SUPER SCIO #4B



Copyright 1996

All commercial rights are reserved to the author, who currently
wishes to remain anonymous and therefore is writing under the
pen name of "The Pilot".  Individuals may freely copy these files
on the internet for their own use and they may be made available
on any web server who does not charge for them and who does not
alter their contents.



5.1 The Grades as Basic

As I have said before, the lower level grades of release are also
the ultimate OT levels.  The theory behind the grades processes
does not require the presence of earlier engrams or secondaries 
(incidents of loss) and can stand alone without the existence of
prior aberrations.

Because these are basic, they can be addressed on anybody at any
level and, as long as the person's attention is not fixated on
something else, they can be run to a point of release.  But all
we get is a temporary release (which may last for years or lifetimes)
rather than erasure because of the problem of accessibility.

It took me a long time to come around to realizing this.  I kept
looking for a bigger basic that would undercut these grades.  But
everything I found (including the penalty universes and the reality
wars) was preceded by earlier problems and upsets and failures to
communicate.  And before the penalty universes, the implants are
lighter rather than heavier, usually just consisting of aesthetically
presented false data which encouraged aberration.

The only thing I ran that did not have some underlying feeling of
already being slightly out of communication was the original jewel
of knowledge.  That experience was simply interesting and aesthetic
and talks you into a few subtly abberating ideas such as the idea
that communication could be harmful or it might not be good to 
know too much because it might spoil the game.  And we were shown
the lie that if you could really forget something, it would stop 
bothering you.

So we were talked into starting in on this path, but we were not
forced into it.  There is no force or pressure in the original jewel 
of knowledge.

Our earliest mistakes were cutting communications, blocking 
knowingness, choosing not to connect with (or reach) certain things,
and choosing to forget things.  And these were all done willfully 
with no prior reason except for the convincing arguments 
of the jewel of knowledge.  And we did not do these
things with everything.  You did not start out by cutting
communication with everyone.  You initially just cut communication 
with one person and kept talking to everybody else.  You only
forgot a few things and decided to not-know a few things rather
than obscuring everything at once.  And that is how we all
differ because we applied these things very selectively initially
and we each made different choices.

And then we built the next layer of aberration on top of these,
and that layer was the more complex aberrations of problems,
overts, upsets, making yourself right, etc.

5.2 The sequence of grades, corrected

Ron originally put out the grades 0 to 4 in 1965.  Initially these
were set up with the idea that each entire grade ran to a single
floating needle and could be done with a single process.  For the
purposes of training, a number of other processes were also lumped
together with each level because they required comparable auditor
skill.  As a result, help processing was included with level 1
problems and recall processes were include with level 0
communications.  It was soon realized that recall processes needed
to be run as a separate grade and this was included with grade
zero as a sort of freebie.

Then the theory of expanded grades came out and as many processes
as possible were added to each grade.  This made deeper and more
stable releases.

But we still have multiple grades (such as running help processing
as part of the problems grade) lumped together.  This is not a
fatal flaw, but it can give trouble.

Each of the grades should be run to the point where a big release
happens and then it should be dropped for the moment rather than
trying to push too deep on one line while other areas are being

If, for example, you combine help processing with problems processing,
you will either:

a) fail to get the big release on help and shift over to running problems
    when you should be finishing the help release first.
b) get the big release on help and then overrun it trying to finish 
    all the help processes so that you can run some problems
c) get the big release on help and then mistakenly think it is a
    problems release and miss the entire problems grade
d) get lucky and make both release points even though you don't
    know what you're doing

We also have missing lower level grades.  The very fact that we 
sometimes need to run an invalidation or evaluation rudiment
indicates that there are grade releases available on these.  I can't
say for sure what all the processes would be at this time, but it
is an area to be addressed and a subject for further research.

We also have a case where some much more advanced processes have
been included with grade 0.  These are the "From where could you
communicate to a ____" style processes.  These were originally 
developed in the late 1950s as high level OT processes.  These
are actually a gradient towards power processing and probably
belong somewhere between grade 4 and grade 5 on the current grade

Here I will lay out a tentative series of grades.  To avoid
confusion, I will label them Step 1, Step 2, etc. because the
words grade, level, stage, and section have all been used already
in Scientology.


These are the earliest and have no underlying prior reason (except
for the predispositions in the jewel of knowledge) and at basic
are handled by postulate and by pushing through instead of finding
reasons why.

Step  1: Confront and Knowingness Release
The person doesn't look and doesn't know because he decided not
to.  The org often gets this one accidentally because the TRs
(given in the communications or HAS course) can produce it.  But
processing can also be done here.  It would use "willingness" type
processes like grade 0 does.  For example, "What would you be
willing to find out about yourself" would be a key process.
The "Look around and spot something you like" style processes also
belong here.

Step 2: Doingness Release
This is reach and withdraw type processing.  At basic, the PC
chooses not to reach by his own decision, the reasons why can be bypassed
because they don't really stop him, he stops himself.  At beginning
levels, these are the objective processes, and the org currently delivers
them on the Survival Rundown.  But in more advance running, this
also includes many of the OT drills.

Step 3: Recall Release
This is currently trained on level 0, but delivered (correctly) as a 
separate grade in auditing.  The book self analysis also fits here
and shows us how to get the release on a self audited basis.

Step 4: Communications Release
Here is the real grade 0.  The "from where .." processes shouldn't
be run as part of it.  They are nice processes but belong higher
on the chart.  The org gets away with running them here because
they put such an emphasis on endless arduous setup auditing before
starting grade zero.  In truth, the real grade zero processes
can usually be run immediately and you can probably even get a
self audited release with some kind of book similar to self analysis.
But if you did it in a quick and easy way like this, you would
get in trouble on the current processing lineup because of having
more advanced routines mixed in with the easy grade zero ones.


Here we have the things which build up on top of the original
aberrations.  These can be pushed through sometimes, but you often
need to pay attention to underlying reasons (such as problems
coming from incomplete communications) or mechanisms (such as
solutions becoming new problems).

This is generally where the person is most aware of being abberated.
If he notices an aberration of communication (and he often doesn't),
he has some hope of pushing through it, but if he notices a problem,
it often doesn't work to try and push through it (because he must
dig out something earlier) so he tends to sit there with a pile
of problems that he is aware of but can't handle.

In this list, I have put problems processing before help (currently
the org runs help first as part of grade I) on the basis that
problems are earlier (they can rest on incomplete communications,
whereas help doesn't even show up on the track until things are
going badly) and because help involves a bit more responsibility.

Step 5: Problems Release
The org trains this on level 1 along with objectives (which are
covered in step 2 above) and help processing (which should be a
separate grade).  They have a good lineup of processes in this
area, but they put much to much in the way of the PC before they
get around to running it.  These are actually easier to run than
the problems rudiment (which they start doing right away).  Although
I have this down in step 5, this is intended to be a fast lineup
without endless preparation or other higher level processes mixed
in, so that you should be able to get here pretty fast.

Step 6: Help Release
Now is the time to do the help processes that they currently
teach on level 1 and mix in with problems processing.

Step 7: Overts (Guilt Release)
This is grade 2 as taught and delivered by the org.  If we are
doing multiple passes through the grades, this is the longest
one and a subset of the processes could be used in the first
pass.  It also includes some "confront" processes which might
belong in Step 1 above (but maybe only on a second pass through
the grades?).

Step 8: Change Release
The "Change" processes (which handles resistance to change, etc.)
are currently taught and audited as part of level 3.  They are
really a separate grade and should be run that way.  There is
an early aberration on how it is a betrayal of others if you
change your mind etc. and it would be possible to add more
processes here which address that.

Step 9: Evaluations Release
This is a new level.  It is easier to confront than real upsets,
but is one of the underlying causes.  Early on, people jammed
ideas down each others throats (often to be "helpful") and
eventually they started getting upset at the enforced communication
and reality.  This is new ground that needs to be researched,
but it would include things like "what evaluation have you 
enforced on another" and running off the reasons for evaluating
("give me some reasons for evaluating for somebody").  This level
should also include some handling on false datums ("what false
datums have you pushed on another" etc.).

Step 10: Release from Upsets (ARCXs)
This is grade 3 as delivered by the org.  But when we remove
the change processes, there is not very much left.  They never
did enough on the subject of taking apart the aberrations of
enforced and inhibited affinity, reality, and communication.
The write-up I did on actual GPMs includes some new processes on
this which I aimed at the GPM terminal and which could be
generalized into non-specific grade 3 processes that should be
run here.

Step 11: Invalidation Release
I put this after ARCXs because it is a very high gradient.  Whereas
evaluation is only "pushy", invalidation is a direct attack and
often exceeds the force of most ARCXs.  People's service facs (see
below) and other heavier factors also often come into play in this
area and this a gradient towards running those levels.

Step 12: Responsibility Release
The org mixes this in with grade 4, but it should be it's own separate


Unlike the earlier groups, these areas cannot become abberated
until the person has sunk low enough to lose things and feel
emotion.  ARC Breaks can happen on purely enforcing or inhibiting
ARC, but hate, vengeance, and jealousy only occur after the fact
of loss.  The same is true of all the problems in survival
and self righteousness and making yourself right (grade 4).  The
earliest problems in survival are connected with loss (not
pain or engrams) because you had the problem of making your
mockups survive long before you yourself could be smashed or
wiped out.

Also, it is only at this stage in our evolution that we began to
have real problems with havingness.  That also rests on earlier

Games processing also comes into play here.  It is possible to
have games without loss, but loss is often a factor.  Certainly
playing chess or poker requires loosing things during the course
of the game even if there is no subsequent loss or penalty.

Unfortunately, there has been no where near enough research on 
these areas and more needs to be found.  I will do the best I 
can here, but be prepared for future revisions.

Step 13: Games Processing
Since the earliest losses are only during the course of a game
and are accepted by choice (and are of short duration), this is
the easiest entry point.  There are some good early processes
such as "please pass the object" in "Creation of Human Ability",
but more are probably needed.  

Step 14: Wasting
You have to be able to waste things to play a game successfully.
This is another area that touches on loss and also on the subject
of exchange (see below).  The processing here should include
the money process ("mock up a way to waste money"), and similar
processes such as "mock up a way to waste work" (which will undercut
many of the societies aberrations), and "mockup a way to waste
energy" etc.

Step 15: Exchange
This is a key aberration which underlies our later societies.  
Exchange is basically a trap and is one of the nasty predispositions
that gets us in trouble because it pushes our buttons on fair play
and uses them to make us trap ourselves.  It is one of the reasons
you are in compulsive agreement with the MEST universe law of
conservation of energy, which is really a way of blocking your
own efforts.  Getting rid of the charge on exchange doesn't mean
that you start stealing from people (that's a dramatization of
being trapped by exchange and rebelling against it without
confronting it), it simply means that you don't care and are
not blocked by some crazy idea of all the equations having to
be in balance.  Some research is needed here.  You might start
by running off overts (cheating others etc.) and then reasons
and finally getting around to the basics which is that its only
a game and you shouldn't have to play unless you're in the mood.
This has to include the willingness to give things away for free.

Step 16: Protect
This is a new level, but it is run basically the same as Help (step
6 above) with "protect" substituted for "help" in the commands.
This is the earliest button on loss.  The SOP8D safe places type
processes (see the 5th ACC and also the bright think rundown which
was used briefly and then canceled) might also fit in here.

Step 17: Service Facsimiles (Making others wrong).
This is the grade 4 process.  The org uses it sooner, but it
is really a handling for failures in survival and on that basis
it belongs late in the sequence.  Also, in the standard grades
lineup, it requires listing and nulling techniques because it
is too heavily charged and done at this point it should probably
be addressable directly with simple processes or could even be
handled on a self audited basis.

Step 18: Loss
Here we need some specific processes to key out loss.  One would
be the "in this lifetime, what do you use to keep others from
leaving" that I mentioned earlier.  There should be a lot of
others, but research is needed here.  See the stuff on loss in
the assist section above.

Step 19: The evil emotions (hatred, jealousy, and vengeance)
Here we are into some really hot areas.  These things show up
in mysticism as major roadblocks that need to be conquered, but
they have no processes for them.  Neither does the org except
for using the general incident running and cleaning up ARCXs
as an undercut (which does work to some degree).  Here you
want to raise the person up to the point where he doesn't need
to take vengeance and doesn't get jealous if his wife sleeps with
someone else or he gets beat out of a promotion and so that he
no longer has a need to hate green skinned people or whatever.
Its not that you would encourage your enemies or turn the other
cheek, its simply that you would play things as a game (if you
felt like it) instead of being swamped by a blind drive to smash
others.  These emotions bring about a blindness which is terribly
self destructive.  Maybe we would even need 3 levels here instead
of one.  I can hardly guess at the processing needed, but it
would include a willingness for others to have and a freedom
from consequences.  

One key to this area is that its not the action but the tremendous 
significance placed on it that invokes the blind reaction.  It's
not that the guy's wife spent an hour exercising with his best
friend, no matter how intimate those exercises were, it's that he
places an incredible significance on the fact and imagines all
sorts of think going on in the other peoples heads and postulates
all sorts of consequences that shatter his life.  The old processes
on "This Means ..." (see the anatomy of the spirit of man congress
tapes etc.) might be useful here.  Mocking up unpleasant thoughts
in other peoples heads might also help.  Also inventing consequences.

I never had a lot of charge in this area myself, but I see other
people going just crazy on it.  If someone's shooting at me,
I damn well want them to stop, but I could care less if they made
amends for the damage as long as they mend their ways and don't 
do it again.  I'm not sure when or how I blew the charge on this,
but I can find early incidents where I'm swamped with jealousy
and vengeful impulses, so it must have been handled at sometime.

Step 20: Suppressives
People do suppress each other.  This is the final stage of the
game when you're the only one and its kill or be killed.  An 
individual suppressive situation needs to be handled when it comes
up (and its nowhere near as common as the org thinks), but that's
not a general handling.  Since we've already handled most of
the factors involved in suppression, this is a good point to 
finish it off so that the person neither can be suppressed
(in other words start roller coastering) by anyone else nor will
he have the urge to do others in when he is sinking (because that
never really helps him).  Again we could use some research here.
The suppressed person rundown gives us a starting point.  So does
the rundown for handling "an engram matching present time dangers".
We can also get things from the general anatomy of suppressive
behavior, such as loosing sight of individual targets and blurring
them into generalities.


Middle period Scientology only had 3 upper grades.  These were
Power (grade 5), Power plus (grade 5A), and grade 6.  These have
mostly disappeared because they are not supposed to be run on a clear, 
and most people get run on Dianetics instead and reach Dianetic clear
when they do.

I think that this is a mistake.  Power processing sometimes 
produced a case state that was higher than the current OT7 and its
a shame to bypass it.  It probably can be done on a clear, but
you would probably get in trouble trying to introduce it into
the middle of the orgs current OT processing because they've got
the person all stirred up and in the middle of stuff for the
entire run from OT2 (or the old clearing course) up to OT7
because they are restimulating things without complete handling
until he makes it through solo NOTS.  With the correct data
and techniques (see earlier in this write-up), that probably 
ceases to be a problem, but even then you would have to be
careful not to jam these levels into the middle of something
that is only halfway handled and drawing the guy's attention.

In an ideal lineup, I think you would run these things before
you went into a major Dianetic processing level.  That doesn't
mean that you can't do some Dianetic handling or other 
incident running (a bit of that is nice as an introduction to
the subject) but that the thorough go for broke intensive
Dianetic rundowns should be done after power processing etc.
The whole idea of power was to key out engrams wholesale and
that would set the guy up to run Dianetics as a fast and
effective level.  He might even run Dianetics solo with that kind 
of preparation.

Step 21: Location

One of the basic aberrations is being located in a single location.
Here is where we should run the "From where could you communicate
to ..." style processes.  Then do a similar rundown on "from where
could you (agree / disagree - alternately) with ....".  Then
run "from where could you perceive a ...".  If possible, you 
should get to the point where you don't need to be here to 
perceive and operate here.  That would be going exterior to the
physical universe.

Step 22: Causation

Now in the same style, run "from where could you mockup ...".
You should work up to things like somatics, sensations, emotions,
bodies, games, and machinery, and then finish off with "from where 
could you mockup a bank".  This might produce a clear.

Step 23: Sources

Here would be the place to run spotting sources (power process
4 which is the first one normally run).  But with the above
preparation, it would probably be runnable as a simple spotting
process instead of an exotic listing technique.  They used to
run this on people who had received a total of ten or twenty
hours of auditing in their whole lives and of course it ended
up as a hot out-gradient process with all sorts of special rules
and worries connected with it.

But this needs to be an expanded level instead of a single process.

One interesting thing I noticed in various freezone write-ups on
this process is that the people who wrote them generally thought
that the process ended with the cognition that "I'm source" or
something like that.  Well that's nice and its probably what you
get most of the time (and you have to take what you can get without
invalidating or continuing), but I went clear and keyed out OT on
this process and something more happened.  When I was run on it,
I thought that the command was a covert way of getting me to spot
the time and place where I had first mocked up a reactive mind and
from where I was still mocking the bank up even now.  And that is
what I spotted, and that's why I got the spectacular result instead
of the mundane one.

So lets run more processes here, aimed at reaching that higher state.
This might include "spot a source that you/another/others are
mocking up".   "spot a time when you mocked up a bank", etc.

Another good process to run here would be (run alternately): 
a) What have you created
b) What has another created
c) What have others created

Step 24: Power

Here would be the rest of grade 5.  Again, it probably needs to
be expanded and have more processes aimed at the result.

This would be an appropriate place to put some more processes
on the subject of not-isness.

A) Recall not-ising something 
   Recall another not-ising something
   Recall others not-ising something

B) Write down some things that mustn't be allowed to appear.
   If one doesn't blow by inspection, then mockup copies of
   it and throw them away / shove them into the body.

C) Spot times when you decided it was safer not to look, then
mockup looking at what you avoided seeing.

D) Handle overts of getting others not to look
   Handle overts of getting others to not-is things

E) Write down some things it would be better for people not to
   know about.  For each one, run alternately, what should/shouldn't
   be known about it.

Step 25: Power Plus

Here would be the grade 5A processes.  Again, more are needed.

Some possible ones are as follows:

25.1 Agreements (run alternately)
a) What agreements have you made
b) What agreements have you disagreed with.
   (then run the same on flows 2 and 3)

25.2 Enforced Agreements
a) What agreements have you enforced on another
b) What agreements have you inhibited
   (also run on flows 2 and 3)

25.3 Create
a) What effect would you be willing to create
b) What effect would you be willing for another to create

25.4 Enforced Create
a) What do you have to mockup
b) Give me some reasons for mocking that up
   (also run on flows 2 and 3)

25.5 Win/Lose
a) Give me a reason for winning
b) Give me a reason for losing
   (also run on flows 2 and 3)

Step 26: Perception

This might be a good place to run some processes on perception.
Maybe "What would you be willing to let others see" etc.
Another action might be to do the rudiments on each of the
5 senses.

Step 27: Protest

This is a hot button.  It not only causes things to read that are
not there, it causes the PC to mockup things that aren't really
wrong with him.  What you resist, you become.  If you insist that
somebody is stupid and they protest heavily, it can get them 
resisting being stupid and trying to prove that they're not and
that can lead to dramatizing stupidity.

Currently we only use this as one of the prepcheck buttons or a
repair question.  We could use some general processing here.
Possibly something like "what have you protested", "what did you
mockup to communicate that" run alternately.

Step 28: The Force on Words

Part of the reactive A=A is to equate words with the force or
mockups that the word represents.  GPM end words and root words
are actually locks on real impacts associated with words.  Here
we want to blow the mechanism by which the person mocks up the
force when the word is said.

This is slightly experimental.

Take a fiction book filled with violence etc., find a violent
section of it, and start reading it.

Repeat the following with each paragraph (if the paragraph is really 
long, break it in half, if its excessively short, then combine two

As you read, mockup an impact for each verb, based on the literal
meaning of the verb (not the story content that you are reading).

Read the paragraph again, this time, mockup a picture of impact
without force for each verb.

Read the paragraph again, this time only reading the words and
mocking up nothing.

Read the paragraph again, and mockup a mass for each noun.

Read the paragraph again, and mockup a picture, without mass, for
each noun.

Read the paragraph again, this time mocking up nothing.

Then go on to the next paragraph.  

Step 29: Dramatization

It would be a shame to miss out on the "what am I dramatizing"
process from grade 6.  But up this high, and run on someone who
is probably already clear, the answers might not be in terms of
simple implant GPM root and end words.  You would have to let
the answer be whatever it was going to be.  The handling, per
3rd ACC style tech, would be to causatively dramatize it (or mockup
dramatizing it) and then and then not dramatize it (or mockup
not dramatizing it) alternately it until it blows.  Then get the next 
thing, etc.

Step 30: Force

It would be nice to get the person's confront up on force before
doing extensive Dianetics processing.  Perhaps, "what force would
you be willing to confront", or even some of the courage processing
from the 3rd ACC (discussed in another write-up).

Another good process might be "Spot some impacts you could be
curious about receiving".

Step 31: Goals

Before directly addressing goals, it would be nice to key them
out.  The second and third ACCs give us some techniques here, 
such as "spot some goals you don't have".

Step 32: The Actual GPM

This would be a good point to find the actual GPM goal as
discussed in the write-up on actual GPMs.  Unlike implanted
goals, this actual goal does not have to be handled or opposed
after it is found.  It is comfortable and satisfying to know
what it is even if it hasn't been fully discharged.  On a first
pass through the grade chart, it might not be appropriate to
do a full handling or line plot, but the goal should at least be

Note that all of the above grades are keyouts.  You could do
them lightly or deeply, and take multiple passes as needed.
Only the final one (handling the current actual GPM) might
conceivably be taken to erasure early on.  I think that at
the top, these will erase in reverse order, working from
step 32 down to step 1.


If you start a thorough grades rundown, the odds are that somewhere
along the way, the entire bank will blow temporarily.

Its a mistake to think that its all gone.  But the PC has so much
new open areas available to him that you can't continue with
grade processing until he has expanded further and run into the
next layer of trouble.  This is the time to do OT and erasure
style techniques (see below) until such a time as he runs into
his own case again.  When he does, then carry on with the next
grade in sequence, and if you finish the entire series, then
start over, running more processes and going deeper.

Taking the analogy discussed earlier, of clear and black areas
of the mind with a gray band of accessibility, when the person
"blows the bank", much of the gray and black clear up and a great
deal more stuff will be in the gray band of accessibility.  He
never looses this gain, he just gets bigger, so that he fills
the newly cleared area, and then sees himself to be abberated
again because he has run into what is left.

Oddly enough, as you keep blowing more and more layers of the bank,
the problems etc. tend to remain mundane but the whys get more and
more exotic.  For example, at low levels, one might flinch at
car fumes because they restimulate an engram.  Higher, one might
flinch because they are impacting the environment he is trying to
protect.  Even higher, he might flinch because they offend his
aesthetic sensibility.  Even higher, he might flinch because its
someone else's mockup filling up his space.

The real truth of the matter is that he is still creating his
first and most basic problems (from the earliest track period)
using the mundane stuff that currently surrounds him.  When you
do a light handling and blow some current thing, to some degree
it keys out the entire thing all the way down at rock bottom,
but the bottom has not been viewed or erased and eventually he'll
get it back into the mundane world (but it will come in on some
other channel because he has handled the specific current thing
that was run on the first keyout).

There are a number of big states of regained awareness that blow
the bank temporarily and make significant inroads into the black
and gray areas.  These include but are not limited to:

a) Regaining control over mocking up the force in mental pictures
and over mocking up the pictures themselves.  This is the usual
state of clear as attained on Dianetics.

b) Freedom from (no longer obeys or mocks up) implanted items
and commands.  This is the state of clear as is usually attained
on the clearing course, and which is normally attained by Dianetic
clears when they do OT 2.

c) Freedom from all compulsive assignment of reactive or 
associative significance to things.  This is the state of clear
(sometimes called theta clear) that occurred occasionally on power

d) Freedom from compulsive creation of a time track.  This is
the state of clear OT usually achieved on L10 and occasionally
achieved on deep running of grade 2.

e) Freedom from (no longer obeys or mocks up) thoughts or 
mockups provided by entities.  Does not confuse his own thoughts
with theirs.  Can blow them by inspection.  This is the state of
cause over life, usually attained on Solo Nots and occasionally
attained by a thorough run on OT3.

f) Freedom from location.  Exterior to the MEST universe.  Capable
of free thought outside of the game and can consider things
independently of his own survival.  I got this on continuing
past the solo Nots ep.

g) Freedom from arbitraries.  This happened on running the 
penalty universes.  The tone scale and all sorts of other stuff

h) Freedom from the limitations to three dimensions.  Able to
visualize four dimensional mockups easily and capable of 
spotting four dimensional directions etc.  This finally happened
for me when I spotted and ran the reality wars.

There are more, but these are the ones that blew the bank for
me.  If you skip one (I got state c first, then a, then d, then
b), the lesser state is still exceptionally good when you make it
and clears up some more stuff (but its not as big as the higher
one which you got earlier).  In other words, this is not a
totally mechanical progression where each state covers everything
below it.


Its almost a joke to identify these as upper levels because the
very top would consist of grade processes taken to erasure
instead of going for a key out.

These are really aimed at the "force band" which lies between 
the human condition and the basic area of the track.

Here we have a problem as to what sequence to run things in, 
especially in the area of switching off between upper levels and
grade processing.

The modern Scientology bridge lines up a small percentage of this
stuff into a series of OT levels, but, aside from sales and status
buttons, the structure is much too rigid, is too narrow in scope, 
and sometimes bypasses charge by forcing the person's attention
in one direction when it needs to go in another.

First and foremost, if a PC is interested in and capable of running
something (and you'd be surprised how many things can be run even
with little preparation), there is no sense in denying him because
of some arbitrary order.  But it might be a mistake to try and do
a long thorough rundown at the wrong point.  A beginner might do
well with a bit of Dianetics or some problems processing or even
a few OT drills run lightly, but trying to go for a full completion
might get you into a long grinding run because there's too many
other things being missed and it runs too slow.  So you do a
short light run and then get him onto the grades or the steps above.

You can always do a little bit of something as an assist as long
as it is not over the PCs head.

A student who is studying this stuff intensively and has a good
bag of skills can pretty much run anything on himself in any order 
and get away with it.

Once a person begins doing OT drills successfully, he can always
work on a few of them in between each grade as a horsepower booster.

The processes here are characterized by either raising horsepower or
erasing things as opposed to the keyouts which occur on the grades
or steps given above.  Although they can be worked lightly at any
time (if the PC is up to doing the action), intensive runs should
be left for those points where the bank has blown and should be
carried on until he bumps into the next layer of case and is ready
to run more grades processing.

5.4.1 Dianetics and Incident Running

The one gray area is Dianetics and other incident running.  This
does not go well right after the bank has blown because he must
pull things back in to run them.  On the other hand, when he has
too much charge and bank kicking around, it is also not the best
technique because it is too slow.  It is best done when he's
flying but hasn't quite blown the bank, or when he's just starting
to bump into the bank again after running advanced levels during
a bankless period.  This makes it a matter of judgment (the
exception is assists, because he already has the incident on his
plate and its a short run that's not liable to get him putting 
things back that are gone).  It might be best to do it as a step
33 in the above sequence of steps, but there might also be other
times when it is appropriate.

For beginners doing light co-audits, such as the current Dianetic
book course, the 1966 technique, modernized, might be the best

Normal R3R in the final NED variation is the most powerful technique 
until the person blows the bank on a willingness to confront force
(Dianetic clear).  You could even use it briefly on a clearing course
clear until he has the force cognition.  But once he has this,
R3R becomes too slow and formal and is just asking to have him
mock up stuff that is gone and pull in pictures from entities etc.
and get into various kinds of trouble.  Its not that you can't
run incidents, its that you can't grind them to death once he's
regained his confront of force.

Above this point, you can either use alternate spotting, or run
a souped up recall technique that includes spotting and scanning 
the incident but does not grind away at the person with unnecessary
formal commands.  These are best done solo to avoid the problem of
the auditor pushing the person into mocking up stuff that isn't

Despite these caveats, it is very important for the person to
run incidents because that is what restores his awareness of his
previous existence.


The biggest mistake made in modern Scientology was the technique
known as Expanded Dianetics (XDN) which was intensively used in the
1970s and then was pretty much abandoned.  This is the only Scientology
rundown that actually developed a reputation for making people
worse.  The biggest flaw was the use of listing techniques to
find incidents that were not ready to be run, or even worse to
make mistakes in listing which caused the person to mock up
incidents, or pull in the bank, or grab incidents from entities
etc.  The second deadly flaw was aiming this technology at
evil purposes.  An evil purpose is always late on the chain
(the being is basically good) and its like running the end of
a story without finding the beginning.  If you actually get a
real one, its probably the final items of an actual GPM and there
will be thousands of heavy incidents earlier during the decay
of the GPM which are unrun and bypassed by this foolish approach.
Even worse, the common errors in listing would hang the person
with evil purposes he didn't have and really spin him in.

Audited NOTS was originally developed to cure the problem of
people picking up entities' pictures and using them as their
own incidents in response to screwed up XDN listing and incident
running techniques.  This is the real reason that the org thinks
that NOTS must be run extensively by an auditor before the PC
can do it solo (despite the fact that the person has already
done the much more difficult OT3 techniques solo).  The cases
that had too much XDN were so caved in that it took careful work
on the part of an auditor to dig them out.  

The problem of making listing mistakes in finding evil purposes
and sticking the person with ones that aren't there can be handled 
by correcting the lists.

Unfortunately, the problem of having stirred up a real evil purpose
is not so easily handled.  The false purpose rundown helps somewhat
because it undercuts the evil purpose and looks for what happened
earlier.  But its no more than a lick and a promise if he got into
the wildly RSing (Rock Slamming) closing section of an actual
GPM.  This is the one RS that still occurs on an advanced case
(Clears don't normally RS, most RSes come from entities on an
advanced case).  Your best bet in digging out a screwed up XDN
case is to use NOTS and list corrections and FPRD tech etc. to
cool them down, and then (when their up to getting it) go for
the Actual GPMs which will undercut these late in the game evil
purposes by exposing the high purposes which decayed into the
misbegotten and viscous fighting that one sinks to in this universe.

By the way, the XDN tapes and materials are worth studying.  If
you discard the dangerous L&N approach and drop the madness of
searching for evil purposes, there are still some useful insights
and advances which should really be incorporated into normal

5.4.2 OT Drills

This is a huge topic.  There are the drills used in the various
versions of OT 1, and the old OT levels 5 through 7, and the
processes in the various early books (such as Creation of Human
Ability) and the tons of stuff on the early tapes.

I've also come up with a great deal more of these.  They will
be included in another write-up.

5.4.3 Implant Platens

Again we have a huge array of materials.  There are the platens
of the clearing course and OT2 which can easily be found on
the internet.  I have come up with a good deal more, which will
be included in another write-up.

There are also the penalty universes, which will be covered in
their own write-up.


5.4.4 Handling Theta

There is also handling entities as is done on OT3 and Nots, 
plus more advance handling of machine entities and split
pieces of yourself as discussed in the write-up titled "Divide
and Conquer".

There is also the handling of theta machinery and other
structural things.  I haven't done a lot in this area yet.
Besides blowing entities out of these things, there is the
subject of actually dealing with the structure, spotting
underlying postulates, and otherwise regaining control of
things that are running on automatic.  Ron covered a bit
of this in the 3rd ACC tapes, but there is a lot of research
that is still needed in this area.

Another target is the true anatomy of Matter/Energy/Space/Time
and the mechanics of reality.  Again we have some of it, but
more research is needed.

At a minimum we always have mockup processing, ITSA, and alternate
spotting techniques for prying away at unknown areas.


I know there is a lot here.  It really is a lifetime study.
Don't let the sheer size of it stop you.  Any forward progress
on this line will remain with you in the course of your future
lifetimes (if you even need to have future lifetimes instead of
simply wishing bodies in and out of existence or learning to
operate comfortably in a bodiless state).

If you've read this far with good comprehension, then you are
at least an advanced student rather than a PC or patient, so
if something really catches your interest, then go ahead and
study it and run it and don't worry too much about formal
procedure.  The Tech is meant to help.  Never let it get in
the way of forward progress.


There is a great deal of tech on this within Scientology.  I
can't repeat all of it here, and most of it is well done so
why should I alter it.  You will find the materials in the
later tech volumes.  This is where modern Scientology is at
its best and where the professional auditors really shine.
It came about partially because there were so many mistakes
that they got very good at fixing people up after a screw up.

The mistakes, by the way, included quickie grades, endless 
unnecessary sec checks, endless drug rundowns, endless R3R 
Dianetics after clear, XDN (expanded Dianetics), and various
goofs at the detail level such as "barking" style TRs,
running unreading items (because the auditor and the tech 
knew better than the PC and the meter), and refusing to
handle the PC's originations.  These particular faults have
all been corrected (when a bulletin comes out to fix something,
it should be obvious to you that it was being done backwards
up until that point).  There were many more and there is no
sense in listing them all here.  But it was the "repair" technology
which kept people from deserting in droves and cleaned up
the messes made.

Here I only have a few comments plus a brief summary for those
of you who are not trained as auditors.  Also I did come up
with a new rundown that might be needed occasionally.


The org usually runs extensive life repair before beginning on
grades.  The processing is generally very light, to take charge
off of things the person is concerned about.  The auditing
requires a very high skill level.

The auditing itself is mostly aimed at simply talking with
the PC and steering him into coming up with things that he
decided, did, or postulated in areas that have charge on them.

This can produce a nice result, but it is usually unnecessary
and is going at things the long way around.  Unless the person
is really stuck in something, he will run faster and deeper on
grades processing.

My own experience on doing numerous intro and demonstration 
sessions on new people in the early days was that almost anyone
who came in of their own free will (not pushed) and was searching
for truth (rather than crying for help) was immediately capable
of running grades level processes.  If they can do a TRs course
successfully (which is powerful processing), they can certainly 
run a simple grades process.

Most of the people who weren't up to running grades processes
were people who had previously been messed up by auditing or
by screwed up ethics handling or otherwise banged around by the
subject.  They probably could have run grades processes when they
walked in originally and probably could again if they went off
and cooled down for awhile.

One of the indicators that we have is the "tone arm" (TA) of the
E-meter, which reads low when the person is overwhelmed.  If the
TA is truly low, the person is not up to confronting things and
really does need some repair processing.  I emphasize "truly low"
here because one of the old mistakes was to ignore things like
sweaty hands (and possibly low body weight) which might give a
very slightly low reading, but you could always see the difference
in a real low TA and a false reading because of the "haunted" look
of the PC and the tight, unresponsive, needle behavior on the meter.

In handling new people, I never saw more than one low TA reading
in a hundred.  In handling staff members and people who had
gotten quickie grades or been otherwise mishandled, they were
extremely common.

This lead the org into going crazy about doing life repair,
endless setup rundowns, etc.  But they were really solving a
problem in the subject itself rather than doing things that
are inherently necessary.

I would say that the bulk of new people can bypass the life
repair step and get into the meat of the subject immediately.
There will only be a small percentage (people heavily overwhelmed
etc.) who do need a life repair step, unless, of course, you
start trying to process skeptics or people who aren't really
reaching for the subject.  It's not that you need belief for
this stuff to work, but you do need somebody who is willing
to dive in and muck around with the mind and try to do the
commands.  So in the cases where that isn't present, or where
the person has been heavily overwhelmed, you do need life
repair, and that is best left to professionals.


There is tons of material on this and its well beyond the
scope of this document.

There are extensive needs for this if a professional auditor
is running somebody who knows nothing about the subject because
its very easy for things to go wrong even if the tech is 
correct, and when there have been flaws in the tech, the
pro can really jam them down some poor PC's throat and so
the repair actions become quite essential.

For people who are studying the subject and trying things and
need to dig themselves out occasionally, the simple techniques
gives in the earlier section on assists should generally be
good enough to get them back on the rails.

An ideal scene would be to have people mostly working through
this stuff on their own and in co-audit groups and occasionally
getting a clean up session from a professional.  That would be the
most efficient use of the technology and handles the problem 
of the long training needed to make a good professional auditor.


I'm listing this with the repair techniques because it's done
to get a road block out of the way rather than to produce case

You will need something like this if the person has been too
heavily swamped with drugs, whether they are of the medical
or the street variety.

This was originally developed to handle people who had taken
LSD and still had residual traces of it locked up in their
system.  The idea was to sweat the stuff out of the body.

The idea that poisons get locked up in the tissues is also
proposed by homeopathy and there are a number of good books
on the subject.

I have prejudices in favor of vitamins, homeopathy, home
remedies, and other alternative medicines as alternatives
to the usual drug oriented treatment that is pushed by
the AMA and the drug companies.  Unfortunately, a lot of
the research money comes from businesses that make money from
drugs and so there is a prejudice in their favor within the
medical community.  You can find doctors who are not slanted
this way, but they are the exception rather than the rule.

I am not an expert in this field, but from what I have read
of biochemistry texts, its obvious that they are not yet
capable of modeling the chemical reactions of the human
body as a whole.  This means that they are only looking at
the direct and immediate chemical reactions and they don't
really know what other chemical actions might take place.
Hence, the continual worry about side effects.  This makes
me leery of any powerful medical drugs except in emergencies.

I'm also not in a position to judge whether the purif is
any better than other exercise and vitamin programs.  Ron
does have one key thing which is to keep doing something as
long as it produces change and not to back off because 
something starts to happen.  An old Scientology datum is
what turns it on turns it off.  In other words, you keep
going and push through the reactions.  This would improve
any such program, so its hard to say if the program itself
is better or whether its simply being carried through more

Unfortunately, with the usual fanaticism, they push everybody
to do this thing.  Its a body oriented program and has little
to do with the mind or the search for truth.  Its as bad as
the yogis who practice sitting instead of contemplating truth
or doing mental exercises.  There are people who need this,
but for most, its a distraction and a road block.  There may
be a need for an exercise or vitamin program in your life, but
it has little to do with your spiritual growth.  I suppose the
org could also give driving lessons and teach cinematography, 
and might even do well at these things, but it would be off
their main purpose and is certainly not needed as a prerequisite
to grades or OT levels.


This is simply a specialized version of incident running
aimed at handling the pains, sensations, emotions, or attitudes
connected with taking drugs, or that existed prior to taking
drugs which caused the person to start taking them.

For a person with an extensive drug history, this probably
should be done fairly early in the sequence of levels.

But the rundown can be fairly lengthy on a beginner because
they tend to do incident running slowly and its easy to
associate the bulk of his ills in this lifetime with taking
drugs, whether as a cause or a cure or whatever.  Grades
will raise his awareness and ability much faster and eventually
lead to his being able to barrel through incidents fairly
quickly.  So the drug rundown should be left until later
if it is not needed urgently.

The big missing step is mocking up the drug sensations and
putting them in the walls etc. as was discussed earlier.
This action needs to be done after the drug rundown or else
you will have problems with people reverting.

Since they don't do this last step, the org has a always had
an occasional problem with someone reverting to drugs.  Since
this can be extremely embarrassing, especially if the person
is supposedly an OT, there are times when the org has gone
positively fanatical on doing and re-doing endless drug rundowns.


I've already commented on these.  The current misuse is an

But you probably need to do a thorough one at least once.  That
can be a horsepower booster.  It should be done as a case action
at an appropriate point, maybe somewhere fairly far along in
the grades.

But given the current lack of safety, I would strongly recommend
that the auditor burn the worksheets rather than put them in 
the folder after the session.


The org gets really carried away with running setup actions
before letting a person get on with it.  They have so many
prerequisites for letting somebody start their OT levels that
its a wonder that anybody ever gets on them.

There is an old and very wise saying which goes "If it ain't
broke, don't fix it".

Ron actually put out a similar one which was in force for
a brief period.  This was an admonition against "Inspection
Before the Fact", and it formed the core of the "Fast Flow"
policies.  But was applied with such blindness and lack of
judgment that fast flow was quickly canceled and the subject
swung the other way and ended up more pedantic and prerequisite
ridden than the university system.  Here I would make a plea for
good sense and judgment rather than fanatically making every
square, round, and triangular peg go through the same hole.

I don't blame an org for wanting to dust somebody off a bit
and get the case flying before launching into a series of
major actions.  But if he's flying already, then don't get
in his way.  And if he really takes off halfway through the
setup program, then drop it and get him moving on the grades
or OT levels or whatever because that will move him much faster
and get him much happier with the results.  If you don't get
him moving up the line when you can, you are just asking for
random chance (or motivators that have been waiting in the
wings) to derail him again.


This is the Exteriorization/Interiorization rundown.

When a person first exteriorizes from the body, they are not
likely to remain that way very long, and when something causes
them to interiorize and go back in, it can have a bit of an
impact and be upsetting.

In the 1950s, when they were trying hard to exteriorize people
(and often succeeding), it was discovered that after getting
somebody out a few times, it got harder instead of getting
easier.  Finally, this was solved by abandoning all of the
exteriorization processes instead of finding out what was
going wrong and fixing it.

The real solution was eventually discovered in the ext/int
rundown.  At first it consisted of simply running out the chain 
of incidents of interiorizing.  Later it was improved by 
assessing for the specific charge ("Went In", "Pushed In", etc.).

Unfortunately it never occurred to Ron that the high horsepower
exteriorization techniques of the 1950s (which used to be used
even on new people with good results) could now be reinstated.


There are more in the tech volumes.  Sometimes one of these will
really fit the bill.  Other times, they are just a distraction
and a way of burning up lots of expensive hours of auditing.

There are also the L's (L12, L11, and L10) which are pushed
very heavily by Flag, possibly because they are extremely expensive.
They aim at producing the Clear OT state, which actually is a
very good thing to achieve.  But you can probably make that one 
simply by doing a good job on running grade 2 processes after

There is also the happiness rundown (the HRD), which is really a 
sort of beginner's grade 2 based on the way to happiness booklet.
Real grade 2 processes are better because they don't evaluate
for the person as to what is or isn't an overt.  A better idea
might be to use a few ideas from the HRD to beef up grade 2 a 
bit more.  

A really neat idea might be to have the person roll their own
way to happiness.  You could run "What would improve survival
of the body" /  "What would detract from the survival of the
body" as alternating questions.  Then do the same on each of
the other dynamics.

A serious flaw in the HRD is that it does not address problems
or ARCXs connected with the precept that they are trying to
audit.  They look exclusively for misunderstoods, overts, or
valence shifting mechanisms.  So they are going to mess up in
a certain number of cases.  A key question would be "is there
a problem you are trying to solve by violating (precept)?".
Another one would be "do you have an ARCX connected with 


This is a new one that I came up with (mainly because I needed
to run it) which handles a specific roadblock that you might hit.


Oct 27, 1990.

This could also be called the collapsed space rundown.

Having space collapse in on one is a phenomena similar to 
Interiorization but an order of magnitude heavier.  It runs more 
basic than interiorization and is a source of ext/int type maladies.  
One of the reasons for trouble in handling ext/int is that after it 
has been flattened on a PC, this underlying phenomena can cause 
the symptoms to turn up again.  Then the PC's ext/int handling gets 
invalidated, or he mis-assignees the phenomena to BTs (which can 
be a source, but his own case is senior), and he misses the real 
charge.  It's true that BTs can have out-int, and it does need to be 
handled, but it doesn't usually give the PC out-int phenomena 
once he's gotten up a bit of causation by doing a thorough OT3 or 
some Nots.

Early on, one is capable of creating and owning space.  Then 
one's space collapses.  Then comes interiorizing into things which 
will generate space for you.

Early in 1952, in the Hubbard College Summary Lectures, Ron 
mentions "world closed in" incidents, times when something 
happened and all the color and life went out of everything.  I 
used to think that this was simply the experience of interiorizing.  
It is not.  You could be already interiorized, and yet operating 
fairly well and have some feeling of owning things and doing 
alright and then have some terrible loss or whatever and suddenly 
life has lost all of its luster.  Or you could be well exteriorized 
and even operating without a body, and something goes very 
wrong (maybe you accidentally drop a planet full of nice folks into 
a sun or something) and suddenly your space is collapsed without 
interiorizing into anything.  Note that this can happen to a free 
being who is well above the level of needing a body, and 
therefore runs much earlier and higher on the scale than ext/int.

This rundown becomes urgently needed when you start running 
OT drills such as those in SOP8C etc.  These get your space and 
anchor points way out there.  I was doing quite well with these 
kinds of processes when some unrelated trouble caused some 
inval and threat of loss.  My anchor points snapped in and it was 
just like the ext/int phenomena.  But there was no interiorization 
per se, and it wouldn't resolve on ext/int buttons (either on myself 
or on BTs etc.).  Furthermore, it was almost impossible to audit 
anything else while this was in restim.  After much fooling around 
with various techniques to get charge off of what had occurred, I 
managed to see enough to figure out this theory and design the 
following rundown.  It worked like dynamite.

The incident consists of one's space collapsing.  First you are big, 
your anchor points are way out there, etc.  Then bang, it all falls 
in on you and you're tiny, withdrawn, etc.

This can be run exactly like ext/int or end of endless int by using 
the following list of buttons instead of the int buttons.  For 
advanced cases, the following methods of running would be 

1. As an assist (if this happens to you in pt):

Assess the list of buttons.  Then run 3 way (or 4 way or 5 way) 
recalls on the best reading, and then on the next best reading 
until you suddenly feel great relief.  Don't continue past the EP 
even if other buttons were reading as well.
(for 5 way recalls, add the flow "another to himself").

2.  Handling entities with collapsed space.

Actually this is wrong with all entities (BTs etc.), but for some it 
will be the key button that wakes them up and digs them out.  You 
can do this just like handling out-int on a BT.  Just assess (or spot) 
the button, assess (or spot) the right flow, and run recalls 
(generally simply recalling it and then recalling the earliest will 
produce a blow).

3. Full Rundown.

Assess for the best reading, run it as follows, then the next best 
etc. until the entire list of buttons just FNs.

3.1 Run 5 way recalls

3.2. Run 5 way secondaries as follows:
For each flow, first check whether you already went release on 
the (button) occurring due to a loss (it often releases on recalls).

a) Recall a time when (button) happened due to a loss.
b) Spot any postulate you might have made at that time.
Run question b one or more times after each incident recalled on 
question a.  If you can't spot any postulates, then alternately
spot something in the incident and something in the room until
you can spot a postulate you made at that time.

3.3. Run 5 way engrams as follows:
check for release as in 2 above.
a) Recall a moment of pain and unconsciousness when (button).
b) spot any postulate you might have made at that time.
  (if you can't find any, then handle as in secondaries above).

3.4. Check for any entities who have (button) and handle.

Note that a clear shouldn't run Dianetic pictures on the 
secondary and engram steps.  Above clear, those usually are 
supplied by BTs and machinery etc.  Just remember what 
happened to you and spot your postulates (which generally have 
considerable importance even to a clear).  Its even OK to do a bit 
of ITSA on the incident (spotting time, place, form, and event), just 
don't start trying to pull in pictures.


Assessment Buttons:

1. World Closed In
2. Space Collapsed
3. (your) Energy Collapsed
4. Anchor Points Collapsed
5. Anchor Points Snapped in
6. Everything fell in
7. Space Was Unmocked
8. (your) Energy Was Unmocked
9. (your) Frame of Reference Collapsed
10. Caved-In
11. Pulled Back
12. Withdrew from everything.
13. Made it all unreal


Note that its always you who collapses your own space.  Others 
may do things to you that get you to do this, but its only you who 
can snap in your own anchor points no matter how many BTs or 
nasty folks are working you over.



Here I am going to talk about the technology of auditing rather than 
the high level flaws that I have been pointing out all along.

First of all, the bulk of the auditing technology is correct.  It has
gone through a long evolution and many of the flagrant misconceptions
of earlier years have long since been corrected.  But there are still
some wrong ideas.

The most basic mistake is to consider that the standardness,
correctness, and exactness of the procedure is senior to the PC's
gains, maintaining communication with the PC, and granting beingness
to the PC.

Our primary target is to produce the best result possible for the
PC, this is senior to everything.  To achieve this, it is more
important to remain in comm with the PC than it is to do the 
procedure right, because communication is the most important
basic we have and nothing can occur in its absence.  Furthermore,
if the PC's abilities and awareness are to be raised, we must make
more of the PC rather than making less of him.  Therefore, we must
always grant and encourage his own beingness and reinforce his own
positive efforts even when these don't fit perfectly into the
rote procedure that we are trying to inflict on him.  These things
are known, and they can be found in the auditor's code.  What is
not known is the correct relative importance.  These things are
senior to everything else in the technology including the CS series,
the class VIII materials, and all formal procedures of auditing.

When he was writing about art, Ron realized that absolute technical
perfection was a dead end.  For maximum aesthetics, you get as close
as you can to perfection without losing the communication line.
If only he had realized that this applies to auditing technology as

If you deliver absolutely perfect standard technology, the PC will
not make gains.  This is robotic and you might as well program up
a computer to audit the guy.  On the other hand, if the auditor
just slops around and makes a mess, there wouldn't be any gains
either.  The quality of the auditing and quantity of results is
dependent on how close you can come to standard while maintaining
communication, granting beingness, and keeping other basics in.
This may mean occasionally violating standard procedure.  The
real skill comes in in minimizing the violations rather than in
adhering perfectly to standard while the session and the PC go
to hell.

If you beat the auditor over the head every time he violates
standard procedure with a good result for the PC, then you will
kill his ability to be with the PC and use his knowingness and
understanding to do what is really needed by the PC even though
it isn't in the textbook.  The CS must validate these successful
violations rather than attacking the auditor.

The standards are there for a reason, and that is the fact that
they usually work and trouble results from violating them.  On
that basis, there will be many instances where violations of
standards result in failures and poor results.  This is where
you correct the incapable auditor and teach him the right way
to do things.  Don't wreck his judgment by fixing a theoretical
mistake that might not be a mistake in the specific case.  Instead,
fix the real mistakes which are obvious in their failure to help
the PC.

The above assumes that the standards are always correct.  Even
in that case, you must allow for deviations because there are
no absolutes.  But there can also be actual flaws in the standards,
or better ways of doing things.  In the past we have seen endless
corrections of mistakes in the standards themselves.  So if you find 
that the auditors are getting results with some consistent violation 
of standard procedure, then maybe you had better revise the standard 


There have been a number of points which have shifted around over
the years.  Often there were results either way and there were
arguments in favor of either approach.

One of these was whether or not a real FN could occur above 3.0 on 
the meter.  At one time this was an absolute (never call one above
3.0) and some cases were messed up.  At other times, anything was
accepted without any judgment and some cases were found where
processes were left incomplete.  Maybe the auditor has to actually
look at the PC and be in good enough communication to tell whether
or not the PC has gotten release from something.  If you're good,
you should be able to see this even without a meter.  And if the
auditor is already well trained and the PC seems happy, maybe
the CS should take the auditors judgment as being better than
the mechanical phenomena of the E-meter.

Another is the exact definition of what is a read on the meter.
In the old days, any change of needle characteristic was taken up.
In modern times, they limit themselves to falls and instant FNs,
rocket reads, and (in special cases) rock slams.  In the first case, 
we sometimes took up something that was inaccessible (a rise generally 
indicates a non-confront and if you take one up sometimes it is 
unrunable).  In the second case, we might occasionally miss something 
that does need to be run.  In practice, it might make a difference
what you are trying to do.  In repair actions, you might take
up a read that you would not use in normal processing because
it might be your only entry point into some terrible auditing
error that was done earlier and you might have no choice but
to fight your way through something that is barely runable to
get the matter straightened out.

There is also the case of rare and unusual meter reactions.  One
of these is the sharp instant rise which looks like a fast long
fall in reverse.  These are very rare.  They should be taken up.
What you have is a dramatic flinch and non-confront, but the
person is right on the edge of looking at it.  Its one of these
"oh my god that can't be" type reactions.  Simply calling it
a few times will often turn it into a spectacular fall as the person
takes a real look at the item being checked.

One problem is spectacularly large reads.  Really huge FNs,
theta bops, and rock slams can be confused with each other and
can also be confused with giant rocket reads that dive off of
the dial.  These reads can be 2 or 3 divisions wide on the TA
and if they are really fast the needle can slam against the
pin with audible force as it shifts on and off the dial.  Your
immediate action should be to turn the sensitivity down to 1 so
that you have some hope of identifying the read.  You may also
have to swing the TA up or down to catch the end of the read
and you may have to recheck the item with the TA already sitting
at the position where you are guessing that the read will shove
it too.  We could really use a meter with a sensitivity setting
way below 1 for identifying these giant reads.

The super duper ultra sensitive meters are needed for repair
actions where there is so much blocking the PCs view that you
need all the help you can get.  When a PC is really flying,
especially on advanced levels, the reads should be spectacular
and you need a less sensitive meter.  This silly business of
needing a more sensitive meter to run NOTS means that they are
running the wrong process.  If it is the right action, it will
read well.  If it doesn't, then either its unnecessary, or
out-gradient (something else needs to be run first), or the
procedure itself is flawed in some manner.  The NOTS material
can read well on the meter sometimes.  Done at the right time,
these can be very beneficial.  But run by fanatics who are
trying to blame all case on NOTS factors, you get this strange
quick of needing more and more sensitive meters to find things
that are not reading as expected.

By the way, it would be nice to have a super cheep but ultra
sophisticated meter for use by solo auditors so that the
ordinary population could run do-it-yourself solo processes
etc.  A simple and cheep whetstone bridge could be plugged
into the serial port of a PC (Personal Computer).  A sophisticated
program could do signal analysis and put up a graphical display.
It could probably do ten times as much as the current meters
because of the flexibility and power of doing things in software.
I would guess that such a thing could be marketed for under
a hundred dollars.


An extremely misleading datum is "The PC Doesn't Know What Is
Wrong With Him".  This was coined on the assumption that if he
really knew what was wrong with him, it wouldn't be wrong.

This is pretty much the case for somebody walking in off of the
street.  Anything they could figure out or handle with the data they
currently know and their current level of confront has already
been handled and if it is still wrong, then they don't have the
correct answer to it.

But this changes as soon as you give them more data or raise their
level of confront.

Try listening to the PC for a change.  When he's halfway on
something, he often does know what's what and has a partial view
of the truth.  If he saw it all, it would be gone, but when he
has a partial view, he is often right but not quite free of it.
If you left him alone, he would actually get through it eventually
on his own but it might take some time.  If, however, you keep
insisting that he doesn't know when he really does, your going
to mess him up and create a big ARCX as well.

An extreme example was the mess up on people who had gone clear
on Dianetics before the Dianetic clear bulletin came out.  They
would usually know that they were being run on wrong actions and
they often felt that they were clear but wouldn't dare claim to
be.  In this case, they knew better than the auditors and CSes and
nobody would acknowledge their rightness.  

A good button for ARCX correction lists (the L1) and repair lists
(the green form) would be "Were you right and nobody would
accept it?".  This is a key point because we are trying to rekindle
the fundamental rightness that lies under all the aberrations
and when the PC has it but you shoot it down, you are pushing him
right back into the bank and killing his real hopes of freedom.
This can cause the kind of ARCX where the PC wants to burn down
the org because it is acting suppressively towards his case.

Of course you don't want to lose control of the session or go
chasing after every idle thought or get derailed by the PCs 
attempts to avoid looking at something.  But you should be able
to tell the difference between a PC who is non-confronting and
one who is perceiving truth.  And you should be able to finish
a cycle of action while noting down things the PC suggests for
later handling, and keep the PC reassured, and really address
those things as soon as the current process is done.

And don't make a fight out of not taking the PCs orders.  You
can bend a little and still not lose control of the session.
Sometimes the PC is right.  Validate it.  Getting the PC to the
point where his ITSA of his own case is actually correct is the
most important gain he will ever make because it is the one which
will let him find his own way out.


Another sore point is the datum that "All Auditors Talk Too Much".
A policy from the late 1960s states this explicitly.

The interesting thing about this one is that it is true and yet
the policy was written in such a manner as to be totally destructive
of auditing.

The policy presents this as something to be corrected.  The end
result was that auditors stopped talking and auditing ceased to 
occur.  This was to some degree remedied in later years (by a
revision to TR4 handling of originations), but still remains
a trouble spot.

The correct datum is that any auditor who is really auditing the
PC will talk too much.  Maintaining two way communication is
senior.  If the auditor talks too little, there will be no
auditing taking place.  If the auditor tries to talk precisely
the right amount, he will occasionally undershoot and betray
some of his PCs by losing the comm line.  Therefore, he will
talk too much if he really intends to get results instead of
trying to make some CS happy or meet some arbitrary standard.
Again, however, it is a matter of coming as close as possible.
The highly skilled auditor will only talk a hairsbreadth too much
rather than blabbering away at the PC and occasionally saying
the wrong thing and getting into a mess.


One fatal flaw has been the use of endless setups, preparation,
and repair before letting the PC get moving on new grades and
OT levels.

This has mostly come about as a solution to the mistakes of
having defined clear incorrectly, blaming all case on NOTS, 
considering things to be absolutes rather than a gradient of
increasing confront and awareness, and the many grades and
processes which are missing from the current lineup.  This
makes CSes scared to let somebody start something because
it might not handle what is wrong and the PC might fall on
his head.

The grades and levels work quickly to increase ability and
awareness.  Unnecessary repair and setup actions (and the
infamous unnecessary sec checks) grind along slowly and 
waste everyones time and money.

The only criteria that should be considered before embarking
on one of these major steps is whether or not the PC is 
flying (e.g. running well, high toned, FNs and cognites easily,

In some cases an out-list or out-int will be a roadblock and
you have to solve it.  In other cases, it doesn't matter.
Look at the PC and see if he has the free attention necessary
to run something new or whether his attention is fixated.
That's all you care about.

There are many things wrong with the PC.  You need to raise
his confront in lots of areas.  No single area is the right
reason behind all his aberrations, and that means that you
can't get evangalistic and try to cure everything with one
approach.  Move the PC forward as quickly as possible, getting
a big win on each of many different major areas.  When you
get too thorough in one area, it begins to bypass the charge
of the other areas that you are not handling and eventually
it will blow up in your face.

Don't promise perfect stability or absolute solutions.  Promise
instead that you will move him along as fast as possible to
increase his horsepower and abilities.

As far as NOTS goes, it is a lesser case factor and mainly
causes trouble when it is assigned as the reason behind
the PCs problems, overts, and upsets.  Its simply the WRONG
WHY.  Indicating the correct "why" behind something never
really harms the PC, even if it is a bit out-gradient and
hard to confront.  But taking something that does have charge
on it (and there is generally some charge on NOTS) but is
not the correct why for something and jamming it down the
PCs throat is a sure way to mess up the PC.

The point at which to begin NOTS is when the PC starts noticing
entities and gets interested in handling them.  It shouldn't
be kept a secret from him.  It should be identified as something
which will show up eventually and we have the tech to handle
it when it does.  Meanwhile, it can safely be ignored.  Just
don't let the PC start blaming his case on them, because that
will kill him.

The correct gradient into doing NOTS is to do OT drills first.
That is what gets his perception and horsepower up to the
point where he can just dust himself off and get these entities
out of his way.  You get the PC up to the point where he is
trying to project energy and percieve at a distance and things
like that and he's noticing that there is stuff in his way
that's muddying things up and reducing his horsepower.  That
is the real effect of entities.  They do not abberate the
person significantly (the PC was already abberated before
incident 2, else why was he walking around in a body and
letting himself get bashed around by a nasty ruler), but they
do get in the person's way, especially in regards to OT


In comparison with the vague fumblings that usually occur in
metaphysics, Scientology is a precise technical subject.  But
we err in equating it to a mechanical technology such as
engineering.  This misleads you into thinking that its all
mechanics, and its not.

In building bridges, you simply do the tech mechanically and
a bridge results.

But Scientology tech is more like the tech of painting or
playing the piano.  These things have a very high theta component
and if you only apply the techniques mechanically, you do not
get the desired product.  The tech is only a prerequisite to
real understanding and ability, it is not the final result.

Scientology is, first and formost, a philosophy rather than
an engineering decipline.  You need to study and apply it as
a philosophy.  And because it is an applied philosophy, you
also need to master the mechanical aspects of the tech, but
don't get lost in them or think that they are the end product.


The basic problem is one of attitude.  The effort seems to be
to defend the technology and make it right when what you
really need to do as an auditor is to build up the rightness
of the PC and what you need to do as a CS is to build up the
rightness of your auditors.

If you validate beingness, knowingness, and responsibility,
then you will get more beingness, knowingness, and responsibility.
On the other hand, if you validate rote procedure, then you
will get more rote procedure (and will in turn need even more
rote procedures because the old ones wouldn't be enough in the
face of a deterioration of beingness, knowingness, and

Despite all of this, there are some really good auditors,
supervisors, and CSes working for the CofS.  The shame of it
is that they are the exception rather than the rule and they
are subject to invalidation for the exact things which set
them above the crowd.