Now, this is what? The 8th of Nov. 61.

Thank you. Thank you. This is 9 Nov. — Russian year, 9 Nov. Kapluskov. I invite your curiosity to the behavior of a needle on the E-Meter. There is only one thing that can make an E-Meter lie, and that is a bad auditor. A bad auditor can make an E-Meter lie.

Yeah. A hundred years ago, man and boy, I was just getting out of VMI and joining the Confederate army as a young, dashing second lieutenant. Well, times change! Now, we are hitting a beachhead of a different character.

We had some character running around the States about a year ago and he couldn't read an E-Meter and he was asking everybody if they'd ever been pain-drug-hypnotized. And, of course, each one of these words fell on the meter, he never bothered to compartment the question and it wasn't till I started proving to people conclusively that they had been pain-drug-hypnotized by cats, dogs, mice and so forth, that somebody woke up and said, "What do you know. The auditor has something to do with making an E-Meter read right."

Okay, 8 November 61, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course. And you have never seen me do any of your case reports of one kind or another. And I'm going to go over these case reports. And that's going to step on some of your toes, and that's going to let your pc in on what I think of you as the auditor, and that's probably going to upset the pc because he will say in tomorrow's session, "Well, Ron said . . ."

Yeah, he does. And similarly, you cannot get a false goal or a false terminal or a false modifier or anything else on an E-Meter if you know how to run an E-Meter. You just can't get one. You couldn't push one off on an auditor. You can't receive one. The E-Meter tells you the truth in the matter.

But I think it might be a little bit educational to you if you saw how this was done and so I made up my mind that I had better make a lecture on this particular subject at this time. All right?

For a number of years we have had difficulty in auditing because auditors were very leery of actually believing an E-Meter. That's because the auditor in practicing his skill uniformly had withholds. And having withholds, of course, he didn't want any withholds off anybody else.

Okay. Now, usually these things have a Sec Check in them, but the Sec Checks have already been marked and so we're not going to do any Sec Checks because tonight's Sec Check has not yet been done. We are just going to do the daytime auditing.

We got a Central Organization right this minute — it's getting all nicely straightened out — but we had somebody in the Central Organization as a — actually, it was an auditor that was auditing staff. Fortunately, it wasn't anybody important. (That's a joke.) And this auditor just kept sitting there and kept sitting there and you know, the needle would knock on a withhold and the auditor wouldn't get the withhold. And finally, why, the staff member was just getting worse and worse and feeling badder and badder about it all.

And this is Routine 3A is what is being embarked upon here and we've got a Routine 3A started on many people whose goals have already been found but who have to yet have the modifier found which may mean some variation or change in terminal, but not necessarily.

And so HCO Secretary took a lance out of the umbrella stand, couched it properly, and went at solid charge in the direction of the Association Secretary and said, "What is this?" And the Association Secretary spoke to the Director of Processing, and the Director of Processing mentioned it casually to the auditor. And the next day it went right on happening Why?

Sometimes you get the modifier and you get the same terminal and sometimes you don't. But let's take up some of these reports and see what happened today.

Well, that particular auditor and that particular Director of Processing had some mutual withholds from the organization. Not only would the auditor not get a withhold off somebody else, but of course, with her partner in crime involved, the partner in crime would not even force her to get a withhold off somebody else.

Now, this is a report here, Fred Fairchild auditing Carl Wilson, and he says that, "This modifier was not checked out and the auditor didn't see the notice. And should it be checked straightaway. And pc's attention will now be on terminal."

So it's, "Let's all be down here in the mud with these nice withholds." That is the motto of all of that. Interesting, isn't it? Whenever you see somebody — I just take this as a forthright thing

Well, that all depends on whether or not it is the modifier. And as far as checking out is concerned, it's always a pretty good idea to get somebody else to check something out. See? It doesn't — you shouldn't get this down as a special Saint Hill routine that takes place nowhere else. If you find a goal or a terminal or a level or something like that — not so much a level, but certainly a goal, and in this particular case a goal, modifier, terminal — whether you get them checked out every time you find each piece or before you start in desperation to do a run, get the goal, the modifier and the terminal checked out, all at one time; certainly get it checked out by somebody. It doesn't matter whether you are here or someplace else.

A person refuses a Security Check, they've got withholds, see. A person that won't get withholds off another case has withholds that they have never divulged. This is about the way it looks. I mean, it's quite a technical fact.

Why? It gives you a certain amount of confidence. Somebody else has taken a look at the thing. It has given you some sort of a feeling that you won't be going off the deep end when you start auditing it. It's a good thing to do, don't you agree?

This particular HCO Secretary, by the way, had just written me a letter which I received this afternoon begging me to come over here and let somebody give her a one hundred percent run on a Joburg and get all of her withholds off completely so that she would have no diffidence on this particular line and then let her go back and saw into the staff. So that if it started out with just one person with no withholds, you see, this would then get contagious, which was an interesting suggestion. I didn't take her up on it. Because a class member here, very shortly, will be going back to that organization. And they better have all their withholds off by the time they leave and everything will be fine.

Now, similarly, every time rudiments cross-checking, see, has been done, cases have made very nice progress. So in an HGC or a center where a great deal of this — of goals running particularly and that sort of thing is going on, if rudiments are cross-checked, why, that would be a very good idea. But to have the Director of Processing cross-check every rudiment on every pc every day is, unfortunately, already indicative of a mess, because the D of P, Director of Processing, never gets a chance to do anything else.

You see how this goes, though? You see how this goes? A diffidence is based also on this fact. It is accompanied by withholds because a person wouldn't be this way unless they had withholds. But they are very afraid of what they might hear from the pc.

Now, we've already had one tied up in Washington, DC. I didn't realize that they had him strapped to the chair checking rudiments, strapped to the chair checking rudiments. He never got anything else checked. Never got any cases run or anything important like that and his administration dropped behind gorgeously. Well, a much better solution was just to have staff auditors check staff auditors' rudiments, that's all.

And when they get very afraid of what they might hear from the pc, they won't ask for withholds. They might hear some gossip about themselves, you see. Well, pcs are always willing to oblige, particularly on an auditor that can't security check well.

The best time to check rudiments, by the way, is midday — not beginning of the day. Why? Well, it works like this: The first auditor the fellow gets that day. . . See, he's all grogged up, and his basal metabolism is by the boards, and he has got eighteen present time problems, and he is anxious to unload his case, and he hasn't had much auditing lately anyhow — all these things in a sort of a monotone. He isn't too familiar with any of the auditors in this center anyway, and auditor Doakes walks in and sits down in the auditor's chair. That's the pc's auditor for the day, that's it.

You say to the pc, "Well, all right. Now, are you withholding anything"

Although he then gets up and leaves. You see? You get the idea? In other words, first crack out of the box, all of his anxieties and worries, that he's been thinking up all night are in — he wants to unload these things on the auditor and he's put on wait by another auditor so he can elect that auditor — he can elect that auditor his auditor, and all that auditor is doing is checking his rudiments.

"Oh, yes. Yes. I'm withholding the fact that yesterday in a coffee shop, why, I heard three people talking about you, huu-huu-huu-huu. And these people said and I'm withholding it from you."

So end of session, or in the middle of an auditing day, or something like that, is a better time to get a rudiments cross-check. In this particular case, the smartest thing to do here, of course, would be to go ahead and find the goal. See? We have no great suspicion of this particular auditor, and just let's let him go ahead. He's got the modifier, the pc's attention is now going to be on the goal — well, there's various reasons why the modifier might not get checked out properly — well, just let him go ahead and find the terminal. And now let's check out the goal, modifier and terminal. Let's get somebody else to check out goal, modifier and terminal before we run anything on it and then we've got a sweeping checkout. That would save time anyway.

The hell he is. He hasn't withheld it yet. There's been a lapse of time of about six hours between the incident and the session. When did he have any time to withhold it? Oh, no. When I hear somebody start that one, I always can get pay dirt. I can always get pay dirt. Because he's about to say, "I heard ."

So, you could either check them out one at a time as they're found, which of course — if you're operating with very tyro auditors, who are — you know, they're looking at the meter and they say, "Now, let's see. This is the tone arm and when the word 'Hubbard' turns red . . ." It's a good idea to check out their rudiments three times every session, check out their E-Meter, set their E-Meter so it will read on the proper readings, and hold their hand while they audit. You see, all these things would be there. And to check out the goal when it is found, the modifier when it is found, the terminal when it is found, the Prehav level when it is found and the Prehav level checked every time it is changed. All of these things would be desirable.

And I say, "Good. Fine. Thank you very much. Now, let's find out what you have been up to lately."

But what are you doing? You're adjusting the amount of checking you are doing to the quality of the auditor. Right?

"Oh, well, that's something else. Ha-ha. Well, no. But I heard. And actually, I won't be able to get in-session, you see, unless I get the ."

Well, the limiter on this is that before anybody runs anything desperate — you know he actually runs this terminal and so on; any auditor, even me — it would be a nice thing to have somebody else look it over, you know and say, "Well, it checks out! It checks out all the way with me too." Why? Well, actually, one auditor and another auditor can have different effects upon the pc that can throw the case one way or the other. You see?

"Well, fine. You're in-session. Now, what's the withhold?"

Rudiments come under this heading exclusively. Rudiments. Well, rudiments can be in for Joe and out for Mary any day of the week, you see?

Now, you would be utterly amazed how far you can go and what you can get away with in auditing You invalidate somebody's goal, you invalidate somebody's terminal, you upset somebody on the subject of his auditing progress in some way or another and you deserve to be shot. That's for sure. But — you fail to accept the pc's answers. You do these various things and it's very upsetting to the pc. He feels he can't talk to the auditor and so forth.

So if you have two auditors checking the rudiments of the pc, you know pretty well you're not going to be running the pc with rudiments out. So that has very little to do with auditing skill. It has a great deal to do with a pc's reaction to male, female, auditors with blond hair, auditors with green hair — all these differences, you see. Has a great deal to do with where the pc is being audited, too. It's always better to check a pc's rudiments in another auditing room; but this isn't convenient.

But how far can you go within the framework of these rules? Actually, I don't invite you to do such a tactic. But we have been boxing around with a withhold that keeps falling on an instant read and we can't get it — do you know the pc feels better if the auditor even went as far as, "God damn it, what is it?" Do you know that?

Sounds wild but it's true. It isn't convenient. Of course, you do get him set for the exact auditing room he is in if you check his rudiments in that auditing room where he is going to be audited. But of course, you would detect it much more rapidly that a case's havingness was by the boards if his havingness was out in any room. That point, you could labor far too much.

The pc says, "Uuuuh! It was a so-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so."

The point is that on the broad things, before you commit yourself to a long run, you should get checked out the things that have been assessed. Now, whether they're checked out one at a time or whether they're checked out all at once has very little to do with it except this: that inexperienced auditors — auditors who haven't got very much experience — will waste an awful lot of time on the wrong — on finding the modifier for the wrong goal, and then finding the wrong terminal for the wrong goal and modifier.

You say, "Thank you. Now, good."

They waste a lot of time. And by the time they have found, then, the wrong Prehav Scale for the preclear — not the Prehav level but the Prehav Scale; they've got the . . . It can go pretty far wild. So whether you check them piece by piece is determined pretty well as to what auditor skill is present. And this auditor's skill, of course, is good. So we would just let it go, let him go ahead and find the terminal and go on. So I'll just mark this thing: "Find terminal and get goal, modifier, terminal checked out."

You see? It's the same thing as you would lay hands on a pc if he tried to blow the room. See, the pc feels under control.

All right. Now, that's enough for that.

Now, you can ask. You can persuade. You can be quite forceful. You don't have to be angry or upset. I'm just giving you an extreme, extreme, extreme example. But you can be very pressing on these things, you know.

"And the modifier that dropped and react — or reacted most and stayed in: 'But it's someplace else.'" That's a doll. That's an absolute doll. That's a perfect type of modifier. That is a classic case. "But it's someplace else." Of course, a person goes down the line and he gets to this phrase "But it's someplace else" so he never enunciates it. See, that's a nice one.

"Yes, yes, yes. I know. I know. That's all very interesting, but what did you do?"

That's interesting because I was interested in this particular case. I take an awful lot of interest in these cases as pure interest. If you don't mind. And I wondered and wondered what this particular goal . . . May I say what this goal is?

And the pc says there, "You know, there's some session control around here. By George, you know, I'd better not look up too much because there's liable to be a controlled session going on here."

Male voice: Yes, go ahead.

You have asked a question. You want to know what that fall is, and the pc doesn't give it to you. Now, the pc may not know. May not know. That is the time to be very helpful. Get your help valence on. And you say, "All right. Now, let's just sort this out. You say you don't know what it is. All right. Let's just sort this out." And now you ask a great variety of questions. A great variety of questions.

But I wondered and wondered what was going to modify this particular goal, because every time the pc came toward this particular goal, he kind of — sparks flew out of his ears. He didn't like this one, see? And I wondered and wondered what it would be. It's "to work on radiant energy and field phenomena." And the modifier's — is — doesn't make too much — well, it makes sense, but it — "but it's someplace else." So, of course, you can't work on something that is someplace else. And that's apparently what has been falling and what's made this goal hang up. And you get this, that here you've got an ambition to work on radiant energy and field phenomena, which is counterbalanced with the fact that you can't because it's someplace else. So, of course, this locks up every place the goal is applied because it doesn't have anything to reach, but it is actually balanced. That's a textbook example. That's very nice.

"Have you stolen anything from the firm?" And we've gotten a knock and the pc says, "I don't know."

And whether it's the right one or not is — whether it's the right one or not, he said, "He had been telling me that he didn't think anything would happen in the sessions, and I noticed this session he seemed to be more in-session and didn't say this." Okay. Interesting. Were you interested in that particularly?

All right. Well, let's just try like mad to help this pc sort it out. Let's don't immediately assume the pc is holding out on us and does know, you see. Pc says he doesn't know. He looks puzzled. He looks a little bit upset. He's actually sitting there trying to figure it out.

Male voice: Yes.

Now, you're an auditor, and you can tell when somebody's sitting there trying to figure it out. So you help him out. "Stolen something. Well, could it have been property? Could it have been some item? Could it have been some perfectly worthless item? Could it have been some very valuable item? What could it have been?" You see, "How about paper, stationery, stuff like that." You're watching the meter all the time, you see, "Paper, stat " Pong,! Pong! You say, "What the heck is that?"

All right. Okay, regardless of all that, we've got a terminals list started on this and here we have — here we have now a goal, modifier, and we get a terminals list and we get all three of them checked out. So that's it.

"Oh!" the person says. "Oh, yes. I've — I've been customarily taking sheets of paper home and I never realized it was stealing." They could — must have realized they were stealing, you see, or they wouldn't get a knock on the E-Meter. But there it is. And there it is and you say, "Well, what was it?"

The other thing I always look for: Was there any TA action? Now, you normally look for TA action on the thing during the run. you look down the line here and find out what the TA action was. And because he was too interested in the assessment the auditor, here, wasn't putting down very much TA read. Ordinarily on a run you put down lots of TA read and on assessments you sometimes flub it. It's a good indicator. So put down lots of TA reads; only err on the side of — always put down enough tone arm reads.

"Well, about — it seems like for a long time now I've been taking sheets of paper home. And yes, the first time I did it was a long time ago. I remember I did have a twinge of conscience the first time I did it." You know?

Says, "It was varying from 2.5 to 2.0." The tone arm was varying from 2.0 to 2.25 on his — beginning of his Terminal Assessment. I guess that's what that is.

"Yeah. All right," you say, "Good. All right. Now, have you stolen anything from the firm?" Dead. That's it.

All right. Now, this general case run here appears to be all right. I was just looking here. you always look up at the top. you see "Goals: none," you know very well that a pc is running with rudiments a bit out, with withholds, with an ARC break — something like that. A pc who tells you they have no goals for a session, and so forth, they must be sitting in some kind of a bit of an ARC break. See, so on that adjudication I would write down here: "Get your rudiments in." See? It's very clever crystal-balling on my part. Pc has no goals for a session . . .

Now, that's one proceeding. You see, you're being very helpful, and you compartmented the question. You see — you know, you've moved the question around. That is to say, "Have you stolen anything from the firm?" you know? And we find out that it is just "firm" that is falling. "What's this about firm?" You know? "Have you stolen anything?" is null. "What's this about 'firm'? Firm? What is this? Firm? What else about this firm?" You see?

There's certain little rules that you follow along these lines. It's like reading profiles. I can look at a profile and tell you whether or not the pc's havingness is up or down, whether the pc has found the auditor or not. Has nothing to do with the textbook about the profiles. It has a great deal to do with something else.

The pc says, "I don't know." You help him out.

Okay. The pc, of course, feels a little bit bounced around and is having a little bit of a rough time but I have every confidence that he'll straighten out on it and recover. Okay?

All right. There's another point of view about all this. See, 'there's another point of view.

Okay. Mary Sue generally, lately — she used to do these mostly by herself And she'd sit up till four, five or six o'clock in the morning — that's an exaggeration; it was only three-thirty usually — and she would sit there and do these things all by herself And as soon as I spotted the fact that we did have a breakthrough here and I could shove your cases and your auditing much, much harder, I started to do these things individually a short time ago. I'd always been interested in them and spot-checked them and kept an eye on it and took them up with Mary Sue. But she lately has been relaxed enough to be able simply to hand me the folders. She's very good at that.

You say, "Have you been cheating on your girlfriend?" you know.

You know why she's very good at that? Because believe it or not, she can tell me the goal and the terminal and the levels run and what process is being run on and what Sec Check is being run on any case out of twenty-six just like that.

And pc says, "No."

Female voice: Very good.

And well good, and you say, "There's a fall here on the meter. What could that be?"

It's fantastic, you know. Almost as good as I used to be. I used to remember every engram verbatim that I ever ran off of a pc. And I could tell them years later, and they'd stagger, you know.

And he says, "Well, no. Must be false. Must be on something else." Instant read.

They'd come in and they'd — somebody I hadn't seen for years, you know, but I audited them years ago — and I'd say, "How are you getting along?"

And you say, "Well, have you been cheating on your girlfriend?" Bang! Instant read, see.

"Oh, I'm getting along fine."

And he says, "No. Nope."

Say, "Well, did you ever hear any more about that birth sequence?"

And you say, "Well, come on. Tell me about it."

"What birth sequence?"

And he says, "No, no. There's nothing there. There is nothing there. No, I have not! As a matter of fact I resent your inquiries into it because it's accusative. And you realize the Auditor's Code doesn't permit you to be accusative."

"You know, the one that I audited, you know, where the doctor was wearing the green hat."

I say, "Well, the Auditor's Code isn't covered for the E-Meter. E-Meter isn't bound by it." I say, "All right. Now, tell me all about it now."

"By George! You know. . ." pc had forgotten it but I didn't.

"No, I haven't been and so on. And I think it's very mean of you to ask me and actually you're trying to destroy my reputation. And it's probably something I heard about you and . . ."

All right. We had Doris Lambright being audited by Ellen Carter. Well, we've got goals here: "To blow off a headache and confusion blowing around my head," and so forth; and evidently they made the goal some better. "To be able to duplicate tapes on one hearing," "to pass tests quickly and easily," and so forth. Good. "To be Clear and finish the course," and "Finish course by January 1st and get back for the congress." Okay. Very good. Okay. I don't see what this is all about here. Apparently Wing Angel — apparently — audited this pc at some time or another and the pc was hung up in it in some fashion.

"Now, all right. That's fine. What is this withhold right here about your girlfriend? With whom have you been cheating on your girlfriend? Tell me!"

The way you'd get that, by the way, is to clip the prior confusion, not the auditing. What was the confusion that preceded this. you know, you find what's wrong with the pc and then you get the prior confusion. You know? You get the confusion before it. Don't go monkeying around too much with this sort of thing.

"Oh, that — it's just nothing. It's no fair. I mean, you're picking on me. Just taking advantage of your position as an auditor."

And I don't know whether the auditor did anything about this or not, but that would have been the proper thing to have done. May have started when this auditor was auditing her. Well, there might have — must have been a prior confusion to the turn-on. It might have been a minute before and it might have been five years before but it's prior. That you're sure of.

"All right. Tell me now. I want to know. Who is it?"

So spotting the prior confusion to that would have clipped it out. And you, at your stage of training, could consider this as a fairly routine activity. You find the pc is worried about something in the rudiments, and that sort of thing. And they've had some kind of a somatic and ever since, such-and-so. And ever since their great-grandmother died, and so forth, on the sacrificial altar, or whatever it is, why, they've had this somatic. You can get the prior confusion, you know. Well, what happened before that? Do a little tiny bang-bang-bang Sec Check on the thing and blow it. And you can get very clever at that and if you can get very clever at that, you will pull some miracles off that kind of look wild to other people.

"Oh, (sniffs) Isabel."

By the way, it's — the British auditor is reaching a new low for me. Do you realize that Charlie Drake, the comedian, lost his memory a couple of weeks ago? Still lost!

And you say, "Good. Now, do you feel better?"

Who hasn't been up knocking on his door and doing a Touch Assist on his skull? The easiest thing you could possibly do! Now, a Touch Assist, of course, violates this prior confusion. Those are not hard words; that's just a joke. But I should think that somebody by this time would have gone up to BBC and found out where they could find Charlie Drake and gone over and done a Touch Assist on him.

"Uh, yes. Well, I am. But you really shouldn't be so accusative."

We did one here just a few days ago — boy was seeing triple, wasn't — couldn't remember very much and was mostly blathering. Did a Touch Assist on him for an hour and a half, I think, or a couple of hours — for two . . .

"What else? What other one?"

Male voice: Two and a half, but it had cleared up on two.

You see, you're justified there at that particular type of withhold because the fellow has gone into a games condition with you. And he doesn't think that you can do anything about it, and that you won't do anything about it. And he knows you're all bound down, and you mustn't dare talk turkey to him, but it requires some sense. You know, it takes some sense on your part. It takes an ability to look at the pc and to estimate the situation. And when you estimate the situation, you have to make up your mind, is this just willful heels? Or is this actual confusion or upset or what is this? Or is it the question which is almost on or it's some part of the question that's reacting Or is this pc just in a fog from something else that has been going on in the session? What is this all about? The rudiments have just gone out crazily or something has happened here. That's for sure. We know something has happened. And as an auditor we go ahead and take care of what happened.

Two hours or . . . ? Yeah.

But we cannot say the blanket solution to every time you get a fall on the meter is to ask the question this way, this way, this way and you do it every time and so forth and it's all here in the rule book and so forth. No, no. It requires you. It requires your participation in the session as the auditor. It takes you.

Male voice: Two hours.

Now, if you developed a nice, calloused dead mask in lieu of TR 0; if you think that a tremendous deadness, a tremendous woodenness, a tremendous, "I will now repeat the auditing question. One, two, three, four. Thank you. Good. Thank you. The next auditing question is — ." See. I sneer.

Yeah, just did a Touch Assist on him. His triple vision turned off and that sort of thing. You can do miracles like this.

That is taking a refuge back of a ritual. The ritual is for your use, not for your protection. If you need a ritual, why, go to a session with a bulletproof vest on. You'll feel better.

Well, that actually is addressing the time. See? That violates this prior confusion thing. But, of course, it's the best thing you can do. And if there's anything left after the Touch Assist, there must have been a prior confusion that is still holding it up, but it's marvelous that a Touch Assist can get rid of as much as it does.

But it's all under the heading of all you've got to do is audit the pc you are auditing and the technology you have is to assist you to do that. The rituals you have is to assist you to do that. Everything in Scientology is to assist you to process the pc.

But you at any time — that exact thing, that we — on this workman here — done on this Charlie Drake and his memory would be back, you know, right now. It's not even a hard job, you know, I mean, what the heck. The hardest job would be going to find the taxicab to go over to his house. That would be the toughest job.

Now, for you to just throw your bare chest out against the howling north wind and say, "Here I stand all alone, naked and scathed. Me, personally, processing this preclear. Oooooh, that's pretty adventurous. No bulletproof vest, no protective screens, no pat textbook answer to fit every single turn of the road. No." Well, just get brave. That's all. Just get brave.

But finding any kind of a rudiment out or any kind of a somatic that the pc is desperately worried about or that sort of thing — you can take a slap at it, you know, on a prior confusion basis. You know, you find it out in the rudiments and you decide you're going to do something about it. The fastest way to do something about it is just take a couple of fast sweeps on O/W on the prior confusion and it's liable to blow right now. And it's quite quick; it's quite quick.

And sometime, if you ever have a tendency to just follow the ritual and be very wooden about the whole thing and never do anything off-line, and just go on down the line, down the line, down the line and never get curious about what the pc is doing and just sit there and reel it all out and give them the auditing questions and so forth and the needle knocks and you say, "I'll repeat the auditing question," and the needle knocks and "I'll repeat the auditing question," the needle knocks and "I'll repeat the auditing question," the needle knocks and "I'll repeat the auditing question," and the needle knocks. Do you know after a while somebody, including the pc, will begin to believe that time is stuck at that point. You see how that could be? Well, if you find yourself doing that sometime or another, get a brilliant idea: You audit the pc for a moment.

All right. Now, we're doing some kind of a Goals Assessment here. Start the Goals Assessment and we've still got that. And we found the pc's confront process, "What's the emotion of . . .?" And we're still doing a Goals Assessment and it's carrying on here. And this Goals Assessment is apparently prepared for very well. she started the session and did goals and then came back to and ran: "Who left a Sec Check question unflat?"

Maybe your rudiments as an auditor are out. But the way to get them in is just audit the pc. Audit that pc in that instant of time that you are covering right that moment. The pc is going "Boo-hoo-hoo, wow-wow-wow. I don't want any more of this. This is too much, and so forth. I can't face it. Now, I just don't remember anything. And it's horrible. And you're just torturing me," and so forth and so on. And there doesn't seem to be a textbook answer to all of this, you know.

"We found out it wasn't a Sec Check question; it was just a nosy question, just before the pc left home and withheld the answer. Somatics lightened up. 'What's the emotion of that object?"'

All of a sudden sort of relax and look at the pc and look the situation over. Even if it takes a little time. Pc won't forgive it, but that's all right. He won't give anything right now anyway.

I don't read this — I don't dig this at all. why have we got: "What's the emotion of that object?" That's a Havingness process — and then the Alternate Confront? I see; I get it. And this is Alternate Confront. And those two, and checking goals, and they're all null. And then it got Alternate Confront and "What's the emotion?" and so forth. Ah! Well, we've got a rather standard auditor problem staring us in the teeth here: The goals all nulled and the needle is rising and the tone arm is 3.75 and so forth.

And look it over and say, "What is going on?"

I wonder how many auditors between now and the turn of the century will be at this exact desperate point of the track. The goals list has been handed over and the goals are all null.

And you know, he's liable to tell you. Because you asked him. You see, you asked him. That's different than a ritual question. Just try it sometime. The pc will all of a sudden wake up and sort of come out of it and think it over and then tell you what's wrong And you go on and you clear the thing and you'll find your session swings right on in.

All right. Well, let's get magical, shall we? Let's get magical about the whole thing. This is very tough.

Do you know that with one single question which is heartfelt and meant by you, you can put all rudiments in just like that? It's an interesting thing, but there is no substitute for a live auditor. There's just no substitute for one. And this is particularly true in Security Checking.

And, by the way, you shouldn't use these report sheets to write goals lists on. Goals lists go on white pieces of paper and they get clipped together and they don't get separated and left on little bits.

Now, when I say this to you, it opens you up on — perhaps some of you might get the idea that what I mean is that you should be sweet or you should be kind or you should be inviting or something of the sort. No. No, no. There are times for the mailed fist in the auditor's glove, believe me. It might be a time for you to get human as an auditor and express exactly what you're feeling about the thing And it might put the reality right back into the session.

Sheets. Get some long, white sheets; don't use these things. And whenever you have a goals list, clip it together because a goals list is valuable — particularly, the first goals list of the pc is very valuable. Clip it and file it and guard it with your life. He doesn't care about it but you do.

You maybe have gone as far as this: "Look, Joe, you've been sitting here now for a half an hour giving me motivators. Don't you think it's time you gave me just one little, teensy overt, huh? You know? Don't you think that'd be a better proportion?"

What are you going to do for the second Goals Assessment? Dig in here and find little bits of paper all through the pieces of report? Oh, no, you're not. you clip them together, okay? And make them look good.

And you know, the pc is liable to think it over and decide you're right and give you one. And it starts the ball rolling.

Now, you've got a Goals Assessment and they all went null. How many goals have we got? This is also a poor job from the standpoint of — the goals are not numbered. The goals are not all numbered! Ooo! And the goals are numbered in two different number sequences. Ohhh, Ellen! This is the kind of thing I say at two o'clock in the morning: "If I could just get ahold of Ellen now . . ."

Now, the odd part of it is, is you can do any of that within the framework of modern auditing. You don't have to throw all the rules away to suddenly become an auditor. Because actually, if you are really auditing, do you know the rules all go into place click, click-click-click-click-click-click? That's what's interesting about it. The more and better you know your business, the easier it is to apply your trade and the more human you can be.

Now — now, you take your goals list, and you better recopy this whole goals list in your own script on a long white sheet. And you better put a date at the top of the thing and you better number every goal consecutively so I could look on here, or anybody else, and say, "We are down to this many goals. And the total summation of goals amounts to 199 goals," or whatever the thing is. Because we just look at the last number on the sheet and we see 199. We know that many goals. We already have enough numbers here scattered around — some numbered goal 60, some numbered goal 33, others numbered also goals 20. There's — I think you have several goal 17s here. I don't know whether you do or not. But auditor bookkeeping these days is — yes, you do have. There are two goal 17s. We don't know what this pc is up to, but I would say offhand that this pc is up to about — you know, anybody's guess.

For instance, I talk to pcs. Oh, there's no doubt about it: occasionally I go too far. They always come up shining at the other end of the session. Sometimes I go too far, that's for sure. "Look, I've only got another half an hour to get this. I'm trying to get your rudiments in. Now, are you going to help me or aren't you?" That's going a little bit too far. See? A guy could be bowled over by that, you think.

"Oh, well, Ron can do this kind of thing; so go ahead and do it to him." One — I can — I'm very good at cryptography. This is well written by the way. But some of your auditor reports — I have a little microscope and I get it out and I read — you think I'm kidding!

"Well, let's just shortcut this whole thing, and you tell me exactly what you think is going wrong right here, right now. Now, what is going wrong right here, right now? What do you think is upset?"

Well, I don't think this is enough goals.

Pc just, "Oh, uh — well, there isn't anything right now. It's what was going wrong"

Female voice: I don't think that it is.

"All right. All right. Fine. Well, is there anything going wrong now?"

No, you haven't got enough goals here. And now, that's a main point. You have to get up to — if goals are giving you any trouble at all, get up to at least a 150, 200. Get up into that range before you start worrying too much about it. But probably this has not been shaken down. I can tell you everything that's wrong with this case. I'll just rattle it off: (1) The rudiments are out. (2) An insufficient number of goals has been taken from the pc. (3) The pc at some earlier time has done a goals list. That's a guess. Is that right?

"Well, no. Well, there was something going wrong."

Female voice: Yeah.

"All right. Let's just lay that aside for the moment and carry on with this Sec Check." In go the rudiments.

Where is that list?

End of session, of course, you have to go back and clean it all up.

Female voice: I don't know. I did it one time on a train and I . . .

You know, the more you sin, the longer it takes you to end the session. You realize that. An auditor always pays for his sins in terms of end rudiments. But do you know that there are times when you pay for your omissions? You didn't commit any sins. You weren't direct enough. You weren't real enough. You were just kind of wobbling around. "Well, have you ever raped anybody? All right. Thank you. All right. I got a fall there. Have you ever raped anybody? It says here. Uh — you — uh — thank you. All right. Have you ever raped anybody? Okay. All right. Here's the next question. Let's see, what is it? Oh, yeah. Have you ever sung in church? Yeah, have you ever sung — have you ever sung in church? All right. Well, we can skip that."

Where is it?

And you know the pc gets the idea that you're not doing anything? He does. Pc does get that idea. He gets the idea that you're not doing a thing. Which I consider quite remarkable in view of the fact that, of course, you're in there industriously! You know, you're right in there pulling those withholds. You're right in there looking down his throat. You know exactly what's in the bank. You know exactly what the E-Meter's saying, and you know where these questions are going, and you know what you're trying to do with the pc.

Female voice: . . . threw it away.

Of course, out of such a session, he gets that idea, doesn't he? Never. He says, "Well," he says, "the mice could accumulate in the belfry, and the cobwebs stretch across the door, and not a breath of air would ever stir the dust in this Stygian gloom."

Who threw it away?

He doesn't even restimulate his withholds.

Female voice: Me. It was never used. It was one I did on a train one time. One you did on a train. Female voice: Yeah, I didn't have anything. . .

Now, of course, you can be far too overwhumping with withholds. I'll show you how you really overwhump a pc. You say, "Well, have you ever sung in church?" No reaction on the meter at all.

You sure it is thrown away?

And he says, "No."

Female voice: I'm not positive. It could be home somewhere. I didn't look. Yeah. There you are. was my guess right? Her goals list was done on a train and has probably been thrown away. Her goal is probably on that list and has never been repeated and will never again be repeated anyplace so we just might as well throw . . .

You say, "Well, have you ever sung in church?" No reaction on the meter.

I'm not joking. I'm not joking, really. When they do an original goals list and they write the whole thing out, they're talking turkey. After that, they're worrying. And the primary goal that you're after has the best chance of all goals of submerging and never being repeated on a subsequent list. Isn't that interesting?

He says, "No. No, no. I never have. As a matter of fact, I never go to church," and so on.

There's nothing you can do about it, so we just might as well scratch the pc.

"Well, have you ever sung in church?"

"(1) Ruds out. (2) Get more goals off meter. And (3). . ." Now, you got any suggestion, Ellen, as to how we could do that?

"Well, no, I . . ."

Female voice: Get more goals?

And do you know you can have a pc crying and sobbing in no time if you keep that up? Do you know that? You can get the pc actually sitting there shattered. You can make people stammer. You make people so they can't talk. Just with that kind of idiocy.

No, no, no, no. How we can get over this point (3) of the original list having been destroyed. Is there any way we could get over that?

All right. You say — here's another way to do it:

Female voice: Can see if she can locate it.

"Have you ever sung in church?"

Hm?

Pc says, "Well, yes, I did once." You're adjusting the meter, you see.

Female voice: I can find out if she can locate it.

"Have you ever sung in church?"

Yeah, but supposing it's been destroyed; let's just assume it's been destroyed: Is there anything else we can do about it?

Pc says, "Yes, I did once."

Female voice: Yes, using the meter to see if I can get her to recall them.

You say, "Good, well, have you ever sung in church?"

Yeah, that's right. Let's get her to duplicate the list by meter which will be a nice piece of metering for you. "Is there any other goal on that list that you have not put on subsequent lists?" Until you finally get all fall out of it. But to do that you'll have to get your rudiments severely in and keep them in and you will have to get everything that appeared on the original list, okay?

"Um . . ."

"Get original list off meter." Okay?

"What is this reading here? Yeah. All right. We're ready to begin now."

Now, I'll put down here: "Sorry to call you to account in front of class. Best, Ron."

Pc says, "Begin? How about this me singing in church?"

All right. In that event I'll just put "Best, Ron."

"Oh, well, that was just a test question. It didn't have too much to do with it."

Okay. Now, here we are and we have Constantine being audited by John Sears. And here we have Routine 3A. Right.

You've set up a withhold situation. You have forced the pc to withhold. See, you can Q-and-A with it so you force the pc to withhold. Well, how? By not accepting any of his answers, so of course it's all unintentional withholds.

I wonder — I wonder if this goal still falls. Does this goal still fall, "To be myself?"

Now, I wouldn't break out laughing or something when the pc gives you a thing As a matter of fact, startled once by an auditor who looked all of a sudden — it had all been going — you know — it was the change of pace that did it, you know. All had been going about "Have you ever poured water down a drain pipe? Thank you. Good. All right. Now, have you ever poured water up a drain pipe? Thank you. You know? And have you ever washed any horses? Thank you," and so forth. And "Have you ever stolen any horses?" and so on.

Male voice: Yeah.

And I said, "Yes, as a matter of fact, I have. Stole a horse, and . . ."

Does it check out and fall?

The auditor said, "You did ?"

Male voice: Yeah.

You know, there was this tremendous gleam of interest, you know. It was all going along — knocked me about five feet out of the session. Last thing in the world I ever expected to happen though. Gradient scales are of use. So if you're going to be interested in the pc, be interested in the pc. Don't fade from complete interest to total disinterest to mild interest to vivid, enthusiastic interest to no interest and so forth. If you're auditing a pc, just audit the pc. Because they recognize these things as quite false.

What do you know. How long did it take you to get that? Forty-five minutes?

But you, the auditor, have rights too. The pc suddenly comes up with one that is an incredible type of withhold that you've never heard of before. Nobody asked you to put on a death mask at this point, so it startles you. But don't just leave the pc in the dark about this and then try to put on a death mask afterwards, you see.

Male voice: Yes, about that much.

The pc says, "Yes. Well, as a matter of fact, I rowed a boat up a drain pipe one time." You know?

Interesting.

And you say, "You did? Oh, really?"

Male voice: we had a very short list, too.

And the pc says, "Well, yes. What's so unusual about that?"

Yeah. A very short list.

And you say, "Well, I was just startled. Did you row a boat up a drain pipe? How did you do that?"

All right. Now, we've got to get a modifier for this and let's see how far we have progressed in the direction here. And he — he was still running a ten-way bracket and still running a ten-way bracket, and he ended rudiments and so forth. What date was this? This was clear back here. This — here's the 8th. What is this all about? Yes, here's the 8th. Yup, the goal was to find a modifier and so forth and so on. Modifier. There we are.

"Well, I did this so-and-so and so-and-so and such-and-such and so-and-so and so-and-so."

Now, he did a list of modifiers here. Where is the list of modifiers?

And you say, "Okay. All right." And he gets the illusion that he has satisfied this startled curiosity. See, because you've got to be satisfied to the degree that you were curious. You see that those things are direct in their relationship. I mean, if you're going to say, "Nooooo!" you know — well, at least, get your acknowledgment up to that level of enthusiasm, see.

Male voice: Foolscap.

"Well, all right. Hey, what do you know. All right. Okay. I really got that," you know? Pitch your acknowledgment up to match the other, you know.

There — here we are! Here's a nice long list of modifiers. That's actually about three times as many modifiers as one would ordinarily have. Let me see what number this modifier might have been here.

You say, "You did? No kidding!" And then say, "All right."

Male voice: Five or six.

Now, the funny part of it is it takes some auditor to make an auditing session. Some auditors have too much auditor there. Now, the way you have too much auditor there, however, is simply distracting the pc's attention, giving him change of pace, startling things, dropping the E-Meter, fixing the cans while you're in session. You know, if an E-Meter goes out on you, just for heaven's sakes, leave it alone. Don't even move it. Don't bother to look at it anymore, but just leave it alone. Do you realize that?

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. was it still shaking down by meter after number five? Were you taking — from number five on, were you still reading the meter, "Is there anything else will modify this?" and see if the meter knocked?

Your E-Meter all of a sudden is out and your E-Meter isn't registering anymore and by the usual movements by which you regulate an E-Meter — usual movements by which you regulate one — you all of a sudden see that is a very, very dirty meter. Don't even move your hand on it. Don't take the electrodes out of the pc's hands. Go on with the session as best you can. That is it. Not another quiver out of you. Do you hear me? That's very important. Much more important than it would appear to be because E-Meters do go out.

Male voice: oh, it was from about eighteen on that I was doing that.

Pcs start gesticulating with electrodes. They can pull the plug out. And they can rip the connections up. They can actually break a wire. They can do something of this sort. And if you pay any attention to it . . .

Oh, yeah. And you were still getting a meter knock?

Well, let's say the pc just tears up the E-Meter cans, you know. Just rips them up, rips them right out of the sockets and that sort of thing. And he's sitting there with the E-Meter cans and he all of a sudden notices the E-Meter cans are broken and he says, "What's this?" he says, and so on.

Male voice: oh, yeah, definitely.

Why, just say, "Well, that's all right." And ask him the next question.

Is that right?

"Yeah, but what's this? The E-Meter's busted."

Male voice: Very definitely.

Just take them out of his hand and put them on the floor and go on with the session, you see.

All right. And you stripped it down and it got down to thirty-four?

Don't ever fix a meter. Don't fiddle in a session. Don't fiddle with ashtrays, electric fans, windows, doors, that sort of thing Leave it alone. If you're going to do something about something, end the session. Just go right on into end rudiments, end the session — even though you do it rapidly — and declare a break. And then go ahead and do what you please and adjust the doors and adjust the people rushing up and down the hall and adjust anything you've got to adjust, you see, and come back into session and open up a brand-new session. You'll find that the break, however, is probably more upsetting than the disturbance.

Male voice: Yeah.

And your fiddling with the E-Meter can cause that tone arm to go up as much as two divisions. All of a sudden you see the meter isn't working, you see, and you get over here and you start cranking it, you know, and you start balancing it and you — it's just about the worst thing you can do to a pc.

Of course, this is brand-new, this type — particular operation. All right. Well, we've got some idea. The meter went null at about thirty-four, huh?

Now, how do you run — how do you run a Sec Check? How do you run a Sec Check — if — with a busted meter on a very tough pc who's got lots of withholds and your meter busts and you're busy sec checking like crazy? How do you do this? Well, you don't. That's easy. And you say, "Well, do you think you have any more withholds on that?"

Male voice: No, it went null before that, and the pc originated the others that are written at the tops of the pages.

And he says, "Well, so on and so on and so on."

Oh, I see.

And you say, "Well, we'll look into that. Right now I'd like to run some of your Havingness and Confront. And here we go." And we run some Havingness and Confront and so forth and finish off the session. Or if there's a lot of session to go, we simply end the session, repair or get another meter and complete the Sec Check. But we don't do it in the full flight of a session. We never distract the pc's attention out of the session, see? Just don't do that. Now, you can put the pc's attention on the auditor with an auditor's interest because he realizes this is with him.

Male voice: From about . . .

The way you knock the pc out is by irrelevancy. You can be as interesting and as interested and so forth as you please, as long as you are relevant to the session and what the pc is doing Your interest, your pressure, your this, your that, anything of the sort — as long as it's relevant to what the pc's doing, that is fine; you can do almost anything you please. You can actually get up to a shout, you can get down to a whisper, you can be terribly active, you can be very histrionic without really upsetting the pc because it's all relevant to his case. Now, you'll see this I'm sure. What upsets the pc — what upsets the pc — is an irrelevancy to his case. That's all that upsets a pc.

Oh, it's thirty-eight, thirty-nine.

It is not what you do. It is how relevant your actions are. Now, you start doing things which are not relevant to his case — your watch is run down, so you sit there fixing your watch while you audit him, see, and he'll go blooey. He lights a cigarette in spite; you start to light one. Irrelevant. He'll go blooey. Your attention is patently on the E-Meter, not on him. He'll go blooey.

Male voice: Yeah. That's right. From about eighteen to about thirty on the meter.

Something wrong with the E-Meter — you see, it's irrelevant. It's on the E-Meter, not his case via the E-Meter. You can inspect an E-Meter all you want to, you see. "Yes, yes. Huh-huh. Yes? Oh, yeah. All right. Uh-huh. Okay. Let's see here. Now, you say so. Are you sure that that is all there is on that question? I'm looking at the meter here. Beware. Now, I'm looking at the meter when you answer that. All right. Have you ever swum up a waterspout? Ha-ha. There it is. Ha-ha-ha. Yeah, ha-ha. There it is. Ha-ha-ha-ha. All right. All right. All right. Now, you tell me about that. You tell me. It was an instant read, too. Come on, come on, come on, come on. Come on."

Yeah.

Never affect a pc. Never in a million years. He'd say, "Oooooh, you know. Waterspout. I did. I did. I did swim up a waterspout and so forth. I did, oh gosh."

Male voice: The others originated.

"Hoo? When was that? When was that? It's right here. Come on. Come on. Come on. Come on."

I see. And the pc originated after the meter went null?

"Oh. If it says there — it must be there. I wonder what it is and so forth."

Male voice: Yeah.

"Now, come on. Don't kid me about it. Now, don't monkey with it because I want to know right now. Right now. Come on. Give me it. Now, what is that?"

All right. Okay. Very good. Well, we find it was modifier number five — which falls within my guess that they give it to you in the first five or ten. And it's, "In spite of other people trying to influence me," which is a perfectly valid modifier. That checked out, did it? Have you checked it out thoroughly?

I'm not giving you this as a model. I'm giving you this as rather corny auditing. It won't upset him — do all of that.

Male voice: I checked it out, thoroughly. Yeah. It was . . .

You say, "Well, let's see. What's the meter reading here? I mean, what's the matter with the tone arm? Uh-oh, uh-oh, uh-oh." Next thing you know the tone arm is reading at 5.0. And you say, "How did it get there?" Well, it got there because your attention was on something else rather than the pc. His terminal demands attention and the only thing a pc will not forgive is not getting any attention from the auditor. And the auditor could practically dance a jig as long as it was relevant to the pc's case.

Doesn't say so here.

The pc said, "Well, we used to have these dances, you know. We used to go up and down the temple floor," (this would be horribly corny auditing) and the auditor can get up and say, "Like this? Or like this?" And sit down in the chair again, and the pc would be quite fascinated and say, "Well, it was actually like that. It was actually like that first one you did."

Male voice: But the checker who checked it said that it was going in and out.

Yeah, and he'd go right on talking and telling you about it and so forth.

Female voice: It did not check out; others came alive. Didn't check out.

But the auditor has danced a jig. See? It isn't what you do in a session. It is how relevant it is to his case. As soon as you learn that, you can shed a few shackles in auditing You can feel a little less braced, a little less plaster of Paris model auditing, you see. "If I twitch my left cheek a little bit, the plaster of Paris will crack. I mustn't permit my eyeballs to dilate more than an eighth of an inch because that's proper TR 0."

Didn't check! Didn't think it was. It seemed too reasonable. There's no denyer. One would look at it. I would — don't you dare add this as a modifier, now!

I'm sure you could do all that like an Indian. Some of the schools in India practicing hypnosis can stop or start blood from flowing from a cut vein. You know, I heard about that in America one time and I was absolutely fascinated. Absolutely fascinated. In Chicago, they rounded up every doctor in Chicago who even — was inspecting an Indian who could make blood start and stop flowing from his veins. It's marvelous. He could make the blood do this.

"To be myself in spite of not being here" or "to be myself although I am elsewhere." You get the modifier type of the thing. You have to kind of dig for those things. Sometimes they are hard to blow out. That would be a denyer type of modifier, don't you see?

But what was fascinating is that America didn't know it could be done. I didn't ever know it couldn't be done. You see, you can get several sides to every opinion. See, I was real startled because I didn't know it couldn't be done.

I don't care, even if one of the two I have just said is his, he can't have it.

Now, you're similarly going to get startled someday at the fact that you ever had any trouble with auditing. You know? "What? You know, I had some — I was nervous about it or I was upset about it or I was diffident about it or I'd held myself in a brace about it and so on. It's rather nonsensical." And you feel quite natural while you're auditing.

Okay. "Reassess, more modifiers." Yeah, well that was checked out and it was found to be going in and out and some of the others came live. So I would say, offhand, that there is a denyer on this thing that puts it out of view. And this "in spite of" is a kind of a denyer. It is a kind of a denyer, but there might be something else there that has something to do with it.

Drink a cup of coffee; audit. I mean, no more effort either way, because you gradually learned what you can get away with and what you can't get away with and you feel perfectly comfortable because that's it. And you say to the pc, "What you think?" As long as it's relevant to his case and isn't a challenge to him. You know, an invalidation.

Now, you realize in checking these things out, something interesting is liable to occur. You're liable to blow the whole goal! Particularly on the second or third goal that you check out with the pc, you repeat the modifier and you repeat the goal. And then you repeat the modifier and you can't find it. And then you repeat the goal and you can't find it. And then you look for the terminal; then you try to get the rudiments in and they're all in. And you try to find the goal and the terminals. It's about time to listen to the pc: He's been saying it's been gone for some time.

It's pretty rough on a pc when an auditor starts in on him on the basis, "Well, you've been a creep all of your life. How can you expect to level with me now?"

So, that is not what occurred here. I'd, tomorrow, check the goal, huh?

That sounds awful rough, you know. "Have you ever done one decent action in your whole life? Now, tell me. Have you? Have you? Have you ever? Just one. Tell me one, one, one decent action you've done in your whole life. So you see, you can't. All right. Now, let's get the withholds off." That'd be awful rough on a pc, wouldn't it?

Male voice: Yeah.

Well, get your order of magnitude. Do you know that it's ten times as rough on the pc for you to get rattled about your E-Meter and start fiddling with your meter as for you to do that? Get your perspectives in. Why? Because any crack you make at the pc, believe it, is attention. That is attention for the pc. You're interested in him.

Check the goal. It's perfectly accurate but check it anyhow. Get how much it's falling and see if you can't get a modifier that falls like the goal is falling. You know, the goal falls like the modifier, falls like the terminal, falls like the level — or pardon me, I should have said "reacts" throughout.

And do you know that some pcs won't believe you and — well, Susan Hayward, for instance, hated me like poison for a long while, years, until one night I was in a particularly vicious mood. And she brought up some picture. Her husband was sitting there and her husband looked at me. And he'd warned me never to flatter this girl about her acting or anything. She was very upset about it. And I was feeling in a very vicious mood and said it stunk. The last one I'd seen — you know, almost that bluntly, you know. It stunk.

The needle reaction of the goal is the same as the needle reaction for the modifier, and the needle reaction for the terminal is the same as the needle reaction for the goal. The needle reaction for the level will be the same. They all will, more or less, be the same. Sometimes more! You'll find you will sometimes get a greater reaction, but if you have a less reaction be suspicious.

And she said, "What did you think was wrong with it particularly?"

If your reaction decreases and if it's sporadic and goes in and out, we haven't got it. There's something wrong here. Either the rudiments are out or the wording is not quite correct, and so forth.

And I said, "You were false."

I appreciate your difficulty in this particular case because you are dealing . . . Constantine speaks very excellent English, but his basic tongue is not English. And so when I'm doing one like that I almost always do it in the native tongue of the pc. Even though I couldn't write Greek these days to save my life. Get the idea?

You know, she was my friend forever afterwards? She knew I was sincere. She knew I was sincere. That was her whole measure of whether or not somebody was her friend. An enemy is somebody who flatters you. A friend is somebody who criticizes the living daylights out of you.

Have him say it in Greek "to be myself," and then try this thing in Greek. Try the same goal, see if it stays in. See, we might be running the English off the top of it. you know something weird might be happening.

We've had people around occasionally — one or two guys around — and all I would do would just give them a studied insult. I'd never say hello to them. I would say, "Well, I see somebody has left a door open again." And they'd get this immediate sensation: "He understands me."

All of you, by the way, are language cases. You realize that? You've only been talking English for a very short period of time. Do you realize that? English is sort of a polyglot tongue. There is a civilization — there are two or three civilizations on the track, though, that do speak the same English that we speak, right now. They're backtrack, way, way backtrack and they talked English. Funny, isn't it?

This sounds mad, doesn't it? But these are acceptance level. Remember the old acceptance level? And a person who's in grief will accept a sad remark. And a person who is in degradation will accept the degrading remark. The only reality is the reality of the Tone Scale on which they're sitting.

It's very funny. You get back into that area with sonic, you know, and somebody is saying, "Hey boy, look out," you know? Usually it's in lingua spacia or something like that, you know. "Polyga muga!" "Rrrr."

Well, nobody asked you to compromise your reality. I'm just calling to your attention that it isn't so much what the auditor does, it is whether or not the auditor is being effective with his attention relevant to the pc. Is he being effective with his attention relevant to the pc's case? And that is all a pc ever demands of an auditor — that he's effective and that his attention is relevant to the pc's case. And that's what, basically, an auditor violates when he gets in trouble with the pc.

I like those tongues, though, that are all gutturals. "Ghlk." You know, where that is a consonant — "Glnk."

He's sitting there woodenly. He's asking questions disinterestedly. His attention is on something else. The pc is aware of the fact that the auditor has an appointment at three o'clock. And that it's getting toward three o'clock. And that the auditor has a present time problem. And the auditor keeps glancing toward the door and looking at his watch.

All right. We got that taped? Yeah, all right.

Oh, man, if you want to form some ARC breaks, the whole pattern of ARC breaks is actually totally on the basis of the pc ceases to believe that the auditor's attention is relevant to his case. And that is the whole background of ARC breaks. There is no other background.

Never be ashamed to be clever as an auditor. Just remember that, never be ashamed to be clever. Because you're being clever as an auditor, you're not being a squirrel.

Now, we're up there. If you remember the Philadelphia lectures, the highest level is conviction. All right. Well, right up there, that is above agreement. That is above communication and mechanics, and so forth. That is a belief. The pc must stay convinced that the auditor is interested in auditing him and interested in auditing his case, and auditing his case. Not necessarily Interested — at that point of the Prehav Scale — but just auditing him effectively. And the auditor's attention is on the pc. And as soon as that has been achieved by the auditor, he gets no more trouble with rudiments. But it's something to achieve. And it is not anything very arduous to accomplish. I assure you it's not arduous to accomplish. It's very easy to accomplish. The first requisite is if you know enough about the mind and if you yourself have enough reality on its mechanics, then you are never debarred by the mystery of it all.

A squirrel is doing something entirely different. He doesn't understand any of the principles so he makes up a bunch of them to fulfill his ignorance, foists them off on a pc and gets no place. And you know your fundamentals and you know what you're doing, and so forth, and you don't ever get clever about anything — what a knucklehead of an auditor you will be because you will run into impasses every now and then that — you'll say, "What's the textbook solution?" There was no textbook solution. There are textbook fundamentals but no textbook solution.

The pc doesn't look to you like a big mystery. He only looks to you like something that can be resolved. You want to know the ramifications of the thing so that you can do something about it.

They tell an old gag — there's an old song in the Marines about this Marine private who went into the battle with a vim. And his name was McBin, I think, and he went into a battle with a grin because although he got killed, why, he had used the textbook solution. He died with a grin, that was it, because he'd used the textbook solution. Yeah. Well, don't go around dying with a grin just because you used the textbook solution, because that's just an effort to make me wrong.

But if you yourself know the basics of how his mind operates, you aren't backed off to a point where it's all just a total mystery and you go into a disinterest. If you know the actual mechanics of how he operates, you know that he has engrams, you know he's got a time track and you know he's got circuits and he's got valences and you know these various mechanics, you know how he responds to these, you know the overt act-motivator phenomena, you know about goals terminals, you know about these various things; you can look at somebody, they're doing something, well, you can understand what they're doing It must have something to do with some of these. Well, this brings you immediately close enough to an understanding of the pc to form an ARC with the pc. It's an ARC that's formed. But it's formed by your understanding of the generalities of his difficulty. He has a generality of difficulty.

No, you've got to be clever now and then. You've got to be very clever in checking some goals, some terminals, that sort of thing. You've got to be clever. And this modifier thing requires a certain degree of cleverness. After the pc has said to you, fifteen or twenty times, "Well, you keep asking me but I just can't reach it, you know?"

Now, your attention and interest is on the particularity of his difficulty. The specific parts that refer to him out of your knowledge of the general picture the pc presents. If you were comfortable and . . . If you can go down the street and you see somebody gimping along and you know he's gimping along and he's having an awful time there, and he seems to have a great big bandage on his right foot, you know; an uninformed person looks at him and says, "Somebody has injured his foot." You look at him — and don't tell me you don't because I know that you do — you look at him and you know that he's kicked somebody or he's stamped on somebody's toes at some time or another, you see.

After the pc has said to you for fifteen or twenty times, ask him — just, you know, go get a big, blue spark and suddenly say, "Well, is the modifier 'that you can't reach it.' Is that it?"

You know the basic mechanic — the overt-motivator sequence — and he couldn't possibly have a bunged up foot unless he was a specialist in bunging up foots. See? Therefore, you aren't invited into a supersaccharine sympathy about it at all, but if the fellow were to say to you, "You know, I got an awfully bad foot," you would be very happy to do something about his foot, you know. Even if it was just, "Look at my fingers," you know, and throw some somatics around for him. Why go through the histrionics of, "All right. How did you hurt your foot?"

"Well, yes, yes. I want to be a plumber but I can't reach it."

"Well, foot was run over by an automobile wheel, and it's been very bad, and so forth."

There are all these denyer bits, see. There's another gag you can get the modifier with, is you can run the goal. Run the goal both ways for a moment or two, and the modifier will show up if it's hard to get. you can take the goal and you can say well . . . Well, we'll say the goal was "to give myself up," or something like that. All right, the goal is "to give myself up." you run an auditing command something on the basis to "How would you give yourself up?" "How would somebody else give himself up?" Anything like that. Run it two ways just for a little while, and so forth, and then ask for the modifier and you'll come out at the other end with a good — well, a better look at the thing. Remember all — nearly all modifiers are denyers.

You say, "All right. Stand there and kick an automobile wheel. Thank you. Kick an automobile wheel. Thank you. Kick an automobile wheel. Thank you."

There's something else to know about this particular battle front, is — a pc goes into a sort of a numb games condition when he's ARC broke and he won't give up anything but he doesn't have any flexibility or fluidity of mind. In other words, his zones of attention are very short; they're very small. And if you get a pc into a sort of a knuckleheaded, wooden, "Well, I'll go along with it somehow" frame of mind, the amount of success you are going to have in getting that pc to reach anything is going to be very poor.

You got some twenty-five percent chance of just knocking it out. Just like that, see? Twenty-five percent. You know, it's a small percentage, but you'll get your percentage. That's for sure.

In other words, the livelier, the happier, the more cheerful, the more fluid or fluent a pc feels, why, the more likely you are to get a goal, get a terminal, get a modifier, you know, and so forth.

Give him a Touch Assist. Do this and that. You can do lots of things about this foot. All right. If you can do things about the foot, then you aren't in awe of this foot and you also can be interested in the foot without getting totally interiorized into the horrible mysteries of the foot and how horrible it was that he got this terribly bad foot. And how could he possibly have gotten this foot? Isn't it terrible of the police department to drive the police van right straight across this man's foot. And we ought to change the government, shouldn't we. See, you're not off to the races here; you know exactly what's wrong with the man's foot.

Pc is sitting there, glumly, "Well, I'll go ahead and be audited just because you say so." you know? Don't expect him to reach very much because he's sort of not extending himself. And sometimes it's a little bit worth your while to get a pc to extend himself slightly. Instead of just sitting there, a wound-up doll yourself and so forth, why, just have a discussion about all of this, you know.

You say, "What's it feel like?"

Of course, in the process of the discussion you can invalidate him, break the Auditor's Code fifteen times and make him worse. If you find you're doing that, it's a better thing not to do anything. A wooden frame of mind is better than a completely gone one.

And he says, "Well, it just — it feels like it's in a boot, you know. It just feels like it's in a great big boot, and it's not, you know, but it feels like it's in a great big lead boot." Well, that communicates to a Scientologist. It doesn't communicate to him. You're in the favored position of knowing far more about it than he does.

All right. Here we have Maxine Kozak auditing Jenny Edmunds and I am sure the pc will absolutely die in her tracks at my taking up this particular report because the goal is "not to be found out"; isn't it, Jenny?

Now, knowing that, actually, that alone — just without your saying anything or doing anything — that you know about that reflects immediately. It forms a superiority on your part where he is concerned.

Female voice: Yes.

You don't have to do anything from that point there on. Somebody who understands life can talk about life, and other people know that he understands life even though they don't know what he's saying, which is a great oddity. Very possibly, some of you at one time or another have been overheard in a discussion with somebody or other and had somebody sort of looking at you kind of. . .

Okay?

Well, they don't really know what you're saying, and they don't really understand you maybe, but they certainly know that you know what you're talking about.

Female voice: Yes.

I had a fellow on an airplane one time, some big company executive, and somebody was chattering to me, some four-striper in the navy. And I was giving him very banal replies. I was not trying to impress him even vaguely. And this fellow sitting across from us, he all of a sudden — it was in the bar — and he was getting very interested and so on. The guy next to him started to get very interested and they said something to each other. And there were three or four people there, four or five people there on the other side. And they'd get talking to him and they'd look over. They were listening to this conversation. They were absolutely fascinated. We weren't talking about anything that had anything to do with the price of fish as far as I was concerned. But this four-striper had problems and all I was doing was giving some offhand advice. You know, hardly anything to bother with. I was trying to explain to him a few little minor things, you know.

All right. And we don't find anything here. We find the modifier is assessed and we've got several — the modifier: "not to be found out." Well, I don't know how this goes together. What have we got, another goal here? I have been wondering about this. I spent some — I was worried about this, as a matter of fact. How do we take this goal, "not to be found out," because "not to be found out" sounds more like a modifier than it does a goal. Now, did we ask this pc if there was any goal on the front end of it?

And these guys were looking at this, you know. They didn't understand what that was all about, but they knew somebody knew something about a life over there. And finally, one of them, as he left, "Say," he says, "who are you?"

Female voice: Today.

And I laughed at him and went on back to my seat. Left him in a total mystery.

Yeah.

But this sort of thing communicates to the pc. Because you're outside the pc's bank and are not being influenced directly by the pc's aberrations, he of course recognizes — even though you're equally trained — he recognizes that you could know more about what he's doing than he does. See, he recognizes this instinctively. It's true, you see.

Female voice: Yeah.

Now, when you — equally trained or better trained or worse trained or anything else — are there and you are not looking and you are not interested in doing something about it in a session, that itself is an ARC break. Just like that, see. He's been cut. He realizes that you with your skill could get right on down there to the bottom of the pile and pull that bottom overt and there'd be a clinkety-clank of breaking glass all over the place. And you don't do it.

We did?

Well, actually it wouldn't matter how you did it as long as you did it. And it's quite interesting As long as you did it — that's the only thing which he doesn't forgive is not doing it. That he won't forgive. People do not forgive no auditing. People do not forgive being ineffective. They just don't forgive these things.

Female voice: Yeah.

The best answer for it is to audit the pc yourself and always to some slight degree be effective. Now, you've got enough tools and weapons now to be effective to the end of your days. I mean, you never catch up with the human race with how much you know now. I mean, the human race would never catch up with you. I mean, God 'elp us. There's two billion five hundred million pcs out there right this minute.

Was there anything on the front end of this "not to be found out"? You know, "to be a plumber but not to be found out." Any goal on the front end of this? Is there? What is it?

There are wise men all over India. There are hakims and sad apples and Sufis and bug-jumps and jujus and AMA doctors, and bums and tramps amongst the witchcraft and so on, medicine men amongst the Indians, all this sort of thing And not one of these experts knows as much as you do about mind or about life. Not one of them. You give them cards and spades and still whip them every time. Medical doctor says, "Well, there's something wrong Every time this fellow — every time we examine him, he sits there and he starts to tremble and so forth. And he starts to tremble every time they examine him. And I wonder what this is. Is this a locomotor nerves in the pocomocus and so forth? And shouldn't we operate and snap a couple of tendons or something here in order to keep him from going this way, and so on." You listen to some of the wildest balderdash.

Female voice: "To tell lies."

Well, he's being the expert. It's quite remarkable. You are diffident about it because you're so schooled to believe that he's the expert, so schooled to believe that the man is interfering.

Yeah. "To tell lies and not be found out."

If you'd have walked over to him, slightly in his lingo and said, "The man's suffering from a psychic trauma. He probably has some reaction to an examination. Ask him if he's ever been an examiner."

Female voice: Yes.

And the medico says, "What?"

So, oh! What you've got written down here is the front end?

Oh, but he says "What" very interestedly. You must have said something there. He's liable to be kind of nervous about you, too. You know? But a different — entirely different — atmosphere than what you would expect would arise from the situation, because he knows he is talking to somebody who knows. And that can't be missed. It isn't how you hold your pinky. It isn't how you balance the saucer on the end of your nose. It's just whether or not you know.

Female voice: Yeah!

And your confidence and skill, of course, is in direct ratio to your certainty of knowledge. You know these things are true. You know they are true, and that's it. You've had it. You sit down in an auditing chair. You look at the pc. He feels this.

That's how it makes sense.

And the only other thing the pc demands is attention on his case, not on something else. You start telling that pc sitting in the auditing chair about your case, you're going to form one of the wildest ARC breaks you ever heard oЈ Try it sometime. Pc sits there in an auditing session and you say, "Well, that reminds me of an auditing session I had once." And you talk about a totally dissimilar action to anything you're undertaking, see — and anything — has nothing to do with his case whatsoever. And carry on for about twenty or thirty minutes in that wise.

Female voice: oh, yes. The whole list is. Yes.

Man, if you can get the rudiments back in, in end of session, I'll tell you I'll give you a medal. It's — it's marvelous. And yet you actually have been very polite. You've been very kind. You're trying to reassure the pc. Anything you could put it down to, you see. It still wouldn't make any difference because it violates this little rule.

Yeah. All right. You don't say so anyplace, see?

You've got to be effective, and your attention has got to be on the pc's case. That's all he demands. He'll even forgive tremendous numbers of things if you do those things. He'll forgive things all over the place. He'll forgive dropping the ashtray and everything else. He'll forgive running the wrong process 895 hours even, if you all of a sudden start running the right one on him.

Female voice: "Not to be found out!"

Aw, you haven't seen anybody particularly ARC broke about suddenly bringing up modifiers. I don't think anybody's been cursing about it. I felt a tiny bit chagrined about it that it's taken me some months to find out that there were tails and middles and beginnings on some of these goals, you see, that was holding them up. I know right now why Clears go unclear so suddenly. Just a modifier clicks, just like that. They're all cleared up, but there's that little tag end of disappeared modifier and it has enough charge on it to make the case charge up again.

No. "Not to be found out" is the modifier. You've got the goal. you did a Goals Assessment on top of the modifier.

Well, how do you patch up a Clear who has been Clear and then who has this charge. All you've got to do is go back and clip out the modifier that has been hung up there. This has been quite a mystery because a certain percentage of Clears lapse.

Female voice: Yes, I realize that.

One down in Durban the other day, perfectly Clear, checked out Clear, everything was beautiful, and 90 forth. Went outside and BOW! You see, the bank falls in. She reads stiff on the meter. The meter up to 5.0. You know, all just blwaaaaah! Everybody down in Durban being terribly reasonable about it, see.

You see?

They're saying, "Well, all right. Let's see, the — the pc couldn't confront the environment, cleared on the first dynamic, ability to postulate, caved themselves in and so forth. And maybe after this, why, the pc was feeling bad about being a Clear and was self-conscious about it and so on. And that caused the environment to do so." See, all the figure-figure going on, see. Some auditor has just been handed a lose. Fortunately, why, the Marines were landing right at that moment. Halfway between here and South Africa at that moment was 7 November 61 bulletin. See, all they got to do is get hold of this girl and say, "All right now. Let's see. First goal you were audited on was to sew socks. Fine. Let's find the rest of it. To sew socks and

Female voice: Yes.

What's the rest of it? Go ahead and complete the sentence. Go ahead. To sew socks and — . Good. Complete the sentence now."

So these actually are goals and we've got the modifier up here: "Not to be found out."

"And fill them full of holes. Oho. Yeah."

Female voice: Yes.

You know, your needle goes bang, you know.

All right. That's the modifier, and we already had that as a goal.

Now, you say, "What was the goal to sew socks?"

Female voice: Yes.

Bang! Big surge.

See? It wasn't a goal. And now we've got this other goal here. Do you mind if I — .

"All right. Full of holes." Tick.

Female voice: Hm.

"All right. To sew socks." Tick.

All right. She does mind — .

"All right. Full of holes." Gone. Gone. Gone. And just take each goal they've had right on up the line, bring those tails and middles off of the thing and so forth and they'd settle out straight. Interesting, huh? Might take a little more patch-up work or something like that because it was such a shock to them to go Clear and then un-Clear so fast with the missing link. We've really found the missing link now, haven't we? Yeah.

Female voice: I tell you, I don't.

Anyway, I don't know. Maybe somebody around here said, "Gee whiz. Well, I audited on the wrong goal all of these hours."

Ha?

No, you didn't. You were on the same goals chain and so forth. But I'm much more interested in your case than I am my face. And you know that. So you've taken much worse than that from me. But people get upset about my building fireplaces and buying ships. Why? You see? It adds up.

Female voice: I don't really.

Makes a little ARC break. They don't know that I do that on my time. They don't think I have any time. And it's true. I don't. All I have to do is tell them, however, all the time I'm fixing up ships, I'm thinking about cases.

You don't really?

And only if that were true, however, only if it were true, would that wipe even that away, you see. You see why this is?

Female voice: No.

All right. A pc can form a considerable amount of ARC with an auditor. And the ARC, according to some schools of thought, even in Scientology, is only formed by sweetness, kindness and nice, humoresque on the Stradivarius. You can make a pc hate you with that. You're always sweet and kind and understanding and never effective. The pc is going out of control. The pc knows he's going out of control. And you're sweet and kind. I never had a pc in-session so much — or actually ever had any ARC with one pc so much — as I did after I had practically picked her up by the nape of the neck and carried her across the room and set her down in a chair with a terrible thud. With a real thud.

All right. It's "To tell lies and not to be found out." And that's your goal-modifier sequence. Fascinating. I was concerned with that because I saw that, and I said, "Good heavens! We've got the modifier end of the line." Now, I held my breath because I didn't know whether or not we could easily get the goal end of the line. And I'm very, very glad you did. Hm?

I said, "Let's not have anymore of that right now. Now, pick up the cans." You know, the pc tried to blow. The pc was not ARC broke. This all registered on the basis of: "Hey, you know, he really means to audit me. He really means what he is doing He's not kidding What do you know! Hey! What do you know!"

Female voice: As soon as you said it last night I knew it was the modifier.

Now, the reason student auditing is often slow is because everybody is studying auditing at the same time they're doing auditing So all of the auditors could come into the category of "just auditing me in order to learn and practice." So that would modify the definition "effective and interested in my case," see. They could be effective and not interested in the case and have a hard time keeping rudiments in. You see how that would modify it?

Oh, yeah? All right. Well, I'm very, very glad that we got that pair sorted out. That was a very good job. A very good job.

"Well, whatever we've been learning lately has nothing to do with it. What do you think has happened here that you have a tone arm up at 6.0? Well, just what do you think happened? Well, how come your tone arm went up to 6.0. It's been stuck here for about two weeks."

Yeah, this'll — there's only two or three here in this particular unit that I was concerned with and this was one of them. Very much so. And I thought, "What on earth is that one going to turn out to be?" Well, that was an excellent job.

He says, "Well, I don't know. I don't know. Taken off the process suddenly, and — and I guess — or something — I don't know. Really. It's true though. I felt different for the last two weeks."

Now, has it been checked out?

"Now, how have you felt different? And what have you been doing now that's different?"

Female voice: No, it hasn't.

"Well, I've just felt different and so forth."

All right. We'll just say, "Get it checked." Very nice. Very nice. Well, apparently here, that was — went rather smoothly. Pc tended to have an ARC break here toward the end of session because of the rudiments. Pc was traveling along here all during this assessment at 2.5, 2.25, 2.75, and then all of a sudden on the rudiments went to 3.25, and then went to 3.0 and then stayed at 3.0. What was that all about?

"All right. Well, anything went on two weeks ago that you were in violent disagreement with in some kind or another? Were you in a fight with somebody around or something happening and so forth?"

Female voice: It was after the break. When she came back after the break, the tone arm went up.

Well, we all of a sudden find a postulate that they're going to keep the rudiments in now, and they're not going to let the rudiments go out so that they can be properly assessed and so they can go Clear and get out of here. And nothing is going to affect them in any way whatsoever.

She'd been figuring.

Ah, but they give this up to somebody, you see. They give this up to an auditor who is asking about them. Asking about them individually. Not as an example to something else. You know, tie fellow wants to know, and he asks them. I am actually maybe opening the doors on the hordes of hell because an auditor can use this as an excuse just to do anything in a session. You can practically do anything in a session as long as you're effective and interested in the pc's case and your attention is on his case and what you do is relevant to the solution of his case.

Female voice: Hm. Yes.

Now, that tells you that if you really want to chop up a pc and get the pc overwhelmed, is use an auditing session to secure an advantage over the pc. Ah, that's not being effective, is it? And it's not really being interested in the pc's case but interested in using the pc's case. And even though the pc'll go into a kind of a thralldom thereafter, and so forth, man, they're really never quite on your side. You have a hell of a time with them.

Something on that order. Been figuring or something like that. Do you think that was it?

So some auditor carelessly goes and sleeps with his pc. "Aw," he says, "well, this will make good ARC." Great day in the morning It'll make good ARC all right. Why didn't he cut his throat. I mean, as far as the auditing session is, it's finished. He's not going to get any auditing done. Not after that. It's quite interesting, isn't it? Because it violates this idea. He's not interested in the pc's case. He's interested in the pc's body. Well, that's not being much interested in the pc.

Female voice: I asked her what it was.

Women can actually figure it out so that if you're interested in their body, why, you're interested in them. They actually will put this together and make a mishmash out of it. But it won't work with them in an auditing session. You can always tell a girl going along, "You look very pretty today."

Did you get it?

That's fine, she may accept this, she may not. But she thinks of that as complimentary. And of course it is. But in an auditing session, if you sat there and described to them what a pretty body they had and how nice they were to look at, and how well dressed they were, they'd go some little distance with this. Then all of a sudden, it'd suddenly go bzzzzzzt. And you couldn't quite figure out why it went zzzzzt. Of course, a body isn't a case.

Female voice: No, I didn't get the tone arm down.

You're an auditor. Therefore, what you're doing isn't effective. All things just boil down to that. Every skill that you have in an auditing routine — Sec Checking, your elements of Model Session, Problems Intensive, it doesn't matter which or what of these you're practicing, has of course a certain form. This form rather guarantees interest in the person's case. It rather guarantees that. Don't let it ride on automatic because now it sort of compounds the felony.

Yeah, well, I would show that up, wouldn't I, in front of God and everybody.

The ritual is interested in the pc's case, but the auditor isn't. And I think you've seen that, haven't you. The ritual is interested in the pc's case. Well, then, the auditor looks kind of funny, you know.

Female voice: It's okay.

The auditor asking if it's really all right if he does so-and-so, and the auditor doesn't care whether it's all right if he does so-and-so. And it makes a kind of a lie. And the pc gets weird unreality about the whole thing. No, what you have to do is be interested in the pc's case and determine to do something effective about it. And then, through the media of the ritual and E-Meter, you give him the auditing commands. That's all.

When a pc's TA goes up during a break or between sessions, it's a very good thing to investigate it rather thoroughly.

That's — those things serve — they are secondary. They're a very vital secondary. You shouldn't come off of them and so forth. But unless they're backed up, they're as empty as sounding brass in the tinkle of the temple bell. They are nothing.

All right. Well, you get it down for the next session. I think that's very nice. Okay. Stop worrying about that one.

And in Sec Checking, if you don't get to the pc as an auditor, if the auditor does not become visible or real to the pc, no withholds knock. How do you like that? A little voice in the far distance is saying, "Well, have you ever swum up a waterspout?" Doesn't mean anything to the pc. Nobody there. "Have you ever swum up a waterspout?" the little voice says in the far distance. Hasn't anything to do with him. It's not restimulative.

Okay. Hm. Yeah. You're having a ball. All right. Now, I'm glad you put this one in my hands because this was the first one that was done and I gave this to Bob to sort out Jenny's goal and modifier.

All right. But the auditor is real to him. He knows the auditor is there. He has an idea that there is somebody auditing him and that this person is going to be effective and is interested in his case. Now, it doesn't much matter what the fellow does — what the auditor does at that juncture — as long as it satisfies those points.

All right. We had a goal running on this particular case and it was "to be a racetrack driver." And that goal was not — it was doing all right. The case kept hanging fire on the terminal "racetrack driver," and so forth. So I caused an assessment here and this caused an upset to the pc. The pc was quite upset to have another Goals Assessment or something like that done. And while we were scrambling around on it we got in here with this goal-modifier arrangement and the auditor promptly shook it out as a goal-modifier arrangement. May I say what it is?

He can say, "Have you ever swum up a waterspout?" And he can get some knock on the E-Meter. But if he's got good presence, he says, "Have you ever swum up a waterspout?" And the — you get a pretty good fall on the meter. You don't get a fall on the meter in direct ratio to the volume of your voice. You get a fall on the meter in direct ratio to your reality to the pc.

Female voice: of course.

So I look at a pc sometimes and I ask him very softly and quietly and so forth, if they have ever swum up a waterspout or sung in church or some other crime. And the needle falls off the pin. I turn it over to somebody; they don't even get a knock. And this is true of assessment. I assess somebody, the needle falls off the pin. Turn it over to somebody to check out. It's gone. It's nulled. But that's because nobody is asking him. It's no more mystery than that.

All right?

Now, your presence is as poor in the pc's opinion as you have to keep the rudiments in. An auditor has a direct self-criticism mechanism. Your presence is as poor — not as much as the pc objects to you. That's all balderdash.

Female voice: Sure.

The auditor is as real and has as much presence to the pc as the rudiments stay in and has as little presence as the rudiments go out. Because you're using terribly powerful forms. Terribly powerful commands. Very challenging questions, all said from a nobody there. See, there's nobody saying these things. There is no presence delivering these things. And these tremendously overwhelming forms are being thrown at the pc from a nowhere. He hears the words, you know, but there's no music. It's the auditor that's the music that goes along with it. He hears it, but it doesn't mean anything to him. Actually, it can be disturbing to him.

All right. "To be a racetrack driver, but a racetrack driver couldn't rule." That was what was missing off the end of it. And of course this makes a highly specialized terminal. Now, what does that terminal turn out to be? The terminal turns out to be — may I say it? — turns out to be Lucifer. Now, just why it does is up to the pc and so on, and we're not interested in whether terminals are logical or illogical or something like that; it's whether or not they run. But the pc couldn't run this — couldn't run a five-way bracket on the assessed Prehav Scale. Couldn't do it, because the pc says, "I'm too much the terminal."

He has just gotten through robbing a whole peach orchard. He knows it was a crime. He not only robbed the orchard, but as he went through the thing he broke off all branches. And then he didn't want the peaches for anything; he fed them to the pigs and the whole herd of pigs died. You know, I mean, this is quite an overt, as we stack it up. And it's all very complicated and intricate of some kind or another. And from a nowhere, he hears, "Have you ever robbed a peach orchard?" See? "Have you ever robbed a peach orchard? Have you ever robbed — ?" It's hard to get that disinterested, you see. "Have you ever robbed a peach orchard?"

Now, you're going to find that. Now, that you're finding a very finite . . . Remember what I told you, I said, "We're heading in for a way of finding the terminal. Well, of course, if you get a very fundamental terminal you get a total association between the pc and the terminal as being almost the order of the day. They don't differentiate between one another at all.

Yes, he's robbed a peach orchard and he's scared about it, too. Nothing matches here. There's nobody really interested and you don't get much of a knock on the needle. It doesn't restimulate it at all.

Now, you find terminals on children and you find exactly this condition. You find out they can't differentiate between one thing and the other. So your first auditing commands — this five-way bracket wouldn't run on this pc — and our first auditing commands of a five-way bracket, couldn't be checked out. The auditor very cleverly did not run them. The auditor actually cleared the auditing commands — and possibly the pc's digging in her heels had something to do with it — and found out they couldn't be run and asked me on the report what to do about all this.

But when you, a living being, a living presence, look at him right in the thetan and you say to him, "Have you ever robbed a peach orchard?" Oh, oh, somebody is knocking on the door. He has a suspicion that he should answer that one. He just better answer it. He just better answer it. And your Sec Checking, goals finding, levels finding, speed of delivery, all become very easy on these bases.

Well, what to do about this became very simple. You just treat this as a total closure, that is, the pc thinks of self as the terminal so you limit the bracket.

Problems Intensive — you say, "Well, have there been any self-determined changes in your life? All right. That's fine. All right. List the self-determined changes in 1956 and so on, so on, so on. All right. Now, we're going to assess these changes. All right. 1952 change, well, bought a new hat, in 1952 you bought a new hat. And 55 you bought a new hat and 61 you bought a new hat and so forth. And you're going to buy a new hat. And that's the changes in your life."

And I must call to your attention the tremendous importance in the Prelogics of gradient scales. You solve all cases by gradient scales. All things are solved by gradient scales. All auditing is done by gradient scale. And so auditing commands, when they are difficult to do, are done by gradient scale. And you get the simplest auditing command that you can think of and then you go from there on out.

And you come around and you say, "You know, there's no changes in this person's life?" No? You got the volume of change to the direct volume of auditor. They're "matchly" tuned. The quality of your auditing was buying a new hat, see. Get the idea? You mean, your presence was so faint on the line.

Now, of course, perimeters of attention are so limited when you've got a terminal totally closed with the pc, the perimeter of attention is too tight. They can't get the idea, actually, of another person. You've got the terminal and then you haven't got anything else. you see? You've got the terminal and here's the terminal. Crunch! You see? And you say, "Well, how would you shoot another? How would you communicate to another?" You see? "How would another communicate to you?" This is too steep! This is too much.

All right. Now, you're interested in it. You're being effective. You're right in there pitching You want to know about this thing and you say to the pc, "All right. What self-determined changes have you had in your life?"

But you can ask them something on the order — or should be able to — whether or not the person can communicate with himself or whether the terminal can communicate with itself. Naturally, you could get that. And if you ran those two you'd eventually get a differentiation.

And the pc says, "Well, what do you mean as selfdetermined change?"

So the auditing commands I recommended were something on the order of (suggested) "What might you have" — "disagreed" was the level — "What might you have disagreed with?" and "What might Lucifer have disagreed with?" See?

"You know. You make up your mind to change. Now, how many times has that happened to you in your life, do you suppose?"

Not "What have you disagreed with about Lucifer?" or "What has Lucifer disagreed with about you?" You see? This is just total concentric, singleness. "What have you disagreed with?" "What might you have disagreed with?" and "What might Lucifer have disagreed with?"

"Well, quite a few."

We put might in there and the person doesn't have to answer very specifically. You see? We aren't asking for the exact recall. You ask a person to recall — all right: "Recall a time when you built your first pyramid. Thank you." They can't answer that kind of question. But you can say, "When might you have built a pyramid?" See?

"All right. Now, tell me one of them. A self-determined change in your life. Self-determined. That you decided to change. Now, tell me one. All right. Tell me one now. All right."

"Oh, well," they think, "Well, then . . ." Anytime within that million-year line, see, they might have done it, you see. And they don't even have to say they have done it. And yet it will run very easily and it is quite beneficial. So we put might in there; that eases it up. We've got already — it on a gradient.

"Oh, and it's — yeah, yeah. Well, there's so-and-so, and I decided I couldn't stand my mother-in-law anymore and shot her. Yes. That's a change. And other changes, and I decided this, and I decided to bathe only in borscht. Yes, I've always been mystified about that one."

Now, let's see what we did here. We ran this apparently. Hm. Looks awfully good here. It looks like the tone arm was flying around a bit. Cognition and so forth. Heavy rock slams. Running between 2.6, 2.5. Oh, it took a little while to get going apparently. Yeah, and then it started flying up here to 3.50. This is nice action. Then you got a blowdown, and a blowdown, and the pc made her goals and feels good about the tone arm action, and so do I. A break. Rudiments well in. And then we got — went flying back up to 3.50, down to 2.25. That is very fine action, by the way. That is very good action. 2.25 to 3.5, you would realize, is three-quarters of a division but it's in the Clear range. And that much action in the Clear range is pretty fantastic.

And you get a wild list. And you get it rapidly. Now, of course, the bank, the pc's bank, i8 quite responsive to your auditing and is responsive to your presence. And you can handle it, of course, to the degree that you are handling it. You're real to the pc, you can handle his bank. It's odd that you can handle his bank better than he can. And this is what he means by being effective.

Don't think too much . . . You can have a whole tone arm action between 5.0 and 6.0, way over here and it doesn't mean anywhere near as much as a half a tone arm action down around the Clear range. It's interesting.

So when you never order his bank around, you're sunk. He doesn't think you're auditing him. Nothing happens. You sit there, irresponsible about the whole thing, bang! Nothing happens.

You get a person up at 5.0, all he's got to do is withhold the fact that his — the end of his nose twitches and he goes up to 6.0. You see?

But you say to him, "All right. Now, are there any more self-determined changes in your life?" You're looking at the E-Meter. It doesn't knock. "All right. That's fine. That's the end of the list." It's that easy.

So, anyhow, that was fine. And he got various blowdowns and then some apathy began to come off. I'm glad to see that, actually, because she's been sitting around in it. I've been looking at her now and then saying, "Well, she's swimming through some bit of it." That's right, isn't it? And it was sticking around a little too long, so I was glad we found that.

All right. "Are there any more self-determined changes in your life?" is asked.

All right. And she's — auditor's comment is: "Tone arm action fairly active. Pc felt this area was difficult to run because there wasn't much MEST to grapple with. Felt kind of queasy in the stomach since the beginning.

"Well, are there any more self-determined changes in your life?" It doesn't fall. Couldn't be any more.

"Says, 'Oh, what's the use,' and sighs frequently. However, she's answered each command without any dispersal. I questioned pc by expanding — about expanding the bracket."

And with just a little more presence, just a little more interest, "Are there any more?" And it restimulates and you've got another one. You get the idea?

Male voice: Right.

The more presence you have, the more you get out of the pc. It's quite interesting as a mechanism.

"And the pc has certain resistance to running these agreed-upon flows because she claims they don't get at one area and clean it up and she has to hop around too much to do the command in a full bracket." Well, that's perfect. I agree with that a hundred percent. I'll give you the answer to this in a minute. "Which I will have to ferret out and clean up. I suspect it's probably ARC breaks in doing the bracket commands."

Now, your deadpan auditing asking a pc — or accepting withholds that don't fall, by the way, is one of the wildest things you can ever do. The pc tells you the withhold. And you see this, and nothing happened. Nothing happened to the needle. Nothing happened to the tone arm. This must be about the flattest question there is. You ask him again. Ask him the question again just for form sakes to get off the question. "Have you ever swum up a waterspout?" No. It's null. Off of it. On to the next one.

No. No, no, no, no, no. No, you're just asking the pcs to fall in over their head a little bit, you know, and they just zzzttt. And "How do I expand this bracket? Is it Lucifer to others? Pc to others?"

But you sit there and use auditing form to demand answers to your auditing questions and you'll get all sorts of created universes. Now, the trick is be effective, you see. Only ask for withholds when you see that they are there. Only start pressing when they're obviously there. Only start getting frantic and histrionic when you just can't get them off and it's quite obvious that the pc is sitting there with a clenched jaw with his hands locked behind him, won't touch the E-Meter cans and says, "Don't you dare ask me that question again."

No. The next way you expand the bracket — you can go to a straight five-way bracket. You can, but the theoretical way you expand the bracket is to make an interchange between the pc and Lucifer now.

Well, what would you do at that point? Well, whatever you do. do it effectively. If that's your signal for throwing your auditor's pad down on the floor and say, "God damn! I've had just about enough. Are you going to answer it or aren't you?"

Male voice: That's what I had across from it.

If that's what you think you should do at that point and that's the only way you can possibly conceive that you would get an answer to it, why, by all means do it. Because you've come to that impasse situation, don't you see?

Yeah. Well, that is the — that would be the next change. It would be the inter "What have you disagreed with?" "What has Lucifer disagreed with?" You could say something on the order of — you could put the word might in there — "What might you have disagreed with about Lucifer?" or "What might Lucifer have disagreed with about you?" You get the interchange going now. You see, you've got it center-center. All right. Now, let's get an interchange going and don't swing around into "Lucifer to other" or "Other to Lucifer," because that requires a loosening attention. But that's added later. See?

Or if it's down to this basis, "Oh, come on, George, come on, come on, George. You can answer it. Come on. Come on. You can tell me. You can tell me. Come on. Come on. It's all right. It's okay. You can tell me."

All right. And I think that is going very, very well. But here's — here's some data you're in need of here. The pc's goal. Let's go back and look at this goal, see? "To be a racetrack driver, but a racetrack driver couldn't rule."

"I don't know if I can tell you or not."

Now, this integrates in some fashion with the behavior of the pc. And you'll find out in running a goal-plus-modifier terminal that the pc — this is quite important — may heavily dramatize the goal when they first run the terminal. See? They — that's — well, let's say part of the modifier is "but it is unreachable." And as you run this, they don't tell you directly that it's unreachable; they just feel very dissatisfied about the thing, you see and "There's nothing there," and so on. And they keep feeling like this as you're running it and they're uncomfortable. And don't think anybody is very comfortable running a goal-plus-modifier terminal because this is — we're getting into heavier raw meat with this stuff. And the goal has a tendency to be dramatized slightly by the pc. The goal is not in view and so forth.

"Aw, come on. Come on. It's all right. Just tell me, and we'll get onto the next question. Huh? Just tell me and we'll get right on to the next question."

Now, I wouldn't expand the auditing command — yet. I would dream up a method of running a two-way flow on the goal-plus-modifier.

"Well, all right. But something tells me I shouldn't." He gives you the withhold. Clean it up the rest of the way, he's back in-session again. But the way to get a pc in-session is to audit him. And that sounds like one of these horrible truisms. There is no way of talking a pc into session. There is no way of wheedling him into session. There is no way of pleading him into session. The way to put a pc into session is audit him. Audit him. Be effective. Put your attention on what he's doing, what he's thinking about and so forth.

Male voice: Hm.

You know, a pc would even forgive something as corny as this: "Now, just sit there and shut up for a minute and let me think. Let me think. You presented me here with a rough one and I'm not quite sure which way I'm going on the thing. So just be quiet for a moment and let me figure this out. Shut up now. Hm. Well, Jesus, you got a rough case. All right. This is what I'm gonna do. see." And lay something down. I mean, that's awful corny. But a pc would accept it because you were trying to do something about this situation. Pc would sit there for an hour waiting — you figure out something about his case. It's actually true.

"What racetrack driver couldn't rule?"

But beware of mechanical distractions of all kinds. And it's by definition. What is a distraction? Well, a distraction is something that is not relevant to the pc's case and is ineffective. And that serves as a distraction. If you want to knock a pc into a cocked hat in a minor sort of a way, all you have to do is find a very effective process on him, ask him about three questions of that effective process and then change the process.

Male voice: Hm.

You're obviously being ineffective. Because he knows the process is effective. He can feel this thing bite. He can feel the fangs go straight in, see. And you've asked him three questions, and you say, "Well, what is not known about a ruddy rod?" And the meter goes bong! and the tone arm swings.

See? Now, how do you get the reversed flow? Well, you just say, "What couldn't you rule?" "What haven't you been able to rule?" "What mightn't you have been able to rule?" Don't you see? "What mightn't a racetrack driver be able to rule?" You know, anything of that character, but slide that in as your three and four. See? You plus self on "rule." Racetrack driver, see, plus self — plus racetrack driver, see, on "rule." Just — that's it. See?

And, "Ooooooh, I don't know if I could ask that. I don't know if I could answer that. I wouldn't ever ask anybody that. What is unknown about a ruddy - . Oh, boy! Ooooh. Ooooo. Uh-uhuhuhuhuhuhuh mmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Got a somatic."

"You, not rule — you couldn't rule." "Racetrack driver couldn't rule." "Disagreed with self." "Lucifer disagreed with." And this thing will suddenly start integrating. You'll see a different scene suddenly. Then you can start expanding it. But I wouldn't necessarily drop the goal out of the line. It all depends on how it runs. you have to kind of run it by ear. We don't have very much experience right here at this moment or much backlog on it. We know we're dead right and that it is running along fine. But it's just — exactly how you tune up the heterodyne so it will super-receive — we're not quite cognizant of. Okay?

"All right. All right. Okay. I'll repeat the auditing question. Now, what is unknown about a ruddy rod?"

Male voice: Right.

"Well, it's a uhhhhh. Uhhh, its length." See?

Sounds sensible to you?

"All right. What is unknown about a ruddy rod?"

Male voice: Yes.

"Mmm. Mmuuuuuh-kroooow!" And you ask three questions with that response, and then you say, "Well, I think we'd better get on to auditing your terminal now."

All right. "Add goal commands to two-way and run." An awfully good job, Bob. Thank you.

See, it violates that part of the definition of what is auditing in being totally ineffective. This thing is biting like crazy, you see. He's getting action, action, action. And all of a sudden, here you go.

All right. This is Marianne Christie auditing Smokey. Smokey? All right if I mention any of this?

Now, unless you could demonstrate to him that the next process was about three times as effective as the one he was just running, you're sunk. You know, pcs will sit around and mourn about having been audited in 1954 by something or other, and they were run on a process of "Jump over the moon. Thank you. Jump over the moon. Thank you. Jump over the moon." And they really knew that one. It was never flattened, and it really bit. And nobody has ever flattened the process.

Male voice: I don't give a damn.

And it'll come up session after session after session. You ask for ARC breaks. "When was the first time you had an ARC break?" And they go back to this unflattened process. It isn't the process was unflat. It was that the auditor was being ineffective.

It's all right? All right.

The auditor shifted off an effective process to an ineffective process, and the pc practically never forgives it.

Now, I suspected that this was going to be a dog's breakfast. Do you know why? Because I think that this was another one of the things where we had the modifier and didn't have the goal, or there was something wrong and I couldn't imagine, myself, easily or readily, what you could add to "Hidden source of action." "To be a hidden source of action." All right, a goal "To be a hidden source of action." How do we modify this? It seems self-modified, doesn't it?

Now, if you think of auditing as an activity concerned with deportment, well, you'd have something vaguely true. It's vaguely true. Yes, it has something to do with deportment. Ladies shouldn't put their heels on mantles while they're being auditors in the auditing chair. There's various things you shouldn't do. You should wash your teeth before you process a pc. At least, wash your teeth once in a while and so forth. And if you don't change your socks often, why, don't take off your shoes and put them in the pc's lap.

So, I've been kind of — I've been very interested in seeing what came out of this and so forth, and he got a list of modifiers here apparently about — oh, I don't know, maybe thirty, something like that. And all we're getting is restatements of goals.

There's various little courtesies of this character that one should follow. But you notice that they're all irrelevancies to the pc's case and your being effective. That's what makes them irrelevancies, and that's what makes them bad. It's not codes of deportment that makes them bad. It's whether or not they're relevant to the pc's case.

The goal is "To be a hidden source of action." All right. And all we're getting is "Not unknown," "Could be found," "Somebody could find it." Now, how do we add that in, Marianne? How do these make a goal-plus-modifier — "Not unknown"?

Now, you lay it down to the pc that you're going to audit the pc, he expects some auditing The pc can be absolutely screaming in a session, just practically screaming, and wind up at the end without hardly any ARC break at all, as long as the auditor was totally effective all the way through the thing. And as long as it just wasn't ARC breaks and irrelevancy that were causing the screams, you know.

Female voice: It seemed real to Smokey that these would be stopping or make it difficult to get that goal. These were liabilities.

Pc says, "Uuuuuh. These bullets are going by and — oh, wait a minute, wait a minute. You shouldn't be running this process at all. You shouldn't be running this process because you've got bullets going by! Bullets! They're real live bullets in this thing!"

Yeah, but how would we make a statement out of it?

And you say, "Good. Fine. All right. Let's have another basketful of them."

Female voice: Once it got known, it wouldn't be possible to have a goal in it. There'd be no game on it.

He can think of you as being the most cruel, heartless person he ever heard of and say so, but if you want an ARC break, turn kind at that moment. Become ineffective at that moment and you have a honey. That ARC break will be catastrophic and it'll be hard to find too because it's obvious that you did the right thing. You didn't. You became ineffective.

No. We want a full goal-plus-modifier. We've got a misapprehension here on what's required. That's what this is all about. I see some sign of it here, ". . . but to be apathetic," or "To be a hidden source of action would be degraded about not being known. "Well, now, that would make a complete statement — "To be a hidden source of action but to be degraded about not being known." All right. That would make a complete thing. I see here that we have a double check on that. It was still staying in. Did that stay in?

The way out is the way through. The pc was walking in the shadow of death and you, by golly, didn't keep shoving him along And you said, "Okay. There you are. We will all gather round, brethren, and will sing this hymn." It had nothing whatsoever to do with his case, you see. Buuuuuuh! So you're damned if you continue and you might try to figure your way out of it this way: "Let's see, I'm damned if I go on and so forth. And he'll just get worse and worse and so forth. Maybe I ought to stop because it's too painful." Well, of course, that's just totally ineffective. The only way out is the way through.

Female voice: Everything has gone . . . No, not just now. There are only about four at the bottom there that are in.

No, regardless of how rough it gets, you've got to ride it on through to the other end. There's where your judgment comes in. Run a process that is the proper process that is the right process and runs the pc through as smoothly as possible and you don't get to these points of judgment where you say, "Well, oooooooo, is it better to kill him or cure him at this point?" You really don't come across those things if you're auditing straight and your processes are all right and you're auditing goals terminals and Problems Intensive and doing what you should. It's easy.

These four at the bottom are still in.

Now, in your auditing, then, the one sin which I adjure is not auditing It all boils down to that. That's the only sin that you can pull.

Female voice: Yes, but these are relatively new ones added on at the last — at the end of the list — it tended to null the lot, just in the last quarter of an hour.

Now, if a pc is demanding that you audit the pc, you can say no unless you start, see. You can say, "No, no, I'm not going to audit you. I don't want to give you any more auditing I'm — very full schedule, and I can't do anything about it." Well, you'll get some ARC break. That's right. You'll get a mess, a bit. But if you start auditing him and stop, then that becomes absolutely fantastic because you've got the pc in-session and what you're doing now is irrelevant to his case. So you're sunk.

"To be a hidden source of action with an intention to be found?" That was a more recent one, huh?

No, deportment begins and ends on the one question of: is there auditing taking place. If auditing is taking place, gains are being made and so forth, then the deportment must, by definition, be perfect. Thank you.

Female voice: Yes.

All right. Well, you'll just have to carry on with this. You'll have to also make very, very sure that your pc does not feel that his goal is being invalidated, which it isn't. We don't think it's wrong, we only think it's incomplete. See? So, go along and get that. Pc's riding pretty high here on the tone arm which is not extraordinary for this particular pc. Seems to have done all right, though, and seems to be pulling with you very well. And that's very fine. Now, this pc has already run some of his goal.

Female voice: Yes.

And if I had any more trouble with this at all, I would simply go into it on the basis of running this command: "How would you be a hidden source of action?" Something on that order. And "How would another be a hidden source of action?" And I'd just run this back and forth a few times. See? I'd run this for maybe fifteen, twenty minutes, something like that, and then check out the modifier that came with it, or anything that came up as following it.

As a matter of sober fact, you have a very tough one here because I think it is highly probable that it is the goal and modifier all in one package statement, bong, see? You get the idea?

Female voice: Yes.

It just sounds like it. "To be a hidden source of action." It's almost impossible, you know. See? That forms itself enough problems to make a game from here till Halifax. Doesn't it Smoke? Huh? All right.

But don't go torturing the pc about it in some way. If he can't get a modification to it he can't. And if he can, he can. But these sound very, very promising. "Intend to reveal some source later," "intention to be found," "wanting to reveal source later."

Female voice: There were one or two straight in the middle, too, that sounded very promising, but then they went null.

Mm-hm. Well, all right. But he's getting the classification, clarification of it and I am sure that you will get it. Okay? I've told you ways and means of doing so. Okay.

Female voice: Thank you.

Okay. I've just taken up some sample cases, to show you what we look at, how we go through it. Maybe you've learned something, maybe you haven't. I haven't shown you the one-two-three of how to do it. And I should add the one-two-three.

First, let us find out if the pc was audited that day. Now, you think that is funny, but by George, if you don't check the time audited you may find that the session has been abbreviated or had to be cancelled out or something like that. You're immediately short-circuited, then, into some other interest. In other words, what is wrong here does not become any technical question, it becomes some personal relationship of some kind or another. Or present time problems of the pc or something of this sort. So you look over the amount of time the pc was audited that day.

Then, the next thing you look at is to look at the pc's goals that were set for the session and find out whether or not — if the auditor has noted it — that the pc felt he made any of his goals for the session. Pc felt he made his goals for the session, in whole or in part, well, that's fine. That's fine.

And then you check tone arm action. You look down the line for tone arm action. If you're not getting any tone arm action of any kind whatsoever, you know doggone well one of two things is true: The rudiments are out a mile — regardless of what's being done, whether it's Sec Check or assessment or anything else — the rudiments are out a mile or the pc is Clear. And that depends in large measure on what the tone arm is reading.

Then you look on the list. If a process is being run, you quickly check twenty minute periods, down the column for the tone arm reads to find out if at any time this process was flat for twenty minutes and the auditor has missed it.

That's to make sure that you're not getting an overrun on a level. It's very easy to do, you don't have to do it with very great care. Thing says, "3.0, 3.0, 3.0, 3.0, 3.0," or there's a whole bunch of 3.0, 3.0, 3.0, 3.0, 3.0s all together, you say, "Gee, what do you know, dzz-zz-zz. Is there a quarter of tone arm difference here on this 3.0, 3.0, 3.0 column?" And if there isn't, why, then you might find that you've got some trouble towards the end of the session. And this is easily explained to you. Now, anybody can understand how there's trouble at the end — toward the end of the session. All we've done is flatten the process and then we've overrun the process and then the needle was getting sticky, and the pc is getting very restive, and pc can't find any more answers, and it all seems very stupid and masses are being dragged in on the pc and he's being crushed inexorably under the wheels of Juggernaut, and a few minor things like this might account for the fact that there were some ARC breaks at the end of the session.

And they come out of this area: "Was the process flat for any given twenty minutes in the session?" If it was, why, you yelp.

Now, actually auditors going on noting tone arm reads, noting tone arm reads, noting tone arm reads, just going on down the line, down the line, down the line, down the line, sometimes, are so interested in auditing they don't realize that they've written down 3.10, 3.20, 3.10, 3.05, 3.10, 3.20, 3. — . It won't go reading like this long. I mean, it'll now start to do something else. It'll start to climb. You can say that if that goes on for a half an hour — you know, the vast difference of read between 3.1 and 3.15 and it went on for an hour — now you can expect the tone arm to go to 3.5, 3.75, 4.2, 4. — we're getting lots of tone arm motion here, you see? — 4.2, 4.25, 4.25, 4.25, 4.25, 4.25, 4.25, 4.25. They never mention what the needle characteristic is but of course it is rigid as a girder in the Eiffel Tower. Thuuuurh! Chance of reassessing gone! That is exactly what happens along these lines.

You check for that, and then you check the auditor's comments. The next thing you check is the auditor's comments. What's the auditor think about this and find out if the auditor wants any advice. It's whether or not you're going to give him advice gratuitously, whether he asks for it or not, or you found something that you should comment on, or whether or not he wants advice on the thing, or what progress he's making, and you put down whatever the adjudication you have of it.

Now, you can do an awful lot with an auditor's report. It depends to some degree upon the legibility of the report. Cryptography shouldn't be part of an auditor's report study line. I'm not good at cryptography. It is much easier for me to come around and read your mind than to bother with your writing sometimes. But I know that auditor's reports are written hurriedly and I would rather have an auditor's report which is the original report written at the time of the session, written during the session. And I don't like copied reports. I don't like a report to be copied after the session or written after the session. I actually like all the gimmicks and stuff written during the session. I don't care how many sheets of paper it took, how much scribble there is to it. Somehow or other it can be made out, because that is a better report than what you remember after the session. And when it comes to tone arm numbers — copying tone arm numbers — when you transcribe from a scribbled sheet of note paper over here to a column, you're liable to make some kind of a mistake.

I like to see the report, as it was written during the auditing session. If it's legible, fine. But certainly the report that was written during the session, not a copy of the report afterwards. You'll find out it's much more beneficial.

That is about all you look for.

Now, knowing Scientology as a background of all of this and the various things that you see that are taking place during that particular session, it doesn't take much of a crystal ball to find out that this or that or the other thing is taking place during the session. It isn't very hard to adjudicate that the rudiments are out. Why, I just gave you an example of what I mean. Karl set no goals at the beginning of the session. Well, he must have felt kind of mug, you know. I can sympathize with him because I felt that way myself occasionally at the beginning of a session. But usually I didn't think the auditor could audit. I didn't think he was going to do anything. Why set any goal? You know?

So that's an easy one to adjudicate. You get the idea? You just say, "Well, he's — didn't set a goal? Poom." A tone arm — tone arm no action — well, there's something flat.

Tone arm extraordinarily high and stays there and never fluctuates — well, we don't know. He might be running through a phase of the process; he might be in an awful ARC break; he might have withholds; he might have a lot of things. But now you get to a point of adjudication; we don't know what that high tone arm means. There's nothing wrong with having a high tone arm. Nothing wrong at all with having a high tone arm. But it can stem from several things. If a person's tone arm doesn't ever go high, they'd never make any progress.

Remember, that a case that is reading constantly at 3.0 with a sticky needle, forever at 3.0 with a sticky needle, will go through 7.0 before they come down to 3.0 again, and will spend the greater part of their auditing career after they get launched in the vicinity of 4.0 or 5.0.

You realize that? It's not a matter of trying to keep the pc's tone arm at 2.0 or 3.0. Because you take someone who's below death and work like mad to keep his tone arm between 2.0 or 3.0, you're going to be spooked all the time, because every time you make a gain he reads 6.5. You make a gain, he reads 1.2.

The other thing is, as you see tone arm reads drop below 2.0, you realize that sooner or later they're going to go all the way around. And as you're following the reports down the line and you see the tone arm has — registers 1.2, it's sort of — somebody has dropped a shoe and you're waiting for them to drop the other shoe. Because that is going to follow sooner or later. If it doesn't follow, the case is not progressing.

I gave Mary Sue one, one night. She was auditing me and she got me to recall something or other, and I recalled something or other, and turned the tone arm all the way from something on the order of 3.0 through 7.0, through 6.5 and down to 3.0 again on the other side. It went on a complete revolution. It just sat there — it went about that fast, see?

Staggered her. she was no good for the remainder of the session. I hardly . . . The end of the session she told me about this. See, she was stonied. Recall one thing and you get a revolution of the tone arm. All right. This was as fast as she had seen it. But you shouldn't operate on a huge — this is no criticism of what she was doing — but you shouldn't operate on a big withhold from your pc on what the meter is doing. If the pc wants to know what the meter is doing, you let the pc know what the meter is doing.

He asks you what the meter is doing, why, you say, "That's all right," and show him what the meter is doing.

He says, "Well, is that goal still in?" or "Is that modifier still in?" Well, tip the meter over and repeat the modifier and let him see it knock, just once. Don't let him sit there and make a life study of it. But don't deny him information through the session. You see? And sometimes you have to read between the lines because you haven't got all the steps of the auditing session, you don't quite know what's happening in the auditing session, but you sometimes have to look it over from the basis, well, maybe Code breaks and that sort of thing are occurring, or maybe the pc is just being denied lots of information, and so on.

And you only get curious about these things when a pc is doing poorly. Go by this rule: Don't go charging around on a case and throwing smoke into the air and so on . . . Well, I can do this once in a while; I think the case could be moved a little faster or something like that. But don't go throwing your weight around on a case that is moving.

If the case is moving it's moving. What means moving? Tone arm action, pcs making their goals, everything seems to be going along and they are making progress.

All right. It's a relatively uneventful picture. It merely means you're getting tone arm action, pcs apparently making their goals, auditor doesn't have any vast questions about it, apparently doing all right. Leave it alone. Leave it alone. Just say, "Fine. Okay. Good. Continue." That's it. you know? Leave it alone.

Tone arm — no action; pc sets ninety-five goals, makes none; we see that the end rudiments took three-quarters of the session, something, you know. Well, actually the thing to do is to get ahold of the auditor or pass him a word or write the report out in such a way that you want information. That's basically what you want. you shouldn't be telling him things to do without some information about it. you want some personal information. The best kind of information is personal information. You're directing a lot of auditors and you see a report like that and — what the hell, you know? Three-quarters of the session was devoted to the end rudiments. Three-quarters of the session devoted to the end rudiments.

Well, the thing to do is get ahold of the auditor and the pc. It's better to get ahold of the auditor and the pc than just the auditor. Always better, because you can always cross-check the pc. That is to say, you can always put the pc on the meter and you can find out how the pc is going, find out what the pc is reacting to, and so forth.

But this all comes under the heading of checking cases and keeping them running, and I've tried to give you an example here of this — of some of the things I do and look for and think about. I do this every night with your cases, and sometimes I actually miss your presence on deck and I have to sometimes make a wild guess about it. And there you're lying there in bed innocently asleep and so forth. And it's very hard to pick your brains. Very, very hard to do so. And the aura that comes off the auditor's report is usually a bit mucky.

So, the essence of the thing is that cases making smooth progress are the cases that you pay the least attention to. Except to make sure that they go on making smooth progress. What you pay attention to are the hang-ups. And if a case is running well leave it alone. Case is running well, don't change it. If an auditor is auditing a case very well, don't rouse him around. Don't rack him up one side and down the other. See? Lay off.

But if this thing is going by fits and starts, and falling on its face and that sort of thing, well, give them a note on the report but always try to follow it through with some personal information along any communication line which you have about that particular case.

In this particular case, why, most of you whose cases are going badly — auditing somebody whose case is going badly, that is to say — you generally will stop somebody on staff and you will generally tell them all about it. you didn't know that you put a communication line almost directly, straight, dead to Ron whenever you did this. Because that's, of course, what we pay attention to. Want to keep them rolling.

Well, cases can be an awful worry to you. They can be an awful worry. And you get this many cases running all together, it's a case of sometimes holding your breath just a little bit, you know. "Well, is that one coming back on the line or not, you know?" It's like keeping twenty-six plates spinning simultaneously on the end of sticks. Something like this. And they're all different and they all have their peculiarities of operation, but they all follow the same rules.

So I hope what I have given you here might have helped you out at some time. Okay?

All right.