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

******** 

87. PAB  18 JUN 55 PAB 54 Reality Level of Preclear


P.A.B. No. 54

PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR'S BULLETIN

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office

163 Holland Park Avenue, London W.11

____________________________________

10 June 1955

REALITY LEVEL OF PRECLEAR

Find the reality of the preclear. This is the watchword of
processing. Although communication, as completely outlined
in Dianetics, 1955! is a universal solvent, remember that
there are also two other comers to the triangle, and that
one of these corners is Reality. That R corner of the
triangle is very important to you as an auditor because
you, having very great certainties on this and on that, are
very prone to forget that your Realities are greater than
those of your preclear.

The reality level of the preclear is dependent on how much
he is "not-ising" his environment. If he is not-ising it,
he must believe that it is dangerous, and must believe that
he himself does not have the power to make anything in it
disappear or vanish for himself.

Therefore, his reality level is as great as he is strong,
and it is as poor as he is weak. Do you know that you are
processing preclears who do not believe that thought has
anything to do with action? You are processing preclears
who believe that thinking a thought will influence nothing.

You are processing preclears who believe that thinkingness
is one thing and actingness is an entirely different thing,
and that no amount of thinkingness is going to influence
any amount of actingness. This is apathy, indeed, and along
with that goes an unreality which would appall you.

Yes, these preclears can get mock-ups. They can get
concepts. They can be very obedient. They can even be run
with SOP 8-C and somehow or another muddle through it, but
the joker here is that the auditor is actually monitoring
the body of the preclear, and of course a body can respond
to orders, and will respond probably faster to the
auditor's orders than to the thetan the auditor is
processing. Thus a preclear can be put through any number
of contortions and convolutions in processing without
getting anywhere at all. The auditor is simply doing it.

Find the reality level of your preclear. Unless you find
the reality level of the preclear you are not going to
reach the preclear, because the preclear is as alive as
things are real.

Now, if this is so important, then let us see how far south
we would have to go to reach some preclears. Mechanical
two-way communication might very well be much too tough for
75% of the preclears you will process. Just ordinary
conversation is actually over their heads.

People that we are trying to reach do not know the auditor
is acknowledging them when he says "Okay."

Let us look at this acknowledgment of the preclear, and let
us discover that the auditor, in order to acknowledge the
preclear, must also make the preclear aware that he is
being acknowledged. Thus, when an auditor says "Okay," or
"All right," or "That's fine," the other part of the
statement is to make the preclear aware that an
acknowledgment has been delivered.

Thus, a "Did you hear me?" is quite often beneficial. When
the preclear finally admits that he did hear the "Okay,"
and when the auditor makes sure that he time after time
hears the "Okay," you will notice that the communication,
on the acknowledgment level, starts to work with the
preclear. But it won't work as long as the preclear is
oblivious of the "Okays" the auditor is giving. Of course,
you must give the preclear an "Okay" for every action or
completed thought he performs. You must acknowledge what 
he has said or done, but you must also be very sure that 
he receives that acknowledgment. It is not out of order to 
face him squarely and hold up one finger and say, "Wait a 
minute, did you hear me say Okay'?"

Now there are two processes which are at once the most
basic of processes and which are very low on the Reality
Scale as well as high on it. A person processed on these
processes should not believe that the auditor believes his
reality level is low. Quite the contrary. Such a process as
this one happens to be very good anywhere on the tone
scale. And this process is, "Think a thought," "Receive a
thought."

You are in essence processing thinkingness. I wonder how
long and how often you have processed preclears who could
not clearly or differentiatively understand that they were
thinking a thought? The auditing command is simply, "Think
a thought." The preclear is given this command time and
time again, and he vocalizes the thought back to the
auditor, and the auditor acknowledges the fact that he has
received that thought, aloud. And the preclear is run until
the preclear knows, absolutely, that he himself, not some
machine, not some energy mass, not his toe, or his hat, is
thinking the thought. The preclear will start out thinking
thoughts which are actually handed to him from some
mysterious source. When the communication lag on this is
entirely flat, and when the preclear knows that he himself
is thinking the thought, the auditor can then run the other
side of the process.

"Receive a thought" is run with the following auditing
command: "Tell me a thought you would be willing to
receive." This is then run until it, as a process, is
entirely flat: when it is no longer producing any result or
comm lag.

Part of the "Think a thought" process is to have the
preclear place the thought in various locations after he
has thought it. Have his shoe think a thought, have his hat
think a thought, have a lamp think the thought, have a rug
think the thought. This gets the preclear into the practice
of placing the thought somewhere. Thus, thoughts are less
likely to appear suddenly and magically out of his machinery.

Very curious phenomena result from "Think a thought" and
"Receive a thought." It will be found sometimes that it is
easier for the preclear to think a thought for another
universe than for himself to think a thought. Let us take
for example a preclear who is entirely interiorized into
the universe of his mother. It would, therefore, evidently
be much easier for him to have his mother think a thought
than for the preclear himself to think a thought. As a
matter of fact it might be an enormous struggle, resulting
in rebellion, for the preclear himself to think a thought,
but it would be very easy for the preclear to have his
mother think a thought. The way to go about this would be
to take an E-Meter, or simply estimate, by finding out who
the preclear most resembles, the probable universe into
which the preclear is interiorized. Having established this
(and you would only do this if the preclear were rebellious
about thinking a thought himself) you would then have this
likely universe think a thought, with the auditing command
(having established that he is interiorized into his
mother's or his father's universe): "Have your mother
(father) think a thought." This would then be carried out
until the preclear was absolutely sure that he was making
his mother or his father think a thought. This would
betoken an initial division of the universe.

Slicing up universes with communication processes is a very
easy thing to do. All one has to do is use the process:
"What could you say to your father?" and have the preclear
say it, and get an Okay from his father. And when this was
flat, "What could your father say to you?", and when the
preclear has vocalized this, the auditor would say, "Now
give your father an Okay' to this." However, this workable
process which splits universes (in old-time parlance
"valences") is yet much too high for a preclear who is very
low on reality, and would take a very long time to do. It
would be a process into which you would eventually move the
preclear who had been thinking a thought for his mother,
but remember that thinking a thought for his mother would
be only a start into communication processing, and would be
an elementary process, run until the preclear is entirely
certain that he is thinking a thought that his
mother would think or that he can make his mother think a
thoughtthe latter being the most desirable condition.

You should be aware of the fact that you are processing
thinkingness. You are not processing spaces, you are not
processing masses at this day and state of development of
Dianetics and Scientology. You are processing thinkingness.
A man is as well as he thinks.

The more masses and spaces, phrases and engrams you
process, the less you are validating the fact that you are
actually processing a thinkingness: a thinkingness that we
call a thetan. To process this directly is, of course, the
most indicated process there could be, and sure enough, we
are producing good results with it. But the remarkable
thing about the process is that it works on people who
heretofore have had very, very poor reality.

Now there is a process which is a little bit lower than
this "Think a thought" process, and this is the process of
finding something real in the room. Recently I have had
some very excellent results with "Find something in this
room that is comfortably real." This is a variation on the
initial auditing command as given in the early SOPs. It is
apparently better.

A preclear who is not-ising everything in sight will find
things real, he says, but actually he is not comfortable
about it, and if you ask him to find something that is
comfortably real, it may take him a long time to discover
anything that he would tolerate to continue existence, and
once you have begun this process of toleration you would be
able to do a great deal for his case.

"Find something comfortably real" is not necessarily a
low-toned process. It will work in varying degrees on
anyone. It is not recommended for any particular case
level. If a preclear utterly bogs on "Think a thought"
(which isn't likely), then you should have him "Find
something in this room that is comfortably real to you."

I am reminded of an auditor recently processing a very bad
arthritic, who processed him as an exteriorized case for
some little time without any apparent gain in the case
before it occurred to this auditor that something must be
wrong. Actually, a great amount of time was invested. The
auditor asked Nibs, my boy who was then instructing the ACC
course in the United States, and who is at this writing in
England, teaching the BScn course there, what could
possibly be wrong with this hung-fire preclear. Nibs looked
him over and discovered that the auditor had never yet
gotten the preclear into any kind of a situation which was
even vaguely real to the preclear. The auditor in one chair
and the preclear in the other chair was not a real
situation to this preclear, and yet the auditor was running
him as an exteriorized case. Of course he was exteriorized,
but with such a low level of reality that very little
benefit of course was resulting from the processing.

Processing is as beneficial as it is real and factual to
the preclear, and if you cannot raise the preclear's
reality level by the use of Affinity and Communication,
then you are letting the whole triangle hang fire. This
triangle of ARC may have suddenly gotten very important on
the C corner, but it is still foremost in the tool-kit of
the auditor.

Now you will want to know why you should use "Think a
thought" when what is obviously wrong with the preclear you
have in mind is a withered leg. Let me assure you that if
you process directly this withered leg, you are processing
something and somebody who probably has a very low level of
reality. He wouldn't have a withered leg if he had a high
level of reality. Where you have anybody who is
neurologically, physically, or psychosomatically ill,
unless it be from an acute infection or an accident, you
have somebody who has been trying to not-is his body. When
an individual is not-ising his body, making his legs
wither, or his stomach get ulcers, or his head get migraine
headaches, or his teeth fall out, you have somebody who is
trying to not-is the environment. He is already going in
the direction of succumb. The one thing that would make him
very happy would be the entire disappearance of the
physical universe. Well, with modern processing you can
make this happen, too, and maybe this is something you
should have happen for him in order to demonstrate that it
could happen. Of course, if you did this you would have to
go through a modern BScn course at least, for this is a
very tricky procedure. In view of the fact that unreality
is the action of realizing things are there and then saying
they aren't there (not-ising them; see Creation of
Human Ability and the Axioms of Scientology) you are
dealing with a protest against reality which results in
unreality. A person will let things be as real as he is
willing to let them exist.

When an individual isn't willing to let a leg or a tree, or
this universe exist, then things are not real to him. One
of the best ways you could get him to raise his level of
reality would be to give him some reality on thinkingness.
It isn't actingness, it isn't getting tired, it isn't being
unable to work, it isn't the second dynamic that impedes
your preclearit is his thinkingness. All you have to do is
to get him to change his mind. If you could get anyone to
change his mind enough he could then command anything that
was bothering him. But a preclear who is not-ising things
is trying to use force and pressure of one kind or another
against physical objects and spaces in order to push them
out of existence. This will never win, let me assure you.
Energy will never destroy energy, I don't care how many
atomic bombs the peanut whistly brigade builds, they will
never destroy any space or energy with them. Your preclear
who finds things unreal has stopped trying to do anything
with thought and is trying to do something with force. He
no longer conceives that thought can generate or handle or
give existence or life to space and energy.

Now you take this to heart, and take a good, hard look at
some of these preclears you have been processing on very
fancy and frilly processes, and you take a think back over
all of these preclears who, after you processed them,
didn't think anything had happened. When the preclear
didn't think anything had happened, nothing happened. What
was in error? You were processing him above his level of
reality. If you could get him to think a thought and know
he thought it, and receive a thought and know he had
received it, even though he put it there to receive it,
which is what he does, you would then be directly
addressing the very thing that is doing unreality and
reality. An individual who has a compulsive outflow is
simply unwilling to receive a thought. An individual who is
silent simply can't think of anything. Thus, if an
individual had control of his thoughts he would have
control of the universe. We can prove this now in a process.

And don't think you are going to finish this process,
either side of it, in a half-hour or forty-five minutes.
Some of these glib preclears you process will "fall in" on
this process and begin to comm-lag an hour or two after you
start processing them on it. The main errors which have
been made with this process so far have been failing to run
it long enough to have the preclear really know and really
understand that he, himself, has thought the thought and
that he, himself, has received the thought, or is willing
to receive the thought.

"Find the reality level of the preclear" is one of those
bywords that you can't use too often or look at enough.


******** 

88. HCOB  17 MAR 60 Standardized Sessions


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

Fran Hldrs

HCO BULLETIN OF 17 MARCH 1960

STANDARDIZED SESSIONS

There are many reasons why sessions should be standardized
and held in pattern. First of these is confidence. The
auditor, going over practised ground, feels more confident
and, startled by some sudden action or new development,
does not lose session control by seeming incapable to the
pc. The preclear, accustomed to repetitive session pattern,
feels a security when all his sessions are predictable as
to pattern of address. And if he changes auditors he is
still able to feel confident that he is getting real auditing.

A second reason is duplication: Just as old repeater
technique done by the auditor to the pc will run out a
phrase or charged word, so do session patterns, well
followed, tend to run out earlier sessions. Duplication
does not make all things seem alike. Duplication of a
session adds communication to the session and speeds up the
willingness of the pc to communicate to the auditor.

The basic freeing action of auditing depends upon the
separation of thought from form, matter, energy, space and
time and other life.

We see in "science" as currently practised a nearly total
identification by the "scientist" of mass with thought.
"Man from mud" is a natural conclusion by anyone who has
all his thought bound up in mass.

The reason a clear's needle is so free (and you've seen,
certainly, how an E-Meter needle gets sticky, then freer
and freer) is that his thought is separated from a matter,
energy, space, time consequence.

The "deadin-'is-'ead" case is totally associating all
thought with mass. Thus he reads peculiarly on the meter.
As he is audited he frees his thinkingness so that he can
think without mass connotations.

What auditing is doing is making the preclear think key
thoughts until they can be thought without creating or
disturbing matter, energy, space and time.

As most pcs associate themselves with thought, only when
they can think a thought without ploughing anew into mass
can they exteriorize. Difficult exteriorization or
exteriorization with bad consequences is all caused by a
person's considerations of thought being matter, self being
matter, etc, etc.

The basic overt act is making somebody else want mest. This
recoils so that self wants mest. Thus we have the
"necessity for havingness". Running havingness restores the
pc at cause over matter, permits him to be separate from
matter to some degree.

Thinking, then, is separated from mest by repetitive
thinking on the exact points that pin a particular person
to mest.

If a person is aberrated, say, on the subject of women, the
shortest cut to de-aberration (barring havingness
difficultiessee below) would be the repeated command
"Think of a woman." At last he would no longer have
pictures or masses just because he thought that thought and
you would then find he could think about women as opposed
to reacting about women.

This naturally leads to an obvious basic process, "Think
about matter" "Think about energy" "Think about space"
"Think about time" "Think about a thetan." In theory each
one could be run flat in turn and then all run again.

In actual practice this is pretty steep for most cases and
would not be real to many. A more complex approach
containing more significance is more real to the pc.

The pc's mind is trapped into forms of mest and life,
rather than merely mest and life.

Thus, what falls on the E-Meter needle shows what form of
mest and life his attention is fixed upon.

Havingness is a complicated subject when viewed in a pc's
mind. Familiarity, which is to say, predictability, is
strongly connected with his ability to have or own. When he
receives shocks or surprises, his ability to predict is
invalidated and he can't have.

The reason a thetan "dies" is his loss of the familiar by
the introduction of the unpredictable. Rapidity of change
of state, unpredicted, would be a definition of surprise,
also of death and forgetfulness.

The more change he is subjected to, that he did not
predict, the less he can have.

Thus when he is given a "rough session", the pc's
havingness goes down. Not predicting the shifts and changes
of the auditor, the pc ceases to be able to have the
session or its appurtenancesthe auditor, the room, etc.
The smoother the auditing the better the pc's havingness
stays up.

The model session is designed to avoid unpredictable
changes. Thus it is designed to retain havingness by
retaining pattern, which is to say, retaining
predictability by the pc.

Auditing, done smoothly, duplicatively session by session
as to session pattern, runs itself out, even if the pc has
a constantly changing bank.

A pc began to use pictures when he changed lives and
sometimes, therefore, language, but only after he had
already adopted language for thought. So an ultimate step
in processing could concern itself with separating the pc
from the significance of words. Some such process as "Think
of a word," followed by "Think of a meaning," would in
theory, if it could be run (but has not been tested and
would violate havingness), discharge the pc of his
dependence on language for thought and would find him less
fixated on having pictures (which of course bridge the
language barrier).

Appearing in a form composed of matter, running on energy,
existing in space and keeping pace with others in time is a
favour pcs do one another (or an overt act depending on how
cynical you may feel when you consider it).

The games condition of havingness is have for self, can't
have for others. Appearing in a form violates this games
condition. Also, giving another words violates it. Thus
actors and writers tend to go downhill by violating their
own games condition if they are in one. A games condition
evolves from separateness. Running some form of
separateness can then result in exteriorization not from
willingness to lose the mass of the body but by curing the
games condition. Separateness is of course handled on lower
cases by running out obsessive connectedness. But
separateness itself can be run.

Any auditing is a solution: Solutions are ordinarily an
alter-is of problems. Thus getting people to confront
problems or even solutions can resolve not only case but
auditing where auditing itself has now and then, in absence
of smooth analysis and session handling, become a problem
to the preclear.

A fine process for this is "Tell me a problem that auditing
would be a solution to," and for that matter, this also
applies to any psychosomatic illness. A person with a bad
leg would experience relief if audited on "Tell me a
problem a bad leg would be a solution to," as a repetitive
process. Similarly, it might work if one asked "Tell me a
solution to a bad leg you could confront," or "What problem
about a leg could you confront?" which last is very good as
a process.

The separation of thinkingness from a problem, from
particular forms, and from Life and Mest are the primary
targets of auditing. And just as the repetitive auditing
command runs out not only the connection with a mass but
itself, so does a repetitive session design eventually free
the pc from not only his aberrations but auditing itself.

A person gets as able as he regains confidenceand he gets
as free as his auditing is a constant not itself a wild
variable.

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:js.rd
Copyright c 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


******** 

89. HCOB   4 MAY 59 An Affinity Process


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 4 MAY 1959

AN AFFINITY PROCESS

We have a fundamental Reality process in Overt-Withhold
Straight Wire and, at a higher level, "What can you confront?"

Variations suggest themselves but what with Administration,
Congresses, HPA Courses, ACCs and heavy promotion, I have
not had time to test them.

The above form, startlingly enough, does work. It
apparently cracks lower cases than "What can you confront?"
There is some evidence it raises havingness.

A basic communication process is "Recall a time you communicated."

There have been few successful Affinity processes. However,
as unlikely as it first appears, the following is nearly a
pure Affinity process.

"What would you like to confront?"


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:mp.rd
Copyright c 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


******** 

90. HCOB   2 MAR 61 New Pre-Hav Command


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE

Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 2 MARCH 1961

Ds of P
All HGC Personnel
All Auditors Auditing Staff
All 22nd American ACC students
All 3rd S.A. ACC students


NEW PRE-HAV COMMAND

Here is a new command for Communication on the Pre-Hav Scale.

It comes as a surprise to me to find a new Comm process
after Comm being in prominence 11 years, but that's what's
happened. Also this process is foreshadowed by the Code of
Honor.

It replaces the Pre-Hav Command in HCO Bulletin of February
2, 1961 (dated March 9, 1961 from Saint Hill).

The basic command from which the others are derived is:

"RECALL NOT WANTING TO COMMUNICATE."


The full commands that can be run in sequence are:

"Recall not wanting to communicate."

"Recall another not wanting to communicate."

"Recall not wanting another to communicate."

"Recall another not wanting you to communicate."

"Recall another not wanting others to communicate."

"Recall a communication."

"Recall a no-communication."

"Recall a communication."

"Recall a no-communication."

"Recall a communication."

"Recall a no-communication."

The command structure, having so many possibilities, has
only been partially sorted out.

The first five commands of the above or the last six
commands of the above or all of the above may be run. The
last six, of course, handle loss incidents.

It just may be that the first line as a process underlies
all withholds and gives later withholds power. This may
then, just as a process, considerably ease the task set in
getting off withholds on secretive cases.

Using all the first five lines in sequence is probably
easiest on the pc, afterwards flattening the last six commands.

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:ph.rd 
Copyright c 1961
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


******** 

91. HCOB  25 SEP 59 HAS Co-Audit


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 25 SEPTEMBER 1959

HAS CO-AUDIT

Here are some hints on how to run Comm Processes on assessment:

The instructor asks the preclear if he is sick or well. If
the pc says he is ill then the instructor says, "What part
of the body would you say is ill?" Whatever the pc answers,
this is then run on "From where could you communicate to a
... (generalized terminal) body part." If the pc answers
that he is well, the instructor says, "Have you ever been
ill?" The pc will in general say yes. The instructor then
says, "What part of your body was ill?" and runs the Comm
Process on whatever the pc says.

Giving you advance scoop on a new research win it seems
that the most effective and rapid clearing could take place
with what we will call Universal Processes. This means
running a Comm Process on Universe as follows:

"From where could you communicate to the physical Universe."

"From where could you communicate to a body."

"From where could you communicate to a mind."

"From where could you communicate to a Thetan."

This is all experimental at this stage but it would be a
separation process from all universes the thetan is anxious
about and should be quite successful in general use.

However I give you this not to use but to show you that we
would probably win further and better if we began to steam
people up on the subject of being clear and then slammed
right in on whatever universe they could handle on
Co-audit. I would then run Co-audit as follows: Do the
actions described above on body part and when the pc has
come through that go at once on to the physical universe
and then graduate him on to any body part that bangs on the
meter and finally when various parts are flat get him into
running the body as a general terminal.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:iet.rd
Copyright c 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


******** 

92. HCOB  21 JUL 59 HGC Allowed Processes


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE

Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 JULY 1959

CenOCon

HGC ALLOWED PROCESSES

The following rundown is to be used in all HGCs.

For use on unconscious and fixedly psychotic persons
unwilling to be audited: "You make that body sit on that
chair (or lie on that bed)", and CCH 1, 2, 3, 4.

For use on persons unwilling to be audited at any time:

Two way help bracket

"How could you help me?"

"How could I help you?"

Get each question answered. Use lots of two way comm. Don't
Q and A with reasons.

For use on persons unwilling to be audited by reason of
session errors:

TR 5N, which is:

"What have I done wrong?"

"What have you done wrong?"

with two way comm.

For persons who are acutely ill:

Ask them what part of their body they think is ill.

Use that as the terminal. Run:

"From where could you communicate to a ?"

(body part named).

For use on persons who complain that auditing has no effect
on them or who make very slow gains, or who are going for
OT. Run:

Process S2: "From where could you communicate to a victim?"

This is flat when pc can confront calmly a victim.

For use on persons in general. If this has been handled in
an HAS Co-audit well, don't handle it again:

Overt-Withhold Straight Wire after careful assessment and
used on various buttons, Dynamic Straight Wire, Know to
Mystery Straight Wire, are all more or less same processes
but are different ways of assessment. Always run terminals,
never conditions.

For use on persons who have a p.t. problem. Get them to
name the terminals associated with the problem. Run:

"From where could you communicate to a ?"

(general form of terminal).

For use on persons in general, always to some extent when
they enter HGC: S-C-S.

For use on auditors in for auditing. Run until fully flat:

Process S2:

"From where could you communicate to a victim?'

For use on people going to theta clear. Use liberally and long:

Assess case with E-Meter. Spot terminals needing clearing. Use:

"From where could you communicate to a ?"

on each terminal.

For use on people going to theta clear:

Find engram necessary to resolve the case each time. Check
out all terminals present in it. Make a list. Run: "From
where could you communicate to a___ ?" (e a c h terminal in
incident by general name). Don't run off from incident that
is being run.

Pc will go up and down the track but when one terminal is
flat, choose the next from the same incident we started
with. Remember to resurvey incident for new terminals when
several are flat.

For finishing off cases to level of theta clear:

"From where could you communicate to a ?"

(male, female bodies, bodies, mest).

For easing off any case into comfort or completion of an intensive:

Get person to say what is wrong. Get them to name the
terminal they think is the trouble, run:

"From where could you communicate to a ?"

(terminal name).

HAS CO-AUDIT

Comm processes may be used in HAS Co-audit. Assess by
asking person: "Are you sick or well?" If he says "ill",
ask, "What part of your body do you think is ill?" Run:
"From where could you communicate to a ?"

(body part person said).

If person says "well", then say, "What person or thing have
you been most sorry for?" (meaning pity). Whatever person
says, run it as a terminal, "From where could you
communicate to a ?" (generalized form of whatever he or she
said).

This gets people up to talking and you get the "word of
mouth advertising" you should have, plus a lot of better
people.

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:brb.rd 
Copyright c 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


******** 

93. BOOK   Creation of Human Ability R2-60


R2-60: THE HIDDEN COMMUNICATION

Exerpted from the Book: Creation of Human Ability

'Spot some hidden knowingness', is an auditing command
which, pursued properly,

opens the gates to freedom.

In 'Scientology 8-80' and 'Scientology 8-8008' you will
find a scale which begins at its lowest rung with 'hidden'.
Above that is 'protection'. Above that is 'ownership'. I
have recently discovered that the DEI cycle and the above
low scale join to make the scale read: 

CURIOSITY

DESIRE

ENFORCEMENT

INHIBITION

OWNERSHIP

PROTECTION

HIDDEN

and I have discovered that the road upward through this
scale is communication.

Knowingness condenses. Trying to know becomes the first
level of communication.

This looking to know' condenses into emoting to know',
which condenses into effort to know', which in turn
becomes thinking to know', which then condenses into
symbols to know' which, and this is the astonishing thing,
becomes eating to know', which becomes

sexual activity to know', which then turns into oblivion
of knowing or mystery'.

An energy particle is a condensed knowingness. Trying to
discover or move one is an action with the goal of knowingness.

Gravity, grim thought, becomes in the mind, and is, the
effort to know, to pull in knowingness. Other-determinism
is only other knowingness.

The aspects of know are the common denominators of any
scale in Scientology. When knowingness is done by
communication, we get emotion and effort particles changing
position.

This struggle to know is not just me and thee working on
Scientology and gone mad in the process, it is life and all
its manifestations including space, energy, matter and
time. Each is only a barrier to knowingness. A barrier is a
barrier only in that it impedes knowingness.

Barriers do not exist for complete knowingness.

And what is there to know? Only that knowingness can vary.
One has to invent things to know for there is only
knowingness, and knowingness has no data since a datum is
an invented, not a true, knowingness. The motto of any
particle below knowingness is Only energy can tell you'.

We handle R2-60 HIDDEN KNOWINGNESS in this wise: Spot some hidden

communications', And now spot some more hidden
communications', and so forth. We may have to direct the
preclear closely with, Point to the spot', How far away
does it seem?', Are you spotting a hidden communication
there?' and such questions, meanwhile keeping good ARC. He
could be asked to spot specific kinds of hidden
communications as with this command: Spot some hidden
disease communications', Some hidden poisonous
communications', or Spot some hidden, but uninteresting
communications'. But use the question to flatten all
communication lags before you change it.

If he goes into the past, let him. He'll come back to the
present. He'll find his chronic somatic and do many
interesting things, including, perhaps, the data in the
text of R2-60 here.

It is curious that the above Spot some hidden
communications' does not seem to require a remedy of
havingness. But it will turn on many heavy ridges and
somatics. Having thoroughly worked hidden communications'
you can now use this command: Spot some protected
communications', and when that is null, Spot some owned
communications', and after that has no communication lag,
Spot some inhibited (stopped) communications'. Then:

Spot some enforced communications', and then, Spot some
desired communications'.

Now when all that is done, proceed as follows: Spot some
hidden knowingness',

Are you spotting it in the physical universe? If so all
right, point to it', How far away does it

seem?', Spot some more hidden knowingness', and so on
until after an hour or two (or six) this command is
comm-lag-flat.

Now start upscale as follows, making the preclear point and
give the distance to the spot (even when trillions of miles
away): Spot some protected knowingness'. And after many
times of that, then: Spot some protected knowingness',
many times. Then: Spot some owned knowingness', many
times. Then: Spot some inhibited knowingness'. Then: Spot
some enforced knowingness'. Then: Spot some desired
knowingness'. Then: Spot some knowingness that people
could be curious about'.

In R2-60 HIDDEN KNOWINGNESS, we can use the Know - Mystery scale:

Spot some mysteries'

Spot some hidden sex'

Spot some hidden eating' 

Spot some hidden symbols'

Spot some hidden thinking' 

Spot some hidden efforts'

Spot some hidden emotions'

Spot some hidden looking' 

Spot some hidden knowing'

Then: 

Spot some protected mysteries', 

Spot some protected sex', 

and so on.

You can, using the principles of hidden knowing and
communication, combine any other part of Scientology with
them, and discover an excellent process. However, the first
commands given in R2-60 are the easiest to communicate and
to use.


******** 

94. HCOB  13 OCT 59 D.E.I. Expanded Scale


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

Franchise Holders

HCO BULLETIN OF 13 OCTOBER 1959

D.E.I. EXPANDED SCALE

(With a Note on Salesmen)

The original scale

4.0 Desire
1.5 Enforce
.5 Inhibit

was expanded in 1952 to

Curiosity
Desire
Enforce
Inhibit.

In 1959 I have found another vital point on this scale
which gives us a new case entrance point.

Curiosity
Desire
Enforce
Inhibit
Unknown

I suspect also that "Wait" fits between Unknown and Inhibit.

To make these agree in intention, they would become

Interest
Desire
Enforce
Inhibit
Unknow.

This scale also inverts, I find, similar to the Dynamics
and below sanity on any subject.

Unknow
Inhibit
Enforce
Desire
Interest

These points, particularly on the inverted scale, going
down, are lowered by failure. Each lower step is an
explanation to justify having failed with the upper level.

One seeks to not know something and fails. One then seeks
to inhibit it and fails.

Therefore one seeks to enforce it and fails. Thus one
explains by desiring it and fails. And not really being
able to have it, shows thereafter an obsessive interest in it.

The above inversion is of course all reactive.

Reactive selling (of interest to us in a salesman campaign)
would be accomplished thusly (and this is the basic scale
of selling):

The salesman refuses to let the customer forget the product;

The salesman then inhibits all efforts by the customer to
refuse the product; The salesman enforces the product on
the customer;

The salesman now finds the customer desires the product;

And the customer will remain interested.

There is an interplay here whereby the salesman reverses the scale:

   Source of Sales Failure

   Salesman   Customer

   Interest   Unknow

   Desire     Inhibit

   Enforce    Enforce

   Inhibit    Desire

   Unknow     Interest

Salesmen, bringing about an inverted scale, can go
downscale themselves as they do it.

They seek to interest and meet forgetfulness. They want to
sell and meet opposition. They high pressure the customer
and get pressured back. And about the time the customer
wants the product the salesman is reactively inhibiting the
sale. And as the customer's interest is at its highest the
salesman forgets all about him.

SALESMAN SUCCESS

All a salesman has to do is continue to try to interest the
customer and the reactive inversion will take place.

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

It is interesting that this scale, more importantly, gives
us new case entrances. A series of Comm Processes on any
terminal, say "bodies", could be run.

From where could you communicate to an unknown body an
unwanted body a necessary body a desirable body an
interesting body

This would pick the case off the bottom and run it to the
top on any terminal that has gone totally reactive.

By the way, don't take my remarks on salesmen as being "all
for the best". The basic overt act is making people want
useless objects and spaces, and unfortunately for him
that's often part of the business of the salesman. He,
unlike us, sometimes isn't fishing people out of the mud.
He's often more likely pushing them in. Therefore he needs
our help to get square with the world. As his income
depends on making people want things and buy things (even
though sometimes they need them), we haven't much choice
but to show him the mechanics of selling, to the end of
getting him to help pull others out of the mud. Making
somebody want something they really need is no crime, but 
the salesman is on very shaky ground. What do people really 
need? We had best not try to get involved in the ethics of 
all this, or to persuade them to sell only needed items.

The whole economic structure needs the salesman; he is the
key of the whole structure.

But we can leaven the flow of even useless goods by letting
an invitation to freedom trickle in the same channel.

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:dd.rd
Copyright c 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


******** 

95. HCOB  7 MAY 59 New Process Theory


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE

37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 7 MAY 1959

NEW PROCESS

THEORY

It never snows but it avalanches!

Possessing now tremendous processes at lowest levels, we
need a new understanding of processing and assessment.

The broad tone scale is divided into three general parts.
Highest is Pan Determinism.

Mid-range is Self-Determinism. Low range is Other-Determinism.

The fundamental difficulty is that something has so
thoroughly overwhelmed the pc that he is it. This is
Other-Determinism become the person. Mild locks use this
route to further overwhelm him. A person doesn't really
find anything in this lifetime that would have overwhelmed
him enough to aberrate him. It took great doing. Things
like prenatals and operations and shocks just use the
existing overwhelm channel.

The picture of aberration is this. The person causes an
effect, time and time again.

Usually this is not aberrative. But one day he causes an
unintended effect. He didn't mean to. It was wrong. This is
the true overt actan unintended bad effect. It is not
deserved by the recipient. It is a wrong, unintended,
undeserved effect. The person now tends to limit his
effects or withhold his effects. Having been wrong once, he
now becomes cautious. Next thing he knows he has assisted
himself to be overwhelmed. He now has an inflow channel
over which other things, all locks, can now overwhelm him.

Eventually he becomes an "other-determinism". This, of
course, can get nothing done, doesn't outflow, etc., etc.,
which adds up to all the faults we find in an aberrated
person. For example, if the pc has been overwhelmed by
money, he, in money matters, is now money. If you took some
money and threw it on the bed it wouldn't do a thing. It
wouldn't stack itself up or add up accounts. Money doesn't
do anything. Therefore, the pc, as an other-determinism,
does nothing really about moneyand this we find annoying
in him. It is his aberration.

Clearly all one need do as an auditor is to reverse this
flow and put the pc at cause over the button, money, to
have the other-determinism (and the overwhelmingness) fade
away.

Using Problems of Comparable Magnitude or Overt-Withhold
Straight Wire or simple reaching, the effect is turned to
cause and the pc comes out of it.

Assessment is only discovering what has overwhelmed the pc.

Auditing is the reversing of other-determined flows by
gradient scales, putting the pc at cause again.

THE BASIC ERROR

The question was asked me, and a fine question it was, "Why
does a thetan make his postulate fail to stick in the first
place? Why would he say, 'I can get my postulates all
messed up and so cause an overt act'?"

Obviously all aberration is third dynamic. The entrance
into self-determinism requires that a thetan conceive the
idea of other beings. Also he must then conceive that there
are zones of privacy from which he must not communicate.

This error leads to obsessive or fixed channels on which
one can be overwhelmed, since he "may not" take the
position of cause on this channel.

Avoidance of the places he must not communicate from leads
into all manner of difficulties, since this is inhibited
communication. A person, therefore, becomes as aberrated as
he cannot communicate, as aberrated as he is overwhelmed by
Other-Determinisms, as aberrated as he himself dare not
assume cause points.

A NEW PROCESS

This leads to a new process, for use "in individual
sessions". The final phrasing is not established at this time.

"From where could you communicate?" or

"Find a place from which you could communicate," or

"Recall a place from which you have communicated."

My first tests show this to be very strong but workable. I
have not established the depth this reaches nor the
complete effectiveness up scale. But it does reverse
Other-Determinism heavily.

(This, of course, does not supplant Selected Person
Overt-Withhold Straight Wire as fundamental and is not for
use in HAS Co-auditing, where Selected Persons
Overt-Withhold Straight Wire is the tested allowed process.)

This new process may open a faster route to theta clear,
even though that route is already very fast.

Note: Apparently this process, LOCATIONAL COMMUNICATION,
relieves the face pressures and terror stomachs (after
turning them on) which have proved reluctant. Terror
stomachs we have a specific for. Face pressures, we do not
have totally taped.

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:mp.rd
Copyright c 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


******** 

96. BOOK   Scn 8-8008 6 Levels of Processing Issue 5

SIX LEVELS OF PROCESSING -- ISSUE 5

November, 1955

Exerpted from the Book: Scientology 8-8008

NOTE: Issue Five of the Six Levels of Processing is not the
final issue of this operating procedure and is subject to
change, especially in the matter of command wording.
However, the processes here reproduced have been evolved
into a workable state and have been run with success with
the commands given. Issue 5 of SLP is released at this time
because it is better material, not because it is the final
form of SLP.

With SLP is introduced a method of auditing and a new
auditing atmosphere which articulates the attitudes best
calculated to maintain continuing stable gains in a case.
The auditing atmosphere is A-R-C with gain marked by
continuing rises in A-R-C. With SLP a somatic or boil-off
means reduced A-R-C and are indications of auditing breaks
in A-R-C.

With SLP comes the COMMUNICATION BRIDGE, restarting
sessions, maintenance of high Reality, and liberal use of
processing outside an auditing room.

All assist type processes are outside SLP except for the
present time problem.

The emphasis of SLP is on bettering the preclear's reality
and power of choice.

Level One

RUDIMENTS

These must be established at the beginning of every
session. They must be re-established each time the preclear
tends to go out of session:

(a) Find the auditor

(b) Find the preclear

(c) Find the session environment

(d) Establish that a session is in progress

(e) Accept any communication the preclear originates

(f) Acknowledge every command execution by the preclear

(g) Agree upon the process and the command form before
using and do not

confuse it

(h) Use two-way communication liberally

(i) Follow the Auditor's Code

(j) Deal with the present time problem which may be present
at the beginning or arise during or recur during a session

(k) Use a Communication Bridge at every process or area change

(l) Establish goals by two-way communication and the
command "Assign an intention to _______" (auditor indicating object)

(m) Run opening procedure of 8-C as given in The Creation
of Human Ability until the preclear is certainly obeying
the auditing commands and is under control.


Level Two

LOCATIONAL AND NOT-KNOW PROCESSES

Run in populated places, ambulant.

(a) Energy Sources:

Have preclear spot acceptable energy sources. Do not permit
him to spot statics unless he is ready for it. Run until
preclear can empower terminals. Commands: "Spot an
acceptable energy source."

(b) Spotting Objects:

Have preclear spot objects in a place with ample space and
objects. Commands: "Spot an object." (c) Spotting people:

Have preclear spot people in populated places. Command:
"Spot a person." (d) Separateness from Objects:

Have preclear spot objects he is separate from, then
objects separate from him.

Commands: "Locate an object from which you are separate."
"Locate an object which is separate from you."

(e) Separateness from People:

Have preclear spot people he is separate from, then have
him spot people separate from him. Commands: "Locate a
person from whom you are separate." "Locate a person who is
separate from you." (f) Waterloo Station:

Have preclear spot people about whom he can Not-Know
something and then have him spot people he is willing to
have Not-Know things about him. (Auditor selects persons.)
Commands: "Tell me something you wouldn't mind not-knowing
about that person." "Tell me something you wouldn't mind
that person not-knowing about you.


Level Three

DECISIONAL PROCESSING

Run in quiet places or auditing rooms.

(a) Think a Placed Thought:

The object is to train the preclear to think thoughts
exterior to his head and thetan bank to obviate the
"cave-in phenomena of Axiom 51." Commands: (auditor
indicating object or position) "Think a thought in (on)
that _______ " Alternate command: "Do you see that
(object)? Think a thought in (on) it. Did the thought
appear where it is?"

(b) Choice Rehabilitation:

Using the ability acquired in Level Three (a) have the
preclear make choices between two objects indicated by
auditor. Command: "From (indicated point) make a choice
between (indicated positions or objects)."

(c) Directed Decision Rehabilitation:

Using the ability acquired in (a) and (b) exercise the
preclear on decisions. Command: "Putting the decision on
(in) that (indicated object) make a decision about it." (d)
Permissive Decision Rehabilitation:

Using the abilities acquired in (a), (b) and (c) turn
preclear loose on decisions.

Decisions must be outside head and bank. Command: "Decide
something."


Level Four

OPENING PROCEDURE BY DUPLICATION (Not-Know Version)

Done in an auditing room with a book and a bottle.

Commands:

"Do you see that book?"

"Walk over to it."

"Pick it up."

"Not-know something about its color."

"Not-know something about its temperature."

"Not-know something about its weight."

"Put it in exactly the same place."

"Do you see that bottle?"

"Walk over to it."

"Pick it up."

"Not know something about its color."

"Not know something about its temperature."

"Not know something about its weight."

"Put it in exactly the same place."

"Do you see that book?"


Level Five

REMEDY OF COMMUNICATION SCARCITY

The object of this step is to restore abundance on any and
all communication possibilities. Done in an auditing room.

(a) Create confusion:

Commands: "Mock up a confusion." Alternate command: "What
confusion could you create?"

(b) Creating Terminals:

The preclear may have to be coached into mocking up unknown
confused black terminals and thus into good terminal mock
ups. Commands: "Mock up a communication terminal." "Mock up
another communication terminal."

(c) What wouldn't you mind communicating with:

Duplicate the auditing command exactly. Don't red-herring
(go chasing after facsimiles). Command: "What wouldn't you
mind communicating with?"

(d) Creating family terminals:

Have preclear mock up until he has abundance of any and all
persons he has ever used as anchor points. Commands: "Mock
up your (father, wife, mother, husband). "Mock him (her) up
again."


Level Six

REMEDY OF HAVINGNESS AND SPOTTING SPOTS IN SPACE

Route One

An exteriorized step done as given in the Creation of Human
Ability.

******** 

97. HCOB  11 DEC 64 Scientology 0 Processes


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 11 DECEMBER 1964

Remimeo
Franchise
Sthil Students
Sthil Co audit


SCIENTOLOGY 0 

PROCESSES

The whole case gain to be expected from a pc at Level 0 is
an increase of ability to talk to others.

At Level 0 we do not expect or lead people to expect any
sudden miracle of physical or mental recovery. Rather, we
emphasize that we are getting their feet on the ladder and
as they progress up through levels they will achieve all
they ever hoped for and more.

Jumping to higher levels leaves the lower level
disabilities untouched and while trying to audit somebody
at, say, Level III, we will find ourselves struggling with
things that should have been handled at Level 0.

Further, this target is the one that beginning pcs make the
most gains on in my experience. I recall one near miracle
on a girl who couldn't bring herself to talk to her parents
and all I did was get her to tell me what she'd say to them
if she could talk to them.

Recalling is too steep for a starting pc. They can't recall
well really until about Level IV when they can be cleaned
up on their ARC Breaks with Life.

Here we have the whole design of Level 0:

"Recover the pc's ability to talk to others freely."

If you realize that a pc can't be in session unless he is
willing to talk to his auditor, you will also realize that
he can't be in life until he is able to communicate freely
with others.

Thus any process that does not forward this end is not for
Level 0, no matter how frantic the case may be to become
clear yesterday.

The more hysterical a pc is about getting advanced
processes or a case gain, the less strenuous the process
administered must be. The psychiatrist erred on this one
point and it wiped him out as a social benefactor. The more
desperate the case, the more desperate were his measures.
He was just echoing his patients. It is very important for
an auditor to realize this one datum for it is the second
guiding rule of Level 0. It is a very senior datum. One
must not become desperate and use desperate measures just
because the pc is desperate or the family or society is
desperate about the pc. The worse off the pc, the lighter
the approach to that pc must be.

Psychotics (real, gibbering ones) are below auditing
treatment in sessions. The measure used for them should be
just rest and isolation from their former environments. And
the first process used should be just getting the person to
realize you are safe and safe to talk to.

So, although a few cases are psychotic, this still holds
good. The auditor must get the pc to realize he is
safewon't punish, scold, reprimand or betray
confidencesand that the auditor will listen.

It doesn't give the auditor a withhold to not speak of
another's withholds. One can only withhold what one oneself
has done. What the pc did or said isn't even subject for a
session on the auditor for withholding it had no aberrative
value.

Even when we're Class IV, we still start all our pcs at the
pc's level, which is, for a beginning pc, Level 0.

So what we are trying to do with our pcs at Level 0 is the
following:

1. Recover the pc's ability to talk to others freely;

2. Teach the pc by example the auditor is safe to talk to
and won't scold, reprimand, punish or betray, and

3. Refuse to engage in desperate measures just because the
pc is desperate; and therefore get a real, lasting gain for
the pc.

ROUTINES

A routine is a standard process, designed for the best
steady gain of the pc at that level.

The remedy is different. It is an auditing process which is
designed to handle a non-routine situation. The only real
remedy at Level 0 is patching up having failed to hear or
understand the pc. The rest is all done by routine. The
Case Remedies are at Level II and while we all realize that
every Level 0 case needs a lot of Level II remedies, we
also know that no remedy will work well until the pc is
able to talk to others. When you run into trouble at Level
0, there are only 3 reasons possible:

1. The pc was not run in a direction or on a process to
improve his or her ability to communicate to others;

2. The auditor failed to understand the pc's statements,
either words or meanings; or 3. The auditor engaged in
desperate measures, changed processes, or scolded or did
something to lower the pc's feeling of security in the session.

That's all. As you go on up through the levels, you will
find many other ways a pc can get upset. But at Level 0,
the pc is not close enough to reality on his own case to
even be touched by these at first. The pc is a long way off
when he first starts getting audited. He can only approach
his own case by degrees. So a pc, no matter how wildly he
or she dramatizes at Level 0, is really only capable of a
reality of the smallest kind about self. And such a pc must
be able to talk before anything else can happen. Pcs can be
ruined by someone who doesn't grasp that simple fact.
Psychiatrists, failing to grasp it, murdered several
million peopleso it's no light matter. It's an important one.

A pc at Level 0 usually can't even conceive of an overt (a
harmful act) done by himself.

When they can, they go religiously guilty and seek to atone
or some such thing. Become a monk. Or commit suicide.

The reason 33 1/3 percent of all psycho-analytic patients
are said to have committed suicide in their first three
months of treatment is not that they "came too late" but
that a lot of wild data was thrown at them to get at their
"source of guilt" and they went head on into the reactive
bank, sought to demonstrate their "guilt" by making others
guilty and killing themselves.

You don't want anything out of the pc but an increased
ability to talk relaxedly to others without fear,
embarrassment, suspicion or guilt. So all processes at
Level 0 are arranged accordingly.

WORDINGS

To give all possible wordings of routines that will
accomplish the above is completely beyond need.

Once you have the idea of it straight, you can invent them
by the dozens.

One doesn't even have to think of a particular pc. All
Level 0 processes are good only when they apply to all pcs.

ROUTINE 0-0 (Zero-Zero)

The starting routine is the most basic of all auditing
routines. It is simply "What are you willing to talk to me
about?" Pc answers. "What would you like to tell me about
that?" At Level II, the first question alone becomes a
remedy. Here the two questions make a routineand a very
effective one it is!

ROUTINE 0-A

This is how the auditor puts together Routine 0-A:

1. Make a list of people or things one can't generally talk
to easily! That includes parents, policemen, govemments and
God. But it's a far longer list. The auditor must do this.
It must never be published as a "canned" list.

2. Using any one of the listed items: "If you could talk
to____(listed item) what would you say?"

All right, that's all there is to finding the commands for
Routine 0-A.

One doesn't get the pc to do the list. The list isn't done
in session. The auditor does it himself on his own time.
And each auditor must do his own list for his pcs and add
to it from time to time as he thinks of new ones.

The pc isn't necessarily given any choice of items. The
auditor picks one he thinks may fit. That's easy to do
after one session. The pc keeps complaining about parents.
OK. Run 0-A on parents.

And flatten it!

By flatten is meant to use that one subject until the pc is
darned sure he or she could now talk to the item chosen. If
the pc still wants to abuse the item, it isn't flat. If the
pc still wants to do something about the item, it is not
flat. When the pc is cheerful about the item or no longer
fascinated with it, it's flat.

Remember, there's no need to find out what the pc can't
talk to. In fact, most cases you're better off just to take
an item of your own for 0-A and use it. May seem strange,
but you'll have a smoother time of it with the pc. Further
you'll not restimulate (churn up) the pc's bank so hard.

ROUTINE 0-B

The second routine consists of things to talk about.

One puts the routine together this way:

1. The auditor makes a list (not from the pc but himself)
of everything he can think of that is banned for any reason
from conversation or is not generally considered acceptable
for social communication. This includes non-social subjects
like sexual experiences, W.C. details, embarrassing
experiences, thefts one has done, etc.

Things nobody would calmly discuss in mixed company.

2. An item from the list is included in the auditing
command, "What would you be willing to tell me about
_____?" Add the item you choose.

3. When they have "run down" (as in clocks) ask them, "Who
else could you say those things to?"

4. Rechoose a subject on the list.

5. Repeat 3.

6. Continue to repeat 4. and 5.

Above all, don't be critical of the pc. And very calmly
hear and seek to understand what the pc said. (You never,
by the way, seek to find out why the pc reacted or
responded in some way. A real blunder at Level 0 is "Why
did you feel that way?" Or "Why do you think you can't say
that?" You're not after the causes of things at Level 0.
You will find out why at Level VI!) At Level 0, just keep
them talking while you listen. And you use only the subject
chosen to keep them talking.

ROUTINE 0-C

Routine 0-C is, of course, old R-1-C renamed. It is done
without a meter and it has any subject under the sun
included in its command. It is elsewhere covered.

In all the above routines it is vital not to alter the
commands given above.

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

There are many more possible routines. But to be a Level
Zero Routine it must have as its goal only freeing up the
ability of the pc to talk freely to others.

This is not a level to be regarded with a brush-off. It
takes a lot of skill to restore a pc's ability to
communicate freely.

When an auditor has that skill he will succeed at all
higher levels.

When a pc has that skill regained, his world will look to
him to be a far, far better place.

So it is very important to get over this first hurdle. And
very important not to dodge it and try to climb the hill
anyway. It will become an awfully steep hill.

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:jw.cden
Copyright c 1964
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

********

98. HCOB  26 DEC 64 Routine 0-A Expanded


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE

Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 26 DECEMBER 1964

Remimeo
Franchise
Sthil Students
Sthil Co-audit


SCIENTOLOGY ZERO

(Corrections to HCO Bulletin of 11 December 1964,
"Processes", and to HCO Bulletin of 10 December 1964,
"Listen Style Auditing")


ROUTINE 0-A (EXPANDED)

An additional command increases the usefulness of this
routine. It is therefore rewritten as follows:

The auditor makes a list of things people generally can't
talk to easily. That includes parents, policemen,
governments and God. But it's a far longer list. The
auditor must compile this list himself or herself out of
session. It may be added to by the auditor from time to
time. It must never be published as a "canned list".
Scientology Instructors and Scientology Personnel should
not be listed on it as it leads to upset in sessions.

STEP 1. The auditor chooses one of the subjects off the
list and uses it in Steps 2 and 3 below until the pc is
comfortable about it. Subjects from the list can be chosen
in sequence or at random. A chosen subject is not left
until the pc is comfortable about it. By this is meant, the
pc would not feel disturbed talking to the subject chosen.

The auditor does not ask the pc which subject or if it is
all right to choose that subject as the pc at the moment of
selection is not likely to feel comfortable about any of
the listed subjects and so will just reject. No, the
auditor just chooses one and starts on it.

STEP 2. The auditor asks, "If you could talk
to______(chosen subject), what would you talk about?" Pc
answers one or more things at greater or shorter length.

STEP 3. When the pc seems satisfied the question has been
answered, the auditor then says, "All right, if you were
talking to______(chosen subject in 1 ) about that what
would you say, exactly?"

The pc is expected to speak as though talking to the
subject chosen in l.

STEP 4. The auditor notes whether pc is comfortable about
the subject chosen in Step 1, yet without asking pc. This
is done by noting the voice tone or text of what the pc
would say.

If it is shy, diffident, or if it is belligerent or
annoyed, the same subject is retained for a new go with
Steps 2 and 3. If the pc seems bright and cheerful, a new
subject is chosen from the list for a working over with
Steps 2 and 3. If the subject in 1 is retained, the auditor
again does Steps 2 and 3 above over and over until the pc
is cheerful. A subject chosen in 1 is not left until the pc
really can respond cheerfully. When this is accomplished, a
new subject is chosen as Step 1 and the process is
continued with Steps 2 and 3 using the new subject.

The whole of Routine 0-A is flat when the pc feels far more
comfortable about talking to specific items and isn't
shying off from items on the list. It is flat, therefore,
when an ability is regained on specific items on the list
and the list items aren't producing big new changes in the
pc's communication ability.



LISTEN STYLE CO-AUDIT

It is expected that by the time an auditor is permitted to
do the Zero Routines, Individual Listen Style will have
been entered upon.

Until the class seems able to run individual sessions, old
"R-1-C" can be used by the auditing supervisor on a group
basis using Listen Style Co-audit until the group has the
idea of sessions.

Routines work best on Individual Listen Style. The pc is
always wondering, in Listen Style Co-audit, if the auditing
supervisor is listening to him personally. The auditor is
not the receipt point of the pc's comm in many instances.

Old R-1-C is the best training mechanism to get auditors to
run sessions. In this process the auditing supervisor just
chooses something for all the pcs to talk to the auditors
about, like a dynamic or a common social problem.

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:jw.rd
Copyright c 1964
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


******** 


