Thank you.

Well, you know it's very funny. The older students sit up front and the newer students sit at the back and you look at a gradient scale here, you see and it's, a very interesting gradient scale. People on the very front row look like they might possibly, some day, live.

Lecture two, Mar. 29, AD 12. Lecture subject, blank. I'm giving this lecture to give you an opportunity to ask some questions. If anybody feels that they just can't help but reverse the flow, do so! Any questions, any questions? Yes Herzog.

Okay, this is what date?

Male voice: Ron, I'd like to know that if you have a case and you process him and the tone arm moves up . . .

Audience: Twenty-nine March.

Hm.

Twenty-nine Mar. 62, AD 12 and here we go. We are going to talk to you about the CCHs.

Male voice: . . . something about 3.5 or 4.0, and it stays for a long while there until suddenly he talks to you and, boom, it comes down. you know, in one fell swoop, without him necessarily making a cognition . . .

CCHs. And this is based on the bulletin of 29th of March — HCOB. The companion bulletins are HCOB of November 2nd, 61 and the HCOB of June 23rd, 61. Those are three of a piece and they fit together and the three bulletins, as you look along the line here, are inseparable.

Hm.

Frankly, it would be not enough to know one of these bulletins. We finally determined when you run the CCHs. That's been a question which has existed here for many a millennia. In the first place, they didn't exist for many a trillennia. And I'll go into a short history of these.

Male voice: . . . or anything really happening. But this is a kind of a pattern.

Once upon a time I was in England, that's up north and at 37 Fitzroy Street, West 1, just after they had moved in, it was apparent they were having trouble with preclears. This was a fact. Some pcs, when they walked in, caromed off both sides of the door. Some pcs didn't hit the door at all. Some pcs didn't even have enough sense to hit the street and there were trouble with pcs.

The case always does this?

We were having a hard time getting HGC results. Oddly enough, an HGC which is properly conducted, properly supervised, many, many, many years now, has been turning out pretty good results and turning out very superior results. HGCs were first organized to demonstrate that good results could be turned out and to serve as a model to field auditors and then the HGC became a thing in itself. And it was evident at this time, however, that we had hit an impasse in technology, where we weren't getting the results that we should have gotten. And I developed the CCHs. And they've been in the way, underway for quite a little while, little bits and pieces and fragments of them and so forth. And I finally put them together all in a bundle and we had the CCHs.

Male voice: That's right.

Well, this gave us a series of processes, which, if properly used, familiarized — now get the difference here: CCHs don't run things out; the CCHs familiarize the pc with control, communication and havingness, which is the source of CCH — Control, Communication and Havingness. And the pc does an upgrade on the CCHs in the teeth of the adage that the pc must be at cause. Now you find out in doing these that the pc actually is at cause, to a marked degree, except perhaps in CCH 1, that's to the least degree he is at cause and then at 2 he's slightly less at cause, 3, he's considerably more at cause and 4 he is rather definitely at cause.

That's repetitive tone arm motion and is a peculiar phenomenon of where the tone arm goes to the same points and does the same thing without something happening There's a thing called a stage four needle. Well, this is the equivalent behavior on a tone arm. And it's actually a circulation between two masses. And the individual has mass one and mass two. In other words, valence one and valence two.

In other words, you get a gradient, here, of causation. CCH 1, "Give me that hand," he's hardly at cause at all, but these are not, "run out something" processes. The CCHs actually are a method of familiarizing the pc with control, with communication and with havingness. In other words, he sits there and looks at it and finally finds out he can confront it. you get the idea? That's an entirely different proposition. In other things, we adjust — we adjust the pc's thinkingness so that he can cope with communication, control and havingness and a lot of other things.

And you'll find out that when a case is pretty heavily pushed in, you can almost hear the click when they go through these valences. And valence two reads at 3.0, and valence one reads at 2.0, let us say, and they go click-click, click-click, click-click. And it hasn't anything to do with tone arm motion. It is an odd phenomenon that you — you've seen there.

You see, you say, "Give me a time when you bapped somebody over the head and told him you were controlling him," you know? "Recall a time you controlled something," something like this. In other words we do an erasure process. We desensitize the thing in reverse. We get the reason why the pc is allergic to communication, control, havingness and numerous other factors, you see? And we knock out that and let the pc carry on. Well, we don't do that with the CCHs. CCHs are straight familiarization. Pc sees that it is occurring and finds out it doesn't kill him. That's about the whole modus operandi of the CCHs.

You shouldn't suspect that when you see — it creeps up to 2.25 and then it goes to 2.75 and then edges up to 3.0 and then comes back to 2.5. That's not the same action. It rises up and will get to about 3.25, and sometimes it's much worse than this, sometimes it goes up to 4.5 — more usual, even, and then, clank! All of a sudden goes to 3.25, 4.5, 3.25, 4.5, 3.25, 4.5, 3.25. And if you see any variation, adjust your trim knob! There are — there are such cases. There are such cases.

Now sometimes a pc can find this out in five or six hours and sometimes he finds it out in fifty hours and sometimes he finds it out in 150 hours. But somewhere along the line, he gets an idea that control, communication and havingness are not necessarily horrible. He changed his mind about the thing But there's some point of case where a case turns to predominately motivator, as you go down scale, your case gets to a level where it is predominately motivator and won't respond to anything else. Whereas a person has an inadequate idea of cause to be causative.

You shouldn't confuse it with tone arm motion, because it isn't. That's just a direct read on valence one, a direct read on valence two. It's unmistakable, by the way, you — you wouldn't be wondering very long whether you had a case like this or didn't have a case like this. I mean, I've seen a case hung up in this for quite awhile, and then all of a sudden bust through and do something else.

Now above that point, a person's cause can be increased easily. And below that point a person's cause can only be increased to the degree of getting him to confront something that is going on someplace else. Do you follow that? All right, instead of letting him run motivators then, you see, what you'd normally get would be this kind of a rig You'd have Prepchecking and you'd say, well we prepcheck the people as we go down scale, to a point where the pc is run on nothing but motivators. Well, let's look at this, see. We see this gets noplace, because, if you want to make a test, if you want to wind somebody up in a bag sometime, prepcheck this Zero question, "What has been done to you?" And it's very remarkable, but we have — we have innumerable — we collected these quite by accident — but we have innumerable auditor's reports where this has been done and goals and gains is always "No." Made no gains, no goals. Isn't that interesting? In other words, if we run the motivator side of it, the pc himself decides, after he is saying how abused he has been for the last trillennia, he finally winds up and tells you that the session didn't give him any gains and it's true. It also follows through, to a marked degree, on profiles and that sort of thing.

But there are some cases, you get them in, get them on a meter, and they do nothing else but this. And the auditor sits there and happily thinks the case is moving like mad, and actually the case is going exactly no place. It's as bad as this: When the pc talks to the auditor, he's in valence one. When the auditor talks to the pc, he's in valence two. It will just go, clickclick, click-click. And then the thing reads proportionately. Okay? Right.

So we can't run Prepchecking down from, "What have you done to somebody else?" and as we go down scale, reaching for the pc, as he is further south pc, you see, we can't get down to that level and say, "Well, what's been done to you?" and get anything In other words, we hit an impasse at that point.

Yes, Charles.

Well, there's where the CCHs take over. Instead of letting him run up further overts by saying what has been done to him, you see, which is all accusative and critical and just runs up further overts, we get him to confront communication, control and duplication. Now I've often told you that the mechanics of auditing, all by themselves, carried out on the basis of, "Do fish swim?" would get someplace.

Male voice: In this bulletin on CCHs you mention you run the CCHs 1, 2, 3 and 4 until they're runnable without somatics or reasonably flat — and reasonably flat. Could you elucidate a little bit, on "reasonably flat"?

In other words, the actual actions of the auditor, without any guts to the session whatsoever, just the actions of the auditor, will produce a gain on a case. That is why it's pretty hard to understand how, here and there, it can be managed to get no gain on the case and those actions of the auditor must therefore, be interestingly absent. And that's the values of the TRs. You do good TRs, you sit there, just do good TRs and your pc — something is going to happen to your pc, that's for sure.

Well any CCH-type process, for instance "Notice that (room object)" is actually a CCH — it actually comes under that classification, because it's a direct havingness, straight observation process of the present time environment.

Well, you've got this factor of duplication. And you might say that havingness is reachingness. Havingness is the concept of being able to reach or not being prevented from reaching. That's an interesting definition and that's probably a fundamental definition. But then havingness is understood also to be continuous. So we get reach duplication of — duplication of reach and of course this fortifies havingness endlessly. The fellow finds out that it isn't a fluke that he could reach that time. He can now reach again. And he can reach again and he can reach again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again. All of a sudden he takes heart. He finds out there's a possibility here that he might be able to have. you see, he's still doubtful as he comes up the line and you're getting him to reach.

All right. If that turned on a somatic, you have to continue to run it until the somatic drops out. That is the fundamental of what you're talking about. See? The fundamental is that, in view of the fact that only a CCH will turn off the somatic it turns on, or a series of s you know, running through, maybe the somatic will hang for awhile, and then it'll finally shift down — you're honor-bound, if you start the CCHs, to run the somatics flat off of them.

And now let's take CCH 1, "Give me that hand." It could have possibly also — I am not saying you should run it with this command — but you — "Reach me." "Reach me." "Reach me." you get the similarity here? See, pc really is at cause, see? You could just say, "Reach me." "Reach me." "Reach me." "Reach me." And make sure that he did and it would be quite interesting.

Now, if you had a case that the somatics came off, but they were still ragged in spots, you would continue to audit it until the pc didn't mind any of them. So, one, be sure and run them as long as they generate somatics. That's vital. That is a must. And then we have the nice thing to do, which gets the full benefit out of the CCHs, is run them so the pc can do them all willingly and do them all well, in sequence, in rotation, and it doesn't bother them, and so forth.

I don't advocate that you fellows do this, although once in a while, some squirrel auditor develops some technology by which he can use Scientology to make a girl more accessible.

Take off the gross change that you get on the CCHs — the gross change is, of course, the somatic. And then the less gross change is the raggedness or the irregularity and the little unwillingnesses and that sort of thing that you run into on that.

Now personally, I find it difficult to understand this, because I myself, you see, have never needed Scientology! I don't waste a brag, but I just want to point this out. Here you have a situation where that's a poor show. But you actually could take a girl and have her reach your right knee and your left knee and your right shoulder and your left shoulder and your nose and the top of your head and your right hand and left hand. And every now and then, ask her how she feels about you.

Does that answer that question?

And if you don't flatten the process, just about the time this thing goes into the plus state, she'll tell you she's mad about you, she thinks you're wonderful. That's right. And you girls could do the same thing. There's no use being subtle about this — being subtle about this. you don't have to make out that you knew them all of your past life or something like this, you see. Say, "Well, actually we were married once so it doesn't matter," that kind of thing, that's not necessarily right.

Male voice: Yes, thank you.

Suzie and I have known each other in the past track three or four times and we are both trying desperately to forget it! Whenever I get real mad at her, I ream her out for the reaming out she gave me one time, you know? That kind of thing. I think we rode without food or water for three days and nights to relieve the garrison, then she says, "What kept you?" I could go on and elaborate this sort of thing, but I wouldn't — I wouldn't found these relationships on past lives if I were you. I'd just be more direct about the whole thing. I give you this particular trick and if you don't flatten it you will find out that midway through, the pc thinks you're marvelous!

Right, right.

It's this Touch Process. "Touch my right knee," "Touch my left knee," "Touch my right shoulder," "Touch my left shoulder," you know, that kind of thing. You don't even have to be more personal than that, you know, you just do that. Now anyhow, if you flatten it, of course they think you're okay, but they're not in this — this super-emotional state. You ought to try this sometime and make sure you flatten it, because it gets to be very embarrassing. It's actually almost embarrassing if you only run it halfway.

Yes!

Well, I'm just giving you an idea. Here is a change of relationship between the auditor and the pc and of course, "Give me that hand," run properly, of course, gets the pc to do the causative action and it is the most simple, the most elementary of the data I just gave you. That is elementary — "Give me that hand," "Reach me." And if you were to run this and understand the full sense of it, you would do this other test, that I just gave you and you would understand completely why the thing worked.

Female voice: Ron, would there be any extra value in running the CCHs with the beginning and end rudiments?

Person begins to realize they can reach you and therefore will talk to you and you're getting the "Talk to the auditor." That's what you're establishing with that.

Yeah, well, I didn't mention that until I was going over it again, because it — I said I was going to mention it, I'll mention it now. Thank you for bringing it up.

Now, the next one up is this individual has been running a body on a machine for a very long time, CCH 2 — old 8-C — has been running a body on a machine. It's quite interesting then to what degree people do not move their bodies around. The body just ambulates and perambulates and walks and bends and sits down and the thetan is back there, saying, "Well, what do you know, look at that," you know? "It sat down, it stood up, I wonder where it's going?" It's fantastic you know. It's just as a total outside spectator, you know?

If you wanted the CCHs to produce the highest possible gain with the least possible blow, on pcs who are pretty sensible anyway, you'd probably put in your beginning rudiments and do your end rudiments on a meter. And do the body of the session on the CCH. It makes a different breed of CCH, which would of course be rather understood to come about if you started using the CCHs not on very low-scale pcs exclusively, but started using the CCHs on middle-range pcs.

Sometimes, "Isn't it cute, it walks. It walks. It's talking now, I wonder what it's saying?" And it sometimes comes as a considerable shock to a thetan, on CCH 2, that he is moving the body. And he has something to do with the body. That was why we put the you in there. "You look at that wall" and "You walk over to that wall" and "You touch that wall and turn around." That's why the you came in there.

You could possibly have a situation like this: The pc is sitting there with a howling withhold, you see, of some kind, and that's been missed, and the pc is blowy, because of the withhold, and then you get something going on one of the CCHs that causes him to blow, and your pc tries to blow ten times as hard. In other words, by doing this, you could soften up the blow factor, and the pc at the same time would tend to stay in-session a little bit better.

We wanted to emphasize this thing. Wanted to get the fellow in the notion that he was doing something with the body. And there we'd get almost a purely control mechanism. You see your CCH 1 is a reach-me communication mechanism and your CCH 2 is a control of the body mechanism.

But I would still rather leave this in an auditor choice proposition because it has not been done. you see? It's a fact offered without experimental background. And I ordinarily tell you when this is, and if you want to go ahead and do it, do so, and we'll rack up a few of them and we'll look it over and see how it works, and then it would be whether you did it or whether you didn't do it. But it's certain that on many cases you can't do the beginning and end rudiments on a meter in the CCHs, you see. That's impossible.

In other words, it's trying to assert to the individual that you are in control of that body.

But it's also become certain that if you're going to start running people, just because their tone arms don't move because the auditor is not running the right Prepcheck, or something of this sort, well, probably the case would make a better gain if you ran beginning and end rudiments. I don't necessarily say it would. I say it's not necessary to do or unnecessary to do it this stage of the game. This is something that will require more data about. I think there would probably be an additional benefit to the CCHs if it were done that way. And I think also an auditor could get so involved with the beginning and end rudiments, he didn't do any CCHs. So maybe the thing has blessings, and maybe it has curses. It is an idea offered, rather than otherwise. Okay? You bet.

Now CCH 3, Hand Space Mimicry, was developed originally to get the pc in the same communication time span as the auditor. We found out that a pc at this level only understood tactile and they had to practically be touching something before they were in communication with it. And it's an effort to get a gradient. How far away can the pc be from the auditor and still be in a visual communication with the auditor? That's what this is answering. Can we introduce some space into this idea of hard and fast.

Any other questions? Right!

You'll get — you'll get some people working in an organization, you'll get some people that never can put a despatch in a basket and have it delivered. They've got to bring a body with the despatch. There's always got to be a body with the despatch. They've got something — if they're going to write to you and tell you that the laundry has arrived — why, they can't do that.

Female voice: on 3D Criss Cross, is there any indication whether definitely we should oppterm each item as they come up, or get them across? You know....

They've got to come in and present a body and so forth. That's just because there can be no space in a communication. That's all that is.

Well, originally, we hit it in a sloppy way. In 3D Criss Cross we did — oh, several, and then start oppterming Get several lines, and then start oppterming. And I don't know that this isn't the best method. Once again we're on a data question mark. I do know this, I do know this, that some items are so heavily charged, and the pc gets so momentarily and so tremendously fixated on the item, that you actually couldn't do much more than oppterm them. But on a little work I have been doing recently, I still favor the first method we were using — of getting several lines, and then finding out — and then reading down the items and finding out which one of them is particularly live today, and oppterm it. you know?

You see, their cause-distance-effect is minimal distance, see. So it's just cause-effect. And these things, they are more or less understood by them, to be occurring at exactly the same point, with no distance in between. Now, if the pc were in the auditor's head, the pc could be audited. See? That's for sure. Everybody would agree with that. Well, this is an effort to not have the pc in the auditor's head and still get some auditing

There's that possibility that if you did twenty lines without a single oppterm, that you would be running the pc into nothing but sensation. And the pc would just be getting dizzier and dizzier and dizzier. And now I can give you a rule by which you can follow this. The rule is a bit sloppy, but it is still a rule. And that is, if your pc, after you've done one, three, five lines, is starting to complain of dizziness — in other words, lots of sen — or is getting continually griefy or something — anything that is under the heading of sensation, you know, misemotion or dizziness or sensation; you know, everything is going far away and coming to them again. At that stage you have gone too far without oppterming And the thing to do is to oppterm. That's when you must oppterm. When your pc is getting a lot of heavy sen. Then you must oppterm.

Now we introduce the idea of communication by duplication. We've got some space in the communication. We've got some duplication going on and eventually what do you know, he finds out some more that he can talk to the auditor. Or better, at this stage, can understand what the auditor is telling him to do.

But I wouldn't do that just because the pc was getting heavy sensation on one line. Well, so he got heavy sensation on this line and at the end of that, and then you did another line and the pc is now really getting heavy sensation and between session is starting to go dizzy. Now, you've got to. Now, you've got to oppterm. The thing — the way to cure that is to oppterm.

Now, the only mistake that could be made — all of this material, by the way, that I'm giving you here is coming out of the November 2nd, 1961, HCOB — the only mistake that could be made at this stage of the game, is to get too darned complicated.

So, within these tolerances, it doesn't much matter when you do it. But I can tell you when you must do it. Okay?

You could get far, far too complicated at this stage of the game, you see, and give the pc some loses. So keep it — keep it real simple. You want the pc to be mimicking the motion. But it's a "contribute to the motion." See? We're just gradually bringing him around to the idea of cause, with that word "contribute." "Contribute to the motion," "Help it out a little bit," or something like that. And you ask him, you ask him now and then, "Did you contribute to their motion?" (hands, see?) "Did you contribute to their motion?" And the pc says, "Yes." And, of course, the odd part of it is if he says "No," that you don't do a thing about it. "Yes" or "No," it doesn't matter what the pc says, you're just planting that idea as you go.

Female voice: Hm-mm.

Now, we get up to CCH 4 and we're actively asking if the pc is satisfied. Now, looking over this particular write-up of this CCH 4 — hmm. Yes, auditor asks pc if he is satisfied that the pc duplicated the motion. That's quite interesting because you keep doing it until the pc says he's satisfied and that is the only criterion. This is the only mistake you can make with CCH 4, besides making it too complicated.

All right.

Sometimes auditors make it so complicated that they themselves can't duplicate it. And this is a silly position for you to get into. And I do not advocate your getting into this position. There is a level of simplicity-complexity at which the pc finds comfortable, but sometimes — sometimes you have seventeen consecutive different motions, as the thing which you want him to . . . And then the pc says, "I didn't see that, could you do it again?" Of course you're sunk!

Yes?

The other action which the pc makes here: It's the pc who is satisfied that he duplicated it and you know, that'll drive an auditor sometimes halfway around the bend. He picks up this book, you see. And he lifts the book up level, puts it back down again and he says, "All right, did you — you satisfied that you duplicated that motion?" you see, anything that he cares to say like that, these are not verbal commands. That is, it doesn't depend on verbalness. And the pc takes the book — has taken the book, you see, and he's gone... And the auditor said, "Well, you satisfied that you duplicated the motion?" And the pc says, "Oh yes." And the pc thinks he has. And now the auditor — and now the auditor falls into the pit of being sneering about it or being critical about it. And you know the pc can just roll up in a ball, I mean, he'll just quit right at that point. You can defeat that whole CCH. Carefully examined it in use and that is actually the only way it really defeats everything. Is if the auditor insists that the pc didn't and starts getting new motions to contribute and does it again.

Male voice: And you do that by assessing your items, taking one which is pretty heavily charged ?

"Well all right, you didn't do this, so, I mean you say you did it, but let's look at it a little more carefully here" and so on. What I normally do in running it, myself, is when I see that the pc is making some wild, wild duplications that he thinks are duplications, I try to find one that the pc will actually duplicate. And will duplicate sufficiently well that it doesn't make him a liar every time. And then I'll do this one sometimes, is I give him a motion, raise the book up and down something like this and then he sits there and he scratches the back of his head with the book, you know. Puts it back on his lap and then you say, "Did you duplicate that?" And he says, "Oh yes." Why, I'll do two or three more and then I'll raise that book up and down again. And you know, the pc will eventually see it. It's not done in a critical spirit. I just know this is one he needs drill on badly. And he'll eventually improve it and you'll see him get a little bit better at it. But it's, is the pc satisfied with it? That's how you keep the pc at cause through the CCHs.

Yes. The first way we were doing this is probably the best way. That is to simply get a lot of lines, then read through several of items that you've already found — you've got maybe four, five, six lines. You read those and you find out that one is really knocking That's the one to oppterm. Yeah. And if you're going to oppterm all of them at that time, you would read through the remaining ones and find out the heaviest one and oppterm that one, until you'd opptermed them all. You'd of course would really oppterm them all. you wouldn't leave one out just because it wasn't knocking. You'd oppterm anything that you'd ever found. Even if it was wrong

Otherwise there's no reason, beyond what I have just told you, why they would work. It's odd that they work at all. It's odd that there are levels that you could audit, where the person does not have any opinion of what you're doing, thinks everything you are doing is bad, sees it all backwards, wants no benefit from it, would rather blow your brains out than follow any of the commands and that you can audit straight through and have the person come up with a gain. That is what is very peculiar about the CCHs. But it is true.

Try and oppterm a wrong line sometime. That is really marvelous! That winds up back of nowhere faster than any other operation I could guess at. Because you've come up with a wrong item on an original line and now you're going to oppterm it. Pc goes way out into left field and falls in a gopher hole and that's the end of that! Okay?

It actually doesn't even require the pc's permission. It's nice to have it, but if you haven't got it, so what.

Yes?

Well back there in 56 — back there in 56, they were laid out more or less like this. There've been very few changes, except I think the "you" in CCH 2. And very few changes and yet by 1958 the CCHs weren't working. The CCHs weren't working by 1958 and they definitely weren't working in 1959 and they weren't working in 60. The technology had been lost and yet the auditors (one of whom I am looking at right now) got trained back in 56. Actually, really didn't want to audit CCHs very badly. I made her run them on a doll, get ahold of a doll and shake the doll's hand, you know, and run them on the doll, and so forth, and she did real well. she got so she was getting fantastically good results on the pc. Just marvelous, did marvelously. And as time went on, much less able auditors — even more able auditors, they made no results.

Female voice: Could you tell me, when you start doing the third line, how many lines to get to the person — oppterms — before you start to oppterm — you know, do your third oppterm.

Well, where'd these results go on the CCHs? We're already old enough to have had a routine varied and buried and skipped and altered and messed up so that it didn't work. It's a good lesson. It's a good lesson. 1956 they worked and part of 57 they worked. And then they didn't work the rest of 57, 58, 59, 60 and so forth, until I all of a sudden said, "What's this all about?" And I realized that we used to do them differently. And people had stopped doing them this way. That is to say, they were doing each CCH perfectly. But they were not doing them as a combination.

Now . . .

In view of the fact they weren't doing them in relationship to each other, they didn't work. And these CCHs don't work if not interrelated to each other.

Female voice: I mean when you get your one item, then you oppterm, do you go down — further down the line and oppterm again?

There's a certain way of handling the CCHs, in relationship to each other, quite independent of how each CCH is done. And that piece of technology is as important as the individual CCHs. How do these four work together? That was lost. So we get a reissue of that. Short, sweet and succinct. June 23rd, 1961. It's preserved in this particular form. It's taken from a telex sent to Johannesburg. It's not that Johannesburg has a harder time, but that this was — had just been picked up on course here and so was sent down to Johannesburg.

Oh, well, oppterm smoothly. In other words, if you're going to start oppterming, you wouldn't get your third item until every first item had a second item.

"You run a CCH only so long as it produces change in the pc's general aspect. If no change in aspect for twenty minutes, go on to the next CCH. If CCH producing change, do not go on but flatten that CCH."

Female voice: Yes, I know. I see.

"Run CCH 1, 2, 3, 4, 1, 2, 3, 4, 1, etc. use only the right hand on '1'."

All right, now, you get everything a third item. And, you wouldn't start getting anything a fourth item until everything had a third item. In other words, you'd fill up the lot.

We're not trying to clean his hands up.

It'd be perfectly all right to have — as far as I know, and from what I've seen of this — to have twenty first items with no second items at all, see, because you've got one item each, unless you run into this sensation thing I was talking about. And then your person starts going dizzy, and so forth, between session, you better start oppterming. Well, the moment you start oppterming, oppterm the lot, see? But take the first one that's the heaviest one. Now, don't get your third item until you've got the second item for everything. In other words, keep a balance to that degree.

See, all these complications entered into it, you know, all kinds of complications got born up out of these things. You are right back to their simplest form and this group use of them.

The reason why, if you don't do that, is you start losing lines. You lose lines, inevitably, anyhow. Lines all start to cone in toward a limited number of items. But you start getting the third one before you've got the second one, and the bank gets all monkeyed up so that you get your second one over here as the third one and you've already — lose a line. See? That's real heavily charged and it appears over on the wrong line. And the next thing you know you're narrowing much too fast. Okay?

Any pc on Routine 1 and so forth, is completely irrelevant. And another point here: CCHs not run in Model Session — not run on E-Meter. I'll take that up with you in a minute. But it's a code break of Clause 13 which is, "You must not run a process which is not producing change" and "You must flatten a process which is producing change." Clause 13 of the Auditor's Code — not to handle the CCHs this way. By the way, on running a child — on running a child, three times is flat. There is a variation of this rule. They do it well three times — that's flat. Do the whole CCH three times. That's flat. Otherwise, a child will get loses. And this will also work out, you will find, with the worse off cases, so the twenty minutes that we state here, is a maximum time. Maximal time.

Female voice: Yes.

Sometimes a CCH doesn't bite for a few minutes. Runs for a few minutes and it doesn't bite. Well, this gives it an adequate time to do so. If you are running somebody who is having a hard time with their attention span: three times. "Give me that hand. Thank you. Give me that hand. Thank you. Give me that hand." They did it three times. Fine, that's flat. Got the idea? Otherwise, they start to think that you're punishing them and they start to think — you're getting loses. So the auditor has to make an adjudication on the state of the case and the attitude of the case, you see? Never less than three times, you know. Don't pull that down to once, see. And never more than twenty minutes. That's in your reasonable range expectancy. And if the thing is running with ragged differences, it's not flat.

All right.

You can watch a person doing CCH 2 and they're doing these things very raggedly. They walk over to the wall, sometimes they look at the wall, sometimes they don't look at the wall. They shuffle their feet, sometimes they don't shuffle their feet, they lean on the wall, sometimes they don't lean on the wall. Comm lags in the length of time necessary to touch the hand, comm lags in the length of time it takes them to turn around. Differences of resistance to direction and so forth. These are all differences, so those are not flat. Then they finally do it three times in a row, three whole sequences in a row: flat. Go on to the next one.

Yes, Fred.

It's the times through. And as long as it's producing a difference in timing, a difference of reaction in each time it's done, as long as it's being different, you want — you want to keep on running it, because it's not flat. But as soon as it smooths out, why, so that you get a — they are all about the same and particularly the person doesn't seem to mind doing it — that's an interesting factor. Probably a more vital factor than the perfection with which they do it.

Male voice: Would the sensation phenomena also apply to the pain phenomena if you were getting only pain? Would . . .

Yeah, well, that's time to push on to the next one because you're going to catch this thing again anyhow.

I'm sadistic.

Now it's quite interesting. You'll watch the CCHs behave in this particular fashion. You'll do CCH 1: "Person does it standing on their head." Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Nothing to do with me, you know. CCH 2: "What wall?" Bang! so on, so on. Just all doing on the auditor's determinism. CCH 3: "Yeah, yeah I can totally do it." Everything's fine, give them a book. You raise the book, they raise the book. Raise the book. . . Go back to the beginning of the thing. You say, "Give me that hand." "Why should I?" Just now something is biting, oooh! Yeah. There ensues a wrastling match people would pay admission to see. Not flat.

Male voice: You would continue on if — you wouldn't oppterm it then?

You go ahead and flatten it and go on and up and you find the next one is flat or not flat. In other words, you find these unflatnesses and flatten them, is what you're trying to do. Now frankly, if you attacked it from another way, from another approach, the approach they'd begun to attack it with in 58, this would be all messed up. you just get ahold of the fellow and you're going to flatten, "Give me that hand." And the individual has no peculiarities or differences in "Give me that hand" and you just run "Give me that hand," for the next 150 hours. There's nothing happening, just run it.

It'd be almost impossible for the pc to maintain his terminal. You see, the mechanics of the thing, Fred, are these: that the pc is his terminal. And a terminal always has pain on it. And here is this terminal on which there is pain, facing outwards, always, against an enemy. So, you've given this terminal he's stuck in, an enemy, an enemy, an enemy, an enemy, and he gets dizzy because he just got too many enemies. But on the pain phenomena, he's simply being somebody else. you see? And you actually wouldn't get that kind of a phenomenon. You won't get 3D Criss Cross turning on constant pain, but you will get 3D Criss Cross turning on constant sen.

It goes on and on and on and on and on. There's not enough variation or randomity or different things being addressed in the case to make any difference at all to the case and the case just doesn't get anyplace. And nothing happens. So the CCHs don't work. you get ahold of some people, they actually can't tell anywhere from nowhere and you say, "You look at that wall" and they look at the wall. "You walk over to it" and they walk over to it and then, "Touch it" and they touch it. And they turn around. And they come back and "You look at that wall" and they just go on and on and on and on. And you give them a test to fill out, so that you can get their profile and you come back and you find these horrible pictures of waterfalls with bones at the bottom, you know. And you don't even find the answer to test, you know. This is very puzzling I mean how come they can do this? It's actually just on the auditor's determinism. Doesn't mean anything to them. The wall isn't anything to them. They're not touching anything. They're not walking. They're just, "Isn't it sort of cute? Look at it, look, oooh!" Hasn't anything to do with them. Very funny.

Male voice: Thank you.

And you take one of these cases and you can make a terrible mistake. You can start to run "think" process immediately afterwards, you see. Because the person can do 8-C so well, we'll now run a think process and they should be able to get away.. . Think? What think? That's the trouble you get into. That's the trouble you get into, when you just tackle these CCHs, each one all by itself and make it an end-all. They have to be in this rotation. If you don't have them in that rotational sequence, not enough different things, you haven't got enough randomity and nothing unsettles. But you tackle it in that rotation in the bulk of cases you run — of course you don't — will go right on and get gains. You run into these sags and flat points and unrealities and so forth. But the person goes through them.

You see why?

Now there's one exception to this. Is about the only thing that you can run on an unconscious person is CCH 1. You can't walk them around the room, so you're limited to that degree. And CCHs are workable on unconscious people to just the degree that they would be workable, if you ran just one CCH on a person, you see, not very universally applicable.

Male voice: Yes.

So therefore, if a person isn't recovering — an unconscious person isn't recovering consciousness — dream up something else, see, don't keep on. There's not a flicker of change or pulse beat or response or anything like that and you've been doing it for two hours and there's no change on it, you're not really getting a response. You're running against Clause 13 of the Auditor's Code. Run a Touch Assist on them. Sounds funny. Person's unconscious, well, run a Touch Assist on them. you also run an unconscious person through an engram. You can also run Havingness on them. Do all sorts of weird things to unconscious people. They very often follow through.

Yeah. All right. You bet.

But do something else. In other words, you'd have to dream up a consecutive series of processes numbering about four in all, that'd fit this particular unconscious person. You've got a lot of processes to choose from. one is Havingness. And yeah, "Make that body lie on that bed" and Touch Assists and, "Feel this" or something like that. "Feel the pillow." "Feel your head." "Feel the sheet." "Feel the blanket."

Male voice: I just wondered why you left out the one side.

In other words, lay out a pat four that would be the CCHs, simply because you can't run the CCHs on them. you got what I am talking about? Then go cycle through this same four, until you could get some changes. Because it's just — running one thing on and on and on, it's just running into Clause 13 of the Auditor's Code. You're running a pc — isn't producing — on which — whom you're producing no change of any kind whatsoever. And of course, that's just agin the Code. You've got to find a process that does produce change.

Yeah, well, that's — the reason why is the pc — the pc as his terminal is never opposed to the pc as his terminal. See? Now, you can give him too many enemies. He's stuck in being a cat. And you don't know what he's stuck in. You haven't found a cat yet, you see. You're finding a lot of other parts of the package. But actually all this time he's being a cat, very obsessively — you've never relieved this one, you see. And you get a lion, and you get a dog, you see, and that's real cheerful. And you get a dogcatcher and — and then you will go along a little bit further and you get a housewife, and you say, "This is interesting here. We're finally finding his female characteristics, you know." And then we get a small house, and then we get a sandbox.

Now, the funny part of the CCHs is, once you've found a process that does produce change, voilà! The other processes which were apparently flat will now be unflat. The oddity is that one CCH unflattens the other three. Not always all of the other three. But it'll unflatten one or more of the remaining three. You get a change on a CCH, it'll change the other three. Even if you get no change on it, it tends to unsettle the remainder. It's quite remarkable to appear. That was the original way they were run; the original way that we got very good results with them.

You see, up to this time we haven't added up why — what we've got there, you see. And the pc can actually start stacking up, and the phenomenon that he's stacking up is, "They're all agin' a cat."

Now, I'd like to call to your attention the fact that they're a Tone 40 process and that the Upper Indoctrination, good Upper Indoc is vital to a good handling of the CCHs. Putting that thought in the ashtray, man, that's very important. You lay these commands into the pc's head. The funny part of it is, that they're not necessarily even verbal commands. But you can overstrain this and wear yourself out. For instance I ended session for a pc, I think, last night and it possibly ended thirty or forty sessions or something. And it required no strain on my vocal chords and certainly didn't require any strain on my postulates. I just told her — just gave her a Tone 40 "End of session" you see. All right. It's not necessarily difficult for the auditor. An auditor hasn't — isn't trying to impress the pc with anything. It's just a direct lay-in of it. It's just directional. It's — you might say it's a command without reservation. And it's not necessarily a forceful command or an impressive command or anything else. It's just a command without reservation. You take the brakes off of the thing, you can practically split the pc's skull down the middle.

And it's looking like a mighty hostile environment to the pc by this time, and he'll go — start going zzzzz-zzzzz, wog-wog and actually get dizzy enough that he can't walk up and down stairs. I mean, it can get that gruesome. And also, you've occasionally heard of the pc where the room — walls of the room went out of plumb? That's all part of the same sen, by the way. That's just sen. That's too many oppterms, too many enemies. I didn't mean to beat it on the head, but it's interesting that the fact that — the second he's out of a cat, you see — so a cat has lots of enemies. Now — now he is being a warrior. That's his terminal. Well, all right, that's got lots of enemies, too. But one of its enemies is not a cat.

One other thing I'd like to say about the CCHs before we go on to the rest of "When?" One other thing I'd like to say about them is the fact that they are nonverbal. And you could run them on a deaf person. It actually could be, you see? It'd take a little ingenuity on your part to cut out the total verbalness, but factually, the verbalness is not the chief part of it. The chief part of it is the action. The solidities involved, the solidity of the reach and all that sort of thing. So the CCHs, the common denominator of the CCHs is solids, not thoughts.

Male voice: Uh-uh.

That brings us to where we are on "When?" When your pc does not get any tone arm action on Prepchecking or on 3D Criss Cross, you should be running the CCHs.

Okay?

Now the auditor could be at fault, the questions at fault, the list chosen at fault, a lot of things could be at fault. Don't worry about what's at fault. Just put the pc on the CCHs. That's when.

Male voice: Thank you.

In the absence of tone arm motion on thinkingness processes, do the CCHs. And this will keep a lot of people from wasting time in processing. They all make better gains in processing if you do this.

Right.

Now we have a case in point. A list. I know we said on one of the Info Bulletins — you realize 3D Criss Cross is on Info Bulletins, don't you? Because it's not finalized. So when you finally get a finalization of "This is it" (Roman postulates you know?) why you'll get it in red ink, but up to that time it's in Info Bulletins. It permits one to reserve the right to change his mind. And we change our mind on this particular basis. That the pc ought to be on a meter during listing and differentiation. Except it shouldn't be, actually wouldn't need to be, but frankly, a new factor arises. You want to know how much TA motion the pc is getting. How much TA motion the pc is getting while listing and if'n the pc isn't gettin' any TA motion while listing, you have several choices.

The mechanics of the mind. They're very mechanical. They for sure are. Gets to be fruitless after a while to get lines when sen is on too strong, by the way. Because you're just getting opposition to the same thing, you're just getting more and more oppositions to the same terminal. Those lines are all going to disappear. So you're just overworking yourself for nothing. That's only when sen turns on.

One, if the pc does get tone arm motion while prepchecking, you had better continue the Prepcheck and knock off the list, even though you're just halfway through it.

Okay. You sure started one with that!

Now, if the pc gets no tone arm motion, whatsoever, in 3D Criss Cross listing and in Prepchecking, you for sure should have been on the CCHs in the first place.

All right, any other questions?

Now, if a pc has been getting good tone arm motion on Prepchecking, but suddenly just ceases to get tone arm motion, this just means you got — you've hit a bad question line. It means you should improve your question line. you know, but this is already against a history of tone arm motion. In the absence of such a history of tone arm motion, getting no tone arm motion of course, you have the CCHs.

Well, I'm glad you know it all! I'm peculiar in that I don't!

Now if the pc on other lists has been doing beautifully on tone arm motion, you all of a sudden hit a list without any tone arm motion, of course, you could just skip that list. you say, "Well, this is getting us no place," and junk it. Start out on another line. Obviously doesn't mean anything to the pc. Don't you see? No TA action. All right. This is saying when you run the CCHs and what you do, Prepchecking, 3D Criss Cross, so forth, according to the amount of tone arm motion.

Yes, Jan?

Now, there are a couple of additional tests that you can make which are taken up in this bulletin of March the 29th, 62. And these tests are as follows:

Female voice: Are these two still correct from last spring? This is CCHs again. "If the pc fights you tooth and nail, steadily, for twenty minutes, that's no change."

Do not confuse a pc's settling-into-session tone arm motion with the tone arm motion being created with the body of the session. Now a pc can come in at 4.0 and you clean up some rudiments and you start listing or something and the pc settles in and goes down to 3.0, in the first few minutes of play. And just sits there at 3.0 thereafter. Well, that's getting the pc into session. And it's the mechanics of getting the pc into session that has brought him down there and given him that sinking arm.

That's correct!

See, the rudiments and so forth, were what was doing it, not the process you were running And you'll find that that adjusts the tone arm. So leave adjustment of tone arm by reason of rudiments and by reason of the pc getting a bit used to the session, leave that out of it. Just be sure that the pc is getting tone arm motion because of what you are doing, not because of some other factor.

Female voice: "Or weeps steadily for twenty minutes, you come off of the thing."

Of course, you realize you could sit there and kick the pc in the shins every three or four minutes during a session and possibly produce tone arm motion. You recognize that?

Yeah, that's relatively speaking correct. You can be too severe with this. Because the pc, you understand, would have to be in a very interesting state to have no change in the fighting, or no change in the crying. You know. For a pc to weep without change for twenty minutes, that'd be very peculiar. But by the definition, that is absolutely correct. The pc weeps for twenty minutes, and he weeps the same for twenty minutes, you've reached a point of no change in that CCH.

Now, that's a case of no tone arm motion. The pc has a — rather a history of it or has been going on for several sessions here with no tone arm motion. You can't seem to figure it out. Don't try. Just put him on the CCHs.

Female voice: There's another half to it, and that was, the business about you don't count a somatic which the pc simply describes to you, but you can't observe it, on his body. you can't see him twitching or clutching bodily parts in anguish . . .

Now there is a case where, when you get tone arm motion, you put the pc on the CCHs. And that is every time a discussion of auditing produces considerable tone arm motion you had simply better put the pc right there into the CCHs and that's it.

That's right, if you cannot detect . . .

That's a converse to the rule. I call it to your attention. But we've — already have obliterated that from the first tone arm motion, so it's not the same tone arm motion we're talking about, you see? We say the tone arm motion — the lack — if we get a lack of tone arm motion during the body of the session, that's a CCH.

Female voice: . . . if he had a splitting headache you can't see it . . .

You don't care why, it's just a CCH activity. You should put him over on the CCHs. All right. But that's the body of a session, isn't it? Now, if you get — always get — a tremendous amount of tone arm motion in trying to get the pc into session: CCHs. There's a case that if you get tone arm motion, you put them on the CCHs. You sit there and talk to this pc on the subject of auditing and you get tone arm motion. You get three-quarters of a division, a division, a division and a quarter tone arm motion: CCHs, man, don't monkey with it. Why? Well, you should be able to work it out for yourself because the pc of course, has fallen into the classification and the exact category of why the CCHs should be running. The pc is insufficiently familiar with control, communication and havingness to be able to be held in-session. So you always find yourself in trouble trying to get rudiments in.

If you can't detect the somatic on the pc because of physical representations, the pc doesn't have one, as far as the auditor is concerned. The auditor never buys any statements of the pc. These are nonverbal facts about the CCHs. CCHs are nonverbal. You see that pc, and he's going this way, you know, and he, ooooh, and so forth, hoooo. All right, so there's something wrong and the pc's got some weird things going on in the cranium and it hurts. All right. Fine. Fine.

And you spend three-quarters of every session trying to get the rudiments in, in order to get one-quarter of a session done, during which nothing will get done. Won't get done. The person obviously is so concerned with the fact that there's a session going on that durrh, he's not getting anything done. you get why?

And the pc says, "Oh, I have a splitting headache, and you do this just one time longer and my head is just going to fall off and this is absolutely killing me. And I've never had anything kill me as hard as this is killing me," and so forth. It has no validity with the auditor. Just has no validity.

All right. Now the other one is — another one case where tone arm motion indicates the CCHs is, if you run tactile havingness on the pc and you happen to notice that you get tactile havingness and you get tone arm motion, but you prepcheck and you don't get tone arm motion: or you do 3D Criss Cross and you don't get tone arm motion, man, that's where tone arm motion directly indicates that you should do the CCHs. That's what you should do. It's obvious, isn't it? All right.

We've had too many pcs dream up somatics. That's where that comes from. They'll go into valences of victims and give you a long line of symptoms and so forth and they get at the motivator side of it. When that motivator thing starts running out, they give you victimization dramatizations. Of course, pain, factually speaking, is a victimization dramatization. Okay?

Now, here's the case where you run Havingness and get nice tone arm action and you prepcheck them and you get no tone arm action. Oh man, that's CCHs. Why? Well, it comes under the same heading as tactile havingness.

Female voice: Yeah.

You read the tone arm, see. And the tone arm sits here — our tone arm sits here at 3.5, sitting there very nicely. And you say, "All right, put down the cans. Good. Now touch the table, touch the chair, touch your head," you know. "Touch this, touch that," and so forth. "All right, pick up the cans." Tone arm is reading up here, 4.25 — CCHs. That tells you their best avenue of improvement for the case.

All right. Yes?

Tell him to put down the cans, touch the table, touch the chair, touch this and touch the ashtray and so forth, pick up the cans — 2.5. Oh man, they need CCHs like the western desert needs water! That's what they're going to respond to. you see how you adjudicate. As a matter of fact, you'll find that same pc ordinarily, will go up to 3.26 on a Prepcheck question, then go up to 3.4 on a Prepcheck question and 3.2 on a Prepcheck question and 3.25 on a Prepcheck question. And this would be wild tone arm motion for that pc. But on the tactile havingness 4.25 to 2.75, man! You get this extreme case?

Female voce: I wanted to add to, or to ask something about what Jan said. If the preclear, say, happens to be — I've never seen this particular thing — but if the preclear should be crying for twenty minutes solid, without change, just boo-hoo-hoo, the same type boo-hoo-hoo, but say that before you looked at your watch he began, or he or she began crying two minutes before your twenty minute period, so that in fast he had been crying twenty-two minutes, but without change — you know, I mean without any change in crying — so, on the basis of "The process that turned it on, if continued will turn it off," could you then make an exception to that twenty minute period ? You see what I mean?

You'll find that's very common. You're wasting your time not to run the CCHs.

No, actually you can strain at these things too hard. Because for the exact same boo-hoo-hoo to carry on for twenty minutes, it's not going to run out. That's all there is to it. It just isn't going to. You're not likely to see any change in it at all. But, remember, for twenty minutes of exact boo-hoo-hoo without ever any change of note, or — or sniffing up and saying, "Well, we'll be brave now," and nothing like that happening, is quite unusual. And if the pc started, you know, hmm-uhh and so on. Well, all right, and went on for two seconds, and then boo-hoo-hoo, and then so on and so on. Those are all changes. We've got here, actually, an ideal situation, or a theoretical situation, as opposed to a practical one. Okay?

Now, let's get back to the bad old days when we relegated the CCHs to psychos. Because it's not a psycho process. That's all. It just isn't. Oddly enough, we're finding cases that have been passing for sane for a long time, even on this planet, do beautifully on the CCHs. And make faster case gain on the CCHs than they've been making on thinkingness processes.

Female voice: Thank you.

Now, because only the CCHs can be run on a psycho that is an inarticulate, combative, noncooperative psycho and because we were so happy at that time to have something that would run at that level, people started to attach stigma to themselves because they were being run on the CCHs. And it took a — it was a bad thing.

All right.

The CCH level is not much lower than we suspected before, but much higher. See, it runs well up, well up. It runs in the cases that would get benefit from 3D Criss Cross and would get some benefit from Prepchecking And they will get much faster benefit from the CCHs in the early stages. How do you like that? That's interesting, isn't it?

Male voice: Ron, on the subject of pain, why is the pain on the pc's terminal ?

Now that's a recapitulation of an old process and this is time tested and very true and where the CCHs lost out was in a change of application. The application of the CCHs you have now is — aside from the "When," which we have never been able to answer until now — it is severely the first version of the CCHs. We're actually running the CCHs the way I was teaching you to do it and you were going back and forth on the tram and pumping the doll's hand. I remember that very well.

You tell me. Come on, Peter. Tell me.

Very funny. Jenny Edmonds — she was in tears practically over this thing. She couldn't confront this person. She couldn't get through, just wouldn't do it and I thought — so I made her pump a doll's hand and make the doll do the CCHs. She had some time on the bus and so forth; and I imagine that helped her overcome a lot of her shyness, sitting there on a bus doing things with a doll with all the other passengers looking on. Imagine that scenery. And for two or three days her pc couldn't have been scraped up off the bottom of the Fitzroy Street sewers and was going down for the last count.

Male voice: Well, he — he — he's in the victim valence.

Now all of a sudden Jenny got the hang of this thing and that pc just soared, just as nice as you ever saw. And just came along fine, thank you. Never saw an auditor more proud of a win. Isn't that right? Yeah. That's all in doing them right.

All right.

Actually it isn't true that some auditors can do the CCHs and some can't. That's much too broad a generality. There is this: Some auditors will audit and some won't. I think that's about all you could say about it. But the CCHs done under these existing — these rules, they had no bugs in them other than that, if you just do just this and don't do anything else but this, contained in these three bulletins and you'll find out they work for any auditor.

Male voice: But this seems to — doesn't phase with the fact that. . .

You sometimes get the idea that some auditors can do the CCHs and some auditors can't do the CCHs, because you're not watching some auditors do the (quote) (unquote) "do" the CCHs.

I'm not being smart with you. I really meant it. Tell me. I'm not being smart. I don't know! I just tell you that that's an empirical observation. It's the darnedest thing I ever saw in my life! Yeah, how come the pc only experiences pain when he's in a terminal? How come he experiences sensation when he's in the opposition terminal? The difference between these two things is fantastic. And reason it is so fantastic is, if you run the pc on the oppterm, you just wrap him up and put him on ice. you ruin him. And you run him on one of these painful terminals, he runs like a dream. Yeah. All right?

And where you get them parked back of a door and they haven't been too well trained into it and so forth, what they consider 8-C or something like that, has no relationship to any bulletin we have discussed this evening. So your — you see, in view of that fact, we got into a bad opinion. We thought that there was some mystic quality about this, see. Thought some auditors could do it and some auditors couldn't do it. Now it isn't true. Some auditors were doing it and some weren't. The gross auditing error was the omission of the CCHs.

Male voice: There's an overt there kicking him in the head.

You do the CCHs. They're written up here. It takes a certain degree of certainty. It takes a positiveness of action and so on. But frankly doing the CCHs is the most restful auditing that anybody ever did. you don't have to think of a thing! Except, please notice, when it's ceasing to produce change. And please notice that it's still changing, if you notice those things.

Huh?

Of course, you understand it's a natural thing to Q-and-A with the fact that the thing isn't changing to go on doing it. you realize that. you know? It isn't changing, it looks like you ought to keep on. you know? And if it is changing it looks like you ought to change. You know that.

Male voice: There's an overt there kicking him in the head.

Now, an auditor has to swim upstream against this. And if it is producing change, you don't change. And if it has ceased to produce change, you change. Which, of course, is going into the teeth of fate, the time stream and eternity. I mean, that's the exact reverse from the way you've been living All right, now there's the CCHs. And you're doing them now. I thought you would like to have a very — a recapitulative lecture concerning them and be reassured that no vast changes have occurred in the CCHs since the last time you did it. I hope you are reassured and I already know that you're getting some wonderful results doing the CCHs.

Yes, yes, it must be — an overt. It possibly is in that field, you know? They possibly don't have any overts, except on what they're viciously in.

Thank you.

If you look this over, it doesn't seem too unreasonable that a person should experience pain as himself and sensation as being somebody else. Well, that's fairly obvious. But why is it obvious?

Good night. Thank you.

All right, it'd be an overt if, as his own terminal, creating pain with somebody else he would directly feel the pain only when he was in the terminal that had created the overt. That's highly probable. Highly probable. I won't go all out on the thing. It's just an empirical observation, as far as I'm concerned. And you really took the lid off, didn't you? You're sorry about it, aren't you?

Male voice: I'm feeling pain.

Now, that's strictly, strictly an empirical fact, and undoubtedly it's explainable, and that's probably the explanation that you gave. But nevertheless that is peculiar. You can always tell which is the pc's terminal. That's the only thing we could ever find that would tell the pc's terminal. You pays your money and you takes your chance, you know? You start running the oppterm as the terminal, oh man! All hell will break loose. Pc almost caves in. The case gets some advance, oddly enough.

You know, I've seen an oppterminal run flat with the terminal still totally alive. It was — didn't seem to matter how long you ran the oppterm — it didn't do anything to the terminal. Backwards situation for some reason or other.

You can take an oppterm and run it overtly, and you'll see it go flat, and the pc will feel better. Or, God help you, if it's one of the beefier ones, he'll just go into more sen and more sen and more sen and finally the room is spinning, and the Prehav Scale starts beefing up and everything starts going to hell in a balloon and you wonder "why did I ever begin this intensive?" So does the pc.

So, you need some signal. You need some signal to differentiate the terminal from the oppterm. And the oppterm gives sen and the terminal gives pn. That's as far as we went with it until you opened your face.

Okay. Yes Fred?

Male voice: You said before, don't buy any statements from the pc since the CCHs are not verbal. But CCH 3 and 4, we do handle preclear originations. Especially in 3.

Only out of courtesy.

Male voice: I see.

Ah, it's just courtesy. Keep the pc from being ARC broke. You couldn't care less. you really don't care. you don't care whether the pc talks or doesn't talk, or anything else.

Now, in ordinary auditing — in ordinary auditing you'd pay considerable attention to it as to whether the pc was advancing or not. you would monitor it to a large degree on what the pc was saying, and how the pc said he felt, and all that sort of thing. And oddly enough, you can trust none of that in the CCHs because the most fundamental and basic stuff is running off, and this fundamental stuff will cause the pc to do and say the damndest things you ever heard of and most of them are outright lies.

Now, anything — anything that will run off electric shock or Metrazol shocks, and so forth — that has as much power as that as a process — of course, will also run off all kinds of counter-creates of every description, and certainly runs off verbal counter-creates. And you're liable to get these weird statements on the part of the pc. And if an auditor wasn't fortified in advance, that they are not verbal, an auditor would change his approach to it. And the auditor's approach to the CCHs is grind on, grind on, grind on. Doesn't matter whether the pc says the moon has just become solid pink tea, he grinds on.

The pc will try every trick in the book. "I can't stand it!" because this is the thing they can't stand. Communication, control and havingness are the three things they cannot tolerate. So they'll actually think of all sorts of things to throw you red herrings and everything else. I never trust a pc when I'm running the CCHs. I don't trust them at all. Pc says, "I feel much better now."

"I'll bet you do!"

It's almost so much so — I have an impulse to say, "All right, where does it hurt?"

Because those processes will run off a fantastic river of counter-create. For instance, if a person's had a lot of — a lot of ridicule in his life. Supposing a person has been ridiculed, ridiculed, ridiculed — raised out in the Bible Belt, something like that — ridicule, ridicule, ridicule. And you start running CCHs on him, you know the ridicule will run off. In other words, the counter-create comes off. So therefore, you're going to have somebody sitting there ridiculing you all the time. Just understand what you're looking at. You're looking at a counter-creation coming off of the pc.

And a pc doing the CCHs never originates. They only dramatize. Nothing is truer than that. you may, in having it done on yourself, get the subjective reality on it. All of a sudden you say, "What am I saying? You know. What the hell was that? Why am I doing this?"

Well, it's actually some kind of a counter-create and it's just coming off, that's all, and it comes off in the muscles. Sometimes it comes off in the vocal chords.

Yeah, yeah. Well, if it'll run off electric shock, it'll certainly run off mama's jeering. So therefore your pc will jeer.

All right. Let us suppose he was — had a parson for a father. And all his father ever said to him — he'd lie there with a broken leg — is "I'm sure everything will be all right now." See. And his father'd beat him, and say, "I'm sure everything will be all right now." And his father'd kick him down the stairs and say, "I'm sure everything will be all right now." And give him a new bicycle and say, "I'm sure everything will be all right now." you audit this pc, the pc will tell you, "I'm sure everything will be all right now."

He just can't help himself. He's going to tell you that, that's all. And you, you fool, if you believe him, you probably haven't vaguely run it out, you know? So you just don't pay any attention. You'll be on the safe side. you don't have to get into a games condition with the pc. Just ignore it and do the CCHs. Okay?

Male voice: Yes. Thank you very much.

All right. You bet.

That's a point I'm glad you brought up, Fred, because it's an interesting point. The process is so heavy, you know, the CCHs are so heavy that a person goes into these dramatizations and he just can't help but dramatize the doggone things. Sometimes he feels silly. Sometimes he feels this way and that way, watching himself dramatize these things. But if the pc is aware of the fact he's dramatizing, why is the auditor paying any attention?

Okay. Yes?

Female voice: Is there any reality factor to be established in the CCHs?

Any reality?

Female voice: Factor — at start of the session or after the session, if he inquires about changes or anything Is that to be established then — talking to him? You know?

Oh, you mean get your R-factor in as to what you're going to do and that sort of thing?

Female voice: or rather inquiries after the session.

And after the session answer his questions? And so forth? It'd only be proper for an auditor to pay attention to this. That's as close as you are — must get to rudiments, is you tell the pc what you're doing, you tell the pc why you're doing it, or anything you care to. Try to get the pc's agreement to do it before the session begins. Anything you would care to do to get a session started, or anything you are able to do, and then you run the session anyway. See? And after it's over the pc wants to know this or he wants to know that, or he wants to know something or other, and so forth. Well, if you can tell him without evaluating for his case and so forth, by all means do so. And you'll find the pc will stay in a closer ARC with you.

Yes, the R-factor is established in all cases. In essence you do it by rudiments. But you notice these demonstrations I've been giving you? Usually before I start a session we'll get some kind of a rundown on an R-factor. Seldom after the session. But certainly before the session, because, just before the session ends, you have, "Is there anything you'd care to say or ask before I end this session?" See? And you get your R-factor questions at that time.

But I normally will talk about auditing to the pc or ask them how they've been doing or something of this sort, before the session begins. Give them time to catch their breath and brace up to it. Well, it's that type of R-factor that you establish in the CCHs, or you tell the pc what you're going to do.

Say, "There's a bunch of drills and I'm going to do them. We'll see if you can do them," and I'm not above leading the pc into a complete, trick on the basis, you know, tell the pc, "Well, there are a bunch of drills and very smart people can do them, and very stupid ones can't. Now, let's see if you can." Anything, it doesn't matter what.

The CCHs become most trying to me when they start in at a high scream, and it's a high scream from there on out, and you're obviously just breaking a person to pieces bit by bit and leaving the chips and punks of flesh all over the floor, and the — and it's just a wrastling match from the word go, and no R-factor of any kind can be established. I always have the feeling when I see this is happening, that an R-factor could have been established. Inevitably I have this feeling. I always wish I had established the R-factor better. Okay?

Female voice: Yes, thank you very much.

Right. Yes, Jim?

Male voice: Referring back to dramatizations that occur when a CCH is run, how closely might these be connected to terminals and oppterminals?

Oh, very closely. Yes, very closely.

Male voice: I see. I wonder if you'd like to say some more about that.

No, no, not particularly, because nothing can be read out of it. The worst that the pc is sitting in starts to discharge, because the one thing this circuit can't do is duplicate. And another thing the circuit can't do is have. And the other thing the circuit refuses, of course, is control. So you start to give a person control, communication and havingness, and inevitably they start blowing in and out of 3D Criss Cross items. And these things will bang in and out most gorgeously. But normally you'll find your pc is usually sitting in no more than one. And this thing will try to discharge. And the pc will get these heavy masses beginning to occur around him, that he's never (quote) had before (unquote). They've always been there, but he's had them totally not-ised. And the CCHs knock out the not-is.

So, weird things show up that the pc has never seen before by the simple reason of the vanishment of a not-is. The communication, control and havingness run out the not-is and start to get an "is," of course, and it shows up this valence. It's inevitably a valence. And around him some oppterms will inevitably show up. Now, they very sel — occasionally show up as actual masses that the pc has never been aware of before. And he thinks they've been turned on by the CCHs. And he thinks they have been made tougher by the CCHs. Neither case is true. If anything, they've been slightly turned off, and his feelingness has gotten up to a point where he could feel them. These are true.

And you'll notice in doing the CCHs, these surrounding masses of the pc will tend to loom up where the pc has not seen them before. And he'll start to get somatics inside himself that he has not seen before and not felt before. And then these will discharge and very often he moves on the time track in the valence he is in, to a more comfortable position.

To run them all out by the CCHs would be impossible.

Male voice: oh.

Yeah. It's quite interesting, but the phenomena which you see in the CCHs is the phenomena of a valence. And the phenomena which occurs around the pc is the phenomena of oppterms.

Male voice: It ties in with the familiarization, too, you know.

That's right!

Male voice: Because the preclear if he's pretty sharp, would get a familiarization with the kind of terminals he's going to encounter later on.

Yes. That's right. Very definitely true. Okay Jim.

All right, any others? Yes, Jan?

Female voice: Since Peter's question I've been wondering if there is or could be manufactured a pair of definitions that will cleanly distinguish between "pain" and "sensation." Practically, they're not hard to tell apart, but to put into words . . .

Well, I'd say it is very simple. It's very simple. Now, wait a minute, it's very simple. Unfortunately it would be impolite of me to say, "Richard, shake her," and "Richard, stick her with a hat pin." But those would be definitive.

Female voice: Yeah.

Got the idea?

Female voice: Yeah.

Or, "Richard, disorient her." See? All right, that's sensation.

Female voice: Yeah.

Sensation is that which is produced by reason of other beingness and dislocations. And terminals are produced by direct contact between the thetan and an identity. The pain is produced by the directness of the contact. In other words, the pc is more intimately connected with the terminals, always, because he is the terminal. And he feels more directly the pain involved in the thing.

All right, what is pain? Pain is heat, plus cold, plus electrical shock. That is pain. And if those three things are combined exactly, and somebody touches them, a thetan touches them, he gets that experience known as pain. It comes at the wavelength of 1.8 on the Tone Scale, is the sensation wavelength that he gets, and that is known as pain. He must be intimately connected with the mass. In other words he must be touching the mass with an idea that he is it, as a difference than "other is it."

All right, now, get the idea of you — you know this is your hand. And you put it down on your heat-cold-electrical shock gimmick, the response which you would get — knowing this was your hand — would be the sensation as pain. It'd be quite sharp and it'd have a very definite wavelength, and so forth.

Now, if, as you touch this table, somebody picked up the table and moved it around, or pushed the table up against your hand, or shook the table, see, you'd get sensation. Now, emotion is more intimate. Emotion is more intimate — like tears and apathy and that sort of thing — is more intimate to the person than ordinary motion, but is still within that band.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that emotion was exclusively an oppterminal action or exclusively a terminal action. But I would go so far as to say that sensation could include emotion, rather safely in your adjudication of the situation, and that a pain definitely determined the terminal. The sensation is what you get being kicked up 150 feet into the air, tumbling over and over, and let fall. Now, that would give you a sensation. Being taken out and hung over the side of a building and told you were going to be dropped, I think that would give you a sensation. Get the differences in these things? The sensation is inevitably dislocation of space, and pain is inevitably alteration of form. Where emotion fits between these two things is a question.

Yes?

Male Voice: Well, this isn't strictly a question, but with regard to Peter's question about why would a terminal have the pain end of it, we might have an attention factor, because I notice when you're hurt, your attention snaps inward. Now when you have sensation, your attention tends to snap outward.

I think that's probably a very reasonable answer.

Male voice: The oppterm would be over there, and the pain would be in, so it's . . .

That's right, something like that. Of course this is a difference of why you have these things, as opposed to their existence. Yeah. They do exist.

Male voice: Yeah.

Yeah. Now, why they exist, well, there're some explanations could be given. You had a good one. Self always has the overts so therefore is the one that hurts, because therefore he's pulling in hardest on himself. Trying to keep from pushing out against the other . . . I don't know.

Biggest mistake anybody makes, of course, is regarding a human body as self. That's marvelous. But, of course, you can regard anything as self. Just anything I can think of some manufacturer regarding a factory as self. And somebody drops a wrench into one of the drill presses or something and smashes it up, and he goes, "ouch!" Actually is not the least bit peculiar. Might sound odd, but it's within the framework of it. He considers the factory himself. And you've seen mothers double up like jackknives when little Johnny is hit in the brisket. And she regards little Johnny as not an oppterm but herself — an extension of self. I imagine if you smashed up an E-type out here . . .

So, that would be the way it is.

All right. Well, it's nice to have a question period for a change. I hope that you've enjoyed it as much as I have. And I also hope that your next couple of days' auditing will be as successful as it has been getting lately. Your auditing is getting more successful, have you noticed? Have you noticed that your auditing is getting more successful? Have you thought that it wasn't? Well. You're getting more successful? Is auditing getting dangerous? Dangerously successful?

Well, I want you to get these lower edges fixed up. I want you to get CCHs and Prepchecking, 3D Criss Cross all wrapped up, because the Class IV stage I've pretty well got worked out, and it's just about the easiest stand-on-the-head that anybody ever did. It's all in reverse. Prepchecking is actually harder than 3D Criss Cross. And apparently Class IV is much easier than 3D Criss Cross. So we run backwards on these classes. The easiest action comes at the highest class. That's the way it's happening. That's the way it is. But, of course, it's only easy because you can do the two lower classes.

I pretty well got that end of the game wrapped up. As a matter of fact I can see the goal post in the end of the line. And I've been studying for quite a while to find out the best way to handle terminals and that sort of thing. And I had to wind up with some new factors of common denominators of terminals. And that was one to wrastle with. And we needed that one before we could go on with Class IV, and so we wound up with that one. So it's all easy going from here on out. Probably.

But all of you should be very good at these lower levels before you get onto the upper one.

I want you all to have twenty or thirty or forty items. I think that's not unreasonable — thirty or forty items on your 3D Criss Cross plot. I think that's easy. I think you should get your basic chain shaken out. I'm more eager now to make sure that you get any CCHs that are going to be flattened — flattened. And any 3D Criss Cross you're going to get done — done. And to learn how to do Prepchecking very, very well. Learn how to do it very well as opposed to putting your end-all weight on it. Because, actually Prepchecking can be used after the fact of 3D Criss Cross, don't you see, and it's most valuable after the fact of 3D Criss Cross.

So, I'd be glad to see you wrap up your CCHs, as an auditor and as a pc, and wrap up 3D Criss Cross as an auditor and as a pc. See, so we can get on with the rest of this sort of thing

Okay? Thank you.