((My comments in double parentheses - Homer))
 
                              ARBITRARIES
   Doc No. 147. v4. ROSS TECHNICAL MATERIALS 22 Sep 93 Rev 02 Oct 93
 
                                ROSS - 1
                           22 September 1993
 
                      Copyright (C) 1993 Bob Ross
       Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
 
     WARNING!!!  Church members read this at their own risk as it could
lead to their not being in good standing.
 
     "Standard Tech is that Tech which has absolutely no arbitraries."
Def 5 in the Tech dictionary.  Following are arbitraries I have
eliminated from my style of auditing, which I now call Free Style
Auditing, This was much easier after I was out of the church and did not
have to worry about getting cram orders from a C/S.
 
     ((All of the following posting contains arbitraries that Bob has
found in his years of auditing.  Each arbitrary is first stated in a
single line, and then it is discussed in more detail in the paragraphs
immediately following.
 
     Each statement of the arbitrary is of the form A = B.
 
     A is the arbitrary that Bob wishes to discuss, and B is the
perceived bad result that comes from following it.  So almost all of
these lines of the form A = B, should be read "Arbitrary A leads to bad
effect B".))
 
     COVERT VERBAL TECH = Typos Enforced as Tech.
 
     I had not done the PRD ((Primary Rundown, an early course where
every word on the Study Course Tapes was word cleared and then the tapes
were listened to again.)) so I had to get every bulletin word cleared.
I learned as a student, to not tell my word clearers when I was aware of
typos or other errors in the materials.  That way I avoided having word
clearers use a form of covert verbal tech by insisting that I find a way
the typo could be true.  I avoided this by studying the background of
the subject so thoroughly that when the word clearer asked if I
understood the bulletin I could honestly say, "Yes," and get an F/N
without having to get her agreement that there was indeed a typo.
 
     ENFORCEMENT OF INCORRECT DATA = Robotism
 
     Ron has said, Robotism results from enforcement of wrong data (Vol.
VIII 127-30).  I have a list of over a hundred typos and other errors in
the Tech bulletins and books.  The biggest one and one that props up the
power of Church admin people is to be found in the Responsibility Scale
on page 121 of Scientology 0-8 (Page 119 in older editions).  This scale
has two typos which can be discovered by inspection or by listening to
the tape, 6204C05, Sacredness of Cases, Other Determinism, Self
Determinism, Pan-determinism.  This scale has been in error since it was
issued as HCOPL 17 Jan 62.  I leave it to you to listen to the tape or
figure it out for yourself.  I will however give you one clue.  The word
"other" should be "either" in one place on the page.
 
     ((Bob is referring to the Responsibility Scale which goes as
follows,
 
     NO PREVIOUS                       No responsibility or
     OR CURRENT CONTACT                liability.
 
     PAN DETERMINISM                   Full responsibility for
                                       both sides of the game.
 
     OTHER DETERMINISM                 No responsibility for
                                       other side of game.
 
     SELF DETERMINISM                  Full responsibility for self,
                                       no responsibility for other
                                       side of game.
 
     VALENCE (CIRCUIT)                 No responsibility for the game,
                                       for either side of the game,
                                       or for a former self.
 
     Former self, by the way, can refer to what the pc was being before
he took on the valence of another, or it can be the self that the being
used to have LONG AGO when he was like the being whose valence he is
taking on now.  In other words the pc, in becoming the valence of
mother, is actually becoming a former self, what he used to be long ago
when HE was a mother.
 
     Now the term OTHER DETERMINISM used to be used in the Church to
refer to the state that pcs got into when they were so low tone that
they had no responsibility for themselves anymore, the other determinism
was running them.
 
     But it is also clear that just below pan determinism, which is
taking full responsibility for both sides of the game, there is a
selecting out of things that you are not responsible for and assigning
it to THEM, your desired, invited and welcomed opponents to play the
other side of the game.
 
     These other determinisms then become your opposition or other side
of the game while you are being self determined.  In this higher sense
of other determined, other determinism is at the same level as self
determinism, because self determinism, which means playing your side of
the game, implies other determinism, because something has to play the
other side of the game.  Even in a game of solitaire, the being is being
self determined against the cards and the nature of chance which are the
'other' determinisms.
 
     Bob's contention is that other determinism was originally meant by
Ron to mean no responsibility for EITHER side of the game, which is
below self determinism, and is similar to being a valence.
 
     He claims that the Church has intentionally made this alteration of
LRH's intention because they wish everyone to believe that other
determinism is higher than self determinism so that everyone will obey.
 
     In fact the ability to select out and ASSIGN other determinisms is
a very high OT ability, however just remember that other and self
determinisms must really be created at the same time.  Every selecting
out of an 'other' also defines a 'self' as everything remaining which is
not the other.
 
     It is unclear to me that the scale as presented is actually in
error, I do not remember it ever being presented any other way, however
I do remember Ron using the term 'other determined' to mean no
responsibility for either side of the game, or being a valence.))
 
     YAWNING ALWAYS MEANS A BYPASSED MU WORD = BPC
 
     There are more reasons than MU words for yawning.  Read DMSMH to
find out.  ((A Reference to boil off or charge being blown sometimes on
cognition.  However yawning often happens during clearing of an MU,
often AFTER it is cleared or just AS it is being understood correctly.))
 
     DEMO AS YOU GO = constant meaningless fiddling
 
     Insisting that people be demoing what they are listening to
constantly leads to automaticities of fiddling with demo kits pieces to
make it look as though one is demoing when it is actually unnecessary.
This being a withhold causes eventual disaffection on the part of the
student.  ((You bet.  I used to snarl outright at sups that came over to
me and said I wasn't demoing enough.  I knew when I needed to demo and
when I didn't.  Try it sometime, just growl at them, see if they don't
go away.  Restimulates tiger engrams in them.))
 
     FLUNKING = Invalidation
 
     When I was running the PE course ((Personal Efficiency)) in NY Org
in 1966 I saw that flunking by twins on an introductory TRs course was
always evaluative and frequently invalidative.  This caused upsets and
frequent losses rather than only gains for new students.  This resulted
from the fact that flunking by new students was based upon social rather
than auditing considerations.  I invented and introduced validative TRs
(See Doc 002 The Path to Happiness.)
 
     I consider flunks in 0-IV Academy Training, by supervisors, to be
extremely dangerous.  Incorrect flunks by an instructor are a covert way
of enforcing verbal tech, without saying anything except "Flunk."
Incorrect flunks by fellow students are arguable and merely throw doubt
on one's knowingness and understanding.
 
     STUDY TECH IS COMPLETE = No further Progress
 
     I have had the temerity to discover and develop undercuts to church
Study Tech.  ((An undercut is a process that goes lower and earlier than
the process it undercuts.)) One undercut consists of clearing the
alphabet.  Alphabet symbols are part of all reading, therefore MU's on
the alphabet interfere with learning phonics and learning to sound out
words for oneself and being able to use a dictionary successfully.  See
Doc.  No.  141, ABC's a Study undercut.
 
     I have also found a bit of incomplete Study Tech, namely that the
way to check for an MU is to ask for the definition of the word being
tested.  With some words, it is important as well to ask for the meaning
of the word for many words change meaning with context.
 
     OTs CAN COMMIT OVERTS WITHOUT PENALTY = Reduced Pan-Determinism
 
     The church, I have heard, teaches that after one has run out the
source of the Overt-Motivator mechanism: one can no longer be hurt by
committing overts on others.  Therefore, it is OK to follow the Fair
Game Law and commit overts in body or psychically on "Enemies of the
Church." The truth is that committing overts reduces ones willingness to
be the other person and hence reduces one's potential pan-determinism
because one becomes unwillingness to be the person overted against.
 
     ((The subject of overts is a very heavy subject.  People are
essentially cornered in what ever area of space they find the most
confrontable.  The ability to exteriorize depends on a willingness to
move THROUGH the space surrounding you including THROUGH other objects
and other beings.
 
     To the degree that an area of space has some unconfrontable pain
going on in it, an OT may be unwilling to 'visit' or occupy that area of
space.  He tends to travel while exterior by 'going around' that area
and avoiding it.  Notice that if a being starts to have more areas of
space he is avoiding than he is willing to visit, that amounts to being
interiorized into the spaces he is willing to visit.
 
     Thus when a being screams about how he can't get out of his body,
ask him if he really wants to.  The answer of course is no.
 
     Overts add to the amount of pain in the various spaces that an OT
might visit.  He sees someone he doesn't like doing something they
shouldn't be doing, so he punishes them, he hurts them, he creates pain
in their space for THEM to feel.  If he gets really mad and vicious
about this, in his efforts to make sure the other being NEVER DOES IT
AGAIN, he will create pain in the other being so bad that 'NO ONE will
be able to confront this!'
 
     Of course this include him.  So now he has created a victim so bad
that he can't go near it, and that is the beginning of interiorization.
Interiorization is not the fact that you can't get OUT of a space, it is
the fact that you can't go INTO a space!.
 
     If the punishing being begins to regret the pain he caused, if the
victim's broken body continues to fester in that space for the rest of
time, the OT will suddenly wish he had never done it, and he will
interiorize INTO the painful space and not be able to get out.  It's an
effort to empath the pain away, to wash the other's pain away by taking
it on himself.  He then becomes stuck in the victim's space or the
victim's valence because he is unwilling to NOT feel pain, it wouldn't
be right to feel good and be free.
 
     Again he is stuck IN because he is UNWILLING to go OUT.
 
     Interiorization is NEVER being stuck IN a space, it is always being
stuck OUT of an other space due to unwillingness to be in those other
spaces.
 
     When a being can't move freely any more in space at all, that is
only because the one point he is on is the only point he is willing to
be on no matter how much he screams about how he wants to get off of it.
Thus you can torture beings until they exteriorize.  When they finally
exteriorize it is because where they were finally became worse than
being where they went.
 
     OT's can be unwilling to be in a space because it is too bad, or
because it is too good.
 
     Thus one is not held into a body, one is holding on to a body.
When you get the pc to see why he is unwilling to go out of the body,
and he blows the considerations he has about these other spaces he might
move into, namely too bad or too good, too much of something or too
little of something, he will exteriorize freely.))
 
     NEVER AUDIT A PC ON DRUGS = Emergencies Not Handled
 
     About the same time, also in D.C.  I blew off another rule, that of
not auditing a PC who had taken drugs.  A young man, who had been on
drugs, kicked them and had done a DRD ((Drug Rundown)) lived on the
floor above me down the street from the Org on S Street.  He had to go
to a local hospital to handle a condition.  At the hospital, as part of
their procedure, they gave him an injection of morphine over his
objections.
 
     He requested an assist at the Org following his stay in the
hospital and was refused by the C/S, because he had been injected with
morphine.  The injection had turned on his craving again.  A few days
later he OD'd from drugs.  I then reread what Ron had said about
auditing over drugs.
 
     I discovered that what Ron had said was, "If you run something on a
PC who is on drugs, you may have to run him on that again when he is off
them and they are out of his system." The later rules of no auditing
were admin rules not PC rules.
 
     ((Certain drugs open up the reactive mind, and key out the Service
Facsimile for a while allowing perception and emotion to come through.
Pot, speed, LSD, cocaine, heroin, even alcohol and many others.  Many
drugs close the bank down quickly after and leave it very solid, others
leave it open and easy to audit for quite a while.
 
     Many people are almost impossible to audit UNLESS they are on
drugs, that is why they DO drugs, to FEEL things.  Other people are much
too difficult to audit on drugs and need to wait until they are
straight.  I believe you should audit the person in front of you, but
even if drugs were legal, they are to be discouraged for long term
therapeutic use.
 
     The problem is very simple.  The drug gets rid of some of the case
conditions that make the case inaccessible.  So the person gets high and
starts getting TA action like mad, cognitions all over the place and
lots of case gain.  BUT THE PART OF HIS CASE THAT MAKES HIS CASE
INACCESIBLE WITHOUT THE DRUGS IS NOT BEING HANDLED BECAUSE IT'S GONE
WHILE HE IS ON DRUGS!
 
     So as soon as the drugs wear off, he is inaccessible again and
probably suffering from various kickbacks that the drugs give.  A good
session though under drugs will lessen the kick backs.
 
     Thus some pc's get into the habit of using pot or LSD or whatever
to help them make case gain, and they do make case gain, lots of it, but
when they are straight they are still completely shut down as the core
charge is not being handled.  Such sessions to serve to give the pc hope
that change is available, but in the long run only straight auditing
will handle why the guy needs drugs to audit at all, because WHILE THE
DRUGS ARE HANDLING IT, IT IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR AUDITING!
 
     What usually happens is that the pc eventually catches on that he
is handling everything BUT what he needs to handle to get off the drugs.
He will start to approach the core subject the next time he starts a
drug session, and then he will hit the core and SO much energy will
start coming off his case he will wish to God he was straight.  Usually
after such an experience he won't go near drugs again even if he does
get all clamped down for a while.
 
     The moral of the story is, the reason WHY a person needs drugs to
help him make case gain has SO MUCH energy in it that it just can't be
handled under the influence of drugs!  So once he gets near why he needs
drugs, he won't need them any more.  In fact he will desperately need to
NOT take them as he might literally die of the energy flows.
 
     So if your pc is still needing drugs to audit, beware, there will
come a time when he is going to wish to hell he hadn't taken that last
toke.  A pc who is aware of this phenomenon is probably a lot safer
using drugs once in a while to open up a recalcitrant case on himself,
than someone who is just totally oblivious to the dangerous amount of
energy tied up in the part of his case that makes him need drugs.
 
     The higher you are on the Bridge the more dangerous drugs become.
Low on the scale pot and LSD may give you a fun time.  Then a little
higher and you are looking at all your death and hell engrams in the
teeth, and even higher you start running into all your BT's, and various
demons and deities which can become singularly unpleasant.
 
     It is convenient to say that drugs are illegal so you shouldn't use
them, however many drugs that produce case opening are not illegal such
as alcohol, including many prescription drugs including speed.
 
     Speed has been used to get off of nicotine by the way.  But it
takes about 11 days of small biphetamine doses with lots of vitamins to
do it, and it may kill you.  The withdrawal from the biphetamine is
minimal, and it allows you to sleep just fine.
 
     Biphetamine is a prescription mixture of benzedrine and dexedrine,
both mild forms of amphetamine.  I STRONGLY recommend against using this
method to get off of nicotine unless you are under the strict
supervision of a doctor, or you feel you are dying of nicotine
addiction, and you feel you have no other choice.
 
     Speed of all kinds in general is illegal and prescriptions for it
are mostly illegal too almost everywhere in the world.  Valid uses for
speed are no longer recognized by the medical profession so it is almost
impossible to get a prescription for it.
 
     The use of biphetamine in particular has ethical dilemma's attached
to it.  Although there are underground speed labs, they mostly produce
methamphetamine which is highly addictive and highly dangerous to your
body, you can OD, and you can die from it if you push it.  There is a
particularly bad form of meth called ICE which you smoke like crack
coming in from over seas.
 
     As far as I know there is no help from meth for getting off of
nicotine, in fact meth tends to allow you to smoke cigarettes endlessly
and leaves you just as addicted after you came down as when you went up.
So stay away from meth at all costs.
 
     There is little black market money in the more reasonable forms of
speed such as benzedrine and dexedrine so there is little to no black
market production of them.  That means any biphetamine which you may
obtain on the street has undoubtedly been stolen from a hospital.  This
kind of activity is very bad karma and you should recognize that no
matter how useful you find it as a drug, it has a history of blood
behind it.
 
     I only mention this because it is the truth, and an auditor must
know his trade if he is going to handle people who are on drugs like
speed or who are doing speed to get off of nicotine or to lose weight.
For all of it's illegality, meth speed is everywhere present and highly
abundant and extremely bad for you especially in the absence of
vitamins.
 
     Biphetamine however is a beautiful drug, as is evidenced by its
continued use in hospitals for various things, where most of the street
supply comes from via theft.
 
     An auditor must know his laws when helping people, but he must also
know his chemistry and his technology, and when push comes to shove,
saving a life is more important than following the law.
 
     It really depends on how much a war zone you consider yourself in
and whether you think you have alternatives.
 
     I just want to point out that using a black market drug is one
thing, using a drug STOLEN from a hospital is quite another.  So make
sure you balance your decisions with the effects they will cause, and
the kind of people you are depending on to provide the material to you.
 
     This is supposed to be a civilized society and there ought to be
civilized avenues of help for your problems, so make sure you check out
all alternatives, INCLUDING YOUR DOCTOR, before you opt to seek help on
the dark side.
 
     You are also going to run into LOTS of people who are doing pot on
a regular basis or maybe even LSD.  Both are highly illegal but
relatively safe drugs at least physically.  These people will need some
serious auditing as they are doing drugs for reasons that go very deep.
 
     You will also run into people who are doing cocaine or crack on a
regular basis.  COCAINE IS A VERY DANGEROUS DRUG.  It can kill you dead
period.  It can tease you with needing to do just a little more, just a
little more and suddenly you have had too much, and your heart goes into
pound mode.  Forget it.  If you aren't doing cocaine, don't start now.
If you are, get help quick.  Remember that cocaine is like novocaine,
and just about as useful to your spiritual life.
 
     Cocaine makes you feel as if you had perfect parents, and you can
for a while understand other people and their problems, but then you
come crashing back down again with an unquenchable lust for the drug in
your throat that nothing can kill.  It always promises to make that lust
go away if only you give it one last hit.
 
     The only time one more hit actually does make the lust go away is
if you manage to have a very good session while you are doing the drug.
Forget it, it you are that good an auditor, you probably are way beyond
needing drugs by now anyhow.  It's like playing Russian Roulette with 5
bullets in the gun.
 
     But you are going to run into these drug phenomena in other people
no matter what, so you had better be prepared.  If you manage one day to
get someone who is a chronic alcoholic into session just after he has
gotten very high on alcohol, I mean he still has the bottle right there
in his hand, you will no doubt get him into some tremendous oceanic
sorrow, and you had better be able to audit it, because that is why he
is a drunk, he is sad about something, so sad he can't cry anymore.
 
     Alcohol though has a VERY NARROW window of opportunity to make case
gain.  You get high for a very short while, then it closes down with a
thud and the window is gone.  So you really got to get him just as he is
getting off on the effects.
 
     You have about ten minutes if you are lucky to get him talking
about that sorrow that keeps him drinking.  It will often be some really
sad Parent/Child thing.
 
     Alcoholics aren't that complex, just over burdened with charge.  on
Hell, Death and Dying.
 
     Many times people you run into during the day will still be
suffering from the thud they experienced the night before when they got
high with their friends.  Thus many people are in an artificial state of
inaccessibilty and you may miss this, making you wonder why every one is
so inaccessible.
 
     It is merely because of extensive social drug taking that goes on
every day, often the night before, that leaves everyone in a chronic
thud state until it wears off usually after 24 hours or so.  However by
that time they have had another toke or social drink.  So they never
win.
 
     That is why the Church likes to have people dry out for a while
before they audit them.  It is really a matter of not wasting their
money.  Truth be told though, if you are dealing with a serious
alcoholic, the time to audit him is not later once he is down and
straight again, but right while he is getting off.  It may take days to
really dry out and make the guy accessible again without the drugs,
especially if he is mixing drugs like nicotine, alcohol, coffee and
various prescription downers and uppers.
 
     If he is in desperate straights and crying for auditing, telling
him he must dry out first is cruel and impossible, he may kill himself
first trying to do that.  Just sit down with him and HAVE HIM DO HIS
DRUG RIGHT THERE IN SESSION WITH YOU a few times until he makes some
case gain and realizes that help is available but it's too dangerous to
do on drugs.  THEN get him to dry out, because during the thud period
you ain't going to get nothing.
 
     Auditing a pc while he is doing drugs is enough to make any good
Standard Techie roll over in his grave, but life is not the Walton's,
and when you are in a war zone you audit people as they are regardless
of what they are in the middle of doing, even it is blowing a joint.
 
     Get it?  So leave the righteousness at home when you go out to
audit the real world.
 
     Once druggies make some case gain, and once they get some reality
on how much energy is stored up in their drug addiction, they will
quickly leave the drug and become very avid preclears, so don't discount
the druggie because he needs a flea dip.  He took to drugs because he
couldn't stand the people around him who weren't able to confront
anything let alone drugs, and maybe he used to be such a person himself.
 
     Drugs are for those who can't handle reality, but which reality?
 
     Most of the 'packaged realities' that drug addicts are reacting to,
are held by those who can't confront much of anything let alone the
higher realities opened up by drugs.
 
     These people who are terrified of drugs, usually have some drug
that they are doing anyhow but of course it is not a drug to them, and
they bear and raise drug addicts by the thousands.
 
     It's a good bet the drug addict is guilty of the same nonsense in
previous lives, that is why he is falling for it so hard in this life.
 
     "Spot a life when your child turned to drugs because he couldn't
stand your reality."
 
     So when you are auditing drugs and drug addicts you are really
auditing realities, good realities, bad realities, intolerable
realities, realities too sad to know about, realities too good to know
about.
 
     Drugs change a person's reality, from one he detests to another,
sometimes not too much better.  Drugs open up early magic track, and
unspeakable beauties and terrors, and these become massive withholds to
the person because he knows he can't talk about any of it because no one
will understand.  And THAT is the basic underlying postulate of the drug
addict, no one will understand, and it is probably true.  He certainly
doesn't understand and he is experiencing the stuff!
 
     LSD can take you to places that are so high and so early on the
track that LRH gave up completely on LSD cases.  He just told them to
get lost, they couldn't be part of his Sea Org.  LRH never handled his
own LSD case.
 
     Many drugs, in and of themselves, are not dangerous, but heavy
whole track bank is VERY dangerous, and drugs turn on the whole track
like nobody's business.
 
     LSD for example is used in microgram quantities so minute that the
body barely responds to it, but it opens up areas of the track so
heavily charged with beauty and ugly and Divine meaning that it has
become one of the icons of our age.
 
     It also turns on somatics and feelings of death so strong that many
people are just SURE they are going to die.  LSD can't possibly poison
the body in those doses, but the death and hell engrams that get turned
on are strong enough to convince you you are already dead, as are the
Divine Visions and Eternal Beatitudes that are intermingled with them.
 
     LSD is kind of a Heaven and Hell trip, with LONG stop overs in the
Hells and fleeting glimpses of the Heavens.
 
     So drugs and case gain don't mix very well except when it is
absolutely necessary.
 
     A lot of people, upon reading what I have said about LSD above,
will no doubt think 'Cool man, where do I get some', or they will feel
left out because they have never done LSD in this life.  The left out
feeling comes from HAVING done LSD in past lives on other planets, LSD
far more powerful than anything here on Earth.  So if you are not doing
LSD, don't.  IF you are, consider getting the hell off of it and start
making some real case gain so that you don't ever have to come down.
 
     LSD can only take you so high, above each Heaven is another Hell,
and LSD always leaves you in the last Hell you manage to stick your head
into.  There is an end to it, above the last Hell is endless Heaven
forever for free, but LSD won't take you there, it will always leave you
a few flights below the penthouse.
 
     Only good auditing will take you out the top.
 
     Drugs are MEDICINE.  You do them when you are hurt and in need,
physically, emotionally, mentally or spiritually.  That includes any
drugs, from the downs to the uppers to the pyschedelics.  You DON'T make
a living ritual out of using them EVERY DAY, including nicotine and
coffee.
 
     A drug addict is merely one who is chronically in pain, physically,
emotionally, mentally or spiritually, and is doing constant medicine to
help him through life.))
 
     ACCEPTABLE COGNITIONS = Invalidation of PCs.
 
     Another arbitrary but unwritten rule I have experienced, and been
told of by others, is the practice of not validating or even punishing
PCs for upper level cognitions or abilities, achieved on lower levels.
When I had a DCSI ((Dianetic Clear Special Intensive, used to rehab the
state of Clear and other wins.)) at Flag in 1979, my past upper level
release points were totally ignored.  I have heard since from exFlag
auditors that they learned to not write down upper level cogs from their
lower level PCs because if they did so, their PCs would be penalized by
being given Sec Checks.  On the theory that they could not have had that
cog without being privy to confidential materials.
 
     F/Ns MEAN STOP THE SESSION = Preventing the PC From Looking.
 
     While it is true that an F/N heralds an EP and is considered part
of an EP, remember that an F/N can get wider and wider.  So, never stop
a PC from looking at the first sign of an F/N.  In fact don't stop a PC
ever, only because you saw an F/N.  Instead, ask the PC whether he is
finished looking or whether there is more there he wants to look at.
Don't even ask, if the PC is still talking and obviously looking at
something.  Both ask whether the PC is finished and whether the PC has
something else there he or she wants to look at.  Doing that will
neither pull the PC away from or push the PC further into it.
 
     PC's are often in propitiation and will take a question asked only
one way as a suggestion to do it that way.  e.g.  "Would you like to go
to the movies?" pushes in the direction of going to the movies.  "Would
you rather go to the movies or do something else?" is more neutral.
Even better might be, "Would you like to go to the movies, or continue
what you are doing?"
 
     On beginning PCs, it sometimes seems that keeping them from
overrunning is necessary.  However, I prefer to let the PC go on past an
F/N, in the hope that it will widen, and wait until the PC realizes that
she is through with the subject before rehabbing the F/N.  This I am
able to do easily, because I noted it together with what was going on at
that point in the session.  e.g.  "Did you feel better when you said
_______ ?"
 
     When a PC has the bit in his teeth and is looking at something
don't stop that PC from looking because of some imagined danger that you
have heard of and don't really understand anyway.  Just be alert to help
the PC any way you can.
 
     ARC BREAK F/Ns = The auditor did something wrong
 
     Well, yes, the auditor failed to notice that the PC was not bright
at end of session, and did not take out a repair list, though this
degrade of VGIs might not have occurred till after the session was over
and the PC on his way to the examiner.
 
     Primarily an ARC break F/N results from the revealing of a long
standing, but suppressed and buried ARC break which has surfaced as a
result of getting charge off the case.
 
     This is so much the case, that one can say, that comments
especially nasty comments or protests about a process always signal that
the question or process one is working on is flat just as much as having
a cog.
 
     I ran into this two ways.  I saw this on a PC about 1967.  I was
running her on CCHs and she was complaining.  I thought the process was
unflat whereas it was flat and I should have been going on to the next
process in sequence.  I saw another aspect of this earlier in 1964,
while I was auditing Stan Stromfeld at Saint Hill.  After each command
of a process I was running per Ron's instructions the needle went dirty
just as the PC said he was done.  This continued for several days about
once an hour until I recognized that I might be dealing with a prior
comm break.  The earlier comm break that was causing the dirty needle
had been seven years earlier.
 
     I have more recently encountered the same phenomenon off the meter.
The PC had been going along quite willing to spot charge on a postulate.
Then immediately after his last answer and a cog the PC suddenly became
quite upset and said that time had been wasted.  Recognizing that a
prior ARC break had been revealed I asked about it and the PC
immediately quieted down and ran off the earlier ARC break which had
occurred millennia before and consisted of failing to achieve a goal
after years of effort.  His remarks about wasting time really applied to
the earlier incident.
 
     PCs CAN BE HARMED = Fear of Committing Errors
 
     In the 1960's, peaking up for me in 1963-4, Ron had much to say
about wrapping PCs around flagpoles.  This was an apparent danger at
that time, which resulted from the kinds of charge being run and the
methods being used to handle it.
 
     ((It also came from Ron's own experience AS a pc in the able hands
of Mary Sue Hubbard.  They were running GPMS, and pain turned on by
missed items or wrong-way-to flows was deadly, in Ron's own words.  Ron
talks about somatics that NEVER go away.))
 
     Yes, indeed, people occasionally felt very strong somatics
following sessions.  I experienced two hours of intense agony myself in
1970 at ASHO, as the aftermath of being asked to look for something that
was not there and being prevented from looking at what was there, during
an Int RD.  Having a PC experience severe pain or agony for a short
time, is not the same as causing permanent harm to the PC.  In fact, it
could be a salutary learning experience.
 
     However, a short repair session with a list works wonders and all
the agony, upset and damage is corrected.  My own agony would not have
occurred if I had not gone along with what the C/S had ordered over my
own protests.  If you always work with a PC and handle protests instead
of overriding them the PC will not get into trouble.
 
     In 1950, when the PC protested in some way one did not push the PC
to do what was protested against, instead one ran off the protest by
having the PC repeat the protest to discover what earlier charge was
under it because obviously Dianetic auditing was going to do the PC
good, so any protest had to be an aberration.  As Ron said, any auditing
is better than no auditing.  He could have added unless the PC is being
overwhelmed by the auditor and the auditing.  ((Also add unless the
process being run is completely off the mark.))
 
     Some people are so compulsively polite and propitiative that one
can easily override their protests.  Just recognize that any protest no
matter how weakly stated or displayed should be recognized and dealt
with.  At the very least ask for earlier protests.
 
     ADVANCE PAYMENT = Prevented Auditing
 
     ((The arbitrary here is that a pc must pay in advance, where as the
truth is that if you demand advance payment from some pc's then that may
prevent auditing if they don't have the money.))
 
     Another arbitrary I ignore is that PCs must pay in advance.  Ron
said, and I agree, "When a PC is satisfied the PC pays cheerfully."
This is to be found in Ron's comments when setting up rules for Review
auditing, which is the only kind of auditing at one time that could be
given on credit.
 
     REVIEW AUDITING TO BE PAID ADDITIONALLY = Unfair
 
     That reminds me of another rule I once broke, when I was Qual Sec
NY.  This was shortly after the form of the Org changed, and Review was
supposed to be paid for over and above prepayments made for an
intensive.  A PC who was too tough for the HGC auditors was sent to
review for handling.  That PC had saved for two years to pay for her
intensive and did not have extra money for Review.  So having influence
at that time, I arranged for her unused credit to be transferred to
Review.  With other PCs who only needed an hour or so in Review, I
arranged that a portion of their prepayment be credited to Review so
that I had a Stat without making them pay more.  NY Stats increased.
 
     DON'T GIVE AN ASSIST WITHOUT C/S OK = Unhandled Conditions
 
     IF RON DIDN'T SAY IT, IT'S SQUIRREL = No creativity
 
     I once had the temerity to give an assist to a student who was
planning to leave her internship incomplete at FCDC.  Senior staff at
the Org had been unable to get her to change her mind.  She felt upset
about leaving but just had to do so because she had promised to be back
home at a certain time.  My assist based upon basic theory, kept her
from blowing.  I was rewarded by being called in to qual to discuss
whether I had violated the rule of not getting prior permission from the
C/S.  I wrote up my simple program and it was called squirrel.  Here it
is.
 
     Here is the Assist C/S I wrote on the situation described above.
"Let the PC tell you about the upset or problem.  Whatever the
motivator, listen to it.  Then, at an appropriate moment ask whether the
PC had ever committed a similar overt on another.  Following that run
General O/W, ("What have you done?  What have you not done?") until PC
feels better.  Then end off off by running problems of comparable
magnitude on whatever problem remains.  I wrote my assist and turned in
the report to be put in the PC's folder.  The reply I got to my
successful suggested C/S was the word "SQUIRREL" written large on the
top of the sheet of paper I had submitted it on.
 
     I spurn other's interpretations of how to run Problems of
Comparable magnitude.  i.e.  "Invent a Problem of Comparable Magnitude
to THAT Problem." I consider that the word 'THAT' refers to the last
invented problem each time.
 
     DON'T C/S IN THE CHAIR = Limited Case Gain.
 
     Kathy, one of the other auditors on staff in Riverside looked very
down in the mouth one day.  I offered to give her a session and she
accepted.  I ran off all the charge I could find from her viewpoint with
some gain but not real VGIs.  So, I went outside the boundaries of what
was then considered proper tech and had Kathy run the charge from her
husband's viewpoint.  To my amazement, she ran not only the mutual
charges of this life but continued to run all sorts of track charge on
his case for him, that he had never mentioned in sessions she had given
him.  We ended up with the PC VGIs.  I broke the rule, that one does not
exceed the C/S for the session or change it in session.
 
     In fact that is the major rule I now break consistently in each and
every session.  I don't bind myself to following any session C/S my own
or anyone else's prepared before hand for the session.  Instead I look
at the case in front of me from the start of session on.  I sometimes
write a Plan Of Action (POA) as a general approach but it does not bind
me to anything.
 
     NO METER READS = PC Invalidation
 
     ((This means that sometimes the meter does not read on what the pc
is looking at, and this can be taken by the auditor as meaning there is
nothing there, which when passed onto the pc will caused serious
invalidation.  Sometimes the meter reads only AFTER the correct
indication has been made.
 
     This comes up in soloing, you say to yourself "This has to do with
_____?" and the meter does NOTHING.  But you KNOW it is right, so you
repeat the statement in its assertive form, 'This definitely has to do
with ____!" and the meter begins to read or blowdown after the fact.
 
     This also explains why sometimes the question form does not work
and the assertive form does.  When 'Has a withhold been missed?' does
not read, try 'A withhold HAS been missed!'))
 
     In 1984 as an independent auditor at the Independent Riverside
Mission I usually got good results but often did things in a way my C/S,
Mary Corydon considered non-standard and wrote critical notes to me
about.  Then she assigned me a PC along with a note saying, "Do whatever
you want, I won't criticize you." This PC, an old time mission holder,
was in a bad way.  He had come to Riverside begging to be handled and
with a reputation that he was a tough no-gain case.
 
     I went into session with him doing a C/S 53 and using a meter.  The
PC answered up on many of the list items but the TA was high and there
were no needle reads.  I had a choice: not indicating BPC because the
meter did not read or taking what the PC said and indicating BPC on the
basis of his understandable answers.  "What to do?"
 
     I decided to ignore the meter and indicate every charge that he
told me about that I could understand.  This wasn't hard.  It was easy
to see how each thing could be upsetting.  I was much encouraged when
each time I indicated, "Charge was by-passed on that," as though the
meter had read, he heaved a big sigh of relief and the TA began to come
down.
 
     Within an hour of taking the PCs word and not invalidating the PC
by the fact that the meter did not read, the meter finally began to read
along with each thing he told me.  His success story after session was
that it was the best session he had ever gotten.
 
     This was the first time, I violated rules about using Meter reads.
I did not put in Suppress or Inval I just took his word for it,
acknowledged and indicated there was BPC and charge came off.  That was
the start of my becoming independent of meters.  This was relatively
easy for me, because between 1950-'57 I had audited several thousand
hours successfully without a meter, doing Book One Dianetic auditing.
 
     These days I seldom if ever use a meter with a PC and even audit
PCs successfully over the telephone to handle problems and achieve case
gains.
 
     IGNORING COMMENTS = Out of Sessionness
 
     ((Ignoring comments leads to Out of Sessionness))
 
     In 1963 I became highly aware of and fought against, the "ignore
comments" part of TR-3.  "Ignore comments" made sense in 1957 in the
context of repetitive command processing, before much was known about
ARC breaks.  It stopped making sense in 1963 when the causes, cures, and
signs of ARC Breaks were discovered and remedies became available, such
as asking if a withhold had been missed or using a prepared list.  At
that time, I refused to "ignore comments" but instead would immediately
say, "ARC break, End of Session," if my coaches threw a comment at me,
in a drill other than an ARC break handling drill.
 
     If the PC has been running well and suddenly makes a polite comment
about the room or auditor, recognize that attention has come off the PCs
bank and onto the auditor or the room.  In dianetic days I can recall a
PC commenting on some loud noise which had pulled her partially out of
session.  I simply asked if there were some loud noises in the incident.
The PC said, "How did you know." And, continued recounting the incident.
The charge was the unrun incident which was being partially dramatized.
 
     Any comment on auditor or room is a sign that the PC does not have
attention within, on his own case.  The Itsa line has come off the bank
into PT either because the process is flat, the question is flat, or the
PC has been jarred out of session by an outside noise or something the
auditor has done.
 
     PCs in propitiation will show their protest in polite ways which
must be recognized.  Any time a question is flat the PC is likely to
comment on some present time condition.  The best handling at such a
time is to go on to the next leg of the process but be alert for any
more signs of protest and handle the underlying BPC as soon as it
becomes more evident.  A PC who is more aware and does not have any
buried BPC will tell you quite directly that the question is flat.
 
     TR-4 HANDLE ORIGINATIONS = sometimes leads to BPC
 
     The most usual use of TR-4 is to understand and acknowledge
originations and return the PC to the process.  But, TR-4 is not limited
to returning a PC to the process that elicited the origination.
Sometimes the PC's origination concerns a PTP which requires a session
break e.g.  putting money in a parking meter, or having to urinate or
defecate.  Sometimes the origination is actually a cognition which
signals that the process has completed.
 
     Sometimes the PC's cog signals that the process being run has
uncovered a new subject that needs to be taken up.  The process that was
being run may or may not be flat at that moment.  TR-4 is misused when
it is used to not handle important items that come up as that creates
BPC in the name of anti-Q&A.
 
     UNHANDLED BDs IN SESSION = BPC = Unhandled Cases
 
     From about 1970-1979, the last years I was in the church, I was
told as a PC, when I originated something that blew down and I wanted it
handled, that the C/S would be informed and the item handled.  My items
were never handled because they conflicted with the session C/S and
current Program.  When I was an auditor I wrote down originations the PC
gave me that blew down on the worksheet, circled them, and often wrote
C/Ses to handle it, but my session C/S's were never approved nor do I
think my PC's items were ever handled.
 
     TA ACTION and GETTING CHARGE OFF THE CASE = Slow or No Gains
 
     Recently I have come to realize that the "truths" that TA action
equals charge off the case and that charge off the case equals case gain
are both of limited truth and usefulness.  They are somewhat useful in
training auditors, for if an auditor can not let TA action happen and
cannot get charge off a case, gains will not occur.
 
     I learned this first in mid-1963 at SH when I was put back in "W"
unit to relearn basic Itsa Style auditing.  TA action alone does not
invariably bring about visible case gain.  I was given one of two PCs
for whom a subject that would give TA was known.  One guy got TA action
if he spoke about cheese, the other guy got TA action if he was kept
talking about his life as a rancher in South Africa.
 
     Though they got TA action, they did not make case gain by my
observation.  I was assigned the guy whose subject was South Africa.
After a week of TA action on South Africa without case gain, I found a
way to get TA Action with case gain.  In that second week he achieved
every goal he had come in to Scientology for.
 
     TA ACTION = Bank moving in and Out
 
     In 1966 when I was review auditor in the NY Org.  I got an EP on a
Review PC and called in the examiner, who happened that day to be Stan
Stromfeld, Org Sec NY holding the post from above.  Stan not content
with just giving the exam, demonstrated to me that he could get the TA
moving up and down by talking to the PC about various things.  This to
my perception was TA action without any release of charge, just bank
moving in and out.
 
     ANTI Q & A = BPC sometimes
 
     In the name of Anti Q and A, C/Ses ignore BD items that a PC is
interested in that are written down on worksheets because it is
considered that changing to that new item would be abandoning the
original process or program.  Apparently there is an unwritten rule that
a Program cannot be changed once started.  This rule would parallel the
rule that one must not C/S in the chair.  Failure to handle the BD item
ensures that charge is by-passed.
 
     New auditors have a strong tendency to ask questions about things
the PC has said, i.e.  "Questioning the PC's answer." It is reasonable
when training a new auditor, to restrict a new auditor from asking other
questions than the process question, as new auditors have difficulty
with duplication.
 
     However, it is often good to ask a pc to expand upon an answer.  I
propose the following rule, "Any question may be asked once, including a
question about a PCs answer to a process question." "Do not question or
ask for amplification of a PC's answer more than once unless you intend
to change the process."
 
     ((This comes up all the time in handling ARC breaks.  You ask the
pc, "Do you have an ARC Break." PC shudders and doesn't want to run the
process.  That's because he KNOWS FOR CERTAIN that if he tells you an
ARC break you will immediately ask him to tell you all about it, and
then assess it CDEINR and then take it earlier similar.  He also knows
damn well that the ARC break he is about to give you is totally
unimportant to his case and won't run beyond a few comments about it.
But no, the auditor insists on getting the ARC break and they spend 3
HOURS chasing it down to basic and in the end the pc gets a laugh out of
it, and then later is doing just as bad as before.  IT WASN'T THE ARC
BREAK THAT THE PC NEEDED TO RUN!
 
     So why doesn't the pc just give you the right ARC break in the
first place?  Well, because he doesn't know what it is.  He needs to run
the ARC break question a number of times before he comes up with an ARC
break worth running.  But running it this way is totally non standard.
With me, I finally got to a point that whenever an auditor asked me for
an ARC break, I would just instantly growl at him and tell him to get
lost.  I just wouldn't run ARC break chains.
 
     Finally I realized that this can be handled merely asking the pc
the ARC break question on a repetitive basis, without Q & Aing and
taking up any of the pc's answers except by just asking the question
again.  Eventually the pc will come up with an ARC break worth running
and it will be obvious that this one should be taken earlier if it even
needs it which mostly likely it won't.))
 
     C/S RULES = Unhandled Cases
 
     As a PC and also as an auditor I slowly realized that C/S rules
based upon early definitions of Q & A resulted in not handling what was
important to the PC and what could have produced tremendous case gains
if handled when they came up.  This was driven home to me, when one of
my PCs shortly after I arrived at Saint Hill in 1963, had a BD while I
was cleaning Ruds.  I shifted to taking up the subject that had caused
the BD.  This led to the PC running an engram chain which left the PC
with VVVGIs.
 
     Instead of being praised for getting VVVGIs and case gain on my PC,
I was given a pink sheet to teach me not to do a case action during
Ruds.  As I write this I realize that the Ruds were completed and had
gone in at the moment that the BD occurred.  The PC was willing, more
than willing, happy, at that moment to look at his own case and
communicate to me his auditor.
 
     C/S SYSTEM = Irresponsibility on the part of auditors
 
     The C/S system as I experienced it is a system in which the C/S is
in charge of cases and the individual auditors do only what they were
told to do.  The C/S is boss.  The C/S is responsible for results.
 
     A C/S system in which the C/S acts only in an advisory function and
the auditor on the case has primary responsibility for results is far to
be preferred.  I propose that auditors write a Plan of Attack (POA) for
his next session or overall program to achieve the purpose of the
auditing.  This POA may be commented upon, by a C/S but not vetoed.
 
     ((I may be mistaken but as I remember it that is how my own
dianetic auditing and C/Sing was done for my pc.  I would write the C/S
for the next session and send it up to the C/S for approval.))
 
     NO VERBAL DATA = Limited Understanding
 
     I consistently violate the rule of "No verbal data." I discuss
cases and theory with other auditors.  Then I make up my own mind.  I'll
even give the PC ideas to handle a PTP in the middle of a session,
announcing what I am doing before I do it.  Sometimes my ideas help
sometimes they stimulate the PC's thinking.
 
     ((Evaluation can often jerk the pc's attention out of session, and
gets them in a habit of asking YOU questions rather than answering
questions themselves.  They tell you about a PTP and then they sit there
waiting for you to tell them how to solve their problem.  This is highly
destructive to case gain when done incorrectly.
 
     It is based on the basic definition of In Session and Out of
Session.
 
     In session is usually defined as the pc is interested in his own
case and willing to talk to the auditor, but it has a deeper more
fundamental definition.  This has to do with the cycle of Question and
Answer.
 
     When the pc is in session the auditor is asking questions and the
pc is answering the questions.  When the pc is out of session, the pc is
asking questions and the auditor is answering them.  This puts the
AUDITOR in session!.
 
     Thus the injunction to not evaluate for the preclear or tell him
what to think about his case or gains in session is based on this datum
that evaluation is basically answering a question for the pc.  If you
ask the pc an auditing question, and he turns it around and asks it back
at you and you then answer it, you are basically auditing yourself and
charging the pc for the privilege.))
 
     C/Ses ALWAYS KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING = Reduces Auditor Certainty
 
     FEAR OF OUT LISTS = Avoidance of listing processes
 
     The biggest culprit in the 1960s was charge resulting from Out
Lists.  The remedy for Out Lists was and is using an L-4 list to find
and indicate the BPC and then to correct what went wrong.  Fortunately,
you don't have to know ahead of time that it is an out list phenomenon
that you are dealing with, as today all lists have on them at least one
Out List question on it.  If that question reads you then go to an L-4
list.
 
     Looking at this today I see several reasons for severe somatics
from out lists, that do not apply to Free Style auditing.  One reason is
that Lists were being done on PCs who were not really up to running that
kind of charge.  This was shown by the fact that lists were long.  Two.
Out List phenomena were occurring during Ron's research program mostly
'63-'64 when nobody, including Ron, knew fully what they were after.
Listing Tech was not well understood by anyone including Ron, at the
time that Ron warned against wrapping PCs around flagpoles.  The rules
of Listing and Nulling grew out of correcting List errors, once the
rules were known few people got into trouble.  Unfortunately, the
bulletins on the subject of Listing and Nulling are imperfect.  (See my
list of Tech errors.)
 
     If you do not run a PC over his head, lists become one item lists,
and PCs have no problem going back and correcting the wording of past
found items (in running a GPM or any other process requiring listing)
without suffering from heavy BPC from wrong items.  If any charge does
show up, however, it can be handled quickly and easily now that Listing
Tech has been refined.  It is possible to run PCs smoothly and to
correct errors, if any, quickly and easily.
 
     RON IS SOLE SOURCE = Everybody else including you is invalidated
 
     I have violated the unwritten rule that Ron is sole Source.  Ron
often said to acknowledge source, but I am not aware of any place where
he said on tape or wrote in a bulletin that he was sole source.  That
seems to have been an interpretation that he fostered but did not say.
 
     ((Whenever you opt to take full responsibility for another's case
to help them take full responsibility for it themselves, you have the
right to lay down what ever rules you feel are necessary to guarantee
the success of the endeavor.  One of the primary rules that Ron insisted
upon before he was willing to take the risk of helping anyone, was that
no one was to do any tech research except himself and who he designated,
and only standard processes were to be run.  He himself had suffered too
much danger from incorrect and experimental auditing, and he had seen
the results of bad or wrong auditing on others, and so he flatly said,
if you want me to help you, you have to do it my way, period, no
exceptions.
 
     He was well within his rights to take this approach.  However his
tech was not perfect, complete or workable for many individuals.  Per
force therefore they had to leave the Church and strike out on their
own.  Most independent auditors don't care what you do with your case
between sessions, some even encourage soloing on your own, whether
trained or not.  Some just recognize that when a high powered pc comes
to them who has been soloing for 20 years forging his own Bridge, there
is nothing they are going to say that will stop the guy from doing what
he wants between sessions, its hard enough to get them to do what you
want DURING session, so they don't even try.))
 
     THE SITUATION NOW = Not Dangerous
 
     If you work with the PC rather than ON a PC and you run the PC
where the PC's attention is, without arbitraries, few problems arise.
PCs will not run into things over their head unless pushed into it by an
auditor.  Use Ron's rule, "Any question can be asked once." "Asking more
than once turns a question into a process, and tends to force the PC."
Avoid doing anything that forces the PC and you will avoid inadvertently
pushing a PC in over his head.  Consult the PC's willingness and power
of choice.
 
     Bob Ross
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith           This file may be found at
homer@rahul.net              ftp.rahul.net/pub/homer/ross/ross1.memo
Posted to usenet newsgroup:  alt.clearing.technology