
Type = 3
iDate=17/4/62
Volnum=1
Issue=132
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-132  Auditing




6204C17 SHSpec-132  Auditing

     The best frame of mind for an auditor to have is one of calm competence
and an intention to go on and do his job.  This gives the PC certainty that
the auditor will go on and be effective; this gives the auditor altitude.

     The processes we are counting on today are CCH's and 3DXX.  They take a
case all the way south, and auditors can apply these processes well.  The
first test of a process is, "Can an auditor other than Ron do it?" An auditor
can do any process that does not require of him more adjudication than can be
given him by an E-meter.  If you ask him for further judgment, some will be
able to do it but the majority will not.

     Auditing the CCH's requires that an auditor be able to observe constancy
or change.  Instructors must make sure that students learn how to do this.  An
auditor can be taught to list and to read a meter against a list.  What
requires is instruction of a precise nature.  There is only one right way to
do CCH's, to list, and to null.  Given a high level of competence in these
spheres, dissemination will proceed by leaps and bounds.  You can do these
drills in the absence of a complete understanding of them, though it is better
to have understanding to avoid introducing unnecessary ritual.  Fortunately,
we know why these processes work.

     You've also got to be able to prepcheck so you can audit an ARC breaky PC
who is madly withholding from you.  The least common denominator of ruds is
withholds and the least common denominator of withholds is missed.  Sometimes
you have to find them to get things moving again, to get TA action, etc.

     All of Freud's work and all of the work of faculty psychology is wrapped
up in prepchecking.  With prepchecking, you can find and eradicate childhood
traumas.  We have also wrapped up the work of Freud's squirrels: Jung, Adler,
etc.

     Pavlov wrote a four hundred page manuscript for Stalin on how his data on
animals could be applied to humans.  This has never been brought to light
abroad.  Communism used it to fixate attention on the third dynamic to the
exclusion of all others.

     CAPITALISM:  Capitalism lets you have what you've got if they
                  can't get it away from you.

     SOCIALISM:   Socialism lets you have half of what you already
                  own.

     COMMUNISM:   Communism doesn't let you have anything that
                  you own.  This is a total games condition between the
                  individual and the state.

     Early faculty psychology tried to relieve people of things.  From Pavlov
on, psychology has tried to do things to people.  Therefore, Pavlovian
conditioning would have to be undone with CCH's, since it is an effort to do
things to people, rather than to alleviate things in people.



                                      225

           [Details on difficulties with prepchecking.  LRH states that he is
           taking it out of the lineup.]

     On a sane case on CCH's, if you ever have any trouble getting them to do
the actions, their ruds are very probably out.  Prepchecking missed withholds
will get them in.  You could approach it by doing a white farm and getting off
the withholds that all She reading terminals have missed.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=17/4/62
Volnum=1
Issue=133
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-133  How and Why Auditing Works




6204C17 SHSpec-133  How and Why Auditing Works

     The two-pole nature of the universe has to do with why auditing works.
There is mathematics connected with it, developed by Buckminster Fuller:
Dimaxian Geometry.  This proves that the universe could not exist without two
poles.

     The lowest level of observation is being something.  At this level, you
cannot see something because you are being it.  "Know thyself" has been
introduced as a trap for thetans.  The only way you could know yourself,
seemingly, would be to view yourself.  [But then how could you be yourself?
The very definition of observation appears to involve the communication
formula: duplication.  But how can you duplicate something without an
intervening space between the thing and its duplicate, unless you are as-ising
the thing?  So, unless observation is as-ising, it must involve space and
therefore separateness:]

     The GPM contains in it anything you need to know about the nature of
problems.  Problems are balanced forces in opposition, hung up in time: World
War I, for instance.  In a GPM, the intentions of one kind of beingness oppose
the intentions of another type of beingness exactly equally.  If two sides of
a problem are not equal, they don't hang up because one side overwhelms the
other.  This is a rare situation; hence the fewness of items.  A person has
been many more beings than are in the GPM.  The GPM stays with a person
because of the balanced, timeless quality of it.  There is also free track,
which can contain engrams that can be run out.  The GPM is the unfree track.

     It is really quite unlikely that two valences would balance like that.
They would tend to get unbalanced or wear out.  But GPM's are stuck in PT.
Each GPM has lots of minds in it, each with an accumulation of locks.  If each
valence had two hundred lock items, and a GPM had, say, twenty packages in it,
you would have four thousand minds in the GPM.  The locks can be just as
effective as the items themselves.  The lot of it, plus the free track on both
sides, is the reactive mind.  Running free track unravels a lot, but never
quits explains everything.

     Packages, composed of terminal and oppterm, tend to lock up the rest of
the track.  Other things collide with them.  Right in the middle, you have the
waterbuck and the tiger.  Adjacent is the priest and the vestal virgin, then
there is God and the Devil.  All these oppositions, each pair perfectly
balanced, accumulate to themselves other identities that are hanging around,
and you get collapsed track.

     These are represented in the bank by spherical masses.  Inside each
spherical mass, there are compartments of thought, because the person usually
had a head in which he did his thinking.  So the GPM tends to approximate a
head, with a think-think-think in the middle of it, and it is usually empty.
All through the GPM, there are little compartments with ideas in them, so you
get trapped thought, ideas enclosed by force.  These can be dramatized.  When



                                      226

spherical shapes are counterposed against other spherical shapes, these things
are hung up, one against the other, to such a degree that neither one can go
away.  This is the final material form the GPM takes.

     All this comes down to fixated attention: concentration upon the
oppterm.

     Electronically, no power can be generated until you have two poles, fixed
in separate positions in space.  The mind is composed of energy, which exists
in space and condenses down to masses.  In the reactive mind, there is no
time; all time is now.  We must assume that if we have flows, electrical
masses, current, standing waves, etc., there must be two poles involved.
Otherwise, there would be no flows.  People would never have somatics.

     This has a lot to do with CCH's.  Auditing is effective only in the
presence of at least two poles.  This doesn't mean you can't ever self-audit,
but it does mean that when you do it effectively, you have two poles.

     The PC who never cognites is a bugaboo to auditors.  He is running on one
pole, a pole that has thought in the middle of it and standing energy waves
outside of it.  He is in the thought area, and he keeps running through the
energy.  When he has ideas, they are the ones packaged in that thought zone.
He is being that mass, not viewing it.  He is not viewing another mass,
either.  He is also not viewing the auditor.  He is being something and
observing nothing.  Only if he can observe other things will he make gains,
because then he has another role.  If he is just being that one thing, he will
be unable to change.  It would be

     OK if he could view something, like a glass.  There he would have two
poles.  He could as-is the cigarette lighter.  In this situation, you would
get tons arm action.

     Also, in session, if you can get the PC to look at the auditor, you have
a two-pole situation.  If that isn't happening, you get no change on CCH's.
On 3DXX, you will get TA action as long as the PC can look at the masses in
his mind, giving at least two poles.

     There are two ways CCH's could be run:

         1. Dummox style:  The auditor makes the machinery work to do the
                           process.  This will still produce results in 500
                           hours or so.

         2. Right style:   Get the PC's attention on the auditor and the
                           environment by maintaining 2WC with the PC.  You
                           handle the PC's attention towards his mind by
                           taking every twitch as an origin.  This gets him to
                           look at what he is doing and exteriorizes him from
                           it.  Then you can get change, because he is looking
                           at what he has teen and done and isn't still being
                           it.

     It is a good idea to key out as many masses as you can before starting
3DXX.  You want to key out looks, inverted loops, etc.  You don't want to mess
around with this in 3DXX.  Otherwise, he is always dramatizing these locks and
has PTP's.



                                      227

     When the PC is listing items he has been every one of those items or
raised Hell with them.  In getting him to list, you have made him exteriorize
to some degree from say, five hundred identities.  The one the PC is being in
PT does not discharge because he is being it.  If he wasn't in it, it would
discharge and quit reading.  This is the one that hangs up in time the
hardest.  The oppterm is what he is concentrated on.  Now you have a two-pole
situation right there in the bank, and the two will start to discharge.  The
thing that makes the GPM hard to tie down and makes 3DXX sometimes hard to do,
is that he is obsessively being the internal items and sometimes so slightly
being the initial ones you find, that sometimes the terminal and the oppterm
are widely separated in the GPM.  Early on, commonly, you get a terminal and a
plausible oppterm -- only there are twelve items between before they meet each
other.  When they don't hit square on the nose and go, "Poof!", you have
intervening packages.

     The PC has a no-knowingness of his beingness.  He may think that he is
being a man, but actually he is being a waterbuck and/or a tiger.  Ask Joe why
he is biting his fingernails.  He'll say, "Oh, am I?" He never thinks to ask
himself, "Who or what would bite fingernails?" It is probably to scratch out
waterbucks' eyes!  A person starts worrying about "himselves".  Well, he has
to step back and look.  All processes are exteriorization processes.  Just
exteriorize the PC from different things.  CCH's make PT comfortable enough so
the PC can exteriorize from various parts of the past in which he has been
sitting for trillenia.  CCH's don't go all the way, but the PC sure feels like
they do.

     All the way up from CCH's to 3DXX, you have a two-pole situation, first
with the PC as an object, then on up to the PC being a being, stepping back to
look at a mass.  On Routine 1, we were exteriorizing a somatic.  The PC
exteriorized as a mass.  3DXX exteriorizes people out of past identities.  The
PC hasn't even been in his head for an incalculable period of time.

     If you run CCH's smoothly and correctly, the PC can as-is old facsimiles
and come gradiently out of old bits and pieces of the past.  He goes through a
sequence of exteriorizations.  It shifts the bank and the PC feels better
about PT. When we have him as close to PT as possible, he should move on to
3DXX.  He will come out of masses as a mass, duplicating those identities.

     TA action comes from the PC looking at something, whether or not he is
being something else.  Feelingness is a lower-scale substitute far
lookingness.  "Touchy-feelies" work for that reason.  Knowing this, you could
invent some new CCH's, but these would only be as good as they cause a
two-pole situation to exist in the session.  You must keep directing the PC's
attention to his bank, or else he will never come out of the bank.  For any
"think" process to work, the PC has to be one mass in his mind, looking at
another mass in his mind.  When you have that, you can have TA.  In the CCH's,
the auditor and the environment act as the other pole.  If the auditor audits
CCH's like a steam engine, they will work even then, but more slowly than when
the auditor makes PT OK to the PC.  On CCH's, you must:

          1. Keep PT attractive to the PC.

          2. Do them precisely.

          3. Keep in 2WC.

          4. Keep the PC's attention on what is happening with his somatics.

If you do these things, the PC will just sail on the CCH's.  They are not a
slow process; they are a very fast process.



                                      228

     An instant before a somatic turns on, the PC is being it.  Then, when he
feels it, he is exterior from it, so you are setting up a two-pole situation
in the bank by getting the PC to exteriorize sufficiently to stop being the
somatic and to see it.  In 3DXX, you are finding out what the PC has been and,
when he sees it, he ceases to be it.  3DXX exteriorizes the PC from the past
identities he has been and does this in assessing very fast.  It is like
telephone poles flying past.  He has been in every one of the items he gives
you.  You can actually thus kick a PC out of his bank.

     You will only get TA action as long as the PC is looking at something or
at least feeling something.  No TA action = no two-pole situation = you are
doing something wrong.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=19/4/62
Volnum=1
Issue=134
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-134  Gross Auditing Errors




6204C19 SHSpec-134  Gross Auditing Errors

     If a few sessions go by with no TA Action, one should assume that
something very gross is going on.

     The oddity of scientology is that the textbook solution works, unlike any
other field or previous practice.  In practically every other subject, the guy
on the job is meeting up with situations that aren't covered in the textbook.
Rut in scientology, it is when you depart from the textbook solution that you
get in trouble.  This flies in the teeth of all one's past experience, so you
tend to approach the solution with a little variation and deviation.  Every PC
is individual, and all his originations are different from every other
individual's, but what the auditor does is always the same.  If the auditor
departs from the textbook solutions, he is asking for trouble.  Auditing takes
no imagination to speak of, no unusual solutions, just a good ability to
communicate.

     The best of auditors goof at times.  The commonest mistake is not
realizing that when the PC has said it, it is blown, and taking up all the
PC's answers or origins for further discussion.  Such auditors underestimate
the power of 2WC.  The auditor should assume, especially in ruds, that it has
blown until he tests it on the meter and finds differently.  He should
acknowledge well what the PC says, because that is part of the blow
mechanism.  If the auditor goes on to take it up, it keys the PC in again.
When you acknowledge it, look pleased and relieved that it is all handled.  If
it still reads, give it only as much time and attention as is needed to slip
it out of the way, using same brush-off process.  If you are unlucky enough
not to have the process work, you must have been doing something else.

     By giving a flawless session, the auditor can hold the ruds in.  Anyone
can make goofs, but they shouldn't be frequent, since we want the PC to be
confident.  Confidence is a result of auditor consistency.  Ruds on the
environment will stay in if the auditor is consistent about the auditing
environment.  The PC's confidence drops when you Q and A or act
inconsistently.  The result is difficulty of keeping ruds in.  I.e. lack of
consistency leads to lack of confidence, leads to ruds going nut.  A PC
notices the care that is taken with him.  This aids in building his
confidence.  He gets unconfident if each session is full of surprises and the
auditor keeps changing things around.  If you keep having to use middle ruds,
it is probably something you did during the session.  Even a very nervous PC
can gradually come to realize that the auditor won't permit anything to happen
to him during the session.  He will permit the auditor to be responsible for
the environment.



                                      229

     Checking on those pcs who were getting no TA disclosed the fact that,
while TA doesn't necessarily take place just because ruds are in, if rudiments
are out, TA will not take place.  This means that TA is proportional to the
degree ruds are in, not to the state of the case.  That is monitored by what
is being run on the case, to be sure, so the truth of it depends on the fact
that the right process is being run.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=19/4/62
Volnum=1
Issue=135
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-135  Determining What to Run




6204C19 SHSpec-135  Determining What to Run

[Details about currently used processes, especially prepchecking and 3DXX.]

     The Rock is the first thing the PC had been.

     TA drifts during session don't count as TA motion, e.g., on a Problems
Intensive that you are doing to see whether the TA moves, with a new PC, if
the TA is generally between 4.75 and 5,0, that is not TA motion, to speak of.
Motion is what happens in twenty minutes, and it is up and down.

     The way to get TA when the PC doesn't have much is optimally to alternate
CCH's and prepchecking.  Good CCH's and good prepchecking will be a real
winner.  But even indifferent CCH's and prepchecking will be a winner.  They
should be done in different sessions.

     A person who can't as-is things because he is being it all won't as-is
much on either CCH's or prepchecking, but there will be a small effect.  Note
that the TA he gets while talking to you isn't adjudicative.  It is the TA he
gets while thinking that counts.  If he doesn't get adequate TA during
subjective processes, you will know that it will be difficult to get and keep
ruds in on him.  So he needs CCH's and prepchecks to keep his ruds in.

     If CCH's turn into a wrestling match, the auditor has missed a withhold.
Finish up the session.  Next session, prepcheck with the zero question, "Has a
withhold been missed?" Clean it up, if you can do it in not more than three
sessions.  If it is that sticky, he is having trouble as-ising, but he will
have gotten some missed withholds off, so CCH's can operate again.  When they
are fairly flat, go back to prepchecking, etc.  If in doubt when to switch
over, go by the Auditor's Code [No. 13, Auditor's Code of 1954:  "Always
continue a process as long as it produces change and no longer." See The
Creation of Human Ability, p. 3.] and run the process to no-change, or switch
over when you have gotten a gain on CCH's or on the prepcheck, whichever you
are doing.

     The goal you have is to get the rudiments in, because then you will get
TA.  The PC has out-ruds in life, continually.  If You could get rid of all
the bad feelings he has about his environment and people, you would have done
more than any earlier therapy.  He would also be able to be in session.

     With a PC who is getting no TA, you will bring up his external ruds with
CCH's and his internal "think" ruds with prepchecking.  The combination of the
two acts as an introvert-extrovert action.  Havingness goes down on think
processes [and is remedied on CCH's]

     You should realize that the longer it takes you to get an item, an overt,
or whatever; the longer it takes to accomplish something with auditing, the
harder it gets, because length drifts in the direction of no-auditing.  An
item per month is far less auditing than an item per week.  The longer it
takes, the more ruds go out, and the more violently they go out, the less
chance you have of getting the item.  Ruds are the most out on the least
auditing.  They can go further out in auditing than they ever do in life.
This gives another reason for auditing in the direction of wins for the PC.



                                      230

     Pcs at first set very large-effect session goals, despite the fact that
they can have only very minor effects.  The win has to be real to the PC for
him to know that he has had one, so it has to be consistent with where he is
on the effect scale.  If you keep giving him effects you know he can have, he
will come up by little gradients.  The worse off he is, the longer it will
take to get a win.  Alternating CCH's and prepchecking gives a good chance for
him to start getting wins.  He will then start getting TA, as he gets
confident in his auditor and feels safer in the session environment.  He will
start looking around as he realizes that he doesn't have to be all the things
he is being in order to survive.  He can look at one of them, out of eight
million things he is being.  You will then get some TA.

     Prepchecking had the virtue, as a training process, of giving pcs wins at
the same time as it was giving the auditor lots of familiarity with the
E-meter.

     If the PC fell apart on 3DXX; if he got all messed up and out-ruds, he
could be put back on a CCH's and prepchecking routine.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=26/4/62
Volnum=1
Issue=138
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-138  Professional Attitude;




6204C26 SHSpec-138  Professional Attitude;

     Rundown on Prepchecking

     There are several things that monitor the success of auditing.  One of
these is a professional attitude.  The substance of the professional attitude
is that someone is here to be healed and the auditor is going to heal him,
regardless of the PC's politics, religion, or pace, etc..  The auditor is a
professional who is healing beings who need healing.  It doesn't matter who
the PC is.  This is a very hard-boiled attitude, actually.  An auditor is as
good as he can assume a professional attitude towards the PC in front of him,
regardless of any personal opinions or the PC's opinions, creed, etc.  That
attitude alone has brought the healing professions along through the
trillenia.

     There are splinter groups of healers who may be far more effective than
medical doctors but who don't have a professional code of conduct.  These
practitioners are far less well respected because they are not that
professional or they haven't created a belief in the public that they have a
professional attitude.  This is also why husband-wife teams don't audit each
other well.  There is too much personal concern and too little professional
attitude.

     As an auditor, you will have terrific wins when you realize that a case
is a case, no matter what the PC's body looks like, and when you audit with a
professional attitude.  Having a professional attitude is also necessary
because failure to do so will get in the way of your processing results.  Push
it home and stand by it where the public is concerned, and you will inherit
the world of healing, where other splinter groups have not.  This doesn't
necessarily mean having a particular mockup or appearance.  It just means that
anyone who comes for processing gets audited as himself.  Don't process anyone
because of anything.  Just process him.  This will become a very comfortable
attitude to have in session, one with no additives or personal quirks.  It
will result in Public trust.

     You had also better not be an auditor after the session, or the PC will
tend to continue to be in session after the session is supposed to be over.
Act like an auditor during the session, not before or after.



                                      231

     The public demands only that they be treated by someone who is interested
in them.  If you always do a good job, both technically and professionally,
you will be in good shape.  Technical perfection itself is very impressive.

     Prepchecking is harder to do than Routine 3 processes.  It is the first
test of whether an Auditor knows his business.  Furthermore, if you can't do a
good job prepchecking, you will never do a good job on Routine 3.  There will
always be something missing.

     Don't ever decide what should read and what shouldn't.  Observe.

     Prepchecking gets the PC in session and frees up his attention so he can
be audited.  It can also give fantastic changes and gains, if run
searchingly.  As a total psychotherapy of this lifetime, it completes the work
of Freud and any cathartic-type therapy.  It is therefore very comprehensible
to the public.  It could he used to help someone clean up some troublesome
area.  If you expect too much of prepchecking, however, you will have some
loses.

     The basic thing that has been going wrong in running Routine 3 is that
the auditor doing the process was also trying to do a sec check or ruds
session -- trying to mate an eagle with a shark.  This also accounts for the
fact that people couldn't find goals -- because the ruds were out.  You can't
combine a sec checking or prepchecking session with a Routine 3 session, but a
green auditor will try.  If the auditor starts to give one sort of session but
finds he has to go on to another sort of session, he gets the impression of
loss of control of the PC.  If keeping the PC's ruds in is that big a problem,
he shouldn't be doing Routine 3 processes.  He should be on CCH's.  Prepchecks
also get him used to being Model Sessioned and get him so that he will stay in
session.  You will have enough difficulty with Routine 3 without adding the
difficulty of prepchecking at the same time.

     The whole reason Routine 3 kept being varied and moved around was that
the ruds kept going nut on people, and they weren't able to find items.
Prepchecking is the remedy for that.  It sets the PC up so that when you list,
you can just list and find goals, terminals, and oppterms.  It is luckily also
very interesting to the PC.

     From the viewpoint of auditor training, Routine 3 processes are too hard
on a case to be done wrong.  They can't safely be used as a training
activity.  Prepchecking, though it is harder and has the liability that you
can miss withholds, with devastating results, is a better training activity.

     The theetie-weetie case walks around with the idea that everybody should
know all the time.  This is the perpetual missed withhold case.  He is in bad
shape.  Whenever you ask him a question, you get a missed withhold because you
should have known the answer.  If you ask three questions, you miss three
withholds.  He thinks everyone should know everything he is thinking, so there
is a mass of continuous missed withholds.  Prepchecking will handle it as a
key-out.  On 3DXX, you will come up with an item like "a swami", and then the
circuit ceases.  But these cases are Hell to prepcheck, because they think you
must know if they know, so they "don't have any withholds"; they "have never
done anything".  You have to know this phenomenon so you can straighten it all
out.  That is the hard case to prepcheck, not the sinner.



                                      232

     Prepchecking is not easy, but it is very precise and must be done very
professionally, since your personal reaction and personal interest interjected
into the session ruins the PC's willingness td get off real overts.  He will
only give up "safe" withholds if you have anything but a calm, professional
attitude.  It is also necessary to keep missed withholds cleaned up,
particularly if he gets misemotional on you.  Auditors have a terrible time
getting this through their heads and just pulling the missed withhold.
Prepchecking is easy to do if it is done right.  It makes doing Routine 3
ridiculously easy by comparison, also.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=1/5/62
Volnum=1
Issue=140
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-140  Missed Withholds




6205C01 SHSpec-140  Missed Withholds

     [See HCOB 3May62 "ARC Breaks -- Missed Withholds" for a summary of this
lecture.]

     The toughest thing to do is to get the auditor to ask a simple question:
"Have I missed a withhold on you?" It's utterly wild!  There is even a case of
someone letting someone die rather then saying it.  There is even another way
to say it: "Is there something I should have found out about you?" Auditors'
failure to do this makes LRH feel like he is on an involuntary withhold.  He
feels like he is screaming in a soundproof room.  People will actually let a
PC sit there yapping and screaming, as though they, the auditor, had no
responsibility for what is going on, when all they have to do is to ask for
the missed withhold.

     Missed withholds cause a lot of phenomena.  Even GPM's are caused by
missed withholds!  "It is almost as if the basic principle of existence is:
When existence is good, thou hast not missed a withhold, and when existence is
bad, thou hath missed a withhold....  A missed withhold, properly asked for --
the meter cleaned -- remedies each one of these ... things and many more:"

 1. Pc failing to make progress.  We know now that PTP's stem from
    missed withholds, and they stop progress.

 2. Pc critical of or angry at the Auditor.  A non-withholdy PC won't
    get angry at an Auditor goof.  It doesn't matter whether the auditor was
    guilty as charged (by the PC) or not.  If the PC natters about it, he has
    had a withhold missed.  It is not what is known -- the thing he is
    nattering about -- that is wrong with the PC.  So you dropped his goals
    list into the spittoon.  So what?  If he says, "What the Hell are you
    doing?", he has had a withhold missed earlier in the session.  Don't get
    reasonable about it.  Complaints come from missed withholds.  Get then
    pulled.  Don't develop them; don't follow them, just pull them and get on
    with the session.

 3. Pc refusing to talk to the auditor.  This happens fifteen to twenty
    minutes before the blow.  Refusal to talk is simply the realization that
    one can't, because one isn't being heard.  Failing to acknowledge can
    stick the PC with an involuntary withhold that becomes missed.  You see
    this in prayer.  A guy talking to God is talking to a circuit if God is
    talking back.  Sooner or later the circuit will blow and he will have a
    fantastic missed withhold.  He will get angry at the Catholic Church, or
    whatever, when he suddenly gets no answer to his communication.  One way
    to handle this is to acknowledge the living daylights out of the PC;
    another is to ask if you have missed a withhold.



                                      233

 4. Pc trying to leave session.  This is a reverse flow of screaming at the
    auditor.  You create a missed withhold with every failure to acknowledge
    PC originations or answers.  Eventually the PC will scream at you.  If you
    refuse to receive communication from the PC, you can create an ARC break.

 5. Any needle pattern.  If the needle is active regardless of what you are
    saying or even when you are not talking, the PC has a missed withhold.
    All needle patterns are caused by missed withholds.  [See 6202C15
    SHSpec-145 "New TRs", p. 240, below: "A [needle] pattern is a series of
    missed withholds culminating in a constantly active needle.' It is a dirty
    needle that can be wide or narrow.  You can and should correct such a
    pattern.  Get the ruds back in."]

 6. Pc not desirous of being audited.  This applies to anybody, not just pcs.
    But how could you miss a withhold on a stranger, when you haven't even
    talked to him?  Well, you are the one who is supposed to know, [See p.
    184, above, on what a non-scientologist thinks knowledge is:  knowledge of
    his withholds.] so it is automatic.  If your presence is good enough, you
    can get past all the argument and actually pull the withhold.

 7. Pc boiling off.  Mechanically, this is a stuck flow, but the reason for
    the stuck flow is a missed withhold.  A PC even going a little fuzzy has a
    missed withhold, however minor it may be.

 8. Pc exhausted.  This is caused by a missed withhold, as unlikely as it
    seems.

 9. Pc feeling foggy at session end.  This is like boil-off.  You will get
    little nit-picky missed withholds, like, "I wanted to take a smoke break
    an hour ago and didn't mention it." For this, you can preface the missed
    withhold question with "In this session...".

10. Pc's havingness drops.  A missed withhold is a not-reach, isn't it?
    That's no havingness.  Havingness comes up when missed withholds are
    cleaned up.

11. Pc criticising auditor to others.  Here, we are going out into life.  Even
    if the auditor wasn't perceptive, didn't acknowledge, etc., he has still
    missed his withholds.  We only learned this piece of tech fairly
    recently.  And, by the way, people studying scientology think that every
    time we come out with something new, old things cease to be true, e.g.
    they think, "The ARC scale [See Scientology 0-8, pp. 102 and 103.] went
    out because we have just said that the Effects scale exists." This is not
    true.

12. Pc demanding redress of wrongs.  He is saying that you should audit him
    for free or some such thing.  It doesn't matter if everything he says is
    true.  The solution isn't to be found in court but in missed withholds.
    You can ask,

       "What should the organization have found out about you?"

    to handle this.

13. Pc critical of organizations or people of scientology, or of scientology.
    These things can have enormous effects and yet be trivial, even laudable,
    in and of themselves.  Say a guy donates money to a research foundation
    and finds out that it has been credited to his account



                                      234

    instead.  The foundation has missed a withhold on him right there.  He has
    tried to say something and it hasn't been acknowledged.  He has tried to
    communicate something, and the communication has not occurred.  Every
    question you don't answer becomes a kissed withhold.  Letter registrars
    should be aware of this.  The missed withhold comes from the "They should
    know what I'm thinking.... They should have found out." You can end an
    entheta campaign by sending a detective around to investigate then.  They
    figure you know, and the campaign stops because you have un-missed the
    withhold.  Better out, really find out what as going on and publish the
    truth.  Believe it or not, they won't attack you worse than before.  They
    will leave you alone.  The original attack wasn't based on your overts, no
    matter how many they may have been.  It was based only on the withholds
    missed by you.

14. Lack of auditing results.  This is a cousin to #1, above: no progress.
    Handling this assists organizations immensely.  Cleaning up missed
    withholds gives auditing results, hence new pcs, etc.

15. Dissemination failures.  "What have I failed to find out about you?"
    handles this.

     The trouble is that it is too simple, so auditors miss it.  The missed
withhold extends into virtually every other area of scientology:  TR-4, the
communication formula, not-knowingness, PTP's, havingness, etc.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 2
iDate=2/5/62
Volnum=0
Issue=1
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHTVD-4A  Prepchecking (Auditor: LRH; Pc: Dorothy Broaded) [Demo tape.]




6205C02 SHTVD-4A  Prepchecking (Auditor: LRH; Pc: Dorothy Broaded) [Demo
tape.]


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 2
iDate=2/5/62
Volnum=0
Issue=2
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHTVD-4B  [Above, continued.]




6205C02 SHTVD-4B  [Above, continued.]


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=3/5/62
Volnum=1
Issue=142
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-142  Craftsmanship -- Fundamentals




6205C03 SHSpec-142  Craftsmanship -- Fundamentals

     A session missed withhold is anything the PC thought but didn't tell the
auditor.  That is fins for the session, but in prepchecking, you want meat,
not skim milk.  You want meaningful acts.  It isn't necessarily antisocial or
unmannerly acts like masturbation or nose-picking -- embarrassing acts -- that
you are looking for.  What you are looking for is overts, not just seamy
withholds.  There is a difference.

                          [Comments on the above TVD]

     You can have a chain based on a not-knowingness, even if there is nothing
there to be not-known.  This isn't common.  [Missed withhold of nothing.]

     You never give up on the fundamentals.  When the PC gets nattery, he has
a missed withhold, whether the natter has any basis in reason or not.  Not
many.  You audit by those.  You should get your own reality on this.  It can
be crammed down your throat, but it is better understanding, since a stable
datum fixed in by a confusion and not by understanding isn't available in a
tight spot.  This leads to auditing by being reasonable.  Fundamentals are
meant to be used.  If I tell you something is a fundamental, don't just
believe it is.  Find out if it is or is not in your own universe.  It will be,
but if you never find this out for yourself, You will just keep going on by
rote and ritual.  If you do find this out for yourself, you will not need all
your old stable data or superstitions.



                                      235

     "What I expect of an auditor is to audit the PC that is right there in
front of him by the most fundamental fundamentals that he can command and
understand." He will always get wins that way, and he won't be in a fog about
any of it.  He will be able to evaluate importances in the ritual.

     In prepchecking, your "What" question will often miss the mark by a bit,
because, after all, until you have done the prepcheck, you don't know exactly
what the chain is.  And if it is that unknown to the PC, how could you know
all about it before you found out from the PC?  Besides, all basic incidents
must be unknown at least in part, or the chain would blow.  Auditing by
fundamentals, you know enough about the chain to formulate a "what" question
that will come close enough to get what you need.  As you go earlier, you find
yourself asking about similar things, but not the exact same overt at the
earlier time.  You get a "what" question that describes the incident in
workably general terms and go from there, hoping for the best.  All you have
to null is the incident that you got the "what" question from.

     Prepchecking is not an exact activity.  It depends on the PC in front of
you.  Because it is inexact, you must do it in the framework of total
exactitude that is given in Model Session, TRs, metering -- all your
fundamentals that must be known solidly.  When you have that, you can play by
ear with confidence and results.

     Any craftsman can create the illusion of terrific ease and
offhandedness.  However, the common denominator of all great art is "a great
ability to do a small detail." If one tries to shortcut the ability to do the
details and just does the offhanded action, the result is slop.  An auditor's
tiny details consist of the meter, TRs, Model Session, etc.

     How do you get to be a superb auditor?  By knowing all these small parts
perfectly.  If you find yourself wondering about any one of them, you must
practice, drill to get it straightened out.  You can go over these items and
ask yourself if any of them have been shaky in recent sessions, and work on
what you find.  Don't let embarrassment stop you from finding out [what needs
to be worked on].  Only when you have mastered the detail will you be free to
audit the PC in front of you.  You won't be free to audit the PC in front of
you as long as you are enslaved by "don't knows" among your auditing tools,
because you get a chain of error that mounts in She session, based on the
basic not-knowingness.

     Don't think that you will get results, real, honest-to-God results, if
you are anything less than a master of the craft.  That is the discouraging
point of auditing.  The running of repetitive processes without attention on
the PC, hoping far the best, does make a lot of people well, as does engram
running.  This could get long-time auditors stuck in a win.  But we haven't
had techniques prior to 1962 that reached all cases.  We have them now, but
they require precision auditing, a master's touch.  You have to find out that
the technology we have does give the PC wins.  You find that out by auditing
and seeing the results.  If you know all the parts: TRs, metering, Model
Session, etc., then you can audit by fundamentals with confidence and ease.
There is no more tension.



                                      236


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=3/5/62
Volnum=1
Issue=143
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-143  Prepchecking




6205C03 SHSpec-143  Prepchecking

     Here is how to make prepchecking not work: ignore the PC and omit the
datum that it is easier for a PC to confront a think than a mass.

     A GPM is a thought chamber surrounded by mass.  The PC is perfectly happy
to look at the thought chamber but doesn't like looking at the mass, so he
gets the thought first and confronts the mass an a gradient.  This is why it
is possible to get much deeper into the GPM with a goal than with an item.  He
can confront the goal because it is a thought.  Running Routine-3, we have the
PC confront all the little masses -- the lock items -- first, and then he will
gradually get to where the goal starts showing up toward the end of the list.
The goal ticks because it is surrounded by mass.  Then you list the item and
it appears towards the end of the list.  You went into the GPM on the wings of
thought and you follow through with the ugly burr and buzz of heat, cold and
lightning:  the somatics.  This is like taking a jet plane to Africa.
Eventually, you have to walk.  But in running Routine 3DXX, you travel by
thought only a short distance, using the prehav scale, take the first level
that keeps banging; from then on it is all mass, listing items.

     The PC does the same thing with his withholds and missed withholds.  Pc's
will confront any quantity of thought and ideas.  If the auditor doesn't push
and shove, the PC will go nowhere except on the wings of thought, which don't
really get the PC anyplace.  In 1956, LRH noticed that lots of think-confront
didn't change a graph much, it at all.  By 1959, he had determined that you
had to be able to confront the mass to get anyplace.  The PC is working on
second-hand thought anyway, pulled out of locks in the GPM.  You will be
fooled by such processes as Rising Scale Processing.  In this process, though
the process is pure thought-confront, if the PC made gains it is because he
confronted some mass or changed position in the GPM.  Every now and then, you
do get some results with confronting thought, and because of your own
willingness to go an confronting thought, you buy it as good procedure.  But
it is the rearrangement on mass that really produced the gain.

     It is the same in prepchecking.  Every now and then you will get a good
win by taking thought instead of deeds.  You have to get action to get masses
to move.  The PC can add thinks to his case faster than you can pull them
off.  In a session, there is no doingness going on except thinking, so it is
fine to take thoughts as session missed withholds.  His thoughts in PT cancel
out the "thinks" of past goals, which is why you have to keep ruds in while
listing.  Something in PT is much more important to the PC than something that
happened a billion years ago, even though it is the billion years back stuff
that aberrated him.  But auditing is done in PT, and the PC is always trying
to sell the auditor on the ideas that:

          1. His thinkingness is what is wrong with him.

          2. PT is far more important than anything the auditor is trying to
             go into.

The auditor must not Q and A with his own human agreement with this.  He must
have certainty that the longer ago it happened, the more effect it had on the
PC's aberrated state, and that doingness and havingness are more important
than thinkingness.



                                      237

     You clear up ruds as close to PT as possible, and you prepcheck as far
from PT as possible.  Given the goal of each procedure, that is the most
effective thing to do.  You don't have the time or inclination to clear up
ruds on the whole track, because you are handling the whole track with beefier
processes.  Just because you can do something in ruds by pulling thinks, don't
be fooled into supposing that running think will get you anywhere in
prepchecking.  In prepchecking, you have to get dones.  There is a basic
difference on importances between the auditor and the PC, concerning the
location of the charge.  In prepchecking, you cannot let the PC direct the
questioning.  He will stay close to PT and in think.  If you don't have good
auditor control, good prepchecking is impossible.  You can key things out by
shallow looks.  This is fins for ruds, but you don't get any resurgence to
speak of, no permanent change.

     If the PC is thinking about it now, he did it then.  You must operate on
the basis that the chain is long and has a basic that is unknown to the PC.
All this is available to you by taking locks off the top and going back, under
good auditor control of the PC.  You only get charge off later incidents to
the point where the PC can see earlier.  The chain the auditor is getting the
PC to go down has no R for the PC because he has no C with its further
reaches.  The withhold system [Steps 2, 3, 4, and 5 of prepchecking:  when,
all, appear, and who.  See p. 186, above, and see HCOB 21Mar62 "Prepchecking
Data -- When to Do a What" for more current procedure.] takes the charge off
each incident; brings the incident to View so that he can as-is it and then go
earlier.  He will go earlier.  God help you if you go into the GPM with this,
but persevere.  Find an incident that happened earlier.  Memory is occluded by
the most recent overt on the chain.  Recovering memory of who one was in one's
last life has virtually no therapeutic value, though it is very interesting to
the PC and gives some resurgence.

     You are prepchecking chains of similar incidents.  The charge is built up
out of the first unknown.  In Routine 3, you are dealing with packages of
engrams called identities, so Routine 3 deals with whole lives of engrams all
in a bundle, leading to the GPM.  Prepchecking deals with chains of incidents,
and when you get the earliest unknown, the whole chain will blow.  The PC will
know where things come from and will feel better.

     The permanent gains you can expect from adroit prepchecking are:

          1. The PC understands his case better.

          2. He sees where things come from.

          3. He feels better about life, people, and the environment around
             him.

Buy prepchecking doesn't solve the whole case, from one end to the other.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=15/5/62
Volnum=1
Issue=144
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-144 New Training Sections




6205C15 SHSpec-144 New Training Sections

     [See HCOPL's 3May62 "Practical Auditing Skills"; 14May62 "Training
Sections"; -- Issue II "Training -- Classes of Auditors".]

     A new thing has happened since the start of teaching the Briefing Course
a year ago: a new training pattern, laid down in the academies.  No new course
materials have been added, but a practical section has been added to get
people to confront doingness as well as thought.  Data is very important, but
its



                                      238

application in doingness is harder to confront, so we are putting in a
practical section to make sure that correct application occurs.  Practical has
always been there in the Comm Course and Upper Indocs.  This adds practical to
the actual auditing, along with added TR's, etc.

     You could learn a great deal about the mind and reactions of pcs if your
technical procedure was perfect.  Your understanding of the mind at present is
blurred by the lack of an absolutely

perfect application of scientology to the PC, because of distractions entered
in by imperfect auditing.  One stable datum is: when confronted by the
unusual, do the usual.  Every PC thinks his case is different from everyone
elses.  Actually, he is a thetan and he is here.  His case operates like
everybody else's, as far as fundamentals go.  The PC will give you a sales
talk on his unusuality, on all his differences.  It is his privilege to come
up with unusuals, non-duplicates of everyone else.  Of course he will, with
the bank he has got.  The moment the auditor buys the PC's unusualness, he is
teamed up with the reactive mind, and the bank + the auditor process the PC
thenceforth.

     If your application of auditing is wild and variable and everything looks
all different to you, you will get wild ideas about the human mind.  No one
could be blamed for varying procedure if they didn't know that standard
auditing exists.  This is now know.  Everything a PC can do has a standard
auditor response that handles it.  It is the fact that these auditor responses
do work in all cases that makes them standard responses.

     Universities sometimes have courses where the subject is hidden.  The
students are there, the professor is there, but the course is double talk.
There is no real subject, e.g.  Art Appreciation, Music Appreciation, Domestic
Relations.  People confuse education with thinkingness.  You can go through
school without ever understanding anything.  Furthermore, early classroom
training is all data, no practical.  So giving doingness along with theory
tends to break up the automaticity that equates education with total think.
Education has become a huge practical joke.

     Theory + practical + auditing gives two thirds doingness and one third
think.  That is about what it takes.  There would be a new TR for each new
activity.  The result will be very smooth, effortless auditing.  There will be
no uncertainties because the auditor knows the correct cause for every PC
response and the proper response for very PC action.  This means that there is
no need or place for cleverness in handing a PC, only standardness in handling
pcs.

     There are certain stable data in the theory.  If you didn't have these,
you wouldn't know where you were going or why.  These stable data are the
fundamental things.  There are certain practical actions that you must be able
to do and a few auditing skills to be used in auditing processes.  These
things can be organized to go together and to complement each other to some
degree.  [See HCOB 3May62 "Practical Auditing Skills" for a summary of
practical auditing skills.] i.e. the student should learn:

     1. The basic, fundamental precepts; a few bits of inescapable theory.

     2. Certain basic practical actions basic to auditing.

     3. Auditing skills that are relatively easy to do.

These three will be tied up together so that they complement each other.



                                      239

     Class Ia processes include op Pro by Dup, SCS, and assists.  Op Pro by
Dup was originally invented solely as a training process for auditors to teach
them that duplication wouldn't kill them.  It enabled auditors to give
repetitive commands without alter-ising, so instead of asking, "Do birds
fly?", the auditor won't go off and ask, "Are our feathered friends airborne?"
It gets rid of obsessive change.

     SCS runs out bad control.  People must have been miscontrolled [to object
to control] .  But the auditor must control the PC or he fails utterly.
Control and duplication are the roughest hurdles for an auditor to get over.
[Student auditors] should both give and receive Op Pro by Dup and SCS as a
first action.  [See HCOB 14May62 "Case Repair" for more data on Op Pro by Dup
and SCS.]

     Assists are the other basic auditing action to teach beginning auditors.
They can give spectacular results.

     All these processes teach body mauling, which is a good thing, now that
upper indocs are removed because they lead people to misrun CCH's.  And none
of these processes goof up the PC if done wrong.  They all repair themselves
if they are done right to repair the wrongly done process, unlike engram
running, for instance, which is not self-correcting.  These three processes
constitute Class Ia.

     Class Ib is ARC S/W in model session plus havingness.  This is a sit down
process that gives verbal repetitive think processing.  It will occasionally
make someone sane who didn't know he was nuts, and it gives the auditor
reality on banks and time-tracks, as he sees the PC cycle in time.  You can
run it positively and negatively, which handles someone who winds up in agony
when you try to run pleasure moments.  This process has tremendous
horsepower.

     Class IIa is prepchecks and CCH's.  Prepchecks at this level are
preferably done by Forms 3 and 6a.  [Form 3: HCOPL 22Mar61 "The Only Valid Sec
Check" -- for new students = the Joburg.  Form 6a: HCOPL 3Feb62 "Auditor
Processing Check" -- A shortened form of Form 6, for students who have done a
fair amount of auditing.  Form 6: HCOPL 7Ju161 "Processing Sec Check".] Here
the case would start to get good case advances.

     [Class IIb is where the student acquires a complete command of the
fundamentals of sessions and E-meters at an advanced level, including all
meter and needle phenomena and all elements and ruds of model session.  See
HCOPL 14May62 Issue 2 "Training -- Classes of Auditors".  Classes IIc and IId
include a complete mastery of all this-lifetime processes, as well as very
advanced general auditing skill.]

     At Class IIIa, you have havingness, getting ruds in, dynamic assessment,
prehav assessment, problems intensive, and any kind of assessment you could
dream up.  None of it has therapeutic value except havingness and lots of
ruds.  To get someone up to doing Routine 3 processes without doing any 3DXX,
he would have to do assessments of some kind.  That is a bit of a puzzle at
present, but you could do assessment by elimination on a problems intensive,
for instance.

     At Class IIIb, the student would do Goals Assessment.

     [At Class IIIc, the student audits Routine 3 processes with skill.  See
HCOPL 14May62 Issue 2, as above.  Also see this P/L for the theory and
practical requirements for each class.]



                                      240


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=15/5/62
Volnum=1
Issue=145
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-145  New TR's




6205C15 SHSpec-145  New TR's

     Above TR-4, there is a TR which is auditor query.  This is the 2WC TR for
CCH's and Model Session.  In CCH's, the PC's physical reaction is considered
to be an origination.  The auditor asks, "What happened just then?" Pc:
"What?" Auditor: "That jerk of your head, just then." Pc: "Oh.  I had a
somatic." Auditor: "Thank you." This is the only communication used in the
CCH's!  If the PC originates something verbally, you acknowledge it per TR-4
and go on.  Do not indulge in any extensive 2WC on the PC's answer to your
query.  You ask the 2WC question at the end of a command cycle.  This prevents
him from taking control of the session, though by the end of the command
cycle, he will frequently have forgotten what it was.  This form of 2WC is
intended only to exteriorize the PC from a somatic by getting him to look at
it.  If his answer, when you ask, "What happened?", doesn't pertain to the
physical change you noticed, you can ask, "What happened with your shoulder?",
etc.  Otherwise the PC can grind on and never notice what he is doing.  It is
allowable to encourage him a bit, e.g.  by Asking "How is it going?", as
needed, but this should only be done rarely.

     There are E-meter drills to teach auditors to recognize body motion and
PC "sell".  Pcs will try to make items appear to read, or to make ruds look
clean by gradually loosening their can grip.

     Learn to set up the meter smoothly and quietly so that you don't distract
the PC.  Needle pattern reading is rather new.  "A [needle] pattern is a
series of missed withholds culminating in a constantly active needle." It is a
dirty needle that can be wide or narrow.  You can and should correct such a
pattern.  Get the ruds back in.  If you get a dirty needle on calling a goal,
you need to know that the goal isn't in.  It is kicking because there is a
missed withhold connected with it.  Goals and items can be held in and made to
look like goals and items by suppressions, invalidations, and missed
withholds.  If you are good at it, you can tell whether a PC has a missed
withhold or an invalidation by the needle pattern.  You can and should correct
the needle pattern to keep the PC's ruds in so that you can do Routine 3.
Needle patterns vary from little "buzzt" patterns (not just a tick) [to larger
patterns].  It is rare to find one on a goal or item, but it causes trouble if
it is there, so clean up the missed withhold.  Inval reads with a tick.  The
dirty needle has given Routine 3 more trouble than anything else.

     There is a TR for testing for a clean needle, described in an HCOB of
recent date.  It asks if something is free [i.e.  clean on the needle] and
then repeats the same action.  This applies to all auditing.  You go out by
the same door you came in.  In other words, when leaving an item, you must
check it for cleanness by using exactly the same phrase you originally used
when starting to run the item.  If you ask, "Has this goal been invalidated?",
don't leave it with, "Are there any more invalidations on this goal?" That is
a different question and you don't know if the first one cleared.  So this
applies to all metered questions.  And if you are checking something, tell the
PC that that is what you are doing.

     The best PTP process is the responsibility process ["What part of that
problem could you be responsible for?", possibly?].



                                      241

     Q and A with the PC ranges from doing what the PC says to worrying about
what the PC was worried about.  Q and A tempters could be done as a drill to
teach the student to just clear his original question.  Holding up against PC
suggestions is also an anti Q and A drill.  "Holding a constant against
adversity is learning to answer with the usual when the unusual is being
demanded of you."


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=17/5/62
Volnum=1
Issue=146
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-146  Auditing Errors




6205C17 SHSpec-146  Auditing Errors

     There are two types of auditing activity in which you engage:

          1. Rudiments type of activity.  You are trying to straighten
             something out right now, not to dig something up.  Done against
             the needle.

          2. Auditing activity.  Done against the tone arm.  Long, wide sweeps
             of the needle may count as TA motion.  Here you are trying to dig
             something up.

You have to get good at sliding from one type of activity to the other.  Say
the PC suddenly declares that the list is complete.  You have to shift fast to
middle ruds and check for missed withholds.  There are also negative middle
ruds, e.g., "In this session, have you tried not to withhold anything?" or "In
this session, have you tried not to invalidate anything?  Suppress anything?",
etc.  There are two reasons why your PC keeps picking up more and more missed
withholds.  One is that you have missed a withhold and the other is that the
PC is strenuously and attentively keeping his ruds in, running the session,
And being very careful not to withhold, etc.  It doesn't matter what you use
as a middle rudiment.  It could be an end-type rud [half-truths, untruths,
etc.] or whatever seems to be needed to keep the body of the session going.
The faster you get the rud in, the better.  You are not looking for more than
a clean needle, even if it only stays clean for ten seconds.  If you want a
rudiment to stay in, you get your session ruds in and use the body of the
session to prepcheck a particular rudiment so it will stay cleaned up.

     You can drive yourself and the PC nuts by not acknowledging everything
the PC says in answer to your questions, even if what the PC says doesn't
actually answer up.  You have to be clever in prepchecking to probe around and
actually help the PC to find out things he didn't know about.  It is possible
that there will be no chain and that the overt will blow after he tells it to
you.

     When you are doing rudiments, don't go into a process to handle an
out-rud until you have given it several chances to blow by inspection.  If you
do run a process, get in and out fast; treat it as lightly as possible.  The
best ruds process is the one that gets the ruds in fastest.  Time spent on
ruds is time robbed from the session, so don't get started handling ruds [if
you can avoid it].  Just dust them off.  Pc's will obligingly get rid of
things that you don't seem to think are very important.  When you are in the
body of a prepcheck, you want to give some importance to the overts you are
searching for.  By apparently taking responsibility for the PC's overts, just
to the degree of being very interested and thorough about getting them, you
throw an element of responsibility into the session, and the PC will come up
with more data.



                                      242


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=17/5/62
Volnum=1
Issue=147
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-147  Prepchecking




6205C17 SHSpec-147  Prepchecking

     A rudiment is that which is used to get the PC in shape to be audited in
that session.  The body of a prepcheck session has the purpose of letting the
PC live in that lifetime.  You are after duration, so you have to have
thoroughness.  A rudiment has to be clean, but not permanent.  The processes
you are using are insufficiently fundamental to do a permanent job.  End
rudiments are simply to get the PC back to the world of the living and
smoothly out of that session.  Middle ruds are even more evanescent.  In the
body of a prepcheck session, we are going to do something that will change the
PC's attitude towards living and improve his ability to confront life in this
lifetime.  So we will do anything we can to straighten out some point that is
askew in his attitude.

     What is an overt?  All things are contained in the concept of
interiorization into and exteriorization from.  There is no beingness in this
universe that is bad; there is also none that is absolutely good.  But there
is a badness and a goodness about beingnesses, and that is an individual's
ability to interiorize into or be something or exteriorize out of and not be
something.  When an individual no longer has power of choice over that fact,
he can be considered to be aberrated on that point.  There are vias by which
you enter a certain beingness, steps of becoming that beingness.  There can be
degrees of freedom of choice about entering or leaving something.  For
instance, there is a difference between the position of a career officer and
the drafted private, or a slave.  War and slavery reduce power of choice.
That is what people object to in them, not the blood and gore.  After all, no
one really campaigns against highway deaths, which are greater than the total
World War I toll.  Not to mention racing deaths.  You can almost evaluate
practices and beingnesses relative to people's power of choice over being them
or not being them.  Where an individual has a high degree of freedom, we find
a fairly high-scale activity.

     There is another activity going on reactively beneath this, a cycle of
beingness - not-beingness - beingness.  See Fig. 9 The PC has decided to be
something.  Then, for some reason, he has found that he can't un-be this thing
easily, so he uses a mechanism of committing overts against this thing in
order to cease to be it.  He commits these overts and withholds himself from
this beingness on a repetitive cycle, and his overts will get worse and worse,
and his effort not to be it will become more and more violent, until he
stretches out to a maximum distance.  After reaching that point, he will still
commit overts against it, but every new overt and withhold will bring him
closer to becoming the thing again.  This is grim.

     So he has a beingness, tries to postulate himself out of it, and for some
reason it doesn't work.  Then he will commit overts against that beingness and
that type of beingness.  He will think he is really separating himself from
it, to a midpoint, after which every overt and withhold brings him closer to a
totally enforced beingness which is a complete overwhelm.  Now he doesn't even
think he has ever tried to un-be it.  All knowingness on the subject of
un-being it vanishes as well.  He becomes it on an inversion.  That is what is
the matter with overts, and that is what a thetan is trying to do with overts:
he is trying to un-be.



                                      242a

                                    FIGURE 9

                        THE CYCLE OF ENFORCED BEINGNESS

1.  An individual assumes a beingness.

2.  He doesn't want to be it any more.

3.  He tries to postulate himself out of it.

4.  He fails to postulate himself out of it.

5.  He tries to un-be it by committing overts.

6.  He withholds himself from it.

7.  He alternates overting and withholding, escalating up to a point of
    maximum separation.

8.  Continued overts and withholds bring him closer to the beingness again.

9.  He goes into total overwhelm and becomes the beingness enforcedly, on an
    inversion.

10. All knowingness on the subject of un-being it vanishes.  He doesn't even
    think that he has ever tried to un-be it.



                                      243

     This cycle takes place on all dynamics.  On the second dynamic, it is
very apparent.  Overts and the feeling of being unable to get out are very
apparent in this area.  Similarly, on the third dynamic, one can try to
individuate from a group to the point where one is being a group and damning
all individuals, as in Communism, which results from an overwhelm by the
group.  Back down the track, somebody has been a god.  One day he decides to
stop being it, commits overts, becomes it enforcedly, and then one day you
will find that it is a terminal.  Spiritualists are obsessively being
spirits.  However, the spirits they are being are other than themselves.

     So in [handling O/W with] prepchecking, you are working with the
mechanisms that bring about a Routine 3 bank.  Remember that if the individual
is being any one of the items you get in Routine 3, he was it, then wanted not
to be it and couldn't un-be it and started using the O/W mechanism to separate
himself from it, and ended up getting into it obsessively.

     Because that cycle takes place in this lifetime, note that the PC has a
certain beingness and connections with all dynamics.  The item you are trying
to handle is his current identity.  If you held the PC to this lifetime in the
prepcheck, you might well recover material that would otherwise be lost to
this identity.  Going backtrack in prepchecking would just be handling free
track in other identities; this might be better handled with Routine 3.  Most
of the chains can be dead-ended in this lifetime, though not all.  This
lifetime is not a pure identity.  It is colored by beingnesses he has had in
the past.

     In order to straighten out this lifetime, you must be pretty good, and
you can't be superficial.  You will get nowhere taking nothing but the PC's
criticism of someone, since criticism is just the last shadow, the total
defeat.  He can no longer be this thing, he can only criticize.  If he is so
unhappy being it, what did he do to it, to make it such an unhappy thing to
be?  "Getting overts" is the mechanical statement.  What your goal is, is to
find out how he, Joe Doakes, made Mary Lou such a miserable person to be,
because obviously he was being Mary Lou, in this lifetime.  He has been every
one of the eight dynamics in this lifetime, to some degree.  He will discuss
them all with you.  If you unplowed him from the one he was trying most
obsessively not to be, he would be free to be it, and it would blow off in
smoke.  You would have returned to the individual his power of choice of
beingness.  [Hence the PTS rundown question, "Who would you really hate to
be?"]

     If you can return to the individual his power of choice of beingness, you
will get a tremendous resurgence on the case.  You could go at it this
crudely: "Who haven't you liked recently?" You get a reading terminal.  You
are trying to solve, "How did you make _______ a horrible thing to be?"
Another way to put it is, "What have you done to _______ ?" It must be a
chain, because you have to get to the first part of the cycle.  As you run
this, his opinion of the terminal will change.  He will stop being unwilling
to be it, and there is now a sector of existence from which he is not
retreating, so his reachingness into it is improved.  His doingness in that
sector can occur because his beingness of that sector has been reoriented.
You can't reach into or affect any area from which you are retreating.  Also,
a person will not do anything that a certain beingness can do, when the person
cannot be that beingness.



                                      244

     So you could find the this-lifetime person who could do the things that
the PC wishes he could do, run off his overts on that person, and at the
least, the PC's worry about not being able to do those things will cease.
Perhaps he will now even be able to do the thing.  I.e. you could ask, "What
do you wish you could have done?" "Who could do that?"  Then run O/W.  Or you
could ask, "Who couldn't walk?  Who couldn't go anyplace?  Who was a terrific
runner?  Who went everywhere?, etc." Aunt Chrysalis was crippled.  The PC
wanted to kill her.  He gets into being Aunt Chrysalis.

     Prepchecking will at least improve the PC's condition, even though his
whole track needs to be straightened out.  You do need to get actual overts,
not thinks about what he would like to do or wanted to do.  That only tells
you that he has been wanting not to be whoever the thoughts are about.
Thinking about something is an harmonic of wishing.  Someone who tells you
that he has had unkind thoughts about his father is just telling you he wishes
he weren't his father.  Getting off these unkind thoughts is not therapeutic.
To spring him out of his enforced beingness, you must break up the system that
got him there.  You must get at the O/W's that he has been using in order not
to be his father.  Criticism = a wish not to be = disagreement.  Disagreement
is what the meter reads on.  If one is willing to be something, that thing
won't read on a meter.  What the PC is trying hardest not to be is what he has
done the most to.  Also the identities he is totally overwhelmed by won't
read.  You will get no change as long as you take his thoughts and
already-knowns and criticisms.  That is what he has been telling everybody for
years, with no change.  The PC has to cease to fight being it and get to where
he can comfortable become it, at which point he will cease to be it.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=22/5/62
Volnum=1
Issue=151
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-151  Missed Withholds




6205C22 SHSpec-151  Missed Withholds

     Q and A is really Q an A. Some of the forms of Q and A are:

          1. Double questioning.  Auditor questions the PC's answer.

          2. Changing because the PC changes.  You are questioning the fact
             that he is changing.

          3. Following the PC's instructions.  That is a Q an A of Hubbard.
             You are questioning his answers, by assuming that the PC knows
             more about his case than you, the auditor, do.

     The auditor must stay at cause over the session and put the PC at cause
over his case.  If the auditor doesn't make the PC confront, the PC will obey
his bank, which says, "Don't confront."

     A full cycle of action must exist with an auditing command.  This puts a
tremendous responsibility on the auditor to ask the right question.  So there
can be two mistakes:

          1. A wrong auditing question, like "What should we run on you
             today?" or "Have you had a motivator lately?"

          2. A failure to let an auditing cycle complete itself.

     You can get in trouble by asking, "Have I missed a withhold on you?",
because the PC can give a motivator response.  This throws end-ruds out [The
first end-rudiment question is, "Have you told me any half-truth, untruth, or
said something only to impress me or tried to damage anyone, in this session?"
See HCOB 21Dec61 "Model Session Script, Revised".], which puts the PC out of
session.  Then you have to question the PC's answer to handle



                                      245

the situation.  So don't ask an ambiguous question.  Ask the type of question
that makes a Q and A very unlikely.  A perfect question is one that produces
an answer that doesn't have to be questioned, since, if you question his
answer, he will feel unacknowledged; he will feel he can't talk to you and
will go out of session.  Even, "Do you have an ARC break?" is imperfect, since
if he says, "Yes," the non Q and A response is only an acknowledgement, not,
"What is it?"

     An auditor who changes when the PC changes is demonstrating so much
impatience to produce an immediate effect that he will never give anything a
chance to get completed.  He lacks confidence in "the usual" working, often
because he is unaware of what "the usual" is.  He will easily go off into
extraordinary solutions because he lacks confidence in the ordinary solutions,
because he has never done it.  Sometimes auditors Q and A because the PC gets
nasty and furious and they back out.

     The commonest form of Q and A, however, is failure to acknowledge the
PC's answer because one is questioning it.  This can cause a PC to react
furiously or, eventually, to go into apathy, as an extreme response to being
made to feel that he is having withholds missed.  Before this point, there is
a twilight zone of semi-out-of sessionness, where all the rest of the ruds
keep flying out as a result of occasional non-acknowledgement or wrong
questions.

     If you ask an auditing question like, "Do you have a PTP?" and get an
inadequate answer, you can meter check it.  If it still reads, don't just keep
asking the same question.  Ask something that will be answerable without
producing Q and A.

     When a PC drifts out of session, he is drifting on his feeling that he is
unable to communicate with the auditor.  The way to throw him out permanently
is to punish him for getting off withholds and to make him feel that he will
never be able to communicate his withholds to the auditor.  The auditor
doesn't have to be sweet and nice.  He does have to get his auditing questions
answered.  Permitting the PC to answer something else also throws end-ruds out
and makes the PC feel the auditor didn't hear him, since he knows (really)
when he is really answered.

     You must ask a question that can be answered and get that question
answered.  If you do that smoothly, pcs will do almost anything for you.  When
you see a session running off the rails, don't look at the PC as a peculiar
ape and don't develop a good Communistic self-criticism.  Just look at the
questions you are asking in session, ask yourself if they are answerable by
the PC and if you are accepting the PC's answers.  If you are doing these
things right, it must be the PC's environment that is caving him in.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 2
iDate=23/5/62
Volnum=0
Issue=6
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHTVD-6 Check on "What" Question + Havingness Probe




6205C23 SHTVD-6 Check on "What" Question + Havingness Probe

           [Demo tape of finding havingness, mainly.  Same as MTS-4]


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 2
iDate=23/5/62
Volnum=0
Issue=7
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHTVD-7 Fish and Fumble -- Checking Dirty Needles




6205C23 SHTVD-7 Fish and Fumble -- Checking Dirty Needles

     [Demo tape of cleaning a dirty needle with fish and fumble.  Some
prepchecking.  Same as MTS-5]



                                      246


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=24/5/62
Volnum=1
Issue=148
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-148  E-meter Data -- Instant Reads (I)




6205C24 SHSpec-148  E-meter Data -- Instant Reads (I)

     If a PC has a stuck picture, don't try to run it.  Get the session where
it was found and get the missed withhold off that session.

     LRH has a simple plan: use the E-meter.  We had a breakdown in 1961,
where everybody was misreading meters; now it is happening again.  [See
pp.145-6 for a discussion of observing the needle.] Auditors are ignoring
reads on ruds questions and auditing over out-ruds.  They are not seeing
instant reads, for some reason.

     The Ford Foundation was founded the same day as the Hubbard Research
Foundation, and for the same purpose: to find out about life.  However, their
idea of "scientific research" is looking on a via through symbols.  In
contrast, when LRH observed the generally crummy appearance of students a few
weeks ago, he looked for the reason without presuming what he would find.
This is a good way to do research.  He found out that if ruds were out, there
would be no TA, so he had old prepchecks cleaned.  [See p. 229, above.]

     People thought the meter wasn't reacting because the auditor's TR-1 was
out.  However, that was not the reason.  Auditors just failed to see reactions
that were there.  If, with modern processes, the PC isn't looking better and
doing better, someone isn't reading the meter.  An auditor can get into not
reading the meter by invalidating the meter.  This comes about because he has
been audited by someone who missed reads on him, which caused him to lose
confidence in the meter.  He feels, "It should have read on me and it didn't
read (This is a lie and hangs up like any other lie.).  If it had read, the
auditor would have seen it, so the meter doesn't work, so I won't pay
attention to it when I'm auditing." This needn't happen a lot.  Meters get
invalidated.  The inval of the missed read gets suppressed.  It hangs up and
builds a whole chain.  You clean it up by prepchecking, "Has any auditor
failed to find a meter read on you that you thought should have reacted?" That
gets the unknowns out of it.  It has unknowns in it because it occurred in
mid-session when the PC's attention was on something else.

     The mechanism of enchantment is similar to this.  It could work something
like this: At a time when thetans could mock up their own bodies, one thetan
could put in a command phrase on another thetan in the middle of subjecting
him to a severe secondary or engram.  The command phrase could be, "You are
now a deer," and the enchantee would cease to mock up the prince, or whatever
he was mocking up and mock up a deer, and he would be an enchanted deer.

     So you lay in an inval of the meter; at a time when the PC's attention is
on his withholds or something, he gets a further withhold on top of it.
Thereafter, he distrusts meters and can't read them.  It would take more than
that motivator, however.  It would take some overt that is actually a
motivator also.

     The PC is at the auditor's mercy, being out of PT, etc.  You have to
audit in a way that doesn't impede the PC from going clear.  You avoid
restimulation of the GPM until the PC is ready to go clear and you can then
blow the GPM to bits.  Auditing roughly can create inadvertent implants.



                                      247

     Incomprehensible people are people who wouldn't want your goal.  [See p.
259].  The individual's goal line is important.  Things that cross against his
goal to get clear are all auditing errors.  Smooth auditing is designed not to
bat his goal back; not to impede him.  Making him think the meter doesn't work
is very upsetting to him, even if analytically he is relieved not to have been
found out.  Of course, once the PC is utterly ARC broken, the meter doesn't
read.

     So the auditor can get to the point where he doesn't see or believe the
reads that he gets.  You can get random reads on the words in the question or
on some stray thought, but if you recheck it, it drops out or at least doesn't
appear in the same place.  An instant read is instant; it is not contained in
the body of the question.  Those are prior reads.  The lag in an instant read
is essentially nonexistent.

     The auditor is actually talking to a thought in the bank.  Auditors often
mistakenly think the PC can analytically influence the meter, but he can't.
The PC can't even influence the meter on a via, as an instant read.  He can do
it by thinking of something that he knows there is unknownness about, but in
this case, the read will be latent.  Since there is no time in the reactive
mind, only nowness, you get instant reads from the reactive mind.
Furthermore, the PC doesn't know what produced the instant read; at least he
doesn't know all about it, or it wouldn't read.  A reading item contains
unknowns.  The reactive mind is a cauldron of unknowns that always exist in
Now.  "Consistency of [needle] action is determined by consistency of unknown
and its immediacy in PT."

     So use the questions in HCOB 23May62 ["Very Important:  E-Meter Reads --
Prepchecking: How Meters Get invalidated" This contains questions about
invalidation of meter reads, both from the point of being an auditor and from
the point of view of being a PC.]   to clean up meter inval.  It is important
to get this straightened out for the sake of pcs.  If you see the PC's instant
embarrassment, it is as good as an instant meter read.  You do have to
observe, however, and it is tough to get people to to this.

     [Note: LRH first mentions Routine 3GA at the end of this tape.  Routine
3DXX is mentioned in the confidential tape: 6204C26 SHSpec-139 "Rundown on
Routine 3:  Routine 3DXX".  Routine 3G is mentioned in 6205C01 SHSpec-141
"Routine 3-G" This is Routine 3 employing goals.  It is possible that the
tape, 6206C12 SHSpec-160 "How to Do Goals Assessment", contains the basic data
about Routine 3GA and that Routine 3GA means Routine 3 Goals Assessment.
Routine 3GA is also mentioned in several other SHSBC tapes.  6206C19
SHSpec-158 "Do's and Don'ts of R3GA", and SHSpec-176, 177, 178, 180, 181, all
appear to contain basic data on Routine 3GA. See also pp. 259-262, below.
Above tapes are confidential.]


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=24/5/62
Volnum=1
Issue=149
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-149  E-meter Data -- Instant Reads (II)




6205C24 SHSpec-149  E-meter Data -- Instant Reads (II)

     People can get into more complications by figuring instead of looking!
Look, don't think.  You can lose data if you are just being given a lot of
unweighted data, so that you cannot see importances and align them.  The
"good" or useful data or important data get lost among the rest.  Data are not
all equal.



                                      248

     Most scientists are defending a cult.  Ask them for data, and they will
obfuscate the data and overwhelm you with a mass of unweighted data,
machine-gunned out with no amplification.  Another way to obscure things is to
evaluate the reader and put in lots of footnotes referring to obscure sources,
etc.  This is a typically professorial maneuver.  It tends to develop a
priesthood.  They are deriving their importance from their knowledge, which
they would consider to be worthless to them if everyone knew it.  Their
knowledge is like a cloak of rare bird feathers.  Polynesian navigators were a
priesthood.  Modern navigators create the same effect by their obfuscations.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=29/5/62
Volnum=1
Issue=152
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-152  Question and Answer Period




6205C29 SHSpec-152  Question and Answer Period

     Routine 3G4 is another untested process that might get used on cases
which don't get plowed up enough with 3GAXX: You find a goal, then find a goal
that would oppose it, then do another assessment for goals that would not
oppose it, then assess for goals that would want that goal.  You get four
goals that all tick alike.  Then you list all four and you would theoretically
get the four items, which are actually two items, in the same way as in
3GAXX.  I can't say what the life expectancy for this process is; it is
probably longer than 3GA.

     In answer to the question, "Since we don't have a modifier now, how do
you keep a GPM keyed in if it should key out and you get a free needle?":
Actually, the modifier is only the label on one of the items that you are
listing on that listing.  You are still fighting the same package as in
Routine 3D.  By listing each one of those lines, you keep it pulled in as much
as you would anyway.  You might have more trouble keeping things stirred up
for the second goal, but by then the PC should be able to approach the GPM
more closely, so there should be no trouble.

     Stabilization is just going on and on, getting more goals and more
four-lists, until you couldn't get the meter to read if you hit the guy over
the head with a club.  You are not likely to find the guy flying off in a
key-out, because every time you find a goal, you will wrap your paws around
every element of it that was part of the GPM.  Stabilization is getting rid of
any masses the clear might run into which would get him re-involved with the
bank.  Formerly [before stabilization] he could have gotten enturbulated
again.  But by doing 3GA again and again, you will get to where there is no
GPM to key in.  It is so intricate to keep the GPM there at all in the first
place.  As you get rid of more packages, you get rid of things that could
cause the person to go unclear again.

     Something else can be done with the person: Drill him into the
re-acquisition of skills.  That is not doing anything to a clear.  It is going
into OT, which is the recovery of skills of the thetan.  Clearing is just
getting the bricks off the track, not the recovery of skills.  It looks to the
thetan as if he will get his head knocked off if he does certain things.  What
really knocks his head off is his inability to reach sustainability, which is
inherent in his bank, not in the physical universe.  As long as he has
aberrations, he will key himself in by indulging in such exercises.  If there
is nothing to key in, he won't get keyed in.



                                      249

     Prepchecking is the best set-up procedure, assuming a very competent
auditor.  A Problems Intensive [See HCOB 9Nov61 "The Problems Intensive -- Use
of the Prior Confusion" and p. 134, above.  Note that, as used at the time of
this tape, prepchecking was used in place of sec checking, in the Problems
Intensive.] is like a junior grade prepcheck, but it can be done by a
not-very-skilled auditor.  With a skilled auditor, prepchecking and CCH's are
by far the best, difficult though it is to teach auditors to prepcheck well.
"I've been experimenting the past many weeks, trying to work out some
repetitive process which could be used at lower levels to get some benefit.
There is a lot of value to it, no doubt.  [This involves] a three-way bracket:
'What have you suppressed? / What has another suppressed? / What have others
suppressed?'.  Same phrasing with 'invalidated'; same with 'failed to reveal';
same with 'been careful of'.  You've got these buttons, and you could run them
back and forth and undoubtedly get somewhere....  In 37 1/2 hours, you could get
as far with this as I could in one hour of prepchecking."

The Problems Intensive, using the changes list, getting the biggest
self-determined change, finding the chronic PTP, and so on, gives you a way to
do something for the PC, particularly if you are not very skilled at
prepchecking.  But if you are, it is to some degree a waste of time.  There
are pcs who don't respond to much else besides prepchecking.  The "changes
list, prior confusion, people in it, prepcheck them" route is very interesting
to the PC and gives wins, but otherwise it is an excursion.  It is also useful
for teaching the auditor to assess, because you get everybody the PC knew
prior to the time of the change.  This means that the auditor learns to list.

The importance of havingness is that if the PC's havingness goes down, he will
have odd reactions.  You check, "Look around the room and tell me if you can
have anything." If it reads, turn down the sensitivity and get a can squeeze.
Havingness being down brings masses in on the body, and the PC will get reads
with small body motions, as when he looks around and moves even his eyes.  The
PC is a bundle of piano wire with masses packed in against the body.  With low
havingness, these masses are likely to start talking; circuits turn on.

The reason a missed withhold reads with a double tick is that the person is
pulling back against himself, pulling masses against the body, the same as
when havingness is down.  Extreme no-havingness results in getting needle
action when the PC moves his ear.  Watch it in Routine 3 especially.  You
don't want to do goals assessing on a low-havingness PC.  When you find the
right havingness process, the drop on the second squeeze, after a few
commands, should be a third to a half a dial drop.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=29/5/62
Volnum=1
Issue=153
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-153  Security Check Prepchecking




6205C29 SHSpec-153  Security Check Prepchecking

     [The material of this lecture is summarized in HCOB 10May62 "Prepchecking
and Sec Checking".]

                      [Details on prepchecking procedure.]

     When prepchecking ruds, you are talking to the person about those things
which are very pertinent to the subject of auditing.  These we have to have
in.  If the PC is living a life of secrecy, we will find that ruds will go out
even after having been put in broadly with prepchecking.  There is possibly
something so wrong with the PC that a Joburg [Same as Form 3. See p. 239,
above.]



                                      250

is needed to clean him up.  Cases that go mad actually have a number of missed
withholds.  It is the missedness that makes them go mad.  Their reach into an
area is very difficult; their departure from an area is difficult, and the
number of crimes they have under their hats is incredible.  Their ruds go out
as fast as you can get them in, because there is a tremendous weight of
unknownness on the case.  The more closely the crimes are related to injuring
scientology, the less you will be able to get ruds in.

     Do recognize that if you can't keep the PC's ruds in, the PC has overts,
no matter how innocent he may seem.  People who invalidate E-meters and have a
Hell of a time in session are having a Hell of a time in life, just because of
their overts.  The easy way to get it off is to take some broad, pervasive
thing like a Joburg, which has every crime known to Man or beast on it.  Using
the Joburg, you will clip some corner of what they have been doing.  The PC
would be damaged if the withholds were known, so he doesn't give them up
easily.  When one gets too many overts and withholds that are too damaging to
oneself, one wants to get the Hell out.  The extremity of blowing from missed
withholds is dying.

     If you are auditing such a case, expecting that his overts will be of the
magnitude of picking flowers in someone else's garden, you will let them go
ahead and croak, out of kindness.  Such a PC has a short attention span --
like if they are sick, etc. -- so the auditor has to be fairly quick.  He must
parallel what the mind is doing, find where the person doesn't want to go back
to and what the people there don't know about the person, what he is hiding,
etc.

     Since the pat list doesn't go straight to the area where the PC has his
attention, it has the liability of boring the PC to death before you get to
his particular crime or item.  You must do it well and positively to minimize
his dispersal of attention.  So handle things swiftly when you are cleaning up
the relatively uncharged questions, the ones that clean up with one incident.
A good speed would be ten to twelve chains really prepchecked well per hour,
plus twelve or so null questions.  That speed keeps up the PC's interest.

     A fairly precise patter is being developed.  You need to word a question
so it keeps getting a hot read, and you need to get the question itself
answered, not some motivator version.  If you take a motivator, you will often
find yourself spending a long time and going nowhere, just throwing end-ruds
out [E.g. half-truths, untruths, damaging others, etc.  See p. 244, above.]
like mad.  When you realize you have done this, go back and check it.  Don't
go on pursuing the wrong course.

     Canned lists scrape up areas that pcs are trying to avoid.  Done well,
you can now prepcheck rudiments so that they will stay in and you can go on to
Routine 3.  In checking up on past prepchecks, look over only the "what"
questions, not the form in toto or the zero questions.  The process of
prepchecking increases the person's responsibility, so Form 3 questions may
now be alive that weren't when it was done before.  The "what" questions that
have really been nulled won't come alive again.  If you find one of these
alive, you are justified in chewing out the auditor.  The ones that are null
will be stably gained.



                                      251


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 2
iDate=30/5/62
Volnum=0
Issue=1
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHTVD-8A  Getting Rudiments In




6205C30 SHTVD-8A  Getting Rudiments In

     [This is a demo of LRH running ruds and havingness on Reg Sharpe.]


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 2
iDate=30/5/62
Volnum=0
Issue=2
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHTVD-8B  Getting Rudiments In




6205C30 SHTVD-8B  Getting Rudiments In

     [Continuation of the above demo.  LRH is running Mike Rigby on ruds and
havingness.]

     [Note that middle ruds are present-day prepcheck buttons done
repetitively, each to a clean needle, e.g. suppressed, invalidated, failed to
reveal, etc.  See HCOB 11Jun62 "Prepchecking the Middle Rudiments".]


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=31/5/62
Volnum=1
Issue=154
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-154  Value of Rudiments




6205C31 SHSpec-154  Value of Rudiments

     Auditors tend to believe in the "thought impulse system".  This is the
idea that the auditor's thought impulse is instantly and wordlessly
transmitted to the PC, so the meter reads then.  That is not the way you
should be reading a meter.

     LRH has been doing research to see how vital, how valuable, a ruds
process is and how deep it will go if it is run as a repetitive process.  We
find that it is like trying to empty the ocean with a small spoon.  That which
is kicked into view by Routine 3 is not kicked out of view by any repetitive
process.  It is odd that this tremendous bulldozer, 3GA, won't run forward at
all in the absence of these gnats flying at the back of it.  The answer to
this puzzle is that the rudiments apply to present time and this universe
now.  Even if you get a rud in on a PC really solidly, these rudiments
processes are incapable of even dusting the GPM.  They will do only a
microscopic key-out.

     If someone has a GPM keyed in, any repetitive rudiments process will do
virtually nothing to it.  Prepchecking can do a key-out.  You can move it
around with CCH's.  But there are tremendous difficulties in assaulting
GPM's.  There is a very effective process for cleaning up past auditing,
except for Routine 3 auditing: "What didn't you know?  What didn't another
know?  What didn't others know?" It is very lovely and effective.  It will
sometimes do things for a very ARC breaky session.  But against a locked-in
GPM, it has no influence, though it may look as though it is doing something.

     Repetitive rudiments processes can do things with the free track and
whole track engrams that are not in GPMs.  There is another good process, a
multiple bracket on suppress: "What have you suppressed?  What has another
suppressed in you?  What have you suppressed in another?  What have others
suppressed in you?  What have you suppressed in others?  What has another
suppressed in others?" When you start to run it, you think it will clean up
the whole track.  You'd think, "It couldn't help cleaning up the whole track,
it makes you feel so horrible!" You could use "invalidate" in the same way,
and "fail to reveal / don't know" (same thing).  "Careful of" could be very
interesting.  But none of these processes is worthwhile as a means of cleaning
up the whole case.

     This is because they are all thought manifestations -- figure-figure
buttons.  What the PC has buried is the fact that his postulatingness is
basically thinkingness; it is on a lower scale.  "Think" is below effort on
the know to mystery scale.  It is not postulatingness, which is at the top of
the scale.  None of these



                                      252

buttons will carry him through effort.  They just keep swatting him on the
nose.  Routine 3 processes are what it takes to get the PC above the effort
band.

     The PC is doing his figure-figure in the middle of the GPM masses.  He is
getting his thinking dictated to him from circuits.  He is getting the word
from circuit A to circuit B -- from all kinds of conflicting and oppositional
identities.  As you audit him, you have to keep him from being alarmed and
defensive about present time.  Otherwise, he is not up to confronting the
effort and the masses.  He has a large number of automatic thinks going.
These are all characterized under the existing beginning, middle, and end
rudiments.  These buttons keep him so involved with think-think that he can't
go upscale.

     To get him to go upscale, you need Routine 3 processing.  This works by
labelling and identifying masses, which brings about differentiation among
masses and gets the PC up to confronting masses.  Your effort is not to get
him to confront those masses.  It is to get the conflict of those masses
identified and resolved, any way you wish to do so.  It is actually pretty
easy to do, once you know what you are doing.  You can unhinge the
almost-impossible balance of the GPM so that it can no longer hang up and
create itself out of the PC's energy.  The identification and labelling of the
mass is the borderline between the think-think and the mass.  It lets the PC
become aware of the mass, whereupon it blows.  It is no trick for a thetan to
confront the mass.  It is what mass to confront that is important.  When the
PC confronts the anatomy of the GPM, it disintegrates.

     The way to get the PC into the GPM is with a goals assessment.  [See p.
236 above on the theory on running goals in Routine 3.] The goal that the PC
gets identifies the mass he is sitting in, and when the PC gets it looked at,
it disintegrates.  A goals assessment thus helps you identify which part of
the GPM the PC is in.  It identifies the think-think that is going on and the
principal mass that he has to get out of.  When you start listing down [the
GPM items], all the pressures and electronics that hold the [item] in place
start lifting, so he can't stay there anymore.  He is not aware that he is in
[the item] or being it.  He thinks he has to keep this one game because it is
the only game he can play.  Pcs are reluctant to get rid of mass because they
feel that that is the only game around.  But the PC is really either not
playing that game or having no fun playing it.  When he gets his attention
unfixated from that particular game, he sees that there are other games
around, and he can start enjoying life.  He thinks he is in a games condition,
but he is actually in a no-games condition.

     The only way you can boost the PC through the effort band is to permit
the PC to have his full attention on the objects that you are trying to haul
him out of.  If his attention is distracted by things in present time, he has
that much less attention free for addressing the task of going upscale through
the know to mystery scale.  He feels that he doesn't have enough attention
units to look at anything.  He is distracted by the think-think because masses
with influential ideas are impinging on him.

     Rudiments processes have a herding, non-impeding action.  The
relationship of rudiments to a Routine 3 process is like that of a hedge
beside a road.  It keeps the PC guided and heading forward.  Out-ruds are like
stones on the road.  Ruds processes do not move the PC along the road.  They
can retard the PC from going on if done wrong, or if very badly done, they can
actually reverse progress.



                                      253

With rudiments, you collect all the PC's power of blowing things, by
straightening up his attitudes towards the auditor and the environment.

     A PC whose ruds go out gets a recoil phenomenon.  If he looks at a GPM,
then gets his attention jerked off, he gets a mass straight in the teeth.  The
PC's attention acts as a pressor beam.  It had part of his bank in focus, and
when his attention swept sideways, it is suddenly as though you took the pole
out of the hand of a pole vaulter when he was half way up to the bar.  Keeping
ruds in includes not yanking the PC out of session.  This process of getting
hit by something causes a dispersal, which causes the PC's ability to
differentiate to lessen tremendously.  He confuses things, and his anchor
points are driven in.  The lower toned he is, the less focussed he is or can
be anyway and the more easily his ruds will go out, even if he suppresses the
out-rud.

     When an auditor has successfully put the PC's ruds in several times, the
PC will stay in session easily because of his confidence in the auditor.  He
will learn that his attention can be properly directed by the auditor and that
the auditor won't get him into trouble.  But don't get too cocky at this
point.  The level of PC confidence adequate to prepchecking is probably not
adequate to Routine 3 because the stress in Routine 3 is so great that the
ruds have to be in much better and stay in well.

     If the PC gets much auditing with rudiments out, he gets more and more
nervous, so no matter how little you expect from the session, you should
always get the PC's rudiments in.  In this way, you will gain the PC's
confidence that you can get his rudiments in and that he will at least get
that degree of gain, anyhow.

     It is the auditor, not the state of the case, that makes the PC hard or
easy to audit.  The first edge in may be difficult, especially if there has
been bad auditing that has made the PC nervous.  As time goes on, however, the
tough PC whom you can't do anything with because he can't blow anything will
improve, as you gently and persistently get his ruds in.  Short-session him if
necessary.  Run something really easy so he has wins.  Just get the ruds in.
Little by little, session by session, as he stops being anxious about his ruds
being in, his needle will get cleaner.  A clean needle should show up by the
end of his second session.  You give him wins, no matter on what.

     The first two times you get ruds in on a PC, you shouldn't expect the PC
to respond well to a rudiments check.  By the third time, if the auditor got
the ruds in thoroughly in all three sessions, in the third the needle will be
cleaner.  If that has not happened, the auditor did not get ruds in in the
earlier sessions.  The third rudiments check would be valid; the fourth and
fifth are still more valid.

     Rudiments are absolutely vital, even though they won't move the GPM at
all.  Strangely enough, the GPM also will not move at all without them.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=31/5/62
Volnum=1
Issue=155
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-155  Middle Rudiments




6205C31 SHSpec-155  Middle Rudiments

     The middle rudiment consists of a package question that handles
suppressions, invalidations, missed withholds, and "careful of".  Middle ruds
may also contain the "half-truth, untruth, impress, and damage end rud [See p.
244], the "question or command" end rud, and the "influence the meter" end
rud.  ["Have you failed to answer any question or command I have given you in



                                      254

this session?" "Have you deliberately tried to influence the E-Meter?" See
HCOB 21Dec61 "Model Session Script, Revised".] To expand the middle ruds
further, you could run in the auditor and the room.  The former less
advisedly, and the latter only if there was a lot of disturbance in the
environment.  If you need more, You would do better to short-session the PC
with end-ruds, break, then beginning ruds.  It is sometimes more economical to
start a new session than to patch up the one you are running.

     Ordinarily, in prepchecking and Routine 3, only one package middle ruds
question would be mandatory.  You always do middle ruds in prepchecking and
Routine 3.  You should use, "(Time- or subject-limiter) is there anything you
have (suppressed, invalidated, failed to reveal, or been careful of)." The
first blank could be "In this session", "On goals", "On listing", or even, "In
auditing".  When it gets outside the framework of one session, it becomes the
equivalent of a prepcheck and must be regarded as such.  In this case, it is
best to take, "On the subject of goals, is there anything you have
suppressed?" as a zero question and prepcheck it.  If you did this before
starting Routine 3, the PC would come up shining.  If you do one of these as a
prepcheck zero question, do all four.  They obey all the rules of
prepchecking.  You get the overts; you should realize that the overt is often
against self.  The chain may only go to last year.  OK, so it goes very
rapidly.  The buttons you are using are good strong think buttons.  Prepcheck
buttons are the basic think buttons of the thetan.

[The above section on middle rudiments is of interest as part of the
ontogenesis of "modern" prepchecking.  The first term used was "prepclearing",
which was intended as a euphemism for "sec checking", when sec checking was
used as an auditing action intended to be preparatory to clearing (See p.
184).  The term "prepchecking" replaced "prepclearing" for general usage after
a short space of time (See p. 186).  Prepchecking was here defined as a way to
get each rudiment in fairly permanently so it wouldn't be likely to go out
during 3DXX. At this time, the withhold system was used for prepchecking.
Later (p. 194) LRH made a distinction, "It's a prepcheck and the whole
activity is prepclearing." In May of 1962, LRH suggests the possibility of a
repetitive prepcheck process, using some of the mid-ruds buttons (p. 249).
The middle ruds buttons also began to be prepchecked as a standard thing (p.
251).  Repetitive prepchecking came in officially in July 1962, as an
application of repetitive rudiments technology to prepchecking (See HCOB
3Jul62 "Repetitive Prepchecking").  While any zero question could be used for
this type of prepcheck, prepchecking of middle rudiments (= modern prepcheck
buttons) was emphasized.  Use of the withhold system was soon cancelled
because it was too hard to teach (p. 278).  Modern prepchecking was
essentially present by the end of July, 1962(pp. 291-293), except that more
buttons were added to the mid-rud buttons.  The final list of prepcheck
buttons was brought out in HCOB 14Aug64 "Scientology Two -- Prepcheck
Buttons".]



                                      255

     Middle rudiments have a use in prepchecking.  You can use them to get
rudiments in.  When you use them as rudiments, run prepchecking like any rud,
where you acknowledge and check on the meter, assuming that the PC has
answered the question.  You may have to get the PC to repeat it, if you didn't
understand.  Take the onus on yourself by saying, "I didn't get that." This is
part of TR-4.  Don't ever be a fake.  If the PC has a heavy accent, you will
do better to ask for a repeat on every answer than to fake understanding,
which leaves you with missed withholds on the PC.  This applies particularly
to these middle rudiments, since the PC has to have answered the auditing
question.

     The other use of middle rudiments is prepchecking them as a zero
question.  The question, "Have you ever suppressed anything?" is a zero
question, not a middle rud.

     Use middle ruds with great thoroughness but with great discretion, not
just willy-nilly.  Don't distract the PC with them when he is thoroughly into
something else.  You can ask the four middle ruds as a package: "In this
session, is there anything you have suppressed, invalidated, failed to reveal,
or been careful of?", watching each one.  If one falls, stop there and get the
rud in.  When that is done, don't repeat what is clean or what has been
cleaned; just go on.

     The general rule in Routine 3 is to put in middle ruds when shifting
doingnesses.  This is more frequent than the use in prepchecking, so it should
be done short, sweet, speedy, and expertly, though carefully.  You can't
afford to drag or fumble on it.  Don't insist on getting the PC's overts.
Short-session if necessary.  Don't distract the PC with middle rudiments.

     When listing for the goal, you can use middle rudiments when the PC looks
confounded and stops listing; when he really gets boggy.  They should not be
used every time the PC stops to think.  If it is hard to get the middle ruds
to go or to stay in, in the next session, use the middle ruds to prepcheck
listing.

     The middle ruds play against themselves.  That is, "fail to reveal",
"careful of", and "suppress" can mean the same thing to the PC, or they can at
least be similar.  E.g., the PC who is being "careful" to reveal everything is
really failing to reveal something.  So with the middle ruds, you get several
cracks at the same thing.

     Where did "careful of" come from?  It came straight from psychoanalysis,
because all psychoanalytic patients end up being very careful.  We don't want
that in scientology, and it is an embracive attitude or action.  It isn't
really suppression or help.  It is just a common denominator.  The end product
of all aberration is being very careful.  This goes hand in glove with LRH's
recent research into the overt-motivator sequence.  The more people consider
doingness dangerous, the less they do.  That is a direct index to aberration:
the level of inactivity is a measure of the degree of aberration.  The more
sane activity, the less aberration.  "Careful" fits right in there.

     What the PC gives you in ruds is seldom what you should run in the body
of the session, since if the PC knew what was wrong, it wouldn't be wrong.  So
don't run body-of-the-session-type processes on things that come up in
rudiments.  As a rule, the PC knows too much about it.



                                      256

     You can go astray in prepchecking by taking up some out-rud, unless it is
a PTP of long duration.  Of course, it must react.  Frequently they don't.
Never correct anything that isn't out.  If you can't get something in, and it
is still reacting and you are going to leave it, tell the PC.

     Don't make a profession out of one middle rudiment.  Be honest.  If it is
still live and you are leaving it, tell the PC.  Dust off ruds lightly; don't
make a whole session out of ruds.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=12/6/62
Volnum=1
Issue=161
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-161  Middle Rudiments




6206C12 SHSpec-161  Middle Rudiments

     When you ask a second question or double question a PC, you are omitting
TR-2 and Q and A'ing gorgeously.  TR-2 is an auditor weak point.  An adequate
acknowledgement is worth a great deal.  "Do you have a PTP?" "I had a fight
with my wife?" "What about?" -- this is Q and A.  In trying not to Q and A,
one can err by not getting the auditing question answered.  It is not Q and
A.  is a comm lag that exists until the PC answers the auditing question.
This requires that the auditor hear what the PC said, so TR-2 should include
understanding and acknowledging.  Auditors create more ARC breaks by failing
to understand but pretending to.  The auditor now has a missed withhold.  Just
put the onus on the auditor for failing to understand and get the PC to repeat
it.  On TR-10: "Point out something," the auditor should know what the PC is
pointing at and may need to ask.  It is fins for him to do so.

     All rudiments must contain an answer to the question asked.  If they do,
the auditor must just understand and acknowledge.  That is all that happens.
Only when it is manifestly impossible to clean it up with repetitive single
questions does the auditor resort to a ruds process.  The rudiments are now
good enough so that if the PC gets the auditor's question and answers it, and
the meter is cleaned on that exact question, and the auditor's TR's are any
good, then you don't need any rudiments process.

     In using a repetitive rudiment, you ask the question, acknowledge the
PC's answer, and check the meter.  If not clean, repeat the question until,
after a cycle of PC answer, acknowledgement, and meter check, the meter is
clean.  This actually acts as a process in itself.  Don't wait around for the
PC to find, e.g., a PTP if the meter is clean when you ask for it.  If it is
null, just acknowledge and go on.  You are actually thereby giving the PC his
answer, or you are giving him the answer the meter gave.  The last question is
thus answered by the auditor for the PC.  This completes the communication
cycle.  Just repeating a phrase to the PC will de-intensify it in the bank.
If it is equivocal because of a dirty needle or poor metering, check it
again.  Let the PC know what you are doing and why.  Do this enough so that
the PC isn't left wondering in the dark.  Always keen the PC's R in.  Tell him
what is going on.  A PC who is screaming is less ARC broken than one who won't
talk to you.

     You should put in middle ruds when the PC is having trouble listing more
goals.  Give the package question slowly enough so that you can stop and clean
whatever reads.  Then go back to listing goals.  You should attack mid ruds so
as to spend minimal time on them, so every time listing slows down, zip
through them.  Every fifth session or so, they have enough out-of-session
nonsense going to benefit from some prepchecking.  Suppose the PC gets
resistive in a session, where you did get beginning ruds in.  Go ahead on
middle ruds and prepcheck, using middle ruds for zero questions.  This will
pick up things like inval of goals



                                      257

as a subject, or listing as a subject.  That is the commonest thing that
causes the PC to stop listing.

     On a PC who is on the verge of telling you what to do all the time, a
critical PC who is continually suppressing suggestions about your auditing,
you can use She buttons, "suggest" and "fail to suggest".  These fit in well
with a prepcheck.  In middle ruds, you are only interested in the immediate
session, to keep the needle clean and readable and to keep the PC in session.
When doing your four-line list on the goal, do mid-ruds between lines.  In
prepchecking, you put in middle ruds after each "what" question is null, then
recheck the "what" question.  This is a fancier way to ask for missed
withholds, so don't also ask for them.  If She PC is down on havingness
consistently, you could do middle ruds, then havingness, then recheck the
"what" question.  Use mid-ruds when the PC has slowed down, shut up, run into
problems, etc.

     Middle rudiments make an excellent communication bridge.  You can put
anything in with the middle ruds following it.

     If you are prepchecking against a prepared sec check list and you get
five or six questions cleaning up with only the zero question, do the middle
ruds in case he is suppressing something.  If the middle ruds were found to be
out, you go back and do what you were doing over again, except in listing.

     The use of middle rudiments can be extended to a specific subject,
object, or activity.  If you are checking out a goal, for instance, you can
put in mid-ruds on that goal.  Keep it fairly specific or you will be getting
into a prepcheck.  You could probably put in every other rudiment with the
mid-ruds.  For instance, say the PC gives the same PTP twice and it still
reads, on beginning ruds.  You could put in mid-ruds on that problem, naming
it in the commands.  LRH doesn't advise this, but it could be done.

     Sometimes you add "half-truths", etc., from end ruds, but if you really
have to do this, it is smarter to end off and restart the session.  If the PC
needs this, short sessioning is better anyway.  You can also do end ruds on
prepchecks, where they are useful to pick up overts and withholds.

     If you can't get mid-ruds in, you can try prepchecking them.  A PC who
has a somewhat dirty needle and has to have mid-ruds done often will benefit
from a mid-ruds prepcheck.  If that doesn't do the job, the PC should probably
have more CCH's and general prepchecks.

     LRH has become expert in fish and fumble.  Ig the PC's needle was
dirtying up and not getting cleaner after ruds, he would start the session
with fish and fumble to clean up the needle.  Before doing anything else, he
would say, after beginning ruds, "I want you to carefully consider your
auditing." Nothing happens.  "Now carefully consider your wife."  Lots of
reads.  Now clean it up, tracing down only one pattern at a time.  The double
tick should be handled first, because it is a missed withhold.  It takes a
bright auditor to clean it well.  It is necessary to ask something that will
keep the read, or just to pursue the read one started with, or to formulate a
what question.  You can really clean it up so the needle doesn't get dirty
again.  The way bad auditing could dirty it up again is for the auditor's TR-2
to be so bad that everything the PC says is automatically an inadvertent missed
withhold.  [Fish and fumble procedure is also given as a TR in HCOB 14Jun62
"Class IIc TR's".]



                                      258

     One of the virtues of fish and fumble is that it is a fast way of
cleaning up the needle, though it could be overused.  It is usually necessary
only two or three times, The vital read to clean up first is the double tick,
the missed withhold.  It is pretty easy, using fish and fumble, just to clean
it up.  Fish and fumble make it possible to do a goals assessment, which
otherwise would be virtually impossible, It does require the auditor to be
inventive in figuring nut what overt might be connected to the read that the
PC is telling you about.  You need to get the pattern of the mind, which is
that if there is something the PC is reading on, he has either done something
to or with it.

     If you are doing prepchecking, fish and fumble gives you a wide-open
chance to clean up the needle.  Fish and fumble cleans up the needle so that
you can prepcheck, and is a barbaric cousin to the prepcheck.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=14/6/62
Volnum=1
Issue=156
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-156  Future Technology




6206C14 SHSpec-156  Future Technology

     When a PC takes responsibility for withholding from the auditor, he locks
himself straight into the mechanics of 3GA.  The ARC break that results from
such an action on the part of the PC is the sort on which the bank is built
and may be too heavy to be handled by ruds.  That is the button that makes 3GA
what it is.  It is based on the mechanics of taking full responsibility, in a
limited way, for one purpose.  There is no pan-determinism here.  The person
dedicates himself to the goal of the GPM as a prime postulate.  Doing anything
else is Dev-T for the PC.  This sets up a situation where everything else is
an otherness.  is a departure from all pan-determinism.  The PC has had it,
since any other action is an alter-isness of the basic purpose.  Doing
anything else is a breakdown of his own very isolated determinism.  This is
how the PC backs out of the physical universe, thereby running into it again
with a thud.  Thus other occurrences, besides those which fulfil the goal, are
not as-ised.  They are alter-ised, and mass gathers around them.

     You should realize that it is a missed withhold that louses up the
session.  What if the PC took responsibility for never getting any withholds
off?  He could make such a postulate.  You would then have an ARC break that
no rudiments could undo.  Maybe even a process couldn't undo it, since it goes
straight to the heart of the GPM and keys in all those basic purposes.  By
this action, the PC has keyed in the highest button in the bank: withholding.
Not that PC's are responsible for withholds, but they are responsible for
action of one kind or another.  So when the PC takes responsibility for the
[highest] button in the bank, wow!  If you try to run a PC on, "What
withholdingness have you taken responsibility for?", he would get more
somatics than he knew existed, because you are trying to run the GPM out from
the topside down.  It is not clear, at this time, what you could do with this
situation.  This is under investigation at this time.

     So the final question on withholds in model session is under test.  LRH
is trying to find something that could undo the possibility of the PC's having
postulated that he wasn't going to tell you anything or talk to you in that
session.  Here he has found a button in excess of all other buttons.  3GA was
designed to handle this button with ease, but not to handle the above
situation.  Probably the reason for an occluded childhood is having taken full
responsibility for not communicating, e.g.  "I'll never tell you anything
again!  I'm mad at you!"



                                      259

     The likelihood of the PC's making such a postulate and hanging up the
session as part of the GPM is remote, if you are following the textbook
solution.

     Don't let untrained auditors attempt listing or 3GA.  The only danger in
listing is for some untrained, unskilled auditor to try to run 3GA.  They can
get a PC into more trouble than you can easily get him put of.  3GA solves
3GA.  If you run a 3GA wrong, you can make it right with more 3GA.  It is a
peculiarity of problems in this universe and in the mind, that a prime
solution runs out its own errors.  That is the test of a prime solution.  You
make an error with this solution, and it corrects the error, so therefore it
is not a cure.  3GA is the first thing that is not a cure.  A cure does
something about a prior problem.  3GA operates on the prime postulate.  It
wouldn't even register as a goal if it weren't a prime postulate on some
section of track, so it isn't solving anything.  But it puts the person in a
situation where he doesn't have to be solved.  Very tricky!

     The trouble with finding a wrong goal is that listing it will beef up the
bank worse than any creative process ever run.  You are running an alter-is,
and you will get an alter-is.  Mass is an alter-is, so the longer you run the
wrong goal, the more mental mass you are going to get.  If you suggest a goal
to the PC, the misownership of it will seize it up in the GPM and cause it
thereafter to read.  It will be reading on misownership. like everything else
in the GPM If you list it, the mass will increase and increase, and the PC
will feel worse and worse.

     [At this point, LRH mocks up a "World Mental Health Organization" which
would inspect hospitals, etc.  It would subscribe to the "International
Congress of Ethics in Healing", and it would require doctors to give an
account of their facilities, results, technology, credentials, etc.] The right
to inspect gives the right to command.  It is the first step in taking
control.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=14/6/62
Volnum=1
Issue=157
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-157  Listing




6206C14 SHSpec-157  Listing

     In 3GA, you can form up the wording for an ordinary goal quite easily.
For instance, if the goal is "to catch catfish", you would use:

                     ___         ___
                     | 1. Want      |    to catch catfish?
                     |              |
                     | 2. not want  |
                     |           ---
Who or what would    |             ___
                     | 3. oppose     |   catching catfish? 
                     |               |
                     | 4. not oppose |
                     ---           ---

Note that we had to change the wording of the goal to fit in the "oppose" and
"not oppose" lines.  If there is any doubt about the acceptability of changing
the wording of the goal, just put the words, "the goal" after "want", etc.
This has to be done frequently with a negative goal, in order to avoid an
awkward double negative.  This procedure is still imperfect, but there is no
way to get it perfect.  [See p. 285 for an amendment on the wording.]

     The goal is a prime postulate that has accumulated onto itself a number
of identities by which the purpose could be executed.  The goal [or the PC, in
taking on this goal as a prime postulate] has assumed these identities because
there were people who didn't want the goal -- who were stupid and
incomprehensible [See p. 247] .  So one had to prove to them that the goal was
OK.  There were other people who desperately opposed this goal.  There were a
bunch more who were somehow associated with it.  If you can't express these
four flows on your listings, the process won't go clean.



                                      260

     To change wording in mid-flight can be quite upsetting to the PC, so
after you have done the prepcheck and the goal is reading beautifully, be sure
of that wording.  It should register.  Be certain that it is the wording for
the four flows for that goal.  This is not to say that you will never change
the wording of a listing.  Sometimes you have to, when you find that the line
never has listed.

     You will probably list on a low sensitivity to get reads on the tone arm
easily.  Every fifth session, prepcheck She whole subject of goals, listing,
and auditing newly, just as in goals assessment.  And run middle ruds every
time you stop running a list, whether they are needed or not.  There is a
period of action for each list that decreases.  The length of time a list is
active before you leave it becomes progressively shorter.  TA action will be
good, then it will get slow.  Do mid-ruds, then go to the next list.
Establish a pattern.

     We can't tell where this prime postulate [the goal] will sit on the PC's
Crack or what GPM cycle this thing precedes.  We don't know that, so we don't
know how much bank we are relieving, in running this goal.  But normally, half
an hour of listing on a list seems overly long.  When starting off on a
mucked-up PC, you would probably only be able to do one list per session, to
get all the TA out.  This procedure is not necessarily recommended, since it
is unbalancing and impractical.  So you had better do the listing by count of
Stems, or by Minutes, at first.  However, if you stop a PC in the middle of an
automaticity, he gets a suppression.  So, allowing for automaticities, you
should more or less list an arbitrary number of items for each list, listing,
say, fifteen minutes for each list.  None of those lists will be exhausted by
doing it this way.  If the PC gets into an automaticity, for heaven's sakes,
don't stop him in his tracks, because he will do a suppress.  If a PC is
listing rapidly and freely, let him go on listing.  None of these
automaticities will go for more than 150 items, more or less.

     On listing, it is very bad form to:

       1. Tell the PC to wait while you write down an item.

       2. Fail to write down an item.

Either one is a crime.  You pays your money and you takes your chance.  Learn
to write faster; than is about all you can do.  Pcs can be encouraged to
common lag, but this is not advised either!

     Your four lists should be kept to approximately equal lengths.  One may
tend to be shorter, e.g.  "not oppose".  If this happens, list the short one
as extensively as possible and list the others as briefly as you can.  In the
first part of listing, you list by arbitrary number.  It doesn't matter too
much what the number is, since there is so much mass to get into.  However,
later on, you will find yourself running into a free needle, and it is a crime
to continue to list a line on which a free needle has appeared, because you
are running a process that is not producing change.  When you get the F/N, you
test the next line.  If it doesn't disturb the F/N, test the next line, and so
on.  When you have all four flows F/Ning, that goal is dead.  Go find the next
goal.  If a line does stop the F/N, list it to F/N or for awhile, until you
see that it is not going to F/N, then go on to the next line.  This evens out
all the charge, so that at the end, all the lists will be equal -- not in
length, but in amount of charge blown.



                                      261

     "I must caution you against the sins of overlisting." Listing a flat
process is an Auditor's Code break.  [See the Auditor's Code of 1954 No. 13:
"Always continue a process as long as it produces change, and no longer." This
is in The Creation of Human Ability, p. 3.] It will upset the PC, but that is
not why you shouldn't do it.  The goal you are operating with on this PC is
not the prime postulate by which he entered this universe.  It is only the
beginning of some cycles that you have laid your paws on by a goals
assessment.  It has some harmonic against an earlier goal.  So, if you
overlist, you push the PC back into an earlier GPM or pull up earlier track,
out of place.  So just list the lines to F/N, not beyond F/N.  It is a relief
to talk to you about what you do with a free needle.

     Toward the end, you will find the time so short on each list that putting
mid-ruds in every time you change lists is too frequent.  So do it after the
PC has listed ten to fifteen items, however many lists that may be.

     The only reason a PC stops listing is that he has some middle rudiment
out.  This is true for both goals listing and lines listing.  A PC can
accumulate enough charge between sessions that the middle ruds have to be
prepchecked to clean it all up.  Never get the idea that the PC can run out of
items.  "Pcs don't think of items.  They deal them off the bank.  If he had no
more items to deal off, he would have no more GPM." So the PC stops listing
only when the mid-ruds are out and he therefore can't get into communication.

     What do you do when you have brought one goal, four lists, to F/N?  In
earlier days, you would have called him clear.  You could still call him
clear, and get his F/N back with a little clean-up of ruds any time.

     Watch your acknowledgements in listing.  Writing the item down is
acknowledging.  You can also go, "Mhm," and make little encouraging noises.
Don't give a full-stop ack.  That ends cycle and acts as an inval.

     An auditor listing can feel so much like a secretary, with all that
inflow, that he loses control of the session.  So when you have stopped
listing, give a good acknowledgement and do brisk middle ruds, looking like a
proper auditor.  In listing, you must look like an auditor during ruds,
because you look so little like an auditor the rest of the time.  Then, when
the mid-ruds are clean, you go back to listing with a good auditing command.
It is the last command you will give until you stop listing that list.  It is
an awfully long auditing answer.  The PC lists for two pages, then you go,
"Mhm.... Any more?"; you repeat the question gently.  "Who or what" makes for a
plurality of answers.  The PC doesn't lose the command.  If he runs down, you
can give the command again to get more.  If he simply refuses to go on, get
middle ruds in.  Also get them in at the end of the list.  Give the PC the
R-factor that you are going to do mid-ruds "before we go on with this list."
Get them clean and get more items.

     An item is very delicate.  It is easy to squash one, or to glum one up.
It is also tempting to fake understanding an item, but if you do, it enters a
missed withhold into the session which will blow up.  Right then, when you
didn't understand something, admit it: "I didn't get that." TR-2 says you
understand.  If you don't, falsity enters in, which will destroy the session.



                                      262

     Do good admin on lists.  Keep parity.  You will notice, when an actual
goal is listed out, that an item will transfer from list to list.  When an
item has been in all four lists, that is just about the way is is the item has
been or all four flows.  When all four flows are discharged, the item is fully
discharged against other items and lies null.

     After listing is complete, find a new goal.  The list will be shorter;
the time to find it is less.  You get a dwindling quantity of everything.
Eventually, you will wind up with a theta clear.  "It is my guess you'll find
a type of goal you find in the basics of scientology.  These things will
suddenly register.  Is there one basic goal for all pcs?  Oh yes, but they
can't reach it, and it's not real.  You want the goal that registers now, not
the perfect goal.  They'll get back earlier and earlier on the track and
eventually hit the prime postulate." A clear is as stable as you can't find a
prior prime postulate.

     As the GPM is listed, the repetition of the items gets the discharge off
the prime postulate that you call a goal.  The definition of a goal is "A
basic postulate for which the individual has taken full responsibility." As
the bricks (the items) built up on the postulate tend not to resist the
postulate anymore, the postulate runs out.  You get the thing diminishing and
getting thinner.  The PC is now sitting there with all the experience
accumulated along the line and none of the mass, because there is no alter-is
connected with it.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=19/6/62
Volnum=1
Issue=159
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-159  Question and Answer Period




6206C19 SHSpec-159  Question and Answer Period

               [Notes are fragmentary on this tape.]

     To turn off a persistent rockslam, during listing, call the PC's
attention to a room object.  She old solution was to repeat a null word, e.g.
the name of a room object, until the rockslam disappeared, then continue.

     A rockslam is a symptom of not having listed enough goals.

     [Since the major aberration is in GPM's,] it may take as long or longer
to clear a free-track case, than a Black V.

     A release is a person who is better by reason of auditing and knows it.
He also knows that he won't get any worse.  [Combines Life Repair and ARC
Straightwire release definitions.]

     A chronic TA at 4.5 is symptomatic of crowds; a chronic TA at 2.5 is
symptomatic of machines.

     You could read minds by moving someone's somatic strip and reading the
pictures.

     Fortune telling works by getting the "seeker" to agree to a postulate.
When confronted with an undesirable future from one, get the fortune teller to
change it around until you get an acceptable future.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=21/6/62
Volnum=1
Issue=162
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-162  Model Session Revised




6206C21 SHSpec-162  Model Session Revised

[Parts of this tape are summarized in HCOB 23Jun62 "Model Session Revised'.]

     This model session will make auditing much smoother.  It is remarkable,
in that it doesn't need any extra processes, except for the PC's havingness.
The rudiments here are repetitive processes, asked only as long as you get an
instant read.  HCOB 25May62 "E-meter -- Instant Reads" defines "instant read"
and should be known.  It is really instant: on the end of the last letter of
the last word of the question, item, or command.



                                      263

If any read seems equivocal, you should check it out.  It isn't true that the
PC, knowing the question, will react before you have said it all.  You are not
auditing a knowing being; you are auditing a no-time reactive bank.  The bank
waits for the entire command and then reacts instantly.  If the read occurs on
"br..." and not on "...k", when you are asking for an ARC break, it is a prior
read, and you ignore it.  It is the read that starts on "...k" that you want.
This is not hard; it's easy.  So be sure you use the meter properly.  The
results are marvellous that way.  Sad to say, ruds done with prior and latent
reads will mess up the PC.  Only ask a question twice or more if it had an
instant read.  If there is no instant read on the question, ask it only once.

     It is of great benefit to have a repetitive-command model session.  It
doesn't change a process on the PC all the time, so you clean up what you ask
for, not some variation.  And there is no variation in what you do.  You ask a
question, get an answer, check it on the meter, etc.  It is very easy to do,
once you find that it works.  It is so easy that people don't do it at first.
They do something else which is hard.  Everyone has, to some degree, the
desire to demonstrate that they are an expert because what they are doing is
difficult.  The real experts fool you; they make it look effortless and easy.

     When you start auditing on a simple coaudit, you may find that it is
perfectly easy.  Then you will go all the way around the dial to get back to
that ease.  One becames all thumbs over the horrible unknownness of it all,
once one has gotten into it.  So the simplicity of this model session is a
fooler.  You enter in with the idea that there must be something else to do
and with all the alter-ises wide open.  The expert has flattened the alter-is
impulse.  The amateur goes along fine, up to the moment where the PC says
something unclear.  There, he gets confused and doesn't know.  The next time
he comes to this point, he alters.  He is nervous about discussing someone's
problems anyway, so he alters and Q and A's.  If he gets into a habit of doing
this, he gets no results and thinks tech doesn't work.  But he has never tried
it.

     The first discussion of model session was in 1958, when Millie Galusha
and LRH took the things auditors tended to say and made a pattern, made the
session constant.  Then the reason for doing this was recognized: the
consistency of pattern ran out old sessions.  At Saint Hill, it became the
earmark of a professional-looking auditor.  The R-factor on auditing came up
enormously, using model session.  Now all the questions in model session can
be extended to become repetitive questions if necessary, to handle the
charge.  This use of repetitive processes to get ruds in makes model session
even more valuable.

     New PC's lack R. Model session, being consistent, puts in R.  This
increases the PC's trust: he is not being startled.  The auditor will thus be
more real and solid to the PC.  You have established expectancy in the PC.
You have also put in ARC.  Using model session without departure will get
interesting results all by itself.  If you put someone into session, ran only
model session, and took him nut, every day for three days running, the PC
would start talking about "my auditor".  All by itself model session also has
the power to smooth out the PC's needle.  This is even more true when it is
combined with prepchecking and havingness.  A new PC tends to look like
someone who is swimming



                                      264

two or three feet out of the water -- they slip in gradually.  They don't know
what to expect or what will be demanded of them.  Once they find out, they
will be relieved.  You could run any set of harmless questions three days
running and the PC's reality on a session and ARC with the auditor would be
much greater.

     Don't expect any one question in Model Session to straighten out the PC.
It is not a one-button proposition.  Don't expect to clean up a dirty needle
on a PC with missed withhold handling or with any one particular action.  It
is done with smooth auditing, not a part of auditing.  The needle cleans up
gradually as the PC goes through session after session.  Every now and then,
you will be thrown off because one PC in a hundred will react with a big
change.  You tend to get stuck in that win, and then you keep expecting to
find the magic button.  What really happened was that you had been gradually
improving the case before you hit that point.  Freud had luck and then got
hung up in the win.

     A clear is not made with 3GA alone.  It is good auditing plus 3GA that
produces a clear, neither part alone.  To that degree, model session is a part
of clearing, by keeping the session predictable and present time clean enough
to be audited in.  Thus you get an undistracted PC.

     Asking the PC, "Is it all right for me to audit you?" violates the rule
of not putting the PC's attention on the auditor, so it is not good to ask.
The "Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?" is OK because it
gets him to look at his case and talk to the auditor, so it gets him into
session.

     In middle ruds, you have a four-question package.  You look for an
instant read on each part.  If you get a read on one, the repeated question is
the single rud question.  For instance, if "invalidated" reads, you ask, "what
was it?", get the PC's response, ack, then recheck "invalidated".  When it is
clean, go on to check the rest of the four parts in singles, if you like to
keep him from getting confused.

     The body of the session is where middle ruds are used.  End rudiments
have had some additions.  The multiple "half-truth" question is handled the
same as mid-ruds.  On the "E-meter" question, one asks "How?", not "What was
it?" on "question or command", drop the one that didn't read.  On "critical",
You clear it with "done".  On "room", run havingness if it reads or if
havingness is down, as indicated by can squeeze.  Havingness began as a way to
bring Joe Winter back to PT from down the track, calling the PC's attention to
the environment.  It is always beneficial at end of session.

     The following are some flagrant errors that can be made:

          1. Not being expert with the meter.

          2. Not knowing model session script.

          3. Asking a question a second time when it was clean the first
          time.
             Don't alter-is the cleanness of the needle.  You can put an
             instant read on a meter by reading a clean question twice.  It is
             reading on protest.

          4. Not checking again after you have had the question read.

          5. Not saying that you couldn't tell what the read was.  when you
             couldn't.  Never pretend on a meter read.

          6. Failing to give the PC an R-factor on each new step.

     That is important, to wipe out his mystery about it all.

          7. Doing what the PC said.

          8. Making irrelevant statements or remarks.  This always upsets the
             PC and yanks him out of session.



                                      265


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=21/6/62
Volnum=1
Issue=163
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-163  Question and Answer Period




6206C21 SHSpec-163  Question and Answer Period

     A professional auditor is harder to put into session than a raw meat PC.
He knows more and is more critical (not in a bad sense).  Actually, the raw
meat PC is just as critical, but he won't say so.  If a professional auditor
is almost impossible to get into session, he has been audited with ruds out.
A professional can be audited to out-of-sessionness faster than anyone else,
because he knows when something is being done wrong.

     You can pick up and fish out PC cognitions by tone of voice, or some
irrelevant remark by the PC, which is an appreciation of something.  It is not
vital to do this.  In fact, you probably shouldn't even do it.  It can
boomerang.  An irrelevant remark would be when the PC is sailing along and you
suddenly say, "Wow!  That needle fell half a dial!" This distracts the PC.
But if you can appreciate what thy PC is doing, he feels more acknowledged.
It's a TR-2 trick.  If the PC starts crying and you go in with a hard boiled
or crisp, no-nonsense tone of voice, the PC feels unacknowledged.  He needs to
have a certain feeling that the auditor is with him.  This is why you will
sometimes hear LRH sounding a bit sympathetic.  Your voice should reflect some
comprehension of the mood of the PC so that he will feel that you are with
him.  Don't fail to respond to what the PC is doing, hut don't let the PC put
you at effect either.  There is a fine line between the two.  When in doubt,
keep it simple and by the book.

     People have trouble with TR-4 because they don't understand what the PC
is saying.  LRH is perfectly willing to be at the effect of the PC to the
degree of properly acknowledging the PC, but no further.  Thus, when you
acknowledge the PC by responding to him, he knows that he is having an effect
on you and he will stop trying to produce an effect.

     You can make a mistake on this.  You can intend to show agreement and the
PC can take it as derogatory, if he is so inclined.  A simple acknowledgement
avoids this situation.  It is just when you know your tools and know what is
happening so well that, now an top of it, you are free to be appreciative.  If
the PC should get upset and start blathering entheta, LRH would tend to ignore
it.  He would not even TR-4 it.  He would just give the next command.  The
above degree of relaxation only extends to TR-2, not to entering chit-chat
into the session.

     To the degree that you don't use 2WC in model session, you will succeed
better.  2WC slows down the progress of the session when used in model
session, or any part of ruds.  If the PC is all jumped up at the beginning of
session, you could, instead of letting the session handle it, say, "What has
gotten into you?" as part of your R-factor.  That way, you would get him
talking to you at least.  Then start the session and put some order into his
confusion.

     Some pcs waste session time with conversation.  You need to establish
control with a good, solid acknowledgement.  Pcs will try to take session
control away from you.

     On a ruds question, if the PC says, "No," and the meter says, "Yes, you
should acknowledge the meter.  Where the PC and meter disagree, forget the PC
and trust the meter.  Don't worry about this making the PC wrong, because,
Hell, he's wrong anyhow!  There



                                      266

is a trick in this.  You are not contradicting him when you say, "That reads."
Just pay no attention to the PC's "Yes" or "No in ruds.  Only answer the
meter, and you will never give the PC the feeling that you are countering what
he has just said.

     If a PC were to ask LRH, "Have you run CCH's on the instructors, too?",
he would say, "Thank you for asking me.  We will now go into end ruds," get
them in, give the PC a break, and do beginning rudiments.  This would be a
terrible symptom of out-of-sessionness.  The PC is not interested in his own
case.  If the PC gives you an irrelevant question, acknowledge it and handle
it, but realize that it shows something is out -- mid-ruds at least.  So get
him in session.  If he is in session and asks a question, it is generally fine
to answer it.  If you did something wrong, never think that you will lose
session control by admitting it.  You actually only lose control by demanding
to be right.

     It is not unusual for the PC's havingness to be up at session start but
down by the end of session, though this doesn't always happen.  This is a
symptom of rough auditing.  Unconfidence, ARC breaks, and low havingness are
interchangeable.  Havingness goes down in the presence of ARC breaks.  When
havingness is up, ARC breaks disappear.  If the auditing is at all rough, you
will get a dwindling of havingness.  Confidence in the auditor is proportional
to smoothness of the auditing.  You want to be predictable to the PC.

     Early in a PC's auditing, he tends to be more critical of his auditor
than he will be later.  This is symptomatic of a nervous PC who has been
roughly handled in life and earlier auditing.  As your PC continues to be
well-handled in auditing, this factor drops out and the PC's havingness will
stay up.  Also, as the auditor improves his skill, the PC's havingness will
stay up.

     The auditor's tone of voice is not important.  It is irrelevant remarks
that matter.  You can make a remark without saying anything.  For instance,
you may have a surprised tone at seeing a clean needle.  That is a bad thing
to do.  It all comes under the heading of putting the PC's attention on the
auditor instead of on his bank.  Sounding robotic will do the same thing.  A
sudden yank of the PC's attention off the bank onto the auditor, environment,
or meter will cause those masses that the PC has been holding away from him to
hit him in the face.  You will have a devil of a time digging him out.  You
can yank the PC's attention by getting the PC absorbed in question No. 1 and
then, before he answers, asking him question No.2.  It is an irrelevant
action.  You should neither inform the PC about the meter when he doesn't want
to be so informed, nor withhold information when he wants the information.

     The question will come up: "Do you ever use middle rudiments while doing
beginning or end rudiments?" There are situations where it might happen, but
if the auditor has the PC well under control, it shouldn't have to come up.
It is a great relief to a PC who has had Q and A - prone auditors to get an
auditor who just smoothly carries on when he (the PC) ARC breaks and screams
and spatters.  He finds that he can trust the auditor to audit him.
Predictability alone will hold someone in session, regardless of what other
actions you take.  On the other hand, any unusual solution you adopt makes
auditing seem unpredictable and becomes a curse to you.  Predictability breeds
PC confidence



                                      267

and relaxation and it makes him able to go into session.  When you add the
powerful buttons of the beginning, middle, and end ruds, you can really get
somewhere.  "Strive for predictability....  The more nervous they are ... the
more dispersed they are, the more predictable [and] steady you should be."


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=26/6/62
Volnum=1
Issue=164
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-164  E-Meter Quality




6206C26 SHSpec-164  E-Meter Quality

     [Some of the data in this tape is contained in HCOB 28Jun62 Dirty Needles
-- How to Smooth Out Needles".]

     The whole crux of auditing today is the sensitivity of the E-meter and
the ability of the operator to read one.  There is a recent bulletin on how to
clean up a needle.  [See above reference.] Needles can get rough and active.
A clean needle reacts when the auditor speaks and does nothing the rest of the
time.  There is a gradient running from occasional ticks and tocks on up.  A
clean needle reads right.  It gives instant reads, not prior reads.  A needle
that is twitchy gives prior reads, because the PC is, as it were,
segmentalized mentally.  Next there is a needle that is reacting continuously
enough that one of its actions coincides with your instant read, and you get
reads that are equivocal because the needle is so active that you can't read
it.  The most extreme dirty needle is in such constant and continuous motion
that you could never get an instant read on it, because it has no blank spot
for the end of the sentence to go into.  Fortunately, you can smooth out this
kind of needle with havingness.  [See p. 249 for more data an the effect of
havingness on reads.] This is fortunate because you can't use the needle to
find anything wrong and fix it.

     The path of thought transmission is from the thought in one person, th
the recorded symbol, to a relay in someone else's mind, to the thought again.
That is why you can find a goal in English which was originally expressed in
Phoenician.  [The thought is there prior to the symbol by which it is
transmitted .]

     The dirtiest needle would be the one [from the bank] that registered the
least thought and generated the most thought:  auto-generated reactive
thought.  You are watching a circuit go "Zip!" and "Zap!".  The auditor has no
impingement on this bank.  The restimulations that the mind is getting are
often, in this case, from the external environment at all.  This person is
totally introverted and is just auto-generating restimulation.  Circuits are
making each other think of things.  The PC thinks of a cat.  Then a circuit
thinks of another cat, and another circuit then thinks of a tiger.  Then
another one thinks of tank cars, which leads to milk.  He has had sufficient
restimulation in the past to last for trillenia.  He is wholly on the
backtrack, and the physical universe doesn't even exist.

     There is a worse one yet: the stage four needle.  This is the same
restimulation going on all the time.  The stage four needle is like a rotating
neon light.  It won't react even to the auditor kicking the PC in the shine.
There isn't even cross-restimulation.  There is also a reverse stage four
needle that goes down stick, swoop up.  These stage four needles represent a
fixed condition: one thought.

     There is another condition: the stuck needle, which doesn't move or
react.  This could be a stage four needle stuck in a ridge, as though the neon
sign got stuck while rotating.  With high sensitivity, you will get some read
out of this PC.



                                      268

Any needle that doesn't clean isn't all right.  The reason you are running
CCH's, havingness, prepchecking, rudiments, and so forth, is to get a clean
needle.  If you've got a clean needle why bother doing it?  A clean needle
reads when you say so.  It may rise and fall a bit as the PC breathes, but
that's all.  If you have that, you can go ahead with your goals assessment.
There is no reason not to.

     What is the best operation to clean a needle?  LRH has cleaned some up
with fish and fumble, hitting the middle of circuits, etc., but the best
method is to put the PC into a state of confidence.  This is done with
predictability of sessions.  In most cases, it is a mistake to try to sort nut
all the needle actions, particularly on a needle that is continually
agitated.  How can you fix that one up?  It is the case that most needs 3GA,
which, however, you can't run on it.  A person with a dirty needle has had his
purpose shifted too many times.  He has lots of conflicts.  CCH's, run very
gently, would help.  You must be minimally random and maximally predictable.
Excessive randomness is the main mistake of psychiatry.  The more drastic the
case, the more drastic the measures they use.  What insane people need is
utter predictability and no randomity at all, just motionless objects and
quiet space.  The crazier the person is, the more predictable is the
handling.  Get quiet attendants.  Spread people out so that they can ignore
each other.  Have some motionless figures around that will be there tomorrow.
Allow no mail or phones.  Get some boulders.  Food, rest, and predictability
are the keynote.

     You have no business auditing someone who is really nutty.  They are a
bundle of alter-is.  Give them a chance for the confusion to blow off, and
they will be OK.

     It is not true that an index to insanity is a constantly moving needle.
As an auditor, you can create a dirty needle in anyone, just by not getting
ruds clean, being unpredictable in a session, forgetting things, leaving them
out, and changing frequently without completing cycles.  But the PC wouldn't
be driven insane, and some insane people would have perfectly clean needles.
You could sit them down, find their goal, and audit them on out to clear.
This is true because insanity is a specialized condition.  It is the sensation
of trying to reach and not being able to.  You can turn on this sensation in
someone by saying, "Get the idea that you must reach but you can't reach, and
that you must withdraw but you can't withdraw." If he gets these ideas, he
will feel stark raving mad for a fraction of a second.  Insanity is more of a
sensation than anything else.  Total unpredictability produces almost the same
effect.

     Running havingness tends to key-out circuits, although not invariably.
Predictability also does this.  So if the auditor ran a smooth, gentle series
of CCH's, circuits would key out and the PC's needle would clean up.  If this
doesn't happen, either you are not being predictable or this person needs to
confide in you and you need prepchecking, the high-scale companion to CCH's.
Or he needs rudiments and havingness.

     If you have audited the PC for four to five sessions and his needle is
getting dirtier, you have been auditing on too high a gradient of
unpredictability.  If you are running CCH's and prepchecking, you will have to
undercut it by dropping back to model session, CCH's and havingness, with no
complicated actions on the CCH's.  The dirtier the needle, the simpler you
need to get.  Decide to get simpler after about three sessions.  Your
concentration should be in the direction of a clean needle.



                                      269

     If the needle is getting dirtier as you audit the PC, suspect the meter
first, assuming that you are reading it right and doing perfect model session
and ruds.  Evidently, the meter isn't getting the rudiments in.  Maybe the
leads are disconnected or the battery may be down, or the meter may be
broken.  This is the test: say to the PC, "Do you have a PTP?" You see the
meter is clean.  Ask the PC if he wanted to say anything about that.  If he
has generally got something to add, the fact is that your meter doesn't go as
far south as you have to go to get rudiments in.  Auditing with rudiments out
is the only thing that will dirty up a needle.  After a session where the
rudiments are actually, but unobservably, out, the PC feels as roughed up as a
violin being used for a canoe paddle.  And after a session where the rudiments
were thoroughly in, the PC feels sleek as a cat who has been fed fish.

     If your meter never detects anything reactive on a PC, it isn't sensitive
enough.  This can happen when the PC is near clear also, when there is not
enough reactivity left to show on the meter.  At this point also, you have to
ask the PC if there is anything else.  Oddly enough, you will still get reads
adequate for goals.

     If you run a PC with rudiments only partially in, the PC will wind up
rough.  If you run a session with rudiments thoroughly in, the PC winds up
very smooth.  The needle gets dirty because circuits are pulled in.  Circuits
are pulled in because the PC is 'way back on the track and low on havingness.
You get the PC out of circuits and up to PT by running extroversion processes
and bringing his havingness up.  The worse you audit the PC, the lower his
havingness will be and the more you will get circuits keyed in and the dirtier
the needle will get.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=26/6/62
Volnum=1
Issue=165
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-165  Prepchecking




6206C26 SHSpec-165  Prepchecking

     Prepchecking is based on a fundamental of dianetics, which is that
related incidents form chains on the time track.  The time track is
consecutive occurrences in time, recorded in pictures, which classify
themselves in chains.

     A picture persists because of the violation of purpose involved in the
incidents, where the PC intended one thing and got something else.  Alter-is
is a violation of purpose, e.g. going out to hang someone and being hung, or
going out to kill the mayor and electing him.  Pictures are held in place by
this violation of purpose.  When you run out the basic purpose (intention),
the pictures will fold up.  [Cf.  Expanded dianetics] The pictures hang up in
the mind, classified in chains, each of which has a basic and a basic-basic.
The basic-basic is the first time on the track you did or experienced or
decided that kind of thing, but you can have a "basic" on each chain in each
lifetime.  "There is no basic picture on a chain.  There is a basic purpose on
a chain which the chain violates, and that is what hangs the up."

     You need that data for 3GA but nor for prepchecking.  All you need to
know to prepcheck is that there is a time track with classified chairs on it.
The chain will free when you find the basic on it.  It doesn't have to be
basic-basic.  A recent this-lifetime experience is all you need.  If you go
back to basic purposes, you will get into 3GA before you are ready.  The basic
is generally in childhood, this life.  Occasionally, it is in



                                      270

prenatals or even a past life.  No charge can remain on the chain when the
basic is no longer unknown.  This is why the "what" question will be null if
you have gotten all the way back.  Zero questions will come live as his
responsibility rises.

     Prepchecking consists of locating chains of sufficient charge to aberrate
the conduct of the individual.  Then it provides a system that knocks out the
basic on the chain (the withhold system [See pp. 186 and 237, above.] The
charge is there in PT because of the PC's Misassociation of the past with PT.
This is misidentification.  All this is in DMSMH.  So is 3GA, as the "basic
purpose of the individual" [DMSMH p. 238 and Science of Survival, Book II,
p.303: "Even at the age of two or three years an individual seems to know what
his basic purpose is in life.  Later this becomes corrupted by individual and
social aberrations but is recovered in dianetic processing.  Possibly past
lives have something to do with forming basic purpose."]

     Originally, we ran the withhold system on the incident closest to PT,
after finding a reading zero question.  The zero questions are found in sec
cheeks, of which there are many.  If you get two reads on a zero question, you
had better prepcheck it.

     There is a danger in being too fundamental in doing prepchecks.  For
instance, if you got a zero question by doing a dynamic assessment, you may
run into the GPM, which you don't want.

     When you get an incident that is an answer to the zero question and the
read is still there after the PC tells you about it, you formulate a "what"
question by dibbling and dabbling around until you find one that reads the
same as the zero question.  This is the weakest part of the prepcheck system.
When the "What" question has been found, it is now time to let the PC get it
all off, using encouraging half-acks, until he runs down.  Then send him
earlier.  You know the earliest is something he can't just spot easily, so you
don't ask for that.  You ask for "earlier" until he is as early as he can go
without much assistance or using the meter.  The PC uses "earliest"; the
auditor uses "earlier".  The "earliest" incident the PC can recall is the
barrier to earlier memory.  There is always a barrier incident.  Here is where
the auditor starts using the withhold system.  When he has done it a couple of
times, he has blasted the track open more, so he can find an earlier
incident.  Then you use the withhold system on that one to get out all the
unknowns, then test the "what" question on the meter.  If it still reads, go
earlier again.  Keep using the withhold system to open up track.  Finally, the
"what" question" will be flat.  So you get middle rudiments in, then recheck
the "what" question.

     The crimes one is looking for need not be sordid or highly reprehensible
ones, though people who have been psychoanalyzed often try to come up with
spectacular, believing that that is what is needed to clear it.  If your PC
does this, be sure to add the end rudiments question about half-truths, etc.,
to your middle ruds.

     Auditors are prone to the "virgin complex".  The auditor wishes to think
that he is the first one the PC has told things to.  [So he may go for the
really sordid stuff that he PC wouldn't have told anybody else.]



                                      271

     If you go at this without a prepared list like a sec check, the PC will
surely give you the least aberrated chain which is the most known to them.  If
cleaned up, this chain will produce the least case change.  The PC will give
you this chain because it is a safe one.  Pcs like security.  This is why
lists of arbitrary questions are more productive of case gain than more
general prepchecking.  You can also use the rudiments as zero questions, along
with finding goals, or auditing, or whatever he does a lot, e.g. his job, as
long as he doesn't tell you that that is what is wrong with him.  If it is as
advertised, it ain't.  The balance and the delicacy of auditing is getting the
PC to talk to you about things that he doesn't know he should talk to you
about, and preventing him from rambling on about things that won't advance the
session, without letting him see how he is being steered.  Naturally, he will
tend to bounce off things that are aberrative.  They are there because he
hasn't as-ised them, which he has avoided doing because he doesn't want to
confront them.  You have to let him discover that he is confronting
something.

     Auditing in this manner will make you look clever to the PC, as if you
knew just where he was heading.  You do, because you are traveling on a
series of fundamentals.  You are only trying to pull up basic on a chain of
incidents than were wrong conduct on a PC's part.  He knows they are wrong,
conduct, so he has them buried.  You don't want to make him guilty; you only
want to clean up the chain.  Every now and then you will hit something that is
real pay dirt.  For instance, when the PC has occluded the top of a chain, the
rest of the chain will be really hot.

     It is symptomatic of a charged chain that the incidents are out of
sequence, all mixed up.  As the PC straightens it out, the time factor
unscrambles.  As you go "earlier", you find that the incident he thought was
earlier is really later.

     These incidents are mainly locks they are all overts.  Clearing a person
with prepchecking is not possible.  However, a hundred hours of it would go a
long way.  If you go on prepchecking forever, you will get more bank
appearing, because you are not on the PC's goal line.  Prepchecking will make
for more sanity than any psychoanalytic system ever developed.  The earliest
version of this was straightwire and spotting someone who had an aberration or
difficulty similar to the PC's.  That was fabulous when it worked, which
wasn't always.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=28/6/62
Volnum=1
Issue=166
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-166  Rudiments




6206C28 SHSpec-166  Rudiments

     [Part of the data on this tape is contained in HCOB 2Jul62 "Repetitive
Rudiments -- How to Get the Rudiments In".]

     Here is why you have difficulty with rudiments, when you do.  Let us
consider an E-meter on a totally ARC broken PC.  It won't read.  The gradient
on this is: the more ARC broken the PC is, the less the meter reads.  It
should go by the opposite gradient:  the more the ARC break, the greater the
needle response, but it doesn't.  The fact is: the more the rudiment is out,
the less the needle responds.

     In a session, you often find the second, third, and fourth ruds out when
checked later.  This is because, when you don't get a rud in, the later ruds
don't read well.  A auditor can blunder



                                      272

by not checking what he is trying to put right, after getting something
answered.  For instance, say you are putting havingness in in beginning ruds.
You run the PC on some havingness, then skip checking the question ["Tell me
if it is all right to audit in this room."] on the meter.  The omission of
that step throws the remainder of your rudiments out.  You would be amazed at
how many answers the PC has that he never has a chance to give you, all of
which become missed withholds.  He only stops giving you answers after you
have made a flub on metering rudiments.

     There might be several ways to get ruds in.  The current one is to ask,
get the PC's response, and test it on the meter.  If it is clean, leave it.
This works fine, as long as you never miss.  If the PC is a bit ARC broken and
you don't get a response, you say it is clean, and from then on you have had
it.  That is the frailty of that system.

     There is another system: Ask the ruds question.  Indicate, "That reads.
What was that?" The PC answers.  Check the question.  If it is clean, ask the
PC, "Do you agree that that is clean?" That gets you off the hook, somewhat.
Another system is the one that used to be used in sec checking.  Ask the PC
the question until the PC runs out of answers.  Then check the meter.  If
there is a read, get what it is.  Recheck.  If it reads, say, "There is
another read here." This is the correct phrasing, while "It still reads," will
make the PC wrong and ARC break him.  This system prevents missed withholds
from developing because it gets the PC talking to the auditor about his case.
You get a more fundamental read that way, but you will have to steer the PC,
because what you have got is unknown to the PC.  You are plumbing the bank.
The disadvantage of this system is that some auditors can't leave the middle
rudiments alone.  They spend all their time on them in a goals session.  You
should be getting middle ruds in only when everything goes null and you are
getting no reads of any kind on any goals.  You won't go over several goals
without getting a read unless the middle ruds are out.  Don't try to cure
no-situations.  If the PC says something while you are nulling the goals list,
just use TR-4.  Be sure you acknowledge him, or you will have to put in middle
ruds, because he will feel you missed a withhold.  You expect the goal to read
at least once on your three-time repetition.  Get middle ruds in when you get
consecutive X's.

     On listing, you put in middle ruds when the PC runs out of items.  You do
it when you change from one list to the next, also.  But the important time to
put in mid-ruds is when one of the four-lists is shorter than the others and
the PC runs down.  You use mid-ruds as a booster, in listing or nulling and to
test flatness of a "what" question in prepchecking.  In you overuse them, you
will drive the PC out of session, because it is a no-auditing situation.

     So using the "sec check" system to put middle ruds in can overdo the
amount of time spent on mid-ruds.  But this system will get out the unknown
rud that is the real killer.  Watch out for the PC who says,
"No...." Also, don't get caught up in repetitively asking ruds
questions against the meter.  Three times, maybe, but if they are that hot,
the PC can find the answers.  This system does get the PC into session if not
used senselessly and at length in the middle of goals listing.



                                      273

     The best time to use this system in a prepcheck session is on beginning
ruds, to be sure everything is grooved in.  There is a problem there.  LRH
can't say there is one perfect system.  There are a number of types of pcs,
but all pcs agree that auditing is scarce and that it must take place and be
effective.  So any system that wastes auditing time, or seems to, will rut
ruds out.  So ordinarily, in a prepcheck system, get beginning ruds in really
well using the "sec check" system, but polish off middle and end ruds.

     Routine Three is not as interesting to the PC as prepchecking, though it
is important.  The PC is anxious during nulling, more than interested.  So
don't use the "sec check" repetitive ruds system on Routine Three.  The PC is
impatient; he hears the padlock rattle.  If you have to use an extraordinary
system to get ruds in, the PC is too nervy for Routine Three anyway.  The
system is just too time-consuming for any PC in the middle of Routine 3.  He
should already be in shape to stay in session when you put him on Routine 3,
anyway.  Don't give ruds that much importance.

     Suppose your PC always has latent answers after you have found the rud
clean.  In this case, you can say, "We have the significant withholds off of
that," or "That is clean of important answers," or At least we have the
reactive answers off it." You want to indicate that there is no needle
response, not necessarily that the PC may have no more answers.  However, you
don't want the PC to carry on after it is clean, nor to invalidate his having
thought of something.  The PC can get a whole theory worked out on how some
thoughts aren't important and some are reactive, etc., etc.  If you are going
to make an evaluative statement, at least make it an accurate one.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=28/6/62
Volnum=1
Issue=167
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-167  Question and Answer Period




6206C28 SHSpec-167  Question and Answer Period

     There is a possibility that a person with a nice clean "free needle" is
at a mockery level where the needle appears clean, but the case is really
nowhere.  This case will rise up into trouble.  Even if a starting PC wasn't
at a mockery level, you would still want to run some model session and
havingness sessions before going into 3GA, so that he would get an idea of
what auditing was.  The anxiety factor will otherwise get in the way.  You
could run ruds and havingness, then give him a prepcheck session, even if it
were only grooved in the direction of goals.  Then you could go on to his
goals list.  Just be sure it is not the "dead thetan" case, which will blow up
in your face if you do 3GA.

     Somebody invented a method for doing CCH's where they started asking,
"Did you notice that (physical change)?" all the time.  It got to be quite a
method!  It is an evaluation.  The whole point of CCH's is to get the guy to
look.  If he looks, he will exteriorize from that particular somatic.  This is
a deft, delicate action the auditor is undertaking, not a sledgehammer
procedure or a rote activity.  Pcs will put the process on automatic and go
out of session, running like a wound-up doll, unless you stay in 2WC with
them.  In CCH's, the auditor is only interested in physical originations on
the part of the PC because CCH's are physical, not mental processes.  You
count on the fact that he has originated something.  At that point, if you can
bring him to observe as a live being, he will get better and better.



                                      274

But if you tell him he has got to observe, he won't.  He will feel bludgeoned
and criticized.  The old drill that you use is "Fishing a Cognition".  [This
is called "Training 13".  See HCOB 11Jun57 Training and CCH Processes"
pp.16-17.] If you don't succeed, OK.  You didn't succeed.  An auditor, in his
desire to make somebody well, often pushes the PC's teeth down his throat.  He
gets anxious to have a beneficial effect and starts pressing.  When he does
this, he drives the PC out of session by adding a note of urgency or
impatience.  This puts the PC's attention on the auditor.

     What if the PC is responding to someone else's voice, and the meter is
responding to hearing another session in progress?  In this case, the
beginning ruds must be out.  Your PC is not in session with you if he reads on
a word mentioned by someone else in the vicinity.  To handle it, you have to
get the PC in session.  This is best done by ending that "session", taking a
short break, and restarting, making sure you get the ruds in.

     Poor in-sessionness used to show up as super-light overts gotten off on
sec checks, like "I thought of stealing a paper clip." That is symptomatic of
no confidence, wobbly model session, and ruds not gotten in, but session
started over out-ruds.  You have to learn to be so smooth and so predictable
that the PC would never think of doing anything else but respond to you and
read on your meter.

     When you call a PC's attention to a physical origination by asking,
"What's happening?", and the PC says, "Oh, nothing," you should just
acknowledge and go on.  Then, the next time you have him in a prepcheck
session, you get off "suppression".  You can remedy this situation.  The PC is
giving you a social response.  He may feel that you are critical and so is
making nothing of his reaction.  One approach is to vary the question.  E.g.
one could ask, "How are you doing?" instead.

     A compulsive outflow in itself is not dangerous, unless it runs the PC's
havingness 'way down.  You want to use TR-4, since not all his answer is
relevant.  You have probably slipped up earlier, by not acknowledging when he
did answer, in the early part of the outflow.  You now have to use TR-4.  Get
in, understand, acknowledge, and return him to the session.  A good method of
handling that is to say, "When did that occur to you in this session?" He
answers, you acknowledge, and you go back to the process.  When a PC is
properly acknowledged, he has found out that he has reached you and he will
stop talking.  So if you pick his hand up and put it on your shoulder as he
runs on, he will shut up!  He has reached you!  You are not trying to reach
the PC; you are trying to convince the PC that he has reached you.  You could
probably stop a war if you could convince the enemy that he has reached you.
War is saying, "You can't reach us, but we are gonna reach you!" All war
propaganda says this, which only tends to just keep things going.

     If the PC answers the auditing question and you acknowledge, and the PC
goes further than that, you should consider that the PC has originated.  If
the PC is originating, he has an anxiety about reaching you.  So all you have
to do is to cure the anxiety, and there you are.



                                      275

     There is a havingness process based on this principle that you can use
with CCH's.  It is quite simple: repetitive "Touch my (non-charged body
part)." Every now and then, the auditor will get "love" turning on in the PC.
You have to run this out, since you want to get rid of its misemotional
connotations.  You would run this early in auditing and once per session.  It
is a good way to handle male-female anxiety.  You could use this process for
when CCH's go roughly.  Some auditors have pcs going out of session when
running CCH's.  This is a mark of rough auditing.  A nice, easy CCH run
wouldn't need any rudiments, but if rudiments do go out in CCH's, you are up a
creek because ruds violate the physical-process idea of CCH's.  So this
CCH-havingness process would be a way of handling this situation.  It would
supplant all the anxiety about doing model session while doing CCH's.  It is a
way of getting the PC to find the auditor.  This is an ARC havingness
process.  Any other havingness would be risky.  It might not be the PC's
havingness process.

     Don't waste time in auditing.  "There is no particular amount of courtesy
in the reactive mind.  When I do auditing, I do the essentials and not more
than the essentials.  I get the job done." You do want the PC in a state where
he will read on the meter.  "My pcs don't have time to have ruds go out." The
time to put in mid-ruds is when the goals stop reading at all on nulling.  Say
you call them each three times and nothing reads.  That is when to rut in
mid-ruds.  If you make the PC wrong for talking by putting mid-ruds in, you
are misusing mid-ruds and driving him out of session.  You are making him lose
interest and ARC breaking him.  Then the meter won't read well.

     The current test of completeness of a list, in listing goals, is no TA
action on listing.  The tone arm has a certain tendency to drift.  If the PC
were to sit there with his hands on the cans and nothing else going on, in an
hour the TA would drift, say, from 2.75 to 3.0.  Lots of TA motion is .75
divisions in 20 minutes.  A little TA motion is .25 divisions in 20 minutes.
None = normal drift if nothing were happening.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=10/7/62
Volnum=1
Issue=168
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-168  Repetitive Rudiments and Repetitive Prepchecking (Part I)




6207C10 SHSpec-168  Repetitive Rudiments and Repetitive Prepchecking (Part I)

     [See HCOB 2Jul62 "Repetitive Rudiments..." and HCOB 3Ju162 "Repetitive
Prepchecking", relating to this tape and the next.]

     We are back to basics today in auditing.  The forerunners of practically
everything done today can be found in DMSMH and Dianetics: The Original
Thesis.  [See p. 270, above.] Suddenly, also, we are back to repetitive
processes, which auditors have always had success with, except for the
question of whether the process is flat.  In the 17th ACC, LRH had just
lectured on comm lags.  The next day, he asked how you could tell whether the
process was flat.  No one could answer!  The difficulty is solved with this
method of using repetitive questions.  They are flat at a precise point.
One's troubles can come only from not reading the meter or not believing it.
Either will bring about an upset PC.

     Model session, repetitive, per HCOB 4Jul62 "Bulletin Changes",
[Significant change is havingness, or the room rudiment, being dropped from
beginning rudiments, although retained in end ruds.  See also HCOB 23jun62
"Model Session Revised".] has all ruds



                                      276

(except havingness) as auditing questions to be handled repetitively.  You
would think that slugging the PC with this many processes in one session would
be catastrophic.  It is, if done poorly.  If you overrun by one question, the
PC is in the soup.  Likewise, if you ask one question too few, you get missed
withholds.  So either never ask for O/W or do it right.  You can't avoid the
fact of missing withholds, no matter what you try.  You can miss a withhold
just by walking in the room.  So you can't just not ask questions, and if you
ask a question, you must ask exactly the right number of questions.  Some
cases -- one in twelve -- even think you should know everything they are
thinking.  In these cases, any question you ask shows that you didn't know, so
you miss the withhold.  [See HCOB 12Jul62 " Motivatorish Cases".  This is the
"theetie-weetie" case.] The way someone got in that state was too much
pretended knowingness on the part of others, plus overts against questions.

     If this type of person exists, or if many people get into this state, and
they do, and if Man keeps being active while being secretive, which he will,
then it is inevitable that you will miss withholds an people.  So you must
learn to run O/W and repetitive processes perfectly, not just fairly well.  It
is rather easy to do repetitive ruds and repetitive prepchecking perfectly.
The only problem is that, with some cases, you have to add "to another" to the
"done" question.  Otherwise the PC will give motivatorish answers, which spins
him in, and the question will never clear.

     Auditing is as successful as it is predictable to the PC.  Auditors get
spoiled by a howling success following an unusual solution.  This includes
LRH.  Such a success can hang an auditor up and get him stuck in the win.  The
more we learn about the mind, the fewer unusual solutions we need and the more
textbook the solutions become.  This is a measure of an auditor's
understanding of what he is doing.  If he wins with an unusual solution, it
won't give consistent wins.  As time goes by, he may get so many loses that he
ultimately stops auditing.

     The closer we get to clearing, the fewer unusual solutions we look for.
To clear everybody, you have to know how everybody's mind works.  We've got
that.  At this point, we only need to modify the tech to make the result
easier for all auditors to get.  Two things monitor our tech:

     1. The results.

     2. The ease with which auditors can be trained up to where they can
        obtain the results.  The ease of application of the processes.

     The problems are these: A PC is built like a universe.  There is a pride
postulate, on top of which mass accumulated.  human being is determined to be
such merely by having a human body.  A doll has the same kind of bank as a
human.  "The PC's bank is not native to the corporeal self he is packing
around as an identification card." Incidentally, doll bodies Rot drunk by
inhaling alcohol vapors.  Actually drinking would wreck the machinery.  We
dramatize this nowadays with the brandy snifter.  Any mass accumulated to the
PC accumulates on his prime postulate.  The prime postulate is the basic
purpose or goal of a person.  There can be a secondary "prime" postulate in
any lifetime.  It is the alteration of the prime postulate that occurs in the
course of trying to put it into effect that causes mass to accumulate, from



                                      277

the shift of attention and direction that inhibits the person's ability to
as-is.  Change of attention is change and energy is change.

     There is a lot to be understood about how mass evolves out of
alter-isness.  If something goes from point A to point B with no change, point
A must be point B.  By introducing space, you introduce a via.  Space is a via
that causes and necessitates change in or of anything occurring within it.
That is one of the first things that happens in the course of building a
universe.

     Once you have time, shift of attention causes motionlessness in time,
accumulation, dissipation, interchanges of masses, dislocations in space,
etc.  After awhile, we get an individual who obsessively changes.

     There are two things wrong with human personality:

          1. Too much constancy.

          2. Too much inconstancy.

Auditors do these two things: they "resist change, even when it is sensible,
and they obsessively introduce change when it is not required.  Constancy,
without understanding, without reason, is simply a characteristic of MEST." So
is change.  One should understand why one is being constant before being
constant.  One should also understand what he is undertaking before he
introduces alteration.

     Unlike life, oddly enough, auditing does not necessarily bring about its
own track and its own mass, because it is short track and it is singularly
deprived of duress.  It is not something to worry about, unless done in a
knuckleheaded fashion which puts a person beyond help.  That would be a
crime.  You could audit someone badly enough -- it would probably take
auditing him on the wrong goal -- to kill him, perhaps.  But it would take
some doing.

     In prepchecking we had a problem.  There is a problem of alteration and a
problem of too great a constancy.  One of the problems is that an inconstancy
of approach by the auditor causes more trouble than an unusual solution
heals.  Buttons can be wonderful in the right circumstances, but if the
auditor is inventing them, intuiting what is needed, they can improve the PC's
case, but they lower his confidence, because he can't predict what the auditor
will say next.  The PC keeps coming out of session with his attention on the
auditor.  This violates the definition of in-sessionness.  If you have a
constancy that works:  the four mid-ruds, that takes a lot of edge off the
case.  There could be more, but what you are trying to do with model session
is to make the PC auditable, and to cause him to continue to be auditable.
The virtue of model session lies, not in its processing value, but in its
predictability value, and in the fact that it "takes the edge off the things
most likely to distract the PC."

     Hidden in any case is a basic purpose, a prime postulate and earlier
prime postulates.  It is amazing that we even have processes like model
session and prepchecking that do something for the case over the top of those
goals.  It is incredible that these processes make the PC feel better.  All
the auditor wants them to do is to smooth out the needle so that he can find
the PC's goal.  The conflict of goals is the senior aberration on the case.
Any alteration of a goal adds mass to it and the bank.  It is amazing that you
can handle handle case phenomena with other processes, assists, etc.  But you
can't solve the case permanently without recourse to goals.



                                      278

     It is difficult and sometimes impossible to help someone who has overts
against that which is trying to help him.  You have to set the PC up by
getting them off.  Don't get spoiled by having good luck with one PC.  Most
require set-up.

     The other problem is metering.  You can ruin an E-meter's effectiveness
on a gradient by not quite really cleaning ruds as you hit them, by neglecting
instant reads.  An inexperienced auditor who overlooks the tiny reads that
occur on ruds questions can easily and shortly get the PC into a barely
readable meter, which only reads on the greatest of greats.  The auditor
misses withholds from there on out.  That is the problem: ending cycle too
soon on ruds because of missing reads.

     The other problem is being too careful and cleaning ruds that are already
clean.  Model session, run strictly by the book, is still not a muzzled
session.  The auditor still must maintain 2WC with the PC and can make sure
the PC is content the rud is clean.  Too many auditors withdraw from the
session, leaving model session to do the job and the PC wondering whether we
are alive at all.

     An advantage of repetitive rudiments is that only one skill is needed for
repetitive ruds and repetitive prepchecking.  One of the problems is teaching
a number of technologies or procedures.  It is better to have one done
superlatively than ten done indifferently.  Repetitive ruds and repetitive
prepchecking tend to get the PC talking to you cheerfully and happily, blowing
things and feeling better.  If they don't, you are probably doing something
unusual with them.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=10/7/62
Volnum=1
Issue=169
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

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




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

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

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

     So O/W is added to model session.  It can be used when the PC is so
involved in some upset that he can't pay any attention to the rest of the
session.  His attention is so fixated that any change of his attention will
lead to ARC breaks and upsets.  The



                                      279

other time O/W is used is when a PC is seriously ill -- too ill to be
audited.  This situation is handled with general O/W as the first rudiment.

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

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

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

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

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



                                      280

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=12/7/62
Volnum=1
Issue=174
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-174  Meter Reading,




6207C12 SHSpec-174  Meter Reading,

     Scientific research follows certain laws, and we have been rigorous in
following those laws in scientology.  When you can get a research problem down
to one variable: Voila!  You are there!  During the last couple of months,
having observed that auditors weren't uniformly getting unvarying results, LRH
took every variable out of technology that he could, stripping it down and
testing it, to the point where we now have model session and repetitive
prepchecking.  The meter, once developed, had to be refined, and it was.  Yet
pcs were still wobbly at times.



                                      281

     So last night, LRH watched three auditors to see what they were doing and
found the one variable: the meter read.  It works out this way.  All you have
to do to louse up a session is:

          1. Clean one thing that is clean.

       or 2. Miss cleaning something that reacts.

There is little to choose as to which is the most serious.

     A person has a certain knowingness, no matter how occluded and packed in
he is.  [The thetan always knows.] There is a instinct, as intuitiveness.  He
knows.  You can't fool a PC.  An auditor who tries is misguided.  A PC knows
when a question is hot, even if he doesn't know the answer.  He also knows
when a question is cold.  He has a something-nothing sensitivity.  He requires
help to know what is there, or to get a high degree of certainty that there is
nothing there.  His intuitive feelingness is not articulate and there is a
need to transfer it over into an analytical knowingness.

     When you invalidate the knowingness of a thetan, you will get trouble.
The thetan can put up with this, but he doesn't have to like it.  He doesn't
like it, even though he is used to it and has put up with a got of it and been
overwhelmed by it.  He has used it as a pitch on others and to overwhelm
others.

     A PC's ARC breaks with his auditor are much more serious than his ARC
breaks with others.  You have heightened the PC's intuitive feelingness by
putting him in session.  Now if you tell him a rud is out when it is in or in
when he knows it is out, he has a long way to fall from his heightened
in-session awareness and elevated tone level.  It is a severe shock, and he
gets an ARC break.  He is now out of agreement with the auditor to the degree
that he was formerly in agreement.  "If you've got an agreement that's built
as high as the Empire State building, the first scrap of disagreement will
appear as high as [that]." The PC will feel awful.  He is finally on the road
to truth after all the trillenia, and here is a falsity.  It is very
upsetting.  Cleaning a clean is the mistake that is most mysterious, because
the PC can't find what is wrong, because it is nothing.

     You can flub once on TR's and still have the session going OK, but if you
leave one flubbed read, your session will go to pot.  If you are accustomed to
auditing with sloppy metering, you have a completely different idea of what
auditing is like.  The things that are supposed to be in a session aren't
there, and auditing is basically a protest, not letting the auditor get too
close.  Auditing is as fast as a PC is in session, since the more he is in
session, the more easily he blows things.

     A PC is there to be audited and is very persistent, as a thetan.  A
thetan can he squashed and overwhelmed.  Yet he never stops trying.  This is
very noticeable in handling children.  A thetan will keep reaching, using
disabilities to do so if all else fails.

     If you set up a perfect session and then and a wild wrongness at some
point, you catch the PC off-balance and he goes into action reactively.  He is
powerless to stop himself from acting.  It is as if you had the bank all
stretched out like a rubber band and someone suddenly let go of one end.  He
is in a mess; he gets overwhelmed and starts dramatizing whatever is handy --
namely, one of thousands of instances where he is still trying.  He will take
such an incident and use it against the auditor.  This can get rather subtle.
The PC can convince the auditor that he has obtained results, but then let
someone else see that he hasn't made any progress.  He does this in such a way
that the auditor will find out about it.



                                      282

     It is good to know that meter reading is all that is wrong.  Auditors
have learned TR's, model session, and repetitive prepchecking fine.  And we
have taken havingness out of beginning ruds to eliminate that source of
difficulty, when we found that havingness takes the PC's attention off the
bank and extroverts him, which isn't good for putting the PC in session.  It
is better to use O/W to get his havingness up.  This also puts his attention
on the bank.  Your problems with pcs are the same old things:  communication,
control, keeping the PC's attention on what he is doing, getting your question
answered, etc.  You have mastered these things, then sometimes had them
deteriorate, at which point you have been persuaded into unusual solutions, Q
and A, doing something else, getting anxious, etc.  The PC is out of session.
It's baffling.  What happens to cause this out-of-sessionness?  You missed a
meter read.

     This wrongness may be missed by all the instructors and supervisors, who
see all the wrongnesses that follow from it and correct them, to no result.
Lots of other wrongnesses may get located, but they aren't really what wrecks
the session.  The ultimate session wrecker is the mis-read meter.  This ARC
breaks the PC all to Hell.  He will start reading on ARC breaks, not reading
because of ARC breaks, etc., and you wind up with a dog's breakfast.  This
results from the calling of reads that aren't there and missing the ones that
are there: the missed withholds and the missed withholds of nothing.

     If this goes on for many sessions, the PC goes on a self-audit, because
he doesn't trust the meter.  The PC can't have an auditor because he can't
have the meter, so he audits himself.  He gets anxious.  He keeps his own
rudiments in, like a gopher sitting at the edge of his hole, ready to duck.
The PC is running the session on himself purely because of bad meter calls.

     So metering, above all, must be perfect.  There is no tolerance whatever
in it.  You must not miss a single read.  Meter reading must be perfect, or
you become a dangerous auditor.  A dangerous auditor is one who might miss a
read -- just one -- in a session.  If a read is equivocal, say so and check
again.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=12/7/62
Volnum=1
Issue=175
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-175  Meter Training




6207C12 SHSpec-175  Meter Training

     Auditors make mistakes reading meters.  While the basic reason for this
is in their banks, poor metering can be countered educationally.  The first
requirement for accurate reading of a meter is good eyesight.  The first thing
we find wrong is that the auditor can't see.  It may he necessary for him to
wear glasses, unpopular though that is amongst scientologists.  When a case
assessment form on a new PC, we should take something with extremely small
print, like a railway timetable or the stock market report in the newspaper
and hold it as far from the PC's face as a meter would be and have him read
it.  If he can read it, make a note on the assessment form that his eyesight
is good -- with glasses, if that is true.  If he can't read it, put down,
"eyesight poor." This will make D's of P and D's of T aware that his metering
may be suspect when he starts to audit.  Check eyesight again when doing
practical sections on auditing courses.  Since a person's eyesight changes
with auditing, recheck the eyesight if, as an auditor, he gets crammed for a
GAE.  Let's assume that all auditors who goof have something wrong with
metering.



                                      283

     How wide is present time?  This is the next area to look into.  One could
have an awareness of present time as much as ten minutes wide.  LRH has this,
at least for movie and TV plots.  A clear can tell, fifty to a hundred feet
before an intersection, whether there is anything coming; he may find himself
"seeing" the truck coming around the corner before it does.  He is not looking
around corners.  He may think that it is a new "linear" perception, but it is
not.  It's just that PT has gotten a bit wider than the instant that most
people perceive.  He has a wider fringe of knowingness.  A really sharp
athlete also has a wider PT.  For instance, Sam Snead can look from the point
of driving the ball to the point where it lands and know where it lands as he
hits it.  Great athletes control both ends of a broadened PT, so you get a
hole-in-one, a perfectly placed serve, etc.  They are always exterior, and the
axioms seem very obvious to them.  They don't think of their present time as
continued motion.  Motion doesn't happen randomly in their PT.  They think of
it as continued control.  When they are doing something, they are controlling
all the motion in that present time, because they are in that present time and
they have the width of that present time to decide.  It is as if at the end of
two seconds they could undecide what they decided at the beginning of the two
seconds, so they have tremendous judgment.  They know which decision is right,
because they saw it happen.  They can perceive both motion and stillness as a
total is-ness.

     Then there's the guy whose PT is one thousandth of a second wide.  He is
in continuous anxiety and regret.  It is always all wrong.  That is a crazy
man's present time.  He doesn't even know if the bed will continue to sit on
the floor.  You only get the idea of continuance by perceiving across a span
of time, not by comparing different times.  The less PT a person has, the more
trouble he has with the perception of motion and stillness.  So you can run,
"Look around here and tell me something you are absolutely certain will be
here in one second," and keep increasing the time-span.  You could drill the
person's perception into a broadening of PT.  You could also run, "Look around
here and find something that's having an effect on an effect," or "Look around
this room and find something that's having an effect on something else." The
latter will occasionally turn on a very widened PT.  Such processes are really
drills rather than processes.  An auditor needs to have a broader PT than most
if he is to be able to spot a speeded rise, for instance.  Reading a meter is
spotting motion, no-motion, and change of rate of motion, when it exists.

     This is beyond perception.  It is a matter of consecutive awareness.
There are three moments that must be perceived to find out if a needle is
still:

          1. The moment before.  (It wasn't moving.)

          2. The moment it is still. (It isn't moving.)

          3. The moment after.  (It will not move.)

You need comparison.  You are not just looking at one moment.  A moving needle
requires only two observations, two moments of awareness.  Thus it is easier
to read than a still needle.  For instance, a sitting pheasant is harder to
see than a moving pheasant, not because motion attracts the eye or some such
reason, but because motion requires only two observations to perceive, while
stillness requires three.  "Motion takes part of the responsibility for
directing attention, whereas stillness takes no responsibility for directing
attention."



                                      284

     In perceiving motion, all you have to do is to observe that something was
in place A and is now in place E.  How narrowly can

     Places A and B be spaced and still have perceptible motion between them?
One tenth of the width of the tip of the needle apart.

     The next question is, "What section of the present time you are in do you
require to perceive an action or an inaction?" This opens the door to the
solution of this problem.  Broadening PT is best done by clearing, but it
wouldn't work to insist that auditors must be clear before they can clear
someone.  Actually, clear raw meat, with no comprehension or reality on what
has happened is enormously inferior to someone who has the data and goes
clear.  Training gives a subjective reality on what it is like to wrestle with
the problems of clearing someone; trained individuals have a capability to
understand people, while clear raw meat is likely to be very impatient with
people.  A raw clear will also ask the damndest questions.  He is very oddball
and unpredictable.  This guy has been launched into the atmosphere and
expected to fly without knowing that he is in a plane.  It is better to go
clear with the data.  You get more comprehending people that way.

     Because it takes more time to see a stillness, an individual has less
tolerance for it.  Hence a person is impatient with observing stillnesses.
His "continuance" has to be too great.  Stillnesses absorb time.  They give a
sense of foreverness.  Something that moves does not have to have such a
continuance.

     However, the period of time required to perceive motion or stillness can
be shortened until the person can observe, in the tiniest, narrowest PT, three
moments (stillness) or two moments (motion) of time.  You do this by practice
and drill.  If a person's span of PT is a twentieth of a second long, he would
need to be able to perceive an instant of time that is no longer than a
sixtieth of a second, in order to be able to observe three moments in time in
his PT, and therefore to be able to perceive that the needle is still.  He
"must be able to perceive an is-ness that is only a sixtieth of a second
long."

     The amount of PT someone can observe can be tested with a camera.  You
could set the lens wide open and vary exposure time.

     The less PT span they can observe, the smaller the diameter of lens that
they will be able to perceive at a given speed.

     A suitable target would be to get to where we can perceive an is-ness in
a hundred and twenty-fifth of a second.  People can be drilled to get up to
this speed, without broadening their PT.

     You could do it gradiently by flashing, say, a slide of a chair for one
second, over and over, until the students can actually tell you all about the
chair.  Then cut it down to half a second, a quarter of a second, etc., until
you reach a hundred and twenty-fifth of a second.  The student will gradiently
improve until he can get everything in the slide in a hundred and twenty-fifth
of a second.  "The name for the viewing device is "a variable speed
tachistoscope".  The Navy used this system during world War II for an aircraft
identification drill.  It is now being used to teach reading and to improve
reading speed.

     Even without these devices, you can learn to read a meter.

     This is necessary, and now we know that it will he done.  The result of
the training should be an auditor who can tell that a still needle is present,
given only a twentieth to a sixtieth of a second's observation time.  The old
saw about the eye having a "shutter speed" of about a twenty-fifth of a second
is a stupid lie.  There is a thetan in back of the eye "who has a width of PT
and who tends to fixate on what he considers an observable moment."


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=17/7/62
Volnum=1
Issue=170
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-170 E-Meter Reads and ARC Breaks




                                      285

6207C17 SHSpec-170 E-Meter Reads and ARC Breaks

     Meter reading has been exposed as the one point that must be done
perfectly.  There is a TR-4 phenomenon connected with the meter.  The meter,
read wrong at all, operates to throw TR-4 out in the session.  The PC has an
answer which the meter hasn't acknowledged, as far as the PC can tell, so he
gets mad -- at the meter, really, but, not knowing what to get mad at, he
misassigns the blame and his anger to something else.  The PC has had a
withhold missed.  Or the auditor cleans a clean; he calls a read where there
isn't one, and the meter starts reacting on the PC's ARC break.

     Incidentally, the wording of listing lines has been amended.  [See p. 259
for original wording.] On "Want/not want", the wording has to use the exact
warding of the goal, [e.g. "to catch cats", not "the goal to catch cats"] ,
and on "Oppose/not oppose", it has to be the participial form [e.g. "catching
cats'].  Precise English is very junior in importance to wording it as given
by the PC.

     In the metering errors mentioned above, only one thing is occurring.  You
are violating an old, overlooked law that you mustn't acknowledge a lie or
accept a lie as truth.  What is this about?  It is about prime postulate.
[See the discussion of the first four postulates on pp. 14-15, above.] 3GA
demonstrates the similarity of construction between a reactive bank and a
universe.  A universe is formed by a prime postulate which then, alter-ised,
makes matter, energy, space. and time. The PC has a basic purpose or goal,
indistinguishable from a prime postulate.  Therefore prime postulate, or the
PC's basic goal or purpose, is the basic building block of the reactive bank.
The prime-prime postulate would be the basic-basic of the goal or purpose on
which all else would be stuck. [Cf. Expanded Dianetics.] You won't get it on
the first try.  You can't just date it on the meter and have it blow, because
it has occurred earlier and has gotten mingled in with later occurrences.  So
don't worry about it.  Just take what you get on a goals list.

     The keynote of the reactive bank, with all its masses, spaces, and
everything else in it, is alter-is , which suppresses down into a not-is.
This forms the MEST that is contained in the bank.  The same mechanism exactly
applies to the formation of the physical universe.  Thus the field of the mind
is parallel to that of the physical universe.  But the mind came first and
thus formed the universe.  It is fantastic for a being to discover this,
because this discovery is in violation of [the principle behind the formation
of] matter, space, etc.  This discovery reverses the downward spiral.  What
starts the downward spiral and makes it denser is acceptance of alter-is as
fact.  "This is something every thetan knows, 'way down deep, he must not do
and what every thetan that ever got in trouble has done." A thetan gets
nervous when he starts to suspect that he has been accepting alter-is as
fact.  If he accepts too many alter is-es as fact, he goes into an overwhelm.
He is overwhelmed by lies.

     The priests of Muggy Muggy (a god made out of mud) can make lots of
converts using this principle.  If everyone protests Muggy Muggy (the lie)
enough, and if the priests can collect to themselves enough motivators, in
other words, if they can can get the people to commit enough overts against
Muggy Muggy, Muggy Muggy overwhelms the people. This is how you get zealots,
fanatics and atheists.  They all form a chaotic mess, resulting from fighting
an alter-is of the facts.  Religious mechanisms have



been the most powerful source of alter-isness of mind and forms.  They get
protested against most strongly, and thetans get overwhelmed by them most
easily.  The biggest alter-is you could make is the mis-assignment of source
of creation, or alter-is of thought.  These exist in the seventh and eighth
dynamics.  The most fruitful source of lies and commotion is anything that has
to do with creation.  A false assignment of the source of creation produces
randomity all out of proportion to the Act of making the false assignment.
This act is, in itself, the father of all chaos.  Being Almost on the truth
makes it very bad.  The most powerful protests follow the most extreme
alter-isnesses.  Hence the violence of religious wars.

     If you mis-assign the source of any part of a cycle of action, in fact,
you will get a grossly disproportionate upset.  Try going to a museum during
an exhibition of Rembrandt and pointing out all the "Picassos".  People will
argue with you and get very misemotional, etc.  Any chaos in the universe will
be found to exist by reason of a misassignment of who created it.  For
instance, George Washington is thought to be one of the sources of of the U.S.
government, yet the fact that he actually tore up the minutes of the
constitutional convention is virtually unknown.  This is what is wrong with
the U.S. There is a lot of missing data concerning its source.  We don't know
what the basic purpose of the founding fathers was.

     "Basic purpose, alter-ised, creates mass [and] a degeneration of tone."
People who think LRH has alter-ised scientology and dianetics don't realize
that we are operating on a backwards track, cutting into the most fundamental
fundamental we can cut into, regardless of the forward progress of time.  We
are swimming against the time-stream.  Suddenly, on isolation of importances,
we are back in the early fifties, with basic purpose and prime postulate.
This is all Book One stuff [See p. 270, above.] We've gone down some blind
alleys, like 3DXX.  If you do a 3DXX line or a pre-hav line, you are listing
wrong things, which just adds more alter-is to the bank.  3DXX was the ridge
that LRH found before prime purpose.  3DXX was alter-ising the PC's goal.

     We have gone forward on the time track and, at the same time, we have run
the fundamentals back.  Now we are at a fundamental that runs out everything
that we have put on the time track.  Unless you follow some such pattern as
this pattern of scientology research, you can't backtrack the complexity of
structure of a mind or a universe to a simplicity sufficient to do something
about it.  That's what we have done, and we find, to our great surprise, that
what is wrong with the PC is his prime postulate, his goal.  That's
unexpected.  That's weird.  A complete whizzer.  George Washington is not what
is right with the U.S.; he is what is wrong with the U.S.  Similarly, a PC's
goal is what is wrong with the PC.

     "If the individual is no longer able to adequately do something, it's
probably his goal....  it'll be the one thing that kinda makes you sigh and
that you retreat from." A goal itself isn't really what is wrong with the
person.  It is really the alter-is of his goal, departures from his goal line,
his inabilities to commit this goal to action -- that is what gives him his
bank.  If he never altered his goal, he would probably he all right.  The PC's
goal "was a self-postulated truth" that "never got acknowledged, but all
around him lies got acknowledged, and this baffled him."

     That's really all the thetan is protesting. "Truth never gets



                                      287

acknowledged and lies always get acknowledged." That's the basis of a thetan's
misemotions.  All thetans operate on these same buttons.  So when you make it
clear, in session, that you are not acknowledging or taking up a truth, the PC
gets upset.  That's cleaning a clean read.  When you say he has something he
hasn't got, he gets upset.  He also gets upset when you say he hasn't got
something that he has got.  Cleaning a clean or missing a read is an alter-is
and an acknowledgment of a lie.  Nothing upsets a PC or a thetan more than
this.  So misreading the meter is a betrayal that strikes at the heart of his
thetanesque soul.  He will try, from then on, to get the truth of the matter
across to you.  You don't have a PC anymore.  You have a crusader for truth,
armed and mounted.

     We mustn't have more alter-is than we've already dot, because that is how
we got in this mess in the first place.  An ARC break is an abandonment of
truth and an acknowledgment of lies.  In a session, you are running extreme
truth and the PC knows it.  He can feel it.  Every time you misread a meter,
you have entered a lie into the session.  This is the thetan's favorite
bogey-man.  You have just hit on the issue of the whole construction and
destruction of universes and of his bank, and he doesn't like it being that
way.  You have made the session agree with all the slave tricks that have ever
been pulled on him, when he thought you were his friend getting him
untrapped.  So put in a lie (misread the meter), and all Hell breaks loose.
That's why it is essential to read a meter correctly, every time.  It is
do-able, so don't worry about not being able to learn how.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=17/7/62
Volnum=1
Issue=171
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-171 Anatomy of ARC Breaks




6207C17 SHSpec-171 Anatomy of ARC Breaks

     TR-1 is [based on] the desire to get a response from the PC.  If you
don't want to know, TR-1 will be out.

     If you misread the meter, the PC will ARC break, but he won't assign
cause rightly.  He will give you some reason for the ARC break, which, in
itself, might be true, i.e. a real outness, but the actual cause is earlier.
Even if he says that it is that you missed a read, it's an earlier missed read
that did the damage.  There is always that much alter-is in the PC's protest.
If you touch a PC's bank, you put him into a state of alter-is.  Because he is
in a state of alter-is already, he will frequently do something other than
what you have told him to do.  If you let him get away with it, he will become
unauditable.  Therefore, never ask a "Yes" response-type question without
asking what it was.  This way you spot the alter-is.  The PC thinks he is
doing what you said.  but you mustn't acknowledge a lie by letting him get
Away with this.

     The degree that PCs alter-is monitors the degree to which they protest
alter-is or acknowledgment of alter-is.  Telling someone to do something
without having control of him is asking for trouble.  You should go into this
by gradients, since you are asking for trouble if you try to control him at a
distance before he is up to it.  Don't acknowledge an improperly done
command.  It is fatal to Q and A with the PC's alter-is.  The PC acts as
though it will please him for you to acknowledge his.  alter-is, but it
doesn't.



                                      288

     A PC who starts giving the auditor orders has ceased to accept the
auditor as the Auditor, because the auditor acknowledged some alter-is awhile
earlier.  Note that this ARC break or attempt to control the session occurs
some time after the missed withhold resulting from some alter-is.  Both
involuntary and meter-read missed withholds result from wrong
acknowledgment.  I would not Q and A with the PC's order.  I would ask, "When
did you first think I didn't hear you?" or "What happened earlier in the
session?" The ARC break could appear up to an hour and a half after the missed
withhold that caused it.  So don't expect, when asking for the missed
withhold, that it just happened.

     Here is just what occurs.  ARC makes up understanding.  If you fail to
understand what the PC said, ARC breaks down.  This is bad TR-4.  At this
point, willingness to talk to the auditor drops out, and so does interest in
his own case, because the PC feels that he doesn't understand as much about
his case as he thought he did.  The greater one's understanding, the easier it
is to blow things.  The auditor must understand and the PC must understand,
for the PC to blow anything.  As-isness depends on understandingness.
Alteration always pursues failure to understand.  Not-isness accompanies the
notion of incomprehensibility.  That is what happens with the insane.  [They
are not-ised because they are incomprehensible.]  The deepest lie is
pretending to understand the alter-is.  All people have to do to make some
advance is to come off their high horse and admit the lack of understanding
and not pretend to understand.  When one snarls about a PC, just recall the
first time one didn't understand the PC.

     Understanding is in the area of knowing and not-knowing.  [See pp. 14-15,
above, for a discussion of the first four postulates.] That is a vary
high-echelon pair of postulates.  They come right after Native State, so they
are rather esoteric buttons for a lot of people and can lay an egg.  But a
severed communication line, with the missed withholds involved, is very
comprehensible.  Hence the idea of a missed withhold communicates well.  Its
mechanics are easy to handle.

     One kind of missed withhold is a communication intended and not
received.  This is unacknowledged truth, the inadvertent withhold.  That one
makes the PC scream like a Banshee, since it is right on the button of the
creation of his mind and the universe.  For instance, if the PC can't get,
"It's hot in here," acknowledged, he will try to make it stick if he possibly
can, even manifesting it physiologically.  The other kind of missed withhold
is a failure to find out something wrong.  The PC has put through a lie, which
you have acknowledged.  Either way, the session blows up.  For instance, the
PC says, "I have never had anything to do with women in my whole life," Gin
answer to a question about women].  This is a very low reality, probably due
to an original low affinity.  So you don't give an acknowledgment; you don't
buy that.  You check the question on the meter.

     You cannot create an ARC break by establishing truth, only by refusing
truth and accepting lies.  It is never wise or kind to permit someone to
depart from truth in order to spare their feelings.  The E-meter isn't a
lie-detector; it is a truth-verifier.  The auditor uses it to establish the
truth.  If he can establish the truth of the situation and acknowledge it, he
will never have an ARC break.  This requires that an auditor not be shy about
establishing the truth, even if the PC is protesting and blushing.  The only
way you will come out a friend of the PC



                                      289

is by establishing truth.  The idea that social lies are necessary is one of
the mechanisms for making more bank.  Actually, if you told only the truth for
twenty-four hours, you would do very well.  You would have real friends.  But
it requires a strong man to enter into this, because there may be
repercussions.  The first part may be rough, but eventually it has its
reward.  The way down is stepping back from the truth.  If an auditor goes
into session with social mores and kindness in play, the session will go to
pot.

     You can build a whole universe out of bad auditing, because of alter-is.
That is why your metering has to be one hundred percent accurate and your TR-4
has to include understanding the PC.  A PC will forgive a lot of fumbling if
it is clear that the auditor's intention is to establish truth.  It is better
to be a knucklehead than to know it all.  You can even act stupid as a way of
making sure you understand.  An auditor must establish truth.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=19/7/62
Volnum=1
Issue=172
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-172 The E-Meter




6207C19 SHSpec-172 The E-Meter

     The E-meter was devised as an aid to help an auditor observe a PC.  It
certainly beats fingers on pulses!  The first Mathison meter wasn't built as a
modified wheatstone bridge.  Until E-meters were developed, people thought
such galvanometers were reading sweat, not thought, because the earlier
galvanometers were so insensitive.  Engineers and electronics men in
scientology have not always recognized the possibility of a meter that
directly reads electric thought-impulses, not the physical results of these
thought-impulses.  Home-made E-meters built by people who do know something
about psychogalvanometers, often have a built-in lag which is meant to
"protect the movement".  The needle is damped down, so reads are late, you
read "sweat", etc.  Hence no instant reads.

     The first Mathison meter wouldn't read on a large percentage of people,
so LRH got Mathison to expand it.  By the end of 1952, we had a pretty good
meter.  The very first meter had tiny electrodes -- little metal bars -- and
didn't give mental reads.  LRH and Jim Elliot got the idea of using soup cans,
which did result in being able to get reads.

     The E-meter can detect whether a PC is auditable.  It is a coincidence
that it just happens that when you can read a PC on a meter, that PC is in
good shape.  When a person's needle is in a constant agitated rockslam, e.g.
with a real manic-depressive or schitzophrenic psychotic, no metered process
works on them anyway.  CCH's are all you can use.  Fortunately, they are
available.  If you can read the meter on him, he can be audited on a think
process, e.g. prepchecking.

     The meter ran us into a complete cul-de-sac.  We had had knowledge of the
whole track before, but the meter made it clear how many engrams there were.
This made dianetics look wrong.  As long as you audited only this lifetime,
you could make someone look very good, but it was obviously impossible to run
out every engram on the whole track, because the number is infinite.

     LRH, in the past, had refused to let PCs be subjected to experimental
processes because they might get their heads blown off.  Sometimes he used
himself as a guinea pig for that reason.



                                      290

     The board of the first Dianetic Foundation started to resign when LRH
started looking at whole track.  They discovered at that point that Hubbard
could get mad!  His attitude was that no one was going to say what could or
could not be researched.  They decided that he must not be clear!

     At that time, which was the time of early research with the E-meter and A
History of Man (1952), LRH and MSH went down to the library and started
looking up words.  They came up with "scio" and "-ology".  This seemed to
express what we wanted: moving out of the field of the mind into the field of
knowing.  The mind is only a vessel of knowledge, so a new approach was
required.  Exteriorization started coming up.  LRH and MSH went to Phoenix.
One night, Evans Farber showed up And wouldn't go away.  LRH finally asked him
what he wanted and found that he had discovered the process, "Try not to be
three feet back of your head," as an exteriorization process.

     That was practically the end of the E-meter, because you can't read a
thetan who is out of his head. LRH tried to develop a Theta-meter.  The
trouble was that it detected the auditor as well as the thetan who was the PC
because it didn't require one to be exterior to read on it.  It was very
simple, electronically.  It used a "magic eye" type detector.

     In about 1955 or 1956, E-meters went out of use.  They revived after the
Clearing ACC [Probably in 5802C07 19ACC-15 "Help -- How to get Started" and
5802C13 19ACC19 "Other processes -- the Help Button". Other tape titles from
this ACC may be more relevant, but I don't have them.]  in the U.S., when LRH
assessed people with the meter.  Don Breeding, Joe Wallace, Pinkham and others
were working on meters, and one of them designed a transistorized E-meter in
1957.  It was found to be very useful in clearing people.  It was used with a
five-way help bracket to clear fifteen or twenty out of seventy people, as
long as LRH did the assessment.  We know now that the people who went clear
were those who had a beingness goal and chose the terminal of that beingness
goal to run on the five-way help.  They made a first dynamic keyed-out clear.
That is, you could clear anyone with help whose terminal was also his goal.
The trick of assessment was to find the Rock, which would sometimes coincide
with the wording of a goal.

     This got meters back in, when it became clear that you wouldn't clear
anyone without a meter.  This was horrible, because LRH had never been able to
teach an auditor to use one.  Not that he had tried very hard.  The Step Six
phenomenon that was run into not long afterwards was the result of running
someone on a button that wasn't on his goal line, not from creativeness
beefing up the bank, per se.  If his goal was run out or desensitized, you
could then run any creative process with no bad effect.  Otherwise, the button
of alteration of creativeness can get activated, which is the bank-creator.
[See pp. 285-287, above.] When a bank starts to go solid, that's no fun.

     The difficulties of auditors finding a correct Rock loomed enormously.
We now had two factors that were missing:

     1. We needed technology that would unwind any accidental out of this
        package of clearing, so there would be no unknown data.

     2. We needed to get to the point where an auditor could interpret the
        data we did find.



                                      291

     The first British meters were copies of American meters.  Fowler and
Allen built them, at first, with no idea of what they were building.  One day
LRH sat Allen down and ran a responsibility process on him on whatever he was
looking at, put him on the meter, located his dead war-companion that he felt
he had overts on, and found that he was looking at a window, surrounded by
blackness.  He ran responsibility for this scene and got more and more room in
the picture.  Suddenly, he got the whole sequence, with full kinesthesia, all
sensations, and no more stuck picture.  LRH explained bits and pieces about
the E-meter to Fowler and Allen.  They went on to build the Mark II, III, and
eventually the Mark IV, with an improved circuit.  They also worked on an OT
meter.

     The job of the meter is still what it always was: to detect what the PC
has in the reactive bank.  It is incidental that the meter detects ruds,
problems, or what the PC is thinking or doing, or whatever.  What we need most
is to know what he has in the bank, so that the bank can be assessed.  The
E-meter has been designed and must be designed to detect the PC's prime
postulate.  Otherwise you won't clear anyone.  If a meter won't detect a prime
postulate in an individual. it is useless, even if it could be used to get
ruds in.  A good meter must be very sensitive, yet not pick up everything that
the PC is doing physically.

     But this has not been the main liability of meters.  The liability has
always been auditor reading.  Now that this has been singled out as the
weakest point in auditing, it can get fixed.  Also, more is known now about
meter reads and auditor ability.  All the auditor is missing on is certainty
on whether the needle read or is clean.  Trouble with knowing when it read is
solved by not looking until you say the last syllable and by drilling on when
the needle is or isn't reading.

     So all auditors must learn to read an E-meter, or they simply cannot
audit.  You have to be able to detect the thing in the mind that is keeping
the PC from being clear.  You ve got to learn to read meters.  A good, safe
auditor can read a meter; an unsafe one cannot.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=26/7/62
Volnum=1
Issue=179
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-179  Prepchecking




6207C26 SHSpec-179  Prepchecking

     [Some of the data in this lecture is found also in HCOB 30Ju162 "A Smooth
HGC 25 Hour Intensive". See also page 254, above, for history of
prepchecking.]

     "I've just found a way to use middle rudiments and make them double in
brass and get the job done much better, in prepchecking." Suppress, suggest,
careful of, invalidate, and fail to reveal are powerful prepcheck buttons.
They should be used in the above order.  Used in this order, you have the
mid-ruds as a complete prepcheck.  The middle rudiments were carefully sorted
out of a great number of buttons that could be used.  You could add another
fifteen or twenty buttons.  The Chart of Attitudes [See Handbook for
Preclears] has a lot of them.  Ruds are buttons that consist of just those
things that can keep one of the other buttons from reading and which, if
present, can keep a goal or item from reading.  They are pretty powerful:

   SUPPRESS:        If you got suppress off the case, nearly everything would
                    blow.  If suppress is alive, you don't get a read on the
                    remainder of the buttons, so run suppress before adding
                    another series of anything.



                                      292

   SUGGEST:         This button could be and sometimes has to be translated as
                    "Is-ness".  That is evaluation, per the Auditor's Code
                    (No. 1).  It says that something is.  It is a powerful
                    button, because you say something is, it will now read,
                    even though it wasn't reading before.  You say something
                    reads which doesn't, and the PC can jam on it, and it will
                    now read.  It will at least read on disagreement.
                    "Suggest needn't be used in mid-ruds, since auditors don't
                    do it much.  Save it for prepchecks."

   INVALIDATE:      If a goal or item is invalidated, it will read, even when
                    it is not the goal or item.  Get the inval off and it will
                    no longer read.  Suppress on top of inval keeps the inval
                    from showing up.  That is why suppress goes first as a
                    button.

   FAIL TO REVEAL:  This button is off the line.  It gives you the dirty
                    needle, a minute rockslam.

   CAREFUL OF:      This is another suppress, with an added
                    characteristic: After the person has been having something
                    a little off-beat done for a little while, he can hang up
                    in the thing, if he becomes too careful of something or
                    other.  He can also make an item read by a reverse
                    suppression, by carefully not suppressing it, i.e. by
                    making sure it reads

The order of the buttons would be.:

     Suppress

     Suggest

     Careful of

     Invalidate

     Fail to reveal.

This is an optimum arrangement.  That puts the most important button last, as
far as session foul-ups are concerned.  This also gives you two cracks at
suppression.

     If these buttons are so strong, they must have some value.  They make
great prepcheck zero questions, as LRH found more or less by accident, while
cleaning up a PC who had been feeling poorly.

     The procedure for the Problems Intensive is as follows [See also p. 134
above and HCOB 9Nov61 "The Problems Intensive -- Use of the Prior Confusion",
as well as the current HCOB of 30Jul62].

     1. Sort out the chief self-determined change the PC has made, using
        assessment by elimination or greatest read.  For purposes of
        assessment, each change should be expressed in a few words plus a
        date.

     2. Get the confusion that preceded the change and date it.  Keep the PC
        to the just prior confusion.  This should be anywhere from five
        minutes to two weeks earlier.  Don't let the PC go "way back on the
        track.

     3. Go a month earlier, in case he didn't remember the overt that started
        the confusion.

     4. Prepcheck "Since (the above date)...."

When you use the above procedure, PCs are very willing to tell you things they
have suppressed.  Somatics come off also.  Don't also check mid-ruds on the
period you are prepchecking!



                                      293

     You might think that you wouldn't reach basic on any chain by using the
above method of prepchecking, but since you are taking up the buttons in this
sequence and they seem like such innocent buttons, they clear away a lot of
track without your having to worry about fundamentals and basic.  Omitting the
withhold system left us with no way to get to basic.  It appears that, with
this system, you don't have to bother.  You could start in all over again, if
the PC had given It a shallow pass on the first time through, and pick up
deeper fundamentals.  However, the hazard in doing so is that you might be
cleaning a clean.  Also, be very sure not to leave a question unflat.  That is
very important, since in so doing you could give him missed withholds, and he
could blow or create a big storm and feel terrible.

     For a fifty-hour intensive, you could also do a prepcheck "In this
lifetime...."

     This system gets the PC's withholds easily and voluntarily.  Just be sure
to follow the rules.  And don't be an idiot: make sure the PC understands the
question!  To audit a small child, you might have to reword it to get it to
communicate.  On any PC, you want to be sure to communicate.  Know what you
are trying to communicate.  If you find the PC unable to answer or with very
few answers, don't blame it on the PC's caginess or unwillingness.  You have
to more the communication so it does bite.  If you do that, the prepcheck will
unstack the bank in its natural sequence, which is always desirable in sec
checking and prepchecking.  It is a very repetitive action.

     There is another way to use repetitive prepchecking:

     1. Sort out by assessment the person's self-determined decisions.  Get
        the most charged, old-time Problems Intensive style.  Make sure it is
        self-determined.

     2. Date the problem.

     3. Date the confusion prior to the decision found in (1).  The PC will
        slide away from the prior confusion if You don't keep him looking for
        it.  Don't let him find one five years before.  It is a just-prior
        confusion.

     4. Date the beginning of the prior confusion and go a month
        earlier.

     5. Prepcheck it "Since (date found in (4)...."

     A PC tends to see himself as a pawn on the board of life.  The liability
of taking an other-determined chain is that you will get into a chain of
engrams.  This system doesn't handle engrams, so watch it!  It is ok, however,
to get sometimes coming off.  On dating the prior confusion if you let the
date he a few years earlier, you will Miss it.  The prior confusion is the
period when he was creating the problem for which the decision is a solution.
The sequence for this

this mechanism is:

     1. The PC commits overts all over the place and has withholds missed on
        him like mad.

     2. This causes a problem for him.

     3. He makes a decision to solve the problem.  This is the self-determined
        change. [For more details, sec pp. 128-130, above.]

     All this is part of an effort to make prepchecking beefier and more
effective and far-reaching.  You might feel shy of doing a prepcheck if you
weren't pretty sure of getting a good result.  Somatics and conditions like
post-partum depression will blow,



                                      294

without your having to run engrams and getting the PC stuck in the incident.
The success you will have will depend on the excellence of your meter reading,
how thoroughly the PC is in session, and how well you clean up each question.
Prepchecking is a relatively permissive system that gradiently lets the PC get
himself into confrontable soup.  It doesn't overwhump the PC, but it must be
metered right.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=9/8/62
Volnum=1
Issue=182
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-182 Clearing




6208C09 SHSpec-182 Clearing

     What are you, as an auditor, trying to do? You are trying to clear
people!  You should recognize that all processes are subordinate to this end.
To be clearable, a person has to be auditable.  If someone can't talk, listen,
or respond, he is unauditable.  You aren't concerned with states of
["insanity"], as defined by kraepelin.  This is a subject that is subordinate
to scientology.  We have used the words "sanity" and "insanity" for PR
purposes, but actually we have nothing to do with either.  There is not a
person on earth who is sane.  They are all batty, Or they wouldn't be here!
Someone who is sane is someone who resolves problems for the greatest good of
the greatest number of dynamics.  That is sane action and a definition of
sanity.  Very few people apply that rule.

     People fall into a gradient scale of auditability.  That is what you
should study, if you are concerned with states of Man.  A person who isn't
clear won't resolve things for the greatest good of the greatest number of
dynamics.  Even a first goal clear won't, ordinarily.  There is no processing
short of clearing that is worth long, arduous hours, now that we have 3GA.  So
we become interested in auditability.  The trick at the moment is to clear
someone while he is clearing someone else.  The struggle for LRH is not to
clear people.  It is to get people to clear people. People in the ruds and
havingness group are there, not because they are unauditable, but because they
are not able to audit well enough to receive auditing.

     A person, to be unauditable, has to be pretty bad off.  His auditability
is determined by how many overts he is secretly committing while being
audited.  The lowest level of auditability is the person who can be cleaned
up, who will keep his snoot clean long enough for you to clean up his needle.
Below that level is the PC who will never tell you, who won't cooperate or be
frank with you.  At this point auditing ceases to the degree that the auditor
can't get the PC to communicate.  It isn't that the meter won't read, though
that would also debar auditing.

     Almost anybody, if not auditable, is "preparable".  He is still auditable
on CCH's and thus he can be "prepared" for auditing.  This would also apply to
someone who is bleeding to death or in a coma.  The unauditable case will get
a new body, sooner or later, so you can get him later, if the technology is
still there.  The only case that can't be reached is the one that isn't there
and will never hear of scientology.

     Don't spend more time than necessary to get the goals.  Any case that can
be forced into a groove can be audited.  The case that breaks your heart,
though, is the one that appears auditable, but is not really preparable.  We
don't have the tools to handle such a case at present.  The auditability of
people depends in large measure on the sphere of influence of the
scientologist.  The sphere of action that will do the world the



                                      295

most good is that of auditable cases.  They may be nutty, amnesic, spin-bin
cases, but if they are auditable, they can be straightened out.  Some people
have a nutty idea and know it is nutty.  Others don't know.  The one who has
some hope, who knows he can get better, can be audited.  The one who knows no
one can be helped and that it is all someone else's fault, etc., may be a lot
harder to Audit.  The bugginess of their ideas makes no difference. A person's
goal could make him sound batty, but they could still be audited.

     There is nothing wrong with somebody, except that he has upped and got
himself a basic purpose for reasons that are unknown to him.  Then, when his
basic purpose is disobeyed or blocked off, you get a bank developed.  At this
point, a lot of other purposes he doesn't want get hooked on to the first, and
he follows those, and he doesn't know who he is, and he gets a body, etc.,
etc.  It is incredible that a clearing process to unsnarl all this was
developed.  Previous efforts at clearing peeled the guy away from the GPM, but
it was still there.  So no matter how good the PC felt, the chance was there
that it could key in again.

     The PC's goal is a random, chance factor for instance in running
repetitive processes, e.g. help processes, communication processes, etc.  The
goal could be "never to communicate to anyone" or "never to help anyone".  The
index of how much good it will do to find and clear the PC's goal is the
amount of case gain you can get on a person who has had a wrong goal found.
If you sit down with him on a meter and handle that goal with the "to be a
tiger" drill [Reference: HCOB 29Nov62 "Routines 2-i2, 3-21, and 3GAXX -- Tiger
Drill for Nulling by Mid-Ruds".  See Fig. 10.], clean it until all sensation
and pain have gone gone off it, you will see more case gain than you have seen
for some time.  What is happening is that finding the wrong goal did a key-in
of what was there anyway.  It could have keyed in at any time.  Now you clean
it up and it has no further effect on him.

     This could lead to a wild Problems Intensive:

     1. Have the PC write a list of all the problems that he has had this
        lifetime.

     2. Ask him, "What decision would have solved the first, second, third
        problem, etc., etc.?" Don't date them.  They are really goals.

     3. Dust them off lightly with the tiger drill.

It is a little chunk of doing a goals list, and the PC will get phenomenal
relief.  Not that you would necessarily do this on someone.  It is workable
because of the value of a decision.  The bank is a basic decision, or purpose,
which has on top of it a concatenation of purposes. So every time he makes a
decision, he adds a look.

     It is simpler, though, to just do 3GA in the first place.  And this is
also faster and more to the point.  If you can clear somebody, there is no
reason to do anything else.

     What this means for this planet is quite amazing.  Three-quarters of Asia
became civilized just because of a hope that this could be done.



                                      295a

FIGURE 10: THE TIGER DRILL

Small tiger uses:  Suppress                Big tiger uses small tiger
buttons.

                   Invalidated      Plus:  Nearly found out

                   Suggested               Protest

                   Fail to reveal          Anxious about

                   Mistake                 Careful

Procedure:

          A) If the goal reads, check inval, etc., until null; then check
             suppress repetitively to null.  Recheck goal.

          B) If the goal doesn't read, check suppress.

Patter:

          A: To be a tiger.

          C: Null.

          A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?

          C: Read.

          A: That reads. What was it? ... Thank you.
             On this goal has anything been suppressed?

          C: Null.

          A: To be a tiger.

          C: Read.

          A: On this goal has anything been invalidated?

          C: Null.

          A: On this goal has anything been suggested?

          C: Read.

          A: That reads. what was it? ... Thank you.
             On this goal has anything been suggested?

          C: Null.

          A: To be a tiger.

          C: Null.

          A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?

          C: Null.

          A: To be a tiger.

          C: Null.

          A: Thank you.  That is out.

                           *   *   *   *   *   *   *

          A: To be a tiger.

          C: Read.

          A: On this goal has anything been invalidated?

          C: Null.

          A: On this goal has anything been suggested?

          C: Null.

          A: On this goal is there anything you have failed to reveal?

          C: Null.

          A: On this goal has any mistake been made?

          C: Null.

          A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?

          C: Null.

          A: To be a tiger.

          C: Read.

          A: To be a tiger.

          C: Read.

          A: To be a tiger.

          C: Read.

This goal is now ready to be checked out.



                                      296

620RC14 SHSpec-184 Rock Slams And Dirty Needles

     Once upon a time there was a thetan, and he couldn't go forwards or
backwards.  He had to stay there and he mustn't stay there.  The result was
that he was overwhelmed.  He got further orders to evacuate, then to advance,
then to stay there.  Then he caught the barrage.  His own artillery shelled
him.  He decided then to evacuate, but couldn't carry out the orders. He is
there now, in a highly charged agitation, rockslamming.

     A rock slam is a "can't go, can't stay, can't come, can't leave, mustn't
be".  It is a highly charged agitation.  Originally, while addressing goals on
the twentieth ACC, this was such a strong phenomenon that Ron used it in
assessing to go down the chain to find the Rock, hence the name.

     A dirty needle is a tiny, persistent rock slam.  LRH has been spending
the past week or so studying rock slams in depth.  He happened to get a
criminal on the meter, one with known overts against him.  He saw a rock slam
turn on and off on this one fact.  This was very interesting.  Of course the
criminal was trapped too. In this case, however, it wasn't a goals
phenomenon.

     LRH found that you can clean a rock slam off a missed withhold on someone
and end up with a dirty needle.  This is because the PC's attention is on the
large overt -- the rock slam -- not on the auditor.  It takes superb TR-1 to
get past the no-read that results from the PC's elsewhereness.  This was the
first evidence that a rock slam and a dirty needle are signs of overts.  Until
the overt is handled, the needle won't register.

     The mechanics of a "failed to reveal" is the still point following a
confusion.  You should audit the confusion.  You could only get a stuck
picture to move by asking, "What about that picture could you take
responsibility for?" This works because responsibility takes care of the
overt.  Stills do not exist without prior confusions, except in the case of
goals postulates.  For this reason, you can also unstick a stuck picture by
spotting the prior confusion and the overt the person did.  The person usually
settled the confusion with an overt.

     A culture will get stuck and fixed following a good confusion, too.  A PC
will get a chronic somatic following an overt, or more likely, a series of
overts that involve motion.  These overts were a way of settling a confusion.

     Politics is an aberration caused by the collective overts of the
citizenry.  You can forecast the next governmental form by looking at the
overts the citizens are committing, because the government will try to bake
those overts legal, thus lessening the overt.  For instance, a criminal has
come to the conclusion that property belongs to nobody.  He has to come to
this conclusion.  Before the 1917 Russian Revolution, the crime rate was very
high.  So the Russian government legalized the idea that property belongs to
nobody. Weekness, or omitted participation, would be the prior overt in a
socialized state, because in such a state, weakness is legal and rewarded.  In
politics, there is only opinion and aberration, no wisdom.

     In research, what usually happens is that LRH falls over something for
awhile he bumps into it until a way to use it occurs.  Auditors have learned
to go to "failed to reveal" when a dirty needle shows up.  Failed to reveal is
subsequent to an overt.  There is little to gain by asking for overts,
though.  It is too strong.  But the "failed to reveal" skims the top.



                                      297

     Tiger drill [p. 295a] is effective until you run into a persistent rock
slam or dirty needle.  O/W has been put in to remedy this.  It works as long
as you get your question answered.  When it doesn't work, it is because the PC
is doing something else with the answers.  If he is technically answering but
not giving overts, keep clearing the commands.  The PC may be trying to solve
a problem with the auditing question.

     LRH found that he could turn on a rock slam at will in anyone on a goals
chain.  3GA as it exists is totally workable and will do the job.  The only
problem is doing it faster. We have already cleared a first-goal clear who had
a wild rock slam.  Goals got picked off the top of the GPM to the point where
the rock slam showed up.  This guy has gotten caught in the front lines with a
bunch of overts, and he is sitting in a ridge that has enough confusion and
enough overts behind it to make him unable to move anyplace.  So there he is.

     It would be faster to find the first goal if you could just bypass the
first three goals of the GPM and only have four or five to deal with.  That is
the proposed speed-up.  We have run people to an F/N on a goal and found that
they had a rock slam underlying the F/N.  If you overlist for fifteen or
twenty minutes beyond the F/N, you get a rock slam, as the PC goes on down the
goals chain.

     The track is laid out in cycles, made up of series of lives or types of
lives associated and allied, highly variable in their time element.  It is a
prime postulate, a new goal, that starts a cycle.  This is not a solution, but
a new game.  The PC goes along with this.  Eventually, the steam goes out of
it and the thetan finds himself with no interest and no ability to get into
trouble.  He goes out the bottom, then perks up a bit and goes off with a new
basic postulate.  Any further postulate is a solution to problems caused by
the first one.  That is a cycle.  Those are pieces of GPM, with an
interrelationship.  If you can get the earliest you can find cleaned up, the
later ones blow easily, since the thetan had less power to make them.  For
this reason, it is worthwhile to get as early a goal as you can find that
still reads and has some reality for the PC, and which he can still run.

     If a goal will rocket read, you can list it.  After you have tiger
drilled it clean, if it rocket reads, you can list it through to F/N, then
find another, etc., etc., as you go further back.  It would be easy to find
later goals, but useful to find earlier ones.

     A thetan never gets so messed up that he fails to leave a flag out on his
points of aberration. In early work, it was noticed that the key engram of the
PC's current life leaves out a tag.  The tag is an innocent-seeming and
seemingly meaningless picture that the PC is frequently aware of.  For
instance, it may be a picture of Grandfather's rocking chair.  When you
explore this, you find the key engram.  Similarly, the key goal has a rock
slam left on it.  One way of finding out what subject it is on is by nulling
several hundred goals, culling the rock slams, writing them down, And seeing
what the subject matter is.  Test "overts on ..." and see the rock slam turn
on.  The rock slam may wear out on some of these subjects.  Those are the
locks.  The real goal will have a rock slam that won't weer out.  The charge
manifested by the rock slam can be imparted to associated subjects that won't
hold up and that will confuse you. Any branch of the tree looks like the
trunk. Eventually you will find the trunk.



                                      298

     You can use the rock slam to find the goals channel by assessing the
eight dynamics to find one that has a rock slam or a dirty needle.  If there
is no dirty needle at first, you can cause one by having the PC think of
overts against each dynamic and picking out the dirtiest needle.  You have to
be clever to ask these questions without causing missed withholds.  Get the PC
to tell you a few overts on the dynamic that reads dirtiest.  Ask him what
would represent that dynamic, and get a list of items.  Assess by elimination,
looking for a rock slam or the hottest item.  It is ok if, at this point, you
don't get a rock slam.  Take that item and get the PC to list, "What goal
might you have that would be an overt against (e.g., the government?" Write
down any pain or sensation on the list.  Keep listing as long as there is
needle action.  When the needle smooths out, the PC's goal is on the list, if
you are lucky.  If you are unlucky, you will get nothing but pain, sensation,
and a stuck needle.  If so, start with a new dynamic assessment.  If you are
getting cognitions, that is a good sign.

     On some PC's, this could be the only way to run goals.  On most, it would
be a shortcut.


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=14/8/62
Volnum=1
Issue=185
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-185 World Clearing




6208C14 SHSpec-185 World Clearing

     The subject of this lecture is forwarding scientology on a world-wide
clearing basis.  The activity of world-wide clearing is now understood, but
there will have to be an agreed-upon and workable plan to deliver the goods.

     HPA/HCA is presently a neglected sphere.  Prepchecking is not an adequate
tool to turn people loose with, by itself.  We also have the very effective
form of auditing with great therapeutic value that is goals listing, not
necessarily goals finding.  If someone is upset, just get them to write a
goals list with some astronomical number of goals on it.  Preserve it
carefully for later use.  This sort of goals assistance will shortly be part
of HPA/HCA training, along with prepchecking.  If the PC could also list items
for goals, he would shortly be in shape to learn to find goals. Alternatively,
a St. Hill graduate in an organization could find the goals of everyone
around, once they had been set up by the HPA/HCA.  Item listing takes a long
time.  There could be 2500 per list.  So a policy letter has gone out
forbidding St. Hill graduates from doing anything except to find goals (HCOPL
13Aug62 "Clearing").  That way the org can do clearing. The staff could
co-audit on getting goals and items listed, and the St. Hill staff staff
auditor could find the goals.  This would get staffs cleared.

     Now, on to world clearing! Say you have fifty people, paying a certain
amount per week.  They all want to be clear.  Form them into co-audits, three
nights a week or whatever. Get goals listed.  Get items listed.  St. Hill
graduates would find the goal and put the person back into co-audit.  Within a
year, they would all be clear.  Second goals could be found next.  Have them
study the practical actions and get to look like auditors, co-auditing under
good supervision.  The fee charged should be more than adequate to support the
center, or whatever.

     What damage could this do?  The instructor would have to make sure that
no withholds got missed that could cause PCs to blow.  You will have to do
some training at first.  At the same time, get the goals lists made so that
some progress is evident from the start.  You could take the person's auditing
skill count for points towards their getting their goal found.



                                      299

     You might think that this would cut people off from getting trained.  Not
so at all.  People will decide to go get trained while waiting to have their
goal found.  At the end of the year, you will have fifty first-goal clears.
The only limiting factor on the expansion of clearing by this system is the
number who can go through St. Hill, and that number can be increased.  There
are lots of old-time scientologists around the world.  LRH is now getting
their names so that he can write them and send them to the nearest franchise
holder.  This will give semi-trained assistants, people who will join in the
co-audit, etc.

     A finite auditing period -- four to five hours of auditing and several
hours of training per day -- are required to accomplish this program.

     That is the basic world-clearing activity.  Central organizations have
always existed for training and dissemination of information, with auditing of
PCs mostly for demonstration purposes.  Now, when PCs come in, they can be
handled with co-audit and/or preparatory actions.  The trouble in any central
org or any co-audit will be to keep up the quality of auditing and not to let
it get slipshod.  That is always a fight, because green auditors can think up
more interesting ways to do things and have more problems!  You can find what
portion of a central org the public is impinging on most, because that will be
the most scrambled and mucked-up and off-line.  The main danger with a small
staff is that the public will shove the time-scheduling out.  You have to be
mean on that point, because the area the public is most messed up on is time.
Time is the single source of aberration.  There would be no aberration, were
it not for time.  keeping time controlled for the group, with regard to course
hours, etc., will actually result in your giving wins.  Don't let a guy sneak
in late. Greet him loudly.  This results in less aberration and enturbulation
in the group.  Let them know you think scheduling is important and other
factors will fall into place. This is a method of controlling people who are
otherwise unruly.  LRH would never let himself be pushed into auditing more
than five to five and a half hours per day.

     You also have to save time by having administrative people to handle the
phone, mail, etc.  The people on the co-audit will string out in time,
depending on how much bank is in the way of their understanding.  The bank is
composed of no time at all, so they get into its timelessness and have no time
to do anything.  People have different periods of time that it takes them to
register the same recognition.  They have different reaction times.  They have
different rates on different subjects and on different dynamics, etc.  These
rates are determined by where the goal sits.  That gets in the way of your
meter reading.  Some people are aberrated on the subject of meters and can't
see the read on the needle, though they may read books, etc., well.

     A very sane person has fantastic quantities of time.  LRH once
flabbergasted someone by outlining a program for this part of the universe
that extended 5000 years into the future.  "I've seen a billion years planned
out, down to the smallest detail."

     If there were no time, there would be no motion, no havingness, no
matter, etc.  The more bank a person has, the less time he has for the longest
period. A rock can sit there without any recognition at all for a few
trillenia.  Speed of recognition depends on how much time a person has.  PT
varies from a thousandth



                                      300

of a second to a more normal value of a second or two.  Expanded to ten
minutes, this would be frightening.  The number of mistakes a person makes is
[inversely] proportional to the amount of PT they have.  The saner and the
freer a person is, the more PT he has.  The guy whose PT is a thousandth of a
second never foresees the difficulty of doing anything and does the most
impulsive and stupid things you ever heard of.  Foresight is not really
brightness, but width of PT.  Nothing beats looking your way out of things.

     If you think being able to foretell the future a thousand years ahead
with accuracy would be boring, how come you can only get excitement by being
stupid?

     Anyway, this gives you a fast index on PCs, co-audits, etc.  This index
is the amount of time it takes him to register, to find out that something is
there.  The length of time it takes him to absorb auditing information is the
length of time it takes him to be reliable.  If you pair up co-audit teams on
the basis of their recognition periods, they will stay happy.  It will seem
reasonable to both of them.  Methods could easily be developed to measure
recognition period.

     How much should you teach your co-auditors?  LRH would demand
perfection.  In any co-audit, the amount of gain is to some degree
proportional to the amount of responsibility the instructor is taking for
those people.  It is not very dependent on what process you are running.  You
have problems of comparable magnitude, PTP process, responsibility
processing.  Use some processes that avoid O/W.  Your best bet, though, is to
put them onto listing goals and items, so they had better be started out on
prepchecks and prepchecking.  If you have to keep them busy, give them
something to study: listing, for example.  Utilize the available time in the
most productive possible way.

     It is not very tenable to single-hand a project like this.  It is harder
on you than you would think, since you lack a datum of comparable magnitude.

     The communication channel falls off to the degree that an individual
feels that he is outside the organization.  This makes the development of city
offices, rather than franchises, a good idea.  [A city office is similar to a
franchise, but it is under the administrative direction of the central
scientology organization, via an HCO Area Secretary. It is set up by the HCO
Continental Sec.  The intention is that it will ultimately grow up into a
Central Organization.  See OEC Volume VII, pp. 154, 158, 162-163, 165.]  There
is a necessity to make everything neat.  Since it will blow up anyway, it
might as well be done neatly, so that it can be put together again after it
falls apart when expansion hits.  When increased comm hits a network of comm
lines, it is not surprising if the seams leak.  So you have to be skilled in
putting the line back again, not in trying to hold it.

     Any central organization putting together a clearing co-audit should do
it perfectly.  then put it all back together again when it blows up.  You hold
the fort with time, good discipline, etc., and you realize that world clearing
is done on the basis of somehow making it, not as a juggernaut rolling down
the highway.  There hasn't been a road.  You follow policy as far as you can,
and then you make it work from then on.  Just don't scant technology.  Don't
fail to deliver the goods and make clears.  The world will forgive you
anything else if you do that.



                                      301


L. Ron Hubbard


Type = 3
iDate=21/8/62
Volnum=1
Issue=188
Rev=0
rDate=0/0/0
Addition=0
aDate=0/0/0
aRev=0
arDate=0/0/0

SHSpec-188 Basics of Auditing




6208C21 SHSpec-188 Basics of Auditing

     Auditors keep asking LRH for rules and more rules.  Then they goof in
session and ask for more.  It is strange that fundamentals usually come at
high levels of training.  Here is what an auditor should be able to do: He
should be able to get another being to be interested in his own case and
willing to talk to him.  Rules, tricks, rudiments, and various other types of
upset-preventers are all contributive to getting this to occur.  The E-meter
is only contributive insofar as it applies to rudiments.  It is vital for
assessing.  In rudiments, you are trying to do with rules and the meter
something that you cannot do yourself.  This won't work.  Some auditors have
only to sit down in the chair to have the PC ARC break.  This is more true now
than ever.

     The difficulties the auditor encounters are his own difficulties, and the
mechanics he uses force the PC into session with an auditor who doesn't want
the PC in session or who doesn't understand that the PC should be in session
or why the PC should be in session.  The mechanics of rudiments and rules have
made auditing so powerful that the PC is put into a state where he is
interested in his case and wants to talk to the auditor.  But the auditor
thinks he is supposed to do something else and drives the PC out of session
again.  So the PC ARC breaks.  The auditor looks like an auditor and the rules
trick the PC into session.  Then the PC finds that the auditor doesn't want to
hear what he is saying.  The auditor is auditing by some set of rules.  In
fact, there is no auditor, but the technology has created a PC.  This drives
the PC around the bend.  The PC doesn't know what is wrong, but he feels that
something is wrong.

     We have been blaming meter reading, missing reads.  This is just another
technical rule.  Someone who understood the basics of auditing and used them
could miss reads and clean cleans and still have a PC happily in session.  But
someone who cleans cleans and misses reads must be auditing, not by basics,
but by rules that force a PC into session.  If there is no auditor but only
rules and a meter, the rules may be right and the meter wrong.  There is
nothing else holding the PC in session, so he gets upset.  If the auditor is
not there and he misses something, it is curtains.  So it is very necessary to
know what the basics of auditing are.

     The remedy for the above situation is that people are going to learn to
prepcheck and to put ruds in without meters and to do this accurately.  This
will make auditors.  They can do it because they will learn the basics of
auditing.

     Why does auditing exist at all? There are two articles in Certainty
magazine (1958) that take apart what psychoanalysis did wrong.  Anyone that
went into session in analysis did so accidentally.  Basically, the analysand
never had an auditor.  He was also never brought back to PT at the end of
session.

     The basics of auditing include the mechanics of blowing something -- the
reason why auditing works (Axiom 51).  One underlying thread is the principle
that after a session, a PC should feel better.  Even an awful goals assessment
session that missed the goal should end up with the PC feeling better.
Secondly, the auditor must get off the PC's withholds.



                                      302

     The earliest part of auditing is the roughest part, since all the missed
withholds of life are still sitting there unrelieved.  It takes a far better
auditor to handle such a case than to handle someone who has come up the line
a ways.  Scientologists are not really harder to audit than raw meat,
especially raw meat that hasn't ever reached for anything.  You would be
surprised, though, at who can go into session and who can be audited.  Once,
in Detroit, the cops seized some tapes.  Fourteen cops listened to them, and
twelve resigned from the force!

     An auditor should be able to handle the PC's problems and to get a clean
needle so that the PC can be assessed and made to feel better.  An auditor
should audit to get things done in a session, not just to audit.  Auditing
consists of getting something done by a series of little accomplishments, not
by going through the motions.

     You should be able to get a PC into session without a meter, rules, or
anything.  Some people have a gift for this.  An auditor should be able to let
the PC blow something by talking to him.  You would be surprised how rare this
is.  You should also be able to get done what the PC wants done, without Q and
A.  People have trouble differentiating between TR-4 and Q and A.  An auditor
must be able to make this distinction.  He must handle the session and do
things the PC wants done without Q and A.  You have to work at it, to get in
trouble with this.  Q and A is simple:

     1. Not accepting the PC's answer; questioning the PC's answer.  Auditing
        isn't done by rules but by understanding.  People who Q and A don't
        want the PC to talk to them.  They use a remark, a comment, or a
        request for more information to prevent the PC from just saying
        something and blowing the charge.  Or the auditor doesn't
        acknowledge.  This is a defensive mechanism.

     2. Doing something every time the PC says something.  An auditor who
        always does what the PC says will drive the PC crazy.  An auditor who
        audits strictly by rules and not by understanding will never do
        anything a PC says, no matter how reasonable or sensible it is, which
        also drives the PC crazy.

     There are two things that PCs do:

     1. They ask auditors to do things such that if the auditor doesn't do
        them, the session will go around the bend.

     2. They originate.

Auditors who are having a hard time with PCs never differentiate between these
two situations.  They don't evaluate importances.  They try to follow all the
rules instead of helping the PC.  You don't take up the process that the PC
wants run or the goal which the PC asserts but which doesn't check out.  On
the other hand, you don't ignore it when the PC says, "This room is so hot
that I am melting!" Open the damn window!

     There is no substitute for understanding and a feeling of humanness.
Obnose!

     Why does auditing work?  It bothers someone to be the only one who knows
something.  He feels better when someone else can see it too.  He doesn't like
to have only his attention on something.  It bothers him to have to keep it
from other people. When he puts something out and lets someone else see it,
and the person says that he has seen it, and nothing else happens, Axiom 10
hasn't fired.  The catastrophic effect he expected hasn't been produced.



                                      303

Auditing of withholds blows the PC's certainty of consequences.  He gets off a
gross overt that he knew would kill him if anyone else ever found out about
it, and there is no consequence.  The only thing that happened was
ventilation.  Having gotten off the withhold, the PC finds himself with his
attention freed up from that subject.  Before, it was stuck on keeping it
withheld.  So he drops it like a hot potato. Without going into the mechanics
of as-ising, we can say this:  If the horrible consequences that the PC
expected, on getting off a withhold, don't materialize, his previously fixed
attention is freed up.

     Auditors have interesting methods of preventing PCs from blowing things.
They use the meter.  They do something every time the PC originates.  If the
auditor always does something or asks another question about it, the PC isn't
allowed to blow anything.  Auditing works because the PC blows things.  If he
isn't allowed to blow things, he will blow up.  The point is to audit the PC,
not to go through a drill.

     Auditors should be able to clean up a dirty needle.  They should be able
to prepcheck, simply using PC indicators to establish cleanness of the
question.  But don't try to assess goals without one.  If rules get in your
way, you probably don't understand the rules.  The reason for this emphasis is
that 3GA requires a superb auditor, if it is to be done rapidly.


L. Ron Hubbard

