Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, I hope after this lecture there will be an upgrade in your auditing. I only hope.

Okay. Here's lecture two, 17 May 1962, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course.

All right. What are we here? This is . . .

I'm going to talk about Prepchecking. This is a general lecture on the subject of Prepchecking and its purposes.

Audience: 17 May.

A rudiment is that which is used to get the pc in shape to be audited that session — just in shape to be audited that session. And the body of a session is for the purpose of letting the pc live in that lifetime. In other words, he can — the pc can be audited in the session because of the rudiment. It's just that session, nothing else, you're not interested in anything else. But the body of the session, that's setting him up for this lifetime.

17th of May 1962, Saint Hill Briefing Course and . . .

In other words, you've got duration. Whenever you have duration you have to get thoroughness. Therefore a rudiment is unthorough. A rudiment has to be clean. Don't ever make a mistake about that. But it is only as clean as it has to be. Of course, it is clean. But you have not cleaned up any fundamentals on it.

Audience voice: Sorry.

Let me give you an idea of a wrong way of going about this. "All right," you say, "Do you have a present time problem?"

. . . that's all right, we'll give you an infraction sheet.

And the pc goes clank. So you say, "All right. Now do you always have present time problems in auditing sessions?" "What's the first time that an auditor failed to resolve a present time problem for you in an auditing session?" "Things always been grim this way in auditing sessions? Well, let me see if I can go back through your auditing reports here for the last few years and let's see if we can pick up something here that's a clue to why you always have present time problems in an auditing session."

And, I already gave this lecture at dinner, so we can skip it! And Mary Sue was going on about what you were doing and not doing And I feel pretty grim, tell you the truth. I mean, that's terrible.

Well, of course you've just transferred the permanency of it all from the body of the session to the rudiment. And having transferred it you're going to find the pc will stay there, with the permanency of it all, in the rudiments. And after you've put the pc into the permanency of it all in the rudiments, you're going to pry him out of there with crowbars, blasting powder, everything else, don't you see? You're not going to get him out of the rudiments.

Well anyway, this is lecture one, 17 May 1962 and I'm going to talk to you about the sins that you can commit while prepchecking And there's some vague feeling that because we have some drills, that the ability of the auditor to talk to the pc is reduced. Now, if you saw this in the demonstration last night, I was doing one of these drills very consistently. I don't know if you noticed that, you might not have recognized the drills being done right. Snide tonight! Snide.

Why aren't you going to get him out of the rudiments? Because you put him in the rudiments, with a thud. You said the rudiments are a permanent activity. You're going to make a lifetime profession out of cleaning up today's present time problem. That was the way you weighted it and that is the way the pc's going to respond. And of course you're not going to clean up that present time problem for his whole life, not 'arf you're not. You're just going to waste time, that's the only thing you're going to do. Because in the first place the processes available to you are insufficiently fundamental to correct this thing all the way up the line.

I myself was aware of the fact when first employing this, very harshly and so forth, that it did cut down my tendency to ARC break the pc with a bunch of meaningless conversation. I noticed this, in passing, that the — and so on. But I think all those people I checked over last night, I think they were perfectly happy with that checkout, weren't they?

So, rudiment, whether it's a beginning rudiment, the middle rudiment or an end rudiment, it's only for that session. That's all.

Male voice: Yes.

Now, the end rudiment has the additional apparent thing of bringing the pc back to the world of the living But remember, you put him into session, it's up to you to take him out of session. So the rudiment is — the end rudiment is still just for that session, isn't it? The end rudiment is not for yesterday's session. Therefore I laugh every once in a while when I see somebody saying, "I didn't have time for the end rudiments. Is it all right if I put them in next session?" Yes, you'll see that in auditor's reports in here quite frequently. Of course, that is idiotic.

Well now, did you feel better after the checkout, than you did before?

They must have a tremendously heavily weighted idea of how long it takes to do rudiments and how arduous it is to do rudiments or they wouldn't be reserving half of next session to do the end rudiments of today's session. And then by the time they've done the beginning rudiments of tomorrow's session, of course it'll be the end of that session. And then they'll have to do the end rudiments day after tomorrow, won't they?

Male voice: Yes.

No, even the end rudiments are just for that session. And that's all they are for. Your middle rudiments are even more temporary than this. Your middle rudiments you might learn by experience are only for the next five items the pc is going to list. Might not even get it in for the session, see? Just for the next five items and then out they go again, see. But there is your address to the situation. Now, we move over to the body of the session. We're going to do, in Prepchecking, something in the body of the session that is going to materially change this person's attitude toward living and is going to improve his ability to confront life in this lifetime. That is the only thing we expect to have happen, but that is plenty, man. So therefore, we're going to do anything we can do, aside run a repetitive process in the middle of Prepchecking. We're going to do anything that we can do in order to straighten out some point of askew attitude in the pc's lifetime.

Hmm? I wonder why! Must have had something to do with the fact that the pc was acknowledged and the pc knew that was square and pc had some certainty on it — in spite of the fact I did — wasn't auditing last night, I was just doing a checkout. But in order to check out, of course, I had to do a small amount of auditing.

Now, let's go into a theoretical look here at what an overt is. I actually never have said much about this in lectures. There's just been a little bit about it in HCOBs and so forth, but I've never really given you this piece of business here. And this — it might help you a lot. All things are an exteriorization from and an interiorization into or an interiorization into and an exteriorization from. There is no beingness in this whole universe that is bad. Also, there is no beingness in this whole universe that is absolutely good. But there is a badness about it and there is a goodness about it. And that is the individual's ability to interiorize into or be something or exteriorize out of and not to be something And when an individual no longer has power of choice over that fact, the individual can be considered to be aberrated on that point. Where power of choice has vanished, in the subject of exteriorization and interiorization, he to that degree is aberrated.

Now, you'll find that's inevitably and invariably true.

Now, how much do you mean power of choice? I mean, power of choice — how absolute can this power of choice be? Well, there are many vias by which you enter certain beingnesses. Let's take the beingness of an army officer. An educated career officer is expected to have had certain physical attributes by the time he got up to time to go to military school. And he's expected to have gone through certain basic schools and passed examinations, go to military school, study to be an officer, keep his nose clean, do the things, the now-I'm-supposed-to's and come up at the other end of it and he's an army officer, don't you see? He nevertheless has gone through the steps of becoming an army officer. All right.

And when you first start using this, just as I noticed last night, using it very rigorously and harshly, yes, you feel sort of, "Oh, well, I can't go on and on talking to the pc — ha-ha! What am I going to do now?" And that's because you have mistaken, as I recognized very readily, the drill for the fact of auditing.

Now, he one day says he doesn't want to be an army officer or something of the sort, something else has presented itself. He can resign from being an army officer and hardly anybody will say anything about him. That is the usual course of human events. This is not quite so with the private, is it? One day he's sitting there minding his own business at the garage and somebody gives him a letter and it says, "Greetings." Some queen or the president or somebody has said, "Hey, boy you is it. And if you ain't it within twenty-four hours, we is going to send some people over with revolvers or automatics on them and they are going to take you and bring you to this depot and are going to convert you into a soldier. Thank you very much."

There are two types of activity in which you engage in auditing There's just two types of activity. And they're both very definitely different types.

So they throw him in the ranks and so forth. In the middle of the battle he says, "It's too uncomfortable here, I think I'll leave." And you know, nobody agrees with him. See, he hasn't a prayer. Probably it's that point, rather than that people get hurt, that give war a bad name. Because I don't see that getting hurt gives some activities a bad name. Look at race driving. Hardly anybody ever says anything about race driving. Sometimes in steeplechasing they say something about the horses. I never hear anybody say anything in favor of the jockeys. On the highway out here, they kill more people every year, I think, than the US lost in World War I. Pretty good. So it isn't the blood or the pain or the suffering they're objecting to, it must be something else. Yes, it is the power of choice. That power of choice, when that is too badly thrown aside, people object to this thing

And one of these things is the rudiments type of activity. Now, this is the type of activity where you're not really trying to dig anything up. you are trying to straighten something out. And you're trying to straighten it out right now. That is a rudiments-type activity. And you have beginning rudiments and you have end rudiments. But remember, you also have a nebulous thing called "middle rudiments." Middle rudiments do exist. And every time you are asking the pc for a missed withhold you are running a middle rudiment. It is just a rudiment.

That is why slavery has gotten a bad name as a practice. In actual fact you look at the economics of it and you find a lot of things about a slave society which are quite interesting. You find a society which is — has no objection to this sort of thing and which can free slaves rather easily and you find a lot of people walking up and saying, "I want to be a slave." But slavery itself is this thing of a beingness, an enforced beingness over which an individual has no power of choice and therefore it gets a bad name.

The other type of activity is an auditing activity. Now, just as you have the body of the session and you have beginning, middle and end rudiments, you see, there's a difference here. This is "body of the session" auditing. And it is done against a tone arm, it is not done against a needle. You do your rudiments against a needle and you do your body of the session against a tone arm. They are two different items on the E-Meter.

You can almost evaluate practices and beingnesses over the idea of people with regard to their power of choice of being them and not being them. Where an individual has a fair amount of freedom we find a fairly high scale activity. This fellow has an idea — as a hobby he wants to be a dancer. He's going to take up dancing for a hobby so he's going to be a dancer. One day he gets tired of it. There's nobody going to say to him, "Oh well, Joe, you have to be a dancer. I mean, if you don't go on dancing you will be talking to Commissar Zero." You don't hear that kind of thing, you see. It's a hobby, so everybody thinks dancing is fine, don't you see. Perfectly all right to dance, perfectly all right not to dance.

Now, some of you might have noticed that when you move a tone arm, the needle moves. I don't like to put that, that bluntly, but anyway, if we were to set this meter up here, so that it were. . . Now, there sits the meter. But here supposing — now just look at the needle. We get that much motion on the needle. Do you think that's tone arm motion or isn't it? Hmm? That's tone arm motion, isn't it?

Power of choice with relationship to beingness is a very interesting study all in itself. And you will find in the general put-together of life, that that is simply a surface view of an under-the-level-of-consciousness activity which is going on all the time. Now, here is the cycle — this is the reactive cycle of beingness, not-beingness, beingness:

Audience: Yes.

The individual has decided to be this thing And then for some reason or other he has found out he couldn't easily un-be this thing, so he has a mechanism which he uses of committing overts against this thing in order to cease to be it.

Now, when we say how much tone arm motion is your pc getting during Prepchecking, we see that this thing can swing all the way over there and all the way back again and we have about a quarter of a — of a division of motion here, on the tone arm, which ordinarily isn't recorded. We don't, in recording tone arm, record these fast responses of the needle. But they do mean tone arm motion. Your long, wide swings of the needle you can classify as tone arm motion. You can classify those as tone arm motion.

Now, he commits these overts and withholds himself from being this beingness on a repetitive cycle of action. And his overts will get worse and worse and his effort not to be it will become more and more and more violent until he gets out to the final stretch. And then after that final midpoint — the midpoint, this is the final distance he's going to get from it — after that final distance is attained, he will still commit overts, he will still have withholds from this beingness, but every new overt and withhold brings him closer to becoming the thing again. This is absolutely one of the ghastliest facts you ever wanted to investigate.

We're interested in a stability of tone arm motion when we're recording it. We center the needle, we record it. In other words, we center the needle on set. Put the needle on set. And we record the tone arm. That's for a needle read.

I'll go over this thing again because it's a little bit grim. This individual cannot unbecome this thing See, it's beingness A. Whatever it is. He can't unbecome this thing by choice. For some reason or other, no matter how slight the reason is — you know, his mother loves him so he can't drop the body, he's got so many friends in the army he doesn't want to leave — we don't care what it is, see. But he'll decide that he wants to un-be this thing but he can't un-be this thing Now, we don't care which came first, the chicken or the egg Well, one day he made this discovery that he was in a beingness he couldn't un-be rather easily. And for some reason or other he wanted to un-be it. He just tried to postulate himself out of it and he didn't — it didn't work, you see? So he's got another mechanism that goes ahead.

You see, you're dealing with a relatively sloppy action. This is not a precision action. The recording of a tone arm motion is not a precision action. Because your needle can fly around considerably without ever your recording it. you understand? It — you're stretching at gnats. You're trying to shoot down butterflies with sixteen-inch guns or something like that, when we say, "Oh well, if we kept a tone arm record and the needle was at set all the time, all the time, all the time and so forth and we had this quarter division. . ." Well, you'd work yourself silly and it's to no purpose.

Now, that understanding of that little area there is a bit rough. But let's come on to the next point which is much clearer and these things are irrevocably factual.

When we say tone arm motion, we mean you centered the thing and read it. But a needle that drops like this — that's just one swing, see. We don't call that tone arm motion, really. It isn't anything that we record. For the purposes of the body of the session, by definition I'm just giving you, we do notice that as tone arm motion. That's what's known as "tone arm motion read on the needle."

He will then start committing overts against this beingness. And he'll commit more and more overts — not just the beingness that he is, but any other equivalent being that is like that beingness that he is, see. And he'll go on and commit more and more overts against that beingness, have more and more withholds from that beingness and he will try to move out of being it by the cycle of overts and withholds. And he'll get out here thinkwise — there is no real space involved in it, but he'll think he is actually getting up there. He is really winning, you see. And then after that midpoint is reached every additional overt and withhold he has brings him closer to being a totally enforced beingness of that thing And he gets into a complete overwhelm when he goes through the whole cycle.

We know we're getting tone arm motion, we know there'd be tone arm motion there if we kept centering the tone arm. I'm just calling your attention to something you know already, that if the needle is flying around, you're getting tone arm motion. It is not significant as far as items or anything else is concerned, because you're not going to read a needle flying around like this for items or something of this sort and for an ARC break or something like that. You're going to read the thing, it goes clank. You're going to read this type of reaction, see. Clank. See? Or this type of reaction. See, the little reactions. You're not going to pay much attention to this reaction. See, there's a wide reaction and you actually read while that thing is doing a wide reaction, you read its interim reaction, its internal reaction.

Now, it's a complete overwhelm. He just can't un-be it, man. God. It's horrible. Because at this point he doesn't even think he has ever tried to un-be it. See, the ghastly travesty of it is that all knowingness on the subject of un-being it, now vanishes as well. He enforcedly becomes it. you might say he becomes it on an inversion.

You say, "Do you have an ARC break?" and it — you know, it's swinging down like this and it goes — you got the idea? It interrupts itself or something like this. Or it's swinging back up. you don't read from a motionless needle, by the way. Some of you can always tell a brand-new auditor, he sits there and waits for the needle to stop moving so that he can read it. The only time you get embarrassed on this is when the needle slides by the end of the pin. And you've started your question and it all of a sudden goes by the end of the pin before you can finish your question and of course then you've had it, then you have to repeat your question. Which is perfectly all right.

So halfway through the game, why, he may be winning But after that, because of the overt-motivator sequence, he will simply wind up even more thoroughly being it than ever before. That's what's the matter with overts. That's all that's the matter with them. But that is the use a thetan makes of overts. That is what a thetan is trying to do with overts. He's trying to un-be. So he goes through that cycle and he eventually winds up right in the middle of the thing he's trying to un-be. That is the unkind fact of it all, of it all, of it all.

You'll see on these demonstrations, I'm fairly careful to give you a read. That is to say I'm fairly careful to ask my questions with the needle more or less slowed down or motionless, so that you can see the thing I'm not reading a needle as fast as I would ordinarily read a needle. But I'm not straining at it too hard even in that direction.

Now, that cycle takes place on all dynamics. Every dynamic can run that cycle. Edgar the other day had a pc uptown here, was an ex-communist. And he had the — for some reason or other he used this question, I'm not sure why, but the fellow said that "Individual Scientologists were pretty bad, but collectively, Scientology as a group, they were very good," this fellow said. And they — he got a hell of a tick on this, about Scientology as a group, so Edgar followed this down on something like, "What is Scientology?" And you know, finally, as the overts came off — he just kept picking overts off, you see, against individual Scientologists and groups and things like that. He just kept picking overts off and more overts. And all of a sudden the guy began to realize that Scientology as a group was absolutely no good, but individual Scientologists were pretty good. See, complete volte-vis. He turned right around the other way to. In other words, we'd reversed on two dynamics. And he went out and finished it up the rest of the way.

Now, the point I'm trying to make here is this motion that's going like this or the needle was coasting here at the end of the dial for a while and then came back up here and was here for a while and then was here, that's tone arm motion. Those are not needle reads, really, you see. They're tone arm motion. It's tone arm motion read off the needle.

But what a — what's more important about this, is the fact that there's communism — there's communism. See, the guy is trying desperately, absolutely desperately, to be a — separate from a group. And they just go more and more separate from the group and they get more overts on the group to be more separate from the group and more overts on the group to be separate from the group and go out here and out here. And they get to be "only one's," you see, 100 percent — climate of Russia's liable to do to almost anybody, if you've ever been there. And then overts against the group and withholds from the group and overts against the group and withholds from the group and overts against the group and withholds — they're groups. "We are a group." "The individual is no good." Which is an interiorization into the third dynamic.

Now, of course, if you're sitting here with your thumb on this tone arm motion, if you're sitting here with your thumb on that, yes, you could keep it centered all the time. But the trouble is while you are talking or asking questions of the pc, you're liable at the same time to be moving it with your thumb and that's very difficult to read. In fact I've never seen anybody do it yet, me included. You see. So there's no profit made.

See, you've got a whole nation who has practiced this, which is quite marvelous. They by the way have self-criticisms and that sort of thing. And one of our end rudiments goes out in most of these self-criticism sessions. Each one tries to brag a little more than the next one about what he has done to the group. And of course this gives a perverted alter-is on their actual overts and here we go and they just plow in even harder. If that was used right and anybody ran the end rudiments on them they'd actually be able to run themselves out of the group.

Now, let's classify these two things. There is the rudiments-type read and the body-of the-session-type read. Now, the body-of-the-session-type read is done on the tone arm. And the rudiments-type read is done on the needle. Already we have those two very broad distinctions.

But understand they actually collectively get together and try to practice a therapy which will separate them from the group. They're instinctively, reactively, trying to get off their withholds and overts against the group. They're going mad on the subject. Every time you get a bunch of communists together why, they're supposed to get together in some basement or something of this sort and they're all supposed to sit around and say what they've done to the party. See, they're to — it's just reactive. They try to get it off. They don't know how to get it off. And it doesn't do any good. They just keep plowing into the group.

All right, they are treated in an entirely different way by the auditor. The auditor's handling of these two things is entirely different. And what you've got to get into gear is slipping from one to the other and back again without upsetting yourself, God help us. And sliding from one to the other without continuing the other when you're doing the other.

Of course after they get their overts off, then they're — the punishment is ordered. Church — some churches do that too. They say, "Eighteen paternosters and three nose blows." That's beside the point. There is exteriorization-interiorization.

All right, I'll give you an example of this. We're going along here, needle — needle is . . . We're getting sweeps of some kind or another, so we know whatever we're talking about to the pc is sort of hot, you see, because it's swinging around, you know, and this says, well, the subject — the subject is pertinent to something or other. And the pc says suddenly, "That's the list. That's complete. That's it. That's all the items there are. No good to ask me if there are any more items, because that's all the items there are, the list is complete."

All right, there's some bird way back down the track someplace, he's been a god. This has nothing to do with any case present although almost every case sooner or later runs into the eighth dynamic. And he's been that, so he tries to unbecome one, one fine day and he finds out that he just can't do without that beautiful roast chicken smell or whatever it is that's been sacrificed to him. Anyway, whatever it is, he stops — he stops comfortably being the thing, you see. And he decides not to be it. But then there's reasons why he can't be it. And then he gets overts, overts, overts, overts. He starts committing overts, you see? And he goes out and then he all of a sudden enforcedly becomes it. Then one day you find it as the terminal or something like that. you see how that — how that cycle goes?

Now, I don't care if at first you crash your gears. I just don't want to see any gear teeth flying off. But go ahead and crash your gears in trying to change from one to the other. Because at this moment you've got to go into a rudiments-type question. And this is an entirely different presence. So he's had it now, you've said — you've said, "Are there any more items?" or something You haven't even tested for it, you know.

It doesn't matter with him whether it's the eighth or the seventh. Now, there are a lot of people around — spiritualists. And they preach about being spirits and, "my thetan is over there" you know. It's the wildest thing you ever wanted to listen to. They've got overts against spirits, overts against spirits, overts against spirits. Well, how can you unbecome yourself? Well, believe me they've managed it. They actually have managed it. And they've got overts on spirits up to a point where they're obsessively being a spirit. But of course, is the spirit there being a spirit? No, it's being some other spirit than themselves. It's quite upsetting when you finally come back and find the spirit you are being is not yourself.

And pc says, "No, no, that's complete."

And your sixth dynamic. Of course your scientist who is splitting the atom, splitting the atom, splitting the atom. "Ashes to ashes and dust to dust, thou art dust, to dust thou shalt return." They take off from some religious background of the seventh, slide into the sixth. And they give you a philosophy of "man is from mud." And they keep on going and then they start getting overts against MEST. See, they decide they are MEST and then they decide they don't want to be MEST and then they get overts on MEST and then they get more and more and more overts on MEST and then more and more overts on MEST and you finally get so they put their hands in water and the mud runs down the drain, you know? They just become total MEST. They become a total enmested being.

And you say, "All right. Good." Clank-whirr-crash, you see.

Take your fifth dynamic. I one time called up the — called the insect exterminator company and told them that there were termites in the building that we had there in Phoenix. And they sent a fellow down and brother, you never saw a man look more like a bug His head was sort of an ant's figure-eight sort of a head and he wore his hair as though they were sort of feelers. Man, you never saw him. And he came over. And it was a very easy job, all he had to do was shoot some poison into a few holes. And he says, "Well," he says. He looked it over very carefully and he says, "Well, I'll keep my eye on them." you could see, you see, that just one more overt on the subject of bugs and he'd shrink in size, man. He had the form now, now all he had to get to was the size. There he had gone through that complete cycle on the fifth dynamic.

Now, "Have I missed a withhold on you?" I don't care what you say, do you see. You're going to get a middle — a middle rudiment, see. All right, now that middle rudiment is handled with great precision. "Have I missed a withhold on you? Yeah, what's that? Yeah, that. That one there."

And the fourth dynamic. You very often run around up here and you get into the House of Commons or the Senate or something like that. And you're always running into some bird who's a plunged-in fourth. Everybody he meets is no good and should be shot but he's for mankind. You hear him talking you know, it's a marvelous thing to hear. And they're being this thing, "mankind." But all groups are bad and all individuals are bad and everybody's wicked and everybody's against mankind and so on. you will generally see that their structure and that sort of thing is accordant in general.

"Oh, well, ha-ha. Yeah, well I didn't tell you I'm bored stiff."

And then of course, I've already given you an example for the third.

And you say, "All right, all right. Thank you, thank you. Let me check that. Have I missed a withhold on you? All right, that's clean. All right, fine. Okay, now. Now, we only have thirty items on this particular list. And on all of your other lists you have three hundred and ninety-seven. So I think well have to do something about this. Now, how about another item?"

A lot of people get stuck in a second dynamic beingness of one character or another. And boy, have a hell of a time, you see, because there's terrific rewards of one kind or another for being this second dynamic beingness, you know. But you'll see them, they're trying to pull overts on the second dynamic, you see. And they'll pull overts on the second dynamic. They — you know, big reward. They can't get out of it. They got — you know, whoo-bang. And of course a person can go into his own valence. God knows what that is!

See, you've shifted your gears back again. There was no "Up, Fido" drill on here, you see. you did a tsk. You're right back at it again.

You run into all this phenomena more generally in a Routine 3 process, but it nevertheless is tremendously present in Prepchecking.

And he says, "Well, I don't want to list anymore."

Now, in Prepchecking you actually are working with the mechanisms which bring about a Routine 3 bank. These things are hand in glove. They are not separate at all. So much so that you could probably find some items by Routine 3 and then prepcheck them and do some interesting exteriorizations from them and so forth. Actually, you don't have to go that far.

"Well," you say, "you can think of another one. Come on, think of one. Think of another one. Repeat one that you've already given me."

It's easier to solve on your Routine 3 level than it is on many other — on any other level. In other words, what we're doing now resolves what we're doing and these individualities resolve one way or the other and unstack. All very interesting.

"Well, there is one."

But remember, that the individual, if he is any one of these items, was it. And then wanted not to be it and couldn't un-be it and started using the overt-motivator sequence in order to separate himself from it. And by the overt-motivator sequence brought himself straight back into obsessively being it. And then it flies off some fine day in processing. Remember that cycle takes place.

And you say, "All right, that's fine." And you're off to the races, see. And you get him going a little more and then all of a sudden you happen to be noticing this over here and this thing appears awfully still. Appears very still. No TA action. Just looks awfully still. Or he gets a dirty needle once in a while when you speak or something, see. All right, you shift your gears, you see. And you ask once more for a missed withhold, invalidation.

Now, because that cycle takes place in this one lifetime, let me point out to you that the pc has a certain beingness. He also has greater or lesser connections with all dynamics. In other words, you're looking at an eight dynamic package, but the item which you are handling or trying to handle, is Joe Doakes. That's his lifetime, this lifetime. That's his name this lifetime. And your Prepcheck is actually slanted immediately and directly at trying to straighten up his obsessive efforts to un-be Joe Doakes. You see, if he could be Joe Doakes he'd cease to have trouble with Joe Doakes. The pc's name is Joe Doakes. So, if he could only un-be or be Joe Doakes fairly well, why, he'd straighten out. And a lot of things would be much happier for him.

You know — there — this is — this is just a note I will interject into this thing — did you know there are negative — negative middle rudiments? "In this session, have you tried not to withhold something" "In this session, have you tried not to invalidate things?" "In this session, have you ref — have you been trying not to suppress anything" See, they're done exactly the same way as any other middle rudiment. Same drill. Whatever you ask the guy, you leave by the same door.

Frankly, although you can go whole track with Prepchecking and very often find yourself slithering on the whole track, funny part of it is that if you were to locate your pc in this lifetime and hold your pc quite arduously into this lifetime and not permit him to answer any whole track, you might very well occasionally recover material which would otherwise be completely lost out of this one identity. Because the only thing you're trying to do is straighten out one identity with Prepchecking if you're trying to do anything And of course, the more backtrack you go, you're just going on free track of other identities which are more easily and better handled by a Routine 3 process.

And you find out there are two reasons why your pc starts picking up and getting more and more and more and more and more withholds. So finally every item you're picking up missed withholds. See, there's two reasons. One is you've missed a withhold, but good. See, that's one. And the other one is the pc has now become very alert to the fact that he mustn't have withholds, see. And he's busy there running the session and keeping his rudiments in.

It isn't that you should break your pc from going backtrack and all — bust him up in business and so forth. But if the pc was flying around too much backtrack and so forth, I'd sort of get interested in roping him down into this lifetime a little bit. I'd — I'd start spotting the years in which we were looking for something Because you'll find that most all of these chains on this identity can be dead-ended in the pc's own lifetime. Most of them. Some of them, no. But that's the this lifetime restimulation of another lifetime. And sometimes you get across that chain and you do go backtrack. You can't make a hard and fast rule about it because this lifetime is not a pure entity. It's not a pure beingness. It's a beingness which is already tremendously colored and — by countless other beingnesses which the person has been in the past.

I don't care what kind of a middle rudiment you do. "In this session, have you tried to keep the rudiments in?" Pc says, "Oh, yes, my God!" The same drill, you see, no comments from the auditor.

But you'd be surprised how much forward progress you can make by getting off the actual overts on the various dynamics in this lifetime. You can accomplish quite a bit. It's well worth accomplishing if you want to accomplish it. But in order to accomplish this fact, you have to be pretty good. And you may not be superficial. You cannot be superficial about this lifetime. You are not going to do a single thing for a pc in a hundred hours of Prepchecking, if all he sits there and does is get off the criticisms he has made of others.

And you say, "Good. All right. Now, let me check that again. In this session, have you kept — tried to keep the rudiments in? That's it, that's clean." Go on about your business, you see. It's just this little shift of gears.

Well, I´ll tell you why. Criticism is the last shadow that's a total defeat. He can no longer un-be this thing, he can only criticize. He's — all he's saying to you is, "I am unhappy being Mary Lou." He's criticizing Mary Lou, criticizing Mary Lou. Well, all he's saying is, "I'm unhappy being Mary Lou, I'm unhappy being Mary Lou, she's no good and so forth. And I'm very unhappy being her."

Now, it doesn't matter then what you use for a middle rudiment. Do you realize that you can bring a middle rudiment in like this: "In this session, have you deliberately tried to influence the E-Meter?" Perfectly valid middle rudiment, see. Sec Checking-type questions where you're running lists: "In this session, have you told me any half-truths? untruths?" see? You just use your end rudiments, see. Clank! You say, "Well, come on, what's that?"

Well, if he's so unhappy being her what did he do to her to make her an unhappy thing to be? Now, that's the question you the auditor are trying to solve.

He says, "Well, I have, as a matter of fact, I've been stringing a longbow here for some time on the subject of my sister. And I've been trying to damage her, too."

When you say, "We're trying to get the overts off," you are simply making a mechanical statement. You actually are not. you haven't got that as your end product. Your end product is trying to find out how he, Joe Doakes, made Mary Lou such a miserable person to be. Because obviously he was being Mary Lou in this lifetime, not because he hated women. Well, he's criticizing Mary Lou. Remember, a lifetime — you live eight dynamics in one lifetime. They're stacked right up alongside of you. Any being that ever walks up, he'll at least be an atheist or an agnostic. He'll discuss each one of these dynamics in turn. He will tell you how he's no longer interested in mankind. He will tell you how he doesn't get along with groups now. But he's still — he'll still discuss very interestedly with you every single one of the eight dynamics. He's been them all this lifetime. Slithery, slidey, slippery, but nevertheless he's had something to do with each one of them.

And you say, "Good. Thank you very much. Now, let me check this question again. In this session, have I missed..." And that's your shift — your shift over. It's very simple when you get down to it. When you do a rudiments-type question — now, let's get the other difference going here — when you do a rudiments-type question you're trying to get something out of the road of the body of the session. You're trying to keep the body of the session from getting upset. That is the only thing you're trying to do.

Supposing you unplowed the fellow from the one he was most obsessively trying not to be. Then he could be that thing with freedom and it would blow up in smoke. You've returned to the individual his power of choice of beingness. And if with Prepchecking you can return an individual any power of choice on a subject of beingness or not-beingness, you of course, will get tremendous resurgence on the case.

You're not trying to help the pc a bit, even though it very often helps the pc a bit, as the people I was checking last night undoubtedly felt helped by the number of missed withholds and so forth which I picked up off of them so as to carry on a check, see. But you're not trying to really help the pc with that — an — that rudiments question. You're trying to keep the body of the session going.

You could go at it this crudely. This is not an advised method, but this crudely you could go at it. you could say, "Well, who don't you like this — who have — who haven't you liked lately?"

And don't you ever get going on a body of a session or even on the beginning rudiments and let the pc detour you on to doing something else. you clean up a rudiment. If you're cleaning up a rudiment, you clean it up as a rudiment, you clean up that rudiment and you get off of that. And by definition, the shortest, quickest brush-offs are the bestest rudiment processes. It's what gets the rudiment in fastest — that is the ideal rudiments process. What gets the rudiment in fastest. We want the rudiment in.

"Oh, well so-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so."

Because all the action — you understand, it's terribly important to have the rudiments in. But all the action you take in getting the rudiments in is robbed from the body of the session. You're running on robbed time. So don't ever set yourself up to straighten out a rudiment the long way to. Don't start in on the thing and get down to "Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?" and the pc says — it says, clank! And the pc says, "No," and "I'm not willing to." And you all of a sudden say, "I guess we'll have to prepcheck this." Oh, cut your throat, man! That is really the clumsiest piece of stuff and that is the favorite trap of auditors. They get stuck in this every once in a while. They find a beginning rudiment out and they immediately haul out the chessboard, the IBM computer, you see, roll up their sleeves, get three or four new extra sheets of paper to list things on. No, all you want there is a feather duster. And preferably a dustpan. See, that's the most equipment you want at that particular time. "Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?" Clank!

You're watching your meter as he names a few of them off and one goes, clang. This is not an advised way of doing it, this is just a demonstration. All right, clang. Mary Lou. A question you want solved is, "How did you, in your estimation. . ." You never ask the pc this, but this is what you're trying to solve. "How would you, in your est. how did you in your estimation, make Mary Lou a perfectly horrible thing to be? How did you do this?" Well, another way of asking this is, "What have you done to Mary Lou?" you see.

Well of course you can say, "Well, what's that all about? What's this all about here? What's that — that one?"

So we run this chain — necessarily must be a chain because you've got to get to the first part of the cycle of Mary Lou. Therefore it's got to be a chain. One lone incident wouldn't have done it. See, so he — you run this on this cycle, you run it in and out and all of a sudden he tells you Mary Lou isn't such a bad girl, wasn't such a bad girl. His opinion of Mary Lou changes. He has said, actually in essence, "Oh, I'm willing to be or not be Mary Lou." And at that moment there's a sector of existence from which he is not retreating. Therefore his reachingness into that sector of existence is improved, his doingness of that sector of existence can now occur, because his beingness of that sector of existence has been reoriented.

"Aahhah - so forth and so on." "Oh, come on, give it to me."

There's many a girl who can't cook because she hates her mother. Well, let's just take a mother who was a good cook. Let's just ask some girl, "Can you cook?" you know.

"Well, so-and-so and so-and-so and, well, last night I was having nightmares about you auditing me."

And she says, "Oh God, no."

And you say, "All right, thank you very much. Let me check that. Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties? Well, that's still falling off the pin. All right. If it's all right with you — and even if it isn't — I'd like to run a little process here, 'Who would I have to be to audit you?"' First question - bang-bang-bang-bang-bang. "All right, let me check this."

You say, "Could your mother cook?"

Pc has heaved a sigh or he has done something that looked like he had a cognition, or something like this. He didn't tell you anything, you know, you say, "Let's check this." And you say, "All right. Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties? That's cleaner than a wolf's tooth. That was the last question. Thank you very, very much." Get the idea? Just a feather duster, you know, and get it out of sight, put it under the corner of the rug.

"No."

That's all you're interested in, is a clean needle. You're not even interested in how long it'll stay clean. That's the reason you prepcheck, you get a needle clean so that it will stay clean. That's the reason you do body of session. You expect body of session to linger. The effect of body of session is going to be with us for a while. But a rudiment, a middle rudiment, we don't expect it to be with us, maybe it won't — it'll only be with us ten seconds. It was still clean, so we leave it. It'll become apparent if it goes out. Something won't be happening right so you can go in and patch it up again.

"Well, could your grandmother cook?"

This rudiment-type question is the "sticky plaster" type of activity. And if you go and try to build a case out of rudiments you're going to be in trouble. You're going to waste time. That time is all robbed from the body of the session.

"Oh God, yes."

Now, if you wanted to set up a pc so that his rudiments would stay in forever, you would get that session's rudiments in and then take one of the rudiments questions and use it in the body of the session to put it in there with brass nails and tape and mahogany and anvils — you get the idea?

Overts against Grandma. They obviously are there. That girl will not cook until you have rehabilitated the beingness of Grandmother. And you get off her overts against Grandmother and all of a sudden this girl can cook. It's amazing when you come to think about it. This person will not do anything that a beingness can do that they cannot be. Now, you talk about disabilities, they're there by the ton.

You can prepcheck a rudiment question and that's where you may get mixed up. But you would — you're trying to put it in forever. All right, put it in forever. But you'll only do that in the body of the session.

This individual says, "I'd love to paint. But I can't paint."

Now, in the body of the session it doesn't matter how gabby you get. And this is where basically you're going to get most mixed up — is shifting gears on a list-type Prepcheck. Because here the rudiment-question rule of ask it once is being used a little differently. And it's only because this Sec Checktype question is being treated kind of like a rudiment that you're going to get mixed up. It actually isn't treated the same as a rudiment. But you're going to shift gears somewhat along this way: "Have you ever stolen anything?" You're busy — you're in the body of the session now — your rudiments are more or less in. Your pc is rolling along and you get him this list and, you come to this question, "Have you ever stolen anything?" and the thing goes whip! You say, "Yeah, that. Yeah, that one."

"Did you ever know a painter in this lifetime?"

"Oh, well, I, uh — used to have nightmares about being a thief." Well, he's said it. You're not going to correct him at this stage of the game. And you say, "Good, thank you very much. Let me check this. Have you ever stolen anything" Whip! Now, shift your gears. See, that's a gear shift the same way. You're now under no discipline of anything under the sun, moon and stars, except to make him give an overt on that Zero Question. That is now a Zero A. The first action is, after you've checked it and found out it's going to respond like mad, is get it writ down as your Zero A on your auditor's report. I don't care if you write it down by number, but put "Zero A, 16."

Well, you might not hit it on the button because "painter" may be all the way down the chain. But you'd be surprised at how you could take the worry away on the subject by hitting this lifetime on Prepchecking And you say, "Did you know anybody who could paint?"

You say, "All right, now, let's get down to business here. This is reacting like mad on this. Now, have you ever stolen . . . ?"

"No, never knew anybody who could paint."

"No." The person says, "I remember in Sunday school, I mean they even — even thought of me one time as the Bishop of Algiers and never stole anything in my life. Well I don't know, the meter can't be wrong, you can't be wrong"

"Ah, well, good enough. Who could paint? I get a knock here. Somebody can paint."

"Good, think it over, now think it over very carefully, have you ever stolen anything? You know, purloined something that didn't belong to you, you know? Acquired equipment to which you had no title. You know, stolen anything?"

Most people are always trying to rehabilitate their artistic things, you see. Perfectly fine. Say, "Who could paint?"

"Ah, well, you put it that way, let me see, have I ever stolen anything, anything at all...."

"Oh, come to remember my grandmother. My grandmother took art when she was a young girl."

And you say, "It keeps clanging, see? That one? That one? Yes?"

"Let's see, what else could your grandmother do?"

"Oh." He says, "You're talking about that one?"

"Oh, she was a good cook. And she was very patient."

"Yeah."

"All right. Can you cook?"

"Well, I thought one time that it'd be a good thing if my friend had his car stolen."

"Oh God, no."

And you say, "All right, all right, that's very good. Now, very good, thank you very much. All right, now. Let's get down to cases here. Have you ever stolen anything? That's what I want to know."

"Are you patient?"

"Oh, well, you put it that way, I mean, well, it'd be very humiliating to have to tell you because it didn't amount to very much. But, uh — I once stole my sister's bicycle."

"Oh, no."

He said it. All right. You say, "All right, you stole your sister's bicycle. Very good, thank you very much. That's very nice, all right. We're going to take that up right now. Now, what about..." Just, just test questions — "What about stealing bicycles? What about stealing from children? What about stealing from your sister? What about stealing toys? What about stealing vehicles? Vehicles? What about stealing vehicles? Does that make sense to you?"

See, you've done — you saw your be-not-be proposition. You found it by "do," you see. That's diagnosis by "do." And you say, "All right, let's go to town here. What have you done to your grandmother?"

"Aaaah-haaa."

That's just a test question. That's not a standard What question.

"All right. One: What about stealing vehicles? Good. All right, now this sister's bicycle of yours, all right. When was that? Is that all there is to it? What might have appeared there? Who didn't find out about it? All right, good. Now, when was that exactly? Is that all there is to that? What appeared there? Who should have located it or who should have found it? All right."

And the fellow says, "Well, I threw her downstairs. Ha-ha-ha-ha."

This thing is going crazy, see, and not diminishing, you've gone through it twice, you still get — out of the corner of your eye you can see that needle swing, which is tone arm action, see. That thing is swinging around. And you're saying, "Boy, this is — this is a hot line," see. And you say, "Is there any..." It's always earlier — "Is there any earlier incident where you stole something?"

And you check it again. It might blow on one, you know. It might. Check it again, ha-ha still there, you know. Get a What question. "What about making your grandmother miserable," or whatever the thing came out to be. Get it down, run the chain, knock that stuff out and lo and behold, your pc will be able to paint and cook. Magic. Because it's a zone of beingness that the pc can be.

"Well, yes, when I was a little boy, I once — I once — used to say my prayers in church all the time, you know, hoping I would never steal anything."

Now, it doesn't matter a damn whether the pc — this doesn't matter whether the pc still has that person in the land of the living or not. The other person may be dead. See, but it's a this-lifetime situation. You're not going any further than that with this. Because pcs, 99 and 44/100's percent of the bank, are on the backtrack, you're going to miss occasionally. This is not a hundred percent proposition. But as you look this thing over you will find time and time again that you can knock it into shape. At least it will come into shape so the person isn't walking around all the time saying, "Gee, I wish I could paint, I can't paint. Gee, I wish I could paint, I can't paint. Gee, I wish I could paint, I can't paint." There are other things he can do, you see, than walk around doing that all the time.

And you say, "Good." See. "That's real good. All right, we're glad about that one, that's fine, we like that one. All right, now, what'd you steal? Come on."

I call something to your attention, that the person while he's doing this is not painting and is not, not painting. This person is just not. you can invest the time in other ways.

"Hmm! You mean you want to know?"

So you clean up the beingnesses. You clean up a whole stack of this life beingnesses with Prepchecking and diagnose them with doingnesses. I don't really care how you diagnose it. I wouldn't care how you got into this at all. But if you were to say to a pc — a little limited goals activity — "What have you been trying to do in this lifetime?" You're not doing a Goals Assessment, you understand. "In this lifetime what have you been trying to do? What do you wish you could have done during this lifetime?"

"Yes. What did you steal? Yeah, come on."

And the fellow says, "Oh my. Huh. I certainly wish I could have been a streetcar conductor. I would have been much better off as a streetcar conductor. They can strike, you know and they get raised wages and all that sort of thing"

"Oh, well. I used to empty out my mother's cookie jar and give it to the other kids every once in a while."

And you can say, "All right. All right. Very good. Do you know anybody who was a streetcar conductor?"

"Thank you, thank you very much. When was that?"

"Mmmm. Well, my uncle Bill. Huh, that's funny. My uncle Bill. Hm!"

"Well, that was lots of times."

"All right, that's fine. Now just — we're going to prepcheck on the subject of Uncle Bill. What did you do to Uncle Bill?" And we're going to make that first one, see, a test question and it didn't blow. So now we're going to prepcheck it, full-dress parade. And I guarantee this person will come up the other end at least not worrying about not being a streetcar conductor all the time. Do you see? That's the least gain you're going to get.

"Good, just give me one. Just one."

But you could attack Prepchecking head-on. That's all I'm trying to tell you here. you can actually attack it head-on. Stop fishing around in the dark. Life is real. On the whole track the items might be quite evanescent, effervescent, meaningless to the individual or very meaningful. He may be full of pains and agonies or without somatics at all. These are things that the individual has laid aside and is — they've long departed, even from the bottom of the hope chest. Of course, to do that and to straighten it all out requires that the individual be straightened out on the whole track from one end to the other. You're not trying to do this with Prepchecking Life is real, beingnesses are actual, his dreams and skills have existed, he knows about them, he can know about them, these things can be straightened out right now.

"Oh, well, that one. Well, that was when she beat me so badly."

Now, nobody asks you in Prepchecking to heal an individual's leg so that he can walk again. But let me tell you, an individual is much better off being able to hobble about without pain than to be in the pain and misery he is in and not be able to walk at all, do you see? In other words, think of — think of a limited objective. We're going to improve his condition. Just going to improve it, see. We'll make it a bit better. We're not going to shoot the moon and give ourselves a lot of loses and that sort of thing. Let's find out who couldn't walk, not — not on the whole track, no, no, no, this lifetime. "Who couldn't walk? Who couldn't walk? Can't find anything? Well who didn't go anyplace? Who went everywhere? Who was a terrific runner?" You know, let's walk all the way around the edges of this thing, you see. Anything to do with walking, running, using legs.

"I don't care which one it is, but how about that one? When was it? All right, good. Is that all of it? What might have appeared there? What was never found out about it?" just for the hell of it, see. "Good."

And all of a sudden, why, we find Aunt Chrysalis. And where the hell she's been — the pc would never help us out. Because she is buried between the ages of eight and eleven and was there for three years and then died a beautiful death. And was totally crippled. And all the pc ever wanted to do was beat her head in with a club. And remembers her as "Dear Aunt Chrysalis" but doesn't remember her at all. Ah, we've walked through the whole cycle and the pc is totally being Aunt Chrysalis. And the pc never remembers himself. He never remembers what he's being because he's right in the middle of it.

This thing's going crazy. You say — well, we're not going to waste any more time on that particular one — "Well, is there any earlier time when you stole something" And we finally run into his robbing banks. We don't care what we run into, but we're going to run into the hot line here, and steer it back into vehicles, because that's what we want. And we find out that this individual — we don't care — we don't care when it happened or what it was all about — we find out he used to steal all the kids' toys in the neighborhood, their tricycles and things like that, and sell them to the junkman as a pastime, you see. And they used to get beaten for losing their toys and, you know, the thing finally builds up like mad. And he really had no clue of it.

You know, if you were in the middle of a subterranean vault and you didn't know where you had been taken to or how you had gotten there or where you were, somebody would say, "Where are you?" And you would say, "I don't know. It's just all dark." Take you outside and let you get a look at it and you'd say, "Well, I was in a subterranean vault." He didn't know it at the time. And because the walkingness into the situation is — was so gradually done, so smoothly done, so easily done, with overts, on this system, the individual winds up being he knows not who. you never have, at the beginning of Prepchecking, Doakes in the chair before you. Doakes is at least being some other dynamic in this lifetime if there's anything wrong with him. Just in this lifetime.

Now, you make a mistake when you think the pc knew about this, by the way, just as an intenection. He didn't know about this. You've got to fish him into this, you've got to persuade him into this. He's getting into areas he doesn't know anything about. If you let the pc — weak Prepchecking is sitting there waiting for the pc to tell you and blaming the pc because he doesn't tell you. Well, the person to blame is the auditor. That's because the auditor isn't crowding the pc at it. you see, there are various ways of doing that.

All right. You could restore then, a lot of things to Doakes, providing you have actual overts. Now, the think about it is on the basis of the wish. And that is certain — just a harmonic of the beingness. He is wishing — he thinks all the time about what he'd love to do to his father or what he should have done to his father or something See, he thinks, thinks, thinks. So he gives you the answer, "I had an unkind thought about my father." Oh, fry it, man. What's he telling you in essence? He's simply telling you, "I have been wishing I weren't my father." That is all he is saying to you. And you're going to pull this and do anything with it? You couldn't. All you're trying to do is pull his wishes not to be his father. No, you'll have to get his actions and determinations not to be his father. How do you get those? You get the system he's been using to un-be Papa. Which is a system of overts and withholds. And they're real overts.

All right, that's fine. And we finally get this thing where he was selling all these toys to the junkman and the kids were all getting beaten and everything of the sort. And then he used to tell people that he saw them throw their toys into the lake and he got them all in trouble and we get this, "Gee!" You know, he says, "I never remembered anything about this."

Here's where you err in Prepchecking — is misinterpreting the wish. Because you see it's perfectly true, you recognize yourselves, instinctively — of course this person doesn't want to be this other person. And you let him get away with it all the time. you let him sit there and say, "I wish I weren't a schoolmaster." You know and, "I wish I weren't Father," and "I wish I weren't Mother," and "I. . ." You know — natter, natter, natter. "I criticize Mother. I had an unkind thought about Father." You let him get away with this. All they're saying is, "I wish I weren't. I wish I weren't.... "

Well, I bet he didn't. And he got that all cleaned up. It's a nice significant basic on the chain and that sort of thing and you come back to your question, "What about stealing vehicles?" you see, whatever it was.

And how are you going to make this person well? All right, this would be the same process. "All right. Now, sit there and wish you weren't. All right, thank you. Wish you weren't Father. Thank you. Wish you weren't Mother. Thank you. Wish you weren't your schoolmaster. Thank you. Wish. . ." You think he'd get anything there? No, he wouldn't get anyplace. Well, he won't get anyplace with Prepchecking either because the criticism, the unkind thought, is just the wish not to be. No, you've got to hit it more head-on than that. It's got to be do, do, do, do, done something to. It's got to be done something to. And it must be something that the person didn't want to be. That's why a lot of your Prepcheck questions are as cool as ice and they get nobody off anything and they never move anybody anyplace. There's no charge on it. If there's charge on it on the meter, there is a wish not to be. Because it's a disagreement with. All a meter ever registers is disagreement. Now, if this person was perfectly willing to be Papa — you said "Papa" to him. you get no charge on the meter because there's no disagreement with Papa. That could be at both ends of the scale, he's obsessively totally being Papa. But that's beyond his reality and beyond the level and scope of Prepchecking. It will take a Routine 3 process to get that far. That's buried too deep on the whole track. But these half-beingnesses, these things he can actually un-be, these things he could become again, you know. He can halfway be them, halfway un-be them, these things he worries about all the time and so forth, you can take care of those things in Prepchecking. No matter how you sneak up on this, it will register on the meter if the person can't be it.

"Well," he says, "Well, there's a lot more of those, because actually I put myself through college stealing cars."

You could look over all the present time problems of the pc. There — it's a whole index of the things he can't be, the things he's trying not to be. And what he's trying not to be the hardest is the thing he has done the most to. You get an image of the pc with sledgehammers pounding upon the chest of the thing he is trying not to be. Well, please run "sledgehammers." You're never going to un-be him with just the hope that he won't be. All right, "Hope you're not Papa. Thank you. Hope you're not Papa. Thank you. Hope you're not Papa. Thank you." Same thing. "I thought a bad thought about my father. I regretted having such a father," so forth. Think-think-think-think-think-think-think th-. Well that's going to do nothing He's done something, man. He's put glue in the old man's shoes, you know? He's put the — poured the molasses down the drainpipe and put vinegar in the syrup pitcher. He's done things. He's gone around privately and pulled three of the spark plugs off of the V-8 engine just before Papa had to go out to carry on his professional calls, you see. He's done things, you know? He's even let some of the air out of a tire hopefully.

You say, "All right, that's fine. Okay, now" — change your hat, see, — "now, let's test this. What about stealing vehicles? All right, that's fine, that's clean." And you write, "null." "Now, let's test this Zero A. All right? Okay. Have you ever stolen anything? Ah, that's null. Thank you very, very much. Okay, now." We take the next question on the Sec Check list and just give it the business. All right, so he gives you one.

One pc I know of, he'd become a doctor. And he'd become a doctor apparently for only one reason: to have better access to poison so he could poison his father. And he never did anything when he went home. He did — he never went home without having several varieties and brands of poison in an effort to slip them into Papa's coffee.

Now, here's a horrible mistake. Let me — let me show you a mistake. You can be all thumbs, you get that? I've given you the whole of it now but let me give you some things about — you can be all thumbs about this sort of thing Well, you can actually drive yourself and your pc half out of their minds. One, by not thoroughly acknowledging everything the pc says. See, he says, "Well, I — I thought once about stealing a paper clip once."

But let me call something to your attention. We knew about those and he still hated his father. We hadn't changed him a bit. No, no, no. He could tell you about those, because they were only hopes, weren't they? You know, he never did even almost put any poison in the old man's coffee. He never did. He used to talk about it, think about it, dream about it, brag about it. But he never did it. What did he do to his father? He must have done something. And that would be your job in Prepchecking to find out what it was. And don't be so detoured by the wishfulness of it all. See. Don't run, "Wish I weren't." Run, "What did you do?" Because it's only the mechanisms of kicking the old man in the belly at the wrong time that got him into the state where he could no longer be a father, be his father and so forth.

Well, man, you're not going to use that for a What question; you're not going to have anything to do with it, but you certainly better say "Good!" so the pc really knows you heard it. Don't go at it like this: pc says, "Well, I thought about stealing a paper clip once." And you say, "Well, have you ever stolen anything" Ohh, because your pc's going to go halfway around the bend before you get very far, you see. Whatever the pc gives you, give him a cheery aye-aye about it. "All right. Good. Good. Now, we're looking for a doingness here. That's fine, that one you just gave me, that's fine. But we're looking for a doingness. We want a doingness. You know? We want something you've done, done, done. We want a doingness on this thing. All right, now, I'm going to ask you again." Now that we've already found the thing wouldn't clear, you see.

You'd be surprised the number of things you can trace down in Prepchecking if you go about it intelligently. Talk to the pc, know your pc, do a problems — do one of these surveys — Pc Assessment Form, on a pc. Look it over. Say, where's this boy been going, you know. you learn a lot of things this way. What, what's he trying to be in life? What would he like to do? You know, think it over a little bit and look it over and say, "Wow, you know, every time I look at this, every. . . Heh-heh. I wonder. I wonder. I wonder." "How about maiden aunts? How about aunts? How about unmarried women? Yeah, that's good. That's good. Which one of these women was unmarried?"

All right. You know, I mean pound him into it and he eventually gives you one. And then you get your What question sorted out here and your administration. You actually — the second you transfer over from this one-shot, you know, on the list — second you transfer over from this one-shot on the list over onto your Prepcheck — oh, hell — that requires administration and writing and figuring it all out and getting your What question and running it down the line, talking to your pc, getting him to go earlier, cleaning up everything. You talk about individuality, you're certainly going to use your wits in full gear during that whole activity. And the only thing you're interested in over here is — on the meter — is how much needle swing you've got. You're still getting needle swing, in other words potential tone arm swing, you're still getting it on this thing. You're getting change as you go down the line and you're getting into areas that are going to shift this case around. Is this thing getting any cleaner? You're right on — you're right on the "qui vive" all the time you're doing this. Actually you have to be good.

"Oh, well, that one."

One, you can't accuse the pc of withholding from you. Throws him out of session at once. you got to help the pc find out about it, but if you're not very militant in helping him find out about it, he also is going to get pretty wishy-washy on you. In other words, you've got to be clever while you're prepchecking. But a Prepcheck is an activity that takes place on something that won't clear. By definition, it's something that takes place — you ask the guy, "Have you ever stolen anything" He says, "Yes. I stole the . . ."

"Aunt Gertrude. Aunt Gertrude, Aunt Gertrude." There we are. All right. And here we're off to the races. Give it the one-time check, but it's going to be a waste of time. "Have you ever done anything to Aunt Gertrude? Thank you. That sure knocks. All right. Good. That one. Oh, you pulled all her hair out. All right, thank you very much. Thank you very much. All right, now let's check that over. Have you ever done anything to Aunt Gertrude? That still knocks. All right. Good enough." Whewwwww, here we go.

"Now, let me give you the next question."

You go on down the line and you pick up that chain called Aunt Gertrude and the first thing you know, why the pc can do some of the most remarkable things. Aunt Gertrude was a piano player amongst other things. And the pc all of a sudden has some interest in music. He doesn't go start screaming every time — every time music turns on, you know? His nervousnesses and his phobias and the things he's worried about in this lifetime that don't amount really to a hill of beans, but are the things that make him unhappy with the business of living, can be picked up in Prepchecking and straightened out.

"Yes. Once — time I stole the whole contents of the vault of the Bank of England. Heh-heh! Yeah. Um!"

And if you're very clever and adroit at this sort of thing, if you understand what I've been try — how this cycle goes and why a person does overts and what happens to him when he does too many. And that the person can never do the things of the things he — that the beingnesses he can't be, can do. When you understand those various things you can take Prepchecking and boy, you can play it up, down, middle. You'll never get anywhere with Prepchecking asking for thinks, criticisms, buying this sort of thing.

And you say, "Boy, magnitude of sin." you see, "It's tremendous here!" see. So we never bother to check it with the second question. And you say, "What about robbing the Bank of England? What about robbing the Bank of England?" Well there's no reaction on that. Of course there isn't, you goof. He blew it. Have faith! Have faith! Your pc does blow things!

Don't ever limit yourself on the amount of argument you're prepared to greet the pc with when he won't tell you a doingness. If you're getting a fall on the meter on something or somebody, pc's done something to that person and never shake it otherwise. Don't let the pc sit there and hope. The pc has done something The pc carefully put the hot-water bottle in the bed, carefully unloosened the stopper on a cold winter's night, and Aunt Gertrude got pneumonia. Something has been done that has been done with the paws. It has not been done with the think.

The magnitude has nothing about it whatsoever. You say, "Well, have you ever raped anyone?" and the pc heaves a terrible sigh and, "Ahhhh-aaaah. Yes. Well, actually my sister and my mother and my grandmother. Yes."

As soon as you know those things, can add it up, you could actually take a pc, size him up, saying, "Well, they're having this kind of a chronic present time problem. All right. Now let's see. Now, who had that wrong with them or who did the opposite?" See, present time problem — bad foot. Always has a bad foot. All right. Somebody had a bad foot, that'd be totally obsessive beingness of the person, don't you see, and he didn't want to be. Or somebody sure used their feet. It's going to be one or the other. The other's a half-beingness sort of a thing They sure used their feet. you want to know who had a bad foot, you want to know who used their feet. You'll eventually spot this thing down. You'll get a person a pc has not even vaguely in view. You'll have to work like a beaver trying to get this person in view. When that person is in view and you get some overts off against that person, you're at least going to get a change for the better in that foot condition. See?

And you say, "Boy! That's really a juicy line!" you know, and put your E-Meter aside — you just haven't carried out your drill, see. Because all too often you say to him, "All right, thank you. I got that. Now, have you ever raped anyone? That's clear, thank you." you never vary the drill. You see how you can make the error? So you're trying to form up What questions on things that have blown.

If you work it right, you can do wonderful things with it. If you just sit there and let the pc drive, of course what's the pc going to tell you? He's going to tell you all the things he doesn't want to be without increasing his ability to be them and without really decreasing his ability to be them. He's not going to change his case. Because look, he's been living all these years and hasn't changed his case yet. He's complained about these people all these years just like he's complaining to them — about you in the session. See, he's telling you in the session all about this too. Don't think he hasn't told other people. Until you get the things he hasn't talked about and the things he has done, you're going to get no change on the part of the pc. Okay?

Doesn't much matter, doesn't much matter what the magnitude is, is did the pc blow it? Because let me tell you, if he let you in on the exact point on the chain, it has no underpinning. See, he didn't steal part of the Bank of England when he was two and steal another part of it when he was six, you see. And falsified checks on it when he was ten. And then steal the whole thing when he was twenty-two. This wasn't the way he went about it. He just robbed the Bank of England! Boom! No chain. If there's no chain, it'll blow. This is your pc — has never made a career out of missing — getting you to miss withholds on him.

Well, that's "body of the session." That's what you're trying to prepcheck toward and that's why. And that's why the overt-motivator sequence, no matter how unpalatable it is to some people, works. But it only works if it's used as actually an overt-withhold system. It doesn't work if used, "I wish I could perform another overt against the old man, but the son of a blankety-blank is now dead" and is unable to do so. And he's actually — really, he's saying, "Criticize, criticize, criticize, I regret, I regret, I regret. If I could only exteriorize from the old man I'd be much happier." You know that? Only the funny part of it is it's not, "exteriorized from the old man." "If I only had the ability to be this without being misemotional about it, I would be much happier." That's the equation you go on, not the equation he's going on.

See, it's a this-lifetime activity, last few years. Doesn't — isn't going to make any chain. There's nothing unknown about it, particularly. You get in, prepcheck this thing on the basis, "Has anyone ever failed to find out anything about you?" That's the last two hundred trillion years. Oh, I think that would be very fruitful. You 11 get all kinds of wild things. As a matter of fact you'd go on and on and on, prepchecking with a Zero of that particular type. After a while you're liable to blow it, too, but it'd be too gruesome. It's too wide.

So the pc is trying to drive on one road and you've got to make him drive on another. He's got to cease to fight being it and get so he can comfortably become it, at which time he will cease to be it. And very few pcs appreciate this. you say to this pc, "Now look. If you just wouldn't hate your colonel so much you'd probably get out of the army." Oh, he knows that's wrong He knows the best way to get out of the army and that is just do more and more and more things to the colonel and also the major and the captain and the lieutenant and preferably the army, but because you can't do anything, take it out on the army equipment and sooner or later you'll make it. And sooner or later he does. He drives a jeep over the cliff and goes out of his head and picks up another body. But we're not — we're not particularly advocating that system at this particular time.

You see, now, where middle rudiments are handled one way and how beginning, middle and end rudiments, bear some resemblance to that Sec-Check-question-type procedure? Don't get the two mixed up, though. Because you're always willing to do something about a rudiment if it was wildly out. But you're going to do the shortest, quickest thing and you're only going to do something about it if you can't get it to blow right now. It's perfectly — perfectly valid, to find the thing's still alive and not want to spend any more time on it. You've checked it, you say, "Was there a little more to that?" It's still knocking, see.

See, your pc would not really believe. He'll believe it about other people's troubles and he'll believe it in zones where he's not aberrated. But on the exact zone and area where he is aberrated he won't believe it. And therefore you have to be quite a little salesman sometimes sitting down there, see.

"Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?"

"Do? Do? Oh, the hell with doing something about it. I tried and tried and tried!" The pc's liable to say. "I've just beaten my mother and I've beaten my mother. I've taken hot flatirons and laid them on the platter and tried to burn the house down. I — I — I've killed all her puppies. I — I've done everything I could do. And you know I just can't get away from her!" He'll tell you this. If he was thinking the thought all the way through he would explain it all that way.

The guy says, "I had a nightmare all last night." Well, yesterday this thing was clean, so it couldn't — couldn't be very much. And the fellow says, "Oh, well, yeah, well, I criticized you all during dinner last night to one of your fellow students."

"And you know," he says, "I still can't cook." "I can't stand to wash clothes. I have a terrible allergy, every time I smell something burning I — you know — my skin all breaks out in a rash. And so on." He'll hardly ever believe that it was from that zone and area because he's worked on that one. He himself, in person, has worked on that one very hard without any success at all. And now you, you nut, are going to come along and try to work in that same area? He knows you can't win. Why, he's been throwing radishes and carrots and baseballs and everything else he could at this particular person and he hasn't ceased to become them. And now you're going to pick all these things up and erase all his good work?

And you say, "All right, good. All right, I'll check that. Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties? Thank you, that's clear." You understand?

The funny part of it is when you've got all the good work erased, why the overts he's even forgotten about and are buried and are dawn at the end of the chain, all of a sudden go zip. He can cook, he doesn't have any allergies and the barking of a puppy doesn't drive him insane. How marvelous. But don't feel strange if he attributes it to something else and another part of the session.

I mean you could ans I'll go through the drill: "Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?" Clang! See. You say, "What's that? That? That? What are you thinking of there? There?"

So that's the secret behind Prepchecking. And I do want you to do it. I do want you to, to actually get a good reality on the fact that you can drive that down the right road. you can ride that bicycle. There is no point in it. It isn't just going through the drill that rides the bicycle though, it's straightening out the beingness of the pc.

"Oh, well, I had nightmares all night last night about you."

Thank you.

And you say, "All right, good. Now, I'll check that. Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?" Tick, tick, the thing has still — still got something on that. "Is there a little more to that? Little something else there?"

"Oh, yeah. I talked to a friend of yours last night at dinner and told him how terrible you were as an auditor."

And you say, "Good, thank you very much. Now, Ill check that. Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties? That's clean, thank you very much."

That's all you do about it, see. Got the idea? You can ask it twice if you do the drill twice. You could actually ask it five times if you did the drill five times. What I'm trying to get — drive across to you is you always do the drill. The drill has a complete cycle. These are the errors you could make. This would be an erroneous — an erroneous action: "Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties? Now, that? That? That? What is that?"

And the fellow says, "Well, I — I had nightmares all night about you last night."

"Well, what might they have proceeded from?"

It's, what mousehole? See? It's which — which way did he go? The pc gets this odd feeling: "Where is it? Where'd he go? Where's the auditor?" See? That's a totally incorrect drill. If you've asked an auditing question, you expect it to be answered. And you see how antique this drill really is. If you've asked an auditing question you expect it to be answered. Now, the only thing you're doing with the meter is making sure it was fully answered. See? You ask an auditing question, you expect it to be answered. You're going to find out on the meter if it was answered. I mean, what's — what's simpler? But you did it with a drill, so this drill is your beginning, middle and end rudiments.

Now, you're perfectly willing to shift over into a process. Now, here's the other one. If you're doing a beginning, middle and end rudiment-type question, it is with some trepidation that you shift over into a process. You're not going to process it unless you're practically beaten with a club. You're going to do this precise drill. You're going to do this drill at least twice before you give up all hope, see. And then if it was diminishing, on just what you were doing, for God's sakes, don't get in and do something else then, just repeat the drill again. And all of a sudden it's as clean as a wolf's tooth. Pc's satisfied, you're satisfied, everybody's satisfied. So don't lightly shift into a process when you're doing a beginning, middle and end rudiment.

But when you do, shift in fast and get out now. Don't hem and haw about the thing Don't go rolling up your sleeves and giving the pc. . . You know, don't — don't say, "Well, all right, so you've got a present time problem. All right, present time problem, let's see here, now. Just a minute, present time problem. Now what'd you say it was about? Oh, that's the one. All right. Now, let's see. Let's see — well, we don't need that. What — is it all right with you if I run this process on you? What part of that problem have you been responsible for? All right, that's what we're going to run. That's what we're going to run. Is that all right with you? All right, good. Now, what part of that problem have you been responsible for? Thank you. What part of that problem. . ." And on and on and on.

Now, you get toward the end of it, "Now, I am going to give you this process two more times and end it. If that is all right with you. Is that all right with you?" "All right. What part of that problem have you been responsible for? Thank you. What part of that problem have you been responsible for? Thank you. Is there anything you would care to ask or say before I end this process? Thank you. Thank you. Well, that's all right. We won't take that up just now. We'll take that up later. All right. Now, now we're going to go into the body of the session."

Now, that is entirely the wrong auditor atmosphere. The way you want to handle is quite different. See, now, you're just doing your rudiments, you're going right on down the line. you say, "Do you have a present time problem? We've got something on that. That. Yeah, that. What are you looking at now?"

"Oh yes, I wonder how long the session is going to last, because I have an appointment . . ." so forth.

"All right, thank you, thank you very much. Do you have a present time problem? That's — still getting a read on it. That."

"Oh. Yeah, well, I had a row with my husband last night about Scientology."

"All right. All right, thank you. Check that now. Do you have a present time problem?" You see, the thing is not diminishing. It's not diminishing. And you say, "Well, have you — have you — are you satisfied that you've made a statement of this problem? Is this problem satisfactorily stated to you?" so forth. "That. Yeah, that one. That one. All right, now we're going to check this. Do you have a present time problem? I'm sorry, but that is still reading — about having a fight with your husband about Scientology. All right, that's — that's it. All right. What part of that problem could you be responsible for? Thank you. What part of that problem could you be responsible for? Thank you. What part of that problem could you be responsible for? Thank you very much. All right. Now, do you mind if I check that now? Do you have a present time problem? That's clear, thank you very much, that was the last question." Pssswww! He went that-a-way!

Pcs will actually very obligingly get rid of things, by the way, that they don't think you think are very important. You can actually do a tremendous, you can do a tremendous amount in weighting — w-e-i-g-h-t-i-n-g — a session. You can weight the thing up like mad. you know this pc has got scintillion overts of some kind or another on the subject of "vimenk" because every session he has come up with a goal for life or livingness, "To kill all the women I've known." And you know that he has some overts on this subject in this lifetime. Something has told you this. In other words your most fruitful sources of adjudicating whether your pc is getting there or not is check over his life or livingness areas for his PTPs. Because that isn't life or livingness goals, that's his PTPs. A wonderful list of them. Only never called them to his attention, until all of a sudden, you see, that's really getting there and you're into a Prepcheck of some kind or another, that's your body of the session and all of a sudden, wonder of wonders, he says, "Well, women. Yeah, I suppose I have done a few things to women in my time. I suppose." You can weight it.

"Ah, you have? Well, all right. Very good now. Let's — let's see if we can't check into it a little bit more here. All right, what was the Zero Question?" You've already seen the thing didn't clear. But you weight it, you see. "Women, all right, I think we'll be able to do something about this, now." you look at this very carefully, you see. "Been waiting to get to something like this on your case. All right, now. All right. Now, we want an actual overt. We don't want any of this thinkingness stuff. Now, we want something you've actually done to a woman. Now, give me, give me a good one. Something that's really significant, here. A good one. Good one. What have you — what have you done to a woman? All right. Oh, you soaked one's head in a rainbarrel. All right. Very good. Very good. All right. Uh — what — uh — what women have you drowned? What about doing something to women's heads? All right, that's it, brother. And we've got it now! What about doing something to women's heads? All right. Now, you've got this rainbarrel thing, now. All right, when was that? Yeah, that's good. All right, let's get, let's really get this now. All right, when was that?" you know, important.

The pc will say, "God, I guess I'd better dig on this, you know? That guy is all ready to fire, you know? No telling what's lying underneath this! Maybe — maybe I'd better get interested in this subject after all these years! I thought it was a natural thing to drown women and — apparently there's some social mores has been introduced since I came from Saturn!"

And he all of a sudden starts rolling it off and his responsibility level changes. In other words, by apparently taking responsibility for the pc's overts, just to the degree of being terribly interested and thorough about getting them, when they really got on a hot line, it throws an element of responsibility into the session. They all of a sudden will come up with more data. These are just tricks of the trade. That's just trickery. But it works!

Now, you'll find that your greatest difficulty is shifting from the one-shot over to the process. Now, in a rudiment, you shift — you one-shot, you've checked it out, it didn't check out, for God's sakes, ask it again. Newly. Not on the checkout question. But you know, press it home. Say, "Well, it's dirty," you know. "What was it? That one?" You see? Check that one out. you got the idea? Take three complete cycles at it, at least, if it isn't cleaning before you surrender. And then move over into the process that you're going to do on it, like a startled rabbit and move back in again, you see, as though you have a complete allergy to it and it's totally unimportant to go on running it, you see.

All right, that is quite distinctly different from the one-shot question of the Sec Check form list, see. There you're going to ask him once, it is not clean and, boy, that's the one you've been waiting for. That's — your whole atmosphere is built up into; that is the one. We've been sitting here the whole session waiting for you to come up with this one, see. Now, we take that down, we prepcheck it, we check our What question, boy, this is dress parade, see. And we really clean that chain from one end to the other. And you get terrific resurgences on your pc if you do that. So they slightly bear resemblances to each other but they're different, they're different actions entirely, do you understand that?

Now, what you want to do, is get your pc flying Now, the thoroughness with which you do these various drills gets your pc flying. At first, perhaps you find yourself a bit tongue-tied in doing it. you feel terribly restrained. "Oh my God, I've got to ask the same question as I asked in the first place and the first question I asked was, 'In this session or any time during the last twenty-four hours...' What the hell did I say?" You know? If you didn't . . . Why, I pulled a gag on you last night, I asked the pc what I said, just to give you an idea. He told me and I asked him and he was satisfied. Even though it looks like you make a fool out of yourself, come out right — come out right at the other end of this thing.

And get that down. But a drill is a drill. It is done with great precision, it is done without any variation. But that doesn't say that your ability to talk to the pc is totally curtailed. When you want to find out something from the E-Meter, when you want to get a certain specific thing done in a session, well, for God's sakes, your direct address to the situation with the drill that does it is certainly your best way to make it happen now. Not to vary it off, but that says don't — doesn't say anything about don't talk to the pc. This doesn't say don't ever coax the pc. It doesn't say anything about, "Rule A is to get as inhuman as possible." It doesn't say anything about that whatsoever. Of course you can gib-gab with the pc far too long and you can evaluate for the pc and suggest things to him and wrap him up in knots. But, as long as you don't do it in the middle of one of these drills, when you're trying to find out something, it'll still be all right. You won't upset anything.

And the amount of talk which you have to do to get a pc slid over into the right What question, may be considerable. The amount of histrionics which you sometimes have to exhibit have to be considerable, too.

Pc says, "Well, there isn't anything on that at all. Never had anything to do with little boys in my whole life."

And you say, "Well, this is rocking What's it knocking on? I'll check it again. Did you ever have anything to do with small boys? It knocks. Here we go. I can sit here as long as you can. What is it? In fact I can sit here longer than you can, because you're worried and I'm not. Dig up something, I don't care what you dig up. And I don't care how phony you think the E-Meter is, just dig up something! Ever done anything to small boys, that's what we want to know, man. Go on, talk. I'm waiting Now, there's nobody under the sun, moon or stars that you could tell this to better than to me. Have you ever done anything to small boys? That's all I want to know. Now, I'm waiting"

"Mmm, oh, all right, you've told on one once. That's pretty good. What'd you do just before that, huh?" "Oh, all right. Very good. Now, thank you. I told you, you could. Thanks a lot. Now, let's get busy on this one right now. Here we go," see. We're off to the Prepcheck races.

Takes a lot of steering, takes a lot of doing. You think a drill cuts down. No, a drill leaves you more mind with which to handle the pc. There is the best definition. Okay?

Audience: Yes.

Thank you. Take a ten minute break.