A Freezone Bible Supporter



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

being posted in 11 parts.  Contents below following the

FZ Bible mission statement.



Much Love,



Tech Lover





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



FREEZONE BIBLE MISSION STATEMENT



Our purpose is to promote religious freedom and the Scientology

Religion by spreading the Scientology Tech across the internet.



The Cof$ abusively suppresses the practice and use of

Scientology Tech by FreeZone Scientologists.  It misuses the

copyright laws as part of its suppression of religious freedom.



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

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

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

to be squirrels of the Jewish Religion.



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

of Judiasm form the Old Testament of Christianity.



We might not be good and obedient Scientologists according

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



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

the rules of religious freedom allow them to have their old 

testament regardless of any Jewish opinion.  



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

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

without fear of the Cof$ copyright terrorists.



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

not believe in Scientology or the Scientology Tech, we hope

that you do believe in religious freedom and will choose

to aid us for that reason.



Thank You,



The FZ Bible Association



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





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



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

Almost identical [Ed Note: differences noted like this]



Dark blue soft cardboard cover 

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

double retainer clips. As issued by Pubs US.



This is complete including book excerpts but does not include

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

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



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

we are working on those and will post them eventually.



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

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

"reissued as BTB" designation.



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

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

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

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

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

refer to posts in the Scientology organization.





********



CONTENTS:



part 1



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

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

03. HCOPL 17 JUN 70 Technical Degrades

04. HCOB  11 JUN 64 New Student Data

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

06. HCOPL 31 MAY 68 Auditors

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

08. HCOPL 27 MAY 65 Processing



part 2



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

10. HCOPL 14 FEB 65 Safeguarding Technology

11. HCOB  27 SEP 66 The Anti-Social Personality

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

13. HCOPL  8 JUN 70 Student Auditing

14. BPL   25 JUN 70RA Expanded Lower Grades

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

16. BTB   20 JUL 74 Basic Auditing Drills

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



part 3



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

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

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

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

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

23. HCOPL  8 MAR 71 Examiner's Form

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

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

26. HCOPL 23 APR 68 Parent or Guardian Assent Forms

27. HCOB  16 AUG 71 Training Drills Modernized



part 4



28. HCOB  24 OCT 71 False TA

29. HCOB  24 OCT 71 False TA Addition 

30. HCOB  15 FEB 72 False TA Addition 2

31. HCOB  18 FEB 72 False TA Addition 3

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

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

34. HCOB  21 OCT 68 Floating Needle

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

36. HCOB  21 SEP 66 ARC Break Needle

37. HCOB  20 FEB 70 Floating Needles and End Phenomena

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

39. HCOB  21 MAR 74 End Phenomena

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

41. HCOB  14 OCT 68 Meter Position

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

43. HCOB  18 MAR 74 E-Meter Sensitivity Errors

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

45. HCOB  11 MAY 69 Meter Trim Check

46. HCOB  23 MAY 71 aud ser 11 Metering

47. HCOB  10 DEC 65 E-Meter Drill Coaching



part 5



48. HCOB   7 APR 64 Q And A

49. HCOB   3 AUG 65 Auditing Goofs Blowdown Interruption

50. HCOB   5 FEB 66 Letting The PC Itsa

51. HCOB   7 MAY 69 The Five GAEs

52. HCOB  17 MAY 69 TRs and Dirty Needles

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

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

55. HCOB  29 JUL 64 Good Indicators At Lower Levels

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

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

58. HCOB  14 NOV 65 Clearing Commands

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

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

61. HCOB  12 AUG 69 Flying Ruds

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

63. HCOB   6 NOV 64 Styles of Auditing



part 6



64. HCOB  30 APR 71 Auditing Comm Cycle

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

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

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

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



part 7



69. HCOB  12 JAN 59 Tone of Voice - Acknowledgement

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

71. HCOB  23 MAY 71 aud ser 7 Premature Acknowledgements

72. HCOPL  1 JUL 65 Comm Cycle Additives

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

74. HCOB  17 MAR 74 TWC, Using Wrong Questions

75. BOOK  Dianetics 55 Chapter 12 The 6 Basic Processes



part 8



76. HCOB  16 FEB 59 Staff Auditor's Conference



part 9



77. HCOB  20 OCT 59 An Experimental Process

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

79. HCOB   8 APR 58 A Pair Of Processes

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

81. HCOB  20 APR 60 Processes

82. HCOB  27 SEP 68 ARC Straight Wire

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

84. BTB   15 NOV 76 ARC Straightwire Quads

85. BOOK  Creation of Human Ability R2-31

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



part 10



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

88. HCOB  17 MAR 60 Standardized Sessions

89. HCOB   4 MAY 59 An Affinity Process

90. HCOB   2 MAR 61 New Pre-Hav Command

91. HCOB  25 SEP 59 HAS Co-Audit

92. HCOB  21 JUL 59 HGC Allowed Processes

93. BOOK   Creation of Human Ability R2-60

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

95. HCOB   7 MAY 59 New Process Theory

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

97. HCOB  11 DEC 64 Scientology 0 Processes

98. HCOB  26 DEC 64 Routine 0-A Expanded



part 11



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

100. BTB  15 NOV 76 Grade Zero Processes - Quads



******** 



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





P.A.B. No. 54



PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR'S BULLETIN



From L. RON HUBBARD



Via Hubbard Communications Office



163 Holland Park Avenue, London W.11



____________________________________



10 June 1955



REALITY LEVEL OF PRECLEAR



Find the reality of the preclear. This is the watchword of

processing. Although communication, as completely outlined

in Dianetics, 1955! is a universal solvent, remember that

there are also two other comers to the triangle, and that

one of these corners is Reality. That R corner of the

triangle is very important to you as an auditor because

you, having very great certainties on this and on that, are

very prone to forget that your Realities are greater than

those of your preclear.



The reality level of the preclear is dependent on how much

he is "not-ising" his environment. If he is not-ising it,

he must believe that it is dangerous, and must believe that

he himself does not have the power to make anything in it

disappear or vanish for himself.



Therefore, his reality level is as great as he is strong,

and it is as poor as he is weak. Do you know that you are

processing preclears who do not believe that thought has

anything to do with action? You are processing preclears

who believe that thinking a thought will influence nothing.



You are processing preclears who believe that thinkingness

is one thing and actingness is an entirely different thing,

and that no amount of thinkingness is going to influence

any amount of actingness. This is apathy, indeed, and along

with that goes an unreality which would appall you.



Yes, these preclears can get mock-ups. They can get

concepts. They can be very obedient. They can even be run

with SOP 8-C and somehow or another muddle through it, but

the joker here is that the auditor is actually monitoring

the body of the preclear, and of course a body can respond

to orders, and will respond probably faster to the

auditor's orders than to the thetan the auditor is

processing. Thus a preclear can be put through any number

of contortions and convolutions in processing without

getting anywhere at all. The auditor is simply doing it.



Find the reality level of your preclear. Unless you find

the reality level of the preclear you are not going to

reach the preclear, because the preclear is as alive as

things are real.



Now, if this is so important, then let us see how far south

we would have to go to reach some preclears. Mechanical

two-way communication might very well be much too tough for

75% of the preclears you will process. Just ordinary

conversation is actually over their heads.



People that we are trying to reach do not know the auditor

is acknowledging them when he says "Okay."



Let us look at this acknowledgment of the preclear, and let

us discover that the auditor, in order to acknowledge the

preclear, must also make the preclear aware that he is

being acknowledged. Thus, when an auditor says "Okay," or

"All right," or "That's fine," the other part of the

statement is to make the preclear aware that an

acknowledgment has been delivered.



Thus, a "Did you hear me?" is quite often beneficial. When

the preclear finally admits that he did hear the "Okay,"

and when the auditor makes sure that he time after time

hears the "Okay," you will notice that the communication,

on the acknowledgment level, starts to work with the

preclear. But it won't work as long as the preclear is

oblivious of the "Okays" the auditor is giving. Of course,

you must give the preclear an "Okay" for every action or

completed thought he performs. You must acknowledge what 

he has said or done, but you must also be very sure that 

he receives that acknowledgment. It is not out of order to 

face him squarely and hold up one finger and say, "Wait a 

minute, did you hear me say ‘Okay'?"



Now there are two processes which are at once the most

basic of processes and which are very low on the Reality

Scale as well as high on it. A person processed on these

processes should not believe that the auditor believes his

reality level is low. Quite the contrary. Such a process as

this one happens to be very good anywhere on the tone

scale. And this process is, "Think a thought," "Receive a

thought."



You are in essence processing thinkingness. I wonder how

long and how often you have processed preclears who could

not clearly or differentiatively understand that they were

thinking a thought? The auditing command is simply, "Think

a thought." The preclear is given this command time and

time again, and he vocalizes the thought back to the

auditor, and the auditor acknowledges the fact that he has

received that thought, aloud. And the preclear is run until

the preclear knows, absolutely, that he himself, not some

machine, not some energy mass, not his toe, or his hat, is

thinking the thought. The preclear will start out thinking

thoughts which are actually handed to him from some

mysterious source. When the communication lag on this is

entirely flat, and when the preclear knows that he himself

is thinking the thought, the auditor can then run the other

side of the process.



"Receive a thought" is run with the following auditing

command: "Tell me a thought you would be willing to

receive." This is then run until it, as a process, is

entirely flat: when it is no longer producing any result or

comm lag.



Part of the "Think a thought" process is to have the

preclear place the thought in various locations after he

has thought it. Have his shoe think a thought, have his hat

think a thought, have a lamp think the thought, have a rug

think the thought. This gets the preclear into the practice

of placing the thought somewhere. Thus, thoughts are less

likely to appear suddenly and magically out of his machinery.



Very curious phenomena result from "Think a thought" and

"Receive a thought." It will be found sometimes that it is

easier for the preclear to think a thought for another

universe than for himself to think a thought. Let us take

for example a preclear who is entirely interiorized into

the universe of his mother. It would, therefore, evidently

be much easier for him to have his mother think a thought

than for the preclear himself to think a thought. As a

matter of fact it might be an enormous struggle, resulting

in rebellion, for the preclear himself to think a thought,

but it would be very easy for the preclear to have his

mother think a thought. The way to go about this would be

to take an E-Meter, or simply estimate, by finding out who

the preclear most resembles, the probable universe into

which the preclear is interiorized. Having established this

(and you would only do this if the preclear were rebellious

about thinking a thought himself) you would then have this

likely universe think a thought, with the auditing command

(having established that he is interiorized into his

mother's or his father's universe): "Have your mother

(father) think a thought." This would then be carried out

until the preclear was absolutely sure that he was making

his mother or his father think a thought. This would

betoken an initial division of the universe.



Slicing up universes with communication processes is a very

easy thing to do. All one has to do is use the process:

"What could you say to your father?" and have the preclear

say it, and get an Okay from his father. And when this was

flat, "What could your father say to you?", and when the

preclear has vocalized this, the auditor would say, "Now

give your father an ‘Okay' to this." However, this workable

process which splits universes (in old-time parlance

"valences") is yet much too high for a preclear who is very

low on reality, and would take a very long time to do. It

would be a process into which you would eventually move the

preclear who had been thinking a thought for his mother,

but remember that thinking a thought for his mother would

be only a start into communication processing, and would be

an elementary process, run until the preclear is entirely

certain that he is thinking a thought that his

mother would think or that he can make his mother think a

thought—the latter being the most desirable condition.



You should be aware of the fact that you are processing

thinkingness. You are not processing spaces, you are not

processing masses at this day and state of development of

Dianetics and Scientology. You are processing thinkingness.

A man is as well as he thinks.



The more masses and spaces, phrases and engrams you

process, the less you are validating the fact that you are

actually processing a thinkingness: a thinkingness that we

call a thetan. To process this directly is, of course, the

most indicated process there could be, and sure enough, we

are producing good results with it. But the remarkable

thing about the process is that it works on people who

heretofore have had very, very poor reality.



Now there is a process which is a little bit lower than

this "Think a thought" process, and this is the process of

finding something real in the room. Recently I have had

some very excellent results with "Find something in this

room that is comfortably real." This is a variation on the

initial auditing command as given in the early SOPs. It is

apparently better.



A preclear who is not-ising everything in sight will find

things real, he says, but actually he is not comfortable

about it, and if you ask him to find something that is

comfortably real, it may take him a long time to discover

anything that he would tolerate to continue existence, and

once you have begun this process of toleration you would be

able to do a great deal for his case.



"Find something comfortably real" is not necessarily a

low-toned process. It will work in varying degrees on

anyone. It is not recommended for any particular case

level. If a preclear utterly bogs on "Think a thought"

(which isn't likely), then you should have him "Find

something in this room that is comfortably real to you."



I am reminded of an auditor recently processing a very bad

arthritic, who processed him as an exteriorized case for

some little time without any apparent gain in the case

before it occurred to this auditor that something must be

wrong. Actually, a great amount of time was invested. The

auditor asked Nibs, my boy who was then instructing the ACC

course in the United States, and who is at this writing in

England, teaching the BScn course there, what could

possibly be wrong with this hung-fire preclear. Nibs looked

him over and discovered that the auditor had never yet

gotten the preclear into any kind of a situation which was

even vaguely real to the preclear. The auditor in one chair

and the preclear in the other chair was not a real

situation to this preclear, and yet the auditor was running

him as an exteriorized case. Of course he was exteriorized,

but with such a low level of reality that very little

benefit of course was resulting from the processing.



Processing is as beneficial as it is real and factual to

the preclear, and if you cannot raise the preclear's

reality level by the use of Affinity and Communication,

then you are letting the whole triangle hang fire. This

triangle of ARC may have suddenly gotten very important on

the C corner, but it is still foremost in the tool-kit of

the auditor.



Now you will want to know why you should use "Think a

thought" when what is obviously wrong with the preclear you

have in mind is a withered leg. Let me assure you that if

you process directly this withered leg, you are processing

something and somebody who probably has a very low level of

reality. He wouldn't have a withered leg if he had a high

level of reality. Where you have anybody who is

neurologically, physically, or psychosomatically ill,

unless it be from an acute infection or an accident, you

have somebody who has been trying to not-is his body. When

an individual is not-ising his body, making his legs

wither, or his stomach get ulcers, or his head get migraine

headaches, or his teeth fall out, you have somebody who is

trying to not-is the environment. He is already going in

the direction of succumb. The one thing that would make him

very happy would be the entire disappearance of the

physical universe. Well, with modern processing you can

make this happen, too, and maybe this is something you

should have happen for him in order to demonstrate that it

could happen. Of course, if you did this you would have to

go through a modern BScn course at least, for this is a

very tricky procedure. In view of the fact that unreality

is the action of realizing things are there and then saying

they aren't there (not-ising them; see Creation of

Human Ability and the Axioms of Scientology) you are

dealing with a protest against reality which results in

unreality. A person will let things be as real as he is

willing to let them exist.



When an individual isn't willing to let a leg or a tree, or

this universe exist, then things are not real to him. One

of the best ways you could get him to raise his level of

reality would be to give him some reality on thinkingness.

It isn't actingness, it isn't getting tired, it isn't being

unable to work, it isn't the second dynamic that impedes

your preclear—it is his thinkingness. All you have to do is

to get him to change his mind. If you could get anyone to

change his mind enough he could then command anything that

was bothering him. But a preclear who is not-ising things

is trying to use force and pressure of one kind or another

against physical objects and spaces in order to push them

out of existence. This will never win, let me assure you.

Energy will never destroy energy, I don't care how many

atomic bombs the peanut whistly brigade builds, they will

never destroy any space or energy with them. Your preclear

who finds things unreal has stopped trying to do anything

with thought and is trying to do something with force. He

no longer conceives that thought can generate or handle or

give existence or life to space and energy.



Now you take this to heart, and take a good, hard look at

some of these preclears you have been processing on very

fancy and frilly processes, and you take a think back over

all of these preclears who, after you processed them,

didn't think anything had happened. When the preclear

didn't think anything had happened, nothing happened. What

was in error? You were processing him above his level of

reality. If you could get him to think a thought and know

he thought it, and receive a thought and know he had

received it, even though he put it there to receive it,

which is what he does, you would then be directly

addressing the very thing that is doing unreality and

reality. An individual who has a compulsive outflow is

simply unwilling to receive a thought. An individual who is

silent simply can't think of anything. Thus, if an

individual had control of his thoughts he would have

control of the universe. We can prove this now in a process.



And don't think you are going to finish this process,

either side of it, in a half-hour or forty-five minutes.

Some of these glib preclears you process will "fall in" on

this process and begin to comm-lag an hour or two after you

start processing them on it. The main errors which have

been made with this process so far have been failing to run

it long enough to have the preclear really know and really

understand that he, himself, has thought the thought and

that he, himself, has received the thought, or is willing

to receive the thought.



"Find the reality level of the preclear" is one of those

bywords that you can't use too often or look at enough.





******** 



88. HCOB  17 MAR 60 Standardized Sessions





HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE

Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex



Fran Hldrs



HCO BULLETIN OF 17 MARCH 1960



STANDARDIZED SESSIONS



There are many reasons why sessions should be standardized

and held in pattern. First of these is confidence. The

auditor, going over practised ground, feels more confident

and, startled by some sudden action or new development,

does not lose session control by seeming incapable to the

pc. The preclear, accustomed to repetitive session pattern,

feels a security when all his sessions are predictable as

to pattern of address. And if he changes auditors he is

still able to feel confident that he is getting real auditing.



A second reason is duplication: Just as old repeater

technique done by the auditor to the pc will run out a

phrase or charged word, so do session patterns, well

followed, tend to run out earlier sessions. Duplication

does not make all things seem alike. Duplication of a

session adds communication to the session and speeds up the

willingness of the pc to communicate to the auditor.



The basic freeing action of auditing depends upon the

separation of thought from form, matter, energy, space and

time and other life.



We see in "science" as currently practised a nearly total

identification by the "scientist" of mass with thought.

"Man from mud" is a natural conclusion by anyone who has

all his thought bound up in mass.



The reason a clear's needle is so free (and you've seen,

certainly, how an E-Meter needle gets sticky, then freer

and freer) is that his thought is separated from a matter,

energy, space, time consequence.



The "deadin-'is-'ead" case is totally associating all

thought with mass. Thus he reads peculiarly on the meter.

As he is audited he frees his thinkingness so that he can

think without mass connotations.



What auditing is doing is making the preclear think key

thoughts until they can be thought without creating or

disturbing matter, energy, space and time.



As most pcs associate themselves with thought, only when

they can think a thought without ploughing anew into mass

can they exteriorize. Difficult exteriorization or

exteriorization with bad consequences is all caused by a

person's considerations of thought being matter, self being

matter, etc, etc.



The basic overt act is making somebody else want mest. This

recoils so that self wants mest. Thus we have the

"necessity for havingness". Running havingness restores the

pc at cause over matter, permits him to be separate from

matter to some degree.



Thinking, then, is separated from mest by repetitive

thinking on the exact points that pin a particular person

to mest.



If a person is aberrated, say, on the subject of women, the

shortest cut to de-aberration (barring havingness

difficulties—see below) would be the repeated command

"Think of a woman." At last he would no longer have

pictures or masses just because he thought that thought and

you would then find he could think about women as opposed

to reacting about women.



This naturally leads to an obvious basic process, "Think

about matter" "Think about energy" "Think about space"

"Think about time" "Think about a thetan." In theory each

one could be run flat in turn and then all run again.



In actual practice this is pretty steep for most cases and

would not be real to many. A more complex approach

containing more significance is more real to the pc.



The pc's mind is trapped into forms of mest and life,

rather than merely mest and life.



Thus, what falls on the E-Meter needle shows what form of

mest and life his attention is fixed upon.



Havingness is a complicated subject when viewed in a pc's

mind. Familiarity, which is to say, predictability, is

strongly connected with his ability to have or own. When he

receives shocks or surprises, his ability to predict is

invalidated and he can't have.



The reason a thetan "dies" is his loss of the familiar by

the introduction of the unpredictable. Rapidity of change

of state, unpredicted, would be a definition of surprise,

also of death and forgetfulness.



The more change he is subjected to, that he did not

predict, the less he can have.



Thus when he is given a "rough session", the pc's

havingness goes down. Not predicting the shifts and changes

of the auditor, the pc ceases to be able to have the

session or its appurtenances—the auditor, the room, etc.

The smoother the auditing the better the pc's havingness

stays up.



The model session is designed to avoid unpredictable

changes. Thus it is designed to retain havingness by

retaining pattern, which is to say, retaining

predictability by the pc.



Auditing, done smoothly, duplicatively session by session

as to session pattern, runs itself out, even if the pc has

a constantly changing bank.



A pc began to use pictures when he changed lives and

sometimes, therefore, language, but only after he had

already adopted language for thought. So an ultimate step

in processing could concern itself with separating the pc

from the significance of words. Some such process as "Think

of a word," followed by "Think of a meaning," would in

theory, if it could be run (but has not been tested and

would violate havingness), discharge the pc of his

dependence on language for thought and would find him less

fixated on having pictures (which of course bridge the

language barrier).



Appearing in a form composed of matter, running on energy,

existing in space and keeping pace with others in time is a

favour pcs do one another (or an overt act depending on how

cynical you may feel when you consider it).



The games condition of havingness is have for self, can't

have for others. Appearing in a form violates this games

condition. Also, giving another words violates it. Thus

actors and writers tend to go downhill by violating their

own games condition if they are in one. A games condition

evolves from separateness. Running some form of

separateness can then result in exteriorization not from

willingness to lose the mass of the body but by curing the

games condition. Separateness is of course handled on lower

cases by running out obsessive connectedness. But

separateness itself can be run.



Any auditing is a solution: Solutions are ordinarily an

alter-is of problems. Thus getting people to confront

problems or even solutions can resolve not only case but

auditing where auditing itself has now and then, in absence

of smooth analysis and session handling, become a problem

to the preclear.



A fine process for this is "Tell me a problem that auditing

would be a solution to," and for that matter, this also

applies to any psychosomatic illness. A person with a bad

leg would experience relief if audited on "Tell me a

problem a bad leg would be a solution to," as a repetitive

process. Similarly, it might work if one asked "Tell me a

solution to a bad leg you could confront," or "What problem

about a leg could you confront?" which last is very good as

a process.



The separation of thinkingness from a problem, from

particular forms, and from Life and Mest are the primary

targets of auditing. And just as the repetitive auditing

command runs out not only the connection with a mass but

itself, so does a repetitive session design eventually free

the pc from not only his aberrations but auditing itself.



A person gets as able as he regains confidence—and he gets

as free as his auditing is a constant not itself a wild

variable.



L. RON HUBBARD



LRH:js.rd

Copyright c 1960

by L. Ron Hubbard

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED





******** 



89. HCOB   4 MAY 59 An Affinity Process





HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE

37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1



HCO BULLETIN OF 4 MAY 1959



AN AFFINITY PROCESS



We have a fundamental Reality process in Overt-Withhold

Straight Wire and, at a higher level, "What can you confront?"



Variations suggest themselves but what with Administration,

Congresses, HPA Courses, ACCs and heavy promotion, I have

not had time to test them.



The above form, startlingly enough, does work. It

apparently cracks lower cases than "What can you confront?"

There is some evidence it raises havingness.



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



There have been few successful Affinity processes. However,

as unlikely as it first appears, the following is nearly a

pure Affinity process.



"What would you like to confront?"





L. RON HUBBARD



LRH:mp.rd

Copyright c 1959

by L. Ron Hubbard

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED





******** 



90. HCOB   2 MAR 61 New Pre-Hav Command





HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE



Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 2 MARCH 1961



Ds of P

All HGC Personnel

All Auditors Auditing Staff

All 22nd American ACC students

All 3rd S.A. ACC students





NEW PRE-HAV COMMAND



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



It comes as a surprise to me to find a new Comm process

after Comm being in prominence 11 years, but that's what's

happened. Also this process is foreshadowed by the Code of

Honor.



It replaces the Pre-Hav Command in HCO Bulletin of February

2, 1961 (dated March 9, 1961 from Saint Hill).



The basic command from which the others are derived is:



"RECALL NOT WANTING TO COMMUNICATE."





The full commands that can be run in sequence are:



"Recall not wanting to communicate."



"Recall another not wanting to communicate."



"Recall not wanting another to communicate."



"Recall another not wanting you to communicate."



"Recall another not wanting others to communicate."



"Recall a communication."



"Recall a no-communication."



"Recall a communication."



"Recall a no-communication."



"Recall a communication."



"Recall a no-communication."



The command structure, having so many possibilities, has

only been partially sorted out.



The first five commands of the above or the last six

commands of the above or all of the above may be run. The

last six, of course, handle loss incidents.



It just may be that the first line as a process underlies

all withholds and gives later withholds power. This may

then, just as a process, considerably ease the task set in

getting off withholds on secretive cases.



Using all the first five lines in sequence is probably

easiest on the pc, afterwards flattening the last six commands.



L. RON HUBBARD



LRH:ph.rd 

Copyright c 1961

by L. Ron Hubbard

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED





******** 



91. HCOB  25 SEP 59 HAS Co-Audit





HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE

Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex



HCO BULLETIN OF 25 SEPTEMBER 1959



HAS CO-AUDIT



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



The instructor asks the preclear if he is sick or well. If

the pc says he is ill then the instructor says, "What part

of the body would you say is ill?" Whatever the pc answers,

this is then run on "From where could you communicate to a

... (generalized terminal) body part." If the pc answers

that he is well, the instructor says, "Have you ever been

ill?" The pc will in general say yes. The instructor then

says, "What part of your body was ill?" and runs the Comm

Process on whatever the pc says.



Giving you advance scoop on a new research win it seems

that the most effective and rapid clearing could take place

with what we will call Universal Processes. This means

running a Comm Process on Universe as follows:



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



"From where could you communicate to a body."



"From where could you communicate to a mind."



"From where could you communicate to a Thetan."



This is all experimental at this stage but it would be a

separation process from all universes the thetan is anxious

about and should be quite successful in general use.



However I give you this not to use but to show you that we

would probably win further and better if we began to steam

people up on the subject of being clear and then slammed

right in on whatever universe they could handle on

Co-audit. I would then run Co-audit as follows: Do the

actions described above on body part and when the pc has

come through that go at once on to the physical universe

and then graduate him on to any body part that bangs on the

meter and finally when various parts are flat get him into

running the body as a general terminal.





L. RON HUBBARD



LRH:iet.rd

Copyright c 1959

by L. Ron Hubbard

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED





******** 



92. HCOB  21 JUL 59 HGC Allowed Processes





HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE



Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex



HCO BULLETIN OF 21 JULY 1959



CenOCon



HGC ALLOWED PROCESSES



The following rundown is to be used in all HGCs.



For use on unconscious and fixedly psychotic persons

unwilling to be audited: "You make that body sit on that

chair (or lie on that bed)", and CCH 1, 2, 3, 4.



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



Two way help bracket



"How could you help me?"



"How could I help you?"



Get each question answered. Use lots of two way comm. Don't

Q and A with reasons.



For use on persons unwilling to be audited by reason of

session errors:



TR 5N, which is:



"What have I done wrong?"



"What have you done wrong?"



with two way comm.



For persons who are acutely ill:



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



Use that as the terminal. Run:



"From where could you communicate to a ?"



(body part named).



For use on persons who complain that auditing has no effect

on them or who make very slow gains, or who are going for

OT. Run:



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



This is flat when pc can confront calmly a victim.



For use on persons in general. If this has been handled in

an HAS Co-audit well, don't handle it again:



Overt-Withhold Straight Wire after careful assessment and

used on various buttons, Dynamic Straight Wire, Know to

Mystery Straight Wire, are all more or less same processes

but are different ways of assessment. Always run terminals,

never conditions.



For use on persons who have a p.t. problem. Get them to

name the terminals associated with the problem. Run:



"From where could you communicate to a ?"



(general form of terminal).



For use on persons in general, always to some extent when

they enter HGC: S-C-S.



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



Process S2:



"From where could you communicate to a victim?'



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



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



"From where could you communicate to a ?"



on each terminal.



For use on people going to theta clear:



Find engram necessary to resolve the case each time. Check

out all terminals present in it. Make a list. Run: "From

where could you communicate to a___ ?" (e a c h terminal in

incident by general name). Don't run off from incident that

is being run.



Pc will go up and down the track but when one terminal is

flat, choose the next from the same incident we started

with. Remember to resurvey incident for new terminals when

several are flat.



For finishing off cases to level of theta clear:



"From where could you communicate to a ?"



(male, female bodies, bodies, mest).



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



Get person to say what is wrong. Get them to name the

terminal they think is the trouble, run:



"From where could you communicate to a ?"



(terminal name).



HAS CO-AUDIT



Comm processes may be used in HAS Co-audit. Assess by

asking person: "Are you sick or well?" If he says "ill",

ask, "What part of your body do you think is ill?" Run:

"From where could you communicate to a ?"



(body part person said).



If person says "well", then say, "What person or thing have

you been most sorry for?" (meaning pity). Whatever person

says, run it as a terminal, "From where could you

communicate to a ?" (generalized form of whatever he or she

said).



This gets people up to talking and you get the "word of

mouth advertising" you should have, plus a lot of better

people.



L. RON HUBBARD



LRH:brb.rd 

Copyright c 1959

by L. Ron Hubbard

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED





******** 



93. BOOK   Creation of Human Ability R2-60





R2-60: THE HIDDEN COMMUNICATION



Exerpted from the Book: Creation of Human Ability



'Spot some hidden knowingness', is an auditing command

which, pursued properly,



opens the gates to freedom.



In 'Scientology 8-80' and 'Scientology 8-8008' you will

find a scale which begins at its lowest rung with 'hidden'.

Above that is 'protection'. Above that is 'ownership'. I

have recently discovered that the DEI cycle and the above

low scale join to make the scale read: 



CURIOSITY



DESIRE



ENFORCEMENT



INHIBITION



OWNERSHIP



PROTECTION



HIDDEN



and I have discovered that the road upward through this

scale is communication.



Knowingness condenses. Trying to know becomes the first

level of communication.



This ‘looking to know' condenses into ‘emoting to know',

which condenses into ‘effort to know', which in turn

becomes ‘thinking to know', which then condenses into

‘symbols to know' which, and this is the astonishing thing,

becomes ‘eating to know', which becomes



‘sexual activity to know', which then turns into oblivion

of knowing or ‘mystery'.



An energy particle is a condensed knowingness. Trying to

discover or move one is an action with the goal of knowingness.



Gravity, grim thought, becomes in the mind, and is, the

effort to know, to pull in knowingness. Other-determinism

is only other knowingness.



The aspects of know are the common denominators of any

scale in Scientology. When knowingness is done by

communication, we get emotion and effort particles changing

position.



This struggle to know is not just me and thee working on

Scientology and gone mad in the process, it is life and all

its manifestations including space, energy, matter and

time. Each is only a barrier to knowingness. A barrier is a

barrier only in that it impedes knowingness.



Barriers do not exist for complete knowingness.



And what is there to know? Only that knowingness can vary.

One has to invent things to know for there is only

knowingness, and knowingness has no data since a datum is

an invented, not a true, knowingness. The motto of any

particle below knowingness is ‘Only energy can tell you'.



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



communications', ‘And now spot some more hidden

communications', and so forth. We may have to direct the

preclear closely with, ‘Point to the spot', ‘How far away

does it seem?', ‘Are you spotting a hidden communication

there?' and such questions, meanwhile keeping good ARC. He

could be asked to spot specific kinds of hidden

communications as with this command: ‘Spot some hidden

disease communications', ‘Some hidden poisonous

communications', or ‘Spot some hidden, but uninteresting

communications'. But use the question to flatten all

communication lags before you change it.



If he goes into the past, let him. He'll come back to the

present. He'll find his chronic somatic and do many

interesting things, including, perhaps, the data in the

text of R2-60 here.



It is curious that the above ‘Spot some hidden

communications' does not seem to require a remedy of

havingness. But it will turn on many heavy ridges and

somatics. Having thoroughly worked ‘hidden communications'

you can now use this command: ‘Spot some protected

communications', and when that is null, ‘Spot some owned

communications', and after that has no communication lag,

‘Spot some inhibited (stopped) communications'. Then:



‘Spot some enforced communications', and then, ‘Spot some

desired communications'.



Now when all that is done, proceed as follows: ‘Spot some

hidden knowingness',



‘Are you spotting it in the physical universe? If so all

right, point to it', ‘How far away does it



seem?', ‘Spot some more hidden knowingness', and so on

until after an hour or two (or six) this command is

comm-lag-flat.



Now start upscale as follows, making the preclear point and

give the distance to the spot (even when trillions of miles

away): ‘Spot some protected knowingness'. And after many

times of that, then: ‘Spot some protected knowingness',

many times. Then: ‘Spot some owned knowingness', many

times. Then: ‘Spot some inhibited knowingness'. Then: ‘Spot

some enforced knowingness'. Then: ‘Spot some desired

knowingness'. Then: ‘Spot some knowingness that people

could be curious about'.



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



‘Spot some mysteries'



‘Spot some hidden sex'



‘Spot some hidden eating' 



‘Spot some hidden symbols'



‘Spot some hidden thinking' 



‘Spot some hidden efforts'



‘Spot some hidden emotions'



‘Spot some hidden looking' 



‘Spot some hidden knowing'



Then: 



‘Spot some protected mysteries', 



‘Spot some protected sex', 



and so on.



You can, using the principles of hidden knowing and

communication, combine any other part of Scientology with

them, and discover an excellent process. However, the first

commands given in R2-60 are the easiest to communicate and

to use.





******** 



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





HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE

Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex



Franchise Holders



HCO BULLETIN OF 13 OCTOBER 1959



D.E.I. EXPANDED SCALE



(With a Note on Salesmen)



The original scale



4.0 Desire

1.5 Enforce

.5 Inhibit



was expanded in 1952 to



Curiosity

Desire

Enforce

Inhibit.



In 1959 I have found another vital point on this scale

which gives us a new case entrance point.



Curiosity

Desire

Enforce

Inhibit

Unknown



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



To make these agree in intention, they would become



Interest

Desire

Enforce

Inhibit

Unknow.



This scale also inverts, I find, similar to the Dynamics

and below sanity on any subject.



Unknow

Inhibit

Enforce

Desire

Interest



These points, particularly on the inverted scale, going

down, are lowered by failure. Each lower step is an

explanation to justify having failed with the upper level.



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

to inhibit it and fails.



Therefore one seeks to enforce it and fails. Thus one

explains by desiring it and fails. And not really being

able to have it, shows thereafter an obsessive interest in it.



The above inversion is of course all reactive.



Reactive selling (of interest to us in a salesman campaign)

would be accomplished thusly (and this is the basic scale

of selling):



The salesman refuses to let the customer forget the product;



The salesman then inhibits all efforts by the customer to

refuse the product; The salesman enforces the product on

the customer;



The salesman now finds the customer desires the product;



And the customer will remain interested.



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



   Source of Sales Failure



   Salesman   Customer



   Interest   Unknow



   Desire     Inhibit



   Enforce    Enforce



   Inhibit    Desire



   Unknow     Interest



Salesmen, bringing about an inverted scale, can go

downscale themselves as they do it.



They seek to interest and meet forgetfulness. They want to

sell and meet opposition. They high pressure the customer

and get pressured back. And about the time the customer

wants the product the salesman is reactively inhibiting the

sale. And as the customer's interest is at its highest the

salesman forgets all about him.



SALESMAN SUCCESS



All a salesman has to do is continue to try to interest the

customer and the reactive inversion will take place.



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



It is interesting that this scale, more importantly, gives

us new case entrances. A series of Comm Processes on any

terminal, say "bodies", could be run.



From where could you communicate to an unknown body an

unwanted body a necessary body a desirable body an

interesting body



This would pick the case off the bottom and run it to the

top on any terminal that has gone totally reactive.



By the way, don't take my remarks on salesmen as being "all

for the best". The basic overt act is making people want

useless objects and spaces, and unfortunately for him

that's often part of the business of the salesman. He,

unlike us, sometimes isn't fishing people out of the mud.

He's often more likely pushing them in. Therefore he needs

our help to get square with the world. As his income

depends on making people want things and buy things (even

though sometimes they need them), we haven't much choice

but to show him the mechanics of selling, to the end of

getting him to help pull others out of the mud. Making

somebody want something they really need is no crime, but 

the salesman is on very shaky ground. What do people really 

need? We had best not try to get involved in the ethics of 

all this, or to persuade them to sell only needed items.



The whole economic structure needs the salesman; he is the

key of the whole structure.



But we can leaven the flow of even useless goods by letting

an invitation to freedom trickle in the same channel.



L. RON HUBBARD



LRH:dd.rd

Copyright c 1959

by L. Ron Hubbard

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED





******** 



95. HCOB  7 MAY 59 New Process Theory





HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE



37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1



HCO BULLETIN OF 7 MAY 1959



NEW PROCESS



THEORY



It never snows but it avalanches!



Possessing now tremendous processes at lowest levels, we

need a new understanding of processing and assessment.



The broad tone scale is divided into three general parts.

Highest is Pan Determinism.



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



The fundamental difficulty is that something has so

thoroughly overwhelmed the pc that he is it. This is

Other-Determinism become the person. Mild locks use this

route to further overwhelm him. A person doesn't really

find anything in this lifetime that would have overwhelmed

him enough to aberrate him. It took great doing. Things

like prenatals and operations and shocks just use the

existing overwhelm channel.



The picture of aberration is this. The person causes an

effect, time and time again.



Usually this is not aberrative. But one day he causes an

unintended effect. He didn't mean to. It was wrong. This is

the true overt act—an unintended bad effect. It is not

deserved by the recipient. It is a wrong, unintended,

undeserved effect. The person now tends to limit his

effects or withhold his effects. Having been wrong once, he

now becomes cautious. Next thing he knows he has assisted

himself to be overwhelmed. He now has an inflow channel

over which other things, all locks, can now overwhelm him.



Eventually he becomes an "other-determinism". This, of

course, can get nothing done, doesn't outflow, etc., etc.,

which adds up to all the faults we find in an aberrated

person. For example, if the pc has been overwhelmed by

money, he, in money matters, is now money. If you took some

money and threw it on the bed it wouldn't do a thing. It

wouldn't stack itself up or add up accounts. Money doesn't

do anything. Therefore, the pc, as an other-determinism,

does nothing really about money—and this we find annoying

in him. It is his aberration.



Clearly all one need do as an auditor is to reverse this

flow and put the pc at cause over the button, money, to

have the other-determinism (and the overwhelmingness) fade

away.



Using Problems of Comparable Magnitude or Overt-Withhold

Straight Wire or simple reaching, the effect is turned to

cause and the pc comes out of it.



Assessment is only discovering what has overwhelmed the pc.



Auditing is the reversing of other-determined flows by

gradient scales, putting the pc at cause again.



THE BASIC ERROR



The question was asked me, and a fine question it was, "Why

does a thetan make his postulate fail to stick in the first

place? Why would he say, 'I can get my postulates all

messed up and so cause an overt act'?"



Obviously all aberration is third dynamic. The entrance

into self-determinism requires that a thetan conceive the

idea of other beings. Also he must then conceive that there

are zones of privacy from which he must not communicate.



This error leads to obsessive or fixed channels on which

one can be overwhelmed, since he "may not" take the

position of cause on this channel.



Avoidance of the places he must not communicate from leads

into all manner of difficulties, since this is inhibited

communication. A person, therefore, becomes as aberrated as

he cannot communicate, as aberrated as he is overwhelmed by

Other-Determinisms, as aberrated as he himself dare not

assume cause points.



A NEW PROCESS



This leads to a new process, for use "in individual

sessions". The final phrasing is not established at this time.



"From where could you communicate?" or



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



"Recall a place from which you have communicated."



My first tests show this to be very strong but workable. I

have not established the depth this reaches nor the

complete effectiveness up scale. But it does reverse

Other-Determinism heavily.



(This, of course, does not supplant Selected Person

Overt-Withhold Straight Wire as fundamental and is not for

use in HAS Co-auditing, where Selected Persons

Overt-Withhold Straight Wire is the tested allowed process.)



This new process may open a faster route to theta clear,

even though that route is already very fast.



Note: Apparently this process, LOCATIONAL COMMUNICATION,

relieves the face pressures and terror stomachs (after

turning them on) which have proved reluctant. Terror

stomachs we have a specific for. Face pressures, we do not

have totally taped.



L. RON HUBBARD



LRH:mp.rd

Copyright c 1959

by L. Ron Hubbard

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED





******** 



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



SIX LEVELS OF PROCESSING -- ISSUE 5



November, 1955



Exerpted from the Book: Scientology 8-8008



NOTE: Issue Five of the Six Levels of Processing is not the

final issue of this operating procedure and is subject to

change, especially in the matter of command wording.

However, the processes here reproduced have been evolved

into a workable state and have been run with success with

the commands given. Issue 5 of SLP is released at this time

because it is better material, not because it is the final

form of SLP.



With SLP is introduced a method of auditing and a new

auditing atmosphere which articulates the attitudes best

calculated to maintain continuing stable gains in a case.

The auditing atmosphere is A-R-C with gain marked by

continuing rises in A-R-C. With SLP a somatic or boil-off

means reduced A-R-C and are indications of auditing breaks

in A-R-C.



With SLP comes the COMMUNICATION BRIDGE, restarting

sessions, maintenance of high Reality, and liberal use of

processing outside an auditing room.



All assist type processes are outside SLP except for the

present time problem.



The emphasis of SLP is on bettering the preclear's reality

and power of choice.



Level One



RUDIMENTS



These must be established at the beginning of every

session. They must be re-established each time the preclear

tends to go out of session:



(a) Find the auditor



(b) Find the preclear



(c) Find the session environment



(d) Establish that a session is in progress



(e) Accept any communication the preclear originates



(f) Acknowledge every command execution by the preclear



(g) Agree upon the process and the command form before

using and do not



confuse it



(h) Use two-way communication liberally



(i) Follow the Auditor's Code



(j) Deal with the present time problem which may be present

at the beginning or arise during or recur during a session



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



(l) Establish goals by two-way communication and the

command "Assign an intention to _______" (auditor indicating object)



(m) Run opening procedure of 8-C as given in The Creation

of Human Ability until the preclear is certainly obeying

the auditing commands and is under control.





Level Two



LOCATIONAL AND NOT-KNOW PROCESSES



Run in populated places, ambulant.



(a) Energy Sources:



Have preclear spot acceptable energy sources. Do not permit

him to spot statics unless he is ready for it. Run until

preclear can empower terminals. Commands: "Spot an

acceptable energy source."



(b) Spotting Objects:



Have preclear spot objects in a place with ample space and

objects. Commands: "Spot an object." (c) Spotting people:



Have preclear spot people in populated places. Command:

"Spot a person." (d) Separateness from Objects:



Have preclear spot objects he is separate from, then

objects separate from him.



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

"Locate an object which is separate from you."



(e) Separateness from People:



Have preclear spot people he is separate from, then have

him spot people separate from him. Commands: "Locate a

person from whom you are separate." "Locate a person who is

separate from you." (f) Waterloo Station:



Have preclear spot people about whom he can Not-Know

something and then have him spot people he is willing to

have Not-Know things about him. (Auditor selects persons.)

Commands: "Tell me something you wouldn't mind not-knowing

about that person." "Tell me something you wouldn't mind

that person not-knowing about you.





Level Three



DECISIONAL PROCESSING



Run in quiet places or auditing rooms.



(a) Think a Placed Thought:



The object is to train the preclear to think thoughts

exterior to his head and thetan bank to obviate the

"cave-in phenomena of Axiom 51." Commands: (auditor

indicating object or position) "Think a thought in (on)

that _______ " Alternate command: "Do you see that

(object)? Think a thought in (on) it. Did the thought

appear where it is?"



(b) Choice Rehabilitation:



Using the ability acquired in Level Three (a) have the

preclear make choices between two objects indicated by

auditor. Command: "From (indicated point) make a choice

between (indicated positions or objects)."



(c) Directed Decision Rehabilitation:



Using the ability acquired in (a) and (b) exercise the

preclear on decisions. Command: "Putting the decision on

(in) that (indicated object) make a decision about it." (d)

Permissive Decision Rehabilitation:



Using the abilities acquired in (a), (b) and (c) turn

preclear loose on decisions.



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

something."





Level Four



OPENING PROCEDURE BY DUPLICATION (Not-Know Version)



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



Commands:



"Do you see that book?"



"Walk over to it."



"Pick it up."



"Not-know something about its color."



"Not-know something about its temperature."



"Not-know something about its weight."



"Put it in exactly the same place."



"Do you see that bottle?"



"Walk over to it."



"Pick it up."



"Not know something about its color."



"Not know something about its temperature."



"Not know something about its weight."



"Put it in exactly the same place."



"Do you see that book?"





Level Five



REMEDY OF COMMUNICATION SCARCITY



The object of this step is to restore abundance on any and

all communication possibilities. Done in an auditing room.



(a) Create confusion:



Commands: "Mock up a confusion." Alternate command: "What

confusion could you create?"



(b) Creating Terminals:



The preclear may have to be coached into mocking up unknown

confused black terminals and thus into good terminal mock

ups. Commands: "Mock up a communication terminal." "Mock up

another communication terminal."



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



Duplicate the auditing command exactly. Don't red-herring

(go chasing after facsimiles). Command: "What wouldn't you

mind communicating with?"



(d) Creating family terminals:



Have preclear mock up until he has abundance of any and all

persons he has ever used as anchor points. Commands: "Mock

up your (father, wife, mother, husband). "Mock him (her) up

again."





Level Six



REMEDY OF HAVINGNESS AND SPOTTING SPOTS IN SPACE



Route One



An exteriorized step done as given in the Creation of Human

Ability.



******** 



97. HCOB  11 DEC 64 Scientology 0 Processes





HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE

Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex



HCO BULLETIN OF 11 DECEMBER 1964



Remimeo

Franchise

Sthil Students

Sthil Co audit





SCIENTOLOGY 0 



PROCESSES



The whole case gain to be expected from a pc at Level 0 is

an increase of ability to talk to others.



At Level 0 we do not expect or lead people to expect any

sudden miracle of physical or mental recovery. Rather, we

emphasize that we are getting their feet on the ladder and

as they progress up through levels they will achieve all

they ever hoped for and more.



Jumping to higher levels leaves the lower level

disabilities untouched and while trying to audit somebody

at, say, Level III, we will find ourselves struggling with

things that should have been handled at Level 0.



Further, this target is the one that beginning pcs make the

most gains on in my experience. I recall one near miracle

on a girl who couldn't bring herself to talk to her parents

and all I did was get her to tell me what she'd say to them

if she could talk to them.



Recalling is too steep for a starting pc. They can't recall

well really until about Level IV when they can be cleaned

up on their ARC Breaks with Life.



Here we have the whole design of Level 0:



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



If you realize that a pc can't be in session unless he is

willing to talk to his auditor, you will also realize that

he can't be in life until he is able to communicate freely

with others.



Thus any process that does not forward this end is not for

Level 0, no matter how frantic the case may be to become

clear yesterday.



The more hysterical a pc is about getting advanced

processes or a case gain, the less strenuous the process

administered must be. The psychiatrist erred on this one

point and it wiped him out as a social benefactor. The more

desperate the case, the more desperate were his measures.

He was just echoing his patients. It is very important for

an auditor to realize this one datum for it is the second

guiding rule of Level 0. It is a very senior datum. One

must not become desperate and use desperate measures just

because the pc is desperate or the family or society is

desperate about the pc. The worse off the pc, the lighter

the approach to that pc must be.



Psychotics (real, gibbering ones) are below auditing

treatment in sessions. The measure used for them should be

just rest and isolation from their former environments. And

the first process used should be just getting the person to

realize you are safe and safe to talk to.



So, although a few cases are psychotic, this still holds

good. The auditor must get the pc to realize he is

safe—won't punish, scold, reprimand or betray

confidences—and that the auditor will listen.



It doesn't give the auditor a withhold to not speak of

another's withholds. One can only withhold what one oneself

has done. What the pc did or said isn't even subject for a

session on the auditor for withholding it had no aberrative

value.



Even when we're Class IV, we still start all our pcs at the

pc's level, which is, for a beginning pc, Level 0.



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

following:



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



2. Teach the pc by example the auditor is safe to talk to

and won't scold, reprimand, punish or betray, and



3. Refuse to engage in desperate measures just because the

pc is desperate; and therefore get a real, lasting gain for

the pc.



ROUTINES



A routine is a standard process, designed for the best

steady gain of the pc at that level.



The remedy is different. It is an auditing process which is

designed to handle a non-routine situation. The only real

remedy at Level 0 is patching up having failed to hear or

understand the pc. The rest is all done by routine. The

Case Remedies are at Level II and while we all realize that

every Level 0 case needs a lot of Level II remedies, we

also know that no remedy will work well until the pc is

able to talk to others. When you run into trouble at Level

0, there are only 3 reasons possible:



1. The pc was not run in a direction or on a process to

improve his or her ability to communicate to others;



2. The auditor failed to understand the pc's statements,

either words or meanings; or 3. The auditor engaged in

desperate measures, changed processes, or scolded or did

something to lower the pc's feeling of security in the session.



That's all. As you go on up through the levels, you will

find many other ways a pc can get upset. But at Level 0,

the pc is not close enough to reality on his own case to

even be touched by these at first. The pc is a long way off

when he first starts getting audited. He can only approach

his own case by degrees. So a pc, no matter how wildly he

or she dramatizes at Level 0, is really only capable of a

reality of the smallest kind about self. And such a pc must

be able to talk before anything else can happen. Pcs can be

ruined by someone who doesn't grasp that simple fact.

Psychiatrists, failing to grasp it, murdered several

million people—so it's no light matter. It's an important one.



A pc at Level 0 usually can't even conceive of an overt (a

harmful act) done by himself.



When they can, they go religiously guilty and seek to atone

or some such thing. Become a monk. Or commit suicide.



The reason 33 1/3 percent of all psycho-analytic patients

are said to have committed suicide in their first three

months of treatment is not that they "came too late" but

that a lot of wild data was thrown at them to get at their

"source of guilt" and they went head on into the reactive

bank, sought to demonstrate their "guilt" by making others

guilty and killing themselves.



You don't want anything out of the pc but an increased

ability to talk relaxedly to others without fear,

embarrassment, suspicion or guilt. So all processes at

Level 0 are arranged accordingly.



WORDINGS



To give all possible wordings of routines that will

accomplish the above is completely beyond need.



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

by the dozens.



One doesn't even have to think of a particular pc. All

Level 0 processes are good only when they apply to all pcs.



ROUTINE 0-0 (Zero-Zero)



The starting routine is the most basic of all auditing

routines. It is simply "What are you willing to talk to me

about?" Pc answers. "What would you like to tell me about

that?" At Level II, the first question alone becomes a

remedy. Here the two questions make a routine—and a very

effective one it is!



ROUTINE 0-A



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



1. Make a list of people or things one can't generally talk

to easily! That includes parents, policemen, govemments and

God. But it's a far longer list. The auditor must do this.

It must never be published as a "canned" list.



2. Using any one of the listed items: "If you could talk

to____(listed item) what would you say?"



All right, that's all there is to finding the commands for

Routine 0-A.



One doesn't get the pc to do the list. The list isn't done

in session. The auditor does it himself on his own time.

And each auditor must do his own list for his pcs and add

to it from time to time as he thinks of new ones.



The pc isn't necessarily given any choice of items. The

auditor picks one he thinks may fit. That's easy to do

after one session. The pc keeps complaining about parents.

OK. Run 0-A on parents.



And flatten it!



By flatten is meant to use that one subject until the pc is

darned sure he or she could now talk to the item chosen. If

the pc still wants to abuse the item, it isn't flat. If the

pc still wants to do something about the item, it is not

flat. When the pc is cheerful about the item or no longer

fascinated with it, it's flat.



Remember, there's no need to find out what the pc can't

talk to. In fact, most cases you're better off just to take

an item of your own for 0-A and use it. May seem strange,

but you'll have a smoother time of it with the pc. Further

you'll not restimulate (churn up) the pc's bank so hard.



ROUTINE 0-B



The second routine consists of things to talk about.



One puts the routine together this way:



1. The auditor makes a list (not from the pc but himself)

of everything he can think of that is banned for any reason

from conversation or is not generally considered acceptable

for social communication. This includes non-social subjects

like sexual experiences, W.C. details, embarrassing

experiences, thefts one has done, etc.



Things nobody would calmly discuss in mixed company.



2. An item from the list is included in the auditing

command, "What would you be willing to tell me about

_____?" Add the item you choose.



3. When they have "run down" (as in clocks) ask them, "Who

else could you say those things to?"



4. Rechoose a subject on the list.



5. Repeat 3.



6. Continue to repeat 4. and 5.



Above all, don't be critical of the pc. And very calmly

hear and seek to understand what the pc said. (You never,

by the way, seek to find out why the pc reacted or

responded in some way. A real blunder at Level 0 is "Why

did you feel that way?" Or "Why do you think you can't say

that?" You're not after the causes of things at Level 0.

You will find out why at Level VI!) At Level 0, just keep

them talking while you listen. And you use only the subject

chosen to keep them talking.



ROUTINE 0-C



Routine 0-C is, of course, old R-1-C renamed. It is done

without a meter and it has any subject under the sun

included in its command. It is elsewhere covered.



In all the above routines it is vital not to alter the

commands given above.



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



There are many more possible routines. But to be a Level

Zero Routine it must have as its goal only freeing up the

ability of the pc to talk freely to others.



This is not a level to be regarded with a brush-off. It

takes a lot of skill to restore a pc's ability to

communicate freely.



When an auditor has that skill he will succeed at all

higher levels.



When a pc has that skill regained, his world will look to

him to be a far, far better place.



So it is very important to get over this first hurdle. And

very important not to dodge it and try to climb the hill

anyway. It will become an awfully steep hill.



L. RON HUBBARD



LRH:jw.cden

Copyright c 1964

by L. Ron Hubbard

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



********



98. HCOB  26 DEC 64 Routine 0-A Expanded





HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE



Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex



HCO BULLETIN OF 26 DECEMBER 1964



Remimeo

Franchise

Sthil Students

Sthil Co-audit





SCIENTOLOGY ZERO



(Corrections to HCO Bulletin of 11 December 1964,

"Processes", and to HCO Bulletin of 10 December 1964,

"Listen Style Auditing")





ROUTINE 0-A (EXPANDED)



An additional command increases the usefulness of this

routine. It is therefore rewritten as follows:



The auditor makes a list of things people generally can't

talk to easily. That includes parents, policemen,

governments and God. But it's a far longer list. The

auditor must compile this list himself or herself out of

session. It may be added to by the auditor from time to

time. It must never be published as a "canned list".

Scientology Instructors and Scientology Personnel should

not be listed on it as it leads to upset in sessions.



STEP 1. The auditor chooses one of the subjects off the

list and uses it in Steps 2 and 3 below until the pc is

comfortable about it. Subjects from the list can be chosen

in sequence or at random. A chosen subject is not left

until the pc is comfortable about it. By this is meant, the

pc would not feel disturbed talking to the subject chosen.



The auditor does not ask the pc which subject or if it is

all right to choose that subject as the pc at the moment of

selection is not likely to feel comfortable about any of

the listed subjects and so will just reject. No, the

auditor just chooses one and starts on it.



STEP 2. The auditor asks, "If you could talk

to______(chosen subject), what would you talk about?" Pc

answers one or more things at greater or shorter length.



STEP 3. When the pc seems satisfied the question has been

answered, the auditor then says, "All right, if you were

talking to______(chosen subject in 1 ) about that what

would you say, exactly?"



The pc is expected to speak as though talking to the

subject chosen in l.



STEP 4. The auditor notes whether pc is comfortable about

the subject chosen in Step 1, yet without asking pc. This

is done by noting the voice tone or text of what the pc

would say.



If it is shy, diffident, or if it is belligerent or

annoyed, the same subject is retained for a new go with

Steps 2 and 3. If the pc seems bright and cheerful, a new

subject is chosen from the list for a working over with

Steps 2 and 3. If the subject in 1 is retained, the auditor

again does Steps 2 and 3 above over and over until the pc

is cheerful. A subject chosen in 1 is not left until the pc

really can respond cheerfully. When this is accomplished, a

new subject is chosen as Step 1 and the process is

continued with Steps 2 and 3 using the new subject.



The whole of Routine 0-A is flat when the pc feels far more

comfortable about talking to specific items and isn't

shying off from items on the list. It is flat, therefore,

when an ability is regained on specific items on the list

and the list items aren't producing big new changes in the

pc's communication ability.







LISTEN STYLE CO-AUDIT



It is expected that by the time an auditor is permitted to

do the Zero Routines, Individual Listen Style will have

been entered upon.



Until the class seems able to run individual sessions, old

"R-1-C" can be used by the auditing supervisor on a group

basis using Listen Style Co-audit until the group has the

idea of sessions.



Routines work best on Individual Listen Style. The pc is

always wondering, in Listen Style Co-audit, if the auditing

supervisor is listening to him personally. The auditor is

not the receipt point of the pc's comm in many instances.



Old R-1-C is the best training mechanism to get auditors to

run sessions. In this process the auditing supervisor just

chooses something for all the pcs to talk to the auditors

about, like a dynamic or a common social problem.



L. RON HUBBARD



LRH:jw.rd

Copyright c 1964

by L. Ron Hubbard

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED





******** 





