Русская версия

Site search:
ENGLISH DOCS FOR THIS DATE- Scientologys Most Workable Process (PAB-80) - PAB560417

RUSSIAN DOCS FOR THIS DATE- Игры и Брак (Извлечение) - БПО560417-080
- Самые Действенные Процессы Саентологии - БПО560417-080
- Самый Действенный Процесс Саентологии (Извлечение) - БПО560417-080
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology
Via Hubbard Communications Office
Brunswick House, 83 Palace Gardens Terrace, London W. 8
17 April 1956


It is fitting that we give out Scientology’s most workable process in Issue 80 of the oldest continuous publication in our sciences of Dianetics and Scientology.

We have been going with Dianetics and Scientology for a very long time now according to our time continuum. Actually we have been going only a tiny fraction of man’s scientific time continuum. The progress which we have made in the past few years is apparently greater than any combined progress of the preceding ages. This may be due to our ability to capitalize on what is known. It may be due to having been educated in both the Eastern and Western philosophies. It may be due to being born with a lucky slide rule in the mouth. It may be due to the brightness and interest of everyone connected. It may be due to a lot of things, but to whatever it is due, it is true. From a condition no-science-of-mind to a condition science-of-mind has been achieved.

If you have any doubts about our starting condition, no-science-of-mind, go get a Wundtian pseudo-psychology text, read Darwin, read the horrible confusions of Locke, Hume, Spencer, James. If you care to so research you will find that they were a trifle mixed up. Reading them now, knowing as you do Dianetics and Scientology, you can make some small sense from them in some places. BUT if you delete your understanding of Dianetics and Scientology and THEN study them you’ll come up— or, rather, go down — staggering. The test was this: By their tenets could these people make anyone smarter, more sociable, better able? No. The test was also this: By their talk of God and Devil did other men in other fields understand anything of the human soul, the hereafter? No. Well, that’s the way things were in the Dark Ages of 1949. Now we can make men smarter, better, more sociable and yes, more controllable. Now we do know about the “hereafter” and all the rest of it. So something DID happen in 1950 and something has BEEN happening ever since, and despite all our detractors— for Man detracts that which he doesn’t understand — and for all our rocky road, we HAVE attained higher than Man ever attained before and that’s the way it is.

Very well, then WHAT is there in this already high mountain of attainment which is the highest gain? Amongst all this gold where is the super-gold?

I don’t suppose I’ll surprise you very much if I tell you you haven’t had the super-super-gold yet. In fact I didn’t have it myself until very recently and, having discovered it, I’ve been waiting smugly to know it a little better and so give it to you ever since.

Empirically, the super-gold you have had is HAVINGNESS.

Since havingness wasn’t a super-super-gold (for I could see that it itself was an aberration) I continued to look for higher levels of entrance into the problem and so bypassed havingness and even forgot about it for a while — with resultant case chaos. When havingness is neglected, cases do not improve, that’s all there is to it.

Well, amongst all havingnesses, what is the super-gold process? There is one. It is not very fast, it is terribly certain, it does not fail in our experience and its gains are permanent. It is a process known as the Terrible Trio.

Given that, an auditor can put the question, acknowledge, originate, take care of originated comm and in general perform WELL all the primary auditing procedures (as different than techniques) and given that an auditor isn’t simply trying to overwhelm the preclear, the Terrible Trio can then pull up any case if run long enough. You understand, of course, that any TECHNIQUE depends upon the PROCEDURE of auditing. Auditors who have techniques fail on them often are at fault in HOW they audit and no matter how many thousand techniques were given them they’d still fail. Procedures are learned by dummy auditing for scores of hours on end. Then techniques work. (See, we’ve even cracked that major problem of building “insight” and skill into the auditor, the biggest variable of old-time practices! My, how we’ve come along.)

The Terrible Trio stole its name from three people in Scientology, United States against whom a famous (infamous) organization recently stacked its combined talents and lost with violence. The first “Terrible Trio” were Sanborn — Barrett — Steves. When I gave the triple havingness process to the staff auditors working under Julia Lewis in the HGC, somebody there, sensing its effectiveness, dubbed it the Terrible Trio.

Now I know all that is very informal, as is this whole article, but ‘‘scientific papers” as collected by the Ford Foundation and the Department of Sewage of New York are always supposed to have a historical section to tell where it all came from, and I’m simply being formal, you see.

The commands of the Terrible Trio are “Look around the room and tell me what you could have.” “Look around the room and tell me what you would let remain.” And, “Look around the room and tell me what you could dispense with” (run as “Look around the room and tell me with what you could dispense” in Boston and Devon).

These commands are run in ratio. It is not how LONG the process is run, it is how long it requires to finally flatten each command so that any of the three could be run indefinitely without upset to the preclear. The first ratio, to be safe, should be 20 times on the first command, five times on the second and one on the third. This ratio should then be improved gradually, i.e. 10, 8 and 2, then 10, 10 and 4.

At all times the auditor should watch for anaten or agitation (the two A’s of auditing) and if these occur, he has gone too fast OR has made, in the preclear’s opinion, a code break of some sort. If it isn’t the fault of the ratio used, it’s a code break and one should say, “What have I done wrong?” to the preclear; the pc may fish about for several minutes and finally recall that five minutes ago he felt repressed by the auditor in some way.

By advancing the ratio too fast is meant running the second question too long or the third question too long (too many times) without returning to the first, which is the most innocent question. However, one CAN run the first too long without advancing the ratio.

ONLY when the preclear can run any of these without consequence for many, many times, can one then be sure that the process i9 flat. ONLY when it is ENTIRELY

flat inside a room should one attempt to run it outside a room, for the great space of the outdoors on this process is staggering to a preclear with a chronic somatic. The Terrible Trio run too soon outside can make a preclear VERY ill.

Here we have the most tested and vital process in Scientology. There are more advanced processes but they are not yet tested. The Terrible Trio has ALWAYS given a gain in the auditing room, properly audited. It was the Terrible Trio which saved the day when staff auditors were fighting back to security in handling havingness (for there was a short period in the U.S. when, with havingness abandoned, no real gains were had, a condition which I had to explore, fight and whip fast.)

It must be remembered that the PROCEDURE of the auditor must be good before the techniques used by the auditor work uniformly well. Thus the Terrible Trio must be run with exact attention to the rudiments. A pc out of session even though “being audited” won’t improve.

Oddly enough, this process can be self-audited, according to reports, making it about the only self-auditing process possible outside of Self Analysis (which still works).

Well, there you are.


It will be good news to old dyed-in-the-engram Dianeticists (who are still convinced that I REALLY had something in Dianetics) that I haven’t forgotten them or the subject.

Dianetics suddenly revived on a discovery I made lately in an area where one would have thought no further discovery was possible.

The entire subject of games brought to life some new material. The recent brief resume in Operational Bulletin 17 on games is as important to us as it is brief. It tells us that there is a central motif on any dynamic which indicates the difference between self- determinism and pan-determinism. One is a master of any game which he can give non- partisanship, in other words, to play both sides. He is committed to any game (self- determinism) in which he can play but one side. Team play occurs in a game when one is playing one side of it. But total pan-determinism would be the ability to play any side or as part of any team, being capable of playing any and all levels of any dynamic.

But what is important here is that games are “overwhelmings.” As a person begins to be unwilling to overwhelm he, of course, begins to be unwilling to win and so loses pan-determinism and sinks into self-determinism. Games are, for our auditing purposes, “contests in overwhelmings.” The primary overwhelming is to take space. Even in sedentary chess the goal is to take space and the game ends with a certain space, identified incidentally by the occupying piece, being overwhelmed but not entered. This very wise game of chess, of course, really nails it since no one can REALLY overwhelm a thing without space, a thetan. Chess ends with the space commanded, the opposing king untaken, only “overwhelmed.” Thus life can be said to be a contest of “overwhelmings.” The use of force, space, pieces, problems, strategy and tactics all resolve into the simple idea of “overwhelmed.” A war and a business differ only in overwhelming by the use of force by the former, and of advertising and products by the latter.

A teammate is someone who assists in the overwhelming of the enemy.

Aberration is mainly the overwhelming of teammates (wrong target).

When one views life as a complexity of attempts to overwhelm he begins to understand it rather well. Two people may be playing many games, some between them, some with others. They are opponents in some things, teammates in others. They succeed in the ratio that they can define their games AND overwhelm the proper enemy for each game. Marriages fail only because the games get confused between husband and wife.

All right, seeing that, let’s now look at Dianetics again. The engram was overwhelming the preclear. By auditing it with Dianetic techniques we let the preclear overwhelm the engram — PROVIDING we as auditors weren’t simply using Dianetics to overwhelm preclears. Read over the things that make auditing possible in 1 947’s Original Thesis. The truth was there, the underlying reasons why were not.

Very well, if we were trying to overwhelm engrams, WHAT were we trying to defeat? The definition of an engram has been “a moment of pain and unconsciousness.” This should be more technically expressed as “an energy-spatial picture representing a moment of pain and unconsciousness and containing perceptics.”

Well, what is this new discovery? It is an added bit that engrams contained MORE IMPORTANT than pain and unconsciousness. That added bit can be briefly stated as “the moment of shock.” “The moment of shock” is that period of realization by body and thetan that an overwhelming has occurred.

As I have said, an overwhelming does not consist of space, energy, pieces et al. It is the IDEA that an overwhelming has occurred. The winner is convinced (sometimes wrongly, as when World War I became World War II) that he has overwhelmed the opposing player. The loser is convinced that he has been overwhelmed.

By the mechanics of the overt act-motivator sequence a person doing a lot of overwhelming sometimes regrets having done so. Sometimes the overwhelmed (very commonly) takes the winning valence, becomes the person or object he has been overwhelmed by. So if one wins he often regrets it (the matched terminal phenomena is at work here) and when he loses he sometimes becomes the winner in person.

Here we have the proposition that one can win too often or lose too often. In Dianetics where does this fit? It fits as the moment of idea of an overwhelming.

Bloody and wreckaged, some battlers yet do not get the idea they are whipped. The engram received is then not effective against them. Almost untouched, some believe they have been overwhelmed and thus a tiny lock assumes the value of a big engram.

Some people playing against another assume too rapidly they have won; they achieve the idea that they have done an overwhelming. Indeed it is an old tactic to make the enemy think he has won and then knock him flat: not Queensbury but effective. When this last has occurred a “winner” becomes suspicious of having overwhelmed and is liable to become too anxious. Indeed he can become so unsettled about overwhelming others that at length he has to prove it to himself with stiff corpses and nothing short will serve. And a “winner” can become more anxious than this, as most people have now become; he can suppose that no evidence of having overwhelmed others is valid and so he shuns the idea of having overwhelmed. To start to win anything sets up an anxiety which brings about a counter-postulate in him. Restimulating locks and engrams of anxiety, he becomes uncertain and indefinite. Shame, blame, regret occur at the very thought of a win. Why? He cannot get the idea of overwhelming another with any positiveness. Thus he may go through life winning on every hand and feel a completely defeated failure; no evidence is valid to him that he has overwhelmed anything; he has to get big, try harder; but the cancer stays with him and he finally concludes all is defeat.

The usual freedom-monger, the agitator, in his unreasoning and damaging insistence on no rules or barriers anywhere, is able to achieve only a no-game condition. He got that way because he cannot feel a win is possible. At the same time he may be complicated by a certainty that he himself is being defeated at every hand, no matter the evidence. Thus he has to assume more and more vicious and convincing roles until at last there’s shooting in the streets. Thus the regicides of France could not be free even when they had murdered their king and had killed all their nobility; they were so unconvinced that they had won that they promptly lost by setting up Napoleon as an emperor. Dead, the king and nobility had still won in the minds of the French radicals BECAUSE the radicals could not get the idea of having overwhelmed.

In the field of engrams this becomes important. It means that engrams vanish, erase rapidly WHEN the preclear regains the ability to HAVE THE IDEA that he has won and that he has lost. This explains the mysterious efficacy of Rising Scale Processing as developed in the very last days of Dianetic research. It also explains why many preclears could not run an engram. It also explains why my earliest technique of giving small wins over locks turned on sonic and visio. It also explains why some auditors were not successful: They could not let a pc overwhelm anything and they themselves had to overwhelm the pc and used engrams to do it. The auditors did not know they were doing this — they were the first to be heartbroken about case failures; it was just that a subtle factor was at work, more powerful than the pain and unconsciousness of the engram.

Well, that’s stripping it pretty bare. But there’s more to the subject and I will be covering it later on.

The research of Dianetics and Scientology still has its exciting moments. At least WE’RE winning.