A Freezone Bible Supporter Here is a complete Level 0 Academy pack from the 1970s being posted in 11 parts. Contents below following the FZ Bible mission statement. Much Love, Tech Lover ************************************************** FREEZONE BIBLE MISSION STATEMENT Our purpose is to promote religious freedom and the Scientology Religion by spreading the Scientology Tech across the internet. The Cof$ abusively suppresses the practice and use of Scientology Tech by FreeZone Scientologists. It misuses the copyright laws as part of its suppression of religious freedom. They think that all freezoner's are "squirrels" who should be stamped out as heritics. By their standards, all Christians, Moslems, Mormons, and even non-Hassidic Jews would be considered to be squirrels of the Jewish Religion. The writings of LRH form our Old Testament just as the writings of Judiasm form the Old Testament of Christianity. We might not be good and obedient Scientologists according to the definitions of the Cof$ whom we are in protest against. But even though the Christians are not good and obedient Jews, the rules of religious freedom allow them to have their old testament regardless of any Jewish opinion. We ask for the same rights, namely to practice our religion as we see fit and to have access to our holy scriptures without fear of the Cof$ copyright terrorists. We ask for others to help in our fight. Even if you do not believe in Scientology or the Scientology Tech, we hope that you do believe in religious freedom and will choose to aid us for that reason. Thank You, The FZ Bible Association ************************************************** ******** LEVEL ZERO ACADEMY COURSE PACK ******** Level 0 Academy Course Packs (2) circa 1974 and 1976, Almost identical [Ed Note: differences noted like this] Dark blue soft cardboard cover 8 1/2 by 14 inch 4 hole punched & held together by double retainer clips. As issued by Pubs US. This is complete including book excerpts but does not include the complete book "Self Analysis" which is also part of the level (it was posted to the internet last year). This does not include transcripts of the level 0 tapes, but we are working on those and will post them eventually. Note that in the 1970s, HCOBs not written by Ron were converted to BTBs (Board Technical Bulletins), resulting in the freequent "reissued as BTB" designation. Note that bulletins have a "distribution" near the top stating where they are to be used. A common distribution is "remimeo" which means that the orgs may run copies on their mimeo machines. Another, older, designation is "CenOcon" which means "Central Orgs Continental". Others such as "D of T" (director of training) refer to posts in the Scientology organization. ******** CONTENTS: part 1 01. BPL 26 JAN 72R SCIENTOLOGY LEVEL 0 STANDARD ACADEMY CHECKSHEET 02. HCOPL 7 FEB 65 reiss. 15 JUN 70 Keeping Scientology Working 03. HCOPL 17 JUN 70 Technical Degrades 04. HCOB 11 JUN 64 New Student Data 05. HCOB 25 JUN 71R rev. 25 NOV 74 Barriers To Study 06. HCOPL 31 MAY 68 Auditors 07. BPL 17 MAY 71RA r.13 NOV 72 r.10 JUN 74 Study Points and Conditions 08. HCOPL 27 MAY 65 Processing part 2 09. HCOPL 15 DEC 65 Student's Guide To Acceptable Behavior 10. HCOPL 14 FEB 65 Safeguarding Technology 11. HCOB 27 SEP 66 The Anti-Social Personality 12. HCOPL 22 NOV 67 Rev. 18 JUL 70 Out Tech 13. HCOPL 8 JUN 70 Student Auditing 14. BPL 25 JUN 70RA Expanded Lower Grades 15. HCOB 25 SEP 71RA rev 4 APR 74 Tone Scale In Full 16. BTB 20 JUL 74 Basic Auditing Drills 17. HCOPL 14 OCT 68R rev 1 JAN 76 The Auditor's Code part 3 18. BTB 6 NOV 72R rev 25 JUL 74 Admin 14R The Worksheets 19. BTB 6 NOV 72R rev 27 AUG 74 Admin 13R The Auditor Report Form 20. BTB 6 NOV 72R rev 28 JUL 74 Admin 12R The Summary Report Form 21. BTB 20 JUN 70 reiss 21 JUL 74 Summary Report 22. BTB 6 NOV 72RA rev 20 NOV 74 Admin 11RA The Exam Report 23. HCOPL 8 MAR 71 Examiner's Form 24. BTB 5 NOV 72R rev 9 SEP 74 Admin 7R The Folder Summary 25. BTB 24 APR 69R rev 8 SEP 74 Preclear Assessment Sheet 26. HCOPL 23 APR 68 Parent or Guardian Assent Forms 27. HCOB 16 AUG 71 Training Drills Modernized part 4 28. HCOB 24 OCT 71 False TA 29. HCOB 24 OCT 71 False TA Addition 30. HCOB 15 FEB 72 False TA Addition 2 31. HCOB 18 FEB 72 False TA Addition 3 32. HCOB 29 FEB 72R rev 23 NOV 73 False TA Checklist 33. HCOB 23 NOV 73 Dry and Wet Hands Make False TA 34. HCOB 21 OCT 68 Floating Needle 35. HCOB 11 FEB 66 Free Needles, How To Get Them On a PC 36. HCOB 21 SEP 66 ARC Break Needle 37. HCOB 20 FEB 70 Floating Needles and End Phenomena 38. HCOB 8 OCT 70 C/S Ser 20 Persistent F/N 39. HCOB 21 MAR 74 End Phenomena 40. HCOB 14 MAR 71R r. 25 JUL 73 F/N Everything 41. HCOB 14 OCT 68 Meter Position 42. BTB 14 JAN 63 Rings Causing "Rock Slams" 43. HCOB 18 MAR 74 E-Meter Sensitivity Errors 44. BTB 16 JUN 71R r. 22 JUL 74 Advanced E-Meter Drills 45. HCOB 11 MAY 69 Meter Trim Check 46. HCOB 23 MAY 71 aud ser 11 Metering 47. HCOB 10 DEC 65 E-Meter Drill Coaching part 5 48. HCOB 7 APR 64 Q And A 49. HCOB 3 AUG 65 Auditing Goofs Blowdown Interruption 50. HCOB 5 FEB 66 Letting The PC Itsa 51. HCOB 7 MAY 69 The Five GAEs 52. HCOB 17 MAY 69 TRs and Dirty Needles 53. BTB 4 JUL 69 r. 6 JUL 74 Auditing of OT 3 Preclears 54. BTB 17 JUL 69 r. 28 JUN 74 Flagrant Auditing Errors 55. HCOB 29 JUL 64 Good Indicators At Lower Levels 56. BTB 26 APR 69 r. 7 JUL 64 Bad Indicators 57. HCOPL 4 APR 72 rev. 7 APR 72 Ethics And Study Tech 58. HCOB 14 NOV 65 Clearing Commands 59. BTB 2 MAY 72R r. 10 JUN 74 Clearing Commands 60. BTB 18 NOV 68R r. 9 JUN 74 Model Session 61. HCOB 12 AUG 69 Flying Ruds 62. HCOB 23 AUG 71 (24 May 70 rev) Auditors Rights 63. HCOB 6 NOV 64 Styles of Auditing part 6 64. HCOB 30 APR 71 Auditing Comm Cycle 65. HCOB 23 MAY 71 aud ser 2R The Two Parts Of Auditing 66. HCOB 23 MAY 71 aud ser 3 Three Important Comm Lines 67. HCOB 23 MAY 71R aud ser 4R Comm Cycles Within the Auditing Cycle 68. HCOB 23 MAY 71R aud ser 5R The Comm Cycles In Auditing part 7 69. HCOB 12 JAN 59 Tone of Voice - Acknowledgement 70. HCOB 23 MAY 71 aud ser 6 Auditor Failure To Understand 71. HCOB 23 MAY 71 aud ser 7 Premature Acknowledgements 72. HCOPL 1 JUL 65 Comm Cycle Additives 73. HCOB 29 SEP 65 Cyclical and Non-Cyclical Processes 74. HCOB 17 MAR 74 TWC, Using Wrong Questions 75. BOOK Dianetics 55 Chapter 12 The 6 Basic Processes part 8 76. HCOB 16 FEB 59 Staff Auditor's Conference part 9 77. HCOB 20 OCT 59 An Experimental Process 78. HCOB 16 FEB 59 HGC Processes for those trained in Engram Running 79. HCOB 8 APR 58 A Pair Of Processes 80. HCOB 9 MAR 60 Expansion of OT-3A Procedure, Step Two 81. HCOB 20 APR 60 Processes 82. HCOB 27 SEP 68 ARC Straight Wire 83. BTB 9 OCT 71RA r. 28 JUN 74 ARC Straightwire Drills 84. BTB 15 NOV 76 ARC Straightwire Quads 85. BOOK Creation of Human Ability R2-31 86. PAB 8 JUL 55 PAB 56 Axiom 51 and Comm Processing part 10 87. PAB 18 JUN 55 PAB 54 Reality Level of Preclear 88. HCOB 17 MAR 60 Standardized Sessions 89. HCOB 4 MAY 59 An Affinity Process 90. HCOB 2 MAR 61 New Pre-Hav Command 91. HCOB 25 SEP 59 HAS Co-Audit 92. HCOB 21 JUL 59 HGC Allowed Processes 93. BOOK Creation of Human Ability R2-60 94. HCOB 13 OCT 59 D.E.I. Expanded Scale 95. HCOB 7 MAY 59 New Process Theory 96. BOOK Scn 8-8008 6 Levels of Processing Issue 5 97. HCOB 11 DEC 64 Scientology 0 Processes 98. HCOB 26 DEC 64 Routine 0-A Expanded part 11 99. BTB 9 OCT 71RA r. 29 JUL 74 Level 0 Drills 100. BTB 15 NOV 76 Grade Zero Processes - Quads ******** 63. HCOB 6 NOV 64 Styles of Auditing HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 6 NOVEMBER AD14 Remimeo Franchise Sthil Students STYLES OF AUDITING Note 1: Most old-time auditors, particularly Saint Hill Graduates, have been trained at one time or another in these auditing styles. Here they are given names and assigned to Levels so that they can be taught more easily and so that general auditing can be improved. (Note 2: These have not been written before because I had not determined the results vital to each Level.) There is a Style of auditing for each class. By Style is meant a method or custom of performing actions. A Style is not really determined by the process being run so much. A Style is how the auditor addresses his task. Different processes carry different style requirements perhaps, but that is not the point. Clay Table Healing at Level III can be run with Level I style and still have some gains. But an auditor trained up to the style required at Level III would do a better job not only of CT Healing but of any repetitive process. Style is how the auditor audits. The real expert can do them all, but only after he can do each one. Style is a mark of Class. It is not individual. In our meaning, it is a distinct way to handle the tools of auditing. LEVEL ZERO LISTEN STYLE At Level 0 the Style is Listen Style Auditing. Here the auditor is expected to listen to the pc. The only skill necessary is listening to another. As soon as it is ascertained that the auditor is listening (not just confronting or ignoring) the auditor can be checked out. The length of time an auditor can listen without tension or strain showing could be a factor. What the pc does is not a factor considered in judging this style. Pcs, however, talk to an auditor who is really listening. Here we have the highest point that old-time mental therapies reached (when they did reach it), such as psychoanalysis, when they helped anyone. Mostly they were well below this, evaluating, invalidating, interrupting. These three things are what the instructor in this style should try to put across to the HAS student. Listen Style should not be complicated by expecting more of the auditor than just this: Listen to the pc without evaluating, invalidating or interrupting. Adding on higher skills like "Is the pc talking interestingly?" or even "Is the pc talking?" is no part of this style. When this auditor gets in trouble and the pc won't talk or isn't interested, a higher classed auditor is called in, a new question given by the supervisor, etc. It really isn't "Itsa" to be very technical. Itsa is the action of the pc saying, "It's a this" or "It's a that." Getting the pc to Itsa is quite beyond Listen Style auditors where the pc won't. It's the supervisor or the question on the blackboard that gets the pc to Itsa. The ability to listen, learned well, stays with the auditor up through the grades. One doesn't cease to use it even at Level VI. But one has to learn it somewhere and that's at Level Zero. So Listen Style Auditing is just listening. It thereafter adds into the other styles. LEVEL ONE MUZZLED AUDITING This could also be called rote style auditing. Muzzled Auditing has been with us many years. It is the stark total of TRs 0 to 4 and not anything else added. It is called so because auditors too often added in comments, Qed and Aed, deviated, discussed and otherwise messed up a session. Muzzle meant a "muzzle was put on them", figuratively speaking, so they would only state the auditing command and ack. Repetitive Command Auditing, using TRs 0 to 4, at Level One is done completely muzzled. This could be called Muzzled Repetitive Auditing Style but will be called "Muzzled Style" for the sake of brevity. It has been a matter of long experience that pcs who didn't make gains with the partially trained auditor permitted to two-way comm, did make gains the instant the auditor was muzzled: to wit, not permitted to do a thing but run the process, permitted to say nothing but the commands and acknowledge them and handle pc originations by simple acknowledgment without any other question or comment. At Level One we don't expect the auditor to do anything but state the command (or ask the question) with no variation, acknowledge the pc's answer and handle the pc origins by understanding and acknowledging what the pc said. Those processes used at Level One actually respond best to muzzled auditing and worst to misguided efforts to "Two-Way Comm". Listen Style combines with Muzzled Style easily. But watch out that Level One sessions don't disintegrate to Level Zero. Crisp, clean repetitive commands, muzzled, given and answered often, are the road out— not pc wanderings. A pc at this Level is instructed in exactly what is expected of him, exactly what the auditor will do. The pc is even put through a few "do birds fly?" cycles until the pc gets the idea. Then the processing works. An auditor trying to do Muzzled Repetitive Auditing on a pc who, through past "therapy experience", is rambling on and on is a sad sight. It means that control is out (or that the pc never got above Level Zero). It's the number of commands given and answered in a unit of auditing time that gets gains. To that add the correctly chosen repetitive process and you have a release in short order, using the processes of this Level. To follow limp Listen Style with crisp, controlled Muzzled Style may be a shock. But they are each the lowest of the two families of auditing styles—Totally Permissive and Totally Controlled. And they are so different each is easy to learn with no confusion. It's been the lack of difference amongst styles that confuses the student into slopping about. Well, these two are different enough—Listen Style and Muzzled Style—to set anybody straight. LEVEL TWO GUIDING STYLE AUDITING An old-time auditor would have recognized this style under two separate names: (a) Two-Way Comm and (b) Formal Auditing. We condense these two old styles under one new name: Guiding Style Auditing. One first guides the pc by "two-way comm" into some subject that has to be handled or into revealing what should be handled and then the auditor handles it with formal repetitive commands. Guiding Style Auditing becomes feasible only when a student can do Listen Style and Muzzled Style Auditing well. Formerly the student who couldn't confront or duplicate a command took refuge in sloppy discussions with the pc and called it auditing or "Two-Way Comm". The first thing to know about Guiding Style is that one lets the pc talk and Itsa without chop, but also gets the pc steered into the proper subject and gets the job done with repetitive commands. We presuppose the auditor at this Level has had enough case gain to be able to occupy the viewpoint of the auditor and therefore to be able to observe the pc. We also presuppose at this Level that the auditor, being able to occupy a viewpoint, is therefore more self-determined, the two things being related. (One can only be self-determined when one can observe the actual situation before one: otherwise a being is delusion-determined or other-determined.) Thus in Guiding Style Auditing, the auditor is there to find out what's what from the pc and then apply the needful remedy. Most of the processes in the Book of Remedies are included in this Level (II). To use those, one has to observe the pc, discover what the pc is doing, and remedy the pc's case accordingly. The result for the pc is a far-reaching re-orientation in Life. Thus the essentials of Guiding Style Auditing consist of Two-Way Comm that steers the pc into revealing a difficulty followed by a repetitive process to handle what has been revealed. One does expert TRs but one may discuss things with the pc, let the pc talk and in general one audits the pc before one, establishing what that pc needs and then doing it with crisp repetitive auditing, but all the while alert to changes in the pc. One runs at this Level against Tone Arm Action, paying little or no heed to the needle except as a centering device for TA position. One even establishes what's to be done by the action of the Tone Arm. (The process of storing up things to run on the pc by seeing what fell when he was running what's being run, now belongs at this Level (II) and will be re-numbered accordingly.) At II one expects to handle a lot of chronic PTPs, overts, ARC Breaks with Life (but not session ARC Breaks, that being a needle action, session ARC Breaks being sorted out by a higher classed auditor if they occur). To get such things done (PTPs, overts and other remedies) in the session the auditor must have a pc "willing to talk to the auditor about his difficulties". That presupposes we have an auditor at this Level who can ask questions, not repetitive, that guide the pc into talking about the difficulty that needs to be handled. Great command of TR 4 is the primary difference in TRs from Level I. One understands, when one doesn't, by asking more questions, and by really acknowledging only when one has really understood it. Guided comm is the clue to control at this Level. One should easily guide the pc's comm in and out and around without chopping the pc or wasting session time. As soon as an auditor gets the idea of finite result or, that is to say, a specific and definite result expected, all this is easy. Pc has a PTP. Example: Auditor has to have the idea he is to locate and destimulate the PTP so pc is not bothered about it (and isn't being driven to do something about it) as the finite result. The auditor at II is trained to audit the pc before him, get the pc into comm, guide the pc toward data needful to choose a process and then to run the process necessary to resolve that thing found, usually by repetitive command and always by TA. The Book of Remedies is the key to this Level and this auditing style. One listens but only to what one has guided the pc into. One runs repetitive commands with good TR 4. And one may search around for quite a while before one is satisfied he has the answer from the pc needful to resolve a certain aspect of the pc's case. O/W can be run at Level I. But at Level II one may guide the pc into divulging what the pc considers a real overt act and, having that, then guide the pc through all the reasons it wasn't an overt and so eventually blow it. Half-acknowledgment is also taught at Level II—the ways of keeping a pc talking by giving the pc the feeling he is being heard and yet not chopping with overdone TR 2. Big or multiple acknowledgment is also taught to shut the pc off when the pc is going off the subject. LEVEL III ABRIDGED STYLE AUDITING By Abridged is meant "abbreviated", shorn of extras. Any not actually needful auditing command is deleted. For instance, at Level I the auditor always says, when the pc wanders off the subject, "I will repeat the auditing command" and does so. In Abridged Style the auditor omits this when it isn't necessary and just asks the command again if the pc has forgotten it. In this style we have shifted from pure rote to a sensible use or omission as needful. We still use repetitive commands expertly, but we don't use rote that is unnecessary to the situation. Two-Way Comm comes into its own at Level III. But with heavy use of repetitive commands. At this Level we have as the primary process, Clay Table Healing. In this an auditor must make sure the commands are followed exactly. No auditing command is ever let go of until that actual command is answered by the pc. But at the same time, one doesn't necessarily give every auditing command the process has in its rundown. In Clay Table Healing one is supposed to make sure the pc is satisfied each time. This is done more often by observation than command. Yet it is done. We suppose at III that we have an auditor who is in pretty fine shape and can observe. Thus we see the pc is satisfied and don't mention it. Thus we see when the pc is not certain and so we get something the pc is certain of in answering the question. On the other hand, one gives all the necessary commands crisply and definitely and gets them executed. Prepchecking and needle usage is taught at Level III as well as Clay Table Healing. Auditing by List is also taught. In Abridged Style Auditing one may find the pc (being cleaned up on a list question) giving half a dozen answers in a rush. One doesn't stop the pc from doing so, one half acknowledges, and lets the pc go on. One is in actual fact handling a bigger auditing comm cycle, that is all. The question elicits more than one answer which is really only one answer. And when that answer is given, it is acknowledged. One sees when a needle is clean without some formula set of questions that invalidate all the pc's relief. And one sees it isn't clean by the continued puzzle on the pc's face. There are tricks involved here. One asks a question of the pc with the key word in it and notes that the needle doesn't tremble, and so concludes the question about the word is flat. And so doesn't check it again. Example: "Has anything else been suppressed?" One eye on pc, one on needle, needle didn't quiver. Pc looks noncommittal. Auditor says, "All right, on " and goes on to next question, eliminating a pc's possible protest read that can be mistaken for another "suppress". In Abridged Style Auditing one sticks to the essentials and drops rote where it impedes case advance. But that doesn't mean one wanders about. One is even more crisp and thorough with Abridged Style Auditing than in rote. One is watching what happens and doing exactly enough to achieve the expected result. By "Abridged" is meant getting the exact job done—the shortest way between two points—with no waste questions. By now the student should know that he runs a process to achieve an exact result and he gets the process run in a way to achieve that result in the smallest amount of time. The student is taught to guide rapidly, to have no time for wide excursions. The processes at this Level are all rat-a-tat-tat processes—CT Healing, Prepchecking, Auditing by List. Again it's the number of times the question is answered per unit of auditing time that makes for speed of result. LEVEL IV DIRECT STYLE AUDITING By direct we mean straight, concentrated, intense, applied in a direct manner. We do not mean direct in the sense of to direct somebody or to guide. We mean it is direct. By direct, we don't mean frank or choppy. On the contrary, we put the pc's attention on his bank and anything we do is calculated only to make that attention more direct. It could also mean that we are not auditing by vias. We are auditing straight at the things that need to be reached to make somebody clear. Other than this the auditing attitude is very easy and relaxed. At Level IV we have Clay Table Clearing and we have Assessment type processes. These two types of process are both astonishingly direct. They are aimed directly at the Reactive Mind. They are done in a direct manner. In CT Clearing we have almost total work and Itsa from pcs. From one end of a session to another, we may have only a few auditing commands. For a pc on CT Clearing does almost all the work if he is in session at all. Thus we have another implication in the word "direct". The pc is talking directly to the auditor about what he is making and why in CT Clearing. The auditor hardly ever talks at all. In assessment the auditor is aiming directly at the pc's bank and wants no pc in front of it thinking, speculating, maundering or Itsaing. Thus this assessment is a very direct action. All this requires easy, smooth, steel-hand-in-a-velvet-glove control of the pc. It looks easy and relaxed as a style, it is straight as a Toledo blade. The trick is to be direct in what's wanted and not deviate. The auditor settles what's to be done, gives the command and then the pc may work for a long time, the auditor alert, attentive, completely relaxed. In assessment the auditor often pays no attention to the pc at all, as in ARC Breaks or assessing lists. Indeed, a pc at this level is trained to be quiet during the assessment of a list. And in CT Clearing an auditor may be quiet for an hour at a stretch. The tests are: Can the auditor keep the pc quiet while assessing without ARC Breaking the pc? Can the auditor order the pc to do something and then, the pc working on it, can the auditor remain quiet and attentive for an hour, understanding everything and interrupt alertly only when he doesn't understand and get the pc to make it clearer to him? Again without ARC Breaking the pc. You could confuse this Direct Style with Listen Style if you merely glanced at a session of CT Clearing. But what a difference. In Listen Style the pc is blundering on and on and on. In Direct Style the pc wanders off the line an inch and starts to Itsa, let us say, with no clay work and after it was obvious to the auditor that this pc had forgotten the clay, you'd see the auditor, quick as a foil, look at the pc, very interestedly and say, "Let's see that in Clay." Or the pc doesn't really give an ability he wants to improve and you'd hear a quiet persuasive auditor voice, "Are you quite certain you want to improve that? Sounds like a goal to me. Just something, some ability you know, you'd like to improve." You could call this style One-Way Auditing. When the pc is given his orders, after that it's all from the pc to the auditor, and all involved with carrying out that auditing instruction. When the auditor is assessing it is all from the auditor to the pc. Only when the assessment action hits a snag like a PTP is there any other auditing style used. This is a very extreme auditing style. It is straightforward—direct. But when needful, as in any Level, the styles learned below it are often also employed, but never in the actual actions of getting CT Clearing and Assessment done. (Note: Level V would be the same style as VI below.) LEVEL VI ALL STYLE So far, we have dealt with simple actions. Now we have an auditor handling a meter and a pc who Itsa's and Cognites and gets PTPs and ARC Breaks and Line Charges and Cognites and who finds Items and lists and who must be handled, handled, handled all the way. As auditing TA for a 2l/2 hour session can go to 79 or 125 divisions (compared to 10 or 15 for the lowest level), the pace of the session is greater. It is this pace that makes perfect ability at each lower level vital when they combine into All Style. For each is now faster. So, we learn All Style by learning each of the lower styles well, and then observe and apply the style needed every time it is needed, shifting styles as often as once every minute! The best way to learn All Style is to become expert at each lower style so that one does the style correct for the situation each time the situation requiring that style occurs. It is less rough than it looks. But it is also very demanding. Use the wrong style on a situation and you've had it. ARC Break! No progress! Example: Right in the middle of an assessment the needle gets dirty. The auditor can't continue—or shouldn't. The auditor, in Direct Style, looks up to see a-puzzled frown. The auditor has to shift to Guiding Style to find out what ails the pc (who probably doesn't really know), then to Listen Style while the pc cognites on a chronic PTP that just emerged and bothered the pc, then to Direct Style to finish the Assessment that was in progress. The only way an auditor can get confused by All Style is by not being good at one of the lower level styles. Careful inspection will show where the student using All Style is slipping. One then gets the student to review that style that was not well learned and practice it a bit. So All Style, when poorly done, is very easy to remedy for it will be in error on one or more of the lower level styles. And as all these can be independently taught, the whole can be co-ordinated. All Style is hard to do only when one hasn't mastered one of the lower level styles. SUMMARY These are the important Styles of Auditing. There have been others but they are only variations of those given in this HCO Bulletin. Tone 40 Style is the most notable one missing. It remains as a practice style at Level One to teach fearless body handling and to teach one to get his command obeyed. It is no longer used in practice. As it was necessary to have every result and every process for each Level to finalize Styles of Auditing, I left this until last and here it is. Please note that none of these Styles violate the auditing comm cycle or the TRs. L. RON HUBBARD LRH :jw.rd Copyright c 1964 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ******** 64. HCOB 30 APR 71 Auditing Comm Cycle HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 30 APRIL 1971 Remimeo HDC Checksht Cse Sup Checksht Class 0 Checksht AUDITING COMM CYCLE (Reference HCO B 26 Apr 71, "TRs AND COGNITIONS") The following AUDITING comm cycle is taken from SHSBC tapes. An auditor runs the session. He gives the pc the session action without pulling the pc's attention heavily on the auditor. He does not leave the pc inactive or floundering without anything to do. He does not leave the pc to make a session out of it. The auditor makes the session. He doesn't wait for the pc to run down like a clock or just sit there while the TA soars after an F/N. The auditor runs the session. He knows what to do for everything that can happen. And this is the Auditing Comm cycle that is always in use. 1. Is the pc ready to receive the command? (appearance, presence) 2. Auditor gives command/question to pc (cause, distance, effect). 3. Pc looks to bank for answer (Itsa maker line). 4. Pc receives answer from bank. 5. Pc gives answer to auditor (cause, distance, effect). 6. Auditor acknowledges pc. 7. Auditor sees that pc received ack (attention). 8. New cycle beginning with (1). attention AUD. ---------------------> PC ---------------------> command AUD. <--------------------- PC ---> <--- BANK ack AUD. ---------------------> PC - - - - - - - - - - -> attention L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH:mes.rd Copyright c 1971 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ******** 65. HCOB 23 MAY 71 aud ser 2R The Two Parts Of Auditing HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 23 MAY 1971R Issue II REVISED 6 DECEMBER 1974 Remimeo Auditors Supervisors Students Tech & Qual Basic Auditing Series 2R THE TWO PARTS OF AUDITING From the LRH Tape 2 July 1964, "O/W Modernised and Revised" In order to do something for somebody you have to have a communication line to that person. Communication lines depend upon reality and communication and affinity and where an individual is too demanding the affinity tends to break down slightly. Processing goes in two stages. 1. To get into communication with that which you are trying to process. 2. Do something for him. There is many a pc who will go around raving about his auditor, whose auditor has not done anything for the pc. All that has happened is that a tremendous communication line has been established with the pc and this is so novel and so strange to the pc that he then considers that something miraculous has occurred. Something miraculous has occurred but in this particular instance the auditor has totally neglected why he formed that communication line in the first place. He formed it in the first place to do something for the pc. He very often mistakes the fact that he has formed a communication line, and the reaction on the pc for his having formed one, with having done something for the pc. There are two stages. 1. Form a communication line. 2. Do something for the pc. Those are the two distinct stages. It is something like (I) Walking up to the bus, and (2) Driving off. If you don't drive off you never go anyplace. It is a very tricky and no small thing to be able to communicate to a human being who has never been communicated to before. This is quite remarkable, and is such a remarkable feat that it appears to be an end-all of Scientology to some. But you see that's just walking up to the bus. Now you have got to go someplace. Any upset that the individual has is so poised, it is so delicately balanced, that it is difficult to maintain. It is not difficult to get well. It is very hard to remain batty. A fellow has to work at it. If your communication line is very good and very smooth and if your auditing discipline is perfect so you don't upset this communication line and if you just made a foray of no more importance than saying something like—What are you doing that's sensible and why is it sensible?—and kept your communication line up all the while and kept your affinity up with the pc all the while, did it with perfect discipline, you would see more aberration fall to pieces per square inch than you ever thought could exist. Now that's what I mean when I say do something for the pc. You must audit well, get perfect discipline and get your communication cycle in. Don't ARC Break the pc, let your cycles of action complete. All of that is simply an entrance. You see, the discipline of Scientology makes it possible to do this, and one of the reasons why other fields of the mind never got anyplace and could never get near anybody was because they couldn't communicate to anybody. So that discipline is important. That is the ladder that goes up to the door and if you can't get to the door you can't do anything. The perfect discipline of which we speak, the perfect communication cycle, the perfect auditor presence, perfect meter reading—all of these things are just to get you in a state where you can do something for somebody. So when you're real slow picking up the discipline, real slow picking up keeping in the communication cycle, when you're pokey on the subject you are still 9 miles from the ball. You're not even attending yet. What you want to be able to do is audit perfectly. By that we mean keep in a communication cycle, be able to approach the pc, be able to talk to the pc, and be able to maintain the ARC. Get the pc to give you answers to your questions. Be able to read a meter and get the reactions. All of those things have to be awfully good because it's very difficult to get a communication line in to somebody anyway. They all have to be present and they all have to be perfect. If they are all present and they are all perfect, then we can start to process somebody. THEN we can start to process somebody. I'm giving you an entrance point here of, if all your cycles were perfect, if you were able to sit there and confront the pc and meter that pc and keep your auditing report and do all these multiple various things, and keep a pleasant smile on your face and not chop his communication, well then there is something you do with these things. It takes a process now. We used to have it all backwards. We used to try and teach people what they could do for somebody. But they could never get in communication with him to do it, so therefore you had failures in processing. The most elementary procedure would be "What do you think is sensible?" or anything of that sort. The pc says, "Well, I think horses sleep in beds. That's sensible. The auditor says, "Alright Now why is that sensible?" The pc says, "Well ... ah .... Hey! ... That's not sensible. That's nuts!" You actually wouldn't have to do anything more than that. He's cognited. You've flattened it. It's so easy to do, but you keep looking for some magic. Well, your magic is in getting into communication with the person. The rest is very easy to do, all you have to do is remain in communication with the person while you are doing this, and realize that these huge aberrations he's got are poised with the most fantastically delicate balance on little pinheads. All you have to do is to phooph and these things crash. Now if you're not in communication with this person he doesn't cognite. He takes it as an accusative action. He tries to justify thinking that way. He tries to make himself look good to you and tries to put on a public front of some kind or another. He tries to hold up his status. Anytime I see a bunch of pcs around who want to jump happily to something else because sane people run on that and crazy people run on something else, and they never have to be run on the crazy one, I right away know their auditors are not in communication with them and that auditing discipline itself has broken down because the pc is trying to justify himself and trying to uphold his own status. So he must be defending himself against the auditor. The auditor couldn't possibly be in communication with him. So we are right back to the fundamental of why didn't the auditor get into comm with the pc in the first place. You get into communication with the pc in the first place by doing proper Scientology discipline. That is not any trick. It goes off 1, 2, 3, 4 You sit down and you start the session and you start handling the pc and his problems and that sort of thing and you DO IT BY COMPLETING YOUR COMMUNICATION CYCLES AND NOT CUTTING HIS COMMUNICATION. THE VERY THINGS YOU ARE TAUGHT IN THE TRs, and you find you are in communication with the person. Now you've got to do something for the person. Unless, having gotten into communication, you do something for the person, you lose your communication line because the R-Factor of why you're in communication with the pc breaks down. He doesn't think you're so good, and you go out of communication with him. That having happened, the person will be in a sort of status defensive and wonder why he is being processed. On the other hand, if you have done something for the pc and he has had his cognition, and you try and go on and get more TA action out of the fact that "all horses sleep in beds"— you don't get there as you've already flattened the process. You can over-audit and you can under-audit. If you don't notice that one answer come your way, that indicates you have done something for the pc and if you keep him working on that same thing, your TA action will disappear, your pc will get resentful and you'll lose your communication line. He's already had the cognition you see. You are now restimulating the pc. You have gotten your key-out destimulation factor—it has occurred right before your eyes. You have done something for the pc. One more mention of the subject and you've had it. There are a lot of things you could do with the pc, without doing anything for him. You can turn on some very very handsome somatics on a pc at one time or another without turning them off either. You've got to do something for the pc, not to him. Now you can be doing something (A), and the pc is doing (B), and you go on doing (A), while the pc is doing (B) then somewhere on down the line you wind up in a hell of a mess and you wonder what happened. Well the pc never did what you said so you didn't do anything for the pc. There was in actual fact no barrier to your willingness to do something for the pc but there must have been a tremendous barrier to your understanding of what was going on. That you could ask (A), while the pc answered (B), in itself showed the auditor observation was very poor so therefore the auditor wasn't in communication with the pc. So again the communication factor was out and once more we weren't doing anything for the pc. It requires of the auditor discipline to keep in his communication line. He has got to stay in communication with his pc. Those cycles have got to be perfect. He can't be distracting the pc's attention onto the TA, e.g. "I'm not getting any TA action now." That's not staying in communication with the pc—has nothing to do with it. You're distracting the pc from his own zones and areas. Don't put the pc's attention out of session. Keep him going and keep that communication line i n . And the next requirement is to do something productive for the pc using the communication line. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:nt:jh Copyright c 1971, 1974 Founder by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED [Ed. Note: The 1974 pack contains the original version, basic aud ser 2 instead of 2R. The paragraph begining "Well your magic is in getting into communication" and a few other sentences were added in version 2R above, presumably from the original tape. The first version is by "Personnel Enhancing Cheif Flag".] ******** 66. HCOB 23 MAY 71 aud ser 3 Three Important Comm Lines HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 23 MAY 1971 Issue III Reissued 1 December 1974 CANCELS BTB OF 23 MAY 1971 SAME TITLE Remimeo Auditors Supervisors Students Issue III Tech & Qual Basic Auditing Series 3 THE THREE IMPORTANT COMMUNICATION LINES From the LRH Tape 15 Oct 63, "Essentials of Auditing" When you are sitting in an auditing session what are the 3 important communication lines and what is their order of importance? 1. The first is the Pc's line to his bank. The Itsa Maker line. 2. The second is the Pc's line to the Auditor. The Itsa line. 3. The third is the Auditor's line to the Pc. The What's-it line. Now the definition, "Willing to talk to the Auditor", is very easy to interpret as "Talking to the Auditor". So the Auditor cuts the line the Pc has to the bank in order to get the Pc to talk, because "It's the Itsa line that blows the charge," he says. So the Auditor cuts the Pc's communication line with his bank in order to bring about an Itsa line—and then he wonders why he gets no TA action and why the Pc ARC Breaks. This cut communication line is not perceivable to the naked eye. It's hidden because it's from the Pc—a Thetan unseen by the Auditor—to the Pc's bank—unseen by the Auditor. The Auditor is simply there to use the What's-it line in order to get the Pc to confront his bank. The charge blows off it to the degree that it's confronted and this is represented by the Itsa line. The Itsa line is a report on what has been as-ised, that gives it its flow. The sequence of use of these lines in an auditing cycle is 3, 1, and then 2. Where the Auditor neglects this hidden line from the Pc to the Pc's bank, where he doesn't understand that hidden line and can't integrate it or do anything with it he is going to fail. L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH:nt.ts.rd Copyright c 1971, 1974 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ******** 67. HCOB 23 MAY 71R aud ser 4R Comm Cycles Within the Auditing Cycle HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 23 MAY 1971R Issue IV REVISED 4 DECEMBER 1974 Remimeo Auditors Supervisors Students Tech & Qual Basic Auditing Series 4R COMMUNICATION CYCLES WITHIN THE AUDITING CYCLE (Taken from the LRH Tape, "Comm Cycles in Auditing", 25 July 1963) The difficulty that an Auditor gets into is normally found in his own auditing cycle. There are basically two communication cycles between the Auditor and the Pc that make up the auditing cycle. They are cause, distance, effect with the Auditor at cause and the Pc at effect, and cause, distance, effect with the Pc at cause and the Auditor at effect. Cause------------Distance---------->Effect Auditor Pc Effect<----------Distance------------Cause These are completely distinct one from the other. The only thing that connects them and makes an auditing cycle, is the fact that the Auditor, on his communication cycle, has calculatingly restimulated something in the Pc which is then discharged by the Pc's communication cycle. What the Auditor has said has caused a restimulation and then the Pc needs to answer the question to get rid of the restimulation. If the Pc does not answer the question he doesn't get rid of the restimulation. That is the game that is being played in an auditing cycle and that is the entirety of the game. (Some auditing breaks down because the Auditor is unwilling to restimulate the Pc.) There is a little extra communication cycle on here. The Auditor says, "Thank you" and you have this as the acknowledgement cycle. C ------------ Command --------------> E Auditor E <----------- Answer ---------------- C Pc C ------------ Acknowledgement ------> E Now there are some little inner cycles that can throw you off and make you think that there are some other things to the auditing cycle. There is another little shadow cycle: it is the observation of "Has the Pc received the auditing command?" This is such a tiny "cause" that nearly all Auditors who are having any trouble finding out what's going on with the Pc are missing this one. "Does he receive it?" Actually there is another cause in here and you're missing that one when you're not perceiving the Pc. You can tell by looking at the Pc that he didn't hear or understand what you'd said or that he was doing something peculiar with the command he was receiving. Whatever that message is in response, it rides on this line. Did Pc receive, e <-------- understand and --------- c answer command? C ----------- Command -------------> E Auditor E <---------- Answer -------------- C Pc C -------- Acknowledgement --------> E An Auditor who isn't watching a Pc at all never notices a Pc who isn't receiving or understanding the auditing command. Then all of a sudden somewhere along the line there is an ARC Break and then we do assessments and we patch up the session and all kinds of things go wrong. Well, they actually needn't ever have gone wrong in the first place if this line had been in. What is the Pc doing completely aside from answering? Well, what he is doing is this other little sub-cause, distance, effect line. Another of these tiny lines is the cause, distance, effect line of—"Is the Pc ready to receive an auditing command?" This is the Pc causing and it rides up the line across distance, is received at the Auditor and the Auditor perceives that the Pc is doing something else. It is an important one and you find that Auditors goof that one very often; the Pc's attention is still on a prior action. Now here's another one—"Has the Pc received the acknowledgement?" Sometimes you violate this one. You have been acknowledging but you've never seen that he didn't receive the acknowledgement. That perception has another little tiny one in it that actually comes on this line; it is—''Has the Pc answered everything?'' The Auditor is watching the Pc and the Auditor sees that the Pc has not said all that the Pc is going to say. You sometimes get into trouble with Pcs that way. Everything at "cause" hasn't moved on down the line to effect and you haven't perceived all of the "effect" and you go into the acknowledgement one before this line has completed itself. That's chopping the Pc's communication. You didn't let the communication cycle flow to its complete end. The acknowledgement takes place and of course it can't go through as it's an inflowing line and it jams right there on the Pc's incomplete outflowing answer line. Is the Pc ready e <------ for the command? -------- c Did Pc receive, c ------- understand and ---------- c answer command C --------- Command --------------> E Auditor E <--------- Answer --------------- C Pc C ------- Acknowledgement --------> E Did Pc complete the e <----- answer and receive ------- c acknowledgement? So if you want to break it all down, there are six communication cycles which make up one auditing cycle. Six, not more than six unless you start running into trouble. If you violate one of these six communication lines you of course are going to get into trouble which causes a mish-mash of one kind or another. There is another communication cycle inside the auditing cycle and that is at the point of the Pc. It's a little additional one and it's between the Pc and himself. This is him talking to him. You're listening to the inside of his skull when you're examining it. /t actually can be multiple as it depends upon the complications of the mind. This happens to be the least important of all the actions except when it isn't being done. And of course it's the hardest to detect when it isn't being done. Pc says: "Yes. " Now what has the Pc said yes to? And sometimes you are insufficiently curious. And that in essence is this internal perception of line. It includes this cause, distance, effect backflash here—"Is the Pc answering the command I gave him?" So with this, there are seven communication cycles involved in an auditing cycle. It is a multiple cycle. A communication cycle consists of just cause, distance, effect with intention, attention, duplication and understanding. How many of these are there in one auditing cycle? You'd have to answer that with how many principal ones there are because some auditing cycles contain a few more. If a Pc indicates that he didn't get the command (cause, distance, effect), the Auditor would give a repeat of it (cause, distance, effect) and that would add 2 more communication cycles to the auditing cycle, so you've got 9—because there was a flub. So anything unusual that happens in a session adds to the number of communication cycles in the auditing cycle, but they are still all part of the auditing cycle. Repetitive commands as an auditing cycle, is doing the same cycle over and over again. Now there is a completely different cycle inside the same pattern. The Pc is going to originate and it's got nothing to do with the auditing cycle. The only thing they have in common is that they both use communication cycles. But this is brand new. The Pc says something that is not germane to what the Auditor is saying or doing and you actually have to be alert for this happening at any time and the way to prepare for it is just to realize that it can happen at any time and just go into the drill that handles it. Don't get it confused with the drill that you have as an auditing cycle. Consider it its own drill. You shift gears into this drill when the pc does something unexpected. And, by the way, this handles such a thing as the Pc originates by throwing down the cans. That's still an origin. It has nothing to do with the auditing cycle. Maybe the auditing cycle went to pieces and this origination cycle came in. Well, the auditing cycle can't complete because this origin cycle is now here. That doesn't mean that this origin has precedence or dominance but it can start and take place and have to be finished off before the auditing cycle can resume. So this is an interruptive cycle and it is cause, distance, effect. The Pc causes something. The Auditor now has to originate as the Auditor has to understand what the Pc is talking about—and then acknowledge. And to the degree that it is hard to understand, you have the cause, distance, effect of the Auditor trying to clarify this thing; and every time he asks a question, he's got a new communication cycle. You can't put a machine action at that point because the thing has to be understood. And this must be done in such a way that the Pc isn't merely repeating his same origination or the Pc will go frantic. He'll go frantic because he can't get off that line—he's stuck in time and it really upsets him. So the Auditor has to be able to understand what the devil the Pc is talking about. And there's really no substitute for simply trying to understand it. There is a little line where the Pc indicates he is going to say something. This is a line (cause, distance, effect) that comes before the origination takes place so you don't run into a jam and you don't give the auditing command. The effect at the Auditor's point is to shut up and let him. There can be another little line (cause, distance, effect) where the Auditor indicates he is listening. Then there is the origination, the Auditor's acknowledgement of it and then there is the perception of the fact that the Pc received the acknowledgement. That's your origination cycle. An Auditor should draw all these communication cycles out on a scrap of paper. Just take a look at all these things; mock up a session and all of a sudden it will become very straight how these things are and you won't have a couple of them jammed up. What's mainly wrong with your auditing cycle is that you have confused a couple of communication cycles to such a degree that you don't differentiate that they exist. That's why you sometimes chop a Pc who is trying to answer the question. You know whether the Pc has answered the question or not. How did you know? Even if it's telepathy it's cause, distance, effect. It doesn't matter how that communication took place, you know whether he's answered the command by a communication cycle. I don't care how you sense this. If you are nervy on the subject of handling the basic tool of auditing and if that's giving you trouble (and if you get into trouble by suddenly breaking it down and analyzing it) then it should be broken down and analyzed at a time when you're auditing something nice and simple. I've given you a general pattern for an auditing cycle; maybe in working it over you can find a couple of extra communication cycles in the thing. But they are all there and if you made someone go through each one painstakingly, you would find out where his auditing cycle is jammed up. It isn't necessarily jammed up on his ability to say "Thank you". It may very well be jammed up in another quarter. L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH:nt.jh Copyright c 1971, 1974 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ******** 68. HCOB 23 MAY 71R aud ser 5R The Comm Cycles In Auditing HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 23 MAY 1971 R Issue V REVISED 29 NOVEMBER 1974 (Revision in this type style) Remimeo Auditors Supervisors Students Basic Auditing Series 5R THE COMMUNICATION CYCLE IN AUDITING From the LRH tape 6 Feb 64, "Comm Cycle in Auditing" The ease with which you can handle a communication cycle depends on your ability to observe what the pc is doing. We have to add to the simplicity of the communication cycle OBNOSIS (observation of the obvious). Your inspection of what you are doing should have ended with your training. Thereafter it should be taken up exclusively with the observation of what the pc is doing or is not doing. Your handling of a communication cycle ought to be so instinctive and so good that you're never worried about what you do now. The time for you to get all this fixed up is in training. If you know your communication cycle is good you haven't any longer got to be upset about whether you're doing it right or not. You know yours is good, so you don't worry about it any more. In actual auditing, the communication cycle that you watch is the pc's. Your business is the communication cycle and responses of the pc. This is what makes the auditor who can crack any case and when absent you have an auditor who couldn't crack an egg if he stepped on it. This is the difference, it's whether or not this auditor can observe the communication cycle of the pc and repair its various lapses. It's so simple. It simply consists of asking a question that the pc can answer, and then observing that the pc answers it, and when the pc has answered it, observing that the pc has completed the answer to it and is through answering it. Then give him the acknowledgement. Then give him something else to do. You can ask the same question or you can ask another question. Asking the pc a question he can answer involves clearing the auditing command. You also ask it of the pc so that the pc can hear it and knows what he's being asked. When the pc answers the question be bright enough to know that the pc is answering that question and not some other question. You have to develop a sensitivity—when did the pc finish answering what you've asked. You can tell when the pc has finished. It's a piece of knowingness. He looks like he's finished and he feels like he's finished. It's part sense; it's part his vocal intonation; but it's an instinct that you develop. You know he's finished. Then knowing he's finished answering you tell him he's finished with an acknowledgement, OK, Good, etc. It's like pointing out the by-passed charge to the pc. Like - "You have now found and located the by-passed charge in answer to the question and you have said it." That's the magic of acknowledgement. If you don't have that sensitivity for when the pc is finished answering—he answers, gets nothing from you, you sit there and look at him, his social machinery goes into action, he gets onto self auditing and you get no TA action. The degree of stop you put on your acknowledgement is also your good sense because you can acknowledge a pc so hard that you finish the session right there. It's all very well to do this sort of thing in training and it's forgivable, but NOT in an auditing session. Get your own communication cycle sufficiently well repaired that you don't have to worry about it after training. L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH:nt.rd jh Copyright c 1971, 1974 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ********