Now the subject at hand is the E-Meter and its use in the location of past 'present times'. The actual title here should be "Use of the E-Meter in Locating Engrams."

This is quite a subject. This requires a great deal of practice. It's not terribly rough on a subject to have a bunch of engrams located, providing you locate them accurately. Because I've already told you they have a tendency to slam back to their proper position of the track the moment they're located.

So there is a process which is a very good process of simply sitting down and locating for a person engrams on the track. Locate them carefully and accurately and don't ask for any fast description of them. Take just what the pc gives you and carry on to either a sharper location or the next engram.

If you do that, you don't run into an engram running rule called the last largest object. This is an engram running rule and is one of the maxims of running engrams - the last largest object. The way to get a person back into an engram that he has escaped out of is to find out what was the last largest object that he observed in the engram. And when he tells you, get him to describe it to you, and he will be right back in the engram just as nice as you please.

So if you ask a pc to describe the content of the engram while you are locating engrams on him, you have gone in for the rule of the last largest object. And, of course, you are returning him fixedly and heavily into the engram, aren't you? And you're wrapping him up then in a large series of unrun engrams. And in view of the fact that you will probably - certainly here, be doing - not necessarily here, but I mean on Earth, you'll be doing this on Homo sapiens - you'll find nothing but a string of motivators.

And you get a pc who is already motivator hungry - that's a technical term, motivator hunger. He's got to have things happen to him, you know. He's got to have - he's got to be abused.

A lot of people around - you wonder why do people put up with some of the governments and so forth they have. The government is a good government that furnishes the adequate amount of motivator to the population. People will then consider that a good government. It's the adequate amount of motivator, which explains to us at once why so many lousy, heavily mismanaged governments have been permitted to exist on the track.

And why - and I hate to drag this in but we have to mention it - why democracy has liabilities so long as it is a democracy of aberrees. Because they're very likely to vote only for the person who can be guaranteed to give them motivators. And therefore they're liable to get cruel or capricious rulers or leaders.And you ask a bunch of criminals to elect a leader and they'll elect somebody like Blackbeard or something like that - that his idea of a good time, while he was sitting at a table with his fellow pirates, was to slide surreptitiously a pistol out of his sash and fire it blindly underneath the table. And yet they just kept on electing Blackbeard as the leader. He was the most destructive, the least successful, the most unlucky, the most doped-up character that they had in their midst. Well, they elected him.

Now, a democracy is only possible - inevitably, is only possible, if you have a majority of sane people. Well, when we say sane, we still aren't out of the band of motivator hunger. And we get all kinds of freakish things happening.

Now, the reason I bring this up is because some pcs keep going to the auditor who gives them the worst auditing. And you will very often find some "auditor" (quote) (unquote) having quite a few pcs or having a reputation who doesn't deserve it at all. This is not the rule, but this has occurred.

Some chap, he's been indifferently trained, his Instructors didn't particularly want to let him out of the course, you know, that sort of thing. And next thing you know, why, this fellow's going great guns. And he goes great guns for a year or two till - till finally he just has not gotten any results and he's caved in so many and he's caved in himself, and his case is in such lousy shape anyhow, and he doesn't want to be audited anyway, you know. And all of these things all eventually catch up with him, so on. It has happened. It doesn't happen these days in periods of better training, better know-how and faster processes. But it has happened. It's something to know.

I've known - I've known somebody to have a tremendous reputation. I wouldn't let a - I wouldn't have let him audit Khrushchev's dog. And this is this thing called motivator hunger, this thing you've got to guard against. Here is probably the only place where we act for the person's own good.

Now, it's a very shaky thing to legislate to protect man against himself. That is a very shaky thing to do. Laws such as "It is against the law to lose your pocketbook," you know, that sort of thing. "It's against the law to leave your keys in your car because somebody might steal it and victimize you, and so forth. That's all nonsense, you see. That's protecting the individual or the public against himself and it's rather poor legislation.

Well, let's just look at the - at the - what an auditor has to do here, though, and he has to do a little bit of that.

Recognizing that an individual needs motivators in order to occlude his overts - this will become more and more real to you as you, as you practice - recognizing that he needs motivators in order to occlude, explain, whatever else you want to say, his own overts, you have to guard a pc against seizing upon motivators. And even when he appears to be totally willing to run some process that is going to cave him in, you have to know better. You get that? Don't run it.

Now, the first glimpse you will get of this will be some pc - every time you wiggle your left nostril, he says, "ARC break, ARC break, ARC break." You see, you cough a little bit as you're auditing him, he says, "ARC break, ARC break, ARC break."

Now, he actually doesn't want you to remedy that ARC break so much as give him another one. Now, if you were going to satisfy his reactive bank - this is the difference between auditing a preclear, you see, and auditing his reactive bank - if you're going to satisfy his reactive bank and his mechanics and his automaticities and all that sort of thing, when he said, "ARC break. You did so-and-so and so-and- so," you say, "Yes, and I'm going to do it again and again and again, now. And break a couple of more clauses of the Auditor's Code, and the bank would get sort of docile. But the pc wouldn't. He'd be out of session.

"You just say ARC break," - you, the auditor, saying this to him, "You just say ARC break to me one more time and I'll really show you an ARC break. Now, are we going to get on with it?"

"Oh, well, if you're going to talk that way," and so on.

Actually, you've driven him downscale, however, and you've defeated your own ends. That's what he wants. That's what he's hungry for when he gets into that frame of mind.

So you start running a pc up and down the time track and making available to him on your determinism this engram and that engram and the other engram, you very often - now, this is very far from all pcs - but you very often will have somebody going, "Schllp! Oh, boy, I got my head cut off. There's the - Oh, there's a javelin through my... Oh, boy, that's real good. A safe falls on... That's fine. Ah, that's nice. Yeah, and there I go right into this.. . Oh, there it goes, there it goes. There it - Oh, man! A terrific crash here, I mean, terrific crash. And there's just pieces of ships scattered all around and - and so forth. And here I am lying here with an awful pain in my throat. Yes, I've got my throat cut. Oh, yes, that reminds me - that reminds me. I was robbed. Here's another one where I was robbed. Yes, and here I am lying in a ditch with my throat cut and there's blood all over the place," you know.

Man! You'd think he was happy as a jaybird till he tries to get out of the auditing chair and you find he can't walk! He just got it all keyed in, that's all. He's just working overtime to key it in.

So, you say to a pc when you're trying to do a time track scout - if you want it to be therapeutic, in any fashion - you say, "When was it?" not "What was it?" It's totally a case of when, when, when, when? That's all you want to know - when, when, when?

And he says "Well," he says "it's a big castle and - there's a big castle, and there's a gibbet outside the thing."

You say, "Well, exactly when was that?"

"Well, when. Oh, well, that's something else. It's a great big castle, though, and there's a gibbet outside of it."

You say, "When?" Got to be very firm. "When?"

All of your questions must add up to when, not what. Otherwise, he goes into the rule of the last largest object and motivator hunger. And you get him close to these things - of course, he's got motivator hunger when he is closest to these things.

You're changing the person's environment all over the place. In other words, you're changing his PT. His present time is shifting. Don't be amazed if his personality apparently shifts, too. And he'll run this motivator hunger on her - on you. He'll find some life where he was hungry for one. And then, boy, can he slop them up. "Schllp! Delicious, delicious pain, agony, murder, duress, degradation." Here he goes.

You got him into that, you're in trouble, because that isn't the process you're running. Now, of course, a good auditor getting a pc accidentally into something always runs a process to alleviate what he just got the pc into, doesn't he? Don't you ever let me catch you doing it. That is always the mark of the ruddy amateur.

You're auditing this fellow's nose and he gets a pain in his stomach. You make sure you keep on auditing his nose! You hear me?

And he says, "But this pain in the stomach, it's terrible, it's terrible, it's getting awful, and I can't keep any attention on my nose. And you keep asking me this question..."

"Your nose."

"Well, all right. If you're talking that way, it's my nose. All right."

That's what we know as Q and A. Pc changes so auditor changes. See, pc changes, so the auditor changes the process.

There's one squirrel who has continued persistent throughout the history of Dianetics and Scientology, who actually, in trying to show people something about auditing has gone so far, consistently, as to say, "Whenever the pc changes, it is absolutely necessary that the auditor change. You've got to change the process every time the pc changes." And, of course, what will that do? That will just wind the PC up in a ball. That will be a horrible total mess.

The process - now, here's - here's one of the truisms of Dianetics and Scientology: the process that turned it on is the process that will turn it off. The process that turned it on is the process that will turn it off. Now, that takes into account only this - that you are running a decent standard process. And if a decent standard process, such as the processes which you are learning in this course, turns something on, the process will turn it off.

That's why it's very adventurous to use such a thing as TR 10, Locational Processing. Very, very adventurous. Because Locational will turn on somatics, and you have no choice but to continue with Locational until the somatics go off. And it's such a slow- freight process and it's so unworkable on so many cases, that you may find yourself stuck for eighty hours with a case that would do much better on some other process, with "Notice that wall, notice the ceiling, notice the floor, notice the chair, notice your auditor, notice the ceiling, notice the floor, notice the wall," see? Locational and 8-C will very often turn on a somatic. Now, nothing is going to turn it off but Locational and 8-C.

Scientology is just a little bit larger than life. That's always something to remember. You're always just a little bit larger than life when you're handling life. About the only thing that can shoot a pc down on a graph is bad auditing. You can actually reduce a pc on the graph with bad auditing. Life might take two or three more lifetimes to shove him down on the graph, but you, in two or three hours of bad auditing, can shove him down.

Now, you do use and will use 8-C, and you do and will use Havingness as a process. And this particularly applies to those two processes. When you're running 8-C or you're running Havingness, and a somatic or sensation or a condition of any kind turns on, you're honor bound - not necessarily in that session but certainly in another session, at the very least - to run that process and not change that process until that particular condition turns off again. The process that turned it on will turn it off. So you never, never, never Q-and-A with a pc.

Of course, the answer to any question is the question, according to the communication formula, which is where your Q and A comes from. Somebody says, "How are you?" The exact answer to the question is "How are you?" according to the formula - duplication. People aren't very satisfied with it because it crunches their social machinery.

So when the pc changcs, it's very easy for the auditor, running his own somatic strip in some peculiar fashion, to change, you see?

"Pc changes, Oh, he changed, so therefore, I'm supposed to change." That's only a case of the pc's determinism becomes the auditor determinism. And the auditor at that instant ceases to be the auditor, loses control and command of the session and is not making his intention good! His intention was the original process he started, because it produced change, he changed. Mustn't happen. See, that's about the number one, super, major exclamation point, skyrockets and flaming tar barrels thing you must not do - is change when the pc changes. When the pc turns something on running a process, the process will turn it off.

All right. Now supposing we're running scout on the time track - scouting for engrams, secondaries and locks on the time track. Supposing we're just scouting that time track. Well now, you're at the thinnest barrier you can approach. The track is so interesting. There's so many things on the track. There's so much the pc would love to get at and hasn't been able to get at, that he goes though that barrier over into engram running faster than you can sneeze.

So therefore, it requires very good auditing and very good self-control on the part of the auditor to do a time track scout. He wants to know when. His own curiosity - the pc starts saying, "Woof! Woof! Woof, woof, woof, woof! Woof!"

And you say, "When?"

The PC says, "Woof! Woof, woof, woof! Woof, woof, woof! Woof!" Why in the hell is he saying "woof'?

It's so easy, you know, just to say, "Well, can't you just tell me just for a second and then we'll get back on this other process over here?"

You think I'm kidding, though. I have had - I have had real psychos try to please me by turning on this, that or the other thing. They couldn't understand what I wanted, you see. It never got through to them. They were just trying to be very pleasing about the whole thing. Had them get down on the floor and bark like dogs, get up and moo, and climb on the chandelier, and be a fan dancer, and be a man talking with a gruff voice, and be a young girl talking with a shrill voice, you know. Just racketing around in all directions and do all this almost in a random number of beingnesses between auditing commands, you know?

I just wonder, where the devil are they going? What are they doing? What is this mechanism that's turning this on? And why every time I say, "Recall a time you spoke to your mother," why does this girl always say, "Woof" before she answers the question? Just what is this - this mess?

You do a time track scout, the best way to do is to get yourself a long piece of paper, legal size, and just take one sheet and without trying to work a PT at the top of it, put down somewhere on that sheet the first drop you find on your E-Meter. See?

You're not asking for the engram necessary to resolve the case. You're asking for a circumstance or an incident that bothered you. And then just orient it in time.

"When? When? When? When? When? Well, when did something else happen to you? When? When? When?" See, nothing more. Get the idea? And spot it! Write 1685 and then as you get it thrashed out - August the 42nd at 18 o'clock or whatever you found on the track, see, just put it down. And then put down on the opposite side of the page - you've made a little line there for a track down the opposite side of the page - more or less what the pc announced it was without your asking him.

"Oh, yeah, I was killed. Yeah, yeah. That was 1685. Yeah. That's when I was - I was - I was killed. I was killed with a-with a bolt, with a crossbow bolt, Yeah, that's 1685 and it seems about August, August - it must have been sometime - no, July, August, July, uh, June. No, that was 1686. No, June July, August, August, September! No, no, August." See? And just write down "crossbow bolt," see, incident at that point.

When you've got it pegged, it will cease to bother him then go off and find another incident. Question him any way you wish so as to discover something that happened to him. When did something happen to him? That's what you want to know. And you can plot and plot and plot on this thing and just keep going, each time locating each incident as exactly as you can in time not as to content or context, just time.

Pc will always crop up and tell you something about it before you can stop him, so you'll get enough information there to draw your track. And you can just keep on drawing a track this way and you'll find out it will go further into the past and further into the future, and you seem to be developing more time track. You also seem to be developing more incident. Don't be surprised because that is the exact result of this particular drill. You always develop more incident. Unless you let him go back to the rule of the last largest object and describe the last largest object he saw in the thing and get a better description of the incident and tell him, "How many horsemen were there charging at you there at the battle? Oh, yes, well now, which is the biggest horse? Oh, that one. All right now. What kind of armor did he have on?"

There's a dull clank in the room, and he's just gone over backwards having been hit in the forehead with a morning star. See? You just led him right into it, see? Well, you can do that - if you're looking for an incident to run, you can do that.

Now, what are the questions that you ask to locate this when? Time. You do it by time. And you want over and under, over and under. And you get a little bit over and a little bit under and a little bit over and a little bit under and a little less over and a little less under, and so on, and you gradually bracket it. It's like firing shells. When people fire shells experimentally to find the range on something, they generally fire several shells at various ranges. And then they find the exact target was between two of them. Well, then they sort that out and get it down to the last square inch. They want the captain's hip pocket on the opposite ship, you see?

Now, what you're trying to do is to locate occurrences in time and then by continuous hazarding of questions or suggestions, pin it, first to the year, then to the month, then to the day and then to the hour. And that's usually good enough.

You must keep in mind that there was a fellow by the name of Gregory, who was Gregorying around on chants, I think too - but who fouled up the calendar. I don't know whether this new calendar is better than an old calendar, but your pc's liable to come up with the fact that it was - it was well past nones. It was well past nones. Or it was in the moon of the sixpence or something, see. He's not necessarily accounting for this in terms of modern time. But amazingly enough, he usually does account for it in terms of modern time which, some way or another, he translates through.

So, if he's insistent that it's - if he's not sure whether it's just before nones or after nones, it's all right to say, "What's a none?"

"Well," he'll say, "you know what that is," and so forth. And you're still in time, see, you didn't get off of time.

"Well, what happened at nones?" That's the wrong question. You're way off - way out of gear on that question.

Now, the second that you start to plot a time track on a certain percentage of pcs all you're plotting is the before and after of an implantation. And you will learn a great deal about implantations. One of the favorite games of thetans is to give other thetans false time tracks. Implantations.

The stanaard implantation that you'll run into occurs between lives. Now, I'm not talking about anything but technical data here. You run into this in trying to plot a time track every time you turn around. And it is the baffler. And there's many an old-time auditor that has never learned this one. It's been an elusive thing, very elusive. He just goes - he'll go astray on the thing, get led astray.

But a person died, and they have something called a reporting station. And he automatically returns to this reporting station. And they do him the great favor of wiping out his past for him, and then he comes back and picks up another body. It's called between lives. And that's done in various ways and fashions. And you'll find that is pretty chronic for the last few thousand years. Now, implants of this character are also discovered a million two hundred and fifty thousand years ago in Fac One type of incidents.

Now, what's this got to do with your plotting a time track? It's only that a whole time track was gratuitously given to the preclear about as fast as you could snap your fingers, with a full dissertation of how long it was ago. And all of these implants have that as a common denominator. They tell him when the incident was in terms of how long ago it was. They don't tell him when it was in a precise time, but they locate it from the present time of the incident, which throws him totally astray.

You have to run into one of these things, either in a pc or in your own auditing session, to really appreciate how bogged down, fouled up and miserable one of these confounded implants can be and how it can get in the road of an auditor.

It's fantastic. I mean the fellow will have a whole concatenation of incident. "This happened to you - this happened to you a thousand years ago, and this happened to you eight thousand years ago, and this happened to you a hundred thousand years ago, and this happened to you a million years ago, and this happened to you a hundred million years ago, and this happened to you a billion, eight hundred and sixty-two million years ago, and this happened to you five trillion years ago, and this happened to you three hundred trillion years ago, and this happened to you three hundred and eighty-nine trillion years ago." But all this is going on, you see, just brzzzzt.

And they only blow up when you find their exact location in time and it gets to be accurately spotted - when it's accurately spotted. When did that implantation take place? That will knock out the bulk of implants.

And the dickens of it is the pc will for some little while, as he's looking at it, believe implicitly that it's a real incident and he's looking at a real facsimile. And I've seen them go mucking around with one of these implant tracks just by the hour, till they finally, "You know there's something wrong with this, ya-da da-yah da-dah. Well, this isn't a falling spaceship. It's a wooden dummy on props in a - some kind of a thing that looks like a hangar And there's a couple of operators standing outside and one of them is talking. Well, what's this?" You know? Big surprise.

The time track he's running has been totally implanted. They put a sort of a visoscope in front of him that throws pictures, like a modern television set with a bigger screen. And that gives him all the hot dope. That gives him life after life and sequence after sequence. The only trouble is, it doesn't make sense. The pictures don't move very much. They're all stills and he's always detached and so on. They have nothing to do with the price of fish.

Now, these implants have traps within traps within traps. And it gets to be very complex when you're trying to spot one of these things out. Fellow will say, "Well, I know it's an implant because the truth of the matter is here's the picture of my brother and I being captured and being - yeah, that's right. We're captured and taken over and thrown into this trap. And the trap has got these pictures and here's the trap. Now, that's funny. Oh, yes, well obviously it's a fake trap because here's the dismantling of the trap. So, I know it's a real incident, us being shot down, being - I... Now, what is this all about? Now, brother and I were shot down and - know it's a real incident because - because here's the incident whereby we were implanted and here's the implant and there's the implant station. Oh, yes! I see why this is. It's an overt act-motivator sequence because here I am in the implant station implanting a bunch of people. Yeah well, all I know - that's real, that's - I think."

No, it's just a series of implants showing them shot down, showing them being taken to an implant station, showing them implanting other people, and being implanted themselves. And it's all part of an implant! And it isn't even the place or the thing or the scenery of the implant at all. You see it's - they just fix up a complete labyrinth from which the pc - every time he moves on the track at all, he actually moves a split second and he gets into an entirely different circumstance and sequence, which explains it all.

And he'll sometimes tell you that, "Three hundred trillion years ago, or three hundred million years ago," or something like that, "I had some bad luck, and they knew what was going to happen to me, and they plotted my whole existence because a hundred and fifty trillion years ago, or a million years ago, why, here's happening exactly what they said would happen at three hundred trillion years ago, you see. No, wait a minute, now, now..."

Well, of course, they could predict it. It only happened a split second before. You see, people appear very wise because they tell a fellow what is going to happen to him and then show it happening to him all in five minutes. So naturally it's true.

Just this method of throwing out motivators - now, you say, "What silly thetan would keep on mocking up an implant that long?" Well, just about every thetan on this planet is silly enough to do that.

It's only necessary to locate the actual implantation in time to cause the whole fabric to fall to pieces.

Now, I'll give you an example. Implantation 1135 A.D. - carries a story of a whole time track for 560 years. A fellow wanders up and down during the latter part of the first millennia here on Earth - this mocked-up time track, you see? And he wanders up and down this thing and he can't make sense out of it, and it just doesn't seem right, and so forth. And all of a sudden you get 1135 and the whole thing starts going bzzzzt, bworp, thud, crack, creak! And you get it spotted down to the exact part of the year and the moment and when it happened. And the next thing you know the implant triggers.

"Well," he says, "well then, what did happen to me in 1134? And what did happen to me in 1100? And what did happen to me in 900 A.D. and so on, if that wasn't the case?" Well, that's a job for an auditor, see. But he's at least off a phony track.

Now, these implantations are no - are no myth. I mean, they actually occur. And the individual - the individual has a hard time differentiating amongst them because they're purposely confusing. The key is: the somatic is constant. No matter what happens in the picture, he's got the same somatic. That doesn't mean that he is stuck at one place on the track viewing other pieces of the track so much as he's in an implant. See, he's got one somatic. There's this hard pressure under his chin and a weak feeling in his legs. And that's the whole somatic.

And he says, "This knight rushes at me and I rush at him and I knock him off his horse, and then there's this other picture, and so forth. And I'm in a sort of a cave, and the cave falls in on me and buries me up, and there's a big bear comes in and eats my head off" and so forth, and goes on and on. Only the somatic is pressure on the chin and weakness in the legs, see.

That's actually done by electronics. That somatic is given to him by electronics during the implant. So implant somatics are similar. They can vary and they do vary only when they are varied in the implant mechanism, but not by the implant pictures. So the somatics don't agree with the incident, suspect an implant.

Now, a person can also be in a valence running on another track, but you can get him out of that easier than you can get him out of a series of implants. Individual is stuck in a lot of implants, is very hungry to have the track wiped out and himself has done a great many things to other people. So overt-withhold processes and so on tend to spring these implants out of existence. But they will give you trouble in processing a preclear and particularly in spotting a time track.

And they, in error, invariably use 'ago'. How long ago, invariably. So what do you do in searching incidents? Do you talk about years ago? No, we've learned better. We've learned better, because it tends to key in implants.

You talk about A.D., B.C., dates and you start your track with somewhere like 1800 or 1700 or something like that, and you go north and south - you might say later and earlier than 1700. So your questions come into this wise. You say well, this will - this fouls up your flexibility in asking questions, let me assure you! Because it's very easy to say to somebody - a lot of people you run this on, they go along fine.

You say, "Was it five hundred years ago? Was it longer than five hundred years ago? Was it less than five hundred? Oh, less than five hundred years ago. Was it - was it earlier than two hundred and fifty years ago? Was it earlier than two hundred years ago? Oh, two hundred and fifty. Is it more than two hundred and fifty years ago?" Get the type of patter that you have.

Well, that's a very, easy method of locating incidents in time, see - years ago. But it's booby-trapped, so it's not the safest thing you can do, see - that series of questions.

"Now, is the incident we're looking for earlier than a thousand years ago? Is it closer to present time than a thousand years ago? Oh, it's closer to PT. All right."

See, that would be an indicated source of questioning, wouldn't it? But it runs squarely into these doggone between-life implants.

So the best thing you can do is to say something on the order of "What date did the incident we're looking for occur?"

And the person says, "Oh, it seems like something flashed through my mind about at 1800... 1800."

"Now, good. Is it earlier than 1800 or later than 1800?" Meaning closer to PT than 1800, or further from PT than 1800. "Oh, further. Ahh." That's what you got a bigger drop on, you see? The E-Meter in this wise is always saying "yes" when it falls. E- Meter falls, it says "yes."

Now, you can go right on talking to the E-Meter. You don't have to pay too much attention to the pc because he's very other-determined on this whole line. You hardly have to talk to the pc at all. He kind of sometimes feels left out of the picture. It's a session kind of between you and the E-Meter, you know? You've got to keep him in- session somewhat and keep his attention and interest.

One of the mechanisms by which you do this is, "When I snap my fingers, a date will flash." Just - this is cold, see, just pure - just cold.

He sits down in the chair. You say, "I'm going to run a little track scout. Is that all right with you? I'm going to run this little track scout."

He says, "Well, I guess that's all right."

"Are you sure you don't have anything worrying you particularly, like a present time problem or something like that?"

"No no I don't have anything worrying me.

"All right. Now, when I snap my fingers, a date will flash." And he says, "Sixteen."

Well, you'd better go to the E-Meter because you've just probably - ordinarily on some crude number like that -you've just run into a number circuit or something.

There are pc's around that no matter how many times you snap their - your fingers at them, they'll still say, "Twelve." Eventually you'll run down what is "twelve," but it's something like twelve boys or it's twelve dogs or it's twelve pieces of silver or it's something of the sort, you see?

You try to get a date. Now you can, however, recognize that the number twelve might be developed by you into a date. See, you say, "When you - when I snap my fingers, a date will flash."

And he says, "Twelve."

Well, you could get other questions like, "Yes or no, is that a year? Yes or no, is that an hour? Yes or no, is that a month?" And watch the E-Meter, and get further responses on the matter.

Your questions then have to do with eliciting a date. Now, as easily as snapping your fingers - that's one method of doing it. Where that fails you - and the individual just says, "Twelve," or something and he can't develop it into a date and so forth, now your imagination is the limit.

You'd say, "What would you consider historically to be the most dangerous century of the past two or three thousand years?"

"The most dangerous century..." he will say, and you'll watch that E-Meter start to react.

"Well, I can tell you what the most uninteresting century would be." "That'll do. That's all right, good."

"Oh," he says, "seems to me like the dullest, well, the most completely useless period was around 1700 and something. That seems to me - I certainly would hate to... ha-ha, I just..." You know, "1700, ba! ba! Rha!"

Just say, "1700 and what?"

"Well, 1732 - that just - that... What are you asking me 'what' for?" And you've coaxed a date out of him.

Now you say, "Now, we're looking for a moment when something happened to you there." Run it down. He said 1700. You want to know if it's a little later than 1700, a little earlier than 1700.

"Now, if it's a little later than 1710? Or earlier than 1710? Ah, earlier than 1710. Is it later than 1705? Is it earlier than 1705? Oh, it's later than 1705. Is it later than 1708? Or earlier than 1708? Ah! It's a little bit later than 1708. Is it 1708? Ha! Is it 1709?" See, you got a drop on 1708. "Is it 1709?" No, not as big a drop. "1707?" No, not as big. "It is 1708, is that correct? All right.

"Now, would you say it was in the middle of the year? Was it later than the middle of the year? Or earlier than the middle of the year? Oh, later. All right. Now what month would you say it was?"

Don't be surprised if somewhere along the line of your questioning the pc suddenly says, "It was October the 4th, and it was at 5:27 when they sprung the trap." See, he just all - gets it.

Also, don't be surprised if it's all muddled up. And 1708 seems to drop, and then 1704 seems to drop the most. And then you really find out it's 1706, but realy it's 1712. All you're doing is wiping out a confusion of time.

And if you keep at it and say, "Well, now, is it earlier than 1712? Now,. is it later than 1712? It's earlier. All right. Now, is it later than 1705? Or is it early - Oh, it's later than 1705. All right. Now, is it later than 1708? Or earlier than 1708? Ah, earlier than 1708. Ah, yes. All right. Is it 17--?" Because this - now we're into a finite number of years and we can just count them. "Is it 1706? Is it 1707? Is it 1708? Ah, it's 1707. All right.

"What month?" See. All right, now we find out it's May. Okay.

"What day of May? Is it the last part of the month? Or the early part of the month?" you see. "Oh, the early part of the month."

Well, you can count them, see. "Is it May 1st? May 2nd? May 3rd? May 4th? May 5th? May 6th? May 7th? May 8th? May 9th? Nine-lOth?" And you say, "May 8th." You've already gone across it, and it's now slacking off. "May 8th. All right. May 8th, 1708. What hour of the day?"

"You know, this floor's feeling mighty shaky," he's liable to start telling you.

"Well, just - that's all right. Now what part of the day do you think it was?"

"Sunrise. Sunrise. Sunrise. Or at least the sun is low on the - sunset. Yeah, it was about 5:30. You know, that doesn't agree too well. That doesn't agree too well because the sun actually sets later than that in May." Figure-figure-figure-figure- figure. He's just doing a big dispersal out the window, and so forth.

You say, "Well, you say it was about sunset." "Well, about an hour before sunset."

"Well, would you say an hour? Or a little bit less than an hour? Or a little bit more than an hour? Oh, a little bit more than an hour. Would you say about an hour and ten minutes? An hour and fifteen minutes? One hour and ten minutes? Hour and eleven minutes? Hour and twelve minutes? Hour and eleven minutes? Hour and eleven minutes." Oh, you've done it now. The floor fell out.

"Boy," he says, "this feels terrible being hanged, you know? Scares you."

This is over and under. Get a figure, get a date and develop it with over and under.

See, he gives you 1700. You want to know if it's more than 1700 or less than 1700. Because if he gives you about 1700, it might be 1695, don't you see? Take the biggest fall. Always pick the next biggest fall that you find and just develop it, over and under.

See, he says it's later. All right. You want to know how much later. Is it later than 1715? Or is it earlier than 1715? Well, earlier than 1715 drops more than later so we now subdivide the periods earlier between 1700 and 1715 until we get it on the head. Then we divide up the year, and then we divide up the month - the - into the month, and then we divide up the month into days. And then we divide the day into hours or periods and we finally snap it right on down. When we've got it snapped down, we mark it on our time track chart.

It's quite an exercise. When I tell you that it's therapeutic, you will not want to believe me the first few incidents that you locate on the pc because if he's going to do anything like react to the incidents located, he's liable to react quite considerably. Or he's liable to just say "Well it doesn't make any difference to me." He'll just sit there. "Yes, that was when I was hanged last and I was hanged then. I think I was probably hanged earlier too. It serves me right to be hanged that way. And yes, I - I see the corpse hanging there now, and so on. I... Yes, that's right. It was about sunset when they hanged me and so on. You want to - you want to know anything about it, I'll tell you anything about it. It doesn't matter, you know and..."

Somewhere or another, you're going to collide with the incident that he's stuck in, you see, more thoroughly than other incidents. You're going to get him moving on the track. Something is going to develop here and you'll snap him out of this particular monotone because he's stuck in an exact instant when his emotions are in exactly that state. Don't you see?

Then you'll find the boy who is tenuously hung between an instant of total agony and an instant of total terror But right between the two instants, there's a no-sensation. And he's been hanging onto it for just years and years and years. And you try to move him ten seconds up or ten seconds back, he goes alternately toward agony and then toward terror And he does not want to be in either place! Thank you. And he's doing just fine up here on the edge of the building no matter how narrow it is. And if he can just keep carefully at this point, he isn't going to have anything bad happen to him. You'll see this. This is the tightrope case.

Now, I'll tell you a vicious one - a very vicious one. There's another way of doing the whole thing. This wrecks cases and so forth. Every now and then smashes somebody up quite considerably, but is nevertheless something that can be done. You can get away with it a lot of the time.

Say, "Go to the beginning of the time track and scan forward - to present time. Thank you. Good. Go to the beginning of the time track and scan forward to present time. Did so? Did that now? Good. Go to the beginning of the time track and scan forward to present time. Now, you looking at anything?"

You'll land him up more and more thoroughly, more and more thoroughly, more and more thoroughly in the incident necessary to resolve the case. This is the desperate measure on the guy you can't do anything with particularly. You can still do something like that. You can always find an incident on somebody if you're heartless enough.

I have seen a man go into a terror charge so thorough that the couch he was lying on - he was lying on a couch, he wasn't sitting on it, you know - have its legs chatter against the floor, just like a pneumatic drill. He was shaking so - in such terror And that was the way that incident was found. There - this can be done.

It always winds them up more thoroughly in what they're in. But don't think you can wipe out a time track by causing a person to scan it, because that's not going to happen.

Now, whenever you put an individual into an incident and you do not precisely and accurately locate the incident and you do get the individual to describe the incident, you have a new PT for the individual. Only it's aii old PT and it's not this one. Any incident can lie treated as an existing present time. That's a rule - rule for you to remeniber. Any incident can be treated as an existing present time.

You throw the pc back into an incident that's 1216, 4 o'clock in the afternoon of July the 23rd. You develop it. Get him to describe it, Get him to look it over. Plow him into it more and more and more, and you've got yourself a new PT for the PC. That's PT.

Now, if you've not gratuitously given him a PT on the backtrack, the least you can do is to try to give him a PT at the end of session which is the one you agree is PT. But this is something that you're going to have to learn how to do.

You recognize that if you took an individual in present time who was immediately the victim of an accident in present time - by the way, you should get a good reality on this sometime - just do this. Find somebody who's been in an accident and locate all the people connected with the accident - all the people connected with the accident that you can locate. Just make a list of them. And then run Overt-Withhold on each person that he named, Overt-Withhold Straightwire, and that accident will blow away.

Now, if the person wasn't in too bad a shape, it'll blow away. If he's in a little bit too bad a shape, you've got to add some objects. You've got to get a list of the objects that were there in the accident because he's stuck up against objects in this accident, you see? Sometimes in an automobile accident, you have to include the automobile as one of the offending parties. Person blames the automobile, that sort of thing.

Now, you can free an individual's difficulties in PT by running Overt-Withhold Straightwire on the dramatis personae of present time.

Now, more pertinently, a pc is exteriorized from the auditing room. He doesn't seem to be in-session. You're having a hard time. His mind is on something else. You've got to handle a present time problem. The way you handle a present time problem - person has a present time problem, and he can't get his attention on the session because he's so in - his attention is so drawn up in this problem of his.

There are two ways to handle it. One is problem of comparable magnitude. "Invent a problem of comparable magnitude to that problem. Describe the problem. How does it seem to you now?" Those are the commands.

A more modern way of holding forth on the subject of problems is get him to name all the people connected with this problem. Find the one who drops the most and run Overt-Withhold Straightwire on this person for a while. Take another one, run Overt- Withhold for a while, and sort these people out. Run Overt-Withhold Straightwire on each of the people connected with the problem. And you'll find the problem will desensitize very rapidly, in the usual course of human events if the fellow can audit at all. You see that? Now that's a way of getting rid of a PT problem. And that's a very modern, very fast way of getting rid of one.

Now, any engram of the past has been a problem, and it's a problem because of the overt act-motivator sequence back of it. So any engram was a PT, and it must be a very fixed and a very important PT to still have the pc stuck in it hundreds of years later. All you have to do is locate the people and sometimes the objects, but mostly just the people in the incident and run Overt-Withhold on each one of these people to have the whole engram kick out. That's the most modern method of running engrams.

Truthfully, you can run any process that you can run on a PC in present time on the incident. You can treat any incident as a PT and, therefore, run any PT problem.

Now, it's difficult to get them going on 8-C in a past track incident, but has been done. Hmm. But you start getting a thetan to do 8-C - that was the first person it was evolved for - in present time and you've got some doingness. It's not necessarily a good process, but you can do it.

Therefore, you can treat any incident any place as a present time. And then any process that works in present time, theoretically, will work on that incident, if you treat the incident as a present time of the PC. It's quite workable. But the best one to use is Overt-Withhold Straightwire.

Now, I hope you've learned something about present time...

Female voice: Yes.

... something about E-Meters, something about track scouts, behavior of a pc on the track. And if you've learned anything about it at all, I can recommend just one thing: Use it!

Thank you.