
Type = 3
iDate=23/1/62
Volnum=1
Issue=103
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-103  Basics of Auditing




6201C23 SHSpec-103  Basics of Auditing

     A person who is fairly new to scientology and in doubt about it is
frequently someone who is just stuck in a ridge where he has no certainty that
anything works or happens.  There is no sense in trying to shove training down
his throat.  He needs auditing first.  His whole life is in a "maybe", and he
will have to be run on positive and negative to handle the ridge.

     Another easily overcome barrier to training is pretended knowingness.  It
is a downscale mockery of knowing.  It gives the PC a funny sensation, being a
thoroughgoing fake.  But it doesn't buck your effort to train as much as the
"maybe" case.

     A person stuck in a maybe can make trouble as a PC, too.  He often sets
extravagant, unreal session goals and is in an obsessive games condition with
the auditor, where he is attempting



                                      168

to give the auditor loses.  The PC will go out of session very easily; he is
not under the auditor's control.  Run him lightly fundamental processes.  Give
only light effects.  This is a no-effect case, and you must audit him with a
feather.  8C is not low enough for them.  They go around touching walls with
never a comm lag.  The process doesn't bite because they are not really
there.  Sit them down with some small, dull object like a piece of chalk and
have them get the idea that the chalk is there / not there.  This will pick up a
lot of confusion and randomity.  Work with the person.  Take the chalk away,
let them see what that would look like.  Run the process until the PC takes
over the automaticity of not-ising physical objects and the room starts going
solid on them.  Keep on with the process.  It is very light.  You are dealing
with the old effect scale.  As the PC goes down towards total effect, the
effect he can experience is a breath of air.  A no-effect case can't confront
or even notice a large effect, only a very small one.  If you blew them up,
they would never find out about it; that's too much effect.

     We see that clearly in the overt-motivator phenomenon.  The more
motivators the person has earned, the less motivators the person can have, so
what to you seems minor, to the person is a major disaster.  He thinks
everyone is against him, etc., but he couldn't perceive a large explosive
action if it occurred.  His automatic not-is takes care of large effects.  You
could probably give him a session full of GAE's, no-auditing and he wouldn't
notice the badness of it, but if you missed one tick on an ARC break, he would
notice the small error.

     Critics of auditing are always looking for small errors on this basis.
In a country like Spain or Mexico, there can be enormous mis-government,
atrocious wars, banditry, etc. and at the same time, punctilious courtesy and
honesty in small things.  They don't see the gross outnesses.  A democracy is
only as good as people can see what is going on.  It is the enough-motivator
of an old empire that results in the not-is.

     Low-scale cases could be given very bad auditing without their noticing.
This is not advised, but it could be done.  Middle range pcs will be aware of
both large and small errors and are affected by them.  When they come upscale,
they see the whole error and are less affected by it than the low-scale PC.
So, as you audit people up the line, your auditing has to improve.

     Forms, rituals, procedures -- none of these will see you through a
session.  All that will see you through is auditing.  The second you start
leaning on your tools, like Model Session, [you are in trouble.] What is
phenomenal is that you can make a gain with pcs using only ritual.  Auditing
is a science, not an art.  LRH's sessions contain lots of auditing covering
the bare bones of Model Session.  Student sessions have the bones showing
through.  The PC, even if he is a trained auditor [or especially if he is] is
very aware of your taking up beginning rudiments But what is the PC doing
listening to the auditing bones?  He is supposed to be interested in his case,
and there he is listening to the bones rattle.  Good auditing is when you
didn't notice the auditor using Model Session, when he was using it.  It is
smooooth.  There's no need to make a production out of everything you do.  Get
so that you can shift gears smoothly from, say, running a simple havingness
process to finding what inval or eval has caused it to stop working.  The more
the PC is in session, the faster the PC will



                                      169

blow an aberration.  The less afraid of things they are, the less they duck
and dodge and the braver they feel.  If the PC comes in talking about a PTP he
is stuck in, handle it.  Don't worry about formal start of session.  When it
is handled, get Model Session going.

     So you either have to use TR-4 when the PC comes up with any of the
myriad things pcs can come up with, or if it is something that really is in
need of more handling, you must know how to handle it.  You have the
horsepower to head the PC in the right direction down through the slot the PC
needs, to get where he is going, so use it and get him to the slot.

     Now there are four flows to the Flow process:

           1. Outflow

           2. Restrained outflow

           3. Inflow

           4. Restrained inflow.

All of these are self-determined; they are easy for the PC to self-determine.
We have hitherto looked on inflow as motivators and restrained inflow as a
sort of motivator side of it.  But mixed up in the motivators is the PC's
self-determined action to make the inflow occur and the PC's self-determined
action to make the inflow not occur, respectively.  Flows three and four are
not as important as withhold and outflow.  You handle flows one and two all
the time.  A PC can self-determine a bad inflow in order to get a motivator.
When you make an auditing error that causes the PC to ARC break, the action
seems to be so much yours that you seldom notice the self-determined part the
PC has in it.  Maybe he did it so he could outflow a make-you-guilty.

     There are more than four flows of course.  There's the PC determining the
flows for someone else, for third dynamics, etc.  How could you use flow
processes in session to keep ruds in?  Suppose the PC keeps coming up with
session withholds.  How about tripping one of the other flows, e.g. run "What
have you outflowed in this session?" to balance all his withholds, then get
when he started not wanting to outflow, get the objection to the outflow off,
and the tendency to withhold vanishes.  Or ask, "Have you been inflowing?" The
PC says, "Yes.  Auditing commands." You don't have to Q and A with it; just
accept it, and the PC has blown it.  You don't have to take up all the PC's
withholds, by the way.  Let blown overts and withholds expire when they are
blown; don't try to remedy a nonexistent situation.  On any flow line, what
you want to know is when it started (roughly) and how long it has been going
on, and whether the phenomenon (whatever it is) happened again, etc.  Just
give it a lick and a promise when used as ruds.  A PC who is going
sporadically out-ruds has a flow out that you haven't spotted.  You could use
a once-over on beginning ruds, too, on flows.  This all gets what the PC is
doing that he isn't communicating.  It's all basically withholds that mess him
up.  So the flows direct his attention to the things he hasn't told you.

     As long as the auditor has the desire to assist the PC and to keep him
communicating, the auditor can straighten the PC up and keep the session going
under almost any conditions.  An auditor can interfere with a PC's comm to him
in various ways.  There are obsessive withholds on other people, for instance
(e.g. a cop restraining people from committing crimes or a tax collector
getting people to outflow).  If an auditor is dramatizing some such valence,
he will prevent the PC's comm or make him talk after he's said all.



                                      170

     Auditors always talk too much.  An auditor who talks too much is, for the
PC, a confused area which the PC can't reach, so the PC cannot talk into the
area.  Since the PC's havingness is often down anyway, the auditor's talking
can reduce it to the point where the PC dopes off.  Processes that clean up
the auditor for the PC make the auditor more have-able: "Who would I have to
be to audit you?" or "What don't I know about you?" would help.  Generally,
it's a bad idea for the auditor to use his body for anything, in the session.
One exception is that if the PC believes the auditor is too enturbulative. you
can run, "Put your hand on my shoulder," repetitively.  A few commands of this
will help by giving the PC the illusion of being able to reach the auditor.
The auditor who tries to put the PC on an obsessive withhold is, of course, a
poor auditor.  The other extreme is the auditor into whose zone one must never
reach, the auditor who "runs away" by, say, changing processes before they are
flat.  The PC will be aware of this more than the auditor, as no-auditing.

     The difficulties you have as an auditor are of your own making and stem
from using ritual to avoid auditing.  There is no substitute for sitting down
with the PC, using what you know of the mind, auditing his case, finding what
it is, squaring it up, etc.  All for the PC, with auditing intended.  If you
have other considerations entering into it, criticising the PC, or whatever,
you won't get much auditing done.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=24/1/62
Volnum=1
Issue=104
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-104  Training -- Duplication




6201C24 SHSpec-104  Training -- Duplication

     There are two ways of getting someone out of apathy, one on the route of
making auditors, the other on the route of auditing.  They are quite
different.  To make an auditor, the policy has to be that the auditor doesn't
have a case, because if auditors had to get cases handled before they could
audit, no one would ever audit anyone, because there would be no auditors.  So
it is a workable truth that auditors do not have cases.

     You are not in such good shape yourselves, these days, compared to
500,000,000,000,000 years ago.  To make a big stride towards actually making a
being is very fine.  This means that the thing can be bootstrapped, even by
auditors who have not had much case gain yet.  If it weren't true, we as a
people would never make it because the few able ones wouldn't be able to audit
enough people to signify.  They have to train others.  Furthermore, if the few
trained auditors only audited, they could improve society, but they would also
be producing a rich and poor society of aristocrats and slaves.  Not all these
more able people, after auditing, would suffer from LRH's peculiarity of
wanting people to be free.  After a few generations or decades, we would have
a society of clears and slaves, which is the route to chaos and destruction.
This is interesting as a long look.

     LRH's view of a century hence includes several possibilities.  There's
bound to be some effect, with an effort of this size and effectiveness.  The
more rapidly the job is done the better.  This is the same as with a PC.  If
you audit him slowly and poorly, his progress is fitful.  Part of our
effectiveness is to make enough auditors.  If all of the students at Saint
Hill trained auditors, there would be enough auditors.  The job of clearing
the planet is not a one-man job.



                                      171

     So therefore you are learning to audit and improving.  In training
auditors, don't go in the direction of being kind.  Expend your time on people
who can be trained to audit without huge handicaps, even though your natural
impulse may be to spend your time on the numbskull who is all thumbs, trying
to get him up to a level of mediocrity.  Let him drift.  Don't let him go, but
put your attention on the apt students.

     It is adventurous to estimate the amount of time it will take to train
someone.  There is, however, a simple test you can do.  Take a datum of
scientology, say it to someone, and have him repeat it; do this a few times,
then have him give you an example of it.  This educational process can knock
out a no-effect case in training.  Let them duplicate the words; eventually
they will duplicate the understanding.  It is therapeutic as well to get
someone to duplicate a datum, any datum.

     The first gradient is no comprehension of the words.  It is shocking to
find morale suffering in some HGC's because of being made to duplicate a
bulletin exactly.  Suppose we were just trying to increase a person's ability
to learn, his learning rate.  It wouldn't matter if we were using automotive
assembly books or the WPA's History of Socialism in Northern Arizona.  Any
data at all would serve.  You could read it off, have the PC repeat it as
sounds.  He is in tremendous data confusion, which blows off as he attempts to
duplicate data.  He will learn he can duplicate it even if it has buttons in
it.  He will learn that duplication is just duplication -- just obnosis,
observation of what is there.  People will often, before duplicating, go off
on a stimulus-response mechanism of evaluating or interest or belittling,
etc., etc.  Eventually, the thetan wakes up and just does what you have
asked.  He says what you said.  People who are aberrated get upset about this
and think you are making slaves or something.  You are not.  You are just
asking someone to duplicate a datum.  If someone can do that, he can also
cause himself to be duplicated.  (Incidentally, you can paralyze a committee
if you want by introducing restimulative words or buttons into the
discussion.  "Study" is an excellent one for this purpose.)

     Beyond duplication comes understanding.  The duplication has to come
first, although people will often try to understand before they duplicate.
That is why study is such an important button.  That is getting somebody else
to understand, which relieves one of the responsibility for understanding.
This is the operating mechanism of governments that results in no-action or
action from no understanding.  Democracy doesn't work in the absence of
understanding.

     When you get someone to duplicate a datum, he is now capable of
understanding it and evaluating its importance.  So the third step, after
duplication [and understanding] is ability to comprehend, observe, and
eventually judge.  No one has ever taught judgment before.  There isn't much
in any bank, or it wouldn't be a bank.  [So the three steps are:

           1. Duplication

           2. Understanding

           3. Judgment.]

     This is a new skill, one beings never had before.  They were capable of
observation before, but they always put a curve on it in order to have a game
or something.  Pure observation, pure study, pure comprehension or judgment
have never been studied or known about.  They have merely been touched on in
philosophy and avoided in religion entirely.  We know the source of this: the



                                      172

greatest overt there is, is enforcement of non-comprehension.  All the way
down the responsibility scale, "don't know" is still a button, when overts and
withholds are over the PC's head.

     A study of not-knowingness has been approached by two philosophers, Kant
and Spencer.  Their conclusion was that what wasn't known couldn't be known,
so there was no road to judgment.

     For years LRH has been trying to teach auditors judgment about what was
going on in the mind of another being and what to do about it.  It has been
tough.  What bars you from it is not-knowingness of it all.  It begins with
duplication.  It can't be reached with processing because it is not already
there.  The whole lesson of this universe is not to duplicate and not to
communicate.  The two crimes in this universe are being there and
communicating.  A person has to become comfortable with the idea of being
there and communicating, and this can be approached by duplication of a
datum.  A datum is a location that doesn't have to be pinned down.  It is a
sort of cousin to a thetan, having no mass.  Thetans begin to use ideas for
locations when they get driven out of places.  They start to use ideas as
identities.

     You can learn to have judgment by two steps: duplication of data and then
understanding.  You cannot go beyond that in teaching judgment.  You are
learning judgment as you learn scientology.  This is fortunate, since the very
truth of the data, if it were just swallowed and not understood, would tend to
destroy judgment, since it would not have to be tested.  That is -- tests
would always bear it out, so there would be no point in going through with the
testing process.  You cannot go beyond getting a person to duplicate data and
understand in teaching judgment.  You cannot teach a person how he should
judge something and still have him judge it.  Many students have run straight
through being taught judgment without noticing that they have been taught it.
You have come up on the other side into a realization of it, not because you
have been taught it, but because you realize it.  This is what we know as
"making it your data".  When you are dealing with truth, you always have this
fourth step: the ability to realize and to perceive your own self-determined
comprehension.

     That route has pan-determinism in it.  The person can understand why they
learned the datum, why they were taught the datum, and the independent truth
of the datum, independent of having been taught it.  It may not be a perfect
route, but it is the first route through to such an end product.  It has a
side-benefit: you will understand things you never understood before that have
nothing to do with what you have studied.  An auditor must have this ability
to understand what is going on, without going into a trying-to-understand,
when the PC says something aberrated.  The auditor can and should just
duplicate and acknowledge the PC's originations and not Q and A and go off
into getting the reasons behind all the PC's originations.

     So if you find an area where auditors can't duplicate a bulletin, you can
tell how they have been handling pcs: lots of Q and A, efforts to understand
before duplicating, etc.

     People who are going through having to duplicate first get into
resentment.  They look gaunt, apathetic.  Then they get up to anger, then a
sort of wandering.

     Routine and rote are a poor substitute for understanding.  "The place I'm
trying to get you to is a place where you can process by realization, process
by comprehension, process by the exercise of judgment.  If I can get you to
that point, I will have considered it very well worth doing, no matter how
heroic it has been on the way."



                                      173


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=30/1/62
Volnum=1
Issue=106
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-106  In-Sessionness




6201C30 SHSpec-106  In-Sessionness

     Assessing isn't to find something to run; it's running the case.

     Rudiments must be kept in throughout the session, not just used to get
the PC in session.  End rudiments are there to keep the session from
perpetuating itself or hanging up.  Beginning rudiments are to get the PC out
of the physical universe, into session and his own universe, not still coping
with his life outside of session.  If he has to put a lot of attention on the
auditor, he is still in cope, in having to handle another human being -- a
social situation, not a session.

     An auditor who does a poor job of getting rudiments in puts the PC into
the physical universe, coping with the auditor.  A PC in session should be
able to be in a state of no-responsibility for the physical universe around
him during the session.  That is the reason you can plumb the bank.  The less
responsible you make the PC for the physical environment and the auditor and
the auditing, the more no-responsible the PC is for those things.  That sounds
peculiar, because it is also the state of an hypnotic trance, but a PC in
session is not in an hypnotic trance.  The difference is interesting.  In an
hypnotic trance, it is demonstrated conclusively that he has no control over
anything; the only person with any control is the hypnotist.  Hypnotism is a
total overwhelm, devoted directly to the physical universe (the PC's body).
That has little in common with a PC's attitude in session.  It was one of the
few states Man could induce on Man, along with:  cured, dead, injured, etc.
It was the only one by which he could approach the spiritual and the
infinite.

     People can misinterpret this when it comes to getting pcs in session.
Their past track in dealing with these other states can color their approach
to pcs.  There are also the social states, which have nothing much to do with
auditing; it is no sin to play on that.  But auditors can get confused about
what in-sessionness is.  What is the beingness of a PC?  It is, of course,
"Willing to talk to the auditor and interested in own case".

     This is so simple that auditors can try to put additive states in on top
of it.  Using inval and eval, they can turn the session into an hypnotic
trance session by overwhelming the PC.  It can't happen easily; it takes some
doing, but it could happen.

     What you want is just someone who is no longer fixated on the physical
universe or in a social state with the auditor.  But if you violate the
Auditor's Code, he will still have the physical universe, because he will have
a person, not an auditor, to deal with.  He will be too concerned with what
the auditor might think, what the auditor is doing, etc.  That is normal
enough, to a degree, early in auditing.  So the first auditing a person has
should be the best, because that is when he is most distrustful.  You don't
want him to keep a distrustful attitude towards an auditor.

     A PC in session can look at his own universe; the auditor has to get him
to look.  It's interesting that he is in such a state of no-responsibility for
the physical universe, since that is actually the state he has been in since
the beginning of track.  It is his no-responsibility for the physical universe
that makes it necessary for him to cope with it and be unsafe with it.  This
is a common denominator of bank.  At the most aberrated spots on the back
track, the person is 100% irresponsible for the lot.  So he goes into this
state rather easily.



                                      174

     We are more interested in the backtrack than in his present time physical
universe.  The reason why we are trying to detach him from the PT physical
universe is so that we can put him into communication with the past-time
physical universe.  If he stays "stuck in present time", he is in a state of
super-cope.  The mind, to such a person, is already an area of danger, because
his time track is fraught with insecurity even greater than the insecurity of
FT.  But he is actually not stuck in PT; he is stuck on the back track,
believing that it is present time.

     So you must get beginning ruds in much better with a new PC or a green
PC.  Likewise, if auditing gets into a grind, tear into the ruds.  Don't just
check them to see if they are in.  Use them to audit the case.  Don't just get
them in for the session we are running.  Get them in for all his past
sessions, particularly the first.

     How many ruds processes should you use?  Normally, you can just flick the
withholds off of any ruds question to get the PC into session.  But the
available processes for getting ruds in are nearly countless.  Any valid
communication process, old problems processes, withhold processes: there are
lots of them.  You must recognize what rudiments are.  They are reasons why he
might not be in session.  If you want to straighten him out on the subject of
auditing, get his ruds in, starting with his first session.  Having located
the first session, you could run, "What didn't that auditor know?" and "What
didn't you know about the environment?"

     If the PC has been an auditor, you can run out his first PC with, "What
didn't that PC know about you?" You could get all ruds in on every session he
has ever had, including end rudiments.  Only the first session or two and a
few others will have any importance.  The best method to do this would be a
Form 6 Sec Check [See HCOPL 7Jul61 "Processing Sec Check".  This is intended
for students who have done a fair amount of auditing.]

     So if a PC behaved peculiarly as a PC; if he was hard to get in session,
etc., look for a past bum session and get all ruds in for the first session
he'd had and given.  You could lock-scan him to find where the PC is stuck.
Lock-scanning is very useful for that.  Then you can get ruds in wherever he
is parked, [until] he takes no time to get from the first session to PT.  You
could do this over and over.  It shouldn't take more than four or five hours.
A failure to do something like this wastes auditing time because of
out-of-sessionness.

     Out-of-sessionness could arrive from another quarter.  Either you didn't
prepare the PC for assessment, or ruds are out, or there was at least one bad
session which has been restimulated, so that earlier auditing has to be
cleaned up to get later auditing accomplished.  The PC's interest may be in
later incidents, but the trouble comes from earlier.  This has been the
uniform mistake all down the track: looking at the wrong end of the chain.
The PC's interest is in the last occurrence and his aberration is in the first
occurrence.

     The things a person can't remember are the things he has taken no
responsibility for.  You can get an inversion where the PC has no
responsibility for things but has apparent full memory for them.  Actually, it
is a dub-in.  Dub-in is an effort to take responsibility for something the PC
has no responsibility for.  This would be a barrier to an auditor unless he
could detect something under it.  For that, you can use your E-meter, which
will detect no-responsibility areas that the PC cannot remember.



                                      175

     When LRH audits a PC, he makes sure that the PC is interested in finding
out about the unknown areas of his past; that he gets some familiarity with
his own thinkingness; that he gets some realization that he has had some
causation over his actions in life.

     One thing looms large over all technicalities: the state of being in
session.  The most gross auditing error there is, is not to get and keep a PC
in session.  One can fail to recognize when the PC isn't in session, or one
can hope in-sessionness will materialize.  It never materializes.  It is not
an accident or something you can put on automatic.  You put a PC in session or
you take advantage of a PC's in-sessionness when it occurs.

     The main thing that you don't notice is that the PC goes out of session
in the middle of session.  You have to devote some time to putting ruds in
when they are out during the session.  This is very necessary when doing 3D
Criss Cross.  You are handling charged items.  The PC can hit one, lack
confidence in his ability to handle it, and ARC break with the auditor or
something; or they invalidate the situation; or they withhold something.  The
auditor has to keep these things picked up.  But the PC isn't telling you what
is wrong with his case when he tells you one of these things.  He is telling
you what has just blown.  That is why it is an error to Q and A with what the
PC gives you in middle ruds.  If you do take it up, you will put the PC out of
session.

     One way to get ruds in in mid-session is to find what flow the PC has on
automatic.  It is that flow that causes the others to materialize.  When you
get that one cleaned up, the ruds will stay in better because you know what
the trigger is.  All you have to know is which flow is sticky, which flow has
his attention.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=1/2/62
Volnum=1
Issue=108
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-108  Flows




6202C01 SHSpec-108  Flows

     What is a withhold?  It is a non-flow.  It is also a don't know, but the
knowingness is influenced by flows.  It is something the PC doesn't want
others to know about or that it hasn't occurred to him to tell the auditor.
Or he is incapable of telling someone about it.  A PC can withhold about
flows.  A withhold is a restrained knowingness.  A person who is restraining
something from being known is withholding.  He is withholding knowledge, data,
or information.  Any one of the flows can assist, aid, and abet a withhold,
because knowledge can be buried under the flow.

     Given any point or any two points, where there is location in space,
there are only two possible flows for any one of those points: inflow and
outflow.  The thing that causes flows is the motionlessness or fixedness of
the point.  The point may or may not have a mass.  All power is derived from
holding two positions fixed in space.  The two points must be kept separate
and are, to that degree, fixed in space.  The strength with which they are
fixed has everything to   do with how much horsepower you can generate between
them.  This gives you an idea of how fixed some of the points in the PC's bank
must be, to generate flows between them.  As a person gets "weaker", he is no
longer able to hold two points in space, and he gets masses.  Masses are
collapsed locations.  Therefore, asking someone to locate things in space will
generate flows.  Identification is first and foremost identification of
locations in space.  The identified locations then disappear as a location
because he can do nothing to them or about them.



                                      176

     Areas where one has been or expects to be overwhelmed tend to be
identified with each other.  When a lot of things get identified and one can
no longer differentiate but tries to compulsively, you get disassociation.  He
cannot locate anything but simply disperses off anything he tries to locate.

     The mechanism of loss of memory is that several things become one thing
(identification); then they become so much one thing that they cease to exist,
and you have forgettingness or lack of memory.  That is what happens to past
lives: the PC has lost all his power over that life and the locations of that
life, so he forgets that life.  Factually, he forgets things to get even.  He
ceases to be able to place things to make another effect.  A thetan never gets
into a situation where he is not making an effect.  Axiom 10 is always in full
throttle.  If you don't believe forgetting is getting even, ask a PC, "Who
would be affected by your forgetting about (chronic somatic)?", and you are
liable to get an evaporation of the somatic.  However, this is in the zone of
postulates and considerations.  Flows are just electrical phenomena.

     You can do rather marvellous things with electrical phenomena.  When you
run, "Point out something," he locates various points and he is located.
Because the PC is located and another point is located, this process can cause
flows; it can generate power, and his bank goes, "Whiz-whiz!", and he can get
funny feelings, tingles, etc. -- various electrical phenomena.

     At the border between flows and intention, we have intention about
flows.  Until you try to do something with the flows, you have only outflow
and inflow.  Now, completely aside from electrical phenomena, you move a bit
higher with his attitude about flows, and in that region, you can produce some
interesting fireworks on a case, because you are in the band between
electrical phenomena and knowingness.  That band is his attitude towards
flows.

     A thetan decides to regulate flows with his intention.  At this first
band of intention, we get the CDEI scale, but at a lower harmonic [See Fig.
6].  Instead of "desire" we get something that is like desire's lower edge:
"permissible" or "allowable".  There is an enforced flow.  Then, relative to
flows, there are two kinds of inhibited: "prohibited", meaning prohibited from
without, and "inhibited" proper, meaning inhibited from within the point
(terminal) we are talking about.  As you go further down, you get an inversion
of this scale.  So, as the PC runs flow processes, he comes up through eight
attitudes towards flows:  inverted permissible, inverted enforced, inverted
prohibit, inverted inhibit, inhibit, prohibit, enforce, permit.  You only need
four commands to run it to pick up both harmonics.  Then there is inflow and
outflow, so there are actually sixteen flows, but you only need eight, since
the harmonic is a duplicate.  Then, if you did this with four legs in a
bracket, you would have 16 x 4 types of flows, or 64 flows (32, not counting
the inversions).  But luckily we don't have to run these by brackets.  If we
don't specify self or another or whatever point we are talking about, the PC
will automatically shift flows as we run the process.  So we only need four
commands to run the process.



                                      176a

                                    FIGURE 6

                            LOWER HARMONIC DEI SCALE

                            Attitudes Towards Flows:

DESIRE    -------------------   PERMIT
                                  Inflow Outflow

ENFORCE   -------------------   ENFORCE
                                  Inflow Outflow

          --- From Without ---> PROHIBIT
                                   Inflow
INHIBIT                            Outflow

          --- From Within ----> INHIBIT
                                  Inflow Outflow

                                INVERTED INHIBIT
                                  Inflow Outflow

                                INVERTED PROHIBIT
                                  Inflow Outflow

                                INVERTED ENFORCE
                                  Inflow Outflow

                                INVERTED PERMIT
                                  Inflow Outflow



                                      177

     The rudiments get kicked out by triggering automaticities of flows.  The
PC is so much the effect of electrical energy in the bank that he feels the
flow and obeys it.  Under the flow is a consideration about it, which is
resident in some identity (valence) in the bank, which Routine 3DXX may some
day discover.  All of the considerations about flows that we find in Class II
auditing are, in effect, the considerations of identities contained in the
bank.  That is what you are processing in Class II.  It is difficult to change
the considerations of these packaged beingnesses, but that is what you are
doing.  These beingnesses in the bank have considerations about flows, and
when flows flow, the beingnesses in the bank get ideas because they become
activated electronically.  So a current goes, "Whiz!" and the PC goes, "Ohh!
Now I'm supposed to inhibit outflow," and comm lags.  Something else goes,
"Zap!" and the PC goes, "Now I'm supposed to inhibit inflow," so he gets the
auditor to not talk, or he prohibits inflow by talking back at the auditor,
etc.

     So, as you deal with pure knowingness, pulling withholds -- i.e.
not-knowingnesses -- into view every now and then, you run aground on flows.
The flow tells him to withhold.  He can have a flow withhold as well as a data
withhold.  The data withhold can be pinned down by flows.

     A datum can actually substitute for a thetan.  We do this all the time in
education.  One of the most serious mistakes a society can make is confusing
ability with a thetan, such as with a diploma or the old school tie.  If you
look along the lines of a datum, you find that a thetan in his bank has parked
data, which becomes fixed.  These data are all the now-I'm-supposed-to's.  The
most basic datum he can park, the one he is withholding the hardest, the one
which forms most of the flows, is an identity.  It is released by Routine
3DXX.  This is a datum which the PC thinks is holding locations in space.

     One gets lazy here, where bodies are all different.  On a planet of doll
bodies, you would just know the guy, even though the bodies were identical.
You, a thetan, are carrying on nicely.  You are not a datum or an identity.
The identity you were is a datum that can park in the bank and be a terminal
from which the flow can charge and discharge.  This datum or identity had
enemies.  John Jones had the enemy Bill Smith, and Bill Smith has been
approximated in the bank someplace by John Jones at an earlier time, you see,
and now Bill Smith becomes a lock on an earlier identification that John Jones
has made with an identity in the bank.  Now you will get an electrical
discharge between Bill Smith and John Jones, because they're holding positions
in space in the bank.

     It is the interaction of flows between past beingnesses in the bank that
causes all the bric-a-brac in the mind.  Thus these beingnesses generate mass
around them, so that they appear to be like a burned-out tar barrel.  A past
beingness is in itself a mass because it has blocked flows so often.  It has
gained mass.  Its mass is dependent on its different positions in space as it
has moved around, and upon the number of positions it has held, in space.  So
the valences look very black, sometimes with a shape, sometimes not.  It
startles a PC to come across one.  He tries to find something in one of these
things, and, of course, there is nothing in one; he was in it.  Its circuits
are still operational.  It can still generate flows.  It looks like a machine
making pictures when it starts to come apart, but it is really just an old
beingness.



                                      178

     You cannot process points in space.  You can spot them, but they are
stills.  You can process stills if you discharge them, but attempting to
process stills without discharging them results in disaster.  Processing the
identity of a living body isn't processing a still, because it moves around,
but processing dead bodies wouldn't work.  If you had someone find something
still, then make it more still, then make it be as still as it was before, you
would get gains at first.  It would restimulate a feeling of power -- holding
a position.  It is not the same as keeping something from going away, which
does generate power and discharges a number of flows.  In general, you do
better to process actions rather than inerts in the bank.

     Having a datum in the bank, a withhold, fixed in space, we find that it
tends to act as a pole in a motor.  It causes some odd flows in the body.
Because he must not tell it to anybody, it becomes a duplicative pole for the
"anybody" he mustn't tell.  You, the auditor, thus get duplicated as the
withhold by the PC, and we get this odd phenomenon of a discharge going.  When
you process the withhold (a datum), it goes, "Snap!" out, and some kind of
circuit disappears at the some time; he feels good.  What happened was that he
had this datum being restrained from all sorts of people.  This gave the datum
as great a magnitude as the people from whom it was being restrained.  Thus he
sets up a motor.  He is at the receiving end.  The withheld datum operates as
a pole to generate a flow which then makes a ridge.  That is how his valence
gets solid in the bank.

     We can take an electrical lock at a problem.  If two people have
withholds from each other, it only takes a little opposed intention to set up
two opposite poles, which then discharge on the old withholds.  For instance:

     FISH FOR                                        NO FISH
                <-------------------------------->
     SUPPER                                          FOR SUPPER.

That is why the prior confusion (containing withholds) holds the problem in
place.  If you get all the withholds off, the problem vanishes, since the
problem was only the visible result of the hidden charged poles.

     When you miss a withhold, you trigger a live pole, which then triggers
another and another, until you get an avalanche and the PC tells you off,
having gone into an automaticity.  So if you are going to pull withholds, do
it thoroughly.

     Pc's have habitual flows.  At least one of the eight attitudes will be in
force with a PC, as a rule.  So you could list the eight flows, assess the PC,
and sec check the PC.

     So, during listing, if you notice that your PC tends, for instance, to
have a prohibited inflow on automatic and things get sticky, you can put ruds
in by asking a question that adds up to, "What inflow did you stop, just
then?" The PC has withheld the data that this flow has occurred, and you could
pull this fact, as a withhold.

     A PC can also believe that some exterior force should prevent his
outflow, if he is on a prohibited outflow.  Here you will find a PC with a
compulsive outflow.  He is waiting for the auditor to stop him.  A German
knight knew what he was supposed to do: enforce outflow.  He was supposed to
yap about his great deeds and knock people over the head who wouldn't listen.



                                      179

     In fact, to get a total pattern of social conduct, you could just apply
the eight attitudes towards flows to the tone scale.  Different societies have
different ones, characteristically.

     The PC can apply all these things on the auditor.  He can try to enforce
an outflow, for instance, or inhibit an outflow.  A terminal can have flows
for others as well as for itself.

     Since flows are caused by withholds, running flows unburies withholds.
The pole of the withhold was buried by flows, so running flows uncovers it.
You could assess the eight flows and sec check the most reactive, etc.

     A PC's bank could not possibly be discharged rapidly by any machine or
chemical, because the flows are intricate and the ridges are composited
flows.  You have to do something to straighten the flows out.  Any method that
got rid of the bank as a whole block would never expose the understanding
which is beneath it, because that is the second inversion.  Understanding has
first involved flows, electrical nonsense, masses, and the sixth dynamic and
then inverts and goes under it all, and electricity is capable of burying all
the knowledge in the world in the PC's bank.  A case makes progress by finding
out something about himself empirically.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=6/2/62
Volnum=1
Issue=111
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-111  Withholds




6202C06 SHSpec-111  Withholds

     Withholds and the dynamic principle of existence,"Survive!", as per 1938
data, are now seen to be interrelated.  This is good because where a principle
has been an amplification of "Survive!", it has worked like mad with pcs.

     We also have the reason why an identity is aberrative.  An identity is
that accumulation of withholds that make an individuation.

     When the PC gives you his name, you have one part of Routine 3DXX already
done.  Where you have to recognize a person from his identity rather than from
his beingness, there can't be much beingness present.  A 3D item is maximal
identity and minimal beingness.  Every now and then you get identity and
beingness crossed, and you get an historic character.  LRH has used identity
on the track to make effects, but it was a mistake to think that he was
successful in creating the effects because of the identity.  It was really
because of the beingness.  You could reach more and influence more than other
people, so you did.  The identity side of it was "to be more of a lump of ...
than anyone else," which defeats the reach.  You can conceive of beingness as
the ability to permeate, pervade, communicate to, or fill up an area.
Identity is a method of not having to.  Identity puts it on automatic.  An
identity is a substitute for communication and reachingness.  Beingness is a
current activity; identity is past activity (fame, etc.).

     The only thing this universe punishes are being there and communicating.
It is an anti-beingness universe and a pro-identity universe.  A withhold is a
not-reachingness; it is not communicating.  This includes holding onto a piece
of information that would damage survival.  Of course, since a thetan can't
really be hurt, a withhold must be to protect the survival of an identity, not
a beingness.  So a withhold goes beyond a matter of mores.  It is something a
person thinks would reduce his survival as an identity, if it were not
withheld.  If you are building an identity on repute, which is the standard
trick in this universe, and working to enhance your repute, you withhold those
things which would depress



                                      180

the survival identity.  A thetan goes cautious on this and withholds more than
he has to.

     Self-preservation is, of course, a misnomer.  It is really
identity-preservation.  Any identity that remains in the bank is the direct
result of identity-preservation, so we find these suspended 3DXX items hanging
around.  The points that are really stuck, however, are the points where one
failed to preserve one's "life", because those are the failed postulates.  The
postulated impulse was to preserve the life, so a death hangs up more than a
life, as a failed postulate.  As an auditor, finding some picture hanging up
on the track, you could ask, "What would you withhold about that picture?" and
the whole incident would unreel as the PC found the identity that had to be
suppressed for purposes of survival, despite the fact that there may have been
a lot of survival in the action.  You get the withholds and the compulsive
outflows off.  You could almost free up the track by asking, "What should you
have told people about?" It will run at first with withholds, then get into
bragging that got withheld.

     Where there is a conflict whether to withhold or let it out, you get hung
up on the track.  You could say that any difficult situation is an unequated
or unresolved problem in survival.  So any hang-up on the track is an
unresolved problem in survival.  There were balanced factors involved in
communicating or not.  Each hung-up identity is hung up with these
computations, such as the computation that to communicate or not to
communicate is equally non-survival.  By pulling withholds off the case, you
release all these things.

     An individual withholds an identity until it parks on the track.  When
you find an identity, you have a key to a tremendous section of track.  The
identity is dedicated to hiding, so finding it takes off a tremendous amount
of charge, because the identity is withholding itself by hiding and you handle
the withhold by finding the identity.  Each identity has the feeling or
computation, "They are probably still looking for me.  If they find me, watch
out!" He was trying to make the identity famous, then failed to survive as the
identity.  The PC gets very alert as you come near it, feeling like a wanted
man.  This is the feeling of "guilt" which former therapies sought the source
of.  The feeling of guilt is as much a brag as anything else, but it contains
the feeling of being wanted.

     When there's a feeling that one has a problem of survival which can't be
solved on any of the dynamics, it will come right up to PT and knock one's
head off.  When one of these comes off, identities come off and withholds come
off with the identities.  Pulling any identity off invariably involves getting
a connected withhold; otherwise it wouldn't be in the bank and floating up to
PT.  That's the common denominator of anything in the bank, since it is there
to solve survival.  Of course efforts to survive are silly, since a thetan
can't do anything else.  What the effort is really directed to is getting an
identity to survive.  If there is an effort in the thing, it must be built
around a lie that the person doesn't recognize.  The person doesn't realize
that he is one thing and his identity is something else.  He also thinks his
beingness and his communicatingness is his identity.  Actually, these are
deteriorated because he is being Joe Doakes.  Therefore, all these things have
a withhold connected with them.



                                      181

     Whenever you miss a withhold, a person gets a restimulation of a
withhold, and he gets the idea that he is in danger.  That is all there is to
it: a Q and A stimulus-response mechanism.  If a person has a withhold that he
must withhold, he must be in danger.  Because the reactive mind works on an A
= A = A, the conclusion can put into action the causation.  For instance, we
put George in a wrecked car with blood on it (not in his car or wreck); if
George was asleep or drunk or something, when we put him there, when he wakes
up, his conclusion will be that he has been in a wreck.  He would mock up a
sequence to explain his being there.  The least he would get out of it would
be a little shock of, "Should I tell anybody?" or "What is this?  What are the
consequences of having wrecked this car?" In extremis, he would show
psychosomatic injuries, etc.  So if you give someone the end product of a
chain of responsibility, he will attempt to assume some of the earlier
responsibility.  Given B, one concludes A, from no evidence.  This leads pcs
to write script in session sometimes.

     Sometimes the PC doesn't know what led to the consequences, so he figures
he must have a withhold from himself.  It is interesting to find the material
he "must" be withholding from himself, but isn't.  His anxiety about identity
would cover the whole picture.  Say you have found a terminal on 3DXX: "an
angry man".  You could run, "What responsibility have you taken for the
continued survival of an angry man?" You would see the package, "an angry
man", fall apart into separate identities.

     If you have been responsible for something and then ceased to be
responsible for it, you can get your block knocked off.  That's about the only
way you can get your block knocked off.  If you have taken a wide identity,
then, while in that identity, have ceased to be responsible for it, during a
decline or whatever, next time around, you take no responsibility for the
area.  That leaves the wide area permeated, but no responsibility for it, no
matter what your identity is, because it is only beingness after all.  People
can try to shift their identities, to change everything, but it is only
beingness that counts.  If he has a beingness in his background which is
associated with his identity and then suddenly cuts his beingness down to
nothing in order to limit his identity, he will be in trouble every time.  He
can't function in his limited sphere because he has already accepted a much
larger sphere, so he is always in trouble.  We could then ask him, "What
responsibility have you taken for the survival of (the wider zone)?"

     Thetans are always doing this: Having taken responsibility for the whole
of Europe and having battered Europe to pieces in order to liberate it, all
nations who took part in that activity then drew back and said, "We'll have
peace now and let the whole of Europe go to Hell." Sure enough: that's what
happened: World War II.  That is a withhold of magnitude because it is a
withhold of ability.

     So a withhold can be a withhold from anything that the PC has had a
permeation into or a communication with.  When a communication is followed by
a no-communication, the advent of the no- communication, operating as a
withhold, reduces survival.  We have made a huge area survive; now we are only
going to make a little part of it survive.  There will be some
counter-survival in the area where you were formerly taking full
responsibility.  That is the mechanism of individuation.  First, communication
into, then refusal to communicate into.



                                      182

     You have established a oneness with something by communicating into it or
by taking responsibility for it.  You can't segmentalize responsibility into a
smaller zone without bad consequences.  Once you have taken responsibility for
energizing an area, then retreat, the area you retreat from is on your
wavelength and clobbers you.  The people who cut your throat are your own
police guard, as soon as you decide that you can no longer occupy the palace,
You can't take responsibility for the physical universe and then take
responsibility for one room in a boarding house in two successive lives and
not have planets hit you in the head.  If the huge zone of responsibility is
cut down by a series of withholds, which it always is, then, because it is now
energized, it can kick your head in.

     A survival process, therefore, discharges all withhold processes.  So the
principle of survival is senior to all overt-motivator sequences.
Responsibility processes, survival-type processes, persistency processes, and
identity processes are all senior processes.  The most horrible opponent a
being can have is himself, of course: it's got his wavelength!  In
scientology, we are making a man his own best friend.

     If one finds oneself withholding, one automatically assumes one must be
trying to survive, hence, that one must be in danger.  So if you miss a
withhold on a PC, that is the conclusion the PC comes to, so he takes
defensive actions at once.  The sequence is as follows:

          1. The PC finds himself withholding.

          2. Therefore, he reactively assumes he must be in danger.

          3. Therefore, he must take action to survive, i.e, attack or defend
             himself.

If you miss a withhold, you get (2) and (3) above.

     Wild animals are only savage because no one pulled their withholds.  They
are individuated.  Any withhold restimulates them, though they are not
natively savage as beings.  Wolves interpret almost anything as a withhold of
theirs or yours, so they attack rather easily.  So they must withhold in the
vicinity of almost anything.  So you seldom run into them.  In order to handle
a wolf so he won't bite you, you have to demonstrate to him conclusively that
he is not withholding anything.  LRH handles wolves that way, very
successfully.  The trick is to show them that there is no point in withholding
anything, because they are not going to damage you and you are not going to
damage them.  You can get remarkable results this way.  But walk up to a wild
animal as though you are withholding something, and you have had it.  Go up to
him as though you are not withholding anything, and he will look at you and
wonder what you are doing.  So you show him what you are doing.  Don't excite
his curiosity, so you don't have a withhold from him.

     Now, if you have given the PC the impression in sec checking that he is
withholding, then don't pull the withhold to show the PC that he is not now
withholding, he is liable to go into defending himself by attacking.  Pulling
his withholds is the only thing that keeps him from individuating.  Missing
his withholds, however, will restimulate them and make him feel that he is in
danger and must attack.  Not pulling a withhold is OK as long as you don't
restimulate it; otherwise, you would have to get all his withholds in one
session.  It is the missed withhold -- the one that is restimulated and not
pulled -- that causes the trouble.

     Information available and not asked for or information asked for and not
gotten is what makes a wild animal out of the PC.



                                      183


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=7/2/62
Volnum=1
Issue=112
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-112  Missed Withholds




6202C07 SHSpec-112  Missed Withholds

     If, in running a havingness process, you get no needle action, you should
realize that there is something strange to get out of the road.  So you could
ask about aspects of havingness and see if there is anything that would keep
the PC from having, etc.  Clean it up.

     Always audit with the meter in direct line of sight, so that, by merely
lifting or dropping your gaze, you can see PC and meter without turning your
head.  Turning your head signifies to the PC that you are not interested in
his case.

     In organizations, keep students' and pcs' missed withholds well cleaned
up.  Similarly with staff auditors.  What a missed withhold is, is subject to
misinterpretation.  People are apt to ask for withholds when that is not what
is wanted.  It is not unpulled, unrestimulated withholds that cause trouble;
it is the "what-should-have-been-found-out-and-wasn't".  It is not a withhold;
it is a should-have-found-out.

     Empirically, it turns out that all ARC breaks, blows, upsets, natter,
etc. stem from missed withholds.  The mechanism and the theory may be what was
outlined in the last lecture or it may not, but this is still true as an
empirical fact.  Christ was crucified because he missed withholds.  The
withhold can be inadvertent or a "didn't know".  No matter what, the PC's
modifier of his main goal line will be thrown into dramatization when the
withhold is missed.  You can prevent this by cleaning up ARC breaks as soon as
they happen, pulling withholds as soon as they happen, and keeping ruds in
rigorously.  Or, if you know the modifier, you can chant it to the PC to turn
off the dramatization.  This is a poor way to do it, but possible.  You can
get a list to read in this way.  But just running "should-have-known" to death
would get all ruds in with a clank.  This can be used at any time, not parked
in ritual of pattern [random rudiment].

     Don't drop, "Are you withholding anything?" from ruds, but realize that
the missed withhold is a totally different question and proposition and area.
Using missed withholds, you can short-circuit all the other out-ruds.  One
caution: if you open up a whole new area of track, the condition of the case
has changed, and you will want to check missed withholds again, since a new
crop may have come to light from the change.

     Auditors don't always expect or allow for change in the PC.  They
should.  The consequence of change is that aspects of the case shift.  This is
quite apparent in 3DXX.  Every identity you go through has its own bank, its
own package of engrams.  If you are listing effectively, the PC is sitting
right next to the terminal you announce, so you are pulling up a bank every
item, if the PC is really in session, even though they are only lock
valences.  The PC will dramatize the last item you found.

     When you get these case changes, you are getting a bunch of
"should-have-knowns" you hadn't seen before.  You handle them in a sloppy
fashion with middle rudiments.  Don't distract the PC with them or make a big
fuss over them.  But when you notice the PC even one tenth out of session,
don't wait for more upset.  Get in the "should-have-known", since the PC is in
a valence with missed withholds that weren't there for the valence he was in a
minute earlier.  Catch it the instant the PC starts to slip out of session.



                                      184

     The quality of an auditor is observable at the stage of ARC break where
the auditor acts.  The less ARC break needed to get action, the better.  A
change of pace is enough.  LRH cleans up the session before the PC knows he
has an ARC break, but not to the extent of patching up nonexistent ARC breaks
and causing one.  A PC who has a "should-have-found-out" is always on the
verge of an ARC break.  He is the ARC breaky PC.  Anybody who gives you a
bunch of upset, disagreement with the organization, etc., has a continuous
missed withhold.  This principle is responsible for more loss of
dissemination, loss of scientologists, and of public to scientology than any
single factor.

     PE foundations and co-audits need this datum.  You could run them on the
basis that everyone in the PE foundation is a professional find-out-abouter.
Then anyone who walks in on a PE course should be assumed to have continuous
missed withholds which they have come to see if you can find out about.  They
don't really come in to find out about scientology or to be helped or anything
else.  If you don't find out about them, they ARC break and go out and
bad-mouth you.  You can create an anti-scientology public by doing tests on
people, since doing so can result in just missing their withholds.  You would
never lose people who you checked on a meter with, "What should we find out
about you?  What should the last group you were in have found out about you
that they didn't?" and cleared up the reads.

     Knowingness, to most people, is knowledge of their O/W's.  The reason a
co-audit doesn't build up is that, when auditing without meters, withholds are
missed and people blow.  knowledge as knowledge of overts is the bottom rung
of knowledge.  It is a past withhold that is restimulated.  An auditor is
locked on by pcs as an expert if he can get the missed withholds off the
case.  Any criticism the PC throws at you is just caused by the
"should-have-found-out" you didn't ask for, even if you are actually worthy of
criticism in your auditing tech.

     So add missed withholds to both ends of the session and use
"should-have-known" in mid ruds.  Cases that have a reputation for being rough
to audit should be approached by finding an area of "should-have-known" prior
to scientology and shooting it full of holes.  Then get all the
"should-have-knowns" from scientology cleaned up.

620ZC12 SHSpec-110  Prepclearing

     Sec checking is out; prepclearing is newly born.  It sounds better, for
one thing, and it is preparatory to clearing, hence the "prep".  Auditors
haven't learned sec checking very well, despite lots of efforts to teach them
to do it, so it is probably hard to do.  There must have been some element
missing, so LRH has been working on the subject of withholds, realizing that
if nothing was missing, he should have been able to articulate it well enough
so that auditors could get it and do it easily.  He has done remarkable things
with pulling withholds, now and then.  But maybe there is more to the
mechanism.  He had been aware since the first of the year that if he couldn't
relay it so that auditors could get a resurgence after every time it was done,
then there must be some kind of variable in it.  Missed withholds was the
first discovery that resulted from this research.  They have proved out as the
source of all the ARC breaks and natter you get.  The proof is that when you
pull the missed withhold, the ARC breaks and natter disappear and the PC gets
case gain that had been missed before.  This is not a variable.  It is not
true that every



                                      185

time you miss a withhold you will get an ARC break, but it is true that every
ARC break comes from a missed withhold.

     The only effective thing to do about it is to pull the missed withhold.
Punishment has been tried in the past and it hasn't worked.  Explaining and
protesting also don't work.  So you have no business trying to handle the PC's
ARC break with you, except by pulling the missed withhold, which is most
likely to have been in the session you are running, since, to the PC, present
time things are more important than the past.

     What the missed withhold is composed of monitors what rud goes out.  A
PTP is a missed withhold in life; an ARC break is a missed withhold in
session, etc.

     A "should-have-known" is an unknown, which puts us back to sec checking
with "unknown".  Auditors doing that were putting people into engrams and
trying to run the engrams with them.  It wasn't running well, although it was
successful at shaking up the bank.  The whole subject of withholds is not-know
and unknowns.  A missed withhold is a half-known, half-unknown.  There seems
to be enough charge to cause a polarity that sets off a God-Awful agitation in
the bank.  It can be half-known to the PC, being half-known analytically and
half reactive, hence half unknown.  Unknow plays a heavy part in 3DXX.

     The not-know that is most important is the should-have-known.  This is
regret; it bunches up the bank.  Something half known is very disturbing; it
seems dangerous and makes one freeze up.  The regret mechanism is what turns a
3DXX valence into a ball and loops the time track.  The mechanism of a looped
time track is due to just one thing: should-have-known.  This smashes
everything into the one time zone of a valence.  It adds up to a feeling that
one shouldn't have done, shouldn't have confronted, shouldn't have
experienced.  So the prior pictures of having experienced are invalidated at
once.  So he tries to say this never happened, and we get the occlusion of the
whole track.  Should-have-known is apparently the most important button in the
bank.  This is the sequence leading to occlusion:

          1. He should have known something.

          2. He didn't know it.

          3. One gets regret; this smashes everything into the one time-zone
             of a valence.

          4. This adds up to a feeling that one shouldn't have done,
             confronted, experienced.

          5. He invalidates prior pictures of having experienced.

          6. He tries to say they never happened.

          7. We get whole track occlusion.

     The only thing that reduces a PC's profile after auditing is ARC breaks.
But what produces an ARC break is a should have known, via a missed withhold.
So you can remedy ARC breaks with should have knowns.

     This universe has a quantitative button.  It isn't the number or size or
gruesomeness of the withholds you get that gives you case gain.  It is just
the thoroughness with which you get a withhold, the quality of your auditing,
which gives the degree of case gain.

     Freud was always trying to get the one button that would produce a big
resurgence in the case.  He must have done it at least once to have such faith
in it.  He never taught it to anyone, but he must have had some success with
it.  He was looking for a



                                      186

withhold.  He was looking in one area (sex) and one time (childhood), which
circumscribed it too narrowly.  His occasional successes were what gave
psychoanalysis its success and repute, even though they didn't know what they
were doing.

     You have two choices when dealing with a missed withhold:

          1. Do a full dress job of knocking out all the should-have-knowns on
             the subject in this lifetime.

     or   2.  Just get and Knock out the latest key-in.

Which way you do it depends on how successful you are with the light
"should-have-known" touch on the latest key-in.  If the PC stays ARC broken or
quickly re-ARC breaks, you will need the full works, per HCOB 12Feb62 "How to
Clear Withholds and Missed withholds" [Starting from the difficulty being
handled, finding what the withhold is, when, all, and who should have known,
repetitively, per the rules in that bulletin.]   If you work this system, you
will find all of the basic buttons on the case will just roll out.  If you can
do it by the numbers exactly (per the above bulletin even chronic somatics
will straighten out.  They will come back during 3DXX, but this withhold
system does give the resurgences that Freudian practitioners are looking for.

     Prepchecking is the system of getting each rudiment in so it stays in
fairly permanently during 3DXX.  It uses the same elements as the withhold
system given above.  You could also do a Joburg Form Three with one of these
things.  [Form Three is the sec check form for new students.  See HCOPL
22May61 "The Only Valid Sec Check".  The zero question from Form Three would
be any question from the form that you are trying to clear on the PC.  If you
get a read, you move on to question number one, "What was that?" and, more
specifically, "What about (subject of the sec check question)?" Write this
down, because you will have to clear that question.  It should duplicate as
nearly as possible the PC's reply to the zero question and its read.

     A PC never refuses to tell the auditor, but he sometimes doesn't tell
because he doesn't know.  It is the auditor's job to get the PC to look and to
help him find the answer.  It may be so charged that he doesn't want to look,
but it is up to you to get him to look.  It is OK to be positive in getting
him to look, but if you ever imply he knows and won't say, you have admitted
that he is out of session, and you have got a games condition going.  So that
point never comes into the session.

     You must clear questions 0 and 1.  If they clear without 2, 3, and 4,
fine.  When you first get into question 2, you don't have to be precise, but
if you have to cycle through it again, get it more precise, so as to spot it
exactly if it doesn't clear.  [Question 2 is when the withhold occurred.] To
clear question number one, run 2, 3, 4 until 1 is cleared.  When it is clean,
check 0 again, etc.  Questions 2, 3, and 4 are the way to blow the withhold to
Halifax so it never comes up again.

     If, in compartmenting the question, you get a read on a sub-question,
that now becomes the zero question.  It is more important to handle one
withhold question well than thousands indifferently.  It is not the quality of
the withhold that counts; it is how much of it is submerged out of sight.  If
he has done something horrendous and knows about it, it isn't going to
aberrate him no matter how tempting it may be to blame his condition on it.
You will find that it is out of some stupid little incident run back on a
stack of things the PC did that you recover recollections on, bring them back
to view, and the PC confronts them and his case will tend to resurge.



                                      187

     It is a good idea to take up any sec check question the PC has gotten
reads on recurrently, take it as the zero question, get the what, clean it
thoroughly with 2, 3, and 4, because it must be half-known or it wouldn't be
reading recurrently.  Any difficulty could be handled that way.  It is a
fundamental question.  You may not get much in the way of cognitions for
awhile, as your zero question keeps reading, but eventually things will begin
to blow and it will all fall apart.  Nothing will read on an E-meter that is
not significantly charged, and nothing will fall on an E-meter that is not
unknown in part to the PC.  If the E-meter registers, there must be something
unknown at least in part.

     The only thing you will get into and difficulties with is converting the
Zero question to the what question.  Don't vary the zero or what questions.
2, 3, and 4 needn't be rote, though you shouldn't get yappy on them.  Just be
natural with it.  You only use the meter to test one and zero.  Do not take
past life answers when using this system.  Pcs will duck into the unreality of
yesterday to avoid the withhold in this lifetime, or they are trying to run
the whole bank on this process, and this process won't run the whole bank.
3DXX is for handling past lifetimes; you won't get any gains running past
lives on this withhold system.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=14/2/62
Volnum=1
Issue=117
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-117  Directing Attention




6202C14 SHSpec-117  Directing Attention

     If you can't easily release an ARC break or easily get a rudiment in, it
is always safe to assume that havingness is out.  When the PC's attention is
distracted, havingness drops and the bank tends to collapse on him.

                       [Details of running Routine 3DXX]

     Don't hesitate to check a ruds question twice if you are in doubt about a
read.  Be careful; be precise.  Don't put looking good over doing a good job.
Put accuracy first.  The only person who loses, otherwise, is the PC.  It is
the same with being "kind" to the PC or failing to direct the PC's attention
or anything that adds up to no-auditing.  And keep the "should have knowns"
cleaned up, and you will never get ARC broken PC's.  It is interesting to note
that if you look over an old sec check and find the missed withhold at the
point where the PC went into a past life, you will find one in this lifetime.
It is connected, and it restimulates the past life, and maybe it is a hot one
that got missed by going backtrack.  It is true that withholds in past lives
are causing all the PC's real difficulties, but they are handled in 3DXX, not
missed withholds.

     The PC never forgives you if you let him give up.  If you don't direct
the PC's attention, you will get no gains in session.  If you let a PC's
attention wander, that is more productive of ARC breaks than directing his
attention, even if it doesn't seem nice or kind.  Your attitude to the PC
(mean, kind, or whatever) doesn't much matter, as long as you are effective.
You don't overwhelm the PC with mood; you overwhelm the PC with inval and
eval.  It is not being ladylike or gentlemanly that gives the PC gains.  It is
directing the PC's attention, however crudely and badly, and being effective.

     The liability of prepchecking and the withhold system [of HCOB 12Feb62]
is that every time the PC comes close to the key withhold, he is likely to get
cross with the auditor.  It is an indicator -- the missed withhold mechanism
with a curve in it.  You innocently ask the PC, "Who didn't know about that?
Who should have known?",



                                      188

or whatever, get down to "All?" and have the PC irritated.  Now you are on the
edge of it, that's all.  If you don't head the PC on down the alley to face
that withhold, you will have an upset PC.

     Primary withhold pulling flubs:.

          1. The PC natters about Joe; the auditor gets only motivators, thus
             letting the PC commit more overts by making damaging statements.

          2. Letting the PC give you other people's withholds, that being
             interesting gossip.  A waste of time.

          3. Taking critical thoughts without getting the underlying overts.
             This gives no gain.

          4. Stenographic auditing.  A failure to direct the PC's attention.
             It lets his run his havingness down and commit overts of defaming
             people.

     Critical thoughts are an indicator of overts and can be used to "trap"
the PC into leading into the overts.  Fifteen or twenty seconds of listening
to them is enough.  Under the withhold system, a critical thought can be a one
question.  "All" will get the rest, where you can coax the PC into revealing
the rest.  The "one" question is never the question you work hard on; it is
just used to test.  This is especially true when it is a critical thought.
You are after all the "done"; the critical thought question won't clear until
you've got all the "done".

     The withhold system helps you direct the PC's attention to where it
should be put.  But it is still not a rote, robotic action.  Put a little
invitation and coax into it, plus a little insistence to look.  If you want to
know the answers and you are interested, you will operate much more
effectively.  You can meter-date to help the PC to look, because withholds do
scramble or group the track and make it difficult for him to spot "when".
Your rancor, if any, should only be directed at the aspect of the PC's looking
not at his telling you.  Even if the meter reacts, the PC doesn't know.  In
fact, it is because the PC doesn't know that it reacts.  If you imply that he
is deliberately not telling, you put him into a games condition.

     Use whatever trickery, persuasion, or skill you like to direct the PC's
attention.  But direct it.  Get the PC's interest in it, too.  If you get an
irregular response to the withhold question, ask the PC if a repetition of the
question is causing an ARC break, because the E-meter has a confusion point.
Data in the bank and an ARC break can both give a response.  [Cleaning a clean
will produce an ARC break on the missed withhold of nothing.] A lot of
auditors ran goals and terminals lists up to thousands of items by getting
protest reads on the demand for more items.  Commonly, though, after you clean
up the ARC break, in running the withhold system, the PC will have more on the
withhold.  The PC gets misemotional with the auditor because the auditor
represents all the people who should have known about the withhold and
didn't.  If the PC doesn't get misemotional, it is a sign that you are not
getting anywhere because you haven't hit anything hot.  If the PC stays bright
and cheerful through the session and never gets anything that makes him feel
bad or look bad, he is liable to ARC break after the session, feeling that it
was wasted time.

     Don't expect the PC to go on a gradient scale of getting better, on the
withhold system.  He goes on a gradient scale of looking worse.  Life has
begun to loom as a grim, serious proposition.  They may go into this curve and
out in twenty minutes, or in four sessions, depending on the beefiness of the
zero



                                      189

question -- how hot a button it is, with how much avoidance in it.

     The hotter the question, the more charge there is to be bled.  The milder
the charge, the shorter the cycle of action.  This cycle is not the usual
processing cycle.  It is: "Is alerted; goes down to the bottom; then shoots up
to the top." [See Fig. 7.]

     The entire force of an aberration is directed to pulling the attention in
while buffing it off.  You don't have to pull the PC's attention to the middle
of any aberration because it is fixed there.  Dut every aberration has a
buffer that bounces the PC out again.  It is not a clear inflow or outflow.
The mind is actually concentrated on it 100%.  So the more you get him to look
in that direction, the paler and worse he will look, until he gets it all
cleaned up.  Then you get to the last remnants of it, you really have to help
the PC out, because he is stonied; he just can't force his attention into it.
So letting his attention ride all over the place is letting the PC be the
effect of the withhold and the charge, and he will never forgive you.  As the
cognition

                                    FIGURE 7

                         THE CYCLE OF PULLING A WITHHOLD

                              [GRAPHICS INSERTED]

approaches, the attention is harder to direct into the center of the
withhold.  Given something the PC has really non-confronted at the time, he
will often have some bit of it that he has utterly fictionalized, written
script for, etc.  He backs out of all responsibility for it, and, as his
attention gets directed at it, he tends to veer off and gets chargy and
irritated at the auditor.  You must differentiate between the PC who is ARC
broken because he is in a games condition with the auditor and one who is
introvertedly ARC broken and snapping at everything.  They look quite
different.

     If you direct the PC's attention terminatedly to the whole precise
withhold, you will get a fine resurgence; if you don't, the PC will be
miserable because his whole bank is kicking him in the head, because there is
no one helping him hold it down.  You have to keep your eye out for the PC's
tendency to go general on you, to never give you anything specific, and to
just gloss over the top of it all.  You have to get the PC to look.  He has to
tell you when he has seen it, but he will tell you only when he knows.  If he
says,



                                      190

"I don't know," just say, "Let's find out; let's look; let's dig a bit." Don't
think the PC is upset with you when he is upset with the bank.  Emphasize
looking, not telling.  The PC will tell you what he can see.

     You can clean up a PC who has had some auditing, some sec checking, with
recurring withholds, by getting what withhold kept coming up and using the
withhold system [steps 2, 3, and 4 (When, all and who.  See page 186 above.]
used repetitively to discharge the "what" question, or one question] on it to
find what has been missed in it.  You can also start from who the PC has
complained about a lot.  But, knowing 3DXX, you won't sail in towards a target
that is a terminal.  Your zero question should be on doingness, knowingness,
or havingness, not beingness.  Probably any terminal that has been located on
3DXX could be moved in on and prepchecked by this system.  This hasn't been
tried yet, but those would be the beingnesses to take up, if any.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=15/2/62
Volnum=1
Issue=118
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-118  Prepchecking




6202C15 SHSpec-118  Prepchecking

        [Details on running of prepchecking.  See HCOB 1Mar62 "Prepchecking (A
        Class II Skill)" for an outline of the procedure.  Prepchecking can be
        used in a Problems Intensive, as given in tapes SHSpec-65 to 67 and
        pages i23 to i27, above, and well outlined in HCOB 9Nov61 "The
        Problems Intensive -- Use of the Prior Confusion".  Taking the
        terminals from the prior confusion, you can make up a zero1 question
        with, "What about your difficulty with (e.g.) Fred?" Then you can get
        the one1 question and do the withhold system on that to clear
        difficulties with Fred".  If you get a new "What" question, you could
        call it one2, etc.  You can also make zero questions out of the
        dynamics, e.g. zero1: "Are you willing to talk to me about yourself?",
        zero2: "Are you willing to talk to me about sex and family?", etc.]

     An auditor has to get the highest possible degree of relaxation on the
part of the PC.  If it is built up, the PC will stay in session come Hell or
high water, even if he is mad at you.  Prepchecking is particularly liable to
send the PC out of session because in it you are asking for very intimate
activities.  Also, just before he hits one of those big withholds, it is a
missed withhold and has been for several seconds at least, i.e. for as long as
he has spotted it and before he has told you.  He is actually influenced by it
before he hits it, but misattributes it to the auditor.  So it pays to clear
the auditor well, early on.

     When you are pulling withholds, "self" is the one the PC feels he is
damaging, because giving up withholds threatens personal survival.  Sometimes
pcs run themselves down and make the overt worse than it is in a desperate
effort to make it blow.

     If you are going to be handling some subject in the body of the session,
and it comes up on ruds, don't try to handle it with the ruds.  You can let
the PC know there is something there and that it is what is in the session.
If you are caught short without knowing the PC's havingness process, a nearly
sure-fire one is one that has him reaching and touching things within his
reach.  The only danger in it is, with some small number of pcs, that it takes
a long time to flatten and can turn on tactile pain.  If so, this process was
what was needed.

     Prepchecking solves an old problem: how to bring a PC who is reading
below 2.0 on the meter up.




L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=20/2/62
Volnum=1
Issue=113
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-113  What is a Withhold?




6202C20 SHSpec-113  What is a Withhold?

     The common denominator of withholds is that a withhold is something that
a person believes would endanger his self-preservation if it were revealed.
This is the reason why whole track memory is occluded.  Someone with little
whole-track recall considers himself to be in great danger.  This gives you
the exact reason a PC gets off "Withholds" which aren't withholds, such as
other people's withholds.  All withholds students tend to get off on each
other are "safe" withholds.

     We get into this tacit consent on withholds because of overts on other
people's withholds, e.g. spreading their overts around, making them guilty for
the overt, sort of punishing them for having gotten it off.  After doing that,
it seems unsafe to get off withholds.  The more unsafe you make it to get off
withholds, the battier it becomes, until you get a civilization like this
one.  For instance, laws against perversion can be used by communists as a
means of blackmailing people.  The state lends itself to punishment of
withholds, which lays it open to undermining by the people in high positions
who have those withholds.  Likewise, if the auditor makes it unsafe for the PC
to get off withholds, the PC will only get off "safe" withholds, i.e.
non-withholds.

     The hyper-individuation of the PC stems only from his withholds.  The
PC's idea that to get it off would injure his survival is in fact aberrated.
It is the aberrated idea of what they dare to get off that brings about the
condition of aberration.

     Everyone has some withholds which would, in fact, bring harm to him if
they were revealed.  These get deeply buried -- encysted -- and the others
build up on them.  If someone comes close to these withholds, one gets the
feeling that all Hell will break loose and one will be imprisoned in some
dungeon and tortured.  So naturally the auditor seems dangerous.  In reality,
a dangerous auditor is one who doesn't pull withholds.  These auditors will
always be involved in ARC breaks, cause PC's to natter about auditing, orgs,
etc., have loses, etc.  The auditor who only gets off "safe" withholds is
dangerous.

     Pc's whose withholds have been missed do not make their goals and gains.
The auditor who cannot get a result with prepchecking will simply not audit.
The definition of withhold makes it not OK to let pcs take items off their
lists, because those become missed withholds.  Because of the PC's
considerations about safety, as mentioned above, he will want to withhold
items from lists, but you must not let this happen.  The items are on the list
because they were dangerous at one time and were withheld in the first place.
Prepchecking and 3DXX both are devoted to making the PC realize that it isn't
dangerous to reveal himself.

     The PC will mention some hot area, then, as the auditor starts him
looking at it, he will feel a little reactive regret that he brought it up
[see page 185, above].  During the time you are going through this regret
band, you are still crossing over into the zone of what is unknown.  [You hit
"should have known" on the way up and you have to get through this to "know".]

     In prepchecking, when the PC gives you a motivator, you know you are an
hot ground, so you always ask an overt "what" question.  Criticalness leads
you to look for the overt doingness behind it.  Explaining why something
happened is a milder phenomenon, but it too requires a new "What" question.
If the withhold itself is given, it is the what question.



                                      192

     The withhold is measured by the amount of danger the PC conceives to be
present in getting off the withhold.  If the withhold is not dangerous, he
will just give it.  If it is somewhat dangerous, he will explain around it.
If it is rather dangerous, he will criticize.  If it is super dangerous, he
will give you a motivator.  We are taking about dangerousness in the eyes of
the PC.  This gives you an index to the case.  A case is as bad off as he
considers it dangerous to reveal himself.  The insane person is dramatizing
total motivator on the subject of punishment.  Insanity is the last protest
against punishment: "I cannot feel your punishment.  I don't know about it.
You have driven me out of my mind, etc." Length of time it takes to achieve a
result in auditing is indexed by danger of revelation from the PC's
viewpoint.

     How can you cut down this length of time?  Don't pull safe withholds; use
prepchecking.  In 3DXX, there is a new line, something like, "What identity
would it be unsafe for you to reveal?" A relief line could be, "What identity
would it be safe for you to reveal?" to throw the others into view.  The PC
actually wants the relief of the revelation but doesn't know how to get it
safely, so he is always hoping for some one-shot button for clearing without
revealing anything.  "Unsafe to reveal" type questions give you good zero
prepcheck questions, e.g., "Is there anything you have done which would be
unsafe to reveal?" gives you "what" questions.

     Old age must be the consideration that it is unsafe to show up with a
MEST body.  At first, you must figure it's safe to show up with a MEST body;
then you get the idea that it is unsafe, so you take it down.  That must be
what old age is.  The basic trick of this universe is, "If you withhold it, it
won't hurt you," which is a total lie.  Offering a fact seems dangerous;
withholding the fact is apparently not dangerous.  This is a lie.  The thetan
just builds up mass and gets less space this way.  It makes his withhold
himself more and more; occupy less and less space; permeate less and less,
etc.  A "can't go outside" case is someone who has lots of withholds stacked
up an one fairly serious one.  He is the one who is afraid the police are
after him.  [Phobias fit in here.]

     This is most salient in prepchecking.  Some withholds you just let go by:
the "safe" withholds, which are really red herrings.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=21/2/62
Volnum=1
Issue=114
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-114  Use of Prepchecking




6202C21 SHSpec-114  Use of Prepchecking

     In prepchecking, you are trying to find underlying overts; that is what
the when, all, who refers to.  You are not just getting withholds.  You are
interested in chains of overts.  The anatomy of the mind is that the basic
incident holds She chain of incidents in place.  You are not looking for the
hidden part of a single incident; you are looking for the hidden earliest
incident.  The PC sees only the most recent incident until you get him to
as-is by telling you the when, all, and who.  We aren't looking for
basic-basic on it because that is anchored in a valence which you will only
find in 3DXX. Prepchecking is limited to this lifetime; the chain will blow if
this lifetime's basic is found.

     So "What" questions never apply to only one incident; neither do the
when, all and who.  You have great fluidity in what questions you ask.  The
"what" question, however, should be specific enough to find a chain.
Different dates come up on question two.  You try to clear the "What" you've
got.  If you can't, find the subsidiary chain and clear it.  If you can't
clear that, clear the subsidiary chain it depends on, etc., etc.  Stay on the
same subject.



                                      193

     The zero question is just a rudiments question that gives a starting
point.  You can go with these by dynamics, get a kind of one question, then
follow that down to a withhold and get a real one question.  LRH has used,
e.g. for the initial one question, "What about your physical difficulties?",
the question, "What physical difficulty would it be unsafe to reveal?", got a
list, got an item reading well which now gives a proper one question, "What
about rectum trouble?", and one can go back to work.  The only riskiness in
this case was that it led to an identity, the PC's little brother.  We try not
to use identities in prepchecking, but if that is all you can get, well....
The inevitable question, if some subject doesn't clear up, is, "What have you
done to _______ ?" There must be something there, just from the basics of the
overt-motivator sequence.

     You don't treat every withhold as a new "what" question.  When the PC
gives one, ask, "What about this chain of withholds?" That is, you should
phrase it as a more general action, but not so general as to take in the whole
reactive bank.  You work your way down to something that clears, then work on
back.  You may get hung up along the way back, requiring some new chain.  The
PC could jump chains.  Follow along as necessary, but be sure to retrace your
steps.  It all depends on the fact that hidden information exists on the chain
someplace.  When you get that, the whole chain will unravel.  The overt may be
quite mild.  You are looking for a needle in a haystack, so don't look.  Just
run the system and it will show up.

     The best way to establish the question is by the approach described
here.  It is called prepchecking, because it is preparatory to clearing.
Prepchecking gets the PC's rudiments sufficiently cleaned up so 3DXX can be
done with more ease.  That is why the basic prepcheck questions are ruds
questions.  For the withhold rud, use a Form 3 [see p. 186] and Form 6a.  [See
HCOPL 3Feb62 "Auditor Processing Check".  This is a shortened form of Form 6
and is intended for students who have done a fair amount of auditing.]   For
problems, you have the Problems Intensive.  You prepcheck the withholds the PC
comes up with in prior confusion areas.  You can do the same with end ruds:
half-truths, untruths, etc.  For the question about influencing the E-meter,
you can handle it more broadly, with "meters', "electronic gear", "mind
reading", etc., so the PC can be at ease with the meter.  Get his ruds in with
a thud and they won't get in the way during 3DXX.

     When you change valences because of 3DXX, new areas will come to view.
But finding a new valence because of 3DXX doesn't mean the PC moves out of and
abandons all his old valences.  The 3D problems mass pulls apart a bit; it has
less influence on him than before, but, just before you find this, the PC will
dramatize the new valence coming up.  That dramatization influences the case
and tends to throw ruds out.  Put if the PC is already capable of being kept
in session, the influence of it is minimal.  You don't have to pay a lot of
attention to it.  The PC will have cognitions, come up with withholds, not as
part of ruds, but as part of 3DXX.  You could omit the prepcheck, in fact, but
then the 3DXX would take about four times as long to do because of the upsets
that 3DXX tends to produce anyway.  Prepchecking tends to improve stability on
a case by handling O/W's, so the PC is not in for a big shock when running
3DXX uncovers new material.  A well done prepcheck is like a complete
psychoanalysis every three or four hours.



                                      194

     A person can become very morose, upset and low doing 3DXX.  If you will
ever have trouble with his ruds, it is now.  So it is nice to be able to get
ruds in.  Prepchecking is also valuable just in itself.

     After you have all the PC's terminals and oppterms all laid out on their
line plot, don't be sure that you have seen the last of prepchecking.
Probably a similar technique will be used to take these items to pieces.
Therefore, you are not concerned, before you have the GPM isolated, with any
past-life activity.  Those are the withholds of a whole life, which you find
with 3DXX.

     Since the basic holds the chain down, you don't struggle too hard with
some sticky withhold; if it keeps reading and doesn't clean up with your 2, 3,
and 4, there is something else to look for.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=22/2/62
Volnum=1
Issue=119
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-119  Prepclearing and Rudiments




6202C22 SHSpec-119  Prepclearing and Rudiments

     Terminology: it's a prepcheck, and the whole activity is prepclearing.

     One index that a withhold chain is working well is that the PC's
havingness doesn't drop as much as before.  TA motion is another indicator.
One could clear up "environment" as part of ruds by prepchecking "rooms".
This would in effect be prepchecking havingness, to some extent.

     We can locate withholds About games conditions.  What has the PC denied
people; what has he pushed people out of?  If you prepchecked this for broke,
you would find that his havingness would stay in without a havingness process,
provided that he was willing to talk to the auditor at all times.  So use
havingness while getting the PC to talk to the auditor.  Then use things like

the Joburg [Form 3] for new students and Form 6A for old-time auditors to
clean up withholds.  For problems, find what problems he has caused people in
this lifetime and prepcheck them as overts.  The Problems intensive gets you
to the problem he is sitting in.  You could go at it that way, getting prior
confusion, etc., or you could shortcut it by getting what problems he has
caused in this lifetime as the zero question.

     Prepchecking might get you a MEST clear, a clear for this lifetime.  A
psychoanalyst would be able to learn to do this.  He would be flabbergasted by
it, especially when he learned that it was only a preparatory action.  This
system can be adapted to whatever the PC is doing.

     You don't want the PC to give you a whole lot of unconnected withholds.
If he does give them, take up the one that reads and clear it up.  Keep to the
withholds on the same chain.  Mine a chain, a subject.  There is an art to
converting what the PC says to a "what" question.  You have to listen to what
the PC said.  There are some rules.  It must not be too general, so wide as to
miss a chain; it must not be so narrow as to pin the PC in a single incident.
It should be aimed at the part of the withhold that is most dangerous to the
PC.  You must not take motivators or criticisms, other people's withholds, or
explanations.  If you get one of these, you turn it around.

     Given a motivator, ask what overt the PC has done to that class of
people.  Many motivators are untruths anyway, at least in part, so it throws
ruds out for you to accept one.  Just convert it do an overt with no Q and A.
A criticism likewise leads to an [overt].  It is a hope that they can damage,
with an inability to do so.  It is a bit higher toned than a straight
motivator.  A



                                      195

motivator is based on an unknowingness; a criticism isn't, necessarily.  A
criticism is also a confession of an overt.  It converts, as a question, to
"What have you done to _______ ?"  It is not always true that criticism is
based on unknowingness, but motivators always are.

     It always seems safe to the PC to get other people's overts off.  This is
below motivators, actually.  If the auditor lets the PC get these off, you
will get a session where the PC made no goals or gains.  When the PC says that
A said B did something, ask the PC which person he knows, then get what the PC
has done to that person.  On explanations, you know there is an overt, so this
also converts to, "What have you done?" Actually, the explanation itself is
perfectly innocent, but it leads to a target, eventually.  It is an
extenuating circumstance for some overt.  You have to figure out what.

     One way to open up some areas is to ask, "What should be done about
_______ ?", with the dynamics in the blank.  The PC goes off on some point,
and you can mine it.  Whatever you get on some target, convert the question to
handle it.

     In doing this, you are steering the PC down a chain of incidents that he
considers relatively discreditable.  Because he considers them discreditable,
he is not in communication with the subject matter.  He feels at the effect
point of the subject matter.  The PC is the source of the aberration with
which he is boxing, as far as one lifetime or valence is concerned.  The
individual has chosen certain areas as his randomity.  If he is giving other
people's withholds, however, he is not even on the cause-effect line.
Motivators -- being effect, victim.  Criticism = the impulse to destroy.
Explanation = lines in a dispersal.  You are walking the PC back to being
cause by knocking out any reason he has to attack certain points or defend
himself from them, or to retreat from certain subjects on his track, so he can
communicate on all subjects.  Naturally, on areas where he is not being cause,
he doesn't know.  If you want to find a person who is in total ignorance, pull
other people's withholds.  Here, the PC doesn't even know he has a bank or
aberration on the subject.  On the motivator, he knows that he is in trouble,
but he doesn't really know why.  A critical PC may understand the situation,
but he wants to make nothing of it.  Similarly with explanation; there may not
be any unknowns.  [See Fig. 8.  Cf.  the O/W cycle, as given in HCOB 5Jan61
"0-W A Limited Theory".]

     What you handle is determined by what is real to the PC, as shown by what
reads on the meter.  If you get a read, it is the charge generated between the
not-know and the know.  The PC must know something about it to have a clash
with the not-know on the subject.  If it is totally known, there will be no
charge and no read.  If it is totally unknown to the PC, in the bank, and
everywhere else, it doesn't register on the meter.  When the PC gets audited,
he will know more.  Something that didn't show up before may well now read on
the meter.

     Similarly, the more a PC knows about his own life, the more charged up
the bank will appear to be.  So you are always getting new withholds off the
PC, as areas of occlusion are located better.  It is not an endless situation,
since the PC's ability to find withholds and blow them increases.  At first,
withholds are few and blow slowly; as the PC gets audited, he gets more
withholds, and they blow faster and faster.



                                      195a

                                    FIGURE 8

                         WITHHOLD MANIFESTATION "SCALE"

OPENNESS                      Pc just gives the auditor the withhold.
                              This is a withhold that is not dangerous.

EXPLANATION                   Equals lines in a dispersal.  The
                              withhold is seen as somewhat dangerous.  There
                              may be no unknowns in the explanation; he might
                              understand the situation but want to make
                              nothing of it.  Nevertheless, it is an
                              extenuating circumstance for some overt.

CRITICISM                     Equals the impulse to destroy.  The
                              PC hopes that he can cause damage, but is unable
                              to do so.  The withhold is seen as rather
                              dangerous.  It is not necessarily based on
                              unknowingness.  He might understand the
                              situation but wants to make nothing of it.  It
                              is a confession of an overt.

MOTIVATOR                     Equals being effect, victim.  He
                              has elected himself to be at the effect point.
                              The withhold is seen as super-dangerous.
                              Motivating is always based on unknowingness.
                              The PC knows that he is in trouble but doesn't
                              really know why.  It is a confession of an
                              overt.

OTHER PEOPLE'S WITHHOLDS       The PC is not even on the cause-effect line.
                              Withholds are seen as so unsafe that it is only
                              safe to get off other people's.  The PC is in
                              total ignorance.  He doesn't even know he has a
                              bank or aberration on the subject.



                                      196

     Don't go for backtrack incidents with prepchecking.  The PC will just get
mired down if you don't get this lifetime straightened out by getting ruds in
on it.  He will get wins on it and have gains.  If you were a crackerjack
expert on 3DXX, you could probably produce all the gains of prepchecking in
terms of clearing up this lifetime, blowing things into view, etc., but you
would probably run into things like missed withholds, which would make the PC
blow, and lots of out-ruds, etc.  One of the things you could show the PC with
prepclearing is that his ruds can be gotten in.

               [More details on prepclearing procedure and ruds]


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=27/2/62
Volnum=1
Issue=115
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-115  Prepchecking




6202C27 SHSpec-115  Prepchecking

     Don't take withholds you, the auditor, have and assume the PC has them.
This does tend to happen.  If you ask an auditor to list the withholds he
thinks the PC has, he will list his own, especially if he doesn't know the PC
very well.  You could take that list and check it against the auditor's list
of withholds and come out pretty close.

     Sometimes the auditor doesn't even realize what chain he is running.  He
may recognize it afterwards.  This happens especially if the auditor doesn't
take some time at the beginning of session to sort out the area.  For
instance, once LRH started from a PTP, then, after 5 1/2 hours, he realized
that the subject of the chain was women.  Once the auditor knows the basics of
metering and repetitive questions, TR's, etc. and the mechanics of
prepchecking.  he just needs to practice doing it until one day he finds it
quite natural.  Nobody can lay down what the PC will give you as withholds, so
you can't make it into a totally rote procedure.

     Don't try to impose your moral code on the PC, and don't let yourself get
talked out of pulling a withhold because it doesn't offend your mores, when it
does bother the PC.

     A 3DXX item that gives the PC pain is the PC's terminal; an item that
gives sensations and misemotion is the PC's oppterm.  To prepcheck a terminal,
take whatever the terminal's doingness is and get what the O/W in the area is,
even if it is totally backwards.  E.g. the item could be "a moral man", the
zero question for this would be, "Have you ever been moral?" You can get into
the whole area of laudable withholds.  If the terminal was withheld, all the
terminal's actions were also withheld; there is also a lot of withholding just
in the laudable withhold area, which could add up to withholding oneself from
living.

                     [More details on running Routine 3DXX]

     An item isn't a winner; it is only an apparent suppressor of other things
and items.  There are two kinds of withholds for each terminal: the withholds
of dramatizing it and the withholds of not dramatizing it.  So, if you
dramatize the item, you are obviously wrong, and if you don't dramatize it,
you are wrong.  So you get withholds off both doing it and not doing it.

     The easiest time to start to clear the PC is when the PC is clear, of
course.  Now you have all the data you need to do it; you know all about it.
But you have to apply the mechanics of scientology to a case at a time when
you don't have all the data.  What you do have is all the rules, axioms, parts
of the mind, be, do, have, etc.  You also have procedural systems like the
withhold system to get what is keeping the PC from communicating.  But what
are the withholds?  How are they formed up?  It is up to you to find that
out.  You will find that if you give the PC a good, controlled session, going
right down the groove of something the



                                      197

PC can talk about because it is on the chain of withholds the PC can talk to
you about, that are real to the PC as withholds, and if you can keep the PC's
attention directed and if you make the PC go on and look, you will find that
the PC makes his goal and gets gains.

     A test of whether you are doing well with the PC is whether you know more
every few hours about what makes this case tick., whether you have a higher
understanding of the PC and of the human mind.  That is what you would expect
of a prepcheck activity, as well as the PC making his goals and gains.  If
your prepchecking is bad, it could be because your auditing is bad, or it
could be that you can audit but you can't prepcheck.  You may have been
expecting the PC to grow wings during prepchecking.  If prepchecking seems
very arduous to you, you are probably not doing it right.  It is really easy
when you are doing it well, like riding a bicycle.  It is easier than other
auditing and gives more gains per unit of time than any other auditing.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=27/2/62
Volnum=1
Issue=116
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-116  Auditor's Code




6202C27 SHSpec-116  Auditor's Code

     The Auditor's Code is to make auditing possible.  It is a practical tool,
like most of scientology.  The Auditor's Code was compiled in 1951 in
Wichita.  All of the points of the Auditor's Code are empirical points.  The
first theoretical code, in DMSMH, had greater appeal but was not the practical
code.  LRH still favors it, because it includes the idea that "An auditor is
courageous.  "[See DMSMH, p. 178.]

     The first dianetic Axioms were written in 1951; they are quite practical
as auditing axioms and should be given more attention.  Similarly with the
Pre-Logics.  The Logics are interesting as a synthesis of all education, but
there you are on theoretical material.

     The mind, as discussed in DMSMH, is still what you are working with;
there is also some data in The Original Thesis that is very applicable to
auditing: The auditor as a thetan plus the PC as a thetan is greater than the
PC's reactive mind, etc.  The auditor cannot condemn the PC and expect the PC
to overcome the reactive mind.  That set of formulas is what the Auditor's
Code was set up to put into effect.  The rules help the auditor avoid
invalidating the PC as a thetan and thereby beefing up his reactive mind.

     The reactive mind is made up of machinery, circuits, and valences.  Where
machinery fits in is unclear, unless it is the valence of a machine.  A
circuit is a specialized function of an identity or valence; it is a
balled-up, automatic, no-thetan valence.  The thetan gave the
identity-which-now-is-a-circuit orders for so long that now the circuit is
giving the PC orders.  It's the stuck flow mechanism, the backflow.  The PC, a
thetan, has been resident in this body, the identity, giving it orders, say,
to eat -- all of the mechanical actions of eating, etc.  This has gone on for
so long that the PC gets, as a backflow, the idea that the identity should
feed him.  So it becomes a circuit.

     This is all pertinent to 3DXX, since all the things that make this life
difficult went on in the lifetime of the earlier identity, in an even more
arduous and sincere way, no doubt.  That life has been lived, and it is now
neatly packaged as engrams, ridges, circuits, etc., all floating free, no
longer located on the track.  A package is the accumulated life experience of
a past identity.



                                      198

     Just as this present lifetime can get grouped (the Black V case), in the
same way, you can have a valence going into a grouper and becoming a round
black ball circuit which gives orders.  does various things, etc.  As we pull
this apart, we will find all the picture manifestations and mechanisms you
have in engrams, chains, etc., all present in that circuit.

     That circuit belongs somewhere on the time track, in relation to the
other circuits, but if it is part of the GPM, it has floated free from its
position on the time track and every moment of time is now time.  It is
instant time, hence your instant read on the E-meter.  [Instant read occurs
because there is no need to look or think and key anything in to get the
read.  That which reads with an instant read is already there and keyed in, in
an eternal present time.]

     The following data is pertinent: the above, plus the phenomena of matter,
energy, space, and time, the association of incidents, the confusions, and the
early axiom that life is composed of differences, similarities and identities
["The mind resolves problems related to survival, utilizing its ability to
conceive similarities and observe differences" (Dianetics: "The Original
Thesis", p. 59); "The analytical mind is that portion of the mind which
perceives and retains experience data to compose and resolve problems and
direct the organism along the four dynamics.  It thinks in differences and
similarities.  The reactive mind is that portion of the mind which files and
retains physical pain and painful emotion and seeks to direct the organism
solely on a stimulus-response basis.  It thinks only in identities." (DMSMH pp
58-9)].  All time is identified with -- this time, and we get all these
identities giving pcs all these orders, dictating all these reflexes, and that
is really all you are handling.

     All the counterpoints of morality that do exist and have existed give us
so many confusions and conflicts on rightness of conduct that we can then get
people seeking right conduct until they go nuts.  Most laws are passed to
prevent earlier laws from being applied.  If you are an Egyptian, then a
Persian, then a Greek, then a Roman; if you set up a rightness-of-conduct
circuit for one culture, you will be nutty in your next culture.  Your circuit
will have points of conflict with current mores.  If you set up a new circuit,
you have more new automatic impulses which have to cancel the previous ones,
etc., etc.  Overlaid and confused by the built-in stops after a few lifetimes,
we may feel less than free, unable to decide, etc.  This wouldn't be so bad if
rightness of conduct was a light matter.  But we get into cultures where it is
a life and death matter.  Then the solution may be to forget it all, to not-is
it, to say that we have only lived once, to shove it under the rug.  But now,
having hidden the source of the "now-I'm-supposed-tos", it's even worse.  We
go around getting strange ideas which we can't even stop, feeling peculiar.

     If it were just rightness of conduct that we were concerned about, it
wouldn't be too bad.  But the moral codes are usually enforced with somatics.
The somatic is most intimately connected, in mental phenomena, with rightness
and wrongness of conduct:  punishment.  Just the physical universe enforces
punishment for wrong estimation of direction and effort.  For instance, if one
makes a mistake in one's footwork, one may fall downstairs.  Rightness of
conduct enforced with pain, inevitably becomes an enforced conduct.  So these
valences and circuits enforce rightness of conduct on the PC, with pain as the
enforcer (the somatic).  We



                                      199

try to run them out and get somatics.  The somatics appear so formidable that
it seems we had better not touch the valence.  This protects it and allows it
to keep up its flow of orders to the PC.

     If you want to see how much command value the valence has over the PC,
note what he is saying, doing, and thinking in the few minutes just before you
nail the item.  At that time, it is in its highest level of restimulation; its
command value is extreme.  When it is found and identified, its command value
drops off.  But if it is also a very unsafe thing that has tremendous
withholds in its own lifetime; if it is a valence that keeps dropping out of
the PC's sight and is unsafe to reveal, the PC will dramatize it more.  When
it has been brought to view, he won't dramatize it much but he will still feel
its impulses and feel upset about having the impulses.  That makes him feel
very odd.

     A PC who is running his 3DXX terminal can find himself equating all his
normal activities as being those of the terminal.  It can make him feel that
he is on the verge of being found out all the time.  He is being it, not being
it, and deciding he doesn't have to be it.  These are identities the person
has been, residual training patterns and facsimiles from those lifetimes.
Every facsimile from that lifetime is in that bundle.  The pictures are there,
but smudgy and out of focus.  Then, as you try to run them, you find that they
have been laid in with tremendous cold.  This makes winter a bad time to run
3DXX.  These black masses are drained of heat energy, mostly.  However, like
cinders, they contain occasional hot spots, so you can get fevers off of
them.

     After death, between lives, people often go off into the ionosphere or
into space, where it is very cold.  Here, the track collapses and they get all
their stuff keyed in, because cold = no motion = no time.

     Every one of these bundles contains pictures in a greater or lesser
degree of decay.  The pictures are already burnt out and deteriorated to some
degree and don't show up too well.  The PC may be disappointed not to have
better pictures of those lifetimes.  This could be the way it goes: the item
itself was scarce, so he made a picture of it.  Then, because he didn't have
the item but did have the picture, the picture itself became scarce and
therefore very valuable.  It could become so scarce and so valuable that the
PC couldn't have it at all.  That is the condition of most of these circuits
and valences.  At the same time the PC wants these pictures and has to have
them, he won't have anything to do with them and can't have them, so you have
a no-havingness of the pictures.  So he uses the picture; he depends on it to
orient himself and to tell you what he is doing, so he remains in a state of
"Godhelpus".  As you remedy his havingness and bring these things back,
prepcheck them, get his overts off, etc., this state of affairs will improve.

     A person's havingness deteriorates to the degree he commits overts.  Per
the overt-motivator sequence, only when an individual has done something to
another can he receive the same action as an inflow.  Fortunately, it is not a
one-for-one mechanism; it is the sensibility of having done something that
counts.  When you have done something to something, you have cut down your
havingness.  You get individuated to the point where it is their havingness
and my havingness and therefore I can protect my havingness by destroying
their havingness.  This totally overlooks the point that it is all your
havingness.  If you destroy someone else's havingness, you destroy your own,
because you have what others have.  Havingness



                                      200

as personal ownership is a misconception.  You actually own that which you can
perceive.  This has degraded down to the idea that you can only own that which
you can personally use.  Freedom of use is the final idea of havingness to a
lot of people, but it isn't really the final idea of havingness at all.  That
is why the communist and the socialist, etc., can make such an effect on
society: because he is talking on a harmonic that is a mockery of what is
basically true.  All ideas of ownership are postulated ownerships.  Nobody
really owns anything except those things that one owns by the right of having
created them.  Therefore, some people fall back on creativeness as the only
way of life, because it is the only possible way of declared ownership.  What
they neglect to point out is that what the other guy made is theirs, too.
Community property is a lower mockery of this fact.  "I don't even know that
you own everything you create.  You can continue responsibility for the things
you create without owning them."

     In auditing, the problem is to understand what fundamentals are important
and what are not fundamentals.  Don't think all data are equally important.
The things mentioned in this lecture are the basic, important things.  The
importance of a datum in relation to other data is the sole criterion of the
value of the datum.  In all study, one must evaluate the importances of your
data relative to the purpose and activity you are going to do.  It is not
enough to be learned and to know data.  To be wise, you have to be able to
relate data to actions.  People tend to make data of a monotone value.  Not
all this data in dianetics and scientology is equally important, but if you
know the basic and fundamental data, you can easily decide what to handle and
how, in a session.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=1/3/62
Volnum=1
Issue=120
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-120  Model Session I




6203C01 SHSpec-120  Model Session I

     Model session was instituted because auditors were varying patter to a
degree that a session was hardly recognizable and because as early as 1954,
scientologists were arguing about the proper way to do auditing.  There was a
need for a standard way to do it.  Also, it was found that if all sessions
were on the same pattern, subsequent sessions tended to run out earlier
sessions.  This has considerable value.  There is predictability, because of
the application, and auditing thereby becomes a better communication.

     The rudiments' value became extreme at the moment auditors began having
difficulties finding goals and terminals.  Rudiments in present form are less
than four to five months old.  Ruds began in 1955.  Having them in can make
the difference between auditing and no-auditing.  Model Session is tailored
against clearing; it is not tailored so much for prepchecking.  The ruds are
vital for assessment.  Since prepchecking takes up a lot of the things found
in the ruds, there could be a confusion between prepchecking and ruds.
Rudiments can be used by the PC to throw the session if you use any form cf
O/W in the rudiments, because the PC can now get into a whole new channel of
overts, while you had some previously-started chains you wanted to get
handled.

     Rudiments are vital to a session.  They get and hold a PC in session.
However, they can throw a PC out of session as well as into session if they
are used to prevent a PC from communicating with the auditor.  If the PC comes
in with all the answers to yesterday's prepcheck questions, he is already in
session.  The process of checking rudiments can create an ARC break if the PC
is already in session.  The E-meter won't tell you if the PC is in



                                      201

session, since the process of checking to see if the PC is ready can throw the
PC out of session.  Also, the E-meter will not register when the PC is so ARC
broken that the auditor has no command value over him.  The PC must be "way
south -- very ARC broken -- for this to be the case.  So before you start
Model Session, ask if it is all right for you to start the session.  If you
get no answer or "No!", you can tell that you will get no reads on ruds.  Pay
attention to the PC; get what is wrong before you expect to get much on the
meter.  If the PC will talk to you pretty easily, the meter will read, if he
won't, it won't.  If the auditor rejects the PC's data that he is ARC broken
because the meter didn't read, the PC will get ARC broken with the meter.

     The reason you start the session is to be sure the PC knows he is on a
specialized section of track, that what is going to happen is not a social
relationship, but that there is a special auditor - PC relationship.  To
ensure that the special auditor-PC relationship is in existence, ask the PC if
the session has started for him.  If he says, "No," give Start of Session
again and ask again.  If he says, "No," again, assume that it has started
anyway and that the PC has an ARC break with life somewhere.  The beginning
rudiments are designed for the order of logical progress for a session.  If
you put PTP first, you would be running a session without goals, havingness,
clearing the auditor, etc.  [For Model Session patter of this time period, see
HCOB 21Dec61 "Model Session Script, Revised".] The order of actions in Model
Session tends to clear out the other things.  I.e. starting with goals tends
to put him in session by putting his attention on his case.  Having can clean
up ARC breaks, etc.

     You can put a PC in session by clever use of goals in ruds, if your
definition of goals is broad enough.  The PC has some goal, some hopeful
postulate for the future, which no one has recognized or acknowledged.  Even
if the PC's goal is to die, if you acknowledge it and grant him the beingness
of having it, he can then change it.  If the PC isn't giving any goals,
explore some future possibilities with him, one way or the other.  Find such
things as what the PC is sure is going to happen in the session and sort out
the goal involved with that.  Don't go overboard as far as number of goals is
concerned, but get the PC to make some.  This presupposes, of course, that the
PC doesn't come in already in session, telling you something he really wants
to tell you.

     Goals for life or livingness are there to differentiate from session
goals.  This is not very vital, and you never check up on it.  It is there to
expose PTP's of long duration.  If the same life or beingness goal keeps
recurring, you will know that there is a PTP to take up.  If they don't
contain problems, fine.  This shows the PC that you are interested in him.

     The next step, havingness, is easy to audit and beneficial for all
concerned.  The PC will usually run it, too, no matter what else he may or may
not run.  Finding the havingness process can take awhile, but it is easy
enough.  If you find one early in the PC's auditing, it will be changed before
too long, so watch it closely.  The more complex processes will work better
early on.  It is especially useful to find the havingness process early on if
the PC ARC breaks easily.  The havingness of the PC in the session is directly
proportional to the smoothness of the auditing.  It is ARC breaks that reduce
havingness, whether created by the auditor, the environment or whatever.  When
using havingness to heal an ARC break, be sure to flatten it.  Run it for a
half an hour or an hour.  Not doing it this way is why auditors don't have



                                      202

reality on the fact that havingness clears up ARC breaks.  They don't see that
it is working.  Stopping it prematurely can give the PC quite a jolt.  Don't
cause ARC breaks with a havingness process, for God's sake!  Make it part of
the process to inquire how he is doing during the process, so it doesn't
become a signal that you are about to end the process.  An intelligent use of
havingness would be to use it when there is a shadow of dropped interest on
the part of the PC, less comm, etc.  But it should not be used to interrupt
the PC's in-sessionness.  The stable rule is not that you run havingness
whenever the PC dopes off.  You can get the same read during assessment
whether the PC is conscious or not, so there it is not necessary.  You use it
to help the PC get better into session.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=1/3/62
Volnum=1
Issue=121
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-121  Model Session II




6203C01 SHSpec-121  Model Session II

     If your PC hasn't been gotten into session by the time you have run
havingness, the rest of the ruds probably won't do it for you.  The next step
is often too steep a gradient if the PC isn't already fairly willing to have
you audit him.

     O/W has a liability for getting the PC into session: it can miss a
withhold, throwing the PC wildly out of session.  Don't use an ARC break
process to handle an ARC break when the PC won't be audited.  It works to get
a PC who is somewhat out of session better in.  The rud will improve the PC's
in-sessionness, not create it.  The PC has to be in session enough to run a
process.

     Don't use havingness to heal an ARC break except in extremis.  If you are
using havingness to handle an ARC break, you will notice that the last thing
the PC will point to is you, the auditor.  Therefore, don't use "Are you
willing to talk to me about your difficulties?" unless you are desperate and
there is nothing else to do, or unless it is not a heavy ARC break, just sort
of a "cooler" PC.

     The PC's ARC breaks always stem from from no-auditing.  If he is still
fussing and arguing with you, he is in session enough to be audited.  But if
he is totally absorbed in his case and not willing to talk to the auditor, he
is not in session.  A missed withhold is an absence of auditing which creates
an ARC break.  In the withhold system, it is the who should have known which
gives you most TA, because it points up absence of auditing.

     To help get the PC into session during prepchecking, since you don't want
to run any O/W, run something like "Who would I have to be to audit you?" or
the ARC 61 Process [Several questions about talking to people about
difficulties.  See HCOB 30Nov61 "ARC Process 1961".] There is one process you
can run that must be flattened and not get stuck in the second dynamic
restimulation it creates:  "Touch my (body part)," repetitive.  It is flat
when there is no longer any misemotion, love, anguish, etc. on it.  It does
cure the PC falling in love with the auditor.

     [Details on use of ruds in prepchecking and Routine 3DXX sessions.]

     Goals and gains let both auditor and PC know whether there has been
progress.  "Gains" is particularly for the auditor; it gives the auditor
wins.

     When you end the session, make sure it is ended.  If there seems to be
any question, ask, "Has the session ended for you?" If necessary have the PC
touch parts of the environment.  Get him into present time then end the
session.  Not really ending the session



                                      203

is not a very serious error, but it is a very common one.  You can tell if the
session is ended by whether the PC is still talking to you about the session
afterwards or still treating you as his auditor after session.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=19/3/62
Volnum=1
Issue=122
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-122  The Bad "Auditor"




6203C19 SHSpec-122  The Bad "Auditor"

     This lecture is based on HCOB 8Mar62 "The Bad "Auditor" and HCOB 15Mar62
"Suppressors".

     A person who becomes a bad auditor has a concentration on a single
ability, like all aberration.  Insanity is a "nothing else than".  An insane
person does something to the exclusion of all else.  The psychiatrist errs in
thinking that the conduct of the insane is insane, when what makes it insane
is the concentration on one area or behavior exclusively, to an intensity that
is contra-survival.  If you did everything insane people do, you would be
acting sane.  This avoidance mechanism is present in everyone to some degree,
but the case we are talking about (the bad "auditor") gets extreme reactions
to running the Revelation process.  [See HCOB 8Mar62 "The Bad 'Auditor'".]

     There is an interesting approach to a terror charge case that LRH used
once.  He had the PC move to the beginning of track and scan forward to
present time.  This got the PC stuck in the engram necessary to resolve the
case, which was where he was anyhow, and the terror turned on so hard that all
four legs of the couch started chattering on the floor.  The PC found and ran
the incident and got the terror charge off.

     If a person can have as much charge as that, imagine how much charge
could be trapped in a valence that is terrified through and through.  Terror
is the result of something having appeared engramically and then threatening
to appear again.  An emotional charge always has an incident of physical pain
underlying it.  A person cannot experience a misemotional charge independent
of having received physical pain.  Hence the term, "secondary".  If someone
has the pain incident, subsequent similar incidents can be associated with it
and can restimulate the past pain.  If the PC hasn't become accustomed to such
events, one way or another, he will suppress perception of the environment as
being similar to the first incident and hence unsafe.  If the auditor is a
restimulator for the PC, the PC will always omit pointing at the the auditor
during havingness, until he gets sufficiently familiar with the environment
and aware of it to key out.  At this point, the PC sees the auditor and
breathes a sigh of relief.  [i.e. the PC finds the auditor.]

     The guy who has no somatic and hence no suppressor, if asked, "Have you
ever had something happen to your stomach?" will say, "Yes -- probably has."
The one who has had a mysterious stomach somatic would say, "No!", which is a
dead giveaway of the suppressor.

     A person suppresses environmental restimulators using the suppress in the
original incident.  The original impulse to unmock, for instance, the car in
the original incident, is used to unmock the restimulator.  Just before he was
hit by the car, he tried to unmock the car.... Crunch!  It hit him anyway.
That made him lose.  But that same "Crunch" later comes down to unmock the
restimulators, and the first incident appears to be unmocked.  A thetan never
gives up.  He has pictures of the car, unmocked, in the bank.  When you run it
out, you have to run out the unmock before you get the actual incident.  Doing
a touch assist, the time it takes to run out the suppressor is the time it
takes for the physical pain to turn on.  If he wasn't suppressing, and if he
wasn't in such a



                                      204

games condition with MEST, here is what would happen: The car hits him,
"Splat!" He hits a telephone pole, "Splat!" He lands on the road and gets run
over by a bus, "Splat!" If he didn't feel so undignified, he would simply have
said, "Splat!  Splat!  Splat!" and picked up the body, uninjured.  The somatic
would have run out instantly.  But because of his not-is, the somatic stays in
place.  That is the source of disease, somatics, etc.

     A person goes through various phases of not-is, and a person's impulse
towards not-is, if failed, can turn into an alter-is.  His alter-is can turn
into a not-is, and his not-is into alter-is.  So he can have a suppression
stacked with a change, and that is dub-in.  Dub-in follows failed suppression,
below the level of unconsciousness Dreams are dub-ins, alter-ises of the
things you can't not-is.

     When, as an auditor, you feel a bit leery about auditing somebody, you
have entered into a specialized field of suppression.  Some auditors have
difficulty only with certain types of PC's.  Their suppression on a particular
type of being is the prevention of a restimulator.  They are afraid something
is going to appear.  They are suppressing something.  The result is to prevent
the PC from talking to the auditor, in thousands of guises.  The PC mustn't
originate; he mustn't give up withholds, change, get acknowledged, etc.  There
are zillions of variations of ways to produce this effect, including premature
ack, eval, inval, overcontrol, undercontrol, Q and A, etc., etc.  All these
ways combine to produce every auditing fault.

     Formerly, the only cure we had was to keep the student at it long enough
to run it out by gaining familiarity with pcs and discovering that they didn't
reveal anything which damaged him.  Some, however, never did get used to it.
They took the route of suppressing pcs (about 20% .  About 30% got over it
rather slowly and 50% rather easily, with varying degrees of speed.

     The length of time required in training is directly proportional to the
number of suppressors you are trying to overcome in the student.  They are
dealing with the root stuff of aberration.  Of course there is likely to be
revealed from the PC some restimulator.  In the likely event that this occurs,
these students will suppress the PC's comm.

     The way to handle this requires drills and familiarization with
suppression, and finding who or what would suppress.  Get these things sorted
out to clear up the mechanism.

     Who is the person with the field (Black V, invisible field, etc.)?  It's
the person with tremendous suppression.  Blackness is difficulty of
recognition; invisibility, which is rarer, is suppression of glass objects.  A
person with a black field is more likely to suppress at night than during the
day.  The person who is suppressing thetans also gets an invisible field.
Whenever you suppress something in a given time-stream, you of course suppress
time, so time becomes the primary suppression, giving the instantaneousness of
all time in the reactive mind, because of the not-ising of the reactive mind.

     Everybody is trying to suppress some things.  Normal survival conduct
calls for suppression of counter-survival impulses.  We go down from that to
suppressing things that are liable to appear, thence to suppressing things
that are likely to become known (the withhold), then suppressing things which
are likely to think (This gives lots of failures and invisible fields) and
various complications and automaticities of suppression.  It is only the
person who has suppression of banks on total automatic, completely out



                                      205

of his own control, who is dangerous as an auditor.  He won't let a PC ever
reveal anything, so the PC gets stuck in everything he utters.  If a process
works today, this auditor will drop it.  He will only run processes that are
flat.  The auditor will Q and A, goof, only pick up "safe" withholds and miss
all the ones that it could do the PC good to reveal, which the PC is willing
to reveal, if asked.  This auditor is dangerous because missing withholds will
ARC break pcs and drive them out of scientology.  The auditor doesn't intend
this; he just intends to do a good, safe job where no one gets upset or
reveals anything.

     In study, if the person never lets the sense of the bulletin or tape to
come through, nothing will be revealed.  Everyone, to some degree, has a
staggeringly bad memory, thanks to their overts.  The person who has a lot of
overts is the last to be aware of it, because of her suppression.

     A person will help another to the degree of tolerance he has for
something being revealed.  This works into blackmail: "If you don't help me,
I'll reveal something about you." The reverse is to help someone unless they
are likely to reveal something.  That is the bad auditor and the bad student.
This is what keeps people from employing the technology, even when they know
it.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=19/3/62
Volnum=1
Issue=123
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-123  Mechanics Of Suppression




6203C19 SHSpec-123  Mechanics Of Suppression

     The axioms always have been "way ahead of us.  Trying to get scientology
tech to catch up with them is a tough job.  The axioms contain the basic data
on suppressors under the heading of "not-isness".  Not-isness is a suppressed
is-ness; it is the effort to put an isness out of existence.  Running lies out
of a bank runs out alter-isness and not-isness.  Alter-isness is change.  It
sits between an is-ness and a suppression.  Time, mechanically, is change.

     A cycle of action runs from a non-existence to an existence to
non-existence.  The first material on this is "Science of Certainty" [See PAB
No. 3 "Certainty Processing", p. 4.  The earliest reference is to Journal of
Scientology, Issue 16-G "This is Scientology -- The Science of Certainty".],
the something-nothing process.  The cycle of action never entered in; it was
just alternate something and nothing used to unstick a maybe.  Most people
consider a maybe as an unknown, though it isn't really an unknown, except
perhaps mechanically.  A maybe is really the no-man's-land between the
certainty that something is and the certainty that it isn't.  A cycle of
action can be stacked alongside maybe, and you could say that change is
maybe.  It looks, in the reactive mind, as though the middle of a cycle of
action is a maybe, so that all change is a maybe, and therefore, if anything
is changed, maybe it isn't:

     START             CHANGE            STOP

     CERTAINTY         MAYBE             CERTAINTY

     We get a new process out of the above: the "something-nothing" process.
It is hard to word this so that it is comprehensible to a mind.  We have had
trouble processing not-is, something-nothing, lies, etc.  Lies get into
creating, which beefs up some banks.  This new process (something-nothing),
which is a Class I process, [A Class I auditor is relatively unskilled and is
only permitted to audit a process that he has had success with on pcs.  See p.
152 and HCOPL 29Sep61 "HGC Allowed Processes".]



                                      206

needs refinement on wording perhaps.  It is just "It is / It isn't"
repetitively.  If he is run awhile on this the PC will move on the track.  He
will also, before long, deliver up his chronic somatic, PTP, current
difficulty, or whatever, by applying the process directly to his case.  What
you are doing is running him on the cycle of action.  You haven't said whether
the "It isn't" is vanishment or not-isness, but the PC will always run it as
not-is, or suppressors.  So you are running direct suppressors, and the thing
he is most immediately suppressing is most likely to come into view: his
hidden standard or chronic PTP.

     The thing he is trying to make up his mind about is something he has
said, "It is" about, then, not liking it, has said "It isn't." This has left
him in the maybe or whether it ever was, is, or will be.  You would get
nowhere processing someone on "maybe", because basically, there is no such
thing as maybe.  There is only creation and the conditions of the creation.
Even when a cycle of action has been completed, it is still there as a
memory.  This gives the PC a recording of the "It is." You never get a pure
nonexistence after an existence; the only pure nonexistence was before the
existence.

     So this fantastically simple process can produce practically every other
phenomenon in scientology.  It stems from existence and nonexistence, which
stems from perception and "don't-want-to-perceive", which goes over into
creativeness and destruction, and wild bands of change in between.  Most
people avoid isnesses like the plague.  In the course of running the above
process, the uncertainty of the case blows off.

     The open-minded, maybe case is the normal frame of mind for modern
scientists.  They think LRH isn't scientific because he is so positive;
because he is not full of maybe's.  Scientists are always on the verge of
something being revealed suddenly, which scares them.  Therefore, they make
bad auditors.

     People that have a lot of withholds don't want their minds to be
invaded.  People are hung up in revelations.  The Catholic Church is against
the idea of investigating the mind.  They are big on revelations, which are
all delusory.  Modern science's revelation is the H-bomb.  But this is too big
a revelation, so people won't look at it; similarly with scientology.  It
would be more successful to oppose the H-bomb by cutting back the revelation
to an investigation of the guy who pushes the button, [than to try to impress
people with the whole picture of the H-bomb.] With scientology, revealing that
it clears people is too much revelation.  You will have more success with, "Do
you have a pain?  Scientology would probably take quite awhile to do anything
about that." The person could confront that much.  You could run, "Get the
idea that there is a pain there / Get the idea that there is no pain there."
This would tum on the pain.  He could confront it, because it is slightly on,
unlike his suppressed pains [so he won't be faced with an unexpected
revelation].  Check every five or six commands to make sure he has followed
the commands.  Pains which appear in some [previously] non-painful areas,
where the person has some malfunction, will turn on.  He will be completing
old cycles of action.

     Only two things can happen to a person: to have nothing appear and to
have something appear.  So the two conditions of any game are appearance and
non-appearance.  So we get the anatomy of games, which is the context in which
LRH originally studied this subject.  The opposing player in a game either is
or isn't.  The middle between "It is" and "It isn't" is what reads.  There



                                      207

are all kinds of ramifications of "It is." Anything can be represented by "it"
-- the opposing player, the team, either team, etc.  The amount of "is" the
person can conceive compared to the amount of "isn't" the person can conceive
finds the disagreement between the "isn't" and the "is" that gives the read.
All the meter reads on is the disagreement between the "It is," and the "It
isn't." Two valences in one mind can produce quite a disagreement, e.g. an
atheist and a Presbyterian.  It is the disagreement that gives the read, so in
the case of the atheist and the Presbyterian, you will get a big registry on
the meter from either one because of the other.

     On 3DXX, you will get as much charge off running terminals as oppterms.
The whole mass goes out of balance when you discharge one; but that one won't
discharge totally until you can discharge the other.  Why are they
counter-opposed?  It is because one says certain principles are and the other
says certain principles aren't, and vice-versa.  They are violently opposed.
You will find that this is characteristic of every GPM package: You get
identities which are opposites which make problems.  So all these isnesses are
opposed by all these not-isnesses.  It is heavily charged and violent because
of all these disagreements.

     You could probably put this theory into any process.  For instance, you
could make a prepcheck zero question out of it:  "Have you ever considered
that another didn't exist?" or "Have you ever insisted something was?" With
that, you would get tremendous number of overts, since trying to damage
something is trying to make it not exist, and when you are creating something,
you are asserting it is.  Every overt is an assertion that something is or
isn't.  This is all very black and white, unlike non-Aristotelian logic, which
insists that positives and negatives don't exist.  It is true that there are
gradient scales and that ultimates are unattainable, but you would be speaking
nonsense to say that positives do not exist, though ultimates don't.

     General Semantics (See Alfred Korzybski's General Semantics) and modern
science shy completely away from positiveness and certainties.  As time drags
out, positiveness reduces.  The less concept of time a person has, the less
positive things seem.  All you have to be is aware of the now-ness of the
instant, and you get quite a bit of isness and not-isness coming in.  This
occurs during havingness: the walls seem brighter; what happens is that the
not-isness disappears and is replaced by nonexistence.  It ceases being a
suppression and becomes, so to speak, an awareness of nonexistence rather than
a suppression of existence.  A person sits surrounded by masses.  These are
all not-isnesses.  The first thing the PC would say about them is that they
don't exist.  As he runs havingness and comes up to PT, the walls get brighter
and these things would disappear.  But when you run some people on havingness,
it goes from not-isness to nonexistence on such a clear-cut track that, as you
run havingness on them and make the walls more real, their bank materializes
and they have people standing in the room.  You run off the not-isness by
running on the isness of the wall.  The not-isness that pushed the picture
into invisibility released, as the person's reality on the wall increased.
You ran out the invisibility of the isness.  The "people" have always been
there, but he has not-ised them and has had to be quite careful about them all
this time.



                                      208

     The fellow whom you audit on and on, who never gets any pictures is a
classic.  He is totally suppressing, because there is something he is deathly
afraid will appear.  You could make a list of "Who or what would be afraid to
find out?", oppterm the terminals, etc.  As this ran awhile, the dead bodies
that he has not-ised would start to to show up.  Sometimes someone in a
weakened condition will take his attention off these things for awhile and one
will materialize and spook him.  He will say that he has been blanketed.

     Many people don't have a time track; they have only a series of
not-isnesses.  These are the "calm" people.  Hah!

     There are some pretty hideous phenomena that can occur while running this
out, but continuing to run it will turn them off.  Auditors used to get upset
by this while running "not-know".  They would get curious when the PC actually
not-knew something to the point of its vanishing and go off in a Q and A and
never flatten the process.  Of course, this was terribly restimulative on the
subject of not-find-out, the not-is button.

     When the not-is disappears, the isness materializes and scares the PC to
the point, at times, where the PC decides never to let that happen again.  The
pictures that turn on can be more real than PT, for awhile.  This is quite a
surprise.

     A PC gets afraid to find out, when an identity in the bank has been
asserting isness and somebody else has been asserting not-isness.  Various
bank phenomena turn on and off and the PC gets stuck.  Then he gets afraid to
find out.  Something is liable to materialize, to appear.  This makes a bad
auditor.  He is just shaky on the subject of things appearing.  He can be
gotten over it educationally and/or with processing.  "It is / It isn't" does
it.  3DXX would do it, as would various prepcheck and not-isness questions,
etc.

     Another method is a change in the withhold system.  [See pp.  186, 190
above.  Also see HCOB 21Mar62 "Prepchecking Data...", p. 2.] To use the
withhold system on suppressors, add "Appear" before "Who".  This might even
run an engram.  Go "When, All, Appear, and Who".  "Appear" is "What might have
appeared (or revealed itself, or should have shown up) at that point?" or "Is
there anything that didn't show up?" This mechanism helps get suppressors off
the withhold.  Beefed up in this way, it might be strong enough to run an
engram.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=21/3/62
Volnum=1
Issue=124
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-124  Prepchecking




6203C21 SHSpec-124  Prepchecking

     A PC's attention can become so concentrated on a particular part of the
GYM that he does not recognize that the GPM has some 40 or 50 combinations in
it.  Trying to get the PC's attention off the last combination you found and
onto the next combination you have found sometimes takes some doing.  The GPM
is areas of stuck attention on identities.  The PC ordinarily runs through
this cycle:

          1. They didn't want it.

     then 2. They think it is fine.

Some items are hotter than others and explain more than others.  You have
twenty or thirty items before you get to the middle of the GPM.  The ones at
the middle are the last ones the PC finds.  3DXX bypasses and cuts through
running items.  By the process of finding items, 3DXX gets the bank down to
the point of what is holding the bank together.  It is rather difficult, since
it is over the PC's last hundred thousand dead bodies.  Fortunately, only



                                      209

a few of these items are remarkable.  The PC has probably been every item he
puts on the list.  We are only trying to find the items that he is stuck
with.

     The process of listing keys out fifty to a hundred of these at a crack,
and we are left with the one that doesn't key out: the GPM item.  The rest are
locks on that.  What is holding that item is in some more basic, deeper
combination.  Thus, after you have found some more, some of the ones you found
earlier may drop out.  But only when you run the central package will you get
rid of some of them.  The most horrifying ones the PC finds early on are
liable to blow as locks, later on, though they may seem very important at
first.

     The reason auditors had so much trouble doing Routine 3 [For definition
of this, see p. 34, above.] is that it is really a much better, though less
accurate, way of getting the actual package.  It reached deep into the GPM and
the case and is more accurate when done absolutely right.  Done poorly, it was
deadly to the PC.  Running the wrong terminal was awful!  Routine 3DXX doesn't
require the some degree of accuracy and the PC shows continuous progress
running it.  Eventually, too, you get much more fundamental items than the
original Routine 3D items.

     The object of prepchecking is to find chains of withholds and relieve
them on the PC's case.  Auditors seem to be having trouble duplicating this
datum.  They don't seem to realize that you don't ask a "what" question until
you have a specific withhold delivered into your lap.  Auditors keep confusing
zeroA questions with "what" questions.  [See HCOB 1Mar62 "Prepchecking (A
Class II Skill)".] The zero question gives you a vast generality; the zeroA
question gives somewhat less generality.  The "what" question should give you
more specific withholds, not just generalities.  The zero question is about a
whole dynamic.  The zeroA gives a generality.  It is not a "What" question,
even though it can begin with "What".

     When you do get the specific overt, then ask, "What about (overt)?" Get
When, All, Appear, and Who.  If it doesn't clean up, ask for an earlier one.
Don't take something else which is vaguely similar but is not the same
doingness.  Run the whole chain of doing what you started on.  There must be
an earlier one if it doesn't free on two runs through the withhold system.

     A chain gets charged up only because the first part of the chain is
suppressed and forgotten.  Finding the data of something will cause it to
blow.  So if you have taken off the When, the All, the Appear / Not appear, and
the Who should have known from some incident, it would blow if that were all
there was to it.  All that will keep it reacting is some earlier withhold.
You can help the PC tell you by the "murder" system: suggesting incomparably
exaggerated overts so his don't look so awful.

     Sometimes you will hit a chain which goes way back, probably as part of
the GPM.  You can still run it; it just takes a long time.  And sometimes your
PC throws you a red herring.  He gives you PTP's and missed withholds in the
beginning ruds.  This can lead you off on some new chain which has nothing to
do with what you had started and left unflat.  The PC has moved into control
of the session, which enables him to stay away from some almost uncovered
area.  Sometimes you can get away with ignoring the out-rud; sometimes it is
fatal.  Don't, in any case, use withhold processes to handle an out-rud.  In
checking for missed withholds in ruds, ask a severely limited question sc you
only pick up the ones between sessions.



                                      210

     Don't let a 3DXX session become a prepcheck session because of the PC's
out ruds at the beginning of session.  If his ruds keep being out and needing
repair, take a few days off 3DXX and prepcheck for awhile.  Otherwise the PC
will feel he is getting no auditing.  If it takes more than three days to find
a 3DXX item, you will never get it because the PC will be ARC broken about no
auditing.  Ruds will just go further and further out.  You can even get the PC
to put his own out-ruds in by insisting that you are going to find his item.
This promises him auditing.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=21/3/62
Volnum=1
Issue=125
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-125  Prepchecking




6203C21 SHSpec-125  Prepchecking

     The amount of case progress is directly proportional to the amount of
TA.  No TA = no as-is of mass; nothing was restimulated.

     [Details on running of Secondary Prehav Scale for Overts, a way of
hitting the overt chains the PC is trying to avoid.]

     In assessing, the auditor should be brisk and interested, not so much
helpful.  If you assess slowly, it gives the PC more time for random thoughts,
critical thoughts, all sorts of out-of-session producing stuff.  The less time
you take, the less MEST universe gets into the session.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=27/3/62
Volnum=1
Issue=130
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-130  Prepchecking Data




6203C27 SHSpec-130  Prepchecking Data

           [Details on correction of errors in prepchecking.]

     A PC doesn't prepcheck all the way to the bottom of the deck; not all
levels of pcs prepcheck.  Prepchecking is not as broadly good an approach to
all cases, no matter how low-toned, as the CCH's or even 3DXX.  Both CCH's and
3DXX go much farther south than prepchecking, which requires some
responsibility for thinkingness.  Thus:

           1. Prepchecking takes responsibility for doingness.

           2. 3DXX takes responsibility for existingness (beingness).

           3. CCH's take some responsibility for mass and repetitive
              action (havingness).

Note that this is a be, do, have situation.  3DXX and CCH's both go further
south than responsibility for doingness, which is what prepchecking attacks.
It is odd that the beingness processes (3DXX) go further south than doingness,
but it is empirically true that this is the case.  The reason fur this is
probably that doingness is the main punishment factor in this part of the
universe.  One will admit to beingness and havingness before admitting to
doingness.

     If you are having a lot of trouble with prepchecking; if you are not
making much gain; if you have tried for several sessions to find an area that
produces TA without success, you should run CCH's.  The problem is not
necessarily the PC; it could be lack of auditor skill.  But in any case, CCH's
will give the PC more case gain and more auditing.  It could be that the
auditor is timid or that the PC is new and the auditor doesn't want to upset
or embarrass him, or the PC may be in the middle of a PTP of long duration
that is undisclosed.  The CCH's will discharge PTP's of long duration, even if
they are undisclosed.  Or the PC's moral code could be so different from the
auditor's, so far out-of this world, that the auditor misses the boat on it.
Or the PC could have no confidence in the auditor's prepchecking.  Or the PC
has insufficient responsibility to respond to any doingness.  That will be
handled with CCH's.  CCH-2 is less embarrassing to start a new PC with than
prepchecking, also.



                                      211

     After an intensive of CCH's, the same things that didn't produce TA
before will now give TA.

     The only thing that breaks an auditor's heart is getting nothing done, so
don't abandon responsibility for yourself by running things which get nothing
done.

     Most auditor errors are from not flattening processes.  LRH doesn't care
what you run on a PC as long as you flatten it and as long as you get
results.  If you are getting TA on something, run it.  However, running
limited processes beyond the point where they stop producing TA is a hazardous
operation.  Pcs sometimes get off lies and feel relieved.  That is just
because you didn't get near their overts.

     You should know how to crack the problem of social mores.  In 3DXX, you
get the terminal's social mores by asking the PC what would be considered
anti-social by the terminal.  You then use the mores to make up zero
questions, using the overt with the biggest meter reaction first.  You are
liable to come up with the PC's oppterm and overts of failure to damage the
oppterm pretty quickly.  So you have to find out if it is a "plus overt" or a
"minus overt", i.e., whether it is what you would expect or whether it is from
the other side of the fence.

     Every race, every species, having a fourth dynamic, tends to fixate on
that dynamic, and the thetans running those bodies tend to keep running those
bodies as long as they are available.  But when the species got scarce or
extinct, they had to move over into something else.  There is no reason you
shouldn't have been an animal at one time or another.  It is actually quite a
relief.  You pick up your now-I'm-supposed-to's easily.  Animals tend to stay
with their now-I'm-supposed-to's because they can't talk about them.  That is
the only thing wrong with [being an animal].

     As far as nationalities are concerned, thetan transfer can really
scramble things up.  Say some Indian gets a new body as an Englishman; the
U.S. is now getting lots of ex-Nazi's, ex-Japanese, etc.  On the track, the PC
has often gone round and round on the Greece-Egypt-Persia line, getting all
confused about his now-I'm-supposed-to's.  However, there is a dominant moral
code in the 3DXX package.

     Don't forget overts of omission as well as commission, plus the fruitful
area of make-guilty and being a victim.  You could investigate the make-guilty
aspect of any zero question to get his efforts to get a motivator on the
subject which would make someone else guilty of the overt.

     If the PC tends to dodge into past lives to avoid his this-life overts,
when you get in end-ruds about half-truths, untruths, misses withholds, etc.,
you will pick up the avoided areas.  Some pcs need a lot of clean-up on
half-truths all the time; others don't.  You will get to know the PC and see
if it is necessary.

     Don't use any form of O/W to handle ruds in prepcheck sessions or you
will pile up unflat chains, and the PC will use ruds to avoid uncomfortable
hot areas.



                                      212


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=29/3/62
Volnum=1
Issue=126
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-126  CCH's




6203C29 SHSpec-126  CCH's

     The CCH's were developed when the HGC in London was finding out that
there were pcs that weren't gaining and were getting no results.  The CCH's
don't run things out; the CCH's familiarize the PC with control,
communication, and havingness.  The PC does an upgrade on CCH's in the teeth
of the adage that the PC must be at cause.  Actually, there is a gradient of
causativeness, from very slight, at CCH-1, to considerable at CCH-4.  The
CCH's are a way to get the PC to sit there and look at something, so he finds
out he can confront it.  The PC becomes aware, through familiarization. that
control, communication, and havingness are not necessarily horrible.  As the
case goes downscale, it gets to a level where it is predominantly motivator
and won't respond to anything else.  The person does not have an adequate
enough idea of cause to be causative.  Above that point, a person's cause can
be increased easily; below that point, it can only be increased to the point
of getting him to confront something going on someplace else.  That is where
CCH's take over.

     Instead of letting the PC run up further overts by being accusative and
critical, we get him to confront communication, control and duplication.  Just
communication and duplication in itself gives case gain.

     Havingness is the concept of not being prevented from reaching, or the
concept of being able to reach.  A havingness process is a continuous
duplication of being Able to reach.  Havingness wasn't a quirk.

     CCH-1:  Getting the PC to reach you enables him to communicate with the
             auditor; it establishes the auditor as a terminal.  This should
             get the PC being at cause; he cogs that he can reach and will
             therefore communicate to you.

     CCH-2:  The PC has had his body running on a machine for ages; it
             operates all by itself.  CCH-2 lets the PC take over the
             automaticity of body motion that he has relinquished; he does
             this knowingly,

     CCH-3:  This was developed to get the PC in the same communication time
             (and space) span as the auditor.  Some people can't put a
             dispatch on a comm line because they can't tolerate distance on
             the line.  They always bring a body.  CCH-3 gets the PC over the
             necessity to be touching something in order to feel in comm with
             it.  This is an effort at a gradient: How far can the PC be from
             the auditor and still be in comm?  For instance, some people have
             to be there in person to deliver a message.  CCH-3 lets the PC
             enter space into a communication.  His cause-distance-effect has
             been one of minimal distance, just cause-effect with no distance,
             so if the PC were in the auditor's head, he could be audited.
             The PC gets the idea of communication by duplication; CCH-3
             enters space into the communication and some duplication.  The PC
             cogs that he can talk to the auditor and understand what the
             auditor is telling him to do.  Keep it very simple.  The word,
             "contributed" introduces the idea of cause.  You are gradually
             bringing him around to this idea.  That is why you ask if he
             contributed to the motion.  You don't care what he answers; you
             are just planting the idea.



                                      213

     CCH-4:  You are actively asking if the PC is satisfied that he duplicated
             the motion.  It's the PC who should be satisfied, not the
             auditor, necessarily.  If the PC is satisfied when he hasn't
             really duplicated the motion, the auditor's only mistake is to
             contradict or criticize him or invalidate him.  If the PC is
             wildly off but says he is doing it, find a simple motion the PC
             will duplicate, so he doesn't keep making himself into a lier
             every time.  Or get off the misduplicated motion for two or three
             turns and then come back to it.  He will eventually improve it;
             he will get better.

     The above is the only reason why CCH's actually work.  It is a peculiar
fact about CCH's that they don't even require the PC's agreement or approval
to get gains from them.  They worked in 1956, then got altered to a point
where they didn't work because they had stopped being run as a combination,
which is as important as how each is done individually.

     If a PC gets run on CCH's when they are not producing change, he gets the
idea that he is being punished.  So you run it to three times through with no
change, then go on to the next CCH.  It is as important for the PC to not mind
doing it as it is for him to do it perfectly.  The PC will start nut doing
them on the auditor's determinism.  Running just CCH-1 for hours with no
change doesn't offer enough randomity to cause a change.  That is the trouble
you get into, tackling each one just by itself.  The PC will run for two
hundred hours on CCH-1 with no results.  An exception is that you can only run
CCH-1 on an unconscious person.  Similarly with touch assist, engram running,
"You make that body lie on that bed," and others.  With an unconscious person,
you should also cycle through three or four processes.  Do the rotation and
the case will unsettle.  Go through CCH's to get them to bite; there should be
enough randomity in it so it will bite.  Otherwise, it might just go on and
on.  The CCH's unflatten each other.  They are run tone 40.  Upper indocs are
vital training, e.g.  "Put a thought in that ashtray," helps the auditor get a
thought into a PC's head.  That is the way they should be run.  They are a
tone 40 process (i.e.  CCH's 1 and 2).  You lay the commands into the PC's
head, not necessarily even verbally; just command the PC without reservation.

     The CCH's are non-verbal processes.  They could be run on a deaf person.
They are action processes with a common denominator of solids, not thoughts.
So do them when you are not getting TA on thinkingness processes for several
sessions.  If a discussion of auditing produces TA motion consistently, put
the PC on CCH's.  The PC in such a case is not familiar enough with control,
communication and havingness to be willing or able to go into session fairly
easily.  The other PC who should get CCH's is one who gets TA on tactile
havingness.

     CCH's are not only for psychotics, though they are the only process you
can run on a psychotic.  CCH's reach far higher than was previously realized.

     The need to keep doing CCH's as long as they produce change and stop
doing one when it produces no change goes in the teeth of time and the
physical universe's Q and A.  You would think you should change one when there
is change and not change when there is no change, but this isn't so.



                                      214


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=29/3/62
Volnum=1
Issue=127
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-127  Q and A Period




6203C29 SHSpec-127  Q and A Period

     When you get a TA knob alternating between two different locations, it is
a circulation between two masses.  This is similar to a stage four needle, but
on the TA.  It is the case shifting between two valences.  This is not the
same as TA motion.  It is a sudden shift, not a gradual change.

     If running a CCH turns on a somatic, you run it until the somatic turns
off.  If it is not a matter of somatics, run CCH's until the PC can do them
all willingly and well.  Run out gross changes.  Somatics are the most gross;
little objections and raggedness are less gross.  If you can't detect the
somatic by physical manifestations, it doesn't exist for the purposes of
CCH's.  Too many pcs dramatize victims and make up somatics, etc.

     If you wanted the greatest possible gain and the least possible blow, on
pcs who were pretty sensible anyway, you would do ruds on the meter along with
CCH's.  This makes a different breed of CCH's, when it is done this way.  You
would ease up any tendency to blow and it would make it easier for the PC to
stay in session.  On many cases, you can't do ruds, but if the PC is fairly
upscale, it would probably go better with ruds put in.

                           [Details on running 3DXX]

     The PC is his terminal.  The terminal has pain on it, and it is always
facing outwards against enemies.  So you give him an enemy, an enemy, an
enemy, and he will get dizzy from too many enemies.  But on the pain
phenomenon, he is simply being someone else.  You won't get 3DXX turning on
constant pain.

     If the PC has the same pain, grief, or fights you for 20 minutes, that is
no change, but the pain must be something more than the PC's statement about
it.  You must see some physical manifestation, since CCH's are non-verbal.  If
the same grief or whatever has gone on for 20 minutes with no change, it won't
just run out, so that is why it is OK to leave it.

     Why the pain is on the PC's terminal: It is just an observation.
However, it doesn't seem too unreasonable that he should get pain as himself.
If he has created pain, he will feel it as himself as the motivator -- that is
highly probable.  You can run an oppterm flat, sometimes, and the PC will feel
better.  The terminal will still be live.

     On CCH's 3 and 4, you handle PC originations, but only out of courtesy.
You don't really care about how he says he is feeling, because what you are
running off can cause the PC to say the damnedest things, most of them lies.
It runs out all sorts of counter-creates, verbal and non-verbal.  They will
throw you all sorts of red herrings.  A PC running CCH's never originates; he
only dramatizes.  You don't have to get into a games condition with the PC.
Just run the process.

     As an R-factor for CCH's, you can and should tell the PC what you are
doing and why you are doing it, as a sort of rudiment to start the session.
Try to get the PC's agreement before the session starts, and then you run the
session anyway.  After session, you can talk about the CCH's, provided you
don't evaluate for him, if the PC wants to talk about them.  When a CCH
session goes into screaming fits, it is probable that the R-factor could have
been established better.  You can tell the PC anything, like, "It's a drill;
I'm gonna do it; let's see if you can do it, etc."



                                      215

     Dramatizations on CCH's are closely connected to oppterms [and
terminals], but nothing can be read out of it.  The worst the PC is sitting in
will discharge, because a circuit is unable to:

          1. Duplicate

          2. Have

       or 3. Be controlled.

So giving someone control, communication, and havingness inevitably gets them
into 3DXX items that are banging in and out.  Usually, there will be one major
circuit that tries to discharge via the PC's dramatization, the circuit he is
sitting in.  CCH's knock out the not-is on masses he is sitting in, and he
will see them for the first time.  Weird things show up from the vanishment of
the not-is: heavy masses he has "never had before"; somatics he hasn't felt,
etc.  He will move on the track in the valence he is in to a more comfortable
position.  CCH's knock out not-is; you get an "is".  The phenomena you see
with the PC is the valence.  The phenomena that occur around the PC is the
oppterm.  CCH's also familiarize the PC with phenomena that he will encounter
later on, in 3DXX.

     SENSATION:  That which is produced by reason of other beingness and
                 dislocations of space.

     PAIN:       Alteration of form.  Pain is produced by direct contact
                 between the thetan and an identity.  Fain is heat + cold +
                 electrical shock, combined.  The PC is always more directly
                 connected with the terminal than the oppterm and thus feels
                 pain.  He must be touching the mass with the idea that he is
                 it in order to feel pain.

     One of the biggest mistakes someone can make is to regard his body as
self.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=3/4/62
Volnum=1
Issue=131
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-131  The Overt-Motivator Sequence




6204C03 SHSpec-131  The Overt-Motivator Sequence

     The solution to what you do with 3DXX items is the resolution of what
makes the overt-motivator sequence.  There are processes that undo the
overt-motivator sequence.  For a long time, LRH has wanted to undo it instead
of running it, knowing that it is a junior sequence.  How could you live if
you had to get a motivator for every overt?  It is evidently a very junior
idea, invented to prevent people from attacking.

     If the only thing that ever affected anybody was himself, ultimately, one
would have a perfect alibi: one would never do anything to anyone, anyplace.
LRH knew the overt-motivator sequence was limited, but he couldn't find the
entrance point.  He must have tried 1500 to 2000 combinations, trying to blow
the thing as itself.  If you are the only one that affects you, numerous
things apply.  For one thing, you wouldn't be able to keep the same time track
as others.  So there is something wrong with the overt-motivator sequence.
But, at the same time, everybody has fallen for it and can be processed.  The
overt-motivator sequence runs nicely when handled as a mechanism to prevent
people from attacking.  One process you could use is, "What shouldn't _______
attack?  What shouldn't you attack?" (or synonyms for "attack").  It could
also be varied with "could/couldn't" and "have/haven't".  If you got someone
who was sitting in a bunch of overts and motivators to list what they
shouldn't attack, [you might get somewhere].  That was the lead-in on the
research level.  Not



                                      216

wanting to be attacked, one tells others that they shouldn't attack you and
what they shouldn't attack.  They do the same to you, so eventually it looks
like you have an overt-motivator sequence.  The most sensible thing in the
world is that there are things which you, in a human body, shouldn't attack.
The physical universe teaches the lesson that if you attack these things, you
get hurt.  This is a basic learningness, and it underlies all the
overt-motivator phenomena.  When you attack MEST, you lose havingness.  Then,
having learned not to kick paving blocks, you have learned that what you do to
others will happen to you.  This is actually not true at all; it is merely a
philosophical extrapolation.  It goes back to Newton's Second Law: inertia,
which is a physical universe law.

     A withhold is basically nothing more than your unwillingness to attack or
to be attacked.  You could take any withhold a person has and run off, "Who
shouldn't attack you about that?" or "What shouldn't you attack in that way?"
and the withhold will evaporate.

     LRH never learned not to attack.  People have tried to teach him, but
they have failed.  He was once looking to see what, on the track he felt worst
about doing.  It looked for awhile as though doing anything to anybody's mind
was the most destructive thing you could do.  There was some sense and
workability to this, but it proved not to be true.  It was the attacking of
energy involved that seemed bad.  It is not even bad to attack energy; it's
just that people have tried to convince each other that it is, so you become
allergic to energy.

     The definition of "being good" is the same as the definition of "being
overwhelmed".  Every fighting man LRH ever had under him was always in bad
with other people at a time when they needed fighting men.  The shore patrol
only liked the people who weren't worth a damn.  Of 100 men, six or seven
would be totally able, competent, active fireballs.  It bugged LRH that these
were the guys who were always in trouble.  There would be dozens of nice guys
who got commendations and bonuses but who were ineffective in action.

     The world has built up a series of superstitions about people.  The
animal psychologists' textbooks are full of them: the mirage of
"ought-to-be".  The message is, "Beware of anybody who is active!" The civil
defense manuals of the U.S. government, in the section on psychology, has
provisions to nab and put away anyone who gets active and tries to do
something about the situation.  The civil defense system is based on the idea
that there is a thing called "government" that is composed of "people".  They
are going to take over the country in case of attack.  At the moment of
attack, no one is supposed to do anything but be taken over by the
government.

     As early as 1941, LRH noticed that war is the antithesis of
organization.  In combat, it breaks down to the being, the man on the job, not
the well-organized machinery, which actually is just men anyway.  If you are
going to organize, organize for chaos and count on the individual, not some
great third dynamic shadow.  Individuals are quite destructable in areas of
disaster, so plans fall apart.  For this reason, in space opera societies,
there were indestructable dolls.

     Incidently, in planning something, pin your schedule to event not to the
clock.



                                      217

     All the systems are geared to "good people".  There is supposed to be
some great reservoir of good people to draw on, but where is it?  These
people are supposed to appear and make everything go right.  Then, in case of
attack, they are supposed to stop anyone who isn't wearing their magic badge
from directing or organizing people.  The people who handled civil defense in
various war areas in chaos conditions, aren't even in the civil defense
organization.  All you have got, ultimately, is a being.  Not punch-tape card
systems, not magical creatures.  The individual is the building block.  They
are either competent or not.

     When an individual ceases to be able to run his own life, you can always
have some group idiocy like Communism, which takes responsibility for conduct
out of the hands of the individual and give it to some Godhelpus monster.  One
way they think they will create the reservoir of good people who will then
tell everyone what to do is to use selective breeding, etc.

     The basis of the individual is his ability to observe, to make decisions,
and to act.  He has to be able to inspect and know what he is looking at and
where he is looking.  He must be able to make a sensible summary of it and be
able to act in accordance with what he has inspected.  This is true of a
student, a soldier, or anybody.  If any of the above abilities are missing,
you will get a bad result.  In making anything, from a perfect government to a
more livable world, the basic building block you are working with is always
and only the individual.  Then the question arises:  Is he competent or
incompetent?  Can he do his job?

     If someone cannot observe and make decisions about what he has observed,
he is in a bad way.  You will never have a workable Utopia unless you have
individuals who can observe, decide, and act.  If you go in the direction of a
system that isn't designed to make individuals, it is a system which will
fail.  It will end in slavery and denial to the individual of the right to
observe, decide, and act.  The only system that is justified is one which
pushes people in the direction of observation, decision, and acting.

     The reason for the form of the org is to create agreement amongst its
members.  One odd thing about scientology organizations is that, as people get
their cases better together, the organizations get more able to act on their
own and at the same time to be more in concert.  To the degree that
individuals can observe, decide, and act, systems are unnecessary.

     If we have systems that depend utterly on making people "good", without
inspection or decision, but only on some "now-I'm-supposed-to" automaticities,
the systems will fail.  Such a system is only achieved by overwhelming a
person with energy, showing him that he will get into more action than he can
stand if he does not concur with the right actingness.  The message is, "We
can create more actingness and energy than you can, so therefore you better
get into this small actingness." It is the out-create of action that brings
about the fixed actingness that is known as "being good".  You can thereby
snarl people into line.

     A system only works in the direction of consulting people's observation
of things.  But the world operates on the basis of things like Faith and
Discipline.  People fixate on the "good" action when the alternative is
confronting some supposedly unconfrontable action.  When you have a totally
disciplined nation, you have a total failure.  This is the route to decadence;
people observe less and less.  This is how civilizations decay and become



                                      218

"old" and decadent.  Such a society can be overwhelmed by any hostile energy
mass that shows up, since its people have been trained not to confront energy
masses; it gets licked up by any chaos.

     The way an individual ages and dies is to give up his power of
observation and decision and to act on the basis of not being able to do as
much as he used to be able to do or to stand as much as he used to be able to
stand.  He attributes this to advancing age, not to being able to stand less.
The source of advancing age is being able to stand less.  Aging is caused by a
lessening ability to confront action.  It is not that the individual can't
confront as much action.  He ages because he believes he can't confront as
much action.

     The concern of an individual with action is:

          1. Co-action

          2. Attacking energy

       or 3. Being attacked by energy.

"An individual is first as big as the universe and then he selects out half of
it to fight and so becomes half the size of the universe, and then selects out
half of the remaining universe to fight and so becomes one fourth the size of
the universe and then selects nut half of the remainder to fight and so
becomes one eighth the size of the universe.  And I could go on and enumerate
these steps, but why should I, when here you are?  Your size in relation the
universe is directly determined by only one thing:
... the amount of randomity you can confront," or the amount of
attack you think you are subjected to or care to subject the universe to.
This determines thetan size.  It is how much you feel you can take on or how
much you feel may take you on.

     This is the mathematics of a civilization: Say we have 100,000 people.
At first one says, "I can take on any one or more of you who messes me up."
They all feel like that at first.  Then one day, someone gets hurt and can't
fight, so he and some other weaklings invent justice.  Justice says that when
one person errs, everyone else in the society is banded together against him,
as the government.  So it's one person versus the government, representing
some tens of millions of people.  Civilization is rigged in this way.  The
thetan conceives this to be a too-manyness, so he is overwhelmed and obeys the
law of the realm.  When you get old and creaky, you subscribe to the idea of
justice.  Honest force is better then collective myth.  LRH's method of
justice is not based on this "will of the people"; it is based on his own
preference for peace and order.

     All "goodness" is brought about by force, never by philosophic
persuasion.  Action based on observation and decision is fine.  Action based
on police threat, threats from parents, etc., is something else.  A true
civilization would be based on observation.  The oddity is that Man is
basically good.  He gets a synthetic "bad" valence that he can get into and
then be bad.  Every 3DXX item is either a live that you have lived or your
idea of somebody else (the oppterms).  There isn't actually any "somebody
else" in the bank.

     All that is wrong with Man is his imprisonment in evil, but the evil is
false.  We tell a fellow that he is evil and convince him that he shouldn't
attack because everything else is good.  This can be put as Karma: whatever
you have done will be revisited upon you; you will pay for everything you have
ever done.  This isn't quite the same as the overt-motivator sequence, which
is



                                      219

the rule that you have to lay yourself open to feeling bad about something, to
a motivator, by the commission of an overt.  That rule holds, but only because
there is an area you have conceived you mustn't attack.

     The reason the wall is stably there for you and can trap you is that
somewhere down deep you consider it sacred.  You have certain sacred
valences.  They mustn't be attacked; you have convinced everybody that they
mustn't be attacked.  People get upset when you attack a temple priestess or a
sacred cow.  Actually, however, all mechanisms of slavery should be attacked.
The toughest valences in 3DXX are also mechanisms to prevent you from being
attacked, as you know you would be if your deed were known.  The idea is to
have a good, non-attackable beingness.  The only catch is that we fall from
the other non-attackable beingnesses around us.

     The basic mechanism of getting people not to attack is to show them that
attacking will hurt them.  That is the whole lesson they teach in war.

     If the MEST universe is still here, it must be that we consider that it
shouldn't be attacked.  Otherwise it would have been as-ised.  And that is
also why it can hurt you when you attack it.  Sometimes it attacks and hurts
you even when you haven't attacked it, e.g. when you are hit by lightning or a
cliff falls on you.

     Having learned the lesson that one will harm oneself if one attacks, we
get the overt-motivator sequence.  If you teach enough people this, you will
have a civilization, but they will all be enslaved.  They will all be trapped,
and none of them will be able to observe clearly or decide clearly or to act
decisively.  Sooner or later they will all go crazy.  That is really all that
is wrong with the human mind.  The only real penalty of attack is that if you
attack something, it will disappear.  There is no liability, actually, in
attacking anything, but there is tremendous liability in not attacking.  Overt
attack, as opposed to uncontrolled attack left on automatic, doesn't do
anything except get rid of havingness.  If it was undesired havingness, what
is the difference?


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=5/4/62
Volnum=1
Issue=128
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-128  The Sacredness of Cases -- Pan-determinism,
Self-determinism, Other-determinism




6204C05 SHSpec-128  The Sacredness of Cases -- Pan-determinism,
                    Self-determinism, Other-determinism

     Why is your case sacred, if it is?  Sacred = don't attack == preserve =
protect = survive.  Now we understand a theetie-weetie case.  To a
theetie-weetie case, everything is sacred; his attitude is, "mustn't attack
it, mustn't be attacked, must protect, preserve, survive.  This attitude
especially applies to his case.  That is the only reason anyone ever has for
no results in processing.  The secret of this universe is that it is a sacred
universe and shouldn't be attacked.  It is too sacred.  This puts every poor
thetan who comes into it on a "shouldn't attack", which has the result of
putting attack on automatic.

     There are three states of mind:

          1. Pan-determinism: One can control or attack or whatever, one
             chooses, on one's own choice, on either side of the situation.
             This gets into bad repute when it is confused with shady
             control.

          2. Self-determinism: This carries with it the idea that the other
             side of the group or situation is bad.

          3. Other-determinism: This = nuts.  He is never for himself; he is
             always for the other guy.  In any argument he is "reasonable"; he
             will defend whatever you attack.  He claims to be impartial, but
             he is not; he is for whatever you are against.



                                      220

All kinds of conflicts arise with pan-determinism over how you will continue
it.  People generally don't continue it but slop off into self-determinism.

     Politics is based on the inability to choose a successor.  A benevolent
monarchy is ideal, for example, except for that problem.  Any form of politics
is only necessary because you cannot guarantee that a good successor will
follow a benevolent monarch.  So existing forms of government are all out of
PT, in the future.  A good king would be pan-determined, but people can't
guarantee that if he died they would get another one, so they have to become
Specialists or Fascists or whatever.  When a government can't guarantee that
you won't get a choice of government by civil war, you have an unstable
government.  This is what sank the Roman Empire.  For the next thirteen
hundred years you got the Divine Right of kings, lineal succession, etc.  This
all resulted from the failure of the Roman republic.  This is essentially
asking the G.E. to take over the rule.

     Other-determinism is hard to see because it is a lower scale mockery of
pan-determinism.  This person is never self-determined, always
other-determined.  Such a person is not for himself.  If everybody is against
you, then you must be against you also.  Otherwise you are out of agreement
with the whole universe.

     This is the first level of case that will give you trouble.  Since he is
not for himself, being appealed to to run out his engrams to benefit himself
won't have any effect.  All cases, at various parts of the track, get stuck in
one of these phases.

     Periods of illness demonstrate this phenomenon.  People who are under
heavy attack or heavy responsibility can get into it easily.  A leader in a
war gets other-determined, partly because of overts committed during the war.
The state of mind can differ for different areas of life and different
activities.  Only in the area where a person is consistently other-determined
do you have a persistent somatic.  He is attacking himself, so he can have a
somatic.

     When we get to the point where the whole individual is pan-determined,
self-determined, or other-determined, we have chronic states of sanity.

     A 3DXX terminal can be in one of several different states:

          1. Pan-determined: You won't find it, because it will never have
             hung up.

          2. Self-determined: It will be somewhat troublesome and part of a
             GPM.

          3. Other-determined: It will nearly whip you, because you can never
             help the PC in the vicinity of the other-determined valence.

People are most likely to keep and protect other-determined valences that are
totally against their best interests.  It is difficult to move a person on the
track near one of these because every time you hit them, they survive and the
PC doesn't.  The PC is always the loser.  The PC will get very reasonable
about the terminal; he appears pan-determined and helpful, but he is actually
being other-determined.



                                      221

     It doesn't stop there.  When you get into that area, the terminal will
attack the PC.  This accounts for the self-destructive impulse in Man [Death
wish, as in Freud].  The world operates on the idea that everyone else is on a
kick of self-preservation, but they are not.  Some are on a succumb.  To an
auditor or organization, they look to be executioners.  We only get in trouble
when we refuse to fill the [complementary] role.  The thing to do, when
someone goes around slandering the organization is not to sue him for slander
but to present him with a confession and an award of damages for having
slandered, all legally drawn up.  Present it to him and he will go ahead and
sign it, and you can execute it in court.  The guy has only one enemy:
himself.  If you keep worsening the deal in legal matters, he will eventually
settle up.  In Auditing, don't make the prepcheck questions easier.  Make them
tougher, since the PC will only buy things that make them think they are bad,
succumbing.  A person in this state will make things worse than is actually
true; he will admit to more things than he has actually done, when
prepchecked.  This is the best stuff to audit, since he is nuttiest where he
is other-determined.  He is also hard to audit.  Insofar as he is trying to
succumb, he will convert whatever you give him in the way of help into a
motivator.

     Other-determinism is a successful "sacred-ity".  An other-determined
person has agreed 100% that a certain valence or identity is something that
shouldn't be attacked.  Other-determined valences have, as their least common
denominator, "shouldn't attack" and "must be preserved".  If you wanted to be
perfectly safe in this society, what would you be?  Your answer is a
sacredness item.  Anything that you can't attack becomes an other-determinism,
never a self-determinism.

     To some degree, all 3DXX items are other-determinisms, and the whole GPM
itself is an other-determinism that is seeking to destroy the person who has
got it.  "Sacredity" is a trap.  If you operate on the principle of "Don't
speak evil of the dead; don't attack the dead," you are essentially saying,
"Don't as-is the dead," and what you get is a bank stacked up with the dead.
When you operate on the principle, "Don't be mean to (communicate with) the
sick," you get sick.  This is the result of the idea that sickness is sacred.
Anything sacred is "safe" and mustn't be attacked.  It is very attractive to
become such a thing, and thetans do.

     A valence is a "sacred-ity", a "shouldn't attack", a "shouldn't really
look at", a "shouldn't comm with".  Therefore, you get more and more
other-determinism.  The most sacred of all the PC's items will be the one of
highest other-determinism and the one that is most destructive of the PC's own
self-determinism.  If it can't be attacked, it can't be controlled or reached
(no havingness); it can't be communicated with or defeated.  So it will
completely determine the PC; it will overwhelm him.  It is dangerous.  It is
sacred.

     So that is the key to the GPM.  The person is it, while it destroys him.
It slaps the guy back with somatics every time he puts his head up or tries to
be anything other than this other-determined valence.



                                      222


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=5/4/62
Volnum=1
Issue=129
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-129  As-isness: People Who Can and Can't As-is




6204C05 SHSpec-129  As-isness: People Who Can and Can't As-is

     Things that won't as-is include:

          1. Things you don't know about.

          2. Things you can't communicate with and that can't communicate with
             you.

          3. Things that are not as-ised because there is nothing there to do
             any as-ising.

An operating G.E. doesn't as-is things, so any mechanism that makes nothing
out of the thetan is non-as-isable, A thetan is "nothing" only in regard to
MEST attributes.  It still has abilities.  If you had something that made
nothing of the thetan's ability to look, create, do, cause, etc., there would
be a reverse not-is, where instead of the person not-ising the item, the item
not-ises the the person.  That, of course, is the most dangerous valence.
Religions often have campaigns to get rid of all the evil spirits.  Earlier
religions often admit the existence of non-malignant beings -- spirits like
leprechauns, etc.  When a religion has been totally successful, it manifests
itself in a society where the spirit is totally unknown and there are no
spirits.  Beware of that society.  It is pretty far south.  It is a total
overwhelm of you, the thetan.  The soul is something you take care of (an
other-determinism) which you send off at your demise to some pie-in-the-sky
sanitarium.

     How is this manifested in our present world?  Take the "exact science" of
physics, for example.  The first fundamental of elementary physics is the
conservation of energy and mass.  This is very "reasonable".  We cannot
destroy or create energy, and mass is really energy.  The question is, "How
can you have an expanding universe with a constant amount of energy?" Why is
there no conservation of space?  No wonder physicists go nuts.  They are
dealing with something they can neither create nor destroy, so it is sacred.
However, you are likely to find times on the backtrack when you violated the
conservation of energy.

     If you can't do anything to energy, time becomes inexorable.  Time is a
postulate; it is not monitored by the change in space of particles, but one
becomes aware of time through change of space of particles.  The physicist is
actually just a priest gone mad.  He discovers that the principles he has
sworn to -- conservation of energy, etc. -- are a bit shaky, so he gets to be
like a boy whistling past a graveyard.  This happens when he studies nuclear
physics.  Now he is trying to maintain one set of principles, while
experimenting with a contradictory set.  So it is no wonder that nuclear bombs
are the main threat to civilization: the first thing a fellow who is in the
condition the physicist is in would do is to destroy himself.  He is asking
for an executioner.  We hear of the dedication of science, which means, "All
for science; nothing for me.  No individual should have a right to his own
inventions; patents belong to the university or corporation." The scientist
will accuse the scientologist of maintaining secrecy.

     A person in that condition is defending the sacredness, the
unreachability of the mind.  He thinks that there is nothing there to do the
as-ising.  Therefore, those valences which you have the most trouble running
out are those which deny the existence of the thetan, because then there is no
one there to as-is the valence.  The least as-ising situation is that of being
an object.



                                      223

     When you look over items to run, the E-meter will indicate, not the
toughest to as-is, but the easiest.  After it is run and the individual has
increased his own beingness to the extent of not being what you have just run
out, now he can be assessed again and become aware that he is not quite the
nothing-there valence.  It didn't read before, but now it will register.

     Lots of vegetables and flowers read on the meter.  The more endurance
there is in the plant, the MESTier it is, the less it will register.  The
greater the effort to survive something has, the MESTier it is.  Tomatoes read
more than trees.  So in the early stages of sorting out 3DXX, you will get no
reaction on those things that should be run.  The PC is in the condition of
not-know about them.  They are there, but he isn't there.  This adds up to a
total overwhelm.

     When you start differentiating items and nulling items, the PC starts
feeling that there is some beingness to them.  You at least have the PC in PT,
exterior enough to say, "Yes, somewhere on the track there is a whizzer." Up
to then, he couldn't say a whizzer was on the track because he was a whizzer,
without being there at all.  Until then, all you had was a whizzer, not a
thetan plus a whizzer or inspecting a whizzer.  So assessing and
differentiating these items leaves a person more and more able to inspect and
lessens his identification with MEST, because all these valences are composed
of matter, energy, space, and time, and trapped postulates.  I.e.  GPM's have
trapped postulates in them.  The person doesn't see himself come out of them;
he sees the ideas come alive.  So 3DXX is a gradient scale of bailing someone
nut.

     The items which the PC can't as-is are the ones where there is nothing to
as-is them with.  He is just in them, but not THERE in them.  They just are
and look to him like packages of MEST when he first looks at them.  When you
first encounter them, he is that MEST.  So your approach could be to notice a
doingness he has and to list, "Who or what would oppose that?" From this, he
will get some item, which he sees as an actual identity off his own past
track.  You can find what opposed that, continually getting him more and more
able to observe these identities, hence more and more aware of self, so he can
as-is more.  That is why 3DXX gives constant gain.

     If you are not getting TA action during listing on 3DXX, you are not
there, and they are not there enough to have you there, so nothing is
as-ising.  At this point, you can use CCH's.  Then the beingness of auditor
and PC appear and there can be observation of an identity.  There is an
extreme gradient of case state:

     SOUTH  1. Picking up future items.

            2. Picking up PT items.  CCH's cut in here.

            3. Picking up present life items.

     NORTH  4. Picking up past life items.

CCH's cut the person in on this scale at PT, with the identities of the
auditor and the PC.  The PC gets a higher and higher ability to differentiate
between himself and the auditor.  Op Pro by Dup, run long enough, gets the PC
out of the body and able to observe the body doing the process.  Op Pro by Dup
shows the PC forcefully that he is not an "it".  Exteriorization by some more
sudden process can shock him.  He will go back in, into some other valence or
something.  Blowing him out of his head on an other-determinism is very
unstable.  If you exteriorize someone on your determinism, he won't remember
it or he will invalidate it,



                                      224

because he can't have not being a thing.  3DXX is an exteriorization process
with a very gentle gradient.  The last item to come off is the most sacred,
the one which was him.  It is not something that can be in any way
characterized no described.  It is just "me".

     How does a person get so interiorized?  He asserts that an identity or an
object will react.  That is the clue to all future interiorization.  This is
the first gradient on the overt - motivator sequence: "If you do something,
this paper will react," then, "It will do something to you."


L. Ron Hubbard

