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

********

76. HCOB  16 FEB 59 Staff Auditor's Conference


HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE

WASHINGTON, D.C.

STAFF AUDITORS' CONFERENCE OF FEBRUARY 16, 1959

REGARDING HCO BULLETIN OF FEBRUARY 16, 1959:
HGC PROCESSES FOR THOSE TRAINED IN ENGRAM RUNNING
OR TRAINED IN THESE PROCESSES

Nearly everyone here has been trained in these exact
processes and, if anyone here hasn't been trained in these
processes, then everything on this Bulletin applies except
Engram Running. The whole bulletin applies except Engram
Running.

There will be a staff Theta Clearing Course, and those
auditors who are on staff who have not been trained by an
ACC in Engram Running will have an opportunity to get that
training; and not too many months will go by before they
are up to this, too. So this will apply at that time. Maybe
it will have shifted slightly by that time, but I don't
think very much.

Now what you are looking at here is the aggregate know-how
that was gained and assembled on the 21st American ACC.

UNDERCUTTING CASES:

Now the undercuts of cases became a vital necessity. This
whole ACC was devoted to the R factor plus Engram Running.
It was discovered that the thing that keeps individuals
from running engrams adequately was their R factor, and
when their R factor was very poor they could not run an
engram adequately. Now the funny part of it is that an
engram can be contacted and run and, if done persistently
and well without ARC breaks, can run the following Scale of
Confront. Here is the Scale of Confront, just to refresh
your minds: DUB-IN: Lowest scale. This scale could possibly
invert, and down below that you might have a black dub-in.
Once you had run blackness, you would find a dub-in 
case. But the scale we are mostly interested in,
because that is the one we most commonly see, begins at the
bottom with dub-in, runs up, turns

BLACK. Runs through blackness, turns

INVISIBLE. Runs from invisible to

ELSEWHEREa desire to be elsewhere. The way they solve
things is elsewhereness.

Runs up from elsewhereness to

ABILITY TO CONFRONT. Runs from confront to

EXPERIENCE or PARTICIPATE. And only then are you up to

BEINGNESS.

Now this is the Confront Scale, and it is the scale of
disintegrating Reality. It is how a person handles
terminals or a situation. A person handles terminals and
situations above all this by not having to participate, by
not having to confront, finding no necessity to do anything
about it unless he chooses so on his own determination; and
if he did so, could do so with no personal liability. He
could experience or not as the case may be. Now you'll find
a lower harmonic on this in some philosophic level of
somebody saying, "Yap, yap, well, I could, or I couldn't,
and that's my choice," etc, well, he hasn't got any power
of choice. He's just using this as the final escape
mechanisma philosophic escape mechanism.

If I said "bottom"the bottom mechanismit would be the one
most commonly contacted. But you are apt to get a mechanism
which is philosophic, which is simply a figure-figure
mechanism about a situation, and the individual feels that
if he could just figure it out he would be all right. In
other words, this is a thought-thinkingness figure-figure,
and he not-ises by figure-figure. Such a case, not-ising by 
figure-figure, will turn into a dub-in case as soon as you start 
curing his figure-figure; would turn into a black case; would turn
into an invisible case; would turn into a confront case;
would turn into an experience case. Which is quite interesting.

Now it is true that an engram could be found, started, and,
if the auditor were good and held the individual right on
the time period and had the time period well spotted, and
had the overt and motivator, no matter how crazy they
seemed or sounded, contacted, he could theoretically, just
by running that engram, run a person through the totality
of this Reality Scale. See? So there's another approach
here. You get a guy who is figure-figure, find the engram
necessary to resolve the case. First he figure-figures
about it, and he'll run it, and run it just with the
auditing commandsthe five auditing commands to run an
engramhe figure-figures about it, then after a while he
dubs-in about it, then after a while it all goes black; and
then after a while it eases into an invisibilityit's just
not theresomatics are, and discomfort and other things
are, but it's not thereand its not-thereness suddenly
turns into little flicks little flicks of confront. And
boy, he goes elsewhere. It just starts to turn on and he
gets it for the least little Flick and he goes elsewhere.
And then pretty soon he can confront the thing; then pretty
soon he can participatehe can run it in valence, squarely
in valence, right in its moment of time, at which time it
becomes pretty damn real. And then he goes to being able to
put it there or not put it there, and its
importance-unimportance factor flattens out so that it's
neither important nor unimportant. And that engram is licked.

Theoretically, this could happen. That is actually the way
I run engrams. But you will find in auditing in the HGC
that the public expects of you a different thing than is
expected of you by students. And that's why I wanted to
talk to you for a few minutes. They expect a different
thing. They expect you to be interested in their case. And
that is quite amusing because it's your job to get them
interested in their case. But they want you to be
interested in their case. A11 right, any case is
interesting, so that's a pretty easy one. But you can get
so interested in their case that you do a lot of talking to
them and burn up an awful lot of auditing time. So there is
some point where your interest becomes an indulgence, and
on the happier side of that, where the pc is pleased you're
interested in his case, and that's enough. Then you get him
interested in his case.

All right. Now, we have for a long time not used PT
problems. I'll tell you why very bluntly. It was not
unusual for an auditor to burn up twelve and a half hours
on a PT problem.

It was not unusual. He did this with two motives: one just
yak, letting the pc go on and on, poor control, not
controlling the pc's comm outflow, letting the pc get into
non-essentials. And the other side of it: he was trying to
run the whole case with the PT problem. Well, wonderfulyou
can run a whole case with a PT problembut why? Since it's
slow freight.

That's a very slow way to go about it. So we take a PT
problem now and handle the session in this fashion:

We establish the rudiments every time we establish a
session. Find the auditor, find the pc, find the auditing
room, establish a goal for the session. Do that rapidly. We
don't care what goal it is, so long as he has some kind of
a goal. And then we ask for a PT problem. And we take an
E-Meter (up to that time we didn't care whether the pc was
handling the cans or not) but we take an E-Meter, and we
have this PT problem appear on the E-Meter, or we don't run it.

Got it? And we run the PT problem that appears on the
E-Meter. So we get him to state this problem, and we don't
care how he states the problem, because all we want to know
is "Did it drop?" That tells you at once you won't run a PT
problem on a stage-4 needle. Didn't drop-see, that's all
within the requirementsit didn't drop, so skip it. It
isn't going to be real to the pc anyhow. You'll have to do
something else with this case. He's probably got thousands
of problems; probably all of life is a problem. Probably
every time he walks in a room he installs an engram. You
know, the furniture's therethat's an engram. Get the idea?
So why worry about a problem?

But if you got a PT problem that drops, you should remove
yourself at that moment from all temptation. As soon as the
problem drops, and as soon as he states that it is a problem to
him and is worrying him in present time, you take the cans
away from him and put the thing aside. Just lay the E-Meter
aside. You're not interested in an E-Meter from there on.
The reason why is because you'll increase the drop, you'll
increase more drop and more drop as you ask him about it.
You're already running it. And the problem is going to
change. You have seen this phenomenon. You're not
interested in a problem changing. The fact of your laying
aside the E-Meter will rather convince him that you have
found it and that's it. And you only want to know this: the
personnel associated with that problem. You don't want to
know more about the problem. You just want to know the
personnel associated with that problem. His wife, his
mother, and his wife's boy friend, or something of that
sort. And that's the personnel associated with the problem.
You just check that off.

Now, I'm going to ask you to take a notebook and a
ball-point into the auditing room, because you've got two
or three things to do here that require a list. I want you
to get accustomed to establishing a list and then
flattening it, not trying to run the case all over new
again every time the case changes. That's one of the ways
to waste time. You run one terminal, and of course the case
changes, the problems change, everything changes on the
case. If you re-assessed it at this time to find a new
terminal, you'd for sure find new terminals. Well, the
devil with it. Let's just flatten what we contact, and when
we're contacting and scouting and using cans and the
E-Meter, just write down what we find. Then put the E-Meter
aside and run what we've found until we get rid of all of
that. Now you're going to do something newgive him back
the E-Meter cans. Got the idea?

Pcs don't much like to hold onto these E-Meter cans
forever. Furthermore, they become restive, and they want to
scratch their heads, and they want to do this, and they
want to rassle around, and most pcs you get are slightly
nervous in this direction. Why should you worry about it?
Because the E-Meter is only going to give you a certain
amount of the information that is quite valid. Now, you're
going to write down the personnel connected with this PT
problem.

You're going to take SELECTED PERSON OVERT-WITHHOLD on each
one of these people. And the commands for this are right here:

"Think of something you have done to ( )," and

"Think of something you have withheld from ( )."

And you are going to run one of those commands and the next
command, and then the next commandfirst command again,
then the second command, first command, second command. In
that way, you'll never lay an egg on an unbalanced flow. No
flow will unbalance on you. They'll always stay there more
or less stable. The case won't suddenly turn black when
it's not supposed to turn black, and so forth. You won't
ever over-run a flow and the pc will never get upset.

Now, let's look at this again. You have written down
"wife", "his mother", and "his wife's boy friend". Which
one do you run first? You have to ask this question to
establish that terminal: "Which one of these things do you
think is the most real to you?" The individual says, "Oh,
Mother, of course." Who cares? That's what he says. All
right, so that's the first one you take. Then you take the
two remaining ones: "Which one is most real?" That's the
one you knock out. That leaves you one more person. Knock
that one out.

Now, there is something that is not stated here. I just
typed this up rapidly for youI didn't have a backing
sheet, so there are typographicals because I couldn't even
see what I was typing. This has a criterion, and it is an
old criterion of all PT problemsit is, they are PT
problems. By definition, a PT problem must exist right now
in the physical universe. By definition. So therefore, the
personnel involved in a PT problem must exist right now in
the physical universe. He will tell you halfway through the
run, that "It was actually my mother who influenced me this
way"ah skip it. That's not a PT personnel in that problem.
His mother isn't really part of, let us sayit was her
mother that was part of the PT problem. In other words, the
people have to be actually associated with the problem and
existing at this time in this pc's life influencing that
problem, for this to be a PT problem. So therefore, we
don't dive in any direction to pick up any new personnel we
don't care about.

We get this problem flat. It is only flat if it answers
this question: "Now, what do you have to do about that
problem now?" And the pc says, "Nothing." It's flat. For
our purposes, it's flat. The only reason we're running it
is we're trying to get rid of the obsession he has to jump
out of the auditing room and go do something about this
problem. If he doesn't have to do anything about it, it's
flat. But if he says, "Oh, it's flat, because I could go
and talk to my wife's boy friend now, and I could handle
him." No. Start right back over from the beginningthe
first person you wrote downand run that person again for a
short timenext person for a short timenext person for a
short timeon these exact auditing questions.

"Now, what do you have to do about the problem?" He'll tell
you, "Well, I don't have to do anything about it just now."
That's enough. You consider that flat. Got it? All right.
This will keep you out of all kinds of trouble. And it will
keep the pc from being all hung up in trying to go
elsewhere in an auditing session. So much for that.

This is done at the beginning of every session. That first
section thereit says, "STARTING A CASE: AND BEGIN EVERY
SESSION". Well, you not only start each intensive with
this, but you start every session with this, and you do the
same thing.

If it takes you two hours to flatten the PT problem, I will
think something is hung up.

This is a rapid one. This is not a slow one. If it takes a
couple of hours, well, something's really haywire here. He
didn't say the problem, or he didn't do something, or he's
holding something back. But notice we have said, "Think of
something you have done to" and "Think of something you
have withheld from". This will also get the pc talking to
you, because it gets rid of the withhold. Got that? All
right. So much for that.

Now, DYNAMIC STRAIGHT WIRE you were taught in the 21st
American, but the commands for the general public were not
given to you. And they are given to you here on this sheet,
this HCO Bulletin. Now, the only thing you are looking for
is a represented substitute.

In other words, you're looking for substitutes. You ask him
for a substitute for himself, and you ask him for a
substitute on the basis of "Tell me something that would
represent yourself." And he says, "Represent myself? Oh,
that's very, very easya tree." Get your ball-point busy at
that point and put down "tree". Got it? Now, if he even
says "toothbrush", get your ball-point busy. The proper
answer, of course, is "Myself". It's just as simple as
that. But the more a case is daffy on this line, the more
attention you're going to pay to it. So you just run this
whole assessment right straight on through: Self, sex,
family, children, groups, mankind, the animal kingdom,
birds, beasts, fish, vegetables, trees, growing things,
matter, energy, space, time, spirits, souls, gods, God.
Just one question. Each time you say this you just take one
of those: "Tell me something that would represent, for
instance, souls." The individual says, "Running water." Get
the ball-point busy. Write it down. When you have got this
whole list assessed, take the list you have written and run:

"Think of something you have done to (a toothbrush)."

"Think of something you have withheld from (a toothbrush)."

You'll be amazed, but they have actually done something to
a toothbrush, and they have actually withheld something
from a toothbrush. This is pretty terrific. Quite amazing.
But you are only looking for daffiness on this, and a
sensible answer you don't pay much attention to.

You say, "Tell me something that would represent trees."
And the fellow says, "Leaves." Now, there's a matter of
judgment involved here. What if he said, "Shadows"? Well, I
don't know. That's a matter of judgment. Try to run it or
not try to run it, as the case may be. If it looks daffy to
you, run it. You're the judge. Got the idea?

Now don't let it look daffy to you when you say, "Tell me
something that would represent spirits," and he says,
"Souls." When you say "souls", he says "spirits". That's
not daffy.

But how about this guy that gives you the perfect
representation all the way down the line like a little
wound-up doll? You already, in looking him over, find out
he has a sticky needle, he's registering at 6 on your
E-Meter when you first put the cans in his hands, and he gives
you all the answers perfectly. That case is giving you an
intellectual response which has nothing to do with any
reality under the sun, moon or stars. Something he read in
a book and a machine is rattling it off. So you do the
assessment again. The second time you go through you're
liable to trip him on something. Got the idea? So, if you
get a perfect assessment, run it again. I actually don't
care how many times you run it, but you're apt to be
wasting time, because by two-way comm and definition alone
you may not get anywhere with a very badly machined case.
Nevertheless, a couple of times through, he should trip
somewhere. Machine case generally does.

The rule governing Dynamic Straight Wire is: That which
doesn't fall out by two-way comm just on assessment. He
says it, and then it looks funny to him, and he laughs, and
he thinks this is for the birds, and he says, "Oh, no, that
wouldn't be one-actually, a substitute for a tree would be
a leaf, or a small tree," or something like this. That's
fine. Nothing wrong with letting him correct himself,
because you are actually auditing him just by asking him
the question. People, when they straighten out things in
their own categories, very often recover very, very easily.

All right. Let's take up this next one here. That's an easy
way to run Dynamic Straight Wire, isn't it, huh? I would
ask you to do this, however, in view of the fact that you
are doing a professional job of auditing for the public
mainly, and that is, I'd ask you to memorize that
listrather than hold a bulletin in your hand and read it.

Now, the next thing we're going to run into here is PAST AND FUTURE
EXPERIENCE. This is a bid for two things: One, the lowest
level case there isbecause experience, to him, is a
dub-in, usually. Or it's a figure-figure, or it's
something, so it compares to the Reality Scale. His
definition of experience compares with the Reality Scale.

His definition of experience is a direct index to the
Reality Scale, by the way. What does experience mean? He'll
say, "Experiencethat's very easy. To consider." There
you've got your figure-figure level. "What does experience
mean?" Well, "To write about it or make something out of
itexperience is that thing which you use to manufacture
the future." He's dub. "Now, what is an experience?" "Well,
experience is that which you try not to have." That's
probably black or invisible. Or, "It's the thing you
forget," would be blackness.

"Experience is something you try to forget" invisibility
level. "Experience is something you have to cope with."
Obsessive confront. "Experience isahwell,
experiencethat's pretty hard to defineexperience. I guess
it's to go through something." You're getting a fairly sane
responseto go through something. To have an actual
adventure, something of this sort.

You're getting a fairly sane reaction to experience.

So don't think that Past and Future Experience is pegging
up at the highest level of the Reality Scale. It isn't.
This process was found, in the 21st American, to be the
undercut process. This was the lowest undercut process. And
this is a killer, and it is very trying to an auditor. A
very trying process, because it offers so many wonderful
temptations. And that's what's wrong with this process.

Now, you run these two questions, one after the other, with
no assessment, no E-Meter, nothing. You just put the
E-Meter down after you've done the Dynamic Straight Wire
thing, because on Dynamic Straight Wire, when you said,
"Children," the needle was going on a gradual shift over
here, and a little theta bop now and then. You said,
"Children," and it fell a dial, or all of a sudden started
doing a big theta bop in the middle. When you got off of
children, it settled down to the other pattern. That told
you that you had something to be run on the subject of
children. That he will also, at the same time, give you a
daffy reading, he will tell you some daffy terminal to
representso you needed the E-Meter there. But you don't
need the E-Meter on Past and Future Experience, not even
vaguely. You can just put the E-Meter aside and turn it
off, and just run these two commands. Just clear them with
the pc very bluntly. Say, "We're going to run something
about experience. Now, we're going to see how you get along
with this little process, and here are the commands of it:
What part of your life would you be willing to
re-experience? And the other command is: What part of the
future would you be willing to experience? Now, here's the first
command: What part of your life would you be willing to
re-experience?"

The answer actually called for is a time, isn't it? And
this is a time process. But there are very few preclears
that will find this out for a very long period. They won't
give you anything but super-significances and ball-up, and
the pc who is real bad off will give you a type of
experience. You accept all these things. You say, "What
part of your life would you be willing to re-experience?"
He says, "Well, eating cake." That's an answer? That's an
answer. And that's followed with this: "What part of the
future would you be willing to experience?" He says, "Well,
more cake." That's an answer. So you just accept any answer
that he gives you on the line. It gradually will boil down
to a time answer. And it will gradually go back-track. The
longer you run it, the more track you're going to cover,
the more future you're going to cover.

And there will be periods when the individual is absolutely
sure that he is totally predicting the future. He gets into
implants, let us say, that tell him what the future is all
about. He's stuck 8000 years ago, but he's telling you
about the future. All kinds of odd phenomena show up.

But engrams come up and slap you in the teeth, one right
after the other.

You run this for a while, and the individual says, "OOOh,
well, you know I really wouldn't be willingwell, I would
be willingI don't knowI wouldoohh, wellI really don't
knowdental operation there, I was a young boyI don't know
if I'd like to re-experience thatI guess I could
re-experience sitting in theno, no, no. I could
re-experience I could re-experience the next day after
it." You say, "That's fine," and just mark it down with the
ball-point: "Dental experience as a child." That one he
can't confront. Now, you're never going to run it as an
engram, but you're going to have some tag of it as an
engram. See, it may show you something.

As you go along and he runs into hot experiences, real,
real hot experiences one right after the other, it is about
time you put the E-Meter back in his paws. Get the idea?
You don't have to start it with the E-Meter, but if he
starts running into hot experiences, or if he gets into an
engram and he can't seem to get out of the thing, the thing
to do is not run the engram but give him an E-Meter and
spot it in time for him. Get it spotted in time. If he's
running into them hot and heavy, one right after the other,
just leave him with the E-Meter. But if there is only one
you have to spot in time, and then in a little while he
doesn't seem to be running any more, take the cans away
from him again and put the E-Meter aside. But if he starts
running into one that obsessively sticks with him, don't
let him flounder in the thing for an hour. Don't let him
wallow in this one. Because he will just wallow in it, and
this is no process-this is not a good process to run an
engram with. So you let him out, OK? And the way you let
him out is to locate it in time with an E-Meter. And you go
on running the process. Now, as I say, it offers enormous
temptations to the auditorbeautiful temptations to run the
things contacted. As you sit this out, you actually are
going to change the characteristic of the engram you will
ultimately run on the case. But you keep listing engrams
that he runs into. Keep listing engrams that he runs into,
well knowing that he will favor motivators. For every one
of those motivators there is an overt. Now an engram that
he consistently and persistently keeps hitting and hitting
and hitting, you are going to find in that engram probably
the engram you will run, eventually. But not until he is in
PT, out of the engram, it seems to have dropped out, and so
forth, and he seems to be all smooth on this thing, are you
going to reach for that one again. You are going to flatten
the process and then go to the engram.

Here we go. ENGRAM RUNNING. Of course, that is run all the
way through with an E-Meter. Give him the cans and start
out on this engram that you more or less found with Past
and Future Experience.

Now, this is going to undercut cases, and I don't care how
long you run it. I don't care if you run it for two weeks,
because this is a very productive process. But if you are
going to run it over that period of time, it isn't noted
here, but some THIRD RAIL had better be brought in here
some place. And he'd better be shifted up finally until
havingness. And you put in PAST AND FUTURE EXPERIENCE,
right after that line, "COMBINE WITH THIRD RAIL IF
RUN MORE THAN 8 HOURS". If you run it eight hours, this
guy's havingness is going to start dropping on him, and you
are going to run into difficulties. You could get into
difficulties.

All right.

ENGRAM RUNNING. Well, Engram Running, when the case has
been prepared this way, becomes very simple. A case will
start running like a little typewriter, if you have got
this Past and Future Experience pretty flat.

Once you have picked an engram, make sure you get its
motivator not only its overt. If you have got an overt, get
the motivator. If you have got the motivator, get the
overt. And only when you have got that have you got an
incident. Now, an engram that is having one side of the
overt or motivator run will get sticky. You have got to
find the other side, and you have got to get both of these
things in date. Normally, this will start showing up on
Past and Future Experience. Well, we are going to run this
engram with an E-Meter, we are going to consider that we
have an incident when we have got both a motivator and an
overt that fit together. And if the thing is just awful
sticky, and dubby, and shockingly poor, and a lot of other
things, you just started running it too fast, that is all.

We have got several things you can do at this state of the
case, and so forth. Probably the best of them is go back to
running Past and Future Experience. You didn't flatten it.

Now, here is this Engram Running. If you notice here, it
says you run all the commands that run an engram twice. Run
them all twice. That's because "Find something unimportant
in that incident" is going to stir up stuff that newly has
to be confronted.

Once you have chosen an engram and you have begun to run
it, you have had it. That's it. That's the engram you are
going to run. So it has to be chosen with considerable
care. Listen to me now: If you re-assess the case after you
have started an engram, you will get almost any other
incident that is hot to drop more than the engram you
started, because most of the charge is already dissipated.
So if you keep re-assessing a case, thinking another engram
would be better to run for the case, you are of course
always going to find another engram. You will never find
the one you started to run again dropping with as much
velocity. You see? That's something you have to keep in
mind. If you are going to run an engram, that's the engram
you are going to run. It's got to have its overt or
motivator; suppose you are running the overt side of it,
you have got to have the motivator side of it. So you
really haven't got an incident until you have got both of
these things located. And once you have started to run
that, you have had it. Because it will discharge its charge
and won't register on a meter any more the way some other
incident will.

You can get a case just stirred all up and run all
backwards and upside down, and that's the biggest mistake
an auditor can make. I have given you the reason for the
mistake-because now almost anything will drop better than
the one you partially flattened.

If in doubt, run the engram you were running. If you are
not getting rapid recovery, go back to the first engram you
ran and considered flat and run it again. Sometimes, it
will only take you fifteen minutes to run all five
commands. You do it very fast. But very often something
happened that it re-charged in some fashion. Very peculiar.

If you leave about a third of an engram missing and unflat,
the whole engram has a tendency to charge up again. It is
kind of funny. But you have got to flatten the engram you
contacted.

Now the rule of the Last Largest Object is the only one I
want you to pay any attention to in questioning the pc. Pc
apparently is getting out of it. Change your auditing
command. You are running, "What part of that incident can
you confront?" He says, "Well, I don't know, it's pretty
unreal to me, I don't know whether this happened or not."
What was the last largest object? If he said anything that
was offbeat and showed an unwillingness to run any more of
the engram, you want to find out at once what was the last
largest object that you contacted in there. And he says, "A
house." You are going to shift your auditing command now
to: "What part of that house can you confront?" And you are
going to run that simply until he is back in the incident,
and then you are going to go off on to "What part of that
incident can you confront?" Doesn't require any vast
bridge. You just tell him you are going to shift.

In that way, using that rule, you can actually pick up an
engram where he was running as Abraham Lincoln, and in the
engram he was shot in Ford's Theatreyou knowand the date
is obviously correct. Dropped and everything. And then he
runs John Wilkes Boothno, he wasn't Lincoln, he was John
Wilkes Booth. And so help me God, you may find that he was
the Secret Service Agent who had a couple of drinks that
night and wasn't watching. You don't care whether he runs
it dub or not. Don't give up because he's running it wrong,
because it'll come out right.

There was a joke on us in the 21st American. We had our
paws on Bowie. He was Jim Bowie. And of course everybody
doubted this, because it is a famous historical figure. And
they tried to do everything under the sun to shake him out
of this engram, and they finally went back to running it,
and it was the one that flattened out. The trouble was, he
had dub on it, which made Bowie die the wrong kind of a
death under wrong circumstances. But as he ran it, the more
he ran it, the more he ran it, the more right the
circumstances got. And it finally all came out in the wash.
He did run the death of Jim Bowie.

Historical figures, however, are usually the yo-yo point
used. The guy went out of his own body at the death; there
was some current historical figure; he said, "That is the
identity necessary to resolve this incident. That identity
could handle it. So I will just be Catherine the Great."
And he goes and runs Catherine the Great. The only mistake
is to let him escape out of the time period. Maybe he did
yo-yo right into the palace, maybe he did go right through
her skull. But the right engram will shake out, because the
Reality Scale is run by running an engram.

Theoretically, you could clear a person just by running one
engram well enough. So never get off onto quantitative
engrams. An engram is merely something for him to get used
to confronting, and creating, and mocking up, and so forth.
It's just a playing field you are using.

The significance, the amount of change he gets in his life,
none of these things have anything to do with it at all. It
is just how well he can handle a mental image picture, and
you have chosen a honey for him to handle. That is about
all it amounts to. And when he finds out he can handle this
thing from A to Izzard and beginning to end, and he can do
it well, then the next engram to resolve the case will run
quite rapidly. And you will run on down and finally run his
basic, earliest shift of identity, which is the rock. And
formerly he said, "There is a beautiful, clear
spherethat's the rock. And that's all the rock." Oh, heck.
When you get several engrams run and get the rock as one of
the engrams, you find out this beautiful, clear sphere was
something he customarily clamped around thetans as a trap,
and they sometimes clamped it around him, and there were
raiding parties, and there was all kinds of personnel and
there is drama and there is strain, and there is scenery
and everything else. When you contacted the rock first and
ran the rock first, he was insufficiently able to contact
things. The date when he was mocking up this thing, he was
so capable of mocking up that later on this poor, little,
weak ole thetan, years and years and centuries and so forth
afterwards going back to mock up this rockuh-uh it's too
beefy. That's too much engram for him to confront first off.

So you choose the engramsit doesn't much matter what you
choose. You will find that every sexual incident you
contact is a bounce from a death. A little rule for you. So
don't let me catch anybody in the HGC running prenatals,
birth, conception, because that is a bounce.

Those are all tied in with the death, and the death is the
engram which is necessary to resolve the case. So you keep
running Past and Future Experience until you get them down
to that OK? Leave the second dynamic incidents severely alone.

Now it can be that he died, and he died is followed by a
conception sequence, and he goes back to the old body to
see if it is still decently buriedyou knowand then he
can't find the person that he thought he was going to be, get 
the next body from, and he gets all confused. And mess-ups of 
this character can occur. But keep him on the incident. Is this
part of the text? When you finish a death and go through
the exteriorization sequence, right at the end of it there
is a conception or a prenatal or a birth. They quite
ordinarily bounce into it, and you don't want it. You want
nothing to do with it. So you stop him when you have got
all of the exteriorization run.

There is a lot to know about engrams. You have been taught
all this, but I am just showing you what you can do to win
in the HGC with Engram Running. This would be a good, clean
job then.

Every time you run an engram, now is the time to use some
Not-Is Straight Wire, with its ordinary commands which you
know. They are:

"Recall something that you implied was unimportant."
"Recall something somebody else thought was important."

Don't ever let a pc run it in reverse, because it
discharges havingness in about five commands. That is real
rough the other way, too.

All right. Now there we have a rundown that will get
engrams run, that will get ordinary, run-of-the-mill cases
squared around, and that will get a lot done. But what
about people who were not through the American 21st? And
during that period of time up until they start in with a
Theta Clearing Course, to run actual engrams on pcs, how
about these people? Well, you have Selected Person Overts,
with the "withhold" command added, and you will have a new
bulletin out on these things, and so forth. We want that
auditing to be relatively muzzled. It will win and
everything will go along just dandy. But if you have got
some case (and this is more for D.O.P.s than anything
else)if you have got some case that was awfully hard to
start, very low random profile, you'd better turn it over
to a graduate of the 21st American. And if you have got
some case that, after he ran along for a while and was
getting up to a point where he'd just run engrams
beautifully, and the whole track's opening up, everything
is going along just dandy, and it is certain that the
engram necessary to resolve the case is just waiting, give
him an auditor that can run it.

In other words, you can run an HGC this way: You can get
some auditors that set pcs up to run engrams. You got the
idea? And then you can have some auditors that run engrams.
This is not any real violation of the Auditor's Code,
because that will still give him the best processes and the
best treatment for the pc that can be given.

Now there is no reason why, particularly after a staff
Theta Clearing Course, that everybody can't run a regimen
of this sort. But running it in the HGC, with all the
profiles being submitted to me and all the Case Analysis
Reportsthe Case Analysis Reports now are more vital than
profiles, because R changed on a case does not necessarily
change the profile at all. You should know about that. You
can change the R of the case without changing the profile.
The person answered the same questions, only he answered
them with Reality. This is quite remarkable. We need a
brand new test. That test is in development right at this
moment. It is a confront test, and that test will be coming
up, but there is no reason to rush it, particularly.

Let's just do it by Case Analysis.

I will get out a Bulletin that will take care of auditors
who were not trained to run engrams, what they will run.
But you already have data and material on this, and it is
just as before, what you have been running.

Now, to start a case out with NOT-IS STRAIGHT WIRE is
adventurous. That's an adventurous thing to do. That's a
rough thing to do. We learned a great many things in the
21st American ACC. Learned a great many things, and that
was one of them. Selected Persons Overt-Withhold is very,
very superior in undercutting cases to Selected Persons
Overts. The only main change we have got is that we run
Selected Person Overt-Withhold commands, just
as it is given here in PT problem. That is a wonderful
thing to do with a case, as long as the terminal is real to
the pc. And there is no real reason that running a
Scientologist, who knows what the command is, why ARC Break
Straight Wire cannot be run on a person by an auditor who
has not been through an Engram Running Course. That's a
beautiful process.

I want to tell you something else. Can I tell you something
here? A lot of research was done in the 21st American ACC,
and students didn't see me as much as they thought they
should, I suppose, but I was around. And I never saw so
many flips and changes and vagaries in my life as I saw in
that particular unit. The reports which I got were
veryvery helpful to mevery, very helpful to Scientology
at large. There was a great deal done in that course. I
spent about three weeks of the coursedid very rapid
research just in catching up with some of these undercuts.
Because, let me assure you, the R factor in most of the
cases you approach is so low that it poses a problem of
running greater than we had ever imagined. Therefore, these
are the processes that we are handing out.

Now, these are a Not-Is type of process. Dynamic Straight
Wire runs a straight identification, but the rest of these
things are Not-Is types of processes. To cure somebody from
not-ising. When a person can confront something, he no
longer has to not-is it.

But there was a funny command came up along the line, that
I don't fully understand yet, but it takes care of a theta
body. Now this is part of the research that was never given
to the 21st American. And this is a peculiar darned thing.
You can write it down on the back of this Bulletin, if you
want to.

It is:

"Recall a time when you thought something bad was unimportant."

And that is just about the wildest thing you ever saw. Now
that runs all by itself but can be combined with:

"Recall a time somebody else thought something bad was important."

And you will run all the newspapers off the case. The
second command there is really not essential, but you just
run this first command repetitively, and if it seems to run
down or something bad happens, flip over to the other
command. But you will as-is a theta body.

This is the doggondest thing you ever saw. It is a
perfectly wild pitch. I was just adding up all possible
combinations and working in all possible directions, and
this one fell out of the hamper, and it doesn't integrate
too well with the rest of your data. But this is the goofy one.

Now, something else came up in the 21st American that I
should tell you in the HGC, and that is: After nine years,
we have found out WHY. We had nine years of HOW, and now in
the ninth year we find out why. Why people are aberrated.
Why they are sick. Why they act the way they do. Why
individuation takes place. And that is all wrapped up with
WITHHOLD.

I had withhold earlier, but didn't shake it all out of the
hamper, because I didn't have the overts to go with it. We
find out that an individual gets sick by having the overt
impulse to make somebody else sick and then withholds it,
because it is less social to give people illnesses. So he
gets them himself. This is Freudian transference, it is a
whole number of things. So when you run these overts, run
the withhold with it and the case will start finding out why.

The theta body thing, and the masses and ridges, why, they
run out when you ask a person to recall a time when he
thought something bad was unimportant, or recallwell, that
is the best commandrecall a time when he thought something
bad was unimportant. When you run this, you evidently run
the center pin of the withhold. But you will get his
tolerance. And this is the first straight ethical process,
evidently, we have. It raises a person's ethics. It as-ises
a theta body. It takes demon bodies and things like that
off cases. I tested it two or three times here, just 
monkeying around with this thing, and it is one of the 
wilder ones. This is a wild pitch, that particular process.

So you could say that when a field doesn't immediately
disintegrate, when you can't get an individual easily in
the engram, when the field stays persistently black or
something like that, you have got another string to your
bow, and I don't care if you use it. But if you do use it,
know this: It runs as an automaticity on such a demon case.
He runs br-r-r-r-tthe last two thousand years he has been
not-ising and saying it was unimportant that something was bad.

And he will start coming up with, "Well, I should do
somethingno, I shouldn't do somethingwell, what is this?
I should do something about it. I shouldn't do something
about it. I have been very neglectful, but that really
isn't bad. Not really. Somebody dying from the bullet wound
I gave emthat really isn't bad. But" And he is stuck
right with the consideration on all of his
overtsconsequences of overts. They all must be
unimportant. And it reduces his ethical level. But I have
now seen two demon bodies disintegrate just with that one
command just disintegrateand this is the first time we
ever had something that would disintegrate the astral body.
So we find out at once that the astral body was an
aberration. It isn't a necessary thing to make a thetan
stick in the head at all.

All right. Now I wanted to give you this rundown, because
today you were having a little bit of a rough time doing a
transition from student to pro auditor, and I wanted to
talk to you, even though it burned up some of your valuable
time and mine. And ask you to sic semper transit, huh?

Now are there any questions? Yes, Jean.

Q. I have two questions. In running of the engram, do you
ignore what they were running in the ACC, or do you just go
back and run them? My preclear has had several engrams started.

A. Now, if we look over this carefully, we see in running
an incident: Find the engram necessary to resolve the case.
Once you have chosen it and have begun to run it, be sure
you have the motivator and the overt and then do not, do
not, do not, do not, depart from that incident to run
another that "drops better" or comes up. Now look here. The
engrams that were run on them in the course are no longer
going to fall. And an engram is not going to show on an
E-Meter. And if there were several engrams run on somebody
in the course, and the first one wasn't flattened, then
whoever audited them ought to be hit in the head with a
sledge-hammer.

There's only one or two cases that got by with this, that I
have checked up on so far, and it is about the most serious
blunder that could be made. Now, what you do in a case
that's had an engram already started is get a lie reaction
checkthat's all you wantof some sort or another,
concerning this particular thing. You can put him on the
E-Meter and ask him if it was run, and so forth, and ask
him which one was the first one run. You could possibly get
an occlusion, but usually the pc will tell you. There's no
particular reason to doubt the pc. Get the first one, and
get that one flat, and then you have no choice but to pick
up the next one and flatten that one.

This applies without regard to how many auditors were on
the case. This also, you will find out, will sometimes
apply to somebody who had an engram audited in 1950. The
only trouble with a 1950 engram is that it is probably an
operation in the current lifetime, or a prenatal in the
current lifetime, and it was the wrong engram necessary to
resolve the case, and you won't get very far running the
thing. And we have no data at this time, whether it's best
to pick that one up and run it or not. But I would say for
sure that an engram that should have been run to resolve
the case, such as a past death, if that was ever entered in
all of those years, including 1950it may no longer drop on
the E-Meter, because some of its charge is gone.

That is the engram necessary to resolve the case.

Yes, got another one?

Q. Yes. The Dynamic Straight Wiredo you keep running this
until you have picked up all the daffy terminals, then go
through it several times and get the daffy ones each time?
A. If you get a daffy one, if you get several daffy ones,
you take those you got on the first run and run them. Don't
bother to go through again, because it will have
straightened out.

Enough will have straightened out to admit progress of the
case. But if you don't get any daffy ones through once,
then run it again. Any other questions? Dale.

Dale: I just had a comment on that. One 1950 engram, in
which the auditor blew session because it was whole track,
was the engram necessary to resolve the case and finally
showed up. The guy had been black since 1950.

A. Good. Picked it up and flattened it. Well, that's a good
job. That tells you that a black case, then, doesn't
necessarily require five or six weeks of preparation before
you run an engram. You pick up an engram as early as you
can on a case and charge through. But it doesn't get you
around starting a case. You have always got to start a case
or start a session.

Yes?

Q. On this re-experience process, do I run it until I get
3-D pictures, and track? A. Yes. Oh, 3-D pictures and back
in PT. Back in PT. I'll give you an example of one of
these. Here's the pc. He is sitting in a terror charge, in
a total black freeze, at 1500 AD. One second later,
everything went to hell. One second before, everything had
gone to hell. And he's sitting in this split second, at a
rest point. Got it? Well, now, what do you think happens
when you start asking him about future and past,
alternately? He'll move right off that rest point, won't
he? So this is an explosive, doggoned process. Now, I say
you run it until he gets to PT. Some time or other you
might find it impossible to get him to PT on the process.
You just might. But the experience that has been had with
it so far is that it does eventually move him to PT. Now is
the time to take him back, at the auditor's discretion, and
have him run that incident in which he was stuck.

By the way, "What part of PT are you willing to
experience?" has on several cases exposed the engram
necessary to resolve the case. It is the engram he's
sitting in, and it is the one necessary to resolve the
case. Yes?

Q. If you leave a process very unflat one afternoon, and
come back in the morning and start questioning the guy, and
you pick up first of all present time problems. Now
supposing that process is the basic of his present time
problem of the morning. Are he and you the terminals, the
preclear and auditor the two terminals?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you run it that way?

A. Oh, well, if he got a lot of ARC breaks, it would be a
good thing to run it this way.

That would clean up all the ARC breaks, wouldn't it?

Now I am going to give you that again on ARC breaks. This
is the hottest one to run ARC breaks on. Just pick up the
auditor and pick up the pc, as the two people involved in
the present time problem. I am glad you brought that up, Joe.

This idea of throwing him back into session after you have
ended a session the day before is another point of
judgment. Just how do you smoothly get him into it? Usually
he has piled up something on top of the engram. There is a
process here, which is not really a very good process, but
which kicks them out, and it was not given in this ACC.
That is Problems of Comparable Magnitude to that Engram, or
that Incident. It will actually de-intensify an engram.

You should have that as a little panacea.

That is an interesting one to wind up an intensive on.
About noon of the last day you all of a sudden realize,
"Boy, this man isn't going to make it." And you could run a
problem of comparable magnitude to that engram and get it
keyed out. However, you are better than that, and you will
have had it flat by the last day of the last intensive he
has, that's for sure. Any other questions? Don?

Q. Is "recall something" preferred over "recall a time"? I
have heard "Recall a time you did something to somebody,"
and also "Recall something you did to somebody," which is
slightly different.

A. "Recall a time" is always a superior process, unless the
individual is consistently not recalling a time, at which
time he is not obeying the auditing command. So you should
say, "Recall something you have done to" to somebody who
can't spot something on a time track.

Q. What's the difference there?

A. You are running really two processes with "Recall a time
you did something," and you are running only one process,
"Recall something you have done."

Q. Can he continue to do that without recalling a time?

A. Yeah. Definitely. Anything else?

"Recall a time," all by itselfyou just sit down and say to
a pc, "Recall a time. Thank you. Recall a time. Thank you."
Some interesting things would happen to a case. Time, you
see, is the single aberration. Joe?

Q. In running an engram, when you are tagging the engram
for the first time, is it possible to peg, say, a 2-ton
motivator and a one-pound overt, and that's the incident?
A. Yes. Because until they get some of the overt flat, the
motivator will come off. The right one to run there, by the
way, is the overt. You get that overt damn real, and all of
a sudden you'll find the 20-tons have departed down to
about 1 0-tons on the motivator. Now they'll run on
comparable lines. Yes.

Q. Couldn't you have, say, a 20-ton motivator, as he was
saying, and twenty one-ton overts tied to the same
motivator, rather than one large overt?

A. You could. You could. Nevertheless, you'll find somebody
getting all loused up on this, and best remedy is just to
play what overt you find against what motivator you find as
the incident. And just keep playing them one against the
other, back and forth, back and forth, and eventually the
thing will come out right.

There are many remedies, and one is Selected Persons
Overt-Withhold Straight Wire on the personnel of the
incident. You could take any incident as a PT and run any
PT process on the incident. That's a little rule. I don't
advise you doing it, however, but you can do it. It's very
interesting: "Find something unimportant about that
executioner," is just about the same as, "Find something
unimportant about this room." If you want to get a reality
soaring on a pc, just run "Find something unimportant about
this room." And he'll start this not-is machinery going,
you know, and he'll run it out to some degree, and all of a
sudden the room will brighten up. Very interesting.

"Think of something you did to an executioner" would be it,
rather than, "Think of something you did to that
executioner." And he will come up with the overt, and he
will find out he was the executioner in the same castle for
about three lifetimes before he suddenly came back there
and got executed. That usually is the way these things compare.

Any other questions? There is a burning question that you
should ask, is: "Are we supposed to run these things
muzzled?" Now, let me just say this, to do this for me:
Let's cut down the unnecessary yak. And if the pc seems to
be ARC breaking at all, you voluntarily muzzle your
auditing. You got it? Because what he's got is an engram of
being talked to or being interrogated in some fashion, and
everything that he doesn't consider exactly necessary to
the auditing session he resents. So if you find a pc is ARC
breaking, you muzzle your session. Any other questions
before we break this up?

Thank you very much for your time, I appreciate very much
your coming in. I know you had a hard day getting on to a
new routine, and you have got auxiliary duties. Several
people in the HGC have been split off of administration,
and there are other things going on. Latch on to

em, get wheeling, but let's start making theta clears in
this HGC and just make nothing else

but theta clears. I have given you a pattern here that was
thoroughly tested out in the 21st American ACC, and you can
make theta clearsthere's no great difficulty to it. Thank
you very much.

L. RON HUBBARD

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


******** 


