Home  Search Level 0  Level 1  Level 2  Level 3  Level 4  Level 4Pro  Level 5  C/Sing  Solo

| Tech terms | Scales | Axioms | Drills | Checksheets | Processes | Prep. lists | C/S terms | C/S tool | Grades | Cramm | Points | KTW | Online |

to end


Grade 4 Processes


Each of the processes are run to the full end phenomena (F/N, Cog, VGIs). Any process already run is rehabbed or completed.

On any of these processes where the pc answers only "yes" or that 'he did it' find out what it was by asking "What was it?" This keeps in the communication line from the pc to auditor open. 


A pc is often hung up at certain points of his track. These points are characterized by motionlessness. The two main reasons for this happening are, pc wants to prevent it from happening to him again - or he wants it to happen again. Thus he could have these pictures of terrible incidents haunt him as flash backs or he could try to hold onto certain pleasure-filled incidents. They both add up to stuck points on the Time Track. It is beneficial to unstick the pc from such moments. You want the pc to be in present time and have his attention units freed up from the track. One process which has proven itself capable of doing that is the R2-44. The pc may run past incidents or imaginative future ones; both are beneficial.

"A preclear is stuck on the track where motionlessness occurs. Thus it is of interest in the case to undo these stuck points in the preclear." R. Hubbard.

F1. "Tell me some things another wouldn't want to have happen again to you."
      "Tell me some things another would want to have happen again to you."       to EP _________ 

F2. "Tell me some things you wouldn't want to have happen again to another."
      "Tell me some things you would want to have happen again to another."       to EP _________

F3. "Tell me some things others wouldn't want to have happen again to others."
      "Tell me some things others would want to have happen again to others."       to EP _________

F0. "Tell me some things you wouldn't want to have happen again." 
      "Tell me some things you would want to have happen again."                          to EP _________



The reason people get stuck with their overts is because of Justifications.
If you ask a pc what overt he has committed, and then ask him why it wasn't an overt, you will find that it wasn't an overt to him because he had it all justified - "It wasn't my fault because..."  No As-is took place as the overt and the justifications were keeping each other in place as a tidy knot and therefore it didn't help him to answer it.
One powerful overt process to overcome this  is:

1. In this lifetime what overt have you committed?
2. How have you justified it?

Command (2)  is run flat until the overt given in (1) is knocked out. You have unbalanced the pc's careful attempt to explain it away and see the score as even and he can now see it for what it is. 
Then a new overt is found and (2) is done thoroughly and repetitively on the new one.

This is not an alternate process. A process cycle is usually completed with question (2) before you leave off processing this particular overt. Only when you have all the justifications and cognitions possible on an overt found on (1) do you ask for a new overt from the pc.

This penetrates the general irresponsibility the auditor can meet when trying to get O/Ws to run with benefit for the irresponsible case.

"In this lifetime" is added because the pc who can't face his overts not only justifies them but goes way back into his past to find overts instead of getting off the obvious ones of  this lifetime.

Therefore running justifications off is reaching further down than earlier versions of O/W and is very effective in raising the Cause Level of the pc.


1. In this lifetime what overt has another committed on you? 
2. How has he justified it?

to EP_____


1. In this lifetime what overt have you committed on another or others? 2. How have you justified it? 

to EP_____


1. In this lifetime what overt have others committed on others? 
2. How have they justified it?

to EP_____


1. In this lifetime what overt have you committed on yourself? 
2. How have you justified it?

to EP_____



This process consists of the individual being asked to get whatever idea he can about the buttons listed. The buttons are the bottom (non-survival) level and the top level (pro-survival) of different columns of the Chart of Attitudes. First the pc is asked to "get the idea" of the bottom level; then he is asked to get the idea of the top level and has thus been made to 'change his mind' from non-survival considerations to pro-survival ones. This can cause remarkable changes as the basic process is to get the pc to change his mind.

The buttons of the chart of attitudes are listed below.
We use the auditing commands listed below the buttons.

SURVIVE                          RIGHT                              FULLY RESPONSIBLE - 
DEAD                               WRONG                          NO RESPONSIBILITY

OWNS ALL                     EVERYONE                       ALWAYS
OWNS NOTHING         NOBODY                         NEVER

MOTION                        SOURCE/ TRUTH            FAITH
STOPPED                       HALLUCINATION           DISTRUST

I KNOW                        CAUSE                               I AM
I KNOW                        NOT EFFECT                     I AM NOT

The commands are:

1. "Get the idea of (bottom of scale  'dead')"
2. "Do you have that idea?"
3. "All right.
4. "Now change that idea as nearly as you can to (top of scale 'survive')."
5. "OK. How close did you come?"
6. "Thank you."

Run each pair separately; 1,2,3,4,5,6 - 1,2,3,4,5,6 etc, until pc has a certainty that he can maintain the upper scale idea and has an F/N, Cog, VGIs. Then go to the next pair. Each pair is run to EP _____.



There are three levels that can be addressed with processing: Thought, Emotion and Effort.

Using Effort processing is one way to run painful incidents (Engrams). Rather than concentrating on what happened you concentrate on the pc's efforts and the counter-efforts involved. The counter-efforts were originally caused by 'the other guy' or the environment as something that hit the pc by force. But you have to realize it was recorded as facsimiles by the pc. It is this recording that does him harm over time. This means, this type of processing puts emphasis on the fact that only one's self-determinism is important to handle, and that the efforts and the counter-efforts against it (all recorded by the pc in the mental facsimiles) are the aberrative factors. It uncovers times for the preclear when he gave up his self-determinism, and erases the Efforts and Counter-efforts involved in these postulates and recordings. That allows the individual to move again in a survival direction.

The emotion in a heavy facsimile shows the amount of force by which the counter-efforts have overwhelmed the preclear. Thus, total overwhelm of the preclear's own effort by the counter-effort is apathy. Less overwhelmed, the preclear's own effort is in grief. Even less overwhelmed, the preclear is in fear. Even less counter-effort and more preclear effort results in anger. When the preclear's own effort is greater than the counter-efforts the emotion is antagonism. As the counter-effort is slighter and less dangerous and the preclear's effort is not trying to simply hit back, boredom results as the emotion. When the preclear's own effort is to hit back and this is successful against the counter-efforts, we have a variety of happiness and effectiveness; the cheer of hitting a bulls eye! This makes up a tone scale.

An individual may be so involved in holding onto and fighting a heavy facsimile which is chronically with him that he is chronically ill. Holding onto such a facsimile, the preclear has a certain pattern of responses and aberrations. In a facsimile where he is overwhelmed by motion he is beaten down and apathetic. In one where the forces are in balance he is in anger. When the pc has totally overcome the counter-efforts he will  up-scale, up towards action, tone 20. Thus we start with effort, we get the emotion and finally the thought and considerations behind it (usually voiced as a cognition) worked out of the area. Thus we enter the case at the level of effort, but emotion and thought will be worked out of it as well as a result of flattening the process.

The Process:

Ask pc what physical disabilities he has; note them down, with the reads each disability has, when pc said it.

Take largest reading disability first and run in the commands below:

1.  "Get the (disability) effort."
2.  "Get the (disability) counter-effort."

These commands are run alternate-repetitively (effort, counter-effort, effort, counter-effort, etc.) until:

(a) the emotion concerning the disability is voiced by the pc.
(b) the consideration is voiced by the pc.

The process is continued on the disability being run until both the emotion and consideration (old postulates, new cognitions) are voiced by the pc. This is the EP of the item being run. It is always accompanied by F/N and VGIs.

Then take next largest reading disability and run to EP. All reading items are run to EP _________



Worry and anxiety have their root in the inability to find the right cause or an attempt to blame a wrong cause. People who elect cause other than self are often shifting responsibility (shifting the blame) and refusing to determine actual cause. Pc's incapable of seeing mental image pictures are a no-responsibility case. They should benefit from this process.

This process is very direct - almost brutal. But it is also a very effective process. It can trigger a 'worry machine' and run it out.

Here are the commands:

"Point out some things which are causing things."
"Point out some more things which are causing things."                to EP _________


Service Computations can be run with Engram running (R3RA) included
Or in brackets only

This has to be determined beforehand. The links above give both versions.
When this step is complete, run:


F1. "Tell me a flow another could get you to know something about?"       to EP _________

F2. "Tell me a flow you could get another to know something about?"       to EP _________

F3. "Tell me a flow others could get others to know something about?"      to EP _________

F0. "Tell me a flow you know something about?"                                          to EP _________



End of regular processes for Grade 4


Flow 1 Free from and able to tolerate others' fixed ideas, justifications and make-guilty of self. Free of need to respond in a like manner.
Flow 2 Moving out of fixed conditions into ability to do new things. Ability to face life without need to justify own actions or defend self from others. Loss of make-guilty mechanisms and demand for sympathy. Can be right or wrong.
Flow 3 Can tolerate fixed conditions of others in regard to others. Freedom from involvement in others' efforts to justify, make guilty, dominate or be defensive about their actions against others.
Flow 0 Ability to face life without need to make self wrong. Loss of make-self-guilty mechanisms and self-invalidation.


Re: Grade 4  - There do exist a compilation of all applicable processes developed by R. Hubbard for this Grade. They are published as HCOB of 14 November 1987. In the rare case, the pc does not make it on the processes included, the correct action would be: Go over the reports of auditing already done on the Grade (do a folder error summary). Interview pc about the difficulty. Handle any By-passed Charge (including missed earlier actions as needed). Correct anything found and flatten unflat processes. If necessary, use additional processes not run, including processes for the Grade from above HCOB.

To Print-out of Grade 4

Service Comp RD with Engram running (R3RA) included
Service Comp RD with brackets only



Home  Search Level 0  Level 1  Level 2  Level 3  Level 4  Level 4Pro  Level 5  C/Sing  Solo

| Tech terms | Scales | Axioms | Drills | Checksheets | Processes | Prep. lists | C/S terms | C/S tool | Grades | Cramm | Points | KTW | Online |

to top

Clearbird Publishing, 2003, 2004 | Jo Seagull | Tell friend |