Betreff: FZ BIBLE - LEVEL 3 COURSEPACK [1/7]
Datum: 14 Nov 1999 18:39:41 -0000
Von: squirrel@echelon.alias.net (The Tech Lion)
Firma: FreeZone Bible Association
Foren: alt.religion.scientology,alt.clearing.technology

FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

ACADEMY LEVEL III COURSEPACK: Part 1 of 7

***************************************

Continuing our quest to spread the Tech on the internet,
we bring you the Academy Level 3 coursepack from the late
1980s, in 7 parts.

The full table of contents is in Part 1 only.

To see the proper formatting, use a fixed-pitch font such as
Courier to view this file.

Looking forward to a Tech-filled Millenium,

-The Tech Lion

********************

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

Our purpose is to promote religious freedom and the Scientology
Religion by spreading the Scientology Tech across the internet.

The Cof$ abusively suppresses the practice and use of
Scientology Tech by FreeZone Scientologists.  It misuses the
copyright laws as part of its suppression of religious freedom.

They think that all freezoners are "squirrels" who should be
stamped out as heretics.  By their standards, all Christians,
Moslems, Mormons, and even non-Hassidic Jews would be considered
to be squirrels of the Jewish Religion.

The writings of LRH form our Old Testament just as the writings
of Judaism form the Old Testament of Christianity.

We might not be good and obedient Scientologists according
to the definitions of the Cof$ whom we are in protest against.

But even though the Christians are not good and obedient Jews,
the rules of religious freedom allow them to have their old
testament regardless of any Jewish opinion.

We ask for the same rights, namely to practice our religion
as we see fit and to have access to our holy scriptures
without fear of the Cof$ copyright terrorists.

We ask for others to help in our fight.  Even if you do
not believe in Scientology or the Scientology Tech, we hope
that you do believe in religious freedom and will choose
to aid us for that reason.

Thank You,

The FZ Bible Association

************************

 =TABLE OF CONTENTS=

PART 1 (this file)

0a. Table of Contents

0b. Academy Level 3 Checksheet

PART 2

 1. HCO PL  7 Feb. 1965       Keeping Scientology Working
                              Keeping Scientology Working Series 1

 2. HCO PL 17 June 1970RB     Technical Degrades
                              Keeping Scientology Working Series 5R

 3. HCO PL 23 Oct. 1980R II   Chart of Abilities Gained for Lower
                                Level and Expanded Lower Grades

 4. HCOB   21 Sept 1966       ARC Break Needle

 5. HCOB    2 Dec. 1980       Floating Needle and TA Position
                                Modified

 6. HCOB    6 Nov. 1964       Styles of Auditing

PART 3

 7. HCOB   21 Apr. 1970       2-Way Comm C/Ses

 8. HCOB    3 July 1970       C/Sing 2-Way Comm
                              C/S Series 14

 9. HCOB   17 Mar. 1974       Two-Way Comm, Using Wrong Questions

10. HCOB   19 Dec. 1980R      Rehab Tech

PART 4

11. HCOB   27 May  1963       Cause of ARC Breaks

12. HCOB   19 Aug. 1963       How to Do an ARC Break Assessment

13. HCOB    7 Sept 1964 II    PTPS, Overts and ARC Breaks

14. HCOB   29 Mar. 1965       ARC Breaks

15. HCOB    4 Apr. 1965       ARC Breaks and Missed Withholds

PART 5

16. HCOB   29 Apr. 1980R      Prepared Lists, Their Value and
                                Purpose

17. HCOB   14 Mar. 1971R      F/N Everything

18. HCOB    3 July 1971R      Auditing by Lists

19. HCOB    4 Dec. 1978       How to Read Through an F/N

20. HCOB   15 Oct. 1973RC     Nulling and F/Ning Prepared Lists
                              C/S Series 87RC

21. HCOB    6 Dec. 1973       The Primary Failure
                              C/S Series 90

22. HCOB   22 Apr. 1980R      Assessment Drills

PART 6

23. HCOB   19 Mar. 1971       List 1C--L1C

24. HCOB   23 July 1980R      Confessional Repair List--LCRE

25. HCOB   22 Aug. 1966       Floating Needles, Listing Processes

26. HCOB    1 Aug. 1968       The Laws of Listing and Nulling

27. HCOB   19 Sept 1968       "Old lists..."

28. HCOB    7 Oct. 1968       Assessment

29. HCOB   20 Sept 1978       An Instant F/N is a Read

30. HCOB   22 Apr. 1980R      Assessment Drills [encore]

31. HCOB   20 Apr. 1972 II    Product Purpose and Why and W/C
                                 Error Correction
                              C/S Series 78

32. HCOB   11 Apr. 1977       List Errors, Correction of

33. HCOB   15 Dec. 68RA       L4BRA, for Assessment of All Listing
                                Errors

34. HCOB    6 Aug. 1968       R3H

PART 7

35. HCOB    8 Sept 1978RB     Mini List of Grade 0-IV Processes

36. HCOB   14 Nov. 1987 V     Expanded Grade III Process Checklist



******************************************************************

0b. Academy Level 3 Checksheet

      HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 22 SEPTEMBER 1978RB
                Issue IV
        REVISED 21 NOVEMBER 1987

Remimeo
Scn Orgs
Academies
Level III Students

(Revised to update the course with additional LRH materials and
practical actions. Revisions not in script.)

         SCIENTOLOGY LEVEL III
      STANDARD ACADEMY CHECKSHEET
  HUBBARD PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR (HPA)

"THE ACADEMY LEVELS CONTAIN SOME OF THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL DISCOVERIES
REGARDING LIFE AND THE HUMAN MIND THAT HAVE EVER BEEN DISCOVERED IN
THE HISTORY OF THIS UNIVERSE. THEY ARE A BASIC, SWEEPING TRAINING
GROUND IN HANDLING LIFE AND PEOPLE." -LRH

NAME:________________________ORG:_________________________
POST:_____________________________________________________
DATE STARTED: _______________DATE COMPLETED:______________

This checksheet contains the vital survival knowledge of Scientology
Level III technology. It covers the technology dealing with upsets
(ARC breaks).

PREREQUISITES:  1. The Student Hat
                2. A Professional TR Course
                3. Provisional Class II
                4. Method One Word Clearing

(Method One Word Clearing is a prerequisite for training at this
level, except where waived by a qualified C/S as covered in HCO PL
25 Sept. 79RB 11, Rev. 1.7.85, METHOD ONE WORD CLEARING.)

STUDY TECH: Study tech is to be applied in full throughout this
course. The materials are to be studied and drilled in sequence. By
initialing the blank after each checksheet entry, you are attesting
that you fully understand and can apply the data.  DRILLS ARE TO BE
DONE FULLY TO THEIR RESULT. If you are not a fast flow student, you
must star-rate check out on all items marked with an asterisk (*).
(Ref. HCOB 13 Aug. 72RA, FAST FLOW TRAINING) The course does not
require twinning.

BASIC TEXTS:
  Books: Scientology 0-8: The Book of Basics
         The Book of E-Meter Drills
         Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary
  Hubbard Professional Auditor course pack
  Level III Academy lectures

The student must have these books, course pack and lectures.

The student also must have his own E-Meter, as it will be needed
during this course to do the required drills and auditing.

You are required to maintain a standard course schedule. Study and
work during your class periods and outside of class. You have a lot
to study and get checked out on in order to complete this course.
You can't afford to waste time. You may be credited with materials
you have studied on previous checksheets.

TECHNICAL TRAINING FILMS:

"THE TECHNICAL TRAINING FILMS ARE DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY TO CLARIFY
AND GREATLY IMPROVE AND SPEED THE TRAINING OF AUDITORS." -LRH

These LRH films can help you achieve a high level of skill and
certainty as an auditor and are a vital part of Academy training.
Before you may graduate from this course, each of the films assigned
to it is viewed along with the student body in regularly scheduled
showings.

You must also have seen all films assigned to earlier courses before
completing this checksheet.

You may view each film as many times as needed to ensure you have
fully grasped the tech presented in it. Viewing these films more
than once is recommended: Number of times over the material equals
certainty and results.

After the first viewing of a single film, you must be word cleared
on that film before viewing it again or viewing the next film.

PRODUCT: A Hubbard Professional Auditor who is able to audit others
to Grade III Freedom Release standardly.

CERTIFICATE: On completion of this checksheet you may be awarded a
provisional HUBBARD PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR certificate. A provisional
certificate is only valid for one year unless validated by
successful completion of the Class IV Internship.

LENGTH OF COURSE: 2 weeks full time.

=================================================================
SECTION A: ORIENTATION

_____ 1. HCO PL 7 Feb. 65 - KSW Series 1 KEEPING SCIENTOLOGY WORKING

_____ 2. HCO PL 17 June 70RB, Re-rev. 25.10.83 - KSW Series 5R
TECHNICAL DEGRADES

=================================================================
SECTION B: TECHNICAL TRAINING FILMS

(NOTE: The films assigned to this course and its prerequisite
courses, along with any drills called for in those fi

Betreff: FZ BIBLE - LEVEL 3 COURSEPACK [2/7] Repost
Datum: 17 Nov 1999 13:00:21 -0000
Von: squirrel@echelon.alias.net (The Tech Lion)
Firma: FreeZone Bible Association
Foren: alt.religion.scientology,alt.clearing.technology

FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

ACADEMY LEVEL III COURSEPACK: Part 2 of 7 (Repost)

***************************************

Continuing our quest to spread the Tech on the internet,
we bring you the Academy Level 3 coursepack from the late
1980s, in 7 parts.

The full table of contents is in Part 1 only.

To see the proper formatting, use a fixed-pitch font such as
Courier to view this file.

Looking forward to a Tech-filled Millenium,

-The Tech Lion

********************

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

Our purpose is to promote religious freedom and the Scientology
Religion by spreading the Scientology Tech across the internet.

The Cof$ abusively suppresses the practice and use of
Scientology Tech by FreeZone Scientologists.  It misuses the
copyright laws as part of its suppression of religious freedom.

They think that all freezoners are "squirrels" who should be
stamped out as heretics.  By their standards, all Christians,
Moslems, Mormons, and even non-Hassidic Jews would be considered
to be squirrels of the Jewish Religion.

The writings of LRH form our Old Testament just as the writings
of Judaism form the Old Testament of Christianity.

We might not be good and obedient Scientologists according
to the definitions of the Cof$ whom we are in protest against.

But even though the Christians are not good and obedient Jews,
the rules of religious freedom allow them to have their old
testament regardless of any Jewish opinion.

We ask for the same rights, namely to practice our religion
as we see fit and to have access to our holy scriptures
without fear of the Cof$ copyright terrorists.

We ask for others to help in our fight.  Even if you do
not believe in Scientology or the Scientology Tech, we hope
that you do believe in religious freedom and will choose
to aid us for that reason.

Thank You,

The FZ Bible Association

************************

PART 2

 1. HCO PL  7 Feb. 1965       Keeping Scientology Working
                              Keeping Scientology Working Series 1

 2. HCO PL 17 June 1970RB     Technical Degrades
                              Keeping Scientology Working Series 5R

 3. HCO PL 23 Oct. 1980R II   Chart of Abilities Gained for Lower
                              Level and Expanded Lower Grades

 4. HCOB   21 Sept 1966       ARC Break Needle

 5. HCOB    2 Dec. 1980       Floating Needle and TA Position
                              Modified

 6. HCOB    6 Nov. 1964       Styles of Auditing

******************************************************************

1. HCO PL  7 Feb. 1965       Keeping Scientology Working
                             Keeping Scientology Working Series 1

      HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

  HCO POLICY LETTER OF 7 FEBRUARY 1965

Remimeo
Sthil Students
Assoc/Org Sec Hat
HCO Sec Hat
Case Sup Hat
Ds of P Hat
Ds of T Hat
Staff Member Hat
Franchise

   Keeping Scientology Working Series 1

Note: Neglect of this PL has caused great hardship on staffs, has
cost countless millions and made it necessary in 1970 to engage in
an all-out, international effort to restore basic Scientology over
the world. Within 5 years after the issue of this PL, with me off
the lines, violation had almost destroyed orgs. "Quickie grades"
entered in and denied gain to tens of thousands of cases. Therefore
actions which neglect or violate this policy letter are HIGH CRIMES
resulting in Comm Evs on ADMINISTRATORS and EXECUTIVES. It is not
"entirely a tech matter," as its neglect destroys orgs and caused a
2-year slump. IT IS THE BUSINESS OF EVERY STAFF MEMBER to enforce
it.

             SPECIAL MESSAGE

THE FOLLOWING POLICY LETTER MEANS WHAT IT SAYS.

IT WAS TRUE IN 1965 WHEN I WROTE IT. IT WAS TRUE IN 1970 WHEN I HAD
IT REISSUED. I AM REISSUING IT NOW, IN 1980, TO AVOID AGAIN SLIPPING
BACK INTO A PERIOD OF OMITTED AND QUICKIED FUNDAMENTAL GRADE CHART
ACTIONS ON CASES, THEREBY DENYING GAINS AND THREATENING THE
VIABILITY OF SCIENTOLOGY AND OF ORGS. SCIENTOLOGY WILL KEEP WORKING
ONLY AS LONG AS YOU DO YOUR PART TO KEEP IT WORKING BY APPLYING THIS
POLICY LETTER.

WHAT I SAY IN THESE PAGES HAS ALWAYS BEEN TRUE, IT HOLDS TRUE TODAY,
IT WILL STILL HOLD TRUE IN THE YEAR 2000 AND IT WILL CONTINUE TO
HOLD TRUE FROM THERE ON OUT

NO MATTER WHERE YOU ARE IN SCIENTOLOGY, ON STAFF OR NOT, THIS POLICY
LETTER HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH YOU.

               ALL LEVELS

       KEEPING SCIENTOLOGY WORKING

   HCO Sec or Communicator hat check on
   all personnel and all new personnel
              as taken on.

We have some time since passed the point of achieving uniformly
workable technology.

The only thing now is getting the technology applied.

If you can't get the technology applied, then you can't deliver
what's promised. It's as simple as that. If you can get the
technology applied, you can deliver what's promised.

The only thing you can be upbraided for by students or pcs is "no
results." Trouble spots occur only where there are "no results."
Attacks from governments or monopolies occur only where there are
"no results" or "bad results."

Therefore the road before Scientology is clear and its ultimate
success is assured if the technology is applied.

So it is the task of the Assoc or Org Sec, the HCO Sec, the Case
Supervisor, the D of P, the D of T and all staff members to get
the correct technology applied.

Getting the correct technology applied consists of

One: Having the correct technology.

Two: Knowing the technology.

Three: Knowing it is correct.

Four: Teaching correctly the correct technology.

Five: Applying the technology.

Six: Seeing that the technology is correctly applied.

Seven: Hammering out of existence incorrect technology.

Eight: Knocking out incorrect applications.

Nine: Closing the door on any possibility of incorrect technology.

Ten: Closing the door on incorrect application.

One above has been done.

Two has been achieved by many.

Three is achieved by the individual applying the correct technology
in a proper manner and observing that it works that way.

Four is being done daily successfully in most parts of the world.

Five is consistently accomplished daily.

Six is achieved by Instructors and Supervisors consistently.

Seven is done by a few but is a weak point.

Eight is not worked on hard enough.

Nine is impeded by the "reasonable" attitude of the not-quite-
bright.

Ten is seldom done with enough ferocity.

Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten are the only places Scientology can bog
down in any area.

The reasons for this are not hard to find. (a) A weak certainty that
it works in Three above can lead to weakness in Seven, Eight, Nine
and Ten. (b) Further, the not-too-bright have a bad point on the
button Self-Importance. (c) The lower the IQ, the more the
individual is shut off from the fruits of observation. (d) The
service facs of people make them defend themselves against anything
they confront, good or bad, and seek to make it wrong. (e) The bank
seeks to knock out the good and perpetuate the bad.

Thus, we as Scientologists and as an organization must be very alert
to Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten.

In all the years I have been engaged in research I have kept my comm
lines wide open for research data. I once had the idea that a group
could evolve truth. A third of a century has thoroughly disabused me
of that idea. Willing as I was to accept suggestions and data, only
a handful of suggestions (less than twenty) had long-run value and
none were major or basic; and when I did accept major or basic
suggestions and used them, we went astray and I repented and
eventually had to "eat crow."

On the other hand there have been thousands and thousands of
suggestions and writings which, if accepted and acted upon, would
have resulted in the complete destruction of all our work as well as
the sanity of pcs. So I know what a group of people will do and how
insane they will go in accepting unworkable "technology." By actual
record the percentages are about twenty to 100,000 that a group of
human beings will dream up bad technology to destroy good
technology. As we could have gotten along without suggestions, then,
we had better steel ourselves to continue to do so now that we have
made it. This point will, of course, be attacked as "unpopular,"
egotistical" and "undemocratic." It very well may be. But it is also
a survival point. And I don't see that popular measures, self-
abnegation and democracy have done anything for Man but push him
further into the mud. Currently, popularity endorses degraded
novels, self-abnegation has filled the Southeast Asian jungles with
stone idols and corpses, and democracy has given us inflation and
income tax.

Our technology has not been discovered by a group. True, if the
group had not supported me in many ways, I could not have discovered
it either. But it remains that if in its formative stages it was not
discovered by a group, then group efforts, one can safely assume,
will not add to it or successfully alter it in the future. I can
only say this now that it is done. There remains, of course, group
tabulation or coordination of what has been done, which will be
valuable -- only so long as it does not seek to alter basic
principles and successful applications.

The contributions that were worthwhile in this period of forming the
technology were help in the form of friendship, of defense, of
organization, of dissemination, of application, of advices on
results and of finance. These were great contributions and were, and
are, appreciated. Many thousands contributed in this way and made us
what we are. Discovery contribution was not however part of the
broad picture.

We will not speculate here on why this was so or how I came to rise
above the bank. We are dealing only in facts and the above is a
fact -- the group left to its own devices would not have evolved
Scientology but with wild dramatizations of the bank called "new
ideas" would have wiped it out. Supporting this is the fact that Man
has never before evolved workable mental technology and emphasizing
it is the vicious technology he did evolve -- psychiatry,
psychology, surgery, shock treatment, whips, duress, punishment,
etc., ad infinitum.

So realize that we have climbed out of the mud by whatever good luck
and good sense, and refuse to sink back into it again. See that
Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten above are ruthlessly followed and we will
never be stopped. Relax them, get reasonable about it and we will
perish.

So far, while keeping myself in complete communication with all
suggestions, I have not failed on Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten in
areas I could supervise closely. But it's not good enough for just
myself and a few others to work at this.

Whenever this control as per Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten has been
relaxed, the whole organizational area has failed. Witness
Elizabeth, N.J.; Wichita; the early organizations and groups. They
crashed only because I no longer did Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten.
Then, when they were all messed up, you saw the obvious "reasons"
for failure. But ahead of that they ceased to deliver and that
involved them in other reasons.

The common denominator of a group is the reactive bank. Thetans
without banks have different responses. They only have their banks
in common. They agree then only on bank principles. Person to person
the bank is identical. So constructive ideas are individual and
seldom get broad agreement in a human group. An individual must rise
above an avid craving for agreement from a humanoid group to get
anything decent done. The bank-agreement has been what has made
Earth a Hell -- and if you were looking for Hell and found Earth, it
would certainly serve. War, famine, agony and disease has been the
lot of Man. Right now the great governments of Earth have developed
the means of frying every Man, Woman and Child on the planet. That
is bank. That is the result of Collective-thought Agreement. The
decent, pleasant things on this planet come from individual actions
and ideas that have somehow gotten by the Group Idea. For that
matter, look how we ourselves are attacked by "public opinion"
media. Yet there is no more ethical group on this planet than
ourselves.

Thus each one of us can rise above the domination of the bank and
then, as a group of freed beings, achieve freedom and reason. It is
only the aberrated group, the mob, that is destructive.

When you don't do Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten actively, you are
working for the bank-dominated mob. For it will surely, surely (a)
introduce incorrect technology and swear by it, (b) apply technology
as incorrectly as possible, (c) open the door to any destructive
idea, and (d) encourage incorrect application.

It's the bank that says the group is all and the individual nothing.
It's the bank that says we must fail.

So just don't play that game. Do Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten and you
will knock out of your road all the future thorns.

Here's an actual example in which a senior executive had to
interfere because of a pc spin: A Case Supervisor told Instructor A
to have Auditor B run Process X on Preclear C. Auditor B afterwards
told Instructor A that "It didn't work." Instructor A was weak on
Three above and didn't really believe in Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten.
So Instructor A told the Case Supervisor, "Process X didn't work on
Preclear C." Now this strikes directly at each of One to Six above
in Preclear C, Auditor B, Instructor A and the Case Supervisor. It
opens the door to the introduction of "new technology" and to
failure.

What happened here? Instructor A didn't jump down Auditor B's
throat, that's all that happened. This is what he should have done:
Grabbed the Auditor's Report and looked it over. When a higher
executive on this case did so, she found what the Case Supervisor
and the rest missed: that Process X increased Preclear C's TA to 25
TA divisions for the session but that near session end Auditor B Q-
and-Aed with a cognition and abandoned Process X while it still gave
high TA and went off running one of Auditor B's own manufacture,
which nearly spun Preclear C. Auditor B's IQ on examination turned
out to be about 75. Instructor A was found to have huge ideas of how
you must never invalidate anyone, even a lunatic. The Case
Supervisor was found to be "too busy with admin to have any time for
actual cases."

All right, there's an all-too-typical example. The Instructor should
have done Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten. This would have begun this
way. Auditor B: "That Process X didn't work." Instructor A: "What
exactly did you do wrong?" Instant attack. "Where's your Auditor's
Report for the session? Good. Look here, you were getting a lot of
TA when you stopped Process X. What did you do?" Then the pc
wouldn't have come close to a spin and all four of these would have
retained their certainty.

In a year, I had four instances in one small group where the correct
process recommended was reported not to have worked. But on review
found that each one had (a) increased the TA, (b) had been
abandoned, and (c) had been falsely reported as unworkable. Also,
despite this abuse, in each of these four cases the recommended,
correct process cracked the case. Yet they were reported as not
having worked!

Similar examples exist in instruction and these are all the more
deadly as every time instruction in correct technology is flubbed,
then the resulting error, uncorrected in the auditor, is perpetuated
on every pc that auditor audits thereafter. So Seven, Eight, Nine
and Ten are even more important in a course than in supervision of
cases.

Here's an example: A rave recommendation is given a graduating
student "because he gets more TA on pcs than any other student on
the course!" Figures of 435 TA divisions a session are reported. "Of
course his Model Session is poor but it's Just a knack he has" is
also included in the recommendation. A careful review is undertaken
because nobody at Levels 0 to IV is going to get that much TA on
pcs. It is found that this student was never taught to read an E-
Meter TA dial! And no Instructor observed his handling of a meter
and it was not discovered that he "overcompensated" nervously,
swinging the TA 2 or 3 divisions beyond where it needed to go to
place the needle at "set." So everyone was about to throw away
standard processes and Model Session because this one student "got
such remarkable TA." They only read the reports and listened to the
brags and never looked at this student. The pcs in actual fact were
making slightly less than average gain, impeded by a rough Model
Session and misworded processes. Thus, what was making the pcs win
(actual Scientology) was hidden under a lot of departures and
errors.

I recall one student who was squirreling on an Academy course and
running a lot of offbeat whole track on other students after course
hours. The Academy students were in a state of electrification on
all these new experiences and weren't quickly brought under control,
and the student himself never was given the works on Seven, Eight,
Nine and Ten so they stuck. Subsequently, this student prevented
another squirrel from being straightened out and his wife died of
cancer resulting from physical abuse. A hard, tough instructor at
that moment could have salvaged two squirrels and saved the life of
a girl. But no, students had a right to do whatever they pleased.

Squirreling (going off into weird practices or altering Scientology)
only comes about from noncomprehension. Usually the noncomprehension
is not of Scientology but some earlier contact with an offbeat
humanoid practice which in its turn was not understood.

When people can't get results from what they think is standard
practice, they can be counted upon to squirrel to some degree. The
most trouble in the past two years came from orgs where an executive
in each could not assimilate straight Scientology. Under instruction
in Scientology, they were unable to define terms or demonstrate
examples of principles. And the orgs where they were got into plenty
of trouble. And worse, it could not be straightened out easily
because neither one of these people could or would duplicate
instructions. Hence, a debacle resulted in two places, directly
traced to failures of instruction earlier. So proper instruction is
vital. The D of T and his Instructors and all Scientology
Instructors must be merciless in getting Four, Seven, Eight, Nine
and Ten into effective action. That one student, dumb and impossible
though he may seem and of no use to anyone, may yet someday be the
cause of untold upset because nobody was interested enough to make
sure Scientology got home to him.

With what we know now, there is no student we enroll who cannot be
properly trained. As an Instructor, one should be very alert to slow
progress and should turn the sluggards inside out personally. No
system will do it, only you or me with our sleeves rolled up can
crack the back of bad studenting and we can only do it on an
individual student, never on a whole class only. He's slow =
something is awful wrong. Take fast action to correct it. Don't wait
until next week. By then he's got other messes stuck to him. If you
can't graduate them with their good sense appealed to and wisdom
shining, graduate them in such a state of shock they'll have
nightmares if they contemplate squirreling. Then experience will
gradually bring about Three in them and they'll know better than to
chase butterflies when they should be auditing.

When somebody enrolls, consider he or she has Joined up for the
duration of the universe -- never permit an "open-minded" approach.
If they're going to quit let them quit fast. If they enrolled,
they're aboard; and if they're aboard, they're here on the same
terms as the rest of us -- win or die in the attempt. Never let them
be half-minded about being Scientologists. The finest organizations
in history have been tough, dedicated organizations. Not one namby-
pamby bunch of panty-waist dilettantes have ever made anything. It's
a tough universe. The social veneer makes it seem mild. But only the
tigers survive -- and even they have a hard time. We'll survive
because we are tough and are dedicated. When we do instruct somebody
properly, he becomes more and more tiger. When we instruct half-
mindedly and are afraid to offend, scared to enforce, we don't make
students into good Scientologists and that lets everybody down. When
Mrs. Pattycake comes to us to be taught, turn that wandering doubt
in her eye into a fixed, dedicated glare and she'll win and we'll
all win. Humor her and we all die a little. The proper instruction
attitude is "You're here so you're a Scientologist. Now we're going
to make you into an expert auditor no matter what happens. We'd
rather have you dead than incapable."

Fit that into the economics of the situation and lack of adequate
time and you see the cross we have to bear.

But we won't have to bear it forever. The bigger we get, the more
economics and time we will have to do our job. And the only things
which can prevent us from getting that big fast are areas in from
One to Ten. Keep those in mind and we'll be able to grow. Fast. And
as we grow, our shackles will be less and less. Failing to keep One
to Ten will make us grow less.

So the ogre which might eat us up is not the government or the High
Priests. It's our possible failure to retain and practice our
technology.

An Instructor or Supervisor or Executive must challenge with
ferocity instances of "unworkability." They must uncover what did
happen, what was run and what was done or not done.

If you have One and Two, you can only acquire Three for all by
making sure of all the rest.

We're not playing some minor game in Scientology. It isn't cute or
something to do for lack of something better.

The whole agonized future of this planet, every Man, Woman and Child
on it, and your own destiny for the next endless trillions of years
depend on what you do here and now with and in Scientology.

This is a deadly serious activity. And if we miss getting out of the
trap now, we may never again have another chance.

Remember, this is our first chance to do so in all the endless
trillions of years of the past. Don't muff it now because it seems
unpleasant or unsocial to do Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten.

Do them and we'll win.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

Adopted as official
Church policy by
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
INTERNATIONAL

LRH:CSI:jw.rr.nt.ka.mes.rd.bk.gm



******************************************************************

2. HCO PL 17 June 1970RB     Technical Degrades
                             Keeping Scientology Working Series 5R

      HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

   HCO POLICY LETTER OF 17 JUNE 1970RB
       RE-REVISED 25 OCTOBER 1983

Remimeo
Applies to all
  SHs and
  Academies
HGCs
Franchises

      Keeping Scientology Working Series 5R

             URGENT AND IMPORTANT

              TECHNICAL DEGRADES

   (This PL and HCO PL 7 Feb. 65 must be made
    part of every study pack as the first items
    and must be listed on checksheets.)

Any checksheet in use or in stock which carries on it any degrading
statement must be destroyed and issued without qualifying
statements.

Example: Level 0 to IV checksheets SH carry "A. Background Material
- This section is included as an historical background but has much
interest and value to the student. Most of the processes are no
longer used, having been replaced by more modern technology. The
student is only required to read this material and ensure he leaves
no misunderstood." This heading covers such vital things as TRs, Op
Pro by Dup! The statement is a falsehood.

These checksheets were not approved by myself; all the material of
the Academy and SH courses IS in use.

Such actions as this gave us "quickie grades," ARC broke the field
and downgraded the Academy and SH courses.

A condition of TREASON or cancellation of certificates or dismissal
and a full investigation of the background of any person found
guilty will be activated in the case of anyone committing the
following HIGH CRIMES:

1. Abbreviating an official course in Dianetics and Scientology so
as to lose the full theory, processes and effectiveness of the
subjects.

2. Adding comments to checksheets or instructions labeling any
material "background" or "not used now" or "old" or any similar
action which will result in the student not knowing, using and
applying the data in which he is being trained.

3. Employing after I Sept. 1970 any checksheet for any course not
authorized by myself or the Authority, Verification and Correction
Unit International (AVC Int).

(Hat checksheets may be authorized locally per HCO PL 30 Sept. 70,
CHECKSHEET FORMAT.)

4. Failing to strike from any checksheet remaining in use meanwhile
any such comments as "historical," "background," "not used," "old,"
etc., or VERBALLY STATING IT TO STUDENTS.

5. Permitting a pc to attest to more than one grade at a time on
the pc's own determinism without hint or evaluation.

6. Running only one process for a lower grade between 0 to IV,
where the grade EP has not been attained.

7. Failing to use all processes for a level where the EP has not
been attained.

8. Boasting as to speed of delivery in a session, such as "I put in
Grade Zero in 3 minutes." Etc.

9. Shortening time of application of auditing for financial or
labor-saving considerations.

10. Acting in any way calculated to lose the technology of
Dianetics and Scientology to use or impede its use or shorten its
materials or its application.

REASON: The effort to get students through courses and get pcs
processed in orgs was considered best handled by reducing materials
or deleting processes from grades. The pressure exerted to speed up
student completions and auditing completions was mistakenly
answered by just not delivering.

The correct way to speed up a student's progress is by using two-
way comm and applying the study materials to students.

The best way to really handle pcs is to ensure they make each level
fully before going on to the next and repairing them when they do
not.

The puzzle of the decline of the entire Scientology network in the
late 60s is entirely answered by the actions taken to shorten time
in study and in processing by deleting materials and actions.

Reinstituting full use and delivery of Dianetics and Scientology is
the answer to any recovery.

The product of an org is well-taught students and thoroughly
audited pcs. When the product vanishes, so does the org. The orgs
must survive for the sake of this planet.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

Adopted as official
Church policy by
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
INTERNATIONAL

LRH:CSI:iw.gm



******************************************************************

3. HCO PL 23 Oct. 1980R II   Chart of Abilities Gained for Lower
                             Level and Expanded Lower Grades

      HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

 HCO POLICY LETTER OF 23 OCTOBER 1980R
               Issue II
       REVISED 16 NOVEMBER 1987

     (Also issued as HCO Bulletin,
        same title, same date.)

Remimeo
Tech/Qual
Execs
C/Ses
KOTs
Auditors
Reges
Examiners
Qual Secs
HCO
C & A

        CHART OF ABILITIES GAINED
        FOR LOWER LEVELS AND
        EXPANDED LOWER GRADES

   Refs:
   CLASSIFICATION, GRADATION AND AWARENESS CHART
   HCOB 11 Nov. 73    PRECLEAR DECLARE? PROCEDURE
   HCOB 12 Dec. 81    THE THEORY OF THE NEW GRADE CHART
   LRH ED 107 Int     ORDERS TO DISVISIONS FOR
                      IMMEDIATE COMPLIANCE

Expanded Grades are attested to by the pc declaring the full
statement of the Ability Gained for all four flows.

The chart given below lists the Ability Gained for each of the
lower levels, the four flows of the Expanded Grades 0-IV and for
New Era Dianetics.

It is used by the Examiner when a pc is sent to "Declare?" The
Examiner has the pc read the entire statement for the Ability
Gained for that Grade (including all four flows) or level and
must accept only the pc declaring the full statement for the
Ability Gained.

Declare procedure is done exactly as stated in HCOB 11 Nov. 73,
PRECLEAR DECLARE? PROCEDURE.

LEVEL                       ABILITY GAINED

GROUP PROCESSES             Awareness that change is available.

LIFE REPAIR                 Awareness of truth and the way to
                            personal freedom.

PURIFICATION RUNDOWN        Freedom from the restimulative effects
                            of drug residuals and other toxins.

OBJECTIVES                  Oriented in the present time of the
                            physical universe.

SCIENTOLOGY DRUG RUNDOWN    Released from harmful effects of
                            drugs, medicine or alcohol.

EXPANDED ARC STRAIGHTWIRE   Knows he/she won't get worse.

EXPANDED GRADE 0
 COMMUNICATIONS RELEASE

  FLOW 1:                   Willing for others to communicate
                            to him on any subject. No longer
                            resisting communication from others on
                            unpleasant or unwanted subjects.

  FLOW 2:                   Ability to communicate freely with
                            anyone on any subject. Free from or
                            no longer bothered by communication
                            difficulties. No longer withdrawn or
                            reticent. Likes to outflow.

  FLOW 3:                   Willing for others to communicate
                            freely to others about anything.

  FLOW 0:                   Willingness to permit oneself to
                            communicate freely about anything.

EXPANDED GRADE I
 PROBLEMS RELEASE

  FLOW 1:                   No longer worried about problems others
                            have been to self. Ability to recognize
                            the source of problems and make them
                            vanish. Has no problems.

  FLOW 2:                   No longer worried about problems he has
                            been to others. Feels free about any
                            problems others may have with him and
                            can recognize source of them.

  FLOW 3:                   Free from worry about others' problems
                            with or about others, and can recognize
                            source of them.

  FLOW 0:                   Free from worry about problems with self
                            and can recognize the source of them.

EXPANDED GRADE II
 RELIEF RELEASE

  FLOW 1:                   Freedom from things others have done to
                            one in the past. Willing for others to
                            be cause over him.

  FLOW 2:                   Relief from the hostilities and
                            sufferings of life. Ability to be at
                            cause without fear of hurting others.

  FLOW 3:                   Willing to have others be cause over
                            others without feeling the need to
                            intervene for fear of their doing
                            harm.

  FLOW 0:                   Relief from hostilities and sufferings
                            imposed by self upon self.

EXPANDED GRADE III
 FREEDOM RELEASE

  FLOW 1:                   Freedom from upsets of the past. Ability
                            to face future. Ability to experience
                            sudden change without becoming upset.

  FLOW 2:                   Can grant others the beingness to be
                            the way they are and choose their own
                            reality. No longer feels need to
                            change people to make them more
                            acceptable to self. Able to cause
                            changes in another's life without ill
                            effects.

  FLOW 3:                   Freedom from the need to prevent or
                            become involved in the change and
                            interchange occurring amongst others.

  FLOW 0:                   Freedom from upsets of the past one
                            has imposed upon oneself and ability
                            to cause changes in one's own life
                            without ill effects.

EXPANDED GRADE IV
 ABILITY RELEASE

  FLOW 1:                   Free from and able to tolerate others'
                            fixed ideas, justifications and make-
                            guilty of self. Free of need to respond
                            in a like manner.

  FLOW 2:                   Moving out of fixed conditions into
                            ability to do new things. Ability to
                            face life without need to justify own
                            actions or defend self from others.
                            Loss of make-guilty mechanisms and
                            demand for sympathy. Can be right or
                            wrong.

  FLOW 3:                   Can tolerate fixed conditions of
                            others in regard to others. Freedom
                            from involvement in others' efforts to
                            justify, make guilty, dominate, or be
                            defensive about their actions against
                            others.

  FLOW 0:                   Ability to face life without need to
                            make self wrong. Loss of make-self-
                            guilty mechanisms and self-invalidation.

NEW ERA DIANETICS           Freedom from harmful effects of
 DRUG RUNDOWN               drugs, alcohol and medicine and free
                            from the need to take them.

NEW ERA DIANETICS           A well and happy preclear.
 CASE COMPLETION

For a person who attains    A being who no longer has his own
the State of Clear on NED   reactive mind.
and is sent to Examiner
following the Clear
Certainty RD:

L. RON HUBBARD
FOUNDER

Revision assisted by
LRH Technical Research
and Compilations

Adopted as official
Church policy by
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
INTERNATIONAL

LRH:CSI:TRRC:bk.ahg.gm



******************************************************************

4. HCOB   21 Sept 1966       ARC Break Needle

      HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

    HCO BULLETIN OF 21 SEPTEMBER 1966

Remimeo

           ARC BREAK NEEDLE

The needle of a preclear with an ARC break may be dirty, stuck or
sticky, but may also give the appearance of FLOATING. This is not
a release point, however, as the pc will be upset and out of comm
at the same time. The auditor must observe the preclear and
determine which it is.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:lb-r.cden.gm



******************************************************************

5. HCOB    2 Dec. 1980       Floating Needle and TA Position
                             Modified

      HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

     HCO BULLETIN OF 2 DECEMBER 1980

Remimeo
Tech/Qual
All Levels
All Auditors
All Supervisors
All Internships
All C/Ses
Tech Checksheets
Examiners
Ethics Officers

     FLOATING NEEDLE AND TA POSITION
                MODIFIED

This bulletin carries further the data given in

   HCOB 10 Dec. 76RB     C/S Series 99RB
     Re-rev. 25.5.80     SCIENTOLOGY F/N AND TA
                         POSITION

and modifies but does not cancel all HCOBs that mention having to
have the TA between 2.0 and 3.0 before the F/N can be considered
valid, including:

   HCOB 21 Oct. 68R      FLOATING NEEDLE
     Rev. 9.7.77

   HCOB  7 May  69R V    FLOATING NEEDLE
     Rev. 15.7.77

   HCOB 21 Apr. 71 RC    C/S Series 36RC
     Rev. 25.7.78        DIANETICS

   HCOB 24 Oct. 71RA     FALSE TA
     Re-rev. 25.5.80

   HCOB 15 Feb. 72R      FALSE TA ADDITION 2
     Rev. 26.1.77

   HCOB 23 Nov. 73RB     DRY AND WET HANDS MAKE
     Re-rev. 25.5.80     FALSE TA

   HCOB  8 June 70       LOW TA HANDLING

   HCOB 13 June 70 II    HUBBARD CONSULTANT STUDY STRESS
                         ANALYSIS

                 --------

Some recent tests I conducted have shown that a floating needle
is a floating needle regardless of tone arm position.

This changes an earlier belief that, in order to be valid, the
tone arm had to be between 2.0 and 3.0 for it to be called a
floating needle.

Carefully examining dozens of F/Ns which occurred with the TA
well above 3.0 and looking for any troubles with the case
following calling the F/N an F/N, I found that there were no
adverse consequences.

Therefore, it can be safely assumed that a floating needle is a
floating needle regardless of where the tone arm position may be.
It should be called, indicated and written as an F/N, with the TA
noted.

Palm moisture, pc grip and other factors alter the TA position
but not the F/N. The auditor must also be prepared to handle and
handle false TA and nothing in this finding changes handling.

Tone arm positions register the relative mass of the case and
nothing in this finding changes that. There are low TA cases and
high TA cases and the state of the TA remains important and all
data regarding TA positions are valid.

An ARC break needle (an F/N accompanied by bad indicators)
remains an ARC break needle and nothing in this finding changes
that. It must be handled. (One ordinarily checks for an ARC break
in this case.)

This finding about TA position and F/Ns has been corrected
earlier. This present issue carries it further, based on very
thorough recent testing. There are apparently no liabilities of
any kind in calling high and low TA F/Ns, F/Ns.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:nc.gm



******************************************************************

6. HCOB    6 Nov. 1964       Styles of Auditing

      HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

     HCO BULLETIN OF 6 NOVEMBER 1964

Remimeo
Franchise
Sthil Students

           STYLES OF AUDITING

  Note 1: Most old-time auditors, particularly Saint
  Hill graduates, have been trained at one time or
  another in these auditing styles. Here they are
  given names and assigned to levels so that they
  can be taught more easily and so that general
  auditing can be improved.

  Note 2: These have not been written before because
  I had not determined the results vital to each level.

There is a style of auditing for each class. By style is meant a
method or custom of performing actions.

A style is not really determined by the process being run so
much. A style is how the auditor addresses his task.

Different processes carry different style requirements perhaps,
but that is not the point. Clay Table Healing at Level III can be
run with Level I style and still have some gains. But an auditor
trained up to the style required at Level III would do a better
job not only of Clay Table Healing but of any repetitive process.

Style is how the auditor audits. The real expert can do them all,
but only after he can do each one. Style is a mark of class. It
is not individual. In our meaning, it is a distinct way to handle
the tools of auditing.

                LEVEL 0
             LISTEN STYLE

At Level 0 the style is listen-style auditing. Here the auditor
is expected to listen to the pc. The only skill necessary is
listening to another. As soon as it is ascertained that the
auditor is listening (not just confronting or ignoring), the
auditor can be checked out. The length of time an auditor can
listen without tension or strain showing could be a factor. What
the pc does is not a factor considered in judging this style.
Pcs, however, talk to an auditor who is really listening.

Here we have the highest point that old-time mental therapies
reached (when they did reach it), such as psychoanalysis, when
they helped anyone. Mostly they were well below this, evaluating,
invalidating, interrupting. These three things are what the
Instructor in this style should try to put across to the HAS
student.

Listen style should not be complicated by expecting more of the
auditor than just this: Listen to the pc without evaluating,
invalidating or interrupting.

Adding on higher skills like "Is the pc talking interestingly? or
even "Is the pc talking?" is no part of this style. When this
auditor gets in trouble and the pc won't talk or isn't
interested, a higher-classed auditor is called in, a new question
given by the Supervisor, etc.

It really isn't "itsa" to be very technical. Itsa is the action
of the pc saying "It's a this" or "It's a that." Getting the pc
to itsa is quite beyond listen-style auditors, where the pc
won't. It's the Supervisor or the question on the blackboard that
gets the pc to itsa.

The ability to listen, learned well, stays with the auditor up
through the grades. One doesn't cease to use it even at Level VI.
But one has to learn it somewhere and that's at Level 0. So
listen-style auditing is just listening. It thereafter adds into
the other styles.

               LEVEL I
          MUZZLED AUDITING

This could also be called rote-style auditing.

Muzzled auditing has been with us many years. It is the stark
total of TRs 0 to 4 and not anything else added.

It is called so because auditors too often added in comments, Q-
and-Aed, deviated, discussed and otherwise messed up a session.
Muzzle meant a "muzzle was put on them," figuratively speaking,
so they would only state the auditing command and ack.

Repetitive command auditing, using TRs 0 to 4, at Level I is done
completely muzzled.

This could be called muzzled repetitive auditing style but will
be called "muzzled style" for the sake of brevity.

It has been a matter of long experience that pcs who didn't make
gains with the partially trained auditor permitted to two-way
comm did make gains the instant the auditor was muzzled: to wit,
not permitted to do a thing but run the process, permitted to say
nothing but the commands and acknowledge them and handle pc
originations by simple acknowledgment without any other question
or comment.

At Level I we don't expect the auditor to do anything but state
the command (or ask the question) with no variation, acknowledge
the pc's answer and handle the pc origins by understanding and
acknowledging what the pc said.

Those processes used at Level I actually respond best to muzzled
auditing and worst to misguided efforts to "two-way comm."

Listen style combines with muzzled style easily. But watch out
that Level I sessions don't disintegrate to Level 0.

Crisp, clean repetitive commands, muzzled, given and answered
often, are the road out -- not pc wanderings.

A pc at this level is instructed in exactly what is expected of
him, exactly what the auditor will do. The pc is even put through
a few "do birds fly?" cycles until the pc gets the idea. Then the
processing works.

An auditor trying to do muzzled repetitive auditing on a pc who,
through past "therapy experience," is rambling on and on is a sad
sight. It means that control is out (or that the pc never got
above Level 0).

It's the number of commands given and answered in a unit of
auditing time that gets gains. To that add the correctly chosen
repetitive process and you have a Release in short order, using
the processes of this level.

To follow limp listen style with crisp, controlled muzzled style
may be a shock. But they are each the lowest of the two families
of auditing styles -- totally permissive and totally controlled.
And they are so different each is easy to learn with no
confusion. It's been the lack of difference amongst styles that
confuses the student into slopping about. Well, these two are
different enough -- listen style and muzzled style -- to set
anybody straight.

               LEVEL II
        GUIDING-STYLE AUDITING

An old-time auditor would have recognized this style under two
separate names: (a) two-way comm and (b) formal auditing.

We condense these two old styles under one new name: guiding-
style auditing.

One first guides the pc by "two-way comm" into some subject that
has to be handled or into revealing what should be handled and
then the auditor handles it with formal repetitive commands.

Guiding-style auditing becomes feasible only when a student can
do listen-style and muzzled-style auditing well.

Formerly, the student who couldn't confront or duplicate a
command took refuge in sloppy discussions with the pc and called
it auditing or "two-way comm."

The first thing to know about guiding style is that one lets the
pc talk and itsa without chop, but also gets the pc steered into
the proper subject and gets the job done with repetitive
commands.

We presuppose the auditor at this level has had enough case gain
to be able to occupy the viewpoint of the auditor and therefore
to be able to observe the pc. We also presuppose at this level
that the auditor, being able to occupy a viewpoint, is therefore
more self-determined, the two things being related. (One can only
be self-determined when one can observe the actual situation
before one: otherwise, a being is delusion-determined or other-
determined.)

Thus, in guiding-style auditing the auditor is there to find out
what's what from the pc and then apply the needful remedy.

Most of the processes in The Book of Case Remedies are included
in this level (II). To use those, one has to observe the pc,
discover what the pc is doing and remedy the pc's case
accordingly.

The result for the pc is a far-reaching reorientation in life.

Thus, the essentials of guiding-style auditing consist of two-way
comm that steers the pc into revealing a difficulty followed by a
repetitive process to handle what has been revealed.

One does expert TRs but one may discuss things with the pc, let
the pc talk and in general one audits the pc before one,
establishing what that pc needs and then doing it with crisp
repetitive auditing, but all the while alert to changes in the
pc.

One runs at this level against tone arm action, paying little or
no heed to the needle except as a centering device for TA
position. One even establishes what's to be done by the action of
the tone arm. (The process of storing up things to run on the pc
by seeing what fell when he was running what's being run, now
belongs at this level [II] and will be renumbered accordingly.)

At II one expects to handle a lot of chronic PTPs, overts, ARC
breaks with life (but not session ARC breaks, that being a needle
action, session ARC breaks being sorted out by a higher-classed
auditor if they occur).

To get such things done (PTPs, overts and other remedies) in the
session, the auditor must have a pc "willing to talk to the
auditor about his difficulties." That presupposes we have an
auditor at this level who can ask questions, not repetitive, that
guide the pc into talking about the difficulty that needs to be
handled.

Great command of TR 4 is the primary difference in TRs from Level
I. One understands, when one doesn't, by asking more questions,
and by really acknowledging only when one has really understood
it.

Guided comm is the clue to control at this level. One should
easily guide the pc's comm in and out and around without chopping
the pc or wasting session time. As soon as an auditor gets the
idea of finite result or, that is to say, a specific and definite
result expected, all this is easy. Pc has a PTP Example: Auditor
has to have the idea he is to locate and destimulate the PTP so
pc is not bothered about it (and isn't being driven to do
something about it) as the finite result.

The auditor at II is trained to audit the pc before him, get the
pc into comm, guide the pc toward data needful to choose a
process and then to run the process necessary to resolve that
thing found, usually by repetitive command and always by TA.

The Book of Case Remedies is the key to this level and this
auditing style.

One listens but only to what one has guided the pc into. One runs
repetitive commands with good TR 4. And one may search around for
quite a while before one is satisfied he has the answer from the
pc needful to resolve a certain aspect of the pc's case.

O/W can be run at Level I. But at Level II one may guide the pc
into divulging what the pc considers a real overt act and, having
that, then guide the pc through all the reasons it wasn't an
overt and so eventually blow it.

Half-acknowledgment is also taught at Level II -- the ways of
keeping a pc talking by giving the pc the feeling he is being
heard and yet not chopping with overdone TR 2.

Big or multiple acknowledgment is also taught to shut the pc off
when the pc is going off the subject.

              LEVEL III
       ABRIDGED-STYLE AUDITING

By abridged is meant "abbreviated," shorn of extras. Any not
actually needful auditing command is deleted.

For instance, at Level I the auditor always says, when the pc
wanders off the subject, "I will repeat the auditing command" and
does so. In abridged style the auditor omits this when it isn't
necessary and just asks the command again if the pc has forgotten
it.

In this style we have shifted from pure rote to a sensible use or
omission as needful. We still use repetitive commands expertly,
but we don't use rote that is unnecessary to the situation.

Two-way comm comes into its own at Level III. But with heavy use
of repetitive commands.

At this level we have as the primary process Clay Table Healing.
In this an auditor must make sure the commands are followed
exactly. No auditing command is ever let go of until that actual
command is answered by the pc.

But at the same time, one doesn't necessarily give every auditing
command the process has in its rundown.

In Clay Table Healing one is supposed to make sure the pc is
satisfied each time. This is done more often by observation than
command. Yet it is done.

We suppose at III that we have an auditor who is in pretty fine
shape and can observe. Thus, we see the pc is satisfied and don't
mention it. Thus, we see when the pc is not certain and so we get
something the pc is certain of in answering the question.

On the other hand, one gives all the necessary commands crisply
and definitely and gets them executed.

Prepchecking and needle usage is taught at Level III as well as
Clay Table Healing. Auditing by List is also taught. In abridged-
style auditing one may find the pc (being cleaned up on a list
question) giving half a dozen answers in a rush. One doesn't stop
the pc from doing so, one half-acknowledges and lets the pc go
on. One is in actual fact handling a bigger auditing comm cycle,
that is all. The question elicits more than one answer which is
really only one answer. And when that answer is given, it is
acknowledged.

One sees when a needle is clean without some formula set of
questions that invalidate all the pc's relief. And one sees it
isn't clean by the continued puzzle on the pc's face.

There are tricks involved here. One asks a question of the pc
with the key word in it and notes that the needle doesn't
tremble, and so concludes the question about the word is flat.
And so doesn't check it again. Example: "Has anything else been
suppressed?" One eye on pc, one on needle. Needle didn't quiver.
Pc looks noncommittal. Auditor says, "All right, on______" and
goes on to next question, eliminating a pc's possible protest
read that can be mistaken for another "suppress."

In abridged-style auditing one sticks to the essentials and drops
rote where it impedes case advance. But that doesn't mean one
wanders about. One is even more crisp and thorough with abridged-
style auditing than in rote.

One is watching what happens and doing exactly enough to achieve
the expected result.

By "abridged" is meant getting the exact job done -- the shortest
way between two points -- with no waste questions.

By now the student should know that he runs a process to achieve
an exact result and he gets the process run in a way to achieve
that result in the smallest amount of time.

The student is taught to guide rapidly, to have no time for wide
excursions. The processes at this level are all rat-a-tat-tat
processes -- Clay Table Healing, Prepchecking, Auditing by List.

Again it's the number of times the question is answered per unit
of auditing time that makes for speed of result.

               LEVEL IV
        DIRECT-STYLE AUDITING

By direct we mean straight, concentrated, intense, applied in a
direct manner.

We do not mean direct in the sense of to direct somebody or to
guide. We mean it is direct.

By direct, we don't mean frank or choppy. On the contrary, we put
the pc's attention on his bank and anything we do is calculated
only to make that attention more direct.

It could also mean that we are not auditing by vias. We are
auditing straight at the things that need to be reached to make
somebody Clear.

Other than this the auditing attitude is very easy and relaxed.

At Level IV we have Clay Table Clearing and we have assessment-
type processes.

These two types of process are both astonishingly direct. They
are aimed directly at the reactive mind. They are done in a
direct manner.

In Clay Table Clearing we have almost total work and itsa from
pcs. From one end of a session to another, we may have only a few
auditing commands. For a pc on Clay Table Clearing does almost
all the work if he is in-session at all.

Thus, we have another implication in the word "direct." The pc is
talking directly to the auditor about what he is making and why
in Clay Table Clearing. The auditor hardly ever talks at all.

In assessment the auditor is aiming directly at the pc's bank and
wants no pc in front of it thinking, speculating, maundering or
itsaing. Thus, this assessment is a very direct action.

All this requires easy, smooth, steel-hand-in-a-velvet-glove
control of the pc. It looks easy and relaxed as a style; it is
straight as a Toledo blade.

The trick is to be direct in what's wanted and not deviate. The
auditor settles what's to be done, gives the command and then the
pc may work for a long time, the auditor alert, attentive,
completely relaxed.

In assessment the auditor often pays no attention to the pc at
all, as in ARC breaks or assessing lists. Indeed, a pc at this
level is trained to be quiet during the assessment of a list.

And in Clay Table Clearing an auditor may be quiet for an hour at
a stretch.

The tests are, Can the auditor keep the pc quiet while assessing
without ARC breaking the pc? Can the auditor order the pc to do
something and then, the pc working on it, can the auditor remain
quiet and attentive for an hour, understanding everything and
interrupt alertly only when he doesn't understand and get the pc
to make it clearer to him? Again without ARC breaking the pc.

You could confuse this direct style with listen style if you
merely glanced at a session of Clay Table Clearing. But what a
difference. In listen style the pc is blundering on and on and
on. In direct style the pc wanders off the line an inch and
starts to itsa, let us say, with no clay work and after it was
obvious to the auditor that this pc had forgotten the clay, you'd
see the auditor, quick as a foil, look at the pc very
interestedly and say, "Let's see that in clay." Or the pc doesn't
really give an ability he wants to improve and you'd hear a quiet
persuasive auditor voice, "Are you quite certain you want to
improve that? Sounds like a goal to me. Just something, some
ability you know, you'd like to improve."

You could call this style one-way auditing. When the pc is given
his orders, after that it's all from the pc to the auditor, and
all involved with carrying out that auditing instruction. When
the auditor is assessing, it is all from the auditor to the pc.
Only when the assessment action hits a snag like a PTP is there
any other auditing style used.

This is a very extreme auditing style. It is straightforward --
direct.

But when needful, as in any level, the styles learned below it
are often also employed, but never in the actual actions of
getting Clay Table Clearing and assessment done.

(NOTE: Level V would be the same style as VI below.)

               LEVEL VI
               ALL STYLE

So far, we have dealt with simple actions.

Now we have an auditor handling a meter and a pc who itsa's and
cognites and gets PTPs and ARC breaks and line charges and
cognites and who finds items and lists and who must be handled,
handled, handled all the way.

As auditing TA for a 2 1/2-hour session can go to 79 or 125
divisions (compared to 10 or 15 for the lowest level), the pace
of the session is greater. It is this pace that makes perfect
ability at each lower level vital when they combine into all
style. For each is now faster.

So, we learn all style by learning each of the lower styles well,
and then observe and apply the style needed every time it is
needed, shifting styles as often as once every minute!

The best way to learn all style is to become expert at each lower
style so that one does the style correct for the situation each
time the situation requiring that style occurs.

It is less rough than it looks. But it is also very demanding.

Use the wrong style on a situation and you've had it. ARC break!
No progress!

Example: Right in the middle of an assessment the needle gets
dirty. The auditor can't continue -- or shouldn't. The auditor,
in direct style, looks up to see a puzzled frown. The auditor has
to shift to guiding style to find out what ails the pc (who
probably doesn't really know), then to listen style while the pc
cognites on a chronic PTP that just emerged and bothered the pc,
then to direct style to finish the assessment that was in
progress.

The only way an auditor can get confused by all style is by not
being good at one of the lower-level styles.

Careful inspection will show where the student using all style is
slipping. One then gets the student to review that style that was
not well learned and practice it a bit.

So all style, when poorly done, is very easy to remedy for it
will be in error on one or more of the lower-level styles. And as
all these can be independently taught, the whole can be
coordinated. All style is hard to do only when one hasn't
mastered one of the lower-level styles.

               SUMMARY

These are the important styles of auditing. There have been
others but they are only variations of those given in this HCO
Bulletin. Tone 40 style is the most notable one missing. It
remains as a practice style at Level I to teach fearless body
handling and to teach one to get his command obeyed. It is no
longer used in practice.

As it was necessary to have every result and every process for
each level to finalize styles of auditing, I left this until last
and here it is.

Please note that none of these styles violate the auditing comm
cycle or the TRs.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:jw.rd.gm



==========================
Here is my PGP public key (RSA):

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 6.6.6
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=Kyq9
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

Betreff: FZ BIBLE - LEVEL 3 COURSEPACK [3/7]
Datum: 15 Nov 1999 08:27:16 -0000
Von: squirrel@echelon.alias.net (The Tech Lion)
Firma: FreeZone Bible Association
Foren: alt.religion.scientology,alt.clearing.technology

FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

ACADEMY LEVEL III COURSEPACK: Part 3 of 7

***************************************

Continuing our quest to spread the Tech on the internet,
we bring you the Academy Level 3 coursepack from the late
1980s, in 7 parts.

The full table of contents is in Part 1 only.

To see the proper formatting, use a fixed-pitch font such as
Courier to view this file.

Looking forward to a Tech-filled Millenium,

-The Tech Lion

********************

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

Our purpose is to promote religious freedom and the Scientology
Religion by spreading the Scientology Tech across the internet.

The Cof$ abusively suppresses the practice and use of
Scientology Tech by FreeZone Scientologists.  It misuses the
copyright laws as part of its suppression of religious freedom.

They think that all freezoners are "squirrels" who should be
stamped out as heretics.  By their standards, all Christians,
Moslems, Mormons, and even non-Hassidic Jews would be considered
to be squirrels of the Jewish Religion.

The writings of LRH form our Old Testament just as the writings
of Judaism form the Old Testament of Christianity.

We might not be good and obedient Scientologists according
to the definitions of the Cof$ whom we are in protest against.

But even though the Christians are not good and obedient Jews,
the rules of religious freedom allow them to have their old
testament regardless of any Jewish opinion.

We ask for the same rights, namely to practice our religion
as we see fit and to have access to our holy scriptures
without fear of the Cof$ copyright terrorists.

We ask for others to help in our fight.  Even if you do
not believe in Scientology or the Scientology Tech, we hope
that you do believe in religious freedom and will choose
to aid us for that reason.

Thank You,

The FZ Bible Association

************************

PART 3

 7. HCOB   21 Apr. 1970       2-Way Comm C/Ses

 8. HCOB    3 July 1970       C/Sing 2-Way Comm
                              C/S Series 14

 9. HCOB   17 Mar. 1974       Two-Way Comm, Using Wrong Questions

10. HCOB   19 Dec. 1980R      Rehab Tech

******************************************************************

7. HCOB   21 Apr. 1970       2-Way Comm C/Ses

      HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

      HCO BULLETIN OF 21 APRIL 1970

Remimeo

            2-WAY COMM C/Ses

There are four main reasons why a Case Supervisor or an auditor
gives a "2-way comm" C/S.

1. WHEN NOT ENOUGH DATA TO C/S. "2-way comm to obtain data about
case progress and status."

2. WHEN PC INFERS SOMETHING IN CASE THAT'S NOT BEEN HANDLED. "2-
way comm to find what pc thinks should be handled on case."

3. WHEN PC HASN'T COGGED ON END RESULT. "2-way comm on (process
just run) to see what thoughts pc had regarding it."

4. WHEN PC'S POST PURPOSE IS BEING CLEANED UP. "2-way comm on how
his post purpose fits into org -- or if he can do it."

In all these instances the C/S may be as specific as he likes
about what he wants asked or cleared up. In other words, the
quoted C/Ses above are only examples. Each of the above four
general types can have a great number of different questions. The
C/S must be very familiar with the four types given in capitals
above.

On his part, the auditor can vary the C/S's question around to
get different slants on it. The auditor doesn't have to get an
F/N on the 2-way comm session but often does.

The auditor can introduce a curve, an alter-is, by Q and A with
the pc and by evaluation.

The drill on 2-way comm is the old ask and listen.

A Q and A is of course echoing the pc's statement. Example: Pc:
"I never liked my father." Auditor: "What about your father?" Pc:
"He was cruel." Auditor: "What about cruel people?" Pc: "I don't
like them." Auditor: "What else don't you like?" And so on and
on.

A correct session is for the auditor to hold to the C/S's main
line of questioning no matter how he phrases it and listen to and
write down what the pc says.

Evaluation in auditing 2-way comm is the other deadly sin. The
auditor asks and listens. He doesn't explain anything to the pc.
Example: Pc: "I didn't dig the process." Auditor: "Well, you see,
that process was intended to ..." and here we go on evaluation.
Even an auditor's facial expression can be evaluation.

Ask and listen and ack. Prompt only by varying the original
question now and then, that's what the good 2-way comm auditor
does.

               WORKSHEETS

The 2-way comm worksheet is rather more detailed as to what the
pc says than process worksheets.

The C/S needs the data.

Or in looking it over the auditor himself, if he's his own C/S,
will need the data.

The questions the auditor asks should be noted on the worksheet
as a guide.

                 MAXIM

It is a C/S maxim "when in doubt order a 2-way comm."

          2-WAY COMM AUDITOR

Any auditor can 2-way comm. Saint Hillers were best at it.
Academy level auditors can be used in this, even Dianetic
auditors.

The only reservation is not to assign an auditor whose grade is
lower than the pc's. The auditor's class is not as important as
his grade. The reason for this is that the OT pre-OT, in being 2-
way commed by a Grade V, can blow the poor auditor apart or can
be stuck with a data withhold.

                METER

All 2-way comm is of course done on a meter. It is, however, not
a Sec Check or Prepcheck. TA position and needle reaction and
F/Ns are important to the C/S.

One doesn't 2-way comm past an F/N, cog and VGIs.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:dz.ei.rd.gm



******************************************************************

8. HCOB    3 July 1970       C/Sing 2-Way Comm
                             C/S Series 14

      HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

      HCO BULLETIN OF 3 JULY 1970

Remimeo

            C/S Series 14

          C/Sing 2-WAY COMM

The C/S is liable to make most of his C/S errors in C/Sing 2-Way
Comm.

The reasons for this are

1. Two-way comm IS auditing.

2. The errors that can be made in any auditing can be made in
   2-way comm.

3. Untrained or poorly-trained auditors do not always respect
   2-way comm as auditing.

4. Errors in 2-way comm become masked since the procedure is
   loose.

5. Earlier C/Ses on the case may have missed the easily missed
   2-way comm errors.

      RULES OF C/Sing 2-WAY COMM

A. The C/S must recognize that 2-way comm is auditing. Therefore,
it follows all the rules of auditing.

B. Any error that occurs in other auditing can occur in 2-way
comm auditing. Errors in a 2-way comm session must be carefully
looked for as they easily can be masked in the worksheet.

C. Auditors must be persuaded by the C/S to make notation of
auditing essentials in 2-way comm as of senior importance to pc's
text (which is also made note of in the worksheet).

D. The questions asked in 2-way comm can be very incorrect just
as rote processes can be.

E. An auditor must be trained as a 2-way comm auditor (Class II).
Otherwise, he will evaluate, Q-and-A and commit other faults.

F. If an ARC break occurs early in a 2-way comm session and is
not handled as such, the rest of the session is audited over an
ARC break and can put a pc into a sad effect.

G. A pc with a PT problem not being handled in the 2-way comm
will get no gain.

H. A pc with a W/H in a 2-way comm session will become critical,
nattery and/or get a dirty needle.

I. Two-way comm processes must be flattened to F/N. If an F/N
doesn't occur, then the subject didn't read in the first place or
the auditor Q-and-Aed or evaluated or changed the subject or the
TRs were out or the pc's ruds were out.

J. A 2-way comm subject chosen must be tested for read in that
session before being used for 2-way comm.

K. Improper 2-way comm questions can plunge the pc into an out-
rud situation not then handled. "Is anything upsetting you?" or
any mention of upsets by the auditor is the same as asking for an
ARC break. "Has anything been troubling -- worrying you lately?"
is the same as asking for a PTP. "Who aren't you talking to?" is
asking for W/Hs.

L. The subject of major processes should be kept out of 2-way
comm C/Ses, auditors' questions and 2-way comm assessment lists
(ARC breaks, problems, overts, changes or any major auditing
subject, as they are too heavy, being the buttons of the bank).

M. The C/S should only let Class II or above auditors do 2-way
comm sessions.

N. A rud going out in a 2-way comm session must be put in by the
auditor.

O. A 2-way comm session should end in an F/N.

P. Auditors whose 2-way comm sessions do not end in F/N must be
taught to check the subject for read before using, not to Q-and-
A, not to evaluate, and given a refresher on 2-way comm tapes and
HCOBs.

Q. In a 2-way comm session that flubs, the C/S must be careful to
isolate the errors just as in any other auditing session that
flubs and put them right.

R. A 2-way comm subject that reads on test and doesn't F/N on 2-
way

Betreff: FZ BIBLE - LEVEL 3 COURSEPACK [4/7]
Datum: 14 Nov 1999 17:07:55 -0000
Von: squirrel@echelon.alias.net (The Tech Lion)
Firma: FreeZone Bible Association
Foren: alt.religion.scientology,alt.clearing.technology

FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

ACADEMY LEVEL III COURSEPACK: Part 4 of 7

***************************************

Continuing our quest to spread the Tech on the internet,
we bring you the Academy Level 3 coursepack from the late
1980s, in 7 parts.

The full table of contents is in Part 1 only.

To see the proper formatting, use a fixed-pitch font such as
Courier to view this file.

Looking forward to a Tech-filled Millenium,

-The Tech Lion

********************

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

Our purpose is to promote religious freedom and the Scientology
Religion by spreading the Scientology Tech across the internet.

The Cof$ abusively suppresses the practice and use of
Scientology Tech by FreeZone Scientologists.  It misuses the
copyright laws as part of its suppression of religious freedom.

They think that all freezoners are "squirrels" who should be
stamped out as heretics.  By their standards, all Christians,
Moslems, Mormons, and even non-Hassidic Jews would be considered
to be squirrels of the Jewish Religion.

The writings of LRH form our Old Testament just as the writings
of Judaism form the Old Testament of Christianity.

We might not be good and obedient Scientologists according
to the definitions of the Cof$ whom we are in protest against.

But even though the Christians are not good and obedient Jews,
the rules of religious freedom allow them to have their old
testament regardless of any Jewish opinion.

We ask for the same rights, namely to practice our religion
as we see fit and to have access to our holy scriptures
without fear of the Cof$ copyright terrorists.

We ask for others to help in our fight.  Even if you do
not believe in Scientology or the Scientology Tech, we hope
that you do believe in religious freedom and will choose
to aid us for that reason.

Thank You,

The FZ Bible Association

************************

PART 4

11. HCOB   27 May  1963       Cause of ARC Breaks

12. HCOB   19 Aug. 1963       How to Do an ARC Break Assessment

13. HCOB    7 Sept 1964 II    PTPS, Overts and ARC Breaks

14. HCOB   29 Mar. 1965       ARC Breaks

15. HCOB    4 Apr. 1965       ARC Breaks and Missed Withholds

******************************************************************

11. HCOB   27 May  1963       Cause of ARC Breaks

      HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

       HCO BULLETIN OF 27 MAY 1963

CenOCon
Franchise

                ALL AUDITING
STAR-RATING HCO BULLETIN FOR ACADEMIES AND SHSBC

            CAUSE OF ARC BREAKS

LUCKY IS THE PC WHOSE AUDITOR HAS UNDERSTOOD THIS HCO BULLETIN.
AND LUCKY IS THE AUDITOR, MAY HIS OWN CASE RUN WELL.

I have just narrowed the reason for ARC breaks in auditing
actions down to only one source.

  RULE: ALL ARC BREAKS ARE CAUSED BY BYPASSED CHARGE.

  RULE: TO TURN OFF AN ARC BREAK FIND AND INDICATE THE CORRECT
        BYPASSED CHARGE.

Charge can be bypassed by

1. Going later than basic on any chain without further search for
basic.

Example: Looking for the pc's first automobile accident, finding
the fifth instead and trying to run the fifth accident as the
first accident, which it isn't. The bypassed charge here is the
first accident and all succeeding accidents up to the one
selected by the auditor as the first one or the one to run. To a
greater or lesser degree depending on the amount the earlier
material was restimulated, the pc will then ARC break (or feel
low or in "low morale"). One can run a later incident on a chain
briefly but only to unburden earlier incidents, and the pc must
know this.

2. Unknowingly ignoring the possibility of a more basic or
earlier incident of the same nature as that being run after the
pc has been restimulated on it. Or bluntly refusing to admit the
existence of or let the pc "at" an earlier incident.

3. Cleanly missing a GPM, as one between two goals run
consecutively in the belief they are consecutive.

4. Missing an earlier GPM and settling down to the assertion
there are no earlier ones.

5. Cleanly missing one or more RIs, not even calling them.

6. Failing to discharge an RI and going on past it.

7. Accidentally missing a whole block of RIs, as in resuming
session and not noticing pc has skipped (commoner than you'd
think).

8. Accepting a wrong goal, missing the right one similarly
worded.

9. Accepting a wrong RI, not getting the plot RI to fire.

10. Misinterpreting or not understanding data given to you by the
pc and/or acting on wrong data.

11. Misinforming the pc as to what has or has not fired and
discharged.

12. Locating the wrong bypassed charge and saying it is the
source of the ARC break.

13. Failing to follow the cycle of communication in auditing.

These and any other way charge can be restimulated and left prior
to where the auditor is working can cause an ARC break.

Charge left after (later) (nearer PT) than where the auditor is
working hardly ever causes an ARC break.

The burden of skilled auditing, then, is to get RIs (and GPMs and
incidents) discharged as close to basic (first incident) as
possible. And always be prowling for something earlier.

In contradiction of this is that any GPM fairly well discharged
by RRs unburdens the case, ARC break or no ARC breaks. And any
incident partially discharged lets one go earlier.

The pc never knows why the ARC break. He may think he does and
disclaim about it. But the moment the actual reason is spotted
(the real missed area) the ARC break ceases.

If you know you've missed a goal or RI, just saying so prevents
any ARC break.

An ARC breaky pc can always be told what has been missed and will
almost always settle down at once.

Example: Pc refuses to come to session. Auditor on telephone says
there's a more basic incident or RI or GPM. Pc comes to session.

The auditor who is most likely to develop ARC breaks in the pc
will have greater difficulty putting this HCO Bulletin into
practice. Perhaps I can help this. Such an auditor Q-and-As by
action responses, not acknowledgments after understanding. Action
can be on an automaticity in the session. So this HCO Bulletin
may erroneously be interpreted to mean "If the pc ARC breaks DO
something earlier."

If this were true, then the only thing left to run would be
basic-basic -- without the pc being unburdened enough to have any
reality on it.

A drill (and many drills can be compiled on this) would be to
have a lineal picture of a time track. The coach indicates a late
incident on it with a pointer and says, "Pc ARC break." The
student must give a competent and informative statement that
indicates the earlier charge without pointing (since you can't
point inside the reactive bank of a pc with a pointer). Drawn
time tracks showing a GPM, a series of engrams along free track,
a series of GPMs, all plotted against time, would serve the
purpose of the drill and give the student graphic ARC break
experience.

The trick is TO FIND AND INDICATE the RIGHT bypassed charge to
the pc and to handle it when possible but never fail to indicate
it.

It is not DO that heals the ARC break but pointing toward the
correct charge.

  RULE: FINDING AND INDICATING AN INCORRECT BYPASSED CHARGE WILL
        NOT TURN OFF AN ARC BREAK.

An automaticity (as covered later in this HCO Bulletin) is
rendered discharged by indicating the area of charge only.

This is an elementary example: Pc says, "I suppressed that."
Auditor says, "On this incident has anything been suppressed?" Pc
ARC breaks. Auditor indicates charge by saying, "I'm sorry. A
moment ago I didn't acknowledge your suppression." ARC break
ceases. Why? Because the source of its charge that triggered an
automaticity of above the pc's tone, was itself discharged by
being indicated.

Example: Auditor asks for a Joburg overt. Pc gives it. Auditor
consults meter at once asking question again, which is protested
giving a new read. Pc ARC breaks. Auditor says, "I did not
acknowledge the overt you gave me. I acknowledge it." ARC break
ceases.

Example: Auditor asks for RI No. 173 on First Series Line Plot.
Pc ARC breaks, giving various reasons why, such as auditor's
personality. Auditor asks meter, "Have I missed an item on you?"
Gets read. Says to pc, "I've missed an item." ARC break ceases.
Whether the missing item is looked for or not is immaterial to
this HCO Bulletin which concerns handling ARC breaks.

If an auditor always does in response to an ARC break, such as
instantly looking for specific earlier items, that auditor has
missed the point of this HCO Bulletin and will just pile up more
ARC breaks, not heal them.

Don't be driven by ARC breaks into unwise actions, as all you
have to do is find and indicate the missing charge that was
bypassed. That is what takes care of an ARC break, not taking the
pc's orders.

If the ARC break does not cease, the wrong bypassed charge has
been indicated.

The sweetest running pc in the world can be turned into a tiger
by an auditor who always Q-and-As, never indicates charge and
goes on with the session plan.

Some Q and As would be a s

Betreff: FZ BIBLE - LEVEL 3 COURSEPACK [5/7]
Datum: 14 Nov 1999 16:24:50 -0000
Von: squirrel@echelon.alias.net (The Tech Lion)
Firma: FreeZone Bible Association
Foren: alt.religion.scientology,alt.clearing.technology

FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

ACADEMY LEVEL III COURSEPACK: Part 5 of 7

***************************************

Continuing our quest to spread the Tech on the internet,
we bring you the Academy Level 3 coursepack from the late
1980s, in 7 parts.

The full table of contents is in Part 1 only.

To see the proper formatting, use a fixed-pitch font such as
Courier to view this file.

Looking forward to a Tech-filled Millenium,

-The Tech Lion

********************

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

Our purpose is to promote religious freedom and the Scientology
Religion by spreading the Scientology Tech across the internet.

The Cof$ abusively suppresses the practice and use of
Scientology Tech by FreeZone Scientologists.  It misuses the
copyright laws as part of its suppression of religious freedom.

They think that all freezoners are "squirrels" who should be
stamped out as heretics.  By their standards, all Christians,
Moslems, Mormons, and even non-Hassidic Jews would be considered
to be squirrels of the Jewish Religion.

The writings of LRH form our Old Testament just as the writings
of Judaism form the Old Testament of Christianity.

We might not be good and obedient Scientologists according
to the definitions of the Cof$ whom we are in protest against.

But even though the Christians are not good and obedient Jews,
the rules of religious freedom allow them to have their old
testament regardless of any Jewish opinion.

We ask for the same rights, namely to practice our religion
as we see fit and to have access to our holy scriptures
without fear of the Cof$ copyright terrorists.

We ask for others to help in our fight.  Even if you do
not believe in Scientology or the Scientology Tech, we hope
that you do believe in religious freedom and will choose
to aid us for that reason.

Thank You,

The FZ Bible Association

************************

PART 5

16. HCOB   29 Apr. 1980R      Prepared Lists, Their Value and
                                Purpose

17. HCOB   14 Mar. 1971R      F/N Everything

18. HCOB    3 July 1971R      Auditing by Lists

19. HCOB    4 Dec. 1978       How to Read Through an F/N

20. HCOB   15 Oct. 1973RC     Nulling and F/Ning Prepared Lists
                              C/S Series 87RC

21. HCOB    6 Dec. 1973       The Primary Failure
                              C/S Series 90

22. HCOB   22 Apr. 1980R      Assessment Drills

******************************************************************

16. HCOB   29 Apr. 1980R      Prepared Lists, Their Value and
                              Purpose

      HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

     HCO BULLETIN OF 29 APRIL 198OR
          REVISED 26 JULY 1986

Remimeo

       PREPARED LISTS, THEIR VALUE
              AND PURPOSE

No matter how complicated or confusing the environment is
getting, if you have a stable datum of exact action it can see
you through.

The prepared list provides the auditor with a stable action when
a session or case is confusing and can bring things under
control.

The idea of such lists and their development are original to
Dianetics and Scientology. They are made possible because these
subjects embrace the full extent of thought, the spirit and
actual and potential aberration. Thousands of hours of research
and development have gone into these lists. Thousands of case
histories have been reviewed and condensed to make the lists
possible. They are, in themselves, a considerable tour de force.

They have often meant the difference between a failed case and a
spectacular result. Just as they are important, a knowledge of
them and skill in their use is vital to auditing success.

                HISTORY

Probably the oldest "prepared list" is the White Form (now called
the ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT SHEET-HCOB 24 June 78R). This provided a
series of questions which would give one the background of the
preclear. It dates from 1950. By it one can get the probable
this-life areas of the preclear's heaviest charge. Done on a
meter, it provides a case entrance.

Self Analysis was written in 1951. It contains processing lists a
preclear could run on himself.

Group Auditing materials of the middle '50s contained lists of
commands which were run on groups.

The "Joburg" of 1961 is probably the next historical point. It
was a list of the possible withholds a preclear might have. It
was called the "Joburg" because it was developed in Johannesburg,
South Africa.

The "L1" was probably next. The original gave a list of session
rudiments which might have gone out and enabled the auditor to
get the session rudiments back in. It is still in use as "L1C" or
"List One C."

The "Green Form" was developed in the early '60s so that Qual
Review at Saint Hill would have a tool to analyze a case.

Correction lists for various auditing actions began to appear.
These corrected an action in progress that had gone awry.

In 1973, the famous "C/S 53" (meaning "Case Supervisor Series
53") was devised and continued to be improved and reissued.

Today there are dozens of prepared lists. There is even a
prepared list to repair prepared lists in general.

         THEORY OF PREPARED LISTS

A prepared list is an assembly of the majority of things which
can be wrong in a case, an auditing action or a session.

Such lists are quite remarkable, actually. Only a thorough
knowledge of aberration makes such a list possible. When you look
over the extent of prepared lists, you will see that they contain
a grasp of the subject of aberration never before available.

                  USE

While an auditor is expected to have studied and mastered all
this theory, it is a bit much to expect that in the confusion of
a case or session gone wrong he will be able to spot instantly,
without help, exactly WHAT has gone wrong. Prepared lists, where
they exist, and his E-Meter will sort this out for him. All the
auditor has to have is a general insight that something is going
wrong, know in general what is being handled in the case, know
what list to use and then, with good TRs and metering, do an
assessment of the prepared list. Usually the trouble will come
right, since the exact point will have been located. It is
sometimes enough to merely indicate the point found to discharge
it somewhat. One can F/N what is found or one can go into very
wide, extensive handling. The point is, the use of the prepared
list has spotted the trouble. What is demanded of the auditor or
C/S is WHICH prepared list to use, but this is determined by what
has been going on.

        TYPES OF PREPARED LISTS

There are four general types of prepared lists. These are

A. An ANALYSIS list. This is a type of prepared list which
analyzes a case broadly or analyzes a session. The purpose of it
is to find out what to address in the case in order to program
it. The White Form, the Green Form and the C/S 53 can all be used
for this purpose. There are other such lists and there is even a
prepared list to debug production.

B. A direct AUDITING list. Prepared lists exist which deliver
direct auditing commands or questions which, run on the pc,
produce an auditing result. The lists of Self Analysis and the
various Confessional lists form this type of prepared list.

C. A CORRECTION list. This type of list corrects an ongoing
action. Examples are the Word Clearing Correction List, the Int
Rundown Correction List, the Dianetic Correction List. There is a
bit of a gray area in this type of list as one can also use some
of them for analysis as in the case of a Course Supervisor
Correction List or a Student Correction List. The C/S 53 can also
serve as a correction list. The real difference is what the list
is being used for -- to analyze to find out what to program or
start or to correct something already in progress.

D. DRILL lists. These are used in training as dummy lists to get
an auditor used to handling the meter and prepared lists. Such
lists are contained in The Book of E-Meter Drills.

           METHOD OF HANDLING

There are three methods of handling prepared lists, depending on
the type of list.

There is simply the method of asking the questions in sequence
and getting the answer from the preclear. This would apply to a
White Form or to auditing prepared lists as in Self Analysis or
in Group Auditing. Very few lists are handled in this way.

The second way is called "Method 3" wherein the list is assessed
on a meter, and when a read is noted, the meter-reading question
is taken up with the preclear and F/Ned. Method 3 is covered in
HCOB 3 July 71, AUDITING BY LISTS.

The third way is called "Method 5." This type of assessment
assesses the whole prepared list rapidly, without getting the
preclear to talk, and the reads are then noted. The largest read
or reads are then taken up and F/Ned. Method 5 is covered in HCOB
3 July 71, AUDITING BY LISTS.

When using a correction list on an OT III or above, the auditor
must know and apply the tech given in HCOB 4 July 79, HANDLING
CORRECTION LISTS ON OTs. This HCOB concerns the handling of

Betreff: FZ BIBLE - LEVEL 3 COURSEPACK [6/7]
Datum: 14 Nov 1999 17:29:16 -0000
Von: squirrel@echelon.alias.net (The Tech Lion)
Firma: FreeZone Bible Association
Foren: alt.religion.scientology,alt.clearing.technology

FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

ACADEMY LEVEL III COURSEPACK: Part 6 of 7

***************************************

Continuing our quest to spread the Tech on the internet,
we bring you the Academy Level 3 coursepack from the late
1980s, in 7 parts.

The full table of contents is in Part 1 only.

To see the proper formatting, use a fixed-pitch font such as
Courier to view this file.

Looking forward to a Tech-filled Millenium,

-The Tech Lion

********************

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

Our purpose is to promote religious freedom and the Scientology
Religion by spreading the Scientology Tech across the internet.

The Cof$ abusively suppresses the practice and use of
Scientology Tech by FreeZone Scientologists.  It misuses the
copyright laws as part of its suppression of religious freedom.

They think that all freezoners are "squirrels" who should be
stamped out as heretics.  By their standards, all Christians,
Moslems, Mormons, and even non-Hassidic Jews would be considered
to be squirrels of the Jewish Religion.

The writings of LRH form our Old Testament just as the writings
of Judaism form the Old Testament of Christianity.

We might not be good and obedient Scientologists according
to the definitions of the Cof$ whom we are in protest against.

But even though the Christians are not good and obedient Jews,
the rules of religious freedom allow them to have their old
testament regardless of any Jewish opinion.

We ask for the same rights, namely to practice our religion
as we see fit and to have access to our holy scriptures
without fear of the Cof$ copyright terrorists.

We ask for others to help in our fight.  Even if you do
not believe in Scientology or the Scientology Tech, we hope
that you do believe in religious freedom and will choose
to aid us for that reason.

Thank You,

The FZ Bible Association

************************

PART 6

23. HCOB   19 Mar. 1971       List 1C--L1C

24. HCOB   23 July 1980R      Confessional Repair List--LCRE

25. HCOB   22 Aug. 1966       Floating Needles, Listing Processes

26. HCOB    1 Aug. 1968       The Laws of Listing and Nulling

27. HCOB   19 Sept 1968       "Old lists..."

28. HCOB    7 Oct. 1968       Assessment

29. HCOB   20 Sept 1978       An Instant F/N is a Read

30. HCOB   22 Apr. 1980R      Assessment Drills [encore]

31. HCOB   20 Apr. 1972 II    Product Purpose and Why and W/C
                              Error Correction
                              C/S Series 78

32. HCOB   11 Apr. 1977       List Errors, Correction of

33. HCOB   15 Dec. 68RA       L4BRA, for Assessment of All Listing
                              Errors

34. HCOB    6 Aug. 1968       R3H

******************************************************************

23. HCOB   19 Mar. 1971       List 1C--L1C

      HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

      HCO BULLETIN OF 19 MARCH 1971

Remimeo

             LIST 1C--L1C

       (Cancels earlier L1 Lists
        such as HCOB 8 Aug. 70)

Used by auditors in session when an upset occurs, or as ordered
by C/S.

Handles ARC broken, sad, hopeless or nattery pcs.

Questions can be prefaced with "Recently" "In this life" "On the
whole track" or used without.

DO NOT USE ON HIGH TA TO BRING IT DOWN. USE HI-LO TA LIST.

TAKE ALL READING ITEMS OR VOLUNTEERED ANSWERS earlier-similar to
F/N as they occur.

1. Has there been an error in listing? (If this reads change to
L4B at once.)

2. Has a withhold been missed?

3. Has some emotion been rejected?

4. Has some affinity been rejected?

5. Has a reality been refused?

6. Has a communication been cut short?

7. Has a communication been ignored?

8. Has an earlier rejection of emotion been restimulated?

9. Has an earlier rejection of affinity been restimulated?

10. Has an earlier refusal of reality been restimulated?

11. Has an earlier ignored communication been restimulated?

12. Has something been misunderstood?

13. Has someone been misunderstood?

14. Has an earlier misunderstanding been restimulated?

15. Has some data been confusing?

16. Has there been a command you haven't understood?

17. Has there been some word you haven't known the meaning of?

18. Has there been some situation you haven't grasped?

19. Has there been a problem?

20. Has a wrong reason for an upset been given?

21. Has a similar incident occurred before?

22. Has something been done other than what was said?

23. Has a goal been disappointed?

24. Has some help been rejected?

25. Has a decision been made?

26. Has an engram been restimulated?

27. Has an earlier incident been restimulated?

28. Has there been a sudden shift of attention?

29. Has something startled you?

30. Has a perception been prevented?

31. Has a willingness not been acknowledged?

32. Has there been no auditing?

33. Did you go exterior?

34. Have actions been interrupted?

35. Have actions continued too long?

36. Has data been invalidated?

37. Has someone evaluated?

38. Has something been overrun?

39. Has an action been unnecessary?

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:mes.rd.gm



******************************************************************

24. HCOB   23 July 1980R      Confessional Repair List--LCRE

      HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

      HCO BULLETIN OF 23 JULY 1980R
          REVISED 26 JULY 1986

Remimeo
C/Ses
Auditors,
  Class II
  and above

      CONFESSIONAL REPAIR LIST--LCRE

  This HCOB cancels and replaces all of the following:

  HCOB 30 July 70    CONFESSIONAL REPAIR LIST L-CR
  HCOB  8 Dec. 72    INTEGRITY PROCESSING REPAIR LIST L1R
  HCOB  8 Dec. 72R   INTEGRITY PROCESSING REPAIR LIST
     Rev. 12.2.73    L1R
  BTB   8 Dec. 72R   INTEGRITY PROCESSING REPAIR LIST L1R
  BTB   8 Dec. 72RA  INTEGRITY PROCESSING AND O/Ws
                     REPAIR LIST-L1RA
  BTB   8 Dec. 72RB  CONFESSIONAL REPAIR LIST LCRB
  BTB   8 Dec. 72RC  CONFESSIONAL REPAIR LIST LCRC
  HCOB 20 July 80    CONFESSIONAL REPAIR LIST LCRD

This is the prepared list to use for repairing a Confessional,
whether done as auditing or as an HCO Confessional. It is also
for use in handling BPC from other O/W actions such as O/W
write-ups.

If, after a Confessional or O/W write-up, the person red tags at
the Examiner or if he gets sick or upset or falls on his head,
this list is assessed and handled to straighten the matter out.
The repair action would be a 24-hour repair priority.

If there is a bog during a Confessional action, the auditor would
first check for missed withholds, false reads and ARC breaks, in
that order, and handle what he found. (Ref: HCOB 30 Nov. 78R,
CONFESSIONAL PROCEDURE) If this does not resolve the difficulty,
one should use the LCRE.

The list is usually assessed Method 3, but may be assessed Method
5 in the case of a severe pc upset or as directed by the C/S.

The list should be used with a prefix which acts as a time
limiter, such as "In this session, ______?" or "On your O/W
write-up, ______?"

PRECLEAR:___________________________________ DATE:________________

AUDITOR:____________________________________

1. OUT-INT?                                               ________
(If you get a valid read, not a false or protest
read, indicate it. If the pc has had an Int RD or
End of Endless Int RD previously, assess and handle
the Int RD Correction List. If the pc has not had
previous Int handling or if the Int RD Correction
List does not fully resolve the situation, do an Int
RD or, on a Clear or OT, the End of Endless Int RD.
If you are not qualified to deliver the Int RD or
the End of Endless Int RD, end off for a qualified
auditor to handle.)

2. LIST ERROR?                                            ________
(Indicate. If Class III or above, find out what list
and repair with L4BRA. If not Class III, end off for
handling by a Class III or above.)

3. WRONG ITEM?                                            ________
(Handle as in #2.)

4. WAS THERE AN ARC BREAK?                                ________
(ARCU, CDEINR E/S to F/N.)

5. WAS THERE A PROBLEM?                                   ________
(2WC E/S to F/N.)

6. WAS A WITHHOLD MISSED?                                 ________
(Pull it getting who nearly found out, etc.
E/S to F/N.)

7. DID YOU TELL PART OF A WITHHOLD BUT NOT THE REST?      ________
(Get all of the withhold, flatten it E/S to F/N.)

8. DID YOU MISDIRECT THE AUDITOR?                         ________
(Handle as an overt, E/S to F/N. Flatten any
unflat Confessional chain uncovered.)

9. DID YOU AVOID TELLING ONE OVERT BY GIVING A
   DIFFERENT ONE?                                         ________
(Pull the overt the pc avoided telling, E/S to F/N.)

10. WERE YOU WAITING FOR A MORE SPECIFICALLY
    WORDED QUESTION?                                      ________
(Find out what Sec Check question the pc was waiting
for and get it answered, to F/N.)

11. DID THE AUDITOR FAIL TO FIND OUT SOMETHING
    ABOUT YOU?                                            ________
(Handle as a mis

Betreff: FZ BIBLE - LEVEL 3 COURSEPACK [7/7]
Datum: 14 Nov 1999 13:55:45 -0000
Von: squirrel@echelon.alias.net (The Tech Lion)
Firma: FreeZone Bible Association
Foren: alt.religion.scientology,alt.clearing.technology

FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

ACADEMY LEVEL III COURSEPACK: Part 7 of 7

***************************************

Continuing our quest to spread the Tech on the internet,
we bring you the Academy Level 3 coursepack from the late
1980s, in 7 parts.

The full table of contents is in Part 1 only.

To see the proper formatting, use a fixed-pitch font such as
Courier to view this file.

Looking forward to a Tech-filled Millenium,

-The Tech Lion

********************

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

Our purpose is to promote religious freedom and the Scientology
Religion by spreading the Scientology Tech across the internet.

The Cof$ abusively suppresses the practice and use of
Scientology Tech by FreeZone Scientologists.  It misuses the
copyright laws as part of its suppression of religious freedom.

They think that all freezoners are "squirrels" who should be
stamped out as heretics.  By their standards, all Christians,
Moslems, Mormons, and even non-Hassidic Jews would be considered
to be squirrels of the Jewish Religion.

The writings of LRH form our Old Testament just as the writings
of Judaism form the Old Testament of Christianity.

We might not be good and obedient Scientologists according
to the definitions of the Cof$ whom we are in protest against.

But even though the Christians are not good and obedient Jews,
the rules of religious freedom allow them to have their old
testament regardless of any Jewish opinion.

We ask for the same rights, namely to practice our religion
as we see fit and to have access to our holy scriptures
without fear of the Cof$ copyright terrorists.

We ask for others to help in our fight.  Even if you do
not believe in Scientology or the Scientology Tech, we hope
that you do believe in religious freedom and will choose
to aid us for that reason.

Thank You,

The FZ Bible Association

************************

PART 7

35. HCOB    8 Sept 1978RB     Mini List of Grade 0-IV Processes

36. HCOB   14 Nov. 1987 V     Expanded Grade III Process Checklist

******************************************************************

35. HCOB    8 Sept 1978RB     Mini List of Grade 0-IV Processes

       HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
 Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

   HCO BULLETIN OF 8 SEPTEMBER 1978RB
         REVISED 16 NOVEMBER 1987

Remimeo
Level 0-IV Checksheets
Supervisors
Auditors
C/Ses

    MINI LIST OF GRADE 0-IV PROCESSES

SPECIAL NOTE: The list below is by no means a complete list of
Grade 0-IV Processes. Many, many processes exist on the Grades
0-IV on which a preclear should be audited to achieve the full
end phenomena (ability gained) for each of the Expanded Grades.

The following is a MINI LIST of Grade 0-IV Processes.

On each of the Academy Levels, toward the end of each checksheet,
the student auditor studies the HCOBs listed for each process and
thoroughly drills the process before auditing it. He audits each
process on this list for the level he is on.

Each major Grade Process is followed by a Havingness Process.

Each Grade Process that is run on a meter must be checked for a
read before it is run and, if not reading, it is not run at that
time. (Ref: HCOB 23 June 80RA, Rev. 25.10.83, CHECKING QUESTIONS
ON GRADES PROCESSES)

This HCOB can also serve as a checklist of processes run on a pc.
The auditor places a copy of this HCOB in the pc's folder, and as
each process or flow is run to EP it is clearly marked off with
the date.

1. ARC STRAIGHTWIRE PROCESS
   (Ref: HCOB 27 Sept. 68 II, ARC STRAIGHTWIRE)

   SW F1
   1. RECALL A TIME THAT WAS REALLY REAL TO YOU.

      WHAT WAS IT?

   2. RECALL A TIME YOU WERE IN GOOD COMMUNICATION WITH
      SOMEONE.

      WHAT WAS IT?

   3. RECALL A TIME YOU REALLY FELT AFFINITY FOR SOMEONE.

      WHAT WAS IT?

   4. RECALL A TIME YOU KNEW YOU UNDERSTOOD SOMEONE.

      WHAT WAS IT?

      (Run consecutively, i.e., 1,2,3,4,1,2, etc., to EP)  ________

   SW F2
   1. RECALL A TIME THAT WAS REALLY REAL TO ANOTHER.

      WHAT WAS IT?

   2. RECALL A TIME SOMEONE WAS IN GOOD COMMUNICATION
      WITH YOU.

      WHAT WAS IT?

   3. RECALL A TIME SOMEONE REALLY FELT AFFINITY FOR YOU.

      WHAT WAS IT?

   4. RECALL A TIME ANOTHER KNEW HE/SHE UNDERSTOOD YOU.

      WHAT WAS IT?

      (Run consecutively, i.e., 1,2,3,4,1,2, etc., to EP.) ________

   SW F3
   1. RECALL A TIME THAT WAS REALLY REAL FOR OTHERS.

      WHAT WAS IT?

   2. RECALL A TIME OTHERS WERE IN GOOD COMMUNICATION
      WITH OTHERS.

      WHAT WAS IT?

   3. RECALL A TIME OTHERS REALLY FELT AFFINITY FOR OTHERS.

      WHAT WAS IT?

   4. RECALL A TIME OTHERS KNEW THEY UNDERSTOOD OTHERS.

      WHAT WAS IT?

      (Run consecutively, i.e., 1,2,3,4,1,2, etc., to EP)  ________

   SW F0
   1. RECALL A TIME THAT YOU MADE SOMETHING REALLY REAL
      TO YOURSELF.

      WHAT WAS IT?

   2. RECALL A TIME YOU WERE IN GOOD COMMUNICATION WITH
      YOURSELF.

      WHAT WAS IT?

   3. RECALL A TIME YOU REALLY FELT AFFINITY FOR YOURSELF.

      WHAT WAS IT?

   4. RECALL A TIME YOU KNEW YOU UNDERSTOOD YOURSELF.

      WHAT WAS IT?

      (Run consecutively, i.e., 1,2,3,4,1,2, etc., to EP.) ________

2. ARC STRAIGHTWIRE HAVINGNESS

   SWH  F1  LOOK AROUND HERE AND FIND SOMETHING THAT IS
            REALLY REAL TO YOU.

            (Run repetitively to EP.)                      ________

   SWH  F2  LOOK AROUND HERE AND FIND SOMETHING THAT WOULD
            REALLY BE REAL TO ANOTHER.

            (Run repetitively to EP.)                      ________

   SWH  F3  LOOK AROUND HERE AND FIND SOMETHING THAT WOULD
            BE REALLY REAL TO OTHERS.

            (Run repetitively to EP.)                      ________

   SWH  F0  FIND SOMETHING IN OR ON YOURSELF THAT WOULD BE
            REALLY REAL TO YOU.

            (Run repetitively to EP.)                      ________

3. GRADE 0 PROCESSES
   (Ref: HCOB 11 Dec. 64, SCIENTOLOGY 0 PROCESSES
         HCOB 26 Dec. 64, ROUTINE 0A [EXPANDED])

   A. ROUTINE 0-0

   00 F1  1. WHAT ARE YOU WILLING FOR ME TO TALK TO YOU
             ABOUT?

          2. WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO TELL YOU ABOUT
             THAT?

             (Run alternately to EP.)                      ________

   00 F2  1. WHAT ARE YOU WILLING TO TALK TO ME ABOUT?

          2. WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO TELL ME ABOUT THAT?

             (Run alternately to EP.)                      ________

   00 F3  1. WHAT ARE YOU WILLING FOR ME TO TALK TO
             OTHERS ABOUT?

          2. WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO TELL THEM ABOUT
             THAT?

             (Run alternately to EP.)                      ________

   00 F0  1. WHAT ARE YOU WILLING TO TALK TO YOURSELF
             ABOUT BECAUSE OF ME?

          2. WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY ABOUT THAT?

             (Run alternately to EP.)                      ________

   B. ROUTINE 0A

   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.  The list is assessed on the pc and the longest
   reading item is used in all four flows of 0A as given below.
   Then the remaining items are taken up and run in the same way,
   in order of largest read, until all reading items have been
   run. Each reading item is run on all four flows before the
   next reading item is run in the process. On any items that are
   not reading, put in the Suppress and Invalidate buttons.

   0A  F1  1. IF (chosen subject) COULD TALK TO YOU,
              WHAT WOULD HE/SHE TALK ABOUT?

              (Pc answers one or more things at greater or
              shorter length. When the pc seems satisfied
              the question has been answered, the auditor
              then says:)

           2. ALL RIGHT, IF (chosen subject) WERE TALKING
              TO YOU ABOUT THAT, WHAT WOULD HE/SHE SAY,
              EXACTLY?

              (The pc is expected to give what would be
              said as though he were the subject in 1,
              talking.)

              (Run 1 and 2 per above instructions,
              i.e., 1,2,1,2,1,2,1, etc., to EP)            ________

   0A  F2  1. IF YOU COULD TALK TO (chosen subject),
              WHAT WOULD YOU TALK ABOUT?

              (Pc answers one or more things at greater
              or shorter length. When the pc seems
              satisfied the question has been answered,
              the auditor then says:)

           2. ALL RIGHT, IF YOU WERE TALKING TO
              (chosen subject) ABOUT THAT, WHAT WOULD
              YOU SAY, EXACTLY?

              (The pc is expected to speak as though
              talking to the subject chosen in 1.)

              (Ru
