Posted on

Unclear on Co-Auditing Method One Word Clearing

When I first read Andreas’ analysis of outpoints and squirreling on the Bridge, I had a hard time believing it. Full article here: Bridge changes since 1972

In particular was the issue of the Method One Co-Audit, the first step on the training side. I asked myself how could a person who trains to become a Word Clearer can have misunderstood words or cannot notice contradicting data in this step, let alone any experienced C/S or auditor for that matter?

I actually wrote to Andreas in order to correct him, stating that I thought there was a mistake in his reasoning, which he writes as follows:

“M1-Co-Auditing. New on the bridge since 1990. Apparently, LRH is still publishing further parts of the bridge out of his grave – which is a total contradiction to HCO B September 6, 1971 W/C Series 21 “Correct Sequence – Qualifications of Word Clearers”. At the end of this HCOB LRH writes: “(A Class III Academy Auditor qualification is required to do Method No. 1 as the action requires assessing and the handling of ARC Breaks, problems and withholds, for which a Class III is trained. Anyone who is able to handle a meter is qualified to do Method No. 2. Any person can do Method No. 3.)”

The above section in parentheses fall under the section WD CLEARING WD CLEARERS to be used in the rare scenario in which no Word Clearers (WD CLEARERS) are present in an org. In fact there are six steps to be done:

  1. Choose 2 word clearers who then work on each other.

  2. Any Progress Program for each one.

  3. Word Clear the Word Clearing Series by Method 2.

  4. Check out on the auditing required for Method 1.

  5. Do Method No. 1 on each other.

  6. Do Purpose Clearing on each other.

It also explicitly states right after this section: “(Note: A “Progress Program” or a “Repair Program” is a Scientology auditing program to clean up upsets in life.)” Also, “(Purpose Clearing also requires a Class III Academy Auditor.)”

This is key as the reference here relates to training to become a Word Clearer in order to fill the post on a staff without one, as opposed merely to getting Method One Word Clearing while as a PC. It wasn’t until I realized that I had assumed that Method One Word Clearing was the first step of the current bridge that I saw my mistake. When I carefully checked it clearly states that Co-Auditing Method One Word Clearing comes as the first official step on the current Bridge.

Seeing that distinction was a revelation to me as I was confusing receiving M1WC as a PC with training for M1WC as an auditor. What is more, by default one must understand how to operate an e-meter as step 3 (Method 2) requires this. Yet, one does not even become a Hubbard Professional Metering Course Graduate for another 4 steps on the current Bridge! In addition, the final three steps of checking out on auditing for Method No. 1, doing Method No. 1 and Purpose Clearing absolutely require a Class III auditor quite explicitly while this reference has never been canceled.

In fairness, the course packs from the 1990s on Method One Co-Auditing do teach some e-meter skills, but by no means is one a professional at this level – let alone can they claim to have properly checked out on the auditing for Method One as they are not a Class III auditor. This is incredibly out-gradient and out-sequence.

This might be a bit confusing as it was for me, because at the top of this same HCOB it explains what should happen for those GETTING word clearing as a PC – which I initially misunderstood for use in training:

“The principal methods of word clearing are numbered No. 1 for the full in-session rundown, No. 2 for the metered action of clearing up words in specific materials and No. 3 for looking up words seen and not understood by the student or reader.

This is correct sequence for doing the three types of word clearing.

By doing No. 1 in full session, using the list for assessment, one obtains the basic word and meaning errors of the past. By getting these out-of-the-way, it is now possible to clean up current materials much more rapidly with Method 2, where the person is put on a meter and reads the material to another who is watching the meter and catching each read.

With Method 1 out-of-the-way, Method 2 becomes more rapid.

Method 3 will then be done by the person himself because he now knows better.

No. 2 and No. 3 can be used on and on one or the other.

If you do it backwards, beginning with Method No. 3, much more time is consumed. If Method No. 2 is used without No. 1 being done, much more work has to be done to clean up an existing piece of study material or text.

So the correct sequence is No. 1, No. 2 and then No. 3.

This does not mean you cannot start with No. 3 or No. 2. It just means it is much faster to do them in correct sequence.”

Nevertheless, I resisted as I believed to have found another contradiction in a bulletin when Hubbard was indisputably alive: WC1 COMES FIRST of HCOB 2 JANUARY 1972

Here Hubbard says M1WC must be done before M2WC, but that M3WC is all right – and I argued that this contradicts step 3 (Method 2) of WD CLEARING WD CLEARERS here. It also contradicts the earlier part of the bulletin which says that it’s OK to do 3, 2, 1 but that it’s less ideal, not correct sequence and takes more time. Again, I didn’t see that this applies only in terms of auditing a PC – not for training to be an auditor or Word Clearer; one could still use M3WC before M1WC on the PC, but it’s more time consuming and an improper sequence.

In any case, further searching yielded the main bug for the problem in Word Clearing Series 8RC – HCOB 30 JUNE 1971 Issue II – Revised 3 MARCH 1989 (please note that it has been revised 4 times, and the original HCOB is markedly different, as the following reference does not appear anywhere until after 1986):

“Method One requires an Academy Class III Auditor to deliver the rundown professionally in HGCs, but it can be learned and done on a co-audit course which teaches unclassed students how to audit the procedure on each other.”

Carefully read that statement again. It acknowledges a requirement for a Class III or higher Auditor to deliver the rundown professionally, but at the same time states unclassed students can not only learn but actually do Method One on each other. This is self-contradictory to the extreme as they not only skip step 3 (Method 2) which comes before, but they also have not been Word Cleared on Method 1 themselves let alone handled basic ARCX, problems and upsets which come prior to actually word clearing. Unsurprisingly, it is repeated multiple times in the course packets from the 1990s in which a student is required to drill (memorize) the material as opposed to questioning or examining it. Yet nobody seems to have noticed this, and all explanations for this fall short as no references cancel it nor do they offer a better solution.

Co-Auditing Method One Word Clearing is definitely out-sequence and the current references to support it are undoubtedly altered to suit an agenda. This is a quickie action in any event and more harmful than helpful. It must be removed from both the Church of Scientology as well as the independent field as a training method, and if it is to be restored, it should move somewhere after Class III if to be used at all.

Thank you Andreas for opening my eyes. If the very first step of training is this badly bugged, one can only imagine how altered the rest of the bridge would be from this point forward.

Here the original HCOB for your reference:

[pdf-embedder url=”http://blog.scientology-1972.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/HCO-BULLETIN-OF-6-SEPTEMBER-1971-Word-Clearing-Series-21.pdf”]

Posted on

Quicky Dianetics was the beginning of the failed Bridge

I just listened to this lecture by L. Ron Hubbard: 6905C29 First Standard Dianetics Graduation – The Dianetic Program and found a way to totally destroy Scientology & its Bridge:

Somebody gets up and he’s been ramming around and going into orgs and HGCs and so forth, and then we catch him at something on the order of OT II, and we read this and it says “he’s still trying to get rid of his injected eyeballs – he is gone to OT VI”, and “he’s gone to OT VI, and he doesn’t think he’s made it, because he still has a small rash on his nose, and he’s been trying ever since he got into an org to get rid of it,” …

And we taught the Class VIIIs that if you omit somebody’s Grades, he won’t make it. And what do you know, there was the biggest Grade of all had been omitted, and that was Dianetics. And with that Grade omitted, they weren’t making the Grade on up the line. Now you are going start to seeing people fly. …

In the first place, it means that when somebody gets their [Dianetics-]certificate, he can audit. Do you understand: that’s what a certificate is. There are two qualifications to a Dianetics certificate now. And those two qualifications are: has had case gains on Dianetics, and has been able to administer Dianetics so as to give case gains with it. And that is what a Dianetics auditor is. Is not somebody who has been through the checksheets a large number of times, or somebody who knows the Director of Certs and Awards [laughter]. And that is the tradition which we are beginning.

And the HCOPL 8. 6. 70 II Student Auditing says:

And then I took a look at the original Dianetic-Checksheet of that time in my possession and find this in the HSDC-Checksheet HCOPL 1 Dec 1969, update of 25 July 1969, which the Student completed in his org on 14. January 1971:

HCOPL101074RA Hubbard Standard Dianetics Course Checksheet:

So instead to study the theory 3 times through, as LRH demanded in his checksheet, he was allowed to study it only twice. And instead of the following requirements, he just needed to deliver 3 well done sessions:

AUDITING

25 hours total session in time as an auditor.

This Auditing must include the following:

A. Touch Assists

B. Contact Assists

C. Changing the life of someone who has lost a loved one by running the secondary or chain to GIs

D. Running straight engrams of former injuries.

E. Auditing assists on ill PCs, taking or tracing down every manifested symptom to its engramic incident or chain

F. Doing TRs with PCs and indoctrinating them as PCs.

The 25 hours must contain one or more remarkable cases demonstrating changes in the physical condition or well being of preclear or continued with added hours until it does. [HCOPL 1 Dec 1969, update of 25 July 1969]

This quicky action was done a year after Ron warned us in HCOPL 7.2.65 reissued 15.6.70 KEEPING SCIENTOLOGY WORKING 1:

Note: Neglect of this Pol Ltr has caused great hardship on staffs, has cost countless millions and made it necessary in 1970 to engage in an all-out International effort to restore basic Scientology over the world. Within 5 years after the issue of this PL with me off the lines, violation had almost destroyed orgs. “Quickie grades” entered in and denied gain to tens of thousands of cases. Therefore actions which neglect or violate this Policy Letter are HIGH CRIMES resulting in Comm Evs on ADMINISTRATORS and EXECUTIVES.

It is not “entirely a tech matter” as its neglect destroys orgs and caused a 2-year slump. IT IS THE BUSINESS OF EVERY STAFF MEMBER to enforce it.

So these quicky actions,these high crimes denying case gain still went on in the orgs and although very obvious – as the checksheets had to be manually altered – where not handled by students or staff.

After Ron disappeared late in 1972 these „test balloons“ where put into „policy“, even if not by LRH: BPL 10. Oct 74RA 2.12.76:

Instead of 3 times through, you just studied it once and instead of 25 hours auditing or 3 well done sessions one just audits to „a definite PC result“, which you usually achiev in a single well done session:

BPL 10. Oct 74RA 2.12.76

A few months later this was cancelled and replaced by BPL 31. March 1977 I Hubbard Standard Dianetics Course Checksheet, which gives even an easier requirement:

BPL 31. March 1977 I Hubbard Standard Dianetics Course Checksheet

Not even any win or „a definite PC result“ (like a cognition VGIs, F/N) is needed, you just need to satisfy the C/S, that he can not find a fault in three sessions.

Compare that to the „two qualifications“ Ron demanded from us, before a Dn-Cert might be given:

  • has had case gains on Dianetics, and

  • has been able to administer Dianetics so as to give case gains with it. And that is what a Dianetics auditor is.

No wonder, that nearly no Scientologist today is still delivering Dianetics Auditing.

The skipped gradient.

And this is a safe method to destroy Scientology and its Bridge: just continue to skip this gradient: as an Auditor and as a PC.

Posted on

The purpose of RTCs PRO-TRs Course is to get rid of the TRs on the long run

David wrote a nice article about Pizzagate, the pederasty scandal of Hitlory Clinton and her friends in Washington DC.

Pizzagate is a “nice subject” which has to be confronted. The cannibalism, satanism and child abuses of the ruling class and their officers. You need your TR0 welldone to be able to confront this. Otherwise people can “read and hear” about all these crimes and think: “Oh, they are just playing”. – As you move forward on the Bridge – right and left side – you will realize more and more of such things and you will need more TR-training on each new level. This was the original setup by LRH: TRs the hard way on every new class (auditors as well as admin courses). – This was replaced by RTCs “Pro TRs Course”, where you – still at the start of the bridge – “get in your TRs till full EP”. “Once and for all”. So if you finally achieved the “EP of the TRs”, you are not likely willing to do the TRs again “the hard way”. So THAT is why we end up with so many Scientologists, who are not willing or able to confront too much any more. Otherwise RTC would have had a hard time to cheat Scientologists and lead them into a squirrel sect.

After every big case change, one should do the TRs again – especially TR0 and TR0BB – this is a training – not much unlike the training of a bodybuilder – which has to be done your whole life. An athlete would find the idea of a physical “training to EP” a stupid idea. The same with the TRs: there is no EP as the TRs are no process. They are a training and you will achieve always a new level of confront and ability. So also the “EP of the Pro TRs course” is total bullshit: “…being who can handle anyone with communication alone and whose communication can stand up faultlessly to any session or social situation no matter how rough.” fake-HCOB 24 DECEMBER 1979 TRs BASICS RESURRECTED. There is no such EP. To claim this, gives the students only one certainty: That he did not achieve this EP as there might be people and social situations, which he – after the Pro TRs – can not handle with communication alone. – You have to improve your TRs permanently and never stop improving them.

Davids article gives us a nice opportunity for a test of our Trs. 🙂

Here is his article about Pizzagate.

Posted on

Mit LRH erfolgreich Repetitives Prepchecking auditieren

Das Repetitive Prepchecking ist eine sehr einfach aber wirksame Tech. Sie ist 1978 vom RTRC revidiert und damit verpfuscht worden. Diese Studie zeigt die LRH-Originaltexte auf und wie man diese powervolle Tech wieder verwenden kann:

[pdf-embedder url=”http://blog.scientology-1972.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/FSB-20160217-Mit-LRH-erfolgreich-Repetitives-Prepchecking-auditieren.pdf”]

Posted on

With LRH successfully audit Repetitive Prepchecking

Repetitive Prepchecking is a very simple but effective Tech. It was revised in 1978 by the RTRC, and thus bungled. This study shows the LRH original texts, and how you can use this power full tech again:

[pdf-embedder url=”http://blog.scientology-1972.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/FSB-20160217-With-LRH-successfully-audit-Repetitive-Prepchecking.pdf”]

Posted on

Basis for PCs, auditors and case supervisors: Dianetics Dianetics-Auditing: Vital basis for every PC

Dianetics„And we taught the Class VIIIs that if you omit somebody’s Grades, they won’t make it. And what do you know, there was the biggest Grade of all had been omitted, and that was Dianetics. And with that Grade omitted, they weren’t making the Grade on up the line.”

[Hubbard, LaFayette Ron: Lecture 29 May 1969 First Standard Dianetics Graduation – The Dianetics Program]

Dianetics must be completed prior to the grades

“Dianetics came before Scientology. It disposed of body illness and the difficulties a thetan was having with his body. This was a Present Time Problem to the thetan. In the presence of a PTP no case gain results (an old discovery).” … “I found that Dianetics had been forgotten for a dozen years and was being given a light brush-off as a course and that auditors and pcs were trying to use Scientology grades to handle body ills such as headaches, chronic somatics and so on. – Man’s usual PTP is his body. So if one gave him gold ornaments he’d try to use them to cure his aches and pains. – Thus Dianetics was forgotten and unused and Scientology was being made to attempt cures. Thus they were, both subjects, busily being made to fail to some degree.

Dianetics as it now exists is so simple, so elementary and so broadly applicable to the body that it requires a real effort to complicate it or make it unworking. Keep the two separate in both application and use.” [HCO BULLETIN OF 22 APRIL 1969 Dianetics vs Scientology]

It is astonishing how auditors since the 1980s could be so easily convinced to place dianetics after the grades even though the original arguments from Ron had not been invalidated. Illnesses are a PTP for the PC. Beyond the PTP, there are no case gains. Dianetics is supposed to handle the illnesses before the PC can be audited on Scientology.

Every auditor needs Dianetics case gain

“All you have to do is make very sure when you train somebody to audit, before you put that certificate in his hands that you yourself are very satisfied that he himself has had case gains from Dianetics, and that he himself has brought about good case gains and can be counted upon to do so on his preclears.“ [Hubbard, LaFayette Ron: Lecture 29 May 1969 First Standard Dianetics Graduation – The Dianetics Program]

Every C/S has to be a good auditor first

„When you’re a good auditor, you can case supervise. When you can’t audit you can’t case supervise. That’s for sure.“ [Hubbard, LaFayette Ron in Cl. VIII-lecture No. 3 of 26 Sep 1968 The Laws of Case-Supervision]

Actually one should assume that this is so definite and obvious that it does not require any explanation. But that is not the case: Nowadays, there are a lot of people in Scientology on OT levels who had never received any Dianetics auditing; auditors who neither received dianetics nor have the ability to audit, and even C/Se for the OT levels who do not audit Dianetics themselves but send people to the OT levels!

Let’s get Ron’s work back to life: His Bridge as of 1972!

Andreas Gross

for the

Independent Scientologists

Copyright © 2014 by Dipl.-Ing. Andreas Gross, All Rights reserved

Posted on

Tone-40 Auditing Rehabilitated

intentionFree Scientologists

Dipl.-Ing. Andreas Gross, Switzerland

FS Bulletin of 6. November 2003R

Revised 17. Oct. 20071)Revised in order to mark the quotes red and give all references.

A significant process has been lost in the Church: How to audit Tone-40-Processes. This happened because the tech originally developed in the 50s has been rephrased and republished over and over. Finally the main core of what Tone-40 really means as an auditing process2)Besides “Tone 40 as auditing procedure” you also have to consider “Tone 40 as tone level”. A third meaning is more like slang: “with full intent/assertiveness.” was lost.

Definitions of Tone-40

The following quotes show that a significant part of the Tone-40 definition is that no originations are confirmed. This statement has been lost in the more recent writings of the Church (especially and including the tech-dict. definitions) and lets auditors fail in cases that are in worse conditions than others. This does not solely result from the fact that LRH had been using the term Tone-40 as a synonym for “with full intent” since the beginning of the 60s.

Nowadays you have to differentiate between the various definitions of Tone-40:

1. First of all, it is a position on the tone scale (“Cheerful serenity of the being”),

2. Secondly, it is a style of auditing, especially for the CCH 1 & 2 and, optionally, also for the other objectives and

3. as an intonation of full intent when giving certain auditing commands, e.g. the “This is the session!” or “End of session!” in the model session or in the management tech as well where orders are enforced very vigorously, i.e. with Tone-40.

The most important reference is LRH in the PAB 151 of 1. Jan. 1959 Dummy-Auditing Step Four: Handling of Originations:

„The fourth thing3)In the early PAB’s, Ron handled the first to third “thing” in the communication. Later on this numbering turned into TRs 1-4. So this PAB 151 is about “the fourth thing”, today’s TR4, the handling of originations. , an auditor has to do (in that order) is to handle an origin from the preclear. It is actually true that when you are handling Tone 40 processes, you do not handle the preclear’s originations4)My emphasis.. But if you will look on the HCA/HPA chart5)see HCOB 3 MAY 1957 TRAINING — WHAT IT IS TODAY – HOW WE TELL PEOPLE ABOUT IT you will find that these Tone 40 processes are in the minority amongst processes, and in all processes not Tone 40 a preclear’s originations are handled6)Emphasis by LRH. See old Red Vol. III, page 370. – remember that. Don’t let anybody talk you out of it. If you are handling Tone 40, which is just pure, positive postulating, you, of course, are not worried about anybody’s opinion, origin, condition, or anything else—you simply want him to do certain things, and he finds out that his beingness can be controlled and therefore that he can control it.

What do we mean by an origin of the preclear? He volunteers something all on his own; and do you know that is a very good index of case—whether the person volunteers anything on his own? An old-time auditor used this as a case index. He said, “This fellow isn’t getting any better. He hasn’t offered up anything yet.” You see, he didn’t originate—he didn’t originate a communication. Do you know that that is the hardest thing to get an organization to do: to originate a communication?

You actually could—work in the direction of getting a preclear to originate a communication, in spite of the fact that you just previously were running him on Tone 40 processes. He originated the communication that his arms and legs felt like they were just going to fall off, and you said, “Give me your hand—thank you.” Preclear says, “My head’s coming off now! I know it’s going to fall on the floor!” Auditor: “Give me your hand—thank you.” Good Tone 40. But on control of person, the first two processes7)so CCH 1 & 2. are Tone 40, but Book Mimicry and the next process up the line from it, Hand Space Mimicry8)so CCH 4 & 3, are not Tone 40, and originations by the preclear are not only handled but encouraged9)My emphasis. In practice this means: You ask in the completion of an action cycle: “What happened?” or the like. – This process, as added to the Tone-40 processes in later references, is only to be applied to non-Tone-40 processes, according to this PAB 151. .

So remember that we have not lost out of the galaxy of processes the fact that the preclear is as well as he can originate a communication. That means he can stand at Cause on the communication formula. And that is a desirable point for him to reach. You see, in controlling people we are really only showing them that they can be controlled, that it is possible for their possessions to be controlled. And then they eventually decide that these are controllable and that people are controllable and that things are controllable and their bodies are controllable, and they say, “Wonderful! Look, I’ll try!” And before that they didn’t even try.

So we are controlling a person’s possessions or body only until this person then himself decides to take a hand in it, too. And then he finds out that control is possible. But most people don’t originate. Circuits originate, computers originate, compulsive outflows originate. And when you first start to use Tone 40 on a person you will apparently see originations—but they are not originations, they are restimulations being dramatized. There is a big difference between a restimulation being dramatized and an origination. It’s whether or not the thetan said it. Did he say it, or was it just a circuit starting up? Well, you can start up circuits and actually throw them into being and you will see that these are not originations.10)And the difference from this paragraph needs to be understood because “circuit originations” are simply skipped during Tone-40 processes. But the real origination of the being that could come would be an origination of having reached the EP of the process, which we don’t want to miss. So there is no replacement of understanding for the auditor, which LRH hereby intended. The auditor simply wants to apply the process for once with Tone-40 without being stopped by the PC’s talk. The PC’s bank would like to stop the auditor and becomes quite creative in doing so. If he is invited through the new rule that was introduced later (that “bodily originations are picked up by “What is happening?”), the PC will quickly get involved and play the game with the auditor. This should be avoided by the auditor with Tone-40 processes.

But when an origination appears in anything but a Tone 40 process, you handle it. And you must handle it well and conclusively. There are preclears who have had astonishing things happen to them, who have tried to communicate them to the auditor, who have failed to do so and have then sunk into apathy and just gone right on out of session because their communication origination was not handled properly by the auditor. There are instances of this, and many of them. Tone 40 processes do not particularly violate this. An understanding of what they are takes place rather rapidly with the preclear and he doesn’t expect you to. But if he has graduated into being a human being and he’s getting up there and he originates something and you answer it, now he’s liable to say the most astonishing things to you. And if you don’t handle them he’s liable to drop into apathy about the whole thing.

So you must handle them well because they’re always unexpected. I would say that unexpectedness actually should be part of the definition of an origination, because they are quite often completely off the subject, they take you completely by surprise, they are apparently not at all what you expected him to say. The fellow says, “Huh! I’m eight feet back of my head!” Well, what do you do?

In PAB 133 of 1. Apr. 58 CCH Verfahren, Ron very clearly states:

„It is Tone 40, with clear intention, one command in one unit of time, no originations of preclear acknowledged in any way, verbally or physically.“

In the HCO B 2. April 1958 ARC in Comm-Course, Ron says:

There are two types of Auditing. Both include control. They are called “Formal Auditing” and “Tone 40 Auditing”.

LRH defines three styles of auditing in the 8th presentation of the 18th ACC of 24. Juli 1957 “Auditing Styles” (btw, this tape is the reference to clarify Tone-40 as an auditing style):

  1. Informal Auditing. (untrained Book Auditors),

  2. Formal Auditing (trained Auditors) and

  3. Tone 40.0:

Then there is Formal Auditing. And this is that type of auditing which is done by a trained auditor, which pays attention to duplication, which handles the origins of the preclear, which gives the auditing command best calculated to handle the case at this particular time in the auditor’s opinion and which carries on in such a wise as to permit two-way communication to as-is many of the preclear’s problems and difficulties as they come up. Formal Auditing has a dependency upon two-way communication for its workability: it depends upon acknowledgment in order to sweep away many of the difficulties which the preclear has and depends as well upon a very high maintenance of ARC with the preclear, that he knows is being maintained; and quite in addition to this consults the power of choice of the preclear and increases it. That’s Formal Auditing.”

“The next type is Tone 40 Auditing. And Tone 40 Auditing is of consider­able interest to us because, although it is the highest toned auditing, it is preferably addressed to the lowest toned cases. ... But its greatest effectiveness is upon these cases; and it is the only known form of auditing which reaches them and, therefore, it has its proper bracket amongst such cases.

But when you have no case but only circuits confronting you, you have no choice at all—you have to run Tone 40 Auditing. Tone 40 Auditing is why we can say we have gone all the way south11)“all way south“ is used by Ron for “all the way to the bottom“, i.e. “very bad cases“, just like psychotics and even institutionalized cases. .” …

Use the lower CCH processes with Tone 40 Auditing. Preclear says some­thing, it has only one end in view: to give you something else you can’t handle. That’s the only goal, something else you can’t handle. You got that? Something else. And you kind of handle that a little bit, scares them to death, and they come up with something else you can’t handle. And they’ll finally get frantic in the number of “can’t handles” that they hand you one right after the other. You’re validating circuits and we’ve known for years that you mustn’t do that. Well, Tone 40 doesn’t do that. It just takes it for granted that anything the preclear says is a circuit and skips it: says, “Well, here I am processing the preclear and I’m just going to process the preclear. ….

We might even spring a cognition, we might do anything in it... We put his hand back in his lap and repeat the command and go on with the Tone 40. And the preclear says, “Well, I feel a little bit tired now,” and we go on with the process. And the preclear says, “I have a pain back of my left ear that’s killing me.” And we go on with the process. You understand that?

Because we more or less determined that he would advance these things anyway to protect himself. He’s just doing a protection mechanism where these things are walking forward on an automaticity of protection. …

Now, what if the preclear says, “I’m terribly tired now,” and so on? Well, naturally, under Formal Auditing, we’d just knock off, wouldn’t we? Because we’re not enforcing auditing commands, are we? We’d continue. But, he’d never find out that it was over his dead body! Do you understand?

He said, “I’m awfully tired now.”

And you say, “Well, we have been sitting here for quite a while.” It’s a fact. “We have been sitting here for quite a while and we’ve got quite a little while to go.” And he’d say, “Well, I guess we have.”

And you say, “Well, let’s get on with it.” It wouldn’t [be] the way you’d handle it in Tone 40.

He’d say, “Well, I’m a little tired now.”

And you’d say, “Extend the body’s hands into my hot paw.” (Whatever auditing command you’re using.)

Now, here’s a vast difference. Here’s a vast difference. It’s a difference of understanding of people. And unless you understand that people lie below self-determinism and rise up into it, you would not understand that these two auditing styles are addressed to, really, two different states of case.“

Similar in this HCOB:

“There are two types of Auditing. Both include control. They are called “Formal Auditing” and “Tone 40 Auditing”.

The first is control by ARC. The second is control by direct Tone 40 command.

The first, Control by ARC, is taught in Comm Course. The second, Control by Tone 40, is taught in Upper Indoc.

The two are never mixed in teaching. Tone 40 is never taught in a Comm Course and is not even permitted. ARC is not taught in Upper Indoc.

The most widespread weakness in auditors prior to this date is an inability to use step one of Clear Procedure (Participation by the pc). This is only good ARC in the Training Drills of Comm Course. Auditors are now too prone to let CCH Ob Help do the work. Auditors fail to make the pc feel they are interested in the pc when they handle him with poor ARC.

We care nothing about ARC in Upper Indoc. We want command, we want Tone 40. We do not even handle pc origins in Upper Indoc.

Students must understand that there are two types of auditing. They should realize that Tone 40 is for the unconscious, the psycho, the non-communicative, the electric shock case pc. The student should realize that ARC formal auditing is not chatty or yap-yap,but it is itself. It has warmth, humanity, understanding and interest in it.

Academy Dir of Tr, Comm Course and Upper Indoc Instructors should keep this in their hats as needful technical data, since we must turn out auditors capable of handling pcs with ARC.” [HCO B 2 APRIL 1958 ARC IN COMM COURSE]

Later on three:

“There are now three styles of auditing: Tone 40, Formal and Engram Auditing.” [Ability 86M, 1958, ca. late December]

With TR 4 it was clarified that there is no TR 4 with Tone-40:

The fourth thing an auditor has to do (in that order) is to handle an origin from the preclear. It is actually true that when you are handling Tone 40 processes, you do not handle the preclear’s originations. But if you will look on the HCA/HPA chart you will find that these Tone 40 processes are in the minority amongst processes, and in all processes not Tone 40 a preclear’s originations are handled—remember that. Don’t let anybody talk you out of it. If you are handling Tone 40, which is just pure, positive postulating, you, of course, are not worried about anybody’s opinion, origin, condition, or anything else—you simply want him to do certain things, and he finds out that his beingness can be controlled and therefore that he can control it.

What do we mean by an origin of the preclear? He volunteers something all on his own; and do you know that is a very good index of case—whether the person volunteers anything on his own? An old-time auditor used this as a case index. He said, “This fellow isn’t getting any better. He hasn’t offered up anything yet.” You see, he didn’t originate—he didn’t originate a communication. Do you know that that is the hardest thing to get an organization to do: to originate a communication?

You actually could- work in the direction of getting a preclear to originate a communication, in spite of the fact that you just previously were running him on Tone 40 processes. He originated the communication that his arms and legs felt like they were just going to fall off, and you said, “Give me your hand—thank you.” Preclear says, “My head’s coming off now! I know it’s going to fall on the floor!” Auditor: “Give me your hand—thank you.” Good Tone 40. But on control of person, the first two processes are Tone 40, but Book Mimicry and the next process up the line from it, Hand Space Mimicry, are not Tone 40, and originations by the preclear are not only handled but encouraged. …

So what do we do when he says, “The back of my head is on fire!”—do we ignore it? Well, if we are running Tone 40 processes, we ignore it. But if we are auditing any other process, of which there are many in CCH, we handle the origin. And an auditor who has not been trained to do this will often find himself very embarrassed. [PAB 151 of 1. Jan. ’59 Dummy-Auditing Step Four: Handling of Originations]

“Tone 40.0 8c on a person. Upper Hi School Indoc (Hi Hi Indoc). Co-Auditor basis. If auditor mentions or acknowledges anything but commands he’s dead!” [HCO B 10 APRIL 1957 HPA/HCA COURSE CURRICULUM]

“It is not a Tone 40 process, which means that you acknowledge the originations of the preclear.” [HCO TRAINING BULLETIN OF 20 MAY 1957 INTERIM PROCESS]

“No originations of PC acknowledged in any way, verbally or physically”. [PAB 133 1. Apr. 58 CCH Procedure]

“Not Tone 40. (Preclear is acknowledged when he originates, ..)” [HCOB 11.6.57 Training and CCH Processes (excerpt: CCHs 5-10) paragraph on TR 6]

“TRAINING STRESS: The exact amount of physical effort must be used by student plus a compelling unspoken intention. No jerky struggles are allowed since each jerk is a stop. Student must learn to smoothly increase effort quickly to amount needed to make coach execute. Stress is on exact intention, exact strength needed, exact force necessary, exact Tone 40. Even a slight smile by student can be a flunk. Too much force can be a flunk. Too little definitely is a flunk. Anything not Tone 40 is a flunk.” [HCOB 11.6.57 Training and CCH Processes (excerpt: CCHs 5-10) paragraph on TR 9]

“All Tone 40 with clear intention, one command in one unit of time, no originations of preclear acknowledged in any way verbally or physically.” [ HCOB 11.6.57 Training and CCH Processes (excerpt: CCHs 5-10) paragraph on CCH 1]

“Tone 40 has been defined as “Giving a command and just knowing that it will be executed despite any contrary appearances. “ (This is not the 18th ACC definition.) In other words, Tone 40 is positive postulating. – “The Student Manual” has the following to say about the procedure and the running of this unique process: “Physical action of taking hand when not given and then replacing it in the preclear’s lap and ‘Thank you’ ending the cycle. It is Tone 40, with clear intention, one command in one unit of time, no originations of preclear acknowledged in any way, verbally or physically.” However, one can freeze the process after a cycle of action has been completed if one is sure that something is occurring which needs further “fishing” for a cognition.” [PAB 133 1. Apr. 58 CCH procedure]:

If you have a very figure-figure case you better run it formal. It will run more easily for you. [PAB 131 l. March 58 THE SCALE OF WITHHOLD pg. 4]

“Tone 40 Style is the most notable one missing. It remains as a practice style at Level One to teach fearless body handling and to teach one to get his command obeyed. It is no longer used in practice.” [HCO B 6. Nov. 1964 STYLES OF AUDITING, last page]

” Since this is a Tone 40 process the auditor does not acknowledge idle chatter from the preclear, but should HE say something, the process may be frozen after a few more commands have been executed and the auditor can discuss or “fish” the cognition.” [PAB 135 CCH Procedure CCH Continued on CCH 5]

“It is a Tone 40 process and should be run precisely, making sure that the preclear does not anticipate or distort the command. Duplication + Control = Communication is a formula which is well worth remembering during the running of all Tone 40 processes. This does not mean that if the preclear seems to be communicating, he is, for a lot of his machinery will go into restimulation during this process and one must be able to differentiate between the preclear’s originations and those of his bank.” [ PAB 135 CCH Procedure CCH Continued on CCH 6]

In 1962 Ron noticed that the CCHs had been completely modified within 5 years and were not recognizable anymore. Auditors yelled at the PCs and it was more like a war rather than auditing12)We are still familiar with this today because of Sea Org members: They “confuse” Tone-40 with a military-like order sound which is “accentuated” with yelling if necessary. Another case of redefinition. . In the HCOB 5 APRIL 1962 “CCHs – AUDITING ATTITUDE”, in which Ron publishes this, he describes his correct demo session that he held thereupon:

“The auditor sat down, chatted a bit about the coming session with the pc, explainedin general what he was about to do. The session was started. The auditor explained the CCH 1 drill in particular and then began on it. The pc had a bit of embarrassment come off. The auditor took the physical reaction as an origination by the pc and queried it. The routine CCH 1 drill went on and was shortly proved flat by three equal responses. The auditor went to CCH 2. He explained the drill and started it. This proved to be flat. The pc did the drill three times without comm change. The auditor explained and went to CCH 3.

This also proved flat and after a three times test, the auditor came off it, explained CCH 4, and went to CCH 4. This proved unflat and was gradually flattened to three equally timed correct responses by the pc on a motion the pc could not at first do. About 50 minutes had elapsed so the auditor gave a ten minute break. After the break the auditor went back to CCH 1, found it flat, went to CCH 2 and found the pc jumping the command and, by putting short waits of different lengths before giving commands, knocked out the automaticity. The auditor went on to CCH 3, found it flat, and then to CCH 4 which was found unflat and was accordingly flattened. The auditor then discussed end ruds in a general way, got a summary of gains and ended the session.

All commands and actions were Tone 40 (which is not “antagonism” or “challenge”). But the pc was kept in two-way comm between full cycles of the drill by the auditor. Taking up each new physical change manifested as though it were an origin by the pc and querying it and getting the pc to give the pc’s reaction to it, this two-way comm was not Tone 40. Auditor and pc were serious about the drills. There was no relaxation of precision. But both auditor and pc were relaxed and happy about the whole thing. And the pc wound up walking on air.”

Since Ron did not explicitly mention herein that Tone-40 will remain, it was basically removed when the new CCHs were published:

All Tone 40 with clear intention, one command in one unit of time. Take up each new physical change manifested as though it were an origin by the Coach, when it happens, and querying it by asking “What’s happening?” This two-way comm is not Tone 40. Run only on the right hand. [HCO B 5 JULY 1963 CCHs REWRITTEN paragraph on CCH 1]

Only the physical originations are picked up according to this, however, since these “when it happens” are supposed to be picked up, it allows the PC to withdraw from the processing and do Q&A. This, in particular, was supposed to be prevented by Tone-40.

Have fun

Andreas Gross

for the

Independent Scientologists

Copyright © 2014 by

Dipl.-Ing. Andreas Gross

All Rights reserved

1 Revised in order to mark the quotes red and give all references.

2 Besides “Tone 40 as auditing procedure” you also have to consider “Tone 40 as tone level”. A third meaning is more like slang: “with full intent/assertiveness.”

3 In the early PAB’s, Ron handled the first to third “thing” in the communication. Later on this numbering turned into TRs 1-4. So this PAB 151 is about “the fourth thing”, today’s TR4, the handling of originations.

4 My emphasis.

5 see HCOB 3 MAY 1957 TRAINING — WHAT IT IS TODAY – HOW WE TELL PEOPLE ABOUT IT

6 Emphasis by LRH. See old Red Vol. III, page 370.

7 so CCH 1 & 2.

8 so CCH 4 & 3

9 My emphasis. In practice this means: You ask in the completion of an action cycle: “What happened?” or the like. – This process, as added to the Tone-40 processes in later references, is only to be applied to non-Tone-40 processes, according to this PAB 151.

10 And the difference from this paragraph needs to be understood because “circuit originations” are simply skipped during Tone-40 processes. But the real origination of the being that could come would be an origination of having reached the EP of the process, which we don’t want to miss. So there is no replacement of understanding for the auditor, which LRH hereby intended. The auditor simply wants to apply the process for once with Tone-40 without being stopped by the PC’s talk. The PC’s bank would like to stop the auditor and becomes quite creative in doing so. If he is invited through the new rule that was introduced later (that “bodily originations are picked up by “What is happening?”), the PC will quickly get involved and play the game with the auditor. This should be avoided by the auditor with Tone-40 processes.

11 “all way south“ is used by Ron for “all the way to the bottom“, i.e. “very bad cases“, just like psychotics and even institutionalized cases.

12 We are still familiar with this today because of Sea Org members: They “confuse” Tone-40 with a military-like order sound which is “accentuated” with yelling if necessary. Another case of redefinition.

References   [ + ]

1. ↑ Revised in order to mark the quotes red and give all references.
2. ↑ Besides “Tone 40 as auditing procedure” you also have to consider “Tone 40 as tone level”. A third meaning is more like slang: “with full intent/assertiveness.”
3. ↑ In the early PAB’s, Ron handled the first to third “thing” in the communication. Later on this numbering turned into TRs 1-4. So this PAB 151 is about “the fourth thing”, today’s TR4, the handling of originations.
4. ↑ My emphasis.
5. ↑ see HCOB 3 MAY 1957 TRAINING — WHAT IT IS TODAY – HOW WE TELL PEOPLE ABOUT IT
6. ↑ Emphasis by LRH. See old Red Vol. III, page 370.
7. ↑ so CCH 1 & 2.
8. ↑ so CCH 4 & 3
9. ↑ My emphasis. In practice this means: You ask in the completion of an action cycle: “What happened?” or the like. – This process, as added to the Tone-40 processes in later references, is only to be applied to non-Tone-40 processes, according to this PAB 151.
10. ↑ And the difference from this paragraph needs to be understood because “circuit originations” are simply skipped during Tone-40 processes. But the real origination of the being that could come would be an origination of having reached the EP of the process, which we don’t want to miss. So there is no replacement of understanding for the auditor, which LRH hereby intended. The auditor simply wants to apply the process for once with Tone-40 without being stopped by the PC’s talk. The PC’s bank would like to stop the auditor and becomes quite creative in doing so. If he is invited through the new rule that was introduced later (that “bodily originations are picked up by “What is happening?”), the PC will quickly get involved and play the game with the auditor. This should be avoided by the auditor with Tone-40 processes.
11. ↑ “all way south“ is used by Ron for “all the way to the bottom“, i.e. “very bad cases“, just like psychotics and even institutionalized cases.
12. ↑ We are still familiar with this today because of Sea Org members: They “confuse” Tone-40 with a military-like order sound which is “accentuated” with yelling if necessary. Another case of redefinition.