“An Overview of Scientology” banner

Scientology® pages index  |  Contact

David Mayo project (4):
  ‘Training Routines’ (TR's), with notes on auditor training
    (part of ‘SO ED 2344 Int’ analysis)

(to other Scientology pages)

>> Do you want to help with preserving the original technology? <<  Consult my want list here !

Please note that words with an asterisk (*) are defined at the bottom of this page! Only first appearances are indicated.

         (from ‘Ability 290’, [Jan 76]: “Start the New Year with training”)

 
“Attempt to Wreck Auditor Training”?

I came to look into this as part of my analysis of ‘SO ED 2344 Int’, 20 Aug 83 “The Story of a Squirrel: David Mayo”. In the section of this SO ED entitled SUPPRESSIVE ACTS it is summarized as:
        
“...; altered several TRs HCOBs so as to jam the progress of auditor trainees up the Bridge; ...”
        
Investigated is here if the accusations made in this SO ED that are directed towards the person David Mayo could be deemed being correct.

 
Index:

Professional TR's removed as a prerequisite for Academy Levels
                 - HCOB/PL 13 Sept 81 “Academy Levels Prerequisites”
- History of Level 0 prerequisites:  Overview  &  Chronological summary list
- The ‘Method One Word Clearing’ predicament
- The ‘Class VI Auditor’ consideration  (SHSBC Graduate)
‘Training Routines Remodernized’
        - Brief pre history to ‘Training Routines (Re)Modernized’
- HCOB 16 Aug 71RA II (Rev 4 Sept 80) “Training Drills Remodernized” (1)  TR 0-4
- HCOB 16 Aug 71RA II (Rev 4 Sept 80) “Training Drills Remodernized” (2)  Additional chapters
Additional references on TR's
    (Analysis of HCOB/PL 23 Sept 79 “Cancellation of Destructive BTBs and BPLs on TRs”, HCOB 18 Apr 80 “TR Criticism” & HCO PL 17 Jun 81 “Hubbard Professional TRs Course Checksheet”)
Final notes concerning the findings



 
Back to Main Index Professional TR's removed as a prerequisite for Academy Levels


HCOB/PL 13 Sept 81 “Academy Levels Prerequisites”
           - Situation and evaluation
- Solution
- Things may not always be what they seem at first sight (incl. History of Professional TR's Course prerequisites)
History of Academy Level 0 prerequisites (1)  Overview
History of Academy Level 0 prerequisites (2)  Chronological summary list
    (listing of Dianetics checksheets has been included on this summary list)
The ‘Method One Word Clearing’ predicament
The ‘Class VI Auditor’ consideration  (SHSBC Graduate)

In the section of ‘SO ED 2344 Int’, 20 Aug 83 “The Story of a Squirrel: David Mayo” entitled: ATTEMPT TO WRECK AUDITOR TRAINING it says:
        
“... it was found that Mayo had tried to sabotage the training side of the Bridge by removing the Professional TRs as a prerequisite to professional auditor training, and issuing policy stating that auditors were not to do their TR training until after Class IV:
        
             
‘That blank Mayo and company cancelled out the Pro TR Course as a requisite to a professional auditor.’
             
   
‘This hits squarely at the most fundamental thing in auditing that you could hit at:  The TR course.’   (LRH)
   
   
–––––
   
   
‘In other words, this Pro TRs Course was a key point which was carefully and cleverly removed.’
   
   
‘Mayo could not have done a more vicious thing than that.’   (LRH)”
   

 
Go back HCOB/PL 13 Sept 81 “Academy Levels Prerequisites”

In HCOB/PL 8 Aug 83 “Cancellation of Issues on TRs” it is phrased as follows:
        
“HCO PL 13 Sep 81, Issue I, ACADEMY LEVELS PREREQUISITES. This issue destructively placed the Professional TR Course, a vital tool in the training of auditors, after the Level 4 Interneship! This had the effect of denying to beginning auditors the benefit of TRs taught rough, tough and hard, as required at auditor training levels and as covered in HCOB 16 Aug 71R, TRAINING DRILLS REMODERNIZED.”
        

 
Go back Situation and evaluation

The SO ED makes clear that it refers here to HCO PL 13 Sept 81 “Academy Levels Prerequisites” (also issued as HCOB same date and title). It certainly does make statements about changing some prerequisites. This HCO PL argues as follows:  (underlining is mine)
        
“We have had the datum for some time that a student too long on the runway is going to lose the spark and zeal he started out with.
        
 
A student auditor about to start his Academy Levels who first has to do a long list of prerequisites would undoubtedly lose some enthusiasm and possibly never even start.
 
 
The runway onto Academy Level 0 currently includes a Student Hat, Purification RD, Survival RD, possibly a Drug RD and a Professional TRs Course. That's approximately 2 to 3 months full time of runway just to get on to Level 0!”
 

In which “The prerequisites for the Professional TRs Course are” listed as Purification Rundown, Survival Rundown or full Objectives, “A Drug Rundown (not mandatory but is done as needed as a remedy for student difficulties on course per HCOB 18 Apr 80 TR CRITICISM.)” & Student Hat (underlining is mine).

It can be seen that this Professional TR's Course is responsible for adding a whole variety of prerequisites.

Not enough with that, it also notes an additional prerequisite which one needs to have been done prior to actually finishing Academy Level 0:
        
“Method One Word Clearing is mandatory for any Scientology Auditor and is to be done during or before the first major technical course (excluding the New Era Dianetics Course). Ref: HCO PL 25 Sep 79R II, Rev. 3 Oct 80 METHOD ONE WORD CLEARING.
        
 
A Level 0 student would therefore have to have Method One Word Clearing before he could be certified on that Level.”
 

 
Go back Solution

Therefore HCO PL 13 Sept 81 “Academy Levels Prerequisites” decided: “New prerequisites have therefore been worked out geared to shorten the take off.”:
        
“A student auditor may now start Level 0 after completion of the Student Hat and any TRs Course. Examples of a TRs Course would include the HAS Course (How to Achieve Effective Communication) or TRs as taught on the Survival RD Co-Audit, etc.”
        
It is summarized as follows: “Per this HCO Policy Letter, the Professional TRs Course is now done after the Level 4 Internship and is a prerequisite for auditor training above that level.”

Now, who was responsible for this change? HCO PL 13 Sept 81 “Academy Levels Prerequisites” notes ‘Assisted by Snr C/S Int’ and the composer/typing initials say ‘BDCSC:LRH:DM:dr’. This definitely denotes David Mayo as at least being involved.

It should be noted here that David Mayo in fact did advocate Professional TR's (aka Hard TR's) as a prerequisite also for the Academy Levels as can be seen in HCOB/PL 23 Sept 79 “Cancellation of Destructive BTBs and BPLs on TRs” in where “HCO PL 4 Nov 71, II, ACADEMY PREREQUISITES” is cancelled because it “omitted mention of the Hard TRs Course as an Academy prerequisite, as a result of which the Hard TRs Course was dropped out of the training for auditors.”.So, it had “dropped out” of use, and David Mayo acted to get it back in again as early as September 1979.This HCO PL also tells: “A Hard TRs Course is essential to the ability to audit at any level of auditing.”.

The SO ED claims that David Mayo issued this HCO PL 23 Sept 79 which is then acknowledging the involvement of David Mayo with that release. Although this issue itself only noted the typing initials ‘dm’ which may stand for David Mayo. Quote from SO ED: “... Mayo's issue (PL of 13 Sept 81, ACADEMY LEVELS PREREQUISITES) has been cancelled along with the other write ups that he'd put out on this subject, by HCO PL 8 Aug 83, CANCELLATION OF ISSUES ON TRs.” (HCO PL 23 Sept 79 was cancelled by this HCO PL 8 Aug 83).

 
Go back Things may not always be what they seem at first sight

Now, let's dig a little deeper. As we have seen in the previous it was primarily this Professional TR's Course that was responsible for the lengthening of time prior to even starting on Level 0. HCOB/PL 13 Sept 81 “Academy Levels Prerequisites” said: “The runway onto Academy Level 0 currently includes a Student Hat, Purification RD, Survival RD, possibly a Drug RD and a Professional TRs Course. That's approximately 2 to 3 months full time of runway just to get on to Level 0!”.

Alright, this Professional TR's Course had put the Purification RD, Survival RD, and a possible Drug RD there. But this is as per the Professional TR's Course that also came about in the time of reign of David Mayo, which is HCO PL 17 Jun 81 “Hubbard Professional TR's Course Checksheet”, that was issued just 3 months prior to the release of the issue that changed these Academy Level Prerequisites (HCOB/PL 13 Sept 81). The previous checksheet in use was BPL 8 Apr 75 (Corrected per BPL 8 Apr 75-1 Addition of 22 Jun 75) “TRs and Objectives Course Checksheet” which notes no prerequisites although one may not be in the middle of any major auditor action.

The Student Hat prerequisite?  This became standard per BPL 18 Oct 76 “Successful Training Lineup”, although ‘Ability 292 minor’, Mar 76 already notes it as a prerequisite.
The Method One Word Clearing prerequisite?  This is confirmed a standard per BPL 26 Jan 72R (Rev 11 Oct 74) IV “Level 0 VSheet” being a prerequisite, although it may have been as early as HCO PL 26 Jan 72 (unverified as yet).

So, David Mayo did put the Professional TR's Course there as a prerequisite, which was also new. This course all by itself at “Full Time” would take “10 days to 2 weeks” to complete.

Now that we know all this in my opinion it all gets a little bit more suspect.

All of a sudden the below quoted lines do not appear so convincing anymore as they first seemed:
        
“We have had the datum for some time that a student too long on the runway is going to lose the spark and zeal he started out with.
        
 
A student auditor about to start his Academy Levels who first has to do a long list of prerequisites would undoubtedly lose some enthusiasm and possibly never even start.
 
 
The runway onto Academy Level 0 currently includes a Student Hat, Purification RD, Survival RD, possibly a Drug RD and a Professional TRs Course. That's approximately 2 to 3 months full time of runway just to get on to Level 0!”
         (from HCO PL 13 Sept 81 “Academy Levels Prerequisites”)
 

 
History of Professional TR's Course prerequisites

  
   Cancelled & Replaced by:   Prerequisites noted: 
 HCO PL 24 May 71 “Professional TR Course OR Real TRs The Hard Way for All Scientologists”  BPL 8 Apr 75  ?
 BPL 8 Apr 75 (Corrected per BPL 8 Apr 75-1 Addition of 22 Jun 75) “TRs and Objectives Course Checksheet”  no info found “C/S OK (reference C/S Series 38)”
(see at HCO PL 7 Aug 83 in this table for note about C/S Series 38)
 ‘SO ED 737 Int’, 24 Nov 76 “Tech TRs Course” (in use at least till January 1978)  no info found  “may not be receiving auditing while on this course, in the middle of an incomplete auditing action, ..., or in the non-interference zone”
 HCO PL 17 Jun 81 “Hubbard Professional TR's Course Checksheet”  HCO PL 7 Aug 83      
(also cancelled by HCO PL 8 Aug 83 “Cancellation of Issues on TRs”)
“Purification Rundown (mandatory)
  Survival Rundown (mandatory)
  A Drug Rundown (not mandatory but is done as needed as a remedy for students difficulties on course per HCOB 18 Apr 80 TR CRITICISM)”
 HCO PL 7 Aug 83 “Hubbard Professional TR Course Checksheet”  HCO PL 7 Aug 83R “None.
  (Note: Student must not be in the middle of a major auditing action. Ref: HCOB 26 May 71, C/S Series 38, TRS COURSE AND AUDITING, MIXING MAJOR ACTIONS.)”
 HCO PL 7 Aug 83R (Rev 1 Nov 89) “The Hubbard Professional TR Course”  HCO PL 7 Aug 83RA  ?
 HCO PL 7 Aug 83RA (Rev 25 Apr 96) “The New Hubbard Professional TR Course”  HCO PL 7 Aug 83RB  ?
 HCO PL 7 Aug 83RB (Rev 10 Sept 98) “Hubbard Professional TR Course Checksheet”  presently in use  ?

 
Go back History of Academy Level 0 prerequisites (1)  Overview

This prerequisite the Professional TR's Course has been proposed as a “key point”, the “most fundamental thing in auditing” (from SO ED) and “a vital tool in the training of auditors” (from HCOB/PL 8 Aug 83 “Cancellation of Issues on TRs”). Then, we should see this reflected in the various releases such as checksheets, Grade Charts and so on.

The Expanded Lower Auditing Grades (Grades 0 through IV), aka Academy Levels 0-IV were released on 25 June ’70 (as per ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1992 edition), see page 642). The first Standard Academy Checksheets for Levels 0-IV were released 30 June-4 July 1970. The Grade Chart issued in June 1970 indicates at Level 0: “No prerequisites”. Early Academy Prerequisites we would also find in HCO PL 4 Nov 71 II “Academy Prerequisites”. I have not been able to locate a copy of this reference although we do know of some of the things that it says because of the reference that is cancelling it, which is HCOB/PL 23 Sept 79 “Cancellation of Destructive BTBs and BPLs on TRs”. It confirms that it “omitted mention of the Hard TRs Course as an Academy prerequisite”.

In October 1974 the prerequisites for Level 0 were: “(1) Word Clearing Method 1 with all words taken to FN. (2) Applied Scholastics Basic Study Manual (Unless the student has already done a non-superliterate Student Hat or PRD & M1 with each word fully cleared to FN.)” (as per BPL 26 Jan 72R IV (Revised 11 Oct 74) “Scientology Level 0 Standard Academy Checksheet”). It can be seen that this particular checksheet does not actually list any TR's Course as a prerequisite. This is also confirmed in ‘Ability 292 minor’, Mar 76 and even as late as in ‘Ability 317 major’, Aug 78 that makes no mention of any TR's Course.

Above checksheet was later cancelled by and replaced with HCO PL 22 Sept 78 I “same title”. This new checksheet still does not even note any TR's Course as a prerequisite, it only notes the Student Hat.
Then we see that HCOB/PL 23 Sept 79 “Cancellation of Destructive BTBs and BPLs on TRs” & HCO PL 25 Sept 79 I “Successful Training Lineup” are promoting the Pro TR's Course as a prerequisite. We also find this indicated on the Grade Chart in use since December 1980.
The first revision HCO PL 22 Sept 78R (Revised 5 Jan 82) I “same title” then had its prerequisites adjusted as per HCO PL 13 Sept 81 “Academy Levels Prerequisites”. Thus does note Any TR's Course as a prerequisite.

HCO PL 22 Sept 78RB (Revised 21 Nov 87) I “Scientology Level 0 Standard Academy Checksheet Hubbard Recognized Scientologist (HRS)” list the prerequisites as: “1. The Student Hat; 2. A Professional TR Course; 3. Method One Word Clearing”. This may already have been incorporated in the RA version (release date unknown) of above HCO PL, although I have not been able as yet to consult a copy of it. Does anyone have this, please contact me!

Questions arise when we examine the track of these prerequisites for Level 0, as we positively can determine that even as late as September 1978/1st half of 1979 not even any kind of TR Course was named anywhere as a requirement prior to commencing on it. We also have to keep in mind that HCO PL 4 Nov 71 II “Academy Prerequisites” the issue that “omitted mention of the Hard TRs Course as an Academy prerequisite” was at least theoretically in use and valid as it was not taken out of circulation earlier than 1979 this by HCOB/PL 23 Sept 79 “Cancellation of Destructive BTBs and BPLs on TRs”.
Considering this would it then be plausible that L. Ron Hubbard would state (as quoted in the SO ED) that “‘this Pro TRs Course was a key point which was carefully and cleverly removed.’” (underlining is mine), when not even any TR's Course was in vogue at least as late as at least half 1979? And would it in addition be plausible that L. Ron Hubbard would state (as quoted in the SO ED) that “‘Mayo could not have done a more vicious thing than that.’”, when this prerequisite only since quite recent was enforced and put as an actual requirement?

 
Go back History of Academy Level 0 prerequisites (2)  Chronological summary list
(listing of Dianetics checksheets has been included on this summary list)

It can be seen in this list that both the Professional TR's Course and Method One Word Clearing were actively pushed back into use by David Mayo in September 1979. HCOB/PL 23 Sept 79 “Cancellation of Destructive BTBs and BPLs on TRs” was attributed to David Mayo by the SO ED, it also bears the typing initials ‘dm’. HCO PL 25 Sept 79 I “Successful Training Lineup” was written by him, bearing the composer initials ‘DM’.
 (Note: the ones marked with a ‘?’ I have been unable to consult, if you have data on these, please contact me!)

  
                                                                                                      Prerequisites noted:
 HCO PL 1 Dec 69 “HSDC VSheet” (Dianetics) “None”
 Grade Charts up to Dec 70 “No Prerequisites”
 HCO PL 30 Jun 70 “Level 0 VSheet”   ?
HCO PL 28 Apr 71 “HSDC VSheet” Student Hat Course
 HCO PL 30 Sep 71 “Level 0 VSheet”
  ?
(HCO PL 4 Nov 71 II “Academy Prerequisites” makes no mention of the Hard TRs Course as an Academy prerequisite as per HCOB/PL 23 Sept 79 “Cancellation of Destructive BTBs and BPLs on TRs”)
 HCO PL 26 Jan 72 IV “Level 0 VSheet”   ?
HCO PL 28 Apr 71 (Rev 14 may 73) “HSDC VSheet” Student Hat Course

HCO PL 31 Aug 74 “Fast Flow Training Reinstated” notes: “The Primary RD is suspended as a prerequisite for all Academy Courses. The only prerequisites are the Applied Scholastics Basic Study Manual”.
BPL 18 Oct 76 “Successful Training Lineup” notes about this August 1974 HCO PL: “It has been additionally found that the erroneous requirement of BSM before Academy contained in the above HCO PL had introduced a training cutative by taking the Student Hat and Study Tapes out of the training line-up.”.

 BPL 10 Oct 74 “HSDC VSheet” Basic Study Manual or a Student Hat
 BPL 26 Jan 72R (Rev 11 Oct 74) IV “Level 0 VSheet” “(1) Word Clearing Method 1 with all words
taken to FN.
  (2) Applied Scholastics Basic Study Manual (Unless the student has already done a non-superliterate Student Hat or PRD & M1 with each word fully cleared to FN.)” 
 Grade Chart, Jan 75  HSDC Basic Study Manual
 Level 0 Basic Study Manual and M1 Word Clearing
 BPL 26 Jan 72RA (Rev 7 Jul 75) IV “Level 0 VSheet”   ?
 BPL 10 Oct 74R (Rev 8 Jul 75) “HSDC VSheet”   ?
‘Ability 292 minor’, Mar 76 Student Hat
  Method One Word Clearing

BPL 18 Oct 76 “Successful Training Lineup” notes: “The prerequisites for Major Courses and Academy training are Student Hat and Method 1 Word Clearing. BSM as an Academy prerequisite is abolished.”. They were “fully reinstated by this BPL”.
Although ‘Ability 292 minor’ (in the previous entry) already does note them in Mar 76.

 BPL 10 Oct 74RA (Rev 2 Dec 76) “HSDC VSheet” “The Student Hat
 BPL 26 Jan 72RB  (Rev 7 Dec 76) IV “Level 0 VSheet”   ?
 BPL 26 Jan 72RC (Rev 25 Mar 77) IV “Level 0 VSheet”   ?
 BPL 31 Mar 77 I “HSDC VSheet” “The Student Hat” and “Basic Dianetic Books Checksheet” (= BPL 31 Mar 77 III)
BPL 18 Oct 76RC (Rev 14 Jun 77) “Successful Training Lineup” still does list both the ‘Student Hat’ and ‘Method One Word Clearing’ as prerequisites.
 BPL 26 Jan 72RC (23 Feb 78) IV “Level 0 VSheet (pilot)”   ?
 HCO PL 6 Jul 78 “NED VSheet” (Dianetics) “The Student Hat
‘Ability 317 major’, Aug 78 Student Hat

BPL 18 Oct 76RD (Rev 10 Sept 78) “Successful Training Lineup” dropped Method One Word Clearing from training line-up. It notes: “The prerequisites for Major Courses, the New Era Dianetics Course and Academy training is Student Hat. ...”.
‘Ability 317 major’ (see previous entry) does indicate this already for the foregoing month (Aug 78).

 HCO PL 22 Sept 78 I “Level 0 VSheet” “The Student Hat.”
 Grade Chart, (Jun-Sept) 78
(as found in ‘What Is Scientology?’, Dec 78 edition, 2nd edition of 1979 is identical)
Student Hat
HCOB/PL 23 Sept 79 “Cancellation of Destructive BTBs and BPLs on TRs” notes that HCO PL 4 Nov 71 II “Academy Prerequisites” “omitted mention of the Hard TRs Course as an Academy prerequisite” )
HCO PL 25 Sept 79 I “Successful Training Lineup” notes: “BPL 18 Oct 76RD, Rev. 10.9.78 Urgent Important, Successful Training Lineup is canceled because it dropped Method One Word Clearing out of training. It sought to solve students on academy courses being held up due to incomplete Method One, by no longer requiring Method One. As a result Method One Word Clearing dropped out of use and academy students and interns are now being delayed in training because they haven't had Method One. The ‘problem’ of incomplete Method One isn't even a problem, all one would have to do is complete the Method One!
  Method One Word Clearing is now being reinstated by HCO PL 25 Sep 79 II Method One Word Clearing.”
 Grade Chart, (Dec) 80 Student Hat (also preferably New Era Dianetic Auditor)
  Professional TRs
(note:  Method One Word Clearing Course is listed prior to Class 0 Auditor on this chart)

HCOB/PL 13 Sept 81 “Academy Levels Prerequisites” notes: “A student auditor may now start Level 0 after completion of the Student Hat and any TRs Course.”

 HCO PL 22 Sept 78R (Rev 5 Jan 82) I “Level 0 VSheet” “The Student Hat.
  Any TRs Course, such as the Success Through Communication Course, the HAS Course (How To Achieve Effective Communication), or TRs as taught on the Survival RD Co-Audit, etc.
 Method One Word Clearing is a requirement for certification on Level Zero and is to be done wither prior to starting the checksheet or immediately after finishing the course, prior to certification. (Ref. HCO PL 13 Sep 81, ACADEMY LEVELS PREREQUISITES, and HCO PL 25 Sep 79R II, Rev. 3.10.80, METHOD ONE WORD CLEARING)”
 Grade Chart (Temporary Issue), (Mar-Apr) 82 Basic Study Manual or Student Hat, any TRs Course
 HCO PL 22 Sept 78RA (Rev 19 Nov 84) I “Level 0 VSheet”   ?
 Grade Chart, 1983 Student Hat
  Pro TR Course
  Method One
 HCO PL 22 Sept 78RB (Rev 21 Nov 87) I “Level 0 VSheet” “1. The Student Hat
  2. A Professional TR Course
  3. Method One Word Clearing

(Method One Word Clearing is a prerequisite for training at this level, except where waived by a qualified C/S as covered in HCO PL 25 Sept. 79RB 11, Rev. 1.7.85, METHOD ONE WORD CLEARING.)”

 
Go back The ‘Method One Word Clearing’ predicament

As per the above list Method One Word Clearing is confirmed being a prerequisite at least during October 1974 to early September 1978. (but probably already since January 1972)

Then BPL 18 Oct 76RD (Revised 10 Sept 78) “Successful Training Lineup” dropped Method One Word Clearing from the training line-up.

One year later David Mayo put it back in while issuing HCO PL 25 Sept 79 I “Successful Training Lineup”. It says:
        
“BPL 18 Oct 76RD, Rev. 10.9.78 Urgent Important, Successful Training Lineup is canceled because it dropped Method One Word Clearing out of training. It sought to solve students on academy courses being held up due to incomplete Method One, by no longer requiring Method One. As a result Method One Word Clearing dropped out of use and academy students and interns are now being delayed in training because they haven't had Method One. The ‘problem’ of incomplete Method One isn't even a problem, all one would have to do is complete the Method One!
        
 
Method One Word Clearing is now being reinstated by HCO PL 25 Sep 79 II Method One Word Clearing.”
 

Above issue was cancelled in 1983 by HCO PL 25 Sept 79 I (Cancelled 30 Aug 83) “Successful Training Lineup Cancelled”. It gives as reason:
        
“This issue, written by another, is hereby CANCELLED. ...
        
 
In a recent review of issues on the subject of training it came to light that this issue contained a number of ‘curves’ which had blocked the training Bridge to a large number of students.
 
 
This PL and HCO PL 25 Sep 79 Issue II, METHOD ONE WORD CLEARING (another falsely signed issue, since cancelled and replaced) restricted Academy training to those who had completed Method One Word Clearing. For those students who were unable to obtain C/S OK to get Method One due to being in the middle of other major auditing actions (such as, for example, a Drug Rundown) this meant that they must wait for an undetermined length of time before they could do any Academy training at all! This is, of course, directly 180 degrees contrary to what I have been advising all Scientologists to do for years now — GET TRAINED!!”  (attributed to have been written by L. Ron Hubbard)
 

Now, how was this dealt with during 1974-78 when this Method One Word Clearing was also listed as a prerequisite? Were students in that time period then also being stalled? It may have been so that there was no particular restriction doing the Method One Word Clearing while doing some “major auditing action”, may be, I don't know. As a comparison it was true already in 1971 that the Professional TR's Course required a ‘C/S ok’ as per the checksheet, referred is then to HCOB 26 May 71 “TRs Course and Auditing, Mixing Major Actions”.

All that David Mayo theoretically can be blamed for is putting the Method One Word Clearing back in as a prerequisite after it had been dropped out since September 1978. This is all that HCO PL 25 Sept 79 I “Successful Training Lineup” actually did. Now, was this a bad thing to do?

If in this interim it became an issue that one could not do Method One Word Clearing while on some “major auditing action”, then why was it not solved as easily as it was solved in 1983?
        
“HCO PL 25 Sep 79, Issue II, METHOD ONE WORD CLEARING has been replaced by HCO PL 25 Sep 79R, Issue II (same title). This new PL stresses the vital importance of Method One for any student, but does provide, for those who cannot obtain a C/S OK for Method One, to do their training starrated and take exams to graduate.”
(from HCO PL 25 Sept 79 I (Cancelled 30 Aug 83) “Successful Training Lineup Cancelled”)
        
Method One Word Clearing does remain being a prerequisite to this day.

The above may indicate that it was incorrect to blame David Mayo as the culprit in where some “must wait for an undetermined length of time before they could do any Academy training at all!”. If anyone has information or referencing that may indicate that I am in error about this, then please guide me to it!

Then this cancelling HCO PL had claimed that “this issue contained a number of ‘curves’ which had blocked the training Bridge to a large number of students.”. If one would denote this as being a ‘curve’, then what are the other “‘curves’” (as in plural) in this particular reference all about? The cancelling HCO PL does not tell.

The word “‘curves’” also turns up in the SO ED and is used in the following context:
        
“‘... In a case of this character, you would expect to find sneakers of one sort or another, little curves that would turn up later to wreck things. ...’   (LRH)”
        

 
Go back The ‘Class VI Auditor’ consideration  (SHSBC Graduate)

In where a Class V Auditor (Academy Level 5) “reviews all the classes (0 to IV) and retrains where necessary and awards permanent classification for all the lower certificates as well as Class V.”  (from ‘Dianetics and Scientology, Technical Dictionary’).

A consideration has to be made here also regarding that prior to becoming a full-fledged auditor it requires you to have done the Class VI Auditor Course (Academy Level 6), which means a graduate of the SHSBC (Saint Hill Special Briefing Course). Basically the Academy Levels 0 to 4 are bits and pieces taken from this SHSBC. This SHSBC though takes quite some time to complete. It was in vogue that if you were a Clear you had the choice to skip these Levels 0 to 4 and start on the SHSBC right away, although it will then require you to have done this Professional TR Course prior to commencing on it. Would you have first done these Levels 0 to 4, then the SHSBC will be a retread of these materials either way. The Levels 0 to 4 in a sense could be looked upon as quicky levels and they also match/address the Grades 0 to 4 (as achieved by the receiver of auditing), which has the advantage that one easily can twin up with some person and audit one another on the Grades as one completes these auditor Levels. One could also look upon them as a gradient prior to commencing on the SHSBC. Briefly then the Grades 0 to 4 were created to basically enabling you to get quickly going and right on target.

We find the below general comments and conclusions in the SO ED:
        
“‘What happened here in this mess Mayo created -- and very artfully I might add -- was that he involved basic policy with simply tactical considerations and altered basic policy and then tangled up the rest of it as well. It is typical of criminals that they can make a championship mess that is difficult to untangle.’   (LRH)”
        
The above we can now view in a new dimension of time with the information and analysis I provided previously.

Mr. Ray Mithoff follows up on these lines with “Nevertheless it was untangled, ...” after which it continues explaining what actions had been taken to correct all this. One of which was: “And the correct placement of the Pro TRs Course has been restored with the issuance of HCO PL 23 Jan 83, URGENT - IMPORTANT, AUDITOR TRAINING PREREQUISITE.”. Which reference did put “THE PROFESSIONAL TR COURSE” as “A PREREQUISITE FOR ALL PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR TRAINING COURSES BEGINNING WITH LEVEL 0 AND INCLUDING NED AUDITOR TRAINING AND ANY OR ALL AUDITOR TRAINING COURSES ABOVE THESE LEVELS.”. Following this it stated “This now becomes firm, irrevocable policy, borne out of the hard, cold truth recognized many years back that YOU CANNOT TRAIN AN AUDITOR WHO HAS NOT DONE A TRs COURSE.”, as if it had not been policy already prior to this at this point in time.

The 1978 Grade Chart did not note any TR Course for any Auditor Class as a prerequisite. The 1980 Grade Chart notes the Professional TR's Course only for a Class 0 Auditor/Academy Level 0 (of course prior to going on to Level 1 one needs to have done Level 0, there is no need to list this prerequisite for all Auditor Classes). The 1982 chart lists any TR Course for Level 0 and the Professional TR's Course is listed for a Class IV Graduate Auditor. Then the 1983 chart lists the Professional TR's Course as a prerequisite for each and every Auditor Class (Class 0 to Class XII).

Go to index

 
Back to Main Index ‘Training Routines Remodernized’
In the section of the SO ED entitled: ATTEMPT TO WRECK AUDITOR TRAINING it also says:
        
“‘I notice that Mr. SP Mayo, the darling of the psychs, rewrote HCOB TRAINING DRILLS REMODERNIZED. In a case of this character, you would expect to find sneakers of one sort or another, little curves that would turn up later to wreck things. ...’   (LRH)”
        

 
Go back Brief pre history ‘Training Routines (Re)Modernized’ 

This development of these so-called Training Routines (TR's) started in 1956 (TR 1-4), 1957 added TR 0. In 1961 they were ‘modernized’ with the release HCOB 17 Apr 61 “Training Drills Modernized”. It was revised reissued 5 Jan ’71 after which it was again revised issued as HCOB 21 Jun 71 III “same title”. A detailed overview of this is found here (separate window).

These Training Routines underwent another phase as they got ‘remodernized’ only 2 months later with the release HCOB 16 Aug 71 II “Training Drills Remodernized”. This was to replace “all other issues of TRs 0-4 in all packs and checksheets.”. There must have been some other persons involved in this or may have been used as a guide of some sort as the composer initials of this release denote ‘JR’ & ‘JS’, it is not revealed who these persons were (name wise nor post wise).
This release was revised in 1978 and issued as HCOB 16 Aug 71R II (Revised 5 Jul 78) “same title”. A few additions were implemented in TR 2 and totally new was TR 2½.

 
Go back HCOB 16 Aug 71RA II (Rev 4 Sept 80) “Training Drills Remodernized” (1)  TR 0-4)

So it is noted in the SO ED:
        
“‘I notice that Mr. ... Mayo, ... rewrote HCOB TRAINING DRILLS REMODERNIZED. ...’  (LRH)”
        
We would then expect to find some indication of the actual involvement of David Mayo. However in this reference itself we do not find any indication of that anywhere. The signing area of the HCOB only states ‘L. RON HUBBARD, FOUNDER’ and its composer/typing initials reveal ‘LRH:dr’.

The revision referred to in the SO ED was released in 1980 as HCOB 16 Aug 71RA II (Re-Revised 4 Sept 80) “same title”. The revision notes tell: “(This Bulletin has been revised to fully define TRs and to include data on the cycle of communication upon which the TRs are based.) (Revisions not in Script)”. And indeed the additions are quite extensive, although all these revisions/additions in my opinion could have easily been printed in script.

The changes incorporated in each of these Training Routines themselves are summarized as follows in this HCOB itself as can be seen in the below table:  (this text is found added in the HISTORY section of each Training Routine)

  
OT TR 0: “Further revised by L. Ron Hubbard in 1980 to clarify coaching of OT TR 0 and emphasize the drill as a gradient to actual confronting.”
TR 0 Confronting:  “Further revised in 1980 by L. Ron Hubbard to clarify ‘Blinkless TR 0’ and coaching, and to include theory on the communication cycle.”
TR 0 Bullbait: “Further revised by L. Ron Hubbard in 1980 to emphasize the purpose of TR 0 Bullbaited and to include data on ‘buttons’ and the comm cycle.”
TR 1: “Further revised by L. Ron Hubbard in 1980 to emphasize the purpose of the drill and to include theory on the comm cycle.”
TR 2: “Further revised by L. Ron Hubbard in 1980 to include theory on the comm cycle.”
TR 2½: “Revised by L. Ron Hubbard in 1980 to include theory on the comm cycle.”
TR 3: “Further revised by L. Ron Hubbard in 1980 to include the definition of Q and A, flunks for robotic delivery of question, and to include theory on the comm cycle.”
TR 4: “Further revised by L. Ron Hubbard in 1980 to include theory on the comm cycle.”

It is quite noteworthy that each and every one of them specifically note Further revised by L. Ron Hubbard in 1980, that is 8 times. When we then see that the SO ED positively states “‘I notice that Mr. SP Mayo, the darling of the psychs, rewrote HCOB TRAINING DRILLS REMODERNIZED. ...’  (LRH)”, then how easy would it not be to blow one's own cover? For, these Training Routines are a vital ingredient to auditing. Then if L. Ron Hubbard was not in reality responsible for these changes and additions, how much time could we figure would it take this to be discovered by L. Ron Hubbard? Would David Mayo not have been exposed rather quickly? In fact it took almost a whole 3 years to get it reversed! Why, why, why are we looking at such a long time factor? It simply doesn't make sense!
And how was it determined that David Mayo would have been responsible for this? Criminals or Suppressive Persons as such will not easily admit to crimes (if ever) or rather too easily (and not taking any responsibility for it). Either way you can not trust such a person telling the truth. So, how was the David Mayo involvement actually determined? We don't learn about this.

There is an additional factor to all this. If these changes/additions would be destructive in some way, then this can also be examined. So, what destructive information do we actually find in this HCOB? After all it does say in the SO ED:
        
“‘In a case of this character, you would expect to find sneakers of one sort or another, little curves that would turn up later to wreck things.’ ... 
        
 
‘... he involved basic policy with simply tactical considerations and altered basic policy and then tangled up the rest of it as well. It is typical of criminals that they can make a championship mess that is difficult to untangle.’   (LRH)”
 
 
We don't actually learn about any details here either. But one may comment here that if you up to 8 times note “Further revised by L. Ron Hubbard in 1980”, when this involvement of L. Ron Hubbard is later denounced (in the ‘I’ person), then how difficult is that to untangle?
Revision notes as found in HCOB 16 Aug 71R II (Reissued 6 Aug 83) “Training Drills Remodernized” that was replacing the 1980 release reveal:
        
“(This HCOB was revised by others and published as HCOB 16 Aug 71RA, revised 4 Sept 80, same title. That revision made changes in the NAME, POSITION, PURPOSE, PATTER and HISTORY of these TRs and also added sections of text to the issue. Those changes and additives were not written by or approved by me and that revision of 4 Sept 80 is herewith CANCELLED. The HCOB of 16 Aug 71R, revised by me on 5 July 78, TRAINING DRILLS REMODERNIZED, is now reissued in its original form.)”
        
HCOB/PL 8 Aug 83 “Cancellation of Issues on TRs” also cancels it and notes: “The correct data on TR Drills 0—4 is contained in my HCOB 16 Aug 71R, Rev. 5 July 78, TRAINING DRILLS REMODERNIZED, which has been reissued 6 August 1983.”
Neither of these give any specifics of how destructive it may have been, or why the data found in the reference is considered incorrect.

A brief overview of these mentioned changes here below.

“changes in NAME” were found only in the below 3:
    - ‘OT TR 0’: changed name from ‘Operating Thetan Confronting’ to ‘Operating Thetan Being There’
  - ‘TR 0 Confronting’: changed name from ‘Confronting Preclear’ to ‘Confronting’
  - ‘TR 0 Bullbait’: changed name from ‘Confronting Bullbaited’ to ‘Confronting Preclear Bullbaited’
(Note: These Training Routines by the way are actually addressed by their Number (‘OT TR 0’ etc), never by this additional name attributed.)

“changes in the POSITION” have not been found. All what was found were a few rephrasings increasing clarity.
    - ‘TR 0 Confronting’: for example was rephrased from “Student and coach sit facing each other a comfortable distance apart—about three feet.” to “Student and coach sit facing each other with eyes open, a comfortable distance apart - about three feet.”

“changes in PURPOSE” are not in particular being found. There is only one addition worthy of notice.
    - ‘TR 1’: “To train the student to deliver a command newly and in a new unit of time to a preclear without flinching or trying to overwhelm or using a via.” received the additional text: “..., and to deliver a command with the intention that it is received.”

“changes in PATTER”, a few additions to the patter have been found (‘TR 0 Bullbait’ & ‘TR 1’). Changes for the larger part are amongst other increasing clarity about what to, and what not to do. There are two additions worthy of notice.
    - ‘OT TR 0’ and ‘TR 0 Confronting’ which had no patter had a short one added.
  - ‘TR 0 Bullbait’: “Student coughs. Coach: ‘Flunk! You coughed. Start.’ This is the whole of the coach's patter as a coach.” received the additional text: “Coach then repeats whatever he had said or done that caused the student to react. He continues to coach the student on that ‘button’ flattening it to a win for the student before going on to another button or other bullbaiting.” (in which Button is defined as “An item, word, phrase, subject, voice tone, mannerism, anything that causes a person to react, causes him discomfort, embarrassment, upset or to laugh uncontrollably, etc. It is called a ‘button’ because when you push it you get a reaction.”)
  - ‘TR 1’: “This drill is passed only when the student can put across a command naturally, without strain or artificiality or elocutionary bobs and gestures, and when the student can do it easily and relaxedly.” received the additional text: “When the coach thinks the student has done it he asks the student if he has done it. If the coach is satisfied that he is receiving the commands, each newly in a new unit of time, and the student is satisfied that he has done it, he passes on to the next TR.”
  - ‘TR 2’, ‘TR 2½’, ‘TR 3’ & ‘TR 4’ remain (virtually) identical.

“changes in HISTORY”, no changes in the history tale (prior to the 1980 additions) have been found.

Not mentioned in the revision notes as found in HCOB 16 Aug 71R II (Reissued 6 Aug 83) “Training Drills Remodernized” we find that a THEORY section has been added to each Training Routine. Previously there were none. We also find text additions in various of the TRAINING STRESS sections of each Training Routine, and in various other places within the Training Routines. All appear to aim at ensuring that no misduplication can take place or applications can be missed while doing these drills. Possible alternate and faulty interpretations (or misduplications) are eliminated. It may be a matter of opinion that possibly too much text and data is found added in this revision, although a correct understanding (concept) is vital in relation to these Training Routines as they can make or break the effectiveness of an auditor. I do not attempt to make a final conclusion or assertion about this, however I personally have not found any changes in this 1980 revision that effects the essence nor the effectiveness of these Training Routines. If anyone would be of the opinion that they do, then please do the right thing and be so kind to contact me and point these out to me, and with appropriate and exact referencing!

 
Go back HCOB 16 Aug 71RA II (Rev 4 Sept 80) “Training Drills Remodernized” (2)  Additional chapters

We find that various additional chapters had been added in this 1980 revision that were not in direct relation to the application of these Training Routines although they do touch the subject itself. As is explained these new sections were aiming to achieve a correct understanding of the Training Routines material given in a proper context. Various of this information may also be found in Source material elsewhere, to which at times is also referred, although various key information is found in these new chapters in this HCOB. These chapters (6 in total) had captions like: ‘TRs Definition’, ‘The A-R-C Triangle’, ‘The Full Cycle of Communication’, ‘Drilling TRs on a Professional TRs Course’, ‘Robotic TRs’  & ‘Valuable Final Product and End Phenomenon of TRs on a Professional TRs Course’. Various information found in these chapters may already have been touched upon or discussed in more detail in HCOB 24 Dec 79 “TRs Basics Resurrected”.

A more close examination of these actual chapters here below. I attempted to give some brief synopsis of what they say, and make some comments. Appropriate quotations are also provided for. In addition I have consulted the judgment of a contact of mine (Class IV C/S since many years) concerning these additives and his comments are also found in the below.

    

  

 
“TRS DEFINITION”
    
Training Routines clearly defined. The first 3 paragraphs read:
        
“The term ‘TRs’ is an abbreviation for Training Regimen or Routine. TRs are also often referred to as Training Drills.
        
 
  While each individual TR drill has its own specific purpose, the overall purpose and definition of TRs is given here fully and finally:
 
 
  TRS ARE METHODS OF DRILLING THE COMMUNICATION FORMULA AND BECOMING EXPERT IN ITS HANDLING AND USE.”
 
Comments of a Class IV C/S: “The Definition Section is fine and good it is the 1st section as the word TRs is spoken so much people can dub in they know it and not look it up. I had a MU for 15 years on NASCAR Just watched the DVD where it was defined as ‘National Association of Stock Car Auto Racing’. I listed NASCAR to give an example of a common word (acronym) I heard all my life - yet didn't have clue what it really stood for until I rented the DVD from the library for personal enjoyment pleasure.)
  Here is one that Billions of people don't know. Windows XP - What's the XP stand for? - Yes the XP in big colorful letters that shows up when the computer is booting up. (XP stands for ‘Experience’)
  Just some more data on why the intro definition section is important to really define TRs.”

A little further down in this chapter it reads:
        
“A more gradient approach to TRs is taught on specially packaged co-audits for those with no prior technical training, where the same degree of flawlessness and skill demanded of a professional auditor is not demanded of the untrained co-auditor.
        
 
  And there is still another gradient of TRs found on courses for new public in Division 6, where the person is getting his first experience in handling communication in his life and livingness.
 
 
  But on a Professional TRs Course for auditors absolutely no standards are lowered.”
 
Comments of a Class IV C/S: “The section on gradient TRs and Div 6 students is OK as it aligns with HCOB 8 August 1983 Cycling Through TRs on a Professional TR Course and the now released HCOB 5 July 1989 Coaching TRs 0-4 as if I were on the Comm Course I would run out of the place if I had to do hours of closed eyes and then confront etc.”
 (Note: Both these references quoted are examined and addressed in my next chapter entitled “Additional TR references”.)

    

  

 
“THE A-R-C TRIANGLE”  &  “THE FULL CYCLE OF COMMUNICATION (Communication Defined & The Parts Of The Full Communication Cycle)
    
The last paragraph in this chapter reads:
        
“When a student understands and has fully demonstrated the basic theory of communication in clay, including the theory of the ARC Triangle and how it works in practice and the use of the communication cycle and all of its parts, he is well equipped to begin his training in TRs.”
        
These chapters, although concise, touch rather thoroughly on all the essential parts and ingredients of this Cycle of Communication. The importance of this information is confirmed by the later published HCOB 8 Aug 83 “Cycling Through TRs on a Professional TR Course” that says: “... the student MUST have an understanding of the ARC Triangle and the cycle of communication and he MUST have done the full comm cycle in clay”.
Comments of a Class IV C/S: “ARC Section fine as it is a KSW basic - yet some still haven't duplicated it as such - a KSW basic - along with granting beingness etc So this is good theory learned early to prevent the going robotic as mentioned at the end.”
“Comm formula theory OK as it's the extension of ARC section and does stress become expert in handling each part of the communication cycle and the communication cycle as a whole.”

    

  

 
“DRILLING TRS ON A PROFESSIONAL TRS COURSE”
    
This lays out what rules to follow when drilling. It is concise but thorough. It makes also very clear that:
        
“A Professional TRs Course is TAUGHT and taught HARD, not permissively.”
        
  “IF A STUDENT HAS TROUBLE AND HANGS UP AND CAN'T PASS AN UPPER TR, HE HASN'T MADE IT ON THE LOWER TRS. THIS HAS BEEN PROVEN CONCLUSIVELY. START HIM BACK AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TRS AGAIN. HE RE-DRILLS EACH TR UNTIL HE DOES IT COMPETENTLY TO A PASS.”.  
A line can be drawn here with HCOB 8 Aug 83 “Cycling Through TRs on a Professional TR Course” that reads: “Cycling through TRs on a Professional TR Course has been given a new definition and action. Newly defined, cycling on TRs means:  A STUDENT DRILLS THE TRS, EACH TO A PASS, UNTILL HE STICKS AND THEN HE IS PUT BACK ON THE LOWER TR HE DIDN'T PASS.”. Although this new definition and action may not be that new as is claimed, or at least not entirely.
Comments of a Class IV C/S: “Drilling Section fine as it covers MUs and not accepting verbal data and basically it is a good closing to all that has just been mentioned above on ARC, Comm Formula and Gradients.”

    

  

 
ROBOTIC TRS (Anatomy Of A Robot)
    
This chapter is in full and without any changes reissued as HCOB 7 Aug 83 “Robotic TRs”. It is included in the 1991 release of ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes.

    

  

 
“VALUABLE FINAL PRODUCT AND END PHENOMENON OF TRS ON A PROFESSIONAL TRS COURSE”
    
The same text is also listed in HCOB 24 Dec 79 “TRs Basics Resurrected”. It may seem superfluous to have these here as well. Then the summary of these are actually also listed on the checksheet for the Professional TR Course.


Here we should be reminded about what it had said in the revision notes of HCOB 16 Aug 71R II (Reissued 6 Aug 83) “Training Drills Remodernized”:  (underlining is mine)
        
“(This HCOB was revised by others and published as HCOB 16 Aug 71RA, revised 4 Sept 80, same title. That revision made changes in the NAME, POSITION, PURPOSE, PATTER and HISTORY of these TRs and also added sections of text to the issue. Those changes and additives were not written by or approved by me and that revision of 4 Sept 80 is herewith CANCELLED. The HCOB of 16 Aug 71R, revised by me on 5 July 78, TRAINING DRILLS REMODERNIZED, is now reissued in its original form.)”
        

Nonetheless we find that for example the whole section entitled “ROBOTIC TRS” in its entirety and identically is reissued as HCOB 7 Aug 83 “Robotic TRs”, it is in use to this very day and it is now attributed to L. Ron Hubbard. Then, if it is claimed that David Mayo was responsible for these additives and changes, and additionally if these revision notes in above paragraph state in the ‘I’ person (= L. Ron Hubbard) that they were not written by him, then what is actually the deal here? Any person with a sense of logic would agree with me that we are facing here indeed very odd and contradictory information!

Go to index

 
Back to Main Index Additional references on TR's 
        (Analysis of HCOB/PL 23 Sept 79 “Cancellation of Destructive BTBs and BPLs on TRs”, HCOB 18 Apr 80 “TR Criticism” & HCO PL 17 Jun 81 “Hubbard Professional TRs Course Checksheet”)

In the section of the SO ED entitled: ATTEMPT TO WRECK AUDITOR TRAINING it further makes mention that:
        
“... Mayo's issue (PL of 13 Sept 81, ACADEMY LEVELS PREREQUISITES) has been cancelled along with the other write ups that he'd put out on this subject, by HCO PL 8 Aug 83, CANCELLATION OF ISSUES ON TRs.”
        

HCOB/PL 8 Aug 83 “Cancellation of Issues on TRs” cancels 5 references:

    
1.  HCOB/PL 23 September 1979, CANCELLATION OF DESTRUCTIVE BTBs AND BPLs ON TRs.
2. HCOB 18 April 1980, TR CRITICISM.
3. HCOB 16 Aug 71RA, TRAINING DRILLS REMODERNIZED.
4. HCO PL 13 Sep 81, Issue I, ACADEMY LEVELS PREREQUISITES.
5. HCO PL 17 June 1981, HUBBARD PROFESSIONAL TRS COURSE CHECKSHEET.
#3 & 4 have already been examined in detail in my previous 2 chapters. The remaining 3 references are listed below followed with various comments.

    

  

 
“HCOB/PL 23 September 1979, CANCELLATION OF DESTRUCTIVE BTBs AND BPLs ON TRs”
    
This reference itself does not give any indication of David Mayo involved in compiling this, although the first set of typing initials do denote a ‘dm’, this may or may not be David Mayo. It lists 11 references being cancelled with detailed reasons provided for. It notes: “The issues listed above have introduced False Data, Verbal Data and Technical Alter-is.”.
Noteworthy here is that one of the references that it lists as cancelled is:
        
“HCO PL 4 Nov 71, II, ACADEMY PREREQUISITES. This issue omitted mention of the Hard TRs Course as an Academy prerequisite, as a result of which the Hard TRs Course was dropped out of the training for auditors. A Hard TRs Course is essential to the ability to audit at any level of auditing.”
        
Per this David Mayo actually effectively counteracted a reference that was to have caused that the “Hard TRs Course was dropped out of the training for auditors”!

HCOB 5 Jul 89 “Coaching TRs 0-4” seems also to have extracted data from this September 1979 reference, although this HCOB does not relate where its data is taken from (note that this was released more than 3 years after the passing of L. Ron Hubbard). Here it makes mention of the expression “Blinkless TR 0”. It represents basically the same data with even some matching sentences. For the larger part though a different phrasing has been used. You can see for yourself here (pop-up window), it will also lists some quotations from HCOB 18 Apr 80 “TR Criticism” on Blinkless TR 0 for additional comparison).
A notice should be made here that one of the references that got cancelled by HCOB/PL 23 Sept 79 “Cancellation of Destructive of Destructive BTBs and BPLs on TRs” was HCOB 8 Dec 74 “TR 0 - Notes on Blinking”. Reason given for cancellation was : “This issue has been misinterpreted by some who figured that because the coach doesn't flunk the student for a blink, that it was OK for the student to blink excessively in a distracting manner.”  LRH.  In a sense this is actually odd as this 1974 HCOB clearly said: “Excessive blinking shows the thetan is in his eyes. That's not TR 0.”  LRH.  Per this it seems more a case of failure to actually duplicate the HCOB. Cancellation of this HCOB then would not necessarily have been the correct action, and then I recall again that the cancelling reference did have this ‘dm’ in its composer/typing initials. Could these denote David Mayo involvement? Either way in this 1974 HCOB we find the gest of the arguments that were used in the later issued HCOB's about blinking.

    

  

 
HCOB 18 April 1980, TR CRITICISM”
    
A 12-page write-up from the hand of David Mayo with the following introduction:
        
“During 1979, Ron made a thorough study of current TR training, examining the materials and checksheets in use, conducting TR course pilots, and critiquing video-recorded TRs done by students. He isolated and handled the difficulties that TR supervisors and students had been having. His reorganization of TR training is represented in HCOB 24 Dec 79 TRs BASICS RESURRECTED. During this period while Ron was sorting out TR training I had the privilege of working with him and being trained by him in criticizing TRs. This paper summarizes what I learned from Ron, and my own experience in teaching TRs and getting them done from a C/S (Case Supervisor) point of view.”
        
It is quite thorough in its approach and point out a variety of subtleties in regards to the Training Routines to watch for. Each of the Training Routines (including 6-9) are discussed separately. It lists further various other information relating such as critiques, examples and remedies.

OT TR 0 & Blinkless TR 0:
The 2-page long HCOB 5 Jul 89 “Coaching TRs 0-4” seems/appears also to have taken various portions from HCOB 18 Apr 80 “TR Criticism”, although this 1989 HCOB does not indicate where its data is coming from (please note the date of the reference, which is more than 3 years after the passing of L. Ron Hubbard). The comments we find about “OT TR 0” (see section of that title) are awfully similar to various of the phrasings in this issue. See for yourself here (pop-up window).
It further relates the idea of the so-called “Blinkless TR 0” (see section of that title). It is basically the same data as found in respective chapters found in HCOB 18 Apr 80 “TR Criticism” although for the most part it is rephrased. You can see for yourself here (pop-up window).

The below 3 parts (each indicated with ♦) are specific selections from HCOB 18 Apr 80 “TR Criticism” that are all found in an untitled section placed directly following the discussion of the TR's and foregoing the chapter entitled “COPYING”. The original context of this section as found in this HCOB can be consulted here (pop-up window). These selections here below are matched and directly compared with various later released references.
A Professional TR Course is not done permissively:
HCOB 18 Apr 80 “TR Criticism” reads:
        
“Earlier in TR training students were cycled through the TRs several times over. The idea here was to increase the gradient each time through, with the student getting better at it each time. This was to get the student more familiar with the TRs and to prevent the student from being stuck in a lose by miscoaching. The Professional TR Course is not run this way. The liability of cycling the student through the TRs is that the TR training then becomes permissive and doesn't result in professional auditors. ... Permissiveness in professional TR training is the main way that TR training for pro auditors went out. ”
        
Watch the words permissive and permissiveness. This particular word appears also used in HCOB 16 Aug 71RA II (Revised 4 Sept 80) “Training Drills Remodernized” in chapter entitled “DRILLING TRS ON A PROFESSIONAL TRS COURSE”. It reads:
        
“A Professional TRs Course is TAUGHT and taught HARD, not permissively.”
        
Then we have HCOB 8 Aug 83 “Cycling Through TRs on a Professional TR Course” that reads:
        
“Originally, cycling through the TRs meant that the student went up through the TRs one by one, getting familiar with them and getting a little bit of a win on each TR before going to the next one. Then he went back to the beginning and cycled through the TRs in this fashion again and again until he achieved a full pass on all the TRs. The gradient of toughness was supposed to be increased each time through. That system, however, opened the door to permissiveness and resulted in students taking interminable lengths of time on TR courses. Permissiveness has no place on any Professional TR Course.”
        
This is just a rewrite of the same paragraph previously found in HCOB 18 Apr 80 “TR Criticism”. These 3 issues address to great extent the permissivenes involved. David Mayo as per the printed and published record appears to have been years ahead of his time.

Cycling isn't THE answer:
HCOB 18 Apr 80 “TR Criticism” reads:
        
“Most auditors entering the Professional TR Course have already done lower level TR courses and have had objective processes. And where they haven't, cycling is an answer (but it isn't THE answer).”
        
An interesting rewrite of this we find in HCOB 5 Jul 89 “Coaching TRs 0-4” that reads:
        
“Most auditors entering a Professional TR Course have already done lower level TR courses, where they learned TRs 0 - 4 by going through them several times, getting tougher each time. If a Professional TR Course student hasn't done this on an earlier course, he can start his drilling on the Pro TR Course by going through the TRs from OT TR 0 to TR 4 a few times and getting tougher each time, and then move on to the TRs the hard way ... This is not the only way for such a student to start off on the Pro TR Course; it is a way to do it.”
        
Once again David Mayo appears to be ahead of his time with this.

Cycling on TR's newly defined:

HCOB 18 Apr 80 “TR Criticism” reads:

        
“The way to run the Professional TR Course is by getting the student to do it, one TR at a time, to a full pass on each TR. ... Should the student fail on a TR on the Professional TR Course, he is started over from the beginning of the line-up, this time getting in each TR to a full pass, ... .”
        
This very same concept we find also in HCOB 16 Aug 71RA II (Re-Revised 4 Sept 80) “Training Drills Remodernized”, see chapter entitled “DRILLING TRS ON A PROFESSIONAL TRS COURSE” that reads:
        
“IF A STUDENT HAS TROUBLE AND HANGS UP AND CAN'T PASS AN UPPER TR, HE HASN'T MADE IT ON THE LOWER TRS. THIS HAS BEEN PROVEN CONCLUSIVELY. START HIM BACK AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TRS AGAIN. HE RE-DRILLS EACH TR UNTIL HE DOES IT COMPETENTLY TO A PASS.”.
        
Be it noted that this 1980 revision is also claimed to have been compiled by David Mayo, and is also cancelled by HCOB/PL 8 Aug 83 “Cancellation of Issues on TRs”.).
Then we have HCOB 8 Aug 83 “Cycling Through TRs on a Professional TR Course” that makes a rather interesting (but incorrect) claim:
        
“Cycling through TRs on a Professional TR Course has been given a new definition and action. Newly defined, cycling on TRs means:  A STUDENT DRILLS THE TRS, EACH TO A PASS, UNTILL HE STICKS AND THEN HE IS PUT BACK ON THE LOWER TR HE DIDN'T PASS.”.
        
In fact this idea may rather obviously not be so very new as is claimed. It was addressed and defined already respectively 3 & 3½ years earlier first in this HCOB 18 Apr 80 “TR Criticism” and 4½ months later again in HCOB 16 Aug 71RA II (Revised 4 Sept 80) “Training Drills Remodernized” (also cancelled by HCOB/PL 8 Aug 83 “Cancellation of Issues on TRs”). Both writings accredited to David Mayo.

It may be noted that HCOB 16 Aug 71RA II (Revised 4 Sept 80) “Training Drills Remodernized” was also cancelled by HCOB/PL 8 Aug 83 “Cancellation of Issues on TRs”. Quite noteworthy and conveniently issued at the same day as HCOB 8 Aug 83 “Cycling Through TRs on a Professional TR Course”. Thus the data did not get lost, it was just taken from one reference and implemented into another on the very same day!
In these various sections apparently and as per the printed and published chronology David Mayo was the first to write about it. Be it noted though that he does give credit to L. Ron Hubbard: “what I learned from Ron, and my own experience in teaching TRs” (from HCOB 18 Apr 80 “TR Criticism”).

    

  

 
“HCO PL 17 June 1981, HUBBARD PROFESSIONAL TRS COURSE CHECKSHEET”
    
There is no indication of David Mayo involvement in compiling this issue, although a quick glance reveals that 3 supposed DM issues are listed on the checksheet. Which are:
    HCOB 23 Sept 79 CANCELLATION OF DESTRUCTIVE BTBs AND BPLs ON TRs
HCOB 16 Aug 71RA (Re-Rev. 4.9.80) II TRAINING DRILLS REMODERNIZED
HCOB 18 Apr 80 TR CRITICISM
For which reason it is likely listed in HCOB/PL 8 Aug 83 “Cancellation of Issues on TRs”. Besides that it does answer to all what is supposed be in there as per HCO PL 6 Aug 83R (Revised 24 Dec 89) “What a Professional TR Course Must Consist of”. The checksheet seems pretty solid otherwise.

Go to index

 
Final notes concerning the findings

The section of the SO ED entitled: ATTEMPT TO WRECK AUDITOR TRAINING also utters the following (text attributed to L. Ron Hubbard):
        
“‘The main discovery was that Mayo had very carefully eradicated TRs. Thinking it over, I would say that Mayo is a covert NCG*, for if he were ever audited by somebody whose TRs were out, not even his suppressive curves would permit him to make such a horror of a scene.’”
        
* NCG, means no-case-gain despite good and sufficient auditing. (HCO PL 16 May 69).


Training Routines

How justified is the above actually, this in regards to these Training Routines (TR's). Has it been shown conclusively that these printed lines as found in the SO ED are truthful? True is that inconsistencies have in fact been found to various of the claims made in the SO ED. By physical examination of the actual references and their recorded history it is rather that one gets the impression that David Mayo was ahead of his time in regards to the interpretation and the use of these Training Routines. It is fact that various of the information that he forwarded in for example HCOB 18 Apr 80 “TR Criticism” (admittedly written by him) and HCOB 16 Aug 71RA II (Re-Revised 4 Sept 80) “Training Drills Remodernized” (claimed to have been issued by him by the SO ED) contains information that has been recaptured or simply copied into various later issued HCOB's, but were now attributed to L. Ron Hubbard. An incriminating example is HCOB 7 Aug 83 “Robotic TRs” that obviously has been imported from HCOB 16 Aug 71RA II “Training Drills Remodernized”.


Academy Level 0 prerequisites

It has been confirmed that at least at one time period both the Professional TR's Course and Method One Word Clearing were actively pushed into use by David Mayo and well in September 1979. Method One Word Clearing had reportedly dropped out of use since September 1978 and David Mayo put it back into use by issuing HCO PL 25 Sept 79 I “Successful Training Lineup”. He also issued HCO PL 25 Sept 79 II “Method One Word Clearing” & HCO PL 25 Sept 79 III “The Method One Co-Audit Checksheet”, both of which are although revised since still in use today.

The Professional TR's Course or even any kind of TR Course wasn't a prerequisite till very late, and wasn't a prerequisite prior to David Mayo coming to post as Senior C/S International. In fact it is confirmed that David Mayo was involved in putting this prerequisite there in the first place which is witnessed by him issuing HCOB/PL 23 Sept 79 “Cancellation of Destructive BTBs and BPLs on TRs” that was commenting on HCO PL 4 Nov 71 II “Academy Prerequisites” that “omitted mention of the Hard TRs Course as an Academy prerequisite” for which reason this issue was cancelled.

Then an evaluation was made in 1981 by David Mayo that was summed up in HCO PL 13 Sept 81 “Academy Levels Prerequisites” as follows: “A student auditor about to start his Academy Levels who first has to do a long list of prerequisites would undoubtedly lose some enthusiasm and possibly never even start.”. All that the solution involved was to simply exchange the Pro TR's with an ‘any’ kind of TR Course. And this was still more than it was prior to September 1979 as not even ‘any TR Course’ was found listed as a prerequisite on Level 0 checksheets, Grade Charts or elsewhere!
Some argument however can be made with the fact that various prerequisites that came along with the Professional TR's Course were not prerequisites for this course 3 months prior to that. It made the argument forwarded in HCO PL 13 Sept 81 as quoted in the previous paragraph less convincing, and even made it look suspect. Although this is not an argument that is forwarded by the SO ED!

Either way these observations make the claims that are made in the SO ED in regards to this look rather silly. This includes the words attributed to L. Ron Hubbard as found in the SO ED that say: “‘In other words, this Pro TRs Course was a key point which was carefully and cleverly removed.’”, which as the facts show wasn't a “key point” to start with prior to David Mayo coming to post as the Senior C/S International. Then it says: “‘Mayo could not have done a more vicious thing than that.’ (LRH)”. Now, how “vicious” could this then have been? I personally do not think that L. Ron Hubbard would have made such a slip by making utterances like this based on such very shaky grounds concerning. In fact it would indicate that he was not very well informed, for which reason I do not think that L. Ron Hubbard actually wrote these lines as attributed to and quoted in the SO ED. Then, if we can question these lines, then what about the remainder of these quotations attributed to L. Ron Hubbard found in the SO ED.

Some will not like that I express myself like this. Well, those I would then urge to propose an alternate plausible conclusion in regards to my findings!

 

Vocabulary:

     ..R, ..RA, ..RB (etc) or #R, #RA (etc):
For example: ‘HCO PL 24 Sept 70R’ & ‘HCO PL 24 Sept 70RA, etc. The given date denotes the first time it has been published in issue-form. The R, RA indication may also follow after an issue-number. The R stands for ‘Revision’ and would refer to that it has been revised since it was first published. If it is revised a 2nd time it is indicated as RA, a 3rd time RB, then RC, and so on.
     ARC:
Affinity, Reality, Communication’. A word from the initial letters of Affinity, Reality, Communication which together equate to Understanding. It is pronounced by stating its letters, A-R-C. To Scientologists it has come to mean good feeling, love or friendliness, such as “He was in ARC with his friend.” (LRH Def. Notes)
     BPL:
Board Policy Letter’. Color flash–green ink on cream paper. These are the issues of the Boards of Directors of the Churches of Scientology and are separate and distinct from HCO Policy Letters written by LRH. Only LRH issues may be printed green on white for policy and only LRH issues may have the prefix HCO. These Board issues are valid as Policy. (BPL 14 Jan 74R I, New Issues).
  This issue-type was established in January 1974. In October 1975 a project was started to cancel HCO PL's not written by L. Ron Hubbard and if still found being of value having them reissued as BPL's. By 1980 all BPL's had been revoked.
     BTB:
Board Technical Bulletin’. Color flash–red ink on cream paper. These are the issues of the Boards of Directors of the Churches of Scientology and are separate and distinct from HCO Bulletins written by LRH. Only LRH issues may be printed green on white for Technical Bulletins and only LRH issues may have the prefix HCO. These Board issues are valid as tech. (BPL 14 Jan 74R I, New Issues).
  This issue-type was established in January 1974. In December 1974 a project was started to cancel HCO PL's not written by L. Ron Hubbard and if still found being of value having them reissued as BTB's. By 1980 all BTB's had been revoked.
     checksheet:
A list of materials, often divided into sections, that give the theory and practical steps which, when completed, give one a study completion. The items are selected to add up to the required knowledge of the subject. They are arranged in the sequence necessary to a gradient of increasing knowledge on the subject. After each item there is a place for the initial of the student or the person checking the student out.
     Clear:
1. What we mean by Clear is an erasure of the mental mass which inhibits their thinking, postulating, and so on. (SH Spec 75, 6608C16)  2. An unaberrated person. He is rational in that he forms the best possible solutions he can on the data he has and from his viewpoint. He obtains the maximum pleasure for the organism, present and future, as well as for the subjects along the other dynamics. The Clear has no engrams which can be restimulated to throw out the correctness of computation by entering hidden and false data in it. (Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, p. 111)
     floating needle (F/N):
The idle uninfluenced movement of the needle on the dial (of an E-meter) without any patterns or reactions in it. It can be as small as one inch or as large as dial wide. It does not fall or drop to the right of the dial. It moves to the left at the same speed as it moves to the right. It is observed on a Mark V E-meter calibrated with the TA (Tone Arm) between 2.0 and 3.0 with GIs (Good Indicators) in on the pc. It can occur after a cognition, blowdown of the TA (Tone Arm) or just moves into floating. The pc may or may not voice the cognition. (HCOB 7 May 69 V)
     F/N:
floating needle’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
     HCOB:
Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin’. Color flash–red ink on white paper. Written by LRH only , but only so starting from January 1974. These are the technical issue line. All data for auditing and courses is contained in HCOBs. For more information go here (separate window).
    HCO PL:
Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letter’. Color flash–green ink on white paper. Written by LRH only, but only so starting from January 1974. These are the organizational and administrative issue line.
For more information go here (separate window).
     LRH:
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’.
     M1 or M1WC:
Method One Word Clearing’. See at ‘Method One Word Clearing’ in vocabulary.
     Method One Word Clearing:
1. by meter in session. A full assessment of many, many subjects is done. The auditor then takes each reading subject and clears the chain back to earlier words and or words in earlier subjects until he gets an F/N*. 2. assess, take the reading items from the best read on down and with E/S (earlier similar) pull each one to F/N. Get each word you find to F/N. There can be many F/Ns per subject. End off with a win on the subject. 3. the action taken to clean up all misunderstoods in every subject one has studied. It is done by a word clearing auditor. The result of a properly done Method One word clearing is the recovery of one's education. Abbr. M1.
     misunderstood(s) - Mis-U(s) - MU(s):
Refers to a word or words that have not been properly understood, and therefore one is unable to duplicate, understand or apply.
     MU(s), Mis-U(s):
Miss Understood(s)’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
     Objectives:
Refers to a package of processes which are part of a step found somewhere at the bottom of the Grade Chart or Bridge (Classification Gradation and Awareness Chart of Levels and Certificates). Generally this consists of the CCH processes I-IV (see HCOB 1 Dec 65 “CCHs”).
(CCH: Control, Communication & Havingness. Several associated processes which bring a person into better control of his body and surroundings, put him into better communication with his surroundings and other people, and increase his ability to have things for himself. They bring him into the present, away from his past problems.)
     preclear (pc):
1. A person who, through Scientology processing, is finding out more about himself and life. (The Phoenix Lectures, p. 20)  2. A spiritual being who is now on the road to becoming Clear, hence preclear. (HCOB 5 Apr 69)  3. One who is discovering things about himself and who is becoming clearer. (HCO PL 21 Aug 62)
     PRD:
Primary Rundown’. The Primary Rundown consists of word clearing and study technology. Consists of Method 1 word clearing and Method 8 on on study tapes and the Student Hat course materials.
(Method 1: by meter in session. A full assessment of many, many subjects is done. The auditor then takes each reading subject and clears the chain back to earlier words and or words in earlier subjects until he gets an F/N; Method 8: Usually an alphabetical list of every word or term in the text of a paper, a chapter or a recorded tape is available or provided. The person looks up each word on the alphabetical list and uses each in sentences until he has the meaning conceptually.)
     original mimeo print-off:
Individually printed issues and distributed from the Mimeo Section of the Scientology organization as opposed to those collected in volumes. These are the issues that you may regard as the real first prints. As a rule these are typed out, mimeographed and distributed as soon as possible after having been compiled or written. They are always legal-sized, 8½ by 14 inches (approx. 21,6 x 35,6 cm). If the issue had 3 or more sides, the pages were collated and stapled together in the upper left corner. More detailed information about this is found here (separate window).
     Saint Hill Special Briefing Course (SHSBC):
This was a course delivered by L. Ron Hubbard at Saint Hill, England during 1961-66 and comprises of 447 lectures. Its result is a very adept auditor and thorough know-how of Scientology itself. The materials are studied in chronological sequence so as to fully understand the development of the technology. This will make you a Class VI Auditor.
     squirrel:
Going off into weird practices or altering Scientology. (HCO PL 7 Feb 65, Keeping Scientology Working)
     ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’:
This is a series of books that contain the HCOB's, and any references that are primarily dealing with technical matters. The HCOB's are printed in red ink on white paper, and the volumes themselves come in red bindings. The references are arranged in chronological release order (per issue date). These books may also be referred to as the ‘red volumes’. The ‘old red volumes’ then would refer to the 1976-80 release, the ‘new red volumes’ instead to the 1991 release. See a listing of published volumes here (pop-up window).
     tone arm (TA):
1. Tone arm refers to the tone arm or its motion. (HCOB 13 Apr 64)  2. Tone arm action. A technical term for a quantitative measure of case gain in the Scientology processing of a preclear for a given unit of time. (Introduction to Scientology Ethics, p. 38)  3. The measure of accumulation of charge. (Class VIII No. 6)  4. A measure of the amount of encysted force which is leaving the case. (SH Spec 291, 6308C06)

Go to top of this page


Copyright © 2006, 2008  Michel Snoeck.  All rights reserved.
This page revised: 15 June, 2014