Сообщение auditor » 22 сен 2016, 11:31

Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
TR Supervisors
Cramming Officers
Ds of T


During 1979, Ron made a thorough study of current TR training, examining the materials and checksheets in use, conducting TR course pilots, and critiquing video-recorded TRs done by students. He isolated and handled the difficulties that TR supervisors and students had been having. His reorganization of TR training is represented in HCOB 24 Dec 79 TRs BASICS RESURRECTED. During this period while Ron was sorting out TR training I had the privilege of working with him and being trained by him in criticizing TRs. This paper summarizes what I learned from Ron, and my own experience in teaching TRs and getting them done from a C/S (Case Supervisor) point of view.


Because this TR is so simple, students tend to make it complicated. It requires that the student do this TR in its simplicity and not add to it. All sorts of hidden standards get interjected into it by students, coaches and supervisors. One handling is to clear misunderstood words in the TR, restudy the TR and get them doing it again.
An important clarification is that OT TR-0 is Just being there - the confront part is left until TR-0.
The coaching on OT TR-0 is mostly done by the supervisor. It is an actual waste of time to have two students coaching each other on it as there is very little to do. A supervisor can note somebody twitching. Even if the supervisor ignores it and just insists that the class go on doing OT TR-0, the guy will come through. The supervisor can cover a whole classroom of OT TR-0. The students don’t do any coaching, the supervisor does. Even an isolated student when the rest of the class has gone on - the supervisor would keep his eye on him in spite of whatever else the supervisor was doing. And if he went to sleep or started boiling off or whatever, the supervisor would get him back onto it again. (But if a student flunked on a later TR and was returned to OT TR-0 it would be up to his twin to get him through. The twin does a lot of coaching only after somebody has been returned to it when the rest of the class is doing something else.)

All too often students and coaches tend to get into trying to get the student to do something with his body, like trying to hold it still, trying not to blink, trying to hold a poker face, etc. These of course violate TR-0, as then the student is not confronting the coach, but has attention fixated on his body (to such a degree sometimes that he can be oblivious of the coach). Not that the student should be allowed to writhe and twitch on TR-0, but the emphasis needs to be first and foremost on getting the student to confront the person opposite him (the coach). Then later in the TR, iron out physical manifestations, twitches, blinks, etc. (but if physical manifestations persist, OT TR-0 is unflat and must be flattened).
Although OT TR-0 isn’t coached by the coach, TR-0 does require some coaching, in order to get the student to sit there and confront - which is the purpose of TR-0.

The purpose of TR-0 is just to get the guy to sit there and confront. But the purpose of TR-0 Bull-bait is to get the student able to confront a preclear. The purpose of these TRs must be stressed. OT TR-0 gets the student able to Just be there. TR-0 gets the student able to be there and confront. TR-0 Bull-bait gets the student able to confront a preclear.
The coach must use some sense and reality in his bull-baiting of the student, in order to present situations which test or could throw the student off his confront. Then the coach must flatten each of the student’s buttons as it is encountered.
A gradient scale of toughness is essential. First the coach presents the student with lighter situations to confront, flattens that, then steps it up gradiently until finally the student can confront anything that the coach (or a preclear) might say or do. Don’t overwhelm the student at the start. Use a gradient. Always flatten each button encountered. Then step it up and make it tougher. Unfortunately coaches sometimes lose sight of the purpose of this TR -to make the student able to confront a preclear - and get off into doing something else such as dramatizing their own banks or trying to entertain or impress the rest of the class, neither of which has anything to do with coaching TR-0 Bull-bait. In fact on TR-0 Bull-bait, the coach must be in PT and be very alert in what he is doing, and in observing the student so that he can spot any break in the student’s confront and flatten it. A coach who goes off into his own dramatizations is actually unflat on OT TR-0 and TR-0 himself and should be put back to flatten them; he won’t be able to coach TR-0 Bull-bait, much less be able to drill it himself, until his own OT TR-0 and TR-0 are in.
The coach must use a gradient scale of toughness in his bull-baiting, must be alert for and flatten any button c! the student’s that he encounters, and must get the student up to being able to confront a preclear. This requires good coaching with reality and with the purpose of this TR in mind. It is very much the supervisor’s job to ensure that this gets done.

Most troubles on TR-1 go straight back to out earlier TRs (i.e., OT TR-0, TR-0, and TR-0 Bull-bait); for example, the student mumbles to himself as he is unaware of or unable to confront the person he is talking to. Or, does the reverse and talks loudly, harshly, mechanically, which is also a non confront of the person to whom he is talking.
Affinity level of the student-auditor is very important, and all too often the student or auditor whose TR-1 is out lacks affinity. He can’t reach or be the other person (coach or pc), so has difficulty communicating.
Sounding like a machine or robot is very not OK on TR-1. The student-auditor must be able to communicate naturally, with affinity, and reach the person he is talking to.

This used to be abused by an ultra mechanical “Good”, or “Thank you” to everything the pc or coach said. This was largely handled by the mid-78 revision of TR-2, in which it is stated that the auditor should acknowledge with a statement appropriate to what the pc said.
A recognition of what would be an appropriate acknowledgment depends on the student’s or auditor’s reality. It isn’t just a matter of clearing the words “appropriate” and “acknowledgment” (though this would help); it is also necessary that the student-auditor have a sufficiently high reality level that he can recognize what is, and what is not, appropriate. But this isn’t really too difficult. If someone were to tell you that he had broken his leg, it would not be appropriate to say “Good”! Reality is important in TR-2.

Here most trouble comes from lack of understanding of what is meant by the term “Q & A”, coupled with lack of understanding of the term “cycle of action” and why one should complete each cycle of action. Additionally, there is the bank tendency not to complete cycles but to Q & A instead. Part of the trouble here is that the term “Q & A” has various different definitions and descriptions, like: “failure to complete a cycle of action”, “changing when the pc changes”, “accepting orders from the pc”, and “question and answer”. The materials on the subject of Q & A are contained in many different HCOBs and articles and tapes and unless a student takes the time and trouble to look up and study and work out all the various references (which very few people will do), he/she winds up with a misconception of what “Q & A” is. E.g., an auditor fixates on “not accepting orders from the pc about what to run on him” as a definition for “Q & A”. The pc says “the room is too hot”, and the auditor doesn’t handle the room temperature as it would be (he thinks) “accepting an order”; or pc gets upset and suggests “Why don’t you assess a BPC list?”, and the auditor freezes because he feels that if he does so he will have Q & Aed. These may seem offbeat but I’ve seen them happen all too often. And yet these are usually accompanied by the auditor Q & Aing madly with every misdirection from the pc’s bank and never getting a question answered or a cycle completed on the pc.
I think this would be handled by: (a) a compilation of all the various texts on the subject of Q & A and on cycles of action into one comprehensive text; (b) an announcement to the effect that duplication processes (such as Opening Procedure by Duplication) cure the tendency to Q & A by increasing the ability to duplicate and to complete cycles of action.
Ron has now released HCOB 5 Apr 80 Q & A, THE REAL DEFINITION, which clarifies exactly what Q & A is.

The errors on this TR are most commonly either too abrupt a shift of attention or too slow a shift of attention back to the process (including no shift back to the process!). Beginning students love to get a pat phrase or set of phrases to use to mechanically/robotically “handle” all originations with. Then later they tend to get into all kinds of Q & A with originations. Basically it depends upon the student-auditor’s ability to understand, which comes straight back to the student auditor’s own ARC Level, as well as whether the student-auditor understands what he/she is supposed to be doing on the TR, and why.


TRs 6 - 9 (Upper Indoc TRs) are also essential to professional auditor training.

Here again the coach plays a vital role in that the coach must start off with a light gradient, and must ensure on this TR that the student becomes fully accustomed to, familiar with, and relaxed about controlling another’s body. A lot of confusion is likely to blow of’! on this TR and the coach must get the student through it and to a point where the student learns that it is perfectly OK to run 8-C on another’s body. The coaching here should be in the direction of encouragement and getting the student to do it. The coach should not present opposition as that is the subject of a later TR. This TR should concentrate on getting the student to do it, and showing him the importance of precision, accuracy and positiveness when running 8-C.

In this TR the coach starts presenting opposition on a gradient and getting the student more and more capable of continuing to run perfect control without being thrown or sinking to a lower tone level when faced with opposition. Hence the importance of getting the student very expert in TR-6 before embarking on this TR. And f the student has a hard time of it on this TR then drop back to and flatten TR-6, or any earlier out TR.
Here again (as in TR-0 Bull-bait), the coach must be a coach, and not get carried away with his own dramatizations. Dramatization by the coach has nothing to do with coaching. (This doesn’t mean that the coach shouldn’t present dramatizations to the student, but the coach has to be in PT and not in his own bank.) Supervisors need to ensure that coaches do coach and neither overwhelm the student utterly, nor be so namby-pamby that the student’s confront isn’t raised. Hence the necessity for good coaching and for the supervisor to be on the ball and ensuring that the students and coaches are working on the TR.

An error on this is to fail to ensure that the term “tone 40” is well cleared, also the word “intention” as these terms are often subject to misinterpretation. The coach needs to ensure that the student does do the TR and doesn’t become mechanical and just go through the motions. This is necessary because this TR has to do with intentions. It is however easy to observe whether the student is using intention or not, and to coax and persuade the student into doing so. The coach does have to get the student to do it. It is often a good idea to have the student and coach take turns in doing and coaching this TR, to increase reality on it. (The same is true of other TRs too.)

As this TR depends for its success on the student having mastered the earlier TRs 0 - 4, 6 - 8, any weaknesses in earlier TRs will show up here. The remedy for failure on this TR is to get the earlier unflat TRs fully in.
The student and coach could err in either too readily quitting on TR-9, and drop back to earlier TRs rather than persist and get the student through and able to do it. Or, they will err in going on and on with the student failing.
It is a point of supervisor judgment as to whether to keep them at it and get them through, or whether to return to and get in earlier TRs. The supervisor decides this on the basis of whether the student is making progress on the TR, whether the coach is coaching correctly, and handles accordingly.

Earlier in TR training students were cycled through the TRs several times over. The idea here was to increase the gradient each time through, with the student getting better at it each time. This was to get the student more familiar with the TRs and to prevent the student from being stuck in a lose by miscoaching. The Professional TR Course is not run this way. The liability of cycling the student through the TRs is that the TR training then becomes permissive and doesn’t result in professional auditors.
Most auditors entering the Professional TR Course have already done lower level TR courses and have had objective processes. And where they haven’t, cycling is an answer (but it isn’t THE answer).
Permissiveness in professional TR training is the main way that TR training for pro auditors went out. There are various purposes and uses for TRs. There are permissive TRs for new public, public Comm Course TRs, a therapeutic TR course as contained in the Survival Rundown, and there is the Professional TR Course. The uses and purposes of these various TR courses need to be kept separate. On the Professional TR Course we make a real pro auditor.
The way to run the Professional TR Course is by getting the student to do it, one TR at a time, to a full pass on each TR. It is up to the twins to get each other through with professional coaching and high standards. The supervisor’s job becomes very crucial. The supervisor is there to get them through to a full pass on each TR and graduated from the course as pro auditors. A supervisor who does his part in this diligently and effectively is worth his weight in gold as he is making pro auditors whose TRs will stand by them through the years of auditing ahead.
Should the student fail on a TR on the Professional TR Course, he is started over from the beginning of the line-up, this time getting in each TR to a full pass, with his coach ensuring that he does, and the supervisor very actively in there making sure that the student becomes a real pro.


It could be said with some humor that students on TR courses tend to obsessively copy. Unfortunately they do. They copy other students, they copy (or try to) what their auditor sounded like, or what they think he sounded like. And not infrequently, I have caught out students getting hold of another student’s passing tape and trying to copy it. On TR critiquing there are repeating waves of all the students’ TRs suddenly starting to sound alike. This usually traces to either an opinion leader (not someone who can get results as an auditor, but one who pretends to be an authority), or it traces to a bunch of students going out-ethics and trying to copy what they think students who passed sounded like.
Invariably these copy the worst traits or characteristics in others’ TRs, and after all that isn’t surprising as if they understood the TRs materials in the first place, they wouldn’t be compelled to try to copy others. It probably stems from some impulse to beat the system by attempting to steal the beingness of another whom they consider to be a winning valence = no beingness of their own.


I am convinced that most of the trouble with TR training in recent years is due to the increased incidence of heavy druggies arriving on TR courses. Now there is the point that doing TRs is therapeutic to druggies, helping them get over withdrawal symptoms as practiced by Narconon and in HGCs, and as an essential part of an effective Drug RD. But we need to differentiate between the use of TRs to help a druggie get over drugs, and the use of TRs in training a professional auditor. of course TRs do give case gain even to nondruggies.
One of the more obvious case gains visible on a lower level case from TRs is physical changes such as increased whiteness of the whites of the eyes, color changes in the iris, reduction or disappearance of creases and wrinkles from frowning and facial ridges, cessation of obsessive and continual body motion, and on many the awareness of a mind or bank as separate from themselves or their body. In order to avoid students on TR courses being cases and to preserve these two different uses of TRs, a delineation could be made of these two different uses, both valid in their own right: TRs for case gain, and TRs for pro auditor training.
Heavy druggies have invariably failed in auditor training on TRs courses until their drugs were handled, the minimum being a Purification RD, but I think that many would also need Objectives and a Drug RD in order to succeed on a Professional TRs Course.


Partly covered above under TRs 6 - 9, and under Drugs. A very successful action was done on Flag, on Ron’s advice, of putting all tech trainees through a checksheet and course called the “Tech TRs Course and Objectives Co-audit”. On that course the students did all TRs 0 - 4, 6 - 9, and coaudited a full battery of objective processes on each other (on a read it, drill it, do it basis). After this, they actually studied and drilled TRs 0 - 4, and did their electronic attest (getting TRs tapes passed on actual auditing sessions during their internship). Those working on getting their TR tape passed had already co-audited a full battery of objective processes on each other. (And the additional advantage of coauditing these processes is that they got it both ways, on themselves as a pc, and they learned the discipline of running Objectives as an auditor, both being important.)
(This whole line-up or TRs 0 - 4, Upper Indocs, co-auditing Objectives and much more, is now available on the Survival Rundown.)
In 1979 while viewing a batch of student TR videos, Ron analyzed the difficulty these students were having with TRs as due to their lack of “R” (Reality) and “A” (Affinity). He pointed out that they were trying to Communicate (“C”), but their own “A” and “R” were so depressed, that their “C” couldn’t be brought up (without raising their “A” and “R”). In other words these students hadn’t made the case gains available from objective processes and ARC Straightwire. Until a person has been audited on objective processes and ARC Straightwire, he can’t see, and he is out “R” and out “A”. Ron also stressed that these are essential to the making of a Scientologist, as on these processes a pc will make quite a breakthrough. He/she will realize the communication formula, and that something is really real, affinity goes up, and the pc goes into ARC with the environment and life. This is an important step in becoming a Scientologist. And these gains are a very necessary prerequisite to pro auditor training. (SOED 1367 INT, 14 Jan 80 SPEEDING UP SLOW OR BOGGED STUDENT AUDITORS AND INTERNES implements and gives a supervisor the ways to handle these points above when they are found out on tech trainees and Professional TR Course students.)


As pointed out above, unless the student-auditor can rise to a high enough level of ARC, then he won’t succeed on a pro TRs course (nor in sessions as an auditor). He probably needs to be at least 3.0 or 3.5 on the tone scale to be able to do pro TRs successfully (or to audit successfully). If he is lower on the tone scale, his own ARC level is insufficient to be able to engage in a positive or theta exchange of communication with another being.
There is an essential basic that needs greater stress, and that is that we are seeking in TR training to bring about the ability in a being to be able to communicate (in ARC) with another being, to complete communication cycles, not to get sidetracked into another subject, etc. The fundamental being the ability to get into ARC with another person, and to maintain that ARC.
That ability is partly acquired by case gain and partly by training.


The following materials (which haven’t always been on TR course checksheets) are essential in that the student must study and understand and be able to apply them to succeed on pro TR training:
The ARC Triangle
The Cycle of Action
The Communication Formula
Materials on Q & A
The Axioms 21 - 28 (especially Axiom 28)
Book: DIANETICS ‘55! (chapters on communication)
Book: THE PROBLEMS OF WORK (on A, R. and C)
Material on “Beingness”, especially HCOB 10 Apr 80 AUDITOR BEINGNESS

These materials above are in addition to the HCOBs on TRs.


1. Study of the ARC triangle.
2. Study of the cycle of action and the cycle of communication.
3. Study of the communication formula.
4. Representing the communication formula in clay.
5. Representing Chapter VII of DIANETICS ‘55! in clay.
6. Study of each TR, including clearing misunderstoods and getting off false data.
7. Work out how each TR relates to the communication formula. (Note: This is only useful when the student knows what the comm formula is and understands it.)
8. Study of the end phenomena and valuable final products of TRs (as given in HCOB 24 Dec 79 TRs BASICS RESURRECTED).


It is up to the supervisor to get the students to do the TRs, and to get them through each TR to a pass. This is the make-break point of any TR course - the supervisor getting the students to do the TRs.
Only supervisors who have done a Professional TRs Course and have themselves gotten a pass on TRs, have succeeded in running a TRs course.
In practice I have had to dig the supervisor out of the video room. By which is meant that the TR supervisor starts spending all his time looking at videos that students have made of their TRs, to see if there is a video good enough to send up for a pass, instead of the supervisor spending most of his time on the floor in the course room getting the students’ TRs in, and then when the student has made it on TRs, then and only then, make a video. Otherwise the supervisor gets glued to the TV screen. (This is also a kind of stat push instead of going for quality products.)
TR courses have been subject to corruption in stat pushes in that different items on TR checksheets have different amounts of points and there have been certain items that give higher points than other items and in times of stat push the students are gotten to do or redo the items that yield higher points to get the student points up before Thursday 2:00 p.m., without any regard for training these students to be able to do TRs and thereby producing graduates who can apply what they have learned(i.e., quality products). Such a course can appear “upstat” due to “power” stats - student points - while crippling tech training in academy, internship and messing up the HGC with failed auditors. (A point of some bitterness with me.)
Maybe a genuine desire to make auditors who can audit, on the part of the supervisors and executives in a training org. is amore important factor than I have realized, and possibly more of the difficulties over the past year on TR training are due to its lack.
I think with some derision of a fellow who claimed ineffectiveness due to out tech on his case, but omitted to mention that he was audited and C/Sed by those he was responsible for training. So a possible solution is to permit the executives and supervisors over a tech training area to only be audited and C/Sed by those they have trained in order to give them more incentive to train auditors who will be able to audit successfully.


I feel there is a wide gap between being able to do TRs successfully oneself and being able to successfully critique another’s TRs. It’s quite another level of skill.
Points in my experience in learning to critique TRs under Ron are:
1. There’s a danger of not being certain enough and seeing an auditor or TR student do something that I wouldn’t have done, but dismissing it on the basis that what I would or wouldn’t do is not a valid criterion. That has always been a mistake as the reason I didn’t like what I saw or heard was because it was a TR outness - otherwise it wouldn’t have Jarred my attention. The handling I found for this was (whenever I saw or heard something I didn’t like on a TR tape/video) to replay it until I could isolate exactly which of the TRs 0 - 4 had been violated and how exactly. Or, how it violated or omitted part of the comm formula or the ARC triangle. In other words, by comparing it to the basic technical data, reviewing the basic tech data, and isolating the exact departure from those basics.
2. Writing up critiques of TR videos before they were critiqued by Ron, and then after he had critiqued them, comparing his and my critiques, and on any that differed replaying the video and watching it again until I clearly saw what I had missed previously. Then again reviewing the basic tech data on that area.
3. Working out the ideal scene for a session (see definition of “in session”), and the auditor’s TRs in relation to this.
4. Working out the purpose of TRs and of each TR. Comparing this to the purpose of auditing, the definition of “in session” and how these relate.
5. Having high ARC for auditors and for pcs generally and an earnest desire to help them succeed. 6. Not letting an auditor go on failing on a TR course but getting the guy debugged, or some act of compassion even if as little as a letter to let him know that someone cared and to get some hope back up, getting O/Ws pulled, word clearing done, inspection of the course for “What Is A Course PL” outnesses, coming down on any dilettante attitude, verbal tech, or out-ethics.
7. A measure of humility borne of awareness of goofs I have made so as not to become authoritarian or out of reach and thus communication, with the students and supervisors.
8 . Asking myself the question: “Would I want to be audited by this TR student or auditor?”, and if not, establishing why not, and what would have to be done to correct it.
9. Always narrowing down and establishing the tech data or tech basic that was violated in any error and getting the guy onto the HCOB or book that covered this point so as to get him on source and avoid verbal tech or interpretation.
10. Withstanding the make-wrongs or bids-for-sympathy from those not up to a pass, seeking another way through than by achieving competence.
11. Knowing that it is possible to do the TRs and to do them right and an awareness of how valuable correct TRs are in auditing, both from my own experiences as an auditor and as a pc, on both good TRs and flubbed TRs.


1. Student and coach don’t seem to know what they are supposed to be doing on any TR, or are doing something they ought not to be doing, or are omitting part of the TR. Remedy: Get them both word cleared on the TR, and, have them both restudy the TR materials. Then get them back onto and doing the TR.
2. Despite word clearing and restudy of the TR, the student and coach can’t apply what they have studied or are misapplying the data, or get confused and can’t think with the basic data. Remedy: Get any verbal tech off per HCOB/PL 9 Feb 79 HOW TO DEFEAT VERBAL TECH. Get FALSE DATA STRIPPING done on both student and coach.
3. Despite drilling, the student cannot seem to be brought up to confronting. Or the student sounds and acts “dead”. Or the student is nattery, critical or gets into “joking and degrading”. Remedy: See HCOB 3 Feb 79 Issue II CONFRONT TECH HAS TO BE PART OF THE TR CHECKSHEET. Get the person’s O/Ws pulled, especially tech O/Ws.
4. Student is displaying roller-coaster, or is NCG (no case gain) as a student, or is being out-ethics. Remedy: Route to ethics for handling (per HCO PL 5 Apr 65 THE NO-GAIN- CASE STUDENT).
5. Student is showing a lack of perception, is wooden, out of PT, stuck back on the track or in drug pictures, can’t learn despite word clearing, is dull, lacks self-determinism. Remedy: Put the person onto and through the Purification RD.
6 . Student has done the Purification RD, but is not fully in PT, lacks perception or coordination. Doesn’t perceive PT environment rapidly and with clarity. Or, lacks experience on TRs and objective processes. Remedy: Put him onto the Survival Rundown.
7. Student is lacking in Affinity, Reality, Communication or Understanding. Remedy: Get the student to do the parts of and the whole ARC triangle in clay. (Use the books: THE PROBLEMS OF WORK, THE FUNDAMENTALS OF THOUGHT, and DIANETICS ‘55! as references.)
8. If after the above the student is still lacking in ARC, or doesn’t seem sufficiently high toned to have and maintain ARC. Remedy: Have the student’s ARC Straightwire Grade looked into and repaired and completed to its full result. Or get the Expanded ARC Straightwire Grade run if not previously run. 9. The student doesn’t understand or can’t apply the communication formula, or doesn’t see how the TRs relate to the comm formula. Remedy: Get the student word cleared on the comm formula, then restudy it and demonstrate it in clay. (Note: After doing the comm formula in clay, the student can work out how each TR relates to the comm formula, and how the TRs relate to auditing. But this comes after doing the comm formula in clay, as otherwise he may not have sufficient comprehension of the comm formula.
10. The student doesn’t understand or can’t apply the comm formula and communication cycle, or the mechanics of communication. Remedy: Get the student to demonstrate in clay, Chapter VII, of DIANETICS ‘55!
11. Students or coaches not working or coaching in the direction of getting the TRs in better, or coaching without reality; unaware of how the TRs relate to auditing. Remedy: Thoroughly word clear and study the primary and secondary valuable final products of TRs and the end phenomenon of TRs (HCOB 24 Dec 79 TRs BASICS RESURRECTED). Work out the ideal scene for a session (see def: “in session”), and how each TR contributes to this when in, and detracts from it when out.
12. Student feels that he has gotten a TR done correctly once or twice or very briefly, and is afraid of “overrunning” it or that he might not get it right the next time or thereafter. Remedy: Pro auditor training is not a case action, but drilling to consistent and continual perfection of TR rendition. Once a person’s TRs have been gotten in, they don’t go out. A real pro can audit from there on out with perfect TRs. Point this out as the standard and get the student to continue the drill until fully and consistently competent.
13. The student gets partway through the TRs and hangs up on a TR and can’t make it to a pass on that TR. Or, the student has undue difficulty on a later TR. Remedy: Realize that the reason for the trouble is an outness in an earlier TR (or TRs). Put the student back to the earliest TR that is out, and get these in fully.
14. The student gets through to the end of the TRs but hasn’t made it fully, or cannot get a tape pass. Remedy: Realize that this is due to earlier TR outnesses and that he won’t succeed until all earlier TRs are fully in. Put the student back to the beginning of the line-up (which is meant he re-word clears, restudies the materials, does the clay demos again and starts at OT TR-0). Take each TR, from OT TR-0 on up, to a full pass.
15. Student failing and other remedies haven’t handled. Remedy: Get the “TR Debug Assessment” assessed and handled to an F/N on each line. Do any additional handlings indicated as needed by this assessment.
16. For any lack of progress at an acceptable speed and to an excellent result. Remedy: Get the supervisor out on the floor in the course room actively and energetically getting the students to DO THE TRs!
17. After having done all the above, and the student’s TR rendition is mechanically correct, and he has been very thoroughly drilled in all the TRs, including Upper Indoc TRs, there is something lacking in his attitude or presence that leaves him short of being a pro auditor. Remedy: Have him study and apply the data on auditor beingness. (Note: This data may only be studied or attempted after the student has become very proficient in and is thoroughly drilled in all the TRs including Upper Indocs. To attempt this action earlier would be a waste of the tech as it would be premature and out gradient. But when the student has been very thoroughly drilled in the TRs and has fully mastered them, then this action of doing the “Auditor Beingness” step will put the final polish on his TRs and will make him into a real professional auditor whose pcs go “into session” on his TRs alone and stay in session throughout the session. His pcs will rave about his auditing and the case gains they make. And there is the final reward for honestly and thoroughly doing a good job of the TRs, exactly the way Ron has laid them out in the materials, each to a full pass!)


1. Beginning or public TR training course, Comm Course.
2. The Purification Rundown.
3. The Survival Rundown.
4. A Drug Rundown.
5. Method One Word Clearing (preferably co-audited).
6. Expanded ARC Straightwire Grade (again preferably co-audited).
7. THE PROFESSIONAL TR COURSE. (Done to professional auditor standard, but not only for auditors, as the quality of having TRs of pro auditor standard is of great value to any Scientologist and will last with him as an ability from here on out.)

As assisted by
Senior C/S Int

Professional auditing in any place on the planet Auditor class X, skype: timecops
Сообщений: 660
Зарегистрирован: 28 дек 2015, 12:01

Вернуться в L Ron Hubbard original HCO BULLETINS, POLISIES

Кто сейчас на форуме

Сейчас этот форум просматривают: нет зарегистрированных пользователей и гости: 2