Thank you.

Thank you.

Well, we probably ought to have a lecture this time. You've had that, but I haven't got anything to talk about. I haven't. It's a fact. Wouldn't have me guilty of a missed withhold amongst so many people.

All right this is what?

Second lecture, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, 29 May 62.

Audience: 29 May.

And now, the use of the Sec Check with the Prepcheck. It's been the subject of a bulletin recently. If anybody's got that bulletin, you can hand it to me.

Twenty-nine May 1962, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course Lecture 1. And this is a very good opportunity for you to ask some questions. And a very, very good opportunity for you to ask some questions.

Female voice: May 10th.

Now every once in a while I give you an opportunity to wish you hadn't spoken. Okay, what question do you have tonight?

May 10th? The — you got one up here? Thank you.

Male voice: What are the stable datums for doing a Goals Assessment?

This is the material of — it is covered on HCOB May the 10th, 1962.

What's the stable datum for doing a Goals Assessment? Can you keep the rudiments in on the pc? You must be able to keep the rudiments in on the pc before you embark upon a Goals Assessment. In other words, don't start on a Goals Assessment and then find out that you should have been prepchecking. This is the mark of a knuckleheaded auditor. This is — this raises one to the "Royal Order of Coconut."

Now, the easiest way in the world to do a Prepcheck is to let a preconceived form guide you into the overts which you're trying to cover.

There you are, "To catch catfish, to catch cat ." Dirty needle. Ha-ha. Well, "To catch catfish.'' Dirty, continuing and repetitive needle. "To shoot squirrels. To shoot sq - . Have I missed a withhold on you?"

Now, that's a very easy way to do the thing. Now, such a preconceived form would be a rudiment question. Let's take a — let's take the — an early variety of this sort of thing. Just take any one of the beginning, middle or end rudiments questions. Take any one of these and use it as your Zero and then just put "Have you ever — " type of questioning on the front of it or "Are you willing — " or "Have you been unwilling to talk to an auditor about your difficulties?" You see how you'd have to convert the question? "Have you been unwilling to talk to an auditor about your difficulties?" — something like that.

"Oh, no. No. No, you haven't missed a withhold on me. I . . . "

It wouldn't much matter how you worded this thing, but try to word the rudiment so there's little more span to it, don't you see?

That is the wrong time, see. That's the wrong time and place.

"Have you ever had a problem during a session that you didn't tell the auditor about?" I don't care how you add these things up. Do you see?

Somebody wrote me the other day — somebody who got a course incomplete here, by the way — and halfway through it, a Goals Assessment, had been able to straighten out the pc by going into three or four hours of prepchecking. Ha-ha.

You take your rudiment question as your Zero, you reword as your Zero A. Let's be very precise. You're going to reword this thing so that you get a Prepcheck going on it. "Had any trouble with problems lately?" You see?

What was this auditor doing prepchecking when they were supposed to be doing a Goals Assessment, see? They should have prepchecked it, got it all straightened out, got everything all smooth so that the pc's rudiments would stay in beautifully and then zoom-zoom-zoom-zoom-zoom, you could do a fast Goals Assessment and so forth. Otherwise you spend three times the time it takes to do a Goals Assessment doing the prepchecking that you would have done in one third of the time if you'd only been prepchecking. Now do you get the idea?

The Zero is "Do you have a present time problem?" Your Zero A is possibly arrived at after you've done a little talk to the pc or something like this, you know, just present time problem, "Do you ever get messed up with present time problems in a session?" you know, that sort of thing

So the whole criteria of when do you do a Goals Assessment or what kind of condition the pc's got to be in to do a Goals Assessment or any other such question, the whole criteria is totally that one thing. Will the rudiments stay in? And if they stay in — clank-thud-bang, in concrete — by all means do a Goals Assessment. Answered?

And he, "Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. Oh, terrible. You're never going to get rid of them."

Male voice: Right.

And you say, "That's — thank you very much now. All right. Now, did you ever have trouble with present time problems in a session?" That's your Zero A, see?

All right. Yes, John?

All right. And then you fish around. This question is hot. you see, that's the only reason you'd have a Zero A. If you've asked the Zero A, you know, you check the Zero A — the guy tells you something, then you check the Zero A — your drill applies, just let's — applies to a What. This thing is still hot. you know you've got a Zero A. Otherwise, you'll have to monkey around and find another Zero A, because that one cleaned up, don't you see?

Male voice: My question, Ron, would you care to say something about the expectancies of Routine 3 GA?

So you've got to have a hot, persisting Zero A.

Expectancy of. . .

Now, you start fishing around trying to find out what goes with this and did he ever do anything with this, and what's this all about and keep his mind on the subject of problems, and you suddenly see a dirty needle tick or something like this, and you say, "All right. What was that you were thinking of?"

Male voice: Routine 3 GA.

"Oh, well, that was that time. See, I had this auditor who was very unsympathetic and he just never — never would let me get rid of any present time problems and that sort of thing, and . . ." You know, lovely motivator sort of a reaction. Well, you have to remember to convert this. You're searching for your What question now, you see? And you have to remember that the question will be something like this, "What about lousing an auditor up by having present time problems?" You know — something like this, see?

. . . Routine 3 GA. Now do you mean expectancy in what you . . .

You have to ask What questions until you get a reaction. Now, your What question is tracked right out of your Zero A, don't you see? And there is your What question.

Male voice: In terms of Clearing.

"What about getting lots of problems before you came to an auditing session?" You know? "What about worrying about problems in an auditing session and not telling your auditor anything about it?" You know — that sort of thing

. . . in terms of Clearing How long it might take to Clear somebody with this?

I don't care what you finally cook up out of this Zero A. It's going to be something that is very applicable to the case. And you're going to test around on it until you've got — he's told you an overt; make sure that it is an overt, steer him down till it is an overt. First he says, "Well, auditors just keep giving me problems all the time. Auditing itself is a problem," and so on.

Well you'd have to make an estimate of how long it would take to — how long — what's the expectancy of Routine 3 GA in terms of Clearing somebody and so forth. Well, if you add to it how long does it take to prepcheck somebody up to rudiments in, see — rudiments well in. That length of time, you see, that's kind of variable. I don't know what length of time that would be. It's anybody's guess. It depends on the auditor to a very marked degree.

Fish up. What's he done with problems here, see? Get an overt action, get your What question formed, make sure that it reacts. Now you ask your What question; the pc gives you the answer. Well, the same formula holds, see? You got to ask this What question again and you're in the soup if it cleaned up.

Phil is in the next room so it's all right for me to tell you. But he suggested that I make you good and guilty tonight about this and so forth — because we did three and a half weeks of student-rate Prepchecking this afternoon. We were at it about an hour and a half, something — an hour and forty-five minutes. I won't — I won't shorten it anymore than it was. It was actually an hour and fifty-two minutes. And we cleaned up invalidations of goals, listing prior goals lists — any overts against, you know I mean, that kind of thing Got it straightened up. And got it straightened up so the middle rudiments would stay in pretty good. And we did it all in about an hour and fifty-five minutes.

You've got to go find another What question. Your whole job is you're trying to find a question that's going to hold. And everything you write down, the Zero.

Now, this just depends — how long is it going to take you to do it? Well it'd vary a great deal. Depend on prior processing the individual had had.

First, of course, your Zero had to be persistent, see, before you would monkey with it; and then your Zero A dragged from it has to be persistent before you'd monkey with it; and then your What question has to be persistent before you would monkey with it. Do you see? Each time — each time you follow this same drill. You ask the question which you have finally cooked up here, and the pc gives you the answer to this question directly — even though you've just discussed it and he's given you something like that. you ask that question you just cooked up very directly, and you say so-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so, and it goes plang on the meter.

Supposing — supposing you come into session every day and you say, "Do you have a present time problem?"

He says, "Well, I — something or other, something or other, something or other." That's an answer to the auditing question.

The pc says, "Well yes, I have a present time problem. My mother-in-law has left me and I'm — I'm being — being sued by my wife and by three children who are in college are all pregnant." Or something of the sort.

And then you say, "I'll check it on the meter." And you ask him this same question again. And if it's there, well, you go to your next step. And if it's not there you retreat a step. This formula is always the way you do it. See, you go back to your Zero.

He's got present time problems galore and so forth. And so you spend three-quarters of the session trying to get rid of the present time problem. Well, you are in no condition to get rid of present time problems. This guy's got problems, problems, problems, problems, problems, problems, problems. How are you ever going to get anything done, see?

All right. Supposing your Zero was impersistent. "You willing to talk to me about your difficulties?'' You're going to write that as a Zero Question. You got it on there? "That's fine. That's what we're going to check on now. Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?" Well, of course, it's one of the rudiments questions, so therefore it gives you a pat question to proceed from.

Well, how long does it take to clean that up? So that's an open question. You might elect to run Routine 1A or something like that. And run it flat. Right away. Well you've shot about twenty-five hours maybe, bang. Get the idea? So it's that factor — that factor, very variable for the auditor, very variable for the pc.

All right. Dandy. Voilá! This is there. You say, "Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?"

But let's say we've got this fellow up to a point where it's an "Oh, my God" situation. This one that just came out into the — got his toes just on the edge of Clear at the moment the auditor went south in a hurry. Got there just, you know, just ready to walk in through the gate, you know and looked up and the auditor had blown the area. I don't know why it was, but. . . Now, that history in Prepchecking, CCHs, Routine 1A and so forth is a long and bloody history. His auditor used to spend hour for hour, one hour in processing, one hour in her bedroom crying quietly to herself over the hopelessness of it all. Actually that wasn't the action of one auditor, but the action of about three auditors. So all of the tough points of the case had already been straightened out. Case would stay in-session beautifully.

Now mind you that you can rephrase that so that it gives a little more span — like, "Have you been willing to talk to me about your difficulties?" But, let's not go very far afield here. It's best if you just run it, "Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?'' and you get a fall. Or you know you consistently have difficulty with this, see?

How long did it take from there on? Well the first goal, I think, assessment — I have no real figures on this — but I know that it couldn't have taken longer than twelve and a half hours. I know it just couldn't have taken more than that. And the actual listing down to the first appearance of the free needle with the tone arm down on four lists on that particular goal couldn't have taken more than about twenty-five hours. So there you have what? There you have thirty-seven and a half hours to the first free needle.

But that's got to be persistent.

But there's this horrible variable, you see, up to this point, see. The ground looked like Flanders in 1917, you see. Everything was all smoothed out. And then from then on, see, very rapid. Careful preparation up to that point and then, gruesome as it might have been, then easy going from there on.

Now supposing the guy says, "Yeah, I can — found out I can talk to you everything a — except Indian tomahawks, and I just — just can't bring myself — I haven't been able to in the past — bring myself to talk to you about Indian tomahawks."

Now, finding the next goal — this is an indeterminate thing — but actually shouldn't take any longer to find that goal than to find the first one. So let's say another twelve and a half hours. And it certainly wouldn't take any longer than twenty-five to list that one if it took that long to list the first one. So, a very safe margin — you've got about another thirty-seven and a half hours. And let's be dispassionate about it and say that it's probably seventy-five hours right about this point.

And you say, "All right."

Then the next one, you couldn't possibly occupy this much time with it. I mean you couldn't occupy thirty-seven and a half hours on the third goal if you tried — if the auditor knew his business. And let's just throw the third and fourth goal and their listing into the next twenty-five hours — you'd have about a hundred. And I imagine that needle would be free, free, free, at just about that time. You'd have a hard time stirring the case up.

This is your Zero. You see, "Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?'' You've had it.

I'm just looking at one case, you know — just trying to give you some kind of a forecast on it — just a guesstimate. Ah, I'd say time to burn — time to burn madly on decent auditing at a hundred and twenty-five hours. Oh, I imagine that it would've just been time to burn.

But because this has already been cleaned up in the rudiments, you'll find out you have best luck if you broaden it for the Zero. Otherwise, you already got by it once, so you're not going to expect it to hang up again, are you?

So I'd say perhaps your expectancy on 3 GA should range — the length of time of Prepcheck and CCHs to make sure that the pc's rudiments would stay in — whatever else you had to do — take that length of time — which is very variable. And put on top of that maybe a hundred and twenty-five to a hundred and fifty hours or something like that and you've probably got some guesstimate of this situation. You understand this is a guesstimate, this is still an experimental procedure.

So something better: "Have you been willing" see, "to talk to me about your difficulties?" You know? Anything that you wish to put down. But it has to represent that rudiments problem and preferably has to give more track.

But at least this procedure does tend to lower the sensitivity knob, although I haven't had as many reports on that as I would like to. In other words loosen the needle — does tend to — and tends to bring the tone arm down to the Clear read of the pc and all tendencies are that this one is in there.

You check it now and you say, "All right. Have you been willing to talk to me about your difficulties?''

By the way, there's another process that is on the assembly line. There's another process that is waiting in case, see. It's 3 G4, as long as we're going into it. 3 GA doesn't plow things well case to case — case — you've still got this other one. This other one is all figured out, totally untested, just lying on the shelf, maybe never be used. A very simple process but you would find it harder to do than 3 GA and that's why it is lying on the shelf.

"Yes, everything except that." you got no reaction at all. You've had it. That rudiment can be expected to stay in because you broadened the rudiment, see? You broadened the rudiment one way or the other.

You find a goal and then you find a goal that would oppose it. And then you find — you do another assessment and you assess for goals that would oppose that goal and then you assess for goals that would not oppose that goal. And then — and then you assess for goals that would not want that goal. And now you've got four goals and they all tick alike. You've got to get four goals that all tick alike. There can't be a hair's breadth difference in their reaction and that'll be all the manifestations of the package. And then you list all those four goals and you theoretically would come out with your same package. At the other end you'd come out with your four items, which are actually two items. And that's just another approach to the situation and I've seen absolutely no reason whatsoever to cook that one up yet or do anything about it. I just worked out the possibilities of processes and that of course is sitting there.

Now your Zero A. Now, let's say it stayed in. "Have you been willing to talk to me about your difficulties?"

But expectancy for that one — the only reason I'm bringing that up now, you see — it's taking people normally about three weeks you see, to find a goal and now, you understand you haven't audited that goal. This case is in no better shape now, really. This case just feels a little brighter and with that case in that same condition, now, you are going to find an opposition goal. I don't know how long that's going to take. And then you're going to find a notopposition goal and we don't know how long that is going to take. And we are going to find a goal of "something that wouldn't want to" and then we don't know how long it'd take to find that goal. But I imagine you are up there to about twelve twenty-five hour intensives and you haven't yet listed anything So I don't look very. . . I'm hoping you don't find any way to misrun 3 GA, you see. That's the main — that's the main thing That answer your question?

The fellow says, "Indian tomahawks. Never have been able to discuss Indian tomahawks."

Male voice: Yes it does.

"Good. Have you been willing — have you been willing to talk to me about your difficulties?" Clang! And you say, "Oh, well, that's all right." Well, we're in there now. And now we're going to go to the Zero A.

All right. Yes, Fred?

And the person says, "Well, I don't know. It has to do something with uh — your — well, I don't know. It's just, I have never been able to — to really express myself, and so forth. I feel that you're down on me."

Male voice: Since we don't have a modifier now, how do you keep a Goals Problem Mass keyed in uh — if it — if it should uh — key out and you get a free needle?

Anything that you care to wangle out of this situation; it all depends on what occurs. Now you still want a very broad field here.

Well, all right. That's a good question. Since we don't have a modifier how do you keep the GPM keyed in while you are listing and that sort of thing?

And he says, "Well, it's when I start to tell you something — well, I just feel all suppressed."

Actually the modifier is only the label of one of those items which you are listing on that listing.

Well, your Zero, "Have you ever felt suppressed when talking to me?" I don't care if it's a motivator, see, because we're going to turn that into an overt. We don't care what are — those Zeros are that we clean up because it's not very serious.

Male voice: Uh-huh.

From there on, it's got to be overts for sure. By the way, it is not necessary to have a Zero A in all cases. You understand that?

See at — you were — you were oh, you're still finding the same package. You see, if you found an opposition goal and an opposition terminal, your modifier and all the rest of these things — they're — they're still just — they're — it's the same package as you were finding in 3D. And of course by listing each one of these lines, you of course keep as much of this thing pulled in as you are going to keep pulled in anyway, theoretically.

All right. Now, the person says, "Well, I — I just — just felt unwilling," and so forth. And you say, "Well, have you got any particular instant when you felt unwilling to discuss sex with me?" whatever he says. (You know, he says, "just unwilling to discuss sex with you.")

Now, the next thing that you might run into is the second goal — trying to keep things stirred up for the second goal. But the pc will be able to approach the GPM much more closely now because the first package has been whizzed up into space. And I don't think, I don't foresee any trouble with that at all, because you are listing a line which keeps it pulled in. Okay? Right. Okay.

"Unwilling to discuss sex? What about — what about not talking to me about sex? What about hiding sexual data? What about . . ."

Yes Jim.

He says, "Well. . ."

Male voice: The stabilizing of the Clear resolution — apparently — was a notice on the board that this was happening I'm curious to know what the procedure is.

You say, "You done anything specifically to me or have you done anything specifically to auditors on the subject of sex?"

Oh, that would just be going on and that would be going on and that would be going on. That is just more goals and more four lists and more goals and more four lists, more goals and more four lists — until you can't get a meter to read if you hit the guy over the head with a club.

You see, you're not going to buy anything or put down a What question that isn't an overt.

Stabilization is just more of it in 3 GA and just more of it and more of it and more of it because you're not likely to find this pc flying off into a keyout. See, because every time you find a goal, you are going to wrap your paws around every element that was part of the Goals Problem Mass. And you could probably look for longer listing, more goals to be found than in Routine 3, you see. Let's see, what was your question again now?

And the person looks at you and says, "Well, I — actually, I was being audited by somebody one time, and I — I made a play for them and they rejected me."

Male voice: The stabilizing of 3 GA Clear.

And you say, "All right. What about making a play for auditors?"

Yeah. Does that answer it?

And it goes clang! Now this same rule applies.

Male voice: Definitely, but uh — another question.

And you say, "All right. Thank you very much."

Hm?

You asked them once, didn't you, and they'd already given you this thing So frankly, you have checked it twice. You get this — this is a little bit tricky. But if you want to be absolutely by the boards — very pattern about the whole thing — ask it again and let them tell you something and then check it to see if it clears. And if it clears, all right — it clears, man. Don't argue with that. You've got to go back up to your Zero or your Zero A, and come on down — anything is still reacting. Don't you see?

Male voice: There's another question.

Supposing the whole thing wipes out and nothing is reacting now. Fine! Well, you've skipped it. Go on to your next Zero, see? Got the idea?

What is it?

Audience: Mm-hm.

Male voice: That is not actually a stabilization that you've described. Rather it's a continuation of the 3 GA process from the new — the . . .

All right. Supposing he says, "Well, making a sexual — I . . ."

Yeah.

"What about making a sexual advances to auditors — making sexual play for . . .?"

Male voice: . . . new preclear that you have now — you are simply running 3 GA again on him.

It's always best to use the pc's wording in the thing, you see? "What about making a sexual play for auditors?" Clang! You see?

Well, stabilization would be — the error in the statement, you see — if there is one — comes from the fact that you said, "Clear — the stabilization of a Clear." All right, the stabilization of a Clear would be able to get rid of the masses that were liable to be keyed in or that are waiting. In other words, you would get out of the road those masses that could scoop up this Clear and get him all involved in the bank again.

And he — "Well, I did. I did. My — my first auditor. I — I actually thought he was awfully attractive. Ha-ha."

Now, you see earlier Clears, we didn't have that much horizon cleared for the Clear. Get the idea? And he could pick these masses up. All right. He could get enturbulated, in other words, again. The GPM could come in on him again. But by continuing 3 GA — doing 3 GA again and again and again, why you're just shooting holes into the GPM and you continue on out the other side of it and won't find any, theoretically, you won't find any GPM now to key in, see? Because the GPM only stays lined up on the most tenuous impossibility that anybody ever heard of. The only way that can be here and in present time is so — is so fantastically intricate that actually sometimes — sometimes you'll hit a couple of items on the way through on listing and see them go pffft and wonder what was that? It's like releasing a — taking a string off of a balloon neck at a party, you know, there they went. Well, they can't any longer keep themselves pumped up. So as you carve into this mass more and more and more and get rid of more and more packages, you are actually stabilizing Clear. You're only getting out of the road things — to stabilize a Clear — you'd only get out of the road things that could cause the person to go unclear again. You follow that?

And you say, "Good. Thank you very much. I'll check that on the meter," if you want to be lugubrious and laborious. Because you've already done this twice, you understand?

Male voice: I follow that.

So, "What about making a sexual play for auditor?" and so on.

Yeah, it's like how do you keep an automobile.... This is — this is this kind of an answer, see. How do you keep a racing car stably going around the track? Well you take all the boulders off the track. Now, you've left on automatic the fact that the racing car will keep running In this case, the case of a racing car, it wouldn't be safe to rely on it. But in this particular case, it is safe to rely on it because you are not handling a machine. You are handling a livingness, a thetan, see.

"Well, yeah." It's clang! Well, you're in the Prepcheck business at that moment.

But remember that as long as you're talking about the word Clear, just as it implies, you are talking about something which has had the debris pulled off of it, see? You are talking about something which has been unbarriered, see? And this makes an enormous difference to the individual. He gets very close in a native state and all that sort of thing See what's wrong with the question is, is you are stabilizing a Clear. All right, that's fine. Yeah he's going to stay Clear if there is no bank to run into. But, you see there's something else can be done with this person. See, you can put another engine in the racing car or something like that, you see and you've done a different type of action.

"When was that?" See, he gave you the specific incident. You didn't form the What till you had one. "When was that?" "Is that all of it?" "Is there anything more to it?" See? "What didn't appear?" or "What did appear?" or "Who should have found out about it?" "Who didn't find out about it?" You see?

In other words you could drill this individual now into the reacquisition of skills just by the familiarity of things. Now you are doing a different type of operation and that is not doing anything to a Clear, see? You are going on into OT.

Your wording is varied on these things, by the way. you start using the same wording every time and you're going to be in trouble, because you're actually not listening to the pc; because these questions have to be adjusted to what you want to drag out of it. It doesn't require too much skill, but adjust this thing.

See, OT is the recovery of skills. That's overtly the recovery of skills of the thetan. And Clearing is just taking what you find and getting the bricks off the track, see. you haven't asked him to recover any skills. He quite incidentally recovered quite a few skills, you see, by unburying the situation. He'll come back to battery to a marked extent.

The person is telling you, "Well, I was trying to hide this thing."

But the state of OT is another — another action entirely. That is the overt recovery of skills. You've got this guy Clear, but he can't speak Arabic. Spaceman walks up to him and says "snob-snos-kerpop" or whatever — some space lingo of some sort or another that they used to speak. And he says, "Sounds familiar but what is it?" you know. And, all right, well how do you recover the fellow's languages for him and all that sort of thing Those are the questions asked at the level of OT, see? Just as OT implies Operating Thetan, you recover his skills of operation.

And well, you say, "Who might have appeared there?" or "What might have appeared there?" you see?

Clear, you just fix him up so he doesn't fall off the cliff every time he turns around. Not to minimize either state, but they'd be accomplished by different actions.

And the person says, "Well, I've just — nobody told me anything about it."

You say, "All right, get in that rubber tire and go round and round and round and round and round. You getting dizzy?"

"Well, what didn't appear there?" That's a very natural question. And he'll tell you. And then — and "Who didn't find out about it?" "Who should have found out about it?" Any one of these formula, see? "Who didn't you reveal that to?"

And he says, "Yeah I'm getting awful dizzy."

Doesn't matter what wording you use; it has to be appropriate. It follows these four things and you're saying them in various ways.

You say, "That's a hell of a note. Get in the tire again and go round and round and round. You getting dizzy?"

All right. You go down that once and you want to beat the pc to death, go over that eight or nine times. If you really want to get nowhere with Prepchecking, run the When, All, Appear and Who about eight times on every overt you find. That would be very good. That would get nowhere at a high rate of speed.

And he says, "No, I'm not so dizzy now."

It all depends on what your needle action is with all this. you can watch your needle. Now, you are not checking your When, your All, your Appear, or your Who against the needle. You're just talking, see? And he's just talking. But you've got an eye, and that eye can be on that needle. And if this thing looks quite active as we discuss it, we can be very sure that we are not on an incident that is going to clear.

And you say, "Well good, we'll practice a little more. Go on roll back and forth across the George Washington Bridge on every truck that comes by here this morning and get so that you can stand the atmosphere of the tires and run round and round and round like that."

And actually, it'd be all right if you passed over it twice and it was unchanging — oh, my God, you should have been off of it the first pass over, see, because you're wasting time.

And he finally makes that, see. And you say, "All right, now go out and get yourself run over." you get him run over with steam rollers and he finally finds out this is pretty good and it's okay. He can be more and more there while being run over by trucks.

Now, your magic question you use after that is "earlier." See? "Was there an earlier instant where you did that?" See?

And then one day he's on the Pennsylvania Turnpike, you know and he's practicing being run over and a big truck — a big truck comes along and at that moment he was sort of bored lying there, you know. He saw something pretty over at the right side of the road. I think the only pretty things on the Pennsylvania Turnpike, an ESSO sign or something like that. He saw this ESSO sign and he thought he'd go over and investigate it and he stood up at the moment the truck ran over him. Wreck on the Pennsylvania Turnpike. You know, something wild.

"When's the first time you can recall that happened?"

This is a — this is a wide field. Actually we know an awful lot about this field because we used to do this before we found out that the individual could get keyed in.

And now you can fall into your own trap.

See, it looks to the thetan that if he does these things he's going to get his head knocked off, see? Well actually what knocks off his head? His aberration, his inability to reach, sustainedly, is inherent in his own bank — not inherent in the physical universe. As long as he has a lot of aberration, he'll key himself in by indulging in such exercises. But if there's nothing to key in, he won't. He will just get more familiar with the exercises. Got it?

You've asked him, perhaps, for the first time that this occurred, and it was during auditing and he gave you something which had June 1950 on it.

Male voice: Yes.

Now, you know confoundedly well that there's nothing earlier than that. So you abandon "earlier." You give up the ship right at that point. Well, let me assure you if this thing is still banging after once over on the — that is so powerful as the When, All, Appear and Who — the thing is still banging once over, you haven't got the first overt.

All right. Did that answer the question now?

See, "What about making a play for an auditor — a sexual play for an auditor?" See? And it's still banging. You've got June 1950. Well, God, you're getting awful far aft. I mean, they — hardly even known as auditors. Heh-heh.

Male voice: The question was wrong in the first place.

And you say, "Well, you can't get any earlier than that," so you give it up. See? Now don't — don't logicize yourself out of business.

Oh, I'm not trying to make you guilty.

Actually, a little thinking goes a long way. It didn't clear up. Now, what anybody who's having trouble with Prepchecking hasn't gotten through their heads is the old, old, old Book One material about basic on the chain will clear the chain. And nothing works so gorgeously as this.

Male voice: No I'm making you guilty.

If you want to see some marvelous examples of this, they're to be found in Prepchecking And if a chain isn't clearing, you are not getting the basic on the chain. Actually, a this lifetime basic is usually most — a great majority of the time perfectly adequate.

I didn't notice. All right. Okay, any more questions? Yes?

So he says, "Well, I made a play for an auditor in 1950 in May, and that was when it was," and so on. And you're looking at this thing and it's going cling, clang. Well, now don't figure yourself out of existence and say, "Well, it could have been a psychoanalyst — could have been trouble — they had trouble with their accounting department." Now, don't figure yourself around the bend. Just ask them, "Is there any earlier incident?" That is the magic cure for all of this. "Is there any earlier incident?" You can't get before then, can you?

Female voice: All things being equal, Ron uh — if an auditor really knows his job, you know he's really — he makes no mistakes, what would be the fastest skill: Problems Intensive or Prepchecking?

Well, he drags up — he drags up May, or she does. You've got May of 1950. Ooo-oh-ho-ho! And when you've covered that, it still falls. Well, don't lose faith, don't lose confidence. You just haven't — this is the only reason you haven't got the thing clear. You haven't got the first incident. So you ask them if there's an earlier incident. See?

All right, all things being equal if an auditor really knows his job. What's the rest of it?

Yeah, there was a person audited him out of Astounding Science Fiction. They'd forgotten all about the session; session totally buried. They weren't called auditors then. They weren't called sessions then. This person did talk to them about it and try to get them to remember something because of it. Don't you see?

Female voice:What would be the fastest shill, Problems Intensive or Prepchecking?

But I really wouldn't call it a session. "Well, would you call it a session?" and so forth. "Well, wouldn't, no." See? And all of a sudden they give you this, and that happened in — sometime in the end of April of 1950, see?

I can't quite . . .

Ahhh! We go over this and we notice when we say, "when — " you know, why, we get action, but the action damps. And when we say, "Is that all of it?" "Is there anything more to it?" the action is much milder than it was. And we ask — we go around it again, see, and we say, "All right. When was that?" And do you know that there isn't anything happening on that needle?

Female voice:What would be . . . ?

So we say, "Well, all right. How about this incident there in April when you made a sexual pass at an auditor?" whatever it was — "play for an auditor," so on. Yeah, that's it. Everything is . . .

Second Female voice:Problems Intensive.

You come straight back. Don't go through all those overts They're not there anymore. You're just going to waste time, man. you got the first one — it's scrubbed. He — you is going to come right back up the channel, and you're going to ask the What question again. That is your next immediate action. If you've got the chain, that is it. There won't be a breath in that — left in that What question.

Female voice:What would be the fastest gain, Problems Intensive or Prepchecking?

What question is null; you mark it null. That's all the writing you've done so far. No matter how many incidents you got, you just wrote the What question.

Second Female voice:Fastest skill.

It's all null all the way — What question is null. The Zero A. Ask the Zero A. The Zero A is still alive, which is improbable. You've got to have another What question, so you proceed from there.

Oh, the fastest skill . . .

In other words, you go as far north as it's gone null, see, and you go as far south as it's necessary to null things. You just play within those two limits. And the next thing you know, "Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?" and there's no response, there's no action, there's no nothing "Have you been willing to talk to me about your difficulties?" whatever it was that you were trying to clear.

Female voice: Yes.

That's all gone; everything's gone; everything's fine; needle looks better; pc looks better; everything's fine — well, get the hell out of there. What are you doing monkeying around with that rudiment?

You mean what — what would do it . . .

It doesn't take a week to clear a rudiment. It doesn't take a session to clear a rudiment. It actually doesn't take fifteen minutes to clear a rudiment. If you're very slippery as a Prepchecker, you're in there, down the chain and out again with stuff that the pc hasn't ever remembered and was totally occluded before he has time to marvel at it. It's cleaned up quicker than he has a chance to worry about it. There isn't any value in it, except that you get auditing done. And you'll find out that you could get these things in fairly rapidly.

Female voice: Procedure, yes.

But you understand that a person — now that's just checking the rudiments in. you take them one by one and check them in, in this particular fashion. No matter how many What questions you had, it would be as many What questions as you kept coming back up to the Zero A and found a Zero A still alive.

What would prepare him the fastest?

Well, yeah, that leads to another What question, see?

Female voice: That's right.

Now you clean up a big chain of that, and you come back up, and you'll find that Zero A is still alive. Well, you better get another What question and clean that thing up. This is getting unusual though, for that to happen, see?

Ah, what would prepare the pc the fastest? Undoubtedly Prepchecking, hands down. A Problems Intensive is a sort of a junior grade Prepcheck. If you want to get where the case lives in this lifetime and clean him up and that sort of thing and if the auditor you are asking to do this is not very skilled . . .

All right. Now we start — start in on this thing. We are talking to the individual about exactly about those things which are absolutely pertinent to the subject of auditing when we are prepchecking rudiments. These we've got to have in.

Female voice: Yeah, I'm talking about skills here.

Well, the funny part of it is if the pc is living a life of secrecy, if the pc walks out of the session door every day and looks up and down the street wondering if the police have arrived yet and that sort of thing, we're going to find that we put the rudiments in on a Prepcheck broad basis and they go out; and we put them in, and they go out. Why?

. . . I said if your auditor — this is where this belongs — and your auditor isn't very skilled and you don't want to mess up the pc too much, you hand him a Problems Intensive. Got it? All right. But a skilled auditor, hands down, Prepcheck-CCH route. I would know no better route. I know no better route — that's why you are doing it.

Because there's something more fundamental about this particular activity than rudiments. Then we eventually find out that there is something wrong that would ordinarily be covered by some type of a form as — such as the Joburg. This is so wrong; never been discovered about the pc; we have a horrible time trying to lean into it — it's actually a hidden factor on the case.

Actually, I'm going up against the fate of the gods. It's almost impossible to teach an auditor how to prepcheck intelligently. See it's rough. Well, what do you think I'm climbing that hill for? I'm not climbing it just to get you exercise and me headaches, see. I'm not climbing it because I'm mad at your Instructors. I'm climbing it because you are not going to get there any other way. And if I knew a faster route up Mont Blanc man, you'd be on it! And unfortunately there isn't one.

You notice the pc that has this once in a while will get a dirty needle and then you can't find out what it is. And it's mysterious and it sort of — you get the case lined up and then the case isn't lined up.

I've been experimenting for many, many weeks, months now, with repetitive processes for just working around with Routine 1 sort of oddities and Class I And trying to get rudiments phrased up into various types of processes and so on, so as to give some lower scale benefit so that some auditor could simply run these things repetitively you see and come out at the other end. There's a lot of value to it, there is no doubt about that. you do a three-way bracket: "What didn't you know? What didn't another know? What didn't others know?" And you keep that up for a while on the pc. Or "What did — what have you suppressed? What has another suppressed? What have others suppressed?" — same phrasing "invalidate," same phrasing "failed to reveal," same phrasing "been careful of." You've got these various buttons and you could run them repetitively back and forth and undoubtedly get somewhere. There wouldn't be much doubt about that. And it's all very well and so forth. And I can take an E-meter and after you've ground one of those out for thirty-seven and a half hours or something like that, why I could have gotten there the first hour on a Prepcheck.

And this case keeps falling on its face all the time. Well, that's because there's an unknownness about the case — of magnitude.

You see, I mean there's — I have not totally concluded that the repetitive process at Class I should be skipped because it has some uses. But I have, to some degree, doing a comparison on the thing, not to some degree, but Prepchecking, infinitely faster providing you prepcheck. That answers your question?

Now, cases that go mad have simply got a number of missed withholds — if you want to know the anatomy of madness. It's the missedness of it all.

Female voice: Not entirely. Doesn't uh — by virtue of assessment on — uh — you know, on uh — the changes — doesn't that sort of hit the beginning of the chain in this lifetime instead of having to go down the chain. That's really what I asked you.

Sunday afternoon, Thornville, Ohio, was mysteriously, uniquely and suddenly on the telephone. I happened to pick up the telephone. First told the person that I wasn't here because I just didn't feel like going into all that, and — and it was a collect phone call. So after I'd put the thing down, it got to be a right-in phone call and they would pay the charges. And I talked to somebody that said that they had done some Self Analysis a long time ago, but now these days they felt they were going out of their mind. This girl felt she was going out of her mind and going stark, staring mad and insane and couldn't go to the organization or anything of the sort, and expected me to be on a plane at once and go to Columbus, Ohio, to audit her.

Now let me — let me hear that question again. Now I answered the first question. Everybody will give me that.

Well, this is all symptomatic of this and that and the other thing Although people do call me up rather constantly here and there and expect me to go to the North Pole to audit them, or something like that; I always say, "Well, if the guy is worth saving, he can at least come within range." I always offer some auditing if they'll come within range, sort of thing. But you find out when they're in that kind of a state of mind — this is what's very interesting — their reach is very difficult, and their departure from an area is very difficult, and the number of crimes they have under their hats are absolutely uncountable.

Audience: Yes, you did.

And if you were to take such a person in that extremis and try to put their rudiments in — psssssssss — you'd find their rudiments would go out faster than you could get them in. Why?

All right. Now we've got another question.

Because there's tremendous weight of unknownness, of crimes, of other things on the case. They're not related to Scientology or are related to Scientology. Now, the more nearly these crimes are related to injuring Scientology, the less you will be able to keep the rudiments in. Quite interesting That has a definite coordination. That isn't just me talking.

Female voice: That's right.

People kick the bucket on these things. I mean, there's nothing to fool with about them. We just had a doctor up in Scotland die just the other day, by the way. He had been calling me up rather persistently and constantly and telling me I had to go to Scotland and process him. I actually knew the man's background. Possibly, if it had been any of you, I would have said yes. Do you understand?

All right.

But this guy's background — he'd had an awful time. He'd been murdering people and doing other odds and ends and putting women into trances and using anesthetics on them and raping them and — pleasant, you know? His activities — now never kid yourself — the activities of people of that particular character are gross.

Female voice: In virtue of assessment on the changes . . . Can you hear me?

Now, I'm not maligning the dead, because he's probably already picked up a body in Scotland. But don't kid yourself. When they're — when they go spinny, you've got a wrastling match on your hands if you don't get your paws on what's making the case so woogy, see?

Almost.

I know this boy's background pretty well — I knew his background. I knew something about it, but more than that, I knew my Scientology. And I knew well, if anybody in his family could boost him up and get him down here, why, I'd happily get somebody to pull a few of his overts and so forth.

Female voice: All right I'll try and speak up.

The girl that called from Ohio, I simply told her over the telephone, told her sister-in-law, to write — sit down and write all the things nobody knew about her except herself and send them in a letter to me. See? So that when that gets here, I will simply say, "Well, this is all very, very interesting, and thank you for sending this, but you have omitted several," you see?

All right.

And I'll just keep this thing going, and eventually this person will straighten out. See? But don't be so filled with sweetness and light about all this sort of thing. People who invalidate E-Meters and have a hell of a time with this and with that and the other thing are actually having a hell of a time with something they've done in life.

Female voice: In virtue of assessment on the changes, you know on the various self-determined changes.

Don't be naive. This is not just talk — this is fact. This is fact. And just stop wasting auditing time. Just accept the fact this bird's — you can't keep his rudiments in — he's got overts. Just accept that fact. And don't keep knocking your own brains out, see?

You're still talking about a Problems Intensive?

Here's this dear sweet, old lady who belongs to the Cat Society and who is kind to Half Decayed Flowers clubs. See? And you say she's never done anything in her life. But you can't keep her rudiments in. That's the only test.

Female voice: That's right. The reason why I am asking this is governed by virtue of assessment on the changes. Doesn't that sort of give the first, earliest incident and that's the bottom of the chain?

Their rudiments keep flying out in various directions — man, they've been busy! I don't care — and probably the apparency they're sitting there with — and that's not in some past life, that's this one. And the apparency they're sitting there with is a — is a camouflage. Anybody that would join the Society for Decayed Flowers and Protection of Cats — camouflage.

No. There's something wrong with this question because changes, the changes he's had in this lifetime, leave you still with the task of a full Prepcheck. But they will get the chronic PTP of the pc and this is very pleasing to the pc and this is a very good way of finding out what you ought to prepcheck. But of course there is no substitute for Prepchecking See? You got your processes; they're not quite lined up.

They sit there with one flower waving on their Victorian hat. Camouflage, man. And you're probably talking to Mata Hari of World War II. Who knows? See? Used to kill partisans for the fun of it.

A Problems Intensive with the change assessment list that goes with it, you inevitably would do a case assessment on the pc. This would tell you something about the pc somewhere early on, you see. Now, cutting loose into a Problems Intensive with the change list and finding out what was the biggest change — the biggest self-determined change of the person's lifetime — gives you a very good place from which to jump off to do something for the pc. This is an excellent way to do it, particularly if you are not very skilled at prepchecking. You see, because you are going to get this anyhow if you are a very skilled prepchecker. It's almost — I wouldn't say it's not worth doing but it actually is to some slight degree a waste of time. You're going to try to prepcheck the rudiments in. You're going to try to prepcheck this pc so the rudiments will stay there and so everything is going to go along fine.

Don't be 90 naive, in other words. It's just a direct coordination — absolutely direct: can't keep the rudiments in — they got a lot under the lid.

All right. If I'm prepchecking in the rudiments I don't try to get the pc, lifetime problems handled, because I know they're all going to shift anyhow the second I start running a Routine 3 process. So I don't pay any attention to the pc. I just satisfy myself I can keep the rudiments in and let it fly. you see the different philosophy here?

Easy way to get it out is to take some broad, pervasive thing like Form 3, the Joburg. Take that thing (and it's got every crime known to man and beast on the thing one way or the other) and you clip some corner of what they've been doing. See, you'll take some — you'll scrape at it at least, see?

All right. Now, if you're going to — if you've got — if you've got Mrs. Gotlumbosis sitting in front of you and she is howling about lumbosis all the time on the subject and you wanted to find her lumbosis prematurely and that sort of thing — if you wanted to get this chronic present time problem out of the way and handle some little portion of it to make her happy — do a "changes of her life" and an assessment of those changes and get the prior area to that and prepcheck the living daylights out of that and find the fundamentals on the thing — you can burn yourself up, by the way, fifteen, twenty hours doing this — and you can drop a lot of worry off of this thing. In other words you've done something for this person's chronic somatic.

You'll notice every time you mention the word "rape," or something like that, their hair stands on end or needle goes off the pin or something like this. There's something going on here, see?

But don't make a mistake. You probably have done nothing for yourself or your rudiments, see. But this is a very good thing that an auditor can do. That — he doesn't handle his Prepchecking well. He sits there and he says, "Could you — willing to talk to me about your difficulties?" He gets a fall and he says, "What's that?"

And in that way, a packaged form is of enormous use. Now, who knows? You'll be able to take perhaps one pc and directly — directly put their rudiments in. Overtly. They stay in. you can do a Routine 3. Everything is going along swimmingly, you see?

And he says, "Well I — I don't know, I have an awful lot of difficulties trying to get enough paper clips, see. And I don't like to talk to people about that because I think unkind thoughts all the time about paper clips."

Now, I'm not saying the pc, the worse — or pc should be taken up in some other way, particularly, but you're going to get the next pc to that and you prepcheck all the rudiments in and they don't stay in. And you prepcheck them in, and they don't stay in. And you prepcheck and — and it's all like living in a world of hot grease. It's slippery. What's going on?

And if this is as deep as this auditor is capable of steering a pc, he'd better do a list of changes on the person's life and get the one that assesses the most and go at it that way. Got the idea? And well, now we're going to get someplace. See, we're going to get someplace with this pc because we couldn't enter in.

Well, what's going on is they've been up to things which in this lifetime would be termed, to be very understative, antisocial. See, it's not they believe they has been doing something antisocial. They've been doing something antisocial, for which they would be damaged if discovered. Get that? I mean, they'd be damaged. So, of course, they can't get off the withhold easily.

We might have to do it. I'm not trying to run it down, you see. I mean we just can't seem to get anyplace with this pc. Well the pc's interest — we know we can always get the pc's interest on one of these change assessments, you know. What is the biggest self-determined change in this pc's lifetime? Well, man, you'll find it there; it registers. You go in just before that and ask him all about the prior confusion. Get a list of the people. Assess that list. And you are going to find out where they hid the body, man. And that's going to be very interesting to the pc and that will be very interesting to the auditor and you've got blood. Give the pc a win, all that sort of thing.

They wouldn't dare say, "Well, I — ha-ha — actually accepted German marks all during the war to turn in the number of ships passing Point Conception." They don't know. They read in the paper every once in awhile, huh-huh, that they're still trying war criminals, you know. They're not sure. Their judgment is never good on these things, you know? It always looks to them like everything is still rigged and these have to be pretty juicy. They have to be pretty good crimes. They can't be mild.

But actually it's an excursion. Don't classify it as anything else but an excursion. It's something that you would do either to train somebody to handle things, or to handle the pc that just wouldn't confess to anything It'd be sort of in extremis and isn't a substitute for Prepchecking because that itself is prepchecked. After you've found this change — I haven't given any talks about this and so forth, because we haven't been doing it much, but you see it now on your class line — well, that's to give you, in Routine 3, a crack at assessment.

You know, one person doesn't consider crimes wilder than another person. The crime is the crime. I mean, that's all there is to that.

What is assessment all about, see? Well let's give you something to assess, because people made more mistakes on those, assessing for the biggest self-determined change of a person's lifetime, than any series of mistakes I ever saw in my life. And if a fellow can be taught to assess that list they can be taught to assess anything, see. So you've got — you've got this long string of people and we want to know everybody they knew before that time, see. We'll make the auditor make the pc list. We want to know everybody they knew, see. We haven't laid the stress down on this yet. I should be getting out something on it. We want everything. We want the milkman. We want everybody. We want everybody they knew prior to this time. We want the cousin of the school teacher who taught the schoolroom next door to the schoolroom that was taught by the teacher who was a sister.... You get the idea? We want to know if there are any more people in that area. And that will give the auditor more drill in milking down a list. see it's just a list milked down, that's all. You are going to bleed this meter for a list. Let's find out if there is any other human being anywhere in the world, you see, on that prior confusion.

One of the reasons you don't get anyplace — when you don't get anyplace with Prepchecking — is because you say, "Well, Joe," you see, "is much queasier than Bill. So then Bill would have to have much less crime on his background to be as nutty as Joe," see? See? "Because, you see, Joe here, he gets all upset. Let me put it another way: he gets all upset here at just the thought of doing something bad, you see? Whereas Bill, he's very extrovert, and he can do something bad and not be that upset. So therefore, Joe and Bill being entirely different people, you'll be able to get Bill's rudiments in even though he has done many criminal things. But Joe, you can't get his in because he is a — a delicate flower, you see? And he really hasn't done anything. You just, you know, it's just his — his — the feeling of guilt is stronger."

Well, that's marvelous, see. First you've got a kind of a Goals Assessment in problems. See it's a kind of a mock-up Goals Assessment and if you get it wrong, so what — it isn't going to do the pc any harm. And then we've got this long list of people and we're going to get this list of people and we want a nice long list of people there. We want 75, 80, 100, 125 people that they knew just prior to January the 3rd, 1938. Man if you don't think that isn't going to make that pc dig, you see. And that'll teach the auditor how to get some more people, you know. "Any more items on this list, see, any more people than that? Did you know anybody else prior to that time on January the 3rd in that lifetime — in this lifetime did you know anybody else?" And by God you will finally dig up the girl who knew the girl next door. you get the idea?

Man, you're just rationalizing yourself into a hole, that's all. I get any of these girls — there's a girl, lay up here in a hospital and died one time — I guess about a year ago or something like that. I asked a staff auditor here to go up and give her some auditing, and he did, and the hospital was so upset, crowded and appetite over tin cup, there wasn't any way you could even get to her bedside and she went ahead and kicked the bucket. It wasn't no Scientologist — just a local girl up in town. We heard about it and so forth — thought we'd do something. And didn't make the grade.

Just teach them to bleed a meter out to nothing and get their middle rudiments in. And every time they get their middle rudiments in they get the suppressions and things off, why then they find out the person's memory opens up and we finally get the age before January of 1938 so exposed that the pc thinks he's living in it.

Well, this girl wasn't even injured very badly. This girl was lying in a funk and was saying nothing Ah — fascinating. Now, you think this is because she picked some flowers in the town council's front yard? No, brother. There's something her family didn't know about her, and she went ahead and was leaving. And the extremity of leaving is kicking the bucket. See? And when they get too many overts and too many withholds, that are too antisocial — they're very damaging themselves — they want to get the hell out of there.

But you see that's a method of doing a parallel action to a Goals Assessment and a parallel actions to listing. We can find out at that stage. Because you see, we suddenly lost 3D Criss Cross to train auditors in. 3D Criss Cross occasionally somebody did lists, got all stuck up in the lists — too hard to straighten out, that sort of thing, so it had a liability so I fell back on a Problems Intensive. Problems Intensive has the same two steps. The problem sounds like a goals list and the assessments, so he's already done it and we can teach him to do these things without fooling around with the pc's goals — because that is tough.

That's all they can think of and so they die very easily, given the least provocation. Now, in the process of doing one of these, if you simply went and monkeyed with this case — I'm talking about dying people here with malice aforethought actually — if you went and monkeyed with this case and thought it was because they picked some flowers out of the town council's garden, and you went in at that level of expectancy of what you were going to find in this case, this case would be a corpse before you got anywhere.

In other words there is a process that we can teach him to do it before he does it. This is a marvelous thing because we can teach Johnny to swim before we let him go swimming And that's actually all the Problems Intensive is there for. Don't get it as a Problem Intensive — as a comparable magnitude to Prepchecking, because actually Prepchecking is how you would do the present time problem when you finished up.

See, you've got to say, "What is this now?" See? A kind auditor could actually — in this type of case, lying in the hospital — a kind auditor would just pat them on the head and say, "God bless you, because that's all that's going to happen."

You get the earliest incident on the mostest person that was involved with the prior confusion. You'd find out that'd blow the whole thing You understand? You'd assess these people. You'd find the one that was left in — I don't care what nonsense you engage in here — and you find out that it was Aunt Gertrude.

And of course, the guy gets out of his head and tries to find God, but that's another story.

All right, let's get all — "What about doing things to Aunt Gertrude?" and let's get this thing bled on down to the bottom of the barrel, you see. Let's get the earliest thing off of this thing This thing will blow up along the line. You'll find out that problem will blow right at that point. But they are not comparable processes, okay?

What's going on here? Well, the auditor has kindified him to death, that's all. This girl, the only way you could possibly have rescued her or snapped her back — if the medicos had built enough beds up in the hospital, you know, and didn't leave so many patients dumped in the corridors — you actually couldn't even walk to the side of her bed if I remember rightly or some such exaggeration — the auditor going in there, he has somebody who has a very, very short attention span, see. They aren't long for this thing Well, he can't monkey with it; he hasn't got any time to monkey with the thing, you see? So he's got to ask some pertinent question.

I didn't mean to answer so long, but there's some data here which I hadn't handed out. I thought I might as well mention it. Okay? All right. t All right, after that exhausting thing, you understand I answered two questions there. All right. Okay, any other questions? Yes?

He'd have to find out something about the person, you know? Is the person married? Not married? Living with family? See? Who is it here? You see? Something of that sort. He actually couldn't even spend very much time on rudiments on such a case. Don't you see? Because the person's concentration is withholding on a specific thing. You'd have to parallel what the mind is doing

Female voice: There's a rudiment question on end rudiments.

You'd say, "Well, where don't you want to go back to?" You know, "Where don't you want to go back to, dear?"

Yes.

"I don't want to go home. Oh, no, no. No, I don't want to go home."

Female voice: The last question on the end of the rudiments is asking about goals and gains.

"All right. Very good. What don't they know about you, dear? That's right. All right now."

Yeah.

"Ooo-ooh, ooo-oh."

Female voice: One of the last. Now, if the pc uh — gives you an untruth on that or an impress on it — it throws all the rest of the end rudiments out that you've already gone over.

"Yeah, well, what have you done that you're hiding from them? Come on. Tell me. you can tell me, you know."

Mm. That's right.

And "Oh — wow!" and they tell you, and they're out of bed and dressed and gone home.

Female voice: What is the best way to handle that? Just repeat the — the package after the goals and gains?

Magical. Magical. And of course, if you're kind and you go in and you say, "Well, you can confide in me. Have you ever smiled at somebody?" You know, some big overt. They haven't got the span or anything else, because their mind is straight on to the withhold when they're trying to pass out.

Forget it.

So you can try your pc's attention and you can throw your pc wildly out of session by not taking it somewhere where the pc's mind is concentrated. Now, to that degree, a pat list has a certain liability. See? It bores your pc stiff before it ever gets to his crime. So therefore, you should learn to rapidly sift the coffee beans from the chaff, with rapidity.

Female voice: Forget it?

Here's the way you run one of those lists. That's what we're talking about.

Forget it. Totally nonsignificant. First place it's not a meter question.

"Have you ever stolen anything"

Female voice: Mm-mm.

The guy says, "Yeah, I stole a penknife once."

Person isn't on the meter. I sometimes keep a pc on the meter. I did today when I was asking it. I put in first goals on a meter occasionally, particularly if I've got the pc holding the cans and he starts about goals. And I ask him, "Well are there any more goals you'd like to mention?" And I get a dirty needle. Let's not go into the thing with a missed withhold, if you please. So I get the goal I don't know about and get him to tell me that in the session. And the missed withhold reading disappears and the pc goes into session beautifully.

You say, "Good. I'll check it on the meter. Have you ever stolen anything?"

But at the end of the session don't weight those last two questions. Give them no weight at all. It's, "Well have you made any part of your goals, you know, for this session?"

That's your Zero A, don't you see? And you say, "Have you ever stolen anything?" You say, "That's null, thank you very much."

And the pc says, "What are they?"

"Yeah, have you ever drowned a waterbuck?" Clang! "All right. What's that? It's reacting. For your answering, I'll repeat it there. Have you ever drowned a waterbuck?"

And you cheerily, cheerily — but my God he's off the meter now, I mean, you are not looking at the meter. You've almost, you've made the gesture to — sort of brushing the whole session off, see.

"Oh, yeah, I'd forgotten all about that. Yeah, I did. I was down on the south side of the Brisbane River. Yeah. Yeah, I did."

This is the point where you are slowing down. Nothing you are doing now is of any importance. That is the weight which you give it with your voice and that sort of thing. "Oh, well, all right. Now we're, you know, end of session," you know. I mean, that's the sort of an atmosphere we have. "Well we can stretch now," you know. "Thank God we're over the — over the Great Divide now. All right, okay, made any part of your goals in this session?"

"All right. I'll check that on the E-Meter. Have you ever drowned a waterbuck? All right. That's clean. Thank you. All right. Have you ever raped anybody?" Clang! You say, "That's reacting. I'll repeat it for you on the meter. Have you ever raped anybody?"

Pc says, "What were they?"

"Uhm — I've been worried about being raped."

And you tell him cheerily, "Well it's so-and-so," and "did you?"

"I'll repeat that for your answer. Have you ever raped anybody?"

"And, yes, yes, yes."

"No, no. No, I never have."

You don't correct him. put no weight on it at all. And then you say, "Well any other gains you'd care to mention?" or whatever it is.

"All right. I'll check that on the meter. Have you ever raped anybody? I'm awful sorry, but that is very, very live."

And pc says, "Yes" and so forth and so on. Of course if you are really smart as an auditor you know damn well when a pc is propitiating you.

All right. Now we're going to go into it, see. And you say, "Well, let's fish it up here. What have we got? See?"

And I handle that. I have a special rudiment that I put in at that point, is I tell the pc, "You don't have to tell me that," when I see the pc is propitiating I wouldn't advise you to use it. It requires — it requires a great deal of sensitivity. You see the pc is looking at you and he sort of, the eyeball does a small corkscrew. That's the way you can tell.

Let's get a What question wrapped around this thing Let's get an incident. Let's get him raping somebody. Let's talk it over. What is this all about? Let's get him discussing the subject. Get him immersed in it one way or the other. Get a What question out of some overt.

And he says, "Well, I — I actually feel tremendously better. I came into the session, you see, with a terrible stomachache, you know and I feel much better." I mean you get that kind of a response.

"Well, I actually — I actually touched a girl once in a subway." That's all you can make out of it, man. That's the first chain you're going to have to clear.

I say, "You don't have to tell me that. How did you really feel at the beginning of the session?"

And you say, "Well, what about touching women?" or "What about touching girls?" Test it out — see. "What about touching people in public places?" Whatever it is, get something. This pc is queasy, see? It's actually doing something. It's touching something. All right. Get that. Clean that up.

"Well, I didn't feel too bad."

"What's the first time you ever did this?" You know, I mean, you've got the incident all right. We're going to chew it up.

I say, "Fine" that's it and "anything you'd care to ask or say before I end this session," you know, that sort of thing Then I give him "End of session" Tone 50.

"When was that?" and so on and etc., and so on. Fine — that's good. Boom! You know. "When's the first time you ever did this? Come on. When was the first time? Let's get to the bottom of this chain. All right." We picked that up and so on.

Two little kids the other day, eight and nine auditing each other. One of them really got the CCHs in. she used Tone 50. She was nine or something I put it in an Information. Wildest tale of a session you ever heard in your life.

"Well, it was actually in school. I used to get a kick out of pushing around my kindergarten teacher and that sort of thing Used to hang on her skirt and used to get a tremendous bang out of it."

No, honey, that's a matter of weight. Don't put any weight on that end of the line and you won't throw anything out. Your session actually ends, to all intents and purposes — as far as your determinism is concerned, you see — just before you introduce the idea of goals and gains, see? It's over, it's all over.

You — "Thank you very much. When was that?" "Is that all there is to it?" So then you notice this thing is deader than a mackerel.

It's a wonderful time to slow it all down, put on the brakes, you know. Start picking up your jacket and looking for the pencil you dropped underneath the chair, you know.

You say, "Ah, ah, that's fine. Thank you very much. All right. Now let's check this question. What about touching people? That's null. Thank you very much. All right. Now — ahem. Now, heh! Have you ever raped anybody? That is the question." Clang! Boom! Thud! Crash! Pots and pans falling out of the E-Meter.

There's a bit of skill in weighting You don't want a session to end this way — you don't want a session to end this way. you don't want a session to end that way anyway. You want a session to end sort of this way. Only I end them this way. Give tremendous weight to that "End of session," see. Really make sure they got out of session. You'll have a drill on that pretty soon. But that's all under the heading of weighting

"Well, I thought about it once. I actually considered it once."

Yes, it is perfectly true that the pc could give you a half-truth and an untruth, but if the answer isn't terribly important it won't make much difference to the pc either. That is a courtesy rudiment. It has no real value in the session beyond making the pc realize he got someplace and bring him to the end of the session.

"All right. I'm glad. Glad you got that much now. All right. Now. Have you ever raped anybody? That's what I want an answer to."

That's sort of like fishing a cognition — the old TR. You make him realize that something happened in the last couple of hours. Only you don't work at it. And in view of the fact that your — it could be pushed to a point of evaluation, you put it that way, you see. So it's got to be very light. "Well, did you make any part of your goals in this session? If you didn't it's all right with me and if you did it's fine with me," and so forth. "I'm not particularly influenced one way or the other whether you made your goals or didn't make your goals. And you make any additional gains? All right with me if you made gains, if it isn't — if you didn't make gains, why. . ." That's the atmosphere you see. I'm adding the additional words just for the heck of it. "Well if you didn't make any more gains that's all right with me. The world isn't going to perish tomorrow, so what."

"Ah-whooo! Well, you wouldn't really call it rape."

And then well, so we're all finished up around here and you've already more or less ended your auditor's report, sort of time we got out the cigars, you know, that kind of thing Then all of a sudden why you bead the pc with a beady look right straight in the eye and you say, "Now" you know, "is there anything you'd care to ask or say before I end this session?" See, this is not important, see. It's not important that he say anything You don't care what he says, but that's the warning light, see. That's five, four, three, two, you see. And he says, "Well, thank you," or something like this.

"All right."

And you say, "All right, now." Really fix him, you know. Here it is, "End of session. Now, is the session ended for you? All right. Good. Good. Now tell me I'm no longer auditing you. Good, that's fine." We don't care what he said. One auditor upstairs by the way got in a hell of a fight with a pc because the pc wouldn't tell. This was months ago. The auditor isn't here anymore. But the pc wouldn't say, "Is it all right?" he wouldn't say, "You are not auditing me now," you know, but said, "Go to hell." And it was — totally conversational thing and the auditor jumped right in there and tried to 8-C and Tone 40 this pc into saying it. But of course the session was over. The auditor has no control value over the pc once the session is over, you see. And the auditor was Q-and-Aing with the purpose of that last remark which destroyed the control value, you see. And the auditor went right there puppy to the root. I think she even hauled the pc downstairs and pushed him into the training office with all four feet, I-think, something like that. Most horrible squabble, fantastic, never saw such a ruckus in your life. Pc wouldn't say, "You are no longer . . ." Well, that's the wrong weight, see.

The doors are going to open on that one. Get the first one on the chain. Get back up there again, man. Clean up that "Have you ever raped anybody?" You really got the chain. You have got a thing knocked out, so you null it off and that's that Zero A gone. Shouldn't take you very long to do it.

Now, you see that — yes, very easy — very, very easy to miss this and I will give you a method of getting over it if you want to. Before you say, "Is there anything you'd care to ask or say," so on, you can ask again for, "In this session have you done anything I haven't found out about," or something You can ask for a missed withhold, in other words, again, just before that. If you are queasy at anytime during rudiments why ask for that. And any time you've got a dirty needle showing up or something like that, you can work that one to death.

Now, because this is going to strain the pc's attention when you're doing a pat list from one end to the other, you should do it rather — well. See, you should do it rather positively. You should do it well. you should steer his attention very much. you shouldn't be in any doubt about what you're doing, because otherwise you're just going to wander on and on and on.

But, if you wanted to be very sure — to answer your question very precisely — after you'd asked for goals or gains and you'd figured out they told you an awful half-truth and an untruth and impressed you and were actually trying to damage themselves or something and you could ask at that time, "Well have I missed a withhold?" Well this would get you out of any liability for this. They won't be mad at you then after the session, see? At least get off the missed withhold. And that's right before you ended the session, why ask for a missed withhold.

Now, in view of the fact that you're already not well paralleling his central crime — you're going to find it someplace on the list, but you haven't got it yet — and his attention is going to require an awful lot of direction because it tends to disperse all the time. He's actually hiding something from you, knowingly or unknowingly. And if he's knowingly hiding it, then it's got an awful lot of unknownness connected with it that he doesn't know about either.

But I must tell you that this would be unusual because there's no weight, see, to "Have you made any part of your goals and any gains," see? There's no weight to it at all. It's just a courtesy to a pc. This is part of our free service, you know. That's all. That answer your question?

And it'll be a tremendous relief to this character when you finally get down to that. But where is it? Where's the key question? Is it on the beginning of the list? Is it in the middle of this long canned list? Or is it at the end of the list? Or — you know, where is it? See, you can't tell.

Female voice: Yes it does except if the pc is asked by somebody who is checking his rudiments out . . .

So therefore, because you're checking — Prepchecking, Sec Check Prepchecking — a lot of dunnage . . . Although it'll be very important to him, it'll make him feel a lot better and everything'll be a lot better. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah; but there — it isn't right exactly what his mind is doing, therefore we have to do it rather well. you have to do it slippily, you have to do it fast. you have to be able to carve right straight in there and get right what you're going — clean up the chain, come right back up to the top again.

Oh, I knew there was probably an ARC break there. Why doesn't somebody pick up her ARC breaks? Somebody has found your pc's rudiments out.

I don't know how many chains of this particular character you could clean up, but I think I could handle any number of null questions. I mean — let's say fifteen or twenty questions that had only one question that released them, see, plus at least twelve questions you had to prepcheck the living daylights out of in one two-hour session. I mean, I'd consider I was doing about all right if I did that many — about twelve Prepcheck chains out. Clean — clean as a wolf's tooth, plus about maybe ten or twelve, twenty null questions — all clean. See? That's the expectancy of rapidity.

Female voice: No, to the contrary, but it could happen. If he's done — if he's . . .

Now, if you were doing it that fast, you'd be getting enough gain on the pc, you see, so the pc would be interested and in-session even though you weren't in the center of the pin.

Then you're worried. Then your pc's rudiments should have been out and they didn't find what. . . You're right, you're right. If I was having my pc's rudiments checked at the end of session they would never find them out, because I would always, just before I said, "End of session" or "Anything you'd care to ask or say," I would say the middle rudiment from one end to the other and I would knock it cleaner than a toaster. And I would say "That's it, man." Whizzer-whizzer and the pc would go out of there and so on. And if that didn't work — that didn't work I'd just simply ARC break the pc.

Wheeeee!! You know? Now, there's no monkeying with one of these things. You don't sit down for a Scientology career on one question, because it won't clear on one answer. You see? Don't take the next 25-hour intensive to clean up "Have you ever hit anybody with a pease porridge pudding" You know? It doesn't take that long to clean up man, I guarantee it. Not if you fish the What question into view, you see? Not if you get that What question hot. you get the actual overt; get a What question that matches that overt; get down that line like a rabbit going down his burrow, you know, and just pull that basic-basic right psszzzzt. The rest of it'll just go rrrrrrrr, just like a bunch of dominoes, you know? Knock them one brrrrrrr — bang! There it went out at the top end.

Now, does that answer your question?

You say, "That's it."

Female voice: Yes.

You can do it; you can do it. Actually, the patter that you use with it is becoming narrowly quite precise. There's very few questions about how you vary from one to the other and so on. you just do it, you know?

All right. Okay. We have time for another question here. Yes.

You say, "Have you ever raped anybody?" and then you ask a What question, "Have you ever raped anybody?" and it gives you a tick-tock, splash, you see, on the meter. You know? And then you get a What question that goes tick. I don't think you're on the right chain, you know. I really don't. I think there's something wrong with that.

Male voice: Ron, could you say a few things — words on the importance of havingness and the use of havingness in Routine 3.

I think somehow — usually something wrong with your wording, and you sometimes wake up out of a dream and realize that you're on a motivator chain or something stupid of this particular character. See?

Yeah, yeah I could. It doesn't apply to Routine 3 anymore than it applies to anything else. It's just the importance of havingness. A pc is going to start to have odd reactions if the havingness goes down.

You're talking to this girl. You've asked the question "Have you ever raped anybody?" You'll find out — you got to be pretty well grooved in or you get tired or something And you suddenly got this thing all wrong She's a girl, so therefore, she's the logical person to rape, so she was raped. So he gives you this rape thing.

Let me just fill you in, just to this degree. The pc's havingness goes down and you start to get physiological reactions, eyeball swivel, they notice the carpet and they get a theta bop, you know? And if you notice this you should ask yourself this question — why does the auditor say, "Look around here and tell me if you can have anything," see? And watch the meter. See, why does he do that? And if the meter reacts, then run Havingness. If you don't know this point, you see, that would seem illogical to you.

Obviously, he says, do you mind — missed withhold. See, it's a missed withhold. And she's never told anybody before, and therefore, it is perfectly legitimate and then you go on, and you go on, and you go on, and you pull incidents, and you pull incidents. You find out she was raped when she was one, when she was two, when she was three, when she was four; raped twice when she was five, six, seven; skipped the whole eighth year. she was unconscious the whole eighth year for having been raped in the seventh year. And you can — it's just going to get worse and worse and worse, because the pc is not being prepchecked on the auditing question.

You'd say it much better than that, "Have you had any trouble in this room? Are there any objects around here which restimulate you?" You do all kinds of other things, but not just run Havingness, see? "Look around here and tell me if you can have anything," and it goes clank! And then, if you are very observant you turn this tone arm down here from a 16, where you had it maybe a minute ago — and you turn that down — and you turn it down to zero and you say, "Squeeze the cans," you see. All right, the pc squeezes the cans and he gets — he gets zoooo. Inevitably if you say to the pc, "Look around here and tell me if you can have anything," and he looks around and it causes his eyeballs to move or his neck to go or something like that, so as to make that kind of an action — unless he's done something weird with his hands, which you should know better than to accept anyhow — let's just rule that out — the pc just looks around, you know and you get this thing going tick, particularly if you get a little sharp tick. Well, what do you need? Neon signs to give you the word? How come it gets a sharp tick?

The question is "Have you ever raped anybody?" She's a pretty girl. you know very well that pretty girls never rape anybody. Oh, yeah?

Well it gets a sharp tick because Havingness is what draws the noives — that they are having in New York right this minute, noives — very, very taut. It takes the masses and brings them down physiologically against the body. It packs this pc up like something that is going to be sold at the Safeway, see.

And you'll sometimes get tricked into one of these things and dead end. And then you'll come up at the other end, and you'll say, goodness gracious, you know. It sure takes an awful long time to prepcheck something like this. Golly, it takes a long time to get one of these Zero Questions, you know, and get the Zero A, you see — and then get a What and then just-just takes — what really takes time is trying to get all of the overts on that particular chain from one end to the other. And if you ever find yourself in that frame of mind, listen to what the pc is telling you sometime. Because the pc never is answering the auditing question if that's the way it is.

Male voice: Hm.

You've kind of heard it crosswise. You got caught napping

And this pc then, physiologically, could actually go like this and you're going to get some kind of a meter reaction. This is why I laugh like mad when somebody comes around and tells me, "Look I can make the meter react by swiveling my ears." Nobody argues with him. What we're trying to tell him is, "Yes if your havingness is shot to hell you can always do this." Now we could — we could run — we could pick any of you up and run you for a half an hour solid, "Look around here and find something you could go out of ARC with." And then ask you to "Look around here and tell me if you can have anything." And the motion of the eyeballs will cause the meter to go clank-thud-dirty needle-boomp-theta bop-crash. You get the idea?

You said to this pretty girl, "Have you ever raped anybody?"

So it doesn't — wouldn't matter what you did. Now, some people they just move their head like this, you see and you could get a meter reaction. But why do they get that kind of a meter reaction? Well it isn't — that is not how the meter is supposed to react. And the meter doesn't react that way on the bank — except when the person's masses are so borne down on the body — the GPM, man, is right there, see. Every PTP the person has ever had is sitting on his left eyeball before it'll do anything, you see. You've got these solid electronic masses which are invisible which are sitting right up against the body with no relief or relaxation of the things and this person is a bundle of piano wire, see. They — they've got him tuned out to high C, you know.

She says, "Yes, I was raped."

So, you of course tell him to look around here and find out if he can have anything is pling-pooh-bing, you know. Well, you are going to run into infinite numbers of troubles on getting meter reads and so on.

You say, "Good. All right. When was that?"

There's two ways you can do it. One, miss a withhold, but that's what? Miss a withhold, the withhold the guy's pulling back against himself, see. So you get a missed withhold. So it registers twice as much as anything else. It gives two ticks where it should give one, see. What's the second tick? You see that's just hard up against the body, that's all. see the person's got masses pulled down on him.

"Well, I was raped at the college prom. College prom, my freshman year."

And the other one is when his havingness goes down. When his havingness goes down, the guy just sort of wiggles one ear, you know and you get a thidth, you know, on the meter. You get this thing going tick-tick-tick-tick-flurb-surge-whoop-woop-burr-ba-ba-burr-burr-burr-ba-ba-ba. What the hell man? Why bother!

You say, "All right. Now let's get a What question for that. What about being raped at dances?" and so forth.

See, along about this time you say to him — you say to him, "What's your Havingness Process?" or something, you know. you say — by the way, you very seldom do this. you should coordinate this. When you get real clever at reading the meter you will see that something is going wrong here. There's one of two things go wrong The guy's got a missed withhold or he's got a very dirty needle and the last twenty-one auditors in the last forty-five intensives have done nothing but miss one withhold per minute, see. And he's got so that he's got nothing but a dirty, swinging needle all the time.

And you got — you got to figure it out, and you — a little bit hard to figure it out. And you finally get something that reacts there very well. And you go on and you get the earlier rape. And next thing you know, you're throwing your end rudiments out like crazy, you see? You just — pc is at effect. Got the whole thing backwards, but — I'm giving you a very silly example, but these can be pretty interesting.

Well, of course, this runs his havingness down which is the same phenomenon compounded. Or the person's havingness is down — badly and you'll get these interjected, wandering needle actions and they wander and they tick and they do this and they do that. The person isn't even thinking of anything. The person closes one eye and you're going to get a needle reaction. See? It's not a needle reaction, it's just an action. Goes click-click-click-click, wiggles his big toe, going to get some disturbance in the needle. Well why? It's a very extreme condition of no havingness. It's a very extreme condition. It's nothing funny, man.

A pc can really throw a curve at you and you all of a sudden realize that you're sitting right there square on a motivator, and this thing is a motivator chain and you weren't listening And that's about the only time Prepchecking gets rough.

Well, if you want that kind of a circus going on while you are prepchecking or while you are looking for goals, why just skip Havingness, see.

Or you're on some kind of a think, or a figure-figure base that sounded all right when you went into it, but somehow or another didn't turn out to be all right.

But watch it in the beginning of Routine 3. Now, this is what you want to watch. I'll give you some very — I'll give you one out of the session today. I was checking a goal, actually prepchecking, but it was about goals and things. Now, in this session today, it became apparent that the pc's havingness ran out. Pc's havingness ran the TA down. This is not always true — this isn't a reducing TA reduces the havingness, see. But it became apparent to me that when the pc's havingness went down, the TA dropped down toward 2.0. So I became alert to this and after the session was all over, after we'd done goals and gains, why, we did Havingness and some missed withholds. Sounds funny doesn't it? But I had noticed that the TA, when the pc's havingness was going down, came down here to 2.0 and that the pc's Havingness Process pushed the TA right back up to 3.0, neat as you please. So I noticed that in getting goals and gains the pc lost his havingness — for some reason or other lost his havingness, because it — goals and gains brought the TA down here to 2.0.

The pc has ceased to answer the auditing question. Is audit — answering something else. That's what happens to Prepchecking: It's that the auditor buys the wrong answer to his auditing question, see. The auditor asks for an overt: he gets a motivator. He asks for an action, he gets a think, see? And the auditor, unwittingly, at that moment goes on into that channel. And you'll find out, if you're ever training auditors, this is what gives you gray hair. It's grim, you know?

It was very peculiar, so I simply told the pc to squeeze the cans again and we got a good, broad can squeeze, see — we got that much, you know, huh-huh. I wasn't going to let a pc leave the session in that condition. So I just uncorked the Havingness Process and ran the TA back up and all was happy and everything was fine. That's all, see.

You say, "How could he possibly ask this?" You say, "What about being beaten by your mother?"

So there was — there was, right in today's session, there was something happening after the end ruds, see. And as far as running a Routine 3 is concerned, you start watching the pc's behavior pattern and you will learn what the pc looks like when his havingness goes out. You'll learn how he looks. And the pc starts going this way or the pc dopes off, the pc that . . . All right, it's a missed withhold or havingness, you see. They are both cousins, so if you are just doing a — if this pc's havingness — by your experience — you ran fifteen commands of Havingness and it brought the pc up to a dial drop. And after you'd been auditing this pc for twenty minutes, it came down to that much drop. If that was your experience, testing around on the pc's reaction to Havingness, you'd do the middle rudiments and run some Havingness, see? Every time you did middle ruds, run some Havingness, see — bang-bang. Well, there you caught both ways from the middle, you are not going to get this eyeball click.

You know, you'll see this as a What question. You say, "For God's sakes, man. How the hell did that ever get on there?"

There is just no doubt about it whatsoever, you know, that a pc can move and influence the meter by wiggling their big toes, swivelling their eyeballs, clicking their teeth together or raising their ears higher. There is no doubt about this whatsoever, but only when their havingness is out the bottom. So if you want to avoid vagrant manifestations of the needle, why, keep the pc's havingness up.

And you'll find out, if you coordinate them, you'll find a question, "What about being beaten by your mother?" is then followed by the remainder of the session auditing time.

By the way my record was sustained. There hasn't been anybody around here whose havingness has been found. Before he came to me his Havingness Process didn't work. This is getting to be an all time championship. I found another one today. Pc's Havingness Process didn't work. Everybody had apparently been running this Havingness Process, but it didn't work.

They found this — it — the session was between 2:00 and 4:00 and they found this at 15 minutes past 2:00. And then down here at the end of it, the thing is still in full bloom and isn't marked null yet and it's 3:55, end rudiments. And then you look at next day's reports, you see? And they start into this question. And you'll find out that when they give these motivator answers — these think, these figure-figure answers — or answers not to the auditing question.

Do you realize that to run the Havingness Process effectively your first squeeze is tested with this sensitivity knob practically off. Bring it down here to nothing, see. Now, tell him to squeeze the cans. Now they quite ordinarily and routinely will get that much of a fall, see? If their havingness is off they are liable to get this much of a fall and it's liable to go up here and then fall back, but not all the way and other goofy things. You understand? But it's just a little bit — maybe it's going to be an inch, inch and a quarter, something like this at zero sensitivity. Let's say something like that.

Say, "We're clearing Zero A. Have you ever raped anybody?"

All right, if that is the case this is the havingness drop you want. You want more than third of a dial. You want about a half-a-dial drop if you can possibly get that. If you've got the pc's right Havingness Process, you will get your half-a-dial drop. Your pc's havingness was there, let's say there, now, you ran the pc's havingness for a few commands and you got the pc's Havingness Process and it's a half-a-dial drop.

And we got some What there that has to do with kissing

You watch that. You'll see then — you see apparently you aren't giving enough attention to how much increase of fall there should be for the pc's havingness to be up.

"What about not wanting to be kissed?"

Now, don't think this will continue. This gain happens almost at once and then happens very gradual increase from that. So, just a few commands, see and bang. You've got the — well that's the last command, the hell with it, see and you are off your horse and far away, see.

Well, the auditor sitting there has got to be able to translate this right away into the proper action. Otherwise, he never gets a fast Sec Check Prepcheck.

But we've got to have a third to a half-a-dial drop with this sensitivity knob at zero before we can say the pc has any havingness at all. Otherwise you are going to get the eyeball click phenomenon. Besides the pc is going to feel bad. The pc will get withholds faster. He will suppress things bad. He'll do think, think, think, think, think much more quickly. Why? Because the ridges and things are down and the masses are talking.

Here's the way you go astray:

And if you want to really get masses talking, run a pc's havingness down, you know. "Run around — look around here and find something you couldn't have. Thank you. Look around here and find something you couldn't have." And the next thing you know these inert masses and spheres around him will even start talking. He'll all of a sudden hear circuits turn on, other goofball things start to occur, see, by running his havingness backwards.

You say to somebody, "All right. Have you ever raped anybody?" Clang!

So just — the answer to your question is when do you use the Havingness Process on Routine 3? Same as any other time when the pc's physiological condition is liable to influence the E-Meter by reason of dropped havingness. Okay?

And the person says, "Well, yes, I — at the junior prom, I — I was raped at the junior prom."

Male voice: Yes. Thank you.

You say, "All right. Good. Ill check that on the meter. Have you ever raped anybody? Uh-huh. This isn't clear, so Ill have to go into a Prepcheck now. Let's see now. you say the junior prom. All right. Let's see now. What about being raped at the junior prom? What about being raped at dances? What about being raped by young men at dances? That seems to register well."

All right. Okay, that's it. Take a break.

And all of a sudden, you say — I hope you will say to yourself, if you get that far — "What the hell am I doing"

Thank you. Thank you.

"Say, what was the answer to that question?" Oh, come off of it. "Look, look, you didn't answer my auditing question in the first place. Look, have you ever raped anybody? That is the answer I want. I want — and you gave me some other answer. I'm sorry, but we've got to go back and pick it up."

You know, you'd have to do it in order to get your end rudiment in.

"Now, look. Listen, listen carefully. Have you ever raped anybody?"

"No." No reaction.

You say, "Good. Thank you. I'll check that. Have you ever raped anybody?" No reaction.

All right. Well, on to the next question.

You see, it's corny mistakes, actually, that get you into these fixes, and then you think Prepchecking, Sec Checking, goes on forever but actually the mistakes are quite corny. And you go back and you laugh at yourself.

I know the early times when I was doing some Prepchecking, working out Prepchecking, I mean, I got some outrageously weird cross-steers some . . .

In the first place, while you are still learning your tools, you feel like an Indian juggler on the stage, you see, whose nearest rival has covered the whole stage with little round sticks. And there you are, you see? And you're learning your procedure and that sort of thing and you just don't hear these things as they go by. And you form this opinion that Sec Check, Prepchecking kind of takes forever and takes a long time. And your training pattern then becomes that this is a very slow action.

So you say, "Well, have you ever stolen anything"

And the fellow says, "Well, I stole a clock once. I stole a clock once from my brother."

And you say, "All right. Thank you very much. I'll check it on the meter. Have you ever stolen anything? That still reacts. Thank you very much. All right, you said you stole a clock once from your brother. When do you suppose that was?"

"Back in the fe-."

"Oh. All right. Now let's see, what could that be about? Let's see, 'What about stealing clocks?" What about stealing things from your brother?" What about stealing things from your brother?' That'll — pretty good — heh-heh-haha — pretty good, there's the original read. All right. Thank you very much. All right. Now, when was that? All right. Anything else you'd care to say about that? All right. What didn't appear there? Okay, thank you. All right, who didn't find out about it? Oh, all right. Thank you very much. Now, is there an earlier one on that chain? Earlier — earlier than that?"

"On what chain?"

"Stealing things from your brother. Is there any earlier time you've stolen anything from your brother?"

"Stolen anything from my brother? Stolen anything from my brother? Oh — oh yes! Yes, as a matter of fact. As a matter of fact, yes, we were — when we were thirty, I borrowed his car one day and he said it was stealing, but it wasn't. I sold it I know, but actually he . . ."

"All right. When was that? Is that all there is to it? All right. What didn't appear there?"

Well, cripe! Thirty — you know this thing is going back there, man.

All right. Work it over. Work it over. Buy it. Give it the dignity of it. "All right. Who didn't find out about that? All right. Thank you very much. Good enough. Were you and your brother together when you were kids?"

"Oh, yeah. I suppose so. Yeah. Oh, yeah, yeah. Big occlusions in the area, but we were together when we were kids."

"All right. What did you steal from your brother when you were kids?"

"Oh. He used to pick on me a lot!"

"Good. All right. That's fine. That's — that's good. But what did you — I'll repeat that. Now, what did you steal from your brother when you were kids?"

"Nothing actually. I didn't — I never developed the habit until he stole . . ."

"Good. Thank you. What did you steal from your brother when you were kids?"

"Whew! I stole my mother's affection from him. That's what I did." "Good. All right. Thank you. All right. All right. That — that's okay. When was it? And so forth. When was it? All right. That's good. Good, that's now all right. Okay. Now is there anything earlier than that?"

"You can't get any earlier than that."

"Well, why can't you get any earlier . . .?"

"Well, we were both eight."

"Oh, I think we can find something earlier than that." And all of a sudden, well, this comes up at five he used to... His brother was smaller than him — and you've all this time had the idea that the brother, you see, was years older. But actually the brother is years younger. See? Suddenly, he gets this straight. Cognition — you see?

And you find out that he used to tell his little brother that ice cream was poison, that meat was poison, that dessert was poison and where his mother came in, was telling him that his mother was always trying to poison him, and befriending him by eating the food for him.

And he just never remembered this. And you can see that thing just fade out; the pc square around. You ask some question about it, you know? It's just deader than a mackerel. You come right back up there. "What about stealing things from your brother?" You know? Null. "Have you ever stolen anything" Null.

Fine. Clang! You're out of there, man, and you're on to the races. But actually, it shouldn't take you any longer to get that out of the pc than it took me to tell you and that was three minutes. See?

You're driving a pc — if you're not sitting there just going along for the ride, if you got your hands somewhere near the wheel — I don't absolutely insist at first that the auditor run the session. We like to sneak up on it and get him up to a point, well, where the session actually gets some control.

But, if you're sitting there right, with your hands on the wheel, you have that guy back down the track and snap that thing out of there and get the pc back up the line again. And that question nulls so fast, he hardly knows what has happened, except he suddenly feels so much better.

"Any goals or gains?"

"Yes, for some reason or other, I've — you know, I've always had this feeling like I've been poisoned. That's very funny. I don't have that feeling now. Yeah, that's some gain. Must have been something in the session that had something to do with that." Sometimes when you're in private practice, they call you up at twelve o'clock at night saying, "I just remembered. It's because I was trying to tell my brother I was keeping him from being poisoned, that I felt being poisoned."

"Thank you. Thank you very much."

Well, there's your Sec Check, Prepcheck rundown. I tried to give you some idea of — rather than an example of doing it and so forth — I'm trying to give you the feel of it — trying to show you where to push, the pressure to put on the thing, and so on. And canned lists of predetermined overts of one kind or another are of tremendous use. Don't minimize their use, because they serape up areas that the pc is trying desperately to avoid. And because they are a generally formalized — formulized thing that contain all that particular type of thing that would be considered reprehensible in this lifetime, then they scare up an awful lot of material and lay it in your lap and generally will come into some collision course with what the pc is trying to suppress.

You get one of these things done, get this thing done very well; you go back; you put your rudiments in; all of a sudden — with a Prepcheck, see, you prepcheck your rudiments in now — you'll find out they go in quite easily. That pc is very happy about the whole thing and they will stay in. Now you can move over into a Routine 3-type process and you are all set.

But unless you get up some of that stuff, you'll find out the pc just kind of keeps spinning, and he gets up and he falls flat on his face, and he gets up and he falls flat on his face, and so on.

Now, if you've gone over a lot of these things, your case repair, your checkout and so forth is to go over the same list of What questions. I must tell you this.

When you check up to find out if some auditor knew his business on a canned Prepcheck, look over the What questions. Do not look over the Zero A's. That's quite important. The Instructor or you or something, when you're trying to check up to find out whether or not the auditor cleared this up, don't look over the Zero A's, look over only the Whats. Check up only the Whats in Prepchecking. Never check — when you — just like when you're checking somebody's rudiments — never check somebody's Zero A's. Why? Because the process of Prepchecking increases the person's responsibility.

So if you checked Form 3 again, the questions consisting of Form 3, of course, there are many of them going to be alive, because they came alive because of the improved responsibility of a pc.

Well, why were you prepchecking the pc, see? To improve his responsibility. But what won't come alive are the What questions you've nulled. So you always check the What questions.

And if you find one of those out, why, really start chewing on the auditor. If he's gone on and left the What question live, he has sinned, because the pc's returning responsibility does not come up and revivify that What question. Do you follow that? And that's what you check. That's the only way you check out an auditor's ability to Prepcheck — is check his What questions, never his Zero A's — and you'll find out this will work rather like a dream.

If you checked his Zero A's, the increased responsibility of the pc will show them to be alive, when actually at the time he went over them, they were quite flat. And that's how you keep from hanging somebody falsely.

Now you check somebody's rudiments, of course, after they have had a whale of a session and if the rudiments are checked for the session, they are just in — for that session they just now had — the scale of improvement and increased responsibility of the pc is more or less on a plane, and you'll find out those things will be in. They'll be in for that session if they're checked right after that session.

If you want to have some fun sometime, start — and get really mad at early auditors, check the (quote) rudiments (unquote) or absence of them of very early auditors. Because, of course, the gain of the pc in the interim knocks the action and attitude and responsibility of the earlier sessions out of gear. It won't happen for the session we've just had this last day or so.

But you ask him if he had a missed withhold. He's liable to make a total mistake. He's liable to tell you yes, he had a missed withhold from that auditor. Whereas at the actual fact, the actual time he was being audited, he didn't consider it a withhold and he didn't consider it an overt, but he does now. you see the trickiness involved in all this. Okay?

Audience: Yes.

But you can develop a lot of speed with this, and you can get a tremendous number of results with this. you can make people really shine. These results am just as you see, that a What question remains null, these gains stay stable with the pc. It takes quite a bit to knock out a Prepcheck gain.

So anyway, there is how you Prepcheck and Sec Check, and I hope you'll be able to make use of it.

We're overtime again.

Thank you very much. Good night.