Thank you.

Well, I see you're late again! The — this is what? The twenty what?

Audience: The 22nd.

▼ I'm gonna make this one short. 15 minute lecture. 10 minute lecture. On the subject of missed withholds - pick them up. Well that's it folks, good evening. (laughter)

Twenty-second of May AD 12, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course first lecture. This lecture concerns administration of Academy and Saint Hill courses, which has something to do with you. Not that you may be teaching them someday, which you will, but you need this data here and now because you're in the midst — you have been in the midst of a change and you are at the end of the change but you have not entered into the solid fact.

▼ Fast lecture.

Now, first and foremost, we ought to take up the fact of whether or not I ought to keep on lecturing to you and whether or not we just shouldn't just drop my lectures.

■ Thank you. [The Thank you is not on the original]

Audience: No. No way!

Lecture two. Saint Hill Special Briefing Course.

All right, that settled that.

▼ Is that going?

Audience voice: Anything but that.

▼ Voice: Yes.

All right.

▼ (noises)

The data which you should have about training is that this planet, this particular oblate spheroid (is that high-toned enough?) — Earth, you know, is not a sphere. It's always been a little bit ashamed of this fact. Somewhere or another it got in a spin, you know, and it got its North and South Poles kind of flat and it got kind of swollen out a little bit at the equator and nobody's ever audited it. Terrible, terrible. I get on that very easily because it has something to do with my goal. Anyhow — I mean the first one up.

▼ I'll be darned, it's got a strobe effect against the light and it was absolutely stopped in it's rotation. Now I've seen it all. Lecture two.

But this planet has actually never developed a system of education. That's the first thing which you have to face when you suddenly find yourself in the midst of trying to educate. In the first place they don't even have a definition of "education." There is no definition of "education." As close as there is to a science of education is found in the Logics of Scientology. Those Logics, there are about fifteen, something like that, and if you look at those you will find out that they are an outline of the whole science of education.

May the - what did you say it was? Twenty ... ?

But there is no definition for this thing called "education." There has not been.

Audience: 22nd.

I worked on this some little time ago and was going to write a textbook on education and I kind of didn't bother. That's about it, because with — the outline is right there in the Logics. If you want to know what education is all about why you can put a whole science of education together right straight out of the Logics, there they sit. It's just waiting to fill up. With this — with this one single difference.

22nd. I get so mixed up on this planet's time. I don't know this planet's time at all. AD. 12.

Now, let me give you, not something you're going to quote word for word, but let me give you an understanding of what education is. Education is basically the relay of an idea, concept, a datum of some kind or another, from one being to another being. You see, that in its broadest sense, it is a communication, no more than that. But at the other end in education there is an insistence on receipt. So if you just take the definition of communication and then put in "insistence on receipt," you'll get education as it is normally — short. It's — that's not far enough yet, see? But it stops at that point. See, Earth education.

English weather. (laughter)

Look at the universities and look at these schools and people go to these schools and they take examinations and they — they have shown they receive it. They've shown they've received it, see? That's as far as it goes. And then they give them a tie. I was going to wear an old plaid gambler's tie down here tonight to show you what an "old school tie" is like — the Seaforth Highlanders or something But I haven't been a member of them for years, so it would be — not for lifetimes actually. But that's what you get.

This is a lecture on the subject of missed withholds.

Now, you come into training in Scientology and you run into all of your habit patterns and expectancies, don't you see, of basic education. And they caught you young, man! They caught you young You were there at yo' mammy's knee saying, "A, B. C, D," lifetime after lifetime, you know. And you get pretty good at it after a while. I could read in this life when I was about three and a half years old. And then I went to school and they kept insisting that I learn how to read. And you know, I never learned how to read in school. I could read, only nobody ever heard that. So there's no — ever — any backflow ever accepted in one of these things. You see, you can read so then if anybody tries to teach you how to read and you won't learn how to read and you can read, why nobody ever finds out about that. See? So you've had it.

Now, there's a long and involved bulletin on the subject which I haven't got in my hand, but some of you may have.

So, let's say we were teaching a course on how to be a rocket jockey. How to fly a Mark 14 interplanetary scout ship. See, and we're running a course on this. And we've got somebody and they had Mark 18s in their system and he knows all about flying one of these things, you know. Well, that's fine you know. Here's this, here's that and the instructor keeps saying, "Now just a minute. Hold it down now. Now, that is your circumlocutor." And the fellow says, "Yes, I know. And you pull it like this and you go like this and so forth; and it's for vertical takeoff, see. Yeah, well now, what I do want to know is, you've got a couple of dials here that were taken off the later . . . ?" And the instructor says, "Now just a minute, just a minute, that's the circumlocutor." See. That guy has a hell of a time, see.

▼ (noises)

Well, this is a rough deal because there's never any guarantee that there is a backflow. See? You can never convince the instructor that you can already circumlocute a Mark 18 and you want it a little bit modified. You want to know — the only thing you're trying to find out is — what is this dial? It wasn't on a Mark 18 and they got later models, so they took them off, see. "And what's this damn dial here?" You see.

▼ That's it, I've got em.

You don't get that till the third year. There you are, stuck for three years. You see? This happens to you a few times and you get allergic to education.

And this has to do with several bulletins, amongst them HCO Bulletin of May the 24th, also HCO Bulletin of May the 21st, and HCO Bulletin of May the 22nd. Last two are relatively unimportant.

Well, now in Scientology this is carried — although this is understood to be the case in most Earth education, it's never stated, as a matter of fact, none of this is ever stated — it's always, education is the worser for the unknowable or something. You've got the communication formula, guarantee of receipt and now in Scientology, something no medical school ever teaches, no psychiatric school ever teaches, no nobody ever — no engineering school ever teaches and God help a nuclear physicist school if they teached it — guy's got to be able to do something with it. That's the missing step in Earth education, see?

Now, you're going round and round about this proposition of TRs and how you ask for this and that, and exactly how you do this. And this bulletin of May the 24th talks about Q and A.

They say "Now, hmm, hmm. Now you sit around the amphitheater, hmm, now we take the scalpel, you see, and we slit open the patient's stomach like this and we pull it back and we put the sutures in the forceps and — where's my chewing gum?" You see and so on. "And then we — we take the appendix and we go glmmp flmmp, you see like this, hm-hmm, there it is, h-hm, h-hm. Now, on your term paper give a description of an appendectomy." So they give them a description of an appendectomy and they make the guy a doctor. And then you come along — that's the asininity of the whole thing, you know.

And there has been a great deal of misunderstanding about Q and A, because there wasn't a real hot communication on what Q and A was. See, there's been a lot of talk about Q and A, but a real hot thing ...

Oh, sometimes they let these guys intern, puddle around, you know. But that's supposed to have something to do with it. They make some vague effort.

Now it sounds like, when you read this bulletin, that I knew what Q and A was all the time, you see? And I'm talking to you - it doesn't sound this way, but you could take it that I was talking to you as "You dullard, why didn't you know this?"

But the first thing you would ask in this thing that we're stressing, is, was the information there being communicated? Yes. Was there a guarantee that the information was being received by the student? Yes. Could the student then perform effectively this taught skill? So the first thing we'd ask the psychiatrist, "Can you make people sane?" "Ho-ho" the fellow said, "Well, what do you mean? I have a certificate here from the hmm-mm-mm-hm-m, the Washington hmm-mm-mm, School of Freudian Appendectomies and so forth. What do you mean, can I make people sane?" He's liable to get real mad. Also, he's liable to not understand what the hell you're talking about. He actually has never moved his understanding that extra step. And not having moved his understanding that extra step, he doesn't realize that anything is ever expected of him with this information. And there's the trouble you have with the student in teaching Scientology skills.

Well, the truth of the matter is, there is at least a third of this data - probably the most important third - was unknown. And I just recently discovered this thing. And the term Q and A fits in gorgeously if you interpret it as questioning the PC's answer. So it really ought to be Q an A - no 'd' on the 'and'. Question an answer.

The guy says, "Well, I guaranteed to you that I received it. I have proved it utterly, so you communicated it, I received it and I certify that I've received it and I can pass an examination on it, so therefore I have fulfilled all the requirements of Earth education. So therefore I ought to be graduated."

Well, if you apply that principle, question an answer, throughout here, you get all three types.

And I come along and say, "Yeah, but can you make somebody sane?" you know. Aw, the hell with that, you know. I mean, that's putting it too far.

You get double questioning. Well, that's the PC says something and - he gives you a reply to your question - and then you question his answer... See? Well, of course, that's no acknowledgment and that's just a setup for an ARC break.

But understand that on this particular oblate spheroid in this particular Sun 12 system, that question does really not form part of the professions. Oh, it may perform something on the order of artisan work. They very seldom let anybody get out of that because they've got the bricks right in front of them. And they say, "All right, build a pier. Build a lancet-type arch," you know. If a guy's been around he can do this, so he can do this.

And Q and A also would be changing because the PC changes. In other words, you run a process on the PC and then the PC answers up this process, nicely and neatly, by changing, you see? And right in the middle of the change, because he's changed, you change. In other words, you give the PC what he's giving you, you see? But you again are questioning the fact that he's changing. His response to the process is being questioned.

But professional activities are not looked on in this light at all. And also artisan skills are not looked on as teachingnesses, you see? So they've just separated, they've just gone off in all directions.

And then the next thing is, following the PC's instructions comes under this. Now you've got a total reversal of the whole thing, and because the PC obviously knows far more about his case than we do, or something of the sort, don't you see, why, therefore it's always best, you see, to do what he says. In other words, that Q and A hardly is the questioning of the PC. That is a Q and A of me, see? That's questioning my answers to his case. That's kind of stringing a longbow, but an amusing way to put it.

Now, you've got to realize in Scientology education, not to drag on about this, that we are trying all three of those steps. See, we're trying to commute thought here, to understanding here, to performance there. See, there's the communication, the guarantee of receipt of the communication and the performance of the skill. Now, we are in an interesting position to be able to do that because we can do interesting things. Even though you at Saint Hill are — find yourself out here on the far horizon and frontier of research and you get messed up about it every once in a while, when I find out that you can't achieve certain results, why, I'm about the first one that finds it out.

We got the answers. If you know them and you can apply them, why, you'll get there. And if you keep finding holes in the line, why, we'll find some more that we didn't even know existed. But basically, an auditor must stay in control of the auditing session. There is no doubt about this.

And you therefore get it all backed up right for the first step again, you see. Well, this causes you — this causes you randomity — there's no doubt about that. But you're approaching a point here where the precision with which a session can be done is not to be trifled with, frankly. We're in a type of auditing today where you — now this is a — this is a joke — where you can't miss. See, that's a joke. you can't miss in this type of auditing. There is no number four ring in the target. There is only a bull's-eye. We're in a type of thing today where you must not miss.

Well, the way an auditor stays in control of the auditing session is to stay at cause over the session and put the PC at cause over his case. And if we don't stay at cause over the session, the PC cannot stay at cause over his case. He goes to effect. Because, you see, we're raising the PC's causativeness by making the PC confront. And if we don't make the PC confront, the PC will just obey his bank. And his bank says "Don't confront."

Now, I'll give you some kind of an idea of that. you can — you could sit down, take almost any Class I, old-time process, not open the session at all and sort of hold the guy in your — in the chair, you see, with your hand and say to him the first command of a bracket of some kind or another, some generalized bracket, you see? And go over and over this bracket just repetitively taking the bracket all the way through and repeating and getting an answer to each one. And that's all you'd have to know how to do and, what do you know. I mean, you get a large number of the people you did this to would have a tremendous resurgence. See?

Now, a full cycle of action must exist with an auditing command - a full cycle of action. And you can't have a muddy cycle of action.

Now we move up into just a little more complicated activity. And the second we go much more complicated than that we get into rudiments. And the second we get into rudiments we're in a must-not-miss area. There is no almost-right action in Scientology auditing That's worth knowing. There isn't an almost-right action. There's no number four ring to the bull's-eye, there's only number five, the bull. one bull's-eye. You've got to hit the bull's-eye every time.

Well, this puts a tremendous responsibility on the auditor to ask the right auditing question.

Because if you hit a near miss you have accomplished a restimulation. You are — you are handling so close in to the heart of things that if you bypass it by just that much you have restimulated the pc where he lives, man. You're — you're auditing straight into the heart and core, you see, of aberration and you mustn't miss it. It's got to be dead on.

You say, "What should I be running on you today?" You have asked a wrong question.

Now, that doesn't apply so much to a Prepcheck question, see, that can be looser. Ah, it doesn't apply so much to what Zero you're using, you see, that could be looser. But boy, how you pick up a missed withhold, how you get the rudiments in, see, how you list, how you handle a list, how you get the pc out of session again — those are bull's-eyes. Every one of them has to be a bull's-eye.

You can ask wrong auditing questions. You can say, "Have you had a motivator lately?" And that is a wrong auditing question.

Now, I'll give you an idea. More than one of you got an overwhelming reality this afternoon. And more of you are going to get an over — screaming reality tomorrow, on the fact that you missed somehow or another, a rewording of the beginning rudiments question. See? You missed on that. I'll take that up later tonight, you see. But you were not asking — you were asking, "Since the last time I audited you or since the last session, have I missed a withhold on you?" Well, it's already been . . . Yes, yes, a lot were doing it. And there's been a bulletin out for a long time — but not solely devoted to that, you see, it's down in the second page of the bulletin — where that was changed. There was a change in Model Session. A long time ago. And it was, "Since the last time I audited you, since the last auditing session I gave you..." or whatever it was, " . . . have you done anything that you are withholding from me?" Oh man, you'd say, that's not very much of a difference, you know.

So there are two conditions which can exist here: is a wrong auditing question and a failure to let a cycle complete itself. You can do these two things, both of them quite deadly.

Well boy, it was enough of a difference that at least two auditors, this afternoon, had the most marvelous sessions, ho-ho-ha! Never had such a marvelous session, because they used that right rudiment. And they got off this tremendous quantity of material that had gone on between sessions and before they had never touched this! In other words, we buried a datum.

Wrong auditing question: "Have I missed a withhold on you?" Now, we didn't know this was wrong a short time ago, but it is quite wrong because the PC can answer it with a motivator response. You've managed to dig that up for me. PC's were never ambitious enough to do that for me. They just took the easy route and did what I want, but it was they found by experience it was easier to do that.

I buried a datum, inadvertently, on the second page low down on a bulletin — it didn't come out as, "Model Session (comma), Change In, Urgent, Vital, Important," exclamation point, see? And we left a point where you could almost hit, see. Oh, you'd say, that's so close, that's number four ring of the bull's-eye. You're in the target! What are you crabbing about here? Nothing, except it wrecked every session where you didn't use it. That's all! Because it restimulates, see? Because the pc couldn't quite wrap his mind around exactly what the auditor was asking. "See, have I missed a withhold?" "No, he hasn't missed a withhold on me." See? So "No." And it didn't register on the meter.

But answering with a motivator has happened in many cases. So you mustn't ask a middle-rudiments or a rudiment-type question which permits the PC to give a motivator response, because the PC is then throwing the end rudiments out.

And all — all he'd done — all he'd done between sessions was break course regulations one to twenty-five. Hardly anything, you know. And left the session halfway through with his pc in an ARC break, you see, he hadn't done anything you know! And kicked the cat as he went out, you know. Hadn't done anything.

Now, you mustn't throw your end rudiments out. This is the wrong auditing question. This is also part of the wrong auditing question. You mustn't permit the PC to throw his end rudiments out. You've got to keep his end rudiments in. And if you look over the end rudiments, you will see there are several that can go out. And if any of those end rudiments go out, the PC will go out of session. So if you ask an auditing question which permits the PC to let his end rudiments go out, you cut your throat.

And sure enough, "Since the last time I audited you have I missed a withhold on you?" "No." Wouldn't register, see? And here's this whole chain of overts and the session sitting straight on top of all this confusion. You can't have a near miss on these vital points such as rudiments, whether beginning, middle or end, no matter on the exact way you get the invalidations and missed withholds off, you know, and suppressions off things. In those zones and areas you cannot miss, you must not miss. you just — if there's any white at all between the bull's-eye and where your bullet goes, you have had it, because you've actually picked into a restimulation. You've asked a restimulative question. You haven't got the answer to it. Pc's going to go out of session.

Now, let's get the middle rudiments in by throwing the end rudiments out, and then we've got a nice dog's breakfast.

See, you're auditing too close to dead center. You see, if you weren't auditing close to dead center, if you were just auditing generally and so forth, why, you could sit there with your feet on the mantel on the back of your neck in the armchair, you know, and move the — move one foot down to shift the tone arm once in a while, you know, with your big toe. Pc could sit there smoking cigarettes, you know, and I mean actually he'd make some gains. Class I-type auditing without any Model Session connected with it, no withholds, no overts, nothing like this going on and so forth, well you can be sloppy as hell.

Let's say, "In this session have I missed a withhold on you?"

Well, you move into this next grade of auditing, with a Model Session and so forth and boy you've had it. All you have to do is just put that — just that amount of white between the bull's-eye and your bullet. Ah, you have promptly got an enturbulation that makes the volcanic upheavals of Kilauea look like stirring cold coffee. Scream! Everything will go out. See?

"Yes. My PC - I've been sitting here thinking how mean my PC has been to me in the last few sessions."

Did you realize it was that critical? Well it is. The moment that you move up into this type of stuff which is going to give you fast case gains.

Oh, man, you've had it. You're in for a Q and A. Now, if you keep the end rudiment from going out - this is the problem you've posed yourself - to keep the end rudiment from going out you've got to Q and A. You can't permit the cycle to be finished. He just got through damaging his own PC!

Now therefore, a partially trained auditor is about as safe to have around as one of these human bombs. A partially trained auditor. See, this guy at HPA, lowest grade level, you know. Ah, he got results and then he doesn't know what happened. He went into this other grade and he isn't quite sure what happened but somehow or another his pcs didn't get along well. you see what he did? He moved over toward the critical target.

Now, these two things have to be held in balance, don't you see? This is a real crazy one. By asking a wrong auditing question you will inevitably throw yourself into a Q and A, because you've got to question the PC's answer.

Inherent in that critical target is ultimate gain. There is no ultimate gain inherent at all in this sloppy, floppy, generalized session. You see, that'll only go just a little distance and everybody's happy. But you start going for broke on this, you've got to come over to the main target. And swinging from the broad horizon over onto this main target is fraught with many difficulties. Now, in the understanding of that, that there is a bridging area between coming off from the sloppy, wide type of auditing over onto the very precise type of auditing, an understanding that that doesn't actually take place in a gradient, it takes place 1) broad horizon, see? "Recall something that's really real to you. Thank you." See? Just repetitive old scale processes. Goes over 2) dead center in the bull's-eye. No transition. You transverse across no horizon. At one moment you can sit there with your feet on the mantel smoking the cigar and blowing it in your pc's face and getting away with it gorgeously and then you are tapped on the shoulder and you're supposed to sit up in that chair and you're supposed to do it this, this, this and this, dead-on, absolutely perfect.

You say, "Has anybody been mean to you lately?"

And of course, the process of making this transition is enough to make you blow your brains out. It's ghastly. In the first place the technology involved demands of you absolute perfection achieved in zero time. See, otherwise you're going to be in trouble, trouble, trouble. The gradient scale, if there is any gradient scale, is the closer the auditor gets to being dead-on the target, see, the closer he gets to being dead-on, the more trouble he is in!

And the PC says, "Oh, yes! yes! yes! Herbie's been mean to me and Reg has been mean to me. All say my fellow students have been mean to me."

Now, therefore the educational processes have to allow for this understanding and we have just — I've just been cranking up the lineup and talking to the Instructors and finding out what trouble you've been having and so forth. And we've altered the educational pattern and that's — I'm giving you now the reason why we have the educational pattern and the next one is, that you must have at least three stages for any type of Scientology training that is earnest training

(I'm not talking about any particular student.)

And that is represented in the three sections. These three sections are the Theory Section, the Practical Section and the Auditing Section.

All right. You've just thrown the end rudiments wildly out.

Now, three sections does not mean three grades. We are so used to going into the first grade and then the second grade and the third grade that if we have three sections, we're sort of used to going into the first section, the third section, you know, in gradients. You don't do that. You're in all these three sections, in Scientology training, at the same time with this exception — that the earliest section doesn't have any Auditing Section in it. The Auditing Section is deleted.

Now, suppose you correct this: Supposing you ask some equivocal thing like "Have I missed a withhold on you?"

So in the earliest lowest grade you have a no-auditing What you have is a Theory Section and a Practical Section. And you're in that simultaneously.

"Yes. I was sitting here realizing that Mike has a deep sadistic tendency." Well, you've had it here. Now what have you done? You see? You ask a question which was equivocal. The PC gives you an answer which throws the end rudiments out. Now, the only way you can correct this is with a Q and A. You can't buy this answer.

Now, your upper grade, of course, from that, the second he's got — the obvious reason for this is the guy can't be permitted to audit at all, you see, until he has a little bit of theory and a little bit of practical and then he can be permitted to audit.

This is the auditor's dilemma that I am giving you here. You can't buy this answer because you've thrown the end rudiment out. You would question the answer in any event, even if you said promptly, "In this session have you damaged anyone?" The PC would still realize that his answer had been questioned. See, the auditor's dilemma. You ask a wrong question, you will Q-and-A every time.

So you might have an Auditing Section in that which is devoted to something highly elementary or terribly simple, that combines some of that skill and which cuts in late. So you see, it's not simultaneous. You see, after he gets this item, theory and gets it practical, and this item, theory and practical and this item, theory and practical, then and only then does the Auditing Section cut in, don't you see? And that would be true of all grades.

So you've got to ask a type of question - well, I'm not giving you, now, words; I'll give you the principle back of such wording. You must ask a type of question which makes a Q and A very unlikely. I will not use the word impossible.

Now, let me give you a much more general idea of this. you have a checksheet. Every student has a checksheet. He has a copy of — in his own possession, but nobody counts on the student not losing it or it going adrift. So the master checksheet, the one that you really pay attention to, is in the hands of the Examiner who is also the Course Administrator and he is in charge of the Theory Section; he's the examiner of the Theory Section.

Now, you can judge whether or not the wording of a middle rudiment or a Prepcheck question, or anything else you could judge whether or not a question you're asking the PC is right just on that formula alone. Is it one which will lead to a possibility of having to question the PC's answer? And if it is, then it is to greater or lesser degree a wrong question, because he's going to give you a response which you then must question.

And this checksheet he has — can — is for a grade, pardon me — a class, that is a class. It's a classification. Let us say that it is Class 2A. It has three columns. And these columns are from the left to the right, theory, practical and auditing.

You're going to have to question his answer. And then he's going to feel like he's not acknowledged. And then he's going to feel like he can't talk to you. And then he's going to go out of session. And there goes all of your beginning ruds and all the end ruds.

So we have over on the extreme left side the item to be studied — if that is an HCOB or a drill or a something or other. Now you — you understand that nearly everything you've got has both a theoretical write-up and a practical write-up. There are gaps in this at the present moment. Those gaps will rapidly be filled. But you've got then, this — like HCOB of 1st June 1960, you see — whatever it is. Maybe some notation there of what it is and then there is a little dotted — or a little bar line for the Examiner to initial for theory. And then there's next to that, to the right of that, there's another bar line for the Practical Instructor to initial and then there's another bar line as to whether or not it's been audited under the Auditing Supervisor. Very simple, hm?

Now, that's where you should direct your consideration of what you are doing with the PC.

Now this new principle enters in which you have not seen before and you're going to find out that at first you will think this as working a hardship upon the pc because it's going to penalize the pc auditing time. And it's going to apparently get in your road. But it's this way — we've always considered the Auditing Section to be inexorable. The Auditing Section has always been considered to be inexorable. No matter what else was going on, there was an auditing session that day and the auditor was there and the pc was there, don't you see? And that is the arbitrary which has made training difficult. That's the hidden arbitrary.

You must not Q-and-A. To prevent Q and A, you must ask the right auditing question. What is a right auditing question? One that will produce an answer you do not have to challenge. That is the perfect auditing question: a question that will produce an Answer from the PC that does not have to be challenged or qualified in any way by the auditor, as you mustn't question an answer.

We find that the auditor in — let's take up the auditing session now — section. And the Auditing Supervisor finds out this fellow's prepchecking and he's getting — he writes the What question out as Zero, see, Zero, and then he writes the What question you see. And then he lists the various overts after that as he goes down the list, you see. And then gets maximum — maximum needle reaction so he leaves it.

Now, here's a perfect Q and A, in case somebody came in late and doesn't have a copy of the bulletin. Here's a perfect Q and A:

And the Auditing Supervisor at this point, having inspected the fellow's folder and probably having looked in at the session, decides that this person should not be prepchecking. So he posts it as a cancellation. It becomes a cancelled session. Actually in the exact administration, is the person who is doing the folders finds these GAEs — gross auditing errors — and writes up a cancellation list. They don't — they don't just write in it everything that is wrong with this. They write some comments on it of course but if they consider it a gross auditing error, then it is simply posted on the board and the auditor would come in, in the morning, he'd find his name posted there, that means he — his — the session he gives the pc is cancelled. There is no session. They report to nothing And they've got some time to study then. But under that it says, the item or the item numbers which must be reviewed.

We run into Joe. We say to Joe, "How are you, Joe?"

In other words, the Auditing Section has the right to require a second examination by Theory and by Practical on a point that has already been passed by Theory and Practical, you see? So he says this guy doesn't know from nowhere so therefore we're not going to go on letting him butcher up a pc. We just cancel the session. But this of course gives the auditor time to look into it. That is, it gives the auditor — the session — gives him time to get his theory and practical. What we've been doing before the session went on inevitably and the fellow was auditing all day long and he was auditing wrong and he never had time to find out if he was auditing right, don't you see, or how to audit. So that's a cancelled session list. And it doesn't mean anything more than that — the session is cancelled.

And Joe says, "Awful."

Something's going wrong here and usually what had to be done again would be written there and then the Theory Supervisor can tap the student or the student actually reading that you see, his session, you know, in which he is auditor, has been cancelled and for this bulletin and that.

And we say, "What's wrong?"

His first action should be to use that auditing period, no matter how he's stacked up otherwise, to just study that bulletin like mad and go in and pass it, theoretical again. So he gets a theoretical pass on the material again, and then gets a practical pass. The Practical Section takes over from that. Now the full — the checksheets have to be available to the Instructors and Supervisors in the Theoretical and Practical, and when something has been checked out theoretically it goes to Practical, don't you see?

Well, that's very socially acceptable. You'll hear it up and down the highroads and byways in every language including the Chinese and Scandinavian. Everybody does it. It's social machinery. It would be unsympathetic of us not to do it.

Exactly how that administration is made up between the Theory Section and the Practical Section is pretty well up to them. But it's also up to the student. Now if he knows that he has had to pass the Prepcheck bulletin or maybe a couple of Prepcheck tapes that take up certain sequences or something, if he had to get those again, and he does get those, well he knows doggone well that he had better report to the Practical in order to get his practical because he won't get back on auditing again, until he does.

We ask a question: We say, "Well, have you had a good day, Bill?" We meet Bill, you know?

Then he goes back on auditing as soon as he's passed these two things. I think you'll find the case gains are faster. Even though it's cost people some auditing time, you'll find the general case gain is faster. That's the economy. It's because of this — you must hit the bull's-eye, you can't go in the number four ring, you see.

And Bill says, "No"

Now, Auditing Sections, all auditing sessions are for gain not for practice, you see. But I received this from the technical activity in London: "Do you want Op Pro by Dup in Grade 1A, do you want Op Pro by Dup and SCS flattened or just run enough to find out if the student can run it in the Auditing Section?" Yaaaa, see? Haaa, weeooo! Imagine every HPA being partially flat on Op Pro by Dup and SCS, see?

Inevitably, we have to amplify the thing, see? So we say, "Well, what happened?" That's a Q and A. That questions the PC's answer.

So we mustn't regard the Auditing Section as an interchangeable Practical Section. Yeah, in the Practical Section you get him to do it long enough to find out if he knows how to do it. But the Auditing Section must hold up before the student at all times, that this is for blood and nobody is going to hold his hand. And if there's too much arterial bleeding thereabouts, he is simply going to be amputated from the Auditing Section, you see, and put back through Theory and Practical until he gets there. Got the idea? This will cut down the amount of "bad auditing," and so on.

Correct. This is correct:

Now, this will work out this way, in framing up — in framing up sessions and in posting sessions, this will mark out this way. We'll find that the person who is not giving auditing will get balanced out by not receiving any. See, that'll be a point that the person who is arranging the Auditing Section — see the Auditing Section does the posting of the auditors and pcs. So supposing we have gotten halfway through a week and cancelled an auditor. Well, this has penalized a pc, hasn't it? Well, the net result of that, if we just started in at the beginning of next week, you see, and we kept that same team going endlessly, why we would be penalizing the pc all during the next week, see.

"How are you?"

So it means change of auditors, but auditors become more interchangeable, oddly enough, when you have a perfection of Model Session. That's more easily done. We're trying — we're trying to hit a happy medium between not too many auditors per pc and not everybody penalized. So if the fellow is actually giving auditing, why, we give him an opportunity to receive auditing by a rejuggled list on the next week's posting, don't you see? He's giving auditing, he receives auditing we try to keep that rule in. It won't balance out well. you can't do it very easily or evenly with total justice, but you can attempt justice in that direction. I mean attempt to make it as equitable as possible.

"Awful."

For instance, you don't want somebody who is — his auditor has been off the Auditing Section for three weeks, the pc of that Auditing Section has not been off Auditing Section and has been delivering auditing for three weeks. That's kind of a situation that would develop there. We don't want that type of situation to develop, if we possibly can.

"Good." (When you get an answer like that, it is much more polite to say "Thank you.") Do you know, the funny part of it is, even in social concourse the fellow will feel better if you handled it that way. He told you how he felt, so give him the cheery ack, man - the cheery ack.

This then brings out this interesting fact, if we try to keep an equity there, we try to keep it that people who are giving auditing also receive auditing, don't you see? It will obviously push your best students up closest to the top of the barrel; in other words, it works on a principle which Scientology itself has always worked on or tried to, which is to make the more able more able.

All right. Now let's take the auditing question. Now, here's where auditors tie themselves not just into knots, but double carrick bends, bowlines on a bight and other unlikely cask hitches, and so forth.

The tremendous gain gotten in the London County Council schools when we worked on the genius student was marvelous. You never saw the like of it. Some of the data on this is absolutely staggering, but the data was never really assembled and published for the excellent reason that Scientology was used for the backwards classes. Here's Scientology being used, and of course it wiped out their backwards classes where it was used. But they thought that was marvelous, you see; Scientology is marvelous because look, it's wiping out all the backwards classes. Well, this is a tendency of man, you see. Marvelous.

We're doing rudiments. We say, "Do you have a present time problem?"

But they never looked at this other fact, that when it was applied to geniuses in the school, these guys all of a sudden really started to fly. The amount of tremendous surge up the line in IQ and everything else which these kids got — you see, the kid would start in with an IQ maybe of 118 you see, 120 something like this and he'd wind up with an IQ of 185 or something quite staggering you know. Kid be bright as a dollar and doing Earth arithmetic in his head and marvelous, could be a surgeon. Nobody has ever paid any attention to that.

"Yes."

But that is a factor which would become manifest if you started using this other principle. In other words, your better auditor would get more auditing He — and the better auditor would be doing the auditing and getting the auditing.

"Well, what is it?"

So therefore you disconnect the whole time schedule on training, from the schedule. Time — time has nothing to do with it. See? Whereas how fast does somebody get through these grades? Well, he gets through the grades as fast as he gets through the grades. So this then doesn't give you the exact amount of time in school, student to student to student, which is unfair anyway. But is liable to put somebody in an HPA or Saint Hill class, put them in here at — three months and he's so Clear that when he's jostled in the hall he rings like a bell, you know. And he's got all of his checksheets and everything is gorgeous and he goes home, you know. 1890 [sic], something like that, why you keep bumping into this shadow. And then somebody says that isn't a shadow, that's a student from 1962. And he just never did get up — the longest he was ever kept on an Auditing Section list was one morning — was one morning in 1975, when they just had a new Auditing Supervisor and he put him on that morning and took him off that afternoon. But at the same time you wouldn't get a case being cut to ribbons, don't you see?

Flunk, flunk, flunk, flunk! He answered our question. So therefore there is something a little bit phony with the question. See, that question is not the perfect auditing question. See, because it isn't perfect it leads us into a Q and A.

Now, you can actually get a case cut to ribbons with the stuff we're doing, see, so it requires to this — this much degree, particularly at Saint Hill. Not quite as important in Academy classes because after all they're doing these broad, generalized processes. They don't swing into Model Session until they've been there for quite a while. And you've got a different — a different view.

Now, the best question, of course, would [be] one which would require him to tell us. So you would have to add to it "and if so, tell me what it is."

Now, the theory is that anything a person learns he can learn to do better. But of course there is a limit to this. There's a ceiling to where a person no longer is improving because he's not doing There's nothing more ghastly — they found this during commando troops. The commandos were invented in World War II, early World War II, and in England, and they invented these fellows in order to make a strike-back and they did. They made a couple of minor strike-backs across the channel after Dunkirk. It was quite interesting. And not very effective but at least it was an aggressive action which the British believe in militarily.

You don't always run into this problem, but the proper non-Q-and-A response is "Do you have a present time problem?"

All right, the army said — this was the army commando that they were developing, you see. And the army said, "What can these commandos do that any platoon in my regiment can't do, ho! ho! ho! Hoo, hoo." And the commandos stayed home. They were restrained thoroughly from further action until almost two years had gone by. The minor actions which they undertook were greatly impeded in the War Office. The War Office was not about to use any commandos, see?

PC says, "Yes."

And those poor guys — those poor guys, there was only one worry about commandos after a while, is they were so overtrained with no doingness that they were just going raw rotten, that was it. They were just going to pieces. They had been trained and they had been trained and they had been trained and they had been trained, and they never got a chance to perform any of their skills. And that was the basic trouble with commandos and the basic worry about commandos was the fact they never got any doingness. It was very interesting. You'd have thought the trouble with commandos is commando casualties in any landing were 50 percent. You'd have thought that was the main trouble with commandos. Who the hell would join them? No, that wasn't the case. It was just never letting them lose their 50 percent! Such is the idiocy of man.

You say, "Thank you. I will check it on the meter."

But the point — the point here is that you can't have practice, practice, practice with no doingness. But in Scientology training you must not have doingness with inadequate practice. So there's a happy balance, educationally.

So therefore, the slightly offbeat question leads us into an inevitability of a Q and A because we would be prompted to say, "Do you have a present time problem?"

Now, of course there are many fields of endeavor here on Earth where you couldn't permit these three steps to take place. I don't mean the three sections, but the communication thoughtwise, the fact that the fellow had received it, in other words he gives you proof that he has received it and at the far end, can actually do it in a practical way, those three sections wouldn't work on every endeavor here on Earth because look at nuclear physicist. He's being trained to blow up the planet and there's just one planet, you see, and so on.

"Yes."

However, we're not in that state. I want to point out to you that there are two and a half billions, plus, of Homo sapiens and we're not going to run out of targets this particular way. Nor is it a wasteful activity as in psychiatry. They have one case and you give a psychiatrist one case, you then have one less case. you see, it goes the other way. It's a matter of a sort of an attrition. The way they — the way they handle insanity is some way that Hitler was trying to handle the Jewish problem. I don't think that — I think that these things are a direct analogy. I don't know quite how, but true, you see. See, they were getting rid of — not insanity — they were getting rid of the insane and they — one for one, you see. Well, their supply will run out if they keep that up, you see, so that's not a — I wouldn't say that was an endeavor.

And the auditor would be prompted to say, "Yeah, well, what is it?"

Your supply will never run out because after everybody gets Clear, of course, they'll want to be aberrated again. And — not particularly true. But somebody — we used to gag about that, that in a couple of hundred years our biggest study will — how to get people aberrated. You have cleared everybody.

Hey, wait a minute! The guy did answer your auditing question. Your auditing question is "Do you have a present time problem?"

Anyway, we demand then of somebody that he get an intellectual grasp of the situation, that he can demonstrate the second one — stage — is that the intellectual, the theoretical — he has understood it to a point where he can apply it practically. And then we let him do it and there are your three stages, and they follow out the definition of education, as we have it.

You cut his comm. It'll throw him out of session. You've thrown the remaining rudiments out, don't you see?

Now, the faults of this particular system, lie in these zones. The person who is having the most difficulty passing his examination is most in need of auditing Now, that's a — that's a flaw in the system. And he's going to have the hardest time because, of course, he's going to get the least auditing.

The trick of keeping rudiments in is not throwing the others out while you're getting one in.

Now, it's very interesting. You get to living with each other and rubbing elbows with each other and — and you get on up the line, and you get variously tolerant and intolerant of each other's aberrations, and that sort of thing What's quite interesting though, the change is gradual if — and sometimes quite spectacular — but you become somewhat conditioned to seeing change and you don't pay much attention to it in a unit at this particular time, and you don't notice the effect auditing does have. (I'll give an aside here — even the stinking auditing that you've been doing lately. See?) That's — unparenthesis. Anyhow — we'll have to cut that out of the tape!

And in view of the fact that there are more you are not working than the one you are working, the probability of your doing this is great if you don't know this rule about the perfect auditing question and what a Q and A is. You can throw these things out wildly if you don't.

But it's this — you want to take a look at the training records, the theoretical section, records. When we went on to CCHs, we'd do nothing but CCHs at that particular time, we weren't even involved in the thing of course, this is one of these broad horizon processes. You can do CCHs, standing on your head — something's going to happen. Have somebody patting walls — something's going to happen. See? No Model Session about it. We weren't using anything hardly. And I think it was a couple of weeks before I even showed you how to do two-way comm, you know, and CCHs got better after that.

And auditing is, of course, what you get away with and you don't run into this in extremis.

But the funny part of it is, did you know that the first week you were doing CCHs here, you know that your passes went up something like about 300 percent! You don't notice some of these things about auditing, but that's quite interesting Fantastic!

Most times it goes off just fine.

Well, of course, this argues against this and shows you that there is a flaw in doing things this way because naturally if the fellow's having an awful hard time passing his theory and his practical, obviously he needs some auditing That's obvious, isn't it? That's obvious. And the whole system from time to time of training, systems we've had in the past, have fallen to pieces because people did realize the Marxist system of training was best. He getteth auditing according to his need and giveth auditing according to his ability, you know, it's the Marxist system of taxation.

You say, "Do you have a present time problem?"

"To everyone according to his need, from everyone according to his ability to pay." And if I can just get those nuts over in America and England to put this into effect in their taxation systems, we won't have to worry about them anymore. And they're getting closer and closer to not worrying about them anymore. That's directly out of Das Kapital, by the way and the system of taxation adapted in the last thirty or forty years, by Western nations. Well, look, it just doesn't work. He getteth auditing according to his need. He giveth auditing according to his ability to audit. So we take all the good auditors, you see, in a training unit and we work them to death, you see, auditing all the bad auditors. And the bad auditors don't do any auditing at all, you see. And the good auditors get no auditing at all, and then because the good auditors are auditing awful cases, you see, with limited skills — they're still in the training stage, you see — they compound the number of loses they get. So they get sort of hopeless, you know.

And the fellow says, "Yes. I had a fight last night with my auditor."

We say to this fellow, "All right, now, you've learned all about skiing. We've — you've read a book here, you've passed an examination on this book about skiing That's good. Now we've passed this examination on skiing now, and you've gotten through your practical, you've shown that you can put both skis on without falling on your face. Very good. Now there's the top of Mont Blanc. Now ski up there and ski back." Gyaaah! Of course, the guy says, "You know, I feel like I've had a lose." He has too, because if all of your best auditors are auditing all of your worst students, of course they never have a chance to get a little win. They're actually being asked — it's being asked of limited, and faint little skills that you get early on, you see, to climb the whole hill, on a student who is — who's particularly rough.

Your proper response to that is "Good" or "Thank you."

So that Marxist principle does not function or work or apply in Scientology training. It can't.

The Q-and-A response would be "What about?" And that just throws the comm straight out the window, you see, because it's an incomplete cycle, you have not bought the PC's communication, the PC will go out of session and rudiments start shedding out of the session like a white dog when you're wearing a blue suit. There you are. You've had it, don't you see? Now, auditors do these others, such as changing because the PC changes. An auditor who does this constantly after it's been called to his attention just should be shot. I mean, there's no other cure for it. I see them keep it up, you know? Actually, it tokens tremendous impatience.

Now, if the auditor has been on the books too long — it isn't the D of P. the D of T's signature on the bottom that requires that he get auditing, it's whether or not he has been for a long time on his checksheet, without ever getting over into the Auditing Section. And if he's been an awful long time on his checksheet without getting into the Auditing Section, you solve it this way. you turn him over, in a Central Organization, to the HGC. That's the way you do it in an Academy. You say, "Well son, you better go over and get 25 hours from the D of P; they have a student rate over there and that's it. Because you've been this many years here, here it is, 1972 and you've. .." That's the way you heal this, you don't heal it according to this other . . .

That is all.

And the second that you do use that Marxist principle of apportionment of auditing, ha-ha-ha, you've had it. Because your good auditors will just be audited into a hole and the bad ones are receiving all the training, and you're just doing the same as the London County Council did.

This auditor is so anxious to do something for this PC that he's got to do it all in the next ten seconds. And therefore, he won't even run the full bracket. See, he'll do something like this (actually, he's trying to help the PC like mad, usually): "Think of a problem you could confront. Think of a problem you could confront. Think ... How are you getting along on that process? Think of a problem you could confront. Think of a pro - How - how are you getting along? Do you have problems now? You Clear yet? Oh well, we'll have to do something else. Let's see. Invent a problem. Invent a problem. That's best. How are you doing? You Clear yet? Well, maybe we shouldn't be running problems at all. Let's - let's get down to something more fundamental. You used to talk about your mother an awful lot. Let's see. Now, what has your mother done to you? Thank you. What has your mother done to you? Thank you. What has your mother done to you? Thank you. What has your mother done to you? Thank you. We don't seem to be getting anyplace here. What has your mother done to you? Uh ... well, let's skip that."

All right. So, what do you do on a course like this? How do you — how do you straighten this out on a course like this? Well, actually there's some little basic processes, some earlier Grade processes, and what you do after a person has been on is downgrade the person's class — they never seem to be able to get onto an Auditing Section. They've been going too long without auditing You downgrade their auditing class for an Auditing Section. You let them do something like a straight Havingness Process without rudiments or something, after — after the Auditing Section Supervisor has found what the Havingness Process is or something, you know.

Do you know auditors actually have done this? I'm not just joking something that has never existed. You see it less commonly that way. More commonly, they will change from session to session. They won't flatten what they did in the last session because it's much better, what they thought of today, you see?

In other words, you throw a kindergarten unit in there so they don't go forever without auditing. HPA/HCA, some old D of T will look with horror at this — read over this, a new sheet out here, the May 21st. It isn't complete either because there may also be a Class 1C in the Academy containing the upper-grade repetitive processes, which have been halfway done here in — under 1B. That's weighting 1B too heavily, so there may be another — another grade, be put in there.

So that type of thing, the auditor just simply needs training, but basically needs some confidence. This auditor will also go off into extraordinary solutions very easily because he doesn't have any confidence in the ordinary doing anything, because he's never done it.

But, somebody here at Saint Hill, and he'd been going forever on his theory and he wasn't passing his practical and he isn't getting in the Auditing Section, you see, he isn't getting in there at all, and that's piling up. And you look at the date — comparable dates and so forth, you can drop him down to a lower grade of auditing and of course you always have four, five, six students of that character and you can make a small auditing group on some repetitive action which will pick them up a bit and they can go through. But it will have to be this one that can shoot the broad horizon. Don't let them — let me call to your attention, don't let them do it in Model Session. You can let them have a meter on their lap, BO it can hold an ashtray or something. But don't let them — don't let them fool with meter reads or something like that. Do something minor like, the tone arm keeps moving, you keep on saying this, you get the idea. That's about as close as you can get to it. I don't mean to make nothing out of that grade because remember, we went on for years with not even repetitive processes. And we know a lot about it now; we know at least you stop auditing when the tone arm stops moving we didn't used to know that, you know. And we've gotten smart through the years.

And as far as following the PC's instructions, again, you get a PC who is blasty, who is upset, who is misemotional and so forth, and a lot of auditors just back out of it. And then they'll do what the PC wants them to do. And it just about kills the PC. That's the usual source of that.

Anyway, that gives you a rundown on training I think it looks rather simple to you, doesn't it? The only change that it makes as far as you're concerned is you just get — you get the grade you're studying for, on one sheet. And you will get credited everything you have passed no matter what sheet it occurs on, so don't worry about that too much. But you can expect in the very, very near future — I don't know if we'll be able to get this rolling Monday, but we will try — you can expect to see, out here on the bulletin board, your cancelled session list and so look there before you go someplace else. Don't sit there for two hours waiting for the pc to show up. He saw the cancelled session list, you see? No, you wouldn't do that.

We're not worrying about that right now, however. We're worrying about this most basic and fundamental Q and A for which we do have an immediate and direct cure.

Anyway, that's — now the springboard of all this is, is look, we've got — we've got terrifically precise actions. It'll do tremendous things, there is no doubt about it whatsoever, but for a new articulation of it, my study of it in recent weeks has demonstrated more and more clearly to me that we cannot miss, you know. I mean, that's a nice colloquialism. We say, "Well, we just can't miss with Scientology. That's 90 true you know. We can't miss with Scientology, we've got to put it right through the bull's-eye." And that the more auditing we permit, which is offbeat auditing, why the longer it takes to get the cases moving.

The first cure is always ask the right auditing question. The right auditing question is one which prohibits a Q and A.

So the techniques which you are actually using do not consume large numbers of hours. They are fast. If you handle them expertly and well, you can get very rapid results with them.

There is no perfect right auditing question. You actually can get along with relatively sloppy ones like "Do you have a present time problem?" Nobody has ever run into this so seriously on present time problems - Yes," the PC says.

So, it's sort of on the line — as long as we don't have a grind-out — well, when we turn this fellow loose at a certain level, well, let's make sure he knows how to do it. And then he will get the gain which is inherent in that level rather rapidly, and we won't get pc damage that is going forward.

But it's a bad auditing question because it can be replied to so that you have to say, "Well, what is it?" Ha-ha. Of course, that's a Q and A. The PC answered it, and now you pretend that the PC hasn't answered it. But the PC did answer it. Well, the PC gets the idea that he hasn't answered it, so there, if he hasn't answered it - you don't think he's answered it - then he knows what position he's in. He knows he's not in session because the auditor didn't hear him. So therefore he must be withholding, so therefore he must be a missed withhold. And if he's a missed withhold, then the thing for him to be is mad at the auditor. Very logical. But you'll find out that that is 100 percent just like that! The exact mental response of 100 percent of your PC's, no matter whether they look nice about it or look happy about it or anything else that is the response of every PC who sits in front of you.

Also it winds up that you will have less — less restricted auditing space and it gives you, probably, more attention in the Auditing Section because there'll possibly be fewer auditing.

If you want to drive ... take the mildest, best, goodest, most educated PC you ever had anything to do with - PC never really been in session, just sort of socially answers responses, you see, and tries to be nice about the whole thing, and you never really get a bite on his case and he's always sitting there and very quiet, charming, nice, never makes any changes. You ever see this PC? PC exists.

But the thing to do is, if you see your — if you see your name posted as on the cancelled session list, it means you, as the auditor, are supposed to review whatever's listed after your name, and in Theory straight away and as soon as you've done that why, in Practical, and then you go back getting a session, being given a session again.

Take this perfect PC who never has any changes and just start this racket on this PC: "Do you have a present time problem? Have you ever had a present time problem in your whole life? Yes, I know, but uh ... yes." You say, "Yes, I know. But have you ever had a problem in your whole life?"

That way we're not letting the pcs absorb all of the shock involved, with somebody asking them — as we come down the line we get to the withhold question in the beginning ruds, and they say, "Well now, let's see. Have — uh — since — uh — since I last saw you — uh — since I last saw you, have you missed a withhold on me? No, no." And I think — when we see that I think it's time we send somebody back to Model Session, rather than let the pc absorb all the shock of it.

The PC answers something. You say, "Well, but ... no, look, look. Look, listen now. In your whole life have you ever had a problem?" see?

You see our Instructors are absolutely shockproof They can receive an unlimited amount of shock. They can get up to the hundred-billion-megaton shock, you see. So if they're — if they're there, you see, to take all the bang, and, of course, when they can't receive it they just fall back on me, and I can so that's dead easy. Because back of me there's nothing!

And the PC says, "Well, yes, I - I had appendicitis and - and so - so forth."

So you haven't — you haven't then had all the training taken out on you. Your Theory Section is the first part of it, the communication. Your Practical Section is the demonstration that you can put it into action. And then the third part of it, you can demonstrate your absolute and complete ability to get results with it. And that sums up the purpose of the training we're doing And I think you'll find that is much more digestible, and if anything, I probably should apologize to you for taking this long to figure it all out. But then, of course, you see, I didn't have all the mistakes you're making in order to correct, so I didn't know the right answer until just now, so I thank you for your contribution!

And you say, "Uh ... now, look, I'm talking to you. Do - have you, see? Ha-have you, you - right there, you know? - have you ever had a problem in your whole life? I - I want ... uh I want you to tell me now."

Take a break.

And the PC says, "Well, I did have ... my back's out and it gave me ..."

"When are you going to tell me? Now, just own up to it - a problem."

And listen, you keep up some kind of a racket like that - you could make it more flagrant than that - and do you know ...

You think a PC is peculiar who screams. You think this is a certain type of PC. Well, I assure you that that is not a type of PC, that's a type of auditor. Because you can drive that good PC - that perfectly educated PC - you can drive them absolutely into a screaming funk that you have just never heard the like of. You would just never dream that a human being could be that upset. And you can do it to every PC you audit.

And when this is done too much to a PC, when it's done at the wrong moments, when processes are also changed on the PC too often, and when the PC is also giving auditing directions which have been accepted (and let's composite the whole thing, you see) we get somebody - all you have to do is look like you haven't received the question, and thereafter the guy will start screaming. Just look like you haven't heard him. You know? Be looking at the window when he speaks. You were going to come in right afterwards and say, "Yeah. All right. Thank you." You were going to do that, but you just paused for just a split second, and he saw that you were looking at the window; he'll start screaming.

"Goddamn you! You ought to go back to the Academy. Jesus Christ, whoever the hell told you you were an auditor? For Christ's sake!" That's it.

In other words, you, the auditor, can create that state of mind. You can create that situation much more easily than baking a birthday cake.

Now, I'm not talking now - because I myself a few times have been driven into "Christ almighty!" you know? I think poor Philip, one day - I only did once. He missed fifteen or twenty. And the next thing you know, helloing like this because I had said a couple of very mean things, which of course I didn't mean. But the guy had just - I'm not always a good PC or a bad PC, but just all of a sudden the no acknowledgment, the no acknowledgment, the no acceptance of the answer, something like that, and you sit there in amazement.

You sit back here. I got a good reality on it. And you sad "What the hell!" you know? You're saying, "For Christ's sakes, why don't you get your mind on it!" you know? You sit back and look at yourself - "Did I say that? Huh? Was that me? Who was that? Did I hear some noise in here?" Because you're in the irresponsibility, of course, of being a PC, and you just react.

I did it to a PC, almost with malice, one time, but actually not on purpose. And that was when I learned exactly what the mechanism of it was. I had to look at exactly what had been going on.

And I analyzed it and then I turned around and I did it again and brought the same response, of course.

Now, I've taken other PC's, and I can start up the same response. Then I analyze any situation where that is occurring and I find the same response. That is it, man. Of course, the PC will go into apathy, go into a complete funk.

Now, there is an extreme action of questioning the PC's answer. That is the extreme response on the part of the PC to not receiving the PC's answer, because of course the PC thinks he's withholding.

And that's the whole mechanism - his replies have been missed. So therefore he is a missed withhold. And he gets upset! Just as you will find missed withholds works on everybody, so this mechanism will upset any PC.

But now, look. Look. Now, listen to me very carefully. Do we have to produce the extreme state of screaming, of apathy, of making the PC ill, to have it in effect? I mean, is there anything short of the extreme state? Oh, yes. Yes. There is a twilight zone of in session and out of session caused by the almost not-responded-to answer, the occasionally not-acknowledged reply by the PC; this sort of thing causes a borderline of not being out of session totally and not being in session, but just being in a condition where all the rest of the rudiments keep going out all the time. Everything is sort of flying out, and you're sort of keeping the PC in session, you know, just - ha, just by gripping the table edge with your fingernails, you know? It's just barely keeping the PC in session.

What's the answer to it? Is don't Q-and-A. The PC says something, acknowledge it. Well, how can you keep from Q-and-Aing? Always ask the right auditing question. Of course, that's impossible to bat one thousand on the right auditing question - so therefore, make up your mind whether you're occasionally going to accept some nonsense from the PC or drive the PC into an ARC break. And actually if you ask the wrong auditing question, you are honor bound to buy the nonsense. But what if the nonsense throws out the end rudiments? Then you've worsened the case. Then you have to get the end rudiments in. Now, we've got some kind of a chain reaction going.

You ask the wrong auditing question you cannot directly acknowledge the question because it isn't the kind of answer that you want, or is a damaging answer to the PC, so this throws out the end rudiments. Therefore, you have to get the end rudiments in, in order to get this other rudiment in, and so forth. And then you ask this same question again, but of course the PC gives you the wrong response which throws it ... Look at the chain reaction here. And that PC will not be in session.

That's the only thing you can say about that - PC won't be in session. PC will be half, three-quarters, out of session, all the time, all the time, all the time. Tone arm action is out and so forth. And then you have to become an absolute expert at putting middle rudiments in. Oh, you even develop systems sometimes to keep your middle rudiments in and you get very arduous.

And it all stems back So the wrong auditing question in the first place, which forces you into a Q and A.

You say, "Do you have a present time problem?"

He says, "Yes."

You say, "Well, what about?"

What's this, you know? So you've already driven it a little bit up the wall, see? The exact right response is "Do you have a present time problem?"

"Yes."

"Thank you. I will check it on the meter."

Now, for Christ's sakes, if you will pardon my French, don't ask him this again. See, if this is where we are going to get with this particular question, we had better ask a question which is far more intelligent, because there is an old, old datum that comes forward from 1950. And that is, you can ask an auditing question once or twice without restimulating the PC. You can always ask any process once or twice, even three times. But when you get up to three times, you're on the border of ... Now you're got to flatten it, from there on, see? Do you see what I mean?

So you can always ask a question, take the answer - it laid an egg. Well, let's sort out what would be the proper question here, now, and ask the question, get the answer to that and acknowledge it. It will do the PC far less damage if we do it that way. Far, far less damage if we do it that way than if we shift in mid-flight and Q-and-A.

"Do you have a present time problem?"

"Yes."

"Well, what is it about?" Oh, God. We've had it now. We've done a Q and A. PC will go just that far out of session. Inevitably, although he looks still looks the same (you don't see it, it doesn't get written on his forehead in letters of fire), he has still done it. An invariable rule, because it busts up the comm formula and does a lot of other things.

All right. So how do we approach this problem? We ask a question. If it obviously is the wrong question to ask and doesn't produce the answer, we back out of the same door we went in, gracefully, by completing the cycle of action always. You're always safer to complete the cycle of action.

Now, there are several other things you could do. You can do an interim "I'm not asking you questions. I am trying to find out what the responses are on this meter," like you have to do in Prepchecking. You say, "All right, now. You don't have to answer any of these, but I'm going to ask you several little What questions about this thing and see what the best reaction we get now. What about stealing vehicles? What about killing girlfriends? What about whatever it is. Yeah, well, what about stealing vehicles? Thank you. I got the What question now. All right. Now, let's go back to this incident which you just had there. Good."

And we just prepcheck it. You see, there's a fumble period. I suppose you couldn't dignify it any more than call it a fumble period.

You ask a middle rudiment. Here's an example:

"In this session have I missed a withhold on you?"

Cheerily, cheerily, cheerily. See, very happy. Perfectly legitimate. You get away with it 89 percent of the time. Oh, more than that - you probably get away with it 95% percent of the time, you see? It's those other few percent there. And you run into that one head-on, see?

"Yes. I've been sitting here thinking what a rotten auditor you are. And how mean all the instructors are to me."

And now, of course, you say, "Thank you. I will check that on the meter. In this session have I missed a withhold on you?" Clank! Whew!

You see, right there you've had it, see? You know you're walking through the valley of death.

You're walking down the street at sunset let me put it that way - with Black Bart in town. This is a deadly activity in which you are involved.

So you say, "All right. Thank you very much. Now, have I missed a withhold on you in this session?"

"Yes. I think you're giving me a bunch of no-auditing. You know, I've had twenty auditors since I've been here, and you're the rottenest of the lot."

Damage, half-truth, untruth. See, we're just compounding this felony, see, madly. So you say, "Good. Thank you. Have I missed a withhold - in this session have I missed a withhold on you?" How far can it go?

Well, you can not only take in all the end rudiments, you can also take in all the beginning rudiments. You can get them all out. See, that's the auditor's dilemma. Well, you're asking the wrong auditing question. So it is much safer to do it this way.

Oh, yeah, inevitably you will use something like "In this session have I missed a withhold on you" for the excellent reason it lets him tell you the thinks and the other things. And you don't want to prepcheck this guy and go back and find all the things he has done to you because he hasn't done anything, really, in the session. He did something this morning that you missed in the beginning rudiments, and so forth, and et cetera, ad nauseam. Yeah, all those things are true.

But you'll ask something like this, you see? And most of the time you get away with it. So you say, "In this session have I missed a withhold on you?"

"No." Clank!

"Thank you. I will check that on the meter. In this session have I missed a withhold on you?" Clank! And what are we going to do? Well, you just enter a fishing or fumble period. That's what you do.

I've been trying to work out this data to a something or other, and I have a package question which serves as a middle-rudiments. "in this session ..." I won't give you this package question. Don't start writing it down. But it'd be something like this: "In this session have you withheld, invalidated or suppressed any datum about listing, or anything about listing?" You understand?

I'm talking about just giving an example of a package question. And you can name each one of these things as you go by, and you'll get the fall, see? And you watch for the one that falls. That's very smooth. Otherwise, you're left in a fish-and-fumble period.

But I don't care how perfect you make auditing, you'll still have fish-and-fumble periods. You say, "Well, just a minute. Let me check this over on the meter. Withhold, invalidation, suppression, untruth, half-truth, impression, impress, damage, command, and wrong command, haven't answered a command, meter. Meter. In this session have I failed to find out something you were doing about a meter?" Clang!

And he says, "Well, yes. That was excellent. Yeah. I'm sitting here fiddling the cans so that you - so you'd get the goal 'to have more women' because I always get such a bang out of running that kind of a stuff, you know?"

And you say, "Well, thank you. Thank you very much. I'll check that on the meter. Good. In this session have you tried to influence the meter?" whatever it is. "That's clean." In other words, there's the fish-and-fumble period. You actually sort of run a little assessment.

So you could have a package question in the middle rudiments which would run a nice assessment for you. But if it were too long, you'd get lost.

Now, if you're going to have such a package question, remember you're going to have to repeat it. So it had better be fairly standardized.

I'm telling you in this lecture how you figure these things out, rather than giving you a bunch of pat data, you understand?

Now, there will always be a fish-and-fumble period in Prepchecking as far as I can figure it out. Otherwise, for the sake of smoothness and gallantry, you're throwing away efficiency.

You're just discarding the possibility of getting the right What question.

You sit there and look at Mr. Meter and you say, "Oh, let me test out a few questions here now. What about throwing baseball bats at cops? What about throwing things at cops? What about doing things to cops? That's it, that's it. What about doing things to cops? Now, you were just telling me about throwing a baseball bat at a cop. All right. When was that?" See, that's a fish-and-fumble period.

Well, frankly, doing a list and nulling it is a fish-and-fumble period, isn't it? Well, there's always these areas in auditing when you're trying to find something out. And the mark of a good auditor is that he goes ahead and finds these things out without throwing the rudiments wildly out.

See, now you could go at this in such a way as to throw them wildly out. I'll give you an idea: "Well, this listing isn't going very well here, uh ... because I don't think you've given me very many right items for this particular list. They don't seem to really be the kind of item that I would expect on this list. So, this is sort of uh ... of .. uh ... crude here, and uh ... although we've listed twelve hundred and eighty-five items on this particular list and we only have two items on these other three lists, uh ... I - I think ... I think what we better do is uh ... figure out some better wording for the goal we found, and uh ... see whether or not we can't get this thing more adequately worded, because this thing doesn't show a sign of blowing. And we have twelve hundred and fifty items, you see, all on this one list, you see, and uh ... shows no signs of anything happening.

"So I think we ought to go about it that way. And uh ... if that's all right with you, why, we'll go back to the Goals Assessment.

"Now, uh ... what have I done to you in this session that you are upset about? Good. Good. Uh ... what was that? Yeah. Oh, I didn't do that, you know, at the beginning of the session."

Well, I think by the time you had done all that, you would have the PC ready for his - be measured for his straitjacket. Particularly as that type of auditing would have gradually led up with 825 withholds to the cubic withhold.

That'd be very corny, wouldn't it? But the funny part of it is, you can do some mighty wild, offbeat things in an auditing session if you do them very smoothly - particularly if they are in the guise of letting you find out where you're going - without giving the PC a bunch of missed withholds or making the PC withhold madly.

And the only thing you've got to avoid is committing yourself to a cycle of action you can't complete. And if you commit yourself to a cycle of action you can't complete, of course, you've had it. I'll give you the crudest, oldest example. "What has your boss done to you? Thank you. What has your boss done to you? Thank you. What has your boss done to you? Thank you. What has your boss done to you? Thank you. What has your boss done to you? Thank you. What has your boss done to you? What's the matter with you?"

See, that has committed you to a cycle you dare not complete.

I'll give you another old-time process: "Mock up some unconsciousness. Thank you. Mock up some unconsciousness. Thank you. (We'll get you over being unconscious all the time.) Mock up some unconsciousness. Thank you. Mock up some unconsciousness. Thank you. Mock up some unconsciousness. Thank you. What's the matter with you?"

In other words, that's committing yourself to a line of action you can't complete. Well, recognize that a question which lets the PC answer as a motivator in the middle rudiment is something you actually can't satisfactorily complete. It's all going to be astray. Something like this: You're going to say, "In this session have I missed a withhold on you?" "Yes."

See, you sit there like an idiot, man.

Now, the wrong way to weight the thing is to throw it over on to a Q and A. That is always wrong. No matter what you do, it is always wrong. Let that be your guiding principle.

So you say, "Good. Thank you. I will check this on the meter. In this session have I missed a withhold on you? That's dirty as a dishrag. Thank you very much.

"Now, in this session have you been up to something I didn't latch on to?" He says, "Yes."

"All right. Good. Thank you. I will check the meter on that. In this session have you been up to something I didn't latch on to? That's dirty. Thank you. Let's see, now. All right. What have you been up to that I didn't find out about? Ohhh! All right. Good. I will check that on the meter. What have you been up to that I didn't find out about? Thank you. That's clean." See, the mistake you make is always beginning a cycle which you feel would be very unsatisfactory to complete. But the big mistake - the big mistake - would be failing to complete a cycle you started.

Don't kid yourself. You're going to find yourself in an old bunch of western tales by old Charlie Russell, the western painter. He had an old plainsman named Bab, and Bab was talking about the time he was being chased by the Sioux Indians and he got into a canyon. And there was ten thousand Sioux came boiling in through the front of the canyon, you know, filling it up from wall to wall. He kept backing up further and further into the canyon. He finally looks around over his shoulder and it's a box canyon - it's totally cleaned off. Old Bab sits back and relaxes and doesn't go on with the story until somebody prompts him and says, "Well, Bab, what the hell happened?"

"Oh," he said, "they killed me."

That's where you're going to find yourself someday - back up that box canyon. There's no way out of it.

Well, let me tell you. The way you never get out of it is with a Q and A. You just never get out of it with a Q and A. Ask the right auditing question, is the way to prevent Q and A.

And it's all right for you to sit there and tell me, "All right, Ron, go on, invent the exact, perfect wording that always keeps us from never getting into a Q-and-A situation." I don't know. I don't speak Chinese. I couldn't invent it in Chinese, so why do you demand I invent it in English?

Now, the joke of the thing is that I can give you a good approximation; I can give you a good code situation. I can give you something that's probably completely embracive about the thing.

Well, let me tell you. Someday or another, you're going to run into somebody who is doing something weird, because PC's can invent them faster than you can cure them up, man. And you had better know the principles back of the auditing command - the "perfect auditing command" - as well as the command itself. Because you'll find yourself in a situation where the perfect auditing command doesn't pull the withhold!

You say, where am I at? Well, you're at a position where you have to develop an auditing command which does get the PC to give you whatever the PC is doing, and which gives you at once the only real mistake that you can make, which is to fail to complete the cycle of action and to do a Q and A. If you Q-and-A at that point, why, you've lost that much of the PC in the session.

Now, you don't always notice that a PC has gone out of session, because they sometimes drift out of session little by little, tiny by tiny by tiny. And the total aggregate of it is, is the guy is miles out of session, but he's gone on such a gradient scale, hardly anybody noticed.

It's like the prisoner that escaped from the jail. Just every day they were supposed to be sitting on their bunks at the last inspection. And every night when the guard came by (this was an actual escape, by the way, from Alcatraz, of all places), the prisoner was an inch closer to the door. And he gradually built it up so that the guard got so used to that, that he had a prisoner actually standing at the door at the time when the last inspection was made, you see? And finally the prisoner was able to stand at the door and keep the automatic lock from going shut, opened the door and walked out and swam to San Francisco. (I think they elected him mayor!) Anyway ...

A PC can drift out of session; you should know what he's drifting on. He's drifting on his feeling he cannot communicate to the auditor. That's what he's drifting out of session on. And a way to throw somebody wildly and almost permanently out of session is just lower the bars on him to prove to him conclusively and forever and aye, from there on out, that he will never be able to communicate to the auditor or he will never be able to tell any of his withholds.

You start punishing somebody for getting off their withholds and you produce this immediate and direct result. The fellow feels, then, he can never be audited. Why? That is - you see, you're dealing with the actual machinery of a mind. You're dealing with the actual responses of the mind. We're not playing with kid stuff here, you see? We're not playing with psychology or psychiatry or other dirty words, you see? We're actually functioning right straight on the middle buttons of the mind. And that is communication, withholds, missing withholds, that sort of thing. And the person will stay in there and pitch and do almost anything under the sun, moon and stars for an auditor that he can communicate to. He'll almost take anything off of an auditor he can communicate to.

You see me run a session someday that looks awful rough to you and you wonder "How in the name of God is that PC still in session?" If you thought emotion, misemotion, argument, things of this character - if you thought these threw people out of session - and if you thought that being kind and sweet and good as an auditor keeps somebody in session, you should watch a good, knockdown-drag-out session by somebody who knows better than to miss a withhold. And that is a pretty fantastic session.

I've done this, you see? I've asked an auditing question. The PC doesn't speak Chinese, the PC speaks English. I've asked an auditing question and I demand that that auditing question be answered, and go on and on, demanding it be answered see, the PC is trying to answer some other question - and just never permit the cycle to shift in any other direction than to a perfect completion of the answer of that auditing question.

Cheer the PC up. Say, "Yes, yes, you can talk to me about any of those things. That's fine. I'm glad to hear about that. Fine," and so forth. "But I asked you if you'd ever seen a rat. And you keep talking to me about hats!"

The PC will even come upscale on something like that. They say, "What the hell do you know, this guy listens to me. You know, he listens. That's true. I did talk to him about hats. He asked me have I ever seen a rat, and I said - I said 'Girls in their teens wear thick hats.' I did. I said that. And he heard it. But I heard him, and therefore I ought to tell him whether or not I have seen a rat. And I can tell him that, because he'll listen. Proves it, because he knows that I didn't answer the question.

"Yeah, I've seen a rat!"

There, that PC would be in session and come out the other end smiling. My God, you would have thought for half an hour there was nothing but a confounded dogfight going on in the room. That was because the perfect communication cycle was always insisted upon - that the answer to the auditing question was given. But you have to be very, very smart and hear your own questions because the PC very often answers your auditing question. And when you don't hear that exact answer and don't realize it's an exact answer and you refute it, well, you've had it.

But by permitting him to answer something else besides the question asked, you also throw the rudiments out. And that's not a Q and A. "I'll repeat the auditing question. What have you done, done, done-done? Not what have you thought about doing. I asked you something you've done."

"Oh, oh, oh, oh, yeah. You did, didn't you? (Guy listens. Good auditor.)" Funny part of it is that the cycle, the completed cycle of action, must take place. The cycle of communication must occur. It must go all the way through, but only on the subject which the auditor has introduced. Otherwise it's a complete miscontrol and it isn't a response to what was asked.

So if you think you can sit there and be kind, and you say, "Well, have you ever seen any rats?"

And the PC says, "Yes, I've s a lot of girls wear thick hats."

And you say, "Well, good," because Ron always said that you mustn't Q-and-A and you have to accept the PC's response.

Don't be surprised if at the end of a half an hour of doing this kind of thing your PC is not in session, because the withhold in this case you have created, and the withhold is the right answer to your auditing question. Yes, this thing falls on both sides of the fence. So therefore there is a thing called control, there is a thing called the right answer, and so forth.

So you must ask a question - this is the rest of it; you have asked a question that can be answered - and then complete that cycle of action of getting that question that you asked answered. And don't buy any other answers.

If you do that smoothly, man, PC's will just do almost anything for you, including go Clear.

But you see where the tightrope walk is - is how do you keep the PC in session while not permitting the PC to give you the wrong answer to the auditing question. Well, you have to be smart enough to know when he has given you the right answer, and when be has given you the right answer, that you buy it and you don't challenge him.

And I'll say this at least once: you're going to find yourself sitting there gaping. The PC is absolutely right. He has answered the auditing question. And you have developed the whole thing into a dogfight.

You said, "Do you have a present time problem?"

And the PC said, Yes."

You know, that kind of a situation. But it'll be in some other guise. You'll be prepchecking somebody and you'll say, "Well, did you ever really know your mother?" Why you asked that, God knows, you see?

And the PC says, "Well, I ... uh ... actually, actually, I don't know." Well, the question is, did the PC answer the cycle? Is it part of the cycle? Is that a right answer? And you go up in smoke. And then you finally look back at your question, and you realize that he's given you the only possible answer he could give you under the circumstances. And that is the answer to the auditing question, and you're the one who has thrown him out of session.

But there's two ways, now, he can go out of session: (1) is you "complete the cycle of action" - or the cycle of communication - on a wrong answer; of course, the right answer is now a missed withhold. Or you fail to complete the cycle of action on a right answer and, of course, now the right answer is a missed withhold. Now, that is the tightrope walk which you walk, and you should know exactly what you're doing with an auditing question.

Now, when you see a session running off the rails, when you see a session doing peculiar and odd and strange things and the PC doesn't look right with your auditing, don't look at the PC as a peculiar ape. Don't develop that. And neither develop a good communistic self-criticism.

Don't develop that either. Just look at the questions which you're asking in a session and ask it to yourself if they are answerable by this PC and if you are accepting the right answers that the PC gives you here. Just look at the whole thing on a cycle of action on a communication line.

See, a cycle of communication. Is it complete? Have you asked a question? Has the PC answered the question? Have you then responded in such a way as the PC knew you [the pc] answered the question? And have you straightened out what you were trying to straighten out? Well, if you've done all those things, and so forth, right, and the PC is getting worse, then I'll let you in on something - something very, very tremendous: It must be his environment that is caving him in.

Now, the way it goes - what you've got to reconcile yourself to - is your PC drifts out of session, something is going wrong. You're doing something that is failing to complete that communication cycle. Doing something that appears to a Q and A. You're doing something like this.

Could be in your earlier sessions that you've inherited a PC, of course, that has been mucked up with this kind of thing and you have to straighten out the PC's communication cycle and that sort of thing. But if you have to go on straightening out a PC's communication cycle, if you have to go on patching the PC up, if you have to go on crowding him in session, session after session, if you have to go on sweating blood over this PC, look at your own wording and your auditing and this lecture and you will have the answer. You'll be able to analyze it.

It's a very ordinary thing to analyze. I mean it's a very easy thing to analyze. Funny part of it is, it'll be as crazy when you finally see what you are doing as this business of "Since the last time I audited you, have I missed a withhold on you?" And, well, it isn't quite a question, don't you see?

So that has been followed by this, that and the other thing and drifted out. And then one day, all of a sudden, you get the right question. And the right question is "Since the last time I audited you, have you done anything that you are withholding?"

And the PC says, "Bzrmrmrmz-zz-zz-zz-zz-zz," and so on and so on.

And you say, "My God, my God, my God!"

Well, remember something, there's every period between session has been missed. You've walked into a lousy-auditing situation then, you see? There you've got a ghastly thing staring you in the face. It's always going to be coming back up and should be prepchecked. So you have to prepcheck some rudiments. You see that?

Mark my words, it'll be something like that. It'll be something the auditor is doing that the PC cannot respond on and the auditor isn't finishing the cycle with or can't finish the cycle with.

If you get that down pat, you'll be able to analyze your own auditing, you'll be able to analyze auditing in general, you'll be able to tell why PC's are improving or not improving.

Only thing TRs do is get you to improve your skill in handling these things so you're not taken by sudden surprise and so forth, so that these responses are very usual and natural. But I always think it's best to know the principles underlying these natural responses, and there are some very solid ones.

Okay?

Thank you. Thank you for staying over.