Thank you.

Okay. This is lecture two, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, January 15, AD 13. The planet Earth, as much of it as be-will be with us for awhile.

Sorry to keep you waiting. There’s an operating climate of emergency these days. And sometimes the emergencies are great and sometimes they are small, but they’re all emergencies. And that’s because they weren’t predicted. That’s what makes an emergency. Did you ever know that? That’s just a failure to predict. Everything else is life. All right. Well, this is what? The ...

I don’t know, I’ve told you everything I know. Haven’t got anything else to tell you. I can punch up a few points for you, however.

Audience: 15th.

There are a bunch of nevers arising. You’re getting nevers in 2-12. And you avoid the nevers and you’ll make somebody nervous. You’ve got „Never represent a rock slamming item.“ That is something you just never do. And that means anything you have ever seen rock slam. See, it might not be rock slamming now, but it might have rock slammed. And that makes you nervous.

... 15th of January, AD 13, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, lecture number one.

All lists have a source. All lists have a source. The source is something. And that is an assumed arbitrary. And that is the most dangerous point of 2-12. There is the point where you need a little bit of luck. You say, „In present-what does present time consist of?“ Something like that, you see. You get a nice list, it’s perfectly nullable, it goes out to one rock slamming item seen during nulling, everything is fine. You oppose what you get, that all travels beautifully. No-no strain. You wind up with a nice rock slamming item and then you oppose it, because it’s still rock slamming-the rule is, of course, that if the thing is still rock slamming you oppose it-and you get your perfect package. All that is fine.

All right. Well, you probably came in here tonight to hear something clever that’ll resolve all of your cases very easily, and I regret to tell you that in the Washington raid tonight’s lecture notes were seized.

But where does this list come from? In other words, all lists have a source. Now, we find out that an arbitrary source is pretty dangerous. It isn’t somebody has interpreted this already, the misinterpretations will fly around like mad! But somebody’s already interpreted this. You take an arbitrary list and if you see more than one R/S on it then you-it isn’t complete and you complete it. That isn’t what we did recently. That just came down on telex today as an interpretation. That’s wrong. If you just don’t use arbitrary lists! That’s that. See, that just takes care of the whole question. So you never use an arbitrary list-just never do it.

Well, this is-this is a lecture on the subject of Routine 2-12. And there are several things in this lecture, but amongst them is what to do about dead horses. I finally taped this one. Life now becomes very easy for you. If I make life much more easy for you, you’ll collapse for lack of problems. I’d hate to do that to you.

Every now and then somebody sees an item, „waterbucks.“ Crash, crash, crash, crash, crash, crash, crash! „Oh, will you look at that beautiful, beautiful item! Oh ho-ho! Oh, that’s marvelous! This guy’s got sen on it. Ho-ho.“ They just can’t keep their paws off of it, you see. They’ve got to oppose it, right now. The pc’s probably rock slamming on „auditor“ at that moment, but that’s beside the point.

Well, let me state the problem first. Very often you do a „represent“ or a „present time consists of“ or „what are you upset about“ list. Those are all represent types of lists, don’t you see. And the confounded thing behaves like a wrong way to list. They are very, very difficult to complete-very, very, very difficult to complete-and they cycle.

So, they oppose „waterbucks“ and this goes on endlessly and interminably and horribly, and the bank is collapsing on the pc and all is getting more and more ghastly and life looks worse and worse. And the main danger is the auditor says, „Well, just look.“ If he’s very new, he says, „Well, 2-12 doesn’t work.“ Now, I’m sure all of you, each one of you, some time or another, since the advent of 2-12, has said, to himself or to somebody else, that it doesn’t work. See, that includes me! See, I too have said, „Ha-ha.“ I’ve said, „Well, it can’t be taught.“ You know, that was my adjudication, you see.

And when I first noticed this, why, I didn’t know whether to send for aspirin or the auditor. How the devil could a represent list be wrong way to? How? It’s not possible. So I’ve actually been worrying about this and trying to do something about this here, now for, oh, I guess about ten days or so. I’ve been studying this above all other things very, very hard, because this was a puzzler. I „vas poozled.“

I’ve also said, „Boy, it just can’t work, it doesn’t work.“ You see? Well, what that is, is you’re running into bug factors-bug factors of one kind or another-and either the answer hasn’t come your way, or you have missed something someplace or another. Because actually nothing eaves in a pc quicker than 2-12.

Now, a wrong way to list cycles. Now, somebody’s going to-somebody’s going to see a right way to list, sometime, and it’s going to sneak up on an R/S, you know, and before it gets to the R/S it’s going to give a dirty read and then it’ll rock slam and then they will see a couple of dirty reads or something like that and then they won’t see the dirty read for a little while and then when they get up to the next rock slam, so they say, „Ah-ha! That list is cycling.“ No, the essence of a cycling list is that the needle periodically goes clean. It’s the fact the needle goes clean. It isn’t whether it R/Ses or DRs. It’s the clean that you should concentrate on there. Needle goes clean, beautifully clean, very fine, very nice, very clean and you do another half a page just to make sure that it’s good and clean, and you’ve got a complete list and all of a sudden, it isn’t clean.

So we’ve got our next never. Never abandon 2-12! Because nothing else is going to patch up what 2-12 has mucked up. This is one of those-this is one of those gee-whizzers that only patches itself up. The reason why we know it is an ultimate-type process is because it repairs itself. And that, of course, by Definition, is an ultimate-type process. The ultimate process will repair itself. In other words, run right, it repairs what has been run wrong.

So you roll up your thetan sleeves and you go on and you list further, and the next thing you know, you got maybe a DR. Maybe even an R/S. Then it cycles out and it goes clean again.

Now, the other never there is-never try to patch up 2-12 with something else. Because you wont ever make it. I’ll give you an instance. Wrong list, wrong way to, pc ARC broke, the item picked out was not the final item on the list and then it was opposed wrong way to. You know, I mean it’s just a good mess-up, see. And said, „Well, that’s-that’s fine, now the best thing to do is just to prepcheck this whole thing out. And just forget the whole thing.“ I proceeded to do so, got the needle clean as a whistle, pc smiling, cheerful, everything was fine and next day was four feet below bottom again. So I patched it all up again, got rid of all of the auditing, straightened it all out beautifully, and so forth. And within a few hours the pc was four feet below the bottom! In other words, it just kept going like this. I finally went back and completed the list and the pc was fine. You know, I fixed up the original list that had had an item grabbed too soon on it, got the right item for that list and opposed it properly and abandoned the list that was wrong way to. Everything’s fine.

How long will it keep doing this? A long time, I’m afraid. Probably forever. The needle will never go clean and stay clean-always dirties up. Now, this is quite periodic. A list which is right way to runs a cycle as well, and that cycle goes ... Probably you’re sitting there, before you start to list you’ve probably got a clean needle. And it’ll go into a dirty needle and then you get a dirty read on an item or two and then you get a rock slam and then maybe you get a dirty read, and then-then you-it’s kind of a dirty needle that looks kind of messy, and then after a while you get another rock slam. And then after a while you get another rock slam. Never really goes clean. And it goes on and on and you finally find yourself with less rock slams.

Actually, you inadvertently will make this test some day. You inadvertently will do so. You’ll sweat it out, trying to patch up the pc at the end of the session. The pc seems all ARC broke and you just don’t seem to be making the grade at all, you see. And you’ve found an item-you found an item, „a gut-shot bear,“ you see? And the pc’s always complaining about his guts and he’s always saying he „can’t bear it.“ So you say, „Well, it must be the item.“ What you’ve missed is all items have an influence on the pc, whether they’re reliable items or not, you see? It isn’t that a-the item you choose didn’t have an influence on the pc.

Now, this is in an oppose list. And if you are listing wrong way to in an oppose list, you will find that the frequency of R/S is increasing. And if you’re listing right way to, the frequency of R/S is decreasing.

Anyway, you took this thing and you’re trying to do something with it and you gave it to the pc and then you tried to patch up the ARC breaks. You think they’re coming from someplace else. And finally in desperation you say, „Well, that item, ‘a gut-shot bear,’ that is not your item. We’re going to complete the list.“ And all of a sudden the pc’s right up. there, right up top, face clears up, goes white, everything! Magic! See? Just telling him it’s not his item, when it wasn’t-in other words, telling him the truth of the situation - accomplishes more in just that short breath, than, frankly, twenty-five hours of Prepchecking! I think it’s quite remarkable, see?

Now, wrong-this is quite marked. On a wrong way to list on an opposition ... This is an opposition list, wrong way to, every. I’m only talking about opposition lists at this moment. On a wrong way to list you’ll have something like this: You’ll have one R/S on page one and a couple of R/Ses on page two and about three R/Ses on page three. And as far as you can tell up to this moment, there is no right way to or wrong way to, because a right way to list looks exactly the same way. But let’s go on and describe the right way to list now. You see, that’s one rock slam on page one, two on page two, three on page three, see. That’s either right way to or wrong way to. You can tell by the needle tightening with just a few items. But this isn’t this type of test. I’m just talking about needle manifestation.

And that’s the degree that 2-12 only patches up 2-12. It’s one of those self-resolving little miracle whizzers. It solves itself. And there’s no other processes that completely do. Yes, they solve what they do but they don’t also solve all cases. That’s the slight difference. We’ve had processes and all Scientology has solved itself But in actual fact they don’t-haven’t solved rapidly all cases.

And if your list is wrong way to, along about page four you have four slams and page five you have five slams and page six you’ve got six slams - you get the idea? The incidence of rock slam is increasing.

Now therefore, for that reason alone, it’s worth taking these risks, it’s worth knowing it, it’s worth studying it, it’s worth getting good on it, it’s worth an awful lot of things, but you remember that there are a few nevers. I’ve given you the chief never-is, never let somebody lose their records or keep inaccurate records or fail to note down what happened on the auditor’s report and on the lists. And never, never scamp the problem of records. Just don’t do it. Because nobody will be able to patch up anything easily.

Now, oddly enough, along with the increase of the incidence of rock slam, the periods of clean needle are increasing. See, you’re liable to get a rock slam, dirty read and a clean needle, see? And a dirty read and a rock slam, and a dirty read and a clean needle, see? You’ve got clean needles starting to show up here and the incidence of clean needles starts increasing. But that’s not-important test. The important test is ... And you can tell this by looking at any pc’s list. This is what is important. Because you think you are just going to be worrying about your auditing and you ain’t.

Now, there is a method of straightening up a case where the records are lost and that is of interest to you. It’s an E-Meter job. And you go back and you carefully trace down to the minute and, you know, time-spot the time when the pc’s case caved in and then go back and trace very carefully the session in which it occurred and then put your mid ruds in for that session. „That session on the 21st of December,“ you see, „1955, 63.. .“ or something, whatever it is...... has anything been suppressed?“ Well, by putting the mid ruds in, his memory returns and he can give you far more about it.

I’m worrying about your auditing right now, see, and it’s time for you to get it all down real good right now, because you won’t have any time to worry about your auditing after you get out of here.

And then having patched this-it doesn’t patch up the case, see. It just-he tells you more about it. And you’ll recover the missing data, and the missing list, and it-you can deduce by some guesswork or another, synthesize if you have to, what the name of the list was and sometimes there wasn’t a list-it just was a number of items. And there was no list title. And you have to synthesize what the list title would be in order to complete the list. You get the trick?

Every one of you is going to be worrying about other auditors’ cases.

But this is pretty grim, this-but patching up 2-12 without the records is so arduous that you can just lay down a rule. That never lose and never miskeep records. Such a thing can happen, you see, as some utterly green auditor someplace is-he nulls the list and it had rock slams on it and he missed the thing. He missed the rock slamming item. It’ll be missed from there on out. The pc’ll be all upset, so on.

Now, your own worry about cases, that ends very soon up into the future. You’ll have this bicycle so that you can-not only could ride it on pavement, you can ride it-ride it on a rutted street, you can ride it on a tightrope, you can ride it on a tightwire going between the poles of the two maintop peaks. You could probably ride it backwards, you know, ride it standing on your head on the seat, peddling with your ears. That you won’t be worrying about anymore, because all of a sudden it’ll all go straight and you will say, „Bleahh, there it is, see.“

And here’s another never. Never Attribute a violent ARC break to anything but a wrong item or a not-found item-which means a complete list. The ARC breaks are always attributable-whether they’re demonstrated by despair or violence or anything else-but ARC breaks are always attributable to 2-12, not the auditing. Don’t ever make the mistake of thinking it was because the pc had a missed withhold in the session that he finally blew up at you. The item is right but the pc had a missed withhold and therefore got an ARC break. Ha-ha! Don’t make that mistake. Because when you don’t complete the list ...

One of the reasons is I’m finding you indicators, indicators, indicators, indicators, see. I’m taking all your bugs out of it so you get maximal gain all the time, see. And you’re learning those, and you’re very lucky, you’ve made a lot of boobs, you know, you’ve made a lot of goofs. You know how agonizing it can be. You know better than to let somebody else make all those goofs, see? I come along and tell you how not to do those goofs, boy, that’s important information, see.

Oh, you get away with it often enough to make you foolish. You actually can get kind of foolish on this. Because you can make some of these mistakes, you see, and still get by. And then when you really run one into the brick wall, then you say, „Well, probably, that can’t be it.“ But let me tell you, if a pc ARC breaks badly in doing 2-12, 2-10, any of this Routine 2, he ARC breaks badly, you Attribute it to the Routine 2. Don’t Attribute it to the pc’s current life and all that sort of thing. Never, never Attribute a violent ARC break, a violent decay of case, which is the same thing, I mean, pc gets so apathetic, won’t talk to you, something like that. Any manifestation of an ARC break of a violent nature, never Attribute it to anything but the Routine 2.

Well, you’re going to be teaching somebody in Santa Ana County, something of the sort, or you’ve got a co-audit running down there and you’re trying to take care of it over the Telephone. They don’t know these goofs are important. They don’t know what important goof is being made. They have no idea of the importance of goofs. They don’t know R2 bulls are more potent than auditing bulls, see. They don’t know these things, see? They don’t know these things, see? They haven’t lived through this, see? And under your direction they’ve got to live through it-and somehow or other without losing any pcs. That’s the important thing, because in the field, in R2-12, and in organizations with R2-12, unless you’re very slippy and you’re very quick and you don’t let them go ...

Actually, that’s a very sound rule. It sounds very extreme when you first take a look at it, but it’s a very sound rule. You see an ARC breaky pc come - this applies to you not just as an auditor, you understand, this applies to you in the workaday world of Scientology-you see this character come out screaming out of the HGC, slam the door, you know, and „Oh, this is just terrible!“ and so forth, everybody’s robbed him and all that sort of thing and it’s terrible and it’s terrible and ...

You see, you guys, it didn’t matter, you see - you couldn’t get out of here. There was no Transport. No transportation has left England since the Mayflower, you know? But-but somehow or another-somehow or another - you’ve got to keep it degoofed and you’ve got to ungoof cases so that you don’t lose any and so forth, because a case can get awful sick on 2-12.

Well, don’t stand around flat-footed! See, just, what the hell? See, who didn’t complete the list? Who missed the item? That’s your-that’s your immediate response, see. Don’t Attribute it to something else. Don’t get reasonable about it, see. You’ll find out you’re true every time.

You can put him awful well in a hurry, but he can also get awful sick, man. And he can feel like he’s lost his last enemy. He can feel terrible. And it can just go out through the bottom of the floor, you see, just bong! He was coming along fine, then this person that the Registrar said you-had too many pcs, so they got somebody on the third week in the Academy. This is very illegal , but it happens every now and then. And this person in the third week in the Academy was put on this HGC pc, and the pc was doing fine and did fine up till Wednesday and then when they went down-didn’t appear Wednesday, and somebody went down to the hotel to find the pc and the pc can’t get out of bed. Two black eyes swollen up like baseballs.

And pc’s feeling bad and upset and so forth. Well, they can have the most fantastic things. Well, they got in an automobile accident and wrapped the car around a cop’s neck and they’re going to have to go to ... By the way, if anybody ever sends you to jail, by all means, go to Alcatraz. They’re tearing it down. I’m just thinking of the Federal government. Even their prisons are going to pieces. Have you-did you know that? We’ve got to audit those people, that’s all there is to it, you know, because they’re in a violent ARC break. Somebody’s missed an item on the US government.

Well, you’re going to have some bad moments. And the questions you ask is, „Was it wrong source? Was it listed wrong way to? Or was the list incomplete?“ See, those are the questions you ask-wrong source, wrong way to or list incomplete, see? And what I’m telling you just now about this frequency of R/S is your best friend. It isn’t the length of the list, although you look at lists of forty, fifty pages, you say, „Oh, zut-thlah! Horsefeathers“-to use an archaic expression. „That’s just a goof That’s just wrong source or something stupid.“

I think, personally, they missed it with a no-auditing situation. We haven’t had any plan for auditing the government. We got one president audited. That was Truman. We ain’t had anybody else audited. Now, I just think they’re suffering from no auditing. Course-so of course, that leaves all items missed. And that’s another way of missing items. But it isn’t to a violent state. Somebody must have missed a list or something on the FDA. They must have. They must have. „What crumb are you?“ or something like that - something. „What type of insect egg did you come out of?“ You know?

No, no. You’ve got a list there and it’s thirteen pages in this guy’s folder, see. And it’s a thirteen-page list, and because you have been on the ball, anybody you talk 2-12 to, you’ve practically hung them up by the ears for not putting down the data in the folder. The pc’s name on each sheet. We don’t care about each page, but certainly each sheet. And the date it was listed. See? And the question that was listed. And whenever he saw an R/S on the meter, put it down, get the meter up close to him someplace while he’s listing, so he wont miss it!

When you see these violent-these violent manifestations or swift alterations of case, or if you think it’s a slow alteration of case, go back and find where it was swift. Never consider that an-case altered slowly. It didn’t. It didn’t deteriorate slowly on 2-12. It deteriorated fast! And you’ve got to go back and find the earliest item missed. Doesn’t much matter how the item was missed, it got missed, that’s for sure! There are several ways of missing an item.

I’ll show you how ... This’ll probably be a favorite method of auditing. „No. No R/S.“ Oh, you’ve seen it yourself Marvelous. Meter completely out of the auditor’s range. He can’t see if the thing is R/Sing while he’s writing, you know?

Listing wrong way to, oddly enough, doesn’t so much miss an item. You list right way to and don’t complete the list, well, you’ll get your biggest picnics when all of 2-12 is absolutely right. And then the list got extended. In other words, they had two rock slamming items on the original list, so they extended the list, found one rock slamming item and said that was it because they didn’t have another rock slamming item, did they? And nothing else was now rock slamming, was it? In other words, that one rock slam seen on nulling is very valid, used the first time. But on further study here, it is of very poor validity the second time it’s used. That’s sad but true.

So anyway, you’ve already impressed on these characters-I don’t care if they were in a co-audit or in the Academy or the HGC or it was a field auditor you were-you were briefing in and training; you’ve-we assume this-you’ve already impressed on them with branding irons, to keep the data, keep all the papers together, write legibly so somebody can read it, you see? You’ve already-because that’s your only saving grace. If they haven’t done that, cut your throat, boy. Oooh! You won’t know nothing no place. Because they’re going to goof. Just assume they’re going to goof, see?

In other words, you had two rock slamming items on the list, as you nulled it. You’re nulling the list, get two rock slamming items. Oh! Of course. Obviously the list isn’t complete! Obvious! Now, going on nulling, pardon me ... By the way, going on nulling is senseless by the time you reach the second rock slamming item. You’ve got to continue that list. And then go back and check those two items to find out if there’s anything left on them. They can DR or something like that, but must be very slight indeed.

Don’t go off on the happy idea that nobody’s going to goof, because 90 percent of the time the first auditing on this is done with somebody who already R/Ses someplace where it’ll do the most harm. And he-well-so let’s say he has an item; it isn’t an RI or anything, but he has an item which will come up someday, known as an amanuensis as an oppterm. It’s a secretary. And the mere fact of sitting there writing restimulates this horrible oppterm, see, to him. And he somehow or another can’t keep track of it all, see. And he starts to audit, it’s sen. You look for it in auditing, you look here and you look there and eventually it turns up.

Now, you go on down and you get your final rock slamming item, and you say triumphantly, „Well, no one of these others-rock slams that went on are anything, nothing else-I didn’t see anything else rock slam, so therefore that is the item and therefore, there you are, there is your item. And we now have your item and we’ve checked it all out and it is gorgeous.“ And the pc, makes sense to him and he looks brighter and he looks lighter and everything-and everything is fine, but we’re checking the thing out-and let’s say it’s the first list, which is your-sort of your source list. This was in opposition to it or something-and the rock slam vanishes off the thing. It goes down to a DR suddenly.

Anyhow, that’s the kind of thing you’re running into, see, so you impressed them on that.

This is rather typical. You haven’t opposed it, but it suddenly dropped down to DR. The thing you got it from went out. But it still had a rock slam on it, but then all of a sudden, as the pc cognited, that disappeared. You’ll find out right after that as long as it rock slams the pc is happy with it. But the second it ceases to rock slam he’s unhappy with it. I mean the interest is accompanying the rock slam, don’t you see? And the pc will all of a sudden find out something you’re doing wrong with your meter, or something about you. Pc gets unhappy with the auditor, the auditing session, he never Attributes it to the wrong item. He’ll go on and hang onto the item. But there’s a tone curve here. There’s a shift. Well, don’t ever Attribute it to anything but the Routine 2. There’s something wrong with the Routine 2.

Now, the only thing that’ll save your bacon is that folder. And you get ahold of that folder and it’s just about the first thing you look for-increasing incidence of R/S. Just look for a list where there are more R/Ses on the end of it than there are at the beginning of it. And when I say the very beginning of it, it takes the pc a little while to groove into it and there’s very seldom very much R/S on the first page. So we’re talking about the fourth page or fifth page in comparison to the second page, is what you want to look for. And you want to look at about the second page and along about the fifth page-let’s say the fifth page was the end of the list.

You got to continue that list. Now, once in a blue moon you’ll get yourself in the serious situation of having a list you can’t continue, „In present time who or what are you upset about?“ Now, you continue and the pc’s upset. Well, you can go on and continue it and you eventually don’t find a rock slamming item. Well, don’t make the foolish mistake of going on and list fifty-five pages on it to find your next rock slamming item! Because it isn’t there! You already got a pc that’s overstrained on listing oppterms. List something like, „Who or what’d be upset about these problems that you’ve listed here on this list?“ Something of that sort, but get it over on the other side of the picture here. You’ll come back and find the item that was going to be there anyway. Pc couldn’t confront it, didn’t put it on the list.

„Oh,“ you say, „look at that. There’s more R/Ses. Why don’t you turn it around and list it the other way, the way you were supposed to?“

Now, there’s your main danger as you train auditors. One, that they don’t learn that mild ARC breaks and upsets stem immediately-and little ones - stem immediately for just corny auditing. You know, Q-and-A, Q-and-A, Q-and-A, Q-and-A, Q-and-A, Q-and-A. Pc a half an hour later is still trying to tell the auditor, „I thought you said ‘express,’ not ‘suppress’!

„Well, the terminal was ‘a gruesome killer’ and the pc said that couldn’t be him. So of course, we had to say, ‘Who or what would oppose a gruesome killer?’ Otherwise it was too painful.“

„But I didn’t say ‘express,’ I said ‘suppress’!“

Oh, you’re going to hear some, man. I’ve heard some beauts. „I started to collect them and then I was too busy writing up decent lists so I didn’t bother to collect them.“ You’ll hear something like this. It isn’t that I don’t trust my fellow man. The funny part of it is, I wouldn’t put them into their hands if I didn’t think they could climb the hill. All I’m trying to tell you is, you got two hills to climb, see, just like I had two hills to climb. Get so I can do it and then get you to do it, see? You’ve got exactly the same hills to climb. Get so you can do it, and get so the other fellow can do it. Get the other fellow to do it. See, you’ve got the same hills to climb. We’ll always be climbing these two hills, see, to some degree.

„I know, but I’m trying to tell you . . . „

But the first one can be climbed and that’s dusted off. You know you can do it, because there is a finite end to Routine 2-12. First time we’ve ever said that about a process. You realize that? There’s a finite end to learning it. There isn’t some new rule going to turn up in the card game. What I’m trying to give you now are indicators. Indicators. I’m looking for things to look for. I’m looking for things that explain certain oddities that you are running into.

„Well, but I didn’t, you know. I-I know. Awfully sorry if I did, but I-I really didn’t, you see? I really huh, ha-ha, oh. . .“

All right. Now, this frequency of R/S, the needle that keeps going cyclically clean, is another part of this. All right, that’s wrong way to. Now, you get what I mean about it? Of course, you’ve got it wrong way to, you list it right way to.

Now, I’m talking about those things that don’t pass away with the session. You know, these things that are-this guy is, „I-I don’t know whether I’m going to live or not, you know? Huh-huh-huh. Life looks pretty hopeless to me, now.“ You know? You see somebody walking around that’s been run on Routine 2, man, don’t assign it to auditing skill, lack of, see? Just assign it to Routine 2. And you’ll always be right.

Actually, the easiest way to test a right way to or a wrong way to is simply to list a page or half a page each way and find out which one tightened the needle-and that’s wrong. Take the one that loosened the needle, always. And the funny part of it is, that’s a wonderful way to get accustomed to inspecting pcs’ appearances for skin tone. That’s marvelous. You see, it’s all a trick of spotting then and now. So you’ve got to have a now to become a then, see. You’ve got to look at them, and say, „All right, this is the start of listing.“ How did they look? You know? And then list yourself a half a page and look at them again.

You start to go into the end of the session, the pc was happy with the item and it rock slammed and the pc had some cognitions. And all of a sudden, the pc has an ARC break because you didn’t have the meter plugged in for the can squeeze. Say the item again. It isn’t rock slamming. Well, you just grabbed one too quick off the list, that’s all. Isn’t the pc’s item. Check to find out a lot of things.

See, those are the two points of comparison. And you will very rapidly become accustomed to seeing what a pc looks like if he’s listing in such a way as to cave in his bank. It isn’t just wrong way to that caves this in, you see, you can list the wrong item and cave it in, you can take the wrong source and cave it in. See, almost anything you do wrong in Routine 2-12 darkens the visage and skin tone of the pc, mucks up his eyes, does this, that and the other thing to him. It’s all facial and it’s very visible.

Now, never run a pc darker and darker and darker and more compressed and more and more caved in, and so forth. Just-when you notice that this is occurring, come off of it! There is no cycle, they don’t get darker and lighter.

But it gives you good experience, listing right way to and wrong way to; you’re picking out which one is which. You just take these two opposings and figure out which one is which, and inspect the pc very closely as you are doing that, and you will actually see the pc’s skin darken.

Just come right off of it. Second you notice something like that. When you ...

Now, oddly enough, it won’t lighten on the right way to list as fast as it darkened on the wrong way to. It’s going to take maybe a couple of pages of listing to get his skin back to where it was before you wrong-way listed it. Nevertheless, it gives you a comparison, gives you a very good idea of it.

Now, here’s another never. Never give a pc an item and do something else. Oh, I see somebody’s had that happen to them! That is about the most distracting thing that can happen. Your chances of giving him a wrong item are great even though you can really ride the bicycle down the middle of the road. The reason why is, you see, you’ve got this five-page list and it had two rock slamming items on it and you extended it to seven pages, you got a beautiful rock slamming item. There it is, it matched the same thing that it came from, everything is fine and it’s just fine and we say to the pc, „All right,“ we say, „Okay, now, there’s your item, ‘tiger.’ „

Now, you want to become an expert on this, on skin tone and eye and so forth. And the expertness is totally on selection of points of time, you see. You can’t compare this piece of paper to this piece of paper. See, look at your axioms of knowledge. There must be data of comparable magnitude for comparison, one with another, before you can know something, you see. You can’t say this is a big meter unless another meter exists to be smaller or bigger, see. You get this idea?

Pc is going to have some things happen that are right or he’s going to have some things happen that are wrong. And it’s up to you to make that test of observation. And let me give you the never. You see, never do something else. Never give a pc an item and do something else, even when you think it’s conditional. And never make the pc think that you’re giving him an item when you aren’t. That also you will-may goof with someday. Pc understood that you were giving him his item. And you were simply tiger drilling out a little DR that you had found, to make sure.

So you have no data of comparison on a case unless you mark a moment in time, zzzt, and you say, „Well, that’s how he looked.“ You see, you do this several times. You do it for the overall process, you do it for the right way you’re listing, you do it for this and that, but you keep in mind how he looked-you take a good look at him, you know; you take a photograph of him-and you say, „There he is.“ And now fifteen minutes later you compare that first „there he is“ with how he is now, see. And you get a then-now comparison. Is he lighter or is he darker? Those are the only questions you ask. It’s as simple as that.

The pc has glommed onto this thing as his item. He didn’t understand. Because pcs are not in a good state of comprehension when they’re in the midst of a long list and all that sort of thing. You know, you can get into the most asinine windups and foul-ups that you ever wanted to get into. Make sure the pc knows what you’re doing, see? Give him his reality factor. Tell him lists rock slam, tell him they don’t rock slam, don’t tell him what rock slammed, though. See, he’ll fixate on it.

This is the doggonedest darkening mechanism you ever saw, but I didn’t say that he went black. He actually doesn’t go black. He just goes darker. Because some pcs go yellow, some go green, some go gray, some go black, and the lightening process could possibly sometimes be confused with-in gray. But you just have to get used to these things.

Don’t-because this is this other never, see? Never give a pc an item, whether it is the item or other item that is going to be the pc’s item or that the pc is going to think is his item and then do something else. This is a very serious thing for you to do. I’ll give you an example: „Well, we found your item here, now. It’s ‘tiger.’ Okay. All right. On this item ‘tiger’ has anything been suppressed? Okay. Oh-ho, that was clean. Anything on this item, ‘tiger’ - anything been invalidated?“ and so forth. Don’t be surprised if a chair hits YOU over the head!

But frankly, they get whiter and whiter, which is a very interesting thing. You’d have to have a lot of sun lamps to keep up with it. They go lighter. And there’s your best index.

Honest, this is just not a safe thing to do. I’m talking now about personal safety as far as the auditor’s ... It’s just not safe! In the first place you’ve already put him in a state of shock! Now you’ve given him, „On this item has anything been suppressed“! „Huhh, duh, huhh, huhh.“ It’s, „Who are you?“ you know? Even if it is his item or isn’t his item. If it is his item you can get away with it once in a while. And brother, if it isn’t his item you’re liable to get his chair around your head. You really are.

And you should be able to get to be an expert on this, so that you’re supervising five, six pcs in an HGC, or you’ve got fifteen or twenty of them in a co-audit ... Just get practiced on this kind of thing. It’s not a very difficult trick. And you say, „This is the beginning of the session.“ Just look all around and see how they all look and best way to do that is choose the one who looks worst, you know, and relate everything to him.

See, you haven’t allowed that minute or so there of good observation. What effect did this have on the pc? Your eyes must not be on the meter and you mustn’t be doing something else when you give a pc an item like that. You’ve had this final R/S, nice thing, it seems to be a reliable item, and so forth, you’ve gone down the list, you’ve checked two or three of them. You say, „I’m just checking over some items here to see what they are.“ Put in the R-factor and „Everything’s coming along all right.“ A little H-factor. And you know now, you know, pc doesn’t know yet.

And you don’t want these guys being listed backwards and upside down and out through the roof, so after everybody’s been industriously listing or doing whatever they’re supposed to be doing about a half an hour passes by or something like that, take a look through the room and compare it to that first look you took, see?

You make that a bit of a ceremony, see? And you pull that E-Meter up to YOU and then you look at the pc. You don’t look at another thing. And you say, „All right. Apparently here your item is ‘a tiger.’ You got that? ‘A tiger. ‘ „ And you watch that pc. And you watch him like a hawk. Because the wrong item, in those first few seconds, his face is going to darken. His eyes are going to go back in his head. His certainty level is going to alter. He may be in a comm lag for quite a little while before he has a certainty. And then it very well might be the item.

You see this guy over here: he actually is not much greener, but he’s greener, see? So you take this bird and you know that it’s wrong source, wrong way to or an incomplete list, and you immediately make it your business to find out what’s wrong over there, see? Then you can keep everybody’s head out of water.

But you got to know some things. Did sudden mass appear? When you said it did he get a sudden mass? Sudden-does anything else appear in his perimeter? He’ll say, well, yes, he’s seen something, but it always seems to have been there. Well, take that with a grain of salt. That doesn’t disprove the item but it’s an indicator that it’s wrong. Face gets dark after you’ve said it-uh-uh, that ain’t it.

This is terrific processing when done right. And the righter it’s done, the more terrific it is. You can’t oversell it, done right. See? But boy, you could sure shoot holes with it done wrong.

Another thing, pc may look sort of stunned-they usually do. Because you’ve hit them with something that they haven’t been aware of for ages. The-actually the shock of getting one of these items delivered into your paws as a statement by the auditor. You can go over them on lists. Even then sometimes they get a shock from it. Sometimes a pc says, ‘a-aaa-a.“ And you say, „What’s the matter?“

And you’ll hear people saying, „Oh, God, so this is Scientology. Oh, no. Oh, God. Oh, jeez. Never felt so bad in my life.“ You know? It’s a wonder they keep on getting processed at all. But you can do these things real wrong with 2-12 and you can really pull the rug out from underneath somebody. And let me make a little comment here as we go by this: Until you get to be an expert or until somebody is expert, don’t let them process children. Why?

„Well, I don’t know, you read ‘a cat whisker’ there and a horrible shot went up my spine!“

Well, actually, the kid’s having a hard time concentrating his attention and you could put a kid off much quicker and the-his doggedness is not there. He won’t keep plowing into it, he’ll just know he felt bad, so he doesn’t want anything more to do with it. It’s just a snap adjudication, don’t you see? So don’t let anybody who doesn’t know 2-12 backwards process children. Make it an absolute requisite that they get perfect results on adults before they are ever let near a child.

Well, that again savors of some of this other stuff I’m giving you. Don’t let the auditor go on down the list to the next item and the next item and the next item. Let the pc tell you about this cat whisker, because, by God, there may be a cognition on it which has got it held up, see? Just say, „Well, how about this-well you-you got something to say about that item?“ So forth.

With that proviso, 2-12 works on children around five, six, seven, eight, nine, in that range. I don’t know about the five, but we already know about the later. It works like a dream. They just sit there and they just saw wood and they work right away, and they’ll list like mad and so forth. They’re cute as a bug’s ear on this stuff. Quite remarkable. They R/S perfectly and so forth. But don’t goof them up, because they won’t sit still long enough afterwards to be patched up. You see why? So don’t let anybody be processing kids until they do very, very, very flawlessly well on adults.

„No, it’s just this terrible spine, you know, it went up my back, and went zzzupp and wuff!“

All right, let’s get back to this dead-horse proposition. I’m talking about all this opposition listing and frequency of R/S and frequency of clean and so forth just as a rundown of what I was up against in the represent list. Imagine my embarrassment to find a represent list doing the same thing as an opposing list-slightly less violent.

And you say, „All right. You okay now?“

In other words, it wasn’t with exclamation points that it was doing it, like it does it in an opposition list, but all the signs were there. Now, here was my question: How in the name of common sense can you have a wrong way to represent list? Well, the first thing you’d say, „Well, who or what would represent Scientology to you?“ Then your wrong way could be, „What does Scientology represent to you?“ I mean, that’s the same thing. So that isn’t contained in it.

„Yeah. Oh yeah, ifs all right.“ Go on down with your list. You understand?

„What does Scientology not represent to you?“ The same thing. „What does Scientology represent to you?“ See, I’ve just been going around in circles here for days. That’s why you haven’t seen very much of me; I’ve been wearing out a rug. I’ve been walking in small circles. How in the name of God ... ? I won’t-I won’t say what I really said. I’ll tell you exactly what I said. It’s this exactly: „Goddamnit, how the hell can a represent list be backwards?“

But you can do a sudden shift of attention on a pc and put him into a hell of a state of tension. You hit this thing „cat whisker,“ see? It’s followed by-it’s followed by „waterbuck tiger,“ see. All right. „Cat whisker“ and the pc says, „Ulp-eep!“ And you see the needle go off the dial-frown at him for the needle having gone off the dial, you know-and say, „Tiger. Waterbuck.“ You want to see a pc go right on in a cave, see? He’s-you’ve fixated his attention and then slapped him, see, by shifting his attention.

You know? Pow!

So, the strongest item, even though it doesn’t produce bad effects on him, the strongest item you can give him, the one most calculated to stun him, is an RI. So you just don’t dish this thing out, you see, like an old plate of soup, you See. You really serve him up this one on a silver salver, you know. Take your-don’t take your eyes off the pc, you hear me now! Don’t take your eyes off the pc. Don’t go into a lot of chatter.

And I’d go back at it again, you know, and I’d take a look at this thing, and so forth, and these lists can go on and on and on and on and on, because it was a hole in 2-12. You guys had discovered it. You, too, have made discoveries.

Sometime he will wonder, he will ask you, „Why are you sitting there so quietly,“’

Anyway, that’s what I said, and even though it was profane, I don’t want withholds from you. It’s so preposterous it took me about ten days to wrap it up. And it’s so simple. Heh-heh, it’s so simple. It was very little to do with the wording-heh-heh-heh.

„Just thought you might have something to say about it.“

A flaw in man is that he does not know himself You ask this guy, „Have you got any enemies? Name your enemies.“

This gets him into thinking about it, you know. And he says, „Oh well, yes, a tiger.“ He’s looking doubtful. You really can’t tell what’s going on yet or not. You haven’t really been able to ascertain if he was getting darker or lighter, you’re still in a little state of doubt yourself with regard to this thing, you know. He’ll go on, „Huh! Wonder if that’s why I’ve got fur on my ears! You suppose so?“ Then recognize what you’re looking at, see?

And he says, „Oh! Joe, Bill, Pete, blah, bo, blah, zaaa, blah, blah, and thuhh, and thuhh, and zaaa, and zaaa, and zaaa, and da-da-da-da-da-dah.“ Automaticity, see. Always can name enemies.

Now your next test: Does the rock slam continue as he talks about it or does it suddenly vanish? Ware shoal, if it suddenly vanishes. Now, get that meter so that while you’re-while he start-after he starts cognition, you see, that’s the second period. You’ve already got your period of inspection, then you’ve got your cognition period, if you want to get real technical, following that. You’ll see that thing R/S, as long as he has cognitions on it.

You say, „All right, name yourself“

And actually, if it’s a real RI his cognitions on it are endless. It just goes on R/Sing. That’s perfectly safe.

He says, „Name’s Joe.“ End of list.

But you can get an item which is not the last item on the, list-there’s one still on the list to get, which R/Ses for a moment, the pc cognites for a moment, everything seems to go along beautifully, all tests are in. And then you sit back all ready to shape it up or find out whether it’s a term or an oppterm, getting ready to list something to it, and the pc says, „Well, there’ve been quite a few times I’ve suppressed things in this session.“

In other words, the person is much more capable of observing enemies than selves. So he gets on a stuck flow of listing terminals, and you’ve got to fix his represent list so he will list ... He gets on a stuck flow of listing opposition terminals, don’t you see? Stuck flow of listing enemies because they’re so easy to list and you’ve got to give him a list wording which permits him to list terminals. And that is the wrong way to represent list. I think somebody ought to take their hat off. It’s taken me about ten days to figure this confounded thing out. That’s what it is.

Oh, yeah? Here we go! Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! That was not the last item on the list. That was not the item. You didn’t have your paws on the item. And that there is this funny condition where everything there is one-this can happen-that the inspection is all right. He doesn’t seem to get more mass. He seems to be cogniting. His skin tone is lighter. Don’t you see? All this seems to be fine. And the R/S was there. And he gives you this cognition. And you look down and get ready to drill the doggone thing, you know-to find out whether or not it’s this way or that or commit overts, you know - and he just ran out of R/S!

You say, „What is-what does Scientology represent to you?“ And he right away figures in terms of enemies. So he lists oppterm, oppterm, oppterm, oppterm, oppterm, oppterm. Once in a while he accidentally puts a terminal on it-very accidentally. „Oppterm, oppterm, oppterm, oppterm,“ he lists. „Oppterm, oppterm, and oppterm, oppterm, oppterm, and oppterm, and I can’t think of any more, really. That’s the end of the list.“ And you didn’t have any R/Ses. Where’s the silly R/Ses? Furthermore, if you keep doing this you will see that the needle is going clean and then dirty, and then clean and then dirty. And every time you try to go down this silly represent list you find you can’t make it. It goes too dirty to be nulled.

In other words, it blew as a lock on the right item. And at that moment it will follow the whole chain of sequence of a wrong item. Mass will show up, he will get darker, the R/S vanishes down to a DR. It’s interesting. So that period of inspection is very important-very, very important. And never shift the pc’s attention during a period of inspection. Just never shift bis attention onto something else or doing anything else. Never do anything during this. It’s quite important. And that way you’ll save a lot of heartbreak on the thing. He won’t get all tangled up and very ARC broke, then, if it’s the wrong item. And you say, „Well, did any-any mass show up there?“ Of course, this is not shifting his attention-he’s right on it, you know?

So you abandon that list and say, „Who or what does present time consist of?“ or „In present time, who or what are you in contact with?“ or anything like that.

„Oh, well, yes, this big-big round sphere showed up on the end of my nose.“

So, he leans back and he says, „Oppterm, oppterm, oppterm, oppterm, oppterm, oppterm, oppterm, and oppterm, oppterm, oppterm.“

„Yeah. Well, all right. Seem like your item all right?“

And you say, „Where the hell are the R/Ses?“ And you’ll find once more the needle goes clean, and dirty.

„I guess so. I-I-I-I guess, possibly.“

Now, if you’re lucky, you’ll have some R/Ses on it and you’ll find one. Once in a while it’s almost impossible to get one backwards. He’ll list a terminal every now and then and it R/Ses. Not just because it’s a terminal, but he’ll list an R/Sing terminal frequently enough to give you some R/Ses, see. But he’ll give you an interminable list. And he’s liable to get down to the end of it and feel rather badgered by the auditor and the process and because he’s now on a stuck flow against his enemies.

His face is getting darker, just as you watch him, see. Thing to do at that moment-thing to do at that moment is just don’t let it go any further. Say, „Well, all right. Now, I myself would like to make just a little bit further test on this if it’s all right with you. I would like to list the list a little further.“

And you watch those faces go black or green-in other words, they’ll darken. He’ll start to look older, faces will darken. See, going on a stuck flow. Dzuh, dzuh, dzuh. Eyeballs get big, red as fire. It’s very visual. These manifestations are not really tiny, they’re quite marked if you know what you’re looking for.

He brightens up. You can add the fatal words, „That’s not your item,“ and he’ll brighten all the way up. You understand? But boy, you have to be pretty good. Because if it is his item and you tell him it’s not, you also got an ARC break.

And you say, „Well, we didn’t get any list with that-uh-’What does present time consist of?’ Let’s-let’s do one now-let’s be very smart. Uh-uh-let’s see. ‘In present time, what have you been reasonable about?“’ or something like this.

You get-you get how this little period goes? This is-this period of the presentation of the item to the pc can be the difference between a case that runs smoothly in spite of goofs and a case that compounds the goofs into a real-a real upside-down, backwards-and-forwards, God-’elp-us, see. The longer you let a pc keep a wrong item, the longer you list a wrong item, the more collapsed the pc is going to get. So in all patch-ups, when you decide to patch something up, patch it up accurately and patch it up now! Don’t ever let your heels drag on patching a case up. Do it straight away.

And he’ll say, „Oh, yeah,“ and he’ll list that. „Oppterm, oppterm, oppterm, oppterm, oppterm, oppterm, oppterm.“

The longer you let that case go, with everything wrong way to and so forth-in other words, you’re not quite sure so you-I-this is the way it is.

Well, it’s very simple: The case that gives you a wrong way to-looking represent list-even with rock slams on it; you know, it behaves like a wrong way to opposition list-or the case that gives you dead horses, (see, that’s the same case actually) is merely somebody whose next item up is a terminal. Isn’t this idiotic? The next available item on the case is a terminal. You’ve got nothing but lists of oppterms. Grim joke, huh? I think it’s kind of lucky I figured this one out.

This is another never, is just never persist with a wrong action because you don’t know what to do to correct it. Just never persist with a wrong action.

In other words, before you get the terminal off the stack, he hasn’t got a prayer. And yet he’s listing oppterms, so of course you’re never going to get the terminal off the stack. You understand? So he’ll just go on plowing himself in. And the more he lists oppterms, why, the more it plowed into the mass he gets and the unhappier he gets about the whole thing and the more MEST he feels, the more hopeless he feels. Because what’s the bypassed item? It’s the terminal he is being right this minute in the session. That’s the bypassed item. You got this now?

Lot of your difficulty comes from the fact that you persist occasionally with a list when you don’t know what else to do. Well, you’ve got to do something. Actually, it’d be far better off... Somebody was telling me the other day he didn’t have time to study the pc’s case. Well, I don’t know. I-you can take a pc’s folder and look it over. It doesn’t require any vast amount of time.

You see the circumstances of the wrong way to list? Of how this thing looks like a cycling list; it takes forever; you can never get it cleaned up-the wrong way to list. Of course, you know the dead horse type of list. This also takes in the skunk list. You know, it keeps running out to no item. See? Those oddball lists are all under this same heading, on a represent basis, which is „present time consist of“ or something like that. The pc is being asked questions which result in oppterms, whereas the pc, next item up, and his case isn’t going to go anyplace past this item-the next item you’ve got to find on the case to make it whiz is a terminal. And you’re not asking questions that give you any terminals. You only get opposition terminals.

But in actual fact, rather than persist with a wrong action it is far, far better for you to say, „Well, put your cans down on the table there. I want to take a look at your line plot and go over this with you, right now.“ And it’s far better, if the case is running wrong, to straighten out the case on session time. I’m not recommending this. But you would be far better off to straighten it out on session time than to persist with some kind of a wrong action just to put in auditing time! You understand?

Supposing his terminal was „a bad boy.“ You might as well be asking a-we don’t know this terminal „bad boy,“ you see, because we haven’t found it or anything. But we’re busy listing a represent list. We’re asking, in essence, „In present time, to a bad boy,“ see, „what does life consist of?“ And he’ll give you schoolteachers, masters, truant officers, police, juvenile delinquency squads, see, and he goes on and on and on.

You-it’s a good-it’s good sense to find out what you’re doing before you do it! And it’s very, very necessary to come off an evident wrong action the moment you discover it is wrong. Now, I’ll give you an example. We say list the list both way to. „All right,“ you say, „Well, how much is a list-how much of a list do you have to list?“ So I say to you a page. All right. That is actually one of these „dumb-ox“ type responses, see? How do you ask a pc if he’s tired, you know? So you say, well, you say-ask him, „Are you tired?“ You know?

And you want-just to make my point here, sometime, you-when you’ve patched up a pc where this is occurring, find the item, see, and go back and take a look at his two or three earlier dead horses; you’ll find out he’s done nothing but list the same item. They’re all what a-whatever you found, see. You found „a rabid skunk employed by the government“ or something like that, you see?

Now, let’s look at this thing sensibly. You list it wrong way to, when do you come off of wrong way to list, in actual fact? Keep your eye on a pc. You’ll see him getting darker. He starts to get-his skin tone and so forth Starts to darken, well, his needle starts to tighten up, it’s less loose than it was and so forth. This is only four items deep on this list. Oh, hell, get out of there like a scalded cat! You say, „Well, that’s fine. Thank you!“ He’s still listing, you know. „Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you!“ And he manages to get the brakes on and he stops.

You know, he’d fallen low, man, and you’ll find this one. You go back and look at those early dead-horse lists he was listing, they’ll all be what this thing opposed. You actually have done its opposition list. But because he couldn’t get a grip on it these things weren’t R/Sing properly or anything else.

You say, „Well, that’s all of that. We’re going to list this list the other way, apparently it is the other way.“ And you start listing that and you say aw-or tell him the truth, you know, „I’ll have to confirm it the other way,“ if you haven’t listed that yet-“And we’ll go on with this.“

That doesn’t mean you take the early lists now and compare them to the later lists, you just go on with 2-12. You oppose this thing; now he knows where he is. Obviously he knows where he’s going. But of course, in view of the fact that he can’t see from the terminal point of view what is the enemy of the terminal, he then just is giving you such randomness that it is fabulous.

In other words, don’t persist with an action which is obviously worsening the case, hoping for the best. Now, there’s an example here ... This does not mean somatics. Brother, somatics have nothing to do with worsening a case. Cases improve up through somatics. Something that’s wrong with some of the cases you will audit from time to time, is that they don’t-aren’t getting any somatics. No pain. They don’t get any sen. Well, it’s a happy win, when all of a sudden they start to get pain or sen, don’t you see? Somatics turn on, so you’re winning. So, just because a case is getting somatics don’t think it’s getting worse.

This again is not an index of how you find this. But in actual fact he doesn’t know from what point of view to look at the enemy. So then, of course, he cant give you the right enemies. He can just give you all of existence. And there are quite a few items in all of existence. Some of you may have found this out.

I only would add that if I’d - had not - on occasions been remarked to me: „I had to stop the process because it was giving the pc so much pain.“ And I think of this poor pc sitting out in North Umbrella, California-ha-ha-ha! Who somebody stopped a list on because they were-you know. Ho-ho-ho! It makes me feel bad.

Well, that’s how you can get a wrong way to represent list, which is the confoundedest thing I think I ever had anything to do with. It sounds impossible when you look at it, as a piece of Chinese puzzle work, it just sounds impossible. How could you possibly have a wrong way to represent list? Well, you could say, „represent“ and „not represent.“ That unfortunately does not solve it. It does to some degree, but it won’t immediately give you a long stream of R/Ses. It’ll make the pc feel better. „What does present time not consist of?“ may not give you R/Ses, but it’ll make the pc feel better, see. But you don’t get your item and we’re trying to do 2-12, see? We’re not trying to make the pc feel better or worse. We’re just trying to get our items and get the pc’s bank in some kind of a condition to find goals on, actually.

So somatics aren’t this. These are these other signs. Mass is obviously closing in on him. He’s obviously getting darker. His eyes are going way out of gear. There’s something going on here. The pc is looking older, and so forth. You’d better make damn sure what you’re doing. Now, on occasion, a pc has gotten quite sick at his stomach. But actually, this has only been from a questionable source. There’s something a bit wrong with the source or a wrong way to. There’s been something wrong with that, when they get very violently sick at their stomach and start throwing up or something like that, or diarrhea or something. There’s something wrong with the source. In other words, some-usually it was an item which was picked out of the middle of an arbitrary list. You wouldn’t expect that normally as a reaction.

What we’re trying to do is clear away his PTPs, get out of the road his hidden standards and open the highball for 3-21. And most-most cases-in fact, practically all cases-have got PTPs and hidden standards, and those that have been cleared, have been cleared in spite of these. And in at least one case I know of-after the case had gone Clear, couldn’t quite stay Clear, you know, keep falling off of it about every two weeks. The PTP had never been gotten out of the road.

But if it did happen as a reaction and I was absolutely sure of why I was doing it, I sure would go on with it. But don’t ever persist with a wrongness. Now that you know that thing is wrong, knock it off now! See, just skip it! Pc is turning a bright green, don’t keep on until he’s a brighter green. Don’t consider that you’re always flawless and that you never make mistakes. You’re going back, patching up neglected items, bypassed items. You’re looking at this line plot and you’re patching them all up and you’re-you’re opposing all the bypassed items on this case. Getting it all up to present time. Everything is fine. And the case is coming along all right. And you’re listing and the case starts to look slightly yellow. And you list another-this, if you didn’t follow this rule would be what would happen, see-you list another ten, fifteen, twenty items, the pc is now pretty yellow!

In other words, the technique was powerful enough, actually, to clear somebody without removing the PTP. And-but boy, it had really taken some doing. She slams on „LRH.“ And her-she’s been getting less Clear and less Clear and less Clear. I’m a problem to her. She’s committed some overts, you see? She deserted her post and intended to cave in the place down there, before she got Clear, and then she’s never-never straightened this out. You see what’s happened?

Now, you list another thirty, forty items and the pc-is just-now got much yellower and starts to turn black around the mouth. „Oh,“ you say, „well, we really haven’t proved the point yet, so we will list another seventy or eighty items on this thing.“ Pc’s tongue starts to swell up and he can’t get it out because he can’t get his mouth closed over his tongue, so forth. You say, „Well, that doesn’t prove very much, everything ... This list ran it in and therefore will run it out.“ No, it wont! Oddly enough it’ll only run out when you take the source and complete the list the source came from, you know? You’ve got to complete the source list. That’s what’s wrong.

But this is pretty tricky. It’s almost impossible, see, to clear or audit a pc sitting there with a PTP. 2-12, oddly enough, can be run on a person with another PTP than the one you’re picking up and you can still get the item. I know I’ve had that as subjective reality lately. Suzie hadn’t been bothering to clean up any PTPs on me to run the session. And just before the session, you see, I get fifteen, twenty telegrams-“Kennedy threatening to commit suicide unless you . . .“ You know, that kind of thing.

You’re doing something wrong with an item. You can also do this with a wrong way to from a right item. There aren’t too many things here that go wrong. You’re working with a finite number of things, but they can add up to several combinations.

And I come into session, you know-PTP. And I try to get them off and put my rudiments in; she pays no attention to it. And goes on and it all lists up and packages are perfectly all right. Although the pc gets a little dispersed at times.

Anyway, you go back and you take a look at this to find out where this doggone source came from. And by God! A represent of a rock slamming item has gotten by you! Somebody at-well, some time or another had done 3D Criss Cross on this character and had left this item sitting there and it wasn’t identified immediately to your view as having come from a rock slamming item. Or maybe you did it yourself at some time or another and you hadn’t noticed this interesting fact-wrong source. So everything is going into the soup in a grand fashion.

In other words, you’re auditing the central PTP so actually you can audit beyond and by and along with current PTPs, you see?

No, when you see something going wrong, don’t be nervous about it, you’re not going to kill anybody if you know your business. It is only the amateur surgeon that leaves his tools inside and joins the AMA or BMA. You know? It’s only the amateur. You know, something is wrong with the fellow’s knee, so they cut off his foot, you know. And then they find out they’ve cut off the foot of the wrong leg! So they cut off his arm because he irritates his knee by scratching it. And a low-toned government, of course, gives him medals for doing it.

Well, man, you can’t run 3-21 currently with a PTP, particularly a PTP of magnitude. To find a goal, the pc’s attention has got to be all there. So you have to get the big, the big, the big PTP that is unknown to the pc, actually. He doesn’t know what his present time problem is. He’ll give you lots of present time problems, but he’ll never tell you what it is.

But the main point is here, they get into some wild thing of really not knowing what the hell is wrong, but trying to look good and trying to go on and not try to go back and understand what the hell they’re doing that makes it go wrong. So therefore, you want to develop a very bright eye on the subject of the pc’s appearance. And you can get it down to where actually you can tell a pc’s difference of appearance, the then-now, you can tell it in any given ten minutes. It starts to worsen in any given ten minutes, let’s find out what’s going on. It’s not-nothing to be nervous about. Nothing to be nervous about, but it just picks a pc up, it saves auditing time like mad, See?

That one’s in his road, and then the hidden standard. You know what a hidden standard is. The individual’s hidden standard is, if Scientology is answered by this, you can get a list of hidden standards, by the way. „What would have to happen to you for you to know that Scientology really worked?“ That is your-the perfect question. That gives you a whole list of hidden standards.

Actually, a pc can take an awful lot before he kicks the bucket. He can. He can take a terrific amount. He can take an awful beating. You’d be amazed. And recover from it. If you remember the earlier never, is don’t try to heal it up with something else. If he got bad on Routine 2, then he’ll get better on Routine 2. Providing it’s patched up properly.

You’ll be surprised. „My left ear would have to stop burning.“ Actually, every time this person has ever been processed, they look at their left ear, see, to see whether or not it is still burning. Now, if the left ear is still burning, then they know the process hasn’t worked. But if their left ear is burning a little less, then they know the process has worked slightly. And they give you all of their goals and gains straight off an index of the burning left ear. I’m not joking.

Now, you can start compounding a felony by the case has had three case errors on it so you add a fourth. Now, that’s wrong, so you add a fifth. Now, you find that’s wrong, so you add a sixth. Well, the never here is to never let case errors accumulate or multiply. Don’t let case errors accumulate or multiply. It’s all right to have had two or three errors on a case, so what? But the second that you’re aware of the fact that there is an error on the case, why, put it together. Remembering that one of the errors on the case is to fail to complete a cycle of action.

You’ll find this in a vast majority of pcs, if you search for it. „What would have to happen to you for you to know that Scientology really worked?“ Just for fun sometime, and as an exercise to understand a hidden standard a little better, you ought to take somebody and have him list a few. But of course, if you don’t complete the list, he’s liable to have an ARC break.

You’re going down the list pocketa-pocketa-pocketa, it’s a right way to list, it’s going beautifully, it’s „Who or what does present time consist of?“ Pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa, you’re going right down the line, everything is fine, rock slamming, you’re going to get an item. And halfway down that list you happen to get-halfway through the list, you happen to discover that the pc is-my God! This pc has been upset and rather ARC broke, ever since we found „Valhalla.“ I hadn’t noticed that before. And „Valhalla“ has never been opposed, and it probably came from an incomplete list. Ulp!

But anyhow ... He’ll give you a whole bunch of these things, you know - his stomach would have to stop hurting, or something. Well, actually, this hidden standard is quite interesting. It is a circuit which is telling him what to think. And that’s the 100 percent definition of what a hidden standard is. It’s a circuit that is telling him what to think. And it’s got some kind of a signal system rigged up. You know, it works if. That’s actually a communication-type system. It’s quite involved. It’s like an automatic trainstopping-signal system put up by the Baltimore-Ohio or something, you know? Like a train stops at section 83, and the brakes-potential brake shoes and lights go on in all other sections in that particular zone and area. And a small man jumps up with a flag and waves it in the nose of the engineer and knocks his coffee cup out of his hand.

Well, the way you multiply the error is abandon the list that is now running all right and leave that as an incomplete cycle of action and go back and patch up this earlier action, you see, because that’s liable to lead you to another earlier action and then you abandon the patch-up of the first one you found and you go back to the second one, the earlier one and patch that, and you’re just multiplying errors, don’t you see?

All kinds of super systems, you know, they’re very complex. A hidden standard is not a simple system. It’s a circuitry response. You see, that is an item, in other words, that he consults. And he says to this item, „Is it true?“ And the item has a signal system by which it tells him whether it is true or false.

Now, it is a tossup. Let’s say the-it’s the whole question is answered by, „Is the case running all right?“ And it’s a tossup. It’s a tossup. Apparently the pc seems to be interested in the list we’re doing. We’re all of a sudden aware of the fact the pc’s apathy is probably coming from something a bit earlier. And we look this up.

And most people you are expecting to leap up in the air and tell you, „Oh, yes, I understand Scientology works,“ have first had to ask one of these systems. Quite interesting. They don’t think at all. They read the record on one of these systems. The FDA-give you a rather degraded example. They think the whole world is composed of two valences. There’s two valences. The world is composed of victims and victimizers. There are no other items.

Well, in that case the pc isn’t running all right, is the pc? See, there’s your point of judgment. And there’s a rule that can go along with this, is before starting a new action make sure that all of your earlier actions are correct and complete. And you’ll always avoid having to make that gruesome decision. Now that we know why represent lists look so funny sometimes and now that we know we must never take an arbitrary list-and I mean never.

The fellow manufactures cars; he’s a victimizer. Fellow buys a ear; he’s a victim. So of course, he’s dead against industry. Because all industry or manufacturers or managers or something are baddies, and all consumers are victims. Everybody’s a victim that isn’t an emanator of some kind, see? And those guys are victimizers.

You know, all lists stem from an arbitrary source. They all do. And you can be slightly unlucky. Well, you take an arbitrary list. Just like the List One we’re using, the Scientology List One. That’s an arbitrary list. And you assess that thing and it’s not a complete list. The reason we got away with it to the degree we did is because the pc had never listed it and therefore was not complete or incomplete. But the pc very rapidly restimulates on that list and you get more than one R/Sing item on it or something like this and of course, it’s obviously an incomplete list, because it follows-whether the pc listed it or not-the rules of a complete list. So therefore, we have to find out what it came from and complete it.

Lacking any other than these two terminals, of course, they themselves are victimizers and the only thing that they will ever create is a victim.

But look, what it came from is an arbitrary point. See, although we’re abandoning arbitrary lists or precanned lists and aren’t doing them, See, good training, and so forth. In desperation sometime you’re just going to get tired of this pc and you’re going to say, „Well, I’m just going to oppose ‘auditor’ and see what happens.“ And you’re going to get away with it and that’s all right. Auditing’s always been what you could get away with.

Those people will never create anything but a victim. And the more power they get the more victims they create. Nothing ever works out. You finally get communism, socialism, super-liberal-osis of some kind or another, where you’ve got all of the-the whole country, the population is a victim, see?

But remember the point you depart from to get his first List One listed by the pc is also an arbitrary point. You had to select it. Now, to reduce this, clearing the auditing command is always good sense. There are three universes for listing. There’s the present time physical universe, right up in PT, that the pc is cheek by jowl with in his life and livingness. There is the second universe which is the universe of auditing. And that’s the auditor and the meter and that sort of thing, and now the reason that has to be separated out as a separate universe is, you know, some pcs will sit there rock slamming like mad and never realize they-there’s anything wrong between them and an auditing session, and making no gains at all. You’ll run across this phenomenon often enough to make this an important division.

They’re all victims.

And then you’ve got your third universe of the parts of existence. That’s slightly less than whole track. Then in view of the fact that we’ve got positive and negative on all these things, here are six potential lists. The three basic universes, positive and negative on each one, six potential lists. I’ve just given you another Variation tonight. List each one of them as a terminal list or each one of them as an oppterminal list, and of course, you have a brand-new series on the thing, and you have a total of twelve. You get why the variations are, because you can have an oppterminal negative and an oppterminal positive, and a terminal negative and a terminal positive.

Now, a fellow who stands on his own two feet-this solves a lot of riddles, by the way-the fellow who stands on his own two feet in such a government is regarded as-there must be something very wrong with him. In other words, self-reliance, the worker who wants a job or likes his job or something-there’s something wrong with him. So they just move him aside. He-something wrong with him. They just get rid of that one quick, because there can be no such terminal. Life is a sort of a dreary game that goes on between all of these victimizers who have to be stopped, and all of these victims, and there’s nothing else goes on in life. It’s one of the weirdest looking pictures you ever wanted to take a look at.

Now, you can also make an error-there are two errors you can make here-one is failure to clear the auditing command from which you’re getting this arbitrary source point. You’re already using an arbitrary source point, see. And to fail to test it and clear it-let me put it that way-to fail to test it and to clear it. Now, what do you test it for? Well, you’re going to test it for R/S, because you’re just never going to list a-represent a rock slamming item. Never. So the first thing you’re going to do is test for R/S. I don’t care what it is! Test it for R/S!

That’s a do-gooder in first, second, third, fourth and overdrive. And that’s all the tune he plays. And he’s trying to protect everybody from himself He gets down to a point where everybody is his own victim. That’s all the-all the way anything categorizes. And this gets to be very, very, very upsetting to these boys, because they eventually can see no purpose in life except making more victims, you see, or holding off more victimizers or something.

Now, you can segment it and test the segments. Sooner or later somebody’s going to-going to rock slam on, „Who or what...“ You read him the question and see a-see a vlt! of a rock slam and read him sections of it and you’re all of a sudden going to find some section of that thing R/Ses. Well, if it’s a represent list you better omit that section, man! See, that’s a never represent a rock slamming item. So therefore, that continues over into never represent a rock slamming question. And beyond that point you rather takes your chance.

Look at all the elements of life that are missing in this type of a combination, you see. Nobody ever likes to buy cars, nobody ever likes to make cars, you see. All those elements are missing. There might be billions, hundreds of billions of other types of valences, but they miss all these. So it gets down to this two-pole proposition. Of course, they’re a pushover for anybody who comes along and says, „The poor worker.“

But here’s a way of narrowing the number of chances you take. Clear the auditing command with the pc and vary it around until it gets real to him. „In present time who or what are you associated with?“ He can’t make it. But „In present time what is he in contact with?“ That makes good sense to him. He seems to be able to list that. You got this?

„Oh, the workers are victims, huh? Oh. Oh, well, yes. Well, let’s see if we can’t cut their hours and raise their pay.“

So, as far as the list is concerned, is never try to list a list question that the pc cannot answer. That sounds awfully elementary, but it’s already happened. In other words, clear it with the pc and get it squared away so the pc knows what he is supposed to answer here. Get his agreement to answer this thing. And you can have an ARC break or an upset or a wrong list and so forth, just on that crazy little point.

And that goes on, but it goes over a whole cycle, and as these boys pass into charge, they take away all the pay and give them twenty-four hours as their daily schedule. They’ve done it in Russia and all over the world. I’m just not talking through my hat.

You just make up your mind carelessly someday, you just carelessly, bang!-or you’ll see some auditors do it that you’re supervising-carelessly bing! He’ll say, „All right, what’s present time consist of?“ He just audited a pc a short time ago, you see or you have and he had very good luck with this list. So you know it’s ... And case is going noplace. The guy can’t list and he’s obviously having trouble, and so forth. This is-this is an auditing error, not an R2 error, more than anything else, because „clear the auditing command“ has always been part of auditing. Although we haven’t been doing it or stressing it very hard lately, I’m stressing it hard here, because it goes right over into a Routine 2 error.

I really got one into the Bantu down in South Africa. They were talking about „Communism! Communism! Oh, marvelous stuff, this communism! Oh, boy, ug-ug-ug-ug-ugl!“ you know.

And you get some little boy or something and he cant answer this, it’s just too many words and too much this and that for him. And he cant list it. He doesn’t understand it. And you finally say, „What’s here?“ or „What’s life?“ You know? And he lists it like a bomb. „What life are you living?“ you know, or something. You know, you clear it around until it’s something he can answer.

And I said, „Do you realize that you don’t get paid for working in a communism?“

All right. Now, you can get a missed withhold effect-this is quite important-you can get a missed withhold effect by listing in the wrong universe of these three universes. And as I told you in the earlier lecture, you can get various dead horses, skunks, cycling lists, and so forth, by taking a wrong way to. You know, you’re listing a terminals-you’re listing an oppterm list, you should be listing a terminals list. You get the idea. The „Who or what would have these problems?“ is what you should be listing. „Who or what would have these problems?“

And he says, „Is that so?“

Now, you can get a similar mess by choosing the wrong universe. You should be listing the auditing session and you’re listing the present time environment, the life and livingness universe, you see, of the pc, or you’re trying to list the parts-the wheel of life type of thing, you know, the dynamics list, and so on, when you damn well ought to be running his life and livingness. And he’ll actually ARC break-this is an important point to you-he’ll ARC break just as though you’d missed an item. That’s worth knowing.

I said, „Yeah.“ I said, „They don’t give you any salary.“

He won’t ARC break the same way just by reason of not clearing the command or something. He’ll go on and try and he won’t ARC break. But you should be listing the auditing session and you go and list the parts of the universe, you know, or the parts of the dynamics. The guy’s acting just like you missed an item. And you can’t quite figure out what the hell’s wrong. Well, the thing is, is you missed the whole universe. See, the next item ready to come up was an auditing item and you didn’t ask for it. So that is a danger. It won’t be regular and routine and you won’t always be doing it.

And they thought about this and they walked around in circles about it and that was the end of communism in South Africa. That’s why it isn’t down there now.

So there’s always a little bit of luck and a little bit of thought goes into choosing what type of a list to list on this pc. So it’s got to be the right universe and it’s got to be the right terminal or oppterm-whatever’s going to come up next. Don’t feel too bad if you occasionally hit a dead horse or something like that.

The white man-he’s not quite that smart. He doesn’t grasp this that quick. He’s not quick like that. He doesn’t recognize that the end product of this sort of thing is no pay of any kind whatsoever. But the Bantu, he was plenty smart. He grabbed that in a hurry. Actually, you could just see them unload off the bandwagon in all directions. I’d get to talking to them on a street corner, you know, or the back lot or something like this, and they always bring up these burning questions. And I let them have a few data.

But, the final never on this whole list of nevers-I don’t pretend that this is a complete list of nevers-well, they haven’t all been invented, you know? But these are some principal ones that are quite interesting-is never in your anxiety to clear somebody or pacify somebody who demands auditing, never fail to get out of the road his hidden standards and gross unseen present time problems before you try to clear him. That is what Routine 2 is designed for.

Well of course, that’s a do-gooder gone mad. He’s got nothing but victims left. The way to handle him, of course, is to sympathize with him. You know,

Actually, it’s designed only to get out of the road his PTPs, only to get out of the road his hidden standards, clear the way, open up the track and get the fellow so that you can find his goal and clear him. Well, never omit that step. Because the only thing that’s been chancy about clearing and the only thing that’s been sour with clearing, general, on a broad basis, have been wrong goals. And the source of wrong goals are the existence of present time problems and hidden standards.

„You poor fellow!“ You know, „Fate has not permitted you to get ahead the way you should’ve.“ And he’ll go right from the victim-maker valence in which he is in, see-he’ll go straight into the role of the victim. He’s defeated instantly. That’s a valuable datum for you to know.

On a very few pcs, no goal at all could be found, it was so serious. No goal at all could be found. Endless, endless, endless, endless, endless lists! Well, those endless, endless lists are not caused by a charged up goal list. You’re listing on by a present time problem and you are listing straight on by, all goofed up, a hidden standard and that is squarely in the road of everything you’re trying to do.

Because you’ll run into them plenty. The world just abounds with them. The UN practically consists of nothing else. They’ve made all the main Congo victims now. Now they’ve got all of Katanga. Katanga was the victim maker, you see. They made victims out of the-out of Katanga. They fixed them but good. And now everybody can be a victim. And you watch it, the next boy that comes in there to take control will be a real victim maker. He’ll be a honey.

Because it is: goals go out hard, cases messing up, pcs sort of ARC broke, you can’t quite-your liability of getting a wrong goal is very great. Now, you get such a good clean, clean, clean goal, when you’ve done your 2-12 real well on a pc, that it’s very well worth knowing. It’s just happened, I just got a despatch just before I came over here. It was rather remarkable, but they’d run this pc on 2-12 and they’d gotten something on the order of about six items, three packages. And they did a goals list and the goal is right there! See? I mean, you know, practically number one or two on the list. Rocket read every time! No suppresses, noth-every time you say the goal - beautiful rocket read.

This has nothing to do with whether or not you like humanity. If you like humanity you leave that kind of politics alone. You think I’m a rabid Tory if I talk like that. No, I’m just as rabid on the subject of Tories! I’m what’s called indiscriminate and unspecialized in the number of oppterms I can list.

Now, as you know in your experience with 3-12, I mean with 3-21-the number of times you find a virgin goal, when just found, it reads and then it flicks and then it reads, you know? That kind of behavior. You almost never can get one of the confounded things to read, pow, pow, pow! Every time, you know, rocket read, rocket read, rocket read, you know? And then you don’t have to worry about suppresses or fight with the pc at all, you just keep reading it and it keeps reading.

Now, you’ve got to look this over and recognize that one-that the thing man is tuned up to see first is an enemy. And when they go completely potty, they can see nothing but enemies. Everything is an enemy.

Well, they’ve just found a goal like that and it’s the first one that’s come up the line. It’s got reported in here from California. And I think it is quite, quite interesting, because it’s in actual fact, the first Central Organization goal that’s been reported after the fact of having run 2-12 on somebody. Interesting.

I’ve seen a little beetle crawling across the floor and wondered whether or not he rock slammed on PT. See, that’d make everything-was an enemy. You know, probably that’s true. This probably is your last rung of case. You say, „Present time,“ and it rock slams like crazy. See? That immediately tells you that you’ve got nothing-you’ve got nothing you could list as a represent list. See, because they all depend on present time as an understood factor. That’d be pretty grim, wouldn’t it? You-they could only oppose.

Well, most of the troubles you are having-you go back and review lectures and notes and so forth from 1961, 1960. The troubles which were recounted are centered around PTP and hidden standards. And that’s talked about and talked about. There were innumerable methods used to get by these things-nothing got by them. Now, that we can get by them, with Routine 2 - it is not a simple process, it is one which is - requires precision, but it also doesn’t have endless bugs in it.

And here’s the type of question you would ask: You see, your do-gooder never recognizes he’s a victim maker. He loses that. That’s out of sight, that’s missing. He’d never put down a victim maker. You’d have to ask him a question ... You haven’t got victim to list from, don’t you see, so you have to ask him a question-a simple question like this: „Is-who or what in present time would have your problems?“ And he’ll put terminals.

It’s got plenty of indicators, and I’m grooving it down to where the indicators are better and better, and more and more noticeable. That’s my job right now. And to cut down the amount of work done before you hit the nail on the head.

Now, you’ve got numerous variations of this. Nobody recognizes what he is being as easily as what he is facing. In other words, terminals are harder to pick up than oppterms at the entrance to a case. So you get wrong way to represent lists and you get dead horses and you get skunks. And that’s the source of all of these. And you must ask a question which delivers into your hands, terminals.

So happens, that this process-Routine 2-12-also does more for a case than anything we’ve had before. But understand the relationship here. See, that it does more for a case, that’s just dandy. We’re very happy with that. That isn’t what we expect of it. But it just so happens it does more for a case. So it’s a natural to run on almost anybody. Raw meat or anything else. You’re not telling them, „I’m going to run this to get your goal.“ You tell them, „I’m going to run this.“

You have somebody rock slamming on „reasonable people“ and the list doesn’t go anyplace or it cycles, there’s something wrong with it. It’s going to be an endless list, there isn’t anything going to wind up on it, it doesn’t R/S; if you did null it, it skunks. That kind of thing. You’re going to ask him, „Who or what would object to ‘reasonable people’?“ In other words, you can swing-you understand that you can run a represent either way. See, you have-that’s not an oppose. That’s a rather oppose-type question. I wouldn’t recommend it. But I’m just trying to give you the idea.

When in actual fact, you’re trying to sweep enough items aside so as to pave the way toward the goal. Therefore, it is up to you to run very smooth 2-12 and very rapid 2-12-very smooth, very rapid. Because the more you goof it the harder it will be to get a pc’s goal. The more wrong items you find, the more garbage you’re leaving in PT, see? You’re really strewing the track. Fortunately 2-12 takes it apart. So the final never turns up and that is: Just never mistake the purpose of 2-12.

You say, „In present time, who or what would have your problems?“ You’ve got to ask him, „Who or what in present time would live the life you are living?“ „In present time, who do people-who or what do people think you are?“ You-I’m trying to teach you the method of thinking, not give you a bunch of pat lines to list, see? You’ve got to ask him a question, see, by which he will list terminals.

Thank you very much.

It could be as simple as this: „Who’s looking at me?“ You wouldn’t say, „What are you that is looking at me?“ you know. You could ask him for something like this: you’d say, „Who’s looking at me?“ or „Who might be looking at me?“ or something like this.

Good night.

And this character that had laid dead horses like crazy, wrong way to represent lists, nothing could null, the thing always skunks and so forth, would lay you down probably a very nice rock slamming list, which would rapidly terminate in a reasonable number of pages, would have less rock slams on the last page than the first page, would be very nullable, and you would be able to take off from there.

It’s just the accident. Some cases have an oppterm-probably the majority-have an oppterm as the first item up. In other words, all this is-you not only see the pc deal cards off the top of the deck ... You know, he’s just like he’s dealing a deck of cards as his items. Pock-pock-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pock. He’ll just deal them out. Well, that’s actually just like a deck of cards. The first one comes first.

Pcs very often dramatize the next item to the one that you are calling. In other words, that card is ready to come up next, so it’s being restimulated. All right. Similarly, packages come up the same way. And you can get ahold of a pc-the majority of pcs, the first item up is an oppterm. They’re a bit overwhelmed, don’t you see. So they’re being an oppterm, and so forth, and they name an oppterm and it comes up very easily. That’s the side of the package that’s going to materialize. So you take it from there and you list it out and you oppose it and everything is fine.

Ha-ha, yeah, but these other characters that have been giving you a bad time-and they’re not few, that list wrong way represents and cycling lists, you see, and skunks and dead horses and any one of these manifestations; endless lists that won’t null on represent-these characters simply have a terminal as the next one up. And of course you’re asking an oppterm-type list question. So you must ask a terminal-type list question.

The crudest rendition of it would be, „Who the hell are you, bud?“ That would be very crude, but is in essence what it is. You say, „What problems do you have in present time?“ Remember that „You, you, you, you...“ See, that-there’s a „you“ there, and that’s an undifferentiated pronoun. So you have to back up back of it and differentiate that pronoun. You say, „Who or what are you?“ in some way or another. „Who’d have your problems?“

You’ve listed a dead-horse list. Ask him, „Who or what would oppose all these things?“ You’d get a valid list, see? Give him the list so he could hold them. You’ll get a rock slamming list. You get the idea?

There’s too many tricks in this, there’s too many ways you could do this for me to overburden you with rote. I just want you to firmly get the idea of what this is all about. And that is that the majority of pcs can deal off an oppterm and go sailing, see? And you’ve got that as a rock slamming item, it’s reliable, you oppose it, and 2-12 works gorgeously. That’s the majority of them. The rest of them that you’re going to have trouble with have got a terminal there as the next one up, and unless you ask for that type of list - bang!

So you more or less count on the fact that they’re an oppterm-type case, until proven otherwise. And all of a sudden you find this case is oaaugh-umba-rupp! Dead horsing, haven’t seen any big R/Ses, doesn’t look good to you.

Do a flip. List something else.

Give you an example: One of them was, „Who or what would you hold off?“ It’s liable to get a terminal on it yet.

All right, let’s reverse this list and do it the other way to. „Who or what would hold off things?“ That’d be good enough, you see, to get a terminal on the list. They all don’t that smoothly translate. But you do a type of list that gives the terminal, and you wont have any more dead horses and wrong way to lists. And that’s how you can have a backwards represent list.

Okay?

Thank you.