Русская версия

Search document title:
Content search 2 (exact):
ENGLISH DOCS FOR THIS DATE- Scientology - Clear Procedure - Issue One - B571200 | Сравнить
- Work Was Free (Excerpt From Scientology Clear Procedure, Issue One, December, 1957) - B571200 | Сравнить

CONTENTS Scientology: Clear Procedure
Issue One
INTRODUCTION SUMMARY DEFINITIONS, GOALS STEP ONE
Participation in Session by the Pc
Cохранить документ себе Скачать

Scientology: Clear Procedure
Issue One

December 1957 L. Ron Hubbard

GOAL:

To obtain the state of clear in individuals.

DEFINITION OF A CLEAR:

A thetan who can knowingly be at cause over Life, Matter, Energy, Space and Time, subjective and objective.

This is a working definition. Self-determinism and knowledge that he himself can be at cause point are then primary targets.

Minimum Requisite for Auditor in Using These Techniques:

A Validated Hubbard Professional Auditor Certificate.

INTRODUCTION

I have been at work for seven years to produce a series of techniques which any well trained auditor can use to clear people. We now have them.

I am truly sorry that this took seven years. Actually, it took more than twenty-five.

Under other “systems of research” it could not have been done. It was financed atfirst by my writings and expeditions. Some 15,000,000 words of fact and fiction articles ranging from political articles to westerns were consumed in a large part by this research-but it was free to act if not free from sweat.

No bullying dictator wanted it for his mass slaveries as happened to poor misguided Pavlov. No big corporation wanted it for a better Madison Avenue approach to advertising — another kind of slavery. No big RESEARCH FOUNDATION like Ford was there to interject their “America First” philosophy. These had not paid for it; therefore they didn’t own it. The work stayed free. Thus it prospered. It did not wither in support of some aberrated “cause.” It bloomed.

But the violence of protecting this work while continuing it took a toll nevertheless. Special interests believed it must be evil if they did not own it. Between 1950 and 1956, 2,000,000 traceable dollars were spent to halt this work. Newspaper articles, radio ads (as in Seattle from the University of Washington), bribed “patrons,” financed “patients” all cost money. You hear the repercussions of this campaign even today.

Money could not stop this work by then. It was too late. If anything had been wrong with our organizations, my character, our intentions or abilities the whole advance would have crumbled. But we had no Achilles’ heels. We carried on. All that has survived of this attack by the two APAs, the AMA and several universities is a clutter of rumors concerning your sanity and mine — and rumors no longer financed will some day die.

And so the work has emerged free of taint and misguided slants. It is itself. It does what it says it does. It contains no adroit curves to make one open to better believing some “ism.” That makes it singular today in a world gone mad with nationalism. Buddhism, when it came to the millions, was no longer free of slant and prejudice. Taoism itself became a national jingoism far from any work of Lao-Tze. Even Christianity had its “pitch.” And if these great works became curved, with all the personal force of their creators, how is it that our little triumph here can still be found in a clear state?

Well, no diamonds and palaces have been accepted from rajahs, no gratuitous printing of results has been the gift of warlords, no testament had to be written 300 years after the fact.

For this we can thank Johann Gutenberg, and the invention of magnetic tape.

Therefore, although we have no such stature as the Great Philosophies, I charge you with this — look to source writings, not to interpretations. Look to the original work, not offshoots.

If I have fought for a quarter of a century, most of it alone, to keep this work from serving to uphold the enslavers of Man, to keep it free from some destructive “pitch” or slant, then you certainly can carry that motif a little further.

I’ll not always be here on guard. The stars twinkle in the Milky Way and the wind sighs for songs across the empty fields of a planet a Galaxy away.

You won’t always be here.

But before you go, whisper this to your sons and their sons — ”The work was free. Keep it so.”

SUMMARY

STEP ONE: Establish participation in session of pc. Do not here or anywhere else neglect this factor. Maintain always ARC. Pc must to some degree be at cause with regard to session if only by wanting it or some result of it, or to escape some elsewhere consequence. This step is CCH 0 but it is run only to establish the thetan to some degree at cause with regard to the whole session. This must be improved throughout the intensive. Applies even to dead pcs.

STEP TWO: Establish obedience of some part of the auditing room to the pc. Here he must begin at some level of knowingness. He must KNOW that he himself, when ordered to do so, can gain some compliance on the part of the auditing room. This includes his own body. Thus we get “You seat that body in that chair. Thank you.” “You make that body continue to lie in that bed. Thank you.” We also get CCH# And we get a very important but neglected process run with two objects wherein the pc himself is ordered to keep one then the other from going away (alternately), hold it still, make it more solid, all with two objects. Stress is on YOU do it.

STEP THREE: Establish control of pc’s body by pc. Here we have CCH 2, but we also have an even more important series of processes, S-C-S in all their ramifications on the body. Here is pc at cause with regard to body. It is expected that lots of S-C-S will be run on pcs.

STEP FOUR: Make pc even more conscious of auditor and place him somewhat at cause with ARC. The mechanical steps of this are CCH 3 and CCH 4 but these steps are only valid if they heighten ARC and make the pc decide HE did it.

STEP FIVE: Establish pc as cause over Mest by establishing pc’s ideas as cause over Mest. Here, running these, we again emphasize YOU DO IT. The basic process of this is CONNECTEDNESS with the PC doing the connecting. Control Trio, Trio, Look around here and tell me what part of the environment you would be willing to be responsible for. You look, You connect, You make ....... Alter the old commands to put pc at cause point in doing these.

STEP SIX: Establish pc’s control over Mest subjective. Creative Processes, Recall Unwanted and Lost Objects. Then and Now Solids. First step on this in some cases is conquering black ‘‘field’’ and invisible “field.” This is done by a repair of havingness over black masses and then invisible masses, run even if pc goes unconscious. When field is cleared up, start on a gradient scale of mock-ups and get pc able to mock things up. Then run “Keep it from going away” until flat on mock-ups. Then run “Hold it still” on mock-ups. Then run “Make it more solid” on mock-ups. All this until pc really has fine, solid mock-ups. Typical command, “Mock up a and keep it from going away. Thank you.” RULE: A PC’S FACSIMILES ARE NOT STORED, THEY ARE MADE IN THE INSTANT AND UNMADE BY THE PC, therefore remedy of mock-ups AND THEIR PERSISTENCE is actually a direct route to clear and winds up with no obsessive mock-up making (which we call a bank). A valuable side process here: “Decide to make a mock-up. Decide that will ruin the game. Decide not to do it.” Also this one, “Decide to make a mock-up everyone can see. Decide that would ruin the game. Decide not to do it.” A TOTAL REMEDY OF MOCK-UPS WOULD MAKE A BOOK ONE CLEAR.

STEP SEVEN: Establish pc’s control over his “bank.” “Mock up a facsimile and (keep it from going away, and when that is flat, hold it still, and when that is flat, make it a little more solid).” Run this alternately with “Mock up that wall (keep it from going away, hold it still, make it a little more solid).” Run the “Keep it from going away” on a facsimile one command, then the wall one command, until flat, then shift to “Hold it still” same way, then shift to “Make it more solid,” same way.

STEP EIGHT: Make some Time.

AUDITING TRUTHS:

An Intensive in Brief for Practical Use

Begin by carefully easing the pc into session with CCH 0 but don’t talk too much or permit him to talk too much as you will as-is his havingness.

Establish control of a room object with “You make that chair sit on the floor.” Get wheeling with S-C-S and run it up to Stop-C-S.

Run Connectedness inside the auditing room and then outside with “You make that connect with you.” or “You look around here and tell me something you could have.” Or, “You look around here and tell me something you could be responsible for.”

Run an engram or do Then and Now Solids and put pc at cause with regard to facsimiles.

If you have any time left, do it all over again.

DEFINITIONS, GOALS

There are three possible goals in processing a preclear. The first of these is Mest Clear. The second is Theta Clear. The third is Operating Thetan.

By Mest Clear is meant a BOOK ONE CLEAR. Here we defined clear in terms of facsimiles. This is a rather simple mechanical definition. It said in effect that so far as human beings were concerned our preclear finally arrived at a point where he had full color-visio-sonic, had no psychoses or neuroses and could recall what had happened to him in this lifetime. This is almost a baby-talk sort of clear. It pays no heed at all to identification with a body and it has nothing to do with ability. Today, by running Creative Processes (four years old!) we can turn on visible facsimiles and weed out the bottom spots of operations and what not. This is actually a rather easy goal. Somehow I’ve never given a real tight procedure for achieving it even though the essence of the processes has been around for a very long time. COMPLETING STEP SIX OF CLEAR PROCEDURE IN FULL GIVES US A MEST CLEAR.

By Theta Clear is meant a Clear obtained by Clear Procedure as is being delineated in this regimen. The main trouble is, amusingly, trying to reach Mest Clear without running into Theta Clear. I personally don’t believe now that it can be done without actually shoving the pc back in his head every time he pops out. Thus the goal of this procedure is actually THETA CLEAR. This is what we mean then when we say “clear.” We mean a Theta Clear.

By Operating Thetan we mean Theta Clear PLUS ability to operate functionally against or with Mest and other life forms. For the first time we have here the matter of ABILITY. An Operating Thetan is not an absolute term. Theta Clear is a more absolute term than Operating Thetan. An Operating Thetan is a Theta Clear (not a mystical mystic out on an inversion) who can also do something.

Thus we have two goals which contain no ambition to accomplish anything and one goal which contains much ambition. Now here is another puzzle in definitions. Which is highest, the Theta Clear or the Operating Thetan? Well, the answer to that is not what we used to think. As DOINGNESS is not really at the top we find that we will probably make an Operating Thetan before we achieve Theta Clear for a Theta Clear would probably not be much interested in operating. Therefore, we see the actual goal we are trying to reach, no matter in which limited sense, is Operating Thetan.

Operating Thetan is then a highly variable goal. A thetan who can move in and out of a body is actually operating somewhat but he is not really a Theta Clear since a Theta Clear, in its highest sense, means no further dependency upon bodies.

The goals of the auditor, therefore, do not rack up one, two, three, Mest Clear, Theta Clear, Operating Thetan. They actually stack up on a very gradient scale between thetan inoperative and a thetan who can operate. The auditor is therefore seeking to reach with the pc a state wherein the pc can function. At no time does the auditor suddenly arrive with a pc in a startling new shiny state all of a sudden that can be called a certain thing. In that pcs often expect this suddenly bursting “into the light” the auditor is subject to disappointment when he has actually achieved an enormous gain for the pc. In other words, pcs gain on a smooth gradient scale and do not suddenly become something.

There is only one point on the road up where something does happen and that is exteriorization. When the pc exteriorizes for the first time he feels there must be a cause for rejoicing and has the idea he has gotten somewhere. Well, in fact you could achieve the same result by hitting him over the head with a club. He would exteriorize. The point is not exteriorizing the pc but cutting down his dependency upon a body. A pc who exteriorizes and is not carried right on with the same process that sprang him out of his head until it is flat will go back into his head in an hour or a week and will be harder to dig out the next time.

In other words, this point of exteriorization does happen and does mean to the pc that he is himself. But it shouldn’t mean very much to an auditor beyond his noticing that this phase has been entered in the case. For in truth thetans don’t stay out of their bodies very long if they are not in good shape. Thus exteriorization means less than ability to act, to live, to be and do. The attention of the auditor should be upon the increasing ability of the pc to handle life, not upon the distance the pc gets from his body. Is that clear? Well, it tells us that arriving at a state of Clear is easy if that means stable outside and that any state of betterment on the road to Operating Thetan is an honest achievement.

Thus an auditor should at all times go toward the state of Operating Thetan and should not be mixed up in the oddities of exteriorization for a day.

HGC Clear Procedure goes straight toward exteriorization and achieves it. But it also goes straight toward increasing ability to handle life. The latter is the auditor’s best goal. The auditing goal should go in the same direction as this new definition for Operating Thetan.

An Operating Thetan can be at cause knowingly and at will over Life, Matter, Energy, Space and Time, subjectively and objectively.

This Action Definition of Operating Thetan is the true goal of the auditor and if followed with complete understanding will achieve the best possible results.

In this discussion of goals and definitions, I am telling you cleanly that the goals of Mest Clear and Theta Clear are not worth following from the auditor’s standpoint. You can let pcs think what they will about them. The only goal worthy of the auditor’s time WHATEVER THE STATE OF CASE OF THE PC is Operating Thetan. To achieve one on any subject it is only necessary to place the pc to some degree at willing and knowing cause point with regard to that subject. All the steps of HGC Clear Procedure are leveled at Operating Thetan. But you need not tell your pc that. You can use the words RELEASE, MEST CLEAR, THETA CLEAR or any other if you like. Just remember there is only one payoff goal and that is Operating Thetan.

MEST CLEAR: Can see facsimiles with sonic present lifetime, has no psychoses or neuroses. Upper part of APA (in UK OCA) graph. Above 13 5 IQ.

THETA CLEAR: Can exist knowingly independent of bodies.

RELEASE: Average a third of a graph higher than first test, above 115 IQ.

OPERATING THETAN: Can be at Cause knowingly and at will over Life, Matter, Energy, Space and Time, subjectively and objectively.

STEP ONE
Participation in Session by the Pc

We have long known that ARC was important. Just how important it is was established by some tests I made in London in 1956 wherein every time the pc showed any restlessness or other signs of loss of havingness, instead of remedying havingness I carefully searched out any fancied break of ARC and patched it up. The “loss of havingness” vanished. In other words, loss of ARC is even more important than loss of havingness since a repair of ARC restores havingness. Lack of havingness is only one symptom of a lack of communication.

There are two ways an auditor, according to long practice, can err. One of these is to permit two-way communication to a point where the pc’s havingness is injured. The other is to chop communication to such a degree that havingness is injured. There is a point past which communication is bad and short of which lack of communication is bad. Here we have auditor judgment at play. Because the pc will fidget or go downscale in tone when his havingness drops, an auditor can SEE when the pc’s havingness is being lowered. Because a pc will go anaten or start to grind into the process an auditor can tell whether or not the pc feels his communication has been chopped. When either happens the auditor should take action — in the first instance by shutting off the pc’s outflow and getting to work and in the second instance by making the pc talk out any fancied communication severance.

Participation in session by the pc is not something the auditor sees to at the beginning of the session and then forgets for the rest of the intensive. This step is continued throughout the intensive and is given as much attention as any process being run at the time. The auditor’s attention is always therefore upon two things — first the continued participation in session and second the action of the process.

Grouped under this head we would also have ways and means of getting the pc into session in the first place. An unconscious pc used to be an apparent roadblock. A downtone, antagonistic, you-can’t-help-me pc was also a rough one. These two things are countered by always carefully starting a session and following through on standard CCH 0.

It is as important to open a session with a baby or an unconscious person as it is with any other preclear. It doesn’t matter whether the pc is answering up or not. It is only necessary to assume that the pc would answer if he could answer and that the mechanics of voice and gesture are simply absent from the answer. Therefore one always carefully starts every session, paying attention to what is happening, where it is happening, who is there, help, goals and problems. Obviously anaten or inability to control the body are the present time problem of the unconscious person or the child. One can actually audit this with a plain question and simply assume after a bit it has been answered, then give the acknowledgment and ask another question just as though the pc were in full vocal action. Auditors still fall for the belief, very current, that “unconscious” people are unable to think or be aware in any way. A thetan is seldom unconscious regardless of what the body is doing or not doing.

PRESENT TIME PROBLEM is a highly vital point of PRECLEAR PARTICIPATION. If a preclear is being nagged too thoroughly by a PT problem auditing can actually send him downhill if done without addressing the problem. A whole intensive, even seventy-five hours can be wasted if the auditor does not clear the PT PROBLEM.

The preclear generally doesn’t know he has one which is nagging him, for the rough PT problems go into the apathy band and below into forgetfulness rather rapidly. Therefore the auditor should ferret out the PT problem with an E-Meter. Adroit use of an E-Meter does not include evaluating for the preclear but it certainly does include ferreting out PT problems. The E-Meter is also used for valences and sometimes psychophysical difficulties. (Auditor: Use the word “psychophysical” rather than psychosomatic and stay out of a medical field.)

THE RUNNING OF A PT PROBLEM today is the most. PT problem, valences, psychophysical ailments, all run beautifully with “Mock up something worse than

(terminal)” or “Invent something worse than (terminal).” To run this it is necessary to isolate the TERMINAL most intimately connected with the PT problem (or the valence or psychophysical difficulty). One then CLEARS THE COMMAND (and you always better do that with any command) and lets go.

The whole idea of WORSE THAN is the whole of the dwindling spiral. People who are “trying to get better” and “be more perfect” and “think the right thought” lose all control of “getting worse,” “being imperfect” and “thinking the wrong thought.” All these WORSE THANS are then left on automatic and we arrive at something less than optimum. In fact we arrive with the dwindling spiral. We also arrive with the “point of no return.” We also arrive with the declining ability to heal or get well. And we also arrive with old age.

After running “worse than” on the PT problem, we proceed with other parts of CCH 0. Clearing help will be found quite beneficial. But to get a pc to participate who is downright ugly about it, running help is usually only a partial solution. When these only ones get going they really snarl on the subject of getting audited. Here CCH 1 is of benefit. No questions asked. But this, of course, defeats the purpose of STEP ONE.

PARTICIPATION OF THE PC in the session is necessary in order to place the pc somewhat at the cause point in the actual fact of auditing. This fits the definition. You can always change a body or recover it from some illness by auditing without much helping the pc himself. Therefore, the pc, while under auditor control, is still somewhat at cause, what with comm bridges and clearing commands, etc., but he is made to feel no bad effects from being AT EFFECT if ample ARC is used. In other words, the pc can’t be entirely at cause in a session or he would be self-auditing, which isn’t good, but he can be salvaged from being a total effect by good ARC. When the ARC drops out that DOES leave the pc at more or less total effect, a thing you have probably noticed.

The things to be done in CCH 0 should be done thoroughly at intensive’s beginning and should be glanced at whenever a new session starts and should get a bow when a new command is used. But all CCH 0 is is a collection of mechanical aids to assist the pc’s participation in the session and to assist the auditor in ARC. Although CCH 0 must be used always, it is not a total substitute for ARC.

The sum of CCH 0 is find the auditor, find the auditing room, find the pc, knock out any existing PT problem, establish goals, clear help, get agreement on session length and get up to the first real auditing command. CCH 0 isn’t necessarily run in that order and this isn’t necessarily all of CCH 0, but if any of these are seriously scamped, the session will somewhere get into trouble.

When the participation of the pc ceases in a session, he must be gotten back into session by any means and then participation is re-established. A pc is never permitted to end a session on his own choice. He seeks to end them when his participation drops out of sight.

The trick question “What did I do wrong?” re-establishes ARC.

The problem of handling a pc who is not cooperative, who does not wish to participate, is a highly special problem. In the first place it is the pc’s engrams that do not want to continue, in the second place it is the engrams which are doing the talking. One ordinarily tackles this case with a formal opening of session, brief but positive, and then sails in with CCH 0, just as though the person were unconscious, which, of course, the person is.

Participation by an unconscious person, while covered above, requires the additional refinement of technique. ONE MUST ALWAYS FIND SOMETHING THE

PRECLEAR CAN DO AND THEN BETTER THAT ABILITY. An unconscious person is usually lying in bed. If not the command must be varied to fit the environment. But the best command is something like “You make that body lie in that bed.” A slightly upper grade process to a person sitting in a chair is “You seat that body in that chair.” In such cases a grip on the pc’s hand and the use of a slight squeeze each time the auditor acknowledges considerably speeds the process.

There is another special case — or maybe it isn’t so special. There are many people who cannot tackle a present time problem with a process. If the auditor sought out a PT problem and then ran “something worse than a related terminal” or a “problem of comparable or incomparable magnitude” he would find the pc digging in hard, unable to handle the process. Thus some judgment must be used in such cases. Don’t run a PT problem on somebody in very bad shape casewise.

There is an awful lot to know about starting sessions. The bad-off case and the case in very good condition alike require special handling. For the case just mentioned who cannot handle a PT problem with a process, there is always locational (TR TEN). TR TEN will run a PT problem or anything else if slowly. Thus many a person with a PT problem can only participate in a session to the extent of TR TEN, “YOU notice that object (wall, floor, chair, etc.).” By introducing in the auditor’s and pc’s bodies as a couple of the items being spotted along with everything else we eventually wind up with “find the auditor, find the auditing room, find the pc.” And we get there without a PT problem being in full bloom.

In running “You notice that object” there are some things that MUST be observed. Most important of these is this one: ANY PROCESS WHICH TURNS ON A SOMATIC MUST BE CONTINUED UNTIL IT NO LONGER TURNS ON

SOMATICS. This is true particularly of TR TEN, 8-C and TRIO. The case hangs right there until the process is flat, whether in one day, one year or six. Another thing which must be stressed is the inclusion of the auditor’s and pc’s bodies. Because some pcs WHEN EXTERIORIZED snap back in when they see the body is no reason to avoid it in TR TEN. Another thing is to make the pc use his eyes to view the objects and if he doesn’t turn his eyes toward them, then it is up to the auditor to use manual direction of the head and even pry the eyes open. No balks are ever permitted in auditing. If TR TEN is being run at a problem, every now and then the auditor pauses and discusses the problem again with the pc in order to keep it in restimulation until TR TEN can run it out.

The high case is a worse problem than auditors commonly believe. In the first place a high case can “blow” a situation out of the bank with considerable ease and if the auditor insists on sledge-hammering it out with a process, then pc participation blows rather than a facsimile.

High case participation can also be misunderstood in that there are a lot of cases that think they are high which aren’t. Here’s how you tell a real high case from a bogus (“I can do everything”) case. A thetan in good shape can be cause. When he looks at something in the bank it becomes the effect. A bogus high case can think anything he wants without anything having an effect on the bank. You want to watch this point because here is the definition of OT thoroughly at work. Pc at Cause. A case that has pictures and everything and is impatient to get on with it BUT DOES NOT MARKEDLY ALTER THE BANK WITH THINKING ALONE is not a high case but an old “wide open case” of Dianetic days.

Two-way communication AS A PROCESS is the key to all this. If you put a pc on an E-Meter and locate a present time charge, you can, if the pc can somewhat handle his bank, get him to two-way comm the incident flat very quickly — in five or ten minutes at the most. This is all the process used. It would take an actual E-Meter run to give you a full reality on this.

Here we are looking at the basic differences amongst cases. That difference lies in the ability to knowingly CAUSE. Bodies are the same, they all react alike. Banks differ only vaguely and only in content and significance. Engrams are engrams and they all behave alike. There is only ONE DIFFERENCE amongst pcs. We called this BASIC PERSONALITY in BOOK ONE. We can be a lot more simple about it now that I have my teeth into the subject a few more feet. The difference is DEGREE OF KNOWING CAUSABILITY. What do we mean by CAUSE? The basic, old Scientology definition is still at work. CAUSE-DISTANCE-EFFECT. Joe knowingly shoots Bill. Joe is at Cause. Bill is at Effect. Mary gives John a present. Mary is at Cause, John is at Effect. Bill says Boo to Joe. Bill is at Cause, Joe is at Effect. But when we introduce KNOWING CAUSE and CAUSE AT WILL into this CAUSE-DISTANCE-EFFECT

idea we see we have something else added. The person at Cause is there because he knows he is there and because he is willingly there. The person at Cause is not at Cause because he does not dare be at Effect. He must be able to be at Effect. If he is afraid to be at Effect, then he is Unwilling Cause and is at Cause only because he is very afraid of being at Effect. Education can show a person he can be at effect without liability. Then he can be at Cause without HAVING TO BE BECAUSE HE DOESN’T DARE BE AT EFFECT. Auditing in its whole operation is teaching the pc this. Pc slides from terrified effect to tolerated effect to knowing cause with regard to any incident he contacts IF HE IS AUDITED PROPERLY. The pc who has to get rid of all his engrams because he has to get rid of them because it’s all too horrible winds up, with good auditing, into a tolerance of the pictures since he has learned he can tolerate them and so can swing around to Cause.

So we have this great difference in pcs. DEGREE OF KNOWING CAUSABILITY is the extent that he is willing to be at Cause and the extent he is willing to know he is at Cause plus the ability to cause things.

You will see this on an E-Meter in PT problem handling. Bill has a PT problem. It drops a dial when first contacted. The auditor, using his UNDERSTANDING of Scientology, two-way comms on it. The incident discharges and no longer registers after a few minutes. Mary has a PT problem. It drops steeply on the E-Meter. The auditor tries to two-way comm on it. The charge remains the same or Mary begins to disperse. She doesn’t hold to the subject. The auditor at length finds that two-way comm only serves to run down her havingness. The charge remains on the meter dial. What is the difference between Bill and Mary? Bill can be at knowing cause, Mary is either obsessive cause or heavy effect. Bill can blow facsimiles. Mary cannot. On Mary the auditor is very wise to enter upon TR TEN.

One version of TR TEN is called Short Spotting. “You notice that (nearby object).” So long as the pc can see with his eyes the object or feel the auditor’s hand on it the process works. It is spotting right up close. If run with mediumly near and far objects (such as the room wall) it is very effective in getting a case going. It has given some cases their first reality on auditing. BUT the rule still holds here about somatics. When a somatic is turned on with a process, turn it off with that process. See Auditor’s Code 13. This is entirely true of Short Spotting. In that it almost always turns on somatics, when you start it, you have to flatten it and that’s often lengthy.

Remember this about pc participation. A low case can’t handle the bank, therefore you keep high ARC and kid-glove him through a session. A very high case doesn’t need dynamite, therefore you retain his participation by going as rapidly as you can. A medium, average case needs ARC, something of dynamite, something of kid-gloves, something of two-way comm.

And IN ALL GOOD AUDITING CASES IMPROVE. Just because you start a pc low doesn’t mean he’ll always stay low. Check the case often. See if his CAUSABILITY is rising. If it isn’t, he isn’t improving and you better go easier or heavier. PROBABLY when a case doesn’t improve you didn’t handle a PT Problem. THAT IS THE ONLY THING WHICH CAN KEEP A CASE FROM GAINING. So check every session for one.

There are probably thousands of ways to gain the participation of the pc, there are probably thousands of ways to open a session. There are probably an infinite number of tricky things you can do. However, this breadth of choice should not obscure the following.

1. A pc who is not participating in the session is not at Cause.

2. An auditor who isn’t able to maintain ARC, who isn’t able to “Freeze” a process for a short time, even a tone 40.0 process, and re-establish ARC, will not get results.

3. The end-all of processing is the attainment of a goal, the goal of OT. One always processes the problems and difficulties of the pc, he does not process the process. Processes only assist in processing the pc. They will not do anything by themselves. Processes are a road map to the goal of OT, they are nothing in themselves. The target is the condition, the disabilities of the pc. How one achieves the eradication of these difficulties is secondary to the fact of their eradication. Scientology is a route attained after several thousand years of no attainment by Man and the route is important and valuable and must be travelled correctly, but the concern is the pc, not the route.

4. A new auditor can be adrift with his tools. He is uncertain as to what he is attacking. He should have reality on engrams, locks, key-ins, secondaries, the time track, the key buttons of Scientology such as Communication, Control and Havingness. Given an understanding of all these and the theory of Scientology itself he can almost pilot his way through a case with two-way comm. But two-way comm will not work if one doesn’t understand all the above. So two-way comm is not conversation. The pc has had a few trillion years of that and it hasn’t made him well, so two-way comm is a highly specialized thing, done with full understanding of the thetan, bank and body. Good two-way comm means participation by the pc.

5. Scientology is a precise commodity, something like engineering. A pc is a precise thing, part animal, part pictures and part God. We want the ability to handle things and the God, and the less unthinking responses in the pc, the better off he will be. Therefore a PC WHO ISN’T COGNITING regularly is being processed beyond his ability to do and it is necessary to drop back downscale to find something he CAN DO.

6. The golden rule of processing is to find something the preclear CAN do and then to improve his ability to do it. At once you will have participation. The highest ability one pc had was to get drunk: a resolution of his case was entered upon by having him invent ways to get drunk.

7. The attention span of children and psychos is not necessarily a factor since it is only the phenomena of dispersal against mental blocks, keying in of incidents. The auditor can pay attention to it or not as he likes. Short, regular sessions on people with limited attention span get more gain per week than a steady grind since the participation is maintained.

8. The auditor remains at Cause in all sessions without forbidding the pc to be at Cause. See the rules in DIANETICS: THE ORIGINAL THESIS.

L. RON HUBBARD

[Further material can be found in Scientology: Clear Procedure-Issue One on page 172. The above HCO B was reissued on 29 September 1970.]