Subject: FZ Bible - Level 4 Coursepack [2/7] Repost [x2]
Date: 26 Nov 1999 22:43:25 -0000
From: squirrel@echelon.alias.net (The Tech Lion)
Organization: FreeZone Bible Association
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.clearing.technology

FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

Academy Level IV Coursepack: Part 2 of 7

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

Thanksgiving time is here.

We at FZ Bible Association would like to give thanks to Ron for
leaving us a bounty of Tech.

And celebrate by disseminating it freely to all.

In that spirit we bring you the Level 4 coursepack, from the
late 80's.

Happy Turkey Day,

-Tech Lion

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

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank You,

The FZ Bible Association

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

PART 2

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

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

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

 4. HCOB    8 June 1970      Low TA Handling

 5. HCOB    6 Nov. 1964      Styles of Auditing

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

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

      HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

  HCO POLICY LETTER OF 7 FEBRUARY 1965

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

   Keeping Scientology Working Series 1

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

             SPECIAL MESSAGE

THE FOLLOWING POLICY LETTER MEANS WHAT IT SAYS.

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

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

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

               ALL LEVELS

       KEEPING SCIENTOLOGY WORKING

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

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

The only thing now is getting the technology applied.

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

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

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

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

Getting the correct technology applied consists of

One: Having the correct technology.

Two: Knowing the technology.

Three: Knowing it is correct.

Four: Teaching correctly the correct technology.

Five: Applying the technology.

Six: Seeing that the technology is correctly applied.

Seven: Hammering out of existence incorrect technology.

Eight: Knocking out incorrect applications.

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

Ten: Closing the door on incorrect application.

One above has been done.

Two has been achieved by many.

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

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

Five is consistently accomplished daily.

Six is achieved by Instructors and Supervisors consistently.

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

Eight is not worked on hard enough.

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

Ten is seldom done with enough ferocity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do them and we'll win.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

Adopted as official
Church policy by
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
INTERNATIONAL

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



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

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

      HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

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

Remimeo
Applies to all
  SHs and
  Academies
HGCs
Franchises

      Keeping Scientology Working Series 5R

             URGENT AND IMPORTANT

              TECHNICAL DEGRADES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

Adopted as official
Church policy by
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
INTERNATIONAL

LRH:CSI:iw.gm



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

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

      HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

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

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

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

        CHART OF ABILITIES GAINED
        FOR LOWER LEVELS AND
        EXPANDED LOWER GRADES

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

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

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

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

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

LEVEL                       ABILITY GAINED

GROUP PROCESSES             Awareness that change is available.

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

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

OBJECTIVES                  Oriented in the present time of the
                            physical universe.

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

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

EXPANDED GRADE 0
 COMMUNICATIONS RELEASE

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

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

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

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

EXPANDED GRADE I
 PROBLEMS RELEASE

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

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

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

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

EXPANDED GRADE II
 RELIEF RELEASE

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

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

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

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

EXPANDED GRADE III
 FREEDOM RELEASE

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

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

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

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

EXPANDED GRADE IV
 ABILITY RELEASE

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

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

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

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

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

NEW ERA DIANETICS           A well and happy preclear.
 CASE COMPLETION

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

L. RON HUBBARD
FOUNDER

Revision assisted by
LRH Technical Research
and Compilations

Adopted as official
Church policy by
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
INTERNATIONAL

LRH:CSI:TRRC:bk.ahg.gm



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

4. HCOB    8 June 1970      Low TA Handling

      HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

       HCO BULLETIN OF 8 JUNE 1970

Remimeo

             LOW TA HANDLING

A person whose TA is low is in a state of overwhelm.

Poor TRs or rough auditing easily drive the TA down.

A TA can go low during a run like on engrams, and can come back
up when actual erasure occurs.

Usually a person whose TA goes below 2.0 when run on incidents
too steep for him will get low TA.

A low TA is of course any TA below 2.0.

An occasional cause of this is as simple as the meter not being
trimmed.

Sweaty hands, improper electrodes and sometimes a faulty meter
also cause a "low TA" to appear.

Heavy processes like LX 1-2-3 are sometimes an overwhelm.

An invalidative look on an Examiner's face can drive a TA down a
bit. Cold cans can send it UP high. Lack of rest or time of the
day gives some cases a low or high TA. At 2:00 A.M. TAs often are
very high, for instance.

Persons with low TAs tend to be somewhat inactive in life and
noncausative.

When audited with poor TRs or on processes too steep, some
persons' TAs go low (below 2.0).

An F/N is NEVER an F/N when above 3.0 or below 2.0.

Life repairs and auditing repairs, light processes and no-goof
auditing are the proper actions for low TA cases.

Auditors whose pcs' TAs go low should look to the flawlessness of
their auditing, the ease of their TRs and refuse any heavy
overwhelm-type C/Ses for such pcs.

Good two-way comm on troubling subjects, use of prepared lists on
life, mild close-to Objective Processes, no forcing over
protests, never running processes that don't read first, getting
the pc out of being effect and toward being cause, extroverting
the pc's attention with Objective Processes, all work well on low
TA cases.

The actual technical reason for low TAs is found in higher levels
and does not concern and would be of no use to lower-level pcs.

Take it easy. Don't goof as auditor or C/S are the keynotes of
low TA cases.

My opinion on this is that people worry too much about low TAs.

On Flag where auditing is done like silk, we haven't seen any low
TAs for ages.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:dz.rd.jh.gm



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

5. HCOB    6 Nov. 1964       Styles of Auditing

      HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

     HCO BULLETIN OF 6 NOVEMBER 1964

Remimeo
Franchise
Sthil Students

           STYLES OF AUDITING

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

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

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

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

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

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

                LEVEL 0
             LISTEN STYLE

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

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

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

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

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

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

               LEVEL I
          MUZZLED AUDITING

This could also be called rote-style auditing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

               LEVEL II
        GUIDING-STYLE AUDITING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

              LEVEL III
       ABRIDGED-STYLE AUDITING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

               LEVEL IV
        DIRECT-STYLE AUDITING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

               LEVEL VI
               ALL STYLE

So far, we have dealt with simple actions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

               SUMMARY

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

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

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

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:jw.rd.gm


