All right. This is lecture number two, 21 August AD 12, the Basics of Auditing. The Basics of Auditing.

Thank you.

Auditors keep asking me for rules, and they ask for more rules, and they ask for more rules, and they ask for more rules, and they ask for more rules, and they ask for more rules. And then they goof in session, and they ask me for more rules. And then they goof in sessions and don’t apply those rules and ask for more rules.

Ah, that’s very good, that’s very good. I thank you, my goal thanks you, my auditor thanks you.

I think it’s about time I gave you a lecture on the subject of the basics of auditing. This is very fundamental material I’m about to give you. It is probably more fundamental than HPA. But, it’s a very strange thing that fundamentals usually come at high ranges of training. In other words, the fundamental auditing can be understood only after one has audited perhaps by rule for quite a while, and he runs into what the fundamentals are.

All right. Got some announcements here right off the bat; we’re going to christen the new building as soon as I get back, but you are going to be using the chapel here in just a few days, as soon as they get a floor in it, why, you’ve got it. And we’ll have a bit of a party when I come back and because we’ll have some space we’ll have some party there for that, now and then, on a weekend. And we’ve also got a canteen planned out there, small size and a few things to make life more livable for you. I am leaving Thursday on the Queen Elizabeth for America and I’ll return here, be back here the seventeenth of September.

Now, that I’m giving you this lecture makes a fundamental change in training. Training from Class Y on up remains completely the same, you see, but training of the W and X units are shifted by this. That is your very low basic training, and HPA/HCA training is shifted by this.

Now, I’ve given you an extra lecture so that your Thursday unit doesn’t mess up. But actually you are only losing two weeks of lecture because one of them is blank anyway. Okay?

Let me tell you what an auditor should be able to do and thereby you will understand it far, far, far, far better. An auditor should be able to get another being to be interested in his own case and to talk to him. That is the way that is. That’s what he should be able to do.

Audience: Yes.

Now rules and tricks and all kinds of things of that particular type – rudiments, auditing positions, various types of upset preventers – all of those things are contributive to getting this fact to occur. But remember they’re only contributive to getting this fact to occur. Your E-Meter is only contributive so far as it applies to rudiments in body of session. Your E-Meter is only contributive to this fact as far as it applies to rudiments. Of course, the E-Meter has an entirely different function, which is assessment. But where you’re using the E-Meter to get somebody into session and to audit him, you continuously go astray and become completely unstuck, because you try to do with the meter what you can’t do naturally, if you ever have trouble with sessions. You’re trying to make the rules and the meter do something that you can’t do. Now there would be some reason why you couldn’t do this.

Is it all right with thee to do this?

That is to say you didn’t want pcs to talk to you or you were trying to make them sane because they were so crazy, or someone’s basic purposes get in his road on this. But some auditors, all they got to do is sit down in the auditing chair and the pc ARC breaks. Well, do you realize that this is getting worse? It is more apparent in sessions these days than it ever was before. It is more apparent.

Audience: Yes.

Why? Why are ARC breaks very often these days so much more catastrophic and explosive than they were perhaps five or six years ago? It’s only been in the last two or three years that you could really make an explosive ARC break, and that’s the period we’ve been using meters.

All right, thank you.

Well, that’s because the auditor can do this interesting fact: The difficulties that an auditor encounters are his own difficulties. And the mechanics he is using force the pc into session with an auditor who doesn’t want the pc in-session or who doesn’t understand the pc should be in-session or why the pc should be in-session. You follow me? And these rules have made auditing so powerful – the rudiments themselves have made auditing so powerful – that where the auditor is actually incapable of getting somebody interested in his own case and to talk to him, and yet is using all these rules to put a person in a state of mind – see, to be interested in his own case to talk to him – but the auditor doesn’t want the pc to be interested in his own case and talk to him. He thinks auditing is for something else. See?

I always ask the kids is it okay if I go, you know and they always think it over very carefully and tell me yes.

The rules drive the pc into session and the auditor drives him out, and it kind of drives the pc around the bend. You see how this could work? Do you see how this could work?

All right. And the Washington congress goes off on Labor Day and so forth and I’ll be saying hello for you and so forth and I’ll tell them how good you are so it’s up to you not to make a liar out of me. Okay? All right.

Audience: Yeah. Yeah. Yep. Yeah.

Okay. We have some new students amongst us. Probably some of the older students are already telling the new students about the-they should have been here in the old days when ... You know, you know. I’ll bet-I’ll bet this has already occurred, „You think it’s tough now, well, you ought to have been here last June.“ I suppose this is already happening.

This is very, very vital. This is very, very vital. How could this work?

All right, we’ve got two lectures tonight-both of them are quite fundamental. The first lecture is the „Dynamic Assessment,“ the other one is the „Basics of Auditing.“ The other one, depending on how embracive the material is and that sort of thing, will be a lecture which you better take to heart because you will be using this very lecture in training students.

You have the auditor sitting there looking like an auditor. The rules trick the pc into being into session. The pc suddenly finds out he’s made a mistake. The auditor does not want to hear what the pc is saying. The auditor doesn’t understand the basics of auditing. The auditor’s just auditing by some kind of a set of rules. In fact there is no auditor, but the technology is sufficiently powerful to create a pc.

But this particular lecture, this first lecture, lecture number one, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course-date?

The technology with the auditor busy auditing – understand this – the auditor busy auditing, you see, with all these rules but not auditing then leaves a pc without an auditor. Do you see how this is? And this can be the most maddening thing, and a pc really doesn’t know what’s wrong. He’s actually – a lot of tricks have been used on the pc to get him into session. And now he’s in-session and interested in talking to somebody about his own case, see, and interested in general; and there’s no auditor.

Audience: 21st, 22nd.

Now, look-a-here. We’ve been blaming meter reading, missing meter reads, cleaning cleans and that sort of thing. This is just another technical rule. Now a man who is auditing or a girl who is auditing by the basics of auditing – understood the basics of auditing and could audit by them – could actually miss reads and clean cleans on rudiments and session material and still have the pc perfectly happy and in-session.

Somebody says the 22nd, somebody says the 21st.

Audience: Yes, yes.

Audience: 21st.

Do you see that? But, a person who is cleaning cleans and missing reads must also be committing this other error of not auditing by basic auditing but auditing by rules which force the pc into session. Now the pc is only facing rules and a meter. The rules may be right, but the meter is wrong. There’s nothing else holding the pc in session. And as a result, you get a very, very upset condition on the part of the pc.

Twenty-first, all right, thank you. Had me mixed up there for a minute. I was in two days. All right, the twenty-first September, October, December, what’s the date?

Therefore, it’s very necessary to know what basic auditing is. And I’m going to tell you the gruesome fate of the Ws and the Xs at the Saint Hill Course, including those who are present at this moment in those two courses.

Audience: August. 21st of August.

The others who have graduated above those courses are fortunate unless they have been peculiarly unlucky – it’s always ”unlucky,” see, it’s never any reason for it – in not being able to handle pcs. And then they will be graded back into this W, X type training.

August, the 21st of August. All right, AD 12. Thank you very much.

The first moment somebody appears here – we’ve got some more auditing space coming up shortly so we can do this – they’re going to start auditing. See? If they appear here, they’re going to start auditing. I’m going to take the meter away from them. They’re not going to have any meter. And they’re under orders to put all of their rudiments in and move on up the line – not with Havingness, see – move on up the line with some salient Prepcheck questions. And they can get out of that unit when they can have all of those rudiments in, checked by a meter, after the session.

The way I start my stories to the children, Saint Hill, England, planet Earth, solar system, this galaxy in this part of this universe, see. Oncet uponet a timet.

We’re going to make some auditors. We’re going to make some auditors. It’s a horrible thing to do to some people, perhaps. Think of it. You’re sitting there and you got no meter, and you say, ”Willing to talk to me about your difficulties?” And there’s the pc, and the pc is in a particularly 1.1 frame of mind that day.

All right, Dynamic Assessment. Now, there has been a considerable advance made and I gave you the Tiger Drill. I told you at the time when I gave you the Tiger Drill that I really didn’t much like releasing it. But you needed it, it’s released. All right. Similarly, you’ve been walking on my heels with Dynamic Assessment. I’ve got the whole story here on Dynamic Assessment all the way down the line.

Says, ”Yes. Talk to you about anything,” you know, the frank-eyed stare of the criminal just after they robbed the First National, you know? ”No, I wasn’t even there. Um – I wasn’t even near the place.” Greenbacks in their pockets, you know? And be able to go through all of those rudiments, do some Prepcheck questions, get those all clean, miss no withholds of any kind, catch all the missed withholds, bring them out the other end with the end rudiments and no missed withholds, and an Instructor can check that all on a meter and find every single one of them in. See?

The first thing you should realize about this is that ordinary Routine 3GA, exactly as you have had it a week or so ago - a couple of weeks ago when I gave you the full rundown on the thing-that is totally valid, there is nothing wrong with it anyplace at all. The ‘Tiger Drill can be a little bit improved by which you null the goals, but I’ll give you that improvement in this lecture.

Well, they can do this, because they’re going to learn the basics of auditing beginning with this tape.

Now, but that’s perfectly valid. You go out and you say to somebody, „Do 850 goals.“ You find the goals list is still charged. You ask him, „Who would oppose your goal?“ you know, and get that four-way list and get, „What goal might you have?“ as a separate list. And you just use all of these things and then you just start from goal one and you go on through and in a large majority of cases you’ll find the pc’s goal before you’ve hit the mark 500. Okay? Providing you do a good job of nulling. You understand that’s a perfectly valid procedure. That’s in the can.

Basics of auditing in rapid fire are very easy to state – very, very easy to state. Why does auditing exist at all? In the last two issues of Certainty magazine, published in, I think, July and August in London, you find a critique of psychoanalysis. It’s an old article – 1956 – but is possessed of several terrible and unavoidable truths of what psychoanalysis did wrong. It’s pats on the back in there for old Papa Freud. I’m not kicking Freud’s head in particularly. But we had to know what psychoanalysis was doing wrong. What did psychoanalysis do wrong?

Now, another one is this: There is a fancy way of finding a goal and this fancy way is by Dynamic Assessment. And this will be done by a Class IV Auditor.

Frankly, no auditing ever existed in psychoanalysis. Nobody in psychoanalysis was ever permitted to be in-session – never permitted to be – but went into session accidentally. And it’s no accident – now this is a figure that you – it’s something like ”All jewelers – jewelers never go anywhere.” You know, it’s one of those horrible, broad generalities.

You could probably find a goal on anybody, even though he was riding 8,785 goal-type case, don’t you see. I mean you could have him run goals and goals and goals and write goals and goals and the paper is accumulating. You use a small shopping cart, you know, coming back and forth from the auditing sessions in order to carry all the goals list, you know. Thing has to be put on IBM microfilm, you know, special projectors to read the stuff off; otherwise, it would take up the space of the Library of Congress or something like that, you know.

Thirty-three percent of people going to psychoanalysts, according to the records in the United States based on the 40s (and these records, you see, are not very public), in the first three months (this sounds incredible) wind up in spinbins or commit suicide. That isn’t given in that pair of articles. But that’s the truth. But the data of why this is occurs in those articles, and any interested auditor’s attention is directed to that, because it was a rather careful breakdown based on old technology as far as we’re concerned – not particularly up-to-date in Scientology. But nevertheless, that told you why psychoanalysis didn’t work: no, the guy could accidentally go into session and he never had an auditor. There he was down the track, and all of a sudden, ”And my mother did this to me.” Motivator, motivator, motivator, you know? ”My mother did this to me and my mother did that to me and my mother did something else to me and awham-ljus-er-ooo-rowrr. And I - I was so abused when I was a little child, and oh, yes, everybody interfered with me sexually. Yes, everything was terrible,” and so forth.

Now, this character-the goal is almost impossible to find on him and that comprises a large percentage of the cases, about 25 percent. You are not going to find any goal on this character until you’ve gone out. So 3GA would find the goal on this pc. You understand that. But it is becoming uneconomical, see, in terms of time. And the difference between these two pcs is specifically and directly this: that the goal of the pc that is going to take you a long, long while, you see, in terms of hundreds of hours of auditing, to find on 25 percent of the cases is an overt-a direct overt-type goal. In other words it’s an overt goal that is directly overt. You see.

And he’s way down the track someplace, and the analyst says, ”Well, it’s five o’clock now. That’s the end of your period. Thank you very much. I hope you do well now, Mrs. Jones. And goodbye.”

And the other is an inadvertent overt goal. You get the idea? The inadvertent overt goal is very easy to find. But the one that is a direct overt goal is very difficult to find.

Just look at that, man. This could happen to a dog, you know? Nobody ever brought them up to present time and squared them around or anything like that. Hypnotists even have rules on the subject. For God’s sakes, wake your patient up and slap him in the face and pour cold water on him. Don’t let him walk out of the door and out onto a busy public street, because they very often do and get themselves killed or run over or injured, because they’re still hypnotized when they leave the session, you see? Well, that’s a hypnotist, see? Even a hypnotist knew. Psychoanalysts didn’t know. I’m not jumping on Papa Freud. Papa Freud perhaps had all kinds of rules about auditing that we’ll never hear of, see? Because he’s not a well-recorded man, if you recognize that. He has fantastic numbers of interpreters. And he himself didn’t write enough or put out enough dope, and he was not really scientifically oriented. He was more mystically oriented.

Now, you think that the wording of the goal is what makes the goal difficult to find. Let’s take such a goal as „Not to be located,“ you see. And you offhand would say at once that this was the most difficult type of goal following Dianetie-phrase reasoning, you see, therefore the goal would duck, whereas as a matter of fact that does not hold true. Those goals very often turn up in the first hundred goals listed, by experience and are not the difficult goal to find.

All right. Well, that just gives you an example. See, they made a lot of mistakes. Well now, do you realize that we could walk forward into a lot of mistakes unless we examine the basics of auditing. What, why is auditing – and these basics are very few. There’s the mechanics of blowing something; why auditing works. Ask yourself that question, that burning question: Why does auditing work? See? There’s such things as asking an auditing question, getting it answered. Now, there’s just that fundamental, you see? There’s make the pc feel better. An interesting thing that gets overlooked – just that. That’s quite incidental to auditing, but is a – is an underlying factor in auditing. I won’t say that I have never given a session that made anybody feel worse. But in recent years, I give somebody a session trying to get something done, see?

The difficult goal to find is the direct overt goal, it’s a direct overt goal. And the pc who has this can be told on the meter because in the process of auditing he commonly has a rock slam turn on which is wider than an inch or two. And that is that pc. That’s 25 percent of the pcs and that pc has a direct overt goal-wide rock slam.

That’s fine. I’m very happy that they feel better, but the point is that, God Almighty, they could fall through the bottom of the chair and break their arm, and it wouldn’t stop me from getting done what I’m trying to do.

You run a little bit of O/W on this pc, you are prepchecking this pc, you get a wide rock slam. Well, actually, this wide rock slam is not because your ordinary pc has done something personally to you as an auditor. You could have this as a freak.

Let us say we’re – let’s say we’re trying to check out some Prepcheck questions and make this per – self – this person is going to stay in session, don’t you see, while we do a Goals Assessment. See, that’s what we’re trying to do, see? Well, I just get in there and pitch and hammer and pound and do everything else, and they go to the end of the session and they feel better – wasn’t even intentional. I don’t care whether they felt better or not.

Let’s say you are auditing your girlfriend or your boyfriend and you’ve got a dial-wide slam starts turning on and they don’t have a directly overttype goal at all. No, they’ve just been two-timing you, that’s all. Now, you get that overt off against you, personally, the auditor. It has to be against you the auditor to come into that classification. It must have been done to you personally, see, and you will get that dial-wide slam. But they’ve done something pretty wild and that they’re not admitting. It’s not something they are just trying to keep you from finding out, you know, nothing mild like this you know, but they were the person who foreclosed your mortgage and threw you out on the street, see. You get the idea, they’ve been having illicit affairs. They have a prison record and don’t want you to know it because if it came to be known of this it would do something to you, the auditor. You get the difference here.

It isn’t that I don’t care whether people feel better or not. I do. But in that particular session, see, they could have – as far as I was concerned – could have wound up at the end of the session feeling like hell and they would have been better off, because we were now up along the line to do our next step and get closer to clearing this guy. You see, it’s quite incidental. But nevertheless, the pc felt better.

Now, that’s what this means. You just get that off. You keep testing for that as a direct overt and if a direct overt doesn’t exist there, you see, or if the dial-wide slam turns on any other, this is a better test, on any other thing than you, commonly, why this is a direct overt-type goal.

You do a Security Check on a pc; the pc feels better at the end. See, this is an underlying thread. This is the golden thread that goes through all good auditing, is the pc always feels better. You’ve really missed the boat if the pc feels worse.

The way to test this is the simplest thing in the world. You say, „What have you done to me? What overt have you committed against me?“ And you fish around for a while along this type of line and you get a slam. Well, that’s just the person has got a fantastic overt against you, personally. But this also can miss as a test, because you might be included in the goal. You got it?

Let’s say we’re doing a Goals Assessment. It’s one of those horrible sessions where we have not found the pc’s goal and it lies somewhere behind us and we haven’t found it out yet. And the pc is just blowing his stack and is upset, and we can expect everything going to hell in a balloon. A good auditor should be able to bring that session off with the pc feeling better at the end: goal missed, everything missed, everything gone to hell, you see, as far as the pc is concerned. The pc feels better at the end.

Now, it is so infrequent that the overt is against you, personally, as the auditor, even though you are living with the person and everything else, it is so infrequent that this is the case that it can be neglected. Now, this is getting much simpler isn’t it? It can actually be neglected in the main course of auditing, but only must be remembered on the off chance that it exists.

Now man, that’s asking something, because the most fruitful source of a screaming ARC break is a missed goal. That’s a missed withhold with magnitude! Do you realize that’s why human beings are so inhuman to humans, just because every one of them has missed the basic purpose of every other one of them. This is what makes your Torquemadas.

And the error that you could make is not very serious. It is not serious at all, you see, because you would simply take a course of action with this person and nothing would work out. You just couldn’t get to first base with anything. Remember that there is another chance that the person has a fantastically direct overt against you, personally. Got it?

Possibly the basic goal of Torquemada was to make people happy. But nobody ever found that out. So he knew how to make them happy, you know? Most of them could be happy if you tortured a few. Ha-ha-ha! You See how wildly astray the man could have gone? Why? It’s a missed withhold. Nobody believes this Torquemada. Nobody believes this fact. He actually hadn’t hidden it – just nobody ever finds it out. He could even have told somebody someplace on the track that he was trying to make people happy. Nobody ever believed him. He never got off the withhold, in other words. And eventually it got to be more and more a withhold and more and more a withhold and more and more a withhold. And we find a book that dear old Torquemada bound with his own little paws, which is in the Carmel library, by the way, off at Pacific Groves, California. It’s bound in human skin. This was the great boy who made Spain safe for Christianity or something. Actually, there is a copy of that book bound in human skin. Interesting. That was our boy, see? Maybe his basic goal was to make people happy, you see? And he turns into a complete beast because everybody has missed this withhold.

But oddly enough you could make up your mind to that far too easily, see. Because there is another factor saving it, you see, that it takes pretty heavy charge to get that much slam, you see, on a needle-takes pretty heavy charge. And even though the person had an overt against you directly you probably could find the goal anyhow. Do you see all the logic behind this? Now, it all sums down to this, that you could sort this out, which one it was; but having sorted it out, you would only know this: that you had to prepcheck the pc more carefully than otherwise.

So, you say – originally, the pc is sitting across from you, you got a missed withhold on him to begin with. You haven’t got his goal or any of his goals, plus you haven’t got any of his overts, plus you haven’t straightened out anything that people have missed on him in this lifetime. Ha-hu! What’s that make? Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha. It makes a cabinet minister or something, you know? This makes a boy. Ha-ha. There he sits. We all know how it feels to be like that, because before we got into Scientology we felt like that. We knew what life was all about. Rowrr.

And now wait a minute, the goal could also be found, the goal could also be found on the dial-wide slam proposition by a Dynamic Assessment even though the person had this much overt against you, providing you could read the person’s meter. You understand, providing you could and of course you can’t. You see, you can’t read that person’s meter. Person’s meter is not responsive. Do you follow this? Do you follow this out?

Now, the earliest part of auditing is the roughest part of auditing, therefore. And an auditor who can handle new cases has to be far better than an auditor who is handling a case who has gone along the way for a while.

Audience: Yes.

Now, this is fashionable in Scientology to believe that Scientologists are harder cases than raw meat. And that’s only because you mainly get Scientologists to audit, see? You really don’t collide with raw meat. Ha-a-a-a! Let’s go out to one of the Johannesburg mines and just tap a black boy on the shoulder, just at random. Let’s not get somebody who has reached for Scientology. He-that already tells him that he’s accessible for auditing. He’s reached!

So although I’m giving you all this logic, it doesn’t matter. I don’t like to give you a statement which is a partial truth, see, so I’m giving you all the data back of this. You could just say for all working principles that any person who turns on at anytime during his processing, a quarter, half-a-dial slam - you do a Dynamic Assessment type goal and you are going to find the goal easily - Got that? If you are able to read the meter at all you can do a Dynamic Assessment, you understand?

All right, we just tap this boy on the shoulder and we sit him down. And we say, ”We is gonna audit you. Ha-ha-ha-ha.”

If you cant read the meter at all and it never responds at the right points and so forth, you must also assume the person has overts on you.

And he says, ”Wus dat?”

But then, of course, what are you doing running a non-prepcheck pc on a goals run? If you’d prepared the pc properly, you would have found this all out anyhow, see. You see how this is? So I just don’t want to give you a half-truth.

Well, that would be an interesting test of an auditor, wouldn’t it? Yet an auditor ought to be able to do that. I’ve put cops, newspaper reporters, all sorts of weird characters into session while being interviewed. And occasionally have them come around and ask for auditing-occasionally audit them; get their rudiments in. You know, that kind of thing. And let me tell you, when I haven’t done it, I’ve usually been sorry.

But for working purposes you don’t have to worry about it-you get any kind of slam, I don’t care if it’s only this wide or if it’s this wide, see, I don’t care if it’s this wide or only this wide or if it’s hitting both pins-you just take a look at that, that has occurred to the pc-just know then that your chances of finding the goal easily, by 3GA usual-I mean the commonest - not the commonest but the simplest method because you probably all will be using Dynamic Assessments on all pcs, see. I’m just telling you the limitation and you just know that you’re in for a hell of a run, that’s all.

But I very often think that the guy is too rough or something like that, or he’s too this and that, you see? He’s too far gone. He’s unauditable, and it’s very hard to get him into this type of session, and I let him go.

But listen, on some of those cases ordinary Routine 3 old-time Goals Assessment found the proper goal on some of them, very small percentage of them. So it probably scales it down to about 20 percent you would sweat for ahhhhh, see and then oh, my God, months later you’d come up with a goal. You get the idea? By ordinary Goals Assessment.

So you see that type of fellow who is dead set against it, and so forth, he could be very rough. He could be very rough to handle. But you would be surprised at who will go into session and who can be audited.

Now, this is the other side of the coin. All pcs can have their goals found by Dynamic Assessment, see. It is not limited to those pcs. I’m just telling you the pcs that the possibilities of locating the goal are very remote-except by Dynamic Assessment. But now on Dynamic Assessment this makes it even more easy. You are talking about a 100 percent of your pcs. You can use it on all of them if you can use it. If you can pull this card trick, why it is the fast road to finding goals. This is the high, fast, Ml superexpress, no crossroad highway to finding goals. See, this is fast.

The Detroit police, one time, came down with a crash on a center in Detroit, and they did the incredible thing, which has never been repeated anyplace, of seizing a whole bunch of tapes. And they had fourteen cops, I think, listening to these tapes in relays down at the police station. And twelve of them resigned from the force. That’s a record, isn’t it? That’s truthful, it’s factual; I’ve had the reports from it now. And that shows you that there are – people are auditable if you approach them right.

It is fast, but it is also fatal if an auditor were to do this on a pc and bleed all the charge out and get all of the data and not turn it over to his next auditor and not sort of pin it on the pc’s lapel, you’ve had it. Just that! You’ve just had it, that’s all. You’ve got to meter this pc now and straighten this whole thing out by recalling the sessions the pc has had to get the data back.

An auditor has got to handle the pc’s problems. An auditor should be able to get a clean needle so a pc can be assessed and made to feel better. I don’t care how he does it. Whether he even does it by Dynamic Assessment, he should be able to do it, you see? An auditor should be able to get things done in an auditing session and not audit for the purpose of auditing.

Now I’ll tell you one of the methods of getting the data back. We knew that a pc who just left here as a second-goal Clear-we knew a pc had run Clear on a goal and we didn’t even have the goals list and we didn’t remember what the goal is. So I told her auditor to do a list of goals on this pc in which this word occurred which we knew the pc had been run on. That was all the data we had, see. And we did a list of, I don’t know how many goals were done. I said fifty. I don’t know how many got done. And then they assessed this list and they found this goal back. Well, of course, it was the most obvious one. Well, we couldn’t take a chance, don’t you see? And we found that goal and then we went ahead and ran and listed that goal and the pc went Clear on it. Don’t you see? The right goal had been found.

Don’t audit to audit. Get things done in an auditing session. That’s an interesting fundamental that is, interestingly enough, missed. People all will sit down sometime, and they will audit. And they audit, and they audit, and they audit, and they audit, and they audit, and they audit, and they audit, and they audit, and they audit, and they never get anything done! Get the idea?

But remember this, you desensitize the case. You desensitize the case terribly by doing this Dynamic Assessment. Do you realize that by removing the charge on these lines, that is the only time you are ever going to get that data at the end line. You never are going to be able to do it again; it is a one shot. You understand, you are going to be able to do it once.

We had somebody – a team going here. I mean, won’t mention any names. I had a team going here for a week. I was saying via the auditing section – I was saying get this one little thing done on this audit – on this pc, because this pc is having a rough time. This pc has continued to have a rough time, and a check back shows that in one whole week of three-hour sessions this auditor was unable to get done this one little thing. There wasn’t anything else to do for the case. It’s just clear up a couple of questions, see, something like that. Had to get it done or the auditor couldn’t have gone on, and yet for somehow or another went jockeying back and forth and just auditing on and on and on and on and on and on. For God’s sakes! Fifteen hours! And never got this one little thing done. You see, so busy putting in rudiments and making out the reports and handling the E-Meter and starting sessions and ending sessions and giving breaks and doing this and doing that, doing this, doing that. And they substitute looking like they’re doing something for getting something done, see? They look awful busy, but you check up at the end of a period of time and you say, ”Well, all right. That’s fine, son, but what have you got done?”

Now, the odd part of it is, is you can’t do it once wrong. You can do it wrong a thousand times and the charge will still be on the bank. You see this now? You could do it wrong all you want to. You are not going to bleed any charge off the bank. Get the wrong dynamic and the wrong item and the wrong this, the case will just simply be a little more ARC breaky to audit, that’s the final end result of that.

And the individual says, ”Well, we – we’ve got the pc’s goals list in his folder.”

But do it right and then don’t make the data known. Do it-do it right, find the dynamic, find the item we are looking for on this Dynamic Assessment, find all these steps and then get a goals list and don’t find the goal. If we’ve gone this far, aghhh, this poor pc has had it. If we don’t make this data known to organizations or auditors or central clearing point for such data, some pc is going to get hung, man, because there is just no recovering it, that’s it. You follow me? You can’t do this again.

”Yeah. Well, did you do any part of that…”

It is something on the order of going up on a tower and pouring all the water out of the tower and there is no pump to ever get any water back up to it again except another 200 trillion years of living. Now, you go up and you empty all the water out of the tower and you are supposed to find the key at the bottom of the barrel. Next auditor comes along he can’t even find the tower, much less the key, if he doesn’t have the data that was found by this, see.

”Well, we didn’t do anything. That was – that was completed before we – we started in there.”

So your auditor’s reports must note with great care-now let me impress this upon you-note with great care whether or not certain phenomena such as rock slam dwindling out was present. And you must know what a dwindling-out rock slam is, because you can do it wrong and have the rock slam occur on the first part of the list and then vanish because you are not on the list. Just like any wrong goal practically will list the first hundred items without killing the pc and even doing him a little bit of good. After that, the second hundred throws him sort of into a state of where he isn’t quite sure whether he wants to go on living or not. The third hundred kills him and the fourth hundred, if you can get him to sit still to run them, of course, you bury him. That’s just that, see.

”Well, all right. Fine. Now have you – have you set the pc up? The pc got a clean needle here in order to be…”

It looks awful good there for a moment sometimes on the beginning of a Dynamic Assessment or list or something like that. We get a dizzzza and we say, „That’s it,“ you know. And we go to the next step and nothing happens.

”No. Well, the pc’s needle is pretty dirty. We – we – it gets dirtier almost every day, I think.”

So you want to make all these things clear in your auditor’s report that you did a Dynamic Assessment and you found a hell of a slam on the „physical universe“ and you couldn’t get anyplace else. See, make that very clear. Or, if you got someplace else that-as you were listing the items derived from „physical universe“ - that you got a dwindling slam or you got a slam which persisted very widely for the first ten items and then vanished and never went down to a dirty needle.

And you say, ”Well, have you prepchecked out the subject of clearing or you got something accomplished that way…?”

Never went down to a dirty needle, you know. Never got smaller and smaller and smaller and smaller and smaller and smaller and mash. You saw one of those on my television demonstration. You saw a type of list and it went bwow and then it didn’t do a thing, see. That was one of those. See, wrong line, see. I went in the wrong corner of the slot. You were watching there actually research auditing sessions, not demonstrations, see. Trying to find out about this. Thought you could learn from it, too. Hoped it would come out all right.

”Well, no. We were going to start on that here next week.”

Since that time I’ve really done some auditing, see. Man, the engrams have been flying, you know. I don’t know how much auditing has happened since you last saw the last demonstration last Friday, but it’s, oh, I don’t know, must be something on the order of about-what is it about thirty-five hours, thirty hours, thirty-five hours? Almost as much auditing as there were days.

And you look at this long span of auditing time and nothing happened in it, see? Nothing got done. They did other things in order to get something done. You get the idea? Other things. They did a lot of other things, but they never got anything done. Seems like whenever they’d start to do anything, they would hit some sort of a via that led them into some other type of action, which led them into some other type of action; but somehow or another they never did get around in the session to asking the girl if she had a missed withhold on her husband in order to cure up these PT problems which have been coming up for the last twenty sessions. See? Never did get around to that, see?

And getting this thing taped out. Getting this thing grooved because - it’s always before I take trips-it was much more vital when I was still riding airplanes.

Now, auditing actually consists of little accomplishments. It’s a series of small accomplishments. It’s getting something done. It is not going through motions.

You know why I’m not riding airplanes? It’s just too much responsibility. It’s not whether you’d lose me, you see, but it’s just my responsibility, see. My responsibility is just a little too heavy. And furthermore, I think that a thirty-six thousand-foot fall is very hard on Rolleiflex cameras. Of course, they are shedding airplanes out of the sky these days something like raindrops in England. And, oh, you have to wear steel umbrellas lately where they are crashing airplanes, you know. But it is awfully hard on my cameras and I know you wouldn’t want me to lose any more cameras. I have lost one camera for the sake of Dynamic Assessment. You actually lost two and we don’t want to lose any more. We can afford so much for research, but beyond that ...

Now, you should be able to get somebody into session without a meter or anything. You should be able to get somebody into session. You don’t need a bunch of – you don’t even need rules or anything. You get somebody in session. How do you do that? A lot of people have this as a sort of a gift they call it. They make terrific auditors. They’ve already crossed this little bridge, so they can get somebody interested in their own case and willing to talk to them. That’s all it takes, see? And that’s without any artificial aids of any kind whatsoever. And they can get somebody in session.

All right. Now, let me give you a packaged statement of the person you must run, in case somebody got lost here or he got confused on it, the person you must run a Dynamic Assessment on.

Now, an auditor should be able to allow a pc to blow something. That means an auditor must permit the pc to talk to him. And you’d be surprised how rare this is. You would really be surprised how rare this is: that the auditor will let the pc talk to him. A large trouble in auditing is differentiating between a Q and A and TR 4 – and this is another thing.

I’m going to hear some-hear some whistles here in a minute and „Oh, I see, oh yeah, what do you know, huh, yeah, that’s so true,“ you know, that kind of a reaction it is. Just listen now.

An auditor must be able to differentiate between Q and A and TR 4. And an auditor must be able to handle the session and do things the pc wants done without Qing and Aing. And auditors who have trouble with this are just having trouble. It’s almost willful. I mean, you have to practically sit up all night to have trouble with this. You have to work at this trouble.

The wide rock slamming needle turning on once in a while or now and then, what-but which has been known to turn on on this pc in auditing. Got it? Under all those classifications, see. It turns on and you’ve seen it. An auditor tells you it has turned on, don’t you see. It’s on a lot. It’s on now and then. It’s on rarely. Just however we’ve learned about this wide rock slam needle, you know, heavy, searching, hunting, banging, crashing needle, you know. Doesn’t matter how we learned about it. You needn’t try to find a goal on that pc by any other method than the Dynamic Assessment method because you are going to lay an egg. You are going to be up there about three thousand goals up the line and you are still sweating. Got it?

I’ll tell you the basic differences between Q and A and doing something. Q and A is a very simple thing; it’s just not accepting the pc’s answer. That’s all a Q and A is. You question the answer of the pc. I mean, how simple can it get? Isn’t anything more simple than that. Don’t question his answers. And everybody comes around and they want to know rules: how you’re not supposed to question their answers. Oh, no! Please. I can’t substitute for somebody’s lack of understanding of anything. Oh, I can do a lot, man, but that’s pretty – that’s asking it, you know?

But remember, don’t worry about it too much if you can only do old 3GA only, see, don’t worry about it too much because a certain percentage of pcs, a very small percentage of those pcs, still have found their goals early on the list. You see that. So you are not taking your life in your hands.

In other words, let the pc talk to you and you’ll never have any difficulties with Q and A. See, people who Q-and-A do not want the pc to talk to them. That’s all. So they use a Q and A to keep the pc from talking to them.

Now, that’s type 1, see, wide rock slamming needle, known, reported, we don’t care how, wide rock slamming needle.

You can just see them sitting there with an oar in the auditing session, and they use a remark – an evaluation, you see, or a comment or a request for more information or – perfectly, occasionally to ask the pc for more informa – you don’t think he answered the auditing question, you better ask him for more information. But usually this doesn’t apply to this, see? Or, the pc is asked another question without any acknowledgment of what he just asked, you see, or he’s asked a question which is wildly off what the auditor was trying to do in the first place, you see? It’s all a defensive mechanism. Or the auditor does something every time the pc says something. You know that will break down a pc quicker than anything else? TR 4 be damned!

Number 2, a pc who is unresponsive to the auditor on the meter. You say, „Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?“

Once in a while a pc gets so hot, so smoking, ruddy hot in the room, he can’t stand it. He can’t stay in session and he says to the auditor, he says, ”Please open a window.”

And the pc says, „Myah, I guess so, yeah I’ll talk about my difficulties.“

And the auditor says, ”Well, I mustn’t Q-and-A. Ho-ho-ho-ho-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha. Let him sit there and roast. Ho-ho. That makes Ron good and wrong, isn’t it – doesn’t it?” See?

And you don’t get any knock on the thing and you get suspicious and you sort of put the meter aside for the moment.

Hell’s bells! Go open the window! Say, ”You feel better now?”

And you say, „Well are there any difficulties that you aren’t willing to talk to me about?“ Just check them over carefully and you might ...

Pc said, ”Yup,” and you go on in session.

„Oh well,“ and he gives you an automaticity. Naaahhhh, you might say it’s a pc in a chronic ARC break state, unresponsive on a meter. The pc is too remote. There is no impingement can be made on this pc.

An auditor who never does anything that the pc wants him to do will drive a pc mad. I guarantee it, man. And a pc – an auditor who always does something when the pc says something will also drive a pc crazy.

Now, it doesn’t matter how good you are, this is a rare piece; not-not too rare but this is a special class of pc. You can never get a rudiment in on him, anything. The clue and key to this pc is everything is suppressed. We’ll go into that later. Pc’s got everything suppressed and suppresses the auditor and suppresses this and suppresses that. The clue to this is you ask the pc-you can find out what this pc is doing and establish the suppressed pc rather easily-and you say, „When I say there, there, there to you, what do you do?“ Because the pc is seldom answering you.

Pc says, ”Well, why were you going over that goal there? I had a little bit of withhold there. I mean, I th – I thought to mys – ha-ha-ha – thought to myself that’s silly – ha-ha-ho-ho-that’s silly; that goal is silly. That’s what I thought.”

„Well, what do I do?“ Pc doesn’t react to steering, you see. You say, „What do I do?“ Pc says, „What do I do? Well, well, I throw aside those that you are saying because they couldn’t be it.“ And you know that’s quite a few pcs. And the only thing you have to know about is the pc doesn’t answer up to steering. That’s all you have to know about it. That takes care of your whole Class II pc here of this type, see. That’s the whole lot. They just don’t answer up to steering.

Well, there’s a variety of courses open to the very bad auditor.

You say, „Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?“ and you get a tick, tiny tick. And you say, „Yes, there, there, what difficulty aren’t you willing to be talking about?“ you know. „There, there, there, there.“ Pc doesn’t say anything. „There, there,“ pc doesn’t say anything. You say, „There, there, there,“ you say, „What are you looking at?“ The pc tells you something. Get the idea?

He can say, ”How was the goal silly?” See? Completely psychotic comment, see? He can say to the pc, ”All right. Uh, thank you.” (”That’s good TR 4, isn’t it? Ha-ha. That got the TR 4 in there. I – you understood the pc thought the goal was silly.”) And he says immediately, jumping out of the middle of his Tiger Drill, ”Has that goal been invalidated? No – no there’s no read on there. Hummm. Wonder why not?”

Now, the normal pc, when you say, „There, there.“

Well, why not? The pc got it off just now. See? This auditor is in a fog, man, if he does a thing like that.

Pc, „Oh well, that, yeah, well, I don’t know what that is, you know. I’ve got a picture of a bed, I don’t know what that is. Oh I know, I know, that was where I murdered the policeman. Yeah, I guess that’s the sup.. .“ That’s that, see, they give it to you, see. Give it to you as a result of the steering.

The pc said, ”Well, I - I think that last goal, ho-ho, the last goal up the line there – I thought the last goal up the line there, the one that you just went across, I - I - I actually thought that would stay in.” You know, the pc has dared open his yap, see? He’s dared be in-session.

This other type of pc never gives you anything as a result of steering. So watch the steering. Keep your weather eye open on this pc. Pc doesn’t react to steering, the clue to the case is suppress and the only thing you’ve got to do with this case is run suppress till it runs out of the pc’s ears and you can make the meter operate, goal or no goal. Got it?

And the auditor said, (”I’ll fix this. Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha. I’ll fix this. Ha-ha-ha.”) ”I’ll check that for you again.”

All right. Now, your next class of pc is a pc who turns on a dirty needle, ever. I see you like that. Now, of course, you will get a slightly tick-tickety needle on a missed withhold, you will get on a Failed to reveal, on almost any pc you will get a tickety-tick once in a blue moon. But a pc who regularly gets a tickety-tick has not got his goal found. It’s not been found, it isn’t on the list, hasn’t been elucidated and is nowhere to be located.

What’s this? That’s using session doingness to prevent communicatingness.

Well, that was a surprise. I told you you’d say ha-ha-ha, I didn’t expect you to laugh. You probably don’t believe me. Any pc around whose needle is going bzzt-bzzt, particularly on the other rudiments, now that’s for sure on the other rudiments, but any pc whose needle you have to work to clean up because it is a dirty needle, you have not got the pc’s goal on the list or the pc’s goal is so buried and so suppressed and it’s been found a long time ago or something, but the probability is it hasn’t been found at all.

Now, there’s two things that pcs do: They ask the auditor to do things which, if the auditor doesn’t do them, the session is just going to go round the bend, let me tell you; and they originate. And auditors who are having hard times with pcs never differentiate between these two facts. They never find out when the pc wants them to do something or when the pc is originating. They can’t tell from the tone of voice or something of the sort. You could do all sorts of weird things, like make bargains with the pc, and so forth. You don’t need to do that.

A good test, which you could never find out, by the way, the data is never available, is the pc who had had a goal found sometime previously; it read with an instant dirty needle. Any goal that reads with an instant dirty needle is not only not the goal, but it indicates that the goal has not been found. It doesn’t exist on the list and has not been enunciated to the pc-by the pc to anybody, see?

The pc says, ”Heh-heh-heh, he-heh. That-that-that-that goal that-that…” He’s pointing at you-your goals list upside down, you know, with his can sort of, you know, ”Ya-aheh-heh, to ca-catch catfish-to-to-catch catfish. I-I cant believe that that’s out. How – how – how can it be out? I’ve always sort of thought of that as my goal, and how can it be out? I - I - I think you’ve missed a suppress or something!”

Does this apply to your pc? Any pcs you are auditing at the present moment ever turn on a dirty needle? Well, that pc’s goal is not on the list.

And the auditor says, knowing he mustn’t Q-and-A, you know, audit by the rules, says, ”All right. Thank you. To be a tiger. Has that goal been suppressed?”

Life becomes fascinating doesn’t it? What does it take to make a dirty needle turn on? Well, brother, it is something like the power or force of Krakatoa which, when it blew its head gave the world red sunsets from the Sunday-Monday line clear on around and back for three years, see. There’s power, there’s force underneath that, see. It is somewhat like trying to sit on a plain lid on a superheated boiler with the steam accumulating, see, and as that comes up and hits the underside of the thing you’ll get this little phenomenon known as a dirty needle, see. It’s not that the pc is feeling upset or something like that, it is that the pc is definitely and desperately suppressed with magnitude and then they are holding charge on that that would blow a nova, see. That’s charge.

He finds *May find this pc hanging by a rope from his neck in the barn, don’t you see? He can’t keep the pc in-session; he keeps wondering why. He’s auditing by all the rules, isn’t he? Never Q-and-A, never do anything the pc says, never this, never that, see? Never, never, never, never, never. Well, actually, basically, he’s not doing any basic auditing. So he just doesn’t know his business. He doesn’t know his basic auditing. He’s auditing by some kind of a bunch of silly rules. Trying to make – you know, he’s trying to make me wrong through having said a rule some time or other.

Now, the more goofy the pc’s needle is, now let’s take an E-Meter Essentials, the more pattern a needle develops, the more charge is on the goals line. And a vaguely-well, a pc whose goal is on the list or a pc whose goal is very accessible or a pc’s goal is very easy to audit or something like this-never gets a tick or a tack. You’d have to put him into the most remarkable state, you’d have to run the most weirdly offbeat processes to finally turn on a bzzt, and then you’d only turn it on very briefly.

This is a rule that you can follow. Every time the pc says something – a Q and A is challenging, questioning the pc’s answer. See? Also doing what the pc tells you to do is a Q and A. Well, that’s for sure, but what’s the order of magnitude here? There’s a hell of a difference between running, ”How many times have you gone inconscious?” as the process which the pc demands, and rechecking a goal the pc thought was in. There’s a hell of a difference between these two things, you see? You sacrifice no session control of any kind whatsoever when just being a civil – a civil auditor and saying, well, cheerily, ”Oh, right – let’s see…” You’re supposed to help the pc, man. Well, let me tell you. You don’t help the pc ever by running his processes. You never help a pc by taking the process he knows should be run on him. Oh, never. Pc doesn’t know.

But this pc who gets a little missed withhold-they want to sneeze and they don’t sneeze, you know. And the needle goes bzzt-bzzt-bzzt, a little tiny, dirty, rock slam, zzt-zzt-zzt-zzt-zzt-zzt. You say, „All right. What withhold have I missed on you?“

The pc knows this is his goal, so the auditor says, ”All right. He knows it’s his goal, so therefore, we’ll take it as his goal and we’ll list it even though we cant quite check it out,” see?

„Well I wanted to sneeze.“ And it disappears, see.

Well, there’s a hell of a difference between that, you see, and just civilly – the pc says, ”There’s a racket out in the hall, I - I just can’t stay in session. There’s just this racket out in the hall,” and so forth.

Why look, a sneeze doesn’t turn on that much dirty needle oh-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho. Uh-uh, takes more than that, man. It takes something like enough force and power to blow the whole planet to pieces, see, sitting down underneath the bank for a person just to think that they don’t want to sneeze and turn on a dirty needle because these are a series of reversing currents in the reactive bank. How jammed in does a fellow have to get?

And the auditor civilly says, ”Well, it will probably be over in a minute. Why don’t you put down the cans. Why don’t you put down the cans and have a smoke.” And they do. And the racket subsists or the auditor goes out and say, ”What the hell is going on out here?” See?

Now, how about the fellow, now that boy-that boy, you could probably 3GA him, Routine and find his goal, see. You probably still could do that rather easily.

And somebody says, ”Well, we’re just changing the mop pails.”

But how about this guy? You get a quarter-of-a-dial rock slam and you say, „What was that, what was that, what’s that, what-what-what-what’s happened?“ You know, „What-what-what’s the matter?“ you know.

And the auditor says – shouldn’t say to the person, ”Well, you must never change mop pails while I’m auditing.” For this is the nuts, see? He should say, ”When will you be finished?”

He says, „Well, I was suppressing a sneeze.“ There is only one method of finding that character’s goal, by Dynamic Assessment, unless somebody has a shot in the pants with luck, see.

Well, the person says, ”Well, couple hours.”

Find my goal the other night, one of my-for that session one of the session goals was „to be lucky.“ And we were. First time I ever put it up as a session goal.

Well, you better find something – do something yourself or find somebody in charge. Let’s get this thing squared, you see? Let’s don’t keep running into this. Let’s not demand of the pc that he stay in-session under such impossible circumstances, don’t you see?

Now, look I’m probably wasting a lot of your time on going into the ramifications of this and that, but I’m just trying to tell you who this is - should be runnable on and who it’s best on. But remember it can be run on anybody.

At the same time, it may be a situation where, well, it’s raining on the tin roof and this gets on the pc’s nerves. Now you say, ”All right. Look. Ha-ha. I can’t do a thing about it,” you say to him. ”I’d like to help you, but I can’t do a thing about it. It’s just a tin roof And this is the only place we’ve got to audit, and there’s the reality of the situation. It’s going to audit on the tin roof.” And then say, ”Well, does it remind you of anything in particular?”

Now, exactly what do you do? Now, let’s go into the one, two, three, four, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang. Well, the first thing you do is you get the pc to write 850 goals and then you strip the list one way or the other. And then you save that carefully and you save any goals list the pc has. You got all that? He does that on his own, bang, that’s just 3GA, see.

And sometimes the pc looks at this terribly reasonable attitude on the part of the auditor, he says, ”Well, yeah. When I was a little kid, I used to have nightmares all the time. And you know, I used to have nightmares all the time and slept in a room that had a tin roof.”

All right. Now, if you are a goals-finding auditor and you just get this pc-you get a pc by the scruff of the neck and you’ve got him-somebody else has prepared him, they’ve prepchecked him and everything like that. You set him down and you just go right in and you do this action, bang, bang, bang, see, you do this action. You make him build the wheel of life, see. Make him build the wheel of life. You give him a lot of samples. You give him a basic wheel that’s got eight parts. That’s just your eight dynamics, see. It’s a lot of little pies can be put into this thing and the reason you use a wheel sort of a thing, not that it is easy to assess, as it is not, but it gives him the idea of entirety. It’s good symbolism. And you give him some sample lists. You give him some samples, you know, like there’s these, you know. There’s sex divides into family, children, marriage, wives, so forth and other things you might think of, you see, other things you might think of, you see. And he can draw all these things out and he can find these things here. Get this?

”Oh, yeah. What do you know? Oh-oh, okay. How do you feel about it now?”

Some old-time Scientologists say, „Well, what are the dynamics according to you?“ And he gives you thirty, bang, that’s items on it. That’s simple. The raw meat pc, mysticism rears its ugly head, see. The whole track opens and gapes, you see. You say, „Do an entirety of existence.“ He won’t even be able to embrace an entirety of existence unless you give him some symbolism of some kind to help him. You say, „This is the whole of existence, this thing. And it’s divided into eight segments here, as you can see and there is all this and that. Complete it and here’s some samples on the back. We’ll give you some of them,“ see. And you can draw one up. Give him a whole bunch of samples. You know, divide marriage up into homes and cooking and, you know, anything. And he just goes ahead and he fills this out. Well, I don’t care whether he does that in session or not, see. It’s a good thing when you first hear of him to go around and hand this to him with all of its directions on it. He’s supposed to complete the wheel of life before he comes in and talks to you, see. You can sit there with your turban on, you see I don’t care whether you call it this or not, I’m gagging to some degree, but it’s just your old eight dynamics, see.

”Well, I guess I can get along in a session,” and he goes on in being audited. It’s handling the pc.

But there is-you want some additional segments. And it’s a good thing to have a whole list of them of various, optional segments that might be part of it according to him, see. It’s a good thing and-but coax him at the same time to believe that there might be a lot more missing. Sort of give him the idea that unless he solves this puzzle, all of his auditing may be held up, which is absolutely true. You tell him to solve this puzzle and get all of it on there, see.

Handling the pc isn’t making him sit still and talk when he’s supposed to and not talk when he’s not supposed to you know? That isn’t handling the pc. The pc, as far as the auditor is concerned, is a rampant reactive bank that is influencing an analytical viewpoint, and there’s limits that you must not go beyond, of course, in helping out. And anything serious like, ”Well, in this session today we’re going to prepcheck.”

An old-time Scientologist has already solved the puzzle. He’s thought over this and he’s sat around and he’s said, „Well, let’s see, there was four in the first book and then there was four more and I think there are also this many and these really divide this way.“ And he’s given you several subdivisions of the sub-divisions, see. And he’s got his own ideas of what these things are and he’s just laid his case in your lap. Savvy?

And the pc says, ”Oh, my God! I thought we were going to…” (This is the roughest part of auditing, is why I’m picking up goals, you see?) ”Oh, my God! I thought we were going to-uh-gee. What the hell! God damn! I sat up all last night doing this list and now you’re not even going to go into it!”

I made a mistake the other day. The reason you didn’t see a good session is because I didn’t take the pc’s list. Don’t often make an error. For Christ’s sakes profit by it.

And the auditor says, ”Well, I’ve got my orders here from Mary Sue to prepcheck you this session.” Gives him Mary Sue, you see, as an auditor. He just backs out of the session totally, you see?

All right. Now, look-a-here. You got this thing now, see and you assess by rock slam and you just go around this thing calling everything off that is on it until you get a rock slam. And you go round and round and round on this thing, see. And it’s just Assessment by Elimination, just that. The ones that are in, you go over them a second time, the same way you do a Prehav Scale and everything else.

No. An auditor on the ball handles that. And he said, ”All right. I would be very happy to go into this. I’d be very happy to do this. However, [LRH pauses] ‘it ain’t reading very well. And some time here in the very near future, we’re going to find your goal and all will be straight, and I’m not going to desert you, and I’m going to raise hell if I get transferred off of you. I’m going to find your goal. Don’t worry about it. From where I sit here, I think we ought to have a Prepcheck, and I think this Prepcheck will straighten out a lot of things and smooth the whole thing out and that’s why I’m doing it. And if you can give me a hand here, why, we’ll get through this thing, and of course the more you help me get through this thing, why, the faster we’ll get through it. And we might even be able to get onto a few goals today. Ha-ha. How about that?”

But the auditing command for this assessment is entirely different than an old Dynamic Assessment. And it is not a common Dynamic Assessment. It’s overts against, so you say, „Think of doing bad things to „ or „Consider committing overts against dynamic,“ see. And you just keep that up, keep that up, keep that up, keep that up. You got it? And „Consider committing overts to sex. Consider committing overts to children. Consider committing overts to marriage. Consider committing overts to home and family,“ whatever he’s put down there, you see, as these sub-divisions, you know. And you go round and round and round on this thing and you mark each one to its reaction-that reacts. But you are looking there, not for a necessarily instant reaction, but one in the vicinity of it.

Zip! Zip! Zip! Zip! See, you get a Prepcheck all down the line. In other words, you use the force of the protest to get your auditing done. A lot of tricks. You could probably learn it by the rules, but actually there’s no substitute for an ability to understand and a feeling of humanness. See, there’s no substitute for these things.

And I’ll tell you something. The more-if his item is on there, you’ll get instant rock slams and if his item isn’t, you won’t. Got it? Isn’t that a nice indicator? I do you a favor every once in a while, see. You are not going to get an instant rock slam if his item is off there. The read is late and scrubby and all this sort of thing. The item is off that list. So if you see that this isn’t instant rock slam, don’t break your heart. Go around on this thing and if the first couple of times around you haven’t got something rock slamming; takes maybe about three times around to do the whole thing till you know for sure, my God is this thing „spirit,“ you know. You hit spirit, it’s bzzt, boom, boom, knack, knack, boom, boom, spurp, spurp, blurp, you know. Like one of these electronic plays you hear, the ions going around inside the tube, you know. Crash-crash-crash-crash, it is unmistakable. It is something like the difference between driving on a rough country road and hitting a tree, you know. You can tell the difference.

Now, why does auditing work? That is the burning question. Why does auditing work at all? Well, you could theorize on the subject of ventilation, and you could theorize on the subject of as-ising. But let’s not theorize. Let’s just take ourselves a look at the basic-basic basics of the basic-basic.

If you don’t get that kind of a reaction after about the third time around and haven’t already made up your mind, you better get him to do the wheel of life again and just pat him on the back and say, „Well, son you haven’t solved this and I think you’d better just take this up and you’d better consider this more,“ and so forth. You can let him consider it in the session, but why waste your time. You could say, „Now, let’s get down to business here. There are eight basic dynamics, you realize that, according to Hubbard there are eight basic dynamics.“ What you’ve got to do is correct him on this because there are obviously more. What are they? Now, you’ve obviously left one out here. Give him another list of things to study like Webster’s International Dictionary, anything you want to.

This guy has been going around haunted for a long time, feeling that the whole nation was after him, and then you find out he was Benedict Arnold, and this somehow or another blows some charge. This wouldn’t be a normal action. You find a goal will blow charge. But actually just finding out the character was, you know, or something like that. This might do an interesting thing, you see, for the case.

Now, there will probably be lots of tricks of the trade as to how to get this wheel of life out of the pc, but everything else depends on making sure that’s complete. Okay? Everything depends, because what you are going to get if you follow through an incomplete list of the dynamics is they will all come down to little dzzzs-dzzzs-dzzzs-dzzzs, and then they all go out and then maybe a dirty needle stays on everything. And then you say, „Well this dirty needle is more than the rest so we will list it.“ And the whole thing lists to a little dirty needle and you get down to the end, you’ve got a little dirty needle and there’s a little dirty needle and he gets a rock slam, there’s a little dirty needle and you ask him a question, he gets a little dirty needle and ... You know.

Well, all right. You’ve gotten something done, and so forth. But how did this do anything for the case? It’s because as long as only he had his attention on it, and as long as he had to keep anyone else from having an attention on it, it bothered him. And when he puts it out where somebody else can see it too, and he can see it too, he all of a sudden sees it too. And we don’t care what other mechanics occur, don’t you see? You can find them all in the Axioms and that sort of thing.

It’s definitely laundry work to hand, see, and all of that is caused because the dynamic that you want is not on this wheel. That whole phenomena is caused by just that. There is a piece of life that he thinks is an integral section of life that he hasn’t put down.

But look at the condition of the guy who is withholding. He is not letting anybody else see it. All right. So he lets somebody else see it. And the other person says he sees it. Then he knows that it has been seen by somebody else and then he waits there for a moment for the roof to fall in, the clouds to collapse, Earth to open or the devil to appear complete with forked tail. What you’re running into is the phenomenon of ”no consequence.” Axiom 10 hasn’t fired. He hasn’t produced the effect he thought he was going to produce. He was always absolutely sure if he ever told anybody about this, he’d, of course, be executed on the site. He can imagine hordes of people swinging in, climbing in through the windows to get at him.

Now, the odd part of it is he may not think of it without some suggestions, so some lists will sometimes be necessary. Maybe if you could divide marriage up into thirty parts. „Which one of these are actually parts of marriage?“ you see. You know, I mean, second dynamic into thirty parts, „Which one of these are actually parts of the second dynamic?“ you know. Let him choose one or two, because he’s going to be too random for us to make a patent basic list. He’s going to be too random.

I know what he feels like. I’ve only hit one of these on the track and it was very funny. It was one morning when Suzie was doing some coffeeshopping, and we were hitting back along the track someplace and I was trying to pick up something of the sort. We’d had a session and I was trying to pick up something. Then all of a sudden I had the feeling like everybody was after me, see? Just for a moment. I spotted it suddenly where it was and where it was on the track and what I’d been doing at the particular point of it, and the feeling that they were still after me was almost overwhelming. It was right in present time, don’t you see? I could practically feel the cops battering the door in there for about – oh, I don’t know – it must have been over a second or so that the feeling lasted, see? I just knew that was what was going to happen. It puzzled me very much afterwards exactly why it happened for about three or four minutes, and then I added it up. It was a scarcity of dead families. Imagine that. Hadn’t seen one for two or three billion years and all of a sudden saw one. Scared me half to death, see? I thought I’d done it! Yaw. Ooh. Horrible! And I didn’t tell anybody I thought I must have done it. Somehow or another I must have produced this action, now withheld, and then I didn’t look at it again. And it was just sensation of this and that. And just the process of ventilation of the thing, and nobody came in the doors, nobody came in the windows. The Galactic Empire didn’t immediately send a despatch and a scout car to have me picked up for the execution, you see? Nothing happened. It’s anticlimactic, whatever else it is.

You’d be surprised but toothpicks will be a necessary dynamic on some pc. Toothpicks, that’s the seventh dynamic, yes. Maybe so, but if it is, man, will that assess out. You get the rock slam on it. It’s an integral part of life. Life consists of God and self and sex and he’s not sure about mankind or species or living things of the physical universe or that sort of thing, but toothpicks, see, there-that’s what life consists of. And he’ll give you this item.

Well, he hasn’t made an effect with that one. So he drops it like a hot potato. And we don’t care why auditing – we do care – but we don’t have to go into why auditing works by what phenomena exist and as-ising and so forth. Let’s not go into the actual complications of as-ising and all this sort of thing. Let’s just look at this one interesting fact: that when the guy has presented something to his own view and the auditor’s view and the roof hasn’t fallen in as a result of it, or if the somatics turned on didn’t actually kill him – and they never do, you know, unless you’re listing the wrong goal – you get a sudden feeling of relief. You have ventilated something. They – various phrases have been applied to this basic phenomenon, you see? What you’ve done is, his attention doesn’t have to be on it anymore because he doesn’t have to hold it in. You’ve freed up his attention is what you’ve really done in the most common action. You presented something to view. The auditor hasn’t knocked his head off.

Now, what do you do with this item? Now, look, don’t monkey with it if you haven’t got that item. That item will sit there and rock slam. You are not going to wear the rock slam out of it as long as the pc stays in-session and he isn’t all ARC breaky and so forth. He can even ARC break and you still get the rock slam. It’s a nice, hefty rock slam. Everything else eventually disappears and the whole reaction goes into this thing. It’s usually a couple of divisions, three divisions, somebody with a decent needle, you see. It’s a nice, nice, heavy atch-atch-atch-atch-ach-ach-ach-ach-ach. You read him the next one to it, nothing. It’s also instant. Bang-bang-bang-bang-bang, bang-bang-bang-bang-bang, you see. „Physical universe.“ Bang-bang-bang-bang-bang. „Physical universe.“ Bang-bang-bang-bang-bang. „Spirits, God, self, sex,“ psst. That’s one time around, „Sex,“ psst. And then, „Physical universe.“ Bang-bang-bang-bang-bang-bang-bang. You got the idea? Unmistakable. It’s not one of these equivocal things. No matter how lousy the needle is, this will do.

Now supposing the auditor did this. The guy says – in this particular instance, the guy says, ”I think I was, ohh, dead family lying there in a log cabin, and I think I killed them. Uop!”

Now, something else I should tell you is it doesn’t matter how lousy the pc’s needle is to do this. It just doesn’t matter. You should get him into session somehow or another, but it really doesn’t matter how lousy his needle is because you are going to address this subject, he’s going to have a lousy needle. Doesn’t matter how clean and whistle clean his needle was before you brought up this nasty subject of the wheel of life, his needle is now going to be dirty and you start assessing it, it’s going to be a mess. You got it?

And the auditor says, ”You what? You murdered a whole family. Mmmmmmmm. Well, I don’t know whether I care to audit you anymore.” See, we let the bird create an effect with this thing, you see? We let him – we haven’t ventilated it. He still has to hold onto it. It hasn’t been presented to view. I mean, it doesn’t fall with a thud. You get the idea? I mean, a lot of things here go on. And, man, that thing will persist like crazy. Let’s just look at that as a fundamental that something happens. That is blowing something. You call it colloquially, ”blowing something.” The pc blew something. You do it all the time. You do it all the time. Well, that’s what you’re describing.

All right. You take that one you found and this is what you do with it. You say, „What represents the dynamic you found (it’s the one that rock slammed) to you?“ And you just make a list of this and you go on down and you make a list of this and this is the way it ought to look. And if it doesn’t look-it can look three ways. Everything is dirty needle. That’s wrong. These items as you list them each one goes bzzt. He says these, you know, bzzt, bzzt, bzzt. It’s undiminishing. It never diminishes, never gets smaller, never gets less. Little tiny dirty-well, you did a lousy Dynamic Assessment in the first place for that to have happened. The dynamic wasn’t on the list. You went and guessed at it out of desperation or you did something corny, see. Something wrong was done at that point.

An auditor who will not let the pc answer an auditing question will not let the pc blow anything. And auditors have interesting mechanisms by which they forbid the answering of the auditing question. They use the meter. ”Has anything been suppressed?”

Now, the next action is, is it goes, (and this is also a wrong one) it goes crash, crash, crash, crash, for the first five items and then you don’t have anything. Big rock slam for a few items and then you don’t have anything. Well, that’s also wrong, so you haul off of that one.

And the pc says, ”W – .” He’s about to say, ”Well, actually a – quite a few things. Yesterday, why, I was thinking about this and I suddenly said I’d better not think about it because I was supposed to study this bulletin, see? And so forth. And there was yesterday and a suppre – . I was about to say that.” See, the pc is about to say that.

No, the exact proper phenomenon is big rock slam, slightly less, slightly less, slightly less, slightly less, slightly less, slightly less, diminishing each item he gives you. He may give you a couple of null items, but the next hot item that is on the list you’ve got bzzt, bang, brrr, bang, brrr, bang, brr, bang, br, bng, tick, tick, nothing. Got the idea? It’s almost like going down a river which has got less and less water in it and you finally go aground when you are at the end. See the idea.

And you say, ”Anything been suppressed in the area?”

In other words, you steer into this thing called the wheel of life-the dynamics-you steer into this thing and you find a channel and you go down through this channel and it’s wide, rock slam all the way down this channel, see. And you get to the end of that list of „What represents „ and you shouldn’t have anything left. There should be no reaction to the question „What represents dynamic?“ There should be no reaction to dynamic. There should be no reaction to anything, don’t you see? You run that totally . . . „Do you have any more items? Is the list complete?“ All this kind of thing, you see. That’s gone, that’s dead now.

And the pc is just saying, ”W – .” He gets about that far.

The list is relatively short. It certainly seldom will exceed, I think you’ll find in actual practice, a couple of hundred items. That would be a rather hefty list, see.

And the auditor said, ”Good. Well, that’s good and clean. Thank you. All right. Has anything been invalidated? Good. That’s good and clean.”

All right and that’s gone, but it sort of dwindled away, don’t you see. It is sort of like going down a cone. It just dwindled away and got to be nothing, see the charge was less and less. In other words the phenomenon of bleeding charge off of this thing is definitely present.

The pc had about ready to say, ”Well, yes. The suppression I just had was invalidated. I was just about to say that, see? But…”

When you see this you’ll say, „Well, how did Ron know that?“ you know. Well, I’ll ask the same question.

”That’s clean. That’s good. Ha-ha-ha. Fine. All right. And all right. Is there anything on this you failed to reveal? That reads. That reads there. What was that? What was that?”

Anyhow, our next action now is a little unexpected. And this is all new stuff now. You take the item, you assess the thing by elimination and you’ll get this nice, big, rock slam back, but it won’t be quite so big. And one of them will rock slam. You do it by elimination, you don’t do it by Tiger Drill or anything like that. One of them rock slams and that thing is it. There shouldn’t be any question in your coco but what-that is it.

And the pc says, ”Well, wasn’t able to re – .” And he’s about to say…

Meantime, you’ve found the dynamic. For God’s sakes write it on an auditor’s report in capital letters so it can be seen, so it doesn’t get lost anyplace, because no auditor coming in your wake is ever going to find it again because you found it by bleeding the charge and the charge is now gone. Okay?

”Well, yes. Well, what was it?”

Now, you do the next action, see. First the dynamic, then you’ve listed the dynamic. Then you assess by elimination on that list and you find this item which is now rock slamming and now you take that item and you say, „What represents that item to you?“ And you do another list and that will do the same thing. That will cone down and it will be rather slight. This list is much less, probably less lengthy, less charged and it should dwindle away too and leave one item in it rock slamming. And maybe it’s the same item you found, but maybe it’s slightly different. In other words, you are asking him to rephrase this item and then you are finding the rephrasing by assessment. You got that? You got that?

And the pc says, ”Well, I - I was going to – going to – to tell you, there’s a – there’s a suppress – press – press read, and – uh-uh-uh-uh…

Now, all you’ve got to do is take a Prehav assessment, the old Auxiliary Pre-have Scale, do it by elimination. But, by the way, all these assessments are, you know, „What represents this to you?“ That’s not dynamic against, don’t you see. You follow this? It’s not considered „Committing overts against these items,“ it’s just „What represents to you,“ don’t you see. It’s as simple as that. You can assess that way.

”Well, what was it?”

But you can also assess by, „Consider overts against these things,“ and you could go down the line that same way, don’t you see. This would again pep it up and that sort of thing, but in actual fact, the thing will just rock slam if you just assess it. You got that?

And the pc says, ”Well, I’m tr – trying to tell you. There’s a – it’s a-s-s-pp-pre-pre-a suppress read, and-an-an-an-and I was going to tell you about that too.”

Of course you can, you know, „Think of committing bad things against these-this item,“ list. You could do that, see and „What represents that?“ In other words there’s a couple of ways you could go about this thing, neither one of them wrong.

”Well, what was it here, something you failed to reveal? Right here. There. There. There. What’s it? Where? What’s it? What’s it? Well, all right. I’ll ask the question again now. Is there anything you failed to reveal? That’s clean. I told you it was clean.”

Now, you can take the old Prehav list and take your final item and that was catfish, see. „Ha-ha. It was fish, see. It was dynamic’s fifth dynamic. What assessed out was fish on the first list and you’ve got fish again. All right. What represents fish to you?“ And the fellow gives you this and that and the other thing and the other thing. And you find out it was catfish, ha-ha-ha-ha, wasn’t fish, it was catfish, ha-ha-ha-ha. Now, you can actually do a Prehav assessment on the subject of catfish. „Should you (dynamic line) catfish? Should you withdraw from catfish? Should you leave catfish? What should you do to catfish?“ You got this? And one of those is going to rock slam and you’ve got the guy’s goal in a bucket.

Well, of course, no auditing occurs at all. You can actually tiger drill with complete impunity if your intention is well understood by the pc. You’re just asking the meter and trying to check and that sort of thing. You’re not interested in getting the thing answered. But there’s even a way to do that, see?

There’ll be a fee for all this heavy work. I mean I’m not going to work for nothing on this. That’s a real fancy Dynamic Assessment. Actually you don’t have to be quite that fancy to come up with the answer, but that’s getting real fancy, see. You not only found the dynamic, but you found the item that represented the dynamic and then you found the item that represented the item that represented the dynamic. That brought you in awful close didn’t it? You practically got the exact thing that the goal is worded with and then you did the Prehav assessment to find the verb. Ha-ha-ha, ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho.

You say, ”All right. On the goal to catch catfish, has anything been suppressed?” And ”To catch catfish.”

You may get such a thing as, „to withdraw from catfish,“ but you know damn well that it is not exactly this type of goal. See, it’s not exactly „to withdraw from catfish.“ So now you’ve got to have a list of things, goals he might have that would express this action, „to withdraw from catfish.“

”Ah, well, that’s – uh…” And the pc is saying, ”Uh – that’s, uh – I - I - I - I had – had – had an answer, you know? I thought of something that’s suppressed. And – and so forth. And, uh – I had an answer there. I felt kind of suppressed in the session, just early on in the session, you see?”

Now, there’s only one hole in this. If it’s an inadvertent goal it may be entirely different. But an inadvertent list, remember, was a non-rock slamming, not upsetting ... You do the same thing and you’ll get the same phenomena and everything else will turn on. It will all go up according to Hoyle, but if it’s a non-overt-no, I mean it’s an inadvertent overt, see, not intentional. It’s just the fact he wants to make steel and you know, he wants to make steel. That’s the goal, you see. And oddly enough they make fish hooks out of steel and he’s committing an overt continuously against catfish with fishhooks, see. He didn’t have catfish in mind. That’s the inadvertent goal-the inadvertent overt goal. He didn’t have catfish in mind, but it’s collided with this thing just in the natural course of the events.

”Oh, you did, huh? All right. Well, I’ll check that. On the goal to catch catfish, has anything been suppressed? Yeah, well, it’s – it reads now. What was that?”

This other goal is to take catfish and do something very overt to them. See the overt-the direct overt goal will probably contain the word catfish and the inadvertent goal won’t. So if the list wasn’t much charged why it’s probably inadvertent.

The pc says, ”Well, I just told you. I mean, I um – umf – give me a session, I felt something, bzzzzz, that heh-heh.”

Now, here is the way you get around that. You give the pc-after you’ve done all this, and you also then do this list of goals and that runs charge out until there is no charge on it. But the fact there is no charge on it is no guarantee that the goal is on that list. That is not a guarantee. You got that?

”Oh, well, yeah. All right. That’s fine. But there’s a read here. And what’s that? This is the one I want.”

It is no guarantee at all. You could actually ask him to do a couple of hundred more goals, just off the bat. He could go ahead and do that.

”Well, that’s the one I’m trying to tell you.”

Here is why you wrote your 850 list. You say, „Now, go back to the beginning of your goals list,“ and give him a purple pencil with red polka dots, see. And you say, „You mark in every goal there that would be an overt-would express anything like withdrawing from catfish, see. You just mark any goal that would even vaguely mean this or any goal that would be an overt against catfish. Any goal-any goal, see, you just mark in anything.“ And he starts in at the beginning and he marks in every one of these goals which would be.

”But well, this is right here. This read. This read. Suppressed. That’s the one I want.”

Now, when you take his goals list to assess it you take the 850 list, the items he’s marked in and run it from the beginning, forward. See how you do that? He did the 850 list before you fooled around with the Dynamic Assessment. But now he knows where the goal is targeted. There is no slightest doubt in his mind about where the goal is targeted. And you know whether the goal is the right goal or not. Of course you know whether it is the right goal at that, but you can get a goal there that-you spend time on these goals now.

”This is what I’m trying to tell you.”

Now, the only other thing that can go wrong with this type of assessment is the fact that there is a hole in the original Tigers Drill that I released it to you. That is, that’s-things can be suppressed below the level of meter read. You got that?

”Oh, all right. Well, what was it? What was it? Go on. Well, say it anyhow, and then we’ll clear this up. On the goal to catch catfish, anything being suppressed? That’s it. That’s the one. That’s the one right there.”

So you prepcheck Suppress. One of the best ways to handle this, the offhand pitch is you prepcheck Suppress with the meter laid aside, see, when I say Repetitive Prepcheck, see, with the meter laid aside. Don’t look at the meter. Look at the goals list and say, „On the goal to catch catfish, has anything been suppressed?“ And you are looking straight at the pc and he says, „Brrjrrnn.“ You say, „Well, answer it, has it or hasn’t it been? Try to think, any suppression on this goal?“

”Well,” the fellow says, ”pft-ft. I’ve told you.”

And he says, „So-and-so and so-and-so.“

”Well, it’s reading on something here.”

Then ask him, „Do you have any additional answers?“ „Well,“ he says, „so-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so.“

Pc said, ”Well, it’s probably an ARC break.”

And you say, „All right, now, I’ll check it on the meter, see. On the goal to catch catfish, has anything been suppressed?“ And only then can you promote a tick.

”Oh, well…” Auditor knows now he mustn’t Q-and-A so he can’t ask if there’s an ARC break, see. This whole thing would go completely around the bend, you see? It becomes a comedy of nonsense – just becomes asinine.

A goal can be so suppressed that the Suppress won’t read and if the Suppress won’t read nothing else will read and you’ve got to promote the read. And when you are checking an old goal and trying to get it alive again, don’t worry about the meter until you’ve got the pc flat on the Suppress on the subject of goals, on the subject of clearing, on the subject of, you know, your Prepcheck. But don’t do these things down the line the way it is in the policy letter, see, and forget to ever go back and check any of these things. When you finish one of these sections on that Prepcheck, ha-ha-ha-ha-ha, you better check all of those over and see if there is anything else on.

The way the mechanism works is every time the pc tells you something, you do something. You never Q-and-A. You could never be called guilty of Qing and Aing, you see? But still, it somehow works out that the pc says, ”Well, at the beginning of the session, I was warm.” And you go open the window. The pc doesn’t quite know what to make out of this, see? He was trying to get off a withhold. You just asked him for a withhold, and he said, ”Well, at the beginning of the session, I was sort of warm,” and the auditor goes over and opens a window. Why, the pc realizes if he’s going to get any auditing, he’d better not talk to this auditor. See that? The auditor never quite differentiates between these two things: of the pc asking him to do something and the pc getting off something. That’s because the auditor doesn’t understand what basic auditing is – the mechanism of blowing something. That’s why auditing works. He never reads this difference in the pc.

In other words, you’ve got to clear each one of those sections, not just run over it indifferently, one item at a time. Let’s find out if there is anything else on this thing. Do a fast check on them after that. You find out this thing has hotted up and the suppress may have hotted up on you again because suppress is the only tricky button.

The pc is saying, ”Oh, my God! I just suddenly realized something. I have been withholding a Suppress here for the last four goals you were nulling.”

Don’t worry about the rest of them being tricky. You’ll find the reads on those, but you won’t find the read on Suppress. If you don’t find the read on Suppress you can’t get the read on the rest of them. You got that? And that’s the only hole in goals finding and that’s how your goals disappear and that’s how goals can’t be found and that sort of thing. You got it?

Well, you got an interesting question there. That suppress is a pretty tricky button. This pc gets this off – , he tells you. You say, ”Well, all right. What is it?”

Now, on the beginning of any goals list by Dynamic Assessment and so forth, you make awfully sure that you have the pc’s goals that have been found before. Put those to the beginning of the list. I don’t care who prepchecked them. I don’t care what he did with them. I don’t care anything else.

And he tells you what it is and so forth. ”Well, I don’t know.” You got to put in an R-factor if you’re going to do anything about it.

My own goal was found last June and has sat suppressed ever since. And five wrong goals were found on top of it, one right after the other. And only by accident after Dynamic Assessment did that goal blow into view again and of course it was the perfect overt. It was an inadvertent overt. That was why it was lying there sleepily. You follow this?

You say, ”Do you think it affected those next goals?”

Now, I don’t care whether you do the Prehav assessment or not. I don’t care whether you do that or not. It is just another string to your bow. Got it? Just another string to the bow. That will give you the item, the goal is an overt against. But an inadvertent overt goal won’t have the item mentioned in it. And it might be far wide of the point, too wide for the pc to guess. So that is why you go back over the first 850 goals and have him mark in those that it would be an overt against whatever the final item was.

”Yes. Well, my mind wasn’t on them at all.”

He may start marking in too many, but don’t upset him too much about it. The probability is, is the goal is in the first few pages. Maybe he’s only marked in twenty on the first-in the first 300 goals, you see. That’s a lot different than doing 300 goals isn’t it? See, you are saving time all the way and you know what the goal is-looks like. See, you know about what it is.

”All right. Well, do you think it might be a good idea if we covered those again? What do you think of that?”

The pc may badger himself around all over the place trying to find out what this goal is, but you can locate the goal.

He says, ”Well, yeah. Yeah, I better.” Well, that’s because he suddenly caught himself on a mistake. Don’t you see? This is – you’ve got to have an ear for this sort of thing.

Now, there are probably other tricks by which you can define and make the goal definitive and so forth. Those tricks can be developed from time to time. Ideas can come up about this. We know exactly what the anatomy and structure of goal charge is and exactly what it leads down to. Now, you can probably do a tremendous number of things with that, but that is Dynamic Assessment as it exists right now here on the 21st of August, AD 12. Okay?

All right. Here’s an entirely different situation. Pc said, ”Well, I just suddenly realized that you asked me a Suppress question a minute ago and I’ve been sitting here with an answer to it. Well, I’ve been holding my breath every time you said anything because I was afraid my breathing was reacting on the meter.”

Thank you.

And the auditor says, ”All right. We’ll check that Suppress question again.”

Get the interesting dividing line, see? Well, the basics of auditing include the mechanism of blowing something. And if the auditor always does something or Qs-and-As and does – says something else and never buys anything from the pc, nothing is ever blown. And if the auditor never, even on a Tiger Drill, makes any allowances for the pc to say things to him and never sets it up in the session so the pc can talk to him, why, of course, the pc never blows anything. And after a while the missed withholds stack up, stack up, stack up, and it becomes painful because auditing works because the pc blows things. And the auditor is actually preventing auditing from working. Of course, the pc will stack up and almost blow his head off like he was an active volcano. It’s just the force and power is built up on this thing. Oh, the pc must be permitted to blow things. It’s as simple as that.

The answer to Q and A and TR 4 and all these other interestingly involved and technically difficult questions is whether or not the auditor is actually auditing the pc or going through a drill, see? That’s the difference. And inevitably, if an auditor is having trouble differentiating this way and getting into ARC breaky sessions, they’ve got something that is – they’ve got a bug on preventing the pc from talking to them. Auditing can still happen under these circumstances, but it’s rather rough; auditing can still be very successful under these circumstances, but it is tough auditing.

The more the pc is in-session, the more understanding and the less antagonism the auditor has for the pc, the more the pc can blow, the easier it is for the pc to go over the road he’s going over, the more auditing occurs per unit of time. These are the basics of auditing.

And actually, an auditor ought to understand why auditing works; ought to be perfectly willing for the pc to talk to him and also realize that the pc’s havingness will run down and right on out the bottom if the pc talks to the auditor too much. Because then the auditor isn’t really being talked to. He’s being talked at in some fashion.

You don’t let a pc go on for three-quarters of an hour telling you about how his mother caved him in. You can’t. You’ll kill him.

You see these little dividing lines? An auditor has got to know these things. And an auditor has got to know that when he asks an auditing question, he’s got to get an answer to that question, not some other question. And when that question is answered, by God, he’s got to buy the answer to it. And if he finds himself in the embarrassing position of the question having been answered, but he didn’t buy the answer but questioned it, of being graceful enough and willing to admit that he is wrong and apologize to the pc and say, ”I’m very sorry. I didn’t realize that that answered the auditing question.” You know, bang, bang! Everything would go back into shape, and he keeps going.

If the auditor explains to the pc why he didn’t think that was an answer to the auditing question and how he was really right in challenging the thing, of course, out goes the session because he hasn’t let the pc blow anything.

And your pc feels better as he goes along. Now, auditing is validated for him. He becomes more willing to be audited, less defensive. If he feels worse all the time, he becomes harder to audit. And you try to get a pc with a lousy, dirty, scrubby needle that’s going bzz, bzz, bzz, and you’re trying to read through this thing and you’re trying to do this. Now that you got a Dynamic Assessments, that cures it. You see? But oddly enough, if you’re a good Prepchecker, you can also cure it. And oddly enough, you can actually assess on old 3GA on a dirty needle that you can clean. And you clean that dirty needle. And you should be able to do that. You should be able to clean up a pc’s needle slick as a whistle. See? He’s right in the middle of a rock slam. You should be good enough that you just clean up his needle, bang! You know? You ask him this, you ask him that, you ask him the other thing. Say, ”What does that refer to?” Bzz. Boong! Bzzz. Bong! Got a perfectly even needle. You understand?

There’s no excuse for trying to ask questions across a dirty needle. Of course, I will admit that I have spent as long as two hours, two hours and a half of a person’s auditing time just shopping around for, ”What the hell is this all about?” And then all of a sudden, why, strike the jackpot. Say, ”Oh ho-ho, I get it. Yeah. I got it now.” And ask the series of questions, straighten the thing out – pc assessable. Got the idea?

Pc would be prepcheckable on the thing. What turned it on? You must have turned it on somehow. It got turned on somewhere by something. An auditor ought to be able to clean up the pc’s needle. Just similarly, an auditor without any meter at all should be able to sit there and just bleed every single one of these Prepcheck questions dry as a bone without another tick on them by just looking at the hunted look in the pc’s eye, by looking at this, by looking at that; just watching that pc operate and keeping that pc talking to him until the pc looks nice and comfortable and relaxed and happy about that particular zone in question. You see? You ought to be able to do that.

You can’t assess goals without a meter. At this stage of the game, you can’t do it. Impossible! Period. Don’t ever try it. You’ll get into trouble, man. You’ll have a pc so damned sick, he won’t know whether he’s coming or going. You’re burying that boy, you understand? But you sure should be able to put a whole Model Session together without a meter within a mile of you – sensitivity to the pc. Don’t get dependent on this meter to put a pc in-session. You should be able to – a good auditor should be able to put a pc in-session, put all of his rudiments in, make the pc happy as a bird, get a lot of things done and so forth. We did it for years with lots lousier technology than we got now. Ah, what’s all this dependency on a meter? You put the mechanics in and take the human being out. And you should be able to get things done in an auditing session, not just audit for the purpose of auditing. And you ought to be able to allow the pc to get well, the pc to get up, the pc to have wins, the pc to do this.

If rules are so much in your road according to your understanding of the game, then you probably don’t understand the rule. It isn’t the rule is wrong. You just don’t understand it. And it must then follow, immediately, that you’re using the rule to audit the pc. And do you know a rule will never acknowledge anything? You could set a rule down in front of the E-Meter, and it would never clean or clear anything.

Fundamental auditing, basic auditing simply consists of getting the pc in the session willing to talk to the auditor; and then, for God’s sakes, let him talk to the auditor. And then be able to use the technology that you have in front of you to make himself feel better and put him in-session, square him up, bring him up smiling at the other end. You should be able to do that.

Actually, you should be able to audit a pc without a meter for an hour and bring him up at the other end – Model Session throughout – bring him up to the other end, have an Instructor check the thing and find – with a very sensitive meter – and find every rudiment in, neat as pie. You understand? If you could do that, you can audit.

And today I don’t mind telling you the reason I’m giving you this particular basic data has really nothing to do with the fact that we are making bad auditors. We are not. It has to do with the fact that 3GA requires a superlatively good auditor. It’s not going to get easier. I don’t expect it to get easier; I expect it to get shorter. You understand? But the more you shorten it, the more tension you put on the pc. So the more you shorten it and the faster you do it, the better you’ve got to be as an auditor. So I have been studying basics. And that’s what they amount to. And, actually, auditing consists of no more than I have told you in this lecture. Interesting, isn’t it?

So wherever we see ARC breaks flying, we don’t necessarily suppose we’ve got a bad auditor on our hands. But where it happens all the time, then somebody is auditing ”by the rules” but not sitting in the auditing chair. Something or other – the rules are somehow being misused to keep the pc from talking to the auditor. We don’t care about an ARC break, and a pc blowing his stack and going to hell in a balloon. His goal has been missed, and everything has gone to hell and so forth, but an auditor ought to be able to sweat it out one way or the other and get the job done. We don’t care about that. We’re talking about a persistent, continuous action of the pc always feels worse, the pc always feels more upset, we never get anything done in a session, the pc is always nattering, this, that and the other thing. You got that sort of thing. We’re talking about that kind of thing. And that auditor must be auditing by the rules, man. He must be auditing ”by the rules” on a sort of a white mutiny basis, you know? He should never Q-and-A. The pc says, ”You know, there’s a tack in this chair and it hurts, and that’s what you’re getting on the meter is this tack in this chair.”

And the auditor says, ”I mustn’t Q-and-A,” and never removes the tack. Three sessions later – this has been going on for three sessions – why, he has a dirty needle and complains to the Instructor the fellow was unauditable. See? Well, I don’t expect things like that to happen around here. Okay?

All right.

Thank you very much.