In this chapter we are going through each TR in detail. There are eight different drills, each with a specific purpose and function. (They are OT TR-0, TR-0, TR-0 Bullbait, TR-1, TR-2, TR 21/2, TR-3, TR-4). 

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

Theory: This drill undercuts the actual use of the communication formula. A person must be present in order to start a communication; another must be present to receive it. On OT TR-0 the student drills being present as potential Cause (Source-point) or potential Effect (Receipt-point).

Purpose: The student has to comfortably confront another person. The student trains to simply be in a position one meter (3 feet) in front of another person. He is present, and 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.

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

Student may not move around, confront with a body part, or use any via to confront with. Sleepiness or drowsiness may not pass. This is a simple drill. Anything added to simply being present is a flunk. The student will usually see blackness when his eyes are closed.

When the student can be present in a relaxed and alert manner, and feeling good about it, he or she passes the drill.
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 present and not do anything except be present.

Commands: None

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

Directions: The student and coach 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 present. Confronting means just that. You don't DO anything. The whole action is to accustom an auditor to BEING PRESENT, 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 present.
The emphasis is first and foremost to 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 be present, confronting, and has reached a major stable win on the subject.

A full and final pass is granted when the student is able to sit for a full two hours in one training session 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 present without being thrown off, distracted or having 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 sit facing each other about 1 meter (3 feet) apart.

Directions: After the student auditor has passed TR-0 and he can BE present, 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 coach finds the student's "buttons" and works them 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 present relaxedly without breaking up or becoming distracted or reacting in any way to whatever the coach says or does, and has reached a major stable win on the subject.

(Button: Words, phrases, subjects or actions used by other people, that cause 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 must also  be loud enough.

 

TR-1, Deliver the Auditing Command

The auditors 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 TRs 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 heard it. This is often what passes for communication: throwing it out 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's economical 'hard times'). He had no idea of talking to an individual or of getting his communication to land at its intended target.

Good speakers, a good lecturer, such as R. Hubbard, don't have the idea that they are talking to a huge audience or the masses. They talk one-on-one to a lot of people at the same time. In communicating with the audience, they speak to each single individual in it, and each individual perceives that the speaker is addressing her.

If 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 the doorway you have to get through if you want to learn to really communicate to anyone.

In TR-1 you sit opposite each other, student and coach. As a student your job is simple. You get something across from you to your coach, so it arrives exactly at her. That is what makes it a communication.

If you have a very difficult student, one who doesn't seem to catch on to the TRs, and you have an eight weeks course to teach him, my advice would be: Let him do TRs for the first seven weeks, 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 TRs are not perfect is a waste of time. It would actually be a disfavor to him and especially to his pc's.

The TR step is not an easy one nor 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 a person with the full confidence that the person 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", as recommended by R. Hubbard.

So the student takes the book and looks for a sentence. He finds a sentence: he doesn't get into the story. He takes a random statement from the book in quotation marks (""). He leaves out "He said" or "Jonathan said". If he sees in the book: "Why do they run so fast?" 'she asked' he uses "Why do they run so fast?"

He picks a sentence out of the book. He does not pick a sentence from his head. Why not? Because we are teaching him to take prepared statements and use that. That's what he has to use in auditing. The first step is for him to pick somebody else's idea 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 many auditors in the early days. Each process now has a specific wording that is used exactly as stated. In the TRs we don't use actual processes, of course. Two phrases we use to drill processes are: "Do fish swim?" or "Do birds fly?". These are simple 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. The student auditor picks a sentence in the book. He makes that sentence his own. The student auditor looks at his pc and he delivers the sentence to the pc as if the idea just occurred to do so. The idea has to arrive at where the pc is.

You hear people talk to authors and speakers and say: "I have some questions about your ideas". You know right away, that such a person doesn't communicate very well. He reveals that he can't take this first important step of taking an idea and then communicating it to somebody else. He is standing there one step behind real communication, because the first step he would have to take is, to "own" these ideas and then to communicate.

Intention
Sometimes, when a pc first starts getting auditing, he will notice 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 anything.

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 go 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 99th time. It must be the 99th time. Not just a robotic repeat of the first time. That is what we mean by 'its own unit of time'. It's fresh. The previous time is already history and forgotten.

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

Theory: Add to the theory for TR-0 : student actually being Cause, with 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 delivered fresh, in its own unit of time); and to deliver it without flinch or strain, but naturally and directly as from auditor to pc.

Commands: The student uses a book - such as '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 sit facing each other about 1 meter (3 feet) apart.

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 he is reading from a book. He is not trying to impersonate a character. He simply says it as his own in a clear and straightforward 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 he receives it clearly he says "Good" and the student takes the next sentence. If she does not receive the origination clearly or needs to correct something else, the coach says "Flunk," and tells the student why. The student repeats a flunked origination. "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 an origination naturally and relaxedly, yet clearly. He must do it without strain or flinching: no gestures, no acting, no artificiality, nor public speaker manners. His voice sounds clear and natural.

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.), is what we say or do to inform another that we have received, noted, and understood his statement or action.

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

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 a pc, a lady who is a little bit stressed. She has ailments and odd pains and sensations and she hasn't had much to do in life except take care of herself.

When she first starts talking this lady will tend not to 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....". She could just go on and on but 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 has 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 really well they almost seem to come out of an isolated state.

The pc 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 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.)

You are 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 the question. It's a fresh 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. 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.

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.

So the student has to say "Good", "Fine", Okay, or anything appropriate in such a way as to signal he has received and understood the communication.

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!

Acknowledgment is a powerful tool for the auditor. Learn to use it well and expertly; that is what TR-2 is all about.

Mood can be expressed with acknowledgment. Evaluation can also be expressed, depending on 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 Auditors Code #9 says, 'Don't 'sympathize with the pc, but be effective". Sympathy is 0.9 on the tone scale, "one individual going on to the wavelength of another". For example, 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 criticism, ridicule, or humor. That is invalidation. You don't express evaluation either. All these things are against the Auditors Code; the coach must catch and flunk them when she finds the student doing them.

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

Purpose: To teach the student auditor that an acknowledgment is an important means of controlling a preclear's communication in session. An acknowledgment is a full stop that ends a communication cycle. The student must understand and appropriately acknowledge in order 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 origination. The coach repeats any line he feels the student did not truly acknowledge. 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 the student did not correctly ack.

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

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?". Let the student do anything at first to get his acknowledgment across and then start to 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" when the coach feels there has been an improper acknowledgment. The coach repeats the same line each time the coach says "Flunk." Use "That's it" to break off for a discussion or end the coaching session. "Start" begins a new coaching after a "That's it."

Half Acks keep    a person talking  on the subject.

Theory: The same 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 sit facing each other about 1 meter (3 feet) apart.

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 she feels there has been an improper half ack. The coach repeats the same line each time the coach says "Flunk." Use "That's it" 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 though  it had never occurred  to anyone before.

TR-3 is interesting because it makes auditors duplicate (in the sense to make an exact copy over and over).

R. Hubbard found in teaching others how to audit (1950), that some auditors would vary their auditing question all the time "to stay interesting". Their pc's would experience a little unpleasant shock 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 its 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 101st time. No auditing command should depend for its meaning on an earlier command. Not on any earlier auditing command ever given. Each command, 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 giving 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. Often, there is no intention.

If you told somebody to give you his hand with enough intention the body would respond instantly by extending the hand. Let's say you gave the command in a language the pc didn't understand. You would still get instant compliance from the body, because the body does not obey words but intention.

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 repeat himself 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 you do it by means of a mental machine you had set up, communication 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 necessary. You can 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 about 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 repeating 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 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 TRs but when you come to TR-3 you should actually have no compulsions to be interesting. The student will probably be found to have difficulties just sitting in a chair and facing another human being. So put him back on TR-0 and make sure he can do it for an hour or two. When he comes back to TR-3 he will do much better.

It is absolutely necessary for an auditor to be able to duplicate the auditing question or command. But as he drills, he rises above mere duplication. Is he really duplicating? No! It is only apparent duplicating because he does each cycle of communication newly in present time.

Experience and Duplication
The lesson of one's experience seems 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 hoped that the big cigar would make you so sick you'd go off 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 one can't communicate either because communication requires duplication.

When somebody has decided he'd 'better not duplicate', followed by 'better not communicate,' bad phenomena occur. One moment becomes identified with all moments because the being is no longer present with each moment. One's very Reactive Bank jams up and causes one trouble.

As a student of the TRs, and here TR-3, you are required to do the duplicative action of repeating the question "Do fish swim?", uttering the question in the present, each time. Doing a duplicative action in training has a tendency to undo a lot of the burden that bad experiences have loaded on your shoulders. It unjams your 'one moment is all moments' business.

You should also realize that this TR helps you overcome the 'Never do it again' that you have been teaching yourself for countless millennia. Your experience has been teaching you, trauma by trauma, not to live.

While the focus of the course is to train auditors, students find in mastering the TRs that their new abilities affect ALL of their lives, radically. The greater and happier the changes in life, the more certain we are that the student has really learnt his or her TRs

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 then go on to 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 TRs specifically is. In general it can mean 'indecisive; incapable of making up one's mind.'
As it applies to TRs 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."

Q and A never completes any cycle. It confuses pc's so they get lost. It violates 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 complete a communication and to duplicate it over and over in present time.

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.

Directions: One question and student's ack of its answer is in one unit of time that 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 a way to bullbait the student. The coach answers the question directly, often, and throws in his comments, etc., randomly, to try to catch the student off guard

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" (this is called the 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 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. Any other statement can be.

The coach may 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 concern the student with the intent to throw the student off and cause him to lose session control or lose track of what he's doing.

The student's job is to keep the session going despite anything; he uses only the command, the repeat statement, and the ack (and hands as mentioned above). If the student does anything other than these, the coach flunks him and tells him 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 a pc's originations. You always handle a pc's originations on ST level 0.

There are certain physical processes on ST level 1 on which  you don't handle originations. 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 increasing the pc's cause level is one of the overall goals of auditing originations should be encouraged and welcomed.

Much of the value of the TRs and the auditing comm cycle is that they show the pc that his communication and his Bank can be controlled. As he learns this 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 control on his own.

Most pc's don't originate early on. You will see pc's that apparently originate. You have compulsive talkers (as discussed under TR-2). You will see odd Bank manifestations that appear 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 were 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 odd phenomena and behavior and think it comes from the pc; that it is the thetan's (pc's) origination. But as you gain experience in auditing, you will see that some originations come from the pc - from the thetan that is - but also some from his Bank, with the pc (the thetan) having no real part in them.

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 Auditors Code. But knowing about the Bank and dramatizations is sometimes useful in determining how far to take some statements.

In any type of auditing (except tone 40 processes) you must handle well and conclusively any pc origination. Failure to handle an origination correctly leaves the pc hung up with that origination.

If the pc had something astonishing happening to him and communicates it, but the auditor fails to listen to or understand it, you can see the pc 'resign to the process' and go into apathy about the situation. He will go right out of session (in-session is: interested in own case and willing to talk to the auditor), due to the auditor's inability to handle
originations correctly.

In order to run a session, 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 and do originate anything under the sun.

Almost by definition, originations are unexpected. The unexpectedness should actually be part of the definition, because they are often off the subject. They can take you  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. The untrained is 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 operate otherwise, if you don't handle originations expertly, you put your pc in apathy and he is certainly not in-session.

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 person's 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 now?". He will probably get furious with you. He feels ignored. He may leave very upset or might spend all afternoon contradicting anything you say so as to even the score.

Small children that misbehave mysteriously are usually subject to this kind of unknowing abuse. Parents used to have strange ideas about 'children should be seen and not heard'. Or, since the child can't really express herself in complete or correct sentences then she doesn't have an opinion.
The truth is that even small children 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 and want their adults to understand what they communicate.

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-3/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. Mutter TR as a Drill is listed on ST1. It is used in drilling repetitive style auditing.

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 give them is first to check out how they handled their children's originations. If they didn't listen and acknowledge what little Robert or little Angela said we 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 usually come back and rave about how well-behaved and happy their problem child suddenly have become.

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.

For the auditor, 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, the response is not an answer to the question. 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 for what will handle the situation.

You could on (1) say, "YOU ARE???". You show that 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 happen 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 a 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 before you go on.

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 say something about '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 very important for the professional auditor. You have to learn how to handle originations and never be show 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; the pc will happily cooperate 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 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 the coach's originations smoothly and to coach's satisfaction.

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

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.

Once the student auditor is comfortable with the idea of handling originations, the 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 TRs 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 TRs several times getting tougher on each time through.

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

If the auditor's TRs go out or if he appears uncertain, the pc's confront falters. If the "auditor" is challenging, evaluative or invalidative, it is even worse for the pc.

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 Auditors 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 don't happen.

Cognitions are the high points of case gain and progress.

When the auditor has smooth, usual TRs, does his metering well so the pc never has to worry about that or notice it, the pc will make case gains. When the auditor follows the Auditors 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, forces the pc's attention on what the "auditor" is doing. The pc's attention is distracted and he doesn't As-is or cognite. The pc's interest in his own case vanishes and he has no auditor to talk to.

Auditor invalidation and evaluation is plainly ruthless. It interferes with pc cognitions. All Code breaks are distractive.

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

The right use of TRs, metering and Auditors 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 to do in class. 
TRs are simply how you run the session.


To TRs - Drills only