Thank you.

Thank you.

Well, we haven't seen you for a long time. I took pity on you. I had a lot of material of one kind and another, and I put it into bulletin form last week. I wrote six highly technical bulletins last week - the better to teach you with, my dear.

This is lecture number two, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, 13 November, AD 12, and I want to talk to you somewhat about entrances of cases.

Okay. This is what?

Now, I'm getting together the material for bulletins, and so forth, on the number of ways to enter cases. And although I took off last week and put in a lot of hours getting the material together for your various bulletins of last week (modernizing and wrapping up material is what I'm mainly engaged in), I haven't spent much time getting cases in a - how you enter them in 3GA or 3GA Criss Cross, and so forth. This is something I have neglected to some degree because there are just too many ways. And it's getting to be a broad subject. It's getting to be one of these very, very encyclopedic subjects. I haven't counted them up, but I can turn on a rock slam on cases with this question or that question or do this with them or do that with them, and so forth.

Audience: 13th of November.

The main thing that I wanted to get out was your HCOB of November 11th, which gives you straightening up 3GA Criss Cross cases - straightening them up, those that have been run.

Thirteenth of November, AD 12, first lecture, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course.

Now, you've got a new routine, and this new routine is quite important. It's Routine 3 - 21. Now, 3GA as such was insufficiently delineated. But the original 3GA was highly workable. So what I did was take all of the additional flurries that I knew of that would function well, new things learned such as Tiger Drilling and that sort of thing and just rolled them into the original 3A and gave you Routine 3 - 21.

Nobody has given me a list of goals found or not checked out or anything recently, so I can't give you much of a report on that. I can, however, read to you a very interesting - nonapropos to the lecture I'm going to give you - a very interesting letter which I have received. Undoubtedly it's a personal letter, and I thought you would all be interested in this.

Now, Routine 3 - 21 will probably work on any case that was well prepared. We can't, however, count on cases being well prepared, by which I mean I think somebody was just mentioning Presession 2 - Confront and Havingness, you know, Havingness and Confront - that type of approach; CCHs and a Prepcheck is what you would be doing these days. You'd be doing CCHs and a Prepcheck, and so forth and smoothing the case out to that - in that way. And a case that was thoroughly prepared would actually have, to a marked degree, keyed out their present time difficulties.

He says, "Dear Ron." We, by the way, are a new address. We're a new address here. We're Saint Hill, England. After a while, anybody addressing anything to England will simply write Saint Hill, you see? Only they'd better not write "The government of Saint Hill up to London."

Now, their present time difficulties is what's going to give you trouble in old - time 3GA. You'd have an insufficiently well - prepared case. The number of hours required would not be given by the auditor. You'd have somebody'd skimp it here. Somebody was doing very, very rough CCHs, you know, and so on. And do you know that very, very rough CCHs will build the tone arm up and dirty up the needle? You know, never let the guy execute the auditing command and all this kind of thing, you know. I mean you'd really have to work at it hard, but very badly run CCHs can build your tone arm up and dirty up the needle and accomplish exactly the reverse to what they're supposed to accomplish.

Anyway, this letter follows: "Dear Ron, As the fellow that won the door prize at the congress, I would like to have some more - like you to have some more reality on me and I want to tell you my view of how things have gone. I am sure you have the auditor's reports.

And because there have been frailties in the preparation of cases here and there - bad auditing and so forth; the number of hours that could be afforded and so on - we walked forward into a great deal of developmental work, beyond the point where it was vitally necessary. You get the idea?

"Prior to the congress, I was in a particularly bad, withdrawn condition, but I went to the congress with a purpose. After Jim found my goal, I was in a wonderful, euphoric condition. I was dramatizing my goal, but the most significant thing was a complete separateness from bank. The second most significant was a thousandfold increase in communication with people.

I rode this bicycle down the beach many a league beyond the point where I had to get off the bicycle. You understand? This was in the interest of speedup, interest of tougher cases. And I came back to the conclusion, finally, which is an old time - worn conclusion. We find havingness, you know, every six months. Well, it's been six months since we found havingness, you see. And I came to the conclusion that this was your better track. Because it doesn't matter how tricky your auditing question is; if it doesn't get finished in the auditing cycle, why, it isn't going to do anything.

"I made arrangements with the Center to start listing. I went Clear on 16 lines in forty hours. During this time I felt increasingly better and more stable. There was a low point at the end of fifteen hours. I wrote a letter describing my case and the auditing. I went out the bottom for three days until I cognited on what had happened. Your advice on not discussing your case in any fashion is absolutely right. My reality is that pcs during goals listing - that is, listing on the goal - are exceptionally sensitive in this regard. It isn't like any type of case auditing.

Someday you'll learn this. You can nod at me now, but listen: Someday you'll be sitting there, D of Ping a bunch of pcs and for the fifteenth time somebody has come in and asked you for an unusual solution. And for the fifteenth time you've dreamed up a very, very fancy crosscut, short approach to the situation. And for the fifteenth time you give it to him, and you make sure that it's used, and then you find out that didn't do any good either. And you'll suddenly wake up and maybe remember this lecture.

"I, of course, got many cognitions. The most important resulted in a change in beingness, a change of direction in my life and establishing definite goals as opposed to sometime nebulous goals.

Well, if in some of the cases the auditor didn't even deliver your fancy technique - and in the remainder, if the case needed a fancy technique, the pc didn't execute it. See? First and foremost is the fact the auditor wasn't using it and then second on that, why, if he was, the pc wasn't doing it. So, of course, you got noplace in a hurry because the reason the auditor was asking for it is because the pc wasn't doing it in the first place. See?

"After the clearing of 16 lines, there were still little edges of uncertainty - doubt on my stability and wonder about reaction to my environment. The next week - I went Clear on 29 September on 16 lines - we proceeded to do the 114 lines. These went free in three hours. The uncertainty and doubts, and so forth, cleared up. In my reality, the final key to Clear was acceptance of total responsibility for me, my body and my bank.

That sounds like one of these terribly redundant propositions, you see. But the reason the case became an unusual case is becau - and demanded of you - as the D of P - demanded of you an unusual solution, was because the pc wasn't answering the question in the first place. So for you, then, to dream up a new question to ask the pc is to court the exact same fate as the first question the pc was being asked. See, he didn't do that either. And that is why you make this statement of "When faced with the unusual, do the usual." In fact, get even more usual. Get very ordinary. And by getting very ordinary I mean start patting the walls, man.

"I have been going back to the Center each Saturday for a check - Tiger Drill and so forth, and a few buttons which might have something in present time on them - but after one or two interrogations the needle cleared. Last Saturday there was nothing. I picked up the cans and according to the auditor read 3.0 with a free needle. I was and am stable in my reality, and all the buttons were clean.

Now, the tricky developmental work in Scientology is very much to our credit. And we have learned a great deal, and we have gone forward a great distance by ignoring some of these fundamentals. That is to say, well, all right, we auditors couldn't do a process, or something of the sort and instead of trying to force through and say auditors must do this process, don't you see, we tried to get something additional that an auditor could do, that a pc could execute and that sort of thing.

"There seems to be some confusion in the org and HCO about a final Clear check by a Class III Auditor. I have not had the final check as yet, so end - of - cycle is dragging a bit."

Similarly, that same thing has happened in clearing. Now, you write out 850 goals and you start in at the beginning of these 850 goals on this well-prepared case and you will find then that it is very simple indeed to tiger drill these goals. And if you hit one, it isn't going to hang up. Well, it isn't going to hang up because when you ask, "On this goal, has anything been suppressed?" you don't get the pc instantly protesting. Well, do you see that as a variation of the auditing drill?

That's merely the formality of checkout.

You say to the pc, "On the goal 'to catch catfish,' has anything been suppressed?" And the pc says nothing, but in actual fact doesn't even inspect "suppress" but protests. You just disturbed him from examining a goal he has just thought of that has nothing to do with the goal which you are tiger drilling. See, he just thought of another goal that his father must have had, and he wonders if that couldn't have been his goal, and you're trying to do "to catch catfish," don't you see. And he's busy auditing three other goals that he has accumulated as you came along. See, he's not in - session; he's not completing an auditing cycle.

"Now, Ron, about the month since I've been Clear, my environment has gotten very busy and very active with Scientology. I find that my postulates work fantastically quick, easy and without enturbulating problems. I was able to extract my sister from a very messy personal situation that I could not have handled previously. And I was able to communicate with my environment and her without any difficulty and accomplished her enrollment at the Academy as a student in the HCA. First, she took a fifty - hour intensive and made MEST Clear, and this is now an enthusiastic student."

Therefore, he will have a dirty needle all the time, all the time, all the time. Now, that's just from lack of preparation of the case. This guy's got missed withholds; he's never been straightened out; he never completes an auditing cycle - all kinds of wild things are going on. And because he doesn't complete an auditing cycle, of course, the needle is dirty all the time. He always thinks of something else. Or he thinks of nothing.

I'll tell you more about that in a minute.

You say, "On this goal 'to catch catfish,' has anything been suppressed?"

"My wife, Ethel, has completed a fifty - hour intensive and has started listing goals. My family life has never been so smooth, communicative and real. My family responsibilities - all this used to be a problem; it isn't now; it is easy and I love it - my family responsibilities (five dependents) require continuous, sizable income as well as continuing them all in auditing and the HCA. My enrollment in the HCA will be delayed pending the completion of the latter.

And he thinks "To suppress things. I wonder - 'to suppress things.' Do you suppose 'to suppress things' could really be a goal? I wonder if I do have a goal to suppress things. I think a goal 'to suppress things' would be an interesting goal to have. See, I used to squash beetles and so forth and so forth . . . "

"I retire in three weeks from the Air Force, and I will move immediately - and I will move immediately into a management position in industry. There I can still contribute to the national defense as well as expedite the progress of my family and myself in Scientology.

And you're going on and you're saying - you're saying, "On the goal 'to catch catfish,' has anything been invalidated?" and he's - you say, "Ah, that reads."

"I have, since 1955, occupied myself with Scientology and do consider myself a Scientologist and live accordingly.

"Reads? Reads? Reads? Reads? What reads? Reads? You said something?. "

"It's a good game, Ron. Let me postulate more good hunting for you and all Scientologists.

And you say, "Yes, has anything been invalidated? Something's been invalidated. That reads. What is it?"

"ARC, Bob."

And he says, "Nothing's been invalidated."

Very good, huh? All right. Now the ... Shows you what I can do if I set my mind to it.

And you say, "Well, yes. Yeah, there - there is a read here on the meter. There. There. There."

Anyway, there's this mention about this girl going MEST Clear. Now, I'm having this looked into at once very thoroughly, but this was done by Fred as an auditor in the HGC in Washington, and he has already given me a very thorough report on this and it was merely a standard Problems Intensive. But it was run very, very permissively, extremely permissively. Not so permissive as somebody in Y Units have been known to do, of leaving the button red - hot and passing on to the next button. But no Q and A of any kind.

Actually, all the time you're doing that, there's no more thought going on, there's no more effort to look, there's no more effort to confront, there's nothing happening. You even get an automatic circuit going sometimes, where you say, "Has anything been suppressed?" and the pc says "No," and then you bear down and you say, "There. There. There. There. There. What are you looking at? What are you ... T'

It was just cleaning it up, you know. I mean just a standard, smooth auditing job. There were no frills on this thing. And this girl was stuck up at about 4.5 or 5.0, very rough, very wobbly, sticky needle, inclined to all manner of - well, poor auditing reactions we would call them - and life had been a bit of a this and that. And he just went in with this Problems Intensive. And he did the first twenty - five hours and she got quite a bit of good out of it. So he did a second twenty - five - hour Problem Intensive. And at the end of that time, her tone arm was at 2.0, her needle was free on all buttons, and nobody could get any kicks out of the meter. I think this is very interesting.

"Oh, well, that. Yes. Well, of course, I suppressed the goal."

It opens up this chapter to us that a Problems Intensive is apparently capable of producing an old Book One MEST Clear. And it opens up this very suspicious - two very suspicious points for me: is what are they doing elsewhere with this Problems Intensive? How much Q and A? How many lousy assessments? How much no - follow - through? Well, somebody went back from here and gave his wife - who was stuck up at about 5.0 or something like that - he tried to find some goals, and he couldn't get to anyplace, so he went immediately into a Problems Intensive, and he brought her tone arm down to 2.0, and everything was looking much better and she was feeling much better and everything was fine. The dirty needle was gone, and all that.

See, any kind of an action of this character. You have to drive it home. See, you're not getting across to this pc. What's the immediate result of all this? Well, you're not able to tiger drill the list. That's the immediate result of all that.

Well, this is very interesting. It may just be that people don't know what a free needle is because there's people who've had as many as three Problems Intensives up in London.

But now, let us say the case is well prepared. Let us say the case's needle has smoothed out and the case is doing all right and present time is quite real to this case and everything's fine. Now, could something still be wrong with this case so that you couldn't do 3 - 21? And the answer's yes, there could still be something wrong. The goal is not on the list or, if on the list, is so unreal to the pc that if you confronted it, it would never answer up.

Well, the tone arm comes down and everything, but they don't mention free needles. You understand? I mean this is either a fantastic piece of lousy observation on the part of auditors or there's something very rough about their auditing or something else is occurring that we don't know anything about. Well, I consider this very, very interesting as a sudden breakthrough.

Now, let's take this in extremis. Let's just say, all right, it's impossible to fix up a lot of these cases. You - with beautiful preparation, smooth them all out and spend 150 hours smoothing them all out and preparing them, because people are going to be clamoring at you, asking you to do things about this or that, in environments and atmospheres, and their present times are all enturbulated, and they're going to ask you to find their goal, and that sort of thing. Therefore, you need a technology which overshoots the elements and the elementary things which I've been telling you. And in that you have 3GA Criss Cross.

And - some of you know Johnny, he's a old - time Dianeticist - and he heard about this in the HGC, so he says, "I just want to make sure that this is put down as a matter of record," and wrote me about the case. He evidently was the one who got everybody to report it. Now, this needle was inspected by person after person - Saint Hill graduates - see, and it was free, free needle. Problems Intensive - MEST Clear. Of course, that's a Key - Out Clear, but that grades up with what we were doing two years ago with Routine 3.

The end product of 3GA Criss Cross is to so seize upon the pc's attention that the pc couldn't possibly do anything else but give you exactly what is sitting in front of his face. He can't do anything else but answer the auditing commands. This is far, far too interesting to him.

Now, I want you to put a little attention on this. I'm going to have some more to say about this in bulletins, and so forth. But if you're running Problems Intensives, apparently, they have a capability - when run right and assessed right and done right - they have a capability of producing a MEST Clear. So pay some attention to this. Why aren't they getting them? Why aren't they being reported elsewhere.

Now, the tip is that interest follows the rock slam. Where you have a rock slam you have interest. Therefore, you follow the rock slam. You also have the goals channel and you also have the consecutive set of pairs which lead actually from the dimmest beginnings of this GPM forward to the tiniest terms and oppterms in present time. In other words, they're pairs and they come all the way forward. And the route between these pairs is traveled by the auditor from present time clear back to the earliest beginnings. He does it first by finding the goal and then does it by finding the items which have been built up by the existence of this goal. In other words, it's a path, it's a track which is marked by a rock slam. All of its mileposts are designated by rock slams.

I think it was somebody like Johnny, who after twelve years of being around and knowing the answers to things, he said, "Hey! You better tell Ron about this, you know. I want this to be a matter of record, you know." Because he's very interested in special programs over there, and he's doing this health and suppress program angle. And of course, he looks for a lot of these Problems Intensives to be run on a co - audit basis.

Now, you can pretty well overwhump almost anything in the pc if you can get on the trail of the rock slam. Now, you're going to be asked to do miracles; you're going to be asked to do cases that are improperly prepared; you're going to be - asked to do this, you're going to be asked to do that; going to be asked to audit cases in noisy environments; all kinds of things you're going to be asked to do. And you can do that only with very, very powerful procedures. And the most powerful procedures that we have now are - is a combination of old 3D Criss Cross and some of the item - finding steps of later processes. And this we call 3GA Criss Cross.

So either everybody's been stone - blind or they're varying the procedure of a Problems Intensive or this is just a freak. But I don't think this is a freak because this was an extraordinarily rough case.

Well, it has certain rules - certain rules. And I've just given you one of them, and that rule is that the pc's interest follows a rock slam. And if the pc's interest follows the rock slam then the pc will be in - session. You see that? In other words, this is a sort of a forced in - sessionness. This pc has no business being in session, don't you see. In many cases the pc - you know, it's kind of a "What wall?" situation. And yet the pc will follow the auditing cycle, the pc will answer the questions. He has no other choice. Do you see that?

All right. You want to make some comment perhaps on the speed with which these lines cleaned. Don't think that this was an easy case. And this is the lecture I'm going to talk to you about here, the first lecture is "Cases, Types Of." As far as clearing is concerned, there are many types of cases.

Now, you'll get it sometimes - the pc is in very, very great protest of mid ruds. And either the mid ruds have been abused on the pc, grossly abused every time the pc originates, the auditor gets in the mid ruds; this is the fastest way to spoil a pc ever invented.

But this was a rock slammer. He was a rock slammer, Bob. Rock slammer is severely defined not as somebody who rock slams but somebody who believes Scientology is in opposition to his goal or some part of it.

Pc says, "I just thought of another item."

Now, he was not an easy case. He was not easy to assess. You couldn't even tiger drill a goal out on him except at the point of a drawn gun practically. And we picked off his goal on the fly. You know, there it went by on the E - Meter.

And the auditor says, "In this session, has anything been suppressed?" See?

And I only got this, is what would be the - here's how we got his goal: I told Jim to ask him - we would have gotten his goal twenty - four hours earlier if this action had been reported to me when it was done - I told him to ask him, "What would be the consequences of our clearing you?" and to be sure and report to me the answers. The answers were reported to me much later than they should have been. I didn't ever see the - the needle was slamming when he first came up to be volunteered and tested, you see. But on what nobody noticed.

That's the way to cure them - cure them of being audited. You can use mid ruds, then, to drive somebody out of session. But you start in - YOU start in and even though you've used mid ruds very carefully, even though you've used them very well, even though you have been extremely careful of this pc, you've handled the pc very nicely, you haven't cleaned cleans, you know, and you haven't neglected reads, and you haven't gotten missed withholds and all this sort of thing. . . You've just been going along just dandy and yet the pc's still protesting the mid ruds. Yeah, isn't that - isn't that interesting.? I mean, you're following the rock slam channel right on down the line, but every time you depart off the rock slam channel you get a stack of protests about mid ruds.

And "the consequences of our clearing you" were so catastrophic and so terrible that I merely says - using a term we use now to this effect - "The guy's a rock slammer. All right. List goals which would be in opposition to Scientology." It didn't even have to actually be picked off on the meter as it went by. That was not a fluke. It would have been on the list anyway.

Now, realize what you're looking at. The rock slam channel is so enchanting, is so interesting, the pc has no choice but to hand out answers and complete the auditing cycle as long as you are only on this subject, as long as you are only calling off these items - there's only - you're only asking for these items or you're only calling off these items. The pc gives every evidence of being in - session. But you suddenly pull off, just to the short distance of the session itself, you've asked the pc to confront present time. The pc says, "Yo ! Nope! Mm - der - brrp! Screak!" Smell of brakes. See what happens?

All right. Now ... The goal was "to live" by the way. Now, this fellow was not an easy case but he was very, very well audited. He had about three, four Saint Hill graduates sitting on the back of his neck, see. That thing was being piloted through with a very close hand. It simply amounted - nothing clever, but very usual auditing with nothing unusual occurring, you understand? Very usual auditing. Nobody Q - and - Aing. Nobody bullying him. Nobody doing this.

P

So therefore, we must take up this aspect of auditing: is, there is a case and then the aspect of the case depends on the way the case is handled in most cases. You understand? Now, that's the first, first thing that you must recognize in classifying cases or types of cases or relatively difficult cases. The first thing which you've got to recognize is this one, see: that the way the case is handled - even to the degree of sometimes you entered it unluckily - see, the way the case is handled gives you an aspect of relative ease or relative toughness of case. That's about the first thing an auditor should learn about cases, that the way the case is handled has a great deal to do with. how rough the case looks.

Now, you can't say that every pc who does this, does this only because he's in indifferent contact with present time anyhow and is improperly prepared. You can't say that because in many cases pcs have had so many cleans cleaned and so many reads missed and nobody's cleaned up the missed withholds and the auditor - in spite of listening to all my lectures and reading all of my bulletins on the subject - still doesn't know what a missed withhold is. They still exist.

Now, we're talking now completely free of OCAs, APAs, graphs, tests or anything like that, see. Case A, Case B. They're both, you might say, similarly difficult cases. But Case A is handled with great usualness with very, very good, smooth, unexcited, unupsetting approach with a lot of hope factor, a lot of R - factor, and so forth, and runs like an easy case.

All right, what have we got here? Well, we've got the other alternate that the pc has been beaten up with rudiments and so forth, and mid ruds and so on, to a point where they do have a protest, don't you see? Pretty hard to tell the difference. The pc has been artificially put into a condition where he is responding with the same degree as the pc of great unreality. You follow this? I mean, you can always audit a case into a hole. See, this can always happen.

And then there's Case B. And this Case B, let us say, is handled with great unusualness. Well, they enter it from the wrong side and it's prepchecked on the wrong buttons and there's ARC breaks and there's present time problems running and they never kept the rudiments in, don't you see? And Case B pretty soon is sitting in the pc's chair self - auditing and getting his own rudiments in and coming down the can leads to the auditor, don't you see? Looks like a fantastically rough case. Becomes in appearance an impossible case. See, break anybody's heart. And yet they're similar cases.

Now, you notice this, then, that as long as you're asking the pc ... You found the Prehav level "smoke," and you want "Who or what would smoke?" And man, you ask, "Who or what would smoke?" and it's right, you did your assessment right and everything. The pc is actually just dealing them off the top of the deck, see. Bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang - "That would smoke and that would smoke and that would smoke and that would smoke and that would smoke and that would smoke and that would smoke and..." He hasn't actually any opportunity to do anything else. Because you're dealing out the circuit he would normally operate with. You see that? Sneaky.

Now, you should recognize that as an influencing factor in determining whether cases are easy or tough. Now, I'll give you a wonderful example of this. Psychiatric classification, psychiatric treatment, behavior in life, all these things have no bearing - within reasonable limits - have no bearing on the ease with which you're going to handle the case, see.

You see, in the absence of havingness, when his havingness is low, his circuits key in. You understand that old mechanism. You know, all you've got to do is run somebody's havingness down and you key the circuits in. All right, somebody who is in different contact with present time has all of his circuits in.

What the person does in life, person's psychiatric classification, neurosis - any of these things, don't you see? I mean these have no bearing on whether that case is going to be easy to handle or tough to handle. You can just throw overboard any preconception about the fact that he's a black five or she's a theetie-weetie, or any of your case classifications. I don't care whether it's our classifications or some, ha! classifications they've had in the past like the Kraepelin category.

What are these circuits? These circuits are GPM items or their cousins or sisters or aunts. So naturally, with his havingness down, he's got all items in. But you can still audit him. If you're on the rock slam channel, you're on this channel of circuits. You see this? You're actually auditing the circuits he would normally be dramatizing. So, of course, they can't dramatize because they're being audited. So you do get an auditing cycle.

You know, everybody thinks that's a joke, you know, and it's not, you know. That's the basic psychiatric classification of cases. It's the Kraepelin code.

And all of a sudden you pull off of this and you - you got your last three items, and you call his attention to present time. And you say, "In this session, has anything been suppressed?" and you have one god - awful time trying to clean this up. And you just can't - you can't quite get anything clean. Everything is just kind of gluu - umm, zrrp - um, nonregistering on the meter and goes off the meter and on the meter and off the meter and on the meter.

Now, it just doesn't matter. This amusing example I'm going to tell you about - I've mentioned it in lectures before, but for other purposes. This girl stumbles in the front door. Some auditor up in Spokane had gotten furious with her in a session and practically spun her in. She'd had a long, bad history of treatment and mental nonsense. And so she stumbled in the front door - and Suzie happened to be doing some Registrar work and at that particular time I was auditing outside cases - and she came in and - it wasn't a question of her buying auditing - and Suzie asked her for her name. And so she offered several names so Suzie could take her choice because she didn't know.

Well, what's happened here? Well, a roughness of auditing could do this, too. Let's say you were busily charging down the line and supposing some kind of a blunder like this happened - it'd never happen here - supposing some blunder like that did happen. "Who or what would smoke?"

She couldn't remember her name. She didn't know who she was. And, man, you talk about somebody that apparently was in foul shape, you see. Well, somebody would practically have put her in restraint. If she'd ever walked in front of a mental hospital, up to the front entrance, why, they would have sent for the butterfly nets, you see, at once. And so I just grabbed a hold of her. I think I audited her, in all, two hours and a half. I think I audited her two sessions - total about two hours and a half It was - it wasn't any - it wasn't any purchased intensive or anything else. I just saw the girl and I called her in my office and audited her. All right.

"Well, a big man, and a little man, and a little man trying to look big, and uh”

And I really didn't run anything very sensible on her. I sort of asked her what she was trying to do, you know, and what things were. And I gave her a few tests, and so forth. She did anything I asked her to do in the way of a mental put - together, don't you see? And she realized that she was sort of trying to disgrace herself - what she came to realize. I was giving her kind of an SCS. That's what I was doing with her, and I wasn't even escorting her. I was telling her to walk across the room and notice she didn't run into anything. I remember that was one of the processes. And didn't run into anything until she ran into something, you know? It was a great relief to her to find out there were no barriers except where there were barriers. You know, she was getting oriented.

You say, "Well, I don't think that's right."

And then she finally found out she was trying to get even with her parents by becoming a prostitute. And this seemed to be a big cognition to her of one kind or another. And I know there must have been a couple of moments there when we shed items of some kind, and - because she recognized things. She all of a sudden remembered her name and all that. And I knocked out a bad auditing session she'd had up in Spokane. And she went out of there walking straight up, and beautiful shape, and she went out and met some nice guy and got married and that was it. Now, the length of time it took to handle the case does not compare, let me point out to you, with the terrible state of the case.

And he says, "What?"

Now, you see, I've done this often enough now and had it happen often enough that I don't pay any attention to the pre - Scientology state of the case. I pay no attention to that at all. Quite fascinating. Now, some case or another which has a tendency of spinning or something like that is hard to spot, but let me tell you, it takes awfully rough Scientology to make them hard.

"I don't think it'd be a little man trying to look big."

You see, now, I'm trying to bring this up to you: We're making our own hard cases, see. We get preconcepts of some kind or another as to whether cases are easy or hard. And you'll get some poor case that's got a terrible reputation in the HGC, you see, for being a horrible case. And then the auditors don't quite want this case, and all this kind of thing is going on. And this fellow gets a reputation for being a tough case, and he's a tough case.

"Why not?"

Now, I'm not saying that all cases are easy. No, I'm saying quite the reverse: All cases are hard, you see? Basically, there are no easy cases. But let me stress this, that these preconceived notions of the roughness of a case or classifications of a case into this category or that category, "and therefore they're very hard to audit" have all been bypassed by existing technology. You can forget them. If you can get somebody to sit still and answer questions, you see, that's about all you ask of the case, and if you can't, you've got the CCHs. But relegating somebody to the CCHs and telling him he's got to have 8,762 hours of the CCHs before you can audit him, you're just manufacturing a tough case, don't you see?

"Well, that one gives a funny wobbling motion to the needle. So it couldn't be that one, you'll have to give me another item."

I remember one girl - another girl one time in the same locale. I was doing a lot of research auditing at the time and I remembered she had been pronounced nutty as a fruitcake. She was straight out of an asylum everything else. I brought her in and she could control her mock - ups. She could mock up something sitting in the corner and keep it sitting in the corner and do this and that. I told her she was an easy case. And she was. You get the idea?

If you did something like that crude to him, see, all of a sudden there he is, and he's all of a sudden plunged into the middle of this item. And he'll dramatize it and he'll do all kinds of wild things and your session will just go to hell in a balloon. And you haven't got much of a prayer of getting this pc back into action if this pc is also allergic anyway to present time and its environment.

I didn't say, "Oh, my God, you've been eighteen months in a sanitarium. And, oh, oh, that's pretty bad, pretty bad. Your record's here. Oh, dear. Look what Dr. Flumfbottom says about you. Oh, dear. Oh, well. Don't think there's very much we can do for you. You came to us much too late." Evidently, people were on the track before psychiatry, you know, because they're always coming to psychiatry too late, you know?

Look at the difficulty you're running into. You've got a pc who isn't well acquainted with PT, a pc that under the best circumstances would be in high revolt against being put into present time and now cause a hell of a flub of some kind or another, which would put any pc into revolt against anything you said and you practically spin him! You see? There you've compounded the felony.

Now, let's get down to the basis, see. I'm not saying all cases are equal, I'm saying they're all rough. But the case you're going to have trouble with is always a spook and always a sleeper, and you never suspect it and it hasn't anything at all to do - nothing whatsoever to do, believe me - with the psychiatric classification or the psychoanalytic classification or what the OCA said or anything else. That's not the rough case. Yeah, we used to have a hell of a time getting these people up off the bottom of a graph and that sort of thing. Well, you've got the technology, don't you see? You can pull them up off the bottom of the graph. You can sit there and run a Problems Intensive on them, for heaven's sakes; they'll snap out of it. Do various things with these cases.

So all these things like 3GA Criss Cross are given to you with the understanding that as you do them they are done with considerable expertness, because they can actually overcome and bypass the unreadiness of the pc to be audited on them, and you can get away with it. See, you're auditing in depth on a pc that couldn't get his big toe wet without practically dying of pneumonia. So it takes tremendously skilled auditing.

Now, the case you're going to lay an egg with, see, is the same case you've always laid an egg with. That's just a spook case. And they look sane and they look able, and they lie like hell. And it's just a matter of they don't do your auditing commands. And so you never get the auditing cycle completed with this case, you understand? But this case is already very touchy and if you bear down too hard and you're too nasty and Q - and - A too much if they find - to find that they've done it or not done it, you're going to upset the case and make the case rougher than it is. You harass the pc and make the pc worse than the pc is, see. They respond less well to auditing because you're always in there saying, "Did you answer the auditing command? What did you do with that?" You know, suspicion, suspicion, suspicion, see?

The natural defenses of the mind, so called by somebody who had withholds, are instantly overwhelmed. You cut right straight by those. This fellow will go out and plunge into the Arctic Sea and swim several miles and come up shining at the other end, providing you don't run alongside and jab him in the back with a boathook. You see? So it takes a very flawless brand of auditing to pull this off.

Now, the way to judge this case is simply if after a short period of modern auditing the case hasn't recovered, then ... This is honest to Pete, I mean - I sound like an echo of myself. This is a lecture 1953. First time this has been ... The case hasn't done your auditing commands or you haven't audited the case. Sounds very peculiar, see. Now, the case hasn't done it. That's all.

Those are the exact mechanics, by the way, from which these cautions about "untrained auditors shouldn't run these upgraded processes - " see, those are the actual mechanics behind it. These things actually will reach far deeper than the pc could ever reach.

Now, these characters will take a command, do something else with it and then say yes or they've done it. Now, there's an old HGC auditor sitting over here. I can see, he knows that one well! You sit there for twenty - five hours, see, and you're saying, "Tell me a time you really communicated," you know, and the case is saying, "Mm - hm, yeah, yes. With Joe and with Pete. Joe and Bill, yes. With Mama. Yes, with Daddy." I don't know. They've got a machine out here. It says Joe, Bill, Daddy, you know; hadn't anything to do with what they're doing. They never heard a thing you've said to them.

Now, if he hasn't got an auditor there but the auditor is just saying things to him and he is being pushed in over his head anyway and he suddenly triggers and does follow out the auditing cycle with no auditor present and then all of a sudden something bad happens, well, the guy just sort of goes down for the third time, don't you see?

See, in other words, this case interrupts the auditing cycle, and that's the only case that you're ever going to find tough or have anything to do with.

So a person who is unskilled using these processes - well, you get something like happened in Johannesburg before we really raised the devil. There was practically nothing but wrong goals in the Johannesburg area. They're just catching up with them - how many - and they're just stacked. The way goals were being found down there by this character was ... He's talking about making Scientology a racket in South Africa, see? Well, what kind of a racket do you call this? Somebody comes in to get his goal found and he's going to pay a lot of money to get his goal found. And he walks in, gets put on a meter, and the guy just reads a list of goals at him, and the first one that rocket reads he says, "Why, that's your goal," never checks it out - and sends him out to get it listed. Well, that was what was happening, man. That's why the old man suddenly took a few heads off.

Now, let's look at - the most extreme condition of this. The guy is sitting there going buuuuuuu. See, he's been around psychiatry too long, you know. He can't communicate at all anymore. He's sitting there. He can't even tend himself in the natural functions of nature. He's sitting in the corner of a padded cell, you know?

There's wrong goals all over the place, see? And one girl throwing up every time she turned around and has been for months, you know; couldn't keep anything on her stomach. Pretty wild things happen. Just criminally bad auditing, see.

And you say something to him and you get no response and no execution. Got that as the extreme end of this case, you know?

Well, that sort of thing can happen with these. So therefore, we lay down all these provisos, and we say, you know, it takes very skilled handling and you do it just this way and you have to be trained and all that sort of thing. Because you actually can bypass this.

Well, another extreme end. The guy has no perception. He can't hear. You say something to him, of course, he doesn't do anything.

Frankly, if you did Goal Assessment by Elimination - by elimination; that's old 3GA; it's not the 3 - 21 where they're done by Tiger Drilling - if a pc was pretty ready to have his goal found you would find his goal by elimination. But if he wasn't ready to find his goal, you know, if he wasn't ready to have his goal found, why, you wouldn't find it. You see that?

And there's another example of the foreign - language case who can't speak any English. You're telling a Japanese to make that body lie in that bed and, of course, he doesn't know any of those words.

Now, when you get into 3 - 21, if the pc isn't ready to have his goal found, you can find it. You can find it by tiger drilling those first 850, providing the goal is on the list.

You see, those are all communication breakdowns.

Oh yeah, you can whipsaw him around, get this thing to rocket read and prepcheck the thing and so forth. But, man, he has no more - he has no great reality on it. To walk down this track amongst the great black boulders which will cave in on him in all directions, he looks upon as something which James Bond would approach with trepidation. And he says that's pretty tough. He looks at the first three or four as something that could only be performed at a circus by a hardened acrobat, see. And you're going to make him walk down the whole track to the vicinity of this goal, and it's just huh - uh! See?

Well, you understand those. See, that's dead simple. You're not going to stand there like an idiot looking at this bird sitting on a stool in the corner of his cell going buuuuu, you know. He's had the very best treatment the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration, could possibly authorize. Very best. Yeah, I wonder if you realize that they okay all the electric shock machines as perfectly valid shock machines that kill patients. We're going to take care of them. Well, anyhow ... We got them on the list over here. Anyway ... We already sent them a bill for interrogation and consultation services and we've now got the government crying faintly and nattering and wanting to - it to be itemized and specified or something of the sort before they pay it.

Well, he's too stuck on the track, he's too overwhumped, he's too this and he's too that. And the odd part of it is that when you get to 3GA Criss Cross, you can do it, and you can get away with it and you can bring him out. But recognize, for God's sakes, what you're doing! Please recognize that you are short - cutting and saving on the preparatory steps, that you are taking a pc who isn't ready to be audited on "Touch that perambulator," and you're going to make him walk the death mile straight down to the middle of hell, see. Dramatic as that. It looks much worse than that to the pc, when he starts looking at this, man.. And you're going to make him do this. So therefore, it's pretty smooth, pretty tricky auditing that's required.

They came around and investigated FCDC so we - I had them send them a bill for $275 for consultation and briefing. They're apparently going to pay it. You should realize the magic of billing.

Now, the number of ways that you can get him to walk the death mile and start on that street that has machine gun emplacements in each window embrasure - to say nothing of the mines under the road and the diving Spitfires, and so forth, overhead, this is - they're quite incidental, see - are many. And one of them, the earliest, is just to ask somebody to put down his idea of the dynamics and assess it. I mean, that's the earliest and most simple version of it. And then represent it - the earliest one - represent it and get some sort of an item and then list some goals against that as the oppterm and you would wind up with it.

Anyhow, so there he sits with the very best the Food and Drug Administration could authorize, and you'll say, of course, "I would have to take his hand and make him touch the wall, and do it and do it and do it, and take his other hand and do it and do it and do it, and get him into communication with his environment," and so forth. Yeah, you'd recognize it would do absolutely no good to stand there and say, "Recall a time when you communicated with somebody. Thank you. Recall a time when you suppressed something. Thank you." You know? You recognize, see. That's lights, bells, everything, see. You know there's nothing going to happen.

Now, there are very many refined methods of getting this and getting the slam. In each one of these cases you had to get the slam. The next one up from that is, "What isn't part of existence?" You got him to do that. You even snaked him up into that's - what does he wish wasn't part of existence, threw that list away and wrote, "What isn't part of existence?" got some sort of a list there, and when you null that list out you're going to find something that's slamming.

All right. And you take this guy that's stone - deaf, and he's got a great big hearing aid of some kind or another that goes off at fifty - five decibels between his ears, or something. And there's an on/off switch on the thing and it's off, see. And you know better than to sit there and say, "Recall a time you invalidated something," see. You know better than that.

And if the pc couldn't do that, then you say, "What - who would - who or what have you detested?" And he's got somebody he detested. And you represent that and you're going to wind up with a dynamic list and so forth. And if the pc couldn't do that - you didn't find your rock slam - you got your next one "Who or what would you prefer not to associate with?" And you're going to get something out of that and then there's a way of tackling this with Problems: "What problem would you rather not face up to?" That, however, is a package all by itself. I wouldn't use it in that particular lineup.

And you got somebody who speaks only Igloo, and you know that there's no sense in saying this. Well, that's so obvious that the next obvious thing is you miss: There's many a fellow who sits there who ostensibly speaks English, who can hear, who never executes your auditing commands. That's the one you're going to lay an egg on. This person doesn't execute your auditing commands and doesn't give you a factual report on what's happening in the auditing.

And these are all various methods of getting a person to turn on a rock slam, which, of course, is his entering interest level. And he's so interested in going down that line that he doesn't notice all those machine gun embrasures. He just says, ouch! when the bullets hit him, and he keeps walking. Got the idea?

Now, you'd be amazed, because that goes on a gradient on up till it really includes every case at its top level. Every case sooner or later doesn't quite do the auditing command, don't you see? Well, the spook that you're going to have trouble with is the one who just never does the auditing command and is always doing something else.

In the presence of a good auditor he keeps walking. He doesn't get lonesome. He doesn't get hung up on the track. And he doesn't get the right item taken away from him and the wrong one handed to him. And a lot of other little refinements helped him to do this.

Now, I'll show you how crazy this goes. The auditor sits there for seventy-five hours of auditing and keeps giving him this command, you see - "Who haven't you ever helped?" see? "Who hasn't ever helped you?" you know; some failed - help process - and sits there, and the tone arm moves and the needle moves occasionally on the E - Meter, and so forth. And then at the end of the intensive, why - the first twenty - five hours - the fellow says, oh, he feels lots better. And the next twenty - five hours he says, "Well, I didn't. . . It hasn't worsened any." And the next twenty - five hours, well, he's sort of scraping off the floor now.

So here he is and these are all methods which get him there. And you've got now an additional method which I think you'll find is pretty darned reliable and that's "Roll Your Own" Prehav.

Now, the auditor's been sitting there giving him commands that whole time. And he has yet to do one. And actually that happens. That happens, and that's the only case you're going to have trouble with. It has nothing to do with diagnosis or. . . He's got itemosis. He's got an item here, and it hears and then it relays it to him and then he says to this item over here that it should do it. See? He's wired up a set of valences. Pc isn't there at all. Pc's backed way out here someplace, don't you see? Pc hasn't got anything to do with all this.

This is a version of the old Primary - Secondary Scale. And that of course, is just take any standard Prehav Scale or any Prehav Scale or any I will write - one of these days I'll get around to writing a special Prehav Scale for special reasons, you know, like types of scales - and you find a level on that and then get that level represented. And of course the pc will lay on a silver platter the exact level that he's supposed to have there providing you came anywhere close to it on the original scale.

If you ask the pc about it, if you communicate with the pc at all, why, the pc would just be sitting back there in sort of a comfortable, relaxed puzzle about the whole thing. And nobody's answered the auditing command.

In other words ' he will give you the Prehav level of whatever you're asking for and it will be tailored to his perfect understanding because he gave it to you. And this wipes out Prehav Scales of... Let's see, the English language, I think, has a quarter of a million words; therefore a complete Prehav Scale would be that proportion of a quarter of a million words which consists of verbs. And you know, I think that's too long an assessment.

Now, auditors sometimes sense this and they become desperate. And they start pounding the pc and harassing the pc and chopping the pc up and just going up in a small balloon because they know there's something wrong. After all, you're not always wrong. You have been known to have correct intuitive feelings, and you just feel intuitively that this isn't all it should be. You don't feel in good two - way comm with the pc, you see. You don't like the way this soup tastes, you know? You can't quite isolate whether it's got too much salt in it or too much pepper or too much butter, but it just isn't quite right.

So this gets you out of these very long assessments. You don't have to do these long assessments. It wouldn't matter if you took the full Auxiliary Pre-Have Scale, even with its few additions and did that, and rolled your own with that. You would wind up with a very reliable level.

And you start chopping the pc up. You start moving in on the pc, you know? You start getting insistent. You start getting this. You start getting that. And the tone arm moves even less. Moves less.

Now, the original idea on this is not as workable. You simply made yourself up a little series of the gradients of overts and the gradients of withholds. You just made yourself up a little scale, you know. You know, like "Would you keep to yourself?" you know. Or you know, "Would you - would you rather not others weren't after you?" you know, I mean, that as the withhold - and run that up to putting down some little item like, "Getting after everybody you run into," you know, "Everybody and everything you run into." Maybe just six or seven of these, you see. And you assess those and find the one which sort of sticks with you the most. And what you're doing there is an old Flows Assessment, if you recognize it.

Now, this case is the last one in the world to admit in any way that he has misappropriated the auditing command. Last one in the world. All cases to some slight degree do this and you don't harass those. Well, why harass this guy? Because he's always doing something else with the auditing command.

And you use that and roll your own from that. And just ask him, "Who - if somebody was trying to attack everybody and everything in sight, what would they do?" And you'd get a whole bunch of list. And then you assess the list he gave you, and you wind up with a highly accurate Prehav level.

I'll give you an idea some of the things he does with the auditing command. Some are really gorgeous. He hears the auditing command and that reminds him of something that he ought to do that will make him better, so he does that. He hears the auditing - this is rather uncommon, but is an actual manifestation. Every auditing command the pc receives, he runs through an electronic incident because he knows if the electronic incident changes in character that he will get well. He knows what's wrong with him. It's an electronic incident. So every time you give him an auditing command, then he runs through the electronic incident a little bit further or tries to take the auditing command and apply it to the electronic incident and he's sitting there auditing an electronic incident. And you're not auditing him. You follow this?

Now, if you've done that you probably will wind up with a rock slam. That's your - that's a very specialized method of getting down into the rock slam channel, getting the proper thing, getting it going - just using the roll-your - own level. And you want to know who or what would do that - whatever it was, whatever you found out, see? You want a who or what would do that. You make a long list of those things, and they may be terminals, they may be oppterms - we couldn't care much which. And you wind that up and you just do that list and you're going to get something there that rock slams. A high probability is that you'll land right in the middle of the rock slam.

Well, you say, "Well, how the - look - look - look - look now, Ron, you've just told us, you know - wait a minute. You've just said ... Look, you mustn't Q - and - A, and you mustn't jump down their throats" - I've sure inferred that

Now, there are various ways that you could handle that. I've been working with this lately and you know, you can do, actually, any list by simply calling it off once. You don't have to say "committing overts" or anything else, actually. You don't have to turn on all that rock slam. If the thing is going to rock slam, it's going to tick. So just take everything that's in. Just do it by elimination, and tiger drill the last few the way I was showing you. I'm just talking about the wording of the - of the assessment. You can do it that way. If you have qualms about it, why, by all means, "Consider committing overts against ." and "Would something commit overts ... ?" whatever it is. But you can actually just call it off once, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang.

"and you mustn't harass them, and you mustn't bother them. Well, how the hell are you going to find out?"

And if it's going to rock slam, it's going to tick. Then when you've got it there, when you've got the last few, why, you'd say, "Would so and so . . ." after you tiger drill them, you know, you finish the Tiger Drill and you say, "Consider committing overts against . . ." and you get your slam, you see. Your slam can develop in that particular way.

You see, if he's running through the electronic incident, of course, you'll going to get tone arm motion. It won't be very much, but you'll get some tone arm motion. See, he's running himself through an electronic incident while you're auditing him. And you think the tone arm motion is coming from the fact that you're auditing him, see. But it's not. It's coming from the fact he's moving through an electronic, see. So you even get tone arm action and we're not supposed to Q - and - A and we're not supposed to ask the pc what he's doing particularly. We're not supposed to harass him particularly. Well, hell, it couldn't be any possible road out of this.

This actually, by the way, isn't as reliable as doing it the other way. I have goofed on this when I didn't goof the other way. But I still have confidence in it and I'm still - doing it that way and getting away with it. Auditing is what you can get away with. And if you don't have to put that many words into nulling a list you can of course null the list a lot faster. You just go down the list, "Tiger. Waterbuck," you know, and see if it reacts, just calling them once. Because the item is going to do nicely, thank you. It's going to react well if you're right on the track. So anyway, you get down to the end of this list, you go over it, you select it out, you've got an item.

Oh, yes, there is. Yes, there is. It isn't grabbing him out of the chair and racking him over to the wall and start doing the CCHs either; it's you watch that when you are running the pc's right Havingness Process. And if you want to be extreme and you want to make a test out of it, you run a separate process which has something to do with the physical universe around the pc. And if that gives you a great deal of tone arm action, then you damn well flatten that tone arm action against the physical universe! I don't care whether you use SCS, Op Pro by Dup, CCH 1, 2, 3, 4. 1 don't care what you use, you understand. It'd be a matter of "Pat the desk. Thank you. Pat the desk. Thank you. Pat the desk. Thank you. Pat the desk." You're going to get tone arm action, see.

Now, what the hell is an item? Now, it's the protagonist or antagonist in the game, which pursues from the fellow having had a goal in the first place. It's the dumbbells. Now, in actual fact there's another pair of dumbbells on it. And I haven't figured out what to do with these in assessment, and I don't know if they're needed, but they're the "not" pair. They're there, pinned onto it electronically. And you quite often can find this "not" pair. N - o - t, you see. You've got, one of them was, "Who or what would smoke?" Well, actually, there's another list, a sleeper, back of that list, you could say, "Who or what would not smoke?" - just arbitrarily add your not - and you'd get a brand - new list and you'd get a brand - new item sitting out there, see. It actually isn't a pair. It's principally a pair, you understand? In actual fact it is four. There are two dumbbells lying there. But the other two you could ignore.

Now, the reason you don't often notice this is because the pc hasn't got his hands on the electrodes when you're running a touch or a Havingness Process. See ' very often on most - on lots of these processes, pc doesn1 have his hands on it.

Now, auditing is what you can get away with and 3GA Criss Cross is what you can ignore. What can you safely ignore? Because, of course, if you start 3GA Criss Cross on this basis of finding the rock slam channel, listing it, finding a slamming item and then do an opposition to it and find the slamming item and then do an opposition to the item you just found and then do a represent for the first item and an opposition to it, and a represent for the second item and an opposition to it, and a represent for the third item and an opposition to it.

Now, look. If a pc gets a lot of tone arm motion in the rudiments - and that's not a very good statement, because there's not much of the rudiments contain - the beginning rudiments contain the MEST universe, see. But if you were to get lots of tone arm action in the rudiments and damn little tone arm action in the body of session, you know at once that the pc never does your auditing command. Look at it. Isn't that self - evident?

Well, you - it's something like they do in Baltimore. They have a tremendous number of white stone steps in Baltimore. It's one of the dirtier, dustier cities you ever ran into. So they have nothing but white steps in Baltimore. We're not sure why there are nothing but white steps there, because it's such a dirty town. But they scrub these off every morning, with an enthusiasm which has often held me in great awe. You see, they sweep them off and then they scrub them off and then they lather them off, you see, and then they hose them off and then wipe them off. Of course, a half an hour later they're dirty. But it's such enthusiasm. And, actually, they wouldn't have to work that hard. They just wouldn't have to work that hard to accomplish it.

You say, "Look at the wall. Look at the ceiling. Look at the floor. Look at the wall. Look at the ceiling. Look at the floor. Look at the E - Meter. Look at the beam. Look at the floor. Look at the mike." And he's sitting there holding the cans, and this thing starts going brr - brr - brr, and the tone arm starts going all over the place, and then you're going to move into the body of the session. You're going to start up this 155 - horsepower diesel tractor called a Problems Intensive, and you're going to get an eighth of a division motion? Now, look, I'm just appealing to your common sense. This pc is capable of tone arm motion. You have proved it. You said, "Look at the ceiling, look at the floor and look at the walls and look at the room and look at me and look at you and. . . " There you are, see. And you got tone arm action.

Now, you're not trying to clear somebody with this 3GA Criss Cross, but the funny part of it is if you did it expertly you'd wind up doing so. You could clear somebody and never find the goal. The goal would be the last thing you found. You understand this? It's - you're clearing a person backwards.

You talked about his environment and asked him if he had any problems and you started getting tone arm action. Of course, that's starting to get a little subjective. Not really as valid a test, don't you see. But he's looking straight at you, and you say, "Since the last time I audited you, have you done anything you are withholdine. " He's looking at you, and he's talking about present time.

You theoretically could keep finding items that rock slammed and finding them nicely so that you could keep going and you would eventually wind up with the bottom of the channel. All this is very interesting. You recognize that there's a possibility in that direction. But it would be very hard and there'd be a lot of guesswork about it and you'd make a lot of wrong guesses, and you wouldn't have the guiding constant common denominator that you're going with, which is the goal. So it's easier to go down the channel a short distance until the goal is available and then pick up the goal and continue to list and null with the goal.

Now, listen. Such people have a span that goes back very shortly into the past. The past starts closing in on these people awful soon, back from present time, don't you see? And their span of reality on what's going on in the world ceases maybe five minutes ago in extreme cases, two days ago, five days ago. See, in back of that there's no real reality.

Now, this is trying to get the case discharged sufficiently so that you can do something with a goals list. Now, if you kept discharging the case and at the same time disorienting the case even further, you of course are going to get further and further from finding a goal. You see how that could be? Instead of discharging the case all you're doing is enturbulating the case.

So you ask him in the rudiments about the realest area of their lives which is very close to present time. You know, "Since the last time I audited you, yesterday." You're going to get tone arm action. And, brother, if you don't get as much tone arm action auditing the pc in the body of the session as you do in running the rudiments, please realize that we would be clearing people with the rudiments, see, if this were true. We'd never do a body of a session. We'd only do rudiments. You follow that reasoning? Because tone arm action mirrors directly and immediately the amount of change which is being secured on the pc. That is your direct index of how much this bank is changing and shifting, is that tone arm.

You keep finding items - and handing them to the pc - that didn't slam. I'll give you ways of doing this. Tell the pc that's his item and he never cognites on it, he's just going to get fuzzier and fuzzier. He's going to get less and less real about things, see. There's less and less happening. You follow how you could go at this? You're going to get less and less likely to find these goals, you see. You're going to find wrong items, you're going to find items that don't slam, and he's just going to get buried and confused.

Now, when that tone arm is going up and that tone arm is going down and that tone arm is going back and forth, you know you're getting change. And when that tone arm isn't doing anything, you know you're not getting change.

Now, I had to decide what you could get away with. And my first guesstimate was more closely based on what I myself thought I could get away with, as it normally would be, and that was simply to get a couple of items and you'd get something else. See, it's as simple as that. I mean, if you're going to have to go to all this nonsense just to know what your goal is - you get the idea - why, then of course, the most you'd need would be an item or two and you could list some goals against it and that'd be that.

So we start running the rudiments. We get into the Havingness Process at the beginning of the rudiments - where it isn't anymore. Do something.

Well, that didn't turn out to be too workable, so we stretched it out to about three items, don't you see. Then we started listing goals after three items and unburdening it, and I finally woke up to the fact that we were leaving pieces of the package behind us unidentified. And that this was raising hell with several pcs.

We all of a sudden notice, as we're starting to break this case down and straighten this case out, we run a rudiments and havingness session. Now, you start going in for a goal finders Model Session and the listing of items on this case - well, you could do a lot for the case that way - but you've immediately lost all your indicators for the case. You start doing a Problems Intensive without ever finding his Havingness Process or anything like that, you're never going to know any of this about the case, are you? It's going to evaporate.

We were actually into the GPM. We were actually handling pairs. And even though these pairs were the pair of the detested person ... Ah, but the detested person had a terminal that detested him that was just that much in present time. It's sort of like picking pebbles off the beach so you can get to the boulders, don't you see. Well, all the pc could tolerate at that stage of the game is the pebbles. So he's not quite able to confront pebbles and he's worried by the fact that there's a pebble left behind him. You found this detested person. This detested person is Joe, see? See? All right, detested person - Joe. So now from that you get the dynamic list and you get the dynamic, "spirits." And now you get the item that spirits represent, and you wonder why this pc isn't progressing well and why you're really not having a good time of it in trying to add up these goals and list goals and tiger drill them and that sort of thing. Hell, he's worried about what would oppose Joe! See, he's clear back there.

So, you want to find out what this case is going to do? You want to find out what kind of a case you're dealing with?

See, you've gone into this factory and you've showed him everything and you've expostulated and you've pointed to the machinery and the dustbins and the wastebins and the employees' room and the guard rooms and how they file everything and so forth, and you look around and you say, "Hey, hey, where are you?" You know? And you go back. He's just inside the main gate. He doesn't want to know all those things you were telling him, he says, "What place is this?" See? He wants to know who hates Joe. So you get the idea there, because you've left an unmatched - an unopposed pair.

Find out how much tone arm action is produced by a process which has to do with near present time and the immediate environment. And when that gives a tremendous amount of tone arm action, you've actually got somebody who is drifting far away, because the case that had good reality on the bank, was in control of the bank, would not get that much tone arm action on the present time. You see?

So, to be on the safe side doing this because it helps any case, why, you make a rule about it. And you've got that in November 11, AD 12, 3GA, straightening up these cases; well, you always make a pair. If you get something, you oppose it. That's just your rule. And if it's still red - hot, you represent it. That's actually all you need to know. It isn't a question of representing, always. If you get something that slams you oppose it. Well, if you got something that was a terminal and you oppose it, of course you're looking for an oppterm, looking for something that's agin him. And then you've got a terminal, you've got an opposition terminal. If you got an opposition terminal, you've got to get its terminal, don't you see?

Do you realize what tone arm action means? If you get tone arm action on a Havingness Process, a lot of tone arm action on the right Havingness Process or any contact process or any CCH - if you're getting tone arm action - do you realize that he is actually becoming aware of the walls of the room. Oh, we're not kidding when we say "what wall?" See, this case is really faded out. It isn't bank mass that's causing the tone arm action to go. It's the increasing mass of the walls of the room. Must be. That's all you're having him look at.

Well now, this isn't all that smooth. Actually, after the person has been cleared, he has it all straight. But this, oddly enough, doesn't do you a bit of good. And you sometimes will find yourself in this weird squirrel cage: You find this item and it's a terminal. And you've gotten it by opposing, let us say, the detested person. And you've got it, you see, and it's "a slave driver." And the pc says, "Well, you've got that now, you know." There it was, opposing the detested person, you've got this "slave driver," and we're very happy about this and now we've got that packaged and ... Pc doesn't seem very responsive about this, and so forth and the auditor evaluate, evaluate, and the pc's being pleasant and propitiative. And the pc ventures and he says, "You know, a while ago there when we found uh - when we found uh - 'ships' - 'ships,' you know, we found this item 'ships' - we were doing this a while ago, you know. I think that's what 'slave driver' opposes." See, that's three down the line, see. He's all mucked up on this subject, in other words, and you've got to pick your way through it.

Now, of course, we know very well it'll move bank. But look, look, if we have him start looking at the wall and looking at the floor and looking at the ceiling, and so forth, and we all of a sudden see this tone arm go up here to 4.9 and then break down to about 3.5, and then start up again to 4.5, what's shifting it? His concept of mass is being shifted by confronting the environment in which he finds himself. Well, he sure is in no shape to be audited because where is he going to audit from, to?

And the test by which you pick your way through it is what is still slamming. You can always make something slam again if it's going to slam. You can say, "Get the idea of withholding from it," if you've been running overts with it all the time, if it's going to slam again.

You're auditing a case who does not have the stability of present time to audit against. So any address to the track throws him in total confusion and he can't answer your auditing commands. He has no point of reference.

Now, if it's going to slam again, why, it hasn't been opposed. I don't care if you got the opposition to it - now, hear me now - I don't care if you got the opposition to it and you wrote it. That's what you did. You're always supposed to be auditing a pc. I'd like to call that to your attention. And although you opposed it and you wrote up, "Who or what would oppose Joe?" and you got 64a slave driver," when it all winds up and you start looking these - these items you've got on the line plot again and you find "Joe" is still rock slamming, you have not opposed "Joe." You have probably opposed something else.

Cases are audited against the point of reference of present time.

And you could do the pc a world of good, if you've got several items around, and say, "Well what - - ." you know, "Here's a - here's 'a catamaran,' and here's 'ships,' and here's this ... And what - which one of these does 'a slave drive oppose, if any?"

Oddly enough, the memory of eight million years ago totally depends on knowing it was eight million years ago from where? From where? How come we say eight million years ago?

"Oh, ho - ho - ho! 'ships'!"

Now, this guy who is stuck in the electronic which occurred three million years ago and is still in it, will get tone arm action when you get him to look at the environment in his immediate vicinity. Otherwise, he will run a Problems Intensive from a point three million years ago, which is a nonstable point. So you're running a confusion against an instability. And two confusions never made a stability, man. So, of course, he really doesn't know how to answer your auditing command.

Yeah, but you now have the burning question of what opposes "Joe?" You haven't found out yet. So you've got to do something about "Joe" now, again, because "Joe" is still slamming. Do you follow that? You haven't got the rest of the package.

You say, "Recall a time you communicated." All right. Recall a time he communicated. Well, if the time he communicated is up the track from where he is, how can he recall it because it hasn't happened yet. So, therefore, he knows he can't do that auditing command, so he does one that he can. And he says to himself, "Well, the auditor just communicated to me. He said so. So, therefore, I will recall the auditor saying something to me." So he does that a couple of times.

Now, these two, you see, are aided and abetted by others. There's other mysterious ones hanging out in the shadowy darkness. There's all sorts of stuff around. There's no lack of quantity of items. If you think you're going to find four or five items and the pc's Clear - ha - ha - ha! You see, he accidentally goes Clear on 10 or 15 thousand items but in actual fact he has probably blown closer to 150 thousand. You see this? He only mentioned these few. Or he only ran these few. So you think you're going to get six packages and then the pc should be Clear, you got another thunk coming. Because it's quantitative, man; this GPM is quantitative.

He's heard of mock - ups, you see, and he decides that he'd better use this auditing session for something - there's no reason to let this auditing session go to waste. And so the best thing to do is to mock up his psychoanalyst alongside the auditor so as to match the terminals, and if he holds this psychoanalyst very carefully up alongside of the auditor during the auditing session, then he knows he'll have gotten something done. So he trains himself up to say "Mm - hm." Every time he says he has answered the auditing question, he says, "Mm - hm." Or he says some irrelevant object or something of this sort while he is holding this thing.

But similarly, in your contemptuous eye as the auditor, you know you could confront all that. You know you'd have no trouble of confronting this, so why should the pc have any trouble? Well, you're not in his bank is one of the reasons. And you've sailed on by a pair and you haven't made a pair. You haven't got a terminal and an oppterm sitting back there, and that's going to start pulling the pc back to it, and that's going to keep the thing - keep the thing snarled up. -

You'll find some guy sometime or another who's holding the two back corners of the room. That's what he's doing in the auditing session. He doesn't want to waste the auditor's time so he holds the two back corners of the room during the auditing session. He's not doing the auditing command.

I don't know if you heard any of the lectures about the - what the GPM does. But the GPM as it comes up in these pairs then starts making question marks and crisscrossing itself and tangling up and the bottom starts fitting up against the top, and pluuhh! You keep on fooling with it and eventually it'll come straight, and all of a sudden it'll make sense. But remember, it only straightens out because you've got the pc to recognize the matter, energy, space and time that the item consists of. In other words, this item now has been recognized, and it has been placed where it should be placed and he sees what it is opposed by and so forth. In other words, he's gotten sensible about it.

And as far as I am concerned, tone arm action on the rudiments and present environment of the pc is the only indicator I know of that uniformly isolates this case for anybody. That isolates it for anybody. You can tell if your TA is moving against the environment.

Now, this whole thing goes back to the earliest laws I developed in the field of the mind, back in 1938. This is out of "Excalibur." And that is that things are composed of identities, similarities and differences. In other words: identification - can't tell the difference; similarities - nearly - alikes, you could tell them apart if you looked hard; to differences - any fool can plainly see. You see that a chair isn't a roof.

Now, it becomes very important, then, to prepare a case. And although it's all very fine to have this case come in and sit down and you find some items and the case straightens up like mad, and everything then goes along swindiferously, and all that; you're kind of trying to plow ground with a Cadillac, you know. And the funny part of it is the Cadillac won't do it. You get a Cadillac out amongst the plowed furrows and I don't care how much horsepower it's got or how many cigarette lighters, it's not going to pull a plow. It's going to bust its springs and it's going to knock off its exhaust pipes. It's going to do something weird. Ah, you're just using the wrong vehicle.

Now, the GPM is in a state of a total identification when you greet it. And every one of these items is every other one of these items. And when you list, you are bringing about a similarity from an identity. You've got a complete identification, A=A=A, so you list this thing down. And when you've got this listed down, you have already, by listing it, brought about a step of achieving a similarity where you had an identification. Now the pc knows they're similar. And now, by causing him to find the item they were all pinned to in the first place, differentiation takes place and the thing starts blowing apart. Now he finds out what ailed him.

Now, basically this gives you an answer on the sub act of clearing. j

Now, you take a rock slammer. You're busy testing this rock slammer and you say, "You come in every night and you tear all the files apart and throw them in the waste basket and so forth and do other progressive things with the organization. We think you slam. We think you're a rock slammer. And we think you'd slam probably on Scientology." You recognize the moment that you put him on the meter and isolate the fact that he is a rock slammer, he goes a lot saner at that moment. Did you recognize that? If you did it - if you did it calmly as an auditor, not accusatively, he all of a sudden - he was mad at the whole environment; now he knows what he's mad at specifically. Now if we find who or what was mad at whatever he was slamming on - Scientology or Scientology orgs, something - we would have a pair. And this would tend to blow. See, but if we just found out he was a rock slammer, we'll do him some good.

Hardly anybody hears me on this or pays much attention on this, but a case that is wildly out of present time seldom answers the auditing command or executes it. And auditing depends exclusively on getting the auditing command executed.

Now if we find out who or what is rock slamming on it, of course the slam deteriorates because what makes the slam? A slam is the meter manifestation of a games condition. It's the unsuccessful effort to withdraw from the thing he must attack. So you get a games condition and that games condition is the manifestation called a rock slam.

Unless the auditing cycle of action occurs every time the auditor opens his face in a session, you will find the whole thing starts stacking up. If the auditor is saying, to a person with a hearing aid shut off, commands, he knows they're not going to be answered. But how many other of his pcs is he saying commands to who never executes them? Well, the answer is not to harass the pc. The answer is to run objective - type processes, put in rudiments, do things, and watch that tone arm because if that tone arm is moving well - three cheers. It's moving well.

Well, it takes - the Norwegians say it takes - one stick won't burn, and it takes two to make a fight. One stick won't burn; takes two to make a fight. That's absolutely factual. No more sooth was ever soothsaid. It takes two items minimal to make a package.

Well, all right, let's move it well, huh? Let's just keep on doing some more of the same. Let's get the motion out of that thing. And when the motion comes out of that thing, then you'll get motion in the body of a session. But your body - of - session processes, when they demand a subjective reaction only on the part of the pc, may have missing present time - that area against which the pc must relate everything. And if present time is missing, why, the pc is not going to get very far. Also, he won't - really won't be able to answer or execute the auditing cycle.

Now, if you wanted to find the rest of the immediate package, you would have to find out what wasn't against Scientology and what Scientology wasn't. And of course, this immediately - by the positive - negative polarities of the electrical current that goes through this thing - you'll find out that this would discharge like mad.

Now, your trouble is the same trouble with a pc that you've had for a long time; that is you don't recognize your auditing cycle is not occurring.

But you recognize that the moment you have found out that a person is a rock slammer and the person sees that he's a rock slammer on something, you realize, that he has to that degree ceased to be a rock slammer. To that degree, he's ceased to be a rock slammer. Now, we find out who is rock slamming against this and, of course, you've started to neaten this thing up like crazy. And of course, he's much less likely to be a rock slammer, you see. And all the time - the fact of testing this is discharging the condition.

But there is a positive test. Now, I've scraped the bottom of the barrel looking for a test as idiotically simple as this that requires no equipment of any kind whatsoever, and you'll find out that the gradient scale of toughness of cases is directly proportional to the amount of action they get on the tone arm using present time or near present time addresses. You know, like, "Do you have a present time problem? Anybody in your environment you're worried about?" That sort of thing. You're getting tone arm action, man. Huh! See, it's the old - time beginning - rud type of approach and you're getting tone arm action. That's a direct index. The case is as tough as he gets tone arm action on present time or the environment. Simple, isn't it?

See, a rock slammer is only bad off before he's been detected. See, at his worst state - he's at his worst before you find out. But just as soon as you find out on the meter, he finds out too. So he's got all kinds of things explained now, don't you see. Makes sense. Well, he knows now what he's fighting. He doesn't have to fight the whole environment, he's not fighting the waste baskets and he's not fighting the files and he's not fighting roofs of that particular line; he is fighting Scientology. "Oh!" you see, kind of "That's my target. Oh! Oh, well, that's silly. Well of course, yes, naturally I can s e how I would be, yes, that's true." Now find out what's fighting Scientology and of course, you've shed this little valence that is fighting Scientology directly, and he realizes he isn't fighting Scientology but that psychiatrists do and he had a kind of psychiatric valence, something like that. See, it deintensifies.

Audience: Yes.

Now, if you went on by and simply tested him as a rock slammer, and then never found out what defied something, a lot of his attention is hung up and he's unable to put his whole attention on the next item he's got to confront. And you haven't improved his confrontingness to any great degree. And the more rock slam you leave behind you as you walk this track, then the less attention he has to put on the items ahead of him. And having no greater - not enormously increased ability to put his attention on things, his confront therefore has not improved up to a point where he can confront. So by leaving items behind you, you get into the interesting conditions of the rock slam diminishing, dwindling and getting lost.

Now, if you want to get a good subjective reality on this, take somebody with whom you have had an awful wrestling match with 3GA Criss Cross and run him on some idiotic Havingness Process and watch the tone arm. Get in their PT - get their PTPs off for the last couple of sessions, see. Watch hat tone arm. You're going to see that thing move.

Now, why did it diminish and dwindle? Why does it disappear? Why does it turn phantom on you? Why does it do this, why does it do that? That's because you've left items behind you and therefore left his attention tied up somewhere near PT in some fashion or another, and he just hasn't got the ergs, or whatever attention's composed of, to confront what he now must confront to get a slam on the next item.

Now, if you want all cases, then, to be easy, then you will audit only cases which have had all tone arm action taken out of the present time environment. And then, of course, all cases would audit easily with 3GA Criss Cross.

See, he only slams on those things which can become real to him. The beauty of an E - Meter is, is it spots the things which have a potential reality to the pc. You're going to find item after item after item on lists that don't rock slam and the pc will list them - oh, God, you're running the goal by this time and you're listing the goal and so forth, and the pc still comes up with "a pullet." This is still going on the list. You look back on the list, he's been putting "a pullet" on the list since the detested person. Never slammed before, and all of a sudden, why, you're about twenty items down on the goal itself, see - you're listing for the goal - he puts down - he says, "A pullet," you know. Crash, crash, crash! Tremendous rock slam. Always previously he was not really up to confronting "a pullet," so, of course, it never rock slammed. You see that?

Now, why does one girl sit down - rough shape - get a standard Problems Intensive, go down to 2.0 with a free needle on all buttons; and another character come along and sit down in the chair and all buttons are run, winds up at the end of seventy - five hours and very far from totally straightened out? What's the difference?

So you'd better get all of the things the pc can confront. And if you've got available parts of his - of his line plot, which aren't opposed, you've got you've got availabilities of confront and you can capture some of his attention and give him back some of his reality, and get him up to the point where he really will be able to confront his goal.

Well, one of those auditors was getting a cycle of action - the auditing cycle of action was occurring - and the other auditor was not getting the auditing cycle of action. And therefore, that other auditor should have done something. I don't care what! He's got the CCHs and everybody thinks they're supposed to wind - up - doll and go through the CCHs. All I want you to do is understand what you're trying to do. Not go through some motions. Understand what you're trying to do. You're trying to call his attention to the workaday world in which he lives; call his attention to the walls of the room in which he's being audited. I don't care how you do that. You do that, you run the tone arm action out of that, the guy's sufficiently in present time to get the auditing command.

So I can define then, what you're doing this for. Why you're doing this. You see why you're doing your 3GA Criss Cross, is you're releasing sufficient attention of fancied opposition in the environment so the pc can have the environment and you're going backtrack from the referral point of the environment. In other words, by finding items you increase the amount of attention the pc can put on the environment. And he'll get less and less confused and be able to come up with his goal. And of course, he's getting closer and closer to the identity of his goal, his goal is less barriered out, and you'll be able to list and find his goal.

You've got to get a pc there before you can audit him. And in most cases you're neglecting that elementary step. The auditing cycle cannot occur in the absence of a pc. It just can't. That sound reasonable?

Now, the number of ways there are to find a goal after you've had a hatful of items - these things are getting too numerous to go into very rapidly and easily too. You realize that you can take a goal that fired, which is "to dance on eggs" - let's take this goal that fired, "to dance on eggs." It only fired three times. You realize that you've got a good opportunity, without prepchecking that for the next thirty - five hours, to find out if it is the goal. You look it over, it doesn't seem to be very lively, except it rocket reads once in a while or it rocket read. You know you can do a represent list on that goal - a represent list of goals. This is just "What goal would represent the goal 'to walk on eggs'?" or "What goal would be like it?" "What would be a similar goal to this goal?" Got the idea? And you get these goals pulled apart.

Audience: Yes. -

Some pcs are listing on goals with one word wrong in them. They just don't go free. Well, that's an awful good step. The goal "to catch catfish," they've got their goal, "to catch catfish." You say, "All right, give me a list of goals similar to catching - this goal 'to catch catfish.'" "What goal would be similar to the goal 'to catch catfish?'" See? And you just make a list of those things and go over those things rapidly and you'll find out there was a comma out of place. Something like this can be done. Or it was a near thing. And some pc will sit around for a long time and he'll say, "I wonder if there's really a third word on the end of my goal? Suppose there really is? Suppose there really isn't?" see? Well, this step gives him an opportunity to find out.

Well ' it's very true and that actually has practically everything there is about the relative toughness or hardness of cases. Because basically what have we done? We've gone over the top of the toughness or the hardness of the case. The techniques will take care of it. But the cases which you have trouble with are the cases which, of course, the auditing cycle isn't being completed on. There's something wild going on here of some kind or another.

In other words, there are just tons of ways that you can find goals and go out for goals. You could get a whole bunch of terminals, and they all seem to have - these terminals all seem to be in rags. He's got terminal after terminal-pc's terminals - you know, and they all seem to have rags connected with them in some fashion or another. So just turn around, write them all down and say, "Now, look. Look, pc, see all of these guys here, so forth - well, what kind of a goal would such people have? And give me a list." You know? You know? Just read them off there, and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on and one will fire. Got the idea? It's crude, see.

I can tell you dozens of ways to enter cases and get rock slams and to do this and to do that. But when you ask, "Who or what would feather a nest?" have you any guarantee that you get a list that has to do with feathering the nest? Or do you just get an automatic shuffleboard? Have anything to do with the case at all?

Because he's got such an idea now, these are all reliable items, you see, on the terminals line. What's the goal of them? Of them? See? And you'll find out there's a great similarity amongst them. You take one single item on the terminal side, he'll give you a goals list for that and it'll have the goal on it. There's all kinds of ways to find the goal. But unburdening must improve the pc's presence. It must improve his alertness, must free up his attention. Otherwise, don't do it at all. You'd come off much, much better by just giving the pc some Problems Intensives and some CCHs, don't you see?

Well, let me tell you, if you have to do that too often and too long, then those lists don't have very much to do with the case. If you've gone on and on and on and on and on and on and on and you're not even in a vague reaching distance of it, recognize the condition of the pc before you began - what it must have been. Yes, you've improved it. Yes, you've listed lists and you've improved it. But you're actually doing it the hard way.

All right, this is how you get into - into the case, into the channel. This is how you use it. I'm giving you a very, very rapid summary of showing you just about where we are. This is a lecture - more an orientation than a bunch of data, don't you see, although there are some new things here. I wanted to give you the data very - specifically on some of these bulletins. I've given you how to straighten out wrong goals, and I've given you somatics, how to tell terminals from opposition terminals, and I've given you this straightening out line plots and dirty needles and incomplete lists.

The easy way to do it is clean up PT, you know. The easy way to clean up PT would be a Problems Intensive with a terrific amount of present time contact. You know, lots of rudiments of one kind or another. Lots of Havingness. Give them things that are very easy to answer. You'll find out the problem assessed is probably day before yesterday if you really did a good job of assessment on it.

Boy, you guys, some of you make me laugh. You never expect a needle to go clean; list five items - what's the missed withhold? The item, of course! Give a dirty needle every time.

And run it, and all of a sudden, present time - needle moves like mad, and the pc moves into present time. Life looks much more this and that. And then the pc's there and you can audit the pc and you can run the rest of it.

And then the whole of Routine 3 - 21 - your Routine 3 - 21 will be something that you will use far more often than you think right at the present moment.

That is the basic analysis behind what is wrong with a case that doesn't move fast. It isn't the relative toughness of the items. They're all tough. Why make a distinction? They're all stinkers. Why make a distinction? All the somatics are horrible. Why make a distinction? Sen is ghastly. Why say some sen less than others?

So there's dozens of ways that you can approach this particular thing, we're there as far as technology is concerned. Adapting it to the individual cases, trying to get people listed out and straightened up and smoothed out and all that sort of thing - all this requires is good auditing. It takes time, it takes careful craftsmanship, it takes doing the usual, it's keeping your pc alert and in PT and between sessions, making him better all the time. It takes a lot of things. And this grade - you can climb this hill. What I'm trying to do is teach you to climb the hill, teach you to get somebody else to climb the hill. And I personally feel I'm being very successful at it and think your Instructors are having very excellent progress out of it. I never felt better about a course in my life.

But you start plowing a guy in when he'd get tone arm action on present time, pushing him on down the track, shoving him into hot masses of one kind or another, pushing him around one way or the other, man, you're going to get sen like you never heard of. It's all sen, because you just move him two days ago, and it's so unreal that everything gives him sensation. Of course, he's got sensation. He's in the middle of a confusion because he has no referral point called present time. And having no referral point called present time, how do you expect him to be anywhere but in a confusion. And that is the basic thing that sen is: the pc in the confusion. At least give him present time for that. And then you can run him.

What the kids are doing who have gone out of here, hardly without exception is absolutely miraculous. My God, what's happening right now-two Saint Hill graduates in Johannesburg and another one in Cape Town - would make him gasp. They've really got things on the run. The only thing I'm worried about is they're doing their own co - auditing after ten o'clock at night. And that sounds kind of poor. But they can't plan it any other way and at least they're getting some auditing.

Has any of this made any sense to you?

Okay. Well, I hope that brief summary of things will be of some use to you.

Audience: Yes.

Thank you very much.

Good enough. Thank you.