Subject: FZ Bible - Level 4 Coursepack [2/7] Repost [x2] Date: 26 Nov 1999 22:43:25 -0000 From: squirrel@echelon.alias.net (The Tech Lion) Organization: FreeZone Bible Association Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.clearing.technology FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST Academy Level IV Coursepack: Part 2 of 7 *************************************** Thanksgiving time is here. We at FZ Bible Association would like to give thanks to Ron for leaving us a bounty of Tech. And celebrate by disseminating it freely to all. In that spirit we bring you the Level 4 coursepack, from the late 80's. Happy Turkey Day, -Tech Lion ******************** STATEMENT OF PURPOSE 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 freezoners are "squirrels" who should be stamped out as heretics. 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 Judaism 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 ************************ PART 2 1. HCO PL 7 Feb. 1965 Keeping Scientology Working Keeping Scientology Working Series 1 2. HCO PL 17 June 1970RB Technical Degrades Keeping Scientology Working Series 5R 3. HCO PL 23 Oct. 1980R II Chart of Abilities Gained for Lower Level and Expanded Lower Grades 4. HCOB 8 June 1970 Low TA Handling 5. HCOB 6 Nov. 1964 Styles of Auditing ****************************************************************** 1. HCO PL 7 Feb. 1965 Keeping Scientology Working Keeping Scientology Working Series 1 HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 7 FEBRUARY 1965 Remimeo Sthil Students Assoc/Org Sec Hat HCO Sec Hat Case Sup Hat Ds of P Hat Ds of T Hat Staff Member Hat Franchise Keeping Scientology Working Series 1 Note: Neglect of this PL has caused great hardship on staffs, has cost countless millions and made it necessary in 1970 to engage in an all-out, international effort to restore basic Scientology over the world. Within 5 years after the issue of this PL, with me off the lines, violation had almost destroyed orgs. "Quickie grades" entered in and denied gain to tens of thousands of cases. Therefore actions which neglect or violate this policy letter are HIGH CRIMES resulting in Comm Evs on ADMINISTRATORS and EXECUTIVES. It is not "entirely a tech matter," as its neglect destroys orgs and caused a 2-year slump. IT IS THE BUSINESS OF EVERY STAFF MEMBER to enforce it. SPECIAL MESSAGE THE FOLLOWING POLICY LETTER MEANS WHAT IT SAYS. IT WAS TRUE IN 1965 WHEN I WROTE IT. IT WAS TRUE IN 1970 WHEN I HAD IT REISSUED. I AM REISSUING IT NOW, IN 1980, TO AVOID AGAIN SLIPPING BACK INTO A PERIOD OF OMITTED AND QUICKIED FUNDAMENTAL GRADE CHART ACTIONS ON CASES, THEREBY DENYING GAINS AND THREATENING THE VIABILITY OF SCIENTOLOGY AND OF ORGS. SCIENTOLOGY WILL KEEP WORKING ONLY AS LONG AS YOU DO YOUR PART TO KEEP IT WORKING BY APPLYING THIS POLICY LETTER. WHAT I SAY IN THESE PAGES HAS ALWAYS BEEN TRUE, IT HOLDS TRUE TODAY, IT WILL STILL HOLD TRUE IN THE YEAR 2000 AND IT WILL CONTINUE TO HOLD TRUE FROM THERE ON OUT NO MATTER WHERE YOU ARE IN SCIENTOLOGY, ON STAFF OR NOT, THIS POLICY LETTER HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH YOU. ALL LEVELS KEEPING SCIENTOLOGY WORKING HCO Sec or Communicator hat check on all personnel and all new personnel as taken on. We have some time since passed the point of achieving uniformly workable technology. The only thing now is getting the technology applied. If you can't get the technology applied, then you can't deliver what's promised. It's as simple as that. If you can get the technology applied, you can deliver what's promised. The only thing you can be upbraided for by students or pcs is "no results." Trouble spots occur only where there are "no results." Attacks from governments or monopolies occur only where there are "no results" or "bad results." Therefore the road before Scientology is clear and its ultimate success is assured if the technology is applied. So it is the task of the Assoc or Org Sec, the HCO Sec, the Case Supervisor, the D of P, the D of T and all staff members to get the correct technology applied. Getting the correct technology applied consists of One: Having the correct technology. Two: Knowing the technology. Three: Knowing it is correct. Four: Teaching correctly the correct technology. Five: Applying the technology. Six: Seeing that the technology is correctly applied. Seven: Hammering out of existence incorrect technology. Eight: Knocking out incorrect applications. Nine: Closing the door on any possibility of incorrect technology. Ten: Closing the door on incorrect application. One above has been done. Two has been achieved by many. Three is achieved by the individual applying the correct technology in a proper manner and observing that it works that way. Four is being done daily successfully in most parts of the world. Five is consistently accomplished daily. Six is achieved by Instructors and Supervisors consistently. Seven is done by a few but is a weak point. Eight is not worked on hard enough. Nine is impeded by the "reasonable" attitude of the not-quite- bright. Ten is seldom done with enough ferocity. Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten are the only places Scientology can bog down in any area. The reasons for this are not hard to find. (a) A weak certainty that it works in Three above can lead to weakness in Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten. (b) Further, the not-too-bright have a bad point on the button Self-Importance. (c) The lower the IQ, the more the individual is shut off from the fruits of observation. (d) The service facs of people make them defend themselves against anything they confront, good or bad, and seek to make it wrong. (e) The bank seeks to knock out the good and perpetuate the bad. Thus, we as Scientologists and as an organization must be very alert to Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten. In all the years I have been engaged in research I have kept my comm lines wide open for research data. I once had the idea that a group could evolve truth. A third of a century has thoroughly disabused me of that idea. Willing as I was to accept suggestions and data, only a handful of suggestions (less than twenty) had long-run value and none were major or basic; and when I did accept major or basic suggestions and used them, we went astray and I repented and eventually had to "eat crow." On the other hand there have been thousands and thousands of suggestions and writings which, if accepted and acted upon, would have resulted in the complete destruction of all our work as well as the sanity of pcs. So I know what a group of people will do and how insane they will go in accepting unworkable "technology." By actual record the percentages are about twenty to 100,000 that a group of human beings will dream up bad technology to destroy good technology. As we could have gotten along without suggestions, then, we had better steel ourselves to continue to do so now that we have made it. This point will, of course, be attacked as "unpopular," egotistical" and "undemocratic." It very well may be. But it is also a survival point. And I don't see that popular measures, self- abnegation and democracy have done anything for Man but push him further into the mud. Currently, popularity endorses degraded novels, self-abnegation has filled the Southeast Asian jungles with stone idols and corpses, and democracy has given us inflation and income tax. Our technology has not been discovered by a group. True, if the group had not supported me in many ways, I could not have discovered it either. But it remains that if in its formative stages it was not discovered by a group, then group efforts, one can safely assume, will not add to it or successfully alter it in the future. I can only say this now that it is done. There remains, of course, group tabulation or coordination of what has been done, which will be valuable -- only so long as it does not seek to alter basic principles and successful applications. The contributions that were worthwhile in this period of forming the technology were help in the form of friendship, of defense, of organization, of dissemination, of application, of advices on results and of finance. These were great contributions and were, and are, appreciated. Many thousands contributed in this way and made us what we are. Discovery contribution was not however part of the broad picture. We will not speculate here on why this was so or how I came to rise above the bank. We are dealing only in facts and the above is a fact -- the group left to its own devices would not have evolved Scientology but with wild dramatizations of the bank called "new ideas" would have wiped it out. Supporting this is the fact that Man has never before evolved workable mental technology and emphasizing it is the vicious technology he did evolve -- psychiatry, psychology, surgery, shock treatment, whips, duress, punishment, etc., ad infinitum. So realize that we have climbed out of the mud by whatever good luck and good sense, and refuse to sink back into it again. See that Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten above are ruthlessly followed and we will never be stopped. Relax them, get reasonable about it and we will perish. So far, while keeping myself in complete communication with all suggestions, I have not failed on Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten in areas I could supervise closely. But it's not good enough for just myself and a few others to work at this. Whenever this control as per Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten has been relaxed, the whole organizational area has failed. Witness Elizabeth, N.J.; Wichita; the early organizations and groups. They crashed only because I no longer did Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten. Then, when they were all messed up, you saw the obvious "reasons" for failure. But ahead of that they ceased to deliver and that involved them in other reasons. The common denominator of a group is the reactive bank. Thetans without banks have different responses. They only have their banks in common. They agree then only on bank principles. Person to person the bank is identical. So constructive ideas are individual and seldom get broad agreement in a human group. An individual must rise above an avid craving for agreement from a humanoid group to get anything decent done. The bank-agreement has been what has made Earth a Hell -- and if you were looking for Hell and found Earth, it would certainly serve. War, famine, agony and disease has been the lot of Man. Right now the great governments of Earth have developed the means of frying every Man, Woman and Child on the planet. That is bank. That is the result of Collective-thought Agreement. The decent, pleasant things on this planet come from individual actions and ideas that have somehow gotten by the Group Idea. For that matter, look how we ourselves are attacked by "public opinion" media. Yet there is no more ethical group on this planet than ourselves. Thus each one of us can rise above the domination of the bank and then, as a group of freed beings, achieve freedom and reason. It is only the aberrated group, the mob, that is destructive. When you don't do Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten actively, you are working for the bank-dominated mob. For it will surely, surely (a) introduce incorrect technology and swear by it, (b) apply technology as incorrectly as possible, (c) open the door to any destructive idea, and (d) encourage incorrect application. It's the bank that says the group is all and the individual nothing. It's the bank that says we must fail. So just don't play that game. Do Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten and you will knock out of your road all the future thorns. Here's an actual example in which a senior executive had to interfere because of a pc spin: A Case Supervisor told Instructor A to have Auditor B run Process X on Preclear C. Auditor B afterwards told Instructor A that "It didn't work." Instructor A was weak on Three above and didn't really believe in Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten. So Instructor A told the Case Supervisor, "Process X didn't work on Preclear C." Now this strikes directly at each of One to Six above in Preclear C, Auditor B, Instructor A and the Case Supervisor. It opens the door to the introduction of "new technology" and to failure. What happened here? Instructor A didn't jump down Auditor B's throat, that's all that happened. This is what he should have done: Grabbed the Auditor's Report and looked it over. When a higher executive on this case did so, she found what the Case Supervisor and the rest missed: that Process X increased Preclear C's TA to 25 TA divisions for the session but that near session end Auditor B Q- and-Aed with a cognition and abandoned Process X while it still gave high TA and went off running one of Auditor B's own manufacture, which nearly spun Preclear C. Auditor B's IQ on examination turned out to be about 75. Instructor A was found to have huge ideas of how you must never invalidate anyone, even a lunatic. The Case Supervisor was found to be "too busy with admin to have any time for actual cases." All right, there's an all-too-typical example. The Instructor should have done Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten. This would have begun this way. Auditor B: "That Process X didn't work." Instructor A: "What exactly did you do wrong?" Instant attack. "Where's your Auditor's Report for the session? Good. Look here, you were getting a lot of TA when you stopped Process X. What did you do?" Then the pc wouldn't have come close to a spin and all four of these would have retained their certainty. In a year, I had four instances in one small group where the correct process recommended was reported not to have worked. But on review found that each one had (a) increased the TA, (b) had been abandoned, and (c) had been falsely reported as unworkable. Also, despite this abuse, in each of these four cases the recommended, correct process cracked the case. Yet they were reported as not having worked! Similar examples exist in instruction and these are all the more deadly as every time instruction in correct technology is flubbed, then the resulting error, uncorrected in the auditor, is perpetuated on every pc that auditor audits thereafter. So Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten are even more important in a course than in supervision of cases. Here's an example: A rave recommendation is given a graduating student "because he gets more TA on pcs than any other student on the course!" Figures of 435 TA divisions a session are reported. "Of course his Model Session is poor but it's Just a knack he has" is also included in the recommendation. A careful review is undertaken because nobody at Levels 0 to IV is going to get that much TA on pcs. It is found that this student was never taught to read an E- Meter TA dial! And no Instructor observed his handling of a meter and it was not discovered that he "overcompensated" nervously, swinging the TA 2 or 3 divisions beyond where it needed to go to place the needle at "set." So everyone was about to throw away standard processes and Model Session because this one student "got such remarkable TA." They only read the reports and listened to the brags and never looked at this student. The pcs in actual fact were making slightly less than average gain, impeded by a rough Model Session and misworded processes. Thus, what was making the pcs win (actual Scientology) was hidden under a lot of departures and errors. I recall one student who was squirreling on an Academy course and running a lot of offbeat whole track on other students after course hours. The Academy students were in a state of electrification on all these new experiences and weren't quickly brought under control, and the student himself never was given the works on Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten so they stuck. Subsequently, this student prevented another squirrel from being straightened out and his wife died of cancer resulting from physical abuse. A hard, tough instructor at that moment could have salvaged two squirrels and saved the life of a girl. But no, students had a right to do whatever they pleased. Squirreling (going off into weird practices or altering Scientology) only comes about from noncomprehension. Usually the noncomprehension is not of Scientology but some earlier contact with an offbeat humanoid practice which in its turn was not understood. When people can't get results from what they think is standard practice, they can be counted upon to squirrel to some degree. The most trouble in the past two years came from orgs where an executive in each could not assimilate straight Scientology. Under instruction in Scientology, they were unable to define terms or demonstrate examples of principles. And the orgs where they were got into plenty of trouble. And worse, it could not be straightened out easily because neither one of these people could or would duplicate instructions. Hence, a debacle resulted in two places, directly traced to failures of instruction earlier. So proper instruction is vital. The D of T and his Instructors and all Scientology Instructors must be merciless in getting Four, Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten into effective action. That one student, dumb and impossible though he may seem and of no use to anyone, may yet someday be the cause of untold upset because nobody was interested enough to make sure Scientology got home to him. With what we know now, there is no student we enroll who cannot be properly trained. As an Instructor, one should be very alert to slow progress and should turn the sluggards inside out personally. No system will do it, only you or me with our sleeves rolled up can crack the back of bad studenting and we can only do it on an individual student, never on a whole class only. He's slow = something is awful wrong. Take fast action to correct it. Don't wait until next week. By then he's got other messes stuck to him. If you can't graduate them with their good sense appealed to and wisdom shining, graduate them in such a state of shock they'll have nightmares if they contemplate squirreling. Then experience will gradually bring about Three in them and they'll know better than to chase butterflies when they should be auditing. When somebody enrolls, consider he or she has Joined up for the duration of the universe -- never permit an "open-minded" approach. If they're going to quit let them quit fast. If they enrolled, they're aboard; and if they're aboard, they're here on the same terms as the rest of us -- win or die in the attempt. Never let them be half-minded about being Scientologists. The finest organizations in history have been tough, dedicated organizations. Not one namby- pamby bunch of panty-waist dilettantes have ever made anything. It's a tough universe. The social veneer makes it seem mild. But only the tigers survive -- and even they have a hard time. We'll survive because we are tough and are dedicated. When we do instruct somebody properly, he becomes more and more tiger. When we instruct half- mindedly and are afraid to offend, scared to enforce, we don't make students into good Scientologists and that lets everybody down. When Mrs. Pattycake comes to us to be taught, turn that wandering doubt in her eye into a fixed, dedicated glare and she'll win and we'll all win. Humor her and we all die a little. The proper instruction attitude is "You're here so you're a Scientologist. Now we're going to make you into an expert auditor no matter what happens. We'd rather have you dead than incapable." Fit that into the economics of the situation and lack of adequate time and you see the cross we have to bear. But we won't have to bear it forever. The bigger we get, the more economics and time we will have to do our job. And the only things which can prevent us from getting that big fast are areas in from One to Ten. Keep those in mind and we'll be able to grow. Fast. And as we grow, our shackles will be less and less. Failing to keep One to Ten will make us grow less. So the ogre which might eat us up is not the government or the High Priests. It's our possible failure to retain and practice our technology. An Instructor or Supervisor or Executive must challenge with ferocity instances of "unworkability." They must uncover what did happen, what was run and what was done or not done. If you have One and Two, you can only acquire Three for all by making sure of all the rest. We're not playing some minor game in Scientology. It isn't cute or something to do for lack of something better. The whole agonized future of this planet, every Man, Woman and Child on it, and your own destiny for the next endless trillions of years depend on what you do here and now with and in Scientology. This is a deadly serious activity. And if we miss getting out of the trap now, we may never again have another chance. Remember, this is our first chance to do so in all the endless trillions of years of the past. Don't muff it now because it seems unpleasant or unsocial to do Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten. Do them and we'll win. L. RON HUBBARD Founder Adopted as official Church policy by CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL LRH:CSI:jw.rr.nt.ka.mes.rd.bk.gm  ****************************************************************** 2. HCO PL 17 June 1970RB Technical Degrades Keeping Scientology Working Series 5R HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 17 JUNE 1970RB RE-REVISED 25 OCTOBER 1983 Remimeo Applies to all SHs and Academies HGCs Franchises Keeping Scientology Working Series 5R URGENT AND IMPORTANT TECHNICAL DEGRADES (This PL and HCO PL 7 Feb. 65 must be made part of every study pack as the first items and must be listed on checksheets.) Any checksheet in use or in stock which carries on it any degrading statement must be destroyed and issued without qualifying statements. Example: Level 0 to IV checksheets SH carry "A. Background Material - This section is included as an historical background but has much interest and value to the student. Most of the processes are no longer used, having been replaced by more modern technology. The student is only required to read this material and ensure he leaves no misunderstood." This heading covers such vital things as TRs, Op Pro by Dup! The statement is a falsehood. These checksheets were not approved by myself; all the material of the Academy and SH courses IS in use. Such actions as this gave us "quickie grades," ARC broke the field and downgraded the Academy and SH courses. A condition of TREASON or cancellation of certificates or dismissal and a full investigation of the background of any person found guilty will be activated in the case of anyone committing the following HIGH CRIMES: 1. Abbreviating an official course in Dianetics and Scientology so as to lose the full theory, processes and effectiveness of the subjects. 2. Adding comments to checksheets or instructions labeling any material "background" or "not used now" or "old" or any similar action which will result in the student not knowing, using and applying the data in which he is being trained. 3. Employing after I Sept. 1970 any checksheet for any course not authorized by myself or the Authority, Verification and Correction Unit International (AVC Int). (Hat checksheets may be authorized locally per HCO PL 30 Sept. 70, CHECKSHEET FORMAT.) 4. Failing to strike from any checksheet remaining in use meanwhile any such comments as "historical," "background," "not used," "old," etc., or VERBALLY STATING IT TO STUDENTS. 5. Permitting a pc to attest to more than one grade at a time on the pc's own determinism without hint or evaluation. 6. Running only one process for a lower grade between 0 to IV, where the grade EP has not been attained. 7. Failing to use all processes for a level where the EP has not been attained. 8. Boasting as to speed of delivery in a session, such as "I put in Grade Zero in 3 minutes." Etc. 9. Shortening time of application of auditing for financial or labor-saving considerations. 10. Acting in any way calculated to lose the technology of Dianetics and Scientology to use or impede its use or shorten its materials or its application. REASON: The effort to get students through courses and get pcs processed in orgs was considered best handled by reducing materials or deleting processes from grades. The pressure exerted to speed up student completions and auditing completions was mistakenly answered by just not delivering. The correct way to speed up a student's progress is by using two- way comm and applying the study materials to students. The best way to really handle pcs is to ensure they make each level fully before going on to the next and repairing them when they do not. The puzzle of the decline of the entire Scientology network in the late 60s is entirely answered by the actions taken to shorten time in study and in processing by deleting materials and actions. Reinstituting full use and delivery of Dianetics and Scientology is the answer to any recovery. The product of an org is well-taught students and thoroughly audited pcs. When the product vanishes, so does the org. The orgs must survive for the sake of this planet. L. RON HUBBARD Founder Adopted as official Church policy by CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL LRH:CSI:iw.gm  ****************************************************************** 3. HCO PL 23 Oct. 1980R II Chart of Abilities Gained for Lower Level and Expanded Lower Grades HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 23 OCTOBER 1980R Issue II REVISED 16 NOVEMBER 1987 (Also issued as HCO Bulletin, same title, same date.) Remimeo Tech/Qual Execs C/Ses KOTs Auditors Reges Examiners Qual Secs HCO C & A CHART OF ABILITIES GAINED FOR LOWER LEVELS AND EXPANDED LOWER GRADES Refs: CLASSIFICATION, GRADATION AND AWARENESS CHART HCOB 11 Nov. 73 PRECLEAR DECLARE? PROCEDURE HCOB 12 Dec. 81 THE THEORY OF THE NEW GRADE CHART LRH ED 107 Int ORDERS TO DISVISIONS FOR IMMEDIATE COMPLIANCE Expanded Grades are attested to by the pc declaring the full statement of the Ability Gained for all four flows. The chart given below lists the Ability Gained for each of the lower levels, the four flows of the Expanded Grades 0-IV and for New Era Dianetics. It is used by the Examiner when a pc is sent to "Declare?" The Examiner has the pc read the entire statement for the Ability Gained for that Grade (including all four flows) or level and must accept only the pc declaring the full statement for the Ability Gained. Declare procedure is done exactly as stated in HCOB 11 Nov. 73, PRECLEAR DECLARE? PROCEDURE. LEVEL ABILITY GAINED GROUP PROCESSES Awareness that change is available. LIFE REPAIR Awareness of truth and the way to personal freedom. PURIFICATION RUNDOWN Freedom from the restimulative effects of drug residuals and other toxins. OBJECTIVES Oriented in the present time of the physical universe. SCIENTOLOGY DRUG RUNDOWN Released from harmful effects of drugs, medicine or alcohol. EXPANDED ARC STRAIGHTWIRE Knows he/she won't get worse. EXPANDED GRADE 0 COMMUNICATIONS RELEASE FLOW 1: Willing for others to communicate to him on any subject. No longer resisting communication from others on unpleasant or unwanted subjects. FLOW 2: Ability to communicate freely with anyone on any subject. Free from or no longer bothered by communication difficulties. No longer withdrawn or reticent. Likes to outflow. FLOW 3: Willing for others to communicate freely to others about anything. FLOW 0: Willingness to permit oneself to communicate freely about anything. EXPANDED GRADE I PROBLEMS RELEASE FLOW 1: No longer worried about problems others have been to self. Ability to recognize the source of problems and make them vanish. Has no problems. FLOW 2: No longer worried about problems he has been to others. Feels free about any problems others may have with him and can recognize source of them. FLOW 3: Free from worry about others' problems with or about others, and can recognize source of them. FLOW 0: Free from worry about problems with self and can recognize the source of them. EXPANDED GRADE II RELIEF RELEASE FLOW 1: Freedom from things others have done to one in the past. Willing for others to be cause over him. FLOW 2: Relief from the hostilities and sufferings of life. Ability to be at cause without fear of hurting others. FLOW 3: Willing to have others be cause over others without feeling the need to intervene for fear of their doing harm. FLOW 0: Relief from hostilities and sufferings imposed by self upon self. EXPANDED GRADE III FREEDOM RELEASE FLOW 1: Freedom from upsets of the past. Ability to face future. Ability to experience sudden change without becoming upset. FLOW 2: Can grant others the beingness to be the way they are and choose their own reality. No longer feels need to change people to make them more acceptable to self. Able to cause changes in another's life without ill effects. FLOW 3: Freedom from the need to prevent or become involved in the change and interchange occurring amongst others. FLOW 0: Freedom from upsets of the past one has imposed upon oneself and ability to cause changes in one's own life without ill effects. EXPANDED GRADE IV ABILITY RELEASE FLOW 1: Free from and able to tolerate others' fixed ideas, justifications and make- guilty of self. Free of need to respond in a like manner. FLOW 2: Moving out of fixed conditions into ability to do new things. Ability to face life without need to justify own actions or defend self from others. Loss of make-guilty mechanisms and demand for sympathy. Can be right or wrong. FLOW 3: Can tolerate fixed conditions of others in regard to others. Freedom from involvement in others' efforts to justify, make guilty, dominate, or be defensive about their actions against others. FLOW 0: Ability to face life without need to make self wrong. Loss of make-self- guilty mechanisms and self-invalidation. NEW ERA DIANETICS Freedom from harmful effects of DRUG RUNDOWN drugs, alcohol and medicine and free from the need to take them. NEW ERA DIANETICS A well and happy preclear. CASE COMPLETION For a person who attains A being who no longer has his own the State of Clear on NED reactive mind. and is sent to Examiner following the Clear Certainty RD: L. RON HUBBARD FOUNDER Revision assisted by LRH Technical Research and Compilations Adopted as official Church policy by CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL LRH:CSI:TRRC:bk.ahg.gm  ****************************************************************** 4. HCOB 8 June 1970 Low TA Handling HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 8 JUNE 1970 Remimeo LOW TA HANDLING A person whose TA is low is in a state of overwhelm. Poor TRs or rough auditing easily drive the TA down. A TA can go low during a run like on engrams, and can come back up when actual erasure occurs. Usually a person whose TA goes below 2.0 when run on incidents too steep for him will get low TA. A low TA is of course any TA below 2.0. An occasional cause of this is as simple as the meter not being trimmed. Sweaty hands, improper electrodes and sometimes a faulty meter also cause a "low TA" to appear. Heavy processes like LX 1-2-3 are sometimes an overwhelm. An invalidative look on an Examiner's face can drive a TA down a bit. Cold cans can send it UP high. Lack of rest or time of the day gives some cases a low or high TA. At 2:00 A.M. TAs often are very high, for instance. Persons with low TAs tend to be somewhat inactive in life and noncausative. When audited with poor TRs or on processes too steep, some persons' TAs go low (below 2.0). An F/N is NEVER an F/N when above 3.0 or below 2.0. Life repairs and auditing repairs, light processes and no-goof auditing are the proper actions for low TA cases. Auditors whose pcs' TAs go low should look to the flawlessness of their auditing, the ease of their TRs and refuse any heavy overwhelm-type C/Ses for such pcs. Good two-way comm on troubling subjects, use of prepared lists on life, mild close-to Objective Processes, no forcing over protests, never running processes that don't read first, getting the pc out of being effect and toward being cause, extroverting the pc's attention with Objective Processes, all work well on low TA cases. The actual technical reason for low TAs is found in higher levels and does not concern and would be of no use to lower-level pcs. Take it easy. Don't goof as auditor or C/S are the keynotes of low TA cases. My opinion on this is that people worry too much about low TAs. On Flag where auditing is done like silk, we haven't seen any low TAs for ages. L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH:dz.rd.jh.gm  ****************************************************************** 5. HCOB 6 Nov. 1964 Styles of Auditing HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 6 NOVEMBER 1964 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 Clay Table 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 0 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 0. So listen-style auditing is just listening. It thereafter adds into the other styles. LEVEL I 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, Q- 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 I 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 I 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 I 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 I sessions don't disintegrate to Level 0. 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 0). 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 II 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 Case 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 reorientation 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 renumbered 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 Case 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 -- Clay Table 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 Clay Table 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 Clay Table 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 Clay Table 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 Clay Table 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 Clay Table 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 Clay Table 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 2 1/2-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 coordinated. 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 I 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 Founder LRH:jw.rd.gm