6207C10 SHSpec-169  Repetitive Rudiments and Repetitive Prepchecking (Part II)

     A repetitive process is one that is run over and over, with the PC
answering and the auditor acknowledging.  It is run to a precise flat point.
When used with ruds and prepchecking, you run it to a clean needle and no
further.  Beginning ruds would always he done repetitive.  Early in auditing,
you would also do middle and end rudiments repetitively.  It is kind of a
prepcheck in disguise.  Thereafter, you would run middle and end ruds as fast
ruds.  You would normally run the random rudiment (missed withhold) as a fast
rudiment, not as a repetitive rudiment.  You may have to fish around for it.
Be very sure you get it answered.

     The repetitive rud approach was first used in sec checking, where it was
quite successful.  Prepchecking using the withhold system -- running chains --
was too hard to teach auditors.  Also, this system is hard to use with a
poorly reading, ARC breaky PC.  It is not as successful as repetitive
prepchecking.  The average auditor gets more done with repetitive
prepchecking, and the PC gets into session better with this method.  Don't use
more rudiments than you find in model session, though you can make them
understandable, e.g. to a child.  If you seem to need more rudiments, you
still have the solution: the ARC breaky PC comes to pieces on O/W.

     So O/W is added to model session.  It can be used when the PC is so
involved in some upset that he can't pay any attention to the rest of the
session.  His attention is so fixated that any change of his attention will
lead to ARC breaks and upsets.  The other time O/W is used is when a PC is seriously ill -- too ill to be audited.  This situation is handled with general O/W as the first rudiment.

     General O/W goes into model session right after start of session.  The
commands are "What have you done to another / withheld from another?" It is not
run against the meter; it is run against the PC.  It can get his TA moving.
Some pcs with a highly automatic bank, with everything grouped and all in
motion, will give you a multiple picture reaction when you ask them one
question.  The PC goes all over the time track.  This is not very common, but
when you run into it, it is hard to control the PC, and they can't run well on
anything -- except O/W.  The PC who complains of no auditing result is likely
to have an automatic bank.  You will find this out if you ask what is
happening when you give the PC a command.  However, these pcs will respond to
O/W and get excellent TA.

     So if you notice that you had gotten good TA on O/W, just move it into
the body of the session.  Otherwise, run it until the PC feels much better and
then do the ruds.  If you notice that you had gotten TA on O/W when you never
had much on Anything else, resume the O/W.  You can't really run the TA out of
it because of the breadth of the question.

     If the PC comes into session ARC broken, all that would happen if you
asked, "Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?" would be
screams and snarls, letting the PC commit overts against the auditor.  You
don't ask, "What have you done to me?", etc., because you may be allergic on
his terminal line.  Besides, this would be putting the PC's attention on the
auditor.  But you can run general O/W.  If the PC seems to be withholding
things and having a hard time, you can use missed withhold as a random
rudiment (That's what "random" means: "can be used at any time".), checked
against the meter.

     So you can use O/W and the PC will eventually settle down and look
calmer.  Then go into your ruds.  If one of the questions may have read when
you checked it, and you are not sure, don't pretend.  Give the PC the R-factor
that the read is equivocal and recheck.  Ideally, your metering should be so
good that you use the TA to control the needle so that it is sitting exactly
at "set" exactly at the end of your question, not still bouncing back from
somewhere else.  Never try to read a needle on a fast rise; always distrust
fast rises.  A goal doesn't have enough impulse to read down against a fast
rise.  It will show up as a tiny slow, if you see it read at all.  The needle
that is flying around has inertia, and a slight read can get missed.  So be
suspicious and don't hesitate to call a read "equivocal" and recheck.  Be sure
it is clean before you call it clean, or the PC will know that he is getting
by the meter and will read less and less on the meter.  You will then have to
go back over all your earlier zero questions and see that one gave a tiny
read.  Don't miss it this time!  Clean them all up, and you will build the
case back to reading well.

     The only time, in rudiments, that you ask a PC to amplify or reneat his
answer is when you didn't understand it.  If you fake an understanding, you
are disturbing the knowingness button.  This button is the most serious one
you can push in a case.  Don't fail to understand the PC while acting as
though you do.  The onus of understanding and of making something understood
is on the auditor.  TR-4 is not a Q and A; you are asking for a comprehension
so that an as-isness can take place.

     You Ask a rudiment question until the PC has no more answers, without
checking the meter.  If you get a read on checking the question, you use it to
guide the PC, who doesn't know what it was, into seeing what was still there.
After getting the PC's answer, you then leave the meter until the PC says,
"No" again, because he will now give you all the locks.  When it is clean,
ask, "Do you agree that was clean?" and TR-4 whatever he says.  Don't go back
to the rudiment if he says he doesn't agree.

     The exact same procedure is used for repetitive prepchecking.  It depends
on the mechanism of cycling on the track to pick up the basic.  Pcs will stay
in session quite cheerily with this.  It takes longer than using the withhold
system, but it is much easier and more certain.  As long as you clean all the
reads you get, the PC will be cheerful and easy to audit.  If you miss a few,
the PC will become nattery and hard to audit by virtue of not reading well.

     If you make the opposite mistake of asking the question again after it
was clean, Hell hath no ARC breaks like the one you have thereby set up.  This
is because a thetan is closest to nothing and you have given him a nothingness
withhold [a missed withhold of nothing].  That is very upsetting to a thetan
because:

     1. There is nothing there, so he can't spot it or as-is it.

     2. He is closest to a nothing himself, so he feels as if he himself has
        been missed.  "You didn't buy 'nothing', so 'nothing' is
        unacknowledged.  So therefore he is unacknowledged."

So don't try to clean a read that is not there.

     This system of repetitive rudiments and prepchecking has a liability: it
pulls the PC thoroughly into session and builds up fantastic ARC between the
auditor and the PC.  Then, if the auditor speaks his mind inopportunely or
goes on automatic, the ARC break will be magnitudinous, just because of the
degree to which the PC is in session.

     This system was invented because, due to the fact that pcs were not well
in session, auditors were having trouble getting pcs to read on the meter.
Auditor TR-1 also contributed to the problem.  Commonly, and in a social
context, a meter is inoperative.  The PC has to be in session to some degree
for the meter to react at all.  Social conversation won't activate a meter.
The better ARC you have with the PC, the better the meter reads.  Meters are
not like lie detectors.  A lie detector reads because of terror; an E-meter
reads on ARC.  The PC knows that it doesn't matter what overt he gets off.
You are not going to turn him in.  If you miss reads, they operate as missed
withholds and the PC ceases to read well.  The repetitive system gets the PC
talking about his case before you read the meter, so it will work where
nothing else does.

