6306C25 SHSpec-278 Routine 2-H

     [See HCOB 25Jun63 "Routine 2-H -- ARC Breaks by Assessment"]

     The use of different processes has been monitored or regulated by two
things:

     1. The ability of the auditor to do the process.

     2. The efficacy of the process in advancing cases.

Both have to be taken into account.  It is important that these two factors
mesh.  Otherwise auditors tend to lose.

     What is a win or a lose in auditing?  You have to be able to define them,
or we won't be able to recognize them.  A win, in terms of thetan behavior,
is:

     1. "Intending to do something and doing it."

  or 2. "Intending not to do something and not doing it."

A lose is:

     1. "Intending to do something and not doing it."

  or 2. "Intending not to do something and doing it."

A lose gives you a disagreement.  A ridge forms between those two things.  A
ridge is a bit of entrapped energy that will read on an E-meter.  In
processing, intending to do something for a case and not doing it is a lose.
From the PC's side, it is the basic definition for a lose: if the PC sets a
goal for the session of becoming OT and doesn't make it, it is a lose, no
matter how unreal the goal was.

     An auditor's idea of a win could be not to ARC break the PC.  Then he
does, and gets a lose.  This is the intention and sole intention of many
auditors going into session.  This being the case, it demands of a process
that it work, regardless of the intention of the auditor.  That is quite a bit
to demand of an automaticity, but it is a very safe base for a process.

     Your skill as an auditor is in getting the process across and completing
an auditing cycle, keeping the form and running the session.  It does not lie
in inventing a process as you go along.  You have enough to do without having
to invent processes, although LRH used to do it.  It is feasible to dream up
the process while auditing the PC, but it is only necessary when you don't
know what to do.

     The way around this problem is to know the fundamentals of cases.  What
we expect of an auditor is to be able to complete an auditing cycle, hold the
session form together, and take care of the PC's un-form-ness as needed.  That
is minimal.  If you go lower, you haven't got an auditor, and more randomness
than order will be introduced into the session.  A person who couldn't master
a repetitive process would never make an auditor, because of the importance of
the auditing cycle.  You need to be able to acknowledge.  This is more than
just saying, "Thank you." The auditor has to understand, and it is up to the
auditor to minimize the possible breakdowns of the auditing cycle that results
from the auditor being startled by what PCs come up with.

     The auditor must be cured of a tendency to Q and A, since that is
damaging to the PC.  A common sort of Q and A is echo metering.  This drives
the PC 'round the bend.  If this is done with dating, it can ruin the PC's
precious ability to estimate time.  Any echo metering is a a and A.  Not Q and
A'ing is part of the auditing cycle.  If the PC says, "Around 750 years", you
say, "750 years." The essence of Q and A is departing from the auditing cycle with new doingness, because the PC has added new doingness. This misses a PC's withhold.  The worst situation you can get into is the ARC break caused by your taking it up, when all the PC was doing was originating. The PC has originated and you thought it was a question or a request and acted to handle it.  Flunk! You didn't acknowledge the origination.  You can get the PC to clarify the origination by asking the PC, "Was that a request?"

     The final test of an auditor is not, "Is he perfect?", but "Can he
unscramble a mess by session end?" Get as good as you can get, but don't get
upset about imperfection.  Just be sure you can straighten it all out.  As an
irreducible minimum, let things go that are going well and straighten out
things that aren't.  R2-H is a new process to assist in this. [See below, p.
426, for a description of the process.  See also HCOB 25Jun63 "Routine 2H --
ARC Breaks by Assessment" for more details on the process.  This would be a
predecessor of the L-1-C.]

     R3R is a pretty rote procedure.  It has no variations.  It took 13+ years
to arrive at it.  "I intended auditors to run engrams and failed, in the
past.  I had a lose." That is why R3R came in.  The main difficulty in
handling engrams is the complexity of the procedure.  These rote steps are
pretty simple, done one by one.  R3R runs engrams better and smoother than
earlier engram running ever did.  It is quite a triumph.  The failure in
getting auditors to run engrams was enough to make LRH abandon trying for some
years.

     Of all processes, this is the one not to learn by doing it on the PC.
Don't practice running engrams on a PC.  You will tanglefoot if you don't know
the fundamentals of the time track.  Dating is an interestingly exact skill.
The hardest and trickiest step is getting the duration, because it is hard to
get the proper duration, and in rote procedure, duration is everything.  If
the PC doesn't know know what the incident is all about, you have the duration
wrong.  Why? The later part of the incident is always knowable as to length.
The question is where it really begins.  For instance, you know how long this
lifetime has been, but you don't know how long your track is.  If you get the
PC just seeing one scene every time you run him through the incident, then the
duration is wrong.  He has just got the back end of the incident.  In terms of
reality and behavior of the meter, the PC could reach the last part of the
engram.  If he can't tell you about what is happening, the duration is wrong,
because there is obviously something more to it, and that something more is
always earlier.  So you must re-do the duration.  The first incident wasn't
wrong; you've just gotten more incident.  This could happen more than once in
one incident.  If the second run is still very vague, if the PC still "doesn't
know" about the incident, if he has gotten only a few more pictures, get the
duration step re-done.  That's all you have to do!  You may have to re-do it
several times.  Just take the PC's data.  The PC will always go to the
beginning of that part of the incident which he can now reach, luckily.  This
is very uncomplicated.  And it is very important, because all that is in the
bank is in engrams.  Engram running is no longer barred to the Black V case.
Even GPM's are specialized engrams.  A GPM is just an engram with a pattern
required to run it.

     The mind is not confused.  The PC, looking at it and unable to find what
he wants, thinks that it is confused.  It is an idiotically orderly machine,
which does what you tell it to do.  Addressed by a proper technology, the mind
is incredibly precise and accurate.  The PC may think it looks confused, but
he is like someone on his first trip to the library.  He will be confused until he cognites that he can just ask the librarian for what he wants and get it.  The auditor always gets what he asks for in R3R.  The mind is not a Ouija board.
Just keep your commands sensible and comprehensible.

     The biggest problems an auditor has are:

     1. Finding the correct date and duration.

     2. ARC breaks.

Most auditors are somewhat afraid of ARC breaks.  If you haven't learned to
assess and handle ARC breaks, you are licked.  You will shortly back off from
running engrams because you will have had a lose.

     Routine 2H comes in here.  It is ARC Breaks by Assessment.  It is
superior to ARC break straightwire.  It asks the PC for an ARC break, dates
it, assesses it for BPC, locates it, and indicates it to the PC.  This puts
you at cause over ARC breaks and gives you practice at dating things that the
PC is not very nervy about, unlike engrams.

     R2H can be run on a PC at Level 6. [Dub-in of dub-in case.  See p. 415,
above.]  R3R doesn't necessarily run only engrams.  You can also run
secondaries with it, which is fine.  Just don't call it engram running.  Don't
run chains that haven't been assessed.  You risk having the chain try to
branch into another chain.  You can run locks with R3R, on a case that is not
up to running engrams.

     Getting the item to run is done by the rules of listing.  You could also
assess the 18 buttons of the prepcheck and list what they have suppressed in
this lifetime, and get a chain that you can run with TA.  If you hit one of
the Helatrobus implants, shift to R3N.  If it is another sort of GPM you hit,
go to R3N2.  Watch for dates between 38 and 52 trillion years ago, for
Helatrobus implants.

     The approach to processing has been upgraded because its target has been
upgraded.  We are not interested in clearing.  We are interested in OT's.  The
governments of the U.S. and Australia decided to get rough.  Also the Kremlin
and the U.S. are trying to form a dichotomy, expressed with nuclear fission.
We must hold the line legally (concerning E-meters) and upgrade the auditing
target to OT.

