How are you tonight?

Okay. The problems of auditing. Well, this is the second lecture, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, 26 June 62. I'm going to talk to you about Prepchecking.

Audience: Fine, thank you.

Prepchecking is a very easy activity. There is nothing very difficult about it except trying to understand it. you sometimes can try to understand it so hard that it becomes quite difficult. Prepchecking is based on one of the simplest fundamentals of Dianetics; which is that every type of incident which had relationship to one another tended to form up in a consecutive chain on the time track.

Good. Good.

You should understand the time track as consecutive occurrences in time. You live, you live, you live, you live, you live, you live. Those are all different items in time.

Male voices: How are you? How are you?

All right. Let's put it this way. you make a picture, you make a picture, you make a picture, you make a picture, you make a picture. Those are all separate items in time. But pictures classify themselves after construction, into chains. You've got a chain for most anything You've got a breakfast chain of all the breakfasts you didn't like. And you have a lunch chain of all the lunches you didn't like, particularly those. And you have a supper chain for all the suppers you didn't like. you see. Now, you have an eating chain of all the eating you didn't like, you see. But inside this chain you have these subdivisional chains of the breakfast chain, the lunch chain and the supper chain. Get the idea?

Oh, a little bit quivery, but I'll be all right. Okay. This is what?

Now, when you get so general that you have livingness you didn't like. . . See, these are — these are pictures you didn't want and therefore suppress and submerge and get the hell out of the road and try to do something with, you know.

Audience: The 26th of June.

It's something like the artist in the studio, he's got this potentially beautiful model. She's standing over there on the platform and he takes all of this clay, you see, and he slings it together and he makes something that looks like a combination between a giraffe and a custard pie, you know. And he says to hell with that thing, so he says, "I'll work on that later," or something. But that's very unsatisfactory, so he tries to push it out of the road. Well, suppose this was made up of stuff that he didn't know how to squash it after he had made it. Supposing he'd just forgot that. Well, he's got an unwanted picture there. He's got an unwanted statue. So let's say he hangs some curtains across the thing or puts it back in the corner, you know and pushes it out of sight and hangs some curtains over it and says, "Well, we don't have to pay any attention to that."

The twenty what?

And he takes — and he says, "Well, let's have another go at it." you see? "Let's have a much better go at it," and he gets all this clay and stuff and he makes himself up a new statue of this model, you see. And it is mostly feet. And he says, "Well, heh-heh, ha-ha, ha-ha, ha-ha." Not knowing how to unmock this thing, you see, we'll get some more black material and we'll drape the thing and we'll shove it over in the corner.

Audience: 26th.

Well, this can continue and is a perfectly successful activity up to this point — when he runs out of studio. He got no place to stow these things. So he probably tries to push them all together into various classified piles, classified into things we don't look at. Now, actually if they're hanging up, they are a violation of purpose. That's not in Dianetics: Modern Science of Mental Health, but that's how a picture gets there. That's how a picture persists. The alter-is is a violation of purpose.

Twenty-sixth.

A guy intended to hang somebody and got hanged. Violated his purpose. But that really is a fairly close activity and won't trouble him as much as going out to shoot the mayor and electing him. Now, that will trouble him. And he'll have this beautiful picture of this election. You'll run into it in the bank, you know? And you can't find anything wrong with it, you know. So he elected a mayor. Eventually, you dig around for awhile and you discover well, hell, he wanted to kill the mayor, not elect him and he wound up electing him when he intended to kill him. you run out that basic purpose with regard to the mayor and the picture will fold up. T-he pictures are held in place by violation of purpose.

Audience: Hm-hm.

Now, the place they hang up in is the mind and they get into classifications of chains. And every chain has a basic and a basic-basic. Now, every chain has a basic. Well, that means that there are tremendous numbers of basics. You probably have a basic on the subject of bad food for every lifetime you ever lived. But there is only one basic-basic and that is the first time on the track you decided food was bad, see. And that's hung up because you weren't eating and intended not to and then did. And you'll get a basic-basic.

The devil it is.

Frankly, there is no basic picture on a chain. There is no basic picture on a chain. There is a basic purpose on a chain which the chain violates. And that is what hangs the chain up.

Audience: Uh-huh. Sure it is. Yep.

That is even more esoteric than you need to do adequate Prepchecking You need that to do 3GA but the mechanics are still true otherwise. The only thing you need to know to do Prepchecking is the fact that there is such a thing as a time track and that a time track has classified chains on it. And by chain is meant a consecutive series of incidents: He ate breakfast and didn't like it; he ate breakfast and didn't like it; he ate breakfast and didn't like it; he ate breakfast and didn't like it; he ate breakfast and didn't like it, see? Well, that runs from this lifetime, the first breakfast he ate and didn't like, up to the last time he ate breakfast and didn't like it which is probably this morning See, he got a nice chain there. Well, now basic for this lifetime — actually when you say basic, you needn't add for this lifetime because you mean that. you mean somewhere near this lifetime, you see. Could happen in the last two or three lives. Sometimes these chains overlap a lifetime. You'll find yourself occasionally prepchecking back past this lifetime. Perfectly all right.

What planet?

And basic, then, is the first time this happened on this particular chain. This chain is not united particularly with other chains and will free by finding that one basic. You can get rid of this whole concatenation of not liking breakfast by finding the first incident where he didn't like breakfast in these finite periods like the last life or two, you see. Now, there is a chain and they are pictures. And the only thing which holds them all in place is the basic. You needn't particularly play around in Prepchecking with the purpose because you're going to get yourself into 3GA a long time before you're ready to be in 3GA. You start running back to find the purpose back of not liking breakfast. Oh-ho. The violated purpose.

Audience: Earth.

"What is the violated purpose of not liking breakfast?" Well, it's a woooooo, and then he's back a thousand years woooooo, and it's back ten thousand years woooooo, and then he's back a hundred thousand years zzzzz, and then he's back a trillion and he's two trillion and fifteen trillion yawhoooo. There it is. Oh, yes, yes. you finally get it back down to the bottom and find out that's not his goal. What's happened during all this period of time? All you've done is beef up the bank all the way.

Oh, all right. I got it, then. That's coming up to present planet.

So you don't bother much with these basic purposes and that sort of thing as a relationship to chains even though that's how they exist and how they persist. The only thing you're interested in is the first time. The first time. Well, that is a very, very reserved statement, (quote) the first time (unquote) see. Honest, he's been having — a first time he didn't like breakfast here for trillennia, see? Every GPM has a not liking breakfast chain in it or something like that, you see. Back we go — back, back, back. But for our — for our purposes and for the edification of the general public and the pcs and so forth that you start auditing early on, you say well, that is the first incident. That's what we mean by basic. That is the basic incident.

This is the first lecture, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, 26 June AD 12. Now, there are many things I could lecture you about this particular week and probably will. But I think it's most important to give you some sort of a rundown. . . Did you get a bulletin today on. . . This — today's bulletin?

That doesn't mean the first incident ahead of all such chains. That just means the one ahead of the chain that is close up here to present time and fairly accessible. So that's what you're after in Prepchecking. Because the mechanics exist that if you pull the basic, the rest of the chain will go, bzzzzzzt. You can discharge a chain by pulling the basic on that chain.

Yes. HCOB June 25th, 1962. The whole crux of auditing today stems around the sensitivity of an E-Meter. The expertness of its handling, the sensitivity of the E-Meter. First thing I'd like to call your attention to that — is that if the operator can't read one, why have an E-Meter? And if the E-Meter is no good, why have an operator? This is very much to the point.

The basic on the chain generally hangs around childhood, oh, maybe a few years ahead of this life. It's fairly recent. You can expect it quite normally to occur two, three, four, something like that. Sometimes you startle yourself by finding a basic in the prenatal area in spite of the fact that the medicos at first objected seriously to prenatal engrams and their objection to them has not eradicated them. I thought you might like to know that. They still run into them. They now, by the way, heal people by healing their prenatal proclivities, you see. Johns Hopkins University has issued many learned papers about prenatal influence now and not any one of them has got the story straight yet.

Now, we have HCOB June 28, 1962, oddly enough on this 26th, because that's the Thursday bulletin going out and it has to do with how to smooth out needles.

As far as past lives are concerned, you rather inevitably run into past lives. You start Prepchecking and everything is going along fine. This person's never heard of past life, never heard of living before and all of a sudden you find him in 1868 with the basic of the chain of hating wool. you know, what's he done to wool? Something like that. He's an Australian sheep farmer, you see. And he has — he's out there and he's sheep farming and so forth. And you all of a sudden find out the reason he is sheep farming has something to do with his having killed a man in England with a woolen scarf. That happened in 1868 and he finally gets it straightened out that he started sheep farming in 1870. And this doesn't seem to be quite right to him, but he eventually straightens it out and all of a sudden he has no wool allergy. See wool doesn't do anything to him.

Now, an E-Meter needle can become rough. That doesn't mean it continuously goes bzz-bzz-bzz, little patterns, while the pc is on it. That means it goes tick and sweep and tick-tick and bzz-bzz-bzz and then tick and then sweep and then bzz and then tick and then — you know. It is active.

I didn't mean to step on any Australian toes here with regard to that sort of thing Just for the benefit of it, as far as Australia is concerned, Australia is — shouldn't feel sad about it because that's what happened to everybody on this planet, you know.

Now, the varying degrees of activity, of course, are a gradient scale that run from a clean needle, which is to say it acts when you speak — the auditor, see? The needle reacts when the auditor speaks. Now, that is a clean needle. The rest of the time it is doing exactly nothing.

Anyway, you've got a situation there, don't you see. And the basic on the chain doesn't pull in this lifetime. And the pc will go back and he'll go back and sometimes they go back two or three thousand years. Seldom much more than that. It would be quite unusual if they did, but you'd let them if they did. And they all of a sudden pull this basic. And it's some overt. They did something. And you pull that thing and bzzzzzzt. The rest of it will go.

And that gradient runs up through one that goes occasionally tick and tock. Auditor didn't say a thing and the needle ticked.

Actually no charge can remain in a chain after the basic has been pulled out of unknownness and put into known category. The electronics of the situation is you're not going to get a read on a chain if it is no longer charged. And what charges it up is what keeps it in place. And that is the basic on the chain is an unknown zone or sphere. There's something unknown about the first incident and it remains charged up until that becomes known at which moment the electronics of the chain convert and the chain is desensitized and remains so thereafter.

Now, a clean needle almost always reads only on an instant read. you don't get prior reads with a clean needle — very seldom. It clicks right where it's supposed to click: right at the last vowel or consonant in the statement said in the major thought. HCOB 25 May: A clean needle reads right. And then as the gradient scale of dirtiness is entered into and spiraled down, one of these needles that goes tick and tock without the auditor saying anything at all . . . It's twitchy, you know; you get prior reads on the thing The guy is sort of segmentalized mentally.

And it is quite tricky. The pulling a chain is a permanent activity. Chains don't charge up again as long as you have the basic on the chain. Therefore in Prepchecking, you always test the What question for charge. You test the What question. Don't test the Zero Question because a person's reliability and responsibility increases. He's going find new times when he used wool for strangulation purposes, you see? Or something. He's going to find brand-new times and so forth, but it'll be on the Zero.

You say, "Have you ever been PDHed by a cat?" And it goes "Have you — " Blam! see, "ever been — " tick! tick! tick! "PDHed — " bzz! bzz! bzz! bzz! "by a cat?" Klok, klok, klok, klok, klok, klok, klok, see?

"Have you ever killed a man?" See, something like this. And no, he never killed any man. You've got this What question, see? Finally you find that he has an impulse to strangle people, particularly on sheep farms. For some reason or other this doesn't make any sense, you see. And you follow this on down and you pull the basic on the chain. Well, now that particular activity is going to desensitize. That'll never charge up again. But he's going to get more responsible and realize that by his reckless driving at some time or another or his failure to repair a car or something like this, his extensional responsibility is all of a sudden going to make him realize that he's killed somebody else. At this time the Zero is flat. you raise his responsibility and the Zero unflattens. But the What question flattened, remains flat. There is the curious difference.

You know, you can prove to anybody the cat PDHed him, you know? You can say to the fellow, "Did you ever know a cat?"

Now, the anatomy of the mind then, is that chains consisting of similar incidents plot from a basic which can be reached up to present time. And Prepchecking is simply an effort to reach one of these chains and trace it back down to its earliest basic that can be found. That is to say — I beg your pardon — to the earliest incident that can be found, which is its basic for this finite fairly recent chain. And get the unknownness off of that incident at which moment the rest of the chain should go bzzzzzt. You find out there's no real necessity to come back up a chain again once you have gone down it and blown the basic.

Fellow says, "Yeah, I had a cat once. Name was John Brown."

You test the What question and the What question is now flat. It is completely null and doesn't register anymore. It's gone. And the whole magic of it consists of finding the basic.

And you say, "Uh-huh, all right. This cat ever inflict pain-drug-hypnosis on you and give you an interspacial implantation?"

Well, therefore, the system called Prepchecking consists of a method of locating chains of sufficient charge to aberrate the conduct of the individual. And then provides a withhold system — it's called originally — a little system which knocks out the basic and removes the charge from the basic on the chain so the chain will fold up. So whatever else we say about Prepchecking and whatever else rote activity we get into about Prepchecking and however involved we get with Prepchecking, please don't lose sight of what you're trying to do.

And the fellow will say "No."

You-uns is just trying to find a chain of antisocial activities on the part of this pc that are considered somewhat less than optimum; and you're trying to run that chain on down to its basic; and you're trying to knock that basic out and so get that chain to fold up. Now, whatever you are trying to do, you are trying to do that. And you will discover you have some remarkable successes doing things like this.

You say, "I'll prove it to you." "Has the cat, John Brown, ever inflicted pain, drugging and hypnotism upon you?" It'll go click, click, ploonk-thlunk-thu-thud, bzoo-boo-boo-boom, fah! In fact, it'll read every place but the exact instant read. That'll be blank. Most auditors — most auditors in the old days didn't bother with that missingness, so all sorts of wild tales could go around, including John Browns, the cat.

You find this person just cannot stand their mother-in-law and you say this is normal and natural. Nobody likes his mother-in-law, you say. Yeah, but can we investigate this thing a little bit further and we find out that his mother-in-law does all the washing and bakes him pies and cakes that he particularly likes and is always giving him money and is very pleasant to him and is quite proud of him. But he doesn't like his mother-in-law. And this starts to get senseless. This starts to get stupid. It's ruining his whole life. That's all it's doing.

Now, you check this over and you say, "Pain." It goes clank. You say, "What about pain?"

Well, all right. We prepcheck this thing — not because we pick upon it as a particular wrongness — we just happened to collide with it and run into it while looking for overts on the part of the pc. There we all of a sudden find the similarities and so forth that he has associated up with and the overts and the missed withholds connected with this mother-in-law and we find they all lie in a chain. It is not the mother-in-law chain, see. It is the — a female chain or an elderly female chain or it is some other characterized chain. But it is — it's better called, "Doing something to older women," chain. You locate that, pull the basic on the thing, bzzzzt, comes up to present time and he goes home and he kisses his mother-in-law and says how nice she is. She hasn't changed. He has.

"Well," the guy will say, "I don't like it!"

Now, this could get more serious. He could get so upset about his motherin-law and that sort of thing, he's perpetually sick. And you sometimes won't be able to figure out just why the pc became so mysteriously well. The pc had constant and continual earaches. Constant and continual earaches. Well, there's no sense in going in and trying to audit his ear or find a wrongness. You just do a more or less standard job of Prepchecking. All of a sudden you find out he hates his mother-in-law. You run this out, overts against elderly women, see. And you find out when he was a little boy, why, he pegged a rock at some elderly woman and hurt her in some fashion or another. And this all associates out and magically turns out that this woman was not his motherin-law and somehow or another. And his crimes were so-and-so and such-and-such. And they all fold up and he doesn't have an earache and he likes his mother-in-law. Very mysterious.

"All right. Thank you. Thank you. Pain." Doesn't read. "Drugs" — clang, clang, clang, clang! You say, "Well now, what about drugs?"

How did all this occur? Well, it could only occur because of misassociation. He's reactively making identifications: A=A=A=A. Prepchecking is all out of Dianetics: Modern Science of Mental Health man, I mean this is — this is wild that something like — like Banquo's ghost coming to life, you know. It's right out of the old book. Except this is how you run it with an E-Meter and you don't bother much with the engrams. The engrams all rip up anyhow and you don't pay any attention to engrams anymore, but you can get the whole chain, don't you see? Chains are described in Dianetics: Modern Science of Mental Health. Basics are described. Basic-basic is described. Also by the way, 3GA is also piloted out in Dianetics: Modern Science of Mental Health. The basic purpose of the individual. That's what you're finding when you're finding goals.

"Oh, I don't like them!"

So anyhow, not to show you how right I was — just to show you that you're — just to show you that you're dealing with fundamentals. You aren't dealing with a whole series of chains. You're dealing with a peeled-off series of fundamentals. This is very streamlined auditing, man. When you get down to Prepchecking, why, you find yourself looking at all the parts that you saw in Dianetics: Modern Science of Mental Health, except you don't bother to run anybody through engrams or put them into engrams or explore still pictures or get too nosy about what the pc is looking at or anything because you can actually just run on down and pull the bottom of the chain and the chain goes bzzzzzt.

"Did you ever give anybody drugs?"

Now, there's been a reformation in Prepchecking. Originally we prepchecked on the basis of take the last incident in order to settle the individual on the chain or reveal the chain. We ran the withhold system on the last incident — the nearest to present time. And you see, that was the one we found.

"Oh, yes. Well, I'd — I mean — yeah. Well, now that you a — make me admit it, yes."

All right. We have what's called a Zero Question. All right. That Zero Question is some highly generalized question that is liable to get the pc where he lives. It is arbitrary. If it operates on the pc, good, we use it. If it doesn't operate on the pc, we discard it. And lists of these questions exist in what we used to call Sec Check forms. They are found in HCO Policy Letters. The best of them are Form 3 called the Joburg and Form 6A as far as Scientologists are concerned. There are many of them, however. They exist. Though, there's been a lot of them put out in Info Letters, people have been real busy making up Prepchecks. They've done a real good job of this sort of thing.

"All right. What about drugs?" Doesn't read. you say, "Hypnotism" — ping, ping, ping, ping, ping, ping, ping, ping!

So you've got lots of Zero material. I suppose at some time or another we'll be so rich that somebody has been a bus driver and we just look up in the — der master textbook on der subject of Prepcheck Forms. And it will say Bus Driver, Type B. you see. And "How many fares haven't you turned over to der company?" You know? In other words it could be quite stylized. You could even bring it out for dynamics. Do a Dynamic Assessment on somebody and then you'd get a Dynamic Prepcheck and all of that.

You say, "You ever been hypnotized?"

But there's a danger in being too fundamental in Prepchecking. There's a danger. You start doing — you start doing assessments and you're going to run into the GPM and the GPM is nothing to handle with a Prepcheck, let me assure you. So you want a shallow draft sort of look. That isn't to say you don't want shallow incidents like I . . . "Well, the reason I hate little girls is because that — I was at a party one time and I took my index finger and I touched the little girl on the shoulder and that's my overt act." The hell it is. He's done worse than that. He can do — he can come up with better than that to show for a whole lifetime for heaven's sakes, you see?

"No."

But comparatively speaking, we are not going to do 3GA and then a Prepcheck, don't you see. We're going to take something that's relatively light, you see. And we get it out of these forms.

"Did you ever hypnotize anybody?"

"Have you ever stolen anything?" Well, on the whole track, look at you, man. Look at you on the whole track. Aw. Think if you — if you try and clear this question up for the whole track. Oh, wow! You know. Like, There'd you put that planet, man?" You know. But we ask this question as a Prepcheck and we find out that he's been stealing pennies out of his mother's purse and he's been stealing lollipops and he's been stealing copy books off of his teacher and he's been — he's been purloining this and that for quite a while. And it's finally wound up into the fact that he'd better not reach certain items in this lifetime.

"Well, I tried to." Ping, ping, ping, ping, ping, ping

So we ask him the Zero Question, "Have you ever stolen anything?" Of course, we don't know that he's stolen something or not stolen something This is minor. This is just a test question. Zero Question equals test question. And it reacts on the meter. It goes bang!

You say, "All right. What about hypnotism?" Doesn't read.

Well, we say, "That reads. Now, what have you done?" And he says, "Ah, well, stealing things. I . . ." He says, "I — I — I stole an icebox once."

Needle can be smoothed out to a point — just by taking these segments of it, you see — can be smoothed out to a point where you can finally ask him if the cat has ever inflicted pain-drug-hypnosis on him and, of course, it doesn't read.

And you say, "Good. Thank you. I'll check that on the meter. Have you ever stolen anything?" Clang! Well, you've had it, see? You gave him one chance, you see. you gave him one chance to clean it. And if it didn't clean, you got your paws on a chain. Chains never consist of two incidents.

Of course, the cat never did inflict pain-drug-hypnosis on him. But he had a reaction to pain and a reaction to drugs and a reaction to hypnotism and he'd have a reaction to John Brown the cat if he'd ever kicked John Brown the cat, see?

Sometimes there are isolated, single incidents that clean up just, boom! Well, you don't want to monkey around with those and beat the pc to death, but they clean up just on utterance. Pc says yap-yap. They're gone. That's it. They don't read. But you say, "Have you ever stolen anything?" A second time, he goes clang! Oh, well, come off of it, man, there's a chain here.

So you could make an awful liar out of a meter. But remember, the only needle that you could make a liar out of is one that goes sort of hunt-and-punchy anyhow. It's pretty hard to make a liar out of a clean needle. It only falls on an instant read. you say, "You ever been PDHed by a cat?" No reaction. The guy isn't edgy, you see?

Now, what is it a chain of? Well, probably it might be four chains. It might be six chains. Now, he says he stole an icebox. And this is the way you prepcheck now. you take that incident and you don't run, "When did it happen? Appear?" and so on. you don't — you don't do that with that incident. He just tells you that incident. You try to clean it on the meter. It didn't clean and now you put your What question around that except you dibble and dab and monkey and fumble and fool around trying to get this What question to operate like that clang! you got there on that "Have you ever stolen anything?"

All right. The somewhat dirtier needle, you say, "Have you ever been PDHed?" Clank, you know? "You been PDH — " clank. "Cat" — no read. Latent read on something like "ulp." See, the pc thought, "ulp" or something

"Have you ever stolen anything" fell about two E-Meter divisions with a very fast chop. Well, you want a What question that falls two divisions with a very fast chop, see? So you're just going to have to be inventive at this time and this is the weakest part of a Prepcheck system. This is where the auditor can make most of his mistakes.

Now, that's a not extraordinarily dirty needle or a messy needle or a mucked-up needle, but it sure isn't a clean one.

You say, "What about...?" All What questions begin with "What." "What about?" they say. Isn't even very grammatical and it isn't very sensible, but you find out it works fine. And nearly all Zero Questions begin with "Have" or have "have" as their third word. Like, "In prison have you ever . . .?" See? It's a modified have. So your What question: What about? All right. Now you've got to find out what about what? Well frankly, you're like a fisherman who is blindfolded standing on a stream. He does not know even, really, if the stream exists using tackle to catch fishes that he does not know the type or identity of, you see? So this is a sort of a — of an interesting activity. He's got to form a What question all on his little lonesome. So with great genius our new HPA student says, "What about stealing iceboxes?" See. That's genius. This is just brilliant, you see, because he only stole one icebox. He's stolen lots of things but only one icebox.

Now, we go down into the nether regions a little bit further and we get a needle that goes little tiny rock slam, tick, tick, tick. Now, this kind of a needle reacts often enough with enough different reactions that when you say something to the preclear, the reactions on the needle — the reactions that are there on the needle when you ask the question — are so numerous that one of its actions coincides with your instant read. And you get equivocal questions all the time. you don't know whether the thing said yes or no. Because it's so active, it's got so many different things happening all the time that quite often when you say, "Do you have a present time problem?" why, the instant read might or might not be there, but you can't read it because the needle is already so twitchy and scrubby, you see. And you say, "Well, I'll have to ask the question again," or something like that and hope that the moment you finish the sentence "Do you have a present time problem?" happens to be unused space. Get the idea? Sort of like trying to get in transatlantic telephone calls or something like that. Sometimes you can connect and sometimes you can't. All right.

So now let me show you how the guy's made it tough for himself. This thing is at the top end of the theft chain. See? It's supported all the way back to the age of two when he used to steal safety pins off his nurse, you know. It's supported all the way back there by all that charge and all those incidents. My God! He's stolen iceboxes and opera hats and he's stolen women, he's stolen all kinds of things, you see. And this auditor says, "What about stealing iceboxes?"

Now, that's — isn't the most extreme needle. The most extreme needle is in constant and continuous motion. And I don't care whether the motion is tiny or large. But you would never be able to get an instant read on one. Never. Because it is just in motion.

"Oh, th-blah-blah-blah, this-that, uh-aw-yeah-blah."

You don't know whether it's reading on the auditor, the pc or the bank or the electric light circuit. You haven't a clue what it's reading on, but it's just going bzz, btz, tick, tick, tick, tick, bzzzzz, brrm-tick-tick, boom, srr, dit, dit, brb, brb. Where's there any blank space on this needle to squeeze an end of sentence into, see? There isn't.

And the auditor says, "Are there any earlier times?"

That needle is an impossible needle. Fortunately smooths out on more elementary Havingness and is the only thing that'll smooth it out because of course you can't find out what's wrong You can't find out what's wrong with the pc because, of course, you can't read him on the meter. You could say, "Do you have a present time problem?" Well, what would this be all about? Yeah, maybe he has. Maybe he hasn't. Maybe it's on the meter. Maybe it isn't. But of course the meter isn't doing anything that has anything to do much with the session but is just in constant motion. Moves all the time, all the time, all the time. Always moving I've seen these, by the way, on various types of people.

The fellow says, "No, there aren't any earlier times." So he checks it on the meter." Any earlier times you've stolen any iceboxes? Well, there are no earlier times."

Now, it isn't necessarily true that the cleanliness or dirtylessness or dirtylyness, I guess it is — the cleanliness and the dirtilyness, yes. Finally figured that out.

"All right. When was that that you stole . . .?"

English is an interesting language. You know, English gets in our road all the time. you know, there isn't any word that combines "he or she?" And every once in a while, in trying to put auditing commands or wordings or something together, you run into this lack of a. . . You've got a neuter pronoun, a masculine pronoun and a feminine pronoun, see and there is no pronoun which is both masculine and feminine. Because you can't say "it" and mean "he or she." Somebody would be offended.

Oh, no. This isn't going to — this isn't going to give. This isn't gon---- . He can sit there now and grind on it for the next couple of hours. I'd say he could probably spend four or five sessions on it.

They've worked it out in the farm country; it's um, or em, depending on what farm country you're in, you know? "I see 'um," you know?

"When did you steal the icebox?" See. "Is that all there is to it? What might have appeared there? Who should have found out about it?" And the What question — it sort of dies a hard death. After several sessions it sort of dies a hard death. Both auditor and pc finally get tired of this icebox. It was sort of cold and clammy to begin with and didn't get any more entertaining as we went along

The difficulties of transmitting thoughts, of course, are from the major thought to the symbol, the recorded symbol, into a relay in somebody's mind, into the thought again. That is what is happening You are actually not recording "he," "she," "it," "been," "does" or anything else directly on the reactive bank. It is not arriving in symbols; it's a symbolized form. That is why you can get a goal out of a pc that was originally expressed in Phoenician and you can find it in English, which you yourself ought to think is rather peculiar when it comes right down to that. That's why you can audit a pc who speaks a different language.

Well that is what could be classified as asking, formulating, the wrong What question. We want to know something that will give a chain. So this is what we do. We — of course, in a test question, you say, "What about stealing iceboxes?" but we're wasting our time, you see. We want to know about, "What about stealing furniture?" see. "What about stealing appliances? What about stealing equipment? What about stealing heavy things? What about stealing massive items? What about stealing property that didn't belong to you?" That doesn't read. "What about stealing white objects?" Sheer genius. Didn't work either. Finally the auditor remembers what the pc told him — that is he stole the icebox and hid it in a barn. So, "What about stealing and hiding things?" Clang! "Oh, that was good, huh-huh." We got the same clang And we say, "Have you ever stolen anything?" Clang! "What about stealing and hiding things?" Clang! Hey, hey, that's all right. All right, now.

But of course, on a meter, which is registering thought, a constant agitation and a no-registry of thought and a bunch of other things of this character give us an impossible needle.

"All right, now — what a — what about, stealing and hiding things, huh?" Oh, the auditor, he's got it easy now. In this new type of Prepchecking, he has it very easy. He wants the pc to get windy. That's all. He just wants the pc to go on and tell him all about it. That's good, yeah, well yeah, all right, fine. The pc just tells him all about it. He doesn't ask for anything earlier; he doesn't steer the pc in any way; the pc tells him all about this question. Actually, the pc may give him three or four overts. He doesn't challenge the pc, he doesn't stop the pc. Because listen, if he stops the pc he's got a missed withhold right there in the session that's going to go all — fly to pieces.

The dirtiest needle would be that one which was registering the least thought and generating the most thought. It's autogenerated reactive thought. And that is the "doitiest" needle there is — constantly generated thought but it's autogenerated. In other words, you're watching a circuit go zip and zap, see?

See, he did, he sort of shut the pc up while he found the What question and that sort of thing And it was a little bit lengthy and he did it and that's fine. But now that he's found it, now he wants to know about stealing and hiding things. And the pc's — well, the pc's been sitting there kind of ready to tell him, you know, about the Ford car and the house and the battleship and the bass drum and the giraffe and all these things that he's stolen and hidden, you see? And the guy goes on and on and on and on.

All right. This circuit gets to going boomity-boomity-boomity-boomityboom and it's flipping from one part of the bank to the other part of the bank and taking shortcuts through the middle of the bank and around the edges of the bank and wrapping itself around other demon circuits and curtains and occlusions and all that sort of thing.

And only when the pc runs down, the auditor — this is the time the auditor should encourage — he should understand the encouraging acknowledgment. Girls know this better than men. Girls are experts at this sort of thing I know a girl, stone-deaf she got through her whole life, married eight millionaires and all she knew how to do was give an encouraging acknowledgment! It's the invitational, "Hm-mm." You know? "Right. Right. Right. Right. All right. Hm-mm, hm-mm, good, good. All right, all right, yeah." Of course, the girl adds the "Gee whiz!" to it, you know, a little bit, but you don't have to add that.

That's what you see happening on the dial here. That needle is just going bzz, brp, bzz, bzzzz, brrp, blp, thr, click, boo, frmp, thud, tick, krk, tzz, zzzzzz. Well, how are you going to get a thought in edgewise?

Pc runs down — doesn't matter whether he gave you one, four, six, eight — doesn't matter what he gave you, take it. You've got this What question, you've written it down. That's the main thing. It's got to be on your board. It's got to — registered along with the "Have." And after that you let the pc answer that What question in full. And now start pushing for earlier. And you don't even have to read the meter, man. See? You're not reading the meter during all this time. Give your eyes a rest.

You know, most people have a hard time getting a word in edgewise with somebody who talks too much. Well, it's the auditor trying to get a thought in edgewise into a reactive bank that is bzzzing too much. It's doing its own thunk-thunk, see? It draws its reactions and restimulations from itself continuously.

You know he's not going to tell you the earliest. Because if he could reach the earliest all by himself, it wouldn't be a chain. So he can always answer the question, "Is there an earlier incident?" And you shove him back to the earliest incident you can find. That is, he's always going to tell you "the earliest," "It is the earliest." The pc's always using "earliest," and the auditor is always using "earlier." See, auditor never says "the earliest," "Tell me the earliest incident." "Tell me the earlier incident," you know, because he'll hang the track up.

The auditor has no impingement on this bank. The bank itself is running at a high rate of autogeneration. Probably a bird lighting on the window ledge would have more effect on this bank than the auditor screaming at the pc, see? It's a problem in communication. It's also a problem in electronics.

And he gets the pc back to the earliest one that the pc can be coaxed back to without a meter and without anything. See? He gets him back there. And he gets that earlier incident — pc says it's the earliest, it's not. That incident is the barrier.

But that is basically the dirtiest needle there is. It's in constant motion, but along with that you get the fact that that person's mind is autogenerating restimulations. Its restimulations are quite often not from the exterior environment at all. There aren't even associative restimulators in the exterior environment. This person is totally introverted and he is just autogenerating restimulation.

That incident that the pc can reach without much assistance is the barrier to earlier memory. There is always a barrier incident. It's a barrier to earlier memories. It's not particularly a technical term, I just want you to get the idea that there's a fence built about a third of the way up one of these chains. And the pc can get back there dead-easy. That's to the age of eleven. He can get back there awful easy. But somehow or another, at that point it all folds up and that one's pretty foggy.

You see, he thinks of a cat and then a circuit thinks of another cat and another circuit, then, regenerated, thinks of a tiger and another circuit, regenerated then, thinks of tank cars (for some reason or other — circuits are not quite sane, you see) which makes another circuit think of milk.

So it is at this point that the auditor now brings out his withhold system. Now, he wants to know when that early — the pc says "earliest" — he wants to know when that "earliest" incident, when it was, wants to know is that all there is to it, he wants to know what might have appeared there and he wants to know who should have found out about it and didn't, so on. The When-All-Appear-Who system. And he works that over, one time, two times.

Now you've had it. Cats give him a mushy taste in his mouth. But there isn't any cat in the environment. Nobody said "cat." He didn't read "cat." Nobody mentioned them. There weren't any cats around. Where did the cat come from?

And when he's got that far — I'm just giving you this in the rough, not by the rote procedure of the HCOB June 24th, 1962 — he wants to know if there's any earlier incident. Well hell, of course there is. See? He used the withhold system to blast the track open so the pc could remember earlier, see. And he runs the pc on down and the next thing you know they've got their hands on an incident about stealing and hiding things from his little sister and driving his little sister berserk and plenty of overts. And finally we find out that he'd steal and hide things — it's usually got a — the basic on this thing has usually got a hell of a curve in it, somehow or another, you know. And he finds out that he stole and hid things from his little sister so that she would get beaten for losing her toys.

Well, that's just an autogenerating circuit of some kind or another which pushes up an image at random. He's had sufficient restimulation in the past to last him all the rest of the trillennia. See, he had the warehouses full.

And he sort of sits there stunned for a little while and he says, "I do that? No, I couldn't have done that. Yes, well, I guess I did do that." And, having arrived down at that level, then we get the withhold system being operated again, very strenuously and we get that thing gone over two or three times, he develops new material out of it and he gets his own overts out of the thing, he gets disentangled and so forth. And then we test this What question. Does it still bang on the meter?

Now, of course, if you went out extensionally enough, you would find out that that morning when he got up, he was thinking about ice cream. And that is how it all has been happening ever since.

"What about stealing and hiding things? Bingo! See, still reads. All right, so we go back into our song and dance again and we get an earlier incident. And we find out Little Sister be damned, you see. As far as stealing things is concerned he used to steal bottles of milk at the age of eighteen months. And we actually have plowed memory back to that point.

Well, how was he thinking about ice cream? Well, he dreamed a dream about ice cream. And having dreamed a dream about ice cream, that's enough. Why did he dream the dream about ice cream? Well, he was short on B1. There is nothing around here to restimulate ice cream except something on the extreme track. Well, this guy is all the way on the backtrack. You get the idea? See and the restimulators are on the backtrack and the physical universe doesn't exist.

The beauty of this is the withhold system, the When-All-Appear-Who system, has the power of opening up track. And it will open up more damn track, if you'll pardon my French, than any psychoanalyst ever hoped to see. And it's nothing to get somebody to remember at the age of eighteen months, see. Well, stealing and hiding things, he used to drive everybody nuts. He'd crawl across the floor and open up the icebox and he'd steal his own milk bottles out of the icebox. And he'd go around and he'd hide them all over the house. And there was nothing but sour milk being poured all over the house. And this turns out to be an overt against himself in some fashion, an overt against his mother, an overt against everybody in sight, don't you see. And it finally — we picked up the icebox, he finally tried to do this all over again, you see, because he'd just got through stealing an icebox, see? But now we find out what he was stealing out of the icebox, you see and that happened at the age of eighteen months.

So you get the needle going bzz, bzz, bzz, bzz, tick-tick, tick-tick, bzzzzzz, tick-tick-tick-tick, you know?

And there'll be some wild and extraordinary curve on this one too, somehow or another. There'll be some kind of a starvation terror. Has to do with his ulcers or something like this. We get that thing all worked out, we work that out again and then we test this question, "What about stealing and hiding things?" And we find out it is dreadfully flat now. There is nothing left in it. It hasn't got a click to its name at a very high sensitivity and so we get the middle rudiments in, zing-zing-zing! "In this session is there anything you have suppressed, invalidated, failed to reveal or been careful of?" Boom. We get those in and then we read the What question again. And maybe there's a little tick on it, on the What question. And the pc says, "Well, I — uh — one thing I — I — I didn't tell you, I — I didn't tell you," he says, "Uh — I actually, uh — steal sour milk. Heh-heh," you know or something like that.

Now, oddly enough there is a worse situation than that. Now, you say, "That's impossible!" No, no, there's a worse one than that. It's called a stage four needle. It is the same restimulation going on all the time. This doesn't even change its mind. And the needle goes up, up, up, up, up, up, up and it sticks and frees itself and falls. And then it goes up, up, up, up, up, up, up, up and sticks and frees itself and falls and goes up, up, up, up, up, up and sticks and frees itself and falls.

Just ask the What question — flat. That's the end. That's all. That's all there is. That's even a chain.

And you know, you can't get a reaction on that as an auditor. You can't get a reaction out of the pc by even kicking him in the shins. It's been tried. Guy with a stage four needle. He's stuck in one totally insulated channel. He doesn't even get cross-restimulations, don't you see? Nothing is going on, really, except this one thought is probably going through all the time.

So, we go back to the Zero Question now. And we look down the throat of the Zero Question and we say, "Have you ever stolen anything?"

You ever see that newspaper electric sign up on Times Square? There it runs around and round and round? Well, just imagine that thing has one line on it: "You are a good boy," see? And it goes round and round the building, you see? "You are a good boy." "You are a good boy." "You are a good boy."

Now, if the Zero Question reacts we do exactly as we did before: we get an overt and we go on and we do everything for him. And we'll find this time we're on an entirely different chain.

Well, that is actually nuttier than somebody thinking two or three thoughts, don't you see? "You are a good boy." "You are a good boy." And he as a pc or as a person, actually, is way back below "hide" reading this sign. And you'll get it on the meter; the sign is on the meter. And it goes up, bz, up, up, up, up, up, stick, fall, up, up, up, up, up, up, stick, fall. Nothing varies it.

We keep that cycle up until there's nothing left of that Zero Question. And then we go to the next Zero on the list, regardless of what it is. "Have you ever raped anybody? Have you ever eaten waterbuck?" you know? Doesn't matter what the Zero Question is. And we work it the same way.

Now, there's such a thing as a reverse stage four, God help us, which is down, down, down, down, down, down, down, stick, swooooop. Down, down, down, down, down, down, down, down, stick. Swoooop. And it just goes on like that, on like that, on like that, on like that.

Now, we're not necessarily looking for fantastic amounts of crime. We're not looking for quality. And we certainly are not looking for sordidity. You can very often find pcs who have read a book by Freud and — or comic books or anything — and they've read these things and they've got an idea that if they recall certain types of incidents, which they make up and say enough about it and fill in enough words, somehow or another something marvelous will happen to them. And you never fail to find somebody who's been psychoanalyzed, trying to apply the formula of psychoana — analysis, you see, to clean up a chain or something like this. And man, in that particular case, when you find this, man, you better tackle those middle — the middle rudiments with those beginning of the end rudiments. You know, the half-truth, untruth? Otherwise you're mucked up all the time. So just add the half-truth thing to your middle rudiments and spit out that four-way one.

That's all that's happening. We didn't know the "reverse four" existed except we found one. It had been branded a free needle.

And they'll try to give you all sorts of very sordid, down-to-earth modern literature-type chains that haven't got a single thing to do with their overts. Now, it is so much so that you can assume that if you were to tear into a case without an arbitrary standard, such as a list of Zero Questions, that the case will present to you the least aberrated chain. The case will inevitably give you the least aberrated chain, which is best known to them. And if released, will produce the least possible change in their case. This you're sure of. Because that chain is safe. And the pc is always for security. Good roads, good weather and security and no bank turned over and we will be all set. See, what he'll give you — he'll give you something that he has already made up his mind is aberrative.

Somebody asks you sometime, "What is the pattern of a free needle?" Shoot him for me, will you? Yeah, because the regularity of this swoop down and the rapidity of recovery, which was going on and on and on and on and on, why, everybody thought the person must be — have a free needle. A free needle is nothing if not free. And it has no pattern. It just floats. And it doesn't go up and then go down. And it doesn't go down and then go up — a reverse stage four.

Now, if he's made up his mind about it, he knows about it. And therefore, so help me Pete, it probably has very little to do with his case. And there's where you get sucked in on Prepchecking and sent over the falls. If you sit there and the pc, "All right, now what have you — what. . ." If you approached it — if you approached this: "Well, what do you think is wrong with your case? What overts have you done in life that have affected you or influenced your life most singularly?"

Well now, those are fixed situations. That's a fixed thought. Now the fellow is — can't even be in a confusion, see? "You are a good boy. you are a good boy. you are a good boy. The Herald Tribune now brings you the news: You are a good boy. you are a good boy." one thought, see? And that thing will play out — I don't know how many trillennia that'll play out before it wears out, but I think it's been a long time.

"Oh," the pc would say, "I — I — I think it's all the — all the terrible things I have done on the second dynamic."

All right. Now, there's another condition. (These are chronic case conditions — what I'm giving you.) There's a condition of a needle that doesn't move and doesn't react. You can fortunately — that has been gotten around by your meter. So we don't much have to comment on the case because you can jack the sensitivity up to 16. You can get some reaction out of this boy.

Now, you could approach it just like that, see. you know, "What do you think is wrong with your life?"

But theoretically there could be a case that couldn't be sensitized into a read. I have not seen one. I have seen one that on the old Mathison was a totally motionless, nonreading needle, but not the Mark IV.

"What I think is wrong with my life is this series of overts."

Now, that's a theoretical thing and that would be — that would be the same low scale of reaction where he'd just be stuck in a ridge; he wouldn't even have "You are a good boy. you are a good boy." It would just be the Y of you as it comes around the corner of the building is just stuck there forever. He doesn't want the rest of it to come around. He's got it stopped. He's afraid of what it might read. It's just all shut down.

Just — you could take your meter right at that moment and say, "Have you ever palmed this off on any other auditor?" "Has anybody ever tried to clear this up in Sec Checking" "Has anybody. .." — "Have you ever persuaded anybody to audit this with repetitive processes?" see, here we go, man. This is Brahms, "a la preclear." It has absolutely nothing to do with the pc's case.

Now, these are conditions that you will run into — just a general sort of a basketload summary of conditions of — meter conditions that you'll run into. I've not said anything complicated like the sensitivity knob can be adjusted and you can do this and you can do that and you can do the other thing to recover these things. But anything that — that's all I want to drive home to you — anything that isn't a clean needle isn't all right.

Therefore, I very earnestly recommend to you, lists of arbitrary questions. "Have you ever stolen anything" "Have you ever raped anybody?" "Have you ever shot anybody?" "Have you ever fiddled the company's books?" I don't care what it is. you go right on down the line and you just take what falls. And you could actually prepcheck the rudiments. Use those as Zero Questions. "Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?" Blang! "What difficulty aren't you willing to talk to me about?" Set that up as a Prepcheck and you'll get someplace there too. you can also set up any type of activity, such as finding goals or auditing. Well, as far as that's concerned, you know the fellow's driving buses. As long as he doesn't tell you what's wrong with him is because he drives a bus, you're always at perfect liberty to pick up driving buses, see? "Have you ever — have you ever sinned in buses?" see.

Now, this is a big point I'm trying to make with you here. I've talked to you sort of randomly about this and you all knew this right up until this point, but the lightning is about to strike, so brace yourself. This you might not have noticed or coordinated with all this. The only reason you are running CCHs, Prepchecking, Havingness, any of these things, putting rudiments in — the only reason you are doing this is to get a clean needle. And if you've got a clean needle, what are you doing it for?

The trouble with you is your sales resistance is low. That's the main trouble with you where the pc is concerned. The pc gives you the most interesting story you ever heard in your life as what is wrong with the pc. "I've just told auditor after auditor about this and they've handled it, but they've ARC broke me so much that I really have never been able to really handle this adequately, but if I ever really got this handled adequately, then I know then, that everything would be . . ." oh, let's play it on Nero's violin. It sounds so much better. He knows about it, therefore it isn't what's wrong with him. See, it is the unknownness that makes it wrong.

Now, you see, from this point on you can never come around and say, "Well, you said to," see, to me. you got this? I see no lightning struck with you. Is this a new thought? Is this kind of a new thought?

So of course, if you can open up some chain that the pc has never gone "ulp" on, why man, you're going to tear up track in all directions and the pc's going to say, "ooh!" Pc's got ulcers, he knows what caused his ulcers. It was being rammed in the stomach with a pogo stick at the age of six. you could say to him, "How many people have you told this to, pc?"

Well, the only reason — that I'm — that's with exclamation points — the only reason that you are running rudiments, Havingness, Prepchecking or anything as a preparatory step is the relative dirtiness of a needle. You're all — that's all you're trying to do is clean that needle up.

"Oh, just most every . . ."

And when the needle is clean, whatcha doing? What are you doing now? You're doing exactly nothing. There's absolutely no point in it. I don't care how fast this needle is traveling in sweeps back and forth and how much trouble you're having adjusting the tone arm trying to keep the needle somewhere on the dial; that has nothing to do with its dirtiness, you see?

It — you always get taken in on the idea that you're the first one, you know, that he's ever told this to. You've got a virgin complex or something. He's told doctors and his mother and his sisters and his brothers and his last three auditors, all about this pogo stick, see. Well, look at the evidence. Look, he's told about it often enough to have run it out long since. Well, you can't say that, well, it's just held in place by something else. you can't say that. If he got that close to it, that it was the pogo stick, if he just got that close to it, he wouldn't have ulcers. Because it's almost impossible to maintain an aberration.

When it clicks is when it instant reads. That's the only time it clicks. That's a clean needle. See? You say, "Do you have a present time problem?" — click. Yeah. He's got a present time problem, see? It didn't click on "present" and it didn't click afterwards. And you could actually sit there for a minute and nothing would happen with the needle; just nothing would happen. It would just — well, it could be falling and rising because of the breathing of the pc or something like that. It could be going over here and hitting the pin and you'd have to adjust it one way or the other at sensitivity 16.

How people keep their Goals Problem Mass balanced is the — is the glory of all time. you know? There's supposed to be certain rocks in the world that hang up on the tops of mountains at very delicate balances, you see. And man, that's nothing compared to the GPMs.

But there are no sudden little jerks or burrs or reverse courses. It doesn't rise and then turn around and go the opposite direction with a — with a sudden hitch and that sort of thing It's just there. It reads when you say so. That's a clean needle.

Well, similarly, an aberration has a hell of a time being maintained. You hit the thing and it'll slip. So, let me tell you, that if it is as advertised, it ain't. So you don't pay any attention to it. That means you — that doesn't mean that you never pay any attention to what the pc is telling you. But as far as — oh, yes, always pay attention to what the pc's telling you — but you get him telling you about things that you want him to talk about, not that he wants to talk about, you see. And you — the balance and the delicacy of auditing is getting the person to talk to you about things that he doesn't know he should have talked to you about, preventing him from rambling on about things that won't increase the stature of any session and he doesn't find out about it. He doesn't realize how thoroughly he's being steered. Now, that's the delicacy of auditing.

And man, if you got a clean needle on the pc and you keep the pc in Model Session, you keep your middle rudiments in, you can do 3GA like that, man. There's just nothing to it.

Some people can jump in onto the seat of the fire truck and open the sirens wide open, you know, go dashing around the corner and so forth. And the pc almost inevitably knows he's being taken for a ride, you see? Now, the adroit auditor, who's very straightforward and doing his stuff very well, actually does have the pc going down the road and driving. The pc knows he's driving. They're going down the road at a hell of a rate of speed. And the pc thinks it's all his own idea. And the pc starts to go up the wrong road, starts to turn to the left, you see and the auditor has him turn to the right and the pc never notices. He just goes right on with the story, he just goes right on down the line and he's — that's it, that's the way it is.

There isn't any reason to continue doing anything with a pc beyond the point of clean needle preparatory to a Goals Assessment. In fact, you're taking your life in your hands doing so. Because you might drop the E-Meter on his head, or something happen and you wouldn't get another good chance at a — at a Goals Assessment, you see?

Naturally, he'll tend to bounce off of things that are aberrative. He doesn't like to confront them. They are not as-ised, so therefore he hasn't confronted them, so the probability is, is he doesn't want to confront them. Well, you don't get any place by forcing him to confront something. You've got to let him discover he is confronting something. There he is standing there and he says, "Well, here's all these damn statues I made. Hey! Hey!" He says, "Hey! Hey! There's three statues here and they're actually of a beautiful model and so a-ha! Look at that! Heh, look, I put some black flat covers over them. Hah! That's pretty clever of me to find them again."

You're cleaning up the needle. Now, let's go into what is the best operation to clean up a needle. Well, in fish and fumble, I have cleaned up some needles quite markedly at one time or another and hit the middles of circuits and done a lot of other things. But by and large, the best method, the very best method I know of for getting a clean needle on a pc is to put the pc into a state of confidence. Confidence equals predictability as per an earlier lecture. Predictability — confidence. The pc can predict what's going on, the pc will become confident.

Man, you've been heading him down corridors and beating him over the head with a baseball bat every time he tried to dive out the window and you've finally moved him into this room, you know. And even had to put horse blinkers on him, you know, so he could only stare in one direction. And he found them. That's quite ideal, this session. Pc's very pleased with it all. Very often the pc suddenly looks at you after he's discovered them and realizes, "Hey! How'd you know these were there? These are — this is pretty clever of you," see? Well actually, you always look clever when you use a standard Prepcheck, Model Session, steer the pc into the chain, that sort of thing You always look clever to the pc. Sooner or later he begins to realize that you know where you're going.

Therefore, you do a very predictable session. And you pull some of this and some of that and something else. It doesn't matter whether you're prepchecking or a rudiments and havingness or something like that. But that isn't important. What you are doing in the session isn't important compared to being predictable. You must be very predictable.

Well, you know where you're going because you're traveling on a series of fundamentals. You're only trying to pull up the basic on a chain of incidents which were wrong conducts on the pc's part. And he knows they're wrong conducts and therefore he's got these things buried. And you don't want to make the pc guilty or something like that, but you really hit pay dirt on one of these things. You can't — you can't have it good all the time. But you sometimes . . . My God, there'll be an incident within the last year and the pc, "I stole a car last June! You know, I . . . What the hell? I — I didn't remember it till just this minute. I'd never thought about it! Wow! Gee. Hey." He's found something. There was something lived there that he — been haunting him for some time, because it wasn't the car he stole in June. The top of the chain is closed off. How hot do you suppose that chain is, huh? Boy, that chain's as hot as skyrockets. The top of the chain is gone. Most people know the tops of the chains.

First session pc didn't know what was going to happen. Second session he's got some kind of an idea. He knows you're not going to bust down in the middle of it. Third session pc has got it taped. His nervousness vanishes. His rudiments have been put in three times. He's had some Havingness, some Prepchecking or something else run. It's all predictable as far as he's concerned. You're a predictable auditor. And from that point on, with one slight reservation which I will go into in a moment, your pc's needle should just get cleaner and cleaner and cleaner.

"Aw," they say, "Yes, I have this peculiar, peculiar penchant, I — I borrow money from my friends and don't pay it back," and so on. "I — I know that's what's wrong with me. I know I do that."

Now, it is a mistake in most cases to try to sort out the bzzzts and the ticks and the tocks and the prior reads and so forth. And it is definitely a mistake on a case which is going bzzzzzt all the time — a total unreadable needle; a complete, utter bottom rung of a dirty needle; total agitation continuously.

You've said, "Have you ever borrowed any money and not paid it back?" Some Zero, you see. "Oh yeah, I — well, I — I do that, yeah, I know I do that."

You, of course, have no choice about such a case. This case cannot get the rudiments — have the rudiments put in. What are you going to do? What are you going to pick out of this garbage can and straighten up? It's all garbage. The only thing you're going to get out of the garbage can is garbage. And it's an awfully deep garbage can.

And you say, "All right, well . . ."

Unfortunately, this person needs most 3GA. And this case cannot possibly have 3GA run on it. What is wrong with the case is the case has changed his purpose line or the case's purpose line — basic purpose — has been too often shifted, which of course gives us all sorts of conflicts. Everything is alter-is and conflicts and that sort of thing

He says, "I just — I just borrowed — borrowed some money just the other day" and so forth, "and I didn't intend to pay it back. Yeah, I know all about that."

There isn't much you can do with that case, short of CCHs. But the CCHs would have to be very gently run and you wouldn't be able to run the CCHs in Model Session because of course you can't get the rudiments in.

See, they know the last one. you ask them again, "All right, have you ever borrowed any money and not paid it back?" and it goes, clang! And you say, "Well, any earlier times this happened?"

So you handle that case very gently, very easily and terribly, terribly, terribly, terribly predictably. You don't do anything odd or peculiar. The rule is, the worse off the case is, the less random you get.

"Well, yeah. Yeah, you know, there are — there are quite a few." And he starts reeling them off and so forth. "And the first time I ever did it was when I was twenty-five."

That is the colossal blunder made by the alleged psychiatrists on this particular — what planet did you say this was?

Maybe so, man. That's the earliest time, that's the earliest we can get him back to, so we run that particular crime and incident. And what do you know, it might blow the chain too, but, probably it'll not. And we finally get the thing back. We've opened up track he didn't know a thing about. And that's when you're really getting someplace.

Female voice: Earth.

Now, a Prepcheck that is terribly successful usually runs as a short story of this particular character: The guy's been doing something he knows is wrong. He can't account for it. He's got a lot of motivators, people do things to him on this particular subject. This worries him. And you run back down the chain of doingness of these things — it's always what has the pc done, you see, it's not what has been done to the pc. you never buy anything that's been done to the pc. Nothing has ever happened to the pc in Prepchecking we don't care if the car flew around and cut his head off, nothing happened to the pc. you understand that this as unreasonable as that sounds, that's how it has to operate. You let a pc give you a lot of motivators, his needle will dirty up. It's a bum thing to let the pc give you motivators. He's pulling in circuitry.

The Kruegers and other people who have no credentials to practice in the field of the human mind — they shouldn't. They really — people should realize they have no credentials to practice. We've never given them a certificate, have we? Well, therefore the man is practicing without credentials.

And, you start charging down the line here. This pc — and he didn't know what it was doing and so forth. And he's opening up track. And then we all of a sudden get to — we get to something that he's always thought of as a motivator. This is quite common. He's always thought of this as the motivator, you see. He's thought about this fellow who threw his tricycle downstairs. And that was a pretty terrible thing, to throw his tricycle downstairs. He remembers this. He remembers this. It's always stood out in his mind, you see, throwing that tricycle downstairs.

And you know what forfeits their credentials? Because the crazier the patient, the crazier the treatment. All they do is Q-and-A with the patient. The only possible chance that those patients have of getting well is total predictability.

And there's something goes just before this which gives a volte-vis and a reverse that would make O. Henry green with envy. It's got a short story twist on it at the beginning of the chain. It'll be something on the order of: it turns out that it wasn't his tricycle being thrown downstairs, it's his young friend's tricycle being thrown downstairs — after he threw the young friend downstairs, you see? And it sort of turns out that it wasn't the young friend who threw the tricycle downstairs — it all got kind of mixed up, actually. But it was he who threw the tricycle downstairs so it landed on top of the young friend! And he thinks this is all fine, but it's still kind of active on the needle. And then we find out that he's convinced his mother and his young friend's mother that his young friend had done it!

Now, they all know this and their manuals are full of this: that people who are not treated get out of the insane asylum weeks ahead of people who are treated. And they all know this. So they go on treating them.

And this will all be sort of obscured at the bottom of the chain. And he gets this all straight and all of a sudden the thing goes zzzppp.

If somebody ever dumped on your head a hundred thousand loonies — somebody might, you know — and said, "Here, well, heal them up u-huh-huh. The state's tired of spending eighty thousand pounds per minute per psychiatrist on these people." About the only thing you could do is find the quietest abandoned army camp you could possibly find and get the quietest possible attendants you could possibly find and spread these people out so they can't annoy each other. And just let them have the predictability that the next couple of minutes will be quiet. Just work on that as a predictability. Not even telling them so, you see?

You'll find out that it's characteristic of a very thoroughly aberrated chain, that the incidents are all in juxtaposition. The later ones are always earlier and the earlier ones are always later and it's all mixed up and it's one of the symptoms of the thing — the pc starts to straighten out and keeps saying, "Oh, well wait a minute! Wait a minute. Wait a — wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, that was — that was the year before! That was — that was the year before." Well, this is — you know the track's straightening out and you're winning all the way, see. He never realized it was the year before, right up to that moment. He thought it was the year after.

And then you should have some motionless figures around that they can look at and that will be there tomorrow. And then just don't change anything — change nothing And, you know, an awful lot of them would go sane?

See, he thought he went to the university and then joined the ambulance squad. But as a matter of fact he joined the ambulance squad and then went to the university. How he could lose this much detail from his life is quite a mystery, but they manage it on these chains. So that the time factor is all scrambled on these chains.

You, by the way, permit no mail to enter this area. you keep the phone lines beautifully cut. The worst-off ones will worry about their families for the first month or so, you see and then they forget them. It's about time they did.

So when you say earlier and earlier, you sometimes get an answer from the pc which apparently is — oh very innocently — earlier in the pc's mind, but actually is much later. And it suddenly transpires that this was at the age of eight and he had already been down to the age of five. And all of a sudden he gets it back to eight and he finds the earlier incident of five.

And you would probably produce the highest ratio of "deinsanitizing" that anybody had ever produced on this planet. Just practice restraint, boys and girls; just don't do anything, see, beyond that. Just let them be. Let them exist. Let them sit around and look at a rock. If I had no boulders in the vicinity, I'd import some and put them on pedestals. You walk down this street, you find an awful lot of seats sitting around a boulder. The boulder is on a pedestal. You'd find an awful lot of these people sitting there looking at them.

Mixes in time is a good indicator. If you're on something hot, time will be mixed up on it.

But what's wonderful about it: it's going to be there tomorrow. That's what they finally start marveling about. And you have entered some predictability into the situation.

As far as the earliest is concerned, let the pc use that because the earliest probably happened two hundred trillion years ago. And the earlier only gets down to what you call basic.

Food, rest, predictability, is actually the only treatment anybody has any business giving the thoroughly insane. They have no business giving them any other treatment.

You're normally dealing in these things with locks — Dianetics: Modern Science of Mental Health — you're dealing with locks. You're not interested in moments of pain and unconsciousness, you're interested in locks. And you're interested in only overts: Things that the pc has done to others; damage the pc himself has created or herself has created. A resurgence of responsibility happens as a result of these things. A lot of interesting things occur.

You actually have no business auditing these people. In the first place, their auditing environment is liable to be too unpredictable and they'll make it unpredictable enough, man. Remember, they're a total bundle of alter-is, so their whole impulse is toward change, toward randomness. They're alter-is from the word go.

Of course, you realize that Prepchecking — Prepchecking is a method of straightening out the life of an individual, making him feel less harassed and haggard and a lot of things like that. But Prepchecking is not something that can be gone on with forever. You cannot forever prepcheck a pc. you will never clear a pc with Prepchecking In fact, somewhere up in the hundreds of hours you would start to run into an increase of bank by reason of Prepchecking because you're off the pc's goal.

All right. You're going to do something about it, why, let the — let the confusion blow off, see? Give them a stable datum of some kind, let the confusion blow off and they'll be all right from there on.

You see, a hundred hours of this — they'd go a long way, man. That'd go a long way — a hundred hours of Prepchecking And you start taking it over — you're demanding things of it which it won't do, which is to clear somebody and it won't clear anybody. But it'll straighten up somebody's life. It'll make them feel much happier and a lot of things will occur, highly beneficial. You'll get a smoother needle; you'll get practice in auditing and sessions. They suddenly realize that things can happen. They can talk to the auditor better and circuits key out and things. You get a lot smoother, but don't expect it to go the lot. Don't expect it to go the whole road because it won't.

Because let me assure you of something: The number of those needles on the actually insane that you're going to get to read are so slight, they're going to be very few. Most of the insane — I haven't had very many insane on a meter, but their needles are in constant motion, those that I have had on a meter.

It will do more than any psychotherapy system which has ever been developed on this planet for straightening out sanity. It will do more by a factor of maybe a thousand to one. It is fabulous from this point of view. If you were to walk into the field of psychoanalysis with a Prepcheck system and just to do Prepchecking in the field of psychoanalysis, my God! The people — their eyes — eyeballs would fall out and roll around the floor, you know? Because it would be for the first time that anybody dealing with memory had produced a lessening of insanity or neurosis on the part of the individual. In fact, there hasn't been any psychotherapy dealing with this lifetime and dealing with the various quirks and aberrations of human beings as they are recognized to exist or thought to exist by modern science, before Prepchecking There was none.

Now, that doesn't mean that an index of insanity is a constantly moving or totally stuck needle; that is not true either. Because you as an auditor, by sticking your foot in your mouth often and repeatedly in Model Session, can set a pc — and this comes the rest of this horrible lecture — you can take almost anybody and put ticks and tocks and burrs and bzzzts on their needle.

So it's a — it's a kind of a first all by itself. Of course, the earliest forerunner of this was a very spotty sporadic, "If you did it, boy, was it wonderful. And if you didn't do it, wasn't it horrible?" You've — it was the Straightwire taught at 42 Aberdeen Road at Elizabeth, New Jersey. And you just remembered somebody who had the similar illness and spotted when it was and sometimes — most of the time it would blow and the guy would lose his unsimilarity with that individual and he'd break up the identification with the person. And it was quite remarkable when it worked. But you had to be awfully clever and it didn't work all the time. Well, this'll work all the time.

All you've got to do is don't get the rudiments clean. Let that be your motto and the needle will depart further and further and further from a clean needle and become more and more and more a dirty needle. And the way you would do that is be unpredictable in a session. Forget to put the goals in, you know, and forget to do this and do that, and don't clean up a rudiment and all of a sudden change your mind in the body of a session and decide to prepcheck when you were going to run Havingness. But no more than start to do that than start to go into fish and fumble, you see?

Now, what is it — what is it good for? Why is anybody teaching it to you in the first place and that sort of thing No. It's a very good thing to know because you can straighten out an awful lot of things with human beings. Because it won't clear somebody don't underevaluate it, see. It'll sure make things smooth. And if you don't know how to prepcheck, you'll be stopped with a lot of cases. You'll just be stopped in your tracks because the needle will be so dirty. And you can smooth it out just so far with consistency, with Havingness, that sort of thing It goes just so far and then it sort of hangs up. And the individual's got a lot of withholds and a lot of things from you and you can't quite get rid of them. And they give you the same overts every session and you know, recurring — recurring overts. They give them to you session after session after session — same overts.

Yeah, just keep that up. Keep that up. Just audit left-footedly routinely, continuously and you could take a very clean needle and in very short order, in a week or two, you'd have the thing going bzzzt-um-a-dit-duh-whum-oom. The guy would sort of feel like he was nuts, too.

And you'll wish to God you had something like Prepchecking to straighten out that pc and grab him up the last few rungs of the ladder to where you can run 3GA on him. That is actually the purpose of Prepchecking But, of course, it has much wider horizons and applications than that.

An auditor auditing badly can dirty a needle up. This doesn't say that he is driving somebody insane. The needle does not give an index of sanity or insanity, because this is the other side of that horrible picture: you could probably, in your hundred thousand insane people, find quite a few of them with perfectly clean needles. And you could set them down and get a list of goals, find their goal and list them on out to Clear. Because remember, insanity is a specialized condition. It is merely the sensation of having to reach and not being able to.

And if you were to be a very clever auditor and did nothing but prepcheck people they would be — and did a very good job of Prepchecking — they'd fall around your neck and think you were solid magic. And if you are a good Prepchecker, of course, you are solid magic. Thank you very much.

You can always turn on the sensation of insanity on somebody by saying, "Get the idea that you must reach but you can't reach and you must withdraw but you can't withdraw." If you can get him to get the first pair and then get him to get the second pair too, for a second he'll feel like he's stark, staring mad.

Insanity is more a sensation than anything else. But as close as you can get to this sensation is get a total unpredictability. Now, you can almost produce the same thing. It doesn't work well. Aw, I don't know; get in the army sometime — get in the army. That'd be a good approximation of it. you go out and the notice board says, "All troops will report" see, "All troops will report at eight o'clock." And this is crossed out and it's "six o'clock," and then somebody blows a bugle and it's five-thirty and you were supposed to have been on the move an hour ago and somebody stops you and says, "What are you doing here? You're not supposed to leave until noon."

You keep this up long enough and you get yourself some interesting states of mind. The thing that the guys probably do is say, "Oh, to hell with it. It doesn't matter," and so forth and "We're apathetic," and all that kind of thing.

But they're approaching the same thing And after somebody had been subjected to that treatment for a while — let's say their needle was clean — well, their needle would tend to get dirty. Get the difference?

Now, the same guy — you set him down on the beach and you tell him, "All right. Now you keep watch out to sea. We don't expect anything to come. We don't expect anything to happen, but you just keep a watch out there" and go away and forget him for about three weeks and let no sergeants near him or any evil things like that and come back and put him on the meter and he'd be reading a clean needle, see?

He could predict, you see? He knows he's going to be sitting on the beach tomorrow, too. He has a certain amount of Havingness, which is your other clue to all this.

Now, running Havingness tends to key out circuits. And you notice I always use this word tends to. I don't say that it will key out circuits always because that's not necessarily true, because sometimes circuits in the process of keying out go through the pc. All kinds of interesting things occur on mental masses.

But Havingness tends to key out circuits and predictability tends to key out circuits and smooth out needles, and so forth. So let us take the gross values: predictability on the part of the auditor and havingness on the environment. All right. If you combined those two things, an auditor would be running a smooth, easy, gentle string of CCHs. He runs these various drills and he makes nothing complicated about it and he's very easy about the thing and he's very pleasant about it all and everything goes along fine. And what do you know? Some circuits start keying out and the guy's predictability comes up and here we go. And you notice all of a sudden that you're getting yourself a cleaner needle.

Now, if you're not getting a cleaner needle on this character doing the CCHs only, either you are not being predictable or this person needs to confide in you.

So you've got the other side of the coin which is Prepchecking. Frankly, Prepchecking is a very high-scale mate for the CCHs. If you were being more factual, you'd run the rudiments and Havingness session along with the CCHs. You know, you get in the rudiments and do the Havingness and then you would do CCHs, see? And it'd be my recommendation that if you were bucked in to somebody who was really, really a rough needle and things were pretty grim (just rough needle is good enough; you don't have to say how bad the case is and so forth) and this needle was awful hard to straighten out, stop getting so extraordinary. Don't be a psychiatrist. If you're not having any luck straightening out a very dirty, rough, mean needle and you've audited the pc for a while — I'm talking about four or five sessions now of whatever you're doing on the pc — and it's not getting better, it's getting worse, well, you're just up too high — too high a level of randomity for the pc. That's — let's not say what's wrong with his mind, just beyond this point of the havingness and the predictability is above this pc's ceiling.

All right. Let's say — I'll give you a good example of this — you're running CCHs and Prepchecking on somebody and the needle was getting rougher. Be pretty hard to imagine how this was happening, but let's say you've run into something like this, see? I'd drop the CCHs back to a Model Session and Havingness. And I would make sure that in the CCHs I cut out any complicated action of any kind.

Don't wind books around your head and bang the pc in the chest with them four times and that sort of thing. No. Just pick up the book and turn it around and hand it to the pc until he can do it, see? In other words, the dirtier the needle, the simpler you get.

There is your direction of change.

Now, when should you make up your mind that you should change into a simpler thing After about three sessions. Now, if you're doing a good, interesting session — you're doing a nice session that's very predictable and that sort of thing-the weapons in your hands are sufficiently good that they should start smoothing the needle out; doing CCHs the way you're doing them, doing Prepchecking. And you should start getting the things pretty smooth. This should start looking easy to you and the needle starts to look better and that sort of thing You find out that you'll get this chain up and that chain up, because — now I'm not kidding you — the getting the chains released and that sort of thing assists this condition. Providing you do get the whole chain, see. I mean, you do a good, thorough job of it.

An hour of thorough auditing, you know, is worth a thousand hours of clumsy auditing any day of the week.

So, anyway, your concentration is in the direction of a clean needle. And if this is not appearing, the thing to do is to get simpler, to get more basic, not more heroic.

Now, if a needle is getting dirtier as you audit the pc, suspect the following — at once suspect the following, in this order: suspect the meter. It isn't getting the rudiments in. The rudiments are out and the meter is not reading them. Suspect the meter. There's something wrong with the meter. We're assuming, of course, that you know how to audit and read a meter and that you are doing a standard job of Model Session. And you're doing the best job you know how and those rudiments, as far as you can see, are cleaner than clean.

Well, don't be so baffled. First suspect is the meter. You may have a disconnection in your leads — E-Meter lead. Your battery may be down or the meter might actually have a mechanical fault in it. Suspect the meter and check it out from one end to the other. Make sure that meter is okay.

Now, supposing that you were stuck. We've assumed you're trained, you know how to do this and you're going to clean up your middle ruds and Model Session rudiments and so forth. And this needle is getting dirtier. And you're sitting out there in West Keokuk — now that's worse than being in Keokuk; that's being in West Keokuk — and you're a long way from another meter.

There is something you can do. you will notice this is occurring: Whenever you ask a rudiment and you get a clean needle, the pc had an answer for you. And it will run up as many missed withholds as you have rudiments. This is the liability, by the way, of a bad meter, a bunged-up meter or something of the sort, see? Sounds grim, doesn't it? I see some of your hair standing on end.

Now, listen. I'll go over this test. This is a very important point of this lecture — very important point. Your meter is not doing well — I'm going to get you a meter standardizer and I'll get a little thing built that you can get for a few pounds and it'll tell you whether your meter is smoking the proper petrol and so forth. You know, like these motor analyzers. I already designed it. The letter went out today — I mean, with everything. We're going to get one of these things shortly.

But in spite of that, not even one of those may be available, you see? I mean you may really be — you may be in the south part of West Keokuk.

And you make this test. And you say to the pc, "Do you have a present time problem?" You see your meter is clean. Now you say to the pc, "Is there anything you wanted to say about that?"

And the pc says, "Yes. So-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so."

Well, running a rudiment that way, that's the type of response you get. Well, let's start in at the beginning of the thing, you see? "Look around here and tell me if it's all right to audit in this room," see — that type of rudiment. Clean, see? You say to the pc, "Is there anything you want — you thought of to tell me about this?"

Pc says, "Yes, I can't stand green wallpaper."

You say, "All right. Thank you." Go on to your next rudiment. "Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?" That's clean. Or he says something and you check it again, "Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?" and it's clean. Now you've cleaned it up, see? When you got it clean, say to your pc, "Was there something you thought of after that last question there that you wanted to tell me?"

And the pc says (this one too, see), "Well, yes. As a matter of fact, it so-and-so and so-and-so and such-and-such and such-and-such and — uh — I — uh — ha-ha — have grave reservations in disgusting [discussing] reincarnation with you because you look so reincarnated to me."

Then you say to the person, "Since the last time I audited you, have you done anything you are withholding" You get a read. you clean it, usual way. And then you ask him again, "Since the last time I audited you, have you done anything you are withholding?" See, your meter's clean. And you say, "Well, is there anything you thought of then to say to me?"

And the pc says, "Yes and yes and yes and I did this and I did that and so forth and I thought of saying this to you, too."

You say, "Well, thank you very much." And then, "Do you have a present time problem?" And it falls and you get the problem and all that sort of thing or it doesn't fall — doesn't matter — take it up to clean needle and say, "Well now, did you think of anything else you wanted to tell me?"

And the pc says, "And so-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so."

Well, listen: Don't think that you just got a gabby pc. Your meter isn't registering on that pc as far south as you've got to go to get the rudiments in.

You follow it? In other words, your meter doesn't go as far south as you've got to go to get the rudiments in. So even though the meter you're using is clean, you're auditing a pc with the rudiments out. And that is the only thing that'll dirty up a needle.

Prepchecking without cleaning up the What questions, you understand? Stacking up the missed withholds in all directions here.

Of course, you're auditing with the rudiments out. And you're auditing with a whole, big stack of missed withholds. So it merely means that your meter isn't reaching as deeply as the pc can reach into his own reactive bank.

In other words, you can audit with an insensitive meter. You're almost taking your life in your hands. But you can take the curse of it off, if you find this sort of thing is occurring and you're in the south part of West Keokuk — on the other side of the railroad track — you can add this additional caper, this little additional action. Because when you do add that addit the only reason you add it is because when you do add it you find out consistently that the pc has always had another missed withhold, has always had another problem. They were not registering on your meter. That means your meter is being insufficiently sensitive for that pc.

There's a limit to which a meter can go. It may even be that you can find a pc that just doesn't register on meters worth a nickel. And it may be that when pcs get very close to Clear they're not banging enough read on the meter to get the rudiment in when it's out.

Some interesting things could happen here, don't you see? Completely aside from the fact that you've dropped the meter and it's gone down the steps striking every fifth one with great regularity. See, some other oddities happen here. So we won't bother with the oddity. We'll merely say the meter isn't reaching as deep as the pc is reaching.

Now, it isn't necessarily true that every pc has a withhold just because he wanted to say something else. you put him on a drill like this, he's liable to start dreaming up things to say to you just to be accommodating.

The answer is, is how comfortable is this pc after a session is over? Is this pc really relaxed at the end of a session? Does this pc really feel fine as silk at the end of a session?

Well, here's the 18-inch gun on the thing. A pc after a session where the rudiments are unobservably but actually out, feels as roughed up as a violin being used for a canoe paddle. And a pc who has finished a session where the rudiments were well, well, well, well, thoroughly in, feels like a cat that's just been fed fish. He feels sleek. He feels smooth. Big difference.

If your pc doesn't feel very smooth at the end of a session, there's only one reason why. The What questions, the rudiments, are not clean. If those things are clean all the way down, the pc feels wonderful.

Now, there's a certain point of tolerance. But it's not very great.

Now, if your meter — here's another point — if your meter is never detecting and your meter never, never, never detects anything reactive on the pc, it isn't sensitive enough.

The pc never has to think and you never have to say, "There, there, there. What's that? What's that? What's that?" you see? "That, that."

"Oh," he says. "Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh yeah, ha-ha. Oh, yeah, hmm."

But if your meter is clearing every time on this basis — "Do you have a present time problem?"

"Oh, yes. I — actually I meant to go for a ride last night with two boys and I didn't and now I don't know whether I should have or not."

And you say, "Thank you. I'll check that out on the meter. Do you have a present time problem?"

And it reads and the pc says, "I'm — uh — rather uncomfortable in this chair."

And you say, "Thank you. Do you have a present time problem? That's clean," and so forth.

You know, you never had to steer the pc's attention. He knew all about these problems. Quite interesting. Pcs often do know all about these problems, but if they knew about those analytically, what are you using the E-Meter for? This pc actually isn't reading the deeper problem.

Actually, if you said then to the pc — it cleaned, see and you ran this other drill I was giving you for when you — when you think your meter is running far, far too shallow. You say, "Is there anything else you thought of to say to me?" you see, something like that.

And he, "No. I had a feeling like it isn't quite all right. I don't quite know what it is. Oh, well, yes. I just realized I — uh — h-aah — I'm thirsty."

And you say, "All right. Well, thank you."

The meter didn't go as shallow, you see it went too shallow. It didn't go down as far as the pc goes. It's something like finding the bottom out in the middle of the ocean with a short piece of string, you see? And you never get anywhere near the bottom.

Now, this condition can exist when your meter is out of whack, when it's insufficiently sensitive, battery is down, something like that and possibly could exist on some pc as he's moving forward toward Clear. You may hit bottom as far as the meter is concerned, but that isn't bottom. See? And you may have to introduce this other drill, which is clean it up thoroughly on the meter and then ask the pc if there's anything else. Got that? It's just as a standard drill. Doesn't matter whether you're prepchecking or anything else.

Oddly enough, you're still going to get the readings adequate for goals. They're still adequate for goals; you can read goals that way and so forth.

But there is the story of meters. A meter out of whack early on in auditing or a pc who finally suddenly gets Clear enough to know more about his reactive bank than the meter does and you won't get registries on the reactive bank, but the pc will know all about it. See?

Go ahead and use your meter. But you have to append the additional magic phrase. Got the idea?

And this other one — I want you to learn this real well and get a good subjective reality on it: Run a pc with the rudiments only partially in, you know, and the pc winds up rough; run a session with the rudiments very thoroughly in, the pc winds up very smooth.

The other datum is, if you've got a dirty needle on a pc, use the most predictable things you know how to do. And do those things very gently without any vast changes of pace or anything like that. Get predictable with this pc and you'll see that needle start straightening out.

Why is the needle dirty? The needle is dirty because the circuits are pulled in. why are the circuits pulled in? Because the pc is way back on the track and very low in havingness. How do you get the circuits off the pc? You pull the pc out of the circuits and up toward present time by running extroversion-type processes and by raising the pc's havingness to key these circuits out and so forth.

The worse you audit the pc, the less his havingness is going to be, the more the key — you're going to get circuits keyed in, so therefore the dirtier needle you're going to get. Those are the mechanics of the thing and the only reason you're cleaning up a needle is so you can do 3GA.

You got it?

Audience: Yes, thanks. Hm-hm.

All right. Thank you.

Audience: Thank you.

Thank you.