able to handle it and handle with it many other things. In other words you have given him something for his utilization.

Now I want to tell you a little difference in the field of education itself. The stress of “teaching” in a modern school today is this: “How to occupy the child’s time.” That’s right—that’s what they teach in modern training schools. Great stress is put on this; you have a child just so long, he has to be taken out of his home for that length of time, you have to keep him occupied in school and that’s just about it, and you wonder why a child of twelve or thirteen doesn’t really know how to spell, his penmanship is poor, his reading is worse, and so on—that’s because a different thing has come into view. Now this is not the tradition of the little red schoolhouse of song and storybook through the generations. There was another tradition in this country, and I don’t know where the tradition I have just described came from, but this other tradition was the American tradition and it went like this: You had to get ‘em and put some shoes on ‘em in a hurry and teach ‘em readin’, writin’ and ‘rithmetic as fast as you could because they weren’t going to be in school very long, and the teacher who was put through normal school, so called, a hundred years ago was taught that. You have got to be fast, you never know when papa’s going to take him out and put him behind the plough. Give him some education before it happens to him. You probably will get them in the winter months when there’s not much work to do, but in the summer you’re never going to get them. Hence the summer vacation.

Of course, the child loves this idea; he doesn’t have too much sympathy with education in the most part, as it is performed; but if school really educated him I’m afraid you’d have an entirely different attitude on the part of the child. Now I have been very fortunate to know in my life quite a few real geniuses—fellows that really

wrote their name fairly large in the world of literature and science—and I consider myself very fortunate to have known them because they are so rare. Why are they so rare? I found something peculiar about these fellows—they were for the most part taught in peculiar schools! They were taught in some YMCA school or they were taught by some Englishman who ran a little college for difficult children in the street; they were all taught—it seems—in some kind of off-breed school. Now this is peculiar, because the school existed to a large measure to take care of people who were slopovers from the usual educational system—there wasn’t very much education involved. The fellow would come in and he’d be interested in something and therefore they had the master give him his head. One chap by the way, who gave us solid fuel, rockets and assist take-offs for airplanes too heavily loaded on aircraft carriers, and all the rest of this rocketry panorama, and who formed Aerojet in California and so on. The late Jack Parsons, by the way, was not a chemist the way we think of chemists. He was not taught in the field of chemistry beyond this fact: There was a little professor who opened up a school. Nobody could do anything with Jack so they sent him over to this school and the professor found out he was interested in chemical experiments and turned him loose in the laboratory and gave him a lot of encouragement. He eventually became quite a man. It is interesting that this completely sloppy type of education is apparently quite workable.

Here are some LEARNING PROCESSES. Try them out and see the difference between KNOWING a datum and knowing it as a recall.

1. Learning Process No. 1:

(Flatten each part thoroughly before going to next.)
(a) Give pc 3 numbers. Have him repeat. See if he remembered. Repeat this process.
(b) Give him incorrect datum. Have him repeat it. Discover if he could remember it. Discover if he could reject it. Repeat this process.
(c) Give him vital datum (concerning rudiments of auditing in the case of a Scientologist, for example). See if he can repeat it. See if he can rephrase it. Have him give objective examples. See if he can reject it. Repeat this process.

2. Learning Process No. 2:

(a) Discover things Auditor and pc can agree on in vicinity.
(b) Feed pc vital data (Scientology and rudiments, for example). Get him to give objective examples, rephrase and reject and accept.

3. Learning Process No. 3:

Have pc discover unimportant data in environment.

4. Assigning Identity:

This is a Walkabout, inside and outside.
Commands: “Look around here and find something you could have,” “For what is it used?” (or “What is it called?”), “Could you invent another use (name) for it?”

5. Objective Forgettingness:

This is a Not-Know Process. It is another Walkabout.
Commands: “Look around here and find something it would be all right to forget (or not-know).”

If these five processes are flattened early in the week, note the changes, repeat, and effect further changes.

L. RON HUBBARD


Issue 45 [1957, ca. mid-April]

The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.



Today’s Riches in Scientology


L. Ron Hubbard



Today, we have something here.

To apologize to anyone for any fumbling I may have done in a line of research which Man has consistently muffed for the past 50,000 years is unthinkable, since at any given moment we have had more progress than has before been attained. This is not a light statement nor lightly made, for today’s results can vouchsafe for anyone the truth of these words.

As every Dianeticist knows, we have since the beginning had the foremost clue to the condition of the mind and the aberrated state of individuals or groups. The mental image picture, carrying a record of the past which could be restimulated and thus made to react against the body was, one might say, our entrance point into the solution of the subject of the human mind and beingness.

Following from there, it was necessary to isolate any and all important parts of the human mental anatomy, and to bring about an understanding of any vagaries or wild variables which might occur.

It was important, further, to establish whether or not it was thinkingness or mechanics which gave us the best exit route from the involvement of life which we found beyond our control. The decision was finally made and proved that it was the mechanics of the mental image picture rather than the significance in the mental image picture which best surrendered to our efforts. Handling the mechanics made it possible to resolve the significances, and even though the significances were the greatest difficulty from the viewpoint of a human being, it was found that adequate handling of the mechanics eradicated the villainy of the significances.

An astonishing number of characteristics and potential abilities were unearthed in this course of study, and it was a difficult task which had to be painstakingly done to isolate the most important.

It will be discovered in any other activity or line of endeavor that the Prelogics of Dianetics are missing from that course of study. Therefore the Prelogics themselves have given us our course and have taught us which way to go in our courses of investigation. Thus it will be discovered that the work of many failed to stress the greatest importance, but gave us a rather aesthetic view of a great many facts, all of which were true but none of which were sufficiently isolated to undo the riddle of existence. Taking older works, one can find in them, here and there, bits of Dianetics


Copyright (©)1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

and Scientology, but a careful study of them reveals that at no point does one of these factors have greater stress than another factor. This single difference must be understood, otherwise our people will continue to study and search in ancient texts, and these have in common the frailty of failing to stress the importance of various truths, even though they give us a great many truths, many of which we have regained today. Unless this is clearly appreciated, then the value of Dianetics and Scientology cannot be entirely experienced, for one is continually chasing down corridors where all pillars are like all pillars, and all pillars in the corridor seem equally true. It is not a fact that truths are equal; there are truths which are greater than other truths, and the greatest of the great truths have been isolated in Dianetics and Scientology, even though our answers today seem extremely simple.

Today, once more, the mental image picture has taken its stand as the foremost discovery of Dianetics and Scientology. By the handling of the mental image picture concurrently with the handling of present time, it is possible not only to destimulate the bank in its entirety, but also to bring about a number of abilities by which the individual can recover data of the past much more easily than ever before. This, everyone who has had anything to do with Dianetics will understand, is extremely worthwhile.

We set out, in the beginning, to bring into being a state which we called “clear.” Although this seemed relatively simple in 1947, as the years progressed it became more and more difficult. Just why this was is not clearly understood even today, although it could be said that those people who began to think on this subject reduced their havingness considerably, and we had to do mostly with people who had been thinking on this subject. Therefore, we were starting below the level of case which I had started upon in 1947. We had not yet learned, from ‘47 to ‘56 that significances or thinkingness was not the route. Therefore it was very easy to use these and handle them, and, as a result, to suppress the case level below an easy recovery point. There is no apology in this; it is simply a liability of investigation. That many people were cleared goes without saying, but these unfortunately became more interested in living than processing, in the most part, since none of these had been trained before they were processed. Thus, knowing nothing about the subject, and simply attaining a state which they themselves did not particularly understand, they saw no reason to continue on in our midst. Thus we did not find ourselves surrounded by clears and we ourselves were not clear.

Clearing today, and the attainment of the state of clear, exactly as given in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, Chapter II, is once more easily obtainable and is, through what we know today, extremely simple, providing we ourselves do not have to be so complicated that we override the goal.

Today a procedure exists which is known as Procedure CCH. This stands for Communication, Control and Havingness. This procedure is used directly toward the accomplishment of a technique known as “Then and Now Solids.”

The auditing of this particular procedure is much more difficult and much more exacting than any auditing which has ever been attempted. The precision of the results is attained only by a precision of application. Therefore, it is unfortunately rather necessary that auditors be trained, not indifferently by someone who “knows all about the subject,” but in a regimented course of study, by which-the individual can himself attain sufficient subjective reality upon the techniques to follow them along and to be able to predict what is happening with the preclear. Thus the auditor today should have training. Fortunately, the many past years have given us techniques and technologies for training which bring us to an achievement of our goal in training rather easily. We can, today, make a very excellent auditor in only eight weeks. This in itself is news, and is very worthy of comment amongst the great number of advances which

we have made. As a matter of fact, we could probably make a very good almost anything in six or eight weeks today, since we have unearthed and put to use the technologies of training itself.

Then and Now Solids is not attainable by many preclears on a straight route. It is evidently necessary to carry through a very precise series of exercises to better his abilities up to a point where he can accomplish the technique. Then and Now Solids is not susceptible of being run, unfortunately, by a large percentage of the cases to which it is addressed until certain preparatory steps are accomplished. These preparatory steps are not difficult, and are the stepping stones toward these greater abilities. The steps themselves are apparently complete, and anyone who is faintly conscious can be pulled forward up to an ability to do Then and Now Solids through a series of gradients.

Then and Now Solids consists exactly of making the preclear capable not only of contacting and handling present time, but also any segment of the past.

Evidently we have been under a misapprehension with regard to the character of past and future. The fact of the case is that mental image “pictures” are, in effect, only de-solidified present times. By a sequence of de-solidifying present time, one evidently achieves time. This is a crude and not entirely exact explanation of the matter, but serves us in our processing. It then behooves the individual who wishes to be clear to achieve the ability of creating a present time out of any segment of the past track.

The length of time required in processing today is sufficiently short as to be accomplished in almost any case in under two or three hundred hours. This is a much better look than it has ever had. At any given instant of this processing, the results obtained are superior to those which we have been led to expect by our own experience. Thus, one must realize, when I say two or three hundred hours, that one is in actuality saying two or three hundred hours for a new and heretofore unenvisioned goal. Our ability to process upwards has gone so high that there is no real comparison with what we have done in the past. Furthermore, our ability to reach low has extended sufficiently that we are able to say with some aplomb that we are not balked by states of case. Naturally, the insane pose a problem to us, and always will, but our business is not with this peculiarity of mental mix-up. One of the more heartening factors is that insanity is found to be a highly peculiar form of composition of the mind, and is not an immediate consequence of livingness. To undo insanity, one today has the techniques if he also has the patience. So only insanity itself is set aside in this estimation of two or three hundred hours, since it is true that two or three hundred hours of processing might be found necessary on some insane people simply to bring them up to a rational response to the auditor.

Age also poses some limitation. Not old age, as it has in the past, for this is not today important, but the very young preclear, up to the age of six, seven or eight, will still be found to give the auditor difficulty. The reason for this is the attention factor. This is not the same thing as the attention factor in insanity, but is handled in much the same way. The attention factor of extreme youth has been discovered to be a disorientation factor brought about by the inability to handle the body and the environment, and is not an immediate “natural state.” A child is a thetan in usually rather bad condition. The attention factor has to be widened before much processing can be embarked upon, along a line leading to clear.

We have then achieved our goals in terms of processing. It is necessary now to apply those goals, and in order to apply them it is necessary to learn what there is to know about auditing itself. Today, we can make excellent auditors. We are doing so. We are making auditing training available in any way we can.

We have never been more sincere about our goals, and we have never been more successful in achieving them.

The race with the atomic bomb was, years ago, more or less a method of comparing Dianetics and Scientology to the physical sciences. Today it is a fact and an actuality. The consequences of air pollution and other matters, consequent upon the possession by not too sane governments of weapons of this magnitude, make it incumbent upon us to do our job here and now. It is actually not that we wish to any vast degree to save Earth. As I have said before, it has been saved too many times. But here we have a playing field, we have trained auditors, we have organizations, we have the technologies, and here we can exert a higher self-determinism than ever before. Here we can do the job of Dianetics and Scientology. We have factors in our immediate vicinity seeking to destroy the riches which we have assembled in getting ourselves out of this jackpot. We probably will have to solve the atomic puzzle on the third dynamic if we can hope for much further progress in livingness.

Dianetics and Scientology are today more alive than ever before. We know more, we can do more, we can achieve those things which we set out to do.

Those of us who were basically interested in Dianetics and Scientology for ourselves and others, today must be informed and must understand that whatever vagaries in our career of research and investigation, whatever organizational upsets we may have had, have never at any time been capable of swerving us from our basic goals and our determination to make it this time. We are making it this time. Whatever you wanted out of Dianetics and Scientology is yours today. It is only necessary for you now to reach out your hand in order to achieve it.

May I ask you to extend that hand?

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH TAPE LECTURE

London, England
18 April 1957


5704C18 ATE Auditors’ Training Evening, CCHs

P.A.B. No. 111
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 May 1957

EYESIGHT AND GLASSES

Compiled from ACC tape material of L. Ron Hubbard



It is interesting to know that a thetan doesn’t look through his eyeballs. He has two little gold discs, one in front of each eye lens. These are not the lenses of the eyes, but, as you might say, mocked-up energy. They are little gold discs that are superimposed over the eye and he looks through these. The eyeballs merely serve to locate these discs.

An eyeball isn’t even a good camera. Some people, dissecting eyeballs to find out how people looked with them, have been totally baffled since the first time this was done because it is about the worst camera that anybody ever had anything to do with.

What the ophthalmologist doesn’t know is that the individual looks through these little discs—the ones in front of each eye—and when things begin to deteriorate, or when the anchor points of the body deteriorate, they are liable to follow suit. They become distorted one way or another.

They begin to Q-and-A with the distortions of the eye themselves—the eye reacts to light, so these little golden shields react to light. After a while the little gold shield becomes black or corrodes in some fashion which makes it very difficult to look through.

Of course, we don’t know why he is looking through them in the first place. When they do deteriorate the individual starts wearing glasses. The person thinks this is necessary. The next thing he does is to make the lenses of the glasses stronger.

He puts on a pair of glasses. This is a big shield—a big disc. This disc also goes in front of the eyeball and he knows this and he cannot see things unless he looks through one. The reason why glasses become very difficult in an auditing problem is that one is not auditing glasses.

I have audited glasses, just as an experiment, for a long time. Havingness in terms of glasses, or in terms of eyeballs, does produce some sort of change, but havingness in terms of little golden discs produces an awful alteration in terms of eyesight, sometimes faster than is comfortable.

You can take this old-time effort processing and produce a change of vision with everybody with no permanence, but a fantastic alteration of vision can occur, making somebody very uncomfortable.


Copyright (©) 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

Have the preclear get the effort to see, followed by the effort not to see, followed by the effort to see, one after the other. The next thing you know is that all the little muscles in the eyes will start to Q-and-A with the little golden lenses in front of the eyeballs, which are changing under all this processing, and the next thing you know is that he is seeing double, cross-eyed, or something like that.

Things will turn on with tremendous brilliance as though somebody swung a rheostat-and he will turn it down quickly because that would mean that he would be confronting too much. You should thus change his idea of what he should be able to confront. If you change that idea, he will then adjust the machinery of sight. But if you attack the machinery of sight directly, you are just forcing him to confront and you get this phenomenon of a person turning up his vision and turning it down again at once.

You get the person capable of being able to get beautiful scenes and visio in the bank and then going totally black. You get a person cleared up tonight and tomorrow morning he is a psychotic wreck. That is all under the heading of HAVINGNESS and CONFRONTINGNESS. When you remedy havingness and confrontingness, he will remedy the rest of it.

There is no reason why a thetan couldn’t stand in the middle of the room and look at everything just as clear and flat and hard as it ever was. He doesn’t need any mechanics. He certainly has to be able to be it, and have it. In other words, he has to be able to occupy the middle of something, and he has to be able to do a lot of things before he can even see something. But all of these things adjust on straight havingness.

Havingness will change vision and special perception. That is something nobody can argue with, but the whole problem of glasses is the problem of confronting.

I once had a bomb go off in my face with some authority some time or another, because I was standing in a place where I shouldn’t have been standing at all, a total miscalculation on my part. The startlement that I could miscalculate to this degree did me in. After that I couldn’t see. Finally my eyesight turned on a bit and got way up to 3120, 4/20—that in the Service is “what wall?” I was doing combat service and navigation and every other thing I was supposed to do, with that kind of eyesight, clear through until 1946. After the war was over I was still wearing black glasses. I was trying to write books, and “what piece of paper” in “what typewriter.”

My instincts are very good and I was perceptive enough and wasn’t unwilling to confront things to such a degree that I ran into doors or did embarrassing things, but I was rather upset because my marksmanship was way off. I shot too many bullets into too many forbidden directions, I guess, or something of the sort—that used to be a great hobby of mine.

So I wore glasses, contact lenses, trying to increase my vision. I found out that vision increased only when you diminutivized the subjects you were looking at. In other words, the more powerful the glasses become, the smaller they make the objects you look at appear. Think that over for a moment in terms of confrontingness and it will amuse you. Of course, the world isn’t quite as formidable if it gets that small.

A very high-powered pair of glasses reduces the size of the face you are looking at by about half. People who are wearing glasses are very often not aware of this. But if you put a new pair of glasses on somebody’s nose and put him in a car and tell him to drive, he does some of the most fantastic things. In other words, confrontingness is altered by glasses. I don’t know that sight or lines or clarity of vision is altered, but certainly confrontingness is altered by a pair of lenses.

The moment I found that out, I was vastly amused because I didn’t want things to be that small, and my eyes were simply recovering from having been torn up, which was an interesting state of affairs. I got some processing, ran out a lot of these things, and my eyes came back up and flickered all over the place—they got anywhere from 15/20 to 25/20, which means they were above normal sometimes and way below normal at other intervals. I found one day whilst reading a report that I couldn’t make out anything. The printing was all blurry and going askew. There were ghost letters riding above every line and I just couldn’t make head or tail of the report. I was thinking that I’d better use a monocle or a magnifying glass. I suddenly realized that I was reading an AMA report with a total unwillingness to confront it. I threw it aside, picked up a novel and the print was perfect.

So I can sympathize with those who wear glasses because I have been over the jumps. I have been all the way at the bottom of not even being able to find the door, to almost being able to find the door, on up to being able to find two doors.

Where is the havingness of the person located in terms of the body? A scholar has a fixed vision point at a certain distance from his eyes. He has had havingness in that point and then he hasn’t had havingness. If you make somebody “keep a book from going away” at that distance his eyesight will change all over the place. Just have him “open a book and keep it from going away,” “Now leave it uncontrolled,” “Now keep it from going away.” He gets headaches, eyeburn, his eyes practically bleed before you get through because you are restoring the havingness at the exact distance where it was fixed and lost.

You get all sorts of phenomena of this character, but it isn’t really a problem of how good are the optic nerves. Of course, you shove an icepick through a person’s eyes like the psychiatrists do—he is not going to be able to see well because he has already got “now I am not supposed to see with the thing.”

I have an awfully hard time with blind people on this “Now I am supposed to.” I can get them to see, get them to do everything. Then they suddenly realize that they were not supposed to be able to see—and they shut off their sight again, but you process some more, and so on. But any time you have a vagary in the adjustment of sight, it is a vagary in the adjustment of havingness.

There must be something there to observe. The havingness goes by quantity. Don’t get the idea that people are afraid of seeing anything. You’re figuring right along with the type of figure-figure that has never worked for anybody in any time or place. He is just afraid to look at things, so we will take him out and make him confront things. If, by some necromancy, he is able to have that thing or some part of it, then he will be able to see it and will not be afraid of it. If we can get him to confront, then his fears will change. People know this. But this other thing, that people are afraid of things, that they have irrational terrors and all that, is all pretty well resolved on just this one basis. There is something there to confront, then there isn’t anything there to confront. This is a loss of havingness. If their havingness goes down far enough, i.e. their idea of quantity falls far enough out of adjustment, they will begin to detest seeing it. They won’t quite like to see it. Now there can be too much of it or too little of it. In either case the scarcity or importance or responsibility factors alter and they get so that they cannot confront it. They are perfectly willing to listen to a radio, but are they willing to listen to a radio 24 hours a day? They finally say, “This is too much, I cannot confront it,” and they turn off their hearing in some fashion.

You can actually fool your considerations to this degree. You say, “Look at all the books I’ve got to write or read. Look at that—a tremendous number of them there.” You got one little book which is not going to last you two hours. Actually, you

can have much too little to read. It is quite fascinating. The variations in confronting are a tremendous study.

Astigmatism, a distortion of image, is only an anxiety to alter the image. You get an astigmatic condition when a person is trying to work it over into a substitute, if he possibly can. Here again it is a case of not enough—he didn’t have enough.

Some men’s wives just disappear right in front of their faces. Just a black statue will be standing there. That’s visual occlusion, or the woman will disappear entirely. She will have no midriff or something like that. Only they don’t tell anybody about it, for this means, of course, that they are mad—or something wrong there with his havingness of his wife and his willingness to confront or not to confront that girl.

There is another factor that enters in. He would actually be in love with Martha but be married to Jane. So Jane gets blurry because he is trying to see Martha and he will do it on an axis. He will twist all things over.

There is another whole class of sight disabilities which are not allowed by or listed by the bulk of ophthalmologists. These people do not really go in for these things. They say these are bizarre effects and they doubt that anybody really sees them, which is a fascinating way of dodging out from presented phenomena.

A thetan with a buffer in front of him feels that he cannot receive various wavelengths and he knows there are some dangerous ones. He thinks they are dangerous to him and he has a tremendous number of considerations about this.

The considerations are utterly fabulous in quantity concerning the amount of protection one has to have, the conditions under which one can do things. This degenerates to a point where a man can only see well when he is wearing a certain pair of carpet slippers. It can get this far removed—I got this from a writer once—he could only write when he was wearing a certain pair of carpet slippers. I talked this over with him and all of a sudden discovered that he could only see when he was wearing that pair of carpet slippers.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 MAY 1957

To All Staff
TRAINING—WHAT IT IS TODAY
HOW WE TELL PEOPLE ABOUT IT

In London I made up a chart of training for the Comm Course (former Indoc) and HPA/HCA.

This course is plotted exactly on eight weeks including an intensive by a graduating student upon an incoming student.

The stable datum of all training now is:

“A student is graduated when his training level is such that he could be entrusted with an HGC preclear.”

Thus examination is rendered much easier and stable.

HPA/HCA Training requisites stress:

1. Synopses of all important Dianetic and Scientology Books and a synopsis of tapes heard.

2. Profile student achieved when auditing an incomer.

3. Memorized Axioms.

4. Five levels of Indoc.

5. Long form CCH.

6. Good attendance record.

7. Ability to Group Audit.

8. The Codes down pat.

That is more or less it. The Chart is intensely specific.

Paramount in all our training are:

1. To get our graduating students in good shape; and

2. To make sure our incoming students are given a good week intensive by the graduating student before the newcomer enters Comm Course. Why? Because Comm Course can reduce havingness and we want our new Comm Course student to learn, not agonize.

Training today can be pretty smooth.

But be alert here. We’ve changed type of training from emphasis on Classroom to emphasis on Student. “Academy” means coaching.

In Public representation of Washington and London schools stress that eight weeks of personal individual attention can make a Scientologist and a good one and that this is why the cost is what it is. This training is the best on Earth for living in general as well as doing Scientology. “It’s personal. It’s for you. It’s good. Only those who have it can Survive.”


LRH:md.cden L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright (©) 1957
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

P.A.B. No. 112
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

15 May 1957





Copyright (©) 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON

HCO TRAINING BULLETIN OF 17 MAY 1957

cc: Dir of Training
Dir of Processing
Comm Course Instructor
Night HCA Instructor
Org Secretary
HCO Board of Review
Registrar PE Found Instructor
Bulletin Board HCO London—for
distribution there

DEFINITIONS


A CONSULTANT is an instructor who is on duty sporadically or from time to time but not routinely in any one place.

AN INSTRUCTOR is one who has regular classes and who is assigned to places at specific times.

A COACH is a student who is standing in the role of “pc”.


L. RON HUBBARD



LRH: md.rd
5-17-57






HUBBARD CERTIFIED AUDITOR COURSE LECTURES
Washington, D.C.
15—30 May 1957


L. Ron Hubbard gave the following lectures to the Hubbard Certified Auditor Course in Washington, D.C., in May, 1957:


** 5705C15 HCA-1 Comm Course, TRs 1, 2, 3, 4
** 5705C15 HCA-2 Comm Course, TR 5
** 5705C16 HCA-3 Procedure CCH: Background
5705C16 HCA-4 Procedure CCH: CCH Steps
** 5705C30 HCA-5 Outline of a Course and Its Purpose

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE


HCO TRAINING BULLETIN OF 20 MAY 1957



INTERIM PROCESS


While auditors are learning to handle CCH this learning process is recommended.

Objective Show Me is as workable as any old-time process and is very easy to run. Therefore, all HGC preclears until further notice in Washington shall be run on Objective Show Me as follows.

Objective Show Me is first run as simple Locational and is run in this way until it is flat as simple Locational:

Commands: “Show me that (object).”

The second stage is run alternately between body and room objects. The commands are: “Show me that (object),” then “Show me your (body part),” “Show me that (object),” “Show me your (body part).”

The third stage of Objective Show Me is run similar to Opening Procedure by Duplication. Two objects such as a chair and a table near together are selected and one part of the preclear’s body such as the head, the eyes, the right hand, etc, is selected. The preclear is asked to show the auditor the table, the body part, the chair, the body part, the table, the body part, the chair, etc.

Care should be taken in running this process not to use body parts which will embarrass the preclear. The target of the process is actually the engram bank and it will be found that at great long length the preclear will come clear of facsimiles. The target of the process is not the second dynamic and in running it any specialization toward second dynamic aberration defeats the process thoroughly.

This process actually will produce a clear if it is carefully and completely run.

It is not a Tone 40 process, which means that you acknowledge the originations of the preclear.


L. RON HUBBARD




LRH: md.nm
May 20, 1957

This Bulletin applies to outside preclears. CCH should be used on Staff.



Issue 47 [1957, ca. mid-May]


The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.



The Radiation Picture
and Scientology


L. Ron Hubbard


The country has become very involved with radiation in the past year or so and as we in Scientology have achieved a much clearer understanding of this I think I owe you a rundown on Scientology and radiation.

At the outset let me assure you that our total interests in radiation at this time are two only: that radiation can create hysteria, and Scientology handles hysteria, and secondly that hysteria, because of radiation, puts people in rather poor condition and Scientology can rehabilitate them. We have no political or international interest in radiation.

As you can remember, the HASI in Phoenix, Arizona, was there at the time when a great deal of bomb testing was being done in Nevada only 250 miles away. At that time we had some vague interest in radiation, but it was more in the direction of locating any deposits of uranium which might have escaped notice. Being in possession of instruments which could measure radiation, we were quite shocked to discover that the atmosphere and the grand pianos began to count somewhat alarmingly. This was immediately after an H-bomb had been buried under nine feet of dirt and had been exploded. These radioactive dust particles swirled around the Southwest for quite a while before they separated themselves out.

We were worried. We were worried because the amount of radiation was obviously alarmingly great and I was as worried as the rest, perhaps even more so because of my responsibility for our people in the Phoenix area. I felt that we could not go on in the immediate vicinity of a great deal of testing and so I came East to give a Congress and establish offices somewhere away from that area. There were other local reasons but this radiation reason was more or less primary.

Back East we made no further tests but we continued to be impressed. We read about radiation in the public press, we read how the government was saying how it was not dangerous, and we read apparently responsible scientists on the subject saying that it was very dangerous. But because we had seen grand pianos counting like uranium mines, we were, of course, of the opinion that radiation was an extremely dangerous thing.

Without further examination of this subject and paying attention only to what was printed in the public presses, we saw no reason to change our attitude concerning


Copyright (©) 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

radiation. But some things have happened recently which have brought about a considerable change.

I have just completed a Congress in London and was in communication with Members of Parliament through a HASI representative on the subject of radiation. It was clearly and cleanly stated by an authoritative Member of the British Government that Russia was making full use of the hysteria factors inherent in radiation in order to stop England from constructing H-bombs and to impede her defenses in other ways. He had incontrovertible proof that the hysteria campaign being conducted by Russia inside England and the United States was totally an effort to impede their national defense.

Russian campaigns you must understand are of the mental, brainwashing type. Radiation is tailor-made to their agent provocateur tactics.

When I returned to America two things became very obvious. The first of these was that only the press of Russia and the United States did not report my remarks made at the Nuclear Radiation and Health Congress at the Royal Empire Society Hall in London. Other newspapers the world around carried the remarks as headline news. These remarks were to the effect that the greatest danger of radiation was hysteria. At the Congress I said that the H-bomb was not a weapon because it was far too powerful, it would not coerce obedience but only terror. These remarks are more or less complete in a book now being published called All About Radiation, for the British market only.

Another thing that happened is that I remembered why I left the Author’s League of America some years ago. Its Board had begun to offer prizes to deify minorities and it was taking other party-line data and trying to foist it off on American writers. The Newspaper Guild, so far as I know, is not entirely clear of this influence.

The other thing I did was to take a Geiger counter and make a test of Washington. A little earlier this Geiger counter had been giving false evidence because the stick used with the counter, as will happen, evidently had some uranium stuck to it. But with the counter in good operating order and clean, it was discovered that the background count of Washington, D.C., was the same as it was in 1932 when I was going to George Washington University and studying radiation. In other words, there has apparently been no general increase of count in London or Washington because of bomb testing. I did more than this. I made a calculation of the amount of gamma and cosmic rays which fall on Earth’s surface daily and compared this to the amount of test radiation waste which would be thrown into the atmosphere yearly. The figures do not compare. The added man-made radiation will probably never add up to your luminous dial watch.

On the whole track, radiation was dangerous for the good reason that there was more radiation in those times that could be exploded. However, radiation is a half-life matter and the older the universe gets the less radiation there is available to throw at people. And a good thing, too.

While we have no doubt whatsoever of the actual dangers of a bomb dropping on a city, we are now in a position to doubt rather thoroughly the vaunted harm from test bombing which is being sold the populations of Earth, evidently by the Communist propagandists.

The U.S. population is being stampeded by Russia toward leaving the U.S. defenseless. Already this has accomplished a defective U.S. civil defense and is gaining momentum toward a public demand for no bombs. This is how Russia works. Russia works on the population imagination. Russia uses any knowledge of the mind she has

to instill fear and bring about destruction. She is an unworthy purveyor of scientific information.

Russia has already succeeded rather well in this field of seizing control of the mind. There is no essential difference between dialectic materialism and Wundtian psychology. Yet, Wundtian psychology is taught in all the universities of the United States. England, being an older and more mature government than the United States Government, has already awakened to this and is taking active government steps to halt this matter of public panic. England, for instance, is not buying Wundtian psychology. England is buying Scientology in rather large amounts. But this is not yet true of the United States. That it will come about in the future is more or less a certain thing, but that it does not exist at the time is a fact. Only the better IQs of the U.S. as yet buy Scientology.

We can be assured on the score of fallout—it isn’t dangerous at this time. It does not compare to the amount of “natural radiation” with which we are being bombarded. If you went down to Florida to live you would increase your radiation count much more than it would be increased if you stayed well North and the government blew off ten thousand more test bombs. In other words, just exposure to a clearer view of the sun will give you more radiation than you could be hit with in the near future because of test bombs. It’s just a fact that there isn’t enough uranium around to actually thoroughly contaminate the atmosphere at this time. I know that this is in controversy to my own statements on the subject—which is very interesting. My own statements were made in the light of our earlier experience. We had experienced test fallout in Phoenix and I had not made further tests or calculations. In other words, I myself had been swept up in this campaign to frighten the populace half to death.

The reaction to radiation is thus entirely, completely, and wholly mental!

Dianazene depends for its reaction upon whole-track radiation incidents, and x-ray and sunburn in the current life. By taking away the engram which can react to the worry about radiation, worry about radiation is then made non-painful.

If you add all this up you will clearly see that scare talk about radiation is the source of radiation sickness in our present world. The Atom Bomb is too powerful a weapon to be used for control of human beings and is therefore not a weapon. But it does promise the population no future, and so promising, it damps out efforts toward survival. This itself can bring on sickness.

But we should not delude ourselves in thinking that actual radiation in dangerous quantities is adrift in this atmosphere at this time. It is not. All I invite you to do is to get a Scintillometer or Geiger counter and test around.

There is probably an ionospheric flash which gives a tiny sudden shock of radiation for the briefest instant of time—less than the amount you would get from a simple x-ray—and this acts as a restimulator to whole-track incidents. But it isn’t true that radiation is drifting around biting you at this time.

On the subject of strontium-90 it is interesting to note that a sufficient intake of calcium renders a person completely immuned to any effects of strontium-90. A child should be made to drink more milk and probably should have his diet fortified a little bit with calcium if anybody is truly worried about it.

This fight, then, is in the propaganda field. It is not in the field of actual science. I am extremely surprised at some of the scientists who are saying that radiation is dangerous. These men professionally should know their business and they are not

expressing the true data. On the other hand, neither is the government making actual data available. The government is seeking to convince the public on the score of opinion. Opinion has no validity in science. If you want to know about radiation, why, go and look for some radiation in the atmosphere and if you cannot find more than the usual background count then you must assume that there isn’t any extra radiation in the atmosphere. I am not saying that the scientists who have been beating the drum on the dangers of radiation are Communist-inspired. I am not saying that these men are Communists. I am merely saying that they are aiding and assisting a Communist campaign.

We will not assist Commie propaganda aimed at stampeding the U.S. public into revolt against U.S. defense. The U.S. can bargain her way out of this. I am very hopeful that a general control of radiation the world around will be achieved and I am sure that if it is not achieved, national governments are dead. I am also fairly sure that there will never be such a thing as an atomic war. I have looked this over rather carefully and I personally don’t believe that national governments will last long enough at their present rate of non-survival activity.

Our cue is to make nothing out of radiation, if we mention it at all. People who are worried about radiation are worried because enough talk about it has thrown enough engrams into restimulation to make them actually quite ill. We can do something about restimulation. But we have no business aiding this public hysteria in any way. We are the people who take care of hysteria and not the people who stir it up. What we are doing is a bit bigger than one of Man’s new destructive toys.

Our campaign is to sell Scientology. If we sell it well, psychiatry and psychology will collapse. For instance, one of the most unfortunate things that psychiatry and psychology have ever engaged upon has been this mental health campaign of this spring. These people are not capable of withstanding public scrutiny. Their general activities are sufficiently harmful to their patients that if they stick their head up just a little bit further, even people in the government will be able to see that there is a swindle involved there. I expect within the next two or three years to see a complete and thorough congressional investigation of “charity rackets” and would expect to see psychiatry and psychology leading the van in those who are being investigated. Before you begin to advertise that you can do something, you should be able to do it. We ourselves are suffering from a comm lag of seven years. Not for seven years were we able to train auditors uniformly up to a level to get the maximum possible results out of Dianetics and Scientology. We, accordingly, experienced a considerable public kickback. Now we are making our promises good. It is possible for us to withstand the most minute and searching scrutiny on the subject of what we are doing and how we are doing it. The Validation Program of all Certificates which we are now entered upon is a very worthwhile step in this direction. We can today train an auditor. We can train him very very well. We have the processes which make an auditor able to audit. And this will accrue into our attaining dominance in the field of the human mind rather easily. All psychiatry and psychology need to do is to fight us a little harder, to advertise themselves a little more strongly, and the public and the government will see to it that they collapse. Furthermore, psychiatry and psychology are playing it too close to the government. And if people begin to turn away from the government because of the government’s promise to extinguish them with an H-bomb, they will also turn away from anybody who supported the government in the field of brainwashing.

We have gone a little off track here with radiation, danger of; with politics, the need to do something about; and we are not off track any more. We are in the business of Scientology. And Scientology rises considerably above the tinkerings of a few somewhat deranged scientists and the bickerings of a few misanthropic men wearing political crowns for the moment.

We have today very easily the most powerful “weapon” extant in the fourth dynamic. That weapon is Scientology. We are not using it for evil, we are using it for good. Therefore, we will win with it.

The answer to all this is to sell Scientology to individuals. Don’t try to sell it to groups. One doesn’t easily talk to a group. One should sell it to individuals and he should use the skills of Scientology to bring about a better understanding on the part of individuals of themselves and of himself.

I am not saying that the various governments might not do something dangerous with testing. I am not saying that H-bombs are good weapons. I am only saying we can survive it. I am only saying that we have one case—me—who has had 502 times the “allowed” amount and is surviving nicely, thank you, and other cases that are in like condition because of good processing. I am saying that with good, modern auditing a Scientologist can survive it—so why worry about it. As an organization and as individuals we’re going up-tone faster than others are going down. And Man faces many enemies more dangerous than Radiation.

I am giving you all this in explanation of what you will now begin to see come from the central organization and that will be Scientology—good auditors—validation of old certificates—good processing—bona fide clears—other things which we have waited to see all these years. We are making the grade now rather easily. We are doing things that we never thought were possible before. We are living up to any optimism which I ever gave out. I knew I could do it. I am afraid that I was over-confident in some other directions, but there is one thing that I have never done. I have never told you other than what I believed implicitly and completely. I have been as honest with you as I knew how to be and I have been as honest about my shortcomings as I have been about my victories. You can count on that, you know you can—for you always

I invite your cooperation in this new campaign of ours—a brand-new campaign:

To sell Scientology, Sanity and Survival to the individuals alive on Earth today. Thank you.

L. RON HUBBARD

All ABOUT RADIATION

by
L. Ron Hubbard

Published May 1957



In April 1957 L. Ron Hubbard addressed the London Congress on Nuclear Radiation and Health, and from these lectures came All About Radiation.

Atomic radiation is a subject which interests the minds of every thinking man and woman of the world.

In All About Radiation, we have the sane and sober views of a medical doctor on the physical facts and consequences of the actual atomic blast and the diseases resulting from it.

L. Ron Hubbard, who was one of the first nuclear physicists in the United States, has interpreted these facts and related them to human livingness, governments and the control of populaces.

These facts when presented at the Congress on Nuclear Radiation and Health at the Royal Empire Society Hall, London, in April 1957, so impressed Parliamentary figures that they requested immediate transcription of these lectures.

Here they are presented in book form. It will help to clear a great deal of the mystery which has surrounded this problem and will give people and their governments a basis upon which they can solve this situation.

This book clearly demonstrates the immediate effects which can be expected from varying doses of radiation; it demonstrates means of protection from atomic explosions; it shows the deleterious attributes of an atomic explosion in all its aspects, from flash and blast through to the more lasting effect of gamma radiation. I n fact, as its title states, it is a book all about radiation.

It is a book that is written in everyday language as far as possible. It is far from its purpose to hide facts behind a mass of scholarly discourse. It intends to place the facts in full view in a form where they are easily understandable by every reader.

152 pages, hardcover with dust jacket. Available from your nearest Scientology Organization or Mission, or direct from the publishers: Scientology Publications Organization, Jernbanegade 6, 1608 Copenhagen V, Denmark; or Church of Scientology Publications Organization U.S., 2723 West Temple Street, Los Angeles, California, 90026, U.S.A.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON

HCO BULLETIN OF 24 MAY 1957




STABLE DATA FOR INSTRUCTORS


1. Keep students busy at all times. Do not let them have unassigned work while at the Academy.

2. The Director of Training is not the Director of Processing. If after the student intensive and a week’s Comm Course a student’s case is not in condition so the student can be trained, the Director of Training or the Instructor should send the student to the Registrar and should not attempt a patch-up by another student. When the Director of Training constitutes himself the Director of Processing he not only denies the organization income but most usually continues the agony of the student and does not get training done.

3. Answer the student’s questions.

4. The stability of the Director of Training and his Instructors depends upon the apparency of their agreement with me on what should be trained and how it should be trained. When they innovate in disagreement with organized schedules they lower the appearance of stability and deprive themselves usually of the cooperation of students.

5. It is not the place of the Director of Training or an Instructor to defend the organization, LRH, or the past track of Dianetics and Scientology. Any new subject combating vested interests develops some randomity. Rather than defend against critical attacks by students it is much more productive to look over the student’s case with an eye to sending him to the Registrar.

6. The Director of Training and his Instructors are there to give service. Service is always harder to give on an individualized basis and easier to give on a wide group basis. However, we are training individuals and even though it is difficult, service must be given.

7. On the head of the Director of Training and his Instructors rests any future failure the student may have in processing preclears. Quality of training is to the level of Staff Auditor HGC.

IF A STUDENT CANNOT BE TRUSTED UPON GRADUATION
WITH AN HGC PRECLEAR, HE SHOULD NOT BE GRADUATED
OR CERTIFIED.


L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:md.rd
5-24-57



LRH TAPE LECTURE

30 May 1957


** 5705C30 HCA-5 Outline of a Course and Its Purpose

HCO INFORMATION BULLETIN OF 1 JUNE 1957


RIGHTS OF THE DIRECTORS OF TRAINING AND PROCESSING,
STAFF AUDITORS, AND INSTRUCTORS
REGARDING PRECLEARS AND STUDENTS


The Director of Processing may refuse a preclear already registered on the following grounds, and only on these grounds:

1. Risk to Clinic by reason of low profile or connections.
2. Not enough weeks bought by pc (example: bought one, needs three).
3. Non-payment of former debts to Clinic.

He may not refuse a pc on grounds of insufficient auditors or inconvenience to staff. In case of refusal he returns pc to Registrar.

The Director of Training may refuse a student already registered on the following grounds, and only on these grounds:

1. Flagrantly needs processing of a more expert level than student intensive.
2. Signed up for a course for which student not qualified by earlier training.
3. Non-payment of former debts to Academy.

He may not refuse students on grounds of insufficient instructors or classrooms. In case of refusal he returns student to the Registrar.

A Staff Auditor may refuse to process a pc on following grounds:

1. Psychotic past history of institutional nature.
2. Marked antipathy to case.

An Instructor may refuse training in his unit to a student who:

1. Gives no evidence of having learned the basics taught in a lower unit. (In which case he returns student to the lower unit.)
2. Flagrantly needs processing. (In which case he sends student to Director of Training and thence to Registrar.)
3. Is chronically absent or tardy. (In which case he sends student to Director of Training. )
4. Disobeys school regulations. (In which case he sends student to Director of Training.)

A Director of Processing may refuse to sign out or release a preclear he considers vitally in need of further processing. In which case he sends preclear to Registrar.

The Director of Training may refuse to send a student to the Examiner by reason that he will not be a credit to the corps of auditors. He is under no compulsion to train such a student beyond the allotted training period but may do so at his discretion.

A Staff Auditor may refuse to release a preclear from the HGC whom he feels in vital need of further processing regardless of the opinion or administration of the Director of Processing or the Registrar. He should send the pc to the Registrar but may give further processing whether or not the preclear signs up for more and despite any remonstrance of the Director of Processing.

An Instructor may refuse to release a student to a higher class or to Examination despite the opinion or the administration of the Director of Training.


L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE


HCO BULLETIN OF 3 JUNE 1957



EXPLANATION OF ABERRATIVE CHARACTER OF

RADIATION


As cosmic rays, gamma, x-rays, et al, apparently move through solids without encountering resistance, they then invalidate solids. This is a direct invalidation of the solidity of anything including a mock-up. Thus it tends to say a thing is not there—thus that a creation has not been made.

This then has been used as a means of discounting creativeness or of discounting solids. For example, any child being x-rayed has been baffled as to how “he wasn’t there” when the picture was made. The rays went straight through. This made him feel he wasn’t solid—was not real.

When a body is over x-rayed it ceases to create sexually and creates on a cellular level in a highly irresponsible way. This is cancer.

Radiation ills stem from the not-thereness of creations. Mental Image Pictures, mock-ups, are apparently vanished.

“Making things solid” remedies all such Radiation ills easily. Show Me objective and subjective does as well.

Radiation, then, is the proof that a solid thing is not solid. This is an invalidation that one has created. Thus Radiation is seen to hit at all creativeness. Its irresponsibility factor is also this—one cannot be responsible for things which are proven not to exist.

This also tells us that time began on an invalidation of solids.

In actual proof Procedure CCH, run with this understanding and Problems of Incomparable or Comparable Magnitude to Radiation, resolves Radiation.


L. RON HUBBARD




LRH: md.rd
6-4-57

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 JUNE 1957




AUDITING A 10-YEAR OLD CHILD


Herbie Parkhouse over in London sent me the following report on his session with a 10-year old child.

“I knew her mother had been messing her up by telling her how much she was like Mama, and how weak Mama was. So I ran a Present Time Problem on Solid Terminals, then Give Me Your Hand—Thank You. The PTP was ok. GMYH produced immediate change by the girl using all the normal childish ways of trying to stop the Auditor. After about II/2 hours she went Anaten, but good, for 1 hour and then came out of it. I carried on for l/2 hour—everything seemed ok so we had lunch.

“After lunch I went back on to GMYH, but only just checked PTP (not very thoroughly). Within a very short period—10 minutes—pc was Anaten. This lasted for approximately I hour when pc rallied into present time, changed her body position to that of a ‘lady reclining in a chair’—just like Mama—and doped off. This also lasted about I hour, then pc came up to present time—then into enthusiasm which lasted well after I ended the session. After tea I gave her another I hour on GMYH with no apparent change at an enthusiasm. When I say Anaten on this case, I mean the pc was doing the process, not even mechanically most of the time, but eyes shut and doped.

“After this she felt good. I then sent her home to her father and step-mother-both of whom have had lots of auditing. They couldn’t believe the difference, especially after only six hours. The child is now in better conditon than she has ever been before.”


L. RON HUBBARD





LRH : md.nm
6-3-57



Issue 48 [1957, ca. early June]


The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.



The Hubbard
Certified Auditor Course


L. Ron Hubbard



I’ve mentioned several times that training in Scientology had become a fine art and that it was in reality an evolved science in itself.

How does one go about training someone to really be a Scientologist? Unfortunately it has taken seven years to work this out. If we’d been able to do this originally, what a different picture it would have made !

Some auditors were “naturals.” Well, we’d better take into account that not everybody was. So the task has been—”How do you make a natural?”

Everyone who came for training had the willingness to help. All our training people had the willingness to train. But with the how-to unsolved, it was sometimes pretty grim. Seeing this I worked almost as hard on how-to-train as how-to-clear.

Well, the upshot of all this is a series of skills necessary to being an auditor that aren’t processing but living skills. That’s pretty much of an achievement because it changes for the superior better the whole family! If we can handle people, we can have groups and a successful Scientology life. Along with teaching auditors to audit we came to teach, as a parallel bonus, auditors to handle people.

Well, it’s been a good struggle and a lot of us, me included, bear some scars but we won, Mom.

I’m pretty proud of the Academy course now. We do our best to make people able to do their best.

It’s not really a school now. It’s 576 hours of personal coaching plus 25 hours of good processing. We don’t do much student co-auditing now except when a student can audit.

Gosh, the old-time horrors of student co-auditing! How drastic can life get!

All I want to tell you is that we’ve sewed it up on training and to give you a glance over the HCA Course schedule. It’s pretty darned good because it’s no longer a dream. It’s real as real itself. Even our quarters are air-conditioned and well decorated— good quarters themselves are news.


Copyright (©)1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

Here’s the goals I wrote and had framed for the Communication Course room here on the third floor, front of 1812 19th Street, N.W. It’s in green on cream to match the trees outside the balcony and the room walls.

“A Scientologist is one who controls persons, environments and situations.

“Scientology is used on Life and its forms and products. The chief uses of Scientology are in the fields of Education, Organization, Mental Disability, Social Order and Religion. Scientology is the first to give scientific meaning to these.

“A Scientologist is considered a professional if he uses Scientology in any of these fields and has been thoroughly trained in Scientology. Scientology means Knowing in the fullest sense of the word. A Scientologist operates within the boundaries of the Auditor’s Code and the Code of a Scientologist.

“A Scientologist is a first cousin to the Buddhist, a distant relative to the Taoist, a feudal enemy to the enslaving priest and a bitter foe of the German, Viennese and Russian defamers of Man.

“The religion of the Scientologist is freedom for all things spiritual on all dynamics which means adequate discipline and Knowledge to keep that freedom guaranteed.

“We are the people who are ending the cycle of homo sapiens and starting the cycle of a good earth.

“There are no barriers on our path except those we make ourselves. Our ability belongs to all worlds everywhere.”

This is the curriculum in full for the HCA Course. If some of it looks strange, wait until next Ability when I’m sending you the Advanced Course schedule. It includes all the processes old-timers learned long ago. We weren’t far enough South. Having gotten South, we leave all the old stuff North as Graduate material.

So here’s the HCA Course, 8 weeks long exactly, specific material and skills to specific examination. Most of it is audited from Tone 40. The auditing skills take the student to that auditing position. I can’t detail those here.

Thought you’d be interested.

WEEK ONE: STUDENT GETS INTENSIVE

WEEK TWO: COMMUNICATION COURSE

Monday Tr 1—Dear Alice (Tr = Training)
Tuesday Tr 2 - Acknowledgment
Wednesday Tr 3—Duplicative Question
Thursday Tr 4—Pc Origination
Friday Tr 5 - Hand Mimicry
Saturday Dianetics ‘55!—write synopsis before Monday

WEEK THREE: UPPER INDOCTRINATION

Monday CCH 0 —Rudiments, Goals & Present Time Problem
(CCH = Control—Communication—Havingness)
Codes
Scientology: Fundamentals of Thought

Tuesday Tr 6—8-C

Wednesday Tr 7—High School Indoc
Thursday Tr 8—Tone 40 on an Object
Friday Tr 9—Tone 40 on a Person
Saturday Axioms 1 to 10—Memorize
WEEK FOUR: BODY CONTROL PROCESSES
Monday CCH 0—Rudiments, Goals & Present Time Problem
Codes
Scientology: Fundamentals of Thought
Tuesday CCH I—Give Me Your Hand
Wednesday CCH 2—Tone 40 8-C
Thursday CCH 3—Hand Space Mimicry
Friday CCH 4—Book Mimicry
Saturday Axioms 11 to 21—Memorize
WEEK FIVE: LOCATION AND DUPLICATION PROCESSES
Monday CCH 0—Rudiments, Goals & Present Time Problem
Codes
Scientology: Fundamentals of Thought
Tuesday Tr 10—Locational Processing
Wednesday CCH 5—Location by Contact
Thursday CCH 6—Body-Room Contact
Friday CCH 7—Contact by Duplication
Saturday Axioms 22 to 33—Memorize
WEEK SIX: OBJECTIVE HAVINGNESS PROCESSES
Monday CCH 0—Rudiments, Goals & Present Time Problem
Codes
Scientology: Fundamentals of Thought
Tuesday CCH 8—Trio
Wednesday CCH 9—Tone 40 Keep it from Going Away
Thursday CCH 10—Tone 40 Hold it Still
Friday CCH 11—Tone 40 Make it a Little More Solid
Saturday Axioms 34 to 45—Memorize
WEEK SEVEN: UNIVERSE PROCESSES
Monday CCH 0—Rudiments, Goals & Present Time Problem
Codes
Scientology. Fundamentals of Thought

Tuesday Tr 11—ARC Straightwire
Wednesday CCH 12—Limited Subjective Havingness
Thursday CCH 13—Subjective Solids
Friday CCH 14—Then and Now Solids

Saturday Axioms 46 to 55—Memorize

(NOTE: Student repeats any week not passed, or returns to Communication Course.)

WEEK EIGHT. STUDENT ADMINISTERS INTENSIVE

EXAMINATION AT END OF WEEK EIGHT

Required by Examiner.

All levels of Indoctrination passed.
All processes in Training learned.
Thorough knowledge of Axioms.
Knowledge of Logics and Prelogics.
Thorough knowledge of Codes.
Good results from student intensive.
Case Profile of student to be examined.
Completed check sheets.
Synopses of required books.
A command of Group Auditing.
A command of Group Teaching by Agreement.
A command of Assists.

______________

COURSE TEXT: Scientology. Fundamentals of Thought

READING MATERIALS: (Brief Synopsis of each required at Examination Time)

Dianetics ‘55!
Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health
Science of Survival
Advanced Procedure and Axioms
Creation of Human Ability

The number of class hours is about 576. The amount of processing included is 25 hours.

The cost of the course is $750 financed, $500 cash.

The course is supervised by myself.

Enrollment is every Monday. People enrolling between now and August 1st enter the Congress in July 1957 without charge.

The Academy Registrar should be contacted at 1812 19th Street, N.W., Washington 9, D.C., for enrollment.

Living costs about $65.00 a month, room and board for the two months of training.

We are also teaching a night HCA in Washington which goes three times a week between 7:30 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. In view of the fact that it is very easy to get jobs in the Government it is possible for a student to come to Washington, enroll in the night HCA and get a job in the Government to support himself and his training. The length of the night HCA varies but is from 6 to 8 months. Instruction in the night HCA is fully as good as day HCA. Cost of the night HCA is the same as day HCA.

Be seeing you ....

L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 8 JUNE 1957


THE TEACHING OF THE 18TH ACC

The 18th ACC in Washington, July 8 to August 16, will be taught in three units using five instructors.

Immediately upon registration the students will be tested on Tone 40 on an Object for placements in one of the three units. All instructors will be used for this testing. A Check Sheet divided into three sections to match the courses with the title of each process shall be drawn up and mimeographed by LRH, Jr. (list of processes taken from the Student Manual). This sheet shall carry a section for this testing and placement where the instructor can write simply the unit number plus or minus into which the student should be placed. When the testing is concluded the sheets will be assembled and the class will be divided into three sections as evenly distributed as possible. Those who are best will go into section 3, next best will go into section 2, and the worst will go into section 1. By using plus or minus unit, some accuracy can be obtained. The judgment of the instructor on the student in general while doing Tone 40 on all Object as 3 short test shall also be used in determining the unit. Difficulties in adjustment will be smoothed out by the use of plus or minus signs after the unit number.

The three units of the course shall be composed as follows:

Communication Course
Upper Indoctrination Course
CCH Course

The curriculum of each shall be basically one week in length. In the six weeks, each student regardless of skill will be expected to go through each of these units twice, but not consecutively, i.e. he will go into the next unit at the end of each week regardless of his ability.

The Communication Course shall embrace Training 0 to Training 5 inclusive. It shall begin with a half-hour description at 9:00 a.m. by the instructor and shall thereafter be broken down into two long auditing periods. At 4:30 p.m. a group auditing session will take place, conducted by the instructor, one hour in length, the processes of which shall be those which direct attention and assign intentions to the walls and objects of the room. This Course shall be conducted by Mary Sue Hubbard.

The Upper Indoctrination Course shall consist of one week and shall embrace training processes 6 to 9 inclusive with Training 8 (Tone 40 on an Object) repeated Wednesday and Thursday—that is teaching 4 drills in 5 days. The Course Day shall begin with a one-hour lecture on the Rudiments by LRH, Jr., and the remainder of the day until 4:30 p.m. is broken down into two long auditing periods. The day will end with one hour’s agreement on definitions, beginning at 4:30 and ending at 5:30 p.m. The Course instructor for this unit may come on duty at 10:15 a.m., after the 15-minute break following the morning lecture by LRH, Jr. The Upper Indoctrination Course shall be conducted by Dr. Kenneth Barrett, in addition to his PE Course activities for the PE Foundation. (Note in all courses, only one process should be taught per day.)

The CCH Course shall be taught in the same room for both of its sections but shall have two sections. The CCH processes shall be divided in half and one instructor shall teach the lower half to half the class and the other instructor shall teach the upper half to half the class. These shall be called “CCH A” and “CCH B”. Half of the unit in any week will be started in the “A” group and half will be started in the “B” group in any given week, and on the repeat week the student will be reversed in groups in the CCH Course. The CCH Course Day shall begin each day with an hour’s instruction on

the Rudiments, which hour’s lecture shall be alternated between the two instructors. This hour’s lecture shall have the characteristic of questions and answers. The remainder of the day shall be divided into four auditing periods until 4:30 p.m., and shall conclude with an hour’s group processing by the instructors, using the HCO Bulletin on group processing. The Course shall be conducted by Dr. George Richard Halpern and assisted by Dr. Jan Halpern.

The Comm Course shall hereafter be referred to as Course 1, the Upper Indoctrination Course shall be referred to as Course 2, the CCH Course shall be referred to as Course 3, of which there are two parts, 3-A and 3-B.

At least 3 large rooms must be procured especially for this 18th ACC Course. They will be in use only during these six weeks. That room where noise will be the least disturbing will be used as the Upper Indoc Room. If 4 rooms are secured, then the CCH Course shall be broken down into its sections with Dr. Jan Halpern in charge of the “B” section.

The general plan of the course is that the students who are already rather good shall be started highest, those who are mediumly good started in the mid course, and those who are poorest started in the first course. The students will simply rotate through these courses during their six weeks. Thus, each will have done the Comm Course twice, the Upper Indoc twice, and each part of the CCH Course once.

The goal of the course shall be to make the most successful graduates capable of coaching toward validation field auditor certificates. Thus these people have to be exceptionally good on the Comm Course, Upper Indoc and CCH, both in the interests of their future instruction and in the interests of their auditing ability. The course is arranged in this fashion as outlined here because I know of no more efficient way to give the information.

I will lecture evenings to the whole class, beginning at 7:30 p.m. In these lectures I will cover the entirety of Scientology with stress on the theory and practice of CCH. Given a large enough room to hold the class, FC Staff will be welcomed to these lectures.

General supervision of the course shall be done by L. Ron Hubbard, Jr. Course administration shall be done by Jan Halpern. Course examination shall be done by L. Ron Hubbard, Jr. Final assignment of teams, changes and transfers of students and grievances shall be handled by Dr. Dick Halpern.

L. Ron Hubbard, Jr. is responsible for arranging and mimeographing the proper administration sheets and sending to Dick and Jan pertinent information.

All instructors are requested to go over thoroughly the various steps of the training drills and CCH processes and standardize all methods of doing them as given in the text to be furnished and to meet together during the course to iron out any references of consulting, instructing and coaching so as to be sure to have a solid agreement on even the smallest points to be taught. The exact methods of doing and coaching the training drills and CCH processes will be furnished all instructors and their attention and practice on these is solicited so as to iron out any misunderstandings before the course begins. These methodologies are now intensely standardized. No randomity between one unit and another should develop during the course.

The Organization Secretary is responsible for the procurement of and readying of suitable quarters for the teaching of the 18th ACC and arranging to have at least one of the rooms large enough to hold the entire class.

Schedules should be made up and posted early and this course should be ready to be tested selected into units by noon of 8 July.


LRH:nld.nm L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HGC PROCESSING BULLETIN OF 10 JUNE 1957

For London
and Washington


WHAT TO TELL NEW HGC AUDITORS TO
PROCESS ON PRECLEARS


When a new auditor is taken on at HGC we do NOT

1. Train him while he is processing his first preclear.
2. Tell him what process to run.
3. Add to his already tense confusion of being on staff by unstabilizing all his stable auditing data, too.

We DO this:

1. We ask him what process he has the greatest certainty on.
2. We tell him to audit the pc with that process and no other.
3. If he has certainty on several we have him select one best suited to pc and have him use that.

Then we train up the new staff auditor by auditors’ conferences and HCO Board of Review at a leisurely pace.

STABLE DATUM:

It will be found that any auditor using a process on which he has high reality will obtain high results with a pc using that process.


L. RON HUBBARD




LRH: md.rd
Copyright (c) 1957
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 11 JUNE 1957
REISSUED 12 MAY 1972

Remimeo

TRAINING AND CCH PROCESSES

(Originally issued as an HCO Training Bulletin
from Hubbard Communications Office, Washington, D.C.)


NOTE.. The variations and some of the most potent processes are not included in this Training Bulletin but will appear in the Student Manual when published in September 1957.

NUMBER: Training O

NAME: Confronting Preclear.

COMMANDS: None.

POSITION: Student and coach sit facing each other a comfortable distance apart— about five feet.

PURPOSE: To train student to confront a preclear with auditing only or with nothing.

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. Coach may speak only if student goes anaten (dope off). Student is confronting the body, thetan and bank of the preclear.

HlSTORY: 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”.

NUMBER: Training 1

NAME: Dear Alice.

COMMANDS: A phrase (with the “he saids” omitted) is picked out of the book “Alice in Wonderland” and read to the coach. It is repeated until the coach is satisfied it arrived where he is.

POSITION: Student and coach are seated facing each other a comfortable distance apart .

PURPOSE: To teach the student to send an intention from himself to a preclear in one unit of time without vias.

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.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London, April 1956, to teach the communication formula to new students.

NUMBER: Training 2

NAME: Acknowledgments.

COMMANDS: The coach reads lines from “Alice in Wonderland” omitting “he saids” and the student thoroughly acknowledges them. The coach repeats any line he feels was not truly acknowledged.

POSITION: Student and coach are seated facing each other a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE: To teach student that an acknowledgment is a method of controlling preclear communication and that an acknowledgment is a full stop.

TRAINING STRESS: Teach student to acknowledge exactly what was said so that preclear knows it was heard. Ask student from time to time what was said. Curb over and under acknowledgment. Let student do anything at first to get acknowledgments across, then even him out. 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.

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.

NUMBER: Training 3

NAME: Duplicative Question.

COMMANDS: “Do fish swim?” or “Do birds fly?” Communication bridge between.

POSITION: Student and coach seated a comfortable distance apart.

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 teach him how to shift from one question to another with a communication bridge rather than an abrupt change.

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. To insist on communication bridge when question is changed. Even though the same question is asked, it is asked as though it had never occurred to anyone before. To teach students that a communication bridge consists of getting three agreements—one agreement to end this question, second agreement to continue session in general and maintain ARC, third agreement to begin a new question. Teach student that preclear is part of these agreements. To teach student never to vary question or shift question or command without a bridge.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London, April 1956, to overcome variations and sudden changes in session.

NUMBER: Training 4

NAME: Preclear Originations.

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 a comfortable distance apart.

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.

TRAINING STRESS: The student is taught to hear origination and do three things: ( I ) Understand it; (2) Acknowledge it; and (3) Return preclear to session. If the coach feels abruptness or too much time consumed or lack of comprehension, he corrects the student into better handling.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in April 1956, to teach auditors to stay in session when preclear dives out.

NUMBER: Training 5

NAME: Hand Mimicry.

COMMANDS: All commands are by motions of one or two hands. The auditor makes a simple hand motion, holding his hand or hands in the final position. The coach bobs his head as having received it. The coach then, mirror-wise, makes the same motion with his hand or hands. The student then acknowledges. If the motion was not correctly done by coach the student acknowledges doubtfully, then repeats the motion to the coach. If the coach does it well, student thanks coach by shaking own two hands together (prize fighter fashion). Keep motions simple. Student must always be able to duplicate own motions.

POSITION: Student and coach are seated facing each other at a short distance, coach’s knees inside student’s.

PURPOSE: To educate student that verbal commands are not entirely necessary. To make student physically telegraph an intention. To show student necessity of having preclear obey commands.

TRAINING STRESS: Accuracy of student repeating own commands. Teaching student to give preclear wins. Teaching student that an intention is different from words.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London, April 1956, from the principles of body mimicry developed by LRH in Camden, N.J., in 1954.

The following group of processes are usually taught in Upper Indoctrination Course:

NUMBER: Training 6

NAME: Plain 8-C.

COMMANDS: “Look at that wall.” “Walk over to that wall.” “With your right hand, touch that wall.” “Turn around.” All with acknowledgments. Not Tone 40. (Preclear is acknowledged when he originates, no physical contact.)

POSITION: Student and coach both ambulant in a room with no center obstacles. Student walks with coach who does process for student.

PURPOSE: To give preclear reality on environment, control in following directions and havingness. Not all effects fully explored.

TRAINING STRESS: Precision in repetition of commands by student and experience on a gradient scale in directing another body than own. Handling of originations. Acknowledging execution of commands by preclear. When this process develops somatics on a preclear it must be continued until flat.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Camden, 1953. Originally called “Opening Procedure of 8-C”, 8-C being a full auditing procedure aimed at negative thought. The only surviving part of this is now called 8-C and means the above process. Original intention was to place preclear within the control of the auditor so auditing could occur. Proved so successful became an end-all in itself. Nominated in Summary Research Project 1956 as responsible all by itself for approximately 50% of results achieved by auditors across the world.

NUMBER: Training 7

NAME: Hi-School Indoc.

COMMANDS: Same as 8-C but with student in physical contact with coach, student enforcing commands by manual guiding. Coach has only three valid statements to which student must listen: these are “Start” to begin process, “Flunk” to call attention to student error, and “That’s it” to end session. No other remark by coach is valid on student. Coach tries in all possible ways, verbal, covert and physical, to stop student

from running 8-C on him. If the student falters, comm lags, fumbles a command or fails to get an execution on coach, coach says “Flunk” and they start at beginning of command cycle in which error occurred. Coach falling down is not allowed.

POSITION: Student and coach ambulant. Student handling coach physically.

PURPOSE: To train a student never to be stopped by a preclear. To train him to run fine 8-C in any circumstances. To teach him to handle rebellious people.

TRAINING STRESS: Stress is on accuracy of student performance and persistence by student. Start gradually to toughen up resistance to student. Don’t kill him off at once.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London, 1956.

NUMBER: Training 8

NAME: Tone 40 on an Object.

COMMANDS: “Stand up.” “Thank you.” “Sit down on the table.” “Thank you.” These are the only commands used. (If student has trouble with Training 9, have him do Tone 40 on an Object with 8-C commands.)

POSITION: Student standing beside table holding ashtray which he manually makes execute the commands he gives.

PURPOSE: To make student clearly achieve Tone 40 command. To clarify intentions as different than words. To start student on road to handling objects and preclears with postulates. To obtain obedience not wholly based on spoken commands.

TRAINING STRESS: have student give orders for a while alone. Then begin to nag him to get them up to Tone 40 commands. Have student silently permeate object with command and an expectancy that it will do it. When student can “see” his intentions going in accurately, when he wonders why object doesn’t instantly obey, when he is not stumbling through energy or depending on his voice, the training process is flat. This process usually takes the most time in training of any process and time on it is well spent. Objects can be ashtrays or rag dolls.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington, D.C., 1957, for the 17th ACC.

NUMBER: Training 9

NAME: Tone 40 on a Person.

COMMANDS: Same as 8-C. This is not Tone 40 8-C (CCH 12). Student runs fine, clearcut intentions and verbal orders on a coach. Coach tries to break down Tone 40 of the student. Coach commands that are valid are “Start” (to begin), “Flunk” to tell student he has erred and must return to beginning of cycle, and “That’s it” to take a break or stop session for the day. No other statement by coach in session is valid on student and is only an effort to make student come off Tone 40 or in general be stopped.

POSITION: Student and coach ambulant. Student in manual contact with coach as needed.

PURPOSE: To make student able to maintain Tone 40 under any stress of auditing.

TRAINING STRESS: The exact amount of physical effort must be used by student plus a compelling unspoken intention. No jerky struggles are allowed since each jerk is 3 stop. Student must learn to smoothly increase effort quickly to amount needed to make coach execute. Stress is on exact intention, exact strength needed, exact force necessary, exact Tone 40. Even a slight smile by student can be a flunk. Too much force can be a flunk. Too little definitely is a flunk. Anything not Tone 40 is a flunk.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington, D.C., for the 17th ACC.

The following processes are taught in the Communication-Control-Havingness Course:

NUMBER: CCH 0

NAME: Rudiments, Goals and Present Time Problem.

COMMANDS: Establishing session beginning by calling attention to room, auditor and the session to begin. Discussing the preclear’s goals for the session. Auditor asks for present time problem and settles it with problems of comparable magnitude or incomparable magnitude or by Locational Processing. In general, remarks and commands enough to bring about ARC at session’s beginning but not enough to run down havingness of the preclear.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated at a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE: To make known the beginning of a session to a preclear and the auditor so that no error as to its beginning is made. To put the preclear into a condition to be audited.

TRAINING STRESS: To begin sessions, not just let them happen. To educate the student into the actual elements of a session and condition of preclears. To stress the inability to audit something else when present time problem is not flat. To demonstrate what happens when preclear doesn’t know session has begun or has no goals for it or what happens when present time problem only half flat when other things are engaged upon. Stress that it is done each session. Explain closure mechanism of problem with preclear, the solution of “the liability of solutions”.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Elizabeth, N.J., 1950; Goals in Wichita, Kansas in 1951; Present Time Problem, London, 1952; Rudiments, Phoenix, 1955.

NUMBER: CCH 1.

NAME: * Give Me Your Hand, Tone 40.

COMMANDS: “Give me your hand.” Physical action of taking hand when not given and then replacing it in preclear’s lap. And “Thank you” ending cycle. All Tone 40 with clear intention, one command in one unit of time, no originations of preclear acknowledged in any way verbally or physically. May be run on right hand, left hand, both hands, each one flattened in turn.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated, in chairs without arms, close together. Auditor’s knees both to auditor’s left of preclear’s knees, outside of auditor’s right thigh against outside of preclear’s right thigh. This position reversed for left hand. In both hands preclear’s knees are between auditor’s knees.

PURPOSE: To demonstrate to preclear that control of preclear’s body is possible, despite revolt of circuits, and inviting preclear to directly control it. Absolute control by auditor then passes over toward absolute control of his own body by preclear.

TRAINING STRESS: Never stop process until a flat place is reached. To process with good Tone 40. Auditor taught to pick up preclear’s hand by wrist with auditor’s thumb nearest auditor’s body, to have an exact and invariable place to carry preclear’s hand to before clasping, clasping hand with exactly correct pressure, replacing hand (with auditor’s left hand still holding preclear’s wrist) in preclear’s lap. Making every command(l and cycle separate. Maintaining Tone 40. Stress on intention from auditor to preclear with each command. To leave an instant for preclear to do it by own will before auditor does it. Stress Tone 40 precision. To keep epicenters balanced. CCH I (b) should also be flattened.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in the 17th ACC, Washington, D.C., 1957.

* The name and command for CCH 1 has since been revised to, “Give me that hand.”

NUMBER: CCH2

NAME: * Tone 40 8-C.

COMMANDS: “Look at that wall.” “Thank you.” “Walk over to that wall.” “Thank you.” “With the right hand, touch that wall.” “Thank you.” “Turn around.” “Thank you.” Run without acknowledging in any way any origin by preclear, acknowledging only preclear’s execution of the command. Commands smoothly enforced physically. Tone 40, full intention.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear ambulant, auditor in physical contact with preclear as needed.

PURPOSE: To demonstrate to preclear that his body can be directly controlled and thus inviting him to control it. Finding present time. Havingness. Other effects not fully explained.

TRAINING STRESS: Absolute auditor precision. No drops from Tone 40. No flubs. Total present-time auditing. Auditor turns preclear counterclockwise then steps always on preclear’s right side. Auditor’s body acts as block to forward motion when preclear turns. Auditor gives command, gives preclear a moment to obey, then enforces command with physical contact of exactly correct force to get command executed. Auditor does not check preclear from executing commands.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington, D.C., 1957, for the 17th ACC.

* The name and command for CCH 2 has since been revised to, “You look at that wall.”

NUMBER: CCH 3

NAME: Book Mimicry.

COMMANDS: Auditor makes a simple or complex motion with a book. Hands book to preclear. Preclear makes motion, duplicating auditor’s mirror image-wise. Auditor asks preclear if he is satisfied that the preclear duplicated the motion. If preclear is and auditor is also fairly satisfied, auditor takes book and goes to next command. If preclear says he is and auditor fairly sure preclear isn’t, auditor takes back book and repeats command and gives book to preclear again for another try. If preclear is not sure he duplicated any command auditor repeats it for him and gives him back the book. Tone 40 only in motions. Verbal two-way quite free.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated facing each other a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE: To bring up preclear’s communication with control and duplication. (Control + duplication = communication.)

TRAINING STRESS: Stress giving preclear wins. Stress auditor’s necessity to duplicate his own commands. Circular motions are more complex than straight lines.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard for the 16th ACC in Washington, D.C., 1957. Based on duplication developed by LRH in London, 1952.

NUMBER: CCH 4

NAME: Hand Space Mimicry.

COMMANDS: Auditor raises two hands, palms facing preclear’s 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 the motion?” “Good.” “Put your hands in your lap.” When this is flat the auditor does this same thing with a half inch of space between his and preclear’s palms. When this is flat auditor does it with a wider space and so on until preclear is able to follow motions a yard away.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated, close together facing each other, preclear’s knees between auditor’s.

PURPOSE: To develop reality on the auditor using the reality scale (solid comm line). To get preclear into comm by control + duplication.

TRAINING STRESS: That auditor be gentle and accurate in his motions, giving preclear wins. To be free in two-way comm.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington, 1956, as a therapeutic version of Dummy Hand Mimicry. Something was needed to supplant “Look at me. Who am l?” and “Find the Auditor” part of rudiments.

NUMBER: Training 10

NAME: Locational Processing.

COMMANDS: “You notice that (indicated object).” “Thank you.” Auditor enforces command when needed by turning preclear’s head toward object. Run inside an auditing room or outside. Auditor indicates obvious objects, naming them and pointing to them.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated side by side or facing each other or seated or walking outside.

PURPOSE: To control attention. Since attention is being controlled by facsimiles, an unknown control, supplanting with a known control brings preclear up to present time. See also Pre-Logics. A highly therapeutic process. Can be substituted for Present Time Problem to some degree in cases that cannot run a Present Time Problem as a process.

TRAINING STRESS: That coach (or preclear) always looks in direction of object.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Elizabeth, N.J., in June 1950, to bring preclears into auditing room after they had been “brought up to present time”.

NUMBER: CCH 5

NAME: Location by Contact.

COMMANDS: “Touch that (indicated object).” “Thank you.”

POSITION: Auditor and preclear may be seated where the preclear is very unable, in which case they are seated at a table which has a number of objects scattered on its surface. Or auditor and preclear may be ambulant, with the auditor in manual contact with the preclear as is necessary to face him toward and guide him to the indicated object.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the process is to give the preclear orientation and havingness and to improve his perception.

TRAINING STRESS: Training stress is upon gentleness, ARC and the raising of the preclear’s certainty that he has touched the indicated object. It should be noticed that this can be run on blind people.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard from Locational Processing in 1957.

NUMBER: CCH 6

NAME: Body-Room Contact.

COMMANDS: “Touch your (body part).” “Thank you.” “Touch that (indicated room object).” “Thank you.”

POSITION: Auditor and preclear move about together as needed, the auditor enforcing the commands by manual contact using the preclear’s hands to touch objects and touch body parts.

PURPOSE: To establish the orientation and increase the havingness of the preclear and to give him in particular a reality on his own body.

TRAINING STRESS: Training Stress is upon using only those body parts which are not embarrassing to the preclear as it will be found that the preclear ordinarily has very little reality on various parts of his body. Impossible commands should not be given to the preclear in any case.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in 1957 in Washington, D.C., as a lower step than Body-Room Show Me.

NUMBER: CCH 7

NAME: Contact by Duplication.

COMMANDS: “Touch that table.” “Thank you.” “Touch your (body part).” “Thank you.” “Touch that table.” “Thank you.” “Touch your (same body part).” “Thank you.” “Touch that table.” “Thank you.” “Touch your (same body part).” “Thank you,” etc., in that order.

POSITION: Auditor may be seated. Preclear should be walking. Usually auditor standing by to manually enforce the commands.

PURPOSE: Process is used to heighten perception, orient the preclear and raise the preclear’s havingness. Control of attention as in all these “contact” processes naturally takes the attention units out of the bank which itself has been controlling the preclear’s attention.

TRAINING STRESS: Training stress is on precision of command and motion, with each command in its unit of time, all commands perfectly duplicated. Preclear to continue to run process even though he dopes off. Good ARC with the preclear, not picking one body part which is aberrated at first but flattening some non-aberrated body part before aberrated body part is tackled.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in 1957 in Washington, D.C., as a lower level process than Opening Procedure by Duplication, or Show Me by Duplication. All contact processes have been developed out of the Pre-Logics.

NUMBER: CCH 8

NAME: Trio.

COMMANDS: “Look around the room (environment) and tell me something you could have.” Run until flat. “Look around the room and tell me something the body (body part) can’t have.” Valence form: “Look around the room and tell me something mother (or other valence) can’t have.” Long form: “Look around the room and tell me what you could have.” Run flat. “Look around the room and tell me something you would permit to remain.” Run flat. “Look around the room and tell me what you could dispense with.” Dispense in long form is sometimes run first when preclear is set on wasting.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated at a comfortable distance both facing toward majority of the room.

PURPOSE: To remedy havingness objectively.

TRAINING STRESS: Run it smoothly without invalidative questions. One of the most effective processes known when thinkingness can be controlled somewhat. Run when havingness drops or for a full intensive.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in 1955. Name derived from the three questions of the long form. Originally called the “Terrible Trio”.

NUMBER: CCH 9

NAME: Tone 40 “Keep it from going away.”

COMMANDS: “Look at that (indicated object).” “Thank you.” “Walk over to that (indicated object).” “Thank you.” “Touch that (indicated object).” “Thank you.” “Keep it from going away.” “Thank you.” “Did you keep it from going away?” “Thank you,” and so forth.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear ambulant. Auditor assisting by manual contact.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the process is to increase havingness of the preclear and bring about his ability to keep things from going away, which ability lost, accounts for the possession of psychosomatic illnesses.

TRAINING STRESS: The training stress is on precision and accuracy and finding out that this is actually Tone 40 8-C with a thinkingness addition. This is the first step on to the route of making things solid.

HlSTORY: Developed in 1956 in London, England, by L. Ron Hubbard.

NUMBER: CCH 10

NAME: Tone 40 “Hold it still.”

COMMANDS: “Look at that (indicated object).” “Thank you.” “Walk over to that (indicated object).” “Thank you.” “Touch that (indicated object).” “Thank you.” “Hold it still.” “Thank you.” “Did you hold it still’?” “Thank you,” etc., in that order.

PURPOSE: To improve an individual’s ability to make things more solid and to assert his ability to control his environment.

TRAINING STRESS: Same as CCH 9.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London, England, in 1956.

NUMBER: CCH 11

NAME: Tone 40 “Make it a little more solid.”

COMMANDS: “Look at that (indicated object).” “Thank you.” “Walk over to that (indicated object).” “Thank you.” “Touch that (indicated object).” “Thank you.” “Make it a little more solid.” “Thank you.” “Did you make it a little more solid’?” ‘‘Thank you,” etc., in that order.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear ambulant.

PURPOSE: To assert control over the preclear and increase the preclear’s havingness. To increase the preclear’s reality on the Pre-Logics. To reverse the flow of solids.

TRAINING STRESS: Complete precision of performance, a stress 011 all the CCH 9, CCH 10 and CCH 11, that they include a control of thinkingness of the preclear and therefore should not be run with a tremendous amount of auditor trust of the preclear and should not be run until the lower levels of CCH are to some degree flat as they will give the preclear losses.

HISTORY: Developed in 1956 in London, England, by L. Ron Hubbard.

NUMBER: Training 11

NAME: ARC Straight Wire.

COMMANDS: “Recall something that was really real to you.” “Thank you.” “Recall a time when you were in good communication with someone.”’ “Thank you.” “Recall a time when you really liked someone.” “Thank you.” The three commands are given in that order and repeated in that order consistently.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated facing each other at a comfortable distance.

PURPOSE: To give the student reality on the existence of a bank. This is audited on another and is audited until the other student is in present time. It will be found that the process discloses the cycling action of the preclear going deeper and deeper into the past and then more and more shallowly into the past until he is recalling something again close to present time. This cyclic action should be studied and understood and the reality on the pictures the preclear gets should be thoroughly understood by the student. The fact that another has pictures should be totally real to the student under training.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in 1951 in Wichita, Kansas. This was once a very important process. It has been known to bring people from a neurotic to a sane level after only a short period of application. It has been run on a group basis with success but it should be noted that the thinkingness of the individuals in the group would have to be well under the control of the auditor in order to have this process broadly beneficial. When it was discovered that this process occasionally reduced people’s havingness, the process itself was not generally run thereafter. It is still, however, an excellent process with that proviso, a reduction of havingness in some cases.

NUMBER: CCH 12

NAME: Limited Subjective Havingness.

COMMANDS: “What can you mock up?” “O.K. (to preclear’s answer).” “Mock up (what preclear said he could mock up).” “O.K.” “Shove it in to yourself.” “O.K.” When this is relatively flat, “Mock up (whatever preclear said he could).” “O.K.” “Let it remain where it is.” “O.K.” When this is relatively flat enter on the third part. “Mock up (whatever the preclear said he could mock up).” “O.K.” “Throw it away.” “O.K.” If the preclear cannot throw the object away at once, have him duplicate it many times and move one of them slightly further away from him until he has at last thrown one away. If the preclear cannot mock anything up, remedy his havingness with blackness. If the preclear’s “field” is invisibility, have him put glass objects of many sorts and sizes on a table and one after the other “keep them from going away”. If mock-up disappears have preclear keep on trying at it because he will eventually be able to get it back.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated facing each other.

PURPOSE: To Remedy the Havingness of the preclear’s bank.

TRAINING STRESS: Not to give the preclear any losses. He must successfully complete each step and the auditor must do things on a gradient scale until the preclear has successfully completed each command given.

HISTORY: These and other creative processes were developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in the fall of 1952.

NUMBER: CCH 13

NAME: Subjective Solids.

COMMANDS: “What can you mock up?” “O.K. (to preclear’s answer).” (This is asked once every time one changes the type of mock-up.) “Mock up (whatever the preclear said).” “O.K.” “Now make it a little more solid.” “O.K.” “Did you do that?” “Thank you.” Various objects are mocked up and made a little more solid. The preclear can be told to do what he pleases with these. This is not a Tone 40 process.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated.

PURPOSE: To make it possible for the preclear to mock up subjective objects and make them a little more solid, preparatory to running “Then and Now Solids”.

TRAINING STRESS: On knowing what the preclear is doing, how he is doing it, where he is putting the mock-ups, so that the preclear is certainly policed and is certainly doing the process. If the preclear neglects to do the process, even though he receives the command and nods his assent, he is, of course, going out of control of the auditor.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in 1956 in London.

NUMBER: CCH 14

NAME: Then and Now Solids.

COMMANDS: “Get a picture—and make it a little more solid.” “Thank you.” “Look at that (auditor indicates object)—and make it a little more solid.” “Thank you.” These commands are given with a tiny pause between the first and second phrase as it will be found that the glance of the preclear at the object tends to give him the impression that he has already made it a little more solid before the auditor gives the command if this auditing command is broken into two commands.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated facing each other a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE: To straighten out the time track of the preclear. To clear up his bank. To disclose his life computation. To show up the whole track. To give preclear practice in handling time. To get rid of unwanted facsimiles. And in general to handle in its totality the reactive mind.

TRAINING STRESS: On leading up with gradients toward any failure that the preclear may have in making something a little more solid. In keeping the auditor from chasing all over the bank every time the preclear has a second picture show up or a third or a fourth or a fifth on the same command. The auditor wants one picture and wants one thing or the picture itself to be made a little more solid. We do not do two or three pictures and then a room object. The preclear can get easily lost on the track unless this is obeyed. Furthermore, it will be noted that the preclear goes out of present time further and further and then less and less and then further and further and then less and less and this cycle of further into the past and then less into the past finally winds up with bringing the preclear wholly into present time.

HISTORY: Developed from Over and Under Solids, which was developed by L. Ron Hubbard in late 1955 and improved by him in 1956. The process more or less completes the work begun on the reactive mind in 1947. It will be noted that many earlier processes and effects are woven into Then and Now Solids.

NUMBER: Training 12

NAME: Think a Thought.

COMMANDS: “Think a thought.” “Thank you.”

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE: To give the student some reality on the thinkingness of other people and demonstrate that the control of thinkingness is possible.

TRAINING STRESS: Should be on the fact that after the control of the body has been asserted and control of attention flattened, control of thinkingness can take place. There is really nothing wrong with the preclear except that he cannot control his thinkingness, thus he cannot change considerations at will because he is stopped by the bank. This is the most permissive of such processes since the preclear cannot really help to think a thought and we do not much care whether he thought it or the bank thought it.

HISTORY: Developed in 1955 in Phoenix, Arizona, by L. Ron Hubbard.

NUMBER: CCH 15

NAME: Rising Scale Processing.

COMMANDS: The Chart of Attitudes is employed, the top and bottom buttons of which are: DEAD-SURVIVE, NOBODY-EVERYBODY, DISTRUST-FAITH, LOSE-WIN, WRONG-RIGHT, NEVER-ALWAYS, I KNOW NOT-I KNOW, STOP-CHANGE-START, NO RESPONSIBILITY-FULLY RESPONSIBLE, STOPPED-CAUSES MOTION, FULL EFFECT-CAUSE, IDENTIFICATION-DIFFERENTIATION, OWNS NOTHING-OWNS ALL, HALLUCINATION-TRUTH, I AM NOT-I AM, NO-GAME-UNLIMITED GAMES. The auditing commands in this process are “Get the idea of (bottom button).” “Do you have that idea?” “All right.” “Now change that idea as nearly as you can to (top button).” “O.K.” “How close did you come?” “Thank you.” This is run many times on the one set of buttons until the preclear has a certainty that he can maintain the upper scale idea.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE: To give the preclear drills in changing his mind and to demonstrate that he can maintain higher levels of certainty and that he can alter his considerations. And incidentally to probably change his glandular structure to the better until they have a better performance which is of no great importance to the process and has little to do with Scientology.

TRAINING STRESS: The training stress is on maintaining ARC with the preclear, yet being definite about what idea the preclear is supposed to get. The prerequisites demand that the thinkingness of the preclear be to some degree under the control of the auditor. The auditor must not be impatient with the preclear, but let the preclear try again and again to get these two ideas, one a low-scale idea and change that idea into an upper-scale idea. The preclear must be in fairly good condition with regard to havingness or the process can fail.

HISTORY: This process was developed in the fall of 1951 by L. Ron Hubbard in Wichita, Kansas, and is taken from Scientology 8-8008 as published in England and as given in The Creation of Human Ability, page 129, as R2—51. This is probably the oldest purely Scientology process in existence. It was not entirely workable in the past because it was not understood that the body has to be brought under the auditor’s control and that the attention has to be brought under the auditor’s control before the thinkingness of the preclear can be brought under the auditor’s control. The process, however, run on preclears who were not in too bad condition, has been continually successful both in changing their physical beingness and abilities, the latter being in the sphere of interest of Scientology. The first preclear on which this and Opening Procedure by Duplication were run was Mary Sue Hubbard.

NUMBER: GP I

NAME: Bank Processes (Engrams, Secondaries, Locks, Perceptics and Whole Track).

NUMBER: GP 2

NAME: Subjective Havingness in Full, Repair and Remedy of Havingness, Avalanches, Black and White, Flows.

NUMBER: GP 3

NAME: Connectedness, Association, Identification, A = A = A = A.

NUMBER: GP 4

NAME: Time Processes.

NUMBER: GP 5

NAME: Creative Processes.

NUMBER: GP6

NAME: Full Rising Scale Processes.

NUMBER: GP7

NAME: Not-Know Processes, Waterloo Station, Something you wouldn’t mind Forgetting.

NUMBER: GP8

NAME: Think a Thought, Future Mock-ups.

NUMBER: GP9

NAME: CDEI, Problems, Find Something that is Not Thinking.

NUMBER: GP10

NAME: Thought Placement, Invent a Lie, Assign an Intention, Place a Command.

NUMBER: GP11

NAME: Exteriorization, Pre-Logics, Keep Head from Going Away, Try not to Exteriorize.

NUMBER: GP12

NAME: Route 1.

NUMBER: GP13

NAME: Anchor Points, Structure of Body.

NUMBER: GP14

NAME: Body Lifting.

NUMBER: GP15

NAME: World Reality, Get the Idea that (object) is Thinking about Itself, Perception of Environment, Reality Scale Processes.

NUMBER: Training13

NAME: Fishing a Cognition.

COMMANDS: This is a general ARC, answering the preclear’s origin process. When the preclear experiences a somatic, when he sighs, when he gives a reaction to a Tone 40 process, the auditor repeats the process two or three more times (random number) and then pausing the process asks the preclear, “How are you doing now?” or “What is going on?” and finds out what happened to the preclear just as though the auditor has not noticed that the preclear had a reaction. The auditor does not point out the reaction but merely wants a discussion in general. During this discussion he brings the preclear up to at least a cognition that the preclear has had a somatic or a reaction and then merely continues the process without further bridge. This is done randomly. It is not always done every time the preclear experiences a reaction.

POSITION: Whatever position the preclear and auditor are in as directed by the process they are running. But usually with the auditor touching the preclear. For example, in “Give Me Your Hand” the auditor continues to hold the preclear’s hand after he has said “Thank you” and asks the preclear how he is doing.

TRAINING STRESS: Is that the fishing of a cognition is an art and it cannot be taught by general command, that the auditor must not as-is the preclear’s havingness by asking him, “How are you feeling now?”, that the preclear must not be placed in possession of the knowledge that he can stop the auditor from auditing by having a reaction or experiencing a reaction to the processing, otherwise he will begin to experience them simply to stop the auditor. Thus the use of Training 13 is not routine and regular but is random. It should be stressed that this can be used while running any and all Tone 40 processes. It should be stressed that the Tone 40 is run as itself and that fishing a cognition is run into the process between cycles of command and acknowledgment and command and acknowledgment. After a thorough acknowledgment one can fish for a cognition thus pausing momentarily in the process, get things straightened out, maintain ARC with the preclear and then go on with the Tone 40 process. One does not enter fishing a cognition between the command and the acknowledgment. One never reacts to what the preclear is doing the instant that the preclear does it, otherwise one educates the preclear to stop one. Training stress here is that a Tone 40 process is not run on an automaton basis.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington, D.C., in 1957 while developing CCH on the following notes from LRH’s notebook: “I use processes to restimulate thought or action and when this happens I fish out a cognition and either continue the process or bridge to the next process.” It was developed basically to keep auditors in communication with the preclear since Tone 40 processes give some auditors, when they are studying them, the idea that they are supposed to go out of communication with the preclear.


L. RON HUBBARD
Founder


LRH: ne.rd
Copyright © 1957, 1972
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

























[CCHs 5, 6 & 7 have been reissued for use on the HQS Course as HCO B 30 September 1971, Issue VI, amended and reissued 19 April 1974, CCHs 5, 6 & 7, Volume VII, page 408. Training 13 has been revised for use in Hubbard Consultant Stress Analysis as BTB 25 June 1970R, Issue 11, revised and reissued 14 August 1974, Fishing a Cognition. ]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 13 JUNE 1957

(NOTE: Temporary Directive Subject to Change when further
advised by Directors of Training who experience it in use.)

STUDENT INTENSIVES AND
CO-AUDITING PROCESSES

Graduating Students should run the following in student intensives on incoming students:

CCH 0 — Rudiments, Goals, Present Time Problem
Tr 15 — Clearing the Auditor
CCH 5 — Location by Contact
CCH 6 — Body-Room Contact
CCH 7 — (if reached in 25 hrs) Contact by Duplication

Students will run dummy and coached on all but following processes which they should run on a co-auditing basis:

Tr 6 — Plain 8c
Tr 10 — Locational Processing
CCH 5 (b) — Objective Show Me
CCH 6 (b) — Body-Room Show Me
CCH 7 (b) — Show Me Duplication
CCH 8 — Trio
Tr 11 — ARC Straightwire
CCH 7 (c) — Book and Bottle


LRH:md.nm L. RON HUBBARD



HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 18 JUNE 1957
ALL STAFF—
Washington and London

PEOPLE’S QUESTIONS


A Congress MUST

An Organization MUST

Answer people’s questions.

This is the primary public complaint—that Scientologists in the Organization or out won’t answer directly questions asked about this or that.

Understand it, answer it, make friends.

Best,

LRH:md.jh L. RON HUBBARD

[Some copies of the above HCO B were dated 16 June 1957.]



Issue 49 [1957, ca. late June]


The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.



What About Validation?


L. Ron Hubbard



Almost at once we are going to have a Congress.

We are calling it the Freedom Congress because it starts July 4, 1957 and because it is all about freedom from human confusion.

But there’s something we’ll have to take up at this Congress beyond Freedom, and that’s Validation.

It isn’t good sense that I try to handle this Validation Program without knowing how you feel about it. And so I am asking you to help me.

Here’s the situation current:

We have come to a plateau of training and technology. I do not say we are at any peak of peaks. But we are on a very high plateau.

We can do these things:

We can accurately and predictably process a day-old baby, a person in a coma, a catatonic schitz, a no-reality case or a person in very good shape. Of course that’s news, but it also changes several things.

We can also train well and thoroughly any person of good will in a few weeks of arduous drill. We arrived at a plateau of results and at the same time arrived at a plateau of training skills.

Without these skills learned in heavy training, the processing results do not occur. Better than 50’ YO of the result depends upon the skill of the auditor.

If this is Scientology today, then it had better be Scientology everywhere, not just here in Washington or amongst recent Academy graduates.

Rumor has probably told you already much misinformation about levels of Indoc and CCH. The truth is I’m just now finding time to hand-train enough people in these two things to make them get a reality on them. You might say the real thing wasn’t released until I went to London in April and, in the U.S., until I returned in May.


Copyright © 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

Truth is, these things are man-killers. An auditor not well schooled in all levels of Indoc cannot get results of any consequence with CCH (actually CDCCtH*). No older auditor credits this until he faces it in a training room. But an old auditor does better with older processes—those released up to December 31, 1956. Those were pretty hot, too, remember.

The present situation, then, is as follows: We have many good auditors who can get fine results with pre-57 processes. We have some less able auditors who get poor results with pre-57 processes. We have a series of training skills and processes which would permit both to get much finer, faster results.

The past situation, beginning in 1950, was this: We had a vision of what could be done. We saw it done by some. We were trying to learn how so that all could do it. To learn we had to train and process. Our results were better than Man had ever experienced before but here and there the results did not match the hopes of some—to put it mildly. Therefore, I considered it was up to us to better the processes and to better training so that people could do the processes developed.

Well, I miscalculated. For certain, those processes which could tear a case apart and make a clear fast, would also tear a homo sapiens auditor apart. And so it has transpired. Full-scale CDCCtH tears up auditors fast.

Thus I had to recapitulate and find a new route to make a new man. That route is loosely called Indoctrination but it isn’t at full dress parade what you’ve seen. It’s 13 levels of skill, each one more advanced, which wind up with a clear-acting auditor.

These levels of training make, when thoroughly administered, a synthetic clear without proofing a person against being audited to clear all the way.

Now in 1950 I did a lot of talking and made a lot of promises. And in 1957, seven years of study and work later, only now can they all be kept. To reach our present plateau I had to get a lot of people trained. Every one of those has coming to him a full realization of ability to help and handle others.

All right. That’s the project. It’s big enough. Thousands of auditors should now have everything that’s been learned and developed about auditing.

If they get that to which they’re entitled, no force on Earth can stop Scientology.

So what do we do about it?

There’s the old HDA, there’s the person who was trained in L.A. or Wichita or Elizabeth. Maybe he’s auditing now, maybe not. But he’s entitled to his ability to clear his fellow man. These were people of great heart, great willingness to serve. I did all I could for them—it was always, until 1957, not enough. But a wider look bade me learn how to train and then to speak.

I have learned. I am speaking.

Further, I am asking for help in solving this great problem. How do we bring up to ability every auditor ever trained by a central organization?

How do we find some of these people? We’re not now interested in no-comm lists or other nonsense. The battle for knowledge is won. And unlike in so many battles, all can share in the victory.

[* C for Control, D for Duplication, C for Communication, Ct for Control of thought = H for Havingness, See also P.A.B. 122, “The Five Levels of Indoctrination and Procedure CCH.”]

How do we finance such a project? Do these people pay for retraining (or, actually for training in full, not retraining)? How do we handle people lately trained (1956) in this wise? How can we do this without invalidating the real ability of many auditors and without upsetting too many people?

Your help is needed in assisting me to answer such questions.

They wanted to be clear. They wanted to help their fellow man. All I know now is how to do the clearing and the training on a major scale.

I have some proposals on this. I am going to give the right to coach other auditors to every successful graduate of the 18th ACC—with high standards for successful graduation. To do this I’ll have to work the 18th ACC people through July and into mid-August harder than anybody has been worked yet. But they can take it.

I can validate recent graduates partly trained on this but I don’t think it would be entirely fair.

Well, there it is. It’s the Validation Program. But what is it? It’s what you and I decide it will be at the July 4th Congress.

Would you please bring your thoughts on it and your proposals to the Congress or send them to me here.

Validation U.S. means a lot. But it can’t be done at all until I know how you feel it should be done.

1. Should it be done at all.

2. If so, how should it be done.

Could I have your help?

Best,

L. RON HUBBARD







LRH TAPE LECTURES
Washington, D.C.
28 June 1957


The following are Auditors’ Conferences held by L. Ron Hubbard:

5706C28 AUDC Lecture
5706C28 AUDC Question-and-Answer Period

P.A.B. No. 115
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 July 1957

THE REHABILITATION OF ABILITIES


In this PAB I want to discuss a question which many field auditors have confronted me with—i.e. that of increasing the preclear’s willingness in practicing a musical instrument, or to keep writing, or just to regain a lost ability.

If you take an individual and make him play a musical instrument (as parents and schools do), his ability to play that instrument will not improve. We would first have to consult with him as to what his ambitions are. He would eventually at least have to agree with the fact that it is a good thing to play an instrument.

Once in a while we find a bad boy. He cannot be put in school and has to be sent to a military school. They are going to force him in order to change him. Occasionally this bad boy is sent to a school which simply thinks the best way to handle such cases is to find something in which he is interested and to allow him to do it. Such a school once existed in California and consecutively produced geniuses. The roster of World War II’s scientists practically marched from that particular school. They figured that it must have been the example set by the professor, his purity in not smoking cigars or something like that.

What actually happened was this. They took a boy with whom nobody got any results and said, “Isn’t there anything you would like to do?” The boy said “No,” and they answered, “Well, fuss around in the lab or grounds or something and someday you may make up your mind.” The boy thought this over and decided that he wanted to be a chemist. Nobody ever sent him to a class and told him to crack a book, and nobody ever complained very much when he blew up something in the laboratory, and the next thing you knew the boy was an excellent chemist. Nobody interrupted his desire to be a chemist. It existed then, and from that point on he was not himself interrupting his willingness to be a chemist. Educationally this is a very interesting point.

Supposing we had only a few minutes as a coach on a football team and we wanted to pick out the number of men who were going to be the first squad and quickly put them in good shape so that they could win a special game; we would only have to ask this question: “Now I want any one of you people whose desire to be a football player stems from the age of ten to step forward.” Maybe half of the squad would step forward. Here would be your first team.

What about the little runt that has only been the water boy? He is the best quarterback in the world because he wanted to be a football player. But the man who was merely qualified and who thought it was a good way to get through school, get a scholarship, some coaching or make a couple of dollars, or perhaps only really wanted lots of women because he knew that women gyrated around football players, will utterly

Copyright © 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

pulverize the team because he is an unsupportable person. He is doing this on a via, and he isn’t really willing to be a member of a football team. His willingness is missing.

Now let’s have this ordinary team play against a team of all-stars and they will make the all-stars look like a bunch of punks. It is too simple a method of selection for anybody ever to have used.

You could by a series of almost straightwire questions ask a fellow who has difficulty in playing a trumpet, “Can you recall a time when somebody told you it was a bad thing to play a trumpet?” This limited process might stand up for two or three questions and you might be able to key out the lock he has against being a person who plays a trumpet and his ability to play a trumpet goes up. Then somebody else walks up to him and tells him something about how bad it is to be a trumpeter and he goes right back to where he was. It is not a permanent improvement at all.

It is possible that a person who was very good on the piano in his last life is born into a family who didn’t have a piano. Why? Because he cannot confront one. There isn’t one now because he cannot have one. Now he starts to learn something about this and he goes along fine until he thinks that he ought to have an upright piano to practice on. This has been restimulated a little and his parents say to him, “Oh, I don’t know. That’s much too expensive. You’ll have to pick something else.” Somebody has raised an objection to it.

Well, his willingness at that time is exerted in the direction of trying to be a part of this new team called the family and this is being subordinate, and so is his idea of playing the piano. He doesn’t force the matter but that confirms to him the scarcity of pianos. He is liable from then on not to be able to play a note or even learn how to read music. He is just as liable to be stopped again.

The willingness to write is systematically killed in American universities. I have lectured on writing to Harvard university students many times, and they have asked me how one develops style. Personally, as far as style was concerned, all one had to do was express what he wanted to say and that was style. It is no more complicated than this and sometimes, just for gags, why, write in the valence of Shakespeare or other literary figure. I have said to these students, “Style—well, I can tell you how you would find out whether you had a style or not, or how to develop one. Just sit down and write a hundred thousand words.”

The class fainted. One hundred thousand words. Nobody could write one hundred thousand words. From there on out that killed it. What was this all about? We obviously had a class of writers that had been carefully trained to be very good in every line they wrote. That isn’t how you write at all. You write! That is all you do, write for lots of people about lots of things. These students were looking for some magic sesame and the professor there is carefully monitoring them of quality, quality, quality, correcting their ideas, punctuation marks, their schematics and so on, correct, correct, correct, chop, chop, chop, for there isn’t going to be a writer in this class, you dogs. The final result of this is a complete unwillingness to write.

It is true that a person can be quantitatively coaxed into doing something that he apparently couldn’t do before. But it is only when you carelessly or accidentally tripped over this having, confronting, contribute to, mechanism. Writing lies in the band of “contribute to.” If you have to write in order to have, you rather suffer for it because an art is almost totally in Create, Contribute To, and it goes between those two lines. And when those are fallen away from, you get fouled up.

If a person keeps writing or talking pointlessly, like making out government forms to be sent to the State Department or Internal Revenue, you know nobody is ever

going to read any part of them. And you could make these forever and your willingness to do so would go by the boards eventually because there is no communication formula involved. There is no havingness, no confrontingness, no contributing-to-ness. People get so bad about this that they cannot fill out reports. The Revenue down here deprives itself of billions of dollars of revenue every year, not because people are unwilling to pay their income tax, but because they are no longer capable of confronting a form. Then after that the effort is not to fill out the form.

People will permit you to take things away from them if you do it gracefully and don’t upset their willingness too much. The way you make a greedy or a selfish child is to make him, against his will, give up things to other children. You will eventually drive him into the only-one category. Parents usually never consult the child’s willingness. They consult his havingness, handle it and they have a spoilt child.

It is interesting to watch a child that has been around somebody who always consulted him but didn’t take very good care of him as opposed to a child who had the best of care but who never was consulted.

A little boy is sitting on the floor playing with blocks and balls and is having a good time. Along comes the nurse and picks him up and takes him into the other room and changes his diapers and he screams bloody murder the whole way. He doesn’t like it. She keeps on doing this to him, placing him around, never consulting his power of choice and he will eventually grow up obsessed with the power of choice. He has to have his way. He becomes very didactic. He is trying to hold down the last rungs of it, and his ability will be correspondingly poor, particularly in the handling of people.

Now this is quite different. You know the child is hungry or this or that, and you know he ought to eat. The child will eat if he is kept on some sort of routine. Supper IS at 6:00 and he will get used to eating at 6:00, the willingness never quite overwhelmed him. He finds out the food is there at 6:00 and so he makes up his mind to eat at 6:00. You provide the havingness and he provides the willingness. If you don’t override that he will never have any trouble about food.

Then somebody comes along and talks to him and says, “Hey, wouldn’t you like to go into the other room and change your clothes?” and the answer is “No.” I am afraid that you are making a horrible mistake if you proceed from that point on the basis of “Well, I’ll give you a piece of candy,” persuade, seduce, coax, etc. That is psychology, the way psychologists handle situations, and it doesn’t really work.

You take one of two courses. Either you run expert 8-C with lots of two-way communication and so on, or you just let him grow. There is no other choice. Kids don’t like to be mauled and pulled around and not consulted. You can talk to a child and if your ARC is good with him, you can make him do all sorts of things. He will touch the floor, his head, point you out and find the table. He will fool around for a while and after that you can just say do so and so and “Let’s go and eat” and he will do it. He has found out that your commands are not necessarily going to override the totality of his willingness. So your commands are therefore not dangerous. You have confronted him and he can confront you. Therefore you and he can do something.

Suzie always gets a kick out of this because I am always having my children bring me slippers, and caps and other things and they sometimes bring me some of the most outrageous errors and I always thank them very much, take it, and as a brand-new thought say, “Go and put these in the closet now,” and they do, very happy about it. They never get the idea it is wrong just because they have made a mistake. It is quite amazing because when I say to one of them, “Well, how about going to bed, huh?” the answer is “Okay.”

A child sometimes says “I want to stay up with you” and they insist on doing so, exerting their power of choice. Just letting a child do what he is doing and not interfering with him and not running any 8-C on him is psychology. You might as well shoot a child as to let his circuits run away with him. They are never going to be in communication with anybody; they won’t grow or get experience in life for they didn’t change their havingness. They didn’t have to change their mind, work, exercise or do anything. But they respond very readily to good 8-C and communication, but it certainly takes good communication to override this—not persuasion but good communication.

People think that persuasion works with children. It doesn’t. It’s communication that does the trick. You say, “Well, it’s time for you to go to bed now,” and he says, “No.” Don’t stay on the subject. Leave it alone and just talk about something else, “What did you do today?” “Where?” “How?” “Oh, did you? Is that a fact?” “Well, how about going to bed?” and the answer will be “Okay.”

One doesn’t have to use force. Go into communication with the child, and control follows this as an inevitability. Omit control from the beginning when bringing up a child and he who looks to you for a lot of his direction and control is gypped. He thinks you don’t care about him.

However, as in the case with the playing of musical instruments, learning of languages or the arts and abilities, consult the preclear’s or child’s willingness.

To restore an ability run this technique from SLP 8:

Rehabilitation of abilities. For any ability the preclear always wanted to have, lost and couldn’t do. For example, for the speaking of Arabic: “Mock up (Arabic objects).” “Keep it from going away.” Then, “Mock up (Arab men, women, children).” “Stop (him, her) from talking.” “Start (him, her) talking.”

Should it be a particular musical instrument the preclear wants to play, have him mock up the instrument, make it solid, keep it from going away, stop and start it playing, and this will rehabilitate his ability—if Procedure CCH has been run before.

L. RON HUBBARD






HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 1 JULY 1957




ADDITION TO THE AUDITOR’S CODE



17. Never use Scientology to obtain personal and unusual favors or unusual compliance from the preclear for the auditor’s own personal profit.


L. RON HUBBARD



Issue 50 [1957, ca. early July]


The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.


Levels of Skill


L. Ron Hubbard


From the earliest days of Dianetics there have always been four grades of auditing


FIRST of these was the Book Auditor (bless them), the people with the verve to do or be damned with Dianetic or Scientology written material but without formal training.

SECOND of these was the generally certified auditor—the HDA, the HCA, who had been formally trained at one or another central organization school. Trained over seven years, their skills were varied by the period in which they were trained. These were the “backbone” of the subject, the leaders of groups, the authorities in areas.

THIRD were the specially coached or trained auditors, BScn, HAA, DScn, who by repeated training kept abreast and who had a large span of schooling and training skill.

FOURTH were the Staff Auditors of central organizations. As could be expected these were trained against the necessity of producing sweeping results to uphold the repute of the Foundation or the HASI or the Founding Church. Their skills were above and beyond certification and their degrees were anything from HDA to BScn. They spent, and spend even today, many hours of training in any week just to hold their own with the subject and the repute of the “clinic.”

Now something new has happened. A plateau of training and processing skill has been reached. With Advanced Processes and the ferocity of the Training Drills, we can divide up processes and processing to match these four grades. We are rich in skill now, broadly so.

We have been producing excellent results for a long time. But now we can produce results on lower level and higher level cases than ever before.

Thus a book auditor, using the below described processes, without much training could produce fair results on average homo sapiens, patch up the environment and live better.

Thus a generally certified auditor, without further training, using the processes in which he was trained, could do very well on preclears. Remember, they were and are good processes. And this is true of pre-1957 upper grade auditors. However, the processes, even so, do not go “all the way south” or “all the way north.”

Copyright © 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

But here enters a new grade and level, more or less equivalent to the upper grade auditor of yesterday. This is the VALIDATED AUDITOR who has been drilled up to the level of this plateau and could go all the way south on cases if not, perhaps, all the way north. As I am so sure of this now, we have stopped looking southward. That’s what makes it a plateau. Such an auditor could audit a person in a coma or a day-old baby or somebody 10 years shocked in a spin-bin. So there’s a positiveness about the grade never before possible.

It is not probable that a staff auditor rating will ever be superseded. This level is what it is and is independent of quality of degree. Just now central organization staff auditors are at grips with fully grasping the fact that they can go all the way south and soon will be happy with that and will then be trying for “all the way north.” (The nearest approach possible to absolute clear is now the research line and will someday soon be the “clinic” auditing line.)

Hence, we get 4 levels of auditors and 4 levels of processes in Scientology.

LEVELS OF AUDITORS LEVELS OF PROCESSES

(1) The Book Auditor. (1) Processes not requiring more skill
than that acquired by reading and home
practice.

(2) The Generally Certified Auditor. (2) Qualified for the processes in which
HDA—HCA—BScn—HAA—DScn. they have been trained and no higher
into CCH because of absence of training
along CCH lines.

(3) The Validated Auditor. Any level of (3) Drilled in the Training Skills of
certificate for any period but stamped 1957. Qualified for CCH in full.
by HCO Board of Review for Advanced
Processes ‘ 5 7 .

(4) Staff Auditor. (4) Already Validated. Pursuing pro cesses developed from recent research
which have proven themselves for organi zational use.

Book Auditor processes would include:

Engram Running as described in the first edition, Book One, Dianetics. The Modern Science of Mental Health.

The Fifteen Acts of Scientology, the Handbook for Preclears.

Self Analysis in its entirety.

The Processing Section of Scientology. The Fundamentals of Thought.

The various “assists” which have been listed in many publications.

The Co-Auditors Manual processes.

All the above books are easily obtained. Their age has nothing to do with their workability on average people and they produce some startling results not otherwise attainable by any other practice on Earth despite the “lack of training” of the book auditor. This was the way the subjects started and this is the way they will continue to be used.

A book auditor requires no more okay than the writings and his own raw courage.

People feel, of late times, that book auditing is “frowned upon.” Only by medicos and head-shrinkers (a technical term for psychiatrist), not by us. Scientologists respect the nerve of the book auditor!

My feeling today is that there isn’t enough book auditing. Any book auditor, reading backwards and half drunk can do more for a man than ten thousand years at Mayo Brothers or Menninger’s Squirrel Cage. If we had a hundred thousand book auditors, the AMA, the APA and the American Society of Brainwashing would fade and die.

The Generally Certified Auditor was trained in good processes and he has always gotten results. His only stumbling block is the case all the way south. These tend to break his heart (which is why I kept my spyglass trained south for seven years!). Unless he runs into one of these unsuspectingly, he’s in clover.

There is no need to list his repertoire. It is tremendous. And in the main successfully so.

The Validated Auditor, having passed through all the TRs (Training Drills ‘57), not being human anymore, can run thorough-going CDCCtH.* Any generally certified auditor can become a Validated Auditor with drills and training.

The Staff Auditor—lord knows what he’ll be doing. He’ll be trying for the Moon and OTs—a neglected subject these last 5 years because of the southward project.

Well, there’s the way it seems to fit together.

What do you think of it?

Best,

L. RON HUBBARD





[* C for Control, D for Duplication, C for Communication, Ctfor Control of thought = H for Havingness. See also P.A.B. 122, “The Five Levels of Indoctrination and Procedure CCH.”]

FREEDOM CONGRESS LECTURES
Washington, D.C.
4 - 7 July 1957


The Freedom Congress met at the Shoreham Hotel in Washington, D.C., on United States Independence Day, July 4, 1957. L. Ron Hubbard, assisted by Mary Sue Hubbard and other top Scientologists, electrified the attendees with his lectures and demonstrations of the CCHs and Training Drills. Delegates also got two hours of potent Group Processing.


** 5707C04 FC-1 Opening Lecture—How We Have Addressed the Problem
of the Mind
* * 5707C04 FC-2 Man’s Search and Scientology’s Answer
** 5707C04 FC-3 Definition of Control
** 5707C05 FC-4 Basic Theory of CCHs
5707C05 FC-5 Group Processing—Acceptable Pressures
5707C05 FC-6 Group Processing—”Hold your body/the floor on earth”
** 5707C05 FC-7 Purpose and Need of Training Drills
** 5707C05 FC-8 Training Drills Demonstrated
** 5707C06 FC-9 Third Dynamic and Communication—Demo of High School
Indoc
** 5707C06 FC-10 Training Demonstration of High School Indoctrination
** 5707C06 FC-11 Explanation & Demonstration of “Tone 40” on an Object
** 5707C06 FC-12 Levels of Skill
** 5707C06 FC-13 Explanation & Demonstration of “Tone 40” on a Person
** 5707C07 FC-14 Child Scientology [including Naming Ceremony]
** 5707C07 FC-15 CCH Steps 1 through 4: Demonstration (LRH MTS-1)
5707C07 FC-16 CCH Steps 5 through 7: plus Solids

P.A.B. No. 116
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

15 July 1957


SOLIDS AND CHRONIC SOMATICS



I am giving you in this PAB my latest findings in the handling of chronic somatics. However, I would like to point out that before this technique can be run on a given preclear, you must have him thoroughly under control—i.e. the person, his attention and thoughts. It is a way of running Problems of Comparable Magnitude to a chronic somatic.

Not all people can do this immediately if they cannot make things solid. It may even be very dangerous to run, but it does handle the chronic somatic, providing you have already run the preclear on CCH (Communication, Control, Havingness). When you have done this you can come back again, substituting this process for Problems of Comparable Magnitude to the chronic somatic.

The preclear must be able to make things solid. He has got to have his attention under your control and have his body under control. He must also be able to make things solid objectively (i.e. “Look at the wall and make it a little more solid”) and subjectively (i.e. having the preclear make “the mock-ups a little more solid”), which is to say that you would have to take the preclear through Procedure CCH before this would work, but on the next time through you could kill his chronic somatic deader than a mackerel. You would simply omit running Problem of Comparable Magnitude to the chronic somatic and run the intensive in this manner:

1. Present time problem.

2. Control in all its facets.

3. 8-C: “Keep it from going away.”

4. 8-C: “Hold it still.”

5. 8-C: “Make it a little more solid.”

6. Subjective Havingness: “Make the mock-ups a little more solid.”

7. Then and Now Solids.

Then go right back to wondering if he had any problems about auditing, which is now the present time problem—if people are very low on havingness the auditing always becomes a present time problem. Go up again into control and make sure that

Copyright ©1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.


you have the preclear thoroughly under control. Run through the 7 steps again. Only then would it be safe to run this technique.

This process joins up a phenomenon which has been around for years and which was never known to be turned on at will. This phenomenon is: “He knew about it all the time.”

All auditors know this phenomenon. The preclear has sinusitis—it is from Johnny punching him in the nose when he was five—and he says: “Yes, but I knew it all the time.” Well, he never knew it all the time, because he had sinusitis. It is only after he realizes that he knew it all the time that he gets well. That is the recovery of the game which underlies the game he has been playing. That is the hidden game.

The most disturbing thing in the world is to have a preclear that you have been working on cognite. He says, “Well, yes, my mother was actually a prostitute.” He never realized that before. And you say, “What do you know about that!” and he says, “I knew it all the time.” He knew it all the time, but he couldn’t identify what it was that he knew all the time.

When we talk about cognitions, we are actually looking for the master cognition, which is “I knew it all the time.” Only he didn’t know it all the time; in other words, he recovered the hidden game. It is the other game that we have suddenly got sight of. Football made him sick, but all of a sudden we spotted Lacrosse, or vice versa. He knew all the time that it was Lacrosse that made him this sick, or football that made him this sick. He knew it all the time, but only now is he well.

How do we trigger this at will?

The postulate of change is “ought to be—should be.” Limited, just as change is on any other level, but awfully effective.

The postulate which underlies havingness is “enough.” Havingness is quantitative. So you cannot run this without running the whole works evidently. He would have to be able to mock up, hence the first pass at this in CCH. He would have to be able to make things a little more solid, otherwise you wouldn’t be able to risk this one. But it evidently turns on rather at will this “I knew it all the time,” in other words, the hidden game.

You run the process this way: Tell the preclear to “Mock up enough _ (whatever the chronic somatic is)” and “Make it a little more solid.”

For example, take a case of obnosis—if you are not good at observing, you will miss on this every time. This is one of the reasons why we have more or less unconsciously been stressing obnosis. The auditor has to be able to look at somebody—and it is not the fellow’s belief that all women are bad. He is sitting there with a chronic sore throat, complete glandular arrest, with a club in his hands and you are trying to read his thoughts. Out of all these things, take the one thing he is complaining about—a sore throat.

The first thing you do is run the bad condition. Then just run the condition, after that the terminal, and you will shift his attention and turn off this “I knew it all the time. I knew my mother used to choke me.” Only he didn’t because before that he told you, “Well, mother’s a very sweet girl, very nice to me. I don’t know why I never turned out all right.”

Have him “Mock up enough sore throats” and “Make it a little more solid.” Then “Mock up enough sore throat (singular)” and “Make it a little more solid” and “Good.

Mock up enough sore throat” and by this time he will say, “Well, yes, so and so and so, probably.” His attention shifted and this is a method of doing it. It has shifted his attention from the badness of the condition to the condition. “Mock up enough throat.” He has a condition known as a throat, and this oddly enough in this particular instance becomes the solid for the terminal—enough throat. Only it will mean two different things to the preclear and you want the preclear to duplicate your commands exactly, which he will only do if he is thoroughly under your control.

Let us take “bad eyesight” for an example, although this is not necessarily the process you would use. The preclear came to you to be audited because he had shooting pains in his right kneecap. He has never been able to work because of it, draws compensation. As a result of the compensation he has an easy life and this is a control mechanism. If you take this away from him against his better “judgments” the difficulty you will have in keeping him in session thereafter is absolutely zero.

He has bad eyesight and you have him “Mock up enough bad eyesight” and “Make it a little more solid”—a few times “Enough eyesight,” a condition or circumstance, “Make it a little more solid.” “Enough eyes,” and “Make them a little more solid.” There is his chronic somatic.

I have no guarantee whatsoever that this will work in all cases at all times, because I cannot guarantee that you will have him in condition whereby he can execute the commands when given. He must be in a condition whereby he can execute the auditing commands, and if the auditing commands are “mock it up,” which means he has got to be able to get mock-ups—which you can turn on with CCH—he has to be in a condition where you have some guarantee that you can control his thoughts. You can say, “Put an emotion in the wall.” He will feel the wall mentally but he didn’t do what you said, therefore you don’t have his thoughts under control.

In other words, the person’s attention and thoughts must be under your control before this works, but when you have accomplished this, this process works with a thud.

L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO TRAINING BULLETIN OF 15 JULY 1957


8-C ON STUDENTS

Our first lesson in training from the 1 8th ACC is that the only error a Scientology instructor can make is in the direction of softness.

The one unit in the 3 ACC units now going through that

1. Had a student leave,

2. Didn’t gain or learn

was handled by poor 8-C on instructor’s part.

Scientology training Stable Datum:

When in doubt, handle student with much stricter positive placement and direction.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH: md.rd
7-1 5-57




18TH AMERICAN ADVANCED CLINICAL COURSE LECTURES
Washington, D.C.
8 July—16 August 1957


The 18th American Advanced Clinical Course convened on Tuesday, July 8th, the day after the Freedom Congress ended. L. Ron Hubbard gave the following lectures to students starting on July 15th:


** 5707C15 18ACC-1 What is Scientology?
** 5707C16 18ACC-2 CCH Related to ARC
** 5707C17 18ACC-3 Theory and Definition of Auditing
** 5707C18 18ACC-4 What Scientology is Addressed to
** 5707C19 18ACC-5 The Five Categories
** 5707C22 18ACC-6 Control
5707C23 18ACC-7 The Stability of Scientology
5707C24 18ACC-8 Auditing Styles
** 5707C25 18ACC-9 Scales (Effect Scale)
** 5707C26 18ACC-10 The Mind: Its Structure in Relation to Thetan and MEST
5707C26 18ACC Anatomy of Problems—Coaching Athletics


The list of lectures given to the 18th ACC continues on pages 94, 95 and 103.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Washington, D.C.
All Staff
All ACC Students HCO TRAINING BULLETIN OF 17 JULY 1957
4—London (to
their training
personnel,
Assoc Secty)
LRH ACC file CHANGES IN TRAINING DRILLS
CO file

The 18th ACC, which is being conducted with a goal of refining training, is furnishing some vital data. This will be published from time to time and finally summarized in Training Bulletins.

Training 5, Hand Mimicry, becomes Training 5(b) Hand Mimicry.

The new Training 5 is “Sit in that Chair”. It is used on Saturdays in Washington supervised and London unsupervised.

NUMBER: Training 5.

NAME: Sit in that Chair.

COMMANDS: Sit in that Chair, comm bridged occasionally to Touch that Chair and back to Sit in that Chair.

POSITION: Auditor and pc seated a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE: To give student an actual process that integrates all earlier steps in the Communication Course (TR 0 to TR 4) as an actual process so that he will not be faced with doing this integration on 8c while in motion. Summates the things learned in Comm Course.

TRAINING STRESS: Process is not coached save by instructor. It is actually run on a fellow student. The student pc is not manually forced to do process. Only the earlier TR skills are used. Student’s confidence in being able to audit should be raised.

HISTORY: Developed by LRH for the 18th Advanced Clinical Course in Washington, D.C., July 1957.

Training 6, 8c, remains itself but is changed as follows:

NUMBER: Training 6.

NAME: 8c.

COMMANDS: First half of session period student silently steers coach’s body around room, not even to walls, quietly starting, turning and stopping coach’s body. Second part of session commands are “Look at that wall.” “Thank you.” “Walk over to that wall.” “Thank you.” “With your right hand touch that wall.” “Thank you.” “Turn around.” “Thank you.” Student may touch coach’s body.

POSITION: Student and coach walking side by side. Student always on coach’s right except when turning coach.

PURPOSE: First part: To accustom student to moving another body than his own without verbal communication. Second part: To accustom student to move another body by and while giving auditing commands and to accustom student to proper commands of 8c.

TRAINING STRESS: Complete, crisp precision of movement and commands. Student as in any other TR except TR 5 is flunked only for current and preceding TRs. Thus in this case the coach flunks student for every hesitation or nervousness in moving body, for every flub of command, for poor confronting, for bad communication of command, for poor acknowledgment, for poor repetition of command, and for failing to handle origins by coach.

HISTORY: Developed by LRH in Camden, New Jersey, for the 2nd ACC, in October 1953 and modified for the 18th ACC, July 1957, in Washington, D.C.

LRH:md,jh
Copyright © 1957 L. RON HUBBARD
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



Issue 51 [1957, ca. late July]


The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.



The Adventure of Communication

L. Ron Hubbard


The success level of a person is his communication level.

One can have only those things with which he can communicate. To have it is necessary to communicate.

One can do only those things with which he can exchange communication.

One can be whatever he feels will assist him to carry out his ideas of communication itself.

It has been three years since we first isolated communication as the dominant corner of the Affinity-Reality-Communication triangle.

Now when one realizes that have and the Reality corner of the triangle are the same and when one understands that control is possible only in the presence of maximal Affinity, one sees in Control-Communication-Havingness theory the working aspects of the Affinity-Reality-Communication theory.

We have always known A-R-C was true. We now know its best-working aspects in the Control-Communication-Havingness theories of processing.

Communication continues its dominance. Affinity gives us the only working mood of Control. Reality gives us the reward of Communication.

Thus one can BE—one can DO, one can HAVE only as well as one can communicate.

At the intensely successful Freedom Congress, just held, a number of Training drills were presented which have as their goal communication betterment.

Doing these drills betters one’s communication ability.

Thus these drills can be seen as an opening door to better beingness, better doingness, better havingness.

While, as everyone recognized at the Congress, there is no substitute for Academy training in these drills, doing them yourself at home can result in enormous improvement.

We have found the level from which to live successfully—Tone 40.

We have found the drills and processes by which to get us there.

High Adventure requires high communication.

Could there be anything so brash as to stop us now?

Copyright ©1957 L. RON HUBBARD
by L. Ron Hubbard
All Rights Reserved.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE


HCO BULLETIN OF 29 JULY 1957

STAFF AUDITORS WASHINGTON ONLY

WITHHOLDS AND COMMUNICATION

A Preview of a book to be called “The Handling of Human Problems. A Scientology Text by L. Ron Hubbard,” a paperbacked booklet.

The book explains the parts of man, ARC, and states that the ability to communicate on 8 dynamics must be regained in order to lead a successful Spiritual life.

The book will then give a process to rehabilitate Communication. It is based on our old “Recall a Secret”. The version is entirely straight wire.

The reason secrets cannot be dredged up in people is because they will not tell them. This process by-passes divulgence of data and works well without informing on oneself.

The Process.

The auditor explains to the pc that he is not looking for hidden data to evaluate it. He is only asking the pc to look at the data.

The auditor then makes a list of valences, paying great attention to those the pc considers “unimportant” or is very slow to divulge.

Then the auditor takes this list and runs repetitive straight wire ( 1951 ) as follows:

“Think of something you might withhold from (valence).”

He repeats this question over and over until no comm lag is present. He never says “Something else you might withhold” because auditor wants pc to think of some of these many times.

Before selecting another valence, auditor runs a little Locational or Trio.

He then takes next valence the same way.

The list is covered once, then the same list is covered again.

The object is speed . Cover many people.

Given time the auditor can do the same thing on all dynamics.

VARIATION

Instead of a valence, body parts may be used.

“Think of something you might withhold about your (body part).”

Leave sexual parts or obvious psychosomatic difficulties until last. Don’t begin on a withered arm. Pc can’t cut it.

SUMMARY

It is amusing to realize that this process overlords all early psychotherapies. But

they, using this effort to locate secrets, thought that divulgence and confession were the therapeutic agents. These have no bearing on the workability.

Further, early efforts naively thought there was one secret per case. Actually there are billions.

It is easy to get into past lives on this. A basic secret is that one lived before.

This can be E-Metered with great success if the auditor realizes that the meter is only useful to find out if a valence or a dynamic is hot or flat. Locating actual data for the auditor to know about is useless to the process itself.

Eight or eight thousand or eight billion secrets later will discover the pc in better communication. This is our only goal.

WARNING

The invasion of privacy-horror of-can stop the process cold if the auditor is too nosey.

The auditor will strike a data gusher sooner or later in the pc. It is unimportant.

The process may run down havingness. The “secret mechanism” is also used by pc to keep body from going away. (Some address to this last with “Keep [body part] from going away” may be needed.)

PURPOSE OF THIS RELEASE

To put HGC pcs into high communication.

To gain know-how for the above book—therefore report any changes needed or problems met while running this.


L. RON HUBBARD
LRH: md. nm
7-29-57





18TH AMERICAN ACC LECTURES
Washington, D.C.
29 - 30 July 1957


5707C29 18ACC-11 Optimum 25-Hour Session

** 5707C30 18ACC-12 Death


Other lectures given to the 18th ACC will be found on pages 90, 95 and 103.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 31 JULY ] 957

(Amending HCO Bulletin of 29 July 1957)


STAFF AUDITORS WASHINGTON ONLY



More workable commands for testing:

1. “Recall something you have done or said to (valence).”

2. “Think of something you could do or say to (valence).”


LRH:md,rd L. RON HUBBARD
7-31-57












18TH AMERICAN ACC LECTURES
Washington, D.C.
31 July—9 August 1957


** 5707C31 18ACC-13 Surprise—The Anatomy of Sleep
5708C01 18ACC-14 Thinnies
** 5708C02 18ACC-15 Ability—Laughter
5708C05 18ACC-16 The Handling of l.Q. (Factors Behind)
5708C06 18ACC-17 The Scale of Withhold
** 5708C07 18ACC-18 Havingness, Endurance, Progress
** 5708C08 18ACC-19 Confronting, Necessity Level
5708C09 18ACC-20 Instructing a Course


Other lectures given to the 18th ACC will be found on pages 90, 94 and 103.

P.A.B. No. 117
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 August 1957

CONFRONTING PRESENT TIME


We all know about the unreality of processes too high for a preclear. You ask him to do something too high for him and he, oddly enough, can do it. He can get the idea of doing it, and he will even tell you he is doing it. Some preclears can actually walk around and touch the walls for as long as you want them to and it doesn’t affect them. It means that a particular preclear who is doing this has no responsibility whatsoever for walking around and touching the walls. It doesn’t affect him except that irresponsibility is running out all the time. I don’t know if there is such a thing as a technique that is thoroughly above the preclear’s ability to run. It is only a much longer reach.

I have taken a very bad-off case and told him to mock up a scene which everybody could see. I told him to do this over and over and over and I turned his mock-ups on brilliantly.

I have said in a Congress “Create that wall,” etc. The funny part is that it almost killed the audience, and they didn’t even spot what it was during the congress that almost mowed them down. They thought something else was responsible for it. They complained about two or three other processes which, if run on individuals, would hardly affect them at all. But they didn’t complain about this one. We were making them confront the wall, create the wall, take ownership of the wall, take ownership of the universe, and it was so far from them that they were unaware that they couldn’t do it.

When you can imagine people walking up and down the street out here being unaware of the fact that they are unable to confront the street, you have got aberration really nailed. Their irresponsibility has grown to the point of not even knowing they cannot, to the point of doing it all the time. You process them for a while and they will just become aghast at confronting the street. It feels all right to them for a while, and all of a sudden they will get a somatic and flinch here, and they are not sure that they want to touch that tree. They are actually coming upscale toward this action. People evidently get interiorized into a universe, and then don’t ever exteriorize. It is because they find more and more in it that they are unwilling to confront. So their awareness of its existence drops. All blindness is an extreme unawareness.

For instance, if one were all wound up with some other person and that other person died or disappeared, there was too much absent in present time. But this is not factual. As a writer in the New York area, I used to go down to the Village with some of the boys and used to have some knock-down-drag-out arguments, discussions, personal feuds, brawlings, etc. We were always doing something wild or weird. A crowd of us went up to Sing Sing one time just to see how it felt to sit in an electric chair. We were always having criminals and things electrocuted in stories. In order to know how

Copyright © 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

they felt we walked through the green door. We were always doing something like this and life looked very alive and full, and it seemed impossible to reach through it or to it or to exhaust it in any way. Looking back after a long time and at a long distance it seems to me very much like New York and the Village—dull, and it is all tame and a long time ago. But that is merely because I am not in contact with it. The same dramas still go on.

To give you an idea of short circuits, an artist, Hannes Bok’s next-door neighbor, was walking past a thrift shop and bought a painting because she wanted the frame. When she got home she wiped off some of the dust and found out that the painting was a submission to the New York World’s Fair in 1939. It had the artist’s name on it. So Hannes Bok took a look at it and said, “That’s Ron,” wrote to me to find out about this, and that was right. She wants to give the painting to me and is sending it here.

In other words, there are all kinds of wild little actions, randomities, short circuits and so forth going on in the world. This one was intimately enough connected with me that I would be alerted to it. But if I were in the scene, there would be all kinds of actions that would only vaguely come close to this in which I would be vitally interested. Why? They also concern ME now, because I am part of the scene. So at this distance I am aware of New York because something intimately concerned me, but in New York everything would concern me, so I would be intimately interested in it.

People become rather easily convinced there isn’t much in present time. I have seen race drivers talking about their humdrum lives. It is wild. You talk to these T.W.A. and American airline pilots. They think their life is a little bit humdrum.

I was down at the airport the other evening to meet a couple coming in from Ireland, and the snow was coming down thickly. A quarter of a century ago, any wooden propellor trying to chew through that much snow would have just been torn into splinters at once. Well, evidently a steel propellor isn’t affected. The leading edges don’t gather ice any more, and a lot of other things don’t occur. I know that airplanes have been made totally proof.

But pilots were flying through this snow on schedule and landing and taking off and continuing airline schedules, and I could hardly see the length of the administration building. And I imagine that if I’d gone into the pilot’s shack where they were checking in, they would have been saying, “Aw, it’s just another darned night,” and they would wish they could do something interesting.

In such a case man has disconnected himself to some degree from present time, and therefore not much in present time affects him. (Connectedness as a process will help to remedy this condition: “Look around here and find something you wouldn’t mind making connect with you,” and see that he makes it connect with him, and not him with the object.) You might say that there is so much danger in present time that he must disconnect most of the present time from himself.

As I was saying, the personal interest factor extends from New York to Washington, D.C. when something personal occurs. Well, if you were in New York, there would be a lot of personal things occurring—what a cab driver said to another cab driver would become a personal matter—on a higher dynamic. This is, by the way, the dwindling scale of the dynamics you are looking at when you look at a distance from.

Time itself seems to strip away from us our adventures and objects and havingness. But havingness is only an awareness of existence. Why we so readily consent to have present time stripped away at this mad rate is quite interesting because we are to a marked degree in control of it.

For instance, I had time shift on me the other day rather inexplicably and startlingly and it upset me for a little while. As I was traveling through time at the usual routine rate of speed which would be my rate of passage through time, and I had a lot of things to get done, I accidentally extended time on some kind of an automaticity I hadn’t been aware of. I got a lot of things done and came back and found that five minutes had passed, and it upset me because about two-and-a-half hours should have passed.

So concept of time is something which is quite variable, it sometimes changes on us when we skid or take our fingers off it. Our machinery which is carefully saying “one second, one second, one second” slips over into the old machine which we had which said “one—second—one—second—” without at the same time impeding our motion.

Motion is not necessarily related to the abstract time, it only appears to be. But why are people so anxious, why do people have so little time as they go downscale? It is quite interesting, but they do have less and less time the further downscale they go. Well, they are just that anxious to have present time stripped away, and they are counting on this mechanism of the universe which will take this present time away and dispose of the walls, space, and in just a little time they hope not to be there any longer.

Some part of them is very frantic although they appear to be very calm. Therefore they avidly consent to this thing, and then one day they complain (second postulate) that they haven’t enough time to do anything. Therefore they cannot do anything. Quite a fascinating enigma.

If you said “total responsibility” you would be saying to admit the authorship of, be willing to admit the authorship of, any created thing anywhere whether yours or another’s, and “mis-responsibility” would be the miscalling of authorship. In other words, those things which you, yourself, had done or made, you would say, “I did or made these things.” And those things which other people had made, you would say you had made them. You thus get this mis-responsibility.

Now total responsibility would come out of not just the assignment of the correct authorship to everything and would be the fact, act or final consequence of being willing to do so. Only willingness is necessary. One has to be willing to do that and that is the state of mind you should bring your preclear into—only willing to do that.

As far as anchor points are concerned, if a person made them and said that he made them, all will be well, but if he said he didn’t make them when he actually made them, that would be horrible. That is a mis-responsibility.

For instance, if you have a preclear mock up an anchor point and actually fit it into some point in his skull, in contradistinction to the others, he will get a headache. Why should he get a headache since the anchor point belongs there? Because he didn’t make those anchor points. Now he makes one and he puts one in and he is assuming ownership of the others. He didn’t find the anchor point that belonged there and put it there, and then say, “Well, I put it there but I didn’t make it.” If he had done that he wouldn’t have had a headache and the anchor point would be there.

A mishandling of life, however, is not as serious as the desire to mishandle it. An anxiety to mishandle life, a willingness to mishandle it, or an unawareness that one is unwilling to handle it properly are the aberrative factors, not the actual mishandling of it.

Any thetan can play the game of saying, “Well, I made these body anchor points.” He did it consciously and he can play that game. But to have to admit that from some exterior compulsion would be something else.

Take for an example you having to take charge of the mimeograph machine which is running badly. It is not your department. You don’t desire to take it over but you have to, and the next thing you know is that you have busted the mimeograph machine. What happened here? One sees people do this in offices all the time. One thinks one is being forced to take a responsibility and one is unwilling to take that responsibility, thinking it belongs to someone else. So that correction under duress— that is to say misownership and misresponsibility under duress—always has grave consequences.

This works in many fields. For example, a traffic cop stops you for speeding and comes up alongside of the wheel and says that you were speeding, and you say, “Yes, I was speeding.” He says you have been doing 65 miles an hour, and you correct him and say, “68, Officer,’’ and he says, “Well, it is pretty slippery today,” and you say, “I know it.” It unnerves him. He may or may not give you a ticket, but the chances of his giving you one are much cut down. You are not buttering him up or telling him that you have learned better now or anything of the sort, but saying the exact facts of the case tends to as-is them. You have knocked out his first postulate.

L. RON HUBBARD





ACC BULLETIN
10 August 1957

CCH 18


This is CCH 18, named after the 18th ACC.

The following process is to be run by students on students in the evening sessions of the coming week:

Commands: “Look around here and find something you would be unwilling for that body (or psychosomatic body part) to have.”

“Look around here and find something you would be willing to have.”

Interspersed with Locational—”Notice that (indicated object).”

Formal auditing.

Process may be run inside seated, or outside ambulatory.

Auditor-pc teams are to be assigned by their instructor of next week.


L. RON HUBBARD


Issue 52 [1957, ca. early August]


The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.



Confronting


L. Ron Hubbard


This begins a series of training processes aimed at raising the communication level.

In subsequent issues I’ll give you others, so don’t fail to do this one in the next two weeks.

This is taken from the new Student Manual.


Training 0.

Name: Confronting Preclear.

Commands. None.

Position: Student and coach sit facing each other a comfortable distance apart—about five feet.

Purpose: To train student to confront a preclear with auditing only or with nothing.

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. Coach may speak only if student goes anaten (dope off). Student is confronting the body, thetan and bank of preclear.

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.”
________________

We used to say, the way out is the way through.

Now we say,

If you can’t stand it, Confront it.

And that, I think you’ll find, is much more satisfactory.


Copyright © 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

Definition of a Scientology Clear

A Scientology Clear would be able to confront the physical universe, other bodies, his own body, other minds, his own mind and other beings—without trimmings.

The first step on this road is the drill called Training 0—Confronting.

Do it for at least 25 hours and you’ll never have trouble with a preclear.

No systems allowed. Both feet flat on the floor. No twitches, no squirms, no talk.

If you have difficulty, feel the floor and your chair back as you sit. That adds confronting the universe.

Confronting isn’t just looking—so don’t try to confront with your eyeballs only.

Do it and may you never be the same again.

Nothing like Training 0 to raise Communication level.


L. RON HUBBARD

P.A.B. No. 118
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

15 August 1957


VALIDATION COMMITTEE


The following statement and recommendations concerning U.S. Validation of Certificates were made by the Validation Committee of the Freedom Congress, held July 4 through 7 at the Shoreham Hotel in Washington, D.C., and accepted by the Congress and myself for the U.S.

“Scientologists play the game of life. They put life into living. Homo sapiens lets life live him and this planet has a large lack of people who knowingly play the game of life. The reality of the game of life can only be communicated by those who play it. Scientologists do play the game. Our ability as players determines how well and how swiftly we win at making life a game for all men, and this is one of the goals of Scientology. Our direct ability to control, to communicate and to have men, women, groups and governments determines the degree to which we can create a game of life and a knowledge of livingness to all men. Your ability as a Scientologist to play and to communicate playingness and livingness will determine how soon and how well we can win. The Validation Program can better enable you to play and live on all dynamics, no matter how well you are doing now. Truthfully, can you be more able? Yes! No man will ordinarily light a fire by rubbing dry sticks together when he can use a match; the match is obviously a better tool. The Validation Program will sharpen your old tools and provide you with better ones. We have today in Scientology better communication, control and havingness on ability than ever before. The Validation Program is intended to give every professional Scientologist the basic tools of livingness and the ability to use them. These are his by right of his own very existence, by right of the fact that he helped build the better bridge that Ron Hubbard asked him to help build, and by right of the fact that he cannot help but want to play the game better once he realizes that there really is a better level of game now in existence through his participation in this program. Toward this end, we, the Validation Committee, propose and recommend the following procedures dedicating them to mankind and the creation of human ability:

“1. That there be two classifications of validation:

(a) The professional auditor of any grade coached in training drills and CCH processes and passed by the HCO Board of Review; and

(b) Doctors of Scientology coached and trained in the use and coaching of these skills and validated by the HCO Board of Review, to both use CCH processes and coach others in their use subject to approval by the HCO Board of Review.

“2. We further recommend that a travelling HCO Board of Review be organized to sit in major cities for the purpose of validating for the use of CCH

Copyright © 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

processes those professional auditors coached by Doctors of Scientology in the field.

“3. That Notification be sent to every professional auditor in the field that his professional certificate of whatever grade is as valid today and as honored as it was upon the day it was issued.

“4. That Doctors of Scientology authorized to coach other professional auditors in training drills and CCH processes take responsibility for their areas in seeing to it that all professional auditors (those holding professional certificates) in their respective areas are personally contacted and the purposes of the 1957 Validation Program are thoroughly and carefully communicated and received.

“We of this Committee deem ourselves highly honored at having been selected for this recommending committee. We pledge our cooperation in this 1957 Validation Program and urge the fullest cooperation by all auditors everywhere that we may have for the first time in earth’s recorded history true sanity and civilization for all mankind.”

Wing Angel, Chairman
Kenneth D. Barrett, Technical Adviser
Burke Belknap
J. Burton Farber
Rosina Mann
Ralph Swanson

L. RON HUBBARD
























18TH AMERICAN ACC LECTURES
Washington, D.C.
16 August 1957


5708C16 18ACC-21 The Future of Scientology

5708C16 18ACC Awards

Earlier lectures given to the 18th ACC will be found on pages 90, 94 and 95.



Issue 53 [1957, ca. late August]


The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.



Communication


L. Ron Hubbard



Communication is life. Without it we are dead to all.

Gradually the importance of Communication has evolved since July 1950 when I first evolved the ARC triangle. The corners are Affinity, Reality and Communication.

The triangle has many fascinating aspects. If one corner of it is lowered, the other two are dropped as well. If one corner is raised the other two are raised.

But the full use of this triangle, no matter how much Scientologists refer to it, has never been established.

Let us see some ways the triangle is used.

Estimation of the quality or ability of a person is at once established by his tone. Tone is established by his ARC. The whole of the book Science of Survival is devoted to this.

Actually, tone is established by his Affinity and Reality. It is most directly observed by his Communication.

One easy, quick way to ascertain a person’s tone would be as follows: What does he try to do to your ARC? If he discovers something with which you have good ARC, does he attempt to increase or decrease your communication with it?

The whole theory of games conditions as contained in Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought, when applied to A-R-C opens up volumes of understanding. Obsessive selection of opponents is obsessive cut of communication. In a game, one seeks to cut the communication of an opponent. When one is in an obsessive games condition one obsessively cuts everyone else’s communication.

This can be done in two ways with the same end result. He or she insists on communication with hurtful things so that one will know better than to communicate (as a nation does to youth with war) or the communication cut is direct.

Lower affinity with things and communication is cut. Raise affinity with things and communication is improved.



Copyright © 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

An example of this would be the contrast between the end results achieved by (1) a parent who warns the child about things and (2) a parent who lets the child get acquainted with things. The child handled the first way will go awry; the child handled the second way will become the better child.

You notice I have said “warns the child about things.” This could be expressed also as “lowers the affinity of the child about reality.”

One determines, then, the actual character of a person by observing his intent concerning communication.

If a person wants Communication to be knowingly raised (and all good Communication is knowing Communication), his intent to another is good. There is no games condition here.

If a person wants Communication to be unknowing or lowered, his intent to another is bad.

Communication is the clue that is always in sight. By it one sees the true Affinity and Reality of the person.

When another tries to chop your ARC with something, it is a good thing to decoy him into believing you have ARC with something else and see how he handles that. He, by cutting away, seeks to make you a victim of his game. It becomes an amusing game when you fully understand ARC. The difference will be—you will be playing a knowing game—the other person will only be dramatizing.

Many a budding Scientologist has been squelched by someone chopping his ARC with Scientology when in actuality it was merely someone chopping his ARC.

Communication is the clue. If you can handle communication in or out, you can win.

L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
LONDON

HCO BULLETIN OF 29 AUGUST 1957




GOVERNMENT PROJECT STABLE DATA


To any government official or on any government project the HASI stable data for negotiation and discourse are as follows:

WE ARE THE EXPERTS ON HUMAN ABILITY AND ENDURANCE. WE OFFER ONLY SERVICES. WE DISCUSS ONLY RESULTS, THE NEED OF RESULTS, THE CONSEQUENCES OF NO RESULTS, THE SINCERITY OF THE ORGANIZATION AND ALL CONCERNED IN OBTAINING RESULTS, AND INTERESTING RESULTS.

REASON: You cannot communicate in 25 minutes something which took 25 years to develop. Scientology really takes some time to learn. To try to teach someone Scientology at a luncheon table or in an office is difficult, since prejudice and mental illiteracy are barriers. Scientology, however, using the above stable data, is easy.

We know already that in a discussion with uninformed persons, these attempt to learn all about Scientology in 25 minutes. To stop all further learning by them, try at once and instantly to fully educate them. To lead them to further learning read again the stable data given above.

The importance of these data will be realized when they will be published to all personnel on a project as a must.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:rs jh Copyright © 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

P.A.B. No. 119
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 September 1957

THE BIG AUDITING PROBLEM


If you were to take a mediumly good race driver and you wanted to make out of him a championship race driver, I’m afraid you would have to train him from scratch. And you would have to train him with a great deal more ardor than you would have to train just a kid that just walked in from Kokomo with an interest in motors.

Nevertheless, if you were successful in training a mediumly good race driver with a lot of races behind him, straight from scratch and all the way through, you would have a championship race driver—there would be no doubt about this whatever. Whereas the kid from Kokomo might or might not.

I will tell you at once the first and foremost factor, and that is, auditing does require a certain amount of stamina. It takes a certain amount of what it takes just to stay around Scientology—there is that, you see. It takes a certain amount of—to use a technical term—”guts.” You know that. In the first place, the problem of living is complicated by the fact that you know what the other fellow is doing, and he doesn’t. You go down to the bank and your communication is disturbed by the degree that you know the fellow behind the teller’s window is a 1.5, the like of which you’ve never seen before, and he thinks he’s just a good average human being doing a job, and you count your change more carefully than you would on some other bank teller.

Now there is a tremendous advantage in this. You don’t walk around all the time in a figure-figure wondering what’s wrong with you because you don’t always get along invariably with other people uniformly well. Now you realize that the bulk of the human race is walking around with the belief that there is something wrong somewhere, but they don’t quite know what it is and it worries them. Now when you get up to a degree where you have some idea of this worry, you are aware of the factors which exist, the fact that your awareness has increased is all in your favor.

One of the great truths of Scientology is that INCREASED AWARENESS IS THE ONLY FACTOR WHICH OFFERS ANY ROAD OUT. That is an awfully simple truth, but you’ll find out that people don’t know that. They think that LESS awareness is the road out—and that is the road down into the basement.

All right—you live in a world that is trying right now to commit suicide on the grandest scale it has ever attempted, although I will say that when they dug up that last cave down in the Middle East and found seven civilizations, they did find under the shreds of the seventh civilization green glass, which looked awfully like the green glass from an atomic explosion out in the middle of the New Mexican desert. In other words, tens of thousands of years ago there was evidently another atomic blast, and perhaps everybody has been coming forward through barbarism and so on up the line.


Copyright © 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

It is quite amusing to notice that atomic radiation DOES reverse the genetic line. It gives a throwback. It produces the more original forms.

So you would expect the human race at this time to be walking toward greater and greater individual survival and less and less group survival. And here you are with some kind of a notion of the fact that the third dynamic exists and you are able to march out a bit on the third dynamic and the rest of the world is retreating back to the first dynamic—probably an inverted first.

I just had a report from our Public Relations Unit concerning the amount of attention being paid to injured persons alongside the road and on the street, and the report summed up that practically no attention was being paid now to anybody who was injured. That is quite interesting, because it has suffered, according to Public Relations, a considerable shift in attitude during the last two months. You are quite well aware of the fact that there might be just a tiny amount of radiation in the air which would never really damage anybody physically at all, yet which would restimulate people into a heavy unknowing games condition. So they would begin to act more and more hectic and on the first dynamic. This would be one of the first symptoms that you would discover in a society—everybody takes out on the Only One classification. Now that is the road to death. It doesn’t matter whether or not the society at large ever is atom-bombed, that point is not of any great interest to us. It IS of great interest to us, however, that the effects of radiation and its presence in the society drives people down the dynamics.

All right. So although it is pretty hard to live around Scientology very often— somebody tells me, “You know, that is awfully restimulative material which is in these lectures” (I’ve heard this said two or three times), “Oh, I don’t know, I’ve sat through a lot of lectures and it just restimulated me and I’m in terrible shape now.” And I’ve also heard somebody in the organization look at a remark like this and laugh. They say, “Well, the only real difference is that you’re in terrible shape, that’s sure, but now you know it.” And if you’re in bad shape, it’s better to know it than not know it, that’s for sure.

What happens to Scientology and Scientologists in a world of this character? What happens to us? Why should we know what we know and know it well, and so on? That’s because your basic attitude toward the world at large will have to be more and more an auditor’s attitude toward a preclear if you are going to accomplish any survival at all. To get anybody to do anything will probably require an auditor here in the near future. I will give you an idea of this.

In North Africa they had the Arab with the gun and whip. He could force people to do things with a gun and a whip and he accomplished a tremendous amount of extermination, but he certainly didn’t advance that civilization very much. In South Africa they had a bit of the whip but everybody just gave up. The South African native is probably the one impossible person to train in the entire world—he is probably impossible by any human standard. I’ll give you an example. A South African native is being shown how to sow crops and he has a basket, and he’s got some seed, and he’s walking along back of the harrow disc—and he is supposed to throw seed out this way: seed out this way, seed out that way, seed out this way. A white man is riding a little tractor that’s pulling the disc and scraping the soil for the seed. And this scene was enacted and was witnessed and was told to me with considerable hilarity as some kind of an idea of learning rate. The white man was sitting on the little tractor pulling the harrow, the native along behind him, sowing the seed straight down in handfuls on the ground. The white man got off the tractor, came back to the native, took the basket away from him, put his hand in the basket, threw it to the right, put his hand in the basket, threw it to the left, and gave it back to the native. And the native waited, the white man got on the tractor, drove along, and the native took a handful out of the

basket and threw it straight on the ground. So the white man got off the tractor, came back, took the basket away from the native, showed the native, throw it to the right, throw it to the left, gave it back to the native, took his seat again on the tractor, the native followed along behind, took handfuls and threw it straight on the ground! And this went on for a very long time. The native never did throw any handfuls of seed to the right and left. Never did. That is farming in South Africa.

Now did anything ever come along and change that? Yes. Man had to cease to be Homo Sapiens and had to become Homo Scientologicus in order to accomplish any action that was anywhere near efficient in South Africa. And we have had some auditors in South Africa who have actually succeeded in training natives easily and well and have successfully managed large organizations there. That’s certainly something. Now with these people it was still possible to get something done. But what had this native done? Was this native what we think of as primitive stock? No, we make a great many mistakes. We say a child is in a “native state.” A native is in a “native state.” People are in a barbaric condition and then they grow up and become civilized. How do we know that this barbaric condition isn’t a retrogression from a highly civilized condition back to an Only One category? How do we know that isn’t true? How do we know that that native didn’t at one time achieve a great civilization of culture which then collapsed on him and he went back into a state of being a barbarian?

But the point is, is this true that a native is in a clearer state, and is it true that it requires Livingness to advance somebody in that crude state up to a condition of ability? No, that is not true. The child, the primitive, the native, are in retrograded states. They are worse off than somebody who is at a civilized or thinking or analytical level.

I will give you an interesting example of this. If you can tell the difference between a lot of little kids you run into, and psychos, I’ll give you a medal. Now the funny part of it is that little kids have something to hope for. They have the future to grow up into. And that’s their only asset. Almost everything else is on the debit side of the column. Here is this poor devil who has been slugged, he’s just lost a body, he’s been put into a state of anxiety, here he’s got another body, is it going to get along right or isn’t it? He’s got the hope that it will grow and that alone can carry him forward and color the world brightly for him, but at the same time he is suffering from death shock. And because he is suffering from death shock, he is coming along very timidly with his learning. Now that is the condition a little kid is in, and when you KNOW that a little kid is in that condition, boy! can you handle him! You don’t label him with this omnipresent overused term “insane,” or “psychotic,” you don’t do that. This person is having a terrible time trying to adjust himself to his environment and control a body which is suffering from many responses he does not understand, and he is at his wit’s end. The delusions of children and death delusions are quite similar. When a person dies and starts to pull out of that body, he generally snaps in on himself a torrent of facsimiles of one kind or another. He has all sorts of weird things that go “boomp in the night” present themselves at that moment.

And very often you get a preclear who is suffering merely from the death shock. And he is psychotic, he’s crazy, he doesn’t know whether he is coming or going. Why? Because he’s surrounded by things he cannot understand—and that is the common denominator of all lack of orientation, of all aberration. It’s being surrounded by things you cannot understand. And a child, surrounded by these things he cannot understand, therefore can produce what we call childhood delusions. But I can’t find any real difference between these childhood delusions and the delusions being suffered by a person about to die or a person in an asylum.

When the kid gets worried, he’s worried. Now who can handle him? Mamas and papas across the face of Earth today, particularly in America, have just about given up.

We have a whole philosophy—we hardly dignify it with the name of Science or even really dignify it with the name of Philosophy—which tells us that the child must be permitted to express himself, that you let the child do anything he pleases in any direction that he pleases and he will be all right—now that is modern psychology at work with children, and it is not true.

A child requires understanding and a child requires assistance in controlling the environment around him which is already too big, too strong, and is moving much too fast on him. He has to be set a good example of 8-C. I am not now talking about heavy discipline. I’ll show you the shortness of discipline. How many people have told you to be a good boy or a good girl, and when you were a good boy and a good girl, they never came to you and said, “Thank you for being a good boy or a good girl.” I almost startled little Quentin out of his wits a couple of evenings ago. I told him to be a good boy now and go to sleep. He was feeling upset. “Stay in bed, now, get some rest.” He was very quiet for half an hour. I went downstairs again and noticed he was still awake, and I said, “Thank you very much for being a good boy.” He smiled, looked sort of dazed—it really shook him. And ever since then he’s been saying—he always says it with enthusiasm, but with this he just about bursts the walls—”HELLO, DADDY!” He is really in communication. Probably the first time it’s happened to him in seventy-six trillion years. You get the idea! Somebody did give him an order and then did finally acknowledge that he had executed it. But there is a common lag on the executing of such an order as “Be good,” or “Go to sleep,” and there is never an auditor there to say “Thank you,” never an auditor there to say “You did it.” So life is furnished with these tremendous numbers of unfinished cycles.

If one is bad, it gets acknowledged, confirmed and pushed around, but if he’s good, it’s sort of neglected. That is an interesting factor right there. But all I am telling you is that children, South African natives, and now the entirety of this world in which we are living, present to us an auditing problem. We are rich in being able to understand what is happening in our environment and we are rich also in knowing exactly how to handle such a circumstance or condition. Nobody knew before. That is factually true here on Earth.

L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 2 SEPTEMBER 1957


When a verbal direction is given to the HGC Staff Auditors concerning the processing of preclears, such as what process is to be run, etc, the auditor is to write out verbatim the order and have it initialed by myself and present it to the Director of Processing immediately. The processing directions are to be followed exactly without variation until ordered to change.

This is the Stable Datum: If given an order by myself and it isn’t written, you are to write it out.

LRH:md.jh
Copyright ©1957 L. RON HUBBARD
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
LONDON (Issued at Washington)

HCO TRAINING BULLETIN OF 3 SEPTEMBER 1957
To: Dir Tr
All Instructors
Assoc Sec
Tech Dir
HCA/HPA COURSE PROCESSES


The following are the only processes to be run in actual student auditing. (All Formal Auditing.) They are to be run as they appear on the Training schedule. All other processes are to be coached.

1. RUDIMENTS in full.

2. ARC Straightwire: “Recall something that was really real to you.” “Thank you.” “Recall a time when you were in good communication with someone.” “Thank you.” “Recall a time when you really liked someone.” “Thank you.” The 3 commands are given in that order and repeated in that order consistently. (FOR TRAINING ONLY.)

3. Static Preparation. “Recall a moment of loss.”

4. Control Trio. Commands: “Notice that (object).” “Get the idea of having that (object).” Flatten this, then “Notice that (object).” “Get the idea it would be all right for it to remain as it is.” Flatten, then “Notice that (object).” “Get the idea of making it disappear.” (WITH EMPHASIS ON “REMAIN”.) (All with proper acknowledgments.)

5. OP BY DUP, old style—book and bottle. “Go over to the book.” “Look at it.” “Pick it up.” “What is its color?” “What is its temperature?” “What is its weight?” “Put it down in exactly the same place.” Then same commands with a bottle (or ashtray, etc). (All with proper acknowledgments.)

6. Training 5: “Seat that body in that chair” comm bridged occasionally to “Touch that chair” and back to “Seat that body in that chair”.

L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO TRAINING BULLETIN OF 4 SEPTEMBER 1957
Dir Training
All HCA Instructors
All ACC Instructors
Org Sec
Pub Rel
Tech Dir
London STABLE DATA FOR INSTRUCTORS
Other operations

for info

1. Instructors must know and use the Instructor’s Code to the letter. There must be no violation of this Code permitted by the Director of Training.

2. Grant Beingness to the students at all times. An Instructor must be willing for a coach to “instruct” without resenting a “valence theft”.

3. Insist that coaches give the student auditors wins; have coaches push the student auditor to a better willingness and ability, and chop bank, not thetan.

4. Have coaches coach with precision, and have them tell the student auditor when he has done something well. Instruct them to tell the student auditor what he is doing right as well as what he is doing wrong.

5. See that the coaches coach with Purpose, Reality, Intention, and to Win.

6. Instruct coach to maintain his control when student auditor gets in “hot water”, adding more ARC to help him through it, while at the same time banging away at the same level. Make the coach who caused it retrieve any student who blows.

7. An Instructor’s sole purpose is not to make a student blow. The main goal of an Instructor is to make a better auditor. This then must apply to coaches.

8. Always answer your students’ questions as per the Instructor’s Code. An Instructor should not withhold communication from students when the student needs communication.

9. Run good 8-C on students with lots of ARC. Stress good 8-C more than ARC.

10. The most important thing an Instructor should do is to make a good auditor out of every student. This means making good coaches. This means wins. This means beingness.

As ye teach ‘em, so shall they audit.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH: md.rd Copyright © 19 57 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



Issue 54 [1957, ca. early September]


The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.



More Confronting


L. Ron Hubbard



That which a person can confront, he can handle.

The first step of handling anything is gaining an ability to face it.

It could be said that war continues as a threat to Man because Man cannot confront war. The idea of making war so terrible that no one will be able to fight it is the exact reverse of fact—if one wishes to end war. The invention of the longbow, gunpowder, heavy naval cannon, machine guns, liquid fire, and the hydrogen bomb add only more and more certainty that war will continue. As each new element which Man cannot confront is added to elements he has not been able to confront so far, Man engages himself upon a decreasing ability to handle war.

We are looking here at the basic anatomy of all problems. Problems start with an inability to confront anything. Whether we apply this to domestic quarrels or to insects, to garbage dumps or Picasso, one can always trace the beginning of any existing problem to an unwillingness to confront.

Let us take a domestic scene. The husband or the wife cannot confront the other, cannot confront second dynamic consequences, cannot confront the economic burdens, and so we have domestic strife. The less any of these actually are confronted the more problem they will become.

It is a truism that one never solves anything by running away from it. Of course, one might also say that one never solves cannonballs by baring his breast to them. But I assure you that if nobody cared whether cannonballs were fired or not, control of people by threat of cannonballs would cease.

Down on skid row where flotsam and jetsam exist to keep the police busy, we could not find one man whose basic difficulties, whose downfall could not be traced at once to an inability to confront. A criminal once came to me whose entire right side was paralyzed. Yet, this man made his living by walking up to people in alleys, striking them and robbing them. Why he struck people he could not connect with his paralyzed side and arm. From his infancy he had been educated not to confront men. The nearest he could come to confronting men was to strike them, and so his criminal career.

The more the horribleness of crime is deified by television and public press, the less the society will be able to handle crime. The more formidable is made the juvenile delinquent, the less the society will be able to handle the juvenile delinquent.

Copyright © 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

In education, the more esoteric and difficult a subject is made, the less the student will be able to handle the subject. When a subject is made too formidable by an instructor, the more the student retreats from it. There were, for instance, some early European mental studies which were so complicated and so incomprehensible and which were sown with such lack of understanding of Man that no student could possibly confront them. In Scientology when we have a student who has been educated basically in the idea that the mind is so formidable and so complicated that none could confront it, or perhaps so bestial and degraded that no one would want to, we have a student who cannot learn Scientology. He has confused Scientology with his earlier training, and his difficulty is that he cannot be made to confront the subject of the mind.

Man at large today is in this state with regard to the human spirit. For centuries Man was educated to believe in demons, ghouls, and things that went boomp in the night. There was an organization in southern Europe which capitalized upon this terror and made demons and devils so formidable that at length Man could not even face the fact that any of his fellows had souls. And thus we entered an entirely materialistic age. With the background teaching that no one can confront the “invisible,” vengeful religions sought to move forward into a foremost place of control. Naturally, it failed to achieve its goal and irreligion became the order of the day, thus opening the door for Communism and other idiocies. Although it might seem true that one cannot confront the invisible, who said that a spirit was always invisible? Rather let us say that it is impossible for Man or anything else to confront the nonexistent and thus when nonexistent gods are invented and are given more roles in the society, we discover Man becomes so degraded that he cannot even confront the spirit in his fellows, much less become moral.

Confronting as a subject in itself is intensely interesting. Indeed, there is some evidence that mental image pictures occur only when the individual is unable to confront the circumstances of the picture. When this compounds and Man is unable to confront anything anywhere, he might be considered to have pictures of everything everywhere. This is proven by a rather interesting test made in 1947 by myself when it was discovered that if an individual could be made to “run a lock” of something he had just seen, run another lock on something he had just heard, and run an additional lock on something he had just felt, he would at length be able to handle much more serious pictures in his mind. I discovered, although I did not entirely interpret it at the time, that an individual has no further pictures when he can confront all pictures; thus being able to confront everything he has done, he is no longer troubled with the things he has done. Supporting this, it will be discovered that individuals who progress in an ability to handle pictures eventually have no pictures at all. This we call a Clear.

A Clear in an absolute sense would be someone who could confront anything and everything in the past, present and future.

Unfortunately for the world of action, it will be discovered that one who can confront everything does not have to handle anything. In support of this is offered that Scientology process, Problems of Comparable Magnitude. In this particular process the individual being processed is asked to select a terminal with which he has had difficulty. In that the definition of a terminal is a “live mass” or something that is capable of causing, receiving or relaying communication, it will be seen that terminals are quite ordinarily people in the problem category of anyone’s bank. The person is then asked to invent a problem of comparable magnitude to that person. He is asked to do this many, many times. It will be found midway in the process that he is willing to do something now about the problems he is having with that person. But at the end of the process a new and strange thing is found to occur. The individual no longer feels that he must do something about the problem. Indeed, he can simply confront or regard or view the problem with complete equanimity. Now an almost mystic quality enters this when it is discovered that the problem in the physical universe about which

he has been worried often ceases to exist out there. In other words, the handling of a problem seems to be simply the increase of ability to confront the problem and when the problem can be totally confronted it no longer exists. This is strange and miraculous.

It is hard to believe that an individual who has a drunken husband could cure that individual of drink simply by processing out the problem of having a drunken husband, and yet this has occurred. I am not saying here that all the problems of the world could be vanquished simply by running Problems of Comparable Magnitude on a few people, but neither am I saying that all the problems of the world could not be handled by Problems of Comparable Magnitude on a few people, and indeed I am at this time undertaking an experiment in this direction on the subject of the atomic bomb. It is an oddity that the longer this experiment is continued, the less responsive these bombs are to test firing.

Perhaps it could be said, however, that if there existed one person in the entire universe who could confront all of the universe, the problems of the universe for all would deintensify enormously.

Man’s difficulties are a compound of his cowardices. To have difficulties in life, all it is necessary to do is to start running away from the business of livingness. After that, problems of unsolvable magnitude are assured. When individuals are restrained from confronting life they accrue a vast ability to have difficulties with it.

There are many other things about confronting which are intensely interesting but these we will take up in a later issue.

An earlier issue of Ability carried in it a full resume of Training 0, the name of which is Confronting. This drill, done for a great many hours, will be found intensely efficacious in the handling of life. A wife and a husband whose way has not been too smooth would find it extremely interesting in terms of resolution of domestic difficulties to co-audit with this training drill alone, each one running it upon the other for at least 25 hours. This would have to be done, of course, on a turnabout basis of not more than 2 hours on one and then a switch from “coach” to “auditor.”

To run Confronting in this fashion and with considerable gain, it would be necessary to have some understanding of what a “coach” is and, in one of these co-auditing teams, what an “auditor” is. A much fuller understanding of this will be contained in the Student Manual The team sits in straightbacked—preferably uncomfortably upright—chairs. The coach and auditor sit facing each other a short distance apart. It is the task of the coach to keep the auditor “on the ball.” The “auditor’s” feet must be flat on the floor, his hands must be in his lap. His head must be erect and he must not use any system or method but must simply confront. A twitching muscle, a jittering finger alike would be reproached by the coach. The coach has several terms he uses. The first of these is “Start,” at which moment the “session” begins. Every time the auditor falls from grace, does not hold his position, slumps, goes anaten (unconscious), twitches, starts his eyes wandering, or in any way demonstrates an incorrect position, the coach says “Flunk” and corrects the difficulty. He then says “Start” again and the session goes on. When the person in the role of “auditor” has been extremely successful over a period of time the coach can say “Win” and then again “Start.” When the coach wishes to make some comments or give some advice the coach says “That’s it,” straightens up this point and then again says “Start.”

In the coaching itself only these terms are employed: “Start,” “Flunk,” “Win,” “That’s it.” Anything else the coach does or says is disregarded by the “auditor” unless the coach has said “That’s it” and has then advised on a point and then has started again. The coach would be at liberty to do anything he wished, short of physical violence, to make the auditor nervous or upset him. The coach could say anything he wished between a “start” and another command as above, and the auditor would flunk if he paid any attention or did otherwise than simply confronted.

Ordinarily all the coach does is make sure that the auditor goes on confronting. However, it should be understood that the drill can be toughened up considerably. The coach can do anything to throw the auditor off the simple business of confronting. If the auditor so much as twitches a smile, looks embarrassed, clears his throat or in any other way falls off from plain and ordinary confronting, it is, of course, always a “flunk.”

It should be understood that drill sessions are not auditing sessions. In a drill session the entire session is in the hands of the coach, who is only in a vague way the “preclear” of the session. In an auditing session the entire session is in the hands of the auditor.

There is a basic rule here. Anything which the “auditor” or “student,” as he is called in the drills, is holding tense, is the thing with which he is confronting. If the “auditor’s” eyes begin to smart, he is confronting with them. If his stomach begins to protrude and becomes tense he is confronting with his stomach. If his shoulders or even the back of his head become tense, then he is confronting with the shoulders or the back of his head. A coach who becomes very expert in this can spot these things at once and would in this case give a “That’s it,” straighten the auditor out on it and would then start the session anew.

It is interesting that the drill does not consist of confronting with something. The drill consists only of confronting; therefore, confronting with is a “flunk.”

Various nervous traits can be traced at once to trying to confront with something which insists on running away. A nervous hand, for instance, would be a hand with which the individual is trying to confront something. The forward motion of the nervousness would be the effort to make it confront, the backward motion of it would be its refusal to confront. Of course, the basic error is confronting with the hand.

The world is never bright to those who cannot confront it. Everything is a dull gray to a defeated army. The whole trick of somebody telling you “It’s all bad over there,” is contained in the fact that he is trying to keep you from confronting something and thus make you retreat from life. Eyeglasses, nervous twitches, tensions, all of these things stem from an unwillingness to confront. When that willingness is repaired, these disabilities tend to disappear.

Of course, tumultuously married couples may encounter some knock-down and drag-out moments in doing this confronting drill. However, it should be kept in mind that it is the coach in these training drills who is bound by the Instructor’s Code and that the only harm that can result would come about if the “auditor” were permitted to “blow” (leave) the session without the coach, even with manhandling, getting the auditor back into the drill. It will be found that these “blows” occur most frequently when the person being coached, in other words the “auditor,” is being given too few wins and is being discouraged by the coach. Of course, things he does wrong should be flunked, but it will be found that the way is paved to success with wins; therefore, when he does it well for a period of time, the “auditor” should be told so. Go into this drill expecting explosions and upsets and simply refuse to give up if they occur and you will have it whipped in short order. Go into it expecting that all will be sweetness and light and everyone should be a little gentleman and a little lady and disaster will loom.

Neither I nor the management are responsible for cuts, contusions, violent words, or divorces resulting from attempts to run confrontingness drills by husbands and wives on each other.

May you never be the same.

L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 9 SEPTEMBER 1957



PROCESSES TO BE RUN ON HGC PRECLEARS FROM THIS DATE


The following processes are to be run on HGC preclears from this date until otherwise notified.

ON PRECLEARS WHO HAVE POINTS BELOW THE ZERO LINE OF APAs: Very brief rudiments. Then CCH 1, CCH 2, CCH 3 and CCH 4. These processes are not run on a basis where each is killed dead before the auditor goes on. Each is run to a flat spot and then bridged to the next. It would be amazing to run one of them more than a couple of hours except perhaps CCH 4 Book Mimicry, but even this is only run to a mediumly flat spot. As soon as the auditor has gone through these four processes once he goes over each one again, possibly using now CCH I (b), Don’t give me that hand, instead of Give me that hand. It will be noted that each one of these tends to unflatten the other three. Further a pc may get no response at all on CCH I until he has run CCH 3 and CCH 4. Hence to grind on one only is folly of the first order.

The object of these processes CCH 1-4 is to get the person under control, by which is meant the body. Only when that is done can an auditor hope to go on with success.

Once the person is under control it is quite easy to put attention under control. This is best done by TRAINING 10 Locational Processing. It is to be noted on a low scale case that TR 10 can be enforced. Thus the pc does not fly out of control.

ON PRECLEARS WHO HAVE MOST POINTS ABOVE THE ZERO LINE OF AN APA: Here again we have to hit the CCH steps but in this case we first handle rudiments with the following thoroughness:

1. We clear help. Can the auditor help the pc. Can the pc help the auditor. Do people ever help people. Etc. On a two way comm basis break this down until the pc comes through any compulsive help or wasting help.

2. We clear pt problem making sure again that the pc can invent a problem of some sort about something. We run pt problem on a terminal only, never on a condition. Further, we run this until the pc is willing to let the pt problem ride. We don’t want him to be “willing to do something about it”. But we NEVER let this process occupy 15% of an intensive. Why? Because havingness is the clue to problems and a person obsessively has problems when he doesn’t have havingness. If a problem takes too long to clear, the auditor blundered by running pt problem and should come off of it at the first logical spot and return to it AFTER he has later run havingness.

3. Goals are then cleared in full. It doesn’t matter if this takes the rest of the intensive. The questions are formally audited as follows: “Tell me something that you’re absolutely certain will be there in --—,” “Tell me something you would really like to have in -.” The times are one minute, five minutes, one hour, one day, three days, one week, one month, three months, six months, one year, two years, three years, ten years. These times are not absolute, but may be changed by the auditor. But they are close to pat as given. The auditor does not figure out for the preclear the dates on which these times will occur. The pc’s figuring out the date is part of the process.

From here the auditor selectively shoots up APA by running old-time Trio with all three parts. In this he knocks out “remain” and “dispense with” as well as “have”. He runs this Trio as follows. He runs many haves, then bridges to many remains, then bridges to many, many, many dispense withs. Then he bridges to haves, then runs many, many, many remains, and bridges to many dispense withs. Then he bridges to many, many, many haves, runs many remains (into which he bridges), and then bridges to many dispense withs. He can keep this up in this order. Each one of the legs of Trio tends to unflatten the other two legs. All three have to wind up flat. This is run

first inside and then, if being concentrated on, outside. Goals can be run again as above if desired for then will run differently.

If the auditor has any suspicion that he does not have the pc under control he runs the early CCH steps briefly and accomplishes it.

If the foregoing basic things are done, then many other things can be done. An analysis of a profile will tell us a few things about a preclear and while we do not yet have every point on an APA taped, we do have several.

Foremost is the point “nervous-depressed”. When this is low, the pc doesn’t have any reality on anything. No stable datum. The first stable datum the pc gets may well be achieved by the oldy ARC STRAIGHTWIRE gone through just a few times. That’s cracked plenty of people’s cases. The early CCH steps are all aimed squarely at that point. “Look at me who am l?” also hammers at that point. When I see a before and after with no change on nervous-depressed when it was low (always about -90) I think, “The pc never found the auditor”. Actually it’s lack on any stable datum of any kind. The auditor may be found only after the pc has gotten hold of some very minor stable datum, “Something that’s really real in the room.” “Recall a moment that is really real to you.”

The second point we have even better established through test is the CRITICAL. When this is low, the pc is on obsessive change and will LET NOTHING REMAIN. Getting him to let just one thing remain (and to be still) can shift this critical. Letting things remain is the key to a low critical.

IQ is another big win for us now since we know what IQ is all about. IQ is the ABILITY TO WlTHHOLD OR GIVE OUT A DATUM ON A SELF DETERMINED BASIS. Incidentally we also shoot valences with WITHHOLD. It is run the same way whether shooting valences or raising IQ. One finds the weak valence from which the pc could withhold nothing and finally gets the pc to be able to withhold things from that valence.

EXTERIORIZATION is accomplished by “Recall a moment of loss”. When a pc gets this flat he can then be run on old S-C-S routine (not Stop-C-S) and he will exteriorize easily.

Psychosomatic difficulties have been vanished rather easily on withhold. “Look around here and find something from which you could withhold that------” skin-rash, leg, whatever.

EYESIGHT can be shifted by CONTROL TRIO with emphasis on Disappear.

THE FAILED CASE is a case in which thought can always be overpowered by Mest. The pc’s ability to make his thinkingness prevail against Mest has failed too often and cannot change. Only Mest changes, therefore. This is usually the below zero on the APA pc. Making him think things and do things doesn’t much change him because he is too weak in thinking to prevail against Mest. “Look at it and tell me something about it you could handle” or “Think a thought that would be all right for you to think”, and other approaches, done by a clever auditor, can crack this sort of thing up on an even gone case. This is a point which occasionally needs attention, particularly when we have a pc who is not changing on APA or IQ. If an intensive didn’t change him, he can’t think against anything. The oldest workable remedy known is “Spot something around here that isn’t thinking”.

After being trained in the TRs it is necessary to run a student on the remain button of Control Trio or Trio and upon withhold processes to up his test.

I have turned out this bulletin rapidly for use in the HGC and on students in training. This bulletin will only be modified when necessity becomes apparent. Nothing in this bulletin will overcome sloppy, yakkeyety, wiggly or can’t-confront auditing.

I trust you will get good results with the above.

Best,

Ron

P.A.B. No. 120
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

15 September 1957

CONTROL TRIO


Now thinkingness in general should not be suspected of being under anybody’s control, much less the auditor’s, but it is probably more under the auditor’s control than it is under the preclear’s control. When I say to you “Do you think that thinkingness is under control?” you should be aware of the fact that it is less under the preclear’s control at any time than under the auditor’s control. That’s one the boys don’t get always. They think, “Well, can I get the preclear’s thinkingness under control?” Well, you can do it better than the preclear, but that is horribly bad, and when you get this clear you will see that you have to get the body under control and get attention under control before you aim at thinkingness.

Therefore, a condition to running Trio is this: Is the person of the preclear under control, is the attention of the preclear under control—those are two conditions necessary to run Trio. Now to assume the power of choice is also under the preclear’s control—much less thinkingness—is, of course, pretty grim. It moves Trio outrageously high. So you could say, then, that there are two versions of Trio, and I have been fishing around for one of them; I’ve been doing some work on this for the last several weeks and I finally got this thing taped—I do mean taped.

All right. Trio would just be Trio just the way it is. But there is an undercut in Trio; Trio could be a directive process, and it would be prefaced by “Get the idea of having that clock,” “Get the idea of having that picture” (indicating picture on wall), “Get the idea of having that sofa,” “Get the idea of having that chair,” “Get the idea of having that table”—do you see this? Now that is highly directive, isn’t it? Now that would keep thinkingness under control in the kind of a case who was having a rough time with it.

All right. Now let’s take the second version. “Get the idea that it would be all right for that clock to remain as it is.” “Get the idea that it would be all right for that wall to remain as it is.” Got that? Just an indicating process.

All right. Now here comes the clincher! Instead of dispense with, or not-know, we run into actually a brand-new process. Its rationale is much higher; it’s “Get the idea of making that clock disappear.” “Get the idea of making that chair disappear.” “Get the idea of making that ceiling disappear,” etc. Small objects are much easier for the preclear to make disappear than large ones, but you haven’t told him to make it disappear, have you? You have told him to get the idea of making it disappear. They usually interpret you literally and try like mad to make it disappear, and it usually does for a short time.

Now this process is restimulative, too. Anyway, we’ve got a point, and that is simply this: that this as a process all by itself is probably one of the killer processes of

Copyright © 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

all time. I have solved this enigma: Why doesn’t a preclear exteriorize easily and stay exteriorized? And we ask this question and we ask this accompanying question: Why does a preclear get sick when you ask him to conceive a static? Now obviously we’d have to get somebody to conceive a static before he could himself stay comfortably outside. What keeps a preclear from conceiving a static? It’s because he associates a static with loss, and he says, “All right, if there is nothing there I’ve lost it.” Don’t you see? “I’ve lost something if there’s nothing there, therefore I’d better not conceive a static.” Conceiving a static is therefore painful. Well, the truth of the matter is, whenever he lost anything, something disappeared. All right.

The funny part of it is that he never noticed that he didn’t lose totally every time. He still had other objects. He lost his tie-pin—well, heavens, he’s still got his tie. He’s still got the floor, the room, this universe, space, but he never realizes this in these instances, and so that’s why we’ve been running this process here on “Recall a moment of loss,” just to see if we couldn’t accustom someone to conceiving a static very directly on loss, and whether or not the individual would exteriorize just as such, on the process.

Now that was a test that was made. The test process, “Recall a moment of loss,” sandwiched in with Havingness, then, has been run with the expected result that we would get this fellow concentrated on exteriorization and a little more able to conceive an exteriorization, certainly. Now final figures from this are probably not available from testing yet; they aren’t, but regardless of that, here is the rationale. An individual cannot conceive a static if he associates a static with loss, if loss is painful. So we have to cure him of the painfulness of loss, consideration of, before we can exteriorize him easily.

Now how do we do this? We have to go back to automaticity. The universe has been taking things away from him. It has become an automaticity and we find that the universe has an automaticity known as time, and time itself is a consecutive series of losses. All right. So we have to cure this fellow of losses before we can get him to appreciate time, otherwise he’s so afraid of losing it that he parks himself on the track, and this is “stuck on the track” phenomena. All right. The process which is aimed at this, the experimental process “Recall a moment of loss,” sandwiched in with Havingness (Trio now handles it on this—”Control Trio” it had better be called, and its third command is “Get the idea of making that (object) disappear”)—well, this gets him to take over the automaticity of all the losses which he has experienced unwillingly, you see that. It’s the universe that’s been taking the things away, and an individual, then, just by spotting objects and getting the idea that they are going to disappear or are disappearing, of course then does take over this automaticity of losses, and he becomes accustomed to it after a while and he should come out of the woods on it.

Now all of these invisible masses that preclears have around them are actually simply symptoms of mass - loss, mass- loss. Now when an individual has no visio, has never seen anything, couldn’t see anything, the only thing he’s looking at is a stuck loss. Got the idea? He’s looking at the nothingness of something that was there. All right, you take over that automaticity with this third command on Control Trio. Therefore, you have a highly directional, a highly workable set of processes, and each part of that Trio would be run relatively flat and go on to the next part, and I would say you’d probably run it something on the order of, oh, certainly not a hundred commands each—you’d try to stay in that order of magnitude, and you could just run it round and round. It’s “get the idea of.”

Well, what would be necessary before you got to that process? It would be necessary to get an individual’s body under control, which takes the early steps of CCH. And then put his attention under control; a great many processes can do this. Chief amongst them has always been locational processing, and if you were to just run

the ordinary locational processes, you would eventually get his attention under control.

The auditor taking control of somebody’s attention actually puts the preclear into more control of attention than the preclear ordinarily is, which is one of the freak things. People look at this and they say, “Well, we must be running the fellow out the bottom,” and we wouldn’t be running the fellow out the bottom.

Well, we leave Trio in its time-honored style and so on just as it has always been, but we do have this low-cut Trio and it’s rather a killer. You take somebody with glasses, his eyesight will do more tricks in less time on this third process of Control Trio. Things will go black—well, why do things go black? Well, blackness makes things disappear, doesn’t it, and you take over the automaticity of using blackness to make things disappear. Night grabs, the way of the universe, once in every 24 hours on earth here. This is the one we’ve been looking for to turn on visio.

Now if you wanted to turn on sonic with this you’d have to go down to a noisy part of town and just run Trio on sound, but you wouldn’t dare do this—run Control Trio on sound—you would not dare do this, of course, if the preclear did not already have Trio on objects flat. Obviously, visio would turn on before sonic.

There are many things that you could do with this. People who have anaesthetized areas in their body—like they have no chest, no sensation in their chest, etc.—do weird things with this process, this Control Trio. Got it? I wanted to tell you particularly about this particular process because it is a specific, and it will be found to be very useful to you. We had to find out if one version of this would run without killing a preclear, and that’s “Recall a moment of loss.” Actually, “Recall a moment of loss” should act as a havingness process, because it as-ises all of the loss points on the track, and it should be a havingness process all by itself, but we didn’t want to be so bold as to run it with no Havingness.

(Until I find out differently, this Control Trio and “Recall a moment of loss” are making a bid for our chief exteriorization processes.)

L. RON HUBBARD



HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO TRAINING BULLETIN OF 24 SEPTEMBER 1957

CURRICULUM OF CCH

TO BE DONE WELL

CCH 0
CCH 1
CCH 2
CCH 3
CCH 4

A Subjective process (think)
An Objective process (spot or find)
A Straight Wire process


LRH:md.nm L. RON HUBBARD

P.A.B. No. 121
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 October 1957

RUDIMENTS AND GOALS


All you need to clear up if somebody is having too much trouble trying to locate or isolate a problem is to clear up the semantics of a problem—what does he mean by a problem? I got this rich one off a preclear one day doing this quite fascinating thing. What was a problem, I finally asked, and he told me a problem was something that could never be solved.

Whenever you run “withhold” on a valence you finish up with “can’t have” on the valence and that flattens it off better.

You will find it is quite often more advantageous to run Locational Processing than it is to run Problems of Comparable Magnitude. A Problem of Comparable Magnitude is all right, but it’s a thinkingness process, and on a case that is having an awful lot of trouble, it gives them hell to run Locational Processing, but nevertheless it does run out the present time problem, which is most fascinating.

Any one of the Rudiments are excellent processes—any one of them. Two-way communication is something that has never been stressed much on this side of the water—it has been taught very thoroughly on the other side. I took up a lot of the 4th London A.C.C. on the subject of two-way comm, how you handle two-way comm. You have to keep the reality of it very high and you have to be willing to interrupt obsessive outflows of the preclear, etc., and obsessive silences. Two-way comm is a very interesting way of going about things, and it isn’t just talking. It is establishing a high level of reality. It consists of the auditor feeding experimental data to the preclear, in order to have the preclear look it over and decide about it one way or the other. In two-way comm, you don’t let a preclear as-is everything he knows, thinks or wants to do.

All right. Now we look over this and we discover that the Rudiments consist, in part, of a present time problem. Now we already know that a present time problem can be run in this wise—Locational. It can also be run as a Problem of Comparable Magnitude. So we have a lot of processes connected with a present time problem.

Now let’s take another one of the Rudiments. Clearing the Auditor. Actually, the crudest way known of clearing the auditor is “Who do I remind you of?” “Tell me something you don’t like about me”—these are real crude ways of clearing the auditor. The best way of clearing the auditor we know of is in Training 13, which is “Could I help you—how?” “Could you help me—how?” “Could I help anybody else—how?” “Could you help anybody else—how?” “Do other people ever help other people?” “Do women ever help women?” “Do men ever help men?” “Do men ever help women?” “Do women ever help men?” And you just beat it to pieces on a big long bracket. Now


Copyright © 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

this goes so far that it becomes a fantastic process in itself. You take father and mother valences—they are usually quite hot. You can run this on Help. This is usually quite necessary on a case that’s going to hang up, because the only reason the case is sitting there is to waste help. And you can run a case on any process, no matter how excellent, on a basis of wasting help until the case simply can’t find enough ways to waste it and he goes down tone scale. You have to understand the case is trying to waste help. It isn’t Find the Auditor in the Rudiments today, it is Clear the Auditor. The only point on which he’s cleared is Help—”Can I help you?” “Can you help me?”

All right. Now let’s take another facet of this. Goals. Actually, Handbook for Preclears has been helping us out just to the degree that it does do a little clarification on goals and gets the guy stirred up. The real reason the Handbook for Preclears is used at the HGC is quite an interesting one. It’s simply to stir the case up so it’ll run out.

All right, this guy’s sitting there in a sleep and he’s just gonna run Locational, you know, and he’s in a disoriented state anyhow: He isn’t here and he isn’t home and he isn’t anywhere—well, let’s get him worried, let’s get him chewed up a little bit, let’s get him restimulated somewhat, let’s get him interested in this. All right, these problems, then, do tend to swim to the top; you run some relatively non-directional process, and does it bite on? Now if you’re going to run non-directional processes—that is to say, “Give me that hand” and so on—you’re going to have to have something to run them against, and something like the Handbook for Preclears gives you something. The guy thinks while he’s going over this sort of thing, he thinks “Oh my, blah blah, the trouble with me is I have nothing to do and I don’t want to do anything and I never will have anything to do.”

But I got to thinking about goals from the usual standpoint of their high generality with most people—”I wonder if there is anybody around who could articulate with great conciseness what he would like to do”—and I found on all sides that a failure to articulate was the main difficulty. The person had a feeling he wanted to do something and this would be wonderful, and it was all in a sensory capacity. Now if he could be made to articulate this, why, we would really have something. And I experimented on ;t a little bit and we see that today in the Handbook for Preclears.

Now if you can get him to articulate in a session anything about the future, you have won on the subject of goals. But it must be in the alignment of this person’s frame of reference—it must be aligned with his life, not aligned with something we think he ought to live. So let’s take a look at clearance of goals. Goals would not be likely to run on a high generality. In other words they are specific, personal and intimate. It’s “What do you think?” “What do you want?” “What is aligned with your life?”—and we can’t beat around the bush with this one if we’re going to get any place with it.

All right, let’s take Goals as a process. You could run goals for 25 hours with the greatest of ease, and we just had a report of a terrific win here on a preclear who was run on Locational for 25 hours, so it looks like the Rudiments could be the session. So if somebody says, “Well, now, I ran the Rudiments and then we got into some processing”-fascinating, you see. Rudiments are dignified today with CCH 0 as an appellation. All right.

We discover this preclear in this terrible condition of not wanting any auditing, not going any place, all of his goals being somebody else’s goals. Two things we can do at once are Clear the Auditor and then run Goals. Now how would you really run Goals with two-way comm? Goals could be run with two-way comm in this way: You ask the preclear what he is absolutely sure would happen in the next two minutes-in the next day—three days from now—one week from now—one month from now-and one year from now. And we want something he’d be absolutely sure would happen.

Now we’re running right there the reverse process of atomic bombs, which say “no future”—”no future”—”no future.” Well, basically, what’s wrong with anybody— why does he jam on the track? It’s because of “no future.” He has been denied to a point where his loss is so great that he dare not own.

I knew a person at one time, a case that was, by the way, a psychology major— one of the roughest cases I have ever run into. The case put on the total appearance of being sane—it was a dramatized sanity, and yet the case would make odd remarks like “I really think people are crazy.” “Well, why do you think people are crazy?” I would say. “Well, because people say they can tell right from wrong, and you know there’s no difference.” Fascinating! The case would make odd remarks like this from time to time. One day the case made a remark on goals, like this: “Well, it’s really best to tell people that things can’t happen to them, because otherwise they might hope that they could, and then they’d be disappointed.” Now you disentangle that. This was all taught to this person, by the way, at the University of California at Berkeley. The person was also taught that the best way to preserve anybody’s status quo, etc., was to drug them and so on, I mean it was a gentle course. All right. This person was stark, staring mad and had no future of any kind, no slightest future, brought out by this. Five hours on just this one type of question, “Is there anything going to happen in the remainder of this afternoon?” “Will anything happen the rest of today?” “Is there anything going to occur any place in the world the rest of today?” And the confident answer, with great certainty, was “No.” “No.” Five hours. And finally we broke through it—”Well, you will probably sit there for the rest of the day wrangling with me and screaming at me the way you have been doing”—and it busted and I finally got the person to admit that there was some slight possibility that there would be a room here for the rest of the day. And it busted this case. It read from total no-future up. Well, this case was an isolated case, as we’ve occasionally had now and then, and this was an inspirational sort of process that cracked through.

Well now, we see this process of Goals on the basis of futures, and a person without futures cannot have a fancy future called a goal, and all a goal is is a fancy future determined by the person. And if he has no future at all determined by anybody, then he isn’t going to go anywhere from that point, and any goal he has is totally unreal.

So the best way I know of to clear up a goal is as follows: Two-way comm “Is there anything that’s going to happen in the next couple of minutes?” We finally get this totally thrashed out till he’s got some great big certainty that there will be something a couple of minutes from now. And then we move it up a day, and then we move it up a week—three days—and move it up a week; and move it up a month; and move it up a year. And we get certainties at each one of these stages and levels, regardless of on what. Now the person knows that that is going to occur. He knows there is going to be a future there.

Now let’s have him put something in this future that he now has had created. He’s created a future, he’s got certainty on it, it’s up there. All right. Now let’s put some desire in the future and we get a goal. “Now what would you like to have happen in the next couple of minutes?” or “What would you like to do in the next couple of minutes?”—”What would you like to do tomorrow?”—”What would you like to do in three days?”—”What would you like to do in a week?”—”What would you like to do in a month?”—”What would you like to do in a year?” And we will get these weird things which have no desire in them; they are all get-rid-ofs, and if you really plowed such a person down on it he would get down to the bottom of the ladder, which is “Knock this body off right now.” And when he says “I would like to get rid of my fear of darkness, I would like to get over feeling bad every time my mother screams at me”—well now, these aren’t desires. These are runaways, these are flinches—these are “let’s not confront it,” “let’s get out of the universe,” “let’s scram.” And the final

result is the basic postulate “If I could just get rid of this body right this instant I would be all right.”

All right. So that thing doesn’t even vaguely get flat unless there is a real goal like “I’d like to have a stick of candy”—now that’s a goal, see, that’s a goal. “Tomorrow, I’d like to walk down the street and find a couple of bags of gold lying on the corner.” You see, it has to have desire in it. “Next week, why I’d like to go camping. I’d just love to go camping.” Then they’ll always modify these things in some way or other, “because of course I can’t because I have to work and I don’t have any money and” yak, yak, yak-you got the idea? They’ll modify these goals. As long as they’re modifying them they don’t have a goal, because they’re making a postulate and the MEST universe is kicking the postulate in on them.

So how do you solve this? If it’s this arduous how do you solve it? Well, run “Build a future—” two minutes (these times are only approximate), tomorrow, three days, a week, a month, a year just build the fact that there will be something there, that time is going to advance in those areas. Then we build a desire into it: “Well, what would you like to have happen?”—”What would you like to do in two minutes?”, a day, three days, a week, a month, a year? All right. Well, he didn’t give you anything he really wanted to have happen; he said, “I’d like to—if I were brave enough I’d tell you I’d like to get rid of you and me and everything, but I’m not brave enough so all I will say is I would like to get rid of the darkness, that would be fine.”

All right. Two-way comm consists in the main of keeping a preclear talking, busting through their silences, knocking them into line and manhandling them with pomp. You keep ‘em talking; and therefore it is a skill—a very high skill. But after you’ve built a future you build into it something they would like to have happen in that future. All right.

So here is a modus operandi now that makes this a process: Build a future on that span, then build something they’d like to have happen in that future. Now build a new future, go all over the same first process again on prediction, next couple of minutes, what he’s sure is going to happen, what he could be certain about. “What could you be certain about a year from now?” All right, we’ve built a future—then you’ll find out that’s a little stronger, and then we build something in that future that he’d like to have happen. And then we build a new future-same first process again—and then the second process of adding the desire to it, and we finally will come out into the clear.

Now there is a way to run Goals for twenty-five hours—slug, slug, slug. Now you can run Help for twenty-five hours, too, on just who helps who, when, where. “Has there ever been anybody in the whole universe who ever helped anybody in the whole universe?” is the most general form of question. But here we have these Rudiments, then, moved out into processes, and it’s possible to just handle intensives with Rudiments.

Now we find somebody wasting help—well, he’s hard to put into session. And if you are going to help him anyway, it isn’t goals that’s in trouble, it’s help, and if you try to help him too much and he’s wasting help, he will eventually waste help by blowing. So it’s help that has to be cleared if goals won’t. Got this? All right!


L. RON HUBBARD



Issue 56 [1957, ca. early October]


The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.

_____________________________________________________________________

The Eighteenth A.C.C.


L. Ron Hubbard



Now that the 18th ACC has roared into history, there are a lot of auditors around whose auditing skill is very wonderful.

But more important to us all there are some Scientologists around whose ability to run groups is in the stars.

The 18th ACC people, over half a hundred of them, received gold seals on their certificates. That means they can validate other certificates and it means they can grant a new Hubbard Apprentice Scientologist certificate.

We are looking to the 18th ACC graduates to complete the validation program and to get going groups and more groups.

These 1 8th people are wonderful people. They did well. I saw it and I have said it. They’re fine people.

Let us face the reality of this thing. The world confronts several crises. Man’s inhumanity to Man is gaining monuments daily. The time to bring a chaos under control is before it is well begun. We’re slightly late as it is. Brutally, there is no other organization on Earth that can slow these down. Factually there is no other know-how on Earth that can plumb the problems of Man. So if we don’t want all of us to be sitting amongst the charred embers, we had better get busy.

This is no alarmist statement you know. We are the people who can confront it. Past civilizations have vanished, you see. The Chaldean, Babylonian, Egyptian, Chinese, Hind, Greek, Roman, European—they did vanish. Those little beaten down peasants you see in France were once the proud Romans. Those small brown men who sell their sisters on the streets of Cairo were once the mighty Egyptians. And it was when those societies looked richest that they had already started down. Like this one.

They all failed because they had no know-how about Man. They all dived under from ignorance. Wisdom, real wisdom, could have salvaged any one of them. Wisdom can salvage this one. Wisdom held by the many, not one wise man.

Scientology can smooth the way. It can make intelligent leaders, workable policies. But Scientology hasn’t a chance unless we get groups going. You and these people can do this.

Copyright © 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

If you want men to be slaves, do nothing. Just sit.

If you want this civilization to become charred embers, do nothing. Just sit.

An empty belly and a dead family aren’t funny. Why wait until they’re a fact to do something.

You say, well what can I do. I’m just a little fellow. I’m just one of billions. That’s a lie. You have to hand the most powerful weapon yet forged on Earth: Scientology. You can talk. You can organize. The unions broke the back of savage management. All men in one union against ignorance can break the back of savage “fate.”

Listen: At the HGC we can selectively increase profiles or IQ. So can other auditors. We are making tomorrow’s leaders. Right now I am working with government contacts to do this.

You can back that up. Get processed. Get trained. Get groups going. It doesn’t matter how expert you are.

We’ve just trained people whose advice you can ask. They’re now all over the country. That’s what we did in the 1 8th ACC.

I’m going to need 5,000 auditors for the Army alone. The 18th ACC was just a springboard to that.

Groups, groups, groups. We can run them now—solvently.

We can make the grade. We can win. How. You don’t have to do the whole job. One man at a time is as fast as anything can be made to travel. Get one man, one woman in. Handle one. Then you’ll get the others—one by one.

I trained the 1 8th ACC to Validate your certificate, or to give you know-how. To show you how to do it. To help you with your Scientology plans. All right, that’s riches. We did a good job on these people. We hope from them will spring a great number of fine, enthusiastic, working groups.

So here’s the 1 8th ACC.

On one side we’ve only a world, a universe to win. On the other we’ve only tomorrow’s wreckage.

Let’s go!

L. RON HUBBARD

P.A.B. No. 122
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

15 October 1957

THE FIVE LEVELS OF INDOCTRINATION AND
PROCEDURE CCH


The first thing that we should take up is the state of Scientology at this time, and to tell you that we are on a plateau. We are certainly on a plateau, and it is a plateau so very much higher than man has ever walked before that it is well worth saying it is a level that can be maintained. If people want more results than we can get today from CCH properly used, there will have to be a better auditor than we can make today.

The idea that “This is it” periodically has occurred in Scientology. Right now we are justified in saying that we are on a plateau which does not have to change.

When you can process a catatonic schiz, a five-day-old baby, you’ve got it made in the world of homo sapiens. The only further adventure we might adventure upon would be the processing of the thetan not connected with the body, and that would be an entire field about which we know practically nothing. But anybody who is having anything to do with bodies is well within the reach of Procedure CCH, providing it is used by an auditor who has been validated through the five levels of indoctrination. CCH used by an auditor who has not been validated would be the least guaranteed thing I can think of at the moment. I have already thrown up my hands in a few expressive horrors when I have seen auditors who have not been through the five levels fumble around with any Tone 40 process, and it is so grim that even now, to you, watching it, untrained, trying to do one of these things, it would not look like auditing.

Back in old Book One days, a fellow could sit down beside someone on a couch and say “Go back to that engram,” and it looked like auditing. It doesn’t look like auditing today. It is the difference of indoctrination which makes the difference. The person who applies it has been successfully checked through the five levels of Indoc. It is now the auditor plus the process. That is one of the reasons why we knew we were on a plateau. There wasn’t something you could tell out of CCH easily to your Aunt Mame’s little girl, to fix up her fear of cats. It is interesting that such employment does not reach any level that you yourself can consider a good result. Somebody untrained does not achieve any great result with it, and is liable to leave his preclear in a badly restimulated condition. We are dealing with a package of dynamite with Procedure CCH. We have to take into account the five levels of indoctrination successfully passed, which is necessary to apply CCH to a preclear.

CCH is a very sloppy title, for Procedure CCH is really C for Control, D for Duplication, C for Communication, Ct for Control of Thought = Havingness; and that is the real name of it.

First, we get the person under control, get him into the capability of duplicating, and then we move him up into communication more or less on a person level. Now we

Copyright © 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

take the mind. The mind consists of mental image pictures, and if duplication is addressed to the mind we get communication. The third zone is the control of the Thetan, which brings us to Control of Thinkingness, Ct. I will show you more graphically what these three things are:
1. Notice that you are sitting in the chair. Notice that you have a body sitting in a chair.
2. Get a picture of a cat. Can you? Note that it is a picture. That is the mind. It’s pictures and the apparatus which handles pictures.
3. Get a picture of a cat again. Answer this question: “What is looking at the cat?” That is all you ever need to know about a thetan with CCH.

As we extend out from the thetan we get the physical universe, so actually there is a fourth thing there which undercuts the body, and that would be the physical universe. In other words, you are in immediate and direct contact with everything that you will be expected to study or ever process in Scientology. Every one of these things that I have mentioned, the physical universe, body, mind, thetan, may have a clearer appearance to you, or some other condition connected with it, but there isn’t anything outside of this. We omit the physical universe, because it is pretty hard to look totally at the physical universe right at this moment. But for sure you are looking at all the body you have got. As far as this picture is concerned, it may flop over and have many cross associations, and you could trace this endlessly as I have. As far as thetans are concerned, the most you will ever learn about one is your own beingness, or the observation that something is being moved, made alive, and motivated.

This is the entire target of CCH. There isn’t anything else to shoot at. All of these things intimately, then, relate to the thetan, and we have Control, Duplication, Communication, Control of Thinkingness, and Havingness, that relate to a thetan. We could process in any one of these zones. When you process any part of these four things, you really cater to some slight degree to the other three, but you can concentrate upon any one of these things.

CCH has in its concentration levels first the body, then the mind, and the thetan just happens—nowhere in CCH do we intimately address a thetan. But we can come close to addressing a thetan by addressing thinkingness.

Here is what CCH does. It makes the person more aware of a body, and he eventually recognizes to some degree that he can control the body. Next, it addresses the physical universe, in the locational processes of the next facet. Actually, it addresses intimately the thetan plus the physical universe.

How can you as an auditor overcome the obsessive mental changes which occur? You cannot see what he is thinking. You put his body under control, then you get him into communication, and then you can also clarify and control to some degree his thinkingness. At thinkingness we are standing at a borderline between the mind and the thetan.

By control and duplication we get communication. When we have communication we can straighten up the fellow’s time track and his habitat in the final process, Then and Now Solids.

Let me be much more positive about this. The make-or-break point of any case is this: Can he make things more solid or can’t he? A person who can make things a little more solid can also be processed on almost anything and get along fairly well. I knew there was one point above which cases process easily with almost any technique you use, and there was a point below which no process seemed to have anything to do with a person. As soon as this was isolated we had things made, for we could graduate somebody up to a toleration of solids.

We can cross this borderline in all cases today.

But how about the fellow that we cannot communicate with at all? He has another bug that we have to overcome, and that is the bug of obsessive change. When you tell him to think of a cat, he has to be able to think of a cat. When cases failed in the past, it was that the preclear never thought what we had told him to think. He said so, but didn’t do it. Here we have this thing. If we can get him to think the thought “keep it from going away” we can graduate him up to solids.

There are two things that you do with a person. You control his person and you make him duplicate and communicate; you control his thinkingness. So you use the early steps of control of a person, which are “Give me your hand,” Tone 40 8-C, Hand-Space Mimicry and Book Mimicry, over and over, until you are absolutely sure that the fellow can think when you tell him to. Then you go into the next stage, which is Tone 40 “Keep it from going away,” Tone 40 “Hold it still,” and Tone 40 “Make it a little more solid.”

What is the bank doing? He has some attention units which get stuck on the track that are only being fixed by the bank sticking him, so we do all these things on the body and then we do practically the same things on the attention. After that, we have got it made, because we can graduate him to making something a little more solid. Let’s take him aside and let him get the inside confidential story of the whole thing. Have him take a look at his mind, and there comes the trickiest step of CCH. It only condenses almost the entirety of what an auditor had to know that was developed in three years.

This is the rough process and I don’t make any bones about it. You can either subjectively remedy havingness or you can’t. So the way we run CCH is to graduate a person up to making things objectively (the outside world) or subjectively (mind) solid, and then have him straighten out the whole track. All sorts of odd and interesting thoughts occur when we use this thing Then and Now Solids. Above this we do have a couple more things. They are super-developed gee-whiz processes, completely unusable on homo sapiens. However, you start winding up, why, you go over into these processes. I’ll give you some idea of where this goes. You could turn on a person’s mental image pictures the size of that wall in three dimensions, with total perception, in half an hour’s processing. Abilities are not perishable. The only thing which is perishable is willingness. Processing is still a matter of choice. A person would never refuse processing or help if he knew what it was. That which refuses processing is not the person. After a while, it isn’t that he pulls up on you and surrenders. He finally takes an apathetic look and says, “What you are doing is not bad. I wouldn’t mind being a lot better. “

You give him a surfeit of control, until he finds out it doesn’t kill him. Maybe he can control something now. Now that is the background theory of CCH. What I want to punch up is that if you wish to handle body illnesses, they come under the heading of person. If you want to handle mental actions you would do it with control of attention, and if you wish to handle a thetan it would be through control of thinkingness.

L. RON HUBBARD

A BASIC CHART OF PROCESS TYPES

October 29, 1957


Prerequisite understanding to this chart: Definitions of body, bank and mind. Communication—Upper Indoc course. Text: Scientology: Fundamentals of Thought.

_____________________________________________________________________

Type No. 1 2 3
____________________________________________________________________

a) Name Starting— Control Duplication
Ending session Processes
_____________________________________________________________________

b) Characteristic 2-way Comm Control by Mimicry by
Action Action
_____________________________________________________________________

c) Purpose To compose pc To place pc’s To establish
into and release body and actions communication
him from the under auditor’s
auditing session control to invite
control of them
by pc
_____________________________________________________________________

d) Action on Bank To double To better control To go into comm
control of it of it with it on pc
Auditor + determinism not
Preclear bank
determinism
_____________________________________________________________________

e) A Basic Example Is it all right with Sit in that chair Pc makes motion;
you to start an Thank you Auditor makes
auditing session? same motion.
Auditor makes
motion; pc makes
same motion.
_____________________________________________________________________

f) Stable Datum Agreement Never let the Each command in
pc get out of its own unit of
doing what he time separate
is told from every other
command
_____________________________________________________________________

g) Phenomena Auditing is a Pc is controlled Mis-duplication
knowing and by unknown (only once)
known activity source, which shows up and
must be turned runs out before
into known insistent
sources duplication
_____________________________________________________________________


_____________________________________________________________________

Type No. 4 5 6
_____________________________________________________________________

a) Name Straight-wire Objective Subjective
Processes Processes Processes
(think)
_____________________________________________________________________

b) Characteristic Remembering Spotting Thinkingness
& Forgetting & Finding
_____________________________________________________________________

c) Purpose To recontrol To orient pc in To recover auto forgetting and present time, maticities of
remembering drop out past and thought and as-is
and relate past improve having- unwanted
to present ness thinkingness
_____________________________________________________________________

d) Action on Bank To as-is locks and To drop out past To mass as-is
engrams and havingness by significance
bring them into substituting
knowingness level present
havingness and to
reorient
_____________________________________________________________________

e) A Basic Example Recall a moment Notice that wall Think a thought
_____________________________________________________________________

f) Stable Datum Specific things, Attention of pc Body control
not generalities must be under comes before
auditor’s control control of
thinking
_____________________________________________________________________

g) Phenomena Occlusions turn Old locations Thought has
from generalities (change of space) become
to specifics. Cycle drop out substitute for
aspect of recall in masses. Classes of
time (earlier, late, thought group
etc.) and source
appears
_____________________________________________________________________



L. RON HUBBARD










LRH:rd Copyright © 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



Issue 57 [1957, ca. late October]


The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.


Escape


L. Ron Hubbard



Well, I’ve been working now for a lot of years to bring Dianetics and Scientology up to a point of supermagic.

It was easy to get them up to magic. In a world where no results, aside from accidentals, had been the order of things, it was simple to create magic. A cloying illness resolved, a fast heal of a broken limb, a recovery from fixations and obsessions, it was easy to repair these. That was simple magic.

And time and again I’ve told you “this is better” and it’s been true and auditing worked better.

But what were we really looking for?

We knew all of us that we were in a sort of trap called physical universe. And although it was all right to say we’d gotten in ourselves and that it was each man’s fault, it is nevertheless true that it was a trap complicated by innumerable traps.

It was all right to say that it was “natural” for man to kill deer. But that wasn’t making it any easier on the deer.

It was all right to recover enough data to know that dying wasn’t fatal but still men died and dying often hurts.

By no actual consent of our own we are torn from our friends and possessions and crushed into new lives. But just because we understood it made it no less arbitrary, no less painful. Just because we could better understand the trap made it no less a trap.

I’ve heard people say, “I don’t know what I ever would have done if you hadn’t come along, Ron.” A11 right, why should somebody like me have to come along if all the world is right and the universe an expression of deep love.

We curse at man-made hells. We spot cause in villainies uncountable. Yet, think now, what are we doing in a universe in which hells are possible.

Sure, maybe you even asked to come here. But deep in pain and shock, shadowed by your own forgetting, why puzzle now if this Universe is a good place.


Copyright © 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

You wouldn’t say a lion’s cage is a good place for a child. Nor would you jeer at and accuse a child who unwittingly stumbled into a lion’s cage. What is the cage doing there in the first place for a child to fall into?

Let’s be sane. We can rationalize this universe, we can explain complaints, we can blame the inmates but is it not true that we came unwitting into it?

What do we really want out of Dianetics and Scientology? What could I really give you that you want?

Escape.

Is there anything wrong with escape? Is a man mad who seeks to leave a fire that chars him, a mass that crushes him, a world that laughs at his dreams and scolds him for his stupidity?

Escape.

Why not escape?

Why not let a few others escape. After all, we’re not all only ones. We can feel and we can cry.

Tell me why Christianity won so well. Wasn’t it because of promised escape?

Tell me why Buddhism won so sweepingly. Because it promised escape.

Well, why not escape. If the great religions of all time became great on the promise of escape, we must assume that a lot of people want out and that there’s something wrong with in.

This universe is a breaker of bones, a defiler of deeds, a mocker of gallantry and peace. I can say this with equanimity. I don’t have to get emotional or even personal about it.

A spirit seeks to advance, to improve. Each way is blocked. This universe knows only how to decay.

Is there a way out?

Yes there is.

We have it in Scientology now. I have found it and charted it. I know exactly how to open the gate.

For whom. Ah yes, that’s the news. We used to say—”if your case is in good shape” or “if you really want to.” Of course you want to. But it didn’t require magic to open the gate. It required a supermagic to let our friends go free.

For seven years or less you have believed in me. You saw enough to know two things: (a) that I was sincere and would continue to work on it and (b) that a progress line existed which improved.

All right. What has been done? The auditing skills have been created which led an auditor up to this.

What has been done? In the lower steps of CCH we can rescue the people lowest down, even the unconscious people.

I told the 18th ACC—”I am through researching south. A11 further HGC researches will consist of going North.” I went North faster than I had thought I would. I have now taught the auditors in Washington and the Academy instructors how to go all the way north.

All the way.

I know why you’re here and the fast way out. I have taught auditing skill to Academy students and the 18th ACC. I’ve taught all the way north to the HGC auditors.

What is the way out? With no excuses, no byroads. Straight out. A11 the way.

Without belief or faith or “right conduct” you can go all the way.

P.A.B. No. 123
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 November 1957

THE REALITY SCALE

Prepared from L. Ron Hubbard’s second lecture to the 17th American A.C.C.
in Washington, D.C. on 26 February 1957


I want to talk to you about the Reality Scale and the whys and wherefores of Hand Contact Mimicry.

For a very, very long time we had the ARC Triangle. We had Affinity and Reality, and afterwards had Communication. A lot of people thought that Reality was the most important corner, but evidently Communication was the most important corner because by processing with communication we could do some astonishing things.

Two-way communication: Pc has a problem, you make him talk about it. If you don’t go to a point where you excessively reduce his havingness, he will have a tendency to desensitize on the problem. This is one of the oldest therapies known: you go and tell a friend you’re in trouble and you feel better. However, in Scientology this thing took on a new burnished radiator cap. Nobody knew before what it was in communication that made things communicate and made it therapeutic and so forth. We isolated the various parts of communication, and we isolated, much more importantly, the Bill-Joe interchange of two-way communication.

Now what can you do with communication? Well, a lot of people go around and they don’t have any reality on Scientology because nothing has ever happened to them. Their idea of what it takes to get reality on something is—they can’t examine something—the reality must have a mass. It must have an impact, a very heavy effect.

Now remember that you can reduce havingness by communication, but within that framework let us take somebody who has no reality on anything happening to him. Of course he has no reality on anything happening to him! He’s in a high games condition, which means “no effect on self, total effect on others.” So you’re trying to plow through his consistent postulation that there must be no effect upon himself of any kind whatsoever, and if you get through that barrier, then he says, “I have some reality on this subject.” If you destroy his “no effect on self,” then he’ll believe you. This is totally idiotic, but that’s the way it works.

Now we get this fellow. He has no reality on Scientology, but he’s got a toothache. We have him say “Hello” to the tooth, have the tooth say “Okay” to that hello. Have the tooth say “Hello” to him, and have him say “Okay” to the tooth. Which makes a two-way comm. Have him do this a few times and the toothache goes—poof!

We take a heavier mass than this, like an arthritic leg. Arthritis is a ridge illness, and therefore you go up or down from the ridge and you’ve got it made. We can make


Copyright © 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

him get rid of his arthritis even by simply putting him in apathy about it. You could hammer and pound him until he was sitting there very, very quietly and unable to wiggle in any way, and he wouldn’t feel his arthritis. Well, he wouldn’t feel anything else either.

You take slight little somatics, little conditions, or fears of things, and run two-way communication on them, and you get some fabulous results. Let’s say somebody’s afraid of a stove. Have him say “Hello” to the stove, and have the stove say “Okay.” Have the stove say “Hello” to him, and have him say “Okay” to the stove. After a while he won’t have any fear of touching the stove. Oddly enough, he will receive less effect from the stove even if hot. That is quite important. It tells you that the body does not naturally lend itself to injury, but injury takes place only in a highly aberrated condition. You should be able to take a body and throw it up against the wall hard enough to crush its skull in, have it drop to the floor, stand and walk away—providing you aren’t holding in suspension the image picture of its hitting the wall and being injured.

Now I’ll give you an example of that. I want you to look at this ashtray. Now I’m going to raise this ashtray and then I’m going to put it back on the desk. Is that action now in existence? Where? You’ve got some pictures of it, haven’t you? This universe doesn’t make things survive. Only you make things survive. And this is: you are holding the engram in restimulation, which permits it to have an effect. You’re so doggone hipped on the subject of survival that it’s just marvelous to behold. That is because a thetan cannot do anything else but survive. Naturally, anything that’s surviving he can go into good communication with.

People like to look at the Pyramids. Why? Well, the person is surviving and evidently the Pyramids are surviving, so there is a medium of interchange. A thetan looking at a solid is much happier if the solid is surviving. If this solid has duration, then the thetan can have a means of communication between himself and the solid, in spite of the fact that the thetan can’t be solid.

So people really don’t have much of a tendency to look at and study and examine very closely things of very finite survival periods—things that die right now, things that vanish right now. But they could say, “Look. It became nothing just like I am, and therefore I have another communication point with it.”

Sudden disappearances stay hung in the bank. That is different than something with a finite life. Things with a very finite small life are not very important, but solids which suddenly disappear are quite curious to a thetan. Hence we like magic shows and such things.

Now let’s add these factors up. This nothingness tends to survive only when arrived at under that circumstance: there was something there, now there’s nothing there. So that I give you a motion of MEST and you make a picture survive, but it’s not any longer moving in MEST. MEST has very, very finite duration, so we have to rig up all sorts of things so it’ll survive, so it’ll continue.

And people like to have things continue, but after a while, when things have not continued with them for a long time, then they get onto another kick: they only hold on to. It was something and suddenly became nothing, so therefore they hold on to losses. And the whole track, at length, becomes a concatenation of losses.

Communication, oddly enough, has always attended one of these losses. It is not true, basically, that communication as-ises or destroys or knocks out any mass. But communication has always accompanied the vanishment or destruction of mass, so the preclear gets these two things involved with each other, and then he goes through an

automaticity of having mass vanish when he communicates. You must get this clearly. The only thing that as-ises mass is as-ising mass. But communication always accompanied this, and after a while the preclear gets one very solid conviction: that if he talks to something, something disappears. It’s not true.

Sound is another aspect of communication which is fabulous. You realize, the first sounds were evidently those which accompanied explosions or destructive actions. Electronic particles traveling through space will carry with them sound, even in the absence of air. Sound does not go through a vacuum. Unless you have some carrier for sound it doesn’t reach you at all. Therefore, a sudden electronic explosion was usually the first acquaintance with sound.

It’s true that he had to put sound there in order for sound to be there, but he has a number of experiences whereby something blew up (and therefore disappeared) and sound took place. So you’ll find any preclear willing to swear that sound is disintegrative. Not all communications contain sound, but sound is a disintegrating factor. So communications with sound combine the destructive aspect of sound (of which the preclear’s convinced) with the as-ising aspect of communication itself (of which he is again convinced), and between the two of them you get an awful loss of havingness if you’re not very careful. Communication, verbal, tends to as-is (or knock out) the masses in the bank of the preclear. So we just start right in auditing him. Now if he has a present time problem which is terribly pressing, well, you could do something with this if you didn’t talk about the problem too much. If you ran problems of comparable magnitude to it, you’d probably add to his havingness.

The way we got away with it with running engrams was quite peculiar. The person was having to put the engram there to some degree in order to run the thing. This made him capable of confronting the incident and so brought a discharge of the fixation he had for that incident, and yet did not rob him particularly of the incident, the mass. We were running the significance out of the mass. It’s interesting. But where a person couldn’t afford to lose anything, he couldn’t even afford to lose significance, and so we couldn’t run an engram. Well communication goes much further south, and we have a condition here whereby we see an individual drop through the bottom just by too much yackety-yak with the auditor on the subject of his particular phobia or bank.

This tells you, by the way, at once, one of the most condemning facts of psychoanalysis. I started digging up all the factors utilized in psychoanalysis, and I discovered this fantastic thing, that I couldn’t find any factor present which was therapeutic. Beyond the fact of telling a friend your troubles, there is no therapeutic rationale behind it, because you get the as-ising of mass. Where Freud achieved any result—let’s be generous, let’s say he did achieve some results—let’s find out how long it took him to achieve them. An old lady came in from Bavaria and talked to him for a few minutes and just ranted on and on, and all of a sudden said that she felt better and got up and left. Freud, as far as I can discover, never had any results from cases who went longer than a very few hours in psychoanalysis. In other words, Freud’s results were the magic results. A person came in and said, “This is wrong, and that is wrong” and felt better and went away. If you let the patient talk too long, he is going to go out the bottom, and that I guarantee. They talk themselves down the tone scale.

Just take a preclear who’s in bad shape and have him tell you about his problem or something, and he drops on out the bottom doing this. You can watch him go right on downscale. It’s possibly an experiment you ought to make to really understand this. Just make somebody tell you his trouble over and over and over. And you will understand at once why Freud got spectacular results in a very few hours, and why nobody’s gotten any results since in a great many hours.

Brainwashing—that’s the biggest joke of this half-century, brainwashing. A fellow will talk out enough havingness to throw himself into an introverted condition. You’ve got his mind concentrated upon his bank, and now you make him talk, and out goes the havingness. And he goes right on downscale with great speed.

Please understand this as auditors. Know what you are looking at. You’re just looking at the vanishment of mass. And a thetan believes that to be recognized and to be able to prove things and to be able to demonstrate to the world that he is there and that things have happened to him, he has to have mass.

And so we get the third corner here. Affinity is actually the consideration of distance. Communication is an interchange of ideas. But Reality is what it is about and what it is proved by.

Looking all around now, I would say that the weakest comer of the ARC Triangle is “A”—Affinity. This has the least monitoring effect upon a preclear but is the most strongly demonstrated. It is NOT a good entering point. C and R run out A, or re-establish A. And A is very easily monitored. C is less easily monitored by A and R. And you pull R and C apart and you’ve got nothing. You have no reaction. You have no universe. So C and R—Communication and Reality—are very, very closely associated.

And Reality has a scale. And because C is closely associated with Reality, Reality then again (after ‘54) started to take a certain prominence. Reality is a scale in its own right, and that scale begins at the top with a Postulate. Which postulate, continuing, can make a Consideration. You can acquire considerations by other means than postulating; all you have to do is agree with an existing postulate or an existing consideration, and you too can have the consideration—you didn’t have to postulate it in the first place.

It’s Postulates; Continuing Postulates/Considerations—and the next step down from there is Agreement. And here we see this vast panorama of “everybody agreed with everything,” which knits them all together in the same time continuum. It’s a postulate, a consideration, and then a couple of guys or more have this same consideration and, having it, then we have a specialized consideration—it is shared in common— and this we call an “agreement”: a shared consideration.

Having accomplished that, we get Solids. We get proof of the consideration, and that takes place in spaces and solids. But Reality, actually, is the solid aspect, whereas A is more closely associated to the spatial aspect. Because they wish to prove it and convince one another, they get something that can enter the phenomenon of sight, and the other phenomena of touch, smell. Here we have spatial relationships established and confirmed by mass.

What happens to somebody who is no longer convinced even though the mass is there? Where would he go? The one just below that is “a Line.” The mass called a “terminal” tends to vanish, and the line between a couple of terminals tends to take place and appear.

And then, below that we get “No Terminal, No Line.” And don’t mistake that for a postulate condition. You get this person selling you a beautiful bill of goods—because there’s nothing there—that he’s in a postulating condition. He has become the total effect of his postulates, total effect of his considerations, total effect of all masses, total effect of all lines—and now he can’t even see lines and masses. Such a person is liable to tell you, “My thoughts affect things thousands of miles away.” It’s true that an OT can affect something thousands of miles away. But he isn’t an OT, he’s got lumbago. OTs don’t have lumbago.

You start to process him, and what happens? The line shows up. You process him longer, and shadowy things show up at either end of the line, and the line starts to disappear and the terminals start to appear. And then you process him a little bit longer and boy, do those terminals become solid! And after he is able to make a terminal have an effect upon him so that his confidence in this is unassailable, he can only then enter into the world of agreement. Only then are his agreements binding and valid. Only then can he make them or break them. Up to that time he is obsessed by any agreement of the past track. He is the victim of all the upper scale at any point he is on the scale. And that is true of the Tone Scale, or is true of any other scale.

A person, you know, does not move up level by level of the Tone Scale. He broadens up the Tone Scale. He becomes the whole scale. There is a big difference. A person who is in good shape can postulate, consider (which is to say, continue a postulate), agree, make masses, or make masses disappear, or make lines between masses appear or disappear. At any point you find him on the scale, he can do the points from there down, and you win for him the ability again, you make him willing to have the ability again, to do the points from there up.

The Reality Scale is very important. It tells you that communication down below “No Line, No Terminal” is almost totally first dynamic communication. The person actually gets convinced that if he thinks it, it arrives in Chesapeake Bay, you see. He gets a telepathic idea of his own thinkingness. Naturally, all terminals there are are all there too, and all lines are there too.

Now what’s the state of a case at any one of these levels? Well, it matches up right there alongside the old Tone Scale—the Sub-Zero Scale and the original Tone Scale in their continuum, you see, from Serenity clear on down to Wait—Wait, not even Unconscious. This level is paralleled by this Reality Scale. And there’s also a series of communications which go down along the whole line.

Let’s take our preclear at the point where he doesn’t know you’re there and doesn’t know the room is there and doesn’t know he’s there and doesn’t know that he has a body sitting there, and he just DOESN’T KNOW, but he’s performing on some social machinery. Where is the entrance point? The first thing that you can do with this preclear, we believe now, that would recall to him an ability would be the recognition of the existence of a line. Hence, your hand against the preclear’s hand—that’s a line. By establishing a line he can come into cognizance of the terminal. Your arm is liable to get awful real to him. Unless his hand and arm get real, you’re not going to find anything else gettin’ real.

It doesn’t mean that a person responds to Hand Contact Mimicry only when he is in terrible shape. Anybody ought to respond to Hand Contact Mimicry. You do Hand Contact Mimicry with most anybody who hasn’t had his hands cleared, and you’re going to get some results, that’s for sure.

A solid communication line is very fine, but what if you break it? Well, you can break it so slowly that the person doesn’t notice that the hands have ceased to be lines and have become terminals. There is a little space, an inch, between your hand and the preclear’s hand, and he hasn’t noticed to any great degree. Affinity starts to take place, because we’ve got some distance, but the affinity, you’ll find, will be first worst and then best with the terminals close together. Hand Contact Mimicry is the point back to which I would drop at any time I became very suspicious that I was auditing over the head of the preclear. I’ve gone way over his head, therefore I’ve given him a loss, so therefore momentarily I would consider he was in bad communication with me—and his reality on me possibly could be graduated up to a line now.

Reality contains a level known as Havingness. In this little band of Mass there is a scale inside the Reality Scale—the Havingness Scale. And that has to do with the consideration of mass. It’s what you do with mass. That scale is quite an interesting scale in itself.

It starts out, probably, with Waste, or maybe with Substitute. It is so messed up at that point of Mass that it is very hard to get preclears to come up uniformly as to which one is the lowest one. It possibly goes this way: Waste, Substitute, Waste, Substitute, Waste, Substitute until you get up to the next one. Just as you find a great many false emotions jammed in at the level of Apathy on the Affinity Scale—and I’m sure you’ve seen this—so do you find this Waste and Substitute kicking around and kicking at each other on the Havingness Scale.

“Have” is the next one up. If a person can’t have something, you can have him waste it enough, and you’ll find out after a while he’ll say, “Well, I can have it.”

What is the next important way-stop on this Havingness Scale? The next one up the line is Confront—and that’s awfully important. A person who can’t confront something is liable to “have to have it” as his highest expression. And if he can’t confront it and can’t have it, it’s a cinch that he will waste it. And if he can’t even waste it, it’s a cinch he’ll substitute. And we get Freudian and other sublimations and all of that. Sublimation—they never knew what they talked about. This is not sublimation I’m talking about. This thing called “sublimation” is substitution. I mean, why get sublimative about something that is easily done? If a person hates women, it is a cinch that he probably hates “a woman” and substitutes for her all other women. But this is not a clean statement of it for this reason: you get identification, which is substitution, of one woman for another—and then you get disassociation; he can’t even identify any more. Hence your lower Waste level. He’s wasting now a substitute.

You’ll find a preclear after a while will, on some subject, disassociate. He says that ashtray isn’t that ashtray. You get the idea? He says, “This ashtray is a camel.” Well, now, that’s disassociation. He can’t recognize a thing for itself, but it must be something else, so we must understand that as an action of Mass to lie on the lower end of the Havingness Scale. It’s just as simple as that.

Now, as we go upscale further from Confront, we run into something which is pretty doggone high, and that’s Contribute To. People, if they are prevented from contributing to something, go downscale. Now if contributing to something is getting rid of mass, it’s somebody else is going to have something besides yourself—and you take a person who is sitting down at Have, or below, and you make him contribute a little bit, and he gets to be a sick puppy. He’ll just go on down into Waste and Substitute. It is a very high manifestation. It holds true all up and down this Havingness Scale that if an individual is prevented from helping, from contributing in some fashion, he gets very ill. Not in auditing, but in real life.

Let’s go on even higher than this, and what do we get to? We get to Create.

So the Havingness Scale, which fits at that innocuous word “Mass” on the Reality Scale, consists of the doingnesses with regard to Mass. And they begin at the top with Create, go down at once into Contribute To, into Confront, into Have, into Waste, and on down into Substitute. That all belongs at Mass; these are all the things you do with mass.

Now probably there are a bunch of doingnesses with Agreement. Ask an attorney. There are probably doingnesses with Postulates, and doingnesses with Lines—ask the telephone company. And these things probably, too, form up other scales quite similar to the Havingness Scale. And when you had all these doingness scales paralleling the

Reality Scale, you would have this difference: the thing, which is the Reality Scale and its aspects, which would be the doingness scale (considerations with regard to these things in actuality would be over here on this other scale). We mustn’t confuse the thing with what you do with it. You can have without doing. It’s pretty hard, however, to do without having, which is why Reality is so important in running on the preclear.

Now I hope you understand these two scales, and I hope you will take them around with you on auditing and look them over a little bit and understand what they are all about. Because we’re still talking about ARC, and as a matter of fact we’ll be talking a lot about Survive, which is OLD HAT, but it has certainly been polished up, and it certainly has a nice new band, and it certainly fits on a lot more heads than it used to.

L. RON HUBBARD

________________________________
HCO B 2 NOVEMBER 1957

[HCO B 2 November 1957, Intensive Processes for Use in Operation Clear and Operation Staff Clear, was a confidential staff only issue. It was revised on 22 February 1975 as HCO B 2 November 1957RA, An Objective Rundown, which is in Volume VIII, page 393.]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE


HCO BULLETIN OF 13 NOVEMBER 1957




PROJECT CLEAR CHECK SHEET


___________________ __________________ _______________________
NAME OF PRECLEAR NAME OF AUDITOR DATE PROJECT STARTED

HOURS RUN PER SESSION ____________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________


USE A CHECK IF PROCESS IS RUN, USE AN X IF PROCESS IS CONSIDERED FLAT.

CCH 0 CCH 1 CCH 2

CCH 3 CCH 4

Tr. 10

MOCK UP AN UNWANTED FUTURE TRIO

ARC STRAIGHTWIRE

RECALL AN UNWANTED OBJECT
RECALL A MOMENT OF LOSS

RECALL AN EXPECTED COMMUNICATION
RECALL A COMPLETED COMMUNICATION

PSYCHOSOMATIC ADDRESS. Condition _________________________________
RECALL AN UNWANTED (AFFECTED BODY PART)
RECALL A LOST (AFFECTED BODY PART)

SHORT SPOTTING

MOCK UP A CONDITION WORSE THAN (AFFECTED BODY PART)

VALENCE SPLITTERS:
Person located by E-Meter Split________
Person located by E-Meter Split________
Person located by E-Meter Split________

RISING SCALE PROCESSING

BODY ANCHOR POINTS





Note: This sheet does not replace regular report sheets in HGC but must be included.

INFORMATION SHEET ON PROJECT CLEAR


It is expected that the processes scheduled for project clear be run more or less in the following order.

CCH 0 at the beginning of each session. If pc falters on one or another point, stress that point until cleared up.

CCH 1, 2, 3 and 4 to be run as follows. If 1 produces no reaction go to 2, if 2 produces no reaction go to 3, if 3 produces an action flatten it a bit and go to 4. If 4 produces an action or no action either flatten or go quickly to 1, etc, until these steps have each one been unflattened and flattened again.

Tr. 10 is used liberally as a bridge process and to start and end sessions. If it develops a somatic, auditor should treat it as a process and flatten it and then go right on using it. Main use is at session end.

RECALL SOMETHING REALLY REAL TO YOU is run to test recalls. It is a very effective process in itself. In fact all the three questions of ARC Straight Wire can be run if pc is found pretty bad on this. But it is intended to be used simply to groove the pc and to keep a cataclysm from occurring if the pc can’t run recall processes. If he has a hard time, flatten ARC Straight Wire. Otherwise, run for minutes only.

RECALL AN UNWANTED OBJECT and RECALL A MOMENT OF LOSS are a pair. If one is used, then the other must be used exactly the same length of time in the same session. They are alternate processes where one is run a half hour then the other is run a half hour. These two are the chief processes of Operation Clear so give them lots of concentration and time.

TRIO is run as a step between recall processes. If one session is run on recall processes the next is run on TRIO. There is Control Trio and Trio. It is up to the auditor which is used. But use all three commands of either in any proportion that seems right to the auditor. Run lots of Trio even though both recall processes are havingness processes.

RECALL AN EXPECTED COMMUNICATION and RECALL A COMPLETED COMMUNICATION are interesting processes. Communication as-ises havingness. Thus this is a reverse process which, by dropping the pc’s level of concentration on past persons and activities thus gives him the havingness of those areas of the track. These processes may or may not be vital to Project Clear as they are released ahead of long experiment and use.

RISING SCALE PROCESSING is run when the pc can change ideas. He must be up to lots of cognitions before this is run. It is run from the Chart of Attitudes as given in Creation of Human Ability.

ADJUSTING ANCHOR POINTS is done almost at project end. This is a delicate auditing job and additional material will be released upon it.

SHORT SPOTTING and VALENCE SPLITTING are fitted in at the auditor’s discretion. SHORT spotting is done by indicating objects close up to pc and making him repeatedly notice his psychosomatic area. Valence splitting may not even be necessary if the above auditing steps are well done. Also, it may be that psychosomatic difficulties will not need further attention than earlier processes on this sheet.

PROBLEMS OF COMPARABLE MAGNITUDE are here done with MOCK UP SOMETHING WORSE THAN PSYCHOSOMATIC CONDITION. UNWANTED FUTURES may also be fitted in anywhere.


L. RON HUBBARD



Issue 58 [1957, ca. early November]


The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.



We Are the Free People


L. Ron Hubbard



We are the Free People. We have grown up—grown up to Freedom, not senility.

We are the Free People. The Scientologist has left behind the claws and barriers of miscontrol.

We are the Free People. Grown from out the mud and jungle rot of fear, our unchained minds can reach afar and grasp the idea of ultimate Freedom.

We are the Free People in whom the whims of “I’m supposed to” have no rule, on whom the scientist can blunt his weighty arguments to prove we are not Free.

Be glad, they said before we came, that you are mad, insane, for there is genius, so they said. You cannot change. Our brand on you is fixed. Your brain is all you are and fixed like clockwork in a robot head. So think, they said, as we have said, to think, for thought is our own chain and your ideas nil.

Die, they said, and live no more and become dispossessed so we can own. Fall down, they said, and worship clay or maybe space, but of course wrath. And sing lugubrious songs to fear or maybe international cults that specialize in slaves.

Believe, they said, that Man is just a shiny thing well meant to die beneath the pounding of their bombs—the mightiest God they knew.

The flesh, they said, is All and you are but a decay of yourself.

And so they barriered All men.

The witch and the pot; the test tube and the scope; the cell and the club; the textbook and the lies-Control! Control them or we die! Beat them or they win! Starve them or we shrink. We are afraid, afraid, afraid!—they said in that old age we killed.

Freedom becks and we now laughing at their lies, went free.

Scientology—The Road Sign Out.

We are the Free People. We LIVE! We’re Free !



Copyright © 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

P.A.B. No. 124
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

15 November 1957

COMMUNICATION AND IS-NESS


A man is as well off as he can consider himself dangerous to his environment.

I will tell you a little short anecdote, which is quite amusing. Well, sometime early in 1945 I flunked my overseas examination. Well, I crawled around and felt sorry for myself, and the fact of it was that the Judo instructor there at the hospital brought up the idea that there was a shortage of people in the war—there was. So he kept up my training for me. I think it was July 25th that I went down to Hollywood and three sailors with Petty Officers’ ratings accosted me on the street. They were drunk. They were out to kill officers. And the three of them tied into me. An unbelievable thing happened. One of them turned me around facing him while the second one took a heavy beer bottle to bring it down on my skull. I took the fellow who brought the beer bottle down, threw him over my head into this fellow, who went down and hit the side of a bumper. The beer bottle hit the pavement, broke the end off, and the other fellow reared up where he had been sitting on the running board of a car, and I put it in his face. That’s what you are trained to do.

Overnight, the wound in my side healed—overnight. They wouldn’t let me out at all, but I could get extended leave from the hospital. I went down to Hollywood and messed around at the studios. In the middle of all that I managed to complete all the researches which I’d stacked up and which had been interrupted by the war.

Steam. . . where had it come from? You get your teeth shoved in this way and that, and you develop a tremendous amount of inflow. And then one day you just outflow! The Chief Petty Officer in charge of the Shore Patrol had been sitting at his desk, telling me, “Under no circumstances should you have taken any action. You were trifling with your life.” Telling me what a good boy I ought to be. And then through the door he saw the Shore Patrol bring these people in. Of course, they were all saturated with blood, and they were all messed up. And he just shut up right then!

He was running the usual social dramatization—”You must protect yourself.” The society teaches you to hold in. All you have to do to somebody is to prevent him from outflowing to make him ill. And someday he decides to outflow. Not only the social world but the world of yourself can act to cause you to prevent outflow. Outflow is prevented by regret, it is prevented by all sorts of things. If one has something terrifically valuable he protects it—which is what? Prevent an inflow! Well, when you say prevent an inflow you might as well say prevent an outflow. If you hold flows from coming in toward you you might as well flow them in, because sooner or later that dike that you put up is going to burst. So you get these confounded actions in this universe composing a picture of tremendous inflow, not balanced at all by outflow.



Copyright © 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

What does this all add up to? Any time that you protect and defend, you are aiding and abetting all the structures which make up this universe. The child who is taught to defend himself against these big, vicious automobiles some day turns out to be one of the lousiest drivers you ever saw, because he is taught to defend and protect. All you have to assume is that safety is desirable to have all of the ills of Pandora’s box swarm around your head.

Just what boxing glove can hit a thetan I wouldn’t know. A thetan has to mock himself up to be reachable. You are dealing with the idea of what a person is supposed to feel as a result of, when it comes to inflows. And that’s just an idea. If a person over-defends himself through some exaggerated idea of pain, he will suffer the full consequences of that over-defense, just to the degree that anybody else over-defends himself to that degree.

So the reason for the defense or the reason for safety is variable, but the consequences of it aren’t. As long as you deal with masses, and agreements and ideas directly concerning masses, you are all right. But when you go back into an opinion of what it ought to be as far as the preclear is concerned, you are of course immediately in trouble. Any auditor who is having a rough time with preclears, not snapping them out of the hop immediately, is paying attention to this factor, which is a variable, which is opinion. Figure-figure, ideas, ideas, ideas.

Suppose we had no cops in the society but there was the idea around that there were cops. We would get some of the nuttiest ideas you have ever heard of! We would have a set of ideas about cops, different for each person in the entire community. Why? Because there is no way to experience cops. Cops are an idea which one cannot get into communication with; therefore we get this great oddity—abundance and scarcity. Only it isn’t actually the possession of quantity; it is only apparently quantitative. It is having something to go into communication with.

I’m very sure that the whole world of disease is built entirely on this mechanism. I seriously doubt the existence of any given germ—I seriously doubt it. It is very embarrassing to men in sailing ships and so on, very embarrassing to these fellows, to have venereal diseases happen when they have had no contact with women at all. And I have seen that often enough in young boys that were as pure as the driven lily to understand completely that we didn’t have here a germ at work. We had a series of ideas at work. Fascinating subject in view of the fact that it has ruined as many lives down the decades and centuries as it has. When you socially enter a great many prohibitions against communication on the second dynamic, you will get all sorts of interesting ideas.

Aberration is caused by cut communication with the mass, and is remedied by re-established communication with the mass. Look what they are doing with the A-bomb. This is one of the silliest things you ever saw in your life. They make everything about it confidential, secret, and nobody must be let in on it.

And there is possibly no more illness to radiation than that.

The formula for creating an illness is to establish a terminal, get everybody convinced that this terminal is there, and refuse to let them communicate with it.

Now one of the dangerous things to do with Scientology would be to put it under the counter. In the first place it isn’t a terminal. A terminal, however, must be maintained, and access to that terminal must be preserved. And it mustn’t be put on confidential, any part of it. Why? Because it’s already dynamite. We do anything with it that can be done with anything. Let’s not cut a line to it and let’s not put it beyond reach. There would be a certain fatality in doing that. And yet every group that has

ever learned a series of great truths has inevitably gone into secret priesthoods concerning them, which was of course a destructive action.

It isn’t jumping into ten thousand volts of current that electrocutes a man. It’s having so many times in the past disconnected from electricity when confronted with it. Every time you disconnect you to that degree lower your own tolerance.

Obviously the electricity flying through these poles is more real to the individual being the line than the actual terminal of the pole. Why is it more real to him and his body? Because it has the greatest effect on him and his body. He can touch the pole, but he can’t touch the juice. That tells you there must be some terrific reality about the dangerousness of this juice, and the pole is either in apathy or non-existent. Therefore you can only teach one thing to a preclear, horribly enough, and that is—”You can communicate with it.” The communication with a mass is the only thing we can do for him, but we have to have a mass.

We can get him to conceive of an is-ness, and we can get him to communicate with it, and by this he will change his mind concerning its existence. He will change his mind concerning its conditions, but most particularly and more important to you, he will change his mind with regard to its abundance or scarcity, and therefore its importance. It is the scarcity or abundance of things which denotes their value or importance. A man who has lived too long without women will consider women dangerous.

So scarcities and abundances do declare the final state of one’s reactions to anything. When something becomes very scarce it is because one has cut communication, and that action of cutting communication is the same action of defending or protecting self. Now as I say, you can break out of this. You can have this tremendous resurgence. You can outflow. You can act. And that’s all there is behind one of these resurgences, by the way, there are no other factors. Or you, as an auditor, can bring him gently and quietly up on a gradient scale until he can again communicate with the objects in his environment, and he again will experience the same thing he experienced when he did this tremendous outflow. We are reaching towards the same goals but we’re saying that by communication we establish the is-ness of existence, and by doing that, why, we make people well.

L. RON HUBBARD



LRH TAPE LECTURES
Washington, D.C.
26 November 1957

5711C26 LECTURE Lecture to J. Fudge and Staff

5711C26 LECTURE Lecture to Staff (cont.)

P.A.B. No. 125
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 December 1957

THE PARTS OF MAN


I am going to go over with you the parts of man. The first thing we’re going to take up is exteriorization, as the most important part of man. It’s the causation. That’s the thetan. Now, the fact that you can’t weigh one is because this is the author of weighing. There is, however, a way of experiencing this. It is a personal attitude, it is a personal view. An individual can exteriorize and experience this phenomenon. It is very easy to experience being a thetan, but it’s not easy to experience seeing one.

So therefore people tend quite markedly to become Only Ones. Here is a phenomenon which a person can experience himself but cannot observe in others. There are many ways to experience the idea of somebody else exteriorizing.

Exteriorization is the phenomenon of being in a position of space dependent on only one’s consideration, able to view from that space, bodies and the room, as it is. That is exteriorization. Well, people who have difficulty controlling the body from close up, I can assure you, won’t get out of their heads, because they can’t control anything at a distance. If you can’t control a body from a distance you will find yourself very, very reluctant to get out of your head. It is as simple as that. Any phenomenon which occurs beyond the point of willingness to be out of the head or control the body from a distance is regulated by the scarcity and abundance of bodies and universes. And if you can’t see your body, then there is a scarcity of them. If you can’t see the universe, there is a scarcity of that. That’s all there is to that.

Now, here is exteriorization: Keep your head from going away. “Take your hands and hold on to your head and keep it from going away.” I don’t know how many hours it would take with some preclears. Probably a Black 5 would have to sweat along at this for fifteen or twenty hours before he was really there, but he would get there on that one technique. That is quite amazing, isn’t it? There are probably about five thousand other techniques. This is the only shotgun one that I know, the one that doesn’t ever fail. It is only contingent upon one thing—being able to take hold of your head. That is a necessary prerequisite to that technique.

All right. Now let’s take the next fact about this, and we find that vision depends upon scarcity and abundance. The ability to exteriorize depends on the willingness to exteriorize, but the willingness to experience is totally monitored by the amount of things available to experience. A thetan gets quantitatively minded.

What good is a human being? The fact is, there are too many of them to be seen. Now, how about too few? Well, on a frontier, the fewness of people is one of the fabulous things. Man dramatizes. When he gets into an area of too few people, he then kills the people who exist. And when he gets into an area where there are too many


Copyright © 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

people, he then overlooks the people who exist. Somewhere in between this, you will have a progressive society. And such a society was the United States—anywhere between twenty-five and a hundred million people the United States was in there pitching. But now that it has begun to exceed that, people have started to disappear. They aren’t. That sounds to you like a cynical statement. If we were to have an atomic war, and cut the population down to fifty million, you’d get another view. It is simply a statement of scarcity and abundance.

All right. We take somebody and we can get him out of his head, but would he just go out of his head without being gotten out of his head? Well, yes. Scarcity and abundance will actually kick him out of his head. Scarcity and abundance of what? Let’s say that the preclear’s idea of the scarcity or abundance of rooms depends then upon his willingness to view them. You have to put him into direct contact with the is-ness of rooms. Now let’s go a little bit further than that and look at the body. If he has too few bodies he is certainly going to be unwilling to get out of the body he is in. And if he has too many right where he is, he’ll be trapped there too. He won’t know where he is. So remedying his havingness on the subject of his own body is very necessary to an accurate and stable exteriorization.

So much for exteriorization. Let’s go off now into the second part, which is the mind. By mind today we mean that structure of mental image pictures and machinery on which the preclear is depending for his opinions and ideas. The structure of the mind is totally composed of mental image pictures. I’m afraid the mind doesn’t produce any thoughts. The mind may be considered to have certain phonograph records. The phonograph record, as you know, doesn’t play unless you put a needle on the platter. Well, the thetan is the needle on the platter, and unless the record is played directly it doesn’t activate it. Any livingness, even a thetan exteriorized, tends to utilize some sort of mental image pictures. But when he reads all of the records in the mind as the absolute truth and fact and conviction, when he is obeying concatenations of “I am supposed to,” we have behavior patterns; we have mental reactions; we have all of these various things that were never studied, by the way, in psychology. I don’t know where a psychologist lives, but it’s certainly not in this universe.

Now the exact workings of this mechanism depend on association and differentiation, or identification and differentiation. Now when that part of the mind which we call a reactive mind begins to identify everything with everything in order to get certain pattern responses, and is able to exert its influence upon a person far better than the thetan himself can, we say that this person is suffering from reactive conduct. A=A=A=A.

Now Association—Differentiation are the two principles of the mind. It is supposed to tell the difference between two or more things, and it is supposed to tell the similarity between two or more things. Now, a mind in good shape doesn’t identify. What causes association to become identification? Lack of objects. Lack of incidents. Lack of experience. When you have too few things happen to you, you’re liable to have all sorts of things happen to you. In other words, if you are busy and there are lots of incidents, there is a high probability that you will not suffer the consequences thereof. But if you are not busy and you are idle, then you are liable to long for those times when you were very busy. And if you are ever worried about a mental image picture, it’s because you haven’t enough to worry about.

Where all drama is tailor-made for you, you are in grave jeopardy. In a TV screen world you are apt to be in trouble, because the TV is only a pattern of lights and shadows which is a restimulative mechanism to shuffle your bank around, and give you again some segment of that which you have already experienced. It’s a funny thing that people will not read about certain periods. If you are talking to somebody who is very upset on the subject of past lives, you should realize that he was probably just

executed up at Sing Sing in 1932 or 1933, and he just can’t stand the idea. It is only people who are borderline insanity cases who got up and screamed about past lives. This I have kept a very careful tally on. They were people who were terrified; people who were incapable ever of holding their own on the subject. They couldn’t have talked about it very long before a past life would have snapped in and snapped their heads off. Those incidents which are most scarce tend to stick hardest.

Let’s look at this thing called the mind, and let’s find that the mind is a mechanism for overcoming the lack of incidents, lack of experience in present time by storing pictures and knowingnesses of the past, which could be made available to the present. A preclear is always losing incidents. One of the methods of not losing them would be to simply suspend them as a picture. Now, if you restore his ability to make these pictures solid, you’ve really done something. He can have the picture then any time he wants, in its full form. You have to change the idea of how much picture and incident is actually necessary in order to alter the preclear’s viewpoint, and you change that with scarcity and abundance. Scarcity and abundance naturally comes up, and is handled by Havingness.

Now, let’s take up the final and remaining part of man, which is the body.

Now, the body is a solid appendage which makes a person recognizable. The body is a game of considerable magnitude, and very popular at this time. It is quite old, but still very popular. The body can be monitored and handled by mental image pictures, and it can also be monitored and handled by thetans, fortunately. But a body is subject to these two other things. It is actually not possible to change a body without changing the other two things. The body is modified by the mind and the thetan, and is actually a very low order of MEST.

Now the anchor points of the body are quite interesting, in that the body exists as solid only within these spaces, and in the absence of some of these anchor points the body will aberrate its shape. We know the fastest way to change body shape is to put the thetan into a condition of willingness to handle anchor points, and then remedy the scarcity and abundance of anchor points, and put the actual anchor points back there and have him put them back there. You will see the body change its shape, health and general characteristics.

Now, mental image pictures also influence the body, and they influence the body basically by influencing these anchor points. A facsimile evidently imposes itself by magnetic fields and currents and other things upon the anchor point system. It is quite interesting.

So therefore the body is handled and controlled on a mental level through these anchor points. If you were sailing along seventy-five feet back of your head some day, and you see some preclear come along, just shift your range of vision enough to find that preclear’s wing anchor points; if you were to get hold of one of these wing anchor points and just bend it off line—the person will walk in a circle. As long as you hold the anchor point out of line the person will walk out of line.

Joints operate because of anchor point structure. The body is then held together by electronic structure which is easily influenceable, and that electronic structure has much more command upon the body than the MEST around it. And the thetan goes through these very many vias of mental image pictures and these anchor points, and thus influences the structure of the body.

Now, to influence the mind by influencing the body is only possible by doing something to the havingness of the thetan. Now you can influence a thetan by influencing the body. Let’s not overlook this point. But that influence only takes place to a degree that it influences abundance and scarcity.

In other words, as you influence his ideas of havingness of bodies, so you influence his condition with regard to bodies, and we re-influence the body. We find out that a body can be moved, thus influencing the thetan, or two or three bodies can be put back, thus influencing the thetan, and we have simply run the back flow of mass reaction on the person. And we do that in auditing all the time. We adjust the person’s havingness, his ability to communicate with an is-ness, his ability to conceive an is-ness, to communicate with it. This is Havingness; this is the way you run Havingness.

There in essence we have the body.

But with the three subdivisions of a human being we have to include the fact that he lives in the universe.

All right. These, then, are the three parts of beingness, with the condition that one lives in the universe. And these are inter-influencing. These parts of man, each one of them, are insistent upon experience, incident. Man grows old, minds become complicated, thetans become wise. But at no time does their capability, or ability in general, lessen. Only their willingness to live increases and decreases, and that increases and decreases in direct ratio that there is a scarcity or abundance of the various things in which they are interested. And these scarcities and abundances influence them and monitor their conduct, or any culture. The cure for this is to put the person into communication with actual is-ness, or the is-ness of any given object, and to permit him to reacquaint himself with that. And so by auditing his life can be righted.


L. RON HUBBARD



Issue 60 [1957, ca. early December]


The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.



Scientology:
The Philosophy of a New Age


L. Ron Hubbard



It takes Truth to live with a swiftly changing world. Nothing less than Truth can Survive. You cannot Survive with anything less than Truth.

We are the heralds of a New Age. Man, stuck for millennia in the rut of status quo can at first balk and even ridicule, but, Can He Survive?

Always the old has hooted at the new. But the new grows strong and each day’s dawning sees us closer to a new World.

What will this world be? Atomic reactors giving unlimited power. Automatic machines providing for the most of Man’s animal wants. Space flight to the Solar System. New politics, new leisure, new hates, new loves.

But before any new era begins there is always a period of instability and change, a period of violence, a period soiled with the death of the old and the failed experiments of the new.

Such periods of change are violent. Many things, many men may not Survive them.

What will it take to Survive this change? Who can Survive it and sail onward to live in new times?

The lucky and the clear.

But who are the lucky but the clear.

Scientology for the individual is a passport to this new time. Scientology for the group is the Survival of the State.

No old shaky basis of thought could last out the fire of the period of change. No quivering, unstable person could Survive the duress of the times just now to come.

One’s first duty to all is to be himself clear, able to Survive, able to lead his own destiny by the hand.

Copyright © 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

One’s next duty is to his fellows to be sure their ability can compare to the tasks imposed by the new State of things.

The answer to these trials is contained in Scientology. And Scientology is the answer to you.

Only a clear could think and act fast enough to live in a disaster and to make others live. Only a clear could Survive in Space. Only a clear could enjoy the fast pace of the game to come.

Others may die or worse, become slaves in the inevitable advance of technology which holds in question the abilities of a man.

Hence, Project Clear. That’s our goal now. We can do it. We can teach you to get it done.

It’s taken seven years to iron out the kinks. Seven years isn’t long against 73 trillion.

Today can be ours. Tomorrow can come. Let us be ready for it.

We are the prime movers in this, the new age. Forget the old. Face up to what will come. And let the dead yesterdays bury the philosophy of Authority and Capital Gains and Communist psychology cults. We’re no longer tied.

The eons march on. Space Opera has again come to a planet on which we live. Always before it meant destruction.

Perhaps, this time, due to our efforts, a humanitarian world can exist. We, the Prophets of the Morrow, know the way.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
1812 19th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN # 1 OF 3 DECEMBER 1957




CLEAR PROCEDURE

DEFINITIONS, GOALS


There are three possible goals in processing a preclear. The first of these is Mest Clear. The second is Theta Clear. The third is Operating Thetan.

By Mest Clear is meant a BOOK ONE CLEAR. Here we defined clear in terms of facsimiles. This is a rather simple mechanical definition. It said in effect that so far as human beings were concerned our preclear finally arrived at a point where he had full color-visio-sonic, had no psychoses or neuroses and could recall what had happened to him in this lifetime. This is almost a baby-talk sort of clear. It pays no heed at all to identification with a body and it has nothing to do with ability. Today, by running Creative Processes (four years old!) we can turn on visible facsimiles and weed out the bottom spots of operations and what not. This is actually a rather easy goal. Somehow I’ve never given a real tight procedure for achieving it even though the essence of the processes have been around for a very long time. COMPLETING STEP SIX OF CLEAR PROCEDURE IN FULL GIVES US A MEST CLEAR.

By Theta Clear is meant a Clear obtained by Clear Procedure as is being delineated in this regimen. The main trouble is, amusingly, trying to reach Mest Clear without running into Theta Clear. I personally don’t believe now that it can be done without actually shoving the pc back in his head every time he pops out. Thus the goal of this procedure is actually THETA CLEAR. This is what we mean then when we say “clear”. We mean a Theta Clear.

By Operating Thetan we mean Theta Clear PLUS ability to operate functionally against or with Mest and other life forms. For the first time we have here the matter of ABILITY. An Operating Thetan is not an absolute term. Theta Clear is a more absolute term than Operating Thetan. An Operating Thetan is a Theta Clear (Not a mystical mystic out on an inversion) who can also do something.

Thus we have two goals which contain no ambition to accomplish anything and one goal which contains much ambition. Now here is another puzzle in definitions. Which is highest, the Theta Clear or the Operating Thetan? Well, the answer to that is not what we used to think. As DOINGNESS is not really at the top we find that we will probably make an Operating Thetan before we achieve Theta Clear for a Theta Clear would probably not be much interested in operating. Therefore we see that the actual goal we are trying to reach, no matter in which limited sense, is Operating Thetan.

Operating Thetan is then a highly variable goal. A thetan who can move in and out of a body is actually operating somewhat but he is not really a Theta Clear since a Theta Clear, in its highest sense, means no further dependency upon bodies.

The goals of the auditor, therefore, do not rack up one, two, three, Mest Clear, Theta Clear, Operating Thetan. They actually stack up on a very gradient scale between thetan inoperative and a thetan who can operate. The auditor is therefore seeking to reach with the pc a state wherein the pc can function. At no time does the auditor suddenly arrive with a pc in a startling new shiny state all of a sudden that can be called a certain thing. In that pcs often expect this suddenly bursting “into the light” the auditor is subjected to disappointment when he has actually achieved an enormous gain for the pc. In other words, pcs gain on a smooth gradient scale and do not suddenly become something.

There is only one point on the road up where something does happen and that is exteriorization. When the pc exteriorizes for the first time he feels there must be a cause for rejoicing and has the idea he has gotten somewhere. Well, in fact you could achieve the same result by hitting him over the head with a club. He would exteriorize. The point is not exteriorizing the pc but cutting down his dependency upon a body. A pc who exteriorizes and is not carried right on with the same process that sprang him out of his head until it is flat will go back into his head in an hour or a week and will be harder to dig out the next time.

In other words this point of exteriorization does happen and does mean to the pc that he is himself. But it shouldn’t mean very much to an auditor beyond his noticing that this phase has been entered in the case. For in truth thetans don’t stay out of their bodies very long if they are not in good shape. Thus exteriorization means less than ability to act, to live, to be and do. The attention of the auditor should be upon the increasing ability of the pc to handle life, not upon the distance the pc gets from his body. Is that clear? Well, it tells us that arriving at a state of Clear is easy if that means stable outside and that any state of betterment on the road to Operating Thetan is an honest achievement.

Thus an auditor should at all times go toward the state of Operating Thetan and should not be mixed up in the oddities of exteriorization for a day.

HGC Clear Procedure goes straight toward exteriorization and achieves it. But it also goes straight toward increasing ability to handle life. The latter is the auditor’s best goal. The auditing goal should go in the same direction as this new definition for Operating Thetan.

An Operating Thetan can be at cause knowingly and at will over Life, Matter, Energy, Space and Time, subjectively and objectively.

This Action Definition of Operating Thetan is the true goal of the auditor and if followed with complete understanding will achieve the best possible results.

In this discussion of goals and definitions, I am telling you cleanly that the goals of Mest Clear and Theta Clear are not worth following from the auditor’s standpoint. You can let pcs think what they will about them. The only goal worthy of the auditor’s time WHATEVER THE STATE OF CASE OF THE PC is Operating Thetan. To achieve one on any subject it is only necessary to place the pc to some degree at willing and knowing cause point with regard to that subject. All the steps of HGC Clear Procedure are leveled at Operating Thetan. But you need not tell your pc that. You can use the words RELEASE, MEST CLEAR, THETA CLEAR or any other if you like. Just remember there is only one payoff goal and that is Operating Thetan.

MEST CLEAR: Can see facsimiles with sonic present lifetime, has no psychoses or neuroses. Upper part of APA (in UK OCA) graph. Above 135 IQ.

THETA CLEAR: Can exist knowingly independent of bodies.

RELEASE: Average a third of a graph higher than first test, above 115 IQ.

OPERATING THETAN: Can be at Cause knowingly and at will over Life, Matter, Energy, Space and Time, subjectively and objectively.


L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
1812 19th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 4 DECEMBER 1957


Clear Procedure as of Dec 3, 1957, is supplemented by a tape made at Auditors’ Conference of Nov 30, 1957.

This current bulletin supplements HCO Bulletin of Dec 3, 1957, which is the Introduction. There will be a series of these, giving a bulletin to each step. The entire series will be published in a photolitho booklet called CLEAR PROCEDURE which will be ready for the December Congress and which will cost $2.00 in the U.S. and 10 shillings in Great Britain. Both booklets will be published by the HCO and will be copyrighted internationally. The booklet published in Great Britain will be a photolitho of the U.S. photolitho copy. The booklet may not be published in whole or in part by anyone but the HCO.

CLEAR PROCEDURE CONTINUED
STEP ONE: PARTICIPATION IN SESSION BY THE PC.

We have long known that ARC was important. Just how important it is was established by some tests I made in London in 1956 wherein every time the pc showed any restlessness or other signs of loss of havingness, instead of remedying havingness I carefully searched out any fancied break of ARC and patched it up. The “loss of havingness” vanished. In other words loss of ARC is even more important than loss of havingness since a repair of ARC restores havingness. Lack of havingness is only one symptom of a lack of communication.

There are two ways an auditor, according to long practice, can err. One of these is to permit two-way communication to a point where the pc’s havingness is injured. The other is to chop communication to such a degree that havingness is injured. There is a point past which communication is bad and short of which lack of communication is bad. Here we have auditor judgment at play. Because the pc will fidget or go downscale in tone when his havingness drops an auditor can SEE when the pc’s havingness is being lowered. Because a pc will go anaten or start to grind into the process an auditor can tell whether or not the pc feels his communication has been chopped. When either happens the auditor should take action—in the first instance by shutting off the pc’s outflow and getting to work and in the second instance by making the pc talk out any fancied communication severance.

Participation in session by the pc is not something the auditor sees to at the beginning of the session and then forgets for the rest of the intensive. This step is continued throughout the intensive and is given as much attention as any process being run at the time. The auditor’s attention is always therefore upon two things—first the continued participation in session and second the action of the process.

Grouped under this head we would also have ways and means of getting the pc into session in the first place. An unconscious pc used to be an apparent road block. A downtone, antagonistic, you-can’t-help-me pc was also a rough one. These two things are countered by always carefully starting a session and following through on standard CCH 0.

It is as important to open a session with a baby or an unconscious person as it is with any other preclear. It doesn’t matter whether the pc is answering up or not. It is only necessary to assume that the pc would answer if he could answer and that the mechanics of voice and gesture are simply absent from the answer. Therefore one always carefully starts every session, paying attention to what is happening, where it is happening, who is there, help, goals and problems. Obviously anaten or inability to control the body are the present time problem of the unconscious person or the child. One can actually audit this with a plain question and simply assume after a bit it has been answered, then give the acknowledgement and ask another question just as

though the pc were in full vocal action. Auditors still fall for the belief, very current, that “unconscious” people are unable to think or be aware in any way. A thetan is seldom unconscious regardless of what the body is doing or not doing.

PRESENT TIME PROBLEM is a highly vital point of PRECLEAR PARTICIPATION. If a preclear is being nagged too thoroughly by a PT Problem auditing can actually send him downhill if done without addressing the problem. A whole intensive, even seventy-five hours can be wasted if the auditor does not clear the PT PROBLEM.

The preclear generally doesn’t know he has one which is nagging him, for the rough PT Problems go into the apathy band and below into forgetfulness rather rapidly. Therefore the auditor should ferret out the PT Problem with an E-Meter. Adroit use of an E-Meter does not include evaluating for the preclear but it certainly does include ferreting out PT Problems. The E-Meter is also used for valences and sometimes psychophysical difficulties. (Auditor: Use the word “psychophysical” rather than psychosomatic and stay out of a medical field.)

THE RUNNING OF A PT PROBLEM today is the most. PT Problem, valences, psychophysical ailments, all run beautifully with “Mock up something worse than (terminal)” or “Invent something worse than (terminal)”. To run this it is necessary to isolate the TERMINAL most intimately connected with the PT Problem (or the valence or psychophysical difficulty). One then CLEARS THE COMMAND (and you always better do that with any command) and lets go.

The whole idea of WORSE THAN is the whole of the dwindling spiral. People who are “trying to get better” and “be more perfect” and “think the right thought” lose all control of “getting worse”, “being imperfect”, and “thinking the wrong thought”. All these WORSE THANs are then left on automatic and we arrive at something less than optimum. In fact we arrive with the dwindling spiral. We also arrive with the “point of no return”. We also arrive with the declining ability to heal or get well. And we also arrive with old age.

After running “worse than” on the PT Problem, we proceed with other parts of CCH 0. Clearing help will be found quite beneficial. But to get a pc to participate who is downright ugly about it, running help is usually only a partial solution. When these only ones get going they really snarl on the subject of getting audited. Here CCH 1 is of benefit. No questions asked. But this of course defeats the purpose of STEP ONE.

PARTICIPATION OF THE PC in the session is necessary in order to place the pc somewhat at the cause point in the actual fact of auditing. This fits the definition. You can always change a body or recover it from some illness by auditing without much helping the pc himself. Therefore the pc, while under auditor control, is still somewhat at cause what with comm bridges and clearing commands, etc. But he is made to feel no bad effects from being AT EFFECT if ample ARC is used. In other words, the pc can’t be entirely at cause in a session or he would be self-auditing, which isn’t good, but he can be salvaged from being a total effect by good ARC. When the ARC drops out that DOES leave the pc at more or less total effect, a thing you have probably noticed.

The things to be done in CCH 0 should be done thoroughly at intensive’s beginning and should be glanced at whenever a new session starts and should get a bow when a new command is used. But all CCH 0 is is a collection of mechanical aids to assist the pc’s participation in the session and to assist the auditor in ARC. Although CCH 0 must be used always, it is not a total substitute for ARC.

The sum of CCH 0 is find the auditor, find the auditing room, find the pc, knock out any existing PT Problem, establish goals, clear help, get agreement on session length and get up to the first real auditing command. CCH 0 isn’t necessarily run in that order and this isn’t necessarily all of CCH 0, but if any of these are seriously scamped, the session will somewhere get into trouble.

When the participation of the pc ceases in a session, he must be gotten back into session by any means and then participation is re-established. A pc is never permitted to end a session on his own choice. He seeks to end them when his participation drops out of sight.

The trick question “What did I do wrong?” re-establishes ARC.

The problem of handling a pc who is not co-operative, who does not wish to participate, is a highly special problem. In the first place it is the pc’s engrams that do not want to continue, in the second place it is the engrams which are doing the talking. One ordinarily tackles this case with a formal opening of session, brief but positive, and then sails in with CCH 0, just as though the person were unconscious, which, of course, the person is.

Participation by an unconscious person, while covered above, requires the additional refinement of technique. ONE MUST ALWAYS FIND SOMETHING THE PRECLEAR CAN DO AND THEN BETTER THAT ABILITY. An unconscious person is usually lying in bed. If not, the command must be varied to fit the environment. But the best command is something like “You make that body lie in that bed.” A slightly upper grade process to a person sitting in a chair is “You seat that body in that chair.” In such cases a grip on the pc’s hand and the use of a slight squeeze each time the auditor acknowledges considerably speeds the process.

There is another special case—or maybe it isn’t so special. There are many people who cannot tackle a present time problem with a process. If the auditor sought out a PT Problem and then ran “something worse than a related terminal” or a “problem of comparable or incomparable magnitude” he would find the pc digging in hard, unable to handle the process. Thus some judgment must be used in such cases. Don’t run a PT Problem on somebody in very bad shape casewise.

There is an awful lot to know about starting sessions. The bad off case and the case in very good condition alike require special handling. For the case just mentioned who cannot handle a PT Problem with a process, there is always locational (TR TEN). TR TEN will run a PT Problem or anything else if slowly. Thus many a person with a PT Problem can only participate in a session to the extent of TR TEN, “YOU notice that (object—wall, floor, chair, etc).” By introducing in the auditor’s and pc’s bodies as a couple of the items being spotted along with everything else we eventually wind up with “find the auditor, find the auditing room, find the pc”. And we get there without a PT Problem being in full bloom.

In running “You notice that object” there are some things that MUST be observed. Most important of these is this one: ANY PROCESS WHICH TURNS ON A SOMATIC MUST BE CONTINUED UNTIL IT NO LONGER TURNS ON SOMATICS. This is true particularly of TR TEN, 8-C and TRIO. The case hangs right there until the process is flat, whether in one day, one year or six. Another thing which must be stressed is the inclusion of the auditor’s and pc’s bodies. Because some pcs WHEN EXTERIORIZED snap back in when they see the body is no reason to avoid it in TR TEN. Another thing is to make the pc use his eyes to view the objects and if he doesn’t turn his eyes toward them, then it is up to the auditor to use manual direction of the head and even pry the eyes open. No balks are ever permitted in auditing. If TR TEN is being run at a problem, every now and then the auditor pauses and discusses the problem again with the pc in order to keep it in restimulation until TR TEN can run it out.

The high case is a worse problem than auditors commonly believe. In the first place a high case can “blow” a situation out of the bank with considerable ease and if the auditor insists on sledge-hammering it out with a process, then pc participation blows rather than a facsimile.

High case participation can also be misunderstood in that there are a lot of cases that think they are high which aren’t. Here’s how you tell a real high case from a bogus (“I can do everything”) case. A thetan in good shape can be cause. When he looks at something in the bank it becomes the effect. A bogus high case can think anything he wants without anything having an effect on the bank. You want to watch this point because here is the definition of OT thoroughly at work. Pc at Cause. A case that has pictures and everything and is impatient to get on with it BUT DOES NOT MARKEDLY ALTER THE BANK WITH THINKING ALONE is not a high case but an old “wide open case” of Dianetic days.

Two-way communication AS A PROCESS is the key to all this. If you put a pc on an E-Meter and locate a present time charge, you can, if the pc can somewhat handle his bank, get him to two-way comm the incident flat very quickly—in five or ten minutes at the most. This is all the process used. It would take an actual E-Meter run to give you a full reality on this.

Here we are looking at the basic difference amongst cases. That difference lies in the ability to knowingly CAUSE. Bodies are the same, they all react alike. Banks differ only vaguely and only in content and significance. Engrams are engrams and they all behave alike. There is only ONE DIFFERENCE amongst pcs. We called this BASIC PERSONALITY in BOOK ONE. We can be a lot more simple about it now that I have my teeth into the subject a few more feet. The difference is DEGREE OF KNOWING CAUSABILITY. What do we mean by CAUSE? The basic, old Scientology definition is still at work. CAUSE-DISTANCE-EFFECT. Joe knowingly shoots Bill. Joe is at Cause, Bill is at Effect. Mary gives John a present. Mary is at Cause, John is at Effect. Bill says Boo to Joe. Bill is at Cause, Joe is at Effect. But when we introduce KNOWING CAUSE and CAUSE AT WILL into this CAUSE-DISTANCE-EFFECT idea we see we have something else added. The person at Cause is there because he knows he is there and because he is willingly there. The person at Cause is not at Cause because he does not dare be at Effect. He must be able to be at Effect. If he is afraid to be at Effect, then he is Unwilling Cause and is at Cause only because he is very afraid of being at Effect. Education can show a person he can be at Effect without liability. Then he can be at Cause without HAVING TO BE BECAUSE HE DOESN’T DARE BE AT EFFECT. Auditing in its whole operation is teaching the pc this. Pc slides from terrified effect to tolerated effect to knowing cause with regard to any incident he contacts IF HE IS AUDITED PROPERLY. The pc who has to get rid of all his engrams because he has to get rid of them because it’s all too horrible winds up, with good auditing, into a tolerance of the pictures since he has learned he can tolerate them and so can swing around to Cause.

So we have this great difference in pcs. DEGREE OF KNOWING CAUSABILITY is the extent that he is willing to be at Cause and the extent he is willing to know he is at Cause plus the ability to cause things.

You will see this on an E-Meter in PT Problem handling. Bill has a PT Problem. It drops a dial when first contacted. The auditor, using his UNDERSTANDING of Scientology, two-way comms on it. The incident discharges and no longer registers after a few minutes. Mary has a PT Problem. It drops steeply on the E-Meter. The auditor tries to two-way comm on it. The charge remains the same or Mary begins to disperse. She doesn’t hold to the subject. The auditor at length finds that two-way comm only serves to run down her havingness. The charge remains on the meter dial. What is the difference between Bill and Mary? Bill can be at knowing cause, Mary is either obsessive cause or heavy effect. Bill can blow facsimiles. Mary cannot. On Mary the auditor is very wise to enter upon TR TEN.

One version of TR TEN is called Short Spotting. “You notice that (nearby object).” So long as the pc can see with his eyes the object or feel the auditor’s hand on it the process works. It is spotting right up close. If run with mediumly near and far objects (such as the room wall) it is very effective in getting a case going. It has given some cases their first reality on auditing. BUT the rule still holds here about somatics. When a somatic is turned on with a process, turn it off with that process. See Auditor’s Code 13. This is entirely true of Short Spotting. In that it almost always turns on somatics, when you start it, you have to flatten it and that’s often lengthy.

Remember this about pc participation. A low case can’t handle the bank, therefore you keep high ARC and kid-glove him through a session. A very high case doesn’t need dynamite, therefore you retain his participation by going as rapidly as you can. A medium, average case needs ARC, something of dynamite, something of kid-gloves, something of two-way comm.

And IN ALL GOOD AUDITING CASES IMPROVE. Just because you start a pc low doesn’t mean he’ll always stay low. Check the case often. See if his CAUSABILITY is rising. If it isn’t, he isn’t improving and you better go easier or

heavier. PROBABLY when a case doesn’t improve you didn’t handle a PT Problem. THAT IS THE ONLY THING WHICH CAN KEEP A CASE FROM GAINING. So check every session for one.

There are probably thousands of ways to gain the participation of the pc, there are probably thousands of ways to open a session. There are probably an infinite number of tricky things you can do. However, this breadth of choice should not obscure the following.

1. A pc who is not participating in the session is not at Cause.

2. An auditor who isn’t able to maintain ARC, who isn’t able to “Freeze” a process for a short time, even a tone 40.0 process, and re-establish ARC, will not get results.

3. The end-all of processing is the attainment of a goal, the goal of OT. One always processes the problems and difficulties of the pc, he does not process the process. Processes only assist in processing the pc. They will not do anything by themselves. Processes are a road map to the goal of OT, they are nothing in themselves. The target is the condition, the disabilities of the pc. How one achieves the eradication of these difficulties is secondary to the fact of their eradication. Scientology is a route attained after several thousand years of no attainment by Man and the route is important and valuable and must be travelled correctly, but the concern is the pc, not the route.

4. A new auditor can be adrift with his tools. He is uncertain as to what he is attacking. He should have reality on engrams, locks, key-ins, secondaries, the time track, the key buttons of Scientology such as Communication, Control and Havingness. Given an understanding of all these and the theory of Scientology itself he can almost pilot his way through a case with two-way comm. But two-way comm will not work if one doesn’t understand all the above. So two-way comm is not conversation. The pc has had a few trillion years of that and it hasn’t made him well, so two-way comm is a highly specialized thing, done with full understanding of the thetan, bank and body. Good two-way comm means participation by the pc.

5. Scientology is a precise commodity, something like engineering. A pc is a precise thing, part animal, part pictures and part God. We want the ability to handle things and the God, and the less unthinking responses in the pc, the better off he will be. Therefore a PC WHO ISN’T COGNITING regularly is being processed beyond his ability to do and it is necessary to drop back downscale to find something he CAN DO.

6. The golden rule of processing is to find something the preclear CAN do and then to improve his ability to do it. At once you will have participation. The highest ability one pc had was to get drunk: a resolution of his case was entered upon by having him invent ways to get drunk.

7. The attention span of children and psychos is not necessarily a factor since it is only the phenomena of dispersal against mental blocks, keying in of incidents. The auditor can pay attention to it or not as he likes. Short, regular sessions on people with limited attention span get more gain per week than a steady grind since the participation is maintained.

8. The auditor remains at Cause in all sessions without forbidding the pc to be at Cause. See the rules in DIANETICS: THE ORIGINAL THESIS.


L. RON HUBBARD




[Further material can be found in Scientology: Clear Procedure-Issue One on page 172. The above HCO B was reissued on 29 September 1970.]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
1812 19th Street N.W., Washington D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 7 DECEMBER 1957




HGC PROCEDURE



The following is laid down as an entirety of processing to be done in the HGC in London. No other processes or variations are allowed.

GOAL: Operating Thetan.
DEFINITION: An Operating Thetan is one who can be knowingly at Cause over Life, Matter, Energy, Space and Time.

CCH 0 in brief, find auditor, find pc, find auditing room, clear help and goals. BUT IN THE MAIN HANDLE THE PT PROBLEM IF IT EXISTS. IF IT DOESN’T EXIST do CCH 0 briefly and quickly and get on with the session.

It will be noted that giving pc’s attention to auditing room or environment can turn on a somatic after three or four commands. After one command of “Have you got an auditing room,” this becomes a process called LOCATIONAL. If Locational turns on a somatic it must be run until somatic is flat. Therefore the auditor has no business attempting Locational or getting the pc involved unless he intends to do something about it.

PRESENT TIME PROBLEM

The pc is put on an E-Meter before PT Problem is discussed. When the E-Meter has been adjusted (one third of a dial surge when pc squeezes cans) the auditor asks if the pc has a present time problem. After a little discussion of this, the needle may surge. If it does the auditor locates the PT Problem’s most intimate terminal and runs (with the pc still holding the cans) “Invent something worse than (indicated terminal)” until the problem flattens out on the dial. The auditor can ask for and run another PT Problem or even three or four but always flattening down the surge of the needle. IF THE PC IS 50% below the center line of the APA it is not safe to run “Invent”. Instead, without scouting around Invent but knowing the graph in the first place, simply two way comms the problem and runs Locational until the problem flattens out on the needle. The auditor does not begin with Invent and then change his mind and run Locational. It is an either or. The auditor starts with “Invent” or he starts with Locational and whichever he does he does not change. IF LOCATIONAL TURNS ON A SOMATIC IT MUST BE RUN UNTIL LOCATIONAL NO LONGER TURNS ON SOMATICS .

Once the PT Problem is flat the auditor puts away the E-Meter.

S-C-S STEPS

S-C-S begins with 8c of any kind. If 8c turns on a somatic it runs until it no longer turns on somatics. 8c is run formal or tone 40.

Start is then run as per 1956.

Change is then run as per 1956.

Stop is then run as per 1956.

If each of these is flattened in turn it does not mean that S-C-S is flat. It means

only that Start is probably unflattened. Thus one again runs Start after Stop, runs Change after Start, Stop after Change until none of the three unflatten the others.

More 8c can be run. There is no error in liberally running 8c which is, after all, a more complicated Locational of a Short Spotting sort.

SPOTTING STEPS

Spotting itself is a broad process. Locational is only one of many spotting processes. Spotting spots in the past, in space, in the present, Short Spotting (Locational done up close) are all effective.

SPOTTING DEPENDS FOR ITS WORKABILITY ON THE DISLIKE OF A THETAN OF BEING LOCATED. IT RUNS BEST, of course, WITH THE THETAN AT CAUSE DOING THE SPOTTING.

Connectedness is the basic process on ASSOCIATION of Theta with Mest. All forms and kinds of association including being caught in traps are prone to become identifications as in Dianetics. Connectedness puts the thetan at cause in making the Mest (or people when run outside) connect with him. The command is “Get the idea of making (indicated object) connect with you.” The auditor points. The worse off a person is the less reality they have on far objects.

Havingness is a complicated Connectedness. Also a permissive one. Thus Trio is above Connectedness and may be used when Connectedness is flat.


L. RON HUBBARD





LRH:-.rd Copyright © 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

P.A.B. No. 126
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

15 December 1957

PROBLEMS: HANDLING AND RUNNING


Easily the most important process in Scientology is Problems of Comparable Magnitude. It has no peers. We don’t care how low a process runs, or how high it runs. But nowhere in Scientology do we have a process which runs as high and low as Problems of Comparable Magnitude.

Now that idea of span should be clearly understood by you. There are processes which undoubtedly run lower or higher—of this we are certain. But no other process runs both so low and so high. The only thing necessary in a “problem of comparable magnitude” is for the terminal selected to be real to the preclear. Now that is a necessary condition for the running of it. “Problems of comparable magnitude” become real only if the terminal or terminals selected become real. That is the first condition. Where this process breaks down, it is actually not being run, since Problems of Comparable Magnitude by definition is a process which brings the preclear to invent situations of similar importance to a given situation, and the given situation must be composed of one or more terminals.

Now what do we mean by “terminal”? It would be any fixed mass utilized in a communication system. Thus, you see, a man would be a terminal, but a post could also be a terminal. Thus, a head could be a terminal, but so could a hat. But between the two, we get a hat as questionable. It is questionable to the degree that it has less mass, and is easily shed. Somewhere along the line there is a border between a terminal and a condition. Now, we have to know what a condition is.

A condition is a circumstance regarding a mass or terminal. When you are asking for “problems of comparable magnitude,” if you run them on conditions you are calling for a circumstance or a problem comparable to a circumstance, which doesn’t have any fixed position and never did have any fixed position and never did operate in any communication system, so you are describing a description—and there is nothing into which the preclear can get his teeth.

First we must conceive, then, a difference between a condition and a terminal. That is quite important for you to conceive. If you can’t conceive the difference between a condition and terminal, why, you’re in for it; this technique will forever be beyond your grasp—and that is a very easy thing to conceive, however.

The light is on. Now, “on” is a circumstance regarding the light. So you wouldn’t run a “problem of comparable magnitude to ‘on,’ “ but you would run a “problem of comparable magnitude to the light.” Do you see that? It sounds idiotic, but a lot of people miss this one. Let’s take this now, and see that there are masses, and all masses are only relatively fixed. Masses are masses, and they are not, by the way, particles.

Copyright © 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

Masses are something that are shed from a thetan by mock-up, and particles are something that are shed from masses. You don’t run particles. So what we mean as a terminal has a relatively fixed, identifiable, isolatable location in space.

Now just why you don’t run particles, just why you don’t run “problems of comparable magnitude” to words, just why you don’t run “problems of comparable magnitude” to conditions of one kind or another, that is best demonstrated by your running it some time—and that’s a happy adventure for the auditor, not the preclear. To make a real, sure-fire test, why, you should run something like this: a problem of comparable magnitude to fancy words. Now that is indefinite enough and up in the air enough .... You would shoot the bottom out from your preclear fast enough.

The auditor to run this successfully must choose first and foremost a terminal as his target—not a condition. The next thing is to choose the right terminal.

Now you must understand the procedure of running this technique. Now you wonder why I’m stressing this. The most fabulous thing—this technique can go off the rails faster in auditing than any other technique I know anything about. Now one of the things that is most remarkable about it is that auditors do not accept from the preclear—problems. In other words, an auditor who is obsessively solving problems would have an awful time running this technique, because he has to accept from the preclear a problem every time the preclear answers the question. The way to run it is this: it actually requires about three answers. You said, “Give me a problem of comparable magnitude to your mother,” and the preclear said, “The Atlantic Ocean.” Now if the auditor said, “Well, how could that be a problem to you?” you would get this oddity. The preclear would say, “Well, the Atlantic Ocean overflowing its banks.” Now, an auditor who can’t stand problems would accept this one as a problem—but it is a condition. The first thing the preclear gave was what he conceived to be a comparable terminal, then he gave a condition. And only on another repetition of “How could that be a problem to you?” would it come home to him. But there was a problem involved with it—”How could that be a problem to you?” So the auditing commands are: “Give me a problem of comparable magnitude to (a terminal),” “How could that be a problem to you?” and if necessary “How could that be a problem to you?” and as many times as necessary to get the preclear to finally dredge out the problem.

Unless the preclear can get that idea of a problem, the technique is unworkable. The semantics of the thing may throw him. Therefore the command could be cleared with some profit. The word that is liable to throw the command is “problem,” not “comparable magnitude,” and because those are polysyllabic you are liable to believe that on some preclears “comparable magnitude” is where they will hang up, and this is not where they hang up.

The auditing of it must include another thing, and that is a feeling on the part of the preclear himself figuring on it. This is evidently a necessary part of the running. We say, “A problem of comparable magnitude to your mother.” The preclear says, “The Atlantic Ocean.” We say, “How could that be a problem to you?” The preclear says, “Oh, its overflowing its banks.” And you say, “All right, how could that be a problem to you?” He says, “Oh, I could figure out some way to keep it from going over its banks.” If you’re not sure yet, because you wouldn’t be sure with that one, you say, “But how could that be a problem to you?” or—alternative command here—”Can you get yourself figuring how to do that?” He’ll get that—that’s what you want. He’s got to get an idea of himself figuring it out. You want that included in the anatomy of the running of it.

Now, an alternative command to all this is “incomparable magnitude,” as I have just mentioned. When you tackle something so huge, so formidable that it would mean

a couple of hours’ comm lag on the part of your preclear—you see, he’s just this moment been informed that he is going to be electrocuted at dawn—you want to desensitize him and blow him out of his head and leave them a dead body, which would be a good joke—something on this order, you see. You realize that this problem could be huge. His fixation is unbelievably great. It goes from horizon to horizon, down to the very center of the earth, and fills the entire universe on the other side. And that’s how big this problem is. Now this technique of incomparable magnitude enters in at the bottom on problems. If a person can’t get a datum of comparable magnitude, why, what do you suppose that you should do? Get a problem of incomparable magnitude. You cannot evaluate on a single datum except by postulate. Of course, you yourself should be in a condition whereby you simply say “That is important” or “That isn’t important” and that could then be the evaluation of any single datum. But you would no longer be human. You are aware of the fact, by the way, that you cannot be human and be right—that is not possible. I have mentioned that before.

Now here we have, then, a necessity to have evaluation by others. Evaluation from other people. Now get this idea of the only-oneness of problems or situations. When a person is no longer pronouncing the evaluation of things in some grand and kingly style, when he has surrendered this in order to have a more intricate and involved game, he then needs two data. It requires a certain amount of experience of evil to experience good. And we get some people who are around telling us how bad it all is, who have experienced a great deal of kindness. This is a great oddity. You should look it over. All you have to do is to restimulate the early goodness to slip into the consequences of the later evil. Supposing somebody was just being filthy mean, and we compliment him on his good heart, his love of his fellow men—and we’ll watch him chuck his cookies. He’s liable to fold right up in front of you. You could restimulate such a thing into being until it collapsed and was no longer a button.

We understand things when we are no longer evaluating by postulate, but when we are being polite and evaluating by proof, by demonstration, we no longer are able to accept an “only-one” thing. This is a bad thing because a thetan is to a marked degree an “only-one” creature, and it restimulates his own beingness. When he falls into the lower harmonics of his own beingness, he comes to grief. All you’ve got to do is exaggerate being a thetan in any one of its facets and you’re in trouble. But now it doesn’t say that you cannot attain these things. I said the lower harmonics. How does he get to the lower harmonics? By fixation. By fixations on various incidents, and certainly on things which exist as “only-one.” There is nothing else like it, so you can never look away if you want to look at such a thing, you have to look at it. And this becomes very bad . . . very, very bad.

As a matter of fact it becomes very amusing when you have problems of comparable magnitude, because a person is using when he runs this his desire for evaluation, but he’s putting evaluation on a cause basis, and you are running off the highest logics in logic straight out of the bank. So a person doesn’t have to have beautiful sunshine in the streets in order to have a beautiful day. Do you understand that? A person to a marked degree ceases to be dependent upon his environment to give him pleasure or pain.

If you stand around and wait for something else to decide it is something or other, you are in bad trouble. Now children do this—do this to such a marked degree that they don’t even know how much pain is painful until they ask Momma or ask Poppa. A child is dependent on exterior evaluation, and I’ve seen a child go so far as not to eat ice cream. Why? “Ice cream’s bad. I don’t like ice cream.” I said, “What?” I was pretty fast on my feet as an auditor and I said, “Who told you that?” “Oh ....” “Well, who told you that?” I said. “Ice cream’s good.” A horrible thing to do. I ran out the other person’s magic spell and ran my own in. Kids straightwire rather fast. You can straighten out almost anything with a child if you straightwire them.

Thus we look over the situation and find out that an individual is made to suffer by life to a degree that he is made to by life. Thus his evaluation of life from himself as cause point, as an ability, is necessary to his recovery. We find this under Problems of Comparable Magnitude. We could go off and discuss the whole subject of logic, you realize, the second we say comparable magnitude. I’m going to point your attention to the Prelogics, by the way. I’m going to ask you to read those.

The only reason Problems of Comparable Magnitude works so well and easily is that the individual puts certain things on automatic, which is to say he will not take certain responsibilities for one side of a dichotomy. He abandons all responsibility for evil. It’s an interesting state of affairs, because he becomes incapable of handling evil, and then goes on this one-two basis of stimulus-response, and in his next life he’s going to be totally evil. He didn’t take any responsibility for it, and it’s going to eat him up. You take enough responsibility for a lion, you’ll dine on him—every time.

There is an interesting experiment that you can perform yourself—I advise that you should perform this to have an understanding of responsibility and automaticity, because automaticity and responsibility are nowhere more necessary to understand than in Problems of Comparable Magnitude—and that is this: “Get the idea of the effort it took to make that wall.” Get the idea of anything in the line of effort and feel almost at once the overwhelming irresponsibility concerning it. It could be an irresponsibility so great it could make you practically ill.

If you wanted to be real mean to a preclear, not improve him particularly, you could just ask him, “Give me an idea of the effort necessary to make your case.” He would be sitting right there in a total irresponsibility for his case. His case is there, he’s not responsible for it. Now how do you recover his responsibility for anything? He has to be able to handle it. Now you could put something on automatic, but usually when you do you will sooner or later get into an irresponsibility for it, because that’s what automatic is. So we put something on automatic. Well, if we put problems on automatic, then we ourselves become a problem eventually without our consent. In other words we put problems on automatic, then we ourselves become solution. And when we ourselves are in nothing but solution, the whole world around us is nothing but problem and we’re obsessively solution and all the problems are automatic, we wind down faster than any other method I know. We’ll wind up being a problem, that’s all. The whole Service Facsimile can be summed up by just this one word—solution. A Service Facsimile is a solution. That’s all. If you took over this automaticity of problems the individual then could recover from his Service Facsimile. But remember that you had better run terminals, not conditions.

What I have just been talking to you about solves in toto all of that which we were going over in 1952 concerning Service Facsimiles—and that is quite a mouthful. If you do it this way, if you know how to do it, if you can look over this whole thing and see quickly how it is done and why it is done, and get it set and settled so you know what’s going on with the preclear, then you’ll be able to handle chronic somatics directly. You will be able to handle any dynamic directly.

L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
1812 19th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 16 DECEMBER 1957




PRESENT TIME PROBLEM


The handling of a present time problem is relatively simple but requires a certain deftness on an E-Meter.

DEFINITION: A present time problem is one which has its elements in the material universe in present time, which is going on NOW, and which would demand the preclear’s attention to such an extent that he would feel he had better be doing something about it rather than be audited.

EXAMPLE: Auditor locates girl friend as pt problem of pc. He runs problem with “invent something worse”, considers it flat, never looks at it again in intensive. Girl friend calls up pc every night, invalidates him, finally makes him so sick she carts him off in triumph to a hospital. BLUNDER: Auditor tried to clear pt problem for the whole intensive, not at the beginning of each session. BLUNDER: Auditor in this case went backtrack to a dead wife to clean up charge.

A pt problem is cleaned up as itself only. One doesn’t backtrack to get why the pc has such a problem when doing CCH 0.

A pt problem is checked at the beginning of every session—and if there is a break at noon, is cleaned up also at the beginning of the afternoon session.

A pt problem doesn’t always bop on the meter at the first question. The auditor has to spend a little time asking around and making sure. Then he audits it on if it falls under above definition of pt problem.

THINGS TO AUDIT PT PROBLEM WITH: A very bad off case: TR Ten and if it turns on a somatic, flatten TR TEN “YOU notice that object.” An average case: Isolate the terminal most closely associated with the problem and run “Invent something worse than (terminal)” and then flatten it off with “Invent a problem of comparable magnitude to (terminal).” Also can be run “Spot where (terminal) is now. Okay. Spot where you are now. Okay.” A very easy case: Two way comm about the problem and terminals, getting pc to cognite, until the charge is gone.

Where the PT PROBLEM is pain in some member of the body, the auditor can run “Recall an unwanted (member that hurts).” And when that has been run for a few cycles from present to past, “Recall a lost (member that hurts).” (Always run lost and unwanted in the same session and for the same length of time.) Short spotting will also relieve a pain but is rough on the pc unless wholly flattened and run along with medium and long spotting.


L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
23 Hancock Street, Joubert Park, Johannesburg

HCO BULLETIN OF 18 DECEMBER 1957



PSYCHOSIS, NEUROSIS AND PSYCHIATRISTS



An auditor who does not understand the true character of neurosis and psychosis is likely to find himself trying to understand neurotics and psychotics and psychiatrists and to the degree of that un-understanding could become the effect of these.

If we examine the definition for operating thetan we find his highest capability is knowing and willing cause. This should tell us at once that the definition of neurosis and psychosis would be unknowing and unwilling effect, and this is the actual definition of either.

Neurosis and psychosis are different only in degree of singleness of effect. A neurotic is the subject of one or more unknown causes to which he is the unwilling effect—but he can still function to some degree, which is to say he can still be cause in other lines. A psychotic is the complete subject of one or more unknown causes to which he is the unwilling effect and any effort on his part to be cause is interfered with by the things to which he is the effect; in other words, a psychotic’s outflow is cut to zero by the inflow.

Now let us examine the potential number of neuroses and psychoses in the light of the above definitions. How many aspects are there to a life unit, which is to say, a thetan? Perhaps the number is infinite but at least we can say the number of aspects is very large. There are no additional aspects in this or any other universe. In other words when you examine the aspects or abilities of a basic life unit you have examined all the aspects or abilities there are in a universe. There aren’t any left over. Even if you include gods in every universe you will see that you have not escaped the potentialities of life units.

All the aspects and abilities there are are the aspects and abilities of a thetan. The only thing that can be done with these aspects or abilities is included, at least in this universe, in the formula of cause and effect. Take one ability and add to it the idea of cause and effect of the more simple variety CAUSE, DISTANCE, EFFECT, fix it so it can never be flowed against by anything else and we have a source of neuroses. Now take a being at the effect point of this flow. If this being is the effect point of a flow he can never flow back against, we have here what we could carelessly call a neurosis. But there is no other qualification for this neurosis than that it be unwillingly received and unknown. Therefore a known “stuck flow” at a person which he is not unwilling to receive does not cause a neurosis. Now as we make this “stuck flow” unwillingly received, then unknown, and make it so that it bars out all back flows of whatever kind on any subject then we have psychosis.

As there are no other aspects than those of a thetan, we see at once that all neuroses and psychoses are EXAGGERATED, CONCENTRATED ABILITIES. The recipient, still trying to be cause, transfers himself to a false cause point. We call this dramatization. He seeks to do only the ability and no other. We have then a psychosis. As he can do no other thing, because he is really unwilling and unknowing EFFECT seeking to be CAUSE by DRAMATIZING the EFFECT, he loses all the abilities but this one ability. This makes a peculiar and lopsided personality. People object to it partially because it is false cause and partially because it denies society all the other social abilities of the person. The psychotic himself is insufficiently willing or knowing about it to object to it.

Thus we have the standard Scientology method of eradicating one of those

psychoses or neuroses. Actually we don’t even use these words or admit them as any kind of irreparable state. We are not in such a business. We say we must find something the preclear can do and then improve it. Let us say that we find something the preclear can do knowingly and willingly and have the preclear do it to improve it. All you have to do is get him to reach toward the source of the CAUSE of his condition. The lowest level cause of any difficulty is MEST, therefore the objective processes of Trio, locational, 8c, etc, work uniformly well since anybody here is to some degree the unwilling and unknowing effect of this universe.

Now where does the psychiatrist come into this? And why is he a bad fellow to have around in the society? Well in the first place, he is cognizant only of insanities. As every insanity is only an exaggerated and concentrated ability the psychiatrist can see in every ability an insanity.

There are no other aspects or abilities than those of a thetan. Any one of these can pressure, as detailed above, into an insanity. A psychiatrist or any other person totally associated with insanity then sees all abilities as a parade of insanities. Only where abilities are several and performed socially, not anti-socially, do we have sanity. The psychiatrist never, or rarely, inspects the sphere of sanity. To him, all things then, add up to madness, since every madness is compounded of abilities (disarranged as above).

Let us see a good example of this. “A” is a fine statesman. He plays polo, has a satisfied wife, collects old cars, can do a good job of work as a carpenter, a fisherman and an ice skater. He reads detective stories and plays good poker. He is working on a plan privately to disentangle the Middle East and assist France. One day he is at his club and he is joined by “B”. “B” is a political dilettante. He spends most of his money on maps and treatises about the Middle East. He cannot ride, sing or work and his family life is in ruins. He is obviously a neurotic at best. His ideas are disassociated, impractical but loud. Everyone at the club except “B” knows “B” is a poor risk.

“A”, the sane, versatile man, hears “B”, the neurotic, sounding off about the Middle East and saving France and how only “B” could accomplish this. “A”, knowing “B’s” character, BEGINS TO WONDER IF HE IS CRAZY BECAUSE HE IS INTERESTED IN THE MIDDLE EAST. In such a way, and in any line, the psychotic or neurotic is a sort of mockery of the sane ability.

Now, as an authority on man and insanity (but not an authority on sanity as is a Scientologist) the psychiatrist, studying insane people runs across “B”. He classifies “B” as a save-the-world type and notes that “B” is fixated on France and the Middle East. Shortly thereafter the psychiatrist is called upon to render a decision about “A”. He looks in his book, finds “A” is trying to do something about France and the Middle East and, of course classifies “A” as insane.

Another case. George loves Norma. Norma is at first very impressed. George works hard, likes to hike, has some property he is fixing up at week-ends. Now along comes Oswald. Oswald says he loves Norma. Oswald says he is mad about Norma. This is, of course, the case. Oswald has big ideas but no job, wouldn’t walk out of the building if it was on fire, gets rid of every piece of real or personal property that comes his way. George knows Oswald is “nutty”. Oswald loves Norma. George begins to think he, George, must be crazy to love Norma because Oswald does.

As an authority on twisted and insane love, but not an authority on love, the psychiatrist examining Oswald finds he loves Norma’s type of girl. Later, examining George, the psychiatrist finds that George is crazy because he loves the type of girl Norma is. Well, that’s an exaggeration but you see where it goes. The psychiatrist, having noted that love was pretty well flung about in the insane wards, leaps to the conclusion that all love is insane because it is so common in the wards and founds in a flash of inspiration psychoanalysis which says all insanity derives from love.

We are held to mockery in all our loves and dreams by the neurotic and psychotic who specialize in mishandling these dreams and loves. And so the world goes mad.

It is not safe to have experts on insanity who are not also experts on sanity. Such persons as those who know only the insane eventually judge that everything man can do is insane and that all men are mad and then we get a society devoted entirely to the support of asylums until it is at last only an asylum itself.

The auditor should understand the mechanism behind neurosis and psychosis. He should draw it out for himself on a graph, showing cause and effect. He should understand that mechanism because it is the ONLY THING THERE IS TO UNDERSTAND about neurotics and psychotics, for all else they do is gibberish and un-understandable.

If he truly understands this mechanism in all its phases then neurosis and psychosis can never make him an effect point and he can audit them with ease when he has to step out of character that far.

If the Scientologist thoroughly understands that the downfall of psychiatry which is now occurring came about because the psychiatrist never understood sanity then we won’t have any future specialists in insanity beyond these data.

Society has long suspected versatility and the man of many skills. We should have realized there was something right with him.


L. RON HUBBARD




LRH:-.rd Copyright © 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED





[PAB 144, Psychosis, Neurosis and Psychiatrists, 15 September 1958, is taken from this HCO B.]

Scientology: Clear Procedure
Issue One

December 1957


L. Ron Hubbard


GOAL:

To obtain the state of clear in individuals.


DEFINITION OF A CLEAR:

A thetan who can knowingly be at cause over Life, Matter, Energy, Space and Time, subjective and objective.

This is a working definition. Self-determinism and knowledge that he himself can be at cause point are then primary targets.

Minimum Requisite for Auditor in Using These Techniques:

A Validated Hubbard Professional Auditor Certificate.


INTRODUCTION

I have been at work for seven years to produce a series of techniques which any well trained auditor can use to clear people. We now have them.

I am truly sorry that this took seven years. Actually, it took more than twenty-five.

Under other “systems of research” it could not have been done. It was financed at first by my writings and expeditions. Some 15,000,000 words of fact and fiction articles ranging from political articles to westerns were consumed in a large part by this research-but it was free to act if not free from sweat.

No bullying dictator wanted it for his mass slaveries as happened to poor misguided Pavlov. No big corporation wanted it for a better Madison Avenue approach to advertising—another kind of slavery. No big RESEARCH FOUNDATION like Ford was there to interject their “America First” philosophy. These had not paid for it; therefore they didn’t own it. The work stayed free. Thus it prospered. It did not wither in support of some aberrated “cause.” It bloomed.

But the violence of protecting this work while continuing it took a toll nevertheless. Special interests believed it must be evil if they did not own it. Between 1950 and 1956, 2,000,000 traceable dollars were spent to halt this work. Newspaper articles, radio ads (as in Seattle from the University of Washington), bribed “patrons,” financed “patients” all cost money. You hear the repercussions of this campaign even today.

Money could not stop this work by then. It was too late. If anything had been wrong with our organizations, my character, our intentions or abilities the whole advance would have crumbled. But we had no Achilles’ heels. We carried on. All that has survived of this attack by the two APAs, the AMA and several universities is a clutter of rumors concerning your sanity and mine—and rumors no longer financed will some day die.

And so the work has emerged free of taint and misguided slants. It is itself. It does what it says it does. It contains no adroit curves to make one open to better believing some “ism.” That makes it singular today in a world gone mad with nationalism. Buddhism, when it came to the millions, was no longer free of slant and prejudice. Taoism itself became a national jingoism far from any work of Lao-Tze. Even Christianity had its “pitch.” And if these great works became curved, with all the personal force of their creators, how is it that our little triumph here can still be found in a clear state?

Well, no diamonds and palaces have been accepted from rajahs, no gratuitous printing of results has been the gift of warlords, no testament had to be written 300 years after the fact.

For this we can thank Johann Gutenberg, and the invention of magnetic tape.

Therefore, although we have no such stature as the Great Philosophies, I charge you with this—look to source writings, not to interpretations. Look to the original work, not offshoots.

If I have fought for a quarter of a century, most of it alone, to keep this work from serving to uphold the enslavers of Man, to keep it free from some destructive “pitch” or slant, then you certainly can carry that motif a little further.

I’ll 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.”

SUMMARY

STEP ONE: Establish participation in session of pc. Do not here or anywhere else neglect this factor. Maintain always ARC. Pc must to some degree be at cause with regard to session if only by wanting it or some result of it, or to escape some elsewhere consequence. This step is CCH 0 but it is run only to establish the thetan to some degree at cause with regard to the whole session. This must be improved throughout the intensive. Applies even to dead pcs.

STEP TWO: Establish obedience of some part of the auditing room to the pc. Here he must begin at some level of knowingness. He must KNOW that he himself, when ordered to do so, can gain some compliance on the part of the auditing room. This includes his own body. Thus we get “You seat that body in that chair. Thank you.” “You make that body continue to lie in that bed. Thank you.” We also get CCH 1. And we get a very important but neglected process run with two objects wherein the pc himself is ordered to keep one then the other from going away (alternately), hold it still, make it more solid, all with two objects. Stress is on YOU do it.

STEP THREE: Establish control of pc’s body by pc. Here we have CCH 2, but we also have an even more important series of processes, S-C-S in all their ramifications on the body. Here is pc at cause with regard to body. It is expected that lots of S-C-S will be run on pcs.

STEP FOUR: Make pc even more conscious of auditor and place him somewhat at cause with ARC. The mechanical steps of this are CCH 3 and CCH 4 but these steps are only valid if they heighten ARC and make the pc decide HE did it.

STEP FIVE: Establish pc as cause over Mest by establishing pc’s ideas as cause over Mest. Here, running these, we again emphasize YOU DO IT. The basic process of this is CONNECTEDNESS with the PC doing the connecting. Control Trio, Trio, Look around here and tell me what part of the environment you would be willing to be responsible for. You look, You connect, You make ....... Alter the old commands to put pc at cause point in doing these.

STEP SIX: Establish pc’s control over Mest subjective. Creative Processes, Recall Unwanted and Lost Objects. Then and Now Solids. First step on this in some cases is conquering black ‘‘field’’ and invisible “field.” This is done by a repair of havingness over black masses and then invisible masses, run even if pc goes unconscious. When field is cleared up, start on a gradient scale of mock-ups and get pc able to mock things up. Then run “Keep it from going away” until flat on mock-ups. Then run “Hold it still” on mock-ups. Then run “Make it more solid” on mock-ups. All this until pc really has fine, solid mock-ups. Typical command, “Mock up a and keep it from going away. Thank you.” RULE: A PC’S FACSIMILES ARE NOT STORED, THEY ARE MADE IN THE INSTANT AND UNMADE BY THE PC, therefore remedy of mock-ups AND THEIR PERSISTENCE is actually a direct route to clear and winds up with no obsessive mock-up making (which we call a bank). A valuable side process here: “Decide to make a mock-up. Decide that will ruin the game. Decide not to do it.” Also this one, “Decide to make a mock-up everyone can see. Decide that would ruin the game. Decide not to do it.” A TOTAL REMEDY OF MOCK-UPS WOULD MAKE A BOOK ONE CLEAR.

STEP SEVEN: Establish pc’s control over his “bank.” “Mock up a facsimile and (keep it from going away, and when that is flat, hold it still, and when that is flat, make it a little more solid).” Run this alternately with “Mock up that wall (keep it from going away, hold it still, make it a little more solid).” Run the “Keep it from going away” on a facsimile one command, then the wall one command, until flat, then shift to “Hold it still” same way, then shift to “Make it more solid,” same way.

STEP EIGHT: Make some Time.

AUDITING TRUTHS:

ARC breaks must all be repaired thoroughly. ARC Must Be Maintained.

There is no real liability to a pc in this universe except one: becoming total subject of Mest.

Life versus Life, no liability. Life via Mest versus Life, some liability. Life versus Mest, total liability.

A pc must be kept at Cause as much as possible.

An Intensive in Brief for Practical Use

Begin by carefully easing the pc into session with CCH 0 but don’t talk too much or permit him to talk too much as you will as-is his havingness.

Establish control of a room object with “You make that chair sit on the floor.”

Get wheeling with S-C-S and run it up to Stop-C-S.

Run Connectedness inside the auditing room and then outside with “You make that connect with you.” or “You look around here and tell me something you could have.” Or, “You look around here and tell me something you could be responsible for.”

Run an engram or do Then and Now Solids and put pc at cause with regard to facsimiles.

If you have any time left, do it all over again.


DEFINITIONS, GOALS

There are three possible goals in processing a preclear. The first of these is Mest Clear. The second is Theta Clear. The third is Operating Thetan.

By Mest Clear is meant a BOOK ONE CLEAR. Here we defined clear in terms of facsimiles. This is a rather simple mechanical definition. It said in effect that so far as human beings were concerned our preclear finally arrived at a point where he had full color-visio-sonic, had no psychoses or neuroses and could recall what had happened to him in this lifetime. This is almost a baby-talk sort of clear. It pays no heed at all to identification with a body and it has nothing to do with ability. Today, by running Creative Processes (four years old!) we can turn on visible facsimiles and weed out the bottom spots of operations and what not. This is actually a rather easy goal. Somehow I’ve never given a real tight procedure for achieving it even though the essence of the processes has been around for a very long time. COMPLETING STEP SIX OF CLEAR PROCEDURE IN FULL GIVES US A MEST CLEAR.

By Theta Clear is meant a Clear obtained by Clear Procedure as is being delineated in this regimen. The main trouble is, amusingly, trying to reach Mest Clear without running into Theta Clear. I personally don’t believe now that it can be done without actually shoving the pc back in his head every time he pops out. Thus the goal of this procedure is actually THETA CLEAR. This is what we mean then when we say “clear.” We mean a Theta Clear.

By Operating Thetan we mean Theta Clear PLUS ability to operate functionally against or with Mest and other life forms. For the first time we have here the matter of ABILITY. An Operating Thetan is not an absolute term. Theta Clear is a more absolute term than Operating Thetan. An Operating Thetan is a Theta Clear (not a mystical mystic out on an inversion) who can also do something.

Thus we have two goals which contain no ambition to accomplish anything and one goal which contains much ambition. Now here is another puzzle in definitions. Which is highest, the Theta Clear or the Operating Thetan? Well, the answer to that is not what we used to think. As DOINGNESS is not really at the top we find that we will probably make an Operating Thetan before we achieve Theta Clear for a Theta Clear would probably not be much interested in operating. Therefore, we see the actual goal we are trying to reach, no matter in which limited sense, is Operating Thetan.

Operating Thetan is then a highly variable goal. A thetan who can move in and out of a body is actually operating somewhat but he is not really a Theta Clear since a Theta Clear, in its highest sense, means no further dependency upon bodies.

The goals of the auditor, therefore, do not rack up one, two, three, Mest Clear, Theta Clear, Operating Thetan. They actually stack up on a very gradient scale between thetan inoperative and a thetan who can operate. The auditor is therefore seeking to reach with the pc a state wherein the pc can function. At no time does the auditor suddenly arrive with a pc in a startling new shiny state all of a sudden that can be called a certain thing. In that pcs often expect this suddenly bursting “into the light” the auditor is subject to disappointment when he has actually achieved an enormous gain for the pc. In other words, pcs gain on a smooth gradient scale and do not suddenly become something.

There is only one point on the road up where something does happen and that is exteriorization. When the pc exteriorizes for the first time he feels there must be a cause for rejoicing and has the idea he has gotten somewhere. Well, in fact you could achieve the same result by hitting him over the head with a club. He would exteriorize. The point is not exteriorizing the pc but cutting down his dependency upon a body. A pc who exteriorizes and is not carried right on with the same process that sprang him out of his head until it is flat will go back into his head in an hour or a week and will be harder to dig out the next time.

In other words, this point of exteriorization does happen and does mean to the pc that he is himself. But it shouldn’t mean very much to an auditor beyond his noticing that this phase has been entered in the case. For in truth thetans don’t stay out of their bodies very long if they are not in good shape. Thus exteriorization means less than ability to act, to live, to be and do. The attention of the auditor should be upon the increasing ability of the pc to handle life, not upon the distance the pc gets from his body. Is that clear? Well, it tells us that arriving at a state of Clear is easy if that means stable outside and that any state of betterment on the road to Operating Thetan is an honest achievement.

Thus an auditor should at all times go toward the state of Operating Thetan and should not be mixed up in the oddities of exteriorization for a day.

HGC Clear Procedure goes straight toward exteriorization and achieves it. But it also goes straight toward increasing ability to handle life. The latter is the auditor’s best goal. The auditing goal should go in the same direction as this new definition for Operating Thetan.

An Operating Thetan can be at cause knowingly and at will over Life, Matter, Energy, Space and Time, subjectively and objectively.

This Action Definition of Operating Thetan is the true goal of the auditor and if followed with complete understanding will achieve the best possible results.

In this discussion of goals and definitions, I am telling you cleanly that the goals of Mest Clear and Theta Clear are not worth following from the auditor’s standpoint. You can let pcs think what they will about them. The only goal worthy of the auditor’s time WHATEVER THE STATE OF CASE OF THE PC is Operating Thetan. To achieve one on any subject it is only necessary to place the pc to some degree at willing and knowing cause point with regard to that subject. All the steps of HGC Clear Procedure are leveled at Operating Thetan. But you need not tell your pc that. You can use the words RELEASE, MEST CLEAR, THETA CLEAR or any other if you like. Just remember there is only one payoff goal and that is Operating Thetan.

MEST CLEAR: Can see facsimiles with sonic present lifetime, has no psychoses or neuroses. Upper part of APA (in UK OCA) graph. Above 13 5 IQ.

THETA CLEAR: Can exist knowingly independent of bodies.

RELEASE: Average a third of a graph higher than first test, above 115 IQ.

OPERATING THETAN: Can be at Cause knowingly and at will over Life, Matter, Energy, Space and Time, subjectively and objectively.


STEP ONE

Participation in Session by the Pc

We have long known that ARC was important. Just how important it is was established by some tests I made in London in 1956 wherein every time the pc showed

any restlessness or other signs of loss of havingness, instead of remedying havingness I carefully searched out any fancied break of ARC and patched it up. The “loss of havingness” vanished. In other words, loss of ARC is even more important than loss of havingness since a repair of ARC restores havingness. Lack of havingness is only one symptom of a lack of communication.

There are two ways an auditor, according to long practice, can err. One of these is to permit two-way communication to a point where the pc’s havingness is injured. The other is to chop communication to such a degree that havingness is injured. There is a point past which communication is bad and short of which lack of communication is bad. Here we have auditor judgment at play. Because the pc will fidget or go downscale in tone when his havingness drops, an auditor can SEE when the pc’s havingness is being lowered. Because a pc will go anaten or start to grind into the process an auditor can tell whether or not the pc feels his communication has been chopped. When either happens the auditor should take action—in the first instance by shutting off the pc’s outflow and getting to work and in the second instance by making the pc talk out any fancied communication severance.

Participation in session by the pc is not something the auditor sees to at the beginning of the session and then forgets for the rest of the intensive. This step is continued throughout the intensive and is given as much attention as any process being run at the time. The auditor’s attention is always therefore upon two things—first the continued participation in session and second the action of the process.

Grouped under this head we would also have ways and means of getting the pc into session in the first place. An unconscious pc used to be an apparent roadblock. A downtone, antagonistic, you-can’t-help-me pc was also a rough one. These two things are countered by always carefully starting a session and following through on standard CCH 0.

It is as important to open a session with a baby or an unconscious person as it is with any other preclear. It doesn’t matter whether the pc is answering up or not. It is only necessary to assume that the pc would answer if he could answer and that the mechanics of voice and gesture are simply absent from the answer. Therefore one always carefully starts every session, paying attention to what is happening, where it is happening, who is there, help, goals and problems. Obviously anaten or inability to control the body are the present time problem of the unconscious person or the child. One can actually audit this with a plain question and simply assume after a bit it has been answered, then give the acknowledgment and ask another question just as though the pc were in full vocal action. Auditors still fall for the belief, very current, that “unconscious” people are unable to think or be aware in any way. A thetan is seldom unconscious regardless of what the body is doing or not doing.

PRESENT TIME PROBLEM is a highly vital point of PRECLEAR PARTICIPATION. If a preclear is being nagged too thoroughly by a PT problem auditing can actually send him downhill if done without addressing the problem. A whole intensive, even seventy-five hours can be wasted if the auditor does not clear the PT PROBLEM.

The preclear generally doesn’t know he has one which is nagging him, for the rough PT problems go into the apathy band and below into forgetfulness rather rapidly. Therefore the auditor should ferret out the PT problem with an E-Meter. Adroit use of an E-Meter does not include evaluating for the preclear but it certainly does include ferreting out PT problems. The E-Meter is also used for valences and sometimes psychophysical difficulties. (Auditor: Use the word “psychophysical” rather than psychosomatic and stay out of a medical field.)

THE RUNNING OF A PT PROBLEM today is the most. PT problem, valences, psychophysical ailments, all run beautifully with “Mock up something worse than

(terminal)” or “Invent something worse than (terminal).” To run this it is necessary to isolate the TERMINAL most intimately connected with the PT problem (or the valence or psychophysical difficulty). One then CLEARS THE COMMAND (and you always better do that with any command) and lets go.

The whole idea of WORSE THAN is the whole of the dwindling spiral. People who are “trying to get better” and “be more perfect” and “think the right thought” lose all control of “getting worse,” “being imperfect” and “thinking the wrong thought.” All these WORSE THANS are then left on automatic and we arrive at something less than optimum. In fact we arrive with the dwindling spiral. We also arrive with the “point of no return.” We also arrive with the declining ability to heal or get well. And we also arrive with old age.

After running “worse than” on the PT problem, we proceed with other parts of CCH 0. Clearing help will be found quite beneficial. But to get a pc to participate who is downright ugly about it, running help is usually only a partial solution. When these only ones get going they really snarl on the subject of getting audited. Here CCH 1 is of benefit. No questions asked. But this, of course, defeats the purpose of STEP ONE.

PARTICIPATION OF THE PC in the session is necessary in order to place the pc somewhat at the cause point in the actual fact of auditing. This fits the definition. You can always change a body or recover it from some illness by auditing without much helping the pc himself. Therefore, the pc, while under auditor control, is still somewhat at cause, what with comm bridges and clearing commands, etc., but he is made to feel no bad effects from being AT EFFECT if ample ARC is used. In other words, the pc can’t be entirely at cause in a session or he would be self-auditing, which isn’t good, but he can be salvaged from being a total effect by good ARC. When the ARC drops out that DOES leave the pc at more or less total effect, a thing you have probably noticed.

The things to be done in CCH 0 should be done thoroughly at intensive’s beginning and should be glanced at whenever a new session starts and should get a bow when a new command is used. But all CCH 0 is is a collection of mechanical aids to assist the pc’s participation in the session and to assist the auditor in ARC. Although CCH 0 must be used always, it is not a total substitute for ARC.

The sum of CCH 0 is find the auditor, find the auditing room, find the pc, knock out any existing PT problem, establish goals, clear help, get agreement on session length and get up to the first real auditing command. CCH 0 isn’t necessarily run in that order and this isn’t necessarily all of CCH 0, but if any of these are seriously scamped, the session will somewhere get into trouble.

When the participation of the pc ceases in a session, he must be gotten back into session by any means and then participation is re-established. A pc is never permitted to end a session on his own choice. He seeks to end them when his participation drops out of sight.

The trick question “What did I do wrong?” re-establishes ARC.

The problem of handling a pc who is not cooperative, who does not wish to participate, is a highly special problem. In the first place it is the pc’s engrams that do not want to continue, in the second place it is the engrams which are doing the talking. One ordinarily tackles this case with a formal opening of session, brief but positive, and then sails in with CCH 0, just as though the person were unconscious, which, of course, the person is.

Participation by an unconscious person, while covered above, requires the additional refinement of technique. ONE MUST ALWAYS FIND SOMETHING THE

PRECLEAR CAN DO AND THEN BETTER THAT ABILITY. An unconscious person is usually lying in bed. If not the command must be varied to fit the environment. But the best command is something like “You make that body lie in that bed.” A slightly upper grade process to a person sitting in a chair is “You seat that body in that chair.” In such cases a grip on the pc’s hand and the use of a slight squeeze each time the auditor acknowledges considerably speeds the process.

There is another special case—or maybe it isn’t so special. There are many people who cannot tackle a present time problem with a process. If the auditor sought out a PT problem and then ran “something worse than a related terminal” or a “problem of comparable or incomparable magnitude” he would find the pc digging in hard, unable to handle the process. Thus some judgment must be used in such cases. Don’t run a PT problem on somebody in very bad shape casewise.

There is an awful lot to know about starting sessions. The bad-off case and the case in very good condition alike require special handling. For the case just mentioned who cannot handle a PT problem with a process, there is always locational (TR TEN). TR TEN will run a PT problem or anything else if slowly. Thus many a person with a PT problem can only participate in a session to the extent of TR TEN, “YOU notice that object (wall, floor, chair, etc.).” By introducing in the auditor’s and pc’s bodies as a couple of the items being spotted along with everything else we eventually wind up with “find the auditor, find the auditing room, find the pc.” And we get there without a PT problem being in full bloom.

In running “You notice that object” there are some things that MUST be observed. Most important of these is this one: ANY PROCESS WHICH TURNS ON A SOMATIC MUST BE CONTINUED UNTIL IT NO LONGER TURNS ON SOMATICS. This is true particularly of TR TEN, 8-C and TRIO. The case hangs right there until the process is flat, whether in one day, one year or six. Another thing which must be stressed is the inclusion of the auditor’s and pc’s bodies. Because some pcs WHEN EXTERIORIZED snap back in when they see the body is no reason to avoid it in TR TEN. Another thing is to make the pc use his eyes to view the objects and if he doesn’t turn his eyes toward them, then it is up to the auditor to use manual direction of the head and even pry the eyes open. No balks are ever permitted in auditing. If TR TEN is being run at a problem, every now and then the auditor pauses and discusses the problem again with the pc in order to keep it in restimulation until TR TEN can run it out.

The high case is a worse problem than auditors commonly believe. In the first place a high case can “blow” a situation out of the bank with considerable ease and if the auditor insists on sledge-hammering it out with a process, then pc participation blows rather than a facsimile.

High case participation can also be misunderstood in that there are a lot of cases that think they are high which aren’t. Here’s how you tell a real high case from a bogus (“I can do everything”) case. A thetan in good shape can be cause. When he looks at something in the bank it becomes the effect. A bogus high case can think anything he wants without anything having an effect on the bank. You want to watch this point because here is the definition of OT thoroughly at work. Pc at Cause. A case that has pictures and everything and is impatient to get on with it BUT DOES NOT MARKEDLY ALTER THE BANK WITH THINKING ALONE is not a high case but an old “wide open case” of Dianetic days.

Two-way communication AS A PROCESS is the key to all this. If you put a pc on an E-Meter and locate a present time charge, you can, if the pc can somewhat handle his bank, get him to two-way comm the incident flat very quickly—in five or ten minutes at the most. This is all the process used. It would take an actual E-Meter run to give you a full reality on this.

Here we are looking at the basic differences amongst cases. That difference lies in the ability to knowingly CAUSE. Bodies are the same, they all react alike. Banks differ only vaguely and only in content and significance. Engrams are engrams and they all behave alike. There is only ONE DIFFERENCE amongst pcs. We called this BASIC PERSONALITY in BOOK ONE. We can be a lot more simple about it now that I have my teeth into the subject a few more feet. The difference is DEGREE OF KNOWING CAUSABILITY. What do we mean by CAUSE? The basic, old Scientology definition is still at work. CAUSE-DISTANCE-EFFECT. Joe knowingly shoots Bill. Joe is at Cause. Bill is at Effect. Mary gives John a present. Mary is at Cause, John is at Effect. Bill says Boo to Joe. Bill is at Cause, Joe is at Effect. But when we introduce KNOWING CAUSE and CAUSE AT WILL into this CAUSE-DISTANCE-EFFECT idea we see we have something else added. The person at Cause is there because he knows he is there and because he is willingly there. The person at Cause is not at Cause because he does not dare be at Effect. He must be able to be at Effect. If he is afraid to be at Effect, then he is Unwilling Cause and is at Cause only because he is very afraid of being at Effect. Education can show a person he can be at effect without liability. Then he can be at Cause without HAVING TO BE BECAUSE HE DOESN’T DARE BE AT EFFECT. Auditing in its whole operation is teaching the pc this. Pc slides from terrified effect to tolerated effect to knowing cause with regard to any incident he contacts IF HE IS AUDITED PROPERLY. The pc who has to get rid of all his engrams because he has to get rid of them because it’s all too horrible winds up, with good auditing, into a tolerance of the pictures since he has learned he can tolerate them and so can swing around to Cause.

So we have this great difference in pcs. DEGREE OF KNOWING CAUSABILITY is the extent that he is willing to be at Cause and the extent he is willing to know he is at Cause plus the ability to cause things.

You will see this on an E-Meter in PT problem handling. Bill has a PT problem. It drops a dial when first contacted. The auditor, using his UNDERSTANDING of Scientology, two-way comms on it. The incident discharges and no longer registers after a few minutes. Mary has a PT problem. It drops steeply on the E-Meter. The auditor tries to two-way comm on it. The charge remains the same or Mary begins to disperse. She doesn’t hold to the subject. The auditor at length finds that two-way comm only serves to run down her havingness. The charge remains on the meter dial. What is the difference between Bill and Mary? Bill can be at knowing cause, Mary is either obsessive cause or heavy effect. Bill can blow facsimiles. Mary cannot. On Mary the auditor is very wise to enter upon TR TEN.

One version of TR TEN is called Short Spotting. “You notice that (nearby object).” So long as the pc can see with his eyes the object or feel the auditor’s hand on it, the process works. It is spotting right up close. If run with mediumly near and far objects (such as the room wall) it is very effective in getting a case going. It has given some cases their first reality on auditing. BUT the rule still holds here about somatics. When a somatic is turned on with a process, turn it off with that process. See Auditor’s Code 13. This is entirely true of Short Spotting. In that it almost always turns on somatics, when you start it, you have to flatten it and that’s often lengthy.

Remember this about pc participation. A low case can’t handle the bank, therefore you keep high ARC and kid-glove him through a session. A very high case doesn’t need dynamite, therefore you retain his participation by going as rapidly as you can. A medium, average case needs ARC, something of dynamite, something of kid gloves, something of two-way comm.

And IN ALL GOOD AUDITING, CASES IMPROVE. Just because you start a pc low doesn’t mean he’ll always stay low. Check the case often. See if his CAUSABILITY is

rising. If it isn’t, he isn’t improving and you better go easier or heavier. PROBABLY when a case doesn’t improve you didn’t handle a PT problem. THAT IS THE ONLY THING WHICH CAN KEEP A CASE FROM GAINING. So check every session for one.

There are probably thousands of ways to gain the participation of the pc, there are probably thousands of ways to open a session. There are probably an infinite number of tricky things you can do. However, this breadth of choice should not obscure the following:

1. A pc who is not participating in the session is not at Cause.

2. An auditor who isn’t able to maintain ARC, who isn’t able to “freeze” a process for a short time, even a Tone 40.0 process, and re-establish ARC, will not get results.

3. The end-all of processing is the attainment of a goal, the goal of OT. One always processes the problems and difficulties of the pc, he does not process the process. Processes only assist in processing the pc. They will not do anything by themselves. Processes are a road map to the goal of OT, they are nothing in themselves. The target is the condition, the disabilities of the pc. How one achieves the eradication of these difficulties is secondary to the fact of their eradication. Scientology is a route attained after several thousand years of no attainment by Man and the route is important and valuable and must be traveled correctly, but the concern is the pc, not the route.

4. A new auditor can be adrift with his tools. He is uncertain as to what he is attacking. He should have reality on engrams, locks, key-ins, secondaries, the time track, the key buttons of Scientology such as Communication, Control and Havingness. Given an understanding of all these and the theory of Scientology itself he can almost pilot his way through a case with two-way comm. But two-way comm will not work if one doesn’t understand all the above. So two-way comm is not conversation. The pc has had a few trillion years of that and it hasn’t made him well, so two-way comm is a highly specialized thing, done with full understanding of the thetan, bank and body. Good two-way comm means participation by the pc.

5. Scientology is a precise commodity, something like engineering. A pc is a precise thing, part animal, part pictures and part God. We want the ability to handle things and the God, and the less unthinking responses in the pc the better off he will be. Therefore a PC WHO ISN’T COGNITING regularly is being processed beyond his ability to do and it is necessary to drop back downscale to find something he CAN DO.

6. The golden rule of processing is to find something the preclear CAN do and then to improve his ability to do it. At once you will have participation. The highest ability one pc had was to get drunk: a resolution of his case was entered upon by having him invent ways to get drunk.

7. The attention span of children and psychos is not necessarily a factor since it is only the phenomena of dispersal against mental blocks, keying in of incidents. The auditor can pay attention to it or not as he likes. Short, regular sessions on people with limited attention span get more gain per week than a steady grind since the participation is maintained.

8. The auditor remains at Cause in all sessions without forbidding the pc to be at Cause. See the rules in Dianetics: The Original Thesis.

STEP TWO

Placing the Preclear at Cause

Establish obedience of some part of the auditing room to the pc. Here he must begin at some level of knowingness. He must know that he himself, when ordered to do so, can gain some compliance on the part of the auditing room. This includes his own body.

The basic rule of auditing is to start with something the preclear can do and then get him to do it better. This is the basic difference between a high level and a low level process. This is also the difference between a process which is real to the preclear and a process which is unreal to the preclear. A preclear “can do” a process without doing it at all. Actually the body and bank are obeying the auditor. Now here we had in Dianetics one of the more interesting phenomena of an auditor being able to make a preclear physically well without the preclear once finding out about it. This was a source of great grief and upset to auditors. They could not see how this could possibly be. The man priorly could not walk, apparently, and after auditing he could walk, and yet he did not attribute to Dianetics or to the auditor any of this renewed ability.

The auditor could monitor the preclear’s bank and body, shift around the engrams, as-is them and do various things with them without the preclear finding out about it. All of this was so far above the preclear’s ability to do that it was totally unreal to him.

We also get the phenomenon of an individual doing a great many spotting processes and feeling better but not being able to understand what this has to do with sanity or insanity. In the first place, the individual could not himself spot. The auditor more or less did the spotting for him. The preclear then never connected it in any way with his own capabilities.

A test an auditor should make to ascertain the sense of this is as follows: “Look around here and tell me something you could do.” The preclear will get many odd and peculiar sensations as he fishes around and finally decides that he could do some minor thing. This is not really a good process but it is a good test process for an auditor. This preclear who has been walking and talking and working and going around the world and apparently behaving in a fairly sane and rational fashion actually could do none of these things. He was supported entirely by his “machinery,” by the social responsibilities which were demonstrated toward him, by his education, by the basic agreement of what goes on in the world. He was walking around in a dream and life felt to him much like a dream. Now the auditor starts to audit him on the basis that this individual is capable. Well now the individual himself is the thetan and whereas the bank might have been capable (and would have broken down some day), the thetan himself was not. He was going along for the ride.

We often see this phenomenon in the third dynamic. It could be said that a government is the aggregate irresponsibility of a people. They are not taking responsibility for the course of justice or protection of the state from foreign aggression, and they shove all this responsibility over on to a government and they themselves are quite irresponsible for it. After a while the government doesn’t look to the people at all to furnish any responsibility. The government takes all the initiative, and we eventually wind up with some sort of a dictatorship. The people then no longer count; they are slaves; they are totally irresponsible.

In a similar wise, a thetan can be totally irresponsible for everything that goes on in relationship to his workaday world, and we see people dramatizing this on every hand. Wherever a thetan refuses to take responsibility and is participating in action, he is being “unreal.” This is the unreality of a situation. Let us say you were part of a

crowd which was surging downtown to Third Street and you yourself wanted to go uptown to Tenth Street. The crowd swept you along toward Third Street and after a while things would become pretty unreal. That is because you were being carried in a direction opposite to your basic intent. Thus your own intention is overwhelmed. This intention overwhelmed becomes what we know as unreality.

It is very easy for an auditor to overwhelm the preclear’s intention. The preclear is actually going to Tenth Street, the auditor is trying to push him to Third Street. We get the most remarkable subdivision of this in Survive and Succumb. The auditor is going on the basis that the preclear wants to Survive and the preclear is going on the basis that he wants to Succumb. The auditor is then thrusting him in an opposite direction. Hence it is really necessary to clear Goals in an auditing session. There must be some goal which the preclear considers obtainable. The goal of just being able to sit there for the next two or three hours is a goal. You would be surprised to find that in some preclears this is a tremendously high goal. But even a preclear’s goals can be unreal to him. They are the social goals. Actually, the preclear privately thinks he’d like to get rid of every man, woman and child on Earth and the goal he gives you is to save everyone.

Now the question actually confronts us—what can the preclear really do? Of course, in a case of tremendous doubt, you could run the above process—”Look around here and find something you could do.” But there are certain things that an auditor can take for granted which undercut any other thing. The body is sitting in the chair. The preclear can be brought up to a realization that he can make the body sit in the chair. And thus we get the first really worthwhile process on a preclear who is conscious, and that process is “You seat that body in that chair. Thank you.” And in the case of somebody who is Lying in bed, even unconscious, we get this basic process: “You make that body continue to lie in that bed. Thank you.”

All we are asking anybody to do when we ask for these two processes is to take responsibility for what is actually occurring in the first place. We raise his responsibility level in other words, and thus raise his doingness level. A preclear who does not come through eventually with a cognition that he can make the body sit in the chair of course isn’t worth bothering with, in that his doingness level is even below this. This preclear ought to be lying in a bed. He must consider himself completely helpless and completely ill. Thus if we ran “You seat that body in that chair. Thank you,” for several hours without any realization on the part of the preclear that he could do this and without turning on any somatics or without getting any effect at all, we would consider that we had overshot this. Actually it shouldn’t take several hours to find this out. We would go back to the basic position of Dianetic auditing. This preclear probably thinks of himself as being dead or probably thinks of himself as being very ill or thinks of himself as being totally unconscious. Thus we would run him as an unconscious person. Putting him down on a couch we would run “You make that body continue to lie in that bed. Thank you.”

Also, on a much higher level we get CCH 1.

“You give me that hand” is actually the old cat process where we got the cat to reach for the auditor, plus an obedience process. The preclear after a while should decide that he can do this. Sometimes we run CCH 1, then CCH 2, CCH 3, and then CCH 4 and going back discover that CCH 1 is now unflat and the preclear is unable to perform this action which he previously could perform. Now what has happened here is we have broadened the scope of the preclear’s responsibility. His bank at first was perfectly capable of giving that hand but once we have invited further responsibility and gotten him to find the auditor as in CCH 3 and CCH 4, we discover that the preclear himself is now trying to do it and in trying to do it is having difficulties but he wins through with this difficulty and eventually comes out much better.

Unless these particular goals and theories behind these processes are understood they very often do not work at all in the CCH bands. Thus CCH 1 to 4, while tremendously successful when run by a very excellent auditor understanding his job, may not be successful in the hands of somebody who is simply going through some mechanical motions.

Basically we are trying to get the preclear to do something and know that he himself can do it. Thus we are improving his ability. On this fundamental we can go forward and establish many processes, all of which are fundamental doingness or obedience processes. We can do such a process as “You make that chair sit on the floor.” This process at first seems a little incredible to the preclear, but after a while he gets the idea that he can do it, then this unflattens and he gets the idea that it’s gravity that’s doing it and therefore he can’t do it, and he goes through various cognitions of one sort or another simply about having a chair, which is already sitting there, sit there. Unless we can cross this particular stage of a case and get the preclear up to an idea that he does have some sort of an ability of some kind, we might as well do nothing else about the case at all. Therefore this Step Two is quite important and actually is the basic entrance into auditing.


STEP THREE

Establish Control of Pc’s Body by Pc

Although we could continue onward with the CCHs simply rotating them from CCH 1 through to 4 and back to 1 and to 4, and back to 1 and to 4 again and again and again and win, there is a faster way of going about this which has been known to us for a very long time. This way starts really with 8-C.

It does not matter particularly which brand of 8-C is run. We have had now three or four varieties of 8-C. The first one was rather permissive and indirect and did not demand very much compliance and possibly had its own place in the firmament since use of it has resolved a very, very great many cases. The first command of this is “Do you see that wall?” Then “Walk over to it.” Then “Touch it.” And that was all there was to the process. Later 8-Cs, particularly Tone 40 8-Cs, were highly precise, very directive and had a great deal of control stress to them. It does not matter particularly which 8-C is used so long as the auditor feels that it is biting. If the particular 8-C he is using isn’t biting, maybe he needs a more permissive one, maybe he needs a more exacting control one.

There are a great many factors surrounding the control of the pc’s body by a pc. Most pcs feel their body if tampered with in any way would fly out of control and flip-flop all over the floor, would suddenly freeze or would get ill, and they have anxieties about their bodies and the control of their bodies which must be solved, otherwise we don’t get very far. Control of bodies can actually be assisted by old-time flip-flopping.

Flip-flopping was a process by which the preclear’s excess motion was taken off. The creative processes of earlier times did not require of the preclear any great cognition of what was going on. Thus flip-flopping could be used at a very early stage of case. We would say, “Mock up a man and make him flip-flop” and then make him insist that the body flip-flop even further and even more wildly until he himself knew that he was making the body flip-flop. We would do this with a woman’s body and would eventually take the motion off the case that was inhibiting the preclear from controlling the body. This is actually a motionectomy. It is really a case of the auditor controlling the bank and body of the preclear. When we did not do this we found that in running 8-C and in doing some other processes the preclear all of a sudden would convulse and start to fly apart. These fly-aparts were simply the flip-flop manifestation of bodies.

It is extremely interesting that a preclear exteriorizing from his own body which is out of control, flip-flopping, writhing, convulsing and going into epileptiform seizures was at a distance from a flip-flopping body. One day while in his own body he causes some other body to go out of control, he shoots somebody or hits somebody, and has this person go into a flip-flop. He himself gets restimulated and he feels that his body in the future is liable to go out of control at any time. If you draw a little picture of this you will see that a thetan exteriorized from his own body and a thetan in his body knocking about some other body is, to the thetan, the same point of view. In other words, if you make somebody’s body flip-flop, your own body may flip-flop. It looks the same to a thetan.

Some guarantee or security of body control is therefore necessary.

There is a very fine set of processes which have been used for more than a year at this writing and which produced excellent results. These we call the S-C-S processes.

After running 8-C (and if it turned on somatics remember to flatten the process entirely, even though it takes 50 hours, before going on to another process), we go into these control processes grouped under S-C-S. There have been several varieties of process, all entirely in the control bracket but with different severities of control. The commands of S-C-S processes are almost all the same except that some are made more severe than others.

The first of these processes is the Start process. This is very simple. We have a preclear out in the middle of the room standing up while we stand up alongside of him touching him, and we explain to him (and we explain this every command) that when we say “Start” we want him to start his body in that direction, and we point out some direction.

Then we take our hands off of him and we say “Start.” We do not say Stop, Halt, or anything else, but after he has moved forward we then say, “Did you start your body?” And he says he guesses he did or he did, and we then—and only then— acknowledge. We do this many times until the process apparently has no charge on it or is flat. We then go into the next of this series, which is Change.

To run Change the auditor marks four points out on the floor. These points can be imaginary or they can be actually chalk-marked on the floor. One of these points we label “A,” one “B,” one “C,” and one “D.” We explain the meanings of these symbols to the preclear and we give him this auditing command: “Now when I ask you to change the body, I want you to change the body’s position from A to B. Do you understand that?” The preclear says he does, and the auditor, stepping back from the preclear, says “Change.” The preclear then changes the body’s position. Similarly in using the various points and combinations of the points A, B, C and D, the auditor drills the preclear on Change until that particular process seems to be flat.

The auditor then goes to Stop. The auditor takes the preclear by the arm and explains (explains every time) that when he says “Stop,” he wants the preclear to stop the body. The actual wording of the auditor is “Now I want you to get the body moving in that direction and when I say Stop, I want you to stop the body. Do you understand?” When the preclear says that he does, the auditor lets go of him, lets him move down the room a distance (never the same distance twice) and says “Stop.” When the preclear has stopped the auditor says “Did you stop the body?” And the preclear says “yes,” or “maybe” and the auditor then acknowledges. The auditor does this many times until the preclear understands that he himself can stop the body or he has regained an ability, or the process appears to be flat and has no charge on it.

These three steps done in that order are then repeated. And it will be discovered that once Stop has been flattened, Start is now unflattened and can be flattened all

over again by running it anew. Similarly, Change will be found to be unflat and again Stop will be found to be unflat. Thus, one runs Start and one runs Change and then one runs Stop, in that order, over and over and over again until all three appear to be flat.

A variation of this particular process has been called Stop Supreme. Stop Supreme is a heavy emphasis on Stop and it will be found that after the three processes of Start, Change and Stop are flat, one can move rather easily into Stop Supreme and concentrate heavily upon it. In other words, one runs Start, Change and Stop, Start, Change and Stop, Start, Change and Stop until they are relatively flat. He should not then suppose that the whole of S-C-S is flat since he still has Stop Supreme in all of its variations.

The idea behind Stop Supreme is that Stop, or motionlessness, is probably the most thetan ability a thetan has. Thus the rehabilitation of this particular ability is worth while and does produce considerable results. But don’t be surprised if the preclear falls apart in the process of doing it.

The commands of Stop Supreme are roughly these. Every time one runs one of these S-C-S processes he, of course, explains the thing in full at the beginning of every command. He does not let any explanation hang over from the last time the command was executed. It will be found that the preclear cannot hold in his mind these explanations. Therefore, it has to be all explained anew every time. Thus we say to the preclear in Stop Supreme, “Now I want you to get your body moving down the room when I so indicate and when I say Stop, I want you to stop your body absolutely still.” Then the auditor gives the preclear a slight shove and the preclear moves the body down the room, and the auditor says “Stop,” and the preclear tries to stop his body absolutely still in that instant. It will be found that faster and faster responses are achieved by the preclear and he can actually stop the body in more and more peculiar positions. The auditor then says, “Did you stop your body absolutely still?” The preclear answers this and then the auditor acknowledges. There are even more severe versions of this, but they are left to the imagination of the auditor.

These S-C-S processes produced the greatest control changes that have been produced with any control process. They were consistently used with great success by a great many auditors. This is not really true of CCH 1, 2, 3 and 4. CCH 1, 2, 3 and 4 depend in a very large measure not only upon the excellence of the auditor but upon how the auditor himself is feeling while he is running them. And we can get an auditor who is not feeling up to par that day not doing well with CCH 1, 2, 3 and 4. This difficulty was never encountered with the S-C-S processes and therefore the S-C-S processes are to be recommended.

An apparent drop of havingness is occasionally experienced by the preclear as he does these processes. This is because of compulsive exteriorization. If a preclear is about to fly out of his head he’ll fly out of his head on S-C-S. If he does fly out of his head on S-C-S, or any other process, you, of course, continue the process. You do not suddenly change and do some other process. Once upon a time we felt at liberty to change because of the severity of the change, but we have learned in long experience that one never changes the process just because somebody compulsively exteriorizes. S-C-S is probably more susceptible to compulsive exteriorization than any other single process, and as it is run preclears fly into their heads and out of them at a great rate and eventually get to a state quite ordinarily where they can move into the head or out of the head at will.

The reason the preclear is holding on to the body is ( 1 ) fear of loss of control and (2) havingness. If the havingness of the preclear is low, he is apt to close in tight to the body because this gives him more havingness and if the preclear fears that the body is

going to go out of control he will also move in closer to the body. Thus we get interiorization as no more complicated than fear of loss of control and drops in havingness.

When a loss of havingness is experienced, a preclear will agitate or go anaten and tend to be upset in general. Actually, any loss of havingness in an auditing session can be repaired by an excellent auditor by repair of the ARC of the session. One uses the trick “What did I do wrong?” and two-way comm in general to patch up state of affairs. Loss of havingness is first manifested on loss of havingness of the session or loss of goals rather than on actual loss of mass.

In running S-C-S, however, the preclear flying in and out of his head will experience various changes of havingness which are quite upsetting. The very best handling of this situation is to restore the ARC of the session in every way possible. It is actually not allowed to stop S-C-S and go into Trio.

Concentration upon the body is one of the frailties of S-C-S and we have long since discovered that those preclears who had difficulty in exteriorization would very often re-interiorize the moment they glanced at the body. Well, keeping a body there and looking at it are apparently two different things entirely. Thus if a preclear can’t put his attention upon the body without bad things happening, we should run a process which prevents the preclear from being upset simply because he is concentrating upon his body, and S-C-S certainly does this and does it well.

Don’t be surprised in running S-C-S if the preclear suddenly flies to pieces, goes into flip-flopping, has to be picked up off the floor and put over on the couch and left aghast, but do be very surprised at yourself if you fail to get the preclear back up on his feet and into session again at once. This is no time for you to be changing processes simply because a preclear collapses. Now if this did happen, that the preclear went entirely out of session while running S-C-S and you could not get him in any way to do any more of the S-C-S and get it flat, then you had better start the entire intensive all over again and go right back to the beginning and carry on from the beginning and bring him right straight on through to S-C-S. You would do this rapidly, of course, but you would nevertheless have no other choice. It would not be good enough to change processes simply because the preclear found himself incapable of running this body control process of S-C-S.

It has been noticed that S-C-S can be run very sloppily by some auditors who do not have very much experience with it. The only way to err is in the direction of imprecision and bad ARC. It is perfectly easy to be very precise with high ARC. ARC does not mean non-confronting.

One of the elementary processes which can be used after S-C-S and which is a very fine process and will have to be done at some time, is the Keep it from going away— Hold it still—Make it more solid series on two objects.

To do this particular process one takes two disrelated objects, that is to say he doesn’t take two ashtrays or two bottles. He could take one object made out of wood, one made out of glass, both of them with different purposes. But these are usually picked up as non-significant objects and the auditor asks the preclear to place the two of them to the right and to the left of the preclear and asks the preclear to pick up one of them and keep it from going away and put it back in exactly the same place, pick up the other one and keep it from going away, put it back in exactly the same place, and keeps up this drill between these two objects. Actually, preclears who are having a very hard time require more than two objects, even as many as six or seven. In this event the auditor places the preclear at a table and scatters several objects around and picks them up at random. The duplicative feature of the process can be toughened up as the

process is continued, but on some preclears it will be found to be very arduous to start out basically with two. When the preclear can successfully keep the two objects from going away, knowing very well that he kept them from going away—which the auditor asks him every time, “Did you keep it from going away?”—the hold-it-still phase is run in exactly the same way, and when this seems to be flat on the two objects we get into “Make it more solid.” One of the principal dividing lines between a psychotic state and a sane state is the ability to make things solid. It will be found that people who are having a very bad time indeed have the whole world in a very thin look-straight through-it state. Only when they themselves can be at Cause in keeping things from going away and making things hold still and making things more solid will it be found that they have a solidity in the environment.

There would be another process which we could run at this particular stage and that is old-time Book and Bottle, which is also one of the deadlier exteriorization processes.

Old-time Book and Bottle was run in this wise. The auditor placed a book on one table or chair and a bottle on the other table or chair and he directed the individual to first one and then the other, always with a very duplicative command. Probably the first version of Book and Bottle was the best. It should be understood that Book and Bottle is an absolute necessity and must be run at some time or another upon a Scientology auditor, but it is not necessarily something which must be run on somebody who is simply trying to attain a state of Clear. Thus a mention of it is introduced at this time.


STEP FOUR

Find the Auditor

Make pc even more conscious of auditor and place him somewhat at Cause with ARC.

There are probably a thousand inventive ways that this could be done but it is time when one has been butchering the pc this long for the pc to regain some of his self-respect with regard to the auditing session. One could do this with almost any auditing command which made the pc look at the auditor. Such a question as “Is there anything I am doing that you could do?” carried forward to its logical conclusion would find the pc regaining some of his Cause with regard to the session. Simple locational spotting, however, is probably the best process here. One directs the pc’s attention with “You notice that (object)” all about the room and at first only occasionally includes the pc’s body and the auditor’s body in the spotting. Then the auditor, using the same process, concentrates less and less upon the room and more and more upon the auditor and the pc. It will be found that the pc will eventually find the auditor with his attention so directed.

It will be seen then that S-C-S directed the pc’s attention very strongly to the auditing of his own body and it will be seen that we have not yet started to get the pc’s attention out into the environment.

But here we have two very pat processes which are CCH 3 and CCH 4. These are extremely simple processes but require a considerable amount of care in their use. Any validated auditor knows how to run these two processes. CCH 3 is Hand Space Mimicry and CCH 4 is Book Mimicry. Both of these processes simply invite the pc to find the auditor more thoroughly.

The earliest process along the line was “Look at me, Who am I?”, and it has very far from been disallowed, so that in lack of anything else simply this process could be picked up and used at this stage. Now here we get the preclear to identify or to say

who the auditor is and you will find that many preclears go through a considerable number of convulsions in trying to establish who the auditor is.

There is no particularly recommended step for this. It depends in a large measure on what state the pc is in when he arrives at this point. But it is necessary for the pc to become somewhat causative with regard to the session at this stage, whether by spotting, CCH 3 and CCH 4, or by old-time “Look at me, Who am I?” They all more or less accomplish the same thing. CCH 3 and 4 accomplish the location of the auditor very mechanically according to the Reality Scale. Spotting has the additional advantage of taking a pc’s attention very thoroughly under control, and “Look at me, Who am I?” invites the pc to use his identification and thinking capacities. If an auditor wanted to be totally sure, he would use all of them.


STEP FIVE

Pc Versus Mest

Establish pc as cause over Mest by establishing pc’s ideas as cause over Mest.

There are several varieties of spotting processes. The most basic of these is the most basic process to association and this is Connectedness. This process is run directively with the following command: “You get the idea of making that (object) connect with you. Did you? Thank you.”

The reason Connectedness works is because it is the basic process on association. The most aberrative thing on any case is association with Mest. This does not mean that the individual is not creating the Mest, it does not mean that he has no relationship with Mest, but it does mean that Theta and Mest interconnected too strongly are the components of a trap. Theta is mixed up with Mest, Mest is mixed up with Theta. They are two different things actually, and it is not true that all thought derives from Mest, nor is it true that all Mest derives from thought. A thetan can create Mest by simply creating Mest, not by telling it to be created, but simply by putting it there. This is the isness of Mest. Now when he connects his thoughts with the actual mass he gets into trouble and we get association, we get compulsive thinking, we get identification and the old A = A = A of Dianetic days.

Thus you will see at once that Connectedness in any form is a very excellent process to run. But note carefully that we have him get the idea of making the object connect with him. We never command the preclear to get the other idea of connecting with the object. This is a no-games condition. This is what is wrong with the preclear.

Now there are a large variety of processes which stem out of this process of basic association. These are Control Trio, Trio and Responsibility. But all of these things are basically connectedness processes.

The only thing that ever went wrong with connectedness processes was the unreality factor. The auditor would tell the preclear to get the idea of making that wall connect with him, when as a matter of fact the preclear couldn’t have gotten much of any kind of an idea of making anything connect with him.

Thus it is mandatory for an auditor to start out a preclear on some level of reality and some two-way comm should precede this connectedness process, such as “Do you think there is anything anywhere that you could get to connect with you?” Once this is cleared up, it will be found that only those things very close in could be real to the preclear on this line of connectedness. Thus the auditor is given no great power of choice in this matter in the first runnings of the process. He will have to run things which are relatively close in to the preclear, then proceed to things which are middle distance and then things which are further from the preclear.

A great deal of good common sense is needed here, and a great deal of two-way comm is necessary to get some idea of whether or not the preclear thought it was real.

Thus the earliest commands of Connectedness should probably be the preclear’s nose and the auditor’s hand; the arm of the preclear’s chair and the button on the auditor’s shirt; the button on the preclear’s shirt and his own left hand, et cetera. Further, the auditor is only asking him to get the idea of making the thing connect with him, not to make the thing connect with him, otherwise he will have the preclear being yanked all over the room.

Control Trio, Trio and Responsibility are actually only complications on top of Connectedness, but they themselves have their own particular peculiar virtues, and a preclear who can actually run straight, old-time Trio, “Look around here and find something you could have,” can get a very long way on that process all by itself.

Control Trio is actually a three-stage process on a heavy spotting control. It runs in this fashion. “Get the idea that you can have that (object).” And when this is relatively flat, “Get the idea of making that (object) remain where it is,” (or continue where it is) and “Get the idea of making that (object) disappear.” This is actually a very fine process and undercuts (runs on a lower case than) Trio itself.

Old-time Trio is extremely good, however, and is not to be underrated in any way. You can run a whole three-week intensive on this if the preclear can do it. The commands are: “Look around here and find something you could have.” And when that is somewhat flat, “Look around here and find something you would permit to remain,” and then “Look around here and find something you would permit to disappear.” These are run in relationship to each other. In other words, all three of them are run in the same session. Sometimes a preclear will run the third command two hundred and fifty times before he can get either of the other two commands with any reality at all.

Responsibility is another process just like Trio and actually has its three commands, too. “Look around here and find something you could be responsible for.” “Look around here and find something you don’t have to be responsible for.” “Look around here and find something you would permit somebody else to be responsible for.”

The emphasis here is “You look,” “You connect,” “You make” in any of these processes, and the “You” should be entered into the old commands to make the thing as causative as possible.

Although we cover this rather briefly, this is probably the most effective section of Clear Procedure. The whole trick is to get the preclear to actually do it. It does no good for a preclear to run these processes with no reality. It does no good for a preclear to run these processes with no ARC between himself and the auditor. But it does a lot of good to get these processes run.

Basically TR TEN, “You notice that (object),” is a fundamental process on connectedness. It will be discovered that unless the preclear is actually able to look at a few things he will not be able to get an idea about them, too. Furthermore, it will be discovered that there is a process called Short Spotting, wherein the auditor has the preclear spot things that are very close to him. The only thing wrong with Short Spotting is that the auditor must give the preclear things to spot which the preclear can actually see with his eyes. If the preclear cannot see these things with his eyes there is not much use in having him spot them as it will run down his havingness and add to an uncertainty.

Havingness of an objective variety, namely Trio, is one of the greatest processes ever invented. Do not lose sight of this fact. The process can do things that no other

process can do. There may be some factors kicking around in Havingness which are not entirely understood and which are not entirely connected with Connectedness. However, it has been found that Connectedness will put a preclear in a condition where he can eventually run Havingness. Therefore, Connectedness undercuts and possibly even overpasses Havingness in general.

This process of Connectedness can also be run outside. It can be run on people. It can be run on a certain type of object. It can be used to familiarize a pilot with his airplane and a driver with his car. It can be used to increase ARC between the preclear and the world around him by letting him run it in a heavily populated area or upon a busy street and using bodies. Here we have one of the more interesting processes to run in terms of cognition, because it undoes so much basic association. If your preclear is not cogniting while running Connectedness you can be very sure of the fact that somewhere along the line you have not given him a reality and you should flatten it off gracefully and start the intensive all over again.



STEP SIX

Creative Processing

Read and understand Scientology 8-8008 and “Electropsychometric Auditing,” and use an E-Meter throughout the auditing.

The first step on this in some cases is conquering black “field” and invisible “field.” This is done by a repair of havingness over black masses and then invisible masses, run even if the pc goes unconscious. This means that you continue to audit him even if he goes unconscious and you use the same command and pay no attention to his unconsciousness. You continue just as though he were wide awake. When field is cleared up, start on a gradient scale of mock-ups and get pc able to mock things up. Then run “Keep it from going away” until flat on mock-ups. Then run “Hold it still” on mock-ups. Then run “Make it more solid” on mock-ups. All this until pc really has fine, solid mock-ups. Typical command, “Mock up a and keep it from going away. Thank you.” RULE: A PC’S FACSIMILES ARE NOT STORED, THEY ARE MADE IN THE INSTANT AND UNMADE BY THE PC, therefore remedy of mock-ups AND THEIR PERSISTENCE, is actually a direct route to clear and winds up with no obsessive mock-up making (which we call a bank). A valuable side process here: “Decide to make a mock-up. Decide that will ruin the game. Decide not to do it.” Also this one: “Decide to make a mock-up everyone can see. Decide that would ruin the game. Decide not to do it.” A TOTAL REMEDY OF MOCK-UPS WOULD MAKE A BOOK ONE CLEAR.


STEP SEVEN

(Optional)

Establish the preclear’s control over his “bank.” “Mock up a facsimile and (keep it from going away, and when that is flat, hold it still, and when that is flat, make it a little more solid).” Run this alternately with “Mock up that wall (keep it from going away, hold it still, make it a little more solid).” Run the “Keep it from going away” on a facsimile one command, then the wall one command, until flat, then shift to “Hold it still” same way, then shift to “Make it more solid,” same way.



STEP EIGHT

Make Some Time

See Dianetics ‘55!, Chapter XV.

AN INTENSIVE IN BRIEF FOR PRACTICAL USE

GOAL: Operating Thetan.

DEFINITION: An Operating Thetan is one who can be knowingly at cause over Life, Matter, Energy, Space and Time.

CCH 0 in brief, find the auditor, find pc, find auditing room, clear help and goals. BUT IN THE MAIN HANDLE THE PT PROBLEM IF IT EXISTS. IF IT DOESN’T EXIST do CCH 0 briefly and quickly and get on with the session.

It will be noted that giving pc’s attention to auditing room or environment can turn on a somatic after three or four commands. After one command of “Have you got an auditing room?” this becomes a process called LOCATIONAL. If Locational turns on a somatic it must be run until somatic is flat. Therefore, the auditor has no business attempting Locational or getting the pc involved unless he intends to do something about it.

Present Time Problem

The preclear is put on an E-Meter before PT problem is discussed. When the E-Meter has been adjusted (one-third of a dial surge when pc squeezes cans), the auditor asks if the pc has a present time problem. After a little discussion of this, the needle may surge. If it does, the auditor locates the PT problem’s most intimate terminal and runs (with the pc still holding the cans) “Invent something worse than (indicated terminal)” until the problem flattens out on the dial. The auditor can ask for and run another PT problem or even three or four, but always flattening down the surge of the needle. IF THE PC IS 50% below the center line of the APA, it is not safe to run “Invent.” Instead, without scouting around “Invent,” but knowing the graph in the first place, simply two-way comm the problem and run Locational until the problem flattens out on the needle. The auditor does not begin with “Invent” and then change his mind and run Locational. It is an “either-or.” The auditor starts with “Invent” or he starts with Locational and whichever he does he does not change. IF LOCATIONAL TURNS ON A SOMATIC IT MUST BE RUN UNTIL LOCATIONAL NO LONGER TURNS ON SOMATICS.

Once the PT problem is flat the auditor puts away the E-Meter.


S-C-S Steps

S-C-S begins with 8-C of any kind. If 8-C turns on a somatic, the auditor runs it until it no longer turns on somatics. 8-C is run formal or Tone 40.

Start is then run as per 1956.

Change is then run as per 1956.

Stop is then run as per 1956.

If each of these is flattened in turn, it does not mean that S-C-S is flat. It means only that Start is probably unflattened. Thus one again runs Start after Stop, runs Change after Start, Stop after Change until none of the three unflatten the others.

More 8-C can be run. There is no error in liberally running 8-C, which is, after all, a more complicated Locational of a Short Spotting sort.

Spotting Steps

Spotting itself is a broad process. Locational is only one of many spotting processes. Spotting spots in the past, in space, in the present, Short Spotting (Locational done up close) are all effective.

SPOTTING DEPENDS FOR ITS WORKABILITY ON THE DISLIKE OF A THETAN OF BEING LOCATED. IT RUNS BEST, of course, WITH THE THETAN AT CAUSE DOING THE SPOTTING.

Connectedness is the basic process on ASSOCIATION of Theta with Mest. All forms and kinds of association, including being caught in traps, are prone to become identifications as in Dianetics. Connectedness puts the thetan at cause in making the Mest (or people when run outside) connect with him. The command is “Get the idea of making (indicated object) connect with you.” The auditor points. The worse off a person is, the less reality he has on far objects.

Havingness is a complicated Connectedness. Also a permissive one. Thus Trio is above Connectedness and may be used when Connectedness is flat.


[The above is the complete text of Scientology: Clear Procedure-Issue One which has been available as a small paperback booklet and is referred to as a book or booklet in various issues.]



ABILITY CONGRESS LECTURES
Washington, D.C.
29—31 December 1957


The Ability Congress, held at the Shoreham Hotel in Washington, D.C., December 29-31, 1957, was a record breaker for winter Congresses. The 300 attendees all seemed delighted with the lectures and seminars. The Congress opened on a note of comedy when L. Ron Hubbard “launched” a Fftnik which rose to the top of the stage and exploded into a shower of ping-pong balls. Immediately afterward, a round sphere circled the stage, emitting sputnik-like beeps.

Getting into the swing of it, the program continued with a complete rundown on the history of organizations, showing that a steady increase in volume shows Scientology to be of greater scope than Dianetics ever was at its highest peak. Mr. Hubbard gave a full description of the state of Clear and gave full details of the techniques necessary for producing Clears. There was no group processing this Congress; the audience did it themselves with co-auditing.

—Ability 64

5712C29 AC-1 Experience—Randomity and Change of Pace

5712C29 AC-2 The Clear—Defined

5712C29 AC-3 Clear Procedure

5712C30 AC-4 Cause and Effect—Education, Unknowing and
Unwilling Effect

** 5712C30 AC-5 Creating a Third Dynamic

5712C30 AC-6 Upper Route to Operating Thetan

571 2C31 AC-7 Responsibility ( How to Create a Third Dynamic)

5712C31 AC-8 The NAAP (The National Academy of American Psychology)

5712C31 AC-9 Creative Processing Steps

CONTROL AND THE MECHANICS OF S.C.S.

Published
December 1957

by
L. Ron Hubbard


Control and the Mechanics of S.C.S., although just a small thin booklet, contains vital data on the anatomy of control.


In 1956 LRH evolved processes for use in the processing of the personnel of a large London company so that they would get uniform results and would not be telling one another different processes during work. These were among the first packages to be “used on anybody” and are detailed in Control and the Mechanics of S.C.S.

The ARC triangle is our next to oldest property in Scientology (the oldest is the bank, the engram and the mental image picture), and in this booklet LRH relates ARC to Control, Havingness and Communication.


“Follow ARC down scale as per the Hubbard Chart of Human Evaluation in Science of Survival and as you go down you will find an area below the bottom line of the chart. That has to do with mass In other words, to wrap up this whole subject the only responses still extant at the bottom of the Chart can still be phrased in terms of control, havingness and communication.”
L. Ron Hubbard—Control and the Mechanics of S.C.S.


24 pages, soft-cover, two codes. Available from your nearest Scientology Organization or Mission, or direct from the publishers: Scientology Publications Organization, Jernbanegade 6, 1608 Copenhagen V, Denmark; or Church of Scientology Publications Organization U.S., 2723 West Temple Street, Los Angeles, California, 90026, U.S.A.

P.A.B. No. 127
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 January 1958

THE THREAT TO HAVINGNESS

Prepared from the research material of L. Ron Hubbard



The first step to processing a preclear is to find out if he has a present time problem and to handle it adequately enough to proceed with auditing. Often we have a preclear who comes to us basically just to get more able and as we process him we find that we are making no particular progress with this case. He seems to be doing everything just as we expect it to be done with no apparent gain.

The reason for this occurrence is the fact that the preclear is not doing the process in present time and has a present time problem that is interfering, of which he did not tell us. The fact about the matter is that the preclear himself does not really know, is not cognizant of the fact that he has a present time problem and is consequently a very “south” case.

I have found that a preclear who isn’t processing real fast on Procedure CCH isn’t doing the process because he has something which “threatens his havingness.” Since processing and havingness go hand in hand it isn’t surprising that the preclear will make sure that he doesn’t change since he cannot afford to expend more havingness in cognitions.

So this threat to his havingness is his present time problem of which he may or may not be aware and if you as an auditor didn’t handle it at the beginning of the session, it is certain that the preclear is not consciously aware that he has such a problem or is deliberately Lying to you for reason of shame, embarrassment—or that ARC is not fully present.

This threat to havingness is that which most prevents the preclear from having things. It is that which stands in his way to having and is thus a problem to him which he hasn’t under control.

What the auditor has to do is to find this problem for the preclear and then to handle it properly. This case is so low on problems that he doesn’t even recognize that he has one and his level of problems has to be increased otherwise he will create a problem out of auditing which is what happens when he doesn’t change. Auditing itself then becomes a problem to the preclear.

One handles this matter simply by going into good two-way communication with the preclear. (One-way communication as-ises havingness, two-way doesn’t and actually raises the tone of the preclear.)

Copyright © 1958 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

One asks him if there is something that “worries him,” “presents a difficulty which he would like to handle or which is making life a bit troublesome,” or if he is about to “lose” anything (a pending court case, wife, business deal, etc.) or “if there is anything that he would like to change as it produces some pressure on him” and so forth. But the important question here is: “What most prevents you from having things?”

The moment anything arises, go straight ahead and ask him pointed but not evaluating questions about it so that he can define it into a more definite form. Ask him to tell you about it again, how it worries him, exactly what it is that has this effect until he can articulate it clearly and precisely. One can even play stupid so as to make him more lucid until one actually finds the terminal if it is a condition that is worrying him—for we handle terminals and masses only, and not conditions or effects.

After this one can state the problem to the preclear in practically his own words, asking him to listen carefully and correct one if one hasn’t repeated it accurately and then ask him to tell one if “it is a problem to him” and if he recognizes it as such. It is surprising that the preclear will look quite pleased to have this problem and will naturally want to hold on to it in spite of his protestations that he wouldn’t if you questioned him further about it. It would thus be wrong to suggest to him that it should be “solved” or taken away from him, for a problem is a game and a threat to havingness does and can reveal the hidden game the preclear is compulsively playing. Taking that problem would be robbing him of a game and the preclear would react violently or by not changing, since he thinks you are going to keep on taking all his games from him.

One thus tells the preclear that since he now has a problem it would be better if he had more problems which would be directly under his own control. One then handles this threat to his havingness by taking the terminal to the problem and running “Invent a problem of comparable/incomparable magnitude to (the terminal).”

The new problems he invents (if it is done with reality, and it is the auditor’s job to see that he does so) will not be aberrative since he has created both the intention and counter-intention that constitutes the problem and is therefore pan-determined in relation to these problems which he then can control. These problems will serve to move his fixed attention from the problem which he doesn’t have under control and the auditor can then proceed with Procedure CCH.

There is, however, a note of warning here. The two-way communication must remain “two-way” and also, this process can come dangerously near evaluation which must not occur. It therefore needs clever auditing to have the preclear discover this problem without breaking the Auditor’s Code. The auditor can ask “pointed” questions which will reveal it more easily, and even re-state the problem in clearer and concise language, but he must not evaluate under any circumstance.

This type of case, by the way, is a low toned case and needs a great amount of good control, and the first four steps of CCH must be thoroughly flattened before any attention and thinkingness processes are used.

It can be seen from the above that it is important at all times to look out for the things that threaten the preclear’s havingness and to handle them with problems of comparable/incomparable magnitude so that auditing doesn’t have to become a present time problem to you and the preclear.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

11 JANUARY 1958






HGC PROCEDURE


1. CCH 0 with PT Problem on E-Meter.

2. S-C-S and Connectedness to get pc under control only.

1 and 2 not “therapeutic” steps.

3. Step 6 Clear Procedure Connectedness used to extrovert pc now and then.

3 is the therapeutic step.

Run Intensive with 1 and 2 occupying no more than 1/5 of 25 hrs.


L. RON HUBBARD



LRH:bt.rd
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 13 JANUARY 1958





HGC RUNNING OF PCS



Use CCH 0 with PT Problem, S-C-S and Connectedness to get pc under auditor control and no longer.

Then use Step 6 of Clear Procedure as soon as possible and until end of intensive. Some Objective Havingness can be run if necessary.

Repair havingness on invisible and black objects in fields which are invisible or black. The test is “Shut your eyes—what are you looking at?” They’ll tell you and you establish whether field is invisible or black. Then use the above. Otherwise (if mock-ups are clear) don’t use it.

What can you mock up easily? Pc says, “An apple.” Do so. (Note meter.) (If reaction on meter choose something else.)

The command then is “In front of that body, you mock up an apple (pause) and keep it from going away. Did you keep it from going away?” Pc says he did. “Thank you.” The next command is “Behind that body, etc.” The next is “Above that body, etc.” The next is “Below that body, etc.” The next is “To the right of that body, etc.” The next is “To the left of that body, etc.” Then one begins the series again with “In front of that body, etc.” This is continued until E-Meter no longer registers a surge when pc does it. Now pick a larger object. Test it for surge on the meter. If meter surges, don’t use it, pick another, etc. Now go through same series. One runs this on at least 6 objects each one larger until he goes on to next, Hold it still.

Keep it from going away, when flat on many objects, is followed by the same command substituting “Hold it still.” This is done before, behind, above, below, to the right, to the left, the same way around and around. When Hold it still is flat one goes to “Make it a little more solid,” same command otherwise as before.

If this all flattens, start all over again now with more significant objects. Read Step 6 Clear Procedure.


L. RON HUBBARD



LRH:bt.rd
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

P.A.B. No. 128
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

15 January 1958

THE FACTORS BEHIND THE HANDLING OF IQ

Edited from L. Ron Hubbard’s 16th lecture to the 18th American ACC
in Washington, D.C., on S August 1957


This past week has been an eventful one in research. It has culminated a four-year search for the factors which lay behind what is called IQ, or Intelligence Quotient. We have been taking tests here for many years and these tests were mainly used to establish change in preclears. We care nothing about the significance of the test. We do care, however, that these tests mirror change.

Someone may say that a test taken twice will, of course, get a better answer than one taken once. This is not true, since everybody in the MEST universe is on a “mustn’t happen again” and we automatically figure that a test taken twice would get a worse grade the second time. We have two different tests marked A and B which are supposed to give identical results. I have been waiting for the people who devised this test originally to say, “Well, you can throw the results in any direction you want to with these tests.” But we have given a considerable amount of testing to many, many people and we do find that a test will hold constant on a given person in the absence of processing. If a person is not processed the variability in the profile and IQ is very slight. Somebody who is not getting any results from any treatment or processing will register the same, test after test which is quite unusual.

Testing is a very old subject. It is not newly developed in modern times. One of the first examples of testing that we find is in the early Chaldean times. Testing of all kinds, sorts and descriptions as to honesty, intent, reliability, ability and so forth, have been with Man almost as long as he has been on Earth. In modern times these tests have been more standardized and reduced to writing.

Here, for example, is a test I heard about, from the 18th Century down in Georgia. It was a guilt test. Somebody had stolen something, so they would have all the negroes on the plantation line up and put a rooster underneath a big black kettle. This was a witch rooster or something of the sort. And they would say, “The man who stole it, when he touches the black kettle will make the rooster crow.” All the negroes on the plantation would go by the kettle and then the overseer merely had to go by and look at their hands. The negro who didn’t have any soot on his hands was, of course, guilty.

All tests, however, have had an end goal, and they of modern times are more or less as covert as this rooster under the black kettle.

Modern tests were originally devised in the total belief that Man could not be changed. From year to year people would get changes of one kind or another from childhood on, which would demonstrate the year’s IQ which might be higher or lower

Copyright ©1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

than another year’s IQ. They maintained that people advanced in IQ because of age, yet at the same time said that IQ could not change, would never change and could not be influenced by any particular factor.

I am rather astounded to discover that when a person is happy and takes the test, and when this same person is unhappy and takes the test, he practically gets the same curve on his personality profile with the same IQ. It does have a constancy. It was this constancy and an inability to understand the mind prior to 1950 which made people say that it was not possible to change Man or his IQ. A stupid man was stupid and a bright man bright and that was it.

People knew, however, that personality and IQ were not the same thing and were distinct from one another. So there are tests to measure personality and tests to measure intelligence. One of the ways one would observe this would be to take three or four men who had more or less an equal personality. The result of testing would show that they had more or less similar personalities but that their IQs differed. Or one could take men of the same IQ and test them, only to find that their personalities were completely different from each other.

I have known this ever since 1950 when the first testing was done. We either changed their personality or changed their IQ. Very often with a very successful case we changed and improved both. This created a mystery and we wondered why it was that when we ran an intensive on Joe his IQ changed and when we ran the same intensive on Bill his personality changed but not his IQ. In view of the fact that all of our processes were mixed to a large degree, including such things as havingness, 8-C, thinkingness and significance processes, and in view of the fact that auditors were different from one another, we had a sufficient number of factors in each one of these test representations to make it impossible to sort out. I could not sort it out.

Then I started on a project with the HGC auditors last week and wound up with the answer to this problem when I had no intention of doing so at all. It was just accidental that I found the answer.

Here is what happened. We wanted a process that we could write up in a book and send to ministers so that they could counsel easily and well, since the minister is doing a tremendous amount of personal counseling. If he could just sit down, according to these rules as he read them and get some sort of a result we would have been very happy. We called this project “Process July.”

We knew one thing about Process July: It was slanted in the direction of getting people to unburden their souls. We wanted to get the overt act-motivator sequence off the case. So we would have the minister write down the names of everybody the person knew and then pick out the most likely candidates and ask just one question about each one of those until we got this person straightened out. It would have been a straight wire question on a present time basis, such as “Tell me something you could do or say to valence.”

We do know that an overt act-motivator sequence is a reach-withdraw situation, therefore we had to test “withhold” since we obviously had this withhold situation to consider. (Now earlier processes already indicated this, and particularly “Recall a secret.” Don’t confuse this with withhold because they are not the same process at all. We merely wanted the person to open up and talk to the auditor when we were recalling secrets and if we did anything with it, it was totally accidental. But we did learn here about withhold.)

So the first question the minister would ask would be, “Think of something you could withhold from .” Now one of the discoveries that led to this question is

that divulgence and confessions had nothing to do with raising anybody’s IQ or improving his case. It wasn’t the fact that he confessed it or divulged it but the fact that he erased it.

We started running this “withhold” command for a couple of days and then went over to “What could you say or do to ,” varied that question around for a couple of days and returned to “Think of something you could withhold from (valence),” and found that the latter was the question that was producing the results.

Withhold is a games condition on communication and is a partner to the process, “Mock up somebody denying communication.” People are in an obsessive games condition which they have to play, although they are not aware of it, and on the subject of communication they are naturally going to be withholding obsessively.

We tested this process carefully and found minimal personality changes, but found that the IQs of the preclears changed remarkably. An old lady’s IQ went up from 84 to 105 and everybody knew that her brains were atrophied. It was an “impossible” jump for a person of her age. Another person quite advanced in years, between 70 and 80 years old, got an IQ raise from 109 to 133. An invalid’s IQ went up from 98 to 121 and a student’s from 101 to 126. There was an IQ change on every case on which this process was run.

The theory behind it seems to be this: The individual gets his mind so involved with the problems of some game with some valence or person that his computers are all tied up on that particular subject. When you restore self-determinism on this level you free the individual’s ability to think. An obsessive games condition is to withhold communication from somebody. When we take that off automatic and put it under the control of the preclear so that he is doing it, all of the involved mechanisms start working out.

That is why psychotherapy never worked. You have never seen before and after tests, whether IQ or personality, on a Freudian analysis. It is the ability to withhold communication which advances IQ and makes a person feel better, not the ability to divulge it. We’ve been told all our lives that all we had to do was go to somebody and confess. If we were to confess to our mothers and fathers that we did those dirty, nasty little things we would feel so much better. It isn’t true. You probably only felt better to the end of getting your pants spanked. This is an enforced communication and as an enforced communication would break through a games condition, in which a person found himself. It would demand that one communicate with the enemy and would depress one accordingly. Obviously, then, it is not true that divulging or confessing did anything for anybody, because the only improvement he got would be if he regained the ability to withhold that information without being upset about withholding it. The only disturbing element in secrets is the guilt which accompanies them.

For example: You took your old man’s car and it got a wobbly wheel. You put it back in the garage and he came out the next day and looked at it and said, “I wonder how that happened?” You stood there innocently, saying nothing. But you felt guilt. At length you felt as though you were going out of communication with him when these incidents piled up too high. Psychotherapy’s whole answer to this is that you had to throw yourself at your father’s chest and confess all whereupon all would be well. It wouldn’t have done a thing for you. What the bent wheel did was to overcome your ability to withhold communication by making you feel you ought to communicate. It interrupted your self-determinism on the subject of communication.

This is the reach and withdraw mechanism, of must reach, can’t reach, must withdraw, can’t withdraw and these are the two pairs which create the sensation of insanity. As an example, you must run away from the bogey man that’s chasing you

through the treacle. He is coming like a mad express train and there you are stuck. That is a nightmare. You must withdraw and cannot withdraw. The glee of insanity is only composed of this. People in asylums are stuck in this so they must withdraw and can’t withdraw, must reach and cannot reach.

All of the past psychotherapies are aimed at getting a person to outflow, and what do we find here? We find that intelligence increases and neurotic personality traits get better when we run withhold communication from valences. It is a fantastic reversal. We found this to be the case: that people from whom one felt that one could not withhold anything were the most aberrative valences on the case. We thus have a new definition for aberrative valences, namely the “cannot withhold from” valence, who is the most aberrative valence on the case. As you run it the preclear will say, “Well,” unreality, unreality, “I don’t seem to be able to withhold anything from Aunt Grace at all.” Ask a criminal what he could withhold from jail and he will find that he cannot withhold anything from jail. He will see facsimiles and other electronic phenomena sweeping towards some spot he considers jail since he is unable to withhold anything from jail.

We are looking at the basic anatomy of the track and the basic process by which one would run a track. You could be sitting in the middle of the trap and just dream it up for a while and say, “How did I get in here? I don’t know.” The only way anybody could keep you in a trap would be to give you the idea that you had to surrender to the trap and the way to undo this would simply be to think of something you could withhold from the trap—or track.

The other side takes care of itself. I don’t know how a thetan can keep from communicating with everything unless he feels he should withhold everything from everything. Remember, you are not trying to erase a lot of things. It is the regaining of the ability to withhold that you are working toward. It is a certainty process, the preclear selectively withholding things from canvas, typewriter or aberrative valence with certainty, because an individual has been in a games condition with the canvas, typewriter, drill press or the valence. It has absorbed all of his ideas and thinkingness and everything else, and they are all stuck and bunched up on the track. He is trying to think, “How can I communicate?” since communication is composed of selective withholding.

One thus gets this kind of activity. One has individuals in a games condition with their highest common denominator of a games condition, and that action is communicate, and they are trying to withhold communication from their opponents. Wherever they have considered an opponent to exist they have withheld communication from the opponent. Having decided to withhold communication from the opponent they now decide to communicate with the opponent because they have to, and you get a denial of self which is, of course, the basic aberrative pattern. We take this circumstance, look it over and discover that the individual has been made to break his own postulate—”I am withholding it”—because he considered this person an opponent and then he said, “I have to talk.”

When you can no longer withhold from a valence you become it, and we have the basic mechanism of valence closure, because what is the one thing that you don’t withhold from something you have become? Yourself. So here is a gradient scale of withholding.

One would run “withhold” this way: You would take an inventory of valences, their professions and habitats. A habitat is a place where the preclear has lived and couldn’t pay rent. In other words, the old homestead, his childhood home. There are a number of tricks by which one can isolate these valences without asking the direct question on the basis of comm lag or the fact that he didn’t mention at all in five people the two most aberrative people or valences on the case.

One would then establish a session with thoroughness and with questioning find out if there was a present time valence with which the person was very deeply involved and run that out with Problems of Comparable Magnitude. One would then move into the session and sandwich valences with Locational Processing. The command here is: “Think of something you could withhold from (valence),” not “Recall something.” The preclear would say, “Oh, yes, I can think of lots of things.” Now beware of an automaticity. He might strike a games condition on an automaticity that says, “I can withhold something from (valence).” That has to be flattened. Get to the point where he can withhold rather ordinary and routine things at his own discretion one at a time and that would be the ability to withhold regained, the only thing you are interested in.

When the preclear finally decides that he can withhold things from the valence, go into Locational Processing to orient your preclear in present time, and to command his attention. Then run the next aberrative valence. This one should be a little more difficult than the last one and so on to the next valence which should be stiffer than the last.

One should then pick up the preclear’s professional tools and run these on a similar gradient scale—the easier ones first and gradiently to the difficult ones—until he can withhold anything from his childhood home.

Flatten CCH 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 fairly well before you embark on this and then use ample Locational Processing for the remainder of the intensive and Lord knows what his IQ will be if you went for broke to this degree.

But remember that the process will not do anything unless you have some goals as to where the process is going, and the goal is to restore the preclear’s ability to withhold. This will bring the preclear out of all traps and is quite evidently IQ, and it changes valences only to the degree that it totally snaps the preclear out of that valence.

I hope this information is as valuable to you as it has proven itself to me and the HGC auditors who assisted me with this project.

L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 18 JANUARY 1958




CONTROL



The reason the auditor is having trouble getting off Control and onto Step 6 is that the auditor expects a technique to take control of pc. Auditing depends on the auditor taking control of the pc. When this is learned we’ll not have 20 hrs devoted to Control processes and 5 to Step 6. We will have 5 hrs to Control and 20 hrs to Step 6.

Control consists of the pc being aware of who and what is controlling him. So Find the Auditor is therefore part of Control.


L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:bt.rd
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED




19TH AMERICAN ADVANCED CLINICAL COURSE LECTURES
Washington, D.C.
6 January—14 February 1958

“There were 35 students in the 19th ACC. During this course 15 of these students attained the state of Clear.

“The 19th Advanced Clinical Course began January 6, 1958 and ended February 14, 1958. The first two weeks of the course were devoted to a course in communication and indoctrination in order to smooth out the student auditing. The remaining four weeks were devoted to co-auditing. In each week half the class audited the other half, which means that each student, in the four auditing weeks gave two weeks and received two weeks of auditing (72 hours each).

“More students would have been Clear in the course if I had earlier developed a special method of reducing ‘fields’ (the plack curtains some people have). A development I released toward the end of the fifth week on this took care of the problem but several members of the course were not again audited.”

L. Ron Hubbard—Ability 68


** 5801C20 19ACC-1 The Four Universes

5801C20 19ACC The E-Meter (possibly same tape as 5801C24)

5801C21 19ACC-2 Intensive Procedures

5801C21 19ACC-2A Question-and-Answer Period

The list of lectures given to the 19th ACC continues in date order sequence on pages 206, 207, 216, 219 and 220.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 JANUARY AD 8

For use of 19th ACC, Staff Clearing & HGC


MEST CLEAR PROCEDURE


1. CCH 0: Get PC into communication on the following points:
1) presence of auditor; 2) presence of auditing room; 3) presence of PC; 4) starting of session and when it will end; 5) PC’s goals; 6) possibility of help; 7) present time problem—if no blip, or only slight blip on meter, skip it. If needle action severe, use “What part of that problem could you be responsible for?” Run to nul on meter. Use no other process for PTP.

NOTE: Use no Locational Processing at all during intensive.

2. S-C-S: (See Clear Procedure for commands [page 185] .)

NOTES: In all commands, use “that body” or “the body”, not “your”.
Run until no step unflattens the other steps.
Be certain to duplicate the full command exactly each time.
Acknowledgement is a Tone 40 “Thank you”.

3. Control Connectedness: Command: “You get the idea of making that (object selected at random by auditor with auditor indicating the object) connect with you.”

4. Clean-up of field: Command: “You mock up a (terminal in the same condition as PC’s field) and shove it into the body,” i.e., black field—black mass, invisible field—invisible mass, speckled field—speckled mass.

NOTES: ABSOLUTELY NO HECKLING ABOUT CERTAINTY THAT HE MOCKED IT UP.
Use patience, persistence, understanding, and kid gloves.

5. Creative Processing: Command: “In front of that body you mock up a (nul object, located on meter) and keep it from going away. Did you? Thank you.” (Tone 40 ack.)

NOTES: The “Did you?” refers only to whether he kept it from going away, not to whether he mocked it up.

Change the location of the mock-up on each successive command by commanding, “Behind that body ... ,” “Above that body ... ,” “Below that body ... ,” “To that body’s right ... ,” “To that body’s left ...”

When the first object has been run from nul to nul, locate a somewhat larger nul object with the meter. Run it nul to nul on the same command. You will then go on to a 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th object, each larger than the last, and each run nul to nul on “Keep it from going away”.

When all 6 objects have been flattened on “Keep it from going away”, run each one again in the original order on “Hold it still”. When this is flat, run the same 6 objects with “Make it a little more solid”.

NOTES: If a mock-up disappears or flies out of control, don’t red herring after it. Just have him mock up the same item again.

If PC becomes extremely introverted during session of Creative Processing, Connectedness may be used to end session. If PC should remain introverted for entire day, go back to Connectedness.

If needle consistently out of pace with supposed command execution, PC has lost auditor, is out of control. Re-establish auditor, or go to bottom again.

If auditor can locate invisible nul object or particle, running it will reduce body’s susceptibility to germs.

6. Creative Processing: repeat 5 with 6 different objects.

7. Creative Processing: ditto


LRH:-.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED




HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 JANUARY 1958

ACCs

HPA/HCA


An ACC is a special activity.

It may modify HCA/HPA but not necessarily.

What is good in an ACC is generally taught in HPA/HCA sometime.

HPA/HCA is a tougher course by far and must prepare a student for all eventualities.

Thus HCA/HPA must cover all types of processing and theory.

Clearing a student is not in the province of HCA/HPA. Teaching how to clear is the emphasis. If they get clear it’s incidental.

They’re all auditors in HCA/HPA.

L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


5801C22 19ACC-3 The Bank Out of Control and Its Stabilization
5801C23 19ACC-4 Clearing Fields
5801C23 19ACC-4A Question-and-Answer Period plus Comments
5801C24 19ACC-5 E-Meter Identification and Association
5801C24 19ACC-5A Question-and-Answer Period: Step 6, Clearing Children
5801C27 19ACC-6 Clear Procedure l: What It Is You Clear,
Something and Nothing

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN #2 OF 25 JANUARY AD 8




REVIEWING WEEK’S PROFILES


In clearing pcs it is necessary for the auditor to cause something.

Abandon any idea of running significant objects ever. Always run non-significant objects.

Free the needle before you run Step 6 when needle is stuck. Two-way Comm and Str Wire will do it.

Totally clear up a field before running Step 6. A field is cleared by running repair of havingness on a terminal like the field. Don’t go running pcs on 6 who “think they see a mock-up” or who “have an ‘idea’ one is there”.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :-.rd
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



19TH AMERICAN ACC LECTURES (cont.)
Washington, D.C.
27—31 January 1958

** 5801C28 19ACC-7 Clear Procedure ll: Man the Animal and Man the God
** 5801C28 19ACC-7A Clear Procedure ll: Q & A, Handling the PT Problem
** 5801C29 19ACC-8 Clear Procedure lll: One Clear Procedure, Q & A Period
5801C30 19ACC-9 Clear Procedure IV: Test for Clears
5801C30 1 9ACC-9A Clear Procedure IV: Q & A, Space
** 5801C31 19ACC-10 Clear Procedure V: Importance of Theory Behind
Clearing Procedure
5801C31 19ACC-10A Clear Procedure V: Q & A Period

Other lectures given to the 19th ACC are listed on pages 204, 206, 216, 219 and 220.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 26 JANUARY AD 8


FUTURE PLANS

Well, here we begin!

A well schooled auditor can take any volunteering PC and get him under control and run Step 6 of Clear Procedure and we have a Book One Clear.

Future of Research is Operating Thetan and the situation on Earth.

To consolidate this I am doing the following:

1. I am completing the 19th ACC.
2. I will groom up the DC operation until mid-February.
3. In mid-February I am going to London for 3 weeks to get London going on Clearing (because it communicates easily to rest of world). This for sure consolidates SA, NZ and Aust, which Man may need.
4. Returning to DC end of 1st week in March.
5. I will write our next “Book One” bringing us up to date and giving us a book for the book stores that advertises as the solution to Bohdi, the clear everybody’s wanted for 2500 years.
6. That done I’ll be in DC in late April.
7. The book will be published in June by Vantage Press. It will also be published in UK and France through Vantage contacts.

A pamphlet about Bodhi will be written at once for reply to ads in mystic magazines which announces the goal of 2500 years has been reached. It will be printed like a $1 or 5s book.

Here’s what Scientology Organizations should do:

1. Put announcements at once in all mystic magazines announcing state attainable. Steves has the ad copy.
2. Get pamphlet on clears published as soon as I complete it.
3. Get whole staff cleared by Co-audit and HGC where necessary. (I want all staff everywhere clear by June: easy to do and the results are startling.)
4. Get groomed up for the summer rush and see to it that it is a rush.

Well, in AD 8 we’ve got a kick-off for a much more rapid game. The scope of that game will be apparent to everyone when you start getting clear and making clears.

My game in research is not at end by a long way. For instance in research for OT actions I wrote 15 things the US Govt should do five weeks ago. It has now done 6 of them. When they’ve done all 15 I know we’re sailing (for the 6 may have been my telepathy or coincidence).

And organization know-how and expansion is a long way from ended. Map a comm center for the nearest ten stars for instance. We’ll be on deck to welcome the space ships when they get them!

Here’s our program then. REACH ‘EM. CLEAR ‘EM.

And my actions are all geared to making that adequately possible.

I think we’ll all get the notion shortly that we’re making it!

Best,

L. RON HUBBARD

[Some copies of the above HCO B, issued from London, were dated 28 January 1958.]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 1 FEBRUARY 1958



CLEARING OF FIELDS

Definition:

A field is any thing interposing between pc (thetan) and something he wishes to see, whether Mest or mock-up.

Fields are black, grey, purple, any substance, or invisible.

To run Step 6 of Clear Procedure it is necessary to clear up “field”.

RULES OF FIELDS

We take a Thetan’s ability to see for granted.

His willingness to see may be poor but we increase it by increasing his confidence, decreasing his fear of objects.

Fear of seeing is fear of mass.

A pc can keep himself from seeing by destroying all mass. This is one way mock-ups fail to appear. He has an automaticity which destroys them before they visibly appear. Short duration mock-ups are similarly caused.

A pc that can’t see is reacting from a failure (or failures) of having tried to destroy something. He then tries to destroy mock-ups. Failing this he tries to destroy self. This is a scale of survival.

Persistence of mock-ups is therefore dependent upon a pc’s willingness to let one survive.

One of the phenomena most in the road of clearing is called a ‘‘field’’. It is a self-protective or destructive device.

For our purposes, however, the question of a field is simple. Common example, pc was held in a dark room. The room kept him from going away. It is an incident. The blackness he always sees is the blackness of the room which kept him from going away. This incident or many like it piled up is a “field”. It is only necessary to have him mock up black rooms, shove them into his body and keep them from going away (pc is cause here where the room was cause before) and the field will change. This is a rule: In any field, a PC was effect in an incident where he was being kept from going away. To clear that field, it is only necessary to have him create the incident, shove it into the body and have pc keep it from going away.

The main rule of fields is that pc must be made to reverse cause on the field from field at cause to pc at cause. As all fields are incidents, and as a pc is the one who mocks up these incidents, all fields can be cleared by attaining knowing cause.

Another rule is that a pc will confront anything to the degree that he is made familiar with it. Merely making him find and recognize fields will rid him of them. Merely making him confront objects will rid him of fields.

TESTING FOR FIELDS

Basic Method of Testing for a Field.

Aud: “Close your eyes.” “What do you see?”
PC: “Nothing.”
Aud: “Look at the room.” (Pc eyes still closed) “What do you see?”
PC: “Nothing.”
Aud: “Then something must be between you and room. What is it?”

etc. until pc sees field or eyelids or room.

Now repeat the same with a simple mock-up shape. (Egg, ball-bearing, or sugar cube.) Have him mock it up, look at it. If he can’t see it, ask what’s between him and it. Keep this up until he sees field.

You can also test for partial fields in areas.

CLEARING FIELDS

Basic Methods of Clearing a Field:

A. A “field” is one or more incidents.

Identify and Locate the incident making a field.

Have pc mock up the incident, shove it into the body and keep it from going away.

B. Mock up a terminal same shade as the field and keep it from going away.

C. Mock up a terminal same shade as field and shove it into body.

D. Run “Destroy a mock-up in front of that body. Did you? Thanks.”
“ “ “ “ behind “ “ “ “ “ “
“ “ “ “ below “ “ “ “ “ “
“ “ “ “ to the right of “ “ “ “ “
“ “ “ “ to the left of “ “ “ “ “
“ “ “ “ above “ “ “ “ “
“ “ “ “ below “ “ “ “ “

E. Take pc outside as in Waterloo Station and have him “Get the idea of destroying that (indicated body or object).”

F. Move pc on time track.

AUTOMATICITY OF FORM SOLUTION

A pc must know he is creating what he is creating. He is creating any mental pictures he sees. But he must know that he is creating.

Automaticity of form keeps him from believing he is making facsimiles. He has buried the ability to form complex objects. He “mocks up a man”. The mock-up is his. The form is an automaticity. Therefore he feels the mock-up isn’t his.

Simplicity of form will conquer this and regain a knowingness of mocking up. An entire clearing, including the handling of fields could be accomplished on a pc by having him do a gradient scale of forms in mock-ups, always using only mock-ups he is confident are his own and recovering his ability to destroy these mock-ups.

What is clearing but regaining awareness that one is himself mocking up all his facsimiles and regaining confidence he can destroy them as well as create them.

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:-.rd Copyright © 1958 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

P.A.B. No. 129
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 February 1958

CONFRONTING


I want to speak to you about a phenomenon having to do with “enough” and “not enough.” This adds up to meaning “insatiable.” The thetan is insatiable as far as “enough” is concerned.

Just what is enough? That limit has never been agreed upon. For instance, the governments of populations have long since exceeded “enough” with internal revenues. But the fact of the matter is that if you object to taxes it is probably because there are not enough taxes.

I was fascinated to study (and I examined several hundred governments to discover what made them persevere) what people considered a good government to be. There are certain requisites to a good government. People seem to buy governments of tremendous duress; and govemments which are very sweet and polite and constructive are all lost. But governments which call in leading citizens, incarcerate them and tear off their toenails with pincers seem to be very well liked on the track. They persevere, not because the police and governments do a good job, but probably only because they can’t be confronted.

Justinian, the first great Christian emperor, used to call in the foremost citizens or members of government that had happened to make his wife a little mad and throw them into the nearest dungeon, torture them to death and sell their wives off to the Arabs for slaves. The leading general of this emperor was actually one of the great generals of all time. But every time he won a victory, Justinian would issue some kind of cross mandate depriving the victory of all significance. At the end Belisarius was rewarded by having his eyes put out.

The more people Justinian illegally taxed, burned and tortured, the happier everybody seemed about the whole thing. There was no smell of revolt. But the same people, just a few years before Justinian and just a short while afterwards, had perfectly good emperors with equitable taxes, just courts, and these emperors lasted only a short period before the populace was in revolt all over the place.

Well, what causes this? The answer is: enough government. The populace had an

idea of how much government there ought to be and if you didn’t give them that much government, they exploded. But they would have exploded to a much higher level if somebody could have caught them. But nobody ever did and as they came up on the upbound they just got a new tyrant who pushed them down harder.

The only reason I am talking about government is that I want you to see a preclear. Take somebody’s wife. He is mean to her and as long as he continues to be

Copyright © 1958 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

mean she doesn’t explode. One day he decides to be kinder and she explodes. Here is a husband. He hardly puts his foot in the door and she jerks his pay envelope out of his hand, counts it very rapidly, tells him his supper is on the table—and it is cold mutton ! We get a tremendous amount of duress and then one day she is feeling poorly and doesn’t furnish this much duress and he explodes. What does this prove? Unless one applies a tremendous duress and bad 8-C people explode.

A preclear explodes under a mediumly mild 8-C which has regularity rather than a tremendous number of surprises. He has never been given orders he can follow before and all his effort to be orderly goes into restimulation. His efforts to be orderly were manifest at those times when disorder was in his vicinity. You start to handle him well and the disorder to his view goes into automatic and he blows up. This restimulates his efforts to keep a chaotic duress which he first used a long time ago to have an orderly duress against such chaos. You actually start running out the tremendous duress which he has had to apply to keep chaos from exploding. When that runs out you get an explosion of the chaos he has been holding down. You run out, by command, the duress which he has applied to chaotic times of his lives. As a consequence you get an explosion. It looks as though this individual thrives on nothing but chaos, but that is not true. He doesn’t want it and he doesn’t want anything to do with it. A short period of application of very good 8-C that is positive and won’t let him get away with a thing, will run this out.

An individual will apparently sit around in a sort of mucky apathy and be abused for years without anything happening because the abuse he is getting is sort of running out former chaotic periods of his life. It is in restimulation. It convinces him that he cannot handle the wife and that there is nothing one can do about government.

A person who is subjected to a chaotic duress year after year is not getting any place, but, and this seems to be the criteria by which this is judged, he did not revolt.

There is nothing confused about the auditor in a Tone 40 session. If you want a fast blow that will run this all out, you must be very didactic, positive and totally unconfused. He will pull out tricks like origins, then sly tricks and then somatics. None of them interrupt positive control. You just continue to run out all the times when he has tried to control things and has had them blow up in his face.

It is very interesting to watch a child move up into his teens. His parents have been giving him 8-C, family style—did you wash your face, why don’t you get a glass of milk, no there isn’t any milk, go to bed, no don’t go to bed, no get up, go to bed, no don’t stand up. When he gets into the teens all of a sudden his parents aren’t applying very much duress on him and he revolts. It is not really a feeling, sentient, knowing revolt at all. It is a restimulation of his own effort to take care of the chaos which happened to him years ago. So actually bad control breeds periods of chaos which will someday explode.

The actual appearances that come out of this are quite fascinating. One of them is that the individual needs a lot of dramas. You might say, “Well if the thetan can stand up to that much drama he must like it.” He does not like it but it is at least something to do. And that is his misconception of what is worth confronting.

For example, a man had a nice art collection, lived an orderly existence, was an interesting conversationalist and lived in his Maryland village. He never had a caller. One day he died and the whole environment went to his funeral. Obviously a funeral is worth confronting but a live being isn’t. Just add this up to what we used to have to say about Acceptance Level. Now we have Confronting Level.

Another man hardly had anybody to talk to him in the office. He did a good job, and there wasn’t anybody who ever talked to him particularly. One day he got sick and

everybody in the office came to see him clear down at the hospital. If he had got sick from leprosy they all would have come in the first five minutes.

An individual has a concept of what is worth confronting, and all of the chaos which he has been handed has got him so confused that he doesn’t understand that things don’t have to be horrible, terrible, miserable or dramatic in order to be confronted. He falls this way straight away from confronting the universe around him, and he confronts only the horribleness and nastiness and so on.

Lately the Book Review tells us that a book called Andersonville by McKinley Cantor is supposed to be and is advertised as the greatest Civil War novel ever written. I took a look at it. It isn’t about the Civil War at all. It is about a prison camp erected in Georgia by Southerners in which they incarcerated damn Yankees. Every nasty foul condition of humanity is delineated, painfully and unartfully at exceeding length. This low tone level is something that is worth confronting.

Have you watched TV lately, some of the 1.5ing and high toned TV actors acting at 1.5? That is evidently worth confronting. If you could just figure out what a lot of people consider to be worth confronting and then give it to them you would probably come up with much greater popularity than anything else. The same thing goes for the circus and screen. Hollywood got the idea and I imagine laid a tremendous multibillion dollar egg with their Vista Vision and Wide Screen. They are getting actors bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger screens, and finally you sit down and begin to feel like an ant crawling on one of the actor’s knees.

There is another side of the manifestation. We have the anxiety to be confronted. We get these two things in conflict with each other, and those two things in their adjustment make the drama of life.

Where do we find preclears stuck? They are stuck in drama, and one gets the idea that that is something worth confronting. They go off on a gradient scale to things nobody could possibly confront and which they never did confront and then go anaten.

First he starts facing these things which are, he considers, worth confronting, and if he considers enormous drama the only thing worth confronting then he easily falls into enormous chaos. When he goes over into enormous chaos he gets caught up in the fact that nobody could possibly confront the thing, but he is already stuck on an earlier postulate that there was nothing worth confronting and so he gets no havingness in the physical universe.

People run such tricks on other people’s havingness. They tell him nothing around here is worth looking at. “This is a dull town.” (I think America invented the small town just to convince people there was nothing worth confronting.) These small communities, with their small minds, work one way or the other on making nothing out of things that a child was willing to confront. So they bred, as the child grew older, a contempt for anything in his vicinity, and he started looking for things that were worth confronting.

Here is a sample process which could go: “Mock up something that isn’t worth confronting. Make it a little more solid. Thank you.” The person gets streets in his immediate vicinity. He gets havingness and the only things that he could ever get havingness from. Yet his total idea is that none of this is worth confronting and he never sees it. Thus you get your standard homo sapiens, vacant eyed, walking down the street.

As an example: On a lovely cool day people were riding and walking down the street. One lady pushed a little boy in a cart and they were all going along vacant eyed.

All of a sudden the woman pulled the tongue of the little cart up and catapulted the little boy out onto the pavement with a crash. Instantly traffic jammed up. The kid wasn’t even hurt, he just cried a little, but all the cars stopped and their passengers popeyed onto this terrifying scene. People stopped walking and crowded around the spectacle. That was worth confronting. The ingredients of blood-curdling drama were added. But when the little boy wasn’t hurt and he shut up, looks of disappointment were on all faces and the crowd dispersed quietly to the vacancy of other blocks.

Another process on this line: “Mock up something that nobody can confront,” and we discover the favorite games of psychos. Not a productive process at all. By the way, when you get something that nobody could confront you get black minds with ridges, shooting stars and space opera flying around them that they could not make head or tail of.

If you said, “Invent something to confront. Mock it up and make it a little more solid,” you would probably get the best process that can be worked out of this morass. The individual would gradually change his mind concerning things there were to be confronted. There are no such things as can’t be confronted at all. There are only things which are difficult to confront.

“Mock up something you’ve got to confront” and you get the standard run of the mill, homo sapiens nonsense such as alarm fires, funerals, etc. We also get work. Work is considered to be about the last thing that anybody should ever be expected to confront. The Anglo-American view is to put a tremendous amount of kick in the pants on this thing called work. The way you work out work as something that is impossible for anybody to confront is to discourage a child when you see him perform any work. You say, “Oh, get out of my way. It’s too much trouble to show you. You’re in my road.” And by the time he is six or seven he’s thoroughly educated that he will not be permitted to work. And then the laws of state keep him from getting jobs and earning money so that he can escape from the tremendous dependency of family. Further up in his teens they realize the police have a vested interest in crime and they have here a good quality juvenile delinquent. Then he is not permitted to work either. We get him in his early twenties and insist he get married and then we show him that he’s got to work. Here you’ve got one of these super duress got-to-confronts. No wonder people get tired, because every time you put them into a “got to confront” you run them into all the emergencies.

What is an emergency? It is something that requires a necessity level. What is a necessity level? It is a heightened willingness—a sudden heightened willingness which untaps a tremendous amount of ability and you get these tremendous feats. Now this cycle of super energy and application winding up with super tiredness gets applied to the work-a-day world of turning a lathe or driving a truck or keeping a set of books. He’s got to get the work done and he finally goes into total exhaustion. This is because he has no orientation on what’s worth while confronting. This adds up to the fact that Man goes into an emergency level of activity when he has got to confront and his whole lifetime is one long activity at an emergency height. This tells us the reason for the hectic anxiety to get the work done. The human body has its limitations and cannot stand that since it is built on a number of “now I am supposed to’s” and every time you have the problem handled you go out in the middle of the Sahara Desert and “now I am supposed to have a drink of water” keys in and you haven’t got it licked at all.

“Mock up something you have got to confront” brings to the guy the tools of his trade. Run it a bit further and you’ll get women if it is a man, and vice versa. It is a “got to confront.”

You can ask what the solution of confrontingness in the preclear would mean in terms of exteriorization. Things that are impossible to confront, that are not worth

confronting, each play their role in exteriorization. A person who is dead in the head knows that he couldn’t possibly confront a skull of a body, but he has got to confront one.

I would say that it would take a lot of preparation with the early steps of CCH before one started soaring into those rarefied realms of confrontingness. There is one process called Locational Processing which works out a tremendous amount of confrontingness and controls attention at the same time. It is run Tone 40, with great accuracy and precision by the auditor, who then controls the preclear’s attention which was previously controlled by facsimiles. And a steady control like that runs out the preclear’s attempts to control. Locational Processing happens to make the thetan make the body confront the wall. This is an objective confrontingness process. As a subjective one, “Invent something to confront. Mock it up and make it a little more solid,” is very good, and they are at present the two standard confrontingness processes in Scientology.

L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
1812 19th Street, N.W., Washington 9, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 FEBRUARY AD 8



FREE CLEARING PROJECT


It is vital to have cleared auditors.

The Hubbard Association of Scientologists, International shall offer to its professional membership only, the facilities, technique, quarters and schedules adequate to effect clearing.

Anyone reporting to Washington who is an HDA or HCA in good standing with the HASI will be assigned co-auditing facilities. The auditing quarters, technique tapes, scheduling and supervision will be made available without cost. The only expense incurred by the participant would be transportation to, food and living quarters in, Washington.

Clearing on this project would be done on a co-auditing basis with staff supervision. Estimated time is from 3 to 5 weeks. No guarantee of result is made since it is conditional upon participation.

This project is open until the end of April 1958 only.

Charters and franchises will hereafter be given to clears only according to recent board resolution.

This is not an ACC and in no way parallels an ACC.

Only professional auditors—Hubbard Dianetic Auditors and Hubbard Certified Auditors—in good standing are eligible. Reinstatement is attainable on payment of one year’s dues of $15 for those whose membership is not current.

The HASI reserves the right to refuse to enroll persons in the project or to terminate participation of any person with or without cause.

We need thousands of cleared auditors for current projects.

Report to the Registrar FC any Monday.


Copyright © 1958 L. RON HUBBARD
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



5802C03 19ACC-11 Clear Procedure Vl

** 5802C04 19ACC-12 How to Find a Preclear, Responsibility and Help
Clear Procedure Vl I

** 5802C05 19ACC-13 Clear Procedure Vlll: The Basic Approach to Clearing,
Finding the Auditor

5802C05 19ACC-13A Clear Procedure Vlll: Q & A Period

Other lectures given to the 19th ACC are listed on pages 204; 206, 207, 219 and 220.



Issue 66 [1958, ca. early February]


The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.



The Attainment of “Clears”


L. Ron Hubbard



A CLEAR. A person at willing and knowing cause over his own life, his body and his surroundings and without a reactive or subconscious mind.

I have been receiving congratulations the last few weeks for having developed techniques which make it possible for auditors other than myself to clear people.

It has taken more than eight years to cross this bridge. I made the first Clears in 1947-49. Then I wrote a book about it—Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. I honestly thought people could clear people with that book. But all it really did was make people able to heal people, not clear them.

People got better when audited by others. They did not get clear except in rare cases.

So the past eight years has been occupied in the making of a bridge so that others could clear others. Now it appears it has been done.

First I had to find out what I was doing. Then I had to find language to describe it. Then it was necessary to develop a discipline which could do it.

Well, apparently we’ve won. It has taken eight years. But it is done. We are making “Book I” Clears in the Hubbard Guidance Center. We are making them in ACCs. We are making the grade in staff co-auditing.

For much more than 2,500 years, Man has dreamed of this goal. When Gautama Siddhartha (623 B.C.) rose in the East as a Buddha, he could bring about the state of Bodhi in a man. Nearly all of his teachings concerned the attainment of this goal. The state of Bodhi is evidently our “Clear.” (It is accidental that the goals compare.) But from this action of a few reaching “Bodhi,” more than half the civilized world was changed.

It was forecast at that time that some day in the West someone would make it possible for this to occur in one lifetime and for many. Regardless of the prophecy, it is evident that we are now able to bring about a state higher and more acceptable than Man has believed possible. And it is very important that many people can accomplish the state in others.


Copyright © 1958 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

Further, it is now possible to train a person to create the state in others with a few months of work at the Academy. And it is possible to bring about the state of Clear in from 30 to 275 hours of professional auditing at the Hubbard Guidance Center.

So an eight-year bridge-building program draws to a close and I find myself engaged in communicating the data and researching toward an even higher state, one not even embraced by earlier literature—”Operating Thetan.”

The staff attitude here concerning Clears is interesting. Only within the last few weeks has the staff as a whole become aware of some of the magnitude of all this. It required about five Clears around the organization headquarters, one after the other, for people to wake up to what has happened. And then more days to realize that these Clears had been brought about by auditors not yet clear. And finally more days to realize that Clears were being made by somebody other than myself. And finally, that:

1. At the Academy we teach all the skills necessary to clear people.

2. At the Hubbard Guidance Center, staff auditors are using only techniques to clear people.

In other words, the staff woke up to find that they were doing it and that they now were doing nothing else.

In the 19th Advanced Clinical Course, clearing began to occur with routine student auditing.

And in the broad field of the public an awareness of this seems to be coming about. We have some advertisements running in magazines that simply invite people to come in and get clear and people we’ve never heard of before are arriving with no preamble and signing up and sitting down to get cleared—just like that.

What an enormous amount of data has been covered in 25 years! I’ve combed into almost anything and everything for the answers. The answers were not as simple as one would expect. But they were simple enough to get the job done.

An old-time Dianeticist came in during the 19th ACC, looked at the students and what was happening and was the first to put it in words—”Thanks for making it so others can do it.”

Well, that’s what’s happened.

The practical aspects of this are apparent in such things as a new Board of Trustees order to the effect that charters in the future would be given only to Clears, by an order to worldwide staff to be clear in six months, by a co-auditing clearing project for professional auditors here in D.C., at no cost.

You could say that we’ve been marking time as an organization waiting for this day. The day has arrived. We need mark time no longer. In the teeth of a worsening world, we’ve made it, no matter what happens on Earth.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

It can be done for you.

Best,

L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 6 FEBRUARY 1958


HGC CLEAR PROCEDURE OUTLINE


CCH Ob—HELP IN FULL

STARTING SESSION



After clearing any pt problem with “What part of that problem could you be responsible for?” run CCH 0 for help. If any difficulty whatever is experienced or if pc has field, run CCH Ob in full.

This is formally audited. Each command is cleared with pc word for word. And a bridge is used for every change. Run until E-Meter is flat or field vanishes or both. This is a 9-way bracket.

How could you help yourself? How could you help me? How could I help you? How could I help myself? How could you help another person? How could I help another person? How could another person help you? How could another person help me? How could another person help another person?

This, I think pretty well does away with any difficulty with fields. Note: There went the only randomity in clearing. I nailed this in the 19th ACC where only 7 cases in 36 were not progressing. All these had fields. All these had difficulty with help. Incidentally, a black field is in reality a betrayal. A betrayal is help turned to destruction. The dichotomy of destroy is destroy-help. When help fails destruction occurs, or so goes the most basic consideration behind living. There are many ramifications of this.

LRH:-.rd
Copyright © 1958 L RON HUBBARD
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



** 5802C06 19ACC-14 CCH-0, SCS, Connectedness
** 5802C07 19ACC-15 Help—How to Get Started
** 5802C07 19ACC-15A Q & A Period and Group Processing
** 5802C10 19ACC-16 Conduct of Clear
** 5802C10 19ACC-16A Q & A Period: Help, Clearing a Command
** 5802C10 19ACC-17 The Key Processes of Clearing
5802C11 19ACC-17A Q & A Period
** 5802C12 19ACC-18 Havingness, Anaten, Flows—in Relation to Clearing
** 5802C12 19ACC-18A Q & A Period: Postulates, Flows, Valences

Other lectures given to the 19th ACC are listed on pages 204, 206, 207, 216 and 220.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 13 FEBRUARY 1958
(corrected)




RULES GOVERNING THE RUNNING

OF CCH Ob “HELP”



When pc has a pt problem, run pt problem as prescribed in HGC Proc of Feb 6. Then use the following.

Thoroughly clear command word for word and every time auditor uses a bridge.

Always bridge no matter how brief number of commands is.

Run on E-Meter on help until needle is loose, not nul.

Help follows laws of flows not terminals. See Scientology 8-80 for flows. Anaten ensues when one direction of command is run too long.

E-Meter needle that is stuck will run to loose if proper flow direction is selected. If a command is run too long needle will go past a loose state and into a new stick. Reversing command frees needle.

Help also frees valences.


L. RON HUBBARD


LRH:-.rd Copyright © 1958 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



[In the original issue of this HCO B, the first paragraph read, “When pc has a pt problem, select most intimate terminals on these and run problems of comparable magnitude and/or help in brackets, a few commands each bracket.” l




19TH AMERICAN ACC LECTURES (cont.) Washington, D.C.
13— 14 February 1958

** 5802C13 19ACC-19 Other Processes—the Help Button
5802C13 19ACC- 1 9A Q & A Period
** 5802C14 19ACC-20 Responsibility for Mock-ups
** 5802C14 19ACC-20A Q & A Period: Present Time Problem
5802C14 19ACC-20B Q & A Period: Present Time Problem (cont.)

Earlier lectures given to the 19th ACC are listed on pages 204, 206, 207, 216 and 219.



Issue 67 [1958, ca. mid-February]


The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.


Man’s Contest with the Machine Age


L. Ron Hubbard


The humanities, until now, have been defeated by the raging chatter and disinfected order of the Machine Age.

Man as a creation has been overwhelmed by his own creations, the drill press, the typewriter, the superbomb and the moon-carrying missiles. Bewildered, he knows the octanes in his fuel, the calories in his stomach and the wavelength of Radio Rome, but he does not know his own thoughts, his intentions, the source of his fears or the reason for the decay of his discipline. He can fire a bomb half around the world and yet like a hand closing in a death throe, the boundaries of his empire draw inward. From his chromium-banded car he gazes out at throngs of his fellows going where they do not know or why.

The Anglo-American peoples have launched upon the world a technology bound by perfection to win against and across all other cultures, but they have not launched with it a technology of the mind or a code of behavior adequate to guarantee the conquest.

Borrowing from a Russian, already a slave to the Anglo-American machine age, all they know or use of insanity, the authors of our industrial age have found boundaries and limits to their own conquest in “human humiliation.” Human inability has placed a ceiling on the height Man can go into space, upon the amount of technology that can be absorbed by a savage race and, less romantically but far more practically, upon the efficiency of a business office.

Man is in trouble. He has invented himself into a dead end. The more efficient his machinery, the clumsier become his mind and behavior.

It is our business to match the forward advance of the machine sciences with a comparable advance in the humanities. We have done so in Scientology.

With Scientology we can restore the freedom of the individual, the discipline of the group, the pride of accomplishment and the understanding necessary to use the Machine Age before it itself uses Man entirely.

We recover here our miracle and ability to do and to live or we perish in the howl of an upsurging wave of savages or of a down-coming bomb.

We did not civilize the native. We overwhelmed and equipped him for revolt. We did not advance our clerks and executives as we advanced their equipment and their duties.

Copyright © 1958 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

We have the only workable new civilization and technology since Rome fell. We have not given it the philosophy and know-how that will permit it to win.

In the midst of everything material we need, we live in a vacuum of pride and courage and so we can fail.

Scientology adds to the Anglo-American potential that philosophy of humanness necessary to our winning. Without it our peoples will continue to crumble and break before the savageness of the machine and its remorseless toll of our hope, our courage and our will to do. We can still win—with an adequate philosophy to know and to do.

We have it in Scientology.

A Clear is above all this.

P.A.B. No. 130
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

15 February 19 5 8

“DEATH”

Edited from L. Ron Hubbard’s 12th lecture to the 18th American
Advanced Clinical Course in Washington, D.C., on 30 July 1957


The whole subject of death has been one of the more mysterious subjects to Man and it has only been in Scientology itself, and not in Dianetics, that the mechanisms of death have been thoroughly understood. When I say thoroughly understood I mean, of course, only the mechanisms.

We know a great deal about death and we are actually the first people on this planet that do. This is one of the larger wins of Scientology.

It is very easy to forget about death because that is what death is, a forgettingness. However, we do have a considerable amount of information on this subject and you are entitled to that information.

Man is composed of a body, a mind and what we refer to as the thetan. Exteriorization processes give a person a considerable subjective reality on the idea that he himself is a being that is independent of a mind or a body and that there actually is a separateness between them. One doesn’t even have to be carried along to a point of where one exteriorizes in processing in order to get a reality on this.

This subject has been fully covered by me since 1952, when I defined the thetan as in Axiom 1 and devised techniques to separate any preclear from his body. This was the first scientific evidence that Man has had on the subject of the human spirit. Man thought he had a human spirit. That is totally incorrect. Man is a human spirit which is enwrapped, more or less, in a mind, which is in a body—and that is Man, Homo sapiens. He is a spirit and his usual residence is in his head and he looks at pictures and his body carries him around.

When we look at the fact that Man is a spirit which has a mind and a body, and when we describe Man in that fashion, then it becomes extremely simple to understand what his difficulties would be. His difficulties would be basically with his body or with his mind and we can understand that there obviously would be difficulties with him as a spiritual being. He has to think that he can get into a trap, has to get the idea that he can be in danger before he can get into danger. In other words, the thetan has to give permission to be trapped before he can be trapped, and is therefore easily untrapped. The moment he is untrapped he gives birth to all sorts of interesting phenomena which we know as the exteriorization phenomena, all of which are quite easily demonstrated. I actually constructed a meter once that could measure and prove a thetan to have an electrical field around him—independent of energy ridges, bodies and such combinations as that.

Copyright © 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

What happens to Man when he dies? Basically all that happens is that a separation occurs between the thetan and the body. However, he takes old facsimiles, energy phenomena and bric-a-brac that he feels he cannot do without, with him, and attaches this to the next body he picks up. He does not build a body in this lazy time of manufactured items and Frigidaires and so on. He picks one up off the genetic line, and the genetic line is a series of mocked-up automaticities which produce according to a certain blueprint from the earliest times of life on this planet through until now. Everybody—people even in biology know that there is a definite succession of steps that life takes today, as they announce in their theory of natural selection and evolution. We understand it rather thoroughly that something goes through these steps.

There is the cycle of action in Scientology which is Create, Survive (persist), Destroy. At the shoulder of the curve an individual is mostly interested in surviving, early on the curve he is interested in creating, and at the end of the curve he is interested in the disposition of the remains.

When we apply this cycle of action to the various parts I described, we get a death of the body, a partial death of the mind and a forgettingness on the part of the spiritual being, which is in itself, again, a type of death. Actually bodies stay around for quite a while after death since it takes some time for them to decompose—certain parts before other parts—and the cells in the cuticle and hair evidently live longest.

The first thing one learns about death is that it is not anything of which to be very frightened. If you are frightened of losing your pocketbook, your money, your memory, boy or girl friend, well, that’s how frightened you ought to be of dying because it’s all the same order of magnitude.

Here we strike the first observable phenomenon when we find out that the mind, in spite of mechanisms which seek to decay and wipe it out, does maintain and preserve mental-image pictures of earlier experiences. With the proper technology and an understanding of this, one can be again in possession of the mental-image pictures of earlier existences in order to understand what was going on. In view of the fact that we have not restored remembrance to the being, the mental-image pictures usually just continue to be pictures. We send somebody into a past life and he looks at a mental image picture and you might as well have sent him to the art gallery. He himself has no connection with this because the mental-image picture may be the mind’s or the body’s. (The body carries around mental-image pictures and the thetan does the same and these two combine to form the mind.)

The mind, then, is a bridge between the spirit and the body, and the mental-image pictures formed by a thetan added to and confused with the mental-image pictures formed by the body is usually how a thetan stays in a head. He confuses the two and therefore demonstration of past existences by running somebody “back down on the time track” and having him look at a picture is not very convincing. He has always had some unreality about it, has no recognition of having ever been anything else before.

The restoration of memory to one of these beings is of great interest to us, since all that is really wrong with him is that things have happened to him which he knows all about but won’t let himself in on. Therefore the restoration of memory is done as a matter of course in almost any processing, and in view of the fact that it is part of any processing, it is impossible today to process somebody, well and expertly, without having him sooner or later get some sort of a recall on a past existence with some small reality.

An individual’s own will has a great deal to do with this. One should not look for outside sources as to why his memory is shut off. Just as he must grant permission to be trapped, so must he grant permission to be made to remember. He is more or less

convinced that a memory would cause him to re-experience the pain he already feels has been too much for him. He is very reluctant to face up again to this mechanism, and facing death, he almost always goes into a bit of amnesia.

The fact that one has lived before is so restrained that it itself is the reason why it is forgotten. The unpopularity of it in other ages and this one brought about a forgetter mechanism which causes an occlusion on the subject of death. The fact that one cannot talk about it is enough, all by itself, to continue to cause the forgetter mechanism.

A way to plot this would be to ask somebody, as an auditing question: “To whom can you tell the fact that you have been dead?” It works something like this: “Tell me the one person in the world who does not believe that you are insane.” It has a fantastically cataclysmic effect upon a person. He sort of believes he is going wog and spinning and so forth, and when you ask him that question you have broken the agreement chain.

You could ask a similar question, “Tell me one person in the world who believes you live more than once,” and you would get a similar reaction.

I have plumbed into this subject very deeply with lie detectors and E-Meters, checking up with grown-ups and children from all walks of life. You can, with the aid of one of these meters, put a person in such an incident. There is a peculiar behavior of the needle. It is a little hunt of the needle, and it just hunts back and forth over a small area quite frantically. It indicates that a person is still sitting in one of these exteriorization incidents.

We know a great deal about havingness and that if a person suddenly ran out of havingness he would die and we would expect so much loss of his possessions and so forth to wipe him out. It doesn’t wipe him out. This is what ordinarily occurs. He backs out at the moment of death with full memory. At that moment he knows who he is, where he has been, and so forth. You’d expect a total occlusion but it does not occur at this point. It is not true that a thetan in excellent condition gets some distance from the body and then doesn’t care about it any more. That is simply a phenomenon of havingness. When we first found that, we thought this was always the case, but we were striking at thetans ordinarily low on the tone scale. Those who forget about it immediately and do not care have actually gone into the sub-zero tone scale. In support of this you can pick up on the track times when a fellow backed out of his head and was mad and just kicked the stuffing out of the person who killed him.

At a certain level a person who had to “have” tremendously would get just so far from a body and say, “Well, I don’t care. I’ve had a very unhappy time during that life and I’m awfully glad, I don’t care.” But that person was so little alive when he was alive that his aliveness after he has died is also negligible. A person a little higher up when somebody knocks off his body, would have an interesting reaction to this. “I’ll show them they can’t put me out of the game,” and he’ll dive halfway across the country, see a maternity hospital and grab the body of a baby. Somebody higher than this would not have been in contact with bodies in the first place.

We get a very fascinating exteriorization here because it is totally cognizant. The person knows who he is and usually has very good perception. He knows where his friends are and for somebody to come around and point out this fantastic spiritual phenomena that somebody has appeared to them after he had died several thousand miles away is something like being terribly surprised because a waitress came to the table in a restaurant. If a person is killed with sudden violence and he is very surprised about the whole thing, he is sufficiently upset and unphilosophical about it that he is liable to go around and see his next of kin and the rest of his friends in an awful frenzied

hurry, trying to reassure himself that he hasn’t gone to purgatory. (“Purgatory and hell” is a total myth, an invention just to make people very unhappy, and is a vicious lie.)

He has suffered the loss of mass. That is just about the frame of mind the thetan is usually in when he finds his body dead. If he is below 2.0 on the tone scale his major thought is to get another body. This he can do by finding a young child that he could bring back to life. Thetans are very good at this. But the ordinary entrance is some time around what we call the “assumption,” and the assumption occurs within a few minutes after birth in most cases. That is the usual procedure, but the thetan can hang around for some time.

They’ll hang around people. They’ll see somebody who is pregnant and they will follow them down the street. They’ll hang around the entrance to an accident ward and find somebody—some body—that is all banged up and pick up this body and pretend to be somebody else’s husband or something of the sort.

It isn’t necessarily true that all of this is taped, measured. I am telling you what is standard about this behavior and what is not. It is a case of how fast you can pick up a body before somebody else gets it. So there is a certain anxiety connected with this. Thetans often say very interesting prayers at the moment they pick up a body. They dedicate themselves to its continued growing and they are so pleased with the whole thing that they dedicate themselves to the family and go through all kinds of odd rituals of one kind or another. The odd part of it is, they don’t shut their memory off until they pick up another, a new body, and the shut-off of memory actually occurs with the pick-up of the new body.

There is a phenomena series known as the “between-lives” series, and people have some sort of a thing mocked up whereby somebody goes back through a between-lives area. This can be plotted, it is not unusual, but it is certainly not a constant. Until thirteen or fourteen hundred the between-lives area operations weren’t thriving at all. Then they started to pick it up more and more. They had to knock witchcraft totally out of Europe before the between-lives area clubs started thriving. They had to knock out any idea about demons and spirits. In other words, they had to make one feel guilty for hanging around and admiring the trees with no body to look through.

They succeeded in doing this. You can make a little child sick by just talking to him about this sort of thing, by mentioning ghosts and spirits and how bad they are and how fearful they are. He gets upset because (1) you are restimulating times when he exteriorized and (2) you are invalidating him and throwing him down tone like mad. He is a ghost, a spirit, a demon. He is all these bad things they have mocked up.

In view of the fact that two exteriorizations take place, it could get very complicated as one looked at it because the GE exteriorizes. I don’t know much about that except that there is something that mocks up bodies that we call the genetic entity and it skips from life to life. In other words, even a body doesn’t live only once. It is so obvious once you look at it that if a body lived only once it would never have learned how. The intricacy of a body, itself, is something that is developed over a long period of time.

When you realize that you have the capability of endowing things with life then we don’t even know that the genetic entity is alive. It might just be machinery or computation of one kind or another that goes on and that you continue to endow with life to some degree until you separate from it.

Another interesting phenomenon about death is that a thetan will stay around a body until it is disposed of properly. You can take an E-Meter and any preclear, and

you can find times when he has been left out on a cliff and nobody even put a lid on the coffin, and there it was exposed to the wind and rain and he will stay around there until that body is totally dust. Bodies left out in the open decompose. Bodies buried in the ground go to pieces in a hurry. The rate of decay of a body is not really a point in question except that a thetan will try to accelerate it if the body isn’t cared for. A thetan doesn’t much care concerning the actual disposition of the body as long as it isn’t given any more indignity than it suffered in the lifetime. He is apt to be very upset about indignities rendered to a dead body. Even while he is “in a body, alive,” when the body is apparently alive and he is taking one around, he gets upset, if he is in any shape at all, about bodies being abused and mistreated. Much lower on the scale he is still upset about indignities to dead bodies and dead things.

He associates the body with his own identity to the degree that every time an indignity is rendered to the body he thinks it is to some degree being rendered to him; therefore he hangs around a body until it is properly disposed of. When people make wills in which they declare a certain disposition of the body, it is a very wise thing to do, if you want him to live a happy life elsewhere, to carry out those wishes, because that is his idea of what proper care is.

The Egyptians had the idea of living forever and so they wanted their bodies to live forever, but don’t think that a thetan hung around just because his body had been mummified. As far as he was concerned he was on some other genetic line and he would not particularly be upset about his body if it had been hauled out of a tomb and been put up in the Metropolitan Museum. He already would have been too far away from it to worry about it. One very worrisome case was that of a thetan whose skull was used by a carnival who put a motor in the jaws to make them keep on opening, and the thetan just couldn’t take it. I actually had to unwrap a preclear from that particular skull. He still had a finger on it even though he had another body. People actually become curators of museums just to keep a finger on a body they might have once had.

Mary Sue is the sweetest tempered girl you ever saw. We went into the British Museum, saw a whole bunch of jewels lying there and she went completely 1.5. She just got so mad that even I couldn’t talk her out of it. Finally I took her home, put her on an E-Meter and her total conviction was they were still safe in a tomb someplace.

Every once in a while some fellow will go into some area and go completely berserk and not know quite what is wrong with him. Well, he probably got killed there or something of that nature.

The subject of death is never a very serious one to a Scientologist beyond the fact that he feels kind of sorry for himself sometimes. There was somebody of such terrific elan, who made him real happy and this person was thoughtless enough to dispose of the mock-up and go out of communication and the Scientologist feels unhappy about it, for it is a thoughtless thing for a friend to do. This, by the way, is a very early concept of death. You now more or less progress back to death as it was regarded very early on this particular track in this universe. People didn’t regard it very seriously.

Death is in itself a technical subject. You can, with considerable confidence, reassure some husband whose wife is dying or has just died that she got out all right and she is going someplace else to pick up a mock-up. If you got there while the person could still talk, still communicate with you MEST-wise, in the last moments they usually have something spotted, something planned.

Now, sometimes a thetan gets so furious that he gets hallucinatory. He goes around killing all his enemies in all directions and they don’t even exist. Motto: Have your reality in good condition before you die. There are many processes which

exteriorize people and give them high reality on this. Amongst those processes the key process that produces the phenomena without any great shock is old Stop, Change and Start—it produces exteriorization rather easily.

Thetans do not become body cells, walls and can get out of any trap they are in, but sometimes it is better to be in a trap than nowhere, and that is true of most people.

A thetan very often carries with him a theta body, which he mocked up on the past track and which is a number of facsimiles of old bodies he has misowned and is carrying along with him as control mechanisms which he uses to control the body he is using. He eventually develops quite a heavy, thick, automatic-control theta body. They are quite interesting. Many have electronic claws and all sorts of things. Usually the theta body structure has an electronic beam that goes down each of the fingers and he opens and closes his hand with beams. This is going off into structure, but he sometimes pulls out this theta body complete and simply takes it along.

Losing your pocketbook, some treasured possession or your body are all alike, and because of the forgetter mechanism a great mystery is made out of this. But that is death—phenomena of. And I hope sometime or another you may have no use for this whatsoever.

L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
1812 19th Street, N.W., Washington 9, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 1 MARCH 1958

Distribution:
All Staff
Bulletin Board
Field Offices
HCO London

PROCESSES


When running Problems of Comparable (or incomparable) Magnitude, use the following three parts. Do not omit any part:

1. “Invent a problem of comparable (or incomparable) magnitude to (terminal).”

2. “How could that be a problem to you?”

3. “Can you conceive yourself figuring on that?”

Note: Question 2 may be omitted only if the preclear tells you how it could be a problem to him while answering the first part.

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

CONNECTEDNESS: Insertion of the word “You” in the command:

“Get the idea of you making that (indicated object) connect with you.”


Best,

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:md.rd
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

P.A.B. No. 131
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. Ron Hubbard
Via Hubbard Communications Office
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 March 1958

THE SCALE OF WITHHOLD

Edited from L. Ron Hubbard’s 17th lecture to the 18th American
Advanced Clinical Course in Washington, D.C., on 6 August 1957



CCH 9, Tone 40 “Keep it from going away” is a withhold process. We know it to have a considerable workability. The road to solids, toleration of solids, lies through withhold. Only we never had a straight wire version on this before or anything that clipped it directly and immediately, but we have it here with Tone 40 “Keep it from going away.”

CCH 9 proves that we are dealing with the automaticity which goes as follows: everything that comes along is used by a thetan to keep things from going away. He gets a cannonball in the stomach and says, “Ah, that moment of impact kept the body from going away. So I’ll make a picture of the impact”—hence the necessity for pictures—”and have it keep the body from going away from here on out.”

That is why people hang on to impact engrams. It is fear of loss—fear that they will lose a body. They do other things. They fill the atmosphere around the body with machinery so that other thetans will be afraid to come into it and take it over, take it away.

“Keeping things from going away” is a basic mechanism which guards against loss. As you know the mind runs on a gradient scale from thought through effort to solids. Actually the mind is already graphed on the tone scale. That is the gradient scale of approach between something that is nothing and total solids at the other end. It isn’t that the person himself becomes a total solid, but his approach to solids is on a gradient scale through less solids and misemotions and plain emotions and energies, like aesthetics, to just thought.

When an individual gets hold of something like a cannonball in the stomach, he says, “That certainly got there in a hurry. That I can directly handle because it handled me so well.” He keeps things from going away. He guards against loss with impacts. He also does other things with impacts. He uses them as control mechanisms. It would not be put beyond a thetan to take a cannonball engram on the right to move his body to the left and vice versa. It is handy and requires no effort. He just puts a slight thought into the line and says, “Move to the right.” The cannonball goes into restimulation and he moves over to the right. This could be a good system.

He uses these “keep-it-from-going-aways” as control. In other words, he lets the body be shoved around by things and he keeps those things there and thus he can control the body rather easily—but he deteriorates at the same time.

Copyright © 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

An individual can also very easily take a cannonball engram and hang it on somebody else’s head to make him bow. Very often you start to audit a preclear and you find out that you are auditing a stomach out of his right arm or a head off his left foot. This is the interchange of facsimiles, and thetans do use facsimiles on others.

Way back on the track there is a thing called the Engram Police. It is quite amusing to get a thetan into some kind of condition where he can be policed—to be confined for thirty days in the space opera trap.

Facsimiles have a use and then they have the lovely attraction of also being mass. A fellow who keeps money for its own sake is the type of person who would keep facsimiles for their own sake.

You, as an auditor, start to look for the significance of why this preclear has this thing stuck in front of his face and you may find that he is merely keeping it for its own sake.

Facsimiles either keep you where you are or the body where it is. They are control mechanisms. Sometimes a thetan will get a series of engrams all hooked together—shoulder with an arrow, stomach with a crossbow through it, leg with a spear in it and a few slinging stones that are back of the left eye. That is a nice combination and moves the body rapidly. You start to shift the engram a little and the body jumps, and you move this at somebody else and he jumps as well.

The service facsimile is a series of facsimiles which you call a facsimile, which can be applied to the control of others very nicely. But after the individual has been on the track for a few billion years using one of these combinations, he sooner or later flops.

If an individual is to have anything to do with facsimiles, he is going to be somewhere between solids and thought. By gradient scales of concatenation and by lots of postulates about association, which gets into identification, finally this scale can become relatively solid. He can think a thought and turn on the solid at the other end of the scale.

We look this over and we see that the movement and the motionlessness of people can easily be handled by facsimile patterns.

Throwing things away or dispensing with them is much inferior to holding on to them. I near killed some preclears trying to find this out. Which side of the reach-and withdraw mechanism is the one which can be audited? I have found that the “reach” one is good and high toned—not games condition activity. That is communication. Unless you have an opponent situation you would certainly run “reach.”

In view of the fact that everybody has some games condition on almost everything we can run withdraw, and withdraw is the side we can run rather endlessly. (By withdraw we mean “withdraw something from” because this builds up and increases havingness.) “Withdraw it from” or “Hold to yourself” the object holds good anywhere up to a couple of hundred hours of processing. Man will communicate outward to the degree that he can hold inward and the monitoring thing is the “hold inward.”

Every time a psycho comes into the foundation we find that they cannot separate anything from them. I used to try to process them on getting them to throw away a single scrap of paper and with very good results. That is an extreme case of hold, hold in to self and withdraw it from others. You will find out that as a person heads on down the scale it gets that bad—but what complicates it is that it has inversions, and right above this “clutch it to the chest this tight” would be an inversion of “throw it away.”

Which one solved it—the “throw it away” or the “clutch”? People cannot throw away ad infinitum. They run out of havingness. We are really only concerned with a person’s holdingness to himself. That gives us an engram bank, puts the bank in restimulation and upsets things endlessly.

Now, “hold it in” solves both “hold it in” and “throw it away.” An individual’s communication is raised by holding things in. Here is a nothing that couldn’t duplicate any mass busy holding mass in to himself. He comes to harm because of it. His abilities go to pieces and his penalties and that sort of thing all accumulate on him. Everything a thetan has done wrong he carries around in little pictures to remind himself how guilty he is. It is probably the result of a number of considerations peculiar only to this universe.

We have to increase a thetan’s ability to hold. When this ability to hold is emphatically good and he himself can do it, he will abandon all these cannonballs in the stomach. In other words, he abandons all this lower scale automaticity of having things held for him.

Holding on to, when it becomes automatic, goes out and beyond one’s power of choice, which automatically can start by power of choice, but after that it has to violate it all the way to be automatic. One doesn’t stop an automaticity. An automaticity, when and if it stops, wears out.

If we have everything holding on to things for us, such as gravity, body holding on to you, and all kinds of things holding on for us, we eventually get to a frame of mind where we feel we are being totally cared for. But at the same time we don’t dare reject anything because it might be some of our hold-on-to mechanism and a thetan doesn’t reject.

For a thetan to re-acquire the ability to hold on to things, is not necessarily the same as a thetan having to destroy all automaticities. Automaticities, quite incidentally, fold up when the thetan starts to re-acquire the powers and abilities contained in an automaticity. We do not take over automaticities to destroy automaticities. We take over automaticities only to rehabilitate the ability of a thetan. We just take them over because they are robbing the thetan of his ability to perform. (The inflow principle of the universe is being used to hold on to things rather than the thetan’s ability to hold on to them.)

Power is contained in the ability to maintain a position in space.* If you can’t maintain a position in space you will never have any power. If everything is holding things in to you, they will eventually start moving you around and the moment this happens you no longer have power. An individual’s ability to withhold, his ability to hold and his ability to keep something from going away, are part and parcel of his ability to maintain his own position, situation or location.

Some people start confronting and immediately fly out of their heads. Eventually they get so that they can sit there and confront and hold their position. This is a necessary point in confronting. You have to be able to hold the position in the face of something. Higher than this, or lower down since it goes either way, we realize that to keep something from going away is a sort of confrontingness. Keeping things from going away is an ability which gradually cultivates the ability of the thetan to remain where he is.

If you can keep a wall from going away, the ability to hold still in general is regained. One then is able to confront things and can then recognize solids. First you

* Refer to Scientology 8-80 by L. Ron Hubbard.

have to acquire this ability to keep things from going away, then finally discover that you yourself can be stationary—which gives you the idea of confronting—and as soon as you are willing to confront then you can make things more solid. And that is why these three processes, CCH 9, 10 and 11, are run in this manner.

The solids and the solidity that you are willing to confront have an awful lot to do with your ability to hold still or hold things still, and your ability to hold things still has a lot to do with your ability to keep things from going away.

But here is a basic ability in the keeping of a secret—being able to withhold things from others. We have a whole span of keeping things from going away, all of which simply begin with the withheld thought, which is what a secret is, and it scales on further to a withheld object.

When an individual has regained his ability to keep certain things from going away, he could then start in on the basis of holding things still, but he will never hold himself still for the excellent reason that he isn’t there to be held still. He can only suppose he is in a place. And this depends upon his ability to hold other things still.

Now, “Keep it from going away” solves both outflow and inflow. “Hold it still” solves motion and no motion. We have motion and no motion and you really don’t solve motion with motion. You solve motion with “hold stillness. “ And the ability to confront and confound solids solves alike something and nothing. To be able to confront a solid, then, makes a person capable of confronting no-thing.

Here we have six items and their gradient scale. The first two of these items are a pair called “reach” and “withdraw,” or “throw it away” and “hold it to you.” And that bracket is solved only by running “Keep it from going away.” The next one up is “motion” and “no motion”—action and stillness—and those are solved by running “Hold it still.” The last bracket, we have somebody who is terribly fascinated with vaporous “nothingness.” To solve nothingness we run solids. The person will graduate rather rapidly up to being able to confront nothing if we run solids. But we don’t run nothings—conceiving statics. We run solids and what we do is pick him out of those places where he is totally convinced of solids and you walk him back to the world of thought. The gradient scale goes from nothing through emotions, through effort and facsimiles into solids, and you get him back up to where he can handle it on the effort band and up above into thought.

These processes can be run by formal auditing and are not necessarily Tone 40. If you have a very figure-figure case you better run it formal. It will run more easily for you. But first flatten CCH 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 and then run this combination of processes and win like mad.

L. RON HUBBARD

P.A.B. No. 132
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

15 March 1958

REPORT ON TWO CASES THAT HAVE RECEIVED

PSYCHIATRIC AND EURO-RUSSIAN THERAPY

FROM THE GOVERNMENT


Recently two cases came to the attention of the HGC which had received former mental “therapy” of the Euro-Russian variety.

One of these, a 32-year-old shipworker, had been four years in prison for having committed a crime of violence.

The other was a 46-year-old man who had received a dishonorable discharge from the Army.

Both cases were picked up at random from the general run of workers.

It was found that both had received mental “treatment.” The first had been given considerable attention in prison from “clinical psychologists.” The second had had “psychiatric interviews” in the Army.

Neither case had been in any way improved. Both had been antagonized. The first committed a “grand theft” after release from prison and was in no sense a safe factor in society. The other case, even though court-martialed and discharged for drunkenness, was still getting drunk and losing jobs.

These two cases had one thing in common—they had been made contemptuous of mental treatments. They had to be forced into session due to their former experiences.

Both were improved by processing and could have been completed as cases. As soon as this was established they were let go as this was all that we cared to discover.

We can assume that Euro-Russian mental treatment is a liability in that it destroys any faintest hope of recovery. We can also notice that money spent by the prison and the Army was wasted.

It is noticeable that neither the prison nor the Army paid any attention to public safety in these cases. Two men were released in a worsened state and permitted to victimize the public. Thus all measures taken were apparently detrimental to public well-being.

We can further notice that our task in Scientology is being made harder by the presence and practice of Euro-Russian psychotherapy and the handling of criminals in government areas.

Copyright © 1958 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

A time has come for a reform of these matters.

The correction of prison and Army systems of punishment and the introduction of mental methods which do not make cases less approachable are both needful.

In a national disaster the presence of a large number of criminals and insane in our midst, unreformed and loosed upon us, could well mean the fact that gives us defeat.

The time to start is now, not when a man brings chaos to the whole public.

L. RON HUBBARD


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 22 MARCH 1958
(revised)


CLEARING REALITY

A new rule.

In the absence or unreality of a terminal the significance in a process will not function.

In other words, the significance of help will not function on a tooth unless the pc is given a reality on the terminal of a tooth.

On a nervous-dispersed case, there is no real gain in running significance until hellos and okays are run on something.

Command “You say hello to that body.” “Have the body say okay to that hello.” “Have the body say hello to you.” “You say okay to that hello.”

When pc has misemotion off the interchange, then run help in brackets on the same terminal.

Establish the reality of a terminal before you try to clear it with significance.

A pc in extreme pain can be audited if one clears reality on the hurting terminal and then runs brackets in help on that terminal. Note: Extreme control must be used in attempting this.

The above applies to objective terminals. Subjective might or might not work.


L. RON HUBBARD
LRH :-.cden
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



Issue 70 [1958, ca. late March]


The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.




Does Clearing Cancel the Need for Training?


L. Ron Hubbard



To answer the important question “Does Clearing cancel training?” all you need to do as an auditor is clear someone without training him and then say to him, “All right. Go out and clear people.”

You’ll get a blank stare.

Why?

Because Auditing skill is a discipline in living and a know-how of the parts of life which is in itself something new in the universe. Even OTs don’t have auditing skill since there have never been any auditors behind them.

There is such a thing as learning. There are such things as data.

The fact is, that a cleared Zulu is a cleared Zulu. A cleared advertising man is a cleared advertising man. A cleared Zulu is not a cleared advertising man.

Now a Zulu uncleared has scant chance of becoming an advertising man. But a cleared Zulu would probably be able to become one rapidly. And there’s the difference.

Being clear gives one the potential of being and makes the being rather easy, and fun. Further, being cleared makes it possible to continue to be something. There’s nothing wrong with being clear. A person ought to be. The state is so valuable several hundreds of millions of people in the past 2,500 years have concentrated on nothing else.

But how about getting clear and staying clear forever? The auditor alone with his data well learned could manage that.

Remember, you were clear once—trillions of years ago. Why didn’t you stay that way? Because the traps were well designed and you had no anatomy of traps.

Well, Scientology does have the anatomy of the traps, the Axioms, the discipline and know-how necessary to handle and control the laws of the universe. Scientology is the data necessary to live.

Copyright © 1958 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

If everyone were now to concentrate only on how to get clear and forget all about how to stay clear, we’d be back in the soup in a century.

Oddly enough, the best time to study auditing is when you’re aberrated—when the thing looks impossible, when you can achieve subjective reality on the grimness of it.

The best things a person can do are to (1) get trained and (2) get cleared. Auditors will always be senior to clears. Always. That became very obvious in the 19th ACC. People who weren’t clear created clears.

If a person gets cleared first, he can, of course, learn very rapidly how to be a good Scientologist. If he is to be a very good being he will be both a good auditor and a clear. That combination cannot be beaten.

If we had only clears and no auditors we’d have another slump ahead. Scientology is not in the experience of anyone’s back track. It is itself. It is the one thing senior to life because it handles all factors of life. Scientology could not have happened earlier because there was not enough livingness to study. We have arrived near bottom.

There are people getting cleared now all over the world. Just remember that you share the agreement of the society in which you live. You’ll have to be able to audit to skillfully handle aberrated persons. And it will take a lot of auditors to have a cleared society.

Right now it’s all right to keep your eye on that first dynamic and get clear. You should. But when, suddenly, you find you’ve achieved clear, remember when I tell you this one thing:

There are eight dynamics.

You cannot stay clear unless you solve things by the equation of the optimum solution: The greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics. Failing to so solve things dug you in to where you were in the first place.

Scientology got you out.

Stay out by knowing Scientology well.

I look forward to seeing your bright, smiling face, clear or not, in the Academy or an ACC, or both, in D.C., or London, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa. A Clear world to be, needs you as a good and skilled Scientologist.

And that’s how you’re going to help me.

Okay?

L. RON HUBBARD

P.S. When I solve a case I always ask the pc for one unnamed favor. I’ve never called these favors in. The favor I tell you now for the first time: Whatever else you are, be a good Scientologist and help me clear these Earth people.

P.A.B. No. 133
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 April 1958

PROCEDURE CCH

Compiled from the Research Writings and Taped Lectures of L. Ron Hubbard


(The following series of PABs are devoted to an elucidation of Procedure CCH and should by no means be taken as a complete exposition of that procedure. This course of information will be fully covered in the newly completed but as yet unpublished basic handbook for all auditors: “The Student Manual” by L. Ron Hubbard, which is the most comprehensive book ever issued from the pen of LRH on auditing procedure and all that a Scientologist should know about how to audit and practice.

Further, the numbers of the CCHs don’t necessarily agree with “The Student Manual” except from CCH0 to 5, since these PABs are based on a workable procedure called Procedure CCH [Long Form], given by LRH to the HGC staff auditors here in Washington, D.C., in 1957.)


CCH ZERO:

CCH 0 is firstly establishing the Rudiments of the session, discussing the goals of the preclear for the intensive—also established at the beginning of each separate session—handling the present time problem and clearing the auditor for the preclear. The latter has become very important in modern auditing.

One establishes the session by calling the preclear’s attention to the room, the auditing environment, to let him know that he has arrived for a session. This can be done by light “Locational Processing.” At this point one doesn’t have to belabor the Rudiments.

Following this there is a discussion of the preclear’s goals for the session and intensive and making sure that these goals are not wild or completely outside the preclear’s reality. He may, for instance, want to be an Operating Thetan while hiding in mystery and he will thus not achieve that goal unless he has full reality on it. In other words, the auditor makes sure that the goals which the preclear has set for himself are goals which the preclear can work towards and attain without much difficulty.

The auditor then defines for himself—but does not inform the preclear of—his own goals and intentions for this session so that he does not grope blindly with techniques without knowing which way and why he is guiding the preclear. Often auditors work in the dark without setting goals for themselves toward which to guide the preclear. Best of all is when the auditor can align the preclear’s and his own goals for the intensive.

After this the auditor must inquire if the preclear has any pressing present time problem which needs immediate attention. It is fairly safe to say that every preclear on

Copyright © 1958 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

earth today has a present time problem. The more the preclear has the easier they can be handled. If the problem is not pressing and will not interfere with the processing, then the auditor can continue further. Should there be a scarcity of problems the preclear will hold on to and dramatize that problem and the situation has to be remedied either with Problems of Comparable or Incomparable Magnitude or by Locational Processing.

A lot here depends upon auditor judgment of the case (and it is, of course, best to have preclears tested at the London or Washington Academies to aid the auditor), but should the preclear be too low to handle the present time problem, the auditor should only run Locational Processing to bring the preclear up to present time. Preclears who are very low toned do not even vaguely have their thinkingness under control, and to run “problems” would be a waste of time.

Since many preclears do not know much about their condition or what they are working towards, LRH has found a very good way to clear this matter. This process is a Rudiment called “Clear the Auditor” and known as “Help.” It is surprising, after running this process for an hour or so, to find that many preclears do not believe that they can be helped by anybody and are unclear as to what the auditor can do for them.

This is the best way of clearing the auditor and making the fact that they can be helped to help themselves clear to them.

The commands for this process are as follows:

“Could I help you?” “How?”
“Could you help me?” “How?”
“Can I help anybody else?” “Who?” “How?”
“Could you help anybody else?” “Who?” “How?”
“Do other people ever help other people?” “How?”
“Do men ever help women?” “How?”

and the auditor just does this on a big, long bracket.

Of course, it is necessary to see that the preclear does not give machine answers and that he is fairly sure that this can be done. Two-way communication here is important and a lot of it could be used.

This process becomes a fantastic way of dealing with the preclear and is valuable in many ways. For example, you can take Father and Mother valences which are usually aberrative and run them on Help in brackets.

Running Help is necessary on a case that is hung up, because the only reason he is sitting there is to “waste” help. You can run such a case on any process, no matter how excellent, on a basis of “wasting help” until the case simply cannot find enough ways to waste help and he goes down the tone scale.

One has to understand that the case which isn’t changing is trying to waste help. It isn’t a case of “finding the auditor” in the Rudiments nowadays, but of “clearing the auditor.” The only point on which he can be cleared is “Help”—”Can I help you?” or “Can you help me?” and asking “How?” each time to keep the command real to the preclear and applicable. No conditional answers are accepted and the preclear has to find real answers.

The whole purpose of CCH 0 to quote from “The Student Manual,” is “to make known the beginning of a session to a preclear and the auditor so that no error as to its beginning is made; to put the preclear in a condition to be audited. “

CCH 1:

CCH 1 is known as “Give Me That Hand,” and is one of the most effective entrances to cases yet devised. Apart from having great beneficial effects it is also used as a Rudiment. For example, soon the preclear finds that there is a mass sitting in front of him (the body of the auditor) and that he is occupying a mass in the chair—and thus the environment takes on a more real shape.

To illustrate this better, here is a brief description from an LRH lecture to the Washington, D.C., HGC staff auditors: “Most preclears are completely unaware of their own body or that of the auditor. GMTH brings the preclear back onto the Scale of Reality, which runs this way (from the top of scale down):

Postulates, Agreements, Solids (masses, terminals), Communication Lines But No Terminals, which dwindles into Confused And Complex Communication Lines, and eventually into No Lines—and you’ve got mystery.

“Applying the Scale of Reality to GMTH, you have a preclear who is in mystery. You take his hand often enough with an acknowledgment (‘Thank you’) at the execution of the command and he slowly, through some dope-off, becomes aware of a solid line of communication—your arm grasping his hand to his arm—and that becomes more solid until he goes through the complexities and confusions of communication lines and gets them straight enough to recognize a solid terminal sitting in front of him (the auditor’s body sitting there, a mass, a terminal). He thus gets into communication with a solid terminal. As he comes upscale he does not have to use solid comm lines to communicate but can do so by agreements (symbols, words) and higher upscale just by postulate.

“As Opening Procedure by Duplication demonstrated the accuracy of the Know to Mystery Scale, so Give Me That Hand proves the accuracy of the Sub-Zero Tone Scale and the Reality Scale. Preclears will go into dope-off and a state of confusion, engrams will fly off as the complexities and confusions of comm lines fade into where his and your hands will become real to him. He will most likely recognize you as the first real terminal he has ever had.”

This is a Tone 40 process.

Tone 40 has been defined as “Giving a command and just knowing that it will be executed despite any contrary appearances. “ (This is not the 18th ACC definition.) In other words, Tone 40 is positive postulating.

“The Student Manual” has the following to say about the procedure and the running of this unique process: “Physical action of taking hand when not given and then replacing it in the preclear’s lap and ‘Thank you’ ending the cycle. It is Tone 40, with clear intention, one command in one unit of time, no originations of preclear acknowledged in any way, verbally or physically.” However, one can freeze the process after a cycle of action has been completed if one is sure that something is occurring which needs further “fishing” for a cognition.

This is the first step to the control of the preclear’s body, which is the basic element of Control-C-H (CCH). We first have to bring the preclear’s body under your and then his control before we can attempt to bring his attention or thinkingness under control. And processing follows that basic pattern all the time—control of body, attention and thinkingness.

This is a very precise process, being Tone 40, and Tone 40 demands accurate precision into which one has to be trained to be efficient. Further information will be found in “The Student Manual,” which will be published shortly, or in the Validation Courses run in Washington, London or by Gold Seal Certificate holders.

As a last note on this process, there is a negative side to this if your preclear is “withholding” communication from you and it simply runs in smooth Tone 40 as follows: “Don’t give me that hand.” “Thank you.”

The preclear will get frantic after a while and want to give you his hand. By telling him to withhold his hand, and acknowledging it so that he receives the acknowledgment, you are telling him to do what he has been doing all his life and consequently ruin that mechanism which has been “withholding” all the while, when you take over the automaticity.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 2 APRIL 1958





ARC IN COMM COURSE


There are two types of Auditing. Both include control. They are called “Formal Auditing” and “Tone 40 Auditing”.

The first is control by ARC. The second is control by direct Tone 40 command.

The first, Control by ARC, is taught in Comm Course. The second, Control by Tone 40, is taught in Upper Indoc.

The two are never mixed in teaching. Tone 40 is never taught in a Comm Course and is not even permitted. ARC is not taught in Upper Indoc.

The most widespread weakness in auditors prior to this date is an inability to use step one of Clear Procedure (Participation by the pc). This is only good ARC in the Training Drills of Comm Course. Auditors are now too prone to let CCH Ob Help do the work. Auditors fail to make the pc feel they are interested in the pc when they handle him with poor ARC.

We care nothing about ARC in Upper Indoc. We want command, we want Tone 40. We do not even handle pc origins in Upper Indoc.

Students must understand that there are two types of auditing. They should realize that Tone 40 is for the unconscious, the psycho, the non-communicative, the electric shock case pc. The student should realize that ARC formal auditing is not chatty or yap-yap, but it is itself. It has warmth, humanity, understanding and interest in it.

Academy Dir of Tr, Comm Course and Upper Indoc Instructors should keep this in their hats as needful technical data, since we must turn out auditors capable of handling pcs with ARC.


LRH

LRH:bt.cden
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 8 APRIL 1958



AUDITING THE PC ON CLEAR PROCEDURE


We must not lose sight of the fact that only TWO processes clear a pc. All others only support these TWO and make it possible to run these two.

These processes are:

1. Help, CCH Ob

2. Step 6, Mock-ups. Keep it from going away, Hold it still, Make it more solid.

First in auditing we have to get pc to sit there and be willing to be audited. We have for this many processes. Best is TR 5 “You make that body sit in that chair” “Thank you”.

Next we are continually confronted with keeping pc in session. This is done with good ARC. No process can supplant good auditor ARC. Pc must know auditor is interested in him. This does not mean auditor does not control pc or let him gabble but it does mean that pc and auditor have ARC.

The next condition which must be met is the eradication of present time problems. This is done by “What part of that problem could you be responsible for?”

Psychosomatics may come under head of a p.t. problem. One runs hellos and okays on the terminal to improve reality on it. “Say hello to that (body part)—have it say okay to you. Have it say hello to you. You say okay to it.” One can also run “What part of that (body part) can you be responsible for?” One can also have pc mock up “unknown (body part)”. One can also clear help on that body part. As a psychosomatic is a concentration of attention it fulfills the condition of a p.t. problem which is “any worry that keeps a pc out of session, which worry must exist in present time in the real universe”. One can run all of these on a resistant psychosomatic.

One should clear help on objects and terminals connected with the pc’s job.

One should clear help on the terminals of the various dynamics.

With an E-Meter needle nul and free on help, one can go to Step 6. This doesn’t mean that one should not later return to help. It may be Step 6 must be approached with S-C-S and Connectedness. The needle will tell. A heavily stuck needle is worse than a wildly surging one. Connectedness clears stuck needles.

Step 6 can be run just as in the book “Clear Procedure.” [See page 172.] If it is too tough for pc, run help and responsibility on pictures.

Then complete Step 6 with great thoroughness.

Rising Scale Processing Modern Version is very good. However, even though it works low scale, it is in reality an OT process, not a clear process. Rising Scale can be run on any consideration. The basic is “Get the idea it is impossible to reach anything”. “Now Postulate that you can reach everything.” There is no fancier version. There are other buttons besides reach. The basic command is get the idea negative. Postulate the positive.

This is clearing. It works as well as one directly approaches the task of clearing with the above.

But clearing cannot happen in the presence of

1. A present time problem not flat.

2. Poor auditor-pc ARC.

3. Putting the pc at the effect end of life in or out of session during an intensive.

4. Detouring into contributory processes in the belief they will clear rather than set up a case. And

5. Leaving untouched zones of irresponsibility and zones of refused help.

I wish you good luck in clearing.

Best,

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :bt.rd
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED




[PAB 142, Auditing the Pc on Clear Procedure, 15 August 1958, is taken from this HCO B.]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 8 APRIL AD 8
Issue II




A PAIR OF PROCESSES


Now and then I overhaul some old process once in use and see what can be done to make it work.

Op Pro by Dup and Forgetting are a pair that recently showed up as having a possible specific value—i.e. to create a specific effect upon a specific difficulty.

Evidently Admiration and Critical are a dichotomy. Maxine Kozak suggests that Duplication is Admiration. From this I looked over Critical on the APA (OCA) profile and saw that the low critical might be influenced by Op Pro by Dup. A test should be made of this.

The other process is less nebulous in action. The specific for a bad memory is Forgetting run in Brackets. You will ordinarily find an automaticity of forgetting when you ask “Recall something you wouldn’t mind other people forgetting.” This is a “bad memory”. Nothing like a good conscience to retain a good memory.

The commands of Forgetting would be a 6-way bracket.

Recall (or think of) something you wouldn’t mind

1. Forgetting yourself
2. Another person forgetting
3. Forgetting about another
4. Another forgetting about you
5. Other people forgetting
6. Another person forgetting about another person.

Each command is cleared. The commands are run in sequence rather than repetition.

This is a low scale process. Goes lower than “Not know” but graduates into it.

This is a basic on unknowns and fields of whatever kind.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:bt.cden
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.


HCO BULLETIN OF 11 APRIL 1958




CCH 88—ENFORCED NOTHINGNESS


When the following command is relatively flat on an auditor or instructor he may run it on HGC pcs and teach it as part of curriculum to students. But it must be somewhat flat on auditors and instructors before use or taught publicly.

The command is a repetitive command. It is used with some 2-way comm to punch cognitions.

The name of the process is Enforced Nothingness. Number CCH 88.

The command is: “Mock up some people who made you want to make nothing of things.”

This increases havingness all the way.

The person the auditor wants mocked up will be invisible to the pc and pc should keep on trying to mock the person up, eyes open, until he can do so.

I developed this process to vanquish fields and thus speed clearing. It belongs anywhere prior to Step 6 of Clear Procedure.

In Creative Processing we knew good results were achieved when we used a gradient scale to get the pc to improve an ability to mock up someone. The above command gives the reason this was necessary.

Considerable relief and calmness follows a run on this process.

High critical is cured by this process.

Failure to help is the basis of the collapse of a desire to make nothing of things and the process therefore ranks in importance near to help.

A subjective reality on the process is necessary for skilled use.

The process can in a pinch be self-audited by reading the command off sheet. The process is unlimited.

I think I have discovered in Enforced Nothingness a direct route to bringing any pc who is under some control up to the ability to conceive a static. And therefore the key to all exteriorization, havingness and perception.

The process cures colds, tiredness and psychosomatics.



L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:-.rd
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

P.A.B. No. 134
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

15 April 1958

PROCEDURE CCH CONTINUED

Compiled from the Research Writings and Taped Lectures of L. Ron Hubbard


CCH 2:

CCH 2 is Tone 40 8-C, which has the following commands: “With that body’s eyes look at that wall.” “Thank you.” “Walk that body over to that wall.” “Thank you.” “With that right hand touch that wall.” “Thank you.” “Turn that body around.” “Thank you.”

One doesn’t acknowledge any of the preclear’s originations and can only “freeze” the command after a cycle of action has been completed. As with all Tone 40 processes this is a precision process and needs validation training for execution on an optimum level.

The intention or goal of this process is to bring the preclear’s body further under control and to insure that he does “precisely” what you tell him to do, and it is a basic step for getting his thinkingness under your command as well. By showing the preclear you can control his body, you are actually inviting him to control it and to take some responsibility for it.

Don’t be surprised if the preclear exteriorizes quickly on this technique. By taking control of the body, he will go in and out of it and eventually feel that the best way to handle it is from a few feet behind his head. As an auditor one must beware of not-ising this phenomenon and should communicate about it when one “freezes” the session and make sure that the preclear understands this and that it is to be expected.

This is an ambulatory process and the auditor should be next to or with his preclear at all times during the running of this technique.

Don’t avoid this process or not administer enough, since 8-C, Tone 40 or otherwise, has been a stable processing datum for over three years and will continue to remain as such for a considerable period of time.


CCH 3:

This is the process that produces some of those fantastic IQ changes, for it deals directly with the preclear’s learning rate and his ability to duplicate communications. Bringing up his non-language factor in the IQ has the effect of bringing the preclear into a better control of his environment and into handling the people and objects in his immediate surroundings.

Copyright © 1958 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

Its purpose, according to “The Student Manual,” is “to bring up preclear’s communication with control and duplication. (Control + Duplication = Communication.)”

Book Mimicry, as this process is called, is run in the following manner: Auditor tells the preclear that he is going to make a motion with the book and that he wants the preclear to duplicate the auditor’s motion mirror-image-wise. He hands the book to the preclear and then waits for the preclear to execute that motion. He acknowledges the execution of that command and then asks the preclear if he “is satisfied that he duplicated that command.” If the preclear says he is satisfied, and the auditor is sure he did not do it satisfactorily, the auditor does the same command until the preclear and the auditor are both satisfied.

There is a gradient scale of simplicities and complexities here. One first starts with fairly simple commands, graduating into complexities. LRH found that straight lines and angles are simplicities, whereas circles and arcs are complexities. Preclears who like complexities will be able to do the difficult ones with great ease while finding the simple motions burdensome. One keeps on doing both until the preclear can do each with relative ease.

In order to do this process properly the preclear has to be in present time, and that will unstick him from the rest points on the track, and it has been noted by many auditors that engrams and valences turn on, also a lot of dope-off and anaten which must naturally be run flat.

For the preclear who is in manic motion, small, very slow movements will cause a panic and should be done until he can tolerate the no-motion with ease and vice versa.

One must be sure, however, to remember the commands one has given in case the preclear cannot execute them and one has to do it again. Also, we are interested in giving our preclears only wins and one should work closely within that framework. Give the preclear only the commands, on a gradient scale towards difficulties, that he can execute. It does not mean that one cannot make it complex, but one mustn’t give impossible commands and so confuse and invalidate the certainty that he can duplicate a communication between himself and another terminal.

This is not a Tone 40 process, but the auditor does not talk until the motion he has made is executed unless the preclear has as-ised the command before he started the motion or finds himself unable to complete it.

Since engrams do appear and odd sensations and somatics turn on, communicate with the preclear about them, but remember the intention of the process and do not go chasing after facsimiles.

CCH 4:

CCH 4 is “Hand Space Mimicry” and the purpose of this process as per “The Student Manual” is “to develop reality on the auditor using the reality scale (solid comm line) and to get the preclear into communication by control + duplication. “

It is run as follows: Auditor and preclear sit straight opposite each other. The auditor then raises his two hands with his palms facing the preclear and says, “Put those hands against mine, follow them and contribute to their motion.” He then makes a simple motion with his right and then left hand and asks the preclear, “Did you contribute to the motion?” “Good.” “Put those hands in your lap.” After this has been run flat, increase the space between the palms of the auditor’s and preclear’s hands by half an inch. When this is flat gradiently increase the space between the auditor’s and preclear’s palms until the preclear can follow the motion yards away.

There is a lot of two-way communication during the running of this process, and the auditor must allow the communication which is born from the duplication and control to come forth without restraining the preclear’s desires to do so.

The distance factor here (affinity in the communication formula) will affect various preclears in different ways, and it is of interest that the preclear will communicate a lot about love and the second dynamic to the auditor which can then be viewed. There seems to be a certain distance factor here for each preclear, and once the auditor moves out of it suddenly without that gradient increase in space the preclear will go out of communication with the auditor, and the process should therefore be kept to small increases only.

The strained feeling in the preclear’s (and sometimes auditor’s) wrists is not a tiredness as one may suppose, but will disappear as he gets into communication with the auditor. He will go through a lot of anaten and dope-off, but should come out very bright and in present time and in much better shape than when the session started. HE will be able to communicate and recognize your body as a solid terminal opposite his and will really find the auditor during the process if he has not done so already. His reality level will increase to the point where he can communicate by agreement only and know that he is doing so (see the last PAB on the Scale of Reality).

This is not a Tone 40 process and should not be run as such.

CCH 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 are the essential basics to the running of every case, and where these are neglected (where control in these facets has been neglected) there will only be failure. It is therefore remunerative in the long run to really flatten each process.

The workability of these processes is astonishing and is a delight in the hands of a Validated Auditor who has been coached on them himself. If ever processes demanded that one knows HOW to run them, these do, for the untrained auditor might just confuse both himself and the preclear if he doesn’t know what to expect and how to handle that which is sure to arise from such processes as CCH.

One can run these processes over and over again. Run 0, 1, 2 and either 3 or 4, then back to CCH I—right hand, through the other steps, left hand, through the other steps, both hands, and up again, or instead of using “Give me that hand” the auditor can run “Don’t give me that hand”—right, left and “those hands,” and so forth.

Somewhere along the line one of these processes is going to bite and then each and every one of them will do the same. If nothing happens it means that there is a threat to the preclear’s havingness and that the present time problem should be cleared while “help” is run again, after which one of the four CCHs should open up the preclear’s bank.

As an example, here is a case history from one of the Washington HGC staff auditors: Preclear, a business man, age 48, who had numerous pressing present time problems in the home environment. His profile proved that he was totally unable to handle his numerous present time problems as his ability to communicate was on the very low minus side. What’s more, his profile showed that he should really be a three-week preclear but was accepted on the understanding that since he couldn’t possibly afford more time, he would be given this week as an exception to the rule since he came a very long way (the HGC doesn’t accept for processing a 25-hour case who really needs 75 hours).

LRH looked at this profile and suggested quite calmly to the auditor that CCH steps 0 to 5 should do it.

The preclear was out of communication. He did not volunteer any information and seemed to get nothing out of the first 71/2 hours when the first 5 steps were

covered. (His present time problems were handled by Locational Processing.) Since this preclear was withholding information the auditor ran him on “Don’t give me that hand,” which started biting slightly, a few minor somatics shot through various areas of his body and facsimiles darted in and out of his field, but the preclear still felt that this meant nothing. (His critical level was high and he was making nothing out of the auditing.) But when the auditor arrived at Hand Space Mimicry, the preclear burst open for he couldn’t tolerate the close contact with the auditor and volunteered information about a second dynamic restimulation which blew the aberration out of the way and opened the Case.

After that the preclear exteriorized with full visio and sonic when run on Tone 40 8-C, felt that he could control both his body and his environment much more ably and with greater certainty as to what he was doing.

Further up the line on Control Trio and Trio, the preclear ran each one of the six commands flat in approximately half an hour, with cognitions ranging from the first to eighth dynamic, each intimately related to his own life and livingness, and the preclear is a clear.

This preclear still has his present time problems at home, but feels much more confident about handling them and the auditor reports that he is moving heaven and earth to return for the outstanding two weeks.

This might not have been possible on older technologies since the factor of control wasn’t so neatly and exactly organized by LRH as it is now, but the fact remains, much against some people’s better wishes, that one has to be coached into knowing through experience to fully comprehend the power of Procedure CCH.


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 APRIL 1958

To: All Training Activities


VITAL TRAINING DATA FOR TRAINING HATS AND REGISTRAR


Students in the Academy are auditors. They are not preclears. Emphasis is on auditors, not pcs.

The goal of the Academy is to produce auditors of such quality that we would be willing to hire them in the HGC. We don’t graduate those we wouldn’t.

Training staff can refuse a student at any time on grounds of inadequate financial arrangements. In which event the student applicant is returned to Registrar.

The Academy is not a clinic and concerns about cases belong to the HGC and are so referred.

LRH
LRH :bt.rd
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



Issue 72 [1958, ca. late April]


The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.



How We Work on the Third Dynamic


L. Ron Hubbard


It is obvious that a barbarian society, leaving all to chance, believing in luck and irresponsibility, needs direction.

If it cannot receive that direction from its elected leaders, it is soon drowned in confusion.

This is particularly true of barbarian societies. By barbarian, we mean, of course, “lacking in social graces.” A nation may have huge machines, projectiles of great violence and stoves that do all the cooking and yet be a complete barbarism socially.

The activities of a barbarism one against another are punishment, revilement, contest for first dynamic supremacy with no thought of the rights of others.

The barbarism solves political problems with brutality, crime with punishment and social ills with degradation.

It is fairly obvious then that the United States of America—and the Western world-is a barbarism, wearing nylon shirts instead of bearskins, lip rouge rather than tattoo tabu marks, but subscribing to the Code of Hammurabi just the same.

The social code used identifies the barbarism and an “eye for an eye” is little better than law for the sake of sadism, mere animalism.

You can know a barbarism by its witch doctors, its concept of the other man’s mind. In this society the mental witch doctor, comfortably enfranchised by the A.P.A., believes sincerely Man is an animal without soul or hope and, following Pavlov and other Russian teachings, that Man works only for reward like “any other dog.”

These are the brands of barbarism. Hate is deified above love, a deterrent to an action is better than a communication, the delusion is more palatable than the truth.

If we place the govemment on our chart of human evaluation, we find a craven psychotic. What would you think of the sanity of a man who sits in his house all day every day loading guns for fear of some mythical enemy? What would you think of a person who used violence against the weak, the helpless, women and children? What would you think of someone who solved all his problems with threats of violence? You’d be right. Such a person would be insane. Just add up the characteristics of a government today, apply them as if done by an individual and make up your mind. Governments are insane. It is a big thought and one necessary to digest if you are not

Copyright © 1958 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

going to go around all your life snarling impotently against “government stupidity.” The insane aren’t always stupid but they are certainly insane.

Of course you could define government as “that body created by the aggregate irresponsibility of a people.” The insane are irresponsible. That is why they are insane. If you lump all the irresponsibility in a nation into one body you would then have an insane body. Thus the government temper.

Now it is a fact that help and destroy are opposite ends of the same string. When a person can no longer help he seeks to destroy. Destroy is the same as help to a psychiatrist. Total identification. But more of this elsewhere. It is enough here to demonstrate that if you try to help an insane body it responds by seeking to destroy you. This is nothing to be afraid of since the ability to direct in an insane body is very poor. Thus the blows usually go awry. One sees it in government when the police arrest and question the man who was attacked by a thug. The police forget the thug and arrest the innocent.

Now all this comes about only when you have a barbarism, where the social training of each person is so poor as to amount to a collective insanity.

To cure a barbarism one must make men socially grow up. And that is done with individuals. One works with individual people, not with groups.

We in Scientology have done a “power of growing up,” me and you both. We are strong in that we have the ability to make other people “grow up.” Our target is the individual if we wish to increase the group level of responsibility.

To properly hit the target each of us needs to be (I) a good example in our own case and (2) well trained and secure in our Scientology skills.

All we really have to do to win is to get clear and clear others, the while keeping on with the routine demands of life.

As startling as clearing is today, as impressive as it is to learn Scientology well at the Academy, yet these things can be done rather easily.

Clear is now no esoteric goal. It can be reached in a few weeks of highly skilled auditing.

Getting to be an excellent auditor is a must if one merely wishes to live. But one dynamic isn’t enough. It takes all the dynamics to make a freedom. Therefore to be clear is not enough. To be a cleared auditor and to handle and audit people is a must if we wish to be totally free.

Face it. We live in a barbarism. The shiny cars are driven by degraded men. You won’t be free unless they are.

It has taken me ten hard years to make clearing everyone an accomplished fact. That I could do it was not enough. That you could do it was part of the major plan.

My purpose is to bring a barbarism out of the mud it thinks conceived it and to form here on Earth a civilization based on human understanding, not violence.

That’s a big purpose. A broad field. A star-high goal.

But I think it’s your purpose, too.

Best,

L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF I MAY 1958

Post: HASI London
Admin Board, D.C.



SIGNS OF SUCCESS


Whenever we’re really winning the squirrels start to scream. You can tell if somebody is a squirrel. They howl or make trouble only when we’re winning.

Spectacular success can quadruple the number of complaints. Tell the complainees: “Come in, get clear.” Otherwise skip it.

To understand a squirrel, consider the reaction of somebody who could not run the fifth leg of help “How could another person help another person”. The thought of this drives some people spinny. That’s a squirrel. They can’t view other people helping others without going berserk.

There’s nothing personal in having squirrels. Even heroes can have lice.

Best,

LRH




LRH:bt.rd

P.A.B. No. 135
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 May 1958

PROCEDURE CCH CONTINUED

Compiled from the Research Writings and Taped Lectures of L. Ron Hubbard


CCH 5:

This is Tone 40 Locational Processing, and the purpose of this process is to bring the preclear’s attention under control and unfix it from the facsimiles which usually control his attention. It is also a most valuable process to run when the preclear’s communication is too poor to run the present time problems with Problems of Comparable/Incomparable Magnitude.

It brings the preclear from the problem in which he is interiorized into a recognition of the environment, which gives him havingness, and he can consequently unfix his attention from the problem. It brings him into present time—the 6th dynamic—and he can have mass again.

Since this is a Tone 40 process the auditor does not acknowledge idle chatter from the preclear, but should HE say something, the process may be frozen after a few more commands have been executed and the auditor can discuss or “fish” the cognition. The auditor must point to and clearly indicate the object which he wants the preclear to see and must make sure that his “thank you” stops the preclear from getting stuck on the object at which he looks.

The commands are “With that body’s eyes notice that (indicated object, wall, etc.).” When the preclear has done so the auditor says “Thank you” with such intention as to stop the cycle of action completely and to start a new command in present time. If the acknowledgment really reached the preclear he will immediately look away from the object at which he was looking and look at you, smile and seem pleased. Incidentally, the auditor points to both that body and that object.

While using this process in CCH 0, the handling of the present time problem, it can be used as either ordinary or Tone 40 Locational.

CCH 6:

To bring the preclear’s attention further and fully under control of the auditor, Opening Procedure by Duplication 1957, with the following commands, is used: (Auditor takes a book and bottle, placing them some distance apart on tables so that the preclear doesn’t have to bend.) “With that body’s eyes look at that book.” “Thank you.” “Walk that body over to that book.” “Thank you.” (Auditor each time with the commands points to “that body” and “that book.”) “With that hand pick up that book.” “Thank you.” “Put that book down in exactly the same place.” “Thank you.”

Copyright © 1958 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

“Turn that body round.” “Thank you.” “With that body’s eyes look at that bottle,” etc.

It is a Tone 40 process and should be run precisely, making sure that the preclear does not anticipate or distort the command. Duplication + Control = Communication is a formula which is well worth remembering during the running of all Tone 40 processes. This does not mean that if the preclear seems to be communicating, he is, for a lot of his machinery will go into restimulation during this process and one must be able to differentiate between the preclear’s originations and those of his bank.

This, being one of the most arduous processes in Scientology, should be run in one session until flat; otherwise the preclear will be hung up at the point where the process was ended and it will unnecessarily retard the progress which Procedure CCH brings about.

These two processes, when well run, will bring the preclear’s attention under the direction of the auditor. Since duplication will straighten out all the vias and twists the preclear might have in receiving the exact intention of the command which originated from the auditor, the auditor may then proceed to bring the preclear’s thinkingness under his control with

CCH 7: Tone 40 8-C—”Keep it from going away,”
CCH 8: Tone 40 8-C—”Hold it still,” and
CCH 9: Tone 40 8-C—”Make it a little more solid,”

which should be run as a combo [combination of processes] one after the other until each one is flat.

As with most processes, make sure that the command is cleared before embarked upon, and then after a while, if the preclear doesn’t cognite or have any facsimiles, find out “how” and “what” he is doing, for there might still be a possibility that due to semantic difficulties he misunderstood the command and is really running another.

“Keep it from going away” and “Hold it still,” apart from the fundamental value in cognitions, are to exercise the preclear’s ability to control facsimiles—to keep them from going away and to hold them still when he later is going to run Then and Now Solids, which demands just that. Preclears who have been involved in Eastern teachings will cognite during running “Hold it still” and find out a lot about “serenity” and the eighth dynamic. All the things which the preclear has been keeping from going away will come to view. These are good exteriorizing processes. Refer to earlier PABs for further information regarding these processes.

“Make it a little more solid” is the first exercise in making MEST and facsimiles a little more solid and must be done before the preclear can progress to Then and Now Solids. His abilities to keep things from going away, hold them still and make them a little more solid must be thoroughly checked and rechecked, and the auditor must be sure in his own mind that the preclear has acquired these abilities.

Making things a little more solid is just what it says. The preclear does not have to make things very massive, but he should be aware of an increase in the mass, weight and density of the structure of that which he is making more solid. This process will increase his reality on the Prelogics and reverse the flow of solids. It will remedy the preclear’s havingness and push him further up the Scale of Reality.

The commands for the three Tone 40 8-Cs are: “With that body’s eyes look at that (indicated object).” “Thank you.” “Walk that body over to that (indicated object).” “With those hands touch that (indicated object).” “Thank you.” “Keep it from going away.” “Hold it still.” “Make it a little more solid.” Run each one flat individually.

Since these are Tone 40 processes, precision of execution of commands is closely observed by the auditor.

“These processes include a control of thinkingness of the preclear and therefore should be run with a tremendous amount of auditor trust of the preclear and should not be run until the lower levels of CCH are to some degree flat, as they will give the preclear losses. “—LRH from “The Student Manual.”

CCH 12 and CCH 13:

CCH 12 is known as “Limited Subjective Havingness.” The commands for this set of processes are: “What can you mock up?” Preclear answers and the auditor says, “O.K.” to the preclear’s answer and then tells him: “Mock up (whatever the preclear said he could mock up).” “O.K.” “Shove it into yourself.” Run this flat then proceed in the same way except for then having the preclear “Let it remain where it is.” When this is flat enter on the third part, which is “Throw it away.”

Have the preclear shove the mock-ups into “himself” and not the body. Remember it is “have” for the thetan and “can’t have” for the body. It is important here to remedy the havingness of the preclear’s bank before going on to Then and Now Solids.

Should the preclear’s field be black, then run the following process until it clears up: Remedy the field with blackness. Have him mock it up, let it remain and throw it away. This preclear is holding on to blackness since he does not have enough blackness. This is remedying the havingness with blackness of which he has a scarcity.

If the preclear’s field is invisibility, put glass objects of all sorts and sizes on a table next to him and one after another have him “Keep it from going away” until his field returns.

As with all other processes in Scientology we are only interested in giving our preclears wins, and it is therefore necessary to see that he completes each step successfully before continuing with the next process.

Should none of these processes do what is required, CCH has not been properly applied and steps 0 to 5 should be run once more and the auditor can then run Control Trio, which is being spoken about in a later PAB.

CCH 13 is “Subjective Solids” and the first exercise to make things solid subjectively. The commands for this process are: “What can you mock up?” (which is asked every time one changes the type of mock-ups). “O.K.” “Mock up (whatever the preclear said he could mock up).” “O.K.” “Now make it a little more solid.” When this is done the auditor checks with “Did you do it?” for preclears often say they have when they didn’t execute the command.

Start this on a gradient scale. As long as he makes only a few atoms of the mock-up a little more solid the auditor should be satisfied. The preclear here will break through Effort on the Know to Mystery Scale and as he proceeds use less and less effort until he just postulates the solidity.

It is most important to ask the preclear what he is doing, how he is doing it to insure that he IS doing it properly.

Smoothness of auditing is essential. One does not desire to break ARC with the preclear, but a certain amount of policing is necessary and this is a “certainty” process. It is important that the preclear find the process “real,” otherwise he is not under control and will not be able to do Then and Now Solids, to which all these other processes lead.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
1812 19th Street, N.W., Washington 9, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 2 MAY 1958



BEINGNESS AGAIN


The best solution to valences is beingness processing.

Help on valences is excellent, even phenomenal and should not be ignored.

Problems of Comparable Magnitude to a selected person cannot be ignored.

But an understanding of valences gives us a new look at processes.

In the first place a valence is a beingness. Bad, crazy or superb, a valence is still a beingness.

A thetan has a basic personality. But if this is too thoroughly invalidated, a thetan assumes some invented valence. And if this is invalidated he then eventually completes the DEI Scale on Beingness.

The things wrong with a thetan are the lower harmonics of the characteristics of a thetan. You could say carelessly that the only thing wrong with a person is himself. Let us say more accurately that the only thing wrong with a person is his abandonment of self and the assumption of other selves. Because there is a self, the assumption of selves is possible.

We find that the APA or OCA is a picture of a self What self is another matter. All selves other than true self are less honest and ethical since the thetan has a poorer opinion of others than he does of himself in the basic state.

To change an APA or OCA it is necessary to shift selves.

It is fascinating that theft of objects is really an effort to steal a self. Objects represent selves to others. Thieves and what they steal cannot be understood by the logic of their material needs. They steal tokens of selves and hope to assume thereby another self. It is sometimes not amusing to me to be missing my lecture notes or a book from my shelf. This is covert theft of beingness. People sometimes get anxious to be me—I know not why. They wind up stealing my things. The theft is irrational. The articles were not later cherished and all were put away or thrown away when the beingness did not materialize. Perhaps it is bad taste to mention this from my personal viewpoint but from where else should I look? And it has all happened to you, too. The senselessness of the items selected probably puzzled you when they were stolen. But they were identified with you. You couldn’t be stolen, so you lost your wife, your husband or your little trinket, “meaningless” perhaps to anyone but you.

A person has to discover he can’t be you before he steals your things without credit. When he discovers he still isn’t you, he damns you to all. He finally cannot be you, so he wastes you. And thus the DEI Scale of beingness is completed.

One answer to this is never be a desirable you. And never get famous. A far better answer is to understand it, for by understanding alone you can prevent it.

Thus, the major tears of the world are based on beingness. Insanity, heartbreak, bitter lives all stem from the same source.

There is also an acceptance level of beingness, based on a viewpoint of an already alloyed beingness. Some people can only have the beingness of the criminal or the insane. Thus there is yet another door to cracking cases, another latchstring to the problem of Man.

There is also the problem of acceptable beingness, probably more important than acceptance level. What Beingness is acceptable to various people in the pc’s life?

There is also such a thing as taking on another’s unwanted beingness to help him or her. Such as taking a psychosomatic.

We have had many beingness processes. Like we did at first with help, we missed a point. The preclear does not know what “help” means. And he does not know what beingness means. He is below cognition level on them. All help or beingness actions he undertakes are reactive, not analytical.

To overcome this, one enters the case of the pc at the Inhibit end of the DEI Scale. He has the pc waste the item in brackets. He asks the pc to waste help, to waste the help of another, to have another waste help for himself and so on.

Thus it is with beingness. Have the pc waste it.

Man tears his idols apart trying to get a bit of desirable beingness. Every thetan wants to heal at sight; so they crucified Christ. And sold pieces of the cross.

A pc who assumes the aches of another wishes to be that other. He is short on beingness. He accepts it obsessively.

Wearing Empress Eugenie’s hats is understandable. What woman wouldn’t be an empress? But wearing the crooked back of the Hunchback of Notre Dame isn’t quite so comprehensible—if you don’t know Scientology.

One follows knowing assumptions of beingness with unknowing assumptions. The thief knows not why he steals. The bishop knows little of why he cherishes the bit of the True Cross.

And none of them know, so invalidated has it become, that each has a basic beingness, complete. And that beingness is important to you. It is the best beingness there is. And it is important to me, how important can only be viewed through these eyes that see the magnitude of the job. Why should anyone steal when he can have the best there is for the asking? And why steal from me and thee for we alone in all Man’s history can give him the priceless gift of himself.

Just as the thief knows not why he steals, so does the archbishop fail to know why he dons a robe.

To abandon life is to waste all beingness. There is the preclear who sits at succumb.

Try it on a pc. You’ll be surprised.

This is one of the OT steps on which I am working for the 20th ACC.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:md.rd
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



Issue 73 [1958, ca. early May]


The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.


Assists in Scientology


L. Ron Hubbard



DEFINITION: AN ASSIST: An action undertaken by a minister to assist the spirit to confront physical, difficulties which can then be cared for with medical methodology by a medical doctor as needful.

An assist is not normally done in a formal auditing session. The way the term has been used is a very simple processing activity to relieve an immediate troublesome difficulty.

An assist is much more specifically and definitely anything which is done to alleviate a present-time discomfort. It is differentiated from auditing at large by defining auditing as an activity directed toward the rehabilitation of the entire individual.

The first moments of every formal session are an assist. Before you undertake further auditing you usually perform an assist. If you are a very clever auditor you do it by scouting what has happened between sessions, or if the person has a present time problem, for the handling of a present time problem in an auditing session is really not auditing because it is addressed to a surface difficulty.

You handle the difficulty which is uppermost and foremost in the preclear’s mind. A preclear may say, “Well, my wife and I had a fight last night. She threatened to commit suicide, and now she has a violent headache.”

The wrong way to look at what he is saying is to think that it is her headache that is causing the trouble in the session and that you cannot cure her headache as she isn’t present. The actual trouble in the session is his concern about her headache. So you run Problems of Comparable Magnitude to relieve his mind to a point where he is quite comfortable and you can get on with the auditing. And that is actually what an assist is.

Since you really do not have the preclear under good control, nor well orientated in the environment, you have to answer this technical question: When does an auditing session begin?

The answer to that question is: An auditing session begins when you have a preclear, and when he knows he has an auditing environment and an auditor. There is auditing which is done on a relatively loose basis, which might be out in the street, in the kitchen, or anywhere. An assist could happen almost anywhere. But at the

Copyright © 1958 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

beginning of the session, no matter how formally this session is constituted, you are running an assist.

You have an auditing room. You have a preclear, and you are the auditor. You know all these things, but the preclear doesn’t. As far as he is concerned, there isn’t a formal session taking place. Don’t call it a formal session. Call it an assist. Tell the preclear that it is an assist and that you are not intending anything very strenuous. In rendering an assist you should tell the preclear that “this is just an assist” to try and ease the pain in his hand a little, after which you are going to stop.

The handling of an assist as an auditor is different than the handling of a formal session since the factor of control is notably slackened, sometimes almost completely missing.

One of the factors in assists is that an assist has as a large part of its anatomy, “trying to help.” Just remember that you are only trying to help and don’t get your heart broken by the fact that the fellow’s broken spine doesn’t heal instantly.

Another factor is that an assist is differentiated and defined as addressing the game someone knows he is playing.

What techniques would comprise an assist? Anything that would help. And what are these? One of the easiest ones to render is Locational Processing. You tell the person, “Look at that chair. Look at that ceiling. Look at that floor. Look at that hand” (the auditor pointing to the objects), when he has an injured hand and the pain will diminish. This is a very easy assist.

For example, a person has a bad shoulder. You touch his hand of the same arm and say, “Close your eyes and look at my fingers.’’ Make sure that he keeps his eyes closed. You then touch him on the elbow and say, “Look at my fingers.” Do this anywhere on his body. Just touch him and say, “Look at my fingers.’’ This is a communication process which eases his attention over from a concentration upon the injury to something else which is quite near the injury and thus doesn’t result in too much of a shock. It reduces havingness but it is positive and gets positive results. It can be done by an untrained person.

You can teach this assist to anybody. You say, “If somebody has a bruise, injury, a burn, a cut, the way to handle this is to tell the person to close his eyes, and then you touch the area near and distant from the vicinity of the injured area, asking them, with their eyes closed, to look at your fingers. You contact them this way many times. They will experience sudden pains in the area, and you will discover that the ‘psychic trauma’ has been discharged.”

You will find that people do not have any upset about physical contact. Most people think that this is the thing to do.

Say you wanted to render an assist on somebody who had a very indefinite difficulty. That is the hardest one to render an assist on. The person has a pain but he cannot say where. He doesn’t know what has happened to him. He just feels bad. Use Locational Processing as such. You will find out that this process will work when other processes fail.

An assist carries with it a certain responsibility. If you give an assist casually to somebody out in the public and do not shove a professional calling card in his pocket, you are making an error. The reason for this is that he will not know from whom and where help came. Therefore, an auditor walking around without a pack of cards is doing a foolish thing. An auditor goes through life and he casts his shadow upon many

people and they have really no cognizance of what has happened at all if he is rendering an assist. He says, “Do this, do that”—maybe he wins, or maybe he loses because this is the type of session least calculated to procure orderly results. But in the main these people have been helped. They don’t know really by what, except some word that the auditor kept saying. They don’t even know that he is an auditor. They don’t know anything about it at all. Show a person where he can obtain further assistance, and by whom the assistance was given.

Be yourself. Be positive. Be professional and definite. Have a card and make sure the card is easily enough understood. Don’t ask them for permission. Just do it. No reason to wander around and give them funny notions. If you are going to help some stranger out, help him out. Don’t explain to him or any bystander, otherwise you are likely to stand there explaining, waiting for somebody’s permission. Don’t bother with that. You act as though you are the one in charge and you will be in charge. And this is part and parcel of the knowledge of how to do an assist. You have got to be the person in charge. This has to be so good, as far as you are concerned, that you overcome the informality of the session to a very marked degree. If you do it extremely well, the assist will amount to auditing.

Say, for example, there is a big accident and a crowd of people are pressing around. The police are trying to push the people back. Well, push the people back and then push the policeman back. Say, “Officer, keep these people at a distance.” Then you lean over the victim and snap him back to rights. If you are enough THERE, everybody else will realize that you are the ONE that is THERE. Therefore, such things as panic, worry, wonder, upset, looking dreamily into the far distance, wondering what is wrong or what should be done, are no part of your make-up if you are rendering an assist. Cool, calm and collected should be the keynote of your attitude. Realize that to take control of any given situation it is only necessary to be there more than anybody else. There is no necromancy involved. Just BE there. The others aren’t. And if you are there enough, then somebody else will pull himself out of it and go on living.

Understand that an auditor when rendering an assist must make up with presence what he lacks in surroundings and agreements. It all comes under the heading of willingness to be there and willingness to control people.

One of the ways of convincing people of beingness and of being there is to exercise control—positive, undeniable Tone 40 exercise of control. Start to control the situation with high enough ARC, enough presence and factuality—there won’t be anybody present that won’t step back and let you control the situation. You are entitled to it in the first place because of senior “know-how.” The control of body attention or thought comprises the majority of your knowledge. The majority in Scientology simply points in this direction. The observable thing is control of attention, objects and thoughts. When you have good confidence of being able to handle these, and when you positively know how to do these, then you can make sure that everybody else knows you can do this, and you make them realize this by doing it. You have all of these things available in rendering an assist.

You might never think of a riot as being a situation which necessitated an assist, or an assist as applicable to a riot, but a riot is simply a psychosomatic momentary injury or traumatic condition on the third dynamic. Could you settle a riot? Well, if you can settle a riot, you can certainly settle one person who is in a riot. The antithesis of any pain, disturbance or tumult is order. The thing which controls tumult is order; and, conversely, the thing which controls order is tumult. You need only bring order into a confused situation and bring confusion into an orderly situation to control everything in the field of motion, action and objects.

This is a fantastic simplicity and one which takes some grasping. Conceive as order, merely a fixed position, idea and attitude. A policeman knows what he is

supposed to do. Maybe he will put on a tourniquet or maybe he won’t. Keep the people away and stop everything is his idea of how it should be. Now you can aid or abet the order he is creating, or cancel the order by creating a confusion which he cannot handle. Of the two, the first is the best in that situation. You aid and abet and cap the order he is creating. If you were to accuse him of having a confused accident scene, which is by now not at all confused, and ask him to straighten it out, you would channel his attention in the direction it is already gone, and so you control his attention.

Remember, those people are still moving a little bit; they are still breathing. There is still a tiny bit of motion going on. If you were to ask him something on the order of “Can’t we have it a little quieter and more orderly here?” he would at once perceive that there was far too much confusion and motion, and he would simply come under your direction because you have simply channeled his attention in the direction it was already going. Therefore, you have taken control.

If you ever want to overset a fixed order, create a confusion. If you want to overset a confusion, create a fixed order. Pick out of the scene those beings in the scene whose attention is channeled in the direction you want attention to go, and you aid and abet that attention which already exists. Or, where you have too many fixed positions and fixed ideas to overcome, you simply take those turbulent individuals in the scene who are creating the confusion against those fixed ideas and channels and you make their confusion much more confused, at the same time yourself imposing another order in another direction.

The mechanics of taking over any confused scene are simply the mechanics of trying to get a preclear to see through the morass of cross-purposes, commands, ideas and environments in which he has lived. And whether that applies to the third dynamic or otherwise, the laws are still there and it tells you then that the imposition of order on a preclear comes foremost in an assist.

In an assist you always count on the fact that the thetan himself would, if he could, do the right thing. If you work on that postulate you will never be wrong. Get the idea that it is something else trying to do the wrong thing. The keynote of a thetan is order.

Where you are giving an assist to one person, you put things in the environment into an orderly state as the first step, unless you are trying to stop a pumping artery— but here you would use First Aid. You should understand that First Aid always precedes an assist. You should look the situation over from the standpoint of how much First Aid is required. Maybe you will find somebody with a temperature of 106 degrees. It may very well be that he needs to lie down and be covered up, and though antibiotics are much overrated, he might be better off with a shot of one of these than with an assist at that time.

Auditing will not shut off a pumping artery, but a tourniquet will. If you are going into the zone of accidents, you are going to be in the vicinity of a great deal of destruction and chaos, and you are very foolish not to have your Red Cross First Aid Certificate. You may often have to find some method of controlling, handling and directing personnel who get in your way before you can render an assist. You might just as well realize that an assist requires that you control the entire environment and personnel associated with the assist if necessary.

An assist is auditing on several dynamics. It is, therefore, much harder to do than auditing in a formal room as it requires presence. You must bring yourself to face the fact that you have to give enough presence and enough control to enough dynamics to bring the environment into a compliance with your postulate. If you postulate that

somebody is going to pick up his bed and walk, then you have to be willing to move and be capable of moving around the people who are going to watch him pick up his bed and walk.

A good example of an assist would be when somebody is washing dishes in the kitchen. There is a horrendous crash and the person comes down all over the sink, hits the floor and as she is going down, she grabs the butcher knife as it falls. You go in and say, “Well, let me fix that up.” One of the first things you would have to do is to wind some bandage around the hand to stop the bleeding. Part of the First Aid would be to pick up the dishes and put them back on the sink, sweep the pieces together into a more orderly semblance. This is the first symptom of control. She becomes introverted into the cut to the point that she wouldn’t particularly notice what you were doing. But you relieve the anxiety that all her blood is pouring out; your first attention to the case is attention to the environment.

Next you would make her sit down. To remove her from the scene of the accident is not as desirable as auditing her there. That is directly contrary, perhaps, to what you believe, but it is true. That is why you bring a little order into the environment. You position her and then you are ready for techniques. It is quite remarkable for you have manifested order in a much wider sphere than a cut hand in order to bring about a healing of the cut hand. If you understand that your responsibility always extends much wider than the immediate zone of commotion, you never miss. If you bring order to the wider environment you also bring it to the narrower environment. If you bring it into the narrow environment, you also bring it to the wider environment. It is a gradient scale of how much order you can bring.

In processing, you have to control or direct attention, objects, person, or thoughts of the injured person. If you are really good on the subject of assists, you will direct an additional thing: his knowingness. You can control a man’s knowingness rather easily, but it is hard to see it. About the first thing that you can observe about somebody is his person. You are trying to straighten it out. Don’t think that, even though you have this person sitting down, you have straightened it out, because it is still messed up. But there is something that you can straighten out easily—and that is his attention. If you could heighten his attention and his knowingness at the same time, you would really be in wonderful circumstances. You always shift and direct his attention, hence Locational Processing. If he was a Scientologist, with his case in pretty good shape, you could run Trio with considerable success by directing his attention. But you wouldn’t run Trio with the command “Look around the room and find something you could have, “ You should say, “ You look at that chair.” “Now decide you can have it. “ That is a very low order of the Terrible Trio.

You could run the injury out in this fashion: “Look at that chair. “ “Decide the injury cannot have it.” This is directed attention, positively controlled. There is no permissiveness connected with this in any way whatsoever.

Because he is injured you are not going to move his person around. You have got his attention. Don’t try to shift his thoughts around at first because they are dispersed and chaotic. This leaves you his attention only.

The above assist is quite satisfactory, but a later development in the line of assists which included the significance of “Keep it from going away, “ is much more powerful. In one case a bruise, turned utterly black, and covering this person’s entire hip, passed away in 45 minutes of good auditing by “Keeping the right hip from going away, “ and then “Keeping the left hip from going away. “

If you run the right eye, you run the left eye as well. If you run one thing, you run another. If you run his head, run his knees as well. The master of all these

is the direction of attention. “Keep it from going away” is tremendously workable.

You don’t run “Keep it from going away” first, because you are partially controlling his thoughts and this is not possible in the early stages of an assist. If someone is in terrible condition and he is really writhing around, and you want to render an assist, you don’t wait until he stops writhing. He is liable to stop writhing dead. What you do with him is to direct his attention. You tell him, “Shut your eyes and look at my fingers. “ You press your fingers hard enough so that he can’t help but put his attention on them.

If you want it to come out with no bruise, then you would get him to a point where you can control his thoughts, which are chaotic enough. Have him “keep the left ankle from going away, the right ankle from going away,” etc. If the process doesn’t seem to be flattening, direct his attention somewhere else because he is not keeping it from going away. In this wise you can always have a successful assist, because assists all come under the heading of control. The beingness of the person and his presence makes the control possible. So part of control is always presence, identity, person, the one who takes charge and has things under control. When you are able to control his attention, his body and thoughts, then he will be in session and you are no longer doing an assist.

Assists dominantly require that you direct the attention of the preclear and dispose his person one way or the other and eventually take over control of his thoughts on the subject. But by the time you have all these three in line, you are no longer doing an assist.

So what you really do is do an assist up to the time the person can handle the incident or pain, put him in a more favorable environment and give him auditing. So the assist is what you do on the street, and auditing is what you do in the auditing room when he comes to you after your assist has been successful.

AN ASSIST IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL ATTENTION AND DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO CURE INJURIES REQUIRING MEDICAL AID. FIRST, CALL THE DOCTOR. THEN ASSIST THE PERSON AS YOU CAN.

L RON HUBBARD

[The above was edited and issued under the same title in Ability 154, October 1963, which was further edited and issued as HCO B 21 October 1971, Volume VII, page 415.]



HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 9 MAY 1958


WHO SHOULD TAKE WHICH CLASS


The Director of Training should never instruct the advanced Academy class, because of the amount of administrative work he has to do. Director of Training preferably teaches Comm Course.

The Academy Senior Instructor should handle the advanced class and do no administrative work. His job is making sure the student is an auditor at course end.

The Academy Administrator should be the Upper Indoc Instructor.


LRH:bt.rd L. RON HUBBARD

P.A.B. No. 136
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

15 May 1958

PROCEDURE CCH CONTINUED

Compiled from the Research Writings and Taped Lectures of L. Ron Hubbard




THEN AND NOW SOLIDS:

CCHs 0 to 13 are steps in exercising the preclear’s ability to be able to do CCH 14 which is Then and Now Solids. They are a gradient scale of exercises to eliminate all his wrong conceptions and to clear out of the way those considerations which aberrated him into having that unknown, hidden and compulsive game of which he was at the mercy.

The preclear must be in control of his body and environment. He must be able to keep things from going away (especially mock-ups and facsimiles), hold them still and, most important of all, make them a little more solid. We say “more solid” for it invalidates the present solidity of whatever the preclear mocked up or touched if we say “make it solid.”

The process is run in the following manner with these commands: “Get a picture—and make it a little more solid.” “Thank you.” “Look at that (auditor indicates object)—and make it a little more solid.” “Thank you.”

“The commands are given with a tiny pause between the first and second phrase, as it will be found that the glance of the preclear at the object tends to give him the impression that he has already made it a little more solid before the auditor gives the command if this auditing command is broken into two commands. “ (“The Student Manual” by L. Ron Hubbard.)

The command says get a “picture” and the auditor must explain to the preclear, if he doesn’t already know, the difference between facsimiles, dub-ins and mock-ups. We must make sure that he gets a picture (facsimile).

This process combines subjectivity and objectivity (introversion and extroversion) in the preclear’s universe and the MEST universe. It handles time. He will have to go into the past in order to get the picture and then come up into the present by making a specific indicated object a little more solid. Its whole goal is to straighten out the preclear’s time track, to clear up his reactive bank and disclose his Service Facsimile and Life Computation (and even whole track computations which make him act in a certain manner life after life). It will enable the preclear to handle time and get rid of all the unwanted facsimiles, for by viewing them and making these a little more solid


Copyright © 1958 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

he will get the restimulative facsimiles under his control. He will then be able to handle in its totality the whole reactive mind.

To impress its importance, here is a direct quotation from “The Student Manual”: “HISTORY: Developed from Over and Under Solids, which was developed by L. Ron Hubbard in late 1955 and improved by him in 1956. The process more or less completes the work begun on the reactive mind in 1947. It will be noted that many earlier processes and effects are woven into Then and Now Solids. “

The auditor running this process must be capable of handling any emotional situation, however startling and unexpected it might be, with great smoothness and ease. Facsimiles will stand out unexpectedly; the preclear will get sudden somatics and past life enemies will be there in front of his body in metrocolor and three dimensions. He will run up and down that tone scale, dramatize anger or pain to such a degree that the auditor who has not been run on High School Indoc or Hi Hi Indoc might get the scare of his life and take off, leaving the preclear in a spin.

Then and Now Solids demonstrates in its application all that is written in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health and A History of Man. It takes into account the basic theory and elements of both Scientology and Dianetics, and only the expert can handle this process well.

Nowhere along the line is the auditor allowed to move from the commands of the process, since it is Tone 40. It does not mean that the auditor must not communicate with the preclear. Indeed, it is most necessary at times, but he must keep the original intention of the process in mind at all times and gently but firmly steer the preclear back on to the route he is leading. The process MUST be run EXACTLY as given.

It is not advised that any book auditor or beginner use this process, for the session will most certainly go out of control if Tone 40 and the TRAININGS (see “The Student Manual”)* are not clearly understood and applied.

This process acts quickly if it is real to the preclear. If these facsimiles do not sometimes stand out with alarming clarity he is not running the process. It should not be run for hours and hours without a break. One can always run it to a flat point and then return to the beginning of Procedure CCH and flatten each command, which by now will take a comparatively short period.

It is not necessary for the preclear to tell the auditor each time what the facsimile was that he found, but it is advisable that the auditor check now and again to see that the preclear is doing it properly. It should be run non-specifically.

The auditor will notice that the preclear will go further and further into the past and then come up nearer and nearer to present time and eventually, after many of the cycles are completed, come wholly into present time.

There are a few developments from Then and Now Solids which can be used on valences, for example. If the preclear has trouble with mother, have him “Get a picture of mother—and make it a little more solid.” Then have him “Notice (an indicated object or wall)—and make it a little more solid.” (It must remain THEN and NOW solids alternately throughout the whole session.)

Should the auditor suspect that the preclear is stuck in a past life or has recurring facsimiles of past lives during processing, have him get the pictures, make them a little more solid and then make something in present time a little more solid. It will blow. The same procedure applies for any troubles the preclear has regarding men, women, children or other parts of the dynamics.

[* See HCO B 11 June 1957, Training and CCH Processes. “The Student Manual” is unavailable.]

LRH told an HGC auditor to clear the valences with Then and Now Solids, then the preclear’s own body, and after that to return to general non-specific Then and Now.

CCH 14 is the fastest and most effective process in Scientology if the earlier steps are well accomplished, but it stirs up so much motion and emotion that the auditor better be fully trained before he attempts to run it on an innocent preclear.


PROCEDURE CCH (LONG FORM)

The CCH numbers in the preceding PABs and on this chart do not necessarily coincide with that of “The Student Manual” by L. Ron Hubbard, but is a procedure which LRH gave HGC staff auditors. The numbers by which they are known will be published in “The Student Manual” or may be obtained from the central organizations.

CCH 0a. Rudiments.
0b. Goals.
0c. Present Time Problems.
0d. Help.

CONTROL OF 1. “Give me that hand”
PERSON (Body) (right, left and both hands).

1a. “Don’t give me that hand”
(right, left and both hands).

2. Tone 40 8-C.

3. Book Mimicry.

4. Hand Space Mimicry.

CONTROL OF MIND 5. Tone 40 Locational Processing.
(Attention)
6. Opening Procedure by Duplication 1957.

CONTROL OF 7. Tone 40 8-C—”Keep it from
THINKINGNESS going away.”

8. Tone 40 8-C—”Hold it still.”

9. Tone 40 8-C—”Make it a little more solid.”

CONTROL OF 10. S-C-S on an object. (Covered
PERSON in previous PABs.)

11. S-C-S on a person. (Ditto.)

CONTROL OF 12. Control Trio.
MIND
13. Trio

CONTROL OF 14. Limited Subjective Havingness.
THINKINGNESS
15. THEN and NOW Solids.
Creative Processing (as in
Scientology 8-8008).
Route One (as in The Creation
of Human Ability).

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 22 MAY 1958






ENEMIES OF THE PC




List the enemies of the pc. Then run help on them.

Entrance, run things pc doesn’t have to do to them.

A PT Prob doesn’t free on help is under-pinned by a similar earlier problem.


LRH












LRH :bt.rd
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



Issue 74 [1958, ca. mid-May]

The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.



Scientology and the Reactive Mind

L. Ron Hubbard


You may have wondered why we have said so little in Scientology about the reactive mind.

That it hasn’t been mentioned lately doesn’t mean everyone changed his ideas and decided it didn’t exist.

In Dianetics the reactive mind was that thinkingness which went on without analytical inspection. The reactive mind was described fully and accurately in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health.

The whole of Freudian Analysis concerns itself with treating the reactive mind. Freud called it the Unconscious, amongst other things.

The whole of German (and U.S.) psychology concerns itself with examining the reactive mind.

Only Dianetics laid bare the full anatomy of the reactive mind. That anatomy is concerned with mental image pictures ordinarily unseen by the person which nevertheless dictate his illnesses and responses.

The primary characteristic of the reactive mind is response to a situation without analytical inspection. People react without volition. They do strange things when confronted with stimuli. Offer a man a cup of coffee. He twitches. He doesn’t know why he did. Wink at a girl and she gets an earache. She doesn’t know why she did. This is the reactive mind at work. Think of going for a drive—get tired. Decide to study—get a stomach ache. These are reactive mind actions. And the pity of it is the man didn’t know it was the cup of coffee that made him twitch. The girl didn’t know it was the wink which gave her an earache. Because it is an illogical connection. But that is the stock-in-trade of the reactive mind—everything equals everything.

If you really want to know more about this strange mind you should study Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health thoroughly. It’s enough here to say it still exists and still accounts for all one’s “unaccountable” actions.

Scientology went upstairs from Dianetics into the area of the spirit. But that didn’t mean that all we knew was forgotten. Far from it.

In Scientology we find the source of creation, of good, of evil. We also find the source of the reactive mind.

Copyright © 1958 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

The spirit is the source of all. You are a spirit. These are the basic lessons of Scientology.

These are heady lessons. They are not easily learned. Man would rather be approached slowly than leapt upon. He shudders away from truth when truth seeks to pinpoint him as the responsible party.

In Scientology we have found that a person can be so far below apathy that he doesn’t know what he is doing. And so he can have a reactive mind.

Clearing in Dianetics consisted of getting rid of the reactive mind by erasing it and learning to handle it. That’s a long task.

Clearing in Scientology consists of discovering the source of the reactive mind itself and making it vanish. That’s a short, fast task.

The basic difference between Dianetics and Scientology is this: Dianetics attacked the reactive mind on a materialistic level. Scientology, amongst other things, attacks the reactive mind on a spiritual level. Scientology works faster, better and more stably than Dianetics ever did.

In clearing, the reactive mind vanishes. That is not the primary Scientology target in clearing but it is a worthwhile one.

Freud’s Unconscious is conquered territory. The German psychologist’s “mind” is conquered territory.

Conquest comes in Clearing. And fast Clearing is done by Scientology.

There are many real proofs of this. A reactive mind can be seen on a lie detector or any skin galvanometer. When it is gone, these machines do not react on the person. And there are other proofs as substantial.

That Scientology has whipped the reactive mind is brand-new news. That the ills of Man can be healed only by an address to the spirit is news. That no materialistic means, no medicines, no treatments by matter permanently heal or cure anything is a demonstrable fact.

In Dianetics it was a large forward step well meriting its acclaim to identify the anatomy of the Freudian subconscious.

In Scientology it is a large forward step again to find that the reactive mind vanishes before the strong spirit.

And it is another great step now to know that any material means or defense can come to nothing in the end:

The spirit is the source of all creation. You are a spirit.

L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1
(Issued at Washington)

HCO BULLETIN OF 24 MAY 1958
All Staff
Field Offices

A COMMENT ON BEINGNESS PROCESSING


I recently received the following from an HGC auditor:

“Dear Ron,

“I am writing to congratulate you on the development of the Beingness processes outlined in HCO Bulletin of May 2, AD 8. ***

“These are wonderful processes and I thank you for them.

“Not as a report, but purely as clinical data I want you to know what happened in seven and a half hours of using them.

“Nine major valences came off the case, including the weak one and the strong one. All the important ones stripped off clean. Plus the fact that the service facsimile keyed out. This person is not a clear, yet, but is a brand new person.”

*** HCO BULLETIN OF 2 MAY 1958

Beingness Again

The best solution to valences is beingness processing.

Help on valences is excellent, even phenomenal and should not be ignored.

Problems of Comparable Magnitude to a selected person cannot be ignored.

But an understanding of valences gives us a new look at processes.

In the first place a valence is a beingness. Bad, crazy or superb, a valence is still a beingness.

A thetan has a basic personality. But if this is too thoroughly invalidated, a thetan assumes some invented valence. And if this is invalidated he then eventually completes the DEI Scale on Beingness.

The things wrong with a thetan are the lower harmonics of the characteristics of a thetan. You could say carelessly that the only thing wrong with a person is himself. Let us say more accurately that the only thing wrong with a person is his abandonment of self and the assumption of other selves. Because there is a self, the assumption of selves is possible.

We find that the APA or OCA is a picture of a self What self is another matter. All selves other than true self are less honest and ethical since the thetan has a poorer opinion of others than he does of himself in the basic state.

To change an APA or OCA it is necessary to shift selves.

It is fascinating that theft of objects is really an effort to steal a self. Objects represent selves to others. Thieves and what they steal cannot be understood by the logic of their material needs. They steal tokens of selves and hope to assume thereby another self. It is sometimes not amusing to me to be missing my lecture notes or a book from my shelf. This is covert theft of beingness. People sometimes get anxious to be me—I know not why. They wind up stealing my things. The theft is irrational. The articles were not later cherished and all were put away or thrown away when the beingness did not materialize. Perhaps it is bad taste to mention this from my personal viewpoint but from where else should I look? And it has all happened to you, too. The

senselessness of the items selected probably puzzled you when they were stolen. But they were identified with you. You couldn’t be stolen, so you lost your wife, your husband or your little trinket, “meaningless” perhaps to anyone but you.

A person has to discover he can’t be you before he steals your things without credit. When he discovers he still isn’t you, he damns you to all. He finally cannot be you, so he wastes you. And thus the DEI Scale of beingness is completed.

One answer to this is never be a desirable you. And never get famous. A far better answer is to understand it, for by understanding alone you can prevent it.

Thus, the major tears of the world are based on beingness. Insanity, heartbreak, bitter lives all stem from the same source.

There is also an acceptance level of beingness, based on a viewpoint of an already alloyed beingness. Some people can only have the beingness of the criminal or the insane. Thus there is yet another door to cracking cases, another latchstring to the problem of Man.

There is also the problem of acceptable beingness, probably more important than acceptance level. What Beingness is acceptable to various people in the pc’s life?

There is also such a thing as taking on another’s unwanted beingness to help him or her. Such as taking a psychosomatic.

We have had many beingness processes. Like we did at first with help, we missed a point. The preclear does not know what “help” means. And he does not know what beingness means. He is below cognition level on them. All help or beingness actions he undertakes are reactive, not analytical.

To overcome this, one enters the case of the pc at the Inhibit end of the DEI Scale. He has the pc waste the item in brackets. He asks the pc to waste help, to waste the help of another, to have another waste help for himself and so on.

Thus it is with beingness. Have the pc waste it.

Man tears his idols apart trying to get a bit of desirable beingness. Every thetan wants to heal at sight; so they crucified Christ. And sold pieces of the cross.

A pc who assumes the aches of another wishes to be that other. He is short on beingness. He accepts it obsessively.

Wearing Empress Eugenie’s hats is understandable. What woman wouldn’t be an empress? But wearing the crooked back of the Hunchback of Notre Dame isn’t quite so comprehensible—if you don’t know Scientology.

One follows knowing assumptions of beingness with unknowing assumptions. The thief knows not why he steals. The bishop knows little of why he cherishes the bit of the True Cross.

And none of them know, so invalidated has it become, that each has a basic beingness, complete. And that beingness is important to you. It is the best beingness there is. And it is important to me, how important can only be viewed through these eyes that see the magnitude of the job. Why should anyone steal when he can have the best there is for the asking? And why steal from me and thee for we alone in all Man’s history can give him the priceless gift of himself.

Just as the thief knows not why he steals, so does the archbishop fail to know why he dons a robe.

To abandon life is to waste all beingness. There is the preclear who sits at succumb.

Try it on a pc. You’ll be surprised.

This is one of the OT steps on which I am working for the 20th ACC.

L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:rs.ms rd Copyright © 1958 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 29 MAY 1958



SPECIAL BULLETIN


STANDARD CLEAR PROCEDURE
AND
AN EXPERIMENTAL ROAD:
CLEARING BY VALENCES



There have been many roads to clear.

The first was the most simple in description but the most difficult to audit. I never succeeded in teaching it to anyone. All one did was renew the pc’s confidence in being able to face sonic, visio, tactile, etc, in the bank by gradient scale and at long last he would be able to confront a bank wholly. When that happened he didn’t have a reactive bank. He was clear. It required a very gentle touch. That was the way I made all the early clears in 1947 to 1949. Then I had to explain it all to the “scientists” and the fact of clear was lost in the mire of the roadway for some years. I’ve been accused of wanting it that way to tell the sheep from the goats. The point remains that this route was the first successful route. We did not know how much there was to a bank or its anatomy. We had to know the worst before the sun came up again. It came up in December of 1957 with my development of “help” and Step 6. Suddenly we were making clears. Making them out of both high and low profile cases, out of occluded cases and wide open cases.

Clearing is now an accomplished fact for any well-trained validated auditor using a central organization E-Meter.

The further in miles from the central organization the attempt to clear is tried, the more difficulty is being experienced. First the word goes out that clearing is being done, then the how-to-do-it. By the time it gets to Alaska or the Bronx or some distant place, the auditor is uncertain as to the right way and even the fact of clearing. He tries it (or thinks he does) (his version anyway) and laying an egg or two, gives up or thinks it isn’t real.

For such an auditor an HAA clearing course is indicated. (1) He’ll learn right and (2) he’ll see some clears around and begin to understand what one is. And he’ll know there is at least one valid road to clear that he can take and do.

Therefore we do not really need right now more roads to clear and certainly we need no roads to OT while the path to clear is still a thin blazed trail. Good Heavens, what’s happened is wonderful enough—and nobody far away has any reality on that yet. However I am still on the job looking for (1) Alternate clear roads and (2) Roads to OT.

Standard Clearing Procedure, the procedure that is making clears in skilled hands, is a very set SCP indeed. It alone has made all clears to date by persons other than myself.

SCP is aided here and there by other techniques used to cross a block or two faster. But all older techniques only assist the steps of SCP (and sometimes impede

SCP). Of course there are some people who would rather walk in the swamp alongside the causeway just built—that’s up to them. If they know there’s a causeway and still walk in a swamp it’s power of choice. If they haven’t seen the big causeway beside them and walk in the swamp, that’s stupidity.

Standard Clearing Procedure works as follows:

Requisite for auditor—Validated certificate.

Tools: A quiet room and clearing E-Meter from D.C. or London (not some tin quivering together on the hopes of some tinker nor yet an old Model T E-Meter made in California).

Publications: Clear Procedure available from the HCO. [See page 172.]

First Action: Start session CCH 0.

Second Action: Search out by meter a p.t. problem and run it by finding “What part of it pc can be responsible for” as a repetitive command, formal auditing.

Third Action: CCH 0 b. Clear help in brackets with a meter, running meter toward a freer needle. Don’t over-run a leg of the bracket and get the pc stuck or anaten.

Fourth Action: Run Step 6 of the book Clear Procedure and run it flat.

Fifth Action: Reclear help.

Sixth Action: Step 6 until flat, flat, flat and needle free.

That’s SCP. It is assisted by SCS and Connectedness on some pcs.

SCP is an accomplished fact only if the auditor has good training and validation. He doesn’t have to be clear. But he has to be accurate. The HAA-BScn course teaches Validation and Clearing. HCA-HPA teach the basics of Scientology—you have to know those first.

Thus an experimental road to Clear is today a luxury. But you know me—I’m always cutting corners.

So here is an alternate, still in theoretical stage, which promises to be the 3rd successful road. However it requires even greater auditing skill and understanding than SCP but may be faster for lower cases.

It is called “Clearing By Valences”.

Its theory is simple. One can assume that a thetan has all the attributes of clear in his basic personality (see Book I, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health for a discussion of Basic Personality). The action of clearing gives a person back to himself. Therefore the bulldozing of rubble from the basic personality would give us a clear.

I have known for some time that an APA or OCA profile was a picture of a valence or of valences—artificial overlays. I have also known that there is a basic personality. When you clear someone you don’t get a ghost or a god—you get a distinct personality. Men are not equal even if the highest courts in the U.S. so insist. And neither are clears. It is Commie-psychiatric thinking that each is equal to the next like grains of mush. You can generalize by saying clears are good and able. But some are gooder than others and some are distinctly differently able. So people are different.

But valences (borrowed, artificial personalities) overlay the real self and weaken it. Valences are the sum of overwhelmings of the pc. Whenever he lost he got one.

His basic personality was invalidated so he sought new ones. These were invalidated so he sought even newer ones. Like standing between two mirrors facing each other we achieve the multiple pc. But where is the clear? We find him when we scoop away the thousands of others he is being.

The first straight wire run at Elizabeth, N.J., in 1950 succeeded when it knocked off a sick valence. Well we can knock them off wholesale today—with skilled auditing.

The clue is the Curiosity-Desire-Enforce-Inhibit Scale run on valences.

That which the pc erases with difficulty is misowned by him. Therefore it is a valence. In the presence of valences he cannot change his mind easily when he misowns the consideration. Therefore all fixed, harmful ideas or aberrations stem from valences.

The process on this would be “Tell me how you could waste a (male) (female) (other) valence.” This would have to be cleared as a command thoroughly and often. That’s the skill.

An auditor can ask a pc about an aberration and spot a valence possibility. And then run it by waste, etc.

People usually have to waste before they can have. A person who can have a valence isn’t subject to it.

This type of command is rounded off with “What part of that valence could you be responsible for?”

The general rules of auditing must be observed. The basics of Scientology must be understood. And great skill and understanding are required of the auditor.

“Tell me how you could waste father’s valence” “. . . a fat valence” “. . . a defeated valence” etc. The list is enormous.

Well there it is in the rough. When it’s made some clears it will be an alternate probably and have a highly polished form like SCP. Right now it is used as an assist to SCP on a difficult case as per the next HCO B.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :-jh
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED














[PAB 138, Standard Clear Procedure and An Experimental Road: Clearing by Valences, 15 June 1958, is taken from this HCO B.]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 29 MAY 1958


SPECIAL BULLETIN No. 2

AN EXAMPLE OF CLEARING BY VALENCES

An Experimental Process
Experimental Case C by V No. 2.

Auditor: LRH Pc—Experimental Case. Nervous, restless, heavy somatics.

I started session by attempting to clear a p.t. problem. First he had to clear the command. The pc, very restless, defined a problem as “Something that can’t be solved.” “You can keep trying but of course you can’t solve it.”

I tried in vain to get pc to as-is that computation. It would not change.

I was faced by this: One cannot audit successfully up against a p.t. problem. If one tries to do so without clearing the problem the whole case hangs fire. Every unchanged profile or case after auditing is unchanged because the auditor left a present time problem partly or wholly unflat and in restimulation. A pc whose definition of a problem is “something that can’t be solved” and who yet has a p.t. problem could not be audited successfully unless the computation altered.

Trying “What is a problem?” as a repetitive question for half an hour only made the pc nervous, restless and tearful. Obviously the consideration would not change. Therefore, obviously, the consideration was mis-owned. It was a valence, another person the pc was being with complete tenacity and total error. Process abandoned. Decided to strip the valence off.

A discussion of what was a valence finally bore fruit. Pc understood term as meaning a mental package of ideas and considerations really belonging to another person and unknowingly borrowed by pc.

Started in to run a process to at once give greater reality on valences and to hit at the computation.

If pc would fight help so hard then the valence had four considerations that were known to me. (1) It couldn’t be assisted; (2) It considered a problem as “something that could not be solved”; (3) It was steeped in defeatism; and (4) The pc thought of the valence as self.

Just to ease into valences I ran a process as follows “Can you get an idea of somebody that cannot be helped?” Pc could. “Describe the person.” Pc did, thus getting a detached idea of a personality in the mind. “Now what would you say that person’s definition of a problem would be?”

The first dozen people so imagined all had definitions of problems identical with pc’s own. But then there began to be a change in the definition.

Possibly this process would have gotten further but pc was looking brighter and a flat place was reached and I was really trying to clear by valences.

Therefore I bridged, started in on valences directly. I called the valence in which pc was stuck “that valence” (pc thought of it as self). I used the repetitive command “Tell me how you could waste that valence”. Now and then I asked where it was. Pc didn’t know sometimes, sometimes did. (At first it was just back of pc’s eyes and was pc’s thinkingness.)

Terrible somatics cut in after fifteen minutes, all chronic with pc.

I went right on with process for some time (over one hour) when pc suddenly began to cognite on problems. The somatics had ceased entirely fifteen minutes before.

As a process can be left when (a) an ability is regained, or (b) three responses are given with equal comm lag or (c) pc truly cognites in line with process, I could then leave it and bridge.

I bridged over to “What part of that valence could you be responsible for?” for twelve minutes to round process off and keep pc from making “that valence” an enemy if any bit of it remained and to check out somatics. Pc felt very dazed for a moment or two (typical of a separating somatic) but came out of it very bright. Process flat.

Bridged into earlier commands for a few commands each to flatten them and bridged out to begin clearing of session.

Pc could not now consider any of the five initial problems listed as problems now . . . they all seemed simple and routine parts of life.

Ended session.

Time of auditing 2 1/2 hours approximately including one short break.

Goal of session was to clear up problems on the subject of problems. Goal was attained.

Added bonuses—Loss of main thinkingness circuit, loss of chronic somatic and service facsimile, increase of potential, new zest to continue on to clear.

Pc heretofore desiring little auditing, hard to control in session, reactive toward help offered by others. All changed.


L. RON HUBBARD


LRH:bt.rd
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



















[PAB 139, An Example of Clearing by Valences, 1 July 1958, is taken from this HCO B.]

P.A.B. No. 137
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology


From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 June 1958

SOME MORE CCH PROCESSES

Compiled from L. Ron Hubbard’s Research Writings and Taped Lectures to the
18th American Advanced Clinical Course


CONTROL TRIO:

After one has run CCH 0 to 5 and has brought the preclear’s body and attention under control, there are various ways of handling the case from there on. Here is a series of processes which undercuts Trio and is called “Control Trio.”

The commands for Control Trio are:

1. “Notice that (auditor indicates object) and get me idea of having it.”

2. “Notice mat (auditor indicates object) and get the idea of permitting it to continue.”

3. “Notice that (auditor indicates object) and get me idea of making it disappear.”

The processes should be run in that order and each one must be run flat before the next one is attempted. It is very necessary to clear the command before embarking upon the process. Preclears simply understand that “having” means that they must possess something, carry it with them wherever they go—without just leaving the mountain, chair or whatever it is, in its own space-time continuum. He gets it confused with ownership and so forth.

In Fundamentals of Thought there is an excellent definition of havingness: “The essential definition of having is to be able to touch or permeate or to direct the disposition of:”

During the running of the first command the preclear will come up with cognitions regarding the necessity of having or not having things, its goodness or badness, and will in general run out his earlier training regarding this point. It will change his conceptions which earlier religions may have implanted, such as it is “bad to have,” and run out the compulsions of “must, must not, got to, can’t have,” etc.

Find out what the preclear is doing and how he is doing this, for he should get havingness from this process and his tone should rise considerably. A change should take place within a very short period, otherwise (a) his body and attention are not under control or (b) he doesn’t understand the command and is running a different process than that which you intended.

Copyright © 1958 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

There should be no qualifications or conditions such as “If I had the money I could buy that object and then have it,” or “I don’t like it and thus don’t want it,” or “What shall I do with it once I have got it?” It is just the ability to have without other considerations of goodness, badness, ownership or beauty going with it, and the auditor and preclear should clear such conceptions through good but non-evaluating two-way communication.

The second part of this trio brings the preclear’s sense of active participation of creativity and responsibility out, for he must grant that particular object sufficient life and beingness to allow it to “continue within its own space and time.” Preclears come up with the considerations that they have either tried to not-is objects and/or people or “withheld” something from them or tried to push them out of their environments because they didn’t like them or agree with them. This is an interesting process to put their ideas about what they should have around them back into proper perspective. They will find that there is no harm in permitting the sixth dynamic to continue in present time right where it is.

The third part of the trio is the most effective and more will be said about it in a following PAB. It is a very good exteriorizing process and the preclear will come up with many cognitions on his own and the rest of the dynamics. Here the idea is just to “get the idea of making the object disappear” instead of to dispense with it or not-know or not-is it.

This cycle can be run over and over again until it is flat, within a few minutes after the command has again given the preclear some gains.

After this, Trio (old-time Terrible Trio) can then be run with great advantage on a case who couldn’t do it before. Control Trio, which undercuts Trio, will bring out its reality level.

GOALS:

With every preclear it is most necessary to establish goals that are REAL for the PRECLEAR. You want him to have some goals which are HIS and not what grandma, father or schoolteacher desires for him. Preclears who have no real goals are working on other people’s determinism and we have to (a) establish the certainty of a future for the preclear, and (b) get him to put things in that future that he WANTS, so that he can have a future.

There is a gradient scale of processes which will establish goals which are REAL to the preclear by casual two-way communication, using the following questions:

1. “What are you absolutely sure will happen in the next two minutes?” one hour, three days, one week, three months, one year, etc.

Complete certainty on each time span is necessary before the auditor continues to the next time span. This is done by two-way communication, and the auditor must all the time be sure that the preclear is certain that these things are going to happen in the next two minutes (or whatever the time span is) to ensure that the process really bites.

2. “Tell me something that you would like to do in the next two minutes,” one hour, etc., is the next process that would put doingness and more time into that future.

On some preclears the following questions may be realer and bite faster. This is putting the accent on have instead of do, since we work from the bottom up on the Be, Do, Have triangle. They are:

3. “Tell me something you are sure will be there in two minutes, etc.,” and

4. “Tell me something you would like to have in two minutes, etc.”

The last two processes really undercut the above and are thus lower level processes and it is advisable to run them on preclears whose ability to communicate and reality level are low.

Watch out for the preclear attaching all sorts of conditions to his answers. Also work towards positive goals of “things” and not conditions such as “I want to get rid of my fears and somatics.” The latter type of preclear is working towards nothing rather than towards something. (A more positive goal of something would be “I want a stick of candy or a glass of water.”) Check for certainty at all times, for certainty strengthens reality and the reality of a future for the preclear is most essential if auditing is to succeed all the way.

LOSSES:

Why doesn’t a preclear exteriorize easily and stay exteriorized? And “Why does he get sick when one asks him to conceive a static?” is the accompanying question. The answer to this is “Losses.” The preclear associates a static with loss, and he says, “All right, if there is nothing there I’ve lost it.”

Conceiving a static is therefore painful, and whenever he lost anything something disappeared. An individual cannot conceive a static if he associates static with a loss-if it is painful. So we have to cure him of the painfulness of loss, consideration of, before we can exteriorize him easily.

We do this by going back to automaticity. The universe has been taking things away from the preclear. It has become an automaticity known as “time.” Time itself is a consecutive series of losses. So we have to cure this preclear of losses before we can get him to appreciate time, otherwise he would be so afraid of losing it that he’d park himself on the track, and this is the “stuck on the track” phenomenon.

This is done with the process “Recall a moment of loss,” sandwiched with havingness (Control Trio, Trio or Locational Processing). This gets the preclear to take over the automaticity of all of the losses which he has experienced unwillingly.

When an individual has no visio, has never seen anything, couldn’t see anything, the only thing that he is looking at is a “stuck” loss.

Recall a Moment of Loss and Goals are a lower harmonic of running Then and Now Solids and are at the moment making a bid for our chief exteriorization processes. Recall a Moment of Loss should be run with two-way communication, but not too much outflow of the preclear. Communication must at all times remain two-way. Ask the preclear “when” this happened now and again, unless, of course, he told you when he recalled the loss.

Control Trio, Goals and Recall a Moment of Loss are a combination of processes and should be run as a combination to secure the best gain for the preclear.


A Scientologist is one who controls persons, environments and situations.


Scientology means knowing in the fullest sense of the word.


Scientology is used on Life and its forms and products.


A Scientologist operates within the boundaries of the Auditor’s Code and the Code of a Scientologist.


The chief uses of Scientology are in the fields of education, organization, mental disability and religion. Scientology is the first to give scientific meaning to these.


A Scientologist is considered a professional if he uses Scientology in any of these fields and has been thoroughly trained in Scientology.


A Scientologist is a first cousin of the Buddhist, a distant relative to the Taoist, a feudal enemy to the enslaving priest and a bitter foe of the German, Viennese and Russian defamers of Man.


The religion of the Scientologist is freedom for all things spiritual on all dynamics which means adequate discipline and knowledge to keep that freedom guaranteed.


We are the people who are ending the cycle of homo sapiens and starting the cycle of a good earth.


There is no barrier on our path except those we make ourselves.


Our ability belongs to all worlds everywhere.




Issue 76 [1958, ca. early June]


The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.



“Offbeat” Processing


L. Ron Hubbard



Experimental auditing has its place. Indeed, we got where we are because of experimental processes. Every process was once experimental.

BUT when you want results you had better use standard techniques and procedures. After all, I have sweated through their testing for years and we now KNOW what will ease or clear a preclear.

Most clearing “failures” are caused by use of non-standard techniques and procedures. Also, such failures can be caused by ignorance. An auditor thinks he is using standard material. He isn’t sufficiently trained to know.

Such an auditor who has had failure, should take a leaf from New Zealand. Frank Turnbull wasn’t getting the results he wanted way “down under.” So he grabbed a plane and came halfway around the world for a two-day briefing. Frank was right. They weren’t using techniques properly—and their old-style E-Meters weren’t even working and they didn’t know it.

Now if a smart, clever auditor like Turnbull can doubt his command of the subject, I am sure other auditors would experience no disgrace in following through and getting squared around. For clearing is easy if you know how.

Such stories as an auditor who “clears his pcs each week” are more tragic than funny. And rather costly to luckless pcs.

Some auditors don’t understand “What is a Clear” and get confused with their own cases—but that doesn’t mean a Clear doesn’t have a precise definition, an exact and distinct beingness—and very worthwhile, as any clear can assure you.

Perhaps the saddest case of experimental auditing to come to my attention was the case of a young man whose wife was depressed. She was making such difficulty in the family that he could not work. He had had training as an auditor but felt he could not help her. He had no money for auditing from a professional.

I reviewed the case and asked him why he did not at least try to help her, and recommended he use standard auditing and procedures. This he did with adequate results and his efforts succeeded very well so that he was able to resume his work, his wife sharing his responsibilities.

Copyright © 1958 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

And then it seemed to him that he might go a bit further faster. That is the usual stumbling block—anxiety to do it all at once.

But preclears cannot do it all at once and the thoroughly experimental approach he used, born out of his own basic lack of reality, was not successful. He “audited” his wife downward into a condition almost as low as she had been in before, thus canceling over two-thirds of his gain.

Now none denies his right to undo what he had done to help her, but his intention was to help her swiftly and spectacularly. Had he read his PABs he would have found as of three years ago a mention of his “discovery” as an unworkable approach, in defiance of the principles which make Scientology function.

Once more he had to quit his job and his wife has lost confidence in his willingness to assist her.

Fortunately, another auditor has now volunteered to assist—and he will use standard, proven, tested techniques and procedures.

You see, there is a thing called Scientology. It has axioms. It has principles. It has the goal of empowering a thetan to overcome his own problems. This standard Scientology we don’t change every day. The uninformed, not knowing that a standard exists see in each new release a new subject. So they say, “Why don’t I experiment on my pcs?” And they experiment with the standard background, not with a further reach of old, tried, principles.

Without a guiding central organization Scientology would fall into an anarchy of opinions in a week for there are too many who can go through the motions of auditing who do not know their basics. They think a new thing, Scientology, is an experimental thing. It is not. The basics are inflexible and have been for years.

We know now just exactly what clears people. And we know exactly what a clear is. And we know exactly how to train and process. These are hard won riches. Don’t waste them and your time, too.

This is the way out! Are some people so fond of the trap they avoid the flaming beacons which show the entrance? Or are they afraid to set Man free?

L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 4 JUNE 1958



RUNNING VALENCES


1. Never leave one half flat. Stupidity is then in restimulation.

2. Always run a specific valence.

3. Past track valences are preferable to run over present life valences.

4. Thetan valences are preferable over body valences.

5. “Invent a (valence)” is a milder form, less effective but often more real to PC than “Waste a (valence).” Commands for Invented valences: “Invent a (specific valence).” “Think of a problem that valence could have.” “Thank you.”

Commands for Wasting Valence: “Tell me (Think of) a way to waste a (specific valence).”

“Does that really waste it?” (occasional use) “Thank you.”

Types of valences that can be run: Formula—Invent and/or Waste valences on eight dynamics from 8 to 1.

Goals for Clearing by Valences: Uncover basic personality. BP is, of course capable of all attributes of clear. OT is an educated BP.

Wind up all valences you have run with “What part of that could you be responsible for?” which puts him back at cause (since he elected as cause any valence you ran).

Clearing by Valences is probably the 3rd step (with Help and Step 6) of Clearing. C by V doesn’t neglect or supplant Help or Step 6.

Always pick bad or contra-survival valences. Never run pro-survival. Differentiation is on this basic:

A contra-survival valence physically injured pc.
A pro-survival valence never did.

Pcs pick out for their randomity stuck flows on help.

E-Meters don’t register well on valences. They stick and several valences mentioned will only stick more. A valence sticks. It must be freed up on meter.

8th and 7th Dynamic area of valences produce wildest results.

Chief characteristic of formula 8 to 1 is to produce judgement.


LRH

LRH :-.cden
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 14 JUNE 1958


STANDARDIZATION OF CLEAR PROCEDURE

FOR GUIDANCE AND USE OF THE HGCs

(a) Stress 4 pts of error.
(b) Run Help, Step VI.
(c) Standardize Valences.
(d) Eliminate Wasting Help.

(a) 4 pts of Error

1. Profile, IQ unchanged = PT Problem left in restim, or not located at all. Cure = Understand, Locate and Flatten PT Probs.

2. Profile dropped = Auditor code break, real or imagined, unrepaired by auditor. Cure = Repair any code breaks with 2-way comm & Help.

3. Unstable Gain = Too many processes or processes not flattened. Cure = Increase confidence on auditor’s part. Get him off of a total effect need.

4. Auditors unable to produce good results = Introduction of new processes which auditors then use without sufficient reality. Cure = Use only processes on which auditor personally has a reality.

(b) Clear Procedure

Clear Procedure consists of Help in Brackets on any terminals and Step VI. There are no other certain processes at this time.

(c) Standardize Valences

Valence splitting is most reliably done by running Help in Brackets on the valence.

There are two valence processes now under test which seem to be better than others. They are still experimental.

Experimental (a)
Invent a being who could not be helped.
What problem could that being have? Ack.

Experimental (b)
Invent an unconscious being (person).
What problem could that being (person) pose? Ack.

All other tested valence processes have so far failed.

(d) Waste Help

This process violates rule of terminals, “Run terminals, not conditions”.


LRH:bt.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



Issue 77 [1958, ca. late June]


The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.


Learning How to “Clear”


L. Ron Hubbard


In December of 1957 the first Clear was made by another than myself.

This was the gain. This was the fruit of the years.

Now we can have many clears. We can have thousands of clears. And if we can have that, we can have a civilization.

So this was the bottleneck—other auditors couldn’t really clear people. And this bottleneck is splintered to diamond bits.

Other people can clear others. And so we’re on our way.

However, it wasn’t so much the technique that counted—it was knowing how to apply it—knowing fundamentals, knowing procedures.

THERE IS A KNOW-HOW IN AUDITING TO CLEAR.

It won’t be picked up out of books. It won’t be taught by word of mouth. It will be taught where Scientology teaching itself was evolved—the Academy.

The procedure of teaching to clear is as much part of clearing as the techniques of clearing. We must face that fact. And there’s no real text on it because the text would be too long.

There are very few people who know this teaching procedure. But brighter than that, there is at least one place where the combined know-how can accomplish the fact—and that place is Washington, D.C.

So now that we’ve got clearing and clear people, we also have a course, enrolling every Monday, that teaches clearing and only teaches clearing.

That course is the Academy course leading to the grade of HUBBARD CLEARING SCIENTOLOGIST.

This is the old BScn Course and replaces the grade of Hubbard Advanced Auditor, which certificate while still valid, will not be issued again at this time.

The Hubbard Clearing Scientologist Course is five weeks in length. It is taught by L. Ron Hubbard, Jr. It is taught only at the Academy of Scientology. It will continue to be taught.

Copyright © 1958 by L. Ron Hubbard All Rights Reserved.

The prerequisites of the course are Hubbard Apprentice Scientologist and Hubbard Certified Auditor certificates.

The cost is $285.00 unless taken consecutively with an HCA Course where there is a discount.

The grade of Hubbard Clearing Scientologist will be the only validation stamp grade below the ACC Course.

We have found that an aspiring auditor does better in school if he first has a Hubbard Apprentice Scientologist Course, preferably under a validated field auditor, of which there are many. However, this course is taught at the Academy as well. This is a two-week course at the Academy.

We have found that an auditor goes nowhere if he does not know his basic Scientology and the fundamental activities and procedures of an auditor. These are taught in the Hubbard Certified Auditor Course. How to analyze problems, handle preclears, apply Scientology to life, give assists, do spiritual healing, handle the mind and a multitude of skills are all basic in this HCA Course. It is the Key Scientology course.

It lasts eight weeks and contains 575 hours of personalized instruction. This is the course that really makes a Scientologist. It is a requisite to the Clearing Course.

The Hubbard Certified Auditor Course is constructed as a wholly practical course, more on the order of a laboratory than a lecture series, in which every important aspect of livingness is taken up part by part and demonstrated with simplicity and clarity. Until such a thing has been done with a person, his attempt to clear others would meet with failure. But, even more importantly, successful living would be questionable without a modern HCA Course.

The new Hubbard Clearing Scientologist Course follows a long tradition. Called the BScn Course and later the HAA Course, it has always taught clearing in one form or another. Earlier courses stressed exteriorization and other routes. Dr. L. Ron Hubbard, Jr. and Dr. Richard F. Steves have been the principal instructors in the past. The length and schedules have not been varied greatly from its earliest beginnings. The only things new about it are the title of the certificate and the actual, precise, welded in-place, embedded-in-concrete stable data and procedures surrounding the new fact of clearing.

People who complete this course will be able to clear people and that’s all there is to it. The possibility of clearing somebody without such a course is, on the average, not very probable since clearing is a new reality. That doesn’t mean people shouldn’t try. A person attempting to clear will do more for a preclear than he’s been able to do before, but to really reach the ultimate fact of clear with a pc would be quite a feat indeed without the auditor being specially trained.

We want people who can routinely clear people—and fast. We want no false prophets who, unable to really clear, degrade the definition or results of Clear. We want clearing auditors. We’ve made them in the HGC, I made them in the ACC, so we can make them in a five-week course—if they are good HCAs already.

The public will buy Clearing from an auditor. Even the dullest seem to understand what you mean when you describe “Clear.” So an auditor selling clearing had better be sure he can. And we can make him sure—not only of the fact of clear but his own ability to clear.

In an Advanced Clinical Course after 1958 I am going to teach only Operating Thetan technology. The goals of an Advanced Clinical Course are to clear the

students who aren’t and teach all the students how to audit toward Operating Thetan.

Thus, as you can see, the ladder of courses we have developed have evolved into their natural places following the natural evolution of people and can stay that way. To develop this ladder we had to have technology about teaching and developed what we needed over these eight years. And we had to have the actual facts toward which to train. And so we obtain the following courses and goals, all of them logical and practical:

1. Hubbard Apprentice Scientologist. —Two weeks of day training. Teaches people how to communicate and handle people. Field or Academy trained.

2. Hubbard Certified Auditor. —Eight weeks of day training. Teaches people the practical parts of life and the fundamentals of handling it, as well as the procedures of auditing. Taught by Academy only.

3. Hubbard Clearing Scientologist. — Five weeks of day training. Teaches auditors to clear people. Taught by Academy only.

4. Hubbard Graduate Scientologist. —(Advanced Clinical Course—ACC.) Six weeks of night and day training. Teaches auditors how to audit toward Operating Thetan. Taught by LRH only.

Those are the grades which have evolved. We see no reason to change the arrangement or the certificates for the next thousand years. There will be other special courses, of course, but these are the basics.

You might ask why all these certificates beginning with the word “Hubbard”— auditors in 1950 and again in 1954 voted it that way, overthrowing my plea to take it easy, and so that’s the way it is. They want it that way. Doctor of Scientology still exists, too, you know.

I am very happy to make this announcement of courses. I haven’t liked the changing around, either. But any Hubbard Dianetic Auditor can have a Hubbard Certified Auditor certificate just by writing in and paying the small cost of preparation and any HDA or Hubbard Advanced Auditor certificate is still valid.

What a long, hard struggle it has been to stabilize the know-how and goals of training. We’ve done it just in time. Not too far off we’ll need to hire a thousand auditors at high pay to take care of something special. So we haven’t missed by much. Preference will be given, of course, to Hubbard Clearing Scientologists—and the training, no matter how many we hire, will have to continue to be at the auditor’s expense—as is true of every staff auditor we have. We, the auditors, built all this ourselves out of our own pockets and so we own it. That won’t change.

A hundred thousand clears would change for the better all the civilizations of Earth.

Say—do you know we’re already doing it?

The Scientologist is today’s Cause point in an embattled world. We’ll win.

L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 30 JUNE 1958
(Revision of HCO Bulletin of 28 May 1958)






PROCEDURE FOR CERTIFYING CLEARS

This Applies WORLD-WIDE
All Offices and Auditors


Clears are tested by several departments. In only one department does all this data assemble. And only that one unit can pronounce a clear “Clear”.

Testing department gives test. Testing should not tell pc anything which would lead pc to think he has been passed for clear.

Dir of Pr gives an E-Meter test and review of written tests but cannot finally inform pc he is clear. The most he can say is that it seems so, but final declaration of clear is reserved to the HCO Board of Review.

When all papers and data are assembled at HCO Board of Review, this unit then reviews the entire picture. HCO Bd of Review can call for a retest at its own discretion after a lapse of time.

HCO Bd of Review then submits all tests to LRH for a final review. Only after LRH certifies a person as “Clear” can a clear bracelet be issued.

THIS APPLIES WORLD-WIDE. ALL TESTS FROM ALL OFFICIAL SCIENTOLOGY OFFICES.

The issuance of the bracelet by HCO Bd of Review is the first time the recipient is informed finally that he is clear.

This Bulletin is retroactive to the first person cleared by modern Scientology.


LRH:md.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © l 9 58
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

[This revision changes the fifth, sixth and seventh paragraphs which in the 28 May 1958 issue read:
“Only when HCO Bd of Review is completely satisfied does it then issue a clear bracelet.
“The issuance of the bracelet is the first time the recipient is informed finally that he is clear.
“HCO Bd of Review should refer cases about which it can’t decide to LRH for personal review.”]





LRH TAPE LECTURE
27 June 1958


** 5806C27 AUDC-18 Processing and Clearing

CLEARING CONGRESS LECTURES
Washington, D.C.
4-6 July 1958

“The Clearing Congress was held at the Shoreham Hotel in Washington, D.C., July 4, 5 and 6, 1958.

“It began with the presentation by L. Ron Hubbard of fifteen clear bracelets to some of the Clears attending. From this beginning he went on to cover, in nine fact-packed hours of lecture, the entire subject of Scientology and Clearing. Six of the lectures are available in color film. All of the data needful for a complete understanding of the subject was outlined and the data necessary to production of Clears was given in full.”
—Ability 79



5807C04 CC-1 The Fact of Clearing; also available as color film

** 5807C04 CC-2 The Factors of Clearing (Four Elements); also
available as color film

5807C04 CC-3 The Freedoms of Clear; also available as color film

5807C05 CC-4 Evaluation of Importance, Things to Know in Clearing,
Prerequisites to Auditing; also available as color film

** 5807C05 CC-5 Clear Procedure, Part l: CCH-0, Help; also available
as color film

** 5807C05 CC-6 Clear Procedure, Part ll: Creativeness; also
available as color film

5807C06 CC-7 The Magic Button

5807C06 CC-8 The Goal of Auditing

** 5807C06 CC-9 Violence

5807C06 CC-10 Juvenile

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 7 JULY 1958



CONTENTS AND COVERAGE OF HCA/HPA COURSE

Training Activities Please Comply


Required knowledge of an auditor:
Knowledge gives Results.

The Auditor’s Code
Code of a Scientologist
The TRs
The Axioms

The following Scales must be well known:

ARC Triangle (Emotional Scale)
Know to Mystery
Effect Scale

Processes he must know before he runs clear processes:

ARC Straight Wire
Havingness Subjective
Trio
8-C
Thinkingness Processes
Assists
Running Engrams & Secondaries
Handling of PT Problems
Problems of Comparable Magnitude
Opening Procedure by Duplication, earliest style


LRH:bt.jh L. RON HUBBARD




HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 9 JULY 1958


STAFF CLEARING


The Director of Processing is in charge of Staff Clearing.


L. RON HUBBARD



LRH:bt.rd

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 12 JULY 1958




STANDARDIZATION OF CLEAR PROCESSES

FOR GUIDANCE AND USE OF THE HGCs


(a) Stress 4 pts of error.
(b) Run Help, Step VI.
(c) Standardize Valences.
(d) Eliminate Wasting Help.

(a) 4 pts of Error

1. Profile, IQ unchanged = PT Problem left in restim, or not located at all. Cure = Understand, Locate and Flatten PT Probs.

2. Profile dropped = Auditor code break, real or imagined, unrepaired by auditor. Cure = Repair any code breaks with 2-way comm & Help.

3. Unstable Gain = Too many processes or processes not flattened. Cure = Increase confidence on auditor’s part. Get him off of a total effect need.

4. Auditors unable to produce good results = Introduction of new processes which auditors then use without sufficient reality. Cure = Use only processes on which auditor personally has a reality.

(b) Clear Procedure

Clear Procedure consists of Help in Brackets on any terminals and Step VI. There are no other certain processes at this time.

Supplemental Processes: CCH 0-1-2-34, S-C-S, Connectedness.

(c) Standardize Valences

Valence splitting is most reliably done by running Help in Brackets on the valence.

There are two valence processes now under test which seem to be better than others. They are still experimental.

All other tested valence processes have so far failed.

(d) Waste Help

This process violates rule of terminals, “Run terminals, not conditions”.


L. RON HUBBARD


LRH: -.rd
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

20TH AMERICAN ADVANCED CLINICAL COURSE LECTURES
Washington, D.C.
7 July—15 August 1958

Immediately after the Clearing Congress, L. Ron Hubbard conducted the 20th American ACC in Washington, D.C.


** 5807C14 20ACC-1 Opening Lecture
** 5807C15 20ACC-2 ACC Procedure Outlined, E-Meter TRs
5807C15 20ACC-2A Question-and-Answer Period
** 5807C16 20ACC-3 Course Procedure Outlined: How to Clear a Command,
Simplicity, CCH-0
5807C16 20ACC-3A Question-and-Answer Period
** 5807C17 20ACC-4 Beginning and Ending Session—Gaining Pc’s
Contribution to the Session
5807C17 20ACC-4A Question-and-Answer Period
** 5807C18 20ACC-5 ACC Training Procedure: CCH-0, Problems and Goals
** 5807C18 20ACC-5A Question-and-Answer Period
5807C21 20ACC-6 The Key Words (Buttons) of Scientology Clearing
5807C21 20ACC-6A Question-and-Answer Period
5807C22 20ACC-7 The Rock
5807C22 20ACC-7A The Rock (cont.), Question-and-Answer Period
** 5807C23 20ACC-8 Special Effects Cases—Anatomy
5807C23 20ACC-8A Question-and-Answer Period
5807C24 20ACC-9 Anatomy of Needles—Diagnostic Procedure
** 5807C24 20ACC-9A Question-and-Answer Period
5807C25 20ACC-10 The Rock
** 5807C25 20ACC-10A Question-and-Answer Period: Clearing the Command

The list of lectures given to the 20th ACC continues in date order sequence on pages 298-300 and 302.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 14 JULY 1958
Not for general use.
HGC Auditors may find
of interest.
20TH ACC TRAINING PROCEDURE


The first day on auditing the student checks out as many other students for clear as possible with Clear Check Out Sheets and E-Meter. Text: Ability and HCO Bulletins. Purpose: To learn to check out clears. The way to learn clear check-out is to check out many non-clears.

How to clear a command. Clear each word once only so that the word means something to pc. Only repeat if the pc says he doesn’t understand. Never ask twice “What does Help mean to you?” Clearing a command is not a repetitive process. There is no other right way to clear a command in any case. Clear the command for all sides of a bracket before running one.

All auditing and check-outs are actual. There is no student coaching except on TRs.

1. CCH 0 with emphasis on goals and PT Problem. Done thoroughly at start of every session.

2. ARC Straight Wire using following type command only—”Recall a time when you communicated with something.” Run as a complete 9 way bracket one command each side. Use communicate only. Run until needle of meter is relatively free. Pay attention to cyclic aspect of answers. Purpose: To loosen up bank and screens and to teach student use of a bracket and give him practice. This permits student to ease into a rather strict and exacting auditing activity without an instruction to him from an instructor upsetting preclear as it would if Help were being used instead. Avoid beefy processes where correction, supervision and general instruction are involved. Auditor requires no verbal answer from pc, only a head nod, but checks now and then as to when the communication being recalled took place.

3. Start-C-S oldest version. Emphasis on start and stop. Run change when the start or stop seem flat and only to unflatten them. Purpose: Smoothness of auditor control; accomplishment by pc of really controlling body. You start that body, etc is emphasized.

4. Connectedness, control version. Sole command: “You get the idea of making that (object) connect with you.” No other side of bracket. Purpose: Havingness, unsticking needle, directing pc’s attention.

4b. Student should scout pc’s track looking for the “rock”, spot it or something like it in minimal time, stick it good and free with Connectedness. Purpose: Giving student and pc confidence that some sticky business can be plowed into and gotten out of readily by use of Connectedness.

5. Help. 5 or 9 way bracket in general to groove pc in. “How could .... help you?” On a sticky item run one side of bracket after another, never repeat any one side twice.

Use whole track type commands, never localized this lifetime.

5a. Run “auditors” and “preclears” as subjects for Help. 5 way bracket. First run auditors, then pcs, then auditors, then pcs, etc. Purpose: Clean up all past auditing.

5b. Isolate whole track “rock” and run 5 or 9 way bracket on it. This is an adroit matter. It requires that one know the pc and audit this particular pc. It doesn’t mean forcing one’s own “rock” on the pc. It requires judgment and a knowledge of valences. It may be necessary to unburden the “rock” with several items before it appears. Free the needle on the “rock”. Command must be phrased to include whole track version of pc’s rock. Purpose: To locate largest reality of pc and to hit squarely on what he is always mocking up obsessively.

5c. Scout Help with a general bracket to see if it is freer.

6. Step 6 as in Clear Procedure. Use simple forms.

Repeat 5, 5a, 5b, 5c and Step 6 alternately until clear.


L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:bt.rd
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 JULY AD 8



CARRYING ON


Members from Australian and South African HASIs are here attending the Congress and 20th ACC. They are working hard and learning fast.

In the meanwhile the Australian and SA staffs are carrying on short-handed and doing a very fine job of it.

I know how hard it is to cover additional posts for two months. And I wish to thank those staffs for carrying on.

Best,
LRH

LRH:bt nm
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 28 JULY 1958
All Staff
ACC Instructors
and students
Field Offices
COMMAND SHEET FOR HGC


CLEAR PROCEDURE


ON ALL COMMANDS: BEFORE AUDITOR GIVES THEM, HE MAKES CERTAIN HE HAS PC’S ATTENTION ON HIM AGAIN AND OFF LAST QUESTION.

CCH 0—Starting Session:

“Is it all right with you if we begin the session now?” “The session is started.”

GOALS: “What goal might you have for this session?”

(Be certain to end session with “Have we gained anything of your goal at the session’s beginning?”)

PT PROBLEM: (Caution: Problem itself, not just its terminals, must exist in pt.) “Do you have anything worrying you so much that you will have a difficult time keeping your attention on auditing?”

(If pc has)

“Describe the problem to me.”

(Pc does.)

“Does that problem exist in present time now?”

(If pc thinks it does): “What part of that problem could you be responsible for?”—or, “Invent a problem of comparable magnitude to that problem.” (Repetitive questions.) (No further descriptive name is allowed auditor in this command.)

Auditor frequently asks, “Describe that problem to me now.”—”Does that problem now exist in present time?”

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

ARC Break: “Have I done something you feel is wrong in this session?” “Describe it to me.”

Plenty of acknowledgement to pc, no further apology and certainly no explanation. Object is to get pc’s attention on auditor in present time, not earlier in session. Goal of TR 2, of goals, PT Problem and auditing is to get pc’s attention into present time, so don’t stack commands on the track or park pc somewhere in session or leave him in an out-of-session problem.

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

S-C-S: (Note: All formal auditing, except for final acknowledgement of cycle, which is Tone 40.) Commands:

START: “I am going to tell you to start. And when I tell you to start, you start the body in that direction. Do you understand that?” “Good.” “Start.” “Did you start that body?” “Thank you.”

STOP: “I am going to tell you to get the body moving in that direction. Somewhere along the line I will tell you to stop. Then you stop the body. Do you understand that?” “Good.” “Get the body moving.” “Stop.” “Did you stop the body?” “Thank you.”

CHANGE: “Do you see that spot?” “Good. We will call that Spot A. Now you stand here. O.K.” (Auditor indicates another spot.) “Now do you see that other spot?” “Good. We’ll call that Spot B. All right, now when I tell you to change the body’s position, YOU move it from Spot A to Spot B. All right?” “Good. Change the body’s position.” “Did you change the body’s position?” “Thank you.” “Do you see that spot?” “Well, we’ll call that Spot C. Now when I tell you to change the body’s position, YOU move the body from Spot B to Spot C. Do you understand that?” “Fine.” “Change the body’s position.” “Did you change the body’s position?” “Thank you, “

(NOTE: Change is run only to unflatten START and STOP, when both are flat.)


CONNECTEDNESS: Use: Only to unstick pc on meter when meter can’t be read well or when auditor desires to clear an object wrongly chosen as rock in order to look for another.

(a) “You get the idea of making that (object) connect with you.” (Auditor points.)
(b) (If pc isn’t looking at object with Mest body’s eyes, use following:) “Look at that (object).” “You get the idea of making that object connect with you.”
(c) (On blind humans:) “Feel that (object).” “You get the idea of making that object connect with you.”

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

HELP:

1. SCOUTING. This is a 2-way comm activity.

(a) “How do you feel about .. ?” Vary any object that sticks by asking
about specialized form. If a specialized form frees, go back to object that
stuck. Gradually sort object that consistently sticks from objects that stick
by association with it only.

(b) If pc reads high on Tone Arm, gets inconsistent lie reaction, use following: “What have you had to be responsible for?”

To be sure pc is reacting, turn Sensitivity knob very high.

Guide him carefully around his life until he gets on a sticky point. Then sort it out, attempting to get parts of it to clear up. Do not let pc linger on matters which do not stick.

Responsibility sorts the matter out. His realization (cognition) of various zones is what does him good.

This is not necessarily a repetitive command. It can be varied with “What part of that (discovered area or item) have you had to be responsible for?”

Large area of current lifetime can be freed up and with clues from what he has stuck on repeatedly and using what would not free, return to a standard scout as above.

By using part (b) a pc can be brought down on the Tone Arm and can be made to react more normally on meter.

2. Running Help in general: USE generalized items, not specific people or objects (don’t pin pc in current life).

General Help bracket: 9-way:

“How could you help yourself?”
“How could you help me?”
“How could I help you?”
“How could I help myself?”
“How could you help another person?”
“How could I help another person?”

“How could another person help you?”
“How could another person help me?”
“How could another person help another person?”

Running Help on an item:

“How could you help a .........?”
“How could a ...........help you?”
“How could another person help a .........?”
“How could a ...........help another person?”
“How could a ...........help itself?”
“How could you help yourself?”
“How could I help you?”
“How could you help me?”

Run in sequence as above. Do not give same command twice.

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

CLEARING COMMANDS: Clear each word and the full phrase once each with the following:

“What is the usual definition of the English (or other language) word .........?”

Do not ask for definitions over and over as a repetitive command. If pc’s definition is poor, clear command every few commands.

Clear only each different word in a bracket. Don’t clear each line in a bracket.

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

STEP SIX:

Select simple non-significant objects. Run:

“In front of that body you mock up a .............and keep it from going away.” “Did you?” “Thank you.”

Then use all directions from the body—”Behind that body...,” “To the left of that body . . . ,” “To the right of that body . . . ,” “Above that body . . . ,” “Below that body ....”

Run 6 objects each on six sides of the body on “Keep it from going away,” then proceed to “In front of that body you mock up a .....and hold it still.” Same procedure, then “In front of that body you mock up a........and make it a little more solid.” (There is no acknowledgement by auditor after pc mocks it up and keeps it from going away, etc, or the “Did you?”—there is acknowledgement only after full command is executed. Otherwise acks will thin pc’s mock-ups.)

Note: The objects should be simple at first, leading on up to complexity. But at first, keep them simple and non-significant.


LRH:md.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

[The above section on Clearing Commands has been excerpted as HCO B 28 February 1959, Clearing Commands, page 430. ]



** 5807C28 20ACC-11 ACC Command Sheet, Goals of Auditing
5807C29 20ACC-12 ACC Command Sheet (cont.)
** 5807C30 20ACC-13 ACC Command Sheet (cont.)

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 29 JULY 1958
Distribution
All staff
Field Offices


THE ROCK


The Rock is a Reach-Withdraw mechanism and the phenomenon of a stuck needle is the ridge so created.
--------------

The Rock is: That which a person has used to reach people or things with and is determined in value by its creativeness or destructiveness. It is simply the reach and withdraw mechanism which makes a ridge and this causes the stuck of the needle.

The Rock is AN OBJECT—it is NOT a significance. And you determine a scout by what the pc shies away from as well as what he sticks on—and a theta bop always winds up in a stuck needle if pursued in a scout.

CYCLE OF THE ROCK (object) A person (I) failed to communicate himself; (2) started using something to communicate with; (3) put the last item on automatic and it created for him; (4) it failed.

The Rock itself, when first located, will be a solution to many earlier cycles as described above. And so, a Rock is peeled off cycle by cycle as above.

The rule is to find the last cycle that is real enough to the pc to stick a needle and this is true of locating and running any lock of the Rock.

Be careful during a scout not to choose an object which makes the needle rise slowly, as this is an addition to the Rock which is being done gratuitously by the pc. (This factor is an indicator but it must not be run.) The Rock stick does not rise—it just sticks.


LRH:-.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED




20TH AMERICAN ACC LECTURES
Washington, D.C.
31 July—5 August 1958

5807C31 20ACC-14 Running the Case and the Rock
5808C01 20ACC-15 Case Analysis—Rock Hunting
5808C01 20ACC-15A Case Analysis—Rock Hunting (cont.)
5808C04 20ACC-16 Case Analysis (cont.)
** 5808C05 20ACC-17 ARC

Other lectures from the 20th ACC will be found listed on pages 293, 298, 300 and 302.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 5 AUGUST AD 8
Issue 2 Revised



The basic locating question of the Rock (primary aberrative object) is:

“What is a People Pleaser?”

It can also be run just like this: “How could you help a People Pleaser?” as an item bracket.

Do not “kid around with” or invalidate this Rock.


The new item bracket is as follows. It has been designed to preserve A-R-C and to be used in this exact order one command at a time:

The Rock Bracket:

How could a ................help itself?
How could you help a ................?
How could a .................help you?
How could I help a ..................?
How could a ..................help me?
How could another person help a .................?
How could a .................... help another person?
How could others help a .....................?
How could a ...................help others?
How could you help yourself?
How could I help myself?
How could you help me?
How could I help you?

Command words but not as a whole phrase are cleared often (every three brackets) and the pc is asked for his opinion only of the word “help” and the item. His answer is not challenged.


Only ARC breaks can hide Rock again after found—clear them well. CLEAR ALSO environmental ARC breaks on the Rock between sessions.


L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:b.rd
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


5808C06 20ACC- 18 The Rock, Its Anatomy
5808C07 20ACC-19 The Most Basic Rock of All Rocks
** 5808C07 20ACC-19A Question-and-Answer Period
5808C08 20ACC-19B Question-and-Answer Period (cont.)
** 5808C08 20ACC-20 Auditor Interest
** 5808C08 20ACC-20A Requisites and Fundamentals of a Session

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 10 AUGUST AD 8


ACC AUXILIARY PROCEDURE

For Optional Use

THIS IS A ROUGH DRAFT

1. Start Session.

2. Clear auditor with pc—”Who should I be to audit you?”

“What is it all right for me to do?”

“Look at me. Who am I?”

3. Get pc into session.

Establish goals for session.

“What question shouldn’t I ask you?” Handle resultant answers with Straightwire as indicated.

“Do you have anything worrying you so much that you will have a difficult time keeping your attention on auditing?”

Handle pt problem by Responsibility or Problems of Comparable Magnitude. “Invent a problem of comparable magnitude to that problem.” “Describe that problem to me.” “Does that problem exist in present time now?”

Run two-way bracket on Help. “How could you help me?” “How could I help you?” Flatten for the session. (Every time you audit somebody this should be touched on and flattened so that it will stay flat at least for that session. To flatten it for all time or for all sessions would be impossible.)

Check for ARC breaks. If they exist, take them up two-way comm, and also re-flatten above two-way bracket on Help.

WHEN AUDITOR AND PC ARE CLEARED FOR SESSION, ONLY THEN BEGIN ON CASE. THIS IS TRUE OF ALL SESSIONS AND ALL CASES. KEEP PC IN SESSION WITH ABOVE STEPS, USED WHENEVER PC WANDERS OFF IN SESSION. OF COURSE, DO NOT INTERRUPT UNFLATTENED PROCESS TOO SUDDENLY TO GET PC BACK INTO SESSION. ALWAYS USE COMM BRIDGES WHENEVER YOU CHANGE THE COURSE OF THE SESSION.

CLEAR ALL COMMANDS. ASK FOR OPINION OF KEY WORDS BUT NOT IN SUCH A WAY AS TO MAKE THIS ASKING A PROCESS. THE PC’S IDEA OF WHAT THE KEY WORDS ARE IS THE PC’S IDEA, AND A REPETITIVE ASKING FOR OPINION IS NOT A PROCESS BUT AN INVALIDATION.

4. Where pc’s idea of the following words is obviously impossible to make any process move, do the following on the words CHANGE, PROBLEM, HELP, CREATE, RESPONSIBILITY, PLEASED. A mis-definition on these words can keep a whole case from moving. It is not necessarily true that clearing these words clears a person. To reorient these words run the following process: “Invent a person” (and when pc has, do not acknowledge, but add:) “Tell me his idea of (key word).” This is a repetitive question.

5. Clear up psychosomatics as feasible with “What sort of a (limb, organ, body) would please people?” “Tell me a person that that would please.” This is actually one command with two questions which are used repetitively until psychosomatic or illness is markedly alleviated. This is done to give pc confidence in the auditor and certainty that something can happen in processing. It will only work if the first four steps are complete and in good working order.

6. Clear up desires about new or different states of mind with “What sort of a mind (personality as needful with those who cannot understand what a mind is) would please people?” “Tell me a person that that would please.” This is actually one auditing command with two questions. There is no acknowledgment after the first question, only after the second. This is used repetitively.

7. Isolate basic Rock by any method. Run Rock Help bracket on it.

Or, boost out with “What sort of a (Rock as found) would please people? Tell me a person that that would please.” See above for running directions.

8. Run general Help and Step 6 as given, first one then the other until case is clean, taking up any of above as needful to keep auditor and pc cleared and in session.

If you do these things with any case you should wind up with a clear. The length of time it takes depends upon the auditor’s skill in getting the auditing done and is much less modified by “severity of case”.


L. RON HUBBARD



LRH:md.rd
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



















20TH AMERICAN ACC LECTURE
Washington, D.C.
15 August 1958

5808C15 20ACC-21 Summary of 20th ACC

Other lectures from the 20th ACC will be found listed on pages 293, 298, 299 and 300.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 20 AUGUST 1958





PRESENT TIME PROBLEM—RUNNING OF


Auditors are occasionally unsuccessful in running present time problems, life computations and service facsimiles because they themselves are not alert to the definition of a problem.

A problem is two-terminaled. A single terminal cannot make a problem. The basic problem is Postulate-Counter Postulate. Therefore, when the preclear says his wife is a present time problem and the auditor runs “A problem of comparable magnitude to a wife”, he is not running a problem at all. He is running a condition. For this to be a problem the wife would have to include another terminal.

An auditor should make the preclear define the problem accurately as a problem, not as a condition or situation. The problem of “my wife’s desire for another man” is a problem. The problem of “my husband’s fooling around with machinery” is a problem.

Wherever a PT problem arises it is up to the auditor to locate an actual problem and get the preclear to describe it. He then runs “Invent a problem of comparable magnitude to that problem.” Thereafter frequently he says, “Describe that problem to me” and makes sure each time he does that the problem is described as a problem, not a single terminal or a condition. When running a PT problem he also asks, “Does that seem to be a problem to you now?”

Failure to get the preclear to define the problem as a problem will result in a failure to relieve the PT problem and the auditor and the preclear may proceed into the session believing implicitly that they have run the PT problem when, as a matter of fact, they have not even touched it but have in actuality run the conditions of a single terminal.

Probably the biggest holdup in all intensives is this fact of mis-definition of problems.

And in passing it may be remarked that given Clear Procedure the biggest delay on clearing is the failure of the auditor to run PT problems and ARC breaks. It might also be said that the preclear only protests violently about ARC breaks under one of the two following conditions: (I) the auditing is actually very bad and (2) the PT problem has not been run. As a rough rule of thumb it could be said that given well-intentioned auditing, a preclear only protests about ARC breaks when a PT problem has not been isolated and run. The problems connected with “being audited”, “being a preclear”, “the auditor”, have been rather uniformly overlooked by auditors, and cases which tend to hang up in processing are usually hung up on these.


L. RON HUBBARD




LRH: md.cden
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 20 AUGUST 1958





OUT OF SESSIONNESS


The mechanisms used by the preclear in living to keep his attention off the Rock are: to get involved with many present time problems, and ARC Breaks.

We used to believe that a thetan had to have problems. This is not true. A thetan thinks he needs problems to keep his attention exteriorized from the Rock chain and when the Rock is not run out he will continue to dream up problems in present time to keep his attention enforcedly fixed elsewhere than the Rock chain. A thetan will also dream up ARC Breaks to exteriorize his attention from a present time problem.

The common denominator of all locks on the Rock is ARC Breaks. Therefore, in running the Rock, expert auditing is necessary since in this case as in no other, the preclear will dream up ARC Breaks. When his attention flicks back to the Rock when he is between sessions, he will get himself involved in present time problems and ARC Breaks obsessively to keep his attention from going back on to the Rock chain.

Thus, we have the answer to the fact that a session will not progress unless the present time problem is run and alleviated and we also have the answer to the ARC Break difficulties. If the preclear is unsuccessful in keeping his attention off the Rock by a present time problem, he will then dramatize the Rock chain, which is another combination of motives which explains preclear behavior.

The moral of this story is to run out pt problems and to patch up all ARC Breaks or you will not find and run any Rocks.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:md.rd
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

AXIOMS & LOGICS

by L. Ron Hubbard

Published
August 1958

This soft-cover booklet contains The Logics and The Axioms of Dianetics, which first appeared in Advanced Procedure and Axioms in November, 1951, The Prelogics (also known as The Q’s) as given in the Philadelphia Doctorate Course in December, 1952, and The Axioms of Scientology of 1954, published in The Creation of Human Ability in April, 1955, plus later additions.

It should be borne in mind that these actually form epistemology, the science of knowledge. They cannot but embrace various fields and sciences. They are listed in this booklet without further elucidation but will be found to be self-explanatory for the most part. Adequate phenomena exist to demonstrate the self-evidence of definitions, postulates, logics, and axioms.

The logics are separate from the axioms only in that from the system of thinking so evaluated, the axioms themselves flow. The word logics is used here to mean postulates pertaining to the organizational structure of alignment.

This compilation was published in August 1958 in Ability magazine, number 80, from Washington, D.C. It was also printed as Certainty magazine, volume 5, number 21, in October 1958 from London.

40 pages, soft-cover. Also available in French. Available from your nearest Scientology Organization or Mission, or direct from the publishers: Scientology Publications Organization, Jernbanegade 6, 1608 Copenhagen V, Denmark; or Church of Scientology Publications Organization U.S., 2723 West Temple Street, Los Angeles, California, 90026, U.S.A.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 28 AUGUST 1958


CHANGE AUDITOR’S CODE


6. Do not process a preclear who is improperly fed or who has not received enough rest.

16. Maintain two-way communication with the preclear.

17. Never use Scientology to obtain personal and unusual favors or unusual compliance from the preclear for the auditor’s own personal profit.

18. Estimate the current case of your preclear with reality and do not process another imagined case.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:b.rd


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 SEPTEMBER 1958



HCA COURSE EXAMINATION


The cost for an individual challenging the HCA Course Examination is $25 for tests and interview and $15 for exam and cert. Exam alone can be given.

They must:

1. Pass HCA written exam 100% given by Academy Administrator. (If this is flunked, no further exam is given. It is always flunked.) (This is an opinion.)

If they passed written, then they have to:

2. Read well on IQ, APA, Tone Scale and Aptitude Tests.

3. Be passed by Comm Course Instructor on Comm Course TRs.

4. Be passed by Indoctrination Instructor on Indoc TRs.

5. Be passed by CCH Instructor on CCH Processes.

6. Be passed by Director of Training and be passed by Technical Director.

LRH:b.rd L. RON HUBBARD


** 5809C01 AUDC-20 How to Run Present Time Problems

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 12 SEPTEMBER 1958
Staff Auditor Hats

POST CASE ANALYSIS ROUTINE


When pc has been taken to the Director of Processing or case analyst (third party enters auditing picture in any way) the auditor must then

RE-ESTABLISH THE AUDITOR with

1. Two-way comm on analyst person.

2. “Who would I have to be to audit you successfully?”

3. “What am I doing?”

This is to avoid pc transferring to case analyst as auditor and then not coming back to session.

This is also done when pc has coffee shop auditing between sessions.


LRH:bjh LRH
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 12 SEPTEMBER 1958
Issue II


HAVINGNESS—NEW COMMANDS


The value of havingness has not diminished. However, it needed new commands. I have now developed these. They are remarkably more effective than Trio.

FACTUAL HAVINGNESS

“Look around here and find something you have.”

When this can be left—

“Look around here and find something that you would continue.”

When this can be left—

“Look around here and find something you would permit to vanish.”

Then return to first again.

The order may be reversed. Some cases may run 250 of the third before finding one of the first or second.

LRH:b:jh LRH
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 SEPTEMBER 1958


MORE ON TRAINING DRILL TWO

Avoidance of Double Acknowledgement is vital if you ever hope to keep pc in session.

Double Acknowledgement occurs when pc answers up, the auditor then acknowledges, and the pc then finishes his answer, leaving the auditor with another acknowledgement to do (and also leaving the auditor with no session).

Wrong:

Command: “What could you say to your father?”
PC: “I could say, ‘Hello’.”
Auditor: “FINE.”
PC: “. . . ‘Father, how are you?’ I could say that.”
Auditor: (weakly) “Good. What could you say to your father?”
PC: “I could say, ‘Are you feeling well?’ “
Auditor: (desperate by now) “GOOD ! “
PC: “. . . ‘enough to go fishing?’ “
Auditor: “Well, okay all right. Now ....”

A pc is not always sure he has answered the question so he often changes his mind. If the auditor gives him Tone 40 or any ack at all in between a pc’s reply the auditor is wrong.

You just don’t “encourage” a pc with a lot of agreement okays and yes in the midst of answers. The pc answers, the pc is sure he has answered and the auditor then acknowledges. After all, it’s the pc that must be satisfied.

There are many ways to mis-acknowledge a pc. But any mis-acknowledgement is only and always a failure to end the cycle of a command—auditor asks, pc replies and knows he has answered, auditor acknowledges. Pc knows auditor has acknowledged. That is a full auditing command cycle. Don’t forget it and expect a process to work, it won’t. The roughest spot in most students is TR 2, not so much how to acknowledge but when.

An auditor running into this with a pc should handle it this way.

Auditor: “What could you say to your father?”
PC: “I could say, ‘Are you feeling well?’ “
Auditor: “Did that answer the question?”
PC: “Well, no. I could say, ‘Are you feeling well enough to go fishing?’“
Auditor: “Did that answer the question?”
PC: “Yes, I guess it did. He always liked fishing and sympathy.”
Auditor: (sure pc is through) “Good! What could you say to your father?”

And there’s the way of it. If the pc is not sure he has answered and that the auditor has accepted the answer, the pc will get no benefit from the auditing. And that’s how important that is.

You can always spot a bad auditor. He does two things: he talks too much to the pc and he stops the pc from properly answering.

Add all the above to all training of students.


LRH: md.rd
copyright ©1958 L. RON HUBBARD
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

[PAB 145, More on Training Drill Two, 1 October 1958, is taken from this HCO B.]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 29 SEPTEMBER 1958



VITAL TRAINING DATA

(This Bulletin Changes the Character of Training)


No instructor can train a student unless he follows the Instructor’s Code. This code is learned by heart by an instructor, not read.

Wherever we are making poor auditors, we have confused the role of the Academy with that of the HGC. The HGC processes, the Academy trains only.

Tell every student, tell every class of students, tell every instructor many times,

THERE ARE ONLY AUDITORS AT THE ACADEMY. THERE ARE NO CASES.

Every time you as an instructor get interested in the student’s case, you make him put up his engrams for your inspection. Every time you get interested in his auditing skill only, you make him put up auditing skill for your interest.

From this date:

UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES MAY AN ACADEMY TAKE UP THE PERSONAL OR CASE PROBLEMS OF A STUDENT.

We’ve got 2,500,000,000 preclears. We can somehow control ourselves long enough to make a few auditors.

They are made by direct, blunt instruction, the tougher the better. They are unmade by a lot of super saccharine sympathy about their poor, hopeless little cases.

So let’s go, training units. No more clinics where there should be schools. You’ll have nothing but cases forever if you don’t make some auditors!

The week’s intensive formerly offered with courses is turned over herewith to HGCs. No further clinics as such may be run by Academies. Auditing may occur in Academies but there may not be preclear conferences, general or private, about the students’ own cases. This works a hardship on HGCs to some degree but HGCs occasionally are victimized by having to train late students who were not trained but only processed through to HCA/HPA. Thus an HGC has an interest in training quality.

Hereinafter all processing for keeps will be done in the HGC and all training will be done in the Academy.

There is a standard toward which a student is trained. It includes two disciplines. Formal Auditing and Tone 40 Auditing. Formal is taught in Comm Course, Tone 40 in Upper Indoc. Students must know their codes and must know how to follow them—no evaluation, no invalidation.

All of Dianetics, the Anatomy branch of Scientology must be taught.

The six simple types of processing are taught.

The axioms are taught.

Anatomy of the mind is taught, not just a lot of figure-figure theory. The student gets there by finding he can confront in a preclear locks, secondaries, engrams, chains, time track, circuits, machinery, valences, the parts of livingness.

Manifestations of phenomena are taught, overt-act motivator sequences, problems, computations, cognitions, comm lags, introversion, extroversion, exteriorization, A-R-C.

Scales are taught—ARC Scale, Effect Scale. The Academies must now undertake 3 separate courses and adhere to each.

If an instructor won’t confront students he starts a big theory course that avoids all anatomy, takes up the personal problems of the students, excuses every failure to teach by saying it was student case. If case gets in the road send the student to the HGC to pay for auditing or not. If theory gets in the road of training auditors, teach anatomy only.

Let’s go on this.

I am instructing all HCO Boards of Review to examine completely on the above outlined items only and to flunk hard any student who doesn’t know his subject. We care little for the synopses and the paper work. We want auditors who know their business, not a lot of squirrels.

A pc gets well in direct ratio to his ability to confront the anatomy of life, the anatomy of mind and the physical universe.

How do you suppose you’ll ever get any auditing done if the student can’t confront, via a pc yet, life, the anatomy of the mind and the physical universe. It’s easier for a student to confront than a preclear to confront.

I’ve got a big idea for training: to wit: Let’s deliver the goods!


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:md.rd
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
1812 19th Street, N.W., Washington 9, D.C.
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 OCTOBER AD 8




ACC CLEAR PROCEDURE



The Goal of the Auditor: to help the preclear re-establish confidence in his ability to confront Thetans, Thought, Time, Life, Energy, Matter and Space.

The theory of auditing: the preclear has lost confidence in his ability to face existence and its parts and has difficulty in participation. He is trapped in many of those things he has failed to confront or has been prevented from confronting or has prevented others from confronting or didn’t exist.

By gradient scales his confidence in confronting Thought, Time, Life, Energy, Matter and Space is improved. The rule is, “Find something the preclear can confront and improve that ability.” This normally begins with some part of an auditor. In less able cases, it begins with a thought of the auditor’s or the preclear’s.

Auditing is not erasure. Erasure dramatizes lost things to confront.

Where an auditor can be confronted and makes corny errors, the preclear stops being able to confront—hence the graph goes down on ARC breaks only. Therefore, the stress on smooth auditing.

A present time problem makes it hard for the preclear to confront the session. Therefore the stress on handling present time problems.

Auditing has as its sole liability confronting on a via—it may look to the auditor that he is using the pc (preclear) to confront things and this can be restimulative if the auditor doesn’t know what he is doing. If the auditor is actively preventing the pc from confronting anything or has as his goal never permitting the pc to confront, there’s trouble to hand.

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

ARC, in auditing, is:

A = the ability to be in or at a distance from something.

R = the ability to co-exist with something.

C = the ability to transmit thought between two or more points.

Thus we see that the minimum of two anything is needed for the conditions of ARC to occur.

In actuality the thetan incurs no liability in confronting or not confronting, being in or not being in things and thus a total confronting or total non-confronting are attainable goals. The thetan believes things about confronting or necessities to confront or not to confront and so becomes aberrated (not straight-lined). To confront, knowing is necessary. Unknown confronting or not confronting, when uncovered, gives us the phenomenon of “cognition”—and that is the definition of it.

Auditing is that process which restores confidence in confronting and undoes necessity to confront Thought, Time, Life, Energy, Matter and Space.

Theory of Auditing

It should be realized that an optimum Clear Procedure should take a preclear from the lowest possible levels up to clear. Earlier procedures (1957-1958) did not attempt to address every case but were content to handle about 50% of the preclears. The remainder had to have special address just as cases. Therefore, auditors adopted the idea that on one hand there was Clear Procedure and on the other hand low level procedure—they did not place one above the other in a gradient scale to clear. This particular Clear Procedure does that.

In use it should be realized that different cases require different emphasis. An easy case would not demand a tedious command clearing, suspicious probing to break non-existent occlusions or emphasis on the lower steps. Indeed, these lower steps could be skipped up to CCH 0.

It is all a matter of judgment, how long and hard to run which. Two errors are potential: both rest on accurate case estimation. The commonest is to overestimate the level of the case. And not uncommon, to audit a high level case with very low level processes. The answer is to audit the case one is auditing, not some other case or one’s own case.

Since estimation and auditor-sensitivity are subject to variety and error one cannot cleanly estimate the length of time required to clear anyone. Only approximations are possible and these are varied by possible environmental difficulties of the preclear during auditing: i.e., daily present time problems of crushing magnitude.

We are not today in the area of thousands of hours, however. We are in the area of hundreds of hours in any case, sane or insane. I cite an example: a woman suffering from a postpartum psychosis was audited 600 hours on CCH 1, 2, 3, 4 before she turned sane long enough for the auditor to snap off the case the valence of her dying brother, at which moment she turned stably sane. Only then could she have been audited on less fundamental steps. However, auditors are not concerned with the insane but often address relatively unconscious people. This example is cited as the most extreme time in auditing we have on record with modern technique.

I would not be surprised that, with all variables introduced, some case required 800 hours to clear. On a jigsaw puzzle test such a case would have failed to have fitted a single piece in the first 30 seconds, by our present method of estimation.

There are several means of establishing an idea of length of time in processing from present state to clear. The minimum in any case would be three weeks (75 hours); the probable maximum would be 1,000 hours. Between these extremes, we have most people. The peak of the cure would probably be around 250 hours, as estimated by older clearing methods.

Anxieties to attain faster push-button clearing defeat most research. These speed methods violate the reality of the preclear and too thoroughly evaluate for him. In all cases of clearing it is only the reality of the preclear which milestones the gains. That reality requires a certain speed of advance. While being audited, also, a preclear is living, and his surroundings require his attention. Man is somewhat cautious. He must adjust himself within his own ideas of security. The auditor always knows what is wrong with the preclear long before the preclear finds out. One must permit the preclear to find out! That discovery is only assisted, never blackjacked into being (see Psychiatry: The Greatest Flub of the Russian Civilization, by Tom Esterbrook). The patient is part of the therapy—a lesson the Russ school never learned.

Therefore, Clear Procedure starts where it should, CCH 1.

In running the CCHs, a set procedure is followed not only with the single process but with the series. One will discover that only one of the series of CCH 1, 2, 3, 4 bites the first time through. It is useless to run very long on the ones that don’t bite. Example: An auditor does CCH 1 for an hour—no bite. He does CCH 2 for an hour or

so-no bite. He does CCH 3 and it bites He does it for a few hours and CCH 3 levels off a bit. Now he returns to CCH 1 and finds it bites. He flattens it a bit, does CCH 2 for an hour, CCH 3 for a couple of hours and when he starts CCH 4, now this one bites! He flattens it in a few hours, goes back to CCH 1, etc.

The processes CCH 1, 2, 3, 4 are all of a piece. They are done in series fashion, not as individual items.

CCH 1, 2, 3, 4

Number: 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 preclear’s lap. And “Thank you,” ending cycle. All Tone 40 with clear intention, one command in one unit of time, no originations of preclear acknowledged in any way verbally or physically. May be run on right hand, left hand, both hands, each one flattened in turn.

Position: Auditor and preclear seated in chairs without arms, close together. Auditor’s knees both to auditor’s left of preclear’s knees, outside of auditor’s right thigh against outside of preclear’s right thigh. This position reversed for left hand. In both hands preclear’s knees are between auditor’s knees.

Purpose: To demonstrate to preclear that control of preclear’s body is possible, despite revolt of circuits, and inviting preclear to directly control it. Absolute control by auditor then passes over toward absolute control of his own body by preclear.

Training Stress: Never stop process until a flat place is reached. To process with good Tone 40. Auditor taught to pick up preclear’s hand by wrist with auditor’s thumb nearest auditor’s body, to have an exact and invariable place to carry preclear’s hand to before clasping, clasping hand with exactly correct pressure, replacing hand (with auditor’s left hand still holding preclear’s wrist) in preclear’s lap. Making every command and cycle separate. Maintaining Tone 40. Stress on intention from auditor to preclear with each command. To leave an instant for preclear to do it by own will before auditor does it. Stress Tone 40 precision. To keep epicenters balanced. CCH l(b) should also be flattened.

History: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in the 17th ACC, Washington, D.C., 1 957.

Number: CCH 2

Name: Tone 40 8-C.

Commands: “Look at that wall.” “Thank you.”
“Walk over to that wall.” “Thank you.”
“With the right hand, touch that wall.” “Thank you.”
“Turn around.” “Thank you.”
Run without acknowledging in any way any origination by preclear, acknowledging only preclear’s execution of the command. Commands smoothly enforced physically. Tone 40, full intention.

Position: Auditor and preclear ambulant, auditor in physical contact with preclear as needed.

Purpose: To demonstrate to preclear that his body can be directly controlled and thus inviting him to control it. Finding present time. Havingness. Other effects not fully explained.

Training Stress: Absolute auditor precision. No drops from Tone 40. No flubs. Total present time auditing. Auditor turns preclear counterclockwise, then steps always on preclear’s right side. Auditor’s body acts as block to forward motion when preclear turns. Auditor gives command, gives preclear a moment to obey, then enforces command with physical contact of exactly correct force to get command executed. Auditor does not check preclear from executing commands.

History: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington, D.C., in 1957 for the 17th ACC.

Number: CCH 3

Name: Hand Space Mimicry.

Commands: Auditor raises two hands, palms facing preclear, 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 the motion?” “Good.” “Put your hands in your lap.” When this is flat the auditor does this same thing with a half inch of space between his and the preclear’s palms. When this is flat auditor does it with a wider space and so on until preclear is able to follow motions a yard away.

Position: Auditor and preclear seated, close together facing each other, preclear’s knees between auditor’s.

Purpose: To develop reality on the auditor, using the reality scale (solid communication line). To get preclear into communication by control + duplication.

Training Stress: That auditor be gentle and accurate in his motions, giving preclear wins. To be free in two-way communication.

History: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard, in Washington, D.C., in 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.

Number: CCH 4

Name: Book Mimicry.

Commands: Auditor makes a simple or complex motion with a book. Hands book to preclear. Preclear makes motion duplicating auditor’s mirror-image-wise. Auditor asks preclear if he is satisfied that the preclear duplicated the motion. If preclear is and auditor is also fairly satisfied, auditor takes back the book and goes to next command. If preclear says he is and auditor is fairly sure preclear isn’t, auditor takes back book and repeats command and gives book to preclear again for another try. If preclear is not sure he duplicated any command, auditor repeats it for him and gives him back the book. Tone 40 only in motions. Verbal two-way quite free.

Position: Auditor and preclear seated facing each other a comfortable distance apart.
Purpose. To bring up preclear’s communication with control and duplication. (Control + duplication = communication.)

Training Stress: Stress giving preclear wins. Stress auditor’s necessity to duplicate his own commands. Circular motions are more complex than straight lines.

History: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard for the 16th ACC in Washington, D.C., 1957. Based on duplication developed by LRH in London, 1952.

CCH 0

(1) Start Session by saying “Start of Session”. Don’t discuss things and then start session and startle preclear, who thought he was in session all the time. To do this throws pc out of session. Also, you can’t end a session that was never started.

(2)(a) Establish Auditor. Clear auditor with pc. Discuss any successful auditing in the past, even successful doctoring. Shake pc loose from heavy ARC with past practitioners, not by running down practitioners, but getting pc to realize he has been helped. Develop this into process, “Who should I be to help you successfully?” Get it flat, then run “What am I doing?”

(2)(b) Establish Preclear. Put preclear more in session with goals—”What would you like to accomplish through Scientology?” “What would you like to accomplish in this session?” The foregoing two we care little about. We now hit this hard: “What are you willing to have happen in this session?” We get a final clear answer to this even if it takes an hour of two-way comm. Then we establish, “What are you absolutely certain will happen in (finite period of time such as ten minutes or one hour)?”

(2)(c) Establish problems, if any. Run “Is there any place you would like to be more than here?” When this is threshed out, “Is there any place you should

be rather than here?” This may bring any present time problem to view. If it does, audit it with “What part of that problem could you be responsible for?” If pc is too agitated to run this or if two-way comm cuts his havingness badly, run Factual Havingness: “Look around here and find something you have.” When this can be left, “Look around here and find something that you would continue.” When this can be left, “Look around here and find something you would permit to vanish.” Then return to first again. (The order may be reversed. Some cases may run 250 of the third before finding one of the first or second.) Factual Havingness can resolve present time problems, which are always and only threats of loss.

If preclear seems hard to audit, is in propitiation, does obsessive agreement, has hypnotic eyelid flutter, or in general seems unnatural about talking or not talking, you can put pc into session and get present time problem most rapidly by spending real time on this: “What question shouldn’t I ask you?” and sort it out on a meter, with two-way comm, then ask question again, etc., until pc is really talking to the auditor. The goal of present time problems or problems is to get pc in session. The goal of this, “What question shouldn’t I ask you?” is not to learn the pc’s secrets but to get pc to talk freely to auditor. Accomplishing this one thing on a hitherto non-advancing pc is a great thing and will make the pc advance faster than anything else. Get the pc to talk to you honestly.

Then take up present time problems directly: “Do you have a present time problem?” Preclear says he does but needle on meter doesn’t move. Ask question a few more times—”Is there anything worrying you?” you can say for variation. If needle still doesn’t drop, forget it. IF NEEDLE DROPS pursue it and run only the problem that drops. Don’t run problems that don’t drop! Keep your eyes on the meter while handling pc with present time problems, expand what falls, not something else. Pc can’t confront his problems, therefore the drop vanishes easily, comes back and drops again. This can fool an auditor badly if he doesn’t watch his meter and take up to run and discuss only the drop. (Note: If the meter is “Stage Four” [idle swing, not clear but pc can’t affect meter, which only swings up, sticks, falls and so forth on same pattern—a Stage Four needle has a stick in the top of its oscillation, a clear needle doesn’t] or if it is too stuck to show a fall on a problem, play safe, run Factual Havingness or Connectedness.)

This exact way to run a present time problem can make a full intensive.

Command (when problem located): “Describe that problem to me now.” Make sure pc does. ACCEPT ANY VERSION PC GIVES YOU, BUT ONLY FOLLOW THROUGH ON A VERSION THAT DROPS ON METER. If the version drops, run the following for two or five commands, “What part of that problem could you be responsible for?” Then whether drop on meter vanishes or not, say, “Describe that problem to me now.” If the described problem did not drop, buy it but don’t run it, say again, “Describe that problem to me now.” If you can handle this type of problem-handling, if you got pc to really talk to you, you can practically clear a case on this since it gets out of case the succumb postulates that war against betterment. This is the scale of succumb problems from the bottom up: How to go unconscious; How to feel nothing; How to go insane; How to escape; How to die; How to get shed of responsibilities so one can die; How not to care; How to endure; How to get better; How to Live; How to live better. There are inner levels. The basic problem is a “whether” (all problems are “whether” or “how”): Whether to Survive or Succumb. Decisions to do either are, if obsessive, the stable data in the center of the major confusions. When a pc is sitting there in heavy succumb postulates his goals and the auditor’s goals are on opposite vectors. Therefore, preclears who don’t get better aren’t trying to get better no matter how much they say they are. Hence a whole case can run on this provided some havingness is also run from time to time.

In brief, this is where running a present time problem well gets to.

Remember, a problem is not a condition or a terminal. It is a “how” or “whether”. It is a doingness, not a person. “My wife” is no answer to a present time problem question. “How to live with my wife” is a problem. “Whether or not to live

with my wife” is a problem. “My wife’s illness” is not a problem. “How to cure my wife’s illness” is a problem.

Sometimes a pc will come right down on an old stable decision about the problem and say, “It isn’t a problem to me now.” The auditor must not buy this. He wants to know “Why?” until pc is off the old solution and can go on describing problems.

How to be audited. How to stay in session. Whether the auditor has pc’s interest at heart. Such present time problems are very much in order to ask about.

To completely flatten any problem it is necessary to run not “responsible for” but “Invent a problem of comparable magnitude to that problem.” This is run in the same way as above, but is given more commands for each version handed out by the pc. This is the problem command if you want it flat forever. Don’t lose this process or command from your repertoire.

(2)(d) Getting Auditor and Pc established. Take up any ARC breaks with pc or any breaks between pc and past auditors. Always clear away ARC breaks. Don’t dodge them as an auditor.

Explaining why the break occurred is an Auditor’s Code violation—Evaluation.

Saying that the ARC break didn’t occur or was the pc’s fault is an Auditor’s Code violation—Invalidation.

When an auditor fails to take responsibility for the ARC break he loses the responsibility of running the session—which, of course, causes a session to cease to exist.

The relative destructive value of an ARC break is greater than the failure.

ALWAYS HANDLE CCH 0 in every session well except when giving not a session but an Assist only.

TR 11

TR 11. ARC Straight Wire. That process best calculated to orient pc in his past is ARC Straight Wire.

Commands: “Recall something that was really real to you.” “Thank you.” “Recall a time when you were in good communication with someone.” “Thank you.” “Recall a time when you really liked someone.” “Thank you.” The three commands are given in that order and repeated in that order consistently.

Position: Auditor and preclear seated facing each other at a comfortable distance.

Purpose: To give the student reality on the existence of a bank. This is audited on another student and is audited until the other student is in present time. It will be found that the process discloses the cycling action of the preclear going deeper and deeper into the past and then more and more shallowly into the past until he is recalling something again close to present time. This cyclic action should be studied and understood and the reality on the pictures the preclear gets should be thoroughly understood by the student. The fact that another has pictures should be totally real to the student under training.

History: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in 1951 in Wichita, Kansas. This was once a very important process. It has been known to bring people from a neurotic to a sane level after only a short period of application. It has been run on a group basis with success but it should be noted that the thinkingness of the individuals in the group would have to be well under the control of the auditor in order to have this process broadly beneficial. When it was discovered that this process occasionally reduces people’s havingness, the process itself was not generally run thereafter. It is still, however, an excellent process with that proviso, a reduction of havingness in some cases.

Many cases have achieved their first step upward with the process. It is a process which, known, gives the pc the comfortable feeling that he at least has stopped getting worse and that there is something that permits him to hold his own.

In the 20th ACC Lectures I described how all entheta receives its charge from theta. ARC in the bank makes ARC breaks possible. A re-orientation of ARC can be more important than one realizes. The way to blow ARC breaks can be more ARC. Even a psychotic may rise up to merely neurotic on ARC Straight Wire.

The cyclic aspect of ARC Straight Wire must receive attention.

You don’t want to know what when he recalls something, you want to know when. Ask, “When was that?” frequently and you will see pc slide into past and then return to present time as a regular cycle. Don’t end the process while pc is still in past. Don’t finish the process with a comm bridge that leaves him in the past. Just warn him that the process will soon end, and stop it when pc’s recall was of a near present time thing.

You get lots of past lives in view this way. Buy them.

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

Lasting and easily obtained results were gained in 1956 by using just two processes. With the 1958 Theory of Auditing (above) it is easy to see why. These are basically confrontingness processes. They were S-C-S and Connectedness.

I developed these two for use in combination for a standardization of processing for a whole firm that was having its employees processed in London in 1956. The results were so good that Mary Sue Hubbard, while Director of Processing London, used the same regimen on all preclears with uniformly astonishing results.

The exact regimen used in that period was as follows: simple S-C-S on objects with pc and auditor seated at a table. Then S-C-S on the body. Then “Keep it from going away” and “Hold it still” on two small objects with pc seated, using first one object then the other and always touching them with his hands at command. Finally, subjectively, on facsimiles, “Keep it from going away,” and “Hold it still.” Throughout, Connectedness was used to bolster havingness as needed with the command, “You make that (indicated object) connect with you.”

The regimen as given here was superseded because auditors, unsupervised, tended to complicate the processes and not until a short time ago did we learn that the best answer to an auditor’s desire for “more information” was a repetition of what he was told the first time. He didn’t understand the original and so wanted a new one. Further, in supervised processing, there has been a frailty in that the auditor sometimes reported, “I did what you said and it didn’t work.” An unwary supervisor then gives him a new process to do. A wary one says in reply to the above, “What didn’t work?” and usually discovers that the supervisor’s directions were neither remembered nor run. This set of factors has accounted for many abandonments of SOPs (standard operating procedures) which were in actuality working like mad, only the people they were given to never used them, only said they did, and fed bad data back. It is the role of a supervisor to get the process he gave out run, not another version of it.

CCH 3(c)

The rationale behind S-C-S was simple: it placed the pc in the auditor’s control. And it placed the pc’s body under his own control. But there is more to S-C-S than this since it is also a confrontingness process.

CCH 3(c)

Name: S-C-S on a person. (Start, change and stop on a person.)

Commands: There are three sets of commands, each one of which is run until it is relatively flat. The commands are as follows: “Now we are going to start the body.

When I say start, you start that body in this (indicated) direction. All right, Start.” The commands for “Change” are as follows (indicating four positions on the floor one after the other): “This we are going to call Spot A. This we are going to call Spot B. This we are going to call Spot C and this we are going to call Spot D. Do you have that? All right, when I say Change, I want you to change the position of that body from A to B. All right, Change.” (The same applies for the other positions.) The commands for “Stop” are as follows: “Now I want you to get that body moving in (indicated) direction, and when I say Stop, I want you to stop that body. All right, move that body. Stop.” Each one of the commands is followed with the question, “Did you start that body?” “Did you change the position of that body?” “Did you stop that body?”

Position: Auditor and preclear ambulant. Auditor accompanies preclear as he walks and occasionally touches him and turns him around manually as needed to assist the preclear.

Purpose: To give the preclear good control of his body and to exteriorize him.

Training Stress: Stress is on precision of the motion and command.

History: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in 1955 as an exteriorization process. First discovered in 1952 was the fact that a person, which is to say a thetan, stays as close to an object as he has confidence in his controlling of it.

GP-3

Connectedness. The basic form of any havingness process is Connectedness. After one flattens S-C-S, one then runs Connectedness on the preclear.

Commands.

(a) “You get the idea of making that (object) connect with you.” (Auditor points. )

(b) If pc isn’t looking at object with Mest body’s eyes, use following: “Look at that (object).” “You get the idea of making that object connect with you.”

(c) On blind humans: “Feel that (object).” “You get the idea of making that object connect with you.”

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

There is a new version of havingness called Factual Havingness. It is used in conjunction with any subjective process such as those subjective processes which follow.

Factual Havingness Commands.

“Look around here and find something you have.”

“Look around here and find something that you would continue.”

“Look around here and find something you would permit to vanish.”

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

Confrontingness

The earliest clearing process, made more workable by repetitive commands and a broad understanding achieved in the ensuing 11 years, is made part of the most modern (1958) procedure.

I was clearing people in 1947 by getting them to look at locks, secondaries, engrams, circuits and the physical universe. I cleared a lot of people in about 100 hours each. All I did was renew their confidence in being able to “look at” their pictures. I turned on sonic, tactile, the works, with renewing confidence, lessening fear.

Three years later, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health was written. Its processes are slanted toward teaching people to audit and are the result of people not doing and saying they did. Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health

processes are good. They are the best training processes re banks there are. They train an auditor better than they clear a pc.

We now return to earliest clearing with what we now call Confrontingness. See “Theory of Auditing” above.

In general, we persuade the pc to confront things at his own gradient scale of willingness.

We find an ability to confront and we improve it.


Body Confrontingness

This is close to a specific for a chronic somatic.

Auditor: “What part of that body can you confront?”

Pc: “Elbow.”

Auditor: “What part of that elbow can you confront best?”

Pc: “The wrist.”

Auditor: “Thank you.”

This is the whole cycle of the command. The auditor does not correct the pc when “part of” becomes some other part of the body.


Subjective Confrontingness

General version:

“What mental view can you confront?” “What part of it can you confront best?” “Thank you.”

The above wording allows for dark fields and other phenomena and runs easily on an occluded case.

For a person who has pictures and sensations, a more specific form using “pictures”, as well as “emotions”, “feelings”, “sounds”, “thoughts”, etc., can be used.

There can be and will be many versions of confrontingness given. Suffice here that the above work well and can form an entirety of clearing. They are a refinement, a simplification of the first version of clearing and should work as well today.


Participation

We must not overlook the factor of participation in life. Participation in session is necessary for processing to work. It is achieved by bettering the factor “Confronting”.

Auditing toward the goal of total non-confront is eventually to achieve total non-participation. This is highly undesirable.

Destruction as an impulse has as its goal the removal of the need to confront. When one can confront he does not need to destroy. Unwillingness to confront is the source of most “have to be processed”. One is asking the auditor to destroy “all these horrible things”. Obsessive confronting is almost as bad. “Can’t confront it so I’ll prove I can by confronting it forever—and I’ll keep on creating it to prove I can confront it.” The mechanics of the bank can be worked out on such a basis.

Participation is only possible when one can also confront. Gradient scale of confronting can lead to participation without being overwhelmed.

Survival

All processes since the earliest endeavors in this search have aligned on “Survive”. Continuance in Factual Havingness expresses this factor. The postulate to Survive is invalidative of the fact that a thetan cannot do otherwise. The whole key to brainwashing and punishment is that they make a thetan postulate survival which is “continuous confronting”. This is handled by various versions of confronting.

Creating

A reactive bank comes from obsessive creating. A thetan’s answer to being threatened or struck is to create. His basic training is all aligned along creating something. This factor is used in various ways in processing, usually inherent in a process.


Help

Probably the first thing that will have to be taken up in some cases is the subject of Help. To this degree Help is part of CCH 0 in establishing an auditor-preclear relationship. People who do not volunteer to be audited at all will require help orientation as the first step. Five hours on Help with such a person, using a two-way bracket, is often well spent. But such a bracket must be exceptionally well audited, without ARC breaks, to begin an intensive or to repair ARC breaks.

Aside from the above, Help is of vast importance.

The first burning question, when we approach Help as a process, is, “What condition would you have to be in to get help?” This is usually the condition the pc is in. The repetitive command for this is, “Mock up (or invent) somebody in such a condition that they would receive help.”


HELP ON THE ROCK

The “Rock” is the thing the preclear uses to reach people. It is an object far back on the track. It is confrontingness on a via.

The E-Meter is used to locate a stuck object. This is a “lock on the rock”. (The stuck can be freed by using Connectedness on the room, always.)


Help Bracket on the Rock

Use in this exact order, one command at a time:

How could a _______ help itself?
How could you help a _______ ?
How could a _______ help you?
How could I help a _______?
How could a help me?
How could another person help a _______?
How could a _______ help another person?
How could others help a _______?
How could a _______ help others?
How could you help yourself?
How could I help myself?
How could you help me?
How could I help you?

The command words, but not as a whole phrase, are cleared often (every 3 brackets) and the pc is asked for his opinion only of the word “help” and the item. His answer is not challenged.

General Help Bracket

How could you help yourself?
How could you help me?
How could I help you?
How could I help myself?
How could you help another person?
How could I help another person?
How could another person help you?
How could another person help me?
How could another person help another person?

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

Responsibility

The basic clearing process using responsibility is, “You make a picture for which you can be wholly responsible.”

This, flattened, can make a clear.

It uses the fact that a person is making his whole bank anyway and it persuades him to realize it.

Some version of responsibility is required to end all clearing.

Assignment of responsibility is at the bottom of the search for phenomena and magic to clear people.

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

Answers

Everyone who does not change in processing is being an answer. He “has it made”.

Therefore, there is an opposite side to problems. That is answers.

“Mock up a problem for which you are (or your condition is) the answer.”


Origins (Originations)

The original version was: “What origin of yours has been mishandled?” “Recall a time when you were pleased with that person.”

A shorter version is, “What origin of yours has been handled properly?”

Any creation is an origin in a communication line, for the purposes of auditing. Hence the importance of origins.


THE BUTTONS

There are certain buttons which depress clearing if the pc has erroneous definitions for them. These are:

CHANGE, PROBLEM, HELP, PLEASED, CREATE, RESPONSIBILITY, CONFRONT.

Various processes redefine them in action. This is such a process:

“Invent a person who likes (the button).”

STEP 6

A cleared person is no longer in confusion about Help or who makes the mock-ups. “Help and Step 6” were the early 1958 clues to clear. These are still used as tests and even when their running is brief, they must be run.

Caution: It is almost fatal to run Step 6 if the rock is not out.

How to Run Step 6:

Select simple nonsignificant objects. Run: “In front of that body you mock up a _______ and keep it from going away.” “Did you?” “Thank you.”

Then use all directions from the body—”Behind that body . . . ,” “To the left of that body . . . ,” “To the right of that body . . . ,” “Above that body . . . ,” “Below that body ....”

Run 6 objects each on 6 sides of the body on “Keep it from going away,” then proceed to “In front of that body you mock up a and hold it still.” Same procedure, then “In front of that body you mock up a and make it a little more solid.” (There is no acknowledgment by auditor after pc mocks it up and keeps it from going away, etc., or the “Did you?”—there is acknowledgment only after full command is executed. Otherwise acknowledgments will thin the pc’s mock-ups.)

Note: The objects should be simple at first, leading on up to complexity. But at first, keep them simple and nonsignificant.

Read and understand Scientology 8-8008, and use an E-Meter throughout.

A valuable side process here: “Decide to make a mock-up. Decide that will ruin the game. Decide not to do it.” Also this one: “Decide to make a mock-up everyone can see. Decide that would ruin the game. Decide not to do it.”

* * *

In the above there are several roads to Clear. But there are also several levels of case to be cleared. Experience tells one what to run. Auditing skill alone gets the experience across.

The original 1947 processes were defeated in the hands of others by lack of auditing drills and skill.

Help and Step 6 do not work on low level cases to make clears of everyone—hence the CCHs.

By doing all of the above on every case you would certainly have clears in all cases. As your experience increases you can begin to omit steps.

You will finally be able to adjust the processes to the exact cases you do.

Get the preclear in session, run something. You’ll win.


LRH:-.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED




[The above was made available as a booklet called ACC Clear Procedure and is referred to as such in various issues. ]

P.A.B. No. 146
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

15 October 1958

PROCEDURE CCH

(This lecture is a final summing up of the previous CCH PABs [interrupted at PAB No. 138] and should be read after those have been digested. It was given by L. Ron Hubbard to the HGC staff auditors in Washington, D.C. on 23 August 1957.



Thinkingness in general should not be suspected to be under anybody’s control. It is probably more under the auditor’s control than it is under the preclear’s.

When I say or ask “Is the preclear’s thinkingness under control?” I want you to understand that it is less under the preclear’s control at any time than under the auditor’s. The auditor can certainly control the preclear’s thinkingness better than the preclear can. But before you can do this you must first get the preclear’s body and attention under control.

A condition to running Trio is: Is the person and attention under your control? To assume that the power of choice is also under the preclear’s control—much less his thinkingness—is, of course, completely wrong.

This condition then moves Trio way up on the present scale of processes. In order to give the preclear some havingness after CCH 0 to 5 has been flattened, I have developed an undercut to Trio.

Trio is a directive process and should be prefaced by “Get the idea of having that clock.” “Get the idea of having that picture (indicated picture on the wall),” etc. That’s highly directive and would keep thinkingness of a rough case under control.

The second version is: “Get the idea that it is all right to permit that (indicated object) to continue.” It is also just an indicating process.

The third section of this trio is the clincher: “Get the idea of making that (indicated object) disappear.” One runs “disappear” instead of “dispense with” or “not-know.”

Small objects are much easier for the preclear to make disappear than large ones. You have not told him to make it disappear but only to “get the idea of making it disappear.” Preclears usually literally interpret you and try like mad to make it disappear—and it usually does for a short time.

I have solved the enigma of exteriorization. Why doesn’t a preclear exteriorize easily and stay exteriorized? We ask the accompanying question: Why does a preclear get sick when one asks him to conceive a static? Obviously we would have to get

Copyright © 1958 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

somebody to conceive a static before he could himself stay comfortably outside his body’s head.

The answer to this problem is contained in the process “Recall a moment of loss.” Loss prevents the preclear from conceiving a static. He associates a static with loss. He says, “All right, if there is nothing there I’ve lost it,” or “I’ve lost something there, therefore I’d better not conceive a static.”

Conceiving a static is therefore painful. The truth of the matter is whenever he lost anything, something disappeared. All right. The funny part of it is that he never noticed that he didn’t lose totally every time. He still had other objects. He lost his tie pin, but he still has his tie. He’s still got the floor, the room, this universe, space, etc., but he never realizes this in these instances and that is why we run this process “Recall a moment of loss” to accustom somebody to conceiving a static very directly on loss and to get him to exteriorize.

An individual cannot conceive a static if he associates static with loss—if the loss is painful. So we have to cure him of the painfulness of loss, consideration of, before we can exteriorize him easily.

We do this by going back to automaticity. The universe has been taking things away from him. It has become an automaticity, and we find that the universe has an automaticity known as time and time itself is a consecutive series of losses. So we have to cure the preclear of losses before we can get him to appreciate time, otherwise he would be so afraid of losing it that he’d stick himself on the track and we get the “stuck on the track” phenomenon.

The process “Recall a moment of loss” aimed at this, but the third command of Control Trio (as this series of processes had better be called), “Get the idea of making that (indicated object) disappear,” handles it very well. This gets the preclear to take over the automaticity of all of the losses which he has unwillingly experienced.

The universe has been taking the things away from him, and just spotting objects and getting the idea that they are going to disappear or are disappearing takes over the automaticity of losses, and he becomes accustomed to it after a while.

All of the invisible masses that preclears have around them are actually simply symptoms of mass—loss, mass—loss. When an individual has no visio the only thing that he is looking at is a “stuck” loss. He is looking at the nothingness of something that was there.

So one takes over that automaticity with the third command of Control Trio and one therefore has a very highly directional, workable set of processes.

Each part of that Trio would be run relatively flat and go on to the next part, and I would say that one would run each part certainly not a hundred commands each and the auditor should endeavor to stay in that order of magnitude and just run it round and round.

Take somebody with glasses, for example. His eyesight will do more tricks in less time on this third command of Control Trio than one can imagine. Things will go black. Well, why do things go black? Blackness makes things disappear and one takes over the automaticity of blackness to make things disappear. Night grabs, the way of the universe, once in every 24 hours on earth here. This is the process we have been looking for to turn on visio.

If you want to turn on sonic with this you would have to go down to a noisy part of town and just run Trio on sound, but you wouldn’t dare run Control Trio on sound if the preclear did not already have it flat on objects. Visio turns on before sonic.

There are many things one could do with this process. People who have anaesthetized areas in their body—like they have no chest, etc.—do weird things during this process.

I wanted to tell you particularly about this particular process because it is a specific and will be found to be very useful to you. We had to find out if one version of this would run without killing a preclear and that is “Recall a moment of loss.” Actually “Recall a moment of loss” should act as a havingness process because it as-ises all of the lost points on the track and it should be a havingness process all by itself; but we didn’t want to be so bold as to run it with no havingness.

(Until I find out differently, this Control Trio and “Recall a moment of loss” are making a bid for our chief exteriorization processes.)

Now here is a process which is based on our old “Recall a secret.” The version is entirely straight wire. The auditor explains to the preclear that he is not looking for hidden data to evaluate it. He is only asking the preclear to look at the data. He then makes a list of valences, paying great attention to those the preclear considers “unimportant” or is very slow to divulge. Then the auditor takes this list and runs repetitive straight wire ( 1951 ) as follows: “Think of something you might withhold from (valence).”

The auditor repeats this question over and over until no communication lag is present. He never says “something else you might withhold from valence” because the auditor wants the preclear to think of some of these many times.

Before selecting another valence the auditor runs a little Locational or Trio. He then takes the next valence the same way. The list is covered once and then the same list is covered again. The object is speed. Cover many people. Given time the auditor can do the same thing on all dynamics.

There is a variation. Instead of a valence, body parts may be used. “Think of something you might withhold from that (body part).” Leave sexual parts or obvious psychosomatic difficulties until last. Don’t begin on a withered arm, for example.

It is amusing to realize that this process overlords all early psychotherapies, but they, using this effort to locate secrets, thought that divulgence and confession were the therapeutic agents. These have no bearing on workability. Further, early efforts naively thought there was one secret per case. Actually there are billions. It is easy to get into past lives on this. A basic secret is that one lived before.

Whenever you run “withhold” on a valence you finish up with “can’t have” on the valence and “have” for the preclear. It flattens off better that way.

You will often find that it is more advantageous to run Locational Processing than Problems of Comparable or Incomparable Magnitude at times. A Problem of Comparable Magnitude is all right, but it is a thinkingness process and on a case that is having an awful lot of trouble with it, it gives them hell to run Locational Processing, but nevertheless it does run out the present time problem, which is most fascinating.

Any one of the Rudiments is an excellent process. Two-Way Communication is great and does not as-is havingness. You have to keep the reality of two-way comm very high, though, and be willing to interrupt obsessive outflows and silences of the preclear. It is establishing a high level of reality. It consists of the auditor feeding experimental data to the preclear to have him look it over and decide about it one way or the other. You don’t let the preclear in Two-Way Comm as-is everything he knows, thinks, or wants to do.

The latest addition to the Rudiments is “Clearing the Auditor.” Actually the crudest way known of clearing the auditor is “Who do I remind you of?” “Tell me

something you like about me.” The best way of clearing the auditor we know of is in Training 15, which is “Could I help you?” “How?” “Could you help me?” “How?” “Could I help anybody else?” “How?” “Could you help anybody else?” “How?” “Do other people ever help other people?” “Do women ever help women?” “Do men ever help men?” “Do men ever help women?” etc. You beat it to pieces on a big long bracket.

This goes so far that it becomes a fantastic process in itself. You take father and mother valences and they are usually quite hot. You can run this on “Help.” This is usually quite necessary on a case that is going to hang up because the only reason he is sitting there is to waste help.

One has to understand that this case is trying to waste help, and it isn’t a matter of “Find the Auditor” in the Rudiments today, but “Clear the Auditor” and the only point on which he is cleared is “Help”—”Can I help you? Can you help me?”

We use Handbook for Preclears to give the preclear some homework at the Hubbard Guidance Centers and it has been helping out just to the degree that it does some clarification on goals and gets the preclear stirred up. It simply stirs up the case so that it will run out.

I was running over a phrenological questionnaire, and it said people are never permitted to do anything they want to do and this is the best goal of discipline. I got this tangled out in one way or the other. I got thinking about it from the standpoint— this was about 20 years ago—of “I wonder if there is anybody around that could articulate with great conciseness what he would like to do?” And I have found on all hands a failure to articulate was the main difficulty. A person had the feeling that he wanted to do something and that it would be wonderful, but it was all in a sensory capacity. If he could have been made to articulate this it would really have been something. And I experimented on it a little bit and we see that today in the Handbook for Preclears.

If you can get a person to articulate in a session anything about the future you have won the subject of goals. But it must be in the alignment of this person’s frame of reference. It must be aligned with his life—not aligned with something we think he ought to live.

So let’s take a look at the clearance of goals. Goals would not be likely to run on a high generality. In other words, they are specific, personal and intimate. It is “What do you think? What do you want? What is aligned to your life?”

Let’s look at Goals as a process. One could run Goals for 25 hours with the greatest of ease. One could run the Present Time Problem for 25 hours, and we just had a report of a terrific win here on a preclear who was run on Locational for 25 hours. So it looks as though the Rudiments could be the session.

We discover a preclear in the terrible condition of not wanting any auditing, not going any place and all of his goals being somebody else’s goals. Two things can be done immediately: Clear the auditor and then run Goals.

Goals could be run with two-way comm in this manner. You ask the preclear what he is absolutely sure would happen in the next couple of minutes, the next hour, a day from now, a week from now, one month from now and one year from now. We want something that the preclear is absolutely sure would happen.

We are running right there the reverse process of atomic bombs which say “no future—no future—no future.” That is basically what is wrong with a person. Why does he get jammed on the track? It is because of “no future.” He had been denied to a point where his loss was so great that he dared not own.

I had a case, by the way, which was one of the roughest cases I have ever run into. He put on the total appearance of being sane—dramatized sanity—and yet the case would make odd remarks like “I really think people are crazy.” “Well, why do you think people are crazy?” I would say. “Well, because people say they can tell right from wrong and you know there’s no difference.” It was fascinating. He would make odd remarks like this from time to time.

One day he made a remark on goals: “Well, it’s really best to tell people that things cannot happen to them because otherwise they might hope they could and then they would be disappointed.”

This person was stark, staring mad and had no future of any kind. Five hours just this one question, “Is there anything going to happen in the remainder of this afternoon?” “Will anything happen the rest of today?” “Is there anything going to occur any place in the world the rest of today?” was run on him and his confident answer, with great certainty was, “No. No. No.”

Finally we broke through it and I finally got the person to admit that there was some slight possibility that there would be a room here for the rest of the day. That busted the case. It read from total no-future up.

This case was an isolated one as we have had occasionally. Now and then an inspirational sort of process cracked them through. Well, now we see this process of Goals on the basis of futures and a person without futures cannot have a fancy future called a goal and all a goal is is a fancy future determined by the person. If he has no future at all determined by anybody, then he isn’t going to go anywhere from that point and any goal he has is totally unreal.

The best way that I know of to clear up a goal is as follows (with two-way comm): “Is there anything that is going to happen in the next couple of minutes?” We get this thrashed out until he has got some great big certainty that there will be something a couple of minutes from now. Then we gradiently move it up and we get certainties at each one of these stages and levels—regardless of on what.

The person knows there is going to be a future there. Now let’s have him put something in this future he has now created. He has created a future and has certainty on it. Now let’s put some desire in the future and we get a goal.

“Now what would you like to have happen in the next couple of minutes?” or “What would you like to do in the next couple of minutes, tomorrow, next week, etc?” We will get weird things which have no desire in them; they will all be get-rid-of’s, and if you finally plowed him down on it he would get down to the bottom of the ladder, which is “Knock this body off right now.” And when he says, “I would like to get over my fear of darkness, I would like to get over feeling bad every time my mother screams at me,” these aren’t desires. These are run-aways, flinches. These are “Let’s not confront it,” “Let’s get out of the universe; let’s scram,” and the final result is the basic postulate, “If I could just get rid of this body right this instant I would be all right.”

So that process doesn’t even vaguely get flat unless there is a real goal like “I’d like to have a stick of candy.” That is a goal, a real goal.

Preclears will modify their goals in some way or another: “Of course, I can’t because I have to work and I don’t have any money,” and “yak, yak, yak.” They are modified goals, and as long as they modify them they don’t have a goal because they are making a postulate and the MEST universe is kicking the postulate in on them. So we do this on a gradient scale of time so that goals become real to them.

L. RON HUBBARD



Issue 83 [ 1958, ca. mid-October]

The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.



New HCA Course
You Can Begin at Home

L. Ron Hubbard



A wonderful new course has been instituted in the Academy of Scientology. It is not just a correspondence course nor really an extension course, it is a real HCA Course. In fact, it becomes the course leading to certification as Hubbard Certified Auditor.

For exactly five dollars you can enroll in the Academy of Scientology of Washington, D.C., and begin your studies at once at home. In fact, from here on out all of the work you will do will be required to get your certificate anyway.

Now that all the basic problems of training auditors have been resolved and now that clearing is a real fact and attainable, it becomes our problem to communicate this skill to Scientologists at large and to all those in the world who would help their fellow man.

This new course is probably the biggest single undertaking of worldwide Scientology that has ever been attempted.

Here is what I have found out. I have found out that a Scientologist in his training must approximate the route of the actual research and discovery. Otherwise, he is not able to clear people easily since he lacks fundamental understandings which became commonplace many years ago. There might be an easy road to clearing, and, indeed, an excellent auditor well trained can pilot that road, but there is certainly no easy road to training.

After a careful survey of a very large number of students I have come to the conclusion that the only barrier to clearing everyone in the world or, probably with more reality, one’s immediate associates is the quality of training received by the auditor.

If an auditor understands Scientology from its earliest beginnings up to the present and if he takes modern Clear Procedure and uses it with that understanding, he has no difficulty in clearing people, no matter how ‘‘difficult the case.” On the other hand, given the simplest, fastest, and easiest rendition of Clear Procedure as now used in the Hubbard Guidance Center, and yet not given thorough background in training, an auditor will be unable to clear people.

How to make auditors rapidly has been our greatest problem. We cannot expect people to support themselves for years, as in college days when somebody else footed

Copyright © 1958 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

the bill, in order to achieve skills which make him superior to any mental practitioner in any time and period, without investing some time and effort in the study.

As far as we can determine it takes about three years to make a thoroughly excellent auditor. To expect somebody to spend three years at the Academy in person is too much. The doors would be slammed shut on all but a few and we would probably cost ourselves some of our best future auditors.

On the other end of the extremes, to expect somebody to study the subject for only a few weeks and then achieve remarkable results with it is almost an impossible thing to ask. That some people have done it, that some people even have simply read a book and gone out and achieved excellent results does not mean that it is generally feasible and, indeed, it is not even desirable, since these quick studies will sooner or later run into material which, though well covered in research is not yet known to them and they go astray into phenomena and waste a year or two or six trying to wander back out of a labyrinth that was in actuality very well charted some years before.

Between these two extremes there has to be a compromise. But the compromise must work and it must find a person at the end of a period of study totally competent to clear people, otherwise the study itself would have no purpose whatever. Accordingly, following the pattern of some of the greatest educational institutions, we have hit upon a combination of home study and classwork for each of the three principal grades of skill and practice.

My records indicate that it takes approximately a year from the moment of enrollment in the Academy through the classwork and the homework and the book synopses and the final award of the grade of Hubbard Certified Auditor. If this is a fact in actual practice, then why do we not make it a reality? We have done so.

It takes now a year to become a Hubbard Certified Auditor. No certificate may be awarded earlier than one year from the date of actual enrollment in an HCA Course, either extension or at the Academy.

Further records, though less complete, demonstrate that it takes about a year from time of enrollment to complete all of the studies required for Hubbard Clearing Scientologist (the old Bachelor of Scientology Course). Therefore, no HCS certificate may be awarded any earlier than one year from the date of enrollment at the Academy.

It has been demonstrated over a long period of time that it takes approximately a year for an Advanced Clinical Course student to complete his classwork, his cases and his thesis. Therefore, no certificate at the grade of Hubbard Graduate Scientologist may be issued earlier than one year from the moment of enrollment.

What does this mean in general to our standards and standing? It means that any student of Scientology will have spent more actual study in the field of the spirit and human behavior than any other practitioner in the world today.

Instead of carrying on with the unreality that we are the briefest trained people, we can step over to the reality that we are the most thoroughly trained people.

And this is all done without expenditure of any more class time than before by the new combination Extension Course and classroom study program.

It takes about a year for an auditor starting from scratch to become familiar enough with his tools to alleviate chronic somatics, to bring about some degree of

serenity and to handle the accidents of life in a preclear, and to handle many types of preclears. By this I mean the achievement of actual tangible results. He knows what he is doing and can approach anguish and accident with confidence. Here, though we deal in the realm of the thetan, we have more command of the anatomy of the mind than any other practitioner or priest ever had in any period of Man’s history. To achieve this in a year is quite remarkable. But that it does take a year is factual.

It takes a further year’s study to get up to a point where one can approach a case with some confidence with the end goal of clearing that case. People who attempt this under that period of training are liable to be bitterly disappointed and this disappointment will do us more harm, as we have already found, than all of the mad-doggings of vested interest and the orthodox organizations. After all, isn’t it worth two years of study to be able to do this for one’s fellow man?

But even an auditor who has studied for two years will find cases which balk him and he requires a finishing course to get his own case in shape and to attain the ability to confront any case and do something for it.

Thus the goals of our three years of study. Now I know that America has to do everything in a minute, but, after all, if one spent 76 trillion years getting that way he can certainly spend three years getting back on the track again.

The problem of finance has balked many people from taking courses but in this program it is possible to achieve the highest rank and skill as an auditor for only a few hundred dollars a year.

THE PLAN

The way the plan works is not complicated. Special lessons have been prepared. The applicant enrolls in the Academy at a cost of only $5.00. He pays for the few texts he will need, and, indeed, many people may already have them. He is at once sent his lessons to begin his training. By devoting only a few hours a week he can keep his lessons flowing in to the Academy where they will be studied and returned to him in order to coach his schoolings.

It would assist anyone taking this Extension Course and Academy classwork to have first an HAS Course (Hubbard Apprentice Scientologist) from any local auditor qualified to give one. This certificate, HAS, is not, however, a prerequisite to the Academy Extension Course or further work, but would simply benefit the student a great deal. Or, you can come to the Academy for this course which would then be credited toward HCA as well as HAS.

If his finances are too cramped to permit him his full 8 weeks of study in one year, he can do some of it in one year and some of it in the next and so stretch out his course of study to suit his pocketbook.

The student pays nothing for his training beyond his $5.00 enrollment fee until he actually presents himself at an Academy for his Communication Course and his Upper Indoctrination Course. There he pays only for the classwork he receives which averages about $1.00 per hour of personal coaching.

He can do this as well for the grade of Hubbard Clearing Scientologist in the following year, except that the length of time in actual classwork at the Academy would be only 5 weeks.

The following year he would have only 6 weeks of actual class training and that would be received in the attendance of an ACC.

Further, by extending his studies over a period of time and by paying in small sums every week he could have his course paid for, so far as classwork is concerned, well in advance of actually taking it.

There are many ways this study and endeavor can be brought to fruition but he should attain these positive results. At the end of his first year of combined home study of 44 weeks and his Academy class study of 8 weeks he should be able to relieve many misemotional conditions and correct the course of many anxiety- and painwracked lives. At the end of the second year he should be able to clear at least half of the people he attempts to audit. At the end of the third year he should be able to clear any case he meets and should himself by this time be clear.

“Correspondence courses” are supposed to have various frailties. We have studied these frailties, too, and we find that companies giving correspondence courses very often, and perhaps purposely, make some lessons much more difficult than others and so stop the progress of a student by imposing a noncomprehension on the line. We have taken care of this by an evenness of study and a gradient scale of approach. “Correspondence courses” have an additional liability of not imposing classroom discipline. This we have cared for in a reply system, and if you do not get your lesson in, believe me you will hear from the Extension Course Director at the Academy. “Correspondence courses” also fail by their loneliness, and I have taken care of this by making very sure that much of the latter half of the course is devoted to getting the student into circulation and actually and actively observing humanity.

So this is not a “correspondence course.” It is actual study just as though you were at the Academy. There is no reason to go on being mystified about what life is all about or what Dianetics and Scientology are all about when a ready pilot is now to hand. There is no reason to sit back and worry and fret because one doesn’t have the immediate cash to rush to the Academy and study the subject.

Furthermore, this is an excellent way to complete work where some classroom training has already been begun in Dianetics or Scientology, and it is a very fine way to review the subject up to date and get wheeling with modern clearing.


THE GOAL

Without a broadly informed population who are capable of understanding motives and aberrations no sane government of Earth is possible. Without a great many clears no real effective leadership is possible for Man.

The joke is on all of us, to say nothing of Man at large. The singular truth of the matter is that when he deserts this life he doesn’t quit. He has to come back here again and do it all over. You might not believe this but you can learn it subjectively fast enough if you are in the hands of any good auditor. Truth will out, no matter how final everyone has pretended death might be. Death is very far from a permanent state. This is probably much easier to prove with much less strain on the brain than some of the fundamental laws of physics.

If we don’t do something about this now, we’ll have to come back at a less optimum time without adequately organized data and organizations and somehow muck through once more. Personally I don’t believe we could in the next few hundred thousand years and I believe this is a rare opportunity to break the chain and start walking upward into the sunlight.

We aren’t any cult that believes some outrageous nonsense about demons and devils and we aren’t any get-rich-quick scheme and might even succeed better if we were. We are dedicated and sincere in getting the job done and we are the first people

to appear on Earth since its first solidification out of nebulous vaporings who can get the job done and who know what we are doing. The very truth that we know, its simplicity and ease of grasp, the very honesty with which we approach our task are probably the largest barriers we have to overcome. Man has been defrauded so often, persuaded so wrongly and has returned to the same old rut so inevitably and in such a defeated frame of mind that he is not able to grasp easily the firm and friendly hand which is being reached toward him.

It will take more people, more auditors, better understanding on all our parts to get this task anywhere near done.

The most immediate answer is the Extension Course of the Academy of Scientology. It is the answer to those who studied a little, thought there was some truth there but because of lacking skill and complete study missed it. It is a chance for those who, low on finance, yet wish to become skilled auditors. It is the chance for those who did some studying and did not do it well enough. It’s a good chance, and it isn’t much of a gamble. Will you ever find a better offer than this Extension Course and enrollment in the Academy of Scientology?

L. RON HUBBARD



LRH TAPE LECTURE
London, England
17 October 1958

L. Ron Hubbard arrived in London on October 17, 1958, to give the London Clearing Congress starting the next day, followed by the 5th London ACC. On arrival he gave a talk to staff.

5810C17 LECTURE Talk to Staff on Arrival in England




LONDON CLEARING CONGRESS LECTURES
London, England
18—20 October 1958


** 5810C18 LCC-1 Story of Dianetics and Scientology
** 5810C18 LCC-2 The Skills of Clearing
** 5810C18 LCC-3 Confronting
** 5810C20 LCC-4 The Rock
** 5810C20 LCC-5 Confusion and Order
5810C20 LCC-6 The Clearing Technique of 1947
** 5810C20 LCC-7 The Future of Scientology and the Western Civilization

5TH LONDON ADVANCED CLINICAL COURSE LECTURES
London, England
21 October—29 November 1958

The 5th London ACC started on 21 October 1958, immediately following the London Clearing Congress, and ran through to 29 November 1958.

Case histories of this ACC, which was the first to use Scientology engram running, are given in the book Have You Lived Before This Life?

L. Ron Hubbard gave the following lectures to course students in the period 27 October to 18 November 1958:


** 5810C27 5LACC-1 Clearing and What It Generally Means to Man
** 5810C28 5LACC-2 Compartmentation of 4 Universes
** 5810C29 5LACC-3 Types of Pictures
5810C30 5LACC-4 Mental Image Pictures, Engrams
5810C31 5LACC-5 Engrams (cont.)
5811C03 5LACC-6 The Detection of Engrams
5811C04 5LACC-7 The Detection of Engrams with an E-Meter
5811C05 5LACC-8 Detection of Engrams lll, “Finding Truth with an
Electronic Gimmick”
5811C06 5LACC-9 Difficulties Encountered in Search for Engrams
** 5811C07 5LACC-1 0 Detection of Circuits and Machinery
** 5811C10 5LACC-11 Auditing: Its Skills
** 5811C11 5LACC-12 The Skill of an Auditor, Part I
** 5811C12 5LACC-13 The Skill of an Auditor, Part ll
5811C13 5LACC-14 The Attitude of an Auditor
5811C14 5LACC-15 What an Auditor is Supposed to Do with an Engram
** 5811C17 5LACC-16 The Effect of the Environment on an Engram
5811C18 5LACC-17 How to Audit an Engram, Use of an E-Meter
5811C ... 5LACC-18 How to Start and Run a Session
5811C ... 5LACC-19 Attitude and Approach to Auditing
5811C ... 5LACC-20 Summary, “Seeing the Monster”
5811C ... 5LACC-21 Final Lecture


All 5th London ACC lectures are listed above for convenience. They are also listed on the following pages in date order sequence.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
LONDON

HCO BULLETIN OF 25 OCTOBER 1958
1 ea staff member
Field Offices (info)
HCO D.C.

ABBREVIATIONS


Since Director of Processing and Director of Procurement have same abbreviation (D of P or Dir of Pro) use:

D of P for Director of Processing and
Dir of Procu for Director of Procurement.

Best,

LRH:rs.rd L. RON HUBBARD

[Some copies of the above HCO B were dated 5 October 1958.]





HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
LONDON

HCO BULLETIN OF 27 OCTOBER 1958

1 ea. stf member
Field Offices
Washington
HOW TO READ PROFILES ON OCA: COMPARING
CURRENT WEEK PROFILE WITH WK BEFORE


Drop on Critical—havingness drop.

Whole line (or majority of points) drops—ARC breaks with auditor.

Line doesn’t change (same as before)—p.t. problem not touched by auditor.

Rough auditing—reduction of havingness.

Drop in Responsibility from former week—Auditor evaluation.

Drop in Composed—loss of auditor. Poor CCH 0 in Find the Auditor.

Drop in Comm Level—double acknowledgement by auditor, putting pc off before finished.

Drop in Appreciative—lowered reality level.

Nervous is toughest point to raise on a graph. It is done by finding the auditor. This is a primary point to watch in low profiles. Did preclear find auditor. CCH 3 and CCH 4 are the indicated processes for these low ones. They were designed to find the auditor.


LRH:rs.rd L. RON HUBBARD

P.A.B. No. 147
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

l November 1958

COMMUNICATION COURSE


I want to welcome you to the Communication Course. It seems that a Communication Course is necessary as the first step to an auditor. And if an auditor doesn’t successfully pass the Communication Course, then to the end of any curve he has as an auditor, there will be something wrong with his auditing.

It is very odd that one of the highest levels of indoctrination, Tone 40 on an Object, is most often unsuccessfully approached by a student at the HPA or HCA level when he has flunked the one I am going to talk about right now, which is a newcomer’s first look inside the Academy at communication. And that is Dear Alice, part A.

It would have amused you the other day to have found a former Director of Training of an organization being sent back by the HCO Board of Review coach in his coaching to Dear Alice so that he could get good enough to pass Tone 40 on an Object. But it was absolutely necessary that this happen, because he had for some reason or another, being an old-timer and having been in it for a long time, never hit Dear Alice. It had been omitted from his training. In spite of all the auditing he had done and all the experience he had had, at the end of this time we find him sitting up in the coaching room, good as gold, perfectly comprehensible, doing Dear Alice, part A—a man who has probably audited two or three thousand hours’ worth. But everywhere he had difficulty with a preclear, that difficulty stemmed from an inability to do Dear Alice, part A, which is in effect to deliver an auditing command in a unit of time as a completed cycle of action—he delivered an auditing command.

Well now you have to get up to step 2 and even step 3 before you can call it a full cycle of action. But as far as the auditor is concerned in Dear Alice, part A, only, his job is done when he has delivered an auditing command to a preclear. He didn’t deliver it over the hills and far away or to the window; he delivered it to a being and he delivered it from where he was to where the preclear was—and it’s so easy.

Anyone to whom this was described briefly, insufficiently, out in the street would, flunking it at the same time, tell you, “Of course I can communicate to people! Well, yes! There’s nothing to it. I’m a salesman, you know. I run the Atomic Energy Omission. I’m a big man! Of course I communicate to anyone.” We look in that man’s vicinity and nobody’s heard anything he’s said since the days of Noah’s Ark. He never said it to anybody in the first place. He sort of throws things out, you know, and he just hopes they land. Well, that’s what passes for communication, and it isn’t by a long ways-he throws out a statement of some sort or another and he thinks he’s communicating with somebody.

It’s a great oddity, but I must confess to you at this moment that the third dynamic is simply an agreement. It is an agreement which people have agreed to and

Copyright ©1958 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

therefore it has an existence and we certainly cannot live in this world without it, but it’s a violation of the communication formula. A violation of it. The only thing that you can talk to in the final analysis is a living being, and all third dynamics are composed of individual dynamics. And you can summate them and you can say this is a third dynamic, and that is the agreement on which we go, and it is quite factual and they are quite actual unless we stress them with the communication formula—so that you don’t talk to all preclears, you talk to a preclear.

There was a fellow by the name of Franklin Delano Roosevelt that never talked to the nation—he never talked to the nation—he talked to an individual citizen. And therefore he communicated.

There was another fellow who spoke the most beautiful English I have ever heard, almost incomprehensibly parsed. Perfect. Would have passed any Oxford English Professor’s most critical look, and that was Herbert Hoover. And I don’t think Herbert Hoover ever said hello to a dog. I don’t think in his whole life he ever said anything to anybody anywhere. And when this man uttered pronunciamentos they pronounced nothing to anybody anywhere. And therefore he couldn’t lead a nation out of a depression. He couldn’t lead anything for an excellent reason. He had no concept in the final analysis of talking to an individual, of getting his communication to land right there.

Now this is a touchy point that I open up. You say, “Well, how about you, Ron? You talk to an awful lot of people.” Well, that’s the whole secret of Scientology-I don’t talk to an awful lot of people—I talk to you. I haven’t any concept of a large multitude that reads my books or listens to my lectures. I can get a multiple concept of talking to a great many at the same time by talking to every one of them individually. Therefore I perhaps add a little conceit to the line, but I do communicate.

Therefore someone wanting to know how to speak to a crowd would first begin with Dear Alice, part A. So it is very, very far from an unimportant step. It is not just the entrance step that you have to get through to get your Communication Course over so you can really learn something. That is not what it is. It is the first door that opens and that door opens when it opens, and it opens when you can communicate a statement from you to a person. We won’t worry about a preclear, because really the person in dummy auditing who is sitting there as preclear is really a coach, you know. But you’ve got to get something across from you to that person. And it has to be from you to that person—it has to be a communication. And when you can do that, well, you’re all set.

I once told somebody that if he had a very difficult student—not you—but if he had a very very difficult student, the thing to do with this difficult student would be to put him through seven weeks of dummy auditing and then teach him in the last week to remedy havingness and turn him loose with a certificate and it would be a safe investment. We would be perfectly safe in doing that. But to give him one week when he needed two or three on dummy auditing and then try to cram him full of data and hope that the processes would carry him through somehow didn’t make an auditor, it made a liability—both to himself and to preclears.

So this first step is not just an easy one—it is the toughest step you’ll perform in Scientology and that’s why it’s right at the beginning. It’s to say something to somebody with the full confidence that they will receive it. And that’s quite a trick.

All right. How exactly is this done? We give a person a book. The book is Alice in Wonderland. Why Alice in Wonderland? Well, that’s just because it is. No further significance. We give him this book and he is supposed to find any sentence in that book that he cares to find. (These people who just want to read the book consecutively

to the preclear are not doing dummy auditing. They again are not in communication with the preclear.) He is supposed to find a line. Now he doesn’t put “Alice said” or “The Queen said” or something like that on the line. He just puts the statement itself, you see. “Why do they run so fast?” Well the book says, “ ‘Why do they run so fast?’ the Queen asked.” Well we don’t use “the Queen asked.” We just say, “Why do they run so fast?”

All right, he picks that up out of the book. Why out of a book? Why not out of his head? Oh, remember. Remember something—in using the English language, you are not using your own ideas, you did not invent the words. You only helped invent the words that compose the English language. You are already using somebody else’s ideas. Now there is nothing wrong with your composing these into new ideas of your own, but remember you are already using somebody else’s ideas when you’re speaking English.

All right. Now let’s get it a little bit further. We are given a set pat process. Oh I know I dreamed it up, I found it one way or the other, but an awful lot of auditors worked with this. It’s had a lot of looking at, and it’s become phrased in a certain way, and that certain way might very well be taken by you out of the textbook and given to the preclear, and it won’t ever work if you do. “Do fishes swim?” is not a therapeutic procedure—it’s not. The repetition of it can be very good for an auditor, but it’s not a therapeutic procedure. But the statement “Do fishes swim?” is not yours really, at the beginning, is it? You got it from the instructor or off of a book, and then you used it. Well when does it become yours? Well, any idea is yours that you make yours. We won’t go along with dialectic materialism and say that no ideas are new, because that’s not true. There can be new ideas. But if you get an idea from someone else, it is not still their idea. It’s your idea. There is nothing wrong with mis-owning ideas, there’s no mass in them to get you confused.

You take an idea out of a book, it becomes your idea, and then as your idea you relay it to the preclear. And that is all there is to it. It is coached this way. It is not from the book to the preclear. It is from the book to the auditor, and then the auditor, making it his own idea, expresses that idea to the preclear in such a way that it arrives at the preclear. So it’s from the auditor to the preclear. But we give him the book as the third via because most of the material he is going to handle in communication is from a source outside himself. You’ve just got to get used to the idea that there is nothing wrong with using another person’s ideas.

I always know what someone’s state of learning is in Scientology when they speak of Scientology as “your” ideas. They say, “I’ve been reading your ideas.” I know at once this person can’t communicate. It’s a great oddity. It’s quite wonderful. Because they reveal at once that they cannot take this first basic step of taking an idea and then communicating it to someone else. They are standing back looking at the world in some large sense and they are not any part of it, because they can’t own any of the world’s ideas. If they can’t own any of the world’s ideas, then they won’t own any of the world, because the easiest thing to own is an idea. No mass to impede it.

So, we coach just exactly in this way. We want the person to find a phrase in Alice in Wonderland and then, taking that as his own idea, communicate it directly to the preclear and he can say it over and over, the same phrase if he wishes, in any way he wishes to say it, until the preclear (who is really a coach) tells him that he thinks it has arrived.

Now sometimes the preclear, the first day, feels just a little bit strange about these communication lines, too, and sometimes has his entire criticism based upon the erudition, the pronunciation, the way the auditor holds his little finger while he announces the phrase—this has nothing to do with it. It is the intention that

communicates, not the words. And when you have the intention to communicate to the preclear, and that intention goes across, it will arrive. If you broadcast that intention, no matter if you’re saying it in Chinese, if you’re a Scientologist, it will arrive.

One of the steps of the much higher indoctrination level, Tone 40 8-C, consists entirely and completely of saying things in funny voice tones while one is communicating an intention—using very odd voice tones; well, this is not part of Dear Alice. The voice tones are unimportant; pronunciation is unimportant. It’s whether or not the person could take that idea out of that book, own it, and then communicate it. And the intention must communicate. And it must be communicated in one unit of time. That is to say, it isn’t repeated from the last time it was repeated. It is new, fresh, communicated in present time. The fifty-fifth command of “Do fishes swim?” is the fifty-fifth, not the first repeated. So we have one unit of time, one command, and the intention. And when we have those things relayed across, then he can find another phrase and communicate that. And that is the way we do that, and I hope you find it helps communication.

L. RON HUBBARD



HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
LONDON

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 NOVEMBER 1958

FOR WIDE PUBLICATION

AMERICAN COLLEGE OF PERSONNEL EFFICIENCY,

DUBLIN


Having paid B. Green of Dublin the final owing item in the American College of Personnel Efficiency, Dublin, this establishment and its personnel cease to be in any way connected with the Admin or info lines of HASI London, Founding Church D.C., or HCOs.

This entire establishment reverts to status of field auditor.


L. RON HUBBARD
LRH: ph jh
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED




5811C03 5LACC-6 The Detection of Engrams
5811C04 5LACC-7 The Detection of Engrams with an E-Meter
581 1 C05 5LACC-8 Detection of Engrams l l l, “ Finding Truth with an
Electronic Gimmick”
5811C06 5LACC-9 Difficulties Encountered in Search for Engrams
** 5811C07 5LACC-10 Detection of Circuits and Machinery
** 5811C10 5LACC-11 Auditing: Its Skills
** 5811C11 5LACC-12 The Skill of an Auditor, Part I

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
LONDON
1 ea stf member hat
Dir Procu hat HCO BULLETIN OF 7 NOVEMBER 1958
Assoc Sec hat
Accounts London hat
Treasurer
Field Offices info
Washington HCO

HPA COURSES FOR STAFF


Any PERMANENT staff member may enroll in the week-end HPA Course on the following terms:

£10 down payment. 1070 deducted from salary until balance is paid. Staff member to remain with organization until amount is paid in full—or whole remaining balance becomes due and payable at once on departure from staff.


L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:mp.rd Executive Director


[The text of HCO B 27 October 1958, HPA Courses for Staff, was the same as the above, except that it did not have the word, “PERMANENT” in the first paragraph.]


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
LONDON

HCO BULLETIN OF 11 NOVEMBER 1958
1 ea staff member
Field Offices
Washington

ACC SCHEDULE

21st ACC USA

Course starts Monday Jan 5th, 1959 Course ends Saturday Feb 1 4th, 1959

6th London ACC UK

Course starts Monday May 4th, 1959 Course ends Saturday June 13th, 1959

1st Melbourne ACC Australia

Course starts Monday Sept 7th, 1959 Course ends Saturday Oct 17th, 1959

All above ACCs will be conducted by L. Ron Hubbard personally and instructed by Nibs Hubbard, Jan Halpern and Dick Halpern.


LRH:mp L. RON HUBBARD


** 5811C12 5LACC-13 The Skill of an Auditor, Part ll
5811C13 5LACC-14 The Attitude of an Auditor

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
LONDON

HCO BULLETIN OF 13 NOVEMBER 1958
1 each Staff Member
Field Offices
Washington
TRAINING INSTRUCTORS, HCO SEC

TR 9 (b) and TR 9 (c)


HCO was asked for a TR number for “Handling ARC Breaks and Opening and Closing a Session”.

TR 16 is assigned to “Handling ARC Breaks”. Below are TR 9 (b) and TR 9 (c) as contained in the unpublished Student Manual.


Number: Training 9 (b)

Name: Starting the Session

Command: No formalized command except that auditor must make sure that the pc is cognizant of the fact that a session has started.

Position: Auditor and pc seated a comfortable distance apart.

Purpose: To make known the beginning of a session so that no mistake as to its beginning is made. To differentiate between an assist (erasing a surface difficulty) and formalized auditing. To let both auditor and pc know that a session has started.

Training Stress: To bring about the purpose of this rudiment. To begin sessions, not just let them happen an-l when pc goes out of session to re-establish and start the session again. To demonstrate that if a pc doesn’t realize that a session has started, he doesn’t get audited and change consequently does not take place.

History: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London, England, in 1955.


Number: Training 9 (c)

Name: Ending the Session

Commands: A gradient scale of two-way communication to “End of Session” first giving the pc adequate warning that the session is going to end shortly.

Position: Auditor and pc seated a comfortable distance apart.

Purpose: To make known the end of a session and prevent pc from being either stuck in a session or self-auditing. To end the cycle of action of being audited.

Training Stress: To teach the student the importance of ending the session, of completing the cycle of auditing to the degree that the pc is cognizant of this. To illustrate that pc will be left stuck on the time track if this isn’t done or done too abruptly. To do this gradiently, warning the pc beforehand that it is going to end. To teach auditor not to end session where pc has somatic, dope-off or any restimulation brought about by use of a technique.

History: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard as parts of the Rudiments of Auditing in London, England, in 1955.


LRH:mp.rd L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
LONDON

HCO BULLETIN OF 17 NOVEMBER 1958

Full Distribution



CLEAR BRACELETS


No clear bracelets will be issued until person has been tested for engrams as per E-Meter techniques of 5th London ACC which will be made available shortly.


L. RON HUBBARD


LRH:mp.rd








HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
LONDON

HCO BULLETIN OF 25 NOVEMBER 1958

Full Distribution

STEP 6


All persons who were run on Step 6 before they had help and engrams flat must be run in such a way as to knock out the auditing.


L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:rt.rd



LRH TAPE LECTURES
London, England
14—18 November 1958


5811C14 5LACC-15 What an Auditor is Supposed to Do with an Engram
** 5811C17 5LACC-16 The Effect of the Environment on an Engram
5811C18 5LACC-17 How to Audit an Engram, Use of an E-Meter
5811C ... 5LACC-18 How to Start and Run a Session
5811C ... 5LACC-19 Attitude and Approach to Auditing
5811C ... 5LACC-20 Summary, “Seeing the Monster”
5811C ... 5LACC-21 Final Lecture

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
LONDON

HCO TECHNICAL POLICY LETTER OF 25 NOVEMBER 1958

ACADEMY TRAINING BULLETIN

All Area
Offices



TECHNIQUES TO BE USED ON HGC PRECLEARS

Effective Dec. 1, 1958 in all Area Offices


The following techniques are the only techniques to be used on HGC preclears, effective Dec. 1, and continuing. These produce clears in the hands of most auditors.

Deviations by Director of Processing or staff auditors are violations of the Code of a Scientologist under No. 2 and Auditor’s Code under No. 3.

Where needed:

CCH 1

CCH 2

CCH 3

CCH 4

On all other Pcs:

1. Rudiments (not CCH 0) Establish: Auditor, pc, room, session to start.

2. Start-Change-Stop on a person or object.

3. Factual Havingness.

4. What can you confront? (Repetitive Command)

5. You make a mock-up for which you can be wholly responsible.

6. General Help. Help on the Rock.

7. Step 6 of Clear Procedure.

Exception: Only where staff auditor has been trained in an ACC given to running engrams only (1st such ACC was 5th London October-November 1958) may the staff auditor run engrams or use CCH 0. Early Dianetic auditors are not, repeat not, included in this exception. It is a matter of judgment here that in event of question about engram running the auditors not specially trained in 1958 or later to do so will make more clears by the above than by “running engrams”. The running of engrams by Scientology, rather than Dianetics, is splendid and speeds clearing but only where specially trained. There is too much new data about it for assimilation short of an engram running ACC. 20th ACC graduates are not qualified to run engrams.


LRH:-.rd L. RON HUBBARD

CERTAINTY


Vol. 5, No. 22 [1958, ca. late November]


The Official Publication of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
in the
British Isles


Violence


L. Ron Hubbard


Man’s answer in his more barbaric stage was always VIOLENCE.

If you weren’t obeyed, use VIOLENCE!

If you were balked, use VIOLENCE!

If they wouldn’t bow or scrape or wouldn’t lick the boots, then VIOLENCE was the answer, fit for one and all and, in particular, YOU.

But where did all this violence get Man? Where did rows of trenches men for four years filled with uncounted dead get Man? Just where the A-bomb and the H-bomb and the Z-bomb will get him.

Back to barbarianism ! Let’s blow it all up ! Let’s splatter Earth and all her pleasant ways to atoms and to shreds. VIOLENCE! Ah, that’s the answer, isn’t it? The very thing to do to little kids. Blow them up! That stops their weeping. Kill them all. They only die but once. But do they? Do they now?

What a foul trick fate waits to play upon the Men of Violence. They blow it all up. They spatter their homes and kids and fishing poles from here to Kingdom Come. They blow it all up and blow themselves out of their heads.

And they aren’t dead ! They’re still alive and only the body is dead and nothing is solved. And, oh my, isn’t it messed up !

No priest was there, no Gabriel with a cornet solo to play them into Pearly Gates. Not even the wasted coals of hell exist to greet them.

They blasted everything in sight and the other men blew back and they all blew out of their silly heads and charred derbies and caps and homburgs and what did they see?

They saw a world they’d ruined all out of political cause and glee. They saw bodies where their kids had been and bones where their hat had been and embers where their lives had been. And all nicely radioactive now. And nothing with which to rebuild the world. Nothing. No order. Just chaos. No bodies. Just fish. No grass, just radiation.

A planet as bald as a burned egg. And that’s their win. And they’ve earned the right to build it back with nothing to work with and no people to talk to and no fishing pole, no books, no blueprint.

The joke’s on them. They did live. They did come back. There wasn’t either death or heaven and it’s all to do again.

Too bad the rest of us are being asked to come along too. Otherwise it would be such a good cruel joke on these MEN OF VIOLENCE.

Copyright © 1958 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.



Issue 85 [1958, ca. late November]


The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.



The Theory of Training
in Scientology

L. Ron Hubbard



The third dynamic called education, when engaged upon the installation of false or imagined premises, can be quite aberrative. The only right we have to train in Scientology is that we are training people in things which they already know. The principles and axioms of Scientology are considerations which have been agreed upon and out of which stem this universe and livingness. To train a person in these trains him only to handle this universe and livingness, therefore Scientology training is nonaberrative. On the contrary, thorough training in Scientology is in itself, if a slow one, a road to Clear.

The very fact that we are training people in things which they already know brings us to a liability, however. As we train we restimulate considerations already undertaken in some distant past by the student. As many of these were assumed to remedy ills and evils he imagined he had (the restimulation of earlier postulates he has made—which are the postulates which become the axioms and other materials in Scientology), the student may experience somatics and confusions which he would not experience in ordinary scholastic pursuits. Even though this is all for the better a student sometimes conceives himself to be under duress, either in student auditing sessions or from an instructor, which is not actually present. There are three ways in which this single liability is overcome.

First, we train a student thoroughly until the somatic or confusion is discharged. We do not give up training in something simply because he finds it confusing or painful. Just as in an auditing session we would continue to run the process to discharge the somatic which the same process turned on, so in training we continue to train in the area which has been restimulated.

Second, we train vigorously and emphatically so that there will be no confusion in the student’s mind as to the source of the training, and

Third, we consider a student always as an auditor, never as a preclear. We are not at all interested in the student as a case. We are interested in the student only as a Scientologist. The moment he joins a course of training, he is considered from that moment on an auditor. When he is being audited he is, of course, for that time a preclear, but only by assignment. That he does experience case gains is entirely incidental to training. It is a maxim of Scientology instructors that if a mirror held to a


Copyright © 1958 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

student’s lips shows the mist of breath, the student is in shape to audit a preclear. There is no compromise with this state of mind. Only an instructor who intended actual harm to students would use sympathy for a student concerning his case. Therefore, Scientology Academies are looked upon as “tough schools.” Just the fact of living through a course of training merits the designation Scientologist.

The goal of training from the viewpoint of the Director of Training of the Academy is to bring the student up to a level where he could be safely entrusted with a Hubbard Guidance Center preclear. This does not mean that the student will be so entrusted, but before the Director of Training and the Examiner and the Board of Review pass the student as graduated, they have to be sure to their own complete satisfaction that they would have no qualm entrusting a difficult case to this student. This training goal insures an orientation point and standard of excellence. The instructors, the Director of Training, the Examiner and the HCO Board of Review know what I demand of a staff auditor.

Thoroughness of training is achieved on a gradient scale. It might frighten a student to look across the training chart and realize what he must be able to perform, but it should not if he realizes that he is climbing a stairway of rather easy steps. The steps are each one of them easy and their gradient has been planned and experienced carefully. Therefore, no student is ever passed to the next step of these many steps before the instructor is entirely certain that he has mastered the last step.

For example, on this gradient scale a student who has thoroughly learned Dummy Auditing Step A (“Dear Alice”), will have very little trouble graduating up to the top of the step, “Tone 40 on an Object.” While it would be a mistake to demand in Dummy Auditing Step A, the excellence necessary to pass “Tone 40 on an Object,” it is nevertheless true that those people who had difficulty with “Tone 40 on an Object” need a review of Dummy Auditing Step A.

Therefore, an instructor is always niggardly with his signature at the end of each step. To permit a student to climb too swiftly would be to condemn him to a confusion in some later area of training.

Training in Scientology contains no thought for explaining to some student how Scientology fits into some other frame of reference. By straightly teaching him Scientology he will come at last to see that it does not fit into any other frame of reference but other things fit into its frame of reference.

A great many things in Scientology have been said before. Indeed, everything in Scientology has been directly and actively postulated by the person being trained at some point in the past. It would be odd indeed if these points then did not echo or harmonic or crop up in other teachings elsewhere. It should be understood by the student that all things proceed from postulates and that these postulates go from simplicities to complexities. Therefore, it would be surprising if Tibetan Lamaism did not contain some of the data of Scientology. By working entirely with the data which is simplest and earliest one does the odd thing with Scientology of taking a new, freshly born science and undercutting any older philosophy. If Scientology is not found to do this in some field of human experience then it simply means we will have to do some more studying. But before we in the development of Scientology do more studying we should be very sure that we know enough Scientology to apply it to this apparently random field.

Scientology contains several logics which are very important to training. These are actually the logics of education. Calling your attention to one of these, it will be seen that the evaluation of the importance of a datum is often more important than the datum itself. The datum found in Scientology may also be found in other philosophic

works. But hold on for a moment. Did the other philosophic work give an evaluation of the importance of the datum or did it give dozens of other data as having equal rank? This point is mentioned here because it is often overlooked by students. Scientology, for instance, has some abrupt, sharp things to say about Time. Indeed, Time could be said to be the single source of human aberration. The hunger for a number of incidents to occur simultaneously will in itself cause people to jam their time tracks. These people, of course, are not aware of the amount of incident and as a result jam many adventures into present time with a consequent disability of differentiation.

Now it will be seen that in many philosophies Time is covered exhaustively. Time is given many definitions. Time is given chapters and volumes but nowhere in these chapters and volumes does the philosopher place his finger squarely upon the two or three important data which are most important about Time. He ranks these data with all of the other data and so loses them in an ocean of drops of water, all the drops looking the same as all the other drops. Thus, truth becomes submerged in an ocean of outflow. Scientology is more parsimonious. It is more incisive, it is more thoroughly evaluated. The two or three data in Scientology which concern Time are the data from which all other data about Time flow.

Thus, when a student is taught a datum from Scientology, he is taught it with the understanding that it will clarify many other later and more complicated data. Thus, he is taught the simple datum thoroughly. Thus, he is taught fundamentals far more thoroughly than he believes necessary. The work in the development of Scientology has been the culling of truth from an ocean of fact and finding that the truth has a tiny group of data possessed of the overwhelming power of changing all other facts in this universe and in livingness.

This is the power of Scientology: that it, by stressing single, simple truths, eliminates oceans of mere data. Thus in training we concentrate solidly and continually upon these small truths and we are impatient with excursions until we have established these fundamentals as fundamentals with our students.

L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 26 NOVEMBER 1958

All Staff FCNY and HASI—Calif offices
HCO London


ACCs


The first ACC after the 21st is tentatively scheduled for July 1960. JULY 1960, in Washington, D.C.

We have new methods engram-running. No staff auditor will be permitted to run engrams unless he has attended the 5th London ACC or onward. All others use older, slower, clearing methods.

ACCs in the year and a half will be held in England, Australia and Africa. The 21st ACC in the USA is the last chance to hear about short clearing by the new engram running for one and a half years.


L. RON HUBBARD




LRH: md.rd

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
LONDON

HCO BULLETIN OF 1 DECEMBER 1958
FULL DISTRIBUTION




PERMITTED TO AUDIT ENGRAMS BY SCIENTOLOGY PROCESSES ARE:

Cornelia Alford George Edwards Herbie Parkhouse Peter Davies
Jessie Gray Madge Stevens Nicol Paterson Carl Jensen
Marianne Christie Ray Thacker Noel West Lance Harrison
Pam Kemp Viviane Madsen John Fudge JimPaterson
Jean Gill Paul Meyer Jim Pembry Charis Mostart
James Dimmock Marcus Tooley Jack Campbell Sylvia Ferree
Eve Harrison James Madsen Leon Bosworth Cyril Vosper
Alan Burton Alix Stansfield Bill Dicks Fred Postowka
Jenny Parkhouse Lensworth Small Harry Dorfman Cyril Sweetland
Joe Tole Joe Cromie Quentin Kelly Barry Fairburn

The remaining enrollees of the 5th London ACC are invited to use HCO Bulletin of Nov 25, 1958 (Effective Dec 1, 1958) allowable to HGC auditors until they have had further training in the running of engrams or had their own cases straightened.

The processes outlined in the above mentioned bulletin are:

Where needed:

CCH 1, CCH 2, CCH 3, CCH 4

On all other pcs:

1. Rudiments (not CCH 0) Establish: Auditor, pc, room, session to start.
2. Start-Change-Stop on a person or object.
3. Factual Havingness.
4. What can you confront? (Repetitive Command)
5. You make a mock-up for which you can be wholly responsible.
6. General Help. Help on the Rock.
7. Step 6 of Clear Procedure.

This bulletin was done by profile gains and IQ gains on pcs audited on the 5th London ACC and is an arbitrary differentiation and is not necessarily the class grades of the student.

This bulletin is of interest in that it lists the first ACC graduates from any ACC who are permitted to run engrams by Scientology processes by reason of training in an ACC.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH: mp.rd

P.A.B. No. 149
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 December 1958

DUMMY AUDITING

Step Two: Acknowledgment

Compiled from the Research Material and Taped Lectures of L. Ron Hubbard



Dummy Auditing, Step Two, Acknowledgment, is the second part of the communication cycle. Now the actual fact is when you have gotten a thought over to a preclear it is customary to prove it. The whole stress of acknowledgment is entirely and completely upon making sure that the preclear receives the auditor’s acknowledgment. That is the entire stress.

Now why all this stress on acknowledgment? Well, acknowledgment is a control factor—I’ll just let you in on a secret right here at the beginning. If you acknowledge a preclear well, you will have the preclear under much better control. Now, why? The formula of control is Start, Change and Stop. And that’s just it—an acknowledgment is Stop. If you said to him “Keep going” or “Keep talking,” you would not be acknowledging him. The perfect acknowledgment communicates only this: I have heard your communication. That’s all there is to it—I have heard what you said. It signalizes that the preclear’s (or person’s, since Scientology applies to life, not just to an auditing room) communication to you has been received. But when you use it as an auditor you use it also as a control factor. And it says this: Your communication has been received—and that is all there is to it, and that is the end of that cycle of action, thank you. That’s what it says, and you have to put that whole intention into a “Yes” or an “Okay” or anything else you use. It isn’t the word, it’s the intention that ends it. Your communication has been received and I have now decided to stop that cycle of communication and your communication is therefore under my control. Those things which you stop, very crudely, are things which you control. You have to be able to stop things if you control them. If you cannot control a preclear’s communication line you can’t control the preclear.

I’ll give you an example of this. Let’s say we’re auditing Mrs. Gotrocks, the wife of the executive manager of Fleabite Dustpowder or something, and she is bored (the only thing wrong with her), and she’s crazy (that’s the only other thing wrong with her), and she never had anything to do, and she’s just been Lying around, and she has ailments. She comes into the auditing room and she starts to talk to you. She says, “Oh, I’ve been to this specialist and that specialist and it cost this much money and that much money and I’ve been here and I’ve been there and what’s really wrong with me and what you really should take up is so and so rah rah rah ....” It’s none of your business. The longer you let such a person talk, the less havingness they have. You can watch them go straight down the ARC tone scale if you keep on letting them talk. Obsessive communication—obsessive outflow. And the first major use that you will

Copyright © 1958 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

make of this, the first time you really understand what this acknowledgment is all about, is when somebody starts this on you and starts talking, talking, talking, talking, and you want to get a session started, and you get the intention real good and you say to them, “Good.” And they stop talking. Your intention was such that they knew that you had received their communication. And if you can do this very well, if you can get that acknowledgment just right and if it does exactly what it is supposed to do, very often the person will look at you fixedly and say, “You know, I don’t think anybody has ever heard me before.”

Why is this person talking obsessively? They are trying to make up in quantity what they lack in audience. There’s nobody listening to them. They are not talking to anyone. And you all of a sudden come up with an acknowledgment and say, “Hey! I heard you. I heard that. You have communicated to me, and that’s it, now.” And they say, “Wow. I don’t think I’ve ever talked to anybody before.” It’s quite amazing. I have seen an auditor on an obsessive outflow case get down in front of the preclear, fix him with an eye, move his finger back and forth just in front of the preclear’s nose and say, “Good; I heard that,” and have the preclear all of a sudden say, “Ooooh. Geeeeee. You are there, aren’t you!” So a good acknowledgment can actually wind up the entire goal of the process and find the auditor—that’s how important it is.

Now, that is a specialized use, stopping a compulsive outflow. Its general use is putting a period to the communication cycle. It ends the moment of time in which you gave the command you learned how to give, we hope, in Dear Alice, part A. You said something, the preclear heard it, and we understood then that the preclear had heard it, and we said, “Good.” Now the exact way Dear Alice, part B (which is Dummy Auditing, Step Two), is done is this. The coach—or a person acting as a preclear—takes Alice in Wonderland and reads random phrases out of it. And, reading the phrase in any old way, we don’t care how (we’re not disciplining the preclear, you know; we never do that, we merely control them within an inch of their lives), in this particular case this person says something out of Alice in Wonderland and the auditor has to say, “Good,” “Fine,” “Okay,” “I heard that,” anything—in such a way as actually to convince the person who is sitting there acting as the preclear that he has heard it.

Now there is a specific way to do this. That is to intend that the communication cycle ends at that point and to end it there. Anything that you do to make that come about is, of course, legitimate, unless it utterly destroys ARC. But it finishes a cycle of communication. So what could the auditor in this case do? You see, there sits the auditor, no book; there sits the preclear with a book; and the preclear is reading, “And the Mad Hatter dipped his watch into the teapot,” and the auditor says, “Good.” But that ends that, you see. Now, in view of the fact that the preclear is reading a continued story which goes on sentence after sentence after sentence, the auditor will have a tendency to treat this as “in passing,” and that is not an acknowledgment. The auditor could say, “Well, read some more.” That’s not an acknowledgment—it didn’t stop it, did it? “Continue, go ahead”—no, that’s not an acknowledgment at all. An acknowledgment says, “Stop”—”Whoa”—”Air brakes”—”Period”—”End”—”Heard you”—”You’ve communicated”—”That’s the end of that moment of time”—”Final cycle”—”That’s it”—”You’ve had it.” You get that?

So the auditor has to say “Good,” “Fine,” “Okay,” in such a way as to receive the communication in the preclear’s eyes. The preclear has to know that the auditor has received the communication, and that’s the only point on which they are coached— at first.

Then we could start to bear down and say, as an instructor, “Well, did you acknowledge that preclear’s communication? Did you?” And the auditor says, “Well, uhh....” “Did you do a perfect acknowledgment?” “Well—certainly.” And the answer to that would be “No.” The preclear is still reading, still got the book in

his hands, still going on with it, still sitting in the chair, and he’s still not in this universe.

What is this all about? What are we actually trying to do? Well, we’re not trying to reach the ultimate in an acknowledgment because that would be the end of the universe. If somebody could say “Yes,” “Good,” or “Okay” with enough intention behind it, all communications of this universe from the moment of its beginning would then be acknowledged, totally. (Except that this would violate the communication formula because they weren’t all addressed to him, although lots of people think they were.) But what does the auditor actually feel called upon to do? Well, he feels called upon to put a period to that cycle of communication. It actually started, you see, with the auditor’s phrase to the preclear, then the preclear signified with some kind of wince or grunt or something that it had been heard, and then the auditor says, “Well, that’s the end of that. Good. Fine. That finished that.” You see?

But an acknowledgment ends the cycle of the communication which you read about in Dianetics 1955, and that is the Bill-Joe cycle. “Good,” says the auditor. This is fantastic. If you got good enough at this, a traffic cop would drive up and say something to you and you would acknowledge the fact that he had spoken and he would simply get back on his bike or go back to the station house and turn in his badge and retire. You see, that would be the end of that. That would be it. As a matter of fact, it actually staggers people to have an acknowledgment come to them—it staggers them, really to get it through. People who are having a hard time, particularly. It’s a good thing, and it’s very therapeutic for a person to know that he has been acknowledged. I know that you will be around in the local stores, maybe stopping a pedestrian on the street and suddenly looking at him and saying, “Good”—acknowledging him. And you will have some fantastic things occur if you do. An acknowledgment is a very, very powerful sixteen-inch gun in the communication formula; and you shouldn’t use it sparingly, you should use it to end cycles of communication. I hope you learn to do that very, very well.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 6 DECEMBER 1958



HOW TO RUN AN ENGRAM

Brief Summary for HGC Use

First—only graduates of ACCs including the 5th London October 1958, and after are qualified to run engrams by Scientology processes. This does not include Dianetic processing of engrams which can be done by anyone but is not allowed in HGCs. Reason: Scientology processing of engrams is too strong for most untrained personnel and better results are obtained by HGC wholly repetitive processes. Stable Data: The HGC has the responsibility of using only the processes which obtain the highest results. A Director of Processing must bring about only the use of the best processes.

For wholly repetitive command clearing processes, see other bulletins. Engram running with Scientology processes in unschooled hands does not bring about bettered cases by actual test. This is evidently due to the roughness of the auditing and failures to handle ARC breaks. ACC trained personnel therefore, are the only ones qualified or permitted to run engrams in an HGC.

Locating the Engram

Finding the engram necessary to resolve the case is done by an E-Meter and finger snaps. The E-Meter is the final check. If an E-Meter is stuck on the pc or Stage Four (rises, sticks, falls in a repetitive cycle and reacts on nothing else) CCH processes may be used or preferably, the 3 commands of Factual Havingness (8 of vanish, 2 of continue, to one of have).

The experience necessary to resolve the case is the engram asked for. It is run back in time and located exactly in time. The falls of the needle are the equivalent of a “yes” answer to the auditor’s question. Only the time is isolated, not the content. The time may turn out to be a span of years. The incident may be even a century in length.

In a rough case some current lifetime “lock” may be the incident. In a very rough (unreality) case, the “engram” necessary to resolve the case may be the moment the pc walked into the room.

In a majority of cases however the “engram necessary to resolve the case” is a past death, complete with its accompanying overt act. Its place in time is the concern of the auditor. Questions such as “Greater than five hundred years?” “Less than five hundred years?” narrow the time down precisely. Several incidents may be located in passing.

Run that incident which has the steepest fall. Don’t run the earliest necessarily. In case of doubt as to which of two falls most pick a later incident (closer to p.t.) as it will actually be easier for the pc to confront it.

With this incident selected, don’t then change it or let the pc change it. Don’t start to run one incident and then change to another ever. What you pick, flatten. To change is to pretty well lose the whole case. We aren’t interested here in the significance of what running it does for the case.

L. RON HUBBARD
LRH :gn.cden
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 7 DECEMBER 1958




TRAINING DRILL CHANGE


TR 5N will now replace TR 5 as a Comm Course drill and will occupy the 5th day of the Comm Course.

TR 5N is ARC Break handling.


L. RON HUBBARD


LRH:gn.rd

P.A.B. No. 150
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

15 December 1958

DUMMY AUDITING

Step Three: Duplication

Compiled from the Research Material and Taped Lectures of L. Ron Hubbard



This interesting, interesting dummy auditing step has a villainous and vicious goal. It makes somebody duplicate. ‘Way back in 1950 we found out that auditors, in order to be interesting, would vary their pattern; and every time the pattern was varied, every time the auditing command changed, the preclear received a little jolt. There was an upset because of it. A long time ago we would have considered it fairly legitimate for an auditor, using the auditing command “Do fishes swim,” to say, “By the way, do finny creatures wiggle in the water?”—and next time to say, “Say! does the funny tribe bathe?”—and the next time to say, “What brands of fishes are there that progress from point A to point B in liquid habitats?” That possibly would have been legitimate then, but we don’t do that today. We do a horrible thing. The auditor says, “Do fishes swim?” And, just to vary it, he then says, “Do fishes swim?” And, just for good wild variation, he then says, “Do fishes swim?”

This is where we learn why we were so insistent on one command in one moment of time back in Dear Alice, part A, because we don’t repeat the first “Do fishes swim” another thousand times. No auditing command should ever depend for any of its meaning on any other auditing command ever uttered. Each one exists, theoretically and purely, in its own moment of time and is uttered itself in present time with its own intention.

Now this is quite important. Do you know that the basic auditing process of CCH does not work unless each command is in a separate unit of time? If you run it this way, “Give me your hand—thank you; give me your hand—thank you; give me your hand-thank you,” it’s not very therapeutic and nothing happens to the preclear. Why? Well, we’ve got a machine which is simply repeating the first “Give me your hand” over and over again. We’re not saying it—there’s no intention there. Do you know that if you told somebody to give you his hand with enough intention behind it his body would respond without any via through the thetan? The body doesn’t obey the words, the body obeys the intention to extend a hand. Therefore, when you are asked to express an auditing command with the same words over and over and over, each time you must express it in present time as itself with its intention. It isn’t just a long duplication of it. Just duplicating something over and over and over is sometimes so trying that people wonder how auditors ever arrive at all. Nobody could sit in a chair and say each time with a new intention, “Do fishes swim,” for seventy-five hours. It’s beyond human possibility, according to some people. But the trick is that if it’s always uttered in present time it could be said for a thousand and seventy-five hours. It’s only

Copyright © 1958 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

when it’s repeated—only when the first command is repeated over and over and when no new intention arrives—that it becomes very arduous. Only when it goes on to a machine does it become almost impossible to do.

Communication is reached by control plus duplication. At first you find that to make each utterance of the command different in its own unit of time you use different voice inflections. But as you come up the line on this you find out that you actually can pattern the same tone and each time have it entirely new. It would be very, very incorrect to teach this, to have the auditor each time duplicate his own voice tones as they were the last time, because that is making an auditing command depend on the last auditing command. We couldn’t care less; and, after a while, you couldn’t care less, either, what voice tone you’re uttering, but each intention is new and fresh. The intention is to ask and get an answer to this question, “Do fishes swim?” and, each time you utter it, it is uttered newly and in its own area of time. That’s really the only stress there is. One command per unit of time. Each command separate, and each command containing the words, quite incidentally, “Do fishes swim?”

Here we learn a great deal about the duplicative factors of communication. We find out that, in having to duplicate, we think we actually lose some of the communication at first. It’s utterly idiotic—how could you possibly maintain ARC and therefore, of course, interest, asking a person over and over again this silly question, “Do fishes swim?” Who could do this? Well, interest in communication has everything to do with the intention to be interesting and very little to do with text. Furthermore, it is not the auditor’s job to be interesting. Being interesting is a part of the communication formula, but to an auditor the least possible part, as far as the preclear is concerned. He’s not there to interest and intrigue the preclear. Right away, people think they are. Place two people in chairs facing each other and each one of these two people feels the compulsion to be interesting to the other. That’s not auditing, that’s being interesting, that’s being social and so on. So if a person had any difficulty doing Step Three, Do Fishes Swim, the instructor would be perfectly in order if he simply told the person to sit in that chair and told some other student who wasn’t doing too well, or just some other student, to sit in the other chair, and told them just to sit there and look at each other without saying a thing or being embarrassed or anything else. Interesting drill, if you think of it. We do have variation, and therefore interest, in the first and second dummy auditing steps; but now we reach this one and it is utterly devoid of interest. We’re saying the same thing over and over and over and over. And if a person can’t do this he probably has a compulsion to vary, to alter-is, to be interesting, and he wouldn’t find it easy just to sit in a chair and face another human being and not say a word and not do a thing but just sit there and look at the other human being. And if I were coaching someone that had difficulty in repetition of steps, I would do that for an hour or two that day.

All right. It is absolutely necessary that an auditor be able to duplicate. But answer me this: Is a person who is saying something in present time each time really duplicating the last moment of time? He really isn’t, is he? And so this duplication that we do in Scientology means only the ability apparently to duplicate while being in present time.

The greatest motto of experience and the life we have lived is this: I won ‘t ever do that again. This is the one thing your mama wanted you to promise. If you did nothing else, if you lived a completely sinful life, why, mama still wanted you to learn by experience; which is to say that when you did something wrong, or did something, you weren’t ever to do it again. She hoped perhaps you would eat enough candy to make you so sick that you wouldn’t “wolf’ candy again; that you would eat enough ice cream so that ice cream would make you so green that you wouldn’t make a pig of yourself over ice cream again; that you would become so embarrassed and lose so many friends that you would not do that evil thing again, whatever it was you did; and thus

learn by experience never to do it again. And this is experience talking. One thing you must understand—that experience teaches you—is never to do anything the second time. This doesn’t necessarily mean that all experience is painful, but people who are having a hard time tend to believe that it is; and when they begin to depend upon experience and stand by this lesson of never doing it again, they can no longer duplicate. And what do you know—they can’t communicate. Also, their bank jams. All sorts of interesting things occur. All moments become one moment. One moment becomes all moments. Identification occurs all over the place. And just the action of repeating something like “Do fishes swim?” as an auditor, with a full intention, has a tendency to unjam the time track.

You should know that this is what this step is up against. It is violating all of that hard-won experience that you have accumulated in the last seventy-six trillion years-if you believe an E-Meter, you’re seventy-six trillion years old. And all that hard-won experience, all that wonderful, wonderful lot of mess that you got into, added up completely to Never do it again. And so you’ve been taught not to live, which is what happens when you get experience. And when you can duplicate an auditing command over and over again, you will find out that auditing does not become a painful experience. A person who can do this well, by the way, never gets restimulated. Why should he—he’s not in the moment of time in which the restimulation took place.

There is a more basic step to this particular one, by the way. This is to pat the wall five times and then distinguish one of the pats from the rest. An instructor can do that on a student with some profit. Pretty soon the student can tell all five pats apart, and when the student can tell them all apart, even though they sounded all the same, he can also duplicate an auditing command in present time all the way. I’ve broken cases with that one.






















LRH TAPE LECTURE
Washington, D.C.
16 December 1958


The following “Washington Staff Talk” given by L. Ron Hubbard is complemented by a further one given 2 February 1959.

** 5812C16 WST-1 PR&R-1: Promotion and Registration

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

D of T HCO BULLETIN OF 16 DECEMBER 1958
Acad Admin
Ext Course Dir
Acad Insts
D of P EXTENSION COURSE CURRICULUM
Processing Admin
HCO Bd of Review
ACC Worldwide Inst

The Extension Course for HCA/HPA is outlined as follows.

Section A—1 tablet
Lessons 1 A to 20A, eight questions each lesson. Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, entire book covered in 160 questions.

Section B—1 tablet
Lessons 1B to 20B, eight questions each lesson. Science of Survival, entire book covered in 160 questions.

Section C—1 tablet
Lessons 1C to 20C, eight questions each lesson. Advanced Procedure and Axioms, entire book covered in 160 questions.

Section D—1 tablet
Lessons 1D to 20D, eight questions each lesson. Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought entire book covered in 160 questions.

The Extension Course for HCS/BScn is outlined as follows:

Section E—1 tablet
Lessons 1E to 20E, eight questions each lesson. The Hubbard Electrometer and Electropsychometric Auditing, entire subject covered in 160 questions, theory and practice.

Section F—1 tablet
Lessons 1F to 20F, eight questions each lesson. Scientology: 8-8008, entire book covered in 160 questions.

Section G—1 tablet
Lessons 1G to 20G, eight questions each lesson. The Creation of Human Ability, entire book covered in 160 questions.

Section H—1 tablet
Lessons 1H to 20H, eight questions each lesson. Various Clear Procedures from various texts, entire subject covered in 160 questions.

The Extension Course for DScn/HGS is outlined as follows:

Section J—I tablet
Lessons 1J to 20J, eight questions per lesson. All TR Drills, entire subject covered in 160 questions (text not yet published).

Section K—1 tablet
Lessons 1K to 20K, eight questions per lesson, Track Scouting (text not yet published). Entire subject covered in 160 questions.

Section L—1 tablet
Lessons 1L to 20L, eight questions per lesson, Scientology Organizations, entire subject covered in 160 questions.

Section M—1 tablet
Not outlined.

The following activities are responsible for submitting questions to be made into printed lessons:

Section A — Academy DC
Section B — Academy London
Section C — HCO Bd of Review DC
Section D — HCO Bd of Review London
Section E — HGC Washington DC
Section F — HGC London
Section G — Academy London
Section H — HCO Washington DC
Section J — ACC Worldwide Instructor
Section K — ACC Worldwide Instructor

When you have completed your section, please send the questions complete to HCO for forwarding to me.

This is the fastest way I know to get the Extension Course completed. I have only its format and a DMSMH outline at this moment. Would you do this for me?

HOW TO WRITE AN EXTENSION COURSE SECTION

An Extension Course Section consists of a textbook and a series of lessons done on a glued-top tablet, one sheet per lesson, eight questions or exercises per lesson. The questions are consecutively numbered from 1 to 160 with the identifying letter on each number. Example: Section B, third question, is 3B. The name of the textbook, but not its page numbers, is carried on every lesson page, not each question.

We only want the questions for the section, not the printed complete product.

The questions concern only vital definitions needed for a knowledge of the subject and examples of the use and meaning.

To do a course, use the following:

Make a list of all vital definitions used in the text specified on the subject. These should number around eighty so pare or expand the list until it is composed of eighty vital words or phrases or objects.

Use the definition for odd numbered questions.

Demand an explanation, an example, a discovery from real life, a consequence, etc, of the definition as the following even-numbered question.

The Extension Course should give the taker a passing knowledge of Dianetics and Scientology terminology, phenomena and parts. This is its goal and purpose. The reasoning or examples in a text are considered secondary, for the purposes of the course, to precision definitions.

The Extension Course Student should finish the course with the feeling he is dealing with a precision science, composed of identifiable parts.

Example (not necessary to use):

Question 5A: What is a reactive mind?
Question 6A: Give something out of your own experience that would illustrate a reactive mind at work.

The main tasks imposed here are ( 1 ) To summarize the important definitions and parts of Dianetics and Scientology from a text and (2) Ask interestingly for an application to life.

Now you see why I want your swift help in writing it. It would take one person months. Your contribution, as assigned in this bulletin, will speed it up by months.


L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:md.rd

Distribution:
Not to be stencilled in London (their copies being sent direct from DC).
Info copies going to Melbourne, SA, and all field offices, via HCOs; 3 copies—1 for HCO, 1 to D of T, 1 to D of P.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 17 DECEMBER 1958
1 to each
Staff Member
Dollar Field Offices
HCO London for stencilling and dist



BASIC POSTULATE OF OVERT ACT-MOTIVATOR SEQUENCE


The inability to restrain dramatization of past experience only occurs when one has decided he can do nothing about such an experience. Thereafter he is the effect of all similar pictures.

Test: Pick up a moment in the past when you decided you could do nothing about a certain thing—then examine later experience on same subject.

This is the make-break point of reactivity.

This is the bridge between cause point and effect point on any given subject.

“I have to do something about it—I can do nothing about it” are the basic postulates of the overt act-motivator sequence. Straight Wire against an E-Meter on times one felt one could do nothing about it works to resolve very difficult cases.


L. RON HUBBARD










LRH: md.cden
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 17 DECEMBER 1958
Issue II
1 to each
Staff Member
Dollar Field Offices
HCO London for release



AUDITING ARC BREAKS ON REGISTRAR
AND ASSISTANT REGISTRAR


I have found it desirable to run TR 5N (ARC Breaks) fully on both Registrar and Assistant Registrar in new comm line.

A good auditor who can handle 2-way comm is needed.

The commands are, “What has anyone done wrong to you?” and “What have you done wrong to people?”, and other ARC Break questions.

Getting the overts of the pc is important.

It is necessary to remove, in this special case, ARC Breaks between Registrar and Assistant Registrar with—

1. Students
2. Instructors
3. Auditors
4. Preclears
5. Field Auditors
6. The Central Org
7. Groups
8. Customers
9. Salesmen
10. LRH

Get out what each of the above did to the Registrar or Assistant Registrar and what the Registrar and Assistant Registrar have done to or thought about doing to each of the above.

This will make it possible for them to (1) live in their operating climate and (2) write warmer, more forward “invasion of privacy” letters.


L. RON HUBBARD


LRH:md.cden
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 20 DECEMBER 1958

(An article for any Scientology Magazine authorized by a Central Organization)



PROCESSING A NEW MOTHER


The handling of a woman during and after pregnancy has a specific successful drill which should be generally known. This is not an attempt to give all the known data concerning pregnancy, delivery and child care. I will someday summarize all these. At this time I wish to give you only the processes and general use.

First, a woman should not be processed on engrams after the early months. Therefore a pregnant woman should be processed toward clear early and well. In other words she should be gotten into good shape soon in the pregnancy. Old Expanded Gita on babies, husbands, wives, bodies is definitely indicated.

After the sixth month only havingness and general Scientology processes can be run without injuring the baby—no engrams.

Next, the delivery itself should carry as little anaesthetic as possible, be as calm and no-talk as possible and the baby should not be bathed or chilled but should be wrapped somewhat tightly in a warm blanket, very soft, and then left alone for a day or so.

At once after delivery the woman should have simple havingness run—”Look around here and find something you have”—preferably by the husband. One hour of this at once, one more hour same day, two hours following day, all havingness and havingness only should be run.

After two days run the following:

“Invent something worse than—a delivery” (flatten it), “. . . a baby” (flatten it), “. . . a doctor” (flatten it), “. . . a nurse” (flatten it), “. . . a delivery room” (flatten it), “. . . a mother” (flatten it), “. . . a husband” (flatten it), “. . . an abdomen” (flatten it), “. . . a womb” (flatten it).

This should be done in next many days following the delivery. This and more factual havingness (all 3 commands) should straighten up the mother. It would be well if the six buttons and inventing were cleared away in early pregnancy so the post pregnancy processes will run easily. She shouldn’t face a new processing idea in the first few days after delivery, so if the processes are early prepared, all will be well.

On the baby, perhaps the best thing is no processing for three days. Then talk to the baby, tell the newcomer he or she is welcome, then make friends. Various things can be done—touch assist is best. Even the birth engram can be run but that’s a little adventurous in a lot of cases.

The most to know about the baby is not to tire him or her unduly for a week or two, feed a protein formula if mother not breast feeding. This formula is most like human milk. I picked it up in Roman days and have used it since—15 ounces of barley water, 10 ounces of homogenized milk, 3 ounces Karo syrup (this can be multiplied by any number according to the number of bottles desired but the ratio remains the same). Evaporated or condensed milk and heavy sugar make fat not bone. Protein is the thing that heals and makes strong growth. Modern hospital formulas and patent mixes for babies are not just bad, they are criminal.

Then the next important thing for a baby is to know he or she is winning. Don’t expect him or her to do more than a baby can do. Grant beingness to a baby.

“You make that body lie in that cradle” is wonderful on babies up to six months.

Let the child see Mama and Daddy both at least once a day. Never quarrel or argue in front of a baby or a child—it destroys security.

Always treat mama and baby with courtesy and respect and they’ll thrive. After all, they have done something. They’re keeping the human race going.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH: gn.rd
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 22 DECEMBER 1958
To all staff
US Field Offices
HCO London for
comparable dist.
NEW HGC PROCESS

A New Straight Wire


(This can be used in any official Scientology Magazine)

There is a new process allowed in HGC. It is—

ARC Break Straight Wire

This process belongs after S-C-S and Factual Havingness and before What Can You Confront.

ARC Break Straight Wire is a form of TR 5 ARC Break. Its processing number, however, is CCH-50.

Any and all rules governing Straight Wire apply, including—

(a) The pc cycles into past and back to pt. Therefore, ask and pin point when.

(b) Stop the process only with the pc near pt. Put in a bridge, therefore, without specified number of “more times”. Wrong: “I am going to ask this question three more times and end the process.” Right: “I am going to ask this question until your answers are close to present time and then end it if that’s all right with you.” Then check when on each reply, get pc into present time and say, “Are you near present time? All right, this is the end of the process.”

The Command to a Scientologist is, “Recall an ARC Break.” This is for an unlimited type process. “Recall an ARC Break between us”, or “. . . in an auditing session” or “. .. with your mother” to limit process to this life. The first form is preferred. The second form is used on a sticky valence that has been isolated.

The unlimited version rapidly dives for whole track and into engrams. This is all right. But don’t stop and change the process. Just continue to run “Recall an ARC Break” when the pc gets into heavy weather.

Be very careful with this process to keep the Auditor’s Code. Otherwise, 50% of the time is spent getting rid of ARC Breaks in the session itself—and with this process these are heavy. (However, two auditors co-auditing who are a bit clumsy can use this process better than other processes and it and Factual Havingness should be the total activity of an auditor who is having trouble with a pc who is having trouble with ARC Breaks.)

The pc, in diving for whole track, gets into and out of heavy incidents. So long as he answers the question, fine. Don’t let him fail to answer every question.

Reality on the whole track leaps up with this process. This is the first process that accomplishes this easily.

In running it, remember that the overt act is as important as the motivator (see A History of Man, Chap. 9). The reason A gets mad at B is as often because A has done something to B as it is because B has done something to A.

Here is a fine, smooth process that is a one-shot Clear, and can be used by auditors not ACC-trained to run engrams.

ARC Break Straight Wire is very useful in husband-wife co-auditing teams and, with Factual Havingness, is the only process that should be used in a co-auditing relationship that is already intimate to a point of easily gathering ARC Breaks.

From two standpoints the process is the best we have ever had—

(a) It handles touchy pcs well, and
(b) It is the first to open up whole track in general with as great a reality or greater than the R on present life.

From two other viewpoints the process is vulnerable:

(a) It requires strict observance of the Auditor’s Code if you don’t want to waste 50% to 75% of the auditing time.

(b) It runs the pc into heavy incidents and the process must be continued until pc is again in pt-making an uncertainty in session timing.

However, the shortcomings are far outweighed by the value of ARC Break Straight Wire.

There is one “bug” in the process. The non-Scientologist does not readily grasp the command-and there is no substitute for a quick question.

ARC Break means, “The assignment of responsibility for a sudden drop in Affinity, Reality or Communication.” Thee and me have a “feel” for this.

Substitute commands are many, none as good. “Recall something you have done to a person”—”Recall something that has been done to you” is fair but misses by a mile.

History: This process is, in genus, very old. I introduced its rudiments at the June 1952 first Congress in Phoenix, Arizona. ARC is even older and goes to July of 1950. The present version in a narrower form was first used by Mary Sue Hubbard in 1958.

The valuable lesson this gives us is that Mary or Joe or Pete may be mad at us because Mary or Joe or Pete did something to us. We may or may not have done anything to Mary or Joe or Pete to make them mad at us. In other words, the pc who comes back into session furious with the auditor, may have committed an overt act against the auditor out of session and not prompted by an action of the auditor. The wife may be mad at the husband because of something she did to the husband. She talked about him behind his back (prompted by some old engram about husbands) and, now having committed this overt act, she becomes furious with the husband. Etc. Etc. The person mad at Scientology may only be motivated by having done something to Scientology. Etc. Etc. A whole new view of human behaviour opens when you see this point. Therefore, caution the pc to “pick up his overt acts against things, too” while he’s running it, if he’s only getting overt acts against him.

The only reason the process won’t work is that the pc isn’t doing it, but only pretending to, or he doesn’t understand it.

But all in all, we’ve a wonderful weapon here to straighten out a lot of lives. Use it with wild abandon and get the results in. It’s good.


LRH :md.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


Issue 86 M [ 1958, ca. late December]


The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.


Something Has Happened!!!


L. Ron Hubbard


The single largest technical gain in eight years has just occurred.

Anyone can be cleared by engram running.

A new style of auditing has had to be developed to handle the explosive power of the new Scientology methods of handling Dianetic engrams.

Shades of Book One! Whoever would have thought that engram running could be improved as much as it has been improved in the past three months.

To make engram running possible, twelve new TRs have had to be developed.

There are now three styles of auditing: Tone 40, Formal and Engram Auditing. The first two are quite adequate to clear fifty percent of cases. It takes a new approach to get enough locks off the rocks of the remaining fifty percent to get them clear too.

I’ve been busy, busy, busy. I had the largest ACC ever held in the world during October and November. And I had the luck in research to put us on a new plateau of stable clearing.

I asked the ACC Instructors, “What shall we do about America?” They were just about knocked to pieces training the British to handle the double-dynamite of modern engrams. But they said, “Somehow we’ve got to get in everybody we can to the January ‘59 ACC in Washington. We’ve got to get this data out.”

So we’re doing it in a Congress on the 3rd and 4th of January in D.C., and the 21st American ACC following.

Look, it’s no promotion talk. It just can’t be said hard enough. We’ve made it! We’ve shot through the last barrier. We’ve got it and a new society made.

We’ve worked hard. We’re willing to work harder. But we need help. I want to drop some coal on the fire and get the show on the road. I need people who can do this. I can show a lot of people at a Congress and can show specialists in an ACC. I need staff and I need action.

ACCs are my own course. I don’t care what arrangements are made to pay for it. But this one has been on wait for eight years and now it can get going.

I can’t give another U.S. Congress and ACC for some time. There’s only the 21st American ACC. And only the Success Congress.

Will I see you there?

Copyright © 1958 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 26 DECEMBER 1958



B.SCN/HCS COURSE


Any fully enfranchised area office may teach a B.Scn/HCS Course if the course is specifically allowed in writing by myself via HCO Worldwide in London.

The standard B.Scn/HCS Course is in actuality the 20th ACC. It is expected that the instructor of a B.Scn/HCS Course will have taken the 18th, 19th or 20th ACC.

The tapes to be used are the 20th ACC tapes. These are available from Washington.

The texts are Scientology Clear Procedure Issue One and ACC Clear Procedure as published in booklet form.

Extension Courses E, F, G & H are also required but may be done after regular schooling. It is preferred that Section E (the E-Meter) be done before the course.

No Comm Course or Upper Indoc or TRs are given in the B.Scn/HCS Course. If these have not been had by the applicant he must take them in the regular Academy Comm Course and Upper Indoc—these weeks to be added to the time in course.

The B.Scn/HCS Course is five weeks in length. If Comm Course and Upper Indoc have not been covered by the student, the course becomes seven weeks in length.

The same schedule, the same tapes as the 20th ACC are employed. However, the exact times of day may be altered to fit an area.

Those areas granted the right to teach a B.Scn Course at this time are HASI London and HASI Melbourne. That area permitted to teach an HCS Course at this time is Washington, D.C.

The examination for this course will be based chiefly on the ACC Clear Procedure Booklet.

HCO Washington, HCO London and HCO Melbourne are the only centers now examining for B.Scn/HCS. These may be assisted by other areas.

When regularized by establishment of an area HCO, Johannesburg, Auckland and Los Angeles may receive B.Scn/HCS rights to train.

It is recommended the B.Scn/HCS Course start every five weeks instead of every Monday as in HCA and the schedule be pre-published for six months, and that people who have not had Comm Course and Upper Indoc be warned to start two weeks earlier in all literature.


L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 27 DECEMBER 1958

Full Distribution




THE FIRST FIRST DYNAMIC PROCESS


All processing to date has been in the main third dynamic processing.

For the first time I have worked out a purely first dynamic process. It is used by the Auditor on a pc with lots of attention to ARC Breaks, havingness and, of course, smooth skill.

The process is “Invent something worse than you.”

Theoretically this is a “one shot clear” process. It directly changes the being that is making the bank—the thetan.

It does not hope for a change of the person via a change of the bank.

The HGC and any validated Auditor can use this with great profit.

2 cautions: Do not permit a pc to escape “invent”. Do not let him do something else (such as see how he is to find if something is “worse than”).

The process does not work unless “Invent Something” is workable. Therefore, to run it, one makes sure first that the pc knows he can invent something.

The process does not work if the pc also does something else. Ask the pc “What are you doing exactly” now and then and make the pc do only the process.

Patch up any ARC Breaks with “What have I done wrong”. And follow that with “What have you done to me” to get both motivator and overts in the session.

This is a wonderful process—simple to run and do, with good results—if it is done right. It is easier to run than ARC Break Straight Wire.


L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:gn.cden
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 28 DECEMBER 1958


To all staff
General Dist.
For use in any official magazine
For use in any HGC



SHORT SESSIONING



One of the simplest ways to get a case moving is a technique known as “Short Sessioning” which I developed for the 20th ACC.

The 20th was the last ACC to teach clearing without engram running and as such had several lagging cases. I studied one of these carefully against the basic auditing rule, “Find something the pc can do and then improve his ability to do it.”

The case under study defied all known processes. It was “unreality, unreality, unreality”, and “ARC Break, ARC Break, ARC Break”.

ARC Straight Wire old style was also unreal. Imagine that!

However, even when all else was lost, I still had the idea that this pc could be run on something and finally had a long blue spark—the pc would start and end sessions.

Probably this was the sole ability, Scientology-wise, of this pc. So I made the auditor start and end ten-minute sessions. And it worked. It worked even though the auditor never really cognited on the value of it! I had to heavy-8c the auditor a bit to keep the auditor from “running something”. Short sessioning was evidently not something to do. Only a process was something

Anyway, everybody won. The pc got brighter, the auditor got a win and we got a new technique. That’s the way with Scientology, everybody wins—even the people who claim I’m too enthusiastic for their point five.

The exact way to do “short sessioning” is as follows.

One uses old rudiments if he isn’t comfortable with CCH 0. Or he uses CCH 0 as given in ACC Clear Procedure. [See page 311.] It doesn’t matter much which since he is depending on starting and ending sessions rather than “running something”. Therefore, the auditor should use that with which he is the most comfortable.

The auditor gets the pc’s agreement to start a very short session and says, “Start.”

Then he clears up some small thing like an ARC Break in the session or a pt problem without really getting into anything hot. (Finds auditor and pc.)

The auditor then does something objective with the auditing room such as “How does this room differ from an ideal environment?”

Probably by this time the ten minutes are up, so the auditor tapers it off and bridges to session end. “Is it all right with you if we end this session shortly?” “Is there anything you’d like to say before we do?” “All right. End of session.”

The auditor makes the pc get up and take a break for a few minutes. Then he gets the pc back and does it all over again more or less as above.

The idea is not to try to get benefit from a process but to get the pc less and less nervous about doing something. The pc will begin and end sessions. Anything between is pure gravy if it works but the in-between may not work at all. It does not matter. Starting and ending sessions is what is wanted for the pc.

Short sessioning works for many reasons. It injects time into the picture, for one thing. It breaks up habits on the cycle of action. It gets the pc used to the auditor. You could think of many more reasons but basically whatever the reasons, it works.

Try it on that case that ARC Breaks on you all the time. Try it on the pc that has it all unreal-unreal-unreal. You’ll be amazed at what short sessioning, smoothly run and without crude auditor flubs, can do for almost any case, not just bad ones.

Several difficult cases have improved markedly with this alone. Simple, isn’t it? Well, most good things are.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:mgjh
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 31 DECEMBER 1958



ACC CLEAR PROCEDURE CHANGE


Omit “What part of that can you confront best?” from ACC Clear Procedure commands. It attracts pc’s attention too deeply into engrams encountered.


L. RON HUBBARD




LRH:gn.rd




LRH TAPE LECTURE
Washington, D.C.
29 December 1958


** 5812C29 LECTURE HCO Area Sec Hat

P.A.B. No. 151
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 January 1959

DUMMY AUDITING

Step Four: Handling Originations

Compiled from the Research Material and Tape Lectures of L. Ron Hubbard



The fourth thing an auditor has to do (in that order) is to handle an origin from the preclear. It is actually true that when you are handling Tone 40 processes, you do not handle the preclear’s originations. But if you will look on the HCA/HPA chart you will find that these Tone 40 processes are in the minority amongst processes, and in all processes not Tone 40 a preclear’s originations are handled—remember that. Don’t let anybody talk you out of it. If you are handling Tone 40, which is just pure, positive postulating, you, of course, are not worried about anybody’s opinion, origin, condition, or anything else—you simply want him to do certain things, and he finds out that his beingness can be controlled and therefore that he can control it.

What do we mean by an origin of the preclear? He volunteers something all on his own; and do you know that is a very good index of case—whether the person volunteers anything on his own? An old-time auditor used this as a case index. He said, “This fellow isn’t getting any better. He hasn’t offered up anything yet.” You see, he didn’t originate—he didn’t originate a communication. Do you know that that is the hardest thing to get an organization to do: to originate a communication?

You actually could- work in the direction of getting a preclear to originate a communication, in spite of the fact that you just previously were running him on Tone 40 processes. He originated the communication that his arms and legs felt like they were just going to fall off, and you said, “Give me your hand—thank you.” Preclear says, “My head’s coming off now! I know it’s going to fall on the floor!” Auditor: “Give me your hand—thank you.” Good Tone 40. But on control of person, the first two processes are Tone 40, but Book Mimicry and the next process up the line from it, Hand Space Mimicry, are not Tone 40, and originations by the preclear are not only handled but encouraged.

So remember that we have not lost out of the galaxy of processes the fact that the preclear is as well as he can originate a communication. That means he can stand at Cause on the communication formula. And that is a desirable point for him to reach. You see, in controlling people we are really only showing them that they can be controlled, that it is possible for their possessions to be controlled. And then they eventually decide that these are controllable and that people are controllable and that things are controllable and their bodies are controllable, and they say, “Wonderful! Look, I’ll try!” And before that they didn’t even try.

Copyright © 1959 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

So we are controlling a person’s possessions or body only until this person then himself decides to take a hand in it, too. And then he finds out that control is possible. But most people don’t originate. Circuits originate, computers originate, compulsive outflows originate. And when you first start to use Tone 40 on a person you will apparently see originations—but they are not originations, they are restimulations being dramatized. There is a big difference between a restimulation being dramatized and an origination. It’s whether or not the thetan said it. Did he say it, or was it just a circuit starting up? Well, you can start up circuits and actually throw them into being and you will see that these are not originations.

But when an origination appears in anything but a Tone 40 process, you handle it. And you must handle it well and conclusively. There are preclears who have had astonishing things happen to them, who have tried to communicate them to the auditor, who have failed to do so and have then sunk into apathy and just gone right on out of session because their communication origination was not handled properly by the auditor. There are instances of this, and many of them. Tone 40 processes do not particularly violate this. An understanding of what they are takes place rather rapidly with the preclear and he doesn’t expect you to. But if he has graduated into being a human being and he’s getting up there and he originates something and you answer it, now he’s liable to say the most astonishing things to you. And if you don’t handle them he’s liable to drop into apathy about the whole thing.

So you must handle them well because they’re always unexpected. I would say that unexpectedness actually should be part of the definition of an origination, because they are quite often completely off the subject, they take you completely by surprise, they are apparently not at all what you expected him to say. The fellow says, “Huh! I’m eight feet back of my head!” Well, what do you do? In the old days, we might have gone right onto Route One, but we don’t today—we handle the origination. (By the way, this used to be an old technical phrase, “He Q-and-A’d.” In other words, he did what the preclear did. Any time the preclear changed, the auditor changed. That is the deadliest crime in auditing. The preclear changes because he is being processed and the auditor changes the process. Q-and-A—the preclear changed, the auditor changed. Well, that isn’t what you do.) He says, “You know, the whole back of my head feels like it’s on fire.” Once upon a time we might have handled this. We might have gone right in there and said, “Oh, that’s very good.” We had finally gotten a somatic on this fellow and we would have handled it in some fashion or other and questioned him about it and audited it, and so on. But we found out that this stuck people on the time track. Therefore, we do not do that any more. So what do we do when he says, “The back of my head is on fire!”—do we ignore it? Well, if we are running Tone 40 processes, we ignore it. But if we are auditing any other process, of which there are many in CCH, we handle the origin. And an auditor who has not been trained to do this will often find himself very embarrassed.

But how about in the walk-away world—the world that is ambulant and moving around and spinning quietly, or noisily, as the case may be? Do you ever have to handle an origin in it? Well, I dare say that every argument you have ever got into was because you did not handle an origin. Every time you have ever got into trouble with anybody, you can trace it back along the line you didn’t handle. If a person walks in and says, “Whee! I’ve just passed with the highest mark in the whole school,” and you say, “I’m awfully hungry, shouldn’t we go out and eat?”—you’ll find yourself in a fight. He feels ignored. He originated a communication to have you prove to him that he was there and he was solid. Most little kiddies get frantic about their parents when their parents don’t handle their originations properly. Handling an origination merely tells the person, “All right, I heard it, you’re there.” You might say it is a form of acknowledgment, but it’s not; it is the communication formula in reverse. But the auditor is still in control if he handles the origin—otherwise, the communication formula goes out of his control and he is at effect point, no longer at cause point. An auditor continues at cause point.

So let’s look this over. The handling of an origin has a great deal of use and, until recently, it was the least pat step in Scientology. How did you handle an origin? And we finally found out. I finally had a cognition myself. I tried for a long time to communicate this to people and they still blundered on it occasionally. And I finally found out something that did seem to communicate.

There are three steps in handling an origin. Here is the setup: The preclear is sitting in the chair and the auditor is sitting across from the preclear, and the auditor is saying, “Do fishes swim?” or “Do birds fly?” and the preclear says, “Yes.” Here is the factor, now, entering: “Do fishes swim?” The preclear doesn’t answer Do fishes swim, the preclear says, “You know—your dress is on fire,” or “I’m eight feet back of my head,” or “Is it true that all cats weigh 1.8 kilograms?” You see, wog, wog—where did this come from? Well, although it is usually circuitry or something like that at work when it’s that far off beam, it is, nevertheless, an origin. How do you handle it? Well, you don’t want the preclear to go out of session, and he would if you handled it wrongly, so (I) you answer it; (2) you maintain ARC (you don’t spend any time at it, but you just maintain ARC); and (3) you get the preclear back on the process. One, two, three. And if you spend too much time in (2), you’ll be doing wrong.

What is an origin? All right, he says, “I’m eight feet back of my head.” It’s an origin; what are you supposed to do with it? Well, you’re supposed to answer it. In this particular case, you would say to him something in the order of, “You are?” (You mean something like, “I’ve heard the communication—it’s made an effect on me.”) Now, in maintaining ARC you can skimp that second one if you handle the third one expertly enough. The least important one is the second one, but the most deadly thing you can do is utterly to neglect the second one of maintaining ARC. That’s deadly. But you can skip it if you really punch it into the third one, which is to say, get him back into session. So he says, “I’m eight feet back of my head,” and you say, “YOU ARE???” (What he said really hit, you know.) He’s kind of wog-wog about this—he’s not sure what this is all about. You say, “You are?” and the fellow says, “Yes.”

“Well!” you say. “What did I say that made that happen?”

“Oh, you said ‘Do birds fly,’ and I thought of myself as a bird and I guess that’s the way it is, but I am eight feet back of my head.”

“Well, that’s pretty routine,” you say—reassure him, maintain the ARC. “Now, what was that auditing question?”

“Oh, you asked me ‘Do birds fly?’ “

And you say, “That’s right. Do birds fly?”

Back in session, you see.

You can’t do this: You can’t put it into a can and put a label on it and say This is how you do it always, because it’s always something peculiar; but you can say these three steps are followed.

I will give you another example. You say, “Do birds fly?” and he says, “I have a blinding headache.”

“You do?” you say. “Is it bothering you (that’s the ARC) too much to carry on with the session (and you’ve reached number three at once)?”

“Oh no—it’s pretty bad though.”

“Well, let’s go on with this, shall we?” you say. “Maybe it’ll do something with it (maintaining ARC).”

He says, “Well, all right,” and you’re right back onto it again: “Do birds fly?”

One of the trickiest of these is “What in my question reminded you of that?” The fellow says, “Well, so and so,” and he explains it to you and you say, “Well, good. Do birds fly?” and you’re right back in session again.

Three parts, and—that is the important thing—you have to learn how to handle these things.

At the same time that we are doing this, we can get much more complicated, particularly toward the end of the session, by just trying out a communication bridge. A communication bridge from “Do birds fly” to “Do fishes swim” and from “Do fishes swim” back to “Do birds fly.” A communication bridge is a very easy thing. It simply closes off the process you were running, maintains ARC, and opens up the new process on which you are about to embark. If you could look at it as two V’s, the points facing each other, with a line between the bottoms of the two V’s, you would see that one process, which you have been running, is closed on down to nothing, easily, by gradients. You say, “How about running this just three or four more times, and then we’ll quit—okay?” We give him warning, you see, that we’re closing the process off, and we do run it three or four more times. Then we say, “How are you doing?” (We never ask people, by the way, “How do you feel?”—this as-ises havingness.) We say, “How are you doing?” and he says, “Oh, not too badly,” and so on. “Well, did anything happen there while we were running ‘Do fishes swim?’ “ And he says, “I don’t know. I got a little bit of reality—I felt like a fish for a couple of moments there.” Auditor says, “How do you feel about that?” and so on. “Is it okay? Are you doing all right now?” The preclear says, “Not too badly.” You say, “Well, let’s go over onto ‘Do birds fly?’ It’s an interesting process and it just goes like this—I ask you, ‘Do birds fly’ and you answer me. How about running that?” and he says, “Well all right, okay.” You establish agreement again and away we go. Actually, it is three contracts in a row. The first contract is: to stop the process we are running; the next contract is: we are in an auditing session, binding this as a continuing auditing session; and the third contract is simply: we have a new process we would like to run, and I want your signature on this dotted line that you will run it. That actually is a communication bridge. The reason we do this is so a preclear will not be startled by change, for if we change too rapidly in a session we stick the preclear in the session every time. We give him some warning; and that is what a communication bridge is for.

The handling of origins, however, is most important. Learn how to handle origins, and you’ll never be taken by surprise by a preclear. You’ll be right in there pitching, and the session will keep on. I have seen an auditor sit with his mouth open for twenty or thirty seconds after some preclear said something fantastic. He just didn’t know what to make of it. Well, you answer it, you maintain ARC, and you get him back in session.

1950 SUCCESS CONGRESS LECTURES
Washington, D.C.
3—4 January 1959

On January 3 and 4, 1959, the “1950 Success Congress” was held in Washington, D.C. In Ability 86-M, which served as the Congress Program, Ron had this to say about it:

“The single largest technical gain in eight years has just occurred.

“Anyone can be cleared by engram running.

“A new style of auditing has had to be developed to handle the explosive power of the new Scientology methods of handling Dianetic engrams.

“Shades of Book One! Whoever would have thought that engram running could be improved as much as it has been improved in the past three months.

“To make engram running possible, twelve new TRs have had to be developed.

“There are now three styles of auditing: Tone 40, Formal and Engram Auditing. The first two are quite adequate to clear fifty percent of cases. It takes a new approach to get enough locks off the rocks of the remaining fifty percent to get them clear too.

“I’ve been busy, busy, busy. I had the largest ACC ever held in the world during October and November. And I had the luck in research to put us on a new plateau of stable clearing.

“I asked the ACC Instructors, ‘What shall we do about America?’ They were just about knocked to pieces training the British to handle the double-dynamite of modern engrams But they said, ‘Somehow we’ve got to get in everybody we can to the January ‘59 ACC in Washington. We’ve got to get this data out.’

“So we’re doing it in a Congress on the 3rd and 4th of January in D.C., and the 21st American ACC following.”
L. Ron Hubbard

** 5901C03 SC-1 The Future of Scientology

5901C03 SC-2 Engrams and Clearing

** 5901C03 SC-3 Preliminary to Engram Running

5901C04 SC-4 Engram Running

** 5901C04 SC-5 Overt Act-Motivator Sequence

** 5901C04 SC-6 Leadership




21ST AMERICAN ADVANCED CLINICAL COURSE LECTURES
Washington, D.C.
5 January—13 February 1959

On 5 January 1959, L. Ron Hubbard started the 21st American Advanced Clinical Course which was attended by approximately 108 auditors. He also supervised a new Special Hubbard Clearing Scientologist Course, which had as its lectures tapes of the 20th American ACC, together with the booklet ACC Clear Procedure (HCO B 15 October 1958, which had evolved from Clear Procedure, Issue 1). The ACC was a six week course, and the HCS was a five week course. Beginning Monday, 26 January 1959, he gave a series of ten lectures to the students of the 21st ACC and the HCS Course, as well as the HGC staff auditors in Washington, D.C. These lectures are listed in chronological sequence on pages 380, 383, 386, 388, 390, 393, 396 and 399.

5901C05 21ACC The Basics of Scientology



Issue 87 [1959, ca. early January]


The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.



What Are Clears?


L. Ron Hubbard



There are three known grades of Clear.

The first is the Book One Clear. This is called Mest Clear. An adequate description of this is to be found in Book One.

The second is a Theta Clear. This has been known for years but has only recently been obtained through engram running as taught in the 5th London and 21st American ACCs and is done in the Processing Department of the Central Organization.

The third is called OT or Operating Thetan and is a rather esoteric level, hard to reach, hard to describe in full.

Any confusion about the state of clear is a confusion of these three terms: Mest Clear, Theta Clear and OT.

An uninformed public thinks a Mest Clear should act like an OT with magical attributes. It is not enough that the general auditor can now approximate a Book One Clear. The public, striving for unattainable attributes, wants an OT who eats buildings. The two states if on the same scale are not the same states.

A Mest Clear knows he has reached the bottom rung of the ladder on his way up. He also knows the rest of humanity uncleared is below this state but that they don’t know that they are.

A Mest Clear still thinks of himself more or less as a body and is more or less subject to one. All engrams are effectually keyed out without being examined. For practical purposes they are erased. He has excellent recalls. They may or may not be eidetic. Book One Clears are a bit below the Mest Clear standard of today.

If the person making the picture required in eidetic recall makes the picture, he has to know first what is in it. So why make a picture. A picture is memory on a via. So the argument about eidetic recall is a rather dull one at best.

It is not my purpose, thank God, to prove I was right. It is my purpose to blaze a trail into zones and heights Man has not known before. I can tell you only what is as I know it now. And I know that eidetic tests of recall do not prove a Mest Clear. Only freedom from keyed-in engrams proves a Mest Clear.

Copyright © 1959 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

Theta Clear is another thing—much higher than a Book One or Mest Clear. This is a real triumph and I’m proud of it. The fact of a real Theta Clear is only a few months old.

A Theta Clear has no obsessive engrams whatever. They aren’t. But he can put back at will his reactive bank or any engram in it and blow it off again at a glance. Now that is news. A Theta Clear does not have to depend on the body line for his “survival.” He does not have engrams of any kind unless he creates them. He does not have to be in a head. And the state can be obtained in at least 80% of all cases in about 350 hours of auditing or more depending on the auditor’s skill. Only the Processing Department of the Central Organization or the graduates of the 5th London ACC or the 21st American ACC are doing this one.

Mest Clear, however, is a way station on the road to Theta Clear or OT so it doesn’t much matter what auditor starts you on the way—your HAS co-auditor, a professional HCA, an HCS or BScn or a new ACC graduate. You’ll win with them all toward the same goal. Lately I even developed a co-auditing formula that reaches near Mest Clear.

OT, of course, remains theoretical and is reached through lower clear states.

So here we go. We built a bridge. And built it better than we hoped. It’s time to start if you’ve been hanging back. The best way to see this elephant* is from inside!

Clearing is wonderful conversational material. It is a better experience.

L. RON HUBBARD


The 1959 HCA Course Becomes
a Clearing Course


L. Ron Hubbard


Three subjects, not one, have been in development in Dianetics and Scientology for these many years.

First and foremost of course is Scientology itself. Second is Organizational knowhow. Third is How to Train Auditors.

These last two technologies did not exist in 1950, which accounts for our inability to make every gain we needed to make. Only in the past three years have we grown larger than we ever were in ‘50. Organizational know-how permits us to grow. Training know-how permits us to get results generally.

Today the student in the new 1959 Academy can be taught at Hubbard Certified Auditor Level to Clear somebody. That is news. And with this issue we announce that the HCA Course will teach clearing to Mest Clear.

With a newly grooved Communication Course, with an even stiffer Upper Indoc

[* “ ‘Seeing the elephant’—an old U.S. Army saying to new recruits going into action for the first time. In Scientology, we have this analogy: when the student auditor has seen the WHY of aberration, objectively and subjectively, we say ‘he’s seen the elephant’—he’ll never again doubt the fact of an engram or the awesome implications of what he, the auditor, is able to confront and do with a preclear. He is now, in short, operational.”—Ability 103]

Course and with Theory and Practice aimed only at Clearing we are giving the best we have to the first professional level of the HCA Course.

As the HCA student, as well as other people, studies the Extension Course, much class time is saved for practical application of auditing.

The enrolling student may arrive any Monday. He is placed at once in a Communication Course. This teaches him the basic drills of auditing. After a week he moves to the Upper Indoctrination Course which teaches the basic drills of handling people. The student is then graduated to Theory and Practice and “gets in” his first professional level auditing.

At the end of eight weeks he has studied and should know how to do the basic processes of Tone 40 auditing:

CCH 1, Give Me That Hand
CCH 2, 8-C
CCH 3, Hand Space Mimicry
CCH 4, Book Mimicry

He has also studied and knows how to do the basic processes of Mest Clearing by formal auditing:
Rudiments of Auditing Factual Havingness
What Can You Confront? Total Responsibility
Help
Step 6

These are the clearing processes for Mest Clear. He is also taught other skills and processes needed in general auditing.

At course end he is examined for his practical ability in auditing by the HCO Board of Review in the Academy area and, due to the precision of Academy training, is generally passed.

Training in engram running and other items was attempted in late 1958 but has

been relegated to higher training levels. The HCA must know how to clear people now and all dross has been dropped.

I reorganized the Academy in early 1959 after several tests and trials and can promise you now that the training is more skillful and precise than it has ever been. All

the instructors are old-time auditors. They know their business. I taught most of them myself and can vouch for it.

It’s time for all those who aren’t to get themselves trained and get about the business of clearing people.

L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON

HCO BULLETIN OF 6 JANUARY 1959





FIELD ACTIVITIES


To: All Scientologists

For Scientology to go well in any area, it is only necessary for the trained auditor in that area to follow the following steps:

1. Get good results on every pc processed individually.

2. Operate a group and do PE and Group Processing.

3. Keep the group recruited.

It is not necessary that a field auditor has great sums of money to finance his activity. All successful Scientology activities have financed themselves. In extreme, an auditor with no pcs to keep him going can get a job and run a group evenings until the income of the group activity makes the job unnecessary.

The keynote of handling any area is to bring order. Every time you put some order into a pc or a group, or society, a little confusion blows off. Ignore the confusion. It is transitory. Order is not. It stays. Therefore the more order (not necessarily the more activity) you put into things the more continuance you have. This is new data, extremely important and should be carefully gone over again and again and applied. It is data that brings big wins in a society, a group or a pc. Bring a little order.

Get the pc to see that he can bring order into his affairs. Ask him bluntly, “What order could you bring into your life?” And his case will start resolving. The highest ability of a thetan is to Bring Order. Therefore, orderly processing brings results, disorderly processing does not. All an ARC break is is a disorder.

What order, then, can a trained auditor bring into his area? Into his own life? Into his pc’s? Into his group? That is the question worth answering.

The confusion that flies off when the order is entered in seems so important to many auditors that they Q and A with it. They stop pursuing order and start pursuing confusion. Never change from order to disorder just because confusion blows off. Let the confusion go. If you want it all gone, just put more order into it. That’s why CCH works when properly used.

An auditor who just starts a group blows some disorder out of a society. The disorder flies into view. Ignore it. Just put some more well-run, exactly scheduled group there. More disorder discharges. Order put in too suddenly always discharges disorder too fast. That’s an explosion. You don’t want that. Leave explosions to the government (its highest level of entering order is to blow everything up).

Here’s a program. Get hold of all the people you have processed in the area you are in. Give them an interview. In it, ask each one, “What order are you trying to bring into your life?” “What part of your life?” Tell them that’s what Scientology is trying to help them do. You’ll have more pcs. Weld them into a group. Give them some group processing Tone 40. Bring order into their lives.

Take responsibility for every pc’s whole life. Take responsibility for all the reactive banks in your area. Clear them up by bringing more order.

Money cannot flow back to you on disorderly lines.

AUDITOR CONFIDENCE

Every field auditor has had some loses. These cut down his confidence. He should rebuild his confidence. He should rebuild his confidence as his first step. He failed where he failed to bring order into lives. Therefore, he had better now discipline himself to use one simple process and use it right and without change until he has won with it. Don’t change the process because it blows off disorder. To the devil with the disorder—put the order in regardless of how much disorder it blows off.

KEY REHABILITATION PROCESS

1. Start session.

2. Find out if the pc has an auditor.

3. Find out if the pc has an auditing room.

4. Ask pc (goals), “What part of your life would you like to bring some order into?” Two-way comm on it for no more than five minutes. Get into session then.

5. For one hour at the beginning of each session every session run “Look around here and find something you have.” Only that command. If pc originates, understand and acknowledge. DON’T DO ANYTHING ELSE ABOUT IT.

6. For remainder of session run “Recall something you have done.” When he says he has, acknowledge only.

Session after session run nothing else but this. And you’ll bring order to a pc, believe me. And he’ll have great case changes and he’ll be moving forward toward clear.

This process will give you wins unless you do something else to vary it.

The only people it doesn’t work well on are nearly unconscious. On these only CCH 1, 2, 3 and 4 work. If the process doesn’t bite at all, use CCH 1, 2, 3 and 4. But don’t worry, it will bite—if you keep your mouth shut and don’t flub.

Now you want some wins. Don’t talk to the pc much during a session. Use TR 4 whenever he talks. Keep him reassured, happy, comfortable and don’t let him out of session until you end it. And you’ll win. If you lose, it’s because you got fancy or chopped the pc up.

Factual Havingness will ease off p.t. problems and ARC breaks. That’s why you use it for an hour always.

If a process regimen comes along that’s simpler or better than the above I’ll let you know right away. Until then, this is the very best you can do.

GROUP RECRUITING

Groups fall apart on sloppy scheduling. They need one night a week at the minimum. Always the same night, same hours. That’s order. Always a one hour lecture and one hour group processing Tone 40. We have new phonograph records of lectures for you. They’re cheap. Buy them.

When you have a group processed a while get people into an HAS Course. Teach them TRs 0 to 9 and then let them co-audit on exactly the above regimen.

By permitting co-auditing, the trained auditor actually gets more pcs. Charge for co-auditing consultations. Keep them at it.

We’re taking the lid off. The country is full of people. They should be in groups and co-auditing. In that way we’ll bring enough order to the country to make even it survive.

By the way, HCO Washington, D.C., will issue a Hubbard Apprentice Scientologist certificate to anybody you guarantee has passed TRs 0 to 9 without charge to you. We trust you to make sure they’re good.

In recruiting a group, keep explaining Scientology as something that helps people bring order into their lives. You’d be amazed how little order they believe they can inject. Call on new people. Run an ad for your group: “Tired of Being Human?
Scientology Group Clears People,” or “Does Life Seem Disorderly? Join the Scientology Group and begin to win for a change.”

We need action. In an all but leaderless world, somebody has to make some people. Let’s begin.


LRH:-jh L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED




HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON

HCO BULLETIN OF 6 JANUARY 1959

Full Distribution


CHANGE OF HCO POLICY LETTER OF 15 DECEMBER 1958


Step 6 is deleted from HCA/HPA Curriculum and added to HCS/BScn section. No E-Meter is used or taught in HCA/HPA courses. Comm lag is taught instead.

LRH:gnjh
Copyright © 1959 L. RON HUBBARD
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

[HCO PL 15 Dec. 1958, Academy Training Curriculum & Examination, is in OEC Vol. 4, page 274.]



5901C06 21ACC Compartmentization of Universes
5901C07 21ACC Types of Pictures
5901C08 21ACC Engrams
5901C09 21ACC Engrams; the Rock Engram

See page 374 for data on the 21st ACC lectures.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON

HCO BULLETIN OF 10 JANUARY 1959

(Supersedes all Earlier Directives for HGC Processes)



HGC ALLOWED PROCESSES


The Director of Processing of an HGC is the person who indicates the processes to be used by auditors on pcs.

The following plan is furnished for the information and guidance of the D of P and HGC auditors.

LOW PCS

All pcs who lie markedly below the center line of an APA/OCA graph should be run on CCH 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Not all auditors, even when they know these, can get results with them. Therefore, use an auditor who does get results with the CCHs.

MEDIUM PCS

Pcs who lie on either side of the center line respond easily to Fac Havingness and benefit well from it.

Fac Hav with all three commands (as per ACC Clear Procedure) should be run solely and only with good case gain.

Flatten each command on such a case about an hour at a time in rotation.

If no comm lag develops, run 8 vanish, 2 continue, 1 have in that order until case changes for the better. Then run an hour each on each of the three in rotation.

These can also be run on “Recall something you have done”.

HIGH PCS

Pcs who lie mostly or entirely above the center line can be run on “Recall something you have done”.

However, if you have auditors trained to run engrams, by all means start this pc on engrams at once and run according to 5th London or 21st American procedure.

OTHER PROCESSES FOR ALL

Any help process runs on almost any pc except the very low pc. Therefore, particularly to get sessions started, “help on auditor and pc” is valuable.

ARC Break Straight Wire works well on medium level pcs, but only an auditor who is expert with an E-Meter and in locating in time incidents can be trusted with it.

GENERAL NOTES

HGC auditors have to be checked out on CCH 0 before being permitted to run it. The process is a great invitation to spend half an intensive talking. Fac Hav or TR 10 also run problems and should be used if auditor doesn’t check out on CCH 0.

Auditors must not be permitted to use TR 13, fishing a cognition. Use TR 4 instead or the ACC TR accepting pc’s answers. (TR 4 and the ACC TR are quite similar.)

Use TR 5N handling ARC Breaks only when auditor is checked out on it and handles it well.

The most trouble you get in an HGC is same as field. Auditors won’t use TR 4. They always have to do something about what pc volunteers. After a while pc gets afraid of volunteering data and goes out of session.

In general auditors talk too much. Cut it down unless auditor really knows when to talk. Auditors who are always dragging pc’s attention to auditor are a liability in an HGC. On a new auditor in HGC you can ask “What process has gotten you best results?” And whatever he says, you’ll win better, until he’s grooved in, by letting him run it. Otherwise, give him Fac Hav and no comments to pc and you will get a fair showing.

RESULT RETARDERS

ARC Breaks mostly retard results. The less talk, from auditor, the less breaks. Good TR 4 avoids them.

PT Problem stalls cases. Handle it with good CCH 0 as per ACC Clear Procedure, or, if auditor not checked out—with Fac Hav, or in extreme low cases TR 10.

CLEARING PROCEDURES

It is fruitless to embark on straight clearing until the case is up. So, all the above applies to clearing.

When case is well up, after using the above processes, use Confront and Help as per ACC Clear Procedure, or, better, run engrams.

SUMMARY

To get gains, use processes gauged to case, handle PT Problems and prevent ARC Breaks by checking auditor comments.

To clear, run engrams and make Theta Clears where you can.

If not all your auditors can run engrams, have lower cases set up by them and when in shape, pass to an engram running auditor to finish off.

If you have no engram running auditor, clear by this bulletin plus ACC Clear Procedure.


L. RON HUBBARD
LRH :-.rd
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED






[See HCO B 4 March 1959, HGC Allowed Processes, which supersedes all earlier HGC allowed processes. ]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
1812 19th Street N.W., Washington, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 11 JANUARY 1959

To all Staff
HCO London



An amusingly effective process.

“Invent a problem for which (pc’s worry or malady) is the answer.”

Examples—bad leg, old age, wrinkles, bad heart, obsession about sex, pt illness, inability to work, etc.


LRH:rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED






HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.
D of T
Acad Admin
ExtCourseDir HCO BULLETIN OF 12 JANUARY 1959
Acad Insts
D of P
Processing Admin
HCO Bd of Renew
ACC World Wide Inst
HCO

TONE OF VOICE—ACKNOWLEDGEMENT


Mood can be expressed by an acknowledgement. Evaluation can also be accomplished by acknowledgement, depending on the tone of voice with which it is uttered.

There is nothing bad about expressing mood by acknowledgement, except when the acknowledgement expresses criticalness, ridicule, or humor.


LRH:-jh L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


5901C12 21ACC The Detection of Engrams
5901C13 21ACC Detection of Engrams with an E-Meter
5901C14 21ACC Detection of Engrams (3rd part); Finding Truth
with an E-Meter

See page 374 for data on the 21st ACC lectures.

P.A.B. No. 152
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

15 January 1959

THE FIVE LEVELS OF INDOCTRINATION

Compiled from the Research Material and Taped Lectures of L. Ron Hubbard



I am now going to give you the five levels of Indoctrination very rapidly. We already have the five dummy processes which form the first level—the five dummy auditing processes.

The second one up the line is 8-C—plain 8-C. It is given without stress on control or anything of the sort. You don’t touch or handle the person. It is an old process done this way. The auditing commands of 8-C in this particular instance have suffered change recently because no auditing command must depend upon any other auditing command or it won’t be in present time. So each auditing command depends upon itself, and the commands of 8-C are: “Look at that wall. Thank you.” “Walk over to that wall. Thank you.” “With your right hand touch that wall. Thank you.” “Turn around. Thank you.” There is no “let go” there or other direction.

If we have not directed him to do something and he does it, if the way he does something is a little different from what we expected, we really have no basis for objection; and the training stress is only this: to get a person to walk another body than his own around the room. There is nothing to this. It is NOT High School Indoctrination. At this level he must be able to duplicate the command, and it is run to a point where a person does not make a mistake on the commands and stops feeling nervous about walking a person’s body around. That is the training stress.

Now we move up to the next level of Indoctrination, which might look like 8-C at the first glance, but is not. This is High School Indoctrination. The commands of High School Indoctrination are the same as those for plain 8-C, but this is entirely and completely a training process and it is only run for this reason: to keep an auditor from being stopped by a preclear by devious and diverse statements and actions. The “preclear” (we can’t really call him a preclear at all, for he is actually the coach) runs on this “auditor” anything he can think of to stop him, and the auditor must at no time permit himself even to be halted or falter in any way. He must be able to continue a clear, free-flowing 8-C on this person who is getting down on the floor and barking like a dog. He mustn’t be permitted to go down on the floor. You let a man get below the level of your shoulders and he is going to get down on the floor—that’s for sure. You have to catch him before that. He is going to try not to walk across the room. He is going to try and run across the room. He is going to try and do anything. You told him to walk: walking fast is allowable but running is definitely not allowable. The training stress is entirely upon getting an auditor to persevere against any trick mechanism anybody could think of or react to, or any circuitry or dramatization in 8-C. It is total

Copyright © 1959 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

auditor persistence. We don’t ask the auditor to do it smoothly—we only ask him to do it constantly and consistently.

That is High School Indoctrination, one of the great steps of Scientology. If we had had this a few years ago, it would have made the world of difference in several cases I can think of. A fellow would sit down in the middle of the floor and he wouldn’t do anything. We depended totally on our voices, and these people weren’t in communication.

The coach in this case has a role to play. He is the preclear. He has two signals, one “flunk” and the other “that’s it,” which are effective. Anything else he says does not count. Of course, he says “Start” and they go on with it, but when the coach (who is the final judge) considers that the auditor has blundered, has been stopped, and has waited too long, then the coach says “Flunk.”

What happens when the coach says “Flunk”? They go back to the beginning of the nearest cycle of action of 8-C. They do not take it from where they were, but go back to the beginning. They leave that cycle incomplete. The auditor in this case is not permitted to override a flunk. When the coach says “That’s it,” he means “We are through. We are going to take a breather. What I say now counts.” And that ends it. It doesn’t begin again until the coach says “Start.”

This is 8-C done on a very heavy body contact: the coach being lugged around and doing anything he can think of to stop this fellow. It is interesting what will stop some auditors. If you understand your business as a coach, you will understand that it is the soft ones and the unexpected ones that count. It isn’t the heavy ones, it isn’t the preclear just lying down on the floor and refusing to budge and exerting every muscle and having to be dragged from there on. This is perfectly allowable, but it isn’t the one that catches the auditor. It is the subtle unexpected actions that “flunk” an auditor.

High School Indoctrination is a marvelous training process. Several hours should be spent on this and one shouldn’t run it just with one coach but with two or three others as well, because everybody develops his own abreactive pattern. It is a wonderful opportunity to abreact your insanities. An auditor will very swiftly learn how to stop one preclear, but take two or three more, swapping teams around, and he eventually gets a smooth look at the whole thing. There isn’t such a thing as being too tiny to handle too big a preclear.

The next level of Indoctrination is Tone 40 on an Object. (Actually all these are groups and a number of techniques of indoctrination could be evolved from each one of these. I am simply giving you those that have to be passed.) In this Tone 40 on an Object you can have a number of commands and variations of one kind or another, but the one we use is this: You take an object—a small doll, ashtray, Coke bottle—and the auditor tells it to “Sit down in that chair” or “Sit on the table” and thanks it. Then he tells it to “Stand up,” and thanks it. “Sit down on the chair” or “Sit on the table”— then the auditor moves it with his own hands. He does all this while the coach is just standing there heckling him, and he has to do it so that his intention is so good that he gets perpetually surprised that the thing, the object, didn’t sit down in the chair or sit on the table, or didn’t stand up. The furthermost extremity of this would be that the object would do so without any further contact with the auditor than his intention. That point may be reachable—I must tell you that.

A person does this until his tone in giving the commands is Tone 40. There are many little drills that come into this. One is to make him put the intention into it and squeak and not say a word at the same time, but put the intention into it and alter his voice all over the place until he finds out that his intention doesn’t have anything to do with his voice or tone. He will eventually discover what Tone 40 is. Tone 40 is a

positive postulate with no counter-thought—expected, anticipated, or anything else; that is, total control. Actually, today we use the word “control” very loosely. What we really mean is “positive postulation”; what the world means by control is, if he doesn’t do it, shoot him. Not Tone 40, but Tone .4.

In order to get Tone 40 on a Person going, you can continue Tone 40 on an Object; but whether this belongs to Tone 40 on a Person or belongs to the last end of Tone 40 on an Object doesn’t much matter. It is not a separate level, but it is a separate command. You give the 8-C commands to an object and lug it around for a little while—i.e., having the object move over and touch the wall, etc.—but that is only getting the person used to these commands in that tone. That is the only reason there is for it. We don’t use the 8-C commands to get his drill in because he is going to get heckled.

What does the coach do on Tone 40 on an Object? At first he is really helpful and tries to get the auditor to get the intention in there until he can put the intention in without speaking. When the fellow is getting too good the coach must remember that this Tone 40 on a Person is going to be up against somebody with counter-thought, counter-effort and counter-action of one kind or another and the coach furnishes it. He doesn’t do it loudly or obstreperously, but he does furnish it. “Is that Tone 40? Are you absolutely sure that was Tone 40? What do you mean by Tone 40?” etc.—this is when the coach isn’t being helpful. The coach is supposed to furnish randomity as a substitute for the randomity of the environment. The person can do this in spite of the fact that something or somebody is resisting him, heckling him and messing him up. You could go much further with this. As I say, one can go much further with each one of the five levels of Indoctrination, but I don’t advise it.

On Tone 40 on a Person, we do 8-C at Tone 40 and that is a total, accurate estimation of effort, with no halts or jagged motions—that is, smooth. Your estimation of effort must be absolutely perfect; your estimation of intention must also be perfect—which is sometimes rather hard on a coach because somebody can get so good that a coach’s body starts to walk around and obey the commands rather easily and you find almost all coaches on Tone 40 on a Person are much more docile than on High School Indoc. They really want to be rougher but the technique is rather overweighing this, is too strong.

Those are the five levels of Indoctrination and they are only doing this: placing an auditor into a frame of mind and an ability where his postulates can be positive and his command is no longer diffident, where he can control and handle somebody, where he can assume the attitude that is necessary to an auditor. And a person is all through with these when the instructor is sure that the auditor in training can do this.

[Continued in PAB 153, page 394]






21ST AMERICAN ACC LECTURES
Washington, D.C.
15—16 January 1959

5901C15 21ACC More on Detection of Engrams

5901C16 21ACC Detection of Circuits and Machinery, and the
Observation of Special Types of Engrams

See page 374 for data on the 21st ACC lectures.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 19 JANUARY 1959


NEW HCA/HPA COURSE


This is the new course outline and time schedule for the HCA/HPA Course. All students will be enrolled in the Extension Course.

Communications Course
Course Outline:

MONDAY TR 0
TUESDAY TR 1
WEDNESDAY TR 2 and TR 3
THURSDAY TR 4
FRIDAY TR 5N
SATURDAY Auditing Session

Time Schedule (Monday through Friday):

9:00— 9:30 Lecture by Instructor
9:30— 9:45 LRH Comm Course Tape (if available,
if not, explanatory lecture on TR by
Instructor)
9:45—10:00 Break
10:00— 1:00 Session “A”
1:00— 2:00 Lunch
2:00— 5:00 Session “B”
5:00— 5:30 Testing and Review (optional)
by Instructor
Time Schedule (Saturday):

9:00—12:00 Auditing Session

Upper Indoctrination Course
Course Outline:

MONDAY TR 6
TUESDAY TR 7
WEDNESDAY TR 8
THURSDAY TR 8
FRIDAY TR 9
SATURDAY Auditing Session

Time Schedule (Monday through Friday):

9:00— 9:30 Lecture by Instructor
9:30— 9:45 Break
9:45—12:00 Session “A”
12:00— 1:00 Lunch
1:00— 3:45 Session “B”
3:45— 4:00 Break
4:00— 5:00 Tape Lecture
5:00— 5:30 Q and A period

Time Schedule (Saturday):

9:00—12:00 Auditing Session

Theory and Practice
Course

Course Outline: (Week “A”)

MONDAY Tone 40 CCH I
TUESDAY Tone 40 CCH 2
WEDNESDAY Tone 40 CCH 3
THURSDAY Tone 40 CCH 4
FRIDAY Op Pro by Dup (old style)
SATURDAY Auditing Session

Course Outline: (Week “B”)

MONDAY Straight Wire Processes
TUESDAY S-C-S
WEDNESDAY Factual Havingness
THURSDAY 1) “What can you confront?”
2) “Make a picture for which you
can be wholly responsible.”
FRIDAY Help (all brackets)
SATURDAY Auditing Session

Time Schedule for both Week “A “ and Week “B “ (Monday through Friday):

9:00— 9:30 Lecture by Instructor
9:30— 9:45 Break
9:45—12:00 Session “A”
12:00— 1:00 Lunch
1:00— 3:45 Session “B”
3:45— 4:00 Break
4:00— 5:00 Tape Lecture
5:00— 5:30 Q and A period

Time Schedule for Saturday (Weeks “A “ and “B “):

9:00—12:00 Auditing Session


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:-.rd
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED






21ST AMERICAN ACC LECTURES
Washington, D.C.
19—21 January 1959

5901C19 21ACC Auditing Skills
5901C20 21ACC Skill of an Auditor
5901C21 21ACC Skills of an Auditor

See page 374 for data on the 21 Ts ACC lectures.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 20 JANUARY 1959

ACC PREPARATORY PROCESS SCHEDULE FOR
RUNNING ENGRAMS

RECOMMENDED FOR NEW AUDITORS IN HGCs

SELECTED PERSONS OVERT ACTS

The student is started in the following fashion: “Find a person you feel you have failed to help.” By two-way comm, not repetitive. Several persons may be located. Select one that is real to the pc (not wholly unreal) and run the following process:

“Recall something you have done to (selected person).” This is a repetitive command. The auditing is done “muzzled”. The auditor is not permitted to say ANYTHING to pc except the command and to acknowledge that command’s answer, once the process is started. If the pc originates the auditor is permitted to nod only. If pc seems to have lost the command, or originates, the auditor nods and says, “I’ll repeat the auditing command” and does so. No discussions, or rudiments beyond START and END OF SESSION are employed.

When several persons so selected in the pc’s life are apparently flat, the process may be considered flat. Some reality should have been gained by both auditor and pc.

OVERT ACT STRAIGHT WIRE

When several selected persons pc “could not help” have been run with the above, the auditor broadens the process to the command, “Recall something you have done to somebody”. This is also run “muzzled”. When pc originates, the auditor does not speak, he only nods his reply. When the preclear seems to be without a command, the auditor repeats it as above. No further two-way comm is allowed.

ARC BREAK STRAIGHT WIRE

When the pc shows signs of being easy with the above process, the process used becomes ARC BREAK STRAIGHT WIRE run in the following fashion. For the first time, E-Meters are employed. The sole use of the E-Meter is to locate incident in time, BC-AD dates to be used only, “Is it greater than. . .?” “Is it less than. . .?” “Is it such and such a date?” A forbidden question is “How many years ago” as this is the sole criteria used in between-life implants where they say things are “Thousands of years ago. . .trillions of years ago. . .etc.”

The question “When?” is the only thing the auditor solves and only when needed, and he tells the pc about the drop he gets.

The command is “Recall an ARC break”. The pc does. The auditor says “When?” Any time statement by the pc is accepted except “I don’t know”. If pc says this, the auditor resolves it with the E-Meter to the best of his ability, tells the pc the date or character of drops, and then continues the process. Any other origin by pc is met with a nod only. The auditor may make no comments.

This process goes very easily into whole track. If a whole track incident is located in time it de-intensifies or goes back on the track. By locating the incident in time the pc is not made to plow through an engram with this command only, which is poor stuff. Therefore, no departure is allowed from the above regimen and no two-way comm is permitted beyond locating the incident in time. The process will be found to open up a track into greater and greater reality.

As ARC Break Straight Wire will give pc 3D spots on the track it can be followed by “What can you confront?” or regular engram running.


LRH:-.rd L. RON HUBBARD

[HCO B 18 Jan. 59, A CC Preparatory Processes for Running Engrams, is basically same as above. ]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 22 JANUARY 1959

Full distribution

NOT-IS STRAIGHT WIRE

Those persons on whom a process works once and those who have either dub-in or occlusion, process easily, if dramatically, on Not-Is Straight Wire. (See Axioms 11D, 18 and 22.)

Pcs divide into three general classes:

1. Those who have 3D pictures and good time sense.
2. Those who are occluded with black, colored or invisible fields and poor time sense.
3. Those who dub-in and have no time sense.

The scale of deterioration of a case is as above. First there are 3D copies of the real universe, then there is the action of not-ising these pictures (while they’re still there) and finally, while not-ising, substituting false pictures.

This process is aimed at case types 2 and 3 above. (ARC Break Straight Wire also handles type 2 but not so well as type 3.)

Types 2 and 3 press into invisibility pictures by making them “unimportant”. This is the clue word to unreality, stupidity, occlusion and dub-in. (See the Logics.)

The cycle which occurs is that the person gets overwhelmed with other people’s declared importance. They counter by not-ising the importance of others. The reverse cycle of others reducing the pc’s own importances is not run in Not-Is Straight Wire as it reduces havingness.

The commands of Not-Is Straight Wire are only these and no other:

“Recall a time you implied something was unimportant.” Pc does. “When?” Pc says or auditor assists him by pegging it on an E-Meter.

This is run for about an hour. Then a second command only is run.

“Recall a time when somebody else thought something was important’ Pc does. “When?” Pc says or auditor assists him by locating on E-Meter.

Acknowledgement is used. TR 4 is reduced to a nod.

An hour of one is followed by an hour of the other.

There’s dynamite in this process. It is good, clean and unlimited. But don’t chicken on it and pull out and don’t quit because the pc gets uncomfortable.

Here may be the QED for all occlusion and dub-in cases.

LRH:gn.rd L. RON HUBBARD



5901C22 21ACC Attitude of an Auditor

5901C23 21ACC What Auditor Is Supposed to Do with an Engram



Issue 88 M [1959, ca. late January]


The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.



A Campaign for Ethical Auditing


L. Ron Hubbard



General ethical standards in America are at their low-low ebb.

When we see what the peers of “healing” do to make a dishonest dollar, when we see “mental healing” relegated to mental torture and destruction we find at the same time that the local and the national governments enforce the vicious practitioners, the antibiotic quack and the electric shock witch doctor.

If Scientology is to make any progress whatever its own ethical standards must be without reproach. Why Q and A with a caved-in society? One of my “hats” is ethical standards.

HCO is Hubbard Communications Office. It is the office that helps me wear my hats. Therefore one of the three principal hats of HCO is Ethical Standards, the keeping of the codes. The other two are Technology and Awards.

There are many HCO offices throughout the world. But nowhere do they have the problems of magnitude in the field of ethics that they have in America.

Succumbing to the general low tone of the society, there are persons about who:

1. Do not care to have the actual skill necessary to get results;
2. Do not scruple in their promises to pcs and
3. Work against the best interests of the Central Organization and other auditors.

Heretofore I have been relatively unaided in this problem. I have tried many ways to solve it. All failed in America. These solutions worked elsewhere but not in America. Fortunately HCO has come of age. I am getting help.

An HCO Secretary is a well-trained Scientologist. After that she is my own secretary in the area. She has a motto “Bring Order”—the motto of HCO. HCO staff are dedicated Scientologists, the best, carefully selected.

Today any unethical practitioner in Scientology is beginning to feel uneasy. And rightly. HCO (to say nothing of Central Organizations) is breathing down his neck.


Copyright © 1959 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

Today ethical auditors, doing their jobs and well, are feeling easier. HCO is backing up their activity and making them secure in their gains by, for instance, keeping roving auditors out of ethical areas and the squirrels gasping their last.

An ethical auditor does the following:

1. He helps the good repute of Scientology.
2. He keeps dissemination up with a healthy part of his income.
3. He gets results when he processes somebody.
4. He charges standard fees, no cut-rate.
5. He stands in well with his fellow auditors.
6. He makes no wild promises to pcs he can’t back up.
7. He never tells a pc the pc is now clear.
8. He uses standard processes.
9. He keeps his own case improving toward clear on higher levels.

An unethical auditor is earmarked by the following:

1. He lives on the good repute of Scientology but downgrades it.
2. He profits by the dissemination of others or the Central Organization and pockets what he should contribute as “profit.”
3. He processes people without caring about results, only profit.
4. He cut-rates his processing or grossly overcharges.
5. He is despised by other auditors.
6. He makes any promise he has to to get a pc to buy processing.
7. He tells pcs they are clear no matter what they think.
8. He uses any process that happens to occur to him and avoids standard proven processes.
9. He shuns personal auditing on himself.

And there you have what’s holding us back.

When the New Year of Year Nine came, I made a resolution. I had the administrative machinery set up, the needful comm lines. And I resolved to “Take steps to take full responsibility for field auditors in America.”

I don’t care whether this resolution is popular or unpopular. It’s got to be done. Here’s how it is: I tell people about recent results and about clears. Some creep, already in bad with me, yet finds ways of ‘‘profiting’’ by “cashing in.” Trouble is, these couldn’t audit out a sore finger on a clear. What do they know about my goals or ethics. Yet they use the name and rake in cash—and spoil areas with their stupid blundering. They fail to help cases. They are parasitic upon the dissemination done by others. They take money that should go into sound future and waste it.

HCO is vitally interested in this campaign. The HCO goal is “Get the field auditor to get results in America, and get the show on the road.”

And HCO can spend thousands to do it.

Any area that is being victimized by an unethical auditor will soon feel the influence of HCO. We mean business. And America has been asking for it hard.

Scientology is the greatest movement on Earth today, the only honest movement with real hope for Man’s future. It must not be stalled by the prevailing low of American ethics.

It is shameful that I can only guarantee Scientology results in America where HCO or myself can directly supervise the processing. This must change. A professional auditor’s certificate must continue to mean honesty, results and adherence to the codes.

This is no sudden campaign that will be forgotten. There are HCO offices all over the world, more than in America. I’m winning. HCO is winning. It’s about time the field won too. For Scientology is winning a new life for Man the world around.


L. RON HUBBARD



HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON

HCO BULLETIN OF 24 JANUARY 1959
Full Distr.



Scientology Axiom 58:

Intelligence and judgment are measured by the ability to evaluate relative importances.

Corollary:
The ability to evaluate importances and unimportances is the highest faculty of logic.

Corollary: Identification is a monotone assignment of importance.

Corollary:
Identification is the inability to evaluate differences in time, location, form, composition or importance.


LRH:grl.rd L. RON HUBBARD


5901C26 21ACC The Effect of the Environment on an Engram
** 5901C26 21ACC-S1 How a Process Works
5901C27 21ACC How to Audit an Engram
** 5901C27 21ACC-S2 What Doesn’t Make an Auditor
5901C28 21ACC How to Start and Run the Session
** 5901C28 21ACC-S3 The Establishment of “R”
5901C29 21ACC Attitude and Approach of the Auditor
** 5901C29 21ACC-S4 Muzzled Auditing
5901C30 21ACC Plan of Clearing
** 5901C30 21ACC-S5 The Grouper

See page 374 for data on the 21 Ts ACC lectures.

P.A.B. No. 153
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 February 1959

C. C. H.

(Continued from P.A.B. No. 152 of 15 January 1959
on “The Five Levels of Indoctrination”)

Compiled from the Research Material and Taped Lectures of L. Ron Hubbard



WE GO NOW INTO CCH. CCH could not even vaguely be attempted without the five levels of Indoctrination having been run. Nevertheless, early in the HPA or HCA Course you will discover that an individual hasn’t yet had Tone 40, so, although CCH starts with Tone 40, the training continuity of CCH does not. Training starts with dummy auditing in the Communication Course and then goes to the second level of Indoctrination, which is simple 8-C, and they coincide at that point. The order of learning these processes is therefore different from the order in which they are given to a pc. You don’t have to remember the order of learning, but you do have to remember the order of giving them to a pc. However, I am going to give them to you in the order of training.

We have simple 8-C (which I have already given you) at the second level. The commands of simple 8-C are very simple and they do not depend on any other command. In simple 8-C the commands are: “Look at that wall. Thank you.” “Walk over to that wall. Thank you.” “With your right hand touch that wall. Thank you.” “Turn around. Thank you.”

The second process we deal with in training is Locational Processing, and this, as you can see at once, is a command of attention process. The commands are: “Notice that . Thank you.” This is very simple Locational Processing and, by the way, an interestingly therapeutic process. The training stress is simply this: the direction of attention must not be disturbed by other mechanisms of attention direction. The auditor must do this smoothly. We are trying to get the auditor to get the preclear’s attention to go smoothly to the object indicated. What we have here is one person handling another person’s attention—this is quite unusual, and must be done very smoothly. We don’t care how well the commands are getting across, beyond, of course, that they should get across as well as a person learned to get across a command in dummy auditing. The auditor picks out objects and says, “Notice that .” He normally points, and the preclear merely turns his head. There are no cautions to be used with this except that, if the preclear gets very restimulated, flatten it.

The third is called Locational, Body and Room, and here we have the first example of extraversion-introversion. The commands are: “Look at that____.Thank you. Look at your (foot, hand or knee). Thank you.” There is an alternative set of commands on this: “Notice the chair. Notice your hand Notice the

Copyright © 1959 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

wall. Notice the floor.” They actually have a difference. A person who is pretty dead in his head had better be told to “notice,” because the strain and stress which will come on him through trying to get out of his body and “look” at his head is so great he will start pulling ridges to pieces. So, of the two, the safest is “Notice.” The other will exteriorize somebody. They are two different sets of commands, two different objects. “Look at that wall, look at your hand,” etc., is liable to find a person out there five feet outside his head. But if a person would not normally exteriorize by his build, bank behavior, etc., you would use “Notice.” In training we use “Notice,” but we must remember that the process works fabulously well with “Look.”

That’s an extraversion-introversion process. We have the sequence of it as “Look in on yourself. Look at yourself. Look at the environment. Look at yourself. Look at the environment”—alternating it. This is what is known as an alternate command. It is necessary to call your attention to that bit of terminology because in “Give me your hand” Tone 40, we run it on the right hand and we run it on the left hand, but it is not an alternate. We don’t say, “Give me your right hand. Give me your left hand.”

The next one of these is Objective Show Me. Here the preclear does a little demonstrating. The reason this is put in here is because it is one of the more miraculous therapeutic processes. It is the reason why a person’s bank is invisible to other people. It is the reason why people have secrets, they pull banks in on themselves, and the reason why they don’t dare show it to anybody else. The commands are: “Show me that . Thank you.” The auditor points to the object he wishes to be shown. Only when that is running fairly well will you run it on an extrovert-introvert basis, and the next series of commands on it could be “Show me that . Show me your .” (I.e., “Show me that table. Show me your foot. Show me that ceiling. Show me your hand.”) This, by the way, opens the door to mock-ups and facsimiles anybody could see. If there is some method of achieving that, this is the process to do it. A person overcomes his unwillingness to show things, and he realizes that he is not still on Arcturus and you are not the space police from Saturn. He is being made unwilling by life to show anybody anything.

Actually, I would omit this process under training. I wouldn’t show a person how to do this early in his training. I would let him find this one up the track somewhere. That is why I have not given it out in training earlier. But you must know that it exists because it is a very important process and has to be handled very delicately—that is why at this level of training it isn’t used.

Instead, we use a mild one called Attention by Duplication 9, Number 4. This is a very old process, but we don’t run it in the old manner. We place a book in one location and a bottle in another location (never more than five feet apart), and we say, “Look at that book. Walk over to that book. Pick up that book. Put the book down in exactly the same place.” The same goes for the bottle. You could add a “Turn around” in there, but you have then graduated this to Tone 40 Book and Bottle.

Tone 40 Book and Bottle is not Opening Procedure by Duplication. You have to be ready to assume total control of the preclear to run Tone 40 Book and Bottle. The commands are the same, except that you never acknowledge anything but the execution of the auditing commands. Then we would only have to add the command “Turn around.” He is really not supposed to do anything else we have not told him to do. (In training we use Opening Procedure by Duplication and later on will have to show somebody what we mean by Tone 40 Book and Bottle.) The training stress on this is precision. The auditor must not make any mistakes or omissions on this command. It is one of the most arduous processes to run known to man. If an auditor adds into it the randomity of getting his commands mixed up, he can practically finish a preclear. It is one of the number one exteriorization processes. If Opening Procedure by Duplication 1957 will exteriorize somebody (and it will), Tone 40 Book and Bottle is likely to send

him on his way. You have no latitude for mistakes here. The training stress is the exact duplication of the commands. One of the cautions that must be observed in running this is that it is not left unflattened and mustn’t be faltered if it begins to run. If the process is biting it must not be stopped simply because there is a class schedule involved. If you were unfortunate enough to begin Opening Procedure by Duplication 1957 at 3 p.m. and it was running on the preclear, you have no choice if it is still running at 2 a.m. in the morning—Auditor’s Code or not, you are still going to be there running it. I couldn’t possibly tell you that emphatically enough. We remember this from way back when. The most fatal thing that can happen is to be interrupted during this process, which may never bite again. And if it isn’t flattened, it is liable to leave somebody hung right there. It is a major auditing error to start Opening Procedure by Duplication 1957 and not flatten it. When you start that one, don’t have any other dates. Most of these processes under training sooner or later will be left unflattened on somebody, but that one must never be.

[Continued in PAB 154, page 400]

LRH TAPE LECTURES
Washington, D.C. 2 February 1959


** 5902C02 21ACC-S6 Axiom 10

** 5902C02 WST-2 PR&R-2: “R” Factor Talk to Registrar

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 FEBRUARY 1959




HGC CURRENT PROCEDURE



SELECTED PERSONS OVERTS STRAIGHTWIRE

If you want an undercut on Selected Persons Overts Straightwire, run people close to present time and if you want to undercut it further, downscale its command to: “Think of something you have done to ....” The preclear does not have to talk to run this process. He can just think of something.

Additional note: ARC Break Straightwire cannot be run on a case that is motivator hungry. Overt acts must be owned up to thoroughly on the lower processes before you can get ARC Break Straightwire to run properly. Bad auditing is much easier to do with ARC Break Straightwire than the other two processes. Bad auditing is the limitation of ARC Break Straightwire. It gives the auditor much more chance to make mistakes than either Selected Persons Overts or Not-Is Straightwire.

The two biggest single auditor crimes are:

1. Rough and choppy auditing.

2. Overestimating the level of case.

When either of these two crimes is committed you get reduced profile readings. If a profile reduces, the answer is in either one or two above.

The remedy for rough auditing is muzzled auditing. This gives the auditor wins, thus improving his judgement and gives the preclear wins.

Muzzled auditing is best run on:

1. Selected Person Overts Straightwire

2. General Overts Straightwire

3. Not-Is Straightwire.

ARC Break Straightwire belongs between General Overts Straightwire and Not-Is Straightwire in the scale of things, but is generally omitted because it requires smooth auditing; however, it produces the best results if case reality is up to it.

GRADUAL SCALE OF PROCESSES

The lowest is:

1. Selected Person Overts Straightwire: “Recall a time you did something to

2. General Overts Straightwire: “Recall a time you did something to somebody.”

3. ARC Break Straightwire: “Recall an ARC Break.” “When?”

4. Not-Is Straightwire: “Recall a time you implied something was unimportant” alternated with “Recall a time somebody thought something was important. “

5. Factual Havingness:

“Look around here and find something you would permit to vanish.”

“Look around here and find something you would continue.”

“Look around here and find something you have.”

The results to be achieved by the above scale compare favourably to the CCHs and are faster.

When part of the profile gain lags on the OCA or APA, the person is found to have a dropped havingness, thus Factual Havingness (Third Rail—run 8-2-1) can be combined with the above, using the third command, VANISH, first. In any event, the fifth process in the above order is “Third Rail” (run 8-2-1 ) of Factual Havingness.

I would like to see this run extensively by HGCs. I would like to see this gradient scale run in full after every engram is flat, and before starting a new engram.

This will keep auditors from being fooled by dub-in. Dub-in can occur in a different lifetime, even when it was not present in the lifetime just run. Dub-in is a continuous characteristic of a person in a single lifetime and may not be present in the ensuing lifetime.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:-.rd
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 FEBRUARY 1959




FLATTENING A PROCESS


A process is flat when:

1. There is the same lag from the moment the command is given until the time the preclear answers the command at least 3 times in a row.

2. A cognition occurs.

3. An ability is regained.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:-.rd

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 4 FEBRUARY 1959
Originally issued from London



OP. PRO. BY DUP.


Use two objects—a book and a bottle.

Have the pc look them over and handle them to his satisfaction. Then have him place them at some walking distance apart in the room, on a couple of tables or similar locations.

The commands:

“Look at that book.”
“Walk over to it.”
“Pick it up.”
“What is its colour?”
“What is its temperature?”
“What is its weight?”
“Put it down in exactly the same place.”

Repeat with the bottle.

Do not vary the commands in any way. Use Tone 40. “Thank you” acknowledgment. The basic commands should never be departed from, and never, never trick the preclear by using the book again when you knew he was just about to start toward the bottle. The purpose of the process is duplication. Good control should be used.

Accept the pc’s answers whether they are logical, silly, imaginative, dull or unlawful. In starting the process you can discuss with him what you are about to do and make sure you have got the rudiments established. Run the process until the comm lags are flat.

This process is an HPA/HCA requisite.


L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:mc.rd
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED




** 5902C04 21ACC-S7 Diagnosis of an Uncracked Case
5902C05 21ACC Scout on Dynamics
** 5902C06 21ACC-S8 Setting Up Co-auditing Groups, Processes Used in
21st ACC
** 5902C13 21ACC-S9 Summary of Data, Part I
** 5902C13 21ACC-S10 Summary of Data, Part ll

See page 374 for data on the 21st ACC lectures.

P.A.B. No. 154
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

15 February 1959

C. C. H. (Concluded)

Compiled from the Research Material and Taped Lectures of L. Ron Hubbard


The next process in training order is Subjective Havingness. One way to run this is to ask the preclear what he can mock up. Then have him mock up what he can, and shove it into his body. That is the most elementary way of running this. Remedy of Havingness and Havingness in general are the most therapeutic levels of processing when they work. You run CCH so the fellow can have, and here you are directly doing it. Quite important. You can always get a black case to mock things up and you can always get somebody to throw something away. This is not even a problem today.

The way you crack up a black case is to have him mock up something in the blackness and push it in until the blackness cracks up. He will go anaten; but because he goes unconscious is no reason to stop auditing him.

There is a way to crack up the “invisible” case, who cannot see mock-ups (they have no field and do not see anything when they close their eyes; everything is invisible, they have no facsimiles, no mock-ups). The most spectacular crack-up of an invisible case was occasioned by putting a number of glass objects on a table and, one after the other, just repetitively round and round, the preclear was asked to “Keep each one from going away”; and, when he succeeded in doing this for a few rounds, he no longer had an invisible field. That invisible field of his had been impervious to all other attacks by auditors for five years or longer.

The next one is Book Mimicry, its commands being totally motion. All the processes up to this moment (we have mentioned Book and Bottle Tone 40, but it is not taught or run at this level of training) are simply communicative. We could talk to the preclear. This is also true of Book Mimicry and Hand Space Mimicry. Don’t get this mixed up because your first process in CCH is Tone 40 “Give me your hand” and this is followed by Tone 40 8-C and then followed by Book Mimicry and then followed by Hand Space Mimicry; you are liable to believe that Book Mimicry and Hand Space Mimicry are Tone 40. They are not. They are just common, ordinary, run-of-the-mill routine—be a good fellow, pick up the ARC, remember your dummy auditing sort of processes. You can talk to the preclear. It is necessary that you do so.

Book Mimicry is run this way: You sit facing the preclear, rather close together, your knees a few inches from his knees. You take in your hands a book—not another object—and you make a motion with this book, preferably not the most complicated motion in the world and preferably not the simplest motion.

And remember, you, the auditor, have to be able to remember any motion that you make with that book so that you can do it again. So it is sometimes necessary for an instructor to make somebody take the book and wave it around in certain patterns

Copyright © 1959 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

and make him wave it around again before he lets him run this on anybody. Just check him out so that he can wave the book the same way twice, because, if he can’t, he can’t run this process.

You make the motion with the book and give the book to the preclear, and he, with a mirror image, takes the book and makes as near as he can the same motion with it. If you are not satisfied with it, you take the book back and make the same motion that you made before with the book newly and in present time and give him the book once more and he makes the same motion back. You do the motion until you and he, but particularly he, are satisfied that a duplication has occurred. The auditing commands of this process aren’t commands—they are patter. There is comment. There is talk. And one of the lines that undoubtedly should be part of your patter should be, “Well, did you do it?” “Are you satisfied?” If he isn’t, you do it again and ask him again. It is the preclear that has to be satisfied that a duplication took place, not the auditor. It is completely different from dummy auditing. Remember, we are not dummy auditing now, we are auditing for keeps. You can talk all you want to, acknowledge what he says, but don’t you dare let that looseness in conversation interfere with the tremendous precision of the motions of the process itself. In other words, the motions are the commands, and these must not be interfered with by the speech, but the speech can, and should, take place.

Number seven is Hand Space Mimicry, and again it is the motion that is the command. The training stress on Hand Space Mimicry is to do good, useful hand space mimicry. The auditor sits in the same position as in the last process, and puts one or two palms up against the preclear’s hands and he says, “I am going to make a motion with my hands and I want you to contribute to that motion”; and we make some simple little motion to which he contributes. We do this for a while until it is more or less flat or we can leave it for the moment. Then we bring the auditor’s and preclear’s hands half an inch apart, and we do the same thing, and we say the same thing. You may lead him out to four or five feet away by these tiny gradients, another inch at a time, without his ever becoming aware of the fact that you have left him, and he is definitely aware of his auditor. This is modern “Look at me, who am I?” It finds the auditor. The Scale of Reality is employed here, and this is why it is done. (Scale of Reality: At the bottom there is nothing; above that there is a communication line, the line becomes more solid, then above that terminals begin to materialize lightly and the line becomes less solid, then above that you have the terminals and you don’t have any lines, and above that the terminals are there mostly by agreement; above that there is agreement, and above agreement there is consideration, individual consideration, and above that there is postulate. That is the Scale of Reality.) You will see this Scale of Reality take place, for what are these hands against these hands but communication lines to the preclear? So we play it in this fashion. We begin to break it down and we become less a line and more a terminal.

Next one is Trio, a famous old process which is included here because it is too good to miss. The commands of Trio were originally “Look around the room and find something you could have.” A very non-control sort of process, but that’s the Trio. It has an opposite: “Look around the room and find something that your body cannot have.” It is “have” for the preclear, “have not” for any other object, person, being, valence, or anything else than the preclear. You do numbers of things with the Trio. You have to know the Trio because it is a fast patch-up for almost any process there is except Op. Pro. by Duplication 1957. (The only thing that patches up Op. Pro. by Duplication 1957 is Op. Pro. by Duplication 1957. Tone 40 Opening Procedure by Duplication will run out Opening Procedure by Duplication 1957, and any Tone 40 process will run itself out. There is no dead-end street there.)

Trio will run out almost anything in the entire bank if it is biting at all. If a person can have anything, or if he can get the idea of “something can’t have,” it will run anything out. It is slow and reliable, and an auditor must always have it.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 16 FEBRUARY 1959





HGC PROCESSES FOR THOSE TRAINED IN ENGRAM RUNNING
OR TRAINED IN THESE PROCESSES


STARTING A CASE: BEGIN EVERY SESSION AS FOLLOWS WITH THESE RUDIMENTS.
USE RUDIMENTS. FIND THE AUDITOR, FIND THE PC, FIND THE AUDITING ROOM.
ESTABLISH A GOAL FOR THE SESSION. ASK FOR PRESENT TIME PROBLEM.

PRESENT TIME PROBLEM:

If PTP exists then run it as follows and in no other way. Do not yak around about it. Just ask if there is one, see if one registers on the meter. On the PT PROBLEM THAT REGISTERS ON THE METER (not some other one) do the following.

Ask for and write down all the persons connected with this problem. That problem includes the preclear. On each of these persons, one after the other, beginning with the one most real to the pc, run this:

“Think of something you have done to (selected person).” “Think of something you have withheld from (selected person).”

These commands are run one after the other until the selected person chosen is somewhat flat. (Pc begins to repeat things he has recalled before.)

Do this to each person involved in the problem.

PT PROBLEMS WERE CUT OUT OF HGC BECAUSE AUDITORS BURNED UP HALF AN INTENSIVE ON THEM. A PT PROBLEM NEVER REQUIRES MORE THAN A COUPLE OF HOURS TO FLATTEN. NO “WHEN” IS USED WITH PT PROBLEM BY SELECTED PERSONS.

USE RUDIMENTS AND CHECK PT PROBLEM EACH SESSION AND HANDLE AS ABOVE.

DYNAMIC STRAIGHT WIRE:

Do a survey, one time on the pc, not every session, to discover any errors in their dynamics. This is done with an E-Meter. On pcs not familiar with Sci. terms use the following words: Self, sex, family, children, groups, mankind, the animal kingdom, birds, beasts, fish, vegetables, trees, growing things, matter, energy, space, time, spirits, souls, gods, God. Assess with this question only, “Tell me something that would represent (each of the above, one after the other).” When one changes the pattern of the needle action or when it is definitely balmy, write it down. When list is completed, take those items written down and run:

“Think of something you have done to (selected terminal you wrote down).”
“Think of something you have withheld from (selected terminal, same one).”

Run these questions on each, one after the other, until pc seems flat.

IF NO DAFFY TERMINALS ARE FOUND ON SURVEY, SURVEY IT ALL AGAIN. IF NONE ARE FOUND THIS SECOND TIME, SKIP THIS PROCESS.

DO THIS ONLY ONCE PER AUDITOR PER PC.

PAST AND FUTURE EXPERIENCE:

This process goes rapidly into engrams but can be continued even if engrams are contacted.

Run these two questions one after the other, one time per each.

“What part of your life would you be willing to re-experience?”
“What part of the future would you be willing to experience?”

KEEP AN ACCURATE RECORD OF ANY ENGRAMS CONTACTED. WHEN ENGRAMS PERSIST IN THE PC’S VIEW, CAREFULLY SPOT THEM IN TIME FOR HIM.

ENGRAM RUNNING:

Find the engram necessary to resolve the case. ONCE YOU HAVE CHOSEN IT AND HAVE BEGUN TO RUN IT, BE SURE YOU HAVE THE MOTIVATOR AND THE OVERT AND THEN DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DEPART FROM THAT INCIDENT TO RUN ANOTHER THAT “DROPS BETTER” OR COMES UP. IN OTHER WORDS ONCE YOU HAVE FOUND AN INCIDENT STAY ON IT UNTIL IT IS FLAT.

NOT-IS STRAIGHT WIRE:

When you have flattened an engram thoroughly with all five commands gone over twice, run Not-Is Straight Wire between incidents. In other words, flatten an engram, then run Not-Is Straight Wire, get that a bit flat and locate and run the next incident.

Selected Person Overt Withhold, and General Overt and Withhold can be run on a pc only if they are biting. This is also true of Not-Is Straight Wire.


L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:-.rd
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

[Supplemented by HCO B 27 February 1959, How to Select Selected Persons, page 427, and HCO B 10 March 1959, Supplemental Data Sheet to HCO Bulletin of February 16, 1959 and Staff Auditors’ Conference of February 16, 1959, page 439. This bulletin was discussed by Ron at the Staff Auditors’ Conference of February 16, 1959, see the following page.]






LRH TAPE LECTURE
Washington, D.C.
16 February 1959


A transcript of this Staff Auditor Conference appears on the following page.


5902C16 SAC Staff Auditors’ Conference

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.


STAFF AUDITORS’ CONFERENCE OF FEBRUARY 16, 1959

REGARDING HCO BULLETIN OF FEBRUARY 16, 1959:

HGC PROCESSES FOR THOSE TRAINED IN ENGRAM RUNNING
OR TRAINED IN THESE PROCESSES


Nearly everyone here has been trained in these exact processes and, if anyone here hasn’t been trained in these processes, then everything on this Bulletin applies except Engram Running. The whole bulletin applies except Engram Running.

There will be a staff Theta Clearing Course, and those auditors who are on staff who have not been trained by an ACC in Engram Running will have an opportunity to get that training; and not too many months will go by before they are up to this, too. So this will apply at that time. Maybe it will have shifted slightly by that time, but I don’t think very much.

Now what you are looking at here is the aggregate know-how that was gained and assembled on the 21st American ACC.

UNDERCUTTING CASES:

Now the undercuts of cases became a vital necessity. This whole ACC was devoted to the R factor plus Engram Running. It was discovered that the thing that keeps individuals from running engrams adequately was their R factor, and when their R factor was very poor they could not run an engram adequately. Now the funny part of it is that an engram can be contacted and run and, if done persistently and well without ARC breaks, can run the following Scale of Confront. Here is the Scale of Confront, just to refresh your minds:

DUB-IN: Lowest scale. This scale could possibly invert, and down below that you might have a black dub-in. Once you had run blackness, you would find a dub-in case. But the scale we are mostly interested in, because that is the one we most commonly see, begins at the bottom with dub-in, runs up, turns
BLACK. Runs through blackness, turns
INVISIBLE. Runs from invisible to
ELSEWHERE—a desire to be elsewhere. The way they solve things is elsewhereness. Runs up from elsewhereness to
ABILITY TO CONFRONT. Runs from confront to
EXPERIENCE or PARTICIPATE. And only then are you up to
BEINGNESS.

Now this is the Confront Scale, and it is the scale of disintegrating Reality. It is how a person handles terminals or a situation. A person handles terminals and situations above all this by not having to participate, by not having to confront, finding no necessity to do anything about it unless he chooses so on his own determination; and if he did so, could do so with no personal liability. He could experience or not as the case may be. Now you’ll find a lower harmonic on this in some philosophic level of somebody saying, “Yap, yap, well, I could, or I couldn’t, and that’s my choice,” etc, well, he hasn’t got any power of choice. He’s just using this as the final escape mechanism—a philosophic escape mechanism.

If I said “bottom”—the bottom mechanism—it would be the one most commonly contacted. But you are apt to get a mechanism which is philosophic, which is simply a figure-figure mechanism about a situation, and the individual feels that if he could just figure it out he would be all right. In other words, this is a thought-thinkingness figure-figure, and he not-ises by figure-figure. Such a case, not-ising by figure-figure,

will turn into a dub-in case as soon as you start curing his figure-figure; would turn into a black case; would turn into an invisible case; would turn into a confront case; would turn into an experience case. Which is quite interesting.

Now it is true that an engram could be found, started, and, if the auditor were good and held the individual right on the time period and had the time period well spotted, and had the overt and motivator, no matter how crazy they seemed or sounded, contacted, he could theoretically, just by running that engram, run a person through the totality of this Reality Scale. See? So there’s another approach here. You get a guy who is figure-figure, find the engram necessary to resolve the case. First he figure-figures about it, and he’ll run it, and run it just with the auditing commands—the five auditing commands to run an engram—he figure-figures about it, then after a while he dubs-in about it, then after a while it all goes black; and then after a while it eases into an invisibility—it’s just not there—somatics are, and discomfort and other things are, but it’s not there—and its not-thereness suddenly turns into little flicks—little flicks of confront. And boy, he goes elsewhere. It just starts to turn on and he gets it for the least little Flick and he goes elsewhere. And then pretty soon he can confront the thing; then pretty soon he can participate—he can run it in valence, squarely in valence, right in its moment of time, at which time it becomes pretty damn real. And then he goes to being able to put it there or not put it there, and its importance-unimportance factor flattens out so that it’s neither important nor unimportant. And that engram is licked.

Theoretically, this could happen. That is actually the way I run engrams. But you will find in auditing in the HGC that the public expects of you a different thing than is expected of you by students. And that’s why I wanted to talk to you for a few minutes. They expect a different thing. They expect you to be interested in their case. And that is quite amusing—because it’s your job to get them interested in their case. But they want you to be interested in their case. A11 right, any case is interesting, so that’s a pretty easy one. But you can get so interested in their case that you do a lot of talking to them and burn up an awful lot of auditing time. So there is some point where your interest becomes an indulgence, and on the happier side of that, where the pc is pleased you’re interested in his case, and that’s enough. Then you get him interested in his case.

All right. Now, we have for a long time not used PT problems. I’ll tell you why very bluntly. It was not unusual for an auditor to burn up twelve and a half hours on a PT problem. It was not unusual. He did this with two motives: one just yak, letting the pc go on and on, poor control, not controlling the pc’s comm outflow, letting the pc get into non-essentials. And the other side of it: he was trying to run the whole case with the PT problem. Well, wonderful—you can run a whole case with a PT problem—but why? Since it’s slow freight. That’s a very slow way to go about it. So we take a PT problem now and handle the session in this fashion:

We establish the rudiments every time we establish a session. Find the auditor, find the pc, find the auditing room, establish a goal for the session. Do that rapidly. We don’t care what goal it is, so long as he has some kind of a goal. And then we ask for a PT problem. And we take an E-Meter (up to that time we didn’t care whether the pc was handling the cans or not) but we take an E-Meter, and we have this PT problem appear on the E-Meter, or we don’t run it. Got it? And we run the PT problem that appears on the E-Meter. So we get him to state this problem, and we don’t care how he states the problem, because all we want to know is “Did it drop?” That tells you at once you won’t run a PT problem on a stage-4 needle. Didn’t drop-see, that’s all within the requirements—it didn’t drop, so skip it. It isn’t going to be real to the pc anyhow. You’ll have to do something else with this case. He’s probably got thousands of problems; probably all of life is a problem. Probably every time he walks in a room he installs an engram. You know, the furniture’s there—that’s an engram. Get the idea? So why worry about a problem?

But if you got a PT problem that drops, you should remove yourself at that moment from all temptation. As soon as the problem drops, and as soon as he states that it is a problem to him and is worrying him in present time, you take the cans away from him and put the thing aside. Just lay the E-Meter aside. You’re not interested in an E-Meter from there on. The reason why is because you’ll increase the drop, you’ll

increase more drop and more drop as you ask him about it. You’re already running it. And the problem is going to change. You have seen this phenomenon. You’re not interested in a problem changing. The fact of your laying aside the E-Meter will rather convince him that you have found it and that’s it. And you only want to know this: the personnel associated with that problem. You don’t want to know more about the problem. You just want to know the personnel associated with that problem. His wife, his mother, and his wife’s boy friend, or something of that sort. And that’s the personnel associated with the problem. You just check that off.

Now, I’m going to ask you to take a notebook and a ball-point into the auditing room, because you’ve got two or three things to do here that require a list. I want you to get accustomed to establishing a list and then flattening it, not trying to run the case all over new again every time the case changes. That’s one of the ways to waste time. You run one terminal, and of course the case changes, the problems change, everything changes on the case. If you re-assessed it at this time to find a new terminal, you’d for sure find new terminals. Well, the devil with it. Let’s just flatten what we contact, and when we’re contacting and scouting and using cans and the E-Meter, just write down what we find. Then put the E-Meter aside and run what we’ve found until we get rid of all of that. Now you’re going to do something new—give him back the E-Meter cans. Got the idea?

Pcs don’t much like to hold onto these E-Meter cans forever. Furthermore, they become restive, and they want to scratch their heads, and they want to do this, and they want to rassle around, and most pcs you get are slightly nervous in this direction. Why should you worry about it? Because the E-Meter is only going to give you a certain amount of the information that is quite valid. Now, you’re going to write down the personnel connected with this PT problem. You’re going to take SELECTED PERSON OVERT-WITHHOLD on each one of these people. And the commands for this are right here:

“Think of something you have done to ( ),” and
“Think of something you have withheld from ( ).”

And you are going to run one of those commands and the next command, and then the next command—first command again, then the second command, first command, second command. In that way, you’ll never lay an egg on an unbalanced flow. No flow will unbalance on you. They’ll always stay there more or less stable. The case won’t suddenly turn black when it’s not supposed to turn black, and so forth. You won’t ever over-run a flow and the pc will never get upset.

Now, let’s look at this again. You have written down “wife”, “his mother”, and “his wife’s boy friend”. Which one do you run first? You have to ask this question to establish that terminal: “Which one of these things do you think is the most real to you?” The individual says, “Oh, Mother, of course.” Who cares? That’s what he says. All right, so that’s the first one you take. Then you take the two remaining ones: “Which one is most real?” That’s the one you knock out. That leaves you one more person. Knock that one out.

Now, there is something that is not stated here. I just typed this up rapidly for you—I didn’t have a backing sheet, so there are typographicals because I couldn’t even see what I was typing. This has a criterion, and it is an old criterion of all PT problems—it is, they are PT problems. By definition, a PT problem must exist right now in the physical universe. By definition. So therefore, the personnel involved in a PT problem must exist right now in the physical universe. He will tell you halfway through the run, that “It was actually my mother who influenced me this way”—ah skip it. That’s not a PT personnel in that problem. His mother isn’t really part of, let us say—it was her mother that was part of the PT problem. In other words, the people have to be actually associated with the problem and existing at this time in this pc’s life influencing that problem, for this to be a PT problem. So therefore, we don’t dive in any direction to pick up any new personnel we don’t care about.

We get this problem flat. It is only flat if it answers this question: “Now, what do you have to do about that problem now?” And the pc says, “Nothing.” It’s flat. For

our purposes, it’s flat. The only reason we’re running it is we’re trying to get rid of the obsession he has to jump out of the auditing room and go do something about this problem. If he doesn’t have to do anything about it, it’s flat. But if he says, “Oh, it’s flat, because I could go and talk to my wife’s boy friend now, and I could handle him.” No. Start right back over from the beginning—the first person you wrote down—and run that person again for a short time—next person for a short time—next person for a short time—on these exact auditing questions. “Now, what do you have to do about the problem?” He’ll tell you, “Well, I don’t have to do anything about it just now.” That’s enough. You consider that flat. Got it?

All right. This will keep you out of all kinds of trouble. And it will keep the pc from being all hung up in trying to go elsewhere in an auditing session. So much for that.

This is done at the beginning of every session. That first section there—it says, “STARTING A CASE: AND BEGIN EVERY SESSION”. Well, you not only start each intensive with this, but you start every session with this, and you do the same thing.

If it takes you two hours to flatten the PT problem, I will think something is hung up. This is a rapid one. This is not a slow one. If it takes a couple of hours, well, something’s really haywire here. He didn’t say the problem, or he didn’t do something, or he’s holding something back. But notice we have said, “Think of something you have done to” and “Think of something you have withheld from”. This will also get the pc talking to you, because it gets rid of the withhold. Got that? All right. So much for that.

Now, DYNAMIC STRAIGHT WIRE you were taught in the 21st American, but the commands for the general public were not given to you. And they are given to you here on this sheet, this HCO Bulletin. Now, the only thing you are looking for is a represented substitute. In other words, you’re looking for substitutes. You ask him for a substitute for himself, and you ask him for a substitute on the basis of “Tell me something that would represent yourself.” And he says, “Represent myself? Oh, that’s very, very easy—a tree.” Get your ball-point busy at that point and put down “tree”. Got it? Now, if he even says “toothbrush”, get your ball-point busy. The proper answer, of course, is “Myself”. It’s just as simple as that. But the more a case is daffy on this line, the more attention you’re going to pay to it. So you just run this whole assessment right straight on through: Self, sex, family, children, groups, mankind, the animal kingdom, birds, beasts, fish, vegetables, trees, growing things, matter, energy, space, time, spirits, souls, gods, God. Just one question. Each time you say this you just take one of those: “Tell me something that would represent, for instance, souls.” The individual says, “Running water.” Get the ball-point busy. Write it down. When you have got this whole list assessed, take the list you have written and run:

“Think of something you have done to (a toothbrush).”
“Think of something you have withheld from (a toothbrush).”

You’ll be amazed, but they have actually done something to a toothbrush, and they have actually withheld something from a toothbrush. This is pretty terrific. Quite amazing. But you are only looking for daffiness on this, and a sensible answer you don’t pay much attention to. You say, “Tell me something that would represent trees.” And the fellow says, “Leaves.” Now, there’s a matter of judgment involved here. What if he said, “Shadows”? Well, I don’t know. That’s a matter of judgment. Try to run it or not try to run it, as the case may be. If it looks daffy to you, run it. You’re the judge. Got the idea?

Now don’t let it look daffy to you when you say, “Tell me something that would represent spirits,” and he says, “Souls.” When you say “souls”, he says “spirits”. That’s not daffy.

But how about this guy that gives you the perfect representation all the way down the line like a little wound-up doll? You already, in looking him over, find out he has a sticky needle, he’s registering at 6 on your E-Meter when you first put the cans in his hands, and he gives you all the answers perfectly. That case is giving you an

intellectual response which has nothing to do with any reality under the sun, moon or stars. Something he read in a book and a machine is rattling it off. So you do the assessment again. The second time you go through you’re liable to trip him on something. Got the idea? So, if you get a perfect assessment, run it again. I actually don’t care how many times you run it, but you’re apt to be wasting time, because by two-way comm and definition alone you may not get anywhere with a very badly machined case. Nevertheless, a couple of times through, he should trip somewhere. Machine case generally does.

The rule governing Dynamic Straight Wire is: That which doesn’t fall out by two-way comm just on assessment. He says it, and then it looks funny to him, and he laughs, and he thinks this is for the birds, and he says, “Oh, no, that wouldn’t be one-actually, a substitute for a tree would be a leaf, or a small tree,” or something like this. That’s fine. Nothing wrong with letting him correct himself, because you are actually auditing him just by asking him the question. People, when they straighten out things in their own categories, very often recover very, very easily.

All right. Let’s take up this next one here. That’s an easy way to run Dynamic Straight Wire, isn’t it, huh? I would ask you to do this, however, in view of the fact that you are doing a professional job of auditing for the public mainly, and that is, I’d ask you to memorize that list—rather than hold a bulletin in your hand and read it.

Now, the next thing we’re going to run into here is PAST AND FUTURE EXPERIENCE. This is a bid for two things: One, the lowest level case there is—because experience, to him, is a dub-in, usually. Or it’s a figure-figure, or it’s something, so it compares to the Reality Scale. His definition of experience compares with the Reality Scale.

His definition of experience is a direct index to the Reality Scale, by the way. What does experience mean? He’ll say, “Experience—that’s very easy. To consider.” There you’ve got your figure-figure level. “What does experience mean?” Well, “To write about it or make something out of it—experience is that thing which you use to manufacture the future.” He’s dub. “Now, what is an experience?” “Well, experience is that which you try not to have.” That’s probably black or invisible. Or, “It’s the thing you forget,” would be blackness. “Experience is something you try to forget”— invisibility level. “Experience is something you have to cope with.” Obsessive confront. “Experience is—ah—well, experience—that’s pretty hard to define—experience. I guess it’s to go through something.” You’re getting a fairly sane response—to go through something. To have an actual adventure, something of this sort. You’re getting a fairly sane reaction to experience.

So don’t think that Past and Future Experience is pegging up at the highest level of the Reality Scale. It isn’t. This process was found, in the 21st American, to be the undercut process. This was the lowest undercut process. And this is a killer, and it is very trying to an auditor. A very trying process, because it offers so many wonderful temptations. And that’s what’s wrong with this process.

Now, you run these two questions, one after the other, with no assessment, no E-Meter, nothing. You just put the E-Meter down after you’ve done the Dynamic Straight Wire thing, because on Dynamic Straight Wire, when you said, “Children,” the needle was going on a gradual shift over here, and a little theta bop now and then. You said, “Children,” and it fell a dial, or all of a sudden started doing a big theta bop in the middle. When you got off of children, it settled down to the other pattern. That told you that you had something to be run on the subject of children. That he will also, at the same time, give you a daffy reading, he will tell you some daffy terminal to represent—so you needed the E-Meter there. But you don’t need the E-Meter on Past and Future Experience, not even vaguely. You can just put the E-Meter aside and turn it off, and just run these two commands. Just clear them with the pc very bluntly. Say, “We’re going to run something about experience. Now, we’re going to see how you get along with this little process, and here are the commands of it: What part of your life would you be willing to re-experience? And the other command is: What part of the future would you be willing to experience? Now, here’s the first command: What part of your life would you be willing to re-experience?”

The answer actually called for is a time, isn’t it? And this is a time process. But there are very few preclears that will find this out for a very long period. They won’t give you anything but super-significances and ball-up, and the pc who is real bad off will give you a type of experience. You accept all these things. You say, “What part of your life would you be willing to re-experience?” He says, “Well, eating cake.” That’s an answer? That’s an answer. And that’s followed with this: “What part of the future would you be willing to experience?” He says, “Well, more cake.” That’s an answer. So you just accept any answer that he gives you on the line. It gradually will boil down to a time answer. And it will gradually go back-track. The longer you run it, the more track you’re going to cover, the more future you’re going to cover. And there will be periods when the individual is absolutely sure that he is totally predicting the future. He gets into implants, let us say, that tell him what the future is all about. He’s stuck 8000 years ago, but he’s telling you about the future. All kinds of odd phenomena show up. But engrams come up and slap you in the teeth, one right after the other.

You run this for a while, and the individual says, “OOOh, well, you know I really wouldn’t be willing—well, I would be willing—I don’t know—I would—oohh, well—I really don’t know—dental operation there, I was a young boy—I don’t know if I’d like to re-experience that—I guess I could re-experience sitting in the—no, no, no. I could re-experience—I could re-experience the next day after it.” You say, “That’s fine,” and just mark it down with the ball-point: “Dental experience as a child.” That one he can’t confront. Now, you’re never going to run it as an engram, but you’re going to have some tag of it as an engram. See, it may show you something.

As you go along and he runs into hot experiences, real, real hot experiences one right after the other, it is about time you put the E-Meter back in his paws. Get the idea? You don’t have to start it with the E-Meter, but if he starts running into hot experiences, or if he gets into an engram and he can’t seem to get out of the thing, the thing to do is not run the engram but give him an E-Meter and spot it in time for him. Get it spotted in time. If he’s running into them hot and heavy, one right after the other, just leave him with the E-Meter. But if there is only one you have to spot in time, and then in a little while he doesn’t seem to be running any more, take the cans away from him again and put the E-Meter aside. But if he starts running into one that obsessively sticks with him, don’t let him flounder in the thing for an hour. Don’t let him wallow in this one. Because he will just wallow in it, and this is no process-this is not a good process to run an engram with. So you let him out, OK? And the way you let him out is to locate it in time with an E-Meter. And you go on running the process. Now, as I say, it offers enormous temptations to the auditor—beautiful temptations to run the things contacted. As you sit this out, you actually are going to change the characteristic of the engram you will ultimately run on the case. But you keep listing engrams that he runs into. Keep listing engrams that he runs into, well knowing that he will favor motivators. For every one of those motivators there is an overt. Now an engram that he consistently and persistently keeps hitting and hitting and hitting, you are going to find in that engram probably the engram you will run, eventually. But not until he is in PT, out of the engram, it seems to have dropped out, and so forth, and he seems to be all smooth on this thing, are you going to reach for that one again. You are going to flatten the process and then go to the engram.

Here we go. ENGRAM RUNNING. Of course, that is run all the way through with an E-Meter. Give him the cans and start out on this engram that you more or less found with Past and Future Experience.

Now, this is going to undercut cases, and I don’t care how long you run it. I don’t care if you run it for two weeks, because this is a very productive process. But if you are going to run it over that period of time, it isn’t noted here, but some THIRD RAIL had better be brought in here some place. And he’d better be shifted up finally until havingness. And you put in PAST AND FUTURE EXPERIENCE, right after that line, “COMBINE WITH THIRD RAIL IF RUN MORE THAN 8 HOURS”. If you run it eight hours, this guy’s havingness is going to start dropping on him, and you are going to run into difficulties. You could get into difficulties. All right.

ENGRAM RUNNING. Well, Engram Running, when the case has been prepared this way, becomes very simple. A case will start running like a little typewriter, if you have got this Past and Future Experience pretty flat.

Once you have picked an engram, make sure you get its motivator not only its overt. If you have got an overt, get the motivator. If you have got the motivator, get the overt. And only when you have got that have you got an incident. Now, an engram that is having one side of the overt or motivator run will get sticky. You have got to find the other side, and you have got to get both of these things in date. Normally, this will start showing up on Past and Future Experience. Well, we are going to run this engram with an E-Meter, we are going to consider that we have an incident when we have got both a motivator and an overt that fit together. And if the thing is just awful sticky, and dubby, and shockingly poor, and a lot of other things, you just started running it too fast, that is all.

We have got several things you can do at this state of the case, and so forth. Probably the best of them is go back to running Past and Future Experience. You didn’t flatten it.

Now, here is this Engram Running. If you notice here, it says you run all the commands that run an engram twice. Run them all twice. That’s because “Find something unimportant in that incident” is going to stir up stuff that newly has to be confronted.

Once you have chosen an engram and you have begun to run it, you have had it. That’s it. That’s the engram you are going to run. So it has to be chosen with considerable care. Listen to me now: If you re-assess the case after you have started an engram, you will get almost any other incident that is hot to drop more than the engram you started, because most of the charge is already dissipated. So if you keep re-assessing a case, thinking another engram would be better to run for the case, you are of course always going to find another engram. You will never find the one you started to run again dropping with as much velocity. You see? That’s something you have to keep in mind. If you are going to run an engram, that’s the engram you are going to run. It’s got to have its overt or motivator; suppose you are running the overt side of it, you have got to have the motivator side of it. So you really haven’t got an incident until you have got both of these things located. And once you have started to run that, you have had it. Because it will discharge its charge and won’t register on a meter any more the way some other incident will.

You can get a case just stirred all up and run all backwards and upside down, and that’s the biggest mistake an auditor can make. I have given you the reason for the mistake-because now almost anything will drop better than the one you partially flattened.

If in doubt, run the engram you were running. If you are not getting rapid recovery, go back to the first engram you ran and considered flat and run it again. Sometimes, it will only take you fifteen minutes to run all five commands. You do it very fast. But very often something happened that it re-charged in some fashion. Very peculiar.

If you leave about a third of an engram missing and unflat, the whole engram has a tendency to charge up again. It is kind of funny. But you have got to flatten the engram you contacted.

Now the rule of the Last Largest Object is the only one I want you to pay any attention to in questioning the pc. Pc apparently is getting out of it. Change your auditing command. You are running, “What part of that incident can you confront?” He says, “Well, I don’t know, it’s pretty unreal to me, I don’t know whether this happened or not.” What was the last largest object? If he said anything that was offbeat and showed an unwillingness to run any more of the engram, you want to find out at once what was the last largest object that you contacted in there. And he says, “A house.” You are going to shift your auditing command now to: “What part of that house can you confront?” And you are going to run that simply until he is back in the

incident, and then you are going to go off on to “What part of that incident can you confront?” Doesn’t require any vast bridge. You just tell him you are going to shift.

In that way, using that rule, you can actually pick up an engram where he was running as Abraham Lincoln, and in the engram he was shot in Ford’s Theatre—you know—and the date is obviously correct. Dropped and everything. And then he runs John Wilkes Booth—no, he wasn’t Lincoln, he was John Wilkes Booth. And so help me God, you may find that he was the Secret Service Agent who had a couple of drinks that night and wasn’t watching. You don’t care whether he runs it dub or not. Don’t give up because he’s running it wrong, because it’ll come out right.

There was a joke on us in the 21st American. We had our paws on Bowie. He was Jim Bowie. And of course everybody doubted this, because it is a famous historical figure. And they tried to do everything under the sun to shake him out of this engram, and they finally went back to running it, and it was the one that flattened out. The trouble was, he had dub on it, which made Bowie die the wrong kind of a death under wrong circumstances. But as he ran it, the more he ran it, the more he ran it, the more right the circumstances got. And it finally all came out in the wash. He did run the death of Jim Bowie.

Historical figures, however, are usually the yo-yo point used. The guy went out of his own body at the death; there was some current historical figure; he said, “That is the identity necessary to resolve this incident. That identity could handle it. So I will just be Catherine the Great.” And he goes and runs Catherine the Great. The only mistake is to let him escape out of the time period. Maybe he did yo-yo right into the palace, maybe he did go right through her skull. But the right engram will shake out, because the Reality Scale is run by running an engram.

Theoretically, you could clear a person just by running one engram well enough. So never get off onto quantitative engrams. An engram is merely something for him to get used to confronting, and creating, and mocking up, and so forth. It’s just a playing field you are using. The significance, the amount of change he gets in his life, none of these things have anything to do with it at all. It is just how well he can handle a mental image picture, and you have chosen a honey for him to handle. That is about all it amounts to. And when he finds out he can handle this thing from A to Izzard and beginning to end, and he can do it well, then the next engram to resolve the case will run quite rapidly. And you will run on down and finally run his basic, earliest shift of identity, which is the rock. And formerly he said, “There is a beautiful, clear sphere—that’s the rock. And that’s all the rock.” Oh, heck. When you get several engrams run and get the rock as one of the engrams, you find out this beautiful, clear sphere was something he customarily clamped around thetans as a trap, and they sometimes clamped it around him, and there were raiding parties, and there was all kinds of personnel and there is drama and there is strain, and there is scenery and everything else. When you contacted the rock first and ran the rock first, he was insufficiently able to contact things. The date when he was mocking up this thing, he was so capable of mocking up that later on this poor, little, weak ole thetan, years and years and centuries and so forth afterwards going back to mock up this rock—uh-uh— it’s too beefy. That’s too much engram for him to confront first off.

So you choose the engrams—it doesn’t much matter what you choose. You will find that every sexual incident you contact is a bounce from a death. A little rule for you. So don’t let me catch anybody in the HGC running prenatals, birth, conception, because that is a bounce. Those are all tied in with the death, and the death is the engram which is necessary to resolve the case. So you keep running Past and Future Experience until you get them down to that—OK? Leave the second dynamic incidents severely alone.

Now it can be that he died, and he died is followed by a conception sequence, and he goes back to the old body to see if it is still decently buried—you know—and then he can’t find the person that he thought he was going to be, get the next body from, and he gets all confused. And mess-ups of this character can occur. But keep him on the incident. Is this part of the text? When you finish a death and go through the exteriorization sequence, right at the end of it there is a conception or a

prenatal or a birth. They quite ordinarily bounce into it, and you don’t want it. You want nothing to do with it. So you stop him when you have got all of the exteriorization run.

There is a lot to know about engrams. You have been taught all this, but I am just showing you what you can do to win in the HGC with Engram Running. This would be a good, clean job then.

Every time you run an engram, now is the time to use some Not-Is Straight Wire, with its ordinary commands which you know. They are:

“Recall something that you implied was unimportant.” “Recall something somebody else thought was important.”

Don’t ever let a pc run it in reverse, because it discharges havingness in about five commands. That is real rough the other way, too.

All right. Now there we have a rundown that will get engrams run, that will get ordinary, run-of-the-mill cases squared around, and that will get a lot done. But what about people who were not through the American 21st? And during that period of time up until they start in with a Theta Clearing Course, to run actual engrams on pcs, how about these people? Well, you have Selected Person Overts, with the “withhold” command added, and you will have a new bulletin out on these things, and so forth. We want that auditing to be relatively muzzled. It will win and everything will go along just dandy. But if you have got some case (and this is more for D.O.P.s than anything else)—if you have got some case that was awfully hard to start, very low random profile, you’d better turn it over to a graduate of the 21st American. And if you have got some case that, after he ran along for a while and was getting up to a point where he’d just run engrams beautifully, and the whole track’s opening up, everything is going along just dandy, and it is certain that the engram necessary to resolve the case is just waiting, give him an auditor that can run it.

In other words, you can run an HGC this way: You can get some auditors that set pcs up to run engrams. You got the idea? And then you can have some auditors that run engrams. This is not any real violation of the Auditor’s Code, because that will still give him the best processes and the best treatment for the pc that can be given.

Now there is no reason why, particularly after a staff Theta Clearing Course, that everybody can’t run a regimen of this sort. But running it in the HGC, with all the profiles being submitted to me and all the Case Analysis Reports—the Case Analysis Reports now are more vital than profiles, because R changed on a case does not necessarily change the profile at all. You should know about that. You can change the R of the case without changing the profile. The person answered the same questions, only he answered them with Reality. This is quite remarkable. We need a brand new test. That test is in development right at this moment. It is a confront test, and that test will be coming up, but there is no reason to rush it, particularly. Let’s just do it by Case Analysis.

I will get out a Bulletin that will take care of auditors who were not trained to run engrams, what they will run. But you already have data and material on this, and it is just as before, what you have been running.

Now, to start a case out with NOT-IS STRAIGHT WIRE is adventurous. That’s an adventurous thing to do. That’s a rough thing to do. We learned a great many things in the 21st American ACC. Learned a great many things, and that was one of them. Selected Persons Overt-Withhold is very, very superior in undercutting cases to Selected Persons Overts. The only main change we have got is that we run Selected Person Overt-Withhold commands, just as it is given here in PT problem. That is a wonderful thing to do with a case, as long as the terminal is real to the pc. And there is no real reason that running a Scientologist, who knows what the command is, why ARC Break Straight Wire cannot be run on a person by an auditor who has not been through an Engram Running Course. That’s a beautiful process.

I want to tell you something else. Can I tell you something here? A lot of research was done in the 21st American ACC, and students didn’t see me as much as they thought they should, I suppose, but I was around. And I never saw so many flips and changes and vagaries in my life as I saw in that particular unit. The reports which I got were very—very helpful to me—very, very helpful to Scientology at large. There was a great deal done in that course. I spent about three weeks of the course—did very rapid research just in catching up with some of these undercuts. Because, let me assure you, the R factor in most of the cases you approach is so low that it poses a problem of running greater than we had ever imagined. Therefore, these are the processes that we are handing out.

Now, these are a Not-Is type of process. Dynamic Straight Wire runs a straight identification, but the rest of these things are Not-Is types of processes. To cure somebody from not-ising. When a person can confront something, he no longer has to not-is it.

But there was a funny command came up along the line, that I don’t fully understand yet, but it takes care of a theta body. Now this is part of the research that was never given to the 21st American. And this is a peculiar darned thing. You can write it down on the back of this Bulletin, if you want to.

It is:

“Recall a time when you thought something bad was unimportant.”

And that is just about the wildest thing you ever saw. Now that runs all by itself but can be combined with:

“Recall a time somebody else thought something bad was important.”

And you will run all the newspapers off the case. The second command there is really not essential, but you just run this first command repetitively, and if it seems to run down or something bad happens, flip over to the other command. But you will as-is a theta body.

This is the doggondest thing you ever saw. It is a perfectly wild pitch. I was just adding up all possible combinations and working in all possible directions, and this one fell out of the hamper, and it doesn’t integrate too well with the rest of your data. But this is the goofy one.

Now, something else came up in the 21st American that I should tell you in the HGC, and that is: After nine years, we have found out WHY. We had nine years of HOW, and now in the ninth year we find out why. Why people are aberrated. Why they are sick. Why they act the way they do. Why individuation takes place. And that is all wrapped up with WITHHOLD. I had withhold earlier, but didn’t shake it all out of the hamper, because I didn’t have the overts to go with it. We find out that an individual gets sick by having the overt impulse to make somebody else sick and then withholds it, because it is less social to give people illnesses. So he gets them himself. This is Freudian transference, it is a whole number of things. So when you run these overts, run the withhold with it and the case will start finding out why.

The theta body thing, and the masses and ridges, why, they run out when you ask a person to recall a time when he thought something bad was unimportant, or recall—well, that is the best command—recall a time when he thought something bad was unimportant. When you run this, you evidently run the center pin of the withhold. But you will get his tolerance. And this is the first straight ethical process, evidently, we have. It raises a person’s ethics. It as-ises a theta body. It takes demon bodies and things like that off cases. I tested it two or three times here, just monkeying around with this thing, and it is one of the wilder ones. This is a wild pitch, that particular process.

So you could say that when a field doesn’t immediately disintegrate, when you can’t get an individual easily in the engram, when the field stays persistently black or something like that, you have got another string to your bow, and I don’t care if you

use it. But if you do use it, know this: It runs as an automaticity on such a demon case. He runs br-r-r-r-t—the last two thousand years he has been not-ising and saying it was unimportant that something was bad. And he will start coming up with, “Well, I should do something—no, I shouldn’t do something—well, what is this? I should do something about it. I shouldn’t do something about it. I have been very neglectful, but that really isn’t bad. Not really. Somebody dying from the bullet wound I gave ‘em—that really isn’t bad. But—” And he is stuck right with the consideration on all of his overts—consequences of overts. They all must be unimportant. And it reduces his ethical level. But I have now seen two demon bodies disintegrate just with that one command just disintegrate—and this is the first time we ever had something that would disintegrate the astral body. So we find out at once that the astral body was an aberration. It isn’t a necessary thing to make a thetan stick in the head at all.

All right. Now I wanted to give you this rundown, because today you were having a little bit of a rough time doing a transition from student to pro auditor, and I wanted to talk to you, even though it burned up some of your valuable time and mine. And ask you to sic semper transit, huh?

Now are there any questions? Yes, Jean.

Q. I have two questions. In running of the engram, do you ignore what they were running in the ACC, or do you just go back and run them? My preclear has had several engrams started.

A. Now, if we look over this carefully, we see in running an incident: Find the engram necessary to resolve the case. Once you have chosen it and have begun to run it, be sure you have the motivator and the overt and then do not, do not, do not, do not, depart from that incident to run another that “drops better” or comes up. Now look here. The engrams that were run on them in the course are no longer going to fall. And an engram is not going to show on an E-Meter. And if there were several engrams run on somebody in the course, and the first one wasn’t flattened, then whoever audited them ought to be hit in the head with a sledge-hammer. There’s only one or two cases that got by with this, that I have checked up on so far, and it is about the most serious blunder that could be made. Now, what you do in a case that’s had an engram already started is get a lie reaction check—that’s all you want—of some sort or another, concerning this particular thing. You can put him on the E-Meter and ask him if it was run, and so forth, and ask him which one was the first one run. You could possibly get an occlusion, but usually the pc will tell you. There’s no particular reason to doubt the pc. Get the first one, and get that one flat, and then you have no choice but to pick up the next one and flatten that one.

This applies without regard to how many auditors were on the case. This also, you will find out, will sometimes apply to somebody who had an engram audited in 1950. The only trouble with a 1950 engram is that it is probably an operation in the current lifetime, or a prenatal in the current lifetime, and it was the wrong engram necessary to resolve the case, and you won’t get very far running the thing. And we have no data at this time, whether it’s best to pick that one up and run it or not. But I would say for sure that an engram that should have been run to resolve the case, such as a past death, if that was ever entered in all of those years, including 1950—it may no longer drop on the E-Meter, because some of its charge is gone. That is the engram necessary to resolve the case.

Yes, got another one?

Q. Yes. The Dynamic Straight Wire—do you keep running this until you have picked up all the daffy terminals, then go through it several times and get the daffy ones each time?

A. If you get a daffy one, if you get several daffy ones, you take those you got on the first run and run them. Don’t bother to go through again, because it will have straightened out. Enough will have straightened out to admit progress of the case. But if you don’t get any daffy ones through once, then run it again. Any other questions? Dale.

Dale: I just had a comment on that. One 1950 engram, in which the auditor blew session because it was whole track, was the engram necessary to resolve the case and finally showed up. The guy had been black since 1950.

A. Good. Picked it up and flattened it. Well, that’s a good job. That tells you that a black case, then, doesn’t necessarily require five or six weeks of preparation before you run an engram. You pick up an engram as early as you can on a case and charge through. But it doesn’t get you around starting a case. You have always got to start a case or start a session. Yes?

Q. On this re-experience process, do I run it until I get 3-D pictures, and track?

A. Yes. Oh, 3-D pictures and back in PT. Back in PT. I’ll give you an example of one of these. Here’s the pc. He is sitting in a terror charge, in a total black freeze, at 1500 AD. One second later, everything went to hell. One second before, everything had gone to hell. And he’s sitting in this split second, at a rest point. Got it? Well, now, what do you think happens when you start asking him about future and past, alternately? He’ll move right off that rest point, won’t he? So this is an explosive, doggoned process. Now, I say you run it until he gets to PT. Some time or other you might find it impossible to get him to PT on the process. You just might. But the experience that has been had with it so far is that it does eventually move him to PT. Now is the time to take him back, at the auditor’s discretion, and have him run that incident in which he was stuck.

By the way, “What part of PT are you willing to experience?” has on several cases exposed the engram necessary to resolve the case. It is the engram he’s sitting in, and it is the one necessary to resolve the case. Yes?

Q. If you leave a process very unflat one afternoon, and come back in the morning and start questioning the guy, and you pick up first of all present time problems. Now supposing that process is the basic of his present time problem of the morning. Are he and you the terminals, the preclear and auditor the two terminals?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you run it that way?

A. Oh, well, if he got a lot of ARC breaks, it would be a good thing to run it this way. That would clean up all the ARC breaks, wouldn’t it?

Now I am going to give you that again on ARC breaks. This is the hottest one to run ARC breaks on. Just pick up the auditor and pick up the pc, as the two people involved in the present time problem. I am glad you brought that up, Joe.

This idea of throwing him back into session after you have ended a session the day before is another point of judgment. Just how do you smoothly get him into it? Usually he has piled up something on top of the engram. There is a process here, which is not really a very good process, but which kicks them out, and it was not given in this ACC. That is Problems of Comparable Magnitude to that Engram, or that Incident. It will actually de-intensify an engram. You should have that as a little panacea.

That is an interesting one to wind up an intensive on. About noon of the last day you all of a sudden realize, “Boy, this man isn’t going to make it.” And you could run a problem of comparable magnitude to that engram and get it keyed out. However, you are better than that, and you will have had it flat by the last day of the last intensive he has, that’s for sure. Any other questions? Don?

Q. Is “recall something” preferred over “recall a time”? I have heard “Recall a time you did something to somebody,” and also “Recall something you did to somebody,” which is slightly different.

A. “Recall a time” is always a superior process, unless the individual is consistently not recalling a time, at which time he is not obeying the auditing command. So you should say, “Recall something you have done to” to somebody who can’t spot something on a time track.

Q. What’s the difference there?

A. You are running really two processes with “Recall a time you did something,” and you are running only one process, “Recall something you have done.”

Q. Can he continue to do that without recalling a time?

A. Yeah. Definitely. Anything else?

“Recall a time,” all by itself—you just sit down and say to a pc, “Recall a time. Thank you. Recall a time. Thank you.” Some interesting things would happen to a case. Time, you see, is the single aberration. Joe?

Q. In running an engram, when you are tagging the engram for the first time, is it possible to peg, say, a 2-ton motivator and a one-pound overt, and that’s the incident?

A. Yes. Because until they get some of the overt flat, the motivator will come off. The right one to run there, by the way, is the overt. You get that overt damn real, and all of a sudden you’ll find the 20-tons have departed down to about 1 0-tons on the motivator. Now they’ll run on comparable lines. Yes.

Q. Couldn’t you have, say, a 20-ton motivator, as he was saying, and twenty one-ton overts tied to the same motivator, rather than one large overt?

A. You could. You could. Nevertheless, you’ll find somebody getting all loused up on this, and best remedy is just to play what overt you find against what motivator you find as the incident. And just keep playing them one against the other, back and forth, back and forth, and eventually the thing will come out right.

There are many remedies, and one is Selected Persons Overt-Withhold Straight Wire on the personnel of the incident. You could take any incident as a PT and run any PT process on the incident. That’s a little rule. I don’t advise you doing it, however, but you can do it. It’s very interesting: “Find something unimportant about that executioner,” is just about the same as, “Find something unimportant about this room.” If you want to get a reality soaring on a pc, just run “Find something unimportant about this room.” And he’ll start this not-is machinery going, you know, and he’ll run it out to some degree, and all of a sudden the room will brighten up. Very interesting.

“Think of something you did to an executioner” would be it, rather than, “Think of something you did to that executioner.” And he will come up with the overt, and he will find out he was the executioner in the same castle for about three lifetimes before he suddenly came back there and got executed. That usually is the way these things compare.

Any other questions? There is a burning question that you should ask, is: “Are we supposed to run these things muzzled?” Now, let me just say this, to do this for me: Let’s cut down the unnecessary yak. And if the pc seems to be ARC breaking at all, you voluntarily muzzle your auditing. You got it? Because what he’s got is an engram of being talked to or being interrogated in some fashion, and everything that he doesn’t consider exactly necessary to the auditing session he resents. So if you find a pc is ARC breaking, you muzzle your session. Any other questions before we break this up?

Thank you very much for your time, I appreciate very much your coming in. I know you had a hard day getting on to a new routine, and you have got auxiliary duties. Several people in the HGC have been split off of administration, and there are other things going on. Latch on to ‘em, get wheeling, but let’s start making theta clears in this HGC and just make nothing else but theta clears. I have given you a pattern here that was thoroughly tested out in the 21st American ACC, and you can make theta clears—there’s no great difficulty to it. Thank you very much.


L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:ng.rd.lh
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

[Supplemented by HCO B 10 March 1959, Supplemental Data Sheet......., page 439.]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 19 FEBRUARY 1959

AUDITOR’S CODE #19

Do not explain, justify or make excuses for any auditor mistakes whether real or imagined.


LRH:-.rd L. RON HUBBARD

[Some copies of the above HCO B were issued incorrectly dated 9 February 1959.]


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 24 FEBRUARY 1959


TECHNICAL BULLETIN

SELECTED PERSONS OVERT WITHHOLD STRAIGHTWIRE


It is not only unreasonable but impossible to run engrams or higher processes than Selected Persons Overt Withhold on people who have low reality and low responsibility. Selected Persons Overt Withhold raises both reality and responsibility and some of the cases around will only start to respond after four to five weeks of Selected Persons Overt Withhold Straightwire. But the main point is that they do—repeat, do respond.

We have got it made in Selected Persons Overt Withhold Straightwire. Let’s not lose it.

Selected Persons Overt Withhold Straightwire

Select a person (terminal) that is real to the preclear.

Run “Recall something you have done to “ (that terminal) and

“Recall something you have withheld from (that terminal)” alternately.

(one question after the other)

Wherever the person has a misidentification or a fixated terminal on any dynamic, that terminal should be selected out and flattened by Selected Persons Overt Withhold Straightwire. We will be rid of these unresponsible cases.

Do not graduate into General Overts until Selected Person Overt Withhold Straightwire is flat. When is Selected Persons Overt Withhold Straightwire flat? It is flat when the preclear has come up tone through shame, blame, regret, and a recognition of his own failures and preferably 4.0 on the tone scale as per “Science of Survival”.

Minimize the two-way communication, clean up present time problems with the same process, using the terminals involved in the present time problem, and if in doubt MUZZLE the auditor.

LRH:mc.msp,rd L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 26 FEBRUARY 1959


IDENTIFICATION




I received the following dispatch from Jack Parkhouse, in South Africa:

“On going around the Union with the Film shows so far provided a point of correlation between attendance figures and groups has been noticed which may be of interest to you.

1. Pretoria—had biggest group in Union before establishment of HASI—run on the ‘everybody’s equal basis’. Film show result: Worst attendance so far.

2. Cape Town—second largest ‘everybody’s equal’ group. Second worst attendance.

3. Port Elizabeth—third largest group—mainly run on an equality basis. Third worst attendance.

4. East London—large group established by HASI trained auditor on CCH. Good on control—gets people to help but definitely not on equality basis. Attendance best yet—over £200 receipts including book sales.”

What price identification?

Best,

L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 26 FEBRUARY 1959



ENGRAM RUNNING ON OLD DIANETIC CASES
OR RESTARTED CASES


It has been found that the abandonment of an unflattened engram to start another one can leave the case in an apparent jam. Starting a new engram without flattening the first one contacted may be, to the preclear, the same as a command not to confront the first engram.

Stable data: The incident entered by the auditor must be wholly flattened by Scientology commands before a second incident is approached.

The end goal of running incidents is the increasing of the ability to confront.

When incidents are started and not finished in favour of a new incident, the preclear may feel he is being forbidden to confront the first one.

An incident consists of an overt engram and a motivator engram on the same subject.

It is evidently necessary to scout the earlier auditing of any incident that was abandoned in order to get the incident run. Otherwise, a black detachment may result. The blackness and the detachment may exist in the earlier auditing of the same incident rather than in the incident.

The intention of a bad auditor is to prevent confronting. Therefore, bad auditing must be cleared away before a contacted engram can be completely entered again.

The process that most swiftly strips off bad auditing (to clean up engrams or otherwise) is:

“Recall something you have done to (auditor’s name).”
“Recall something you have withheld from (auditor’s name).”

These questions are run alternately (one after the other) and are best run muzzled. (TR 0, 1, 2 and 3 only—auditor only nods when preclear originates.)

This mechanism is probably behind most black or invisible cases now extant in Scientology.


L. RON HUBBARD




LRH:-.rd



Issue 90 M [1959, ca. late February]


The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.



How to Study Scientology


L. Ron Hubbard



The first thing that a student has to find out for himself and then recognize, is that he is dealing with precision tools here in the courses. It isn’t up to someone else to force this piece of information on him. The whole subject of Scientology as far as the student is concerned is as good or bad in direct ratio to his knowledge of it. It is up to a student to find out how precise these tools are. He should, before he starts to discuss, criticize or attempt to improve on the data presented to him, find out for himself whether or not the mechanics of Scientology are as stated, and whether or not it does what has been proposed for it.

He should make up his mind about each thing that is taught in the school. The procedure, techniques, mechanics and theory. He should ask himself these questions: Does this piece of data exist? Is it true? Does it work? Will it produce the best possible results in the shortest time?

There are two ways to answer these questions to his own satisfaction: Find them in a preclear or find them in himself. These are fundamentals, and every auditor should undertake to discover them himself, thus raising Scientology above an authoritarian category. It is not sufficient that an instructor stand before him and declare the existence of these. Each and every student must determine for himself whether or not the instructor’s statements are true.

As an example of a science in an Authoritarian Category, in the field of medicine some instructors declare that multiple sclerosis is the decay of nervous fibers, and that it is incurable, and that people who contract the “disease” die in a relatively short period of time. It must be answered in just this way on the examination paper or the student will find himself with less than a passing grade. This is not instruction—this is obstruction. In the first place, no one in a medical school knows anything about multiple sclerosis. A good instructor would expect his students to question such a statement and to find for themselves what can be done about multiple sclerosis.

There are two ways Man ordinarily accepts things, neither of them very good. One is to accept a statement because Authority says it is true and must be accepted, and the other is by preponderance of agreement amongst other people.

Preponderance of agreement is all too often the general public test for sanity or insanity. Suppose someone were to walk into a crowded room and suddenly point to a ceiling saying, “Oh, look! There’s a huge, twelve-foot spider on the ceiling!” Everyone

Copyright © 1959 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

would look up, but no one else would see the spider. Finally someone would tell him so. “Oh, yes, there is,” he would declare, and become very angry when he found that no one would agree with him. If he continued to declare his belief in the existence of the spider he would very soon find himself institutionalized.

The basic definition of sanity in this somewhat nebulously learned society is whether or not a person agrees with everyone else. It is a very sloppy manner of accepting evidence, but all too often it is the primary measuring stick.

And then the Rule of Authority: “Does Dr. J. Doe agree with your proposition? No? Then, of course, it cannot be true. Dr. Doe is an eminent authority in the field.”

A man by the name of Galen at one time dominated the field of medicine. Another man by the name of Harvey upset Galen’s cozy position with a new theory of blood circulation. Galen had been agreeing with the people of his day concerning the “tides” of the blood. They knew nothing about heart action. They accepted everything they had been taught and did little observing of their own. Harvey worked at the Royal Medical Academy, and found by animal vivisection the actual function of the heart.

He had the good sense to keep his findings absolutely quiet for a while. Leonardo da Vinci had somehow discovered or postulated the same thing, but he was a “crazy artist” and no one would believe an artist. Harvey was a member of the audience of a play by Shakespeare in which the playwright made the same observation, but again the feeling that artists never contribute anything to society blocked anyone but Harvey from considering the statement as anything more than fiction.

Finally, Harvey made his announcement. Immediately dead cats, rotten fruit and pieces of wine jugs were hurled in his direction. He raised quite a commotion in medical and social circles until finally, in desperation, one doctor made the historical statement that, “I would rather err with Galen than be right with Harvey!”

Man would have made an advance of exactly zero if this had always been the only method of testing evidence. But every so often during Man’s progress there have been rebels who were not satisfied with preponderance of opinion, and who tested a fact for themselves, observing and accepting the data of their observation, and then testing again.

Possibly the first man who made a flint axe looked over a piece of flint and decided that the irregular stone could be chipped a certain way. When he found that flint would chip easily he must have rushed to his tribe and enthusiastically tried to teach his fellow tribesmen how to make axes in the shape they desired instead of spending months searching for accidental pieces of stone of just the right shape. The chances are he was stoned out of camp.

Indulging in a further flight of fancy, it is not difficult to imagine that he finally managed to convince another fellow that his technique worked, and that the two of them tied down a third with a piece of vine and forced him to watch them chip a flint axe from a rough stone. Finally, after convincing fifteen or twenty tribesmen by forceful demonstration, the followers of the new technique declared war on the rest of the tribe and, winning, forced the tribe to agree by decree.

EVALUATION OF DATA

Man has never known very much about that with which his mind is chiefly filled: Data. What is data? What is the evaluation of data? For instance, if you have been in Scientology very long the chances are that someone has glibly told you that he knew from psychoanalysis that if one could remember childhood experiences one could be

relieved of certain psychosomatic pains. His conclusion from this tiny scrap of information was that Scientology is not new. In 1884 when Breuer first presented this tiny fact to Freud, he was unable to convince the eminent Doctor, but he managed to convince Freud in the next ten years. Then Freud convinced his friends. Medicine then fought Freud to a standstill, but eventually psychoanalysis emerged from the imbroglio.

All these years in which psychoanalysis has taught its tenets to each generation of doctors the authoritarian method was used, as can be verified by reading a few of the books on the subject. Within them is found, interminably, “Freud said ....” The truly important thing is not that “Freud said” a thing, but “Is the data valuable? If it is valuable, how valuable is it?” You might say that a datum is as valuable as it has been evaluated. A datum can be proved in ratio to whether it can be evaluated by other data and its magnitude is established by how many other data it clarifies. Thus, the biggest datum possible would be one which would clarify and identify all knowledge known to Man in the material universe.

Unfortunately, however, there is no such thing as a Prime Datum. There must be not one datum, but two data, since a datum is of no use unless it can be evaluated. Furthermore, there must be a datum of similar magnitude with which to evaluate any given datum.

Data is your data only so long as you have evaluated it. It is your data by authority or it is your data. If it is your data by authority, somebody has forced it upon you, and at best it is little more than a light aberration. Of course, if you asked a question of a man whom you thought knew his business and he gave you his answer, that datum was not forced upon you. But if you went away from him believing from then on that such a datum existed without taking the trouble to investigate the answer for yourself—without comparing it to the known universe—you were falling short of completing the cycle of learning.

Mechanically, the major thing wrong with the mind is, of course, the turbulence in it, but the overburden of information in this society is enforced education that the individual has never been permitted to test. Literally, when you are told not to take anyone’s word as an absolute datum you are being asked to break a habit pattern forced upon you when you were a child.

Your instructor in Scientology could have told you what he found to be true and invited you to test it for yourself, but unless you have tested it you very likely do not have the fundamentals of Scientology in mind well enough to be comfortable in the use of any or all of the techniques available to you. This is why theory is so heavily stressed in Scientology. The instructor can tell you what he has found to be true and what others have found to be true, but at no time should he ask you to accept it—please allow a plea otherwise.

Test it for yourself and convince yourself whether or not it exists as truth. And if you find that it does exist, you will be comfortable thereafter; otherwise, unrecognized even by yourself you are likely to find, down at the bottom of your information and education an unresolved question which will itself undermine your ability to assimilate or practice anything in the line of a technique. Your mind will not be as facile on the subject as it should be. It is not through courtesy that you are being asked to check your data—you are being asked to become much better auditors by resolving your basic and fundamental concepts.

Any quarrel you may have with theory is something that only you can resolve. Is the theory correct, or isn’t it correct? Only you can answer that; it cannot be answered for you. You can be told what other auditors have achieved in the way of results, and

what other auditors have observed, but you cannot become truly educated until you have achieved the results for yourself. The moment a man opens his mouth and asks, “Where is validation?” you can be sure you are looking at a very stupid man. That man is saying, bluntly and abruptly, “I cannot think for myself. I have to have Authority.” Where could he possibly look for validation except into the physical universe, and into his own subjective and objective reality?

A LOOK AT THE SCIENCES

Unfortunately, Scientology is surrounded by a world that calls itself a world of science, but it is a world that is in actuality a world of Authority. True, that which is science today is far, far in advance of the Hindu concept of the world wherein a hemisphere rested on the backs of seven elephants which stood on seven pillars, that stood on the back of a mud turtle, below which was mud into infinity.

The reason engineering and physics have reached out so far in advance of other sciences is the fact that they pose problems which punish Man so violently if he doesn’t look carefully into the physical universe.

An engineer is faced with the problem of drilling a tunnel through a mountain for a railroad. Tracks are laid up to the mountain on either side. If he judges space wrongly the two tunnel entrances would fail to meet on the same level in the center. It would be so evident to one and all concerned that the engineer made a mistake that he takes great care not to make such a mistake. He observes the physical universe, not only to the extent that the tunnel must meet to a fraction of an inch, but to the extent that if he were to misjudge wrongly the character of the rock through which he drills, the tunnel would cave in—an incident which would be considered a very unlucky and unfortunate occurrence to railroading.

Biology comes closer to being a science than some others because, in the field of biology, if someone makes too big a mistake about a bug the immediate result can be dramatic and terrifying. Suppose a biologist is charged with the responsibility of injecting plankton into a water reservoir. Plankton are microscopic “germs” that are very useful to Man. But if through some mistake the biologist injects typhoid germs into the water supply, there would be an immediate and dramatic result.

Suppose a biologist is presented with the task of producing a culture of yeast which would, when placed in white bread dough, stain the bread brown. This man is up against the necessity of creating a yeast which not only behaves as yeast but makes a dye as well. He has to deal with the practical aspect of the problem, because after he announces his success, there is the “yeast test”: Is the bread edible? And the brown-bread test: Is the bread brown? Anyone could easily make the test, and everyone would know very quickly whether or not the biologist had succeeded or failed.

Politics is called a science. The punishment for a mistake in the “science” of politics is so tremendous that this whole culture is on the verge of being wiped out! There are natural laws about politics. They could be worked out if someone were to actually apply a scientific basis to political research.

For instance, it is a foregone conclusion that if all communications lines are cut between the United States and Russia, Russia and the United States are going to understand each other less and less. Then by demonstrating to everyone how the American way of life and the Russian way of life are different, and by demonstrating it day after day, year after year, there is no alternative but a break of affinity. By stating flatly that Russia and the United States are not in agreement on any slightest political theory or conduct of Man or nations the job is practically complete. Both nations will go into anger tone and suddenly there is war.

Russia is very, very low on the tone scale. She is a totalitarian slave state and about as safe to have in the family of nations as a mad dog at a cocktail party. We as a nation could be very, very clever—we could try to put Russia back together again.

We are a nation possessed of the greatest communications networks on the face of the Earth, with an undreamed of manufacturing potential. We have within our borders the best advertising men in the world. But instead of selling Europe an idea we give machine guns, planes and tanks for use in case Russia breaks out. The more threats imposed against a country in Russia’s tone level, the more dangerous that country will become. When people are asked what they would do about this grave question, they shrug and say something to the effect that “the politicians know best.” They hedge and rationalize by saying that after all, there is the American way of life, and it must be protected.

What is the American way of life? This is a question that will stop almost any American. What is the American way of life that is different from the human way of life? We have tried to gather together economic freedom for the individual, freedom of the press, and individual freedom, and define them as a strictly American way of life—why hasn’t it been called the Human Way of Life?

In the field of humanities Science has been thoroughly adrift. Unquestioned authoritarian principles have been followed. Any person who accepts knowledge without questioning it and evaluating it for himself is demonstrating himself to be in apathy toward that sphere of knowledge. It demonstrates that the people in the United States today must be in a low state of apathy with regard to politics in order to accept without question everything that happens.

FUNDAMENTALS

When a man tries to erect the plans of a lifetime or a profession on data which he himself has never evaluated, he cannot possibly succeed.

Fundamentals are very, very important, but first of all one must learn how to think in order to be absolutely sure of a fundamental. Thinking is not particularly hard to learn. It consists merely of comparing a particular datum with the physical universe as it is known and observed. How, for instance, would you find out for your own satisfaction that there exists such a thing as a mock-up. Find a preclear who is also interested in verifying such existence of mock-ups or have someone run you on them.

Your instructor has done this a sufficient number of times, and has seen it done to others a sufficient number of times to satisfy himself that mock-ups exist and can be run and bettered on a preclear. But just because they exist for him and he informs you of his knowledge does not mean that it exists for you. Unless you have made up your mind through comparison of the information with the known universe, you will not be able to handle mock-ups properly. When there is an authoritarian basis for your education you are not truly educated.

Authoritarianism is little more than a form of hypnotism. Learning is forced under threat of some form of punishment. A student is stuffed with data which has not been individually evaluated just as a taxidermist would stuff a snake. Such a student will be well-informed and well-educated according to present-day standards, but unfortunately he will not be very successful in his chosen profession.

Indecision underlies an authoritarian statement. Do not allow your Scientology education to lie on the quicksand of indecision.

Unless you have looked into the matter of engrams and unless you have actually run a preclear into an engram—the realization that (I) there is a time track, and (2)

that physical pain can be stored and can be recovered, and (3) that all the perceptics are registered during these moments of unconsciousness, will not be yours. Your knowledge concerning the engram depends exclusively upon what you have observed about that engram.

There have been volumes of articles written about techniques of running engrams. There are many techniques in existence which run them. Make up your mind whether or not they work for you.

First of all, find out to your own satisfaction whether or not there is an engram in existence. Then determine whether or not the technique in question will discover the engram for you, and whether or not the technique really runs the engram. Having made certain that there is an engram, ask yourself what kind of technique you would evolve if you decided to do something about this object, the engram. How would you go about it? Unless you have asked yourself this question and tried to come to a definite conclusion about it, you will never come into agreement on the technique of running engrams! You will be performing an authoritarian rote. You can learn how to run an engram by rote, but unless you decide from your own observation that there is an engram to be run you will be simply performing some ritual in which a mistake is very easy to make.

An auditor who does not understand memory has no business attempting to improve a preclear’s memory. He could hardly know what the anatomy of memory is. It cannot be done well by rote. About the worst thing that could happen to a preclear is to drop into something and then feel that the auditor is thinking, “Now, let’s see—it was page 62 . . . or was it 63? . . . and the question was . . .” while the preclear sits there, suffering, and thinking, “Do something! Say something!” An auditor who is auditing by rote will make mistakes like that because he does not have the basic fundamentals as a part of his background of training.

A truly good auditor doesn’t have to think twice. He knows “instinctively” how the auditing session itself should be run. When the basic fundamentals are securely the auditor’s own there is no need for him to be told what must be done.

You are asked to examine the subject of Scientology on a critical basis—a very critical basis. It is not to be examined with the attitude that when you were in school you learned that such and such was true, and since you learned that first, the first learning takes precedence. A prime example of this is the literary critic who says, after reviewing a book, that the book is not a novel because it is not a cross section of life. His professor in literature gave him a passing grade because he answered the question “correctly” on his examination paper, and therefore a book is not a novel unless it is a cross section of life.

There is yet to appear a good definition for aesthetics and art, and yet they parrot a definition for a specific form of art!

Do not make the mistake of criticizing something on the basis of whether or not it concurs with the opinions of someone else. The point which is pertinent is whether or not it concurs with your opinion. Does it agree with what you think?

Nearly everyone has done some manner of observing of the material universe, and there is surely no one in Scientology who has not done some small amount of observation of organisms. No one has seen all there is to see about an organism, but there is certainly no dearth of organisms available for further study. There is no valid reason for accepting the opinion of Professor Blotz of the Blitz University who said in 1933 that schizophrenics were schizophrenics, and that made them schizophrenics for all the time.

If you are interested in the manifestation of insanity, there is any and every form of insanity that you could hope to see in a lifetime in almost any part of the world. Study the peculiarities of the people around you and wonder what they would be like if their little peculiarities were magnified a hundred fold. You may find that by listing all the observable peculiarities you would have a complete list of all the insanities in the world. This list might well be far more accurate than that which was advanced by Kraepelin and used in the United States today.

If sanity is rationality and insanity is irrationality, and you postulated how irrational people would be if certain of their obsessions were magnified a hundred fold, you might well have in your possession a far more accurate and complete list of insanities and their manifestations than is currently in existence.

If you will take the time and effort, then, of making a complete examination of your subject, introspectively and by observation, you will find that you have suddenly become an excellent auditor. The hard way is to sit down and memorize a third of a million words contained in Science of Survival—the method all too many educational systems employ in this age.

So then we ask you to look at Scientology, study it, question it, and use it as we present it and you will have discovered something for yourself. And in so doing you might well discover a lot more. What you will be doing in Scientology, the techniques and the theories are highly workable, but they are not highly workable just because we say so!

Since Scientology is a very precise science based on proven data, axioms, and precise procedures, it must be used exactly as stated in order to gain the results which have been obtained. By using it with understanding the student can observe for himself its workability. When you have applied it as it should be, and applied as it is taught at the school, and still find it unworkable, it is your privilege to question it and, if you like, reject it.

But it is a very funny thing, in the history of Scientology the only people who have shouted out against Scientology are those people who know little or nothing about it or they have been given some erroneous data about it and had used a very bad perversion of Scientology and said, “This is the way it is.”

So, the only advice we can give to the student is study Scientology for itself and use it exactly as stated, then form his own opinions. Study it with the purpose in mind of arriving at his own conclusions as to whether or not the tenets he has assimilated are correct and workable. Compare what you have learned with the known universe. Seek for the reasons behind a manifestation, and postulate the manner and in which direction the manifestation will likely proceed. Do not allow the Authority of any one person or school of thought to create a foregone conclusion within your sphere of knowledge. Only with these principles of education in mind can you become a truly educated individual and a good Scientologist.

L. RON HUBBARD







[The above article was reissued under the same title in Ability 139, ca. June 1962. Parts of the above text were originally issued as Dianetic Auditor’s Bulletin, Vol. 2, No. 1, July 1951, Education and the Auditor—see Volume I, page 124.]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 27 FEBRUARY 1959

For All Staff
All U.S. Official Offices
London for reissue

HOW TO SELECT SELECTED PERSONS

(Supplementing HCO Bulletin of February 16, 1959)


In Selected Persons Overt Straightwire, there is an element of diagnosis. How does one select the “selected person”?

Every time this process misses on a preclear, one of three things is at fault, either—

1. Pc has pt problem
2. Dynamic Straight Wire should have been run a week or two
3. The wrong person was selected for the process.

The whole thing is a matter of attention units (1950). If the preclear has his attention totally fixed on a terminal, little else is real to him. Look at one object only in a room. How real are the other objects? If a preclear’s attention is all bound up in some person, how can he find reality elsewhere.

Very well—how do we find, then, the “selected person”?

The most loaded two-way comm question is,

“Who in your life is to blame for the condition you’re in?”

Others of like ilk produce the “selected person” you then run on Selected Persons Overt Straight Wire.

“Who was the person who really had it in for you?”

“Who do you know or did you know that you’d really hate to be?”

If the pc to any of the above or all of them says, “myself”, that’s what you have to run.

Select a new person each time pc splits off the one you’re running. You’ll find some amazing valence shifts.


L. RON HUBBARD




LRH:mg.rd

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 28 FEBRUARY 1959





ANALYSIS OF CASES



A primary skill required of an accomplished auditor would be analysis of a case. The basic error is overestimating the case’s ability. All failures stem from a failure to undercut the reality of a case. If that reality level is reached, the case will improve. If not, the case remains stagnant.

RESULTS DEFINED: Case achieves a reality on change of case, somatic, behavior or appearance, for the better.

BETTER DEFINED: Negative gain. Things disappear that have been annoying or unwanted.

ABILITY GAIN DEFINED: Pc’s recognition that pc can now do things he could not do before.

INTELLIGENCE GAIN DEFINED: Loss of restimulation of stupidity by reason of attempts to confront or experience the problems of life. (Intelligence appears when stupidity is keyed out or erased.) Intelligence is a confronting ability.

FAMILIARITY: or familiarization permits intelligence to manifest. Reaching and withdrawing are more possible when stupidity is keyed out or erased. Increasing ability to reach and withdraw increases intelligence.

It can be seen that when attention is fixed, the ability to reach and withdraw decreases, therefore intelligence decreases, therefore the ability to change decreases, therefore no “case gain”.

Unfixing attention is done in various ways. As hypnotism is done by fixing attention, a parallel observation is that a person wakes up, receives less fixed effect, when attention becomes unfixed.

Unfixing attention must be done by increasing ability to reach and withdraw from the specific thing or person on which attention is fixed in the bank. The bank merely expresses a recording of past attention fixations.

Shocks of various kinds can unfix attention but always lead to a decrease in ability over a period. Unfixing attention by violence throws a case downscale. As the case goes upscale the attention refixes on things violence unfixed it from.

Clearing is a gradient process of finding places where attention is fixed and restoring the ability of the pc to place and remove attention under his own determinism.

Case Analysis consists then of the determination of where pc’s attention (at current state of case) is fixed on the track and restoring pc’s determinism over those places.

This is done by:

1. PT Problem running.
2. Dynamic survey and remedy of fixed points.

3. Selected items and persons survey and unfixing other-determined attention at those points.

The auditor’s skill in locating where attention is now fixed is even greater now than the auditor’s ability to remedy the fixation of the pc’s attention since this latter problem is fairly well in hand.

There are many ways of doing a survey to determine what the pc’s attention is fixed upon now. The E-Meter and interrogation of the pc are the main methods.

“What has your attention been fixed on lately (or ‘in this Life’)?” would elicit a reply that could then be used in the questions

“Recall a time when you did something to (item or person so located).”
“Recall a time when you withheld something from (item or person so selected).”

If you find the exact item or person on which attention is fixed, you achieve immediate case gain, which is to say reality, which is to say interest, in-sessionness, success.

If any pc you are running has not manifested case gain, reality, interest, in-sessionness, then one of two things is true:

1. You haven’t found the item or person on which pc’s attention is other-determinedly fixed and haven’t run it yet, or

2. Pc is gone-man-gone.

I trust this may be of some small assistance in learning how to analyze a case.


L. RON HUBBARD





LRH:-.rd Copyright © 1959 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 28 FEBRUARY 1959 BPI


TECHNICAL

ARC BREAKS WITH AUDITORS



When severe, ARC Breaks are repaired by running Selected Persons Overt Withhold on the auditor as a selected person.

Otherwise, TR 5N.


L. RON HUBBARD


LRH:iwh.rd






HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 28 FEBRUARY 1959

BPI

TECHNICAL

CLEARING COMMANDS



Excerpt from HCO Bulletin of July 28, 1958

CLEARING COMMANDS: Clear each word with the full phrase once each with the following:

“What is the usual definition of the English (or other language) word ?”

Do not ask for definitions over and over as a repetitive command. If pc’s definition is poor, clear command every few commands.

Clear only each different word in a bracket. Don’t clear each line in a bracket.


L. RON HUBBARD




LRH:iwh.rd

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 1 MARCH 1959
Issue 2

MAGAZINE MATERIAL

TWO RULES FOR HAPPY LIVING

1. Be able to experience anything.

2. Cause only those things which others are able to experience easily.

Man has had many golden rules. The Buddhist rule of “Do unto others as you would have these others do unto you”, has been repeated often in other religions. But such golden rules, while they served to advance Man above the animal, resulted in no sure sanity, success or happiness. Such a golden rule gives only the cause point, or at best the reflexive effect point. This is a self-done-to-self thing and tends to put all on obsessive cause. It gives no thought to what one does about the things done to one by others not so indoctrinated.

How does one handle the evil things done to him? It is not told in the Buddhist rule. Many random answers resulted. Amongst them are the answers of Christian Science (effects on self don’t exist), the answers of early Christians (become a martyr), the answers of Christian ministers (condemn all sin). Such answers to effects created on one bring about a somewhat less than sane state of mind—to say nothing of unhappiness.

After one’s house has burned down and the family cremated, it is no great consolation to (I) pretend it didn’t happen, (2) liken oneself to Job or (3) condemn all arsonists.

So long as one fears or suffers from the effect of violence, one will have violence against him. When one can experience exactly what is being done to one, ah magic, it does not happen!

The most basic proof of this is the earlier tests with problems of comparable magnitude and later tests of “selected overts”. When the problem or terminal is no longer restimulative, it ceases to have power to harm one.

How to be happy in this universe is a problem few prophets or sages have dared contemplate directly. We find them “handling” the problem of happiness by assuring us that man is doomed to suffering. They seek not to tell us how to be happy but how to endure being unhappy. Such casual assumption of the impossibility of happiness has led us to ignore any real examination of ways to be happy. Thus we have floundered forward toward a negative goal—get rid of all the unhappiness on Earth and one would have a liveable Earth. If one seeks to get rid of something continually, one admits continually he cannot confront it—and thus everyone went down hill. Life became a dwindling spiral of more things we could not confront. And thus we went towards blindness and unhappiness.

To be happy, one only must be able to confront, which is to say, experience, those things that are.

Unhappiness is only this: the inability to confront that which is.

Hence (1) Be able to experience anything.

The effect side of life deserves great consideration. The self-caused side also deserves examination.

To create only those effects which others could easily experience gives us a clean new rule of living. For if one does, then what might he do that he must withhold from others? There is no reason to withhold his own actions or regret them (same thing) if one’s own actions are easily experienced by others.

This is a sweeping test (and definition) of good conduct—to do only those things which others can experience.

If you examine your track you will find you are hung up only in those actions a person did which others were not able to receive. Hence a person’s track can become a hodge-podge of violence withheld which pulls in then the violence others caused.

The more actions a person emanated which could not be experienced by others, the worse a person’s track became. Recognizing that he was bad cause, or that there were too many bad causes already, a person ceased causing things—an unhappy state of being.

Pain, misemotion, unconsciousness, insanity all result from causing things others could not experience easily. The reach-withhold phenomena is the basis of all these things. When one sought to reach in such a way as to make it impossible for another to experience, one did not reach, then, did he? To “reach” with a gun against a person who is unwilling to be shot is not to reach the person but a protest. All bad reaches never reached. So there was no communication and the end result was a withhold by the person reaching. This reach-withhold became at last an inability to reach—therefore low communication, low reality, low affinity.

All bad acts then are those acts which cannot be easily experienced at the target end.

On this definition let us review our own “bad acts” (or overts). Which ones were bad. Only those that could not be easily experienced by another were bad. Thus which of society’s favorite bad acts are bad? Acts of real violence resulting in pain, unconsciousness, insanity and heavy loss could at this time be considered bad. Well what other acts of yours do you consider “bad”? The things which you have done which you could not easily yourself experience were bad. But the things which you have done which you yourself could have experienced had they been done to you were not bad. That certainly changes one’s view of things!

Only processing can bring a person to a point where he or she could experience anything without enduring consequence. So it is no wonder that philosophy of yesteryear was stopped on “happiness” as a subject.

But all processes from the beginning of Dianetics and Scientology until now which improved the ability to confront (or experience) were gaining toward the goal. All processes that eradicated experience only were poor processes. The early drop in gains in processing (1950) came about because people dramatized an eradication of all badness. The auditors were unwilling to let the pcs experience anything, the pcs sought to get rid of things without experiencing things.

There is no need to lead a violent life just to prove one can experience. The idea is not to prove one can experience but to regain the ability to experience which is only done in processing.

Thus today we have two golden rules for happiness:

l. Be able to experience anything; and

2. Cause only those things which others are able to experience easily.

Your reaction to these tells you how far you have yet to go in processing. And that is the first time we knew that.

And if we achieve these two golden rules, we Scientologists would be the happiest and most successful people in this universe for who could rule any of us with evil?

Of course these are the characteristics of gods—But who said we were trying to make anything else?


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:-.rd

P.A.B. No. 155
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 March 1959

PROCESSES USED IN 21ST ACC

Compiled from the Research Material and Taped Lectures of L. Ron Hubbard



I want to take up here with great rapidity the processes from bottom to top that we have so far found and that have been effective, and some additional data in running them.

And first is the process Dynamic Straightwire. The way to do a survey on Dynamic Straightwire is this: you ask the person to describe the dynamics from one to eight. We don’t care about them being sequitur—change them round if you wish.

Now, you ask a person to describe each one of these dynamics. You are watching an E-Meter for a change in pattern. Therefore you must carefully isolate the pattern, before you can tell whether or not the pattern has changed on the E-Meter needle reading. But, more important than that, you are looking for a dynamic the preclear makes mistakes about while he is trying to describe it, a dynamic he cannot describe, or a dynamic he won’t even approach and is very leary of, and his statement is confirmed by the E-Meter reading. In other words, you’ve got the statement of the preclear in this particular analysis being stacked up against the E-Meter reading all the way through in an analysis or diagnosis for Dynamic Straightwire.

All right. We go all the way through, asking for a terminal on these dynamics and we finally get a repeat. We will ask him for terminals on these dynamics, and we will get the same dynamic to read again. Now the basic rule which sorts this out is: Any dynamic which doesn’t clear by two-way comm has to be run. Simple as that. Any dynamic which doesn’t clear by two-way comm has to be run.

So, if you have two or three dynamics jammed up, you can hope that two of them will clear up, leaving you with the remaining dynamic.

But this is not the complete criteria of what you run. There is another stable datum. Don’t run a terminal that is totally unreal to the preclear. Another stable datum, which comes on top of it, is: never run a terminal that is sensible. Never. If a terminal belongs on the dynamic, you can almost say you’ll get nowhere running it. So you’re looking for terminals that the preclear gives you for a dynamic which don’t belong on the dynamic at all.

Now, if that terminal is real to the preclear, you will get a tremendous change in the case. If that terminal is totally unreal to the preclear and if it does belong on the dynamic, why, you’re not going to get any change on the case, so why run it? Might as well run some other process.


Copyright © 1959 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

So, we have several conditions by which the diagnosis on Dynamic Straightwire works. I’ve done enough of these now and run enough of them, isolated enough of them and gotten conditions of change on enough of them, to realize that every time you changed a case you had (1) a person who couldn’t describe the dynamic accurately, or who made mistakes while trying to describe it, (2) a person who gave you a non sequitur or erroneous terminal for that dynamic—the terminal was fairly real to the preclear, although it didn’t belong there—and (3) you ran that, and it opened up track like mad.

What have you got here? You have a terrific identification. You are trying to undo identification that is lying right on the top. Well, this tells you, then, that it is neither a long process nor an invariable process. Given enough skill, you could undoubtedly find one of these on every case—given enough skill. But it is limited by auditor skill. Furthermore, it gives auditors a chance to “chop up” preclears and it gives auditors a chance to write some script, so this one has liability. And auditors have been writing script like mad. We had one particular case where the preclear couldn’t say any terminal on the seventh dynamic, so promptly the auditor jumps in and takes the nearest related thing to the seventh dynamic, the thetan, he could get. This was A Head, and he ran A Head, and the preclear had nothing to do with it, and they wondered why the case didn’t advance.

Now, you have auditors who are letting the preclear choose. In other words, there are auditors who actually believe that a preclear is permitted power of choice in an auditing session. And this is the biggest bug I have found existing at this instant on this ACC. That one’s a blinker. They are probably not telling you this, that they think a preclear has power of choice. They don’t know this: that it has to be nutty if you are going to run it—if it makes sense, why run it? They are looking for a wrongness in the preclear and they believe that the preclear knows all about his own case and could straighten it out all by himself. And that the auditor is an unnecessary adjunct. Now there are several people on this ACC who believe this and this is a great compliment to their faith in human nature, but it’s certainly of no value in an auditor. The preclear has no power of choice at all. The one the preclear would never choose is the one you run.

An example: We had a preclear here who gave three terminals on the fifth dynamic. One of these was a mountain. So the preclear was given the power of choice as to which one to run and, of course, came up with a cat. So they sat there running cats. Well, a cat happens to be right for the fifth dynamic, so why straighten it out? The process is aimed at straightening out something. Obviously, the mountain was wrong. The preclear was totally stuck on the idea that there was a mountain in on this.

We found a mountain on the eighth dynamic in another case that hasn’t been running. This case had been running metal on the sixth dynamic. So what? Metal belongs on the sixth dynamic—why run it? Get the idea? But this auditor had found a mountain on the eighth dynamic and ignored it. Of course, everybody knows God is a mountain—that’s obvious ....

Now, this was the one to hit. And where you find these people out of session it is because nobody has trailed down a nutty dynamic. When they’re out of session on Dynamic Straightwire, they’re not interested in it at all, they are just not running an identification. They’re running something reasonable, and at once the biggest liability of auditors is that they are reasonable and that they write script and write in reasonable reasons for it all. And they’re trying to audit unreasonability out of people-and these two things just don’t go together at all.

The next process up the line is Selected Person Overts. Select a terminal who is real to the preclear and, as you undercut the process, it comes closer and closer to

present time. The person chosen has to be closer and closer to present time the more you try to go downscale on the process. But the person must be real, that’s a criteria in there. And the next thing about it is, you must flatten off several of these people. And the basic reason for this is to prepare an individual to own up to some responsibility for his own actions. Unless he can assume some responsibility for his own actions, he won’t do anything in an auditing session, so this is the one that cures.

The auditing command for Selected Person Overts is “Recall a time you did something to (the selected person’s name).” But that is undercut by the auditing command “Think of something you did to “ or “Think of something you have done to .” Now, the reason you say “Think” is because these people are very chary of owning up to anything or accepting any responsibility out in broad daylight in front of God and everybody, so you run “Think” and you’ve got a lot of people who are having a rougher time who won’t own up to their own lives and who can’t take responsibility for them on the third dynamic, but can take responsibility for them on the first dynamic. And this is the dynamic selection. So “Think” undercuts “Recall. “

The next one—General Overts—is much less effective when it has not already been undercut by Selected Person Overts. The individual just goes on and on with sweetness and light. The auditing command for General Overts is “Recall a time when you did something to somebody.” Now there are other phrases and so forth which could be used for this sort of process, but here we are interested mainly in people. We are not very interested in MEST and the remaining four dynamics. They’d splatter all over the place. That’s why it’s “to somebody.” If you said “something,” you would get the remaining four, so there is an alternate command in here if you wanted to run the other four dynamics. You would say, “Recall a time when you did something to something.”

Now, the next one up the line from this is Not-Is Straightwire: “Recall a time when you implied something was unimportant.” And this, we find, is best run on an alternate basis with the next auditing command, “Recall a time when somebody else thought something was important.” These two commands are alternated, one after the other, and you get these cases that are in a jam.

This is the direct cure of notisness; and where you have a case that is running a bad not-is, a process can evidently be invalidated or not-ised when the individual is out of session, or overnight. This is what Not-Is Straightwire cures. These are the people on whom a process works once, and never works again. These people are not-ising so badly that they can’t duplicate—and not-is, of course, is a mechanism to prevent duplication. So you cure, not duplicate. And the cure for it is Not-Is Straightwire.

[Continued in PAB 156, page 441 ]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 4 MARCH 1959

HGC ALLOWED PROCESSES

(Also for Instruction in HPA/HCA and ACC)

(Supersedes all earlier HGC allowed Processes
except where these give data on the following)


Processes on gradient scale from unconscious pc to theta clear.

CCH l, 2, 3, 4
Rudiments (Not CCH 0)
PTP by Selected Person Overt-Withhold Straight Wire
Know to Mystery Straight Wire (See later bulletins)
Dynamic Straight Wire
ARC Straight Wire
Selected Person Overt-Withhold Straight Wire
General Overt-Withhold Straight Wire
Factual Havingness (and Third Rail)
ARC Break Straight Wire
Not-Is Straight Wire
Past and Future Experience
What Can You Confront
You make a mock-up for which you can be totally responsible
Track Scout
Engram Running
Route One

The target of these processes is theta clear as different from MEST clear. Therefore, the higher MEST clear processes, Help and Step 6, are omitted.

We are not trying to make MEST clears in the HGC; therefore, Help and Step 6 are disallowed.

On old Dianetic cases or where engrams have been run by other auditors, run Selected Person Overt-Withhold on “an auditor” and “a preclear” until track is free. This is a necessary early step to get some cases moving.

Engram running should not be used by those not trained in it.

Muzzled auditing should be used when:

1. Pc ARC Breaks easily;
and
2. Auditor shows signs of over-communication.

Be prepared to run Selected Person Overt-Withhold Straight Wire for as long as 3 to 5 weeks if pc begins to have emotional changes on it.


L. RON HUBBARD



LRH: iwh .jh

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 6 MARCH 1959



TRAINING DRILLS

NAME: ARC Break

POSITION: Student and coach sit facing each other a comfortable distance apart.

COMMANDS: The coach makes up his mind there has been an actual specific ARC break. He doesn’t tell the student. He then says, “Start”. Then the student says:
“HAVE I DONE SOMETHING WRONG?”

The coach answers this appropriately and the student says:
“WHAT WAS IT?”

The coach answers, and then the student says:
“WHEN WAS IT?”

The student gets it described and then says:
“HOW IS IT NOW?”

Then when he’s got it more or less stamped out here then he takes it on the other side of the picture and says:
“HAVE YOU DONE SOMETHING WRONG IN THIS SESSION?”

The coach answers that appropriately and the student auditor asks:
“WHAT WAS IT?” “WHEN WAS IT?” and “HOW IS IT NOW?”

When all have been handled satisfactorily the coach ends that cycle of action and then starts a new one.

PURPOSE: Is to train the student to handle ARC breaks in a session and to get them handled quickly and effectively on both the overt and motivator side, since there’s always an overt connected with an auditing ARC break of one kind or another.

TRAINING STRESS: The training stress is on the reality and actuality of ARC breaks and the necessity of handling them. It should be pointed out that on an E-Meter it is the ARC break that causes the rising needle and also it must be pointed out that in actual auditing he will be using an E-Meter since he’s not running this with a meter in his hand. In real auditing he flattens it until his meter shows no change on the subject. In running this TR he is simply going to flatten it by the seat of his pants and the satisfaction of the coach.

This is a 2-way comm formal auditing non-duplicative process and is only used to patch up ARC breaks when one occurs. It is not a repetitive command process which is supposed to do something terrific for the pc. It doesn’t. It is just supposed to keep the session on the road and is not in itself therapeutic.

The student never answers or explains to the coach about the ARC break. In other words, we must keep the Auditor’s Code while running an ARC break out. Probably more strongly than we would ordinarily keep an Auditor’s Code. No evaluating questions. No invalidating questions. No explanations.

It should be understood that an ARC break is the only thing that will depress a profile. Nothing else will depress a profile except an ARC break. Handling ARC breaks is the only thing which keeps the profile from being depressed so this is a pretty important TR and it’s really got to be smooth and free. It is the one thing that can submerge an engram or foul the session. It should be understood that in actual auditing if the pc gives the auditor the Break as soon as the auditor asks for it, the question “What is it?” is dropped.


LRH:-.rd L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 6 MARCH 1959
BPI


HOW TO DO A
DIAGNOSIS ON DYNAMIC STRAIGHTWIRE


You ask the person to describe the dynamics from one to eight. We don’t care about them being sequitur; any way you want to break it up, we don’t care.

Now you ask a person to describe each one of these dynamics. You are watching an E-Meter for a change in pattern. Therefore, you have to carefully isolate the change of pattern before you can tell whether or not the pattern’s changed on the E-Meter needle reading. But more important than that, you are looking for a dynamic that he makes mistakes on while he is trying to describe it, a dynamic he cannot describe, a dynamic that he won’t even approach, that he is very leary of, and his statement is confirmed by the E-Meter reading. In other words, you have got the statement of the pc in this particular analysis or diagnosis for Dynamic Straightwire.

All right, then, we go all the way through asking for a terminal on these dynamics and we finally get a repeat. We will ask him for terminals on these dynamics; we’ll get the same dynamic to read again. Now the basic rule which sorts this out is—any dynamic which doesn’t clear by two-way comm has to be run. Simple as that. Any dynamic which doesn’t clear by two-way comm has to be run.

Don’t run a terminal that is totally unreal to the preclear. Another stable datum which comes on top of it is: Never run a terminal that’s sensible. Never. If a terminal belongs on the dynamic you can almost say you’ll get nowhere running it. So, you are looking for terminals that they give you for a dynamic which don’t belong on the dynamic at all.

Now, if that terminal is real to the pc you will get a tremendous change in the case. If that terminal is totally unreal to the pc and if it does belong on the dynamic, why you’re not going to get any change on the case, why run it? Might as well run some other process. It is neither a long process nor an invariable process. Given enough skill you could undoubtedly find one of these on every case. Given enough skill. But it is limited by auditor skill. Furthermore, it gives auditors a chance to chop up pcs and it gives auditors a chance to write some script.

You do not let the pc choose. You have auditors who actually believe that a pc is permitted power of choice in an auditing session. That one’s a blinker.

Where you find pcs out of session, it’s because nobody has trailed down a nutty dynamic.


L. RON HUBBARD










LRH:mg.rd

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 10 MARCH 1959

Dist:
All Staff
All Offices


SUPPLEMENTAL DATA SHEET TO HCO BULLETIN OF FEB 16, 1959
AND STAFF AUDITORS’ CONFERENCE OF FEB 16, 1959


The Feb 16 Bulletins, done rapidly to inform staff auditors, omitted the full gradient processes.

Some of the omitted (and very important) processes are Overt-Withhold Straight Wire, General Overt-Withhold Straight Wire, ARC Break Straight Wire, Third Rail, What Can You Confront and Mock Up Responsibility.

The complete list in order of use on any case is:

ROUTE THETA CLEAR

1. Rudiments and TR 5N
2. Present Time Problem
3. Dynamic Straight Wire
4. Overt-Withhold Straight Wire
5. General Overt-Withhold Straight Wire
6. ARC Break Straight Wire
7. Third Rail
8. What Can You Confront
9. Mock up a picture for which you could be totally responsible
10. Not-Is Straight Wire
11. Past and Future Experience
12. Engram Running
13. Route One (When theta clear is obtained)

This is a complete route to theta clear on all cases so far examined and audited (which contained some real “what walls”).

Steps 1 to 5 above inclusive, if flattened, constitute a RELEASE.

The HAS Co-Audit Processes are:

3. Dynamic Straight Wire
4. Overt-Withhold Straight Wire
5. General Overt-Withhold Straight Wire

with the Instructor starting and stopping all sessions and doing all assessments. The auditing itself is severely muzzled.

HCA/HPA Professional Processes include 1 to 8 above inclusive.

HCS/BScn Processes include 1 to 11 inclusive.

HGS/DScn Processes include entire list.


L. RON HUBBARD


LRH:mp.rd

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 13 MARCH 1959
BPI



MUZZLED AUDITING


Following is a despatch received from Theory and Practice Instructor, Washington, D.C.

“Dear Ron,

“I thought you might be interested to know that the afternoon muzzled auditing in the HCA Course is really paying off. These people have, every one of them, attained a very hot reality on their tracks, pictures and Scientology. In terms of past students the results are absolutely phenomenal. It is very good. Best, John Galusha.”


L. RON HUBBARD
LRH: mp.rd

P.A.B. No. 156
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

15 March 1959

PROCESSES USED IN 21ST ACC

(Continued from P.A.B. No. 155 [page 433])

Compiled from the Research Material and Taped Lectures
of L. Ron Hubbard


All of these straightwire processes run best with an E-Meter, using the question “When?” About the only reason we came off time was because auditors were using time to harass. It is not that it isn’t best to run it with time—it is best to run it with time. The muzzled fashion of running here is “Recall a time ... when ....”

The guy says he did.

“When?”

All right, the next response on the preclear’s part is, “I don’t know.” Then the auditor goes into action.

Now, when you hound them and mix them up and twist them up and mess them up with time questions, all that’s happening is that the auditor is dramatizing his own confusion about time, and he probably wouldn’t accept the preclear’s answer if it was three o’clock, September 2nd, 1959.

Muzzled Auditing is very severely this: The auditor utters the auditing command, the preclear answers it, and the auditor says, “A11 right.” The preclear originates, the auditor nods. Let’s make this a very severe definition of what we call muzzled auditing. Now, when you let the auditor go a little bit and give him an E-Meter and “When?” my experience and observation here in the 21st ACC is, he just goes for broke. It’s rather as if you cut two strands of a three-strand rope and he quickly busts the other strand. In other words, it’s muzzled or nothing. And where you have somebody who is doing any chop-up or is stacking up ARC breaks in any way, you have as your best answer “muzzled,” and muzzled is muzzled. And they can’t say “When?” either, because evidently if you give them “When?” they can go for broke and they can use “When?” and the answers thereof to chop the preclear up.

We did try to install a muzzled “When?” For my money, it hasn’t been successful. We’ve had at least one of our people exceed this at once. Just letting him open his mouth starts the machine. “It’s all right for you to say ‘When?’” you can say to this auditor—”It’s all right for you to say ‘When?’ “ Right away, he says, “Well, I’ve got to do something else.” And so forth. We have even found that muzzled auditing wouldn’t go on this one: “I’ll repeat the auditing command.” You can’t even let them do that. You can’t let them say this, because it has been used to invalidate the preclear. We have


Copyright © 1959 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

an auditor (he’s not an auditor, he’s a case) who, every time the preclear answers the question, says, “I’ll repeat the auditing command.” The preclear tries to answer the question again, and the auditor just uses this as a non-acceptance. So this can’t go as part of muzzled auditing. That so far has been my observation.

This may be a very harsh look, but I feel from what I have observed that I am justified.

_____________________


As I have already mentioned, we’ve got another condition here—reasonability. People have been writing script on the preclear’s engrams to some degree. That is a great evil. And those people we have turned loose and those people who are running engrams and are saying this sort of thing are doing pretty well, and some of them are writing a bit of script. And the main thing they are not doing is picking up the overts. There are a couple of them stalled around here on overts.

There is a rule about this: When they cannot easily find or run the overts, take them right straight on down to Dynamic Straightwire. These people are not owning up to their own responsibilities and that means—perhaps because the case has changed over to an area of irresponsibility—that you have a situation here in which the individual has dropped out responsibility factors to such a degree that he cannot be trusted. When a person won’t own up to his overts, you have an irresponsibility of great magnitude. This goes hand-in-glove with failing to answer the exact auditing command, failing to execute an auditing command, and so forth. And that can happen while running engrams.

[Continued in PAB 157, page 453]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 17 MARCH 1959

Magazine Article

AN INSANITY QUESTIONNAIRE


The World Health Organization has issued the following questionnaire to determine whether or not a person is insane, and infers that if one answers “yes” to any of the following, he is insane and needs help:

Are you always worrying?
Are you unable to concentrate because of unrecognized reasons?
Are you continually unhappy without justified cause?
Do you lose your temper easily and often?
Are you troubled by regular insomnia?
Do you have wide fluctuations in your moods, from depression to elation, back to depression, which incapacitate you?
Do you continually dislike to be with people?
Are you upset if the routine of your life is disturbed?
Do your children consistently get on your nerves?
Are you “browned off” and constantly bitter?
Are you afraid without real cause?
Are you always right and the other person always wrong?
Do you have numerous aches and pains for which no doctor can find a physical cause?

Scientology organizations as the leaders in the field of mental ability are doing the only successful work in correcting such disabilities.

The first sweeping, low cost attack on mental disability is now under way in Scientology organizations with HAS Co-Auditing courses, now beginning on all continents.


L. RON HUBBARD





[The above HCO B was reissued from Washington, D.C., dated 23 March 1959.]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 17 MARCH 1959
Issue 2
BPI
Magazine

DO IT YOURSELF THERAPY


At last we have a successful way for the untrained person or the financially embarrassed Scientologist to make it all the way to release and prepare himself for theta clear at low cost.

Heavily supervised co-auditing at HAS level has become possible with my development of two things,

1. Processes that undercut most reality levels, and

2. Muzzled auditing.

For as little as 2 gns (or $10) a week, one can have the major benefits of Scientology by giving a little and getting a lot.

HAS Co-auditing courses are run by all major Central Organizations and are being started in HCO enfranchised centres.

The applicant enrolls in the PE Course and receives a week of theory. He graduates to a Comm Course lasting two weeks of three nights each and costing 2 gns (or $10) per week. He receives his HAS certificate and graduates to co-auditing for three nights a week for 2 gns (or $10) per week and continues on until he reaches the state of release. This may take many months but he gains all the way in health, on his job, in his environment.

The co-auditing is done “muzzled” and under the heavy supervision of a trained professional who knows how to do it.

It is only successful if so done.

These new processes and muzzled auditing can be the beginning of a new civilization. For, cases are cracking on these units with such frequency and speed that even old timers instructing them are getting an eager new look.

A release is a person whose case “won’t get any worse”. He begins to gain by living rather than lose.

Release is a way point toward theta clear. A good release can be theta cleared by a professional running engrams in from 50 to 125 hours.

This is the new look. If you want to know more about it, write Hubbard Communications Office Worldwide in London or your nearest central organization.

We can put hundreds of thousands upstairs rapidly if we follow this well-blazed trail.

We are still winning.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:mp.rd



Issue 92 M [1959, ca. late March]


The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.



The Subject of Clearing


L. Ron Hubbard



A general summary of Clears and Clearing as of March 1, 1959 is of interest to all Dianeticists and Scientologists.

I have a great deal of data now that has not been generally released and indeed was never before known here on Earth.

The figures are in, the checks have been made. And here’s what I have found:

The first Clears I made in 1947 that were stable were in reality Theta Clears, not Mest Clears. Had I had more finance and the data I collected between 1947 and 1959 I would have known that.

They were made by gradually raising their confrontingness of mental image pictures.

When I found in 1950 that other auditors could not achieve this, I made it my thorough business to:

1. Study all phenomena related to clearing;

2. Study ways to train auditors to do the job and

3. Achieve the original state on a broad scale by auditors in general on all types of cases.

I said we needed a better bridge. Well, we’ve built several.

Within the last fifteen months the data and findings have avalanched.

Once there was a breakthrough by other auditors using standard technology to a state of release some years ago, I knew we were winning but some didn’t see it.

Release is the first state one attains on the way up. It is low and crude but it is. It means that state one doesn’t skid any more in. In short, release means a bettered state from which one doesn’t slip. A case stops getting worse and begins to get better, no matter how slowly. Old ARC Straightwire is the original process that created a Release (see Self Analysis, last page).

Copyright © 1959 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

Release as a state is, in actuality, the first thing a pc is trying for. It’s a gain to find level ground so that he doesn’t from there on get worse. He’s stable now, he won’t keep slipping, if he attains the state of release.

I found the second goal a couple of years ago. I managed to develop drills and skills that would make a person able to audit. The simplest form of this now is called “muzzled auditing” and makes supervised co-auditing possible on a very wide scale, thus achieving goal three above.

The first great breakthrough came in Winter of 1957-58 with Mest Clearing.

Mest Clearing is shortcut clearing. By keying out engrams, one becomes free of them

This was achieved in a very large number of cases.

BUT
not all people could be Mest Cleared,
AND
the state is not always stable.

What happens to a Mest Clear sometimes? What makes the state unstable?

A Mest Clear, according to several reports even from those given bracelets (of which they should still be proud), starts acting like a Theta Clear and can’t make it. It’s a lose. He falls back.

In short, a Mest Clear can postulate. And he postulates himself into trouble. He can still key in engrams. His postulates operate powerfully on his bank, evidently, and there he goes.

A Mest Clear has not been through a total confrontingness. He arrived by what was a shortcut. His regained ability to postulate operates unexpectedly. He puts himself into things he hadn’t confronted yet. He doesn’t confront them. And there he goes.

So long as he doesn’t use his large power to postulate unwisely, a Mest Clear stays clear. If he does, he’s no longer clear. (Bob Ross, by the way, first mentioned this to me and further reports and observations bore it out.)

Very well—there is a state called Mest Clear. It is a shortcut that is sometimes the long way around and sometimes isn’t stable.

However, a Mest Clear, even skidded, is better off than any Release.

Because of this liability (and because of later gains I made on Theta Clearing) no HGC is now even trying for Mest Clear. It’s all Theta Clearing now. And if it’s all right with you we’ll use the word Clear to mean hereafter a Theta Clear and if we mean Mest Clear we’ll say so.

The Mest Clear, then, still has a malady—the ability to postulate his engrams into heavy play.

Pursuing clearing further in 1958 I developed by early February 1959 the Confrontingness Scale of Reality. This, I find just this week, on a specific test, is also a parallel to the Responsibility Scale.

Roughly, the Confrontingness Scale of Reality goes this way from top to bottom:

No need to Experience a Reality
Willing to Experience a Reality
Willing to Confront a Reality
Willing to be Elsewhere from a Specific Reality
Willing to Not-Is a Reality (invisible field)
Willing to Screen a Reality (puts black curtain over it or self)
Willing to Dub-In a Reality
Willing to Figure-Figure on a Reality
Willing to Figure-Figure on a Dubbed-In Reality

Knowing this we see how a case behaves as we raise confrontingness on Mental Image Pictures. The person is out of valence below “Elsewhere” and not even on the right track below “Screen” (the old “Wide-Open Case”).

This was a lot of data to collide with. But being aware of the phenomenon of Mest Clear and having developed repetitive command engram running for the 5th London, I had to square around for Goal Three with techniques to run low reality for the 21st American and so found the Confrontingness Reality Scale.

All this made quite a difference in viewpoint. Things that were very vague in 1947 became very obvious to me.

A Theta Clear, then, can be defined as a person who is at cause over his own reactive bank and can create and uncreate it at will. Less accurately he is a person who is willing to experience.

Operating Thetan would be the same as always—the individual at Cause over Matter, Energy, Space, Time, Life and Form.

Theta Clear is stable. Therefore I’m not letting the HGC try for any lower state. In any event Theta Clearing is faster than Mest Clearing but not, of course, faster than Releasing. The maximum time to release a raving lunatic seems to be about 600 hours of CCH 1, 2, 3 and 4—work, however, that we don’t do.

The maximum time to release a non-insane person by CCH 1, 2, 3 and 4 is probably around 350 hours. And sometimes this route has to be taken as in a non-consent case or a child or a very low reality case or a case that can’t or won’t talk. (CCH 1, 2, 3 and 4 on such low cases is not always successful by reason of auditing skill differences.)

The maximum time to attain a Release on a fairly low reality case is about 175 hours—usually less, using present skills or even ARC Straightwire, Fall 1951.

The maximum time to theta clear somebody from beginning to end has not been determined fully for all cases by a long ways, but early data indicates that a case with high beginning reality could make it in 75 hours of HGC auditing. As all cases addressed so far in the HGC have responded steadily (under auditing done by 21st ACC graduates) on the Reality Scale, we could assume they will all go through to Theta Clear. Some cases (one with a recent severe accident) require evidently four weeks to get up to what you and I would call responsibility and reality on these new processes— but even then the four weeks were all win and all gain. (The auditing was done by a DScn who did not attend the 21st and was only verbally coached.)

Hazarding a guess, I would say we are sooner than 500 hours on Theta Clearing from beginning to end on average cases.

So all goals listed above—examining clearing, auditor training, and broad-scale co-auditing and clearing—are a reality now, just a dozen years from my first incredulous creation of a Clear to general clearing to a stable state. Of course the first goal of examining all aspects of clearing won’t be over for another twenty years but it’s still been dented. And you’ll soon have that pleasure too, subjective or objective, on the subject of Theta Clearing.

It’s a dozen years back to 1947. It’s nine years back to Book One. But it’s only twenty-nine years back to 1931 when I first began to work at George Washington University on the subject of the mind and life. (It’s only fair to tell you that I’d already abandoned physical healing as a road in 1871 after a medical career, the only fruit of which now extant is what the medicos call Endocrinology, so that path is a little longer than we’d let on to the public.)

I’m pretty excited about all this—and comfortable. There were times when people got to jumping around so in the public prints that I figured straight jackets for reporters and Commies were more vital in our logistics than clearing. But it never entered my head to quit, not even when Time magazine divorced me from a woman I wasn’t even married to. (Invented inverted 2nd Dynamics always make more news to Luce* people than a world well and free.)

We can now do these things:

1. Theta clear people.

2. Train auditors to theta clear people. (It’s now done at new HCA level and at HCS level at the Academies in Washington and Los Angeles.)

3. Supervise HAS co-auditing clear preparation plus home co-auditing (muzzled) to prepare for clearing plus broadly practice these processes on a wide public basis.

In short, we’ve definitely won. And it won’t be long before everybody knows it. If you knew what fifty people well released by HAS co-auditing could do for Scientology in one town, you’d know we had it made.

Well, you’ll know even better subjectively soon enough.

And that’s clearing.

L. RON HUBBARD

















[*Henry R. Luce (1898-1967) was the co-founder, editor and publisher of Time magazine.]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London, W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 24 MARCH 1959
Dist: WW

HAS CO-AUDIT

All offices should recognize that we have something new and startlingly successful in HAS Co-auditing done by and in the organization as an adjunct of the PE Foundation.

The complete gen on how to do this will be released in the very near future on these lines. This bulletin is to point out its importance.

It is expected that the following cities will begin in the central organization HAS Co-auditing courses immediately on receipt of the technical information:

London (already in progress), Los Angeles, New York, Melbourne, Johannesburg (where the information already exists), Paris, Washington (optional), Auckland (where the information already exists), Perth.

At once all names and addresses of all PE attendees should be gotten in order as mailing lists by the above organizations for their areas and they should stand by to make an immediate mailing.

Persons for night work should be appointed by the above organizations as follows:

PE Foundation Director
PE Foundation Instructor
HAS Comm Course Instructor
HAS Co-audit Supervisor.

The PE Foundation basic course is one week long—5 nights. HAS Comm Course is three nights a week, Co-audit supervised is the same three nights. In case of crowded quarters the HAS Comm Course should be on a different three nights than the HAS Co-audit, i.e. Monday, Wednesday, Friday Comm Course; Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday Co-audit.

The charge to any applicant should be two or three guineas per week or $10.

THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT SINGLE PROMOTION EVENT OF THIS YEAR AND SHOULD BE TREATED AS SUCH.

MAGAZINE—MAJORS AND MINORS

It has been found in at least one organization that the purpose of major and minor issues of the continental magazine has not been understood. A major issue goes out once every month to the membership only; a minor issue goes out once every month to the entire mailing list, particularly book buyers. Certainty Issues Vol. 5 No. 23, Vol. 6 No. 3, Vol. 6 No. 2 are typical minor issues and with their ads adjusted and made more timely are now being sent to the entire mailing list.

Neglect in sending minor issues to the entire mailing list can result in the eclipse of an operation, otherwise there is no adequate method of contacting new book buyers. Minor issues are mainly slanted at new book buyers but go to the entire list.

If your mailing lists are not so arranged as to make this possible or if your address systems make it difficult you had better do something about it in a hurry as these are the most uneconomical omissions that can be made by an operation.

SCIENTOLOGY SERVICE ADMINISTRATOR

HCO offices requiring books, tapes, bulletins and other services should request them from HCO Administrator WW, 37 Fitzroy Street, London, which post is now occupied by Roddy Stock. The function of this post is to give service to other Scientology organizations and HCO offices.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH: mp.rd

[The above HCO B was reissued from Washington, D.C., as HCO B 8 May 1959.]










HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London, W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 24 MARCH 1959
Applicable to London
To all Staff


MINIMUM STANDARDS


If we get two HPA students per week and maintain 25 HAS Comm Course or Co-audit students per week and never fall below this we can amply justify the cost of No. 7 Fitzroy Street.

This is what it will take. If we have any less than this we will have to give up 7 Fitzroy Street because of its high rental cost.

We need an absolute minimum of ten preclears in processing every week (or twelve to adjust partial rates on some) to make a living unit.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH: mp.rd

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London, W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 25 MARCH 1959




HAS CO-AUDIT & COMM COURSE



The new HAS course starts with two weeks’ comm course followed by an unlimited time on the HAS co-audit course. Almost any student can co-audit, even if he has no reality on coaching. If a student is unreal on the comm course, then put him on to the HAS co-audit—at least he will get some processing and some gains.

COMMUNICATION COURSE

The comm course consists of TRs 0, 1, 2, 3. The emphasis on TR 3 is not on comm bridges so much, but on the duplicative question.

Method: The coach sits opposite the student auditor with his back to the centre of the room. He never flunks the student auditor. His only originations are “start”, “fine” and “that’s it”. He may make an occasional short, complimentary remark.

If the student auditor is doing something wrong, the coach puts his hand out behind him and waits for the instructor to come and handle the difficulty. The instructor never corrects the student auditor. He just gets him to carry on with the session.

The idea here is: 1. To get the student auditor to do the drill and not spend all evening discussing it. 2. To prevent the coach from coaching with unreality and invalidating the student auditor.

HAS CO-AUDIT COURSE

1. The students are briefed and told that if they blow session the instructor will not stop them. The course exists to help people who can help themselves. They will not be pursued.

2. The students are divided into co-auditing teams. The auditor sits with his back to the centre of the room and the pc faces the room.

Assignment: The instructor goes to each team, puts the pc on the E-Meter and finds a terminal for the auditor to run. He does this by asking the question, “Who would you blame for the condition you are in?” If no terminal bites, run “Himself”. If this still doesn’t bite, run Dynamic Straightwire. The question asked on Dynamic Straightwire is “Tell me what would represent yourself” (on Dynamic one, etc). After asking this question about each dynamic, run the following commands on the wackiest answers.

Processes are Selected Persons Overt Straightwire. “Recall something you have done to (terminal),” “Recall something you have withheld from (terminal).” General Persons Overt Straightwire, “Recall something you have done to somebody” and “Recall something you have withheld from somebody.” Each command in these two straightwire processes is repeated alternately.

The auditor does muzzled auditing. Muzzled auditing means that the auditor says only two things. He gives the command and acknowledges the answer to that command. If the pc says anything that is not an answer to the command, the auditor nods his head and awaits an answer before giving acknowledgement.

If the auditor gives the wrong command or gets confused, or if the pc forgets the command, the auditor says nothing to the pc. What he does do is place his hand behind him and wait for the instructor to handle the situation.

The auditor never leaves his chair to ask the instructor anything. The instructor never talks to an auditor who leaves his chair.

The auditor keeps on running a terminal until the pc starts repeating answers. When he judges the process is flat he puts out his hand and the instructor comes around to check.

At the end of the first session students change teams simply by moving one seat round. They keep the same auditors and preclears for as long as possible on course. Seats may be numbered to ensure consistency.

At the end of the evening the auditor writes out an auditor’s report. This places his attention on his pc, keeping him more in session, and has him feel responsible for doing something to help his pc.

If the auditors remain strictly muzzled nothing can go wrong. It is up to the instructor to see that they remain muzzled. He is processing the pcs via the auditors, and to do this, rigid control must be maintained at all times.

L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:mp.mspjh
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED






[This HCO B is added to by HCO B 3 April 1959, HAS Co-Audit and Comm Course, page 456.]

P.A.B. No. 157
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 April 1959

PROCESSES USED IN 21ST ACC (Concluded)

(Continued from P.A.B. No. 156 [page 441])

Compiled from the Research Material and Taped Lectures
of L. Ron Hubbard


The engram commands we are using are as follows: “What part of that incident can you confront?”, “What part of that incident can you be responsible for?” and “What part of that incident can you confront?—for how long?” And when we have sorted these out, we run “Find an unimportant part of that incident.”

By incident, we mean both the overt and the motivator. An engram is some portion of an incident containing pain, unconsciousness and exteriorization. But the whole incident would consist of the overt-motivator which belong together; therefore we may find them running thousands of years apart, but, nevertheless, bundled up and identified with great thoroughness. We are running this simply with a kind of understood acknowledgment in most cases, and we are trying not to make this a sharp Tone 40 process, because that tends to drive the pictures away. (Some people are still doing this to a slight degree. Their acknowledgments are a bit too good and tend to make the engram vanish. This is a common thing.)

One thing we are faced with in this ACC is the inability of the student to accept the fact that a case changes. This must be stressed. Why are you auditing a case if you don’t expect it to change? These students go on auditing somebody day after day and

actually downgrade the case again by giving it the same careful treatment throughout. They are careful, as if the preclear is still crazy. They haven’t noticed that the preclear is now doing pretty well. This leads to ARC breaks.

One more process which I haven’t mentioned so far is ARC Break Straightwire. We are not using it on the ACC, not because it isn’t good, but merely because it is lengthy. Dynamic Straightwire, cleverly done, takes a case apart. It starts almost any case. Selected Person Straightwire on Overts will bring up the responsibility of a case to a point where he can be trusted to run engrams; and ARC Break Straightwire is the one which lays open the track. The only trouble is, I have seen it run for fifty hours. It’s a long process, but it is a valuable process.

We have one final process here. It is a central process which processes anybody, and it is the thinking process of SCS. Now, to have the thinking process of SCS would be very valuable, because the assertion of control is your biggest point out. The reason auditors can’t audit and the reason cases can’t run and the reason valences happen, and so forth, has to do with handling people. Taking an old, old process here and remodeling it, we find that we have a very fast, wound-up-doll, muzzled auditing process that

Copyright © 1959 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

can kick the living daylights out of a case; and we are including the process in the 21st ACC.

The process is simply this: “Think of an identity you could handle. Think of an identity you couldn’t handle.” Or: “Think of an identity that could be handled. Think of an identity that could not be handled.” This is the SCS Control process, Thinking version.

It is not yet decided which of the auditing commands is the best. You can run the preclear either at cause or generally. The general process is “Think of an identity that could not be handled. Think of an identity that could be handled.” Run alternately, one command after the other, it probably undercuts the other process, which is “Think of an identity you could handle. Think of an identity you couldn’t handle.”

It sounds very bad to say “you couldn’t handle”—it is a negative process. That is why it has to be sandwiched in with a positive process. Strangely enough, it doesn’t totally run on the positive process, because the preclear has a private ambition—not to be handled. He doesn’t want to be controlled in any way. So you must run the negative process in on the other side of the positive process.

I can’t tell you at this stage how many cases this process can be run on. But I do know that it is the anatomy of cases in group one, for all my study of them so far shows that their greatest unreality is the unreality of control. They demonstrate a hectic attitude toward the preclear because of an anxiety about controlling him, or an apathetic attitude towards the preclear because they know they can’t control him.

The whole subject of valences finally shook out here on the 21 Ts ACC. I hasten to tell you about it. The preclears have been through arduous control on the whole track. Arslycus, where everybody got worked to death (produce, produce, produce, work, work, work . . .)—Space Opera, where control was nothing if not deadly—in fact, at every place on the track where everybody went haywire, they had to make a total effect on people. So the preclear who is having a bad time has as his central goal an individuality that cannot be controlled; and this is why most of these lower scale people want to be clear. They do not want to be not-controlled; they just want to be absent.

This is also the reason why some people, although they say they are willing to clear people, are really unwilling to do so; because a clear is someone you cannot handle the way they think of handling people. So they become unwilling to make somebody clear, and they will chop it up somewhere along the line. So there is a reasonable reason underlying this obsessive chop-up that some students do to a preclear, and a reasonable reason behind an auditor’s coming up to you with great unhappiness the moment his preclear starts to make a gain. He himself wants to be clear so that he cannot be handled, but, if he knows he can’t be clear, he adopts an identity that cannot be handled.

Various societies in various times have various things that cannot be handled, and they get stuck with these solutions, and it is almost a rational solution. They adopt an identity that cannot be handled—and that is what is sitting in the preclear’s chair. And sitting in the auditor’s chair is somebody who knows only too well that the preclear can never be handled and so it doesn’t matter what he does; or somebody who is determined to handle the preclear even if it means knocking his block off. This results in misemotional responses to handling the preclear.

This is one of those horrible simplicities.

We had processes long ago on identity and inventing identities and various types of identities, and we also had processes on handling people (“What could you handle?

What couldn’t you handle?” “What could you change? What couldn’t you change?” that sort of thing). Well, that all adds up to this process; and this process works much faster than SCS.

However, we shall know more about the Thinking version of SCS later on. I just wanted to give you a summary of the techniques and processes being used in the 21st ACC, for your information.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 APRIL 1959



HAS CO-AUDIT AND COMM COURSE


Further to HCO Bulletin of March 25, 1959, the cost of the HAS Co-audit and Comm Course is 2 gns per week payable to the evening reception on each Monday evening. No credit is extended for this course. The price is 2 gns per week regardless of the number of weeks spent on the course.

The following is the schedule covering the HAS Comm Course and HAS Co-audit:

COMM COURSE

First Week

Monday Wednesday Friday

7.00 —Roll Call, Briefing 7.00 —Roll Call, Briefing 7.00 —Roll Call
7.15 ) 7.15 ) 7.15 )
8 25 )---TR 0 8 25 )---Change 7.50 8 25 )---TR 3

8.30 ) 8.30 )---TR 2 8.30 )---TR 3
9 40 )---TR 0 9.40 )---Change 9.05 9.40 )

9.45 —End 9.45 —End 9.45 —End

New students: 7.15 - 8.00—OCA test.

Second Week

Monday Wednesday Friday

7.00 —Roll Call, Bfg.
7.15 ) TR 0
7.51 )---Change 7.33

7.51 ) TR 1
8.25 )---Change 8.04
As above As above
8.25 ) TR2
9.01 )---Change 8.43

9.01 ) TR3
9.37 )---Change 9.19

9.45 —End

HAS COURSE

7.00 - 7.15 — Briefing
7.15 - 8.20 — 1st Session
NO BREAK
8.25 - 9.30 — 2nd Session
9.30 - 9.45 — Reports and Questions

Above timetable subject to alteration depending on case assessments made.

LRH :mp.rd L. RON HUBBARD

SPECIAL HUBBARD PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S COURSE LECTURES
London, England
6 April—1 May 1959


On 6 April 1959, L. Ron Hubbard began personal instruction of the new Hubbard Professional Auditor’s (HPA) Course at the Academy of Scientology in London. The emphasis was on Clearing at the HPA level. The lectures were recorded on tape for use in future HPA/HCA courses all over the world.


** 5904C06 SHPA-1 Beingness and Communication
** 5904C07 SHPA-2 Universes
** 5904C07 SHPA-3 The Dynamics
** 5904C08 SHPA-4 Scales
** 5904C08 SHPA-5 States of Being
** 5904C09 SHPA-6 Anatomy
** 5904C09 SHPA-7 What Can Be Done with the Mind (Reality Scale)
** 5904C14 SHPA-8 Mechanisms of the Mind
** 5904C14 SHPA-9 Overt Act-Motivator Sequence


The list of Special HPA Course lectures continues in chronological sequence on pages 459 - 461.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 14 APRIL 1959

Magazine Article

LETTER FROM AUSTRALIA


“Attached you will see a letter from Jim and Wal Wilkinson—who are very good Scientologists operating in Adelaide, capital city of South Australia. They have just started up and already have 30-35 on their PE Courses. I have met them personally and believe me they are good sorts. Now I wrote to them on Rhona’s instructions asking them to apply for an HCO Franchise to regularize their setup and told them a few things about having an HCO.

“They are very keen to have an HCO and I presume that the franchise would be for the area of South Australia—quite a large state.

“I am very pleased that they are doing so well because now Scientology in Aussie is really swinging in these cities: Perth, Adelaide, Melbourne and very soon we will get Sydney and Brisbane going and LO—WE WILL HAVE ENCIRCLED AUSTRALIA. Working it out mathematically on population basis of Aussie with 250 auditors putting 500 people thru courses or processing a year, in 2 years 5 percent of the people will have been thru the courses. Of course it is very likely we are going to have more than 250 auditors around—so watch it kiddo Aussie will be the first all Scientology country and should produce a terrific culture-about time too—it hasn’t really had its OWN culture. Anyway that’s the mockup—and we are already succeeding in it markedly. Talk in the coffee shops is all about Dianetics or Scientology. Our people are young and able. (Sounds like I’m really converted to Aussie, doesn’t it!) Well I guess I’m beating the drum slightly. Anyway if you’ll talk about this tremendous advance that’s getting going in Aussie (and around the world) the more people we get to agree with it-the more it gets solid and real. You know people are fantastically interested in Scientology really—angry young people everywhere—are interested. Perhaps the difference in Aussie is there is a lot of hope and many possibilities of succeeding in the game here than elsewhere—perhaps—and also no hidebound old culture bogging them down—tradition etc (not pooh-pooh tradition where they are useful and go ahead) but sitting on past glories (and failures) is no good. They don’t do that in Aussie.

“Sounds like I’m giving a lecture—so will close sending you a spark of enthusiasm. Best, Eliz. “


L. RON HUBBARD




LRH: mp. rd

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 APRIL 1959



EMOTIONAL TONE SCALE EXPANDED

(Cancels Bull. of April 8)


There are several misemotions hitherto not placed on the ARC Emotional Tone Scale.

These are:

0.0 — Failure (Death)
-0.2 — Regret (Being other bodies)
-1.0 — Blame (Punishing other bodies)
-1.3 — Shame (Responsibility as blame)

In running Overt Withhold Straight Wire stubborn cases run these emotions for some weeks of auditing and go upwards more or less in that order. Only when they come to failure as an emotion do they then get into apathy.

No case run on Overt Withhold Straight Wire can be said to be making progress unless misemotions turn on below 2.0. If the right button is reached by correct assessment, emotional reaction occurs in the running of that button.


L. RON HUBBARD



LRH: rt.rd

[See also HCO B 25 September 1971RA, revised 4 April 1974, Tone Scale in Full, Volume VII, page 404.]









SPECIAL HPA COURSE LECTURES

London, England
15—16 April 1959

** 5904C15 SHPA-10 Codes
** 5904C 15 SHPA-11 The Code of a Scientologist
** 5904C16 SHPA-12 The Logics and Axioms of Dianetics and Scientology
** 5904C16 SHPA-13 Axioms: Second Lecture

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 17 APRIL 1959



KNOW TO MYSTERY STRAIGHT WIRE FOR EXTREME CASES

(Cancels Bull. of March 31, 1959)


The Know to Mystery Scale expanded

Not know
Know
Look
Emotion
Effort
Think
Symbols
Sex
Eat
Mystery
Wait
Unconsciousness

To assess a case on the lower rungs of processing, ask pc, against an E-Meter, what terminal could represent each of above, select that terminal (object or person, never a condition) which changes needle action most and run Overt-Withhold Straight Wire on it.


L. RON HUBBARD



LRH: mp. rd
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



[The cancelled Bulletin of 31 March 1959 had the same title and text as this issue, except that it did not have “Look” on the Know to Mystery Scale.]







SPECIAL HPA COURSE LECTURES
London, England
21—22 April 1959


5904C21 SHPA-14 Types of Auditing
** 5904C21 SHPA-15 Modern Auditing Types
** 5904C22 SHPA-16 Types of Cases
5904C22 SHPA-17 Assessment

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 22 APRIL 1959



OLD AND NEW REALITY SCALE


“Old “ Reality Scale “New “ Reality Scale

Tone 40 to 20 Postulates Pan-determined creation

20 to 4 Consideration Self-determined creation

4 to 2 Agreements Experience

1.5 Solid terminals Confront

1.1 Terminals too solid ) Elsewhereness
Lines solid )

1 to .5 No terminal ) Invisibility
Solid line )

.5 to .1 No terminal ) Blackness
Less solid line )

.1 No real terminal )
No solid line ) Dub-in
Substitute terminal )

.0 No terminal )
No line ) Unconsciousness


LRH:mp.rd L. RON HUBBARD
copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



SPECIAL HPA COURSE LECTURES
London, England
23 April—1 May 1959


** 5904C23 SHPA-18 Present Time
** 5904C23 SHPA-19 Use of the E-Meter in Locating Engrams
** 5904C28 SHPA-20 Theory of Processes
** 5904C28 SHPA-21 Processes
5904C29 SHPA-22 Specialized Auditing
** 5904C29 SHPA-23 Processing of Children
** 5904C30 SHPA-24 HAS Co-audit
5904C30 SHPA-25 Electronic Phenomena of the Mind
5905C01 SHPA-26 End of Course Lecture

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 APRIL 1959


DEFINITIONS


A CONSULTANT is an instructor who is on duty sporadically or from time to time, but not routinely in any one place.

AN INSTRUCTOR is one who has regular classes and who is assigned to places at specific times.

A COACH is a student who is standing in the role of “pc”.


L. RON HUBBARD
LRH: mp.rd





HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 MAY 1959



SOLUTION TO SOLUTIONS


It is interesting when some old well-worn Scientology phenomena such as problems and solutions resolves.

I noted in 1956 that problems tended to collapse upon one as he solved them, if you will recall. When you asked someone to invent a problem of comparable magnitude, his problem went further away in distance. When you asked someone for a solution to his problem the problem approached closer.

Well, I have now found the reason for this—the “penalty of solving”. It is, I might comment, not an unimportant discovery for we all become victims of problem-collapse when we solve things. This is why people won’t solve their problems, why they “have to have problems”.

Failure to make solutions (or postulates) stick elsewhere makes the thetan “believe” that solutions collapse problems on him.

A process to demonstrate the first observation is well known—problems of comparable magnitude—and getting the pc to then “solve the problem” (this last of course is not “therapeutic”).

A process to overcome this collapsing of problems upon one is “What solution could you make stick?”


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:mp.rd Copyright © 1959 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 4 MAY 1959





AN AFFINITY PROCESS


We have a fundamental Reality process in Overt-Withhold Straight Wire and, at a higher level, “What can you confront?”

Variations suggest themselves but what with Administration, Congresses, HPA Courses, ACCs and heavy promotion, I have not had time to test them.

The above form, startlingly enough, does work. It apparently cracks lower cases than “What can you confront?” There is some evidence it raises havingness.

A basic communication process is “Recall a time you communicated.”

There have been few successful Affinity processes. However, as unlikely as it first appears, the following is nearly a pure Affinity process.

“What would you like to confront?”


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH: mp .rd
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 4 MAY 1959




HOW TO WRITE A CURRICULUM


1. Establish personality of person present. (Create their beingness on course.) Course creates a beingness, not imparts data.

2. Demonstrate how to create this beingness.

3. Establish communication by teaching the language of the subject.

4. Exemplify the communication symbols with demonstrations of ridiculous errors.

When established, teach:

1. Each word and its definition that is used in the practice. Underline strange words.

2. Diagnosis. You must recognize (“Conditions we are seeking to change”), i.e. Obnosis.

3. System of classification.

4. Means of changing each class or type of child, and maintenance of state. Subject matter: “Prevention of worsening”.

Practice

Demonstration
Doingness

Note: Person who is willing to be the person who sees.
Person who sees. Person who discusses.
Person who can do something.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:mp.rd

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 7 MAY 1959



NEW PROCESS


THEORY

It never snows but it avalanches!

Possessing now tremendous processes at lowest levels, we need a new understanding of processing and assessment.

The broad tone scale is divided into three general parts. Highest is Pan Determinism. Mid-range is Self-Determinism. Low range is Other-Determinism.

The fundamental difficulty is that something has so thoroughly overwhelmed the pc that he is it. This is Other-Determinism become the person. Mild locks use this route to further overwhelm him. A person doesn’t really find anything in this lifetime that would have overwhelmed him enough to aberrate him. It took great doing. Things like prenatals and operations and shocks just use the existing overwhelm channel.

The picture of aberration is this. The person causes an effect, time and time again. Usually this is not aberrative. But one day he causes an unintended effect. He didn’t mean to. It was wrong. This is the true overt act—an unintended bad effect. It is not deserved by the recipient. It is a wrong, unintended, undeserved effect. The person now tends to limit his effects or withhold his effects. Having been wrong once, he now becomes cautious. Next thing he knows he has assisted himself to be overwhelmed. He now has an inflow channel over which other things, all locks, can now overwhelm him.

Eventually he becomes an “other-determinism”. This, of course, can get nothing done, doesn’t outflow, etc., etc., which adds up to all the faults we find in an aberrated person. For example, if the pc has been overwhelmed by money, he, in money matters, is now money. If you took some money and threw it on the bed it wouldn’t do a thing. It wouldn’t stack itself up or add up accounts. Money doesn’t do anything. Therefore, the pc, as an other-determinism, does nothing really about money—and this we find annoying in him. It is his aberration.

Clearly all one need do as an auditor is to reverse this flow and put the pc at cause over the button, money, to have the other-determinism (and the overwhelmingness) fade away. Using Problems of Comparable Magnitude or Overt-Withhold Straight Wire or simple reaching, the effect is turned to cause and the pc comes out of it.

Assessment is only discovering what has overwhelmed the pc.

Auditing is the reversing of other-determined flows by gradient scales, putting the pc at cause again.

THE BASIC ERROR

The question was asked me, and a fine question it was, “Why does a thetan make his postulate fail to stick in the first place? Why would he say, ‘I can get my postulates all messed up and so cause an overt act’?”

Obviously all aberration is third dynamic. The entrance into self-determinism requires that a thetan conceive the idea of other beings. Also he must then conceive that there are zones of privacy from which he must not communicate.

This error leads to obsessive or fixed channels on which one can be overwhelmed, since he “may not” take the position of cause on this channel.

Avoidance of the places he must not communicate from leads into all manner of difficulties, since this is inhibited communication. A person, therefore, becomes as aberrated as he cannot communicate, as aberrated as he is overwhelmed by Other-Determinisms, as aberrated as he himself dare not assume cause points.

A NEW PROCESS

This leads to a new process, for use “in individual sessions”. The final phrasing is not established at this time.

“From where could you communicate?” or

“Find a place from which you could communicate,” or

“Recall a place from which you have communicated.”

My first tests show this to be very strong but workable. I have not established the depth this reaches nor the complete effectiveness up scale. But it does reverse Other-Determinism heavily.

(This, of course, does not supplant Selected Person Overt-Withhold Straight Wire as fundamental and is not for use in HAS Co-auditing, where Selected Persons Overt-Withhold Straight Wire is the tested allowed process.)

This new process may open a faster route to theta clear, even though that route is already very fast.

Note: Apparently this process, LOCATIONAL COMMUNICATION, relieves the face pressures and terror stomachs (after turning them on) which have proved reluctant. Terror stomachs we have a specific for. Face pressures, we do not have totally taped.


L. RON HUBBARD



LRH:m .rd
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 8 MAY 1959



AN UN-DOABLE COMMAND


There are a very few commands that cannot be done. One of these is “Find an unknown” ( 1954).

I have just found another one:

“Invent an other-determinism”.

Perhaps if it could be run, as Jan Halpern commented, it would be a one-shot clear.


LRH:mp.rd L. RON HUBBARD






6TH LONDON ADVANCED CLINICAL COURSE LECTURES
London, England
4 May—13 June 1959


L. Ron Hubbard conducted the 6th London Advanced Clinical Course at the Academy of Scientology in London, England, from 4 May to 13 June 1959. He gave the following lectures to students:


** 5905C12 6LACC-1 Clearing

5905C13 6LACC-2 Second Lecture on Clearing Methodology

5905C14 6LACC-3 Clearing Technology

5905C19 6LACC-4 The Theory of Clearing

5905C20 6LACC-5 Clearing: Practice of

5905C21 6LACC-6 Clearing: Process—Special Cases


The list of 6th London ACC lectures continues in chronological sequence on pages 471, 473 and 475.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 MAY 1959
Central Orgs
HCO Offices

CANCELS ALL EARLIER DIRECTIVES ON HGC ALLOWED PROCESSES


HGC ALLOWED PROCESSES AND ACC PROCESSES AS OF
MAY 21, 1959


The following processes are the only allowed processes for use in HGCs anywhere.


THETA CLEAR SCHEDULE

For use on unconscious and fixedly psychotic persons unwilling to be audited:

“You make that body sit on that chair” (or “lie on that bed”), and CCH 1, 2, 3, 4.

For use on persons unwilling to be audited at any time:

Two way help bracket
“How could you help me?”
“How could I help you?”

Get each question answered. Use lots of two way comm. Don’t Q and A with reasons.

For use on persons unwilling to be audited by reason of session errors:

TR 5N, which is:
“What have I done wrong?”
“What have you done wrong?”
with two way comm.

For persons who are acutely ill:

Run old TR 5 if needed.
Diagnose exact button and run Overt Withhold Straight Wire or
Run Factual Havingness
Or do an assist.

For use on persons who complain that auditing has no effect on them or who make very slow gains:

Have pc put the following thought in six sides of room, going around in different order each time (example, front wall, back wall, ceiling, floor, right wall, left wall).
“Put the thought into that (designated room side), ‘Nothing can have any effect on (pc’s name)’.
“ There are variations of this phrasing: “Nothing must be done to (pc’s name),” “Nothing can be done about (pc’s name).” Depends on what makes the meter fall.

This process probably requires about 15 to 25 hours to flatten. Use the same wording throughout.

For use on persons in general. If this has been handled in an HAS Co-audit well, don’t handle it again:

Overt-Withhold Straight Wire after careful assessment and used on various buttons. Dynamic Straight Wire, Know to Mystery Straight Wire, are all more or less same process but are different ways of assessment. Always run terminals, never conditions.

For use on persons in general, always to some extent when they enter HGC:

S-C-S.

For use on auditors in for auditing. Run until fully flat:

Op Pro by Dup old (original) style.

For use on people going to theta clear. Use liberally and long:

“Find a spot from which you could communicate.”

For use on people going to theta clear:

Find engram necessary to resolve the case each time. Check out all terminals present in it. Make a list. Run Overt-Withhold Straight Wire on a (each terminal in incident by general name). Don’t run off from incident that is being run. Pc will go up and down the track but when one terminal is flat, choose next from same incident we started with. The commands for this are “Guess at something you have done to” “Guess at something you have withheld from”.

For finishing off cases to level of theta clear:

Run Overt-Withhold Straight Wire on minds, brains, bodies, mest.

For easing off any case into comfort or completion of an intensive:

“From where could you communicate?”


HAS CO-AUDIT

The only allowed process in HAS Co-audit is Overt-Withhold Straight Wire on present life terminals selected by instructor.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:mp.vmm.rd
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 26 MAY 1959



The following article appeared recently in the London City Press. It may be used by City Offices and Area Offices for information to papers.


“MAN WHO INVENTED SCIENTOLOGY”

One best-seller is often the real beginning in the story of a publishing house. But to come into existence because of another publisher’s best-seller is unusual. This is what happened in the case of the Hubbard Association of Scientologists International.

The HASI and all its concerns is founded on the work of one man, L. Ron Hubbard, engineer, explorer, nuclear physicist and writer. Holding in his mind a knowledge of Eastern thought gained in his travels, his instruction in psychology from a medical doctor who had studied personally under Sigmund Freud, and his training in mathematics and nuclear physics, L. Ron Hubbard found himself convalescing in hospital towards the end of the second world war, after a distinguished career in the United States Navy.

During the year he spent in hospital he reviewed earlier work he had done on the fundamentals of knowledge. He was also confronted with the deplorable nervous reactions of his friends who had been through the war. He concluded, after many experiments, that his ideas could help people towards greater ability and greater happiness.

He coined the word Scientology, to mean the science of knowing how to know.

EXPERIMENT

Then followed several years of experiment, which he supported by writing fiction. His ideas, like most new things, met with complete disbelief in official quarters in spite of the fact that they had by this time been practised, proved, tested and documented.

A thesis he wrote in 1948 was ignored. However, people began to hear of his work and to get hold of carbon copies of his thesis and make more copies of it and hand them to friends. Hubbard’s correspondence grew to embarrassing proportions as more and more people found out that Dianetics (the branch of Scientology he wrote about at that time, the branch which deals with mental anatomy) really worked in practice. They asked him for lengthy explanations.

In 1950 L. Ron Hubbard thought of writing a popular text book on Dianetics to relieve him of the task of writing dozens of long letters every day. A publisher offered to print the book, but demanded the manuscript within three weeks. The book was duly written and delivered—180,000 words of it—within three weeks.

This book, DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH, was expected to sell 6,000 copies and sold 100,000 almost immediately. It went to the top of the best-selling lists and stayed there during the summer of 1950.

The book tells the layman how to use Dianetics. Thousands of people began to use it. Hundreds of people wrote, spoke, and ranted for and against it. Interest in Dianetics reached hysteria level in the United States and various organizations were set up, with and without L. Ron Hubbard’s approval, to deal with the demand for treatment and training.

To combat this confusion of commercial exploitation, Hubbard went back to the broader subject of Scientology and founded the Hubbard Association of Scientologists International as the official organization which would treat people, train people and supervise research.

Books and more books were demanded. Hubbard duly wrote them and the HASI duly published them under its own name or under the name of one of its offices. Since 1950, more than thirty books by L. Ron Hubbard and many other Scientologists have been published by the HASI.

Perhaps the best-known titles are DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH, SCIENCE OF SURVIVAL, SELF ANALYSIS IN SCIENTOLOGY, PROBLEMS OF WORK and THE CREATION OF HUMAN ABILITY.

It is fitting that the main part of HASI’s publishing output should be written by the man who founded it, and that all the books it publishes should be about Scientology in its various aspects, whether applied to helping the individual and training professional practitioners, or to more topical subjects such as those dealt with in ALL ABOUT RADIATION and HOW TO LIVE THOUGH AN EXECUTIVE.

The ‘international’ at the end of the HASI’s title is well earned. Few publishers have offices in, and books printed in, Washington, London, Los Angeles, Melbourne, Auckland, Johannesburg, Paris and Berlin. And this within nine years.

TRANSLATIONS

Scientology books have been translated into many languages and the London office (which is now the central office of the organization) receives enquiries from all parts of the world and has on its staff people from Australia, Greece, New Zealand, Mauritius, Rhodesia, South Africa, Spain and the United States. Students come from far and near, east and west, for training to become professional practitioners in Scientology or ‘auditors’ as they are called (an auditor: one who listens and computes). When trained, they qualify to help other people improve their lives and their abilities by doing simple mental exercises under their skilled supervision; and many of them go back to their own countries and set up offices, groups, training centres and clinics of their own. A large part of their training consists of the study of texts published by the HASI.

The publication of DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH in 1950 started, not just a publishing house, but a world movement. The long-ignored work of one man now suddenly affects the lives of people from Malaya to Manchester. And the HASI becomes a very busy organization indeed.

(Copyright © 1959 by L. Ron Hubbard. All rights reserved)”


LRH:gh.rd L. RON HUBBARD


6TH LONDON ACC LECTURES
26 May—4 June 1959


5905C26 6LACC-7 Clearing: Theta Clear Procedure
** 5905C27 6LACC-8 Clearing: General Processes (Lecture 2)
** 5905C28 6LACC-9 Clearing: General Cases—Communication Processes
5906C02 6LACC-10 Clearing: Fixed Ideas
** 5906C03 6LACC-11 Clearing: Communication Processes, Specific
5906C04 6LACC-12 Clearing: Communication, Special Problems

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 5 JUNE 1959



FORMULA 10


This is the first practical approach I have developed toward reaching the state of OT.

Up to and including step 7 gives us a theta clear. Steps 8, 9, 10 and 11 give us the finishing touches for OT.

This formula gives two states, then, depending on where it is used.

The full data background of all this is given in the HPA/BScn Course tapes of Spring 1959 and the 6th London ACC tapes (which also give the way to do this very broadly).

FORMULA 10—AN APPROACH TO OT

1. Do case assessment. Selected Person Overt-Withhold Straight Wire (this life). (Flatten)

2. “Recall (or think of) something you have been responsible for.” (Flatten)

3. “Recall (or think of) something you have confronted.” (Flatten)

4. “Recall (or think of) something you have been responsible for.” (Flatten)

5. Do case assessment. Run “From where could you communicate to a (general terminal )” .
Note: Run any terminals that react.

6. “From where could you communicate to a body.”

7. Locate and run engrams by “From where could you communicate to (A) (generalized form of terminal found in engram)”; run all terminals found. (B) Run until Rock incident is run (run as general terminal).

8. Reassess case for ANY terminal that has ANY reaction and run “From where could you continue to communicate to a (generalized form of terminal)”. Run No. 8 until there are none that react.

9. “From where could you continue to communicate to a body.” (Flatten)

10. “From where could you communicate to a mind.”

11. “From where could you continue to communicate to a mind.”


L. RON HUBBARD

NOTE: This may be used in HGCs when tapes have been studied by auditors.




LRH:gh.rd

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 6 JUNE 1959




When cases crack well on Selected Persons Overts Withhold, run Problems of Comparable Magnitude crudely on same terminals. Then go off into ARC Break Straightwire. This is a very hot route for staff processing.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH: mp.bg.rd
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


[This HCO B was excerpted from an air letter written by LRH to the Washington, D.C. Org.]



























6TH LONDON ACC LECTURE
London, England
9 June 1959


5906C09 6LACC-13 Clearing: Possibilities of

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 9 JUNE 1959
CENTRAL

NEEDED MATERIAL


I have been extremely busy during the last three months getting together vital material in the fields of research and lecture tapes.

My foremost concentration has been to back up to the limit the HAS Co-Audit programme.

It has been quite a trick developing and testing all this material, putting it into lecture form, and handling some crucial phases of administration and finance as well. However I more or less seem to have made the grade, and after three months have gotten together the following:

1. The HPA/BScn Course lectures. This covers all the fundamental and currently sound and valid material in Dianetics and Scientology. These carry with them as well an additional lecture series by Jan and Dick Halpern, and some mimeograph sheets containing the actual curriculum of the course. This brings the professional course up to a level that has never before obtained, with a tremendous amount of summarized technical material and emphasis. The theory is contained in my lectures, the processes are contained in the lectures of Jan and Dick Halpern. The latter lectures are not quite complete, in that the first two or three tapes are poorly done, but then the material on them is available in bulletins. The recording of these lectures is high fidelity, consisting of Theory and Practice lectures.

2. The 6th London ACC tapes which are all on the subject of clearing. These start with how to run an HAS Co-Audit course in their first three lectures and continue on through all the way to theta clear and wind up with Formula 10, which is the first formula for operating thetan. There are some tremendous Scientology advances in this lecture series which are to be found nowhere else. The course is designed for use in its early parts to play to auditors with HCO Franchises. The last part is designed for the professional auditor who has already gone through the current HPA/BScn course. Some of the material in these lectures is extremely fundamental, for instance, there are new assists given which cure acute illnesses.

Every Central Organization must have these two sets of tapes, since this is the fastest way I know of to get the material out and in use.

I am very interested in getting as many theta clears as possible in other places, and very interested in producing a few operating thetans.

We have really made good with this new material, and every promise ever made to the Scientology public has been so far over-reached now as to make those promises under-statements.

My answer to most organizational problems is the production of material and the development of new promotional systems. I have not been paying too much attention to my despatch lines, and I hope you will forgive me, for I have considered it far more important to get out materials which, in the final essence, answer nearly all of the problems being carried in on those despatch lines.

Please acquire these tapes as soon as possible.


LRH:mp.rd L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 10 JUNE 1959



CO-AUDIT FORMULA

To be used by any Co-Audit Instructor


Find what the person thinks is wrong with him.

Find a terminal he believes represents it. Audit that terminal with Overt-Withhold Straight Wire.


L. RON HUBBARD
LRH: mp.rd








HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 11 JUNE 1959





The dates of the Australian ACC in Melbourne are changed as follows:

Starts: November 9, 1959

Ends: December 19, 1959

A two-day standard Congress will be held on Saturday and Sunday, November 7 and 8, 1959.


L. RON HUBBARD





6TH LONDON ACC LECTURES
London, England
10—11 June 1959


5906C10 6LACC-14 Clearing: Case Entrance Points

** 5906C11 6LACC-15 Clearing: General Results

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 22 JUNE 1959
BPI



HOW TO “SELL SCIENTOLOGY”


See “What is Scientology?” article in MA Bulletin of near date to this.

Base your line of talk to strangers on the premise that the 19th Century brutalities and foolishness of psychology, psycho-analysis and psychiatry have made your listener doubtful of mental healing. Agree they are right about this. Enlarge on the faults of old 19th Century practices.

Then say they are not all bad since they gave us a basis on which to start Scientology.

Then show how Scientology learned that men weren’t animals, learned that shock and surgery on the brain was harmful, learned that sex was only a minor basis for neurosis and insanity. All this without saying what Scientology is or describing it.

Then, without really ever explaining what Scientology is, say it has hope for man in a kinder, better world and that we must outgrow our fear of mental healing and look ahead, not backward.

If you get real insistent, even oddly accusative of listener, even slightly angry on this point and stress it over and over, you should have some people willing to come to a PE Course. And if you also stress this in PE Courses, in the HAS Course, in the Co-audit, you will start a new concept of thought around the world.

You have started a new reason to get annoyed at people. They’ll use it!


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:mp.vmm.rd
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 JUNE 1959



CLEAR TEST


From now on Clear Tests will cost £3.0.0.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH: mp. rd

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 JUNE 1959
MA—BPI



WHAT IS SCIENTOLOGY


Scientology is the science of human ability and intelligence. It was developed over a third of a century by Doctor Hubbard, American nuclear physicist and leading world authority on the subject of life sources and mental energies and structures. The Hubbard Association of Scientologists International assists and forwards his work and is a charitable non-profit organization with thousands of professionals who help people to help others. The HASI conducts free basic classes in Scientology and is authorized to train to higher levels for which, however, charges are made amounting to about five shillings an hour for personal coaching.

Professional processing in Scientology is available from the Association and many professional Scientologists in private practice.

Scientology is the only full study in the field of the mind developed in the Twentieth Century. Older Nineteenth Century studies such as psychology, developed by Wundt in 1879 in Leipzig, Germany, psycho-analysis, developed by Freud in 1894 in Vienna, Austria, and psychiatry, developed through the Nineteenth Century in Russia, did not necessarily fail, since they provided data which permitted Scientology to begin.

Modern, kinder methods largely have taken the place of old brutalities such as shock, brain surgery and years of pitiless self revelation. Man no longer is thought of as a brute animal, charged with unconscious and cunning force.

A brighter more modern day has shed greater understanding on the problems of the mind and the nature of life and one need no longer shun mental healing practised by modern, civilized people.

Scientology, in less than a decade, has become the world’s primary study of Man and the mind and has today more offices and practitioners than all other Nineteenth Century practices combined. Thus we must learn to bury the past of mental healing and look forward to our better day, the day of Scientology and new hope, the day of help without threat or harm, the day of a new and better civilization, born with the birth of a better understanding of Man.


L. RON HUBBARD


LRH:gh.rd
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 2 JULY 1959
Issue IV




ADD FORMULA 10


These two processes are added to Formula 10 and just after running engrams:

Process S2—
“From where could you communicate to a victim?”

Process S22—
“Think of a place from which you could communicate to a victim.”

Optimum use on low cases is obtained running S22 fully muzzled.

(Note: This is the 1st one-shot OT process.)


L. RON HUBBARD


LRH:gh.cden
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London, W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 JULY 1959




GENERAL INFORMATION


PURPOSE OF THIS WORK:

To modify the data and material taught and demonstrated in the HCA/HPA Theory and Practice course and to bring uniformity of stable data to students and instructors.

There are six basic process types. One or more processes of each type is included in the Theory and Practice course. Listed here are the six basic types, the characteristic, purpose and stable datum of each. These are the general data for each basic type. Specific data are given with the processes themselves.


TYPE 1. STARTING AND ENDING SESSIONS.

Characteristic: Two-way communication. Two-way communication is how it is done.

Purpose: To compose preclear into and release him from the auditing session.

Stable Datum: Agreement. Each thing done in starting and ending sessions is the establishment of an agreement.


TYPE 2. CONTROL PROCESSES.

Characteristic: Control by action. Preclear’s physical actions are controlled in order to do the processes.

Purpose: To place preclear’s body and actions under the auditor’s control to
invite control of them by the preclear.

Stable Datum: Never let the preclear get out of doing what he is told.


TYPE 3. DUPLICATION.

Characteristic: Mimicry by action. Physical actions are duplicated.

Purpose: To establish communication.

Stable Datum: Each command in its own unit of time separate from every other command.


TYPE 4. SUBJECTIVE.

Characteristic: Thinkingness. The preclear must think something to do the process.

Purpose: To recover automaticities of thought and as-is unwanted thinkingness.

Stable Datum: Body control comes before control of thinkingness.

TYPE 5. OBJECTIVE.

Characteristic: Spotting and finding. Preclear must spot or find something exterior to himself to carry out the auditing command.

Purpose: To orient preclear in present time, drop out past and improve
havingness.

Stable Datum: Attention of preclear must be under auditor’s control.


TYPE 6. STRAIGHT WIRE.

Characteristic: Remembering and forgetting. Preclear must do these things to carry out auditing command or question.

Purpose: To re-control remembering and forgetting and relate past to present.

Stable Datum: Specific things, not generalities.


DEFINITIONS OF THETAN, MIND AND BODY—the three parts of Man

THETAN: The awareness of awareness unit which has all potentialities but no
mass, no wavelength and no location.

MIND: The accumulation of recorded knowns and unknowns and their
interaction.

BODY: An identifying form or non-identifiable form to facilitate the control
of, the communication of and with and the havingness for the thetan
in his existence in the MEST universe.

A thetan himself without the body is capable of performing all the functions he assigns to the body.

* * *

THE CCH PROCESSES—TONE 40 AUDITING

Definition of Tone 40 auditing: Positive, knowing, predictable control toward the preclear’s willingness to be at cause concerning his body and his attention.


CCH 1—A TYPE 2—CONTROL PROCESS

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 preclear’s lap. And “Thank you” ending cycle. All Tone 40 with clear intention, one command in one unit of time, no originations of preclear acknowledged in any way verbally or physically. May be run on right hand, left hand, both hands (“Give me those hands”) or “Don’t give me that hand”, each one flattened in turn, never switching to a different hand or command before flattening the one already started.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated in chairs without arms, close together. Outside of auditor’s right thigh against outside of preclear’s right thigh. This position reversed for left hand. In both hands preclear’s knees are between auditor’s knees.

PURPOSE: To demonstrate to preclear that control of preclear’s body is
possible, despite revolt of circuits, and inviting preclear to directly

control it. Absolute control by auditor then passes over toward absolute control of his own body by preclear.

TRAINING Never stop process until a flat place is reached. To process with good
STRESS: Tone 40. Auditor taught to pick up preclear’s hand by wrist with auditor’s thumb nearest auditor’s body, to have an exact and invariable place to carry preclear’s hand to before clasping, clasping hand with exactly correct pressure (enough to be real to preclear, not enough to bruise his hand over a long run), replacing hand (with auditor’s left hand still holding preclear’s wrist) in preclear’s lap. Making every command and cycle separate. Maintaining Tone 40. Stress on intention from auditor to preclear with each command. To leave an instant for preclear to do it by his own will before auditor does it. Stress Tone 40 precision—this process puts order into preclear’s case, thus precision must be stressed.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in the 17th ACC, Washington, D.C.; 1957.


CCH 2—A TYPE 2—CONTROL PROCESS

NAME: Tone 40 8-C.

COMMANDS: “With that body’s eyes look at that wall.” “Thank you.” “Walk that body over to that wall.” “Thank you.” “With that right hand touch that wall.” “Thank you.” “Turn that body around.” “Thank you.” Run without acknowledging in any way any origin by preclear, acknowledging only preclear’s execution of the command. Commands smoothly enforced physically. Tone 40, full intention.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear ambulant, auditor in physical contact with preclear as needed.

PURPOSE: To demonstrate to preclear that his body can be directly controlled and thus inviting him to control it. Finding present time. Havingness. Other effects not fully explained.

TRAINING Absolute auditor precision. No drops from Tone 40. No flubs. Total
STRESS: present time auditing. Auditor turns preclear counter-clockwise then steps always on preclear’s right side. Auditor’s body acts as block to forward motion when preclear turns. Auditor gives command, gives preclear a moment to obey, then enforces command with physical contact of exactly correct force to get command executed. Auditor does not check preclear from executing commands.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington, D.C., 1957, for the 17th ACC.

CCH 3—A TYPE 3—DUPLICATION PROCESS

NAME: Hand Space Mimicry.

COMMANDS: Auditor raises two hands, palms facing preclear and says, “Put your hands against mine, follow them and contribute to the motion.” He then makes a simple motion with right hand, then left. “Did you contribute to the motion?” “Thank you.” “Put your hands in your lap.” When this is flat the auditor does this same thing with a half inch of space between his and preclear’s palms. “Put your hands facing mine, about a half inch away, follow them and contribute to the motion.” “Did you contribute to the motion?” “Thank you.” “Put your hands in your lap.” When this is flat auditor does it with a wider space and so on until preclear is able to follow motions a yard away.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated, close together facing each other, preclear’s knees between auditor’s knees.

PURPOSE: To develop reality on the auditor using the reality scale (solid comm line). To get preclear into communication by control + duplication.

TRAINING That auditor be gentle and accurate in his motions, giving preclear
STRESS: Wins. To be free in two-way comm. That the essential part of the auditing command is the motion, not the verbal patter. When it is necessary to physically assist preclear to do commands, use one-hand commands, putting preclear’s hand through the command with auditor’s free hand holding preclear’s hand by the wrist. Accept preclear’s answer to the question, “Did you contribute to the motion?”—his answers are accepted, whatever they may be. Auditor always places his hands up before telling preclear to do so. Auditor tells preclear to put his hands in his lap and keeps his own up until preclear does so, allowing preclear to break the solid comm line.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington, 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.


CCH 4—A TYPE 3—DUPLICATION PROCESS

NAME: Book Mimicry.

COMMANDS: Auditor makes a simple or complex motion with a book. Hands book to preclear. Preclear makes motion, duplicating auditor’s mirror image-wise. Auditor asks preclear, “Are you satisfied that you duplicated my motion?” If preclear is and auditor is also fairly satisfied, auditor takes book back, acknowledges, “Thank you”, and goes to next command. If preclear says he is and auditor fairly sure he isn’t, auditor takes book back and repeats command and gives book to preclear again for another try. If preclear is not sure he duplicated any command, auditor repeats it for him and gives him back the book. Tone 40 only in motions. Verbal two-way comm quite free.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated facing each other a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE: To bring up preclear’s communication with control and duplication. (Control + duplication = communication.)

TRAINING Stress giving preclear wins. Stress auditor’s necessity to duplicate his
STRESS: own motions. Circular motions are more complex than straight lines. The basic rule on complexity in duplication processes is: Make the motions as complex as is necessary to get the preclear’s interest and attention and no more.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard for the 16th ACC in Washington, D.C., 1957. Based on duplication developed by LRH in London, 1952.


METHOD OF RUNNING CCH 1, 2, 3, 4.

CCH 1 is run first and run to a flat spot. Then CCH 2 is run. If CCH 2 produces change, it is flattened and followed by CCH 1. Then CCH 2 and if it again produces change it is followed by CCH 1. This rule is followed throughout—when

either CCH 2, CCH 3, CCH 4 produces change the process is flattened and followed by CCH 1. This series of four processes is left when they can be run, one after the other (1, 2, 3, 4) in the same session without producing change.

The four CCH processes are to be run on the following cases:

INSANE: That is, a person who is extremely and obsessively unwilling to control his body, his attention and his thoughts.

UNCONSCIOUS:Any person who is unaware, to a great degree.

HOSTILE: Person who has appeared for processing but who demonstrates a complete unwillingness to accept order and to carry out an auditing command.

CCH 1 “DON’T GIVE ME THAT HAND” version, is a specific process for a case who is dramatizing a heavy compulsive withhold condition.

* * *

ARC STRAIGHT WIRE—A TYPE 6—STRAIGHT WIRE PROCESS

COMMANDS: “Recall something that was really real to you.” “Thank you.” “Recall a time when you were in good communication with someone.” “Thank you.” “Recall a time when you really liked someone.” “Thank you.” The three commands are given in that order and repeated in that order consistently.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated facing each other at a comfortable distance.

PURPOSE: To give the student reality on the existence of a bank. (When used as a training drill.) This is audited on another and is audited until the preclear is in present time. It will be found that the process discloses the cycling action of the preclear going deeper and deeper into the past and then more and more shallowly into the past until he is recalling something again close to present time. This cyclic action should be studied and understood and the reality on the pictures the preclear gets should be thoroughly understood by the student. The fact that another has pictures should be totally real to the student under training.

NOTE: It should be thoroughly understood that this is a valuable process and an excellent step in preparation for running the heavier recall processes.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in 1951 in Wichita, Kansas. This was once a very important process. It has been known to bring people from a neurotic to a sane level after only a short period of application. It has been run on a group basis with success but it should be noted that the thinkingness of the individuals in the group would have to be well under the control of the auditor in order to have this process broadly beneficial. When it was discovered that this process occasionally reduces people’s havingness, the process itself was not generally run thereafter. It is still, however, an excellent process with that proviso, a reduction of havingness in some cases.

If this process is “policed” the auditor asks the preclear “when” before giving the acknowledgement, as often as is necessary to maintain control of the preclear—or as often as is necessary for the auditor to maintain his own confidence that the preclear is under control and doing the process. This process can be run “muzzled” and should be, where muzzling is indicated.

ASSESSMENT An inventory and evaluation of a preclear, his body and his case to DEFINITION: establish processing level and procedure.

1. Determine processing level.

2. Determine process to be used.

3. Always undercut reality level of the case when assessing processing level.

4. Establish reality level of case by two-way communication using understanding and affinity as guides. Understanding: What can the preclear say and talk about that is easily understandable to the auditor? What can the auditor say and talk about that is easily understandable by the preclear? Affinity: What does the preclear like or dislike? What does he detest or ignore? What is he anxious or otherwise mis-emotional about?

5. Never overlook an obvious physical defect or communication difficulty when making an assessment of any kind.

6. Be alert to preclear’s comm lags and what produces them.

7. Observe the preclear’s response to control.

8. Find out what the preclear assigns cause to—what he blames what he feels he can do nothing about.

TERMINAL ASSESSMENT—for OVERT-WITHHOLD PROCESS

In the HCA/HPA course this is done by two-way communication. The student should learn it by observance of the instructor. Terminal Assessment is made to locate the terminals in the case which, when run, will produce an increase in the responsibility and reality level of the preclear.

A VERY BRIEF COVERAGE OF DYNAMIC AND KNOW TO MYSTERY SCOUTING

1. Discover the terminals the preclear states to represent each part of the expanded Know to Mystery Scale. Any terminal which is obviously aberrated and won’t clear by two-way comm should be run.

2. Discover what terminals the preclear has identified with the wrong Dynamic. Any terminal wrongly placed that won’t blow by two-way comm should be run.

NOTE: Two-way comm here does not mean invalidative or evaluative questions or comments by auditor.

SELECTED PERSONS SCOUT

This is the assessment most used. It is applied to the persons in the preclear’s present life. There are several loaded questions which can be used and there are several observations to be made by the auditor.

QUESTIONS: “Who is to blame for the condition you are in?”
“Who do you know or have known that you’d really hate to be?”
“Who really had it in for you?”
“Who do you know or have known that you dislike thinking about?”

To be observed by auditor:

Comm lag: Willingness or unwillingness to communicate about a specific person. Physical and emotional effect produced by discussion of specific person: agitation, voice change, blushing, dopiness, etc.

NOTE: Auditor must realize that preclear has no power of choice in the selection of terminals. The terminal is chosen by the auditor.

In a case where the preclear does not answer up to questions or shows no useful (to the assessment) effects from questions, simply select the person who is realest to the preclear and proceed with the process. Continue running the persons in preclear’s present life on basis of who is realest until preclear is able to answer up to assessment questions. Realest person at start may turn out to be the auditor. If so, run it.


OVERT-WITHHOLD SELECTED PERSONS STRAIGHT WIRE

- A TYPE 6—STRAIGHT WIRE PROCESS

COMMANDS: “Think of something you have done to .” “Thank you.”
“Think of something you have withheld from .” “Thank you.” Or “Recall something you have done to .” “Thank you.”
“Recall something you have withheld from .” “Thank you.”

The use of the “think of’ command rather than the “recall” allows the preclear to plow through where his track is jammed and incidents are not easily separated, to the point where he can recall. In either case commands are run alternately, one for one.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated facing each other at a comfortable distance.

PURPOSE: To put the preclear at knowing cause toward the people in his current life so that those people can no longer restimulate the preclear in livingness.

TRAINING Any terminal run with this process is flat when that terminal can no
STRESS: longer restimulate the preclear’s reactive bank. When the preclear can find no new incidents to recall and must repeat old incidents to continue process, a given terminal can be considered flat. Make sure he is repeating incidents and not recalling similar incidents before ending the run on that terminal. Also, the first few repeats may be just the preclear’s way of filling in a comm lag. Student should observe and understand phenomena occurring with this process. Where assessment has been properly made, the preclear will manifest various mis-emotions ranging from below 0.0 on the tone scale up to 2.0 and emotions up to 4.0. The NOT-ISNESS on the case will show up as attempts to not-is the auditor, process or anything preclear’s attention touches. The preclear, at first, will not correctly assign the reasons for his mis-emotions and discomforts and will blame them on the auditor, etc. This is an example of COROLLARY No. 3 of AXIOM 58 in action. This process is run “muzzled” by the student in training. Muzzled auditing is done as follows: At the beginning of session, instructor makes an assessment of the preclear’s case and chooses the terminal to be run. He gets the preclear’s agreement to run the process and does a very brief clearing of the command with the preclear. Then, the student auditor says, “Start of session,” and gives the first command. When preclear has answered the auditor acknowledges and goes on to the next command. If the preclear originates anything, either as a statement, comment or question the auditor nods his head as an acknowledgement. If the preclear asks to have the command repeated, the auditor nods his head and repeats it. This is continued until end of session or until process is flat on that terminal. If student has any question or thinks terminal is flat, he puts his hand behind his chair and wig-wags to get instructor’s attention. He does not leave his chair. Near end of session instructor gives the team notice that the session will end in two minutes. At the end of that time, when preclear has answered the last command and has been acknowledged, the student auditor

says, “End of session.” This is all there is to muzzled auditing done by students. The student auditor uses only TR 0, TR2, TR3 (duplicative command) and handles originations with a nod of his head, only. No rudiments or two-way comm beyond “Start of session” and “End of session”. Student should understand that when he runs this process (and some others) on preclears in the field, he should use muzzled auditing whenever he finds himself with any tendency to over-communicate or with any preclear who ARC breaks easily. Student should also understand that Overt-Withhold Selected Persons, Third Rail, ARC Break Straight Wire and Not-is Straight Wire can all restimulate so much automatic NOT-ISNESS that the preclear will at times apparently lose his bank, his memory, and even the auditing command and its meaning. The only action indicated when this occurs is to persist with the process.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in the 21st ACC, in Washington, D.C., in 1959, as a means of ensuring wider and more predictable case gains by more auditors, even unskilled ones.


FACTUAL HAVINGNESS—A TYPE 5—OBJECTIVE PROCESS

COMMANDS: “Look around here and find something you have.” “Thank you.” “ Look around here and find something you would continue. “ “Thank you.” “Look around here and find something you would permit to vanish.” “Thank you.” Commands are each flattened in turn before going on to next command. Process can be begun on any of the three commands, but the above order should be followed. If process is begun on “vanish” the next command to be run is “have”.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated facing each other at a comfortable distance and with preclear facing majority of auditing room.

PURPOSE: To remedy havingness objectively. To bring about the preclear’s ability to have, or not have, his present time environment and to permit him to alter his considerations of what he has, what he would continue and what he would permit to vanish.

TRAINING To be run smoothly without invalidative questions. One of the most
STRESS: effective processes known when thinkingness can be controlled somewhat. The student should thoroughly understand that when a preclear is set on wasting, the vanish command will at first occupy the majority of auditing time spent on this process. Student should understand that the three commands can be each flattened in order any number of times and that running one of the commands is quite apt to unflatten the other two. Process should be continued until this no longer occurs.

THIRD RAIL is a special form of FACTUAL HAVINGNESS

COMMANDS are the same as in Factual Havingness. However the commands are & POSITION: run in a special ratio of:
8 commands of “vanish”
2 commands of “continue” and 1 command of “have”.

PURPOSE: To remedy extreme conditions of NOT-ISNESS. To remedy obsessive waste. To permit use of the process without bogging preclear in any one of the commands.

TRAINING Student should realize that there is very seldom any reason for STRESS: altering this ratio and should never Q and A with the preclear’s

complaints about doing the “continue” or “vanish” commands. Student should understand that Third Rail should be run where auditor is uncertain where to begin with Factual Havingness.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington, D.C., in 1958, as the best form of objective havingness. Originally developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in 1955 as “Terrible Trio”. Third Rail developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London for the 5th London ACC.


RUDIMENTS—A TYPE 1 PROCESS—OPENING AND CLOSING SESSIONS

COMMANDS: None as such. Rudiments is the establishment of the agreements basic to an auditing session, and the termination of them, at end of session. Students must understand what the rudiments are and be able to use them with any preclear who is capable of agreeing to them, by two-way communication. They are:

1. Auditor

2. Preclear

3. Auditing room

4. Start of session

5. Preclear’s goal for session.

Auditor, by two-way comm, gets preclear’s agreement to each of these, allowing preclear to state his own goals. The above order is not necessarily the order in which they are established. There should be enough two-way comm to get the preclear’s agreement and no more. The auditor should determine for himself, but not tell the preclear, what he (the auditor) intends to do with the session. At the end of session auditor makes sure the preclear is released from agreements. Auditor does not argue with the preclear about the preclear’s goals.

NOTE: If a preclear cannot communicate about the rudiments or be brought to agree with them fairly easily, CCH 1, 2, 3, 4 should be run with only “Start of session” spoken by the auditor as total rudiments. Rudiments are not used otherwise with any preclear who needs to be run on CCH 1, 2, 3, 4. Alternatively, for more accessible cases, do “muzzled” auditing as described above.


MOCK UP A PICTURE FOR WHICH YOU CAN BE TOTALLY RESPONSIBLE

—A TYPE 4—SUBJECTIVE PROCESS

COMMAND: “Mock up a picture for which you can be totally responsible.” “Thank you.”

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated facing each other a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE: To put preclear at cause with regard to mental image pictures to the degree that engrams are under his control.

TRAINING That preclear not be run on this process before he is willing to carry
STRESS: out a subjective process command exactly as given. Earlier processes should be well flattened before this is attempted. Otherwise the preclear will be given loses. The command means exactly what it says and the preclear’s thinkingness must be well enough under control for him to view the command that way. This process should not be run for ever without an occasional flattening of NOT-IS Straight Wire.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington, D.C., in 1958.

RE-EXPERIENCE AND EXPERIENCE PROCESS

—A TYPE 4—SUBJECTIVE PROCESS

COMMANDS: “What part of your life would you be willing to re-experience?” “Thank you.” “What part of the future would you be willing to experience?” “Thank you.” Commands run alternately, one for one.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated facing each other a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE: To bring about the preclear’s ability to re-experience his past without enduring consequence and to confront the future without restimulation.

TRAINING That student understand that the process is run until flat and that
STRESS: student be aware of what “flat” is. When the preclear can easily get out of any incident he gets into and when he can re-experience those things without enduring consequence. Where engrams are encountered with the process the auditor should attempt to find out the year of its occurrence by two-way comm and flash answers and should record the dates found. The auditor must not go into general two-way comm with the preclear about the incidents preclear contacts. Never end the process while preclear is sticking in an incident.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington, D.C., in 1959.


PRESENT TIME PROBLEMS—PART OF RUDIMENTS—TYPE I PROCESSES

COMMANDS: Auditor, by two-way comm, discovers the preclear’s present time problem and discusses it with him. If it blows on this basis, fine. If not, we move out of Type 1 Processes. To handle the present time problem other than by two-way comm, discuss it with the preclear and get the names of the terminals involved. Ask the preclear which of these is realest. Run the one he names with Selected Persons Overt-Withhold Straight Wire. Discuss the problem. Find which of the remaining terminals is most real to the preclear. Run it with S.P.O.W.S.W. Discuss the problem and so on until the problem is run out, which is when the preclear does not need to do anything about it.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated facing each other a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE: To remove the surface difficulty that is the present time problem so that the auditing session can progress.

TRAINING Student should know definition of a problem and should know very
STRESS: well what happens to auditing sessions where present time problem is unflat. A problem is “The conflict arising from two opposing intentions”. A present time problem is one that exists in present time, in a real universe. It is any set of circumstances that so engages the attention of the preclear that he feels he should be doing something about it instead of being audited. Auditor uses questions based on definition of present time problem to find present time problems. Never leave a present time problem half run. Preclears with whom the rudiments cannot be readily established should not be run on present time problems but should be run on CCH 1, 2, 3, 4.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in 1952.

ARC BREAK STRAIGHT WIRE—A TYPE 6 PROCESS

COMMAND: “Recall an ARC break.” “When?” “Thank you.”

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated facing each other a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE: To as-is ARC breaks. To bring about the preclear’s ability to confront and as-is ARC breaks. To straighten out the preclear’s time track which has become collapsed by ARC breaks in restimulation. To key out and take out of restimulation the “Rock” chain.

TRAINING To not acknowledge the preclear’s execution of the command until
STRESS: the time of the ARC break has been established and to acknowledge with good TR 2 when the time is established. To accept preclear’s reality as to “when”. If he says, “It occurred the year I graduated from high school,” accept it and go on to next command. Assist him with two-way comm when he has difficulty locating time. Flash answers may also be used for this. Do not leave process until preclear can easily get out of incidents he gets into on the process. Process is flat when recalling ARC breaks no longer produces undue amounts of mis-emotion. Student should understand that the process has the limitation of being somewhat hard to clear command with person unfamiliar with the term “ARC”.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington, D.C., in 1958.

NOTE: In handling ARC breaks with the auditor, the auditor should use Selected Persons Overt-Withhold with the auditor as the terminal when the break is severe. Otherwise, use TR 5N.

NOT-IS STRAIGHT WIRE—A TYPE 6—STRAIGHT WIRE PROCESS

COMMANDS: “Recall a time you implied something was unimportant.” “Thank you.” “Recall a time somebody else thought something was important.” “Thank you.” Commands run alternately, one for one.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated facing each other a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE: To bring NOT-ISNESS (Axiom 11) under preclear’s knowing control and to reduce the NOT-ISNESS in the preclear’s bank. To improve recall and increase reality. To generally increase preclear’s willingness to confront his past. To as-is the times when preclear not-ised others. To bring about the ability to evaluate importances.

TRAINING To be certain preclear can recall overt acts to some fair degree before
STRESS: attempting this process. To make certain the preclear is not running the process on the effect side (i.e. recalling times he thought things were important and times others implied things were unimportant). To persist when preclear’s restimulated NOT-ISNESS threatens to destroy the session. To run the process to a flat spot where the preclear easily gets out of the incidents he gets into and can recall incidents without immediately restimulating NOT-ISNESS, which is manifested by a sudden worsening of his recalls.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington, D.C., in 1959.


SCALE OF PROCESSES TAUGHT IN HCA/HPA

This is a scale of processes as they fit with the CONFRONTINGNESS SCALE, from the bottom up.

1. CCH 1, 2, 3, 4.
2. Rudiments.
3. PT Problems by Overt-Withhold Straight Wire.
4. ARC Straight Wire.
5. Selected Persons Overt-Withhold Straight Wire.
6. Factual Havingness )
These two processes can be interchanged.
7. Third Rail )
8. ARC Break Straight Wire.
9. NOT-IS Straight Wire.
10. Past and Future Experience.
11. Mock up a picture for which you can be totally responsible.


L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:-jh.rd
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

THETA CLEAR CONGRESS LECTURES
Washington, D.C.
4—6 July 1959


L. Ron Hubbard lectured to the Theta Clear Congress at the Shoreham Hotel in Washington, D.C., July 4 and 5, 1959. Many of these lectures were devoted to the HAS Co-Audit program, through which widespread Theta Clearing could be accomplished.


** 5907C04 TCC-1 HCO WW and Research
** 5907C04 TCC-2 Clearing
5907C04 TCC-3 HAS Co-audit
** 5907C05 TCC-4 Survive and Succumb (“BIack Grampus”)
** 5907C05 TCC-5 Communication Processes
5907C05 TCC-6 How to Conduct a HAS Co-audit and Why
5907C06 TCC How to Co-audit (could be same tape as above)

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 9 JULY 1959

BPI

Magazine Article

Definition of Scientology—Written by LRH
for Legal when setting up HASI Ltd.


“Scientology is an organized body of Scientific research knowledge concerning life, life sources and the mind and includes practices that improve the intelligence, state and conduct of persons.”


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :ps.rd
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
East Grinstead, Sussex, U.K.

HCO BULLETIN OF 14 JULY 1959



SPECIAL INFORMATION FOR FRANCHISE HOLDERS


It has been many a year since I sat down and banged out a stencil, but here I am doing it and Susie is waiting in the other room to run it off on a Gestetner. So if you have any trouble making it out, it was done on a German typewriter and an English mimeo machine run by a cosmopolouse and a Texan respectively.

Actually I have been trying for several weeks to convince people that a line should be gotten through to the US Franchise Holder but they didn’t believe it and so here I am doing it.

We have just moved a small staff of HCO WW down to Saint Hill and this is the place from which your bulletins will be coming and out of which we will be operating. So here and now mark down with fire or lipstick or anything that is handy all the proper addresses to which you should address all communications relating to all franchises, all payments, SOSs or anything headed “RON!”

POSTAL ADDRESS: HCO SAINT HILL, East Grinstead, Sussex, England.
Telephone, East Grinstead 4786 (but use cables, not phone)

CABLE ADDRESS: SIENTOLOGY, EAST GRINSTEAD TELEX

TELETYPEWRITER ADDRESS: HCO STHIL EGSTD TELEX 8876

Here is what happened some months ago: I ordered the HCO SEC US to issue INTERIM Franchises to able auditors in the US. Anyone qualifying under that heading could have an HCO Franchise. These people would get technical and organizational bulletins relating to HAS Co-audit from me and would get a 40% discount on books and help in other ways. In return these people would send me 10% of their gross income from Dianetics and Scientology every week to help pay for the administration of the line, postage, etc.

Very big things are in the wind as I told people at the Congress but I did not tell them this subtle fact: The INTERIM HCO Franchise is a testing area. Those people who get active, do a good job and remit their ten percent regularly will receive a PERMANENT HCO Franchise—and that means a great deal more than it looks on the surface.

If after a trial period which may run up to one year, the Franchise Holder makes good on all fronts, he will be given the right to train to the level of HCA (HPA in Sterling area). Training in Central Organizations is being upgraded to HCS/BScn and DScn.

There is even more to an Interim Franchise than this. HCO WW has been fortunate enough to secure the administrative services and for Interim Franchise Holders the advices of Dr. Nile Adams. He can be contacted through HCO Washington, 1812 19th St., N.W., Wash., D.C. Nile and I have worked out advertising, financing and general organization for PROJECT CLEAR U.S.

Thus an Interim HCO Franchise looks to be more than first glance indicates.

I determined—and said very loudly—in 1950 that Scientology would go as far as it worked and that I was not going to open up the ball until we had all the music written. Well, I’ve written the music. You don’t know all about that, yet, but you will.

I am very aware of the fact that this has worked, in one way, a hardship on all Dianeticists and Scientologists. But not even threats of storm, flood and bankruptcy have made me swerve from that resolution. Research came first. When research had wrapped up the human mind and dissemination I was willing to fire with all guns—but not one minute before. So I’ve up and done it and we’re getting set on the firing line.

We have many riches. We have a hard corps of trained Scientologists. We already know who our friends are. We’ve drawn the teeth of old-time psycho-therapy and we’ve lived down our sins. But more important we can and mean to clear the US.

The finance for this project has been worked out very thoroughly. The job will only cost a few hundred million and, hold your hat, you’re going to make it.

Excitement is in the wind. The future is no calm vista. And we are right now taking this vital forward step. My first action is to clear all comm lines and ready up HCO staffs and facilities. We are putting in teletypewriters on every continent as fast as we can get them installed and we have other comm circuits planned. We are, in short, getting ready for traffic. These first stages on which we are now engaged are full of tests and reaches which are being hardened, as they prove successful, into a true pattern of advance. About the only real sorting out is the personnel. Central org staffs right now are running on each other about as rough a process as you could want, Process S 2. It’s named after an English brand weed-killer.

What you want to know is, exactly what do you do now? The answer is you carry on and build about as big an HAS Coaudit as you can and do individual auditing and coaching. You receive from here a lot of data you need and you remit directly to here 10% of your gross income made from Dianetics and Scientology every week. You send this to HCO Ts Hill by postal order, your own check or any handy means. You will receive info from US HCO offices eventually when I am sure all lines are in place. Your local area HCO office will be put back on the lines shortly. But you continue to remit to Saint Hill until we have a clear picture of both your credit responsibility and your activity. Very soon, we’ll send people in to help you set yourself up on a proper financial level with proper quarters. Meanwhile, pitch like mad. Communicate to the public. Every bit of promotion counts.

Meanwhile, don’t shame-blame-regret and lose motion. I ;earned a lot watching this first struggle and enturbulence and we’ll make it all pay off, every bit of it and one of these fine days we’ll have a sane world. And wouldn’t THAT be nice.

All the best,


L. RON HUBBARD
HCO SAINT HILL

PS: If you’re getting any co-auditing yourself, be sure to run flat-flat-flat, Process S2. It’s muzzled. And its command is, “From where could you communicate to a victim.” And what is flat on that?? Why, to regain the ability to communicate without reservation, of course. It’s a one shot OT. LRH









[Another issue of the same date and title made the distribution “U.S. Franchise Holders”. It also deleted the third to the last paragraph on the previous page and replaced it with, “An HCO WW Committee has just been formed which will be directly concerned with HCO WW Franchise matters, and will be acting on the instructions of HCO WW. The Committee has started with evidence of great enthusiasm and sincere desire to promote Franchise Centres throughout the States.”]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 17 JULY 1959

CenOCon


AFRICA OVER THE TOP


A cable from Jack Parkhouse tells us that HASI South Africa has topped one thousand pounds for one week’s income without special events for the first time.

HCO Franchises are also doing very well.

As South Africa has a white population of only 2.8 million or thereabouts, you can see that every other central organisation in the world has been out-created.


L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:brb.rd
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED






HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 18 JULY 1959
BPI


TECHNICALLY SPEAKING


We have a whole world full of “victims”.

That’s enough.

We don’t have to be victims ourselves. It’s a scarcity we don’t have to remedy.

New Definition: A Scientologist—one who is not a victim.

We can make victims into people without Q and Aing.

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

Historical note: The whole Christian movement is based on the victim. Compulsion of the overt act-motivator sequence. They won by appealing to victims. We can win by converting victims. Christianity succeeded by making people into victims. We can succeed by making victims into people. It’s time the inversion turned anyway.


LRH:brb.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 18 JULY 1959

BPI
INCOME TAX REFORM


Please write the enclosed letter to (1) your leading local paper, and (2) your representatives in Congress.

America needs your help to survive and we need your help to spread and effect a postulate as a mass-postulate test. This test is to determine the amount of mest communication necessary to change the “mind” of a governing agency. In this last respect it is purely research. But it is also a good idea. Let’s do it. Your ability to postulate is workable too. Please tell us if you have done it.

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

Dear

There comes a time in the history of any country when tax collection activities become a disease that its economy cannot bear. Such a disease is ordinarily healed by revolt, inflation, or financial collapse. The primary source of disintegration in all governments, whether ancient Egypt or modern America, is tax voracity or abuses.

While fighting a cold front with Communism the US is violently co-operating with Communist aims by destroying her individual confidence and initiative with a Marxist tax reform. The basic principles of US income tax were taken from “Das Kapital” and are aimed at destroying capitalism. Unless the US ceases to co-operate with this Red push, Communism could win in America.

The reform of all income tax laws is needed for other reasons. (1) To increase government revenues in order to support defense. (2) To prevent spiraling inflation and another stock market collapse and (3) to return the US to the basic principles of democracy as opposed to economic tyranny.

The following program should accomplish all desirable ends. The only “losers” are the people now gaining tax bonuses and the Kremlin.

If America cannot act rationally on this matter of tax abuse, she is condemned to a crash, another depression and Communist dominance in the world.

Income Tax Reforms that would stabilise US Economy and could win an election:

Charge as tax 55’o of all gross income and forbid taxes on net incomes.

Abolish criminal penalties for tax failures; substitute higher percentiles of gross failures to pay.

Forbid use of employers’ or tax payers’ time to actually collect taxes from others; (no second party tax duties).

Forbid payments of bonuses or awards to tax personnel or informants for tax collections.

Make tax personnel personally liable for all public actions if illegal or damaging.

Forbid the payment of tax on tax monies paid; sums paid to internal revenue; tax payments to be an expense, all retroactive.

Delete the political aspect from income tax; make it a financial transaction, not an advance of the principles of Karl Marx aimed to penalise leadership or initiative.

Delete all criminal aspects from income tax law, not using penalties about taxation to arrest men whose other crimes are suspected but cannot be proven by other law agencies; the payment of tax, if it is to be effected, must not be associated in the public mind with the actions of gangsters.

Use the income tax amendment to collect taxes, not fight capitalism or the inequalities of ability amongst a people.

Forbid the invasion of privacy of personal transactions and activities in order to collect tax beyond the examination of a corporation’s books by a qualified accountant.

Cease to penalise corporation executives exclusively because their accounts departments fail them—penalise only the accountants who refuse to work or who make the errors, since management to-day is becoming difficult where the person actually making the errors and omissions cannot be touched.

Forbid complex forms for taxation purposes. Allow only forms which list income and calculate its gross percentage.

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

If the ills of income tax practice are not cured by swift law, they will be cured by (a) Economic collapse, (b) Russian victory, (c) A revolt of the people, or (d) The abandonment of democracy in favor of a fascist state.

America can no longer afford the deadly disease of economic punishment in the name of income tax. This, more surely than H-bombs is destroying her future.

The aim of the Kremlin is to destroy the US economic system. In 1911, the US altered her constitution to admit a Marxist tax principle. This was the first germ of the present economic disease.

It can be handled in such a way as to save civilisation or it can be ignored with the consequence of total destruction.

A way has been hoped for that would give the government her revenues for defense without wrecking the economy. This is such a way since political popularity can be bought by it without sacrificing government revenues.


L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 JULY 1959

CenOCon


HGC ALLOWED PROCESSES



The following rundown is to be used in all HGCs.

For use on unconscious and fixedly psychotic persons unwilling to be audited:

“You make that body sit on that chair (or lie on that bed)”, and CCH 1, 2, 3, 4.

For use on persons unwilling to be audited at any time:

Two way help bracket
“How could you help me?”
“How could I help you?”

Get each question answered. Use lots of two way comm. Don’t Q and A with reasons.

For use on persons unwilling to be audited by reason of session errors:

TR 5N, which is:
“What have I done wrong?”
“What have you done wrong?”
with two way comm.

For persons who are acutely ill:

Ask them what part of their body they think is ill.
Use that as the terminal. Run:

“From where could you communicate to a ?”
(body part named).

For use on persons who complain that auditing has no effect on them or who make very slow gains, or who are going for OT. Run:

Process S2: “From where could you communicate to a victim?”

This is flat when pc can confront calmly a victim.

For use on persons in general. If this has been handled in an HAS Co-audit well, don’t handle it again:

Overt-Withhold Straight Wire after careful assessment and used on various buttons, Dynamic Straight Wire, Know to Mystery Straight Wire, are all more or less same processes but are different ways of assessment. Always run terminals, never conditions.

For use on persons who have a p.t. problem. Get them to name the terminals associated with the problem. Run:

“From where could you communicate to a ?”
(general form of terminal).

For use on persons in general, always to some extent when they enter HGC:

S-C-S.

For use on auditors in for auditing. Run until fully flat:

Process S 2:

“From where could you communicate to a victim?’

For use on people going to theta clear. Use liberally and long:

Assess case with E-Meter. Spot terminals needing clearing. Use:

“From where could you communicate to a ?”
on each terminal.

For use on people going to theta clear:

Find engram necessary to resolve the case each time. Check out all terminals present in it. Make a list. Run: “From where could you communicate to a___ ?” (each terminal in incident by general name). Don’t run off from incident that is being run. Pc will go up and down the track but when one terminal is flat, choose the next from the same incident we started with. Remember to resurvey incident for new terminals when several are flat.

For finishing off cases to level of theta clear:

“From where could you communicate to a ?”
(male, female bodies, bodies, mest).

For easing off any case into comfort or completion of an intensive:

Get person to say what is wrong. Get them to name the terminal they think is the trouble, run:

“From where could you communicate to a ?”
(terminal name).

HAS CO-AUDIT

Comm processes may be used in HAS Co-audit. Assess by asking person: “Are you sick or well?” If he says “ill”, ask, “What part of your body do you think is ill?” Run:

“From where could you communicate to a ?”
(body part person said).

If person says “well”, then say, “What person or thing have you been most sorry for?” (meaning pity). Whatever person says, run it as a terminal, “From where could you communicate to a ?” (generalized form of whatever he or she said).

This gets people up to talking and you get the “word of mouth advertising” you should have, plus a lot of better people.


L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:brb.rd
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



[This HCO B is superseded by HCO B 25 January 1960, OT-3 Procedure-HGC Allowed Processes, Volume IV-16.]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 22 JULY 1959

BPI



ACTUAL WORKING DEFINITION OF PSYCHOLOGY


That body of practice devoted to the creation of any effect on living forms.

This is the totality of study. The ethics of the effect do not enter in this subject.

It is not a science since it is not an organized body of knowledge.

In actual use it is a dramatization of Axiom 10, wholly reactive.

In this wise the word can be used by Scientologists, and this definition can be used legally to prove Scientology isn’t Psychology.


L. RON HUBBARD




LRH:brb.rd
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 28 JULY AD 9

BPI



OUR GOALS


Well, we’re easing right into the starting line for Clear Earth.

Factually, we are getting lined up for the big push.

Clearing a large population of Earth in our lifetimes is not even improbable now the way it’s going.

By establishing responsible centres all over Earth, running HAS Co-Audits and having them train and process, by having HASI and the FC give upper level training, by holding a tight rein on off-beat activities, we’ll make it rather easily.

The exact plan of a centre is this:

1. Sign an HCO Interim Franchise.

2. Run an HAS Co-Audit and individually process people.

3. Keep a good level of activity for several months, paying regularly and correctly and thus establish “good credit” with HCO.

4. Obtain from HCO a permanent franchise.

5. Train to level of HCA/HPA in the centre.

6. Progress forward toward clearing area on this pattern.

Obtaining a permanent franchise is a big step. It doesn’t just involve signing a piece of paper.

It means an incorporation along exact lines of an exact activity in the centre’s area. It means an exact financial transaction wherein the centre can obtain enough capital to fix up or build its own quarters, to hire people, to advertise broadly.

Obtaining a permanent franchise is a big step. It means finance, promotion, success.

The exact pattern of how this is done now exists and will be put out when centres are ready for it. Special people will come and do the basic work. The advertisement copy, texts, incorporation papers, everything is being made ready right now.

We’re moving from small time to Big Time.

The HASIs and their Central Organisations will upgrade to universities. (They’ll do the certificate examination and preparation for HCO so be good to them.) In centres we’ll make the specialists. In Central Organisations we’ll make the super specialists.

Now, some questions come up. What about people who never asked for a franchise but went ahead and without helping the general push tried for a quick buck? We take them straight out of the line-up. Auditors in the future are either part of this

forward thrust or we forget them unpleasantly. We will close all centres operating without legal title to operate.

There’s too much at stake. We can’t go by halves. We’re Clearing Earth. Therefore people fall into two groups for us, those who are with us and those who aren’t. Those who aren’t will be handled by processing and where necessary, by law.

So we’re lining up now.

This is a real tough planet. It will take a really serious shove to clear it. So here’s where we start. And we start with no half-hearted measures.

We have a new motto in HCO WW. If somebody drops a ball, we drop a person.

First example was the solicitor for HASI Ltd. He dropped a ball, we dropped him. And we found a really good solicitor.

It’s a tough planet. We’d better face it and measure up to it.

But your first step is to say “I’m going to clear “ (the continent) and start telling people, naming your continent, “We’re here to clear Africa.” And moves that don’t aim that way are dispersals.

The easy part is getting people on our side. You’ve heard it said “Everybody is a Scientologist. Some just haven’t cognited yet.”

The tough part is to keep everybody pointed toward the goal.

So a Scientologist should say first to himself: “I’m going to clear “ his continent. And then tell others, “We’re here to clear “ his continent.

And then work along an agreed upon program. Sign or assist an interim franchise, be active, be OK with HCO WW, organise for and sign or assist a permanent centre or help the HASI or HCO to get rolling.

Look how far we’ve come in nine years! All right, I wasn’t going nowhere. Were


So let’s stop fooling around and get serious.

Clear Earth!

Best,

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :brb .rd
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED











[This HCO B is modified by HCO PL 20 April 1968, Franchise, in OEC Volume 6, page 278.]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 5 AUGUST 1959



HGC PROCESSES



The lack of results in HGC is probably due to the restimulative nature of Communication Processes, a phenomenon we have noted on ACCs.

Therefore, I am giving you this regimen which I want you to very thoroughly enforce so that we can regain the results and therefore income and dissemination on the HGC.

These processes were first evolved by me in 1956 to process the personnel of a large London company so that they would get uniform results and would not be telling one another different processes during work. It is therefore amongst the first packages to be “used on anybody”. You have all the data on this, I am sure. It is in the paperback on Control. Switch all pcs to this and we’ll have a happier set of auditors and better results.

Run Psychos on CCH 1, 2, 3, 4.

Switch all other cases except the acutely ill (on which you should run Communication Process to the ill body part) to S-C-S and Connectedness.

When these are flat run the pc for a while on the following Comm Process:

“From where could you communicate to a person with difficulties?”

When pc seems to be flattish on this, return to S-C-S and Connectedness.

Let’s increase those results.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH: mc.rd
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED














[This HCO B was converted from a telex sent by L. Ron Hubbard on 27 July 1959 to the D of P, London, info HCO Secretary. HCO Washington, D.C., converted the telex also, and issued it under the title, HGC Regimen, on 26 July 1959.]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 7 AUGUST 1959

All HCO Franchise Holders
All Staffs
Central Orgs
All HCOs

THE HANDLING OF COMMUNICATION PROCESSES
SOME RAPID DATA


The most important research development of recent times is the “Communication Process”. It has gradually been evolved for nine years, beginning in July of 1950 when I isolated Communication as one of the three important pivots on which all mental association turned, the other two being Affinity and Reality.

Much could be said about this evolution and the search, but the important gain remains, that to-day, I have evolved finally a single command type process that answers all requirements of all levels of clearing and violates no rules of auditing.

An auditor to-day could audit with just three packages:

1. The CCHs
2. S-C-S and Connectedness, and
3. The Communication Processes.

Using these he would certainly achieve releases and clears on all cases he could keep on the auditing roster. I must call your attention to the facts of this: we have achieved our finite goals in auditing and clearing can be done easily and broadly without kick-backs. Therefore all programs should be geared with these steps:

1. Make a clear or two.
2. Use Communication Processes, in Co-audit toward clearing.
3. Groove in administratively to clear your area.

I will shortly write a small book on Communication Processes which will give all. Meantime, the essentials of use are as follows:

1. By Communication Process is meant any process which places the preclear at Cause and uses communication as the principal command phrase.
A typical wording now standardised is, “From where could you communicate to a ?”

2. The terminals to which Communication Processes are addressed must be real terminals never significances only.

Right “From etc, to a ‘husband’ “
Wrong “From etc, to a ‘thought’ “

Right “From etc, to a ‘dog’ “
Wrong “From etc, to a ‘mistake’ “

3. All terminals employed in the command should be generalised. Don’t peg pc to one lifetime with a proper name. Always use a generalised name since Communication Processes span lives too fast to be limited too much.

Right “From etc, to a ‘husband’ “
Wrong “From etc, to ‘Bill’ “
Wrong “From etc, to ‘your husband’ “

If you isolate Bill as the terminal that needs running, find out what Bill is to the pc. Use what the pc describes Bill to be or what rises on the meter. Bill will turn out to be ‘a husband’ or ‘a friend’ or ‘a mechanic’ or some generalised terminal. He is never run as ‘Bill’, as that pegs pc to one life and rarely clears Bill whereas the generalised terminal does clear Bill.

4. Run a Communication Process more or less muzzled. The smoother, the more confident, the more experienced the auditor, the less muzzle is needed. The process wins totally muzzled so err in the direction of more muzzle, not less.

5. A Communication Process is flat when none of that class of terminal produces change or a comm lag or a cyclic aspect on the time track. If the pc no longer goes into past on a continuous long run, the process is flat.

6. Use a meter. This alone tells you when a terminal is really flat. This alone diagnoses a terminal properly. A good electrometer can save you three hours in every five. Lack of meters means lack of clears. Only a meter keeps the auditor from clearing the auditor’s buttons out of the preclear. Only a meter keeps processes from being left unflat. Only a meter can show when a terminal is clear or a preclear is clear. Use a meter if you want to clear people. Insist on your auditor using a meter if you want to get clear.

7. Know meter behaviour. There’s a lot of data on this. But I’ve recently found a new one.

A terminal needs to be run if it drops and then when ignored any further questioning causes a needle to rise only.
The right terminal found again sticks the needle and stops the rise.

If a terminal is left unflat (if it is run and then dropped before it is flat), the needle in future sessions will only rise.

A steadily rising needle is by definition then the symptom of an abandoned terminal. That terminal must be found again. If found it will stop the rise of the needle. It must then be run and flattened. This is why some cases bog down and this is how it is remedied.

A further discovery is that a terminal clears on the meter just like a pc clears on a meter. Example—an unclear person doesn’t read steadily at Male or Female Clear reading, but goes above or below that reading and the reading changes. Similarly, a terminal found on a pc reads above or below Male or Female Clear reading. If the terminal is run by a communication process it makes the tone arm read higher or lower than Male or Female Clear. The running of the terminal changes the tone arm position, making it rise and fall, rise and fall. The rises of the tone arm get easier, the falls more rapid until at last the tone arm does not rise or fall but sits on Male or Female Clear, depending on the sex of the pc (not the terminal). The more flexible the tone arm, the looser the needle.

If that’s Greek to you, better grab plane or train to a Central Org and study the E-Meter because you won’t make any clears until you do.

8. A preclear is mest clear when no terminal selected is, when run by a Communication Process, productive of variation of the tone arm from Male or Female Clear reading. A preclear is theta clear when he can handle engrams without producing a change from clear reading.

9. Cases do not improve if they are in a victim valence as they self invalidate between sessions. Communication Process S2 or S22 must be run to remedy this.

10. If an assist is done by a Communication Process, the terminal chosen (usually a body part) must be flattened fully (see 7 above) before the case can be expected to move again on a new terminal.

11. When an auditor finds a steadily climbing needle on a pc new to him but not auditing, he must suspect that a terminal has been run but isn’t flat. He should query past auditing or living until he finds a terminal which stops the rise. He then runs this flat before he goes on.

12. Old pcs benefit from a Communication Process using “an auditor” as a

terminal to clear off the case. This is done when the auditor fails with 11 above.

13. Old auditors can be smoothed out as cases by running a Communication Process on “an auditor” and “a preclear”. Run each flat.

14. In general run any terminal selected back down until the tone arm reads Male or Female Clear stably for many commands and pc is no longer cycling on track with that terminal.

15. Process illnesses with Communication Processes if the illness is in the way of the session. Assess by finding out what part of body pc considers ill. Run what he says. Run it in one or several sessions until that part reads Clear on the tone arm.


These are some of the rules above of Communication Processes.

A few cautions however should be emphasised.

Don’t Self Audit with a Communication Process. Use a touch assist on body or room instead.

Don’t clip a terminal into action on a case and leave it unflat. Flatten it in one or many sessions instead or make sure you tell the next auditor that it is unflat.

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

Communication Processes are so simple. They are apparently innocent and charming. They are in actuality strong enough to move a whole bank. So they should be handled with accuracy and the same respect you’d give 90% dynamite.

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

Note to HCO Secs, D of Ps and Assoc Secs and heads of Organizations: It would be well worth your while to study this bulletin thoroughly, then have your people study it and take an examination on it.

Those who can’t pass it eventually shouldn’t be handling paying preclears until well audited and retrained for we have no passing fancy here in Communication Processes and we use in them the cream of everything in techniques and procedure we have learned in nine years.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :brb .cden
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 12 AUGUST 1959

HCO Franchise Holders
HCO Offices
Central Orgs
MA

A SECOND TYPE OF FRANCHISE


A second and different type of HCO Franchise is now available in addition to the HCO HAS Co-Audit Franchise.

The new type is the HCO Processing Franchise. It permits an individual auditor in practice to receive immediate bulletins, discounts, and tests, and requires that he remit 10% of his income from Dianetics and Scientology to HCO WW. This permits the individual to run an individual practice or a guidance center without running an HAS Co-Audit.

THIS DOES NOT MEAN WE ARE ABANDONING HAS CO-AUDITS. These are the backbone.

One auditor or several may have such an HCO Processing Franchise but if more than one are considered under such a Franchise, the processing earnings of the group are considered collectively.

This makes two types of Franchise. The first is the HCO HAS Co-Audit Franchise which permits group processing, the running of an HAS Co-Audit, the processing of individuals, and, eventually, training to professional level. The second is the HCO Processing Franchise where individual processing only would be done.

In the case of the HCO HAS Co-Audit Franchise HCO is going to do all it can to help set the Franchise holder up on a permanent basis when he is proved out, helping to establish proper finance, quarters, publications and organizational assistance.

In the case of an HCO Franchise like the first type, we will issue now only an interim Franchise. When it is made permanent after due test of the holder by his use of it, HCO will assist the holder to obtain proper finance, processing quarters and organizational assistance for the activity of individual processing in a guidance center.

There will be a third type some day but it is not available now. This will be an HCO Organizational Franchise where the individual works “outside” Scientology organizations to bring order into larger non-Scientology activities in which he will be helped by HCO as a special activity.

Persons now holding HCO HAS Co-Audit Franchises who wish to exchange their Franchise for an individual processing Franchise may do so. Where the person is not running an HAS Co-Audit and sees no immediate chance of starting one, he is liable to cancellation of Franchise. This offers such a person the right to remain a Franchise holder even though he is only processing individually.

Out of these enfranchised guidance centers we hope will grow clinics, hospitals and sanitariums to cover that hole in the society now apparent. The very unable will need such assistance and we are here providing for it in the distant future.

An HAS Co-Audit activity is basically more important and more immediately needed, but there are those in the society who are not up to co-auditing and we must also remember them.

If you transfer now you do however abandon your right to start an HAS Co-Audit and get HAS Certificates for your group. And with either Franchise you owe HCO 10% of all you make from Dianetics and Scientology. The main advantage of transfer is apparent only in the fact that you won’t lose your Franchise rights if you are not now running an HAS Co-Audit and don’t intend to. For all inactive Franchises will be cancelled within the next 30 days.


NEWS BULLETINS

HCO WW took over in the U.S. because of a previous randomness in getting Franchise holders started and serviced. Some of the randomness is still about. Some bulletins, unseen by HCO WW before issue, have been sent out from several points in the U.S. which are not factual.

The following information is correct:

All 10%s from Franchise holders should be sent to HCO WW only, made out to HCO WW and airmailed to HCO WW Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex, U.K.

HCO 10%s from Central Organizations in the U.S. are sent to “L. Ron Hubbard, Founder”, which is a special division of HCO.

Contributions for research are sent to HCO WW made payable to the Scientology Research and Investigation Fund.

These items cancel “HCO Policy Letter of July 22nd” mailed from Washington.

Other bulletins mailed inside the U.S. to U.S. Franchise holders requesting 10%s to be sent to L.A. should be disregarded as unauthorized.

Stable Datum: If it’s postmarked HCO WW in the U.K. it’s authentic, otherwise, ignore it.

We will bring order yet. You can assist us by not being dismayed at disorder. When you start to introduce order into anything disorder shows up as the second postulate and blows off. Therefore our efforts to bring order in the society or any part of it will be productive of disorder for a short while every time. The trick is to keep on bringing order and soon the disorder is gone and you have orderly activity remaining. But if you hate disorder, and fight disorder only don’t ever try to bring any order to anything for the resulting disorder will drive you half mad. Only if you can ignore disorder and can understand this principle, can you have a working world—or a working operation, for that matter.


ADAMS QUITS

The problems of HAS Co-Audit Franchises have evidently gotten to Nile Adams. A few days ago, when I refused to permit him to overtax Franchise holders, he quit in Washington. His protest was against my refusal to let Franchise holders be made to pay 25% of their gross income for the privilege of being financed. The absolute maximum gross that a Scientology organization can lose to other activities and still live is 18%. A high but workable top is 15% of gross. But 25% gross is unthinkable.

If you become big enough to require as a Franchise holder an HCO office of your own for liaison it will probably cost another 5% of your gross, but you will get all its services and save it on other payroll. But you will never be required to pay extravagant gross percentages while I can still stamp on toes and zap skulls.

Nile has been ordered to 500 hours of processing at his own expense for breaking

the Code of a Scientologist flagrantly in public for he really got mad. That he did probably shows he was already under strain. So don’t be too mad at him. He’s a good promoter and when he’s seen the elephant he’ll be back in our ranks again. All he has to learn is to work for us also and he’ll learn that.

Don G. Purcell, by the way, the millionnaire who tried to seize Dianetics in 1951, died last month after a long illness, at the Mayo (MD type) Clinic. As in the case of the late Dr. Joseph Winter, author of much critical literature against Dianetics, Auditors refused to audit Purcell according to my reports.


CABLE, DON’T PHONE

We are so few at HCO WW and covering so many fronts that we cannot accept the phone calls that keep coming in. In the first place a trans-atlantic call takes usually an hour or two of waiting by one of us before it is fully connected. Such calls have taken 12 hrs to complete. And we have missed completion so often after such wasted time and have had such bad inaudible connections even with domestic calls in England, that it’s no phone.

Use telegrams and cables instead, they’re faster. They have a memory. We can handle them without missing data not put down after a phone call.

In the Manor staff office we have a Telex. That’s a teletype like in the telegraph office. About five minutes after you file your telegram or cable it comes complete and accurate out of our Telex, typed with copies. These don’t get lost. They get instant attention from the Communication guard.

When a small group such as ours at HCO WW are handling indirectly several hundred thousand people, and are handling directly, at any given time, a few thousand and intimately a few hundred scattered all over Earth, we have to have a Communication discipline to get anything done. You’re part of that Comm system, so if you want something done, be brief, to the point, and use:

Airmail—Airletters—Cables—Telegrams.

And you’ll be heard fast.

Be pointless, use phones, come in person, and you won’t be heard.

You are much closer to HCO WW at your letter box or the telegraph office than you would be standing at the Manor’s front door. We’re proud of our Comm system. Use it!

RESEARCH NOTE

We are making fine progress with clearing. And we have three buttons we want flat on everybody in Scientology. The first is VICTIM. The second is MONEY. And the third—well—we’ll let you know when the first two are flat on you. The auditing command is “From where could you communicate to a Victim?” and it’s flat when the E-Meter tone arm reads clear for your sex and stays at that reading on the command. The second is “From where could you communicate to money?”, and when the tone arm reads clear for your sex and stays there, you’ll not only be well along, you’ll be able to have the stuff.

And now if no past emergencies spring up, I can get on with some other writing. And any day now, I may get some sleep.

LRH:brb.rd
Copyright © 1959 Best,
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED RON

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 13 AUGUST 1959
CenO
Info D of Ts

SUGGESTED HCA COURSE SCHEDULE


The following schedule for the HCA Course is being used in the Academy at Washington, DC. This is a good schedule. It is sent out as data only and has no command value.

HUBBARD PROFESSIONAL/CERTIFIED AUDITOR COURSE

Purpose: To train an auditor able to Theta Clear.

Design: The length is 8 weeks. Data and practical information are emphasized. The Hubbard Electrometer is used and is taught to the student well. There is one week of Comm Course, one week of Upper Indoc, six weeks of Theory and Practice. Repeats on Comm Course/Upper Indoc are reserved for slow students. Comm Course and Upper Indoc are the same as in SED165. Theory and Practice are as follows:

Week A
ARC Tone Scale
Mon. Lecture: Definition of Theta Clear.
Process: ARC Straight Wire.
Tue. Lecture: The Hubbard Electrometer and how to set it up to read the PC. Theta Clear, Release, Mest Clear.
Process: None.
Wed. Lecture: Assessments, with and without E-Meter.
Process: Selected Persons O-W Straight Wire.
Thur. Lecture: Assessments with E-Meter. Recapitulation of various readings. Obnosis of case.
Process: Sel. P. O-W SW.
Fri. Lecture: Assessments with E-Meter. Willingness to read what is there to be read.
Process: Op. Proc. By Dup.

All auditing muzzled. All assessments done by instructor(s). Run only current life
terminals on Sel. Pers. O-W SW.

Week B

Mon. Lecture: CCH 1: use of CCHs in psychotic and Stage 4 cases.
Process: same.
Tue. Lecture: Present time problems: definition and processes usable. Using E- Meter to locate.
Process: CCH 2.
Wed. Lecture: CCH 3: Reality Scale.
Process: same.
Thur. Lecture: CCH 4: Expanded Know-Mystery Scale.
Process: same.
Fri. Lecture: CCH 1-4: use of this procedure to bring low-level cases up to being auditable on E-Metered processes. Repeat definition of Clear. Repeat E-Meter readings.
Process: same.

All auditing muzzled. All assessments done by instructors. Students check assessments

at beginning of session, advise instructor if terminal needs changing, also if terminal
runs flat during session. Turn PCs loose into prior life terminals as rapidly as current
life terminals flattened, and all students must be running at least one whole track
terminal by Thursday, regardless of whether current life terminals all flat or not.

Week C

Mon. Lecture: Factual Havingness: Effect Scale.
Process: Fac. Hav.
Tue. Lecture: 3rd Rail: ARC Tone Scale (repeat).
Process: same.
Wed. Lecture: Present time problems: 8 dynamics.
Process: On PTPs.
Thur. Lecture: Effect Scale (repeat): Psycho, Neurotic, “Normal”, Release, Mest Clear, Theta Clear, OT (case levels).
Process: none.
Fri. Lecture: Scale of Confront: Types of Auditing.
Process: none.

All auditing muzzled. Assessments done by students and checked by instructor(s).

Week D

Mon. Lecture: Facsimiles.
Process: Mock up a picture for which you . . . responsible.
Tue. Lecture: Facsimiles—types of.
Process: Experience-reexperience process.
Wed. Lecture: Flows-ridges-dispersals.
Process: ARC Break SW.
Thur. Lecture: Be-do-have.
Process: Not-is SW.
Fri. Lecture: Scales in relation to ARC tone scale: Universes/Valences.
Process: Track-scouting.

No muzzled auditing. All formal. Track-scouting, pinning dates. No repetitive process.

Week E

Mon. Lecture: The engram: Overt-Motivator Sequence: Deds and Dedexes. What is an “incident”.
Process: Formula 10.
Tue. Lecture: Locks, Secondaries: Gradient Scales.
Process: Formula 10.
Wed. Lecture: The creation of a Theta Clear: OT as a speculative goal for a Theta Clear.
Process: Formula 10.
Thur. Lecture: Redefinition of Theta Clear: why comparison with other states not really possible except as a subjective exp.
Process: Formula 10.
Fri. Lecture: Type of auditors required for creation of different states of beingness: why creation of Theta Clear and OT require courage and stamina. The “Monster”.

All formal auditing on Formula 10. All assessments done by students. Supervised by instructor(s) only, intervention by instructor only where absolutely necessary.

Week F

Mon. Lecture: Basic-basic: The Rock. Gradient scale of incidents to Rock.
Process: Formula 10.
Tue. Lecture: Gradient scale of creation of Theta Clear.

Week F, contd

Process: Formula 10. Wed. Lecture: Stabilizing and “educating” the Theta Clear—more on “The Monster”.
Process: Formula 10. Thur. Lecture: Processes usable after Theta Clear achieved: OT as a goal: def. of OT.
Process: Formula 10. Fri. Lecture: Audlting programs, from PE course to individual Theta Clearing and OT.
Process: Formula 10.

All formal auditing on Formula 10, making sure every student gets most of the week on the “one-shot OT” process (at least three days). Strict attention to good discipline and control of session. ARC and “in-sessionness” to be superlative.

WRITTEN DATA

A student package should be issued to each student. This should contain:

Student rules and regs.
Instructor’s Code.
A sheet of definitions.
A list of scales. “Ability” 80 (or equivalent in country).
A copy of the E-Meter handbook (when available).
Student hat (when issued).
Mimeo sheet of end-of-course examination and other requirements.
Ministerial requirements.
PAB 114.
Copy of HCO B on PE/HAS Co-Audit by PE (HCO) Dir WW.
A blank HCO Franchise Form.

TIME SCHEDULE

9:00 — 10:00 Lecture and process of the day
10:00 — 10:15 Break
10:15 — 12:30 Session A
12:30 — 1:30 Lunch
1:30 — 3:45 Session B
3:45 — 4:00 Break
4:00 — 5:00 LRH Tape
5:00 — 5:30 Question and answer period.

STUDENTS ENTERING FROM UPPER INDOC

The Director of Training must so arrange matters that students as closely follow the gradient scale of training here described as possible. Students may enter Weeks A-C anywhere. Weeks D-F are a specific gradient scale and may only be entered into from an earlier Theory & Practice week. If two weeks of Th. & Practice must be run concurrently, adjust schedule accordingly and keep students separated.

FOOTNOTE

The datum about cases not being worried about still applies, but if the course is run well, there should be plenty of Releases and some Theta Clears graduating.

John Fudge
(D of T, Washington, D.C.)
Copyright ©1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 13 AUGUST 1959

UK Franchise Holders

FRANCHISE HOLDERS



Recent HCO Franchise Holder Bulletins sent out by HCO WW have been intended in the main for the United States. They have been sent by courtesy to Franchise Holders in the UK. The data applies equally.

We have not so far attempted very much for the UK Franchise Holder and there is a great deal of ground work to be done. The US went through all this many months ago and have just now completed their first instruction courses in Washington where most Franchise Holders were carefully trained to improve their already climbing successes.

US Franchise income is not yet high, amounting to an overall several thousand dollars a week only. But they have not yet had six months to get into the swing of it. When the class attendees return home from Washington where they have been since July 1, a steady acceleration can be expected.

1. The UK Franchise Holder has a lot of groundwork to do. First in the UK we have to learn to work better as a team.
2. UK Franchise Holders will have to get started on programs of co-auditing to clear up the key buttons of VICTIM, MONEY and a third one to be named later. HASI London staff is of course well along on this route.

HCO WW is trying to bring the British Scientologist stability and security and this will be hard to do until his or her barriers on the subject are cleared up. We have no doubt of being able to bring security and stability to the British Scientologist and our first job is to get him or her to stand long enough to receive it. Hence the co-auditing program.

If we want a better world we’ll have to make it better—nobody else seems to be trying to do anything but hold the status quo of misery. And if a better world is to be built, it will be built because we could pay our way.

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

HAS Co-Audit is in its infancy in the UK. Even in South Africa and Australia the program is far more advanced. But this is because these areas have had great co-operation from HCO. In the very near future HCO WW will begin to work with the problems of the UK Franchise Holder.

Meanwhile, it would be a good idea to get one-up personally by getting Process S 2 flattened and then you will be ready for a further step.

We appreciate your patience. It will be suitably rewarded.


L. RON HUBBARD



LRH:brb.rd
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 19 AUGUST 1959

BPI



HAS CO-AUDIT—FINDING TERMINALS


If the instructor switches around terminals endlessly on a HAS Co-audit course, then you have nothing but rising needles left on these cases. It is necessary to get the very first terminal that dropped on the pc and convert it to a general form and run that terminal with a Communication Process until the terminal is again reading on the tone arm at male or female clear (depending on the sex of the pc, not the terminal) and stays there.

This is why you don’t fill up the Co-audit.

Regimen on this is find the first thing that dropped on the pc then state it in a general term—make sure it drops. Example: pc’s first assessment was on his wife. Find it again and see if it stops the needle rising; if it does, run: “From where could you communicate to a wife?” Note that it is a wife, not his wife. If the needle dropped the first time he was ever assessed on Bill, we have to find out what Bill is and run it.

On new enrollees in the Co-audit, take a body part only. A body part is then run on the Communication Process, “From where could you communicate to a (name of body part)”.

This is only considered flat when no matter what or how many questions are asked about that body part, it registers on the tone arm of the meter at male or female clear, whichever the pc is. Only then can you go on to a new process.

Communication Processes look so simple. They are in reality terribly tricky and terribly effective.

Pick the right body part on the pc and he’ll stay in the Co-audit until he’s clear on that part, that’s for sure.

When you see a pc getting fouled up by lousy Co-audit handling you are losing a student and, I am willing to confirm, gaining a victim computation.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :brb.cden
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 19 AUGUST 1959


BPI



TO A ROMAN CATHOLIC


In Ireland, where we had an office for some years, the problem of processing persons of the Catholic faith was thoroughly worked out and the Church did not consider itself interested in the matter of auditing Roman Catholics and did not restrain any from being audited when Roman Catholics asked permission to be. Indeed Scientology is closer to the “Faculty Psychology” of the Church in the sixteenth century than modern psychology is. Modern psychology is not accepted by the Church because it considers man to be an animal with no soul. Scientology not only accepts but can prove than man does have a soul. Saint Thomas Aquinas is an early forerunner of Scientology. Scientology is not an heretic religion and demands no belief or faith and thus is not in conflict with faith. Several monsignors of the Church have been interested in Scientology and have approved of our activities. The late Pope Pius was an enemy of psychoanalysis but was heard to express a neutral attitude toward Scientology. He once assisted us in handling a government matter in the United States.

All that processing requires is that you obtain a better reality on your environment and all its drills are aimed at this. Thus it has no conflict.

Just as your religion would not forbid you to obtain a better command over a typewriter, so it could not be expected to forbid you to obtain a better command over your office, staff, or home. There is no conflict here.

It is interesting that in nearly ten years of public presence, the materialistic sciences have often rapped at Scientology (Communism is a violent foe of ours) but never once in any country including Ireland has the Roman Catholic Church raised its voice against us.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH: brb.cden
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 27 AUGUST 1959
BPI


GROWTH WITH COMPETENCE


There is a great deal of history to the development and dissemination of Dianetics and Scientology. And it has not been without its severe lessons.

One of the first vows I made, in L.A. in the fall of 1950, was based on the assumption that “it will go as far as it works”, and I vowed to make it work not just for the few but for the many and not just in expert hands but for the tyro as well. Well, that vow has been achieved.

The HAS Co-Audit course taught in Washington, D.C., by Nibs, Dick, Jan and Nina West has made Mest Clears using only muzzled co-auditing.

So it is working for the many in the hands of the relatively unskilled group co-auditor.

But there were other things learned in this history. And amongst them was the lesson that a Central Org can succeed as far as it can service. When a Central Org can no longer service it cannot succeed. And that goes for any individual or group in the whole of Dianetics and Scientology, and on these the sun never sets.

Our problem then, now, is to be able to service as far as we go. We are in the possession of powerful tools. We have relatively good literature and will soon have better. We can promise a great deal and point proudly to records of things we have done. We can say with truth that we have done more than fifty thousand years of thinking man could do in understanding and assisting the human being. We can command a very wide sphere of credit for first discoveries. We can promise a great many things on the basis of having delivered them. BUT CAN WE SERVICE THIS WELL AS A GROUP?

I get some very fine reports from HAS Co-Audits throughout the world. But amongst these reports there are a few failures, a few resistive cases. I could audit them, a great many Scientologists could audit them and push them through. BUT the fact remains that there are auditors here and there who cannot.

“Why?” I asked the HCO Area Secretary London the other night on telex—”Low ARC,” she replied. And this apparently explained two case failures by field auditors.

And not very long ago when we had a bad code break with a pc in the field, the Ethics Committee suspended the auditor for a few days and then told him he could be reinstated but would have to sign a paper pledging to obey the Auditor’s Code and HE REFUSED TO SIGN IT. Why? Because he had “gotten results with invalidating pcs too often”, but the truth is he hadn’t gotten good results and the tests showed it so he was wrong. But why wouldn’t he sign the Auditor’s Code?

These of course are isolated things BUT AT THIS PRESENT INSTANT THEY EXIST.

Low ARC, the HCO Area Sec London said.

Well, what’s this low ARC doing at this stage of the game? How come this late in the business does an auditor get discovered who doesn’t believe in the Auditor’s Code? Why do individuals and groups still flub on occasion?

I know that all these people basically mean well. I would stake my life on their humanity and decency. And have. But we’re in something that’s got to go all the way

and the basic lessons contain this one, an Organisation will succeed as far as it can service.

And if groups are still flubbing service let alone Administration, then they aren’t going to go very far.

Now does this mean there must be more training?

No.

There will always have to be training but this won’t entirely solve this one.

“Low ARC,” the HCO Area Secretary London said. What did she mean by that? She meant basically that these auditors somehow or other weren’t going to make a pc well. They didn’t care enough about that pc to do the job.

The button which causes such things is VICTIM. This is the central button of the Overt Act-Motivator Sequence. Some auditor, perhaps one that is ordinarily quite good, gets a restim. He keys in something not from what the pc said for this couldn’t aberrate anyone. He gets a restim between sessions on the Overt Act-Motivator Sequence, and he comes back into session with the VICTIM button in full flare. And what does he do? Almost beyond his control he flubs. He makes a victim out of his pc. Why? Because that’s the exact action which occurs when an Overt Act-Motivator Sequence is triggered.

Low ARC. The whole answer to it is contained in VICTIM. The auditor feels that the pc deserves what he gets for a moment. He rationalises it all out—but he treated the pc as a victim. A dropped ashtray, a stupid auditor remark, an invalidation of a cognition. . . however the auditor flubs, he is treating the pc as a victim, and the pc victimised responds with bared engrams.

Well, true enough a lot of pcs ARC break easily because they are really being fully fledged victims, and all the auditor has to do is slightly hint toward victimising in the pc’s estimation and bang, out goes the session. But an auditor who ISN’T really treating the pc as his victim can pull the pc through. The auditor who is keyed in by this victim thing drops all the cans in the rack and flubs but grandly.

All this has been a big mystery previously. It’s understood now and thoroughly. And further, we’ve the processes that can do something about it.

The right way to audit this victim item out from scratch is with a Comm Process. Handling the whole case it is necessary in most instances to find a specific dropping terminal on the pc, perhaps even more than one, convert it into a generalised form and flatten it until it reads as a button right at the clear reading of the pc’s sex. When this has been worked over and done, it is usually safe to do a plunge into this victim thing. Given the pc in session—given the pc really answering the auditing question, then we can handle the Overt Act-Motivator Sequence with the Comm Process, “From where could you communicate to a victim?” The process is actually a one-shot OT Process.

Don’t make the mistake of running a pc who figure-figures his answers or gives philosophic type answers on a Comm Process without actually making him do it, do it, do it.

There are cases around that have been “audited” for years who have never really done a process. This can be whipped by a Comm Process done with paper and pencil. You locate the terminal with an E-Meter and then you lay the instrument aside, give the pc a sheaf of paper and a pencil, and every time he answers your auditing question, you have him or her draw the answer on the paper. As the Comm Process exceeds language, it can be easily checked. Even if the pc seems to be having some success but could succeed faster you can boost it along with the “paper trick” as this is called. So even the people who couldn’t be trusted with a thinkingness process can be run on a Comm Process using the paper trick.

All right. That’s what makes an auditor not flub, and it keeps him from being a burden to himself and others as a person too. It’s a cyclone of a process as the experienced person can tell you.

And it prevents the flubbing of service in an Organisation.

Scientologists who can’t stand the sight of money or who can’t seem to get pcs are just having a fine old time being in some way or another, a victim. So let’s face this reality and understand clearly that we can guarantee our successes as individuals and Organisations by getting bell clear on victim.

Then we can give service. And then an Organisation can give service. Then it’s safe to make promises. And we don’t get Administration chopped up. And it’s safe and successful to have an Organisation set up and financed and running on the mission of clearing Earth.

Of course we have to go right on with our jobs whether victim is flat or leaping about like a Texas thermometer. Of course we have to go right on organising and planning and making the future real. We can’t just quit and say well, when we all get to be clear then we’ll go-man-go. We can’t afford that.

But this time be warned. We know that with our Organisations and Comm lines and plans we’re going to go successfully or not straight up the line. Let’s see this one coming though and not fly into the thunderhead blind. Let’s understand that staffs and individual Scientologists are going to goof just as long as the victim button is not flat and that it’s going to take quite a while to get it all flat.

People are always preparing for rainy days and failures. Well, let’s prepare for success. If we get much bigger nobody will be able to handle anything unless we get smooth operation, smooth procurement, efficient good looking HAS Co-Audit units, successful case handling everywhere. We won’t be able to live in a climate of 75% success and 25% failure. We won’t be able to administer with people here and there on our lines who are bound and determined to be victims and to appoint us their executioners.

We’re moving right up to the Big Win and we should be able to handle it without going half round the bend patching up the flubs made by the victim impulse that comes on when we’re restimmed or exhausted. Let’s win all the way this time and keep it won..

You see, you can’t ever get a victim valence to win. It’s a plain lesson to him, and he believes it, fallacious though it is, that when somebody wins there is always a loser and that winning “is always an overt act to somebody”. To prevent losers, our victim doesn’t win. He quits instead.

Thus there can be no constant and safe win until we have amongst us whipped our first big hurdle. No amount of planning, writing and care, no amount of education can overcome this impulse. We already know it can only be done by auditing. So let’s clear up this thing, let’s get the auditing, let’s make sure that when we set up something to go none of us will say, “Oh-oh, that’s a win! Mustn’t! Mustn’t!” and start tearing the whole thing down.

Before we get too far along this road let’s make sure we stay winners after we’ve won by making sure that none among us will go victim on us and cut our throats with the best intentions in the world.

Let’s define Scientologists as “People who aren’t Victims”, and really get the show on the road.


LRH:brb.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 SEPTEMBER AD 9
All U.S. Franchise
Holders from Ts Hill
All other Franchise
Holders via Central Orgs
All Central Orgs

WHY “VICTIM” WORKS AS A PROCESS



We all should have heard of the Overt Act-Motivator Sequence. If we have not we should review “The History of Man”.

The highest level of third dynamic activity and the earliest instant of it is and was communication. Before communication (in one form or another) there was only native state. Obviously you are not going to run out native state—leave that to the Psychiatrists and Politicians. Therefore the earliest button susceptible of aberration was apparently communication.

However, communication itself is not aberrative. Only the misuse and withhold of communication is aberrative. One received his first communication foul-up when he postulated “somebody can mess up my postulates”, when he granted that, right, then he or she had it thereafter.

The idea that communication could be harmful apparently came in about this point. And the obvious conclusion that one could injure with communication must have followed shortly after. That one could be injured and that one could injure was established by “example”. Here began the game of “victim”.

Death is just one of the varied forms of the game of victim. That one could be killed by the communication words or missiles of another is just an extreme form of the game.

That this was a game and that it was played out by Thetan “B” pretending that he had been injured so Thetan “A” would further withhold his postulates, has all been lost in the depths of the Reactive Mind. Death isn’t a game anymore. Not even injury is a game. We know how seriously these things are now regarded and how utterly caved-in and lost Thetans have been for a very, very long time.

Only with Scientology have we come back to the straight of it. And the straight of it is that one cannot be injured until he has postulated that Thetans can be injured and, by example of Thetans pretending to be injured, has come to the point of himself not only consenting to be injured but actually getting torn to shreds.

The basic postulate of injury or death (or harmful communication) is best summed up by “victim”.

To restrain others one sets an example as a victim. It might be said that this is a last ditch way of being cause. On that thin idea rests all the disease and death, all the agony and travail of man. It is almost the bottom point of the Reactive Mind.

In any Overt Act-Motivator Sequence there is a villain and a victim. If the auditor were to choose and run the “villain” then he would be violating the basic definition of operating thetan which is “To be willing and knowing cause over life, matter, energy, space and time”, and would be processing the pc at effect point. The basic definition of victim must then be, as our HCO Staff Auditor pointed out, unwilling and unknowing effect of life, matter, energy, space and time. Therefore, to keep the pc at cause we have no choice but to process him in such a way as to face him up to “victim”.

Naturally this process is not going to run on the following cases until they are up to it:

1. A person who cannot conceive of ever having done anything bad to anybody or anything (“old sweetness and light”).

2. A person who has a heavy present time problem (PTP).

3. A person who has had a bad ARC break with the auditor (who conceives the auditor has made him into a victim of bad processing or code breaks).

4. A person who needs to have several buttons cleared away which are pressing and making his present time very bad; and

5. A person who simply fogs out hour after hour on general comm processes and needs to have lighter buttons run until he can handle comm processes.

With these above five things cared for, then a pc should be able to run easily if lengthily on “From where could you communicate to a victim?”

During the run on the process all manner of chains come into view. Monitoring the type of chain or chasing down some sideline should be avoided thoroughly especially while running “victim”. The pc is all too willing to duck and dodge and an auditor who Qs and As (changes the process just because the pc changed or wandered) had better go back to the Academy for a spell or get his own case gone over at the HGC.

Pcs have gone into convulsions, screaming fits and many other manifestations while running “victim”. Of course they would, since they are dramatizing what they have done to others and are wearing the engram in full. But it is easier to run victim on the pc than to run engrams on him as such for he can pull out of “victim” engrams easily with a comm process.

A large percentage of pcs will not recover and stay recovered until “victim” has been run and flattened. This is due to their using auditing to be “victims” of. This is the heart of the old “service facsimile”. This is why they have service facsimiles. So they can be victims.

The pc, while running victim, goes rapidly back and forth from one valence to another. He goes through all the various phenomena of engrams, locks and secondaries and in spite of the violence of the process, very often would rather run victim than anything else.

But, as above, beware of trying to run this on somebody who will not ever admit having done something or anything to anybody. This is the figure-figure case. The difficulty here is that the person cannot face any terminal subjectively for fear of having ruined it or for fear of ruining it. Therefore—and watch this carefully—he does not do the comm process. Such a person needs a comm process run on very particularized terminals done in a general form: “From where could you communicate to a dog” or anything else that drops. But if this is very necessary then run the person on the paper trick even with the lighter terminals. Make him draw each answer. Cases that have never, never moved before in hundreds of hours of auditing, get shot down in flames with the paper trick.

While running victim, the auditor should not use “how could you communicate” as an interjected command. It’s a different process. If the auditor is having trouble he should have run a lighter terminal. One of the most effective light terminals and one of the best comm processes particularly for the HAS Co-Audit is a body part. One asks the pc if he has ever had trouble with any part of his or her body and when the answer is given, run body part named in a generalized form such as “From where could you communicate to a leg?”


From all the results I’ve been looking over lately, it would seem that the most broadly workable form of the comm process is a body part as above or “a body”. After all, the pc IS in a body. Doing the comm process on mest before a body part and the body are run, seems to be a little rough on the pc (this is part of a system called universe processes), as the pc himself as a Thetan is generally mest shy.

Auditing body parts, however, has its lighter moments. At the last congress I gave, the body part given by the pc as a part of the body with which he had had trouble, when run, didn’t do a thing for the pc. Surprised auditors and instructors were not long in finding out why—the pc’s body part had been run and flattened years ago by older processes and didn’t have a twitch left in it. This stuff’s been working for a long time you know.

Well, that’s the way it is. A person doesn’t get sick or injured unless he’s cast himself in the role of victim by reason of the game and his Overt Acts. And if you want somebody to cease to be a disease prone (new term there) and get up and do things and be bright and not flub and to win win win, get him up to a point where he can run victim with a comm process and from there on flatten the living daylights out of it.

When is victim flat? When the tone arm of the Hubbard Electrometer reads consistently at the clear reading for the pc no matter how many more auditing questions are asked about victims. Every terminal you run should be run until the tone arm reads male clear (12,500 ohms) for a man, and female clear (5,000 ohms) for a woman. And this is particularly true of a victim.

Don’t start this going in an HAS Co-Audit until the pc being audited has had flattened on him easier terminals. And these may take an awful lot of hours to flatten. Victim itself is a very long run. The run is shortened by preparing the case well first so preparation time is never lost time on this process.

There is another button, in fact there are many more special buttons. It goes on up toward OT. And it isn’t run at first on a comm process, but that’s another and later story. I’ll still be around when you get ready for it.

Meanwhile, de-victimize and win!


L. RON HUBBARD





LRH:brb.cden
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 9 SEPTEMBER 1959

CenOCon



A SHORT STORY BY CABLE


On August 31 a cable was received from Lance Harrison in Perth, Australia, at HCO Saint Hill: Charged by BMA under Medical Act with having held myself out as willing to perform service usually performed by medical practitioner. I have not done this. Engaged lawyer to defend. Please advise of assistance from Organization and suggestions for further action.

HCO Saint Hill answered: LT— Sientology Melbourne— 108SH Eliz Harrison Perth arrested BMA pour out money and time to beat this deal stop you handle dispatch follows— Best—Ron—

HCO Perth—
107SH Harrison defense important phone Melbourne Best—Ron

LT— Sientology East Grinstead Re BMA Lance Harrison. Lance not enfranchised unco-operative refuses have lawyer contacted have engaged lawyer watch your interests—Erica HCO Perth

LT—
HCO Perth
If Harrison refuses further cancel certificates auditors code number fifteen inform press
Best—RON

LT—
Sientology East Grinstead—
Taking action Harrison case Lance co-operating—HCO Perth Erica

LT—
Sientology East Grinstead—
79ME Ron Harrison Perth not arrested will ignore. Best—Eliz

Ron says: Fast dispatch lines handle awkward situations.


L. RON HUBBARD







LRH:iet.rd
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 14 SEPTEMBER 1959


MA



NEWS BULLETIN



Well, here we are again back in evidence after the printing strike which brought you only mimeoed issues. For these we don’t apologize. Instead we say we’d better get busy making a world where people don’t have to scream and walk out just to get enough to live on.

Hubbard Communications Office Worldwide is now safely and securely established at Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex. Here, on half a hundred acres of lovely grounds in a mansion where we have not yet found all the bedrooms, we are handling the problems of administration and service for the world of Scientology. We are not very many here and as the sun never sets on Scientology we are very busy thetans. By means of airmail, cables, telegrams, and in particular a teletypewriter connected to London and many other points, we are able to get our work done between morning and midnight—most days—and by working weekends.

Saint Hill is badly understaffed, there being only nineteen persons in the whole place. Yet, in addition to administration lines twenty-five thousand miles long, we have ten vital projects running. The first and foremost of these is research and investigation. We are gathering all the files of Scientology research the world around and bringing it to Saint Hill to compile it. As Ron was never able to afford compiling all his works and results before, this project is of rather vast magnitude.

Included in the project list is the application of Scientology to the fifth dynamic. Ron has already created everbearing tomato plants and sweet corn plants sufficiently impressive to startle British Newspapers into front page stories about this new wizardry. The goal of the project is to reform the world food supply. But the project has already paid off to the extent of furnishing an entirely new theory of illness and a brand-new prevention of illness in human beings. Ron, helped by a full-time gardener, is doing this one in his spare time. As HCO Saint Hill personnel each wears several hats—which is to say does many jobs—they are drafted on occasion into the arduous work of recording growth and electrical experimental data.

Another project is the assembly of book stocks on Scientology throughout the world and making available to Scientologists and the public volumes that have never before been in plenty.

Saint Hill needs all manner of assistance whether culinary, electrical wiring, helping in the kitchen or the house, running mimeo machines, typing, almost anything. There will probably come a time when we have to build more buildings at Saint Hill—next year, most likely—but right now we’ve space for a lot of people. The whole staff has to vote to accept any new person and it’s a pretty good group.

But standing out on a lawn near a 250 year old towering cedar tree or walking through a pleasure garden, you’d never believe that all this activity could be going on. The apparency is that it’s so calm you could pack boxes of serenity out of it—but in actuality these are the most high voltage lines in the whole world of Scientology.

Right now at this moment of writing, the HCO Sec World is wrestling with rush despatches about a dying child in San Francisco, the HCO Communicator World is

trying to set up a new HCO Office in Australia. The treasurer is handling some financial problems in Washington and Ron has been busy reviewing some research cases and is about to inspect an experimental installation—and it is 10:40 p.m. of a Saturday night.

Saint Hill is an exciting place, its Offices filled with the chatter of communication equipment, its terraces banked with flowers, its days crammed with new things. But a stranger could be guided through most of the lakes, grounds, courts and halls and never suspect that within a short distance of him some of the most dedicated people on earth were getting the show on the road.


L. RON HUBBARD


LRH :-jh
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 25 SEPTEMBER 1959



HAS CO-AUDIT


Here are some hints on how to run Comm Processes on assessment:

The instructor asks the preclear if he is sick or well. If the pc says he is ill then the instructor says, “What part of the body would you say is ill?” Whatever the pc answers, this is then run on “From where could you communicate to a .... (generalized terminal) body part.” If the pc answers that he is well, the instructor says, “Have you ever been ill?” The pc will in general say yes. The instructor then says, “What part of your body was ill?” and runs the Comm Process on whatever the pc says.

Giving you advance scoop on a new research win it seems that the most effective and rapid clearing could take place with what we will call Universal Processes. This means running a Comm Process on Universe as follows:

“From where could you communicate to the physical Universe.”

“From where could you communicate to a body.”

“From where could you communicate to a mind.”

“From where could you communicate to a Thetan.”

This is all experimental at this stage but it would be a separation process from all universes the thetan is anxious about and should be quite successful in general use.

However I give you this not to use but to show you that we would probably win further and better if we began to steam people up on the subject of being clear and then slammed right in on whatever universe they could handle on Co-audit. I would then run Co-audit as follows:

Do the actions described above on body part and when the pc has come through that go at once on to the physical universe and then graduate him on to any body part that bangs on the meter and finally when various parts are flat get him into running the body as a general terminal.


L. RON HUBBARD





LRH :iet.rd
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 26 SEPTEMBER 1959




DATA ON CLEARING A STAFF MEMBER
AFTER SPECIFIC TERMINALS ARE FLAT WITH
OVERT-WITHHOLD STRAIGHT WIRE


“What would you like to confront?” until nominally flat.

Then:

“You make a mock-up for which you could be totally responsible,” run until Mest Clear.

Then:

“From where could you communicate to a body?” until Theta Clear.

Scout out and run Present Time Problems as they come up with:

“Invent a problem of comparable magnitude to that problem,” E-Meter check for these each session and then don’t spend the whole of every session on it. Just run it until she/he doesn’t have to do anything about it right now.

On ARC breaks run TR 5N: “What have you done to me?” “What have I done to you?” then “What have you done to me?”

Run this regimen and no other and send special weekly reports labeled “THACKER CLEAR PROJECT”.

This will get them clearer faster than any other project I know just now.


Best

Converted from Telex Comm
in Los Angeles Ron

LRH:rsh.rd
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 28 SEPTEMBER 1959

BPI




TECHNICAL NOTES ON CHILD PROCESSING


The best process in Self Analysis, for a child if he can do it, is ARC Straight Wire, in the back of the book.

The best process for children in general is some version of TR 10 (Notice that ............[Room Object] ). The variation which is best is “Feel my arm,” “Feel your arm,” “Feel my face,” “Feel your face,” etc, all done with the hand. Another version for very young children is “Where is the table?” “Where is the floor?” etc on room objects.

Injured children respond best to touch assists and to locational “Where did you fall?” “Where are you now?” etc repetitive until child is well.

For an unwilling child use short sessions (as short as two minutes) but always begin and end the session complete with goals and PT Problem query.

For a bad-off child use CCH 1 and 2; these are heroic but effective. They require a very skilled auditor and no interference.

Give the child the dignity of real sessions. And when a child flips to trying to audit you as a turnabout, let him.

Remember that if you spoil Scientology for a child with bad auditing you may close the door on the only way out he’ll have in this life.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :iet.cden
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 29 SEPTEMBER 1959

HCO Franchise Holders
Association Secretaries
HCO Secretaries





THE ORGANIZATION OF A PE FOUNDATION


Even though we haven’t the time, personnel or mest to do in many places a full dress PE Foundation, I think it would help if I described a minimum full dress PE.

A PE Foundation is itself but it is also, in a Central Org, one of the six departments. In either case, whether done as an HAS Co-audit Franchise or as a Central Org Department, it has the same staff and routine, handles the same factors and confronts the same problems.

A PE Foundation is a programmed drill calculated to introduce people to Scientology and to bring their cases up to a high level of reality both on Scientology and on life. This is best accomplished not by giving them samples and bits and trying to lead them into auditing but by giving them gen and serious results as heavily and rapidly as possible. A PE Foundation in its attitude goes for broke on the newcomers, builds up their interest with lectures and knocks their cases apart with Comm Course and Upper Indoc.

There are basically three divisions to a PE Foundation; the first of these is the free course; it is the purpose of this course to:

Inform and interest by showing the people that this applies to them and is a duplicate of their own actions and thinkingness. Only then does Scientology communicate. Don’t overwhelm—penetrate. Show them that this is how they think, not how we think they think. Be factually explicit about it, talk with certainty and not with apologies.

A PE Course curriculum should now consist of a mixture of drills and lectures. The first evening lecture should talk about definitions in life as found in Scientology. The dynamic principle of existence, the eight dynamics, a preview of the next evening’s lecture should be given, and this lecture should consist of a very rapid survey of Comm Course TRs Zero and One and should sail in the second hour into the ARC triangle, and all data for the rest of the week used in lectures should consist of ARC triangle data taking up the whole subject and one corner at a time. The remainder of the week previews TRs Two and Three, and says how the TRs are used in life and how people can’t do them. The last lecture’s last part sells the HAS Comm Course.

The second week and the third are spent in Comm Course with basic TRs, encouraging not criticizing. The coach says fine when he thinks it’s fine and otherwise keeps his mouth shut. This is muzzled coaching. The student does not get out of the Comm Course until he can be trusted to show up well in a muzzled Co-audit. This takes at least two weeks. He pays off the course by the week for his Comm Course as well as his later Co-audit.

The Co-audit Course runs similar to the Comm Course in hours. The only process now permitted on an HAS Co-audit is “From where could you communicate to a body part”, the body part being selected by the instructor with an E-Meter (in a pinch the instructor selects by observation and the answer to the question, “Ever have anything wrong with your body?” and uses whatever the pc says). When a key body part is flat, “From where could you communicate to a body” can be run but only this type of process is allowed. If you go and bring in a lot more processes you’ve had it. Only this

process can be counted on to bring reality and results to people on a broad scale. When a person can’t gain on it because of case then get him into private auditing. NEVER let anyone simply walk out. Convince him he’s loony if he doesn’t gain on it because that’s the truth.

Very well, these are the sections of the PE Foundation. A student now has to complete at least five weeks of co-audit before we give him an HAS certificate. It’s not a valuable certificate evidently unless we do it that way.

Now for personnel. Nearly every PE Foundation everywhere is understaffed. Many have to be. But one should at least know the correct amount of staff.

The minimum full scale PE staff should consist of five people, four of them part time, one of them full time. These people are as follows:

The PE Director. Takes no classes, makes no lectures, works from two to ten p.m., supervises and interviews and keeps the course and other instructors going. Lack of a PE Director without a class leaves the place unsupervised and in a confusion.

Receptionist. Routes, handles and invoices people with the help of other PE staff in the first rush, and then makes announcements and sells books in the breaks.

PE Lecturer. The best and most convincing lecturer, evenings only.

Comm Course Instructor. Part-time. Anybody but the Academy Comm Course instructor that knows his business. The Academy man will be too tough and heartless for the public stomachs at this stage.

CoAudit Instructor. Part-time. Choose the person people tell their troubles to. Choose a person who doesn’t mind people screaming in the unit and in fact rather likes it. This person takes responsibility for all cases.

The PE Director, as does the HGC Director of Processing, gets in trouble really if he takes a course or a class, as he leaves all other activities unguided. He can drop in, he can start a class. He can give an address of welcome, but he should not have a class. If he has one the whole place falls apart for lack of a guiding hand and somebody competent to pick up and sort out the emergencies and interview people.

Now roughly speaking, that’s the staff curriculum and courses of a PE Foundation. If yours is running a long way from this one, that is the reason you’re having a rough time and losing people and that’s the shape you ought to be shooting for. I know we can’t all have this but when things start to boom you’d better be able to have it or you’ll go boom too. The thing to do is to sneak up to this as a minimum size with which you can work.

If there’s no Central Org you’ll need daytime secretarial and files by and by or the PE Director will get swamped with papers.

The whole dream of a PE Foundation is to get the people in fast, get them invoiced in a congress type assembly line, no waiting, give them hot, excited, positive service and boot them on through to their HAS and THEN worry about doing something else with them. And never let a student leave or quit—introvert him like a bullet and get him to get audited. If he gets no reality don’t let him wander out. If he walks in that door for a free PE, that’s it. He doesn’t get out except into an individual auditor’s hands in the real tough cases, until he’s an HAS.

So that’s the size and shape of it.

Luck to you.

L. RON HUBBARD


LRH :brb .rd
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 29 SEPTEMBER 1959




UNIVERSE PROCESSES


I have just been checking out a process series we will call Universe O/W. It is a killer in sheep’s clothing.

Assessment is done with an E-Meter to discover which of four things has the greatest difference of needle pattern. One does not look for a drop, he looks for the one of the four that is different than the others.

The four are:

Thetan or spirit
Mind or brain
Body or male body or female body
Physical Universe or earth or continent or town or house or dwelling.

One uses different ways of putting these things if he doesn’t get instant difference on calling off Spirit, Mind, Body, Physical Universe. If he does get a different pattern from the rest he proceeds to audit that discovered thing as follows:

“Think of something you might have done to a .” (The “ “ being the terminal you discovered.)

Alternated with:

“Think of something you might have withheld from a ___” (same terminal).

Because these dive backtrack so fast the question may not be a direct “Recall what you have done to” since that implies certainty.

This problem could be a specific for illnesses of chronic type.

This is an allowable process in HGCs.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :iet.cden
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED











[The above HCO B was reissued from Washington, D.C., dated 5 October 1959.]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 5 OCTOBER 1959
Franchise Holders
BPI


UNIVERSE PROCESSES


Now that HCO WW at Saint Hill Manor is settling down for the long run, thanks to the co-operation of all Central Organizations and Franchise Holders with very few exceptions, I have been able to do some co-ordination work on processes I have been developing and would like to give you a rapid rundown on some of this work.

The first modern development of any importance since Comm Processes is called “Universe Processes”.

This is based on some work which started with the 1959 HPA/BScn Course. The most gross breakdown of parts of life is: 1. The Thetan 2. The Mind 3. The Body and 4. The Physical Universe. This division is a sort of shorthand of the eight dynamics and gives us the stuck points of the majority. As this division is refined it becomes the eight dynamics as used in the old Dynamic Straight Wire.

Almost anything which applied to or was used in Dynamic Straight Wire can also be used in Universe Processes.

The most elementary form of Universe Processes is called “Universe O/W”. This consists of doing an E-Meter assessment of the person on the four points above, taking the most different needle reaction from the rest (Thetan, Mind, Body and Physical Universe) and running what was found with Overt-Withhold Straight Wire.

Example: Let us say that we found Physical Universe to be the thing which fell the hardest or looked the most different on the E-Meter. One would then run as an alternate question: “Recall something you have done to the Physical Universe” alternated with “Recall something you have withheld from the Physical Universe”. When the E-Meter was reading Clear on the tone arm for the sex of the pc, one would then reassess and use the one of the three remaining terminals (Thetan, Mind or Body) which now fell differently or more than the other two. Thus all four would eventually be run.

Universe O/W is based upon the observable fact that a thetan is trapped in a thetan, a mind, a body and the physical universe. If he weren’t, he or she wouldn’t be sitting in a chair. Thus we process the extremely obvious, scouting out with an E-Meter only what obviousness is more troublesome to the pc than the other obviousnesses. Of course it seems strange that a thetan could think of himself being trapped in another thetan but you see this all the time in valences. Ghosts become ghosts by being overwhelmed by thetans they think are ghosts and so on. That a thetan is trapped in a mind and that it is not his own mind that he is trapped in is also obvious. If it were his own mind he would soon as-is it and you see what a hard time he has trying to erase it: that hard time comes about because he is misowning the mind in which he is trapped. And this is true of all traps. A thetan is usually quite sure that there is something wrong with the ownership of his own body and sure enough there is. And of course he’s in the universe without much understanding of it.

It is far more obscure that a thetan gets trapped in the remaining dynamics even though this is equally true. He isn’t really trapped in an animal if he is sitting there in a human body and so forth. So Universe O/W processes the obvious that is the most obvious.

All four of these terminals are run.

Now there is another way of attacking this problem and it is very successful. This is the “Universe Comm Process”. One assesses the pc in exactly the same way but runs the terminal on “From where could you communicate to a ... (one of the four universes as above)”.

It is very notable that Comm Processes work best on obvious and visible terminals and work much less well on things that are not present and worst on things that are merely ideas or significances. You can make great headway with a pc with “From where could you communicate to a body” when with the same pc you might get very, very slow results with “From where could you communicate to a brother”. Therefore the easiest to run and make progress with a Comm Process is using an obvious terminal and this of course would be one of the four universes, thetan, mind, body and physical universe.

However, when one runs a very obvious terminal with a Comm Process, one must carefully avoid pinning the process in present time. One cannot successfully run a Comm Process with “From where could you communicate to this room”. This is too specific. The pc is balked by the fact that the Comm Process strongly calls up every room like “this room” and if he answers anything about these other rooms he is not doing the exact auditing command and so goes rapidly out of session. Specific terminals that permit no large breadth of time span won’t run on a Comm Process because the process escapes the time limit imposed all too easily. One would have to run “From where could you communicate to a room” in order to wipe out the bad effects of “this room” on the case.

Universe Comm Processes are evidently the best version of all Comm Processes.

The assessment of the proper terminal can be a little tricky. The semantics of the terminal get in an auditor’s way. And yet the auditor may be led astray into using a version of the terminal that is not really an obvious terminal. Example: The pc does not understand what a thetan is and the meter does react to it so the auditor sorts out “soul” and “spirit”, etc, but gets a large drop on “astral body” and decides to run it only to discover that he is running an engram of recent origin in which the words appear. “Spirit” dropped less but would have run because it was more general.

You are probably wondering how we can get away with running “conceive a static”, forbidden in the book The Creation of Human Ability. We can just barely get away with it because of the nature and power of the Comm Process. By damping out excessive individuation the Comm Process increases havingness. A total individual can’t have much of anything—you can’t even have a car really unless you can be, besides self, a “car driver” or a “car passenger”. A totally individuated person cannot be anybody but himself, cares for nobody but himself and can share in no activity of any other person. Hence as we flatten out this obsessive individuation we gain in the pc usually enough havingness to run a massless identity such as a thetan. However this terminal usually runs less well than the other three employed in Universe Processes.

There are other developments which will be discussed in later bulletins, such as “Think of a creation you could make unknown” but these in general are not as important to us as the above.

If you are having trouble keeping your people on a Co-audit it’s because the things you are running on them are not real to them. I think you will find that by using a Universe Assessment on a Co-audit as above, you will have much more constant attendance. Try it anyway.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH: ph.rd
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 13 OCTOBER AD9

HCO Secs
D of Ps





A USEFUL PROCESS


On your HGC process you have many who cannot seem to plumb an overt/motivator sequence. On any such and many more, you will find the following process works admirably:

“Recall being critical.”
“Recall withholding criticism.”

If the pc tends to become ill push on through. This is the lowest level of force and influences body form. Try it and tell me how it goes.


L. RON HUBBARD



LRH :j s.rd
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED













LRH TAPE LECTURE
12 October 1959


5910C12 LECTURE Talk to HGCs

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 13 OCTOBER 1959
Franchise Holders


D.E.I. EXPANDED SCALE

(With a Note on Salesmen)

The original scale

4.0 Desire
1.5 Enforce
.5 Inhibit

was expanded in 1952 to

Curiosity
Desire
Enforce
Inhibit.

In 1959 I have found another vital point on this scale which gives us a new case entrance point.

Curiosity
Desire
Enforce
Inhibit
Unknown

I suspect also that “Wait” fits between Unknown and Inhibit.

To make these agree in intention, they would become

Interest
Desire
Enforce
Inhibit
Unknow.

This scale also inverts, I find, similar to the Dynamics and below sanity on any subject.

Unknow
Inhibit
Enforce
Desire
Interest

These points, particularly on the inverted scale, going down, are lowered by failure. Each lower step is an explanation to justify having failed with the upper level.

One seeks to not know something and fails. One then seeks to inhibit it and fails. Therefore one seeks to enforce it and fails. Thus one explains by desiring it and fails. And not really being able to have it, shows thereafter an obsessive interest in it.

The above inversion is of course all reactive.

Reactive selling (of interest to us in a salesman campaign) would be accomplished thusly (and this is the basic scale of selling):

The salesman refuses to let the customer forget the product;

The salesman then inhibits all efforts by the customer to refuse the product;

The salesman enforces the product on the customer;

The salesman now finds the customer desires the product;

And the customer will remain interested.

There is an interplay here whereby the salesman reverses the scale:

Source of Sales Failure

Salesman Customer

Interest Unknow
Desire Inhibit
Enforce Enforce
Inhibit Desire
Unknow Interest

Salesmen, bringing about an inverted scale, can go downscale themselves as they do it. They seek to interest and meet forgetfulness. They want to sell and meet opposition. They high pressure the customer and get pressured back. And about the time the customer wants the product the salesman is reactively inhibiting the sale. And as the customer’s interest is at its highest the salesman forgets all about him.

SALESMAN SUCCESS

All a salesman has to do is continue to try to interest the customer and the reactive inversion will take place.

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

It is interesting that this scale, more importantly, gives us new case entrances. A series of Comm Processes on any terminal, say “bodies”, could be run.

From where could you communicate to an unknown body an unwanted body a necessary body a desirable body an interesting body

This would pick the case off the bottom and run it to the top on any terminal that has gone totally reactive.

By the way, don’t take my remarks on salesmen as being “all for the best”. The basic overt act is making people want useless objects and spaces, and unfortunately for him that’s often part of the business of the salesman. He, unlike us, sometimes isn’t fishing people out of the mud. He’s often more likely pushing them in. Therefore he needs our help to get square with the world. As his income depends on making people want things and buy things (even though sometimes they need them), we haven’t much choice but to show him the mechanics of selling, to the end of getting him to help pull others out of the mud. Making somebody want something they really need is no crime, but the salesman is on very shaky ground. What do people really need? We had best not try to get involved in the ethics of all this, or to persuade them to sell only needed items.

The whole economic structure needs the salesman; he is the key of the whole structure. But we can leaven the flow of even useless goods by letting an invitation to freedom trickle in the same channel.


L. RON HUBBARD


LRH:dd.rd.-h
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 14 OCTOBER 1959
BPI

LONDON UP


Good old HASI London is finally stepping high again under Assoc Sec Herbie Parkhouse and HCO Area Sec Valerie Obin.

HASI topped a thousand plus fifty pounds for the week.

This hasn’t happened regularly since the days of Jack Parkhouse.


L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:dd.rd
Copyright ©1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 OCTOBER 1959 HCO Secs
Assoc Secs

MY WHEREABOUTS IN NOVEMBER


I am about to do a Magellan by jet in somewhat less than 80 days, so I too can yawn and say: “It’s a small world.”

The following dates exist according to Cook’s:

Leave Saint Hill 31 st October, 1959
Depart London 31 st October
Arrive Calcutta 1st November
Arrive Singapore 4th November
Arrive Melboume 5th November
Arrive Fiji Islands 21st November
(International Date Line)
Arrive Honolulu 21st November
Arrive Los Angeles 24th November
Arrive Washington 26th November
Arrive London 30th November
Arrive Saint Hill 30th November

Around the World in 30 Days.

Best,

LRH:dd nm
Copyright © 1959 RON
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 20 OCTOBER AD9
HCO Secs
Franchise Holders
D of P Central Orgs
AN EXPERIMENTAL PROCESS


Recall Processes have always worked well. But it has been hard to get the most fundamental processes that would reach the lowest cases.

Here are some Recall Processes that work way down South of the Auks:

COMM RECALL PROCESS:

“Recall a Communication”

KNOW MYSTERY RECALL PROCESSES:

“Recall an Unconsciousness”
“Recall Waiting”
“Recall a Mystery”
“Recall Sex”
“Recall Eating” (or a variation
“Recall Food”)
“Recall a Symbol”
“Recall Thinking”
“Recall an Effort”
“Recall an Emotion”
“Recall Looking”
“Recall Knowing”
“Recall Not-Knowing”

These are very good, especially on bad off cases. They all work.

When the lowest seems flat one can go to one above. Probably there is an E-Meter tellingness that denotes flatness. I’m working on this and will have the gen soon.

The earliest experiments of this were on “Recall a Mystery” as a method of raising IQ and the pc was spouting poetry he’d “forgotten”.

There are many possible versions of these simplicities as one can run them on terminals and significances. Also, remember that these things (Recall Processes) take the pc out of PT and put him back in. You stop one with the PC back in PT. The Comm bridge to be used on this process is: “When you next get an answer close to present time we will end this process if it is all right with you.” Then don’t go on for an hour or two, catch it with 8 or 10 commands by seeing the pc is doing a short cycle at the time and has started back up.

“Recall Exhaustion” is a simple, very effective version of a work process.

“Recall Creating” is a good way, apparently, to mop up Step 6 flubs.

Therefore you can use these processes in the HGC or you can, when it is okayed, use them in training. These are individual processes and not co-audit. As a note on co-audit, the process, the only basic affinity process, “What would you like to confront,” could cut your co-audit attendance losses. It is now allowed, having been carefully tested. Man, do they get interested in cases and hence into session. This is a fine individual process for pcs that “have no reality on pictures”.

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :js.rd
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 25 OCTOBER 1959
BPI



PSYCHOANALYSIS GOES CAPITALISTIC


The following despatch is interesting since by comparing what we know about the mind now and what the Russians are here criticising in psychoanalysis, I can estimate where Russian mental research is. And it’s right there thousands of miles behind us. Russia is so consumed with her “equalism” that all her mental research is negative and no gain.

Socialism, Communism and such are basically designed by people who cannot work to award people who will not work and amongst other things they defy all forms of creation, production and creativeness—as I can soon demonstrate to you. This is not a matter now of my ideas. It’s a scientific fact.

So here’s Ivan, spokes manning as usual for the Great Idle Classes on the subject of psychoanalysis, which turns out to be capitalistic and the cause of all war. Ha!

NEW YORK HERALD TRIBUNE, Paris, of Friday, October 23, 1959. By United Press International.

“Russia Raps Psychoanalysis as
Justifying War to West.
LONDON, OCTOBER 22.

A Soviet science correspondent said last night that the Soviet medical profession considers that psychoanalysis ‘indirectly justifies war’ and helps shore up the Western powers.

The attack on psychoanalysis was made in an English-language broadcast to the United Kingdom. It was a broadcast by the Moscow radio’s science correspondent, who was not named.

‘The essence of psychoanalysis,’ said the broadcast, ‘seems to be that it erroneously ascribes to the instincts, or more correctly to the sexual urge, a mystic, supernatural power, which causes and determines everything in human life.’

‘With a Grin’

The Soviet medical profession, the Moscow radio went on, ‘treats all this with a grin.’ It added:

‘It considers these absurd views to be widespread not just because some of the idle rich like to delve into their own sexual emotions, pathologically hypertrophied by a life of idleness and luxury.

‘No, the favourite ground for psychoanalysis is also at times a result of the fact the views advocated by the following of this doctrine are to the advantage of the powers that be. By asserting the supremacy of the instincts, psychoanalysis justifies war.

‘When they maintain that the main motive force in man’s behaviour is urges and instincts, the psychoanalysts are also indirectly vindicating such things as unemployment, poverty, widespread industrial accidents and so on.”

LRH:js.nm
Copyright © 1959 L. RON HUBBARD
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 30 OCTOBER 1959

BPI




TO RETAIN CO-AUDIT PC’S INTEREST IN CASE


All auditors should remember the definition of a preclear in session and that is: that he is interested in and talking to the auditor about his case.

On a terminal contacted with the E-Meter in an assessment, if needle action slows down, with little change in its action, run the terminal to a comm lag flat point, then do another assessment, and run the terminal found. Remember all terminals run and check them out on an E-Meter later. It may be that after getting one terminal handled you will have to go back to a terminal flattened on a comm lag basis and re-run it.

Eventually the tone arm will come to clear reading for the pc’s sex but only if many terminals are run and come back to and run again.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:js.cden
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

SPECIAL HCO BULLETIN OF 31 OCTOBER 1959

HCO Secs ) ONLY
Tech Secs )


CREATE PROCESSES—DANGERS & ADVANTAGES


Just before I leave on extended trips I always take the safety measure of writing down the newest and latest and exactly where we are in proven research.

The newest and best as now authorized only for staff member use on Staff Theta Clearing and the Co-audit, and processing of staff members only, and not at this time for use in the HGC or on the general public, is the Create series of processes.

These are the first effective OT processes and as such, when used on persons not yet Theta Clear, they have certain dangers. Additionally, they are the most valuable series of processes which we have. They can be used in one form or another on any level of case and will reach pretty much all the way to the top.

As to dangers, I refer you to our experiences with Step 6 processes. Here was a series with great promise which in many cases became rather deadly. The datum here is that when you improve the ability of a pc to make and see a picture you also inadvertently improve every picture in the bank including engrams, and anybody who has seen a totally solid motivator engram will agree that it is not pleasant.

Create processes stem from a new study I have made of the Cycle of Action as given in FUNDAMENTALS OF THOUGHT. Axiom 10 becomes confused by the Thetan with the Cycle of Action. Draw the two and look at them as each other and you will see what I mean—identifying them is chaos. We get a “slip” automaticity which, whenever a person starts to create, forces him over into destruction. There is enough philosophy in this demonstrable fact to make it the subject of my next large book.

Cancelling any bad effect from this slip automaticity from Create to Destroy has been solved by using the middle point of the Cycle of Action—Survive. In Scientology the dynamic principle of existence is “Create” as in Dianetics it was “Survive” (see FUNDAMENTALS OF THOUGHT).

A case run toward Create is best run on this and the inverted ARC triangle— “What Would You Like To Create”. This becomes the key process of OT from any level. However, obsessive creation is in effect the whole engram bank and the reactive mind and a lot of other things. Therefore it is best to beware of beefing up the engrams for too long a period of time. The most tested way of easing a case off from the deadly Step 6 phenomena is to change from “What Would You Like To Create” back to “What Would You Like To Confront” at routine intervals. “What Would You Like To Confront” cancels out Step 6 phenomena by easing down the Survive part of the Cycle of Action. Confront and Survive are of the same order of thing. Survival could be represented best by “continuous confronting” at a process level. Too much “What Would You Like To Create” gets us into too persistent and solid a bank on occasion. The bank is surviving. Therefore the pc is made very uncomfortable and should then be run a bit on “What Would You Like To Confront”.

“What Would You Like To Confront” should be interspersed with “What Would You Like To Create” at a ratio perhaps of a session of each or, in a severe case, an hour of one then an hour of the other.

“What Would You Like To Destroy” is under test and apparently should run. This would be a psycho curer for sure. But “What Would You Like To Confront” would

have to be interspersed with “What Would You Like To Destroy” in order to keep the bank from overwhelming the pc.

Here then we have three processes:

“What Would You Like To Confront?”

“What Would You Like To Create?”

“What Would You Like To Destroy?”

These are on the Cycle of Action as Create Survive Destroy. They are given above in the order of best tested. We know “What Would You Like To Confront” will make pcs feel wonderful and will straighten out Step 6’s habit of making the bank more formidable. It is a good, sound, well tested process.

“What Would You Like To Create” is the key to all cases, but to run it you will have to salt it down with periods of running “What Would You Like To Confront”. “What Would You Like To Destroy”, though not much tested at this writing, might also have to be interspersed with “What Would You Like To Confront”.

We will probably discover that all three of these have to be run and that the last one will be the best case entrance at my guess.

A new child process, very successful, has already emerged from this rationale. This is: “You Do Something You Think I’ll Like”. Various simplifications of the Confront and Destroy commands would be something like: “What Would You Like To Look At” and “What Would You Like To Tear Up”. The last one is not tested.

A sure kill on a pc would be to run “What Would You Like To Confront” until it has eased off and then to run “What Would You Like To Create” until it gets grim, and then “What Would You Like To Confront” again, and back and forth. This is somewhat tested as a combo at this writing and it works well.

Under test right now is the way of running all three parts of the Cycle of Action to obtain the smoothest possible recovery by the pc.

Right now this data is only for staffs of Central Orgs as it is very dynamite and very experimental, but it also gives the best and clearest promise of rapid case gains and we want Central Org staffs up before we release this stuff more widely. This is about as revolutionary in rapid effect as engram running was in its time and place. We’re really into something here with a high rapid gain which when it is all smoothed out and sweeping the field will take us right over the top unless we find stops on the part of auditors that we can’t easily overcome. And I think we can whip all the bugs and get it wheeling.

I came down to Sthil last Spring to find the route to OT that almost anybody could follow. Well, I’m betting even at this early look that we’ve got our teeth into it with Create series.


L. RON HUBBARD
LRH: dd.rd
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



Issue 107 [1959, ca. early November]


The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.



On Bringing Order



We will bring order yet. You can assist us by not being dismayed at disorder. When you start to introduce order into anything disorder shows up as the second postulate and blows off. Therefore, our efforts to bring order in the society or any part of it will be productive of disorder for a while every time. The trick is to keep on bringing order and soon the disorder is gone and you have orderly activity remaining. But if you hate disorder and fight disorder only, don’t ever try to bring order to anything for the resulting disorder will drive you half mad. Only if you can ignore disorder and can understand this principle, can you have a working world—or a working operation, for that matter.























Copyright © 1959 by L. Ron Hubbard. All rights Reserved.

MELBOURNE CONGRESS LECTURES
Melbourne, Australia
7—8 November 1959


L. Ron Hubbard gave the following lectures to the Melbourne Congress in Melbourne, Australia, on November 7 and 8, 1959:

5911C07 MC-1 Welcome Address
5911C07 MC-2 Recent Developments on O.T.
5911C07 MC-3 The Route Through Step Six
5911C08 MC-4 Importances
5911C08 MC-5 Valences
** 5911C08 MC-6 Final Lecture






1ST MELBOURNE ADVANCED CLINICAL COURSE LECTURES
Melbourne, Australia
9—30 November 1959


L. Ron Hubbard gave the following lectures to the students of the 1st Melbourne Advanced Clinical Course in Melbourne, Australia, between November 9th and 30th in 1959:


** 5911C09 1MACC-1 The Know-how of Auditing
** 5911C09 1MACC-2 Demonstration of an Assist (LRH MTS-2)
**5911C10 1MACC-3 Valence Splitting—Entering a Mind Process
5911C10 1MACC-4 Demo of Knocking Down a Tone Arm
** 5911C11 1MACC-5 Cycle of Action, Create, Destroy, Relative
Importances
5911C11 1MACC-6 Demo: Force Process—Discreditable Creation
** 5911C12 1MACC-7 The Rule of the Weak Valence
5911C12 1MACC-8 Demo: Dynamic Straightwire Assessment
5911C12 1MACC-9 The Rehabilitation of Judgment
** 5911C13 1MACC-10 How to Have a Game Instead of a Case
5911C16 1MACC-11 The Collapsed Cycle of Action
5911C16 1MACC-12 Getting the Pc into Session
5911C17 1MACC-13 Case Assessment
5911C17 1MACC-14 Demo: Case Assessment


The list of 1st Melbourne ACC lectures continues in chronological sequence on page 546.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 12 NOVEMBER 1959
Fran Hldrs



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS IN AUDITING


Avoidance of Double Acknowledgement is vital if you ever hope to keep the preclear in session.

Double Acknowledgement occurs when the pc answers up, the auditor then acknowledges, and the pc then finishes his answer, leaving the auditor with another acknowledgement to do (and also leaving the auditor with no session).

Wrong:

Command: “What could you say to your father?”
Pc: “I could say, ‘Hello’.”
Auditor: “Fine.”
Pc: “ ‘. . . Father, how are you?’ I could say that.”
Auditor: (weakly) “Good. What could you say to your father?”
Pc: “I could say, ‘Are you feeling well?’ “
Auditor: (desperate by now) “Good!”
Pc: “ ‘. . . enough to go fishing?’ “
Auditor: “Well okay all right. Now “

A pc is not always sure he has answered the question so he often changes his mind. If the auditor gives him Tone 40 or any acknowledgement at all in between a pc’s reply the auditor is wrong.

You just don’t “encourage” a pc with a lot of agreement OK’s and Yes’s in the middle of answers. The pc answers, the pc is sure he has answered and the auditor then acknowledges. After all, it is the pc that must be satisfied.

There are many ways to mis-acknowledge a pc. But any mis-acknowledgement is only and always a failure to end the cycle of a command—auditor asks, pc replies and knows he has answered, auditor acknowledges. Pc knows auditor has acknowledged. That is a full auditing command cycle. Don’t forget it and expect a process to work, it won’t. The roughest spot in most auditors is TR 2, not so much how to acknowledge but when.

An auditor running into this with a pc should handle it this way.

Auditor: “What could you say to your father?”
Pc: “I could say, ‘Are you feeling well?’ “
Auditor: “Did that answer the question?”
Pc: “Well, no. I could say, ‘Are you feeling well enough to go fishing?’ “
Auditor: “Did that answer the question?”
Pc: “Yes, I guess it did. He always liked fishing and sympathy.”
Auditor: (sure pc is through) “Good! What could you say to your father?”

And there’s the way of it. If the pc is not sure he has answered and that the auditor has accepted the answer, the pc will get no benefit from the auditing. And that’s how important that is.

Mood can be expressed by an acknowledgement. Evaluation can also be accomplished by acknowledgement, depending on the tone of voice with which it is uttered.

There is nothing bad about expressing mood by acknowledgement, except when the acknowledgement expresses criticalness, ridicule, or humour.

You can always spot a bad auditor. He does two things: he talks too much to the pc and he stops the pc from properly answering.


L. RON HUBBARD
LRH :js.rd
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED







[The above HCO B is a combination of HCO B 15 September 1958, More on Training Drill Two, and HCO B 12 January 1959, Tone of Voice-Acknowledgement.]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 18 NOVEMBER 1959

Assn Secs )
HCO Secs ) only
Ds of P )
1ST MELBOURNE ACC MATERIAL


The following Technology is being taught on the 1st Melbourne ACC which began November 9, 1959, at HASI Melbourne:

Bring tone arm of meter to clear reading for sex of pc at the beginning of session by getting withholds off the case, use two-way comm and “What question shouldn’t I ask you?” and overts in PT restim on various dynamics. Auditing of processes on average pc not to begin until tone arm so registers. On lower than clear reading arms if all else fails to run S-C-S.

In extremely difficult cases to do an assessment by dynamics for current overts to get pc’s tone arm to read clear before session. Then, seeing needle changes on any one dynamic, to ferret out the overt.

75 hours spent getting pc in session not too long. Tone Arm trick to be done each session.

Create series of processes “What would you like to confront?” and “What would you like to create?” “What part of a (assessed terminal) would you be willing to create?” alternated with “What part of a (same terminal) would you be willing to confront?”

Cases in 1st Melbourne were started on clearing tone arm then running “Think of entering a mind.” “Think of not entering a mind.” Alternated.

Goal of course is to get whizzing up toward OT.

Some of the scheduled processes to be run include: “What force would it be all right to use?” “What force would it be all right not to use?” The same pattern of process to be applied to postulates, spaces, masses, forms on various dynamics. Experimental version: “What (as in this paragraph) would it be all right to make?” “What______would it be all right not to make?”

The main valence splitter is given above in entering minds. But another easier valence splitter (similar in action to Overt Withhold Straight Wire) is “Tell me a difference between (any specific or general terminal) and yourself.” “Tell me a similarity between (same terminal) and yourself.” The extreme version is “Tell me of a difference between yourself and a body.” “Tell me a similarity between yourself and a body.” Not necessarily recommended as not tested. This last is called Valence Differentiation.

My goal at Saint Hill, in which all Orgs are assisting, is to consolidate research and produce rapid OTs. The above processes are some of the fruits already garnered.

The 1st Melbourne Congress and ACC tapes are available from Melbourne or from HCO WW, same prices. Not too high. The full rationale of these processes and others are on these lectures and demonstration tapes of the 1st Melbourne.


L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:js jh
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 18 NOVEMBER 1959



BPI



Congratulations HASI—South Africa! To celebrate its second birthday Johannesburg made two £1,000 weeks in a row.


L. RON HUBBARD












1ST MELBOURNE ACC LECTURES
Melbourne, Australia
18—30 November 1959


5911C18 1MACC-15 Alter-isness, Keynote of all Destruction
5911C18 1MACC-16 Demo: Minus Randomity Areas
5911C19 1MACC-17 Minus Randomity, Clue to Case Assessment
5911C19 1MACC-18 Intricacies of Create—Create Series
5911C20 1MACC-19 Rationale of Create Series
5911C20 1MACC-20 Responsibility of Creation
** 5911C23 1MACC-21 Responsibility for Zones of Creation
5911C23 1MACC-22 Demo: Responsibility for Destruction
** 5911C24 1MACC-23 The Universe of a Thetan
5911C24 1MACC-24 Demo: Turning on Pictures
5911C25 1MACC-25 Counter-create
** 5911C25 1MACC-26 Individuation
** 5911C26 1MACC-27 The Constancy of Fundamentals of Dianetics
and Scientology
** 5911C26 1MACC-28 The Handling of Cases—Greatest Overt
5911C27 1MACC-29 Clearing Up the Whole Track
5911C27 1MACC-30 Principal Incidents on the Track
5911C30 1MACC-31 The Anatomy of Havingness
5911C30 1MACC-32 Processes

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
157 Spring Street, Melbourne, Australia

HCO BULLETIN OF 30 NOVEMBER 1959
ACC Instructors
ACC Students
Assoc Secs
HCO Secs

ALLOWED PROCESSES 1ST MELBOURNE ACC

The following processes are to be run in the last three weeks of the ACC at the option and discretion of the Instructors in consultation with individual auditors:

Melbourne 1.

Arduous Case Assessment by dynamics and other means: Overt-Withhold Straight Wire only on terminals having mass and no terminals of significance only. General terminals preferred.

Melbourne 2.

Preclear put in two-way comm with auditor by “Think of something you are willing to let me know.” “Think of something you could withhold.” And by other means if indicated by Instructor. Occasionally auditor asks, “How are you going?” “Is there anything you would like to tell me?” This is followed by “What would you like to confront?” alternated with “What would you rather not confront?”
Two-way comm is re-established frequently by above method where pc is in or near PT on process.

Melbourne 3.

Establish two-way comm with the pc and get tone arm down by getting off all overts and withholds on any dynamic.
Run dynamic assessment. Run small amounts of alternate create with large amounts of alternate confront on the same terminal create was run on.
Commands of Alternate Create: “What part of a .....would you be willing to create?” “What part of a .....would you rather not create?”
Commands of Alternate Confront: “What part of a (same terminal as used for create) could you confront?” “What part of a ......would you rather not confront? “
Alternate means two questions run one after the other consecutively, one command positive followed by one negative.

Melbourne 4.

Two-way comm established and continued by auditor with pc during session. Get the stories, establish the overts, pinpoint incidents in time helpfully for pc.

Melbourne 5.

Assists on body to be run by Communication Processes. “From where could you communicate to a ..........(body part)?” Assists for PT location to be run with “To what could you communicate from this room?”
Any other ways of cracking cases now known will be run only by Instructors.


L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:-.rd
copyright ©1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

[The above HCO B was reissued from Saint Hill as HCO B 4 December 1959, same title.]


5912C10 SH DEMO Demo of New HGC Process by LRH

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 11 DECEMBER 1959
BPI




NEW HORIZONS IN SCIENTOLOGY


With the First Melbourne ACC we begin a new era in Scientology, greater, broader and more successful than anything we have experienced before.

A complete new technical front has moved solidly forward, based not so much on new materials but on a wider understanding of older data, and it is sufficiently startling in its approach and effectiveness to give new confidence to every Scientologist, his case and his dissemination problems.

I myself have never before felt so confident and have never before had such spectacular auditing successes in such short periods of time.

Various problems we have faced are now explained and our various vulnerabilities have been turned into new skills. We have been losing too many people from PE Courses, particularly Co-audits. We have lost too many Scientologists and even though they are replaced in even greater numbers by new ones the point has been one without previous solution. Too many Scientology marriages have gotten into difficulties. Auditors and Central Orgs have been hampered by too low incomes. We have lost too many executives and principals in scientology and have failed to make newer people into adequate better people. All these problems were, in their combined effect upon us, slowing us down. Please understand that we were slowed down only to the extent of doubling our numbers every year. But understand also that I have not been unaware of the things that had to be solved before we could skyrocket off the launching pad and take our position in civilization’s van.

All these problems have now been solved by this new technology. We know why people leave PE and Co-audits and we can remedy it. We know why we have lost Scientologists and can get them back and completely prevent new losses. We can salvage almost any marriage with entirely new approaches to this problem. We can rehabilitate our own executives and push newer ones into higher responsibility zones more rapidly and effectively. We have it MADE.

Now, understanding that in our earliest days we had to carry on with enthusiasm in lieu at times of know-how and that we bore up silently under many difficulties, we should not again make the mistake that we are merely entering into a new exhilaration which will itself become spent and have to be replaced by a newer forward motion. Of course there will be new forward motions but as soon as you grasp what has happened here you will see clearly that it is within our power to accomplish the following:

1. Retain all our people with better and better states of being.

2. Knit ourselves into a tight and mutually supportive third dynamic which can resist all encroachment and which can expand to encompass a much wider range of activities.

3. Assist our incomes to a point where we can command the facilities necessary to our responsibilities.

These briefly are the goals we have been achieving; now we can achieve them without setbacks and losses here and there.

As soon as you look over this technology I am sure you will agree that it is a forward step of great magnitude and that it is based upon principles already known, but which are applied to the problems in a new way.

The thirty-four hours of recorded lectures in Melbourne and the forthcoming lectures of the US Congress in early January, followed by an HCS course based on this material, plus the ACC in South Africa will put anyone who can reach only a little in possession of this information.

The data itself is too lengthy for swift coverage in bulletins. It is based on new data on the cycle of action and even more importantly upon new handling of overts and withholds in clearing cases.

In successive weeks I will try to give you in our bulletins some of this data. It is too much to write all at once. Central Orgs are at this moment being supplied with the tapes on all this as a background of HCS and BScn courses and every possible way will be utilized to put all of this into your hands. You will, however, have to reach a little. If you do you will be greatly rewarded.

It has taken nearly ten years for me to build a better bridge. Well, I have no qualms about this one. It will stand any loads and stresses. We know the basic buttons of aberration full and finally. And all too truly you will never be the same again.


L. RON HUBBARD




LRH:js.nm
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 DECEMBER 1959
BPI
Franchise Hldrs



HAS CO-AUDIT


It has been found that the Overt-Withhold Straight-Wire Process runs better on HAS Co-Audit than the Communication Process, as the Communication Process does not get off overts, it causes people to “blow” the course.

To revert to previous instructions, then, run the following Process on HAS Co-Audits:

“Recall something you have done to ........” (terminal)
“Recall something you have withheld from ......” (terminal)
(one question after the other)

The Co-Audit Instructor should select a terminal by communicating freely with the pc, asking questions relating to pc’s present life terminals and the eight dynamics. Pc will be fixated on any terminals against which he has committed overt acts—even though these overts may have been not-ised. The terminal chosen by the Instructor must be real to the pc and must show charge on the E-Meter.

Keep up the Co-Audit pc’s interest in Case. This is a most important factor if large groups are to be maintained. If there is little change in needle reaction and no obvious signs of mis-emotion on terminal, then run terminal to a comm lag flat point and then locate another terminal. After this terminal has been handled it may be preferable to return to previous terminal, but this is a matter for the Instructor’s discretion.

If pc runs out of answers (for Co-Audit only) abandon terminal and find another.

“What have you done?” “What have you withheld? “ is the general form of this process and may be used.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH js.cden
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED











[See also HCO B 15 December AD 9, Urgent Change in All Co-audit Courses, on the following page, which was issued later than the above HCO B. ]

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE WORLDWIDE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex, U.K.

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 DECEMBER AD9

Franchised Auditors
Assn Secs
HCO Secs
All PE Fnds and Personnel


URGENT CHANGE IN ALL CO-AUDIT COURSES


Here we go. I told you in the last Franchise Bulletin that we had hit a jackpot. Of course, you to some degree put this down to the usual Hubbard enthusiasm. But my enthusiasm and encouragement was what kept us at it until we knew what we had to know to go for broke on OT and quite incidentally on all lower level cases. And this isn’t even related to enthusiasm. No more cold-blooded statement was ever made than my telling you that the situation was definitely corralled. It is. I am sorry that the gen is sort of complicated and requires know-how, and would much rather have arranged it so all we had to do was push the button and we got a clear, but as soon as you see and experience this data I think you will be very happy with it.

It all begins back in Wichita when I wrote that extremely unpopular article which is still appearing in Advanced Procedure and Axioms—FULL RESPONSIBILITY. It turns out that this is the hottest thought the old man ever thought but it didn’t come into view in its full importance for more than eight years.

The one thing the public doesn’t want to have anything to do with is FULL RESPONSIBILITY. They shudder and they run whenever they think of it. So thee and me will have to shoulder the load and shove them at the sausage machine and all that. For the whole story develops around this center pin of responsibility. There was so much to the story and so many possible variations of the tale that getting it all in line and trailmarking a way through the darkly woods has been a very painful job—both to you and to me. But we did it. And we’ve got it. And if we can just hold still long enough we’ll have the full benefit of it.

Overt acts and withholds are important technology. If you can get somebody to take the overts out of any incident the incident will tend to vanish. And it would vanish completely except for one thing. Telling another person about one’s overts is not enough. It is also necessary to take full responsibility for them. Thus the old wheeze about confession as advocated by one of the pagan churches (pagan to Scientology), that all one had to do was whisper one’s misdeeds and they would go away, turns out to be so halfhearted that it becomes a very vicious operation. I’ve just been all over this ground and can tell you as a technical fact that the simple imparting of one’s sins, or, more comprehensibly, one’s overts and withholds, is as inadequate as using paste to build a skyscraper—and about as dangerous. If the Church or somebody then pretended to take responsibility for the confided overts, then we’ve spun our fellow in just like that and we’ve degraded the person and the society. The person who confides must then take responsibility for the action he considered a sin by means of honest processing or it’s just no-go, no-show, spin-down-spin-in. And there went the co-audits running overt-withhold. And there went up the tone arms when the pc told us his crimes. The rule is a thorough, harsh, unavoidable rule: When we get a person to confide a crime, we must then run on that crime what part of it he could be responsible for until it goes. ALERT YE HGCs. If you don’t do just that you’ll have some very unhappy people on your hands.

THEREFORE: BE IT RESOLVED THAT—whenever a person has discovered to the auditor a sin, crime or discreditable act or discreditable creation, that auditor is honor bound on all dynamics to run at once a process that will bring about the person’s taking responsibility for his action. If the auditor does not he will have a spinning pc.

THIS GIVES US THE ONLY PROCESS WE COULD GET AWAY WITH IN A PE CO-AUDIT: That would be a process which recovered responsibility. The currently indicated process, done without assessment, would be “WHAT PART OF YOUR LIFE (PAST) COULD YOU BE RESPONSIBLE FOR?” DO NOT RUN ANYTHING ELSE IN CO-AUDIT!

Of course doing an overt or a withhold is a refusal to take responsibility in some sphere, but overts and withholds are the offshoot of responsibility or lack of it not vice versa.

Now go back and read this again and start clearing some people. More gen later.

Best,

L. RON HUBBARD

Writ by me for thee URGENT EXPRESS.


LRH:-.rd
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED








HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 16 DECEMBER 1959

BPI

IMPORTANT


RESPONSIBILITY FOR O/Ws


To the degree that a pc does not take responsibility for his Overts and Withholds his bank becomes solid.

On all cases on which Overt-Withhold is being run it is absolutely necessary that they be levelled off with responsibility on the incident, or the session involved, or both.

A tone arm brought down by reducing the Overts and Withholds can be made high again because Overt-Withhold has a Step 6 reaction of toughening up the bank and making masses and facsimiles solid, unless the terminal and the session is handled with:

“What part of a ........could you be responsible for? “


LRH :js.rd L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



Issue 110 [1959, ca. late December]


The Magazine of
DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY
from
Washington, D.C.



Techniques of Child Processing


L. Ron Hubbard



Tomorrow’s cases are child cases today. Whole civilizations have changed because somebody changed the children. In the past, the children were usually changed for the worse. Today let’s be different and change them for the better.

But whatever the benefits and reasons of child processing, however much it may do to smooth out a home and improve the future, the fact remains that it is a highly technical subject. The processing of children requires more technically perfect auditing and more properly applied sessions and processes than the average adult.

To achieve the greatest benefit for children, one should first achieve the greatest possible command of auditing skill and Scientology theory and practice. Because a child is helplessly unable to express his ARC breaks violently enough to be listened to is no reason he should be given them.

Child processing demands more perfect auditing than adult processing and therefore requires a better trained auditor than the average. If you would process children, be a Professional auditor first even if the children are your own. You will find that it will pay.

With that reservation in mind, here are a few very modern developments in the processing of children. These are the best processes I know and the only processes that have worked out over a long period of time on a great many children.

TYPE OF SESSION

A child must be given a very formal session. A child’s case will go downhill generally if the child is processed hit or miss, any old time, with careless sessioning. A child’s session must be given the full dignity of an adult session. It must be opened and closed. All the formalities of a session must be observed—and of course the auditing must be done in a place where the session cannot be broken in upon by outside persons or influences.

The old technique of “short sessioning” works very well with a child. All one does is formally open and close a session and run within it only a minute or two of some simple process as below. The attention span of a child is short and if the child is even faintly unwilling to be audited, you can coax the child into short sessions and then, as time goes on, lengthen them gradually.

Copyright ©1959 by L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

ASSISTS ON CHILDREN

Of course one does not open and close a session with any formality while doing an assist. The preclear is always too tied up with the emergency and the agony to do anything but the process.

The best assist for a child is “Where did it happen?” and, after asking this, “Where are you now?” getting the child to point each time he answers the questions.

“Look at my fingers” while touching around the injured area lightly, is also a good assist for an injured child.

ROUTINE CHILD PROCESSES

Probably the most worthwhile child process which works as early as first speech is: “Where is the____?” using “table,” “chair” and other room objects, but avoiding bodies. The child takes this at first as a language examination and is very proud of it. It occasionally blows grief charges on losses.

Very effective on a child that is normal or has a physical defect is an alternate touching of the child’s arm, the auditor’s arm, and using various duplicative body parts first on the auditor then on the child, accomplishing in effect: “From where could you communicate to a body?” with the actual command: “Feel my arm,” “Thank you,” “Feel your arm,” “Thank you,” and so on, using common body parts. But a warning with this—if it turns on a somatic, do the same process session after session until the child is very bright and alert all the time. This is a very fine child psychosomatic process.

CHILDREN WITH ROUGH CASES

Very young children and children who are older but have rough cases, respond well to CCH I and CCH 2—but if you have to look those up to find out what they are, or if you are not a Professional, don’t try them.

A version of TR 5 “You make that body sit in that chair” can be run even on babies by substituting bed for chair.

INSTILLING CONFIDENCE

The worst crime most Scientology parents commit is demanding the child be far better and brighter than he or she can manage at once. This has the effect of making the child feel that he can’t really do anything to please his parents and that he is thus failing them. The right thing to do is to acknowledge what the CHILD thinks he can do or is all right. Otherwise you are evaluating for the preclear and that’s a Code break. A child seeking the approval of his parents is always inventing new tricks to attract attention. This means the child is already feeling neglected without reason, but is not in itself any bad sign. Acknowledge the tricks and spend more time with the child.

RECALL PROCESSES

Self Analysis Recall Processes contained on the next but last page of the book Self Analysis can be run on a child with some success. For the very young children, these require rewording.

___________________


The aforementioned may seem brief to you, but it is a complete catalogue of workable and invariably helpful processes for children. If they can run any more than this, they’re adults.

L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 DECEMBER AD9

BPI



RESPONSIBILITY



If the definition of operating thetan is knowing and willing cause over all dynamics then we can see at once that responsibility must go hand in hand with making an operating thetan.

One cannot as-is acts for which one is taking no responsibility, but for which one is really responsible.

The reason one gets amnesia on his past lives or even denies their existence lies with responsibility. He or she is unwilling to take responsibility for having been this or that other identity. This keys in in present time and closes one down every time one stops taking responsibility for one’s fellows. Fighting ‘other identities’ in present time one ceases to be responsible for other identities. Therefore those he has had in the past become ‘other people’ and one dramatizes his own past identities because he cannot take responsibility for them.

When one falls away from responsibility on the various dynamics he can then become less and less able to influence those dynamics and therefore becomes a victim of them. One must have done to other dynamics those things which other dynamics now seem to have the power to do to him. Therefore one can be injured. One can lose control. One can become in fact a zero of influence and a vacuum for trouble.

The way one becomes separate from others is by his own overt acts against them. These overt acts become withholds and the person then individuates very strongly. You have seen this happening in auditing. The more overt acts the Auditor pulls on the pc the less willing the Auditor is to audit that pc. Further, the more overt acts the pc pulls on the Auditor the less willing he is to stay in session. It only looks as though cause and effect is at work. Actually all life consists of opposed causes where it is aberrated.

The way a person blows out of session or blows out of an organization or blows out of Scientology is a simple one. He withholds information and hides his overts. After a while he blows himself off. Show me a pc blowing session and I will show you a pc who has not levelled with his Auditor and who is guilty of undeclared overts against the dynamics and the Auditor. Show me a staff member who is blowing the Organization and I will show you a staff member who is guilty of undeclared overts against the Organization.

It is fatal to audit anyone unless full two-way comm is established between the Auditor and the pc. A person who goes on being audited without asserting his responsibility for what he has done is a person who will make no auditing gains or whose auditing gains will slump. As most of the human race has undeclared overts this fact alone assumes gigantic proportions in forwarding Scientology and for that reason alone we will have to give it a lion’s share of attention from here on out.

Of course you will see that many people at first will not come near us for fear of what we will find out. But as this is better understood you will find that the people who come to us will come with a willingness to bare their guilt to us and get it sorted out.

As this is so much the case we must then therefore have amongst us none with

undeclared overts against the dynamics which would prevent their getting gains in processing or who would render a person’s confidences liable to use for less pure purposes.

Along with this technical discovery then goes the administrative must that our noses must be clean and our hearts cleared. Our strength will be the strength of a billion if we have nothing to hide.

This may or may not be popular. I don’t care about that. It is effective. I do care about that.

And remember that whenever a person discloses to view discreditable overts and withholds we must run what part of that act or incident could you be responsible for.

You’re going to see more case gains than you’ve ever seen before—providing you have the stamina to get over this first hump.

So here we change from irresponsible to responsible, from guilt to strength and all in the twinkling of an eye.


L. RON HUBBARD






LRH:js.rd
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 31 DECEMBER AD 9
Fran Hldrs
HCO Secs
Assn Secs
HASI
Dept Heads

BLOW-OFFS


Scientology Technology recently has been extended to include the factual explanation of departures, sudden and relatively unexplained, from sessions, posts, jobs, locations and areas.

This is one of the things man thought he knew all about and therefore never bothered to investigate, yet, this amongst all other things gave him the most trouble. Man had it all explained to his own satisfaction and yet his explanation did not cut down the amount of trouble which came from the feeling of “having to leave”.

For instance man has been frantic about the high divorce rate, about the high job turnover in plants, about labour unrest and many other items all stemming from the same source—sudden departures or gradual departures.

We have the view of a person who has a good job, who probably won’t get a better one, suddenly deciding to leave and going. We have the view of a wife with a perfectly good husband and family up and leaving it all. We see a husband with a pretty and attractive wife breaking up the affinity and departing.

In Scientology we have the phenomenon of preclears in session or students on courses deciding to leave and never coming back. And that gives us more trouble than most other things all combined.

Man explained this to himself by saying that things were done to him which he would not tolerate and therefore he had to leave. But if this were the explanation all man would have to do would be to make working conditions, marital relationships, jobs, courses and sessions all very excellent and the problem would be solved. But on the contrary, a close examination of working conditions and marital relationships demonstrates that improvement of conditions often worsens the amount of blow-off, as one could call this phenomenon. Probably the finest working conditions in the world were achieved by Mr. Hershey of Chocolate Bar fame for his plant workers. Yet they revolted and even shot at him. This in its turn led to an industrial philosophy that the worse workers were treated the more willing they were to stay which in itself is as untrue as the better they are treated the faster they blow off.

One can treat people so well that they grow ashamed of themselves, knowing they don’t deserve it, that a blow-off is precipitated, and certainly one can treat people so badly that they have no choice but to leave, but these are extreme conditions and in between these we have the majority of departures: the auditor is doing his best for the preclear and yet the preclear gets meaner and meaner and blows the session. The wife is doing her best to make a marriage and the husband wanders off on the trail of a tart. The manager is trying to keep things going and the worker leaves. These, the unexplained, disrupt organizations and lives and it’s time we understood them.

People leave because of their own overts and withholds. That is the factual fact and the hardbound rule. A man with a clean heart can’t be hurt. The man or woman who must must must become a victim and depart is departing because of his or her own overts and withholds. It doesn’t matter whether the person is departing from a town or a job or a session. The cause is the same.

Almost anyone, no matter his position, can remedy a situation no matter what’s

wrong if he or she really wants to. When the person no longer wants to remedy it his own overt acts and withholds against the others involved in the situation have lowered his own ability to be responsible for it. Therefore he or she does not remedy the situation. Departure is the only answer. To justify the departure the person blowing off dreams up things done to him, in an effort to minimize the overt by degrading those it was done to. The mechanics involved are quite simple.

It is amazing what trivial overts will cause a person to blow. I caught a staff member one time just before he blew and traced down the original overt act against the Organization to his failure to defend the Organization when a criminal was speaking viciously about it. This failure to defend accumulated to itself more and more overts and withholds such as failing to relay messages, failure to complete an assignment, until it finally utterly degraded the person into stealing something of no value. This theft caused the person to believe he had better leave.

It is a rather noble commentary on man that when a person finds himself, as he believes, incapable of restraining himself from injuring a benefactor he will defend the benefactor by leaving. This is the real source of the blow-off. If we were to better a person’s working conditions in this light we would see that we have simply magnified his overt acts and made it a certain fact that he would leave. If we punish we can bring the value of the benefactor down a bit and thus lessen the value of the overt. But improvement and punishment are neither one answers. The answer lies in Scientology and processing the person up to a high enough responsibility to take a job or a position and carry it out without all this weird hocus-pocus of “I’ve got to say you are doing things to me so I can leave and protect you from all the bad things I am doing to you.” That’s the way it is and it doesn’t make sense not to do something about it now that we know.

A recent Secretarial Executive Director to all Central Organizations states that before a person may draw his last pay cheque from an Organization he is leaving of his own volition he must write down all his overts and withholds against the Organization and its related personnel and have these checked out by the HCO Secretary on an E-Meter.

To do less than this is cruelty itself. The person is blowing himself off with his own overts and withholds. If these are not removed then anything the Organization or its people does to him goes in like a javelin and leaves him with a dark area in his life and a rotten taste in his mouth. Further he goes around spouting lies about the Organization and its related personnel and every lie he utters makes him just that much sicker. By permitting a blow-off without clearing it we are degrading people, for I assure you, and with some sorrow, people have not often recovered from overts against Scientology, its Organizations and related persons. They don’t recover because they know in their hearts even while they lie that they are wronging people who have done and are doing enormous amounts of good in the world and who definitely do not deserve libel and slander. Literally, it kills them and if you don’t believe it I can show you the long death list.

The only evil thing we are doing is to be good, if that makes sense to you. For by being good, things done to us out of carelessness or viciousness are all out of proportion to the evil done to others. This often applies to people who are not Scientologists. Just this year I had an electrician who robbed HCO of money with false bills and bad workmanship. One day he woke up to the fact that the Organization he was robbing was helping people everywhere far beyond his ability to ever help anyone. Within a few weeks he contracted TB and is now dying in a London hospital. Nobody took off the overts and withholds when he left. And it’s actually killing him-a fact which is no fancy on my part. There is something a little terrifying in this sometimes. I once told a bill collector what and who we were and that he had wronged a good person and a half hour later he threw a hundred grains of Veronal down his throat and was lugged off to hospital, a suicide.

This campaign is aimed straightly at cases and getting people cleared. It is aimed at preserving staffs and the lives of persons who believe they have failed us.

Uneasy lies the head that has a bad conscience. Clean it up and run responsibility on it and you have another better person, and if anybody feels like leaving just examine the record and sit down and list everything done to and withheld from me ;and the Organization and send it along. We’ll save a lot of people that way.

And on our parts we’ll go along being as good a manager, as good an Organization and as good a field as we can be and we’ll get rid of all our overts and withholds too.

Think it will make an interesting new view?

Well, Scientology specializes in those.


L. RON HUBBARD





LRH :js.cden
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



SUBJECT INDEX

1957 - 1959


acknowledgement(s) (cont.)
A ultimate in ~ would be end of universe, 351
why stress on acknowledgement, 349
aberration, aberrative, acts, bad, defn., are those acts which cannot be easily
common denominator of aberration and lack of experienced at the target end, 432
orientation, 109 admiration and critical are a dichotomy, 245
communication and aberration, affinity; see also ARC; C&MSCS
common denominator of, 28 defn., actually the consideration of distance, 139
communication itself is not aberrative, misuse weakest corner in ARC triangle, 139
and withhold of communication is aber- Affinity Process, “What would you like to con
rative, 518 front?”, 463, 536
cut communication with the mass causes aber- age and auditing, 34
ration, remedy of, 147 Alternate Confront, commands of, 547
person becomes as aberrated as he cannot com- Alternate Create, commands of, 547
municate, as he is overwhelmed by other- A.M.A.’s proposed principles of medicalethics, 2
determinisms, as he himself dare not assume analytical inspection, primary characteristic of reac cause points, 466 tive mind is response to a situation without ~,
consists of a number of lessons which a person has 269
learned too well, 18 anaten ensues when one direction of command is run
education and ~,18, 29 too long, 220
radiation, aberrative character of, 52 anaten, pc with loss of havingness will agitate or go
relationship between ~ and learning rate, 15 anaten and tend to be upset in general, 187
ability, abilities, anchor points and pain in the head, 98
ability gain is pc’s recognition that pc can now do anchor points of body, 151
things he could not do before, 428 answers is an opposite side to problems, 321
madness is compounded of disarranged ~,170 APA, American Personality Analysis; see OCA
neuroses and psychoses are exaggerated, concen- apathy, preclear in apathy generally doesn’t know he
trated abilities, 169 has a PTP, 177
past life abilities, 80 Aquinas, Saint Thomas, is an early forerunner of
psychiatrist sees in every ability an insanity, 170 Scientology, 514
rehabilitation of abilities, 79 ARC; see also affinity; communication; reality
technique, 82 auditors fail to make pc feel they are interested in
Academy, goal of, 25, 250 pc when they handle him with poor ARC, 242
Academy, no cases at Academy, 309 cause of auditor having low ARC, 516
Academy training, 309 CCH and ARC, 92, 174
ACC and HPA/HCA, 206 control by ARC is taught in Comm Course, 242
ACC Auxiliary Procedure, 301 formal auditing is control by ARC, 242
ACCClearProcedure [1958],311,322,369 in auditing, defn., A = ability to be in or at a
omit “What part of that can you confront best?” distance from something; R = ability to co-exist
from ~, 369 with something; C = ability to transmit thought
accidents, using assists on, 262, 263 between two or more points, 311
ACC Preparatory Process schedule for running en- keeping pc in session is done withgood ARC, 243
grams [1959], 389 loss of havingness in an auditing session can be
acknowledgement(s), 543; see also TR 2 repaired by repair of ARC of session, 157, 177,
a control factor, 349 187
double acknowledgement, loss of, is more important than loss of havingness,
by auditor causes OCA/APA drop in comm 157
level, 334 low, whole answer to it is contained in victim, 516
cause and avoidance of, 308 tone is established by ARC, 104
its general use is putting a period to the communi- triangle, 92,136; see also C&MSCS
cation cycle, 349, 350 the way it is used, 104
mis-acknowledgement is only and always a failure weakest corner is affinity, 139
to end the cycle of a command, 543 when another tries to chop your ARC, 105
mood can be expressed by, 383 ARC break(s), 296
of children, 110 defn., assignment of responsibility for a sudden
perfect acknowledgement, what it communicates, drop in affinity, reality or communication, 364
349 can hide rock once found, 300

SUBJECT INDEX— 1957/1959


ARC break(s) (cont.) assist(s) (cont.)
difficulties, 304 is auditing on several dynamics, 262
dropped havingness and ~, how to distinguish “Keep it from going away” as assist, 263, 264
between, 157,177 not a substitute for medical attention, 264
handling, 437 on body by Communication Processes, 547
“Have I done something you feel is wrong in on children, 554
this session?” “Describe it to me”, 296 what techniques comprise an assist, 260
is a disorder, 378 association—differentiation are two principles of mind,
is only thing that will depress a profile, 437 150
must all be repaired thoroughly, ARC must be assumption occurs within a few minutes after birth,
maintained, 174 226
OCA/APAwhole line (or majority of points) drops assumption of beingness, 257, 258, 271; see also
means ARC breaks with auditor, 334 valences
retard results, 382 astigmatism, a distortion of image, is only an anxiety
thetan will dream up ARC breaks to exteriorize his to alter the image, 39
attention from a PTP, 304 astral body is an aberration, 414
TR 5N is ARC break handling, 353 atomic bomb, facts about and protection from; see
two conditions under which pc violently protests radiation;All About Radiation
about ~, 303 attention,
with auditors, 430 bank merely expresses a recording of past atten
ARC Break Straightwire, 453, 489 tion fixations, 428
cannot be run on a case that is motivator hungry, clearing is a gradient process of finding places
397 where attention is fixed and restoring ability of
CCH-50 is its processing number, 363 pc to place and remove attention under his own
commands of and how to run, 363, 389 determinism, 428
good and badpoints of, 364 consequences of fixed attention, relation to no
is very useful in husband-wife co-auditing teams, “case gain”, 428
364 span of child is short, 553
to as-is ARC breaks, 489 unfixing attention, 428
works well on medium level pcs, 381 by violence throws a case downscale, 428
ARC Straight Wire, 69, 294, 316 must be done by increasing ability to reach and
as a training process, 483 withdraw from specific thing or person on
commands and how to run, 111, 316 which attention is fixed in bank, 428
cyclic aspect of, 317 Attention by Duplication 9, No. 4 [process], 395
TR 11, 69, 316 audit, auditing,
arguments, caused by failure to handle originations, defn., that process which restores confidence in
371 confronting and undoes necessity to confront
as-is, communication tends to as-is mass, 138 thought, time, life, energy, matter and space,
as-ising requires taking responsibility, 555 311
assessment(s), defn., reversing of other-determined flows by
defn., discovering what has overwhelmed pc, 465 gradient scales, putting pc at cause again, 465
defn., inventory and evaluation of pc, his body acknowledgements in, 543
and his case to establish processing level and age and auditing, 34
procedure, 484 ARC formal auditing, description of, 242
dynamic assessment, 407 ARC in auditing, 311
of a case on lower rungs of processing using Know assist is auditing on several dynamics, 262
to Mystery Scale, 460 assists, difference to auditing at large, 259
Assigning Identity [learning process], 31 audit the case one is auditing, 3 1 2
assist(s), defn., an action undertaken by a minister to barriers to, 244; see also auditing, gross auditing
assist the spirit to confront physical difficulties errors [in full index]
which can then be cared for with medical metho- basic rule of, is to start with something pc can do
dology by a medical doctor as needful, 259 and then get him to do it better, 161,181,182
accidents, using assists, 262, 263 being interesting is not auditing, 355
be professional and definite, 261 Child Processing; see Child Processing
difference between formal session and assist, 259, command; see command
260 does require stamina, 107
first aid always precedes an assist, 262 effect point, don’t process pc at, 518 .
for PT location by Comm Process, 547 experimental ~ and standard techniques, 282
in an assist you always count on fact that thetan formal auditing, defn., control by ARC, 242
himself would, if he could, do right thing, 262 different than Tone 40 auditing, 242

SUBJECT INDEX— 1957/1959


audit, auditing (cont.) auditor(s)(‘s) (cont.)
four points of auditing error, 285, 292 crimes, two biggest, are rough and choppy auditing
getting pc to talk to you honestly, 315 and overestimating level of case, 397
gradient approach of auditing, 312 don’t talk to pc much during session, 379
Group Auditing; see Group Auditing establishing auditor with pc, 314
how it becomes a problem to pc, 195 ethical auditor, what he does, 392
length of time used in processing [1959], 447 fail to make pc feel they are interested in pc when
muzzled, 379, 440, 504, defn. auditor says only they handle him with poor ARC, 242
two things—gives command and acknowledg- goal of, to discover an ability in pc and improve it,
es answer to that command; if pc says any- 5,159,178
thing not an answer to command, auditor goal of, to help pc re-establish confidence in his
nods his head and awaits an answer before ability to confront thetans, thought, time, life,
giving acknowledgement [1959], 441, 451 energy, matter and space, 31 1
is remedy for rough auditing, 397 goals of, stack up on a gradient scale between
of engrams, 416 thetan inoperative and thetan who can operate,
when muzzled auditing should be used, 436 155, 175
new mother, 361 handling pc who is not co-operative, 159,178
offbeat processing, 282 having low ARC, cause of, 516
OT, goal of all processing, 161,181 how to increase pc’s willingness to confront past,
participation of pc in session; see session, in ses- 489
sion interest in case, from auditor and pc, 405
pc complains that auditing has no effect on him or length of time to become an auditor, 329
who makes very slow gains, what to run, 497 levels of auditors and processes [1957], 84
pc unwilling to be audited, what to run, 326, 468, making pc physically well without pc finding out
497 about it, 182
pc who isn’t cogniting regularly is being processed must be able to duplicate, 355
beyond his ability to do, 181 Operating Thetan, only goal worthy of auditor’s
psychotic persons unwilling to be audited, what to attention, 176
run, 468, 497 pc and ~, when they are cleared for session, only
requires that you obtain a better reality on your then begin on case, 301
environment and all its drills are aimed at this, pc gain, auditor unhappy about, 454
514 remains at cause in all sessions without forbidding
running out bad auditing, 419 pc to be at cause, 161,181
session; see session staff auditor, 83, 84
skill, four grades of, 83 grounds on which to refuse to process or release
skill is a discipline in living and a know-how of the a pc, 51
parts of life, 236 students in Academy are auditors, not pcs, 250
teaches pc that he can be at cause without having treating pc as a victim, 516
to be because he doesn’t dare be at effect, 160, unable to produce good results, cause and handling
180 of, 285, 292
theory of, 311, 312 using a process on which he has high reality will
Tone 40; see Tone 40 auditing obtain high results with a pc, 60
auditor(s)(‘s), validated auditor [1957], 84
ARC breaks with auditors, 430 will always be senior to Clears, 237
attitude required to confront the world, 108 Auditor’s Code; see also C&MSCS
bad auditor talks too much to pc and stops pc addition to the, 82
from properly answering, 308, 544 change [1958], 306
basic fundamentals, when they are securely the No. 19,417
auditor’s own there is no need for him to be OCA/APA profile dropped, cause and handling of,
told what must be done, 425 285
book auditor, 83, 84, 85 Scientologist operates within boundaries of Audi
can be smoothed out as cases by running a Com- tor’s Code and Code of a Scientologist, 281
munication Process on “an auditor” and “a authoritarianism is little more than a form of hypno preclear”, 505 tism, 424
certified auditor, 83, 84 authority and preponderance of agreement ordinarily
clearing the auditor; see clearing the auditor make man accept things, 420
commands, before auditor gives them, he makes authorship, mis-responsibility is the miscalling of, 98
certain he has pc’s attention on him again and automaticity, automaticities,
off last question, 296 increasing learning rate by drill usually only in
confidence, 379 creases familiarity and automaticity, 22

SUBJECT INDEX— 1957/1959


automaticity, automaticities (cont.) blow-off, improvement of conditions often worseas
of form, solution to, 210 the amount of, 557
responsibility and, 167 blows, justification for, 558
we take over automaticities only to rehabilitate blows, reason for, 555, 557, 558
ability of thetan, 232 Bodhi is evidently our “Clear”, 217
awareness, increased, is only factor which offers any body, bodies, 530
road out, 107 defn., a solid appendage which makes a person
awareness of awareness unit; see thetan recognizable, 151
axiom(s); see also Axioms & Logics defn., identifying form or non-identifiable form to
Axiom 10 becomes confused by thetan with cycle facilitate control of, communication of and
of action, 539 with and havingness for thetan in his existence
not-isness (Axiom 11), how to bring under pc’s in mest universe,480
knowing control and to reduce the not-isness in anchor points of, 151
pc’s bank, 489 assists on body by Communication Processes, 547
psychology is in actual use a dramatization of body control comes before control of thinking
Axiom 10, wholly reactive, 499 ness, 479
Scientology Axiom 58, 393 body part run on Communication Process, 513,
Scientology, principles and axioms of, are con- 519
siderations agreed upon from which stem this can’t change without changing mind, 151
universe and livingness, 344 control of body by pc, 184
thetan defined in Axiom 1, 223 death of body and handling of, 224, 227
electronic structure around body, 151
first step to control of pc’s body, 240
B GE is something that mocks up bodies, 226
is a mass, a solid terminal, 240
baby, how to feed and handle, 361 parts of man—thetan, mind, body, 129
bad acts, defn., are those acts which cannot be easily physical universe undercuts the body, 129
experienced at the target end, 432 reason for holding on to body, 186
bank; see reactive mind shut-off of memory actually occurs with pick-up
barbarianism, violence leads to, 343 of new body, 226
barbarism,howto cure, 252 theta clear can exist knowingly independent of
barbarism, what it is, 251 bodies, 155, 176
Basic Affinity Process, “What would you like to con- thetan himself without body is capable of per
front?”, 536 forming all functions he assigns to body, 480
basic personality; see personality, basic Body Confrontingness, commands and how to run,
be, being, beingness, 319
assumption of beingness, 257, 258, 271, 272; see Body Mimicry, Full, 6
also valences Body-Room Contact, CCH 6, 67
be, do and have depend on communication, 92 Book and Bottle; see Opening Procedure by Dupli course creates a beingness, not imparts data, 464 cation
covert theft of beingness, 257 book auditor, 83, 84, 85
D.E.I. Scale on beingness, 271 Book Mimicry; see CCH 4, Book Mimicry
preclear who assumes aches of another wishes to book one clear; see Clear, mest clear
be that other; he is short on beingness, 272 BP; see personality, basic
Beingness Processing is best solution to valences, 257 “Bring Order”—the motto of HCO, 391
271 B.Scn./HCS Course [1958], 366
belief or faith, Scientology demands no, and thus is Buddha, 217
not in conflict with faith, 514 Buddhism, why it won, 134
betrayal,defn.,helpturnedtodestruction,219 buttons we want flat on everybody in Scientology:
better, defn., negative gains; things disappear that victim, money, 508
have been annoying or unwanted, 428 buttons which depress clearing if pc has erroneous
between lives series, 226 definitions for them, 321
birth, ideal conditions for, 361
birth, prenatals and conception are a bounce from a
death, 411 C
birth, within a few minutes after it, assumption
occurs, 226 cable, don’t phone, 508
black field, 191, 256 cancer, 52
blindness, 38 Can’t Have [process] ,10
blindness is an extreme unawareness, 96 can’t have, waste what you can’t have, 141

SUBJECT INDEX— 1957/1959


case(s); see also preclear case(s), types of cases and handling (cont.)
analysis of cases, 428 invisible case, 405
assessments of a case on lower rungs of processing invisible case, cannot see mock-ups, how to
using Know to Mystery Scale, 460 crack, 400
auditor and pc when they are cleared for session, nervous-dispersed case, there is no real gain in
only then begin on case, 301 running significance until hellos and okays
audit the case one is auditing, 312 are run, 235
Dynamic Straight Wire, cleverly done, takes a case not-ising by figure-figure, 405
apart, starts almost any case, 453 running Help is necessary on a case that is hung
finding the engram necessary to resolve case, 352 up, 239
gain depends on taking responsibility, 555 wide-open case, 447, defn., case that has pic
how case behaves as we raise confrontingness on tures and everything and is impatient to get
mental image pictures, 447 on with it but does not markedly alter the
interest in case, from auditor and pc, 405 bank with thinking alone is not a high case
keep up co-audit pc’sinterest in case, 550 but an old “wide open case” of Dianetic
make-or-break point of case, 129 days, 159,179
most aberrative thing on case is association with undercutting cases, 404
mest, 189 causability, degree of knowing, 160, 180
no “case gain”, relationship to fixed attention, cause;see also effect
428 evaluation on a cause basis, 166
not-isness on case, indicators of, 485 last ditch way of being cause, 518
not to run on victim process, 519 of husband and wife quarrel, 364
present time problem, relationship to case; see pre- only those things which others are able to experi
sent time problem ence easily, 431
release is a person whose case “won’t get any cause point and effect point, bridge between, on any
worse”, 444 subject, 359
remedies, 468, 497 cause points, degree to which person becomes aber
results, what a result is, 428 rated, 466
scale of deterioration of case, 390 CCH(s), 5, 278, 394, 400; see also applicable lectures
Selected Persons Straightwire on Overts will bring in 16th ACC, 3
up responsibility of case to a point where he defn., stands for Communication, Control and
can be trusted to run engrams, 453 Havingness, 33
starting a case [1959], 402 defn., is really C for Control, D for Duplication, C
there are no cases in the Academy, 309 for Communication, Ct for Control of Thought
two biggest auditor crimes are rough and choppy = Havingness, 128
auditing and overestimating level of case, 397 ARC and CCH, 92
types of cases and handling, background theory of CCH, 130
ARC Break Straight Wire cannot be run on case case history, 249
that is motivator hungry, 397 commands and how to run, 312
bad off and good condition case require special Course [1957], 58
handling, 159,160,179,180 curriculum of CCH [1957] ,121
basic difference amongst cases lies in ability to does not work unless each command is in a sepa knowingly cause, 160,180 rate unit of time, 354
black case, 405 goal of CCH, 5,129
case of a student, 309 long form, 267
children with rough cases, 554 psychos, run on CCH 1, 2, 3, 4, 502
confront case, 405 running CCHs, 183, 482
dub-in case, 405 Tone 40 auditing, 480
experience case, 405 training and CCHprocesses, [1957] 61, [1959] 394
failed case, defn., case in which thought can use of, 379
always be overpowered by mest, 118 CCH 0, 157, 205, 294, 314
figure-figure case, somebody who will not ever defn., a collection of mechanical aids to assist pc’s
admit having done something or anything to participation in session and to assist the auditor
anybody, 519 in ARC, 158,178
getting special cases to participate in session, is firstly establishing the rudiments of session, dis 159,178 cussing the goals of pc for intensive, handling
Help and Step 6 do not work on low level ~, 322 PTP and clearing auditor for pc, 238
high case, how you tell, 159, 179 purpose of, 239
how to handle cases that self-invalidate between rudiments, goals and present time problem, 65
sessions, 504 starting session, 296

SUBJECT INDEX— 1957/1959


CCH Ob—Help in full—starting session, 219 CCH 88, Enforced Nothingness, 246
rules governing the running of, 220 center, exact plan of a, 500; see also franchise
Step 6, Mock-ups and Help, CCH Ob, two pro- central org can succeed as far as it can service, 515
cesses that clear a pc, 243 certificates, why all begin with word “Hubbard”, 288
CCH 1, change,
“Don’t give me that hand” version, 483 is “ought to be—should be” postulate, 88
“Give me that hand”, Tone 40, 240, 313, 480 obsessive, 130
“Give me your hand”, Tone 40, 65 when attention is fixed, ability to reach and with
Reality Scale and CCH 1, 240 draw decreases, therefore ability to change
running of CCH 1 , 183 decreases, 428
session, 53 character of person, determining by observing his
what it does, 240 intent concerning communication, 105
CCH 1 and 2 used for bad-off child, 526 charge, terminal chosen must be real to pc and must
CCH 2, Tone 40 8-C, 66, 313, 481 show charge on E-Meter, 550
commands and goal of, 247 child, children,
CCH 3, Hand Space Mimicry, 66, 314, 481 acknowledgement of, 110
Book Mimicry and ~ are not Tone 40, 400 attention span of, is short, 553
CCH 3 was Book Mimicry in 1958; see CCH 4, condition of, 109
Book Mimicry education, 30
Hand Space Mimicry called CCH 4 in 1958, 248 how to handle children, 81,105
how to run, 248, 249, 401 instilling confidence in children, 554
CCH 3(c), S-C-S on a person, 317 is a thetan in usually rather bad condition, 34
CCH 3 & 4, only valid if they heighten ARC, 174 is dependent on exterior evaluation, 166
CCH 4, Book Mimicry, 66, 314, 482 is suffering from death shock, 109
Book Mimicry called CCH 3 in 1958, 248 not permitted to work, 214
CCH4 was Hand Space Mimicry in 1958;see originationsofachild,371
CCH 3, Hand Space Mimicry processing of; see Child Processing
Hand Space Mimicry and ~ are not Tone 40, 400 requires understanding and assistance in control-
IQ changes produced by CCH 4, 247 ling the environment around him, 110
motions are the commands, 401 routine of, 81
product, purpose and procedure of Book Mimicry, using good 8-C on children, 82
247-48, 400 with rough cases, 554
CCH 5, Location by Contact, 67 Child Processing, 553
CCH 5, Tone 40 Locational Processing, purpose, pro- age of child in processing, 34
cedure and commands of, 254 assists on children, 554
CCH 6, Body-Room Contact, 67 auditing a 10-year old child, 53
CCH 6, Opening Procedure by Duplication [1957], demands more perfect auditing than adult process
purpose, procedure and commands of, 254 ing, needs very formal session, 553
CCH 7, Contact by Duplication, 68 give the child the dignity of real sessions, 526
CCH 7 [1958]: Tone 40 8-C—”Keep it from going processes for different types of children, 526
away”, 255 routine child processes, 554
CCH 8 [1958]: Tone 40 8-C—”Hold it still1’, 255 short sessioning works very well with a child, 526,
CCH 8, Trio, 68 553
CCH 9, Tone 40 “Keep it from going away”, 69 “You do something you think I’ll like” [child pro
is a withhold process, 230 cess], 540
CCH 9 [1958]: Tone 40 8-C—”Make it a little more choice, power of, 81
solid”, 255 Christianity is based on the victim; compulsion of
CCH 9, 10, & 11, why they are run, 233 overt act-motivator sequence, 494
CCH 10, Tone 40 “Hold it still”, 69 Christianity, why it won, 134
CCH 11, Tone 40 “Make it a little more solid”, 69 chronic somatic; see somatic, chronic
CCH 12, Limited Subjective Havingness, 70 civilizations, past ~ have vanished, 126
commands of, 256 Clear(s),
CCH 13, Subjective Solids, 70 defn., in an absolute sense would be someone who
commands of, 256 could confront anything and everything in past,
CCH 14, Then and Now Solids; see Then and Now present and future, 114
Solids defn., a thetan who can knowingly be at cause
CCH 15, Rising Scale Processing, 72 over life, matter, energy, space and time, sub
CCH 18, 99 jective and objective [1957] ,172
CCH-50, processing number of ARC Break Straight defn, a person at willing and knowing cause over
Wire, 363 his own life, his body and his surroundings and

SUBJECT INDEX— 1957/1959


Clear(s) (cont.) Clear(s), theta clear (cont.)
without a reactive or subconscious mind [1958], made by gradually raising their confrontingness
217 of mental image pictures, 445
able to confront the physical universe, other bo- mest clear and ~, difference between, 376
dies, his own body, other minds, his own processes on gradient scale from unconscious pc
mind and other beings—without trimmings, to theta clear [1959], 436
101 route theta clear, list of processes, 439
are the lucky, 1 53 schedule [1959], 468
attainment of “Clears” [1958], 217 three grades of Clear [1959], 375
auditors will always be senior to Clears, 237 Training 0—Confronting, first step on the road to
basic personality capable of all attributes of Clear, Clear, 101
284 what are Clears, 375
being Clear gives one the potential of being and you cannot stay Clear unless you solve things by
makes the being rather easy, and fun; makes it the greatest good for the greatest number of
possible to continue to be something, 236 dynamics, 237
Bodhi is evidently our “Clear”, 217 clear(ed)(ing), [1947-1949] 273, [1947] 318
know-how in auditing to Clear, 286 defn., a gradient process of finding places where
mest clear, attention is fixed and restoring ability of pc to
defn., a Book One clear; clear in terms of place and remove attention under his own
facsimiles, 155,175 determinism, 428
defn., can see facsimiles with sonic present life- buttons which depress clearing if pc has erroneous
time, has no psychoses or neuroses, upper definitions for them, 321
part of OCA/APA graph, above 135 IQ cleared Zulu is a cleared Zulu, 236
[1957] ,156, 176 Earth, 501
defn., freedom from keyed-in engrams, 375 fields, clearing of, 209, 210
defn., thinks of himself as a body and is subject in Dianetics vs. in Scientology, 270
to one; all engrams are effectually keyed out mest clearing is shortcut clearing, 446
without being examined; has excellent re- reality, 235
calls, 375 responsibility, basic clearing process using, 321
defn., preclear is mest clear when no terminal staff clearing,291
selected is, when run by a Communication theta clearing is faster than mest clearing but not
Process, productive of variation of tone arm faster than releasing, 447
from male or female clear reading, 504 up a goal, 327
clearing processes for, 377 up states of mind and psychosomatics, 302
difference between mest clear and theta clear, why some people are unwilling to clear people,
376, 445 454
is a way station on the road to theta clear or clear bracelets [1958], 341
OT, 376 Clearing by Valences, 274
Procedure [1958], 205 LRH session, Clearing by Valences, 276
what makes the state unstable, 446 clearing commands; see commands, clearing
needs training, 237 Clear Procedure, Clearing Procedure, 296, 382
one’s first duty is to be Clear, 1 53 ACC Clear Procedure, 3 1 1, 322, 369
procedure for certifying Clears [1958], 289 auditing the pc on Clear Procedure, 243
Project Clear processes, how to run, 144 definitions, goals, 155
theta clear, 375 HGC Clear Procedure outline [1958], 219
defn., a clear obtained by Clear Procedure Scientology: Clear Procedure Issue One, 172
[1957],155,175 Step One: Participation in session by the pc,
defn. , can exist knowingly independent of 157,176
bodies [1957] ,155, 156, 175, 176 Step Two: Placing the preclear at cause, 182
defn., has no obsessive engrams; can put back at Step Three: Establish control of pc’s body by
will his reactive bank or any engram in it and pc, 184
blow it off again at a glance, 376 Step Four: Find the auditor, 188
defn., person at cause over his own reactive Step Five: Pc versus mest, 189
bank and can create and uncreate it at will; Step Six; see Step 6
person who is willingto experience, 447 Step Seven (Optional): Establish pc’s control
defn., preclear is theta clear when he can handle over his “bank”, 191
engrams without producing a change from Step Eight: Make some time, 191
clear reading [1959], 504 Standard Clearing Procedure [1958], 274
Clears made in 1947 that were stable were in standardization of Clear Procedure, 285, 292
reality theta clears, not mest clears, 445 what Clear Procedure consists of, 285, 292

SUBJECT INDEX— 1957/1959


clear(ing) the auditor, 122,123, 301 command(s) (cont.)
best way of, 326 un-doable commands, 467
commands of, 239 communicate(s), communication, 104; see also 4th
with the pc after D of P interview, 307 London ACC Lectures, Vol. 11-270; C&MSCS
coach, defn., a student who is standing in the role of aberration, earliest button susceptible of aber
“pc”, 42, 462 ration was apparently communication, 518
blows occur when coach gives too few wins, 116 aberration is caused by cut ~ with the mass,
co-audit(ing), remedy of, 147
ARC BreakStraight Wire isvery useful inhusband- acknowledgement, its general use is putting a
wife co-auditing teams, 364 period to the communication cycle, 349, 350
formula, 475 be, do and have, 92
HAS Co-Audit, 380, 449, 498, 524, 527 breaking a solid communication line, 140
allowed process, 469 character of person, determining by observing his
Comm Course and ~ [1959], 456; see also intent concerning communication, 105
Communication Course common denominator of ~ and aberration, 28
Course [1959], 451 communication ability proceeds from control, 24
finding terminals, 513 Communication—Control—Havingness; see CCH
how to run a co-audit, 452 consequences of cut communication, 148
Overt-Withhold Straight Wire better than control + duplication = communication, 248, 355
Comm Process on HAS Co-Audit, 550 duplicative factors of, 355
processes, 439, 498, 550 first discoverable ability of a pc is ~, 5
terminals, one of most effective light terminals havingness drop and communication, 138,177
and one of best Comm Processes particularly how to communicate to a group, 336
for HAS Co-Audit is a body part, 519 idea that communication could be harmful, 518
untrained person can go release on, 444 inhibited communication, 466
6th London ACC tapes tell how to run an HAS intention communicates, 338
Co-Audit Course, 474 is-ness and communication, 146
PE Co-Audit process, 552 is raised by holding things in, 231, 232
retain co-audit pc’s interest in case, 538, 550 misuse and withhold of ~ is aberrative, 518
student intensives and co-auditing processes, 75 OCA/APA drop in comm level caused by double
urgent change in all co-audit courses [1959], 551 acknowledgement by auditor, 334
Code, Auditor’s; see Auditor’s Code parts of communication, 5
Code of a Scientologist [1957], 1; see also C&MSCS persuasion and ~, differences between, 82
Scientologist operates within the boundaries of the point past which communication is bad and short
Auditor’s Code and ~, 281 of which lack of communication is bad, 177
cognition, defn. unknown confronting or not con- preclear is as well as he can originate a ~, 370
fronting, when uncovered, gives us the phenom- Processes; see Communication Processes
enon of cognition, 311 rehabilitation of communication, 93
master cognition, “I knew it all the time”, 88 relationship to obsessive games condition, 104
Training 13, Fishing a Cognition, 73, 240 sound in communication, 138
colds and psychosomatics, process to cure, 246 success level of a person is his ~ level, 92
command(s), tends to as-is mass, 138
anaten ensues when one direction of command is terminal is a live mass or something that is capable
run too long, 220 of causing, receiving or relaying ~,1 14, 164
before auditor gives them, he makes certain he has third dynamic activity, highest level of, and ear
pc’s attention on him again and off last ques- liest instant of it is and was communication,
tion, 296 518
clearingcommands, [1957] 122, [1958] 298,301, third dynamic, how it violates the ~ formula,
[1959] 430 336
mis-acknowledgement is only and always a failure to a specific individual, 336
to end the cycle of a command, 543 two-way comm, 122, 136; see also Dianetics ‘55!
modification of auditing question for process that as a process, 160,179
dives backtrack fast, 529 does not mean invalidative or evaluative ques
no auditing command must depend upon any tions or comments by auditor,484
other auditing command or it won’t be in pres- is not conversation, it is a highly specialized
ent time, 354, 355, 384 thing, 122,161,181
repeating commands, theory of, 355 must remain “two-way”, 196
Tone 40, giving a command and just knowing that one-way communication as-ises havingness,
it will be executed despite any contrary appear- two-way doesn’t and actually raises the tone
ances, 240 of pc, 195

SUBJECT INDEX— 1957/1959


communicate(s), communication (cont.) confession, 551
two-way comm (cont.) confessions and IQ, 201
two ways to err: permit two-way comm to a confront(ing), confrontingness, 100, 116, 211, 318;
point where the pc’s havingness is injured; see also TR 0
chop communication to such a degree that ability to ~ the future without restimulation, 488
havingness is injured, 157 Affinity Process, “What would you like to con
what it consists of, 125 front?”, 463
war, how it can come about by lack of ~, 423 auditing restores confidence in confronting and
withhold ~, ability to, advances IQ, 201 undoes necessity to confront, 311
withholds and communication, 93, 201 Confrontingness Scale, 489; see also Scn 0-8
with hurtful things, 104 Confrontingness Scale of Reality, 447
communication bridge, what it is, 373, 536 is a parallel to Responsibility Scale, 446
Communication Course, [1957] 58, [1958] 335, Confront Scale is the scale of disintegrating reality,
451, [1959] 456;seealsoCo-Audit,HAS 404
ARC in Comm Course, 242 drama, 213
HAS Comm Course, 449, 451, 456, 527 eyesight and confronting, 37
Communication Process(es), 5 first step of handling anything is gaining ability to
defn, any process which places pc at cause and face it, 113
uses communication as the principal command “If you can’t stand it, confront it”, 100
phrase [1959], 503 incidents, end goal of running incidents is increas
assists for PT location and on body by ~, 547 ing ability to confront, 419
auditors can be smoothed out as cases by running irresponsibility and contronting, 96
a ~ on “an auditor” and “a preclear”, 505 level, 212
avoid pinning the process in present time, 531 mental image pictures and ~, 114, 447; see also
basic ~, “Recall a time you communicated”, 463 mental image pictures
body part run on ~, “From where could you mest clear has not been through a total ~, 446
communicate to a (name of body part)”, 513 not-is, when a person can confront something, he
cautions regarding Communication Processes, 505 no longer has to not-is it, 413
Comm Recall Process, 536 obsessive confronting, 319
D.E.I. Scale and ~, 534 preclear’s past, how to increase willingness to con
don’t self audit with a ~, 505 front, 489
end phenomena [1959], 504, 513 present time, 96
essentials of use of Communication Processes, 503 rock is confrontingness on a via, 320
how to run Comm Processes on assessment, 524 survival represented best by “continuous confront illnesses, process with Communication Processes if ing” at a process level, 539
illness is in the way of session, 505 survive and ~ are of same order of thing, 539
increases havingness by damping out excessive theta clears were made by gradually raising their
individuation, 531 confrontingness of mental image pictures, 445
Locational Communication relieves face pressures things which are worth confronting, 213
and terror stomachs, 466 unhappiness is inability to ~ that which is, 431
on Universe: separation process from all universes unknown ~ or not ~, when uncovered, gives us
the thetan is anxious about, 524 the phenomenon of cognition, 311
restimulative nature of~, 502 work, 214
terminals employed in command should be gen- you have to be able to hold the position in the
eralized, 503, 513 face of something, 232
terminals to which ~ are addressed must be real Confront Processes,
terminals never significances only, 503 Alternate Confront, commands of, 547
use of E-Meter [ 1 959], 504 Body Confronting, commands and how to run, 319
why pc doesn’t do it, 519 standard Confrontingness Processes, 215
work best on obvious and visible terminals, 531 Subjective Confrontingness, commands and how
Comparable Magnitude, Problems of; see Problems of to run, 319
Comparable Magnitude confused scene, mechanics of taking over, 262
complexities, postulates go from simplicities to ~, 345 confusion(s),
composed, OCA/APA drop in, cause of, 334 anatomy of confusion, 14
compulsive outflow, how to stop a, 350 blows off when order is put in, 378
condition, defn., is a circumstance regarding a mass or how to handle confusion, 262
terminal, 164 student, why he may experience somatics and con difference between condition and terminal, 164 fusions, 344
conduct, good conduct—do on]y those things which Connectedness [process], 97, 317
others can experience, 432 can also be run outside, 191

SUBJECT INDEX— 1957/1959


Connectedness [process] (cont.) create, creating, creation, 320; see also FOT
clears stuck needles, 243, 297 “create” is dynamic principle of existence in
commands of Connectedness, 297 Scientology as “survive” was in Dianetics, 539
commands of GP-3, Connectedness, 318 obsessive creation, 539
command with “you” added, 229 reactive bank comes from obsessive creating, 320
Control Connectedness; see Control Connected- spirit is source of all creation, 270
ness thetan’s answer to being threatened or struck is to
control version, 294 create, 320
earliest commands of, 190 Create Processes,
is the basic process on association of theta with Alternate Create, commands of, 547
mest, 163 dangers and advantages, 539
most basic of spotting processes, 189 “Recall creating”, 536
used to bolster havingness, 317 creativeness, radiation hits at, 52
why it works, 189 Creative Processing; see also Mock-up Processes
conscience, bad, 559 commands and running, 205
Consequences of Solutions [process] ,1 1 needle consistently out of pace with supposed
considerations and postulates, 139 command execution, cause of, 206
considerations, principles and axioms of Scientology criminals, 234
are ~ agreed upon and from which stem this critical, OCA/APA: critical;see OCA/APA
universe and livingness, 344 critical, “Recall being critical” “Recall withholding
consultant, defn., an instructor who is on duty criticism” [process], 532
sporadically or from time to time but not curiosity, 533
routinely in any one place, 42, 462 curriculum, how to write a, 464
Contactby Duplication;see CCH 7 cycle of action, Axiom 10 becomes confused by
control, 9, 204; see also Start—Change—Stop; thetan with ~, 539
C&MSCS cycling action of pc into the past, 70
acknowledgement is a control factor, 349
body control comes before control of thinking
ness,479 D
body, control of by pc, 184, 240, 267
by ARC is taught in Comm Course, 242 dating incidents with E-Meter, 389; see also E-Meter
by Tone 40 is taught in Upper Indoc, 242 datum, data; see also knowledge
children, using good 8-C on, 82, 110 course creates a beingness, not imparts data, 464
communication ability proceeds from control, 24 education is the process of placing data in recalls
Communication-Control-Havingness; see CCHs of another, 28
communication is reached by control plus dupli- evaluationofdata,421
cation, 248, 355 evaluation of importance of data in philosophy,
facsimiles are control mechanisms, 231 346
factors available to the auditor, 23 evaluation of importance of datum is often more
Find the Auditor is part of Control, 204 important than the datum itself, 345
mind (attention), control of, 267 is as valuable as it has been evaluated, 422
parts of control, 6 observe for yourself that presented data exist and
person, control of, 267 are true, 422, 425
preclear, control of, 204 power of choice over data, 21
situation, how to control, 261 power of Scientology is that it, by stressing single,
thinkingness, control of, 119, 255, 267 simple truths, eliminates oceans of mere data,
whole track, control of, 454 346
8-C, good and bad, 212 prime datum, no such thing; there must be two
8-C on students, 90 data since datum is of no use unless it can be
Control Connectedness, 205 ~ evaluated by datum of similar magnitude, 422
Control Processes, characteristic, purpose, stable stable datum, 60
datum of, 479 thinking consists of comparing a particular datum
Control Trio, 119 with physical universe as it is known and ob
commands, 111, 278 served, 424
how to run, 278, 279 utilization of data and education, 30
is a three-stage process on a heavy spotting Dear Alice, Part A; see TR I
control, 190 Dear Alice, Part B; see TR 2
conversation is not two-way comm, 161 death, dead, 223
correspondence courses, frailties of, 331 child is suffering from death shock, 109
course; see training exteriorization and death, 225

SUBJECT INDEX— 1957/1959


death, dead (cont.) disseminate Scientology without telling what it is,
handling of dead bodies, 227 476
havingness and death, 225 dissemination, use of “learning rate” in, 20
injury or death (or harmful communication), basic dissemination, you cannot communicate in 25 min postulate of, is best summed up by “victim”, utes something which took 25 years to develop,
518 106
is a forgettingness, 223 do, doingness,
is just one of varied forms of game of victim, 518 be, do, have triangle used to establish goals real to
isn’t a game anymore, 518 pc, 279
mind, partial death of, 224 Havingness Scale consists of the doingnesses with
of the body, 224 regard to mass, 141
past deaths of famous historical figures, 411 importance of willingness to do, 80
prenatals, birth, conception and sexual incident problem is not a condition or a terminal, it is a
are a bounce from a death, 411 “how” or “whether”; it is a doingness not a
what happens after, 226 person, 315
what it is, 224 Doctors of Scientology, 102
defend, don’t protect and defend, 147 D of P, abbreviation for Director of Processing, 334;
defense, consequences of, 147 see also Director of Processing
definition, how to handle mis-definition on vital D of T; see Director of Training
words, 301, 321 double acknowledgement; see acknowledgement,
D.E.I. Scale, double
Comm Processes and D.E.I. Scale, 534 dramatization of past experience, inability to restrain
evolution ofthe D.E.I. Scale, 533 ~ occurs when one has decided he can do
on beingness, 271 nothing about such an experience; thereafter he
stealing and D.E.I. Scale, 257 is the effect of all similar pictures, 359
delivery, how to run out, 361 dramatized, difference between restimulation being ~
departures, sudden and relatively unexplained, 557 and an origination, 371
desire, D.E.I. Scale, 533 dub-in is a continuous characteristic of person in a
destroy, help and destroy are opposite ends of the single lifetime and may not be present in the
same string, 252 ensuing lifetime, 398
destroy, psychiatrist thinks ~ is same as help, 252; dummy auditing; see also TRs
see also suppressive person [in full index] five dummy auditing processes, 384
destruction, betrayal is help turned to ~, 219 Step Two: Acknowledgement, 349
Dianetics; see also DMSMH Step Three: Duplication, 3 54
Axioms of; seeAxioms & Logics Step Four: Handling Originations, 370
basic difference between Dianetics and Scien- duplicate, duplication, duplicative,
tology, 270 auditor must be able to duplicate, 355
branch of Scientology which deals with mental communication, duplicative factors of, 355
anatomy, 470 control + duplication = communication, 248, 355
dichotomy, admiration and critical are a ~, 245 Dummy Auditing—Step Three: Duplication, 354
Director of Processing, grounds on which to refuse or not-is is a mechanism to prevent duplication, 435
release a pc, 51 Training 3, Duplicative Question, 62
Director of Processing indicates the processes to be Duplication Processes, 7
used by auditors on pcs [1959], 381; see also Duplication Processes, characteristic, purpose, stable
case supervisor [in full index] datum, 479
Director of Training, duress, to keep chaos from exploding, 212
goal of training from viewpoint of ~, 345 dwindling spiral, the idea of “worse than” is the
grounds on which to refuse a student already whole of~, 178
registered or to send student to Examiner, 51 dynamic(s),
instructors and ~ responsible for any future failure Assessment, 407
student may have in processing pcs, 50 Clear, you cannot stay Clear unless you solve
should never instruct Academy, 264 things by the greatest good for the greatest
Dir of Procu, abbreviation for Director of Procure- number of dynamics, 237
ment, 334 Know to Mystery and Dynarnic scouting, 484
disappearances, sudden, stay hung in the bank, 137 represent list for 8 dynamics, 407
disconnection from present time, 97 1st dynamic process, 367
disease, mechanism of, 147 3rd dynamic,
diseases, venereal, 147 highest level of and earliest instant of ~ activity
disorder, ARC break is a disorder, 378 is and was communication, 518
dispatch lines, fast ~ handle awkward situations, 521 how it violates the communication formula, 336

SUBJECT INDEX— 1957/1959


dynamic(s), 3rd dynamic (cont.) E-Meter(s),
how we work on the third dynamic, 251 dating incidents with E-Meter, 389
riot is simply a psychosomatic momentary needle rising steadily is symptom of anabandoned
injury or traumatic condition on the ~, 261 terminal, 504
5th dynamic, application of Scientology to the ~, needle that is stuck will run to loose if proper flow
522 direction is selected, 220
Dynamic Straight Wire, 402, 414, 433 use of E-Meter [1959], 504
analysis for, 433 valences, E-Meters don’t register well on, 284
cleverly done, takes a case apart; starts almost any Emotional Tone Scale expanded, 459; see also Tone
case, 453 Scale
commands and how to run, 402, 407, 408 enemies of the pc, run Help on, 268
how to do a diagnosis on ~-, 438 enforce, D.E.I. Scale, 533
looking for terminals pc gives you which don’t Enforced Nothingness, CCH 88, increases havingness,
belong on that dynamic at all, 433 246
never run a terminal that is sensible, 438 engram(s),
trying to undo identification, 434 by keying them out one becomes free of them,
446
commands [1959],453
E difference between engrams and incidents, 453
how to run, [1958], 352
education, 28 impact engrams, why people hang on to, 230
aberration and ~ closely associated, 29 locating the engram [1958], 352
aberration in education, 1 B mest clear is freedom from keyed-in engrams, 375
and utilization, 30 necessary to resolve the case, 352
basic science of education, 17 overt and motivator engrams, 414, 453
can show a person he can be at effect without running [1959],403,409,410,411
liability, 160, 180 old Dianetic cases or restarted cases, 419
child education, 30 once you have found an incident stay on it
is process of placing data in recalls of another, 28 until it is flat, 403
logics of education, 345 Reality Scale and engram running, 405
more esoteric and difficult subject is made, less reassessing on meter when charge on first item
student will be able to handle subject, 114 dissipated, results of, 410
necessities of education, 29 thing that keeps individuals from running en offbreed and peculiar schools, successes of, 31 grams adequately is R factor, 404
Scientology and ~, difference between, 22 theta clear has no obsessive engrams; can put back
loppy education can work, 31 at will his reactive bank or any engram in it and
effect(s); see also cause blow it off again at a glance, 376
auditing is teaching pc that he can be at cause enough and not enough, 211
without having to be because he doesn’t dare be environment, all that processing requires is that you
at effect, 160,180 obtain a better reality on your ~ and all its
bridge between cause point and effect point on drills are aimed at this, 514
any subject, 359 environment, being dangerous toward environment,
don’t process pc at effect point, 518 146
high games condition is no effect on self, total equal, men are not, 274
effect on others, 136 escape, 133
Lie about Effect [process], 10 from this universe , 1 34
neurotic and psychotic, relationship to effect, ethical auditing, 391, 392
169 ethical standards in America, 391
psychology is a body of practice devoted to crea- evaluate, evaluated, evaluation,
tion of any effect on living forms, 499 auditor evaluation makes OCA/APA drop in re
true overt act is unintended bad effect; not de- sponsibility, 334
served by recipient, 465 child is dependent on exterior evaluation, 166
Effort Processing and eyesight, 36 data is your data only so long as you have eval
electric shock, 15 uated it, 422
Tone 40 is for unconscious, psycho, non-commu- identification is inability to ~ differences in time,
nicative, electric shock case pc, 242 location, form, composition or importance, 393
electronic structure around body, 151 importances, bring about the ability to evaluate
emergency, defn., something that requires a necessity importances by Not-ls Straight Wire, 489
level, 214 intelligence and judgment are measured by ability
how to help in an emergency, 261 to evaluate relative importances, 393

SUBJECT INDEX— 1957/1959


evaluate, evaluated, evaluation (cont.) eyes, eyesight (cont.)
knowledge, person who accepts it without ques- Havingness and eyesight, 37, 38
tioning it and evaluating it is demonstrating how eyes function, 36
himself to be in apathy toward that sphere of thetan doesn’t look through his eyeballs, 36
knowledge, 424
logic, ability to evaluate importances and unim
portances is the highest faculty of logic, 393 F
necessity to have evaluation by others, 166
of data, 421, 422 facsimile(s); see also mental image pictures
of importance of data in philosophy, 316 are control mechanisms 231
of importance of datum is often more important degrees of pc reality on, 390
than the datum itself, 345 imposes itself on body anchor points, 151
on a cause basis, 166 interchange of, 231
evil and good, 166 mest clear is clear in terms of facsimiles, 175
evil, not taking responsibility ~or, 167 necessity for pictures, 230
exhaustion, “Recall Exhaustion” [process], 536 preclear, when you improve ability of pc to make
experience, experienced and see a picture you also inadvertently im-
bad acts are those acts which cannot be easily prove every picture in the bank including
experienced at the target end, 432 engrams, 539
good conduct-do only those things which others Factual Havingness, 307, 486
can experience, 432 commands, 318
idea is not to prove one can experience but to failed case, defn, a case in which thought can always
regain the ability to experience which is only be overpowered by mest, 118
done in processing, 432 faith, Scientology demands no belief or faith and thus
inability to restrain dramatization of past experi- is not in conflict with faith, 514
ence occurs when one has decided he can do familiarity or familiarization permits intelligence to
nothing about such an experience; thereafter he manifest, 428
is the effect of all similar pictures, 359 field(s), defn., any thing interposing between pc
no reason to withhold own actions or regret them (thetan) and something he wishes to see,
if one’s own actions are easily ~ by others, 431 whether mest or mock-up, 209
Past and Future Experience [process], 403, 408, are black, grey, purple, any substance, or invisible,
409 209
Re-experience and Experience Process, 488 black, 191, 256
teaches you never to do anything the second time, clean-up of, 205
356 clearing of, 209, 210
what it is, 408 invisible, 70,191, 256
experimental auditing and standard techniques, 282 is a self-protective or destructive device, 209
Extension Course, 331, 357 is one or more incidents, 210
exteriorize(s), exteriorization, 118, 149 process to vanquish, 246
defn., the phenomenon of being in a position of rules of fields, 209
space dependent on only one’s consideration, Step 6, totally clear up a field before running, 207
able to view from that space, bodies and the testing for fields, 209
room, as it is, 149 field auditor, rights of, 41
ability to, what it depends on, 149 fifth dynamic; see dynamic, 5th
compulsive, 186 Fight the Wall, commands and how to run, 9
death and exteriorization, 225 figure-figure,
difficulty of, reason for, 280 case is somebody who will not ever admit having
loss and exteriorization, 280, 324 done something or anything to anybody, 519
one never changes the process just because some- case not-ising by ~, result of handling, 405
body compulsively exteriorizes, 186 mechanism about a situation, 404
Opening Procedure by Duplication will ~, 395 preclear who figure-figures his answers, 516
point of exteriorization, 156, 176 Find a Spot, commands and how to run, 8
process, 149 Find the Auditor is part of Control, 204
extraversion-introversion process, Locational, Body first aid always precedes an assist, 262
and Room, 394 first dynamic; see dynamic, 1 st
eyes, eyesight, 118, 121 fixation, how to locate and unfix, 428
bad eyesight, 89 flip-flopping, defn, a process by which the pc’s ex confronting and eyesight, 37 cess motion is taken off, 184
Effort Processing and eyesight, 36 flow, E-Meter needle that is stuck will run to loose if
glasses and eyesight, 36 proper flow direction is selected, 220

SUBJECT INDEX— 1957/1959


flows, help follows laws of flows, not terminals, 220; game(s),
see also Scientology 8-80 conditions, 104
force, “What force would it be all right to use?” [pro- best processes are those which fastest convert
cess], 545 unknowing games conditions to knowing
forget, forgetting(ness), 245 games conditions, 9
bad memory, specific process for, Forgetting run no-games condition, 15
in brackets, 245 one is in an obsessive games condition when
death is a forgettingness, 223 one obsessively cuts everyone else’s commu how one mechanically forgets, 11 nication, 104
mechanism, 228 withhold is a games condition on communi
Objective Forgettingness [learning process], 31 cation, 201
spiritual being, forgettingness of, 224 death isn’t a game anymore, 518
Forgetting, 6-way bracket [process], 245 hidden game, pc is compulsively playing, 196
formal auditing; see auditing, formal of life, 102
Formula 10, addition to, 478 problem is a game, 196
Formula 10, an approach to OT, 472, 474 Gautama Sid&artha, 217
franchise(s), GE; see genetic entity
exchanging types of franchises, 506 General Help bracket [process], 321
HCO HAS Co-Audit Franchise, 506 General Overts, commands of, 43 5
HCO Processing Franchise, 506 genetic entity, defn., something that mocks up
holders, 512 bodies, 226
should send 10% to HCO WW, 507 genetic line, defn., a series of mocked-up automatici special information for, 492 ties which produce according to a certain blue
interim franchise,492 print from the earliest times of life on this
permanent franchise, 500 planet through until now, 224
Freedom Congress, 76 genetic line, atomic radiation does reverse it, 108
freedom, religion of Scientologist is ~ for all things ghosts and spirits, don’t invalidate, 226
spiritual on all dynamics which means adequate ghosts, how they come about, 530
discipline and knowledge to keep that ~ “Give me that hand”, Tone 40; see CCH 1
guaranteed, 281 “Give me your hand”, Tone 40; see CCH 1
Freud, psychoanalysis developed by Freud in 1894 in glasses and eyesight, 36
Vienna, Austria, 477 glasses, whole problem of glasses is the problem of
“From where could you communicate to a body?” confronting, 37
[process], 472 goal (s),
“From where could you communicate to a (general clearance of, 326
form of terminal)?”, run for PTPs, 497 clearing up a, 124, 327
Full Body Mimicry, 6 gradient scale of processes which will establish
fundamentals, how to be sure of, 424 goals which are real to the pc by casual two
future, ability to confront without restimulation, 488 way comm, 279
Future Process, 125 Help and goals, 125
how to establish, 279
necessity to clear, 183
G put pc more in session with goals, 314
rudiments and goals, 122
gain(s), Goals Process, 123, 279, 326
ability gain, defn., pc’s recognition that pc can gold discs, defn., 36
now do things he could not do before, 428 good and evil, 166
auditor unhappy about preclear gain, 454 government, defn., that body created by the aggre intelligence gain, defn., loss of restimulation of gate irresponsibility of a people,252
stupidity by reason of attempts to confront or deterioration of government, 182
experience problems of life; intelligence appears handling, 106
when stupidity is keyed out or erased; intelli- insanity of governments, 251
gence is a confronting ability, 428 what made governments persevere, 211
negative gain, defn., things disappear that have GPs 1-15, 72-73
been annoying or unwanted, 428 GP-3; see Connectedness
preclear who complains that auditing has no effect gradient scale, pcs gain on a smooth gradient scale
on him or who makes very slow gains, what to and do not suddenly become something, 155,
run, 468, 497 175
unstable gain, cause and handling of, 285, 292 gradient scale, thoroughness of training is achieved on
Galen, 421 a gradient scale, 345

SUBJECT INDEX— 1957/1959


Group Auditing, group auditor, 23 HCA/HPA Course, 54
all group auditing is done from tone 40.0, 24 contents and coverage of [1958], 291
assistant group auditor, 24 curriculum [1957], 26, 55
model processes, 23 examination [1958], 306
reason group auditors vary commands is they’re processes [1957], 5, 111
afraid interest will flag, 24 purpose of, 25
group, how to communicate to a group, 336 training, 40
group recruiting, 379 1959 HCA Course becomes a Clearing Course, 376
HCA, Hubbard Certified Auditor [1958], 288
HCO Board of Review, travelling, 102
H HCS, Hubbard Clearing Scientologist [1958], 288
Course, 287
Hand Contact Mimicry, 5,140 grade of, 286
whys and wherefores of, 136 head, anchor points and pain in the head, 98
Hand Mimicry, gradient scale of spaces, 6 healing, mental, 476
Hand Mimicry, Training 5, 63 hell(s),
Hand Space Mimicry; see CCH 3 a total myth and vicious lie, 226
happy, how to be, 431 man-made hells, 133
Harvey, 421 Hello and Okay [process], 136, 137
HAS Co-Audit; see Co-Audit, HAS commands, 235
HAS Comm Course; see Communication Course, HAS run on terminal to improve reality on it, 243
HAS, Hubbard Apprentice Scientologist [1958], 288 toothache, “Hello and Okay” Process on, 136
HASI, Hubbard Association of Scientologists Inter- Help, 239, 320; see also CCH Ob; clear the auditor
national, 470, 471 betrayal is help turned to destruction, 219
have, having, havingness, defn., to be able to touch or bracket(s),
permeate or to direct the disposition of, 278 general Help bracket, 321
ARC, loss of, is more important than loss of hav- on the rock, 320
ingness, 157 Two-way Help bracket, 301, 468, 497
ARC, repair of, restores havingness, 157, 177 5- or 9-way bracket, 294
be, do, have triangle used to establish goals real to 9-way bracket, 219, 297
pc, 279 destroy and help are opposite ends of the same
commands, 307 string, 252
Comm Process increases havingness by damping follows laws of flows not terminals, 220; see also
out excessive individuation, 531 Scientology 8-80
communication runs down havingness, 138 general Help and Step 6, 302
Connectedness used to bolster havingness, 317 goals and help, 125
death and havingness, 225 is necessary on a case that is hung up, 239
drop on critical on OCA/APA means ~ drop, 334 on an item, 298
dropped ~ and ARC breaks, how to distinguish on enemies of pc, 268
between, 157,177 psychiatrist thinks destroy is the same as help,
dropped havingness and communication, 177 252; see also suppressive person [in full index]
Enforced Nothingness, CCH 88, increases ~, 246 PT problem, if it doesn’t free on Help it is under
Factual Havingness; see Factual Havingness pinned by a similar earlier problem, 268
loss of havingness, pc will agitate or go anaten and scouting and running Help, 297
tend to be upset, 187 Step 6 and Help do not work on low level cases,
one-way communication as-ises havingness, two- 322
way doesn’t and actually raises tone of pc, 195 Training 13, 122
perception, relationship to havingness, 18, 37, 38 valence splitting is most reliably done by running
postulate which underlies ~ is “enough”, 88 Help in brackets on the valence, 285, 292
problems, havingness is the clue to problems, 117 Waste Help [process] violates rule of terminals—
PTP, threat to ~, how to handle, 195,196 run temminals, not conditions, 285, 292
remedy havingness objectively, 486 HGC allowed processes [1959], 381, 436, 497
Subjective Havingness; see Subjective Havingness HGC, purpose of, 25
Trio, ~ of an objective variety, 190; see also Trio HGS, Hubbard Graduate Scientologist [1958], 288
two-way comm and havingness, 157 High School Indoctrination; see TR 7
waste and have, 141, 275 “Hold it still” [process], 255
Havingness Processes, 7 commands and how to run, 7
Havingness Scale, defn., consists of the doingnesses Keep it from going away—Hold it still—Make it
with regard to mass, 141 more solid—on two objects, 187
H-bomb, 45; see also All About Radiation solves motion and no motion, 233

SUBJECT INDEX— 1957/1959


HPA/HCA; see HCA/HPA income tax; see tax, income
Hubbard Apprentice Scientologist; see HAS Individuality [process], 1 0
Hubbard Association of Scientologists International; individuation,obsessive,531
see HASI Indoc Instructor, purpose of, 25
Hubbard Certified Auditor; see HCA indoctrination,
Hubbard Clearing Scientologist; see HCS Course, goal of, 16
Hubbard Graduate Scientologist; see HGS Five Levels of, 26, 384
Hubbard(‘s), L. Ron and Procedure CCH, 128
career of, 470 High School Indoctrination; see TR 7
lecturing on writing, 80 Upper Indoctrination Course [1957], 58
LRH session, Clearing by Valences, 276 industrial technology vs. mental technology, 221
medical career in past life, 448 inflow and outflow, prevention of, 146
purpose, 252 inflow, “Keep it from going away” solves both out
writer in New York, 96 flow and inflow, 233
human spirit; see thetan inhibit, D.E.I. Scale, 533
husband and wife, why they quarrel, 212, 364 injured children, what to run, 526
hydrogen bomb, 45; see also All About Radiation injuries, assist does not attempt to cure ~ requiring
hypnotism, authoritarianism is little more than a medical aid, 264
form of hypnotism, 424 injury, basic postulate of, is best summed up by
hysteria and radiation, 44 “victim”, 518
insanity,
of governments, 251
I pain, misemotion, unconsciousness, insanity all
result from causing things others could not
ideas, Rising Scale Processing is run when the pc can experience easily, 432
change icleas, 144 psychiatrist sees in every ability an insanity, 170
identification, 418, defn, is inability to evaluate dif- psychoanalysis says all insanity derives from love,
ferences in time, location, form, composition or 170
importance, 393 in session; see session, in session
undo identification by Dynamic Straightwire, 434 instructor, defn., one who has regular classes and who
identity, identities; see also valences is assigned to places at specific times, 42, 462;
adoption of, that cannot be handled, 454 see also Course Supervisor [in full index;; train Assigning Identity [learning process], 3 1 ing
past identities, dramatizing, 555 may refuse to train or release a student, 51
rock is a basic shift of identity, 411 softness, error of, 90
ill, illness, stable data for, 50, 112
acutely, what to run, 502 intelligence,
formula for creating, 147 decreases when attention is fixed, 428
pc, what to run, 468, 497 familiarity or familiarization permits intelligence
person becomes ill if prevented from outflowing, 146 to manifest, 428
process with Communication Processes if illness is increasing ability to reach and withdraw increases
in the way of session, 505 intelligence, 428
impact engrams, why people hang on to, 230 intelligence gain, defn., loss of restimulation of
implants, between-life, 389 stupidity by reason of attempts to confront or
importances, evaluation of; see evaluation experience problems of life; intelligence appears
incident(s), when stupidity is keyed out or erased; intelli
confront, “What part of that incident can you con- gence is a confronting ability, 428
front?” [process], 410 judgment and ~ are measured by ability to evalu
dating incidents with E-Meter, 389 ate relative importances, 393
difference between engrams and incidents, 453 quotient, defn, ability to withhold or give out a
engram running, once you have found an incident datum on a self-determined basis, 118
stay on it until it is flat, 403 ability to withhold communication advances
field is one or more incidents, 210 IQ, 201
mind is a mechanism for overcoming the lack of ~, changes produced by Book Mimicry, 247
lack of experience in present time, 151 change, theory behind, 201
most scarce tend to stick hardest, 151 confessions and IQ, 201
overts, if you can get somebody to take the overts difference between personality and IQ, 200
out of any ~ the ~ will tend to vanish, 551 factors behind the handling of IQ, 199
running incidents, 419 “Recall a mystery”, method of raising IQ, 536
sexual incident is a bounce from a death, 411 test, taken several times, aspect of, 199

SUBJECT INDEX— 1957/1959


intention communicates, 338
intention of pc is easy to overwhelm, 183 L
intention, problem is a conflict arising from two op
posing intentions,488 language of a subject, establish communication by
interest, D.E.I. Scale, 533 teaching, 464
interesting, being interesting in auditing, 355 learning isn’t memorizing, 424
Interim Franchise, 492 learning lag and process lag, 18
invalidate, cases that self-invalidate between sessions, Learning Processes, five, 31
how to handle, 504 learning rate, 17, 20, defn., the rate one will permit
invalidate pc, “I’ll repeat the auditing command” has ideas to inflow, 28
been used to, 441 aberration and ~, relationship between, 15
Invent a Problem [process], 383 consequences, 20
“Invent something worse than (terminal)” [process], dissemination, use of “learning rate” in, 20, 21
158, 367 governs reading time, 22
invisible case, cannot see mock-ups, how to crack, increasing ~ by drill usually only increases famili
400 arity and automaticity, 22
invisible field, 70, 1 91, 256 learning lag and learning rate, 1 9, 20
IQ; see intelligence quotient learn, willingness to, 79
irresponsibility and confronting, 96 lesson, learning the wrong, 18
irresponsibility of great magnitude, when a person levels of auditors and levels of processes [1957], 84
won’t own up to his overts, 442 lie reaction, if pc reads high on tone arm, gets incon
is-ness and communication, 146 sistent lie reaction, use “What have you had to
be responsible for?”, 297
life,
J auditing skill is a discipline in living and a know how of the parts of life, 236
Justinian first great Christian emperor 211 game of life, 102
juvenile delinquent, 113 life vs. life, no liability; life via mest vs. life, some
liability; life vs. mest, total liability, 174
running away from, 115
K why Scientology is senior to life, 237
line, establish line so pc can become aware of auditor,
140
“keeping things from going away” is a basic mechan- lines and terminals, 140
ism which guards against loss, 230 lines and terminals, Reality Scale, 139
“keeping things from going away” is ~bility which lives,past;seepastlives
gradually cultivates ability of thetan to remain living, two rules for happy, 431
where he is, 232 Locational, Body and Room, an extraversion-intro”Keep it from going away” [process], 255 version process, commands of, 394
as assist, 263, 264 Locational, commands and how to run, 6
commands and how to run, 7 Locational Communication [process], 466
solves both outflow and inflow, 233 relieves face pressures and terror stomachs, 466
Keep it from going away—E~old it still—Make it more Locational, if turns on a somatic it must be run
solid—on two objects, 187 until ~ no longer turns on somatics, 192
key words, clear, 301 Locational Processing, 394; see also TR 10
knowing causability, degree of, 160,180 an attention process, commands of, 394
knowing in the fullest sense of the word, Scientology as an assist, 260
is~ 281 Problems of Comparable or Incomparable Magni
knowledge isn’t recalling, 30; see also data tude and ~, which to run, 325
knowledge, person who accepts it without question- to bring the pc up to present time, 239
ing it and evaluating it is demonstrating himself to handle problems, 122
to be in apathy toward that sphere of knowl- Location by Contact, CCH 5, 67
edge, 424 location can restimulate, 227
Know Mystery Recall Processes, 536 Location-Control Processes, 6
Know to Mystery and Dynamic scouting,484 logic, ability to evaluate importances and unim
Know to Mystery Scale, assessments of a case on portances is the highest faculty of logic, 393
lower rungs of processing using, 460 logics; see Axioms & Logics
Know to Mystery Scale expanded, 460 logics of education, 345
Know to Mystery Straight Wire for extreme cases, “Look around here and tell me something you could
460 do” [test process], 182

SUBJECT INDEX— 1957/1959


“Look at me. Who am I?” [process], 5, 188 mental,
“Look at my fingers” [assist process], 260 healing, 476
loss, 120 machinery is made, why, 230
exteriorization and loss, 280, 324 research, Russian, 537
“keeping things from going away” is a basic technology vs. industrial technology, 221
mechanism which guards againstloss, 230 mental image pictures, defn., are only de-solidified
prevents pc from conceiving a static; he associates present times, 34; see also facsimiles
a static with loss, 324 case, how it behaves as we raise confrontingness
“Recall a moment of loss” [process], 120, 325 on, 447
why it is held on to, 137 confronting and, 114
love, psychoanalysis says all insanity derives from may be the mind’s or the body’s; body carries
love, 170 around ~ and thetan does the same and these
LRH; see Hubbard, L. Ron two combine to forrn the mind, 224
mind is that structure of ~ and machinery on
which the pc is depending for his opinions and
M ideas, 150
pc is creating any he sees, 210
machinery, pc operating on, 150,182 picture is memory on a via, 375
madness is compounded of disarranged abilities, 170 put pc at cause with regard to, 487
“Make it alittle more solid” [process], 255 reactive mind’s anatomy is concerned with ~
Keep it from going away—Hold it still—Make it ordinarily unseen by person which nevertheless
more solid—on two objects, 187 dictate his illnesses and responses, 269
man(‘s), significance vs. mechanics of, 32
contest with the machine age, 221 theta clears were made by gradually raising their
inhumanity to man; see All About Radiation confrontingness of ~, 445
is a human spirit which is enwrapped, more or less, mest, mest universe,
in a mind, which is in a body, 223 body is an identifying form or non-identifiable
parts of man: thetan, mind, body, 129, 149, 480 form to facilitate control, communication and
real enemies; see All About Radiation havingness for thetan in existence in ~, 480
manic motion, cure for pc who is in, 248 Connectedness is the basic process on association
marital quarrels, cause of, 364 of theta with mest, 163
mass (es), creation of mest, 189
aberration is caused by cut communication with failed case is a case in which thought can always be
the mass, remedy of, 147 overpowered by mest, 118
are masses, they are not particles, 164 life vs. life, no liability; life via mest vs. life, some
are something that are shed from a thetan by liability;life vs. mest, total liability, 174
mock-up, and particles are something that are most aberrative thing on case is association with
shed from masses, 165 mest, 189
body is a mass, a solid terminal, 240 pc versus mest, Step Five of Clear Procedure, 189
communication tends to as-is mass, 138 physical universe undercuts the body, 129
condition is a circumstance regarding a mass or thetan trapped in, 530
terminal, 164 mest clear; see Clear, mest clear
fear of seeing is fear of mass, 209 Mimicry, Full Body, [process], 6
Havingness Scale consists of doingnesses with Mimicry, Hand Contact; see Hand Contact Mimicry
regard to mass, 141 mind, 530; see also reactive mind
vanishment of, 139 defn, that structure of mental image pictures and
mechanics vs. significance of mental image picture, machinery on which pc is depending for his
32 opinions and ideas, 150
medical attention, assist is not a substitute for, 264 defn, accumulation of recorded knowns and un
medical ethics, A.M.A.’s proposed principles of, 2 knowns and their interaction, 480
Melbourne 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 [processes], 547 association—differentiation are the two principles
memory, memorizing, of the mind, 150
learning isn’t memorizing, 424 body, can’t change without changing mind, 151
of past existences, restoration of, 224; see also control of, 267
past lives desires about new or different states of mind,
shut-off of memory actually occurs with pick-up clearing up, 302
of new body, 226 is a bridge between spirit and body, 224
specific process for a bad ~ is Forgetting run in is a mechanism for overcoming the lack of
brackets, 245 incidents, lack of experience in present time,
why it is shut off, 224 151

SUBJECT INDEX— 1957/1959


mind (cont.) necessity level (cont.)
man is a human spirit which is enwrapped, more or emergency is something that requires a ~, 214
less, in a mind, which is in a body, 223 needle, E-Meter; see E-Meter needle
partial death of, 224 nervous-depressed on OCA/APA, 118
parts of man: thetan, mind, body, 129, 223 nervous is toughest point to raise on a graph, how it is
Scientology is only full study in field of mind done, 334
developed in Twentieth Century, 477 neurosis, defn., unknowing and unwilling effect, 169
structure of, 150 psychosis and~, difference between, 169
thetan is misowning the mind in which he is neurotic, defn., the subject of one ormore unknown
trapped, 530 causes to which he is unwilling effect, but he
minister assists the spirit to confront physical diffi- can still function to some degree, 169
culties which can then be cared for by a no-games condition, 15;see also game conditions
medical doctor as needful, 259 nomenclature, establish communication by teaching
ministers, personal counseling for, 200 language of subject, 464
Mirror Image Hand Mimicry, 6 not-is(ing)(ness),
misacknowledgement is only and always a failure to case ~ by figure-figure, results of handling, 405
end the cycle of a command, 543 cure of not-isness, 435
misacknowledgement of pc, 308 how to bring under pc’s knowing control and to
mis-definition on vital words, how to handle, 301 reduce the ~ in pc’s bank (Axiom 11), 489
misemotion, pain, unconsciousness, insanity, all result is a mechanism to prevent duplication, 435
from causing things others could not experience on case, indicators of, 485
easily, 432 remedy extreme conditions of not-isness, 486
mis-responsibility, defn, the miscalling of authorship, 98 when a person can confront something, he no
“Mock up a picture for which you can be totally longer has to not-is it,413
responsible” [process], 487 Not-Is Straight Wire, commands of and how to run,
mock-up(s), 390, 403, 412, 435, 489
if a mock-up disappears or flies out of control, Not Know, Objective, [process], 8
don’t red herring after it, just have him mock
up the same item again, 205
invisible case cannot see ~, how to crack, 400 O
masses are something that are shed from a thetan
by mock-up, 165 Objective Forgettingness [learning process], 31
persistence of, is dependent upon a pc’s willingness Objective Havingness, 7
to let one survive, 209 Objective Not Know, 8
Mock-up Processes, 174, 191; see also Creative Pro- Objective Processes, characteristic, purpose, stable
cessing datum of, 480
money, button we want flat on everybody in Scien- Objective Show Me, commands and how to run, 43,
tology, 508 395
money, “From where could you communicate to Objective Solids, commands, 8
money?” [process], 508 objects, theft of, is really an effort to steal a se~f, 257,
money, Scientologists who can’t stand the sight of, or 271
who can’t seem to get pcs are just being a obnosis, 88
victim, 517 observe for yourself that presented data exist and are
mother, processing a new, 361 true, 425
motion and no motion, solved by “Hold it still”, 233 OCA/APA,
motion, flip-flopping is a process by which the pc’s critical, 118
excess motion is taken off, 184 cured by CCH 88, Enforced Nothingness, 246
motion, manic, cure for pc who is in, 248 may be influenced by Op Pro by Dup, 245
motivator; see also overt-motivator sequence drop in,
ARC Break Straightwire cannot be run on a case appreciative—lowered reality level, 334
that is motivator hungry, 397 comm level—double acknowledgement by audi
overt and motivator, magnitude of, 416 tor, 334
muzzled auditing; see auditing, muzzled composed—loss of auditor, poor CCH 0 in Find
the Auditor, 334
critical—havingness drop, 334
N responsibility from former week-auditor eval uation, 334
natives and children, retrograded state of, 109 evaluation of, with regard to auditing, 118
necessity level, defn., a sudden heightened willingness is a picture of a self, 257
which untaps a tremendous amount of ability, 214 nervous-depressed, 118

SUBJECT INDEX— 1957/1959


OCA/APA (cont.) orientation, lack of, is being surrounded by things
nervous is toughest point to raise on a graph, how you cannot understand, 109
it is done, 334 origination(s), 370; see also TR 4
processes to run on pcs with high or low OCA/ arguments caused by failure to handle ~, 371
APA, 117, 381 difference between an origination and restimula
profile, tion being dramatized, 371
ARC break is only thing that will depress a, 437 how to handle, 371, 372
dropped, cause and handling of, 285, 292, 334 of a child, 371
how to read profiles on OCA: comparing cur- Tone 40 processes do not handle pc’s , 370
rent ~ with previous one, 334 Origins (Originations) [process], 321
is a picture of a valence, 257, 274 OT; see Operating Thetan
or case, unchanged after auditing, cause and other-determined, auditing is the reversing of~ flows
handling of, 276, 285, 292, 334 by gradient scales, putting pc at cause again,
reduced, cause of, 397 465
reviewing week’s profiles, 207 outflow, how to stop a compulsive, 350
to change an OCA/APA it is necessary to shift outflowing, person becomes ill if prevented from, 146
selves, 257 outflow, “Keep it from going away” solves both
Opening Procedure by Duplication, Book and Bottle, inflow and ~, 233
245, 254, 399 out of sessionness, 304
commands and how to run, 7, 188, 399 out of valence, how to handle, 11
exteriorization, 395 overt (s), 551
interrupting process is fatal, 396 General Overts, commands of, 435
low critical on OCA/APA may be influenced by, if you get somebody to take overts out of any
245 incident the incident will tend to vanish, 551
old style commands, 111 minimizing an ~ by degrading those it was done
Tone 40 Book and Bottle is not ~, 395 to, 558
Operating Thetan, 375 motivator and overt engrams, 414
defn., theta clear plus ability to operate function- motivator and overt, magnitudes of, 416
ally against or with mest and other life forms, responsibility and overts, 442, 453, 551
155, 175 separation from others by ~ against them, 555
defn., can be at cause knowingly and at will over true overt act is an unintended bad effect not
life, matter, energy, space and tirne, sub- deserved by recipient,465
jectively and objectively, 156, 162, 176, 191, withholds and,
518 checking before leaving org, 558
defn., an educated basic personality, 284 pc’s bank becomes solid to degree that he does
defn, cause over matter, energy, space, time, life not take responsibility for his ~, 552
and form, 447 people leave because of their own ~, 557
defn., is knowing and willing cause over all dynam- why people are sick, 413
ics, 555 Overt Act Straight Wire, commands of and how to
ability, handling time, 98 run, 389
Formula 10 is first formula for, 474 overt-motivator engrams, 453
goal of all processing, 161, 181 overt-motivator sequence, 518; see also HOM
only goal worthy of auditor’s attention, 156, 176 basic postulate of ~, 359
our actual goal, 155 process for pcs who cannot seem to plumb an ~,
responsibility must go hand in hand with making 532
an Operating Thetan, 555 there is a villain and a victim in any ~, 518
Opponents [process], commands, 10 victim is central button of ~, 516
Op Pro by Dup; see Opening Procedure by Dupli- Overt-Withhold Process, terminal assessment for, 484
cation Overt-Withhold Selected Persons Straight Wire; see
order, Selected Persons Overt-Withhold Straight Wire
bringing ~ is keynote of handling any area, 378 Overt-Withhold Straight Wire, 459
“Bring Order” the motto of HCO, 391 better than Comm Process on HAS Co-Audit,
confusion blows off when order is put in, 378 550
keynote of a thet2n is order, 262 data on clearing a staff member after specific
when you start to introduce order into anything terminals are flat with ~, 525
disorder shows up as the second postulate and overwhelm(ed)(ings),
blows off, 507, 541 assessment is discovering what has ~ pc, 465
organizational goals of Scientology [1959], 548 fundamental difficulty is that something has so
organization and victim button, 517 thoroughly ~ pc that he is it; other-determin
org board, purposes posted on, 25 ism has become person, 465

SUBJECT INDEX— 1957/1959


overwhelm(ed)(ings) (cont.) people, too few and too many, 149
pc’s intention is easy to overwhelm, 183 people, why some are unwilling to clear others, 454
person becomes as aberrated as he is overwhelmed perception, relationship to havingness, 18, 37
by other-determinisms, 466 personal counseling for ministers, 200
valences are the sum of ~ of the pc, 274 Personal Efficiency; see PE
Ownership Processing, 19 personality,
Oxford Capacity Analysis; see GCA/APA basic, 160
capable of all attributes of Clear, 284
P OT is an educated ~, 284
thetan has a ~, 257
pain, difference between personality and IQ, 200
anchor points and pain in the head, 98 split personality, 11
misemotion, unconsciousness, insanity all result person, control of, 267
from causing things others could not experience persuasion vs. communication, 82
easily, 432 philosophy, Scientology, how it is undercutting older
pc in extreme ~, what he can be audited on, 235 philosophy, 345
PTP is pain in body part, what to run, 168 physical universe; see mest universe
pan-determinism is highest part of Tone Scale, 465 picture; see facsimile
paper trick, 516, 519 position in space, to maintain, is power, 232; see also
participation, 319 Scientology 8-80
in session; see session, in, pc participation postulate(s), postulated, postulating,
particles are something that are shed from masses, considerations and postulates, 139
165 go from simplicities to complexities, 345
particles, masses are masses, they are not ~,164 injured, one cannot be injured until he has postu
past, lated that thetans can be injured, 518
ability to re-experience, 488 mest clear can ~, can still key in engrams, 446
civilizations have vanished, 126 of change is “ought to be—should be”, 88
cycling action of pc into the past, 70 positive postulating is Tone 40, 240, 386
deaths of famous historical figures, 411 Scientology, everything in it has been directly and
existences, restoration of memory of, 224; see also actively ~ by person at some point in past, 345
past lives second postulate, when you start to introduce
how one mechanically forgets the past, 11 order into anything disorder shows up as the
identities, dramatizing, 555 second postulate and blows off, 507
increasing pc’s willingness to confront past, 489 succumb, 315
Then and Now Solids makes pc capable not only why a thetan makes his ~ fail to stick, 465
of contacting and handling present time, but power, defn., is contained in the ability to maintain a
also any segment of the past, 34 position in space, 232; see also Scn 8-80
track valences are preferable to run over present power of choice,21,81
life valences, 284 preclear(s)(‘s),
Past and Future Experience, 403,408,409 defn., a precise thing, part animal, part pictures
past life, past lives, and part God, 161, 181
abilities, 80 ability gain is pc’s recognition that pc can now do
amnesia on, reason for, 225, 555 things he could not do before, 428
pc is stuck in ~ or has recurring facsimiles of~ ARC breaks, two conditions under which nc
during processing, handling of, using Then and violently protests ARC breaks, 303
Now Solids, 266 assessment is discovering what has overwhelmed
people upset about, 151 pc, 465
responsibility and, 555 assuming aches of another wishes to be that other;
Pavlov, 172 he is short on beingness, 258, 272
pc; see preclear auditor’s relationship to pc; see auditor
PE, body, control of, by pc, 184, 240
Co-Audit process, 552 communication is first discoverable ability of a pc, 5
Course curriculum, 527 cycling action of pc into the past, 70
Foundation, defn., a programmed drill calculated difference amongst, 160,180
to introduce people to Scientology and to difficulties of,
bring their cases up to a high level of reality bank becomes solid to degree that pc does not
both on Scientology and life, 527 take responsibility for his O/Ws, 552
basic course, 449 fundamental diMculty is that something has so
personnel, 528 thoroughly overwhelmed pc that he is it;
Unit, purpose of, 25 other-determinism has become person, 465

SUBJECT INDEX— 1957/1959


preclear(s)(‘s), difficulties of (cont.) present life valences, past track valences are prefer getting handled, 454 able to run over ~, 284
how auditing becomes a problem to pc, 195 present time,
who isn’t cogniting regularly, reason why and assists for PT location by Comm Process, 547
handlingof,181 Comm Process, avoid pinning the process in~,
doesn’t dare be effect, 160,180 531
enemies of, 268 confronting present time, 96
figure-figures his answers, 516 disconnection from present time, 97
gain on a smooth gradient scale and do not sud- Locational Processing to bring pc up to ~, 239
denly become something, 155,175 mental image pictures are only de-solidified pres
have service facsimiles so they can be victims, 519 ent times, 34
hidden game, pc is compulsively playing, 196 mind is a mechanism for overcoming the lack of
“I’ll repeat the auditing command” has been used incidents, lack of experience in ~, 151
to invalidate pc, 441 Recall Processes take pc out of PT and put him
in session, getting pc; see session, in back in, 536
intention, easy to overwhelm, 183 Then and Now Solids consists exactly of making
interest in case, 405 pc capable not only of contacting and handling
is as well as he can originate a communication, 370 ~, but also any segment of the past, 34
liability, there is no real liability to a pc in this time, by a sequence of de-solidifying present time
universe except one: becoming total subject of one evidently achieves time, 34
mest, 174 present time problem, 168, 315, 488; see also prob
line, pc aware of, before terminal, 140 lem
mental image pictures; see mental image pictures defn., is one which has its elements in the material
misacknowledgement of pc, 308 universe in PT, which is going on now, and
must be kept at cause as much as possible, 174 which would demand pc’s attention to such an
must be permitted to find out what is wrong, 312 extent that he would feel he had better be
OCA/APA and preclear; see OCA/APA doing something about it rather than be
operating on machinery, 182 audited, 168
originations;see TR4 defn., (problem itself, not just its terminals, must
participationinsession;seesession,in exist in PT) something worrying pc so much
present time problem; see present time problem that he will have a difficult time keeping his
process, real and unreal to pc, difference between, attention on auditing, 243, 296
182 defn., one that exists in PT, in a real universe; any
reality level of pc, 312 set of circumstances that so engages attention
static, what keeps a pc from conceiving a, 120 of pc that he feels he should be doing some
terminals and preclears; see terminals thing about it instead of being audited, 488
thinkingness, how to bring under pc’s control, 255 flat when pc doesn’t have to do anything about it,
types of preclears and what to run, 390 407
can change ideas, then run Rising Scale Process- handling, [1957] 162, 192, [1958] 303, 405,
ing, 144 [1959] 525
complains that auditing has no effect on him or as an intensive, 315
who makes very slow gains, what to run, by Comparable Magnitude, 8
468, 497 establishing if any, and handling, 314
hard to audit, in propitiation, does obsessive how to run PTP [1958], 315
agreement, has hypnotic eyelid flutter, run only PTP that reads, 315
seems unnatural about talking or not talking, use “From where could you communicate to a
how to get into session, 315 (general form of terminal)?”, 497
ill pc, what to run, 468, 497 use Selected Persons O/W Straight Wire [1959],
in extreme pain, what he can be audited on, 402
235 using “worse than” [process], 158, 177
stuck in a past life or has recurring facsimiles of if it doesn’t free on Help it is under-pinned by a
past lives during processing, handling of, similar earlier problem, 268
using Then and Now Solids, 266 is a highly vital point of pc participation, 158, 177
unwilling to be audited, what to run, 326, 468, is pain in some member of the body, what to run,
497 168
valence and preclear; see valence is the only thing which can keep a case from gain
what can he do, 183 ing, 161,181
Prelogics; see Axioms & Logics left in restim, or not located at all, effect on OCA/
prenatals, birth, conception are a bounce from a APA, handling of, 276, 285, 334
death, 411 makes it hard for pc to confront session, 311

SUBJECT INDEX— 1957/1959


present time problem (cont.) Problems of Comparable/Incomparable Magnitude
pc generally doesn’t know he has one which is nag- [process] (cont.)
ging him, 158,177 process to run when pc’s communication is too
personnel involved in a ~ must exist right now in poor to run ~, 254
the physical universe, 406 Problems of Comparable Magnitude, 10, 114, 122,
psychosomatics may come under head of ~, 243 303, 316
stalls cases, 382 handling and running, 164, 229
there are many people who cannot tackle a ~ with procedure, 165
a process, 159 reason it works, 167
thetan will dream up ARC breaks to exteriorize his process(es), 229
attention from a ~, 304 basic chart of process types [1957] ,131
things to audit present time problemwith, 168 best processes are those which fastest convert
threat to havingness is present time problem, 195 unknowing games conditions to knowing games
why case doesn’t change in presence of, 195 conditions, 9
Present Time Problem Process, 196 flattening, 398
to run when pc’s communication is too poor to freeze, 240
run Problems of Comparable/lncomparable gradual scale of processes [1959], 397
Magnitude, 254 lag and learning lag, 18
“What part of that problem could you be respon- levels of auditors and processes [1957], 84
sible for?”,296,315 on gradient scale from unconscious pc to theta
pressures, Locational Communication relieves face clear, list [1959], 436
pressures and terror stomachs, 466 only assist in processing the pc, 16 1,1 81
prime datum, no such thing; there must be two data real and unreal to pc, difference between, 182
since datum is of no use unless it can be evalu- running with no apparent gain, reason for, 195
ated by datum of similar magnitude, 422 six basic process types, 479
prison and army systems of punishment, 235 survival, all ~ have aligned on “survive”, 320
privacy, invasion of, 496 terminals, in the absence or unreality of a terminal
problem(s); see also present time problem the significance in a process will not function,
defn, conflict arising from two opposing inten- 235
tions, 488 unreality of processes, too high for a pc, 96
auditing, howit becomes a problem to pc, 195 unstable gain means too many processes or pro basic anatomy of, 113 cesses not flattened, handling of, 285
basic problem is postulate-counter postulate, 303 what they are, 161,181
handling and running, 164 which turns on a somatic must be continued until
handling of, unless the pc can get idea of problem, it no longer turns on somatics, 159, 179
the technique is unworkable, 165 processing; see auditing
havingness is the clue to problems, 117 Process July, 200
Invent a Problem [process], 383 professional auditor; 102
invention of, why not aberrative, 196 profile(s); see OCA/APA
is a game, 196 Project Clear check sheet [1957] ,143
is not a condition or a terminal; it is a “how” or Project Clear processes, how to run, 144
“whether”; it is a doingness, not a person, 315 propaganda, Russian,45
is two-terminaled, 303 pro-survival valences, never run, 284
Locational Processing to handle, 122 protect and defend, don’t, 147
mis-definition of, 303 psychiatry, psychiatric, psychiatrists,
penalty of solving problems, 462 a swindle, 47
scale of succumb problems, 315 developed through the Nineteenth Century in
solutions, belief that solutions collapse ~ on Russia, 477
thetan, cause of, 462 psychosis, neurosis and psychiatrists, 169
thetan thinks he needs them to keep his attention report on two cases that have received psychiatric
exteriorized from rock chain, 304 and Euro-Russian therapy from the govern
“What part of that problem could you be respon- ment, 234
sible for?” [process], 315 sees in every ability an insanity, 170
when is it flat, 10 thinks destroy is the same as help, 252; see also
why people won’t solve their problems, 462 suppressive person [in full index]
Problems of Comparable/Incomparable Magnitude psychoanalysis, 537
[process], 196 condemning facts of, 138
incomparable magnitude as alternate to compar- developed by Freud in 1894 in Vienna, Austria,
able magnitude, 165 477
Locational Processing and ~, which to run, 325 says all insanity derives from love, 170

SUBJECT INDEX— 1957/1959


psychology, defn., body of practice devoted to crea- reach and withdraw mechanism, 201
tion of any effect on living forms, 499 reach-withhold phenomena, 432
developed by Wundt in 1879 in Leipzig, Germany, reactive mind, 269; see also mind
477 bank merely expresses a recording of past atten ]
is in actual use a dramatization of Axiom 10, tion fixations, 428
wholly reactive, 499 bank of pc becomes solid to degree that he does
is not accepted by Roman Catholic Church be- not take responsibility for his overts and with
cause it considers man to be an animal with no holds, 552
soul, 514 bottom point of, 518
Wundtian psychology, 46 case, bad off, can’t handle the bank, 160,180
psychosis and neurosis, difference between, 169 clearing in Dianetics vs. in Scientology, 270
psychosomatic(s); see also somatic comes from obsessive creating, 320
clear up, 302 primary characteristic of, is response to a situation
colds, tiredness and ~, process to cure, 246 without analytical inspection, 269
difficulties, handled by Withhold, 118 Step Seven, Clear Procedure: Establish pc’s control
difficulties, obvious, or sexual parts, audit last, 93 over his “bank”, 191
may come underhead of PTproblem, 243 sudden disappearances stay hung in the bank,
psychotherapy never worked, why, 201 137
psychotic, psychos, reactivity, make-break point of, 359
defn., complete subject of one or more unknown reading time, learning rate governs ~, 22
causes to which he is unwilling effect and any reality; see also C&MSCS
effort on his part to be cause is interfered with auditors unable to produce good results, cause and
by things to which he is the effect, 169 handling of, related to auditor’s reality, 292
persons unwilling to be audited, what to run, 468, Confrontingness Scale of Reality, 447
497 is a parallel to Responsibility Scale, 446
run psychos on CCH 1, 2, 3, 4, 502 is the scale of disintegrating reality, 404
state, difference between ~ state and sane state is engram running inhibited by inadequate R-factor,
ability to make things solid, 188 404
PT; see present time establish reality of terminal before you try to clear
PTP; see present time problem, it with significance, 235, 433
punishment, not an answer, 558 hellos and okays are run on terminal to improve
punishment, prison and army systems of, 235 reality on it, 243
OCA/APA drop in appreciative—lowered reality
level, 334
Q pictures, pc’s reality on, 390
preclear, reality level of, 312
Q and A, defn., auditor changes the process just be- processing requires obtaining a better reality on
cause pc changed or wandered, 519 environment, 514
Q and A, examples of, 371 Reality Scale, 136,139,140, 401
Qs (Prelogics); see Axioms & Logics CCH I and ~, 240
engram running and ~, 405
Havingness Scale, part of~, 141
R lines and terminals, 139
old and new ~, 461
radiation, recall(s)(ing),
aberrative character of, 52 education is the process of placing data in recalis
atomic radiation reverses the genetic line, 108 of another, 28
creativeness hit by, 52 is therapeutic, 29
danger of, 45 knowledge isn’t recalling, 30
effects of, 108 “think of” command rather than “recall”, 485
hysteria and radiation, 44 “think” undercuts “recall”, 435
in war; see All About Radiation Recall Processes, 536
problems of fallout; see All About Radiation Comm Recall Process, 536
reaction to radiation is wholly mental, 46 communication process, basic, “Recall a time you
real threat of; see AU About Radiation communicated”, 463
resolution of, 52 Know Mystery Recall Processes, 536
surviving radiation, 48 on children, 554
treatment of radiation disease; see AAR “Recall a moment of loss” [process], 120, 325
reach and withdraw, increasing ability to increases “Recall a secret” [process], 93
intelligence and unfixes attention, 428 “recall a time” vs. “recall something”, 415

SUBJECT INDEX— 1957/1959


Recall Processes (cont) rising needle in session, cause of, 504
“Recall being critical” “Recall withholding criti- Rising Scale Processing,
cism” [process], 532 basic version, 243
stop with pc back in PT, 536 CCH 15, Rising Scale Processing, 72
Re-experience and Experience Process, 488 commands and how to run, 8
Registrar, auditing ARC breaks on, 360 is in reality an OT process, 243
Registrar, vital training data, 250 run when the pc can change ideas, 144
rehabilitation of abilities, 79 rock, 299
rehabilitation of communication, 93 defn, that which a person has used to reach
Rehabilitation Process, key, 379 people or things with and is determined in value
Release, defn., average a third of graph higher than by its creativeness or destructiveness; it is
first test, above 115 IQ [1957] ,156, 176 simply the reach and withdraw mechanism
Release is a person whose case “won’t get any worse”; which makes a ridge and this causes the stuck
he begins to gain by living rather than lose, 444 of the needle, 299
religion of a Scientologist is freedom for all things defn., basic, earliest shift of identity, 411
spiritual on all dynamics, 55, 281 basic locating question, 300
remedies for case problems, 468 chain, to key out and take out of restimulation,
remedy of havingness, objectively, 486 489
remedy of restimulation, 11 cycle of the rock (object): person (1) failed to
repair of ARC restores havingness, 177 communicate himself; (2) started using some
repeating commands, theory of, 355 thing to communicate with; (3) put the last
responsibility,321, 555 item on automatic anditcreatedforhim;(4)it
defn., total responsibility would be willing to failed, 299
admit the authorship of any created thing any- Help bracket on the rock, 320
where whether yours or another’s, 98 is an object, not a significance, 299
ARC break is assignment of ~ for a sudden drop in is the thing pc uses to reach people; it is confront affinity, reality or communication, 364 ingness on a via, 320
as-ising requires taking responsibility, 555 Step 6, caution: it is almost fatal to run Step 6 if
automaticity and responsibility, 167 the rock is not out, 322
case gain depends on taking responsibility, 555 thetan thinks he needs problems to keep his atten commands of Responsibility [process], 190 tion exteriorized from the rock chain, 304
Confrontingness Scale of Reality is a parallel to whole track rock, 295
Responsibility Scale, 446 rough auditing, remedy for, is muzzled auditing, 397
drop in responsibility from former OCA/APA is rudiments, 487
auditor evaluation, 334 CCH 0 is firstly establishing the ~ of session,
must go hand in hand with making an Operating 238
Thetan, 555 goals and rudiments, 122
overts, telling about, isn’t enough; it is necessary Russian mental research, 537
to take responsibility for them, 551 Russian propaganda, 45
past lives and responsibility, 555
pc’s bank becomes solid to the degree that he does
not take ~ for his overts and withholds, 552 S
Selected Person Straightwire on overts will bring
up ~ of case to point where he can be trusted Saint Hill Manor, 522
to run engrams, 453 sales failure, source of, 534
restimulation, restimulative, sane state, difference between a psychotic state and ~
ability to confront the future without ~, 488 is ability to make things solid, 188
difference between ~being dramatized and an ori- scarce, incidents which are most ~ tend to stick
gination, 371 hardest, 151
intelligence gain is loss of ~ of stupidity by reason scarcity and abundance, 148, 150
of attempts to confront or experience problems schizophrenic, defn., split personality; one in another’s
of life, 428 valence, 11
of student, how it is overcome, 344 schizophrenic, how to handle, 11
remedy of restimulation, 11 sciences, a look at the, 423
results, defn., case achieves a reality on change of Scientologist(s), defn., one who controls persons,
case, somatic, behavior or appearance, for the environments and situations, 55, 281
better, 428 are the free people, 145
retraining, problem of, 78 can get the job done, 332
riot, defn, simply a psychosomatic momentary injury characteristics of, 281
or traumatic condition on 3rd dynamic, 261 Code of, [1957], 1

SUBJECT INDEX— 1957/1959


Scientologist(s) (cont.) Scientology (cont.)
everybody is a ~, some just haven’t cognited yet, science of human ability and intelligence, 477
501 student, subject of Scientology is as good or bad in
in his training, must approximate route of actual direct ratio to his knowledge of it, 420
research and discovery, 328 study Scientology with purpose of arriving at your
is first cousin to Buddhist, 55 own conclusions as to whether or not the tenets
one who is not a victim, 494, 517 you have assimilated are correct and workable,
operates within the boundaries of Auditor’s Code 426
and Code of a Scientologist, 281 the way out, 134
religion of is freedom for all things spiritual on the work was free, 173
all dynamics, 55 training; see training
Scientology, undercutting any older philosophy, 345
defn., knowing in the fullest sense of the word, 281 Scientology Clear Procedure—Issue One, 172; see also
defn, an organized body of scientific research Clear Procedure
knowledge concerning life, life sources and the scouting, how to run, 297
mind and includes practices that improve the S-C-S;seeStart—Change—Stop
intelligence, state and conduct of persons, 491 S-C-S Control Process, Thinking version, 454
axioms and principles of ~ are considerations secret, “Recall a secret” [process] ,93
agreed upon and from which stem this universe secrets, only disturbing element in secrets is guilt
and livingness, 344 which accompanies them, 201; see also missed
Axiom 58, 393; see also Axioms & Logics withhold [in full index]
basic lessons of: spirit is source of all; you are a seeing, fear of seeing is fear of mass, 209
spirit, 270 see, thetan’s ability to, 209
chief uses are in fields of education, organization, Selected Person Overts, commands of and how to
mental disability and religion, 281 run, 434
clearing in ~consists of discoveringsource of reac- Selected Person Overt-Withhold, commands of and
tive mind itself and making it vanish, 270 how to run, 406
demands no belief or faith and thus is not in con- Selected Person Overt-Withhold used on present time
flict with faith, 514 problem, 402
Dianetics and Scientology, Selected Persons Overt Acts, commands of and how
basic difference between: Dianetics attacked to run, 389
reactive mind on a materialistic level; Scien- Selected Persons Overts Straightwire, 397
tology attacks reactive mind on a spiritual will bring up the responsibility of case to point
level, 270 where he can be trusted to run engrams, 453
Dianetics, the branch of Scientology which Selected Persons Overt Straightwire, how to select
deals with mental anatomy, 470 person, commands and how to run, 427
what we want out of, 134 Selected Persons Overts Withhold, when cases crack
disseminate ~ without telling what it is, 476 well on, what to run, 473
does not fit into any other frame of reference, but Selected Persons Overt-Withhold on auditor as a
other things fit into its frame of reference, 345 selected person, 430
early attacks on, 172 Selected Persons Overt Withhold Straightwire, com everything in ~ has been directly and actively mands of and how to run, 417
postulated by person at some point in past, 345 as a training process, 485
goals, 55, 283 Selected Persons Scout, 484
empowering a thetan to overcome his own self-determinedbasis, ability to withhold or give out a
problems, 283 datum on a ~,118
organizational goals [1959], 548 self-determinism, entrance into ~ requires that thetan
is the data necessary to live, 236 conceive idea of other beings, 465
man who invented Scientology, 470 self-determinism is mid-range on Tone Scale, 465
mind, Scientology is only full study in field of selling, basic scale and ethics of, 533, 534
mind developed in Twentieth Century, 477 service facsimile, deJn., a series of facsimiles which
mustn’t be confidential, 147 you call a facsimile, which can be applied to the
not only accepts but can prove that man does have control of others, 231
a soul, 514 service facsimile is a solution, 167
philosophy of a new age, 153 service facsimile, relationship to victim, 519
power of ~ is that it, by stressing single, simple session(s),
truths, eliminates oceans of mere data, 346 auditor and pc when they are cleared for session,
reactive mind and; see reactive mind only then begin on case, 301
research was financed at first by Ron’s writings auditor remains at cause in all sessions without
and expeditions, 172 forbidding pc to be at cause, 161

SUBJECT INDEX— 1957/1959


session(s) (cont.) solids and chronic somatics, 87
CCH 0 is collection of mechanical aids to assist solids, radiationis invalidation of, 52
pc’s participation in session and auditor in Solids [process] ,11
ARC, 158,178 Objective Solids, commands, 8
child must be given a very formal session, 553 Subjective Solids, CCH 13, 70, 256
child, unwilling, use short sessions, 526 solution(s),
difference between formal session and assist, 260 Clear, you cannot stay Clear unless you solve
Ending the Session, Training 9(c), 340 things by the equation of the optimum solu
how to establish, 238 tion, 237
in session, defn, pc is interested in and talking to Consequences of Solutions [process] ,11
auditor about his case, 538 failure to make ~ (or postulates) stick elsewhere
getting pc, 157, 301 makes thetan believe that ~ collapse problems
keeping pc in ~ is done with good ARC, 243 on him, 462
pc participation in session, 157,176 to automaticity of form, 210
how to gain, 161, 181 to solutions, 462
is necessary for processing to work, how it issomatic(s),
achieved, 319 chronic somatic handling, 87
is necessary in order to place pc somewhat at chronic somatics and solids, 87
cause point in actual fact of auditing, chronic somatic, specific for a, 319
158,178 process which tums on a ~ must be continued
pc who is not participating in session is not until it no longer turns on ~,159, 179, 192
at cause, 161,181 student, why he may experience somatics and con
put pc more in session with goals, 314 fusions, 344
opening and closing of, 487 sonic, visio turns on before, 324
out of sessionness, 304 sound in communication, 138
PTP is any worry that keeps pc out of session, 243 sound, Trio on, 324
PTP makes it hard for pc to confront session, 311 South African native, impossible to train, 108
starting, 301, 314 spirit; see thetan
and ending ~, characteristic, purpose, stable spot, Find a Spot, commands and how to run, 8
datum, 479 Spotting, 189
bad off case and case in very good condition Connectedness, most basic of spotting processes,
alike require special handling, 159, 179 189
CCH 0; see CCH 0 depends for its workability on the dislike of a
Training 9(b), 340 thetan of being located, 163
when does it begin, 259 Short Spotting, version of TR 10,160,180
sexual incident is a bounce from a death, 411 steps, 163,192
sexual parts, audit ~ or psychosomatic difficulties workability of, 193
last,93 squirrels scream when we’re winning, 253; see also
shock, electric, 15 suppressive person [in full index]
Short Sessioning as a technique, 368 stable datum, 60
Short Sessioning works very well with a child, 553 staff auditor; see auditor, staff
Short Spotting, version of TR 10, 160, 180 standard techniques and experimental auditing, 282
sick or injured, person doesn’t get ~ unless he’s cast Start—Change—Stop, 205, 296, 297, 317; see also
himself in role of victim by reason of the game C&MSCS
and his overt acts, 520 commands and how to run, 6,185, 296
sick, overts and withholds are why people are ~, 413 on a person, CCH 3(c), commands and how to run,
significance (s), 317
establish reality of terminal before you try to clear phenomena while running, 187
it with significance, 235 steps, 162,192
on a nervous-dispersed case there is no real gain in what it does, 187
running ~ until hellos and okays are run, 235 Start-C-S oldest version, 294
rock is an object, not a significance, 299 static,
terminals to which Comm Processes are addressed conceiving a ~, why it is painful, 280, 324
must be real terminals never ~ only, 503 story of a static, 4
simplicities, postulates go from ~ to complexities, what keeps a pc from conceiving a, 120
345 Static Preparation, command of, 111
simplicity, 4 stealing and D.E.I. Scale, 257
situation, how to control a situation, 261 Step 6, 295, 298, 341
situations, how a person handles terminals and ~, 404 caution: it is almost fatal to run Step 6 if the rock
societies, barbarian, 251 is not out, 322

SUBJECT INDEX— 1957/1959


Step 6 (cont.) succumb problems, scale of, 315
Creative Processing, 191; see also Creative Process- suicide and nervous breakdown, university students,
ing 29
Help and ~ do not work on low level cases, 322 Supervisor, “What didn’t work?”, 317
how to run Clear Procedure Step 6, 322 survival, survive, 320
processes, experiences with, 539 all processes have aligned on “survive”, 320
Step 6 Mock-ups and Help CCH Ob clear a pc, 243 confront and ~ are of same order of thing, 539
totally clearup a field before running~, 207 could be represented best by “continuous con
stomach, guilty of the overt act of eating, 14 fronting” at a process level, 539
stomach, terror ~, 15, defn., simply a confusion in a “create” is dynamic principle of existence in
high degree of restimulation in the vicinity of Scientology as “survive” was in Dianetics, 539;
the vagus nerve, 14 see also Fundamentals of Thought
Locational Communication, relieves face pressures of things, who causes it, 137
and terror stomachs, 466 scale of, 209
specific for, 14 sweetness and light, defn., person who cannot con
Stop Supreme, commands of, 186 ceive of ever having done anything bad to
stop, why emphasis on, 9 anybody or anything, 519
Straight Wire, 441, 480 S2 Process, “From where could you communicate to
ARC Break Straightwire; see ARC Break Straight- a victim?”, 478, 497, 508, 519
wire end phenomena, 493
ARC Straight Wire; see ARC Straight Wire flat when pc can confront calmly a victim, 497
characteristic, purpose, stable datum of ~, 480 or S22 to remedy victim valence, 504
commands, 8 S22 Process, “Think of a place from which you could
Dynamic Straight Wire; see Dynamic Straight Wire communicate to a victim”, 478
Know to Mystery Straight Wire for extreme cases,
460
new HGC process—a new Straight Wire, 363 T
Not-ls Straight Wire; see Not-ls Straight Wire
Overt Withhold Straight Wire; see Overt Withhold TA; see tone arm
Straight Wire laoist, Scientologist is distant relative to ~, 55
Selected Persons Overts Straightwire; see Selected tax, income tax reform, 495
Persons Overts Straightwire Technical Division, purpose of, 25
Selected Persons Overt Withhold Straightwire; see techniques, when you want results you had better use
Selected Persons Overt Withhold Straightwire standard techniques, 282
student(s)(‘s); see also training teenagers, why they revolt, 212
answer the student’s questions, 50 telex, use of, 508
case of, 309 terminal(s),
how students are handled, 344 defn., live mass or something that is capable of
in Academy are auditors, they are not pcs, 250 causing, receiving or relaying communication,
more esoteric and difficult subject is made, less 114
student will be able to handle subject, 114 defn., it would be any fixed mass utilized in a
reasons why student would be refused training or communication system, 164
completion, 51 abandoned terminal, symptom of, is a steadily
restimulation of, how it is overcome, 344 rising needle, 504
university ~, suicide and nervous breakdown, 29 body is a mass, a solid terminal, 240
why he may experience somatics and confusions, choosing terminals, pc is not to choose what termi 344 nal to run, 434, 438
8-C on students, 90 clear just like a pc clears on a meter, 504
Subjective Confrontingness, commands and how to condition and ~, difference between, 164
run, 319 finding ~ on HAS Co-Audit, 513
Subjective Havingness, CCH 12, Limited ~, 70 generalized vs. proper names, 503
Subjective Havingness commands, 8 get first ~ that dropped on pc, convert it to gen
Subjective Havingness, how to run, 400 eral form, run ~ with Communication Process
subjective processes, characteristic, purpose, stable [1959], 513
datum of, 479 lines and terminals, 140
Subjective Solids, CCH 13, 70 Reality Scale of, 139
commands of CCH 13, 256 one of most effective light ~ is a body part, 519
success level of a person is his communication level, problem is not a condition or a ~; it is a “how” or
92 “whether”; it is a doingness, not a person, 315
succumb postulates, 315 problem is two-terminaled, 303

SUBJECT INDEX— 1957/1959


terminal(s)(cont.) thetan(s)(‘s) (cont.)
PT problem itself, not just its ~ must exist in PT, characteristics of,
296 child is a thetan in usually rather bad condition,
reality of terminals, 433 34
don’t run terminals totally unreal to pc, 433, 43 8 doesn’t look through his eyeballs, 36
establish the reality of a terminal before you is source of all creation, 270
try to clear it with significance, 235 keynote of thetan is order, 262
hellos and okays are run on terminal to improve man is a human spirit which is enwrapped, more
reality on it, 243 or less, in a mind, which is in a body, 223
terminal chosen must be real to pc and must thetan in good shape can be cause, 159,179
show charge on E-Meter, 550 defined in Axiom 1, 223
terminals to which Communication Processes difficulties of,
are addressed must be real terminals never forgettingness of spiritual being, 224
significances only, 503 misowning the mind in which he is trapped,
sensible terminal, in Dynamic Straight Wire never 530
run one, 438 thetans pretending to be injured, 518
situations and ~, how a person handles, 404 thetan trapped in another thetan, seen in
switching around terminals without flattening valences, 530
results in rising needles, 513 things wrong with thetan are lower harmonics
Terrible Trio; see Trio of characteristics of a thetan, 257, 271
terror stomach; see stomach, terror thinks he needs problems to keep his attention
tests were originally devised in the total belief that exteriorized from rock chain, 304
man could not be changed, 199 why thetan makes his postulate fail to stick,
theft of objects is really an effort to steal a self, 257, 465
271 ghosts and spirits, don’t invalidate, 226
Then and Now Solids, CCH 14, 33, 71, 265 human spirit, evidence of, 223
commands, 8 Operating Thetan; see Operating Thetan
makes pc capable of contacting and handling pres- parts of man: thetan, mind, body, 129, 223
ent time and any segment of the past, 34 self-determinism, entrance into, requires that
procedure, 265, 266 thetan conceive idea of other beings, 465
theta body, defn., thetan very often carries with him Spotting depends for its workability on the dislike
a theta body, which he mocked up on past of a thetan of beinglocated, 163
track and which is a number of facsimiles of old trying to prove he is not simple, 4
bodies he has misowned and is carrying along valences, thetan valences are preferable over body
with him as control mechanisms which he uses valences, 284
to control body he is using, 228 Think a Thought, TR 12, 71
theta bop, needle reaction, 225 thinking consists of comparing particular datum with
theta clear; see Clear, theta physical universe as it is known and observcd,
theta, Connectedness is basic process on association 424
of theta with mest, 163 thinkingness,
thetan(s)(‘s), 530, defn., awareness of awareness as-is unwanted thinkingness, 479
unit which has all potentialities but no mass, no body control comes before control of ~, 479
wavelength and no location, 480 control of thinkingness, 119
abilities of, 169 preclear’s ~, how to bring under his control, 255
ability to see, 209 “think of” command rather than “recall”, 485
keeping things from going away cultivates abil- “think” undercuts “recall”, 435
ity of thetan to remain where he is, 232 third dynamic; see dynamic, 3rd
thetan himself without body is capable of per- Third Rail, a special form of Factual Havingness, 486
forming all functions he assigns to body, 480 Thought Processes, 8
answer to being threatened or struck is to create, Thoughts in Walls, commands and how to run, 8
320 “throw it away” and ‘~hold it in”, 232
ARC breaks, thetan will dream up ~ to exteriorize time,
his attention from a present time problem, 304 by a sequence of de-solidifying present time, one
Axiom 10 becomes confused by thetan with cycle evidently achieves time, 34
of action, 539 OT ability is handling time, 98
basic personality, thetan has a, 257 shift, 98
body is identifying form or non-identifiable form tiredness, colds and psychosomatics, process to cure,
to facilitate the control, communication and 246
havingness for thetan in existence in mest uni- tone arm, if pc reads high on ~, what to run, 297
verse, 480 tone is established by ARC, 104

SUBJECT INDEX— 1957/1959


tone is most directly observed by communication, training(cont.)
104 stable datum in training: when in doubt, handle
tone of voice, acknowledgement, 383 student with much stricter positive placement
Tone Scale, Emotional Tone Scale expanded, 459 and direction, 90
Tone Scale is divided into three parts: highest is pan- stable datum of all training: “A student is gradu determinism, mid-range is self-determinism, low ated when his training level is such that he
range is other-determinism, 465 could be entrusted with an HGC preclear”, 40
Tone Scale, person broadens up the, 140 why Scientology training is non-aberrative, 344
Tone 40, training drills, 437; see also TRs
defn., giving a command and just knowing that it changes in training drills, 91, 353
will be executed despite any contrary appear- trainingroutines;seeTRs
ances, 240 translations of Scientology books, 471
defn, positive postulating, 240 trapped, thetan is misowning the mind in which he is
defn., positive postulate with no counter-thought, trapped, 530
386 traps, how you are kept in one, 202
auditing, defn., is control by direct Tone 40 com- Trio, 401
mand, 242 CCH 8, Trio, 68
auditing, defn., positive, knowing, predictable con- commands of, 323, 401
trol toward the pc’s willingness to be at cause condition to running Trio, 323
concerning his body and his attention, 480 Control Trio; see Control Trio
Book Mimicry and Hand Space Mimicry are not how to run, 117, 323
Tone 40, 400 objective variety Havingness, 190
CCH starts with Tone 40, but the training con- old-time Trio, commands of, 190
tinuity of CCH does not, 394 on sound, 324
control by Tone 40 is taught in upper indoc, 242 “Recall a moment of loss” and Trio, chief exteri
formal auditing and Tone 40 auditing, two dif- orization processes, 325
ferent types of auditing, 242 Terrible Trio, commands and how to run, 7
group auditing is done from tone 40.0, 24 undercut in Trio, 119
nothing to do with voice, 385 what it does, 324
originations, in all processes not Tone 40 pc’s ori- Trio on Valences, commands and how to run, 7
ginations are handled, 370 TRs; see also training drills
process, how to run, 254, 255 how to flunk Upper Indoc TRs, 385
unconscious, psycho, non-communicative, electric TR0, 116
shock case pc, Tone 40 is for, 242 confronting, first step on the road to Clear, 101
Tone 40 Book and Bottle is not Opening Procedure confronting isn’t just looking; don’t try to con by Duplication, 395 front with your eyeballs only, 101
Tone 40 “Hold it still”, CCH 10, 69 Confronting Preclear, 61, 100
Tone 40 “Keep it from going away”, CCH 9, 69 how it is run, 115
Tone 40 Locational Processing, purpose, procedure TR 1, Dear Alice, 61
and commands of CCH 5, 254 defn., to say something to somebody with the
Tone 40 “Make it a little more solid”, CCH 11, 69 full confidence that they will receive it, 336
Tone 40 on an Object; see TR 8 and Tone 40 on an Object, 335
Tone 40 on a Person; see TR 9 how to do TR One, 337
Tone 40 8-C;see CCH 2 TR 2, Acknowledgements, 61, 350; see also ac
Tone 40 8-C processes, CCH 7, 8 & 9, 255 knowledgement
toothache, “Hello and Okay” Process on, 136 how TR Two is done, 350
track can become a hodge-podge of violence withheld more on Training Drill Two, 308
which pulls in then violence others caused, not so much how to acknowledge but when,
432 543
traffic cop, how to handle, 99 TR 3, Duplicative Question, 62
training; see also student how TR Three can unjam the track, 356
Academy of Scientology, purpose of, 25 theory of TR Three, 355
course creates a beingness, not imparts data, 464 TR 4, Preclear Originations, 62, 370
courses, ladder of courses, 288 how to do, 371, 372
difference between education and Scientology, 22 TR 5,
Doctors of Scientology, 102 Hand Mimicry, 63
gradient scale in training, 345 “Seat that body in that chair”, 111
need of training, 77, 128 Sit in that Chair, 91
order of training processes, 394 “You make that body sit in that chair” “Thank
skills, 76 you”, 243

SUBJECT INDEX— 1957/1959


TRs (cont.) Upper Indoc, control by Tone 40 is taught in, 242
TR 5N, 468 Upper Indoctrination Course [1957], 58
commands of, 497 Upper Indoc TRs, how to flunk, 385
is ARC break handling, 353 upset, when a loss of havingness is experienced, a pc
TR 6, Plain 8-C, 63, 91 will agitate or go anaten and tend to be upset in
TR 7, Hi-School Indoc, 63 general, 187
how to run, 384
TR 8, Tone 40 on an Object, 64
how to do, 385 V
TR One and Tone 40 on an Object, 335
TR 9, Tone 40 on a Person, 64, 386 vacuum, defn., a super-cold object which, if brought
TR 9(b), Starting the Session, 340 into contact with bank, drinks bank, 11
TR 9(c), Ending the Session, 340 valence(s), 454, defn, mental package of ideas and
TR 10, Locational Processing, 67, 160, 180, 190; considerations really belonging to another
see also Locational Processing person and unknowingly borrowed by pc, 276;
make the pc use his eyes to view the objects, see also universes
159,179 are the sum of overwhelmings of the pc, 274
Short Spotting, version of TR Ten, 160,180 best solution to ~ is Beingness Processing, 257,
“You notice that object”, 159,179 271
TR 11, ARC Straight Wire, 69, 316; see also ARC E-Meters don’t register well on, 284
Straight Wire how to split, 11
TR 12, Think a Thought, 71 in presence of valences pc cannot change his mind
TR 13, Fishing a Cognition, 73 easily when he misowns the consideration, 275
truth, it takes truth to live with a swiftly changing OCA/APA profile is a picture of a valence, 274
world, 153 out of valence, how to handle, 11
truths, importance of various truths, 33 past track valences are preferable to run over pres
TV, 150 ent life valences, 284
two-way communication; see communication, two- people from whom one felt one could not with
way hold anything are most aberrative ~ on case,
Two-way Help bracket; see help, Two-way Help 202
bracket person who can have a valence isn’t subject to it,
275
U pro-survival valences, never run, 284
“split” personality is one in another’s ~, 11
unconscious(ness), splitting is most reliably done by running Help in
pain, misemotion, ~-, insanity, all result from caus- brackets on the valence, 285, 292
ing things others could not experience easily, thetan ~- are preferable over body ~, 284
432 valence closure, basic mechanism of, 202
participation by unconscious person, 159, 178 victim valence, run Communication Process S2 or
person, what to run, 183, 468, 497 S22 to remedy, 504
Tone 40 is for unconscious, psycho, non-commu- victim valence, you can’t ever get a ~ to win, 517
nicative, electric shock case pc, 242 “withhold” on a valence, 325
undercutting cases, 404 Valence Processes,
un-doable commands, 467 Clearing by Valences, 273, 274
unethical auditor actions, 392 LRH session, 276
unfixingattention, 428 “Think of something you could withhold from
unhappiness is inability to confront that which is, (valence)”, 201, 325
431 Trio on Valences, commands and how to run, 7
Universal Processes, 524, 531 Valence Differentiation, 545
universe(s); see also valences valence splitter, “Think of entering a mind”
physical;seemestuniverse “Think of not entering a mind”, alternated,
process for separation from all universes the thetan 545
is anxious about, 524 Wasting Valence, commands for, 284
Universe Processes, 529, 530 validated auditor, 84
Universe Comm Process, 524, 531 value or importance is denoted by scarcity or abund Universe O/W [process], 529, 530 ance of things, 148
unknown, D.E.I. Scale, 533 venereal diseases, 147
unstable gain, cause and handling of, 285, 292 verbal direction from LRH, put it in writing, 111
unwilling to be audited, psychotic persons, what to victim(s), 494, 557, defn, unwilling and unknowing
run, 468, 497 effect of life, matter, energy, space and time, 518

SUBJECT INDEX— 1957/1959


victim (s) (cont.) “What would you like to confront?”, Affinity Process,
ARC, low, whole answer to it is contained in vic- 463, 536, 539
tim, 516 whole track, control on, 454
auditor treating pc as a victim, 516 whole track rock, 295
basic postulate of injury or death (or harmful com- wide-open case, 447, defn., case that has pictures and
munication) is best summed up by “victim”, everything and is impatient to get on with it
518 but does not markedly alter bank with thinking
button and organization, 517 alone is not a high case but an old ~ of Dianetic
cases not to run on Victim Process, 519 days, 159,179
central button of overt act-motivator sequence, willingness to do, importance of, 80
516 willingness to learn, 79
Christianity is based on the victim, 494 wins, blows occur when coach gives too few ~, 116
death is just one of varied forms of game of ~, 518 withdraw and reach; see reach and withdraw
flat, when is Victim flat, 520 withhold(s)(ing); see also overts, withholds and
game of, where it began, 518 defn, a games condition on communication, 201
in any overt act-motivator sequence, there is a vil- ability to, 202
lain and a ~, 518 advances IQ, 201
item, how to audit, 516 IQ is the ability to withhold or give out a
money and ~ are buttons we want flat on every- datum on a self-determined basis, 118
body in Scientology, 508 communication, 93
person doesn’t get sick or injured unless he’s cast effects of, 413
himself in role of ~ by reason of the game and importance of, 551
his overt acts, 520 no reason to withhold own actions or regret them
Process S2; see S2 Process if one’s own actions are easily experienced by
Process S22; see S22 Process others, 431
relationship to service facsimile, 519 people from whom one felt one could not with Scientologists, people who aren’t ~, 494, 517 hold anything are most aberrative valences on
to restrain others one sets an example as a ~, 518 case, 202
valence; see valence, victim scale of, 230, 233
why “victim” works as a process, 518 what it does, 413
violence, 343 Withhold Process, 93
leads to barbarianism, 343 psychosomatic difficulties handled by, 118
track can become a hodge-podge of violence running on valences and body parts, 325
withheld which pulls in then ~ others caused, words, clear key words, 301
432 words, how to handle mis-definition on vital ~, 301
unfixing attention by ~ throws a case downscale, work, confronting, 214
428 worksheets, session notes [1959], 406
visio, process to turn on, 324 Wundtian psychology, developed by Wundt in 1879
visio turns on before sonic, 324 in Leipzig, Germany, 46, 477


W Numerals

wait, D.E.I. Scale, 533 8-C, 384; see also control
war, 113, 423 commands of, 384, 394
waste, wasting, Plain 8-C, TR 6, 63, 91
commands for Wasting Valence, 284 Tone 40 8-C; see Tone 40 8-C
people usually have to waste before they can have, types of, 184
275 8-C Solids, commands and how to run, 6
Third Rail, to remedy obsessive waste, 486 20th ACC training procedure, 294
what you can’t have, 141
Waste Help [process] violates rule of terminals—run
terminals, not conditions, 285, 292
“What force would it be all right to use?” [process],
545
“What part of that (body part) can you be respon
-sible for?” [process], 243
“What part of your life (past) could you be respon
-sible for?” [process], 552
“What solution could you make stick?” [process], 462

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF TITLES


Abbreviations 334 Carrying On 295
Ability Congress Lectures 193 CCH 394
Academy Training Curriculum & CCH (Concluded) 400
Examination OEC Vol 4 - 274 CCH Ob—Help in Full-Starting Session 219
ACC Auxiliary Procedure 301 CCH 18 99
ACC Clear Procedure 311 CCH 88—Enforced Nothingness 246
ACC Clear Procedure Change 369 Change Auditor’s Code 306
ACC Preparatory Process Schedule for Change of HCO Policy Letter of
Running Engrams 389 15 December 1958 380
ACCs 347 Changes in TrainingDrills 91
ACC Schedule 339 Clear Bracelets 341
ACCs—HPA/HCA 206 Clearing Commands 430
Acknowledgements in Auditing 543 Clearing Congress Lectures 290
Acknowledgement—Tone of Voice 383 Clearing of Fields 209
Actual Working Definition of Psychology 499 Clearing Reality 235
Add Formula 10 478 Clear Procedure 296
Addition to the Auditor’s Code 82 Clear Procedure Continued—Step One:
Adventure of Communication, The 92 Participation in Session by the Pc 157
Affinity Process, An 463 Clear Procedure—Definitions, Goals 155
AfricaOver the Top 494 Clear Test 476
All About Radiation 49 Co-Audit Formula 475
Allowed Processes I st Melbourne ACC 547 Code of a Scientologist, The
All Preclears Are Expected Comment on Beingness Processing, A 271
to . . . OEC Vol. 4-498 Communication 104
Amendment to HCO B 11 April Communicationand Is-ness 146
1958 see OEC Vol 4-609 Communication Course 335
American College of Personnel Confronting (Ability 52) 100
Efficiency, Dublin 338 Confronting (PAB 129) 211
Amusingly Effective Process, An 383 Confronting Present Time 96
Analysis of Cases 428 Congratulations HASI—South Africa 546
Anti-Q & A TR see Vol. Vlll-221 Contents and Coverage of HCA/HPA Course 291
ARC Breaks with Auditors 430 Control 204
ARC in Comm Course 242 Control and the Mechanics of S.C.S. 194
Assists in Scientology 259 Control Trio 119
Attainment of “Clears”, The 217 Correction of HCO Policy Letter
Auditing ARC Breaks on Registrar and 1 Oct. 1958 see OEC Vol 4-271
Assistant Registrar 360 Create Processes—Dangers& Advantages 539
Auditing a 10-Year Old Child 53 Credo of a Good and Skilled
Auditing the Pc on Clear Procedure 243 Manager, The see footnote Vol 1- 97
Auditor’s Code No. 19 417 Curriculum of CCH 121
Axioms and Logics 305 Data on Clearing a Staff Member After
Axioms of Scientology, The Specific Terminals Are Flat with
-The Prelogics—The Logics Overt-Withhold Straight Wire 525
-The Axioms of Dianetics see—305 Dates of the Australian ACC, The 475
Basic Chart of Process Types, A 131 “Death” 223
Basic Locating Question of the Definition of Scientology—Written by
Rock, The 300 LRH for Legal When Setting Up
Basic Postulate of Overt Act- HASI Ltd 491
Motivator Sequence 359 Definitions 42, 462
Beingness Again 257 D.E.I. Expanded Scale 533
Big Auditing Problem, The 107 Dissemination OEC Vol 6-457
Blow-offs 557 Dissemination Tips OEC Vol 6-101
B.Scn/HCS Course 366 Does Clearing Cancel the Need for Training? 236
Campaign for Ethical Auditing, A 391 Do It Yourself Therapy 444

Dummy Auditing—Step Two: HGC Current Procedure 397
Acknowledgment 349 HGC Procedure (7 Dec. 57) 162
Dummy Auditing—Step Three: Duplication 354 HGC Procedure (11 Jan. 58) 197
Dummy Auditing—Step Four: Handling HGC Processes 502
Originations 370 HGC Processes for Those Trained in
Education 28 Engram Running or Trained in These
Eighteenth A.C.C., The 126 Processes 402
Emotional Tone Scale Expanded 459 HGC Regimen see footnote—502
Enemies of the Pc 268 HGC Running of Pcs 198
Enforced Nothingness—CCH 88 246 How to Do a Diagnosis on Dynamic
Engram Running on Old Dianetic Cases Straightwire 438
or Restarted Cases 419 How to Handle Work see OEC Vol 0-122
Escape 133 How to Read Profiles on OCA: Comparing
Ethics OEC Vol. 1-361 Current Week Profile with Week Before 334
Example of Clearing by Valences, An 276 How to Run an Engram 352
Experimental Process, An 536 How to Select Selected Persons 427
Explanation of Aberrative Character How to “Sell Scientology” 476
of Radiation 52 How to Study Scientology 420
Extension Course Curriculum 357 How to Write a Curriculum 464
Eyesight and Glasses 36 How We Work on the Third Dynamic 251
Factors Behind the Handling of IQ, The 199 HPA Courses for Staff 339
Field Activities 378 HPA/HCA—ACCs 206
Finding Terminals—HAS Co-Audit 513 HPA/HCA Course Curriculum 26
First First Dynamic Process, The 367 Hubbard Certified Auditor Course, The 54
Five Levels of Indoctrination and Hubbard Certified Auditor Course Lectures 42
Procedure CCH, The 128 Identification 418
Five Levels of Indoctrination, The 384 Income Tax Reform 495
Flattening a Process 398 Inept Students OEC Vol 4-148
Formula 10 472 Insanity Questionnaire, An 443
Franchise Holders 512 Intensive Processes for Use in
Free Clearing Project 216 Operation Clear and Operation
Freedom CongressLectures 86 Staff Clear see Vol VIII-393
Future Plans 208 InterimProcess 43
General Information 479 Know to Mystery Straight Wire for
Goal of Indoctrination Course 16 Extreme Cases 460
Good Processes 9 Learning How to “Clear” 286
Government Project Stable Data 106 Learning Rate (Part 1) 17
Group Auditing 23 Learning Rate (Part 2) 20
Group Processing see footnote— 24 Letter from Australia 458
Growthwith Competence 515 Levels of Skill 83
Handling of Communication Processes, List of “Purposes” 25
The-Some Rapid Data 503 London Clearing Congress Lectures 332
HAS Co-Audit (24 Mar. 59) 449 London Congress on Nuclear Radiation
HAS Co-Audit (25 Sept. 59) 524 and Health Lectures 27
HAS Co-Audit (15 Dec. 59) 550 London Up 535
HAS Co-Audit & Comm Course (25 Mar 59) 451 Man’s Contest with the Machine Age 221
HAS Co-Audit and Comm Course (3 Apr 59) 456 Man Who Invented Scientology 470
HAS Co-Audit—Finding Terminals 513 Melbourne Congress Lectures 542
Havingness—New Commands 307 Mest ClearProcedure 205
HCA Course Examination 306 Minimum Standards 450
HCA/HPA Course Processes 111 Ministerial Qualifications OEC Vol 5-281
HCO Board of Review OEC Vol 4-269 More Confronting 113
HGC Allowed Processes (10 Jan. 59) 381 More on Training Drill Two 308
HGC Allowed Processes (4 Mar. 59) 436 More Workable Commands for Testing 95
HGC Allowed Processes (21 July 59) 497 Muzzled Auditing 440
HGC Allowed Processes and ACC Processes My Whereabouts in November 535
as of May 21,1959 468 Needed Material 474

New HCA Course You Can Begin at Home 328 Rights of the Field Auditor, The 41
New HCA/HPA Course 387 Rock, The 299
New HGC Process—A New Straight Wire 363 Routing of Profiles OEC Vol 4-502
New Horizons in Scientology 548 Rudiments and Goals 122
New Process 465 Rules Governing the Running of CCH Ob
News Bulletin 522 “Help” 220
Not-Is StraightWire 390 Running Valences 284
“Offbeat” Processing 282 Scale of Withhold, The 230
Old and New Reality Scale 461 Scientology and the Reactive Mind 269
On Bringing Order 541 Scientology Axiom 58 393
Op. Pro. by Dup. 399 Scientology: Clear Procedure—Issue One 172
Organizational Health Chart Scientology: The Philosophy of a New Age 153
see footnote OEC Vol 7-115 Second Type of Franchise, A 506
Organization of a PE Foundation, The 527 Selected Persons Overt Withhold
Our Goals 500 Straightwire 417
Out of Sessionness 304 Short Sessioning 368
Pair of Processes, A 245 Short Story by Cable, A 521
Parts of Man, The 149 Signs of Success 253
People Permitted to Audit Engrams by Solids and Chronic Somatics 87
Scientology Processes 348 Solution to Solutions 462
People’s Questions 75 Some More CCH Processes 278
Perfect Dissemination Program, Something Has Happened!!! 365
The OEC Vol 6-105 Special Hubbard Professional Auditor’s
Post Case Analysis Routine 307 Course Lectures 457
Present Time Problem 168 Special Information for Franchise Holders 492
Present Time Problem—Running of 303 Specific for Terror Stomach 14
Problems: Handling and Running 164 Stable Data for Instructors (24 May 57) 50
Procedure CCH (HCO Training Bulletin) 5 Stable Data for Instructors (4 Sept. 57) 112
Procedure CCH (PAB 133) 238 Staff Auditors’ Conference of
Procedure CCH (PAB 146) 323 February 16, 1959 404
Procedure CCH Continued (PAB 134) 247 Staff Clearing 291
Procedure CCH Continued (PAB 135) 254 Staff Members’ Outside Auditing
Procedure CCHContinued (PAB 136) 265 Regulation OEC Vol 4- 609
Procedure for Certifying Clears 289 Standard Clear Procedure and an
Processing a New Mother 361 Experimental Road: Clearing by
Processes 229 Valences 273
Processes to Be Run on HGC Preclears Standardization of Clear Procedure 285
from This Date 117 Standardization of Clear Processes 292
Processes Used in 21st ACC (PAB 155) 433 Step 6 341
Processes Used in 21st ACC (PAB 156) 441 Story of a Static, The 4
Processes Used in 21 st ACC (Concluded) Student Intensives and Co-Auditing Processes 75
(PAB 157) 453 Subject of Clearing, The 445
Project Clear Check Sheet 143 Suggested HCA Course Schedule 509
Psychoanalysis Goes Capitalistic 537 Supplemental Data Sheet to HCO Bulletin
Psychosis, Neurosis and Psychiatrists 169 of Feb. 16,1959 and Staff Auditors’
Radiation Picture and Scientology, The 44 Conference of Feb. 16,1959 439
Reality Scale, The 136 Teaching of the 18th ACC, The 58
Rehabilitation of Abilities, The 79 Technically Speaking 494
Report on Two Cases That Have Received Technical Notes on Child Processing 526
Psychiatric and Euro-Russian Therapy Techniques of Child Processing 553
from the Govelnment 234 Techniques to Be Used on HGC Preclears 342
Responsibility 555 Theory of Training in Scientology, The 344
Responsibility for O/Ws 552 Theta Clear Congress Lectures 490
Reviewing Week’s Profiles 207 Threat to Havingness, The 195
Rights of the Directors of Training and To a Roman Catholic 514
Processing, Staff Auditors, and Instructors Today’s Riches in Scientology 32
Regarding Preclears and Students 51 Tone of Voice—Acknowledgement 383

To Retain Co-Audit Pc’s Interest in Case 538 Who Should Take Which Class 264
Training and CCH Processes 61 Why “Victim” Works as a Process 518
Training Drill Change 353 Withholds and Communication 93
Training Drills 437 1st Melbourne ACC Material 545
Training-What It Is Today—How We Tell 1st Melbourne Advanced Clinical Course
People About It 40 Lectures 542
TR 9 (b) and TR 9 (c) 340 5th London Advanced Clinical Course
Two Rules for Happy Living 431 Lectures 333
Un-doable Command, An 467 6th London Advanced Clinical Course
Universe Processes (29 Sept. 59) 529 Lectures 467
Universe Processes (5 Oct. 59) 530 8-C on Students 90
Urgent Change in All Co-Audit Courses 551 16thAmericanAdvanced Clinical
Useful Process, A 532 Course Lectures 3
Validation Committee 102 17th American Advanced Clinical
Violence 343 Course Lectures 13
Vital Training Data 309 18th American Advanced Clinical
Vital Training Data for Training Hats Course Lectures 90
and Registrar 250 19th American Advanced Clinical
We Are the Free People 145 Course Lectures 204
What About Validation? 76 20th ACC Training Procedure 294
What Are Clears? 375 20th American Advanced Clinical
What Is Scientology 477 Course Lectures 293
What to Tell New HGC Auditors to 21stAmericanAdvanced Clinical
Process on Preclears 60 Course Lectures 374
When a Verbal Direction Is Given 111 1950 Success Congress Lectures 374
When Cases Crack Well on Selected 1959 HCA Course Becomes a Clearing
Persons Overts Withhold 473 Course, The 376