The Goal of the Auditor: to help the preclear re-establish confidence in his ability to confront Thetans, Thought, Time, Life, Energy, Matter and Space.
The theory of auditing: the preclear has lost confidence in his ability to face existence and its parts and has difficulty in participation. He is trapped in many of those things he has failed to confront or has been prevented from confronting or has prevented others from confronting or didn’t exist.
By gradient scales his confidence in confronting Thought, Time, Life, Energy, Matter and Space is improved. The rule is, "Find something the preclear can confront and improve that ability." This normally begins with some part of an auditor. In less able cases, it begins with a thought of the auditor’s or the preclear’s.
Auditing is not erasure. Erasure dramatizes lost things to confront.
Where an auditor can be confronted and makes corny errors, the preclear stops being able to confront — hence the graph goes down on ARC breaks only. Therefore, the stress on smooth auditing.
A present time problem makes it hard for the preclear to confront the session. Therefore the stress on handling present time problems.
Auditing has as its sole liability confronting on a via — it may look to the auditor that he is using the pc (preclear) to confront things and this can be restimulative if the auditor doesn’t know what he is doing. If the auditor is actively preventing the pc from confronting anything or has as his goal never permitting the pc to confront, there’s trouble to hand.
ARC, in auditing, is:
A = the ability to be in or at a distance from something.
R = the ability to co-exist with something.
C = the ability to transmit thought between two or more points.
Thus we see that the minimum of two anything is needed for the conditions of ARC to occur.
In actuality the thetan incurs no liability in confronting or not confronting, being in or not being in things and thus a total confronting or total non-confronting are attainable goals. The thetan believes things about confronting or necessities to confront or not to confront and so becomes aberrated (not straight-lined). To confront, knowing is necessary. Unknown confronting or not confronting, when uncovered, gives us the phenomenon of "cognition" — and that is the definition of it.
Auditing is that process which restores confidence in confronting and undoes necessity to confront Thought, Time, Life, Energy, Matter and Space.
It should be realized that an optimum Clear Procedure should take a preclear from the lowest possible levels up to clear. Earlier procedures (1957-1958) did not attempt to address every case but were content to handle about 50% of the preclears. The remainder had to have special address just as cases. Therefore, auditors adopted the idea that on one hand there was Clear Procedure and on the other hand low level procedure — they did not place one above the other in a gradient scale to clear. This particular Clear Procedure does that.
In use it should be realized that different cases require different emphasis. An easy case would not demand a tedious command clearing, suspicious probing to break non-existent occlusions or emphasis on the lower steps. Indeed, these lower steps could be skipped up to CCH 0.
It is all a matter of judgment, how long and hard to run which. Two errors are potential: both rest on accurate case estimation. The commonest is to overestimate the level of the case. And not uncommon, to audit a high level case with very low level processes. The answer is to audit the case one is auditing, not some other case or one’s own case.
Since estimation and auditor-sensitivity are subject to variety and error one cannot cleanly estimate the length of time required to clear anyone. Only approximations are possible and these are varied by possible environmental difficulties of the preclear during auditing: i.e. , daily present time problems of crushing magnitude.
We are not today in the area of thousands of hours, however. We are in the area of hundreds of hours in any case, sane or insane. I cite an example: a woman suffering from a postpartum psychosis was audited 600 hours on CCH 1, 2, 3, 4 before she turned sane long enough for the auditor to snap off the case the valence of her dying brother, at which moment she turned stably sane. Only then could she have been audited on less fundamental steps. However, auditors are not concerned with the insane but often address relatively unconscious people. This example is cited as the most extreme time in auditing we have on record with modern technique.
I would not be surprised that, with all variables introduced, some case required 800 hours to clear. On a jigsaw puzzle test such a case would have failed to have fitted a single piece in the first 30 seconds, by our present method of estimation.
There are several means of establishing an idea of length of time in processing from present state to clear. The minimum in any case would be three weeks (75 hours); the probable maximum would be 1,000 hours. Between these extremes, we have most people. The peak of the cure would probably be around 250 hours, as estimated by older clearing methods.
Anxieties to attain faster push-button clearing defeat most research. These speed methods violate the reality of the preclear and too thoroughly evaluate for him. In all cases of clearing it is only the reality of the preclear which milestones the gains. That reality requires a certain speed of advance. While being audited, also, a preclear is living, and his surroundings require his attention. Man is somewhat cautious. He must adjust himself within his own ideas of security. The auditor always knows what is wrong with the preclear long before the preclear finds out. One must permit the preclear to find out! That discovery is only assisted, never blackjacked into being (see Psychiatry: The Greatest Flub of the Russian Civilization, by Tom Esterbrook). The patient is part of the therapy — a lesson the Russ school never learned.
Therefore, Clear Procedure starts where it should, CCH 1.
In running the CCHs, a set procedure is followed not only with the single process but with the series. One will discover that only one of the series of CCH 1, 2, 3, 4 bites the first time through. It is useless to run very long on the ones that don’t bite. Example: An auditor does CCH 1 for an hour — no bite. He does CCH 2 for an hour or so — no bite. He does CCH 3 and it bites He does it for a few hours and CCH 3 levels off a bit. Now he returns to CCH 1 and finds it bites. He flattens it a bit, does CCH 2 for an hour, CCH 3 for a couple of hours and when he starts CCH 4, now this one bites! He flattens it in a few hours, goes back to CCH 1, etc.
The processes CCH 1, 2, 3, 4 are all of a piece. They are done in series fashion, not as individual items.
Name: Give me that hand, Tone 40.
Commands: "Give me that hand. " Physical action of taking hand when not given and then replacing it in preclear’s lap. And "Thank you," ending cycle. All Tone 40 with clear intention, one command in one unit of time, no originations of preclear acknowledged in any way verbally or physically. May be run on right hand, left hand, both hands, each one flattened in turn.
Position: Auditor and preclear seated in chairs without arms, close together. Auditor’s knees both to auditor’s left of preclear’s knees, outside of auditor’s right thigh against outside of preclear’s right thigh. This position reversed for left hand. In both hands preclear’s knees are between auditor’s knees.
Purpose: To demonstrate to preclear that control of preclear’s body is possible, despite revolt of circuits, and inviting preclear to directly control it. Absolute control by auditor then passes over toward absolute control of his own body by preclear.
Training Stress: Never stop process until a flat place is reached. To process with good Tone 40. Auditor taught to pick up preclear’s hand by wrist with auditor’s thumb nearest auditor’s body, to have an exact and invariable place to carry preclear’s hand to before clasping, clasping hand with exactly correct pressure, replacing hand (with auditor’s left hand still holding preclear’s wrist) in preclear’s lap. Making every command and cycle separate. Maintaining Tone 40. Stress on intention from auditor to preclear with each command. To leave an instant for preclear to do it by own will before auditor does it. Stress Tone 40 precision. To keep epicenters balanced. CCH l(b) should also be flattened.
History: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in the 17th ACC, Washington, D.C., 1957.
Name: Tone 40 8-C.
Commands: "Look at that wall." "Thank you." "Walk over to that wall." "Thank you." "With the right hand, touch that wall." "Thank you." "Turn around." "Thank you." Run without acknowledging in any way any origination by preclear, acknowledging only preclear’s execution of the command. Commands smoothly enforced physically. Tone 40, full intention.
Position: Auditor and preclear ambulant, auditor in physical contact with preclear as needed.
Purpose: To demonstrate to preclear that his body can be directly controlled and thus inviting him to control it. Finding present time. Havingness. Other effects not fully explained.
Training Stress: Absolute auditor precision. No drops from Tone 40. No flubs. Total present time auditing. Auditor turns preclear counterclockwise, then steps always on preclear’s right side. Auditor’s body acts as block to forward motion when preclear turns. Auditor gives command, gives preclear a moment to obey, then enforces command with physical contact of exactly correct force to get command executed. Auditor does not check preclear from executing commands.
History: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington, D.C., in 1957 for the 17th ACC.
Name: Hand Space Mimicry.
Commands: Auditor raises two hands, palms facing preclear, and says, "Put your hands against mine, follow them and contribute to their motion. " He then makes a simple motion with right hand, then left. "Did you contribute to the motion?" "Good. " "Put your hands in your lap. " When this is flat the auditor does this same thing with a half inch of space between his and the preclear’s palms. When this is flat auditor does it with a wider space and so on until preclear is able to follow motions a yard away.
''Position:' 'Auditor and preclear seated, close together facing each other, preclear’s knees between auditor’s.
Purpose: To develop reality on the auditor, using the reality scale (solid communication line). To get preclear into communication by control + duplication.
Training Stress: That auditor be gentle and accurate in his motions, giving preclear wins. To be free in two-way communication.
History: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard, in Washington, D.C. , in 1956, as a therapeutic version of Dummy Hand Mimicry. Something was needed to supplant "Look at me. Who am I?" and "Find the auditor" part of rudiments.
Name: Book Mimicry.
Commands: Auditor makes a simple or complex motion with a book. Hands book to preclear. Preclear makes motion duplicating auditor’s mirror-image-wise. Auditor asks preclear if he is satisfied that the preclear duplicated the motion. If preclear is and auditor is also fairly satisfied, auditor takes back the book and goes to next command. If preclear says he is and auditor is fairly sure preclear isn’t, auditor takes back book and repeats command and gives book to preclear again for another try. If preclear is not sure he duplicated any command, auditor repeats it for him and gives him back the book. Tone 40 only in motions. Verbal two-way quite free.
Position: Auditor and preclear seated facing each other a comfortable distance apart.
Purpose. To bring up preclear’s communication with control and duplication. (Control + duplication = communication.)
Training Stress: Stress giving preclear wins. Stress auditor’s necessity to duplicate his own commands. Circular motions are more complex than straight lines.
History: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard for the 16th ACC in Washington, D.C. , 1957. Based on duplication developed by LRH in London, 1952.
(1) Start Session by saying "Start of Session". Don’t discuss things and then start session and startle preclear, who thought he was in session all the time. To do this throws pc out of session. Also, you can’t end a session that was never started.
(2) (a) Establish Auditor. Clear auditor with pc. Discuss any successful auditing in the past, even successful doctoring. Shake pc loose from heavy ARC with past practitioners, not by running down practitioners, but getting pc to realize he has been helped. Develop this into process, "Who should I be to help you successfully?" Get it flat, then run "What am I doing?"
(2) (b) Establish Preclear. Put preclear more in session with goals — "What would you like to accomplish through Scientology?" "What would you like to accomplish in this session?" The foregoing two we care little about. We now hit this hard: "What are you willing to have happen in this session?" We get a final clear answer to this even if it takes an hour of two-way comm. Then we establish, "What are you absolutely certain will happen in (finite period of time such as ten minutes or one hour)?"
(2) (c) Establish problems, if any. Run "Is there any place you would like to be more than here?" When this is threshed out, "Is there any place you should be rather than here?" This may bring any present time problem to view. If it does, audit it with "What part of that problem could you be responsible for?" If pc is too agitated to run this or if two-way comm cuts his havingness badly, run Factual Havingness: "Look around here and find something you have. " When this can be left, "Look around here and find something that you would continue. " When this can be left, "Look around here and find something you would permit to vanish. " Then return to first again. (The order may be reversed. Some cases may run 250 of the third before finding one of the first or second.) Factual Havingness can resolve present time problems, which are always and only threats of loss.
If preclear seems hard to audit, is in propitiation, does obsessive agreement, has hypnotic eyelid flutter, or in general seems unnatural about talking or not talking, you can put pc into session and get present time problem most rapidly by spending real time on this: "What question shouldn’t I ask you?" and sort it out on a meter, with two-way comm, then ask question again, etc., until pc is really talking to the auditor. The goal of present time problems or problems is to get pc in session. The goal of this, "What question shouldn’t I ask you?" is not to learn the pc’s secrets but to get pc to talk freely to auditor. Accomplishing this one thing on a hitherto non-advancing pc is a great thing and will make the pc advance faster than anything else. Get the pc to talk to you honestly.
Then take up present time problems directly: "Do you have a present time problem?" Preclear says he does but needle on meter doesn’t move. Ask question a few more times — "Is there anything worrying you?" you can say for variation. If needle still doesn’t drop, forget it. if needle drops pursue it and run only the problem that drops. Don’t run problems that don’t drop! Keep your eyes on the meter while handling pc with present time problems, expand what falls, not something else. Pc can’t confront his problems, therefore the drop vanishes easily, comes back and drops again. This can fool an auditor badly if he doesn’t watch his meter and take up to run and discuss only the drop. (Note: If the meter is "Stage Four" [idle swing, not clear but pc can’t affect meter, which only swings up, sticks, falls and so forth on same pattern — a Stage Four needle has a stick in the top of its oscillation, a clear needle doesn’t] or if it is too stuck to show a fall on a problem, play safe, run Factual Havingness or Connectedness.)
This exact way to run a present time problem can make a full intensive.
Command (when problem located): "Describe that problem to me now. " Make sure pc does. Accept any version pc gives you, but only follow through on a version that drops on meter. If the version drops, run the following for two or five commands, "What part of that problem could you be responsible for?" Then whether drop on meter vanishes or not, say, "Describe that problem to me now. " If the described problem did not drop, buy it but don’t run it, say again, "Describe that problem to me now. " If you can handle this type of problem-handling, if you got pc to really talk to you, you can practically clear a case on this since it gets out of case the succumb postulates that war against betterment. This is the scale of succumb problems from the bottom up: How to go unconscious; How to feel nothing; How to go insane; How to escape; How to die; How to get shed of responsibilities so one can die; How not to care; How to endure; How to get better; How to Live; How to live better. There are inner levels. The basic problem is a "whether" (all problems are "whether" or "how"): Whether to Survive or Succumb. Decisions to do either are, if obsessive, the stable data in the center of the major confusions. When a pc is sitting there in heavy succumb postulates his goals and the auditor’s goals are on opposite vectors. Therefore, preclears who don’t get better aren’t trying to get better no matter how much they say they are. Hence a whole case can run on this provided some havingness is also run from time to time.
In brief, this is where running a present time problem well gets to.
Remember, a problem is not a condition or a terminal. It is a "how" or "whether". It is a doingness, not a person. "My wife" is no answer to a present time problem question. "How to live with my wife" is a problem. "Whether or not to live with my wife" is a problem. "My wife’s illness" is not a problem. "How to cure my wife’s illness" is a problem.
Sometimes a pc will come right down on an old stable decision about the problem and say, "It isn’t a problem to me now. " The auditor must not buy this. He wants to know "Why?" until pc is off the old solution and can go on describing problems.
How to be audited. How to stay in session. Whether the auditor has pc’s interest at heart. Such present time problems are very much in order to ask about.
To completely flatten any problem it is necessary to run not "responsible for" but "Invent a problem of comparable magnitude to that problem. " This is run in the same way as above, but is given more commands for each version handed out by the pc. This is the problem command if you want it flat forever. Don’t lose this process or command from your repertoire.
(2)(d) Getting Auditor and Pc established. Take up any ARC breaks with pc or any breaks between pc and past auditors. Always clear away ARC breaks. Don’t dodge them as an auditor.
Explaining why the break occurred is an Auditor’s Code violation — Evaluation.
Saying that the ARC break didn’t occur or was the pc’s fault is an Auditor’s Code violation — Invalidation.
When an auditor fails to take responsibility for the ARC break he loses the responsibility of running the session — which, of course, causes a session to cease to exist.
The relative destructive value of an ARC break is greater than the failure.
Always handle CCH 0 in every session well except when giving not a session but an Assist only.
TR 11. ARC Straight Wire. That process best calculated to orient pc in his past is ARC Straight Wire.
Commands: "Recall something that was really real to you. " "Thank you. " "Recall a time when you were in good communication with someone. " "Thank you. " "Recall a time when you really liked someone. " "Thank you. " The three commands are given in that order and repeated in that order consistently.
Position: Auditor and preclear seated facing each other at a comfortable distance.
Purpose: To give the student reality on the existence of a bank. This is audited on another student and is audited until the other student is in present time. It will be found that the process discloses the cycling action of the preclear going deeper and deeper into the past and then more and more shallowly into the past until he is recalling something again close to present time. This cyclic action should be studied and understood and the reality on the pictures the preclear gets should be thoroughly understood by the student. The fact that another has pictures should be totally real to the student under training.
History: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in 1951 in Wichita, Kansas. This was once a very important process. It has been known to bring people from a neurotic to a sane level after only a short period of application. It has been run on a group basis with success but it should be noted that the thinkingness of the individuals in the group would have to be well under the control of the auditor in order to have this process broadly beneficial. When it was discovered that this process occasionally reduces people’s havingness, the process itself was not generally run thereafter. It is still, however, an excellent process with that proviso, a reduction of havingness in some cases.
Many cases have achieved their first step upward with the process. It is a process which, known, gives the pc the comfortable feeling that he at least has stopped getting worse and that there is something that permits him to hold his own.
In the 20th ACC Lectures I described how all entheta receives its charge from theta. ARC in the bank makes ARC breaks possible. A re-orientation of ARC can be more important than one realizes. The way to blow ARC breaks can be more ARC. Even a psychotic may rise up to merely neurotic on ARC Straight Wire.
The cyclic aspect of ARC Straight Wire must receive attention.
You don’t want to know what when he recalls something, you want to know when. Ask, "When was that?" frequently and you will see pc slide into past and then return to present time as a regular cycle. Don’t end the process while pc is still in past. Don’t finish the process with a comm bridge that leaves him in the past. Just warn him that the process will soon end, and stop it when pc’s recall was of a near present time thing.
You get lots of past lives in view this way. Buy them.
Lasting and easily obtained results were gained in 1956 by using just two processes. With the 1958 Theory of Auditing (above) it is easy to see why. These are basically confrontingness processes. They were S-C-S and Connectedness.
I developed these two for use in combination for a standardization of processing for a whole firm that was having its employees processed in London in 1956. The results were so good that Mary Sue Hubbard, while Director of Processing London, used the same regimen on all preclears with uniformly astonishing results.
The exact regimen used in that period was as follows: simple S-C-S on objects with pc and auditor seated at a table. Then S-C-S on the body. Then "Keep it from going away" and "Hold it still" on two small objects with pc seated, using first one object then the other and always touching them with his hands at command. Finally, subjectively, on facsimiles, "Keep it from going away," and "Hold it still. " Throughout, Connectedness was used to bolster havingness as needed with the command, "You make that (indicated object) connect with you. "
The regimen as given here was superseded because auditors, unsupervised, tended to complicate the processes and not until a short time ago did we learn that the best answer to an auditor’s desire for "more information" was a repetition of what he was told the first time. He didn’t understand the original and so wanted a new one. Further, in supervised processing, there has been a frailty in that the auditor sometimes reported, "I did what you said and it didn’t work. " An unwary supervisor then gives him a new process to do. A wary one says in reply to the above, "What didn’t work?" and usually discovers that the supervisor’s directions were neither remembered nor run. This set of factors has accounted for many abandonments of SOPs (standard operating procedures) which were in actuality working like mad, only the people they were given to never used them, only said they did, and fed bad data back. It is the role of a supervisor to get the process he gave out run, not another version of it.
The rationale behind S-C-S was simple: it placed the pc in the auditor’s control. And it placed the pc’s body under his own control. But there is more to S-C-S than this since it is also a confrontingness process.
Name: S-C-S on a person. (Start, change and stop on a person.)
Commands: There are three sets of commands, each one of which is run until it is relatively flat. The commands are as follows: "Now we are going to start the body.
When I say start, you start that body in this (indicated) direction. All right, Start. " The commands for "Change" are as follows (indicating four positions on the floor one after the other): "This we are going to call Spot A. This we are going to call Spot B. This we are going to call Spot C and this we are going to call Spot D. Do you have that? All right, when I say Change, I want you to change the position of that body from A to B. All right, Change. " (The same applies for the other positions.) The commands for "Stop" are as follows: "Now I want you to get that body moving in (indicated) direction, and when I say Stop, I want you to stop that body. All right, move that body. Stop. " Each one of the commands is followed with the question, "Did you start that body?" "Did you change the position of that body?" "Did you stop that body?"
Position: Auditor and preclear ambulant. Auditor accompanies preclear as he walks and occasionally touches him and turns him around manually as needed to assist the preclear.
Purpose: To give the preclear good control of his body and to exteriorize him.
Training Stress: Stress is on precision of the motion and command.
History: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in 1955 as an exteriorization process. First discovered in 1952 was the fact that a person, which is to say a thetan, stays as close to an object as he has confidence in his controlling of it.
The basic form of any havingness process is Connectedness. After one flattens S-C-S, one then runs Connectedness on the preclear.
(a) "You get the idea of making that (object) connect with you. " (Auditor points.)
(b) If pc isn’t looking at object with Mest body’s eyes, use following: "Look at that (object). " "You get the idea of making that object connect with you. "
(c) On blind humans: "Feel that (object). " "You get the idea of making that object connect with you. "
There is a new version of havingness called Factual Havingness. It is used in conjunction with any subjective process such as those subjective processes which follow.
"Look around here and find something you have. "
"Look around here and find something that you would continue. "
"Look around here and find something you would permit to vanish. "
The earliest clearing process, made more workable by repetitive commands and a broad understanding achieved in the ensuing 11 years, is made part of the most modern (1958) procedure.
I was clearing people in 1947 by getting them to look at locks, secondaries, engrams, circuits and the physical universe. I cleared a lot of people in about 100 hours each. All I did was renew their confidence in being able to "look at" their pictures. I turned on sonic, tactile, the works, with renewing confidence, lessening fear.
Three years later, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health was written. Its processes are slanted toward teaching people to audit and are the result of people not doing and saying they did. Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health processes are good. They are the best training processes re banks there are. They train an auditor better than they clear a pc.
We now return to earliest clearing with what we now call Confrontingness. See "Theory of Auditing" above.
In general, we persuade the pc to confront things at his own gradient scale of willingness.
We find an ability to confront and we improve it.
This is close to a specific for a chronic somatic.
Auditor: "What part of that body can you confront?"
Pc: "Elbow. "
Auditor: "What part of that elbow can you confront best?"
Pc: "The wrist. "
Auditor: "Thank you. "
This is the whole cycle of the command. The auditor does not correct the pc when "part of" becomes some other part of the body.
"What mental view can you confront?" "What part of it can you confront best?" "Thank you. "
The above wording allows for dark fields and other phenomena and runs easily on an occluded case.
For a person who has pictures and sensations, a more specific form using "pictures", as well as "emotions", "feelings", "sounds", "thoughts", etc., can be used.
There can be and will be many versions of confrontingness given. Suffice here that the above work well and can form an entirety of clearing. They are a refinement, a simplification of the first version of clearing and should work as well today.
We must not overlook the factor of participation in life. Participation in session is necessary for processing to work. It is achieved by bettering the factor "Confronting".
Auditing toward the goal of total non-confront is eventually to achieve total non-participation. This is highly undesirable.
Destruction as an impulse has as its goal the removal of the need to confront. When one can confront he does not need to destroy. Unwillingness to confront is the source of most "have to be processed". One is asking the auditor to destroy "all these horrible things". Obsessive confronting is almost as bad. "Can’t confront it so I’ll prove I can by confronting it forever — and I’ll keep on creating it to prove I can confront it. " The mechanics of the bank can be worked out on such a basis.
Participation is only possible when one can also confront. Gradient scale of confronting can lead to participation without being overwhelmed.
All processes since the earliest endeavors in this search have aligned on "Survive". Continuance in Factual Havingness expresses this factor. The postulate to Survive is invalidative of the fact that a thetan cannot do otherwise. The whole key to brainwashing and punishment is that they make a thetan postulate survival which is "continuous confronting". This is handled by various versions of confronting.
A reactive bank comes from obsessive creating. A thetan’s answer to being threatened or struck is to create. His basic training is all aligned along creating something. This factor is used in various ways in processing, usually inherent in a process.
Probably the first thing that will have to be taken up in some cases is the subject of Help. To this degree Help is part of CCH 0 in establishing an auditor-preclear relationship. People who do not volunteer to be audited at all will require help orientation as the first step. Five hours on Help with such a person, using a two-way bracket, is often well spent. But such a bracket must be exceptionally well audited, without ARC breaks, to begin an intensive or to repair ARC breaks.
Aside from the above, Help is of vast importance.
The first burning question, when we approach Help as a process, is, "What condition would you have to be in to get help?" This is usually the condition the pc is in. The repetitive command for this is, "Mock up (or invent) somebody in such a condition that they would receive help. "
The "Rock" is the thing the preclear uses to reach people. It is an object far back on the track. It is confrontingness on a via.
The E-Meter is used to locate a stuck object. This is a "lock on the rock". (The stuck can be freed by using Connectedness on the room, always.)
Use in this exact order, one command at a time:
How could a _______ help itself?
How could you help a _______?
How could a _______ help you?
How could I help a _______?
How could a _______ help me?
How could another person help a _______?
How could a _______ help another person?
How could others help a _______?
How could a _______ help others?
How could you help yourself?
How could I help myself?
How could you help me?
How could I help you?
The command words, but not as a whole phrase, are cleared often (every 3 brackets) and the pc is asked for his opinion only of the word "help" and the item. His answer is not challenged.
How could you help yourself?
How could you help me?
How could I help you?
How could I help myself?
How could you help another person?
How could I help another person?
How could another person help you?
How could another person help me?
How could another person help another person?
The basic clearing process using responsibility is, "You make a picture for which you can be wholly responsible. "
This, flattened, can make a clear.
It uses the fact that a person is making his whole bank anyway and it persuades him to realize it.
Some version of responsibility is required to end all clearing.
Assignment of responsibility is at the bottom of the search for phenomena and magic to clear people.
Everyone who does not change in processing is being an answer. He "has it made".
Therefore, there is an opposite side to problems. That is answers.
"Mock up a problem for which you are (or your condition is) the answer. "
The original version was: "What origin of yours has been mishandled?" "Recall a time when you were pleased with that person. "
A shorter version is, "What origin of yours has been handled properly?"
Any creation is an origin in a communication line, for the purposes of auditing. Hence the importance of origins.
There are certain buttons which depress clearing if the pc has erroneous definitions for them. These are:
Change, Problem, Help, Pleased, Create, Responsibility, Confront.
Various processes redefine them in action. This is such a process:
"Invent a person who likes (the button). "
A cleared person is no longer in confusion about Help or who makes the mock-ups. "Help and Step 6" were the early 1958 clues to clear. These are still used as tests and even when their running is brief, they must be run.
Caution: It is almost fatal to run Step 6 if the rock is not out.
How to Run Step 6:
Select simple nonsignificant objects. Run: "In front of that body you mock up a _______ and keep it from going away. " "Did you?" "Thank you. "
Then use all directions from the body — "Behind that body …," "To the left of that body …," "To the right of that body …," "Above that body …," "Below that body…"
Run 6 objects each on 6 sides of the body on "Keep it from going away," then proceed to "In front of that body you mock up a _______ and hold it still. " Same procedure, then "In front of that body you mock up a _______ and make it a little more solid. " (There is no acknowledgment by auditor after pc mocks it up and keeps it from going away, etc., or the "Did you?" — there is acknowledgment only after full command is executed. Otherwise acknowledgments will thin the pc’s mock-ups.)
Note: The objects should be simple at first, leading on up to complexity. But at first, keep them simple and nonsignificant.
Read and understand Scientology 8-8008, and use an E-Meter throughout.
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. "
In the above there are several roads to Clear. But there are also several levels of case to be cleared. Experience tells one what to run. Auditing skill alone gets the experience across.
The original 1947 processes were defeated in the hands of others by lack of auditing drills and skill.
Help and Step 6 do not work on low level cases to make clears of everyone — hence the CCHs.
By doing all of the above on every case you would certainly have clears in all cases. As your experience increases you can begin to omit steps.
You will finally be able to adjust the processes to the exact cases you do.
Get the preclear in session, run something. You’ll win.
[The above was made available as a booklet called ACC Clear Procedure and is referred to as such in various issues. ]