Possibly Helpful Advice

Finding your way after leaving the cult of Scientology


Another thought-provoking article by Plain Old Thetan:


A number of still-in-churchites I know have been saddled with the Flag R-Factor that they have to do their Objectives over again.

One of these, a good friend of mine, is a person I audited for half of Expanded Grade 0 and all of Expanded Grade I.

It took 150 hours (per my auditor’s log book). I didn’t mind it a bit or fault the pc with how long it took. Why? Because the person was interested in wresting every erg of charge off the person’s case in every action undertaken.

For example, on Grades O and I the pc is called upon many times to “make a list of every person one has known this lifetime” or “make a list of everything the pc wanted to be this lifetime. This pc would cheerfully but introspectively provide 5- or 7-page lists of answers to the question, with me dutifully noting every answer and its read. The pc was suitably and attentively in-session and during two Expanded Grades only balked on one process question that needed exhaustive clearing in order to get it to the point of running properly.

I never once questioned if the pc’s prior grade-chart steps were flat or needed review.

I have, on the other hand, audited persons without Purification Rundowns, without TRs and Objectives, and/or without Scientology Drug Rundowns.

In each of those cases, it was obvious to me the person hadn’t had those grade chart steps.

In each of those cases, it took plenty of fish-and-fumble to get and keep the needle clean and readable, and to keep the pc’s attention picked up and to keep the pc’s interest in the session.

None of this was present on my Grade 0x/Grade Ix preclear.

So when the my friend called me tearfully to tell me that she’d made a horrible mistake, I listened. (An auditor does listen.)

The person recounted a story of getting about $10,000 in inheritance money and promptly putting it on account at Flag to finish doing the Grades. Then the person had their folders sent from Los Angeles to Flag.

Lo! Astonishingly, when Flag FESed the folder, they told my friend that Objectives needed to be re-run.

Flag was more than willing to do Objectives at Flag HGC rates (an exorbitant expense that would suck up the Grades money already on account) or the person could do the TRs and Objectives Course at Flag using the money already on account (also sucking up the Grades money already on account). Either way, it involved lots of transcontinental travel for slow or no Bridge progress. And attendant expense.

The person was in despair. My friend was in despair.

It’s NOT the effect one’s involvement in a church should produce.

Especially one’s involvement with that church’s “Mecca of Technical Perfection”.

After getting the story from my friend, I reminded the person I was not auditing them. (I feel I have to do that in order to avoid auditor’s code violations.)

I told the person that I had been their auditor for 150 hours (they hadn’t realized that) and that I never once saw any indications that Objectives were unflat.

I told the person to find out if possible why Flag had determined Objectives were unflat.

The person did.

Someone from Flag “handled” the person’s objections by telling them that the FES showed that “only” 6.5 hours of Objectives had been run. The person was then shown the section in the book Fundamentals of Thought on page 152 under the section HAVE (TRIO) which says:

“It should be noted at once that twenty-five hours of use of this process by an auditor upon a preclear (over a period of several sessions) usually brings about a high rise in tone. By saying twenty-five hours, it is intended to give the idea of the length of time the process should be used…”

Apparently CCH8 (trio) had “only” been run for 30 minutes. Because of this, my friend was told that obviously the Objectives couldn’t possibly be flat.

Now, I know that the person has a minimal drug history. No street drugs. Only the occasional children’s aspirin or cough drop.

I also know the person’s OCAs as they were done periodically through the expanded grades. Nothing in the OCAs indicated the Objectives were unflat.

Nothing in 150 hours of face-to-face auditing indicated the Objectives were unflat.

Most importantly, in THE AUDITOR article No. 18 (WHAT EVERY AUDITOR SHOULD KNOW), LRH clearly says that “Standard Technology is not contained in any of the books of Dianetics and Scientology. Standard Technology is contained in Hubbard Communications Office Bulletins.”

(Knowing this makes the Herculean heroic effort put forth by the mighty mouse to make all-new Basics books and book courses and book-and-lecture courses seem kinda puny, now doesn’t it?)

Referring to the HCOBs pertinent to the subject, we find that the LRH-defined EPs for Objective Processes are contained in several bulletins. Fifteen years ago, I gathered together LRH’s Objectives EPs for my own use as a C/S. I’ve posted a copy of this document at the end of this article.

When I FES Objectives, I look for EPs per my cheat sheet, double-checking the EPs in the Tech Volumes as needed.

Since I didn’t FES my friend’s objectives, the one thing I can say is that the HCOBs do not contain number of hours as a criterion for flatness. Not for ANY Objective process, in fact. Not even for Opening Procedure By Duplication.

This is one of my giant objections to the GAT drills. The drills do not teach course supervisors, C/Ses, and auditors what the EPs of the Objectives are and how to recognize them.

One thing the technical volumes do have in them, though, in C/S Series 42 in a section titled “DOUBLE ACTIONS”.

“The deadliest faults on cases are running the same action or grade twice. This drives TAs up through the roof. ”

One thing this friend and another “running the Objectives twice” friend of mine ran into is that they overran like CRAZY. They’d call me, all upset complaining how they’re on their third session of CCH-x had just finished and how they felt worse than ever.

Which, of course, causes me to write a report to Tech Services for their folder, suggesting overrun be checked and the EP rehabbed if needed.

EVERY TIME this happened, and I suggested it, the person called me that night and said “They decided to check and see if I overran, and sure enough, I did, and it’s all okay now.” This happened so often with one friend that she started recognizing the phenomena early and asking for the overrun check.

Fully 2/3s of the processes she ran on her second time through the Objectives proved to be already flat on the FIRST RUN-THROUGH.

So this is now torquing my TA.

I would NEVER have C/Sed to have a person rerun their objectives on such a flimsy pretense as one sentence in a book. I would have LOOKED and seen if the person needed it.

Then, because C/Sing is for the pc, I would have programmed the person for “Check for Objectives EPs and rehab or flatten.”

I would never simply throw the pc back on Objectives like they never ran them.

That’s lazy C/Sing. And lazy Scientology-ing.

But it is a way of getting paid hours out of malleable parishioners. And student points out of uninformed co-auditors.

And it’s an excellent way of playing bait-and-switch and getting more money out of a cycle predicated on a promise for faster, cheaper grades at Flag.


— Written by Plain Old Thetan

For those of you who would like to see what the actual End Phenomenas are for Objectives, continue reading after the jump.

OBJECTIVE EP Reference EP commentary
OBJECTIVE ARC HCOB 19 June 1978 This process will bite suddenly and bring a person up to present time. EP is person in present time, cognition, and VGIs accompanied by an F/N.
CCH 1 HCOB 11 June 1957 To demonstrate to preclear that control of preclear’s body is possible, despite revolt of circuits, and inviting preclear to control it. Absolute control by auditor then passes over toward absolute control of his own body by preclear.
CCH 2 HCOB 11 June 1957 To demonstrate to preclear that his body can be directly controlled and thus inviting him to control it. Finding present time. Havingness.
CCH 3 HCOB 11 June 1957 To bring up preclear’s communication with control and duplication.(Control+duplication=communication)
CCH 4 HCOB 11 June 1957 To develop reality on the auditor using the Reality Scale (solid comm line). To get preclear into comm by control plus duplication.
CCH 5 HCOB 11 June 1957 To give the preclear orientation and havingness and to improve his perception.
CCH 6 HCOB 11 June 1957 To establish the orientation and increase the havingness of the preclear and to give him in particular a reality on his own body.
CCH 7 HCOB 11 June 1957 Process is used to heighten perception, orient the preclear and raise the preclear’s havingness. Control of attention as in all these “contact” processes naturally takes the attention units out of the bank which itself has been controlling the preclear’s attention.
CCH 8 HCOB 11 June 1957 To remedy havingness objectively.
CCH 9 HCOB 11 June 1957 To increase havingness of the preclear and bring about his ability to keep things from going away, which ability lost, accounts for the possession of psychosomatic ills.
CCH 10 HCOB 11 June 1957 Same as CCH 9.
SCS Object HCOB 18 May 80R One runs Start and one runs Change and then one runs Stop, in that order, over and over and over again until all three are flat and the pc has a cognition and VGIs. The pc might go exterior before all three stages have been run, and if this occurs, the auditor should end off at that point.
SCS Body Scientology: Clear Procedure, Issue One
HCOB 15 Oct 1958
The auditor does this many times until the preclear understands that he himself can stop the body, or he has regained an ability, or the process appears to be flat and has no charge on it.
Per the HCOB the purpose is to give preclear good control of his body and to exteriorize him.See EP of SCS Object as well per HCOB 18 May 80R.
Opening Procedure SOP 8-C Grade I Process checklistPAB 34 4 Sep 1954
a) Is run until the preclear has a uniform perception of any and all objects in the room, including the walls, the floor and the ceiling.b) Is run until the comm lag is flat and the preclear is freely selecting spots on the walls, objects, chairs, etc., with no specialization whatsoever – which means that his perception of the room has become uniform.c) Per PAB 34 8C is run until the person is sure who is doing it.
Op Pro by Dup HCOB 8 May 1982 The EPs for Op Pro by Dup include: (A) flattened comm lags (per PAB 48) and no more change on the process (B) a real big win with F/N, cog, VGIs and ability regained (per HCOB Floating Needles and End Phenomena) (C) Exterior with an F/N, cog, VGIs.
R2-69 Pass Object COHA The process rehabilitates the sense of play; validates nonverbal ARC; short-circuits “verbal machinery”; lets the preclear position matter and energy in space and time; gets the preclear up to speed; murders “there must be a reason” for doingness. Besides, it’s fun.
R2-35 Location COHA None specific given for the process on the process checklist. But COHA gives an EP for a modification of the command:It does not occur to them sometimes for an hour of “Where is your face?” that they themselves have no face, and that they are still locating the body’s face. They have to understand this on their own.If this is applied to the basic process, R2-35 should be run until the preclear understands that he is locating himself, and understands it on his own.
R2-36 Self Determinism COHA …until we have recovered certainty and clarity on the viewpoint of dimension. It will be discovered very rapidly that there are many people making space for the preclear, and that he is to some degree contained in the universe of each one of these people and has many particles in common with them.
R2-67 Objects COHA No specific EP given.
3-Part Locational PAB 153 a) The direction of attention must not be disturbed by other mechanisms of attention direction.b)Will exteriorize somebody.c) A person overcomes unwillingness to show things and realizes he is not still on Arcturus and you are not the space police from Saturn.
Connectedness Scientology: Clear Procedure, Issue One The reason Connectedness works is because it is the basic process on association. The most aberrative thing on any case is association with MEST. This does not mean that the individual is not creating the MEST, it does not mean that he has no relationship with MEST, but it does mean that theta and MEST interconnected too strongly are the components of a trap. They are two different things actually, and it is not true that all thought derives from MEST, nor is it true that all MEST derives from thought. A thetan can create MEST by simply creating MEST, not by telling it to be created, but simply by putting it there. This is the isness of MEST. Now when he connects his thoughts with the actual mass he gets into trouble and we get association, we get compulsive thinking, we get identification, and the old A=A=A=A of Dianetic days. Thus you will see at once that Connectedness in any form is a very excellent process to run.
Control Trio PAB 137
1 June 1958
The first command will change his conceptions which earlier religions may have implanted, such as “it is bad to have”, and run out the compulsions of “must, must not, got to, can’t have”, etc. There should be no qualifications or conditions such as “If I had the money I could buy that object and then have it” or “I don’t like it and thus don’t want it” or “What shall I do with it once I have got it?”The second command brings the preclear’s sense of active participation of creativity and responsibility out. They will find that there is no harm in permitting the sixth dynamic to continue in present time right where it is.The third command is a very good exteriorizing process and the preclear will come up with many cognitions on his own and the rest of the dynamics.
Goals PAB 137
1 June 1958
Watch out for the preclear attaching all sorts of conditions to his answers. Work towards positive goals of “things” and not conditions such as “I want to get rid of my fears and somatics”. Check for certainty at all times, for certainty strengthens reality and the reality of a future for the preclear is most essential if auditing is to succeed all the way.
Number of views:40851


Watchful Navigator  on October 26th, 2010

In reading the EPs of Control and Connectedness I had a realization. No other religion or practice known to man has ever – other than the judicious use of physical labor integrated into spiritual study in monestaries – offered the chance of separating stuck theta (spirit) back out from MEST (physical universe).

When I did my Objectives I was released from the burdensome drudgery in physical labor and the world was newly opened to my reach.

Time and again I have seen Objectives processing make a new person with amazingly improved ability to produce.

To play around with and/or outright destroy this most basic step towards spiritual freedom is simply murderous.

I have a friend who has a -“quota”- in his pc folder for “x” hours of Objectives (almost 100!). Understandably, he doesn’t want to do them now as he feels C/S’d “down” the Bridge – besides having gone exterior at least twice while doing them the first time. Nevertheless, at one time he cheerfully rolled up his sleeves to “get all the case gain I can get”, going through all of the co-audit checksheet right up to almost starting the first co-audit session, only to be yanked off course for having an “ethics situation”.

Ethics situation? (a month-old report about having a yelling fit while driving a car – nothing more – no one was hurt) What to do now? Now put on a months-long “don’t see a WHY here – go back and write some more” O/W (transgressions) write-up… two pleading notes (the second time I gave him the reference right out of the O/W write-up issue) to the C/S to get a correction list on that and then finally, a quickie, “to a good point” LCRE, O/W write-up -finally- accepted as “complete”… (more like OVERrun)

Oh – and a “Knowledge Report” still lingering in his folder for “failing to come up with the WHY” for his reported angry outburst “after I made him go back and write more O/Ws twice”.

Evaluatively, this O/W write-up cycle had started with him being shown a reference that states “behind every ARC break is a Missed Withhold.”

The implication in my opinion? ARCx handling (to say nothing of out-lists) is for pussies, you dog pc.

You couldn’t make this stuff up.

This is the modern “Flag-trained” mentality. If the pc is protesting something his “ethics are out”. So now we are handling his ‘out-list’ on being told to re-do Objectives, by ordering an O/W write-up! -not- to its stated EP – but on and on with the end of “discovering” the “WHY” this pc “went into a howling rage” one morning!

(Hmmm… do you think maybe this guy could maybe, possibly have had a wrong item connected with re-doing a major action?)

Forgive them Lord, for they know not what or why they do what they do…

Oh my, the complications that destructive arbitraries set in motion!

David Miscavige. Source of the “re-do your Objectives” arbitrary. One rabid squirrel.

Sinar  on October 26th, 2010

Very good article. I’ve run across a CS during a stint in the RPF of my twin requiring 40 hrs of Op Pro by Dup. After reaching EP nowhere near 40 hours, I moved on and started the next objective as to continue would be to violate the auditor’s code. No comment by the person CSing at the time.

Centurion  on October 26th, 2010

Great article…!

Thank you for posting this, David and POT.

I did my grades pre GAT; they were done by a nice fellow who was a great auditor. He was doing the BC and needed a PC. I was chosen. I had great wins…but alas the crushing debt that was placed on my shoulders to continue, ruined my subsequent experiences after that….and little more gain was ever gotten again.

I just had a friend call me not long ago. They are being told they have to re-do their objectives, and purif to boot. My attempts to get them to question this have fallen on deaf ears. It is not safe to question the guestapo.


Lise  on October 29th, 2010

Hi Plain Old Thetan. I’ve been very quiet of late, just reading blogs and keeping updated while I enoy my new freedom Immensely.

This article really got my goat. The squirreling of Obectives and reruns is rampant throughout the world and on average people are doing them 3 times. What I have noticed of late (through my contacts) is that it seems each person must end up “flattening” their Obj’s at Flag. Its the easiest money spinner for each Org as well. It allows coaudits to run and then be logged as HGC hours even if its run in the courseroom. False stats all over the place and no care for the spiritual state of each PC. Disgusting!!!…For those who may be interested here is the link to my article on Obectives.

Thanks for your article…..Lise

Lise  on October 29th, 2010

While I’m at it….Check out this new fundraising technique for the IAS. I copied and pasted it from an email I received from one of my “in” contacts. Its Gross!!!

For over a quarter of a century, the IAS has stood as the single most dauntless, defiant and resolute group this world has ever known in its protection of the Scientology religion and making the Aims of Scientology a reality.

As we move forward into an even brighter future, it is members of the IAS who are helping to create a better world, by providing the wherewithal to fund IAS grants for the campaigns and programs designed to make LRH technology and solutions available to greater numbers than ever before.

Because of the IAS, Scientology is here today – stronger and more triumphant than ever!

Supporting the IAS is a continuing commitment we all must make. And you know why: It’s our future.

With that in mind, I have some new news for you!

You can now make donations to the IAS as recurring donations, of any donation amount, weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly! This will enable you to make regular donations at your convenience towards your next status.

All you need to do is click on the below link and fill out the Recurring donation form in order to apply. Once you submitted the form, your future donations will be processed as you specified.



Your donation will be debited each month on the day you specify on the application form. For example, if you choose to make a monthly donation of $100 today, your next donation of $100 will be automatically charged to your account in exactly one month to the day, and each subsequent month thereafter.

Each month you will receive a receipt for your donation informing you that your Recurring donation has been processed.

In case you wish to cancel your Recurring donation, you may do so at any time by sending an email to me (contact@iasadministrations.net).

Thank you in advance — your donations make all things possible!


Selina Frick
IAS Administrations

plainoldthetan  on October 30th, 2010

Sounds to me like joining the IAS recurring creditcard donation program violates what every identity theft consultant advises:

Never give your financial information to someone who might misuse it.

And we know that Church reges and materials insultants misuse it. Regularly. Exorbitantly.

GloutonThetan  on October 31st, 2010

Thank you for your action.

Budoucnost pro scientology « Vít Profant  on November 7th, 2010

[…] to se svým duchovním rozvojem vážně, nenechte se už omezovat. Pokud víte, že jste na CCHčkách dosáhli konečných fenoménů, neplaťte za ně znovu a nenechte si poškodit svůj případ […]

plainoldthetan  on November 8th, 2010

Czech to English translation
[…] This is your spiritual development seriously, do not let it limit. If you know you’ve reached the end phenomena of CCHs do not pay for them again and do not harm their case […]

plainoldthetan  on November 25th, 2010

I just had a friend call me to tell me that she knows a person who attested to Clear five years ago has been given a 200-hour tech estimate to “redo their Objectives” before the person could start Solo II. The person has crashed and is very downtone. Kinda like she was out-list. Hmmmm.

My friend then asked me “how could a person attest to Clear if her Objectives needed to be redone?”

My answer was simple. Her Objectives probably don’t need to be redone. She just needs to find an org where they still practice Standard Tech.

looking4myself  on June 19th, 2012

I’m a little confused on a point made in this article.
You cite article #18 from The Audtor, which states “Standard Technology is not contained in any of the books of Dianetics or Scientology. Standard Technology is contained in Hubbard Communication Office Bulletins.”
Yet quite a few of the EP’s for Objectives are derived from Creation of Human Ability?
Am I missing or not understanding something here?

OldAuditor  on June 20th, 2012

The full quote reads:
Standard technology is contained in HCOBs. It actually isn’t contained in any of the books of Dianetics and Scientology. Did you ever realize that? Modern technology is not contained in any of the hardcover books, or any of the other books. It’s contained in HCOBs, Hubbard Communications Office Bulletins, and there they just run off one after the other. And one of these fine days I suppose we will roll up our sleeves and publish them all in consecutive order, all corrected so that nothing ever corrects anything in the bulletins and make it very, very easy. But we will have to put them probably in about seven or eight or ten different volumes, because there are quite a few of them. But that’s standard technology. They’re on white paper printed with red ink. If I haven’t signed it, it isn’t true. And that’s standard technology. — (SHSBC 434 The Classification Chart and Auditing 26 July 66)

This might be another example of LRH saying something that he intended to be true for all time and things turned out differently. The Grade Chart (modern technology) is a subset of all the things Ron wrote and lectured about and presented as fact. The inconsistencies in Scientology Bulletins and Policies require you to think with the data and not use it in a robotic fashion. There is no magic charm to decode which HCOB,BTB,HCOPL, or secret LRH Advice has seniority and is true for all time. Several efforts have been made to do so by various Compilation efforts, but they have only succeeded in adding their own evaluations.

You need to look at all of the evidence and work out what makes sense when applied to your pc and your situation. Anything else is compromising your personal integrity.

looking4myself  on June 20th, 2012

One thing I definitely get is that the amount of data gathered and the consequential discoveries resulting from that data had caused Ron to constantly alter and refine tech and technical procedures over the decades of his research.He didn’t just wake up one morning and have all the answers. An excellent example of this is how many HCOB’s, HCOPL’s, BTB’s etc. have been revised over the years.
Just look how many times the Classification, Gradation and Awareness chart has changed since the 1st one was released in 1969 (not including the ones that have evolved since LRH has been off the lines).
Processes can’t help but get better and more streamlined as new discoveries are made.And this necessitated Ron into revisions of materials as that occurred.
I was just surprised that as long as TR’s and Objectives have been around that something like EP’s being derived from one of his books was never put into HCOB form, that’s all.
I, being an Independent,have no problem with using what works to the betterment of the PC as long as it is Standard Tech, regardless of where in Ron’s research it was derived.

plainoldthetan  on June 20th, 2012

And the reason I brought up Auditor 18 is because after Miscavige “fixed” the books, they’re now used to justify overrunning people on Objectives.

One of the beefs “conventional” thinkers have is they don’t get that studying Scientology is chronology-dependent. They’ll criticize something in a 1954 bulletin not realizing it was refined and respecified in a 1968 bulletin.

This is why a comprehensive chronological study of Scientology, such as the Briefing Course, is needed to have a usable undertanding of the subject.

Miscavige force-feeding pcs cogs to get them through unnecessary Bridge actions faster?  on July 4th, 2013

[…] Have you sometimes been puzzled by the strange reactions you have to events in your life? […]

Understanding what auditing is (and isn’t) | Confessions of a secret scientologist  on July 19th, 2015

[…] that help the client connect with the physical world, called objective processes. The definition sounds a little lame, even to me… but if you ever knew someone who was […]

Leave a Comment