| January-February 1961 (3SAACC, HCOBs 28 Jan 61, 2 Feb 61, 18 Feb 61 etc.) | The Pre-Havingness Scale and SOP Goals are developed. Now all cases are run on SOP Goals to achieve Clear. Out of the goals of the pc the one with the largest fall is chosen, out of it a terminal is developed which also gives a fall and this is then assessed on the Pre-Havingness Scale. From each level found the auditor can develop a process which contains terminal and level. This is run until no more tone arm action, then a new assessment follows etc. |
| 7 April 1961 (HCOB) | Assessment by Elimination is introduced. |
| 13 May 1961 | The SHSBC begins. |
| April-May
1961 (e.g. SH Spec 3, 19 May 61) |
Sec-checks are used as a preparation for SOP Goals. In this framework sec-checking for auditing purposes is more and more clearly differentiated from sec-checking for security purposes. The sec-check in use is the Joburg. |
| 1961 | The F/N as a needle phenomenon is known but only appears in the description of the meter manifestations of a Clear (in the form of the persistent F/N). Even with regards to a Release (who is defined as somebody who knows that he or she won't get worse) it is not mentioned in the description of his meter manifestations; these only consist of a low sensitivity and tone arm in normal range. |
| 1 June 1961 (SH Spec 5) | First mention of the connection between overrunning a process and a rising TA. |
| 5 June 1961
(HCOB; SH Spec 7 and 8) |
On the basis of SOP Goals the Routines 1, 2 and 3 are developed. Routine 1 (for low cases) and Routine 2 (for normal cases) are preparatory for Routine 3, which besides SOP Goals consists of Joburg sec-checks (which now are called processing checks) and the running of the havingness and confront processes of the pc. |
| 7 June 1961
(HCOB) |
Checksheets in their modern form are introduced in Academies. |
| 7 June 1961 (SH Spec 9) | First mention of the C/Sing principle that when a case does not run well you should go back to find the point where it began to run badly and correct it there. |
| 16 June 1961 (HCOB, SH Spec 16) | The CCHs are "rehabilitated" in the sense that it is explicitly stated that they are not just for very low cases but that they - as a part of Routine 1 - for more than half of the people lie on the fastest route to Release. |
| 20 June 1961 (SH Spec 18) | LRH discovers the phenomenon of mutual out rudiments (e.g. between co-auditors). |
| June/July
1961 |
In the first lectures of the SHSBC it is pointed out repeatedly that ARC-Break, PTP and W/H are those three case manifestations that can halt case progress. |
| 3 July 1961
(SH Spec 27) |
LRH stresses the datum (although known before) that ARC breaks are based on withholds and that to cure an ARC break one should run O/W. |
| 5 July 1961
(SH Spec 29) |
First explanation of the false read resp. protest read. |
| July
1961 |
Problems as a factor in the case progress and clearing of a person are given much attention and Routine 1A is developed as an answer. |
| 10 Aug 1961
(SH Spec 41) |
First mention of the principle that an upset in session is caused by something that is unknown to the pc as well as to the auditor (compare def. of BPC) and that this must be something prior to what the ARC break seems to be. Rudiments ideally should be handled in chains. As a first precursor to GPMs the phenomenon of some goals being opposed by other goals that have a directly opposite vector is described. |
| July/August 1961 | Searching for "the" goal of the pc marks the target of processing. The terminal connected to it indicates the biggest games condition of the pc; it is the central aspect of his case. The goal is related to a problem which the pc never was able to confront. The valence in which the pc is now stuck is the solution for it; Routine 3 consists of the steps to find the goal and the terminal and to run out any reactivity (and non-confront) out of it. |
| 24 Aug 1961
(SH Spec 48) |
First mention of the Missed Withhold Phenomenon (not yet designated as such) |
| August/September
1961 (esp. SHSBC lectures from 11 Aug 1961 on) |
While
the stress of his work up to now was the development of
the Routines 1-3, LRH now turns toward what later will be
called
"Basics of Auditing". Attention is given especially to rudiments and
the handling of auditing cycles. LRH underlines that these things make
all the difference between fast Clearing and Clearing that takes
forever. Further, "not known"-, "unknown"- and "forget"-questions are introduced as a tool, e.g. an engram is run by repetetively using questions like "What about this picture is unknown?" "...should remain unknown?" etc. |
| September 1961, esp. SH Spec 56 of 12 Sep 1961 | Now
only Routine 3 is emphasized (with stress on rudiments and sec
checking) but running incidents (with "not-known" etc.) is made a part
of it. In that way, Routine 3 is intended to get over the "engram that
is necessary
to resolve the case." LRH announces the new realization that chronic somatics and troubles are "exactly where they are" and can only be gotten rid of by running the engram and all other techniques achieve merely key-out. At the same time it is emphasized that it is necessary to run the pc in pictures and incidents in valence, i.e. that he sees the incidents in the same way as he has seen them when he experienced them. The new set-up of Routine 3 is intended to make sure of this point, too. |
| October 1961 | The
principle of the Prior Confusion is discovered. The main application of
it is the newly introduced Problems Intensive which replaces Routine 1A. At this time it is already a matter-of-course that commands are cleared, i.e. the auditor makes sure that the pc understands what is expected of him, and if necessary can re-phrase the command as long as it is reading. (SH Spec 78, 1 Nov 61) |
| 25 Oct 1961
(SH Spec 75) |
First mention of the method to run a PTP as a rudiment by letting the pc look at it and then find something earlier similar to it. |
| 26 Oct 1961 (SH Spec 76) | The
phenomenon of the Missed
Withhold is described in the form of the "restimulated withhold" (while
doing a Sec Check); the pc's reactions on it are explained in great
length. |
| 7 Nov 1961 (SH Spec 80) | Mention of the phenomenon that auditing of problems can "mysteriously" influence the behaviour of persons with which the pc had the problem. |
| November 1961, esp. SH Spec lectures 7, 14 and 15 Nov 61, HCO Info Ltr. 14 Nov 61 and 20 Nov 61 | The
character of a goal as part of a problem is recognized. Besides the
goal of the pc also the "modificator" (Routine 3A) and eventually also
the opposite terminal and opposite goal (Routine 3D) are listed for. On
20 Nov 61 the term "Goals Problem Mass" is introduced. |
| 21 Dec 1961 (SH Spec 100) | LRH for the first time explains the idea that the oppterm in its turn is opposed by an opposite terminal, this one by another etc. |
| January 1962 | Routine
3D Criss-Cross is developed which has its name from the procedure that
out of two items (one of which stems from a list of things that the pc
like and one from a list of things he does not like - later more
methods are added to find the beginning items) two new ones are
derived, each of which is opposed to the first one from which
it was derived, then out of these in turn are derived two new ones and
so on, so that - if
you wrote all terminals in one column and all the opposite terminals in
a column opposite of them - you would get two lines continually
crossing each other if you were to connect each item with the item of
which it was derived. The stable datum used to differentiate terminals from oppterms is that terminals make the pc feel pain while contacting an oppterm makes him feel sensations. |
| January 1962 | It
is emphasized time and again that it is fatal to miss a withhold. The
term "Missed Withhold" is firm nomenclature by now. |
| February 1962 | The
Missed Withhold receives even more attention. HCOB 12 Feb 62 introduces
the withhold system "What, when, all, who", which until today is the
basis of running withholds (but at that time not yet combined with the
principle of earlier similar, although chains of overts were already an
auditing target). The term "Prepchecking" is introduced and means to work on a sec check list or other questions with the withhold system. Only this lifetime withholds should be taken up and worked at because the withhold system is said to be inadequate to work on the time track and because Routine 3D Criss-Cross is used for handling the time track. |
| March 1962 (HCOBs 1 Mar 62, 21 Mar 62, SH Spec 130) | "Is
there any incident like that earlier?" is introduced as a tool for
cleaning withholds and chains of withholds in prepchecking, soon after
that this is amended so that in going E/S exactly the same type of
withhold is asked for as given in the basic question ("What question").
Going E/S becomes a standard part of prepchecking procedure. A chain is held in place by a wholly or partially unknown incident at its basis, and this is what makes the needle react. |
|
March-April 1962 (e.g. SHSBC 19 Apr 62) |
The importance of Prepchecking becomes a bit lowered as it is said to be only a key-out process and will not run the case fundamentally. CCHs get stressed a bit more after some period of being in the background. The basic program for a case now consists of running first CCHs and Prepchecking on a case which shows little TAA or on which rudiments are difficult to get in. After that one changes to Routine 3D Criss Cross. Tone arm action is defined as the range in which the tone arm moves during a session or during a period of 20 minutes. |
| 24 April and 26 April 1962 (SHSBC 143 and 146) | The first precursors of the laws of L&N appear in the form of rules for listing a GPM item in Routine 3D Criss Cross. |
| 10 May 1962 (HCO Info Ltr) (also see SHSBC 175 of 14 June 1962) | With
the introduction of Routine 3GA finding a terminal
opposing another terminal by listing is
abandoned. Instead one lists - proceeding
from a goal - in parallel for items that would want the goal, would
oppose
it, would not oppose it and would not want the goal. The lists are not
nulled but are continued to be listed until the needle floats and there
is no further charge available. Then a new goal is listed for. |
| May 1962 (e.g. SHSBC 154 of 15 May 62) | All
rudiments are handled by the auditor simply acknowledging what the pc
has to say about it and checking exactly the same question on the
meter. This is repeated until the question on checking is
clean . |
| May/June 1962 (e.g. SHSBC 169 of 31 May 62) | The
middle rudiments are included in the model session. Usually they
consist of the buttons suppressed, invalidated, failed to reveal and
careful of. If they are used as the main action of the session
regarding a
certain subject, they are handled by prepchecking technique. LRH
remarks that this would amount to a prepchecking session, and this use
of the middle rudiments can be seen as the earliest roots of the later
repetitive prepchecking. |
| 12 June 1962 (SHSBC 170) | LRH
mentions that an engram is immediately preceded by a postulate and that
in theory you could erase the engram by finding this postulate. |
| June 1962 (e.g. SHSBC 175 of 14 June 62) | A
free needle is the sign that the listing of one of the four lists of
Routine 3GA is complete. This needle reaction is only described in this
context and seems to have been very rarely achieved or recognized in
actual practice. |
| 28 June 1962 (SHSBC 183 and HCOB 2 July 62) | Repetitive
rudiments are introduced in which the pc may, even without a read on
the ruds question, answer as long as he has answers. Only then the
question is checked for being clean. It is supposed that in this way
pcs will go in session more easily and that the problem can be overcome
that the meter reads badly or not at all when the rudiments are out. |
| 3 July 1962 (HCOB) |
Prepchecking as per the withhold system is abandoned as being to difficult to teach to auditors. Instead repetitive prepchecking is introduced which works in the same way as repetitive rudiments and where no chains of withholds (earlier similar) are being run. Besides repetitive prepchecking based on forms with lists of possible overts as Zero questions there is prepchecking of middle rudiments which is an immediate precursor of Modern Repetitive Prepchecking and in part already uses the same buttons. |
| 1 Aug. 1962 (HCOB) | For
the first time, buttons are used in the sense that they can prevent a
read which would otherwise be there or make an item read which actually
is not charged. From this the Tiger Drill is developed in which during
nulling the buttons are used to find out whether a goal is out or
really reads and thus is the goal being looked for (this is also called
"nulling by Mid Ruds"). |
| 9 Aug. 1962 (SHSBC 200) | The roots of the later "resisitive cases"
can be found in the description of which cases are auditable and which
are not. |
| August 1962 | The
rock slam as a needle reaction becomes the focus of attention. Routine
3GA becomes modified in that the goal is found by a Dynamic Assessment.
(The command given is, "Think of overts agains [dynamic].") That
subdynamic is found which is rock slamming consistently, then an item
representing that dynamic, and a goal which opposes this item. A dirty
needle is regarded as a small rock slam or a lower gradient of a rock
slam. |
| 21 Aug. 1962 (SHSBC 207) | After
a period during which a lot of stress is put on correct meter reading
in rudiments and prepchecking, now what is called "basic auditing"
comes to the fore. An auditor is expected to bring the rudiments in on
a pc even without a meter. |
| 11 Oct. 1962 (SHSBC 227) | For
the first time the phenomenon is mentioned that the needle of an ARC
broken pc looks exactly as the needle of a pc who is very well in
session, i.e. "freely floating". |
| Oct./Nov. 1962 | There
are different methods which are used at that time to find an
entrance to the GPM and to audit its components, amongst which are
R3-21, which is a refined version of R3GA, and R3GA Criss Cross, which
is
a development stemming from R3D Criss Cross. |
| Nov./ Dec. 1962 | R2-12
is introduced in which from a list ("Scientology List One") of items
related to Scn one item is isolated by eliminating and then an R/Sing
item is found that represents it, as well as its oppterm. In that way
the
influence of the present time GPM which is
responsible for the pc being a "rock slammer" regarding Scientology and
thus a pc with slow or no case gain is supposed to be relieved. The
laws of listing and nulling
begin to develop. Nulling however is still a form of assessment by
elimination, complemented by Mid Ruds. |
| 6 Dec. 1962 (HCOB) | "There
are no never R/Sing pcs. All pcs R/S." However an R/S is defined more
broadly than in later times: "One or two slashes make an R/S... If it
slashed up or down once call it an R/S. (HCOB 5 Dec. 62) The rule is
that "any Item that R/Ses was part of the GPM and has another Item in
opposition to it." (HCOB 6 Dec. 62) A rocket read is however regarded
as more valuable because it is the read pointing towards goal or
connected to it. |
| 8 Jan. 1963 (SHSBC 253) | Listing
and Nulling are no longer done from a prepared list, only from a
listing
question. Of the later laws of L&N some more are found, e.g.
the
heavy reaction that follows an out list. |
| January 1963 | "Repair"
is discussed as a subject in its own right for the first time.
Three lectures give a complete outline on repair and review of a case;
however these information refer to R2-12 and R3 processes as these are
the mainly used processes at that time. |
| February 1963 (SHSBC 262, 263, HCOBs 1 Feb and 11 Feb 1963) | R3-M
is introduced (at first as R3-MX). In this variant of Routine 3 listing
is done starting from a goal or an item that gives a rocket read. An
opposite terminal is listed for, then another which opposes the item
found and so on (this is called the "spiral staircase") until the Rock
and the "opprock" are found and the goal is completely discharged. R3-M
includes some new stable data for listing. Every Reliable Item found
must be the only one on the list which in the end gives a rocket read. |
| 19 February 1963 (SHSBC 268) | First
mentioning of the use of a repetitive prepcheck regarding a certain
time period or a certain time (outside of a problems intensive). |
| February 1963 (SHSBC 268 and HCOB 11 Feb 63) | The
whole body of valid processes in use is as follows: CCHs, Assists,
Rudiments and Havingness, Missed Withholds, Prepchecking, Problems
Intensive, R2-12A and R3-M. LRH says in the lecture SHSBC 268 that no
other processes are needed above that. |
| 14 March 1963 (HCOB) | The first version of a prepared list for correction appears in form of a list of "15 principal causes of ARC breaks in R2 and R3" which can be assessed by elimination to find the reason for an ARC break and then handle accordingly. In the period following, LRH refers to this as the "ARC break assessment". |
| 15 March 1963 (HCO PL) | The
system of starrate checkouts is introduced - materials and drills are
either starrate (100 % command required for passing), 75-rate (plain
written examination, 75 % correct answers required) or zero rated (no
examination). |
| April 1963 (HCOB 8 April 63, SHSBC 285 of 16 Apr 63 and PAC-1 and -2 of 20 Apr 62) | It
is found out that when you run GPMs on Routine 3-M (now in a
refined version called R3M2) and know the goal, many of the items have
a
specific form (e.g. when the goal is "to be happy", the bottom terminal
is "to be happy", the one above "the goal to be happy" and the next on
up "somebody or something with the goal 'to be happy'"). In a congress
lecture (PAC-1) LRH says, "There is a standard pattern for the reactive
mind." He also announces that there are certain very early goals which
appear in every case, e.g. the goal "to create" (PAC-2). |
| 23 Apr 1963 (HCOB) | The
term "case supervisor" is used for the first time, but does not yet
appear
frequently. The duties today filled by the case supervisor are
still a part of the DofP's post. |
| May 1963 (e.g. HCOB 8 and 11 May 1963, SHSBC 291 of 14 May 63) | LRH
disovers that the basic GPMs are implant GPMs, identical from person to
person. Implant GPMs have to be run first because they render the
actual GPMs of a person unavailable (HCOB 8 May 63, "The nature of the
formation of the GPM"). In HCOB 11 May 63, "Heaven", LRH explains the
pattern of the Helatrobus Implant. Very soon afterwards the line plots
of these implants are published; for running these incidents Routine
3-M is developed further and becomes Routine 3-N in which the auditor
virtually lets the pc go through the given RIs of these line plots. LRH expresses that the abilites of an OT up to now have been described just intellectually (SHSBC 296 of 23 May 63) but that this new discovery opens the doors to OT, so to say short-cutting the intermediate step of Clear (HCOB 1 June 63). He even states there, "The state of Clear is relegated to courtesy use without test, requiring only that a GPM has been run... We will make no attempt to stabilize Clears but press them on to OT." |
| 27 May 1963 (HCOB; also: SHSBC 297 of 28 May 63) | The
theory is developed that every ARC break stems form an earlier charge
being restimulated which is overlooked or ignored by both pc and
auditor. For this phenomenon the term "By-passed charge" is coined and
used from there on. |
| June/July 1963 |
Engram running comes into play again as engram running in chains (R3R) and complements R3N. For the first time, engram running is put in the framework of a routine with patterned commands and steps. The purpose of running engrams is to make the time track available (SHSBC 303 of 18 June 63); "Only engram running will accomplish Clearing". LRH also points out that engram running in chains has emerged as a fully reoriented subject and has not the faintest relation to the body and a "human Clear" but has an Operating Thetan as its goal. With the new "State of Case Scale" (SHSBC 302 of 13 June 63) cases are categorized into 8 levels from OT to Unaware; the position of a case is mainly determined by which processes can be run with profit. R3R however is used on nearly all cases; heed is given to finding a type of chain to run by assessment which the pc can run and which will give him gains (HCOB 1 July 63). Soon after the use of R3R is limited so that it cannot be used on the lowest three case levels (HCOB 28 July 63). |
| 5 July 1963 (HCOB) | In HCOB 5 July 63 a series of prepared lists is published which are designed for assessing the type of BPC on ARC breaks. List 1, the "General ARC Break Assessment", is already quite similar to nowadays L1C. The remaining lists are each for use on a specific type of process, amongst them List 3 for handling ARC breaks ocurring during running engrams. |
| August 1963 (HCOB 4 Aug 63, SHSBC 320 of 6 Aug 63 and 325 and 326 if 20 and 21 July 63) | The terms "Whatsit" and "Itsa" resp. "Itsa-line" are introduced. The importance of tone arm action for successful auditing is stressed heavily. The parts of the auditing communication cycle are laid out in detail. |
| August 1963 (SHSBC 329 of 28 Aug 63) | Clear is understood to be somebody who
has a Free Needle and thus has keyed out everything what was
restimulated in this lifetime - which is said to be easily achieved by
a prepcheck on this lifetime. He is also called a "Keyed-out Clear" and
identified with the Book One Clear. To reach this state before
processing in the direction of OT is begun is seen
as advantageous again. |
| September 1963 |
The service facsimile gets attention again. It is now pointed out as the case phenomenon that stops fast Clearing because the pc uses it as a "safe solution" which in that area where he uses it prevents itsa. The result of finding the main service facsimile of the pc and running it with R3-SC (which is more or less identical with the modern process) is a keyed-out Clear which then can be run on Level IV on the time track and with OT processes (i.e. GPM processes). The processes being run to achieve case gain are R1C (Itsa line), R2T (dating of somatics), R2H (ARC breaks), R3SC (Clearing by service facsimiles) and R4M2 (the earlier R3M2) (HCOB 28 Sep 63). |
| September 1963 (e.g. SHSBC 337 of 17 Sep 63) | LRH revises his assessment of implant
GPMs in that he now thinks they are not too aberrative. Compared to
them the actual GPMs of a person (which now again come into the scope
of auditing technology) are what is truly aberrating. |
| 21 Oct 1963 (SHSBC 346) | For the first time it is no longer
insisted on the item on a list (while listing for RIs) giving a rocket
read - however it has to give a blowdown. |
| 29 to 31 Sep 1963 (SHSBC 349-351) | LRH for the first time mentions the idea
to use clay, in training auditors as well as in processing. |
| November 1963 (HCO PL 26 Nov 63, SHSBC 356 of 28 Nov 63) | The system of classification of auditors
and processes in use since the middle of 1963 is modified. Now there
are 8 classes from 0 to VII which can be seen as the immediate
precursors of today's Grades. However there is a rule that every pc
gets audited only up to the class to which he is trained. Especially on
the levels V and VI where implant GPMs and GPMs are audited, a full
understanding on the part of the pc on auditing techniques and the
anatomy of GPMs is required (SHSBC 357 of 3 Dec 63). Co-auditing gets
pushed heavily. |
| 28 Dec 1963 (HCOB) | Auditors in the HGCs of central orgs are
forbidden to run actual GPMs. It is said that the successful technology
is "not yet published in full". Soon after that a series of lectures is
held which are not part of the SHSBC and which are listed in Red Volume
V, p. 393, as "Saint Hill Staff Course Lectures". These mirror the
research of Routine 6 which becomes the new technique for handling
actual GPMs. Accordingly, HCO PL 18 Mar 64 (Vol. V, p. 406) states,
"Avoid R2-12 and R3 and R4 type processes." |
Otfried