Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Well, this is lecture two, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, 9 August.

What’s the date?

What’s the year?

Audience: 9th of August.

Audience: 1962. AD 12.

Ninth of August? What planet? Nine August, AD 12, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, lecture number one.

AD 12. All right, thank you.

Subject of lecture: Clearing. Series of two lectures here, one of which is clearing in general and the second lecture will be on the specific technology of listing in which you will be very, very interested.

And what I’m going to talk to you about is just – technically just listing.

All right. What are you trying to do? Well, you’re trying to clear people. Now, that may not be what you’re trying to do according to your goal but unreactively, you are, of course, quite happy to do just that. Therefore, you should recognize that all processes are subordinate to this final end. There are no processes that compare with those that clear. That is very much the case.

Listing: How to list.

Now, you have to consider that an individual, in order to be clearable, has to be auditable. So that therefore becomes part of clearing to the degree that it is — assists clearing. And if at any time an individual cannot be audited, he of course cannot be cleared. That’s awfully plain, isn’t it? That’s one of these idiotic things: The way to get up the — across the river is to get across the river. You know? But you’re going to face this. You’re going to face this many times. You’re going to have somebody who is unauditable and you’re trying to clear them.

In the beginning, there was the Model Session.

Well, what do I mean by unauditable? There’s nothing very esoteric about the definition. If the fellow can’t talk and can’t listen and can’t respond, he, of course, is unauditable.

Now, what do you do in listing that is different than any other auditing? Well, you prepcheck the object of and the lines of the auditing command – every session beginning with a fast check. Got it? And I think if you do that, your number of items that you need to list out a goal will materially diminish. I think you’ll find it saves its time over and over and over and over.

So when we’re speaking of unauditable for the subject matter of clearing, we have nothing to do with the old, I think it’s Kraepelin, I think the fellow’s name was, over in Germany. I think — it really was! I mean — he made up this scale of insanities and I don’t know — very Germanic subdivisions of subdivisions into the subdivisions and all of this sort of thing and this terrific chart. I mean, it’s marvelous. They took it over to the United States and they sort of amputated it down and cut out a lot of the steps and then changed the definitions of those, but aside from that alter — is, they’re using the same chart.

So let’s put in the rudiments – the beginning rudiments – bangety-bangety-bang, and say the pc’s goal, and to-be-a-tiger it. In other words, get the middle ruds in on it, fast. Get it to firing if we can. Of course, we go just so far, this thing is going to start firing latent, and it’s going to expire one way or the other. But after all, it is our target. And to run somebody endlessly with his goal suppressed and invalidated and all that sort of thing is liable to require a large number of additional items and all kinds of other things in the session, don’t you see? Other things might go wrong. You might even waste a whole session and not even recognize that you have wasted one.

Now, that’s states of sanity. And you frankly don’t have anything to do with a state of sanity. Just make up your mind on that, right there. You got nothing to do with it. I know it is an intriguing subject, but consider it one of the lesser para-Scientology subjects that somebody should study sometime for a master’s thesis in a University of Scientology somewhere up the track when you can’t teach him anything else. You got the idea? See? It’s a subordinate subject to Scientology. Yet the whole world tries to force any activity in the field of the mind either into the field of insanity or the field of advertising.

All right. Now, the auditing command, of course, is the Who-What lines, of which there are four.

Now, our difficulties are multiplied by the fact that the public at large believes that we have a lot to do with sanity whereas — now I’m giving you a technical truth; what we had to say about insanity had to do with difficulties in auditing and other things in the past, you see.

Now, I’m not going to try to give you a wording of the Who-What lines and say that will forever and always be true.

Well, just kind of lay all that aside and just skip it. Assign it to propaganda, necessary statements, efforts to keep organizations and auditors from getting themselves in trouble and, you know.

First you have finding the goal, in 3GA, and proving it out, and then you get to listing. And in actual fact, the first step of listing is to find lines that fit the goal.

So we’ve used this word „insanity“ from time to time. We’ve used this word „sanity“ from time to time. But actually we have no business having anything to do with either because there isn’t a human being on Earth today who is sane. They’re all batty or they wouldn’t be here.

Now, you’ve got a picture that you must comply with. And the picture is an outflow arrow and an inflow arrow – arrows pointing at one another. Draw a circle for the pc and then draw a line going out from him and then the arrow ends, and then draw another line extending that one, but its arrow ends are in toward the first arrow.

It’s just — it’s one of these definitions that proves itself, you know. You say, „Is this fellow insane?“ Well, you can’t say he’s insane because we don’t know what the definition of that is. But is he sane? And we find him in a small factory working someplace at a drill press, you see, and he comes down to the drill press in the morning, at 8:00 in the morning and he goes this way — see? And he does this until 5:30, see. And he does this five days a week. That guy must be crazy! His total horizon is being retired someday by a socialist government which, of course, having drained the population of taxes in the interim, probably won’t exist at the time of his retirement. His complications are many, but you couldn’t say that he is taking the optimum solution out along the line.

And then you have the retarding arrow of the first line, and then you have the retarding arrow of the second line, and they’re just arrows alongside the other two arrows – going the opposite direction. In other words, you got four arrows here: One is going out from the pc and one is going in toward the pc. And then you’ve got the other pair of arrows further out; the first one is in toward the pc and the other one is out away from the pc.

And I’m afraid you could only define sanity. You cannot define insanity. And somebody who is sane could be defined as: a person who resolves problems for the greatest good of the greatest number of dynamics. That’s a sane action. We can define that; I think you would agree with that. I’m not shoving it down your throats as the definition of sanity. We don’t even have to have it as a technical fact, but I think you’d rather agree with that as sane.

Now, the auditing command that you want simply matches up the four basic flows. Now, you see, there could be 16 flows listed, there could be 32 flows listed, there could be 128 flows listed. Don’t you see? You could list and list – oh, wow! But staying with four is the most economical, as far as we know at this particular time. But those four must be meaningful to the pc; they’ve got to make sense to the pc.

Well, when you look at the actions of human beings and their various tangles and so forth, very few of their problems are solved with that equation. So, which of course, rather debars them from the subject.

Now, we want to know – we want to know – the first line is, „Who or what would have it?“ „Want it,“ „Have it“ – I don’t care which one you use. That’s as far as the goal is concerned. Then „Who or what would oppose it?“ See, that’s your outer arrow pointing in toward the first arrow. „Who or what would oppose it?“

So we haven’t anything to do with sanity or insanity — nothing. The guy’s in a spinbin; that doesn’t prove he’s sane or insane or anything else. See, it proves nothing. The only thing you’re interested in is the auditability of a person. See? The second you’ve got clearing as an absolute fact — there it is — you’re only then interested in the auditability of a person.

Now we’ve got to have specifically, „Who or what would keep you from performing it?“ or „doing it?“ You see? And then we’ve got to find out, „Who or what would oppose its being opposed?“

So people fall into a gradient scale of auditability which passes out down into a scale of inauditability. And that’s what you should really study if you’re going to study states of man and that sort of thing: is are they auditable. Now, that is a very narrow look. That is a very narrow look because it’s a technical look.

Now, how you get these words to go together is remarkable, and so forth, but they must fire.

A person who is not Clear will not resolve things for the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics. Even a first — goal Clear won’t, ordinarily — and I think you will find it borne out that you get a second goal, third goal and all of a sudden they’re starting to really look around and observe things in that their equating and resolving problems and so forth will step up to that degree — will begin to match up to that particular definition, of a proper definition of a solution to a problem for the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics.

Now, the goal has a rocket read, and then so must the lines. You’ve got to have a read on those lines. And the read on these lines must exist not because you’ve made a mistake on the line. You recognize that you could write the wrong line, and so forth.

But look, I’m talking to you now — not on a basis of propaganda or what I’d like the world to believe or anything else — I’m just talking to you straight from the shoulder what I know. And what I know is this: There is no processing short of clearing that is worth long and arduous hours. See, there is none. Now, that we’ve got 3GA, we can take a look back along the line and we can see easily how hard we have worked for what tiny gains. Now, that’s — those gains were well worth making. My God, let’s not downgrade this fact. They were well worth making, but the gain we can make in comparison to these things by clearing is something like a matchstick up against the Empire State Building. You see? The comparative values of these things are fantastic in compa — they’re hardly — they’re not of the same order of magnitude hardly, you see?

Do you know to date we have had three people, one of whose clearing was held up, and two, that was loused up, right here at Saint Hill, because nobody paid enough attention to the wording and value of the wording of lines? So this is not a light subject. This is a very important subject. And it is the auditor’s responsibility, not the Training Director or somebody else’s responsibility. This is the auditor’s responsibility. Those lines are there and they’ve got to fire.

You got somebody over his headaches, and he got along better with his family. Fine. Good. Wonderful. Nobody could do it before on this planet. And, therefore our existence has been justified. But look, we all of a sudden have got our hands on a fact here. And this fact is 3GA and I’ve watched it now. I’ve kept my eye on this and I just give it to you straight from the shoulder. I mean what we’re doing has absolutely — hardly any comparative value with what we’ve done at all. And the value of actual clearing is so great. And it does so much for the person that to strike for a lesser goal when that other goal of clearing is in your power, of course is an awful waste of time. So we become interested in auditability.

In other words, if you read this line, „Who or what would want to catch catfish?“ that thing has got to fire on that, not because the goal is on the end, but the line as a major thought has got to fire. That’s got to fire.

Now, every now and then, there’s one or another amongst you I start worrying about, see? That isn’t anything that you disturb my dreams or something, but I see how you are doing and how you are not doing, and so forth, and I start worrying. I see your case going awry or something like that. Your Instructors can tell you — all I do is start „push, push“ along this line, you know. Well, how can we get him up into 3GA group, you see? And how can we somehow or other cut the corners on this, and how can we press this one forward, and how can we get this person to audit well enough so that he can receive some auditing and, you see, and it’s all — it’s this kind of action that is taking place, see.

Now, remember that the whole rash of free needles that we got out earlier this summer were all listed on this simplicity. (I’ll show you how simple it can be.) Line one: „Who or what would want to catch catfish?“ (Let’s say this is the goal.) Line two: „Who or what would oppose catching catfish?“ Line three: „Who or what would, not oppose catching catfish?“ Line four: „Who or what would not want to catch catfish?“

And the difficulty that we face is actually not a technical difficulty that an auditor faces to a pc, see. Here is a little bit of a different difficulty. You are technicians. You are Scientologists. You are scientists. You are people who can do things with the human mind. You practically — this small confine here — practically all the people on Earth who are experts on the subject are confined at this moment in this very small area. See?

Now, those are the exact lines – the verb form changing on two of the lines to an „-ing.“ And look, even though they were reaching madly and having an awful time on line four, and scrambling around on it most horribly, they still made it, see? Now, it was only when, on one, (and I’m not saying this just to be mean, although the person who thinks – who is going to hear it in a moment will swear that I said it just to be mean) – the introduction of „your“ into the line (unreported by the auditor) – into one of the lines prevented that line from ever going to free needle. Till one day I caught the thing up and found out that this extra word existed in the line, knocked the extra word out, had it prepchecked a little bit, and wham, all four lines went to free needle.

All right. The trick is from my viewpoint, to get somebody who can clear somebody else while being cleared, see, that’s the stunt. Otherwise nothing else works — not on this planet, you see.

See, there was one line in there – I’ve forgotten which line it was, but it was something on the order of „Who or what would oppose your catching catfish?“ Not „Who or what would oppose catching catfish?“ See? Just the introduction of that „your“ on one of the four lines. See, it wasn’t on the other three. And yet this was listed this way by three auditors, see? And the first auditor was completely exonerated on the matter because nobody had formulated the lines at that time to amount to anything and we were just at the beginning of this level, and this auditor put them together as kind of what the pc thought they might be, you see? And there was a „your’ in it. And that prevented those things from going to free needle. So, in other words, the wording of the line can prevent or achieve a free needle for that line. It is the wording of the line.

All right. So we’re faced with this additional problem, and your judgment on this course is liable to be warped a little bit as to the auditability of somebody because he’s not up in the 3GA group, see. There isn’t anybody on this course who couldn’t be that fast in the 3GA group, you see. You walk right straight in the front door and just go straight onto a 3GA group providing there was no requisite they pay for any of the auditing they get by auditing. You see? Yet there was no requisite. We maybe could have a staff of a half a dozen people and these people are all groomed up, and a student comes in and we audit that student to Clear and then he walks on out the front door and gets lost in the vast multitude, or something like this. You see?

Now, our modern – more modern version seems to hit people much closer. And we have had at least one goal not go Clear on the old four lines, but be much easier to run, and is running much more easily, and actually on the original four lines just went up to 5.0 as the TA, and stuck. Right goal, but it just went up and stuck because these lines were not adequate to describe the situation, you see, and started moving again the moment the wording was changed to these lines which we are now using.

Now, that is not an optimum condition. You may have disagreement with this and you’re perfectly welcome to disagree with this because I point it out clearly as simply a point of view. My struggle has not been to clear people. My struggle has been to get people to clear people. You see?

Line one: „Who or what would want to catch catfish?“ Line two: „Who or what would oppose catching catfish?“ Line three: „Who or what would retard“ (or „pull back“) „opposition to catching catfish?“ And line four: „Who or what would pull back“ (what is it?) „…from catching catfish?“

Now, if we can do that, we’ve got this — we got it licked. We’ve got this planet licked. We’ve got the biggest breakthrough that has happened on this planet — ever! There has never been a comparable breakthrough — all right — such as we have in our hands right this minute, because we are doing that very thing and therefore it’s a tremendous breakthrough. So don’t adjudicate your judgment as to who is clearable on the basis of somebody is in rudiments and havingness section, see? See? Don’t go off to that degree. He’s in rudiments and havingnesses because he can’t audit anybody well enough to receive auditing yet. Got the idea? Or he’s working up till he can. We don’t have any unauditable cases here from a standpoint of clearing. Now, does that open your minds up a little bit on this?

Audience: „Someone or something.“

Audience: Mm — hm.

Oh, „someone or something from catching catfish?“ Now, „someone or something“ could of course be on all four – on at least two of the lines, or on more of the lines, you understand. But there is the pattern which we are using now. It’s „pull back“ and „pull back,“ or „retard“ and „pull back,“ on lines three and four.

There isn’t one in the place. Not one.

But the point is, the line has got to fire. You read the goal, „To catch catfish,“ bang! „To catch catfish,“ bang! „To catch catfish,“ bang!

There’s some dirty needles. There are some people that have a little difficulty to stay in — session. And all those things are curable by the very things which you’re being taught. That is to say you can give them some rudiments and Havingness sessions and you can give them some Prepchecking sessions and you can pull their overts and there goes their dirty needle; and you can straighten them out and then you can take them right on through and find their goal. Now, that’s — that’s the truth of the case. Don’t you see?

All right. That read transfers over on to all four lines. And it is not true that it transfers on to just three of the lines and the other one isn’t hot just now. See, it’s because that line that is not firing is not quite right. See? You should be able to put these four lines together and get them all to fire. You say, „To catch catfish,“ bang! „To catch catfish,“ bang! „To catch catfish,“ bang! „Who or what would want to catch catfish?“ Bang! You see? They’ve all got to fire that way.

You actually are not being subjected to inauditable cases, and you aren’t. Now, getting your point of view, then, straightened out, just on this: How bad off does a person have to be to be unauditable? How bad off is he? Well, it’s pretty bad; it’s pretty bad. Now, I’ll tell you what makes them unauditable: it’s how many overts they are secretly committing during the period of auditing. That’s a factor.

Now, there are various oddball wordings which haven’t worked. We run into the problem of the negative goal. Let’s take the goal „Not to talk.“ „Who or what would want not to talk?“ That’s perfectly fine, isn’t it? „Who or what would oppose not to talk?“ That’s good, isn’t it? That’s fine. We’re just going along fine there. Now let’s get to line three on the old wording. „Who or what would not oppose not to talk?“ Double negative. Enterprising auditor, shift the double negative, of course, change it around so you don’t have a double negative, that’d make it „much better“ – she never goes Clear. And line four, „Who or what would not want not to talk?“ Now that’s really becoming garbage as far as the auditor can see. Pretty gruesome.

Now, if you have got somebody so poorly under your thumb as an auditor, see, his control factor in the session poor, and goes out and goes this ... You don’t have them show up for sessions by reason of the fact that they’re dead drunk or in court or something like this. Don’t you see? There are a lot of things getting in the road of your auditing all the time. You see? Well, that’s what makes them unauditable more than anything else. Or he keeps coming into session with a dirty needle. You clean it up today and he comes in tomorrow, and so forth, you see. You just can’t…

But what do you know! Interestingly enough, it’s perfectly comprehensible to the pc. Double negative – so what? Doesn’t mean anything to the pc. The line means something to the pc, but that it isn’t grammatically something or other was not a thing. So that first wording was perfectly okay and was all right to remain just as it was if you had a negative goal.

Now, the person who can be cleaned up and who can somehow be bludgeoned into keeping his snoot clean long enough for you to read his needle, see, all right — that is the lowest level of auditability.

But this wording didn’t work, see – double negative, that’s all right, doesn’t matter. But this wording didn’t work: „Who or what would want the goal ‘not to talk’?“ „Who or what would oppose the goal ‘not to talk’?“ „Who or what would not oppose the goal ‘not to talk’?“ For some cockeyed reason it ceases to make sense very soon, see? „The goal…“ „the goal…“ „the goal… Makes it grammatical, but – , apparently makes it unworkable.

Now, below that level you have the fellow who won’t tell you, who will never give any of his overts up, who will not cooperate with you or be frank with you, and from that point on there it all is. I mean, right on down to the fact that he can’t talk at all. See? From — for our purposes, the communication level at which auditability ceases is where the person will not talk to the auditor frankly. See?

Now we’ll get another one: Let’s take the „-i-n-g“ out of it. „Who or what would oppose catching catfish?“ See? „Who or what would oppose the goal ‘to catch catfish’?“ Now, this one is important for you to know about, because pcs will try to steer you into it. It hasn’t the least bearing on the situation. It doesn’t go clear. Apparently this one lays an egg. But a pc tells you „that’s real hot.“ The pc will tell you, „That’s real good.“ And apparently it is for the birds. See the difference? It’s a different meaning. „Who or what would oppose the goal ‘to catch catfish’?“ of course is just dandy. That sounds good, doesn’t it? Well, it isn’t the same meaning that you want on your list line.

Now understand, an auditor’s got lots of tricks and he can force a lot of people to talk to him. And he can force them under control and dire warnings: „You come in here just one more morning with that many overts the night before and I’ll pick up this E — Meter — I won’t audit you tomorrow — I’ll just pick up this E — Meter and break it over your head. Do you understand? Then you’ll owe me for an E — Meter. See? Got the idea? When you go home tonight, walk only on the left side of the street. Don’t say a word to your wife. Go to bed quietly. Don’t have any fight this morning at breakfast because I’m not going to spend another two hours cleaning up your breakfast quarrel. Now, keep it easy now and we’ll have you through the knothole,“ see.

We don’t care about opposing the goal. To hell with the goal – why keep it in that realm? We want to know who would oppose catching catfish, not oppose the goal „to catch catfish.“ It’s „Who or what would oppose catching catfish?“ that clears the pc. See, that’s the opposition. It’s the opposition to action. Because remember, these are flow lines. When everybody – anybody tries to steer you away from a wording which you think is proper and so forth, in arguing it out with a pc, or figuring it out yourself or something, just remember this: These are actions. These are actions.

You know, I mean you could be that tough. But that person that you could do that with that that would work on, you see, he’s still in this band of auditability — the person that can be almost bludgeoned into giving up his withholds. Oh, you — auditor has lots of tricks this way: „Well, I’m willing to sit here the rest of the night. There’s the read. Where’s the overt? I’m willing to sit here the rest of the night until you tell me, but are you?“

Now, of course, we get „want the goal“: that’s a kind of an inflow, isn’t it? And that has always kind of loused me up. I don’t know quite why an inflow word like want works as an outflow action of the goal. But it apparently keeps the goal in the item’s head that has got it. See? But have, as far as I know – although I don’t have too much data on this – have apparently works equally well. Apparently.

Just fold up the E — Meter and sit back in your chair. Yeah, you’ve got all kinds of forcing tricks, but you see there’s a band of people on which this doesn’t work. Below that, is only the people that you can’t force to give up any overts. You can’t force them to be frank with you. You know, just can’t make it any way you can possibly think of Comes in here, needle going: bang — bang — bang — bang — bang, bang — bang — bang — bang — bang — bang, bang — bang — bang — bang — bang — bang — bang — and you say, „What have you done?“

But it’s what fires that counts. But what fires has got to be actions of the goal. It’s got to be action. Because you’re listing flow lines.

„Nothing.“

So this would be dead wrong: „Who or what would oppose people who had the goal to catch catfish?“ This is dead wrong. That’s – you want to know who or what would oppose people. Well, that’s not the goal.

„What crimes have you committed in the last 24 hours?“

All right. Let’s go a little bit further afield here. It’s after all „catfish,“ isn’t it? All right, so „Who or what would oppose catfish?“ You’re practically listing two lines at once. That’s what messes up there. Because anybody who’s trying to catch catfish is opposing catfish too. And anybody who’s opposing catfish is also opposing catfish, and you’ve got no Opposition anyplace. So you might as well just do the one line for the two, don’t you see?

„Nothing.“ Try any trick in the trade. „I haven’t done a thing. Oh, I’m telling you the truth. I’ve always told you the truth!“ See, now we’re getting down.

And there we come into the liability of listing lines. Now, believe me, this is quite a problem, because you’re liable to make this horrible mistake, unless forewarned: The pc is given four commands but actually only lists three lines. Now, look at the mess this gets him into. He lists twice as many items on one line and he lists no items on another line, and an equal number on the remaining two lines.

Now, whether that personality is psychotic or neurotic or badly bent or anything else, we couldn’t care less. See, the personality is a fact. See? We don’t care what classifications or labels gets assigned to the personality. We can’t break through to smooth this case out enough.

In other words, he overlists one line and doesn’t list another line at all. And the pc is going to go round the bend. See, he’s really going to get cooked with this one. Next thing you know, your tone arm is stuck, and you’ll be saying it’s the wrong goal, and everything is all upset. Well, the pc, through his own interpretation, can do this just fine. So the best way to handle this is have pcs draw you pictures.

Now, it isn’t that our meter won’t read. You see? That’s not actually — that would be on the apparent surface of it, the debarring factor. Of course that makes it impossible too, but it’s actually that this guy’s not going to sit still long enough and he’s got so many curves on the line that you’re never even going to clean up one goal. Look, if you can’t get him to talk to you, how are you ever going to get any rudiments in or anything else? You see? Regardless of whether you were auditing him on a meter or not. If you were to just lay a meter aside and try to audit him up the line on the something or other, you’d just get a pack of lies, and of course, the meter — at the end of the session you’d have to clean everything up at the end of session, you see. It’d be a mess!

Now, you want to draw the pc a picture of the one I just gave you and present this as a problem to the pc of how you’re going to word this thing. Of course, you’re going to word this thing with current wording. If absolutely impossible, you’re going to change it. But you’re going to try to word it with current wording. But you want to show the pc this thing. And it’s this arrow that comes in toward him, and this arrow that goes out that faces the other arrow, and then this arrow that pulls back and then this arrow that goes out parallel to the other one. You want to show him those four arrows, and you’re going to say, „That’s oppose. That’s opposed to doing your goal, and this is doing your goal, see, and this is keeping you from doing your goal, don’t you see, and that’s retarding the other from being opposed. But at the same time, we don’t want this fourth line here to be the second line up here. Do you see how that could be? See, who would oppose you doing your goal? Who would – and who would not want you to do your goal?“ Ooooh, those things are getting awful ghostly close together, aren’t they?

So it — that person, you see, goes down into this other category and you’re now down into the CCH band. Now, we call him „unauditable“ for purposes of clearing, but he is preparable. Almost anybody, if they’re not dead and can talk, is preparable — almost anybody. That will be one of the great studies of tomorrow, see — that isn’t necessarily you study it today at all. I was doing some work on it a year or two ago. I was thinking, „Well, how do you get a whole institution of people — pull the psychiatrist off their neck — how do you get a whole institution of people to — some of them come through it. You know, I was thinking about, well, it’s rest and some food and give them some large objects that they can sit around in courtyards and just look at, you see — good stable data. Other trickery of this particular character, but you see, they can’t be audited, but they might be prepared for auditing.

But you got to have wording here that means these four flows, with regard to the action of this goal.

Now, let’s take another level of extremity of prepared for auditing. This fellow has a cut artery and is pumping what gallonage he has in gore over the local pavement. Now, he is not at that moment auditable. You see, by the time you had cleared the auditing command, you see, he has no more fluid to pump through the blood system. Now, now there is a comparison between that as an immediate emergency action and preparing somebody so he can be audited, see.

Now, goals are action situations. Even „Being a hound dog,“ as a goal „To be a hound dog,“ see – requires an action. The action is at least „to be.“ That’s not much action, but it’s still enough action to be action and it causes a flow. You say, „Who would want to be a hound dog?“ and of course now you’ve got it pretty well made. Of course, there’s some action a little bit added in there. And „not want to be a hound dog,“ see? You could get these things, you see, but they’re still actions. „Oppose being a hound dog,“ that’s guaranteeing action, you see? And „retard opposition to being a hound dog.“

Well, naturally, the thing to do is to put a tourniquet on it and bandage him up somehow or another and square him around and get the emergency off of the situation, and then you can probably audit him — and undoubtedly should, to get a nice clean healing of such a wound. But you’re going to find that on a broader sense a lot of human beings come into this category — a lot of them. They’re quite a few. There’s Betsy Ann who has migraine headaches and who won’t talk to the auditor and who doesn’t want to listen to anything about Scientology, doesn’t want to hear about it, and yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap and is very angry with her husband all the time because — because he goes off with those Scientologists and so forth. And he is interested in that, and he don’t — and so forth, and — isn’t it terrible, and so forth, and they’re a bunch of raaaaa and raauw — raauw, raaaruw and raauw and so on — and my migraine headache is killing me! And yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, you see. And finally, the husband comes around to you and says, „Well, look, why can’t you audit her?“ Well, he’s asking you to look down the long road, you know. CCHs or maybe even just rest, you see — something of this sort.

And these are very hard for pcs to wrap their wits around very often. Particularly when they’re lying at the bottom of the GPM. There they lie, nobody has disturbed them on this subject for millennia, you see, or trillennia. Nobody’s even breathed it at them or mentioned it to them, and you all of a sudden come along and propound the philosophic principle of whether or not they’re going to oppose or not oppose being a hound dog, you know? They’ve just never considered it. They’ll be in this kind of a state: They know that everybody opposes being a hound dog. And that is the „truth.“ That isn’t a fact, you see; that’s the „truth.“ The truth of life: Life opposes being a hound dog.

Now, there’s some fellow who has had the latest psychiatric operation. They take an ice — cream scoop and go in through a hole in the top of the skull, you see, and empty the gray matter out, and so forth. And he’s lost all of his coordination. He can’t do anything, and he can’t talk, and he can’t do this. Well, he’s not necessarily a throwaway — not necessarily. You might be able to by CCHs and other drills and — but, even more fundamentally, just by letting him recuperate a bit and so forth, he might get up to a point where he could communicate to you somewhat.

Now, you introduce a brand-new idea. You say, „Who would want to be a hound dog?“

There’s a fellow lying in a coma. He’s a CCH case. You can generally pull them through that. You see, you got all kinds of these cases down there. They’re — you might say, they’re not immediately auditable. They are preparable for auditing. Now, don’t forget this: that that fellow’s going to kick the bucket — the unauditable case — sooner or later and he’s going to pick up another body sooner or later, you see, and you catch him up the track somewhere so he’s still not all the way gone — providing the technology is still there. See. That’s the little question mark on that fact.

„Want to be a hound dog?“ Good heavens, nobody’s thought of that, you see?

Now, I wouldn’t spend any more time on any of the unauditable cases — now let’s get back to some very factual facts here — spend any more time on an unauditable case than is necessary to put them into a state of finding their goal and listing it out. Now with some case, that’s five years — that’s five years of rehabilitation, see. A manual, operating with weaving or something, you know.

Well, that’s factually – they haven’t thought of it for ages. See? And these other actions, the other three actions – . So they very readily steer themselves over onto one groove, if they possibly can, it’ll be the flow they happen to be stuck on at the moment you get them to figure it out.

And with somebody else, that’s five hours of Prepchecking. See, it’s that variable. There is no case that can’t be reached except the case that isn’t there and will never hear of it. Now, if the case is never there and will never hear of Scientology, yes, he comes into the absolute. That is a theoretical absolute, don’t you see? He’s way out of sight. See, you’re never going to lay your hands on him, but to some degree, others are preparable and some are just auditable. You just sit down and — well, you got a banging needle and you say — use some of your trickery. You say, „Now, let’s see, Gracie Ann. What question would be the most nerve — racking question that I could think of, Betsy Ann?“

So their advice is worse than useless. But you want to find out whether or not they can answer it. That’s what you want to know. That’s why you consult them. You don’t take their wording, but you want to find out if they can answer it. And then you juggle the wording around or do anything you have to do to the wording so that you can clear, you know, invalidation, mistake, wrong word, anything like that that you want to clear on this thing. And after this line is cleaned up with a fast check on the mid ruds, like to-be-a-tiger drill – after this line is cleaned up, brrrrp, see? That – you say that line and you get pow! You get a read, see? You say the line, you get a read. You say the line, you get a read. Dandy. Here we go. That’s fine, see?

„Well, am I a virgin?“

Now you want to get the next one, so that when you say that line you get a read. Say that line, get a read. Prepcheck it out. In other words, you midrud the thing. You see, you get those mid ruds in on the line, and then test it. You’d be surprised how busy they are sometimes in invalidating lines, and all that straighten out.

„Well, are you a virgin?“

So frankly, I’ve opened up a subject to you, you possibly haven’t looked at very intimately, and that is the wording of a line to be listed. But that, second to the goal, is the most important source from which all clearing flows – is that line. And now, keeping an even balance amongst those lines as they list.

„Oh, of course, yes. Ha — ha — ha — ha. Oh, yes, yeah. I sure am.“

All right. Now, so much for this – this wording of the line. Your next step is to make sure that as you list, you list in Model Session, your rudiments are in without antagonizing the pc unduly because; you see, you can put the rudiments in so often that it amounts to no auditing, and then the rudiments go out, see?

Now, you really get a rock slam, see. And you say, „All right, Betsy Ann. Now, let’s level with it.“

So your basic action is don’t list too long on one line. How long is too long? It’s the exact – I’ll tell you exactly how long you should list a line, exactly how long: as long as the flow in that direction persists.

„Well, I can’t — can’t talk to you about it, you know.“

Yeah, how are you going to know that? Well, short of an oscilloscope, you’re not. An oscilloscope will show you the flow line. So you just pays your money and you takes your chance.

Well, you’ve ended the session. You say, „Well, when you come back to see me tomorrow, I want you to have made up your mind whether or not the withhold which you have there is worth going the next 200 trillion years in misery for.“

But I’ll give you an indicator. This would be slightly overlisting a line, but would be safe. This is slightly overlisting the line by an item or two, but it’s very safe: As soon as the pc says, „Uh – and uhhhh – ,“ change your lines. Go to the next line. Why? You’ve hit the null point.

And she comes back in and you say, „All right now, Betsy Ann. How about this question you didn’t want me to ask you?“

You see, don’t be under the delusion that the pc is thinking up these items. Don’t make that mistake. He thinks he’s thinking; he thinks he’s talking; he thinks it’s all going off, but actually he’s just a wound-up doll. See, he’s just firing off – . He couldn’t help it. He practically couldn’t help but give you the items, because they’re being dealt. See? Because they’re in – they’re stacked in the GPM in that way. He doesn’t think of any of them.

„Well,“ she said, „there’s Bill and Joe and Pete and Tom and Dick, so on and so on, and the priest in the village and so forth.“ And the needle quiets down; the needle quiets down. You run a little bit of O/W and the bank stops shifting around, and you say, „All right. Give me a list of your goals.“ You got the idea? Whatever trickery; whatever duress that is put on her is justified by those means. That’s safe. That’s it, that’s up to you to get the fellow or the girl to talk to you. That’s the case. That’s the lowest rung of case you probably will be having too much to do with.

Now, if a pc is groping for the right wording, you’ve overlisted. „I mean a-uh-I mean a-uh-uh-umm-uh, no, that isn’t the right word. Uhuh-a uh-a big-a big-uh-uh, no, a big, big – a huge – uh-uh – a gargantuan – uh-a tr-tr-uh, let’s see, a tremendously – no, that isn’t – uh, tremendously large – .“ Oh, man, you overlisted a long way back. You should just quit, see?

Now, if you take somebody who is a habitual drunk, and he goes out and robs service stations every night to pay for his liquor every morning, and he’s doing this and he’s doing that, and he’s doing something or other and he runs up five overts for every one you pull off, don’t you see. His level of responsibility is just horrible. And he can’t seem to stay with it, as far as you’re concerned — he keeps giving you all kinds of trouble and so forth. Well, please recognize you’re dealing with an unauditable case. Like the case needs a — needs a tremendous amount of therapy of some kind. You probably need a stockade, man, you know, and turn the key on him and let him sit over in the corner under the sorrel brush and think it over for a few days on water. About the time when the dt’s are ready to kill him off, say, „Well, it’s horrible what a reactive bank can do, you know.“ Slip it to him. But it doesn’t come under the heading so much of auditing.

Now, that item will spew onto the paper, bang! Just without any trouble from the pc. And long times in listing sessions without many items coming onto the page is all caused by the auditor not judging the flows right. Comm lag of the pc eats up session. And if you keep the pc out of that comm lag – you just list in rotation: one, two, three, four; one, two, three, four; one, two, three, four; and don’t let the pc comm lag or shut off an automaticity.

You can spend fantastic quantities of time preparing a case that is almost unpreparable and your heart will only get broken by that case. See, he’s apparently auditable. He actually isn’t auditable. You have to make up your mind about this, see. You can’t force him into a groove. Oh, the case that can be forced into a groove any way you can do it, is of course auditable, but this fellow can’t really be forced into a groove. He can’t really be made to go into session as far as you’re concerned, and so forth. Recognize that at this particular moment we don’t have the tools of therapy necessary to handle such a case which is possibly a stockade and a bottle of water, you know? And if we were to put him in the backyard and chain him to a tree for a few days, even if he’s a chronic alcoholic, do you know that neighbors — neighbors being what they are — they’d probably complain. Therefore, the littlest good to the fewest number of dynamics.

Isn’t that neat? You mustn’t shut off a pc’s automaticity. He’s saying, „Tiger, waterbuck, water buffalo, uh – big snakes, pythons, uh – Mindoro uh – natives, pygmies, uh – pygmies, pygmies, uh-uh-.“

Frankly, the auditability of people depends in a large measure on the sphere of influence of the Scientologist, see. And when his sphere of influence is big enough that — all of them become auditable. See, here’s Grandma and she’s going nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah at the family and that sort of thing and she’s raising hell with them. She holds all the purse strings, tells them they can’t do this and all that sort of thing, and so forth. And, well, right now there wouldn’t be a thing you could do about it, but in another age you possibly could say, „Grandma, why the hell don’t you get off your overts?“ you know? And she’d say, „This is a Scientologist talking to me. I had better start singing.“ You get the idea? That’s what reputation will do for you.

Well, the funny part of it is, is you mustn’t have shut him off at „water buffalo,“ because it’d suppress the next two items. He can’t help but say them, don’t you see? They’re just being dealt off the top of the deck, one, two, three, four, see? They’re just coming right on up, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, tr-tra-le-nun-nun, and then „a-ah – .“ Shift lines.

Now, not advocating rough stuff or anything like that with regard to such people, I’m just trying to make it clear to you that you’ve got a wonderful gift in your hands.

Now, I’ll tell you when you’ve listed too long, slightly, but not to the other degree: „I can’t get the right word for it. I don’t know what – .“ Oh, you’re way overdue, man! You missed the 5:15, you missed the 6:20, see, you missed the midnight express. No, here’s the one: The pc says, „No, that’s not it.“ You’ve gone over. You’ve gone over, right now.

And you start spending five years trying to set up an alcoholic simply because his brother has a million gabutnicks, all of the people you could have cleared in five years remain unclear. That’s interesting, isn’t it? And probably at the end of the game, because your sphere of influence isn’t as great as it should have been because you weren’t in there creating it, you won’t have even cleared this guy’s brother, see — not him either. I can see it now.

He’s invalidating the item he is giving you. Why is he invalidating the item he has given you? Because the other flow line is now meeting the direction of his attention and is overwhelming his attention so that any item he thinks up is of course being overwhelmed by the other flow line coming to him. Just like that, heh! It’s very neat.

So you’ve got your sphere of action that would do the world the most good, is the auditable case — the sphere of the auditable case — who can be audited. Gosh, that goes down pretty far. I could pull some people in off the street that would make you blink on the subject of whether they were auditable or not. And I’d say a person is perfectly auditable; go on and audit.

And you just listen to him, as he goes along on listing, and he says, „A water buffalo, a tiger, a Mindoro native, a pygmy, a uh-uh-uh-uh-a p-python, a uh-um-uh-uh-a-a deer. No. No. No, that’s not it. Um-a uh-buck. A buck-uh-uh-no, no, um-a buck, uh-no. No, not a-not-not-not a-not a buck deer. Uh-um – let’s see, now. Um – . Well, I c-ca-can’t-can’t really think of the name of the thing. Uh-uh – a big – uh-a buck, uh-uh-uh-a v-a very lar-uh-a-uh – . It’s a certain kind of a deer they have down in Mindoro, a uh-a dak, – or u-u-.“

One day a girl comes in — a girl comes in, walks up to Suzie and she was sitting at the Registrar’s desk in Phoenix, Arizona — many, many, many years ago — and says to Suzie something on the order of. „I want Ron to audit me.“ And Suzie says something or other, something or other and take it in a matter of course, and starts to write the girl’s name down, and says, „All right. What’s your name?“ You know, I’ll at least put her through the formalities here. And the girl said, „Well, what is my name?“ I think she even sat there trying to invent some names for herself or trying to guess at it. She didn’t have a clue, man — she didn’t have a clue. And I think I gave her two sessions — an hour — oh, something like an hour and a half and something like an hour and three — quarters. Life straightened out; she went out and got married. She’s still around. Memory came back. Everything’s fine. Obviously unauditable: Couldn’t think of her name, couldn’t talk, couldn’t sit still, on the run, didn’t know who she was — strictly spinbin stuff, don’t you see? But the difference was that she was perfectly willing to answer the auditor’s questions. She was still in communication. And although for a while, that needle might have been slamming around on the meter, it calmed down pretty fast, don’t you see? So do you get the difference here? She was auditable. Strictly spinbin stuff — you know?

Oh man, you missed the 6:15, the 8:30, the 10:20 – they’ve all gone by. See? That’s the whole gamut. You have run the lot now, see?

Now, a psychiatrist would have said, „This is a very sick, neurotic girl.“ Yes, she was. She had a compulsion to turn into a prostitute in order to get even with her parents who were Presbyterians. She had a compulsion to. She was making a good job of it too. But see, by all the textbooks, this is a spinbin case and by our textbooks she was quite auditable.

Your first indicator was „and a uh – .“ Well, out of courtesy, you could let him give it to you. He’ll say, „a uh-buck.“

Another girl, because she had been in an institution, came in and saw another Registrar one time. She’s — had an institutional history long as your arm. The Registrar says, „Well, the person isn’t processable — couldn’t be. Look at the history, you know: out of this institution, into that institution, and here and there and the other place, and wow!“ See? She was even a rather gruesome — looking character. And I said, „Well, I’d — I better see about this.“ And I didn’t audit her, by the way. But I wanted to see whether or not she was auditable. So I had her come in and put mock — ups in various corners of the room, hold them there — various kinds of mock — ups and hold them there stably. And she could mock up anything and put it there, and it would stay there just as it was and move it around. Perfectly in control of her mental pictures. Interesting, huh? Quite auditable. She got audited and away we go.

And you say, „All right. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. Now, all right, we’re going to start on the next line. And here we go.“ We’ve shifted gears, and we’re now listing on something else.

Another girl comes in: nice family, everything is fine, background beautiful, all polished up, so forth — beautiful parents, very pretty, she’s well dressed — she’s this, she’s that, she’s the other thing. Auggggggggg. Shouldn’t happen to an auditor. She’s got one of these automatically shifting banks. She can’t sit still one moment or the other, one minute to the next. She can’t answer questions. You say, „Did you eat soup for lunch?“ And she says, „Hitler’s no good, you know.“ Unauditable without a terrific amount of rest and preparation and everything else and so proved to be.

That’s really the way to get away from the pin fast, and your pc doesn’t get suppressions, and you don’t have to put in the mid ruds all the time and all that sort of thing. Just catch it on that first „ahh – .“ And it’s just handed to you on a silver platter.

You see, it isn’t what life has labeled them. See. Now, furthermore, it really doesn’t much matter how buggy they sound. They could sound awful, awful, awful spinny and still be quite auditable.

He tells you, „This line has run as far as it’s going to go, and is now in an eddy area, and is about to turn around and go the opposite direction.“ That’s what he tells you with that „ahh – .“ With the invalidation, he tells you, „It has already turned around and is going in the opposite direction, and anything I think of is being overwhelmed and invalidated by the line which is now coming the other way.“ See? And when he can’t think of it at all, he’s just totally overwhumped. Now the line is really racing at him.

The difference, I suppose, is this: The fellow knows he can get better or that there’s some hope or he should take a crack at it and the other fellow who was unauditable knows there isn’t any hope and there isn’t any reason to take a crack at it and you couldn’t get better anyhow, see. I suppose that would be the handiest little rule of thumb by which to judge these two things — just fast like that.

But similarly – let me make this point again – it is a high crime to shut off an automaticity because he won’t be able to get it again. This thing is firing off and you put a suppression right on the middle of the thing. He’s going to tell you all of a sudden thirty items – brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Fellow knows you can’t get any better, knows he isn’t any better, knows he’s absolutely right in life and it’s everything that has been done to him. You add all these things in, don’t you see. He knows it’s everybody else’s fault but you can’t do anything to him that would ever make anything of it better and so forth. Thinks he’s being totally sincere about it — knows that any efforts to help anybody are based on trickery, quackery. I could run you off a whole lot of this stuff, but you’ve heard this in part or in full many times. Well, you try to get that guy on the E — Meter and try to get him to talk and you can’t read the needle and you can’t do this, and you can’t do that. But on the other hand, you still might be able to straighten him out and change his mind, don’t you see. Such a ease you’d have to find out. Now, it’s you who are the judge of this.

And you say, „Well, that’s enough.“

Now, it doesn’t matter how buggy they sound to you on some of their ideas. They can come around to you and say, „Throgmagog“ is going to tip over the Empire State Building at any minute and I worry all the time because I own some stock in American Tel & Tel,“ and you wonder what the devil this has got to do with anything. Well, some people can have a nutty idea and know it’s nutty, and other people have a nutty idea and they don’t know it’s nutty.

He says, „Bu-bu brrr-b-brr-brrrr – .“ And you put in the mid ruds at that point, you find it was all suppressed. The pc feels kind of loused up. He feels kind of betrayed and so on.

Do you understand that, how a person’s goal could make them sound utterly batty, whereas they’re quite auditable. It’s just a goal, see. „To keep buildings from falling down,“ you see. Let’s say that’s the person’s goal and the person is always found with their hand up against the side of the building keeping buildings from falling down, you know. Police would lock them up. You put them on an E — Meter; they’re quite auditable.

So there are the basic tricks of listing: (1) At the beginning of the session get in your rudiments. (2) Get your goal fast-checked. (3) Now, there’s two ways you could go about this: One is simply to fast-check the first line you do, and then when you get to the next line give it a fast check; when you get to the next line give it a fast check – first time you ask it, you see? You get to the next-fourth line, give it a fast check and then don’t check them anymore. Just see if it fires, that’s the only thing you want. It’s very fast. See? That could be done that way, or you could take all five of these things – the goal and the lines – and just read them all off to see if they all fire; see if there’re any suppressions on them, you know. And clean them up, bang-bang, get them all firing, bong, and then go on to your session. Two ways you could go about this. Find out which one is best for you.

So we get down to just this one criterion: Are people auditable? Well, how much preparatory auditing should you do? Well, to make them auditable on goals processes, and that’s the full answer. Now, you can sit on somebody’s chest that is doing some of the wildest things and still find their goal, but I wouldn’t make it any tougher on myself than I had to, because look — a — here, finding a goal is a terrific stress and strain on the pc. Now, nulling by mid ruds makes them much better, makes them feel better, is a much calmer procedure and that sort of thing, but they’ve got to answer your questions.

Now, you center his attention on the lines, of course, too solidly, in prepchecking the things, and he’ll start giving you answers, then you’re already in-session. So that has some liability connected with it.

And if you had a pc who had sporadically dirty needles and wouldn’t communicate with you and that sort of thing and you’ve tried to do something with, and you get four goals nulled in a three — hour session, you know — ha — ha — ha — ha — oh. Next day you get two. You’re missing withholds all over the place and so forth. I guarantee you about the third day you’ll get none. See, that’s — that is hitting it too early. A person is not really sufficiently in — session to have a goals process run on them. See?

Now, your next action is to get the pc to list the first line down to a point where he says, „And a-uh-uh-let me see.“ Let him see, by all means. But if he sees for more than a few seconds you say, „Well, all right. That’s fine. We’ll get that one the next time we come around. Now, let’s start on this next line,“ see? Let’s just not leave him in thin air. And just list to the comm lag. Go straight along down the line. List to the comm lag – List to the comm lag. List to the comm lag.

These are things which you have to develop a judgment about. I could lay you down a lot of rules of thumb and so forth, but the best way that you’ll learn is to do just exactly what you will do, regardless of what I tell you. Here one of these fine days, why, you’ll be sitting there and somebody says, „Oh, a Saint Hill graduate. Gee — whiz! Ha — ha. Well, I’ll pay you an awful lot in order to find my goal and I’ve always wanted to have my goal found,“ and so forth.

Now, you’re going to get in trouble sooner or later because your lines are going to get ragged if you list to the comm lag. And that’s liable to upset you. So you take one of those times when he’s feeling very, very easy, and catch up a few items. And it’s a nice balance which you do. But if it’s straining him to think of any more items just to make you catch up, you abandon catching up. You got it? Because it’s not a quantitative process, after all. It’s the amount of flow, see? It’s the amount of flow that we’re interested in, not the number of items. And number of items is merely an approximation of keeping them level. That is a sloppy index of how much flow has been gotten off any one of these lines.

And you say, „Well, I — I guess so. Yes. All right. Fine,“ and so forth. And you say, „Well, I have to really do a little bit of preparatory. . .“

As far as checking the mid ruds is concerned, every time you turn around, you won’t have to do it if you list this way, which makes for very fast listing. But if you make yourself a bunch of mistakes – this is really when to use the mid ruds, a fast check of the mid ruds, not a repetitive check. If you make a big mistake, and this pc is going brrrrrrr, and you say, „Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much! Yeah, thank you! Yeah, thank you! Yeah, well I got that! Now, are there any other item that – a person or being there that would want to catch catfish?“ And the pc is sitting there looking blanched, you know? He’s been struck dead. He’s halfway through an automaticity, and he can’t get it out.

„Well, no. I — no. No, the only Condition under which I’ll be audited is if you find my goal right away without wasting any time on this other stuff, you see, because I’m a really very high — toned person.“

Actually, recognize what’s happened to him. You’ve suppressed thirty or forty items, just like that. Bang! You didn’t quite see what you were doing, you know? You didn’t realize he was running off an automaticity and it was just tearing right on down the line, and you all of a sudden gave him a nice Tone 40 acknowledgment, see? Brought him into present time, put him into the session, crash, you see, all that sort of thing, and you just smell the rubber burning.

And you’ll be pulled in. You say you won’t, but this will happen to you, all of you, sooner or later. You’ve got your list of goals and you start down at the top. „To catch — to catch catfish. Ahh, it’s null, I — I guess.“ You’re in for it, man, because this will get worse, not better, because the pc is never as calm as he is at the beginning. He gets less calm as he goes on. Now, if there’s anything wrong with the case at the beginning, it’s going to be multiplied before you get to the end. Oh, well. That will be up to you.

You make a goof like that, don’t let him yap or get upset about it, just get in your mid ruds. Suppress – man, that is really going to be hot. You made him suppress the lot. Get the idea?

But I want to tell you this about clearing: There isn’t anything wrong with anybody except he’s upped himself a basic purpose of some kind or other for reasons he has not. No — no reason to it. And there it sits and then when this is disobeyed and so on, then it’s all blocked off, and then you get a bank developed and then a bunch of other purposes that he doesn’t want, get hooked up onto this so he does those; and then pretty soon he doesn’t know who he is, and he picks up a body, and here we go, you see. And then he gets all kinds of this — a’s and that — a’s and the other things and he is indecisional and he is upset about this and he’s upset about that. Well now, look. How you going to audit it? Well, how you going to audit it with a lick and a promise little, old, light process?

Or, if you were kind of sleepy and it was a summer afternoon, and you suddenly wake up to realize that the pc for five minutes has been sitting there saying various things like this: „Is it a large – a – a large tiger, a-a-a very – no, no, a tiger, a stri – a striped – . I can’t quite get the word for this. A tiger with horns. No, that would not be right,“ and so forth.

I’m appalled at our impudence. I am, you know. When I look at the tightrope walk that it takes to get somebody through to Clear, see. When I look at it from a research viewpoint, it’s absolutely impossible to have ever found a tightrope. See, you couldn’t find that tightrope in all those Grand Canyons for you didn’t even know what canyon you were trying to cross, man. And yet it works out very simple and there’s really nothing to it.

And you wake up suddenly, the pc’s been going on like this for about five minutes – be an awfully good thing to get in the mid ruds. In other words, the mid ruds are something with which you pick up goofs. And if you’re really a smooth auditor you don’t goof.

You’ve got yourself a — you got yourself an action here, like trying to chip away at Mount Rushmore with a small Boy Scout hatchet. And after you’ve been slugging at it for a few hundred years, you see, why you’ve made a slight dent — inches deep. Now, there’s no doubt but that we could do things nobody else could do. We could bring about a cessation of aches and pains and straighten people out and run grief charges and do all kinds of things. This is all quite remarkable, but when you look at it in comparison, it doesn’t compare.

Now, how many items does it take per line to list a goal out? How many items? What an interesting question. It’s almost philosophic in its impulse. It has a lot to do with how smoothly it was done, oddly enough. And the less smoothness it was done, the less in-sessionness it was done with, the more items you are going to have. So therefore you can’t say how many items should appear on a list as just a fait accompli. How many items, bang! You see? You can’t say that. But you sure can say that it isn’t going to be ten or fifteen. Ten or fifteen hundred? Now we’re getting more into the zone and order of magnitude.

In the first place, almost anything you did to somebody was sooner or later going to cave in again. He either had by some confidence engendered in himself — could get a gradient scale of peeling it off if he wasn’t too solidly in the GPM and he could blow clear of that and park that over there someplace and he could live quite happily with it. That was a Clear. At any time this guy had the threat of this thing coming in on him again, see. So he lived just a little bit of a nervy life because he must have known this — instinctively, he must have known something of this. He knew it wasn’t all quite gone.

But speaking, then, we’re only speaking for the first goal. How many is it for a second goal? How many is it for a third goal? How many is it for a fourth goal? Well, these things become shorter and shorter – these lines do.

Now, when you start at it — peeling it down from the top, like, „From where could you communicate to a head? Thank you. From where could you communicate to a head?“ His goal, by the way, is „never to communicate to anyone,“ — you have this chance factor floating through all of your processing. This chance factor is there all the time. Lord only knows what it will be. Only you and a complete assessment will be able to tell and it’ll be some chance factor. And that factor could be for you or that factor could be agin ya. But in any event, that factor is the monitoring factor of any results that you get.

So, how many clears the goal? Well, as many as you write down well and expertly to a point where the needle goes free. That’s how many it is. And it certainly is not going to be less than a thousand, I don’t think. We’ve got the third goal, I think you’re still within that order of magnitude. But I’m just guessing there.

All right. We get this girl and we say, „How could you help your father? And how could your father help you? And how could you help your father? And how could your father help you?“ And we eventually find to our horror that her goal is „to destroy all families.“ Now, how the devil could we ever have opened that up at all or got anyplace with a lesser process? Weird part of it is that we did. But per hour of processing, there’s no comparison like goals processing.

The first goal, seven thousand items on each line – I wouldn’t worry too much about it unless the TA has gone up and stuck and has been stuck for a long time, or something like this, you see? I wouldn’t worry about the number of items. I’ll tell you what to worry about in a minute. But the number of items isn’t something to worry about, you understand? Too few – God help us. Ah, no.

You sit down and you get this person’s basic purpose and then you — the bank starts falling apart and all these other things take place and they clear, and you haven’t got any bank there to go back on the track or to go up into the future or to be connected with or not connected with and it’s gone. Well, that is infinitely desirable, but the change that it makes in an individual is best viewed by you by the amount of havoc a wrong goal, found but not run, can make on a case.

Now, of course you don’t ever null these items, and the pc is going to ask you, „Why are we writing them down?“ It would be an interesting question: Why are we writing the items down?

Now, here is your index: Take anybody who has had a wrong goal found. Now understand, not run, see. This person — they had a wrong goal found. And just sit down with a meter, and — don’t do an Instructor’s check — just handle that goal as you would handle the „to be a tiger“ drill, see. See, whatever the goal was — and just clean it that way. And check with your pc and make sure that you clean it until all sensation and pain has gone off of it, see. That, as an additional little action — just make sure there’s no more pain left on that thing. Clean it very carefully, just with a drill, with also attention to pain, and you will strangely enough see more case gain than you have seen for some time.

Well, my answer to that is writing them down is a better acknowledgment and it’s a much better way to keep tabs on your lists, and there’s various reasons for writing them down. But amongst them isn’t nulling. We don’t ever do anything with these items. I don’t know anything to do with them.

Well, you say, „Look, to the degree it must have caved him in to have found the wrong goal…“ No, you’re looking in the wrong barrel. That’s what I thought the first time and then I finally got my wits wrapped around it and found out what was happening, because it was fantastic. Just that you had found a wrong goal on this person — that must have caved him in. It must have ruined him, because look at all the good it did to clean it up.

Your pc at first will be rather puzzled as to which one it is. Well, of course, that’s the joke. It isn’t a „which one?“

No, it’s not the finding of the goal. The finding of the goal did a key — in of what was there anyhow. And it could have keyed in at any time and possibly has. But you just pick it up as a found goal, and of course, you clean up the whole goal. In other words, you call his attention to this goal. He’s become familiarized with this goal now by its suppressions, invalidations and that sort of thing. He’s looked at it and he’s confronted it, and to a large degree it’s blown and it has no further effect on him, which leads you to one of the wildest Problems Intensives you ever wanted to run. And I don’t know that anybody will ever run this Problems Intensive, but they might and it’s one of the steps of finding a goal.

He’s been going a long piece of track on that Goals Problem Mass, man. He’s had an opportunity to collect an awful lot of identities. And the identities which he personally has picked up has had the opportunity to collect an awful lot of enemies. And he himself has collected an awful lot of things which oppose enemies. And he himself has had a very interesting taste for things which prevented him from doing his goal. He’ll begin to wonder after a while what possessed him. And all of these things combined make quantity. And the quantity is large.

You say to a person, „All right. Write me out all the problems that you’ve had in this lifetime that you want to do something about. Just write me out a list of these, see.“ He gives you a list of 60, 70, something like that. And you say, „All right. Now, what decision“ (you can call it anything you want to) „would have solved „ and you take problem 1, see. What decision would have solved problem 2, see. What decision? What decision? You keep writing down this list of decisions.

All right. Now, let’s talk about how long a line is listed. It is listed exactly to free needle. It is not listed one item beyond free needle. Hear me now: not one item beyond the free needle. Not even one! Needle was free. Now, the proper conduct of an auditor, when observing a free needle on a line, should be professional. He should not suddenly get hold of one of his favorite valences of a rodeo performer, start bucking about in the chair and trying to put a quirt to the E-Meter.

Now, you don’t date them. They’re really goals, you see. You don’t date them. And you just go back to the beginning of them and you dust it off lightly with the „to be a tiger“ drill, see. „To never drink again,“ you see, that was one of the things — that the decision would have solved that problem, see. To never drink again. All right.

„A free needle! Ha-ha! Hey-hey! Ha-ha! Ha – that’s enough, it’s a free needle. Hey, do you want to come around and see this?“ That is not optimum auditor conduct. It’s all right, because we can run the suppressions off.

You say, „To never drink again.“ You get a read. „Has that decision been invalidated?“ You know? Go right on down through your „to be a tiger“ drill, don’t you see. And clean up that whole lot and, man, that guy will have thought he will have had more processing than a hundred and ninety — nine hours of anything else you could have run on him except goals processing itself. Makes an interesting Problems Intensive, doesn’t it?

But you’ll feel like that when you first see one. You go to the next line and list it to free needle or, if it doesn’t go to free needle, until the flow runs out as usual.

See, it’s just a little chunk of doing a goals list and yet it works out into a complete Problems Intensive. And you’ll be utterly flabbergasted at the amount of relief the character will get off this. It’ll look completely phenomenal to the person. The reason you possibly won’t do this — although this may turn out sooner or later, I shouldn’t condemn it in advance — I should announce it to you of what it is. It’s just a discovery of how to run a Problems Intensive and I shouldn’t further evaluate it because you might be able to do this on somebody and find out mysteriously that they will go into session now and that they become auditable whereas they were only partially auditable before so it might have more value than I have experimented with at this moment.

Sometimes one of them goes free, and three of them will stick for a while. Some of them – then you’ve got two free, and the other two are sticking. And then sometimes you’ve got three free, and one is all hung up. And then eventually it goes free.

But I’m just giving you the value of a decision — the value of a goal. Just the value of a goal with the mid ruds cleared on it on the nulling by mid ruds technique gives you more cessation of somatic, more release and advance of case… Look, these aren’t even the guy’s goals, see — they’re nothing. He’s given you a list of 60 „What decision was ?“ Oh, he’s made all these decisions at sometime or another — you just clear them up. Just as — is; nothing fancy about it — pocketa — pocketa — pocketa. Well, how long might it take you? Three — hour session, something like that. The guy’s liable to come out at the other end of this session saying, „Wow!“ you know and just flying, you know. God! He’s no longer an alcoholic and he doesn’t beat his wife and, you know, things are marvelous. Gosh!

Well, the way to do that is you keep going one, two, three, four, see? This thing is stuck. This line is sticky; it’s not free. Come back here to your next line in sequence, see, and put one, two, three, free needle, see?

How did this ever happen to him? Well, that’s simply the value of a decision, because what is the reactive bank then, but the basic decision or the basic postulate or the basic purpose which has on top of it then, a concatenation of purposes — all of which are locks on the basic purpose. Every time — this is horrible — but every time he makes a decision, he puts a new lock on the case. Wonderful way to do oneself in, isn’t it? And he did it gratuitously to himself, too. Nobody twisted his beams to make him do it. Yeah, he will postulate.

Now your needle is free when you go to your next line; your next line doesn’t upset it at all. Now, I can’t lay down a rule absolutely here, because it may not make the least bit of difference. But if it – you said the line to the pc and you get no needle reaction of any kind whatsoever and nothing happens to the needle, it might be very foolish to list it. So we go to the next line and we read the thing off and there’s no needle reaction of any kind to it, you see, and the needle is still free. And we come to the line we had that was sticky in the first place and it’s still sticky; now we list that thing on down until we get to a comm lag, and it’s still stuck. Well now, which line do we come back to next? Because nothing is cooling this thing down. Well, you’d better check them, hadn’t you?

Anyhow, this action might serve very well as a tremendous training drill before somebody did 3GA, but actually it’s simpler, unless you had some remarkable difficulty with the pc that made him unauditable. Basically, it is simpler just to get somebody to list 850 goals, straighten out the list at the other end and start nulling. Do you see? That fact has such value that it makes this other very important discovery kind of null and void. That’s an unhappy fact, isn’t it, when you get down and look at it.

Now, it won’t upset anybody if you put one item on each one of these lines. Now, we’re into a completely questionable area of what is the right thing to do? Experience will tell what is the right thing to do. I can’t give you a packaged answer, but I can tell you this: is don’t list beyond a free needle! Because it’s quite upsetting. It’s like asking for a rudiment answer when there isn’t one, see?

Make this tremendous thing, you know, you can — we’ve just made a discovery whereby we snap our fingers to the right and left and say abracadabra and a spaceship appears, you see. Well, that’s nothing because it’s standing in the shadow of a discovery whereby all we had to do was go whoooo, and a planet appeared. It’s sort of dwarfed. But there’s — there is something that if you wanted to get a reality on the somatic value and other values of cleaning up somebody’s goals or decisions — you want to get a reality on just what that will do for a case — you could do that little drill and you’ve — and waaaah! Wow! This is nothing compared to what clearing is going to do, but wow! What would it do? It’ll do a lot; do a lot for a case.

And if I were to lay down an operating rule for myself on this, as something I would now be guided by, I would wade myself through this. I would read these other lines and see if I could get a stick, or a fall, see? Something. And I’d get an item. And then I’d walk back to the line that was stuck, and I would list it till I got a comm lag. You get the idea? And I’d walk myself through this. And if I had three lines, all of which were giving a free needle, I wouldn’t test all three in rotation every time. I’d test one after the other. In other words, I’d take the sticky line, I’d list on it to a comm lag, and then I’d choose another one of these lines – not the one in rotation; I’d skip a rotation, see? And then I’d list some more sticky needle and then I’d choose the third one that was free and test it now. You know, I’d just walk my way through this, sort of like on eggs. You get the idea?

Now, possibly it will turn out suddenly to have some interesting value of its own or be — you can expect sooner or later that we may suddenly have alcoholics you do this with or something like that, you know. Something might come up.

And I wouldn’t list those lines. My instinct would be agin it. If I couldn’t get a fall or a stick or any needle misbehavior on it, I don’t think I would – I would touch them. I’d ask them the pc – I’d ask the pc if he had any items on these lines, but my auditing command would not be „Who or what would want to catch catfish?“ „Can you think of anything right now that – anything, anybody, want to catch catfish? No, you can’t. All right. Thank you. Huh-huh, that is – that’s fine. Thank you very much.“ Get off of there, see?

But there’s clearing, and there isn’t any substitute for clearing. And if you can clear people, there’s no reason to do anything but clear people, because it makes all that difference.

Pc said, „Yeah, I just thought – uh – game wardens catch catfish every now and then.“ And then you’ve set it down, see? All right. He just gave you that gratuitously; that’s to keep from missing withholds.

And it’s all right to say well, so — and — so and such — and — such, and we ought to really prepcheck them a lot and we ought to do this and ought to do that, but frankly, if they’re auditable and if they’ve been prepchecked up into auditability, there’s certainly no reason to go on prepchecking them.

You’re at a touchy end of the case. And obviously to you it isn’t a touchy end of the case at all, because the pc is now practically Clear and a Clear can stand anything. That might be your reason. If the needle is this free, why, doesn’t matter how we treat the pc, is it?

The person’s sitting there and they’re being good as a pc and the needle stays clean and well, what more do you want, man? Well, I always say the fellow — that this fellow isn’t auditable. I can hear this argument going on someplace, you know. This fellow isn’t auditable. Why, he just talks all the time about committing suicide. So he talks about committing suicide. What’s that got to do with clearing him? Nothing. He just made the decision too many times and he can’t stop deciding it, that’s all. He never is going to commit suicide while you’re trying to find his goal. He’ll be too curious to find out what it is.

Well, that’s the wrong kind of thinking. Because right at that stage of the game it is rather edgy, because you could take one of these free-needle lines and you could list it right on into a hole. In other words, you could stick it all up again. It’s already happened here. Don’t think I’m just dealing on theory only. Overlisting has occurred.

You see, actually, the out of session behavior of the individual has nothing to do with it. It’s only the in — session behavior of the pc in which you’re interested. And if that in — session behavior is adequate to clearing — which is running down a goals list and getting his goal and getting him to list the four lines on it and blow it clear — well, there isn’t any reason whatsoever why you should do it. There’s no reason under the sun because if there’s anything wrong with his morality or his ethical level or something like that, it isn’t going to straighten out by putting him in jail, but it is going to straighten out by clearing him. So here’s the answer to this situation.

All right. That’s enough for that. You can certainly list through to free needle on four lines.

I hope to some slight degree I’ve solved for you perhaps some ethical problems with regard to this matter and cleared your mind up on: Who do you clear?

Now, if one line consistently and continually hangs up, and you can’t make it go free, then you investigate the living daylights out of what is wrong with that particular line and see if you can find anything wrong with it at all. And see if you can get any variation of wording of that line to fire nicely and neatly, and continue listing on that new wording, and that line will go clean. Okay? That’s in case of emergency. Because there might have been, throughout, something wrong with that one line. See, you might have missed it. Already been done here, so it can happen. Three lines went free, one didn’t.

Audience: Mm — hm. Yes.

Well, when that happened before, „your“ was in the fourth line. That „your“ was enough to keep that line from going free. And an examination of it – only took a couple, three sessions of listing after that, and all four lines were free, just like that, see? So, suspect that if you get too much an inequality of this, and it’s hanging on too long, don’t let it go for months; look into it. Okay?

Female voice: Yes, very much so.

Audience: Mm-mm.

And when should you start clearing.

All right. Now, what are the dangers of listing Number one, listing is auditing. It is auditing and must be treated as such. It is the only therapeutic action undertaken to free a goal – is merely listing. The pc does not give out these answers analytically, no matter how bright and alert the pc might act. They’re all being dealt off the bottom of the deck, all out of the reactive mind, and you must not worry as to whether the pc is inventing answers or dreaming them up or thinking of them analytically or anything else. Just be calm about this. Look, there are enough things to worry about in auditing without inventing things.

Audience: Mm — hm.

No, just take what the pc gives you, man. Keep the session going and relax. See? All right.

What we have in actuality is a technique which is sufficiently powerful and sufficiently big and overwhelming that it actually a bit defies grasp — a bit defies description. It’s a little bit hard to realize you’re there, you know. It’s a little bit hard to realize it’s there or it can be done. And you really don’t start realizing it until you clear somebody or until you yourself find your goal and suddenly say, „Whoo — whoo — wha — wha — what’s this? What’s this? What happened? Ah! Look what we got our paws on now.“

Now, as you are starting in with the goal, you have a period of danger. And this period of danger begins at the moment of finding the goal and is over when you have proved beyond doubt that this goal, while being listed on all four lines, turns on pain on line one, sensation on line two, a little more sensation than pain on line three, and a little more pain than sensation on line four. And when you’ve proven that to your own complete satisfaction – .

But frankly, ever since this has — has been squared away so that the — now that you’re finding some goals in nulling by mid ruds, I was waiting until that proved itself out that way — and these other things, there’s — the lid’s off. There is no limit on the forward road, believe me. There is nothing.

Well, look, I – you’re looking at me as though I should detail this more, but figure it out for yourself, man. Figure it out for yourself. Lines one and three belong to the pc. And lines two and four belong to the enemy. And the enemy is sensation and the pc is pain. That’s easy. And unless you get that optimum condition of affairs, that goal is wrong. And you better get off of that, hotter than hot and faster than fast.

We are at that point of the crossroads for which we have been heading for a long time. And we were right there and we have arrived. It’s going to take you a long time to realize it perhaps. It’s going to take other people in Scientology a long time to realize it, but to grasp exactly what this means for this planet, takes quite a little bit of looking at — quite a little bit of looking at. Three — quarters of Asia became civilized just because a few guys hoped that somebody might sooner or later be able to do it. Hey! Three — quarters of Asia, just because somebody hoped they could do it. You know they never did it? Well, what are you sitting with now? And what do you suppose is going to happen from here?

Line one – here’s what makes a goal wrong: Line one turns on sensation. „Who or what would want to catch catfish?“

That’s why I say, it’s just a little bit hard to confront this thing. And of course, you’re in there. It looks simple to you and so forth. It is. You’re learning to audit this and that. It was only last night in a TV demonstration — you saw how easy it was. And looking at all that, well, I invite you just to lift your head just a little bit from the technical fact and look at the broad implication of what has happened here this summer of 1962. It’s quite interesting. May you never be the same again.

Dizzy, misemotional, groggy, „Uh-u-uhhh-ohhh,“ see? Pressures.

Okay. Well, I didn’t mean to get too serious about the thing, but it — I’ve been just kind of sitting looking at it lately and saying: well, Ronnie, I — one guy suddenly got the idea it could be done and started operation bootstrap and some other guys came along and they started working on it and so forth. And always in the past we have had the beautiful dream that the Messiah comes down with sandals of gold with a neon sign around his skull — and he blows on this silver trumpet, see, and everybody’s Clear and that wasn’t what happened at all.

„Who or what would oppose catching catfish?“

There was some guy, who was just a guy, and he started figuring and some other guys started to work on it, and everybody was working on it, and so forth — and it happened. Perhaps it’s all out of scheduled from the archangels and perhaps it isn’t on the blotter in the Galactic Council but it is happening.

„Ouch! Oh, what a terrible pain went through my head. Oh, what an awful pain in my back. Oh, dear, dear, dear. Ohrrarr. Ohh, my – ouch!“ See?

And it didn’t have to wait for the second coming of who was it — Baal? Or whoever it was. Okay?

It’s the wrong line! That should be turning on sensation; it’s turning on the pain.

Thank you.

And we get to line three, which is the pc’s own line again, since it’s an allied line, and the person says, „Nyoom! Oh dear, still very dizzy and so on, so on and so on and so on and so on. Very dizzy, and there’s this little tiny pain in my ear, but that doesn’t amount to much. Sure makes you dizzy, doesn’t it?“

And he gets to line four, „Who or what would pull back your goal?“ – you see, that’s the enemy, man – and, „Ouch! Urp! Pain went through the back there. What was that?“

Now look, that condition as a purity seldom exists. It won’t exist for very long. If you continue to list this it all becomes sen. Everything gets to be sen. But if you go too far on this, everything goes sen. The bank starts to become hard, beefy, lumpy. The person wakes up in the morning and the ridges he usually had are now really ridges. We’re getting an exaggeration of the situation. That bank is becoming heavy. It’s like running Creative Processing without having the goal „To create.“

And the pc will wake up in the morning, actually, and he’ll feel like there’s a board going through his head, see? Something like this. And he’s – . And it all turns into sensation. It’s all dizzy, groggy, pressures, nausea, misemotion. Starts to feel like that after a while – he didn’t do anything to high blood pressure, probably, but he starts to feel like high blood pressure would be much more comfortable. You see, all four lines go to sen. That’s an interesting item, isn’t it?

Now, if all four lines went to pn, I wouldn’t worry. But if they all went to sen, to hell with it. Get out of there. You’re wrong. I don’t care what you think, you’re wrong! You got it? I don’t care what the pc says. That’s the wrong goal! Yeah, it read! Yeah, it’s fine. Yeah, it checked out. Yo. Yo, we had three Instructors and the governor of Australia check it out! I don’t care about all those arguments! The line is wrong! Because that is the final proof of a goal. You got it?

You haven’t got a goal until you have listed it two or three hundred items on each line, as the auditor. And that will save your bacon. Of course, if it checks out beautifully, pc got pain on it, bang, and so forth, you’re pretty sure, aren’t you? But the final test of any pudding is the listing. You go two, three hundred items deep on this thing; if it’s turning on pain in the right places and sen on the right places, and that sort of thing, oh boy, you’re in. Go for broke.

Now, the only thing could happen wrong is you start listing with the rudiments out. Something crazy goes on in the pc’s life, he’s got PTPs like mad or rudiments are wildly out, or something of the sort, you see? And on a minor way – you see, checking the goal out every time is just a way of speeding this up. It won’t prevent clearing, and checking the lines out won’t prevent clearing by listing. They just slow it down.

But a wrong line will. A wrong line will prevent clearing. „Who or what would try awfully hard to oppose catching catfish?“ And the next line to it is „Who or what would not want to catch catfish?“ you see? And the next line down the line – all out of position, see, all misworded.

It would be too cruel an experiment – I have seen this in actual action – but you can take four lines, check them out, and then throw one. Now it will fire on a suggestion and an invalidation, see, and a mistake. You can get it to fire, of course, just like you can get a goal to fire. And now insist on listing that line. „Who or what would know he had to have to catch catfish?“ And then put all the other ones down correctly.

The action of doing something like that is to bring the TA up to a stick. It’s almost exactly 4.5 to 5.0. Almost always. I haven’t ever seen a tone arm on a misworded line, or mislisting, or ARC broke sessions, or overlisting in sessions – the errors you can make, in other words – that on goals listing didn’t go up to 4.5 and 5.0. I’m quite prepared to see one go up to 6.0, or to 7.0, or 3.75. I’m quite prepared to, you understand. But it just happens that every one I’ve seen have gone from 4.5 to 5.0 and then stick. They’ll stick at 4.5 or they’ll stick at 5.0. And more have stuck at 5.0 than at 4.5.

So when your tone arm starts lingering around 5.0 for a session, and next session lingers around 5.0, don’t be surprised if the third session your pc all of a sudden says, „Well, I was awfully dizzy. I was walking down the street, and I saw the buildings sort of reel.“ You’re doing something weird. Something wild is going on here. Something’s happened. You got to straighten it out.

Now, what straightens out? How do you straighten one of these things out? Well, you locate what’s wrong. You better check out the goal and get it to fire again if you possibly can. Check out the lines, one after the other; see if there’s any disagreement from the pc on these lines or these wordings. That’s quite important. You’re not going to change them around just because he disagrees with them, but you’re going to sure make it answerable, if you can. Check out your sessioning in general (which isn’t really enough to keep it all hung up) and just straighten this thing out and get it to rolling again. That’s what you’re going to do.

Now, look: If you can’t straighten the goal out after you’ve listed a couple hundred, if it ceases to fire after two or three hundred items on each one of four lists, it’s sort of „Which way did they go? What happened?“ You got to get it back to firing again. Of course, if you can’t get it back to firing again, it was probably the wrong goal in the first place.

The method we’re using to find goals right now rather makes it very difficult to get a wrong goal. That makes it pretty difficult for you to get a wrong goal or run a wrong goal. That’s the beauty of it, and why I love that method. Ease of auditing and positiveness of finding the goal were enough to have this. And that’s not why I’m happy about it. It used to be that only an Instructor or somebody who was specially trained in that little tiny technique of checkout – we could absolutely rely on the fact that it was the right goal.

Now, any of you guys, if you’re good enough to do nulling by mid ruds down to a point where you find a goal, you’re so used to checking them out that checking out a goal doesn’t phase you anymore. You’ll be able to actually look at a goal and say, „Well, boom, let’s check it out.“ Brrr, brrr. „To be a tiger“ tzal-tup, bang, thud, bang. „Yup, it doesn’t fire.“ See, that’d be all there was to it, you know? „Let’s see, is there a suppression on there? That goal been suppressed?“ That isn’t a goal. See? Positiveness enters into the picture. And that’s going to save an awful lot of bacons.

So, preventing the wrong goal from being found has been quite a campaign I’ve had to engage on here for quite a while, and actually it was – what was marvelous is that this new nulling by mid ruds, not just for its value for the auditor, but to prevent wrong goals from being found, is worth its weight in planets, man, and that’s pretty heavy.

Now, this idea of finding a goal, finding it firing, and saying that is the person’s goal or agreeing that it is the person’s goal – that’s perfectly all right, because it can be run out. It’s an assertion, see? That’s all right. But when the pc keeps saying, „No, it isn’t my goal“ and the auditor keeps saying, „Yes, it is your goal,“ a ridge is built up which is pretty hard to take apart. And it will keep a goal firing. So don’t argue over somebody’s goal or you’ll make it fire and fire and fire, and it’s not his goal. You get the suppressions, invalidations off it – he’ll agree with it if it’s his goal, and if it isn’t his goal, he won’t.

You could find an opposition goal. This is the other thing that could be wrong. You could find an opposition goal. Now, I don’t know that by nulling by mid ruds you will find an opposition goal. I don’t know too much about finding opposition goals, as distinct from finding goals. I can’t give you much data on this, actually, because I’ve never seen an opposition goal that would fire after it has been prepchecked and nulled by mid ruds. You understand? So there’s always the possibility that opposition goals actually only fired because they were invalidations of the goal or something. You get the idea? And they might not have had rocket reads on them at all, you see?

And somebody the other day came up with a reverse rocket read on a goal, and immediately proposed it was probably an opposition goal, which I thought was very interesting. So if you see that sort of thing, let me know. But I don’t know that you can get a rocket read on an opposition goal. I don’t know that it isn’t just the invalidation of the goal that makes the opposition goal fire.

Well, there’s – you’re fairly secure if you have found the goal and checked it out. But don’t be too cocky until you’ve got two hundred on a line. And if you found a goal and then turned it over to somebody to list, remember to reach out, by the time they got three hundred on each line or something like that, and say to the pc, „How are you doing? How do you feel? All right. When they ask you so-and-so and so-and-so, where does the somatic come?“

And the person says, „Well, it’s so and so on.“

„Now, what kind of a somatic is it? Is it a sensation, or is it painful or what is it? And what line is it on?“ And check it all out yourself, you got the idea? You know, don’t read the Auditor’s Report. That’s a good prevention.

Otherwise than that, you realize that somebody who is trained to HCA level could be quite competent in listing. And listing is the longest part of clearing. So if you had somebody helping you in auditing and you kept your eye on the situation, a person with less training than is necessary to find goals could list goals, and because he was doing this sort of thing and doing some Prepchecking and so forth as he went along, he would actually get up to a point where he could locate goals. So it’s a good training school, listing is. See?

Now, that lengthens the number of people you could clear by three or four times. Savvy?

Now, you got to know all about listing and you should list somebody to Clear just to see how it looks and get the experience and that sort of thing, but I don’t expect you to list every goal to Clear that you find. It’d be a much more economic situation for you to find the goal and then keep your eagle eye beagled on the somebody who is listing it out.

Now, how about auto-listing? Well, there is no telling. I won’t say that auto-listing is impossible. I don’t – I don’t believe that it is possible or impossible, at this particular stage of the game.

I believe that it would be better than nothing. Let me put it that way.

But to tell somebody to go home and list on four lists and you will look into it in a couple of weeks, it seems to me like it’s sort of taking his life in your hands! You know? I wouldn’t be sure at this – about this at all. But I would say this – I would say this: that if you were on a desert island and you knew your goal, and you knew exactly what the goal is and it’d been expertly checked out – and there was absolutely no way under the sun for you to get Clear any other way, I would say that you should pick up a pencil and a piece of palm bark. But we would know more about that in due course.

Now, these are the various ramifications to listing. Clearing itself consists of the cycle of finding a goal and then listing it until you have a free needle on each of four lines, finding another goal and listing it on each of four lines, finding another goal and listing it on each of four lines. And the state of case is regulated by the number of goals the person has which have not been found and listed. Those are damping factors.

Now, here at Saint Hill it’s fairly simple to make a first-goal Clear – not simple, but with heroic activities (let us put it that way), we can make a first-goal Clear.

Now, to find a second goal on a pc, and list that one out – this is getting much more difficult. We have just now found and checked out a second goal on Jean, and that was very, very good news that I was very happy about. And at least it was stated to me in so many words that it was checked out today. Was it?

Female voice: Hm-hm.

Yeah. All right, that’s a second goal. Okay, now she’s got a little time to list on this second goal. And I think they possibly even may list it out because the listing, very possibly, is much shorter than a first goal. But we know more about that in due course.

She’s already starting to depart from the standard state of Clear, or such a person is already starting to depart from what we have considered Clear. They’re starting to move up into Theta Clear or something like that, and it’s an adventure from there on out, because these various states, now, of course are not regulated in any way by different processes to different conditions. It’s a gradient scale of the same condition all the way, of course.

Now, I can’t even tell you how many goals it is to OT. See? Or how long it’d take you to find and list each one of these goals. I was very happy to find today that the second goal would fire so nicely. Nice. I was told they had good rocket reads on the thing. See? I was very happy about that.

Somewhere up the line, why, the goals are not going to stay in. They’re going to start blowing. But how far do you have to keep the goals not blowing to get OT? See? But that’s – that is the road that we are on, basically. And it’s a repetition of the same action.

The only improvement which I see in auditing which is coming immediately up, and so on, is a mechanical improvement. That is to say, a persistency of read – devices to make a read more persistent and therefore more observable by an auditor.

I don’t see any changes to amount to anything on clearing as such. I do see some dodges one could do to probably shorten up finding a goal. And I see some frills one could add on to listing that would possibly shorten the thing up one way or the other. But I don’t look for any fabulous advance from along that line. I don’t. Because there are certain limitations that you hit, and the limitations is that the person has got just that much case, and they have to sit there just that long, and they can talk just that fast. Get the idea?

All right. And maybe when we’re all OT, why, maybe we’ll look back over the whole thing again, and we’ll say it would have been much easier had we done it this way. And I hope that we’re in that condition and don’t have to do it some other way.

Those are the improvements I look for in clearing. I really don’t look for many other improvements. But I do look for improvements that’ll take little shortcuts – little faster, something that is more valuable to do this than to do that, you know, little things along the line.

And we may carve it down, we may carve it down considerably. We may use various systems of auditing. Just given you one tonight: You find the goal, let an HPA list it, see, under your eye. Therefore you’ve lost two hundred hours of auditing, just like that. Various other mechanisms of this character can be fine, and we can step it up into quantitative clearing. Our problem now is quantitative clearing.

My immediate problem is to get some of you to read an E-Meter better. Well, I’m solving that with drills and attention and various things, and I’m also double-solving it by making sure that a persistent-read E-Meter comes into existence in the very near future that can be hooked up to a Mark IV and red lights go on and pinball’s dials go around when you hit a read, see, and it stays on until you do something about it or something like that.

But I have actually no quarrel – no real quarrel with your drills, no real quarrel with your auditing presence, no real quarrel with these things. I see just this metering that’s being a problem. And we’ll get that licked.

I have a problem of how many – how many of you can I push on through to first-goal Clears in a space of time, when the fellow alongside of you can’t read an E-Meter and neither can you. You know? Some of you are in that condition, and that’s worrying me. I got these various problems, but I haven’t got any technical problems now. I haven’t got any. I’m not even worrying about what’s in the guts of this meter. I just told them, well, what we need is an idiot meter. You have an on-and-off switch and a red light. When you say something to the pc the red light goes on. Or it doesn’t go on. And if it goes on you clean it up, see, and if it doesn’t go on, you don’t clean it up. Idiot meter! These things we’ll have. These things we’ll have.

I can undoubtedly find where we can best expect the goal to appear on a list, and therefore cut down the number of goals we have to null in order to find the goal, you know? Do various other tricks of this character. But as far as technology is concerned, we got it made, and you’re doing it. And the only thing some of you are doing wrong is you’re missing a few reads, see? Well, that’s all I got to cure, so that’s easy. That’s that.

Thank you very much.