This is an important bulletin. If you understand it you will get results on hitherto unmoving cases and faster results (1 hour as effective as a former 25) with the CCHs.

Here is what happened to the CCHs and which will continue to happen to them to damage their value:

The CCHs in their most workable form were finalized in London by me in April 1957. That was their high tide of workability for the next five years. After that date, difficulties discovered in teaching them to auditors added extraordinary solutions to the CCHs (not by me) which cut them to about one twenty-fifth of their original auditing value. Pcs thereafter had increasing difficulty in doing them and the gain lessened.

How far were the CCHs removed from original CCH auditing? Well, the other night on TV I gave a demonstration of the proper original CCHs which produce the gains on pcs. And more than twelve old-time auditors (the lowest graded ones out of 36) thought they were watching a demonstration of entirely foreign processes.

Although these auditors had been “well trained” on the CCHs (but not by me) they did not see any similarity between how they did them and how they saw me do them. Two or three students and two instructors thought they were being done wrong. Even the higher ranking students were startled. They had never seen CCHs like this.

Yet, the pc was very happy, came way up tone, lost a bad before-session somatic and within 48 hours had a complete change in a chronic physical problem, all in 1½ hours of proper original CCHs.

The students and instructors “knew they weren’t watching the correct CCHs” because there was no antagonism to the pc, because the Tone 40 was not shouted, because there was no endurance marathon in progress. There was just quiet, positive auditing with the pc in good, happy 2-way communication with the auditor and the auditor letting the pc win.

In the student auditing of the next two days, some shadow of the demonstration’s attitude was used and the cases audited gained much faster than before. Yet at least two or three still feel that this is far too easy to be the CCHs.

In five years, the CCHs, not closely supervised by me, but altered in training, had become completely unrecognizable (and almost resultless).

Why?

Because the CCHs were confused with Op Pro by Dup which was for auditors. Because the CCHs became an arduous ritual, not a way to audit the pc in front of you. The CCHs became a method of auditing without communicating, of running off strings of drills without being there. And the CCHs are so good that even when done wrong or even viciously they produced some slight gain. The CCHs shade from bright white to dark grey in results, never to black.

Having been perverted in training to a system to make auditors audit them, they became something that had nothing to do with the pc.

What these students saw demonstrated (and which upset them terribly) was this:

The auditor sat down, chatted a bit about the coming session with the pc, explained in 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.

These were the CCHs properly done. With high gain results.

The viewers saw no watchdog snarling, no grim, grim purpose, no antagonistic suspicion, no pc going out of session, no mauling, no drill-sergeant bawling and knew these couldn’t be the CCHs. There was good auditor-pc relationship (better than in formal sessions) and good two-way comm throughout, so the viewers knew these weren’t proper CCHs.

Well, I don’t know what these gruelling blood baths are they’re calling “the CCHs”. I did them the way they were done in April 1957 and got April 1957 fast results. And the processes aren’t even recognized !

So somewhere in each year from April 1957 to April 1962 and somewhere in each place they’re done, additives and injunctions and “now I’m supposed to’s” have grown up around these precise but easy, pleasant processes that have created an unworkable monster that is called “the CCHs” but which definitely isn’t.

Not seeing the weird perversions but seeing the slow graph responses, the vast hours being burned up, I began to abandon recommending the CCHs after 1959 as too long in others’ hands. I didn’t realize how complicated and how grim it had all become.

Well, the real CCHs done right, done the way they’re described here, are a fast gain route, easy on auditor and pc, that goes all the way south.

Take a reread of the June and November bulletins of last year (forget the 20 minute test, 3 times equally done are enough to see a CCH is flat) and, not forgetting your Tone 40 and precision, laying aside the grim withdrawn militant auditor attitude, try to do them as pleasantly as you find them described in the above outlined session, and be amazed at the progress the pc will make.

The CCHs easy on auditor and pc? Ah, they’d observed a lot of CCHs and never any that were easy on auditor or pc. Everybody came to know it was a bullying, smashing, arduous mess, a fight in fact. The only trouble was, the gains vanished when the ARC ran out.

Today, put any pc on the original CCHs done as above until they’re flat, then go to 3D Criss Cross and the pc will fly.

Surely you don’t have to look and sound so hungry, disinterested and mean when you audit the CCHs. You want to clear this pc, not make him or her into a shaking wreck. The CCHs are easily done (when they’re done right).

They’ll get lost again, too, unless you remember they can get lost.

I believe Upper Indoc should be canceled in Academies and extra time put on just the CCHs as it is the Upper Indoc attitude carried over that makes the CCHs grim.

The purpose of the CCHs is to bring the pc through incidents and into present time. It is the reverse of “mental” auditing in that it gets the pc’s attention exterior from the bank and on present time. By using Communication, Control and Havingness this is done. If you make present time a snarling hostility to the pc, he of course does not want to come into present time and it takes just that much longer to make the CCHs work.

You do the CCHs with the Auditor’s Code firmly in mind. Don’t run a process that is not producing change. Run a process as long as it produces change. Don’t go out of 2- way comm with the pc.

Complete every cycle of the process. Don’t interject 2-way comm into the middle of a cycle, use it only after a cycle is acknowledged and complete.

Don’t end a process before it is flat. Don’t continue a process after it is flat.

Use Tone 40 Commands. Don’t confuse antagonistic screaming at the pc with Tone 40. If you have to manhandle a pc, do so, but only to help him get the process flat. If you have to manhandle the pc you’ve already accumulated ARC breaks and given him loses and driven him out of session.

Improve the ability of a pc by gradient scale, give the pc lots of wins on CCH 3 and CCH 4 and amongst them flatten off what he hasn’t been able to do.

The CCH drills must be done precisely by the auditor. But the criteria is whether the pc gets gains, not whether the auditor is a perfect ritualist.

Exact Ritual is something in which you should take pride. But it exists only to accomplish auditing. When it exists for itself alone, watch out.

Audit the pc in front of you. Not some other pc or a generalized object.

Use the CCHs to coax the pc out of the bank and into present time.

Take up the pc’s physical changes as though they were originations. Each time a new one occurs, take it up with 2-way comm as though the pc had spoken. If the same “origination” happens again and again only take it up again occasionally, not every time it happens.

Know what’s going on. Keep the pc at it. Keep the pc informed. Keep the pc winning. Keep the pc exteriorizing from the past and coming into present time.

Understand the CCHs and what you’re doing. If it all deteriorates to mere ritual you’ll take 25 to 50 times the time necessary to produce the same result as I would.

The auditing is for the pc. The CCHs are for the pc. In auditing you win in the CCHs only when the pc wins.