Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. And this is still the 1st of March, second lecture, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, on the subject of Model Session, AD 12.

Well, I'm glad to see you're so rested tonight. I really am very happy to see that. But why are you so pale? I doubt it's the light.

I was talking to you about Havingness. And the uses of Havingness are intelligent uses, and that's why it belongs where it belongs in the Model Session. And Havingness is the easiest to run and the easiest to audit of any process. So, therefore, it belongs right there. So if your pc is out of session, you can start immediately into Havingness and get them into session.

All right. This is . . .

But if your pc is not in-session, you mustn't depend on the remaining rudiments to do a thing for you. If by this time you have not managed to get your pc into session, you've practically had it.

Audience: One March.

In the first place, you've got your first test, "Is it all right with you if I begin this session now?" A little two-way comm should have settled — "Well, at least let's begin the session, so that we'll just have this inside the session. Start of session" — that kind of a — of a response to a pc's recalcitrance.

One Mar. AD 12, the month of bad auditing

You can go on down the line and get the pc to set goals. And by getting the pc to set goals, you should be able to get a pc into session. Just like that, with goals. Bang! You can't get the pc into session with goals, you've got Havingness and you should be able to get the pc into session with Havingness.

All right. Saint Hill Special Briefing Course.

And if you can't get the pc into session with Havingness and so forth, the probabilities of your getting the pc into session with auditor section, "Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?" are quite remote. Because that confronts directly the reason they won't go into session. And it's almost too steep an incline.

I'm going to talk to you tonight about Model Session. The genus of Model Session came about because auditors were varying patter to a point where a session was hardly distinguishable as a session from one to the next, and because, frankly, as early as 1954, I began to notice that Scientologists were quarreling between themselves as to what was the right way to go about a session.

So if you depend on "auditor" to finally get the pc into session, you will occasionally lay a nice, great big ostrich egg. Do you see that? Although it apparently could be accepted by you as, "Well, then naturally, you'll go into session, you know? Well, well work this out. We'll knock out the ARC break." See?

I say this advisedly because actually, practically, fisticuffs and ARC breaks, and so forth, "You didn't run this session right," you see? And "Here you should say so-and-so."

If you haven't got it handled by that time, you're not going to get a chance to run anything that will knock out the ARC break because the pc will just claw at you.

We know now this was because he had missed a withhold. But it became evident very early that a Model Session was necessary. However, the session sort of evolved and over a long period of time, why, a great deal of patter and so forth was used very variable. And the genus of Model Session itself very precisely was a discovery that if all sessions were on the same pattern, then subsequent sessions tended to run out earlier sessions.

Now, O/W has a terrible liability. O/W was the oldest and at one time looked upon as the best method of getting the pc into session. And it has a hell of a liability. It can miss a withhold and throw the pc wildly out of session. Do you see that?

And the value of this is not to be gainsaid. You have an auditing session today and if you get the same wording in an auditing session tomorrow and the next day and the next day, just by duplication, you get a predictability on the part of the pc because duplication is taking place and auditing becomes a better communication thereby.

Now, you want to know why the pc occasionally — you probably have all felt this: "I wish to God that I could handle an ARC break with the pc," see? "If I could just handle an ARC break . . . "

Now, I do not pretend that Model Session in its present form is either perfect English or perfect form or anything else, but it is a usable form. It is acceptable and it's been agreed upon.

Now, some — you've run into pcs that you possibly had difficulty handling the ARC break with. you understand? And that's because you depended on this section of the rudiments or the processes under it to put the pc into session. And that's almost a misuse of the rudiment.

Recently the rudiments entered in much more heavily than previously, and the value of rudiments became extreme at the same moment that the first auditor had difficulty finding goals and terminals and going down lists.

The pc's got an ARC break, you don't use an ARC break process to throw him back in. See, don't use a process to throw a pc back in. Don't use an ARC break process to handle an ARC break if they're that incipient.

Editor's Note: the Model Session LRH described in this lecture was from HCOB 21 December 1961. This HCOB was later cancelled. The full data on the points of Model Session are given in the lecture. The current HCOBs on Model Session are in the Technical Bulletin Volumes.

Your — there's a difference here — the pc won't be audited and the pc being made more auditable. You see, these two states of the pc. Ah, he's talking to you, but he really isn't paying much attention to you. Your command value's not great.

And it was discovered that some people just couldn't have anything like a session unless the rudiments were in. As a result the need of rudiments became, well, just they were the difference between auditing and no auditing.

Well, if your command value is not great over the pc or there's a little thing went yickle-yackle, you know and the pc is still in-session but a little bit cooled off. They're just a little cool, you know and something or other on this and so forth. That's your ARC break. That's the old ARC break level auditor. That's the time you use that, see, anything you're auditing there.

Of course, rudiments are quite early, but in its — 1955 — but in its present form these rudiments are less than four, five months old. And its present form has even been refined even a little bit further beyond your Model Session script — one end rudiment has been changed. But this is all in the line of evolution, and this end rudiments are your newest and they came about because assessments were not occurring in numerous sessions because pcs were doing peculiar things with the auditing session and that's where you get the end rudiments.

You're improving, so that rudiment — the auditor, "Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?" is to improve the in-sessionness of the pc, not to create the in-sessionness of the pc if it's totally nonexistent.

So Model Session is actually tailored against clearing. It is not so much tailored against Prepchecking or something like that. Beginning and end rudiments in Prepchecking might occasionally even get in your road, but they will never get in your road in actual assessment. They are vital in assessment. They are not quite so vital in Sec Checking, old Sec Checking and present time Prepchecking. They're not quite as vital as that.

Now, it's quite remarkable the liabilities of healing the ARC break, they are numerous. And if your pc wouldn't talk to you to tell you if it was all right to start the session and if your pc wouldn't set any goals for the session and you think to yourself, "Well, we'll catch this pc." And the pc — you're not going to run any Havingness and you're going to catch all this under "auditor" — "Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?" You've already set up a hurdle that is almost unhurdlable.

Prepchecking, of course, takes up an awful lot of the things which are found in the rudiments. And as a result, there can become — come into being a confusion between Prepchecking and rudiments, and rudiments can actually throw the session.

See, by that time, you should have handled the situation. How should you have handled it?

The pc can use rudiments to throw the session on the auditor. All he has to do is have a rudiment out and his Prepchecking is parked for the day providing you use any form of O/W to resolve any of the rudiments. If you use any O/W of any kind whatsoever on any of the rudiments, regardless, you are instantly and at once in trouble on Prepchecking.

There are numerous ways of handling this situation. I've just been going over them and they all had to do with Havingness or a little bit earlier than that is setting some goals — getting the pc interested in getting someplace and so forth.

In other words, the preclear can throw the session over into a new channel of withholds while you are sitting there with 0A, 1, 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E, 1F, 0B, 1, 1A, 1B, 1C, and the pc comes in and all — your first chain had to do exclusively with candy and overts with candy or something of the sort. And your second chain that came off of this was overts against bathtubs. And your 0A, your 0B are very, very comfortably running on candy, and it went over to bathtubs in some peculiar fashion, and that connected up on glorious short circuits, and the result of this — the pc comes into session, and he has a present time problem on the subject of automobiles.

The ARC break, "Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?" is enough if the pc's in-sessioning is poor, you know. That's good enough if the pc isn't well in-session, and so forth, to put them better in-session, but not good enough to put them in-session. See, straight in-session. Requires a gradient, why? Because it is a process. And you have to have him in-session enough to run the process and if they're not in-session enough to run that process, oh, they'll point at the ceiling and they'll point at the floor. They won't point at you.

So you get a present time problem on the subject of automobiles, you use any withhold of any kind whatsoever to resolve this, and you are now over onto, whether you have put it down in that form or not, 0C- And you're not going to see, during that session, any of your 0A or any of your 0B. You won't see any of those 1 questions at all. you have been derailed. That has happened several times, and it is a frailty.

And if you've ever noticed, the last thing the pc is pointing at, if you're running Havingness to cure an ARC break, is the auditor. Have you ever noticed this?

That is why I tell you that rudiments can get in your road in a Model Session during Prepchecking, but only if you use any form of withholds to get your rudiments in.

Audience: Yeah.

Now, you possibly could use withholds to get the rudiments in on 3D Criss Cross or a clearing routine because you're not doing withholds in the body of the session, and so there is nothing to be thrown. So it requires two different looks at rudiments.

Well, add that up. So don't use that type of a rudiment approach to heal an ARC break except in extremis. So let us say there's nothing else. Or if it's not very light at all — I mean it's not heavy enough not to — it's just a little bit, the pc's cooled off, they're kind of looking at you with a walleye. You could ask them, you'd say, "Well, do you have an ARC break?"

But until you have gotten into trouble with this, you won't appreciate how agonizing the trouble can be, you see? You had a chain on candy, just to be ridiculous, and a chain on bathtubs, to be more ridiculous, and the pc came in with a chain that he was all ready to launch all on his own volition, and because he sits down and tells you he has a present time problem against — with automobiles, you now are tempted to say well, what automobile have you withheld from whom, you see? And whether you've stated it or not, you are right there on a third channel. You've got two live and you've got a third one going now. And you're not going to get off that third one in that session. Why aren't you? Because you already fouled up the session, see?

"No." And so on.

Your disobedience of the Auditor's Code — you're running a new process without flattening the old. So it's too many processes. You see?

"Well, what weren't you able to tell me?" Excellent question. "What didn't I do?"

So therefore, there's different ways that rudiments are used. Basically, rudiments are vital to a session. They get a pc in-session. They will hold him in-session. They will keep your needle from suddenly springing up on oddball othernesses. They will keep ARC breaks out of the way. They have a lot of value but at the same time, particularly in Prepchecking, they can also throw the pc out of session just as fast as they can throw the pc into session.

But now remember, you're in a Prepcheck area. If you use that, you're in a Prepcheck area. So that is feasible only in using it with 3D Criss Cross or some type of process like that. Not in a Prepcheck session.

Pc comes in. He's all ready to get off withhold A, B. C, D. He's figured it all out. He thought it up in his sleep during the night and he's all ready to sit there and say, "Well, I've just realized that I killed a girl."

So that is why you find your first level of action in Prepchecking is with this as the Zero Question. This is always your Zero Question, no matter how many Zero A or Zero B or Zero C you add after it. That is always your Zero Question for Prepchecking. Because it's an open invitation to Prepcheck, "Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?" It's a beautiful Zero. That forms the body of the session. So it must assume to some degree that the pc is in-session if you're going to use that as a departure point.

See, he's all set to say this, so you say, "Well, are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?"

Now, this'll improve your pc's in-sessioning. Improve it and improve it and improve it and improve it. And pretty soon, why, they don't have ARC breaks with you, if you handle this thing well.

And he says, "Well, I'm all mmmmmmm-mmmmmmm. Well, yeah. I can talk to you about the difficulties. Uh . . ."

But to use "auditor," just to sit there and argue with the pc as to whether or not you should — you have to be somebody to audit them or something like this, you're not going to get anyplace. Not if the pc's got an ARC break. Don't you see that?

And you say, "Well, how's your havingness?"

If the last thing the pc points at in, "Point out something" is the auditor, in healing an ARC break — so the last thing that you would run, if he had an ARC break, would be the auditor. Do you follow that? Hmm?

And he says, "What, ah, well, it's all right, but you see, this girl, I mean ah, that. . ."

Now, you can carry that out to too great an extreme. Auditing, remember, is what you can get away with. I'm giving you just a basic, general rule. All right, pc has an ARC break. The pc has a bit of an ARC break, still talking to you. Well, you can use the rudiments process to go along with that.

And you say, "Well, all right. Are you withholding anything?"

But, I don't think that process would ever heal an ARC break down to a point where the pc will not talk to you at all. you see how far south it goes? Not very far. And that is why you have had difficulties in handling ARC breaks. Okay?

"Well, that's what I'm trying to tell you. I'm not withholding anything, you see, because I — I want to tell you about this girl."

Remember, confronting is a companion to havingness. You did something so the pc — or the pc thought you did something, so the pc is left without an auditor. Now, what are you going to do? You going to say to the pc, "Now, that you can't confront me, confront me."

"Well, do you have a present time problem?" He says, "God, yes! Trying to tell you what the hell this withhold is, you idiot!"

Is that what you're going to do? Because any process that you run that immediately addresses the auditor is also going to run that process. Do you follow that easily? So the only way I know of to get a pc in-session and hold it in-session easily if the pc is totally out of session — you know, just won't at all — consists of the upper parts of the rudiments. Never this one.

So the rudiments formed an ARC break.

All right. How far out of session can a pc go and you can still handle "auditor" rudiment? Well, you can go this far out. The pc is saying, "Oh, you're the lousiest auditor in the world — I have never seen the like of you," and so forth and, "My God, the number of mistakes which you make are absolutely colossal and catastrophic."

In other words, the rudiments created an ARC break. See, rudiments can be used as a method of preventing the pc from communicating with the auditor. Do you see that? And an ARC break is only a prevention of communication by the pc from his viewpoint. Do you see then how rudiments can get in your road? Well, they definitely can get in your road, so therefore this is a matter of judgment.

He's still in-session. You miss that left and right, you see?

The pc comes in, he's giving you all the answers to the Prepcheck questions you were asking him yesterday. Well, for heaven's sake, start the session and get the answers! Don't form and establish an ARC break. In-sessionness is something that has to be humanly detected. The E-Meter will do everything else for you but tell you whether or not the pc is in-session or not.

The person is — why is he cussing you? He's cussing you for only one reason and he wants auditing. All ARC breaks stem from no auditing. The only reason the pc ever has an ARC break. No auditing.

It will tell you the pc is in-session if you check the rudiments and find them all clear. But the process of checking the rudiments can establish an ARC break that will make all the rudiments unclear providing the pc is thoroughly in-session, interested in his own case, eager to talk to the auditor, quivering to get on with this situation.

Let's take the ARC break of the fellow on the street. He must be in an awful ARC break if you say, "I'm interested in Scientology and Scientology makes you better. Wouldn't you like to know some more about it?"

Yes, your rudiments could all check out clear but you've established an ARC break. Why? You prevented the pc from talking to the auditor. Do you see this? The E-Meter will tell you everything then at a glance except one thing: whether or not the pc is in-session. Because you cannot use the E-Meter to find this out, for two reasons. The process of finding it out can throw the pc out of session wildly if the pc is eagerly in-session, and on the other side of it the E-Meter will not register that second point.

And he says, "I never pay any attention to — what are you talking about — grrrrr - grrrrrr - bowwww. "

There's two points that aren't in E-Meter Essentials. And point one is the data on instant read. you only pick up instant reads for items and out-rudiments and that sort of thing. Only pay attention to instant reads, you know. The read right now. Don't bother with latent reads. You see me in demonstrations using latent reads to help the pc.

What's that? That's an absence of auditing, isn't it? Scientology didn't exist early enough to put him in good shape, so that when you approach him with Scientology, he despises it. Perfect. No auditing. It's weird how fast you can put them in-session when they do that. They'll still talk to you.

When his mind passes the charge, I can call it to attention — I'm not hounding him trying to get him to say something, but I call it to his attention as it goes by the charge on a latent read. "Hey! What was that?" See?

But the fellow who just turns his back on you, he won't argue with you. You know, I've never had anybody argue with me about Scientology that wouldn't go at once into session? Do you know I've had psychologists and government lobbyists and oh, I don't know. I think I could even put a pig in-session. As long as they'll argue about it. See? They're in-session.

He's looking for something. That's only when the pc is sitting there thinking, "Wha — wha — wha — wha — what is it?" He's looking, you know, and he's looking, and he's got the garbage can turned over, and he's searching through the contents, you know, and so on. And the E-Meter goes flick, and you say, "What's that?"

The best thing for you to do is to adjust your definition of "in-session." You see, what is "in-session," don't you see? Well, he's willing to talk to the auditor and he's telling you he is not interested in his own case, he's in-session.

"Well — I — oh — that. Oh, well, I just . . ."

But oddly enough, won't even speak to the auditor and totally absorbed in own case: not in-session. See that? Or, not interested in own case, not talking to the Auditor: not in-session.

"That," you see.

But a pc who will sit there and say, "I've never seen such terrible auditing in my life. Grrrrrrr-grrrrrr-grrrrrr. Why do you keep making these blunders? Grrrrr." He's in-session. And the auditor that thinks at that point that he has an ARC break to handle is making a technical error. He has no ARC break to handle. There isn't any ARC break. There's just an absence of auditing.

And he goes over and he looks at it and tells you what it is, and "Oh, well, that is important isn't it?" You see? The E-Meter can find out before he does.

And it turns up very recently — which is why I'm giving you this pair of lectures on the subject — it turns up very recently that a missed withhold is an absence of auditing. You didn't audit it. you should have known about it. And you missed it. And all the pc's doing is accusing you of an absence of auditing. That's all. you weren't careful and you didn't pick it up and you should have known about it and he sits back and he festers.

You don't use that to hound him with, see? You haven't seen me hounding anybody with this. But you see me helping somebody out. That thought or that thing you just looked at is important is what I'm saying to him. Now, let's have another look at it. Otherwise, it's all instant read. And the other thing — and actually that isn't for detecting anything, you see. That's just helping the pc. The other thing is this ARC break. An ARC break can be so extreme that the E-Meter does not read at all.

And if you — if you think to yourself that it's because the pc is afraid you'll find out about it, you're actually making a bit of a mistake. Because if you notice, the most active tone arm responses is to the most fruitful question on the "Who" and if you play that "Who" up and down and watch that needle very close while you're running the Who section of the withhold system, you will see that that question which gets you the most frequent release of charge is, "Who should have known about it?" Not "Who didn't know about it?" "Who could have known about it and failed to find out?" And all of a sudden you'll get a resurgence of charge. And the thing tends to blow at that point.

The auditor has no command value of any kind over the preclear so therefore the E-Meter does not read an ARC break. So therefore, in-sessionness or the presence of an ARC break must be humanly detected. You've got to detect it. Or, let's say, Scientologically, detected by the auditor. Not humanly. That's probably a very bad phrase, and so on. I didn't mean to insult you, you're all — I didn't mean any of you were human.

Well, isn't that interesting? That's an absence of auditing then, isn't it. Hmm?

All right. There's the limits of the E-Meter. The E-Meter does have that limit. The auditor must have some command value over the pc before the E-Meter will register anything. And the greater the command value over the pc, the better the E-Meter registers.

Well, if you're knuckleheaded enough to miss a withhold on the pc and wait and let the pc find it out by blowing up, you, of course, are — should have somebody blowing up in your face because it's damn bad technology, that's all.

Now, this is not an extreme point. This is not a delicate point. This is yea and nay. This is black and white. How far out does a pc or a human being have to be that another human being cannot get him to register on an E-Meter? Oh, man, it's way out. It's in the cold dark of Uranus, you see? Because I can get a newspaper reporter who has come down to get a lousy story to register on an E-Meter, you understand?

When you're monkeying around with Prepchecking, when you're fooling around with rudiments, I don't care how many times you ask the question "Have I missed a withhold on you in this session?" See? I don't care how many times you ask that question in between . . . I don't think you should go so far as to ask it in a 3D Criss Cross session between null items. "Weasel, weasel, weasel, thank you, it's in. Have I missed a withhold on you?" I don't think you should run like that. "Cat, cat, cat, it's out. Have I missed a withhold on you?" I don't think that frequency is called for. But in Prepchecking, it's pretty confounded often.

You could probably get somebody who was all set to rob the house to register on an E-Meter. You understand? You must get the idea of what extreme condition it must be. What an extreme condition it must be to have no registry of any kind. And when you see the pc not registering on the E-Meter in any way, for God's sakes, assign it to a very extreme condition. It is very extreme. There's nothing light about this.

You're sailing down the line... Because it's the only guarantee when you leave a What question down to a further-lettered What question — you know, you leave a What question because it isn't clear yet because you got to get something earlier on the chain, well, it's only sense that after you've done this once or twice or three times that you possibly missed a withhold. Because you're jumping off uncleared What questions hoping to get a lower What question that will unravel the whole chain.

If the pc weren't so far south and so apathetic at that moment, if he had the energy to do so, he would probably cut your heart out with a very dull table knife with great glee. I mean it's way south, this condition where the E-Meter doesn't register. You see?

Well, sure, you've missed a withhold, but has the pc at any time gotten the idea that you've missed a withhold? Has he confused your going earlier to clear the thing, with missing a withhold? Has he confused these points? He knows it's not clear. He knows it's not clean yet. He can still feel it kind of biting. Well, is he still holding onto something? Well, so every, every — every What question would be about as frequently as you would ask it. Once every What question. That is to say, you got the What and you got four or five withholds off on the same What question and you maybe twenty or thirty times — well, actually, five or six times have run through the "When? All? Who?" routine on each withhold, you see, if you've gone even that thoroughly at it. That's being very, very thorough. Yeah, after one of these What questions, why, it just very well might have established the idea on the part of the pc that a withhold had been missed.

Some of you who have tiny reads on a list watching an E-Meter, some of you have very tiny reads of that character, very scratchy sort of tiny needle reads, needn't really think that its command value over the E-Meter that you're registering. Yes, the rudiments are not in very well before you get this sort of thing, but they're probably in as well as you can get them in. It is just the list itself is not much charged, and it is reading over the top of a very heavily stuck item, which is continuing to read, which is giving you this scratchy needle effect.

Of course, you're setting up the ARC break. You're going to go on about three more What questions and all of a sudden the pc's going to get nattery and the pc's going to do this and the pc's going to ARC break on you and so forth, because you've missed a withhold.

In other words, you can take somebody with a flow stuck wrong-end-to and get a scratchy read, see? But it'll still read for you. See? It's microscopic, but it's still reading for you. That isn't what I mean by command value, see?

The only reason you ever get an ARC break of that magnitude where the pc is climbing all over you . . . Let's say you had the pc in-session and then all of a sudden half an hour later you find the pc shouting at you and screaming at you. The pc was in-session and has ceased to be in-session — please hear me this time because I've only said this about 500 times, but please hear me this time — is because you have missed a withhold on him. It's the only reason that situation arises.

Frankly, if your command value over the pc were sufficiently great, you theoretically could overcome this sort of thing, but actually the pc is terribly introverted, paying attention to some very hostile terminal of some kind or another, you see, and the pc's attention is so much on the terminal he hasn't got any chance to pay any attention to you.

So the best remedy for that sort of a situation is "Have I missed a withhold on you?" And that is the best ARC break process there is because it's the only reason there is an ARC break. That is the only reason there is an ARC break occurring after an in-sessionness.

But you can still make the thing read. That's a different thing than an ARC break. That's a terrific introversion. You'll never ever see it anywhere else — or a terrific dispersion. And it's consequent to having a clearing process run. I mean it's ordinary. Don't consider this extraordinary. This isn't anything very weird.

Of course, the man on the street who screams at you even before you audit him, why, the world's been missing withholds on him left and right. You could do the same thing with him. After a fellow's ranted on about you, about he didn't want to know anything more about Scientology and it was just a fake and it was terrible and he wasn't going to — thought everybody in Scientology ought to be killed and he said something like this — well, you should just look at him very interestedly and you should say to him, "Well, what should Scientologists have found out about you and failed to? What — what should they have found out?"

Before you run a flows assessment on a pc, you could almost expect, well, some indifferent type of line. you just decide the pc is goofy, so you say, "Who or what would oppose goofiness?"

I don't care if you've got him on the meter or not. Man, I tell you, the least that'll happen is he'll shut up.

Well, you get that type of line, you're liable to get that type of read, you see? Just by the fate you occasionally find something that's out, and you start running a line on a pc and you're very sorry you ever had anything to do with it because you watch down the line and that needle is doing nothing but scratch and tick. It's a dirty needle, you can't read through it, and so forth. And you say, "Oh, God, why did I ever start this?" Do a flows assessment and it clears up.

Oddly enough, he probably very often would simply tell you.

But this is the needle registering against the bank more than the auditor registering on the pc because you'll find out that the auditor does have an effect on the pc even though you have a little scratchy needle. The needle is electronically, internally inhibited is what this scratchy needle situation is, see?

"Oh, well, if you put it that way, that's something else again."

He's got some kind of a mass of a terminal or something that's very much in the road of everything It's constantly knocking. It's doing all kinds of things. Tiny little reads. Well, that is not your ARC break type of read. Your ARC break type of read is just blank. It's just blank.

Of course, it's a bad thing, I suppose, to put men in-session on the street, but I'd put them in-session before I would sit there and let them scream and rail and rant and rave. The guy's already said he's in-session because he's ranting and raving. You see? So you lower your sights on the subject of what in-sessionness is and you stop flubbing just because somebody blows up in your face and start running an ARC break process or something of the sort late in the session.

You get the same thing, as I've just been telling you, of the pc was so introverted you couldn't get his attention. But where he overtly is not going to pay any attention whatsoever to the auditor, none, the auditor can have no command value on him of any kind whatsoever. And you can actually say, "Do you have an ARC break?" You get no read. "How's your havingness?" You get no read. "You withholding anything?" You get no read. "Do you have a present time problem?" You get no read. And all those rudiments are live as a cat. It has to be humanly detected. The pc won't talk to you, either.

Ah, nah, you aren't going to get anyplace with it. why not? Because it's all based on a missed withhold. But of course, if your pc won't have anything to do with you and won't audit and so forth; and is just totally ARC broke and won't talk to you or anything like that, and now you ask him what withhold has been missed on him, you're not going to get any further either, because the pc isn't talking to you. But you can get a pc into session with those earlier steps, but not at that point, "auditor."

Pc is sitting there with his eyes on the floor, the cans are over on that side, they've been thrown down sometime since. It's just "No!"

So at that point — from that point on, you are trying to improve the session. From "auditor" level on, including "auditor" level, is simply session improvement and nothing else.

And finally the pc musters up enough energy out of this well of despond that he has been placed in to answer the question, "Well, do you want me to audit you or don't you?"

Now, the question, "Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?" perfectly all right. It's the perfect Zero question, but it sometimes is not the perfect "auditor's" process because it doesn't indicate any process.

And he manages to say, "No, God damn it, no. Please go away. If I had enough energy to walk, I would, but I haven't."

So you say, "Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?" and you get an awful fall, well, it's the E-Meter that's telling you and you didn't possibly detect the pc was or wasn't in-session or something like that. I would advise you if you were prepchecking to totally avoid any withholds or missed withholds or anything of that sort. Just avoid that because the pc's going to throw the session on you.

You know that's the way that goes. Well, you aren't going to get an E-Meter registry at that time. The time to detect what's wrong with the pc is before the pc gets into this extreme condition.

You know, all of a sudden you'll be prepchecking something else and you — that you don't want to prepcheck. You've already got him on another line and so you run some of the old, moldy processes. "Who would I have to be to audit you?" Anything like that, see? The old, moldy process. Don't run any one of them that had anything about an O/W process in it. "What have you done to me?" and "What have you withheld from me?" and so on. You're liable to throw him out of session.

So just to make a — keep auditors from making a mistake at this point of the beginning rudiments, you give them that reservation. Your E-Meter may not have command value because somebody may be so stupid as to never perceive this condition on the part of the pc. So you make it humanly. So if you're going to find out anything about running the session, you look up and look at the pc. This is a very, very, very good thing.

There is — there's some wheezy ones. That's one of them. That's one of them. A much later one is ARC '61. It will run to a high stuck tone arm but is nevertheless a pretty darn good process, and so on. A lot of interesting results have occurred to it.

Now, the first test of this comes before Model Session opens and that is, "Is it all right with you if I begin this session now?"

Another thing that you could use at this particular level, "Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?" to get yourself in sideways is a very interesting process, but I don't advise you to use it on a member of the opposite sex when you're auditing them. Now, seriously, I don't. Because they get sexually restimulated, and that is, "Touch my knee, touch my other knee, touch my shoulder, touch my other shoulder, touch the top of my head, touch my chin." It violates to some extent the auditor using his body in the session, but it works. It works. ARC comes way up.

And if the pc doesn't answer you, or if the pc says "No!" profanity, exclamation point, the probability is that the E-Meter will not read on the pc for the remaining rudiments. You see how extreme this is, see? So that is your test way up at the top of start of session. That is your basic test.

And one of the reasons I advise you not to use it is not that it doesn't work on a crisscross like that, but sometimes, you frail creatures, you get into the middle of this thing, you know, and you skip it. you don't flatten the process. And it's a rather lengthy process and it is a process. It is a process. It apparently runs up — when it's done by a girl auditor on a man or a man auditor on a woman, it runs up the second dynamic channel. You got to clear it all the way.

You ask him, "Has the session started for you?" and, you know, and you've got another test. Makes another test. That's to find out whether or not the pc's going to read on the meter. That's why you're making these tests, as well as put him into session.

And you've set yourself up then not to run a hunt and punch process. You've set yourself up to run the next two hours on it, but if you consistently had difficulty with this pc staying in-session with you, it's well worth doing. If you remember to flatten it and not fall in any second dynamic nonsense. Girl's a third of the way through this confounded thing, you know, saying — realize that she loves you desperately. Or the man, he realizes he's loved you all of his life and that he's known you in 18 past lives, and so on. Man, flatten the thing. Flatten it. Flatten it. Don't leave it at that level.

And you say, "Well, has the session started for you? Has this session started for you?"

Now, it oddly enough is the cure for auditor falling in love with pc, pc falling in love with auditor. You run it on the auditor on some other auditor. It does a nice transference.

And the pc says, "Huh. What session?"

We have had problems with this. HGC — you get a pretty girl, a staff auditor in an HGC, she always has problems with this sort of thing. Get a male pc and my goodness, he's phoning his wife and getting a divorce and he's got the whole structure all planned up and going to town in all directions and so forth. And she has — the girl staff auditor hasn't even found out about it yet, you see. What's this, you know?

I don't think — I don't think you should go on monkeying with the E-Meter. Don't go on monkeying with the E-Meter. Pay attention to the pc. Ask the pc what's wrong Do anything you're going to do to patch this pc up and just skip the meter at that point because the probability is that the pc is not reading on it. So don't even take a chance that the pc is or is not reading on it. At that point use your skill to get the pc to talking to you.

Well, you can pick it up at that point and you can run it on up and out because it's basically simply reactive. Something has gone into restimulation and it's gone into restimulation because of the proximity, that's all. So let's close the proximity; only let's flatten it. That's all I say about that one. Let's flatten it. And it is flat when there's no longer any misemotion, love, anguish, unrequited swearing coming off with it.

Now, if you can get the pc to talking to you, you go on down the line here and you will find that the thing will read. So if the pc will talk to you easily, the E-Meter will read. And if the pc won't talk to you, the E-Meter won't read. you got that?

I give you that one with reservation. If you use it, why, for God's sakes, remember I give you the limitations of the thing is it has to be flattened, so it's hardly a rudiments process. But it could be used at that stage. And it is a specific. It's pretty much a cure of the pc falling in love desperately with the auditor.

You should recognize this because the pc can be given an ARC break with the E-Meter as well as the auditor. And don't give him an ARC break with the E-Meter and the door and the floor and everything else. At least try to minimize the effect on this.

You shouldn't feel too complimented on that particular line, by the way, because I never have had a psycho woman spinning someplace or another that wasn't also desperately in love with me. And it ceased to be complimentary to me. I finally figured out that this wasn't so much due to my charm, but leaving something unflat.

And how do you give him an ARC break with the E-Meter? Well, I'll give you a method of doing so. This is not recommended. You say, "Do you have an ARC break?"

The difficulties that you run into are — contain that as an occupational hazard. And it's a good one to run. It's a good one to run. you don't go into the private parts of the body or anything like that. you just use the knee, the ankle, the head, the shoulder, the hand. you know, just ordinary, routine, casually. Go on and on and on with the confounded thing. Misemotion and emotion and love and then dying, God knows what, and the 18 times they didn't know you on the past track, all these things blow off.

And the pc says, "Yes."

In the first place, I don't know what your body has to do with the auditor anyhow. But evidently this is all associated one way or another.

And you say, "Well, it hasn't registered on the meter."

All right. Now, we get down to this interesting question of the rudiments, "Are you withholding anything?" And if you're running a Prepcheck session, you have to modify this particular Model Session question.

At that moment, the pc will question the meter and the probability is will never thereafter believe in a meter. And that is the exact test, by the way, that is the exact test that established this point — the E-Meter doesn't register on an ARC broken pc. See. I discovered this by inspection of the factors and actually saw it work.

"Since the last time I audited you . . ." sometimes you have to say this two or three times, even give its date — "have you done anything that you are now withholding?" And if you get a fall, you ask it again, stressing its date very hard: "Five o'clock yesterday afternoon, 28 Feb. 62. Since that date, have you done anything that you are withholding from me?" And the pc's various withholds from you sort of fall out and scatter around and then they finally say, "Well, no, no, no, as a matter of fact." And the needle goes clear.

The auditor says, "Doesn't read on the meter," and that was the end of the meter for the pc. Now, you had to patch up the meter and the auditor, but how could you patch up the meter because you didn't have the auditor patched up, and oh, God help us. What a rat race. Do you see that? Do you follow that? You're all looking at me like you might not think it's true.

One of the best ways to clear the needle is to clear it from the end of the last session until now. you just clear it for that period. And you don't get into any hot water at all. Do you understand? That's cleared rather arduously. Sometimes you have to be awfully ironclad and thump about that particular rudiment because your pc is withholding something for their grandma and they've got you vaguely associated with grandma for reasons we couldn't have a clue of, you know.

All right. Now, let's take up Model Session here just step by step. I've given you some preliminary music on the operational function of this sort of thing we know now one of the reasons "Is it all right with you if I begin this session now?" is so that you could humanly detect an ARC break on the part of the pc.

And you're a male auditor, so they've got you associated with grandma, you know? And they're withholding from grandma in the Prepcheck and they don't see who you are. And they don't see where the auditor is and so on. you just have to start emphasizing the time and the date, you know, of the last session end and now and, me. Me, me, me. And they finally say, "Oh, ha-ha-haha. Withholding something from the Instructor. Wasn't withholding anything from you."

And the reason you start the session is so that the pc knows that he's on a specialized section of track; that what goes from here on is not social relationship; that he is now a pc and you are now the auditor; that you are taking command of the situation as of this moment. And is a service of warning of the starting of a specialized section of track known as the session. And that the relationship between auditor and pc will obtain from here on out. It is the beginning of a contract.

And then, so you won't miss a withhold, you say, "Well, what was that during the period?"

And now, you want to know if the pc has agreed to this. Don't ask him after you've started session if he has now agreed to start the session. Because you've already taken the command of the situation. As close as you can come to finding out if the pc is in agreement with this specialized-section-of track situation is to ask the pc, "Has this session started for you?"

And they say, "Well, ah, so-and-so and so-and-so."

All right. Pc says, "Yes." You go on. If the pc says "No," you once more say "Start of session," and you say, "Now, has this session started for you?" And if he says, "No," you assume that it has started anyway and you say, "Well, we'll cover it in the rudiments."

"Well, all right. That's fine." And then repeat the question in that lengthened form and make sure that it's clear and go on.

In other words, you just bull on through, well recognizing at this particular time the pc is in possibly an ARC break. Not possibly. A pc is. Excuse me. It's an ARC break with life or existence or something of the sort.

You only want the interim period from the last auditing.

Now, we get down to the beginning rudiments. Now, the beginning rudiments are designed for the order of logical progress of a session. But what do you have to take up before you can take up something You see?

Now, that would vary if you restarted a session after a break. You note the time of the break and so you add from the moment, you notice that the tone arm is up. "So have you done anything since 2:22 today that you are now withholding from me?" It is now 2:32. Quite interesting. Quite interesting.

Now, if you put a present time problem first, in the rudiments, you would be running a session without goals and very often having to run the present time problem, you would be running a session without having cleared the auditor or gotten any goals or remedied any havingness or anything else.

Don't pay too much attention to the tone arm going up on a break. We scouted it down here two or three months ago and actually did a little searchout on what this was all about and we found out that tone arms went up on very interesting things like pc who was just getting assessed on the terminal "woman," had actually talked civilly to a woman which, of course, was a total violation of his mores. A lot of that stuff. So it isn't too important.

So the most complicated action you can take up is a present time problem which is the last one. Now, the one just before that, "Are you withholding anything?" is a little less complicated than a present time problem but it is most likely to clear the present time problem which may follow it. And above that, "Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?" and if the pc realizes that he or she is, you are much less likely to have a withhold, and then again much less likely to have a present time problem. And then going higher than this, "Look around here and tell me if it's all right to audit in this room." If the pc's havingness is down and you remedy the pc's havingness, he's much less likely to have difficulty with the auditor, withhold anything or have a present time problem. Do you see this?

All right. That's your withhold question. Now, on a Prepcheck, you don't want that going anyplace but there because if you're going to ask this thing very broadly, of course, the pc now launches the session. He fires the cannon without you standing to and nobody at the flagpole and so on. And it doesn't turn out to be a shot to start the war, it turned out to be the sunset gun on the session. That's the end of that session. You might as well skip it and go home and go to bed because the pc is now going to give you a whole new chain that you haven't anything to do with and didn't want anything to do with and you have lost control of the session.

And then the least innocuous thing that you can possibly run that is calculated, if you are clever — and very few auditors ever use this as a point of cleverness, so I'm bringing up something that is rather new to you right now — if you cleverly enough run goals, you can put the pc sweepingly into session. You'll get him interested in his own case and willing to talk to the auditor. Because the most likely piece of conversation that a pc can be embarked upon is what he means to do or what he hopes will happen in life. And that is the most likely piece of conversation.

So, if there's any doubt in your mind, if the pc on former experience does not seem able to respond to what you're asking the pc, just omit it for Prepchecking, see? It's a little bit dangerous to do that. Just a little bit dangerous, but if you've gotten into trouble doing it, even with this positive way, I just wouldn't attempt it again. You got it? I mean on the next session, I just wouldn't attempt it on the same pc. say — as we go across it, why, we say, "Well, all right. This session is mostly concerned with withholds anyway. So we're going on to the next rudiment." Don't even mention the rudiment beyond that point, see? You've heard me pulling this gag.

Even if it is "I hope I will die soon," that's still a goal, you see? And a goal like that is better than a pc sitting there saying "hm" to any goal, is better than no goal. That's the easiest one to audit. That's very easy to audit unless you're going to get a goals list and find the goal on it and that sort of thing And that — people find that rather difficult.

Now, it's a good thing to do that with new pcs if you're just sogging right straight into Prepchecking. If the pc's brand-new, they haven't had any time to have any missed withholds. See, first few sessions and you've not missed any withholds on her. You've been checking during the session for missed withholds? Fruitless question to ask.

But the easiest thing to audit then is, "What goals would you like to set for this session?" Now, that's, of course, your first rudiment then. "What goals would you like to set for this session? Are there any goals you would like to set for life or livingness?" both under the heading of goals in two sections followed by environment: "Look around here and tell me if it is all right to audit in this room." Followed by Auditor: "Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?" Followed by withholds: "Are you withholding anything?" Followed by present time problem: "Do you have a present time problem?"

Now, you can ask this, you can ask this at a time you were doing 3D Criss Cross. And your use of the rudiment in 3D Criss Cross definitely calls for just this rudiment exactly as it is. "Are you withholding anything?" By that time, we assume the pc has had a lot of Prepchecking and is pretty well in-session, and so on, and won't make a bunch of mistakes about the whole thing, so it's now safe to ask the question. You see the logic that follows that?

Those are the beginning rudiments in proper order. But let's see how they are used.

So you can just ask the question. It goes bang! And you say, "What's that?"

All right. I said an auditor could be clever. You can always get a pc to talk about goals if your definition of goals is broad enough. And you can put a pc into session overtly with the subject of goals unless you have a specialized category of goals.

And, "Well, I was out with Joe last night and I didn't want to tell you about it — and . . ." Withhold. Run a — run a When, All, Who on it. you know, just a little withhold system on it and bzzzzt. Because it'll clear up fast if the pc is in that advanced state of case.

Now, I know of a case, not a pc, he's not been audited. I thought at one time I would ask somebody to audit this pc but the pc subsequently was electric shocked and given wet packs and, man, they got this pc from merely being apathetic to just being a frantic, sodden piece of catatonia, you see. So that's that. Let the psychiatrists have their meat. And we'll catch him next life. And if we catch the psychiatrist who did it, we'll know about that, too. We'll make sure that he has a withhold before we audit him.

Early on, during a Prepcheck period, a pc is not in any advanced state of case and they can't handle it and they can't tell one withhold from another withhold. It's all just sort of solid thooooo. So you ask her, "Are you withholding anything?" and they try to lay their whole case in your lap or try to keep from laying the whole case in your lap and you get a whole bunch of missed withholds and at that point, because you can't clear it up, you've set the session up for an ARC break.

Now, you can be very clever here. This pc, potential, at the time he was going to be audited, and even now, has got the same goal. And nobody will recognize it as a goal and it's stuck the pc with the goal because nobody okays this as a goal.

All you have to do is ask that question and miss it and you've set the session up for an ARC break, so it's too dangerous to come near on a Prepcheck session early on, see? It's a dangerous question.

A goal is simply a hopeful postulate of future. That is all a goal is. The pc hopefully, not very positively, he just — it's whether by luck or it's going to happen because a roulette wheel turns up, or he wins a football pool or any other confounded thing, this is something that he hopes might happen in the future. And that's all a goal is. And when you take that broad definition and look at goals, you will stop shutting the pc up on the subject of goals because they don't fit your idea of your goals.

And now we get to PTP and pcs don't like a PTP. They don't like to find them. They don't like to run them. They like to avoid them. And if you audit a pc with one, you've had it. you make no session progress. It'll jump back up in your face, so it's vital that you handle it whether in a Prepcheck session or a 3D session. That's a PTP. Present time problem.

You're there to make him well. The pc says — this same goal this person has been giving now for a year and a half is "I want to die." It's a perfectly valid goal. Recognize it as such.

The way to handle a present time problem is not with withholds. Now, you could handle it and I gave you some advice earlier that you could handle, but experience has not borne it out that it could be handled this way in a Prepcheck session. You can't ask for missed withholds or anything like that. "Oh, I had a terrible fight with my husband last night," and so forth.

And nobody has cheerily said to him, "Well, I'll see what I can do to help you out with that goal." And you know, a pc will come right on up and out of that goal and give you another goal rather rapidly.

Well, you — in a Prepcheck session, you just don't dare say, "Well, what should your husband have found out about and failed to?" Early on and in a Prepcheck session, you wouldn't dare ask it because the pc will now throw the whole session into that channel and you've now got new Zeros and you won't be able to clear it up. You'll find yourself on new chains and here you go. So you avoid, again, O/W. Just avoid using any version of O/W or O/Ws or any version of withholds, in clearing a present time problem for a Prepcheck session.

If you ever see a suicide hanging out the window about to plunge into the street and so forth, hand him an anvil so he'll fall faster or something. He isn't likely to go into the street — unless he thinks you're being sarcastic.

Later on the pc's rudiments have been put in well, the pc's had quite a bit of auditing and that sort of thing, yes, you can ask the question if you're running 3D Criss Cross.

So, here is a wild tool if you care to use it. And honest, when I see a consistent or blank — well, you know, a consistently reiterated statement as the only goal the pc has, or a blank no statement of any kind whatsoever, all I recognize about it is, is well, there's probably a little bit of an ARC break here. Yes, probably so if it cared to be detected.

"Oh, I had a terrible fight with my husband last night," and so forth.

But certainly the auditor is operating with a paucity of inventiveness. The auditor — it's just merely a stamp of the nonoperating auditor. That's all. He hasn't any pat process by which to get the pc to give him goals and he just doesn't bother, and so forth.

"Well," you say, "what withhold did your husband miss on you? What should he have found out about and didn't?"

But I wouldn't leave a pc in that situation. The pc that wouldn't give me a goal I think would park me right there in the rudiments. That rudiment, too. Not any further rudiment than that. I would explore possibilities of future. I'd explore them one way or the other.

"Oh, well, that's different. Ha-ha-ha-ha. Just so-and-so and so-and-so."

I'd find out such things as, well, what would the pc was sure was going to happen in the session. And you find out that you're probably sitting on a certainty that he's going to feel worse.

"Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Now, do you have a present time problem? Thank you very much. Well, have I missed a withhold on you? Thank you very much. Good."

You say, "Well, good. Is that a goal of yours?"

That would be exactly how you would handle that. That's a rather advanced case that is auditing very, very well, don't you see?

"No. Quite the contrary."

Early on, "Do you have a present time problem? Do you have a present time problem?" Clank!

"Well, what goal do you have?"

And you say, "Well, Ron said you didn't have to pay too much attention to rudiments, so I'll just let that be" and then the session doesn't get anyplace and the pc doesn't make any goals and gains and God almighty and it comes up in the middle of the session, you have to handle it while your attention's on something else and the pc's down the channel. Oh, God. You can get in an awful lot of trouble auditing a pc with a PTP.

"Well, to feel better."

But we had some old processes that were lovely. The best of them, which was most generally runnable, even though it wasn't necessarily the shortest one, is "What part of that problem have you been responsible for?" Get him to state the problem. "All right. What part of that problem have you been responsible for?"

"Thank you." And you write it down.

And you'll find out it'll fall out.

The well-oiled auditor can always get a chain of goals if he cares to apply a little bit of cleverness to the situation.

Now, as you're running it, you're not trying to flatten the whole process of responsibility. You're just taking the problem, so you ask occasionally for the present time problem again. "Do you have a present time problem?" And as soon as you get no reaction on the question, "Do you have a present time problem?" you come off of it. you just stop running the process. You say, "I'll give you two more commands and end this process if that's all right with you. What part of that problem could you be responsible for? What part of that problem could you be responsible for?"

Now, when you go upwards to twenty goals for a session, you're overdoing it. There's moderation in all things as the fellow said when he put down the empty five-gallon jug.

Now, you better define the problem in that auditing command, so it better be, "What part of that problem with Archibald have you been responsible for?" Something like that.

And if you get too many goals, of course, what are you doing? You're doing some kind of a Routine 3 activity. Well, that has nothing to do with rudiments. Two, three, four, something like this. This is within the realm of reason or even seven or eight. That's fine. That's fine. But for God's sakes, get the pc to make some even though you sort of trick him into making some.

Or you could be much more definite about this present time problem. "What part of that problem about Archibald wanting the car and you wanting the car at the same time have you been responsible for?" I don't care how specific you get, but it's just so finally, the only reason you're running it is "Do you have a present time problem?" must go null on the meter.

I don't know what aplomb one or would not use. It'd all depend on the situation. If the pc said goal for the session, "I want you to drop dead," you know? Well, I don't know whether one would really with aplomb write down "To have me drop dead." But if I really wanted to get the pc squared away and under control, I think I would write it down.

All right. Now, I'll give you the reverse of this. Somebody did this the other day. I almost shot him right here. The present time problem didn't register and the pc said it still was there and the auditor ran it. Running a present time problem that doesn't register. That's amongst the high crimes of auditing. Because it's just a rudiment.

Now, flying in the pc's face and saying, "Oh, no. you really don't want that, do you?" and so forth, is a refusal of goals and you'll throw him out of session. After all, he gave you a goal. Whether it's feasible or polite or socially acceptable or agrees with your basic goals at the moment, it is nevertheless a goal, see? So the least you'd do is acknowledge it. But you actually can use goals in far more ways than you have ever dreamed of. But don't audit the pc in the middle of a "no goals" because there's an incipient ARC break there.

A session is not designed to make the pc anything but auditable. It is not to make the pc happy with life. The rudiments are not designed to give an auditing gain of any kind. They're just to make the pc auditable.

I don't have to read the meter that the auditor was running on the pc in an auditor report. I look up there and I find no goals of any kind whatsoever. Then one of two things was true. Either the pc came into session at a high roar, totally in-session, spilling every withhold on the track, laying his case in the auditor's lap, and the auditor had barely got time to say, "Start of session" into one of the haaa, as the pc gasped for more breath, you see? The session evidently started a half an hour before or some time like that, you see? Well, there'd be no goals in the thing.

And you talk about a major Q and A, that's a major Q and A. Pc says, "Well, I've decided that we're going to clear up my grandfather in today's session and this auditor isn't going to have a word to say about it," so he says, "I have a present time problem with my grandfather."

Obviously the pc's goal is being expressed in the fact that he wants to lay his case in your lap, and so on. He's living his goal for the session, so you'd have that. But that would be accompanied over here by terrific successes in the session, see, if he really came into session, and so on. you could see all this stuff he got off and everything is squared around, and the auditor guided him over finally and got him onto the groove where he wanted him and kept him going on down that groove, a very expert method of handling it.

And the auditor says, "All right. It didn't fall," and audits it. Not only is he auditing a rudiment into the session and God help us how, but he's auditing a dead line. It doesn't react. God help us.

Or the pc is at the other opposite end of the spectrum, totally out of session and won't talk to the auditor, and at that time I'd like to see some work put in on the situation. See? And that's one of the best ways to get a pc into session is take it right at that rudiment. Of course, that rudiment's a sneaker.

He's auditing something on which the pc either has no reality or can't be audited or doesn't need to be audited or it's unassessed and he is probably auditing something that isn't even part of the 3D Goals Problem Mass. It may beef up the whole Prehav Scale. There are many wild things can occur on taking an uncharged PTP and auditing it. So you run it by the meter when a session has rudiments to make the pc auditable and it doesn't have rudiments to get any auditing done of any kind whatsoever. See, that's not the purpose of rudiments, to get a big gain on the pc.

Now, "Are there any goals you'd like to set for life or livingness?" sort of jumps up out of nowhere. But pC9, about their second or third session, begin to learn these rudiments, and this isn't for the first session that this has any bearing.

If you get a gain accidentally by running rudiments, oh, fine. Nobody's going to argue with gains. We're not going to hit the pc because he's had a gain on the rudiments. But we're sure not going to bother to expect one.

You want session goals. And this sort of disciplines the pc as he gets interested in it into having session goals. Possibly even it should be first, but it's a little bit too far out. It is one of these questionable rudiments. Is it vital? Is it necessary? But it's very useful and the pc seemed to like it, and you said it, but you never use it. you never check up on it. you never check up on it. This is as far as from the pc's viewpoint.

All right. Now, we take the body of the session and let's slide down and inspect end rudiments. The end rudiments begin with the truth rudiment. "Have you told me any half-truth, untruth or said something only to impress me or try to damage anyone in this session?" Awful mouthful, isn't it?

Now, I will tell you why it is there. It is to trap and locate present time problems of long duration. And the pc will set them right down like a little soldier if you spend a little time on this.

So when you say this, you don't say, "Have you told me any half-truth, untruth, said something only to impress me or try to damage anyone in this session?" That is not the way you say that rudiment.

And you want to know the pc's present time problems of long duration, just ask him, "Now, are there any goals you'd like to set for life or livingness?"

You say four rudiments with one suck-in of breath. And you halt at each fall and clean it. So you say, you — I'll give each one a split second to answer. So it's properly said, "Have you told any half-truth? Untruth? Or said something only to impress me? Or tried to damage anyone in this session?" I gave you enough space to see if there was a fall.

And he says, "Well, to get over present time problem number one, and to recover from present time problem number two, and to recover from present time problem number three."

All right. Let's supposing there was going to be a fall after "untruth."

And this is a very interesting cross-auditing report check — is you can find out whether or not the pc was operating consistently on a present time problem by finding out if this same present time problem continues to recur session after session. And after one of these things has recurred about three sessions, you begin to wonder when somebody is going to take up this present time problem.

"Have you told me any half-truth? Untruth? Well, what untruth have you told me in this session?" See? You didn't even bother to finish the sentence.

But they will. They'll state it beautifully. So it is a bit of a covert way to get some data on your pc. And he will, he'll give you his present time problems under that line.

"Well," the pc said, "well, I just — it wasn't very much — ah — very much. I said I inherited eight million dollars and ah — as a matter of fact, I owed twenty cents and ha-ha-ha-ha-ha," so forth.

Of course, it looks like it isn't important. There isn't anything much to this, and so forth. If these do not contain problems — and in the majority of the time they don't contain problems; it's just interesting and shows the pc that you're interested in him and so there is no motion wasted here particularly.

Say, "All right. Good."

All right. Now, that step handled well can get the pc in-session, see? Your next step almost any pc can run some version of and benefit from it, even if temporarily, and any auditor can audit. One of the easiest things to audit, apparently, there is, is Havingness, environment. And apparently, apparently, auditors will run Havingness, can run Havingness, on anybody. I've had auditors who would ordinarily have a terrible stage fright auditing me, be able to sit there and just run Havingness just beautifully, you know, and not have any difficulties running Havingness or anything like this.

Don't bother now to go back to the beginning of this thing because it was "untruth," see.

Then they have to run something else that takes a little bit of invested address to the pc and they just fall all over themselves, see, but they could run Havingness. So I just take it from a subjective reality on this fact and watching auditors audit, and that sort of thing, that they will and can run Havingness. This is an easy one. In other words, we've got our easiest process first.

So you say, "Have you told me any untruth in this session?" And it goes clank.

Now, the other side of the thing, the pc for some reason or other will usually run Havingness. No matter what else the pc can run or refuses to run, the pc will run Havingness, so you of course got your easiest process first, right?

And you say, "What was that?" And you finally get this thing all sorted out. There is no process goes with it. Except, "What was that lie you told, you dog?" And you get all that off.

So the auditor's comfortable and the pc will run it and you could go on from there, and you get a little bit of a win.

Now, you cleared up "untruth," didn't you, see? So you finally got a null on "Have you told me any untruth in this session?" see? That's null now. So you say, "Have you said something only to impress me? Or tried to damage anyone in this session? Thank you."

Now, of course, there are Havingness and Havingness and Havingness Processes, and trying to find one of these Havingness Processes is a bit of a gymnastic activity, but everybody seems to be able to do that very easily.

And go on to your next one. you got it? That's the way you test that one out. See, if it's null, it's null. That's it. Don't go back and invite disaster again. See? A rudiment is just to make the pc feel better and get him out of the session zone area and straighten it up, get the little additional charge off what he was telling you. That sort of thing. And verify you. And actually, these rudiments are just basically that, these end rudiments. To make the pc feel okay by session end. They're to clean up additional and residual charge left by reason of the session. And they're to put the pc in a frame of mind to end the session. Those are the basic reasons you have those rudiments.

You just take the 36 Havingness Processes and test them with can squeezes. Keep the pc squeezing the cans every now and then even though he has to lay them down and pick them up. Why, make him pick them up and squeeze the cans again. You saw me doing that the other day in a demonstration.

Now, let's take a subordinate reason to correct the most common auditor errors made in sessioning. And although that's secondary, these things are there to hold these auditor musts in front of auditors' faces. Because these are a list of the most common auditor misses. The things which auditors most commonly miss on pos.

And keep testing your Havingness from time to time. Make sure it keeps working.

And let me tell you, you can turn out bulletins and you can give lectures and you can scream and you can hand out infraction sheets and you can talk to Herbie until he gets mad at you, and these things will still go out if they aren't right in the frame of a Model Session.

In other words, find your Havingness by the can squeeze test. If you've got the pc's Havingness, if that's his Havingness Process, you get more of a needle throw. And if that isn't his Havingness Process, you get less of a needle throw on the same sensitivity setting You just get that sensitivity good and low there and test.

These things will happen and they cause — most randomity caused in sessions is caused by these various items. This is all secondary, you see, once we've given these first reasons. They keep these things corrected. And they keep them held to view because, you know, pcs can make absolutely no gain at all and their case can be all loused up if any one of these end rudiments, except goals and gains, is out consistently.

And while you're testing and it's starting to tighten up the needle or it doesn't loosen it, get out of there, get out of there, man, get out of there quick. Give him five commands, didn't loosen the needle, you say, "Well, that's it, son."

Now, "Have you told me any half-truth?" My golly, if you're auditing a child someday, you will actually spend three minutes in the auditing session, including beginning rudiments and the next half hour cleaning up the half-truths. Just little prevarications that aren't really prevarications. They didn't tell you all or they're trying to safeguard or help somebody. They're wild, you know.

I don't care what form of auditing you're going to use at that point, that's exit fast and get on the next process. Because a Havingness Process is something you should find with a minimum of mistakes.

And if you let that pile up, the child, all of a sudden, would get an auditing time track that was just total black muck. And they just wouldn't want to be audited anymore. Same way with any pc, of course, but you'll find this most flagrant with a child. Their level of responsibility is poor on the exactness of the world and that sort of thing.

Therefore, Havingness test processes are published in the 36 Havingness Processes in a frequency table. In other words, the most likely Havingness Process that will fit the case appears earliest on the list. And that's only done out of class averages. This is an empirical finding. Whether or not it's theoretically true or not or whether or not some of our more recent Havingness Processes which aren't even on that list would go higher on the scale or not, I don't know.

And they very often give you quite delusory activities just to entertain you and so forth. Their motives are not very bad.

But you get that Havingness Process, and you get that early in auditing and you're probably going to get a change of process before you go too far with this case. So you're going to have to find the Havingness Process much more frequently if you find it early in auditing the pc. And it's a question of whether or not more time is saved by not finding it early and finding it later or something like this.

"Oh, yes, I was walking down the hall and this old lady jumped out and frightened me, you see."

The safe thing to do in all such cases, is of course, find it early, even though it's going to change and then watch it like a hawk. See, early on in the case is the most complex and idiotic Havingness Processes will be found earliest on.

Well, you could spot that at once. But you don't spot "Well, ah, actually I slapped my little brother." See?

So you've got a pc that's liable to ARC break — well at any time when he is workable at all or even vaguely workable, find the Havingness Process, and you will have it here. But on a pc who apparently is auditing very well, it isn't so important. Got it? Early on it's not so important. That's a fact. It just isn't.

You can say, "Well, that's all right. He shouldn't be doing that, so that's a laudable withhold," and so forth.

It's not whether I say it isn't or is, but you could audit 60 percent of the people you audit without ever running a breath of Havingness. You realize that? Providing you are a very skilled auditor.

You get down to "half-truth, untruth," you know, "Well, I didn't — I didn't really slap my little brother, as a matter of fact, I haven't seen him all day." It'll be as illogical as that.

Now, I would not be giving an HPA class the same advice. Because the havingness of the pc during the session is directly proportional to the smoothness of the auditor and inversely proportional to the roughness of the auditor. Direct, these are direct ratios. The rougher the auditor, the more the pc's havingness has to be remedied. The rougher the auditing, the more boobs the auditor makes, the more the pc's havingness has to be remedied.

And this goes on with adults and children equally well. But if you let them pile this stuff up, it can get quite serious.

If you have to remedy the havingness of your pc every three minutes during auditing, I would take a look at my auditing. It's probably rough. This is interesting to you, isn't it, and so on.

Now, "Said something only to impress me" is not really very important, but sometimes it operates as a missed withhold and the pc gets a little bit mad at you, or feels rough about you because he said something only to impress you, not because it was true, don't you see?

You can do a can squeeze test, find that the can squeeze has lessened — in other words the pc's havingness has dropped. This is negative testing The pc at the beginning of the session was dropping a third of a dial very nicely on the can squeeze test without your touching the sensitivity knob whatsoever. Ten minutes later, just out of nowhere in the middle of doing something else, ask him to squeeze the cans. If it has dropped a half or is only dropping now a sixth of a dial, you could ask him at once, "Have I done something wrong?" And if you keep the pc pushed to this and get him to look at the earlier part of the session, he will find something you have done wrong.

And if you miss the thing, he sort of operates to some slight extent as though he had a missed withhold. You see? It's a cousin and it can bring about a downscale attitude by next session.

And the second he has found what this is and you've cleared it up — you see, it wasn't even evident in the session — you ask him to do a can squeeze test again, and you'll get a third-of-a-dial drop. Do you see that?

And now we take, "to damage anyone in this session." And now let's catch the whole basket-load of pcs who use auditing to spread entheta and to downgrade and to — so forth and in short, dramatize. And it — it's getting — it's less these days around here. It's occasional. But brother it really roars in HGCs and far areas of the world. Oh, wow! And every time they do it, it's an overt. So their auditing sessions take on the complexion of a long concatenation of overts. They will give you all kinds of other people's withholds and data and weird, oddball things that don't give them any case improvement. They're just overts, that's all. Trying to damage someone. And if you let them get away with that continuously, they've stacked up their auditing track and the next thing you know, they become unauditable. Less for the pc than for the auditor.

It is ARC breaks which reduce havingness. Now, whether or not they're introduced by the auditor or the environment or restimulated or — doesn't matter where they came from, your havingness drops in direct proportion to the number of fancied or actual ARC breaks the pc has during a session.

The auditor very often develops a fantastic idea of the pc. The pc sits there and lies about himself. Tries to damage himself. But do you know that's the last person the pc knows about?

So the smoother the session, well, the less havingness you have to remedy. The smoother the auditor, the less havingness you have to remedy. The rougher the auditing, the more havingness you have to run. So if it's geewhiz, God almighty, rough auditing, we start in and say, "Let's see, now, I think it says here — let me see. Just a minute. Let me find this piece of paper here. I think I've got a Model Session. Let's see. Start of, ah, the light is very bad. Move aside a little bit so I can see that. Ah, let's see, it says ah, 'Start of session.' Yes, 'Start of session,' it says right there. Ah, is it all right, is it all right with you if I begin this session — now?"

And listen to this one now. you quite routinely, if you don't clear it at once and it's still falling, you routinely have to point this fact out to the pc. It's not evaluation. Just say, "Well, did you try to damage yourself?"

If you were doing it this way, I think the can squeeze test just before the session started and just after the session, you see, would reduce in magnitude. You got the idea?

"Oh ho-ho-ho-ho, well, ha-ha-ha-ha. Yes."

Auditor confidence may be very great, but if auditor blunder exceeds pc's expectancy of auditor confidence, you get a drop of havingness. You could probably draw up a lot of formulas about this.

"In what way?"

But here is your criteria of Havingness is that it is the easiest process to run, it is the most likely to be run by the pc in any ARC break situation. He may not run "What weren't you able to tell me?" and "What haven't I done?" He may not be able to run that process. He may not be able to run any ARC break process. He may not be able to run anything except Havingness. And he will, however, point at the floor and the door and the ceiling and so forth, and he'll go on.

"Well, so-and-so and the actual truth of it was such-and-such, you see?"

And the commonest mistake that an auditor makes is not flattening it. When this is being used for an ARC break, for God's sakes, heavens on earth, realize that if you're using Havingness to heal an ARC break, and if it is the only thing that the pc will run, you probably had better run it for the next half-hour or hour. The various uses of Havingness dictate this as a fact.

All right. Any time this whole thing is violated you get an alter-is, not an as-is. So that's why you get the session mucked up. And this is the prevention of alter-is, is what you could really call that particular clause. Okay?

The commonest auditor error in utilizing Havingness particularly on an ARC broke or breaky pc is not to run enough of it. And therefore, that being the commonest auditor error, auditors do not get a high level of reality on Havingness healing ARC breaks. They quit. They knock off. They say, "Well, now we've got the pc running Havingness, let's get on to something now and clear up the ARC break."

Now, the next one, I don't know, I had the percentage once. What was it? Oh, somewhere between 10 and 20 percent. I've forgotten, but I had the exact percentage once. It's an impressive percentage of people will throw or sell items or sell charge or try not to sell charge and they get fixated on the E-Meter and they get in a games condition with the auditor on the subject of the E-Meter. I've known a pc, actually, the second you started to give them any withhold question or anything like that, skilledly, with great practice, be able to raise the fingers one after the other so as to get a needle rise just as that question is about to be asked. Interesting.

Well, look, the ARC break is clearing up through the duplication and mechanics of the auditing session. They're clearing up the ARC break and they would be guilty of a breach of the Auditor's Code — they would cease to run a process which is working and which is producing change before that process was flat. That's something to think about, isn't it?

And an eight-year-old child has actually thrown or sold an item because she liked it and thrown a whole assessment just absolutely haywire and could have just been knocked in the head if that item had ever run. Fortunately the item was never run.

And listen, you can give a pc one God-awful jolt this way. The only liability of running Havingness is not running it. You've got this pc and he was down, just down on the lower rungs of nowhere. You dropped the bottom out from underneath him, inadvertently or accidentally. He had a hell of an ARC break and you couldn't get him back into session; this is a desperate situation. And you finally do manage to get him to point at the room object — his current Havingness Process, you know?

But it wound up, because she'd done it and this thing has not been cleaned up. Actually, the whole thing went out and everything went null, you see? And this could have all been mysterious if we didn't have this question. But influence of the E-Meter, influence of the E-Meter is a very, very important part of this thing because the E-Meter hasn't anything to do with a pc. It's an auditor's tool. It isn't anything the pc should be interested in.

So he points at the ceiling, and he points at the floor. He's all ARC broken, but he can do this. And he will do it, oddly enough. And he can point at the window and the chair and the auditor and the ceiling and the floor and the chair and the window, and he can point at the floor, and then you say, well, he's operating fine now. So you say, "Well, all right. If it's all right with you, I'll give you two more commands and end this process."

If the pc is interested in the E-Meter, we automatically assume one of two things. That the pc is afraid of revealing something or the pc has in the past had some type of incident where the meter was proven wrong according to the pc's viewpoint.

Now, man, you've handed him an ARC break on the process which is handling ARC breaks because he had just gotten to the point where he could have the end of his nose.

And the pc has no confidence in the E-Meter and therefore has lowered the command value of the auditor because the pc knows the E-Meter's a fake and so the command value of the auditor's poor, but that's because somebody's devaluated the E-Meter. And the most flagrant way the E-Meter is devaluated I already gave you earlier. I gave you that. It's just, auditor says, "Well, there's no fall here on an ARC break and you say you have one." That is the most fruitful source of evaluation of the E-Meter.

He was starting to come out of the ARC break. And now you've given him a new one on a Havingness Process.

But the E-Meter has become invalidated in some fashion. Now, if that thing continues to knock, you had better take that up in the body of the session and clean the whole subject of meters, metering and E-Meters on a Prepcheck basis because there's something been missed on this pc and there's something wrong with this pc and there's something wrong on it.

So let me tell you something just as a general rule in the use of Havingness Processes. For God's sakes, don't cause an ARC break with a Havingness Process! I don't care what you cause ARC breaks with, do it with anything else. Do it with lists or do it with running present time problems or evaluate for the pc on how he ought to — not to beat his wife. Suddenly look up in the middle of his running a PT problem and say, "Well, I should — don't blame your wife at all for treating you that way," you know.

Now, actually it'll fall, tick or a fall or react in some way. Well, "Did you try to influence the E-Meter?"

I'm not kidding you. This has happened, you know. I mean this is not a — not even necessarily a rare occurrence. All of a sudden some kid auditor without very much experience behind him will all of a sudden get totally overwhelmed by all of this horrible social conduct on the part of his pc, you see? And he all of a sudden goes into the stern, puritanical lines of life in which he's been educated. And he steps out of the role of auditor into one of his minister valences or something like that, and says, "We must bring order here for the church," or something of the sort and makes some kind of an offball comment.

"Well, I really didn't want it to read when you said . . ." certain 3D Criss Cross item and so on. And it blows. Just standard lines. See? Those things, they clean up as you go through the rudiments.

But even that isn't anywhere near as bad as ARC breaking a pc during a Havingness run. That is cruel. Because when you end the Havingness Process, before you even announce that you are going to run two more commands, before anything else going to do, and so that this announcement then doesn't serve as a pattern that when you ask this, you are then going to end the process, you got that as a training pattern?

But if this thing is always out, session after session, you roll up your sleeves and you take it and make a whole session devoted to nothing but it, prepchecking that one as a Zero Question. And then just clean this up and find out when this E-Meter was invalidated and when it was wrong and what they have done to the meter and all that sort of thing.

You know, you can ask, "How are you doing" and if the pc says they're doing all right or says mm-hmm or something, the fact that you have said "How are you doing?" is now a trained pattern. Because you're going to say, "How are you doing?" then you're going to run another command. Then you're going to say "I'm going to give you two more commands and end this process," and so you've signaled the end of the process by an inquiry to the pc.

And you'll find out there's plenty on it and once it's cleaned up, why, bang, all of a sudden, they'll operate just fine on an E-Meter. And the question will go clean.

Well, look, unfortunately, whether you want to know it or not, you had better salt down all of your Havingness Process with questions about how the pc is doing every now and then rather than to have this thing become established as a signal. You get the trick?

All right. "Have you failed to answer any question or command I've given you in this session?" This is one of the earliest admonitions of auditing. There's one auditing command or question for one response. And it is the one which is the oldest and is the one which is most frequently forgotten. And pcs have not answered auditing commands and so forth and it's a great case foul-up, and for lack of attention on this one point, I had a pc who had been given, actually had had in hundreds of hours of auditing, had thousands of auditing commands on the subject of havingness and had never yet answered one question on Havingness. Therefore, no Havingness Process ever worked. Interesting.

So don't let that inquiry as to how he's doing become an established signal that you're going to end the process or you're going to hang the pc — this is particularly applicable to Havingness Process — you're going to hang the pc with a new phrase that operates just like a Model Session phrase to him.

You could run Havingness Processes by the hour and test them all and of course they never would have worked because the pc had actually had alter-ised every Havingness command, had tried to tell auditors, "But Havingness doesn't work on me," and that sort of thing. And nobody had listened. It'd become just a perpetual withhold so the pc just sat there and alter-ised every Havingness command and did something else. Whenever any Havingness command was given, the pc did something else. Interesting, huh? So that's why that one is there. That's a safeguard. That's to hold in the oldest admonition concerning auditing — that the pc must answer the auditing command. And when it doesn't, you'll get a fall. When the pc hasn't, you'll get a fall, so you clean that up.

You're going to say "How are you doing?" and he's liable to blast right straight in your face, "Well, damn you, I was doing all right, but now you're going to end the process." See?

Now, "Have you withheld anything from me?" is all right for 3D Criss Cross but is not all right for a Prepcheck end rudiment. So a Prepcheck end rudiment you would say, "Have I missed a withhold on you in this session?" And you'd finally clean that up.

You said "How are you doing" and he knows that this is an end of process, see? He knows that's the signal because you've always — you said, "How are you?" he says, "Fine," you say, "Good," and sometimes this crudely, "I'll give you two more commands and end this process," see? Inevitable pattern.

Your "auditor" question, "Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?" actually it isn't read this way, but it possibly is understood this way, "Are you still willing to talk to me about your difficulties?" And that is a second check on this withhold question.

Well, you just start that pattern, and you ARC break the pc. you can't then find out how the pc is doing unless you have frequently inquired how the pc is doing and gone on running the process.

By the way, I could give you a variation on that withhold question that is a very clever one that somebody had originated out in Seattle. "Is there any withhold that you would hate to have me write down in full on this auditor's report?" or any such question. "Is there any withhold you would feel uncomfortable about having me mention to anyone?" That is a good parallel view, a second test of the thing because the one they mentioned was not cleaned up and you've missed a withhold on it. There's always more on that withhold. Follow that? That's a trick. That's a trick end rudiment Prepcheck question. And you can use that and you'll find out there's more to clean up. you just go ahead and clean it up then.

So part of every Havingness Process that is being run for any purpose whatsoever should be to inquire after what the pc is doing and how he is doing it. How is he doing? "What are you doing" "Did you do the command?" Anything you want to ask the pc. And that should be part and parcel of Havingness Process.

All right. "Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?" is just an effort to make sure that we don't have an ARC break involved in it and as far as "Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?" and the pc said "Well, not so much," and so forth.

Run a few commands and you say, "Well, how is it going?"

Just say, "Well, what did you find yourself unable to tell me?" or "What didn't I receive?" or something of this sort.

You know he says, "All right."

You ordinarily clear it up just that easily. Just a two-way comm situation. If this is wildly out at end of session in Prepchecking, remember, you are probably still cleaning up "Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?" in the beginning. So you would tell the pc it is not flat and you will now leave it, however, because we are working on it in the session.

And you say, "Well, did you have the wall," and so forth.

Now, in 3D Criss Cross, you clean it up. Regardless of what you have to use, clean it up. Because you find the pc coming into session next time, it's not going to null well or something of the sort, so clean it up right then. Usually cleans up very easily. Follow that?

And "Yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah. I'm doing pretty good on the thing."

All right. Now, goals and gains. Now, well, "Look around here and tell me if you can have anything." Naturally, you have a Havingness Process ending the session as the last process out, the easiest one. If you haven't gotten something else, you've certainly got the Havingness Process.

You see, that's making the pc talk to you a little more and actually wipes out some of the possible little, tiny unseen ARC breaks. You're not even using it to handle an ARC break, you see? But just by making the pc talk to you a little bit during Havingness Process, of course, uses this as a benefit to get the pc more into session. Those are the skillful ways of Havingness.

One of the ways to do this, the safest way to run that particular end rudiment is have the pc give a — turn your sensitivity down and have the pc give a can squeeze. And then run five commands of the pc's Havingness Process and ask the pc to give another can squeeze. And between those two, if you see a broadening of the situation, probably the pc needs some more Havingness. Because remember, in the body of the session, you might totally have changed the characteristics of the E-Meter on the pc. Well you can't count on the fact that this. . . But if five commands loosen the needle, you're pretty well off to give him twenty more. Okay? Because his havingness must have been either down or improvable.

So it's the easiest thing to run, and run with an understanding of what you're doing is the most successful of the ARC break processes.

All right. And that lets him out and takes him off with anything you've missed in the rudiments — will usually come off in that little smidgen of Havingness.

Havingness Process well administered by the auditor and actually run by the pc, if it's the right Havingness Process, will get your pc over some mighty tough ARC breaks and rough spots of the trail that you otherwise would find it very difficult to get over, and I personally believe that some of them you wouldn't get over at all. You'd just have to let it drop that day and skip it.

And then your "goals and gains," and your "goals and gains" are basically for the auditor because an auditor wants to know if he has made any progress in the session. But secondarily, they are for the pc to point out to the pc that he did or didn't get someplace in the session.

A very intelligent use of Havingness, an extremely intelligent use of Havingness would be, when the pc starts to look kind of walleyed and so on and he's talking to you a lot less and doesn't seem to be interested in what you're doing, and so forth, and any shadow of any of these things, just run Havingness.

Now, "goals" we have always had, but we add "gains." See, we've always said "Have you made any part of your goals for the session?" but "Have you made any other gains in this session that you would care to mention?" has been added in exclusively for the auditor because pcs very often want to tell the auditor they have made some other gains.

And then inquire often enough and find that the pc brightens up and then follow it through because Havingness is marvelous stuff.

They might not have made all the specific goals such as "to have three children" or something like that as their session goal, they haven't made that one. But they have made some gains. They don't feel quite so pregnant or something of the sort. Something weird or impossible is liable to come up like that where they have not actually set very real session goals. You never argue with these session goals, of course.

The proper use of Havingness is to patch up what you're doing. That's a very intelligent use of Havingness. But not to use Havingness to interrupt the pc's in-sessionness. That's also an intelligent use of Havingness.

But they have made gains for the session and it gives them an opportunity to tell the auditor. In other words, that is the auditor's pay period. That's where the pay line starts. Starts right at the beginning of that rudiment. And you'll find out that since we've had that, an auditor feels better paid. That's right. And, because you'll find out it's amazing. Pc at the end of the session — say, "Well, did you make any of your goals?" It's all right, by the way, to read the pc's goals back to the pc if he can't remember them offhand. "Did you make this one, did you make this one, did you make this one? And what do you — what do you think about that?"

The pc's going down the line, the pc said, "Wog, wog, wog, a — a frog, a weasel, a dog, I think, ah, let's see, what else would inhibit the inflow on another? Let's see — a dog, a weasel, a ooooo oooooh. You know, God, I get groggy on this, a dog, ah, whewf! Ah, ah, let's see now. Ah, any, any small farm animal. A wog Any small farm animal. Let's see now, anything else would inhibit uuuuuu. A sign. A sign. That would, and so forth."

And then, of course, put it on the freewheeling and say, "Have you made any other gains in this session you'd care to mention?" And the pc will tell you they did or they didn't or something of the sort and you make your notation on your auditor's report and then comes end of session.

Well, there's some point there where you would find it necessary to run Havingness, but there's some point there where if you ran Havingness, you would throw him out of session.

And of course, you end the session to end the session. And when you end the session, make sure that you end the session. Don't leave it in question. If the pc's still sitting there going kind of like you — like this and makes no motion or doesn't yawn or relax or you don't feel attention break on the subject of the auditing session, bust it. Go right in on it again and you say, "Has this session ended for you?" And I don't care what you do particularly, but say, "All right. Now, look at me. Look at me. Look straight at me now. Now, feel your feet on the floor. Look at me now. Feel your feet on the floor. Now, touch the table in front of you. pat it. pat it. Feel your feet on the floor. Look at me. All right. End of session."

The rule for Havingness is not "every time the pc dopes off, run Havingness." That is not a good, stable rule for Havingness. You understand? It's when the pc is incapable of going smoothly on with the session that you'll run Havingness.

"Oh, well, yeah. Ha-ha."

Now, as far as nulling lists are concerned, you get the same read on the list whether the pc is conscious or unconscious, so who cares? Did you know that?

They're very often hung up in some fashion and you just mustn't end sessions with pcs in-session. You want to know how often you do it? You want to know how often you end a session with the pc still in-session? Is the pc talks to you about the auditing session right after you've said, "End of session." You want to know how often you have ended the session with the pc still in-session? Pc goes right on talking to you in the same way. Walks down the hall with you in your same role as an auditor. Goes right on treating you as the auditor. The session has not ended.

Male voice: Uh-huh.

That actually — no disaster involved with it because he shakes out of it after a while — but that actually is the most common auditing error is not to end a session. Because it goes unpassed. It's not a very serious error. Therefore, it becomes extremely common.

Doesn't matter what you do. I mean you get the same read. The pc can be out like a light, and you'll get the same read on the meter.

You expect time is going to end the session. Well, the old man with a scythe — I haven't met him for years, you know? I just haven't met him for years. And I don't think he comes around and says, "End of session" to your pc.

All right. There's more to this. There's more to this, and I want to go on with this and give you — cover this Model Session with you rather thoroughly, so we're going to have another lecture. But right now we're going to take a break. Okay?

I know the pc's still suffering from what happened 200 trillion years ago and so I don't think anybody ended that either. I don't think time is very efficient this way.

Audience: Yes.

I don't say there's anything wrong with time. I just say that the auditor should not rely on the old man with the scythe to come up and look fixedly at the pc and says, "Hey!"

And we have this other one which is terribly optional. It's terribly optional. Is "Tell me I am no longer auditing you." And that tends to end the thing. Okay?

All right. Tell me I'm no longer lecturing to you.

Good night.