Thank you.

All right. Here we are 15 May AD 12, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course. And we got a lot of territory to cover. I've had a week off. Did any of you see the quotes around the off? I ought to take a week off one of these days.

Now, this is 15 May, lecture 2, 1962, Special Briefing Course, HCO VV57V. And we are taking up HCO Policy Letter of 3 May, 1962.

All right. A new thing has happened after a year of teaching the Special Briefing Course at Saint Hill. Anniversary, you know, passed a couple of weeks ago. We always celebrate anniversaries. We haven't got our patent serve-it-up-in-a-hurry copper kitchen out here going, so that we can serve up a party real fast, so I had to change everything around to celebrate it.

This is a fairly important lecture because I'm going to give you the first data on some of these TRs and this data will have to be used by you, because there isn't any written data on the more advanced TRs. And I will also shorthand this and get this stuff out in a mimeographed form. But you won't have the pat TRs yet, either. They have to be developed and you can normally describe an auditing action and then you have to work with it a little bit before you can erect a TR around it and say that's it, set in concrete. Otherwise, why, you've got some people learning something that is a bit false here and there, you know? And it doesn't agree with the reality of the situation.

And this is quite interesting as an occasion because it lays down a brand-new pattern for all training courses in Scientology and this course is laid down in the Academies.

So, I'm just giving you here a shorthand account of what I expect of an auditor, from my experience, in these various given reactions or situations.

Now as is usual, when you get a course overlap of this type, you get advanced material being taught at the fundamental level then it is up to advanced students to learn the fundamentals. And there's about where you fit right now. Oh, it doesn't do very much. It just makes it necessary for you take a whole HPA course while you're here. But you're doing that anyway, so what's the difference.

Now, we look over this May 3rd, which was first released as a self-appreciation chart so that an auditor could take this and check off these various columns as to whether he was sure or unsure on it, but you still notice that accidentally we left lots of space over here on the extreme right for check marks to be made as to whether you could do them or not.

Frankly, no course materials have been altered. Course materials are the same as before, but a whole new section has been added and a tremendous number of checkpoints have been added to the course. And this is the advent of the Practical Section.

Now, there's no use going in TR 0 to 4. There's just no point in going into those. They have been terrifically well-covered in lectures; you have TRs concerning them, and none of you can do them. But — I mean, that after awhile is the — is the sort of feeling you get about these after you've been drilled on them forever. Nobody can do these things, you know? But nevertheless auditors do that surprisingly — do them surprisingly well.

Now, as we have learned, people can confront doingness. They can confront doingness, when you kick them in the back of the head, hard.

Now, let's take off above this point. And let's not bother to put TR numbers in, although TR numbers will be filled in. There is another TR which is "Auditor query." Now, this comes clear down — and also, we're not going to take up the CCHs for the same reason, as they've been terrifically well covered. Also Op Pro by Dup has been the subject of many bulletins, and so on, and written materials, and no point in wasting time on that. And we get to this first item which is actually a TR which is probably TR 5T or some such number. I won't even say that is its number. But it's the Two-way Comm TR.

With what glee will people confront thought. It's marvelous, you know. It's a — they go around and there's a thought and they'll confront that and there's a theory and they'll confront that and there's another thought and they'll confront that. And they're happy as clams and they'll just go around confronting thoughts.

And it's Two-way Comm in CCHs and oddly enough it's the same Two-way Comm, but will have a different number for use in Model Session. There isn't any difference between these TRs except one — the one we're — we have under discussion here — Two-way Comm and CCHs, considers a physical reaction on the part of the pc to be a pc's origin. And then of course we do TR 4 — with this exception: The pc has originated. The auditor asks him what that was. See, the pc jerks his head and the auditor says to him, "What happened then?" or "What was that?"

Now, don't mistake it. I'm not running down Mike's section here. Data is very important. But there is something a little harder to confront than data. And that is its application and doingness.

And the pc says, "Oh, what?"

And right away with the advent of the Practical Section — it ran fine the first day. you see, it's a little bit harder to confront the doingness of it all. You can get somebody to pass a bulletin that says, "At the given instant when the pc screams 'I do not want to be audited by you,"' you promptly say to the pc, "Shut up." you see, whatever the bulletin says, you see.

And he says, "That jerk of your head that you just did."

And you get the fellow in session. See, you got — you got the bulletin down pat. I mean Mike gave you the okay on it and everything. And you got that all set and everything. That was easy. And you sit down in session and the pc rears back and says, "I don't want to be audited by you."

"Oh, that." Pc, "Oh, well, well I just had a — had a somatic."

And you say, "Uh — uh . . ." See, that's — that subtle difference. There's a lot . . . It's a very important difference too. And sure enough, we put in — well, we put in a whole Practical Section to take care of this difference. It's the third pin of training It's always been there more or less. you had the Comm Course, you've had Upper Indoc courses. You've had various doingness activities. But now this puts it in as a parallel section to actual auditing with a bunch of new TRs and a lot of other things.

And the auditor goes on and simply acknowledges that fact and he doesn't go any further than that. The whole object is to get the pc to notice that he jerked his head. And that is the only comm used in the CCHs.

But this doingness — people will confront thinkingness before they will confront doingness — is quite marvelous because the first day the Practical Section ran beautifully. See, there was quite a few people being checked out and everybody was happy about it and so forth. And I came down today, in the afternoon and there were four students with two Instructors.

Now, one of you the other day was running on and on and on and calling it Two-way Comm in the CCHs. And of course, there was no gain. The auditor — here's the fault. Here's the faulty one. The auditor says, "Well, what happened — ." Well, actually one auditor had reduced it to a system so that every time they did the drill the auditor says, "What happened that time?" The pc said something The auditor said, "That's fine, or something like that. That is dead ''wrong. That is just wronger than wrong, you see? It's not a system; it's a specific pc origin.

In other words, not only will people do this, but the course started to dramatize it. Here were ten people in here studying theory with great avidity and only four of them had moved over into the Practical Section to brush up on their TRs and things. That's quite marvelous, because let me tell you, there's not a single one of you here could pass the Practical Section. And every one of you have got to go all the way through it. I know somebody who's just about ready to leave. You see. You've had it, see.

Now, here's another example of a wrong one: The pc says, "I've got a terrible burning sensation in my stomach." Now, that's handled with TR 4. So we don't care what the pc said. We just acknowledge it. That's just TR 4. That isn't — that has nothing to do with this Two-way Comm in the CCHs.

But anyhow, and here were four students, see. Four students were sitting there, getting checked out on body motions to the E-Meter and so forth. And here were ten sitting in here listening to tapes happily and reading bulletins happily, you see and then the practical room was practically empty.

Pc says, "Oh, I had a terrible burning in my stomach that time." And you say, "Good. Thank you." you understand that he had a burning in his stomach and you tell him so. And that's all that happens and that's just TR 4, see? No, no, that is not your CCH Two-way Comm. The pc actually originates with a physical action. You see their eyes start going You see their — something happening. It's his shoulder — you see, shoulder goes suddenly, you know. Well, one of the questions — the only question about this TR is do you ask them then or do you complete the cycle? Well, actually by asking them then, you tend to put the pc in charge of the session, which would be wrong.

Now, this can go too far and you can get to a point where you won't do any theory. That's not what we want. We want a decent balance in these things. But right now at this particular stage of the game, those of you who can do practical, of course, would check out on it rapidly. See. And those of you who can't certainly better learn it.

Pc is permitted then to interrupt your cycle of command, see, and that would be wrong so you wait till after the cycle of command is finished and then you ask him about it. But unfortunately, a large percentage of the time he will have forgotten about it. But that is not unusual because he usually didn't know he did it. So if he doesn't have any recollection of having gone — well, that's — that's it. Just let it go by. Just let it go by.

And here's the background music back of this new course design.

Now, your two-way comm is a funny two-way comm in the CCHs — it's very funny, because the pc doesn't say anything; the pc does something we don't care whether he does it painfully — it's a painfully slow reaction. It's a questionable fumbling on the duplication. We don't care what it was. We don't care whether it was a quiver of his nose or a twitch of his cheek or the wiggle of his right ear or the hitch of his shoulder, but he did something Now, remember this: CCHs are physical processes, not thinkingness processes, and our two-way comm is calculated to do only one thing with the pc, and that is exteriorize him from that somatic. And by getting him to look at it, we will exteriorize him from it in most cases.

You yourself could learn a great deal about the constitution of the human mind and reaction of pcs if your technical application of procedure was perfect.

And the usual reaction is he didn't know he did it. The only two-way comm you engage in then is to ask him what happened — and if he doesn't immediately tell you — you know, the origin was the twitch of the shoulder — if he doesn't immediately tell you about the twitch of the shoulder — he says, "My ear burned," Uh-huh. You say, "All right, thanks."

If your procedure was perfect, you would never get any of these wild varieties which you think sometimes exist in the mind. They don't exist in the mind. They exist in your procedure. You see?

"But what . . . ?"

So a lot of your understanding of the mind is blurred for lack of an absolutely perfect application of Scientology to the pc. And you'll see these things just whir off, just whiz-whiz-whiz-whiz-whiz, see. And you'll see all the wheels and where they turn and — and so forth, you see? Because at no time is the pc being distracted by any oddball activity on the part of the auditor. See, at no time — at no time.

"Thank you. Thank you. Good. Now, what happened to your shoulder there?"

But let's look at this now. Let's take an auditor and every time the pc . . . Well, the rule is that when confronted with the unusual, do the usual. And that is one of these nice, large, solid stable data that you can hang onto that will get you over more falls and slumps and crashes than you ever heard of.

"Oh, my shoulder. I don't know. Oh, my shoulder. It's — yeah. Yeah. Yeah, my shoulder. Well it's — funny, feels numb."

Now, you see, the pc has a different case than any other case in the world. We admit this. We agree with this completely, except today there's not one iota of difference.

And you say, "Good."

Yeah, but the pc, he thinks he's got a different case than everybody else in the whole world. Well, he hasn't. Not in terms of basic fundamentals. His case is — runs exactly on the same fundamentals as everybody else's case. He's a thetan. He's here. So all the fundamentals must be the same or he wouldn't be that knuckleheaded. You get the idea?

Now there's the basic outline of that CCH. And you'll find out that it has only one purpose. And that is not to establish two-way comm with the pc particularly, but to get the pc — one: to keep the pc in session with you and to get the pc basically, however, to exteriorize from and notice what's going on and notice what he is doing, instead of dumbly grinding on through. Now, if the pc can actually dumbly grind on through and never notice what he's doing, then you'll make very, very slow progress.

He's right here in this universe, see? He's here in this universe, so he arrived on the same course as all of his cohorts, buddies and fellar thetans. So it's obvious that he must be running on the same fundamentals. But everybody thinks they have a very unusual case.

Now, that is one specific drill and the most important one. That is the most important one. It is allowable, it is allowable to whistle the pc back into session or encourage him a little bit or something like that. you see, you're not a — you're not a dummy sitting there auditing him. Pc — he doesn't want to do it again and you say, "Oh, come on, come on." you know, cheer him up; push him on. "That's better," something like that. That is after, however, you finished a command cycle. Those comments, those statements, the "how's it going," cheerily, that sort of thing, can go on.

So they sit down and give you a sales talk of unusuality. And you — I don't care what you expect from a pc, sooner or later the pc is going to sell you the unusuality of it all.

But the basic two-way comm in the CCHs is the origin by physical action on the part of the pc, the query of it by the auditor, and the action of the auditor to make him view it. If he can possibly get him to view it, he does so. That's all.

In other words, you look on the pc as a salesman of differences. A pc will always come up with the unusual. It's always different. It's always unusual. He's always going to do something else. Well, that's his privilege. Nonduplication might be said to be the common denominator of his whole case, so why shouldn't he come up with unusuals? Every time he starts in dramatizing, he comes up with something different, doesn't he?

All right. Now we take up the E-Meter. The E-Meter is written up in all ways from the middle in E-Meter Essentials. There are certain drills by which the coach sits behind the auditor, (quote) (unquote) "auditor" and gets him to study body motion, which is at the bottom of the page there. Now, there's one point I'd like to make on that particular point which is not in E-Meter Essentials and I'd like to add the data to it. you must — give him all kinds of body motions, yeah, let them accustom themselves to seeing what a needle looks like with all kinds of body motions, just as given in E-Meter Essentials — but since E-Meter Essentials was written we have had brought to notice, "the selling pc." The pc that sells you things. The pc that influences the meter and you should learn those tricks. And those are the specialist tricks. You can — those things should be hit heavily — very, very heavily.

He comes up with a nonduplicate of the human race. Well, that's what his case is — a series of nonduplicates. So he's sitting there and of course he's nonduplicating What else can he do with the bank he's got?

There is lifting one little finger off the can and replacing it to get a twitch on a certain item. Well, you say, pcs never do this. No, only twenty-five percent of them. They'll sell you a goal by lifting their little finger off the can and putting it back on. And if they're holding their cans this way, you can't see their fingers, you see. Hold the cans with their palm — with the palms up, you know, toward the can — the can up. you can actually — they can actually make the thing read. Twitch. And frankly, it looks like a finger-twitch. It does not look like a tick on a goal or an item or anything like that. It looks like what it is. It looks like a finger being lifted and putting back on the can.

And God help the auditor if he ever does anything but the usual.

Another one is the way some pcs keep you from finding out anything in the rudiments is to gradually loosen their grip on the cans. And they can actually do a beautiful needle rise. Beautiful! You never even see their hands move. It's absolutely — all you have to do is just lift some of the skin surface of your hand off of the can at a very gradient scale and you get the most beautiful needle rise you ever saw. And any reaction to the rudiments is smothered in that rising needle. Pretty good.

The second the auditor buys the unusualness, the auditor teams up with the pc's reactive bank and the reactive bank of the pc and the auditor then process the thetan called the pc. See, after that there's nothing else happens. We've got a reactive bank busily processing the pc along with some help from the auditor. Ha! Happens to be the last checkpoint here on HCO Policy Letter 3 May 1962, PRACTICAL AUDITING SKILLS. There's a long checksheet here and on the last of it, it says "holding constant against adversity."

Also, you can squeeze the cans — putting a little more and a little more skin on the cans — and get a gradual falling needle. They're unmistakable for what they are, once you know what they are and you've seen them. But those are selling techniques. There may be more of them, but those are the ones which have come to view.

Well, adversity is just being solely unusual and holding up against it is just doing the usual. I mean it's as simple as that. It's terribly simple once you get the grasp of it.

One pc's rudiments was always in, except they were always wildly out. And the pc always had a rising needle whenever the rudiments were touched. One day Mary Sue got tired of this because she knew the pc's rudiments must be out by just looking at the pc, and detected the fact that this had been going on for a long time. This pc also responded to embarrassing Prepcheck questions with a constantly rising needle. It was the most beautifully masked thing you ever wanted to see. why a man would want to cut his throat by falsifying E-Meter reads is — well, that's a subject for the Catholic church. We're not interested in it.

But as long as everything looks all different to you too, you're going to get the wildest ideas of the human mind you ever heard of if your auditing procedure is wild.

Now, as far as the rest of these things are concerned, they're rather easy. When I say on-off switch, and that sort of thing, it's almost being sarcastic, isn't it? But, do you know that nearly every auditor I've ever seen monkeying around with it early on, fumbles for the on-off switch? And me, I've been auditing between a Mark III and a Mark IV. I've got the prototype Mark IV which is actually a Mark III. And it's different than the Mark IV; it turns on in a different place. I always turn each one on in the wrong place. You'd think fifty percent of the time I would get the right one, but somehow or another it's always a hundred percent.

If your application of auditing to the pc is wild, inconstant, variable, wobbly, then you're going to get the wildest ideas of what the human mind is all about. And you get a lot of help in getting these ideas, too. you sit down and one day, why, you're auditing this — this well, this cop. And he's going yippety-yap-bop-bop, something of the sort and — and "The world really doesn't understand me. I am sweet and kind and good and every time I shoot somebody, an innocent bystander or anything, people get down on me. And they're mean to me," and he's going on like this, you see.

When the — you say on-off switch — in trimming, we want a smart setup of the E-Meter. On those two, see — whether they're in correct order there or not — this is trimming and on-off switch. We want a smart setup of the meter. In other words we want this person actually to be able to set up an E-Meter without bad, you know, knocking his brains out trying to find the plug, or whether the plug is in or out, or half in or half out, you know? Let's let him get used to this and find out where the controls are and how you hook it up and so forth, so that he can do it just brrrrr, and his E-Meter is set up and ready to roar.

And the auditor says, "You know, this — the world really is being mean to this fellow, you know."

Sounds like an elementary thing. It makes a hell of an impression on the pc. I'll tell you, a pc who watches an auditor say, "Heh-heh — I haven't got any leads here at the moment but..." It does something to his confidence. He doesn't at that moment feel in an outpouring state toward this auditor. He catches the uncertainty of this moment. And actually an auditor may know his meter perfectly as far as operating a meter's concerned and just be very unpracticed in setting one up. you get the idea?

And he's prepchecking or something and he says, "Well, who's been mean to you?"

Another thing is — another thing to watch on this, is learn to set up a meter quietly — not with a snap. Don't set up a meter noisily. One of the ways you do that is let one of your fingernails grow long and snap the jack with the plugs, down on your fingernail, and then ease it down. But you would be surprised. I myself have been knocked half out of session by a very, very loud and boisterous setup of a meter.

And all of a sudden the cop makes a terrific resurgence of case. That's not according to the rule book. How do you make all this resurgence suddenly? Graph does a jump. He loses his lumbosis and his pistolitis — dreadful disease cops get. What happened?

You know, you're sitting there all ready and you've got some data, and you're all — you're just — you know, waiting for — to get into session and all of a sudden there's these wild explosions going on in front of your face and your attention comes out on the auditor. And if you want to start a session with all the rudiments in, you will know how to get an E-Meter into action smoothly and quietly and very effectively and efficiently, so the pc doesn't even realize you've started to use an E-Meter — he's just sitting there with the cans in his hands. How did they get there? He wouldn't know. see what I mean? It actually has a — there's a purpose that you might neglect.

And you say, "Well, you know, you really had better run motivators on the pc because if you don't run motivators, why, look it there. I would have missed this cop."

Now, we say sensitivity knob — you'd be amazed how much difficulty people have getting the sensitivity knob up for the rudiments and down for the can squeeze, and all of that sort of thing And then they'll start with a third-of-a-dial drop on the can squeeze which they have run the person's Havingness Process on and tested it, you see. And then they'll run the next rudiment with the sensitivity knob set at the third-of-a-dial drop setting, don't you see? And then say, "Oh, excuse me." And then move it on up. A drill could be done to make that much more smoothly. I myself have made the mistake. You have made the mistake. Why make the mistake?

Of course, you don't notice in two months. He fell on his head and shot the Chief of Police. But that's beside the point.

Tone arm handling: Well, at least know that you can handle it with your thumb. You don't have to cover up the whole meter with your paw and juggle it around and wave red flags in front of the pc's face and everything else just to set the tone arm. Actually, this whole tone arm can be handled with the thumb, with the hand underneath the E-Meter. Pc never notices that you're handling a tone arm. can be done very quietly. Can be done very smoothly. You always ought to be able to handle an E-Meter in that particular fashion.

You totally misinterpreted what happened. See, you Q-and-Aed with the situation. You didn't hold up against adversity and you said, "Oh, you poor fellow. You mean to say these criminals groan and scream when they're being shot and you just — so that — you just — and it affects your migraine. You poor fellow. Now, what criminals have groaned and screamed at you?"

This — not so good, see? See? Get the difference? See, you don't even know whether I'm doing — what I'm doing with the tone arm. Because if you start doing this — the pc will come right out of session. He'll say, "What did the tone arm do?" And you say, "How did you know it did anything? I must be wearing a mirror in my tie."

No, the only resurgence you got in the case is it's the first time anybody had ever gotten acknowledgment through to him. you see, you got the same case resurgence that you get if you acknowledged anything or anybody. It's pretty hard to punch an acknowledgment home, but in this particular case, what he did was interpret sympathy or something like that as an acknowledgment and he won in spite of the fact that you ran a motivator. See. And the motivator had nothing to do with it. And Prepchecking didn't have anything to do with it. you would have gotten the same effect if you had been sitting in his office, see?

Now, needle pattern reading is kind of new. We talk about a needle pattern in E-Meter Essentials but we don't talk about what a pattern is. Because at the time E-Meter Essentials was written we didn't know what a pattern is. A pattern is a series of missed withholds culminating in a constantly active needle.

So right away you say, "Well, is there something about this overt-motivator sequence?" you see and you go astray and so forth.

A pattern can be a big dirty needle or a little dirty needle. In other words a wide-dial dirty needle, or a small-dial dirty needle. And you sure better know what a dirty needle looks like and what a pattern looks like for the excellent reason that if a goal comes up — whenever you say the goal, "to catch catfish," and you get a bzzzz. "To catch catfish," bzzzz. "To catch catfish," bzzzz. And it's a dirty needle, that goal isn't in. That goal is kicking simply because there's a missed withhold in connection with it. you get the missed withhold off and that goal is deader than a mackerel.

Well, now look, if you really, really knew your auditing head-on, the situation would have been something like it was, "Well, this guy keeps on going like this, he probably never been acknowledged, you know." And you say, "Well, gee-whiz, all right. Well, doggone. All right. And go on and scream. All right. Mm. Good. Bothers you, huh? Good. All right. Hm. Yeah, I got that. Yeah, I got that. Somebody really ought to give you a hand. Now, let's see. Now, what have you done to a criminal?"

Now, if you're good at this you can tell whether or not the pc has a missed withhold or an invalidation. You can read it straight off the meter. Missed withhold always gives a dirty needle. And that's needle pattern. The pc's needle that goes — the stage four needle — the — any other needle pattern — constantly moving needle and so forth, is a missed withhold, one or more. It's actually the net product of too many missed withholds if the thing is wide and chronic, don't you see?

You see and you would have gotten the effect of an acknowledgment followed by the effect of the Prepcheck. You see how it could be misread?

But you can correct that needle pattern. And you'd better get used to a needle pattern being correctable. Because the person's got missed withholds, they're going to be hard to audit. You know then when you've got your Prepchecking up to a point where everything can go along rambunctiously with Routine 3's, when the pc no longer has a needle pattern. Hasn't got a needle pattern — well, all right, you must have the bulk of his missed withholds. Therefore you've got a chance of keeping his rudiments in.

Now, there's a terribly broad example, a rather nonsensical example but who would do anything but vary their procedure if they didn't have a good, tight, standard thing called standard auditing? See, if they — if they didn't know that existed, then who could ever blame them for varying their procedure?

Don't you see, it is going to be very difficult to keep somebody's rudiments in whose rudiments are perpetually out. In other words, you never have a chance at current rudiments because the rudiments have been out for ages. And you'll find your Routine 3 sessions on such a pc are constantly and continually carried into Prepcheck sessions. You never really get a chance to do any Routine 3, because you're always correcting the pc. And that will always happen when you have a needle pattern. So you better get used to what needle patterns are and spot them for what they are, because, the — well, not the bulk of people that you audit — but, I don't know what the percentage would be, I'd say just at a wild guess about 50 percent of the people that you suddenly put on a meter have a needle pattern.

In other words, they're moving on both sides of a highway and they don't know it exists. They're driving in both ditches and out across the plains and herding the ponies up in the hills, you see. And they don't know there's a highway there.

There are various types of needle patterns. There's the little tiny, bzzz, dirty needle. And there's the — it's not a nice tick, see, it's not a nice little clip. Pop-pop-pop — that's not a needle pattern. It's a — it's an instant read needle pattern. it's fantastic. But you say, "To catch catfish," bzzz. "To catch catfish," bzzz. "To catch catfish," bzzz. And you say, "Boy, that's really something We've really got a goal, yeah. We got a goal. who should have found out about this goal and didn't?"

Well, instead of blaming auditors, I should say that it's only recently that I finally corralled all the factors that make up an auditing session. I've been watching auditors for a year and I know now that, thanks to the data, the final data that came home on this was missed withholds.

"Heh-heh. My father. Heh-heh heh-heh. Heh. Heh-heh. He should have found out about it." You say "All right, very good. To catch catfish." Where did it go? It's released that easily. That's very rare that you will find an instant read on a goal or an item. Very rare. But when it does happen, you're in trouble. And it can cause so much trouble that you sure better know all about it no matter how rare it is.

And I know now that for every action of the pc or everything a pc can do, no matter how unusual, there is a standard auditing response that handles it.

Now, you can sometimes get a goal on the list of goals reading on a missed withhold, that you missed. Or an invalidation that you missed. And the goal actually isn't in. The invalidation reads with a nice tick.

Now, you see, you couldn't call it a standard response unless it actually handled it, see. But if it actually handles it, now you can call it a standard response. You see, because Scientology is totally dedicated to being workable. I know this is not popular in some parts of the world. You'd never get a job in the US State Department with that type of a — of a motto. You know, "be effective." You never would.

And you ask, "Any invalidations on this goal?"

And Scientology's peculiar that way. our index rule is, "does it work?" Not, "is it true?" but "does it work?" Oddly enough, it has to be true in order to work, but that's beside the point.

And the pc says, "Oh, well yes, last night I was sitting up and I said that a man would be a fool to have such a goal."

Now, if these auditing responses work and work in all cases, then I have a right to lay them down and say this is what they are, you see. Only because they work. And then say, "Well, you go ahead and learn them. you learn these responses because they'll work for you. See, I know they 11 work for you."

"Is that so?" And you say "Good, to catch catfish?" All right. You say, "Were there any suppressions on this goal?"

And then I've got a right to bite Quirino's head off and so forth — he's in charge of Practical Section — if he doesn't make the thing work, don't you see? Because there is something there.

"Oh, yes, I'd rather not have it. I can remember saying that to myself"

Now, one of the favorite methods of teaching in universities on this planet is teaching against the hidden standard. You walk into class and there's students there and there's somebody lecturing and they give examinations and you can even get expelled from the college for flunking the course, don't you see? And the only thing they've overlooked is the fact that there's no course material.

"All right. Is there a missed withhold on this?"

You know, there it's just growing in universities today. Most of you've been out of universities too long to appreciate the fact. But there are more and more courses taught in universities which have a hidden course. It's a hidden subject. And the student is there. He's very wise. And the professor's very wise. And it's a whole bunch of double talk, you know.

"Well, yes, you didn't find the goal originally when you were nulling."

Did you ever meet a friend and there was somebody else present and you met this old buddy of yours and you started double talking with this old buddy and the friend had to stand there and he thought you were both saying something to each other. You know? And of course, you weren't.

"All right. Good. To catch catfish," tick. "To catch catfish," tick. "To catch catf ." Happened just as often as it vanishes forever.

Well, the student is an innocent bystander to this double talk and he sees the professor and he sees students and everybody is doing well, so he says there must be a subject here, you see. Must be one. And everybody is so sincere about it, you know.

Now, you get the test question, "Is there an invalidation on this goal?" Tick. You get it off. You either have a goal or you don't have a goal. But you certainly don't have an invalidation.

Subject like art. you should read some of the late curriculums that have come out. Very, very interesting, art appreciation, music appreciation, domestic relations. Can you imagine somebody daring to teach a course on domestic relations who had never even heard of a corner of the human mind? What a dog's breakfast that life must be afterwards if led off these principles. The textbook is invariably written by somebody who murdered his first eight wives, you know. Something like that. And it's a hidden subject. And the world is getting used to having hidden subjects.

In other words, goals and items can be held in and made to look like goals and items from suppressions, invalidations and missed withholds. And this all comes under the heading of needle reads in general, but needle pattern is the wildest of these. That is the most interesting. Because you can get good enough that you sit right down, this person's got a wide swing and a tick-tick. And a wide swing and a tick-tick. And a wide swing and a tick-tick. Any time you ask him, you say, "Cows." And you get a wide swing and a tick-tick. And you say, "Well, do you ever comb your hair?" And a wide swing and a tick-tick. You say what's going on here? Missed withholds is what's going on here. who missed it? It's probably been going that way for a long time. Maybe his mamma missed it, or his schoolteacher, or somebody else. It's past. It'll be well back.

And everybody's got his re — trained response to the hidden subject. And the trained response to the hidden subject is, you look alert, you're agreeable, you go along with it, you memorize everything you're told to memorize, you take your examinations, everything But actually it's just all a sort of a — an agreement because, really, we know there's no subject there. You know, Art Appreciation. Who the — who the — how the hell could you teach Art Appreciation? Yet they manage it. They manage it.

All right. It's the dirty needle that has given Routine 3 the most single amounts of trouble — the dirty needle. So I've already found out what the dirty needle is, so therefore it gets included in here. It's always a missed withhold.

I ran into somebody one time. you should have seen that girl's home. She had taken Art Appreciation at the University of Southern California, LA. It was marvelous. The place was just full of books on the subject of art. Everywhere you looked, here they were propping up the bureau and bright maroon curtains, you see and scarlet table cloths with green pimentos on it. She sure had art appreciation. The person was wild.

All right and we come down the line here on a null needle. And that is horrible that all the auditors that were consulted on this in southern California were able to describe a null needle. I think that was the greatest achievement I have ever heard of. Everybody down there could describe a null needle.

She was taught this subject called Art Appreciation and it was the wildest double talk you ever listened to in your life, you know. "The rigiflubit sallpupilob" you know.

Saint Hill graduate went back there and gave a lecture. Tremendous lot of data in this thing. How to run all the Routines, how to prepcheck, sec check, how to tear pc's upside down — one thing registered with the auditors who came to the lecture. "So that is a null needle!" Everybody came around afterwards and they were very intrigued. And that was a starting point of a reality on what needle reads are.

Yet obviously, hundreds and hundreds, thousands of students have been taking this course. Obviously, they were all in perfect agreement there must be a course there without anybody ever demonstrating a course.

I've seen people sit in here when they first arrived from someplace. And you say, "All right, what's a null needle?" Mike would say. And they'd say, "Well, a null needle is — that." Give you a pattern, you know? Wave their arm around in the air like they're sending semaphore signals to somebody. That's a null needle. Interesting. Interesting

Well, do you see, actually — actually, I'm being a little bit mean on the subject. Of course, you know, mathematics is an exact subject. Do you know there's a swindle called calculus that's been going on ever since Newton — I think he did it for an early issue of Punch. It's marvelous, you know.

And of course, null needles, theta bops, rock slams, falls, rises, speeded rise, speeded fall, slowed rises and slowed falls, are the new ones that you normally don't see too much of. But here at Saint Hill, why, the older class that was here, my God, could those fellows read speeded rises and speeded falls and slowed rises and slowed falls. And before people were — people who were — just been here for a short time, you know, they would watch these guys doing Sec Checking The needle flying around at sensitivity 16, you know? And it just looked like the same needle, you know? It looked exactly like — just a fast flying needle. They — unable to detect the fact that at one little point the rise speeded on an instant reaction. And it's that degree of skill we're asking from a Saint Hill graduate. That — it's swinging up — it's swinging up like sixties, you know, it's coming right on up. But at what point did it suddenly move faster as the instant read? Reading a flying needle — it's quite tricky reading one of these things.

You go in there. The professors are teaching it and students are figuring out things with it and you go up to a senior and you say, "How many times have you used calculus in your calculations of various things since you had calculus in your freshman year?"

We're not doing as much Sec Checking as we were and I don't see so many people doing that. Furthermore, because we haven't been doing a heavily effective Routine 3 Process, sensitivity is not as loose as it was a few months ago. It will be shortly. And you'll have this problem where at sensitivity 16 you actually have to keep the needle moving yourself. You have to keep the needle moving yourself while it reads because, you see, you can't get the whole sentence out before it's traversed the entire dial. So of course you have to read — move your tone arm — I'm joking now; almost that bad though.

"I never have."

So, that's real — real postgraduate needle reading, when we get into speeded rises and speeded falls and so forth. And the darned thing flying through the air like sputniks.

"Well, why don't you use calculus?"

And then tiny reads: How tiny can a read be and still be a read? Break out your microscope Sherlock Holmes, because you — this is the way it's going to be sometimes. Sometimes it's this way the whole session. And sometimes you get enough invalidations off and get the reads so that people can see it.

"Well, it's . . . "

And then testing for a clean needle: And there we get into a TR. And this TR is already described in HCO Bulletin — no, it's the H — it's an HCOB that just came out — it's a — TR is actually in there complete. It asks if something is free and then repeats the same action. It's around someplace. I haven't got a file of them here.

And of course, you get education's just become some fantastic grim practical joke.

I will describe this one to you. It is going out by the same door you came in. And this is not one little TR that it only applies to this TR. This applies to all auditing. You go in the same door you came out. Otherwise you never leave there. I'll make this practical experiment. Find a room that has one door and windows which are not passable. Go into the room, close the door behind you, and don't leave by that door. And look around and you will find you're still in the room.

But most people confuse education totally with thinkingness. So they get into a habit pattern of two things. One, they can be in perfect agreement that there is a subject without ever coming near the subject, see, because that's an automaticity in school. You can go through school without ever understanding anything Give back the right answers, you're all set, you set out of school and at the other end people let you live. I think that's the reward of graduating from school. You got an old school tie on, you get issued your rations.

By "door" in this case, we mean the exact phrase you used must be the exact phrase you leave with. you want an invalidation. You say, "Has this goal been invalidated?" Not too good but, "Has this goal been invalidated?" Tick.

Now, that's combined with the fact that all of your earliest training is classroom-type training that is all based on data. Data, data, data, data, data. In the early days of engineering it used to be a joke. Engineers that came out of school could not compare to engineers that were out practically functioning and operating in the field. It'd take them three or four years to close that gap. Oddly enough, they close the gap much more rapidly than the practical engineer. They closed it much more rapidly, but they still had a gap to close because they had everything on think, see. They weren't — hadn't done anything practical.

Pc says, "Yeah, well I think it has."

Now, engineers in the last thirty years and so forth, they get things like testing machinery and they get a little bit of doingness mixed up with the engineering school. You got chemistry labs and physics labs and things like that, that is coming in stronger and stronger, but it is nevertheless not really doingness.

And you say, "That, that, that."

So we break up when we give doingness an equal part with theory. We tend to break up an automaticity on which everybody is sitting And that's the idea that education is a confront of think. See, education is a theoretical process.

"Oh ye — oh yeah. Yeah, it has been. It has been. I invalidated it."

So in adventuring this new division of Scientology training, I know we may have a little bit of difficulty without my postulating it. It's going to be hard to keep in. Because it had only been in here 24 hours before it was out. You see? Now, there's — there's a parallel.

"All right. Thank you. I will check that. Has this goal been invalidated? Thank you, that is clean."

Now, when you stop and think that there are three sections and one is the Theory Section and the other's the Practical Section and then there's an Auditing Section. We've got two-thirds doingness for one-third confronting thinkingness. That's heavy, isn't it?

Now, let me show you the errors of your ways. This is how to get into endless trouble. This is you find this one room and it has one door, see. And so you enter by that door. you say, "Has this goal been invalidated?" That's the door you entered by. And then you leave with the phrase, "Are there any more invalidations on this goal?" Don't blame me if your pc gets ARC breaky and starts to blow session, and you can't find the goal, and so forth because you're still in a room. you never left that room. You're still there — as far as the bank is concerned. You never acknowledged the pc; you never found out if it was clean.

So you see, it'd be adventurous to make it 50-50. That would be adventurous enough. But we haven't made it 50-50. We've made it 66 and 2/3 — 33 and 1/3. So skin it down to one-third of an investment of your time on theory and two-thirds of it on practical and auditing and you should be able to get by.

"Has this goal been invalidated?"

But that's about what it takes. That's about what it takes. So this is a very heavy emphasis that we've embarked upon here. Much heavier, you realize as you sit there right this minute that this is — this is crushed. I don't know, I have not counted up how many drills have to be compounded according to this May 3rd Policy Letter, how many actual drills. There are a lot of repetitive things on the E-Meter that all come from one drill, but — two drills, you got your Model Session, you got various things of this character and you've got your practical process. But it means quite a few new TRs. Quite a few new TRs. We get a TR for each one of these pieces of doingness.

The pc says, "Oh yes, I invalidated it last night."

Now, this is actually quite a technical achievement. You might not — you might not grasp the thing at first glimpse, but after you're auditing one day up here three or four months from now and you're back home or something like that and you're auditing somebody and you suddenly look back on it and realize you haven't any trouble with any pcs. you haven't any trouble at all with any pcs. Nobody's ARC broke and nobody's busted up and some of the students you're teaching aren't, aren't that lucky. They open up their E-Meter and stick their foot in it. And your reality on this will be shockingly great. Toward the end of your course, when the auditor across from you is auditing flawlessly and you all of a sudden recognize something fantastic is going on here, do you see? It's a tremendous thing.

You say, "Good. Are there any more invalidations on this goal?" You're going to be still in that first room. Oddly enough, you're going to be still there. "Any more?" How the hell do you know if that one cleared? What are you doing asking for any more?

And when you yourself are delivering this, you all of a sudden find that you have terrific altitude with the pc. And where the hell does altitude come from because you're not grunting or straining — you're not holding your mouth in some peculiar way. Haven't got your tongue out between your teeth or anything, you know. And there's no grunt, you know. And you say, "I've been sitting here, just got through auditing for five hours" and you feel fresh as a daisy. "What's going on?"

The pc goes berserk under these. Now, if you don't believe it try this one sometime, as far as the acknowledgment is concerned. You can almost make a pc go round the bend.

Well, only those things — those things would only happen if it were true that for every action on the part of the pc there is a proper response on the part of the auditor. And for everything you want the pc to do, there's a proper causation. There's a proper way to cause it. And if you cause it properly and respond properly and it's all very usual and these things are well done by you, you under — well understood, well grooved, you will get this other result. And the other result will be just — it looks very, very relaxed. It's very easy and very satisfactory type of activity.

You say, "How are you today?" You can even do this and tell him it's a stunt. And he'll still go right down the chute on it.

Now, there's a lot of these odd bits, but they're countable. And if you look over this sheet of May the 3rd, perhaps, 1962, one of the — possibly your first reaction as an old time auditor was what? Is that the totality of auditing skills? You might have had a surprise that there were that few things could be put on both sides of one piece of paper. See, there were that few things that made up the actuality of handling auditing.

You say, "How are you today?"

And you think it over. That's quite remarkable that on two sides of one piece of paper you could write down everything that you did in terms of a coded system, of course, and that they'd only amount to two or three dozen — a very finite number.

And he says, "Fine."

I bet a lot of people that first early on with auditing, they think there must be thousands and thousands of responses. They just must be uncounted responses. You have to be so clever. You know? And they count on their cleverness. And they hope they can be clever enough to handle the pc. There's no cleverness in handling the pc. There's standardness of handling the pc.

I — you say, "I asked you how you were today." And he'll say, "Oh, I said I'm fine."

You start getting clever while you're handling a pc and you'll be up the river quickly. No paddle either.

"Yes, but how are you?"

No, that's — it's remarkable that there are these few practical auditing skills. There are not many.

Now that isn't quite as bad as this:

Now, the way a student ought to move into this is on this basis: There are certain definite stable data of theory — if you did not know these things, you wouldn't even know where you were going or why — and those are the fundamental bits of theory. The very fundamental bits. And they, of course — and now we are talking about the HCO Policy Letter of May 14th, Issue II, CLASSES OF AUDITORS. And the — there are a few bits which are inescapable — theory. You really have to have those in order to proceed at all.

"How are you today?"

And then there are certain practical actions, which if you can't do them, the pc is liable to wind up in a tight ball of yarn.

"I'm fine."

And then there are certain auditing skills — that is to say auditing, you know, just straight auditing the processes — which if you did them on a pc, you would find somewhat successful or unusual in some cases.

"Yes, but, how's your wife?"

And you can tie a bundle of these things together. You can tie a certain level of theory and a certain level of practical drills and a certain auditing activity, you can tie them up so they don't come into conflict and they tend to complement each other to some degree.

"Well, she's fine too."

Now, there'd be many ways of doing this. And the way which we have laid out here on May the 14th, 1962, may not be the best and most refined way to go about this. Any old D of T looking this over has probably said, "This should go there and that should go there and if we just had the Auditing Section lag a bit behind the other two sections, everything would be much better." And yes, there's no doubt about it. That there — this will stand a small amount of shifting.

"But, your boss, how's he?"

It'll be mostly the shifting of what we do when, rather than the shifting of the whole doingness, you see. There'll be some juxtapositions and that sort of thing. You can expect those.

And the person gets a weird idea of, "It's going to go on forever." It's pretty weird. The pc will ARC break on that lack of duplication. That's true of anything you ask the pc that you're — that is up against a meter, see. You're trying to find out if this goal is suppressed or invalidated, or if in this session there's a missed withhold. This applies to rudiments. This applies to anything that you're trying to find out about. You always enter by the same door you — leave by the same door you entered by. And let me give you this as a little tip here. When you check something, tell the pc you're checking it. See? Don't tell him you're disputing with him. And this is a terrific acknowledgment, you know? "Oh, well, that was really it."

But this thing is based on several things. And let me give you a very fast resume on which it is based. That if you took an auditor and you were going to make an auditor and you grabbed him by the scruff of the neck and ran Op Pro by Dup on him and SCS — that's all you did, see. We didn't give him any other auditing. He didn't have a chance, you see? We just ran some Op Pro by Dup and we ran some SCS of one kind or another. He'd get the idea that there was something to control. And you would knock out the two principal things which upset an auditor.

This is the kind of illusion he gets:

Op Pro by Dup. you know, was invented just for training Didn't have any other purpose in the world. It isn't even a cousin to CCHs although it's included in that, in some of the lists given. Just invented for training. It's how long can you make him grind. How long can you endurance it until both the auditor of it and the pc of it find out that it — duplication — won't kill them. And they eventually find out the hard way that duplication isn't going to kill them and after that and only after that can you get this type of an action — Do birds fly? Do birds fly? Do birds fly?

You say, "Well, has this goal been invalidated?"

Actually, with no Op Pro by Dup. you get something like this. you get tremendous, overwhelming necessity to say, "Do birds fly? Are our feather friends airborne?" They won't duplicate an auditing command. And the — a D of T can go absolutely around the bend listening to this because it's so easy for him to do.

And he said, "Yeah. You know, well, I thought last night, something or other about it and I thought it wasn't quite right."

He doesn't ever realize he ever had any trouble with that. And yet you listen to these birds. It's — they know how to do it right. You change it. They just go on to obsessive change. Until you run most auditors on Op Pro by Dup.

"Good. I'll check that now. Has this goal been invalidated? All right, that's clean."

One of the things which auditors to this day do very well is give a repetitive command. You can see somebody sitting in a session, why an auditor any day of the week. He's happy to sit there and give a repetitive command. "Look around here and find something you can have. Thank you. Look around here and find something you can have. Thank you. Look around here and find something you can have. Thank you. Look around here . . ." Gad! You'll go on for five hours. And do you know that before he actually studied auditing or anything like that, do you know he just would have gone bzzzzzzz at the idea of repeating that single phrase twice.

Well, the immediate reaction of the pc, "Heh. Oh good! Heh-heh! Oh, good. What do you know. Heh-heh. Good." See. What he's saying is he had some attention paid to him.

So you forget how vital it is to have that one under your belt. Now, you understand these classes are laid out for Scientologists, not just for the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course. So naturally, we have to start in our auditing with what an auditor needs most.

So that is that type of drill. And any TR that compares with this would just be something that made the guy say the same thing twice. Which people almost never do. Particularly on this.

Now, it's all right to say well, maybe we ought to start him with a Straightwire. And maybe that's best. And they sit there. The fellow’s probably already been in co-audit. He's probably done a little bit of this nonsense, you know.

"Have I missed a withhold on you?" is followed by "Are there any other withholds I missed on you?"

Well, let's just drive him into the wall. Let's do it the hard way. You're going to have trouble with this, let's pick up what you're going to have the most trouble with at the beginning of the course and just give it to him.

And the fellow says, "Well, no."

As far as SCS is concerned, you do him very much SCS, you'll wind up with no allergy to controlling or being controlled. And you find out that runs out the badness of control. Most people you meet out on the street, you say, "Control good or bad?" They say, "It's bad."

And you say, "Yes, but has anybody else missed a withhold on you today? Well, how about yesterday? How about tomorrow?" And pc just feels like he's nowhere. He's moving in the nothingness of nowhere. And you never find out, and you just lose more withholds, and you miss more invalidation, you miss more meter data on that one single trick. That's just — that is an invariable. If you're asking something against the meter, you always ask it again exactly the same way that you asked it the first time.

You ask a motorist he passes in the road, "Is control good or bad?"

So you can get yourself very easily into trouble. You will say, "When Bill and I were outside talking about your case just now and Mary Ann was in the room too, did Mary Ann miss a withhold on Bill?" "Yeah, that — that — that — that."

"Oh, it's bad." Screek, crash!

And pc says, "Well, yes he did."

Number of automotible accidents has nothing whatsoever to do with the highway department. The better highways they build, the more automobile accidents they have. Has to do with the feeling people have that control is very bad.

"Now let's see, when Mary Ann was in the — Bill was outside — uh, that's it. I'll get it in a minute. Let's see, when Bill and I were outside and Mary Ann was left in the room, did Bill miss . . . No, that's not right."

Well, of course, they have been miscontrolled since birth in the society in which they find themselves and they've been busily miscontrolling themselves. And they get ahold of a piece of machinery and you miscontrol of a piece of machinery and you're a statistic. About all there is to that. It's simple.

And you know, you'll get some — it — you won't look positive to the pc.

Now, an auditor who will not control a pc has a hell of a time. Man, he just gets run over every day of the week. He comes out of a session, he's got tread marks all over him.

So it's very easy to get yourself all in foot tangles, you know. Get bird snares all over the big toe, you know, just by being too — too sloppily something or other, because it's just unrepeatable.

Pc says, "Well, I actually have an awful time with windows. Let's run some process about windows."

You get yourselves into the same tricks when you're handling old CCH 4 or something like that. And you take a book and you throw it up in the air and you sit on it, and you pound yourself on the back of the head and then open and close it three times, and then hand it to the pc, and he says, "But what did you do?" You've had it, you see. Can't duplicate yourself. You can get caught the same way on one of these verbal clearings, see. Very important. Testing for a clean needle. It's always done the same way. And you'll find out that most — a lot of your ARC breaks, a lot of your pc restiveness in session stems from that one single error.

And the auditor says, "All right. Look at a window."

Now, as far as beginning rudiments are concerned and end — and in body of session, end rudiments, two-way comm — of course, these things are basically just drills on Model Session, done with TRs 1 to 4, but also done with this clean needle test. you see?

And the pc says, "Well, I'm tired of that process actually. I object mostly to those andirons over there."

And then there are ways to make these things a little more effective, such as, "Since the last session, did you do anything you are now withholding from me?" or something like that. Don't you see? And it — narrow your rudiments down. Get your rudiments — to get the pc into present time. In other words there's ways — things you can do with these rudiments to make these rudiments more effective and keep yourself from running a full Prepcheck session in the beginning ruds. And then get onto the body of the session.

"All right. Look at the andirons."

It's sometimes embarrassing when you intended to do Routine 3 in the first place. One hour and fifty-five minutes later you've just finished prepchecking the pc. Pc gets very uncomfortable because you didn't do any listing in that session. In fact I've heard pcs say so. You've helped them out endlessly, you've done marvelous things for their cases and all this sort of thing, but they just never seem to appreciate it. Because you didn't do any real auditing in the session. You got yourself tangle-footed with the ruds.

Never seems to get anyplace, you know. I think you will agree with me out of your own experience, those are the two worst hurdles for an auditor to get over — Control and Duplication. Long since, it's been learned in training that those are — those are the mean points. So, well, let's put them first. Let's put them first.

Now, getting out of the rudiments the other way with the end rudiments, there's ways of narrowing the withhold question. "In this session, have I missed a withhold on you?" Tick. "In this session have I missed a withhold on you?" No tick. Oh, what do you know? And you say, "Good." And finish off. Yeah, you've missed withholds on him, but that was Prepcheck session, and you're going to take that up tomorrow, and you could go on till three-thirty and the auditing session's supposed to end at one. you know?

Now, that means that a student auditor in HCA courses in Academies is actually going to be run on Op Pro by Dup before they have a chance to do anything, see. That's a funny thing to be doing Well, I don't know, you might as well crowd them and if you've got an Auditing Section, there's somebody going to stand over them with a whip, you can crowd them into doing Op Pro by Dup. Stand there and say, "Come on, come on. Give them another command. I know you're falling in. Give them another command."

But, there's — these nice drills of getting in to the session rapidly, getting out of the session are basically based on the fact that auditors mustn't get tangle-footed in the rudiments. The rudiments are something you grease over and get into the session on so the pc can be audited. They're not something that you spend a session on in order to flub.

"Oh, what is its weight?" Aw, you can bull them through it.

So as far as the auditing part of the Model Session is concerned, as far as just learning it parrotwise is concerned, yes, and then there's the other thing of actually using it. How do you use this Model Session?

By the time an auditor, a beginning auditor, has had it and received it, why, something will have changed. Something will have changed. Now, the only reason that we would include it here and try to run anybody at all on Op Pro by Dup here, is very many of you have never had it flattened. Ha-ha. We refer to case repair, of May 14th, HCOB. Maybe you've never had it flattened. I don't know how many hundred hours it takes to flatten it. But I'm perfectly willing to set up an experiment.

Now, as far as handling the pc is concerned, we get this section — detecting missed withholds, we again have the same type of drill of course, as we had in the — testing for the clean needle. We used the same type of drill on this thing but there are other ways that you can indicate missed withholds — such as a dirty needle. Pc is getting restive, pc stops listing, pc boils off Well, that whole missed withhold bulletin comes in here. And that could be driven home on a practical basis, you see. you could have the coach sitting there and the coach could do a number of things, see — all of which are in a doingness sector, and the auditor's merely supposed to look for a missed withhold, that's all. That's all. It's all very simple, you see. The coach could boil off, and the coach could get mad, and the coach could refuse to go on, and this is the triggering mechanism, see.

Now, along with that, assists. Now, I will say this. That's probably written backwards. It should be assists and Op Pro by Dup and SCS. And how do you get somebody to do an assist when there's nobody hurt? I think a D of T can probably get over that problem. But I'll bet you there are very few, very few HCA/HPA courses that teach very much about assists. They're quite spectacular. I've had more people absolutely swear by Scientology and they've never had any auditing but an assist. I remember a down-at-the-heels, that's what you'd call a tennis bum. you know, a professional hanger-on of country houses, gentlemen-type character, you know. He never has a penny in his pocket. Cynical, hard-boiled, everything Nothing was true. Nothing existed anyplace. He one day thoughtfully closes his hand in the door.

All right. Now, the ARC breaky pc, of course that's the same thing. Getting off missed withholds. How do you get a missed withhold off? All right, there'd be two ways of getting off a missed withhold. They're both dependent on testing for a clean needle. That's the same TR, you see. There would be two ways — one is right and one is wrong.

And he comes in. He's holding his hand up, you know. Blood dripping, you know and "Oh, oh, oh, oh. I don't know what I'm going to do about this."

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

And I said, "Well, go back and touch the door until it doesn't hurt to touch the door."

Pc says, "Well, yes, as a matter of fact, I had a small headache at the beginning of the session and you missed that on me."

And he — I made no effort at all, see. I didn't particularly care whether this pc went through the bottom of the earth or what happened.

And the auditor says, "Well, how is it now?" Now, he's just laid in more than he took off. See, he took off one wagonload and brought back two and dumped it on the pc. And actually, most sessions, when they start miring down, just mired down on that one weird button.

"Oh," he said, "that wouldn't do any good."

"Do you have a present time problem?" This is all under the same — same type of action. They're all classified as the same thing — the auditor makes the same mistake, see.

I said, "Yeah, I'm not kidding you." I said, "After all, I'm the man who knows the subject of Scientology and that's Scientology. And you just go back and keep touching the door where you hurt it."

"Got a present time problem?"

"Oh, I couldn't do that."

"Yes, I had a fight with my wife last night."

And I said, "Well, you're going to do it. Go on!" I said, "Do it!" So he walked back down the hall and I could hear him back there. Thud, thud, thud. Thud, thud, thud, thud, thud, thud. "Ouch," he says. Thud, thud, thud.

"Well, all right. Did you patch it up with her?"

He came back in and he said, "It's all right." He said, "What happened?" He says, "That's Scientology?"

See, you've had it. The — and the drill is, you just mustn't ask a second question. See, the discipline is, is don't ask a second question. Only ask one question. You ask one question and find out if it's clean, is what you do. That's the correct way of proceeding with any of these things. Ask one question, then find out if that one question is clean. And it better not be a question, something on the order of, "When Bill and I were out in the hall and Mary Ann was . . ." Better be something that can be cleaned, you see.

I said, "That's right. That's Scientology. Give me a cigarette there."

Now, getting off invalidations — that's — depends on this other — there's a specific way to ask for invalidations. And of course you get invalidations on Scientology, on auditing, on auditors, on listing, on processing, on nulling, on goals, former goals. You can have invalidations on a whole lot of things. And the odd part of it is they translate into the — they look like goals, and they look like everything, and it was that factor that made it so difficult for people to find goals a year or two ago. That was very difficult for people to find these things, because their invalidations and missed withholds were sliding all over the place. And something was reading and it was just reading because of an invalidation. Got the invalidation off and so forth.

The guy was practically climbing the walls to have auditing, you know. I would just — I didn't even give him an assist. That's the point I was making.

Well, the drill is to get the invalidation off and find out if it reads. That's the way that TR would more or less go at the present planning. In other words, let's get the invalidation off and find if the original reads. That's the drill. We're interested in getting something to read, not just getting invalidations off. The stress of it is to get something to read. Read or not read, that is the question. Not whether it was invalidated or not invalidated, see. So you've got to get the invalidations off to find out if it'd read. Makes a slightly different type of drill.

So it's a very good thing for somebody to know. And you can get a good reality on giving assists and receiving assists and so forth. Very peculiar things happen sometimes. Touch assists and so on. But look it, that's all physical action, isn't it? That's sort of getting people's bodies used to bodies.

Q-and-Aing with the pc: Now, the basic Q and A with the pc — I've just given you the example of. you say, "Do you have a present time problem?" and the pc says, "Yes, I had a fight with my wife last night." "Well how is she now?" See, that is the most elementary form of Q and A. Pc's worried about something so the auditor worries about it.

Now, if we're going to cut out the Upper Indoc, which has been teaching people erroneously to do CCHs too ferociously, we certainly had better have body mauling here someplace and where better to start than in the first unit.

We had an old Q and A drill but it wasn't basic — it wasn't that basic. I think a coach in this particular line could have a lot of fun baiting the student into actually detouring, by being terribly interesting on the subject of the buttons that the student might have. Something the student just couldn't help but ask something more about. You know, just try to make the student ask twice. Just try to make him ask twice. Do anything to get the student to ask twice, you know? "But this is still worrying me." See? The coach, you see, "But this is still worrying me. I still feel dreadful about this." What is the student supposed to do? Well, he's supposed to clear the exact rudiment that he is clearing. That is what he's supposed to do. In other words, we're going to face him with the usual.

See, the first activity. Let's body maul them. Assists. Op Pro by Dup. SCS. Let's get it off their chests right now.

Now we get into practical process; we get PTP processes. And the best PTP process is, well, frankly, there are a whole lot of them. The best of the PTP processes and so on, as a process, is simply Responsibility Process — the old one. It's fine, perfectly fine — works.

And there's another point about this — is those are the least likely to goof up the pc if they're done wrong Nothing much going to happen if you do those things wrong. Because they're self-correcting. Good Op Pro by Dup corrects badly done Op Pro by Dup. Good SCS corrects badly done SCS. And any kind of auditing will correct an assist. So what's the — what's the difference, see? So it's the most corrective kind of auditing because it's selfcorrective auditing Not all processes, you know, are self-corrective. Engram running isn't self-corrective.

There's a slippy one, asking for the missed withhold on the other person. Auditors try to move in on this thing, however, and find out that it's nothing but liquid asphalt underneath their feet — they're stuck there for the rest of the session. So we kind of stopped monkeying with this thing. But I can sure get out from under it. Because if you're going to clear one that way, it better be a Prepcheck type of session. And as a matter of fact, just two weeks ago you saw me give a demonstration of the use of the missed withhold in handling a chronic present time problem — present time problem of long duration on a pc. That's the way you do it, but not in a rudiment. The rudiment PTP process is simply well, "What part of that problem could you be responsible for?" until it's been — don't go stating the problem. Ask the first question. That's the door you're leaving by, except you're leaving just a little later.

You run the engram of running the engram and then run that wrong and then you run the engram of running the engram and then you run that wrong and then you run the engram of running the engram of running the engram and the pc by that time is so looped up, he doesn't know whether he's "graming" or "eming" And the only thing that you can do about that time is start back and find something more fundamental and run out auditors. And look at the complication you're in, see. Not so Op Pro by Dup. SCS or assists. You just do more of them and it corrects what you're doing, see — self-corrective processes. So that gives us the auditing level.

See, your first checkout it didn't disappear. So you're going to have — you run the process and then you leave by the same door. And it isn't, "Do you have a present time problem now?" That is wrong, you see. It is "Do you have a present time problem?" And the second that is null, no matter if the pc screams, no matter if the pc says yes he does have, doesn't matter, anything else. If the meter says he doesn't have, that's it. you stop running it right there. That's how long you run it. And that's all the length of time you run it. Various wordings have been on that old process; I don't know which the favorite one was. "What part of that problem have you been responsible for?" is the one that I've been using lately.

Now, we're talking about auditing, auditing — auditors. We're not talking about auditing the public. But anybody could be started that way. That's Class IA we're talking about as an Auditing Section and we get Class IB, we get ARC Straightwire done in Model Session and Havingness. That also could be reversed. You could have the Havingness first and then ARC Straightwire. Wouldn't matter much which way you had them.

ARC break action: What do you do with an ARC break? Now, this is — we're getting practical here, see. What do you do with an ARC break? Well, of course, you run all kind of things don't you? Not today, you don't. You get off the missed withhold, check it and get out of there.

But now you've got a sit-down type of process and it's not going to ruin anybody excessively because ARC Straightwire is actually not self-corrective, but Havingness is.

Finding overts: This is a whole drill. Now, you get it on this basis: The coach says — the pc says, "Do you have an overt?" or any kind of a leading "Do fish swim" type of question, see. "Do you have an overt?"

But why ARC Straightwire? Well, it gives them an idea of doing the repetitive process verbally, having done repetitive duplication physically. But, once more, it's not wasted auditing for the auditor.

And the coach could say, "Well, I thought . . ." And of course the correction there is, "What did you do?" See, it's — that — the whole purpose of that would be a TR which steered the pc into giving you a doingness whenever a think was offered. A criticism, a think, an evaluation — you need that one very badly. There was a session going on today — in which what — a person was actually getting aud-- there were four things that you mustn't do in Prepchecking and all four of them were being bought by the auditor. You know what they are — you know: mustn't take somebody else's withholds, mustn't take another person's thinkingness, mustn't . . . No, these things were all in full bloom in that particular session.

Do you know every now and then through a unit, somebody is suddenly going to turn sane that didn't know he was nuts. And that process, ARC Straightwire, still has that power. A few commands of the thing and the fellow says, "Oh, it's fantastic."

And yet at no time was the auditor saying, "What did you do to that person?" See, at no time. This person bought thought and — had other — there was explanation, the person was explaining why, you see. All of the various clues were there. They were all present, and so on. And that drill would be formed up to get around that.

But it gives an auditor a reality on a bank. In general, it'll give reality on a bank. Very few cases won't see something, contact something They have to be pretty much of a black, black, black five, you see, to not get some reality on ARC Straightwire on the time track — the cyclic aspect of the time track and so forth.

Forming What questions: Now we've already seen something of that drill. We give an overt, "My sister ran away — I — scolded my sister, and scolded her and scolded her until she ran away with a policeman." And we just give that as the overt, as the coach gives it. And the student says — forms the What question. "What about running away with policemen?" or whatever it is. See, you don't know it very well or you would've laughed. Proper What question is "What about scolding people?" See, the person's got to be able to form the What question out of the overt given. So we get a whole list of very involved overts. And the person's got to give the proper What question, or none of them. See?

Well, that teaches them volumes about time tracks, doesn't it and so on. But once again, the therapy value of it is, is every few cases you're going to get somebody who is really stark staring mad. He's at least basically neurotic. All mixed up, messed up. And you run a little ARC Straightwire and he comes out of it. That process still has tremendous horsepower. A little bit of it, so on.

We have — also this goes into this other drill of finding overts, because we have think replies in there, don't you see. And, "What have you done?" is the basic question.

There is, by the way, just to bring you up to date, there's a later ARC Straightwire which is positive-negative. I really needn't say anymore about it. you just run the positive-negative versions of each one and of course it just — you can feel the bank just coming apart. Bsssssssah. You know, communicate-not communicate. Real-unreal. You know. Affinity-no affinity. And you get all the seamier side of life tied up in it and these fellows that every time you try to run a pleasure moment on them they give you a moment of agony. Can't run ARC Straightwire very long without being in the middle of agony. Well, this keeps that from happening

The student says, "What have you done?" and just to — to say something

All right. Now, your next step up the line of processing, we would be into Prepchecking and CCHs. Just Prepchecking and CCHs, done preferably by form. you know, the old Form 3 and Form 6A. And supposing — supposing you had done those things, the first ones kind of badly — the first level Op Pro by Dup and SCS and assists, you know — kind of badly. And the next one you've done is a little smoother. Kind of bad. By the time you got that up and had these people so they could audit and they started auditing this, they would be coping with something. They would — you would start to get actual good case advances.

And the coach says, "Well, I thought about chasing my sister one time around the house so that she would run away with a policeman."

And that would be a fairly logical progress for a case. In actuality, if you knew all this and you were just auditing the public, of course, you'd just go into Prepchecking from scratch. But you can mess up people like fire drill with bad Prepchecking, so it isn't, of course, in the lower classifications. You can miss more withholds than people can count if you turn it loose in an Academy without any fundamental auditing. They're learning to prepcheck before they've learned anything about auditing and that's pretty crazy.

And the student is supposed to form the What question. So, "What about chasing women?"

Now, of course, your next classes, as far as classes goes, goes up to your Routine 3 processes.

"Flunk!"

Now, how would you get somebody from Prepchecking and CCHs up to a Routine 3 process without doing any 3D Criss Cross? He'd have to do assessments of some kind or another. Well, that's quite a little puzzle. It's quite a puzzle. It may not be fully solved here. But we get to Class IIIA and we get here Havingness, getting rudiments in, Dynamic Assessment, Prehav Assessment, Problems Intensive and I could add any kind of an assessment you could dream up. Anything that gives them experience in assessing. And none of that has any therapeutic value except maybe the Havingness and getting the rudiments in.

See, I mean that's — you get how that is done so that you get — he gets practice in forming these What questions, right now, right now, right now. What we need is a long list of involved overts from which you could form the proper What question.

But of course, if you just sat down and spent a lot of hours just getting rudiments in on a case, why, the guy would feel lots better. So it could be called processing But get him to do a lot of assessment. You know? Get him — get him used to the idea of running down a column of things and finding out if they react or don't react.

You see, a What question can be too general, it can be too specific and it can be asked. Something else can be wrong with a What question. It can actually be asked. He actually did ask a What question. Flunk! See.

And of course, a Problems Intensive is lovely for that. you can do a Problems Intensive, find the prior confusion to what hung up, scrub the whole thing, add to the list and do a new assessment. You can do Assessment by Elimination on a Problems Intensive list, see? See, you can da all kinds of things with it. But just practice in assessment before we turn loose on Routine 3.

"I thought — I thought one time, about closing the door so that my sister would have to walk around to the backdoor."

And then at least as current processes go right now, you'd turn him loose immediately into a Goals Assessment when he got to a Class IIIB and you wouldn't monkey with anything else. That's because cases can be a bit loused up by doing a wrong 3D Criss Cross and whereas I can straighten out anything you've ever had happen to you here, this is also going to be done in Port Darwin. There is nothing in Port Darwin. You get the idea? See? Because this is set up, of course, for the world. Not just here.

And he's supposed to form the What question. So he says, "What about closing. . . ?"

All right. So that would be your progress in auditing. Now, let's take — let's back up a step here and let's take this Theory Section. Now, at a Class IA, you've got the Auditor's Code, E-Meter Essentials, basic scales and dynamics. That's your Theory Section. Well, that just gives some background music to the fundamentals of Dianetics and Scientology, doesn't it? That's all.

"Flunk!"

A fellow can't proceed very far without knowing these things exist. And you got your Practical Section and we hit that heavy.

See. Let him have it, good and echoing, you know. Really drive that one in.

We teach the fellow how to do some CCHs. You know, just drill, see. His zero, one, two, three. We teach him about Model Session. We teach him complete E-Meter check items. We're hitting him with an E-Meter. He's not even going to use one in his Auditing Section, don't you see. Because at this stage of the game, we couldn't — we couldn't hope that he could use anything. He'd just goof with it. He's not going to do CCHs at that particular level. But we look over here and we find the CCHs, heh, include Op Pro by Dup and twoway comm in the CCHs and that sort of thing.

The proper response — there's no What question about it and you never write it down at all.

And we're not going to try to teach him that, as he's auditing in that section, at all because we're not going to do Op Pro by Dup and SCSes with any two-way comm. We're just going to do it on the heroic level. See? There's several auditing styles amongst which there is the heroic.

And you say, "Come on. I want something you did to your sister." We're already working on familial Zero or something, you see. 'I want something you did, did, did." &e. And then these things would be so arranged that you got the proper "did" immediately afterwards. The coach furnishes actually a did.

And he's going to have enough to worry about trying to do his Model Session and ARC Straightwire up in his next class. And then finally he's going to have too much to worry about — about Prepchecking to learn anything about CCHs at a higher class. These are basics and CCHs — we teach him how to do the CCHs early. And then we've assuaged his curiosity and then he can do it the hard way later.

"Well, I just beat her a few times."

All right. And that's — so Class IA consists of this Theory Section with some of these fundamentals. Practical Section, whole bunch of stuff. TR, give him a Comm Course, give him various things that we ordinarily give him, you know. And teach him something about Model Session. We work him over at this level and then give him Op Pro by Dup and SCS. I think a student at that level, by the time he had reached the top of Class IA, would feel that he had achieved something

"All right, what about beating a . . .?"

He might be battered and I think he would be unbowed. But I think he would be in pretty good — pretty good idea that something was happening and that he knew something for the time.

"Flunk!! You didn't get a specific overt." Get the idea?

And then we move him up into IB and we get the Theory Section and of course, the old comm formula. Well, that's taught alongside of ARC Straightwire. And if you'll notice here and after, your Theory Section is combining at Class IB and Class IIA. Your Theory Section and your Auditing Section are hand in glove. They're happening both at the same time. And you say, well, the optimum way to handle this, of course, is to teach your theory in one class, you see and your practical in one class and then later on audit the things in the next class up.

"Oh."

Yeah, well, that's all right, but we're auditing students. And you're not going to be — you're not going to get a subjective reality on the doingness of this thing unless you audit at the same time they're studying it on these upper classes.

See the type of drill it is? Eventually the auditor can sit there, and he says to the pc, "All right, we're trying to find out what withholds your family didn't find out about you," or whatever the Zero is, you know.

And they're going to say, "Gee, what do you know," you know. And their interest is going to be on it. And if you kept repeating this thing of Class IA of teaching early and auditing at an upper class, if you didn't stay in parallel with IB and IIA, your students would get confused because their interest, the interest of a new student when he starts — first starts running into ARC Straightwire, this stuff kind of, kind of — fabulous. Particularly if you were running on a plus-minus version, which you probably would be.

And, "Well, I was often very critical of my family."

This is very fabulous. He'd get very interested in the communication formula. He'd get very interested in other things that goes along with that level, don't you see?

And the auditor, "I got a reaction there. What did you do to your family?"

He probably would reach back and study some more scales. He heard of those in the class below. Well, what do these scales have to do with it? And he'd see some of these things in action. He'd think this was pretty good. And you get your Class IB would be your communication formula and E-Meter tapes and tapes on the theory and attitudes of an auditor and Code of a Scientologist, basic materials on ARC and ARC Straightwire and basic materials on havingness.

"Oh, I was often very critical, terribly critical. Used to go around the neighborhood being very critical."

Your Practical Section is just drills, drills, drills on Model Session of the May 3rd HCO Policy Letter and your Class IIA, of course, is your HCOBs and tapes on Prepchecking and tapes on CCHs and Axioms. That's a sort of a knife in the back that you suddenly shove in there.

"Yeah, what did you do to your family? Good. I know you went around the neighborhood being critical. What did you do?"

You'll be treating theory lightly right up to that point, you see and then you show him it has teeth in it.

"Well, I denied them money lots of times."

And then you give him handling the pc, the Practical Section and pertinent items in the practical processes and then your auditing session which I've already given you.

And the auditor doesn't fall into that, you see. He says, "All right — one time there, one time. one time?"

Class IIIA, why, you give him the various tapes and bulletins on assessments and so forth. Well, there's one point I must mention here is the theory checklist — the checksheet must go to the most fundamental check item first because he's going to be auditing on this stuff and as he's auditing, he can then get the flowery ends of it. you get the idea?

"Well, it actually wasn't denying the money so much; it was stealing it."

In other words, right at the first of his theory checklist and right at the first of the practical, you give him the most fundamental that he is going to use in the auditing of that section or that class. See?

"All right. But, what did you do there? One time, now."

You give it to him hard — and right away. And then while he's doing the auditing, give him the fancier versions, the more expanded versions, the supplementary material, the lectures on the subject. You know, all of that kind of thing follows in while he's actually doing it and he finally finds out there's quite a bit to know about this. See, at first it looks terribly simple to him. Then it looks terribly complicated and he can't do it. And then he gets supplementary lectures and it finally brings it back into focus. That's the theory by which this operates.

"Nothing I never did anything to my family, except of course, I was very cruel to them. Very cruel to them."

Now, this course will be operating on the basis of a checklist per class which carries all three sections. In other words, all three sections for one class. You get one sheet of paper and it's got a class and when that thing is finished, you've got that class. And you get another sheet of paper and you get a class. Don't you see, with that? That's the way these things should be issued in the Academy, too.

"Look, I'm sitting here to find out what you've done to your family. I'm getting a reaction on something Now, what have you done to your family?"

And it's got all the materials on it ready to be checked out and so forth. Oddly enough, with maybe only tiny variations, as far as we're concerned here at the Special Briefing Course, your checklists are the same as they are. Oh, you know, we haven't changed the checklist. Your checklists aren't going to be changed any. But they'll be juggled as to where they belong in the classes, don't you see?

"All right. If you must know, I took them out for a ride in the car and I was drunk and I wrecked the car, and I killed three of them."

What you've passed, you've passed. What you have to pass, you still have to pass. But there's just — we'll parallel it with the classes not change the subject matter, so don't be getting the idea that you will now have to pass all of them all over again or something like this because that's not true. But you'll have to pass them for various classes.

"Good! Good. What about . . ."

Now the auditing — this I should mention — the Auditing Section has done well and received well certain processes, so it's got a check-off too. In other words, he's received Op Pro by Dup and he's given Op Pro by Dup. He's given SCS and he's received SCS. We're talking about just a worldwide checksheet, you see?

And what is the What question? What is it? Come on, what is it? Come on, what is it?

He's given ARC Straightwire, he's received ARC Straightwire. He's given the — a Havingness and had found a Havingness Process and audited some and he's received some, don't you see. That's just all part of the checksheet.

Audience: "What about killing people in cars?" "What about drunkenly killing people?" "What about drunken driving?"

And then we get down and we're not interested in that for you guys. See, we're not interested in those two Auditing Sections for you because you're quite advanced as auditors. Although I might find some of it if I see — don't see better duplication.

Male voice: "What about killing the members of your family?"

Anyway, what you're mainly interested in is this Prepchecking. You actually get off the launching pad with Prepchecking. That's your first hard auditing assignment. And that is occupied with the form type of Prepchecking, particularly the last two pages of the Joburg and the Form 6A done in Prepcheck-Sec Check form as released recently.

That's the biggest overt. And then you can move over in the margin, "What about drunk driving? What about this, what about that." But actually the chains you go back on you'll probably run all those chains back before you blew that because that's such a hell of an overt. But you at least are working on something.

You'll be getting off the launching pad with that as having given it and having received it, don't you see?

You know, I think the dock strike, and everything else points in the direction of refusing to work. But I don't think auditors should go that far and ask the What questions I sometimes see on reports, just in an effort to not work, you know? We found — somebody here the other day asked the classic What question about paper clips. Somebody thought about stealing a paper clip. Actually was asked by an auditor — horrible.

But actually, your pc will have to be checked out for unflat questions before you have passed it. In other words, we're getting your final examination down into your practical auditing so it doesn't take you so long to get it passed. Okay?

You see what that's — what these — what these forming the What question, you see how that would be designed? You see?

And similarly, your auditing given and received and so forth is checked out for your IIIA and your IIIB. I think you'll find this very easy to do on this particular class. It's very simple to carry through because you're doing exactly this except you've got some new TRs, and you've got your Practical Section which is going to be harder and tougher than it has been in the past.

All right. Now, the drill, just the basic drill, of the When-All-Appear-Who system — just getting that drill down, till the person knows what to ask on that. Easy one. Finding the bottom of the chain rather than trying to find the later incidents on the chain. You know, the "go earlier" routine. Perhaps no TR, but we certainly ought to have an understanding of it and do it well.

But you're getting by very easy on the thing At HCA/HPA level, of course, those two first grades will be very tough and they will look very tough and they'll look like a very high hill to climb for people. And you, frankly, are not even climbing either of those hills for a hill of beans because it's minimal as far as we're concerned. But we're very interested from Class IIA up. We're terribly interested and terribly detailed as we go on up.

Finding the Hav Process: Now we're off into another field. This is quite an activity — finding a Hav Process, covered by bulletins of a couple of years ago, and very involved and interesting bulletins they were. Exactly how you go about finding a Hav Process. There's no point in going over it, but a person has to be able to do that whole drill. And the best way to do it, of course, is to check out these various processes on pcs and find the one that works.

Now, that doesn't say we're not interested in the whole of the Practical Section because I expect all of you to get a total checkout on all of the TRs of the Practical Section because I can't miss this opportunity of swinging you into line to a vitally important activity which is the delivery of highly standardized auditing And you deliver that, you'll find out more about the human mind than you ever thought existed because your own errors introduced into the session aren't giving you false data about the mind all the time, see. And you all of a sudden will find you are looking at a very relatively easily understood set of mental mechanics. Water is never muddied up by something else going on. More basically, your pcs will be very happy.

Of course, you actually can do this on a coach because the coach usually has a Hav Process. Some auditor has found his Hav Process already, you know. He knows what it is and what it isn't. Somebody's trying to find other Hav Processes and he knows that this better be checked into by the Instructor. You know, his Hav Process is, "Spit in that corner," or something of this sort. And the pc comes up with — I mean the student comes up with a Hav Process, "Look around this room and find everybody that's in it," you know. He's turning around — it's not even on the list.

This is — we are very interested in this and I want every student who is here to get a good cracking on this practical. I'd be very interested in doing that. And students who are well along had better just start sweating on it. You know, just get into the Practical Section and get checked off as fast as you can. Shouldn't take you too long to do that. Things will look much happier when you get there.

Prehav Assessment, of course, is a very specific drill and is also covered by very specific bulletins and surprisingly few people can do these. You never know when one's going to come up and so forth. Prehav keeps fading away and dying and coming back to life again. So I'm beginning to consider that is one of the basic tools of an auditor.

Right now the only thing that is wrong with your auditing at all is here and there you wobble. And every time you wobble, you get a session tied up somehow or another. And you — one zig and the pc hands you a zag and after that you're zigzagging

Listing: How do you list? How do you test completenesses of a list? These are all doingness actions. That's very easy, by the way. you just take the pc's folder and read — take the coach's folder and read a few items to him, and you can tell whether the list is complete or not complete. Tone arm moves or it doesn't. Of course, the Instructor probably would rather not go into that case that level, but that is one way to do it.

But I think you're doing remarkably well and we're at a culmination point. And we're going for broke now. We're going for broke now. I'm trying to make Clears. And I said yesterday, I told a couple of people that I hadn't been trying to make Clears. That actually is not true. I have been trying for the last year. But I have been trying to make dynamic Clears and finding the road through to a highly stable, highly permanent state of Clear.

Then nulling: How do you null? And then this comes — the doggonedest, mixed up, most impossible and difficult one of the whole lot — how do you check an item? And of course, it's composited of getting withholds off and invalidations, and going in the same — going out the same door you went in and everything else. I mean, if you do a good check off, that's a real good check off, and auditors are poorest at that single action right now in Routine 3 Process — not finding goals, because they do find goals — but by golly, they have trouble checking out things. And they very often won't believe them when they are checked out. Had a case of that myself the other day. Auditor wouldn't believe it.

I'm not interested in any other state. And we could have been making other types of Clears and everybody would have been much happier with us. People would have been going out of here and in a month or two falling on their heads, but — and some of them remaining very stable and so forth — but as long as there was any question mark in it at all, I wasn't interested in approaching that hill at all. I'm just interested in making auditors, and pushing straight through the GPM, finding the road and the way through the GPM. I'm pretty sure we've got that very well taped.

Checking: checking something out. How do you do it? It's a specific, direct drill. Very easy, but my God you'd think it was difficult, the number of checkouts that are wrong

We've learned a tremendous amount about auditing and we're going for broke right now to make some Clears. And who knows, maybe in the next four or five years we might produce one.

Getting off missed withholds is in here actually twice. And probably should be struck at that level. Getting item invalidations off — well, that means goal and item invalidations. There's a specific way to do this. you have to give somebody the idea of what it looks like. Actually an item will read, because it's been invalidated and an item will read because it is reading. You see? And sometimes when an item has been invalidated it reads and sometimes when an item has been invalidated it doesn't read. It's nice and constant.

And if you're not Clear in a few months, I'm going to be mad at you.

And then we get into the next one here: getting suppressions off. Done the same way, but they're a special breed of cat — then cleaning a needle reaction — of course, that's a whole Prepcheck, pardon me — no, cleaning a needle reaction is very simple. That's just the same one that we had up here at the top. But cleaning a dirty needle, that is a whole Prepcheck. I was reading one line ahead of myself here. A script I'm carrying in the back of my head.

Thank you.

Getting more goals or items: How do you do that? Of course, you get off the missed withholds. You get off the invalidations on the subject of Scientology and listing And you have to get off the invalidations sometimes on the subject of goals, listing goals, or listing in general. Get the missed withholds off on these things and you can always get a fellow rolling again. A specific drill, very specific.

Getting the pc into session: Now we get into something terribly, terribly, terribly fundamental. How do you get a pc into session. And you just do. you just do and you start the session. But how do you get the pc into session? What is used to do this? There's no trickery here, but people have trouble with it mostly because they think there's a lot more to it than there is. Getting a pc out of session, almost nobody knows how to do that. Hardly anybody will work end rudiments until the pc is actually out of the session. Most pcs leave sessions grogged, not cleaned. You can have a pc flying at the end of a session if you do your end rudiments well.

Controlling the pc's attention: This is a specific drill — a specific drill of controlling attention, that is all. you want the pc to look at a bottle and he won't look at the bottle. You get the idea? The coach won't look at the bottle. The student wants him to look at the bottle. Coach wants him to look at the bottle. Has to do it verbally. Coach sits there and gives him every reason under the sun, moon and stars why he won't look at the bottle. And the student has actually got to get the coach to look at the bottle. Got the idea?

And creating the R-factor: Hardly anybody does that. You've heard me do it practically every session that I've ever demonstrated. And yet I don't know how many of you are doing it yet. Creating the R-factor is telling him what the session is going to be all about or any ramifications to the session — describing the whole thing from your particular viewpoint. Even what you yourself are going to try to do regardless of what goals they're going to have later. They all — you create an R-factor before you begin the session.

You can also create an R-factor in the CCHs every time you start a new CCH. But create the reality of the situation for the pc — quite an important step.

Handling the p — holding up against pc suggestions: Now, doesn't that have a marvelous field of TRs? You know, the vista just opens before you there. Creatingness can run wild when it comes to a TR on that particular level. Holding up against the pC'8 suggestions. "Let's leave the room." What the pc — what the student is supposed to ask is, "Do fish swim?" And the coach is suggesting they do other things first. And I'm sure that a coach could be very good at this and could get to a point where he actually could trip the student into doing something else besides asking, do this. "Do fish swim?" "Could I adjust my chair slightly?"

You know. It's very funny, if you do this well, you can disarm — you can disarm a student in one of these TRs very, very easily. But this is again a beautiful contest there. You could figure out tons of TRs around that particular thing. Holding up against the pc's suggestions. Of course, the coach is there making suggestions and the pc — the student is trying to get something done. And of course the TR is that the student must get it done and not follow the coach's suggestion. A very wily coach using his tone modulations properly and so forth, can get anybody who is inclined to not hold up, to not hold up. This is quite amazingly easy, to get an auditor to do something else.

Now, holding a constant against adversity is learning to answer with the usual when the unusual is being demanded of you. And that is all there is to that one.

So you got an unusual situation — an unusual situation such as, "Well actually, to meet anything at all I have to list my goals in Sanskrit."

"Heh-heh. Sorry, you can't write Sanskrit." "As a matter of fact I can. So I'll sit here and write some of these goals down. I will write down these goals in Sanskrit, you see, and then I'll tell you what they are and then of course, you can null them out."

And that sort of thing How does an auditor get out of that situation? Well, leaving you with that puzzle see, because if you invalidate him obviously, you invalidated all of his goals, haven't you?

Well, leaving you with that puzzle, as to how you get that done — well, we've already shot over my time.

Thank you for your extra time. Good night.