Okay. Here we go.

Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, 3 May 12. And it's lecture 2 and I haven't got anything to lecture to you about at all. Nothing, nothing to tell you. Everybody flinching. Oh, that's a fact. I haven't got anything to talk to you about, practically, nothing

So I might as well give you an incidental lecture that doesn't have too much to do with anything, called Prepchecking

There's an alternate title on this lecture: "Oh, My God." And there's a subtitle below that: "How could you."

The art of making Prepchecking work. There is no science in the art providing — well, I'll tell you how to make it not work. Let me put it that way, see. Ignore the pc. Don't pay any attention to what the pc's doing and omit this interesting datum: Why do you suppose in Routine 3 it is easier to get deep in the Goals Problem Mass with a goal than with an item? You'll find out this is true. you can get much deeper into the Goals Problem Mass with a goal than an item. Now, why can you do that? Figure it out. Why? Why can you do that?

Thank you.

It's much easier for a pc to confront a think than a mass. And an item is a mass. And a goal is a think. And therefore in the mass he can pluck the think out of the middle of the mass without having to confront the mass.

Thank you.

So there he sits in the GPM comfortably, sometimes not quite so comfortably, but he's undisturbed because he knows the goal has nothing to do with it. He can confront that. He can confront the goal. Well, you could probably go all the way through a GPM confronting all the goals in it. I suppose. It'd be a horrible mess by the time you got through, and the pc would be splattered all over something, but it's theoretically possible.

Well, how are you doing tonight?

You see, a GPM item is a thought chamber surrounded by mass. And the pc is perfectly happy to look at the thought chambers, but he is not happy at all to look at any of the mass. Do you see that?

Audience: Good.

So having whizzled him down into the GPM and had him pick up the mass item without confronting any of the mass — you know, he's got his goal now; he's actually sitting in the middle of "God help us," see — we then have him confront the mass on a gradient scale. So he confronts all the little locks which are the items and he confronts those little locks and the next little locks and then a little bit steeper. And how — why do you think it is that the goal usually shows up, and oddly enough, the goal starts showing up toward the end of the list, providing you haven't overlisted and got a lot of invalidations on it and that sort of thing. I mean a smoothly taken rudiments-in goals list starts containing the goal toward the end of the list. It will be somewhere down there. That would be the ordinary practice.

You're looking better.

It wouldn't be true if you were running a rough goals list. you know, with the rudiments kind of out and all this kind of thing. Lord knows where it'd occur. Sometimes by some freak it might occur toward the beginning, but that would be a freak. In the ordinary course of events, it starts occurring toward — late on the list.

▼ Practically unrecognizable, some of you. Marvelous. Marvelous.

Well, of course, why? Well, you're going huh-huh-hu-hu and he finally goes down to a point where it's — it's sticky, and that's why the goal keeps ticking. See, we've arrived in the peat bog You see, and it goes tick-tick-ticktick-tick. Well, you know it's part of a GPM.

▼ Got at least 25 new students here. Pretty good, huh?

Why does it tick? Very interesting. It ticks because it's surrounded by mass. And the pc, in confronting the goal, isn't altering the mass to amount to anything. And now we start listing the item. And when we list the item all the way on down we'll find the item will appear at the later end of the mass. Why is that? I mean at the later end of the list because it's mass. You're actually asking him to confront more and more powerful mass. And he does it sort of on a gradient and he kind of gets used to it. And he finds out he doesn't get his head knocked off by announcing the thing and so he announces mass down into the GPM and will finally give you the item. See?

▼ And Herbie forgot my - no - Robin forgot my e-meter. Second time its happened.

You went there on the wings of thought. And you follow through with the ugly burr and buzz of heat, cold and lightning See? It's something like the fellow who takes a trip in a jet plane from here to South Africa. See, and it's — you've got hot and cold running stewardesses, and everything is being served so very nice, and it's all so sweet, and it's comfortable, and everything is fine, and you don't hardly have to look out the window, you know. Everything is scenic. All right.

Anyway, I'd like to make a few small comments on the session you saw last night.

Now how about walking? How about walking from here to South Africa? Or taking an automobile from here to South Africa? I think you'd find — I think you'd find you'd get certain sensations on the route.

[Note: The session referred to here is the demonstration of 2 May 1962, TVD-4A/B renumbered SHSBC 149-50]

Well, that just gives you some kind of a comparison. Of course, the jet plane is, you get there with a goal. That's easy. Anybody can do that. And the funny part of it is, you don't know where you are when you get there. But then you walk or take a car — it all depends on what type of auditor you have.

Let's see, this is what? 3 Mar. [May] A.D. 12, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, first lecture. Where is the pc? Is it all right if I make a comment on that?

Now, why do you suppose — why do you suppose it's like that? That's because pcs would rather — this is why 3D Criss Cross is more arduous and harder on the pc, you see, because you're not sending the pc anywhere much with thought. You're going down the Prehav Scale and you go that little shallow distance that you get with the Prehav Scale, you see, and take the first level that keeps banging and you list for that. And of course, you're — that was minimal travel by thought, you see. And then you make him travel by item. And traveling by item is much rougher. You don't get anywhere near the distance into the GPM by that system. It would all come out all right in the end. I'm sure of that, but there's the — there's the difference.

Female voice: That's fine, yes.

All right. Now this is not a lecture about this, although you might profit by some of that data concerning Routine 3 Processes. He does the same cotton-picking thing with his withholds and his missed withholds.

All right, very good.

Pcs is built that way. They will confront any God's quantity of thought, particularly if it's a God's quantity of thought for which they have no responsibility of any kind whatsoever. They can confront an infinite amount of thought and ideas.

▼ Now, some of you, I understand were ...

So you'll find that without the auditor pushing, shoving, getting out gunnysacking and put it under the wheels of the truck, getting out long pieces of timber and prying them against the rear axle, shoving bulldozers up against the tailgate every once in awhile, you'll find the pc will go no place except on the wings of thought.

▼ Thank you suah [sir]. Thank you. Getting that "suah" from Reg. He's restimulating my life as a Confederate officer. (audience laughter)

And if you sit there and watch a pc wing his way around the bank and never follow it through with anything, your pc will never get anyplace.

This lecture, in general, is what I expect out of an auditor. That's what this is. But before we go into that too broadly, I want to make a few comments on that.

Now, in 1956 I put this proposition up. I had noticed that a lot of think-think and figure-figure and a lot of confronting of thought and a lot of stirring up of thought and that sort of thing, didn't ever particularly improve a graph. Or if it did, sometimes it did, and most of the time it didn't.

There's apparently a considerable amount of surprise expressed here and there that one would stop buying skim milk. And if you were to replay that tape, you would find out at the beginning that the auditor spent something like five or six minutes getting the pc to say something she had done, not something she had intended. Got it?

So I had to say, "What do you confront? Do you confront thought or mass?" And that was the question I asked at that time. Do you confront thought or do you confront mass? What is this all about?

A missed withhold picked up in a session is anything the pc thinks, anything the pc is withholding. That doesn't matter. That's a session missed withhold, you understand? Pc didn't tell the auditor he was uncomfortable. That's all right for a session missed withhold. But we were prepchecking, and Prepchecking means meat. We only buy meat in Prepchecking, see? We don't buy skim milk. See, we want meat. Preferably with blood dripping off of it. Get the idea? We want some meaningful acts; we don't want meaningless acts. Why, that's a big difference, see?

Well, it's taken a long, long, long, long time. I finally found out, oh, I don't know, a year or two or three ago, that you had to be able to confront the mass before you would get any pc anyplace, don't you see. But it took quite awhile to become absolutely sure of that answer.

We don't want antisocial acts, particularly, like "I picked my nose," you know, just because this is seamier - the seamier side of life, you see? An auditor can actually start specializing in just the seamier side of life. And they have nothing to do with anybody, didn't do anything to anybody, don't you see, and specialize in picking up weird and peculiar practices on the part of the pc. He didn't do anything to anybody, you understand, he just had a weird and peculiar practice, you know? It doesn't mean shucks! Heh! Worthless.

No, it's confronting mass that gets the pc places, not confronting the thought, because the pc is working on second-hand thought. The pc is actually not thinking his own thunk. He is pulling thunk out of locks of the GPM. So he can pull these inevitably and forever. He can confront them for always. Sometimes they change. Sometimes this and that occurs. But unless these thunks are attached in some fashion or another to some mass, nothing much happens to give a permanent change of case.

For instance, you could take some of the Book One subjects, like masturbation, something like that. Oh, this is embarrassing. Yes, it shows up as something of the sort; it's the human race, you see? And it's not really doing anything to anybody, unless it is doing something to somebody. You get the idea?

The funny part of it is you — you will get fooled with this one because of such adroit processes as Rising Scale Processes. You do a Rising Scale Process and obviously it's all thunk. See, it's all postulate, you think. But really, if you did it and had a lot of good luck with it, it's because the pc accidentally confronted some mass too. Even though you are asking him to think thunks, he winds up confronting mass. Or he changed his position in the GPM. Or there's a lot of little freak things that could happen there. But it gives you — it gives you an impure observation.

A lot of auditors specialize in embarrassing things, see, as the very thing you must pick up. To hell with them! You know? Well, pick them up, but thathathabooh!

See, you do the Rising Scale Processing See. All right. You ask the pc to get the idea you can, get the idea you can't. See, "Get the idea you can drive, you get the idea you can't drive. Get the idea you can drive, get the idea you can't drive." And every now and then, so help me, Pete, the pc all of a sudden says, "Boy, I sure can drive!" you know. This is what fools you. This is a fooler.

No, we're interested in things people have done to people. See? We're interested in overts. We is not interested in a withhold because it is simply seamy. Do you get the difference here? There's a considerable difference. He'd done something to somebody. He has an accusative attitude toward somebody, and we want to find out immediately afterwards what he'd done to somebody. Accusative attitude - so what? It merely means he's done something to this person, that's all, see? He's critical of Joe. Well, why is he critical of Joe? Well, he's critical of Joe because he's done something to Joe. See?

You can get results handling thought — sometimes. But it's sporadic. And it's just accidentally, "What did you do to the mass while you were getting the thought thunk?" That theoretically is what happens when you do get a result with thinking thunks. See?

Heh, you pick up a missed withhold, "Well, I was critical of Joe." Balderdash! Nonsense! You can pick up 8,762, see, and the pc won't be any better. And all of a sudden somebody gets bright, and says, "Well, what have you done to Joe?"

So don't say that you will never get a result if you always just buy the pc's thunk. See, you'll never get a result if you just have the pc pick up his own thinkingness and that sort of thing. Don't say you'll never get a result because you will — every now and then. And because a pc or a thetan is much happier confronting thunk, you are then given evidence which proves to you that it's all right just going on thinking thunks.

And he, "Oh, this is nothing - slept with his wife. Didn't tell him. She committed suicide later. And he always thought he did it. I realized all the time I had, you know? Oh yeah."

See, you've proven the wrong thing because of your willingness — your own willingness — to go on thinking thunks. See, it will happen often enough that you'll get this accidental rearrangement of mass that gives you a tremendous change on the part of the pc. This will happen often enough with Concept Processes, Rising Scale, getting ideas about this and that. It'll happen often enough that a pc has a considerable resurgent and drops his lumbosis or loves his wife or some other unlikely — or some other probable activity. And you get yourself — a beautiful red thunk goes across the path, you see.

This starts getting something, see? This is more the comparative side of existence, don't you see? I mean, this is more factual. Done something, see?

And you now say to yourself, "Aha, aha. Thank God. Thank God." You'll say, "It's perfectly, perfectly okay. Haaaah." And all we have to do is to get the pc to go on thinking thunks and I don't have to confront any mass and you don't have to confront any mass, and we go on from there. And the next time you do it, it doesn't work. you lay an egg. And think about it.

Now, in this session we found out something - and a good auditor could have extrapolated from this - we found out affection was trapping people. See, it was a bad thing. Affection was a bad thing.

Now there's why it was a hard problem to solve. Do we get there on the wings of thought or do we get there by shoving the heavy masses about? I'm afraid we get there routinely by shoving the heavy masses because that is what shifted when we went on the wings of thought. And it'll happen accidentally often enough to give you data which you then can prove the wrong point with. It's quite important to realize that because every once in a while you're going to get this subjective reality on the situation.

Now, if you reach way back into your fundamentals: Auditors either audit by fundamentals or by music. And the best auditors audit by fundamentals. But the job can be done, auditing by the words and music, see? You know, just auditing by rote and ritual. Fundamentals. There's an old triangle, and if you think real hard you might be able to remember it. It's called the ARC triangle. And we have found the A triangle was an overt. So therefore, things must look pretty unreal. So therefore, communication of any kind is an overt; so therefore, the thing to do is withhold. And withholding is a virtue, not an overt.

You said, "I had him think a thunk and he thunked it and he thunked it and he thunked it, and then so help me Pete, he now has absolutely no trouble drinking vodka. And it's marvelous. And so obviously we should have him think thunks."

So my next Zero question, having cleaned up the Zero question we went in on, would have been, "What communication, in some portion or another, added up to an overt act?" Got the idea? As a matter of fact, we were picking some up. "Hit a girl with a rock in the stomach." Communication, overt act. See?

So we say, "All right. What other problems does this pc have? This pc has problems? He beats his children daily. All right."

Now, part of the present time problem was the dissemination of Scientology. And if affection - let's just audit by the seat of our pants here, see? - if affection is trapping people, then communication of Scientology would be reprehensible reactively. You got it?

"Now, get the idea of beating children. Get the idea of not beating children. Get the idea of beating chil--- " Seventy-five hours later: "Get the idea of beating children. Get the idea of not beating children. Get the..." you can't audit the pc, you see, because his hands are too bruised to hold the E-Meter cans, you see, because he just goes on beating children. And you get a big — you'll have — this is a tricky one. This is a tricky one.

Audience: Hm-mm.

But actually, if you'd gotten ahold of the mass, which was the circuit which had to beat children and blew it — he wouldn't. And that happens every time, see. That is your constant. If you move the mass you get a constant gain. And if you just think thunks, you don't.

I'm sorry, pc.

Now, it's like this in Prepchecking One of these days you'll be prepchecking somebody, and because it's so easy to confront a thunk, the pc will tell you he thunk a thunk, and you, if you're too willing to confront thunks and too unwilling to confront actions and masses, will go on — let the — and let the pc do this.

Female voice: That's fine.

And every few pcs you'll get a terrific Prepcheck win — every few pcs — every few sessions. And you'll keep on prepchecking because you say, well, it's not in vain, every once in a while we get a nice win. See, Prepchecking is not a complete waste of time, is the conclusion you will come up with, see. If you have that opinion right now that Prepchecking is not a complete waste of time, it is allied to this other fact, but you're letting the pc thunk thinks. See. You're buying thinks off the pc, not masses, not doingnesses, not flows, not actions. See?

That's an evaluation.

You've got to get the doingness — the action, in order to get the pc to push around the masses. You got to have action to get a mass to move.

Female voice: Thanks.

"Have you ever criticized anybody?" I don't ask you to make a test of this, but if you did, use your Zero question, "Have you ever criticized anybody?" And then find a time when the pc actually criticized somebody and put that down as a What: "What about criticizing women?" And then go the chain. And then work for that session and the next session and the next session and the next session and then run into the pc out in the hall criticizing women. Because that's a think. See? That's just pure thunkingness. It's all you're doing is running thunkingness. And you can go on get — getting up his thunks. And let me call something to your attention. It's like letting the frog walk up two inches and fall back two inches every night. Because a pc can add thunks to his case faster than you can pull off thunks. And if you don't believe it, find a goal on some pc sometime who is a bit disturbed and his rudiments are a bit out. And he can thunk more missed withholds than you can get them unthunk.

All right. But there it is. See that? She had two PTPs, and we were cleaning up two chronic present time problems. And one of them was a continuing present time problem she's having all the time with her husband, which enters into a communication battle all the time, see? See? Letters and telephone calls, and then she has an upset and can't get into session, see? How could anybody sit around and look at this for a long time, you see, without doing something about this? See, at this point I should get cross with you, because obviously, obviously, there's something else. See? Must have been. But you didn't have the technology. You didn't have the technology down pat.

Now, you have to pull thunks, you understand, when they're going on as thunks. You have to keep a session cleaned up. And remember there's nothing going on in the session but thunkingness on the part of the pc. He is not leaping, see. He's just thunking

All right, let's get the technology down pat. I understand you had the technology down pat today, and that is, it must have been a missed withhold of the magnitude of a doingness to cause a continuous present time problem - the withhold missed by the person with whom we had the present time problem. So that cleaned it up, huh? In the process of doing this, we didn't have a second session following immediately after this, but the second session we would have cleaned up the other side of the PTP, which is "can't disseminate Scientology." And we had the answer, right there, see? Got the answer gratuitously. See? ARC. If affection trapped people, then communication must do them up in a ball. See?

And if you say, "In this session have you — have I missed a withhold on you?" of course, you're going to be repaid with a thunk. And sure enough, your meter's going to read again. But remember that in that session he didn't have any opportunity to do anything but thunk.

All right, so we'd have to clean up communication withholds. That is, things that she had done with communication that were reprehensible. See? We clean some of those up and we find out, all of a sudden, the whole problem falls apart. We also find out any IQ difficulty that she kept complaining about; the IQ would soar. Do you see why it'd soar? See, it must be down, because she mustn't communicate, which in itself is a continuous withhold. And stupidity equals withhold, you understand? So she feels stupid, so therefore it's the area of withhold. Okay? That make sense to you?

And you're dealing in your most delicate sense with items which are closely allied to thunks until you get down to a final item on a complete list. You go in on the goals line and of course it's all thunk! So any think that the pc thunks, of course, will cancel out the thunk that you're trying to record, naturally. See, he can cancel out the thunks in present time.

Female voice: Yes.

Frankly, getting a pin stuck in your finger in present time is more important than losing your whole civilization a hundred trillion years ago. In other words, present time is far more important by emphasis in the pc's mind than the past. But of course, the past is far more important in creating aberration in the present, you see.

All right.

You got these two things always at work. It's much more important to the pc, this present time problem, see. You're trying to get off the blasted civilization of a billion years ago, see.

That's auditing by fundamentals. See?

He didn't do anything there. He really didn't mean to. He was flying over it in an airplane and it was all by accident, and some mechanic — some mechanic back at the base there — they had a bunch of bad mechanics at the base — hadn't fixed the trip, you see, on the bomb release. And he just happened to be flying across the capital city at that particular time that it tripped, you see. And the plane actually happened to have a warhead in — actually, shouldn't have had at that particular time, and he didn't know that it had any bombs in it. But it fell and actually wiped out the whole technical library and all the scientific center and the remainder of the capital and so forth — the bomb did.

I wanted to call something else to your attention, which you might have found very, very interesting, is that we had twenty or thirty incidents on that chain that we never touched. The old man just went earlier. Do you realize I picked up the first incident on the chain? Uh-huh. And went earlier? What was I doing going earlier? If the first incident on the chain showed that there was no sexual activity prior to the first incident on the chain, what were we doing going earlier? Well, I just went earlier because you go earlier. And did you see that the question nulled? Nulled beautifully. Do you realize there are twenty or thirty incidents the pc probably never recounted? Well, where were they? What happened to the charge? See, that's the mystery of it all. What happened to that charge?

On the second run you'll find out that he had some inkling that the plane was loaded with a bomb. And on the third run across this you will find more and more responsibility, see, gathering up, and you'll eventually find out that he was ordered to do it. And he went over and threw the lever and blew the place to smithereens, and then you'll find out that he was the fellow who gave the order. See? You see your responsibility rise.

Well, you pull basic-basic on the immediate chain by pulling all the underpinnings out of basic-basic, if you want to get it that way. Anything that added up to why she would do this, we pulled. The rest of it must have just gone brrrzt! See?

It's very wonderful watching these things. "Well, it was totally accidental," and — and so forth, "And there was — nothing was meant by it, but — " you're going to see develop into: "Well, I did it." See? It goes up the scale.

So if you go at it on the basis that you're running engrams called withholds, and you run every engram ... Do you see? If you're going at it on that basis, it's going to take you forever. See? I think the pc will tell you we had a nice win last night. See? Yet we never did touch the upper part of the chain. We never even touched the subject of the PTP. Isn't that fascinating? There was only one comment on it, and then from there on we cleaned it up. You see that? Audit by fundamentals. Get the earliest on the chain and release it. And if you can get the earliest on the chain, you can pull it out of the mud, and all the later ones go.

Well, present time the pc is being terribly responsible for everything. The pc's responsible for sitting in the chair and being in the body and all that sort of thing. So you're closer to the present time responsibility of the pc. So therefore the pc thinks a thunk in present time, it has tremendous importance on the meter. Actually not however, in his aberration.

There was one oddity about this case that you might find real odd: is that basic-basic was a not-knowingness about a nothing. Fascinating, you know? That was fascinating. There was no basic-basic. The pc thought there was. And we looked in vain. And why did we look in vain? Because every auditor had always looked in vain.

Ah, that's nothing — the aberration. See, his present time thought is not aberrative. It's merely interruptive. It's terribly important to him. That's why your rudiments go out, you see. How can a rudiment knock out the read from blowing up the civilization? Well, it's just terribly important. His responsibility is very high for PT. Present time — responsibility high. Past time — no responsibility. You reverse this state of affairs, but the rudiments can go out.

How come you're always looking for a somethingness? This was a trick case. This was very trick. The whole trick about it was, is there was nothing at the basic. And she hadn't done anything but thought she had, and must have because auditors had kept her looking for it. But we must also add into the fact that she must have kept handing it to auditors. See? And then we must have had the auditor never look at the E-Meter.

Therefore, his difficulty taking a wrapper off of a candy bar in present time is far more important to him than something that happened a billion years ago. So you have to clean up the PTP.

Now, did you see this last night? I said, "What happened when you were four years old?" And we had some ticks and tocks, and we cleaned that up. Now, "What happened when you were four years old?" And eventually we could find nothing. There was no charge on anything happened when she was four years old. Obviously nothing had happened. That was very tricky and very freaky. But how come I found it? Well, I found it simply because I audit by fundamentals. A not-knowingness is a not-knowingness.

The PTP is far more important. It outweighs every other consideration. It's quite amusing And of course, this PTP has the power of aberrating him not at all. It has no power of aberrating him. In fact, I'll let you in on something. Nothing that's happened to him in this whole lifetime has had any effect upon his degree of aberration — not a single thing.

Wrote a story once called Fear: a guy lost four hours in his hat, you know? All you have to do is lose four hours in your hat sometime and you've had it, see? Particularly if somebody keeps insisting that something happened. I'm sure some of you, in college or around and about, have tried to convince some compatriot of the terrible things he did while he was drunk, or while she was drunk. Of course, it adds in a not-know, because they can't say they did and they can't say they didn't. So you'll get a not-know basic which serves, mechanically - it is a not-knowingness that begins the chain. So, of course this chain stood hooked in because there was a not-knowingness about it. But the not-knowingness was in reverse at this time - there was nothing had happened. Right? It's just crazy.

But auditing, let me call to your attention, is being done in present time. And therefore the pc is always trying to sell the auditor two things: One, that is his — it is his thunk that has got everything awry — his thinkingness has shoved everything awry. That's one of the first bill of goods he tries to shove off on the auditor. And the other one, that present time is far more important than anything the auditor is trying to go into.

You by the way won't find that ordinarily in auditing pcs. That was just freaky. But you audit by fundamental, and of course a not - knowingness at the bottom of the chain of course is just a not - knowingness at the bottom of the chain. It doesn't have to even be a not-knowingness about something. It doesn't have to be anything about the bottom of the chain. That's elementary. Well, enough about that.

He always tries to sell these two bill of goods. Why? Because they are built in just like the plates and grate on a stove. They're just built in to the pc. He isn't doing this maliciously or viciously.

This should give you some kind of an idea of what I mean by auditing by fundamentals. You just never give up on the fundamental. Now, I'll give you an idea here, see? Pc: "Yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, and I am tired of listing!" See? And "I can't think of any more."

Now, the auditor may not Q&A with his own grate and plate. See? What's got to be built into the auditor is the other consideration entirely: "The longer ago it happened the more important it is to the pc's aberrated state." That's quite different, isn't it, than: "Present time is more important than the past." you see, pc says that. The auditor says, "The longer ago it happened, the more influential it is to the case."

Now, the reasonable auditor says, "Of course you can get tired listing." And it is true, he couldn't think of any more. This is absolutely true. But the auditor says, "Have I missed a withhold on you?" See, he audits not by reasonableness, but by a fundamental. When the pc gets nattery, he has a missed withhold. He doesn't care whether this missed withhold is justified or not justified, understandable or not understandable; he just audits by the fundamental that a missed withhold must be present, and you ask for it and pull it, and the fellow keeps on listing again. That happened today, and I was very, very interested to hear about it. See? You mustn't be reasonable, you must be fundamental.

And then the auditor has to say, or has to work on the basis, that the doingness and the havingness are much more important than the thoughtingness. See? He's got to have doingness. That's as close as an auditor can usually push a pc to heavy mass short of a Routine 3 Process. So he's at least got to have doingness. And he's got to skip thunkingness. Well, the pc is selling the auditor thinkingness and he's selling the auditor presentness.

There are certain basic truths and laws about the human mind. They are not very many. They are astonishingly few. You audit by those, not by how reasonable it is that something else would be the case. You actually have to isolate out for yourself what is true and what is fundamental. I could give you a list of things here and punch it down your gullet and get you examined on this thing until you were green in the face, you see? And I'd say, "These are the truths and that's all there is to it." Well, that's something like feeding this boa constrictor I was talking about, see? And if the auditor is unable to regurgitate the proper datum at that instant, why, he'd be sunk in any tough situation, you see, in an auditing session, wouldn't he? He'd be sunk, right there.

In the session the pc says, "Oh, what you are doing to me. you just missed a command. This is absolutely fabulous and fantastic. And besides, one week ago I something or other, something or other and something or other. And I have come to the conclusion that . . ." and so on. And he fires off in some direction or another and actually thinks that this charge is prompted by something that has happened either today or in the last week. And of course that charge is not from today or the last week at all.

Well, actually, a stable datum fixed in by a confusion, and not by understanding, doesn't happen to be available in a tight spot. So you don't audit by fundamentals, you audit by being reasonable. So you must recognize a fundamental for what it is. A fundamental is a fundamental. I can go this far: I can say to you "This is a fundamental. Damn it all, find out about it!" And tell you eight, ten, fifteen times, "It's a fundamental; find out about it!" see?

Now, it all depends on what an auditor is doing. An auditor can Q&A with this — just — not Q&A with it — but an auditor can pay attention to this and buy thunk, of course, if he's trying to keep the pc in-session. Because what he's doing in session has the relative value of what the pc is thinking in session. You get the idea. I mean the pc with a thunk in-session can momentarily outweigh the pastness of things with his present time thunk. See?

And then one fine day you say, "Well, I haven't got anything else to do; I think I'll find out about this. Oh my God, it is a fundamental." At that point it becomes a usable tool.

You've got this — you've got this situation going and the pc is having a hell of a time, and the rudiments are out. And you ask the pc, "Missed withhold? Invalidation? Missed withhold? Upset? ARC break?" Anything else you care to ask the pc, and it goes clang. And you say, "What was that?" And he says it was so-and-so. And you say, "Thank you very much." And your rudiments are back in, and you carry on.

You can go on believing these fundamentals are fundamentals, and never using them, or never spitting them out at the time they're required, and you'll go on being a ritualist. You go right on being a ritualist. All of a sudden, pc after pc you'll miss on. And you say, "Why am I missing on this pc?" It'll be something on this basis - since here was a pc we hadn't been missing on one way or the other - be on the basis of the auditor does not feel free to recognize that a fundamental applies here.

But the only reason you carry on is not because the pc is getting aberrated by these out-rudiments, but because auditing is being done in present time. And the pc's invalidations and out-rudiments are occurring in present time. And you do not have time or inclination to go back and clear them up on the whole track, because you are doing something else. So therefore, you clear up rudiments as close to present time as possible and prepcheck as far from it as possible. You get out of this a natural rule, you see.

We're always asking this question, "What is an overt?" To one case it's one thing, and to another case it's another thing. But we had this gratuitously offered, see, on this case I audited. Case described an overt. Well, we're not much interested in sensation - auditing sensation - so therefore affection, see, traps people. All right, great. I can tell you a secret, that it isn't going to move very far in Prepchecking. Why isn't it going to move very far? Well, because you're just auditing straight sensation. You're saying, "Have you ever grief?" "Have you ever grief?" "Have you ever grief?"

The pc gives what's happening right now in session tremendous value. It has nothing to do with the price of oranges.

"No."

So you can pick it up as easily as it's going in. Now, if you think it has undue importance, you will try to pick it up too hard. You'll be like the phony strong man, you know. He's got five-hundred pounds written on both ends of this barbell, you know, and it's made out of balsa wood. And you'll go over there and you'll try to pick this up and you'll struggle — reading five-hundred pounds on the end of it, you will know that you have to exert five-hundred pounds worth of strength in order to get it off the floor. You're liable to throw yourself through the top of the stage.

"Have you ever - have you ever used communication so as to harm somebody?" or something like that. Oh well, now we're on real fruitful ground, aren't we? See, by taking the ARC triangle and moving around to another corner of it that does apply, we've got it. Well, that's fundamental.

But you can approach the subject as arduously as it's advertised. Then you find it blows up just like that. Bang! What happened? What happened? Where did it go? Where did it go? Mmm. Bzzzz. Oh, he has a terrible present time problem. You're only getting a little tick on the missed with — I mean on the whole track withhold that you're trying to get off of it. Whatever it is. You're only getting a little tick on that. And yest — as of yesterday you didn't have it cleared, got a little tick. And today he comes in — he's got a half-a-dial drop, man!

All of you have ARC down real well. Well, it's fundamental. It exists. When the R goes down the A goes down, the C goes down; when the R goes up, then the C goes up, when the A goes up, you know, they always go up - all of them, all together.

He's agitated. You can see the physical agitation and so forth, and huhAhh and so forth. And you say, "Well, what's the matter?" And you go down the line and you read your rudiments in. "Present time problem?" Oh, there's that half-a-dial drop, you see. you say, "What happened?"

So there's an opportunity to improve communication. And of course lack of communication or jammed communication (withholds equals stupidity) we could have made the case brighter. This is by fundamentals, you see?

He says, "Well, Agnes didn't speak to me this morning"

One day you yourself will be puzzling around. You will be puzzling as to why a withhold makes people so stupid. And after you've sat there being stupid about it for some time, you will suddenly realize that it has something to do with something that has nothing to do with communication; that the reverse of communication must be happening here. And you'll eventually think the whole thought out all by yourself, and look back on it and say, "Oh, well! Heh-heh! Huh. I sure been feeling stupid for the last five minutes! I wonder if I was withholding something? Well, I was withholding the answer to it," or something like this. And you suddenly add it up and say, "Ha-ha-ha! Withholds equals stupidity. Heh! For sure!" See? So therefore, lack of communication equals stupidity, you see? Quite fascinating.

All right. Now, if you think that weighs five-hundred pounds, see, you'll roll up your sleeves, you'll sigh deeply and you'll struggle out there, flex your muscles and biceps, you know, and pick this thing up as though it weighs five-hundred pounds. Actually, all you have to do is say, "Well, all right. Thank you. Do you have a present time problem? That's clean."

But you can take these things, and because these data are known, you can get a hopped-up, speeded-up, enormously increased look at the things. You got a chance to look at these things, and you will eventually see that they knock out other things. And you don't need these 8,655 superstitions like "I must not stand under a karo tree because it's what gives women babies," you know? I mean, other true data of the human race. I imagine there's girls right here that have been Polynesians or something like that, and have been part of a taboo-ridden society, and they don't realize why they always flinch alongside of lampposts, or something like that.

What happened? Where did they go? You'll notice that. You'll notice that phenomenon. But that little tick that you were working on that happened when they were seven years old keeps going tick, and it keeps going click, and you say, "Well, what happened there?"

And on the other hand, some of us have often lived a canine life. (laughter) But these are superstitions. And when you get down to the bottom of the pile, why, all these superstitions become understandable.

And they say, "Well, so-and-so and so-and-so," and it keeps going tick, and it keeps going tick. you apply the withhold system to it again, you see. It ticks a little less and a little less, and it's wearing out a little bit slow. And then you find a little earlier basic on it now that you've worked it over enough for the pc to get earlier. You find a little earlier basic on it, get the unknownness out of that, and bing. And then it'll blow. But it took you a half an hour or so, see. It took you an hour. It took you an hour and a half. Do you see why this is?

But what I expect of an auditor is to audit the pc that's right there in front of him, by the most fundamental fundamentals that he can command and understand. And if he does that, he will always get wins. See, this auditor will always get wins. He won't go around in any kind of a fog about it. And he'll see that the Prepcheck system is put together very adroitly. But it becomes totally nonfunctional when you take off from a Zero question, get no overt, put down any What that should have been a Zero-A or something, get no overt on it, buy a lot of "thinks" and "supposed-to's" and that sort of thing, go on down a whole long chain of meaningless stuff - you know, not even getting the soles of the shoe wet. And nothing is clearing up, and it's all very arduous and just goes on and on.

Now, if you continue to believe that by pulling the thinks — you see, because you can do so much in the rudiments by pulling thinks, don't be so fooled — you think you can pull thinks off the pc and get anywhere in Prepchecking, you're going to be very badly mistaken. You can only get anywhere in Prepchecking by pulling "do's." "Whatcha done, Bud?" "Okay, Mac. Where'd you hide the hammer?"

When you've done that a little while, you get the idea "I wonder if there isn't some better way to go about it?" And you go for broke about that point. And I can put your attention forward to this point: that unless you get something the pc has done, you see, for your What question, a specific incident (I don't care whether you're asking for missed withholds because it all depends on the Zero, what you're asking for), but unless you get a specific incident, and it actually has doingness in it, and you make a chain at that point - you just spot that there's a chain here at that point, and word it at that - that you're not going to get anything happening. You will see this, and then the mechanics of the mind sort of start unraveling." Oh well, yes, of course!" you know? And after you've run some of these chains down to the bottom then you'll find out that all chains are anchored because of not-knowingness in the bottom incident.

He says, "Oh, I just didn't do anything to my wife. I didn't do anything to her at all. I never laid a hand on her much. And — I've been awfully critical of her. I actually had some uh, uh — really, when we got married I had some reservations. I thought to myself. . ."

I point out something to you: On two or three demonstrations you have seen that my What question was not on the button. See? It was close enough to have created a breeze past somebody's ear. See? But it was not dead center. Because the only time you know enough to ask the exact What question is when you've finished Prepchecking! See? And then you can ask the exact What question. And if you want to appear a genius to an instructor, why, never write the What question down until you've finished the session, see?

See, you're liable to buy this if you notice how easily those thinks go out in the rudiments. You see how you can handle those thinks in the rudiments. You're liable to buy this as aberrative.

The What questions are never quite on, They're just sighting questions, that's all. They're never quite on. Because you really don't quite know what's on that chain, you see?

And then he said, "And actually I criticized her once to a friend," you know.

So you should realize that if it's that unknown to the pc, what God - given, turban-wearing prescience do you have that you're going to know all about it when the pc doesn't, and you haven't found out from the pc yet? Well, you can't find it out that exactly. But because when you're auditing by fundamentals, you know something about it - you know about what's going to turn up - you ask a What question that will probably turn up something that resembles this. And I'd say it's the sheerest luck, one out of a hundred, that a What question is dead on. We had a What question of "What about sleeping with men to trap them?" See? Oh, that's pretty good. That was pretty good. Served our purposes beautifully and went null gorgeously. But it wasn't the chain. The chain all followed that What question. We had a chain that went on from there, but we were actually taking it back from an incident and were asking questions which relieved the What question which wasn't described by the What question, which I thought was quite fascinating. But I never expect your What question to be any closer on than that.

Well, you start soaring in on the line and you say, "Ah, you criticized her once to a friend. Well, very good now. What about criticizing?" you see.

Pc gave you an overt, you actually did get an incident, and the pc actually did something in this; and then you put your What question to it, so as you get a chain of that type of incident, and then go earlier, you'll almost always find yourself out in the blue if that was the first incident. But it doesn't relieve; there must have been a lot of other factors. And you find yourself asking questions about other types. They're almost on, don't you see? They'll be on the same dynamic. They will be the same type of personnel, you know? And you get those erased and all of a sudden the rest of the chain will blow. Your What questions are almost never dead on.

Ah, pack it up. Everything from there on is just a waste of time. And it's, "Whatcha do, Mac?" See. "How'd ya splint up the broken bones?" "Where'd ya hide the corpse?"

You would be a swami beyond all swamis if your What questions were absolutely accurate every time, see? So you just get a What question which describes the incident, in its workably general - not too general - terms and 'ope for the best! And fire from there. And you'll work it out every time. And that's all you're bound and determined to have to get null, is the incident you found. And sometimes the incident will go null. Well, if you notice, in working a Prepcheck question, I will only go over these things a couple of times, with me eye on the meter - and nothing was dying down. And that told me loads. Because I tell you, one withhold system, you know, I mean, one "When," "All," "Appear," you know, and "Who," and it didn't blow, well, it's something like the curiosity: "Well, we fired an 18-inch shell into the middle of the jam tin and it still sat there! " There must be some other thing holding down this mirage called a jam tin. We couldn't possibly have fired at the jam tin. We must have an image of the jam tin. Now let's find the jam tin. See? And the jam tin always lies earlier. Nothing ever locks up because of a later incident.

He's done something. And unless you pull doingness, you of course, make no permanent progress. And he squirms around, and he says, "Well, as a matter of fact, I never did anything to her." And it goes clank. And you say, "Well, what was that?"

And you all of a sudden one - you go down, and you finally pick up this pebble, and you don't even use the withhold system on it; it just kind of goes whooh. And you go back up the line and maybe use a withhold system on something else that was a little bit hangy, and then come back to your What question and just ask the What question again, and it's null, see?

"Oh well, that — that teh-heh. It didn't have too much to do with it, but the night before we got married I slept with her best friend."

It is an inexact activity. Prepchecking is not an exact activity. It depends on the pc in front of you. I expect you to be able to audit and understand the pc who is in front of you.

"Oh, what about sleeping with your wife's best friends?" It's your Prepcheck. Now let's soar.

Now, here's what else I expect of you: because Prepchecking itself is an inexact activity, I ask you to do it on the framework of total exactitude. See, just groove that in madly. That sounds weird, doesn't it? But give it in a Model Session, God-'elp-us! You see? Your TRs, marvelous. Your E-Metering, superb. And when you've got those things all down so that you don't think any more about them than you think about your coat while you're eating dinner, man, can you prepcheck. You see? Got an exact frame: You got the withhold system, that's exact; you got your Model Session, that's exact; your E-Metering is exact; the fundamentals on which your chains are stacked up in the pc's mind will be found to follow those exact rules - always held in at the earliest incident; it's a cousin to the chain - and you take your exactitudes and just play by ear from then on.

Now, odd part of it is, it runs down to sleeping with his sister's best friend, see. And it runs down to having something to do with his mother's best friend or something like that, see. It won't stay on this groove absolutely, but you'll pull it all out down to the bottom. And you come back up and you find out that's null, and that's that. All right. And you may have pulled a major charge off the case, you see. And you'll get a resurgence. This person will look different and act different. It's "What'd ya do, Mac?"

There's probably nobody plays by ear better than a symphony soloist. There's nobody better trained in music, you see? These jam sessions. You hear some of these boys whoopin' up down around N'Orleans. Huh! Got a record upstairs that tells how that impromptu jam session was put together, you see? They worked on it eighteen or twenty hours, and managed to get its impromptuness to sound imprompt. But the upshot of this is ... Well, you take a symphony-orchestra drummer. I don't know how come they get these guys into symphony orchestras, unless it's the high-class or snob-level something or other. And then they get them into symphony orchestras and they must trap them there in some fashion, because these guys make Krupas look awfully, awfully dim! They're technicians. Man, they're marvelous.

Now, he will mark those dumbbells one ounce. And you go out there to pick up these dumbbells marked with one ounce and you give one yank, you see, and you go through the planks. Got it?

One guy, one night ... You know, your jazz orchestra boys, they all have to use these whiskers, or something. These whisks, you know? And they get one of these whisks and they go over the top of the snare drum, and it says snif, snif, snif, snif, snif, you know, that sort of thing. Symphony orchestra man does it with a pair of drumsticks, and it goes whisk, whisk, whisk, whisk, whisk, you know? And where's his whisker? It isn't anyplace. You know? I swear those guys could play snare drums with their kettle drums if you asked them to, see? They're marvelous.

We're working basically with a basic disagreement of evaluation between the auditor and the pc. Things that are actually heavily weighted are given minimal weight at first by the pc. And things that actually have no weight at all are given tremendous weight by the pc. Because the pc would like you to stay in present time and pull all the aberrations of yesterday.

But they are precision musicians. They really can play by note, you see? They really can do their stuff. And after that, why, hell, they can do anything, you see? But let's get some high-school kid, and before he learns how to back up Wagner, why, let's let him extrapolate with some jazz. It sounds that way too. Never seems to .. It's just noisy. See, it's just noise. And actually, this is always the illusion of any craftsman, is that he can do it offhandedly. It looks as though there is terrific ease. There's just nothing to it, you see? You see Weller out here whittling a block of wood. And you say, "Well, anybody could do that" - or look at something he's built, or something like that - and you say, "Well, anybody could do that." Go ahead, see? It looks so easy.

He lived through yesterday. He remembers yesterday. Yesterday's safe. Furthermore he didn't do anything yesterday but think. And that's perfectly safe to think yesterday.

The mahogany dispatch boxes that sit on the back ledge of my desk back there - he didn't cause any fuss building those things. They're all hand fitted and hand carved, without any tools to amount to anything, you see? The guy is a craftsman. He's been at that for a long time. And you give old Jenner out here a pile of stone. You see, nobody can work stone. Give old Jenner a pile of stone and you say, "Build me a wall." Well, you can give him specifications about the wall, but somehow or another a wall happens. It's all so easy. You see him working out there and you see stuff going up, and there's nothing much to it.

And furthermore, it actually seems to him to be tremendously important what he thought yesterday. So he's got all these sells. One, yesterday. Ah, that's nice and close to present time so therefore it must be tremendously important. And I thought, and actually I can confront thinkingness, so therefore thinkingness must be terribly important.

Well, now and then he makes a mistake. But the only mistakes he actually makes is when he and me come into a planning or design disagreement. And once in a while, why, we won't see eye to eye on some planning or design thing - something else is going to go up after that, that he doesn't know about or something like that. But as far as actually doing it, it looks awful easy. It looks awful easy till you get somebody else in who calls himself a bricklayer. And the guy goes out, and my God, you know? He works, and he's got bricks stacked up, and he's got mortar, you know? And he picks up bricks, you know, and he puts them down, and he smooths them out and he gets the mortar on top of them, and it falls all over the drive and we've .. There must have been such a bricklayer at work around here, because one wall that we found out there was plumb. And he makes a lot of work out of it, and you wind up with no wall. Well, it's just basically because he just doesn't - the guy wouldn't know really how to handle mortar with a trowel. It comes down to little, tiny fundamentals, you know?

And the auditor knows very well that thinkingness has no importance whatsoever and that if he hangs around yesterday he will get a lot of nowhere.

You take the fellow who does a great job of sculpture: He knows his clay, and he knows this and he knows that. They're not something he's trying to learn while he is making the sculpt, see? He's all set, and then he sculpts. He knows how to do these things.

So your auditor goes counter to what the pc would like him to go counter to. And if you continue to Q-and-A with this and do exactly what the pc thinks is important, hm-mm, you'll get nowhere with Prepchecking

Your old-time painters had this down to perfection. I know; I was kicking around over on that side of the channel, back in them thar days - I mean, the real old-timers around 1350, 1360 - the real Flemish school that the other fellows just hah! you know, came along afterward and pspt! you know? Rembrandt - pfhooh! Well, he - copyist. But in those days you couldn't run down to the paint store. You could have run down, but there would have been no paint store. And the way you learned how to paint is you went and found a master someplace and you ground color for him. And your little girlfriend would be saying to you, "Jan, how come you is so blue tonight?" And you'd mortar and pestle his color. And you finally found out all there was to know about drying and color and pigment and what pigment did and what pigment didn't, and how it was blended and how it was put together, and what [the] constituency of it is, and the darned paintings painted with it are still there. Fascinating. They must have known something, huh? When you got all through, you knew how to - you'd find out how to spread the stuff and how to work it, and so on. And you actually go on for years. And someday, one day, why, the master would give you a brush, an old used brush of some kind or another, and say, "Well, you see the wall over there; well, make a paint stroke on it." And then you'd go over and you'd make a paint stroke on the wall, you know?

You have to drive with Prepchecking. You cannot hand the wheel over to the pc, because the pc will drive in the beautiful flight of thunk. He will soar through thunkingness and thunkingness and thunkingness. He'll fly with great beauty through this thunkingness. And he will stay marvelously close to PT because everything that's important in his life is important in PT.

And he'd say, "Oh, my God! Give me that brush," you know?

The great saw that he will give you is, "Well, it happened a long time ago and therefore isn't very important. And we have forgotten all that now and we have laid it to rest." A psychoanalyst one time gave me that as an argument.

You'd say, "What have I done wrong?" you know? Well, he couldn't find out what you'd done right! That was ...

She said, "Well, now we had this psychoanalyzed two or three years ago and we put it all aside. And so therefore it happened quite a long time ago and it hasn't any value anymore, and so forth. And I'm over that. Now, what is really wrong with me is the way I was jilted last week and stood up for a dinner date by my boyfriend. And we haven't spoken since." See, this kind of thing

You look at the Japanese work with brush and that sort of thing. They don't do it overnight, you know? It looks so easy. You know, you look at a Jap and he paints his bamboo, you know? He paints it all up and so on. He paints. And when it's all finished here's a beautiful free sketch, you see, of a bamboo.

So I had this psychoanalyst lie down on a bed — 1949 — and go back to the first moment that the death of the relative was imparted and go through it step by step. And man, you would have thought it was made out of solid sponge rubber the way she kept bouncing out of that. I put her through that and she cried several buckets full of tears. And we got the secondary off of it beautifully. Utterly changed the appearance of the pc. "But it had all been handled, and it was all a long time ago. And what was important was last week." See?

You say, "That's easy," you take some charcoal or something, you know; you take a big piece of paper and you say, "Well, now let's see." And go bzupt! and bzupt!

So if you had let the person drive, where would you have wound up? You would have wound up — after a long route through the world of think, you would have wound up at, "Thoughtport." And it would have been very, very close to where you were sitting right this minute. So you can't let the pc drive. You have to make it very clear to the pc that the wheels are being guided and the throttle is being handled by some other person.

Well, the little Jap, he knows where to get the inkstone, you know, and he knows how to grind it up, and he knows how to mix it and he knows how to handle brushes. And he could probably write with a brush as fast as you can write with a pen. Amazing!

And if you don't have a pc under good control, Prepchecking is almost impossible. You've got to have good auditor control. And you've got to direct the pc's attention to doingness and to yesterday. And that is what you direct the pc's attention to. To what he has done, done, done, done, done, done — a long time ago.

And all of those things, however, are built out of a great ability to do a small detail. That's the common denominator of all great art. It's great ability to do a small detail. And out of that you get great art. And that's why these schools of drawing that you see down in Greenwich Village - well, they're all lined up along the board fence and so forth, and why in fifty years nobody can find those pictures around. They're definitely not going for 285 thousand pounds for one sketch. More likely you find them filling a mouse hole someplace to keep the draft out. And that's because those boys went on an entirely different idea: They see the ease with which it is done and mistake the tremendous skill in the tiny detail. Because the tiny det - it looks so easy, you see?

And the pc says, "Let me think, think, think, think yesterday, because yesterday is important." And if you let the pc drive and if you haven't got a solid grip on the wheel, the pc will stay with think and stay as close to now as possible. And of course you will plow nothing, you will get nothing done. The pc will not resurge, nothing will happen at all.

They see one of these boys painting, they see the results of the painting; it all looks so natural, it all looks so easy. So they use the same abandon with which the master works, you see? They use the same abandon with which the master works to paint their paintings or sculpt their sculptings, and it's mud. It's mud. And the only thing that's missing is "How do you take a small brush and flip it across a palate to bring it out to a point, and paint an absolutely straight line?" How do you do that?

The funny part of it is you can often key things out by getting a yesterday, but it's a sort of a shallow job. You can get tired of plumbing the track sometime and kick out a lock that occurred last week and brush it off, but it all depends on what you're doing.

Give you some idea of this: Michelangelo used to go calling on his friends, and if they weren't home he'd take a piece of chalk and he'd draw a circle on the door. And they always knew Michelangelo had been to visit them. He was the only man in all of Italy who could draw a freehand circle that was perfect. He'd draw a perfect circle. All of his friends recognized it as a badge, you know? Craftsmanship is built out of these ... The exact skill, the exact response, the thing. I don't care how great the man's name is, or how splendid the accomplishment he's trying to accomplish, or how tiny or unimportant the thing is. The factor is still there. It's still craftsmanship. And craftsmanship is built out of tremendous expertness on the tiny detail. That's all you really have to know.

If you just try to get a pc's rudiments in, well for God's sakes, handle it that way. Handle it shallow. Just handle it shallow. Rudiments by think, by close to PT — absolutely. That's perfectly all right. But that's rudiments. Now, the body of Prepchecking.

Now, our tiny details consist of a meter. One of the reasons we can clear today and get further today on cases, and get Goals Assessments and find terminals on cases, is because we have a better meter. All right, that's all right. That's neither here nor there. It still takes an auditor who is absolutely fabulous on reading a meter.

Well, he says, "When I — when I was thirty-two I had some difficulty with my father's business associates and so forth. Let's see, that was two years ago, and so forth. And I said some very nasty things about them as a matter of fact. I told some of my friends that they were old — I hate to tell you this — but I told some of my friends they were old fogies."

I went through a session this afternoon that I... Yesterday my auditor said - he sort of wound up the end of the session and he was sort of stunned because he thought ... Sudden thought struck him. This was "What if some beginning student had been trying to do that goals check?" It whumped him for a second. He suddenly realized how far he himself had come. He was reading a microscopic clean needle, but it was microscopic. And he was reading some that were going sporadic and some that were going unsporadic, and were going naturally and well, you see? And it was a job of work, you see? And because he was centering in toward the center of a goal, of course he was getting suppressions and invalidations left and right because already he was stirring up its oppterm, you see? He was stirring up both its terminal and oppterm. He was picking off missed withholds, invalidations and suppressions, and getting the read, and getting the read off suppressions and missed withholds and invalidations, and getting the read back on the goal. Then he had to test all of the goals that had been there to make sure that each one of those didn't have invalidations or suppressions, do you see, or missed withholds on them and about them, you see? And then he had to check those to make sure that they weren't still reading - make sure they were null.

And although I am never this blunt unless somebody has circumvented me in all directions for about fifteen minutes, if they had been doing so I would say at that moment, "Well, did you — after you had stolen the money, did you take it out the front door or the back door? That's all I'm interested in. When you were six — we'll just shoot for six. Just — just . . ."

And he was working around on this for about an hour or so - well, more than that - checking out this goal line, you see? And the thought afterward struck him; all of a sudden he realized how far he'd come. I guess what thought really occurred to him is, "What would he have done a year ago?" See? The guy was doing it very easily and very naturally, see? There was nothing to it. Meter was talking all the way. Now, he didn't have time to do that and worry about the meter and worry about rote and ritual, and so forth. He didn't have time to worry about these other things. He had to have a lot of things down pat, didn't he?

They sometimes look at you and say, "How — how the — how the — how the — how the hell did you know? I used — used to r — r — rob the cash b — box."

He had to know this meter backwards. He had to know exactly what this meter was capable of and so forth. In other words, his attention couldn't be on the meter; his familiarity had to be sufficiently great that he could take the meter for granted, and it still wouldn't knock his head off. Furthermore, his Model Session had to be absolutely perfect; he didn't have any time to worry about his Model Session. He had to know the exact fundamentals of what he was handling; he didn't have any time to figure out what he was handling. See? The whole thing was wrapped up in the fact that he was right in the middle of a goals-problem-mass goal, and all of its little masses and so forth were just kicking the living daylights out of the goal because he had them stirred up like mad, do you see?

"All right. What about robbing your poppy's cash box?" See? "Do" and "yesterday," and you got it all set.

And he read the thing out, and the end of the line, why, perfectly fine about it. And as I say, it suddenly struck him that what if he'd been trying to do it a year ago? I think that's what hit him. But it was all made out of little pieces. It was all made out of little pieces; the tremendous ease with which he could run a meter, the no worry of any kind on Model Session. He didn't have to fuss around with his TRs, don't you see? He didn't have any worries about these things whatsoever. He was totally relaxed. He knew those things backwards. He knew them forwards. And he knew he knew them. So he had at no moment any worry about them.

And you say, "What about your father's business associates?"

Now he could think of fundamentals. And the fundamentals are, is goals get invalidated and rudiments go out in any session, particularly a Goals Assessment. So all he had to do was just outguess the next missed withhold, you see? That's all he had to do. And keep checking and keep rolling. And it was dead easy. But it would have been insurmountable, utterly insurmountable, if he had been - had any worry about his meter; if he'd had any worry about his sessioning, you know, his TRs; or if he didn't know for sure that if the pc starts doping off all you did was pull the missed withhold. You know, it goes like this: He sees the pc start to get dopey, he pulls the missed withhold, see? And bang! the pc is right back there again. Get the idea? And he suddenly sees that the goal is not reading, and it was reading a moment ahead. Well, he doesn't say, "Thank God, we have nulled it out at last." He says, "Is there an invalidation on this?" Pang! "All right, what was that?" Clean it up. "Is there an invalidation on that? That's clean. All right." Now, he repeats the goal again, he gets no read on the goal. Now he says, "That's null." Careful workmanship, see? Pays off, all the way down the line.

"Oh well, what — what about them? Were we talking about my father's business associates?"

How do you get to be a superb auditor? It's just by knowing all those little parts. That's all. And just knowing them perfectly. And if an auditor finds out that he is apparently creaking on one of these infinitesimally unimportant skills (you see, he'll be creaky on it) - if he ever is sitting there auditing and is saying, "I wonder ... I wonder if that pc is getting my acknowledgments" - if he finds himself worrying about this or wondering about that, you see, I swear he'll never have time to do anything else. But what he should do, at this particular time, if he finds himself worrying about these things, ah, he ought to practice with some TR 4, get somebody there until he really gets that TR 4 in there, you know? Really gets it going good - or 3, or 2, or whatever else he's out on, see? That's the smart auditor.

It's absolutely magical, you see? It looks magical to the pc because the pc knows that it was yesterday that was important, and he knows that thinkingness was important. And you went on the range of "way back" and "do." Now, with that artillery you blow him out of the water.

The smart student of auditing would make himself a checksheet of these various parts of auditing. I'm talking now about the parts of mixing the pigments, you see? Grinding the lapis lazuli - that stage of the game. Well, just make himself a checksheet on these things, and go over that checksheet very carefully, wondering if at any time, in any recent session, he has worried about any part of his checksheet. See, make a checksheet which includes the various parts of the E-Meter. You know? The sensitivity knob, the trim, the dial, tone-arm dial, something that he's had trouble with, or worried about. Just go over this checksheet which has all of these various parts and items and TRs and things like that. And go over that, and just ask himself honestly, "Now, in the last few sessions have I had any concern with this?" See? "Well, then, how about this one? I have trouble confronting pcs lately? Oh, yeah. All right. Well, we'll cross that one." And then just take those points he's crossed and just go ahead and drill them. Just drill them. Just treat it like a parade-ground drill, that's all.

And he'll be stonied. He'll be quite astonished very often. He'll just sit there marveling. "How the hell did you get into that?" You know.

A dancer: he finds out that he usually stumbles on his exit. You'll find him going out on the stage and practice that step that gets him exited until he doesn't stumble on his exit.

Now, the equation on which you operate is that the chain is long and has a bottom which is unknown to the pc. you always operate on that basis — the chain is long and has a bottom which is unknown to the pc. So the basic is there. You also operate on the assumption that it is totally available to you. It all depends on how quietly you climb down that ladder. You climb down and keep polishing up the rungs and by George, he can see a rung below it, and so on. you take him back as fast as you polished up the rungs, by the way. I don't get all the grit off the rungs. I make pcs work on awful dirty ladders just as long as I can get that basic. You see, by taking locks off the top you can arrive more positively at the basic.

Only then will you be free to be a craftsman, be a master of what you're doing. Only then will you be free to audit the pc in front of you. You won't be free to audit the pc in front of you as long as you're enslaved with don't-knows amongst your auditing tools. Because you've got a chain of error which mounts in the session on the basic not-knowingness. And your session errors just mount like mad. "Oh my God, what am I doing?" And you eventually, checking these things off .. And the chances are you might not find out what you're doing wrong for a little while, until you've cleaned some of the garbage off. And you suddenly find out, "You know, I ... I really have never dared ask anybody because of embarrassment, but ... what ... what is a null needle?" Hmm-hm-hm-mm!

It's true that the pc couldn't go back there originally, but by taking a few overts off the chain and polishing them up somewhat and differently, he can get to the bottom. See. Astonishingly. But he can only get there if he's under heavy auditor control. And you've got to have heavy pc — you've got to have heavy control of your pc. you tell him where to go. And you tell him where to go because if it happened once it happened before. And you operate on that as your magic formula. "If he is thinking about it now, he did it then," is your other formula.

Well, that's what it takes to become a master of a craft. And don't think that you're going to get results, real honest-to-God results, if you're anything less. And that's the discouraging point of auditing.

And then you have a magic biblical maxim: "If thy pc is making a stink about somebody yesterday, he done him in two years ago." Whatever your pc is being critical of in present time he's done something to in the past. You'll find it's an infallible formula.

Today's auditing is not aimed at the repetitive process: No attention on the pc; you just run a repetitive process on the pc and you hope for the best. Now, the funny part of it is, is that system circa '50 on - started to develop in '50, was best developed along about '52, '53 - that system actually does make a lot of people well. And you could be fooled by the fact that it does make a lot of people well. So does engram running.

Of course, to reach ultimate depths — to reach ultimate depths on this thing requires that you go into the Goals Problem Mass. And in Prepchecking it isn't — that isn't your course. You don't go into the GPM with Prepchecking But you can go a hell of a distance with Prepchecking You can go back two, three, six, eight, ten thousand years. You might wind up in the most unlikely places.

See, there's a lot of things you can do with the skills of yesterday. And if anything, we are victimized slightly by the tremendous workability of what we have been able to do here and there. And any auditor who has audited consistently along the line - this person and that person and so on - well, has had some rather interesting wins. He gets hung on his own wins. Because we have never had techniques, before 1962, which reached all cases. And that's something we haven't all learned yet.

And just remember that you are getting the pc at your behest to climb down a chain which he doesn't, as you started, think has any validity at all, has no R. because he has no C. And you just ride him down this chain and you just get things scrubbed off, scrubbed off, polished up, scrubbed off, and he can see just a little bit deeper, and you dust this next overt off lightly. I don't care if it still reacts or it doesn't react. We're going down this chain because it isn't that the charge isn't there, see, because everything that is charged is dependent upon an early charge. And the charge is all on the earliest charge.

And the other thing about it is, is these techniques require a master's touch. They are that strong. They are that powerful. You can unman the pc's mind. His reactive mind doesn't have a prayer, you do these things right. You have broadly, broadly workable technology that's been going in that direction. But at the same time, we inherit along with it a precision of application which knows no second-class or "just as good as." All of the various points which make precision in auditing must be actually precise.

But you can, nevertheless, point his vision past something if you sort of show it doesn't have any individual charge on it. Any charge that it seems to have on it tends to disappear with your withhold system, you know?

When you sit down across from an auditor who does his E-Metering so well that he never worries about an E-Meter; he does his TRs so well that he never worries about his TRs; he does his Model Session so well that he never worries about his Model Session; he knows what he's supposed to do with the processes he's given, whether they're a Routine 3 or a Prepcheck or anything else, you see, and he does just these things, and honest, the pc, as a pc, he'll just say, "Gosh! you know? Gosh! Huh! It's so easy! I am so comfortable sitting here being audited." How come? What makes this? How did that combination of events take place? Is it because the auditor was born as the seventh son of a seventh son? Is it because he gave a present once to the Witch of Endor? Is it some fantastic prescience of some kind? Is it because his thetan can read your thetan? Well, it doesn't happen to be a single one of these things. It would be because the auditor knew the little points of auditing absolutely perfectly, did them as a whole, with perfection, so that he was under no tension by reason of auditing, because he knew all the parts, and could then apply fundamentals to what he was doing.

You're saying When? All? Appear? Who? Do it once. Do it twice. He'll all of a sudden say, "Yeah, yeah." And he expects to — he's in a profession now. He's got a profession that is, "Wiping out my blacking my brother's eyes when we were seven." See? That's his professional . . . He's perfectly willing, by the way, to work on this for the rest of the session because it's got lots of charge on it, and it's this and that and the other thing

When you will sit down, someday, across from such an auditor, you'll all of a sudden say, "Whew! Uhh!" And you yourselves, if you learn your business here, will go home and you'll sit down and start to audit somebody - somebody that you used to audit - and they'll say, "My God, what happened to you?" And there really wasn't anything happened to you, except you are doing less. And you're doing it much less arduously than you used to do. And the results just fly. Nothing to it. You finish up a two-, three-, four-hour session, you're perfectly calm. So what? You'd just as soon audit another two or three hours. Because you're under no tension. You're under no not - knows.

And you say, "What did you do to him when you were six? And five? And four? And three? And two?" Maybe your What question is, "What about blacking people's eyes?" you know?

But first and foremost, in order to attain any result requires a technology. Well, we have those technologies. And you have to also get a confidence that when you sit down and audit somebody, he is - by these technologies - he is going to get a result. So that that takes out the last not-know out of it: is "Is the pc going to gain or win?" And what you're doing today, you do it right, the pc keeps winning. That pc just wins, that's all. The pc goes on winning and you all of a sudden get confident in the fact the pc is going to win. If you audit him, the pc will win - bang! That's all there is to it. You'll win, the pc wins. Everybody wins. And that's the final tension that goes out of it. And after that, my God! The results you can get in auditing are just fantastic.

And he's all set now. He's safe, see. He got down to years where they were both in diapers and they're both in separate couches, you see — cots. And they couldn't possibly have blacked anybody's eyes, you see. It was good.

And frankly, that's what I expect of you here. That's what I expect you to learn how to be able to do. To audit like a master before you get out of here.

"Whose eyes did you block — black in your last life?"

Thank you.

There's no charge. I mean you're down there, obviously, to a point where the thing is still charged and the charge isn't erasing, so you couldn't possibly be at the bottom of the chain. And the whole test is, is does it go phssst. It doesn't go phssst, so let's just scrub a little charge off of it and go south, man.

And the funny part of it is the pc can actually remember it. The pc can actually go there. Doesn't matter whether you think he can or not. He — hell go. Hell go. If you find out he's still got charge on blacking his little brother's eyes when his little brother was one and he was two, we're getting at a margin. That's marginal. It must be leaving this life. And we can't go any earlier because he didn't walk until he was one year, eleven months.

And all of a sudden, why, we find him someplace and he's standing on the sands of Smyrna or something And he used to have a nasty habit when he was a legionnaire. Heh-heh. He used to take a copper or a bronze ball on a chain, you know, and he used to always hit for somebody's eyes with it somehow or another.

Here's all these busted corpses lying around. And you think this is perfectly all right, but you find him doing it to his commanding officer. Something like that. And then you drift back — that — he's all set to make a profession out of this. Christ, he's never been there before, you know. Heh-heh. "Look at this," you know. "Palm trees, you know. Where the hell am I?" you know.

You see this thing isn't discharging, well, "Whose eyes did you black earlier than that, man?"

"Whose eyes did I black? What do you mean?"

"What earlier . . ."

"Oh, well, there's this . . . Yeah, yeah. Hmm. You take a space gun and if you set it up on high gain, and you shoot somebody in the eyes, their eyes char. Hmm, I never realized that before."

Go over that one. Go over that one, man. And by golly, you can make Prepchecking work that way. I'm telling you an extreme example now, running whole track. You wouldn't believe it was possible. And you scrub the overt enough so that you can see earlier. And then you scrub that overt enough so that you can see earlier, and it's all there on the chain. God 'elp ya if you go completely clang-bang into the GPM with it. But persevere. Find an incident that happened before the GPM.

Memory is occluded by the charge on the last overt. That's what occludes memory as far as running a chain is concerned. And if you can get some of that charge off he can remember earlier, and if you get some of the charge off the earlier overt, why, he can remember earlier. And you get enough charge off so that he can see earlier, and that's all the charge you get off because actually all the charge is residual on the earliest one.

I'm not telling you, by the way, that you must run whole track with Prepchecking But I'm telling you that the rule applies unrestrictedly. See, the rule applies.

You don't try to rub the charge out of every overt that you encounter. That would be nonsense, man. Be nonsense. Because all the charge is held in place by the first unknown incident, see. Of course, there can be seven hundred interim unknown incidents but they become known fairly rapidly. They become known rather rapidly. The incident that you're gunning for is the basic on that particular chain. And you'll find out that one will pull.

It's incredible that it will pull. You'll take people back into the backtrack who would sit there and swear that there is no past lives. Well, you want to rub out just enough to make it feasible.

Incidentally, a recovery of memory of who one was in the past life has a tremendous case resurgence connected with it. Quite fascinating to somebody — has practically no therapeutic value.

But it's fascinating. And the pc will stay with it. And it's a very interesting thing And he can feel very good. He thinks this is good.

For instance, your pc finds out he was clubfooted in the last life and has always had trouble with his foot in this life. And you think we're all set now. We find out the last death and some of his overts in the last life, you see, and you get this all cleaned up, that whole clubfooted life, you get the whole incident out of the thing. Everything is just fine and polished up, you know, even to catching his foot underneath the carriage. And aaaaah-yah-ah, oh man, you're just excited, and he goes right on having trouble with his foot. That's because you too, fell for the idea that it must be important if it's close to present time.

Well, as a matter of fact, the — he was the fellow who invented the lead boot. Something like that. That's eventually where you'll find his clubfootedness.

But Prepchecking has to be approached within this realm of understanding in order to produce interesting results. I don't want you to go on being afraid of stirring something up and not finishing it off. I want you to get the idea of working on a chain. And I'd like you to finish the chain up. Get the idea that you should finish up the chain. But don't get the idea you should finish up incidents.

Now, with Prepchecking today, you're prepchecking chains of similar incidents. And all charge, actually, is built up out of the first unknown. In Routine 3 you are not dealing engram by engram with the track. You are dealing with packages of engrams called identities. See? So Routine 3 deals with whole lives of engrams, all in a bundle.

Similarly, Prepchecking doesn't deal with incidents. It deals with chains of incidents.

Now, to get a Routine 3 item to blow, it has to have had all lock charge bled off of it, be totally identified and opptermed in theory. If you got that package pretty perfect, why, you've got a chance of having the thing blow, because that's the mechanics of it held in place. And Prepchecking, all you've got to do is get the earliest unknown into view and you'll find the whole chain will blow up, see. These are the mechanics on which you're operating and these are the things which occur.

If you do your Prepchecking in that frame of mind you won't be making many mistakes. You won't be asking the pc . . .

The pc says, "I got a big — a big withhold. I picked my toenails last night. I'm pretty ashamed of it. That's a doingness."

"Well, all right. All right. Let's find out about toenails, huh? Heh-heh-heh-heh. There's no telling where well wind up."

"I thought my mother's hair didn't look good yesterday," probably winds up with, "So I struck this box of matches and set her hair on fire."

You know what I mean. That's the way it develops, you know. But has no importance on what I thought yesterday, of course, until he connects with the bottom and then it's all related.

That's Prepchecking Don't expect anything out of Prepchecking except the pc understands his case better, sees where things come from, and feels better about life and the people and environment around him. Expect that will be a perfectly permanent gain and it is worthwhile attaining. There's no doubt about that. Don't expect it to solve the whole case from one end to the other. But adroit Prepchecking is very impressive to a pc. But it's only impressive when the auditor is going for the earliest and the doingest, and keeps the pc from staying with the thinkingest and the most recent. And then you'll get yourself some good results.

Of course, I have heard that Prepchecking done in good Model Session with the TRs in and a considerable expertness on the meter is more effective than Prepchecking which is not done that way. But of course, this could only be rumor.

Thank you very much.