


CRAFTSMANSHIP: FUNDAMENTALS

A lecture given on 3 May 1962

Tape# 6205C03 SHSBC-142

SHSBC-142 ren 151 3 May 62 Craftsmanship: Fundamentals 

[Clearsound checked against old reels.]

(60 min)

======== BEGIN LECTURE ========

Thank you.

Thank you.

Well, how are you doing tonight?

Audience: Good.

You're looking better. 

> Practically unrecognizable, some of you. Marvelous. 
> Marvelous.
>
> Got at least 25 new students here. Pretty good, huh?
> 
> And Herbie forgot my - no - Robin forgot my e-meter.
> Second time its happened.

Anyway, I'd like to make a few small comments on the 
session you saw last night. 

[Note: The session referred to here is the demonstration 
of 2 May 1962, TVD-4A/B renumbered SHSBC 149-50]

Let's see, this is what? 3 Mar. [May] A.D. 12, Saint Hill Special 
Briefing Course, first lecture. Where is the pc? Is it all right 
if I make a comment on that?

Female voice: That's fine, yes.

All right, very good.

> Now, some of you, I understand were ...
>
> Thank you suah [sir]. Thank you. Getting that "suah" from
> Reg. He's restimulating my life as a Confederate officer.
> (audience laughter)

This lecture, in general, is what I expect out of an auditor. That's 
what this is. But before we go into that too broadly, I want to make 
a few comments on that.

There's apparently a considerable amount of surprise expressed here 
and there that one would stop buying skim milk. And if you were to 
replay that tape, you would find out at the beginning that the 
auditor spent something like five or six minutes getting the pc to 
say something she had done, not something she had intended. Got it?

A missed withhold picked up in a session is anything the pc thinks, 
anything the pc is withholding. That doesn't matter. That's a session 
missed withhold, you understand? Pc didn't tell the auditor he was 
uncomfortable. That's all right for a session missed withhold. But we 
were prepchecking, and Prepchecking means meat. We only buy meat in 
Prepchecking, see? We don't buy skim milk. See, we want meat. 
Preferably with blood dripping off of it. Get the idea? We want some 
meaningful acts; we don't want meaningless acts. Why, that's a big 
difference, see?

We don't want antisocial acts, particularly, like "I picked my nose," 
you know, just because this is seamier - the seamier side of life, 
you see? An auditor can actually start specializing in just the 
seamier side of life. And they have nothing to do with anybody, 
didn't do anything to anybody, don't you see, and specialize in 
picking up weird and peculiar practices on the part of the pc. He 
didn't do anything to anybody, you understand, he just had a weird 
and peculiar practice, you know? It doesn't mean shucks! Heh! 
Worthless.

For instance, you could take some of the Book One subjects, like 
masturbation, something like that. Oh, this is embarrassing. Yes, it 
shows up as something of the sort; it's the human race, you see? And 
it's not really doing anything to anybody, unless it is doing 
something to somebody. You get the idea?

A lot of auditors specialize in embarrassing things, see, as the very 
thing you must pick up. To hell with them! You know? Well, pick them 
up, but thathathabooh!

No, we're interested in things people have done to people. See? We're 
interested in overts. We is not interested in a withhold because it 
is simply seamy. Do you get the difference here? There's a 
considerable difference. He'd done something to somebody. He has an 
accusative attitude toward somebody, and we want to find out 
immediately afterwards what he'd done to somebody. Accusative 
attitude - so what? It merely means he's done something to this 
person, that's all, see? He's critical of Joe. Well, why is he 
critical of Joe? Well, he's critical of Joe because he's done 
something to Joe. See?

Heh, you pick up a missed withhold, "Well, I was critical of Joe." 
Balderdash! Nonsense! You can pick up 8,762, see, and the pc won't be 
any better. And all of a sudden somebody gets bright, and says, 
"Well, what have you done to Joe?"

And he, "Oh, this is nothing - slept with his wife. Didn't tell him. 
She committed suicide later. And he always thought he did it. I 
realized all the time I had, you know? Oh yeah."

This starts getting something, see? This is more the comparative side 
of existence, don't you see? I mean, this is more factual. Done 
something, see?

Now, in this session we found out something - and a good auditor 
could have extrapolated from this - we found out affection was 
trapping people. See, it was a bad thing. Affection was a bad thing.

Now, if you reach way back into your fundamentals: Auditors either 
audit by fundamentals or by music. And the best auditors audit by 
fundamentals. But the job can be done, auditing by the words and 
music, see? You know, just auditing by rote and ritual. Fundamentals. 
There's an old triangle, and if you think real hard you might be able 
to remember it. It's called the ARC triangle. And we have found the A 
triangle was an overt. So therefore, things must look pretty unreal. 
So therefore, communication of any kind is an overt; so therefore, 
the thing to do is withhold. And withholding is a virtue, not an 
overt.

So my next Zero question, having cleaned up the Zero question we went 
in on, would have been, "What communication, in some portion or 
another, added up to an overt act?" Got the idea? As a matter of 
fact, we were picking some up. "Hit a girl with a rock in the 
stomach." Communication, overt act. See?

Now, part of the present time problem was the dissemination of 
Scientology. And if affection - let's just audit by the seat of our 
pants here, see? - if affection is trapping people, then 
communication of Scientology would be reprehensible reactively. You 
got it?

Audience: Hm-mm.

I'm sorry, pc.

Female voice: That's fine.

That's an evaluation.

Female voice: Thanks.

All right. But there it is. See that? She had two PTPs, and we were 
cleaning up two chronic present time problems. And one of them was a 
continuing present time problem she's having all the time with her 
husband, which enters into a communication battle all the time, see? 
See? Letters and telephone calls, and then she has an upset and can't 
get into session, see? How could anybody sit around and look at this 
for a long time, you see, without doing something about this? See, at 
this point I should get cross with you, because obviously, obviously, 
there's something else. See? Must have been. But you didn't have the 
technology. You didn't have the technology down pat.

All right, let's get the technology down pat. I understand you had 
the technology down pat today, and that is, it must have been a 
missed withhold of the magnitude of a doingness to cause a continuous 
present time problem - the withhold missed by the person with whom we 
had the present time problem. So that cleaned it up, huh? In the 
process of doing this, we didn't have a second session following 
immediately after this, but the second session we would have cleaned 
up the other side of the PTP, which is "can't disseminate 
Scientology." And we had the answer, right there, see? Got the answer 
gratuitously. See? ARC. If affection trapped people, then 
communication must do them up in a ball. See?

All right, so we'd have to clean up communication withholds. That is, 
things that she had done with communication that were reprehensible. 
See? We clean some of those up and we find out, all of a sudden, the 
whole problem falls apart. We also find out any IQ difficulty that 
she kept complaining about; the IQ would soar. Do you see why it'd 
soar? See, it must be down, because she mustn't communicate, which in 
itself is a continuous withhold. And stupidity equals withhold, you 
understand? So she feels stupid, so therefore it's the area of 
withhold. Okay? That make sense to you?

Female voice: Yes.

All right.

That's auditing by fundamentals. See?

I wanted to call something else to your attention, which you might 
have found very, very interesting, is that we had twenty or thirty 
incidents on that chain that we never touched. The old man just went 
earlier. Do you realize I picked up the first incident on the chain? 
Uh-huh. And went earlier? What was I doing going earlier? If the 
first incident on the chain showed that there was no sexual activity 
prior to the first incident on the chain, what were we doing going 
earlier? Well, I just went earlier because you go earlier. And did 
you see that the question nulled? Nulled beautifully. Do you realize 
there are twenty or thirty incidents the pc probably never recounted? 
Well, where were they? What happened to the charge? See, that's the 
mystery of it all. What happened to that charge?

Well, you pull basic-basic on the immediate chain by pulling all the 
underpinnings out of basic-basic, if you want to get it that way. 
Anything that added up to why she would do this, we pulled. The rest 
of it must have just gone brrrzt! See?

So if you go at it on the basis that you're running engrams called 
withholds, and you run every engram ... Do you see? If you're going 
at it on that basis, it's going to take you forever. See? I think the 
pc will tell you we had a nice win last night. See? Yet we never did 
touch the upper part of the chain. We never even touched the subject 
of the PTP. Isn't that fascinating? There was only one comment on it, 
and then from there on we cleaned it up. You see that? Audit by 
fundamentals. Get the earliest on the chain and release it. And if 
you can get the earliest on the chain, you can pull it out of the 
mud, and all the later ones go.

There was one oddity about this case that you might find real odd: is 
that basic-basic was a not-knowingness about a nothing. Fascinating, 
you know? That was fascinating. There was no basic-basic. The pc 
thought there was. And we looked in vain. And why did we look in 
vain? Because every auditor had always looked in vain.

How come you're always looking for a somethingness? This was a trick 
case. This was very trick. The whole trick about it was, is there was 
nothing at the basic. And she hadn't done anything but thought she 
had, and must have because auditors had kept her looking for it. But 
we must also add into the fact that she must have kept handing it to 
auditors. See? And then we must have had the auditor never look at 
the E-Meter.

Now, did you see this last night? I said, "What happened when you 
were four years old?" And we had some ticks and tocks, and we cleaned 
that up. Now, "What happened when you were four years old?" And 
eventually we could find nothing. There was no charge on anything 
happened when she was four years old. Obviously nothing had happened. 
That was very tricky and very freaky. But how come I found it? Well, 
I found it simply because I audit by fundamentals. A not-knowingness 
is a not-knowingness.

Wrote a story once called Fear: a guy lost four hours in his hat, you 
know? All you have to do is lose four hours in your hat sometime and 
you've had it, see? Particularly if somebody keeps insisting that 
something happened. I'm sure some of you, in college or around and 
about, have tried to convince some compatriot of the terrible things 
he did while he was drunk, or while she was drunk. Of course, it adds 
in a not-know, because they can't say they did and they can't say 
they didn't. So you'll get a not-know basic which serves, 
mechanically - it is a not-knowingness that begins the chain. So, of 
course this chain stood hooked in because there was a not-knowingness 
about it. But the not-knowingness was in reverse at this time - there 
was nothing had happened. Right? It's just crazy.

You by the way won't find that ordinarily in auditing pcs. That was 
just freaky. But you audit by fundamental, and of course a not-
knowingness at the bottom of the chain of course is just a not-
knowingness at the bottom of the chain. It doesn't have to even be a 
not-knowingness about something. It doesn't have to be anything about 
the bottom of the chain. That's elementary. Well, enough about that.

This should give you some kind of an idea of what I mean by auditing 
by fundamentals. You just never give up on the fundamental. Now, I'll 
give you an idea here, see? Pc: "Yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, 
and I am tired of listing!" See? And "I can't think of any more."

Now, the reasonable auditor says, "Of course you can get tired 
listing." And it is true, he couldn't think of any more. This is 
absolutely true. But the auditor says, "Have I missed a withhold on 
you?" See, he audits not by reasonableness, but by a fundamental. 
When the pc gets nattery, he has a missed withhold. He doesn't care 
whether this missed withhold is justified or not justified, 
understandable or not understandable; he just audits by the 
fundamental that a missed withhold must be present, and you ask for 
it and pull it, and the fellow keeps on listing again. That happened 
today, and I was very, very interested to hear about it. See? You 
mustn't be reasonable, you must be fundamental.

There are certain basic truths and laws about the human mind. They 
are not very many. They are astonishingly few. You audit by those, 
not by how reasonable it is that something else would be the case. 
You actually have to isolate out for yourself what is true and what 
is fundamental. I could give you a list of things here and punch it 
down your gullet and get you examined on this thing until you were 
green in the face, you see? And I'd say, "These are the truths and 
that's all there is to it." Well, that's something like feeding this 
boa constrictor I was talking about, see? And if the auditor is 
unable to regurgitate the proper datum at that instant, why, he'd be 
sunk in any tough situation, you see, in an auditing session, 
wouldn't he? He'd be sunk, right there.

Well, actually, a stable datum fixed in by a confusion, and not by 
understanding, doesn't happen to be available in a tight spot. So you 
don't audit by fundamentals, you audit by being reasonable. So you 
must recognize a fundamental for what it is. A fundamental is a 
fundamental. I can go this far: I can say to you "This is a 
fundamental. Damn it all, find out about it!" And tell you eight, 
ten, fifteen times, "It's a fundamental; find out about it!" see?

And then one fine day you say, "Well, I haven't got anything else to 
do; I think I'll find out about this. Oh my God, it is a 
fundamental." At that point it becomes a usable tool.

You can go on believing these fundamentals are fundamentals, and 
never using them, or never spitting them out at the time they're 
required, and you'll go on being a ritualist. You go right on being a 
ritualist. All of a sudden, pc after pc you'll miss on. And you say, 
"Why am I missing on this pc?" It'll be something on this basis - 
since here was a pc we hadn't been missing on one way or the other - 
be on the basis of the auditor does not feel free to recognize that a 
fundamental applies here.

We're always asking this question, "What is an overt?" To one case 
it's one thing, and to another case it's another thing. But we had 
this gratuitously offered, see, on this case I audited. Case 
described an overt. Well, we're not much interested in sensation - 
auditing sensation - so therefore affection, see, traps people. All 
right, great. I can tell you a secret, that it isn't going to move 
very far in Prepchecking. Why isn't it going to move very far? Well, 
because you're just auditing straight sensation. You're saying, "Have 
you ever grief?" "Have you ever grief?" "Have you ever grief?"

"No."

"Have you ever - have you ever used communication so as to harm 
somebody?" or something like that. Oh well, now we're on real 
fruitful ground, aren't we? See, by taking the ARC triangle and 
moving around to another corner of it that does apply, we've got it. 
Well, that's fundamental.

All of you have ARC down real well. Well, it's fundamental. It 
exists. When the R goes down the A goes down, the C goes down; when 
the R goes up, then the C goes up, when the A goes up, you know, they 
always go up - all of them, all together.

So there's an opportunity to improve communication. And of course 
lack of communication or jammed communication (withholds equals 
stupidity) we could have made the case brighter. This is by 
fundamentals, you see?

One day you yourself will be puzzling around. You will be puzzling as 
to why a withhold makes people so stupid. And after you've sat there 
being stupid about it for some time, you will suddenly realize that 
it has something to do with something that has nothing to do with 
communication; that the reverse of communication must be happening 
here. And you'll eventually think the whole thought out all by 
yourself, and look back on it and say, "Oh, well! Heh-heh! Huh. I 
sure been feeling stupid for the last five minutes! I wonder if I was 
withholding something? Well, I was withholding the answer to it," or 
something like this. And you suddenly add it up and say, "Ha-ha-ha! 
Withholds equals stupidity. Heh! For sure!" See? So therefore, lack 
of communication equals stupidity, you see? Quite fascinating.

But you can take these things, and because these data are known, you 
can get a hopped-up, speeded-up, enormously increased look at the 
things. You got a chance to look at these things, and you will 
eventually see that they knock out other things. And you don't need 
these 8,655 superstitions like "I must not stand under a karo tree 
because it's what gives women babies," you know? I mean, other true 
data of the human race. I imagine there's girls right here that have 
been Polynesians or something like that, and have been part of a 
taboo-ridden society, and they don't realize why they always flinch 
alongside of lampposts, or something like that.

And on the other hand, some of us have often lived a canine life. 
(laughter) But these are superstitions. And when you get down to 
the bottom of the pile, why, all these superstitions become 
understandable.

But what I expect of an auditor is to audit the pc that's right there 
in front of him, by the most fundamental fundamentals that he can 
command and understand. And if he does that, he will always get wins. 
See, this auditor will always get wins. He won't go around in any 
kind of a fog about it. And he'll see that the Prepcheck system is 
put together very adroitly. But it becomes totally nonfunctional when 
you take off from a Zero question, get no overt, put down any What 
that should have been a Zero-A or something, get no overt on it, buy 
a lot of "thinks" and "supposed-to's" and that sort of thing, go on 
down a whole long chain of meaningless stuff - you know, not even 
getting the soles of the shoe wet. And nothing is clearing up, and 
it's all very arduous and just goes on and on.

When you've done that a little while, you get the idea "I wonder if 
there isn't some better way to go about it?" And you go for broke 
about that point. And I can put your attention forward to this point: 
that unless you get something the pc has done, you see, for your What 
question, a specific incident (I don't care whether you're asking for 
missed withholds because it all depends on the Zero, what you're 
asking for), but unless you get a specific incident, and it actually 
has doingness in it, and you make a chain at that point - you just 
spot that there's a chain here at that point, and word it at that - 
that you're not going to get anything happening. You will see this, 
and then the mechanics of the mind sort of start unraveling." Oh 
well, yes, of course!" you know? And after you've run some of these 
chains down to the bottom then you'll find out that all chains are 
anchored because of not-knowingness in the bottom incident.

I point out something to you: On two or three demonstrations you have 
seen that my What question was not on the button. See? It was close 
enough to have created a breeze past somebody's ear. See? But it was 
not dead center. Because the only time you know enough to ask the 
exact What question is when you've finished Prepchecking! See? And 
then you can ask the exact What question. And if you want to appear a 
genius to an instructor, why, never write the What question down 
until you've finished the session, see?

The What questions are never quite on, They're just sighting 
questions, that's all. They're never quite on. Because you really 
don't quite know what's on that chain, you see?

So you should realize that if it's that unknown to the pc, what God-
given, turban-wearing prescience do you have that you're going to 
know all about it when the pc doesn't, and you haven't found out from 
the pc yet? Well, you can't find it out that exactly. But because 
when you're auditing by fundamentals, you know something about it - 
you know about what's going to turn up - you ask a What question that 
will probably turn up something that resembles this. And I'd say it's 
the sheerest luck, one out of a hundred, that a What question is dead 
on. We had a What question of "What about sleeping with men to trap 
them?" See? Oh, that's pretty good. That was pretty good. Served our 
purposes beautifully and went null gorgeously. But it wasn't the 
chain. The chain all followed that What question. We had a chain that 
went on from there, but we were actually taking it back from an 
incident and were asking questions which relieved the What question 
which wasn't described by the What question, which I thought was 
quite fascinating. But I never expect your What question to be any 
closer on than that.

Pc gave you an overt, you actually did get an incident, and the pc 
actually did something in this; and then you put your What question 
to it, so as you get a chain of that type of incident, and then go 
earlier, you'll almost always find yourself out in the blue if that 
was the first incident. But it doesn't relieve; there must have been 
a lot of other factors. And you find yourself asking questions about 
other types. They're almost on, don't you see? They'll be on the same 
dynamic. They will be the same type of personnel, you know? And you 
get those erased and all of a sudden the rest of the chain will blow. 
Your What questions are almost never dead on.

You would be a swami beyond all swamis if your What questions were 
absolutely accurate every time, see? So you just get a What question 
which describes the incident, in its workably general - not too 
general - terms and 'ope for the best! And fire from there. And 
you'll work it out every time. And that's all you're bound and 
determined to have to get null, is the incident you found. And 
sometimes the incident will go null. Well, if you notice, in working 
a Prepcheck question, I will only go over these things a couple of 
times, with me eye on the meter - and nothing was dying down. And 
that told me loads. Because I tell you, one withhold system, you 
know, I mean, one "When," "All," "Appear," you know, and "Who," and 
it didn't blow, well, it's something like the curiosity: "Well, we 
fired an 18-inch shell into the middle of the jam tin and it still 
sat there! " There must be some other thing holding down this mirage 
called a jam tin. We couldn't possibly have fired at the jam tin. We 
must have an image of the jam tin. Now let's find the jam tin. See? 
And the jam tin always lies earlier. Nothing ever locks up because of 
a later incident.

And you all of a sudden one - you go down, and you finally pick up 
this pebble, and you don't even use the withhold system on it; it 
just kind of goes whooh. And you go back up the line and maybe use a 
withhold system on something else that was a little bit hangy, and 
then come back to your What question and just ask the What question 
again, and it's null, see?

It is an inexact activity. Prepchecking is not an exact activity. It 
depends on the pc in front of you. I expect you to be able to audit 
and understand the pc who is in front of you.

Now, here's what else I expect of you: because Prepchecking itself is 
an inexact activity, I ask you to do it on the framework of total 
exactitude. See, just groove that in madly. That sounds weird, 
doesn't it? But give it in a Model Session, God-'elp-us! You see? 
Your TRs, marvelous. Your E-Metering, superb. And when you've got 
those things all down so that you don't think any more about them 
than you think about your coat while you're eating dinner, man, can 
you prepcheck. You see? Got an exact frame: You got the withhold 
system, that's exact; you got your Model Session, that's exact; your 
E-Metering is exact; the fundamentals on which your chains are 
stacked up in the pc's mind will be found to follow those exact rules 
- always held in at the earliest incidentt; it's a cousin to the chain 
- and you take your exactitudes and just  play by ear from then on.

There's probably nobody plays by ear better than a symphony soloist. 
There's nobody better trained in music, you see? These jam sessions. 
You hear some of these boys whoopin' up down around N'Orleans. Huh! 
Got a record upstairs that tells how that impromptu jam session was 
put together, you see? They worked on it eighteen or twenty hours, 
and managed to get its impromptuness to sound imprompt. But the 
upshot of this is ... Well, you take a symphony-orchestra drummer. 
I don't know how come they get these guys into symphony orchestras, 
unless it's the high-class or snob-level something or other. And then 
they get them into symphony orchestras and they must trap them there 
in some fashion, because these guys make Krupas look awfully, awfully 
dim! They're technicians. Man, they're marvelous.

One guy, one night ... You know, your jazz orchestra boys, they all 
have to use these whiskers, or something. These whisks, you know? And 
they get one of these whisks and they go over the top of the snare 
drum, and it says snif, snif, snif, snif, snif, you know, that sort 
of thing. Symphony orchestra man does it with a pair of drumsticks, 
and it goes whisk, whisk, whisk, whisk, whisk, you know? And where's 
his whisker? It isn't anyplace. You know? I swear those guys could 
play snare drums with their kettle drums if you asked them to, see? 
They're marvelous.

But they are precision musicians. They really can play by note, you 
see? They really can do their stuff. And after that, why, hell, they 
can do anything, you see? But let's get some high-school kid, and 
before he learns how to back up Wagner, why, let's let him 
extrapolate with some jazz. It sounds that way too. Never seems to 
.. It's just noisy. See, it's just noise. And actually, this is 
always the illusion of any craftsman, is that he can do it 
offhandedly. It looks as though there is terrific ease. There's just 
nothing to it, you see? You see Weller out here whittling a block of 
wood. And you say, "Well, anybody could do that" - or look at 
something he's built, or something like that - and you say, "Well, 
anybody could do that." Go ahead, see? It looks so easy.

The mahogany dispatch boxes that sit on the back ledge of my desk 
back there - he didn't cause any fuss building those things. They're 
all hand fitted and hand carved, without any tools to amount to 
anything, you see? The guy is a craftsman. He's been at that for a 
long time. And you give old Jenner out here a pile of stone. You see, 
nobody can work stone. Give old Jenner a pile of stone and you say, 
"Build me a wall." Well, you can give him specifications about the 
wall, but somehow or another a wall happens. It's all so easy. You 
see him working out there and you see stuff going up, and there's 
nothing much to it.

Well, now and then he makes a mistake. But the only mistakes he 
actually makes is when he and me come into a planning or design 
disagreement. And once in a while, why, we won't see eye to eye on 
some planning or design thing - something else is going to go up 
after that, that he doesn't know about or something like that. But as 
far as actually doing it, it looks awful easy. It looks awful easy 
till you get somebody else in who calls himself a bricklayer. And the 
guy goes out, and my God, you know? He works, and he's got bricks 
stacked up, and he's got mortar, you know? And he picks up bricks, 
you know, and he puts them down, and he smooths them out and he gets 
the mortar on top of them, and it falls all over the drive and we've 
.. There must have been such a bricklayer at work around here, 
because one wall that we found out there was plumb. And he makes a 
lot of work out of it, and you wind up with no wall. Well, it's just 
basically because he just doesn't - the guy wouldn't know really how 
to handle mortar with a trowel. It comes down to little, tiny 
fundamentals, you know?

You take the fellow who does a great job of sculpture: He knows his 
clay, and he knows this and he knows that. They're not something he's 
trying to learn while he is making the sculpt, see? He's all set, and 
then he sculpts. He knows how to do these things.

Your old-time painters had this down to perfection. I know; I was 
kicking around over on that side of the channel, back in them thar 
days - I mean, the real old-timers around 1350, 1360 - the real 
Flemish school that the other fellows just hah! you know, came along 
afterward and pspt! you know? Rembrandt - pfhooh! Well, he - copyist. 
But in those days you couldn't run down to the paint store. You could 
have run down, but there would have been no paint store. And the way 
you learned how to paint is you went and found a master someplace and 
you ground color for him. And your little girlfriend would be saying 
to you, "Jan, how come you is so blue tonight?" And you'd mortar and 
pestle his color. And you finally found out all there was to know 
about drying and color and pigment and what pigment did and what 
pigment didn't, and how it was blended and how it was put together, 
and what [the] constituency of it is, and the darned paintings 
painted with it are still there. Fascinating. They must have known 
something, huh? When you got all through, you knew how to - you'd 
find out how to spread the stuff and how to work it, and so on. And 
you actually go on for years. And someday, one day, why, the master 
would give you a brush, an old used brush of some kind or another, 
and say, "Well, you see the wall over there; well, make a paint 
stroke on it." And then you'd go over and you'd make a paint stroke 
on the wall, you know?

And he'd say, "Oh, my God! Give me that brush," you know?

You'd say, "What have I done wrong?" you know? Well, he couldn't find 
out what you'd done right! That was ...

You look at the Japanese work with brush and that sort of thing. They 
don't do it overnight, you know? It looks so easy. You know, you look 
at a Jap and he paints his bamboo, you know? He paints it all up and 
so on. He paints. And when it's all finished here's a beautiful free 
sketch, you see, of a bamboo.

You say, "That's easy," you take some charcoal or something, you 
know; you take a big piece of paper and you say, "Well, now let's 
see." And go bzupt! and bzupt!

Well, the little Jap, he knows where to get the inkstone, you know, 
and he knows how to grind it up, and he knows how to mix it and he 
knows how to handle brushes. And he could probably write with a brush 
as fast as you can write with a pen. Amazing!

And all of those things, however, are built out of a great ability to 
do a small detail. That's the common denominator of all great art. 
It's great ability to do a small detail. And out of that you get 
great art. And that's why these schools of drawing that you see down 
in Greenwich Village - well, they're all lined up along the board 
fence and so forth, and why in fifty years nobody can find those 
pictures around. They're definitely not going for 285 thousand pounds 
for one sketch. More likely you find them filling a mouse hole 
someplace to keep the draft out. And that's because those boys went 
on an entirely different idea: They see the ease with which it is 
done and mistake the tremendous skill in the tiny detail. Because the 
tiny det - it looks so easy, you see?

They see one of these boys painting, they see the results of the 
painting; it all looks so natural, it all looks so easy. So they use 
the same abandon with which the master works, you see? They use the 
same abandon with which the master works to paint their paintings or 
sculpt their sculptings, and it's mud. It's mud. And the only thing 
that's missing is "How do you take a small brush and flip it across a 
palate to bring it out to a point, and paint an absolutely straight 
line?" How do you do that?

Give you some idea of this: Michelangelo used to go calling on his 
friends, and if they weren't home he'd take a piece of chalk and he'd 
draw a circle on the door. And they always knew Michelangelo had been 
to visit them. He was the only man in all of Italy who could draw a 
freehand circle that was perfect. He'd draw a perfect circle. All of 
his friends recognized it as a badge, you know? Craftsmanship is 
built out of these ... The exact skill, the exact response, the 
thing. I don't care how great the man's name is, or how splendid the 
accomplishment he's trying to accomplish, or how tiny or unimportant 
the thing is. The factor is still there. It's still craftsmanship. 
And craftsmanship is built out of tremendous expertness on the tiny 
detail. That's all you really have to know.

Now, our tiny details consist of a meter. One of the reasons we can 
clear today and get further today on cases, and get Goals Assessments 
and find terminals on cases, is because we have a better meter. All 
right, that's all right. That's neither here nor there. It still 
takes an auditor who is absolutely fabulous on reading a meter.

I went through a session this afternoon that I... Yesterday my auditor 
said - he sort of wound up the end of the session and he was sort of 
stunned because he thought ... Sudden thought struck him. This was 
"What if some beginning student had been trying to do that goals 
check?" It whumped him for a second. He suddenly realized how far he 
himself had come. He was reading a microscopic clean needle, but it 
was microscopic. And he was reading some that were going sporadic and 
some that were going unsporadic, and were going naturally and well, 
you see? And it was a job of work, you see? And because he was 
centering in toward the center of a goal, of course he was getting 
suppressions and invalidations left and right because already he was 
stirring up its oppterm, you see? He was stirring up both its 
terminal and oppterm. He was picking off missed withholds, 
invalidations and suppressions, and getting the read, and getting the 
read off suppressions and missed withholds and invalidations, and 
getting the read back on the goal. Then he had to test all of the 
goals that had been there to make sure that each one of those didn't 
have invalidations or suppressions, do you see, or missed withholds 
on them and about them, you see? And then he had to check those to 
make sure that they weren't still reading - make sure they were null.

And he was working around on this for about an hour or so - well, 
more than that - checking out this goal line, you see? And the 
thought afterward struck him; all of a sudden he realized how far 
he'd come. I guess what thought really occurred to him is, "What 
would he have done a year ago?" See? The guy was doing it very easily 
and very naturally, see? There was nothing to it. Meter was talking 
all the way. Now, he didn't have time to do that and worry about the 
meter and worry about rote and ritual, and so forth. He didn't have 
time to worry about these other things. He had to have a lot of 
things down pat, didn't he?

He had to know this meter backwards. He had to know exactly what this 
meter was capable of and so forth. In other words, his attention 
couldn't be on the meter; his familiarity had to be sufficiently 
great that he could take the meter for granted, and it still wouldn't 
knock his head off. Furthermore, his Model Session had to be 
absolutely perfect; he didn't have any time to worry about his Model 
Session. He had to know the exact fundamentals of what he was 
handling; he didn't have any time to figure out what he was handling. 
See? The whole thing was wrapped up in the fact that he was right in 
the middle of a goals-problem-mass goal, and all of its little masses 
and so forth were just kicking the living daylights out of the goal 
because he had them stirred up like mad, do you see?

And he read the thing out, and the end of the line, why, perfectly 
fine about it. And as I say, it suddenly struck him that what if he'd 
been trying to do it a year ago? I think that's what hit him. But it 
was all made out of little pieces. It was all made out of little 
pieces; the tremendous ease with which he could run a meter, the no 
worry of any kind on Model Session. He didn't have to fuss around 
with his TRs, don't you see? He didn't have any worries about these 
things whatsoever. He was totally relaxed. He knew those things 
backwards. He knew them forwards. And he knew he knew them. So he had 
at no moment any worry about them.

Now he could think of fundamentals. And the fundamentals are, is 
goals get invalidated and rudiments go out in any session, 
particularly a Goals Assessment. So all he had to do was just 
outguess the next missed withhold, you see? That's all he had to do. 
And keep checking and keep rolling. And it was dead easy. But it 
would have been insurmountable, utterly insurmountable, if he had 
been - had any worry about his meter; if he'd had any worry about his 
sessioning, you know, his TRs; or if he didn't know for sure that if 
the pc starts doping off all you did was pull the missed withhold. 
You know, it goes like this: He sees the pc start to get dopey, he 
pulls the missed withhold, see? And bang! the pc is right back there 
again. Get the idea? And he suddenly sees that the goal is not 
reading, and it was reading a moment ahead. Well, he doesn't say, 
"Thank God, we have nulled it out at last." He says, "Is there an 
invalidation on this?" Pang! "All right, what was that?" Clean it up. 
"Is there an invalidation on that? That's clean. All right." Now, he 
repeats the goal again, he gets no read on the goal. Now he says, 
"That's null." Careful workmanship, see? Pays off, all the way down 
the line.

How do you get to be a superb auditor? It's just by knowing all those 
little parts. That's all. And just knowing them perfectly. And if an 
auditor finds out that he is apparently creaking on one of these 
infinitesimally unimportant skills (you see, he'll be creaky on it) - 
if he ever is sitting there auditing and is saying, "I wonder ... I 
wonder if that pc is getting my acknowledgments" - if he finds 
himself worrying about this or wondering about that, you see, I swear 
he'll never have time to do anything else. But what he should do, at 
this particular time, if he finds himself worrying about these 
things, ah, he ought to practice with some TR 4, get somebody there 
until he really gets that TR 4 in there, you know? Really gets it 
going good - or 3, or 2, or whatever else he's out on, see? That's 
the smart auditor.

The smart student of auditing would make himself a checksheet of 
these various parts of auditing. I'm talking now about the parts of 
mixing the pigments, you see? Grinding the lapis lazuli - that stage 
of the game. Well, just make himself a checksheet on these things, 
and go over that checksheet very carefully, wondering if at any time, 
in any recent session, he has worried about any part of his 
checksheet. See, make a checksheet which includes the various parts 
of the E-Meter. You know? The sensitivity knob, the trim, the dial, 
tone-arm dial, something that he's had trouble with, or worried 
about. Just go over this checksheet which has all of these various 
parts and items and TRs and things like that. And go over that, and 
just ask himself honestly, "Now, in the last few sessions have I had 
any concern with this?" See? "Well, then, how about this one? I have 
trouble confronting pcs lately? Oh, yeah. All right. Well, we'll 
cross that one." And then just take those points he's crossed and 
just go ahead and drill them. Just drill them. Just treat it like a 
parade-ground drill, that's all.

A dancer: he finds out that he usually stumbles on his exit. You'll 
find him going out on the stage and practice that step that gets him 
exited until he doesn't stumble on his exit.

Only then will you be free to be a craftsman, be a master of what 
you're doing. Only then will you be free to audit the pc in front of 
you. You won't be free to audit the pc in front of you as long as 
you're enslaved with don't-knows amongst your auditing tools. Because 
you've got a chain of error which mounts in the session on the basic 
not-knowingness. And your session errors just mount like mad. "Oh my 
God, what am I doing?" And you eventually, checking these things off 
.. And the chances are you might not find out what you're doing 
wrong for a little while, until you've cleaned some of the garbage 
off. And you suddenly find out, "You know, I ... I really have never 
dared ask anybody because of embarrassment, but ... what ... what is 
a null needle?" Hmm-hm-hm-mm!

Well, that's what it takes to become a master of a craft. And don't 
think that you're going to get results, real honest-to-God results, 
if you're anything less. And that's the discouraging point of 
auditing.

Today's auditing is not aimed at the repetitive process: No attention 
on the pc; you just run a repetitive process on the pc and you hope 
for the best. Now, the funny part of it is, is that system circa '50 
on - started to develop in '50, was best developed along about '52, 
'53 - that system actually does make a lot of people well. And you 
could be fooled by the fact that it does make a lot of people well. 
So does engram running.

See, there's a lot of things you can do with the skills of yesterday. 
And if anything, we are victimized slightly by the tremendous 
workability of what we have been able to do here and there. And any 
auditor who has audited consistently along the line - this person and 
that person and so on - well, has had some rather interesting wins. 
He gets hung on his own wins. Because we have never had techniques, 
before 1962, which reached all cases. And that's something we haven't 
all learned yet.

And the other thing about it is, is these techniques require a 
master's touch. They are that strong. They are that powerful. You can 
unman the pc's mind. His reactive mind doesn't have a prayer, you do 
these things right. You have broadly, broadly workable technology 
that's been going in that direction. But at the same time, we inherit 
along with it a precision of application which knows no second-class 
or "just as good as." All of the various points which make precision 
in auditing must be actually precise.

When you sit down across from an auditor who does his E-Metering so 
well that he never worries about an E-Meter; he does his TRs so well 
that he never worries about his TRs; he does his Model Session so 
well that he never worries about his Model Session; he knows what 
he's supposed to do with the processes he's given, whether they're a 
Routine 3 or a Prepcheck or anything else, you see, and he does just 
these things, and honest, the pc, as a pc, he'll just say, "Gosh! you 
know? Gosh! Huh! It's so easy! I am so comfortable sitting here being 
audited." How come? What makes this? How did that combination of 
events take place? Is it because the auditor was born as the seventh 
son of a seventh son? Is it because he gave a present once to the 
Witch of Endor? Is it some fantastic prescience of some kind? Is it 
because his thetan can read your thetan? Well, it doesn't happen to 
be a single one of these things. It would be because the auditor knew 
the little points of auditing absolutely perfectly, did them as a 
whole, with perfection, so that he was under no tension by reason of 
auditing, because he knew all the parts, and could then apply 
fundamentals to what he was doing.

When you will sit down, someday, across from such an auditor, you'll 
all of a sudden say, "Whew! Uhh!" And you yourselves, if you learn 
your business here, will go home and you'll sit down and start to 
audit somebody - somebody that you used to audit - and they'll say, 
"My God, what happened to you?" And there really wasn't anything 
happened to you, except you are doing less. And you're doing it much 
less arduously than you used to do. And the results just fly. Nothing 
to it. You finish up a two-, three-, four-hour session, you're 
perfectly calm. So what? You'd just as soon audit another two or 
three hours. Because you're under no tension. You're under no not-
knows.

But first and foremost, in order to attain any result requires a 
technology. Well, we have those technologies. And you have to also 
get a confidence that when you sit down and audit somebody, he is - 
by these technologies - he is going to get a result. So that that 
takes out the last not-know out of it: is "Is the pc going to gain or 
win?" And what you're doing today, you do it right, the pc keeps 
winning. That pc just wins, that's all. The pc goes on winning and 
you all of a sudden get confident in the fact the pc is going to win. 
If you audit him, the pc will win - bang! That's all there is to it. 
You'll win, the pc wins. Everybody wins. And that's the final tension 
that goes out of it. And after that, my God! The results you can get 
in auditing are just fantastic.

And frankly, that's what I expect of you here. That's what I expect 
you to learn how to be able to do. To audit like a master before you 
get out of here.

Thank you.


======== END OF LECTURE ========




