A Freezone Bible Supporter



Here is a complete Level 0 Academy pack from the 1970s

being posted in 11 parts.  Contents below following the

FZ Bible mission statement.



Much Love,



Tech Lover





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



FREEZONE BIBLE MISSION STATEMENT



Our purpose is to promote religious freedom and the Scientology

Religion by spreading the Scientology Tech across the internet.



The Cof$ abusively suppresses the practice and use of

Scientology Tech by FreeZone Scientologists.  It misuses the

copyright laws as part of its suppression of religious freedom.



They think that all freezoner's are "squirrels" who should be

stamped out as heritics.  By their standards, all Christians, 

Moslems, Mormons, and even non-Hassidic Jews would be considered

to be squirrels of the Jewish Religion.



The writings of LRH form our Old Testament just as the writings

of Judiasm form the Old Testament of Christianity.



We might not be good and obedient Scientologists according

to the definitions of the Cof$ whom we are in protest against.



But even though the Christians are not good and obedient Jews,

the rules of religious freedom allow them to have their old 

testament regardless of any Jewish opinion.  



We ask for the same rights, namely to practice our religion

as we see fit and to have access to our holy scriptures

without fear of the Cof$ copyright terrorists.



We ask for others to help in our fight.  Even if you do

not believe in Scientology or the Scientology Tech, we hope

that you do believe in religious freedom and will choose

to aid us for that reason.



Thank You,



The FZ Bible Association



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





******** LEVEL ZERO ACADEMY COURSE PACK ********



Level 0 Academy Course Packs (2) circa 1974 and 1976,

Almost identical [Ed Note: differences noted like this]



Dark blue soft cardboard cover 

8 1/2 by 14 inch 4 hole punched & held together by 

double retainer clips. As issued by Pubs US.



This is complete including book excerpts but does not include

the complete book "Self Analysis" which is also part of the

level (it was posted to the internet last year).



This does not include transcripts of the level 0 tapes, but

we are working on those and will post them eventually.



Note that in the 1970s, HCOBs not written by Ron were converted

to BTBs (Board Technical Bulletins), resulting in the freequent

"reissued as BTB" designation.



Note that bulletins have a "distribution" near the top stating

where they are to be used.  A common distribution is "remimeo"

which means that the orgs may run copies on their mimeo machines.

Another, older, designation is "CenOcon" which means "Central

Orgs Continental".  Others such as "D of T" (director of training)

refer to posts in the Scientology organization.





********



CONTENTS:



part 1



01. BPL   26 JAN 72R  SCIENTOLOGY LEVEL 0 STANDARD ACADEMY CHECKSHEET

02. HCOPL  7 FEB 65 reiss. 15 JUN 70 Keeping Scientology Working

03. HCOPL 17 JUN 70 Technical Degrades

04. HCOB  11 JUN 64 New Student Data

05. HCOB  25 JUN 71R rev. 25 NOV 74 Barriers To Study

06. HCOPL 31 MAY 68 Auditors

07. BPL   17 MAY 71RA r.13 NOV 72 r.10 JUN 74 Study Points and Conditions

08. HCOPL 27 MAY 65 Processing



part 2



09. HCOPL 15 DEC 65 Student's Guide To Acceptable Behavior

10. HCOPL 14 FEB 65 Safeguarding Technology

11. HCOB  27 SEP 66 The Anti-Social Personality

12. HCOPL 22 NOV 67 Rev. 18 JUL 70 Out Tech

13. HCOPL  8 JUN 70 Student Auditing

14. BPL   25 JUN 70RA Expanded Lower Grades

15. HCOB  25 SEP 71RA rev 4 APR 74 Tone Scale In Full

16. BTB   20 JUL 74 Basic Auditing Drills

17. HCOPL 14 OCT 68R rev 1 JAN 76 The Auditor's Code



part 3



18. BTB    6 NOV 72R rev 25 JUL 74 Admin 14R The Worksheets

19. BTB    6 NOV 72R rev 27 AUG 74 Admin 13R The Auditor Report Form

20. BTB    6 NOV 72R rev 28 JUL 74 Admin 12R The Summary Report Form

21. BTB   20 JUN 70 reiss 21 JUL 74 Summary Report

22. BTB    6 NOV 72RA rev 20 NOV 74 Admin 11RA The Exam Report

23. HCOPL  8 MAR 71 Examiner's Form

24. BTB    5 NOV 72R rev 9 SEP 74 Admin 7R The Folder Summary

25. BTB   24 APR 69R rev 8 SEP 74 Preclear Assessment Sheet

26. HCOPL 23 APR 68 Parent or Guardian Assent Forms

27. HCOB  16 AUG 71 Training Drills Modernized



part 4



28. HCOB  24 OCT 71 False TA

29. HCOB  24 OCT 71 False TA Addition 

30. HCOB  15 FEB 72 False TA Addition 2

31. HCOB  18 FEB 72 False TA Addition 3

32. HCOB  29 FEB 72R rev 23 NOV 73 False TA Checklist

33. HCOB  23 NOV 73 Dry and Wet Hands Make False TA

34. HCOB  21 OCT 68 Floating Needle

35. HCOB  11 FEB 66 Free Needles, How To Get Them On a PC

36. HCOB  21 SEP 66 ARC Break Needle

37. HCOB  20 FEB 70 Floating Needles and End Phenomena

38. HCOB   8 OCT 70 C/S Ser 20 Persistent F/N

39. HCOB  21 MAR 74 End Phenomena

40. HCOB  14 MAR 71R r. 25 JUL 73 F/N Everything

41. HCOB  14 OCT 68 Meter Position

42. BTB   14 JAN 63 Rings Causing "Rock Slams"

43. HCOB  18 MAR 74 E-Meter Sensitivity Errors

44. BTB   16 JUN 71R r. 22 JUL 74 Advanced E-Meter Drills

45. HCOB  11 MAY 69 Meter Trim Check

46. HCOB  23 MAY 71 aud ser 11 Metering

47. HCOB  10 DEC 65 E-Meter Drill Coaching



part 5



48. HCOB   7 APR 64 Q And A

49. HCOB   3 AUG 65 Auditing Goofs Blowdown Interruption

50. HCOB   5 FEB 66 Letting The PC Itsa

51. HCOB   7 MAY 69 The Five GAEs

52. HCOB  17 MAY 69 TRs and Dirty Needles

53. BTB    4 JUL 69 r. 6 JUL 74 Auditing of OT 3 Preclears

54. BTB   17 JUL 69 r. 28 JUN 74 Flagrant Auditing Errors

55. HCOB  29 JUL 64 Good Indicators At Lower Levels

56. BTB   26 APR 69 r. 7 JUL 64 Bad Indicators

57. HCOPL  4 APR 72 rev. 7 APR 72 Ethics And Study Tech

58. HCOB  14 NOV 65 Clearing Commands

59. BTB    2 MAY 72R r. 10 JUN 74 Clearing Commands

60. BTB   18 NOV 68R r. 9 JUN 74 Model Session

61. HCOB  12 AUG 69 Flying Ruds

62. HCOB  23 AUG 71 (24 May 70 rev) Auditors Rights

63. HCOB   6 NOV 64 Styles of Auditing



part 6



64. HCOB  30 APR 71 Auditing Comm Cycle

65. HCOB  23 MAY 71 aud ser 2R The Two Parts Of Auditing

66. HCOB  23 MAY 71 aud ser 3 Three Important Comm Lines

67. HCOB  23 MAY 71R aud ser 4R Comm Cycles Within the Auditing Cycle

68. HCOB  23 MAY 71R aud ser 5R The Comm Cycles In Auditing



part 7



69. HCOB  12 JAN 59 Tone of Voice - Acknowledgement

70. HCOB  23 MAY 71 aud ser 6 Auditor Failure To Understand

71. HCOB  23 MAY 71 aud ser 7 Premature Acknowledgements

72. HCOPL  1 JUL 65 Comm Cycle Additives

73. HCOB  29 SEP 65 Cyclical and Non-Cyclical Processes

74. HCOB  17 MAR 74 TWC, Using Wrong Questions

75. BOOK  Dianetics 55 Chapter 12 The 6 Basic Processes



part 8



76. HCOB  16 FEB 59 Staff Auditor's Conference



part 9



77. HCOB  20 OCT 59 An Experimental Process

78. HCOB  16 FEB 59 HGC Processes for those trained in Engram Running

79. HCOB   8 APR 58 A Pair Of Processes

80. HCOB   9 MAR 60 Expansion of OT-3A Procedure, Step Two

81. HCOB  20 APR 60 Processes

82. HCOB  27 SEP 68 ARC Straight Wire

83. BTB    9 OCT 71RA r. 28 JUN 74 ARC Straightwire Drills

84. BTB   15 NOV 76 ARC Straightwire Quads

85. BOOK  Creation of Human Ability R2-31

86. PAB    8 JUL 55 PAB 56 Axiom 51 and Comm Processing



part 10



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

88. HCOB  17 MAR 60 Standardized Sessions

89. HCOB   4 MAY 59 An Affinity Process

90. HCOB   2 MAR 61 New Pre-Hav Command

91. HCOB  25 SEP 59 HAS Co-Audit

92. HCOB  21 JUL 59 HGC Allowed Processes

93. BOOK   Creation of Human Ability R2-60

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

95. HCOB   7 MAY 59 New Process Theory

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

97. HCOB  11 DEC 64 Scientology 0 Processes

98. HCOB  26 DEC 64 Routine 0-A Expanded



part 11



99. BTB    9 OCT 71RA r. 29 JUL 74 Level 0 Drills

100. BTB  15 NOV 76 Grade Zero Processes - Quads



********



76. HCOB  16 FEB 59 Staff Auditor's Conference





HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE



WASHINGTON, D.C.



STAFF AUDITORS' CONFERENCE OF FEBRUARY 16, 1959



REGARDING HCO BULLETIN OF FEBRUARY 16, 1959:

HGC PROCESSES FOR THOSE TRAINED IN ENGRAM RUNNING

OR TRAINED IN THESE PROCESSES



Nearly everyone here has been trained in these exact

processes and, if anyone here hasn't been trained in these

processes, then everything on this Bulletin applies except

Engram Running. The whole bulletin applies except Engram

Running.



There will be a staff Theta Clearing Course, and those

auditors who are on staff who have not been trained by an

ACC in Engram Running will have an opportunity to get that

training; and not too many months will go by before they

are up to this, too. So this will apply at that time. Maybe

it will have shifted slightly by that time, but I don't

think very much.



Now what you are looking at here is the aggregate know-how

that was gained and assembled on the 21st American ACC.



UNDERCUTTING CASES:



Now the undercuts of cases became a vital necessity. This

whole ACC was devoted to the R factor plus Engram Running.

It was discovered that the thing that keeps individuals

from running engrams adequately was their R factor, and

when their R factor was very poor they could not run an

engram adequately. Now the funny part of it is that an

engram can be contacted and run and, if done persistently

and well without ARC breaks, can run the following Scale of

Confront. Here is the Scale of Confront, just to refresh

your minds: DUB-IN: Lowest scale. This scale could possibly

invert, and down below that you might have a black dub-in.

Once you had run blackness, you would find a dub-in 

case. But the scale we are mostly interested in,

because that is the one we most commonly see, begins at the

bottom with dub-in, runs up, turns



BLACK. Runs through blackness, turns



INVISIBLE. Runs from invisible to



ELSEWHERE—a desire to be elsewhere. The way they solve

things is elsewhereness.



Runs up from elsewhereness to



ABILITY TO CONFRONT. Runs from confront to



EXPERIENCE or PARTICIPATE. And only then are you up to



BEINGNESS.



Now this is the Confront Scale, and it is the scale of

disintegrating Reality. It is how a person handles

terminals or a situation. A person handles terminals and

situations above all this by not having to participate, by

not having to confront, finding no necessity to do anything

about it unless he chooses so on his own determination; and

if he did so, could do so with no personal liability. He

could experience or not as the case may be. Now you'll find

a lower harmonic on this in some philosophic level of

somebody saying, "Yap, yap, well, I could, or I couldn't,

and that's my choice," etc, well, he hasn't got any power

of choice. He's just using this as the final escape

mechanism—a philosophic escape mechanism.



If I said "bottom"—the bottom mechanism—it would be the one

most commonly contacted. But you are apt to get a mechanism

which is philosophic, which is simply a figure-figure

mechanism about a situation, and the individual feels that

if he could just figure it out he would be all right. In

other words, this is a thought-thinkingness figure-figure,

and he not-ises by figure-figure. Such a case, not-ising by 

figure-figure, will turn into a dub-in case as soon as you start 

curing his figure-figure; would turn into a black case; would turn

into an invisible case; would turn into a confront case;

would turn into an experience case. Which is quite interesting.



Now it is true that an engram could be found, started, and,

if the auditor were good and held the individual right on

the time period and had the time period well spotted, and

had the overt and motivator, no matter how crazy they

seemed or sounded, contacted, he could theoretically, just

by running that engram, run a person through the totality

of this Reality Scale. See? So there's another approach

here. You get a guy who is figure-figure, find the engram

necessary to resolve the case. First he figure-figures

about it, and he'll run it, and run it just with the

auditing commands—the five auditing commands to run an

engram—he figure-figures about it, then after a while he

dubs-in about it, then after a while it all goes black; and

then after a while it eases into an invisibility—it's just

not there—somatics are, and discomfort and other things

are, but it's not there—and its not-thereness suddenly

turns into little flicks— little flicks of confront. And

boy, he goes elsewhere. It just starts to turn on and he

gets it for the least little Flick and he goes elsewhere.

And then pretty soon he can confront the thing; then pretty

soon he can participate—he can run it in valence, squarely

in valence, right in its moment of time, at which time it

becomes pretty damn real. And then he goes to being able to

put it there or not put it there, and its

importance-unimportance factor flattens out so that it's

neither important nor unimportant. And that engram is licked.



Theoretically, this could happen. That is actually the way

I run engrams. But you will find in auditing in the HGC

that the public expects of you a different thing than is

expected of you by students. And that's why I wanted to

talk to you for a few minutes. They expect a different

thing. They expect you to be interested in their case. And

that is quite amusing— because it's your job to get them

interested in their case. But they want you to be

interested in their case. A11 right, any case is

interesting, so that's a pretty easy one. But you can get

so interested in their case that you do a lot of talking to

them and burn up an awful lot of auditing time. So there is

some point where your interest becomes an indulgence, and

on the happier side of that, where the pc is pleased you're

interested in his case, and that's enough. Then you get him

interested in his case.



All right. Now, we have for a long time not used PT

problems. I'll tell you why very bluntly. It was not

unusual for an auditor to burn up twelve and a half hours

on a PT problem.



It was not unusual. He did this with two motives: one just

yak, letting the pc go on and on, poor control, not

controlling the pc's comm outflow, letting the pc get into

non-essentials. And the other side of it: he was trying to

run the whole case with the PT problem. Well, wonderful—you

can run a whole case with a PT problem—but why? Since it's

slow freight.



That's a very slow way to go about it. So we take a PT

problem now and handle the session in this fashion:



We establish the rudiments every time we establish a

session. Find the auditor, find the pc, find the auditing

room, establish a goal for the session. Do that rapidly. We

don't care what goal it is, so long as he has some kind of

a goal. And then we ask for a PT problem. And we take an

E-Meter (up to that time we didn't care whether the pc was

handling the cans or not) but we take an E-Meter, and we

have this PT problem appear on the E-Meter, or we don't run it.



Got it? And we run the PT problem that appears on the

E-Meter. So we get him to state this problem, and we don't

care how he states the problem, because all we want to know

is "Did it drop?" That tells you at once you won't run a PT

problem on a stage-4 needle. Didn't drop-see, that's all

within the requirements—it didn't drop, so skip it. It

isn't going to be real to the pc anyhow. You'll have to do

something else with this case. He's probably got thousands

of problems; probably all of life is a problem. Probably

every time he walks in a room he installs an engram. You

know, the furniture's there—that's an engram. Get the idea?

So why worry about a problem?



But if you got a PT problem that drops, you should remove

yourself at that moment from all temptation. As soon as the

problem drops, and as soon as he states that it is a problem to

him and is worrying him in present time, you take the cans

away from him and put the thing aside. Just lay the E-Meter

aside. You're not interested in an E-Meter from there on.

The reason why is because you'll increase the drop, you'll

increase more drop and more drop as you ask him about it.

You're already running it. And the problem is going to

change. You have seen this phenomenon. You're not

interested in a problem changing. The fact of your laying

aside the E-Meter will rather convince him that you have

found it and that's it. And you only want to know this: the

personnel associated with that problem. You don't want to

know more about the problem. You just want to know the

personnel associated with that problem. His wife, his

mother, and his wife's boy friend, or something of that

sort. And that's the personnel associated with the problem.

You just check that off.



Now, I'm going to ask you to take a notebook and a

ball-point into the auditing room, because you've got two

or three things to do here that require a list. I want you

to get accustomed to establishing a list and then

flattening it, not trying to run the case all over new

again every time the case changes. That's one of the ways

to waste time. You run one terminal, and of course the case

changes, the problems change, everything changes on the

case. If you re-assessed it at this time to find a new

terminal, you'd for sure find new terminals. Well, the

devil with it. Let's just flatten what we contact, and when

we're contacting and scouting and using cans and the

E-Meter, just write down what we find. Then put the E-Meter

aside and run what we've found until we get rid of all of

that. Now you're going to do something new—give him back

the E-Meter cans. Got the idea?



Pcs don't much like to hold onto these E-Meter cans

forever. Furthermore, they become restive, and they want to

scratch their heads, and they want to do this, and they

want to rassle around, and most pcs you get are slightly

nervous in this direction. Why should you worry about it?

Because the E-Meter is only going to give you a certain

amount of the information that is quite valid. Now, you're

going to write down the personnel connected with this PT

problem.



You're going to take SELECTED PERSON OVERT-WITHHOLD on each

one of these people. And the commands for this are right here:



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



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



And you are going to run one of those commands and the next

command, and then the next command—first command again,

then the second command, first command, second command. In

that way, you'll never lay an egg on an unbalanced flow. No

flow will unbalance on you. They'll always stay there more

or less stable. The case won't suddenly turn black when

it's not supposed to turn black, and so forth. You won't

ever over-run a flow and the pc will never get upset.



Now, let's look at this again. You have written down

"wife", "his mother", and "his wife's boy friend". Which

one do you run first? You have to ask this question to

establish that terminal: "Which one of these things do you

think is the most real to you?" The individual says, "Oh,

Mother, of course." Who cares? That's what he says. All

right, so that's the first one you take. Then you take the

two remaining ones: "Which one is most real?" That's the

one you knock out. That leaves you one more person. Knock

that one out.



Now, there is something that is not stated here. I just

typed this up rapidly for you—I didn't have a backing

sheet, so there are typographicals because I couldn't even

see what I was typing. This has a criterion, and it is an

old criterion of all PT problems—it is, they are PT

problems. By definition, a PT problem must exist right now

in the physical universe. By definition. So therefore, the

personnel involved in a PT problem must exist right now in

the physical universe. He will tell you halfway through the

run, that "It was actually my mother who influenced me this

way"—ah skip it. That's not a PT personnel in that problem.

His mother isn't really part of, let us say—it was her

mother that was part of the PT problem. In other words, the

people have to be actually associated with the problem and

existing at this time in this pc's life influencing that

problem, for this to be a PT problem. So therefore, we

don't dive in any direction to pick up any new personnel we

don't care about.



We get this problem flat. It is only flat if it answers

this question: "Now, what do you have to do about that

problem now?" And the pc says, "Nothing." It's flat. For

our purposes, it's flat. The only reason we're running it

is we're trying to get rid of the obsession he has to jump

out of the auditing room and go do something about this

problem. If he doesn't have to do anything about it, it's

flat. But if he says, "Oh, it's flat, because I could go

and talk to my wife's boy friend now, and I could handle

him." No. Start right back over from the beginning—the

first person you wrote down—and run that person again for a

short time—next person for a short time—next person for a

short time—on these exact auditing questions.



"Now, what do you have to do about the problem?" He'll tell

you, "Well, I don't have to do anything about it just now."

That's enough. You consider that flat. Got it? All right.

This will keep you out of all kinds of trouble. And it will

keep the pc from being all hung up in trying to go

elsewhere in an auditing session. So much for that.



This is done at the beginning of every session. That first

section there—it says, "STARTING A CASE: AND BEGIN EVERY

SESSION". Well, you not only start each intensive with

this, but you start every session with this, and you do the

same thing.



If it takes you two hours to flatten the PT problem, I will

think something is hung up.



This is a rapid one. This is not a slow one. If it takes a

couple of hours, well, something's really haywire here. He

didn't say the problem, or he didn't do something, or he's

holding something back. But notice we have said, "Think of

something you have done to" and "Think of something you

have withheld from". This will also get the pc talking to

you, because it gets rid of the withhold. Got that? All

right. So much for that.



Now, DYNAMIC STRAIGHT WIRE you were taught in the 21st

American, but the commands for the general public were not

given to you. And they are given to you here on this sheet,

this HCO Bulletin. Now, the only thing you are looking for

is a represented substitute.



In other words, you're looking for substitutes. You ask him

for a substitute for himself, and you ask him for a

substitute on the basis of "Tell me something that would

represent yourself." And he says, "Represent myself? Oh,

that's very, very easy—a tree." Get your ball-point busy at

that point and put down "tree". Got it? Now, if he even

says "toothbrush", get your ball-point busy. The proper

answer, of course, is "Myself". It's just as simple as

that. But the more a case is daffy on this line, the more

attention you're going to pay to it. So you just run this

whole assessment right straight on through: Self, sex,

family, children, groups, mankind, the animal kingdom,

birds, beasts, fish, vegetables, trees, growing things,

matter, energy, space, time, spirits, souls, gods, God.

Just one question. Each time you say this you just take one

of those: "Tell me something that would represent, for

instance, souls." The individual says, "Running water." Get

the ball-point busy. Write it down. When you have got this

whole list assessed, take the list you have written and run:



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



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



You'll be amazed, but they have actually done something to

a toothbrush, and they have actually withheld something

from a toothbrush. This is pretty terrific. Quite amazing.

But you are only looking for daffiness on this, and a

sensible answer you don't pay much attention to.



You say, "Tell me something that would represent trees."

And the fellow says, "Leaves." Now, there's a matter of

judgment involved here. What if he said, "Shadows"? Well, I

don't know. That's a matter of judgment. Try to run it or

not try to run it, as the case may be. If it looks daffy to

you, run it. You're the judge. Got the idea?



Now don't let it look daffy to you when you say, "Tell me

something that would represent spirits," and he says,

"Souls." When you say "souls", he says "spirits". That's

not daffy.



But how about this guy that gives you the perfect

representation all the way down the line like a little

wound-up doll? You already, in looking him over, find out

he has a sticky needle, he's registering at 6 on your

E-Meter when you first put the cans in his hands, and he gives

you all the answers perfectly. That case is giving you an

intellectual response which has nothing to do with any

reality under the sun, moon or stars. Something he read in

a book and a machine is rattling it off. So you do the

assessment again. The second time you go through you're

liable to trip him on something. Got the idea? So, if you

get a perfect assessment, run it again. I actually don't

care how many times you run it, but you're apt to be

wasting time, because by two-way comm and definition alone

you may not get anywhere with a very badly machined case.

Nevertheless, a couple of times through, he should trip

somewhere. Machine case generally does.



The rule governing Dynamic Straight Wire is: That which

doesn't fall out by two-way comm just on assessment. He

says it, and then it looks funny to him, and he laughs, and

he thinks this is for the birds, and he says, "Oh, no, that

wouldn't be one-actually, a substitute for a tree would be

a leaf, or a small tree," or something like this. That's

fine. Nothing wrong with letting him correct himself,

because you are actually auditing him just by asking him

the question. People, when they straighten out things in

their own categories, very often recover very, very easily.



All right. Let's take up this next one here. That's an easy

way to run Dynamic Straight Wire, isn't it, huh? I would

ask you to do this, however, in view of the fact that you

are doing a professional job of auditing for the public

mainly, and that is, I'd ask you to memorize that

list—rather than hold a bulletin in your hand and read it.



Now, the next thing we're going to run into here is PAST AND FUTURE

EXPERIENCE. This is a bid for two things: One, the lowest

level case there is—because experience, to him, is a

dub-in, usually. Or it's a figure-figure, or it's

something, so it compares to the Reality Scale. His

definition of experience compares with the Reality Scale.



His definition of experience is a direct index to the

Reality Scale, by the way. What does experience mean? He'll

say, "Experience—that's very easy. To consider." There

you've got your figure-figure level. "What does experience

mean?" Well, "To write about it or make something out of

it—experience is that thing which you use to manufacture

the future." He's dub. "Now, what is an experience?" "Well,

experience is that which you try not to have." That's

probably black or invisible. Or, "It's the thing you

forget," would be blackness.



"Experience is something you try to forget"— invisibility

level. "Experience is something you have to cope with."

Obsessive confront. "Experience is—ah—well,

experience—that's pretty hard to define—experience. I guess

it's to go through something." You're getting a fairly sane

response—to go through something. To have an actual

adventure, something of this sort.



You're getting a fairly sane reaction to experience.



So don't think that Past and Future Experience is pegging

up at the highest level of the Reality Scale. It isn't.

This process was found, in the 21st American, to be the

undercut process. This was the lowest undercut process. And

this is a killer, and it is very trying to an auditor. A

very trying process, because it offers so many wonderful

temptations. And that's what's wrong with this process.



Now, you run these two questions, one after the other, with

no assessment, no E-Meter, nothing. You just put the

E-Meter down after you've done the Dynamic Straight Wire

thing, because on Dynamic Straight Wire, when you said,

"Children," the needle was going on a gradual shift over

here, and a little theta bop now and then. You said,

"Children," and it fell a dial, or all of a sudden started

doing a big theta bop in the middle. When you got off of

children, it settled down to the other pattern. That told

you that you had something to be run on the subject of

children. That he will also, at the same time, give you a

daffy reading, he will tell you some daffy terminal to

represent—so you needed the E-Meter there. But you don't

need the E-Meter on Past and Future Experience, not even

vaguely. You can just put the E-Meter aside and turn it

off, and just run these two commands. Just clear them with

the pc very bluntly. Say, "We're going to run something

about experience. Now, we're going to see how you get along

with this little process, and here are the commands of it:

What part of your life would you be willing to

re-experience? And the other command is: What part of the

future would you be willing to experience? Now, here's the first

command: What part of your life would you be willing to

re-experience?"



The answer actually called for is a time, isn't it? And

this is a time process. But there are very few preclears

that will find this out for a very long period. They won't

give you anything but super-significances and ball-up, and

the pc who is real bad off will give you a type of

experience. You accept all these things. You say, "What

part of your life would you be willing to re-experience?"

He says, "Well, eating cake." That's an answer? That's an

answer. And that's followed with this: "What part of the

future would you be willing to experience?" He says, "Well,

more cake." That's an answer. So you just accept any answer

that he gives you on the line. It gradually will boil down

to a time answer. And it will gradually go back-track. The

longer you run it, the more track you're going to cover,

the more future you're going to cover.



And there will be periods when the individual is absolutely

sure that he is totally predicting the future. He gets into

implants, let us say, that tell him what the future is all

about. He's stuck 8000 years ago, but he's telling you

about the future. All kinds of odd phenomena show up.



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

after the other.



You run this for a while, and the individual says, "OOOh,

well, you know I really wouldn't be willing—well, I would

be willing—I don't know—I would—oohh, well—I really don't

know—dental operation there, I was a young boy—I don't know

if I'd like to re-experience that—I guess I could

re-experience sitting in the—no, no, no. I could

re-experience— I could re-experience the next day after

it." You say, "That's fine," and just mark it down with the

ball-point: "Dental experience as a child." That one he

can't confront. Now, you're never going to run it as an

engram, but you're going to have some tag of it as an

engram. See, it may show you something.



As you go along and he runs into hot experiences, real,

real hot experiences one right after the other, it is about

time you put the E-Meter back in his paws. Get the idea?

You don't have to start it with the E-Meter, but if he

starts running into hot experiences, or if he gets into an

engram and he can't seem to get out of the thing, the thing

to do is not run the engram but give him an E-Meter and

spot it in time for him. Get it spotted in time. If he's

running into them hot and heavy, one right after the other,

just leave him with the E-Meter. But if there is only one

you have to spot in time, and then in a little while he

doesn't seem to be running any more, take the cans away

from him again and put the E-Meter aside. But if he starts

running into one that obsessively sticks with him, don't

let him flounder in the thing for an hour. Don't let him

wallow in this one. Because he will just wallow in it, and

this is no process-this is not a good process to run an

engram with. So you let him out, OK? And the way you let

him out is to locate it in time with an E-Meter. And you go

on running the process. Now, as I say, it offers enormous

temptations to the auditor—beautiful temptations to run the

things contacted. As you sit this out, you actually are

going to change the characteristic of the engram you will

ultimately run on the case. But you keep listing engrams

that he runs into. Keep listing engrams that he runs into,

well knowing that he will favor motivators. For every one

of those motivators there is an overt. Now an engram that

he consistently and persistently keeps hitting and hitting

and hitting, you are going to find in that engram probably

the engram you will run, eventually. But not until he is in

PT, out of the engram, it seems to have dropped out, and so

forth, and he seems to be all smooth on this thing, are you

going to reach for that one again. You are going to flatten

the process and then go to the engram.



Here we go. ENGRAM RUNNING. Of course, that is run all the

way through with an E-Meter. Give him the cans and start

out on this engram that you more or less found with Past

and Future Experience.



Now, this is going to undercut cases, and I don't care how

long you run it. I don't care if you run it for two weeks,

because this is a very productive process. But if you are

going to run it over that period of time, it isn't noted

here, but some THIRD RAIL had better be brought in here

some place. And he'd better be shifted up finally until

havingness. And you put in PAST AND FUTURE EXPERIENCE,

right after that line, "COMBINE WITH THIRD RAIL IF

RUN MORE THAN 8 HOURS". If you run it eight hours, this

guy's havingness is going to start dropping on him, and you

are going to run into difficulties. You could get into

difficulties.



All right.



ENGRAM RUNNING. Well, Engram Running, when the case has

been prepared this way, becomes very simple. A case will

start running like a little typewriter, if you have got

this Past and Future Experience pretty flat.



Once you have picked an engram, make sure you get its

motivator not only its overt. If you have got an overt, get

the motivator. If you have got the motivator, get the

overt. And only when you have got that have you got an

incident. Now, an engram that is having one side of the

overt or motivator run will get sticky. You have got to

find the other side, and you have got to get both of these

things in date. Normally, this will start showing up on

Past and Future Experience. Well, we are going to run this

engram with an E-Meter, we are going to consider that we

have an incident when we have got both a motivator and an

overt that fit together. And if the thing is just awful

sticky, and dubby, and shockingly poor, and a lot of other

things, you just started running it too fast, that is all.



We have got several things you can do at this state of the

case, and so forth. Probably the best of them is go back to

running Past and Future Experience. You didn't flatten it.



Now, here is this Engram Running. If you notice here, it

says you run all the commands that run an engram twice. Run

them all twice. That's because "Find something unimportant

in that incident" is going to stir up stuff that newly has

to be confronted.



Once you have chosen an engram and you have begun to run

it, you have had it. That's it. That's the engram you are

going to run. So it has to be chosen with considerable

care. Listen to me now: If you re-assess the case after you

have started an engram, you will get almost any other

incident that is hot to drop more than the engram you

started, because most of the charge is already dissipated.

So if you keep re-assessing a case, thinking another engram

would be better to run for the case, you are of course

always going to find another engram. You will never find

the one you started to run again dropping with as much

velocity. You see? That's something you have to keep in

mind. If you are going to run an engram, that's the engram

you are going to run. It's got to have its overt or

motivator; suppose you are running the overt side of it,

you have got to have the motivator side of it. So you

really haven't got an incident until you have got both of

these things located. And once you have started to run

that, you have had it. Because it will discharge its charge

and won't register on a meter any more the way some other

incident will.



You can get a case just stirred all up and run all

backwards and upside down, and that's the biggest mistake

an auditor can make. I have given you the reason for the

mistake-because now almost anything will drop better than

the one you partially flattened.



If in doubt, run the engram you were running. If you are

not getting rapid recovery, go back to the first engram you

ran and considered flat and run it again. Sometimes, it

will only take you fifteen minutes to run all five

commands. You do it very fast. But very often something

happened that it re-charged in some fashion. Very peculiar.



If you leave about a third of an engram missing and unflat,

the whole engram has a tendency to charge up again. It is

kind of funny. But you have got to flatten the engram you

contacted.



Now the rule of the Last Largest Object is the only one I

want you to pay any attention to in questioning the pc. Pc

apparently is getting out of it. Change your auditing

command. You are running, "What part of that incident can

you confront?" He says, "Well, I don't know, it's pretty

unreal to me, I don't know whether this happened or not."

What was the last largest object? If he said anything that

was offbeat and showed an unwillingness to run any more of

the engram, you want to find out at once what was the last

largest object that you contacted in there. And he says, "A

house." You are going to shift your auditing command now

to: "What part of that house can you confront?" And you are

going to run that simply until he is back in the incident,

and then you are going to go off on to "What part of that

incident can you confront?" Doesn't require any vast

bridge. You just tell him you are going to shift.



In that way, using that rule, you can actually pick up an

engram where he was running as Abraham Lincoln, and in the

engram he was shot in Ford's Theatre—you know—and the date

is obviously correct. Dropped and everything. And then he

runs John Wilkes Booth—no, he wasn't Lincoln, he was John

Wilkes Booth. And so help me God, you may find that he was

the Secret Service Agent who had a couple of drinks that

night and wasn't watching. You don't care whether he runs

it dub or not. Don't give up because he's running it wrong,

because it'll come out right.



There was a joke on us in the 21st American. We had our

paws on Bowie. He was Jim Bowie. And of course everybody

doubted this, because it is a famous historical figure. And

they tried to do everything under the sun to shake him out

of this engram, and they finally went back to running it,

and it was the one that flattened out. The trouble was, he

had dub on it, which made Bowie die the wrong kind of a

death under wrong circumstances. But as he ran it, the more

he ran it, the more he ran it, the more right the

circumstances got. And it finally all came out in the wash.

He did run the death of Jim Bowie.



Historical figures, however, are usually the yo-yo point

used. The guy went out of his own body at the death; there

was some current historical figure; he said, "That is the

identity necessary to resolve this incident. That identity

could handle it. So I will just be Catherine the Great."

And he goes and runs Catherine the Great. The only mistake

is to let him escape out of the time period. Maybe he did

yo-yo right into the palace, maybe he did go right through

her skull. But the right engram will shake out, because the

Reality Scale is run by running an engram.



Theoretically, you could clear a person just by running one

engram well enough. So never get off onto quantitative

engrams. An engram is merely something for him to get used

to confronting, and creating, and mocking up, and so forth.

It's just a playing field you are using.



The significance, the amount of change he gets in his life,

none of these things have anything to do with it at all. It

is just how well he can handle a mental image picture, and

you have chosen a honey for him to handle. That is about

all it amounts to. And when he finds out he can handle this

thing from A to Izzard and beginning to end, and he can do

it well, then the next engram to resolve the case will run

quite rapidly. And you will run on down and finally run his

basic, earliest shift of identity, which is the rock. And

formerly he said, "There is a beautiful, clear

sphere—that's the rock. And that's all the rock." Oh, heck.

When you get several engrams run and get the rock as one of

the engrams, you find out this beautiful, clear sphere was

something he customarily clamped around thetans as a trap,

and they sometimes clamped it around him, and there were

raiding parties, and there was all kinds of personnel and

there is drama and there is strain, and there is scenery

and everything else. When you contacted the rock first and

ran the rock first, he was insufficiently able to contact

things. The date when he was mocking up this thing, he was

so capable of mocking up that later on this poor, little,

weak ole thetan, years and years and centuries and so forth

afterwards going back to mock up this rock—uh-uh— it's too

beefy. That's too much engram for him to confront first off.



So you choose the engrams—it doesn't much matter what you

choose. You will find that every sexual incident you

contact is a bounce from a death. A little rule for you. So

don't let me catch anybody in the HGC running prenatals,

birth, conception, because that is a bounce.



Those are all tied in with the death, and the death is the

engram which is necessary to resolve the case. So you keep

running Past and Future Experience until you get them down

to that— OK? Leave the second dynamic incidents severely alone.



Now it can be that he died, and he died is followed by a

conception sequence, and he goes back to the old body to

see if it is still decently buried—you know—and then he

can't find the person that he thought he was going to be, get 

the next body from, and he gets all confused. And mess-ups of 

this character can occur. But keep him on the incident. Is this

part of the text? When you finish a death and go through

the exteriorization sequence, right at the end of it there

is a conception or a prenatal or a birth. They quite

ordinarily bounce into it, and you don't want it. You want

nothing to do with it. So you stop him when you have got

all of the exteriorization run.



There is a lot to know about engrams. You have been taught

all this, but I am just showing you what you can do to win

in the HGC with Engram Running. This would be a good, clean

job then.



Every time you run an engram, now is the time to use some

Not-Is Straight Wire, with its ordinary commands which you

know. They are:



"Recall something that you implied was unimportant."

"Recall something somebody else thought was important."



Don't ever let a pc run it in reverse, because it

discharges havingness in about five commands. That is real

rough the other way, too.



All right. Now there we have a rundown that will get

engrams run, that will get ordinary, run-of-the-mill cases

squared around, and that will get a lot done. But what

about people who were not through the American 21st? And

during that period of time up until they start in with a

Theta Clearing Course, to run actual engrams on pcs, how

about these people? Well, you have Selected Person Overts,

with the "withhold" command added, and you will have a new

bulletin out on these things, and so forth. We want that

auditing to be relatively muzzled. It will win and

everything will go along just dandy. But if you have got

some case (and this is more for D.O.P.s than anything

else)—if you have got some case that was awfully hard to

start, very low random profile, you'd better turn it over

to a graduate of the 21st American. And if you have got

some case that, after he ran along for a while and was

getting up to a point where he'd just run engrams

beautifully, and the whole track's opening up, everything

is going along just dandy, and it is certain that the

engram necessary to resolve the case is just waiting, give

him an auditor that can run it.



In other words, you can run an HGC this way: You can get

some auditors that set pcs up to run engrams. You got the

idea? And then you can have some auditors that run engrams.

This is not any real violation of the Auditor's Code,

because that will still give him the best processes and the

best treatment for the pc that can be given.



Now there is no reason why, particularly after a staff

Theta Clearing Course, that everybody can't run a regimen

of this sort. But running it in the HGC, with all the

profiles being submitted to me and all the Case Analysis

Reports—the Case Analysis Reports now are more vital than

profiles, because R changed on a case does not necessarily

change the profile at all. You should know about that. You

can change the R of the case without changing the profile.

The person answered the same questions, only he answered

them with Reality. This is quite remarkable. We need a

brand new test. That test is in development right at this

moment. It is a confront test, and that test will be coming

up, but there is no reason to rush it, particularly.



Let's just do it by Case Analysis.



I will get out a Bulletin that will take care of auditors

who were not trained to run engrams, what they will run.

But you already have data and material on this, and it is

just as before, what you have been running.



Now, to start a case out with NOT-IS STRAIGHT WIRE is

adventurous. That's an adventurous thing to do. That's a

rough thing to do. We learned a great many things in the

21st American ACC. Learned a great many things, and that

was one of them. Selected Persons Overt-Withhold is very,

very superior in undercutting cases to Selected Persons

Overts. The only main change we have got is that we run

Selected Person Overt-Withhold commands, just

as it is given here in PT problem. That is a wonderful

thing to do with a case, as long as the terminal is real to

the pc. And there is no real reason that running a

Scientologist, who knows what the command is, why ARC Break

Straight Wire cannot be run on a person by an auditor who

has not been through an Engram Running Course. That's a

beautiful process.



I want to tell you something else. Can I tell you something

here? A lot of research was done in the 21st American ACC,

and students didn't see me as much as they thought they

should, I suppose, but I was around. And I never saw so

many flips and changes and vagaries in my life as I saw in

that particular unit. The reports which I got were

very—very helpful to me—very, very helpful to Scientology

at large. There was a great deal done in that course. I

spent about three weeks of the course—did very rapid

research just in catching up with some of these undercuts.

Because, let me assure you, the R factor in most of the

cases you approach is so low that it poses a problem of

running greater than we had ever imagined. Therefore, these

are the processes that we are handing out.



Now, these are a Not-Is type of process. Dynamic Straight

Wire runs a straight identification, but the rest of these

things are Not-Is types of processes. To cure somebody from

not-ising. When a person can confront something, he no

longer has to not-is it.



But there was a funny command came up along the line, that

I don't fully understand yet, but it takes care of a theta

body. Now this is part of the research that was never given

to the 21st American. And this is a peculiar darned thing.

You can write it down on the back of this Bulletin, if you

want to.



It is:



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



And that is just about the wildest thing you ever saw. Now

that runs all by itself but can be combined with:



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



And you will run all the newspapers off the case. The

second command there is really not essential, but you just

run this first command repetitively, and if it seems to run

down or something bad happens, flip over to the other

command. But you will as-is a theta body.



This is the doggondest thing you ever saw. It is a

perfectly wild pitch. I was just adding up all possible

combinations and working in all possible directions, and

this one fell out of the hamper, and it doesn't integrate

too well with the rest of your data. But this is the goofy one.



Now, something else came up in the 21st American that I

should tell you in the HGC, and that is: After nine years,

we have found out WHY. We had nine years of HOW, and now in

the ninth year we find out why. Why people are aberrated.

Why they are sick. Why they act the way they do. Why

individuation takes place. And that is all wrapped up with

WITHHOLD.



I had withhold earlier, but didn't shake it all out of the

hamper, because I didn't have the overts to go with it. We

find out that an individual gets sick by having the overt

impulse to make somebody else sick and then withholds it,

because it is less social to give people illnesses. So he

gets them himself. This is Freudian transference, it is a

whole number of things. So when you run these overts, run

the withhold with it and the case will start finding out why.



The theta body thing, and the masses and ridges, why, they

run out when you ask a person to recall a time when he

thought something bad was unimportant, or recall—well, that

is the best command—recall a time when he thought something

bad was unimportant. When you run this, you evidently run

the center pin of the withhold. But you will get his

tolerance. And this is the first straight ethical process,

evidently, we have. It raises a person's ethics. It as-ises

a theta body. It takes demon bodies and things like that

off cases. I tested it two or three times here, just 

monkeying around with this thing, and it is one of the 

wilder ones. This is a wild pitch, that particular process.



So you could say that when a field doesn't immediately

disintegrate, when you can't get an individual easily in

the engram, when the field stays persistently black or

something like that, you have got another string to your

bow, and I don't care if you use it. But if you do use it,

know this: It runs as an automaticity on such a demon case.

He runs br-r-r-r-t—the last two thousand years he has been

not-ising and saying it was unimportant that something was bad.



And he will start coming up with, "Well, I should do

something—no, I shouldn't do something—well, what is this?

I should do something about it. I shouldn't do something

about it. I have been very neglectful, but that really

isn't bad. Not really. Somebody dying from the bullet wound

I gave ‘em—that really isn't bad. But—" And he is stuck

right with the consideration on all of his

overts—consequences of overts. They all must be

unimportant. And it reduces his ethical level. But I have

now seen two demon bodies disintegrate just with that one

command just disintegrate—and this is the first time we

ever had something that would disintegrate the astral body.

So we find out at once that the astral body was an

aberration. It isn't a necessary thing to make a thetan

stick in the head at all.



All right. Now I wanted to give you this rundown, because

today you were having a little bit of a rough time doing a

transition from student to pro auditor, and I wanted to

talk to you, even though it burned up some of your valuable

time and mine. And ask you to sic semper transit, huh?



Now are there any questions? Yes, Jean.



Q. I have two questions. In running of the engram, do you

ignore what they were running in the ACC, or do you just go

back and run them? My preclear has had several engrams started.



A. Now, if we look over this carefully, we see in running

an incident: Find the engram necessary to resolve the case.

Once you have chosen it and have begun to run it, be sure

you have the motivator and the overt and then do not, do

not, do not, do not, depart from that incident to run

another that "drops better" or comes up. Now look here. The

engrams that were run on them in the course are no longer

going to fall. And an engram is not going to show on an

E-Meter. And if there were several engrams run on somebody

in the course, and the first one wasn't flattened, then

whoever audited them ought to be hit in the head with a

sledge-hammer.



There's only one or two cases that got by with this, that I

have checked up on so far, and it is about the most serious

blunder that could be made. Now, what you do in a case

that's had an engram already started is get a lie reaction

check—that's all you want—of some sort or another,

concerning this particular thing. You can put him on the

E-Meter and ask him if it was run, and so forth, and ask

him which one was the first one run. You could possibly get

an occlusion, but usually the pc will tell you. There's no

particular reason to doubt the pc. Get the first one, and

get that one flat, and then you have no choice but to pick

up the next one and flatten that one.



This applies without regard to how many auditors were on

the case. This also, you will find out, will sometimes

apply to somebody who had an engram audited in 1950. The

only trouble with a 1950 engram is that it is probably an

operation in the current lifetime, or a prenatal in the

current lifetime, and it was the wrong engram necessary to

resolve the case, and you won't get very far running the

thing. And we have no data at this time, whether it's best

to pick that one up and run it or not. But I would say for

sure that an engram that should have been run to resolve

the case, such as a past death, if that was ever entered in

all of those years, including 1950—it may no longer drop on

the E-Meter, because some of its charge is gone.



That is the engram necessary to resolve the case.



Yes, got another one?



Q. Yes. The Dynamic Straight Wire—do you keep running this

until you have picked up all the daffy terminals, then go

through it several times and get the daffy ones each time?

A. If you get a daffy one, if you get several daffy ones,

you take those you got on the first run and run them. Don't

bother to go through again, because it will have

straightened out.



Enough will have straightened out to admit progress of the

case. But if you don't get any daffy ones through once,

then run it again. Any other questions? Dale.



Dale: I just had a comment on that. One 1950 engram, in

which the auditor blew session because it was whole track,

was the engram necessary to resolve the case and finally

showed up. The guy had been black since 1950.



A. Good. Picked it up and flattened it. Well, that's a good

job. That tells you that a black case, then, doesn't

necessarily require five or six weeks of preparation before

you run an engram. You pick up an engram as early as you

can on a case and charge through. But it doesn't get you

around starting a case. You have always got to start a case

or start a session.



Yes?



Q. On this re-experience process, do I run it until I get

3-D pictures, and track? A. Yes. Oh, 3-D pictures and back

in PT. Back in PT. I'll give you an example of one of

these. Here's the pc. He is sitting in a terror charge, in

a total black freeze, at 1500 AD. One second later,

everything went to hell. One second before, everything had

gone to hell. And he's sitting in this split second, at a

rest point. Got it? Well, now, what do you think happens

when you start asking him about future and past,

alternately? He'll move right off that rest point, won't

he? So this is an explosive, doggoned process. Now, I say

you run it until he gets to PT. Some time or other you

might find it impossible to get him to PT on the process.

You just might. But the experience that has been had with

it so far is that it does eventually move him to PT. Now is

the time to take him back, at the auditor's discretion, and

have him run that incident in which he was stuck.



By the way, "What part of PT are you willing to

experience?" has on several cases exposed the engram

necessary to resolve the case. It is the engram he's

sitting in, and it is the one necessary to resolve the

case. Yes?



Q. If you leave a process very unflat one afternoon, and

come back in the morning and start questioning the guy, and

you pick up first of all present time problems. Now

supposing that process is the basic of his present time

problem of the morning. Are he and you the terminals, the

preclear and auditor the two terminals?



A. Yes.



Q. Do you run it that way?



A. Oh, well, if he got a lot of ARC breaks, it would be a

good thing to run it this way.



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



Now I am going to give you that again on ARC breaks. This

is the hottest one to run ARC breaks on. Just pick up the

auditor and pick up the pc, as the two people involved in

the present time problem. I am glad you brought that up, Joe.



This idea of throwing him back into session after you have

ended a session the day before is another point of

judgment. Just how do you smoothly get him into it? Usually

he has piled up something on top of the engram. There is a

process here, which is not really a very good process, but

which kicks them out, and it was not given in this ACC.

That is Problems of Comparable Magnitude to that Engram, or

that Incident. It will actually de-intensify an engram.



You should have that as a little panacea.



That is an interesting one to wind up an intensive on.

About noon of the last day you all of a sudden realize,

"Boy, this man isn't going to make it." And you could run a

problem of comparable magnitude to that engram and get it

keyed out. However, you are better than that, and you will

have had it flat by the last day of the last intensive he

has, that's for sure. Any other questions? Don?



Q. Is "recall something" preferred over "recall a time"? I

have heard "Recall a time you did something to somebody,"

and also "Recall something you did to somebody," which is

slightly different.



A. "Recall a time" is always a superior process, unless the

individual is consistently not recalling a time, at which

time he is not obeying the auditing command. So you should

say, "Recall something you have done to" to somebody who

can't spot something on a time track.



Q. What's the difference there?



A. You are running really two processes with "Recall a time

you did something," and you are running only one process,

"Recall something you have done."



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



A. Yeah. Definitely. Anything else?



"Recall a time," all by itself—you just sit down and say to

a pc, "Recall a time. Thank you. Recall a time. Thank you."

Some interesting things would happen to a case. Time, you

see, is the single aberration. Joe?



Q. In running an engram, when you are tagging the engram

for the first time, is it possible to peg, say, a 2-ton

motivator and a one-pound overt, and that's the incident?

A. Yes. Because until they get some of the overt flat, the

motivator will come off. The right one to run there, by the

way, is the overt. You get that overt damn real, and all of

a sudden you'll find the 20-tons have departed down to

about 1 0-tons on the motivator. Now they'll run on

comparable lines. Yes.



Q. Couldn't you have, say, a 20-ton motivator, as he was

saying, and twenty one-ton overts tied to the same

motivator, rather than one large overt?



A. You could. You could. Nevertheless, you'll find somebody

getting all loused up on this, and best remedy is just to

play what overt you find against what motivator you find as

the incident. And just keep playing them one against the

other, back and forth, back and forth, and eventually the

thing will come out right.



There are many remedies, and one is Selected Persons

Overt-Withhold Straight Wire on the personnel of the

incident. You could take any incident as a PT and run any

PT process on the incident. That's a little rule. I don't

advise you doing it, however, but you can do it. It's very

interesting: "Find something unimportant about that

executioner," is just about the same as, "Find something

unimportant about this room." If you want to get a reality

soaring on a pc, just run "Find something unimportant about

this room." And he'll start this not-is machinery going,

you know, and he'll run it out to some degree, and all of a

sudden the room will brighten up. Very interesting.



"Think of something you did to an executioner" would be it,

rather than, "Think of something you did to that

executioner." And he will come up with the overt, and he

will find out he was the executioner in the same castle for

about three lifetimes before he suddenly came back there

and got executed. That usually is the way these things compare.



Any other questions? There is a burning question that you

should ask, is: "Are we supposed to run these things

muzzled?" Now, let me just say this, to do this for me:

Let's cut down the unnecessary yak. And if the pc seems to

be ARC breaking at all, you voluntarily muzzle your

auditing. You got it? Because what he's got is an engram of

being talked to or being interrogated in some fashion, and

everything that he doesn't consider exactly necessary to

the auditing session he resents. So if you find a pc is ARC

breaking, you muzzle your session. Any other questions

before we break this up?



Thank you very much for your time, I appreciate very much

your coming in. I know you had a hard day getting on to a

new routine, and you have got auxiliary duties. Several

people in the HGC have been split off of administration,

and there are other things going on. Latch on to



‘em, get wheeling, but let's start making theta clears in

this HGC and just make nothing else



but theta clears. I have given you a pattern here that was

thoroughly tested out in the 21st American ACC, and you can

make theta clears—there's no great difficulty to it. Thank

you very much.



L. RON HUBBARD



LRH:ng.rd.lh

Copyright c 1959

by L. Ron Hubbard

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED





******** 





