Okay. This is the second hour of the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, 21 June 62.

Thank you.

What question would you like to ask me about Model Session? Meryl?

First lecture, June 21st, isn't it? Saint Hill Special Briefing Course.

Female voice: I wonder about something on one of those questions — what was it? What question have you failed to answer?

Okay. Tonight's lecture is on the subject of Model Session, revised. It's revised and amplified in Saint Hill lecture 21 June 62, the one which you're about to hear. Oh, you didn't get that as a gag — boy, you're really slow. Look, come up to present time. Come up to present time.

Yeah?

Now, if you have any confusion, if you have any confusion about this Model Session, it's actually HCOB 23 June*Editor's Note: HCOB 23 June 1961, MODEL SESSION REVISED, was later cancelled by LRH due to changes in the exact procedure. The theory and practice of Model Session is given in the lecture. The current HCOBs on Model Session are in the Technical Bulletin Volumes., is the date on it. Actually, it's HCOB 21 June, but it's marked 23 June. Why? Well, because 21 June is today's Thursday bulletin. But this didn't go out as the Thursday bulletin. You see? It's HCOB 23 June, as a special designation. And that is MODEL SESSION REVISED. You're going to live with this one for a while. And you're up against throwing everything away that you knew, you see, because Ron has changed his mind again.

Female voice: I thought that you should never ask a pc a question that didn't give him the possibility of just saying "no." Like, "Have you failed to answer a question?" Remember, like in old Sec Checking, you know, you never just say, "Well, what did you steal ?" You say, "Have you ever stolen anything?" So he always has gotten "no" for an answer — a choice. Do you see what I mean? Rather than the question simply implying that he must have done it.

You most — you hear Ron has changed his mind again most prevalently on people that didn't know there was any stable data in Scientology, you know? If you hear somebody say that sometime, ask them for, "What's Axiom 3?"

Well, that's your second question.

You know, "Axiom? What axiom? Axioms?" We're talking about Scientology. You know? They actually don't know their basics.

Female voice: Well, then, how exactly does the first one go? Unlike this "failed to answer a question or a command."

The fundamentals we're working with remain relatively unchanged. But the further we reach into the never-never land of aberration and life and the mind and this universe and God and beings and catfish and kings and coal heavers and other odds and ends which you find about — not only in your reactive bank but in the actual universe — the smoother we can make it.

"In this session . . .," what is it?

And this Model Session actually will make auditing far, far, far, far, far, far — the last far has an underscore under it — smoother than you have seen it going before.

Female voice: "In this session, have you failed to answer any question or command I have given you?"

Now, Model Session made auditing much smoother. And the earliest Model Sessions had separate processes. In other words, you did a rudiment and then you did a process to straighten out the rudiment. And all to date did this. But this Model Session is remarkable in this one aspect: It — that is, the only extra process which you need is the pc's Havingness Process. And because that has to be found and tested on the meter, it of course can't be a canned process.

Female voice: That is the . . .

The rudiments, whether the beginning, middle or end rudiments, used in this Model Session are themselves repetitive processes. You ask as long as there is an instant read on the needle. And the moment you get a clear reaction to your question, that is flat and you go on to the next one. you don't ask the question one more time. you only ask the question twice or more if it had an instant read. you ask it merely once if it didn't react.

"In this session, have you failed to answer any question or command?" is the way it goes.

Now, I refer you to HCOB of the 25th of May for what we mean by an instant read. And the — let's not let this one get by us again. Eleven-tenths of the auditors in Australia, I just learned, were trying to clear prior reads off the meter. So that would have been a horrible mess, man!

Female voice: Well, that is still just the way it is then?

The one that makes the pc feel good, the one — you know, that's the only test as to what's right — the one that makes the pc feel good is the instant read, just like it's described in 25 May 62, see? If you clean off that end instant reaction — . Let's say the sentence ends with the word "cat," and you want the instant reaction which begins with the enunciation of a "t" on the end of "cat," see? If you have an instant reaction which begins with "c," that question is null.

Yes. So. . .

You say, "Well, what about it if the pc thought of it before you got to the end of it?"

Second female voice: Yes and then if you get a read, then use the second one.

What do you mean auditing a pc that much out of session? That is just all there is to that. I mean, it's just . . .

Yeah. Your second question is not asked unless the answer is "Yes."

You say, "In this session have you invalid — ?" Read. You say, "Well obviously, the pc knew what I was going to say, so the pc knowing what I was going to say, of course you can invalid — you get a read — that's so — figure-figure-figure-figure-figure, screw the head on a little tighter! You know, get the azimuths out . . ."

Female voice: I see. Yeah, I get that.

Oh, man, that is wrong! It's only one — the only read is when you have stopped speaking and you get a reaction. And if you think maybe the pc didn't understand it, you read it again, grooved. But that would be an equivocal read — that would be it was reading almost on the end, but you were not sure. was it on the end or latent? You were just a little bit asleep at the moment the thing clicked. That's an equivocal read; meaning which, you don't know whether it was which or which. Was it plus or minus? Did it react or didn't it react? That's an equivocal read and you must establish the actual read.

Now, the trick is here is your pc — I should comment on this — is your — the auditor always thinks that the — he builds up a facade here that the meter answers for the pc on the yes and no. And you'll find out in normal auditing that your pc will — after they've been audited on a meter for a while, they begin to wait for the meter to answer anyhow. So — they do, to find out whether it's clean or not clean, which is perfectly reasonable. And that question which you just asked me is not answered unless the question was "Yes."

Sometimes the pc is so busy figure-figuring reactively — got some circuit going, you know, making coffee or something — and you got this circuit going and it isn't true that the pc knowing the question will react to the question. If you think this can happen, then you think you are auditing the analytical mind. Then you would also think that the pc knew the answer when you ask him for a withhold and therefore you'll never search for the withhold. Because you think you're auditing a knowing being. And you're not auditing a knowing being.

Female voice: I see. Mm-hm.

So therefore, a prior read which would read on, "In this session have you inva — ?" Read, see. you say, "Well, the pc knew what he was going to say, you know, and so therefore, of course, the pc anticipated the question! Ha-ha. Ha-ha-ha. All right. Oh, I'll just find out what he invalidated this session."

Okay?

About a half an hour later of tugging and pc out of session and everything all messed up like fire drill, you eventually conclude that there wasn't — there wasn't anything on it. No, the pc was just making coffee in the reactive bank at that moment, don't you see? What you said had nothing to do with any reaction on the meter, see? Something else was going on. It does, too. Pcs' hearts beat. Pc with very low havingness, eyeballs click to the right — the meter will fall if the pc's havingness is in horrible shape.

Female voice: All right, fine. Thank you.

Some pc all of a sudden — you'll see some pc, some pc whose havingness is lousy and so forth — they'll be sitting up this way in the chair, see, they'll be sitting up this way holding the cans and all of a sudden the meter will be reading at 4.0, see. And they'll decide, well, they're not comfortable that way so they're going to sit this way now, see, and the meter will read at 3.0. You say, "What the hell went on here?"

You bet. Yes, Ian?

Well, nothing went on here except the pc is such a mass that the fact that the pc moved the body put the mental masses in a different place, so you got a different read. That's right, see? You got enough black masses which are pasted down against the pc's face, he can wiggle his nose and he'd get a read on the meter, see?

Male voice: on "Failed to suggest," Ron, if you left out the middle rudiment, is there an optional one you can use?

Somebody's showing you that they can make an E-Meter read, why, laugh at them, man. Because, yeah, you can make an E-Meter read any day of the — you like — they'll go — and so on. But you have to have the GPM right down on you, man. And your havingness just has to be so that it's like strung wire. The pc's nerves, you know, you strike on him and he goes high C. You could play him in a symphony orchestra if you could get him under your chin. Havingness can run down to a point where a physical reaction causes an action on the meter. That will come up here in a moment; I'll discuss that a little bit further.

That's a prep.

But the point I'm making is, is you want an instant read. And it's the one which finishes up with the auditor's major thought. And it is right on the end, and it is no place else. It isn't prior to the end, it isn't after the end. It is right on. Invalidated. All right, a "-ted" read. See? The read starts with the last "-ted." The read that started with the "inva-" is invalid.

Male voice: You can't use it in the middle ruds?

Don't compromise with that. Don't think you all of a sudden have observed something that I haven't seen. Of course, there — you could be using some type of meter — you could use a meter with a built-in lag that is reacting to the next-tothe-last question you asked. But that isn't true of a Mark IV.

That's a Prepcheck. If your pc is busy and consistently and continually desiring to suggest something, you've got a point now which is an interesting point of decision. See? It was one of these optional questions. If this is always hot on a pc, your pc is always about two-thirds out of session, this could be used, don't mistake this. If it were to be used it would be the first one. You'd say, "In this session is there anything you have failed to suggest, suppressed?" See? "Invalidated, failed to reveal or been careful of?" But you'd find out that this rudiment would tend to drop out even in one or two sessions. Because it is so symptomatic of somebody being way out of session, it is not something that puts a person well into session, it's simply a symptom. The rest of the rudiments are not symptoms. They're ills in their own right.

Now, there's no compromising with this. The most amazing precision occurs on that — most amazing precision. The pc doesn't get it telepathically into the reactive bank before you say it. Nothing else is happening here. you say, "In this session, is there anything you have invalidated?" Read, see? There's no lag between the “-ed" and the read. you see, it happened simultaneously. And here's what's weird about it, is it always reads exactly in that fashion. If it reads late, it isn't a read. If it reads "invalida-," it isn't a read, don't you see?

Male voice: I have that but I was thinking . . .

You know, some of you, sometime or another, are going to find somebody around who hasn't had the benefit of your training; they're going to come rushing up to you and they're going to say, "But the pc always has present time problems." And you say, "Well, let's see." And you put the pc on the meter and you say, "Do you have a present time problem?" And you're going to find that the needle starts falling at the exact "e" end of "time" and that the pc has a difficulty with time. He'll say, "I never can get him into session."

You always use it on a prepcheck.

Well, the more you louse up the principle I've just been talking to you about, the more prior reads you start monkeying with, the more latent reads you start monkeying with, the more out of session your pc's going to go. So an improper use of the meter and reading against this Model Session can dirty up the needle and drive the pc further out of session than not using it at all.

Male voice: I was thinking chiefly in terms of auditing people like the mob we have here, professional auditors.

Do you understand? This is one of these things that has to be used properly. If used properly, it's marvelous. It's something like gunpowder. You stuff it into the right end of the musket and point it in the right direction and it is marvelous. But you use it to light your pipe with and it blows your silly head off. And that's very true of this Model Session. Therefore, it has to be used properly.

Yeah. Yes, yes. It is a bit trickier to put a professional auditor into session than it is raw meat off the street, see. It is trickier. There is no doubt about this. But I wouldn't Q-and-A with this fact. I'd just go ahead and put them into session. For instance, Kay Minor, last night — where is Kay? Oh, there she is. She'd evidently been run lately with the rudiments out. See? So she was sitting there a little bit — about half out of session, see, and toward the end of it she started to go into session. See? I think she would agree to this. And I don't know if she felt like that or not. But if I audit her again, she would be taking it much easier. See, audit her again with all the rudiments in. And then if I'd audit her again with all of the rudiments in, the test would have been made, is: Yes, I dare go into session with this auditor. Get the idea?

Now, it is of enormous benefit to have a repetitive command Model Session. That's very enormous as a benefit. It can't be exaggerated because it isn't changing a process on a pc all the time; you just keep asking the same question that you ask over and over and over and you'll get the same — you get the thing cleared up that you ask for. You're not then clearing up some variation of what you ask for. Do you see? "Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?" Well, you'll finally clear that up, see, because you're just asking him this. But the process is, "What difficulty aren't you willing to talk to me about?" And that's a process, bang, bang, bang, bang, you see? But, of course, you ask the whole thing through each time.

Now a professional auditor is to that degree harder to put into session because he knows what is being done right or wrong It isn't that he is a tougher pc. He is not. Don't ever make that mistake. He's just tougher to get into session.

Now, it has this beauty, is there's no variation in what you do. I mean, if you don't get a read you go right on from the point you didn't get a read. And if you do get a read you finish the sentence. If you ask him the question and get his answer and check it on the meter and you ask the question, and you know, go on and on. I'll give you some little examples of this.

Why is he tougher to get into session?

This has another virtue: It is terribly easy to do once you find out that it works. It's very easy to do. It is so easy to do that nearly everybody starting in to do it has to do something else, because they know that anything that works this well couldn't be done this easily. It has to be done hard.

Because he has a higher criteria. His critical sense on the idea of auditing — not critical as a derogatory thing — but he has more information to be critical about.

Now, if you think — if you think that the moisture has to come exuding from your brow and splattering on the glass of the E-Meter for you to look like you are auditing, go back on the track and pick up the old strong-man act that you used to do, you know? Where you took these ten-thousand-pound dumbbells, you know, and strained and your muscles quivered, you know, and you lifted it up over your head and the whole audience could sit there and say, "God, that's hard to do! What an expert he must be! Look how difficult this thing is!" See? And they keep talking that way until some little girl comes by and picks up the ten-thousand-pound dumbbell and puts it under her arm and clears up the stage and walks off. you see?

The funny part of it is, is the raw meat is just as critical, but never says so. you make mistakes and because Model Session is geared exactly the way it's geared, you'll get the mind reacting reversewise.

Yeah, everybody has to some slight degree a desire to demonstrate that they are an expert because what they are doing is difficult. Everybody has that desire to some tiny degree.

So you can expect that a professional auditor is harder for an auditor to put into session, perhaps in the first one or two or three sessions.

The real experts are the ones who fool you. I imagine if you were ever down and saw Sterling Moss in his heyday and you got a close-up of that boy driving a car you would have had the impression: Anybody can drive this car! Just anybody could drive that car. Anybody could drive that well. Anybody could drive a race, see. Gravel shooting out from underneath the tires, you know, and everything going on, but you just say man, that's just driving a car, you know? An old lady driving down Main Street, you know? Nothing to it.

Now, if a professional auditor is almost impossible to get into session, then he's being handled with all the rudiments out. In other words, nobody is actually getting the rudiments in.

And the fellow that came in last in that race, his knuckles — the bones of his knuckles have burst through the skin, you see? He has sunk his teeth — upper teeth into his lower teeth, you see? His eyes are bugged out three-eighths of an inch. you say, "Man, he's really driving." He came in last, too.

So, you've got some student now in HPA. He's the third week and he thinks, actually, that you read the thing off the tone arm. If you don't get a tone arm shift when you ask a rudiment, why, then it's clean. Well of course, a professional auditor can be audited out of session to session w, out-of-sessionness, you see, much more rapidly than anybody else. Because he knows this is so dead wrong and he knows he's liable to be gotten into trouble. So his wariness goes up. See?

Well, the funny part of it is the mark of an expert is ease — always. Now, remember that because you're going to fool students; you're going to fool people. They see you give an auditing session and it looks very, very easy. So they're going to go through this nonsense — all of you — some of you are going through this nonsense, all of you will go through this nonsense or have gone through it — and that is to say when you first sat down in a co-audit or to audit or took the book, there was nothing to it at all. you simply sat down and you said a few things to the pc, the pc answered these things and bong, and you got a good result. It's fantastic, you know?

Does that answer any part of your question?

And you go in to co-audit, you'll see a lot of birds sitting in co-audit, you know, and they'll be saying, "From where you could communicate to a head? Thank you. From where could you communicate to a head? Thank you. From where could you communicate to a head? Thank you." See, there's nothing to it, you know, just bang! bang! bang! They actually — there's no difficulty, they're just sitting there and doing it.

Male voice: It answers all of it.

And do you know they have to go all the way around the dial to get back to that point?

All right. Thank you. Okay. Any other question? Yes, Peter?

The second you throw them a little more complication — see, they were all right. There was an Instructor standing there. Didn't know anything was to be worried about but of course, they aren't having any trouble either. Well, there isn't anything to be worried about. And they will go all the way around the dial before they come back to that ease.

Male voice: Ron, I had a question that really was last night's question . . .

So it looks very funny to see somebody sitting there. You really can't tell whether he's — it's beginner's luck or he's an expert. You see?

All right.

But in actual fact, you, time after time, will in futures be giving a demonstration of auditing or something like that. You'll be sitting down, some other people will be around watching you audit, you see. And you'll be doing a flawless performance of auditing and so forth and they'll all be fixed with the total impression that they could do that. They'll all be absolutely convinced that they could do that with the greatest of ease.

Male voice: . . . on the cognition . . .

And sure enough, they'll take something like a script Model Session, they will ask the thing and they will get along fine and then the horrible unknownness of it all, you see, starts closing down on them. And are they doing right? Are they doing wrong? Which way are they going? And which way is up and backwards? And they just become all thumbs. You know?

Comm lag permitted.

People do this with golf. They do this with golf. They walk out on the links and they take a club, any old club, there's the ball and they haul back — 276 yard drive. You know? Knocks the whole top out of a tree at the far end of the runway, you know. And they say, "Well, there's nothing much about this game!" And spend the next twenty years trying to make half that distance.

Male voice: Thank you.

So the simplicity of this is a fooler. You enter into it with the idea that there must be something else to do. But you also enter into it with all the alter-ises wide open. And the expert has had the alter-ises impulses flattened. See, he has the — he no longer has an impulse that he's got to do something else or he's got to meet an emergency or he's got to be brilliant at this particular point or he's got to be this or he's got to be that. These are flattened with the expert.

All right.

Your amateur goes along fine right up to the moment when the pc says something, "yeowll." "Did he say yes? Did he say no? What do I do now? Should I? Shouldn't I? Let me see, maybe I'd just better avoid the whole thing. I'll go on to the next question." So on, so on and so on. Not quite right. You get the idea? He doesn't know.

Male voice: On the cognition that you picked up. you said to Kay, "You cognited on something then," and I didn't know how you picked that up. you were running a Havingness Process and you said, "How is it going?" or something. "But you had a cognition on that, didn't you?" And I didn't know how you realized that.

So the next time he comes by this thing, he alters. And he alters badly. The pc said something different at this level so there might be something wrong with it. So this time he makes absolutely sure. "Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?" So he's got the word "difficulties" and he knows the difficulties and the pc told him — has told him several times that difficulties are something he shouldn't really be talking about because it — that is a charged subject and that it's really all right to audit, you see, be audited by the auditor but difficulties is a separate and different subject. See? He knows this. So he says, "Well, let's put another one in here; let's — is it all right if I audit you?" That was an old one, see. So he says, "Well, we'd better go back to that one because the pc has so much difficulty with difficulties." And he gradually shifts things this way and shifts things that way and the next thing you know he doesn't have the benefit of the workout and he's having an awful time.

Just tone of voice. Put it down to an irrelevant remark. Frankly, not good auditing. Irrelevant remark. But it's not bad, merely because it was absolutely germane to an acknowledgment. But it's skirting along the thin edge, man. See? It's — if you can't handle those things with a clash-bang — it's just an effort to get the pc acknowledged — an appreciation of something

He discovers various things as he goes along, you see. He discovers things. And as he discovers these things he normally does something else. He actually has — a person who is new at it is nervous at discussing somebody's problems with them anyway and they're liable to find ways and means not to do so and they go into all sorts of variations. It — they never give it a chance.

Once in a while you'll hear me say, "That was very interesting," or "That was amusing." The pc's laughing about something, I'll say, "That's very funny." Understand? That's just part and parcel of the skill of thorough acknowledgment. See? Unnecessary — unnecessary. It isn't vital. Probably shouldn't even do it. Pc's laughing like hell so you sit there like old stone face. See? Actually you could sit there like old stone face and get away with it and sometimes get away with it more often than by laughing like hell. you all of a sudden find they were really crying. So, frankly, Peter, it's a tightrope walk. But any remark of that character is simply in the interest of further acknowledgment of the pc — has no other value. That particular case the pc said, "Well, I'm not in that, you know, thank God!" and so forth. And I just say, "That was a cognition, wasn't it?" See?

Now, similarly, you get Q and A going about the same way. you say to the pc, "Do you have a present time problem?"

These things have a tendency to boomerang on you. Well, let's ask the pc. Did the pc mind that?

And the pc says, "Yes."

Female voice: No, I enjoyed it.

And you say, "What is the problem?"

Yeah. See? But you're walking on a thin edge.

And the pc says, "Pretty — it's a pretty difficult problem. Nobody's ever been able to do anything about it. As a matter of fact, more auditors have broken their hearts over this problem than anybody else." you see?

The guy thinks, "Well, gee, you know, maybe this is something unusual here." So he says, "Well, you can talk to me about it," and leans back away from the meter and goes into a long and involved conversation with the pc. And if he's very, very new he'd probably listen to the earnestness and worry in the pc's voice and the tenseness in the pc and wasn't reading his meter right anyhow. Actually he didn't have a read on "Do you have a present time problem?" See. He just followed the red herring, not the path.

And the pc says, "What needle?" you know, "What — what — what — what happened? Why? Well, why did it fall half a dial? What happened to me?" See? All right, that's an irrelevant remark. It's a sudden remark and that should be eschewed madly.

Or the pc with this tremendous buildup finally tells him what this problem is. That, "I'm in love with you." See, something like this, you know. God! The ruddy amateur — the grizzled veteran says, "Thank you. I'll check this on the meter," you know. The amateur has gone all these years, you see, and nobody's ever said this before, and feels guilty. Does this. Does that. Takes it up, discusses it at great length. All of a sudden says, "Well, when did you first notice these symptoms?" Q and A, here we go.

But if you can appreciate what the pc is doing sometimes, so the pc feels quite well acknowledged — and it's just a trick under the heading of TR 2 — little TR 2 trick. That's all. You're commenting on something — it takes me by surprise to that degree because every once in a while somebody finds a trick I do and calls it to my attention. I've been doing it for years and never recognized it as a trick, but that is one of them.

But it's just these little points, the particularly disarming points, the points that disarm the auditor, the points that hit him personally, the points which are calculated to upset him or worry him. On these points he'll go adrift, become unusual, do something else, flub, fail to handle the thing And if he gets into a habit of doing this sort of thing and if he never does conquer this impulse, why, he winds up with nobody ever getting better. So he says, "Well, Model Session can't be any good." How would he know? He's never used it.

The pc starts crying and they keep on crying for a while and so forth, you go on with a hard-boiled tone of voice and they are not acknowledged and of it. But you called to mind something I do that I myself had never analyzed. Thank you.

Now, this session is built with great care, with a tremendous amount of data back of it. Now, I'm not trying to give it altitude, but I am talking now about the amount of data which is wrapped up in this. Actually, the first Model Session — the first discussion of Model Session was, I think, about 1958.

Any other question? Yes, Ian?

We said, "Well, you know, auditors say certain things, see, and it might be a good thing if we patterned those things and made it easier and made it sound more constant." And that was all there was to Model Session.

Male voice: Ron, if the preclear comes in and sits down you — and there he is in session — you've got to prize this case off your lap — whereabouts would you take up Model Session to start? You're not going to throw him out of session by saying, "Is it all right if I start this session?" He thinks it's started.

Then the next reason for a Model Session was if you used the same session every time it tended to run old sessions out. That's a worthwhile reason. So that was why Model Session continued on.

All right. You start the session in a quiet tone of voice. That's the only — that's the only surrender you make on Model Session.

And then here at Saint Hill it became the earmark of a professional-looking auditor. Just no — no more importance than that, don't you see?

Male voice: All right.

Ah, but it has moved up into far greater spheres than these earlier reasons. Yes, it is nice for all auditors to be in agreement on what they say in an auditing session. The R-factor on auditing comes up enormously if you use Model Session. And now, if you have every question of the Model Session is the beginning of a repetitive process which can be run as long as it is necessary to clean the needle, then there's every reason in the world to have a Model Session.

Don't Tone 40 it.

Now, this session just used exactly as it's supposed to be used without departure going on down the line will get you some very interesting results just by the use of it. you put this person into session and you take him out of session. You know, no body of the session at all. If you did that, let us say, every day for three days running, this person would be going around talking about "my auditor." See, if you did a nice, smooth job of that fact.

Male voice: No. Otherwise you go through the beginning . . .

Furthermore, it has this unusual power, particularly gripped up with Prepchecking or Havingness. But a pc's needle tends to smooth out if — on just repeated, expert use of this Model Session. Using nothing more than this. Your expectancy is that a new pc that you have might have a rather weird looking needle. You know? It might read five times before the end of the major thought and seven times afterwards. You know? You'd think the electrodes were better connected to the mantel clock than they were to a pc. You're not quite sure what's going on, but it sure has nothing much to do with what you're doing

You go through everything just straight on because there isn't anything now . . . Pc comes in and he's got to do an awful lot of goals and he's got all this goals and he's talking about his goals and he's going into this and that and so forth. All right.

You're looking at the out-of-controlness of the pc. See, the pc actually isn't in-session. The pc is running on a kind of auto. They actually are not powerful enough to generate their own reactive bank. The reactive bank is just running on automatic, you see? And what you say doesn't have very much to do with it. By the time you've audited him for about three days what you say has a lot to do with it. And you will notice that a pc sort of — a new pc quite often looks like somebody who is keeping himself three or four feet out of the water, and then he will go down to head level and swim comfortably after a while.

Experience demonstrates that he wakes up somewhere along the line later and goes much slower if you haven't properly started the session. So what you — the only compromise you make is just to look at the pc, and he's saying, "And these goals so-and-so and so-and-so and I've got this list and I was up half the night writing this list and here it is," you see, and so forth. And you say, "All right, okay. Start of session." So on.

Well, it's actually their concern; they never work out what's going to happen. And the main concern of people is they don't — they don't know what's coming off. They don't know what's going to be demanded of them. By the time an auditor's demanded exactly the same thing of them for three days running they all of a sudden heave a horrible sigh of relief and get comfortable — just that factor alone, see? If all these lines were gobbledygook that is what it — would happen.

You might add this reality to it. This would be a trick I might use in the R-factor, "All right. Good enough. We're going to take — we're taking it up. Well, let's get into it. Let's get going right now, now then. All right, you've got it; let's get going right now. All right. Start of session." And rip off the beginning rudiments and go right on into it and you won't blow the pc out of session.

Supposing you had a patter that was something like this: "How are you today? That's clear." See? "Have you been enjoying yourself this week? All right. Thank you. That's clear. Are you fond of clothes? Thank you, that's clear." Didn't do anything else than this, see. "Do you like fudge?" And then your end of session — your end of session rudiments were, "Have you been comfortable in the chair?" See? "Have you thought about anything? And do you feel like yourself? End of session."

Your question is well put. It's never actually been asked. You would handle that factor in the R-factor and by softening up the way you started the session. All right.

Now, by some tiny little stretch, one or another portion of these might have been slightly evanescently therapeutic but I think you'd find all of those things rather wide. And yet if you did that to somebody for three days running and you used the same patter and did it exactly the same way, at the end of the third day they would trust you more than on the first day. Their trust would be higher because they'd know what to expect. They'd say, "Now, the next question he's going to ask me about fudge," you see? They know what's coming Well, there — your R-factor's high, you see? Their expectancy. They're never startled, always that sort of thing. And they would feel more friendly towards you. And their case would be just as lousy as ever, but as far as you, the auditor, was concerned, they'd feel more friendly and you would be much more real to them. And if you were standing in a group of people and that pc came in the room you would look more solid than the other people in the room. Quite interesting. You would look more solid. There's your expectancy — just establishment of expectancy. Now, don't downgrade that as a factor in Model Session, see?

Yes, Jim?

Well, this comes to this point, then, that the whole effect of Model Session, for various reasons, increases the reality of the session and increases the pc's ARC with the auditor. So therefore, don't make this mistake: don't expect any question, any one question in Model Session to suddenly straighten out everything that's wrong with the pc. See, anything more than you would expect one button to straighten out the whole case. you understand? Get them clear, get them clear, but the first time you run it you've got a dirty bzzzz, the needle is going bzzzz every few minutes - bzzzzz. And for to — unfortunately, every now and then, the bzzzz occurs instantly with where you ought to get the instant read, you see? He's zigging while you're zagging.

Male voice: I found it necessary a couple of times to handle the withhold prior to the appropriate moment for asking the question about withholds . . .

Now listen to me. This you actually have never heard very well. That bzzzzzt doesn't mean you can leave a question hot on an instant read if the instant read bzz-bzzzed, but it means this: that you shouldn't get so confoundedly optimistic about cleaning up the bzzzzt off a needle with any single rudiments question, by asking for missed withholds or doing anything else. You take the bzzzzzzts off and the ticks and the tocks and the clicks and the clacks with auditing, not with a part of auditing. In other words, straighten out and smooth out the pc mentally so that you don't get all these zigs and zags on a needle and brrrt-brrrt-brrrt. That takes auditing

Mm-hm.

You will find that every time you run this Model Session the needle at the end of the session will be a tiny little bit cleaner. By the time you've run three or four sessions the needle will look pretty smooth.

Male voice: . . . in beginning rudiments.

Now, you'll get pulled out of the datum I've just given you by the fact that now and then you will have some fantastic luck. you know, every hundred thousand visitors at Las Vegas walk in and put a dollar in one of the slot machines, you see, and hit the jackpot. The machines are rigged so it's every one hundred thousand visitors, you see. And the thing feeds you back several hundred dollars in a jackpot. And it's very delightful because the silver dollars roll all over the floor, you know, and get into the spittoons and everything And marvelous — you know, wasting money like crazy.

Mm-hm.

Well, you're going to hit this, see, you're going to go halfway down through a Model Session one day — discount the fact that you've been working on it, you see, for a week or two — and you go halfway down through a Model Session one day and you said, "Is there something you have failed to reveal?" You know? You're in the middle rudiments or something and "In this session, is there anything you've failed to reveal?"

Male voice: Otherwise the pc is kind of sitting on something waiting for the appropriate question to come up. Is it all right to do that?

And the person says, "Uhhh, ohhh, uahh, maybe I'd better tell you — I've been hiding it from you every session but the truth of the matter is, is I wear boys' underwear under my dress." And all of a sudden the needle's going this way, see? Up to this time this was needle motion. All of a sudden . . .

Frankly, the pc will give you a withhold under "difficulties." Havingness won't function too well under it. But in actual fact, by experience, if you take them in that order, you'll find out that you'll have a gain by doing so.

Well, this sticks you as an auditor. Whenever that win happens you tend to get stuck in that win. Now, you just realize that you have been already stuck in that win a time or two, haven't you? You all of a sudden saw something like this happen, see. And so after that you keep going, "Let's see now, how can we find this lady's wearing boys' underwear?" See? "How can we — how can we . . ." For a little while you kind of have the impression that every time you see a stiff needle that the — the person is wearing boys' underwear. You actually get stuck in the win. And you go on and on and on this way and you'll start doing your Model Session a little differently. You know, you'll just be watching it very closely, see — trying to cover the thing, you know, clear up the whole case on any one of these questions. See, any one of these questions and this can happen. Next time you get somebody with a stiff needle, you know — oh, man! You just sweat over these things, you know? Which one is going to free it?

Male voice: Mm-mm.

Oh, it isn't which one is going to free it. you didn't remember something about the boys' underwear case. There was something you didn't remember about that case and that was that you'd been auditing the person for a week. And what you did was walk it right up to the point where all of a sudden you apparently pulled it all on one button. But you didn't. You didn't. You had been preparing the case. What you got was a sort of an instantaneous improvement of the case.

Now, grabbing the withhold out of order of the Model Session, see — grabbing the withhold out of order was something we were doing. However, there's very little advantage in doing so; very little advantage in doing so. Particularly on a pc that's been audited two or three times at least, you see? He knows this is going to come up. Now he's liable to originate the withhold.

Psychoanalysts just blow their brains out all over the world with this one. They — they'll have forty, fifty patients and on one of them, one day, they say, "Did you ever have sexual relations with your little brother?" or something like this. And the person will look kind of haunted and, "Yes." See? And right away they're clean, they pass their Rorschach, their Wassermann — they pass everything and they're just in marvelous condition thereafter. You'll find this poor psychoanalyst for the last twenty years has been hunting in every patient to find incest in their childhood.

Male voice: Mm-hm.

Freud got hung with what he got hung with because he had a piece of luck. See? He had a piece of luck and here and there and so he just assigned that to all cases.

That's right. Then you merely handle it with TR 4.

Well, it's quite a few things that a case is composed of. For us to be at 3GA, to have Routine 3GA and to have Routine 3GA rather fantastically bringing arms down and needles going clear is the confoundedest magic that anybody ever imagined could happen — just a hundred percent clearing. You haven't realized it yet because you haven't walked into too many cases, you haven't — but it's going to creep up on you.

Male voice: Mm-hm.

One of your reactions is, when you first do this is, "Well, why the hell didn't I start 3GA-ing this pc when I first got my hands on him? Find the goal the first day, you see, and then write all the lists the second day and I would have had a Clear." And you kind of — then — so you try that. And you come a gorgeous cropper, you see. Can't keep the pc under control enough to keep him listing and can't do this and can't do that and they aren't able to blow anything and they're not in-session and all of these other factors are deleted from it, you see. So our concentration is on 3GA. See? It's on the doingness, the thing: find the goal and then list the goal and that is what makes a Clear. That is an inaccurate statement. It is good auditing with the technology of 3GA which makes a Clear.

But you don't give it any credence with the meter. You got it? pc, see? So on top of that, of course, you can be human. Pc then tends to overlook the fact that you're a dedicated monster down underneath the surface, you know? Get off of that process? God, no, man.

The funny part of it is if you delete the good auditing you won't get a Clear and if you delete the 3GA you won't get a Clear. Oddly enough, you won't get a pc up to 3GA unless you've got something — you won't get all cases up to 3GA unless you've got CCHs and Prepchecking either. See? So it's all a piece. It isn't 3GA that is making Clears. It's CCHs, Prepchecking and terrifically good, accurate, smooth auditing.

Pc says, "Oh, boo-hoo-hoo, this process is driving me mad and my head is just splitting You ask me just one more command . . ." This sort of thing never happens to me, by the way. "But you ask me just one more command," you know, "and I'm just going to go up in smoke!" You know? Something like that.

Well, this Model Session, then, is a piece of clearing, to that degree. And all this does is tend to keep the session predictable and present time clean enough to be audited in. And that's what this does. It keeps the session predictable and present time clean enough to be audited in. And you get an undistracted pc if you go at it in this particular wise.

I just ask one more command, you know? The probability is, is I wouldn't even acknowledge it at all. I'm a past master at just letting entheta fall on the floor with a dull plop. Pc says, "What the hell is the matter with you? Why are you going into this? Good God, how many mistakes can an auditor make!"

Now, I'm not trying to give you a sales talk on this Model Session. I'm merely trying to say, "Give it a chance." This Model Session will be released in this bulletin the 23rd of June. Probably be in your hands late tomorrow afternoon. You don't, therefore, have to copy off what I am about to say. So I'm just going to read it off so it will also be on this tape:

I'd just give them the next auditing command. I don't even — don't even give it the TR 4, see? It would just pass through the wall two feet to the right of my head, see. And they let up a new scream and — about something or other — and do the command.

It's "Start of session." Of course, these — many of these things are the same as any old — other Model Session. "Start of session." "Is it all right to — with you if I begin this session now? Start of session. Has this session started for you?" If pc says, 'No," say again, "Start of session. Now, is this session started for you?" Pc says, "No," say, "We will cover it in the rudiments."

But if a pc is in there working, I acknowledge him well. And if he's not, I just throw away TR 4.

Beginning rudiments: Goals. "What goals would you like to set for this session?" You notice there's no read on this so "for this session" can follow it. "Are there any goals you would like to set for life or livingness?" Same thing, isn't it?

There probably is some more to know about TR 4. But I rather tend to think it would be when you were absolutely expert in handling a session, knew completely that your control of the session would never be moved, knew implicitly that — exactly where you were going and your control of the pc was perfect. If all of these things happen I think you'd tend to relax in session and enter into that type of response. But if you relax to the point of entering chitchat into the session, you destroy the thing completely. So it is actually relegated only to TR 2. It's just a little more on TR 2.

Environment: "Tell me if it is all right to audit in this room." That got shorter, didn't it? Now, if you were to ask the pc repetitively, "What is wrong with this room?" I don't know that you'd ever get this rudiment in. If you have the pc's Havingness you run his Havingness if you get a reaction on the needle. Now, there's two things you can do at this point. One is simply observe the instant read. "Tell me if it's all right to audit in this room." Clank! All right. If that instant read was present you must run Havingness. Do you understand that? This one has to be cleared too. you must run Havingness. Now, how long do you run Havingness?

If you don't have the pc's Havingness, you use old TR 10, see. How long do you run it? Well, you just better check this again a few times. "I'll check it on the meter. Tell me if it's all right to audit in this room. That is clear." See? "Thank you." We go on to the next one. you see how that rudiment's handled? Well, actually, there's one in the beginning ruds and one in the end rudiments that are handled the same way. But these are the only two things where you use any process other than the exact question.

You say, "Well that's — guess you're finding it out, huh? Good-oh." No further than that.

Auditor: "Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?" And "What difficulty aren't you willing to talk to me about?" You find that will clear it up slicker than scat. See, actually it's a repetitive question. "What difficulty aren't you willing to talk to me about?" Of course the trick is he's telling you. See? "What difficulty aren't you willing to talk to me about? What difficulty aren't you willing to talk to me about?" If you ran that as a repetitive question you'd find out that you'd get — you'd get an auditor improvement.

"I'd like to catch one of those someday. Heh-heh." Irrelevant remark, see?

Lay off this idea here — and you'll notice it isn't present — "Is it all right if I audit you?" because that violates a prime principle of auditing It puts the pc's attention on the auditor. So somebody who thinks that one has to be used will find himself having to straighten up something; if he'd kept his cotton-picking mouth shut he'd never have had to straighten it up. That is asking for trouble.

Tiny borderline between these two things, a tiny borderline. You keep all such remarks in the line of ack and now and then you'll be sorry you opened your cotton-picking mouth. But most of the time the pc will feel he is talking to somebody, providing you know your business well enough so that that is never contrived. You see, you feel like saying, "Ah, well, heck," you know? "All right," you know? Puddle has just accumulated, you know, beneath the E-Meter so you have to turn on the bilge pumps, you know. "Ah, come off it," you know? "All right. All right, you'll be okay," you know? That sort of thing.

Have you ever noticed that your attention goes very suddenly and sharply on auditors who drop ashtrays? Well, that's just like dropping an ashtray, that particular question, so it's been dropped as a question instead of an ashtray.

The funny part of it is the pc's grief charge is acknowledged. See, you've acknowledged a doingness on the part of the pc. And if you said just, "Yes, okay, thank you," oddly enough, most of the time you would be all right too, you see? But if you say, "Yes. Thank you. Mm-hm. All right," the pc tends to go out of session.

All right. "Since the last time I audited you, have you done anything you are withholding" And "What was it?"

So the pc does something, you don't remark on the fact the pc has had a cognition because you are interested in the pc cognition. You're interested in the pc's attitude and you acknowledge the fact. Get the trick? TR 2 only. Okay?

PTP: "Do you have a present time problem?" "What is the problem?"

Male voice: Mm.

Let me go back one moment and say about this, "Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?" We mustn't lose sight of this old one. The definition of in-session is: willing to talk to the auditor and interested in own case. So this is, of course, a very trick package. You're asking him, "Are you willing to talk to the auditor and are you interested in your own case?" We're asking him in the same sentence. Actually, that is a masterpiece of condensed statement. All right. And of course, every time you say your — yeah, "What difficulty aren't you willing to talk to me about?" of course you're asking him to look at his own case and talk to the auditor about it. So actually, you put him in-session, put him in-session, put him in-session, put him — and all of a sudden you ask and it reads and you're all set. you haven't got any read on it anymore and there you go. It's in.

You bet. Didn't make to — mean to make such a long and drawn drag-out of it. But you called to mind something I do that I myself had never analyzed. Thank you.

Don't worry about your identity as an auditor. You realize — you realize it isn't really the pc that is difficult, ever. And from the pc's point of view it really isn't the auditor. See, it's his conceptions of the auditor.

Any other question? Yes, Ian?

Now, you want to throw all these into full bloom, just ask a pc, "Is it all right if I audit you?" Now, he's got to think over all the reasons why it isn't all right and he's thinking about you as a personality and he's thinking about all the O/Ws, so you've got marvelous opportunities to miss withholds. Instead of that, carry it over on this other line and it's fine.

Male voice: Ron, if the preclear comes in and sits down you — and there he is in session — you've got to prize this case off your lap — whereabouts would you take up Model Session to start? You're not going to throw him out of session by saying, "Is it all right if I start this session?" He thinks it's started.

All right, let's carry on with this. "Do you have a present time problem?" "What is the problem?" Now, you know, "What is your problem? What is your problem? What is your problem? What is your problem?" is an old process to run out problems. You know a pc will always give you a different answer. You know, that's an old one. So, you say, "Do you have a present time problem? That reads. What is the problem?" The pc tells you. you say, "I'll check it on the meter. Do you have a present time problem? That's clear. Thank you." And you're away into what else you're doing.

All right. You start the session in a quiet tone of voice. That's the only — that's the only surrender you make on Model Session.

But you could keep this up this way: "Do you have a present time problem? That reads. What is the problem? Thank you." Pc tells you what it is. "I'll check that on the meter. Do you have a present time problem? That reads. What is the problem? Thank you. I'll check that on the meter. That reads. What is the problem?" You know, you could keep that up for half an hour? No pc under the sun would be able to get a read every time, though, for a half an hour, I'm sure.

Male voice: All right.

You just ask it until you run into this. "Do you have a present time problem? That's clean. Thank you." See? No last half, see? And the rule is in all of this: when there's — when it reads clean there's no last half of the question.

Don't Tone 40 it.

Now, of course, your middle rudiments is: "In this session is there anything you have suppressed, invalidated, failed to reveal or been careful of?" And "What was it?" But now, that's a package question. The auditor who is lucky slides over this, this rapidly, see. He says, "In this session . . ." It's just like you've asked four different questions, but you can get rid of it rapidly. So this apparently violates the instant read proposition. But, actually, this — these are the questions you're asking "In this session, is there anything you have suppressed? In this session is there anything you have invalidated? In this session is there anything you have failed to reveal? In this session is there anything you've been careful of?" That's actually four rudiments.

Male voice: No. Otherwise you go through the beginning . . .

Now, the second you have trouble with this, it breaks down into four rudiments. See? If it's all clean you're just lucky, get off of it and get out of there, see? Not any one of those endings read. If one of those endings read, the repeated question is the single rudiment question.

You go through everything just straight on because there isn't anything now . . . Pc comes in and he's got to do an awful lot of goals and he's got all this goals and he's talking about his goals and he's going into this and that and so forth. All right.

I'll give you an idea. "In this session is there anything you have suppressed, invalidated? That read. What was it? Thank you. I'll check that on the meter. In this session is there anything you have invalidated? That's clean."

Experience demonstrates that he wakes up somewhere along the line later and goes much slower if you haven't properly started the session. So what you — the only compromise you make is just to look at the pc, and he's saying, "And these goals so-and-so and so-and-so and I've got this list and I was up half the night writing this list and here it is," you see, and so forth. And you say, "All right, okay. Start of session." So on.

"In this session is there anything you have failed to reveal or been careful of? That reads. What was it? In this session . . ." and he tells you. And "In this session is there anything you have been careful of?"

You might add this reality to it. This would be a trick I might use in the R-factor, "All right. Good enough. We're going to take — we're taking it up. Well, let's get into it. Let's get going right now, now then. All right, you've got it; let's get going right now. All right. Start of session." And rip off the beginning rudiments and go right on into it and you won't blow the pc out of session.

But to keep the pc from ever getting confused I handle this this way. And you've heard me handle it this way. If he gets one read I give them the next ones in singles. See? I don't care which you do, but I find out there's you — there's a possibility, I feel, that he could get confused.

Your question is well put. It's never actually been asked. You would handle that factor in the R-factor and by softening up the way you started the session. All right.

So, all right, let's give you an example: "In this session is there anything you have suppressed, invalidated? That reads. What was it?"

Yes, Jim?

Pc says, "Oh, so-and-so and so on."

Male voice: I found it necessary a couple of times to handle the withhold prior to the appropriate moment for asking the question about withholds . . .

And you say, "Thank you. I'll check that on the meter. Is there anything you have invalidated? That's clean. Thank you."

Mm-hm.

"In this session is there anything you have failed to reveal? That's clean. Thank you."

Male voice: . . . in beginning rudiments.

"In this session is there anything you have been careful of? That reads. What was it? Thank you. I'll check that on the meter. In this session is there anything you have been careful of? That's clean. Thank you."

Mm-hm.

In other words, ride him singles. You get into less trouble that way.

Male voice: Otherwise the pc is kind of sitting on something waiting for the appropriate question to come up. Is it all right to do that?

All right. Now we get — of course there's body of session. Body of session is where the middle rudiments are used. And you start a process, if you're going to run a process, you start it the same way you always have, is: "Now, I would like to run this process on you (name it). What would you say to that?" See? It's the same wording. And then you get into your middle rudiments.

Frankly, the pc will give you a withhold under "difficulties." Havingness won't function too well under it. But in actual fact, by experience, if you take them in that order, you'll find out that you'll have a gain by doing so.

And then you've got end rudiments. Now, your end rudiments have had one or two additions here — with the half-truth: "In this session have you told me any half-truth, untruth or said something only to impress me or tried to damage anyone?" And the response to any one of those that reads is, "What was it?" And the same rules apply as apply to model sess — middle rudiments in the Model Session.

Male voice: Mm-mm.

Now, the E-Meter: "In this session have you deliberately tried to influence the E-Meter?" And we get a departure here. See, there was a departure on difficulties. You have a different end question, "What difficulty aren't you willing to talk to me about?" See, not "What was it?" And we get another departure here in order to get it as a process. You find out that, stretch your wits as you can, "In this session have you deliberately tried to influence the E-Meter? What was it?" That doesn't go, you see?

Now, grabbing the withhold out of order of the Model Session, see — grabbing the withhold out of order was something we were doing However, there's very little advantage in doing so; very little advantage in doing so. Particularly on a pc that's been audited two or three times at least, you see? He knows this is going to come up. Now he's liable to originate the withhold.

"How did you try to influence the E-Meter?" is the question we get answered. That follows the same rule, of course. "In this session have you deliberately tried to influence the E-Meter? That reads. How did you try to influence the E-Meter? Thank you. I will check that on the meter. In this session have you deliberately tried to influence the E-Meter? That's clean." Then we go on to the next rudiment.

Male voice: Mm-hm. That's right. Then you merely handle it with TR 4.

And your question or command, "In this session have you failed to answer any question or command I have given you? What question or command did you fail to answer?" Now, that could require a little stirring around in your skull. Because you got a read on question and command, you'd better sort this thing out and drop the one you didn't get a reaction on. Now, I will confess to this: that particular rudiment is not as happy as I would like to see a rudiment. But "In this session have you failed to answer any question or command I have given you?" We will find out that it will read question or command as an end line.

Male voice: Mm-hm. But you don't give it any credence with the meter. You got it?

Give me your pencil. You know, you have just seen something change.

Male voice: Yes.

It's, "In this session have you failed to answer any question or command? What question or command did you fail to answer?" Now, please drop the question or command out. Did you fail to answer any question — or command? You'll get a clang or a clang Well, ask the one that clanged. Okay? So it becomes, "What question did you fail to answer? What command did you fail to answer?" Another package rudiment. Okay?

So any time a pc interjects and tells you something, for God's sakes give it the treatment, see?

All right. "In this session have you decided anything? What was it?" (Give me your pencil.) "In this session is there anything you have decided? What was it?"

Male voice: Right, but not necessarily check the rudiment question.

Withhold: "In this session have you thought or done anything I've failed to find out about? What was it?"

But don't now, because he gave it to you, check it.

"In this session have you been critical of me?" Now, we can't work that one around to the stylized wording of having it all end right on the end or it would read this way: "In this session, of me have you been critical?" And somebody would say we were "mein kampfing." They will want to put "of me yet."

Male voice: Quite. Okay.

"In this session have you been critical of me? What have you done?"

See, always be perfectly happy about the thing. Also, you realize, to the degree that you don't use two-way comm in a Model Session you will tend to succeed better. Two-way comm during Model Session tends to slow down the progress of the session. Two-way comm in the body of the session, for sure. But two-way comm in the beginning rudiments, middle rudiments, end rudiments areas tends, more than anything else, to slow things down. But it's not forbidden.

Now, that is the — that is the neatest package that keeps in the auditor's mind from here on, this one thing: that when the pc thinks a critical, it is normally followed with a "What have you done?"

Male voice: Mmm.

He, of course, will say, "Well, I thought something." Well, that's doing something. We don't jog him up this way. But if this wasn't clearing you could keep asking a pc, "What have you done? What have you done? What have you done?" and he would come up with something eventually. So this one is bound to clear sooner or later. Right?

Now, you could handle it something on this order: Your R-factor at the beginning — the pc is all jumped-up. Now, instead of saying, "Well, the session is going to handle this," you say, "Well, what's gotten into you?" See? No meter.

All right. "In this session was the room all right?" And of course, if the question reacts, why, you run Havingness.

Male voice: Mm-hm.

Also, at this stage of the game, it might be very wise for you to get a cansqueeze test. And if you had too little can squeeze showing on the needle at sensitivity 0, to run Havingness anyway. You never go wrong running Havingness.

See? Get him talking to you at least. And he says, "Oh, well, hell, I've got so many withholds you wouldn't be able to count the things," and that sort of thing, and so forth. "And I've had an awful rough time of it and I haven't had any breakfast, dinner, lunch or supper and it's terrible and, the weather is bad and besides, I've got a headache," and that sort of thing.

By the way, the first rudiments — the first end rudiments ever used, I used at 42 Aberdeen Road — oh, no, Bay Head, New Jersey — to bring a pc back to the land of the living, having been way down the track someplace. And he took it as a process. See, I just kept calling his attention to the environment. And I'd been doing that on people rather consistently and that's the original action of havingness. That is where that — where all havingness came from. That's the first genus of havingness. And you find it's wise to end up the session by calling the pc's attention to the environment anyhow. See? So even if it didn't react, run some Havingness. Who cares? You can't make a mistake on that one.

You let him run on, very short. And then let him have the business, you know, with a terrific ack. See? Acknowledge it. Acknowledge it. Now start the session. Now get these points together in order. And some order will establish itself in his confusion.

You can always tell beginning auditors, "Well, there's one rudiment on which you cannot make an error and that's the end rudiment on, 'Was it all right to audit in this room?' Because whether it reacts or not you do — can do something about it or not." It's impossible, you see, to make a mistake on.

So there is an area where this could come about. It could come about before session, just in an ordinary friendly discussion. But there must be no meter connected with it. If the pc volunteers a withhold or tries to straighten out something with you — he says, "Now wait a minute before we get on with this, I was out with your girl last night, you know, and I — really this is weighing on my mind so that I know I couldn't go into session." And so on.

All right. "Have you made any part of your goals for this session?" And "Have you made any other gains in this session that you would care to mention?"

You say, well, give him a cheery aye-aye or give him anything you want to say. you see? But no meter treatment.

And end of session: "Is there anything you would care to ask or say?" And notice that is interchanged because "ask" is actually — belongs in English construction before the exclamation point of "say." And I'll bet some of you have had trouble with that. Well, that's because they're out of order. All right, they're in proper order now. "Is there anything you'd care to ask or say before I end this session? Is it all right with you if I end this session now? Here it is: End of session. Has this session ended for you?" And so forth. "You'll be getting more auditing"

Male voice: Right.

Now, we go into this just a little bit further here and we still have the end of process . . . If you're running processes noncyclical, is the same as it's always been: "If it's all right with you I will give this command two more times and then end this process." And gives the command two more times. "Is there anything you would care to say before I end this process?"

See, you don't ever dignify an out-of-orderness, see, by checking it or anything of this sort. That's actually Q and A with the pc.

That, by the way, doesn't even apply to a hav — that doesn't apply to a Havingness command being run in rudiments. That you simply end. The less time spent on it, the better off you're going to be. Because all these rudiments and everything in Model Session is run to a clean needle. So you're going to clean the needle and then ask two more times. Oh no, you're not, not if you're wise.

Now what he's done, actually, is get the session started in his direction.

All right. Now, I'm going to just give you a very brief and rapid list of the most flagrant errors that can be made in using this Model Session. And the first and foremost is not being expert on a meter. You don't know how to audit a meter and you're just making wise with a meter and you can't read it for some reason or other. And of course, everything else falls down, crash.

Male voice: Mm.

And the next error is, of course, fumbling with script and not knowing it. you see? Not knowing Model Session.

Now any of you, sooner or later, are going to run into a pc who is going to prevent the session and can keep control of the session with conversation. Therefore, you must actually learn to turn the spigot off with a good ack. you know, there's an awful lot of auditing time wasted under that heading. Pc's talking and talking and talking and talking and you never can get your session in edgewise. Well, blow him out of the water with a Tone 40 and get the session turned on and the orderliness of the session, the inevitability of where you're going, all of a sudden puts the pc under control.

Three is asking a question a second time when it was clear the first time. Huh-huh. You say, "Well, is it all — are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties? That's clean. I will check it on the meter. Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?" Do you know that you will inevitably, I think almost always, get a read? Because you are alter-ising the clearness of the needle. And it will read your alter-isingness. If you don't believe that sometimes, ask the question twice in a row; ask a clear question a second time and then watch it and then ask — say to the pc, "Recall my asking it the second time. Thank you." And then ask it the third time and it's clean again. In other words, you can put an instant read on a meter by reading a clear question twice. It's quite spooky. You see, it now isn't responding to the bank; it's responding in a protest.

Now, if the pc is able to introduce on you, Jim, an irrelevant step, he to that degree has taken the session out from underneath your control. Okay?

All right. Four is not asking the question a second time when it read on the meter. Of course that — that is just — you got an instant read, see — not ask the question a second time — you got an instant read, now don't check it. Now, that's murder.

Male voice: Right.

You say, "Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties? That read. What difficulty aren't you willing to talk to me about?"

And they will try to do it.

And the pc says, "Well, I have a horrible hankering for butter cakes that turns on at 4:32 in the afternoon."

Male voice: Mm.

And you say, "Thank you," and go on to the next rudiment. You've missed a withhold right there, because he's probably got another one. And you'll find as a pc grooves in on this he will expect you to ask it a second time and you'll get the added disadvantage of the fact that it now adds up to a flub.

Okay. Anything else on that?

All right. Five: Not saying you could — you — this is another error: not saying you could not tell what the read was when you couldn't. You couldn't tell what the read was and you didn't say so. See? It was going bzzzz, bzzzz, bzzzz, bzzzz and you asked, "Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?" And then just as you said "dif-" it says, bzzz, umph, bizzz, and biz, biz, buzrp. Now, if you ask the question a second time the pc may be under the impression he doesn't know what's going on and you've hung him with an unknownness. And you have to tell him what you're doing. You say, "I was unable to read that; I will have to ask it again." I've been saying, the read was equivocal — this mystifies the pc. You've got to tell him when you couldn't tell. Now, don't try to sit there and appear so wise and sage.

Male voice: Yes. Not on that exactly . . .

Never pretend on a meter reading. Just never pretend, man. If it was clear and you thought it shouldn't have been so you ask it again, you'll foul up every time. And never pretend that it wasn't, you know — never pretend that the person got a read when he didn't. This drives a pc up the bank, you know? Up the wall.

All right.

All right. And the next one is, number six, is failing to get in the R-factor by telling the pc what you're going to do at each new step. That's very important, telling the pc what you're going to do at each new step. Now, you don't necessarily say, "We're going to have to — we're going to start the beginning rudiments," and so forth. But man, from there on you'd better tell him you're going to start the middle rudiments. And you'd better tell him you're going to start the end rudiments. And when you sit down before you start the session, why, it's an awfully good thing to say, "We're going to have an auditing session." Very good. And when you start to get the body of session you tell the pc, "Well, we're going to prepcheck today." You don't clear these things on the meter. It has nothing really anything to do — it's just the R-factor. It wipes out his mystery about it all. And you can practically drive a pc round the bend by never letting him in on what's going on.

Male voice: . . . on Model Session.

You simply sit down and you're going to run a Havingness session. He expects to have his goal found. Baaaah! Rudiments all fly out with a crash.

Right.

Part of keeping the rudiments in is keep the environment predictable.

Male voice: It seems to me now we've eliminated any necessity to vary a question when the meter reads and the preclear says "no," . . .

And number seven: doing what the pc suggests. Oh, my God, that is horrible.

That's right.

And number eight: adding unusual questions or remarks or making suddenly irrelevant statements. Always upsets a pc when you make sudden remarks or statements that have nothing much to do with anything. Yanks him out of session and so forth.

Male voice: . . . by getting in first. I wanted you to confirm this.

All right. Patter is what I have given you already on this tape — the way you handle these questions and so forth.

You do not ever vary any of these questions. Forget varying the question — it came from old Sec Checking — you don't have to do it anymore anyhow. The only question that is varied is a What question — and that sometimes has to be tested in its variation till you get it to read. But on a rudiments question, no, you do not vary it.

This does not take very much doingness. It isn't very difficult to get used to this thing. It is very easy to use it. Most of your trouble will be trying to do too much of it. Trying to make it too much something or other, trying to do something else with it. By that I simply mean adding four or five rudiments at the wrong places, questioning the pc's answers or any other of the bum ones which I just gave you. Okay?

And what's the rest of that you said?

Thank you.

You've eliminated any possibility or any need of varying the question . . .

Take a ten-minute break.

Male voice: By getting in, "That reads, there is a reaction on this in this session."

Oh, well, when you get a read and the pc says, "No," and the meter says "Yes," you acknowledge the meter and to hell with the pc. See? At that particular time, don't ever worry about this making the pc wrong Because hell, he's wrong anyhow. See? The pc [auditor] said, "Do you have a present time problem?" Clang! You see? And the pc says, "No." And you say, "What is the problem?" You see? But you say, "That reads. What is the problem?" And the pc says, "Well, you're — you're right, I do have a problem." See?

Now, your rightness, all of a sudden, shows up and his wrongness doesn't necessarily show up, and he gets rid of it and he hands the thing to you. But never have any qualms whatsoever about crossing the pc's "No." Pc says "No" — you say, "Yes." Not snidely. He says, "Do you have a — do you have a present time problem?" And the pc says, "No." And you say, "Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha, ha-ha-he-he-he-he-heh." I wouldn't advise that particular approach. But you just tell him, bang, right now. Just tell him, bang, right now, "That reads."

As a matter of fact, I don't contradict — I know that there's a trick in this. Thank you for asking this question. There's a trick in this. Your "That reads," doesn't contradict his "No." And the best way to handle this is never pay any attention whatsoever to the pc's "Yes" or "No" in rudiments. Don't ever answer it. Don't ever pay any attention to it. Only answer the meter. And you'll never make a feeling in the pc of countering what he has just said. That's a little bit of a — magic involved in it. He sees — he says — "Do you have a present time problem?" He says, "No," and you say, "That reads." He often will interpret it, if you've said to him in contradistinction to what he said, "That reads," he will argue this as a disputation. If you weren't paying any attention to it at all, whether he said yes or no — "Do you have a present time problem?" He says, "No," and you say, "That reads," you're just saying it reads here. You're not saying he was right, he was wrong

Male voice: Mmmm.

In other words that statement he made fell on the floor. You can't depend on that, as you learned in Sec Checking and that sort of thing and in Prepchecking, you could never depend on the pc's yes or no anyhow. The meter's always right. The pc is not necessarily always wrong See? You don't run on that basis. But where there is a difference between the pc and the meter, you pay attention to the meter. So on the yes or no point of Model Session, never even listen to the pc.

The pc also will very often louse you up on your second question, by the way. you say, "Do you have a present time problem?"

He said, "I beat my wife last night and she won't speak to me today."

You say, "Thank you. I will check that on the meter." Omit your second question. See? Just skip it. you will find out that this looks a little bit ragged at first but you'll eventually get into it. The pc who is really comfortable in the session will eventually settle down and wait for you to ask him the question. He'll let you run it. It's the eager pc that is jumping that one all the time. But nevertheless, just drop it out of the lineup.

Well, thank you for asking that question, Jim.

It's just answer always — talk to the meter after that first question. "That reads." "That's clean." That — just say that to the meter. You never even heard his "Yes" or "No." Don't pay any attention to it at all. Then you'll never be in a dispute on the thing

"Oh, did you say no? I'm sorry. I didn't hear you. I just — looking at the meter here which read. What was the problem? What is the problem, rather — What is the problem?"

But he says, "But I said no. I said no!"

"When did you say no? Oh, yeah? You said no. All right, thank you. Thank you. Very good. What was the problem?"

"Well, you're making the problem."

"All right. Very good. Very good. Thank you. We will check that on the meter. Do you have a present time problem? That reads."

"All right." And he'll tell you, you see, whatever it was.

He — you're just making him confront to that degree.

Thanks for asking that question, Jim.

Male voice: Thank you.

All right. Anything else? Yes?

Male voice: Ron, how do you handle it when a pc, in the middle of a session, asks you a question?

Asks you a question? All depends on what's the question about. I usually answer a pc's questions.

Male voice: Uh-huh. Well, say it's about some auditing acknowledging

What?

Male voice: Say it's about some auditing.

Well, give me an example.

Male voice: Well, such as, "How do you run CCHs on an unconscious person?"

Man, if a pc asked me that, I would say, "Thank you very much." I would say, "Thank you, very good. Thank you very much. Thank you for asking me. We're now going into end rudiments." Get end rudiments in and I'd give him a tenth of a second break and get beginning rudiments in and get him in session, man. It's — it'd be a terrible symptom of out-of-sessionness because he's not interested in his own case, you see.

Male voice: Well, you — you — you don't think this would suddenly come up as a result of him uh . . .

It would only come up if he was out of session.

Male voice: Would it?

See, he's not interested in his own case.

You got — you got what in-sessionness is? It's interested in own case and willing to talk to the auditor. Well, when a pc has totally lost track of what you're trying to do — I'm not making fun of your question, see — when he's totally lost track of what he's trying to do, when he hasn't a clue where you're going anyhow, his rudiments are wildly out, he'll start asking you irrelevant questions and chitchat and things of this particular character. First chitchat that a pc ever gives me, I start sliding the rudiments in with a coal shovel. I want to know what the hell happened. By the way, it doesn't happen to me. I don't get this trouble. Why?

Well, I don't get this trouble because I pick up an out-of-sessionness long before the pc does. Long time before the pc does. He didn't find out about it for an hour. He wouldn't. And get it corrected. And therefore, you never get an irrelevance to the session.

An irrelevance to the session — You say, how to handle this thing? Well how to handle it as a question? Well, by all means, acknowledgment, acknowledge it. It's an origin on the part of the pc. He has said something He's made some noises in the air. Yeah, yeah, handle it by all means.

But so as not to ARC break him up, and then realize that a question that from any basis of anything you are doing, my God, at least your middle rudiments are out. Something is out here, man. The banana peels have been scattered all over this walk. That would be it. And so what you would do about it is get the pc in-session. Male voice: Mm-hm.

As far as answering a pc's questions are concerned, I thought you were going to ask me some question of the type that pcs do ask when they are in session. Pc's sitting there steaming away and the steam's coming out of both ears and he feels this mass coming in on him and so forth. And he's saying, Whooow! you know, he's very interested in all this and he's — "What's the tone arm saying?" You know? "What's the tone arm reading?"

And I say, "4.25. Thank you."

And the pc says, "4.25 — God, it sure feels like it in here!"

He says — he says, "What are we going to do now?" He says, "What are we going to do now?" You know? He says, "I'd like to find my goal today. What — what are we going to do now?"

And you're going to say, "Well, it's twenty minutes from session end. We're going to have to run end rudiments. We'll try to find your goal next session." Whatever it is. "But I'm not going to make a botch of it. Anything you'd care to say?" You know?

The pc says, "Oh, well. All right." The pc says, "My God," he says, "What are you doing?"

And it suddenly dawns on you that you put in no R-factor on this whatsoever. You were supposed to be running 3GA today and you're prepchecking. And you just say what you're doing. You say, "I'm prepchecking I'm sorry I didn't tell you." Cover it up that way.

Never be — never think that by admitting you were wrong, you lose control of a session. That's another trick. You don't. Do you know you only lose control of sessions by demanding to be right? When you didn't understand — the pc said — you say, "Point out something" And the pc does this, you know, and you say, "Well, I didn't see what you pointed at." See? You don't say, "What did you point at?" like, "What's all this clumsy motion you're making with your hand?" That knocks him out of session.

And you say, "I." Get the Chinese into it, see, the Japanese, "Blind, insignificant me, failed to perceive what wonderful, radiant you did." The pc relaxes himself straight into session. There are many methods of control, as women could tell you.

But pc asks you a question — basically answer it if it has anything to do with his case or this session. Answer it. If it doesn't, why, give him a cheery aye-aye and then try to size up whether or not this pc is in-session or out of session or what's going on here, see? At least get your middle rudiments in. Do something Size it up. use it as a word of warning.

Male voice: Mmm.

See, that is a word of warning. He isn't in-session if he asks you something like that. Okay?

Male voice: Yes. Well, a question that follows on, somewhat, is that the havingness is up at the beginning of middle rudiments and the beginning of end rudiments but goes down when the rudiments are finished. In other words, you don't get the swing of the needle. What does this mean?

How would you know?

Male voice: How would I know?

Yeah.

Male voice: Uh, finishing Havingness, running end rudiments, having time at the end of the session and run some more Havingness. And when you start, the swing is down.

What are you doing Finishing off the body of the session with Havingness?

Male voice: Well, you might get through your end rudiments . . .

Another male voice: It's a Havingness session.

Male voice: . . . so fast you've got another five minutes up your sleeve.

Another male voice: It's a Havingness session.

Male voice: It's a Havingness session.

Oh, it's a Havingness session.

Male voice: Yes.

And you think you have observed here that the havingness was well up and went down?

Male voice: Yes.

By the time you hit the havingness at the end?

Male voice: That's right.

Nothing peculiar about this.

Male voice: Mmmm.

Havingness slides all over the place. I don't think you've noticed this consistently. You have noticed it on one pc and that pc is being inquired into. And actually — oh, I really shouldn't answer this question — it'll make you gun shy of asking them. I don't want to do that. The answer to the question, unfortunately, is a symptom of very rough auditing. It's a symptom of unconfidence.

I already made this test years ago. ARC break and havingness are interchangeable. In the presence of an ARC break, havingness goes down. When an ARC break is cleared up, havingness goes up. Those two things operate hand-in-glove. When havingness goes up, ARC breaks disappear. When havingness goes down, ARC breaks appear. You sometimes get an ARC break just because havingness is down.

Now, if there's anything rough at all about auditing, you'll get a dwindlingness of havingness. You see? If you're failing to get a rudiment in expertly, if you're not old smoothie himself, you see, in snapping these things off the line, you can expect the havingness to drop.

I'll give you an example. You say, "Did you — in — in — in — did — in — yeah. Did — did — did — this — this session — is there anything — any que — is there any — que — in this session, a question or command — uh, let's see, now — no, no, I got this — I got that wrong now. Wait a minute. Is there a question or command I haven't a. . . no, no, that's not — right."

You could pull something like that on a pc, give him a can squeeze test, see — here's your test, see; you've been auditing him smoothly, see — give him a can squeeze test and he gets a full dial drop at sensitivity O here. Then say your next rudiment in that garbled fashion. Quite sincerely garbled, you see — no gag about it. And — or do this, "In this session is there any question or command you have failed to answer — answer with me?"

And the pc says, "I don't think so — I don't — don't think so."

And you say, "Question, man, question, what question, what question — question. I said question, question, what — what question? What question didn't you answer in this session? That's what I want to know."

And the pc said, "Well, I don't know of any. I don't — I don't know — I don't think of any — right at the moment."

And you say, "Good. Thank you very much. Squeeze the cans."

Now, it doesn't have to be this flagrant. It just has to be that the pc's confidence in the auditor — actually, confidence in the auditor is proportional to the smoothness of the auditing from the pc's point of view, you see? And little bits, almost microscopic to somebody else, are rough spots on the road and you'll get a havingness drop.

Now, you find this out that if you smooth up on a pc the end rudiments — smooth up your approach with this pc on the end rudiments, see. Smooth it up so — oh man, is it glassy. You come down to the body — into the body of the session, you open up with your end rudiments, you go through to the end, you test it again. Your havingness, if anything, will have increased. See? That's what — confident, flawless handling See?

I've also been interested in this. Don't think it's necessarily you, you understand. Because a pc, early on in his auditing, tends to be more critical of the auditor than later. And if you take a pc who is having any kind of a rough time, casewise, and if you ask that pc every five minutes if you have made a mistake, the pc will have — find one that you have made. You're doing a flawless job of auditing, if we could theoretically put it that way, and ask the pc what mistake you have made in the last five minutes, and the pc will find one that you have made. It'll be a mistake such as, "You turned your head on your side when you asked — on its side, slightly, when you asked me the question." See, there'll be these little, microscopic things.

But these are all symptomatic of a very nervous pc who is not well grooved in, who is having a hard time anyhow and who has been roughly handled in life and has possibly not been too easily handled in earlier auditing

So, as your pc is well audited, this factor drops out. Let's keep your auditor constant, see; your auditor is always the same. And the pc havingness after the fifth session with that auditor will stay up, whereas in the first session would have gone down. Auditor's equal factor, see. you got your pc's change.

Now, similarly, your auditor is auditing better and better and handling things more and more expertly as the session goes along, you're going to get the reverse — you're going to get the same effect happening As your auditor gets better, your havingness stays up. See? If you can give — if you give a rough session, if your handling of the sessionness is rough, you can always expect havingness to drop.

I'm sorry to have to give you that answer.

Male voice: No, that's all right. I like to hear it.

All right. Okay. That's the answer to it. All right. Yes, Esta?

Female voice: I'd like to know more about the importance of the tone of voice of an auditor when noticing something about the E-Meter like, let's say, all of a sudden you get a free needle — the auditor never saw a free needle, "My! Free needle!" Or, let's say, "Well, in this session have you tried to damage anyone?" The needle is null. "Fine! It's null!" Well, what effect can that have on . . .

All right. You're asking me if tone of voice . . .

Female voice: How important is it?

. . . how important is tone of voice? It actually isn't tone of voice, honey. It is irrelevant remark, which is already at the end of the bulletin there in Model Session. It's irrelevant remarks. Now, you can make a remark without saying anything.

Female voice: Yes.

And it's still a remark.

Female voice: Just by the expression.

Yeah. All right. You say, "Do you have a present time problem?" You say — you say to the pc, "Do you have a present time problem?" The auditor wouldn't do this, but he said, "Do you have a present time problem?"

Female voice: Yeah.

"It's clean!"

Female voice: I had that experience quite a few years ago. I had a free needle for a day and a half and the auditor was saying, "God, I never saw anything like it!"

Yeah. He did? All right. Now, that is a remark.

Female voice: Yes!

And it's a whole series of remarks. They are understood. They express themselves in the tone of voice . . .

Female voice: . . . startled.

. . . and so on, and they are all bad. That's — that's very sour. That's a very sour thing to do. It is making a remark with a vocal expression.

"Have you ever been raped?"

And the pc says, "No."

And the auditor says, "It's clean," you know. And well, he's made a remark, hasn't he? All right. And then anything like that is a remark — an irrelevant remarks.

Now, this is as bad. You're running — you're running the pc and you say, "Look around here and find something — Hey, that — that — that needle just dropped a whole dial!"

And the guy says, "Huh? What? Who? Where? What does this have to do with anything? Which way did they go? Who — who was — who was that?"

See? And it enters a whole chain of stuff. This all comes under the head of the auditor putting the pc's attention on the auditor. And of course, the pc goes out of session because the attention comes off the pc's bank onto the auditor.

Female voice: And the E-Meter.

Therefore goes out — and similarly, E-Meter. And therefore the pc goes out of session with a crash. And you can knock a pc out of session with any of these irrelevant remarks.

Oddly enough, if you're too different even in voice tone you can do the - same thing You can say, "Well, I'm not going to make any irrelevant remark." All right. "Do you have a present time problem? That is clean."

And the pc says, "What's this?" see.

And once more you've achieved yanking the pc's attention out of session.

Now, there's something more serious about this. A sudden yankingness of attention off of a bank and onto the auditor — the auditing environment or the meter — a sudden yank in this particular line — causes those things which the pc has sort of been holding out from him with a thin, frail straw — see, he's got a straw punched into this mass out here and you all of a sudden scream behind his back, and he goes, "Beeeeeyaaaah, what the hell!" You know? And this — he lets go of this straw and the mass will hit him right square in the puss. And after — you'll find it's an awful hard time digging the pc out underneath all of this mess now.

And you say, "Well, how did he get so caved in?" Well, it's something like being mystified. You're in the mines, you see. And the mine domes are all held up with pillars, you know. And you go down there with a bazooka or a sledge hammer or something of this sort and you knock all these pillars down. you see? And you say, "What are all those miners doing buried under all of that coal?"

See, it's just as idiotic to be amazed about that as it is to say, "Good God! What the w — well, look at this meter! Wha — oh dear! Huh?" You know?

And the pc says, "Where am I?" you know?

And you say, "Well, what's my pc doing buried under all that coal? You know, the needle stick now and — and I — what am I going to do?" And it's a hell of a thing to dig a pc out from underneath. It's one of the most serious things an auditor can do is a sudden shift of a pc's attention.

One of the ways you can do this is get him awfully absorbed in question one and then before he gets a chance to answer it ask him question two. you say, "Well, did you ever have a mother?"

"Mother, wonder if I ever had a mother. Mother — mmmothermmmothermmmothermmmmmm . . ."

And you suddenly say, "Well, any parents at all?"

And what he's put his attention on down here is "Mother" all of a sudden goes on him, snap! Because he's holding it out with his attention, you might say, and his attention goes off of it suddenly and it's got spring to it and it'll — it'll give him the sensation of being hit.

Okay. Well, thank you for mentioning that, Esta. It's all under the heading of irrelevant question. It's irrelevant question, irrelevant remark, irrelevant action. It has nothing to do with anything, and it's all very damaging. The only place it's allowable at all is when you're trying to acknowledge the pc. Then you can make a little bit of a remark. And you can answer the pc's question when they appertain to the session. Always answer him, don't leave him in mystery.

I neither inform him when he doesn't want to be informed or withhold information from him when he wants it — about a meter. I never obtrude a meter on a pc. Never obtrude a meter on a pc unless the pc has already got the meter in the middle of the field. Pc says, "Is my needle dirty?"

And I say, "Yeah."

He'd say, "Oh," and go on back into session, see.

He says, "Have you been auditing an awful lot of pcs lately?"

And I say, "Mm-hm. Thank you. Yes." And just let that one go by, see? It didn't have anything to do with the session. It's none of his business.

Pc says, "Are you doing this because you hate me?"

I pick up the missed withhold. Get in the mid ruds — something.

Question will come up, sooner or later . . . That answered your question, didn't it, Esta?

Female voice: Yes.

Yes. Question will come up, sooner or later, do you ever use the middle rudiments while using the beginning or end rudiments? The question will come up sooner or later.

I can imagine a situation where this should be — where this could happen. I could imagine. But I couldn't imagine an auditor who had a pc well under control having to do it.

Using a consistent, skillful auditing approach, getting the pc day after day, session after session, well into session — carrying it along and so forth — you'll find out, gets away from having to take any unusual steps at all. Actually getting all of the rudiments in, getting something done in the body of the session and getting the pc, you know, out of session at the end with the rudiments, you'll find out that that, skillfully done, answers in very short order — just a very few sessions and any need for anything tricky — it'll smooth out the pc's needle, give the pc better confidence. It'll cut back the pc's incidence to tantrums and so on. Actually not because you've done anything but be consistent. Not because you've only done that which is necessary to do. Only because you've been predictable. Just those factors alone will keep the pc from blowing up.

With what a relief some pc who's had a very Q-and-Aing auditor, all of a sudden finds out that the pc will go on in spite of being blasted out of the chair — I mean, the auditor will still go on.

Let me give you this. This pc has on many occasions gotten ARC broken and had an auditor quit — had the auditor just quit, see. Wow! Then the fel — auditor left him and he's stuck in it and so forth. Well, that's all what it would be. But it has an additional effect beside from a bank effect — he's kind of afraid the next auditor will do it, see?

So you're now — now he's got an auditor and, he goes, blaaoooow! you know, and he splatters all over the ceiling and he knocks everything off the table and he screams and so forth. And the auditor asks the next auditing question. So he screams a little bit and the auditor says, "I'll repeat it. I'll repeat the auditing question," and does so. So he answers it. And all of a sudden sits back with a tremendous sigh of relief and goes right on, just walking along beautifully.

What's happened there? His confidence has come up. His reality's come up. And he finds out he can trust the auditor to audit him. That's all that's really happened. He realizes he's going to get some auditing.

And the funny part of it is, you can sometimes be quite rough. You can say, "Sit down there! Sit down in the chair! Now pick up these cans! I'll repeat the auditing question."

And the guy says, "Wow, you know! That's terrific. That's real good. you know? You — that's great."

And if you did the reverse and did the kind thing, why, he'd just be — he'd just go all to pieces. See? He'd get worse and worse. The more you tried to do something about it, the worse he'd get.

I'm not saying be tough with such a person. I'm just talking about predictability and predictability alone will hold somebody in-session regardless of whether you're doing anything with the mind or not. It's a factor which you mustn't neglect.

And therefore, the more irrelevant actions you take or the more unusual things you do, such as getting in the middle ruds while you're doing the beginning ruds, the more unusual things that you're doing, such as getting in the end ruds while you're getting in the middle ruds, see, anything that you're doing that's the least bit off-base runs you at the risk of seeming unpredictable. And it actually works up to more of a curse than it does a cure.

What you should concentrate on is predictability of saying the exact auditing question, doing the exact textbook response, see. Going on that way just absolutely exactly and give that a chance to work. And you'll find out in two or three sessions one of the roughest pcs you ever had is sit — sit in the pc's chair, you know, and he just begins to smile like the Cheshire cat, you know? Needle gets smooth. Case starts to move. He starts to blow things that he never blew before. And the only thing, perhaps, that you introduced into the whole thing — you understand getting rudiments in outside of this doesn't really introduce anything at all except getting the pc into session, the auditor real, the session predictable, things smooth, taking off anything that happened in the session.

But it's all predictability. And get it under the heading of predictability. And as soon as you understand it from a standpoint of predictability, then you'll see that it itself has a virtue and it itself does something. Now the person has confidence in you so then he dares go into session, so he dares blow something. Otherwise they're sitting, you know, like a gopher on top of his mound, you know? Watch, watch, watch, watch, watch, watch, watch, watch, watch, watch, you know? And they don't go into session so they don't blow anything.

Predictability alone permits them to go into session.

Now, when you add to that the tremendous strength and power of the buttons you are using in beginning, middle and end rudiments, how can you miss? But the first factor you must strive for is predictability of use — that you must strive for. When you've got that, then you'll find out the better you can make that, the less unusual you have to be and the more you will do for the pc.

A very skittery pc and a very nervous pc is best handled with a simple predictability. The more nervous they are, the more predictable you should be. The more dispersed they are, the more steady you should be. And you'll find out that'll work just like absolute magic. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the buttons you are using.

By the time you have audited a pc three or four sessions, no matter what you are running, if this person isn't swearing by you and if this person isn't deeply in-session every time they go into session and so forth, then your handling of this must be unpredictable to that pc. And you are actually not doing anything odd. What you're doing will be unpredictable. You'll be doing something off the rails here and there.

One thing I wish to apologize to you about is those who just learned the first Model Session, I wish to apologize for having to give them another Model Session to learn instantly. But there is this one point, there is this one point I would like to make. I wouldn't do it for worlds, see, I just wouldn't do it for worlds unless it made it that much better.

Now, we're winding up to go for broke here on clearing and there's the course and direction that we're steering. I don't want to get well into this and then have to change horses. You see? So I'm trying to change horses here so we can hold it stable from here on.

Everything I'm trying to do is in the direction of a greater stability and we're just now achieving the results, broadly, by auditors who are well trained. And I don't think there's a person that we can't clear. If we can get our hands on him, we can clear him.

All right. But it all depends on the consistency of application of what we are doing. We know all the rules. It depends on whether or not all those rules will be applied.

And along with this goes predictability. And you'll find out that I am less and less violating this particular factor. I've only violated it up to the point where I find out we have a very nice workability and there you'll see it stopped.

You haven't heard a thing about Prepchecking for a long time. I did find we had a hole the other day. We find — didn't have our Havingness Processes, all of them, on one sheet of paper. I was quite amazed that we didn't have them all down and so I've got to fill that in, and here and there you'll find one that is filled in or needs filling in. But basically I'm trying to — trying to create and hold a standard here.

And don't be too dismayed when you find something isn't quite as standard as you thought it was, because I'm always willing to learn, I'm always willing to improve something But I'm also very careful of improving things that are working It's only where we need improvement that we keep putting them in.

So I hope you'll be very successful with this new Model Session. I hope it will answer everything up the way you think it ought to go. use it though, just as it's written to make a predictability come along with it.

If you have tremendous difficulty, consistently and broadly, with any one of its lines or any one of its wordings, I guarantee you, I will change that. But that would be the only reason I would. Okay?

Thank you very much.

Good night.