The Training Routines
& How to Do them

 

 

Two students doing TR's. One is coach the other the student auditor. They take turns and help each other through the drills to full End Phenomenon.

In this chapter we are basically going to teach you how to do the TR's right.

You already know a good deal about them. In the chapter 'Auditing and Communication' we covered how important communication is to results in auditing and we have covered, that  the TR's are the drills where you learn to do it right.

You have to know these drills cold and do them well and effortlessly in session. It takes scores of hours of hard work (and a lot of fun) to get them right and when you finally have them down, and you think you know them in and out, you may suddenly discover that the instructor wants you to do some more.
R. Hubbard estimated it should take a week full time, more or less, to get there. The course is however to result and there is not any set time limit on a correctly run course.

It may be hard and tough  to get through them, but relax. As you learned in the chapter about ARC, life is ARC, the purpose of auditing is increased ARC - and the TR's will certainly increase you ARC. Every hour spent on these drills will not only benefit you as an auditor, as you get the necessary skills to run a perfect session, it will also give you the skills to run your life better. Life is ARC. ARC is life and the TR's is how you deal with life and ARC.

Confronting
The TR's and the perfect communication cycle starts with confronting. As there are several definitions in the English dictionary of 'Confront', let us point out exactly what we mean: "To face without flinching or avoiding". A sentence with that meaning: "A free society has to be able to confront its problems and resolve them peacefully".
There is another meaning in the dictionary meaning: "To stand facing or opposing, as in a challenge, defiance or accusation". The root of the word is "fron" meaning "face". Apparently 'to face' something was to some so bad as being an act of defiance.

To stand facing or opposing,  as in a challenge,  defiance or accusation	To face without  flinching or avoiding

But one has to be able to face things in order to do something about them. This is an important first step. If one cannot face something, if he avoids them instead, then he is not aware.

Awareness is the ability to perceive the existence of. So confront in our specific use of the word is: "Being able to stand up without shrinking back and thus be able to be fully conscious of the real universe and others around him."

If you can confront you can be aware. If you are aware you can perceive and act. If you can not confront you will not be aware of things and will to that degree be withdrawn and not perceiving. You will thus be unaware of what is going on around you.

That is a basic law, the technology here.

The first step in handling anything is gaining the ability to face it. You could say that war keeps being a threat to Man because Man cannot confront war. The more terrible weapons Man invents, the more sure it is that war will continue to exist. As war gets harder and harder to confront the less Man's ability becomes to stop fighting them.

This is actually the basic anatomy of a problem. A problem starts with the inability to confront something. One can trace the beginning of any problem back to this: an unwillingness or inability to confront an area.
Lets take an example from work: let's say a person can't confront his boss; he will for sure have endless problems with that job and will probably have to find another job after a short period of time.

It's a basic truth that one never solves anything by running away from it.

Of course, one could say on the other hand, you will never solve the problems of bullets and cannon balls by just exposing yourself to them. By not taking cover. The ironic truth is that if no one cared if they got shot or not, cannon balls and bullets as a means of controlling people would be useless and would soon fall out of use as a way of control.

If you were to interview homeless people, that live on the street, you would soon find that there wasn't one instance where their basic difficulties couldn't be traced back to their inability to confront.
An auditor once told me a story about a criminal, that he tried to help. The criminal was paralyzed in the one side of his body as was his right arm. He made a living by walking up to people in dark places and knocking them down and take their money and valuables. The criminal could not connect his paralysis with the fact that he used his arm to strike people. Since his childhood he had been taught not to confront men. The closest he could come to confront men was to seek them out in a dark alley and strike them down. That is how he got started on his criminal career.

The more terrible crime is made to look in the press, on TV and in books; the more it gets surrounded with an atmosphere of glamour and terror, the less society will be able to handle crime.

In education, the more intellectual and high flying a subject is made, the less the students will be able to handle the subject. This is routinely done to a number of subjects as to make them inaccessible and thus more 'respectable'. This is true in medicine, law and science.

Early 19th and 20th century psychiatry was made so complicated and so incomprehensible and demonstrated such a basic lack of understanding of Man, that no student could possibly confront it. Man was described so beastlike that no one would want to confront his basic nature and problems.

In ST we have to overcome the idea that the mind is such a complicated and formidable subject. Many students come in with these ideas that it is a dangerous subject; that it is a very complicated subject and it is a very risky undertaking to try to understand the mind. They are afraid their own sanity is at risk. Indeed, that they have turned up for class at all speaks to their outmost courage and curiosity that got the better of them.

But they will often come in with these ideas they have from psychology and psychiatry, that the subject is extremely complex and a little bit dangerous to get into. This is not due to anything else but psychology's and psychiatry's inability to confront Man and his nature. It has over the centuries been made into a scary field - a dangerous field one should keep out of if he had his own good interests in mind.

This tradition, to make Man, his mind and spirit, look as scary subjects is not an invention of psychology. It goes back centuries and centuries. The old popular beliefs and superstitions around ghosts, demons and evil spirits talk to this. They were made to look so evil and so dangerous, that Man in general gave up on the idea that he could be anything else than a piece of meat and a brain. The idea that Man had a soul or was a soul wasn't acceptable in that context.

This whole corruption of basic ideas may very well have been staged by hidden enslavers. By making Man so confused about his basic nature, by making him incapable of confronting it, Man got confused and weaker and easier to control.

Communism was an example of this. They gave the soul and spirit such a bad name and prohibited religion by law in order to turn the population into a heard of manageable sheep.

"The soul is invisible and thus it does not exist" seems to be the logic here. This has been used by these enslavers to either deny its existence or paint it any way they saw fit. It is not an easy task to confront the invisible; yet each time the invisible and the unknown has been confronted honestly and courageously in history of science and exploration Man has made leaps forward.

So confronting is at the heart of gaining true knowledge, of gaining peace of mind and of throwing off chains of slavery.

"The content of the    reactive mind could   be reduced to  being pictures."   (click picture to enlarge)

Confronting and the Mind
The content of the reactive mind could be reduced to being 'pictures'.

What you find there are mental image pictures with a very detailed recording of time, place, event, the exact consideration at the time, etc., etc. - all these facts in great detail. Man in his normal state is not capable of confronting these pictures. They make him depressed, make him sick and give him all kinds of non-survival ideas. They make him unable to think clearly about things and make him act in irrational ways.

One of R. Hubbard's basic experiments was, to 'run an incident'. He would ask a person, that had just come into his office to lie down and relax. (they were using a couch or bed back then).

He would instruct him something like this: I want to run an incident. I will send you back to an earlier moment of today and have you go through that incident moment for moment as if it was happening right now. He would snap his fingers and say: "Be at the breakfast table of this morning." "Good". "Go through the event of eating breakfast as if it is happening right now and tell me every single detail as you go along." The patient would do this. His average patient could recount these recent incidents with an astonishing grade of detail and many perceptions. He could be made to recall sounds, smells, feeling of fullness, etc., etc. He could be made to recall conversations he had paid no attention to at the time and recall them word for word and make out the meaning in session. So obviously it was recordings. You know, you make a recording or a video so you can look at it later and make sense of it then.

It soon became clear in R. Hubbard's research, that the 'unconscious mind', or reactive mind as he called it, was full of these very detailed and sometimes horrible recordings. It became clear that often, if a person was confronted with 'unconfrontable' things, he would shut down analytically. He would become less aware and to a degree unconscious. But he would still make a recording of the incident! The motto of the reactive mind could be said to be: "let's close our eyes and make a recording so we don't have to look at it now and let's get the hell out of here."

"Let's close our eyes and     make a recording of it - and    get the hell out of here."

It is something like what a TV crew in a war zone would do. They are near the front where all types of fighting and hostilities take place. They have no desire to get hurt. They may not even want to see and know what is going on. But they set up their cameras and their microphones and start them rolling and seek cover themselves. When the battle is over they pick up their equipment and ship the tapes back to their news editor at the TV station and let him make sense out of it all.

So the Bank is full of pure recordings with no attempts to make sense out of it. It is full of recordings of incidents that were never confronted. And here we are back on track: Confront.

What is wrong with your pc, you know this perfectly normal guy that sits in front of you, but has all these odd ideas and fears, etc. that he manages to keep in check and sweep under the rug, is his confront. He has all these recordings in his Bank of incidents he couldn't confront when they took place. So he said to himself: Let me make a recording of this, seek cover, and get the hell out of danger. I'll look at it later.

Well, now is the time. That's why he is sitting in the chair in front of you. He is asking you to be his 'news editor' and help him look at all these old recordings and hopefully make them less scary and help him make some sense out of it.

The ability to handle and confront recordings in the mind is an important first step.

On the recall grade on this level, you will get some subjective familiarity with that. On the recall step you deal mainly with pleasant incidents, but you see, it is still a first important step like running the incident of 'eating breakfast this morning'.

As a pc goes along in auditing he gets more and more familiar with handling all these recordings in his mind. Eventually he becomes so good at it so he realizes that there are no more pictures in the reactive mind. And this we call Clear!

A Clear in an absolute or ideal sense, would be someone that could confront anything and everything in the past, present and future. This would be the ultimate state of case. A Clear in the sense of ST is a person, that has confronted his reactive mind and is at cause over mental matter, energy, space and time (= mental MEST). That is what his recordings consist of.

Unfortunately for the world of action it will become clear, that a pc that can confront anything will feel no need to handle anything. There is a process on ST Level One called "Problems of Comparable Magnitude". Observing this process in action supports that statement.

The pc is first asked to select a terminal which has caused him a lot of difficulties. The definition of "terminal" is a 'live mass' or something that is capable receiving and sending communications. What usually comes up are people in the problem category; they are in any pc's Bank as 'live masses'. The auditor will then ask the pc to "invent a problem of comparable magnitude to that person". He is given this auditing command many, many times. It is run as a repetitive process. It may start out with the pc being all apathetic about this person in his life; this terminal which is also in his Bank.

At some point half way through the process the pc will be willing to do something about it. He is now suddenly willing to consider doing this and that about his problem, often wild and violent things that at least would solve that problem. Solving problems in a wild or violent way will however usually cause a whole new set of problems, so that tells the auditor he isn't done yet.

The auditor keeps up the process "Invent a problem of comparable magnitude to that terminal". At the end of the process a new and strange phenomenon is found to take place. The pc does not any longer feel that he must do something about the problem. He has come up to a point where he can confront the problem and the persons involved. He can look upon it all with the greatest peace of mind.

Now an almost mystical phenomenon is likely to take place. It will be found that the problem in the physical universe, that had worried the pc half to death and wrecked his life, suddenly seems to have ceased to exist. In other words the ultimate handling of this problem was to raise the pc's ability to confront it. As soon as he could confront it completely it miraculously disappeared. 
It can be hard to believe, that a woman who has the problem of an alcoholic husband could cure that individual from drinking simply by processing her problem with it. Yet this has been seen to happen in numerous cases.

I am not saying that running 'problems of comparable magnitude' on a few people could solve all the problems in the world. But for every individual that confront the problems of the world, we are one step closer.

It could be a theoretical possibility, if there existed one person in the universe who could confront the entire universe and all the problems in it the whole universe would become a better place; it would feel less solid and uncooperative.

Man's difficulties are his piled up incidents of flinching, avoiding and cowardly retreating. To start having real difficulties in life all you have to do is to run away from your problems and the business of living. After that huge unsolvable problems will be all over the place. When people are prevented and restrained from confronting life they will for sure build up their proneness to have difficulties with it.

In drilling you  always work     with your twin.

Coaching the TR's
When you drill the TR's you work two and two. As described in the beginning of this chapter, you will sit across from each other, only about a meter, or 3 feet, apart. There is no table; just the two chairs you sit on.

The one twin is called the student. He is the one, that receives the training. He learns step by step to act and behave as the auditor does in session. So the student is the one, that receives the training.

The other twin is called the coach. She is the one, that teaches the student. She is the instructor of the drill, the one that calls the shots. The term 'coach' is best known from sports. It is the guy that instructs the players and shows them what to do. He is the one that gives the players practical advice from the sideline.

In the TR's you take turns however. First twin A is the coach and twin B is the student. After a while they switch around. Now twin B is the coach and twin A is the student.

To be a good coach in TR's, it is important that you follow the written materials closely. You are there to point out when the student doesn't do it right. You find the paragraph in the written materials that he is violating and point out what he did wrong. You can ask him to read it again (when needed). There is no need for heated discussions. You simply follow the written materials and point out what he did wrong. The course instructor is not directly involved in the drills. But if a problem should arise, that you can't solve on the spot with the use of the written materials, you should call him over and have him help clear it up. As a coach you are there to step by step make the student a better and better student auditor.

The drills may at first seem designed to be a contest between coach and student. But that is the wrong idea. You are on the same team. The coach is the sparring partner. She will invent situations, that are realistic and train the student to handle it correctly so he is well prepared for a live pc in a real session.

Coaching
Here are some important points of coaching:

1. Coach with a purpose. Set as a goal for yourself and the student, that he is going to get the training drill done correctly. Work and coach with this goal in mind all the time. When you correct the student you do it for a reason. You want him to gain a better understanding of the drill and become better to execute it. Step by little step you get him to the best of his ability.

2. Coach with reality. Be realistic in your coaching. When you make up a situation, make sure it is a situation the student could actually run into as an auditor.

On TR-4, handling of originations, you train situations, where the pc comes with sudden out of context statements, like "My leg suddenly hurts" or whatever. The coach will usually have a sheet of such statements to go by. She should make such statements sound real as a pc would say them. She does not have to 'feel the pain' of course. It's a game of play acting. You should just be able to state it in a natural way. You shouldn't take anything from your own past experience. This could develop into restimulation and you would loose control. You should stay with inventing things in present time and at any time be able to step back and correct the student, when needed.

3. Coach with intention. Behind all your coaching should be the intention that by the end of the coaching session the student will be better at the drill than when he started out. Him being aware of that and being validated is also part of this. The student must have a feeling of that he accomplished something in the training step, no matter how little. As a coach you should create a positive atmosphere of "You can do it!" It is your intention at all times in drilling that you will bring about a greater understanding and ability on the part of the student of the subject matter being coached.

4. Only take up one thing at the time. For example: When you are coaching TR-4, you are trying to put it all together. But when you first start out coaching TR-4 you would look at one little aspect at the time.

A good way to go, is to look for elements from each of the earlier TR's. Is the student confronting you? (TR-0); if not, correct only that.
Does he state the question each time as his own, and does he really intend you to receive it? (TR-1); if not, take up this thing only as the next step.
Does his acknowledgments really end the communication cycle for you? (TR-2). Coach only this point next.

Never do two or more points at the same time. Make sure he does one point correctly before you go onto the next point or next drill. You should set a high standard of ability as to stretch him a little further. It doesn't mean that you should never be satisfied. It does mean that you work from the viewpoint that your student can always get better. Once you have reached one level of ability, you should validate that and then right away work towards a higher level of ability.

As a coach you should always be a sharp observer and do sharp and precise coaching. Never allow yourself to get sloppy about it. When you later become the student you would want your coach to be sharp and precise too.
If you should get in doubt about if you are doing the correct thing, you should call the instructor and get it cleared up. He will know what to show you from the materials.

In being a good coach you never state your opinion as such. You don't say "I think" or "maybe it is better this way". You use positive direct statements. As a coach you have a prime responsibility for the results obtained by the student in the coaching session. You have a responsibility for the student and the session. Make sure you always run good positive control and give him clear and correct directions.

Once in a while the student will get into long explanations and reasons why he is doing what he is doing. Letting him talk about it at great length does not accomplish a whole lot. You want to keep that at an absolute minimum. Actually doing the drills will accomplish a whole lot more and faster.

When coaching the drills you should all the time keep a in mind the paragraphs "Purpose" and "Theory" that are in the written materials for each drill.

These training drills can occasionally fly into the teeth of all kinds bad old habits and things in the student's Bank. In training you should pay a minimum of attention to that. It is possible that during a drill the student auditor can become angry, misemotional or even extremely upset. Your correct response as a coach is not to back off.

The maxim is: Get the student through it! You should realize the student has to overcome this in order to become a good auditor. You should simply continue the drill until the student can do it without stress, duress and feels good about it. So don't back off. Push the student firmly but gently through whatever difficulty he ran into.

There is one thing, you shouldn't forget as a coach: That is to tell the student, when he is doing something exactly right. The way to get your student better is not only to correct wrongnesses. An important part is to complement rightnesses.

Self coaching. Self coaching means, that the student points out to himself, what he did wrong. If he does that a lot, you are doing a sloppy job as a coach. He should have his attention on you and any materials he is using; not himself as a student auditor. If the student starts to self coach he is introverting. He is looking too much at himself and what he is doing and how he is doing it instead of just doing it. These drills are simple. Almost painfully simple. But they have to be kept that way to be most effective. You as a coach should prevent the student from self coaching by being on the ball and you 'flunk' the student for doing it if he begins to self coach.

As a coach your first duty is to keep an eye on your student auditor and how he is doing. Part of many of these drills is the coach doing play acting. You make up situations and act as you think a pc would or could. You can be all carried away as an actress and get into entertaining your student and make him laugh and make him like you rather than being a sharp coach.

You have fallen into being "interesting" rather than "interested". There is nothing wrong in having a lot of fun while doing these drills. They are a lot of fun. But never forget that your first duty as a coach is to have your attention on your student's performance and see how good he can get on each training drill.

To a large degree the progress of the student auditor depends on the standard of coaching. Being a good coach produces good auditors, that in turn will produce good results in real sessions. Good results produce better people.

Morale and Coaching
A student auditor, who has gone through a tough coaching session and has passed it feels great. He has really accomplished something. He knows that he knows the data and the drill. On the other hand: a student who has gotten a poor or non standard coaching job feels cheated.

If his coach is just trying to "be nice" he doesn't really learn anything - and he won't appreciate the coaching either. This comes down to some basic laws:

Morale isn't just built by being "nice"
It is built by taking pride in what you are doing and by knowing and demonstrating that you are doing it right. These laws are at work in coaching sessions in other ways.

You can have a situation where the coach and student auditor are in a "games condition". That means they are not working on the same goal but are in some kind of opposition to each other. This gives a problem situation or "no progress" situation. No progress, no wins, no production. There is no demonstration of competence permitted and low morale. Coaches and students must not allow such a situation to happen. The instructor should keep an open eye for something like that developing.

Keep your student auditor's morale and production high. Give him tough standard coaching sessions so he becomes competent. If he gets that and when he passes, he knows he has demonstrated his competence in applying the materials.

Toughness and ARC
"Being nice" and ARC are two different things. "Being nice" is of course affinity. But as we know from the ARC triangle, it does not exist alone.

Toughness (in the meaning we use it in) is the Reality part. It is insisting upon "You can do it" until the student actually does it right. That's what we mean by toughness and tough coaching. It is insisting upon it being done right and not be satisfied until that standard has been met.

This is best done with ARC. You validate any progress you observe in your student. You grant him beingness by letting him know he is on the right track and that you know he will make it; that he is capable of this and a lot more!

Toughness in coaching is also insisting upon doing the drills and not spend a whole lot of time just talking about them. Toughness in coaching is getting the student through any problems or misemotions that may be stirred up in the process.

Nothing of this exclude high ARC. But ARC without the reality being held up to the needed standard is something else. It does not belong in drilling and training.

Going through the TR's
In this course we concentrate on drilling students to become auditors. The same TR's are also used to help new students, without these ambitions, to improve their communication cycle. More permissive and less tough coaching are sometimes used on such courses. For anyone to get the full benefits they need to do the Auditor's TR's Course the hard way.

The coaching system here is designed for professional auditors. It is the best approach for getting perfect TR's. Tough and spot on coaching is the way to reach the full ability available and needed to audit.

Ideally a student would do OT TR-0 to a pass then the next one, next one and finally do TR-4 to a pass and be done with it. This would however be a very rare instance. It would more likely mean that the coaching wasn't done right. The coach and instructor has to be alert to any weaknesses showing up in earlier TR's and remedy them right away.

So here is the system used in coaching student auditors:

1) The student drills each TR to a pass
2) On a later TR (say TR-2) a weakness in an earlier TR (say TR-0) shows up.
3) The student is put back on TR-0 to handle the outnesses now revealed.
4) If he was put back to TR-0 from TR-2 he would then do TR-0 to a new pass, TR-0 Bullbait to a new pass, TR-1 to a new pass and go back to TR-2 and do that one to a pass.

The rule is: If a student can't do an earlier TR and is flunking on that, he can not do the later TR's.

So each time a weakness shows up in a lower TR he is put back to remedy that TR. Going up the TR's will expose any weaknesses in earlier TR's that wasn't evident when doing that TR alone.

So you get the student through the TR he is doing to an honest pass. You put him onto the next one.

You look out for weaknesses in earlier TR's now showing up and put him back to re-drill that TR and coach him on the weaknesses that showed up and get him up to a new pass.

Sometimes you will find his basic knowledge upon which the TR's are based is shaky. He may not fully understand the ARC triangle as it relates to TR's or the communication formula.

In that case he is made to redo his basic theory and the clay demonstrations with it. To spell it out:

On the Auditor's TR's course the student drills each TR to a pass.

If the student auditor has trouble on a higher TR and can't pass it, it is due to outnesses in a lower TR.
He is put back on that TR and redoes it to a new and more informed pass.

He then redoes the TR's from that point going back up - each to a new and more informed pass.

If the student has difficulties on the lower TR's you put him all the way back to restudy ARC and the communication formula as there is something in the theory he has misunderstood or not grasped.

This has proven to be the fastest and best system to teach student auditors to get natural, easy going and perfect TR's.

OT TR-0 is not   meditation        but simply a drill      in being there as  potential cause.

Theory: This drill is an undercut to the actual use of the communication formula. For any communication to take place it requires somebody there. On OT TR-0 the student is drilling simply being there as potential Cause (Source-point) or potential Effect (Receipt-point).

Purpose: The student simply has to comfortably confront another person. The student gets trained to be there in a position one meter (3 feet) in front of another person. He has to be there and be relaxed and comfortable about it.

Commands: None

Position: Student and coach are sitting facing each other with eyes closed, about 1 meter (3 feet) apart at a comfortable distance.

Directions: This is a silent drill. Student and coach sit across from each other with their eyes closed.

No moving around, confronting with a body part, or via's used to confront with are allowed. Sleepiness or drowsiness is not allowed to pass. This is a simple drill. Anything added to simply be there is a flunk. The student will usually see blackness when his eyes are closed.

When the student can be there in a relaxed and alert manner and confront and feels great about it, the drill is passed.
Note: Confronting is not part of this drill.

(Note: Often this drill is done without coaching and simply to a point where the student feels relaxed, alert and great about being there. The instructor sometimes comes around and will give the coaching instructions).

 

TR-0: "To confront the    pc with auditing only  or with nothing."

Name: TR-0, Confront

Theory: In addition to potential cause or effect, the following parts of the Comm Cycle are introduced: Observation, Distance, Consideration, Attention, Confront.

Purpose: To train a student to confront a preclear with auditing only or with nothing. The idea is simply to get the student able to hold a position one meter in front of a preclear and to be relaxed and comfortable about it. He simply is supposed to be there and not do anything except be there.

Commands: None

Position: Student and coach are sitting facing each other about 1 meter (3 feet) apart at a comfortable distance.

Directions: The student and coach sit facing each other. They don't make any conversation or try to be interesting. They simply sit and look at each other without saying or doing anything for some hours. Student must not speak, blink nervously, move around or move, laugh or smile or be embarrassed or get sleepy or drowsy. Often you will see the student confront with a body part, like his face, nose, chest etc. rather than just sit and look relaxedly at the coach. He can fall into using a system of confronting rather than just BE there. Confronting means just that. You don't DO anything. The whole action is to accustom an auditor to BEING THERE, 1 meter in front of a preclear without apologizing or moving around or defending self. Confronting with a body part can cause somatics in that body part. The solution is to just carry on and confront and be there.
The emphasis is to first and foremost get the student to confront the person opposite him (the coach). Then later in the TR, coach can iron out physical manifestations, twitches, blinks, etc.

Student auditor passes when he can just be there and confront and he has reached a major stable win.

A full and final pass is being granted, when the student is able to sit there for a full two hours in one sitting without any discomfort, sleepiness etc. as listed above. Natural blinking allowed. Excessive (nervous) blinking is not.

TR-0 Bullbait: "The coach  may say or do anything except    leave the chair."

Theory: Same as TR-0, unbullbatied. Emphasis on confronting a preclear who is being at cause.

Purpose: The student is to confront a preclear with auditing only or with nothing. The idea is simply to get the student to be able to hold a position 1 meter in front of a preclear and to be relaxed and comfortable about it. He simply has to BE there without being thrown off, distracted or have any reactions to anything the preclear says or does.

Note: The purpose of TR-0 was just to get the guy to sit there and confront. But the purpose of TR-0 Bullbait is to get the student able to confront a preclear.

Commands: Coach uses: "Start," "that's it," "flunk."

Position: Student and coach are sitting facing each other about 1 meter (3 feet) apart at a comfortable distance.

Directions: After the student auditor has passed TR-0 and he can just BE there, it's time for "Bullbaiting". Anything added to BEING THERE is instantly flunked by the coach. Twitches, nervous blinks, sighs, moving around or moving, anything except just being there is promptly flunked, with the reason for the flunk.
To Coach: Student laughs. Coach: "Flunk! you laughed. Start." This is all the coach is supposed to say as a coach.
To Student: The coach may say anything or do anything except leave the chair. The student's "buttons" has to be found and worked over hard. No words (except coaching words) may cause any response. If the student reacts, the coach is instantly a coach (see above). Student is given a pass when he can BE there relaxedly without breaking up or become distracted or react in any way to whatever the coach says or does and has reached a major stable win.

(Button: Words, phrases, subjects or actions used by other people, that causes a Bank reaction in an individual, resulting in discomfort, embarrassment or upset, or in making him laugh uncontrollably.)

 

TR-1. It has to be    delivered exactly  where the pc is,  but also be loud  enough.

TR-1, Deliver the Auditing Command

As far as the auditor is concerned the job of his TR-1 is done when he has delivered the auditing command to his pc. He didn't deliver it out the window or over the hills; no, he delivered it from exactly where he is to exactly where the pc is. We run into salesmen and teachers that do a lot of communication every day. When they first hear about the TR's and TR-1 they say: Oh, I know how to communicate. That's part of what I do every day. But you observe them, you see them drop a statement and nobody around even heard it. They just sort of throw things out there and hope somebody picks it up. This is often what passes for communication: throwing it out there energetically, but with no real idea of where it is supposed to land.

The American president Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-45) was a great speaker on the other hand. He never really talked to the nation. He talked to the individual citizen. That's why he really communicated.

There was another American president , Herbert Hoover (1929-33). He was Roosevelt's predecessor. He spoke the most beautiful and correct English you could imagine. No Oxford professor could find one little error in his grammar or use of words or the way he pronounced them. It was perfect English. But when he came with his perfect statements people wondered "what is he talking about?" "Is he talking about our problems to us that way?" Because of that he couldn't lead the nation. He couldn't lead the nation out of the Depression (the 1930'ies economical 'hard times'). He had no idea of talking to an individual or of getting his communication to land right there.

Good speakers, a good lecturer, like R. Hubbard was, they don't have the idea that they are talking to a huge audience or the masses. They have the idea, that they talk one on one to a lot of people at the same time. They have to talk to each single individual that way and be perceived that way by each member of the audience to communicate.

So if you want to become a public speaker and you want to address huge audiences and crowds it still starts with the one-on-one communication you learn on TR-1. So it is not an unimportant step. It is an entrance point. It is the doorway you have to get through if you want to learn to communicate to anyone.

In TR-1 you sit two and two. Student and coach. And as a student your job is actually simple. You have to get something across from you to her. For it to be a communication it has to arrive exactly to the coach. That is what makes it a communication. When you can do that you are all set.

If you have a very difficult student, one who doesn't seem to catch on to it, and you have an eight weeks course to teach him, my advice would be: Let him do TR's for the first seven weeks and then teach him some auditing procedures in the last week and then turn him loose. To try to teach him a lot of sophisticated techniques when his TR's are not perfect is a waste of time. It would actually be a disfavor to him and especially to his pc's.

So the TR step is not an easy one or an unimportant one. It is the toughest step towards becoming a good auditor. It may sound awfully simple, TR-1, you just have to say something to somebody with the full confidence that they will receive it. That is the whole trick.

How exactly do we go about teaching this to a student? We give the student a book to read from. You can use the book "Jonathan Livingston Seagull" by Richard Bach. You can also use other books, like "Alice in Wonderland", that R. Hubbard liked.

He picks that sentence out of the book. He does not just pick a sentence from his head. Why not? Because what we are teaching him here is to take prepared statements and use that. That's what he has to use in auditing. The first step is to pick somebody else's ideas and make it his own.

Actually we do that all the time, when we use the language. The words are really somebody else's ideas we have learned to use.

In auditing you use carefully worded processes. They were first worded by R. Hubbard and they were worked over by a lot of auditors in the early days and each process now has a specific wording, that is used exactly as stated. In the TR's we don't use actual processes, of course. Two phrases we use to drill it are: "Do fish swim?" or "Do birds fly?". These are just questions and not therapeutic processes, of course. But it gets the student familiar with the whole business of delivering a real process to a pc.

There is nothing wrong with using others' ideas. There is no mass and no legal rights to get you confused or in trouble.

So you take an idea out of the book you are using in the drill. You make sure it becomes your idea and you give it to the pc. That is really all there is to TR-1.

It is not from the book to the pc. It is not as if you were reading the book to him. It's this: the auditor looks in the book and picks a sentence. He makes that sentence his own. Then the auditor looks at his pc and he delivers the sentence to the pc as if it just occurred to him in his head. The idea has to arrive at where the pc is. The student auditor uses a book, because most of the processes are in books and that is where the auditor has to take them from.

You hear people talk to authors and speakers and say: "I have some questions about your ideas". You know right away, that they don't communicate very well. They reveal, that they can't take this first important step of taking an idea and then communicate it to somebody else. They are standing there one step behind real communication, because the first step they have to take is, to "own" these ideas and then communicate.

Intention
Sometimes, when a pc first starts getting auditing, he can feel a little bit funny about this too. He will have his criticism based on how learned and deep the auditor seems to be, how he pronounces words, how he holds his little finger while giving a command and so on. These things have nothing to do with it.

It is the intention, that communicates - not the words.

When you have the intention to communicate to the pc and you succeed in getting that intention across to the pc, then you really communicate! When you are good at it you can even say it in Chinese or any other language the pc has no clue of and the communication will still arrive loud and clear.

There are specific drills (on ST level 1) that goes into drilling intention as separate from words. They are useful, but we don't need them just yet, as the student has plenty to work with and learn.

As far as TR-1 is concerned we can say this: It is not the tone of voice that is important; it is not the correct pronunciation that is important. It is whether or not the student auditor can take a sentence out of a book; make it his own; and then communicate it as his own. The intention must communicate. And it must communicate in its own unit of time. What that means is: it must be fresh and live each time. Let's say you use the question "Do fish swim?" (as in TR-3). You sit there and you have given the question for the 99'th time. It must be the 99'th time. Not just a robotic repeat of the first time. That is what we mean by 'it's own unit of time'. It's fresh. The last time is already history and forgotten.

In TR-1 you use however a variety of phrases, that you pick from the book 'Jonathan Livingston Seagull' or some other book. Here is the exact drill:

Theory: Added to TR-0 is, student actually being Cause, and awareness of effect; he gets a Message across a Distance to a Receipt-point.

Purpose: to drill and perfect how to deliver an auditing command to a pc - each command is to be delivered fresh, in its own unit of time; and to deliver it without flinch or strain, but done naturally and directly from auditor to pc.

Commands: The student uses a book -  like 'Jonathan Livingston Seagull' by Richard Bach. He takes sentences (omitting "he said's") reads a sentence to himself and then delivers it to the coach.

Position: Student and coach are sitting facing each other about 1 meter (3 feet) apart at a comfortable distance.

Directions: the student picks a sentence from the book and makes it his own. He says it to the coach in a natural way. It must not sound like a thing he is reading from a book. He is not trying to impersonate a character either. He simply says it as his own in a clear and straight forward manner.

The coach must have received the command clearly and understood it before he says "Good."

The coach controls the session. He says "Start". He listens to the student delivering the sentence. If it is received clearly he says "Good" and the student takes the next sentence. If the command is not received clearly or other things need correction, the coach says "Flunk" and tells the student why. The student repeats a flunked command. "That's it" is used to break off for a discussion or to end the coaching session. The coach uses "Start" to resume the session after a discussion and at the very beginning of the activity.

TR-1 is passed when the student can put across a command naturally and relaxedly. Yet loud and clear. It has to be without strain or flinching. No gestures are allowed. His voice has to sound clear and natural. No acting, artificiality or public speaker manners are needed nor allowed.

Note: The Affinity level of the student is very important. All too often an auditor whose TR-1 is out lacks affinity. He can't reach or be the other person (coach or pc), so has difficulty communicating.

 

TR-2. "A method of     controlling pc's comm."

 

TR-2, Acknowledgments

Acknowledgment (Ack.) is the next part of the communication cycle.

Definition:
Acknowledgment (Ack.), something said or done to inform another that his statement or action has been noted, understood and received.

The perfect acknowledgment communicates only this: "I have heard your communication" - that's all there is to it. "I have heard what you said." It signalizes that the preclear's communication to you (or person's comm, since it applies to life, not just to auditing) has been received.

So the whole stress of delivering an acknowledgment in TR-2 is, did it arrive at the pc and did he receive it?

Why is acknowledgment so important? Why is it important for an auditor to become an expert at this? Well, the ack is a control factor. It is how you control a pc's communication.

Control is simply Start, Change, Stop. If you can start, change and stop something, you can control it. The acknowledgment is the stop. It ends a communication cycle.

If you just said to a pc, "Keep going" or "Keep talking", that wouldn't be the acknowledgment we teach you here. The perfect acknowledgment does not express agreement or consent. It simply expresses this, "I have heard what you said". "Your communication has been received and understood". That ends the cycle of action and the cycle of communication. "Your communication has been received and I have now decided to stop that cycle and your communication is therefore under my control". The things you can stop are things you can control, simply put. If you can't control a pc's communication line you can't control the pc.

Let's say you have this pc, this lady and she is a little bit over the top. But she has these ailments and odd pains and sensations and she haven't had much to do in life except taking care of herself.

So when she first gets started she will never stop: "I have asked this specialist and gone and seen another one - and it cost money... by the way - talking about money, I have had so many expenses lately, my daughter asked....". You know she could just go on and on and it wouldn't do her any good. The longer you let such persons talk the worse they will feel. They will talk themselves straight down the tone scale and become more and more frantic. It's an obsessive communication, an obsessive outflow you have in front of you.

This is one instance where a skillful use of TR-2 comes in real handy. You look at her and take real good aim. You are really putting intention into the ack and make sure it arrives right where she is sitting and you say, "Good!!". She will stop instantly and maybe even display a little happy smile. She will instantly understand that you received her communication. If you did this really expertly you are likely to get a response like this, "I don't think anybody have really listened to me before, isn't that odd?"

Why do some people talk obsessively? They are trying to make up in quantity what they lack in quality listening. They are not sure they have an audience or even one listener in the first place.

When you acknowledge such a person real well they almost seem to get pulled out of an isolated state.

They may say something like, "Wow, I don't think I have ever talked to anybody before!" "You are the first one who ever paid attention!"

One auditor (in the experimental days) had a pc who was an obsessive talker and he just couldn't seem to get her to stop. Finally he moved his finger back and forth just in front of her nose simply to get her attention. When he was sure he had her attention for a brief moment he said, "Good! I heard that!!" with full intention. The pc would stop and say, "Wow, I didn't realize until now that you were there and listening. Isn't that strange?"

So a good acknowledgment can actually accomplish one important step in auditing. That the pc finds the auditor. The auditor suddenly gets real enough to the pc so a real communication can take place.

Stopping a compulsively out-flowing pc is of course a specialized use of acknowledgment.

The general use is to end one communication cycle with a full stop. It ends one little cycle. It started with you giving the command, the pc finding an answer and giving it to you. In a moment you are going to give him the exact same command once more but the thing is, that would drive him absolutely mad unless it became perfectly clear to him that you actually understood what he just said completely.

So you acknowledge him with a "Good" or whatever is appropriate. That ends that cycle.

(If a pc just told you a sad tale of how his dog died, you would of course not use "Good". You have to show him, that you understood what he said. Compassion is OK. Sympathy (0.9 on tone scale) is not. You could say "How terrible", "I am sorry to hear that" compassionately; whatever would fit the situation and end the communication to the pc's satisfaction that it was actually understood. You have to express duplication and understanding to end the cycle.)

Anyway, you were going to use the same actual auditing command again. Now, the pc understands that you have understood what he already said. So now it is fine with him. He knows that the reason you ask the same question is that he has to dive deeper into his Bank and find a completely new answer to it. It all takes place in a new unit of time. It's a fresh and new beginning and the pc feels fine about that.

Drilling TR-2
Let's cover here how you actually do the drill in training. The coach reads a line from a book like 'Jonathan Livingston Seagull' to the student. In this drill we are not interested how well she does that. That was TR-1 and she is the coach now. What's being drilled is how the student acknowledges it. Also the coach is acting as the pc and pc's can say it any way they want in a session. You don't 'discipline' pc's, you merely control them so this is the realistic way to do the drill.

So the coach reads a line from 'Jonathan' and the student acknowledges. At first the coach just makes sure she can clearly hear the ack as to convince her of that she was heard.

At a later point she will be more specific and selective of what she considers a good ack. Did the student really intend to finish the cycle? or was he being caught up in the fact that the coach was reading pieces of a longer story and he seemed to want to hear the rest of it?

"Continue" "Go ahead" are half acknowledgments. They do have their function in auditing, but that is part of TR 2 1/2 and not what we are drilling here.

The ultimate in acknowledgment, you could theorize, would be an end-all world shattering event. You could get so good so it would not only end the session completely; you know, you give the pc this terrific ack and she forgets completely why she was there or what was going on and will just pack up happily and leave. But the ultimate acknowledgment would end the universe as we know it. It would end cycle on every atom and molecule in the whole wide universe, you could theorize.

TR-2 can have many good uses in life as well. You will find some examples in R. Hubbard's book 'Dianetics™ 55!'

There is the example with the traffic cop pulling a guy over for speeding and ready to give him a ticket. If the driver is a real expert at TR-2 he will simply acknowledge the policeman for having spoken to him so expertly that the cop not only will forget his business at hand. No, he will get back into his patrol car and drive down to the station and turn his in badge and retire!

So acknowledgment is actually a powerful weapon in the auditor's arsenal. You should learn to use it well and expertly and that is what TR-2 is all about.

Mood can be expressed with acknowledgment. Evaluation can also be expressed, depending of tone of voice.

There is nothing wrong with expressing an appropriate mood. You will see in practice what does the job. Expressing compassion for the pc and her situation can be done with a good acknowledgment. But please notice, the Auditor's Code #9 says,  'Don't 'sympathize with the pc, but be effective". Sympathy here is 0.9 on the tone scale. It is "one individual goes onto the wave-length of another". An example of this is, if one little child cries, the whole nursery will soon be full of crying children. The purpose of TR-2 is to control the pc's communication. You completely loose control if you would just sit there and cry with your pc, of course.  So you can, and often should, express some emotion and affinity in your ack. But make sure you stay in control. You do not express criticalness, ridicule or humor. That adds up to invalidations. You don't express evaluations either (which can be done). All these things are against the auditor's code and should be corrected and flunked in drilling.

Theory: The student drills switching from Effect to Cause. He receives, Understands and Duplicates the pc's Answer (effect); then is cause to give the Ack.

Purpose: To teach the student auditor that an acknowledgment is an important method to control a preclear's communication in session. An acknowledgment is a full stop, that ends a communication cycle. The student must understand and appropriately acknowledge as to end the comm.

Commands: The coach reads a line from a book - like 'Jonathan Livingston Seagull'. He omits "He said's" and the student has to thoroughly acknowledge each. The coach repeats any line he feels was not truly acknowledged. The student can use "Good", "Fine", "OK", "I heard that" and anything that is appropriate to pc's statement. It has to convince the pc or coach that he was heard and understood. The coach will repeat any statement he feels wasn't correctly acked.

Position: Student and coach are sitting facing each other about 1 meter (3 feet) apart at a comfortable distance.

Directions: The student is to acknowledge exactly what was said so the coach knows it was heard. Ask student from time to time "what did I say?" Straighten out over- and under-acknowledgments. Let the student do anything at first to get his acknowledgment across and then start straighten him out. Teach him that an acknowledgment is a stop, an end of cycle - not the beginning of a new comm cycle or an encouragement to the pc to go on. Teach the student further that an ack is not a robotic thing. It has to express understanding of what was said. Even "That's terrible" can be appropriate if pc is telling a dreadful story. Reality is thus important in TR-2.
Teach him further that one can fail to get an acknowledgment across or can fail to stop a pc with an acknowledgment or can acknowledge too strongly which can totally throw the pc out of session.

The coach says "Start," reads a line and says "Flunk" every time the coach feels there has been an improper acknowledgment. The coach repeats the same line each time the coach says "Flunk." "That's it" may be used to break off for a discussion or end the coaching session. "Start" must be used to begin a new coaching after a "That's it."

Half Acks keeps    a person talking  on the subject.

Theory: The same parts as on TR-2. But the emphasis here is on drilling Acks and Control in such a way as to bring about the "Continue" (or "change") part of the Control cycle.

Purpose: To teach the student that a half ack is how you encourage a pc to keep talking about something.

Commands: The coach reads a line from a book - like 'Jonathan Livingston Seagull'. He omits "He said's" and the student has to half ack each. The coach repeats any line he feels was not half acked.

Position: Student and coach are sitting facing each other about 1 meter (3 feet) apart at a comfortable distance.

Directions: The student is to give a half ack as an encouragement to the pc to continue talking. Correct over-acknowledgment that stops a pc from talking. Drill student on how half ack is a way of keeping a pc talking by giving the pc the feeling that he is being listened to with interest.

The coach says "Start," reads a line and says "Flunk", when the coach feels there has been an improper half ack. The coach repeats the same line each time the coach says "Flunk." "That's it" may be used to break off for discussion or end the activity. If the coach used 'that's it' before discussing something, he must say "Start" again before coaching resumes.

TR-3. The auditor has to  be able to use the same  question as it had never    occurred to anyone before.

TR-3 is interesting, because it makes auditors and pc's duplicate

R. Hubbard found in the beginning of teaching others how to audit (1950), that some auditors would vary their auditing question all the time "to stay interesting". Actually pc's audited by them would experience a little unpleasant chock each time they received a new version of the command.

If an auditor like that was to run a simple repetitive process like "Do fish swim?", they would start out "Do fish swim?" Next time around they would say, "Do finny creatures move in water?" and next time, "Do scaled animals take off when they bathe?" and "Do herrings and other scaled animals go from point A to point B under water?" It would cause the pc not to know what to expect next and become uneasy or upset.

In TR-3 the auditor says "Do fish swim?" and just to do something new, he would then say "Do fish swim?" Next time around he will for good measure say "Do fish swim?" and he will keep it up for as long as it takes, for another two hundred times if needed.

As we learned on TR-1 it is important that each auditing command is given in it's own unit of time. This is extremely important to understand and follow when we come to TR-2, duplicative question. Because when you are saying "Do fish swim?" and you have done it a hundred times just before that, it is still a brand new question the 101'st time. No auditing command should depend on its meaning of an earlier command. Not on any earlier auditing command ever given. Each one, in theory, exists purely in its own unit of time, in present time and with its own live and fresh intention.

On ST Level One, you will learn to run the so-called Objective processes. These are apparently simple physical processes, but when done right they are amazingly effective. In the process 'CCH 1' you say "Give me that hand" and you run that as a repetitive process. But unless you master to give the command with intention and in its own unit of time the process won't do much good. Some auditors, poorly trained, will blur the commands and cycles "give me that hand...thank you...give me that hand...thank you...give me that hand...thank you..." They will just robotically repeat themselves and blur it all together. Run this way, the process looses its therapeutic value completely. No gains for the pc. Why? Because the auditor has just set up a machine that repeats the command over and over. You probably know the feeling from voice mail and other recorded messages. There is no intention there.

Therefore when you use a repetitive command, as here on TR-3, and use the same wording over and over, you must realize that the words are not as important as they may first seem. It is expressing with intention and in its own unit of time, that makes it bite. You express it each time in present time as itself and with intention.

People sometimes wonder how you as an auditor can actually stand giving a repetitive command sometimes for hours on end. "Nobody can sit there all day long and just repeat themselves without going nuts". The trick is to do it in present time as a live communication. When you really get it you can do it all day long and all year long and actually get more and more enthusiastic about it. If it is done by a mental machine you could set up it would be impossible.

Communication is achieved by control and duplication. At first you may want to make each statement of the command with a slightly different tone of voice, just to remind yourself that is a new unit of time. This is OK, but as you become better and better you will actually find that this isn't even necessary. You can actually use pretty much the same tone of voice and still make it new each time.

It is absolutely incorrect to try to teach auditors to use the same tone of voice each time or a different one for that matter. Because you don't want any auditing command to depend on an earlier one given, ever. All your attention and the intention you form is in present time, you see. You couldn't care less of what took place a few seconds ago. Your intention is to ask the question and get an answer. One command per unit of time. You ask "Do fish swim?" and after the answer you get this bright idea, "Do fish swim?" and suddenly it occurs to you that you could ask the pc, "Do fish swim?"

In this drill we actually learn a lot about the duplicative factors in communication.

You may think that the fact that we are duplicating would mean we would loose some of the communication. It may seem absolutely impossible to ask the same question over and over again and actually maintain ARC and interest. "How can you keep being interesting to the pc when you say 'Do fish swim? over and over?" someone may ask. Although "being interesting" is part of communication it is the least important part to the auditor. He is not there to be "interesting" to the pc or to entertain him or keep up a social conversation.

If you were to just place two people at a table, facing each other, they would immediately feel a compulsion to be interesting to each other. But that is not auditing; that is being social and interesting.

If a student had difficulties in doing this TR, it would be perfectly OK for the instructor, to put the student back on TR-0. There are different levels of being interesting on the TR's but when you come to TR-3 you should actually have no compulsions to be interesting to battle with. The student will probably be found to have difficulties just sitting in a chair and face another human being. So put him back on TR-0 and make sure he can do just that for an hour or two. When he comes back to TR-3 he will have a much better time of it.

It is absolutely necessary for an auditor to be able to duplicate. But as he drills that it rises above that. Is he really duplicating? No! it is actually only apparent duplicating as he does each cycle of communication in present time.

Experience and Duplication
The motto of experience and somebody's past seem to be: "I'll never do that again!". You had to promise your father 'never to do that again', when you had done something bad. He wanted you to learn from experience. He would hope, that you started out smoking a big cigar that made you real sick and that would cure you from the entire idea of smoking. So this is one thing experience seems to teach us: never to do it again.

Experience by itself is of course not painful, although people with bad experiences seem to think so.

But you know this common decision of 'Never to do that again' is a decision not to duplicate and after a few decisions like that they can't communicate either because communication takes duplication.

When somebody has decided he 'better not duplicate', followed by he 'better not communicate' all sorts of bad phenomena start to occur. Identification is taking place all over the place; one moment becomes all moments. One's very Reactive Bank really jams up and causes one trouble.

As a student of the TR's, and here TR-3, you are suddenly required to do this duplicative action with "Do fish swim?" Just doing this duplicative action in training has a tendency to undo a lot of the damage which bad experiences have loaded on your shoulders. It unjams your time track, all this 'one moment is all moments' business of the past.

You should also realize that these phenomena are what this TR is up against. You have to overcome all this 'Never do it again' business that you have been trying to teach yourself for countless millennia. But what this gradual learning process, which your experience, is enforcing upon you is trying to teach you piece by piece is not to live.

With TR's we are training auditors and we are not primarily interested in what they get out of it personally. There are however countless accounts of rave subjective results from doing the TR's - and hurray for that!

There is one little simple drill the instructor can use with students who have difficulties with 'Duplicative commands'.

Have the student touch the wall five times and make him distinguish one of the touches from the rest. This can have some good benefits for the student. Soon he will be able to tell all 5 touches apart and now he can suddenly do TR-3 successfully.

Q & A and TR-3
R. Hubbard gave several definitions on Q and A. In HCOB 5 April, 1980, he specified what Q and A in TR's specifically is. In general it can mean 'indecisive; incapable of making up one's mind.'
As it applies to TR's it means: The question asked proceeded from the last answer.

Example:
Question: How are you?
Answer: I'm fine.
Question: How fine?
Answer: My chest hurts.
Question: When did your chest begin hurting?
Answer: About seven.
Question: Where were you at seven? -etc., etc.

The above is a terrible auditing fault. As each question is based on the last answer, it is called "Q and A." It could also be called "Q based on last A."

It never completes any cycle. It confuses pc's so they get lost. It against TR 3.

The actual drill:

Name: TR-3, Duplicative Question

Theory: The student is using all the parts of the comm cycle in this drill. He has to get a communication duplicated and completed.

Purpose: To teach a student auditor to duplicate an auditing question without any variation (of words), each time newly, in its own unit of time, and to acknowledge it.
Also: To teach that as an auditor you never ask a second question until you have received an answer to the one asked.

Commands: "Do fish swim?" or "Do birds fly?"

Position: Student and coach are sitting facing each other about 1 meter (3 feet) apart at a comfortable distance.

Directions: One question and student's ack of its answer is in one unit of time which is then finished. Keep auditor from straying into variations of the question. Even though the same question is asked, it is asked as though it is a brand new idea - and never as a blur with the previous cycles (robotic repeat).

The student auditor must learn to give a command and receive an answer and to acknowledge it in one distinct unit of time.

The student auditor is flunked if he fails to get an answer to the question asked, if he fails to repeat the exact question, if he Q and As with a diversion offered by the coach.

The coach uses "Start" and "That's it," as in earlier TRs. The coach is not bound after giving the 'Start' to answer the auditor's question. He may hesitate (comm lag) or give  wild comments, off the subject, as way to Bullbait the student. Often the coach should answer.

Somewhat less often the coach attempts to get the student auditor into a Q and A or upset him.

Example:
Student Auditor: "Do fish swim?"
Coach: "Yes."
Student Auditor: "Good."
Student Auditor: "Do fish swim?"
Coach: "Aren't you getting tired of this?"
Student Auditor: "Yes."
Coach: "Flunk."

When the student doesn't get an answer, he repeats the question. The auditor must say, gently, "I'll repeat the auditing question" (repeat statement), and continue to do so until he gets an answer.

Anything except commands, acks and, as needed, the repeat statement is flunked. Unnecessary use of the repeat statement is flunked. A poor command is flunked. An improper ack is flunked. Q and A is flunked (as in the example). Student's misemotion and confusion is flunked. Student's failure to say the next command without a long hesitation (comm lag) is flunked. A premature acknowledgment is flunked. Lack of ack (or with a distinct comm lag) is flunked. Any words from the coach except an answer to the question, "Start," "Flunk", "Good" or "That's it" should have no influence on the auditor. He keeps giving the repeat statement and the question until it is answered.

"Start," "Flunk," "Good" and "That's it" may not be used to Bullbait the student auditor with. Any other statement can be.

The coach is allowed to try to leave his chair in this TR. If the student allows it, it is a flunk. (The student may use his hands to prevent the coach from leaving the chair). The coach should not use personal or case-related statements such as "I just had a cognition" (that's TR-4). Coach's statements should all go on the student with the intent to throw the student off and cause him to lose session control or track of what he's doing.

The student's job is to keep the session going despite anything going on; he uses only the command, the repeat statement and the ack (and hands as mentioned above). If the student does anything else than the above, he is flunked by the coach and given the reason why.

TR-4. Suddenly the pc says  something that is completely  off the subject, but important  to her. She is at Cause,    unexpectedly. The auditor has   to recognize that and  handle it smoothly.

Origination, in auditing: A remark or statement from the pc, that concerns his ideas, reactions or difficulties. It often comes unexpectedly. It is something he says, that is important to him, but isn't an answer to the auditor's question.
It is different from a comment, which is defined as an attempt to distract auditor or an attempt to blow session.

This drill is about handling pc's originations. You always handle a pc's originations on ST level 0.

There are certain physical processes on ST level 1 where you don't. They have to do with control and 'positive postulating' (Tone 40). But in normal auditing you always handle a pc's originations.

What do we mean by origination or origin? It is something the pc volunteers, something he brings up all on his own in the session. It is actually a very good indicator of the pc making progress. Does the pc originate or volunteer anything of his own? The auditor uses this as an indicator of that the pc is getting better and stronger. He could say "this pc isn't getting any better. He hasn't come up with anything of his own yet".

So it is a sign of the pc doing well and becoming more self-determined that he from time to time originates something on his own. He can be at the cause point of the communication formula.

As that is one of the overall goals of auditing originations should be encouraged and not ignored.

Much of the TR's and the auditing comm cycle goes upon showing the pc that his communication and his Bank can be controlled. By example he is learning this and he will gradually gain more control over his mind and life. He will say, "Wonderful; this can be controlled and that can be controlled. I think I will go on doing that". So the auditor is to some extent controlling the pc's possessions, his body and mind, until the pc discovers that control is possible and decides to do that on his own.

Most pc's don't originate early on. You will see pc's that apparently originate. You have these compulsive talkers (as discussed under TR-2), that apparently do. You will actually see a number of odd Bank manifestations that appears to be originations.

When a pc plays out the content of the reactive mind it is called a dramatization. He plays out the content as if he was an actor and he plays it out in an odd way, because he really isn't aware of what is going on. This is a dramatization. So as an auditor you can observe all these odd phenomena and behavior and think it comes from the pc; that it is the thetan's (pc's) originations. But as you investigate this on an experimental level you will find out, that much of this doesn't really come from the pc - from the thetan that is - it comes from his Bank and the pc (the thetan) has no real part in it.

So a true or ideal origination is not about the content of the pc's Bank being played out. It is something where the pc (thetan) is cause. A cognition is one good example of that. There are sincere questions and other situations as well, of course. This is just to give you an idea of what is really going on. If the pc says something and it apparently is an origination, you would of course handle it as such. So you are not there to try to judge or challenge every 'apparent origination' of the pc. That would be evaluation and against the auditor's code. But knowing about the Bank and dramatizations is sometimes useful in determining how far to take some statements.

So the rule is: In any type of auditing (except tone 40 processes) you must handle well and conclusively any pc origination.

If the pc had something astonishing happening to him and try to communicate it, and the auditor fails to listen to or understand it, you can see the pc 'resign to the process' and go into apathy about the whole thing. He will go right out of session (in-session being: interested in own case and willing to talk to the auditor). This was all due to the auditor's inability to handle originations correctly and with ARC.

In order to run a session, that really deserves the name of auditing, the auditor has to be very alert to originations the pc comes with and even invite them out into the open. He must be prepared to handle the most alarming and surprising things as pc's can originate anything under the sun, stars and moon.

Almost by definition originations are unexpected. The unexpectedness should actually be part of the definition, because they can quite often be completely off the subject. They can take you completely by surprise.

It could be, "It feels like my chest is on fire", or "I think I am 5 feet above my body just now". You need to understand the pc and handle such statements. He needs to feel understood and you need to stay in control and not getting lost while doing this. The auditor who isn't trained in this could find himself being embarrassed, surprised or amused by such statements. You have to operate from the definition of pc being 'in-session': Pc interested in his own case and willing to talk to the auditor. If you don't do that, if you don't handle originations expertly, you may soon find your pc in apathy about the whole thing and he is certainly not in-session any more.

Handling Originations in Life
How does this data about handling originations play out in every day life?

Have you ever been in a heated argument or been the witness to one? I am sure you have. Chances are that it got so bitter, so heated, because one or both of the parties completely ignored the other persons originations.

Often an argument or a blow-up follows after an ignored origination. Try to trace back a few times you got into a fight and see if you can't find the ignored communication or origination at the bottom of it.

You have somebody come to you and say: "I have just passed my final exam with flying colors!". Let's say your 'answer' or response is "Shouldn't we watch the game, that is on?". He will probably get furious with you. He feels ignored. He may leave very upset or he would sit there all afternoon long and contradict anything you say to even the score.

Small children that misbehave mysteriously are usually subject to this kind of abuse unknowingly. The parents will often have some strange ideas about 'children should not be heard, but only seen'. Or because the child can't really express itself in complete or correct sentences it doesn't have an opinion. The truth is that even small chidden can be very sharp observers and can have a distinct opinion about things, but simply lack the language skills to express themselves and be understood. So the parents don't take them seriously. Small children certainly have the desire to express themselves anyway and want to be understood.

The smart thing to do, whether you understand them or not, is to pay close attention and acknowledge their communication.

There is actually a variation of TR-2/TR-4 called "Mutter TR" that drills this. The coach will mumble something incomprehensible and the student simply acknowledges, whether he understands it or not. That is pretty much all there is to it.

Parents with misbehaving children should learn an important lesson here. It has happened time and again that parents came for advice about their children's bad behavior. The first and simplest advice we would give them was first to check out how they handled their children's originations. If they didn't listen and acknowledged what little Robert or little Angela said we could help them to radically change their relationship on the spot. "You have to listen and you have to acknowledge" was the advice we gave them.

After practicing this for a week they would usually come back and rave about how well behaved and happy their problem child suddenly was.

About the Drill and Auditing
Handling an origination is merely saying "All right, I heard it, you are there." You could say it is a form of acknowledgment, but it is really a little different.

It is the communication formula in reverse. The pc is at cause point. But the auditor is still in control if he handles the origination; if not, the comm formula goes out of his control and he becomes effect point and he looses session control. In other words the handling of origins has a great deal of practical use.

There are three major steps to handling an origin. Let's take an example:
The pc is sitting across from the auditor and the auditor is running the process, "Do fish swim?" or "Do birds fly?"

Auditor, "Do birds fly?"
Pc, "Yes".
Auditor, 'Thank you".  "Do birds fly?"
Pc doesn't answer.
Auditor, "Do birds fly?"
Pc, "I think you hair is on fire," or "I am five feet above my body", or "Is it true, that all thetans are ghosts?".

As you see, it is not an answer whatsoever, It has nothing to do with "Do birds fly?".
So where did it come from? It may very well come from pc's Bank, but it is an origin all the same. How do you handle it?
You want the pc to stay 'in-session', and he wouldn't do that if you handled it wrongly.
So you do these three steps:

(1) You answer it; (2) you maintain ARC (you do not have to spend a lot of time on it, but you do have to maintain ARC); and (3) you get the pc back on the process. It can be really short. If you spend too much time on (2) you are not doing it right.

What is an origin? It could be the pc saying, "I'm five feet above my head."

What are you supposed to do with such a statement?
You simply start with (1) You answer it. You could say , "You are?". You let the pc know you heard it. That it made an effect upon you. Now you do (2), Maintain ARC. That is usually the one you need to pay the least attention to, but you just have to keep an eye on that ARC is maintained. If the ARC should go out, you see, it would be deadly. Often you can go onto (3), get him back on the process.

But you will have to develop a little bit of skill here. You have to develop a sensitivity of what will handle the situation.

You could on (1) say, "YOU ARE???". You know it made a big effect upon you. You are really impressed. (2) could be, "what did I say that made that happen?". "Oh it was the process 'Do birds fly', for a moment I felt like a bird flying above my head". "Well, that is great! things like that happens in processing". "Now, what was the auditing question?"
Pc: "We were running , Do birds fly?"

"That's right. Do birds fly?", and that is your (3). You are back on the process.

You can't do it the same way every time. You need to develop this sensitivity for the situation. That is really what the (2) Maintain ARC is about. You have to maintain ARC throughout. You have to say something that is appropriate. It has to show you understand what he is saying; that it made an impression upon you. That you know what he is talking about and that you are taking it into account when you give the next command.

Here is another thing you can use in some situations, "What in the auditing command made you think of that?" He will explain it to you and you will say, "Good. Do birds fly?"

Don't get too complicated about it. Just maintain ARC and get him back on the process.

The Communication Bridge
There is another thing that is related to this. It is called a communication bridge. You finished the process, 'Do birds fly' and you want to get onto the process 'Do fish swim'.

Here it is also more a matter of maintaining ARC than coming with a long statement. Maintain ARC is often a matter to be willing for the pc to make a statement. You keep your antennas out. Is the pc fine with this or is he sitting on something he wants to say?

The communication bridge could therefore be as simple as, "Thank you, your needle is floating on ' Do birds fly'. That completes the process". You make sure, you leave room for the pc to come with a final statement on 'Do birds fly' if he wishes. You could ask "How are you doing?", but you wouldn't necessarily use that every time. You may realize he is fine with ending off that process, so you simply say, "The next process is, Do fish swim". You just have to make sure the pc is with you each step of the way.

The handling of origins is a very important subject in terms of becoming a professional auditor. You have to learn how to handle originations and never be taken by surprise or caught off guard. If you just sit there for 30 seconds with your mouth open you have completely lost control and the session goes out the window. So all you need to do is (1) Answer it, (2) Maintain ARC, and (3) Return him to the process; and the pc will happily do so as he knows he is in good hands.

The Drill:

Theory: An origination is something of importance to the pc he brings up on his own. Pc is at cause unexpectedly. It is actually an indicator of the pc making progress.

Purpose: To teach the student auditor to maintain ARC with the preclear when he originates. He should not become silent or startled or hesitant by this, but maintain communication and ARC with the preclear throughout an origination.

Commands: The student runs "Do fish swim?" or "Do birds fly?" on the coach. Coach answers, but now and then makes unexpected statements. The student auditor must be able to 'change gear' and handle coach's originations smoothly and to his satisfaction.

Position: Student and coach are sitting facing each other about 1 meter (3 feet) apart at a comfortable distance.

Directions: The student auditor listens to the origination and does three things. (1) Understands it; (2) Acknowledges it; and (3) Returns the pc to session. If the coach feels the student is abrupt or spends too much time on it or shows lack of understanding, he flunks the student and corrects him to handle it smoothly.

All originations are statements about the coach, his case, ideas, reactions or difficulties; none are about the student. Otherwise it is very similar to TR-3.

The student says and does enough to: (1) Clarify and understand the origination; (2) Acknowledge the origination; (3) Give coach the repeat statement, "I'll repeat the auditing command," and then give it. Anything else is a flunk.

The student learns to prevent ARC breaks and to clearly see the difference between (a) a vital problem that concerns the pc and (b) an effort to blow session (as on TR-3). Flunks are given if the student does more than (1) understand; (2) acknowledge; (3) return pc to session.

Coach mixes it up by throwing in personal remarks aimed at the student auditor as on TR-3.

Student's failure to differentiate between comments (attempts to distract or blow) and originations (something important to the 'in-session' pc) is a flunk.

Student auditor's failure to persist is always a flunk in TR's and very much so in this TR.

Note
You do not want a student to get hung up on one TR forever. Instead you can go through the TR's several times getting tougher on each time through.

Pc's tend to be able to confront to the degree that they feel safe. If the auditing environment is noisy or prone to interruptions, his confront is greatly lowered and so are the results he can expect to get.

If the auditor's TRs are bad or he appears uncertain the pc's confront is lowered. If the auditor is challenging, evaluative or invalidative, it is even worse.

This comes from a very basic set of laws:

Auditor plus pc is greater than the Bank.

Auditor plus Bank is greater than the pc.

Pc minus auditor is less than the Bank.

Bank + Auditor > PC	PC - Auditor < Bank

Auditor + PC > Bank

(By "Bank" is meant the mental image picture collection of the pc. It comes from computer technology where all data are in a "Bank.")

The main difference between one auditor and another is, the better one has stricter adherence to procedure, better TRs, a more confident manner and a closer observance of the Auditor's Code.

Extensive technical knowledge is less important than this.

The auditor who knows his procedures and has good TRs inspires more confidence. The pc doesn't have to concern himself with the auditor. He feels safer and can therefore confront his Bank better.

In the presence of bad TRs cognitions just don't happen.

Cognitions are the high points of case gain and progress.

When the auditor has smooth, usual TRs, does his metering real well, and without the pc having to worry about it or noticing it, the pc will make case gains. When he follows the Auditor's Code closely (no evaluation or invalidation, etc.), the pc cognites and makes great gains.

The definition of in-session is "Interested in his own case and willing to talk to the auditor". When this describes the session, the pc will be able to As-is and will cognite.

If the auditor plus the Bank are both overwhelming the pc, then the Bank seems greater than the pc.

The auditor who is trying to be interesting to the pc, who over-acknowledges, who laughs loudly, is putting the pc's attention onto himself. This means the pc's attention is distracted and he doesn't As-is or cognite.

Auditor invalidation and evaluation is just plainly ruthless. It interferes with pc cognitions. Other Code breaks are distractive as well.

There can be an infinity number of wrong ways. There are only a few right ways to do things.

Recognition of the right use of TRs, metering and Auditor's Code depend only on understanding them in their simplicity and acquiring good habits early on in training and stick to them.

TRs are for use in the session itself, not just drills. 
TR's are simply how you run the session.


To TR's - Drills only

© Clear Bird Publishing, 2003. All rights reserved. We allow downloading and electronic translations,  duplicate postings to the web, but not printed or commercial editions  without special agreement with the publisher. (About: Clear Bird)    (About: Jonathan Seagull)    Tell a Friend