Thank you.

Thank you.

Now, you-uns saw a demonstration last night. I understand — I understand that a couple people here found out I could read an E-Meter. Actually were several comments on that. I mean, after the demonstration, "Why, Ron knows how to read an E-Meter, you know?" I thought it was marvelous.

And this is, second lecture, 31st of May, AD 12. Different time track than the first lecture. Same subject, only this one is middle rudiments. You will want to know about this one.

Everybody has apparently been going on the thought impulse system — the thought impulse system. You see, life is a great pool, you see, and we are all unsegmented portions of the mush. And you see, when the auditor starts to think the auditing question, and before he asks it, you see, that is when the meter reacts.

The middle rudiment consists of a package question, which handles suppressions, invalidations, missed withholds and careful of. That is your standard, basic middle rudiment. It is a package question, contains those four elements. And middle rudiments may also contain — this is less often — but may also contain the half-truth, untruth, impress and damage end rudiment, the question or command end rudiment and the influence of the E-Meter end rudiment.

So an instant read is when this thought impulse, you see, is transmitted instantly. Then asking the question has nothing to do with the meter, of course. For the benefit of anybody listening to this tape, that's not the way you read a meter.

Now let's expand the middle rudiment just a little bit further, you see, that would be this package suppression, invalidation, missed withhold, careful of, plus those first end rudiments. Now let's expand it a little further and you could run in "auditor," but less advisedly, and "room," providing there was a tremendous amount of disturbance in the auditing environment.

Well, here we are at 31 May 1962, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, lecture one.

This would be the extent of any practical end rudiment — middle rudiments. Any practical middle rudiments would have that extent. Because before you got all the way up to all rudiments again, you had much better short-session it and just start — just end the session that you were doing with the end rudiments and start a new session with the beginning rudiments, which is much neater. See, so there is a point where middle rudiments become too numerous and too fancy and actually consist of restarting a session. There's a make-break point there. It is sometimes more economical to start a new session than to patch up the one that is running. And that would depend utterly on how many rudiments had gone out.

I'm going to talk to you about rudiments. This is a very interesting subject — fascinating subject. I have just done a tremendous amount of work on it. Not the rudiments which you already had got and developed and so forth, but tremendous amount of work. How vital, how valuable and how deep will a rudiments process go if run as a repetitive process? Interesting datum, isn't it, huh?

Now it's a matter of judgment. Now ordinarily, in Prepchecking and in Routine 3, only one package middle rudiment question would be considered mandatory. Middle rudiments have moved from the category of being a good idea over into the category of being mandatory. You always use a middle rudiment when doing Prepchecking or a Routine 3 process. You cannot get along now without middle rudiments. Because the middle rudiments have gotten sufficiently good that it just makes the case run so much faster that it would be senseless to omit them. And these are the middle rudiments that you would use ordinarily and when you would use them.

And we find out that if you took a small spoon and started to empty out the Atlantic Ocean, a rudiments process has that much effect on the reactive GPM.

Middle rudiment would be, "Blank — " first phrase, but definitely a time span or a subject span, "(Blank), anything you have suppressed, invalidated, failed to reveal or been careful of?" Now that would be, "In this session, is there anything ?" "On goals listing, is there anything that you have suppressed, invalidated, failed to reveal or been careful of?" "On listing ." "On Havingness Processes ?" "In auditing ?" But when you get it outside, when you get it totally outside of the framework of one session, it becomes the equivalent of a Prepcheck and must be regarded as such. It's — it is very much better to take, "On the subject of goals is there anything you have suppressed?" as a single Zero Prepcheck question. Crash! "On the subject of goals, is there anything you have invalidated?" "On the subject of goals is there anything you have failed to reveal?" "On the subject of goals is there anything you have been careful of?"

You get that? I mean I've got the data now on it — working on it for a long time here. If I look haggard, that's why.

Now, if you were to use these, as a session body, before beginning a Routine 3 process — now this is a Prepcheck session, which precedes a Routine 3 session — you would find that this case would really come up shining on this subject. But there you're going to beat him to death. You might be a couple, three sessions, on this, all told. But it isn't likely. I did a session identical to this in cleaning up somebody's goal that had been invalidated and it was one of the queasiest of goal mess-ups I have run into in some time and actually did it in, I think the length of the session was one hour and fifty minutes. And I prepchecked all of those questions, and got them clean, slick as a whistle. And got the goal checked out in addition to that. So you see this is nothing very arduous.

I've had some comparative runs made on this, I've done a lot of comparative work on it, I've tried to figure these things out. I find out that that which is kicked into view by Routine 3 is not kicked out of view by any repetitive process known to man. That's an interesting datum, isn't it?

But nevertheless, that was a Prepcheck session which was a prelude to a Routine 3 session. Well, of course all Prepcheck sessions are a prelude to Routine 3 sessions, but this is instantly and immediately prior. So prior that it is a Routine 3 session. In other words, you're going to going to do goals on this person, you're going to do a goals list on this person, well, let's just get it all out of the road now.

But here is the analomy [anomaly]. Here it is. Here's the oddity. Why is it that this tremendous bulldozer — Routine 3, listing processes, like 3GA and so forth — why is it that this tremendous bulldozer won't run forward at all in the absence of these gnats flying against the back of it. Yeah, just why is that?

We've already been working Prepchecking and we got all of our. . . we could — this pc could stay in session now, this pc is nicely grooved in. I mean we've got rudiments, pc knows you can get them in, you know you can get them in on the pc — all this has been going on for some time and you've got the pc feeling better about this lifetime and not so shy. He doesn't expect the police or his mother or somebody to rush in the door any minute and tap him on the shoulder, you know. He can be comfortable.

Well, we have the answer to that, too. The rudiments apply to present time and this universe now. They are a nowness series of processes. They apply to now.

And now, before you did a Goals Assessment, you'd find it'd be fairly wise to clean up, slick up, polish up, put the fingernail polish on the middle rudiments. And you'd put them on in a Prepcheck fashion. You'd say, "Anything that you'd care to ask, on the subject of goals, on the subject of listing, in finding items, on Routine 3 processes." I don't care what beginning wording you use, it's got to be enough to embrace everything the pc has been up to, on the subject of doing goals or listing or 3D Criss Cross or anything else that has been a Routine 3 type process, don't you see? You get that and you use those as your Zero Questions.

Now, you have a good reality on that in that if you got a rudiment in with a club on a pc — I mean, let's really get this rudiment in, I mean let's really work it over. Let's get down there: "Do you have a present time problem? Hm-hm, hm-hm, hm. How — how present time is that problem? Hm. Let's see now. And any other type of present time problem that you might have?" and so forth. And we work these all over, and we run responsibility on them.

And then of course there must always be four of them. If you said, "On the subject of flying airplanes — " to just get it out of the range of auditing, not that you would use these things, see, it wouldn't matter if it were on the subject of flying airplanes — you've got four Zeros. You've got four Zeros at once. you see? You've got suppression, invalidation, fail to reveal and been careful of, see. It wouldn't matter what you started, you're going to have to do all four of them. What you start is up to you, see. But you're going to have to do four of them and all those Zeros have got to be flatter than a flounder and of course they obey all the rules of Prepchecking.

I even got a brand-new responsibility process. I thought, "My goodness this ought to revolutionize something" Would have revolutionized everything under the sun, about 1955 or 56, but now it's just a silent drop into the ocean and nobody hears of it again, you know. Has that much importance. But anyway, you run this responsibility, "What part of that problem can you be responsible for?" and you run it with all the new wrinkles and everything else, and you just fix that all up just very beautifully, you see? And this present time problem has to do with not being able to eat soup, you see. And my God can this fellow — doesn't worry about eating soup — he eats — he maybe even can eat soup and so forth. He can't eat asparagus though.

You've got the overt, you get the action, whatever it was, realizing that things like this, the overts are very often against self. Suppression is against self or something like that. Prepcheck it out, see. If it lasts for two questions, on the second question swing it in there, fish for your What, get that thing all straightened out, run it, run your chain down — I don't care if the chain only went back to last year, see. There's going to be action on it. Bring it back up, check the What, check the Zero. If the Zero wasn't flat, why, find another overt and run that on down the line.

Well, if you list the number of articles of food which are commonly considered comestibles, you're licked.

You'll find out this works very rapidly. If you've done a lot of prepchecking, this will amaze you with the speed with which this will go and the immediate return that you will get in terms of auditing. Pc says, "Wow!" you know, "What happened?" you know, "Gee!" This is quite something. Because this is four very, very strong buttons. And they're good, strong, think buttons, man! And of course on the subject that you're addressing them to, why it's, "this lifetime" or, "since auditing occured" — that's within the last dozen years, Routine 3 process last two or three years.

In other words, if you were to use these rudiments processes — this is new data; this is brand-new data, by the way — don't think this is anything that's been sitting around for a long time. you wouldn't have thought I'd been sweating over this with everything that's been coming your way — you know, all the data. But the fact is my mainline research is what I'm giving you right this minute, see.

Whatever this thing is, you see, you've got a very finite piece of track and of course it cleans up at once. And don't let him go backtrack on the thing — he didn't audit anybody — he didn't audit anybody when he was two, you see. No, you got this little span. you find out it'll clean up fairly rapidly, but it all depends on how well you yourself can go over the hurdles, you see, with Prepchecking. How fast you can juggle these values and get it in there and get the pc to give you the overt and run the track back and clean it up, check the What and out of there, you see. It just depends on your basic handling of exact Prepcheck fundamentals. And if you are never guessing, if you know exactly what you're supposed to do and you get in there, bang, you'll find this thing will roll, man. And you'll find goals, you'll find wild things going on, you'll find all kinds of things, you know.

These rudiments processes are incapable of even denting the Goals Problem Mass. They just won't do it. They will do a little bit of a tiny, oh, a just microscopic key-out. Let's say you've got the GPM keyed in on somebody with a crash. See, this is really keyed in on him. This person, by the way, the auditing or nothing else keyed it in on him you know. I mean they got this in life, you know. They were a citizen of some country, you know, or something like that. They just went all out into the total degradation, you see, of nationalism or something I'm sorry, I shouldn't bring that up, but I mean I — every — the more I see what these so-called leaders of man are doing these days, the more my goal gets invalidated. Anyway . . .

We already have a case, if I may mention it — I don't know who the pc is, but it was quite remarkable — the goals list was all complete, except those goals she had been so careful of she had never given any auditor. See, interesting manifestation. See, the "careful of." Yes, she'd been very careful of those goals and never given them to anybody. And I hope the pc will forgive me for mentioning that, I don't even know who it is.

So the basic problem is how to defeat their own nation with a minimum of difficulty for themselves and a maximum of difficulty for their citizens.

But anyway, on another pc, who I hope will forgive me, pc on this little Prepcheck I just mentioned to you a moment ago, the hour and fifty minutes or something like that, pc actually sat down and didn't write his goals. See, he had a definite intention, you see, of writing something else. Got the idea? And we even found a goals list which way precedes Routine 3. Quite interesting, earlier goals lists. Pc was sitting there writing down things he wanted to be. See, sometime before. Fascinating base. I knew it must be there, however. See, when you get a good security on Prepchecking, you know it only stays in if the basic is still in. If you've still got the bottom of the chain in, it's going to stay in, man! And that thing is going to knock itself off the pin. So as unlikely as it is, you ask — . Actually the goals list, you couldn't get any earlier than this goals list, see. Obviously there was nothing earlier than Routine 3 had anything to do with a goals list. I still asked for one earlier. Why? Because I couldn't clean up the one I had. There must have been one earlier. And sure enough, there was an earlier one. And as soon as we found this earlier one — it didn't even belong in the body of Routine 3, don't you see?

Anyway, we got this situation here where this fellow has got this thing keyed-in, you know. He's just black mass from here to Halifax. So we sit down and we run any version, no matter how learned, of a repetitive rudiments process. And no matter how we run it we're going to wind up at the other end of the line with the same way that old Hendrick Van Loon described eternity. He said eternity was the Rock of Gibraltar, and once every thousand years a bird came and sharpened his beak on the rock. And when the rock was totally worn away an eternity would have elapsed.

I imagine you're liable to find somebody sometime that did one in college, "Things you want to be," you know, or something like that. Or did a — something wild like this. You'll find out your goals list isn't clearing up and the pc's having a hard time giving the goals, sitting on some piece of nonsense that occurred ages ago on some entirely different disrelated subject, but was a goals list. And you get the earliest one, each time, you see, on whatever you've got there, clean it up.

Well, that's just about the way it would look. I mean it's that — it's that rough. It's that rough. Now, we don't really include Prepchecking in that. We're talking about rudiments processes, see?

Well, that would be — that is a marvelous approach, this is not mandatory. I don't say you must always do this before you do a Routine 3. I don't have to because after you've used — after you've used the middle rudiments on a Routine 3 process a few times and you haven't done it, you'll wish you had! This is one of these obvious things. You don't have to even tell, "You always have to do this," because even if I omitted to tell you about it and just gave you the middle rudiment, you would find yourself trying to cheat on the auditing section by doing it over the weekend on the pc just so you could get the middle — you'd be getting desperate! Because they wouldn't stay in, see, unless you did some fundamental action with it, see.

Prepchecking can do a key-out. And rather interesting that you can key out any part of it with Prepchecking. You can move it around with the CCHs. And here are all these processes that have to do with havingness, have to do with willingness to talk to somebody about difficulties. They have to do with withholding things from people and they have to do with present time problems, telling half-truths, untruths, not answering auditing commands, have to do with influencing meters and more withholds and problems and difficulties or anything else you want to add up on top of it, plus your middle rudiments, suppressions, invalidations, missed withholds, failures to reveal and careful of. These are the middle rudiments. I want to take those up much more broadly in just a few minutes.

Now, there is one use of middle rudiments. That's its Prepcheck use. Prepcheck use for Routine 3. Now is there a use of middle rudiments for Prepchecking? Not just Prepchecking middle rudiments, but is there a use of them for Prepchecking? Yes. Yes. Be an awfully good thing — be an awfully good thing — to handle the pc, as I see it these days, and looking at the wins that you are getting and taking a chapter from your book and the wins you are getting right now and as cheerful and happy as you are about these wins.

You take all these things, see, we put those into process combinations, repetitive process combinations and we audit them on the pc. Rock of Gibraltar, bird sharpens a beak, see?

Set the pc up in Model Session, do some Havingness in the body of the thing and just get the rudiments in. And get the rudiments in. And get the rudiments in. With some Havingness, you see. Now, I showed you middle rudiments last night in the demonstration. There was no reason under the sun, moon or stars to use them. I could have made the Havingness Processes work without them. But I just thought I would show you middle rudiments against a disrelated subject. I thought you might be interested in: what the devil is that? You probably recognized them for what they were. We're going to clean up the subject of havingness. Well, we didn't have to clean up the subject of havingness. We could have found a Havingness Process that worked. I just wanted to show you how they worked, using them as rudiments.

I've been over the jumps on this, you know. As I talk to you, by the way, I have a headache from a test on it.

Now you see, you could use these four lines as Prepchecks and Zeros. When you use them as rudiments, you use them in an entirely different way. And don't ever confuse this. you use them with your good old drill, "Have you seen a cat?" Whatever the pc says, you say, "Fine, I'll check it on the meter" and you say, "Have you seen a cat?" You understand? You ask the middle rud, whatever the pc says you check the middle rud on the meter. You do not Q-and-A, you don't go afield, you don't try to dig chains, you don't do anything with it, but take what the pc says. Providing only that it is an answer to your question.

The difficulties of assaulting the GPM are absolutely heroic. They're tremendous in size. How in the name of common sense Freud ever expected, see . . . "Well now, when you were a little girl, did any little boys look at you?"

Now this will be a relief for some of — a dirty crack to make! This'll be a relief to some of you, you actually don't have to plow around and wonder about whether it's an overt or a motivator on running middle ruds. Because it's always a little bit of both. You see, they're just think-think, see. And the fact that the guy suppressed it is a sort of an overt. It doesn't matter whether he suppressed somebody else's item or goal or suppressed his own, it's an overt in some way or another, he can't answer it without giving you that. Or how he said it was suppressed. We don't care how it was suppressed. It's just what the pc said, it's just answer the question, in other words. Of course, if we say, "In this session" — which would be your usual start to a middle rud — "In this session, is there anything you have suppressed?" And the pc says, "Uh — how soon are we going to finish the session?" Well, let me point out to you, that's not an answer to the auditing question, you're going to throw your end ruds out. So at that time, you have to insist that he answer the auditing question, simply by saying, "I'll repeat the auditing question."

And the patient says, "Oh, yes, yes."

Supposing he says, "Bla-ll-zzzumm," and you didn't understand what he said, you would say, "I didn't understand that," or "I didn't hear that," or "I didn't get that straight. What was it you said?" Now that doesn't challenge him with anything, that isn't invalidative, that's trying to get the pc's answer, not questioning the pc's answer, see. you want him to say the answer so you can understand it.

"Good. You're no longer neurotic." Silly as that, you know. Look at these rudiments processes — they're marvelous. You run them — oddly enough running them you get a good subjective reality on exactly what they are and you think the bank is moving them, and you say, "Gee, we really get someplace."

By the way the reason TR 4 doesn't work for an awful lot of auditors is they just complicate it up to the stars. All you got to do, you know, is just understand and acknowledge it and return the pc to session. Well, TR 4 often includes, "I didn't understand," when you didn't. See, the pc says, "Bla-zzzmm." And you're going to be a ruddy fake? And sit there and say you understood what the pc said? Heh! You better not! You better not Q-and-A and you better not not-understand it. See, you've got to understand it. So one of the steps you sometimes have to take to understand it is, "What did you say? I didn't get it." "I didn't get it." you see, the onus is on you. "I didn't get it," "I didn't understand it." "I didn't get that straight." Preface it in that way and there's never any ARC break. And you're asking the pc for Havingness answers, you know and the pc says, "Uh — and uh — the phonograph record." What are you going to do? Like a cheerful idiot sit there and buy a nonexistent phonograph record? Well, he didn't answer the auditing question, because something's wrong. Well, you'd better go to the mat right then or your TR 4 is out. you say, "I didn't get that straight. I didn't understand what you were talking about."

I can give you some rudiments processes which are killers! These are just test processes. You might care to clean up some auditing on somebody someday. This won't do it very well, but it's the strongest process known. If you're running Routine 3 it won't do it. But that is a Routine 3 process, right? "What didn't you know? What didn't another know? What didn't others know?" Doesn't that sound like a lovely process? It is. It is very effective. It's very effective. It gives a person — it kind of shifts somatics and they kind of feel better and they're happier about the thing. Sometimes when you've had a horribly ARC breaky session or something like that, some form of that process will do things — will do things.

"Oh! Well it isn't a phonograph record, it's an ashtray. Ha-ha!"

But that process run up against a locked-in GPM has no influence at all on the GPM. You'd swear that it does have until you look up afterwards and realize all the masses are in exactly the same place as they were before. Horrible to report, isn't it.

"Yeah, well, I'll take that."

Now, that process itself is a killer. You run that on some pc sometime in some co-audit or in an Academy and the pc would be absolutely delighted with the whole thing, you know, he will, would feel kind of odd occasionally and so forth, but he'd be delighted. Cognitions, you know — marvelous. GPM — bang

He says, "Funny you noticed that."

Now, Prepchecking and the CCHs are capable of keying something out, providing it isn't too thoroughly in. Doesn't do actually anything to the GPM. It just sort of can take the pc off of it a bit. And you get a key-out phenomenon.

You say, "I didn't notice it." I'd even go so far as to say, "I didn't notice it, I didn't understand what you're talking about."

Then when you start running a Routine 3 process you key it right straight back in again. So you know very well it was just a key-out.

"Oh well, fine. Swell, oh, okay. Swell, swell."

No, the value of a rudiments process run in repetitive process form as a button, swamping up track left and right, you think, phrased up any way you want to phrase it up, the ability of it to affect the Goals Problem Mass is, by the way — well, call it the reactive mind except the GPM plus locks and free track would be the reactive mind. Free track is actually the only thing missing and the only additional thing to the GPM that is in the reactive mind.

See. That's TR 4. TR 4 is understand and acknowledge. And you're looking for some fancy system by which to do this and there ain't none. The only — closest you can come to a system is, is you can't be a fake. See, don't be a fake — ever. Pc has a heavy Armenian accent, then by George, you have to ask him for a repeat about two or three times every time he says anything. Well, you want to know how to throw him out of session? Pretend you understand what it is. Boy, man! You turn false, he turns false, you've got missed withholds now from the pc, you get disinterested in the pc, your ARC drops with the pc, you start to goof. You leave the session being critical of the pc.

There's a bunch of whole track engrams that sit independent of it, which can also be included in. Now there's the GPM and then there's the whole track engrams that are scattered around about the place and so forth, the pc knows nothing about. And the whole of that is the reactive mind.

You show me an auditor being critical of his own pc and I'll show you an auditor who didn't understand what the pc said. TR 4 is out, see. Don't complicate it, simplify it. It says "understand." That's all you need. Well, make sure you understand it, see. I've had a pc even speak to me sharply on the sixth or eighth time. I just have to tell him well, I just don't get it, I didn't get that, I don't — don't grab it. And the pc says, " Sis-hallu-tha-llrrrum." "Well, what is it? I didn't get it straight." The pc sounds annoyed. It never registers as an ARC break. But this eventually will find you with an ARC breaky pc. "Okay." He says, "Thall-uulm." And you say, "Okay, good." Next thing you know the whole session — session doesn't exist, R-factor's gone, everything is out the window, see.

You can do things with that if you're influencing anything with these repetitive rudiments processes, used on a whole track basis, you understand? That's the only thing I'm talking down on these things. These are used against the whole track. This is trying to audit the whole case of the pc, you see?

So this applies particularly to the use of these middle rudiments. It's your TR 4's got to be in. But it actually doesn't much matter what the pc said, as long as the pc answers your auditing question. Pc must have answered your auditing question. And that's the end of it. And then you just check it on the meter. Now that's the way you use a middle rudiment. You don't use it any other way, you don't try to run a chain, you don't do any — you just leave it. Don't Q-and-A and hmmm! You know? Just you — you ask him, he tells you. That's it, you see. you check it on the meter and that's that. Otherwise, man, you're going to go far afield, you're going to go adrift, you're going to go appetite over tin cup.

I'll give you another one. "What have you suppressed? What has another suppressed? What has another suppressed on you? What have you suppressed on another — or in another?" See?

Now the other use is prepchecking in the Zero Question so that you can use middle rudiments. But the Zero Question, the Prepcheck Zero, "Have you ever suppressed an item?" or something, you see, that is actually not a middle rud. That's a Zero Question. And of course that's handled with the full panoply of Sec Check, Prepcheck, type action, see. you ask him, you don't get a read, of course you don't prepcheck it.

"What have others suppressed in you? What have you suppressed in others? What has another suppressed in others," you know? A multiple bracket on Suppress.

All right, now, and if you do get a read and he tells you and it doesn't clear, why, you're off to the races into prepchecking See those are two different actions. Don't ever get these two actions confused in using a middle rudiment. Because you already have thrown a non sequitur into the session. Now it's all right to drop a few small stones on the road. They're not going to bother anybody. But now, don't start moving boulders onto the highway and stopping the whole session in order to go into whether or not his Aunt Tibia has possibly ever suppressed his libido. Oooh!

Stands your hair on end when you first start to run it. you say, "Man, this is going to take up — this is going to clean up the whole track. Couldn't help it. Makes you feel so horrible."

I got one from somebody, I will withhold this person's name and send them a bill. They aren't here, but they have been at Saint Hill. Had to stop a Routine 3 session in order to prepcheck out thoroughly some of the background of their difficulties. You do that to a pc, they think you drive wild. you start running. . . I'll give you a subjective reality on this, had a session one time where the auditor — I was worried about a government. We were in some kind of a mess and we ran a present time problem or something like that on governments, you know, just as a coffee-shop thing And, all of a sudden the auditor missed an auditing command and I said, "Wow!" And so the auditor shifted over and ran "What have I done to you, What have you done to me?" As a repetitive process, see. That's dropping boulders on the track and we never did clean up the first one. See, you never come back on the road when you start that kind of thing

Use Invalidate in the same way. use — I've already given you the Fail to Reveal, the Missed Withhold, the Don't Know, all of which are the same thing Careful of — oh, you'd get very interesting results, I'm sure, you'd think. Not worthwhile. None of them are worthwhile. These are all rudiments buttons. None of them are worthwhile.

So middle ruds are used with great discretion. With enormous thoroughness, but with great discretion. Minimum distraction. You're already throwing some pebbles on the highway. But it's worth it. If you throw them on expertly you manage to get a few boulders off and the pebbles too. See, if you do it expertly. But you don't use these things badly. You must use these things with a — a good rudiment approach. You must ask your question, get your answer, check it on the meter and if it's still alive, ask your question, get your answer, if it's still alive, ask your question, get your answer, check it on the meter each time, and now it's dead. It's not reacting now. Tell the pc so and get the hell out of there. That's all you do with it.

One time a well-known auditor out on the West Coast sent me a cable to Australia saying — recommending that I test out at once something on the order of "What lies have you told?" or "What have you lied about?" Some such process as that, you see? Because obviously a lie is an alter-is and that actually would be what the reactive bank would consist of. A lie therefore would be very hot. And frankly it follows these other thought button symptoms, and the buttons are just — it's just — just goes so far and it looks terribly promising and then nothing happens.

Now you use a middle rudiment after every What question has been nulled. Now I cannot give you the optimum time to use it in the midst of the Sec Check one — that is the list-type Prepcheck, you know where you do the Sec Check list, the Form 3 list, I can't give you the optimum time to get. . . Because I have a feeling like you could be too frequent. It's been suggested that it's every five or six, if they were flying along, see. If you were flying on down the road and you weren't actually getting much of a reaction on anything and so forth. But after a few of them you would use it. For sure, you would use it at that time, because the pc might have everything beautifully suppressed.

But now this doesn't say those rudiments should not be handled, see, and this doesn't say you shouldn't use rudiments. I'm just talking about using rudiments to clean up the whole case — using this button called a rudiment, let's apply it to the whole case. Nothing's going to happen. You're not going to clear anybody with it. I can tell you that.

Now if I thought the pc was stringing me a long bend and had it just all suppressed and wasn't paying any attention to what was going on and that sort of thing, I would use it more frequently. But I would sure use it every five or six checklist type questions. And mandatory, that you clean the middle ruds whenever you have nulled a What question. That is absolutely mandatory. You mustn't go on to a new question, a new chain from your Zero, until you have knocked your middle ruds in.

Now, basically this is because these are all thought manifestations. These are all think-thinks, see? These buttons are all figure-figure buttons. And what's got your pc buried is the fact that his postulatingness is basically thinkingness on a lower scale, see?

You find out that they will be very, very productive. They will keep the pc flying Now, the way you put those in, is to check the null of the What question. If you find it live, you of course look for the new chain. What did you miss? You must — couldn't possibly have found the basic. Something's wrong here. Well, you correct that. Now if you check the What question and find it null, you do the middle ruds and check the What question again. Don't do the middle ruds and move on to something else, because the middle ruds might have been out and that might have suppressed. You got the sequence? It's a relatively easy sequence. And it runs something like this. You're doing a form type Sec Check, "Have you ever stolen everything? Have you ever raped a widow?" something like this. And, you've done six of these and you've gotten each one off with at least — with just one, see. Well, by that time you ought to put in your middle ruds.

Think-think or figure-figure, see, is below effort on the Know to Mystery Scale, see. It's actually not — it's actually not postulatingness, see? Oh, way up, way up here, way up at the top of the scale, see, postulating And he's thinking he's below effort. And none of those buttons, weirdly enough, will carry him up above or through effort. They just sort of keep swatting him on the nose and swatting him on the nose and nothing ever happens except he gets swatted on the nose, don't you see?

All right. So you found one that repeated twice, then of course you've gone into a Prepcheck type activity. When you finish up your Prepcheck type activity just as the way you do, get back up there, that What's nice and null, put in your middle ruds and recheck your What. Of course if that What's still alive, why, there must be something more on the chain; you can fish that up and then of course, check your What question; if it's now null, once more do your middle ruds. Always the same action, do your middle ruds, check that What question, undoubtedly it'd be null by that time. And then you go on to your next form line.

He doesn't go Clear or anything. That's because you're below effort. It needs something to carry the pc up through the effort band into the higher ranges of the Know to Mystery Scale in order to get the pc there and that's your Routine 3 processes. And these rudiments processes will not carry the pc up through that effort band. Very remarkable, but they won't.

In other words, you play that What question against the middle rud. That's what's important about Prepchecking, is make sure that you at least get your middle ruds in, after every What question has become null. And you'll find out this does not take long to do. Now, the middle rud standard response, or standard question for this is one of these package questions and I — after the trouble we had getting people to read — people were reading prior reads on the E-Meter and people doing that, I — these package questions make me a little bit nervous. Because they tend to give you the wrong impression. Because in a package question you're actually asking four rudiments in one breath. And it's just a very fast way of auditing. It's short-handing And it possibly might not even be as accurate as asking each one all by itself and that sort of thing, but it does let you cover a lot of ground. And you do it in a package fashion and the package question of course is just, "In this session — " you see, that would — the way — that'd be — always the res — the beginning of it, "Is there anything you have suppressed, invalidated, failed to reveal or been careful of?" Watching each one.

But your pc, because he is below the band of effort with his figure-figure, he's doing figure-figuringness in the middle of these GPM masses. He's getting his dictations from the circuits. He's getting the word from circuit A to circuit B and he's getting the word of all kinds of conflicting and oppositional identities of one kind or another. And all these identities are in conflict with all these identities, so their ideas are in conflict with all these ideas. And as you audit him, you have to keep him from being obsessively alarmed about present time and defensive, otherwise he is not up to confronting the effort and the masses. See, he can't; he'll go r-r-h-h. And yet all the time he's sitting there, he's got a bunch of automatic thinks going. And these automatic thinks are all characterized under the existing rudiments — beginning, middle and end rudiments. Those are the buttons which keep him so involved with think-think that he can't go up scale.

Now, if one falls, like "invalidated" falls, you just stop right there. It makes a full sentence, even though your breath is left hanging in mid-breath. You have not dropped your proper tone at the end of the sentence, but just stop it. Now how do you proceed? Would you just proceed by omitting the two that are now clean and then go on with, "In this session, have you failed to reveal — is there anything you have failed to reveal or been careful of?" You see how that would be?

Now, to get him to go up scale requires something like a Routine 3 process. And the reason that works is because you are labeling masses. Labeling, identifying masses which brings about a differentiation amongst masses and gets the pc up to confronting masses.

In other words you don't repeat — keep repeating the things you have already cleaned up. Now if you just want to punish this thing to death, you can repeat the whole package after you've cleaned up all the parts of the package, just for the hell of it. But this looks to me like it's getting awfully — awfully picky. Almost to the point of annoyance to the pc.

Your effort however is not to get the pc to confront masses. Your effort is simply to get the conflict of those masses identified and resolved any way you wish to do so. It's rather easy to do once you know what you're doing. He's been a boy and the boy has conflicts with girls and the reason boy and girl are suspended right where he lives is because they are in conflict. All right, boy and girl are in conflict.

You checked your middle ruds and you found "careful of" was out. Therefore the next question shortened down to, "In this session is there anything you have been careful of?" see. And whatever the pc had answered you, when you asked the question originally, you had cleaned it, so you say, "Well that's clean," and that's it. And you're out of there and the pc won't be getting all impatient to get going and getting onto something else. It's in the interest of rapid auditing.

Now, he eventually — he's never really identified the fact that he has been a boy or a girl or that boy or girl are part of this great mass called a GPM, the gross mass. Boy and girl are little pieces of this mass, don't you see? But he's never identified these things as having anything to do with him. And one day he's labeling — you've got him listing and he's labeling — and he sees boy. He says, "What do you know, you know, boy, a boy. A boy." That gets kind of real to him, and girl — that gets real to him to. These things cease to oppose each other. In other words, you've actually unhinged the tricky, almost-impossible-to-maintain balance of this glutinous bunch of electronic guck called a GPM, you see. And it can no longer hang up and recreate itself.

Now, that is the auditing question you would use, that was what you would clean up, and how you clean it up I have already described to you, clean it up just as any other rudiment. And now, how do you use it in a Routine 3? In a Routine 3, we have much less definite answers. Much less definite answers. But this is mandatory, that between a shift, I mean after you've finished listing on a list and before shifting to another list, you do the middle rudiments just as a clean-up on a What question is done. Except you haven't got anything to check. You just take that opportunity to get the middle ruds in, that's all. you don't necessarily make him list longer or something like that.

It's creating itself, you see. He's furnishing the energy while it creates itself. It's very interesting, you see. He's creating with his left hand, gazing at his right hand, you know. Very tricky.

This is not very definite beyond that one fact. When you shift from list A to list B. do some middle ruds between the — in the middle of the shift. And just finish listing one, put some middle ruds in and start listing the next one.

But the identification of the mass, the labeling of the mass is the fringe line between the think-think and the mass. That will move him up into confrontation of the mass, he becomes aware of the mass, the mass blows. It actually is nothing — no trick at all for a thetan to confront the mass. That's not even difficult to do. It's what mass to confront; that is the main thing that worries him.

Now, this can be amplified enormously. This can be amplified enormously. And complicated tremendously when you start getting complicated steps into some Routine 3 process. Now I'm studying right now, listing against the needle. There seems to be some validity to this. It's an assessment of the four lines every time, instead of just going in rotation; you list to a condition of the needle, whatever that condition is, probably a still needle. I said "probably," you understand, this is all up in the air. List to a still needle on that list, then do an assessment of all four lines. Find out which one is reacting the wildest and that's the next one you list. See, the complication is this: Where do you put any middle ruds in there? Well, I'd put the middle ruds in before I did the assessment. Complications can occur. The same general law, however, prevails.

And the GPM — now that we have some of the anatomy of the GPM by the identification of the various chunks of it — of course, the thing disintegrates and it tends to come apart and various things occur because you're doing this. Now, you can get a pc into the GPM or find out what part of the GPM he's in with a Goals Assessment. That's easily the best way, as I've always said, because it identifies the think-think that is going in and the principal mass that he's got to get out of.

Now there's another law in Routine 3 that you'll find out continues to be — in other words, when shifting processes or when shifting lists or when shifting some doingness, put a middle rud in between. That's Routine 3. You use it far more frequently in Routine 3 than you will in prepchecking, you'll find. you have to use it — and because it is capable of slowing up the session, you will have to be able to throw it in there with great glibness and speed and read it fast and get out of there. You see? Otherwise you'll be getting into the pc's hair most God-awfully. He'll think the session consisted of nothing but long, lugubrious middle ruds, you know? Well, learn how to do it fast and get out of there and he'll be very happy about your middle rudiments.

If you want to know what the — what the ambition of the mass is, that — you want to find out what goal the pc has that hangs up that he calls his goal. And of course, that is the first identification of the mass he's sitting in which by being opposed and counter-opposed and not opposed and all that sort of thing is suspended right where he is. Now, you start listing down on this thing, all the pressures and electronic mechanisms and masses that hold this in place are suddenly — start lifting and as these things lift, of course, it can't stay there anymore, and where did it go, you know? He isn't even aware of the fact that he is in it or being it and he is definitely not aware of the fact that it is of no value to him but quite on the contrary is a detriment.

It's all with the speed and expertness with which you get them in. An auditor who gets rudiments in slowly, not carefully. Pc likes to see you get in ruds carefully. But an auditor who gets in ruds so carefully and so laboriously actually gets the pc after a while so he's just practically spinning on the subject of rudiments, if at the same time the auditor despite all the care and labor doesn't get the rudiments in. And you can find out that this type of auditing exists: That the auditor is very laborious on the subject of getting the rudiments in, but never gets them in. And of course it'll blow the pc out of the water, every time.

He'd tell you at first, "Oh man, if I get rid of this . . ." Is an easy and early phenomena of Routine 3. "God, it's a horrible feeling — wait a minute, if I get rid of this I won't want to do anything"

But because middle ruds come into the body of the session where the pc's attention is terribly fixed on something else, you cannot afford a drag, a slowdown, a fumble, a dished-up stuff, you see. you check it as a package, you clean up the part of the package that was reacting, you get out of there, see. Don't go messing around, pushing the pc's attention around, "Now, well, did you do something?" and so forth and so on. Don't — don't bother with this.

Well, that's because he's — there's some of the old lectures on games, and so forth. He's so fixated on this that he thinks there is only one game in the whole universe and that game is it. And if that's the only game there is, that's the only thing he can play. And for a little while, every time you start influencing this, he says, "Well there's no other game, you know, and if I get rid of this then I'll have no game at all." Where as a matter of fact if you look it over carefully, he's not playing that game, see?

Terribly important that the pc gives you overts and not motivators in the beginning and end ruds, but you don't be so critical in these middle ruds, see. Don't be so critical. Because actually when they throw one out they'll throw another out. you can generally get it on a repetition. Pc's driving too wild on this sort of thing, why, short-session the thing, just end the session and get your end rudiments and so forth. Start in, wind up on this thing, get it all straight again, because it's going to go up in a ball. Learn how to do middle rudiments easily and swiftly and with no great weight.

And if he were playing it he hasn't had any fun doing it. See, this thing is all — he's in a heavy conflict about all this. As soon as he gets his attention unfixated off of this, he sees, well, there might be some other games around. And as soon as he sees there's some other games around, why, he can become more fluid and more action and he can start enjoying life. Actually he's in a no-games condition — no (hyphen) games condition. Not in a games condition. He thinks he's in a games condition but he's actually in a no-games condition, because he isn't playing the game he knows he has to play as that's the only game there is.

Remember you're doing in the body of the session what the pc's attention is absolutely mandatory on blowing He's got to be able to blow masses and that sort of thing. You mustn't distract him too much. So get them in there, get them in, get out of there. You're actually throwing pebbles on the road when you're doing middle rudiments. That's why I didn't give you any middle rudiments until I was fairly sure that we had the perfect package on the thing. We haven't monkeyed with this very much, you've heard — you've heard about, "Get the withholds off and get the invalidations" and you've heard something about, "Get the suppressions" but you haven't been given any hard and fast packages or "got to's" on this thing and we haven't — . I've been fooling with this for some days, starting a few days ago, talking to your Instructors about it and we've had it checked out and it works very nicely.

So anyway, you get the pc up through this band, and the boost is accomplished by permitting the pc to have his full attention there playing upon the objects you're trying to haul him out of. Now, if his attention is distracted by things in present time, he has just that much less attention with which to address this task of going up scale through the Know to Mystery Scale and he feels — he might have — but he feels like he hasn't got quite enough attention units to look at anything. He's distracted.

Now, where else would you use middle rudiments? Well, on listing of a goal, you will find you have a different proposition because you're not going to change lists, at least on Routine 3GA. You're not going to change lists but it's when your pc looks confounded and stops listing. Now of course you could be so quick that every time the pc took time to take a breath you threw the middle ruds at him. And this would very soon have the middle ruds just about as wildly out as you could imagine. No, I'm talking about the person says, "And catch catfish — yeah — I always wanted to catch catfish. And then . . . Yeah, put that one down, catch catfish and then . . . Ah, well . . ." Oh, man, his attention's gone out of session somehow or another, he's blown off something or other. Probably the next goal is "to go away," you know, and he's dramatizing it. A good way to get him right back in-session again and get him going with a minimum loss of time and so forth — you save a lot of time with minimum ruds if you use them right — is just feed him the middle ruds. Just feed him the middle rudiments at that point. "Oh, well, yes, I am in-session. What have I suppressed?" you know, so on, " — pressed, bang-bang Yeah." He suppressed the next one. He thought it was discreditable. You'll always find there's some goofy answer about the thing or two back there was one he failed to reveal. Or, he's been very careful not to let his rudiments go out. you know? I mean there's something slowed him down. And you'll find every time that whatever his behavior was, the reason he slowed down or fouled up is contained in the middle rudiments. It's magical. The guy all of a sudden picks it up, he starts to run.

He's distracted by the think-think. He isn't actually throwing his own rudiments out; his own rudiments are going out because various masses which also have influential ideas are impinging ideas upon him, consistently, and by pulling these off, you get extraneous ideas off of him which are liable to yank him into PT. But your primary concern is that present time and the operation known as auditing will not drain away his attention.

What kind of wording do you use? Well, let's say you've prepchecked this thing in and then your middle rudiments are sort of — you're having to put them in all the time — I think I'd take a short session and put in a Prepcheck set of middle rudiments again. I'd get — use the subject of listing Now, you've done a lot of listing with the pc, you see. I'd get them in rapidly, but I'd make it an entirely separate session. Don't decide in the middle of a listing session or something like that, that you've got to get the middle ruds in with a Prepcheck. That's a gross auditing error, see? You're going to take the next session and do that.

You keep him up in a high-toned state, whereas he's not worried about the present, he's not worried about the auditor, he's not worried about the session — his attention isn't split in any way. Then theoretically he has enough attention to attack the GPM successfully. And if he is worried about any one of these things, he has just that much less attention to give the GPM.

You figure out, well, there's something gone wrong here and I don't know what it is and this pc is — just seems to be invalidating everything under the sun, moon and stars. What's going on here? There must have been some early invalidative action on listing You'll find out that is the most prevalent thing to go out. There's something wrong with listing Don't start throwing, "On listing — " and expect to pick up the whole subject of listing in one session or something like that. Now I'm talking — I'm being a purist, now, you understand? You understand that you could do this and get away with it, providing you did it in a rudiments fashion. You understand you could do this. But I would tend to handle it as itself. I would try to handle it that way.

Well, you're already telling this fellow, "Now, mount this little — mount this little tricycle, here — has one grasshopper-power tricycle, and there's Mount Blanc, now. All right, now just ride to the top of it. Thank you."

Now this advice may not particularly hold good. It may be that you can get away with this, see? Maybe you can get away with it. Maybe you can say — pc's having an awful time listing see — maybe you can say, "On the subject of listing — " see. The whole subject of listing, you see, you're talking about various alterations, various changes, of wording and so forth, could take place or be in — and you could — might be able to get away with it. And I think you just did. You've been using it, found it very fruitful. Use something like, "On writing goals — " or something like this, " — is there anything you have been careful of?" was a very hot rudiment. I don't know quite how you worded that or handled it. But he was handling more than one session on the thing and doing it quite successfully.

It's quite unreasonable, I mean, to ask a pc to go through the GPM at all because, man, it is tough. This is a rough, rough, rough proposition. I don't mean to aggrandize or say how fantastic a GPM is. Its strength becomes as nothing the second that you know about it and know how to get out of it.

But before I did that, I would have middle rudiments pretty well in hand. You understand? I myself as an auditor would really have the grip on the subject of middle rudiments and their use before I start floundering around. Because you'll find out that they work in a finite state. They work within the one session you are doing If I thought that this pc had a lot of suppressions on listing and was not eager to list and didn't want to tell me his goals, I certainly wouldn't think of trying to get it in with one slash of the middle rudiments. I would start a session, I would prepcheck a — Zero Questions, all about listing goals. "On listing goals, is there anything you have suppressed? On listing goals — " one Zero, you see, " — is there anything you have invalidated? On listing goals is there anything you have failed to reveal? On listing goals is there anything you have been careful of?" And I would take those four and I'd prepcheck them. Really get to them. Really thrash this thing out. And after that my middle ruds would stay in. And I think you'd find it would probably save you time to do that.

But it isn't anything that surrenders to half-baked auditing And it isn't anything that surrenders to a distracted pc. If the auditor hasn't got that pC'8 every attention on exactly what the pc is doing, then the pc won't be able to overcome the bumps. See, he won't ride any tricycle to the top of Mount Blanc, man.

However, I can't give you that as an absolute final statement, because there hasn't been — haven't been very many auditors using this and we haven't any broad auditor experience on it. We just merely know that the middle ruds themselves work like a hot bomb.

Then you start — you see that he can't do it and you start getting impatient with the pc. you start buying him airplanes and that sort of thing to fly to the top of Mount Blanc and you eventually will find him at the top of Mount Blanc, but he hasn't accompanied himself.

Now what corrections we have to make because of misuse and abuse of, that always follows later, doesn't it? Now, you'll find that you will be very happy with these things, normally used, because there are a lot of pcs around on this "careful of" button. Pc's almost sitting there self-auditing, you know. He's being so careful, he's being so careful not to withhold anything. And you have a pc popping up at odd intervals saying, "Uh — I — uh — I — I just thought, uh — I just thought the session was going pretty long. I didn't want to have a withhold. I didn't — didn't want to — " and they go on with this for a little while, you know and . . . "Who's running this session?" I very often will ask them that, you know. It's better to ask them the middle rudiment question. Not as a Q and A, because of their response, but just wait for the next favorable opportunity and ask them is there anything that they have "suppressed, invalidated, failed to reveal or been careful of:"

So, the relationship of rudiments, then, to a Routine 3 type of process is the same relationship as a hedge would have along the side of a road. It keeps the pc guided, pointed and traveling — the same function as small stones might have on an otherwise broad highway. You can't make any speed over this highway unless you get these stones off the road, see. It's a sort of herding, nonimpeding action. But as far as a rudiment or rudiments processes or processes based on rudiments actually moving this pc along that road, they do not. They move the pc no place.

"Uh — yes, I think I've been careful to keep you informed."

But they can retard the pc from going And if really badly done — if you've gotten down over the weekend and thought it over real carefully as to how to get the rudiments well enough out, you could actually get the pc traveling in reverse. You could actually make him travel in reverse. That is possible under today's auditing. The rudiments would have to be pretty wildly out. The meter would have to be very badly read, indeed.

"All right, thank you very much. Thank you. Is there anything in the session you have been careful of? That reads."

But you've just got this situation that the make and break of whether the pc goes forward or not — if your rudiments are (quote) in (unquote) your pc will make forward progress because he has enough attention to blast himself through where he's going. And if the rudiments are out the pc does not have enough attention to blast himself through. In fact there is no blasting and the auditor winds up all sour and doing the blasting for the pc. And of course, this doesn't do any good at all. This gets him to the top of Mount Blanc without having accompanied himself and that is a very interesting state to be in.

"Well I've been careful not to have any withholds. Because I don't want you to get a dirty needle there and have trouble reading it."

They've done this for years in Tibet. They know how to exteriorize in Tibet — they go out the bottom. That isn't why dear old Tibet has busily succumbed now to the ultimate degradation of it all, of it all, of it all. It's got commies on — in it and amongst it.

"Thank you, thank you. All right. Is there anything in this session you have been careful of?"

I ran into somebody the other day who was worrying about whether or not the — any of the old teachings of Lamaism would survive the communist smash of that particular government and so forth. I don't think commie is that active, I don't think he'd get around those cliffs and so forth. No, I don't think so, man. It takes energy. I'm sure the old Lamas have got it pretty well buried amongst the hilltops and in the caves.

All right, now, if it came to a case like that, I would slide the whole question in afterwards, if I was gunning for one thing and weighted it. Then I would say, "That's clean now," or whatever it was. "Now, let's check the whole question. Is there anything in this session — " you see, " — you have suppressed, invalidated, failed to reveal or been careful of? Yes, well, I have a read here on 'failed to reveal."' Because it would almost inevitably follow. The pc who is being so revealing can be counted on to be not-revealing These little laws you'll see work out and you'll become accustomed to it and it's quite interesting the way you can juggle a middle rud against itself. Because actually it's asking the same question both ways. The "careful of" takes care of it, don't you see?

But anyway, the essence of what you're doing is to collect to the pc all of his potential power of confronting, his potential power of examination, his potential power of blowing things. Well, in order to collect this all together, you have to set him up so he is all fine with the auditing universe in which he is being audited, which is to say, his auditor, his E-Meter, his attitudes toward the session, his attitudes towards the environment, his worries about the extensional environment out at home and this sort of thing. These things have got to be taken care of and then he has enough horsepower to climb the hill. Otherwise he doesn't have.

Now frankly, a suppression and a withhold are different. But they're quite similar. And they echo one against the other. And "been careful of" and a "suppression" are the same. "Been careful of" and "reveal" are quite often synonymous to the pc. In other words it plays a whole handful of cards at the same time. This shoots a lot of line.

Now, if you flagrantly throw these things out, you can get the reverse effect of dropping him further back down the slope. If you try to get a pc to concentrate his attention — you just keep inferring to this pc or telling him that he must concentrate his attention on something while you are making him concentrate his attention on something else, he gets to feeling worse than schizy. See? You keep saying, "Now concentrate on the GPM. All right, now go ahead and worry about your problem. Yes, worry about my E-Metering. Worry about the fact I keep kicking you in the shins," Do you see? "Worry about whether you left enough money with your wife. And now — now you've worried about all those things? Are you enough bothered? Are you sufficiently agitated and upset? Good. Now put your attention on the GPM." Dz-z-z-z-z.

You might be curious of where we got this "careful of," where that's been all this time. It might very well be "help," see, or something like that. But it isn't. "Careful of" is taken straight out of psychoanalysis. That's right. Because in my experience with psychoanalytic patients or inspecting and examining them, looking at records, doing that sort of thing, I have found out that there is one thing they all wind up being and that's careful. That is the background music to that thing. And it's quite interesting. And we don't want that in Scientology, so let's take the opportunity of throwing it in with the middle rudiments. Not because of that but because it is quite embracive. Person starts tip-toeing around in sessions and tip-toeing around in life and "Let's see, I mustn't think of an item because I don't have a piece of paper to write it down and give it to the auditor." That's all "careful of," don't you see. And it all gets a similar registry on that.

When he does this, he gets a recoil phenomenon. A pc whose attention is put on the GPM and then suddenly jerked off of the GPM will get a mass straight in his teeth. Every now and then you've see — you've heard of this happening or seen it happening or made it happen to you: One fine day you were sitting in session minding your own business and all of a sudden the window weights broke or something like that — the window came down with a dreadful crash. It wasn't the noise that bothered you. It was the mystery of the mass that hit you in the schnozola. What was that? See?

Some people are careful not to have withholds, see. Other people are careful not to commit overts so they won't have withholds, see. Other people are careful to find out — to make sure that other people don't find out they have not been careful. Any way you want to play the violin it'll make some interesting tunes. That is one of these embracive package words which doesn't really mean suppression. It means something else entirely different. Doesn't really mean help. I just hooked it out of thin air; I knew it was a common denominator to somebody having trouble.

And you say to the auditor, "What was that?" you see, and the auditor obliges and he said, "That was the window falling down." Well, that's a damn funny sensation, see, to result from a — simply a noise blast. Actually it wasn't a noise blast. The pc's attention was distracted over toward the window and his attention acted as a sort of a pressor beam and it had part of whatever his bank was in focus, and when his attention suddenly swept sideways, it was just as though you took the pole out of the hand of a pole vaulter when he was halfway up to the bar. Uncomfortable.

The end product, the end product of all aberration is being very careful. And that goes hand in glove with some research I did the other day. I was reviewing the overt-motivator phenomena and I was getting it all kicked together and once more ran into the factor, this time with more weight than ever, that doingness is dangerous. And the people consider — the more people consider doingness dangerous, the less they do and that's a direct index to aberration. So of course "careful" fits right in there. Another method for asking for one of these near-center pins of aberration. Quite fascinating You start using it into the middle ruds one way or the other, you'll find your pc will start coming up on this alone. You know?

So keeping the rudiments in includes not yanking the pc out of the session. See? That is an understood part of the rudiments. And something which probably is not sufficiently stressed or commented on because there is no remark made by the auditor that invites this situation.

Now, there's another question I must ask and answer and that is simply this: Do you ever use middle rudiments amongst the rudiments? I haven't answered the question yet. But supposing, supposing your rudiments were leading in a very deteriorated direction. That is to say you've got present time problem, a present time problem and a present time problem and a present time problem and a present time problem and a present time problem and you run, "What part of it could you be responsible for?" and "What part of it could you be responsible for?" and "What part — " and checked it and you still have present time problem, so on, I'd be awfully tempted, if I did that, to run middle ruds, end ruds and start the session. Somewhere in that body of thought-buttons, the like of which nobody's ever collected, we're going to have the answer to this thing, you see. He's doing something in this session. He must be doing something in the session. He's probably lied to us about what the problem is or who the problem is with. He's probably told us an untruth concerning the problem. Or he is trying all the time he is sitting there to suppress the problem. He isn't running the command. He's trying to suppress the problem, so that he can get on being audited or something like that.

In other words, you could get all of your beginning rudiments in and then drop the ashtray. All your labor would be in vain, because you see, you have gotten all of the rudiments in and then you have thrown them all out. Why? Because you've got the pc's attention braced into PT. Now you've got him pinned in PT. You've got his attention on something else rather than the whole track and getting him into session. So he can attack these masses and aberrations and straighten them out.

Or he's invalidated something about it or he's being careful to make sure that he doesn't get audited with a present time problem. You see, and you could run on down the middle ruds and straight on down to the end or may — usually present time problems have a "failed to reveal" connected with them. But you could run right on down from there and down into the end ruds and end your session.

You've got his attention on something else. And if you've got his attention on something else, he can't do it, that's all. He's like the marksman who is firing for a record to get his medals and his corporalmanship and a pretty girl passes on the road down the side of the rifle range. You know. He didn't get his corporalship, even though he shot the corporal that was teaching him. Pc can't hit anything

And I'd say — I've not been hung up like this, as an auditor. And, well, I could imagine that somebody could get hung up like this as an auditor, get into some kind of a mucked up mess in the session, where what they were trying to clear wasn't clearing They couldn't get it clear, see. Something was really goofed up. I'd take it at that point, run the middle ruds, run the end ruds and start a new session. That is the best way out of it, rather than beating your brains. Your brains don't have anything to do with your thinkingness anyway, what are you beating them for?

It's very funny. If you jerk the pc's attention out of session suddenly and then ask the pc the next auditing command, you get gobbledygook. You may not have looked at it as that direct a phenomena. You may have had other explanations for it. But actually if he's in a dispersal — he's been hit back by something — and you ask a question into this dispersal and he can't concentrate his attention. His ability to differentiate at that moment is tremendously lessened. He confuses things with things. He doesn't know what's going on. He has no attention to concentrate for a moment. His anchor points are driven in.

But, that is — now understand, I've not run into this problem, so therefore to that degree I'm giving you a synthetic solution. But I could see that the middle ruds might have some use. Might have some use. This pc's got a PTP and you can't clean this PTP, you've run something like twenty, thirty commands on this PTP. Looks the same as it did before. Not having any effect on it at all.

It is a bad and a sad thing that the rudiments can be put in very laboriously for a half an hour and knocked out in a tenth of a second. See? How can they be knocked out in a tenth of a second? Well, I don't know — telephone rings, you answer it, you turn around to the pc without any further announcement — you know, he's not out of the session or anything, he's right in the middle of session, he's right in the middle of a GPM something or other, you doing something or other — hand him the phone and you say, "Well, it's your wife. she says the police are at the house." I don't think you'd have much luck auditing that case.

I would assume there's something wrong other than this PTP. And it would be contained in the middle ruds or the end ruds. And so I'd just go ahead and run it right straight on out; start the session all over again. I might even tell the pc we were going to do that. Let the pc run out the amount of groan that he groaned.

Well, the funny part of it is that you can do this as slightly — the person — the further the person's attention is dispersed, as you find him as a pc — the Tone Scale, tone of case, degree of dispersal, degree of nonconcentration — these are all of one breed of cat, you see. And this person who is not well concentrated on what he's doing, you give him a little noise like this — and if he's halfway round the bend in the first place or terribly concentrated on something, you'd be amazed. You can knock ten rudiments out just like that. All of a sudden you examine your fingernail and you've had it, see? He'd have to be terribly dispersed in order for this to happen, but that would happen. See?

But it might be a very bad policy to give a hang-up PTP that much value. I myself have never had this problem, I don't know why I'm wishing the problem off on you, I myself never had it.

Some pc that you're busy auditing — you say, "Did you — did you mind that? I — you know, you — "Did you mind, did you mind that?"

But I, once in awhile, hear you talking and say, "What do you do when the present time problem hangs up and you can't clear it?" I hear — occasionally hear this question asked. I should think it'd happen with every other rud out. I think that it must have something to do with that. It probably has very little to do with — something of the sort. If this present time problem's terribly severe, if this fellow's wife has just been taken to the hospital that morning, you're trying to audit him and he's waiting for the baby, why I don't know, you're pretty good, but you're not that good, man! To audit over a PTP of that magnitude. Where the phone's liable to ring at any moment and even bring the phone over alongside of the — of the chair so that he could answer it, you see, if the hospital called. Not when there's a big wait and expectancy and all this kind of thing on a — on a situation. You're trying to do auditing on something else, of course it violates the idea of the pc's concentration. He can't concentrate on anything else.

"No, no, no. No, it's perfectly all right." He might also have added to it, "I always suppress those things."

I'd be far more likely to run a session on him at that time that set him up where babies were concerned or something like that. His whole attention is on babies, whole attention is on his wife. Till it straightens up so he'll be nice to the baby when he comes and won't spit at him. See? I'd in other words, I'd recognize that existence was 80 grim or so interesting or so compelling that to yank the pc's attention directly and immediately off of it would be inviting catastrophe anyhow. Better solution of course is to make an appointment for next week. Sometimes you can't do that. Sometimes you're assigned to the session and that's it. You've had it. "Yours is not to question why" sort of a situation, you know.

Doesn't matter what the pc said, the rudiments went out, that's it. It's a sort of a tightrope walk at best. But when a pc has experience of an auditor — that is not of auditors but an auditor — has experience of an auditor, and this auditor has successfully put the pc's rudiments in several times, you will find the pc's anxiety expressed about rudiments, his anxiety about the rudiments being in or not, his anxiety about the present time universe, are of the same breed. They're parallels. They're the same thing. He says he's anxious about the rudiments or something like this. Well, he's anxious about present time, you see?

Well, one of the best things to do is run an equivocal type session. You're running Routine 3, this happened, you're running the PTP, you see. you know you're going to run a PTP, it's going to go up the hill. It's going to go over the hills and far away. It is happening right now. you see, his brother's being executed, but may be given a stay at any moment. And remind him when he gets out of session to call the governor. See, we had one last night, didn't we? He had a present time problem, was still running at a high roar today. What could you do for it? You saw what I did for it. I just said, "Ah, women!" And we went into the body of the session, didn't we? Did you notice that? We dusted that one off lightly. In the first place the pc practically sent it on Morse, radio, telephone, every other means of communication plus neon lights, "This is what you're supposed to audit on me. Second dynamic. My problem. This is what you're supposed to audit on me."

And after an auditor has successfully put them in several times, pc will sit there in session — my God, you could practically drop the E-Meter, you know, and nothing happens. They don't go out. This is a factor known as confidence. Expectancy. The pc begins to understand that his attention can be properly directed by this auditor. He begins to understand that this auditor is not going to get him into trouble but on the contrary is going to get him out of it. It's — an aura of confidence begins to surround the session and at that time, watch out, because you're going to get too cocky, man! Because the aura of confidence adequate to Prepchecking is probably short of the mark adequate to Routine 3.

If I'd audited that on him, man, that would have been a Q and A to end all Q and A's. He wouldn't have gotten anyplace in the session anyhow. Did you know it was a rule that what the pc gives you in the rudiments is seldom what should be run at a long — on a long-term Prepcheck basis on the pc? Did you know that? You can handle a chronic PTP, that's about as far as you can go. The pc says, "The trouble with my case is I hate cart horses. Always had trouble with cart horses. Cart horses are always stepping all over me. Me and cart horses do not agree. In fact just coming down here to the session today a cart horse ran away and dumped apples all over my Austin. And I have terrible problems with cart horses. You see, my mother looked like a cart horse . . ." And all this has been explained to me. I'm afraid I would consider myself guilty of no session control of any kind whatsoever if I ever had anything more to do with cart horses. Not that the pc said it, pc's perfectly willing to say what he please and I'm perfectly at liberty to take it up. But if he knows that much about it, that isn't what's wrong with him.

In other words you need an even greater aura of confidence. Although the process seems simpler, the auditor has to be far less clever. The stress is so great that the rudiments have to be in much better and they have to stay in very well — otherwise the pc never climbs that band through the effort scale. He never comes out of the mud.

And you know one of the — one of the ways your prepchecking goes astray, every now and then, is you take what the pc gives you in the rudiments and try to make that right on the pc. Well you can't make it right because it isn't wrong

Some auditor could audit Routine 3, I imagine, with the rudiments wildly out, year in and year out, and wonder why the pc was going no place. Well, the pc's going no place because the auditor doesn't have the pc's confidence. Why doesn't the auditor have the pc's confidence? Not because of his domestic or personal reputation, it's simply whether or not he can put the rudiments in. That's all. That's all there is to it.

Somebody gives you a long involved PTP — now a PTP of chronic long duration. You saw me audit a pc one day and I said — one evening and I asked the pc, said well, "I understand you've got a PTP of long duration. What was it?" and so forth and we cleaned it up, because it'd been coming up session, session, session, session, session, see. It was getting a reaction. There was every reason to audit that. But you know — you know half the time they never get a reaction. It's marvelous. If you ever audit a PTP on somebody that doesn't have any reaction, you have just committed a blunder for which you will pay dearly. It isn't you should be shot. You'll just wish you had been before you get through.

Now the pc realizes that this auditor cannot put the rudiments in, that he has to lie and cheat and wiggle around. He goes on automatic. He goes on self-audit and he isn't going to blow much of a GPM. Believe me, he's not going to blow anything. He's going to stew and chew and stew and chew and it's going on and on and on. He isn't suddenly and miraculously going to mount up scale. He's sort of going to hang. And this is nothing to be worried about, this is just — only happens when the rudiments are out. It isn't the esoteric personality. It isn't the swamiesqueness of the auditor. It isn't any one of these other things it might be. It's just are the rudiments in or aren't they? And if the rudiments are in, the pc feels confident and if the rudiments are out the pc feels nervous.

Didn't react as a PTP and then you're going to handle it? Oh, no, man. Yet the pcs will very often tell you they have a PTP when they don't have. The way to handle it is quite honestly. "Do you have a present time problem?" The pc, "Oh, yes, yes, my mother was a cart horse." You say, "All right, I'll check that on the meter. Do you have a present time problem?" You say, "It doesn't react now, either." "Didn't react the first time, doesn't react now." And don't ever take them up.

Now, when a pc has been audited many times with the rudiments out, he becomes more and more and more nervous. It is terribly to your advantage that no matter how little you expect of the session to do a good job of putting the rudiments in for that session. Because you've always made this little hidden gain alongside of all the obvious gains. And if you're good at putting rudiments in — that is to say, you can put them in — then the pc has learned one more time that you can put the rudiments in and the pc is that much more confident of being able to buck up things while he's in session.

And when a pc rudiment after rudiment gives you the whole background history of his case and it's all on the third dynamic, they've been kicked out of the communists and they've been kicked out of this and they've been kicked of that and it's all third dynamic, third dynamic, third dynamic, third dynamic, third dynamic, aw for Chri — please, do a dynamic assessment. It's generally on the seventh or the first. It is never on the third. I just absolutely guarantee you it's never on the third. If they know that much about it, that isn't what's wrong with them.

You know the old expression of the pc is able to blow things. Well, in the absence of in-rudiments, the pc cannot blow things.

A lot of times your prepchecking goes totally astray, because you're sold this bill of goods. You understand? Well, similarly, I suppose you could get a bill of goods sold to you by middle rudiments. Pc starts riding a hobby horse on the subject of middle rudiments, but never correct a middle rudiment unless it's out. And always tell the pc what you find out. And always tell the pc what is now in. Say, "That doesn't read." Or, in asking a package question, you say, "That Fail to Reveal reads. What is that? I'll ask the question again. Is there anything you failed to reveal in this session? Ah, that's fine. Good, good — check it on the meter." Keep him informed. And never put anything in that doesn't register that it's out. That is a hell of a thing to do to the pc. And if you can't get something in and it's still reacting and you're going to leave it, tell the pc you're going to leave it and it is still reacting. Be honest, see. And you know, there's very little consequence of doing that in most cases.

You get some pc and he's being audited by one auditor — Auditor A. And it's — he doesn't — hasn't had any difficulty. They start blowing engrams by inspection. They've gone into free whole track engrams, you see, and they inspect this thing. Well, he was a headsman in that life and that blew, you know, and he was — and there was this life, while he was — yeah — he made a specialty in that life out of slaughtering vestal virgins. He could probably even get up to blowing lives, you see? And you give him Auditor B — now you understand this is the same pc — you give him Auditor B and one fine day, why, you find the session has sort of deteriorated to Straightwire and the pc has remembered going to bed last night and he's got a stuck picture on it.

There's less consequence in doing that than spending the next five sessions trying to clean up something you haven't got a grip on anyhow. A middle rudiment — you must never make a profession out of one middle rudiment. Don't start a whole Prepcheck on Fail to Reveal in the middle of a Routine 3 or a Prepcheck, see. Don't keep asking it and asking it and asking it, you'll get tired of asking the thing. Pc hasn't leveled with you, it's still reacting. If you're going to leave it, tell him so. "This is still reacting, however at this time I'm going to leave that and see if it won't develop, and come clear later, thank you very much." See, be honest about it. you don't necessarily have to cancel every rudiment that comes up and hits you in the face. you better had, but if you leave them, tell the pc you have done so. And never correct one that is not out.

What's the difference between these two sessions given by Auditor A and Auditor B? Auditor A: Pc's confidence was very high, rudiments in. See? Only it's not just the rudiments for that session and this is a history of rudiments in. See? And Auditor B: It's just not the rudiments out for that session, it is a history of rudiments out. See, we've been auditing the last fifteen sessions and we have nine of the ten rudiments out, see. Wow, man, that is — and all of a sudden, why, he can't blow. He gets a stuck picture on going to bed last night.

You check, "Do you have a present time problem?" That's clean. Now don't ask the pc, "Well, how's this problem about your mother seem to you now?" Clang! It's going to read again. So you say, "You see, he was being audited with a present time problem." No, » he wasn't. A rudiment's just something you dust off lightly and get on with the business. And that applies to middle ruds and it applies to every other kind of rudiments. You don't make — don't make a whole session out of a rudiment or you get the pc rudiment-broke. And he'll be very upset. Okay?

Now you, trying to put — try — find this pc who has been audited by Auditor B. and you, Auditor C, move in and you're going to straighten out this pc, you are. And you start running rudiments and you've gotten nothing but a dirty, messy, twitching needle. No matter what happens, you know, you — it goes tick. There's five words in the sentence and although the sentence you ask him is actually live with an instant read at the end, as you approach it and draw in your breath to say something, you get an action on the meter, and you get two actions per word on down to the end. There are about twelve actions on the meter — this is a terrible exaggeration — and then it goes into stage four when you are finished, you see.

All right, well that's middle rudiments. Use them all you want to, get familiar with them and I think you'll have good luck with them.

You're Auditor C. This is what you have inherited out of all this, see. "H-e-e-h, well this is an awful low-scale pc. How are we ever going to climb this cliff? How can we ever possibly do anything about this," you know?

Thank you very much.

Well, quite interesting, quite interesting, you wouldn't find any real difficulty in doing so, providing all you did was sit down and session after session put the rudiments in. And all of a sudden the pc's confidence comes up, his attention is collected and you're back to a point of where you're blowing lives at a crack. Because what are you doing in Routine 3? The pc has to blow a life at a crack, just by labeling

Good night.

I don't say this is hard for the pc to do. It isn't hard for the pc to do as long as his rudiments are in. And as Auditor C then, you have brought him back to the same state that Auditor A found him in.

It is the auditor, not the state of the case.

The first edge in may be difficult. We find this pc — twitch, clank, thud, stage four, rise, rise, rise, rise, rise, rise, rise — "Have you breathed lately?" Reaction! Tick, tick, stage four, dirty needle. "What was that? That? That? That?"

"Oh God, I wouldn't know. Oh, that's you sitting there."

Well now, you'll see this work out as time marches on. you give him session one. Urrrh. You say, "My God, this pc is in terrible shape! Awful!" What do you mean by that? You mean he can't go anyplace and he can't blow anything. That's what you really mean when you say he's in terrible shape. Because you as a Scientologist are not necessarily impressed or unimpressed by his behavior out of session, except when he natters around and gives you a lot of trouble or something. Or horrifies you with something or other. You're not particularly critical of his behavior.

What do you mean by a bad pc and so forth? Well, it's a fellow who is just a hell of a mess in session. You can't get anything to read; you can't get anything to not read. The pc gets an ARC break; you can't do anything about the ARC break. The pc gets a present time problem and the present time problem is you sat down too suddenly in your chair after you sat him, and you work, work at this for three quarters of an hour trying to blow this thing and he just still got a stuck picture of a session beginning, you see?

You say that is a lousy pc. Yeah, true, absolutely true. you can take a pc that's in that kind of state and work him carefully with his rudiments — I don't care what you run in the body of the session. Of course, you get a long ways if you do something like a bit of a Prepcheck, but it should be something fairly light in the body of the session while the rudiments are this crazy because he isn't going to be able to blow much. So, you just keep working away at it session by session, or short-session the pc if you're doing five and a half hours auditing. Do a session every hour or something. And just get the rudiments in, man. And again get the rudiments in and get the rudiments in, and the person says, "You know," he says, "I — I've got a present time problem. Yes, I have a present time problem." And he thinks to himself, "Why hell, present time problem — we'll just get rid of it. There's no use having one."

Even if he goes out the bottom on the subject of having present time problems. It doesn't care which direction he got, he isn't worried whether he has one or not. And do you know a pc who is really agitated up very often reacts on a present time problem just because they're afraid they'll have one, because they know that it can't be handled. Or if they do have one that it won't be handled. Or if they do have one, they will spend the next four sessions handling it. There are going to be penalties involved in this thing of having a present time problem. They're going to be punished somehow — not audited, punished. Well, that auditor must have the presence, you know, of a commissar.

Little by little, session by session, the phenomenon you will observe is that the pc's needle gets cleaner and cleaner. It's not particularly what you're running on him — it's the fact you're running him with the rudiments in and getting rudiments in. He's starting to get a reality on it. He feels better at the end of sessions. He stops being anxious about whether or not the rudiments are in or not in. He stops trying to run the session himself because it's so horrible being audited. See? All kinds of things occur. And you'll see — actually you should notice it quite markedly at the end of a second session — that the pc's needle, if all goofed up when you took him over, is getting cleaner and smoother.

Now, if you go on several sessions, you actually — it actually isn't terribly significant what you cleaned up on the pc, don't you see? It's the fact that you did it neatly and the pc could handle all of the stuff you handed him to handle. You did it and he did it and, oh, this is a breeze, you see? And he'll be winning all the way along the line. you could interrupt this by giving him some hill to climb that was far too steep. You could say, "Well, there's the Empire State Building there and we're standing down here on the sidewalk. Now, I'm going to teach you to jump. I'm going to teach you to jump. All right. Now, squat down. Bend your knees, bend your knees. Good. Now, have you bent your knees real good? All right. Now, jump to the top of the Empire State Building oh, you couldn't do it, huh? Oh well, that's too bad. I guess we'll have to do something else," you know?

That kind of a reaction isn't going to do anything. You could put something in the body of the session, in other words, which was far, far too difficult for the pc, such as Routine 3 full-blown, "All right, we're going to run on down the line, getting goals." What do you suppose getting goals is but churning around these goals — middles of the Goals Problem Mass, man? Actually, when you're doing a goals list and assessment and nulling, if you did one badly with the pc all dispersed, he would feel like he was in the middle of a roomful of billiard balls or something of this sort. And they're all in motion and the room is in motion. He won't know what the hell's going on. Because goals are simply the expectancies or attempts of these various objects in the GPM, you see — of former lives, actually, is what they are collections of.

So you ask him to do something too steep, too fast, and the pc is overridden in his confidence. He feels like he's had a hell of a lose in the body of the session. So a good way to take hold of the pc is to run something real easy on the pc for the first few sessions. It doesn't mean you should prepcheck less arduously or CCH less arduously or anything like that. But Prepchecking and CCHs is actually just a little bit too high for somebody whose needle is going clickety-clack-clank, hit the pin, twitch, dirty needle. And you say — not because it's a rudiment — but you say, "Do you have an ARC break?" something like that you would say. Well, it turns out that he does have. And why does he have an ARC break? "Well, you breathed." It could get that sloppy, you see? It could get that grim.

You got a pc who is anywhere in that category, devote all of your time to the type of session which you saw me demonstrate last night. Notice each one of those sessions took about 50 minutes? There were two pcs. one of them, the first one, was in good shape to run a Routine 3 Process. First time I ever audited that pc. The rudiments went in very easily, didn't they? Second pc, they went in rough, rough, rough, rough, didn't they? The pc needs some Prepchecking and CCHs and actually needs more confidence on just rudiments alone. See? Somebody can get them in. Actually, he needs the exact session I gave him, see, but needs about three more of them. Pc will stop being anxious about rudiments, and so on.

But there is a pc that needs to be graduated up along the line a little bit and get a little more confidence in auditing. There was a pc who audited perfectly well. you could tell it just this way: The needle of the first pc was not doing anything unusual at all. It was ticking and tocking here and there occasionally, but it was a pretty smooth needle. And the needle of the second pc was going tickety-tock-pick-pong-thud-bang You ought to have seen it today, by the way, when they checked the pc's rudiments out. They checked the second pc's rudiments just to work out the same thing that I was going to talk to you about tonight.

The pc was sufficiently upset about rudiments in general that just checking the rudiments was upsetting to the pc. you couldn't get very much responding. He couldn't get very much differentiation on it. Why? Well, actually from an auditor's point of view that pc could be said to be in rough shape. That pc actually is not in rough shape except sessionwise. Now, with a few cool, pleasant sessions and so forth, you see that needle will — would just sit there and just ride around, and nothing very energetic about it. It would be smooth. And you get the rudiments in, why, they'd stay in. you wouldn't have to keep punching at them and picking at them and picking them up and putting them back and picking them up and putting them back — none of that, you see. All that would come out, providing you got the rudiments in every time.

Now, the first two times you get the rudiments in on a pc, the first two times you get the rudiments in on a pc, you should not expect the pc to respond well to a rudiments check. The pc won't respond well to a rudiments check. The pc doesn't know by that time whether his rudiments are in or out, don't you see? That's the first time — couple sessions with a new auditor. Rudiments check has relatively small validity.

The third time, this should be very manifest: If the auditor got the rudiments in for the length of time he got them in — if he got them in, in the first session thoroughly at the moment he was getting them in, and if he got them in thoroughly at the moment he got them in, in the second session, by the time the third session comes along, you are going to see that the needle has stopped acting up. It looks cleaner; it looks easier. And if that has not happened or if the pc's needle has roughened up by the time the third session's in, then the auditor did not get them in, in the first session, did not get them in, in the second session, did not get them in, in the third session.

You could check the third session quite validly for a check. You know, do a rudiments check the third time this auditor has audited this pc. That would be a very valid check. Check would be fine, providing it was a very precise check. But not as valid as the fourth and fifth check. Don't you see?

And the first two might have no validity at all. Zzzzzzr. Now, that's a generality but intended to fit on numerous grades and types of pcs in numerous states of decomposition. See? So therefore it's a rough hat.

But the point I'm making here is simply that the pc feels the newness of the auditor, probably wouldn't have this auditor if he wasn't — if he had been going good with his last auditor. You see, a lot of things are monitored this way. A lot of factors add up to the fact that the first session — if he's having any trouble at all in auditing — it's going to be fully manifest. In the second session, why, it'll be less so, but it — possibly still be trouble there. Third session it's starting to look smooth and starting to look like something and then you could tell accurately then whether or not the auditor had been getting the rudiments in. After that, rudiments check — bang-bang-bang — hit them right on the nose every time, see. you got the idea?

But it'd actually be unfair to take a rudiments check on an auditor's first session on a — on a monkeyed-up pc, see. It'd be very unfair. For instance, you're going to get — you not only will get one rudiment out, on two or three consecutive checks, you'll get different rudiments out for the session past, you understand?

What's going on? Well, the only thing that's going on is the pc is very anxious about present time and actually can't differentiate between the present time he is being checked in and the session-he just had, and you get all sorts of crossed-up relationships of one kind or another. But that will not exist after a few sessions, providing the rudiments had been gotten in session after session. You see how you check this out in full fairness to everybody.

Well, there's the value of rudiments. Rudiments are absolutely vital. You cannot do without them to get the pc up the hill. Absolutely vital. And they're not going to move the GPM a thousandth of an inch. you see how they fit?

But without them, the GPM is not going to be moved a thousandth of an inch. And there's the peculiarity of rudiments. And one of the reasons why I think you've maybe had a little bit of trouble understanding them or not understanding them — as the case may be — because they themselves do not have the power of resolving a whole case. But if they kept the pc in-session, then they should have the power of resolving the whole case. Problems like this have undoubtedly occurred to you.

So I rolled up my sleeve to settle it and I have actually been many weeks working on this, one way or the other.

And a rudiments process does not have the power of resolving a case, but in its absence a case won't resolve.

Thank you.

Audience: Thank you.