Scientology pages index  |  Contact

(to other Scientology pages)

>> Do you want to help me with my research? <<  Consult my want list here !

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

	“The methods which have been used, up to this time, have all been called Standard Procedure. It's very interesting to hear somebody out in the field say, ‘Well, this new method I have of standing the preclear on his head in the corner and auditing him through a megaphone replaces Standard Procedure.’ Believe me, if there's any way at all of increasing the efficacity of processing by standing a preclear on his head in the corner and auditing him through a megaphone, that will become part of Standard Procedure.
	Standard Procedure is an extremely varying affair. It would probably be better called ‘Proven Procedure’. And it changes. It changes about every sixty days at least. It changes in the direction of less work and thought on the part of the auditor and faster processing for the preclear.”          LRH          (from Science of Survival lecture #1 “Theta-Mest Theory, Part 1”, given on 21 May 51)

Sound snippet (1:10)

Back to ‘L. Ron Hubbard vs A New Order (2)’  index

Previous technology replaced with new technology - Tech changes 1978-82

This time span does deserve special mention as it was during this time span that the Grade Chart and various of its most vital services got turned around or simply abandoned. In brief:

	New technology:		♠	(1) ‘New Era Dianetics’ (NED)  (Jul 78)
			♠	Causing: (2) Change in the definition of Clear  (Sept 78)
			♠	Causing: (3) ‘New Era Dianetics for OT's’ (NOT's)  (Sept 78)
			♠	Causing: (4) First grades then Dianetics (Nov/Dec 81)
	Introduced:		♠	Speculation about if one was Clear or not:      a) Scientology grades V-VII required or  not? (Sept 78);      b) Is any processing needed at all? (Sept 78)  &      c) Natural Clear? (Mar 79) Being told if one was Clear, adjudicated by others (May 79)
	Lost technology:		♥	(1) ‘Standard Dianetics’ (St Dn)  (in use 1950-Jul 78)
	(NOT's (’78) & Solo NOT's (’80) knocked out original OT V-VII)		♥	(2) Original OT IV, V, VI and VII  (in use till Jan 82)
			♥	(3) Original OT VIII (never officially released although dropped in Jan 82)
	Considered superfluous:		♥	(4) Scientology grades V-VA (Power), VI (R6EW) and VII (Clearing Course)
	(caused by NED)                     (only sparesomely in use since Sept 78, if at all)

 
Index:

• A necessary word of introduction ...
          - Foreword & A word about education
          - Public release of this page and responses
  
• Chronological overview of Tech changes with source referencing and annotations
• Prelude:  Skipping the mention of GPM's in the definition of the Reactive Mind (Jun 75)
          (The Reactive Mind and GPM's, a study of its presentation in the various dictionaries (1965-present))
  
• (1) ‘Ring out the old, ring in the new’:  ‘Standard Dianetics’ vs ‘New Era Dianetics’ (Jul 78)
          - ‘New Era Dianetics’ making its entry
          - ‘New Era Dianetics’ (NED) knocking out ‘Standard Dianetics’ (St Dn) - A few comments
          - ‘New Era Dianetics’ (NED) and ‘Standard Dianetics’ (St Dn) - A comparison and study
                (‘going through incidents once only’ & ‘running with minimum TA’)
          - ‘New Era Dianetics’ can not be run on Clears, but it can with ‘Standard Dianetics’
  
• (2) ‘New Era Dianetics’ causing a change in the definition of Clear? or Grades V-VII turning obsolete (Sept 78)
          - The ‘Scientology Clear’ (Grade V-VII) abandoned & Changing one's mind; What about Grades 0-IV during Sept 78-Dec 81? - An irregularity
          - Clear without processing (Sept 78), the ‘Natural Clear’ (Mar 79) and feeding Clear cognitions
          - Final notices and the ‘Basic Basic’
  
• (3) ‘New Era Dianetics’ causing the need for ‘New Era Dianetics for OT's’? (Sept 78)
  
• (4) First grades then Dianetics (Nov-Dec 81)   (on different page)
• (5a) The disappearance of the original OT levels IV to VII (Jan-Mar 82)   (on different page)
• (5b) Original OT VIII dropped (Jan-March 82) (OT VIII end of the road?)   (on different page)
• Various closing considerations worthy of mention
          - a) Warning signs  or  How easily a workable technology can get lost
          - b) Déjà vu? Banished in 1970, but accepted some 10 years later. Why?
          - c) Dianetics placed out of reach ... and not being delivered when it should ...
          - The ‘David Mayo Bridge’
          - Ideal scene  vs  The lost Bridge
  

 
A necessary word of introduction ...  

• Foreword & A word about education
• Public release of this page and responses

 
Foreword & A word about education

This page probably has turned out to be the most significant one that has surfaced in my studies concerning the subjects of Dianetics/Scientology. But it could not have been worked out properly if the previous studies had not been performed. I refer in particular to my studies about The definition of ‘Clear’, Notes on NED for OT's (NOT's), History of the Grade Chart, and the tracking found in my The whereabouts of L. Ron Hubbard chronology. But vital bits of supporting information are also found in my Introduction chapter of my study L. Ron Hubbard vs A New Order (2) (Changes in the flow of ‘information’, before and after).

It is reality that I had not planned a separate page concerning this until very recently. Suddenly however the necessity to create it dawned upon me. And here, once again, I am seriously rubbing long since established stable datums. If, that what my study on this page suggests is correct, then many have to admit to themselves that they have been educated with/have learned to use wrong tech and to have followed a false Bridge. Few, very few indeed, will be able to admit such a thing. It could be said that a curse lays upon man, a curse that tells him that he has to have right, that tells him that he could not possibly have made such an error in judgment, that he could not have been lead behind the curtain this easily, or that he just doesn't want to lose face in front of others (which in itself is an illusion as ignoring correct and verified data, now this will really make him lose face). And so man resorts to justify the matter, what he has been using during this many years (and this could have been up to as many as 30 years), this can not have been wrong. And man is very inventive indeed to put together his ‘defense’. And so, stubbornly, man continues the walk on the path he has been walking on for so very long. In the final end however he has to make a choice, and this choice is wholly up to him as an individual. The consequence of this choice is pending him achieving freedom or gain only a shadow of it!

There is not only engrams, secondaries, locks, and postulates. There is something else that may put a tremendous amount of burden or limitation upon man. And that is his education. If you want to rehabilitate man you also have to rehabilitate his education. You have to audit out his previous education if he is to see clearly and have true perspective. If attentiveness was lacking in his study, any of his studies, then this will have worked as authoritative education. The usual run is that it starts with his parents, then primary school will follow, college, university, and any other study that may follow on his path, he will then adopt and copy how others go about matters, and hence we will see less and less of him. He will tend to conform to the demands of this society or the group he has chosen to be part of, and he may be done for. It will have formed him as a person, formed him in how he reasons, how he sees things, and how he will act or not act. But it will not be him, but he will believe it is. Hence it will be your choice if you will be you. It requires you to be a careful observer, a very careful observer indeed!

Why do I write this? Because I find in my communications with many people that man favours to maintain and nurture his conviction above cultivating his understanding with full perception. He is not willing to let go of that which he once had been educated with, or change perceptions when new plausible options are brought to his attention. He will not consider, not even for a moment. I know people that have been Scientologists since as early as 1950 and I find that many of them still do not reason with understanding, they are still just following. How do I know this to be so? Put it through a simple test. How was I able to write such a page like this? How come did people pass by what it conveys? I only know of a few that placed question marks, very few indeed. Understanding does not come for free, it involves doingness, alertness and before all independency in mind. It may be perceived that the bulk of man (including many Scientologists), are gullible (don't find out for themselves, compare or verify), are copyists (sofa sitters), and true believers (don't or don't dare to ask the right questions). Man wants an easy way out, but alas there is no easy way out! The mind of man sways and submits easily. It often suffices to only make a suggestion, and if it is in his liking he will adapt to it fullheartedly.

“Know Thyself.”          Socrátes
         (inscribed at the temple of Apollo at Delphi)

These studies have been released for those that are willing to give it a fair chance and to consider the inconsistencies that have surfaced and that I have assembled.

 
Public release of this page and responses

Indeed I may conclude that I did receive responses. The majority of these though were of a rather appreciative nature. But I also did receive a couple that were far less appreciative. These could be summed up as having taken the matter on a personal plane. Whereas ALL I did was forwarding an assemblage of information, it was never the intent to invoke anything personal. Investigative studies are simply not about that.

It appears also not understood by some that I do not offer a statement, I offer a study. I EXAMINE information and may, based on the factual data available, note down an evaluation thereof. My aim is also not speculation, although I have been accused of that. I simply offer evaluation of verified and observed data. I attempt to strictly follow an investigative scientific approach. And the only purpose of publishing these is to urge readers to consider matters for themselves. For me personally these are about a quest to find out truth.

Now, the problem with the critical responses is that virtually all of these were made up of opinionated statements lacking proper support of reference sourcing and/or further explanation. My exact and carefully laid out observations are not being addressed nor challenged to any extend. For me such responses are utterly meaningless as I can not possibly do anything with such opinionated rebuttals. It also would reveal that these critics may not have support for their statements or at least it may indicate that these were not very well though out by them. Why otherwise not actually forwarding support to these rebuttals where one can work with?

Then we have also the matter of the lacking responses from persons that in the past have forwarded valuable views and data to my releases. We have more than just a few of these.

Per the above I can conclude that this IS sensitive material and/or various matters/agreements are too well established.

The only truly useful responses that I received were from those persons that shared with me how they have experienced things at the time and how they personally dealt what that which surfaced on their path. Although the responses from for example this one top-classed auditor from the Free Zone that ruthlessly invalidated all of it and by repetition offering zero arguments are not to be underestimated as this reveals much about its originator.

 
Chronological overview of Tech changes with source referencing and annotations

BEFORE ...          AFTER ...  (since 1982)               Training Processing     Training Processing      OT IV-VIII       New OT IV-VIII ↑    OT II-III ↑    OT II-III ↑    OT I ↑    New OT I (since 1984) ↑    CLEAR (mandatory are completion of Grades V-VII to full end phenomena ) ↑     CLEAR (CCRD* - “confirming” gotten Clear on the lower bridge or even by ‘Natural Clear’) ↑    Grade VII (Clearing Course)* ↑ New Era Dianetics Auditor   (Class V Auditor since 1983) New Era Dianetics (NED) ↑    Grade VI (R6EW)* ↑     Grade V-VA (Power)* ↑  Class 0-IV Auditor Lower grades (Grade 0-IV) ↑  Class 0-IV Auditor* Lower grades (Grade 0-IV) ↑  Standard Dianetics Auditor   (course included sections for E-Meter training, How to Study and TR's 0-4) Standard Dianetics (St Dn) ↑ Pro Upper Indoc Course (TR 6-9) (since 1991) Expanded ARC Straightwire ↑ Method One Word Clearing* (optional:  Scientology Drug Rundown, Happiness Rundown) ↑  Hubbard E-Meter Course* ↑  Professional TR's* Objectives (as required) ↑  Hubbard Qualified Scientologist (HQS)* ARC Straightwire (optional, as required) ↑ Student Hat* Purification Rundown (as required)

* These were basically abolished since September 1978, an Alternative Route to Clear was created shortly after although the reality is that Grades V-VII went practically out of use.   * These were noted as prerequisites for the courses next up in line since the Nov 1983 chart and onwards. Be it noted here that the prerequisites for either the St Dn/NED course and the Grade 0 course went forth and back a bit as can be seen seen on the Jan 75 chart up till the Nov 1983 chart. Sometimes we see just listed the Basic Study Manual, then we see the Student Hat, then either one of them will do. Professional TR's listed and then again any TR's course would do. Sometimes the Method One Word Clearing was listed and then again not. (Consult for details the chronological table found here, link will open in separate window.)   * This HQS course was not a prerequisite for the Standard Dianetics Auditor, but often it was done first.

A summary gives us:

 
Prelude:  Skipping the mention of GPM's in the definition of the Reactive Mind (Jun 75)
        (The Reactive Mind and GPM's, a study of its presentation in the various dictionaries (1965-present))

• (a) ‘Scientology Abridged Dictionary’ (in use 1965 to 1980)
• (b) ‘Dianetics and Scientology: Technical Dictionary’ (in use since 1975)
• (c) ‘Basic Dictionary of Dianetics and Scientology’ (in use since 1981)
• Summary (a-c)
• Additional observations, information and evaluations

 
(a) ‘Scientology Abridged Dictionary’ (in use 1965 to 1980)

 
(b) ‘Dianetics and Scientology: Technical Dictionary’ (in use since 1975)

 
(c) ‘Basic Dictionary of Dianetics and Scientology’ (in use since 1981)

 
Summary (a-c)

 
Additional observations, information and evaluations

“GPM:  Means Goals Problem Mass. A GPM is composed of mental masses and significances which have an exact pattern, unvarying from person to person, whose significances dictate a certain type of behaviour and whose masses, when pulled in on the individual, cause psychosomatic effects, such as illness, pains or feelings of heaviness and tiredness.” (from ‘Scientology Abridged Dictionary’ (1965))

It is noted that the definition without mention of GPM is not particularly a wrong definition, but it is not complete. My main objection is that the earlier definition as found in this little ‘Scientology Abridged Dictionary’ from 1965 is not even listed in the 'Dianetics and Scientology: Technical Dictionary' from 1975 and present edition. On the contrary excluding it tends to make it look all rather suspect in regards to the fact that September 1978 actually skipped the Scientology Clear and thus the Basic Basic (first engram on the track). GPM is very important in regards to the subject of Dianetics and therefore should be included in the official definition of the Reactive Mind.

 
(1) ‘Ring out the old, ring in the new’:  ‘Standard Dianetics’ vs ‘New Era Dianetics’ (Jul 78)

• ‘New Era Dianetics’ making its entry
• ‘New Era Dianetics’ (NED) knocking out ‘Standard Dianetics’ (St Dn) - A few comments
• ‘New Era Dianetics’ (NED) and ‘Standard Dianetics’ (St Dn) - A comparison and study
          (‘going through incidents once only’ & ‘running with minimum TA’)
  
• ‘New Era Dianetics’ can not be run on Clears, but it can with ‘Standard Dianetics’

Standard Dianetics (St Dn) was a reissue of the 1950 Dianetics technique and as such released in April 1969, “reorganized and made more workable.”  LRH  (from HCOB 30 Jun 70R (Revised 6 March 1973) “VIII Actions”). Standard Dianetics was no Book One* auditing as various seem to think. This was a fullfledged auditing procedure complete with full use of the E-meter and all.

 
‘New Era Dianetics’ making its entry

Original NED Series written:  18 Jun to 20 Jul 78
NED released:  30 Jul 78  (see ‘The Auditor 151 (US edition)’, Sept 78)

 
‘New Era Dianetics’ (NED) knocking out ‘Standard Dianetics’ (St Dn) - A few comments

	“NED. (New Era Dianetics). A refinement of all previous Dianetic techniques from 1950 up to present time as well as the development of new technique giving much faster results and far higher gain per hour of auditing and speedy resolution of Dianetic cases.
	Included in NED are twelve brand new developments. They are all contained in far more detail in the NED HCOBs and packs. Due to the extensive changes and improvements in Dianetics, old Dianetic auditors are also training on the NED Course as it only takes 3 weeks for the able student.”

	“When I look back and remember the hundreds and even thousands of hours some people spent on Book One Dianetics, it's like an old story half remembered. If one of those 1950 auditors had the tools of NED they would have been bug-eyed at its fast results. Even the 1968 Dianetic auditor would have been incredulous if his preclears had responded with the speed that NED pcs are achieving. It's probably about 100 to 1. ...
	NED is cleaning up anything and everything Book One ever mentioned with lightning speed.”

 
‘New Era Dianetics’ (NED) and ‘Standard Dianetics’ (St Dn) - A comparison and study

• a) An overview of a few evaluations being offered
• b) A closer examination (1): “Drop of principle of unburdening (going through incidents once only)”  (Includes a notice about the publication ‘Science of Survival’ (1951))
• c) A closer examination (2): “running with minimum TA”  vs  The significance of getting Tone Arm Action (TA)

 
a) An overview of a few evaluations being offered

There exists a third evaluation (dated 30 January 2005) which favours Standard Dianetics and places various flaws at the address of New Era Dianetics, this has been written by an independent Scientologist but is almost entirely written in the German language. It appears thus that various are battling with how to interpret all these things, or ... are trying to fit the incidence of this New Era Dianetics into their already formed frame of mind, and that thus will justify it. One should think this one over carefully.

 
b) A closer examination (1): “Drop of principle of unburdening (going through incidents once only)”

	“If you run a lock, secondary or engram through TWICE and it does not erase, you ask for an earlier similar incident related to the somatic being handled.
	If a mental image picture goes more solid on the second pass through, an earlier similar incident must be found.
	Eventually you will find a basic incident that will erase. It will be the earliest on the chain. ...
	The rule is invariable—IF IT ISN'T ERASING OR IS GOING MORE SOLID AFTER TWICE THROUGH GET AN EARLIER INCIDENT RELATING TO THE ASSESSED SOMATIC AND RUN IT.”         LRH          (from HCOB 23 Apr 69 II “Dianetics, Erasure, How to Attain”)

	“Ordinarily one runs an incident through twice (Steps 1-9 then A-C), to unburden it and allow the pc to locate earlier incidents on the chain.
	However, the TA rising on Step 9 is an indication that there is something earlier. If the auditor observes the TA rising, he should ask the pc if there is an earlier incident, using in the command the exact same somatic or feeling used in Step One. If there is no earlier incident he asks if there is an earlier beginning.
	An auditor should never solidify a pc's bank by putting him through an incident TWICE, when by observation of the TA it is clear that the incident has gone more solid by the end of the FIRST run through.
	Checking for an earlier incident after the first run through (if the TA has risen) is the solution to this.”          (from HCOB 26 Jun 78RA (Revised 15 September 1978) “Routine 3RA, Engram Running by Chains”)

Now look closely for a moment, this modified Step Nine of the R3R procedure introduced a conditional, which is “if the TA has risen”. A direct consequence of this is that one is “running with minimum TA”. A result of this is that one is risking not discharging incidents, before going on to the next, because of too little TA. (I address this in section “c)”, next section)

A further argument would urge us to establish how often this “—if the thing appeared to be awful gummy, and so forth, and messed up—”, how often this would occur in session? As I am confided by various persons this is rather seldom. This is therefore another reason to not have it implemented as part of a standard procedure. And it wasn't, at least not until 1978, a whole 15 years later.

“So technical progress has been: ... COMPLETE DIANETICS - 1969. COMPLETE SCIENTOLOGY - 1970.”          LRH          (from ‘LRH ED 117 Int’, 26 Aug 70 “Current Cases”)

Now to sum this one up. Does it justify the reverting back of the NED technique to this little line from a lecture from 1963? As much as some people want this to be so, this just does not appear to be the case. But we are not actually ready here yet, as the modification to “going through incidents once only” had another consequence, which is that it lead to “running with minimum TA”, and this may very well have been the ruling contributing factor why L. Ron Hubbard did not actually made it part of a standard procedure. (see further section “c)”)

A notice about the publication ‘Science of Survival’ (1951) regarding this matter

 
c) A closer examination (2): “running with minimum TA”  vs  The significance of getting Tone Arm Action (TA)

To properly understand the significance of getting TA requires that one has a good understanding of what TA (Tone Arm Action) actually is and stands for. For this reason I offer here below a selection of quotations. This will give some idea of its boundaries.

Tone Arm Action (TA) quotations:

“This tone arm—this thing over here on the upper—upper-left side of the meter. ... And its read is monitored for the body. It reads the body. When a person is Clear you're not reading him; the E-Meter ceases to read.”          LRH
         (from Saint Hill Special Briefing Course lecture #1 “E-Meter Talk and Demo”, given on 7 May 61)

“The Tone Arm registers Density of Mass (ridges, pictures. machines, circuits) in the mind of the preclear. This is actual mass, not imaginary, and can be weighed, measured by resistance, etc. Therefore the Tone Arm registers State of Case at any given time in processing. The Tone Arm also registers advance of case during processing by moving. An unmoving case has an unmoving Tone Arm. A moving case has a moving Tone Arm.”          LRH
         (from E-Meter Essentials (1961), page 9)

“The TA is indicating the blowing off of force. That is a measure of the amount of encysted force which is leaving the case—the amount of encysted force leaving the case. You've got a measure of it right there. It goes up and down, and it measures the amount of force which is going.”          LRH
         (from Saint Hill Special Briefing Course lecture #291, renumbered 1991: #320 “Auditing Comm Cycle”, given on 6 Aug 63)

“Now, this tone arm is the instrument which measures the adequacy of restimulation. That shows you that an adequate amount of charge is being restimulated in the session and that it is being adequately dispelled on the itsa* line. And this shows you that the cycle of whatsit-itsa is in progress, and the amount of restimulation is adequate to get auditing done.”          LRH
         (from Saint Hill Special Briefing Course lecture #295, renumbered 1991: #324 “The Tone Arm”, given on 15 Aug 63)

“Tone Arm Action denotes a change and, therefore, that case gain for the preclear is occurring.”
         (from ‘Scientology Abridged Dictionary’ (1965))

“Do you see that your tone arm, the tone arm, is, in actual fact, the measure of accumulation of charge? The needle surges are just gradients of the tone arm. You can get a tone arm actually behaving like a needle. And a tone arm over a long period of time, does behave like a needle. A tone arm measures the amount of charge—up on the case at that particular time.”          LRH
         (from Class VIII Course lecture #6 “Mechanics of Techniques and Subject Matter”, given on 29 Sept 68)

“A technical term for the quantitative measurement of case gain in the Scientology processing of a preclear for a given unit of time.”
         (from Introduction to Scientology Ethics: Glossary (70's edition), page 38)

This should make things clear that one needs to get sufficient with TA on a person if you are going to be able to run out any incidents. Therefore running with minimum TA will complicate matters. It is thus vital to get adequate Tone Arm Action on a person. A guide for this can be found in HCOB 25 Sept 63 “Adequate Tone Arm Action”. L. Ron Hubbard states “Now that it has been established fully that a pc’s gain is directly and only proportional to Tone Arm Action, the question of how much Tone Arm Action is adequate must be answered.”. And he directs: “Tone Arm action is measured by DIVISIONS DOWN PER 2½ hour session or per hour of auditing.”. A table is presented in this HCOB that looks as follows:

	“Amount Per Session		Sessions Rating		PC Reaction
	25 Divs        20 Divs        15 Divs        10 Divs          5 Divs          0 Divs		Excellent Good Acceptable Poor Unacceptable Harmful		Feels wonderful Feels good Feels ‘Better’ Slight Change No Change Gets Worse”

L. Ron Hubbard then directs: “Anything from 10 Divs to 0 Divs of Down Tone Arm for a 2½ hour session is something to do something about. One gets very industrious in this range.”.

	“The most important difference between St Dn and NED is the amount of Tone Arm Action you get off with each: it is very high with St Dn (usually above 25 TA (divs) per 2.5 Hrs auditing) and very low with NED: often only 5 TA or less, which Ron calls harmful auditing, as it restimulates more than it erases.
	I would not object to going E/S (earlier similar) when the TA rises by 1.0 or more, but this happens very seldom. NED violates the original auditors code: per this code one repeats a process so long as it releases TA and one changes the action when TA diminishes. This was applied especially on St Dn and got lost with NED.
	So with St Dn you really dig out the pcs out of their case and with NED you put them in! One phenomenon proves this easily: NED pcs tend to run the same half dozens incidents again and again independent of the auditing command or item you assessed. This is an indicator of incidents not fully erased. And thus the mind protects itself and does not present many new incidents. - This can easily be observed by NED-auditors, but they usually don't pull the string.
	On St Dn you usually run different incidents with every new session. Only rarely happens, that incidents are run again and again: and in these cases there is something wrong: wrong flow, wrong date or such and when you find that, also these incidents diminish.”

	“The most vital necessity of auditing at any level of Scientology is to get Tone Arm Action. Not to worry the pc about it but just to get TA action. Not to find something that will get future TA. But just to get TA NOW.
	Many auditors are still measuring their successes by things found or accomplished in the session. Though this is important too (mainly at Level IV), it is secondary to Tone Arm Action.
	1.    Get good Tone Arm Action.
	2.    Get things done in the session to increase Tone Arm Action.”          LRH
	(from HCOB 1 Oct 63 “How to Get Tone Arm Action”)

 
‘New Era Dianetics’ can not be run on Clears, but it can with ‘Standard Dianetics’

	“New Era Dianetics or any Dianetics is NOT to be run on Clears or above or on Dianetic Clears. ...
	Anyone who has purchased NED auditing who is Clear or above must be routed to an AO or Flag to receive the special NED Rundown for OTs. They are NOT to be run on regular New Era Dianetics.”          LRH              (from HCOB 12 Sept 78 “Dianetics Forbidden on Clears and OTs”)

So, we can positively conclude here that what was being run was New Era Dianetics and not Standard Dianetics. It says this also specifically in the various available documentation. Nonetheless it concludes that “NED, or any Dianetics” can not be run. Standard Dianetics had never given any particular difficulties, please identify that these started when NED was being run! Or are we may be to presuppose that NED processing did something to the preclear, and that thereafter one can not run Standard Dianetics either anymore? The correctness of this presupposition is however rather unlikely. Either way this observation alone that NED was being run would thus indicate or point a finger at that something would be considerably different from Standard Dianetics that had given no cause for particular problems in the past. And consequently also would point a finger at a probable ineffectiveness of NED, as somatics remain. Hence the creation of New Era Dianetics for OT's (NOT's).

This generalization exercised of placing New Era Dianetics on the same level as Standard Dianetics is rather noteworthy considering my here above account of the happenings that led to this very decision of kicking Standard Dianetics.

Consequences of New Era Dianetics:

 
(2) ‘New Era Dianetics’ causing a change in the definition of Clear? or Grades V-VII turning obsolete (Sept 78)

• The ‘Scientology Clear’ (Grades V-VII) abandoned & Changing one's mind (includes note about training); What about Grades 0-IV during Sept 78-Dec 81? - An irregularity
• Clear without processing (Sept 78), the ‘Natural Clear’ (Mar 79) and feeding Clear cognitions
• Final notices and the ‘Basic Basic’

 
The ‘Scientology Clear’ (Grades V-VII) abandoned & Changing one's mind; What about Grades 0-IV during Sept 78-Dec 81? - An irregularity

• a) The ‘Scientology Clear’ (Grades V-VII) abandoned (includes note about training)
• b) Changing one's mind ...
• What about Grades 0-IV during Sept 78-Dec 81? - An irregularity

 
a) The ‘Scientology Clear’ (Grades V-VII) abandoned (includes note about training)

	“When a being has been trained up to Class VI and has been given the materials of the basic Reactive Mind to audit out (they took years to find and are too complex to be tackled without training and the actual patterns), he can then attain the state of Clear.
	The Reactive Mind is composed of significance and masses as old as the Universe itself and is the basic cause of the decline of the individual. Each person has his own basic bank but they are all exactly alike. The materials are quite useless and inhibiting.
	A Clear is not under the great stress of this bank and so can be free. He uses his own basic purposes and is for the first time wholly himself. ”          LRH          (from HCOB 12 Jul 65 “States of Being attained by Processing”)

	“After the locks come off you tackle the secondaries and engrams. Today that is handled on New Era Dianetics. In earlier years it was accomplished by Power Processing, Grades V and VA. Many people will rave endlessly about how mind blowing the Power Processes are.
	After Power came Solo Auditor training and then a level that is a tremendous amount of fun, R6EW (Routine 6 End Words) where you, as a Solo Auditor, fish around and find the significances in the mind that keep the basic core of the reactive mind in restimulation. It's a way to find all the things you've been dramatizing in your life and cool them off. For me, R6EW was the most fun I ever had in auditing.
	Then, finally, you come to the Clearing Course.”   Dan Koon

 
b) Changing one's mind ...

Mind that it says rather clearly in HCOB 24 Sept 78 III “Dianetic Clear” that “There is only a Dianetic Clear and he is a Clear.”. It directs that there is no such thing as a Scientology Clear! This simply can not be interpreted in any other way. It thus meant that there was no use for the Scientology grades V-VII. And indeed they got abandoned even if they still were listed on the Grade Chart issued December 1978 (see ‘What Is Scientology?’, (1978)). This however could be accounted for, as the book probably already had entered the printing line, it was released only 2 months later at Christmas 1978. A contributing factor could also have been as a consideration for those that were on these levels at the time of the announcement. It probably would have been decided to allow these persons to finish what they had started.

Either way a new trend was set in motion that this time directed that most but not all people went Clear on Dianetics. And these needed to be taken in account. The solution for this was the creation of what became to be referred to as the Alternate Route to Clear. It was offered as an option, but if it was actually in use, that would be a different matter.

 
What about Grades 0-IV during Sept 78-Dec 81? - An irregularity

“To flatten an incident Dianetically, you only erase it. To flatten it Scientologically you run it until pc has it back again fully and is total cause over it (you run it after it has erased).”          LRH
         (from HCOB 7 Apr 60 “A New Summary of Auditing”)

This matter of not accounting for this for so long (more than 3 years) could be seen as an obvious technical irregularity. The question is if L. Ron Hubbard would have missed something like this? A more put upon the right track question would probably be: “Does someone don't want us to do Grade V-VA, VI and VII?”.

	Sound snippet (1:03)
	(Please note that above sound snippet is longer than the printed text that you find here above.)

As I tend to perceive it, if some person(s) wanted to get rid of the higher Scientology grades, it could not have been done more amateurish than it has been done. There are just far too many slips made on its path. The sort of slips that L. Ron Hubbard would not likely have made.

An oddity is as well that if you look up Clear in the ‘Dianetics and Scientology: Technical Dictionary’ (latest edition 1978, 83) you will find this adjusted definition of Clear in there, and no other. However if you look up various of these matters in the ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes (latest edition 1991), then you would discover that clashing definitions and descriptions are found. This too would be an irregularity. You see, you simply can not have conflicting information about these this spread about in these volumes!

 
Clear without processing (Sept 78), the ‘Natural Clear’ (Mar 79) and feeding Clear cognitions

It went even further as September 1978 also introduced the datum that there were persons that did not need Dianetics or hardly any processing at all for that matter. A prologue to this concept we find in the confidential HCOB 24 Sept 78 IV “The State of Clear” that relates about that this could occur on Goals Processing, or even Objective Processes.

Either way this concept was all nicely paving the way for the Natural Clear. Per HCOB 5 Mar 79R (Revised 6 March 1979) “Dianetic Clear False Declares”: “Technically, a very few thetans have never been anything but Clear. These few didn't ‘go Clear’ on anything; they have simply always been Clear. When a natural Clear is found it should be so stated.”. It was even made punishable (underlining is mine): “failing to declare one who made it on Dianetics or the Clearing Course or who has always been Clear, are also actionable”.

 
Final notices and the ‘Basic Basic’

“BASIC BASIC—This belongs in Scientology. It is wholly beyond the scope of Dianetics. It means the most basic basic of all basics and results in clearing. It is found on the Clearing Course. If contacted or run before the pc was brought up through the Scientology Grades, he wouldn't be able to handle it anyway as experience has shown. So this is part of Scientology, not Dianetics.”          LRH
         (from HCOB 23 Apr 69 “Basic Definitions”)

 
(3) ‘New Era Dianetics’ causing the need for ‘New Era Dianetics for OT's’? (Sept 78)

An obvious coincidence emerges here. As it seemed unrelated at first we see in the very same month the introduction of a new definition for Clear and a new service that is addressed as NED for OT's (usually briefly referred to as NOT's). What they amongst other have in common is that either of them limit the use of Dianetics (or NED). First released already on 15 September 1978, but nonetheless not delivered to the public till it got released at Flag on 16 December 1978.

In this study you will also find a note in regards to the whereabouts of L. Ron Hubbard concerning NED for OT's. One could summarize this by saying that he is conspicuous by his absence. We don't hear him, and we don't see him. In that regard what has been the actual role of David Mayo in respect to NED for OT's? This is quite relevant to ask as for he released them, and what records confirm, he most likely wrote them.

 
Various closing considerations worthy of mention

• a) Warning signs  or  How easily a workable technology can get lost
• b) Déjà vu? Banished in 1970, but accepted some 10 years later. Why?
• c) Dianetics placed out of reach ... and not being delivered when it should ...
• The ‘David Mayo Bridge’
• Ideal scene  vs  The lost Bridge

 
a) Warning signs  or  How easily a workable technology can get lost

	“In the dictionary you will find ‘Quickie also quicky: something done or made in a hurry. Also: a hurriedly planned and executed program (as of studies).’ ...
	Anything that does not fully satisfy all requirements is QUICKIE.
	So ‘quickie’ really means ‘omitting actions for whatever reason that would satisfy all demands or requirements and doing something less than could be achieved.’
	In short a quickie is not doing all the steps and actions that could be done to make a perfect whole.”          LRH          (from HCOB 19 Apr 72 “‘Quickie’ Defined”)

I write these lines here just to get you into the state of mind that one is not to fall for some rather excessive promotion as we saw it at the time of the release of NED, and its relay of the concept that it was so very effective as if it virtually could handle anything. This may have persuaded people to too quickly accept that it had made the higher Scientology grades (V-VA, VI and VII) redundant. Some evaluation has to be enforced onto these matters, by you. We are not to just accept, and adopt what some will say or claim. Freedom is not found this way, and this is not how the subject of Dianetics en Scientology functions. Time after time L. Ron Hubbard has forewarned that man will try to knock out or alter that which works. Man persistently will invent new solutions. This is the reactive mind speaking. This can be observed happening within the world at large, but also this has been tried within Scientology numerous times and which was then counteracted and rectified by L. Ron Hubbard. And today we have New Era Dianetics which all by itself literally knocked out a carefully laid out route that took many years and thousands of hours of research to put together, it just wiped it out. The technique of New Era Dianetics is rather simple, why was it not discovered and in use much earlier?

New Era Dianetics for OT's (NOT's) may also indicate at that NED may not be doing what it is supposed to handle, as it confirms that somatics are still a bother after having attested to Clear. First offered only as a rundown* (since September 1978), and a 3½ years later (in March 1982) it suddenly turned mandatory and was rechristened as New OT V. The problem here is that we find far too many of such inconsistencies which were because of NED and its direct consequences. It is like if one has been attempting to patch up the Bridge actions and cope ever since!

The creation of the Alternate Route to Clear also appears to add upon the confusion. For if all that man has in common is the reactive mind then how would this justify an Alternate Route? All that I ask is to you to enforce plain logic, and then see where it gets you.

	“In November 1978 I was posted as a Cramming Officer in the Qual Div* at WHQ, Scientology's Winter Headquarters. I fired on an Obs* Mission to PAC* to gather data on the effect of the Dianetic Clear announcement. I did another one about 14 months later in January 1980. The difference in  data gathered on the two missions was dramatic. From the first, most of those coming in to attest to Clear were Power Releases who had stalled on the Bridge or preclears who had had many, many, many hours of Dianetics. By 1980 the demographic had switched to public who had little Dianetics, or even much Grade Chart auditing at all. Quite a large number were asserting ‘Natural Clear’ after mention of the state by LRH, though in a recorded remark to a Tech Messenger around that time he said there were probably 4 on the entire planet. I don't think that was ever made known.
	Clearly, things were a mess. C/Ses didn't know what they were doing and Snr C/S Int Office was little help in straightening out the scene. The initial handling was the DCSI, the Dianetic Clear Special Intensive. This was developed by LRH in conjunction with the then Snr C/S Int, David Mayo. The DCSI was followed years later by the Clear Certainty Rundown, which itself was revised several years later. A NOTs handling was developed for cases who had gotten onto OT levels but whose Clear status was still in doubt.”   Dan Koon

* Qual Div.  ‘Qualification Division’.   * Obs.  ‘Observation’.   * PAC.  ‘Pacific Area Command (base)’. The Church's national seminary headquarters located in Hollywood, Los Angeles.

	Sound snippet (1:28)
	(Please note that above sound snippet is longer than the printed text that you find here above.)

	Sound snippet (1:05)
	(Please note that above sound snippet is longer than the printed text that you find here above.)

 
b) Déjà vu? Banished in 1970, but accepted some 10 years later. Why?

Most people unfortunately are rather gullible and highly uncritical and when that, which was earlier delegated to the trash bin, is introduced once again, it gets, for some reason, more than readily accepted, and finally adopted. And from that day on they will live by it. Not looking left nor right and willfully ignoring all of the symptoms of the disease that are in plain sight.

“I'll not always be here on guard. The stars twinkle in the Milky Way and the wind sighs for songs across the empty fields of a planet a Galaxy away.”          LRH
         (from booklet ‘Scientology: Clear Procedure - Issue One’ (published 1957))

Therefore, find L. Ron Hubbard concerning such matters!

 
c) Dianetics placed out of reach ... and not being delivered when it should ...

“All you really have to do to get at least a minimum job of it is to get the materials and the students and keep them at it.
It takes a steady three or four weeks of work to make a Dianetic Auditor.”          LRH
         (from HCO PL 9 Dec 71 (Revised 22 February 1975) “What? No Auditors?”)

The most vital ingredient of all that is contained in the subjects of Dianetics and Scientology is in fact Dianetics. You get close to instant results and it gets the person motivated to continue and find out more what is on that route called Scientology. It was always Dianetics what got people into Scientology. The final product of Dianetics was the Dianetic Clear, and Scientology only then made its entry when it was found that this state of Clear was somehow not stable. This led to the development of the Scientology grades.

“What has happened here is that they were using Scientology to escape an uncomfortable body that should have been straightened out by Dianetics in the first place. The ‘out grade’ is in fact Dianetics, failure to use it before going on to Scientology.”          LRH
         (from HCOB 1 May 69 “Grinding Out Engrams”)

Summarizing this it seems that we could then conclude that first the effectiveness of Dianetics itself was being interfered with (replaced with NED), secondly was put out of reach (placed after the Grades), and thirdly its use had been invalidated overall (in spite of clear references stating its significance and sheer necessity). This has been a rather interesting development. Man indeed does intend to destroy that which is good for him, and then justify it. The gullibleness of man and how amazingly easy he can be led astray however astounds me grandly.

 
The ‘David Mayo Bridge’

 
Ideal scene  vs  The lost Bridge

There appear to exist people that swear by New Era Dianetics, and if it is their wish to maintain and use that. Then let them do so. However, don't let this result in that people are denied to do the original route with Standard Dianetics if it be their wish to do so! Thus far this is exactly what has happened, this route has been categorically denied! It is a reality that Standard Dianetics got kicked for no valid on-policy reason. For that reason alone it should be reinstated. This automatically also would mean that it would turn mandatory to do the Scientology grades V-VII. Then considering that the consequences of New Era Dianetics actually caused the sequence change of first Grades and then Dianetics. Then this could/should be restored on that route as well. It is simply a matter of restoring lost tech, no more, no less. Now, are these targets for implementation actually realistic to any extend? In fact, I don't think that they are for one bit. May be for the various Free Zone out there, but quite not so for the Church of Scientology. But then again, one might get a surprise some day. For now, let's focus on to just getting Standard Dianetics actually reinstated and in use!

There remains one obstacle though, and that is that the auditing procedure Routine 3-R (R3R), Engram Running by Chain is this much different, I refer to Step Nine (see at “‘New Era Dianetics’ (NED) and ‘Standard Dianetics’ (St Dn) - A comparison and study”), and that they are likely to get confused if the same person one day audits someone with the Standard Dianetics technique and another day someone else with the New Era Dianetics technique. Therefore be careful about your choice of auditor.

Vocabulary:

     72RA, 72R, 65RB:
For example: ‘HCO PL 2 May 72RA’, ‘HCOB 13 Aug 72R’ & ‘HCO PL 23 Dec 65RB’. The date denotes the first time it has been published in issue-form. The R stands for 'Revision' and would refer to that it has been revised since it was first issued. If it is revised a 2nd time it says RA, a 3rd time RB etc..
     AD13:
‘After Dianetics 13’: The book Dianetics was written and published in 1950. 13 years after Dianetics would give 1963.
     AO:
Short for ‘Advanced Organization’: A Scientology organization which services higher level auditing & training.
     audit, auditing, auditor:
The application of Scientology processes and procedures to someone by a trained auditor (listener). The goal of the auditor is to make the receiver of the auditing look at incidents and reduce the mental charge which may lay upon them. The auditor may not evaluate and has to adhere to the Auditor's code.
     Book One:
Refers to ‘Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health’ which was first published in 1950. ‘A Handbook of Dianetic Procedure.’
     BTB:
‘Board Technical Bulletin’, these are the issues of the Boards of Directors of the Churches of Scientology. Issue-type for technical bulletins not written by L. Ron Hubbard. In Jan 1974 projects were started to cancel HCOB's not written by L. Ron Hubbard and if still found being valid reissued as BTB's.
     CCRD:
‘Clear Certainty Rundown’.
     C/S:
‘Case Supervisor’.  1. That person in a Scientology Church who gives instructions regarding, and supervises the auditing of preclears. The abbreviation C/S can refer to the Case Supervisor or to the written instructions of a case supervisor depending on context. (BTB 12 Apr 72R)  2. The C/S is the case supervisor. He has to be an accomplished and properly certified auditor and a person trained additionally to supervise cases. The C/S is the auditor's “handler.” He tells the auditor what to do, corrects his tech, keeps the lines straight and keeps the auditor calm and willing and winning. The C/S is the pc's case director. His actions are done for the pc. (Dianetics Today, Bk. 3, p. 545)
     C/S, C/Sed:
‘Case Supervisor’. A case supervisor direction of what to audit on a pc.
     (auditing) CS-1:
‘Case Supervisor-1’. 1. A general C/S which covers the basics of getting a preclear sessionable. The product is an educated pc who can run Scientology or Dianetics easily and get case gain. (BTB 8 Jan 71R)  2. Purpose: to give preclears new to Dianetics or Scientology and to give previously audited preclears as needed, the necessary data and R-factor on basics and auditing procedure so that he understands and is able and willing to be audited successfully. (BTB 8 Jan 71R)
     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:
A Clear has no vicious reactive mind and operates at total mental capacity just like the first book (DMSMH) said. (HCOB 2 Apr 65)  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. (DMSMH, p. 111)
     Date/Locate (D/L):
1. A process to date and locate a flat point in a process that appears overrun. (HCOB 24 Sept 71)  2. The essence of the drill is to bring a pc to PT (present time) by erasing the date by spotting and the location by spotting, as the pc is out of PT fixed by both date and location. (HCOB 24 Sept 74R)
     Dn:
Short for ‘Dianetics’.
     ED:
‘Executive Directive’ or ‘Executive Director’.
     engram:
1. Simply moments of physical pain strong enough to throw part or all the analytical machinery out of circuit; they are antagonism to the survival of the organism or pretended sympathy to the organism’s survival. That is the entire definition. Great or little unconsciousness, physical pain, perceptic content, and contra-survival or pro-survival data. (Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, p. 68)  2. A moment when the analytical mind is shut down by physical pain, drugs or other means, and the reactive bank is open to the receipt of a recording. (Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, p. 153)  3. The word engram is an old one borrowed from biology. It means simply, “a lasting memory trace on a cell.” It may be engraved on more than the cell, but up against Dianetic processing, it is not very lasting. (Science of Survival, p. 10)  4. A recording which has the sole purpose of steering the individual through supposed but usually nonexistent dangers. (Science of Survival, p. 10)  5. A mental image picture which is a recording of a time of physical pain and unconsciousness. It must by definition have impact or injury as part of its content. (HCOB 23 Apr 69)  6. A complete recording, down to the last accurate detail, of every perception present in a moment of partial or full unconsciousness. (Scientology 0-8, p. 11)  
     entheta:
Means enturbulated theta (thought or life); especially refers to communications, which, based on lies and confusions, are slanderous, choppy or destructive in an attempt to overwhelm or suppress a person or group.
     file clerk:
Dianetic auditors’ slang for the mechanism of the mind which acts as a data monitor. Auditors could get instant or “flash” answers direct from the file clerk to aid in contacting incidents. (The Phoenix Lectures, pp 207-208)
     Free Zone:
Free Zone generally is regarded being those groups (as in plural) that practice Scientology outside of the control of the official Church of Scientology. Various of these groups may have their personal approach about how to use the Scientology technology. See also my note here (link will open in separate window). 
     HCO (HCO Division):
‘Hubbard Communications Office’: It's in charge of the org boards, personnel, hatting and communication lines. HCO builds, holds, maintains, mans and controls the organization. It's in charge of inspection and it's in charge of ethics. Has the say on all copyrights and trademarks, rights of materials and the issuance of publications.
     HCOB:
‘Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin’: issue-type since Jan 74 reserved for L. Ron Hubbard only, these address technical issues, having to do with auditing procedures and courses. 
     HCO PL or PL:
‘Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letter’: issue-type reserved for L. Ron Hubbard only, these address administrative issues. 
     itsa:
1. The action of the pc saying “It's a this or it's a that.” (HCOB 6 Nov 64)  2. A pc who is itsaing is simply looking at and identifying some thing. (SH Spec 320, 6310C31)  3. TA comes from saying “It is...” Itsa isn't even a comm line. It's what travels on a comm line from pc to auditor, if that which travels is saying with certainty “It is.” (HCOB 1 Oct 63)
     itsa line:
The pc's line to the auditor. (HCOB 23 May 71 III)
     lock:
1. An analytical moment in which the perceptics of the engram are approximated, thus restimulating the engram or bringing it into action, the present time perceptics being erroneously interpreted by the reactive mind to mean that the same condition which produced physical pain once before is now again at hand. Locks contain mainly perceptics; no physical pain and very little misemotion. (Science of Survival, p. 112)  2. A situation of mental anguish. It depends for its force on the engram to which it is appended. The lock is more or less known to the analyzer. It's a moment of severe restimulation of an engram. (Dianetics: Evolution of a Science, p. 84).
     LRH:
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’.
     NED:
‘New Era Dianetics’. Offcially released to the public on 30 July 1978 (ref.: ‘The Auditor 151 (US edition)’, Sept 78). It replaced and abolished the previous in use Standard Dianetics (St Dn).
     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 outher people, and increase his ability to have things for himself. They bring him into the present, away from his past problems.)
     org:
Abbreviation for ‘organization’.
     OT (Operating Thetan):
1. Willing and knowing cause over life, thought, matter, energy, space and time. And that would of course be mind and that would of course be universe. (SH Spec 80, 6609C08)  2. An individual who could operate totally independently of his body whether he had one or didn't have one. He's now himself, he's not dependent on the universe around him. (SH Spec 66, 6509C09)  3. A being at cause over matter, energy, space, time, form and life. Operating comes from “able to operate without dependency on things” and thetan is the Greek letter theta (θ), which the Greeks used to represent “thought” or perhaps “spirit” to which an “n” is added to make a new noun in the modern style used to create words in engineering. (Book of Case Remedies, p. 10)
     overt, overt act:
A harmful act or a transgression against the moral code of a group. When a person does something that is contrary to the moral code he has agreed to, or when he omits to do something that he should have done per that moral code, he has committed an overt. An overt violates what was agreed upon. An overt can be intentional or unintentional.
     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) Abbr. pc.
     R6:
‘Routine 6’. Abbreviation for Routine 6. It means the exact processes and aspects of case handled at Level VI of Scientology (BTB 12 Apr 72R)
     R6EW:
‘Routine 6 End Words’. When the pc has taken the locks off the reactive mind itself, using R6EW, he attains Fourth Stage Release. (HCOB 30 Aug 65) [Grade VI Release]. (see also lock in vocabulary)
     reactive mind:
1. That portion of a person's mind which works on a stimulus-response basis (given a certain stimulus, it gives a certain response) which is not under his volitional control and which exerts force and the power of command over his awareness, purposes thoughts, body and actions. It consists of GPMs, Engrams, Secondaries and Locks. (Scientology Abridged Dictionary)  2. Stored in the reactive mind are engrams, and here we find the single source of aberrations and psychosomatic ills. (Scientology 0-8, p. 11)  3. ‘bank’: a colloquial name for the reactive mind. This is what the procedures of Scientology are devoted to disposing of, for it is only a burden to an individual and he is much better off without it. (Scientology Abridged Dictionary)  4. The reactive mind acts below the level of consciousness. It is the literal stimulus-response mind. Given a certain stimulus it gives a certain response. (The Fundamentals of Though, p. 58)
     rundown:
A series of steps which are auditing actions and processes designed to handle a specific aspect of a case and which have a known end phenomena. As a rule this is only a corrective action and not a mandatory part of the Bridge.
     Scn:
Short for ‘Scientology’.
     secondary:
A mental image picture of a moment of severe and shocking loss or threat of loss which contains misemotion such as anger, fear , grief, apathy or “deathfulness.” It is a mental image recording of a time with severe mental stress. It may contain unconsciousness. Called a secondary because it itself depends upon an earlier engram with similar data but real pain, etc. (HCOB 23 Apr 69)
     St Dn:
‘Standard Dianetics’. Reissue of 1950-Tech, as such established and released in April 1969 (ref.: HCOB 24 Apr 69 “Dianetic Use”). Abolished and replaced by New Era Dianetics (NED) since 30 July 1978.
     TA:
‘Tone arm action’. See quotations at “‘New Era Dianetics’ (NED) and ‘Standard Dianetics’ (St Dn) - A comparison and study”, section “c)”.
     thetan:
1. The living unit we call, in Scientology, a thetan, that being taken from the Greek letter theta, the mathematic symbol used in Scientology to indicate the source of life and life itself. (Ability Magazine 1)  2. The person himself—not his body or his name, the physical universe, his mind, or anything else; that which is aware of being aware; the identity which is the individual. The thetan is most familiar to one and all as you. (Auditor 25 UK)
     Tone scale:
1. Essentially an assignation of numerical value by which individuals can be numerically classified. It is not arbitrary but will be found to approximate some actual governing law in nature. (Dianetics: The Original Thesis p. 59)  2. A person in apathy rises through various tones. These tones are quite uniform; one follows the next and people always come up through these tones, one after the other. These are the tones of affinity, and the tone scale of Dn and Scn is probably the best possible way of predicting what is going to happen next or what a person actually will do. The tone scale starts well below apathy. In other words, a person is feeling no emotion about a subject at all. On many subjects and problems people are actually well below apathy. There the tone scale starts, on utter, dead null far below death itself. Going up into improved tones one encounters the level of body death, apathy, grief, fear, anger, antagonism, boredom, enthusiasm and serenity, in that order. There are many stops between these tones. A person in grief, when his tone improves feels fear. A person in fear, when his tone improves feels anger. (Problems of Work, pp. 77-78).
     TR:
‘Training regimen or routine’. Often referred to as a training drill. TRs are a precise training action putting a student through laid out practical steps gradient by gradient, to teach a student to apply with certainty what he has learned. In particular these are for training of an auditor in regards to communication. The ones presently in use are OT TR 0, TR 0 confronting, TR 0 bullbait, TR 1, 2, 2½, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 100, 100-A, 101, 102, 103 & 104. (for more data see Technical Dictionary & HCOB 17 Jul 69RB)