Thank you.

Thank you.

Well, this is what?

Once upon a time there were three bears. No, that's this time of evening.

Audience: 27th.

All right. Second lecture. February 27, AD 12. Saint Hill Special Briefing Course.

Twenty-seventh of February . . .

Now, the — I want to talk to you about the basic activities of an auditor and call your attention to the standard procedures which have been invariable over a long period of time. And the first of those is the Auditor's Code. That is an invariable and it is a tool of the auditor. And it's had two or three additions to it over a period of many, many years; and you already know the additions. You think of them as the Auditor's Code, but I'm just saying it came out in its basic form, and it's been with us more or less ever since with just these few additions.

Audience: AD 12.

Now, why did the Auditor's Code come out? Why? It was to make auditing possible. If the Auditor's Code is violated, auditing becomes impossible. So it is a practical tool, and all of Scientology is built on practicalities. It has its own branch of theoretical gee-whizzes of "What do you know . . ." "What do you think might. . ." "Well, perhaps," and "Gee-whiz, if. . ." "Wouldn't it be very interesting . . ." etc. See? It has its own branch of speculation — any zone of knowledge has. But it has a very, very heavy zone of practicality. And its foundations are the foundations of practicality, not the foundations of theory.

AD 12. Very good. Very good.

The Auditor's Code was compiled in Wichita, Kansas, in 1951 after a survey of pcs who had gone wrong in being audited in the Central Organization in Wichita. And I traced back each of these cases and found the elements which had caused a difficulty in auditing the case.

All right. We begin herewith, herein, amongst our battered selves, a new type of schedule simply designed on several basics. And one of those is that I'm perfectly willing to give you all the instruction time I possibly can and your schedule was a bit colliding with this particular fact and so I've stepped it up to eight hours of demonstration and lectures a week. And that's a bit better than you were getting And I've tried to put it in that part of the day that you were least harassed. And I think you find this more satisfactory.

And I think it's the first twelve items, in the same numerical order as they exist today, were the results of that rather arduous survey. And those things are quite factual.

And the demonstration's going to work like this. The regulations on the demonstration is that you can leave at ten. you don't have to leave at ten; you can leave at ten, on a demonstration. But me, I audit for results and after I'd done some of this postage stamp auditing for you . . . I audit for results, that's all and these results are scheduled on a — just that. They're scheduled on the pc's reactive bank. They're not scheduled on a clock. And I like to audit to a result and knock it off. Or audit to a point where I don't think I'll reach anything that session and knock it off. It's a different framework.

They come in little groups. The two shuns. And I found out that invalidation and evaluation, wow, wow! Oh, man. you run either one of those in on the pc, or the pc runs either one of those into a session — as you're learning in 3D Criss Cross you have to keep them cleaned up — the net result was no auditing gain. Actually, not as mild as no auditing gain, but actually a slump. The case was worse off. Got that? That was a slump.

And trying to audit somebody in an hour, I was setting a bad example to you because I ordinarily do beginning and end rudiments. And now, by the time you've subtracted beginning and end rudiments from an hour's session, you've got damned little auditing left. And I could fully expect — I don't say that it will — but I'd say on seldom occasions, one of these demonstrations is liable to run until two o'clock in the morning. And that's because I audit to an item, audit to a result, don't you see?

Now, the matter of eating breakfast sounds like a funny thing to have in an Auditor's Code but let me tell you something about that. Every case that has ever spun in under auditing — (quote) (unquote) "auditing" — in addition to other things has had as a constant nothing to eat and no sleep. Those two are also present whatever else happened. And that's every case that ever spun.

And nobody expects you to stay till two o'clock in the morning. You can leave at ten. Or you can stay until two o'clock in the morning You understand?

And you get somebody there who just staggered out of an institution someplace and sat down. They were going to make progress all the way along the line and then all of a sudden you'll find that they are spinning You trace back and find immediately preceding this that they stopped sleeping and stopped eating

Audience: Yes.

Now, all of these things, all of these factors of the Code — I'm not trying to cover them one by one — are empirical. That is to say they are the benefit of observation and the coordination of data, and they are there simply because they are practical.

But doing it this way, why, then I can put in an extension of time. The only people that have any problems with this, is some of your Instructors have problems with this new schedule. But that's all right. We can — we can solve those one way or the other. We can get those.

The first theoretical code had greater appeal, and it was something on the order of when knighthood was in flower. Had greater appeal but it was not the practical code. But I still sort of favor that earlier code. I think that that's got some good beef to it. Every once in a while I feel like shoving that at somebody because one of its primary points was the auditor should be courageous. And you just never let an auditor chicken out. Never. But anyway, these are just the practical aspects of things.

Now, one of the old-time students at this late stage of the game is coming up to Clear. And it's almost a shame to let her go. But I just received a letter from her — her true love down in South Africa — or down in Rhodesia, saying it was all right for her to stay this one extension, see, but I shudder to mention another one. But that's awfully tempting to see that there's a floating needle amongst us. The tone arm is too high, but that will come down with a — with a few more items. But it's awfully tempting just to hold this person over and clear her. Or let the auditor, go right up to the point where the tone arm is unable to maintain its present height, you see. Let him go right up to that point and then take over with the last session, you see. And clip out the few W/Hs and terminals, you know, that are holding the tone arm up there, you see. And then tell everybody well, you see, I can clear somebody in one session. I think this is very funny.

Now, we go into such a thing as the Axioms. They are very, very carefully examined over a long period of time. And the first Dianetic Axioms were written during the year 1951, and you will find that they're quite practical as auditing axioms. Not enough attention is given to those first Dianetic Axioms — those and the Prelogics. The Logics are very interesting as a synthesis of all education. The basic common denominators of all education can be found in the Logics.

After he's worked, you see, for a couple of hundred hours on the project or something like that — that would — that would be a college professor's trick, wouldn't it? Yeah.

But there you're on theoretical material. In the Axioms of Scientology, you have a condensation and a recapitulation of all of those early Axioms and Logics boiled down to a more practical, more fundamental, more forthright list. In other words, those fifty-five original Axioms and so forth of Scientology are more or less observed. They're pretty well observed. They are observed from the more theoretical Dianetic Axioms.

Yeah. They take all the students' inventions, don't you see, and patent them themselves. That's the California Institute of Technocracy. They specialize in that. As a matter of fact, one of the greatest names in American physics does nothing but that. He's never had an idea in his life.

Now, as far as the mind itself and its constituency as covered in Book One, do you know there is hardly a thing you're doing right this minute that isn't somehow touched on or handled or mentioned in Book One — which is very fantastic, see? That's written the first part of 1950. That's very interesting

But we don't work that way around here, so we won't do it that way. But it is very, very tempting to hold this person over until we get the tone arm down and then we can say, "See? A Clear."

And you have some data which was in The Original Thesis, 1947 — more practically brought up to date. That thing was brought up to date as of 1950 — 49, which is the present version. There's some data in there which is very, very applicable to auditing and has become very strong and more recently has not been mentioned. But I've mentioned it on this course several times but I'll give you a little synthesis of this.

And then we could put her on a frame alongside the door and you could . . .

The auditor as a thetan plus the pc as a thetan is greater than the pc's reactive mind. The pc as a thetan is less than the pc's reactive mind. The auditor plus the reactive mind is certainly greater than the pc as a thetan. Do you see how the equation works out? In other words, the auditor has got to work with the pc in order to overcome the pc's reactive mind. And the auditor cannot condemn the pc and expect to have the pc handle his reactive mind. See, if the auditor takes the pc out of the running as a thetan and as a being, you see — he invalidates his beingness, you might say — you get no conquering of any reactive mind. you just get an overwhelmed pc.

Okay. Well, I forgot my notes and — you haven't heard that gag for some time, have you? It took you by surprise. I forgot my notes, so I don't have very much to go over with you aside from Scientology, Prepchecking, 3D Criss Cross, clearing, chains, engrams, secondaries, valences, circuits, reactive mind, the E-Meter, auditing sessions, Model Session. These things sound familiar to you? Any of you heard of these things before?

Now, that set of formulas out of The Original Thesis, is what the Auditor's Code is set up to effect. You have the Auditor's Code, you see, because of these other formulas — these little basic formulas. Auditor plus pc, as thetans, greater than pc's reactive mind, see? Auditor plus reactive mind, greater than pc as a thetan, see? In other words, the auditor's validating the pc's reactive mind, you see, and invalidating the pc in some fashion, why, you get all sorts of interesting combinations on how these factors could go out.

Now, I will talk to you about — a little bit about Prepchecking. Because this is where you will find your biggest strength and it's sort of a knack.

Now, if the auditor is a reactive mind, you get all sorts of interesting things. And partially as a sort of a little moral code of auditing, it's a moraltechnical code, you avoid all this trouble if you follow the Auditor's Code very thoroughly. But you're entitled to know what you're avoiding You're avoiding the auditor invalidating the pc as a thetan and beefing up the pc's reactive mind and getting the pc overwhelmed by his own reactive mind. That's all you're — all you're doing And those rules are laid down as a result of it.

Once upon a time, you were given a bicycle. Or you saved the money you had been stealing out of the church collection plate or something and managed to buy a bicycle. And you couldn't ride it. Or you had a sister or brother or the fellow next door had a bicycle and you couldn't ride it. Do you remember a time when you couldn't ride a bicycle? Hm?

Now, the formation of the reactive mind into circuits or valences — they were considered separate once. There are circuits, machinery and valences. Well, machinery — I could tell you very factually — is I don't know what happened to machinery. I don't know where machinery fits in all this, to tell you the truth, because I've audited pcs that have suddenly looked up and found some of the nicest, brightest, shiniest pieces of mental machinery you ever heard of. They go, "Watch!" you know. They have — sometimes have flywheels, and they have goojagodgets that chump-a-chump, you know, and so on.

And you may have some recollection of falling off the bicycle a few times, of steering it onto the grass plots and off the curb and narrowly missing various inanimate objects and maybe not missing a few animate objects and you had quite a time with this bicycle and it was all in the matter of steering the thing and keeping it balanced.

And I don't know where machinery fits in unless it's a valence of a machine. In other words, the beingness of a machine. The identity of a machine. The individual has been an engineer for so long that he's the engine, and this leaves a machine called an engine which is a valence. It could be that way, but I haven't inspected this any further.

And then all of a sudden — there was no transition period — all of a sudden, one day, you could ride a bicycle. There was never a period when you could almost ride a bicycle. You remember that? Then one day you all of a sudden could ride a bicycle.

But a circuit, as far as we're concerned, is a Specialized function of a valence. A valence is an identity, but when this identity balls up and acts on its own initiative, it is a totally separate functional identity. And when this — when this valence — well, valence — John Jones, see? John Jones operating without benefit of thetan equals circuit. See, when John Jones is an automatic identity, he's all balled up and functioning, and this is very strange because — Lewis Carroll sort of an approach — " 'e 'adn't any thetan for a number of years," see? "And this is very strange because he hadn't any feet."

Oddly enough, both Prepchecking and 3D Criss Cross come under this category. And you go on falling on your 'ead and falling on your 'ead and not riding the bicycle and then suddenly one day you'll be riding the bicycle. Then you say, "How is it possible that people can't ride bicycles?" And you will be very, very snide about this, I'm sure.

Anyway, you've got this kind of a thing. He's been dead now for eightthousand-jillion years so that the planet on which the body is — not only is the graveyard gone, you see, but the planet in which the graveyard stood is gone. And yet we have this John Jones — no thetan, see — but this identity, John Jones, totally functional, still giving the pc orders as to what to do. I think it's quite remarkable. Of course, the pc gave John Jones orders over such a long period of time that you get a reverse flow of John Jones, as a circuit, now giving the pc orders.

It's not possible not to ride a bicycle — if you can ride a bicycle. And one day you'll get the feel of this. But there's a certain amount of information and technology that is necessary toward the riding of a bicycle. And one, you must recognize whether by definition or merely fooling with it, that there is such a thing as gyroscopic action.

Well, it's the stuck flow. you throw baseballs at a wall long enough, and by George, you'll get the idea that the wall is throwing baseballs at you. It's inevitable. Just one way, you see? One way, one way, one way. You'll get a backlog there. Well, the pc at the time he inhabited the character known as John Jones gave nothing but orders to John Jones. Of course, John Jones was not capable of anything else but receiving orders because he was just a meat body or something like that with a thetan resident in it. And as — the pc as the thetan was saying "Do this," and not articulating it, but you know, sort of "Pick up the fork with the right hand. cut off a bit of the shredded wheat biscuit. Tilt the spoon," you see? "Hold the spoon level. Be careful not to spill the milk. Turn the wrist. Open the jaw muscles. Close the elbow. Close the mouth — not too far — withdraw the spoon. Don't drivel. Unjoint the elbow. Lower the hand. Tilt the spoon" — and this would be taking one mouthful, you see?

And gyroscopic action is one of the most complicated mathematical subjects you ever tackled in your life. If you ever wish to make life miserable, if you just feel in one of these masochistic moods, you know, don't go out and get yourself beaten with a club or run over by a taxicab driver, just study the mathematics of gyroscopes. They're fantastic. And that's a bicycle, see. And study the delivery of mechanical force from point A to point B and study mechanical advantages. The operation and construction of coaster brakes. The metallurgy of the frame. That's a nice, complicated one. The synthetic chemistry in the composition of tires. And as long as you're getting into tires, let us go into something worthwhile. Let's go into balloonostatics. Let's get further into the stress analysis of spokes. I never knew that spokes could be complicated till we put a coaster brake on a little 15-inch wheel for Quentin.

And that happens every morning for a long time, you see, in all of its dubious complexities. And don't think it is peculiar if the fellow gets the idea after a while that John Jones ought to feed him, a thetan. See? He's been giving all the orders that fed John Jones. So he sits there as a thetan — naturally, the valence becomes a circuit which gives him orders about eating Do you see how the mechanism is? It's a stuck-flow mechanism.

We put a 3-speed gear shift on one of these little, tiny bicycles. And of course, they're not made for that, you know. And this little bike, now, will practically — you could peddle it up a vertical wall, you know. But all of the — all of the spokes, since they don't make spokes small enough, you see, to go in that wheel on a coaster brake, they all had to be cut, hand cut and that was a mess because the wheel would thereafter not vibrate straightly. So they had to be cut and recut and bent and rebent and every wheel spoke had to be balanced in so the wheel eventually ran smoothly on its own axis. Very complicated business.

Having proceeded only from the North Pole to the South Pole for seventy years, it is now peculiar if the South Pole doesn't proceed to the North Pole for a while. And that's a circuit.

Well, you could go into all of this. And then because you're going to ride a bicycle mainly outside, you could go into and make a complete and exhaustive study of meteorology to know when the weather would be good or bad so that you could ride your bicycle, don't you see?

All right. You're dealing with that with 3D Criss Cross. You're dealing with these things very directly. And everything that makes this life miserable made the life of John Jones miserable, too, probably. See?

And then because you're riding your bicycle on ground, you could take up the study of materials of construction. This would give you everything to know about roads. And you could go just a little bit further than that — knowing more about materials and construction because you're going to ride this bicycle on Earth — you could take up geology. And then geology is influenced, of course, by electrical currents and that sort of thing, so you could take geophysical hydrostatics of various kinds.

You know, you have withholds, and you get in trouble with buying stocks and bonds, and you don't sell them right at the right time, and you should be buying a present for your wife and you're whistling at a blonde, you know? Or you should be thinking about your husband's dinner, and instead of that, why, there's a terrific urge to pick up the phone and call Bill, you see?

You could take the influences of Earth's magnetic fields, you see, as it might influence matter, as it might influence the ground, as it might influence the sidewalk, in case you ever hit your head on the sidewalk and couldn't ride the bicycle.

And there's as many complexities and withholds and upsets and economics and duresses and familial stand-on-the-heads and antisocialities and games of cops and robbers and so forth, going on, you see, in the lifetime of John Jones, as there has been in this lifetime, see? It was all at earnest, too. It was all at — in fact — perhaps because it's earlier on the track even more earnest, even more sincerely arduous, even more dedicated, even more this than the present lifetime, see?

Now, if you approached it from this very, very complicated sphere, you still wouldn't be able to ride a bicycle. You've made all these studies now and you still can't ride a bicycle. So you see, you could go around Robin Hood's barn on a perimeter of about seven miles away from it and wind up at a destination nowhere, even yet, couldn't you? Well, I'm just giving you this as an example.

Well, all of that, you see, has been lived, and there it is packaged as the accumulated engrams, facsimiles and ridges of John Jones, all neatly packaged and no longer parked on the time track, no longer parked but definitely mixed up in present time. It sort of floated free. There was nothing locating any time there anymore, is there? So it can very easily bunch up and float free. Well, just as this lifetime can get into a grouper — which is your black case; the no facsimile case is simply somebody whose lifetime, this present lifetime, has gone into a grouper — so you have a valence going into a grouper and becoming a round black-ball circuit which gives orders and does various things.

Now, you could know all of your theory and you could know all these things very well and you could know exactly how to — well, not how to, you could just know the theory of practically everything in Scientology and still not be able to prepcheck. That's the only point I'm making.

The thinkingness of John Jones is restimulated every time a little bing of energy hits this black ball, see? And we've got that mechanism covered in Book One. And inside this thing we're going to find, as it pulls apart, all of the pictures and all of the picture phenomena that you find in engrams, secondaries and locks and their chains. All of that phenomena is present in that circuit.

You don't have time to steer the handlebars to the left or the right by calculation. The people who do this by calculation have remarkably knobbly skulls by this time. And if every time the bicycle had a slight impulse to go out of balance to the right, they did a calculation as to whether or not to move the handlebars to the right or the left, they would be full of dents after a while. You recognize that as a fact?

Now, that circuit belongs somewhere on a time track in relationship to other circuits, but if it's part of the Goals Problem Mass, it has totally floated free from its position on the time track and every moment of its time is now time; it's instant time. Hence, your instant read on the E-Meter.

Well, similarly, the auditor actually never has any time to calculate in doing a Prepcheck. You ride a bicycle by instinct. And you prepcheck by instinct. Now, you can get the rules down pretty well and you can know about where you're going and so forth, but when you totally delete out instantaneous instinct out of the thing, you're in bad shape.

In other words, this stuff is not timed anymore. It is "Now-now." You ask, "Did you blow up a planet?" and you'll get instantaneous crash on the E-Meter, you see? Well, how come he gets an instantaneous crash? He blew a planet up a billion years ago and if you were to ask him to travel to the point where he blew up the planet and back again, it would take several lightyears. So therefore, your E-Meter read would be a several light-year lag. It would be latent by several light-years. You see that clearly, don't you?

But if you read your withholds into the pc's case and call that instinct, you also will not ride the bicycle. You know, people do that. you know, we did that to you and I don't think anybody ever told you about it.

But it isn't. You say, "Do you — did you blow up that planet?" and you get an instant read. Well, that doesn't mean that he's on the planet. That means that the pictures that represent this explosion of the planet and so on are here and now and all time is now time. So of course, you get instant reads on the meter.

We asked you what withholds does your pc have and then did you realize you had been run on them immediately afterwards? We took the withhold the auditor was sure the pc had and had it run out of the auditor. It worked pretty well, didn't it? You found a few, didn't you? Just a corny gag. See?

Now, that data, plus all the phenomena of matter, energy, space and time, and the association of incidents and the confusions, and one of the earliest axioms there were, which appeared in the book, "Excalibur", about identities and similarities — life is composed of differences, similarities and identities.

It's a truism that auditors will sometimes assign all of their own withholds and misdeeds to the pc and then try to audit them out of the pc like mad. And of course they aren't in the pc. They're in the auditor's own case.

In other words, you identify two things or two things are similar, or they are different. And all things become identity and then collapse on this same scale to becoming different when they are just alike, and go on an inversion, and you get the disassociation of the psychotic, and so forth. All that data is, of course, pertinent to everything we're doing right now. We get all time identified with this time and then we get all these identities giving the pc all these orders and dictating all these reflexes and so forth. And by George, you know, just the last few minutes here, I've stated everything you're handling, see? There isn't anything else you're handling

So if you ask an auditor at any time to list the withholds it's most likely the pc has and make a long, arduous list of this thing, particularly if he hasn't much experience with the pc, don't you see? And then you take that list and have it and check it against the auditor, you'll find those withholds.

I had a young fellow one time — I sometimes meet disreputable people who — I have been known to associate with disreputable people and so forth. I've heard afterwards they were disreputable. They never — people never seem very disreputable to me. They always seem like people. And it's always a great shock to me to having spent the afternoon talking with somebody that I am afterwards informed is a wanted murderer. This is supposed to make some difference or another. But it never seems to make much difference to me.

I don't know that you are aware of that, but it's pretty rank. And if instinct is running your withholds out of the pc, why, then you're not again going to ride the bicycle.

And in talking with disreputable people I have sometimes been given to believe that certain actions were bad. I've been given to believe that certain actions were bad and certain actions were good. I have. They actually believe this. Certain actions are bad; certain actions are good.

No, you have to be able to sit in front of a human being — a being — and ride it down the line. you sometimes don't even find out what you're after till the session is over. Theory be damned. I mean, I did a session the other night and I found out after five hours and a half of auditing or something like this, I found out I had been auditing a chain called "women." But I didn't know it for five-and-a-half hours. That was the only common denominator to the chain I was running

But having talked to an awful lot of disreputable people in an awful lot of strange and different areas, I find there's some conflict in their statements. This is often puzzling to me. So that — well, you go to Australia, for instance, and you talk to some of the people in Australia about law and order — and they give you some very different ideas. And you examine the law codes of Australia and they find out — if you examine them very closely — you'll find out that they are calculated to prevent the law from ever reaching anybody, which I think is very laudable. They mostly concern themselves — I'm not joking now, you'll find all strung through their laws very odd laws which prevent law from ever being applied. And the laws which they pass are to prevent law from being applied, which I consider quite interesting; not necessarily good or bad, but interesting, see?

I thought I was running another chain entirely, all stemming out of a channel of withholds and sure enough, I was following down the channel I thought was there and we were winning hands down all the way, but I never got the whole chain summated until the session was over. There was another deeper common denominator to the chain of withholds that I was running. And that was women. See? That was actually the basic common denominator of the chain I was running.

And you get that law code, and if you took their law codes and asked them to be passed by as close a cousin as the British Parliament, I think there'd be quite a bit of discussion. I think there'd be questions in the House about some of these laws.

But nevertheless running a very successful Prepcheck. Running a terrifically successful Prepcheck with, actually, hardly the foggiest notion of what I was prepchecking. But I couldn't find out.

Well, there's little things like you've got to post the whole amount of a suit that you're suing somebody for before you can sue him for it, or something like this. I think that's fascinating, you know? And after you've sued somebody and waited for two years, you could lose the suit and forfeit all of your cash, and so forth. It sounds just about the way guys that were edgy about the law and had had enough of it would act.

Well, it was, to some degree, my fault because I started the session without really starting the session and started away from a present time problem. And the present time problem was dead on the line, but the auditor was actually assigning the channel rather than finding out from the pc what the channel was and assigning it.

And there's very curious things. But as far as their morality is concerned, it's comparable morality unless you get back into the bush, and you start talking to some of the aborigines. And I don't think they'd see eye to eye with the white man's law.

In other words I — if I had spent a little more time at the beginning of the session, you see, instead of getting myself hurled into the session with a present time problem. . . Actually, I had no subject left unflat on this, see. This was a new start on this case. It was a brand-new start.

I've had discussion with Blackfeet Indians, for instance, on the subject of law. And I was perfectly open-minded about the subject. You're always — you always are open-minded about things that you couldn't care less about, see. And I found out that the Blackfoot Indian has certain fundamentals on the subject of law that we would not completely agree with. We wouldn't agree that these were the best possible laws, and so on. But they always looked very sensible to me.

And this brand-new start — it meant all the 1s and 1A, 1B, and so on it had before, they were all washed, you see? So I had to find a new departure point, so I just took the present time problem as a departure point and the case walked over from this present time problem right down a chain. And then after five and a half hours of auditing I found out what the chain was called. It was called "women." Interesting Huh? I thought it was very fascinating

If you murder a man, you have to support his wife and family from there on out. That's the penalty for murder. Gives you to think, doesn't it, huh?

So your basic orientation on the case of what you're doing and so forth is largely a matter of touch. It's finding out what the pc will give you as a withhold and finding out what runs nicely as a withhold and then going on down that chain of related withholds and carrying on with it without letting the pc's attention jump entirely off that to some other disrelated subject. You know, you have to keep the pc's attention on this and it's sort of interesting. You sort of keep the pc's attention on it without forbidding the pc from talking about other things or stirring up a lot of bank that you're not now going to pull and keeping the pc on a chain and you sometimes will find yourself unable to identify the chain.

Now, all these conflicts of morality, all of these various counterpoints of morality, of what's good and what's bad and what isn't good and what isn't bad and all the shades of gray in between, give us so many confusions and conflicts of rightness of conduct that we can then get people seeking right conduct until they go nuts.

But it's obviously all related, you see? You're just running it by instinct. So we could tell you all about meteorology, geology, the magnetic fields, gyroscopy, synthetic chemistry and we could tell you all about those things and you could still sit down and if you have no instinct whatsoever for the pc and no interest in auditing the pc, if your — if your point here is totally missed, if you're just studying and your point is not you're going to audit the pc, you see, why, we'd wind up not riding the bicycle at all. you follow this?

Well, now, how do they do that? Well, you're an Egyptian one lifetime and then you're a Persian and then you're a Greek and then you become a Roman and then you become an Egyptian. And these civilizations are wildly and flagrantly different one to the next, but each one has its standards of rightness of conduct.

We could lay it all down with beautiful rules and you could memorize these rules and so forth. Well, you've already got a tremendous summation of information as contained in the withhold system itself. See, a tremendous quantity of data have been summarized and synthesized into that very neat package, just as fantastic quantities of technical information and modern science have gone into the making of a bicycle. See?

So if your rightness of conduct in Egypt is inexorably followed, you would be all right unless that got set up as a now-I'm-supposed-to circuit. Rightness of conduct? We always do the right thing automatically. See, training — social training, see? So that in Egypt, never had to think, you know. Just do the right thing, right then. Spontaneous. Bang! That is the thing to do. you all got it, see.

And what's left? Well, you haven't got a bicycle unless somebody can ride the bicycle, you got the idea? Bicycles are not display objects. They are riding objects. And so it is with Prepchecking. It's something to be used and you can use it or you can't use it. And there's hardly, apparently, with 3D Criss Cross and Prepchecking — apparently no grays. It's black and it's white. And how it got from black to white is as sudden as can't ride a bicycle and can ride one.

And then we become Persian with an Egyptian circuit. Decision of what to do in any given situation in Persia might be quite different, might be quite different than in Egypt. But we — our rightness of conduct gives us the automatic, now-I'm-supposed-to answer. But in Egypt, that has to be cancelled out first as the first impulse of what we're supposed to do so we can do the second impulse, see?

And just how it got through that zone will probably continuously evade your eye. Once you've given an auditor — once an auditor can sit there and run a repetitive process, he can get his rudiments in somewhat — if he can do these things, see, you know — run a repetitive process on the pc and he can keep his rudiments in, then I think you could teach him forever without getting him any closer to prepchecking than just prepchecking.

Well, that's all right, but we get to going in Persia just fine, and the warrior paints his face, and so forth. And you talk about makeup, I think that's where makeup came from: the Persian knight, the Persian warrior, and so forth. He's real pretty, you know? And — he looked like a Greek prostitute. And they — so we just get along fine there in Persia, see, and we get along dandy and then kick the bucket, and now we've got an Egyptian circuit and a Persian circuit. And we pick up a body in Greece. So now rightness of conduct consists of stopping the Egyptian impulse, stopping the Persian impulse, in order to do the Greek impulse. That's very interesting, isn't it? And then we kick the bucket in Greece and get another body in Egypt.

So the best — the best way is, I think, is kind of make sure he knows all about it, you see, that if you reverse the turn of the pedals, you apply the brakes, don't you see, and make him learn these various things and make him learn all that. And then just let him prepcheck and keep him from going off the roadway completely. And one fine day, why, not too distant future, he'll all of a sudden say, "Hey, what do you know!"

Now we've got, first, an Egyptian conduct line that is now a century out of date. It's the moral codes of Rameses II or something, see. And then we've got a Persian one and then we've got a Greek one and now we've got a new Egyptian one. Well, that new Egyptian one, that's real easy, isn't it, because we're in the most restimulative country, except we're very old-fashioned in our courtesy at first.

Now, just as you have to be able to walk and move your arms and legs to ride a bicycle, so do you have to be able to use an E-Meter and have a fair command of the basics of auditing That is to say, sit in a chair, repetitive question, these various things. Well, we assume that you're good at these things before you move over into it. But you'll find sometimes, when you're teaching somebody to prepcheck very industriously — you're gorgeously slogging ahead teaching somebody Prepchecking and they just can't prepcheck — you're liable to find out that they're trying to ride a bicycle but have no legs or something. And this is embarrassing

Ah, but wait a minute. While we were being a Persian, while we were being a Greek, we stopped all the early Egyptian impulses, so rightness of conduct is stopping an Egyptian impulse. So rightness of conduct in Egypt now is being antisocial. Isn't it?

They don't know how to use an E-Meter, see. Or they actually haven't ever had Op Pro by Dup flattened on them. And they can't repeat a repetitive question. They wouldn't be able to do this or they haven't a clue about Model Session or keeping the rudiments in and they're so busy doing all of these other things that their attention's not on Prepchecking at all, don't you see.

Now we're antisocial, you see, and the way to act properly like an Egyptian is to stop an Egyptian impulse. And about this time we sit down and wonder why we don't feel free. And why we feel a little bit confused by our environments. And why we don't think instantly. And why our power of decision seems to be a little bit slow. And why we comm lag before we speak and other such mechanisms.

So the stunt is to get somebody into some kind of shape where he or she can audit — knows an E-Meter, able to sit in the chair and do the TRs more or less, do Model Session and so forth. And then be able to handle the E-Meter against rudiments. Be able to handle the E-Meter pretty well against rudiments, before you turn them loose on Prepchecking. That's basically what they have to know.

Well, now all this would be all right if rightness of conduct were given very light weight. See, if we had very little weight attached to rightness of conduct, you know? I mean, if we had individuality and some people acted one way and some people acted the other way, and there was nobody putting any pressure on it.

And of course, they have to know the withhold system and they have to know what that's all about. And they'll get that pretty straight and then next thing you know, why, there they are, running

So having worn out numerous bodies in this Mediterranean circuit, we arrive in England in Puritan times, during the time, well, let's make it worse — the Roundheads — the time of the Roundheads, you see, where an insistence on rightness of conduct is the exclamation point of the day. Now we get some real good ones laid in. The penalty for unrighteous conduct is so fantastically huge that we go in danger of our lives daily. And we're coping at the same time with all these other circuits that tell us what rightness of conduct is. And some of those just as forceful, practically, as the Puritan one.

But you could learn all the rules and it'd still be to some degree, excusing your presence, ladies, fly by the seat of your pants operation. It is that. Because nobody could lay down what the pc's going to give you for withholds. Nobody could lay this down.

So we think, "Well, you know, I think the best idea — I tell you, Bill — I think there's a solution to all this. Let's just forget the whole damn thing. Let's just bury all these things and let's not pay any attention to them and let's get them safely out of sight and tucked under the chair and totally notised. And we'll say we only live once. And that will solve the whole thing" — except, of course, nightmares and the impulse of rightness of conduct in Egypt and all these other rightnesses of conduct coming up automatically as a dictation. Because now they're from a hidden source, we don't know the source from which these orders are coming, we can no longer stop them because we don't know from which they emanate and we go around with ideas racking around in our heads. And we feel peculiar, to say the least.

This is a variable just about as wild as — well, there's no telling what a state legislature or a provincial assembly or something like that's going to pass. That's about as wild a variable as you could think of. And it's sure as variable as that, you see? And since I one time was asked to congratulate — I was asked to congratulate an assemblyman who informed me with great pride, expecting I would instantly pat him on the back, that he had just read the Ten Commandments into law in the State of Arizona. They were now going to be the law of Arizona — the Ten Commandments. It's marvelous. I don't know how the hell — I don't know what that had to do with the price of fish at all, you see? It's pretty good.

Now, if it was just rightness of conduct that we were worried about, that would have been all right. But rightness of conduct is usually enforced by somatics. And the somatic is most intimately connected in mental phenomena with rightness and wrongness of conduct — punishment.

Oh, yes, I've seen some wild ones come through there and you're going to sit there sometimes and just absolutely drop your jaw at what the withhold is. you always tend to run by your own moral code. And the basic mistake that you make, once you can do all the mechanical operations and so forth, is assign your own moral code to the pc.

If we drive a car correctly, we seldom get somatics. And if we drive it incorrectly, we are liable to get somatics, as one of our students can represent. That's just a matter of rightness of conduct, isn't it? It all goes under the heading of measurement and estimation of force, doesn't it? And correctness of action and all of these other things go along with it.

And if you could think of you being sec checked — not prepchecked — but if you think of you being sec checked, now, by an Ecuadorian headhunter, now what kind of questions would he ask you, see, and then think of this Ecuadorian headhunter becoming frantically furious with you for not having abided by his moral code, you'll get the frame of mind of the pc toward the auditor sometimes. This — this you can make a mistake on.

And if we don't do these things, we get the idea of punishment, from — and punishment from just the punishment of the physical universe for incorrectly estimating direction and effort. And it's no wonder that children spank their parents when they get into their teens, for having been spanked all during their childhood. We get a reactivity going here of magnitude. Punishment. Punishment. Make them guilty for punishing, and just punishing. And punishing to be punishing and punishment just to make people guilty so that they will have right conduct and the right conduct becomes punishing. So rightness of conduct becomes sadism and masochism. Rightness of conduct becomes, inevitably, an enforced conduct. We enforce rightness of conduct with pain and deprivation and that sort of thing It becomes a considerable discipline.

Now, you can also let yourself be talked out of pulling a withhold on the same grounds in reverse. See, you mustn't do that either. See, either way is a sin. You're caught. So sometimes it's right and sometimes it's wrong

So these various valences and circuits, because they are founded on rightness of conduct, enforce rightness of conduct on the pc. Because, of course, they are formed by pain and collision, they, of course, enforce with pain and collision. So every time we collide with one of these things, we get a somatic. That's all there is, basically, to the somatic phenomena.

Now, let me give you an idea. Let us have a 3D Criss Cross. Let's take a look at 3D Criss Cross and we shake out of 3D Criss Cross an item which gives the pc pain, meaning it is his terminal. And it's an unmistakable item. It blew a lot of charge when we got the thing off, but let's prepcheck it. Now, that sounds funny running Prepchecking after 3D Criss Cross, but you're going to be doing just that, you see.

And we try to run them out and we get somatics. And the somatics appear to be so formidable before we actually contact them — they appear to be so formidable — that we'd better not approach the valence or touch it or interfere with it. And of course, if we mustn't touch it or interfere with it while carrying it all the time, it just gives us — the total order flow comes straight from it. you would be surprised at the command value of valence.

It hasn't got another name. you run it before and you run it after and so on and we're catching up with the aftermath because after you do 3D Criss Cross, you still have to do an operation which looks exactly like Prepchecking and is Prepchecking and possibly be called something else because it's a sort of a mop-up. And it's — you steer the pc's knowingness down these channels and blow them apart.

If you want to witness this sometimes, get the list that you're making up in 3D Criss Cross, just note carefully what the pc is doing, saying and what the pc is thinking in the few minutes just before you nail the item. At that time you will have it in its highest level of restimulation. Its command value will be extreme at those few minutes. And then, of course, when it's found and identified, its command value drops off. But if it's also a very unsafe thing that had tremendous withholds in its own lifetime and tends to keep dropping out of the pc's sight so he keeps asking you, "What — what was that one I just gave you? What was that item we checked out yesterday? Oh, yes, buzzbomb. Yeah. Thank you. Um — what was it again? Oh, thank you." In other words, it's unsafe to reveal, and it keeps bobbing out of sight and into sight and out of sight. The pc will dramatize that one occasionally or feel he is.

Well, I know, at the moment, no faster method of reaching the knowingness of the pc than taking a 3D Criss Cross item, which you've got — it's nicely isolated and you got a lot of the charge shaken off the case and so forth — and just enter a Prepcheck along these lines.

Now, just that it's been put into view desensitizes it so he really can't capably dramatize it now. He doesn't ever do a good job of dramatizing one that's been brought to view, but he can still feel the impulses and feel upset about having the impulses. And that makes him feel very odd.

The item which we found and gave the pc pain was "a moral man." That's — not — would not be an uncommon or a strange terminal to find on a case. A moral man. That is the item and it is obviously a terminal of the pc's because it has pain on it. If it made the pc dizzy, it would be an opposition terminal to the pc — if he merely had sensation or misemotion or something like that on it. But if he had pain, if it gave him real good aches and pains, it's his terminal.

He actually isn't in any danger of suddenly going and blowing up the . . . One of our dear students here — it very much looked like one of our classmates went around here for some time with the horrible thought in mind all the time, of how lovely it would be to blow up the East Grinstead bell tower. It was just to the shape and size that it just invited being blown up. And she'd regard that with some appetite every day, but know that she weren't really supposed to do it. Very appetizing. And that was on a terminal that was bobbing in and out and was being run at the particular time. And of course, it would come into heavy dramatization.

All right. Obviously then, we could prepcheck this item and how would we pull the withholds that were holding this thing on the whole track. What would be our Zero Question?

If you actually operate with a 3D Criss Cross terminal and you push this 3D Criss Cross terminal a bit under auditing and get it into a higher degree of restim and it's a long, strong one, the pc will go around all the time questioning the rightness of his conduct, wondering whether or not it isn't the conduct of this terminal. And he will do the peculiar thing of equating all of his most normal activities into the terminal, see?

Well, I'm not going to give you the perfect Zero Question from this. And I'm just going to give you some thinkingness on this subject. We know the pc has a terminal, a moral man.

It doesn't matter what the terminal is. He'll equate, "Well, that is the way, that is the way a vicious thief would eat. That's for sure." He suddenly catches himself eating, you know. "Nobody noticed. Close one."

Now, what is the obvious Zero for a Prepcheck? This is running it backwards. This is running it from the bank up to present time. Obviously, he has a whole chain of withholds on this right in present time that you've never spotted.

He feels himself on the borderline of being found out in any given moment of the day or night. It's very funny, but it's sometimes, over a period of three or four days — when one of these things is being audited particularly, and continuously agitated and so on — how the pc passes through the strata of being it and then not being it and then deciding at length that he doesn't have to be it or obey it. These are all quite interesting as phenomena.

I don't care how carefully you prepchecked the pc originally. This is going to be a whole new chain. No matter if he almost wrapped Clear on the present lifetime. There's still going to be this buried chain because it's going to go completely in all directions on forward right up until now — a moral man.

Of course, these are — 3D Criss Cross items are the items, the identities and the beingnesses which the person has actually been. Don't call them so much a beingness as an identity. And they are a package of conduct. They are a package of training patterns, and so forth, which are residual from that particular life. And oddly enough, every facsimile that they gathered in that life is still in that bundle. And you start taking that bundle apart, it looks like a stage magician producing cards from behind his back, you know. Here's a pack, you see, and here's a pack. And here's another pack. And then he reaches over into the girl's bodice and brings out another pack, you know? And here are these pictures, pictures, pictures, incidents, and so forth; that sort of thing coming up. And at first the rather disgusting thing is you really like to see the pictures, but they are a kind of a smudgy piece of charcoal with a white fringe all representing nothing really very tangible.

See, there's still going to be stuff missing. You couldn't help it. What's the Zero? "Have you ever been moral?" Well, wouldn't that be the Zero? Wouldn't it be something like that? Honest, you'll find withholds on that line if you had that terminal — moral man.

And when you try to audit them, why, they go in and out, and they don't go — they're not in focus, and they're all improper, and if you really could see them, it would be so much better. And then you find out that they're laid in with terrific cold. There's enormous cold. A bad time to run 3D is during a wintertime. That's a poor time to run 3D because one has a lot of chills that come off of this thing.

Now, you think of all terminals as representative of some bloody-mindedness of one character or another, you know, like "A vicious thief" Ah, that sounds like a good terminal. Well, you could understand that one. Now, let's get that one. Now, we find that "the vicious thief" as a 3D Criss Cross item has pain on it. Every time you try to run "vicious thief" why, the back of his neck comes apart and his skull splits in half, and he has horrible shooting pains going through his stomach. Now, that's dandy, so it obviously is something like a terminal. Obviously. And it's all checked out very nice. Naturally you could run this one. "Have you ever stolen anything? Have you ever stolen anything just to be mean?" See? Nice, nice Zero.

And it's very funny, sometimes you'll be running 3D, a pc who has been cold all his or her life has never realized they've been cold all his or her life until the cold wave suddenly departs. And they feel much changed now, and they're not quite sure what's changed. Actually, they were right resident in the middle of the iceberg, you see, because these black masses are drained of their heat energy factors. They don't have too much heat left in them although waves of heat and fever still come out of them. They're dominantly cold, occasionally warm, occasionally even hot, occasionally even fevered, but those are just residuals. They're like burned cinders.

Now, you can understand that one, can't you. That's an easy one to understand. Well now, look, "a moral man" as a 3D Criss Cross item giving the pc pain is the same confounded concatenation of what-not. It has exactly the same value as "a vicious thief" as a subject of withholds. Believe it or not, that is what it does. Now, you look that over and any question that you ask about "a vicious thief," substitute "vicious thief" or "thievery" for "a moral man" and "morality" and you'll get the same value of withhold. These withholds will come off fantastically charged.

"I burn my candle at both ends. Some say it isn't nice, but, oh, my foes, and oh, my friends, it makes a lovely light," or something like that, whatever the poem was. Because they sure burned that life up. And that's the way the thing kind of sticks on the time track, you know? Charred. And when you get into it it's real cold.

Supposing this was a girl we had this terminal, "a moral man" on. "Have you ever been moral?" Oh, man, this thing falls off the pin. Just falls off the pin. "Have you ever been moral?" "Have you ever abided by any of the Ten Commandments?"

Did you ever realize that the last time you died you probably didn't stay on Earth. You probably went out into the ionosphere and did one of these transorbital migrations that they're doing lately from the left to the right. Very often pcs yo-yo — I mean people yo-yo out into the outer dark. And it's cold out there. And they very often will go out there and get their whole track collapsed. And then they say they've been brainwashed or something of the sort. There's a lot of phenomena connected with this.

Big withhold. "I didn't kill Bill." See? Big withhold.

But all I'm stressing at the present moment is these are simply the items and the phenomena with which we are operating.

It's reprehensible in some fashion. Sounds weird, doesn't it? There could be just all that backwards.

Now, every one of these bundles, a lifetime or a whole cycle, is composed of pictures in greater or lesser state of decay. And here are all these pictures and when you take one of these things apart, you start running into pictures. But because the pictures are already burned out and deteriorated to a marked degree, they sometimes don't show up as good pictures at all. And a pc is very, very disappointed sometimes. He runs into his life as the custodian of the bathing beauties or something like that and he thinks he's got a nice picture file in there, and he keeps digging for this picture file. Well, hell, he wore it out years ago, you know? In fact, he wore it out in that lifetime.

Now, let's get a little more involved on the thing and let's get a terminal, "an immoral girl." That would be common enough as a 3D Criss Cross item. And if "the immoral girl" was being prepchecked up the line, you possibly would get the same package of withhold. "Have you ever done anything moral?" you could ask. you follow me now?

And he gets into a condition of where the item itself was scarce so he made a picture of it. And then, of course, because he didn't have the item but he did have the picture, the picture itself became scarce and therefore became very valuable and can become so scarce and so valuable that he can't have it at all. And that is the condition in which most of these circuits and valences are.

So it could fall on either side. This terminal has a different value of withhold. And you'd get into a whole chain of what people call laudable withholds.

So these pictures show up. At the same time the pc wants them and has to have them, the pc won't have anything to do with them and can't have them. So you have a no-havingness of the pictures and views. So he uses the picture, he's dependent on the picture to orient himself and tell you what he is doing and he can't get the picture clearly to tell you what he is doing and so orient himself and tell you what he is doing, so he remains in a state of God-'elp-us.

Now, supposing we had a terminal — "a lady." Isn't that a nice terminal? We can just see the pc now sighing with relief at the end of the item, for her male auditor was sitting there and she was still trying to impress the auditor a little bit. And at the end of this long and arduous list of 3D items which contain some of the more interesting lines — it doesn't fall on any of those. It doesn't fall on any of those. And she's sitting there, whew, you know, because down at the end of the line the last item that was left in on the nulling was "a lady." Isn't that sweet. Isn't that sweet.

Now, as you remedy his havingness and bring these things back and prepcheck it out of existence and get the withholds off of it, and get his overts off basically because a person's — a person's havingness deteriorates to the degree that he commits overts. This is the other part of the puzzle, is the overt-motivator sequence. And the overt-motivator sequence consists of when the individual has done something to something, he can then receive a similar action from the thing he has done it to. It's as elementary as that.

And she's so happy about this. Gives her an awful pain straight through the ears and straight this way and that way. That's fine, but nevertheless it's a nice, pleasant, acceptable terminal. And now we start prepchecking this. And the Zero Question, "Have you ever been ladylike?" "Have you done ever — ever done anything that was ladylike?" Would oddly enough be quite responsive. Each one of them as a solid withhold. Why withhold? Well, the terminal, a lady, was withheld, wasn't it? So all the acts of a lady would be withheld.

You cannot be run over by an automobile till you've run over somebody with an automobile. I mean, it's as positive as that. you cannot be hooked by a wild boar until you've gone around hooking some wild boars, see. A girl can't mess you up until you have messed up a girl. This is something that a lot of fellows overlook.

Now, look at the law — now let's look at the thing in reverse. Look at the laudable withholds of a lady. she withholds herself from drinking. She withholds herself from swearing. She withholds herself from rowdy companions. She withholds herself from dirt, you know and getting dirty. Withholds herself from getting sweaty. See, all the things a lady withholds herself from. Withholds herself from sex, from pleasure, from pleasurable excitement. This starts to look like a very interesting series of withholds. And we finally find out that "a lady's" primary mission was to hold herself from living. Not that that's — things I have mentioned are the total composite of living.

Now, if it went quantitatively one for one, like the law of Hammurabi, God-'elp-us all because I was counting up the number of lifetimes I would have to live just to counterbalance the overts of World War II, see? I was counting them up, so on. Well, it seemed like an awful lot of nonsense about the thing one way or the other.

Actually, then, you could just translate the terminal in two ways. why can you translate it in two ways? Because if you were running an old 3D set of commands, it'd be, "What have you done to a lady?" see, "What has a lady done to you?" see and "What have you done to another?" Which of course puts the pc in the valence of the lady for the moment and so on.

So it actually isn't a one for one quantity proposition. It's the sensibility of having done something Because when you've done something to something, you have cut your havingness down. And the elementary sense of all O/W is just based on that.

So it's what the pc has done as a lady and what the pc has done to a lady. So we have the pc interiorized into this terminal, a lady, only because the pc has tremendous overts on a lady. But the pc not only has overts on a lady but also is being a lady, see?

You get individuated to the point where "It's their havingness and my havingness. And therefore, I can protect my havingness by destroying their havingness." And we totally overlook the fact that it's all your havingness.

So we'd ask, "Have you ever done anything ladylike?" would be the response to that 3D Criss Cross item. Or "Have you ever failed to be ladylike?" would give you another channel, all on the same terminal.

Well, we've got — a little boy has four lead soldiers, and you have four lead soldiers. So in order to protect your lead soldiers, you teach him not to destroy your lead soldiers by destroying one of his lead soldiers. You now have seven lead soldiers. See? So then, because you've destroyed one of his lead soldiers, he's going to destroy one of your lead soldiers. You now have six lead soldiers. So to discourage any further incursions of him upon your lead soldiers, you destroy another one of his lead soldiers. You now have five lead soldiers. But because you have done this, he gets even with you by destroying one of your lead soldiers. You now have four lead soldiers. Two are yours and two are his.

In other words, you'd have a string of withholds on the subject of being unladylike and you'd have a string of withholds on the subject of being ladylike, equally, wouldn't you.

Now, because you've both become that upset with each other you have a hell of a fight and break up the remaining lead soldiers. You now have no lead soldiers. See, the misnomer of havingness is personal ownership.

In other words, these are two channels which would have moved forward into present time as a series of problems and they would have made all these problems. Every time she powdered her nose, she knew she was doing wrong. Why? Because ladies don't use powder in most periods and ages. And this could be practically a trained mechanism.

I have been up above a lot of real estate that has been owned by a lot of people. But while I've been up above this real estate looking at this real estate, let me assure you it belonged to nobody but me. I think you'll find that's the case in all cases: that you own that which you can perceive as far as havingness is concerned. And this is degraded down to the idea that you can only own that which you personally can fully use. Of course, if you just walked on some of this real estate you're looking at, they'd set the dogs on you. You're not supposed to use that item.

But ladies look nice, don't they. So every time she didn't powder her nose, she was doing something wrong. Isn't that right?

So freedom of use is the final idea of havingness to an awful lot of people whereby it isn't really the idea of havingness at all.

A 3D Criss Cross item is simply an item with which nobody wins or has won. See, nobody's ever won with this item. This item is not a winner. It's only an apparent suppressor of other things and items, see?

See what that is? If somebody debars you the use of something, and you say you don't have that thing. You can look at it, but you mustn't touch it. you mustn't use it. you mustn't do this. A lot of nonsense is entered in onto like this. That's why the communists, the socialists, and so forth, can make such large windrows on society, because he's talking on a mockery harmonic of what is basically true, is nobody owns nothing. See?

So if you dramatize the item, you are obviously wrong and if you don't dramatize the item, you are obviously wrong, so it gives you two different types of withholds on the same case — the withholds of having dramatized it and the withholds of not having dramatized it. And you'll get the same thing.

All ideas of ownership are postulated ownerships. They're not actual ownerships except those things which one owns by the right of having created them. And, therefore, some people fall back on creativeness as the only way of life because it's the only possible method of declared ownership. Do you see that?

In other words, you'll get all of the withholds of a moral man and all of the withholds of not being a moral man all at the same time, see, because it's a nobody wins situation.

"That's mine, I made it," which is unanswerable. But what they neglect to point out is what the other fellow made is theirs too.

Now, the easiest time and the easiest point of departure in the clearing of a pc, the easiest time to start the clearing of a pc, of course, is when the pc is Clear. And then you know all about the case. You've got adequate case records, then, with which to process the pc.

Now, the commie gets down into the point of, "Everything you made is mine." It belongs to — then they don't even own it. It finally belongs to the state. Everything belongs to the state and there is no thetan called the state so they got it taped. Anyway, that's a lower mockery, community property is a lower mockery of what is actually a fact.

Now, you know how to process the pc. you know what all the terminals were, so what all the types of withholds there would be. you know what all the items were and so you know all the types of items to pursue and you know all about it.

Now, I don't even know that you own everything you create, see? You can continue responsibility for the things you create actually, without owning them, strangely enough.

Now, one of the things you want me to do is to give you the whole map of the case as cleared in order to clear the case. Well, the funny part of it is I fool you and I almost do. But you've got to apply this data and this know-how to the case you're auditing at a time when you don't know a blasted thing about the case but the mechanics of Scientology. And that's all you know about this case. All else is variable.

Now, here's your problem in a nutshell in processing a pc, is to understand what fundamentals are important and what are not fundamentals — what things are not fundamentals.

You have the stabilities of knowing about locks, chains of locks, secondaries, chains of secondaries, engrams, chains of engrams, the effect of the lock, of the engram holding down secondaries and secondaries holding down locks and you know that this is plotted against time. you know there's such a thing as the time track. You know there's such a thing as the known part of the mind and the unknown part of the mind.

Don't make the mistake of considering all data equally important. It is not. Sketchily it is true, but I have nevertheless touched on, in just the last hour, every important item that you are handling in Prepchecking and 3D Criss Cross and the mind.

All right. You know there's such a thing as a thetan. You know the various dynamics, and you know the axioms on which this thetan is operating and you know that — about ARC and the fact that the thetan is in bad shape when he is unable to communicate and he's in good shape when he is able to communicate. Not necessarily when he is communicating or not communicating, but is able to communicate or able to be, you see, not necessarily when he's being. You know these various things.

I have mentioned these things and actually their behavior and their role and relationship in modern processing. And these are the important items there are. They're all developed items. You handle just those items.

You know about be, do and have. you know these various items, see? You know the meter — you know what that's shining up to — and what a session ought to look like and from there on, the sky's the limit, see? You know these basic mechanics.

Now, if we say that it's equally important across the boards, from one end of the scale to the other end of the scale, that the pc must not smoke cigarettes during the session and the auditor must use the Auditor's Code, we have approached most philosophic idiocies.

Now, you got a withhold system which will pull these withholds which are preventing the pc from communicating broadly. But what are the withholds? What chains do they form up? How do they associate in the pc's mind? That's your bicycle seat. see what I mean?

And you'll find out people will come along, and they will tell you, "But these truths of Scientology that you say, they have appeared in other philosophies." That's true, too. That's absolutely true. They have occasionally appeared in other philosophies. By the way, the enormous majority of them have not. But some of them have, see?

And after you've been prepchecking for a little while, you'll find out that when you give the pc a good controlled session that is going right down the groove of something the pc can talk about because it is on the line and channel of a chain of withholds the pc can talk to you about, that are real to the pc as withholds, you'll find out that if you keep the pc's attention directed and you make the pc go on and look and you carry right straight on through at a good heavy controlled session with the pc talking the whole time — I'm talking about the type of session I've been giving on demonstration on Prepchecking; no more witty or arduous than that, but very controlled if you noticed — you find out the pc at the end of the session gets his goals and gains. He makes his goals and he gets gains.

And you sa — if you wanted to be very cruel and shatter this person in their tracks, just say, "Well, show me the book." And they will show you the book, and they will look it up and they will find the line and they show you this very proudly. This book usually is about a foot and a half thick, you see, and so on. And you say, "All right. Now where's that line?"

And when you give a sloppy, stupid session and you ride the bicycle all over the town and wind up on the cathedral roof without the least clue of how anybody got there at all and then just leave the pc standing there while you go home to supper, and then never find out where you left the pc thereafter, you're not going to get any goals and gains over on that right-hand channel. It's a question, of course, plotting, steering, understanding and so forth.

And they say, "Well, look here. 'Man is basically a soul, and all of his beingness is contained in his soul."'

And I'm telling you very frankly the easiest point of departure for Prepchecking is, of course, naturally, when the person is Clear. That's the easiest point of departure. Then you know all the 3D terminals that have given him all the oddball withholds that he has. you know the whole composition of his bank. you know every incident on his time track that is worth knowing You know what has been suppressing his second dynamic, his first dynamic, his third dynamic and why he and God are on swearing terms.

See, they show you a piece of philosophy like that. you say — they say, "Well, there's a thetan."

You know all about these things and therefore you could run a perfect case. But of course, at that stage, the person doesn't need any auditing, so the information is of no value. That's the sort of thing you pick up en route.

You say, "Now read the next line."

Well, now, how en route can you get in a Prepcheck? I'll say that if you audited a pc for four or five hours without finding anything about where you were going, there was something wrong with the way you were attacking the case. So this is always a test of whether or not you are doing an accurate job of riding the bicycle. If every few hours — and I don't mean just every five hours — but every few hours you fail to know more about what makes this case tick, then you must be riding a tricycle or a velocipede, but you're sure not riding a bicycle. You understand what I mean?

And they read the next line, and they say, "And every man should be good to his mother."

If you can look back over the last session or two and find out — know pretty well where this pc lives and get some kind of an idea and anticipation of where this pc is going next — some kind of a prediction factor with regard to the pc, in other words — a higher understanding of the pc, let me put it that way, why this pc got that way, what made this pc that way, how come (the how-come factors, call them those) why, you're probably prepchecking well. Regardless of his goals and gains — that's the other test, of the pc making his goals and getting gains. That's your primary test, of course. But this other one is a test as far as you're concerned as the auditor.

You say, "Go ahead and read the next line."

And you sort of know what makes this pc tick. you get a better idea of which way this is going And you got a better grasp of it. And not only of the pc, but a little bit better grasp of the human mind; a little bit better reality. That applies to me, too, see. I'm not saying a student should do that, you know. Why, man, you must be prepchecking like a wizard.

"For the finest role of the being is making a family of which he can be proud."

Now if you're getting his goals and gains and you're understanding the pc better and you're knowing a little bit more about the human mind, wow! See, I mean, gee-whiz. That would be your point of expectancy. That's what you would expect out of a Prepcheck activity. Pc's getting his goals and gains and you understand this pc better and you got a prediction about where this pc's going, you know. I mean, what this pc's done. you understand this better — what he — how he hangs together better. And you understand the human mind a bit better, too, just through having audited this pc. Man, you've just made it, see? And that's an excellent little yardstick by — of finding out whether or not your Prepchecking is pretty darn good.

And you say, "Where's the notation by the author that only that top paragraph has value?"

And if your Prepchecking is pretty doggone good, then all of those things will be true. If your prepchecking is bad, it might first mean that your auditing stinks. You know, just as the matter of an auditor, you know, not auditing the pc, you might be auditing a chair. But this wouldn't be any small thing. This would be not having a clue about what an E-Meter read was. This would be not having a clue, you see, about how to run a session, having total intolerance of sitting there just being a complete buaaaah. You know, first week, co-audit type auditor.

This slaughters them. They finally get it through their heads that, yeah, there's a piece of philosophy there, but it just happened that nobody had marked out whether it was important or unimportant.

Yeah, well, that could be all wrong, you see and you couldn't prepcheck. But then there's this other zone and area. If you know how to ride this bicycle, why, all these other things will be true.

And the importance of a datum in relationship to other data is the sole criteria of the value of the datum. You can utter truths and idiocies consecutively for hours, and some will look upon you as wise, but others would say you're only pretty confused.

There'd be two areas wrong, you see, just the person couldn't audit at all. And the next — they can audit all right, but they can't prepcheck. Prepchecking is a specialized activity. And if they can prepcheck, then this is what they should expect out of the pc. They should just expect those things. Pc making his goals, making some additional gains. The auditor understands the pc better, what the pc has done and been, what makes the pc that way and a better understanding of the human mind.

Now, there's this story about fifty-five thousand monkeys or something like that could write for fifty thousand years on fifty thousand typewriters — I don't know. Some typewriter company must have put this out — and they'd write all the books ever written. Well, I think that's very interesting. It's very interesting.

And if you've got all those things taped, my, my, my, are you prepchecking Wow, wow, wow. Good test. Good yardstick, huh?

But I know one book they wouldn't write. And that'd be Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. They couldn't write that without finding out what they were doing.

You've possibly — I realize in saying that, you possibly for a long time may have been expecting the pc to suddenly grow wings or something if you were prepchecking well. Just as a pc will sometimes give you outrageous goals when he wants to get even with you, so does an auditor sometimes get even with himself by setting outrageous session goals of what he's going to accomplish in this session.

Anyway, it's the importance of the datum. And one of the things you must learn in all of your activities on study and so forth is the relative importance of what you are learning How is this important to a session? How is this important to a pc? How is this related to the final goal of getting something done?

Well, if you can just relax to a point of accomplishing what I've just told you, you'll make Clears, see? You'll go on all the way up there because you won't be straining it and be very relaxed.

You could just memorize all of these things as just strings of words. And that's a valuable action, too. you would be considered learned if you did that. Yes, you could become very learned and still be as dumb as an ox.

Now, there's one other test on Prepchecking If you all of a sudden think Prepchecking is very easy and you're very happy to go on prepchecking people, then you can prepcheck. And if you think Prepchecking is very arduous, then you probably can't prepcheck. Because it's odd, but Prepchecking is probably the easiest auditing which you ever did if you've really got the knack of it.

If you never related any of your learning to any activity or evaluated any of the things you had learned, where would you be? You would merely become learned. And it is not enough to be learned. There have been lots of learned men. I have seen them neglected and thrown overboard and dropped in rivers along with unlearned men. In fact, sometimes a little quicker.

My goodness, it's just a yawn and a stretch for the auditor. There's just nothing to it because when he gets the pc running on a chain that's working, it's just pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa. The pc won't do anything else. It isn't a question of trying to get the pc to talk to you. There aren't any problems in this if you're doing it right. The pc will talk to you. And it's just bong-bong-bong And you suddenly get the impression — there is a ride the bicycle sensation, you know? Just as you one day went sailing along the level, you know, "Wheeee! How come I thought this was hard, you know?" You get the same point in Prepchecking. That it feels just as exhilarated and just as easy as that.

But to he wise, to actually be wise, you have to be able to relate data to activities and actions and evaluate them for their own sake and their relative importance to other data.

It isn't quite like any other auditing you've ever done. It is just a little different. It's just a little bit different because it delivers wins into your hand per unit of time faster than any other auditing I've ever seen and it is easier in that it gives the auditor no strain.

You can't go through a training manual and read the number of pints of water carried on a route march as being relatively important with the fact that you should always salute subalterns. These data are not of comparable importance. And yet you will find that most people tend to make data of a monotone value. Well, beware of data of a monotone value.

And you can run rougher cases with it with wins. All of these things are true of Prepchecking When you can do it well, why, you kind of feel like you've got it surrounded and made. And of course, to be able to do it well is worthwhile in accomplishment. And I notice that all but four students on their last Prepcheck session did it without a blunder. Got the chain, got the What questions, had the pc rolling just right on down the chain. Isn't that interesting?

If you think of the hundreds of thousands of facts that have been developed in Dianetics and Scientology — the hundreds of thousands of them, because they actually exist and much of that data, almost all of it, is brand-new in the field of the mind — if you think of that vast body of data and then think that I was able to sit here in the course of an hour and give you a summation of the data that you're handling in processing, then it must be true that some of this data has greater importance than other of this data. And that's a basic role in study: To find out what you're studying and how it relates to what you're doing or intend to do. And you have to make that bridge, too.

So it must be that you can learn it. It must be doable. Partially due to demonstrations which you've been getting, as I'm sure this is a speed up factor in training — and due to the system itself and also due, of course, to the good instruction you've been getting and so forth and the good tips you've been getting, I've never seen anything catch on faster than Prepchecking. It apparently is not very hard to ride the bicycle and the criterion then is how fancy can you get with this bicycle.

Because in auditing you haven't time to think of a hundred thousand data. But if you know very well the basic and fundamental data that you are addressing, the basic and fundamental things which you are handling in the auditing session, you don't become confused at all. you can make very, very wise and smart decisions with regard to the pc. you know exactly what you're doing with regard to the pc. you can wade right into this one left and right. Why? Because you're handling only the important data. You're not handling the valueless and the unimportant and the merely interesting data. You're handling what has to be handled.

So most of you, the largest majority of you, are in the interesting state this moment of how fancy can you get in riding this bicycle and not whether or not can you ride the bicycle. As I say there are only about four of you are having any difficulty with it at all and that difficulty was relatively minor.

So it's not enough to know data. you must know the data's use and where it belongs and how it fits together and how it aligns with what you're doing and what you intend to do.

So it is a teachable process and it's a winnable process. That's why I recommend it to you very heavily.

And I'd advise you when you're studying to try to align what you are studying with whether or not — with how it applies to a pc that you will be auditing, and how relatively important it is to pay attention to it in the pc. And if you ask the question of any data — of any datum as to whether or not it would expedite an auditing session, then you will quickly and rapidly align what you should be handling in an auditing session. And you suddenly will realize what you should be handling in an auditing session and you will cease to make any mistakes with regard to it. And you'll cease to be adrift with regard to pcs. Okay?

Thank you.

Thank you.