Okay. This is the second lecture, 28 June AD 12. Saint Hill Special Briefing Course.

Thank you.

Questions. Qué questions do you have? Yes, Ian.

Well, is there anybody present who has their rudiments in?

Male voice: Ron, if the — if a person is ready for 3GA when you've got a nice, clean, free needle — smooth needle, you can read instantly and directly, and if rudiments and havingness of the CCHs will do that, if you're auditing outside, not from the point of view of us training here, but if you're auditing someone outside, would you need to bother about the Prepchecking stage?

Audience: Yes.

There is this possibility, Ian. Would you — would you need to do this outside if a person had a nice, free, clean needle? There's this possibility: that a person is at your mockery level, see? Reading at 2.0 for a girl, 3.0 for a man. Needle appears to be not really free but, you know, it's not jerky or anything. You've got the unfortunate fact in such a case of just nowhere. See, you — you've got just a big beautiful nowhere as far as this case is concerned. And this case is going to rise up into trouble. This case is described in E-Meter Essentials.

Yeah? Yeah?

Now, if the case were not of that type, you would at least — you would at least have to run, some Model Sessions and Havingness sessions to give him some kind of an idea of what auditing was, you see? They would — they would need to have a little bit of certainty grooved here, because this factor of anxiety is going to rise in this case. And remember if auditing was a total unknown to this person, this person wouldn't have a clue.

You look so sad about it! Okay. This is the what?

It would be best policy on any case to run a rudiments-Havingness session on the case. Find his Havingness Process. Run a Prepcheck-type session even if it were only grooved in the direction of goals, don't you see? Give him some idea of that. And then get firing on his goals list, yes.

Audience: 28th.

Does that answer your question?

Twenty-eight of June AD 12. I have absolutely nothing to talk to you about. You are all doing horribly. Saint Hill Special Briefing Course lecture number one.

Male voice: Yes.

You know what you're doing? You know if a — an E-Meter — this is a general talk about rudiments — much as I hate to mention it. If an E-Meter got any more sensitive, you wouldn't be able to control it. You're right up there at about zenith on the sensitivity of a meter of that type in a Mark IV. So, you haven't a prayer of doing anything about the — sensitizing the E-Meter to read more sensitively on the person because the electronics of the E-Meter have to be sensitized and the lightness of the needle have to be sensitized and that sort of thing, in order to get a more sensitive read.

Good. A certain sensibility is offered in this. But remember there can be this other case, this one that's described in E-Meter Essentials. The dead thetan case. And, boy, that one would blow up in your face. That one would really explode. You would have more trouble than you could shake a stick at if you started to do a 3GA on this case because the case is, of course, not even vaguely anywhere. They're merely calm. Okay? All right.

So you can't go more sensitive on an E-Meter than sensitivity 16 on a Mark IV. The thing is going to fly around so much you won't even be able to keep it in the middle of the dial. you agree with that? It's already a little bit rough to keep it in the middle of the dial on sensitivity 16, because of course, as you deal with rather aberrated people the needle is fairly stiff. But as you move it on up the line to people who are not quite that aberrated, you still have to have the increased sensitivity to get the read. you won't know that the read grows less, the less aberrated the person is and the needle grows looser. Oh, isn't that horrible. The needle grows looser and the read grows less. So, I think to a very marked degree it's up to your TR 1.

Yes, Jean?

Now, let me tell you exactly what happens on an E-Meter and why you have difficulty with rudiments, when you have difficulty with rudiments. Let us consider here an E-Meter on a totally ARC broken pc. It won't read. you see, that is a known condition. It won't read. But have you considered the gradient of this? And that is, the more ARC broken the pc is, the less the meter reads. Now, it should go by some other kind of a gradient, see? It should be that the more — the more the ARC break, why the greater the response of the needle. And this does not happen to be true. Actually the greater the out-rudiment, the less the needle response is. And that's the little hill you're walking up. And that's pretty grim.

Female voice: CCHs. Can you tell us something more about the method we had on CCHs?

All right. Now, let's apply this to a session. And we find that you very often find your second, third and fourth or your third and fourth of the beginning rudiments out. See? They're out when the needle — when the meter and the session are checked. When the session is checked, your rudiments are checked of the session by an Instructor or something like that, it's most commonly the later rudiments that are out rather than the earlier rudiments, right? Well, now why is this? It's because when you don't get a rudiment in, the later rudiments don't read well.

CCHs. Can I tell you more about the what?

Now, sitting right up at the top of this is the room. An auditor can make a number of blunders and one of them is not checking what he's trying to put right. And that is a general blunder that gets you in more trouble than probably any other single action. You're trying to put right, "What about stealing ladies' boudoir tables?" See. So, you get the middle rudiments in and then you omit reading off and checking "What about stealing ladies' boudoir tables?"

Female voice: The method we had on CCHs.

If you have made this mistake two or three times and caught yourself at it, let me assure you, you will never make the mistake again. Because, after you've gotten the middle rudiments in on a What question, the What question very often is still hot. And, all you've got to do is leave a hot What question sitting there and your meter from then on is not as operative as it was before. Do you follow that? By the omission here of this What question, on checking it up and straightening it out, your meter becomes less operative. Now, that's quite, could be quite obvious you see when you apply it to a Prepcheck.

The method?

The pc says, "Hm, I can get away with this. Hm, out of session. Hmm, missed withhold. Hmm, ha-ha," see? "I didn't tell him at all about those ladies' boudoir tables I stole in Siam — ha-ha-ha-ha-ha." See? He might have told you up to the time when you didn't discover them and then you gratuitously inform him that the "What" question is clean. He says "What goes on here?" You see? Well, actually failure to check what you're straightening out before you do something else is the secret of inoperative meters in a session.

Female voice: The new method of not taking up physical originations but just asking the pc, "How are you doing?"

Now, you essay to get the havingness rudiment in right at the beginning, see? You essay to get this in. And how many of you run the Havingness like this — how many of you run it like this? "Is it all right — look around here and tell me if it is all right to audit in this room. That reads." Can squeeze test. "Put some beingness in that object, put some beingness in that object, put some beingness in that object." Can squeeze test. "Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?"

That's not a new method. Somebody invented a method. The CCHs are a fruitful source of invention. And they are what they are. And those of you that watched me do the demonstration that night when I was running the CCHs on Suzie, remember you didn't hear very much about calling off what she was supposed to notice, you just heard a lot of — of "How are you feeling How's it going?" and so forth, "How are you doing?" You know, this kind of comment. And then somebody came along, apparently — I don't know who it was around here, and I didn't find out about it till a couple of days ago — and they started asking — a person's eye would twitch and they would say, "Did you notice that eye twitch?" and so forth. And they were using this as a method and it got to be quite a method.

Ohhhhhhhh. You went in one door and you never left by that door. you never went back and said, "Look around here and tell me if it is all right to audit in this room," and read it on the meter. See, the omission of that step now starts throwing your remaining rudiments in the beginning rudiments out. Very simple.

But actually, let's look at it compared with the Auditor's Code. Of course, it's an evaluation. We have noticed the eye twitch and we're forcing the person to notice an eye twitch. And the whole trick is, is let's get the guy to look; and we'll find that if he looks he will exteriorize from that particular somatic. That's what we're trying to do.

Do you know that can squeeze is absolutely no guarantee of any kind that the pc is willing to be audited in that room? Did you — do you know about that? Well, that's a fact. Indicates exactly nothing, except his havingness is up, which was not the question, see. The question is, "Look around here and tell me if it is all right to audit in this room." you see how that omission there then starts the snowball of error.

And this is a very deft, very, very delicate action that the auditor undertakes. And you start using mechanical sledgehammer type actions on it and it'll fold up. All of a sudden the pc doesn't get better. The pc does a physical origination, he starts going this way, you know, and you just ask him, "What's happening?" But that's as far as you can go with evaluation. You just say, "What's happening?"

Now, we say, "Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?" And the pc has an answer but you don't ask for it. Oh, so you say, "That's clean," and you go on to your next rudiment. Oh, it's almost, why bother? See? This session is a dog's breakfast by this time. And sincerity of the auditor and the strain upon his face is absolutely no index of the degree the rudiment is in. A rudiment is in if it's in.

And he says, "What's happening? Oh! Yeah, yeah, thanks, ha!" And he maybe doesn't even say anything more. He sort of notices that something is going on. Because they will walk along somnolently without noticing anything is going on unless you stay in two-way communication with them. They put it all on automatic, see? And they start walking into a wound-up doll proposition, see? And they just go through motions and they never look at anything and they just go through this and they hope they will finish up at the end of two hours without dying or something. And they just fall rapidly out of session.

Now, you would be amazed how many answers the pc has, you'd be amazed how many answers the pc has he never gets a chance to give you. And every time he doesn't give you an answer, whether it is vital or not, you have a missed withhold. How many missed withholds make a session? That can get pretty grim.

So CCHs call for a physical origin — origination on the part of the pc because the CCHs are physical processes less than mental processes. See? And you count on the fact that he has originated something. Well, he does something, he makes a physical motion, he makes an error. He does this, he does that.

Now, he only starts doing this, by the way, and the meter stops recording this after you've already flubbed. One flub on meter — metering the rudiments — begetteth a nonreadable meter. The more you flubbeth, the less you will getteth. See the dwindling spiral till finally the meter is totally inoperative and then it's all missed withholds from there on. you have nothing else but missed withholds.

Now at this point, if you can bring him up to the point of observing as a live being not an automaton — see, you just get him to observe — why, he gradually will get better and better and better and better and better. It's quite — it's quite mysterious how rapidly he will improve.

Now, that's your — that's your difficulty with the meter. It isn't the sensitivity of the meter. It isn't that — so long as you are regarding a Mark IV — it isn't any other oddball action that you're taking. It's just that you failed to get a rudiment in and then the next rudiment is harder to read, doesn't read as much and then the next rudiment doesn't read at all, see? See, you didn't get one in at all, so the next one of course, you don't get all of that one in. And then you're going to get less of the next one in and you're going to get much less of the next one in. Then you get down to nulling goals or something, see, and you've got a — you've got an unreading E-Meter.

But if you step over the borderline, see, an inch, and tell him he's got to observe — he won't. Then he feels bludgeoned. Then he feels banged around. And he just feels like he's picked on. Feels like he's being criticized for having an eye twitch and all that sort of thing. So it's a terribly delicate line and it's a very difficult one for an auditor to hew, actually. Sometimes the auditor finds that he has gone too far.

So, you get your session all wound up in a ball. And you get, frankly get into a situation there where you've got the non compos mentis thing — it — I don't know you'd do better if you just read the sparkle in the pc's eye as you said the goal, you see. You've driven him out of session.

The old drill that best describes it is "Fishing a Cognition." And you just try to fish a cognition out of this fellow. And if you don't succeed, violà, you have not succeeded. And if you do succeed, merveilleux, we have succeeded. You just pays your money and takes your chance. And it's just on the basis of "Give me that hand. Thank you. Give me that hand. Thank you."

Now, there might be several methods by which you could get rudiments in. The one which you are using at the present moment is simply to ask the pc the question, find a response, take whatever the pc says and then test the question on the meter. And if you find a response, take whatever the pc says and you test the question on the meter and if it is clean, you then leave it. That is the system which you are using at the moment.

And the pc suddenly holds it back. And you just say, "What's the matter? What's going on?"

Now, that system is perfectly adequate so long as you never miss. The frailty of the system is, missing. The pc's a little ARC broken, you haven't got anything going anyhow and you ask him a question, a rudiments question and then you don't get a response and you say the needle is clean and from there on you've had it. See? Now, that's the frailty of that system.

"Oh, I had a pain in the end of my hand."

Now, here's another system, here's another system. Your patter would go this way: "Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties? That reads. What difficulty aren't you willing to talk to me about?" Pc says, "So-and-so and so-and-so." And you say, "Thank you. Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties? Do you agree that that is clean?" Now, that gets you off the hook slightly, see, and probably is a much smoother approach.

And you say, "Good. Well, all right. All right now?"

Now, here's an entirely different system which is the same system that used to be used on Sec Checking and it goes like this: "Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?" You see, your meter is — you're not watching your meter. See? "Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties? Thank you." Whatever he says. Until he says, "No." And then you look at the meter and you say, "I will check that on the meter. Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties? That reads. What is it? That. That. That." He tells you. you say, "Thank you. Thank you. I will check that on the meter. There is another read here."

"Oh, yeah, yeah. It's much better now." See.

Listen, by the way, if I ever catch any of you or practical passing, "That still reads" as a statement, I'll have your thetan, because that's a wipeout of the statement of the pc and puts him on a stack of missed withholds. You mustn't ever say, "That still reads. That still reads. That still reads. That still reads." That's says flunk, flunk, flunk, flunk. See? What you should be saying is, "There's another read here" or some such statement, see? Another read and you notice it quite honestly. You've cleaned up the reads you got but now you have another read. So it's much more honest. And it makes the pc feel like at least he's gotten rid of part of it. Otherwise if you keep saying, "It still reads. It still reads. It still reads," the pc feels like he hasn't said a word to you. And he blows up eventually.

And "Give me that hand. Thank you. Give me that hand. Thank you. Give me that hand. Thank you."

All right. Now, your missed withhold problem doesn't arise there with this system for this excellent reason, is you've got the pc talking to the auditor about his case. So, therefore by asking the question without recourse to a meter and asking him the question without recourse to a meter and asking him the question without recourse to a meter until he says, "No," you now have him sufficiently in-session with you, you have him sufficiently in-session with you and of course the meter reads. You get the trickery of it? You'll always get a more fundamental read if you do that. And then you — but you'll have to steer because the one you find that time will be totally unknown to the pc. You've plumbed the bank, so you'll have to steer it.

And he all of a sudden says, "B-z-z-z-z-z!"

You'll say, "There. There. That. That. That, what are you looking at there?" and he tells you.

And you say, "What's going on?"

"Oh, yes," he says and gives you the thing.

"Ah," he says, "it stings."

And you say, "Good."

And you say, "All right. Good. All right. Give me that hand. Thank you."

See, there's another system.

And then all of a sudden, why, he's giving you — he's giving you three, four of them and it's nice as purr and there's nothing going on of any kind whatsoever. Get the hell out of there, man. That's your — that's flat for all intents and purposes. That's actually everything that's going on.

That system has disadvantages particularly to an auditor who can't leave the middle rudiments alone. Some auditors have middle-rudimentosis. They null five goals and get in the middle rudiments and they null five more goals and get in the middle rudiments and they null five more goals and get the E-Meter over their head.

Now an auditor, in his anxiety to make somebody well, often pushes somebody's teeth down his throat. And it all stems from just that fact; the auditor gets anxious to have a beneficial effect upon the pc and is liable to get impatient, see, and is liable to start pressing. And as soon as an auditor starts this he drives the pc out of session; he adds a note of anxiety to it all, a note of urgency, a note of impatience. And the pc is — attention has shifted over to the auditor.

You know when you get in the middle rudiments? You only get in the middle rudiments when everything is null. You're getting no reads of any kind whatsoever on any goals. You know in reading goals you usually get a tick on the first one. See? It's when those first ticks are missing that you get in the middle ruds and then you go back to when they started to miss.

Now, it's just those considerations which establish what you say. Actually it isn't any wording, see, it's just those considerations. You can say enough so as not to yank the pc's attention off onto the auditor, evaluate for the pc and tell the pc what is going on, you can do that. But basically, you want to keep the pc vaguely aware of an ARC condition with the auditor and also noticing what is happening. You can easily overstep that boundary. So there is no actual series of words which give this, because it'll vary from pc to pc.

It's the first consecutive "X" is what you go back to. It's the rule of the first consecutive "X." In other words you get in your middle ruds when you don't get a read anymore. That's all. That's simple, isn't it? You're not going to go over several goals without getting a read. Let me assure you this is impossible unless the middle rudiments are out. you understand what I mean, don't you?

I imagine some upstage character from Oxford would be terribly upset every time you said, "How you doing? How's it going" and that sort of thing. You'd have to say, "I hope it's — I hope it's quite all right there, old chap."

All right. Prepchecking, of course, it's preordained when you get the middle rudiments in on Prepchecking You get the mid ruds on Prepchecking every time you flatten a What question. You get in the middle ruds and test the What question. That's when you use them on Prepchecking

That answer your question?

But in nulling of goals they are usually overused. The poor pc suddenly says, "You know, I've always wanted that goal," as the pc — as the auditor starts to read it. "Oh" the auditor says, "He's talking. God almighty. What are we going to do. It's terrible. Terrible. Send for the marines." And gets the middle withhold — the middle withholds in. Your situation — your situation, of course, is ludicrous. There isn't any sense to it at all. You're getting reads on the meter, what more do you want?

Female voice: Yes, it does. Thank you.

Now, that a pc closes his eyes is not a good enough reason to get in middle rudiments. That a pc says something about his goal — now, listen — pc says something about the goals you're nulling, he says, "Oh, oh, I invalidated that one." Now, look there, that isn't a good enough to get in the middle.... Because look, he's interested in his own case, he's interested in his goal and he's talking to the auditor. You want to cure this situation? You can cure it. Just get your middle rudiments in every time he does it and you've cured it. It'll get grim in short order. So the pc talks about his goals. So he says something about his goals. So where's your TR 4! Don't park it under the chair, use it!

All right. What other question do we have? Yes?

Now, your TR 4 is the only thing you greet that with and you keep right on going, man. you just keep right on going. Your TR 4 is all you use at this point. If you fail to use TR 4, you might find it necessary to put your middle rudiments in. you understand? See? You might find it necessary to use your middle ruds if you fail to acknowledge what the pc says. Because you're stacking up his missed withholds, you see, by the barrel load. He says, "Gosh," he says, "You know, I hope that one stays in, you know."

Female voice: In the sessions as we have them here, Ron, if two things go on with goals listing, you see sometimes on the meter . . .

And you say, "To catch catfish. To catch — to catch catfish. To catch catfish."

Now, let me hear that again now. In the session?

And he says, "Uh — is that one still in?"

Female voice: If two things go on in one room here, say in goals nulling

You say, "To run rum runners. To run rum runners. To run rum runners."

Yes.

The pc says, "Where is this guy, where is he?" Don't be so afraid of a pc's comm. When a pc doesn't comm, that's the time to get worried. Not when a pc's talking, man, don't get worried about that. Don't ever worry about a pc talking to you about his own case, because that's the definition of in-session. That the pc is trying to hold his rudiments in, is not a good enough reason for you to put them in. why Q-and-A?

Female voice: so you see sometimes an odd read on the meter you're working on because it's sort of listening in. What can one do then instead of middle rudiments, to ask whether you are at the goals you are reading the pc and not the other one?

He says, "Oh, oh, I think I suppressed that one."

She's talking about a pc hearing somebody else's goals and the meter responding to it.

You say, "Good. Thank you." And go on and read it. He's interested. What state do you want him in? Frozen disanimation?

Female voice: Maybe!

No, that is not when you get in the middle ruds. you get in the middle rudiments after a What question and before testing it again, you prepcheck the middle ruds but in order to get a goals listing or anything else going, you do lots of use of the middle ruds here and there. But amongst them — amongst them is not introducing them extraneously to keep the pc from talking. And don't introduce them any oftener than is necessary. And in a goals nulling you actually only do it when you're getting blank-blank-blank, blank-blankblank, blank-blank-blank, blank-blank-blank. Hold it. you look this over a minute and you haven't got a quiver on that meter. Your read disappeared. So you, you went blank-blank-blank. That's out. Blank-blank-blank. That's out. Blank-blank-blank. That's out. Blank-blank-blank. That's out. Hey wait a minute, this meter isn't talking. Now — now, let's just get in the middle rudiments. Get them good and clean. And then go back to the first consecutive 'X." And that's, "To catch catfish. To catch catfish. To catch catfish. That's in." Ha-ha. You notice after you get the middle ruds in that this thing will now start reading again.

Well, I would say that your rudiments — your beginning rudiments, not your middle rudiments but your beginning rudiments — never went in.

It's very strange to read a goal three times without one of them ticking, you understand? It's a missingness of ticks that tell you when to get in the middle ruds on that.

Female voice: Uh-huh.

Now, in listing you get in the middle rudiments when the guy simply says, "I can't think of another blessed thing." Now, I can give you the mechanical law that every time you change from one list to the next list you put in the middle rudiments and so forth. But it isn't any law. That is just an effort to give somebody something to do when he can't think. Truth of the matter is you put in the middle rudiments in listing only when your pc says, "That's it, there isn't another single one, not from here to Halifax and back again is there another one."

What are you doing having your pc respond to somebody else's voice?

And you know damn well, this list, this particular list you're working on has lagged 110 behind the other 3 lists and man, you've got to get that list up there. So you just put in your middle ruds and you'll find he will go right on listing it up to 110. In other words you can boost listing with this thing And the index then is the same as otherwise. Your pc isn't giving you any so you put in the middle ruds. Similarly with goals, pc says, "Well, that's it. We listed 66 goals and I have no other goals and I never thought of another goal and never in my life have I ever had another goal." And so forth. You put in the middle ruds and he gives you another 66. You see?

Female voice: Yes.

That's the use of the middle ruds. They're boosters. You use them to boost the E-Meter when it stops reading in nulling You use them to boost the listing of goals or items. And to test the flatness of a What question in Prepchecking and that's the total extent of their use. you can overuse these things like crazy you know? So, a pc talks. I only — actually I — there is one other comment I would make. When the pc starts to snore I usually would think it was time I got the middle rudiments in. But of course — of course I might not put in the middle ruds. I might just kick him and go on nulling Say, "Hey! Reveille!"

Hey, you mustn't have your pc responding to somebody else's voice: That answers that.

"Oh! What's that? What's that? Oh!"

Female voice: Uh-huh.

"Okay. Sit back. Relax, but not quite so far." And "To catch catfish. To catch catfish. To catch catfish" you know. Going to sleep isn't a good enough reason. Thinking about something else isn't a good enough reason. It's only when the meter stops reading.

Now, of course, this demands of you much higher caliber in-sessionness than you would have out in the middle of the Sahara Desert in a soundproof room, see?

You realize that a guy can be practically snoring and not even knowing what goals you're reading and your meter will still read. On that right goal too. See? I've made test after test out of this thing and it has been phenomenal. The ones that are supposed to be in are in. you can check out somebody's goal with him practically asleep. See, you're dealing with the reactive bank, not the analytical mind anyway.

Female voice: Yeah?

So, you can use middle ruds to drive the pc out of session. And of course, they will get harder and harder to get in, because it's a no-auditing situation. No auditing is occurring while middle ruds are being put in. So, therefore the system which I have just given you — the system which I have just given you of calling it off without looking at the meter and calling it off without looking at the meter, asking the question, "In this session have you suppressed anything" You know, no meter see. "In this session have you suppressed anything? Thank you. In this session have you suppressed anything Thank you. In this session have you suppressed anything Thank you. In this session have you suppressed anything"

Yeah. It demands much more in-sessionness.

He says, "No."

Female voice: Uh-huh.

You say, "All right. I'll check that on the meter." And you say, "In this session have you suppressed anything? That reads. What is it? That. That."

Now, if your pc's meter is going off reading on somebody else's goals, then your pc is not in-session to you.

Be sure this time you have really walked him into the reactive bank. See? He isn't going to know. It was really why it went out. See? In other words you put him in-session before you do this. See, and it makes the meter read. That's the one you wanted anyhow.

Female voice: Reading odd, you see, it is sort of like picking up a word or something It's sort of — of an oddity.

But the other way to, you're not liable to get it unless he's very thoroughly in-session already and of course, why are you putting the middle ruds in is to get him in-session. And then you take up the next one, "In this session have you — in this session is there anything you invalidated? Thank you. In this session is there anything you've invalidated? Thank you. In this session is there anything you invalidated? Thank you."

That's just what I mean. You're right with me. I'm answering the exact question you're asking And that is to say, if your pc reads on a word mentioned by somebody else anywhere in the vicinity and isn't reading exclusively on his auditor's voice, then that pc is not in-session to that auditor.

And he says "No." Finally "No." See? Now, this has a liability that he sometimes says "No" and then says "except." So you shouldn't be too quick on your uptake on that "No" you see. you know, get a really "No" before you go charging on.

Female voice: Uh-huh.

This session — this action also has another liability to it. And that is, is he hasn't given you half the answers and you find yourself pinned to the meter running this against the meter — running this against the meter. Well, I'd only run two of them against the meter before I laid the meter aside and went back to my first system. Don't get yourself caught, in other words.

That pc is in some sort of an autosession. Or is in-session to this other person that has been auditing him three months ago, you see? Or something — something is wrong here.

"In this session is there anything you've suppressed? Ah well, that reads. What was it? That. That. That. That. That." And he finally comes up with it. "I'll check that on the meter now. In this session is there anything you have suppressed? That. That. That. That. In this session is there anything you have suppressed? That. That. That."

Female voice: Yeah. What is it — what does one do then?

Oh, to hell with it, man. Come on down to this level. See? Check it. Be happy to check it a couple of times. Check it even three times. Perfectly all right. But don't let yourself get pulled into the fourth, fifth and sixth. In other words, if these things are still hot, why, he's got some other answers. See? And just take it off the meter.

One gets the pc in-session. I'd wind that session up, b-z-z-z-t. And I'd give the pc a moment's break and I would start the next session and find out that four rudiments were well out.

You probably won't get into that mess very often because it usually cleans on one or two. But you could get some kind of an endless mess going here. I foresee it. "In this session is there anything you have suppressed? Yeah, that read. Yes, what's that? That. That. That. That. All right. I'll check that on the meter. In this session is there anything you've suppressed? That. That. That. That. Thank you. I'll check that on the meter. See? I'll check that on the meter. I'll check that on the meter." What are you doing, a Prepcheck in the middle of a session or something wild going on here? So, I'd tend to come off of it and just put the meter aside and say, "In this session is there anything you've suppressed? Thank you. In this session is there anything you have suppressed? Thank you."

Female voice: Ah.

And he finally says, "No, there isn't anything else."

Understand?

And you say, "Good, I'll check that on the meter." And check it that time. It'll probably clean. Got the idea?

Female voice: Yes.

Otherwise you will run into latent thinks and again run into some missed withholds. You'll see how that is. Right after you've said, "That's clean" he'll think of several. Of course, you pull this reactive one and you can expect that if you pull one or two reactive ones, some others are going to fly into the air. you might even find it sensible only to check once before you go back to the repetitive treatment. That would depend on your experience and that's more than I know about it just now.

That is a very extreme condition that you're mentioning there. That is almost too extreme to be . . .

But in this system you for sure get the pc into session. I'm not particularly recommending this system to you. I'm not particularly recommending it, because it has a horrible liability when combined with senseless unneeded ruds. Now, if you want to blow a pc out of the water good and quick, use this system on the middle rudiments while finding a pc's goal or listing or something else, because of course it amounts to no auditing Amounts to no auditing at all. So, maybe you could combine the two systems. "In this session is there anything you have suppressed, invalidated, failed to reveal or been careful of? What was that? That. That. That. That. That. That. All right. Thank you very much. To catch catfish. To catch catfish. To catch catfish. To catch catfish." See?

Female voice: It's only sometimes happening Then it comes back again. But there's sometimes a moment when one is not quite sure.

So, this system — this system I would believe you would find very valid in the beginning rudiments, rather invalid but usable on the middle rudiments and awfully time consuming on the end rudiments. I believe it's most favorably situated to the beginning rudiments and there is where I myself would use it. And I'd be sure everything was grooved.

Ah, pc isn't in-session. He's not interested in his own case. He's not willing to talk to his auditor. So, of course, he wants auditing so he picks it up from somebody else's goals list.

But I wish to forward to your attention the fact that there is a problem there. I'm giving you these different systems and so forth of getting the rudiments in just because you might find them much more useful than the one which you are using. Now, it would be up to me to say well that is the system but I'm not in a position to say there is an exclamatory isness in the handling of this. you want to get them in and perhaps an auditor's — this is the variance you see — an auditor's TR 1 is pretty shaky on this pc, not particularly shaky in general, but on this pc, the pc just never seems to get anything the auditor says. Well, let's groove it. you get the idea? You say, "All right. Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties? What difficulty aren't you willing to talk to me about? Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties? What difficulty aren't you willing to talk to me about?"

I will comment on this, I will comment on this. Your in-sessionness at this particular moment here at this course is poor — is quite poor. I picked up pc after pc I've looked at in the last month or so and so forth, I have found them all floating on a sort of an auto-out-of-sessionness. And it used to show up in Sec Checking and Prepchecking. You ask them for a good, big overt, you know, well, they noticed a pin in their mother's boudoir or something

And he gets that and he gets that and he gets that and then he asks for his meter read and bang! He can make this pc read that way. See? He gets around these other difficulties.

And we actually did have this as an overt which an auditor managed a chain on. This — this one: they had thought of stealing a paper clip from a Central Organization, and this was the depth of sin and crime that the pc was willing to go into with that auditor. It wouldn't be safe to go any deeper than this. This one was particularly humorous because we have often used this as the ne plus ultra of a light auditing, acceptable overt, don't you see? That would be the screamer to end them all, you see. And actually somebody did come up with this; thought — their pc thought of stealing a paper clip from a Central Organization.

Now, when you look at this you'll see that you have a very large number of pcs in terms of — types of pcs I should say — pcs are different one way or the other. But all pcs agree on certain fundamentals. And that is that auditing must take place. Auditing is scarce and it must take place and it must be effective.

Now, that is all symptomatic of out-of-sessionness. That is all symptomatic of no-confidence. That is symptomatic of rough or wobbly Model Session. You see? Going past rudiments when they are still out, leaving them, you see. For instance, one of you the other day had the very, very bad luck of having the pc on the TV the other day when I stepped in here and there was just rudiment after rudiment after rudiment were giving quarter-of-a-dial drops and half-a-dial drops. In other words, the rudiments in that session were so wildly out that how could anybody have ever called it a session or never noticed it. So I thought it was so bad that I got ahold of the student's E-Meter and checked his E-Meter. His E-Meter was all right.

Now, you use this type of system on middle rudiments, you're liable to have a pc biting your head off. "In this session is there anything you've suppressed? Thank you. In this session is there anything you've suppressed? Thank you. In this session is there anything you've suppressed? Thank you. All right. I'll check that on the meter."

But I had another pc in the last demonstration I gave you, Kay, and I noticed that she was pretty wildly out of session, and so forth, and finally had the auditor's meter checked and the meter was inoperative. I thought that was pretty interesting.

God, you know, this is in the middle of goals nulling, you know, and he's coming right on down the line you know, he's going to get it and he sees the clock going tock-tock-tock-tock and session time running out so that one flattened all right. Nothing happened then. And then you say, "In this session is there anything you have invalidated?"

But this — you just have to learn to be so smooth and so predictable and have your pc under such control in a session that the pc just never would think of doing anything else than listening to and responding to what you were saying on your meter. Got it?

"No!" Boom! What happened, you know. Honest, the explosion will occur that fast. See, you're trying the man's temper. Or you got this girl, she was — know exactly where she was going see — knew exactly where she was going. They were going to get down and get them all at least nulled once you see, this session, and all of a sudden she's sitting there looking at the auditor and the auditor's saying, "In this session is there anything you have suppressed? Thank you." And she notices the auditor isn't looking at the meter. Maybe she was not aware of having her rudiments out. And maybe the auditor has injected a missed withhold into the situation all on his own.

Female voice: Yes. Thank you very much.

He was doing the middle rudiments because the pc had dropped one can down to his side and it was sort of trembling as it hit the chair. See? And instead of saying, "God damn it, pick up that can and put it face up on the table where it — so I can read this meter" the auditor goes into middle rudiments, see? That's not doing what is happening, see? Doesn't give the pc a direct order but tries to use the middle ruds to get around giving the pc a direct order about something, don't you see?

You bet you. All right. Okay. Any other questions? Yes? All right.

The — the pc keeps scratching his nose with the can. you know? Try to read a goal while he's doing that. Well, it'd be no good whatsoever getting in the middle rudiments because not one of them is, "In this session, have you scratched your nose with a can?" I mean it is not one of the middle rudiments. You just say to him in no uncertain terms, "Put your hands in your lap and stop fiddling with that can and we will get done a lot quicker here."

Male voice: Ron, as a person nears Clear on 3GA, does the needle if it's — sorry, does the tone arm if it's down say at 2.0 and he's a male, will the needle free up and be a free needle and then go to 3.0 or will it gradually go towards the 3.0 and then go to free needle?

And he'll be all for that. "Oh, oh, yeah, oh, oh, yeah." Very serious.

The latter.

In other words, there is a point where rudiments waste session time. you exceed this point and you don't gain from the rudiments but start losing. In other words, up to a certain point getting the rudiments in make your meter read better and then beyond that point, makes your meter read worse. And that has a lot to do with how much auditing time is being consumed which is the weakness of this repetitive command system.

Male voice: The latter.

So this repetitive command system would be absolutely wonderful and I recommend it thoroughly for getting in the rudiments on somebody who is very nervy and who is only receiving anyhow a rudiments havingness session. And I'd run it — beginning ruds, middle ruds, end ruds — I'd run them all the same way, see? Crowd it to it. Because what is it? You're trying to get his needle smoothed out and get his rudiments in and get some Havingness run.

Yes. Always the latter. Needles don't go free off Clear read.

All right. Prepchecking, Prepchecking, I'd run beginning rudiments, I'd grind them out man. I'd grind them out but good. you know, repetitive question you know and so forth. Get those beginning rudiments really in on Prepchecking Take your middle rudiments and give those a lick and a promise after the What question, but make sure they're in. See? But just the packaged read. End rudiments, just knock them off, packaged read. See? Not give a lot of stress and strain to them. Well, you can do that with a Prepcheck session because you're releasing withholds all the time and the session is interesting to the pc.

Male voice: Thank you.

Now, do you realize that a Routine 3 is a different sort of auditing? Routine 3 is actually not as interesting to the pc. Did you really realize that? Basically it's not as interesting to the pc as Prepchecking. It's not getting into something he remembers vividly. It's going somewhere else. It's not as interesting

You bet. Next question. No questions? Goodness, gracious me. you know all about it, huh? Well, all right. Yes?

Oh yes, it's very interesting to him writing his goals. He's happy to write down his goals. He's very interested in that. But beyond that point it is merely anxious. You see there's a difference. Pc with his list being nulled all the way down, he's much less interested than anxious. You know the last half of that list of that — of that nulling. You know? Man, he "What's the goal going to be?" you know. "What's the goal going to be? Or is it all going to go null? Or wha — wha — wha — what's going to happen?" You see.

Male voice: on the CCHs, to get back to them, if you notice quite body — quite a lot of body action on a pc and you say, "What was that?" and they continually say, "Oh, nothing. . ."

He actually realizes, basically, that his whole life is hung on this thing by the proverbial thread. He reactively knows he's going for broke right here. He knows that this is an important action. And he responds to the importance of the action, not the interest of the action. It's terribly important, oh yes, yes. you muff this one for him, the next few trillennia he's right in the same mud he's in, but worse. You get this one — he's free as a bird. And down below consciousness he really knows this. See? So frankly he's not as interested as he is anxious. See? There's a point where interest boils over and he's usually in that state.

You notice an awful lot of body action in the CCHs on a pc and they keep saying, "Oh, nothing. . ."

Now, a pc therefore has to be pretty smoothed down before you start Goals Assessment and start the rest of this sort of thing And if you have to use an extraordinary method of getting in or keeping in the rudiments, I would say he wasn't ready for Routine 3 because he's going to get far too anxious. He's going to explode far too heavily. He's going to be all a quiver here because one, he's doing something which is very nervy anyhow and the other side of the thing, he doesn't have any confidence in his auditor.

Male voice: Uh-huh.

While he's being anxious — it's something like — something like the fellow's ride — finds himself riding on a train and suddenly sees the engineer and fireman walking back down the aisle, while they're going through the mountains and the train is accelerating, you know? What are they doing here? You know. He gets nervy. He wants to know that auditor is sitting there in the driver's seat, man. He wants to know that this is going and he wants to know it's going as fast as possible and he knows damn well it's liable to go wrong and it's too good to be true anyhow.

Go on.

See, he doesn't express it to you and he really doesn't understand it analytically himself. But he's been sitting in this cage. This cage has been pushed around from head to head, more or less randomly for some time. And it has various inhibitions and so forth. And he has long since realized that nobody could get out of this cage, you see? He's long since realized this. And he's habituated himself to it. And he's reconciled himself to it. And he believes in God and all that.

Male voice: And you just acknowledge, "Okay, fine," and go right on with it.

And then he's got himself perfectly schooled and then by God the padlock begins to rattle. Oh my God! That padlock hasn't rattled — that padlock, that damn padlock hasn't rattled for the last eighty trillion years! He thought it rattled once about eighty trillion years ago, but that's the last time. Is somebody really going to open that thing up? You know. And what you're looking at there is a sort of an incipient prison break the guy can't quite believe in. And even though he doesn't understand this analytically, it's there or its impulse.

That's right. That's right. And then the next time you've got him in a Prepcheck session you get off suppression. You can remedy that sort of thing. The person is, by the way, giving you a social response, giving you a social response. And the person, by the way, would be rather convinced that you perhaps were being critical of them so they're making nothing out of it, and so on. And I myself would have varied the auditing question I kept asking there, until the pc didn't give me the, "Oh, nothing." You see? I wouldn't challenge the "Oh, nothing," I would just ask a different question next time.

So, frankly, in a Routine 3 session especially, you can drive your rudiments out, out, out, out, out, out, by not doing the job. If you can imagine the fellow on the outside of this cage. The fellow doesn't hear the lock rattling now. No padlock rattling. And he listens, you know. He finally peeks through the keyhole and sees the bird is now polishing up the bars on the other side of the building which has nothing to do with letting him out. And frankly he is liable to become hysterical. He frankly does. He's liable to become hysterical. Sees the auditor there, polishing up stonework and so forth, doesn't have anything to do with him. See? Auditor's saying, well so on.

Male voice: Uh-huh.

You could imagine what would happen. You get the guy up threequarters of the way to getting the goal and then start to take your E-Meter apart. That's cruelty. See? Sheer cruelty, sadism. And actually you can run middle ruds and Q-and-A and do a lot of indefinite things and so forth. All of a sudden the guy is just saying, "I knew it couldn't be true, I knew it couldn't be true. But still it's really got to be true," and he responds accordingly. Then all of a sudden rudiments, hell. The mechanics of the mind simmer down to a jail break that is going to go wrong And he starts to control the session and try to do all sorts of wild things, don't you see?

I would say, "How are you doing?" Now, let him answer, "Oh, nothing," to that. you see, he can't. Got it?

So the auditor on a Routine 3 session has got to sit there and drive pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa. The more time he wastes, why, the worse off it is, see? Now, he has to balance this sensibly within himself. This he has to balance within himself as an auditor. At what point does he start to drive rudiments out by trying to get them in? At what point does he do this? And therefore it is not even vaguely recommended that this repetitive system be used on R3. Too time consuming. Takes twenty to twenty-five minutes to get through the beginning rudiments. Ooooo! That's a long time. And the pc will begin to respond to this as being a long time. And he won't like it.

Male voice: Thank you very much.

Now, theoretically the pc has been audited up to a point where he can stay in-session anyhow before he's doing R3 and therefore if you went into too much weighting of the rudiments, gave him far too much importance you see, why he starts to drive them out himself. You'll see this. The first time you put in the middle rudiments they go in easy. The next time you put in the middle rudiments they go in harder. The next time you put in the middle rudiments, God, he's got a dozen answers, see? You'll see this. You're just putting in the middle ruds too often.

You bet. All right. Yes?

It's the amount of progress made which is the total measure of Routine 3. Actually it's in Prepchecking Routine 2-type — well, not Routine 2 but Class II-type processes — it's the amount of stuff dug up that he didn't remember, that is the index. And all that's kind of cute and interesting and he actually, a lot of time, doesn't even connect it to feeling better or something like that. But not this other, see? He's willing to play the game on Class II but when you get into these Routine 3 processes you're in a different operating mental climate. So therefore, you could find a present time problem. Oh, just imagine you get this guy — you get this guy and he's been listing and he's been listing on his goal and he's listed up to the line and three days ago he had a free needle and he hasn't had one since. And there's a whole bunch of stuff that is coming up and things are going boom, life is getting rather interesting But he all of a sudden realizes now that this stuff is actually going to come off of him.

Female voice: I've got a question following that on asking the pc, "How are you doing?" In view of the fact that it activates circuits and what have you, what about if he just sort of starts, going into a compulsive outflow there? That's a bit of a dangerous thing to ask that type of case — "How are you doing?" I mean, it just doesn't stop from then.

And you take him right at that time and then start him into the next session and find a present time problem and in that present time problem start to run, "What part of that problem could you be responsible for?" Your pc's going to blow up. That problem is going to get worse and worse, it's going to go deeper and deeper in and the rudiments going to go further and further out and there hardly will be anything you can do about it. In other words what you're running into is the pc's goal is being alter-ised. And the whole session becomes a GPM all on its lonesome, see. you understand? GPM, he depend upon goal. When goal, she alter-ised, you get a mass. Well, the session isn't a mess, it's a mass. There's where it goes.

Well, I suppose you could walk into this. Let's see, you asked a case, "How are you doing?" and the case goes into a compulsive outflow that you find is very difficult. In the first place, the compulsive outflow isn't dangerous, particularly, until it goes on long enough to run their havingness out the bottom.

Now, these are the things, just speaking sensibly about this whole thing, it's a lovely thing to be able to lay down rote, you see — and to a large degree we can. I can — and get this thing squared away and so on. That's lovely. But there is a point, there is a point when you can get in the road of your own feet on this sort of thing. And you never want to falsify the fact that it is clean when it is not, and so forth. But you can handle it in such a way that whereas it might be out, the pc isn't told that it is in, see?

There's ways and means of handling that sort of thing And they come under TR 4. Now, he goes into an action of this character, well you want to — you want to return the pc back into session. Because only a part of that response was an answer to your question. He went into a compulsive outflow. All right, you say, "How are you doing?" And he says, "Well, pretty terrible just now. I have been . . ." Well, now, "pretty terrible just now," that answered your question, didn't it?

Let's suppose that the pc always has latent answers to it after you said it's clean. Now, I'll give you another phrase that you can use with great usefulness. You see, it was clean, you see, you noticed it was clean. "We have the significant withholds off of that" see. Or "That is clean of important answers." You get the type of phraseology, you see. Now, it could go this far. "At least we have the reactive answers off of it" see? Now, understand me there is no pattern for saying it is clean and it reads and so forth. Now, somebody can come along and tell you that this is the way you should call it. But let me tell you that the statement, "It is clean" is an awfully broad statement and it might not apply to your pc and it might be driving him out of session. Savvy?

Female voice: Uh-huh.

So, you should say there, at that point, that you indicate to the preclear that you have not had a needle response. Now, that is technically exact. That is what you do. "Are you willing — are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties? What difficulty aren't you willing to talk to me about?" So forth. "Now, are you willing to talk to me about your difficulty?" Now, we say — if we say, "That's clean" he can still think of three or four things you see, that he's really not willing to talk to you about.

Now, if you weren't in there with your acknowledgment, you, to some degree, drop the ball, see? Now, you've got TR 4 to contend with because he's now originating so, your trick is to understand what he's saying, acknowledge it and return him to session. And there are several methods by which this can be done. But one of the smoothest is he says, when he's busy — he's going on and on and originating, he's going yap-yap-yap-yap-yap, and my father and mother always beat me and that's why I hate to have you touching my arm this way, and so on. An awfully good method of handling this is, "When did that occur to you in this session?"

Now, if I were heading along on Routine 3 or something I'd be far more prone to say, "Well, we got the worst of that off, let's go on to the next one."

And he says, "Well, it was a little bit earlier," and so forth.

The thing was clean as a wolf's tooth and I wouldn't say anything about it at all if I didn't have any read on it. But I absolutely would not count on the fact that if it read, the pc hadn't thought of anything. Pc thought of something — it wasn't significant — but he thought of it and then the fact you tell him he hasn't thought of anything — you see? That's the phraseology which becomes dangerous.

And you say, "Well, all right. Now here's the next command." You've got to be slippy this way.

So, the exact proper phrasing of that must answer this exact definition, that the thing has not read although he may still be thinking of something, you haven't got anything reactive enough to stop the session at this point to take it up. See, you'd — you'd only say that when it was clean as a wolf's tooth. See, you'd clean it up — you'd get all the reads you could off of this thing you see? Then you say to him, "Well, that's good enough for the minute."

The essence of CCHs, of course, is communication, control and havingness. And you're perfectly right in saying, yes, there's some danger in an obsessive outflow on the part of the pc because it'll run down his havingness. And therefore that violates part of the CCHs. But also you're violating the control if you don't handle that obsessive outflow, see.

"Oh, do I have another one on there?"

Now, a pc properly acknowledged has found out that he has reached you. See? If you acknowledged him properly then he's found out now that he has reached you and he'll stop talking That's how the cycle ends.

"Oh, you've probably thought of some more things but there isn't anything registering on here that will hold up the session."

So if you were to pick up his hand and put it on your shoulder as he was talking, he would shut up. Get the magic? He'd reached you.

"Well, I thought you were a dog last night, wouldn't that hold up the session?"

I won't say the ways of handling this are unlimited, but there are several. And they depend, more or less, on the situation in which you are involved. There was one old lady, I remember, who was going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on; and she was just talking to the blue, she'd just stopped talking to anybody, you know? And the auditor finally got around and got his face in front of her so that she actually couldn't look any other way than look at him, and gave her a Tone 40, "Good!" and she was so surprised she almost dropped the mock-up. And well, what do you know, you know? It startled her considerably, not because of the suddenness of it but she thought that was a pretty nice fellow after that. See? You're actually not trying to reach the pc, you're trying to convince the pc the pc has reached you. And if you can do that, why, any pc will shut up. As a matter of fact, you could probably stop a war if you could convince the other side that they had reached you already. Because what are they trying to do, you see? It wouldn't be a retreat proposition because that would show they hadn't reached you and you were still worrying about their reaching you. But if you notice all war propaganda is on the basis: you haven't reached us and you're not going to; but we're going to reach you and smash you, see? And war is something that grows up this way.

"Apparently not, here's the next rudiment."

So your ARC break can get going on the pc by showing the pc that the pc can't reach you. And the pc will start getting berserk after a while if you keep retreating on this, and so on. If you just remain silent and courteous the pc talks and talks and talks and you remain silent and smile faintly, you see and talk — and he can't see you — and the pc talks and talks and talks and talks and talks. You sort of withdraw a little bit, sufferingly, inside yourself and the pc will talk and talk and talk and talk and talk. you get what's happening?

And the guy will say, "Oh! I can still think of things and if they don't register on the meter then I necess - haven't necessarily thought about the things reactively so therefore they wouldn't impede the session because I'm not obsessed with them." And you'll have somebody coming in with a big theory. You'll have this all worked out.

All right. So your action is to consider an answer to your auditing question requires an acknowledgment and if the pc goes any further than that, that the pc is originating. Then if the pc is originating he has an anxiety about reaching you. So all you've got to do is cure that anxiety right there in a couple of well-chosen words or gestures and there you are.

"There's certain types of responses," somebody will say to you, "which are important and certain types which are not. Now, I sit here thinking all the time, you're a dog, you're a dog, you're a dog, you're a dog and you've never considered that an important response." If it — if it has rudiments in mind I don't mind saying to the — something, "You're quite right, has no bearing on the session."

Now, in view of the fact that you're reaching a pc with great surety every time, while running the CCHs, you're liable to get a reverse flow on the line. Auditing kids, of course, as you probably know, is very amusing They turn around and run "Give me that hand," on you after a little while, you know? They kind of keep it balanced up. They're friendly that way. They — if you run 8-C on them they'll pretty soon run 8-C on you. And so forth.

Evaluation. Meter has never picked it up. Well, I don't want the meter to pick it up, for God's sakes. Every session we're going to clear off three thousand "you're a dogs." This doesn't give you carte blanche to evaluate for the pc, but if you're going to make an evaluative statement the rule is — make an accurate one. When you say, "That's clean" and it compares to "You haven't thought about anything either" that won't go down, see? But you can make it go down. you say, "That's clean enough to go on now." you see?

Well, pcs will sometimes try to do that verbally. And try to do it some other way. That answer it?

There's a lot of things which you can do with this and you'll find out this is normally true. you can make a session hang up, you can make a session hang up by letting the pc think of a lot of answers to a rudiments question which have not registered on the meter. One of the reasons they haven't registered on the meter is that they're not reactive. See, he's just thinking, "Mmmmmmm-mmmmmm-mmmmmm, the auditor mmmmmmm-mmmmmmm, I don't know maybe I shouldn't tell him about Gertrude, shouldn't tell him about Gertrude, I don't know whether I'm willing to talk about Gertrude or not."

Female voice: Yes, thank you.

The auditor says — has just said, "Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?" you see?

You betcha. All right. Yes, Peter?

And he says, "Oh, I don't know, I should — oh, I don't know...."

Male voice: on that, that reminded me of the question I wanted to ask before. And that is the use of CCH/Havingness that you used on the television. We haven't had any particular rundown on the use of that. Asking the preclear, "Touch me. Touch me. . ."

The auditor says, "That's clean."

Uh-huh.

He says, "That's clean? Hell I was just thinking about Gertrude and she's filthy. Doesn't sound clean to me." He'll get real upset about the meter.

Male voice: . . . with the CCHs.

But if you say to him, he's saying, "Well, Gertrude, Gertrude, I don't want to tell him about Gertrude, he's asking me what do I want to tell him about Gertrude, I don't want to tell him about Gertrude."

It's very simple. The CCH/Havingness Process is simply repetitively, "Touch my — blank." And then don't introduce any parts that he'd be diffident about touching. And it's, "Touch my right shoulder. Touch my left shoulder. Touch the top of my head. Touch my stomach. Touch my right elbow. Touch my left elbow. Touch my right knee. Touch my left knee." See? "Touch my right shoulder. Touch my left shoulder. Touch the top of my head."

And you say, "Well, we've got the reactive responses off of it anyway."

And you'll find out the pc would go on and on this way. It's quite interesting. What's particularly amusing about that is once in a while an auditor had love turn on on the part of the pc. you know? Love. Love raises its — its embarrassing skull, and so on. And that is a reach-can't reach; weird situation. Well, this process has the liability of turning on that phenomenon. And you have to run it out. So you have to run that Havingness Process long enough to run out the misemotional connotations which the pc generates. Quite amusing That's the only thing wrong with it.

"Oh, what I'm thinking here doesn't have any reactive responses, so what."

And as far as when you run it is concerned, it would be early on in auditing and once a session. It would have these limitations. It's something that goes a long way because you're going to have to run it quite a little bit to get it flat. Okay?

Let it go. You've created a different atmosphere. If you're going to say something evaluative, why be sure it's correct. And as far as telling people if the rudiment is clean or the rudiment is not clean and the rudiment is still reading or something like that, if you're going to, don't tell them in such a way as to hang them with a missed withhold. And that's the basic rule on that. And if you're trying to get the rudiments in on somebody and get up his confidence for the first time do it the long way around and if your pc's at the other end of the line and trying to come down the line with his goal and Clear and so forth, you make it brief. And those are the basic laws that have — influence rudiments.

Male voice: Yes. I was wondering about its uses and to replace — instead of doing a model session rudiments, on the CCH session whether one could use that as sort of a havingness auditor . . .

And the other thing is simply that if you get one out and then you don't do — you see, you get one rudiment out, the next successive rudiments are going to have a less responsive meter. And then you run from there into trouble. So, be thorough and be fast and be accurate and — but basically what are you trying to do? With rudiments and Havingness sessions you're trying to clean up the needle, you're trying to continue the cleaning up of the needle, bring about more confidence in auditing with the Prepcheck activities and you're trying to bring a nice clean needle that doesn't have ticks and tocks on it up to Routine 3, get the fellow's goal in the least possible length of time and then list it out on four lists to a free needle and find the next goal and here we go. That is exactly what we're trying to do.

Well, that's what it's for.

And you, of course, could be so formalized in trying to approach this situation that you keep driving madly to Canada to arrive in Mexico. And you keep saying, "Well, we just never get to the point of clearing this fellow you see, because we actually haven't finished the Prepcheck formula rote x-y-z-k," you see. And you look at the fellow's needle, it's clean. Well, if this fellow becomes aware of this you know his needle starts to dirty up on irrelevant auditing thereafter. He gets to certain zones where he deteriorates as a case, merely because he knows where you're going. That's only if he knows where you're going.

Male voice: Thank you.

These things will all be — got to be kept in mind by an auditor. An auditor is trying to clear somebody, his aim and goal. My aim and goal is trying to train people so they can clear people and get the people cleared at the same time. In this particular unit that takes a little bit of doing but we are doing it and we are succeeding and you may not have looked around lately but clearing is probably swinging in under the 250-hour mark now for the whole ruddy lot. And that's getting down there within finite ranges.

That's what it's for. I don't know. Some auditors have pcs go out of session running the CCHs. And, let me tell you something, that is a mark of rough auditing That — that's a mark of not much comprehend. You could do the CCHs in Model Session, but, that's all very well except for this one little thing: it violates the basis of the CCHs. They are a physical process and you're busily introducing a mental process on top of a physical process and it's sort of, "What's this all about?" see?

And we have put the dynamite to several cases that were historic with Routine 3GA and those cases to begin with had such dirty needles that the Phoenix laundry would have rejected them. So, we're not anyways unconfident of what we're doing. It is just the ease with which we get it done.

The facts of the case are that an auditor ought to be so smooth, so lacking in Prussianism, so uninhibited on his comm line that he runs a nice, easy, comfortable set of CCHs. And you're not going to find anybody going out of session. A nice, easy, comfortable CCH run wouldn't need any rudiments. Because the guy's with you all the way, you're not overrunning everything, you're running it up just to a point of three-no-change, it's no great strain on him, you're checking up on him, you're — you're — you're showing him concern, you're acknowledging them well when they speak to you and all that sort of thing. It sort of runs off and it's sort of like — sort of like waltzing with a pretty girl, you know, it's — it doesn't tire you.

I give you as much rote and formula as I can't pound sense into your heads. That's the truth of the matter. You have rote and formula which get you beyond and past points that require very good judgment. Now, up to a certain degree I use rote and formula. I use things like Model Session and rudiments and meters and standardized types of sessions and this sort of thing and don't vary from these. But actually that isn't just a rote for the sake of rote, that's something that's been built over the years.

But I imagine that trying to fox-trot with an elephant, I imagine could be fairly exhausting and would require innumerable rudiments. You get the idea.

But you can get some parts of your parts mixed up in slowing the pc down and after that, why, you're in trouble. Then you wish this car only had two wheels because it could only blow out twice. You see? Whereas it's got four wheels and you get four blowouts before you get to the end. you get the idea?

The thing — that, however, is not a mental Havingness Process and belongs with the CCHs. A little of it'd go a long way. But it's blood brother with the CCHs and it would — your thought is very good there — it would supplant all this anxiety about MS [Model Session] while doing the CCHs.

This is no invitation to depart from standardized sessions, but it is an invitation to understand what you're doing and to be sensible about the use of your tools and to recognize what this thing called an E-Meter is and how your rudiments behave under it. There is no constancy of read to an E-Meter. Your E-Meter reads to the degree that your TR 1 is good and your pc is not ARC broke with you.

Yes?

Fortunately we have a meter that has quite a bit of tolerance on that. But it can't go all the way, it won't give commands and it won't restrain an ARC break by simply leaping off and giving a confidential, pastor-like talk to the pc. It won't do any of these things so you just have to realize what your tools are. Okay? All right.

Female voice: Ron, what you were saying, you know, about the CCH process being, "Touch the auditor." Is it not all right to touch the surrounding environment? I mean, if you have a male auditor and a female, and you want to CCH process . . .

Thank you.

Right.

Female voice: . . . can you just not touch the things around you?

No.

Female voice: Touch his own body.

No, that is strictly an auditor rudiment.

Female voice: I see.

It is a havingness of the auditor. It puts in the auditor and so forth. If you'll notice, the CCHs touch an awful lot of surrounding environment. See? CCH 2, you've got a lot of "Touch the walls," and that sort of thing, don't you see? No, this is — this is just a peculiar oddball method of getting the pc to find the auditor. And to run any other Havingness in the thing is probably risky because it very well may not be the pc's Havingness Process. The pc is not going to get a tightened up needle while doing 8-C because there's a lot more to 8-C than touching the walls. But if you were just to get a random touching of walls and pat-pat-pat, imagine your embarrassment when you were getting the pc's Havingness Process to find out that that tightened the needle, which it easily could do. Don't you see? You follow that?

Female voice: Uh-huh.

So this is mainly an ARC Havingness. And you find this pc is finding his auditor a little bit roughish and — and he's getting standoffish and he's doing thises and thats and so forth, and he starts snarling a little bit. you run some of this CCH/Havingness and this really just smooths right out. Of course the pc's liable to smack you hard occasionally, but, I'm sure your shoulders could stand that. Okay? All right.

Female voice: Thank you.

You bet.

Yes, Jim?

Male voice: Nulling goals.

Right. This — you're interested in this tonight?

Male voice: Rather. Sensitivity setting

Yes?

Male voice: I'm wondering if we're absolutely bound to null at the sensitivity for a full dial drop or can we null at a sensitivity setting which is more convenient, which might be a higher setting than that?

No. You're — you're wasting time. Nulling goals. Here's exactly how you null goals. It's its own formula. One dial drop, sensitivity set for one dial drop. Null the whole list; null it down to a point where you've got 30 or 40 left in. Take those 30 or 40 that are still alive, copy them on a separate sheet of paper, crank your sensitivity up to 16 and fire down that list at sensitivity 16; you're going to find your goal every time — providing the rudiments are in and the meter is reading for the pc and the auditor, see? Providing these things.

Any other sensitivity setting or settings would be a waste of time because it'd be a compromise between these two things. And you don't want a compromise. In the first place, when you go down this goals list the first time, you're only going to find the goals that are going to stay in are going to be knocking hard when you first go by them.

Male voice: Uh-huh.

And after you've nulled the thing a couple of times, that knock is going to recede. And that's about the time you've got 30 or 40 left. And now, the eventual goal is only going to read at sensitivity 16, so you've actually shorted or scanted or shorthanded the nulling process. So you didn't have to knock the pc's brains out by erasing every goal, don't you see, as you went on down the line. In other words, you could do a light job of it this way. As long as your rudiments are in that is quite good. As long as you're getting ticks quite routinely on goals and so forth and your rudiments are in, that's fine.

Now. What gets in the road of this, Jim, and I think this is what you're talking about, is when this is not done from scratch in this particular way. You see, that has to be a package all by itself. You have to take the pc from scratch. So he wrote up a lot of goals himself and you finished off the list and you got the tone arm action out of the list. Then you went tearing down the list at one dial drop. And then you waited until you had 30 or 40 left and you copied those over and went to sensitivity 16 and then nulled those out at sensitivity 16. Then checked out — and then checked out against every one left on that list. All right, that's all stylized.

Well, we're continually running into people who have had old goals lists, who have had extended lists, who have had a goals list nulled out totally because it was not complete and had to be done again. All right, now we're running into random situations, see? That first one is the textbook solution and then when taken from scratch you'll find out it's terrifically workable.

But as soon as we move on and we've — the person's goal list nulled out, now what do we do? See? When it all went null? Now, how do we patch up this situation? How do we — how do we add some to it?

We've got people who have had a goals list, already before they came here, has already been nulled out. And then we've added to that goals list, you see, and then have nulled everything out on that goals list so that now we had to extend a goals list and we are now doing a new extensional line and that all nulled out. you get the idea? This thing is winding up in a ball here somehow or another.

And even there, even there, that is not going to help you. By the time you have had to add to a goals list — let's say you had something like seven or eight hundred and you had to add to that list — well, the reads are going. You've got it faded down now. It is no longer fitting within the framework of the textbook solution. All right, you have only one sensitivity setting that you can use in that case: 16. Somebody has missed the boat so, therefore, now we are dedicated to sensitivity 16, God help us all. Now, it all has to be done at sensitivity 16. There isn't any other choice. There's no intermediate goals setting for nulling that has any value at all. And that's for that reason.

Your first list, "a virgin" is sufficiently charged that it reads beautifully at a one dial drop. And you're going to get every goal that is significant is going to be reading there bright and shining, ready to be taken down to the last nub, you see? Once that situation has been overrun, spoiled, flubbed, now you're up against it.

It interests me why you were asking the question.

Male voice: Thank you. Because, Neal (if he doesn't mind my mentioning it) his needle is tight. Okay. And a higher sensitivity setting has been necessary for me not to need a magnifying glass to read accurately.

Well, he's not a stylized case here.

Male voice: No, he's not.

Male voice: Uh-huh.

That's the place to ride that one down. You'll have to ride the whole thing down at that to really get an accurate picture.

Male voice: Well, I've been doing that, hoping that was all right.

Yeah, well, you couldn't do anything else. Once the thing — once you have spoiled that basic picture, once the glory of that is departed into the sunset, you have the upper sensitivity and that's all you've got left. Okay?

Male voice: Thank you.

Right.

Male voice: How necessary is it to acknowledge after every goal? Instead of just the once after three.

Why?

Male voice: Well, it slows things down a bit.

Oh, it's rather microscopic in its slowdown. The original method of doing them was to acknowledge after three. And this acknowledging after each one is apparently — people have been doing it here recently. I don't know that it's mandatory.

Male voice: Uh-huh.

I'm afraid that I would much rather tear down a list. "To catch catfish. To catch catfish. To catch catfish. Thank you." I'm afraid I would. But then, I develop a considerable — I get up — I get up to planing speed on nulling goals and other people don't like this speed. They don't think a needle will travel that fast. They don't think the reactive mind (which has no time in it at all) can travel that fast. The reactive mind, of course, is at instant infinity, exclamation point! The reactive mind will respond to a needle as fast as you can read and the faster you can read, it will respond to the needle that much faster. But, frankly, getting a thank you in between doesn't add all that providing your thank you is right on the ball. Because, of course, your thank you starts the second you have stopped talking.

Male voice: Uh-huh.

See? "To catch catfish. Thank you. To catch catfish. Thank you." And you just use it for a filler. See, you put no pause in between, you just put a thank you. And if you could imagine the sentence, "To catch catfish, thank you. To catch catfish, thank you. To catch catfish, thank you," all with no spaces between the letters, see, there's no spaces left in the line and it's just all letters, you know, like Russian is written or Chinese or something like that, why, you'll get the same effect.

Male voice: Ron, if one did it that way, you wouldn't be able to glance at the pc on the intermediate thank you — on the say, the first or second thank you.

Why?

Male voice: Well, it's — because you're saying thank you the microsecond after the instant read should have occurred. You'd get the "you" in by the time you . . .

Female voice: You've got two eyes.

Male voice: I can't believe this.

Oh, I don't know. you guys can go on looking at pcs and having a ball, but I null goals myself. The speed with which you can null goals is — has a lot to do with this. And if you didn't find it very nice to get in the thank you or something like that, I should say offhand it was not necessary.

I've always nulled goals, "To catch catfish. Thank you." No. "To catch catfish. To catch catfish. To catch catfish. Thank you." And looked at the pc and gave him a thank you to see if he was still in the chair. And let it roar.

I don't know how many goals I can null a minute. But it is a lot. And I look at these pathetic attempts to null a hundred and fifty goals in a twohour session and so on, and I say, "Oh, let's all go to sleep. Let's let our arms and legs fall off." Because, frankly — because frankly, it's just wasting time. You're paying time to the reactive bank. What's the reactive bank, man? What is the reactive bank? Well, it is a timeless activity. It responds to minor and major thoughts. And why make it respond to any minor thoughts when you're trying to get it to respond to major thoughts? You know? And I don't think courtesy was ever heard of in the reactive mind. I know I've been in one for quite some time and I never found anything very polite about it. When it bit, it bit.

I'm not trying to break down any particular drill that you are being taught in this particular way. But you also are entitled to know that I don't have any particular patience with — with anything that gets in the road of auditing And when I do auditing I do the essentials and I don't do more than the essentials. And I get the job done. And you could really make it fly.

Speed, man, it's speed. It isn't courtesy. It isn't whether or not the auditor bites his fingernails. It's how many goals you get read per unit of time.

It's how many goals you get written per unit of time. How many goals you get read per unit of time and how many items you list per unit of time that totally regulates the length of time it takes to clear a human being. Nothing else regulates it.

Now, we start getting in the vagaries as, "Is the pc in-session?" trying to keep the pc from going out of session. All right, to a certain degree we can tolerate that. We had better pay attention to that to a certain degree. Because the meter will go null on a pc who is out of session. And if you don't get in your beginning rudiments you're liable to be going straight into it with roaring present time problems and everything else and your meter not operative and you've got a hundred and fifty, two hundred, three hundred goals you've nulled in that session and — oh hell, you didn't null them in the session, the pc nulled them before he came in, and that means the goal was in that bunch. Well, lord help us, man, you have now gotten yourself into beaucoup trouble.

So you want to make sure the pc is in a state of mind whereby he will read on the meter. Now, don't stretch that state of mind and push him so he won't read out of the meter while trying to make him read on the meter. You understand?

All right. Well, similarly, a pc who is being hit with machine gun fire is much less likely to have rudiments go out. My pcs don't have time to have rudiments, you know? They don't have time to have rudiments go out. They just don't have time, that's all. Keep them busy.

Male voice: . . . while you're nulling I've been asking Jack for some good recommended reading material . . .

You're out of session. That's why your list is slop. How do you like that!

Jack, wake up. Find that man's goal. Stop this nonsense. He has no interest in his session. Hah! Isn't that right?

Male voice: Every time I do something the middle rudiments go out.

Uh-huh. I just looked at it. The middle rudiments were put in, I think, fifteen to twenty times in one session. And I didn't think they had to be put in once.

Now here's what I talked to you about in the first lecture. I'm sorry to be rough on rats here. you understand? But, here's the way it is. Using middle rudiments to drive the pc out of session. Now, the pc says he is not interested in what's going on. Every time he says something the middle rudiments go out. See? You got that?

Male voice: Uh-huh.

Well, don't do that. Your middle rudiments are out when the meter's no longer reading. And that goal, then, is probably on the list. But I noticed that the list is 2.75 to 2.3 of tone arm action in 20 minutes, which also might speak of an incomplete list. Or it might speak of the fact that the middle rudiments — the middle rudiments, being rudiments, are knocking the pc in and out of session and you're getting rudiments action. I don't know which you're getting. You're getting tone arm action on rudiments?

Male voice: Occasionally. Not always. Usually it just goes straight through. Just say the questions, say the whole thing and that's it.

Well, 2.75 to 2.3 tone arm action says that the list is incomplete. That's too much. Furthermore, there are a few too many strikes on the list. A few too many. you know, it's nulling a little bit hard, and it could be listed a bit further, and you just lay off the middle ruds.

Male voice: Okay.

And pc starts to snore, kick him; and keep on going. He looks out the window, if you complain about his disinterest in session, say, "Get interested in this session," you know? Say, "Whose goals are these?" Got it, Jack?

Male voice: Yes, Ron. Thank you.

All right. Well, that is the — that is an example. Because I just looked at the folder in there. There was too much TA action and I said, "Well, there's a possibility the list is not complete." And then the other one thing I saw, too many middle ruds.

When your meter is no longer registering tick, tick, tick, you know, "To catch catfish. To catch catfish. To catch catfish," your meter hasn't read; not at all. I don't care whether it was at a one dial drop or sixteen, see, it hasn't read, not at all. Your ears should go up, flop! And then, "To eat gumdrops. To eat gumdrops. To eat gumdrops," not one single tick on that goal. Ooooh! This is probable that something weird has occurred. Don't make up your mind yet, however. "To run downhill. To run downhill. To run downhill." Not a single tick — except some random ones that you don't know quite where they are. You haul back at that point and get your middle rudiments in. And you'll find out if you do that that they only go out once in a blue moon — once every couple of sessions — something like this.

If you're suspicious of middle rudiments, put in your beginning rudiments and run right over into your middle rudiments. Put in your beginning rudiments, ta-ta-ta-ta-ta-tat, and put in your middle rudiments, ta-ta-ta-tatat, and then just leave them alone.

You actually can use middle rudiments to keep the pc from talking and make the pc disinterested in his session. That — he's just given us the perfect example.

Male voice: Did the same with me today, myself, I noticed it.

All right. Of course you would. It's happened to you as a pc. That make sense to you?

Male voice: Yes.

Yeah, have you ever felt all of a sudden like you were being punished for talking

Male voice: What do you mean all of a sudden? Don't blame Jack for this.

No.

Male voice: I was punishing myself.

Yeah.

Male voice: But certainly, that's true.

But there was a feeling of punishment. Pc will normally get that frame of mind, and after that you can't keep anything in.

No sir, just because a pc talks is not any reason to get middle rudiments in. And that is definite. See? And if a pc never says anything about any of his goals I start to worry about him. you know, pc's sitting there looking out the window; well, that's all right as long as the meter's reading. The meter stops reading, I get worried. One of the symptoms is the pc doesn't ever say anything, never does anything, so forth. You can't find a goal on a pc in that — in the frame of mind that the pc feels he is punished because his rudiments are out, he's ARC broken, the meter isn't reading well. Make sense?

Male voice: Yes.

All right. Okay. Right. I wasn't being hard on you, Jack. He thinks I was. All right. I was being hard on you, Jack. All right. Yes, Dale?

Male voice: on listing goals, what are the current tests of the completeness of the list?

No TA action on listing

Male voice: Well, how little is none?

There's a certain amount of drift. If you want to know how little there is — if you want to know how little there is . . .

Male voice: Uh-huh.

. . . supposing you were to sit there and say, "Do fish swim? Do fish swim? Do fish swim? Do fish swim?" to the pc. Or supposing the pc were simply — this — you understand this pc isn't Clear — was to sit there with his hands on the cans and have nothing happen.

Male voice: Uh-huh.

How much would the meter drift?

Male voice: Uh-huh.

That is how little.

Male voice: Okay.

All right?

Male voice: That answers my . . .

It's damn little. It's in the course of an hour it drifts from 2.75 up to 3.1. But that's just normal drift.

Male voice: Uh-huh.

See? Tone arm motion, lots of motion, is defined as .75 divisions of the TA every 20 minutes, within 20 minutes. A little motion is .25. No motion at all is what you're asking to be defined.

Male voice: Uh-huh.

Well, no motion at all is defined as the normal drift, if nothing were happening.

Male voice: All right. Thank you.

All right. Yes?

Male voice: Question on Prepchecking, Ron.

Right.

Male voice: In the new rundown, when you run the When, All, Appear, Who system, you run it several times.

Now, what's this now?

Male voice: When you're running the . . .

When you're running the . . .

Male voice: When you run the withhold system on the . . .

When you run the withhold system on the . . .

Male voice: . . . on the earliest incident . . . . . . of the . . .

Male voice: . . . of the pc . . .

. . . earliest incident the . . .

Male voice: . . . and the pc . . .

. . . the pc has now found . . .

Male voice: That's right.

Yes?

Male voice: When you run the When, All, Who . . .

Yeah.

Male voice: . . . When, All, Appear, Who, will he manifest something to indicate to you that everything in that incident has been cleared? Or do you run it several times?

You want to know how long to run this.

Male voice: That's right.

You want to know how long to run the withhold system on the earliest incident the pc has found. There are two questions to this. you want to — if it doesn't release and look like a toy balloon being punctured — you can tell when the basic goes because the rest of chain will go and the pc will usually manifest it emotionally. They say he-he, or they cognite or say, "Oh, well, yeah, hey, I never knew that!" See, there's a cognition goes along with it, there's a release of affect of some kind that goes along with it. They, "You know, I always thought that that tricycle was mine! 'Tisn't! I stole it!" You get that kind of thing. And it goes up the line and you find out that that's the end. There isn't any point in proceeding beyond that. As long as the What question nulls with it.

Now, you're talking about obnosis by the auditor. How long do you run this thing? Well, if it doesn't produce such an action, there is an earlier incident. So you don't run it very much. you run it just enough to open up the track to an earlier incident. See? You run it on the earliest until you can find an earlier. How many times is that? Well, on some pcs that will be three or four times. But on most pcs it'll only be once or twice. And then you're asking for the earliest, again. He's asking, you know, earlier incident. Oh, he says, he's really got the earliest now; it's at the age of forty.

You'll find some pcs go down this line sort of like a tent peg, you know, being driven into hard ground with a sledgehammer. You know, thud! thud! thud! you see? And other pcs, you didn't notice there was a crack in the ground and they went to the center of the earth. Swish! Where'd he go?

It depends to a large degree on how closely associated it is with the GPM. And if you're trying to pull something, right off the side of the GPM, you can expect it to go down awful hard. And the cognitions to be awfully tiny. And the number of times you use the withhold system to be numerous. But if it's a nice piece of free track, it goes boom! There's the earliest withhold system, once, twice. His tricycle all the time! Z-u-u-u-p. That's the end of stealing cars, see? And four minutes by the clock, see. The other's an hour and a half by the clock. You get the difference?

Male voice: Yes. Sure do.

So it's actually — varies. But it always winds up in a cognition. If it doesn't wind up in some kind of a cognition, the line never blows. Okay?

Male voice: One other — two other questions. If you say, "Is that all of that?" and he says, "Yeah, that's the lot," do you press for more?

No. That would be a double questioning and that would be a Q and A.

Male voice: I see.

He — you have asked him a question, he has answered it, that's a "give him a cheery aye-aye."

Male voice: Uh-huh.

Very often he'll give you these things out of sequence, see. He'll give them to you all out of sequence. He's already asked the question, at which time you're quite at liberty to omit the one he has just answered. You say, "Well, when was that?" And he said, "Well, when George and I went down to the — (so on) and I didn't tell you about this, but there were three Fords there and they all had false bottoms," and so forth. Well, then you ask him, "What didn't appear?" because he just answered All.

This is a fluid system. It's very fluid in its application. You always ask them, When? And sometimes you don't get a chance to ask them, All? And sometimes they gratuitously tell you Who didn't find out about it. And you don't ask them right after they told you because that's an invalidation. And they — you say, "Well, what didn't appear?" "Well, Uncle George didn't appear and if he'd found out about it he would have killed me; fortunately he didn't." Your next question is When? See?

Male voice: Uh-huh.

It's a fluid system. And it depends to a large degree on the cognition in it.

Now, I will tell you this about Prepchecking. Once in a while an auditor gets unlucky. He just shouldn't have gotten up that morning at all and he asks this perfectly innocent question off of a form and finds out that he's going down through the middle of a coal mine that the pc observes nothing in. He has just unfortunately hit bing-gong-bang-thud, into the middle of the GPM. He's not about to clear any What question that he has anything to do with. See? It'll just slug, slug How far south is this thing going to go?

Well, actually, he can carry it back. He can carry it back. He can get the thing to release. He just shouldn't have ever asked that question. He just knows that. It's too rough.

And once in a while when you're in private practice, you'll skip one. You'll wish you hadn't, but you'll skip one and say, "Well, there wasn't any reason to have really flattened it because it was impossible to have flattened it." You'll say to yourself, "Well, I'll come back to it later after we've cleared him," or something of this sort. And your pc then, after that, will get sort of nattery. And you can expect the pc now to develop into sort of a nattery pc and the needle will get a little dirtier.

Well, when you do this trick — because everybody will do it sooner or later — I've done it — just remember that's what you did, and go back and grind it out. Grind it out.

But occasionally it's just lowering one down through the dark maw of the coal mine. The pc sees nothing, he cognites on nothing, he can remember nothing about it, the needle is still firing, there must be something there, he is terribly occluded, you have to run the withhold system five times on making a telephone call to find out if he could commit an overt. You know, I mean, it's just gruesome, see. Grind, grind, grind, grind. Because, of course, these — some of these chains have — are free and they're on parts of free track, you see? And some of these chains are right down the GPM line, du-du-du-du.

If there was any way of forecasting a chain being in the middle of the GPM line, you'd never ask the question in the first place. But, of course, you have to ask the question to find out that it is. And then you've had it! That's the liability of Prepchecking You should recognize that.

In answer to your question, it's a variable number of times. It depends on how arduous it is for the pc to get back earlier and blow the chain and that's it. Okay?

Male voice: Yes.

All right.

Male voice: There was one other question.

All right.

Male voice: If the What question is still reacting, can that be one of two things, either you haven't got the basic or the incident you were working on is not yet cleaned up?

You could have a tiny, tiny, little forerunner to the incident which you are trying to clear up that the pc hasn't seen yet. It's always — the answer's always a former incident.

Male voice: It's always . . .

It's always an earlier incident. But that earlier incident can be five minutes ahead of the earliest one you've found, see? So we don't say how much earlier this thing is. See, it could be a thousand years or five minutes. But if it doesn't blow you haven't got the earliest.

Now, there's one little exception to this rule: Is sometimes the pc thinks there's an earlier incident because he's been told so, when there isn't.

Male voice: Uh-huh.

And you saw such a case on a demonstration. Pc was convinced there was an incident at age four. There was no incident there. Simply checked it out on the meter and told the pc so. After that, why, the incident at the age of six blew and we didn't have any more trouble with that one. Okay? Answer the question?

Male voice: Yes.

All right. Well, that's it. We've crucified enough for tonight. Don't anybody commit suicide over this. Because, let me tell you, you can't put E-Meter cans in the hands of a corpse. Therefore, suicide isn't indicated. You understand. As long — as long as the person can still handle cans and still talk and we still have E-Meters, the situation can be saved. That's something for you to remember in years to come.

Thank you.