All right, this is what? The 10th of January.

Thank you.

Audience: Yes.

All right. This is the second lecture, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, 10 January AD 13. And I’ve told you all you have to know now, so there isn’t anything here to lecture about in this particular lecture. And you have become wise beyond measure, here, in the last hour.

AD 13, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, lecture one.

I’ll talk to you about the implications of processing. We have had a problem for all these years of auditing somebody and everything was fine and then auditing another guy and everything was fine and then auditing a third guy and he starts tearing up the neighborhood. Well, this comes under the general heading-and only this heading, only this heading-of missed withholds. And the biggest missed withhold you can have, of course, is the missing answer to the auditing question. He didn’t give you the answer. He didn’t put the item on the list. That is the biggest one.

A little bulletin here-Aussies, hang your head in shame! All through the Commonwealth with the greatest of ease, I was able to slow down this government raid on the church in Washington, but not in Australia. You see, the lines go straight from Australia to the United States and back and forth. And the whole rigged government release in Washington landed scram-bang into the press in Australia. So Australia is a seething mess of „God ‘elp us“ now, and somebody from the Australian syndicate is coming down to see me tomorrow, and they want to know all about it.

This is so gigantic, that if you did that right all the time, you practically could omit pulling missed withholds. But you can’t omit pulling missed withholds and I’ll tell you why.

I’m not going to tell them very much beyond „a fascist government raided a church.“ I’ll tell them, „Be very, very careful, though, because apparently there’s a million dollars in the offing to fight this in the United States. They actually got all kinds of leads and money pouring in like mad from all directions, and the situation looks very dark for the United States.“

On your May third bulletin, I think it is, a great many manifestations of missed withholds are given. And amongst those are dope-off, boil-off, ARC break and that sort of thing. Now, in Routine 2, you’re pulling missed withholds by the carload lot. How many missed withholds do you think are in one Routine 2 track item? See, that’s ... Well, when you miss that whole package, this of course makes a terrific, crashing missed withhold, see, because it’s a conglomerate mess, as well as a mass.

You should really understand this a little bit. You see, they’ve done everything they could do. They’ve shot all the women and children, you see, and kicked the dog-there isn’t any more they can do. They’ve shot their bolt. And having lied to a federal judge and done a few other things like this, all they can do now is stand and take it, and man, we-we’re loading up the guns!

Now, you however, have to pull and continue to pull the little icky-dicky ones, you know, about „I bit my fingernails last night,“ you know? Because you’re liable to make this mistake: You say, there is so much unconsciousness in the bank that of course a pc will go anaten-to use one of the old-time words-will go unconscious, under the impact of this list. And brother, that isn’t true.

You shouldn’t expect the situation to deteriorate anyplace; actually, we’ll handle this in Australia with the greatest of ease. But isn’t it interesting that Australia takes orders from the US to that degree. Only Commonwealth country that has published a line. Interesting.

A pc won’t go unconscious under the impact of an item, even when you fire it straight to them and shift their attention. They won’t go unconscious by simply reading lists. They won’t get dopey or groggy simply by reason of reading lists. None of these things are going to happen.

Well, regardless of all that, let’s get down to something important — something important. Such as why your pc ARC breaks, you knucklehead!

It sounds so reasonable to you that under this much impact-and reading down one of these very vital rock slamming lists back to them again - because of the anaten contained in the list itself, natively and naturally, that they’re going to dope off a little bit, that you tend to miss the fact that that’s the little „bite the fingernails“ missed withhold that you didn’t get in the session.

Ah, this is very interesting. All this cost us today was the bulletin I was going to write on the subject. That’s the second one that has cost us.

Any time-now, mark this-any time that you see a pc go dopey, boil off, anything like that-or even go groggy and start shutting their eyes and slumping down on nulling, you pull up right there and get those nearly-found-out’s.

But there’s some very, very important data here. Some extremely important data. 2-12, 2-10, the Routine 2, has a liability and this is a very, very, very important liability. It’s one that you must not lose sight of Otherwise you’re going to lose pcs like mad! And Scientology’s going to lose people like mad instead of gaining them. I’m not joking now. Somebody can be put off but good if you miss an item.

Now, of course, this is aided and abetted if you have just got through missing an item on a list. But the missing item on the list doesn’t cause that anaten. It merely gives it body. They’ve got to have a PT type nearly-found out before they will go under on a list or as a result of an item. In other words, an item won’t do it all by itself and a list of items won’t do it all by themselves. Now, just mark my words, here: It’s just not possible! I can’t say this too strongly, I know this phenomena of boil-off and that sort of thing. It is just not possible for a pc to go anaten, groggy, boil off, without a near present-time missed withhold.

Now, what is a missed withhold? It’s a nearly-found-out, isn’t it? All right, now you just apply anything you ever heard of to missed withholds-to this other activity. And boy, a missed withhold of the size of a missed item — when it turns up and comes to view and isn’t picked up by the auditor-is really grim. And I do mean grim.

You give them an item, pc thinks of an item, goes anaten; you give them an item, they go anaten; you read a list to them, they go anaten; they groggy and, you know, thuuh. That’s not items! Now listen to me: that’s not items! They’ve been biting their fingernails last night, that’s what that is! They haven’t told you, that they’ve actually been haunting the door of the theory room, getting the questions being asked currently on bulletin so-and-so, you see. They’ve been doing something. They’ve been carefully contemplating busting rule 28, see? Something is awry, here. It takes that present time booster to knock them out.

Because not all the pulling missed withholds in the world are going to straighten it up. You’ve got to get that missed withhold-which is the missed item.

And the ordinary behavior of a missed-withhold-free pc during listing and nulling and receiving of items and thinking of items, is bright awake! That is the expected behavior. Not grogged-out at all. Bright awake. Oh, they can close their eyes so that they don’t watch your pencil wiggle, or something. But they’re bright awake. That is your expected attitude on the part of the pc.

Now, you think I mean one that isn’t opposed. No, I mean one that isn’t put on the list. You stopped listing too soon and this is under the whole subject of incomplete lists. Now, fortunately-fortunately, you can bypass items and incomplete list and maybe 60 percent of the time, 70 percent, something like that, get away with it. This is on one pc, not 70 percent of the pcs, you see. Most of the time you get away with it, I’d say even higher than that-85 percent, 90 percent. You get away with it.

Now, during nulling this is terribly, terribly important, because you are depending on reading an item once to get it to R/S. And although, on test after test, Prehav Some ticks would register, even though the pc is out, a meter will not rock slam while the pc is anaten. Now, that’s pretty dangerous, isn’t it?

And the time you don’t makes up for the whole lot. You can go ahead and do a sloppy job of Routine 2 and incomplete lists and oppose them and have a ball, endlessly list, and so forth. Nothing catastrophic occurs.

You’re counting on that meter rock slamming just by reading the item once. And you won’t see the rock slam if the pc is boiled off. Pc can’t tell you the last six items, five items, three items, four items, didn’t hear them, because he was boiled off. Hm! He wouldn’t have rock slammed on them, either. So that is enough for you to have some cold chills about ...

And then on one particular list-there is no telling which list this might be; you didn’t need to finish all the lists, and you could abandon some of them, and so forth-but on this one list that you’re doing, you grab the item before it’s been put on the list. After that your pc’s unauditable. Your pc becomes unauditable. Right there. Right now. And you as an auditor get your head knocked off and say, „I’m tired of auditing,“ and the pc natters and screams around and says he’s tired of being audited and that ends the whole thing, if you don’t know what it is.

And you see that pc sitting there and he goes zzwhaawel youummgo mummm khh. Somewhere-anywhere on that gradient scale you cannot count on the meter rock slamming. You can count on it doing a tick; you can count on it doing a tiny reaction, if you hit something significant, which is all we were counting on, on doing Prehavs-assessments. But you can’t count on it rock slamming. There’s just insufficient attention present to charge up the package so it’ll slam. So that is a marvelous opportunity you have there of missing a slamming item. That’s enough to give you cold chills, unless you know it. Now that you know it, that’s easy.

So this becomes the most important single piece of Routine 2. How to patch that one up is very important.

Now, that will work the same way on rocket reads, and so forth, on goals checkouts, and this is still data for 3-21. An anaten pc won’t rocket read. Anaten pc won’t rock slam. Ticks, yes. But not-not a good healthy, crashing manifestation like a rocket read or a rock slam, see. They’re not that active, because they’re not there.

Yeah, you can be reasonable and you can say, „Yes, I’ve made a goof. Yes, I’ve goofed. Yeah, I goofed. So therefore, of course, he’s ARC broke. Or he’s got missed withholds. Maybe he was, one time or another, a member of the US government.“ See, some other scurrilous action maybe has taken place on the part of the pc. And you say, „If I just sit there and pull missed withholds, well, I’ll be all right, because obviously it’s a missed withhold. He’s been sort of dopey in sessions, and he’s been this and he’s been that. Now, all right. Is there anything I nearly found out about you?“

Now, you get yourself an accustomation of keeping pcs bright awake. Not using the Dianetic method-Dianetic methods are frowned on these days. The FBI thinks that they’re very bad, so that ... Used, to kick them in the soles of the feet. That was the method of bringing a pc awake. That’s right! That’s right. You didn’t audit them when they were boiling off-you kicked them on the soles of the feet and woke them up.

And the funny part of it is the pc doesn’t know what it is. He doesn’t know why. He will give you missed withholds; and if you go on with pulling missed withholds to cure this ARC break, then you will drive him around the bend. Then you compound the felony.

There were two schools of thought on this. One, you went on auditing them, even though they were boiling off and wait until they woke up, and the other school of thought was that you kicked them on the soles of the feet and woke them up and went on auditing them. And finally I remember during Suzie’s day, in the Wichita Foundation, I think the accepted method was if they began to snore, was the borderline. And you kicked them on the feet if they began to snore, but otherwise you left them alone.

Why? Because the missed withhold is the item he didn’t put on the list. Now, give any ten lists, see, on the same pc-we’re not now talking about an odd pc that behaves this way, we’re talking about every pc you will ever audit-and you have ten lists, and like a complete chump you didn’t complete any of the ten-any of these nine lists. They weren’t completed, they weren’t the right item, your opposes were all wrong, everything-nothing ghastly happens. But undeterminedly, and just for some reason, because of the peculiarities of that list… This-one of those lists out of that ten, you don’t complete that one, and that’s heading right for the center of the bank. And you don’t complete the list. You get to an item „odd bod,“ and it must be it because only five items before that R/Sed.

Had a Director of Training there in those days-he used to blow bubbles; his method of boiling off-how to keep from getting audited.

And you say, „That’s your item, ‘odd bod’.“

The point here is that, that was way back when. Now midway along the line, I found out why people boiled off, what boil-off actually was. It actually is a flow which is run too long in one direction. That’s what boil-off, anaten, and so forth-a flow, running too long in one direction. That is to say, this person audits-gives an auditing command too long in one stuck flow, he can eventually walk into a situation where he is groggy. Now, that’s essentially what it is.

Big mass immediately appears in front of him. And he says, „Well, I-II… Yeah, I guess I can see how this is. I-it adds up. Yes, it-I guess that’s right. It adds up. I guess it packages up all right. Eh-eh-what are you wiggling your pencil for? All the time you sit there wiggling your pencil. I’ve been trying to-trying to tell you for some time, the motion bothers me. Uh-yeah. Well, you say were going to have another session tomorrow. I’m actually going to be pretty busy. Uh-well, all right, Ill come in for the session.“

Now, where does this fit in with the missed withhold? A missed withhold is a restrained flow. And because it is a restrained flow, any effort to outflow by the pc while he is busy inflowing causes him to inflow harder, and when the pc has a missed withhold, he’s inflowed as far as he can go and he’s very, very prone to boil-off. In other words, he’s holding back a flow, see. So he gets a stuck flow real quick. Anything sticks! You get that?

And you know what he does? The only place you can really detect this-I don’t mean to be sarcastic like interjecting such comments as „even you can detect this,“ and so I won’t put it in there. But there’ll be a fee.

The withhold that has been excited, that is restimulated, see, the restimulated withhold there, causes this flow to lock up. Right now! And it’s a very @y thing. You might get a subjective reality on this someday. Somebody is very, very industriously pulling these things and you all of a sudden find yourself bright awake. You give him the one which was knocking you out. You go thuu! Bright awake. Room gets bright, everything gets bright, see?

Now, listen very carefully. His session goals the very next session will not be as brisk and bright as his session goals have been in the past. And as you continue to oppose this wrong item, which you’ve found on this tenth list-you’re now doing an opposition list to it-his goals will get worse and worse and worse.

And you’re sitting there holding on to a withhold and things start to get dim, and very often a trained auditor being audited ... A trained auditor being audited actually doesn’t do the same things that raw meat does. You know, I’ve noticed that they keep their own rudiments in and do various things and they always have-no matter how deeply interested they are on this and that-and there’s always a small section of one eye cocked on the professional skill and aptitude of the auditor auditing. Always is, he can’t escape it! Anyway, not even an ARC break involved-he’s just keeping an eye on it.

And the way you patch this up — the way you patch this up is you look over session goals and you find what set of goals for a session did this pc set that were less optimum than his previous goals. And then if the auditor has been very clever and if he’s heard a rumor that you should write things on auditor’s reports-like what list you were listing, what’s the name of the list you’re listing; in other words, other pertinent information; or dated the lists, if he did that, dated the lists, all of which he’s supposed to do — all you have to do is get the list he was listing on immediately before and complete that list.

Found Suzie out of session here. A few weeks ago I was auditing Suzie and I found her out of session, I just knew it wasn’t quite right, so I pulled a missed withhold on the thing and she’d been sitting there very brightly and alertly, finding out how I was getting that many items called. Tricky. So even shell do it.

You understand? It is not-not eight days before, you understand. It’s the list that he completed in the session before he set the goals for the next session. You understand? Or the list which was abandoned. You got it? And you watch those session goals, and it’ll tell you every time.

Now, any pro will do this kind of thing and it doesn’t constitute very much. But it’s probably a bigger trick to keep a pro in session than it is raw meat. Raw meat is attitudinized and they don’t know how you’re supposed to do it right, and auditing is ... Even rather crude auditing looks flawless to them and you give them some real smooth auditing, my God, they don’t know what hit them! There’s no thought of any criticism in this department, don’t you see.

Now, actually, you’ll also see him looking darker, blacker, older, looking like hell; all these other manifestations go right along with it. And he’s very ARC breaky, and when he was given an item or not given the item, from that point on, why, he is ARC broke. In other words, the list was abandoned or it wasn’t complete or he was given an item off the list, but it was something wrong with that list.

But there it is. The fellow’s sitting there, he gets this little withhold and-now mark this-the session withhold quite commonly keys in a presession withhold. You almost never get the session withhold as the sole source of the anaten. So that’s very interesting. See? In other words, session withholds tend to key in missed withholds.

And that’s what causes that deterioration and that ARC break. Now! Now, listen to this very carefully. That he ARC breaks or is upset because you tell him to complete that list doesn’t have anything to do with it. Because you go back very often and try to complete that list, and he natters and screams and tears his hair and bites his fingernails and says to hell with it and bashes the cans, but he’ll go on and complete the list. And then all of a sudden you’ll get his item on the list and there it’ll be.

In other words, we didn’t have any missed withhold at the beginning of session. See, we had-it wasn’t keyed in so you hadn’t been missed. And then something happens in session, and ... You see, we’ve cleaned it up beautifully, „Since the last time I audited you is there anything you have failed to reveal?“ You see, that’s fine. So we obviously got the last twenty-four hours clean as a wolf’s tooth. Nothing showed. This will explain a mystery to you, maybe, if you’ve ever wondered about this.

A wrong-way-to list actually doesn’t act this way. It doesn’t act this way on the pc. The pc-just under strain and looking older and so forth-but he isn’t ARC break Wrong source very often-wrong source actually doesn’t cause ARC-breaks like this.

And then halfway through the session, the fellow starts to say something, doesn’t say something, forgets what it is, then remembers and then thinks he’d better not say it and starts to look a little groggy and then you try to pull this missed withhold: „In this session, is there anything you’ve failed to reveal?“ And it doesn’t pull.

So this is a peculiar manifestation having to do with completeness of lists. And your indicated action-your indicated action is to watch a pc like mad when you abandon a list. And to watch a pc like mad when you give him an item. And watch for that ARC break that may follow within the next few minutes or certainly at the beginning of the next session. You understand?

And you say, what’s coming off around here? Pc just gets edgy. Well, of course, the withhold you’re looking for is not in the session. Got that?

Because pcs are sometimes quite propitiative and they don’t blow up in your face. They just go out the bottom. But, you can see it reflected in goals. That’s the easiest place to see it reflected-right in goals.

Audience: Mm-hm.

Now, you get this as a single indicated repair item. Now, let’s say somebody has been listed against one of these things, setting sour goals for the last eighteen sessions. Well, all right, it was eighteen sessions ago. Eighteen sessions ago, that was when it happened. And if you’ve got his auditor’s reports nineteen sessions ago, you’ll find a bright-you know, good goals, you know: work hard, get in and pitch, find this, do that, you know, bang-bang, get better, snap to, get the tone arm down, find my goal, get Clear, see. Next session: „To see if I can’t improve my case.“ Single goal set. „Huh-huh-huh-huh-huh-huh.“

The key-in is in the session. But the withhold isn’t. Well, nearly found out, „In this session, is there anything I have nearly found out?“ is quite fortuitous and usually takes care of the situation. But an auditor should know this as part of his bag of tricks.

Well, what was he working on at that time? See? What happened? And you’ll find out in that last one that has the bright session goal-just before the bad one, see, the bright session goal one-either a list was abandoned or it wasn’t completed before the item was given to him. And it just all comes under the heading of „You missed a withhold.“ There’s a missed item, and that’s all it amounts to. The missed item. Right there. Bang!

PTPs don’t necessarily key in. Willingness to talk to the auditor remains the same. Actual overts and that sort of thing, they tend to come off at the beginning of session. But a session, something happens in a session can key in a missed withhold that happened before the session. So that’s why that has to be kept as a random rudiment. And fully expect, in a session, that something the pc did and was missed day before yesterday will key in. See, it doesn’t happen every time. But it happens often enough to get in your road trying to make this person wake up. You got that?

You missed the item-maybe you didn’t notice at the end of that session or the rest of the session, and so forth. Maybe this pc is so propitiative you didn’t really-really notice, or you weren’t on the ball that day or something, and you didn’t see this. Or you felt your auditing was a bit off that day and you’re prone to blame your auditing or something like this, See.

You-you’ll see that every once in a while, you’ll see that every once in a while, it isn’t every time. But, pc holds something back, doesn’t give you an item. You’re listing, doesn’t give you an item. „Is there anything you failed to reveal?“ Gives you the item and gets groggy. Says, „Yeah, I didn’t reveal this item, so-and-so,“ you expect him to brighten up, see. You say, „Whoa, wait, wait. Why doesn’t he suddenly come up here, you know, and start in here batting’?“ Instead of that he gets groggier.

You adjudicate, „Well, I better pull his missed withholds.“ Well, the first thing you better pull when you pull a missed withhold is to go find the item, and pull the item that was missed. And that is paramount in missed withholds.

Somehow or another this item keyed in. Every once in a while, enough to make it part of the auditor’s bag of tricks, see, something keyed in that he did last week or yesterday. So, never fail to - never be completely unwilling to uncork a whole track sort of withhold question. Oh, dangerous, it’ll keep you busy! But listen, it’ll get you out of more trouble than it’ll get you into.

This all comes under the heading of missed withholds, and it all is incomplete list. Because naturally, if he was given the wrong item on the list, the list was probably incomplete. Of course, you could grab the wrong item off a list-the item on the thirteenth page was slamming like the devil, but the auditor thought that some other item looked better and you know, did something like that. But that we’re-we’re looking at goofs there that are too magnitudinous to even be included in the perimeter of auditing, you just understand. That’s just ylaah! That’s just auditing goofs. We’re talking about 2-12 goofs, see.

Like, „Has anybody missed a withhold on you?“ you see, or, „Is there anything anybody nearly found out?“ Horrifying! Here we expect this guy to sit there and give you now two hundred trillion years’ worth, and make it a terrific missed withhold all over the doggone place. Well, in actual practice, in actual practice, it will get you out of more trouble than it gets you into. Doesn’t say that it won’t get you into trouble! But it’ll get you out of more.

So, something happened that had to do with an item being missing. That’s all you got to know. Because, believe me, there’ll be many ways that items can be missed-many ways. I’d hate to try to invent all the ways items will get missed between now and the year 2000, you see. And they’ll probably be multitudinous. You’re going to find some new and original ways yourself.

Sometimes I’ll date it on this, you know, on the basis, of „In the past week-,“ even though I’ve got between-session rudiments in, you see. Now, that’s used that way only when you can’t wake up the pc. You got that? You start uncorking this kind of a trick-you understand this-and you uncork this trick of just broaden that missed withhold question, if you can’t wake the pc up, ordinarily and generally. Like „In this session, is there anything I nearly found out? In this session, is there anything I nearly found out? In this session, is there nearly found out? You got that? Fine.“ The pc’s bright. Oh, well, don’t break anybody’s back, see. That’s fine. So that did it. So you’re all set.

Now, you understand, if the list was backwards, that he was listing, you won’t get quite the same thing. You’ll just get a continuous strain. And he wont necessarily ARC break because you missed an item on the backwards list, because that’s all missed. You see, you’re not going in the direction of it closely enough to cause it a near miss. So a backwards-listed thing wont give you the same manifestation. It gives you another variety of strain on the case.

But, let’s supposing the reverse happens. „In this session, is there anything I nearly found out?“

Now, you can always tell a backwards list-always tell a backwards list with the greatest of ease-because the rock slams get more frequent. The frequency of slam increases as you keep listing. There are more and more slams. And theoretically, if you went to a hundred pages, they’d all be slamming; everything would be slamming. You get the ne plus ultra.

„Glug. Uh, so-and-so.“

I’ll give you an idea: There’s two slamming items on the first page; there’s three slamming items on the second page; there’s four on the third page; there’s five on the fourth page; you see, there’s fifteen on the fifth page; and then the whole rest of the list slams. Now, that’s an exaggeration of it.

„In this session, is there anything-.“

But just count your rock slams. As you’re coming down the line, those end rock slams, if there are more than there were on-per page than there were on just the preceding page, you can figure out there’s something wrong here. That’s backwards too-that list is backwards too, because the bank is beefing up. And the bank is beefing up, indicated by these gratuitous rock slams-there’s more and more rock slams. Of course, you-the pc might be wearing two rings of a certain magical constituency that gives you a rock slam on everything.

„aonnowsmmsdunn...“

Did you know that some pcs with a ring on each hand, holding the cans, will rock slam for a phantom slam all the time. It’s quite remarkable. We had an audi — a pc here that was doing that a few months ago.

„In this session, is there anything I nearly found out?“

But the crux of the situation is that slams are becoming more frequent as you list. But on a right way to list, the slams are becoming less frequent as you list. Always less frequent. So that you’ll see maybe three slams on the first page, and then he could have four or five slams on the second page, because he’s just warming up, you see, but on the-on the third page, why, he’s got two slams and on the fourth page he’s got one slam, and…

„Uyuhyuyu ...“

Now, here’s one for you that joins right in-and why I’m talking about this-it joins right in to the missed withhold situation. And this you can shudder in your boots about; I’ll let you quietly shudder in your boots about this one. The next rock slam on that list may be as much as six pages away from the last rock slam on the early pages. You can list six pages, in other words, with a relatively clean needle, and then all of a sudden get a slam, and that’s the item. And that’s on, particularly, one of these hot lists.

Or worse than that, you put it in at ten minutes past the hour and you find him boiling off at twenty minutes past the hour again! Now, you just got to wrap that thing up, and fire it, man, because you’ve got a keyed-in nearly found-out. It didn’t exist, to amount to anything, during the session, up to this point. But the session for some reason or other, which we needn’t even bother to inquire into, is keying in this missed one. And it’s now keyed in. And it wasn’t keyed in at the beginning of session. And that causes and causes and causes.

But sometimes, as an auditor, you’re going to be knocking your brains out. Or you’re going to be supervising a whole bunch of co-audits and you’ll see some of these-one of these co-auditors knocking his brains out. The pc is going yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap! Howl, howl, howl!

Now, something else you should know about a missed withhold that I hate to have to tell you, but you’re old enough to know the facts of life. One of them is that not all missed withholds are on the second dynamic. I thought that might ... People have been known to let air out of other people’s tires. And you start steering missed withholds, by dynamics, or something weird like this, you’re going to get yourself into more trouble, you’re going to start more unfinished lists ... So you just keep this question pretty broad and pretty general.

And you’re going to sit down to try to pull the missed withhold. Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha. You’re not going to repair with auditing what’s been done wrong with Routine 2, let me tell you. You’ll find out ordinarily that a few minutes before, the pc’s been told he had an item and was apparently satisfied with it. Or the session before, something was abandoned. The list was abandoned as not being complete, or something like that. Something of this sort has happened in there.

Now, you do have to know this about the nearly-found-out question: It is a left-hand button. In other words, a suppressor-type button and does not necessarily read on the meter.

You look over the Routine 2 and you raise hell with people who don’t put the pc’s name, date, and page number on the list sheets. The pc’s name, the date, and the list heading that they’re getting the list from. „Sheet,“ I have said, not „page.“ Each separate sheet of paper has got to be so marked. Otherwise you can never trace this back.

So, you run into a situation where your pc looked a little bit groggy early in the session and you said, „In this session, is there anything I nearly found out about you?“ and he gives you an answer and that’s good enough, he brightened up, and fifteen minutes later he’s twice as groggy as before, you know exactly what’s happened: He’s got a pre-session, earlier-than-the-session nearly-found-out, of some kind or another, that your question is not capable of eliciting an answer to. And the thing for you to do is to prepcheck the nearly-found-out question.

Now, when they’re doing auditor reports, for God’s sakes make them mark in what they are listing! „Who or what would a catfish oppose?“ „W/W wd catfish op“ is the way it’s usually written. Doesn’t take any time to write it down. Why leave everybody in a mystery? Because that may someday become of the greatest importance. Three days later: pc, „Yow, yow, yow, yap, yap.“ Or just total apathy: „Oh, I don’t know what’s gonna happen or what’s gonna happen to me. I always felt all right before Scientology came along.“

I don’t care whether you give a time limit or not. It’s going to do you a lot of good to straighten this pc up to that degree. Doesn’t come under the head of no auditing. Auditing a pc who is boiling off, while you’re reading lists to him or trying to get lists from him, amounts to no auditing. See, this is the point where no auditing is not no auditing, definitely. Well, you can’t do anything with a boiling off pc, his needle won’t slam. So, what have you got to do with him? You’ve got to ... Because it’s a left-hand button, you know, Suppressed, Careful of, Nearly found out-Failed to reveal comes under that heading too. Those are all left-hand, suppressive, buttons. They do not cause a thing to read, they prevent things from reading. All the other buttons cause things to read unnecessarily. So that’s fine, you can see all those. These are visible to the naked eye.

Well, you set it back and let’s look at the day before-the pc set bright goals? Then it happened yesterday. Pc set bright goals day before yesterday but not yesterday? Ah, well, then it was day before yesterday. Get the idea? It’ll be in the session that the pc set the last bright goals for. You got it? It won’t creep up. It won’t sneak up on you. It’s not on a gradient. This thing is about as gradient as dropping all the crockery in the house, two stories! See, it happens now! And your cycle of action on the thing is you say, „Well, here we are, we’ve got ‘an upchuck.’ That’s right. We’ve got this item, ‘an upchuck.’ And does that sound like it’s the right item to you?“

We’ve added one button recently, to big mid ruds, that I ought to make some reservation about, and that is Anxious about tends also to be a left-hand button. But now we’re getting into the very big mid ruds, when we add that. But Mistake, Suggest, Decide, Protest, these all make things read. They don’t keep things from reading. Your suppressor buttons over here, they prevent a read from occurring.

„Oh, yes, yes, I’ve always been vitally interested in that.“ „Well, do you have any mass?“

Actually you realize that you can check out a rock slamming item with Suggest, Invalidate and Mistake just about as alive as they can get. You realize that? The ones you’ve got to worry about are Suppress, Careful of, and Nearly found out or Failed to reveal and, to a less extent, Anxious about. Now, of course, a Protest follows on the heels of a Nearly found out, or something of that sort, or a Failed to reveal and so it tends to be the point where these two tie together-the left and hand-right-hand side. You actually, you know, can use Protest as a random rudiment. Did you know that?

„No, no, no, no. Never have had any mass.“

All right. Now, as we inspect the pc during nulling ... Of course a pc who is boiling off can’t list, because he won’t talk. That’s very obvious. But it is less obvious-a pc slumped back in the chair, particularly if he’s not snoring-it’s less obvious that this pc is suffering from lots of unconsciousness, see? That’s less obvious. You got to keep an eye on that. Got to keep an eye on that. And the only cure you have today is not kicking them in the soles of the feet-they’ve been known to ARC break when this occurs and it doesn’t do much good because it’d just ARC break and close your meter out-the thing to do is to get off the nearly-found-out’s. And if the session nearly found-out’s don’t cure it, why, expect a lot of the time, if it goes down to severe a thing as boil-off, to have to cure it with a much broader time base.

„All right. Upchuck. Upchuck. R/Ses very nicely.“ „Yes, I suppose it does.“

Now, there is-there’s fairly important data in running Routine 2s. And the way you prevent this thing from happening in a co-audit-you go down the line of a co-audit well, HPA student, something like that, or public co-audit of some kind-one of the things you must watch as an Auditing Supervisor is that somebody hasn’t grogged out, particularly during a nulling session. That you must watch. And the way-the best way to cure this - the best way to cure this, is to sit in on it. Don’t try to teach the auditor how to get the missed withholds off the case, for God’s sakes. And take it for granted, if it’s happening, that it’s out of the session. Don’t even bother to put in the session mid ruds, don’t you see?

„All right. Well, that’s that! We’ll-glad we found an item for you,“ and so forth! „Now, did you make any part of your goals for this session?“

Just swing the random rudiment right in against the guy. „Is there anything we nearly found out about you?“ When you say „we,“ you also give it a time limit, because he’s probably only been around for a week or a month or six months or something like that. And see if you get a response on the part of the guy. Worm it out of him. Or get his auditor to run it totally repetitive. Say, „Just sit there and run this for the next twenty minutes,“ see. Then when you finally see the pc is starting to ARC break on it, decide it’s flat and tell him he can go on listing.

„Oh, yes, I guess so,“ and so forth.

I mean, there’s crude ways of adjudicating and handling these things as rather-as well as - neat ones, you know? See, the pc’s starting to look desperate. You know? You look down the line and see this pc, kept your eye on him, he’s looking desperate by this time! „Is there anything we nearly found out about you?“ The auditor’s been going on.

„Is there anything you’d care to ask or say before I end this session?“

Go over, peer over the shoulder and grab hold of the guy’s meter, „Is there anything we nearly found out about you? Yeah, that’s good and flat, go on and list. That’s it.“ Something like that. Doesn’t take any more than that.

„Well, yes. Has your meter been plugged in during the session?“

Because, let me tell you, it’s pretty gross-you get it on the public like that, it’s a fairly gross manifestation. But it’s a very fine thing, what really put him to sleep. That’s what’s amusing about it: the slightness of the thing that actually kicked him off, the slightness of the key-in. Maybe it keyed in something important behind that. Maybe you got that, maybe you didn’t, maybe it won’t key in and maybe it will. That’s beside the point.

You say, „What the hell’s happening here?“ See? I mean this would even be a propitiative pc. One who is less propitiative just takes your head off and throws it up against the wall.

You sometimes ask-you get this down searchingly and the pc has just got through saying, „Well I-I uh-I nearly found out-I-I nearly found out something! I-I nearly found out what the item was!“ Or something, you See? „Then I realized I hadn’t,“ and so forth. This’ll be the type of answer you’ll see him suddenly brighten up a little bit, you know? I nearly found out. You know? The thing is reverse end to. But that’s perfectly acceptable as an answer, on a broad, generally, „Was anything nearly found out?“ And then you-he still-you could see that if you went on doing whatever you’re doing he’s going to go off again. So you press this question, just another time or two, and all of a sudden he says, „Well, actually, this morning, Herbie offered me a ride and he nearly found out that I thought that it was too dangerous.“ You know, a little thing like this. It wasn’t any vast deeds or anything of the sort, you know.

But it’ll be something like this. It’s just offbeat. They really haven’t had time maybe to really get this going.

And all of a sudden the pcs bright, as awake as a gopher, see? „Where’s the list?“ You know? „Well, fine! Where’s the list?“ You read sometimes too much significance into these things. It’s how it locks into the bank, don’t you see?

Now, the next session you start to oppose it. The pc sets some sour goals like, „To get well, I guess,“ „To get through the session, somehow.“

Maybe the guy is about to give you an item that you won’t get for another session or something, or maybe he’s about to give you an item, „a coachman,“ you see, and anybody refusing a ride in a coach, this is a terrible moral break, or something, you know, or something like that.

And you’ll say, „All right. Now, we’re going to list ‘Who or what would oppose an upchuck.’ That all right with you?“

You don’t care much how it adds up, you actually don’t care about the significance of it. It’s just that is what knocks the pc out. And you just mustn’t audit a knocked-out pc. That’s all. You got all the cures for it, why not use these cures?

„Oh, yes, yes.“

Something else-you’re probably all at sixes and sevens: We’ve been knocking auditing around and giving it a bad name lately. Doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be able to do it well. You’re probably wondering these days what is a Model Session? What is a goal finder’s Model Session? What are all these things, you know? Well, I’ll tell you. I use as much auditing as I have to. And that’s what I use as a Model Session these days. And it certainly has these elements. You can’t really reduce a session now, for safety’s sake, knowing what we know about goals. You can’t reduce a session below this and still be fairly safe.

„All right. Well, who or what would oppose an upchuck?“

Before session, ordinary, usual routine is, of course, you get the room all right and adjust the pc’s chair, get his can squeeze and put in the reality factor. You certainly do those things, because this thing could go very awry if you didn’t do at least those things. Look around and see if the room’s all right. Adjust the pc’s chair, get a can squeeze and put in an R-factor for the session. Now, that’s certainly minimal action. You’d get into trouble if you took any less action than that.

„Oh, a bad auditor. An E-Meter. Auditing room. A criminal. Criminal negligence.“

And then you have to give him a start of session. And you give a pc a start of session, of course, with a Tone 40 and you have him there and then you find out if the session started for him. This is-also you could get into trouble a little bit if you didn’t find out. And then, „What goals would you like to set for this session?“ You certainly can’t avoid that, now. But, in actual fact, that could stand a trifle of an overhaul. It’s distractive to have goals for life or livingness come after the session goals. They probably should be in reverse. I wouldn’t say that we’re putting them in reverse, I’m just pointing out that that improvement would be an improvement, but we are not at this time using it. Got it? Be released in due course, if it’s ever released. I’m just pointing out to you there’s a possible improvement there.

„Do you have an ARC break?“

Goals for the session, goals for life and livingness. All right, you’re fine so far. Now, it depends utterly on whether or not you are going to do a listing or a nulling session. Depends utterly what you do now. But let me tell you, that if you had a good complete list yesterday and the needle was very free and flowing and you thought you were all set to null in this session today and the pc’s needle is free and flowing today, and you do more than take down the goals and say, „All right we’re now going to null this list: pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa.“ You’re taking a risk if you do more than that because it becomes no-auditing. You see that?

„No, no, I feel fine.“

Audience: Mm-hm.

And it’ll just go from there on, man. It’ll just keep going, from worse to worser. This pc will be violent about three sessions from then, or just go into complete apathy, „Huuuhhh.“ And the goals will continue to deteriorate. And that’s all there, back there on that list that you got „upchuck“ off of.

You thought the list was complete yesterday and the needle’s clean as a wolf’s tooth today, and the pc is all eager-eyed and bushy-tailed, and we’re all set to fire here and so forth, just-well, you got the goals down, all right, you say, „Now, I’m going to - going to null this list.“

Now, the funny part of it is-the funny part of it is, you’ll occasionally say to a pc, „All right. This list here ‘Who or what has been agonizing in present time,’ „ or whatever it is, „that we got the upchuck off of,“ you see. „Now, we’re going to complete this list!“

There you go, start nulling! Take your chances on whether or not he has any between-session mid ruds out. Because generally he’s so interested in the list that these are more or less pushed aside.

„Oh, the hell you are. I just don’t see anything. It’s complete! You already gave me the item, didn’t you? I can’t think of anything more.“

Now, only get worried if he starts to boil off. Now, he’s going to boil off-, why, there you are. You better get in your - not mid ruds - you just better get in your random rudiment on a nearly-found-out basis. „Since-,“ we don’t care how you word it, just as long as you pull those missed withholds and get them quick and get back there to doing what you’re doing. If your missed withholds didn’t do it, the list isn’t complete and that’s all there is to that. Simple-add to the list. Now, that’s what’s known as really short-handing sessions, right down to nothing.

„Well, we’re going to get the rudiments in on this list, and we’re going to continue it anyway.“

All right, pc-now, let’s take a listing session. We do exactly those things, in other words, we give them the basic form of an auditing session, listing session. Pocketa-pocketa-pocketa. What are you doing on a listing session ever getting in a missed withhold or any other damn thing.? What you doing’.? What-what are you doing? Why? „Start of session. What goals would you like to set for this session? Any goals you’d like to set for life or livingness?“

„But I just can’t think of anything more!“

„All right, we’ve got this list, ‘Who or what would oppose a catfish?’ All right. What item would you like to put on this list now? All right, here we go. Who or what would oppose a catfish? Po-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocke-.“ I don’t care whether the needle’s dirty, tying itself in knots, rock slamming; to hell with it, who cares what it’s doing. You understand?

Quite ordinary; you’ll get that kind of a response. They won’t complete the list. It’s incomplete. They’re now getting even with you, sort of That’s the whole motive.

Audience: Um-hm.

You talk to them a little bit and persuade them. They say for a while, „There aren’t any more items. There aren’t this… Something.“

Because that action is far more therapeutic in cleaning up the needle, than anything else you could do and it’s probably dirty because of the pc’s thoughts about doing it! You got that? So, listing session-list! Don’t do anything else. If you can’t hold the pc in-session or something like that-or something like that - the pc wont sit there and list, why that’s another thing. Now, if the pc stops listing... And I say it’s another thing, that’s a missed withhold situation ... But if the pc stops listing, what are you doing getting in a dozen mid ruds? You know there’s only two mid ruds that stops a pc from listing-Suppress and Invalidate. And those are the primary mid ruds.

Then all of a sudden, why, they go, brrrrrr, bang-bang! Just-almost in the middle of the time when they’re telling you they can’t add to it, see, why, they start adding to the list. And they add to the list and add to the list and add to the list and add to the list and add to the list and add to the list. And you’re liable to go four, five, six, seven, eight pages, without a single R/S on it. And then all of a sudden there’s a crashing big R/S. Well, null it down, in case you missed an R/S, just by reading them, pocketa-pocketa-pocketa, „Hey, we may-I really got one on you.“

They’re the primary rudiments, as far as mid ruds are concerned - Suppress and Invalidate. Very often, if a pc is on a fairly hot list, you never have time to get in more than Suppress and Invalidate and he’s off to listing again. Well, why try to get in anything else? Why try to get in anything else? Just call those two the primary rudiments and if your listing interrupts and the pc stops listing, get in the Suppress, get in the Invalidate and there we go. Suppress is by a Prepcheck, by the way. And fire on down that list. And! And-and-and-and you get in the Suppress and he gives you a suppress and a suppress and then you ask Suppress and he gives you an item. You want to get the case tied in an absolute knot? Don’t take the item. Just abandon Suppress and Invalidate right there. You’re not going to do anything more with them. Just going to go on listing. Got that? You’re not going to Bay another word about it!

Talk about nulling of lists-for a week for a list, you know? I clocked myself the other night on a-on a six-page list. And it took ten minutes. I wasn’t wasting any time marking Ts and things down, you understand. I had it clean enough so I could just write „page Xed out“ before I turned it, see.

„Anything you suppressed?“

And you don’t have to wait any time to see if an R/S is going to develop. If it isn’t an instant R/S, it only takes you something on the order of about a tenth of a second of lingering glance still on the meter to see nothing is happening. And what do you mean you take your eye that far from a meter just to read the next line, you see?

„Well, actually, I was suppressing here-I got an item. I got an item. A waterbuck. Yeah. There’s a waterbuck and a caterwump and…“

You can really null these things down if you get in the groove, bow, bow, bow, bow, almost that fast, see. So you don’t care how much you null.

You just-to hell with it, see. Skip any of that other stuff, see? Go right on listing, see. Because why did you put them in? You put them in to get the pc to start listing! Now, you’re not going to sit there and try to get your auditing question cleaned up. He hit something and there was something he failed to reveal there, or something of the sort, in actual fact. But it’ll all come out on Suppress and Invalidate.

And it’s just on the off chance you might have missed one or something was up, something like that. Sometimes one that you can’t really tell which one R/Sed, or something like that-there was just a big R/S going on during the time.

Now, if you can’t get him to list again, get in the rest of them. But I’ve never seen it happen. I’ve yet to see this happen, where you had to get in more rudiments than Suppress and Invalidate to get the pc back to listing. See? So, what I know is-I’m talking now about just cutting short corners around auditing, see?

Anyway, you get down here to the end, and bow! you see, there it is. And it’s „a tigerbat.“ Wasn’t „an upchuck!’ at all, you know? There it is, „a tigerbat.“

All right, we get down to the end of the day’s session and we discuss what we’re doing here and where we have gotten to and we put in a bit of a reality factor on where we are going and what we-don’t necessarily put it in for the session tomorrow, but just say where we got and that’s it. And then say that’s the end of the body of the session, you see. And that closes off the body of the session.

All this time the pc has been very cheerful. Where was the ARC break? Where’s the hopelessness? All the time you were listing, all the time you’re nulling. And you get down, and you say, „Well, we’ve got ‘a tigerbat’ here. A tigerbat, tigerbat. Yes, it R/Ses very nicely-“And the pc says, „Could’ve told you that all the time“.

And now, what I’ve been doing, is cock the meter up here to 64 on a Mark V and say, „In this session was the room all right?“ And pull any stuck reactions on the thing and get the needle back to flowing again. In other words, get him out of the auditing environment as the most important thing that you could do for the pc to keep him from being stuck in the session.

Actually, he’s been swearing, you see, all the time that the thing was „a baseball.“ But, actually-yeah, he could have told you it’s „a tigerbat,“ and he’s all perfectly happy. And you oppose the thing, and he’s happy. And what happened to all this going-to-commit-suicide-tomorrow-morning and all that kind of stuff? That all just evaporated.

Just that one. „In this session was the room all right?“ Clean it. Sometimes you find a pc starts protesting this question and that sort of thing. Well, take it easy and do it next session too. You know, say, all right, he’s protesting the thing and he’s probably nervy and there’s probably a missed withhold, something like that. Don’t beat his brains out because of the thing. But you can also assume there’s probably something wrong with the room. Get your auditing question answered, but don’t necessarily clean this thing up, you know-grind him to death.

Now, here’s another test you can make sometime and that’s quite interesting. I don’t say to do this intentionally, but sometime when you find you have done it, mark this very carefully! You say to the pc, „Well, got your item here. It’s an upchuck.“’ And the pc, „Does that sound like it’s real to you, and so forth? You think that’s it?“

Here’s what I’m trying to do. I’m trying to give you the answer to the pc who is inventing answers, so he can answer the question, you understand.

„Oh, yes, yeah, that sounds quite real.“

One of the best ways to clear that up, „Is this question being protested?“

And then the pc starts to kind of scrape at you a little bit, one way or the other, and just watch the pc do a tone curve. Just watch that curve go down. If you knew damn well it wasn’t the item, and you did that, you’d see that curve down. I’m not telling you to do it intentionally, but sometime or another you’ll do it accidentally, and you might as well sit there and watch the-watch the thing curve. And then do this: „Well, did mass show up?“

„Oh, yes.“

And the pc says, „Yes, some mass showed up, and so forth.“

„Have you invented any answers?“

And you say, „Fine.“ Now, you say, „Well, I’m sorry but I don’t believe that was your item.“ See, you watched the curve. He didn’t know. You watched him start to ARC break, and some mass showed up. What more do you want, see? And you say, „Well, I didn’t think that’s your item, we’re going to have to continue the list.“ And watch the pc bright up-brighten up, right now. Bang!

„Oh, so-and-so and so-and-so.“

„Oh! Well, are you?“

„Oh, well, thank you very much.“

„Yes!“

And then just don’t touch it. Don’t ask the question again. Just come off of it, see. You understand? Because it’s more important to pull the protest and the invented answer, than it is to try to get the auditing question driven home between his ears, because it’s just a courtesy. You’re trying to get him out of the auditing environment.

„Oh. Is that so? All right. Okay. Matter of fact, I got a couple right now.“

I refer to you-to a book which is not liked at all by the phew the-the department of the government, phew-Scientology 8-8008. Now, that talks about a thetan in the physical universe, see. And actually all the thetan is doing is stacking himself up against the physical universe and batting around like the blue bottle in the cage. And if you want to do something to free him up out of his session, well, you just ask him if the auditing room was all right. You get the modus operandi? Then you’ve got the thetan and the physical universe, and you’ve got the sixth and seventh dynamics-these straighten up and the pc feels better, you understand?

It’s very funny. The pc apparently has bought it, you see, to some degree-no cognition or anything. Sometimes hell even cognite a little bit, you know. Because it is a lock on the real item. And you kind of watch him go down. And if you — if you just held off giving him the good news about the fact that you were going on, anywhere up there to thirty seconds, you can start to watch that ARC break. You can start to watch that thing. If you let it go, the pc will be tearing up the auditing room, see. That’s a missed withhold of an item. That’s an item that is missed, and that’s all that it takes. That is all that it takes.

Sometimes they become very, very gratuitous and start inventing answers for it. Why, then, you’re in trouble and you don’t bother to clean the thing up, you assume there’s probably a missed withhold or something of the sort, or he feels nerved up because of the session. You’re not going to do anything about it anyhow with the room. You got it? See, you’re not going to do anything about the room. So get the invent-invented answers, the protest off-get off of it. Go ahead and do it next session again. Don’t be scared off just because the pc has objected to it, because he probably was objecting to it because his mind was on something else, see? In other words, you don’t have to kill that one with shotguns, axes ...

That’s interesting, isn’t it?

Now, we move over into the next action, which is the can squeeze. And normally, you ask this other question, „In this session was the room all right?“ to cut down the number of times you have to run Havingness. Because very often, if the pc has answered this question and cleaned it-“Is the room all right?“-his havingness will snap back, quite often, and you’ll save auditing time by answering the question. This is all in the direction of saving auditing time.

Well, this has much more far-reaching potentials than you would think. There are a few pcs around-they are very, very rare; up at HASI London we know of four or five of them, I think, in all the years of operation up there — who just are ARC breaky as hell! And have been for two or three years.

And then you get the can squeeze and you ask him to squeeze them up. Make sure that you’ve got the same thing. And if your pc has actually been beat up in this session, about the best thing you can do for that pc toward the end of session is not beat him to death with a lot of rudiments. You know, you normally are getting short-timed, toward the end of session. You could very easily-because of the time nature of your sessions, you see-you could very easily leave him with only part of the mid ruds squared away or something like that. Or in an HGC, and so on ...

They come back and get audited, but it’s absolutely gruesome. You know some of their names. It’s gruesome, man. Every time they get audited, I get letters too. It’s horrible.

So your-actually your best trick is to run some Havingness. If you don’t know the pc’s Havingness Process-what are you doing auditing a pc whose Havingness Process you don’t know? „Feel that,“ „Touch that,“ and „Notice that,“ are the best Havingness Processes there are. And normally any pc will respond to one or another of those. It’s a very funny thing, though, they very often don’t respond to „Touch that,“ when „Feel that,“ is their Havingness Process, and vice versa. You tell me why, but it’s true! It’s true. I figured out the other evening it might be-I was auditing-it might be that „Feel that“ requires more confront than „Touch that.“ There might be something in that. It’s only a few commands of this thing.

You know what I’ll bet’s wrong with them-every single one of them-I’ll bet you, somebody left an unflat repetitive process, years ago, perhaps. That interesting’? They didn’t put the answer on the list, you understand? There wasn’t even a list! They didn’t put the answer on the list! No list. They never enunciated it. Somebody didn’t flatten the process. Somebody was running — somebody was running something on the order of „What would knock down a bodybuilder?“ You know, way back. Well, they’ve assessed something like „a bodybuilder,“ or something. All right, „What would knock down a bodybuilder? Thank you. What would a bodybuilder knock down? Thank you. What would knock down a bodybuilder? Thank you. What would a bodybuilder knock down?“ And then the auditor for some reason or other was changed or got tired or got bored or something of this sort, or something new came out on a telex the next day, and nobody flattened that process and that pc hasn’t been auditable since. Now, that rarely-but I think those cases do exist here and there. That isn’t every case by one awful long ways. But there are some of those cases around.

I was watching a TV Demonstration you were given the other day, and so on, and some-whoever it was who was running that Havingness on that pc was going far, far too long, man. It only takes a few commands. You just want to get that can squeeze restored. How long does it take to get a can squeeze restored? Well, let me tell you something. You can start running the bank with Havingness with the greatest of ease. We’re talking now in the direction of about a dozen commands or slightly less. See? And if we’re not sure of the pc’s Havingness Process, we’re certainly not going to run more than five commands of a strange process.

Now, a Problems-Intensive-type approach would handle that very well. Just search it out to find out when they were happy about auditing and pinpoint it down; help with the meter. See, you wouldn’t even need the guy’s auditor reports, only they very often are available. And pinpoint it on the meter, „When was that?“ Help the guy out. Run a little bit of Suppress, you know, on auditing, or something, and keep finagling around trying to get this period. You can fish the command with some care, and running Suppress, and so forth, and Careful of, something like that-just the suppressor buttons-you all of a sudden, the pc comes up with what process it was!

All we’re trying to do is just run this pc’s havingness can-squeeze test back up, that’s all we’re trying to do. And that takes very little time. So, you snap him back to battery with Havingness and that’s your-and then take up goals-never take up life or livingness-never, never go over your life or livingness goals with a pc. Just go over the goals: session goals.

Now, you theoretically could prepcheck it out. And I say theoretically, because in actual fact I haven’t seen one of these missed-item ARC breaks mended by auditing alone. Why not let him complete the process? See, you understand?

Now, you take up gains and you take down whatever gains the pc says and you make your own comments over on the side of the thing and the pc can sit there and hold onto the cans while you scribble down whatever comments you make, too. And don’t take the cans out of the pc’s hands until the session is ended. Don’t fall for a practice like that. Because it gives him a double change. It ends the session materially before it ends the session mentally. And it tends to kind of throw him out of balance a little bit.

Now, that doesn’t mean… This answers a burning question for some of you guys. Would it be best to go back and complete every process that had been left unflat on the pc? Well, this gives you-this gives you an index. And a very, very neat, nice index it is. Only those processes that left the pc in a complete state of bedraggled ARC break with the auditor or the organization should be picked up. Because they’ve got a missing item on it.

All right, you got your goals, you got your gains, you say, „Is there anything you @e to say?“ and the pc says, „Oh, yes, yes, so-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so.“ Something like that. Usually it’s a question. „Did my tone arm go down?“ or something like that. Answer it! Be crisp.

There’s some item answer that the pc didn’t give. Something happened. It was probably some very significant session to the pc, like „From where could you communicate to a foot.“ And he just didn’t put the answer that was the completed list, you understand. There’s a missing answer there. He never flattened it. And there’s possibly, maybe, no more than one of these on any Scientologist’s case line. I mean, you, as a pc, sometime in the past, audited over the years, have undoubtedly had a nonflattened process on you.

Now, because you’re started-you’ve started the cycle of ending the session, don’t err ... I myself make this mistake occasionally, I all of a sudden get interested, you know, again in the session. Confounded thing rock slams, you know. You say, „What-what was that?“ You know? That’s bad practice. You’re ending a session. Sometimes it’s so vital that you have to know what that is, though, and you still ask him. But end the session, and „Anything you care to ask or say before I end this session?“ and so forth, and he says it. Well, don’t prompt him to say anything else, is the point I’m making here! Cut that off, man! Usually it’s a, „Thank you,“ or something like that. And you say, „All right, here it is,“ and give him a good Tone 40 end of session that leaves no doubt in his mind whatsoever! Tell him, „Tell me I’m no longer auditing you,“ so as he shakes out of that, and that is through.

But not in all cases would this necessarily have admitted a missed withhold. But you get somebody who is pretty upset about auditing, and rather ARC breaky; well, find a time when they were not ARC breaky about auditing, flatten that process, and they’d smooth right out.

Pc who continues to talk about his case to you, it’s almost inevitable the PC will make some kind of remark about his case. Give him an entirely altered aspect-is the best trick of ending the session, now, visually too.

Actually, it should turn up on opposing „auditing,“ or something like that, if „auditing“ rock slammed. But I’m giving you-and I’m giving you something here. Now, this is not necessarily something that would be done on a case, you understand, unless this case had a long history. There — as I say, I think there are either five or six through the HGC of HASI London over all these years, but those five or six actually ought to be looked over on this basis of the missing answer on the question sequence. They should be looked over from that basis. Rather than try to do a new list on them.

I never put it-doubt-much doubt in the pc’s mind, but if the pc looks-is shaking his head when I’ve said, „End of session,“ going like this - I’ll end session again for him, see? I’ll ask, „Has session ended all right?“ You know, I take a little care, if it’s kind of obvious he didn’t get out of session. I’m not going to spend any time on it. I’m not going to put him back on the meter and do various things of this particular care.

See, it’d be a freak that a repetitive process of some kind or another actually left an unanswered question that was severe enough to cause them to severely ARC break about auditing from there on. But that can exist and ifs something that you should be aware of just as a pro. You just should be aware of it as a condition that can exist.

If I’ve given him an item and said, „That’s your item, and now we’re going to end the session,“ and I see the pc isn’t coming out of session, I say, „Well, what’s the matter? You-you having doubts about that item?“ He’ll say, „Kind of.“ „Well, all right, you don’t have to have that for your item, well go on listing on it next session.“ Pc brightens right up. And you say, „Good. All right. Got that now? End of session!“ POW! And he’s out of session. See, that missing item can hold him from coming out of session.

Now, as far as Routine 2 is concerned, this can happen on every case you audit. It’s not a selective case Condition. You can do this to every case you audit. You get some kind of a manifestation like this: Case is improving and improving and in beautiful shape, and you’ve got two packages now and then you go for the third package and you’re getting the first item of the third package and ifs just all running wonderfully, and the pc comes in and says — sets some goals like this: „To get through it. To see if I can’t get well after all.“

And then you’re through. Now, when I say an altered aspect ... You’ve been an auditor and so forth, and you’ve been willing to listen to him, you’re still willing to listen to him, you’re not going to ARC break him, you’re not necessarily going to give him a wisecrack or invalidate their case or something like that, but look more cheerful and natural than usual. Ask him something like, „Hey, you got a cigarette?“ you know, something. It’s an altered aspect, an altered tone of voice, and it helps them come a little further out of session. You got it?

You say, „What the hell’s happened here?“ Well, what happened here is that third list that you were doing, that you were working on just the day before, whatever it was, that thing was-something wrong. Something wrong. But it all added up to a missed item. Whatever’s wrong with it, it had to add up to a missed item. That’s the common denominator of all these mistakes.

Audience: Yeah.

Now, all you have to do to square this up is not necessarily to go back and get the earliest list that ever got earlied on the case, or get the earliest complete that ever got uncompleted and go back to China, patch this up-no, it’s yesterday. And you just watch those goals. The big indicator is goals. And catch that one, right there, the one-the one they set a good goal for that session, and then a bad goal for the next session.

Well, now, you say, „What’s Model Session today?“ Well, Model Session is still Model Session. And it’s got all those rudiments and it’s got everything else in it-that’s Model Session. Now, we’re talking about a very shortened Routine 2 session, see. This is a Routine 2. It isn’t goal finder’s Model Session. That was itself, too. This is Routine 2 session. It just fits for Routine 2. Honestly, if you use much more session than this, you’ll get into trouble.

What was done in that good-goal session, right there, achieved a missing item. Whatever it was, it achieved a missing item.

Now, you’re trying to null, you’re trying to null, the list is obviously complete and so forth, use this other trick-just to get back to it a little bit-of handing the pc the sheet, and saying, „What-what cooks on this sheet here? What-any-any big thoughts on this sheet, here?“ or something like that.

Now, there’s another source for missing items, is failure to oppose. And the basic rule of failure to oppose is this: Here and there in organizations and field, and so forth, people were only getting the first item off List One, you see, getting it opposed and then leaving it. And then everything crumpled up like scrap paper for the pc, because they didn’t oppose what they had now found. You see, actually they’d taken it from a locked package.

Pc says, „Oh, well, yes, and I invalidated that and I did this and I did that, and so on. And kind of suppressed that and I didn’t think that was it.“

The rule is simply this: That anything that keeps on R/Sing after you try to package it has to be opposed. Now, that could give you four oppositions. It could give you only two. A real Routine 2 that is perfectly done, perfect source, perfect everything-the real thing-actually blows up into a whoosh! and you can’t find any trace of anything. But one that’s a bit done off-the source wasn’t quite right, something like this; the-you took the source off of an arbitrary list, let us say, something like that, and what you wind up with is something that has still got a DR on it, and the other side of it is still slamming.

And you say, „All right. Thank you very, very much. Thank you.“

Why, I’d look it over awfully carefully to make sure that we didn’t have incomplete lists, is what resulted in all this. But for sure, you’re going to have to do something about that slamming item. Unless the slamming item came from a rock slamming item by represent. If you-you know, you never represent a rock slamming item. And you can actually get a pc in the soup. This is delicate. This is delicate. You can get a pc in the soup by taking a rock slamming item represent list and getting a rock slamming item and then opposing it.

Don’t ask him any rudiment on it, just give him the sheet. You understand?

If it is a real reliable item, it’ll be the only one that occurred on the list, and it’ll be an opposition-type thing or it was on there… But it would constitute a missed dumbbell; half of the dumbbell is missing.

Oh, you don’t know about this trick? Maybe it’s not worked well for you.

I’ll give you an example. Under old 3G-this is wrong-old 3GA Criss Cross, we get an item „groups.“ And it slams like mad, and the auditor did a represent list on it, so he could have something to find goals with, and he got „Rotarians.“ And „Rotarians“ slammed like crazy. And that was seven-Six months ago, or five months ago, or something like that, and it is still slamming like crazy. Well, you just let it go on slamming! It’d be very wrong to oppose that. Because it’s in an incomplete list.

Audience: Yeah. Yeah, it has.

Actually, the only action you can take is to oppose „groups.“ You see, there’s that great big, constantly-slamming item staring you in the face, and you say, „Boy, we better do something about it.“ Ah, but if „groups“ was slamming-if „groups“ is slamming-ah, well, that’s a different proposition, because you can pull something proper with „groups.“

Yeah, all right. It’s a nice trick. It gets all the rudiments in, Brrrr! Bow!

So you have to look at an item’s source. The source of an item has everything to do with an item. And you take an item that comes from a wrong source-yes, it’ll go on slamming for quite a while till somebody straightens the source out. But an item from a right source, if it continues to slam… It’s off a completed list. Everything is fine. You examine those little elementary things: Is it from the right source? Is it right way to? Was the list complete? Was it the last and only R/S on the list? Yes, yes, and the thing is still slamming. Oppose it, man! And if you don’t, you’ll get another ARC break situation.

Bring it back over, and go on going.

Oddly enough, you can abandon this crashing slam on „Rotarians,“ and the pc is relieved, if anything. Pc says, „Oh yes, I’m very interested in that. I’m very, very interested in Rotarians. Yeah. Oh, yes, I’d really like to know what opposes Rotarians.“ The first time you try to oppose „Rotarians,“ the pc will ARC break a bit. Because there’s something wrong there, you see. It’s not really an item. It’s just held there because it was taken between two other items.

Now, but aside from that, I would assume, if a pc became agitated in a Routine 2 session-I would assume immediately that there was something wrong with the Routine 2, not something wrong with the auditing. That’s the first thing I’d assume. I’d assume he was getting no auditing or something or he thought he wasn’t and so forth.

It’s actually some kind of a lock item on an improperly opposed item, „group“-“groups,“ see. Then when you get „groups,“ and get that all straightened out and that list is totally complete, you’ll find out „Rotarians“ will probably mysteriously vanish and won’t rock slam anymore. You see how that would be?

A pc who starts to act very self-audit-ish in a session, I wouldn’t pay any attention to it. You know, he’s starting to get his own rudiments in and starting to fill everything in, I just give him a cheery „Yes. Okay. Fine. Thank you.“ And so the pc starts interrupting me while I’m nulling, and so forth, to getting his own rudiments in. I’d just stop and give him a cheery „Aye, aye,“ and go on again. See, I don’t start snarling at him, and frowning, and ...

Now, R2-12 is something that is very easily done right, from scratch. If it’s right, from scratch, and it goes along right, all the way, see man, you’ve got a winner like mad!

I sometimes have been known to frown at a pc who scratches their head with the back of the can when they’re listing!-while giving me four items, you know? I very often say, „Well, that’s four we don’t know whether they rock slammed or not.“ „Oh, oh!“ says the pc.

The only thing that’s going to cause you trouble is where you did something wrong as you were carrying it along, and now you’ve got a pace-a case-patch-up situation, or it’s somebody else’s case that has been run wrong, and you’ve got to put it back together again. And those are the difficulties you run into.

Well, that’s the extent of the importances of session. I guess you could have called this lecture, „What you do in an auditing session these days and relative importance thereof.“ And of course, as you see, the manifestation of boil-off, and therefore pulling missed withholds, is paramount to everything else. Because you-of course he cant list while he’s asleep. And you can’t null, because he won’t rock slam while he’s asleep. So, there you are. That makes Routine 2 impossible. But within those limits, why, that’s about as much sessioning as I would use these days.

Now, that’s why I’ve been trying to find indicators, indicators, indicators by the ton. Been trying to find all the ways you can tell if it’s running right, see. And I’ve been picking up new ones every time I turned around. There are lots of indicators now. And they’re more clear-cut as indicators.

Now, something very funny-I’ve got to tell you one little other piece of data and we’ll end this lecture. You start on a list that is incomplete, or wrong way to, and you start nulling it-if you use the 2-10 type nulling, of just call, call, call, looking only for rock slams, you see, bark-bark-bark-bark-bark-bark-bark-bark-bark-bark-bark and you get about halfway down the front page of that list and that needle starts getting dirty, you would normally assume that the pc’s rudiments have gone out. I lately have begun to assume the correct answer: It’s either wrong way to or the item isn’t on the list.

Now, another thing that-about this is, there is no doubt about this that it can do some really marvelous things. There is no doubt about it. It can do some marvelous things. But it has enough boot to it that if you run it off the rails, it’ll wrap somebody around a Telephone pole.

You never saw anything as-quite as agitated as a needle goes on nulling on a list that’s got something sour about it. Now, the faster you call off items, the more briskly you enunciate them, the less the pc thinks. So at the speed I’ve been nulling lately, the pc didn’t have-no pc’s had a chance to do any thinking. So I’ve managed to sort out this other datum. And that is, that I’ve taken some lists that are wrong way to and so forth and tested them. And your needle will dirty up. And it’s an indicator-it’s just an indicator-it isn’t a rule, but you should always be leery that if you’re calling down a list fairly rapidly, and you straighten out the list, give him the page, let him straighten it out, and you’re calling this off again, and it goes dirty almost at once, you should be-get very alert, man. There is something wrong here. It isn’t just the rudiments going out. The Routine 2 is wrong. Wrong source, wrong way to or item isn’t on the list, and usually, all else being equal, it’s the item isn’t on the list! That’s the only place that an auditor can foul up.

It’s something like driving a racing car, you know. He can really get there in that racing car, you know, but it isn’t-it isn’t… Well, as a matter of fact the only thing that’ll get you there is a racing car, don’t you see. But by God, those curves! You know, every time it comes to an unbanked curve, why, it leaves several dollars’ worth of rubber on the concrete. And you can very easily wrap it around a Telephone pole-very easily.

Now, you can also-somebody has done it here, in this unit-list endlessly, way beyond the point where the thing could be listed. Way, way, way, way beyond-thirty pages or so beyond the point where it ought to be nulled. That’s a very extreme look, but it’s a fact! And if it ha(Wt been for the vacation and the snow and so forth and another auditor taking aver the case, we never would have found it out. The auditor-the pc to this day won’t still be listing. Because, of course, a needle starts going dirty on the protest. You overlist and overlist and overlist and overlist, the needle goes dirty on a protest.

Now, this makes an auditor have to have two skills. Not just the skill of driving a racing car, but the skill of putting one back together again after he’s wrapped it around a Telephone pole. So, you’re not only an auditing pro, you see, you’re also a case artisan. And at no time has artisanship on cases’ repair ever been as important as it has right now.

But you know that an incomplete list, the needle doesn’t go dirty on the protest. You know the person really never protests it. They snarl, they sound ARC broke, they sound this way and that. You can’t find any protest! They go on listing, one way or the other, even though you’ve had to say, „If you don’t list any further on this list ... You get the message?“

If you’re going to take these cases and get them out of the woods and square them up and head them on the right road, if you’re going to do that, be fully prepared that all of a sudden you hit this unbanked curve. Pc has just been going marvelous. The pc is-now looks fifteen-looked seventy-five before-pc looks fifteen; pc is doing beautifully; rave notices to the family; everything is going along fine, you see. And my God, there you hit one of these unbanked curves, you know. Pc comes into the next session and says — you say, „All right, what goals would you like to set for this session?“

„Oh, well, you put it that way!“ and so on.

And the pc says, „To get through it.“

No rudiments in see, just list! Not recommended. But sometime when you know damn well the list is not complete, and the pc won’t add any more to it, you know, and the pc’s getting all ARC broke, and all this way and that, why, your rudiments fail to get him to list again, why, „list!“ you know? The only crime you can actually pull is not completing the list. You realize that?

„All right. Any others?“

All other crimes fall short of that crime.

„No.“

And in essence, there’s minimal sessioning. Oddly enough, it’s going to take you more mid ruds on 3-21 than it does on Routine 2. You’re going to use mid ruds a lot more on 3-21.

Well, for heaven’s sakes, be alive. Don’t try to repair this from last July. See, the time is readable on your wristwatch. It was just two clock winds ago that that unbanked curve connected with the wheels.

Now, as soon as you’ve got the PT problems out of the road-as soon as you got the PT problems out of the road-a case actually is ready for 3-21. You recognize that? You could overuse Routine 2 if you’re a clearing auditor. You realize this? You can overuse it. It won’t do the case any harm. He goes on, he gets Clear and so forth. But there’s a point where you get the present time problems out of the road as far as this pc’s concerned and so on, he’s ready for 3-21. Hell 90 right down, find his goal, as nice as you please. All you’d actually have to do on him is a brief Prepcheck and he’d practically present you with his goal. You see where that borderline comes?

Now, you sometimes will tend to say, „Well, it must be my auditing, because after-I’ve been a little bit crude lately, and the pc’s been fighting the mid ruds, and there’s probably some various things here which I-so on, so on. So I’ll be reasonable about the whole thing, and I’ll try to pull the missed withholds which are causing this pc to ARC…“ And now you want to really see an ARC break? Because the pc sort of conceives you’re asking for the item, and boy, it just keeps restimulating and restimulating and restimulating. Only, of course, he’s got no way to give you the item. You’re not listing. So every time you ask him causes another missed withhold on top of the thing, you know? He gets very upset!

It is safer for an expert auditor to do goals on a case, than it is to do Routine 2. He will actually make less mistakes doing goals on a case, if he is an expert. But it is more catastrophic for an inexpert auditor to do 3-21 on a case, than it is Routine 2. Do you see how those two points add up?

The only way to patch up Routine 2 is to patch it up with Routine 2.

Audience: Yes.

That’s the way you patch it up. And you just go back there and you say, „Well, that’s a sour set of goals.“ Now, instead of trying to tie the pc even more thoroughly around the Telephone pole, you take a look at the pc, and you say, „All right, now, let’s see, we said we weren’t going to continue listing that list last session, but I’ve changed my mind about this, ha-ha, and we’re going to continue listing that. Were not going to abandon that one. Were going to continue that one.’

Now, in actual fact, an expert does 3-21 more smoothly than he does Routine 2, because Routine 2, after all, is not running on the pc’s goal. What you want to do is get the pc’s goal and run it against PT, if you want to get the rest of the problems out of the road-and you do all kinds of things. You can do more with his goal any day in the week than you can do with Routine 2, but you-of course, you can’t get most people’s goals without getting some packages out of the road.

And the pc is liable to say, „Aw, are you really. „ or something. And then, all of a sudden, brighten up.

I want to give you one change in Routine 2, just as one final remark here. That List 1A, „In present time, who or what are you upset about?“ would probably run more easily on a pc, just as any version of, „In present time-or-who or what does present time consist of?“ Let me give you that as the basic model. „Who or what does present time consist of?“ You see? „Who are you in contact with in present time? Who or what are you in contact with in present time?“ You understand? Any such version.

It’s very often the pc will tell you they can’t. Very often they’ll tell you, „What are you doing, trying to invalidate this beautiful item, ‘an upchuck’? I mean it explains my whole life, except I haven’t been explaining it.“

Now, one more remark, about missed withholds and this changed line. You realize that you can list the wrong universe. Remember there’s the wrong universe ... There’s the universe of the pc’s life and livingness, his auditing universe and the parts of existence. And do you know that it’ll constitute on some pcs a missed withhold if you don’t list that one first which is ready to be listed. You got that? There’s another way that you can miss an item: is choose the wrong sphere of interest for your first list. That’s not a very fruitful one, but it can happen, so you should be advised of it. And that is pertinent to what I’ve been telling you tonight.

And you say, „Well, we’re just going to continue that list.“

You insist on running auditing-type universe, see? And actually his present time universe has got him caved in. You know, his life and livingness universe got him caved in. You try to do parts of existence on him and his auditing universe is kicking his head in. And the pc will act like he has an ARC break. He’ll act like a missed item, by choosing the wrong one of these three universes to do first. So that has to be sorted out with the pc on a real expert action.

Sometimes you’ll be horrified to find out how many pages you can go without a single R/S on it before all of a sudden the vital item goes blang, blang! That’s about the only discouraging thing about all this I know, but you-just be sure it’s there. Just be sure you get that item on the list, you understand. That’s the criterion. Be sure you get it on the list.

It’s not common, but it can-it could actually louse up a case. Somebody screams like mad, running about auditing. Ah, he’s about to be divorced or shot or President of the United States has heard his name and is therefore in a rage. See, something of that sort has happened. Then his attention is so stuck on that type of a universe that he can’t even think about being audited, don’t you see? And you can’t get that one out of the road-if you don’t get that one out of the road, he won’t be able to get any of the auditing things out of the road. So there’s another source of a missed item. Okay’.?

Now, knowing 2-12 and knowing other things about it and being able to run it in the first place, that’s the only one you can go headfirst into the snowdrift on, see. Now, any auditor can make this mistake; and can happen to any pc. So this is very, very interesting as a datum, isn’t it?

All right and that is it and I hope it does you some good.

And you can do it, and you’ll pull the pc right out of it, and so forth, if you know exactly what it is; and if you don’t know what it is and you try to take some heroic or auditing measure to correct the thing, and boy, you’re going to be in awful shape trying to figure out this, see.

Thank you very much and good night.

But I finally studied this down to its common-simplest common denominator. It’s just right there in the session goals, is where you’ll find it, and you can trace it back.

And I don’t care how ridiculous it seemed as an action. Don’t let anything like that get in your road, you understand. You say, „But, my God, the thing is… Actually, what we were listing in that session was just a brandnew consist-of-present-time list.“ How the-the pc was going around the bend trying to add items to it, and there hadn’t been a rock slam on it for-you know, at all! There were apparently no rock slams on it at all, and couldn’t be vital to the pc, and must be something else. No sir. What I’ve just told you takes precedence over all the something elses. It’s right there. That’s it. It’s that one where the pc shifted and it’ll be a big shift.

Now, if you know that one, if you study up that way, if you keep good auditor’s reports and you make very sure they are kept, you make darn sure that you keep an eye on these session goals as you go along and do straight Routine 2-keep it as straight as you possibly can. It’s, by the way, been getting straighter. I’ve been working with you, and watching what you’ve been doing, and so forth, and working, also myself, to make it easier to recognize what it is. Removing all possible things that might be going astray. Grooving down-it’s getting there. But that-this error I’ve been telling you about in this lecture is something that you can make. You can-you can have this happen to you. It can happen to me. It can happen to anybody. You understand? For some reason or other we missed the item.

Now, here’s one that you must remember on missed items: If there were two rock slams on the list, it might be when you went over it one didn’t slam. Pc might have been distracted or something. So therefore, you say there’s one item on the list. And because it’s the last item on the list that slammed, you-and because it came after a page, or something like that, of no slams, you say, „Oh well, that’s obviously it.“ You pick it up-no sir.

Never unload an item on the pc without great care-and this is my last message on this basis. When you tell the pc that it is his item, go ahead and tell him so with hope and enthusiasm, and anything else. We don’t care how you tell him as long as you don’t do anything else immediately afterwards. You want to be a real chump or a real knucklehead and practically spin the pc in, do something else at once.

Say, „Well, your item is ‘an upchuck.’ Now we’re going to test for the next one. Consider committing overts against an upchuck. Consider an upchuck committing overts agai-. What’s the matter with you?“ He’ll be halfway around the bend if it’s the wrong item, because you’ve given him a distraction of attention.

He’s already trying to grip this situation. He’s already trying to cope with more mass than he had before. You’ve hit right into the center of his bank-you might as well have hit him with a sixteen-inch shell, don’t you see-and then distracted his attention.

I’ll give you another method of doing it. „Well, I’ve got an R/Sing item here, uh-a tigerbat, and uh-here it is, and so forth, and now, we’ll go on finishing er-the list. Uh-a waterbuckbat, a catfishbat, a klughflat, a klu-. What’s the matter with you?“

Even if it was the right item, man, he’s going to be having a time. See, you gave him the item, and then you shifted his attention and you just mustn’t do that. That you said, „A tigerbat R/Sed,“ has practically presented him with the item, don’t you see?

Or sometimes you’re writing out here with your pencil, in very clear view, and he sees you mark the R/S down late on the list, and he says, „Haha! That’s it! It’s a tigerbat!“ And you go right on to the next one, and you just pull him through the hawsepipe, see. Brrrrr! You understand? You’ve shifted his attention badly. That’s why I say that the meter in line with the pc-the list in line with the meter face in line with the pc, and all obscured on what that pencil is doing, is actually your best action.

I’ve been adopting a rather slippy one of making a strike, a noiseless strike, after an R/Sing item, which, before, when I close the page, I go back and write R/S on it. There’s so few R/Ses you see when nulling anyhow. Use red pencil, you know, and make a strike on it. Just a single strike and mark nothing else. I’m trying to get this down to speed.

I’m not advising you to do that. It’s just a method that I’m testing out. I find it works very well-as long as you don’t miss marking the strike and marking in afterwards „R/S.“ That’s the crime.

Well, what I’m saying here is don’t give the pc something and then distract his attention, because it’ll aggravate the ARC break if it’s the wrong item. It’ll really aggravate the ARC break; it’ll tie him up in knots.

You say, „Tigerbat,“ and all of a sudden he has a new hat on his head he’d never heard of before, you see, and it’s out this big, and kind of furry ears up here, and he can feel wings out in back of them, and „Where the hell’d all this come from?“ you see.

And you say, „Well, have you made any part of your goals for this session?“ He says, „Waggllaglugh.“ You could say „Squeeze the cans,“ or something. He just won’t know what the hell to do, see. You give him a hell of a discombobulation. Now, that will catalyze the ARC break if it’s the wrong one. He’ll go right into that ARC break. You can throw him completely into apathy; you put him in a screaming fit right now, if you pull that trick, See.

What you want to do is make darn sure from where you sit that it’s the right item. Then you check it, and you tell the pc, „That’s the item. That’s your item.“ When you say, „That’s your item,“ or „Your item is a tigerbat,“ don’t you look back at the meter; don’t you look at your auditor’s report; don’t you look at another damn thing-you keep your eye right on the pc. Why? You want to see what effect this thing had. Because you just… What’s the matter with you? You fire a sixteen-inch shell into somebody’s midriff and you don’t want to see the explosion. All right, so you’ve got guilty consciences from other things you’re doing in the past.

No, you give the pc the item-you give the pc the item, you keep your eye right on the pc. Because, actually, if the item is wrong, you can see his face go dark; you can see him age right in front of your eyes; and you can see the ARC break and the uncertainty. Even though it’s very tiny, you’ll see all of that. And then ask him, „Do you now have markedly more mass than you had before,“ or „Do you have — do you — are you sensible of — lot more than you were a moment ago?“

„Yeah,“ he says, „there’s this big thing out in front of my face. I never realized it was there before.“

„Well, does that seem like your item? Does it make sense to you? Is that real to you?“

„Oh, oh, yes, yes, yeah, that is. LTh-was your E-Meter plugged in during this session? LTh…“

Well, you’ve got all the signs there, man, for a wrong item, you see. As second by second the time he has that thing as an item is increased, his tone curve will be going down, down, down. You can watch it descend by the second! I mean, it’s that-it’s that rapid. And you just see this is for the birds as far as you’re concerned. And then boy, don’t use the fact that it can be a wrong item to invalidate a right one! This is touchy business, see.

And you say, „Well, if it’s all right with you, I’d like to list on this list a bit longer, because I don’t think that’s your item.“

And you see the pc pick right up and get brighter. Or if it’s the right one, he’ll tear your head off-but you can take that. „What the hell do you mean? It’s my item! What’s the matter with you?“

Sometimes in desperation when they are so nervous and upset, and so forth, they’ll sometimes protect a false item for a short time. And you say, „Well, we’re going to list a little bit longer just to make sure, if it is all right with you. What is the next item for this list, ‘Who or what would derogate present time?’ „

„Well, you put it that way,“ and he’ll give you some perfectly nice items right away. Do you understand this?

This is the art of presenting the item. And the art of detecting whether or not a list was left incomplete, or an item, more pertinently-an item had been missed by an auditor in the immediate past history of the person’s auditing. If you can do that, you can repair any case because, by and large, you can get a lot of wrong sources and abandon them or finish them or list them or package them. Nothing happens to the pc, but he improves. But on this one list in ten on any pc, if that one isn’t completed, cut my throat! That one’s really going to go to hell. He comes back, dragging in-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.

I think we have one person here who had a wrong item on the 21st of December, or an incomplete list or something, and then went to the 7th of January to the next session. Sounds a little rough-sounds a little rough. Told that the item was abandoned, or that list was abandoned, on the 21st of December, and has evidently been sitting in this ever since then. Because as far as I can make out from the auditing reports, that’s apparently the day, the last day a cheerful audi-set of goals was set by this pc. So it must have been.

All right. Well, there’s a-there’s a brand-new-a brand-new look at this. There’s some better indexes. There’s a way to really see this, and so on. And it’ll also — it’s also a good thing to keep your eye on the pc and do nothing — and do nothing right after you’ve given him the item anyway. So you might as well be observing the pc as doing that, because otherwise if you shift his attention, and it’s the wrong item, you’ll practically cut him in half, man. You just presented him with a bunch of gruesome mass that he hasn’t had before, and he’s very doubtful, and he’s sort of lost and half spinny on this thing, and it’s going down wrong way to, and all that sort of thing. Now, if you shift his attention in the middle of that, hell have a screaming ARC break, and you just won’t know what the hell to do with him.

But there, as far as I’m concerned, is the basic danger-let me not minimize it-the basic danger in Routine 2. That’s the basic danger in Routine 2, and right along with it there are the indicators to tell you if you run into it. And there, as well, are the cures for having done this thing of missing the wrong item on the pc.

Okay?

Right! That’s it!