Thank you.

Thank you.

Well, how are you tonight? You mean you are still alive? Oh, gee! That's rough. That's rough. This is the what.?

Okay. Here we are with Saint Hill Special Briefing Course lecture number two, 20 Nov. AD 12.

Audience: 20 Nov. AD 12.

There's a lot of material that you could have and memorize and do things with on the subject of auditing. There are probably thousands and thousands of rules that you could go by in auditing - thousands of them, probably. The way to audit - the way - to audit has only a few very fundamental rules.

Twenty Nov. AD 12, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course lecture one.

When you look at these thousands and thousands of rules of thumbs and maxims and what you do and what you don't do and so forth, if you haven't got these few little basics down, you're not going to audit. Auditing does not occur.

All right. You might be interested that a couple of goals have been found this week. I don't know how this happened; must have been an accident of some sort or another. Let me point out something to you:. they were there all the time to be found. Horrible! You don't realize what a horrible crack that is!

In other words, there's what you might call some very, very senior data on the subject of auditing. One of those is: Auditing is a third dynamic activity, basis of it is communication and you have to audit the pc in front of you. And frankly, you violate those and you've had it. I don't care how many other thousands of rules you have followed. If you have violated those little rules, well, you've had it, that's all. You won't ever have any auditing occur.

Now, there is a very distinct possibility that the - with finding these bypassed items you'll start getting some free needles. You bypass a lot of items in listing. Got a rock slam and didn't find out anything about it and there it was, and so forth, see? And once you've got those picked up, why, you'll have a free needle.

Somebody comes along and he tells you this, that or the other thing in auditing, and to you, it seems to make sense that you handle your E - Meter on the right rather than on the left or something like this - the reason you aren't getting anyplace is because you're handling the E - Meter on the right or - and you should be handling it on the left. Or you have to take up the pc's present time problems and that's what you're not doing and that's why your auditing is bad. Or pcs ARC break and therefore don't read on the meter and that's why you're not getting anyplace, and that, frankly, how can you expect to audit a pc if you have dirty fingernails? You must improve your diction in order to audit a pc properly, and so forth, and go practice with diction. Your E - Meter reading must be more rapid. And if your E - Meter reading was more rapid, why, then you could audit a pc better. You could just go on down with innumerable items - all of them quite valid - which if you repaired them, without repairing the first three I have mentioned, would not make one damn bit of improvement in your auditing.

Now, a free needle is a needle that doesn't read. It's not stuck. The E - Meter has to be turned on - and when you ask questions it doesn't respond. It differs from an ARC broke needle basically on the aspect of the pc. And if any of you have ever accidentally looked across to the chair across from you there, you will see there's a great deal can be learned from the pc. Really, a great deal can be learned from the pc. I want to point that out to you as one of the fundamentals of auditing. You might have overlooked it. Okay?

You can be told that there are thousands of things and some of you, and some auditors, get into a complete fog of the fantastic number of things they have to do and remember in order to audit. And in doing and remembering these thousands of things which they must do, they neglect those little fundamentals. They cease to audit the pc in front of them. They start auditing thousands of fundamentals. They neglect communication as the primary function and action in auditing and they sit there as a totally individuated item - island - a first dynamic auditing a nowhere. And, of course, they never get any auditing done. Those fundamentals have been totally overlooked.

All right. Well, enough of these pleasant preb * aries, let's get on with the lecture, huh? Now, I'm not going to give you the basic lecture on the fundamentals of auditing. But I'm going to point some few things out to you which you might find of considerable use in auditing. The auditor who isn't getting anyplace basically isn't perceiving the existence of the pc. He isn't perceiving the pc. That's the crux of the thing. Therefore, you can absolutely count on the fact that an auditor who has an oppterm on the third and fourth dynamic - that an oppterm on the third or fourth dynamic is liable to make a lousy auditor.

If those fundamentals are overlooked, it doesn't matter how precisely you turn your toes in as you sit in the chair doing TR 0, it doesn't matter how much Listerine you gargle before the session, how many advertisements you put out about what a good auditor you are, hoping the pc will hear them and be impressed. It wouldn't matter a doggone what you did; you've neglected the fundamentals of auditing.

Why? It's not that he's in a games condition - not that he's in a games condition - that's not the point. It's something else. It's perception. And I want to tell you something about these items you see busily rock slamming. I don't think you know very much about these items that rock slam like crazy on the meter in front of you. You don't adjudicate the rest of the stuff that can be picked up off these items. These items mean a great deal more than simply a rock slam on a meter.

The fundamentals of auditing don't even consist of an E - Meter. They're very simple. Auditing is a third dynamic activity. There's the auditor and pc and they're basically a group. The activity they're engaged in is communication and the auditor is auditing the pc in front of him. Those things are occurring, auditing will happen. If those things are not occurring, you could handle these thousands of rules. . . Actually, I could go back over them and check them out of various handbooks, lectures and texts. And I'm sure I could count up thousands of them. You could follow all the rest of these rules letter perfect - and you would never make any auditing take place.

You get rock slamming items, you're getting the pc toward Clear. That is the road to Clear - is milestoned by rock slamming items. He isn't going anyplace else, he's going Clear. And it doesn't matter - it doesn't matter how you find these items. It doesn't matter a bit. I can tell you 8,767 methods, almost off the bat, to turn on a rock slamming item. It doesn't matter how you turn on this rock slamming item. You got an item and the pc is on the road to Clear, and that's all there is to that.

Of course, a Saint Hill graduate goes out of here and goes back to an organization or goes back someplace or another, they always make the inevitable remark. They don't make it because I have said they make it. Usually they don't make it at first - they're being polite or they're being something or they're being something. They're being nice about the area or zone they're in. And sooner or later, because they've withheld it or overlooked it and are withholding it and so forth, they will break down in a letter to me - it'll be the fifth or sixth or seventh letter they've written me, or something like that and they'll say, "But the auditing that is being done around here - oh, my God! Oh, my God! Oh, my God!" It's very expressive.

And now I've looked this thing over very, very carefully and I have found out that when the pc doesn't get the other side of the package, huh - huh - hee - hee, he's going to stop right there with that rock slamming item you just found, ha - ha! There it is.

Now, of course, you say, "Well, this is a Saint Hill graduate, he knows all these tricks and he looks good and he's this and that and the other thing." Somebody out in the field will say this, you see? They'd say, "Oh, well, of course, they've just learned all these little tricks and all these little nuances and that sort of thing. And therefore, they look good." Now, I don't think that's it at all. I think around here you find out that auditing can occur. I'm usually telling you that it must occur. And out of sheer agony of trying to get off the hot seat, why, you have to audit. Because nobody's putting up with it if you're not.

He knows now! Now, how does he know? What does he know? What? What? What does he know? Do you ever realize that the way to make somebody feel like they know without knowing anything is just give them a good, swift kick. Now he knows.

And basically your case gains are coming on up the line, other things are occurring. And through practice, through interest in what you're doing, through these various things, you start auditing the pc in front of you. All of a sudden a long, blue spark hits you one day and you say, "Maybe if I asked the pc I could find out." So communication starts to occur. Then you get so many changes of auditors that you can't conceive of auditing being anything but a third dynamic activity.

As a matter of fact there's a disgraceful comic strip in the Herald Tribune about the army. And it's disgraceful because it brags up the army all the time, all the time, all the time, advertise, advertise, advertise, you know? And it's got a sergeant and it's got a character named Beetle. And seems like this Beetle, who is a goldbrick ...

So, in the final analysis, you are being driven, actually, in that direction, until you recognize it. And what a Saint Hill graduate misses when he gets back into an area or an organization, what he misses, is any feeling that auditing can happen. He's surrounded by people that really don't think auditing can happen. They've very seldom seen it happen. See, they very seldom run into the fact that there is a right way to do it. They don't think there is a right way to do it. They think it's something they dream up as they go along.

He's not as good as I used to be at goldbricking, but he's pretty good, in an amateur sort of way. Goldbricking is a fine art, man. It is a fine art. Now, it's that action taken by an individual who, finding himself in a position which he doesn't like, decides to make the best of it. And he can do this so artistically he even winds up with a medal.

They think this and they think that. They do an awful lot of thinking. They do an awful lot of figuring. They don't know that there's a right way to audit; that's what it boils down to. They don't know that there's a right way to audit.

Anyhow, Beetle was apparently complaining about all of the rough go and how he was sick and couldn't go out on the obstacle course or something like this, so the sergeant took him out to the door and kicked him, good and hard, down the steps. Good swift kick. And Beetle is sitting there amongst the soup - kitchen stuff saying to his pal, "And you know, I do feel better." Of course, the sergeant had said, "I'll cure it!" just at the moment of impact. So of course he gave him an engram and he feels better, and there's Beetle. I thought that was very, very subtle for a comic strip to pick up.

And you get any unpracticed auditor who has not been very ferociously schooled on this subject and that is the first thing he overlooks - that there's a right way to audit. And the right way to audit is to consider an auditing session a third dynamic activity that has to do with communication, and that you audit the pc who is in front of you. And then auditing occurs.

No, an impact gives a sensation of knowingness. People think they know something. "That will teach you a lesson," is one of the greatest clich6s ever uttered. But it is quite fundamental. It's based on this same business. Two automobiles come together with a crash and those that survive it now know better. But they have an actual sensation of knowing something.

Another thing you get over around here is being self - conscious about auditing. There's so much auditing going around and so much being demanded and your brains are so strained - trying to avoid you, a thetan, probably - that you get into a state where you haven't got any time to be self - conscious about it. And one of the things that happens around here quite routinely is, an auditor at Saint Hill looks very relaxed when he's auditing. It's one of the points you look for. He's stopped worrying - whether from apathy or otherwise.

Now, the pc is in a mystery sandwich. There he is and the mystery glues him to the GPM, see? That - what's it all about? He doesn't know what it's all about. So you've come down the line and you've found something on which he has impacts and from which he has suffered impacts. His overts and withhold at this point are accompanied by not - a rock slamming item. It does not run like this: "I don't like little girls." See? After that the item "little girls" doesn't rock slam. You got the idea?

But if you neglect these fundamentals, then you can add thousands of things to do. Now you have to have rules to handle pcs' origins. Now you have to have rules to handle this and rules to handle that and rules to handle something else, because these fundamentals have been neglected.

So when you find this you haven't got - you haven't got the result of having said this. Nor have you got the result of him having slapped some little girl's wrist. See? Or having taken some candy away from some little girl. I hope I'm making my point here.

I'm very obliging. If somebody demands rules of me - if they're foolish enough to demand rules of me - I'll give them rules. And they'll learn better after a while. That's about what it amounts to. Uniformity of an auditing session is highly desirable. A relatively muzzled state on the part of the auditor is highly desirable, if an auditor is going to add a bunch of nonsense into the lineup. But this is all curative, isn't it? That's a curative measure. That's trying to keep people from multiplying and adding nonsenses which have nothing to do with auditing.

A rock slamming item has mayhem with exclamation points behind it. It's got impact like mad! And it's much to his amazement as he runs on down the track and he thinks he's cleaned all this up, to find out that one of his pastimes, you see, was eating little girls after cooking them slowly alive over fires, you see? There was something went along with this rock slamming item.

The other part of it is that the human race wots not of a third dynamic activity - doesn't know anything about it. And as far as communication is concerned, to this day I'm still kicking myself. When I think about it, I get very cross with myself, and knowing better than to run motivators, I don't get angry with Reg. But if I didn't know about motivators I would be furious with him. But I didn't take a tape recorder, a pocket tape recorder, to a cocktail party that was given on the Queen Elizabeth. The officers give cocktail parties. I'd just love to have that tape! I could turn it on right now and play you ten minutes of it, and honest to Pete, you'd hardly be able to sit in your chairs! You'd just be dying with laughter. Because there isn't any communication in the lot of it. All they do is evaluate and invalidate. And no communication; nobody ever finishes a cycle of communication; things they talk about are non sequitur - never follow up any subject with any other related subject. It's a dispersed mishmash of invalidation and evaluation. And that's what passes for communication.

Now, the amount of drama that I have pointed out to you contained in the overt or contained in the withhold has nothing to do with it. See, the significance, the dramatic story behind the overts of the pc as you pull overts off of him have nothing to do ... It's what he considers at that particular time an overt and what he can take responsibility for. And you'll pull as much as he can take responsibility for; you won't pull any more than that.

The most marvelous condensed example I ever heard of it in my life was at that cocktail party. As I walked out of the door of the cabin Reg said, "Well, I don't know, you don't look very good there - tuxedo with this tape recorder. It makes your shoulder, you know - bunches your shoulder up and so I wouldn't take it." That's what he said there. So I didn't get the recording and you can't have an example of what Homo sap considers ... Wild! I mean, you can't duplicate it. You'd have to get out a slide rule and figure this thing out. How many evaluations and invalidations can you get in per given remark? Everybody's trying to stop everybody else's communication - no communication involved. Communication is basically cause, distance, effect. Well, you can add a few more of the rules and duplication and things like that in - you got the whole definition of it. It never occurs in Homo sap.

But there we're talking just about overts - talking about nice little overts that don't have anything much to do with the price of fish. You've got to pull them in order to get a pc on the road. Now, you're talking about overts there; you're not talking about items. Now, a rock slamming item doesn't have drama behind it, it has "banned in Boston" behind it, see? It's too brutal, too inhuman and too this and too that to suffer print. And that applies to any pc you'll audit on the GPM line.

So an auditor, or a person learning to be an auditor, has his first strike on him because he's been associating with Homo sap. He would make a perfect auditor if it weren't for that. We've got to cure him of it. Therefore, we have the rules, like TR 4. We have rules like Q and A. We have other things that we have to put in. What are those things doing there? Well, they're trying to bypass and not let into the session a number of human aberrations which already exist in the communication habits of the person who is trying to audit.

Wasn't the result - this rock slamming item is not as a result of accumulated slappings of wrists, you see. This is wiping out the countryside every now and then, don't you know? That rock slam means something.

Now, I had somebody just do something very astonishing. They didn't realize that when the pc originated that the cycle should be permitted - that the auditing cycle occurred when the pc originated. They thought it only occurred when the auditor originated. And that's why they Qed - and - Aed. Only the auditor was supposed to begin and end a communication cycle. Well, that immediately is not a third dynamic activity then, and you're not auditing the pc in front of you, because the pc in front of you is not permitted to originate a communication. Follow this?

Now, in view of the fact that a rock slamming item can impart its rock slam, as a lock can be hooked onto an engram and then read, you see. This lock doesn't have any - going back to Dianetics: Modern Science of Mental Health - this lock doesn't have any punch in it. He saw a man with a bandaged face, you see? And this clicks on the meter. Why does this click on the meter? There's no impact in it - just saw a man with a bandaged face. Well, that read is borrowed away from - is borrowed away from - an engram, which has impact in it. See, force is involved here. But that force can impart up the line so that things without force then tend to borrow some of that force and give you a read, see? What you've got is a restimulation of the force, is what's reading.

What is an origin? The pc says, "Black is white." Well, an auditor who is still - he still has the cramps and coughs of being a Homo sap; he isn't, case-wise, up the line as far as he might be, lot of those things - he tends to handle this a la Homo sap. But don't think that that makes it any less a violation of communication. A communication is just a pure cycle and a communication cycle can go two ways.

Now, similarly you can very often get a reliable item - apparently reliable item - that doesn't have very much force in it, which has borrowed its rock slam. But on assessment you'll find out this person is rock slamming like mad on Scientology. There's no impacts involved in Scientology, don't you see? That isn't because there's any impacts involved or any force involved. It'll be something that's quite like Scientology but it really has force in it. See? And you get that rock slam has been borrowed from this other item. Well, you could get that other item by representing Scientology.

This is not the fault of auditing that he's doing that; it's because he's developed bad habits. Somebody says, "Black is white." This violates his sense of something - or - other, so he writes script. So he says, "This person is nuts." So he says, "You're nuts. Black is not white." That's Homo sap at work, you see? A big figure - figure is added into the middle of the communication cycle. Where the hell do you find any think in a communication formula? It doesn't exist. You find most auditors, learning to audit, have difficulties with pcs in direct ratio to the amount of think that they add into the communication cycle. That's the extraneous action.

But you take a rock slammer, all you've got to do is oppose the thing you find him rock slamming on. You know, he's rock slamming on Scientology or an auditor or something like that. You find this person rock slamming on that; you want to cool that off or get the case anyplace, you've got to oppose that rock slam. "Who or what would oppose ... ?" whatever you found rock slamming.

Pc says something, so they think something. Well, unfortunately, "to compute" was part of the definition of an auditor. So we just have to throw it out. Because an auditor actually doesn't listen and compute. The less computing he does, the better off he is, man. Pc says, "Black is white." What is the proper response to "black is white"? "Thank you." It's just a pure communication cycle.

Now, if you represent this item you will find out he was really rock slamming on something else. You see, you get the real item that underlies it. But that doesn't matter. Because he's in the atmosphere of Scientology, it's in restimulation all the time, and you're never even going to get down to pull that other item until you give it an opposition. You see that?

And do you know that every time a pc has ever asked you to do something in an auditing session has been after you have goofed the cycle originating from the pc about - four times - at least once. Pc originated and you took it up and did something, the pc originated and you took it up and did something. So the pc, now being in auto - control, says to open the window. The only reason you need any definitive action between a pc wanting you to do something and the pc originating, is because the pc wants you to do something after you have failed to accept his origins.

So you could use a rock slammer against Scientology or against a Scientology organization or any of the parts of Scientology - you could use that rock slam just by listing goals against it. "What goal might you have that'd be an overt against Scientology?" You see? You could list goals against it directly.

You've queried his origin, one way or the other, before he starts thinking about the environment. Don't you realize that's a symptom of being out of session? Well, how did you drive him out of session? By not letting a communication cycle occur, of course. Every time you break down the cycle of communication, you wind up with a pc slightly and increasingly on auto - audit. Every time you break down the communication cycle, to the degree that you break down a communication cycle, you break down the third dynamic activity, individuate the pc, and after that, he starts running the session.

But look at it: it's a soft item. See, it really doesn't have the violence back of it. It doesn't go very far down the track. Very short - term proposition. So its rock slam is liable to fold up under a little bit of treatment or a little bit of listing or a little bit of that or something of the sort. It's not a good item to list goals against because it isn't firm, because it has no force behind it. It doesn't matter how well it rock slams or how repetitively it rock slams on the meter, see? It must have borrowed its rock slam from something else that did have force in it. See? Do you follow this?

The reason you have trouble with a pc is directly related to the number of times you have not permitted the pc to originate. Pc only starts asking you to do things after you have failed to accept the pc's origins. So you fail to accept the pc's origins, he winds up in auto - control. He individuates out of the session.

The character of the rock slam doesn't tell you. But the ease with which the slam folds up tells you. Now, some of these rock slamming items fold up - prrrt! You find them in a session and they slam - slam - slam - slam - slam - slam - slam. End of the session you can still get them - slam - slam - slam. You pick them up next session it's, pnyeh. Nothing. What happened to them?

Now, in view of the fact the pc is aberrated, and I wish to call this to your attention, the pc very easily individuates. It is quite a trick to keep a pc from individuating and going onto auto - audit. How many of you consider a pc in - session when his thinkingness is under your control? Same question, exactly the same question, is how many times do you have to get in the mid ruds? You have to get in the middle rudiments as often as you don't have a pc in - session. It's very simple. You have to get in the mid ruds to the degree that the pc's thinkingness is not under the auditor's control.

Well, obviously, merely the exposure of it brought it, as a lock, into view and so evaporated it. You must have been next door to a rock slamming item. See? It must have been a lock on top of it. Just like Scientology ... Let's say he has a long history of burning hospitals - you know, a good military background of burning hospitals. Every time he saw the Red Cross he said, "Well, obviously using that as an HQ," so he bombed it, you see. He just couldn't ever resist. Because he knew that all hospitals were false.

What's this pc doing? He's sitting over there commenting on this and commenting on that and doing something else and thinking something else and thinking something else and thinking something else and invalidating this and evaluating that and suppressing something else and failing to reveal something else. What's all this, man? That's a very non - third dynamic activity, fellow. That's two highly individual individuations in contest - something that looks like a games condition.

Well, after he's gone on for a long time the mere breath of the idea that anybody's going to heal anything, see - as far departed as the FDA is from the facts in the United States, see - and he'll rock slam on Scientology. But it's a lock rock slam, don't you see? That doesn't make it any less a reliable item. You use it in all ways that you would use any reliable item. But just remember, it's going to fold up awful fast. See? It's a cousin; it isn't the thing.

Now, of course, your pc - being a bit aberrated as he comes along the line - getting better, he is less susceptible to this individuation; therefore you can't expect the pc's thinkingness to be totally under the auditor's control in the first session. But after three or four sessions, it ought to be pretty smooth. What would you think of the auditor who took a pc whose thinkingness was under the auditor's control, and then three or four sessions later had a pc whose thinkingness was not under the auditor's control? The auditor had to do something to bring this about. And what the auditor had to do to bring this about is just interrupt the communication cycles as many times as possible in as many ways as possible and get as little auditing done as possible. You eventually will wind up with just that occurring. Pc's thinkingness goes out from underneath the control of the auditor.

Now, you've got to oppose it, though. If it rock slammed, if you found it, located it, checked it out and it slammed, you got to oppose it. Because there is some other terminal or oppterm which is right next door to it which is also a lock which will slam as heavy as it. And if you go on down and find something else on the case, you find another oppterm - you found that "Scientology" is an oppterm - now you found another oppterm, below that by "represent," he - you've left some kind of a lock - up over here which the pc is. And it's got some pain in it, and the pc's going to hang right there. Doesn't matter - it's going to be light, it's going to be nothing, see? But nevertheless, it's there. And the case hangs up right at that point.

Number of times you have to get in mid ruds is a direct index of the amount of thinkingness going on in the pc, individuated from the session. And that's a direct index to how much individuation the pc has from the auditor. And that's how that third dynamic is broken down. Two first dynamics actually do not make a third dynamic. Any way you want to - you want to paint the barber pole it still is not going to work out. Two first dynamics don't make a third dynamic. An auditor's perception is not the perception of an individual looking at another individual; it's a third dynamic perception.

Now, the case starts in to this rock slam channel, then, at any little point. That - and there's just dozens and dozens and dozens and dozens, countless dozens of ways to get him into the rock slam channel. You can take almost any part of Scientology and get him into the rock slam channel with it. You can take "mid ruds" and get him into the rock slam channel.

Now, I hate to build up the whole subject of intuition, because a lot of people say, "I don't have to use an E - Meter. I don't like an E - Meter. As a matter of fact E - Meters are no good, and they're very, very bad for auditors." It usually starts off in that gradient scale and gets more and more into a rave and they start talking about why they should use intuition.

You know, every once in a while this pc has a withhold from me and then 46 session" is consistently dirty as a - "session" is consistently dirty. Get a dirty read every time I say "session." Sometimes it doesn't and sometimes it does, and sometimes there's a dial - wide rock slam. When anything goes wrong with the session, or the pc has a little withhold in the session of some kind or another, we get a dial - wide rock slam. Well, that's an open bid to get the rock slam channel. Get whatever you can that is closest to it, "session," "auditing," something like that, opposition it - anything that'll turn that rock slam on, see? Just fish around till you get something, turn on a rock slam, oppose it, put the two down on your line plot. You've entered the rock slam channel.

Well, intuition is something that you could step all over, and probably be better off for it if it was that type of individuation which a person develops so that he won't have to confront anything the other person is doing. Now, we're not talking about that type of intuition; we're talking about pure, actual intuition. There is a knowingness about whether the pc is in - session, is not in - session - hasn't very much to do with looking at the pc. The auditor sitting there feels, knows, that the pc is in or out of session. Well, that's just a piece of perception. It's a perceptivity. And the perception of the auditor is good or bad. And it's bad to the degree that he has departed from the third dynamic back toward a first dynamic.

You see, if it slams you can enter the rock slam channel. And at the end of that channel is the goal. And that channel leads down between terminals and oppterms. If you figured a road which had large black balls getting progressively bigger on the left - hand curb and the right - hand curb, and as you drove down that road with these great, big, black spheres to the right of you and to the left of you, a pair each time, and you kept driving between big, black spheres, a pair every time; you'd go over a horizon sooner or later down to the end and find a puff of nothing and that would be the goal, see? That's the way the thing maps.

In other words, you get a deterioration of perceptivity. If you're real hot and you haven't got very much on the third or fourth dynamic and you're not in any big games condition with the pc - you know, you haven't got lots of oppterms on the third and fourth dynamic and you're in pretty good shape as far as pcs are concerned and you're not fighting the session all the way and that sort of thing. You're auditing along and all of a sudden the pc gets a withhold, you don't see it here, man, you don't see it on the meter. There's the pc sitting over there, and the pc's eyes have gone - kind of gone a slate gray. And you could probably track it all down. And a scientist of the purest modern school would say that you could detect this by various characteristics.

However, the pc, by getting it all locked up and messed up and keyed in and monkeyed up one way or the other has got this roadway pretty well twisted up from where he sits. But it is never twisted up from where the auditor sits. To the pc it looks like the end of the road is at the beginning of the road is at the end of the road, that it's all tied in a bowline on a bight in the middle of the road, that it's all a black mass. No, no.

I spent a number of years trying to figure out what these various characteristics were, studying it on the basis of whether or not I was noticing something peculiar. Because in 1950, 1 had a bunch of people around me who were nagging me about the fact that there must be characteristics that told me what the situation was. And I finally have to come to the conclusion that there were no indications. You could study these indications till hell froze over and you still wouldn't have explained this very interesting fact - that I know when a pc has an ARC break before the pc finds it out, without even looking at a meter, and without looking at the expression on the pc's face or the position of his hands or how he's twitching his fingers. He hasn't found it out yet. But I find it out. How do you explain that?

It is not to the auditor. It is just a road and it's got a black ball on the right and a black ball on the left. And all the black balls on the left are oppterms. And all the black balls on the right are terminals. And these things are always in pairs, and when you find a pair of them they rock slam against each other. And you go down the road and you keep driving down the road, and you drive far enough down the road you're going to run into a goal. And then it's easy to drive down the road because you know what you're driving on. And you keep on driving and you get to the end of the pairs of black balls and you get the Rock and the opprock and everything goes poof! and you've got a Clear on your hands.

Perception. On what wavelength? Same wavelength as in space opera. Dolls, by the way, seldom have names. They know each other. How do they know each other? Well, it's very simple. How do you know it's a red light or a green one? See? Joe always feels like Joe. Bill feels like Bill and Pete feels like Pete. In other words, you're talking to Pete and Pete feels a certain way. So that's Pete. Actually, a much safer way of identifying people. You can forge passports - try and forge a wavelength! No, there's no doubt about it - thetans communicate. Thetans communicate, not through MIEST. You don't even have to talk about wavelengths. Thetans communicate.

That's an easy road to travel. It is far easier than you are making it - far easier. I've been conducting a whole bunch of series - a whole series of test audits of one kind or another. I've been going over this subject - wow! Really - diving in here and there and straightening out this point and that point about it. And the only reason the auditor can only drive one pair, two pair of black balls down this road is because he hasn't driven by pairs. He got an oppterm and an oppterm and then he got a terminal and a terminal, and then he got an oppterm and all of a sudden the road is barriered. There's a landslide.

Now, there's some jerk by the name of Rhine. . . Oh, excuse me, I didn't mean to say this. I know he's an honorable man, and so forth. There's some bird's got a racket down at Durham University. And he runs a big swindle of getting funds to investigate extrasensory perception. And all this is very fascinating, but he's copped most of the coin. Well, we have to speak in these terms, because after all we're talking about this bird. And actually, the number of validities which he has done in this are all MEST communication lines. On some fashion, he tests it all against MEST. He enters MEST into it at every hand. And then he enters something else when he isn't entering some MIEST: he's entering proof See, when he isn't entering MEST to test out whether there's extrasensory perception, then he's entering proof

Why can't he go any further? You might say it's the magnetic attraction of those terminals and oppterms which he didn't pair up. And when he didn't pair up a pair, he left something that will drag him back. And he will see that drag - back expressed in a rising, sticking tone arm. The tone arm will go up four and a half, five or go low. It can also go low. Case making no progress. Case gives you the same items over and over and over.

"I'm going to test whether or not you can read my mind. Now, I am thinking of a number. Now, after you've read my mind, I want you to write the number down on a piece of paper, and then you show me the piece of paper and I'll tell you whether or not that was the number I was thinking of " How cuckoo can you get? That's proof, man, which is one of the biggest aberrative buttons on the track. You're going to test extrasensory perception through the aberration of proof!

It's like you were driving down this highway, see; you're going lickety-split down the highway and you're doing about eighty, and you say, "Oh man, this is really the most, you know. Flat. Easy. We're getting terminals." And, oh, everything's going along fine and so forth. And all of a sudden it's just like somebody put a jack under the rear wheels. And man, you step on that accelerator, you know, and that engine roars but there's no traction. And you just keep punching the accelerator.

Now, you start walking through the forest in some wild place and you try to explain it, but you don't see a bird. You've got a gun in your pocket - it isn't even available - but you just don't see a bird, you don't see a squirrel, a deer, a chipmunk, nothing. You see nothing! And you go out next time without a gun in your pocket and you see birds, squirrels, chipmunk, deer, rattlesnakes. What goes on? You're emanating menacefulness as long as you have a gun in your pocket. It isn't whether they see the gun or not; that's modern science, you see? They just know, because you know, that you're dangerous.

Of course, a good thing to do at that time is vent your temper on the pc. Why? What's all this? Well, it's just the fact that you passed one of those spheres back there, and it's still back there. Pc can't go any further. His attention is being dragged back to that.

Honest, I've seen old - timers out on the frontiers, up around the Rockies and so on, comment on this when I was a little kid until it's the most threadbare record I think I know anything about, you know? They're always up to this. They would carefully take a gun out to get themselves a deer and they would see no deer.

Now, what is this sphere? What is this sphere? The sphere is something the pc knows. The pc knows. Why? Because in any one of these pairs - unless they're lock pairs; and you can't tell the difference between a lock pair and a real pair - there's impact. And that rock slam carries - even if there wasn't any force involved and it was just a lock, you know, it still carries the idea of knowingness. But you get one of these with real force in it and try to bypass it, and he thinks of knowledge as behind him. There's something over there he should know about. And he just sticks to it. He sticks to the mystery of it all. What is it?

Now, apparently some thetans emanate more than other thetans. Apparently BBC has more broadcast variety than radio Jersey or something, or ... You get the idea? I mean there's apparently a difference here. You can know more about one thetan than you could about another thetan. And you apparently get relays from one thetan more about another one. Well, you're talking about various communication factors which are beyond the immediate recognition of matter, energy, space and time. And this in itself is a very, very interesting subject as long as you don't try to drag it down into MEST, because then of course you're talking about MEST communication. See?

Any time you get him into one of these terminals or oppterms he says he knows something and he cognites like mad. He's telling you he knows and actually during the ensuing - the ensuing day or two he's liable to try to add up his whole life into this, you see. He's found "little girls," you see, as an oppterm. And now he's added up all of his life and his whole track and everything from two hundred trillion years ago and everything he does and the significance of the way he holds his teaspoons, you see - this is all added up into this one terminal or this one oppterm. And, of course, he's trying to integrate his whole case into about one - thousandth of his case. Not to give you an idea that there's a thousand of these things, but you - it's that small a percentage.

It's a fascinating subject, communication without MEST intervention. This is a very fascinating subject. And it can't be studied by Doctor Rhineswine. Because all he can do is drag extrasensory perception down into MEST through the button called "proof," and then say, "Well, there it is," and so on. Well, that, I'm afraid, doesn't have much to do with it.

Why does he have a feeling like it contains all the answers? It's because of that force and impact in it, don't you see? Give anything force and impact enough and somebody thinks it has all the answers. If you were to take somebody out in the middle of the sidewalk and kick him for half an hour, every time he passed the spot - if you could get him near the spot - he would have an idea that he knew. He wouldn't know what he knew, but he'd have an idea that he knew something.

We've tried to use this in processing. Tried to process people along in this. The biggest single button we have that it exists is this fantastic fact, which has occurred and occurred and occurred and occurred: We take pc A who is having trouble with human B. And we process pc A. We never go near and he doesn't write, he doesn't communicate in any fashion, with human B, and we straighten out the problem, and all of a sudden it evaporates with B. This has left a lot of auditors blinking. We have done this time after time after time.

The result of impact is a sensation that one knows. It's a sensation of knowingness. That's why people teach a lesson by punishment. This is one of the big mechanisms of this whole universe, is the lesson by punishment: "If we spank Johnny he will know." Of course, you get Johnny through his spankings and he'll run off a sensation of knowing. Even if he only knows his father's no good. See, he'll have got some knowingness mixed up with this, don't you see?

I mean, first time this was ever called to my attention was an early ACC down on 17th Street. Golly! This was so interesting. So I've counted on it since and when it doesn't resolve with human being B after processing A, I generally get after the auditor that processed A. I mean, it's that tight a situation, see?

His knowledge is not actual knowledge but something dragged through force. There's no real knowingness about it at all; it's the illusion of knowingness. The Russians have got this so badly in dialectic materialism. That's not an electronic activity; that's the whole philosophy of Russia's forward progress, is "All knowledge comes from two forces." Oh, you - I could be very erudite on the subject, but I don't think anything as horrible, as illogical, as dialectic materialism should be given the courtesy of a "proper" rendition. They're dramatizing the GPM. "Knowledge is the product of two forces." It's funny, see?

It works reversely. If you are deathly afraid of oil companies, they're going to shortchange you, give you bad stock and sue you. That's for sure. You're going to be in constant trouble.

Of course, you get some zone or area of the world where it's hot all the time and cold all the time - in summer it's roaring hot and in the winter it's roaring cold. I've seen horse biscuits jump up in the air and explode in Vladivostok. It gets cold, man! You think it's cold in England, you've got nothing, man! Nothing! It gets cold. It's very difficult sometimes knowing, after you've shaken hands with someone, if you've taken your hand back, you know? Might have just snapped off in the process.

Any time you've got a reliable item, you can rely on its producing a lot of trouble for you. And when it's evaporated, it ceases to produce this much trouble. This is what is so mysterious. Because you haven't processed it. All you've processed is the pc. Now, how do you account for this? And yet that is susceptible of "proof," if you want to put it that way, because there it is.

And of course this gooney race would be so keyed in they wouldn't know whether they were coming or going, and they would deal a whole philosophy off the GPM. They're aberrated. "All knowledge is the product of two forces." If you really want to know something, get two tractors, rush them at each other at a thousand miles an hour and you'll have the political answer to the situation, obviously. Well, that's how silly this dialectic materialism is as a study.

Auditors are very familiar with this particular mechanism; I shouldn't be beating it in the head. But I'm showing you that there is a perception factor.

You have to have two forces and they have to come into collision and if you get these two forces into the collision, why, then you can figure something out and then you can go from there. If you want to know how to repair an automobile, run it over a cliff. Then you will know that it's busted. It's one of these idiotic things. It's taken straight out of the GPM, see?

Now, when the individual is in a games condition on the third or fourth dynamic, or on, let us say, with women. Let's suppose a big reliable item on the track is women. We've got this fellow and he's an auditor and every time he audits a woman he just somehow or another, he just - things happen. It's just rough, that's all. It's just tough. Tough on all concerned.

So a pc knows there's knowledge over there someplace and he wants to know what it is and he holds up and he won't accompany you in your automobile eighty miles an hour down this line, he'll go out thataway and you can't get any further down the track because you've got no pc. Where'd the pc go? Well, he's still looking at oppterm one, which you didn't find.

He comes in and he's scratched from his ear to the groin, you see; he's in a mess. He can audit men, gets along fine. Why? Well, we say, "Well, actually, he's just chopping them up because of this." We can explain it. You know, we can give all kinds of reasons. But the truth of the matter is, he's in a games condition, and the truth behind that truth is the one we're interested in, in this lecture: He can't perceive. And actually that's all that's wrong with his auditing. Because he's auditing one of his own reliable items, his perception can't bridge across that games gap. You see, it is an enemy and therefore he doesn't dare confront or read it. His perception on the subject stinks. Now, he'll do two things with that perception - as you know all things will invert - he'll read a good wave and recognize it as a bad one. In other words, he'll have - this pc will feel good and the p - the auditor will actually invert the interpretation. He'll get an inverted interpretation.

He says, "What is this thing? There must be some wonderful knowledge connected with all this, you know? Must be. What is it? I hear something. No..." and you can talk to him all you want to. You can say, "Why isn't your needle clean?" You know? Good - good auditor presence, you know? "You're just doing this because you're mad at me because you haven't got your old auditor," see? You know, things like that.

In other words, the pc's sitting there - the pc's sitting there and saying, "My, what a wonderful session. First session I've had for days."

He just doesn't unglue at all; just keeps saying, "What's this? What's that? That?" It's because the thing is charged up. You found half of it and he knows there's another half.

The auditor - says, "Oh, my God, I'm killing him!" You'll see this happen, too. Well, what is that? He can't perceive it. So he dubs it.

Call those items which are neglected "bypassed items." Those items are bypassed, and the bypassed item is what hangs up the case. Now, this is what I was going to tell you about this research auditing. It's very, very interesting to me. But it doesn't matter how you find the pair, they go onto the line plot in the exact place they're supposed to go, in sequence and that's the wildest thing I ever saw.

Now, the manifestation of dubbing is writing script. That's where you get the auditor's figure - out, the auditor's think. And the more bridge, more gap, the more games condition there is between the auditor and the pc - the more of this there is - the less reliable perception there is and the more substitute perception you will find. And that substitute perception takes the form of think. This is a case of "look, don't think." You see?

Doesn't matter how you find them. If you find them from one line or another line or something, and then you put them down on the line plot and then we ignore that pair - we find both pair, see - and we go off in some wild race across the countryside and we pick up some brand - new way to get a pair. And we find, you know, another rock slam, and now we opposition it. We put it on the line plot; they're exactly in the right sequence. Well, that's amazing.

Well, this guy doesn't look, he thinks. And he writes script! And he'll come to some of the most remarkable conclusions you ever heard of. Pc is sitting there, feeling as smooth as a banana split, see? And the auditor says he's got an ARC break. Well, that's how this perception gets invalidated. It's - only gets invalidated by those people who are to some degree in a games condition with what they're trying to audit or perceive, because they do a think, not a look.

You didn't skip a pair, see. It's amazing. I mean, you're lucky. They're always the next consecutive pair, no matter how you found them, if you found both of them. But you won't get the next consecutive pair if you only find one of one thing and then one of another. You have to opposition the thing you find. Whatever you find, opposition it. And then you keep getting proper pairs.

You see, it - the reason they can't perceive is because they can't confront. If they can't confront something, how can they perceive it? So if they can't perceive it then they must get a substitute perception - and this is a think, a consideration. They write script. They figure it all out.

When you stop oppositioning what you find and just try to combine two rock slamming items - heh - heh - heh! - maybe they're a pair and maybe they're not. So that's a lesson. But a case in clearing hangs up when you bypass an item. That gives us the rule that everything you find that rock slams must be oppositioned. See, it's oppositioned as itself, not in some other way or with some other command or with anything else. Just opposition it. It's that simple. Who or what would oppose it?

Now, it's true in guiding a pc down through such a thing as the Goals Problem Mass, you have got to consider which way this thing is going to go and how this thing lies. You can't stand up and guess at all this, because it's a highly complicated track and it requires metering, and it requires this and requires that. Even on a Problems Intensive, you're going to run into trouble to the degree that you don't absolutely, mechanically ascertain this. One of the reasons for that is, is you're reading aberration; the pc can't read it either. You see? Aberration - it doesn't emanate. So you have to have highly mechanical means to attack this sort of thing. But as far as the pc is concerned, you should be able to read him pretty directly.

I think this is quite remarkable. I think it's quite fantastic that the highway lies there with a sphere on the right and a sphere on the left, and they match together and they're both at the same location. And when you've got that sphere you can drive a little further down the highway and you'll find a sphere on the right and a sphere on the left, and they match each other. And if you get both of those spheres then you can go on down the highway a little further and you can find a sphere on your right and a sphere on your left, and you can get that pair. Then you can get down the road a little bit further and get a sphere on your right and a sphere on your left.

But if you can't confront him and if you don't want to confront him, you don't want anything to do with him, you're going to get a substitute in there, and that substitute is think. So you're going to go into a consideration of what is going on. And now we've got script writing at its worst. And the pc will be sitting there smooth as glass and the auditor insists he has an ARC break. The pc's got a horrible roaring ARC break and the auditor insists everything is going - and he's got it all figured out that the pc is just being mean today.

And it doesn't happen to matter whether you're getting them from the goal or from a wrong goal - as long as it gives pain. Well, you won't get very far with a wrong goal, the case will spin in. But nevertheless you can get a pair off a wrong goal. And if you abandoned it at the point where you got the pair and didn't go any further with it you're still all right. Sounds funny.

The auditor takes some fantastically weird action as far as the pc is concerned. Why? Well, it leaves the pc aghast and it leaves everybody else aghast and pretty soon it'll leave the auditor aghast. "How the devil did I start driving down that road? You know? Gee - whiz! We were going along so nice, and here I am running down this road and what happened? What happened?" Well, what happened is his perception dropped. See, he wrote some script. He made a bum guess. It'll be as clumsy as this, don't you see.

The rule is as long as it gives pain, you can list it. And when it stops giving pains, skip it. You'll just have the goal, probably, of one of the pairs you're now looking for, see?

For instance, I find out that on a demonstration audit, my perception of the pc is worse than my perception of a pc in an ordinary session. That's because I have the additional action of trying to protect the pc, keep the pc from embarrassing or damaging himself in some way, make the session look good, make the pc look good, and hold it all under control under a rather extraordinary environment, see? Well, that splits up your attention. You're actually liable to make more mistakes and do less reading of the pc. So the pc originates and you tell him you will do it. See? You miss. You miss the TR 4, see?

It all depends on this interesting fact: The E - Meter will read on what is real or realizable to the pc. The E - Meter reads on what is realizable. If the pc can have a reality on it, it'll read on the meter. If the pc can't have a reality on it you won't get a read on the meter. The rock slam, being the biggest manifestation on the meter, is that thing you get the biggest reality on.

You'll suddenly make a mistake. The pc says, "I think that list is too short." And you say, "All right, I will add some items to it." Oh, man! See, it's by giving demonstrations and that sort of thing (rather high - tension auditing situations) that I've come to realize what a short - perception auditor - the mistakes he makes. See, that's a curtailed - perception situation. The pc didn't want you to add anything to the list. The pc wanted to tell you that the list was short! And what's the matter with you that you didn't say, "Good. Thank you," and go on doing what you were doing?

A funny thing: He'll put the pairs on - he'll put pairs on which are three sequences down the line - three pairs down the line, you see? He's at pair A, B and he'll put stuff on the list which is at H, I. But it won't slam. It may tick, but it won't slam. And you'll say, "Well, there it is."

You wouldn't permit a communication cycle to be originated by the pc. It's very embarrassing to me when I do this. I know I've flubbed across the boards. Every once in a while the pc looks up and I - in a demonstration, something like that, very brightly - and this happens sometimes with more with some pcs different than others - looks up very brightly and says something - or - other, and so - on - or - other, and I say, "Well, let's do something about it," see? I could step on my tongue the moment I do it because I've gotten a misread intention. I read the intention of the pc as just directly interpreted from his words, meaning I should do something and therefore I do something. In other words, I wouldn't let a communication cycle exist.

And if you've got one of these pcs that's got to be original, never dares repeat an item, something like this, well, sometimes you have a little bit of trouble. Because he knows he's put "alligators" on it, every list he has so far done, and it's never come up yet. So he's apathetic about "alligators" just at the time when "alligators" is about to come up.

Actually, once you've done that, the next time you're likely to have a demand that you do something. Do you see what the gradient is? See, you didn't let the pc originate, so now you're going to Q - and - A, and now this is going to result in the pc demanding that you do something, because the pc is already on a kind of an auto - audit.

In other words, the progress which you are making down that track of pairs toward the end of the line, the progress which you are making is milestone by pairs, not milestone by single items. And if you go and bypass one of these items and then never find it and so forth, you've had it. You're not going to go any further. You might find the next pair and that's it - end of track.

The number of times that you Q - and - A with the pc is directly related to the amount of auto - audit that the pc is going to engage upon. Because you've shown him that he is not in communication with you and therefore you've broken down the third dynamic situation. You've also reduced his, you might call it, theta potential, or something weird like this. You - well, he isn't emanating - although he isn't emanating anything anyhow - but he isn't emanating to the degree that he is. His mind isn't free, you see. He's clouded up.

Where is it, then? It lies behind you. All you've got to do is equate it up into pairs and it'll roll again, as easy as that. You're dealing with a fantastically precise mechanical electrical fact. It's just in these - these things are in spheres. What are these spheres? These spheres are old identities. These spheres are held together by the nicest, neatest balance you ever heard of. It's impossible that they have held together all these millennia. But they have; they've just been exactly and neatly balanced. The forces from A to B are the same as the forces from B to A, so they hang up.

You can't read him as easily. That's about where that goes. See, you cut down his horsepower, his wavelength or his megakilotrons or something, see? So he isn't transmitting so good. You've dropped him a curve.

This is reinforced, then, by the negative pair. The positive pairs also have negative pairs. Frankly the reason I haven't brought this up or said very much about it is because it's one of these pedantic points. Because they just look like pairs to the auditor and they do the same thing.

So therefore you're going to make a worse mistake next time, see? Compounding the felony, he's walking out into an auto - audit. You eventually have two individuals conducting a disrelated activity. One fellow is busy nulling the list and the other fellow is trying to keep his rudiments in. That's a totally disrelated activity, although you've looked on it as a rather common activity. It's very common for a pc to try to keep his rudiments in while you're nulling the list.

There's the not - oppose pair - the not - oppose pair. And that's the secondary pair. They really don't oppose each other. They oppose the other two in some peculiar way and so they do oppose each other so they rock slam. All of which is very complicated and they're what render the thing up in a ball.

What's he trying to keep his rudiments in for? You're trying to null a list. Well, let me guarantee, to that degree, you've Qed - and - Aed with him. See, you've done something that interrupted his communication cycle.

But frankly, you needn't pay any attention to them, unless you're going to ask a pc just for a pair. You start asking the pc for pairs and you rapidly learn, as I found out, that you can't ask him for just two pairs which oppose each other. I'm talking now about an auditing command to Clear. A clearing command. Like there's no E - Meter, there's no assessments, there's no nothing. I'm searching on this line because we've got something - to have something here for Clearing Co - audit, see?

Now, this might not have happened in the session. It might have happened between sessions, it might have happened in living around this person or being his roommate or numerous other conditions. But you have Qed - and - Aed with that pc. And that pc tends to individuate to the degree that you have Qed - and - Aed with him.

I've been looking for some method of driving down this track in a Clearing Co - audit that would take a long time but would one way or the other wind the pc up there on just raw - meat - type muzzled auditing, see? I'm looking for this. Apparently it would be a very lengthy procedure. But it - nevertheless, I'm pretty sure it can be done. That's as far as I've advanced on that.

He walks up and says, "Oh, I feel terrible! I got a telegram this morning from my grandmother and she was dying of lumbosis."

And one of the things I learned doing that is, if you ask him for two things which oppose each other and then ask him for two things which oppose each other and then ask him for two things which oppose each other and then ask him for two things which oppose each other, he'll turn on some of the nastiest somatics you ever wanted to have anything to do with. Thuuuh! Oppose, oppose, oppose, oppose, see? Uh - uh - uh - uh!

And you said, "Where's she live?"

Of course, he gives you little things, you know. He gives you items in the room and he gives you stuff out of his present time problems and he gives you stuff of this character. And you nevertheless are getting pairs. Of course, he finally comes up with the sixty - four dollar pair, because this is all done by gradients which the original clearing is. You would, in other words, improve his ability to confront to a point of where he can confront the first pair and recognize them without the assistance of the meter. And that's really asking you something, man; that's asking something.

Well, of course, you aren't his auditor and so forth and this is not very offensive and so forth and this is the way Homo sap communicates and that's it. But you didn't let him get something off. The fact that you said something told him that he hadn't blown it. A lot of auditors go around thinking that if a pc mentions something, then it's - he has to do something about it so the pc can blow it. No, it's a communication activity. It9s all communication, the auditing is. It's a communication activity. And being a communication activity, when it's communicated and the cycle of communication is completed, it's blown. You understand that?

But you can't do it that way. You have to ask him, "Tell me two things that oppose each other. Tell me two things that don't oppose each other." "Two things that are not in opposition" is the better wording. "Tell me two things that are in opposition. Tell me two things that are not in opposition. Tell me two things that are in opposition. Tell me two things that are not in opposition."

Now, the degree he can't blow things is the degree he's been Qed - and - Aed with. That's a direct relationship. Some individual has been Qed - and - Aed with and Qed - and - Aed with and Qed - and - Aed with, you find out he can't blow anything. He has a hell of a time.

The full package, by the way - that doesn't work very well; you've got to beef it up - is: "Tell me a problem. What two things in that problem oppose each other or are in opposition? What two things are not in opposition? Tell me a problem. What two things are in opposition, what two things are not in opposition? Tell me a problem. . . ." Get the idea?

Now, after You've Qed - and - Aed three or four times in a session, what the hell's the use of trying to patch up the session? There isn't any way you can patch that up. What are you doing Qing - and - Aing in the first place. Ah, but we get a bunch more rules now, don't we? How to cure an ARC break. You do this and you do that and you do something or other. Oh, yes, it cures the ARC. What the hell were you doing getting an ARC break? Do you see my point of view?

Of course, it's the Goals Problem Mass, and you theoretically could graduate him up the line and he could run it. But if you just asked him for two things in opposition, "Tell me a problem. Now, tell me two things in that problem that oppose each other," you're going to get some of the nastiest non - turn - offable somatics you've seen in a long time. Because you're asking for the fundamental pair every time, you never get the secondary pair.

See, I'm writing a bunch of rules now on how you get out of a swamp. Well, what were you doing in the swamp? Here's a corduroy road marked with tape on both sides of it, and arrows, and it's bright daylight, and there you are over there a quarter of a mile away standing in the middle of a black swamp. And you say, "Ron, give me some rules. How do we get out of these swamps?" So I say, "All right." And I Q - and - A with you and I give you some rules. Or I even say, "What the hell are you doing in a swamp?" that sort of thing.

Now, how much this means in driving down the road I haven't equated. I know that for a fact, however, that you have to ask for the oppose and the not - oppose.

And, of course, you can hope for the day that you say, "Hey! How do I get out of this swamp?" You've asked a question, don't you see? And I don't answer it at all. That would be a sad day. But you've asked a question, I'll give you an answer. But I get a chance to originate at that point, too, to make it a complete cycle, which is, "What the hell are you doing in the swamp? How'd you get there? Auditing must seem like a very complicated activity to you if you're over there in the swamp. How many rules did you follow that got you into the swamp?"

Now, in view of the fact that you're finding things on oppose and not-oppose lines when you are listing from the goal, you of course are getting things that are not in opposition to each other, even when you oppose things.

Now, an ARC break occurs anywhere from fifteen minutes to an hour and a half before most auditors perceive it. Now, that's a hell of a condemnation. Because I can take a pc who is in the middle of an ARC break and find the auditor trying to cure up an ARC break which occurred anywhere from fifteen minutes to an hour and a half after the ARC break.

You see, you say, "Tell me something that's not in opposition to catching catfish," see. "What would not oppose catching catfish?" You do a list, you get a rock slam on it, when you oppose that thing you got - you've got a pair of nonoppositions. The - it's very complicated. But it's actually worked into the four lines, so that you get the - you get additional pairs, and then you can oppose these pairs. You understand? You get an item, you oppose the item. The same rule holds. You get the item, you oppose the item.

Now, let me give you a very fast one here. I want to give you the data on this. I've talked to you lengthily about this, but I think it's important to you. Let me give you an illustration. Now, this, what I tell you is true here. It's an hour and a half, half an hour, fifteen minutes, something like that, after the pc has had the ARC break, that you'll find the auditor trying to clear up the ARC break. He isn't trying to clear up the ARC break of an hour and a half ago, he's trying to clear up the ARC break of one minute ago! Ah, but it doesn't exist there! Why is he trying to clear it up there? This ARC break's an hour and a half old. He's cleaning up an ARC break two minutes old.

Now, this opens the door to something interesting: that if you were going in and just listing lines and you never did find the pc's goal, you would undoubtedly have to introduce some other data into his auditing to keep on going indefinitely. You follow me? That opens the fact that but - you didn't have his goal and you've driven halfway down the line between these pairs and something might start hanging up; well, you might have to get the nonopposition lines because you probably skipped some items that didn't oppose. Do you understand? Do you - you get this?

It's one of these remarks of, "What the hell are you doing in the swamp?" You understand? There's an ARC break that occurred an hour and a half ago and the auditor is trying to clear it up as having occurred two minutes ago. Ah, but there's an ARC break one hour and twenty - eight minutes before the point the auditor is addressing it on the track. And I get this kind of a weird feeling: What the hell did the auditor do, go stone blind? How did he miss this?

You see, it's a four - way flow, not a two - way flow. And the four - way flow is introduced by the other pair. And they still show up in general auditing just as a pair, when you're listing from a goal. When you're listing from the goal they just show up as a - as a ordinary pair. You don't recognize to the degree that they're influenced by the last pair you found or by the next pair you're going to find. Pc doesn't have to recognize this to any degree to get going.

Well, the first time he missed it is he just wasn't on the pc's wavelength, that's all. He just didn't feel something very peculiar about this session. And he almost always committed this deadly sin if he's in trouble: The pc found out he had an ARC break before the auditor did. And that is inexcusable! Absolutely inexcusable for a pc to find out he has an ARC break before the auditor did. Where is the auditor?

Well, let me put it this way - I see you're in a drift: You've got two pairs. From the auditor's viewpoint, you are simply driving down the road and you'll find A on the right and B on the left; that's one pair. And C on the right and D on the left; that's your second pair. And you've - from where you sit you simply passed two pairs. You got it? That is the way it looks from the auditor's viewpoint.

Well, look at what the criticism this is of the auditor's perception - look at the criticism. Here's a pc mired down and mucked up in a bank with more perception about what is going on than an auditor who is sitting across the auditing table from him. Oooooh, man! You mean the auditor's perception is no greater than a pc who is totally mired down in the bank? Just think of - over that for a minute.

In the actual bank they're not arranged that way. A versus B is crossed by C versus D. Actually, it looks like two dumbbells, the handles of which are held together. Look much more like this. They expel. They expel the things. You've just got, see, pair, pair, pair, pair, see? They have crushed themselves together on this particular line and this has to do with types of charge. Two of these are retreating so hard that they come together. And the other two are attacking so hard that they come together. You've got various electrical phenomena.

The auditor is supposed to be there all bright and alert, see? And the pc finds out about this ARC break before the auditor recognizes there is one. I'm not kidding you, this is unforgivable. It's never forgiven by the pc. You just check over the next ARC break you see in progress, no matter who it's between - you and the pc or another pair - and just go in there and check it over and you're going to find this to be the case: If it's really raw, roaring, screaming ARC break, it occurred an hour to an hour and a half ago - the actual incident - the auditor is trying to clear it up as though it happened a minute or two ago, and the pc found out about it before the auditor did. And those unforgivable circumstances, of course, are not forgiven by the pc because it's been proven to him conclusively that he's not in a third dynamic situation. It's proven to him conclusively that he hasn't got an auditor, that the auditor is individuated.

You go into the electrical phenomena of this, though, and you'll be blowing your brains out in no time. See? I was trying to tell you why we're not worried about this electrical phenomena. I only introduced this other thing, that by the time you were going to try the idiotic action of clearing somebody without ever finding his goal ... You understand, that's not something that you're engaged upon. See? If you went into that you would have to pay attention to this crossed - handles effect of the dumbbells, see? Now you've got to pay attention to it.

What is the auditor doing, not noticing this ARC break? Do you see how that adds up? Well, I couldn't say it too emphatically Now, you understand, I'm saying it's an unforgivable situation because the pc doesn't forgive it - not because I don't forgive it. So, of course, you have an awful lot of trouble with pcs if you're always noticing the ARC break after the pc does. And if you're trying to clean up the ARC break when it became vocal and visual, and you pick up that point of the track to clean it up, you're always in trouble. You'll always never have sessions, you'll just have dog's breakfasts spilled on the deck. You won't ever have sessions. And you'll wonder why you get so little done.

We're not going to find the guy's goal. So therefore we're never going to have the four lines, "want," "not want," 44oppose," "not oppose," see? We're never going to ask for the "not want" and the "not oppose," and those are the two that'll crash together.

No, if your Martian antennae - which I'm sure you have a facsimile of; somewhere on the track you've worn antennae (off one of your favorite items) - is just properly tuned in or, better still, you are alert, you'll find out ages before the pc that something is wrong.

Mostly you'll find the "want" and "not want" go together, and the "oppose" and "not oppose" go together. That's the way they normally get found. After the - after you got through oppositioning some item the pc will say, "Well, that belongs on the 'want' line and the other one belongs on the 'not want' line." They tell you where they belong on the lines.

Now, if you're in a state of writing script and imagination, you'll start badgering pcs. The pc hasn't got his hair combed right or something like that, so you start saying to the pc, "What's wrong in the session and what's wrong in the session and what's wrong in the session?" There isn't anything wrong in the session except you're asking him what's wrong in the session. See how he could read this out, see?

But say you picked one off "not oppose" - you were listing "not oppose" and you got a rock slam. So you listed the rock slam out very beautifully and then you nulled that list, and you came up now with a nice, beautiful, rock slamming reliable item. Then you said - depending on if that thing is an oppterm - you say, "Who or what would oppose that nice, big, beautiful item?" see? You - it's always that. If it was a terminal, why, "Who or what would it oppose?" see, to get your next list. But that's an opposition to it. Then you do your new list with that, "Who or what would oppose it?" and so on. Got that list. You'll find out there'll be something on there rock slams. Null all this down, beautifully polish it up and what do you find yourself sitting with? You find yourself sitting with a pair.

But, at the same time, you'll get pretty good on this sort of thing. If your own perception is up and the pc is sitting there and - it isn't any way the pc looks, it just doesn't feel right to you - you say, "What's - what's happening? What's going on?"

Now, the pc will tell you that this new one belonged on one of these other lines. Also liable to tell you, "I never under God's green earth would have put it on that line." See? That was the startling part of it. You actually discovered this thing he would have overlooked. And that is your level of confront. In other words, the pc's level of confront is not quite up to these rock slamming pairs, and it has to be graduated up scale, gradually, to see more and more rock slam, more and more pairs and more and more and more and more. And you get further and further down the road. He's seeing bigger and bigger things. Do you understand me?

And the pc says, "Nothing."

He can equate these things; he can put them together. And he'll say this is the way it sits, and he'll give you the whole game connected with them. And he'll say, "Here's the priest and here's the vestal virgin. Ah, yes. Oh, yes. The. . ." If you let him he'd spin you quite a tale - if you'd listen. You could ask him questions about it.

"Well, you think something here recently - something come up there?" You're not getting in mid ruds, or jamming him around on it, just two - way comm. "Something come up there?"

Now, you can do all kinds of things with these pairs. You can do anything with them you can do with any process in the last twelve years. Because that's the basic line that you're going toward when you are auditing somebody. You'd head in toward these things. When the pc would have a big gain, you'd hit one accidentally, and when you didn't have any big gain you didn't hit one. That was what your auditing results to a marked degree depended on. It's whether you got into this rock slam channel or didn't. It was that happenstance with the pc.

"Uh - no - no, uh - uh. Oh, well, yes. Hey, yeah. As a matter of fact, you're reading the wrong list." Nothing wrong with you making a mistake in the session. The only thing that is unforgivable is the pc catching it before you do.

These pairs have got force in them. The force is from the A to the B, don't you see? The force is between the two of them and they're held in balance and they remain very badly discharged when you don't find the other half of them and so forth and that consists of a game. And A is in a - always in a games condition with B. You see? One side of the pair is in a games condition with the other side of the pair. One of these pairs is the pc. The other one is the enemy. Invariably that's the way he equates it, except when you get a combination terminal and that's a rock sitting in the middle of the road and you drive around that.

Actually, you see, perception comes above technical perfection, because you can always handle a mistake if you find out about it before the pc does. But you could be doing "flawless" (quote) (unquote) auditing and be reading the wrong list. And the pc finds it out and man, you're not going to clear that up in a hurry. That's just going to ARC break all over the place.

Now, here they are, as you go down the line. The amount of force contained in these things is invariably underestimated by the auditor. If he does a rough job of auditing, the rougher the job of auditing, why, the force is going to hit the pc hard or that much harder. Now, it's already almost unbearable, because you're auditing the pc in a body which wasn't there at the time he accumulated the mass. So the mass, then, impinges on the body in some crazy and weird way and tends to disrupt and upset various portions of the body. But remember when he was the priest and chasing the vestal virgins he wasn't wearing "John Smith, deacon of the local Presbyterian church." So you've always got a body in the road during auditing. It gets in the road.

The degree of the ARC break is related to the number of ARC breaks which have directly preceded the apparent ARC break. The first ARC break the basic on the chain for any given session, is quite previous to where the pc thinks it is. And that's another law, is: The pc never notices where the ARC break really starts. The pc always picks it up late. And that is true in lists. You're running down the lists and saying, "Waterbuck. Catfish. Mack Sennett cops."

Now, he'd experience these somatics as a thetan if he was somewhere outside of his head. He'd still experience them because he's still got mass, see? But your mass is complicated by the presence of a body. And the body goes hot and the body goes cold and the body hurts and the body this and the body that and so forth. So you're actually clearing somebody over his alive body.

And the pc says, "I got a pain, pain, pain, pain, got a pain, pain, pain."

He has no business wearing that body because it had nothing to do with the dramatis personae of what you're auditing. That you can clear somebody at all with a body kicking around is a monument to your ability, because it's an extra, massive, hard, solid valence which is sitting up in PT, which in itself every time you find a pair of items does some discharging. It's always a third factor in the middle of every pair.

Aw, what are you doing? You put it down after Mack Sennett cops. Waterbuck. You start tracing it back. One of your smart things to do is say, "All right. Mack Sennett cops. How's - how's the pain on that?"

Now, because this third factor gets mixed up in it, the pc will flinch. He probably wouldn't flinch if you were auditing him out in space someplace with a couple of beams on the E - Meter, don't you see? But in a body he tends to flinch more because he's afraid something's going to knock that body off.

"Well, that didn't get any worse."

And you'll hear a pc every once in a while be very, very chary of going into that any further because, ha - ha - ha - ha ... Part of it is, is he just can't under - stand how the body could keep going with that much pressure on the heart, got it? "Well, I don't understand it either" - you might tell him that. But I don't think it'd encourage him.

"Catfish. Catfish. Catfish. Catfish. Catfish. How's the pain?"

Truth of the matter is, the liabilities are slight. But the fear that something horrible might happen lends him all the potential of having something bad happen. He flinches, he's still protecting a body - the body he's got in present time - and he's liable to back off and back out and get out of there. Flinch. You'll see pcs doing it every once in a while.

"Oh, it isn't any worse."

Now, probably he would straight list to Clear. You'd find his goal any old way and he'd just straight list to Clear if it weren't for this body factor in present time and rough auditing and other little factors that enter into it. Because these make him flinch off from confronting and putting together the total packages as he passes them.

"Waterbuck. Waterbuck."

Here he goes down the line and you find an item and you get the opposition to the item and you find another item and you get the opposition of the item. You find the - goal, and you've got the goal, and he lists very ambitiously in the first forty items on each of the first four lines that we were originally doing. And if nothing got in the road of his body - that is to say, it didn't look to him like his body was suffering too much and if he wasn't suffering to that degree and the auditing was very smooth and a lot of other conditions, why, then he'd get the next forty or fifty items. And he'd get the next forty or fifty items, and all of a sudden he'd pair a couple of them up. And then he'd go to the next forty or fifty items and he'd go to the next forty or fifty, and he'd pair another one up. And he'd say where this was and the next thing you know the needle is getting looser and looser and floppier and floppier. And all we had to do at the end of that line was clean up a few of the bits and pieces and he was Clear. Do you understand that?

"Haaa! Gh - uh - 1 - 1 - ha, uhll - uhll - uhll. There you - uh - ull ... There you did it again." See? He's always late.

All right. Let's take some other pc, and this pc - we get a terminal and we get an opposition terminal. We get it - any old way. We find his goal and we've got his goal, and now we're going to list from the goal: "Who or what would want to catch catfish?" "Who or what would not want to catch catfish?" "Who or what would not oppose catching catfish and who or what would oppose catching catfish?" - the wrong order, the last two. And we busily list him down the line, clackita - clackita. - clackita. - clack. And he gets down to twenty and the needle went di - di - di, clack - clack, clack, bang - bang, bang - bang - bang, bang - bang, ba - bang - bang - bang - bang. And there was a horrible pain at that moment went straight through his brain. And he knew that he was going to go deaf or something of the sort if it stayed there.

Pc is monkeying with an instantaneous reading bank and he's always slower than the bank. That's what you can count on. Pc is always late. He's always picking up the item after the right item. He's always picking up the ARC break which occurred after the ARC break. See? He inevitably wrongly attributes what's happening, because after all, you're dealing with somebody who's attention is fixated on this, that and the other thing all over the bank and all mixed up in the middle of their items, and it's a wreck. And to ask him to think anything at all is miraculous.

Well, he put the truck into full speed astern. He restimulated this item, see? Now, he's put the item down, flinched from it and the next item up the line he simply puts down - and it's a little bit further away from it and a little bit further away from it - and you've got a partially restimulated item versus a totally nonfound, bypassed item. He isn't going to go any further.

Of course, a lot of auditors never recognize the pc as anything but old Joe and old Joe is always pretty quick on the draw, and doesn't realize old Joe isn't sitting there. He's auditing Mick Slan, Commandant, Sector 89, Extraterritorial Empire, whose penchant is killing small babies. This guy is being more that than anything else.

He's going to go pocketa - pocketa - pocketa - pocketa, and he'll give you items, he'll give you items. We know now he'll give you thousands, tens of thousands of items. He'll keep going. His tone arm goes up and sticks and ...

And all of a sudden you say, "Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, Bill."

And then you give him a Prepcheck and it comes down. It goes up and sticks again. And it goes up and sticks again. And you straighten him all out and get the goal to firing and everything is fine, everything is beautiful. And then you list a few more lines on some other pattern of lines, and the tone arm goes up and sticks.

"Uh - Bill. Um - Bill?" You know, it takes him a split second to disconnect, you know? "Da - oh! Where? Yeah, here! Ha! Here! AN What the hell? What's the matter?"

What's happened? All that additional listing had gotten him no - not five feet further beyond pair E and F. See, that's as far as he got. He ticked E and doesn't even know of the existence of F, so he goes five feet further than that and that's it. The car is just stuck on the road, and it's just like having a jack under the rear axle. Doesn't matter how much acceleration you give it, it doesn't matter how much you fool around, doesn't matter how smoothly you audit or how you try to persuade the pc on down the road, he's going no further. He's stuck in a - the mystery sandwich.

It's very funny, you know? You whistle the pc up to present time. Very often if you don't say "Hello," they get an ARC break. Did you know that? Of course, you don't practice that these days, because they're not going down the track and coming back. This is quite remarkable - after you've gotten rid of an item and you've gotten this and that out of the road, and so forth, and you got the pc into the room and so forth - if you said, "Hello," how acceptable that hello is to the pc.

What's the repair, then? Repair is actually very simple. By any means, find the bypassed pair. If he was lucky enough to have been doing a written list at the time all this began, all you'd have to do is null the list. Find the rock slamming item and oppose it.

Now, I'm not telling you to do that as a practice. But he's gone somewhere. He's into something. And that is out of time and space than where you are. And you expect this guy to be an auditor, two hundred thousand years before he ever heard of it, it's no wonder he's a little bit slow. But he's always - almost always slow - almost always slow.

If you weren't doing a written list, why, just get him to list a few more. He'll give you the same bordering item again. He's been giving it to you every session. Every session that had six hundred items in it, one of them had "a polecat" in it. He's mentioned this "polecat" a lot of times. "Polecat" is very suppressed. This "polecat," he - you know which one it is because he'll sigh before he puts it down, see? It produces, actually, a physiological reaction. He isn't going to go close to that polecat, he suppressed that polecat, see;

He will sit there and explain to you carefully that the ARC break that he is talking about is the fact that when he asked you if it was cold in here, you said, "Shall I close the window?" And what he wanted to know was if it was cold in here or if it was a somatic that he was in the middle of ! And if you'd answered him, why, then he would have known whether it was a somatic that he was in the middle of and that was the cold he was trying to locate! And that's what he's ARC broke about. And he'll tell you again and he will tell you again and he'll tell you again.

Well, you do that and you take over the list, and you'll find out it'll stay in with a tick. And when you tiger drill the last three or four items that are left in, one of them will be the polecat and the rock slam will open up again because the suppression will come off of it, and it'll go wham, wham, wham, wham, wham. And then you want, "Who or what would oppose a polecat?" or

What's really remarkable is how many times they will tell you without it blowing. And somewhere along the line you should get suspicious that you aren't dealing with the basic on the chain. And you're not. You say, "Well, before that, were you trying to tell me anything? Was there a question I didn't answer before that?"

"Who or what would a polecat oppose?" depending on whether or not it turned on pain or sen. You've got the pair and now he's ready to go on down the road. And he won't go until then.

"Well, yeah, yeah, I uh

Now, all good auditing aside, all bad auditing aside or anything else, that's the basic mechanism of what happens to a Clear, when clearing hangs up. Now, there's many ways you can make the pc not confront items. You could get the pc so ARC broke, you could get the pc so upset, you could get the pc so worried, you could get the pc this, you're auditing could be so lousy - all kinds of things could happen that would distract the pc off his case so he couldn't list, don't you see? It all bags up to the fact that he - the worse he's audited the more likely he is to bypass a reliable item. That's all that adds up to. But even with fairly crude auditing you still should be able to find the item.

And you'll find out there's a question about ten minutes before the session started. And he asked you something and you didn't answer it. And that has been the source of all the upset and ARC breaks ever since. And he's pointing to one that is an hour late. Isn't that remarkable?

Now, supposing you couldn't get him to list from that goal anymore, you couldn't get the thing to - it's so submerged that you couldn't find this item and so forth. I've got good news for you: Just find the next pair that is due to be found any way you want to find them and that'll be the next pair and that'll be the pair that he bypassed when you were listing originally. Quite remarkable. It's always the right next pair. It's ... We should be so lucky.

Now, you're only a knucklehead when you don't recognize the fact that the pc would not need an auditor if he knew what was going on. Why does he need an auditor? See, if he was always right, it would always blow. But it doesn't always blow so he can't possibly be always right and that's why he has to have an auditor. And that's why you've got to have ESP and a few dozen other things in order to ride this track.

It's very astonishing: If you take up the line plot with the pc and plot every pair that you find and so on, it doesn't matter how you discover the next pair, you won't ever find a pair beyond the pair that you hadn't found. Now, you can press your luck. Early in the case you can press your luck. You can find an oppterm and an oppterm and even an oppterm, by represents or some such fashion. And all you're doing is hunting down, there, the you're getting closer to what was really slamming. And you got these three now and now you can get a terminal. But the funny part of it is that you ask for the terminal against the last one and you get the terminal that belongs to the first one. You get what I mean? In other words, that goes onto the line plot where it belongs, not where you thought it went. You understand?

The various rules of the game is that it is a session, that auditing is based on communication, the basic communication formula is much simpler than Homo sap makes out. "I originate and you invalidate" - I think that's a Homo sap communication. "Then I evaluate and you negate." No, it's just a pure communication cycle and that the pc who is sitting in front of you is the pc you've got to audit. You can't audit a meter and get a Clear pc - can't be done.

You've got A, B and C as oppterms. See, you've got oppterm A, B and C, see? And then you say, "Who or what..." You're going to find a terminal now; you're going to say, "Who or what would oppose CT' And you list it out that way, and you'll have yourself a ball listing it out that way. And of course those of you who indulge in the novelty of asking the pc something about his case would find out, after you had listed it and found it ... Yet oddly enough you can list it; you can list, you know, this, "Who or what would oppose CT' and weirdly enough wind up with what opposed A.

You try sometimes to put a GPM series of items together without asking the pc where they belong. Just try it. You're not going to get anyplace. You've dug them all up for him, but the final step of matching them up can only be done by the pc. You could test them and figure out and so forth. But if you had to fit them all together in the end, they wouldn't be the GPM. The pc wouldn't be blowing the GPM either. And it would have no value for you to do so. So sooner or later you have to face up to the fact you're auditing a pc.

It belongs up here at opposition to A. But after you've found this thing you say to the pc, "Look - it - there! Look - it - there! Look what opposes B or C," you know? "Look what we finally found what opposed C." Of course, you wouldn't do that; that's direct evaluation. If you ask him, "What does this oppose?" and just gave him the three things, he will put it in the proper place right now, and it'll be A.

Now, if you go consistently and continually on the basis that if the pc says it, it isn't true - this is just another Homo sap evaluation and invalidation on the communication formula. The pc very often is right. And there are certain things that only the pc is right on. ARC breaks aren't one of them. The pc is never right on a misemotional points - never right on a misemotional point. But where it fits and what the score is and if it's the item and that sort of thing - yes, he's right.

You sometimes - you sometimes can go - early in the case only - you can go well past and leave two or three of them behind you, but the first opposition you find belongs to the first pair, so you really never got by the first pair at all, did you? The pc was just hung up to that degree. And the more you find out of sequence and the more you try to find them out of sequence and the more desperately you try to avoid finding them in pairs, the harder it is to find them and the smaller the rock slam will become and the more difficult it is to go down that road - the more difficult it is to find goals, the more difficult it is to get anything to slam, anything of the sort. But as long as you find them in pairs, you're clearing the individual.

You could do a meterless assessment of an item, by just putting the meter aside, taking a list and then going over that list, very carefully asking the pc to tell you every pain that turns on, go over it and sort out the thing against the pc until you had the one that turned on the most pain and ask the pc if that's it and the pc says that is it, you have found an item. And if you put it then on the meter, you would find that it would rock slam if your question was correct in the first place. Are you aware of the fact that it is that easy? It's that easy.

You can clear somebody by finding that sequence of pairs. But you'd have to start paying attention - if you were never going to find the goal, you'd have to start paying attention after a while to the not - opposition factor. You'd have to get things that didn't oppose things. You'd have to get the other parts of the dumbbells because you'd be likely to pass them after you've gone awhile, because you're not being assisted by the pat wording of Step 6 in R - Routine 3 - 21. So you'd lay an egg to that degree.

There's no substitute for putting the pc in - session. There's no substitute for giving him an auditing session. You're going to get yourself tangled up in 8,765 hundred rules. Well, that's just that many rules between you and the pc that are forbidding auditing. If those rules are being used - those rules are quite valid - but if they're being used by you to prevent a third dynamic, to interrupt or upset a communication cycle, or to get out of auditing the pc in front of you, then those rules are not for that session. There's many ways to audit pcs, there's many styles of auditing, but there is no substitute for auditing.

But you theoretically - allowing for that factor - theoretically could clear somebody clear on down to the end. The time he found his goal, it would simply be a small explosion in the middle of nothingness and the whole bank would fold up and that would be the end of that and he would be a first - goal Clear. See, in theory you could do this.

What does the pc consider auditing? Actually, an alleviation of his upsets and reaching his basic purposes and driving that road down between the GPMs - those things are auditing to the pc. Oddly enough, he won't let you near his bank and won't forgive you if you don't run it out. Nevertheless, you audit the pc, the pc is getting someplace, the pc is making gains, the pc would take anything off of you. Your auditing could be apparent technical perfection, with the last word of the finger held just right and you're not using that technical perfection to get anyplace with the pc, you'll have nothing but a busted - up, ARC broke pc the whole way. Interesting, isn't it?

So as long as you're finding these pairs, you're advancing the case. And it doesn't matter whether you have the goal or don't have the goal, if you can find pairs you're advancing the case. Because clearing is not a matter of finding the goal, clearing is a matter of straightening up the Goals Problem Mass and vanishing it. It most easily vanishes from the goal, by taking the goal. That's the easiest route. But other routes exist by which this could be done.

Now, there is a right way to audit. It's good, direct, straightforward, audits the pc. And the basic patterns of auditing that you are using are very, very refined patterns. As you're sitting there auditing the pc, you're in a very fortunate position of not having to develop auditing. The test of a good auditor is when he has learned this. He just uses the tools he's got and carries on down the line, and he uses them sufficiently well, the pc is getting auditing, he's getting something done.

Lately we have been finding some. We find out that you sort of erase the pc and he will - the goal sits there in the chair. In other words, you give him Problems Intensives and Problems Intensives and Problems Intensives and you wind up with something that looks like you got the goal.

The bad auditor doesn't know that these things exist. He thinks there are thousands of ways to audit and that he's got to dream up a thousand - and - first one, right in the middle of the session. That's just another way of figure - figuring your way out of giving somebody a session. There are right ways to audit. We're teaching you the right ways to audit, and you'd be surprised how many rules have been lopped off of auditing. But the most direct approach to auditing happens to be the very pattern of auditing and the equipment of auditing that you have right at the present moment. And there is a way to audit.

Apparently there are other ways of springing the goal and there are other things that would happen along this line. Old Routine 2 apparently was capable of making a Clear. And that was a goalless Clear, don't you see? And I've been working on something that without finding the pc's goal you would clear a person in a Clearing Co - audit.

The more you embroider that, the more you add to it, the more unnecessary stresses you put on it, why, the less it'll work. But you could sit down and say to a pc, "Start of session," - just this, no R - factor, nothing, you understand? You just say, "Start of session," and pick up the list you were doing in the last session and start in the middle of that list where you were - stopped nulling, and go on and nulling, you know? "Waterbuck. Tiger. Catfish. Crayfish," so forth and so forth, right on down through the end. And as long as you were technically perfect and you were - in doing just exactly what you were doing, as long as nothing else went astray, you wouldn't have a bit of trouble. There are a few things that could go astray, you handle those one way or the other before you start the session, because they can go astray and make it tough on you, you understand?

Now, of course the joke is, of course, that you would just go so long and the pc would lay this goal in your lap. That would be inevitable. I don't think you could go a third of the way down this track without the pc discovering his basic purpose, because he is now totally surrounded by it.

But oddly enough you would be better off doing that than you would be to take a two - hour session and use an hour and fifteen minutes of it to get rid of a Q and A which you shouldn't have put in in the first place. Do you see where the emphasis of auditing is? There are right ways to audit, there are right things to do, the auditor who audits according to pattern in the smoothest way gets the furthest in the long run, so long as he isn't violating those three basic rules that I gave you in this lecture. I invite your cooperation.

You see what you're doing? See what you're doing? So you think that you're wasting time up to the moment when you find the pc's goal. Not if you've got a balanced line plot. All the goal is going to do for you is give a balanced line plot that is more easily gotten. Do you see that?

Thank you very much.

It's very funny. You found maybe six pairs and it's all fine. And then you find the pc's goal in great triumph and list the first four lines from that goal, and you say, "Now we're really going to go someplace." Of course, you're going to get this faster and so on. And all you wind up with is the next pair in sequence. Of course, after that you can find pairs in sequence with the greatest of ease. But that's the way it goes.

Now, there is the layout of the GPM. That's actually all you're trying to do. If you integrate what you know and what you've been fumbling with and integrate it around this fact - that it only takes perfect auditing to achieve it - why, you've got it made. There is a way to audit this, there is a way to be smooth about auditing, there is a way to handle pcs. These things have all been figured out. And if you've got those things taped, you do this other of just getting matched pairs, you wind up with a Clear - inevitably and invariably. You couldn't possibly get away from it. You see that?

So you're trying to not split the atom, you're trying to split the GPM right down the middle. And when you split it right down the middle the reactive mind disappears down to the point of the first goal. Then you split it the additional distance to the second goal and so forth. These pairs evaporate and discharge when they are found and when the goal is found and reintegrates into them. Do you understand this?

All right, thank you very much.