How Free Scientologists Audit the PTS-RD

PTS RD Auditors

Reference material: [10]1)In square brackets I will add references. The numbers in square brackets are to refer to the references listed afterwards so that I can quickly refer to those within the following text. HCOB 9. Dez. 71 PTS-Rundown

[20] HCOB 20. Jan. 72 PTS-Rundown Addition

[30] HCOB 13. Feb. 72 II Additional LRH-Data to the PTS-Rundown

[40] BPL/HCOB 5. Apr. 72 PTS-Type A Handling

[50] HCOB 16. Apr. 72 PTS RD CORRECTION LIST

[60] HCOB 17. Apr. 72 C/S-Serie 76, C/SING A PTS RUNDOWN

[70] HCOB 3 JUNE 1972R PTS Rundown, Final Step, rev. 15 Oct. 74

[80] HCOB 3. Juni 72RA PTS Rundown, Final Step

[90] HCOB 19. Jan. 68 S&Ds by BUTTON

[100] HCOB 16. Aug. 69R Handling illnesses in SCIENTOLOGY

[110] HCOB 20. Apr. 72 II C/S-Serie Nr. 78

[120] HCOB 15. Dez. 68RA L4BRA

[130] HCOB 24. Apr. 72 I C/S-Serie Nr. 79, PTS-INTERVIEWS

This is not supposed to be a summary of how to audit the RD but, instead, let you know which references are right and which are wrong. We approvingly refer to the reference material given by Ron in the C/S-Series 76 and quoted here as [10] to [60].

To reference [10]: According to my research, Ron’s original PTS-RD, as published in the [10] (HCO B 9 Dez. 1971), has only been “disimproved” later on, i.e. we work according to the original version without any revisions.

The revisions introduced the L&Ning and, thus, the problem to null on only one item where there could be several SPs. Originally, everyone was audited out into the S&D named suppressives until the EP was reached. Of course, those giving the biggest reads are chosen first, or those where the folder shows that it’s a person with whom the PC has had a lot of contact in the past or at least has a connection in PT. In short: the order of many items found in previous S&Ds of the C/S determines how people are audited out because you can expect that the PTS-RD EP occurs before all possible people have been audited out.

Reference [20] (the HCOB 20. Jan 1972 PTS-RD Addition) is also valid, just without revisions!

Reference [30] (the HCOB 13. Feb 72 II Additional LRH-Data to the PTS-Rundown) cannot be found, probably because the changes were simply included in the original reference.

Reference [40] (HCOB 5. Apr. 72 PTS-Type A Handling) – written by MSH – was recognized as valid by LRH, however, only as a BTB as which it was later on republished. Be careful with this as well: use it without the revisions of 1978. It is the Instant-Hatting for the PTS person per [60]. Possibly also the HCO PL of 23 December 1965 for further Hatting.

This is the beginning of a PTS C/S 1 that was supposed to be put together by us so that the falsifications by the Church are not used.

Reference [50]: We use the unrevised PTS RD CORRECTION LIST of 16. April 1972, or even better: the revised version with my comments: PTS-RD Korrekturliste 160472R.doc

Reference [60]: The same goes for the unrevised HCOB 17. April 1971 C/S-Serie 76, C/SING A PTS RUNDOWN.

Reference [70]: (HCOB 3 JUNE 1972R rev. 15 Oct. 74 PTS Rundown, Final Step) also seems to be from L. Ron Hubbard and is used in this revision until an earlier edition is found. The last italic paragraph is ignored as it is the revision and the squirrel version with L&N is mentioned again.

In summary, the PTS RD consists of auditing out all found S&D items – if the PC has known the person in past life already – in the following way until the RD’s EP is reached:

  1. R3R Quad

  2. Quad Ruds 1) to 16)

  3. can’t have/enforced have Quad

  4. Objective Havingness

On Step 3:

(a) Clear “Can’t-Have”, “Couldn’t-Have” as a refusal of something towards someone else. Clear “Enforced-Have” as convincing someone to accept something they didn’t want. Let the PC get an idea of this with one or two examples.

(b) Audit flow three on the SP items “Can’t Have/Enforced Have” repetitively as a motivator, then repetitively as an overt – from the terminal to others, from others to the terminal (four flows from two instructions each, or five if Quad-PC).2)This is not verified, see HCOB 27. Mai 70 Unreading Questions and Items

(c) After EACH item that was handled with the four flows, objective Havingness should be audited.3) See HCOB 6. Feb. 57 Procedure CCH

THE CAN’T-Have & ENFORCED-HAVE INSTRUCTIONS

F1. Did _____run a can’t have on you? Tell me about it.

Did _____force something on you you didn’t want?

Tell me about it. (Alternate/repetitive to EP.)

F2. Did you run a can’t have on _____?

Tell me about it.

Did you try to force something on _____that he (she, it)

didn’t want? Tell me about it. (Alternate/repetitive to EP.)

F3. Did _____run a can’t have on others?

Tell me about it.

Did _____force something on others they didn’t want?

Tell me about it. (Alternate/repetitive to EP.)

F3A. Did others run a can’t have on _____?

Tell me about it.

Did others force something on _____that he (she, it) didn’t want?

Tell me about it. (Alternate/repetitive to EP.)

F0. Did you run a can’t have on yourself because of _____?

Tell me about it.

Did you try to force something on yourself that you didn’t want because of _____?

Tell me about it. (Alternate/repetitive to EP.)

OBJECTIVE HAVINGNESS

Objective Havingness consists of the following three processes, according to the HCOB 6. Feb. 57 Verfahren CCHs, I quote:

A. Terrible Trio ”Look around here and find something you would be willing to have.” ”Look around here and find something you would be willing to permit to remain where it is.” ”Look around here and find something you would be willing to dispense with.”

B. Trio on Valences. ”Look around here and find something ___ can’t have.” Run this command until flat then run ”Look around here and find something you can have.” (NOTE: should be a person, such as mother, father, sister, etc.)

C. Objective Solids. ”Look around here and find something.” ”Okay.” ”Make it a little more solid.”

The following quote explains the Trio on Valences:

Havingness: The Trio run “Look around the room and find something you wouldn’t mind having” or “Look around the room and find something you could have” “could permit to remain” or “dispense with”, is completely legitimate as a process and will be found to be as advantageous as ever and should be run whenever the preclear becomes unduly agitated. Games processes demand that all can’t haves be run on something else than the preclear. In any situation where another terminal than the preclear is involved can’t have is run on that terminal. Have is not ever run on any terminal other than the preclear. Have is only run on the preclear himself. Can’t have is run on all other subjects, objects, valences and activities. In addition to this be very certain that you use terminals, not conditions; in other words, to run can’t have on “your asthma” is extremely foolish and will reduce the preclear’s havingness. Asthma is a condition of the respiratory organs—the proper auditing command is “Look around the room and find something that your respiratory organs cannot have” or “Look around the room and find something you would not permit your respiratory organs to have”. HCO PROCESSING SHEET OF 20 SEPTEMBER 1956 in Tech Vol 1954-56, pg 516

Audit for how long

When all items found have already been handled, a new search might be conducted if the EP has not been reached yet, as described by LRH in [10] under (b) to (d), and not to overlook: “True Love” per [10].

Based on the original LRH references the PTS RD works magnificently, as I can confirm from practice.

Much success!

Andreas Gross

for the

Independent Scientologists

Copyright © 2014 by

Dipl.-Ing. Andreas Gross

All Rights reserved

Posted in Blog and tagged , , .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *