Thank you.

All right. This is lecture two, July 17 AD 12, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course and this — easiest thing to do is to give you a lecture, but I might give you a question period. Which do you want?

Audience: Lecture.

You want a lecture?

Audience: Yes.

All right. I’ll go on and give you a lecture on the subject of ARC breaks and their anatomy. The training of metering is probably the hardest hump to cross in the absence of proper educational aids. During World War II an enormous number of visual aids were developed and the whole principle of visual aids sort of moved into view.

▼ [applause] Thank you.

And at one time or another in Scientology, we’ve had visual aids of one kind or another, but the biggest need at the present moment is a visual aid which parades out meter reads. And we’re lucky here at Saint Hill having a TV closed circuit television. And this assists to a remarkable degree and of course, tomorrow night three luckless students whose names are not yet known will benefit us with some sessions.

▼ Well I just gave all the instructors infraction sheets, so you should be very cheerful. They get on this stuck flow, you know. They keep giving them out and giving them out, and they get to a point where if you don't give them a few, why they'll snap terminals.

I wouldn’t guarantee that they — that we won’t get a repeat of one or two of last, you know. I saw they were — I just looked over and saw they were feeling comfortable.

▼ Well, good to see you. A few of you look like you'll survive - no great percentage.

Now, because one television camera is posed on the meter which the auditor is using and another one on the session and because you have a picture of the thing going on, you have it pretty well taped. You can sit there and you can watch it and so forth.

And this is what? This is the 17th?

But of course, that’s for a limited period of time. And although — to give you very sharp examples of how auditing is done, this is invaluable.

Audience: 17th.

We nevertheless need an extension of that particular type of training. We’re working right now on stereo equipment whereby one side of the tape is used to duplicate a meter read and the other side of the tape gives you the vocal. And then you hook the meter, you see, onto the meter-read-stereo line and then you hook a speaker onto the verbal side and, of course, you get coordinated meter reading. Estimate was given me the last night that we’ll probably have this in a couple of weeks, which is very, very rapid.

17th July, A.D. 12, first lecture, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course.

This device of course, is exportable. By using the same stereo tape recorder and by copying the tapes on stereo recorders, we can actually put these tapes all over the world. In other words, we can put proper sessioning all over the world. Our sessioning now is very standardized in that it’s a very smooth workout of repetitive commands and that sort of thing. And no great changes are expected in that, so the tapes will be valuable.

▼ We have three new students here this evening - John Morrised, stand up! And long time FCDC DofP - Wayne Rowar. And somebody whose been in telexes from London since lord knows when - Nicki Mendoza.

But the idea is that you’d have a number of auditors sitting there each one — this is the ne plus ultra. I’ll expand the idea a little bit for you.

Okay. Well, nothing much to talk to you about tonight. You're all straightened out on everything and got it all taped. And I'm glad to see that. I'm glad to see that. As soon as you get some glasses and some magnifying glasses, there's some possibility - there's some possibility - that your focal distance can coincide with the point of the needle. So don't despair. Don't despair.

Of course, you could have one stereo tape recorder and one meter and one auditor being trained. But last night we were going into it a little bit further here, the auditor could push a button and get some help and the guy who was monitoring all the co-audit sessions could throw a switch and read the meter on the session that was going forward and so forth.

Mary Sue had a speed flash system going. They teach them how to read in the United States these days with a flash system. You throw a shutter and it gives you a hundredth of a second - two words at a hundredth of a second. And you're supposed to be able to read those in that hundredth of a second, and so forth. And everybody flunked it.

But a similar circuit to this probably will eventually be worked out whereby several meters can be plugged into a switchboard and will all read and where you either have a microphone to each of these auditors sitting there holding one of these meters or you just have a central microphone in the room, whatever is simplest.

So, we're making some progress. We're making some progress. At least we know now people can't see. That's development.

And this thing of course, makes all the meters read, so you’re not butchering up some pc. The problem is you got some pc who is sitting there and you’re asking him questions; you’re not clearing it up and all that sort of thing and the pc knows it’s sort of a test and so on.

All right. Let's look at something very banal - something you know all about. You can relax your mind. Let's look at the subject of E- Meter reading and ARC breaks, relationship between.

Nevertheless, a little bit of strain goes on the thing and I imagine before now you’ve probably had to clean up some of these practice sessions when you’re actually in the auditing section. I imagine you’ve picked a few of those things up.

Model Session, June 23rd, A.D. 12, as amended (amended by the havingness being dropped out of the beginning rud), gives us a weapon which exposes all else. As soon as we use that Model Session and repetitive rudiments - repetitive beginning rudiments - and repetitive Prepchecking, we've actually stripped the technology down to a very easy and very positive performance. It's very easy to do these things. They're not involved, you're not worrying about having to form What questions, you're not worrying about this and that. Actually, there are plenty of forms around to give you Zero questions for this pc and that. And you yourself, dreaming up what might be wrong with the pc, can also dream up lists of Zero questions for some particular pc, which you should be able to do.

And that’s rather hard. Particularly since TR 1 tends to be very poor at that particular stage because the auditor really doesn’t want to know the answer. He’s asking the guinea pig pc, you see, who is not a pc at all, various questions in order to get a meter read, not to get the answer from the pc. So this, of course, throws TR 1 and its basic fundamental completely out. It’s — TR 1 is the desire to get a response from the pc. And you want a meter response from the pc, but you really don’t want to know. you get the idea? So this really crosses up the wires on the poor pc.

And the culmination of all that is the eradication of technical variables. And there's nothing there in the Model Session or its procedure or anything connected with what you are doing verbally, and so forth, with the pc, that is open to very much question. Oh, you can argue around as to whether or not you get in the end - the middle ruds by repetitive check or by fast check before you check the Zero. And you can contend that if the middle ruds were clean, then you shouldn't have to recheck the Zero, which you should do - you should recheck the Zero always.

Nevertheless, I imagine this system of instruction will continue on to the end of time. Here and there you will still have nothing but that system of instruction, you see.

A lot of questions can come up, but frankly none of these things are capable or susceptible to ARC breaks - capable of ARC breaking a pc or susceptible to creating ARC breaks. It's smoothed out to such a point that a performance done - oh, relatively indifferently - would leave a pc improving, gaining, coming on up the line.

You’re going to teach fifteen auditors who are in lower south Pasadena and you’re going to train these guys up to a point where they can read a meter. And you haven’t got any stereo and you have no tapes and you have no switchboard and that sort of thing, so how are you going to do it? Well, you’re going to do it by butchering up pcs, see. It’s more important that you learn than it is that some pcs get somewhat upset, because you can always straighten it out if the sessioning is good. But if an auditor, you see, doesn’t ever learn how to do it, you’ll never straighten out anything!

And it exposes the simplicity of this existing technology, also the simplicity of Routine 3GA - there's nothing complicated about 3GA. Exposes just one thing, and that's meter reading. You take all of these constants and you find out that you do them fairly well.

So what takes priority? What takes priority is the auditor learning how to read a meter. And if you ever get too softheaded and you find yourself completely without equipment and too softhearted, you see, about the whole thing and decide this is too hard to do and decide to fake it up by lifting fingers on cans and doing other things of this particular character, my advice to you is, don’t, because the very pc who is sitting there serving as a guinea pig depends utterly, in nearly all cases, on auditors in his vicinity learning how to read a meter for his own solution of case and his eventual clearing See. So it’s sort of give a little, take a little and get a little back. And get an awful lot back, you see.

You see, you don't have to do those perfectly to get a result. You should be able to do them perfectly. You should be able to put on a good show. But you shouldn't have to do them perfectly, you see, in order to obtain a result. I mean, the technology is very powerful. That particular approach to auditing is very powerful!

But, I’ll give you that as meter training. That is the most fundamental action then of meter training — is for this exact combination to exist. The auditor sitting there holding a meter. The (quote) „pc“ sitting there holding the cans. The coach standing there back of the auditor correcting the auditor on the reads. The auditor asking questions — we don’t care what he is using. It is perfectly all right to use somebody else’s goals list. Don’t read the pc’s own goals list to him, by the way. That’s verboten. You can always take somebody else’s goals list. You’ll get reads on it. They won’t rerun out either. Very virtue — they don’t flatten.

And it leaves to view only one potential error: TR 4 in one form or another.

I actually would — you’d need practice in asking rudiments questions or something like that. Well, that’s a horse of another hue. you probably should use the right rudiments questions because they’ll be the most likely to get cleaned up in the long run.

There's a TR 4 phenomenon connected with the meter. And the meter, if poorly read, or only once in a while read wrong, operates to throw TR 4 out in the session.

But the person who’s doing the auditing is asking a question and getting a meter read and then calling it and getting an answer or not from the coach. In fact, he probably better not get an answer from the coach. It better be understood that nothing is to be answered. That makes it all missed withholds, but then it’s understood and the reality of the situation is far better.

See, the pc has a present time problem, and the auditor looks straight at the needle and says - after he's said "Do you have a present time problem? Do you have a present time problem? Do you have a present time problem?" and it got to that point where the pc says "No, that's it!" and then he looks at the meter and he says, "Do you have a present time problem?" and the thing falls off the pin, and the auditor says, "Do you agree that's clean?" See? Misses the read - out goes TR 4. See? That's out the window. Bang. Gone. Why?

And then you’ve got this coach standing back of the auditor looking at the meter and correcting whether or not the auditor read them right.

Well, the pc has an answer which the meter hasn't acknowledged. As far as he can see - remember, he's looking at the back of the meter. And as far as he can see the meter has not acknowledged it. He then can start to get mad at the meter. But usually he isn't sufficiently clear thinking or directive enough to get mad at the meter. He doesn't quite know what he's getting mad at. And so he usually assigns the cause of his upset to something else. This assignment to something else all the time is, of course, why what a meter does in a session, if misread, has been obscured for so long.

All right. Let me show you the — at once the basic difficulty is we have no guarantee that the coach knows how to read an E-Meter. No guarantee whatsoever. So we just enter this fantastic piece of randomity that, for the purposes of the drill, the coach is right. That’s fantastic randomity to enter into the situation, see.

Of course, the meter did a perfectly good TR 4, but the auditor interpretation or failure to read the meter does a bad TR 4, and you get the same thing as though the pc had originated and the auditor didn't get it. So, therefore, you've hung the pc with a missed withhold.

The immediate result of this is going to be in the initial stages of the drill, a fantastic confusion. And it’ll get so confused that out of desperation everybody sooner or later is going to learn how to read the meter.

Similarly, the pc sits there. "Do you have a present time problem?" the auditor says. "Do you have a present time problem? Do you have a present time problem? Do you have a present time problem?"

Now, as I say, that is the most fundamental and the crudest form of meter training. And yet I dare say in the year 2000 or 2050, why, there’ll be somebody in upper Lower Slobovia having to train some auditors and that is exactly the way he will do it. It’s inevitable because he hasn’t got the rest of the equipment, don’t you see.

Finally the pc says, "No, that's it. Uh ... that's it."

Now, out of this, believe it or not, comes learning. You eventually learn it, but the confusion that results — you see the needle fall off the pin, and the coach says — you say, „That reads.“ And the coach says, „That’s null.“

And the auditor looks at the meter and he says, "I'll check that on the meter," and says, "Do you have a present time problem?"

The coach is forcing you to agree to a falsehood. So don’t agree to it. Just let him say so. Nobody asked you to agree to it. He simply called it. Isn’t that right?

And, honest, it's falling at an even rate, you know, that - no disturbance of any kind whatsoever. And it just keeps on falling at this even rate. There is absolutely no change to the needle whatsoever. And the auditor says, "What's that? What's that? What was the problem? What is the problem?"

I used to get by in being audited — I could be audited by everybody or anybody for the simple reason that I’d always answer the auditing question. I only came a cropper when I was given four auditing questions and not told which one to answer. That fouled me up a little bit, but up to that time the stable datum I got by on, is somebody asked me to do something I did exactly what they asked me to do. you would be surprised how mild an approach that is to pc’ing. Just always do exactly what you’re told and you don’t get into any trouble, of course, because there’s no alter-is in the situation.

And the pc says, "Well, there isn't any problem."

The auditor says, „Do you have a present time problem?“

And the auditor says, "I've got a read here." See?

And you say, „Yes.“

Pc says, "What could it be?" And then he says, "Well, I haven't got a problem!"

The auditor sits there alertly waiting for you to say something else. And of course, you don’t say anything else because he hasn’t asked you anything else.

And by this time the needle is reading an ARC-break characteristic. So he just says, "Do you have a present time problem?" Bang! the meter goes. You see? Every time. Bang! You see? "Do you have a present time problem?" Bang! "Do you have a present time problem?" Bang! See, he cleaned a clean, and the only way he's going to get this off now is to ask if he's missed a withhold - the random rudiment.

And finally the auditor says, „Well, what was the problem?“ And you tell him, see.

Sometimes the pc doesn't interpret it just like that. If you were to say, "Has my asking this question upset you?" and he answers it and says, "Yes. Yes, it sure has," the read would then come off, and it'd be clean again, you see?

The auditor says, „Take your right hand now and put it on the back of your right hand. Go ahead and try to do it.“ The auditor will wake up after a while that you can’t and cancel the auditing command, you see.

Now, what's this all about? What's this all about? Basically only one thing is occurring. And it's an old law which has been pretty well obscured, however, through the years and has not come up much with importance - the importance has never really been assigned to this. It's been cruising around inside of Scientology technology for ages and ages and ages. And that is, you mustn't acknowledge a lie.

You can only get into trouble by saying, „I can’t do that. What are you doing tearing me to ribbons, see, by asking me to do things that are impossible? And why don’t you go back to the Academy and learn how to audit,“ see.

Actually, you get yourself in trouble every time you acknowledge a lie. You accept a lie as the truth; that makes you a fool.

And you can get in trouble that way because you’re protesting the alter-is. But don’t worry about that. As pcs, you’ll always protest the same way, so nobody’s asking you to be a certain type of pc. I’m just giving you an example of the thing.

Guy rushes up to you and he says, "The whole of central downtown has just burned down, and it's all up in smoke, and 1,655,000 people have been killed! "

So in these drills you will get a certain amount of alter-isness and confusion. And I wouldn’t be a bit surprised but what somebody — could get away more or less with reading the meter, wouldn’t pass into a stage of not knowing whether the meter was actually on his lap or not, much less what it was reading, you see.

And you say, "Oh, good heavens! Good heavens. Good heavens. How terrible! How awful!" or faint away or something like that, not stopping to realize that there aren't 1,655,000 people in the town - or in the whole state for that matter.

Falls off the pin, the coach says, „That’s null.“ And the thing is absolutely motionless. It hasn’t moved for a minute or more. And the question is asked and the coach says, „That’s a read,“ see. Well, you get beyond your confusion by not getting into fights about it.

And he says, "Ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho! Good joke! Good joke! You're a fool. Ha-ha!"

Now that is very crude — a very crude drill and so on, but as I say, it’ll be used for a long time.

Now, what's this all about? Very simple. Prime postulate. Let's start learning to interpret things from Routine 3GA - that makes your Clears. And there's not much question about that - in fact, there's no question about it.

Now, as we improve on this drill with a stereo tape and other mechanisms, we of course, can play back play a tape and make maybe four or eight meters, something like that, in people’s hands, read. And maybe, so we don’t get any room lag, a microphone speaker around the neck of every auditor, so he hears the tape. And he hears the auditor say, „Do you have a present time problem?“ Sees the read, you see. Then you have the coach who is working off a mimeographed sheet, because the correctness of every read on that tape has been established. And it’s marked by rudiments. The first question, „Do you have a present time problem?“ is followed by a reaction and it says what it is on the tape.

The only time we've seen them held up is when the exact original specifications of Routine 3GA were not rigorously, slavishly and fantastically closely followed.

Now, these tapes are not perfect meter tapes. That is their main virtue. Some of them are early. Some of them are late. Some of them are on the button. And some of them are called reads when they are actually null. you know. There’s a confusion involved with it. you see?

For some reason or other when I sat down to write the four lines out for Routine 3GA, I scribbled them out as the potential, and I thought this will probably have to be varied for pc after pc. And you know, the only pcs that have gone Clear are those who have exactly been run on those exact lines - the first four I wrote. You get any variation on it: your needle will stick, tone arm goes up, everything goes to hell. That's sort of an oddity. It's an oddity. In the first place, the goal was probably originally framed in Amharic or Lingua Spacia or something like that, you know? And to hit the semantics of it right dead on the button and have that the only one that leads to a free needle is quite remarkable.

And so it says, „Do you have a present time problem?“ and then right under it in a long string, „Right-right-wrong-right-wrong-wrong-right.“ See, that’s all the coach calls. See, there are just that many reads and they are — that many were right and that many were wrong in that sequence and order. So it becomes very simple coaching.

I'll give you the datum, although this isn't a lecture about it.

That’s just one use of the situation.

It's want - "Who or what would want (exact statement of goal)?" "Who or what would ..." (These are not in sequence.) "Who or what would not want (exact statement of goal)?" "Who or what would oppose" - what is it, the participial form?- "(the ing form of the goal)?" and "Who or what would not oppose (the ing form of the goal)?"

Now, your next action would be something like this. We put a whole bunch of auditors, about eight auditors in the room, with meters on pcs and we have them all onto a switchboard and that is — goes to one stereo recorder and in turn we take a section of each one’s session.

And it just has to be that. It isn't anything else. You can't say "the goal" so-and-so: "Who or what would want the goal (something or other, something or other)?" That's the way it's working out. I mean, it's fantastic!

We got a microphone hanging on the chest of each one and the cans pass from the pc to the switchboard back to the auditor’s meter. And then they bypass off that onto the Instructor’s meter, amplified and onto a stereo recorder. So at the end of the goldfish-bowling, all he has to do is start the tape again.

And this makes it look very silly. Let's get the goal "not to eat pie." "Who or what would not want not to eat pie?" is the wording of the line. There is no other wording. "Who or what would not want not to eat pie?" Makes sense to the pc beautifully. And "Who or what would oppose not eating pie?" See? Them's the words! Them's the magic words.

Have some people coach this or inspect it or look it over. They will see how many reads they are missing. They’ll see — they’ll see everybody’s auditing. They won’t see all their own auditing, but they’ll see some of their auditing, don’t you see. Take some of each session that was going on in the room and then play it back to all auditors.

And let's take this silly shift of pronouns. "To kill myself," let's say, is the goal, see? "Who or what would want to kill myself?"

See how many types of arrangements that can be made on this. Well, you could make an endless number of tapes in that particular line, so that’s what we’re — particularly what we’re trying to develop.

Auditor sits there and reads to the pc, "All right. Any more items here? Who or what would want to kill myself?" It's fantastic. I mean, you can't say "to kill yourself." You can't change the goal that much.

Now, the difficulties of teaching an auditor to read a meter are enormously rewarded by the fact that you have productive sessions. And I assure you that there is no benefit in being audited by an auditor who cannot read a meter. That’s pretty ghastly because it leaves one out of session. One’s statements are not being accepted. One’s reads are not being accepted, see. One’s no reads are not being accepted. And the net result is the pc is sitting there trying to keep his own rudiments in because, of course, the meter and the auditor have cancelled themselves out by incorrect reads here and there.

So you can apparently horse it around all you want to, to agree with the English professors, and miss clearing. That's apparently the magic code on this sort of thing.

We can’t have an occasional correct read, see. Actually, we can’t even afford an occasional error. Well, a lot of sessions running along, early on in student auditing have an occasional correct read. And then they graduate up to only an occasional error. And then they would graduate on up to no errors. Actually, that tolerance can be attained. I don’t have ARC breaky pcs. My pcs don’t ARC break. Once in a blue moon I’ve chopped one or gotten mad at one, snarled, something like that along the line — even as thou. And of course, have gotten an ARC breaky pc. But then turned right around and pulled them right straight out of it so they were all smiles.

And it's doubly upsetting because you miss all the right items. And they become missed withholds then. So the tone arm goes up and sticks, and everything goes up and messes up and so forth. And the session is hell to run; and can't hold the pc in session. You drive home in your Mercedes and feel like going off the curve.

But my expectancy of auditing is a no-ARC-break session. In fact I would be quite amazed to have an ARC breaky session. It would startle me no end. And that’s with very rough pcs, you see, easy ones, rough ones and so forth. I have no expectancy of an ARC breaky session.

But it's just nothing but the slavish following-in of those lines. Well, I expect someday there'll be an - we'll find an exception to it.

I expect to get everything that the pc tells me. I expect to find out everything I’m supposed to find out about the pc. That’s the expectancy. Now, I’m not talking about what a good auditor I am. I’m just talking to you about what my personal experience in sessions is.

It isn't true just because I sat down and wrote those four lines as the first lines - has nothing to do with it. But nothing else has ever brought a free needle. We're up to about nine now. And they all go free on those wordings, and on any other wording they don't go free.

So you are fighting with a problem I don’t have. So give me that, because it’s taken me a long time to understand what you were doing, see. Any trouble you were having was relatively incomprehensible. I have — haven’t got a reality on it as an auditor, but I do have a reality on it as a pc. And of course, as a pc I never knew what was going wrong on the other side of the meter because I wasn’t reading the meter while I was being a pc, so that datum was barred to me, too.

All right. I just interject that.

I would occasionally think that I was kind of in rough emotional condition or I must be tired or I must have too many present time problems or something like this. The pc actually never assigns the right reason for his ARC break. That you can count on. The reason for the ARC break is almost never accurate. Even if it’s on the same subject like, „You missed a withhold on me“ the pc will give you the wrong missed withhold, see.

3GA is a demonstration of the similarity of construction between a reactive bank and a universe. And you've got the common denominator of the construction of something. The universe is formed by a prime postulate which, then alter-ised, makes matter, energy, space and time. Maybe someday you can amuse yourself by speculating what that prime postulate might be. If enough of you hit it, why, the earth will start getting spongy, but don't let that scare you. Go ahead and run it out. If you get that tough and that strong, you could always mock up another one, couldn't you?

The ordinary action is and what you can ordinarily expect, is that the pc is upset and that there is some truth in what the pc is saying, but that what the pc is calling the actual cause is not the actual cause, that the actual cause occurred earlier than the pc is telling you. That is routine. You could expect that just as much as you can expect darkness when the sun goes down.

Anyway, the pc has a basic purpose or a goal. And this is indistinguishable from prime postulate. He makes them at different stages of the track as he goes along, but he hasn't made too many. And therefore, you get your prime postulate as being the basic building block of a reactive bank: it's the goal, it's the basic purpose and so forth.

Even if he told you exactly what was wrong in the session, that you had missed a read, it will not be the read that he says you missed. It will be an earlier read whether by five minutes or ten minutes or something like that.

So that if you have a section of the reactive bank of the last trillion years or something like this, or some strata of the reactive bank - actually, it doesn't go exactly plotted against time; it goes kind of differently. It goes fundamentally. How basic is the basic purpose, see? And that's sort of liable the first time to skim off what looks like the basic part of the whole time track. In actual fact, you've got though - the basic purpose has occurred before earlier track, and that's all sort of condensed in and it's become part of this cycle. So your basic purpose isn't something you can plot back on the E-Meter and find and blow. You see? I won't go into any ramifications of that particularly.

If he — if he calls you on the third rudiment which is now the „PTP,“ see — and if he calls you on that one, there’s probably one in the first rudiment, you see.

But there's this postulate, see?

He says you missed the read on the PTP. You probably didn’t miss the read on the PTP — you probably did, but the one that is upsetting him is the one on the auditor. See, you missed an earlier one than he says. That is invariable. There will always be that much alter-is in a pc’s protest. It’s always earlier than he says.

Now, the prime prime postulate would be the basic-basic of the goal or purpose on which everything else would be stacked. You're not going to get it the first crack out of the box. So don't worry about it. You just take what you can get on a goals list.

But because the pc is in a state of alter-is anyhow — you touch a pc’s bank, he’s in a state of alter-is. You can count on that. Absolutely count on it. Touch a pc’s bank, he’s in a state of alter-is. That’s one of these other — another invariable maxim or figure lines.

Now, the keynote of the formation of mass and spaces and everything else connected with the bank - that is, the reactive bank - the keynote of it is alter-is. And then the alter-is suppresses down into a not-is. Now, you see, the postulate is an is, and then you get an alter-is, and then you get a not-is, then you get the formation of matter, energy, space and time contained in the bank.

You run — you run ARC Straightwire and the worst pc will never answer the auditing command at all. Will say he did, but he doesn’t. Therefore, you must never run a, „Yes“ response-type process without also asking, „What was it?“ Otherwise, you never spot this alter-is. I’m now talking about the — well, this was given in the 3rd ACC. Alter-is. Pc always does something else. Or does something entirely different. You say, „Recall a time you were in communication with someone.“ And the pc will actually sometimes think that he has done this when in actual fact he has recalled a time he was speaking not to anyone at all.

Now, that is the most succinct, brief, correct, workable, demonstrable statement of the structure of the reactive bank and man. And also, in the field of the physical sciences, is the most direct and correct statement of the formation of the universe. It's demonstrable.

Now, that is a very innocent pc error, see. That’s a very mild one. In the pcs that are the worst that you will have to do with — your very neurotic institutional type — you know, I mean in that band, they never even answer it as a communication.

In other words, the human mind merges simultaneously with the universe. See, you've got the parallels of their construction and evolution. In other words, the field of the mind is now on a parallel with your scientific sciences. Because, of course, there is the field of the mind and then there is the universe - not as everyone tends to believe, first there is the universe and then some fleas come along and light on it and develop their mental aberrations. It does not go this way. It goes quite the reverse.

You say, „Recall a time when you were in communication with someone,“ you see. And they won’t even go so alter-is as to recall a time they spat, see.

And you have thetans and they develop reactive banks, and then you get as a result of this the formation of universes - the old technical data from way back, one's own universe and the environmental universe and all that sort of thing.

They will alter-is completely over on to something else. They will mock up a dog. Not even that they ever communicated with dogs. These things are totally disconnected and disassociated.

Now, that's quite important. That's important data. For any being to actually discover this data or start using it is fantastic. See, because it's totally in violation of mass, it's in violation of energy, it's in violation of space, in violation of time, so on. You're not supposed to do that! Slaves of the world succumb! You know?

You say to them, „Put your shoe on the window seat“ and they will throw their hat out through the area over the door.

You're not supposed to fly in the teeth of this kind of thing. You find out information like that, how would people like the pope and so forth make their coffee and cakes, see? I mean, be pretty grim. A lot of unemployment would result, you know? Think of chain manufacturers: bankrupt them. Look at political contracts for the constructions of jails and prisons: up in smoke, no percentage for the politicians. Ruinous! Terribly revolutionary doctrines here, see?

And here’s the oddity. They think they’re doing what you said. To look at them and to listen to them, they think you’re doing what they said. But, if you let them get away with this you have stepped on this button of acknowledging a lie and will at that moment, by the missed command doingness, set up that alter-is in the session. So you’ve acknowledged a lie.

Now, you want to know what starts the downward spiral on this sort of thing and how it gets denser and denser and denser - is the acceptance of an alter-isness as the fact! Now, that is actually and basically what a thetan knows, way down deep, that he must not do, and what every thetan that ever got himself in trouble has done. He knows he must not accept an alter-isness of the fact as the fact.

Now, Mr. Pc, let’s say this is institutional stuff and you say, „Now put your shoe on the mantle“ and the pc takes his hat and throws it in through the port over the door. And if you say, „Thank you very much. That’s fine,“ you have ended the session right there because that pc becomes unauditable.

He gets nervy when he starts to suspect this. And if he accepts too many of them, he goes into an overwhelm. He's overwhelmed by lies. And, therefore, people who buy - oh, I don't know; let's take the worship of the god Wuggy-wug, or something like that. He's made out of mud and sticks in the middle of the Venusian jungles or something. And this god Muggy-mug and - if everybody protests this god enough and protests the lie enough, and if the priesthood of Muggy-muggy is sufficiently brutal and overwhelmish, and if they can collect to themselves enough overt acts ... You see, it's very, very important. They've got to collect motivators, see? Get other people to commit overt acts against the god Muggy-muggy, see? And everybody commits more and more overts against Muggy-muggy and after a while, of course, gets totally overwhelmed by the god Muggy-muggy, you see?

Because the degree that they alter-is monitors the degree that they protest alter-is. These things are a constant. They are of the same order of magnitude. If a pc alter-ises, he screams like mad if any alter-is occurs. That is if you acknowledge the alter-is. See, he screams as hard as he alter-ises. Got the idea?

And after that you don't get a sane course of evolution, from that point of acceptance of the god Muggy-muggy, see? You get zealotism, fanaticism, atheism. Everything that happens from that point tends to be chaotic. See, because they have fought an untruth - see, they've fought an alter-is of the facts. Muggy-muggy did not make the Venusian mud, see? But that's the prime declaration of the religion of Muggy-muggy.

So the worse off a pc is, is measured by the degree that the pc alter-ises in his thinking. That is a direct index of bad off. But of course, it’s bad off on certain subjects because one person will alter-is on one subject and one will alter-is on another. And it’s only those pcs that alter-is on all subjects that are — fall into the neurotic and — oh, pardon me, pardon me, fall into the psychotic band.

"Oh, Muggy-muggy! Thou, who hast madeth the mudeth!" See?

But, the worse they do it, the less they can tolerate it. So you mustn’t say cheerfully, „Oh, thank you“ and „That’s fine“ when the guy throws his hat out the door. you told him to put his shoe on the window. Now, of course, telling him to do something before you have some control of him, tell him to do some independent action that you aren’t exactly monitoring before you have any control of him at all, is just asking for it.

These birds used to get out in the morning and storm around and wake everybody up long before they were supposed to get wakened. Developed fast days - nobody was supposed to eat, you see? Games conditions, games conditions and so forth. And before you ate dinner, why, you were supposed to go out and heap some mud on your plate in respect to Muggy-muggy, you see?

You should be walking into this by gradients. But about the only way to solve that situation is just skip what he did with the hat, take his hand, lay it on his shoe, take his shoe off, move him over to the window and put the — put the shoe via his hand on the window ledge and then say, „Thank you very very much.“ And do you know, he’s liable to scream at how terrible you are and what a bum you are, but auditing will continue.

These things thetans didn't like to do! So, of course, they would get protesting against Muggy-muggy, and then this untruth would overwhelm them.

So you mustn’t acknowledge the improperly done auditing command because you are okaying alter-is. And that renders you very suspect. And yet the pc acts as though he wants you to and acts as though the only thing that will please the pc is the same alter-is. This is what he wants you to do. That’s why you never do what the pc tells you. It’s fatal.

I use that quite deliberately, because it has been religion which has been - the strongest arguments and the strongest mechanisms which have brought about an alter-isness of the mind and form have been religious mechanisms. You might even say it's a religious universe. And they get protested against most strongly, and thetans get overwhelmed by them the most easily, and so on.

The pc acquires this alter-is. Oh, God. Talk about logic, man. They can back it up with ENIACs and Einsteins. Every reason under the sun why you ought to do exactly what they said just now.

This just isn't my bigotry talking one way or the other. I listed it out the other day - it burned holes in the paper! - and then found out that I felt the same way about it afterwards! Very interesting.

Truth of the matter is just before they started giving you orders they alter-ised something. They flipped a command on you, they didn’t do what you said, they — something went wrong in the session. Something went haywire. And then they started giving you orders because they’re trying to keep their own session in. you see what happens?

The facts here are creation, assignment of. And you notice Muggy - muggy created mud, and some ... Or you've got somebody like Kali, the goddess of destruction, or something like that. But they have something to do with a cycle of action, the great popular gods, see? And it's all an alter-is. Kali had nothing to do with creating anything and neither did Muggy-muggy.

They start giving you orders when they have ceased to accept you as an auditor. It’s not actually something that you ought to pay any more than diagnostic attention to.

See, that's the alter-is, is the assignment of who created it. So that, naturally, is the biggest alter-is that you could make, is the alter-is of source.

You say this pc has some missed withholds. What’s a missed withhold? Well, it’s an unintentional withhold perhaps. The pc tried to tell you something and thought you didn’t get it. See, that’s the commonest one. The most fundamental, however, is the meter read missed withhold.

So therefore, that's what - the most powerful overwhelms succeed the most powerful protests. And, of course, they're in the field of the seventh and eight dynamic.

Earlier than all of these difficulties existed, you read something wrong. And you told the pc he didn’t have a present time problem when he did have. You told the pc that he did have a present time problem when he didn’t.

And well, it's not for nothing that every year there were a hundred thousand Christians killed in Alexandria during the early days of Christianity. That sounds impossible, see, but yet the rosters and records do contain that fact. In any single year, there were more Christians killed in Alexandria by Christians than there were in all of the Roman purges. It's interesting, see?

So you get — you’ve acknowledged something wrong in the session that is one of the deep fundamentals of the session, such as rudiments. You’ve acknowledged something wrong. You’ve done something reversewise and after that you can expect alteration, alteration. And alteration will exist up to the point where the pc started to give you orders.

They protested harder amongst themselves than they ever really protested against anything else. And that's because they're wrapped up in a lie! See, they're wrapped up in an alter-isness of the fact of creation.

Now, how come the pc’s giving you orders? Well, the pc’s giving you orders because the pc has ceased to have an auditor.

And it's hard to talk to you about this, because even as I speak, some people hearing this are still so enthralled in their overwhelm and protest along these particular religious lines on the seventh and eighth dynamic that they say, "Oh, God! Listen to what terrible blasphemy! And that couldn't be true," you know? It starts off all the alter-is on an automaticity in their head. And they say, "Well, he's just anti-this and anti-that."

The gradual breakdown of a session passes through that as its low point on the totem pole. Pc suddenly tells me, „Would you like to — you should really let me go to the bathroom and smoke a cigarette and that sort of thing.“ If I — got to that point — I don’t get to this point in session, but if I got to that point in a session — I would not say, „How am I going to acknowledge or handle this situation?“ see. I wouldn’t waste any time on that. I would say, „What was wrongly or not acknowledged, when, earlier in the session?“ That’d be my first mechanism, see. Just bang What is it. See, back there.

I'm not anti anything, except like any other right-minded thetan, I'm kind of anti-alter-is.

It would be something like this: „When did you first feel I didn’t hear you?“ With enough confidence in my meter to know that I didn’t miss a meter read, I’d fall back on the other. I’d have to think that the pc said apples or peaches and then thought I didn’t get this, see.

This is your most fruitful source, then, of lies and commotion - would be anything that had to do with creation. And you introduce an erroneous assignment of creativeness, or actually, less strongly, any part of the cycle of action - misassign, see, who created it, say something else created it - and you'll get randomity all out of proportion to everything.

Pc has got an inadvertent withhold, now there’s no communication existing. But it would be earlier. I wouldn’t take up the idea of the pc giving me orders. I’d trace this thing right back in the session to the first time the pc had gotten an inadvertent or actual withhold or didn’t do the auditing command, which of course amounts then to a withhold. See. What — what happened? When? What happened back in the — early in the session? Let’s put that area right. Let’s not start to cope with the building falling down. Let’s not worry about that because we got something wrong earlier.

Here's a kick for you sometime. Go into an art museum and look at Rembrandt and point out to your companions in a loud voice - particularly during an exhibition, a white-tie exhibition or something like that - point out to your companions in a very loud voice the wonderful work done by Picasso. And, man, you'll have a riot on your hands. There's other people standing around. They will come over and they will correct you and they will argue with you and they will look at you with terrible contempt. They'll become very misemotional about the whole thing. The guards and that sort of thing are liable to come up and start trying to eject you or ... All kinds of unlikely things will occur, you know?

Now, the reason some people wind up not understanding that a missed withhold is the cause of all ARC breaks is they don’t look early enough and, therefore, don’t cure it with a missed withhold.

You look at The Cavalier, or something like that, and you say, "Now, that actually is a very excellent example of Picasso's brown period." And go on and hold forth in great dissertation.

See, this pc says, „Well, you better let me have a cigarette now and give me a break, because in actual fact I’m pretty tired and so forth.“

Or go over to the Royal Festival Hall or some such area, the music hall, and start talking outside when you hear - oh, there's something by Mussorgsky, you see? And you say, "Now, that's by Stephen Foster." You'll get upset!

If your response is to find out what withhold you just missed you probably won’t get it, because your pc has gone to that length, time has stretched out after the withhold and it’s minutes, tens of minutes, earlier. When you’ve had a blow, the blow has actually begun an hour to an hour and a half before the blow occurred and it’d be a missed withhold of some kind or another.

Alter-isness of the source of creation is the most fruitful source of upset and commotion because, of course, it itself is the father of all chaos. If there's any chaos in the universe, or any lack of order, it will be found by reason of a misassignment of who created it.

And you’ve tried to acknowledge something that you shouldn’t have acknowledged or you’ve shoved off on the pc something — like you’ve got a present time problem when he didn’t have or something like that. Some fundamental alteration has taken place where you were acknowledging an untruth and ignoring a truth.

We're liable to get so little upset on the subject of founders of countries and that sort of thing: "Well," we say, "George Washington, the founder of his country." See? Well, nobody will much argue with you. You don't get in much of a stink. I bet you could sit around for hours in the States in various popular and public places and say, "George Washington founded," you know, "his country." You could go on and do this and do this and do this, and nobody would ever do anything. They never say anything. It was generally accepted to be a fact and it more or less is a fact, you see? And you're going to get no commotion, that's all.

And that situation has existed much earlier. And when that situation first started to exist, you got the beginning of the deterioration of the session. And to trace it back, you’ve got to trace it back earlier in the session. Therefore, a very good way to handle this kind of a situation is to end the session and begin one.

Well, if you said Marco Polo founded the United States of America, people would simply think you were insane. But if you came almost on the truth, see, and said, "Alexander Hamilton founded the United States of America and was its first president," you know, everybody's brains would go kind of creak, creak. You see, it's not .. You know? He was at least alive at the same time, so it's a recognizable alteration.

See, that’s short sessioning. That, of course, gets you back to your beginning rudiments — is where you probably missed it.

The truth of the matter is that probably anything wrong with the United States right now, it's George Washington. Now, you'll get an argument about that because it's so much accepted to be truthful otherwise, see? The guy tore up the minutes and records of the constitutional convention! They were never published. He made sure they were burned. Nobody has been able to interpret the cockeyed Constitution since. And they keep changing it and changing it, you know, and trying to amend it and wondering what people meant by it, and so forth. And nobody can find out because they threw it all away, see? That's a fact, you know? There were no - do you know there were no minutes of the constitutional convention ever published! And I don't think it was until way into the nineteenth century, sometime or another, that somebody released a book on his demise, which gave something - I think he'd been the secretary of the convention - he gave some of the data.

Now, regardless of the complications of what you do about it, let’s handle instead the fundamentals of exactly what occurs.

And you got an operating machine now called a Constitution, which nobody is supervising. And it's starting to alter-is, and itself was an alter-is, and it's kind of going out of hand and nobody can quite make any sense out of it. And the citizens have less and less liberty, but they don't quite know what to do about it. You see?

ARC — this is about September 1950, California lectures and I think it’s contained in Notes on the Lectures and an axiom about 1952 contains the data that ARC is the equivalent of understanding. And the component parts of understanding are A, R and C. I won’t bother to go into the dissertation by which this is evolved, but you frankly can mathematically evolve this fact. And it’s quite fascinating. Affinity, reality and communication are interdependent upon one another. And the sum of affinity, reality and communication or the absence of affinity, reality and communication add up to understanding or misunderstanding.

Back in 1905 somebody changed the Constitution, said the poll tax could not any longer be charged. That's what it used to say. Well, they wiped that out, so now they can charge income tax. Everybody is fined for making a living. And all kinds of wild things proceed, you see, from this point. Well, of course, there were no records to say why they had this. You know? There were no - none of the arguments as to why this existed or was put in by the constitutional convention, you see, no arguments were available to anybody to refute this proposed amendment to the Constitution about 1905. See, here's missing data of some kind or another.

Low on the Tone Scale the ARC is, of course, nothing but a misunderstanding, see. you don’t have any reality on Russia. Russia doesn’t have any reality on you. Of course, you don’t understand Russia. Russia doesn’t understand you. Of course, there’s no communication between you and Russia. See, it’s as simple as that. Therefore, everything is misemotional from that point thereon.

And here's George! Well, what did George stand for? What did he mean? What did he want? Everybody was perfectly happy at the time of the revolution, they were perfectly interested in him. They thought he was a nice guy, everything was fine, everybody believed him. The only reason the revolution got anyplace at all was because of George - a terrific figure of a man. This guy had the country in his grip. Actually, he had to protest many times against becoming king of the United States, see? Everybody wanted to make him king! He said, "No. No. No."

Now, when a pc gets going, you’re liable to attribute the lack of comprehension in the session to anything except the mechanics. You’re not interested in what’s comprehensible or not comprehensible or sensible or not sensible. You just got to make sure that you understand what the pc said.

We don't know what his basic purpose was, see? We don't know what the basic purpose agreed upon by all the founders of the United States was. We read the propaganda which issues from their writings.

When you fail to understand what the pc said, ARC breaks down, because understanding has broken down. And that is the anatomy of TR 4. TR 4 says that you comprehend what the pc said. you understand what the pc said and you acknowledge what the pc said and you return the pc to session. And every time I turn around somebody’s trying to give me the word that we need a new TR 4. I don’t see what they need a new TR 4 for, they haven’t used the one they got. Perfectly brand-new. I mean, why use a new one? They — you see that understand is the clue. That is the key to this.

Give you some kind of an idea, the United - this is not quite political - but the United States Naval Academy issues the letters of John Paul Jones. And this is the most flagrant example I know of. Their booklet on the letters of John Paul Jones is what they want every midshipman to become! And, frankly, they make a bunch of clowns out of them, because they've excerpted all these letters. The true letters of John Paul Jones, without anything cut out of them, show you a very lively sort of a bird who was all over the ship all the time and believed in all kinds of things and was very enterprising and fantastically energetic, and who had many opinions, and who believed naval officers should have opinions, and all kinds of things, you see, that have now been carefully cut out of the letters before they're published for the budding young naval officer.

Now, in-sessioning is, of course, interested in own case and willing to talk to the auditor, of course, about one’s own case. But interested in own case and willing to talk to the auditor. So if understanding drops out, willing to talk to the auditor drops out and then interest in own case tends to drop out because one feels one doesn’t understand as much about one’s own case as one just understood.

In return, we get the stark patriotic statement, you see? We don't get that you ought to teach midshipmen to dance. See? That's all missing.

Now, the greater the understanding the easier it is to blow things. In other words, you can start — if your understanding on something is high it goes out zip-zip-zip-zip-zip. And if your understanding on it is low you stand there and gaze at it stupidly. There it is. What are you going to do about it? Nothing Huh, da. See?

There's an alteration here. See, there's an alteration to the goal or the basics or the fundamental. Now, he was the founder of the American navy. I won't say anything particularly against the American navy, there's no reason to. It exists.

Yet all of a sudden you say, „I know what that’s all about.“ Zip-zip-zip. And that’s — that’s it. You’ve done an as-is.

But if I see one more ensign become admiral, fattened on the letters of John Paul Jones excerpted, I'm afraid I'll be impolite to him. I have been known to have been impolite to him already because he isn't true! See? He isn't real! There's something missing.

So, as-isness depends on understandingness.

No reason to analyze what's missing, but basically the fundamentals of his education have been alter-ised. The things which he ought to know and understand aren't there!

Alteration inevitably pursues lack of comprehension. Alteration pursues failure to understand. You get an alter-is when you don’t get an understand. You see?

And that alone would break him down into a sort of an apathy. He would sort of smell the missingness in there, see? He would see there's something he didn't quite understand or wrap his wits around. And therefore he would never really spring full-armed into a sailor of war, you see? There'd be something restraining his going - forthness. He'd tend to solidify right in his tracks. You could expect him, then, to be rather defensive, rather unimaginative, perhaps a little frightened and very, very careful of what he did.

And not-is accompanies the notion of incomprehensibility. You can’t understand it. It’s not possible to understand it. Therefore, let’s just shove it out of sight. That’s what any nonsentient society or very unalert society does with its insane. Nobody can understand the insane, so you’ve got to put them out of sight.

Where's the bold sea dog that you normally think of as a ruler of a navy, you see? Well, he's not to be found. He's got a fantastic alter-is on his educational line.

And the degree that they don’t understand the insane or think they don’t understand the insane so they hide them. They squash them out of existence and they actually try to kill them one way or the other. In this civilization today — very modern, very kind, very genteel and so forth — they sterilize them, they cut their brains out, they make idiots out of them, they subject them to tortures the like of which wouldn’t have been tolerated from the barre noir in the middle of the Dark Ages, you see.

Everybody thinks, well, you should teach these boys to do this and to do that, and you should teach them some more of this and you should teach them some more of that and some more of this, and alter-is it and alter-is it and alter-is it. And when we get all through, we'll have it all alter-ised, and it'll all be wonderful. You'll find it'll just get more solid, more apathetic, and more quit.

Fantastic. You mean in this enlightened time all this is going on? Well, of course, they’ve alter-ised — they failed to understand the insane, then they alter-ised it. And now they’ve got it into place where they’ve even got psychiatrists in charge of them. you see how far you can get.

Basic purpose, alter-ised, creates mass. But similarly, it creates a degeneration of tone - inevitably creates a degeneration of tone.

And this is total alter-is. And they don’t look at what’s insane about the person, they give them classified labels. They label them. And the label actually, has nothing to do with the insanity. The label has to do with the insane asylum the person is in.

Now, some of you think, once in a while, that I have alter-ised in Scientology and Dianetics far too much. Well, if you think that hard, you don't recognize that we're running independent of the sequence of time. We're running a backwards track. In other words, we're cutting into the most fundamental fundamental that we can cut into regardless of the continuous forward progress of time, you see? And we're swimming against the time stream, in actual fact.

Oh, you think I’m kidding you as usual. But that happens to be the truth. If a patient is moved from an area that has sex criminals, you know, he ceases to be a sex criminal and becomes a schizophrenic if he goes to a hospital that specializes in schizophrenics. Patients are now classified after the hospital they attend. See how nutty you can get. But, of course, what is comprehensible about this situation? Well, that people don’t comprehend it. Don’t you see? That itself is an understanding. All they had to do is say I don’t understand it and they come off immediately off the high horse of pretending to understand the alter-is and of course that is the deepest lie of all.

All right, we suddenly come up with this, and on isolation of importances, discover that we're back in '51, '52, you see? Basic purpose, you know? Basic postulate. What's the prime postulate of the universe? Book One, Book One - actually December 1949, not even '50, is basic purpose in Book One, see?

So you get this kind of a situation of pretended understandingness, followed by fantastic cruelty and downscale activities going in that particular cycle. So if you sit there complaining — I’m not putting you in the same category at all — but you will actually in some little vignette run this cycle.

Isolation of important materials and shedding off the unimportant materials and occasionally going down cul-de-sacs - occasionally getting into blind turns, you know - and say, "What are we doing here?"

You sit there and you pretend to understand the pc when you don’t and you pretend to understand him when you don’t and you pretend to understand him when you don’t and the next confounded thing you’ll be mad at the pc here. And you go out of session spitting your teeth out about this pc — the stupid jerk and yip-yap and snarl — and you’re snarling about the pc.

A wonderful example is 3D Criss Cross. I received a cheerful dispatch saying, "After we've trained all of our students here to do 3D Criss Cross, is it all right for them ...?" Boy, they had an air letter going out of here so fast, its edges were charring. "Don't do 3D Criss Cross, man!"

When you find yourself snarling about a pc, all you have to do is recall the first time you didn’t understand what the pc was doing.

Why? Well, it actually came just before I found out about prime postulate, you see? So you do a 3D Criss Cross line or anything like a Prehav line ... See, that's the ridge that I ran into just before I found prime postulate, see? I thought you could go on and list. Enough interesting things happened about listing to demonstrate that listing was quite a process. But it also demonstrated that it makes a hell of a lot of difference what you list, and you mustn't list anything at random and you must never list a wrong goal, because it just adds more alter-is to the bank. So 3D Criss Cross was actually alter-ising the pc's goal unless, oh, God, a million to one chance that he should have his goal in one of the lines. Ten million to one.

Now, that is not as successful as treating the mechanics. You see, understanding is in the realm of knowingness and not-knowingness. That’s a very very high echelon pair of postulates. That’s right after Native State. And we’re really in the esoteric wonder world. So those buttons don’t operate very smoothly on people. To some degree they operate, but you’ll find they occasionally lay an egg, too. They’re too esoteric, see. They’re way off, you see. That’s really running the pc over his head. No, but a severed communication line is very comprehensible. That’s very comprehensible.

All right. So, we've been in little cul-de-sacs and that sort of thing. But note I pull out of them in an awful hurry and cut to a more fundamental fundamental.

So the missed withhold, the intention to put a communication line through or the intention not to put a communication line through, each one treated in reverse to the way it ought to be treated, is the way the pc understands this. This is where understanding comes in with the pc, see.

And you're in the happy state right now of being on a plateau of this particular character that is just the data of late spring and early summer 1962, see? And it makes a package all by itself, and you'll get this special checksheet that contains the bulk of it. And I've just issued a policy letter for staff training around in Central Organizations which, with a few more items added, is - just the last few weeks of development is all that contains. And that's their staff training checksheet and nothing else, see?

He sees that. He sees that and he reacts to that right now. Therefore, we talk about missed withholds, missed withholds. Actually we’re talking about understanding and ARC on a very high echelon.

And you, unfortunately, picking up a GAE, possibly think to yourself that you are being victimized by being put on this special checksheet. And it probably hasn't been pointed out to you that you all have to pass this checksheet anyhow. And naturally if you get a GAE, there's time for you to study on the checksheet. So you're not really being assigned the checksheet because you got a GAE. You've all been assigned the checksheet whether you're going on auditing or not.

But you can handle the mechanics of the missed withhold — bang, bang. Everybody understands that. Because it’s the cure, because it’s a sufficiently low-level concept that the pc understands it and you understand and his mind responds to it and everything is dandy and it all works out when we say, „Missed withhold.“

That's modernization, but it's a plateau. You've hit it suddenly, and I haven't put up very many electric light bulbs and that sort of thing around, or fired off many rockets. But I'm at a point where, what am I going to write for bulletins, see? Interesting state for me to be in!

Now, what actually could be a missed withhold? We have the communication intended and not received. See, that is truth unacknowledged — recalling you to the first lecture.

So I'm refining bulletins and reissuing the bulletins. And today did you a policy letter, 17 July, on the exact Prepcheck for listing goals or lines. It's a nice Prepcheck. It's all for - it's all the slotted lines. You put the pc's name at the top of it, and then you just run the Prepcheck down. You make out a form every time you do a Prepcheck, see, just line after line, slot after slot. And you get each one of those nulled and turn it over and get the rest of those things nulled, and you've done a Listing Prepcheck.

Pc intends to communicate and it is never received. We express that as the inadvertent withhold. But that’s unacknowledged truth, the very thing he has protested about since the beginning of the universe, see. And it sits on prime postulate and his own goal line and everything else. So he screams like a banshee when you run into this one.

And yesterday did your Goals Prepcheck - how do you check out a goal? It just does it on this form, and so forth. Oh, I suppose we'll go along a little while and find out that there's some other button we ought to add to the thing and reissue the Prepcheck. That's about where you stand, now, because you stand at the pinnacle of success. See? It is happening.

He says, „It’s hot in here.“

And I'm not making any allowance at this particular time, of whether you find it easy to learn how to do this or not. I'm making no allowance for this, whatsoever. I'm just saying, "Well, you can learn it!" I'm not just throwing it off, but because I don't know any other road around it! See? I know no way to proof the technology up so that you will no longer have to run an E-Meter. See, I don't know how to do this.

And the auditor says, „Sh-nyaa.“ Or the auditor says nothing.

I tell you how far away we are on research. I am actually researching some sort of a technology that if you kicked off from earth, or it billiard-balled under atomic fission, or something like that, you wouldn't have to make an E-Meter in order to clear somebody, see? That's the echelon of research I have just entered into. And then improvement research, improving the thing, or this very high-flown "What the hell do you do about that?" Oh, I don't know. I might crack it and I might not.

You will then find the pc saying, „It’s hot in here.“

All Scientologists have a slight anxiety of, what if I kick the bucket? How much of the information would I pack along with me, see? They all have this. So, what I'm really trying to do is make out the information package you take along with you.

And if the auditor says nothing, watch the pc start to sweat. The pc will start to manifest it physiologically if he cannot put it across verbally. He’s going to make this stick. Thetans are fantastic to this degree. They’re always going to make it stick if they possibly can. And you’re not now in a session. You’ve got somebody who’s trying to set up a brand-new universe all based on the postulate that it’s hot in here. And the session becomes a ball of universe based on this, „It’s hot in here“ because it’s an unacknowledged truth. You got that side of it? See, that’s just 50 percent of it.

But there's about where we stand. Now, as far as alter-is is concerned, we've done this incredible thing of while going forward on the time track we've run the fundamentals back. All right, now we're at a fundamental that runs out everything we've put on the time track. You see, anything developed in Scientology or in Dianetics is now run-outable by the exact technology which you have. It runs itself out rather easily. It can be put together, in other words. All right, so much for that.

Now, the other 50 percent is he tells you, „No, I have never had anything to do with women.“

Unless you follow some such operating pattern as this, you then can't backtrack this terribly complicated thing called structure - matter, energy, space, time, whether a reactive mind or a universe - you can't backtrack this terrific complexity to a sufficient simplicity to be able to do something about it, you see? Well, that's what we've done. We've brought it back now and we find out - great surprise, surprise to me too, you see? What's wrong with it? The pc's goal. That isn't what's right with the pc, that's what's wrong with him, see?

And you, you knucklehead, say, „Good. Fine. Thank you very much. Here is the next rudiment or question or Zero.“

George Washington is not what is right with the United States, it's what is wrong with the United States! See?

Now what have you done?

That was pretty weird. It's a complete whizzer. We've had a whizzer run on us, you see?

Understand it in terms of communication. He’s put through a whopping big lie. This has no truth in it whatsoever. And you have said, „Wonderful! Fine! Thank you! Oh, give me some more lies!“

This guy goes on being loyal, being loyal, being loyal, being loyal. And he goes on being a lot of other things. And he doesn't know what he's doing wrong; he's doing something wrong. And he's caving in and falling on his head and unable to do his job and betraying everybody. And eventually we sort out his goal and we find out it's "to be loyal," see? That was probably the goal of Benedict Arnold.

In either case, your session will blow up. That’s how you blow up a session, see.

If the individual is no longer able to adequately do something, it's probably his goal - if he isn't happy about doing this thing, see? You got a goal "to harpoon whales." Well, you'll always be thinking about harpooning whale and always missing or unable to find a boat or find whales or something. It'll be the one thing that kind of makes you sigh and that you retreat from. See, a lot of things haywire about this.

Now, there you can see it visibly on the communication line. As far as the reality of it is concerned, do you see that the reality also fits in there? The reality of it is the pc thinks it is hot in there. It doesn’t even have to be hot for the pc to have a reality that it’s hot. This is actually the only thing he’s trying to put across — that he thinks it is hot in there. His commentary. You see?

It's very dangerous to tell you this because it's slightly invalidative of your goal, you see? But nevertheless, I have to tell you; it's the truth of the thing.

And all you acknowledge is the fact that he thinks it is hot in there and everything is fine. As long as that truth is acknowledged, you don’t leave him on a withhold of truth.

Now, let us consider the goal a finite truth. Now, it isn't completely true that the goal is everything that is wrong with the person. What is really wrong is the alter-isness of that goal. If the person never alter-ised the goal, he would probably be all right, you see? Now, you can say what's wrong with him is his goal, but it's a little bit too short a statement. No, what's wrong with him is the alter-is of his goal, the alteration of his goal, the departures from his goal line, his inabilities to commit this goal to action. See? That is what gives him his bank.

Then everything goes along fine because the R stays up. And then, of course, perforce, the A stays up.

But you strip the goal out from underneath all this and the bank disappears, and you find out he didn't need the goal in the first place, which is all quite interesting.

Now, he put you through, „I have never had anything to do with women in my whole life.“ Now, he has actually posed a very low R. It’s a lousy lie. He can’t think much of you if he thinks he — you know, if he’s postulated the A of, „You’re a nut“ and he doesn’t like you. you see that? Because he said already, „I can’t trust you with the truth,“ — not as a consequence to your having missed something else. This would be an entirely independent operation, see.

Well, consider that goal, then, a finite truth. (You probably don't think so, but this is still a lecture on ARC breaks and TR 4.) It's a finite truth. It was truth to this pc; it was actually self - postulated truth. And it never got acknowledged. But all around him lies got acknowledged and this baffled him.

He says, „Well, I can’t trust you with the truth“ is what he’s saying He’s saying you’re not trustworthy. What is your A there? Your affinity’s very poor.

And if you listen to a thetan for a while, you'll find out, really, all he's protesting is the fact that lies get acknowledged but truth doesn't. See, if you listen to him for a while, that's really all he's talking about. Whatever else he's saying or however he's putting it, whether in the Demosthenian oratory and logic, or no matter how colorfully or how dully or how whinishly or how meanly or how grandly he is putting it, that's what he is saying! He is saying truth never gets acknowledged and lies always get acknowledged.

So now you say, „Oh, fine! Thank you! Oh, good! Yeah! Three cheers, you know. Oh, fine!“

Some woman comes in and she says, "And I lost my husband. And there I was, a good homebody, and I was sitting there doing everything I was supposed to do, you see, and so forth. And he left me for this little flirt that would never cook and would never do anything, you see?" And you'll hear her going on and on along this particular line in some shade of gray of this argument. She, the wife, you see, was not acknowledged - and she was a true wife - but this flibbertigibbet that he ran off with, you see, well, he bestowed his whole fortune on her, and she was nothing but a cockeyed lie. See?

And he says, „Well, if this is the kind of session we’re going to have around here, we’re going to have A of that character where I don’t trust the auditor. We’re going to have R which is a cracking big lie like this and therefore this wasn’t a C at all because there was no truth in it to be comprehended.“

And you just look over these various things and you can generally trace through an argument these threads: the protest of the acknowledgment of lies and the failure to acknowledge truth. And that is the basis of a thetan's misemotion. These are the principles - above his goal, in back of his goal, and around - on which all thetans operate. There are no exceptions to this. They all operate on these same buttons. You press A chord major and you get A chord major.

And the funny part of it is, is you can reverse the whole triangle — flip — by making sure that you didn’t buy that lie. Making sure what you bought.

And therefore, when you say to a thetan in a session, "I am not acknowledging or taking up the truth," he gets upset! And that's cleaning a clean read. And when you say to a thetan that he's got something he hasn't got, he gets upset - or, that when he hasn't got something he's got, he gets upset - because you're doing an alter-is of the facts.

Your Zero Question of, „Have you ever had anything to do with women?“

He's got a present time problem, you read the meter and tell him he doesn't have one. He's upset! It's a violation of the true state of affairs. See, you're acknowledging a lie, here, and not hitting the true state of affairs. So the thetan doesn't have a present time problem and you tell him he's got one. Once more, you're acknowledging a lie and failing to acknowledge a truth. And he gets upset! And there's nothing makes a thetan get more upset than that. It's alter-isness. And there you get into all kinds of wild messes with a thetan.

And your pc says to you, „Ah, no, I’ve never had anything to do with women in my whole life.“

Now, do you see how prime postulate has a connection here and how it is definitely and intimately involved with reading the wrong meter read. See? You just hit right to the middle of his "thetanesque" soul with a dagger of betrayal. See?

And the auditor says, „All right. I’ll check that on the meter. Have you ever had anything to do with women? That reads.“

He's got a present time problem, you tell him he hasn't got one. You didn't acknowledge him, did you? All right. He hasn't got a present time problem, you tell him he's got one. Everything goes to hell from there on. He gets very upset because, "thetanesquely," he now wants to convince you of the truth of the situation. He's trying to impress you with the truth of the situation from that time. He then becomes the living crusader of Truth - capital T - sword in one hand, torch in the other, you know?

And the pc says, „Ho-oh-ha-ya. Ha-ha-ha-ha. I did have a little bit to do with women. When I was two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven and twelve, there were incidents. And when I was thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, eighteen, nineteen and twenty, there were incidents. And then we really got busy.“

You haven't got a pc from this point on. You have a crusader for Truth. And how do you get into that state? Well, it's very simple - you just miss a meter read. You clean a clean or wrong-call a reaction. You get a reaction and say there's no reaction; you get a clean and say there's a reaction. All you got to do is twist these two points and you no longer have a pc. You've thrown him right into his most turbulent areas of action. He is now demanding that you do not acknowledge untruths. He is now crusading on the basis that "we mustn't have more alter-is than we already got because it's put us in the position we are in."

And you get these all stretched out, why, you’ve bought nothing from him but the truth, man. The ARC is out of sight.

You've stepped all over his Scientological corns, if he's an auditor, perhaps, but you don't have to have a trained Scientologist to have this mechanism. You go out and you get yourself some raw meat, and the fellow sits down and says, "I've got ulcers."

You cannot create an ARC break by establishing truth. You can only create an ARC break by refusing truth and by accepting lies. And of course, the whole thing sums up under the heading of refusing truth. You refuse truth, you have an ARC break. You fail to establish truth as an auditor, you’ll have an ARC break. You cease to handle truth, you’ll have an ARC break. You cease to have as your primary stock in trade the ingredient known as truth and you, of course, have no more control in the session. Because you don’t have a pc who is in-session.

All right. Let's say, for fun, that he hasn't got ulcers. Let's say, for fun, what really is the trouble with him is every day he drinks insufficiently fermented wine, and it upsets his stomach and gives him indigestion, see? And he knows this. He doesn't even have to know it up on the surface of his mind, you see? He's got it all set. And he sits down and he says, "I've got ulcers."

You sit there and handle anything but truth and you’re in the soup. And a lot of you go on the basis and get into trouble, because you think it’d be terribly unkind to prick this guy’s bubble.

And you say, "All right. Good. Fine. Thank you very much. You got ulcers. All right. Hm-hm. Well, very good. Now, the best thing for us to do for you is to give you some Pepto-Bismol or barium meal and so forth, and we'll treat these ulcers. And if they don't get better, we'll operate on them."

You say, „Well, I don’t know. I mean he says he’s never had anything to do with women in his life. Well, it’d be awfully embarrassing . . .“

He'll be mad as hell at you! And you won't quite be able to figure out - "Hey! What's going on here?" see?

I feel this on TV sometimes. I’m rather unwilling to expose all of the pc’s overts, be responsible for... I’m perfectly willing for the pc’s overts to be exposed to me, but I am actually not willing to possibly damage the pc by exposing his overts elsewhere, don’t you see. So, on TV I feel a little bit queasy like this. So I know how you feel sometimes.

Guy comes in, he has one ten-thousandth of an inch of tissue left before perforation, see, of the ulcer. See, he's just on the verge, you know - he can still walk around - and he's got ulcers to all intents and purposes, man. And he comes down and he sits down and he says, "I haven't got ulcers."

And this girl says, „Oh, I’m a virgin.“

And you say, "I agree with you perfectly. You haven't got ulcers."

And you say, „Well, that’s nice. That’s sweet.“ And you let it go by. And she’s cutting your throat. And she’s not in-session. What’s going to happen? And you have this . . . See?

And, boy, he will be mad at you!

You’re running something like old Formula — what was it — Thirty-three? „What question shouldn’t I ask you?“

That's why you mustn't treat illnesses: because they're all lies.

And it’s very very often you’ll get this from a girl, „Oh, you shouldn’t ask if I’m a virgin.“

Guy comes in, says, "I have a sore throat. I have a sore throat. I have a sore throat." You run something on him and the ridge moves. Yes, his throat is sore. That is a statement of truth.

„All right. Are you a virgin?“ — see, it was just the old pattern response.

But he says, "I have a cold." If he means by that, he is being attacked by virus or germs or something of the sort, and this is not the case, you can get yourself all involved in an ARC-breaky situation by making him gargle.

And she says, „Well, yes, I — I — I am a virgin.“

Very interesting. No wonder the medical profession has to have law to support them!

And you say, „All right. Good. Fine. Thank you.“ Because you think it would be unseemly or something to inquire further into this thing. You should ask yourself why the hell she mentioned it in the first place. How come she brought it up? See.

Do you see? This is under the heading of acknowledging the lie and ignoring the truth.

So you got — that’s what you got a meter for. And later on in this session, why, she’s blowing her top and way out of session. You can’t get the rudiments in and that sort of thing. Well, you departed from truth. You didn’t follow it down and get at truth. That was all. There was a moment of untruth in the session. It is very unkind to leave one of those things in a session — to be so diffident that you don’t want to establish truth because it might embarrass somebody or hurt somebody’s feelings. That’s never a good enough reason to ruin a human being

A guy comes in and says he hasn't got ulcers, you say, "I'll audit you." Fine. Make sure you do so if you say so.

They don’t suffer from having their feelings hurt, let me tell you. They only suffer from being permitted to depart from truth. That is all. And this E-Meter is not a lie detector. It’s a truth verifier.

He comes in and he says, "I haven't got ulcers. Actually, it is just some pains that I get from drinking too much ketchup."

The reason it’s unpopular in the world is because the police started calling such machines lie detectors. Actually, comparing this to a police lie detector is something like saying the 1886 Mercedes-Benz is as good as the modern Jaguar, you see. Because the sensitivity of the instruments is not even of the same order of magnitude. And that doesn’t matter that the police lie detector costs $18,000. That has nothing to do with it. This is a truth verifier.

And you say, "Good. I will audit you."

An auditor is an establisher of truth. And if he can establish the truth of the situation and then acknowledge what he has established as the truth of the situation by accepting it and so forth and that he does not avoid the truthful statements of a pc and does not accept the untruthful statements of the pc, of course, never after that does he have any ARC breaks. It requires something fundamental in the auditor. It requires that the auditor is not shy of establishing the truth of a situation.

You enter into the field of what is laughingly called diagnosis, you're in trouble. But oddly enough, as close as you can diagnose is guessing what he has done, and running it out as an overt.

A pc will actually protest very loudly sometimes when you’re trying to establish the truth of a situation. But you notice they’re also blushing at the same time. It’s a — it’s a confusion. If you’re — if you get very clever and experienced, you will always know when you are establishing the falsity, you see, of the situation that has been uttered by the pc and that you’re establishing the actual truth of it. The pc has attempted to establish falsity and you are attempting to establish truth. And it’s a pretty weird look on the pc when you’re doing this.

And, of course, it mustn't be forced on him that he has done it if he hasn't, because now you're really in trouble. You dream up a Zero question, "How about blowing up railway depots?" (he's never been near one in his life) and then insist that he find the overt. Oh, man, that session is going to go round and round and round. You're going to be in trouble all the way.

I don’t care how loud the pc sounds. He ordinarily won’t, after a very short time, sound loud at all. The only way you ever come out the other end as a friend of the pc and he’s a friend of yours, is if you’ve established the truth of the situation regardless of embarrassment and regardless of anything else.

All right. Now, during the war he was a light-bomber-force bombardier and he was a specialist in blowing up railroad stations. In fact, he'd go out practically every night and blow up another railroad station, see? And you say, "Have you ever blown up a railroad station? That's null. We will go on to the next question."

Those considerations are entered into the track to make you more reactive bank — that we must have social lies. Very often playwrights come along and they tell you, „Well, if anybody told the truth for twenty-four hours without any difference whatsoever, he would lose all of his friends.“

Well, everything kind of goes whirry and wheely in his skull. The cogs start to mismatch. And boy, he gets mad, he gets upset, he gets misemotional, because of the same mechanism. He has blown up railroads. It isn't that you've failed to discover something about him. It's just that it isn't true, see?

And it’s one of the old-time favorite themes in this universe, because they’re trying to establish the validity of a lie. That will establish mass and get everybody in trouble and it’s quite a — quite a black operation. Whereas it’s not true at all. If you were to sit out from the human race’s social lies for twenty-four hours and do nothing but tell the truth for twenty-four hours and insist on nothing but the truth for twenty-four hours, he would wind up top dog. He would not be in a mess at all. Do you see that a lie has been entered on to the track here that you could not tell the truth for twenty-four hours? Yeah, you’d wind up wonderful.

You've said "All right, you haven't blown up railroad stations," when he has. Or you've said "All right, you've blown up railroad stations" when he hasn't. Either way, you're acknowledging a lie and failing to acknowledge the truth. And you're on the direct line of a thetan's favorite protest through the ages.

In the first place, if you really insisted on the truth, you would wind up at the end of that twenty-four hours having some friends, where you only thought you had before. But it requires a very strong man to enter into the first part of that. Because it’s repercussive.

And out of this you get an ARC break. And that's what an ARC break is. It is an abandonment of truth and an acceptance of lies. And after that, you got trouble.

I’ve told the truth to somebody and had them scream enough to take the roof off. By the time you’ve told them again four or five times, they eventually listened. Then it didn’t seem so much.

So when you misread a meter, you've hung the pc with one or the other. That's why you got to be able to read a meter every time and never miss. Because every time you miss you've entered into the session the thetan's favorite boogeyman: the acknowledgment of lies and the ignoring of truth. And you have just entered this into the session and after that he blows his stack and ...

It is stepping back from the establishment of truth that pitches one heels — one’s heel over the edge of any grave he may fall into. That is the way down.

He doesn't really know why his eyeballs keep going out a foot in his face and snapping back into the sockets, you see? But he knows he's upset, and it's the most fundamental upset there can be, since out of that upset comes the whole construction and, reversely, the whole destruction, not only of universes but of his own reactive bank. And you've hit right on the primary principle of construction of the reactive bank and of the universe. And you've hit right on why it is that way. And he doesn't like it being that way. And you have made the session agree with all of the slave tricks that have ever been pulled on him.

Now, wherever an individual sits into an auditing session with social mores and kindnesses in full play, he can wind up with the most confounded mess of junk you ever, as a session, you ever heard of.

So therefore he has to protest against you. And up to that moment you were his friend that was going to get him out of all this. And now you've pulled the trick that got him into all this. You see, you've acknowledged the untruth and you have failed to acknowledge the truth. And that was the trick that got him into all this in the first place. So he doesn't want to be in there again, so he tries to get out of that session, sometimes very loudly.

Pc wildly out of session and so forth. It would actually be unkind to ask this girl if she had ever stolen anything. So we will say, „Have you ever stolen anything?“ And then we will just ignore that read on the meter because it isn’t necessary to go into it.

So that's why meter reading has to be 100 percent. And that's why there is no substitute for good meter reading. And that's why, in procedure, you can occasionally flub, misread a question, do something like that - your TR 0 will go out, or something like that - and you don't upset the session to any great degree at all. But, brother, you just miss that one read - it reacted, and you said it was clean. You have taken a bayonet and slashed clear back to the beginning of time with this pc and restimulated every protest he's had for two hundred trillion years. So you get violence, of course.

Actually, an auditor’s mind doesn’t really operate like this. He’s just blind. He needs glasses or something. I’m just warning you that the wrong direction — just giving you this word of warning — a wrong direction is in the direction of buying lies or letting lies go by in a session. You’re always in trouble.

You can learn how to read a meter perfectly. Don't worry about it. It is doable.

And what we call this, „Letting the lie go by“ is the missed withhold. Remember, there can also be the inadvertent missed withhold of letting the truth go by, see. So, if you let a truth go by without acknowledging it and let a lie go by without challenging it, in either way you’re in trouble. Because you just restimulated the guy’s whole track.

All I wanted to show you is the mechanism of what happens when you misread a meter and how that compares with 3GA and how your session and sessioning, now, is totally lined up with the actual principle of the mind. You are doing now what the mind is doing. You've got it exactly paralleled. And so therefore you can spot any error that you commit, and the error is merely in that field.

And of course, the ARC sinks, the corners of the triangle start to explode with small firecrackers and debris scatters around the scenery and there it is.

But the pc protest now is the most fundamental protest that a thetan can make in a session, because you are doing exactly in a session the parallel of what the mind has been doing, and therefore you are at extreme truth. This whole session, you're running extreme truth. And that pc can feel it. He knows you're running extreme truth. And then, carelessly, you introduce the needle that didn't react and you say it did; you introduce the needle that reacted and you said it didn't. And into that extreme truth you introduce this untruth, and after that you've got hell to pay. That's why pcs ARC break, and that's the direction that you have to take to repair sessions - you have to repair these introductions of untruth. Okay?

You want ARC to drop out of the session, why, just follow this same basis. That is why your metering has to be 100 percent. And why, incidentally, in passing along, your TR 4 has got to be pretty good. But your TR 4 will be pretty good if you just remember to understand.

Thank you.

All right. Let’s all agree you’re a complete knucklehead when pcs start muttering. Let’s just, you know, take that as a basis: The pcs are rather incomprehensible and nuts on this line and that you are particularly knuckleheaded where what they’re saying is concerned. You’ve got a perfectly safe basis. There’s nothing wrong with the statement at all that prohibits auditing

Well, you could accomplish auditing with that statement. But if you pride yourself that you always understand everything the pc says and never have to inquire into what the pc is saying and that it would look awfully stupid of you to have to inquire again about what the pc is saying, you’ve laid the basis to the damnedest messes you ever saw. They won’t be sessions.

I’m perfectly prepared to be stupid as far as a pc is concerned. Perfectly prepared to be stupid because that’s the isness of the situation I’m handling is stupidity, aren’t I?

So the pc says — he says — he says, „Yagagayaga-plitzou.“ And ha-ha, I don’t depend on my altitude for appearing bright. Why should you? No point in it.

You say, „What did you say?“

And the pc says, „Wiggle-wiggle plitzboom.“

Well, don’t show any misemotion. Say, „Well, I’m just particularly stupid today. I didn’t get it. You’ll have to say it in English. You’ll have to drive it across this wagon one way or the other so I can see what it is.“

And he says, „Oh, skip it.“

And I say, „No, that one we’re not going to skip. I’m just particularly stupid. What is this ‘wiggle-wiggle plitzboom?’ What is it? I mean what are you saying?“

And he says, „Well, you wouldn’t understand.“

And I say, „Well, that’s what I’m trying to tell you. That’s what I’m trying to tell you. I don’t understand what you’re saying,“ and so forth. I’m perfectly willing to sit there for half an hour and go over this thing.

And he finally says, „Well, I mean that the chair leg has come down on the tip of my foot.“

And you say, „Well, all right. Thank you very much. Slide it out. All right. Now, here we go.“

And you find out your session doesn’t come to grief. The way to make a session come to grief is the pc says, „Wiggle-wiggle plitzboom,“ and you say, „Good. Fine. Thank you very much“ and go on. You’ve had it. You’ve entered pretense into the session and it didn’t live there.

No, as long as an auditor considers himself an establisher of truth and as long as he refuses to do anything less than establish truth, he’s all right.

From then on, why, he can’t have any real difficulties, because a pc will forgive an awful lot of fumbling if, during the fumbling, an auditor has only one intention: is to establish the exact, „What is it.“ See, if that intention is totally clear, the pc can forgive a lot of fumbling.

Don’t ever try to look brighter than you are. And never be dumb enough to do otherwise than pursue truth and you’ll have it. In essence, you’ll build a whole universe out of bad auditing sessions simply because you’ve continued to alter-is the basic truth of the pc and the basic truth of the universe. And it’ll all just mess up like fire drill.

And of course, the meter is simply nothing more or less than establish a truth. And you ought to be lucky you have it. Think of the lies you lived in before you had it.

So if it’ll do that, why, you at least have the responsibility of reading it right all the time. And then you’re true with the meter. Okay?

Thank you very much.