Thank you!

Well, how are you tonight?

Audience: Fine!

Lecture two, 8 Jan. AD 13. Saint Hill Special Briefing Course. This is about case repair.

I’m glad to see you again! I arrived just in time to save you from a fate worse than auditing!

Now, I’ve given you a very pure rundown in the first lecture on the exact plot of what you can do with a case with listing and opposing and so forth. And if you were to do that — succeed in doing that and so forth — you would get a very miraculous gain on a case. This would be less mass as opposed to more mass.

All right, this is the what?

Now, if you goof you will get more mass and things will become more solid and the first symptom of goofing is actually more mass. More mass has shown up on the case than was there before and consequently more R/S than was there before. Those are the things that you know you are going wrong with. You know you’re losing with the case if on Tuesday you have more rock slams on the case than you had last Wednesday.

Audience: 8 January AD 13.

Let’s say you went over the Scientology List originally and it had no rock slams on it, but from some other sources — 1A or some of the other list headings that we had like „What are you upset about?“ — and you did a lot of that and you got a lot of packages, and then you go back to the Scientology List and you’ll find out Scientology and Central Orgs and things like that are now rock slamming. The case is not improved up to a point where it can rock slam. The case actually has become massier and that is reflected in more rock slams than previously.

Eight January AD 13. The Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, lecture number one. The year started out beautifully; for days I received nothing but good news. On New Year’s Day I had, oh, I think there must have been six or eight telexes, nothing but good news. You know, the most good news I’d ever seen. The next day of good news, next day, I think, then the fatal fifth arrived and we don’t know-but what, that isn’t good news too. And before I get on with this lecture where I have something important to say, I’ll take up the US government.

Now, you get these two symptoms of case worsening. These cases — case bettering, case worsening. You get these two aspects then — more mass and more rock slam — as being a worsening symptom.

The story is very, very briefly told. I’ve got it all in now, and all the returns are in and the casualties have been counted. But in August I wrote Kennedy; he was offered by me at that time help in the space race-speeding up the IQ, straightening out pilots.

Now, along with this is your best indicator for visual inspection of the pc is tone of the skin. Pcs get discolored skin tones. They go gray or green or yellow or black and this happens sufficiently rapidly to be noted in a session. Actually you can list a list wrong way to and sit right there and watch the mass close in on the pc and the pc gets blacker and blacker and blacker and at the end of the session the pc is more black than they were at the beginning of the session. Well, something is very wrong.

And this, the White House has already asked us twice for presentations of Scientology and we’ve granted them, and they have done weird things like fire the fellow who asked for them and that sort of thing. But actually the president of MIT himself was fired, I think for trying to suggest that-at least it was within the same twenty-four-hour period.

2-12 does not work that way, or Routine 2 does not work that way. They should be lighter. Their skin tone should be better. And actually it’s about this — you should be able to tell halfway through a session whether or not their skin tone is better than at the beginning of the session.

And anyway, in August, thinking that it would be a good gesture I wrote him a letter concerning this, at the White House and time rolled along and the FDA suddenly became very interested and the organization was sniffing around the corners. And suddenly the US government-let’s not compartment this thing down, see, it’s just the government-issued a smear campaign in the Washington press, calling us all sorts of hard names, organized this thing completely, down to the last detail and actually the papers were on the streets before anybody appeared at the organization. Interesting, isn’t it? Hours later somebody appeared at the organization.

Now, you can also tell with the eyes. And the eyes look like they have more sen on them halfway through a session than at the beginning of the session, I would check over what I was doing. I couldn’t necessarily abandon it because it merely means they’re running through a sen period or something like this. So the eye is not as reliable as skin tone.

Anyway, they raided a church and seized philosophical and religious texts for burning and meters. Armed raid on a church. Stop and think about it for a moment. How could they get away with this? How’d they do this? Well the way they did this was lie to federal court! And they’re in trouble! Today are they in trouble, man! They didn’t tell the right name of the organization to the court and so got a warrant. But there is no doubt about who issued the warrant. It says right there, „The president of the United States,“ issued the warrant. Says so, right on the warrant.

Skin tone — inevitably, invariable a darkening or worse — off skin tone halfway through a session than at the beginning of a session shows that you’re doing something very wrong. So you should learn to spot a pc’s skin tone at the beginning of a session — at the beginning of auditing and get a fixed idea of what it is so that you could use that as a point of comparison. Beginning of the session take a look at your pc. Pc a light shade of yellow? Well, at least at the end of the session they should be a lighter shade of yellow not a darker shade of yellow, do you see that? So remember to pick up a point of reference by which you can compare what you are doing.

And they didn’t tell the federal court who the warrant was for. They said it was for the Distribution Center and the Hubbard Guidance Center and the Academy of Scientology. The premises of which are all rented by and under the name of the Founding Church of Scientology of Washington, DC. And they avoided the mention of books. So in the papers, no church was raided, no books were seized. Not in the papers. So they carefully corral this and they broke into the organization and actually made quite a mess of things.

Now, the other symptom here is age and that is very easy to look at. Does the pc look older or younger? And that is also progressively easy to compare. It isn’t whether the pc looks older at the end of an intensive than at the beginning of an intensive. It’s not that gross. It’s whether or not the pc looks older halfway through a session. See? And it’s quite gross as a yardstick. You should be able to sit there and see the pc look slightly younger halfway through the session than at the beginning of the session if you’re doing Routine 2 right. And the pc will look slightly older halfway through the session.

They burst into sessions and snatched E-Meters off the auditing desks and they just had themselves a ball. They got down to the DCI, by that time somebody in HCO said, „Do you realize that you’re raiding a church?“ And this kind of slowed them down. And they got down to DCI and bucked into Anton and he was wearing his cross that day and they got much calmer. In fact they got awful quiet. And they came in like a lion and they went out kind of tiptoeing. They knew they’d collided with something and they figured there would be repercussions. Of course there will be repercussions.

Now, this goes down to such a thing, and don’t laugh now, but it goes down to such a thing as gray hair. Suzie used to be very amused at me on this because my hair would turn gray and turn red and turn gray almost at will. And this is quite easy to tell, but you see that a pc’s hair is grayer at the end of an intensive than it was at the beginning of an intensive, why, something really went wrong.

The immediate thing that it-will happen-there’s supposed to be-we’re supposed to go to court to claim our property and give reasons why and actually this is very easy action to win. The warrant is false, all of the titles seized, almost without exception, predate the E-Meter. And they cant connect the E-Meter and these titles because the E-Meter wasn’t even in existence at the time of most of these-like Dianetics: Evolution of a Science. Furthermore, they’re Dianetic titles and Scientology is practiced at the church.

Now, this also refers to mass. Now, that is a fairly — that is a less gross — age itself is very gross. That has big differences that you can see. But I’m just talking about this — it’s just a little part of age, see? Weight is another factor and that goes — that’s not quite as gross a yardstick — but weight goes something on the order of two, three sessions you should be able to markedly tell a weight improvement.

These things are very easy to win, this thing’d be a hands-down, our New York attorneys say crash-crash all we ought to do is go in and grab the property, and so forth. But our Washington attorneys say no, we had better use this to unseat the current administration. So they’re not going to fight on the court day of the twenty-fourth, they’re going to delay that and the-bunch of ads are being placed in newspapers in the Bible Belt, giving the salient dates and data which I have just got through giving you. Kennedy isn’t in much trouble, you see.

Now, the pc actually should weigh less. How much less can a pc weigh? Well, on some pcs who are obsessively thin and too light, actually a little more weight is an improvement, but you have to use your head on that one. But ordinarily, why, an increase of weight means an increase of mass.

And today something was mailed to Congress which is just reconvening. Every congressman’s-senator I think the program said, would receive a statement by me saying I would like to have a meeting with President Kennedy, because I’m sure that we could settle our religious differences and that…

Now, these are the things you tell by, because the graph is not available to the auditor midway in the session and midway in the intensive and so forth, so these are very precise mechanisms by which to tell improvement. But I’m talking about the auditor’s mechanisms to tell improvement and they fall into just those categories, no others. Don’t bother with any other categories. You can usually look over charts. You can usually look over the pc’s auditor reports and find out if he made his goals. Well, if the pc has consistently made his goals in the session, why, you can conceive the pc is getting better, so forth. Those are indicators. But the things I have just told you about, such as skin tone and age, they’re exclamation point. See? They’re right. They’re dean-on. And mass, to a slightly lesser degree but very positively, is an indicator.

Anyway, it may be very well, we may even make them Scientologists. I frankly was getting worried, you know. We’d been ignored too long! Here we are, sawing away at the very foundations of „man is mud-man is an animal,“ you see, chipping away at the sacredity of psychology and things like this, you know, and nobody paying any attention at all, sooner or later was going to break someplace-. I didn’t, however, expect it to break on the note of complete insanity. And it couldn’t have broken on a better note.

Now, all of these things add up to an auditor’s observation of the pc.

They-I don’t think they did one thing right. See, once they got the error rolling they really did it up well! And they’ll probably be hearing about this for years. Well anyhow, the main danger of it is that we get very fixated on the US government, frankly it isn’t a big enough target to be worried about. And we spend a great deal of time, working, sweating, slaving, trying to push over the government when as a matter of fact it’s halfway over on its back…

Now, a meter should behave better. I don’t say that a meter — a meter has a good way of behaving on a pc. I’m not trying to set that up as some hidden standard to you. But when you ask the pc for a withhold you get a response when the pc has one, you understand? Whereas last week when you asked them for a withhold you couldn’t tell. In other words, it’s simply a matter of the meter doing better by the auditor. This meter is easier to use, that’s all.

The thing which we should do is to, of course, get on with the job of good processing and so forth, and there’s where we have it made. Not fighting the government.

Now, the needle’s cleaner. Just — it’s the meter is better for the auditor and it’s always for the auditor. Meter behaves better. You don’t have any meter trouble with this pc. See? You used to have meter trouble. Three sessions ago we had more meter trouble than we have now.

The government-the government turns out to be its own worst oppterm! But I think-I think maybe if a few of the guys and I were holding a war council over in my office at 1927, trying to figure out something to get the government to do that would call some attention to Scientology, I think this suggestion probably would have been offered and we probably would have polished it up and I don’t think we could have done a better job than the government did off its own little bat. So there we are!

Now, height of tone arm or obsessive lowness of tone arm are alike indicators, but in actual fact Routine 2 doesn’t give us a perfect score on the tone arm. The tone arm can almost be neglected. We’re more interested in needle behavior than we are tone arm positions to show bettering in Routine 2. This tone arm can actually consistently ride at 5 with the pc getting better and better and better. That’s interesting, isn’t it? Not even tone arm motion means anything in Routine 2. So you list and get no tone arm motion; so you list and get tone arm motion. There is no adjudication can be made out of that. But sometimes you’ll find an item that rock slams on the tone arm but that is so rare that we’re not particularly worried about it.

Now, actually no auditor, no organization, nothing is threatened. They didn’t-they didn’t threaten anybody. And as far as that’s concerned no warrants were issued for anybody, nothing like that, see. They did just a half-a half-delirious job and did it halfway, and-strictly straitjacket stuff. So anyway, the organization’s going on as usual, everything’s going on as usual, except those kids over there are doing meterless auditing right at the present moment.

But if, after a while, our E-Meter has not changed in its position we begin to worry about what’s going on here, you understand? After a while. At the end of a — the pc has consistently ridden at 6 and we’ve gotten three packages and it’s still at 6. Well, we conceive, then, that we must have been plucking things out of the air. Something here is not fundamental on this case. We conceive this pc still must have the PT problem the pc has. It isn’t the pc isn’t getting better. Yes, the pc looks better, the pc acts better, the pc does better, but he still must have some kind of a present time problem here or that mass that’s giving that 6.0 wouldn’t be that visible, you understand?

I’m sure a few of them were smart enough, although they haven’t put it on the wires because they’re afraid it’d be inspected-I’m sure a few of them were smart enough to have their meter parked underneath their desk-or left home that day. And I’m sure there are meters around. Actually, there’s quite a stock of old 57 meters and I imagine those things, you can-you can read a rock slam on one of those, you know?

About that time we go back and review the living daylights out of the case. What would we review? We’d look for a wrong source on a list that should be completed. Now, the only one I’d worry about is the fellow that rode at 1.5 and we found two packages on the pc. Two packages, that’s four items, and the pc still riding at 1.5, I’d sure review the living daylights out of that case and find out what earlier item because there’s something here that’s real weird. And if I didn’t find anything and the pc is feeling better, and his skin tone was better and he looked younger, I’d go on and find another package. But I would treat the case with considerable „hu-hu-hu-hu-hu-hu,“ you know? And sooner or later this pc’s going to go bzzzzt and go up through 7 and around down the line. But if I didn’t make it happen after a while I’d start worrying, you understand? That’s all the tone arm means.

So anyway, that’s the sad story. Now, let’s get on with something important.

That the tone arm doesn’t pump madly up and down while you’re listing, that’s nothing to worry about. It remains motionless while you’re listing, that’s nothing to worry about, see. We don’t care what the tone arm does. Needle, on the other hand, when we are listing wrong way to, the needle invariable is stiff and jerky and the longer we list the more jerky and active and rrrrrerr the needle gets, and that’s wrong way to or wrong source. There’s something really going on wrong here. Your needle behavior should soften up, loosen up and eventually when the list is complete and for some little time after that… You shouldn’t just stop a list the moment it gets clean, by the way, it should go about, well, I don’t know, as many as fifty items beyond that point.

You have been wrestling around now, with Routine 2-12, and this is a lecture on 2-10 and 2-12. And, show you what raids of that sort of thing do: they actually just slow down technology. I have a bulletin on my desk right now, which is one-about half-written on a very fast, simple Routine 2-10. And you need it. But here’s the gist of the situation on 2-12.

A list will go clean before the item will get on the list. That will happen. So just because the needle stopped going dirty and so forth is no reason that the list is complete. I’d let it sit there and flow for a while. Not beating the pc up to a point where the pc goes into a super protest, but I’d get as many items on the list as I could. I would avoid short lists and after the list was complete avoid listing. When is the list complete? Well, when it can be nulled to one R/Sing item seen on the first nulling through that stays in and that’s that, and the pc is happy with it and knows it’s it. That’s how long the list is.

I put it in your hands, you’ve been wrestling with it, you find out what it’s doing, what it can’t do, what are the difficulties with it, and some of you have had considerable success with it. It’s very, very good success you’ve had with it. And some of you have had moderate success and some of you have darn near chewed the pc to pieces with it, and some of you have almost spun in on it. This is a very varied set of results from one process.

These lists that go to twenty-two pages, twenty-five pages, forty-two pages are wrong source or wrong way to, either one or the other. They are just too long. Lists that run four pages should be quite adequate. Lists that run — I’m talking now about your big double pages where you have your — lot of them. My pages have about — only about twenty items on a page. I list five, six of those pages, that’s plenty. If it goes much beyond this there’s something wrong. The source is wrong or the list is wrong way to.

Now, it’s quite important that a process not give a varied set of results, so I’ve been taking complications out of this whole technology that you’re doing, watching the mistakes you’ve been making, apprehensions and misapprehensions about it and have been boiling it down-boiling it down to its essentials and giving you far more indicators. When you see this, why this is true. And when you see that, that is true. Not leaving it up to any kind of decision on the part of the auditor, he just sees-he sees the needle is acting this way and therefore he does so-and-so.

Now, don’t go on listing forever on something and butchering up the pc. Your case repair should be done in time to avoid this sort of thing because you’ll waste more time on a case running wrong on Routine 2 than you will on scrapping the lot. You can waste — the only time you really have a long time of it is when you’re doing something wrong. And the funny part of it is, the wronger you are, the longer you’ll take.

This-this is much easier to learn. Now before you go into eight thousand nine hundred and sixty-seven questions, all of which are based on a complicated comprehension of Routines 2-10 and 2-12, let me give you a dissertation on the simple, pure version of what this came from. Okay?

The right way is fast. The wrong way is long and slow. 2-12 being done right just goes swish, swish, thud, thud, list-list-list-list-list-list-list-list-list-list. Pow! Pow! Pow! Thing rock slams. Pow, pow! There’s another rock slam. List-list-list-list-list. Pow, pow! There’s another rock slam. List-list-list-list-list-list. Blang! There’s one isolated rock slam! Blang! Whole page without any rock slams on it! Pc says, „I’ve just run out.“ You say, „All right, let’s take a crack at it.“ Down the list pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa. All those items that rock slammed when you wrote them down no longer rock slam and you get to one toward the end of the list and it rock slams like crazy! Bang-bang-bang-bang-bang-bang-bang. You say it again, Bang-bang! You didn’t Tiger Drill it, just bang-bang-bang-bang! And you take a look at it, and you say… I’ll tell you what to do wrong at this time, I’ll tell you what to do wrong. You say, „Well, that item R/Sed,“ to the pc and then call the next item. You just about knock the pc’s head off every time. You finish nulling before you tell the pc anything. After you know for sure, tell him, and then keep your attention on the pc. Don’t do anything else to find out if it’s massier or less massy or what is going on, but don’t shift the pc’s attention after you’ve told him the item. Don’t! There’s the source of more ARC breaks and upsets. Pc is going to ARC break if it’s the wrong item so stand by — stand by for boarders! Get your boarding nets out right there. Just prepare to say, „That’s fine, thank you very much!“

All right. The basis of this technology is as follows: You do a list-and this is not as it was, this is as it is-you do a list. You don’t take a list, see, you do a list-this is the pure technology-and get that down to a point where only one R/S is seen on nulling. Only one R/S on the list on nulling. If you had more than one R/S on the list on nulling, your list is incomplete. Now, what do we mean, tiger drilled? No, no, just seen the first time you go over it. You call an item off, if it’s going to R/S, it’ll R/S, and that’s all there is to that.

He says, „Well, I don’t know. I guess it’s a great big item,“ and so forth. „I don’t know what these lightning bolts are that are going. Yes, it must be the item because of these light — ,“ and so forth.

You got that as a step. You take a list. A list. Not-you don’t take an arbitrary list, you take a list question. And having taken this list question, you complete it. And having found the item that that list completes to, you oppose it properly. Now, you could oppose it two ways. In view of the fact that you make mistakes in opposition-and you do, most any of your long lists comes from mistaken right way to or wrong way to, such as, „Who or what would a catfish oppose?“ when it should have been, „Who or what would oppose a catfish?“-those are your long lists.

And you say, „Well, all right. That’s fine. That’s good. Thank you very much! All right. All right. All right. Well, just come to notice here this thing, this list appears to me to be just a little bit strong. Do you mind if I prove the item out by listing a bit further?“

Why, just list it both ways. Just list it both ways for a page, just a page. And notice which one the needle was stiffer than the other on. In other words you’d list, „Who or what would a catfish oppose?“ and noting the character of the needle and tone arm-tone arm plays very little part in this-and then turn your page over and list „Who or what would oppose a catfish?“ for a page and, „Who or what would oppose a catfish?“ gives you a looser needle than „Who or what would a catfish oppose?“ The wrong way to always gives you a stiff, jerky needle. And the further you go on a wrong list the more the pc surges on cognitions and invalidations and that sort of thing.

„Oh, well, ha! Yes.“

In other words, if he thinks a thought and you’re running a wrong list, why that would have been a tick early on the list and if it’s-if you keep on going for another dozen pages it’s a half-a-dial fall when he does this, you understand? In other words your needle manifestations are increasing and on a wrong list you have more R/Ses toward the end of the list than you do at the beginning of the list.

As a matter of fact every time you get „Oh, yes! Yeah, that’s fine,“ see, it’s a wrong item. You’re going to list further when it is the item? Pow! Pc’s skull all over the ceiling! Do you know what I mean? Pc knows it’s his item.

Let’s take the second page of the list and compare it to the last page of the list: there’s more R/Ses on the last page of the list than there are on the second page of the list, you probably have been listing wrong-way-to. The reason for that is the bank beefs up on a wrong-way-to. In other words, the bank is getting more solid, and so forth, and therefore your R/Ses become more frequent and et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. You understand?

All right. Now, what are these various manifestations? What do they amount to? They amount to auditor observation of the pc and auditor observation of the meter. If it is hard to do, you are probably doing something wrong. And if you’re doing something wrong with Routine 2, you’re not going to put it right with auditing. Just make up your mind to that. Make it up now! Because there just isn’t any auditing process run in present time that can overcome the strength and power of one of these items in Routine 2. He’s just not going to be able to make it. You can smooth the pc out, you can make it feel better, you can groom up Routine 2 with auditing and good auditing — there is no substitute for good auditing — but something goes wrong with Routine 2 it won’t heal with auditing. So you better have your Routine 2 right. So if your sessions are just going all wrong don’t look at the auditing. I don’t care if you think the auditing was lousy. Don’t look at the auditing. Look at the Routine 2!

Now, in other words, you could tell, there, right at the outset, a pretty good guess anyway, because you listed „Who or what would a catfish oppose?“ and this needle is, see, stiff! And it goes: Bzzz zzzz zzz! Bzzz zzzzz zzz zzzzzz! Bzzz zzzzzzz! See, and then it maybe goes a rock slam. Maybe not! Who cares! But it’s just stiff! That thing is not going anyplace. It is not rising. It is not doing anything. It is stiff, man!

So when do you repair a case? When it won’t run right. Don’t try to — don’t try to make this case something new and strange and peculiar with auditing. You’re not going to do it. Why, I’ll give you an example! Last night I patched up an incomplete list with auditing to make the pc feel better — didn’t know quite — quite know what to do about this thing. Pc completely unwilling to go on listing on it and yet obviously it’s an incomplete list. Hehheh. What do you know about that? So I patched it all up — I got all — you just — very rapid Tiger Drill. It didn’t take me any time and so forth, but I got the list question beautifully clean; big, beautiful, flowing needle. Pc today ARC broke. Didn’t know about what; just ARC broke! Pc ARC broke. I said, „Well, obviously we didn’t have the item on the list!“ Pc brightened up at once, but last night was saying, „Well, it’s a complete list and I can’t think of any more.“ You know? Pc brightened up right now. Do you get the difference there?

And the other one, you turn around and you list it and the needle is stiff for a moment and then-then starts-starts flowing and drifting around and so forth and you say that’s right way to. And you’d think it was the other way around, but it isn’t. Okay?

All right. What is the commonest source of error in Routine 2? Wrong source is the commonest source. And what is the commonest source of wrong source? It is an incomplete list.

And that’s your second item and then you get that one the same way-to one R/S, when seen when nulling. One R/S seen when nulling. Nobody said anything about Tiger Drilling. One hasn’t even mentioned Tiger Drilling. This one R/S seen when nulling.

All right, does that mean a list you took from source? No. No. It means the source list was incomplete. Always regard, always regard any rock slamming item as having come from a list. There are no prime movers unmoved. You got that? The big worry of the Greek was how did God build the universe if nobody built God, see? Well, we haven’t got that thing in lists. Lists inevitably and invariable are built. And even though they’ve never been listed, any item is viewed as having come from a list. You got it? Any item is viewed as having come from a list. And that gives us one of the most imponderable pieces of nonsense anybody ever heard of, because you are inevitably and invariable starting a case, then, from a case that has somehow been started. Now do you see why you have trouble with the source?

And when you get to the end of the line, that’s your package. Now, what should happen when you find an item? On that first list or that second list, what should happen? I got some nice indicators for you here; you’ll be very happy with these things. This makes it a little-make life a lot easier to live with. I’ve been looking for indicators like mad. In other words, I’ve been trying to put up signposts. I had a half a dozen signposts up on this road and I… There was this rock, see, this big rock and it was a white rock and I said, well that’s good enough. You just go down to the white rock and there you are, see.

But the three areas where the pc can be in trouble is in his life and livingness, in his parts of existence or in his session. Well, his session is a part of Scientology, and his life and livingness is a part of his life and his associations in present time, and parts of existence are what he has considered existence to be composed of.

And a lot of you are having trouble with white rocks. So I now-been putting up signposts around the white rock, you understand? And then signposts beyond the white rock directing you back to it. And this indicator-this indicator you’ll be very, very interested in.

So they give you three different areas. One is more backtrack than the others and that’s the parts of existence — that’s more backtrack. What’s his life and livingness composed of? In other words, what is he associating with? What does he connect with in present time? What does he bang up against in his life and livingness present time? This is different than when is he banging up against in a session?

If you give the pc the wrong item, he will instantly have more mass, perceived by him than he had a moment before — markedly, this is. Now, that’s not pain, that’s not sen, he doesn’t have more pain or sen. He’s got more mass. See, he-where’d this mass come from? Well, it came from the fact you just handed him a wrong item.

So you’ve got your present time of his life and livingness and you’ve got the present time of the session, do you see, and there’s where you are at.

In other words, you say, „Catfish! Well, I got your item here, Joe! Ha-haha! Ho-ho! I got your item here! It’s catfish!“

Then, of course, you’ve got all the parts of existence and that goes back on the whole track.

And Joe says, „…“

Now, there’s all of your zones that are immediately available. There’s present time life and livingness, there’s session connections and that goes out to organizations and books and auditors and all that sort of thing, and then there’s your third one of what is existence all composed of in his estimation for everybody.

And you say, „All right, did you perceive something when I said that?“

Now, the one that is most intimate to the pc and will most prevent him is sort of a tossup between one and two. If he rock slams on auditors or an auditor, but is every day being invalidated by his wife and rock slams on a wife so in session he catches hell from the auditor and out of session he catches hell from the wife, which hot brick are you going to be pick — is going to be picked up first, because oddly enough both hot bricks have to be theoretically picked up at once, but that’s impossible.

„Yeah! Ruddy thing with a tail showed up in front of my face!“

Well, let’s at least let him get some help from the auditor. Now, you see why the arbitrary stress on List One existed. But see, equally, that somebody who rock slammed on three portions of List One was listing from a wrong source. Somebody had three rock slams on List One — obviously he’s listing from a wrong source.

You right away-wrong item. Now, let’s not worry about what he perceives. Let’s not get into this one, see? Now, we say-now, you understand, he had item-he had some mass there and he perceives it. But it’s not more mass than he had before when you say this first item to him, you understand? He always knew he had this little mass there. See? But it’s this kind of action, see? Here’s your pc’s vision area, the top of the desk here. And you say to him, „catfish!“

Now, to List One has also been adjoined parts of existence. So if he had three rock slams on parts of existence and two rock slams on List One he now has two incomplete lists. So your sources are being taken from two incomplete lists and those sources are not complete. The odd part of it is, is they might be mixed. That is to say it might be two lists under the heading of what you’re calling List One but in the pc’s estimation they should be two. They should be the technical aspects of Scientology and the administrative or organizational aspects of Scientology. See he might have them subdivided in some fashion. Well, how are you going to tell?

He says, „Where the hell that come from?“

Well, this is the old Greek problem of the prime mover unmoved. All source item — you’re taking one source as an item — that has to be regarded as having come from a list. That has to be regarded as having come from a list.

Got the idea? And actually it’s this visible! Now, you may only perceive it by something crushing into him hard. But, you understand? I’ll do that again, see. Here he is, he’s got a relatively clear field, see. You say to him, „Well Joe, I just found your item here! It’s catfish!“

See, it’s a list that never got written, but it’s still regarded as having come from a list. So you’re always starting from a list that has never been written.

He says, „What? Where’d that come from?“ You know, that sort of thing. „That’s very interesting. Yes, I guess that is my item, I’ve always sort of been like that…“ See, it’s that kind of a reaction. „Oh yes, that’s my item, yeah…“ You know, wild burst of enthusiasm, you know!

There is always a list on the pc that has never been composed by the pc. The auditor’s responsibility in this merely goes this far: He makes sure that the list source question does not rock slam because if it rock slams that means it’s obviously part of a list and he can’t use it.

Well, that’s wrong source, wrong way to, or incomplete list. Of course you understand that a wrong way to is also wrong source. It’s „catfish a oppterm“ and it should have been „catfish a term.“ And-but a wrong source, wrong way to or incomplete list. Well, with this test, whereby you’re going to list it both ways, on your opposition, you shouldn’t be making many wrong way to’s. So it usually would boil down to the fact that you just haven’t got a complete list.

I’m talking now about doing pure Routine 12 — Routine 2, that is absolutely grooved in that you’ll never make a mistake with, see, have no trouble with. Let’s say — let’s say, offhand, that you’re going to pick up, „What does present time consist of?“ You’ve got to test present time. That’s a source, isn’t it? Present time actually belongs on the parts of existence list. But if it doesn’t rock slam you’re all right; you can represent present time. Therefore all lists start with a represent.

Now, if your list is incomplete another indicator shows up. Your pc, in the next few minutes will ARC break inexplicably. And you won’t be able to get your rudiments in. And you can run General O/W and stand on your head and wiggle your ears and do all kinds of things, try to amuse him and get him out of it, but he’s still ARC broken.

Your first list is always a represent list, but how do you find out what to represent? Well, sometimes you’re going to lay an egg on this. You’re going to say, „What does present time consist of?“ and you’re not going to get a rock slamming list. Whereas as you say, „In present time, do you have any problems?“ and you do get a rock slamming list.

You find that the very reasonable auditor says, „Yes of course, I can understand how he is ARC broke, because I did goof and so forth.“ They don’t realize that this extreme ARC break is from Routine 2. That’s a Routine 2 mistake. It’s not an auditing error. It’s nothing the auditor did, except he didn’t complete the list.

Now, let me give you a real imponderable imponderable. This is a real interesting imponderable. We say — we’re going to assess now those little Zero Ones and we find one of them slamming. What does this mean? The slamming one is part of an incomplete list and we don’t have any way of knowing whether or not it is the final item on the list or not, so we avoid it like a plague or we run a list. How many list headings could there be?

The usual fact is that when an ARC break occurs, it isn’t really that you’ve gone by the item, in my experience it’s been it isn’t on the list yet! I’m prepared to find an exception to that, but I have not found any exceptions so far. It just isn’t on the list yet. Now, here in essence, you get completely the reverse aspect when you package.

Then after a while we check „list“ and find out it’s slamming. We’re wrong. That’s wrong. Got more slams than you started with. You did something wrong. You missed. You always wind up with slams but they shouldn’t be as frequent, they should be getting less frequent. Do you see the problem?

Here sits this thing here, see. Pc already-always known it’s been there. And you come along and you say, „Well Joe, I’ve got your item here. It’s a waterbuck!“

So „reasonable about“ slams. You say, „Aha!“ — the way we were thinking before, see, I’m trying to make life comfortable and livable for you, which I think you’ll have put your vote in for — those of you who aren’t rock slamming on yourselves will vote for this.

And he says, „Oh, yes? Where’d it go?“ Right item, mass diminishes. Wrong item, mass increases. That’s a handy one, isn’t it? And you’ll find that’s quite invariable, that is the McCoy.

We find „Reasonable about“ slams like crazy, so what do we do with it? Ho, ho. We get out of there, man. We’ve two things we could do, theoretical: One, we could complete the list of what is a list — what is a list heading; but the best thing to do is to take something that is not in its immediate vicinity or instantly and immediately associated with. „What would you be reasonable about?“ You wouldn’t ask that question at all. You don’t dare pose it because you see you don’t know that it’s the item on the last list.

Now, if it’s incomplete list-not wrong way to, but incomplete list-wrong way to he won’t ARC break because he’s been ARC break the whole-ARC broken the whole time-a little bit, but he won’t-he won’t go up in smoke. Now, when I say ARC break, I mean up in smoke. I mean he goes into complete apathy, or blowy, or something-it’s quite misemotional. He’ll be misemotional all through the time to the next session, and so forth. He’s liable to blow up in your face. He goes out of gear, fast. And that’s usually incomplete list. That’s usually incomplete list.

All right, let’s supposing that you found out that this character slams like mad on Scientology. Well, obviously if he slams on Scientology there is something wrong with the session. There is something going to be wrong with this session, obviously. So, therefore, it’s very much in your interest to put together the session list. But can you say at this stage of the game, „What does Scientology — who or what does Scientology consist of?“ Oh, no, because you’re doing a represent on a rock slamming item, you see, there’s your enigma. So what kind of a question are you going to use to get a Scientology list from? Well, you could ask this, you could say, „What question, if I ask it to you, would cause you to answer it ‘Scientology’?“ That at least gives you an anatomy of how you would go about it, you see. You’ve got to work the problem out backwards. You’ve got to have some other thing. You just can’t say, „What does Scientology consist of?“

You get all kinds of puzzles-I’ve got a puzzle right now. Where’s Ray? Yeah, I got a puzzle right now, on his pc. I just wrote in there — I just wrote in his folder-he-doing beautifully, see, he’s been doing just this. He’s been doing just what I described to you, as this Routine 2 activity. And he’s got two R/Sing items, ah-ha-ha, on his list, ha-ha. And, the items are on the first page of the list and he’s gotten many R/Ses that follow, but those R/Ses evidently don’t fire on nulling or he hasn’t nulled them, but-or-but they’re not firing on nulling.

Now, once in a while you’ve got to check your source. So you ask your source once in a while and watch your meter and that’s the best way to do it. Don’t get so TR0ed that you ignore the meter, see. There’s no sense in saying, „Who or what does present time consist of?“ see, with good TR0, you know? No good at all, see? „Who or what does present time consist of?“ with your meter centered up there to see whether or not you get a slam. This thing starts to slam, you’re in trouble. „Present time“ slams.

Now, that list is incomplete, or he hasn’t got the item. He has not got the item yet. And the pc says, „Oh yes I’m fine, I’m not quite up to understanding what this is all about,“ and so forth. There’ll be reservations of this particular kind.

Well, I’ll tell you a mistake you could make. Saying, „Aha, ‘present time’ slams, let’s oppose it.“ Cut your throat, man. That’s prime mover unmoved that you’re looking for and it doesn’t exist. Present time must be coming from a list.

He just hasn’t got the item, that’s all. It’s either later on the existing list, but I don’t think it’s ever been put on the list, because he’s got two R/Sing items. He saw one of the items kind of go pfiff! and he took a little tiny „suppression of“ off and it started to R/S about an inch wide. And he already found one of the other items an inch wide. And he-because he confused the second list he was doing with first list on Scientology, because the other item was Scientology. So he started to pick it up off the list. Oh, no! So I’ve got in there, big red letters, „No, no, no!“ exclamation point. Complete that list. See?

Now, you could chase this thing backwards, of course, and say, „What question would I have to ask you for you to answer ‘present time’ to?“ and get a list on which „present time“ would occur. You may find yourself doing that some time or another because the pc keeps laying dead horses, see?

Now, there’s only one place where a pc knows, exclamation point, knows. A pc really-a lot of the time doesn’t know whether it’s pain or sen. A pc, a lot of the time doesn’t know what he’s worried about. And he doesn’t — certainly doesn’t know what his present time problem is, what is really eating him up-this always comes as a surprise to him. But he does know something. He knows whether or not it’s the item.

But this is your — this is the enigma. „Present time“ began to slam, you’d better get out of there man, you’d just better just quit that right now because you’re getting more rock slams than you had before. Didn’t slam, now it does slam equals wrong source. Bank must be beefing up. See, you can work your way through that one rather easily. Didn’t slam, now it does slam; something’s wrong. It isn’t that the pc unsuppressed, so what you’ve got to do is find a negative question that will produce rock slams — a negative rock slam question that produces rock slams — that’s the whole trick and that, sometime or another, is going to be found to be quite a trick to you.

Now look, if he didn’t know what the item was, then the process would have-not be working. See, the item-see, it’s only against the pc’s knowingness. See, you’re only auditing up to the pc’s knowingness. So if he doesn’t know it’s his item, well, that’s it. You’ve had it. That’s good enough test right there, so that’s another test. See.

Now, you go back on the dynamics of existence of the pc and you find an arbitrary — this is case repair now — you go back and you find an arbitrary assessment of the dynamics and somebody took a „whiffinpoof“ as parts of existence, you see, under living things there were „whiffinpoofs.“ Aw, more than that, let’s say the pc rock slammed on groups and the pc rock slammed on mankind. You’ve had it. Two R/Ses on that third type of list, and you’d better say, „What are the parts of existence?“ son, and you’d better complete that list and again it’s „What question would I have to ask you for you to write all the dynamics down on?“ And maybe the pc also slams on the second category, which is „session material“ and „dynamic slams,“ so you have to get the session straightened out before you can straighten out the parts of existence.

Pc queases around even slightly on the thing. You haven’t done it, man. Something’s wrong here. He’s got to say, „Oh, well, yes, catfish, always has been my item,“ and so on. You don’t get that kind of response when you get the catfish, man. „Oh! Catfish! Oh! What do you know! Yeah! Yeah, catfish!“

You might find yourself in some silly circumstances here of some kind or another but you’d be able to work them out if you just realize that you had to have a virgin negative slam item to proceed from which if it began to slam tells you that you are wrong. In view of the fact you’ve got three zones from which these things could come, there it is. There’s the present time life and livingness of the individual, the session present time and sessions in general and Scientology and all its ramifications and then there’s parts of existence as a whole which tends to give us bank and whole track. You’ve got three sources to work on. You’ve got positive and negative for these three sources and you should be able to turn yourself out quite a bunch of packages.

See, a pc’s knowingness is paramount in knowing whether or not it’s the item. Not the-not the item you’re representing perhaps, or something like that. But when you find an item, the pc knows it is it. And when you package it the pc knows that’s a package. He won’t even discuss the matter with you, that’s it! See? But, if he isn’t quite, „Oh, yes, yeah, oh yes, they go together as a package, yeah, yes…“ That’s not good enough, see?

If you found some raw meat out on the street that was in trouble all you would have to say to that person is, „Present time, present time.“ And they’d say, „What? Well, what about present time?“ And you didn’t get a rock slam on it, you see? And you’d say, „Well, I just wanted to know what present time consists of.“ No rock slam, it’s okay. And you write a big, cracking, long list about what does present time consist of and you carry it out, but when you null it you only get one R/S and you get one and continue it until you only get one R/S on nulling and, just like I gave you before, and you find out that a package is a terminal or oppterm, list it both ways to find out if you get a loose needle, and what have you got? You wind up with a perfect package. It’ll go whizz! No mass. What happened? Where did it go? Where’d they go?

„Oh well, of course! Yes! Ha-ha! Waterbuck-Tiger! Ha-ha! Golly! Funny I never recognized that before! You know, I often thought those that…“ So on and so on and so on and so on! „Oh yes, of course that!“ That’s the kind of response you want. Got the idea?

Actually, the fellow will improve and get an awful lot of ideas and so forth even if you miss, which is kind of wonderful. But why miss? Why not get the full gain the first time. I’m just talking what you do to a raw meat person.

Because if you don’t get up to the pc’s knowingness, where have you got to? You haven’t got any other place to get to! Now, the funny part of it is that Routine 2 carries forward a little miracle all by itself, when it’s done in this fashion. Now, you understand, I’m talking to you now, about just this Routine 2 I’m talking to you about, see? You do some sort of a list and complete it. Now, not-now understand that list is-I’m not even talking about it being from anything, you understand? See? Just do that list and complete it and then you oppose it and the two items go together and the pc knows all about it.

All right, supposing present time consists of, and „consists of“ was brrrrrr. You’d say, „What did you just think of?“ „Oh, nothing; what you’re saying.“ You say, „Consists of,“ brrrrrrrr. You’d better find some other question to ask.

When you do that you get the funniest little miracle you ever wanted to see. They go pffssssffffff! Gone! Where the hell’s the mass? You no longer got a rock slam on one, you no longer got a rock slam on the other one, you might have a little dirty needle if the pc had a withhold or something on it. But it’s gone pfffffsss! But the mass is gone too.

„Present time — what do you connect with?“

So properly done Routine 2 delivers less mass, and wrongly done Routine 2 delivers more mass. Now, this is so marked you can even put the pc on a scale day by day. If the pc gains three pounds on Tuesday, he had wrong Routine 2 on Monday. See that? This is the old havingness test, you know? The thetan does develop energy. And the way he got that energy is you saying to him like this-this is where the energy came from, this is the three pounds that he got, see?

„Present time — what do you connect with?“ No R/S.

You said: „Well, well Joe, that’s-got your item here, it’s a catfish!“ Three pounds’ worth, see? Catfish!

There we go. Do you understand? Or you could go back and say, „What would be the list heading of a list on which the word ‘consists of’ would appear?“

Says, „Where the hell did that come from?“ See.

You might be able to actually, to figure out some way to work it out.

Now, actually you didn’t materialize it, as the auditor. Don’t get spooky about the thing. Because the thing was there to grab. See, it was there to grab and it did have mass the moment his attention went on it, but the reason it had mass-is-it-was not fundamental.

You’ve got a slamming item so you know you’d have a slamming list. Either way to, you’d wind up with a complete list and that’s what you want.

See, it’s like grabbing the third withhold from the bottom of the chain. It sticks. Now, the fact that you’ve grabbed a nonfundamental mass and told a lie about it, that it is the fundamental mass, brings about this instantaneous solidity. It doesn’t take place tomorrow; it takes place right now. Bang! Funniest looking thing you ever saw. Funny-funny experience.

Now, that’s raw meat.

And then let’s take up the next step, then, of-you might say, this is pure, theoretical and can be done, it’s not just in theory, it actually works right out in practice-Routine 2. Then we find another way to list another complete list. See, we make another complete list and we oppose that. And this has not been completely carried forward, but maybe one of the easy ways to do that is to reverse the first list. Now we’re invading 3-21.

Now, supposing somebody is — absolutely will not under any circumstances get an R/S on parts of existence. Well, you’ve still got the negative side to try. „What isn’t part of existence?“

One of the ways of listing a goal and crossing up Routine 2 with Routine 3, is one of the best ways you can possibly list a goal. This is a-this is a doll. You say, „In present time, who or what would your goal (whatever it is) influence?“ See? And you make a list „influence.“ And that list has got to be complete to only one R/Sing item on that first list you do of it, see? It’s complete to one R/Sing item and there it is.

Supposing he just having an awful time, oh, he — it’s nothing but dead horses and he doesn’t get anyplace in session and he’s crying all the time about it and he’s chop-chopping the auditor 100 percent and you haven’t even started anything so how could you have missed anything on him, you know? And it’s all this and that and he’s had a terrible bad history and he had some 8-C run on him back in 1949 before it was invented and… I’d assume about this time that he was a rock slammer on List One, see, and that he isn’t going to get anyplace until we do a List One type of list.

And then YOU take that one R/Sing item, you determine whether it’s the terminal or an opposition terminal, and at that time you oppose it, get yourself a complete list to only one R/S, seen on nulling-see there could be a dozen R/Ses you see, on writing it down-now, only one R/S seen on nulling. Now, how do you see this R/S? Well actually just by calling them off You say, „boots, saddles, catfish, waterbuck, uh-gulp!“ There it went, R/Sed. Didn’t do anything else to it. You understand? We’re talking about R/Ses you don’t do anything else to to get them to R/S, when we say only one R/Sing item. You got that?

Now, the job is how do we work out a List One type of list heading that itself doesn’t rock slam. And that’s going to change from pc to pc, so I just hand it to you as a problem.

We’re assuming that your pc is sitting in the auditing chair being a pc. Not completely snoring with missed withholds, you understand? And we assume that the pc is not being audited up against a horrendous and screaming ARC break that you could have figured out that your Routine 2 was bad, day before yesterday and you haven’t solved it yet. You understand? We’re talking about a pc, he’s in shape to have something nulled, not necessarily a clean-as-a-whistle needle, but he’s in shape to have something nulled and you’re nulling it and you just see that thing.

Now, let’s say he doesn’t rock slam on that list. Oh! Well, let’s shift it slightly and ask the negative. See?

Now, oddly enough you call it the second time and the R/S maybe won’t be there, but just-that you saw it the first time is enough to say the list isn’t complete. The way you do that-I’ll give you the exact way you do that. You come down here and you say, „Waterbuck, tiger.“ Now, let’s just get the idea of forty items between each one of these, see. But we say „Waterbuck, tiger,“ tiger goes ffflflflfl! Little R/S. And then forty items and then you’re nulling, you see, so far, it’s tiger, see. And then you said, „Willow wand,“ ffflflflfl! Ha-ha-ha! Your list is incomplete! And at that very moment you don’t say to the pc, „Willow wand is your item,“ or anything stupid like this, see. You don’t say anything to the pc, except, „Well, I think it’d be a very, very good idea if we added some items to this list.“ See?

„What isn’t part of the activity us guys are engaged in?“ Slam, slam, slam, slam, slams all the way down. You find Scientology isn’t part of Scientology. Now, you’ve got your item, whatever it was. But it’s still the last item on that list — the last R/Sing item on the list.

I don’t care if we got two more pages to null. Don’t null a list down to the end before you add to it. Stop at the second R/S. Always at the second R/S! You got it? And after you’ve added to it, if you see no further R/S on your meter as you’re adding to it, you either missed it-missed seeing it-or the pc hasn’t put it on the list yet, so you better go a little further-heh! The pcs will sometimes argue about going further on a list when they got more to put on a list too, don’t forget that. It’s the delicacy of the auditor to get him to list further without making him list under protest.

These are your methods of introduction into cases. Now, remember that a case has got to be able to answer an auditing question for Routine 2 to run on. The interest is usually so great that even an untrained pc usually falls right into it and answers up very, very well. However, sooner or later you’re going to run into somebody who wont answer any questions at all and sooner or later, I don’t say under what conditions they’d be under, or why, because I’ve seen it run on, now, little kids and everything else, and people who wanted nothing to do with processing and all that sort of thing. I’ve seen all the stylized cases, the types of cases that couldn’t have been run on earlier processing, running on this. But I just say in fun, let’s say we — supposing we have this person and they can’t give you a list and they can’t list anything and they can’t do this and they can’t do that. I think they’d be booby-hatch types, you know, strictly booby-hatch, or perhaps members of the government or something like that, see? You know, utterly unreal dogs, and you’ve still got all of your — you’ve still got all of your background music on your CCH type processes and all that sort of thing. You’d be surprised what that stuff can do. So you’ve still got a case entrance — see, we’re still talking about case entrances — you’ve still got a case entrance.

Usually the pc lists under protest, usually only when the auditor’s really goofed, the item is on the list, or is answering the auditing question some other way. „Well, let’s see if I can get enough items on this list in order to get away… ‘Who or what would oppose catfish?’ so that I can get enough items on this list so that we can get away from it and do something else?“ That’s the question he’s answering. See, he’s not actually thinking over, „Who or what would oppose catfish?“ at all! And you have to get that question there straightened out.

All right. Now, how about a case that’s been run for a long time with wrong sources, wrong way to, and every time anybody said this was the item, a four-foot-thick block of concrete showed up and knocked out their front teeth. Is there any hope for this person? It’s pretty sad. Actually, the funny part of it is that even a random slam taken amongst five slams and opposed just as a list, would have cured somebody from being so edgy in sessions as long as that list was complete, see. But it would have given them a bit more mass and it would have made them unhappy but it might have made them auditable.

But anyway, it’s always the second R/S. Now, after you’ve-after you’ve got-seen an R/S on your meter, here, you’ve gone down the line and you’ve seen an R/S-and by the way I’ll bet some of you are pulling a gag I saw an auditor doing the other day. And here was the way they were doing this. This-this’ll amuse you. They were listing with the meter over here on the extreme left. And writing over on their extreme right. In other words their pad was over here and their meter was over there, so they’d only occasionally be able to look in the direction of the meter. You got that?

You understand? We’re very far from invalidating what we have been doing.

Actually the meter belongs up there almost in the pcs chest. And this list, you can actually put your meter on the clipboard if you have to do it on a small restricted area. But for God’s sakes don’t be writing anything on a list further than about six or seven inches out in front of that E-Meter. You understand? Because as you write, the needle is in your field of vision, and you can see it out of the corner of your eye. So you never miss these R/Ses when it goes down. Do you see how you do that?

How about this guy who already has six packages? All right, so he’s got six packages. Fine. Probably doing better than he was. Everything’s fine. So he’s got six packages. Nobody’s — I’m trying to show you now how you can undercut it. And every place it went wrong it will wipe out with a bzzz. And that’s simply find the first incomplete list. You understand, even though it’s a suppositional list that appeared on the case. Now that could be 3D Criss Cross. See? What didn’t he agree with or something, see? Could have been. Could have been. But it’s much more likely to be these arbitrary lists — the Dynamics or List One — and you treat those as incomplete lists. Look them over. So one of them had two slams on it, must have been an incomplete list. In other words, just start from there.

In other words, you keep your listing up close to the dial, and the dial in line. And if you can get the list, the meter and the pc in a line, you can keep them all in order. Just one line, see, straight out from the auditor, list, meter, pc. Why you won’t miss these R/Ses as they go down. Be pretty hard to do.

Get some kind of a list question that itself doesn’t rock slam, test it and complete that thing. Now, what do you have to do? Do you have to go back and null it all? Well, no, usually, if things that were marked in that R/Sed on it before. So you only have to take those — so you just add to it and null what you’ve added and then try to tiger drill alive afterwards what was there originally. So you don’t null all the way through everything and so forth. But look, it’s a simpler test than that. If, while adding to it, you get a rock slam, you have two choices: That was either the item that just went by or you’re getting more rock slams than you had before.

All right. That’s just a point.

Well, one of the ways to test it very thoroughly is to keep on listing, and let’s list a page on which we get two rock slams, then we list the next page on which we get three. Di-di-di-di-di-di. Something wrong. It’s either wrong source or wrong way to. Got that?

So anyway, you’ve had your second R/S. So you added to the list. You saw an R/S as it went down, you say that’s good enough. All right. You go back and you test your first R/S. Even give it a little Tiger if you want to, you know, just on been suppressed or anything of the sort, you know. This thing is now quiet. It’s quiet when being called, quiet when being tiger drilled, it’s quiet! There’s no charge on it. See?

Well, you again take a grip on the situation and turn it around the other way and list it the other way and your needle goes loose. So that meant it was just wrong way to and your source is probably all right. But let’s turn it around the other way and have the needle misbehave just as thoroughly. Brother, that’s really wrong source. When it won’t list right either way and your needle is just raising hell with you and it isn’t cleaning up and so forth, that’s wrong source.

You go to your second one. Now, you understand, if there were two of them, neither are it! You want to… I got an auditor the other day on this, and the auditor couldn’t get this either. Now, listen: Neither one can be it. Why? Why can neither one of these be it? Because putting the second one down didn’t take the charge off the first one. So the second one can’t possibly be it. It’s never going to be either of the two that R/Sed. And you’ll know if your list is complete now, if you can’t get either of those two to R/S. Got it? So you test both of them. And if either one of them gives you an R/S your list is incomplete.

So in extremis you’ve even got a test for wrong source — is: either way to, it won’t list. You only have to list a page or so to find that out. You don’t have to list forever to find this out.

You could go on cycling like this but ordinarily you don’t. It’s usually just you find two R/Ses on the list and you continue the list and the R/S disappears off of both of them no matter what you do to them and you go on down the list and null the new part of the list now, and you’ll find out it R/Ses like mad and there aren’t two R/Ses on it, or anything of the sort. There’s just one and that’s your item, you tell it to the pc, you get the less-mass phenomenon, pc’s happy as a clam with the thing, you oppose it, runs like a welloiled dream. There you are. You understand?

All right. Now, as we examine the — as we examine the case, then, for case repair, we want to get rid of all of the dust and nonsense, all of the bric-a-brac, all of the items that are solid and all of the bad auditing and all of the mid ruds and all of the this’s and all of the thats that has occurred on the case so far. All we’ve got to do is to go back and find the earliest list and complete it, that can be completed. That’s all we have to do. And find the right item for that list — find the last, single one R/Sing item, oppose it and take off and go ahead and do a package. And you’ll find a lot of bric-a-brac will drop off the case if that thing was really completed as a package. See? Both lists were nicely completed.

But it’s never either one of those that R/Sed. If you can get anything on a list to R/S by standing on its head, by shaking it in a paper bag, by putting brown sugar on it-I don’t care how! See? If you can get anything on a list to R/S except the item, the list is not complete. You get two R/Ses on a list regardless of how you get those two R/Ses on the list-I’m not telling you methodology now, I’m just telling you the basic truths of life about the bees and birds. Two R/Ses-item not on the list. If either one of them R/S after you’ve added to the list, your list still isn’t complete, because it can never be those first two. Got that?

You find this bric-a-brac that the pc had been complaining about on some of that later stuff that came from that wrong source. Well, let’s say it was a List One and they’d gotten a lot solider stuff on opposing Scientology. And you went ahead and completed List One in the pc’s own words and found something else, and that was rock slamming and then you opposed that, Scientology, and any list proceeding from Scientology, drops out. They become null. Simple?

And ordinarily those R/Ses are perceived just by reading. Someday you’ll have the bad luck of having a very suppressed pc and you’ll go down the list and when the pc listed the thing they suppressed it like mad and you’ll miss the R/S and you’ll know then, that you goofed. And you will have to do something extraordinary. And also, as far as I’m concerned the item is not on the list, because the pc inexplicably ARC breaks. There is no explanation as to why the pc ARC breaks and yet he ARC breaks.

In other words, it eradicates itself. So if any of the pc’s packages are wrong why bother to check up whether the packages are right or wrong? Just find your earliest list — your earliest incomplete list that can be completed and complete it and proceed right from there.

You say, „Well it’s a waterbuck.“

Now, you’ll find that lists have genus, they generate from something, and you only examine the generators of lists. This is the easiest way to repair a case. You don’t go over endless lists that have been listed on the pc. You only look where the list came from — where did the item come from. And you’re usually examining and completing understood lists, lists that have never been listed. See? Like List One, he never listed List One. Parts of existence, he never listed the parts of existence. He took a canned package of dynamics, don’t you see? So you’ve got to complete that dynamic list. You’ve got to complete List One. Or you’ve got a 3D Criss Cross list of some kind or another and he was busy listing what didn’t he like. Gosh, there are a lot of rock slamming items. And after that the pc got on it „judges“ and the pc still talks about this one. Well, if the pc still seems interested in this one is no indicator whatsoever that it was right. That’s no index. Because if it’s still slamming after all this time, even though it was opposed at that time, it must have been an item which was on an incomplete list.

And he says, „Well all right, it’s a waterbuck. What do you know, I never noticed that over there before, anyhow, you know, it-it’s-it’s right all right, I got an item here that… Yeah, it’s a waterbuck all right. Yeah, guess it is… But you know, I haven’t been getting any of your acknowledgments lately! I wish you’d speak up!“

So all you’ve got to do is complete the list from which „judges“ came, get it properly opposed, and the package goes bzzz, and you’ll never hear him open his yeep about judges again.

And you, heh! Don’t do this, man! Don’t do this, „All right, in this session, have I missed a withhold on you? Is there something I’ve nearly found out? Have I missed a withhold on you? Have I missed a withhold on you? Have I…“

So where the pc’s interest hangs up is a sure index of an incomplete source list. This is a tricky thing. You say to a pc — I’ve told you all this trick now so it probably won’t work on you very well — but, you say to a pc, „Now, we’ve really found quite a few items on you, now, from time to time, which one are you still most interested in so we can do something about it?“

„Well, yes! You missed a withhold on me. Of course you missed a withhold on me! Naturally! You haven’t gotten anything I’ve said in the whole session! You don’t acknowledge! Naturally!“

„Well, I’m still interested in goats, we found goats on that list and I find them very fascinating.“ And his eyes get somewhat lambent and the slits lengthen, you know? Well, you don’t want to do anything about goats, don’t oppose goats! God help you, don’t oppose goats! I’ve already put this into great practice, see. No, let’s find out what list goats appeared on. It was an understood list or an actual list or otherwise. But let’s find out what that list was, and if we possibly can, complete that list to its proper item and oppose that proper item to — with a complete list that packages in the total knowingness of the pc and go bzzzz, and then you say to the pc, „Ah, all right, what — how do you feel about this ‘goats ‘?“

You say, „All right.“ Finally got him to say something, see? „Have I missed a withhold on you? Have I missed a withhold…“ Two hours later: „Have I missed a withhold? Is there something you nearly found out?“

„What about it?“

You could go on like this three sessions later. Trying to clean rudiments, „In this session has anything been suppressed? In that session when there was that terrible ARC break, is there anything you invalidated? Is there anything you failed to reveal?“

„Well, how do you feel about goats?“

Now, that’s taking the course of auditing to heal up gone-wrong Routine 2. And auditing won’t heal up gone-wrong Routine 2, believe me. Take it from me, it won’t do it. That’s one of the troubles you’re having, is your Routine 2 goes wrong and then you try to cure it up with auditing. And of course you’re trying to put out the fire by spitting on it. It just doesn’t go out, that’s all!

„Well, goats, goats, goats. How do you feel about goats? I suppose I’ve been one at one time or another, hasn’t everybody?“ No interest.

Finally you get smart enough to say, „Somewhere around here I’ll bet I’ve missed an item.“ Which of course is the biggest missed withhold the pc can have. And you say, „All right,“ so on.

Now, let’s say the item which we did find on the thing was „milk pails.“ You say, „How do you feel about milk pails?“ Hell say, „Ha-ha-ha-ha, yes. Yes, sure gave me hell during the war.“ You just milked a little bit of cognition on the milk pails, see. Every time you mention the real item to him, why, hell give you a cognition. He won’t discuss it with you. He won’t have an opinion about it, but it still is not effective on him. In other words, that’s an erasure. It’s an erasure of interest. He can always cognite on it.

„Well I don’t want to list on that list, I’ve answered all the questions on the list, you got everything.“

He often had time — a hard time remembering the right items, but they always remember the wrong ones because, brother, they’re stuck there in pillars of stone.

„Well just for fun, let’s list on the list.“

Now, these are all indicators and indexes and so forth, but you can use these various indicators I’ve just given you for all kinds of case repair.

„Oh but I haven’t got anything, yeah,“ and so on. „That’s the whole trouble with the thing right now, is I’m listing under protest!“

Now, I want you to forgive me for giving you a process which could be done wrong or that could have a limited application or could have this or have that, but I won’t forgive you if you think I’ve invalidated all of everything we’ve done because I actually have no intentions of doing so and I don’t want to and I’m certainly not invalidating what packages have been found on you. Packages that have been found on you did some good. Now, if they stay erased when you complete a list some place, fine. They won’t beef up, so that’s dandy.

I, about this time-say, „Well what question have you been ask — answering?“

But there’s one thing that you have taught me is that we needed a faster, harder set of indicators, a better set of indexes to telegraph to the auditor this and that, and we needed to reach just a little deeper technically in order to get a pure, sure — fire gain out of these things. All right. I’ve been working for a couple of weeks now watching you sweat around. I’ve been working for a couple of weeks’ improvement. I recognized a couple of weeks ago that you weren’t about to get some of these lists straightened out. And I started to say, „All right then, on all cases we have to cut to the ultimate and we have to get back to an ultimate foundation and begin from there and so forth or auditors are going to have a hard time with it.“

„Oh, I’ve been answering ‘Who or what would doodlebug a wup-wuk,’or whatever it is, whatever question you’ve got, that’s what I’ve been answering.“

All right, that’s fine. But this is gain. Now, what you realize that you should be realizing here is you’re actually simply opening up the present time problems, knocking them out, and knocking out the hidden standards, because these things have been stopping clearing in some enormous-majority percentage of cases. These are the important things that bar clearing. These are the barriers. And that’s why I’ve been working on Routine 2 stuff. You actually probably could keep on getting packages if you could keep on getting sources. You could probably go right on back down the track and you’d finally hit the rock and opprock, and there’d be the guy’s goal.

And you say, „Well all right, now, at any time have you answered it for some reason? Have you deeded something about this answer? Have you decided?“

All right, fine. There’s easier ways to do it. You can clear away the chaff from PT and untangle the GPM, you can get back there and find the rock slamming goal and run it and life becomes much easier. But of course, remember that pieces of the GPM can still key in after you have found the goal and you can still bypass items, you can still miss things, you can still do this and still do that but if PT is cleaned up and if things are knocked out of present time consistently that are going to barrier the pc onto a free needle and so on, even with more Routine 2, he’s going to clear easily. So long as you’ve got Routine 2 you can always find an entrance point. That’s the purpose of Routine 2.

„Oh well, yes! I deeded I put it on the list when I said ‘tiger.’ And, heh! I’ve been listing since, well, heh! What would oppose a tiger, heh? Heh-heh!“

You haven’t got a devil’s chance of finding the goals on a lot of cases without clearing away those two things: the chronic PTPs and the hidden standards. You haven’t got a prayer. And if you did find the goal you haven’t got a prayer of running it because the PTP will clonk-bang in on him and wipe it out.

He hadn’t been listing „Who or what would oppose a waterbuck,“ see. Or he’s been listing, trying to get enough on the list to make the auditor shut up. See, it’s-there’s something different going on here with the auditing question. Now, we’re just down to the basics of auditing, don’t you see? You finally say, „Well I don’t care whether it’s tiring you or not. It’s evidently right way to, we’ve already stressed that. Apparently the source was okay. Apparently that. And the only thing we’ve got here that could cause this is you’re not putting enough items on this list. So you just sit there and start giving me items, no matter whether you’re ARC broke or not, goddammit! Come on, next item?“

Now, therefore, we’ve got to keep a wide-open track on the pc and therefore the use of Routine 2 does not necessarily cease on having found the pc’s goal. You might run everything his goal influences in present time and package it up and the things his goal doesn’t influence in present time and package that up and he’s going fine and he seems to be getting free needle. Then all of a sudden he hits some terminal, like somebody did in Perth the other day, motion with exclamation points, or something, hangs up like mad, can’t quite see which way he’s going, whole thing caves in, goal read disappears and now he doesn’t know what is happening and so forth. Ah, well, you don’t know that the pc simply hadn’t caved in on a brand-new present time problem. And instead of spending hours and hours and hours of prepchecking, you’ve got another weapon called Routine 2. You just use Routine 2, not with any difference at all. You don’t change Routine 2 just because you’re running it on somebody who is back down the line, see, on a goal. No, you just assume that something’s caved in on this pc in PT or something.

„Oh, well, if you put it that way

So you just, „What does present time consist of?“ That’s all, see? And you’re off to the same races. Or „What doesn’t it consist of?“ or „What does auditing consist of?“ Or, she’s a temple priestess and all of a sudden, by George, by George, there’s only one way to get Clear, see, and that’s by jumping into the maw of the flames. Everything hangs up, there are no flames or something.

Pc goes on, all of a sudden puts the item on the list, you’ll see the thing R/S, as a matter of fact he’s been fighting the item, don’t you see? And see the thing R/S and boom, he’s got it on the list, you check it out and it’s all of a sudden that phenomenon happens, see? Where’d it go? You know? Whole package, if it’s the second item, goes psssss!

See? The pc — the pc has, perhaps, missed an item in goals clearing. Now, everything that applies to straightening up lists also applies to your Routine 3-21, everything I’ve told you about it. Everything I’ve told you about having a list complete applies to 3-21. You do a list from a goal, you’ve got to get down to one rock slamming item.

And you say, „Well, how’s that ARC break?“

Now, one of the hardest things you will use to get a rock slamming item from is a goals list. Let me put this two cents’ worth in. Goals lists almost never run out of rock slams. When they do, fine, but they behave just like any other list of items. They don’t behave any other way.

And he’ll say, „ARC break? ARC? What ARC, oh, oh, well, oh-oh that! I don’t-I don’t know why you were worried about it, I’m not worried about it!“

Let’s say you had a lot of slams early on a goals list and then had one slam late on the goals list that’s still slamming, see?

That’s almost the only ARC break you get in this. Actually you can take it from a wrong source and the pc’ll grind on forever just muttering, a little bit now and then. But you get these spectacular ARC breaks just when it isn’t on the list, that’s all. You got a few indicators now, on this? See this?

All right, in that case you could take that last goal and oppose it because it’s just an item from a list, if you want to call it that. The funny part of it is, because the pc skips all over the place with a goals list and can run all over the bank with a goals list, you get some very wonderful complications with these goals lists and probably the hardest list to straighten out for a purpose of doing Routine 2 with, but not goals, of course, is a goals list. It’s the spottiest and the least satisfactory of them. But you will still some day be prepared to find the earliest list done on the pc, a goals list, which has — now has only one rock slamming goal on the end of it and use that to oppose and the whole case blossoms.

All right. Now, I said the stylized-the pure method of all of this was very simple, in that you completed the first list. Now, the more arbitraries you introduce in it-Ill take my hair down here and give you a few of the facts of life — the more arbitraries you introduce into any pure technology, well, the more trouble you’re going to have with it. I’m not talking about signs, rules and indicators as to how to do it right. I mean the more arbitraries as to how it is done-that you introduce into something-which are unneeded, unnecessary to its execution, the more trouble you’re going to have with it.

Now, remember that a rocket read is senior to a rock slam. And for your purposes you do everything with a rocket read that you’d do with a rock slam, except the rocket read is accepted above it.

At the time that R2-12 was developed we were having a lot of trouble with rock slammers, and we were having a lot of trouble with this and that and the other thing. I coped with this best way I could and knew and found out-now listen very carefully-that R2-12 could be done at several levels of action. It-you could get several different kinds of results out of it. If you do R2-12 right, even against an arbitrary that’s quite arbitrary, as your first source…

Let’s say you have four rock slamming items on a list when you start to null. Boy, you’re not about to have a complete list so you complete the list and get it down to one rock slamming item and there it is, beautiful, single. You go back and find out those four no longer have rock slams on them. You’ve now got your item. This is fine. It follows through all tests. It doesn’t generate a lot more mass — it generates some pain, sen or something like that, but not lots more mass — and you go ahead and you oppose that properly and you get your list out and you find that item and it all blows up. Fine. That’s just Routine 2.

Well, let’s say they had five rock slamming items on List One. And you pick one of those closest to the session; you do that you’re going to make a change in the pc-just listing it, regardless of finding the item. And you list that out and so forth and you get the thing more or less complete and you find an item over there and you oppose it, see. All right, you’re going to get change in the pc.

But what if you found four rocket reading items on the list? You better complete the list to one rocket reading item. This has already happened, by the way, and they had four rocket reading items on one list. And I told the auditor to complete it — a Saint Hiller, just left here a short time ago — and I told the Saint Hiller to complete it. He went ahead and completed it and he found one rocket reading item and the other rocket reads disappeared.

Well, let’s say that this was kind of poorly done. And you found one of these rock slamming items and you listed it out and all of a sudden a huge mass materialized for the pc and you oppose that and so forth. Hell, man, you’ve still changed his mind! with regard to this situation, see? You still have. You’ll still get a result.

Now, that’s perfectly valid for opposition. It’s also valid for goals finding. You can do a lot with a rocket reading item, so you mark those down rather special in caps. But remember that the four — that more than one rocket read on a list — now we get something complicated whereby you have three rock slams and two rocket reads on the same list — well, what’s perfectly answerable is the rocket read is senior.

Now, nobody, in what I’m telling you now, is invalidative of this, because I’m telling you on the basis of a-of an improvement of something that was already pretty good. Now, therefore, you could get a mediocre result that’d be quite impressive to the pc simply by listing a list, not even nulling it. See, you can even list the wrong thing and get some kind of a-of a result.

But all those rock slams and earlier rocket reads have got to disappear before you accept that last rocket read. You got it?

There are a lot of results to be had here. I’m here tonight trying to tell you how to get the purest, best result. I’m trying to tell you how to get a miraculous result. Now, I found out in doing these other things you ran into more trouble than I ever thought you’d run into. Quite a few cases around ran into a lot of trouble-probably a lot of trouble in organizations right now, as they’re doing it on staff.

Anyway, there’s your case repair factors.

So, let’s move this thing down to its absolute essentials. And let’s take a look at the source of any of these difficulties you have had. Now, any time you pick something, there’s either of two sources of lists, actually. There’s the present time-three sources of lists-there’s the present time environment of the pc. There is the auditing environment of the pc, were talking about his livingness environment, don’t you see, that’s one list source. And then there’s his auditing environment. You know, the auditor and Scientology and that sort of thing. And then there’s parts of existence, as a source-so these three pet sources.

Now, I’ve tried to give it to you in such a way that you don’t have to memorize 8,645 bulletins. But I’ll still write all those bulletins for you to memorize anyhow just so you can’t miss it.

You’d say number one and number three might overlap and true enough they very often do, but nevertheless you can ask for them separately. Now, I gave you this in-this influence for the goal and this not-influence for the goal. That’s-You already have the pc’s goal, so you get two entirely separate attacks on the situation, „In present time who or what would your goal influence?“ and you’ll get a rock slamming list. And then you get-you’ve packaged that all up, see? That’s all packaged, you want to take off again. Well, you’re not likely to get much on influence in present time, but you can get a not-influence in present time. Gives you a rock slamming list, don’t you see?

The — now, to show you how you can make mistakes, you can take a perfectly elementary case, sail down with enormous cockiness, be just absolutely grooved in and you know you’re just sailing, you’ve got the first item and the pc is singing and everything is fine and then you get your opposition list. And you get down the line on the opposition list pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa and there was one rock slam and there was two rock slams and there was three rock slams. And that was the first page. And on the second page there was one rock slam and there was two rock slams and there was three rock slams and there was four rock slams. So on the third page there’s one rock slam and two rock slams and three rock slams and four rock slams and five rock slams. And on the fourth page you have rock slams.

So you could say: „What is part of your life and livingness in present time?“ and „What is not part of it?“ This gives you two separate sources from life and livingness. Each one of them could be handled as a complete list. And each one of them damn well better be a complete list. That’s your first list I just described to you, see.

The funny part of it is your needle, because you’ve picked the case up to the stars by finding the right item, doesn’t cave in, and neither does the pc. The pc just becomes a little doubtful or something like that, and you say, „Well, it’s merely anxiety.“ You’re listing the list wrong way to. The needle is so beautiful that you don’t notice it. You say, „Well, it’s better than I’ve ever seen a needle on a pc before.“ Well, list it the other way to and the needle would still be looser. You’ve got to watch it.

Now, if one of them doesn’t rock slam, the other one will. But usually if the first one did, the second one also will. So you’ve got two separate entirely different list sources in life and livingness. Now, let’s take the session. Now, we got to find something that isn’t rock slamming in order to get a list. Now that’s a new look, isn’t it? You never represent a rock slamming item. Just never never never. I don’t care if it was done in 3GA Criss Cross. We got away with it then, for various reasons, because it wasn’t long and we weren’t packaging and we weren’t doing it for keeps and we were just using it, it was softened off by goals.

But this test of the frequency of rock slam, I think you will find quite valid because it says the pc’s bank is beefing up by reason of the listing. Of course, we expect sometimes the list to go a page, a page and a half, before the first rock slam occurs; Then we expect a whole spate of rock slams. That’s quite normal. But down on the last page we don’t expect the rock slams to be more frequent than they were on the second or third page of the list. That tells us we’ve got a wrong way to.

But it becomes fatal to do this in a Routine 2. You just never-must never, never, never write „a represent“ or „a consist,“ or „an influences,“ or „an upset about“-from a-or anything like that-from a rock slamming item. In other words, „In present time, who or what does your life consist of?“ Well, that’s a somewhat clumsy question but I’m just giving you an example here, see. And the pc’ll go downhill like a toboggan, if your „life“ rock slams. You got to test the source. Just make sure the source is not rock slamming. DR? That’s okay. Rock slam? Boy, that is definitely not all right.

Now, if our first line was so beautiful and came out so lovely, we certainly aren’t dealing with a wrong source. We’re just dealing with a wrong way to list, you see? Everything checked out and there we were. But if we still listed it the other way to and couldn’t make sense out of it, then we would decide that that list just before that we just did, that we grabbed the item prematurely. And the way to test that is to add to the list and see if some new rock slams came about. We might find that that was the one that was wrong way to.

See, actually, you should tiger drill your source a little bit, see if you get a rock slam. If you get a rock slam, you do one of two things. You can either oppose it or skip it and take something else. And the best thing to do is skip it and take something else, you got that? Don’t be so triumphant that you got that thing to rock slam because you’ll be representing a rock slamming item and that’s fatal. And you mustn’t-that’s a big rule-you mustn’t ever represent a rock slamming item. You only oppose those. Never represent, always oppose, a rock slamming item.

You see how we could straighten it out? We’d have to be pretty knuckleheaded to be wrong, but be prepared to be wrong. Be prepared to be wrong. Don’t be so persistently, cockily right when you are so horribly, devastatingly wrong. And always straighten out Routine 2 before you straighten out auditing. Spend ages straightening out Routine 2 and briefly straightening out auditing. If your auditing is perfect and you never have to straighten out auditing with auditing, your Routine 2 is perfect, the auditing is very, very rapid. But the paramount importance is get the Routine 2 done first.

All right, so, „Your life…“ Bang-bang-bang-bang-bang! You better not write „Who or what-in present time who or what does your life consist of?“ you know, nothing like that, no, no, no, no, no, no. Because that’s representing a rock slamming item, I don’t use-care if you use „consist of“ or any other such word, or „associated with“ or any such wording will give you the same mess. No, you’d better say-you’d better say something or other that doesn’t rock slam.

All the cases that are here at this particular moment are easily straightenable just by the rule of finding the first understood list — the list that was never listed from which you took an item. I mean just if we went back to that.

You’d better say „Who or what do you associate with…“ associate with-associate with-it’s all right, see…… in your life?“ No, no, no, no, no. „Who or what do you associate with?“ That’s all right, you’ll get a list there. Got the idea? This-in other words, you avoid the R/Sing source for a represent list. That’s another rule. Avoid it.

We didn’t even have to go back to 3D Criss Cross or anything, see. I mean, just if we did that, we would be in clover. We take List One. What’s the question that would complete List One? We simply complete List One, get all the rock slams off List One down to one rock slam, oppose that, then everything that has gone wrong earlier on the list fades out. Got that?

Now, why do you avoid it? Because it’s always out of the context of another list, which is always incomplete. So, you actually, to do pure, beautiful, magical Routine 2, you never pick something out of midair that the pc hasn’t listed. You all of a sudden find „me,“ you know? Ho-ho! You say, „‘Me!’ Hey, that slams! Oh, well, heck! Now, we got to oppose that.“ No. You had better avoid it. Why? Because „me“ is a part of a list you don’t know the heading of and which is incomplete. You got that? That list is incomplete. And „me“ is probably right out of the middle. And if completed would probably give you something else.

I think that takes care of most of the cases present. You talk about case repair, that’s about all the case repair there is. Sometimes an item has been found as the single rock slamming item on a list and it’s never been opposed! You’ll find that kind of thing going on. I know one case right now where that is true. All kinds of assessments have been done since. Here’s this bypassed item sitting back there, see?

So just any out-of-the-blue rock slamming item that the pc presents to you, just consider it as part of a list that hasn’t been completed. Now, it may or may not have been completed.

All right. Well, I hope you have good luck in straightening these out. I think you’re getting to be much better auditors and I want to give you one small compliment you turned me in a whole bunch of papers on what you do with case repair and in the understanding — in the complete understanding that you had at that time — the incomplete understanding which had been issued to you at that time — the case repairs which you advised were right on the button. I had to then make up my mind and realize that you could learn even a complicated a procedure as you were handling and that you could repair a case under the headings of that complicated procedure then.

Now, actually there’s no great destruction to doing something with that. But it doesn’t give you total and optimum Routine 2. That’s not terribly destructive. You’ve been doing it. But you notice how long those lists can run? You notice sometimes they don’t complete? And you notice the great percentage of coterms that you get out of it. You notice that? And furthermore I’m finding out that it takes you longer to handle one of those than to find out what the original list was in the first place and get it completed.

I was very happy to know that and I got very proud of you and I even said it in a bulletin a short time ago.

Now Routine 2 goes very, very fast, on raw meat particularly. It’s-well you take a session, you get a list. You know? Take a session and you null it. I’m talking about two, three-hour sessions now. I mean that’d be slow sort of Routine 2, but pocketa-pocketa-pocketa, see, you’re always coming up with a result.

So, thank you very much.

All right. What if you-what if you found that Scientology was rock slamming. Now, from a security measure and in actual fact, you could oppose Scientology and the case will make a gain. See, that’s in actual fact. Even just oppose it and write a long list and abandon it and the pc’ll do better. But that’s got a liability. That list is liable to go forever, it’s liable to be out of a context of another list. What’s the title of the list? So we’ve got our life and livingness, see, type list and there can be positive and negative life and livingness. Unless one of them rock slams, at which time you’ll have to find some way to get around that rock slam. See, don’t do anything with a rock slam from source.

Avoid that random rock slamming source that came from no place, see. No matter how attractive it is. And your second is your positive-negative Scientology list. Well look what you’re up against. Supposing the pc rock slams on Scientology. You can’t say to him, „Who or what does Scientology represent to you?“ See, because that’s doing a represent. Now, how are you going to get around that? You’re going to have to take some part of Scientology, or some way of stating Scientology, so that you’re not representing Scientology.

It’ll be-have to be something identifiable by the pc that doesn’t rock slam, and then you’ve got the positive and negative side of that. What does represent it? What doesn’t represent it? See? What is part of it, what isn’t part of it, I don’t care how you state it, you-it’s the same list in actual fact.

And then, you have as your third category, also positive and negative; you’ve got existence, parts of and you’re actually asking him now for anything on the whole track he can dream up. You not asking for a present time anything. He usually gives you the present time item that’s next to come up.

Now you go back over some pc’s folder. And you find out you did a Dynamic-Dynamic Assessment on this pc. And here are the dynamics all beautifully written out. And four of them rock slammed. That tells you your source. It’s from an incomplete list. And it’ll behave like an incomplete list source. And you say, „You rock slam on Scientology“ and he’s instantly got this mass. Where’d it come from? Do you see that? In other words, it obeys all the rules of an incomplete list. It’s not something different or special.

Well it’s up to you to complete the list. How’re you going to do it? Well, you’re going to get clever. If Scientology rock slams, how are you going to complete a Scientology list? Well, you’ll just have to find something about Scientology, that is broad and embracive-“Mental activities,“ or „Ron’s work,“ see, something! We don’t care what it is. Avoid that R/S. And then you can list it positive and you can list it negative.

See, you list it positive and get your whole package. See, you do your original list, see, that’s that complete list, down to whatever it is and then you do an oppose to it and that gives you your package. Now, that saves you one list, doesn’t it? And it saves you the hardest, toughest list, so it’s much shorter to do it this way. So you get this-that packages, and, if you do it right, just like I’ve been telling you, here, see, it’ll go bbzzzzmmmm! A lot of mass disappears and the pc feels great. In other words that will blow. That will blow with rapidity. He won’t feel somewhat better about it, you understand? He’ll feel terrific.

All right. Then you can do a negative. „Who or what isn’t part of Scientology?“ If Scientology didn’t rock slam. And then you can do a Dynamic Assessment. And you say, „What are the parts of life and existence?“ And „What are not the parts of life and existence?“ And it gives you two more potential packages-two more packages, not two more items, you understand.

So there’s a source of six packages, right there. Now, I would say that they were the basic packages of Routine 2. Six packages-twelve items. You should be able to get off that. If you can’t change a fellow’s life with those twelve items you ought to quit.

Now, you-the degree that you will succeed in this, the success that you will have in this, is monitored this way: As long as you repair Routine 2 with Routine 2 and not auditing, you’re okay. If you do right Routine 2 and repair things that go wrong with Routine 2, you can keep everything beautifully polished up and flowing beautifully with a little bit of auditing. But with a little bit of Routine 2 and an awful lot of auditing, mid ruds and general O/W and preparing the pc and getting the rudiments in-boy you’re just going to get that pc no place. See?

Because you can straighten up the case with Routine 2, where auditing will fail. Routine 2 is more powerful than auditing. Why is Routine 2 more powerful than auditing? Because it is hitting at the present time problem and the hidden standard of the pc. The hidden standards of the pc and the present time problems of the pc are the things which has gotten in the road of pc progress from the beginning of Dianetics and Scientology. That’s the one thing the pc can’t get across: that he doesn’t know these things exist.

He really doesn’t know what present time problem he’s got. He appears that he has know-does know, the moment you’ve gotten it. But he actually didn’t know until that moment. A case makes no forward progress to amount to anything in the presence of a present time problem. A hidden standard is another thing.

He is finding out if his sciatica still twinges. And that is everything he is doing. In all of his processing he only compares it to his sciatica. That’s the hidden standard. You ask any pc you’re processing, to some degree, he has a hidden standard. You say, „Do you feel better because of processing? All right, how do you know you feel better because of processing?“ And he-if you drum at him for a while, he’ll come up with his hidden standard, and sometimes these things are quite interesting-whether or not the tips of their ears burn. See, he knows he’s getting better because he gets a warm feeling in his chest and so forth. And he’s actually sitting there in session waiting for the warm session to turn on so that he knows he is better. It’s quite amazing!

It’s a very interesting little — little side alley of research some HPA Academy student should undertake sometime to do. Just ask them how-ask-go around and ask his fellow students how do they know they’re feeling better. And an Academy Level without any 2-12 at all, why they’d have abundant answers! „Well what would-what would-what would some healing have to do to you, what would some healing have to do, to you in order to — that you knew you were better?“ And you’ll get an almost automatic response on the part of most people. Sometimes they have to think for a while. And they finally tell you, „Well I’d-back of my neck wouldn’t be tired anymore.“ Well, they’re telling you they’re trying to find out if an item is shifted-that’s what they’re actually telling you.

Till you get the hidden standard out of the road, he does everything through this. And oddly enough, because it’s really a circuit he’s consulting, all of his answers as to whether or not he’s better are from the circuit. And this goes much deeper than you would think. He’s in consultation with a circuit. Supposing it was a member of the FDA! Ho-ho! Any ease gain-it’d tell him he’s worse! Do you see, that’s the hidden standard.

All right. Well, a present time problem, it’s just-present time is just plowed in. He is so fixated on present time, you see, that, huh-huh, he can’t take his attention off. Be quite painful for him to invest any time in improving. He’s just got to be totally alert and up here in present time, bug-eyed fighting this thing all the time. You’ve seen pcs come into session worried about their-the wife, or worried about the husband, or worried about their job or something like that. You actually could process them, bang! Bang! Thud, thud! Crash, crash, crash! On and on and on, with the most violent and wonderful processes and so forth and take a graph on them afterwards and they got absolutely no change whatsoever on the graph. We’ve done that many times.

You run a liability now, with omitting your Model Session, of not catching that momentary PTP. That momentary PTP can keep the more fundamental PTP from showing up sometimes. But, Routine 2-12 is usually worth taking a chance on. It’s usually worth taking a chance on, because it is so much greater a PTP and it is so much greater a withhold and it’s got so many more overts in it than you could possibly get off with rudiments, that most of the time you can get away with not using a Model Session on it.

All right, so what do you do? You get, you pull the dumbbell to pieces, you make it disappear; there goes their PTP. Another dumbbell; there goes their hidden standards. Maybe the same one went both PTP and hidden standards, don’t you see? Then you get another one; here’s their fixation on this, that or the other thing. Here you get another one; and they can all of a sudden see the walls and didn’t ever know they couldn’t before. You work it on up, you’re suddenly at a position where if you list goals on them, they won’t give you these first eight or nine items.

If you had listed goals on them before, they’d just give you the intentions of these PTP circuits. And you’d just get nothing but on and on and on-intentions of these circuits. I got some actual case history on this, which is quite interesting. I don’t care how long the goals list was, the pc was just listing their PTP circuit goals. They never listed back of that, which I thought was fascinating. So, of course, you could never get the pc’s goal on the list.

Now, they can move on the track enough now; in order to put a goal on the list, you could do 3-21 after you had a few packages out of the road with Routine 2. Now, that is actually the purpose of Routine 2. There isn’t any other purpose back of it. It’s not really to make the pc feel better and it’s not to make the pc fly and it’s not to make the pc get a big reality on Scientology, nothing. It’s none of those purposes. Any of those that add in are simply bonuses and they’re all very, very worthwhile; and you do perfect Routine 2, you will get some very, very miraculous results. It’s very well worth doing.

Now can you get a goals list? You get a few packages off of somebody and you get them off of him well and he all of a sudden just starts presenting you with his goal. Various things of this character occur. But you’re trying to clear up the PT environment to a point where the individual can be run on a Goals Process and cleared.

Now, there is your essence of the thing. Now, the repair of a case, or anything like that may be another story entirely. And it has nothing to do with this very pure rendition of Routine 2, which I’ve just given you. If your auditing can compare to the very pure rendition which I’ve just given you, you’ll have marvelous success in auditing, there is no doubt about that at all. Okay?

Thank you.