CLASS VIII CONFIDENTIAL COURSE PACK PART 4/16 CLASS VIII COURSE PACK CONTENTS: Part 4 30. HCOB 26 DEC 64 SCIENTOLOGY ZERO ROUTINE 0-A (EXPANDED) 31. HCOB 2 NOV 61 THE PRIOR CONFUSION 32. HCOB 5 APR 62 CCHs - AUDITING ATTITUDE 33. HCOB 12 APR 62 CCHs - PURPOSE 34. HCOB 1 DEC 65 CCHs 35. HCOB 30 JUL 62 A SMOOTH HGC 25 HOUR INTENSIVE 36. HCOB 9 SEP 63 REPETITIVE RUDIMENTS AND REPETITIVE PREPCHECKING 37. HCOB 31 MAR 60 THE PRESENT TIME PROBLEM 38. HCOB 19 NOV 65 LEVEL I PROBLEMS PROCESS 39. HCOB 26 MAY 60 SECURITY CHECKS 40. HCOB 16 NOV 61 SEC CHECKING 41. HCOB 23 NOV 61 METER READING 42. HCOB 13 DEC 61 VARYING SEC CHECK QUESTIONS 43. HCOB 8 FEB 62 URGENT - MISSED WITHHOLDS 44. HCOB 12 FEB 62 HOW TO CLEAR WITHHOLDS AND MISSED WITHHOLDS 45. HCOB 3 MAY 62 ARC BREAKS - MISSED WITHHOLDS ************************************************** CLASS VIII CONFIDENTIAL COURSE PACK PART 4/16 ************************************************** 30. HCOB 26 DEC 64 SCIENTOLOGY ZERO ROUTINE 0-A (EXPANDED) HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 26 DECEMBER 1964 (Corrections to HCO Bulletin of 11 December 1964, "Processes", and to HCO Bulletin of 10 December 1964, "Listen Style Auditing") Remimeo Franchise Sthil Students Sthil Co-audit SCIENTOLOGY ZERO ROUTINE 0-A (EXPANDED) An additional command increases the usefulness of this routine. It is therefore rewritten as follows: The auditor makes a list of things people generally can't talk to easily. That includes parents, policemen, governments and God. But it's a far longer list. The auditor must compile this list himself or herself out of session. It may be added to by the auditor from time to time. It must never be published as a "canned list". Scientology Instructors and Scientology Personnel should not be listed on it as it leads to upset in sessions. STEP 1. The auditor chooses one of the subjects off the list and uses it in Steps 2 and 3 below until the pc is comfortable about it. Subjects from the list can be chosen in sequence or at random. A chosen subject is not left until the pc is comfortable about it. By this is meant, the pc would not feel disturbed talking to the subject chosen. The auditor does not ask the pc which subject or if it is all right to choose that subject as the pc at the moment of selection is not likely to feel comfortable about any of the listed subjects and so will just reject. No, the auditor just chooses one and starts on it. STEP 2. The auditor asks, "If you could talk to______(chosen subject), what would you talk about?" Pc answers one or more things at greater or shorter length. STEP 3. When the pc seems satisfied the question has been answered, the auditor then says, "All right, if you were talking to______(chosen subject in 1 ) about that what would you say, exactly?" The pc is expected to speak as though talking to the subject chosen in l. STEP 4. The auditor notes whether pc is comfortable about the subject chosen in Step 1, yet without asking pc. This is done by noting the voice tone or text of what the pc would say. If it is shy, diffident, or if it is belligerent or annoyed, the same subject is retained for a new go with Steps 2 and 3. If the pc seems bright and cheerful, a new subject is chosen from the list for a working over with Steps 2 and 3. If the subject in 1 is retained, the auditor again does Steps 2 and 3 above over and over until the pc is cheerful. A subject chosen in 1 is not left until the pc really can respond cheerfully. When this is accomplished, a new subject is chosen as Step 1 and the process is continued with Steps 2 and 3 using the new subject. The whole of Routine 0-A is flat when the pc feels far more comfortable about talking to specific items and isn't shying off from items on the list. It is flat, therefore, when an ability is regained on specific items on the list and the list items aren't producing big new changes in the pc's communication ability. LISTEN STYLE CO-AUDIT It is expected that by the time an auditor is permitted to do the Zero Routines, Individual Listen Style will have been entered upon. Until the class seems able to run individual sessions, old "R-1-C" can be used by the auditing supervisor on a group basis using Listen Style Co-audit until the group has the idea of sessions. Routines work best on Individual Listen Style. The pc is always wondering, in Listen Style Co-audit, if the auditing supervisor is listening to him personally. The auditor is not the receipt point of the pc's comm in many instances. Old R-1-C is the best training mechanism to get auditors to run sessions. In this process the auditing supervisor just chooses something for all the pcs to talk to the auditors about, like a dynamic or a common social problem. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:jw.rd Copyright © 1964 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ************** 31. HCOB 2 NOV 61 THE PRIOR CONFUSION HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 2 NOVEMBER 1961 Franchise THE PRIOR CONFUSION A recent discovery I have made may well do away with the need to directly run problems, particularly on people who find them hard to confront. The mechanism is this: All problems are preceded by a Prior Confusion. The handling consists of locating the problem, then locating the Prior Confusion and then Sec Checking that Prior Confusion. The preclear tends to edge forward in time to the problem continuously and to 'bounce' out of the Prior Confusion once located. The remedy is to locate the O/Ws in the Prior Confusion and keep the preclear out of the moment of the Problem. All somatics, circuits, problems and difficulties including ARC breaks are all preceded by a Prior Confusion. Therefore it is possible (but not always feasible at the moment) to eradicate somatics by Sec Checking the Area of Confusion which occurred just before the pc noticed the somatic for the first time. This is part of a Class II Auditor's skills. A problem could be regarded as a mechanism by which to locate hidden Areas of Confusion in a pc's life. All Hidden Standards are the result of a Prior Confusion. The mechanism is extremely valuable. All rudiments could be run by finding the rudiment out, getting the difficulty expressed, locating the Prior Confusion and then finding the pc's O/Ws in that Area of Confusion. A Problems Intensive based on this mechanism is under design and I will release it for Class II use when I am satisfied the form is complete. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:vbn.cden Copyright © 1961 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ************** 32. HCOB 5 APR 62 CCHs - AUDITING ATTITUDE HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 5 APRIL 1962 Franchise CCHs AUDITING ATTITUDE This is an important bulletin. If you understand it you will get results on hitherto unmoving cases and faster results (1 hour as effective as a former 25) with the CCHs. Here is what happened to the CCHs and which will continue to happen to them to damage their value: The CCHs in their most workable form were finalized in London by me in April 1957. That was their high tide of workability for the next five years. After that date, difficulties discovered in teaching them to auditors added extraordinary solutions to the CCHs (not by me) which cut them to about one twenty-fifth of their original auditing value. Pcs thereafter had increasing difficulty in doing them and the gain lessened. How far were the CCHs removed from original CCH auditing? Well, the other night on TV I gave a demonstration of the proper original CCHs which produce the gains on pcs. And more than twelve old-time auditors (the lowest graded ones out of 36) thought they were watching a demonstration of entirely foreign processes. Although these auditors had been "well trained" on the CCHs (but not by me) they did not see any similarity between how they did them and how they saw me do them. Two or three students and two instructors thought they were being done wrong. Even the higher ranking students were startled. They had never seen CCHs like this. Yet, the pc was very happy, came way up tone, lost a bad before-session somatic and within 48 hours had a complete change in a chronic physical problem, all in 11/2 hours of proper original CCHs. The students and instructors "knew they weren't watching the correct CCHs" because there was no antagonism to the pc, because the Tone 40 was not shouted, because there was no endurance marathon in progress. There was just quiet, positive auditing with the pc in good, happy 2-way communication with the auditor and the auditor letting the pc win. In the student auditing of the next two days, some shadow of the demonstration's attitude was used and the cases audited gained much faster than before. Yet at least two or three still feel that this is far too easy to be the CCHs. In five years, the CCHs, not closely supervised by me, but altered in training, had become completely unrecognizable (and almost resultless). Why? Because the CCHs were confused with Op Pro by Dup which was for auditors. Because the CCHs became an arduous ritual, not a way to audit the pc in front of you. The CCHs became a method of auditing without communicating, of running off strings of drills without being there. And the CCHs are so good that even when done wrong or even viciously they produced some slight gain. The CCHs shade from bright white to dark grey in results, never to black. Having been perverted in training to a system to make auditors audit them, they became something that had nothing to do with the pc. What these students saw demonstrated (and which upset them terribly) was this: The auditor sat down, chatted a bit about the coming session with the pc, explained in general what he was about to do. The session was started. The auditor explained the CCH 1 drill in particular and then began on it. The pc had a bit of embarrassment come off. The auditor took the physical reaction as an origination by the pc and queried it. The routine CCH 1 drill went on and was shortly proved flat by three equal responses. The auditor went to CCH 2. He explained the drill and started it. This proved to be flat. The pc did the drill three times without comm change. The auditor explained and went to CCH 3. This also proved flat and after a three times test, the auditor came off it, explained CCH 4, and went to CCH 4. This proved unflat and was gradually flattened to three equally timed correct responses by the pc on a motion the pc could not at first do. About 50 minutes had elapsed so the auditor gave a ten minute break. After the break the auditor went back to CCH 1, found it flat, went to CCH 2 and found the pc jumping the command and, by putting short waits of different lengths before giving commands, knocked out the automaticity. The auditor went on to CCH 3, found it flat, and then to CCH 4 which was found unflat and was accordingly flattened. The auditor then discussed end ruds in a general way, got a summary of gains and ended the session. All commands and actions were Tone 40 (which is not "antagonism" or "challenge"). But the pc was kept in two-way comm between full cycles of the drill by the auditor. Taking up each new physical change manifested as though it were an origin by the pc and querying it and getting the pc to give the pc's reaction to it, this two-way comm was not Tone 40. Auditor and pc were serious about the drills. There was no relaxation of precision. But both auditor and pc were relaxed and happy about the whole thing. And the pc wound up walking on air. These were the CCHs properly done. With high gain results. The viewers saw no watchdog snarling, no grim, grim PURPOSE, no antagonistic suspicion, no pc going out of session, no mauling, no drill-sergeant bawling and KNEW these couldn't be the CCHs. There was good auditor-pc relationship (better than in formal sessions) and good two-way comm throughout, so the viewers KNEW these weren't proper CCHs. Well, I don't know what these gruelling blood baths are they're calling "the CCHs". I did them the way they were done in April 1957 and got April 1957 fast results. And the processes aren't even recognized ! So somewhere in each year from April 1957 to April 1962 and somewhere in each place they're done, additives and injunctions and "now I'm supposed to's" have grown up around these precise but easy, pleasant processes that have created an unworkable monster that is called "the CCHs" but which definitely isn't. Not seeing the weird perversions but seeing the slow graph responses, the vast hours being burned up, I began to abandon recommending the CCHs after 1959 as too long in others' hands. I didn't realize how complicated and how grim it had all become. Well, the real CCHs done right, done the way they're described here, are a fast gain route, easy on auditor and pc, that goes all the way south. Take a reread of the June and November bulletins of last year (forget the 20 minute test, 3 times equally done are enough to see a CCH is flat) and, not forgetting your Tone 40 and precision, laying aside the grim withdrawn militant auditor attitude, try to do them as pleasantly as you find them described in the above outlined session, and be amazed at the progress the pc will make. The CCHs easy on auditor and pc? Ah, they'd observed a lot of CCHs and never any that were easy on auditor or pc. Everybody came to know it was a bullying, smashing, arduous mess, a fight in fact. The only trouble was, the gains vanished when the ARC ran out. Today, put any pc on the original CCHs done as above until they're flat, then go to 3D Criss Cross and the pc will fly. Surely you don't have to look and sound so hungry, disinterested and mean when you audit the CCHs. You want to clear this pc, not make him or her into a shaking wreck. The CCHs are easily done (when they're done right). They'll get lost again, too, unless you remember they can get lost. I believe Upper Indoc should be canceled in Academies and extra time put on just the CCHs as it is the Upper Indoc attitude carried over that makes the CCHs grim. SUMMARY The PURPOSE of the CCHs is to bring the pc through incidents and into present time. It is the reverse of "mental" auditing in that it gets the pc's attention exterior from the bank and on present time. By using Communication, Control and Havingness this is done. If you make present time a snarling hostility to the pc, he of course does not want to come into present time and it takes just that much longer to make the CCHs work. You do the CCHs with the Auditor's Code firmly in mind. Don't run a process that is not producing change. Run a process as long as it produces change. Don't go out of 2-way comm with the pc. Complete every cycle of the process. Don't interject 2-way comm into the middle of a cycle, use it only after a cycle is acknowledged and complete. Don't end a process before it is flat. Don't continue a process after it is flat. Use Tone 40 Commands. Don't confuse antagonistic screaming at the pc with Tone 40. If you have to manhandle a pc, do so, but only to help him get the process flat. If you have to manhandle the pc you've already accumulated ARC breaks and given him loses and driven him out of session. Improve the ability of a pc by gradient scale, give the pc lots of wins on CCH 3 and CCH 4 and amongst them flatten off what he hasn't been able to do. The CCH drills must be done precisely by the auditor. But the criteria is whether the pc gets gains, not whether the auditor is a perfect ritualist. Exact Ritual is something in which you should take pride. But it exists only to accomplish auditing. When it exists for itself alone, watch out. Audit the pc in front of you. Not some other pc or a generalized object. Use the CCHs to coax the pc out of the bank and into present time. Take up the pc's physical changes as though they were originations. Each time a new one occurs, take it up with 2-way comm as though the pc had spoken. If the same "origination" happens again and again only take it up again occasionally, not every time it happens. Know what's going on. Keep the pc at it. Keep the pc informed. Keep the pc winning. Keep the pc exteriorizing from the past and coming into present time. Understand the CCHs and what you're doing. If it all deteriorates to mere ritual you'll take 25 to 50 times the time necessary to produce the same result as I would. The auditing is for the pc. The CCHs are for the pc. In auditing you win in the CCHs only when the pc wins. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:jw.rd Copyright © 1962 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ************** 33. HCOB 12 APR 62 CCHs - PURPOSE HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 12 APRIL 1962 Franchise CCHs PURPOSE A long time ago-in 1949-while doing research in Dianetics, I experienced considerable trouble in getting some pcs "up to present time". As you know, a pc can get "stuck in the past", and if you can get a pc out of his engrams and reactive mind (his perpetuated past) he becomes aware of the present. He or she is unaware of the present to the degree that shock or injury has caused an arrest in time. After running an engram, we used to tell the pc to "Come to present time" and the pc would, ordinarily, but sometimes no. By telling the pc to examine the room, the return to present time could be accomplished on many. I observed that a common denominator of all aberration was interiorization into the past and unawareness of the present time environment. Over the years, I developed what became the CCHs. Control, In-Communication-With, and Havingness of Present Time became feasible through certain drills of Control, Communication and Havingness, using the present time environment. This is the purpose of the CCH drills-getting the pc out of the past and into present time. Any drill which did this would be a CCH drill, even "Come Up to Present Time!" as a single command. The pc is stuck not just in engrams but in past identities. In fact the pc out of present time is being the past. The pc can be made to see he is being the past and that there is a present. Thus when the pc "has a somatic" and you ask the pc what it was, you get him or her to differentiate between self and past by looking. A being who is something, cannot observe it. A being who looks at something, ceases to be it. A pc can even be a somatic! Hence the CCHs must be run with a non-forbidding present time, with queries about somatics and changes. It's all as simple as that, basically. That's why they work-they get the pc to Present Time. But only if they are run right. Only if they invite the pc to progress. Run wrong, the CCHs can actually drive a pc out of present time or park him or her in the session. Do you see, now? L. RON HUBBARD LRH:jw.cden Copyright © 1962 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ************** 34. HCOB 1 DEC 65 CCHs HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 1 DECEMBER 1965 Remimeo All Students St Hill Courses All staff CCHs (Replaces HCO Bulletin of July 5th, 1963, "CCHs Rewritten") As per HCO Pol Ltr May 17th, 65, the CCHs are processes. They are not drills. The following revised rundown on the CCHs is to be used by all Auditors. CONTROL-COMMUNICATION-HAVINGNESS PROCESSES The following rundown of CCH 1, 2, 3 and 4 has been slightly amended. CCHs are run as follows: CCH l to a flat point then CCH 2 to a flat point then CCH 3 to a flat point then CCH 4 to a flat point then CCH I to a flat point, etc. --------------- No: CCH 1. NAME: GIVE ME THAT HAND. Tone 40. AUDITING COMMANDS: GIVE ME THAT HAND. Physical action of taking hand when not given and then replacing it in the PC's lap. Making physical contact with the PC's hand if PC resists. THANK YOU ending each cycle. All Tone 40 with clear intention, one command in one unit of time. Take up each new physical change manifested as though it were an origin by the PC, when it happens, and querying it by asking "What's happening?" This two-way comm is not Tone 40. Run only on the right hand. AUDITING POSITION: Auditor and PC seated in chairs without arms. Auditor's knees on outside of both PC's knees. PROCESS PURPOSE: To demonstrate to PC that control of PC's body is possible, despite revolt of circuits, and inviting PC to directly control it. Absolute control by auditor then passes over towards absolute control of his own body by PC. Never stop process until a flat place is reached. Freezes may be introduced at end of cycle, this being after the THANK YOU and before the next command, maintaining a solid comm line, to ascertain information from the PC or to bridge from the process. This is done between two commands, holding the PC's hand after acknowledgement. PC's hand should be clasped with exactly correct pressure. Make every command and cycle separate. Maintain Tone 40, stress on intention from Auditor to PC with each command. To leave an instant for PC to do it by own will before Auditor decides to take hand or make contact with it. Auditor indicates hand by nod of head. Tone 40 Command = Intention without reservation. Change is any physical, observed manifestation. No: CCH 2. NAME: TONE 40 8c AUDITING COMMANDS: YOU LOOK AT THAT WALL. THANK YOU. YOU WALK OVER TO THAT WALL. THANK YOU. YOU TOUCH THAT WALL. THANK YOU. TURN AROUND. THANK YOU. Take up each new physical change manifested as though it were an origin by the PC, when it happens, and querying it by asking "What's happening?" This two-way comm is not Tone 40. Commands smoothly enforced physically when necessary. Tone 40, full intention. AUDITING POSITION: Auditor and PC ambulant, Auditor in physical contact with PC as needed. PROCESS PURPOSE: To demonstrate to PC that his body can be controlled and thus inviting him to control it. To orient him in his present time Environment. To increase his ability to duplicate and thusly increase his Havingness. Absolute Auditor precision. No drops from Tone 40. No flubs. Total present time. Auditor on PC's right side. Auditor body acts as block to forward motion when PC turns. Auditor gives command, gives PC a moment to obey, then enforces command with physical contact of exactly correct force to get command executed. Auditor does not block PC from executing commands. Method of introduction as in CCH l. Freezes may be introduced at the end of cycle, this being after the THANK YOU and before the next command, maintaining a solid comm line, to ascertain information from the PC or to bridge from the process, this being the acknowledgement "THANK YOU" after the command "TURN AROUND". CCH 1 and CCH 2 were developed by L. RON HUBBARD in Washington, D.C., in 1957 for the 19th ACC. No: CCH 3. NAME: HAND SPACE MIMICRY AUDITING COMMANDS: Auditor raises 2 hands palms facing PC's about an equal distance between the Auditor and PC and says "PUT YOUR HANDS AGAINST MINE, FOLLOW THEM AND CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR MOTION". He then makes a simple motion with right hand then left. "DID YOU CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR MOTION?" Acknowledge answer. Auditor allows PC to break solid comm line. When this is flat, the Auditor does this same with a half inch of space between his and the PC's palms. The command being "PUT YOUR HANDS FACING MINE ABOUT 1/2 INCH AWAY, FOLLOW THEM AND CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR MOTION". "DID YOU CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR MOTION?" Acknowledge. When this is flat, Auditor does it with a wider space and so on until PC is able to follow motions a yard away. AUDITING POSITION: Auditor and PC seated, close together facing each other, PC's knees between Auditor's knees. PROCESS PURPOSE: To develop reality on the auditor using the reality scale (solid communication line). To get PC into communication by control and duplication. To find Auditor. Auditor should be gentle and accurate in his motions, all motions being Tone 40, giving PC wins. To be free in 2-way communication. Process is introduced and run as a formal process. If PC dopes off in this process Auditor may take PC's wrist and help him execute the command one hand at a time. If PC does not answer during anaten to question "DID YOU CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR MOTION?" Auditor may wait for normal comm lag of that PC, acknowledge and continue process. TONE 40 Motion = Intention without Reservation. Two-Way Communication = One Question-The Right One. HISTORY. Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington, D.C., 1956 as a therapeutic version of Dummy Hand Mimicry. Something was needed to supplant "Look at me. Who am I?" and "Find the auditor" part of rudiments. No: CCH 4. NAME: BOOK MIMICRY AUDITING COMMANDS: THERE ARE NO SET VERBAL COMMANDS. Auditor makes simple motions with a book. Hands book to the PC. PC makes motion, duplicating Auditor's mirror-image-wise. Auditor asks PC if he is satisfied that the PC duplicated the motion. If PC is and Auditor is also fully satisfied, Auditor takes back the book and goes to next command. If PC is not sure that he duplicated any command, Auditor repeats it for him and gives him back the book. If PC is sure he did and Auditor can see duplication is pretty wrong, Auditor accepts PC's answer and continues on a gradient scale of motion either with the left or right hand till PC can do original command correctly. This ensures no invalidation of the PC. Tone 40, only in motions, verbal 2-way quite free. AUDITING POSITION: Auditor and PC seated facing each other, a comfortable distance apart. PROCESS PURPOSE: To bring up PC's communication with control and duplication (control and duplication = communication). Give PC wins. It is necessary for Auditor to duplicate his own commands. Circular motions are more complex than straight lines. Tolerance of plus or minus randomity is apparent here and the Auditor should probably begin on the PC with motions that begin in the same place each time and are neither very fast nor very slow, nor very complex. Introduced by the Auditor seeing that PC understands what is to be done, as there is no verbal command, formal process. HISTORY. Developed by LRH for the 16th ACC in Washington, D.C., 1957. Based on duplication. Developed by LRH in London, 1952. L. RON HUBBARD LRH :ep.rd Copyright © 1965 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ************** 35. HCOB 30 JUL 62 A SMOOTH HGC 25 HOUR INTENSIVE HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 30 JULY 1962 Franchise A SMOOTH HGC 25 HOUR INTENSIVE Here is the pattern for a new Problems Intensive that can be given by HGC or field auditors and which will get them marvellous results on new or old pcs. This arrangement makes prepchecking come into its own, for if it is well done then the pc is fairly well set up for having his goal found. This intensive is amazingly easy to run providing that the auditor does it pretty well muzzled and does not violate repetitive prepchecking drill. Of course if the auditor's meter reading is not perfect and if the auditor is not cognizant of recent HCO Bulletins on the meter and if the auditor misses as many as two reads in a session, this whole result can wind up in a fiasco. If the pc doesn't feel better on this one then the auditor just didn't read the meter or miserably flubbed current drill. Of these two the D of P had better suspect the meter readings if anything goes wrong. The first thing to do is complete the old case assessment form. We do this in Model Session and check after each small section of it as to whether we've missed a withhold on the pc. We then assess the self-determined change list (and don't goof and put other determined changes on the pc's change list, or we'll be assessing engrams). We find the most important, most reacting change in the pc's life by the largest read. This can also be done by elimination. We then locate the prior confusion to that change. In no case will it be earlier than two weeks from the incident. These confusions, so often missed by the auditor, take place from two weeks to five minutes before the actual decision to change. Having located the time of the prior confusion, but not done anything else about it, no lists of names or anything like that, we then go one month earlier in date. This gives us an exact date for our questions. Let us say the self-determined change was June 1, 1955. The prior confusion was May 20, 1955, and the arbitrary month earlier was April 20, 1955. We get the pc to spot this arbitrary date more or less to his own satisfaction. We now form a question as follows: "Since (date) is there anything you have.......?" The endings are in this order: Suppressed, Suggested, Been careful of, Invalidated and Failed to reveal. The question with one end is completely cleaned by Repetitive Prepchecking. One asks it off the meter until the pc says there is no more. Then one checks it on the meter and steers the pc with any read, and then continues the question off the meter, etc, etc. In turn we clean each one of the buttons above. This will take many hours in most cases. It is vital not to clean anything that's clean or to miss cleaning a read that reacts. In other words, do a clean meter job of it all the way at sensitivity 16. When we have in turn cleaned each of the buttons above, we do a new assessment of the change list and get us a new time just as before and handle that just as before. When the second area is clean we assess for a third. Frequently, particularly if the needle gets dirty, we ask for missed withholds. Indeed one can use all the Middle Rudiments at least once each session. With expert needle reading that intensive will give the pc more gain per hour of auditing than anything else short of Routine 3GA. I wish you lots of success with it. Remember, the more variables you introduce into such a system the less confidence the pc will have in you. Good hunting. L. RON HUBBARD LRH: dr.rd Copyright © 1962 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ************** 36. HCOB 9 SEP 63 REPETITIVE RUDIMENTS AND REPETITIVE PREPCHECKING HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 9 SEPTEMBER AD13 Central Orgs Franchise REPETITIVE RUDIMENTS AND REPETITIVE PREPCHECKING HOW TO GET THE RUDIMENTS IN (Compiled from HCO Bulletins of July 2, 3 and 4, AD12) Just as an E-Meter can go dead for the auditor in the presence of a monstrous ARC break, I have found it can go gradiently dull in the presence of out rudiments. If you fail to get one IN then the outness of the next one reads faintly. And if your TR1 is at all poor, you'll miss the rudiment's outness and there goes your session. To get over these difficulties, I've developed Repetitive Rudiments. The auditor at first does not consult the meter, but asks the rudiments question of the pc until the pc says there is no further answer. At this point the auditor says, "I will check that on the meter." And asks the question again. If it reads, the auditor uses the meter to steer the pc to the answer, and when the pc finds the answer, the auditor again says, "I will check that on the meter" and does so. The cycle is repeated over and over until the meter is clean of any instant read (see HCO Bulletin of May 25, 1962, for Instant Read). The cycle: 1. Run the rudiment as a repetitive process until pc has no answer. 2. Consult meter for a hidden answer. 3. If meter reads use it to steer ("that" "that" each time the meter flicks) the pc to the answer. 4. Stay with the Meter and do (2) and (3). The process is flat when there is no instant read to the question. One does not "bridge out" or use "two more commands". When the meter test of the question gets no instant read, the auditor says, "The meter is clean". The trick here is the definition of "With Session". If the pc is With Session the meter will read. If the pc is partially against session the meter will read poorly, and the rudiment will not register and the rudiment will get missed. But with the pc with session the meter will read well for the auditor. FAST CHECKING A Fast Check on the Rudiments consists only of Steps (2) and (3) of the cycle done over and over. Watching the meter the auditor asks the question, takes up only what reads and, careful not to Q and A, clears it. One does this as many times as is necessary to get a clean needle. But one still says "The meter is clean" and catches up the disagreement by getting the additional answers. When the question is seen to be clean, the question is left. In using Fast Checking NEVER SAY, "THAT STILL READS." That's a flunk. Say, "There's another read here. " REPETITIVE PREPCHECKING We will still use the term "Prepchecking" and do all Prepchecking by repetitive command. STEP ONE Without now looking at the Meter, the auditor asks the question repetitively until the preclear says that's all, there are no more answers. STEP TWO The auditor then says, "I will check that on the meter" and does so, watching for the Instant Read (HCO Bulletin May 25,1962). If it reads, the auditor says, "That reads. What was it?" (and steers the pc's attention by calling each identical read that then occurs). "There .....That .....That ....." until the pc spots it in his bank and gives the datum. STEP THREE The auditor then ignores the meter and repeats Step One above. Then goes to Step Two, etc. STEP FOUR When there is no read on Step Two above, the auditor says, "The meter is clean." This is all there is to Repetitive Prepchecking as a system. Anything added in the way of more auditor questions is destructive to the session. Be sure not to Q and A (HCO Bulletin of May 24, 1962). Be sure your TR4 is excellent in that you understand (really, no fake) what the pc is saying and acknowledge it (really, so the pc gets it) and return the pc to session. Nothing is quite as destructive to this type of auditing as bad TR4. END WORDS The E-Meter has two holes in it. It does not operate on an ARC broken pc and it can operate on the last word (thought minor) only of a question. Whereas the question (thought major) is actually null. A pc can be checked on the END WORDS OF RUDIMENTS QUESTIONS and the charge on those single words can be made known and the question turned around to avoid the last word's charge. Example: "Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?" The word "difficulties", said to the pc by itself gives an Instant Read. Remedy: Test "Difficulties". If it reads as itself then change the question to: "Concerning your difficulties, are you willing to talk to me?" This will only react when the pc is unwilling to do so. Caution: This trouble of END WORDS reading by themselves occurs mainly in the presence of weak TR1 and failure to groove in the question to a "thought major". With good TR1 the END WORDS read only when the question is asked. IN PRACTICE you only investigate this when the pc insists strongly that the question is nul. Then test the end word for lone reaction and turn the question about to make it end with another end word (question not to have words changed, only shifted in order). Then groove it in and test it for Instant Read. If it still reacts as a question (thought major) then, of course, it is not nul and should be answered. DOUBLE CLEANING "Cleaning" a rudiment that has already registered nul gives the pc a Missed Withhold of nothingness. His nothingness was not accepted. The pc has no answer. A missed no-answer then occurs. This is quite serious. Once you see a Rudiment is clean, let it go. To ask again something already nul is to leave the pc baffled-he has a missed withhold which is a nothingness. L. RON HUBBARD LRH :jw.bp.cden Copyright © 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ************** 37. HCOB 31 MAR 60 THE PRESENT TIME PROBLEM HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 31 MARCH 1960 Fran Holders THE PRESENT TIME PROBLEM Everybody has present time problems at times. They come up unexpectedly. They happen, between intensives. They pop up between sessions. They, indeed, occur within sessions. And the auditor who neglects to handle them when they arise will get little auditing done. It's the present time problem that sticks the graph, makes it register no change. (It's ARC breaks that drop one.) What is a "PTP", as the auditors write it in their reports? It is basically the inability to confront the dual terminal nature of this universe. It is an inability to span attention and denotes that the pc who is having lots of PTPs has his attention very fixed on something. The definition of a problem is intention v. intention or "two or more opposing and conflicting views on the same subject". If the pc has problems with wife or husband, we can be sure that they have divergent views on some basic thing in life. Thus the auditor who has a pc who always has PTPs with one, the same, person, had better run O/W (overt-withhold) on that terminal in a specific form (George) and then responsibility on the general form (a husband). Thus a PTP is as good as an assessment. Find what terminals the pc has PTPs about and handle that terminal as above. Indeed this is more than a trick-it's a great time-saver. One can waste hours on a pc who repeatedly comes up with a PTP on the same person. But that person in the PTP is often the current clue to the case. "Grace the wife" leads to "a wife" leads to "a woman". Present time problems are not always concerned with the world outside auditing. Auditors can be a PTP to the pc, especially when the pc has big withholds! PROCESSES ON PTPs Present time problem processes are many. The earliest was two-way comm. A later one was "Invent a problem of comparable magnitude to ........" But this one of course is a create type process and is therefore very limited. Still another process was "Tell me your problem." "How does it seem to you now?" This almost runs the whole case. A recent one that has workability is "What problem could you confront?" This finds out for the pc that he can't confront a problem at first without doing something about it. That isn't confronting the problem. This is an amusing, effective and educative process. Problems tend to snap in on the pc. The mechanism here is that he cannot confront them so, of course, they snap in upon him. When he invents a few the first problem he had visibly moves away from him. This last is now a demonstration, not a process, because of the create factor. The fastest current process is "Tell me your problem." "What part of that problem have you been responsible for?" This is an alternate question process. You will find the problem changes and changes. It runs the whole case. A general process on problems, which is a very healthy process, is "What problem have you been (or might you have been) responsible for?" The easiest process on problems to run, if slower, is "Tell me your problem." "What part of that problem could you confront?" CONFUSION AND THE STABLE DATUM Problems are nasty case stickers because in a problem one has an old solution causing new problems. This is the principle of confusion and the stable datum. The confusion (two or more opposed views or actions) stays in position because it is hung on a single fixed point. If you want to see a pc go into confusion ask him what solution he could confront. (This is not a good process, it's a demonstration.) A preclear is sometimes chary of motion in the bank. He seizes upon fixed particles to avoid moving particles. A very top scale process that does some fabulous things to a pc also illustrates this: "What motion have you been responsible for?" This truly sets a bank whizzing, particularly black cases or stuck picture cases. Running this, it is possible to discharge pc liability to problems. THE DUAL UNIVERSE The basic unit of this universe is two not one. The less a pc can confront two things, the more he fixes on one. This is the highly individual person, also the self-auditing case. This is probably the basic trap of a thetan. He is a single unit that has not cared to confront dual units and is therefore subject to the persistence of all dual things. As he does not seem to care as much for two as he does for one that which is not admired tends to persist and we have a persisting dual universe. Also, when he is with somebody else, he tends to confront the other person but not to confront himself. "What about you could you confront?" is a murderous process. It is all right to run. It picks up the times when his attention was off self and yet self was creating. This is the genus of a reactive bank. It is probably what pain is. However, a better and more spectacular process that demonstrates this and gets to the heart of problems is "What two things can you confront?" This increases ability and reduces one's liability to problems. I suppose one could go gradiently up in number and have at last a pc that could tolerate any motion or number. It is quantity not quality which makes a bank. Thus running significances is of little worth. A thetan gets ideas of too many and too few. He cannot have, at length, anything that becomes too scarce-one of the old important rules of havingness given in Scientology 8- 8008. OUT OF SESSION A pc is in session when (a) he is willing to talk to the auditor and (b) he is interested in his own case. The primary violation of part (a) is overts and withholds-the pc is afraid to talk or talks to cover up. The second violation (b) occurs when the pc's attention is "over there" in present time, fixed on some concern that is "right now" somewhere in the physical universe. Technically a present time problem is a special problem that exists in the physical universe now on which the pc has his attention fixed. This violates the "in session" rule part (b). The pc's attention is "over there" not on his case. If the auditor overlooks or doesn't run the PTP then the pc is never in session, grows agitated, ARC breaks, etc. And no gains are made because the pc is not in session. Hence the unchanged graph when the pc has a PTP that is overlooked or not properly handled. PTPs are easy to handle. If you, the auditor, become impatient at having to "waste time" handling a PTP or if the pc considers it a waste of time to handle it, a mistake is being made. So long as a PTP falls on a meter even slightly, it had better be handled until it no longer falls when checked. If the same type of PTP keeps coming up, use it as a case assessment and run it out-out-out as given above, using O/W and responsibility. And if the pc always has problems, better note he also has motionless pictures, is only-one and self-audits heavily and get him used to motion and two particles as given in processes above and he'll be a better case very soon indeed. L. RON HUBBARD LRH :js.rd Copyright © 1960 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ************** 38. HCOB 19 NOV 65 LEVEL I PROBLEMS PROCESS HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 19 NOVEMBER 1965 Remimeo Students LEVEL I PROBLEMS PROCESS This is an extremely fast process for use at Level I to handle problems. The process commands are simply: "What is the problem?" "What solutions have you had for that problem?" One gets the pc to give his problem then runs TA off solutions. Then a new statement of the problem and more questions about solutions. These commands are run in very strict muzzled style-no additives or diversions whatsoever. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:ml rd Copyright ©1965 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ************** 39. HCOB 26 MAY 60 SECURITY CHECKS HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 26 MAY 1960 Franchise Hldrs HCO Secs Assoc Secs SECURITY CHECKS The Organization Secretary in Washington is here at Saint Hill for briefing on future US campaigns. When I showed her how to do a security check and gave her a demonstration, she made the following notes. They are of considerable interest to all Central Orgs and HCOs as well as auditors. Therefore, I give them to you in full. Security Check 1. Stable data-you are not processing but looking for needle or tone arm action that will not blow off. (Clear up on investigation-further questioning and E-Meter exploration. ) 2. Rising needle means nothing except you aren't asking right questions. 3. You are looking for significant drops or tone arm changes that will not clear up. It is something that person is consciously withholding and as he continues to withhold it on further questioning the needle or the tone arm action will increase. 4. You start out by asking non-significant questions-50% of questions are to be these, i.e., if you have 10 significant (security) questions to ask you start out with 10 non-significant questions. If you have a needle pattern on non-significant questions you note it and it doesn't count on security questions. 5. On significant questions-any question that gets drop or TA action-you don't go any further but explore on this question. You may be getting action on past life or rather unimportant this life acts-i.e., sniping a balloon from a store as a small child. Clear this out. The needle may cool off (less action) but still be reacting. If so, explore further-see if you can clear it off. If on exploration the action increases, the person is consciously sitting on something he doesn't want you to know. If he's handing you up something else to explain the needle action (i.e., trying to clear it up by handing you something else) the action will increase because he's basically lying. If the action increases you can tell him he's sitting on something he won't tell and that he's a risk. He may break down and let go of it at this time. If so-he still needs processing on it and is a risk until he's responsible for it. Just letting go of the withhold doesn't make him responsible for it. He is not retained on staff while being processed to clear it up. What you are looking for is that which won't cool off. You can cool something off and go on to the next security check question and then later come back to the reacting question. It may have built up again. If so, explore some more. 6. On a Security Check Sheet you only note those questions that wouldn't clear. If something won't clear or cool off the person is a security risk. If he does tell you and clear it, if it's a heavy crime, note it. 7. E-Meter-use of in security check-check out meter before connecting person to be checked. See former bulletin on checking out E-Meter. Generally you set the sensitivity straight up on American meter unless the needle is very very sticky. English meter is more sensitive-so you set it lower. Then set the TA-have the person squeeze the cans. You want about a 1/3 dial drop so you can adjust the sensitivity if the action is too much or too small on the can squeeze. Put the person at ease. Don't act accusative. You don't want to restimulate all the interrogation in the bank. It'll just take that much longer to clear it off. 8. There may once in a while be a person who reads nicely at their clear reading with no action and you're very suspicious the guy isn't clear. This could be a complete "blab" no responsibility case-a mockery of clear. You can check this out as follows. Make a somewhat accusative statement to the person that would be real to him-i.e., "You never get your work done." The mockery of clear person will wildly justify and blame. Check this person out on help-2-way-on an employer, etc. They will be real nowhere on help-i.e., can't conceive of helping an employer-can't run 2-way help, etc. This person, no matter how secure he may seem, is an employment risk because he can't help and will only cause difficulties on a post. He'll be a camouflaged hole. 9. Along with security check on staffs a help check should be given. If the person is sticky on help (can conceive of some help in some areas but has several areas of no help, especially on 3rd dynamic), he needs processing before he can be hired. If he's nowhere on help-can't run 2-way or can't conceive of helping an employer or an organization, he is not hirable until he's flat on help which will probably take many hours. He's probably a CCH case. 10. Remember, as a security checker you are not merely an observer, or an auditor, you are a detective. I trust these notes will be of use. L. RON HUBBARD LRH :dm.cden Copyright © 1960 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ************** 40. HCOB 16 NOV 61 SEC CHECKING HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 16 NOVEMBER 1961 Franchise SEC CHECKING Generalities Won't Do The most efficient way to upset a pc is to leave a Sec Check question unflat. This is remedied by occasionally asking, "Has any Sec Check question been missed on you?" and getting what was missed flattened. The best way to "miss" a Sec Check question is to let the pc indulge in generalities or "I thought . . . ." A Sec Check question should be nulled at Sensitivity 16 as a final check. A withhold given as "Oh, I got mad at them lots of times" should be pulled down to when and where and the first time "you got mad" and finally, "What did you do to them just before that?" Then you'll really get a nul. The pc who withholds somebody else's withholds and gives them as answers is a card. But he isn't helped when the auditor lets him do it. Situation: You ask the pc for a withhold about Joe. The pc who says, "I heard that Joe. . ." should be asked right there, "What have you done to Joe? You. Just you." And it turns out he stole Joe's last blonde. But if the auditor had let this pc go on and on about how the pc had heard how Joe was this or that, the session would have gone on and on and the Tone Arm up and up, We have pcs who use "withholds" to spread all manner of lies. We ask this pc, "Have you ever done anything to the Org?" The pc says, "Well, I'm withholding that I heard . . ." or the pc says, "Well, I thought some bitter thoughts about the Org." Or the pc says, "I was critical of the Org when . . ." and we don't sail in and get WHAT THE PC DID, we can comfortably stretch a 5 minute item to a session or two. If the pc "heard" and the pc "thought" and the pc "said" in answer to a Sec Check question, the pc's reactive bank is really saying, "I've got a crashing big withhold and if I can keep on fooling around by giving critical thoughts, rumours, and what others did, you'll never get it." And if he gets away with it, the auditor has missed a withhold question. We only want to know what the pc did, when he did it, what was the first time he did it and what he did just before that, and we'll nail it every time. ------------------ The Irresponsible PC If you want to get withholds off an "irresponsible pc" you sometimes can't ask what the pc did or withheld and get a meter reaction. This problem has bugged us for some time. I finally got very bright and realized that no matter whether the pc thought it was a crime or not, he or she will answer up on "don't know" versions as follows: Situation: "What have you done to your husband?" Pc's answer, "Nothing bad." E-Meter reaction, nul. Now we know this pc, through our noticing she is critical of her husband, has overts on him. But she can take no responsibility for her own acts. But she can take responsibility for his not knowing. She is making certain of that. So we ask, "What have you done that your husband doesn't know about?" And it takes an hour for her to spill it all, the quantity is so great. For the question releases the floodgates. The Meter bangs around. And with these withholds off, her responsibility comes up and she can take responsibility on the items. This applies to any zone or area or terminal of Sec Checking. Situation: We are getting a lot of "I thought", "I heard", "They said", "They did" in answer to a question. We take the terminal or terminals involved and put them in this blank. "What have you done that ----------- (doesn't) (don't) know about?" And we can get the major overts that lay under the blanket of "How bad everyone is but me". ------------------ This prevents you missing a Sec Check question. It's a bad crime to do so. This will shorten the labour involved in getting every question flat. Every session of Sec Checking you should ask the pc in the end rudiments, "Have I missed a Sec Check question on you?" In addition to "Are you withholding anything" and "half truths etc". And if your pc is very withholdy you can insert this "Have I missed a Sec Check question on you?" every few questions while doing a Sec Check. Always clear up what was missed. A pc can be very upset by reason of a missed Sec Check question. Keep them going up, not down. L. RON HUBBARD LRH :esc.cden Copyright © 1961 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ************** 41. HCOB 23 NOV 61 METER READING HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 23 NOVEMBER 1961 Franchise METER READING A survey of auditing has brought up the datum that the gross auditing error in failure to obtain results from Security Checking and Problems Intensives lies wholly in the inability to read an E-Meter. You may some day get a huge reality on the fact that, in supervising auditing, all failures are gross auditing errors, not flukey case differences. Auditors one is supervising often demand "an extraordinary solution" because such and such a case isn't moving. The unwise supervisor will actually furnish "extraordinary solution" after "extraordinary solution" "to handle this different case". It may be John Jones who "cannot think of any changes in his life" or it may be Mary Smith who "just doesn't respond to Security Checking". And the supervisor burns the midnight oil and gives the auditor some new involved solution. Then as often as not, the auditor comes back the day after and says, "That didn't work either." And the supervisor goes a quarter around the bend and again burns the midnight oil .... If this seems familiar to you as a supervisor, know you should have asked, "What didn't work?" Usually the auditor can't even recall the solution-it was never used. Or it was applied in some strange fashion. For today, the reasons for failure all lie under the heading "Gross Auditing Error". Such an error would be, the auditor never arrived for the session, the E-Meter was broken throughout, the pc hadn't eaten or slept for three days, the din from construction next door made it impossible to give commands or hear answers. The auditor didn't run any known process. That is the order of magnitude of a "GROSS AUDITING ERROR". It is never, the pc was unhappy, the pc has difficulty remembering, etc. In supervising auditing, always look for the gross auditing error and never give out with an extra-ordinary solution. Well, taking my own advice, when I saw some tricky elements in new clearing processes taking far too much time, I didn't look for "different" pcs, I looked for the gross auditing error. And found it. The auditors who were having trouble couldn't read an E-Meter. Impossible as that may seem, it proved to be true. I put Mary Sue on this at once and Herbie Parkhouse carried through. The errors found in E-Meter reading where there had been trouble, were so huge as to have been missed on any casual inspection. The errors went like this: 1. The auditor believed the E-Meter could not be read while the needle was swinging around. The auditor was waiting until it stopped every time before asking a question. 2. The auditor believed the needle had to be exactly at "set" on the dial before it could be read. 3. The auditor did not know a rising needle could be read by stopping the rise with a question or making the needle twitch. 4. The auditor had not done the body reaction drills in E-Meter Essentials and was reading only body reactions and ignoring all others. 5. The auditor thought an E-Meter could not be read if it showed breathing or heart beat. 6. The auditor always looked at the pc for a few seconds after asking the question, then looked at the meter, and so missed all but latent (non-significant) reads. 7. The auditor sat staring at the meter for twenty seconds after the reading had registered. 8. The auditor thought E-Meters could be fooled so easily, it was more reliable to make up his own mind about what the pc's item or guilt was. 9. An auditor thought that if the needle rose on a rudiment question, the rudiment was out. These and many, many more panned out to be: IF A SECURITY CHECK OR PROBLEMS INTENSIVE WAS PRODUCING NO RESULTS, IT WAS BECAUSE THE AUDITOR COULD NOT READ AN E-METER. That's the gross auditing error. In this bulletin, I am not trying to give you any methods to remedy this. I am just calling it widely to everyone's attention. The fact is big enough to merit study by itself. And to get cases started by no other mechanism than learning to really read an E-Meter or by teaching people to read it. This one point remedied could change the entire future of Scientology, an organization or an auditor. L. RON HUBBARD LRH: esc.rd Copyright © 1961 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ************** 42. HCOB 13 DEC 61 VARYING SEC CHECK QUESTIONS HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 13 DECEMBER 1961 Tech Depts Franchise VARYING SEC CHECK QUESTIONS You only vary a sec check question when by repeating it you would create an impasse. Example: "Have you stolen anything?" "Yes, an apple." "Good. Have you stolen anything?" "No." "Good. (Look at meter.) Have you stolen anything?" "No. " (Meter reacts. ) NOW vary the question. And always end by making sure the original question "Have you stolen anything?" is nul. This all comes under the heading of getting one auditing question answered before you ask a second. If you create an impasse you will pile up missed withholds, throw ruds out and really mess it up. Therefore, until you do find out what the answer was on a sec check question, you do NOT repeat the question-only variations (except to test for nul after getting a withhold) until the meter nuls on the first question. L. RON HUBBARD LRH: esc.rd Copyright © 1961 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ************** 43. HCOB 8 FEB 62 URGENT - MISSED WITHHOLDS HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 8 FEBRUARY 1962 Franchise URGENT MISSED WITHHOLDS The one item Scientologists everywhere must get an even greater reality on is MISSED WITHHOLDS and the upsets they cause. EVERY upset with Central Orgs, Field Auditors, pcs, the lot, is traceable to one or more MISSED WITHHOLDS. Every ARC Breaky pc is ARC Breaky because of a Missed Withhold. Every dissatisfied pc is dissatisfied because of MISSED WITHHOLDS. We've got to get a flaming reality on this. WHAT IS A MISSED WITHHOLD? A missed withhold is not just a withhold. Please burn that into the stone walls. A Missed Withhold is a withhold that existed, could have been picked up and was MISSED. The mechanics of this are given in the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course Lecture of 1 February 1962. The fact of it is stated in the Congress Lectures of the D.C. Congress of December 30-31, Jan. 1, 1962. Since that Congress even more data has accumulated. That data is large, voluminous and overwhelming. The person with complaints has MISSED WITHHOLDS. The person with entheta has MISSED WITHHOLDS. You don't need policies and diplomacy to handle these people. Policy and diplomacy will fail. You need expert auditing skill and a British Mark IV meter and the person on the cans and that person's MISSED WITHHOLDS. A MISSED WITHHOLD is a withhold that existed, was tapped and was not pulled. Hell hath no screams like a withhold scorned. A MISSED WITHHOLD programme would not be one where an auditor pulls a pc's withholds. A MISSED WITHHOLD programme would be where the auditor searched for and found when and where withholds had been available but had been MISSED. The withhold need not have been asked for. It merely need have been available. And if it was not pulled, thereafter you have a nattery, combative, ARC Breaky or entheta inclined person. THIS is the only dangerous point in auditing. This is the only thing which makes an occasional error in the phrase, "Any auditing is better than no auditing." That line is true with one exception. If a withhold were available but was missed, thereafter you have a bashed-up case. HOW TO AUDIT IT In picking up Missed Withholds you don't ask for withholds, you ask for missed withholds. Sample question: "What withhold was missed on you?" The auditor then proceeds to find out what it was and who missed it. And the Mark IV needle is cleaned of reaction at Sensitivity 16 on every such question. Gone is the excuse "She doesn't register on the meter." That's true of old meters, not the British Mark IV. And if the pc considers it no overt, and can't conceive of overts, you still have "didn't know". Example: "What didn't an auditor know in an auditing session?" SAMPLE MISSED WITHHOLD SESSION Ask pc if anyone has ever missed a withhold on him (her) in an auditing session. Clean it. Get all reactions off the needle at Sensitivity 16. Then locate first auditing session pc had. Flatten "What didn't that auditor know?" "What didn't that auditor know about you?" For good measure get the ruds in for that first session. In auditing an auditor, also do the same thing for his or her first pc. Then pick up any stuck session. Treat it exactly the same way. (If you scan the pc through all his auditing ever from the cleaned first session to present time, the pc will stick in a session somewhere. Treat that session the same as the first session. You can scan again and again, finding the stuck sessions and get the withholds off in that session and the ruds in as above.) Clean up all sessions you can find. And get what the auditor didn't know, what the auditor didn't know about the pc, and for good measure, get in the other ruds. Cleaning up an old session will suddenly give you all the latent gain in that session. It's worth having! This can be extended to "What didn't the org know about you?" for those who've had trouble with it. And it can be extended to any life area where the pc has had trouble. SUMMARY If you clean up as above withholds that have been missed on any pc or person, you will have any case flying. This then is not just emergency data for use on flubbed intensives. It is vital technology that can do wonders for cases. ON ANY CASE THAT HAS BEEN AUDITED A PART OF AN INTENSIVE, BEFORE GOING ON THE AUDITOR SHOULD SPEND SOME TIME LOCATING WITHHOLDS HE OR SHE MIGHT HAVE MISSED ON THAT PC. Any pc that is ending a week's auditing should be carefully checked over for withholds that might have been missed. Any pc that is ending his or her intensives should be most carefully checked out for missed withholds. This makes sudden auditing gains. Any case not up to recognizing overts will respond to "didn't know about you" when the case doesn't respond to "withhold". Any student should be checked weekly for missed withholds. Any person who is giving an auditor, the field, the Organization, a course or Scientology any trouble should be gotten hold of and checked for missed withholds. It is provenly true on five continents that any other meter reaches only occasionally below the level of consciousness and the British Mark IV reaches deeply and well. It is dangerous to audit without a meter because then you really miss withholds. It is dangerous to audit without knowing how to really use a meter because of missing withholds. It is dangerous to audit with any other meter than a British Mark IV. It is SAFE to audit if you can run a meter and if you use a British Mark IV and if you pull all the withholds and missed withholds. EVERY blow-up you ever had with a pc was due ENTIRELY to having missed a withhold whether you were using a meter or not, whether you were asking for withholds or not. Just try it out the next time a pc gets upset and you'll see that I speak the usual sooth. L. RON HUBBARD LRH: sf.rd Copyright © 1962 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ************** 44. HCOB 12 FEB 62 HOW TO CLEAR WITHHOLDS AND MISSED WITHHOLDS HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 12 FEBRUARY 1962 sthil CenOCon HOW TO CLEAR WITHHOLDS AND MISSED WITHHOLDS I have finally reduced clearing withholds to a rote formula which contains all the basic elements necessary to obtain a high case gain without missing any withholds. These steps now become THE way to clear a withhold or missed withhold. AUDITOR OBJECTIVE The auditor's object is to get the pc to look so that the pc can tell the auditor. The auditor's objective is not to get the pc to tell the auditor. If the pc is in session the pc will talk to the auditor. If the pc is not in session, the pc won't tell the auditor a withhold. I never have any trouble getting the pc to tell me a withhold. I sometimes have trouble getting the pc to find out about a withhold so the pc can tell it to me. If the pc will not tell the auditor a withhold (and the pc knows it) the remedy is rudiments. I always assume, and correctly, that if the pc knows about it the pc will tell me. My job is to get the pc to find out so the pc has something to tell me. The chief auditor blunder in pulling withholds stems from the auditor assuming the pc already knows when the pc does not. If used exactly, this system will let the pc find out and let the pc get all the charge off of a withhold as well as tell the auditor all about it. Missing a withhold or not getting all of it is the sole source of ARC break. Get a reality on this now. All trouble you have or have ever had or will ever have with ARC breaky pcs stems only and wholly from having restimulated a withhold and yet having failed to pull it. The pc never forgives this. This system steers you around the rock of missed withholds and their bombastic consequences. WITHHOLD SYSTEM This system has five parts: 0. The Difficulty being handled. 1. What the withhold is. 2. When the withhold occurred. 3. All of the withhold. 4. Who should have known about it. Numbers (2) (3) and (4) are repeated over and over, each time testing (1) until (1) no longer reacts. (2) (3) and (4) clear (1). (1) straightens out in part (0). (0) is cleaned up by finding many (1)'s and (1) is straightened up by running (2) (3) and (4) many times. These steps are called (0) Difficulty, (1) What (2) When (3) All (4) Who. The auditor must memorize these as What, When, All and Who. The order is never varied. The questions are asked one after the other. None of them are repetitive questions. USE A MARK IV The whole operation is done on a Mark IV. Use no other meter as other meters may read right electronically without reading mental reactions well enough. Do this whole system and all questions at sensitivity 16. THE QUESTIONS 0. The suitable question concerning the Difficulty the pc is having. Meter reads. 1. What. "What are you withholding about ............?" (the Difficulty) (or as given in future issues). Meter reads. Pc answers with a w/h, large or small. 2. When. "When did that occur?" or "When did that happen?" or "What was the time of that?" Meter reads. Auditor can date in a generality or precisely on meter. A generality is best at first, a precise dating on the meter is used later in this sequence on the same w/h. 3. All. "Is that all of that?" Meter reads. Pc answers. 4. Who. "Who should have known about that?" or "Who didn't find out about that?" Meter reads. Pc answers. Now test (1) with the same question that got a read the first time. (The question for (1) is never varied on the same w/h.) If needle still reads ask (2) again, then (3), then (4), getting as much data as possible on each. Then test (1) again. (1) is only tested, never worked over except by using (2), (3) and (4). Continue this rotation until (1) clears on needle and thus no longer reacts on a test. Treat every withhold you find (or have found) in this fashion always. SUMMARY You are looking at a preview of PREPARATORY TO CLEARING. "Prepclearing" for short. Abandon all further reference to security checking or sec checking. The task of the auditor in Prepclearing is to prepare a pc's rudiments so that they can't go out during 3D Criss Cross. The value of Prepclearing in case gain, is greater than any previous Class I or Class II auditing. We have just risen well above Security Checking in ease of auditing and in case gains. You will shortly have the ten Prepclearing lists which give you the (0) and (1) questions. Meanwhile, treat every withhold you find in the above fashion for the sake of the preclear, for your sake as an auditor and for the sake of the good name of Scientology. (Note: To practise with this system, take a withhold a pc has given several times to you or you and other auditors. Treat the question that originally got it as (1) and clean it as above in this system. You will be amazed.) L. RON HUBBARD LRH:sf.cden Copyright © 1962 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ************** 45. HCOB 3 MAY 62 ARC BREAKS - MISSED WITHHOLDS HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 3 MAY 1962 Franchise ARC BREAKS - MISSED WITHHOLDS (HOW TO USE THIS BULLETIN. WHEN AN AUDITOR OR STUDENT HAS TROUBLE WITH AN "ARC BREAKY PC" OR NO GAIN, OR WHEN AN AUDITOR IS FOUND TO BE USING FREAK CONTROL METHODS OR PROCESSES TO "KEEP A PC IN SESSION", THE HCO SEC, D OF T OR D OF P SHOULD JUST HAND A COPY OF THIS BULLETIN TO THE AUDITOR AND MAKE HIM OR HER STUDY IT AND TAKE AN HCO EXAM ON IT.) After some months of careful observation and tests, I can state conclusively that: ALL ARC BREAKS STEM FROM MISSED WITHHOLDS. This is vital technology, vital to the auditor and to anyone who wants to live. Conversely: THERE ARE NO ARC BREAKS WHEN MISSED WITHHOLDS HAVE BEEN CLEANED UP. By WITHHOLD is meant AN UNDISCLOSED CONTRA-SURVIVAL ACT. By MISSED WITHHOLD is meant AN UNDISCLOSED CONTRA-SURVIVAL ACT WHICH HAS BEEN RESTIMULATED BY ANOTHER BUT NOT DISCLOSED. This is FAR more important in an auditing session than most auditors have yet realized. Even when some auditors are told about this and shown it they still seem to miss its importance and fail to use it. Instead they continue to use strange methods of controlling the pc and oddball processes on ARC Breaks. This is so bad that one auditor let a pc die rather than pick up the missed withholds! So allergy to picking up missed withholds can be so great that an auditor has been known to fail utterly rather than do so. Only constant hammering can drive this point home. When it is driven home, only then can auditing begin to happen across the world; the datum is that important. An auditing session is 50% technology and 50% application. I am responsible for the technology. The auditor is wholly responsible for the application. Only when an auditor realizes this can he or she begin to obtain uniformly marvellous results everywhere. No auditor now needs "something else", some odd mechanism to keep pcs in session. PICKING UP MISSED WITHHOLDS KEEPS PCS IN SESSION. There is no need for a rough, angry ARC Breaky session. If there is one it is not the fault of the pc. It is the fault of the auditor. The auditor has failed to pick up missed withholds. As of now it is not the pc that sets the tone of the session. It is the auditor. And the auditor who has a difficult session (providing he or she has used standard technology, model session, and can run an E-Meter), has one only because he or she failed to ask for missed withholds. What is called a "dirty needle" (a pc's needle pattern) is caused by missed withholds, not withholds. Technology today is so powerful that it must be flawlessly applied. One does his CCHs in excellent 2 way comm with the pc. One has his TRs, Model Session and E-Meter operation completely perfect. And one follows exact technology. And one keeps the missed withholds picked up. There is an exact and precise auditor action and response for every auditing situation, and for every case. We are not today beset by variable approaches. The less variable the auditor's actions and responses, the greater gain in the pc. It is terribly precise. There is no room for flubs. Further, every pc action has an exact auditor response. And each of these has its own drill by which it can be learned. Auditing today is not an art, either in technology or procedure. It is an exact science. This removes Scientology from every one of the past practices of the mind. Medicine advanced only to the degree that its responses by the practitioner were standardized and the practitioner had a professional attitude toward the public. Scientology is far ahead of that today. What a joy it is to a preclear to receive a completely standard session. To receive a text book session. And what gains the pc makes! And how easy it is on the auditor! It isn't how interesting or clever the auditor is that makes the session. It's how standard the auditor is. Therein lies pc confidence. Part of that standard technology is asking for missed withholds any time the pc starts to give any trouble. This is, to a pc, a totally acceptable control factor. And it totally smooths the session. You have no need for and must not use any ARC Break process. Just ask for missed withholds. Here are some of the manifestations cured by asking for missed withholds. 1. Pc failing to make progress. 2. Pc critical of or angry at auditor. 3. Pc refusing to talk to auditor. 4. Pc attempting to leave session. 5. Pc not desirous of being audited (or anybody not desirous of being audited). 6. Pc boiling off. 7. Pc exhausted. 8. Pc feeling foggy at session end. 9. Dropped havingness. 10. Pc telling others the auditor is no good. 11. Pc demanding redress of wrongs. 12. Pc critical of organizations or people of Scientology. 13. People critical of Scientology. 14. Lack of auditing results. 15. Dissemination failures. Now I think you will agree that in the above list we have every ill we suffer from in the activities of auditing. Now PLEASE believe me when I tell you there is ONE CURE for the lot and ONLY that one. There are no other cures. The cure is contained in the simple question or its variations "Have I missed a withhold on you ? " THE COMMANDS In case of any of the conditions l. to 15. above ask the pc one of the following commands and CLEAN THE NEEDLE OF ALL INSTANT READ. Ask the exact question you asked the first time as a final test. The needle must be clean of all instant reaction before you can go on to anything else. It helps the pc if each time the needle twitches, the auditor says, "That" or "There" quietly but only to help the pc see what is twitching. One doesn't interrupt the pc if he or she is already giving it. This prompting is the only use of latent reads in Scientology-to help the pc spot what reacted in the first place. The commonest questions: "In this session, have I missed a withhold on you?" "In this session have I failed to find out something?" "In this session is there something I don't know about you?" The best beginning rudiments withhold question: "Since the last session is there something you have done that I don't know about?" Prepcheck Zero Questions follow: "Has somebody failed to find out about you who should have?" "Has anyone ever failed to find out something about you?" "Is there something I failed to find out about you?" "Have you ever successfully hidden something from an auditor?" "Have you ever done something somebody failed to discover?" "Have you ever evaded discovery in this lifetime?" "Have you ever hidden successfully?" "Has anyone ever failed to locate you?" (These Zeroes do not produce "What" questions until the auditor has located a specific overt.) When Prepchecking, when running any process but the CCHs, if any one of the auditing circumstances in l to 15 above occurs, ask for missed withholds. Before leaving any chain of overts in Prepchecking, or during Prepchecking, ask frequently for missed withholds, "Have I missed any withhold on you?" or as above. Do not conclude intensives on any process without cleaning up missed withholds. Asking for missed withholds does not upset the dictum of using no O/W processes in rudiments. Most missed withholds clean up at once on two way comm providing the auditor doesn't ask leading questions about what the pc is saying. Two way comm consists of asking for what the meter showed, acknowledging what the pc said and checking the meter again with the missed withhold question. If pc says, "I was mad at my wife," as an answer, just ack and check the meter with the missed withhold question. Don't say, "What was she doing?" In cleaning missed withholds do not use the Prepcheck system unless you are Prepchecking. And even in Prepchecking, if the zero is not a missed withhold question and you are only checking for missed withholds amid other activities, do it simply as above, by two way comm, not by the Prepcheck system. To get auditing into a state of perfection, to get clearing general, all we have to do is: 1. Know our basics (Axioms, Scales, Codes, the fundamental theory about the thetan and the mind); 2. Know our practical (TRs, Model Session, E-Meter, CCHs, Prepchecking and clearing routines). In actual fact this is not much to ask. For the return is smooth results and a far, far better world. An HPA/HCA can learn the data in l above and all but clearing routines in the material in 2. An HPA/HCA should know these things to perfection. They are not hard to learn. Additives and interpretations are hard to get around. Not the actual data and performance. Knowing these things, one also needs to know that all one has to do is clean the E-Meter of missed withholds to make any pc sit up and get audited smoothly, and all is as happy as a summer dream. We are making all our own trouble. Our trouble is lack of precise application of Scientology. We fail to apply it in our lives or sessions and try something bizarre and then we fail too. And with our TRs, Model Session and meters we are most of all failing to pick up and clean up MISSED WITHHOLDS. We don't have to clean up all the withholds if we keep the Missed Withholds cleaned up. Give a new auditor the order to clean up "Missed Withholds" and he or she invariably will start asking the pc for withholds. That's a mistake. You ask the pc for Missed Withholds. Why stir up new ones to be missed when you haven't cleaned up those already missed? Instead of putting out the fire we pour on gunpowder. Why find more you can then miss when you haven't found those that have been missed. Don't be so confounded reasonable about the pc's complaints. Sure, they may all be true BUT he's complaining only because withholds have been missed. Only then does the pc complain bitterly. Whatever else you learn, learn and understand this please. Your auditing future hangs on it. The fate of Scientology hangs on it. Ask for missed withholds when sessions go wrong. Get the missed withholds when life goes wrong. Pick up the missed withholds when staffs go wrong. Only then can we win and grow. We're waiting for you to become technically perfect with TRs, Model Session and the E-Meter, to be able to do CCHs and Prepchecking and clearing techniques, and to learn to spot and pick up missed withholds. If pcs, organizations and even Scientology vanish from Man's view it will be because you did not learn and use these things. L. RON HUBBARD LRH :jw.rd Copyright © 1962 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED **************