6211C27 SHSpec-219 Routine 2-12 (Part II)

     LRH has been auditing R2-12 for about eighteen months, now, and he has
made all the mistakes.  The procedure, as now released, is the no-mistake way
to do it as an invariable action.  Even when it is done perfectly, it will
occasionally lay an egg.  Why?  Because you might pick up an item on the first
assessment that isn't part of a GPM, and the clean-up that it gets on tiger
drilling may not clean it up entirely.  In that case, you are "currying a dead
horse," i.e. you are not going anywhere.

     The source of the dead horse is some withholds or something on the item,
when it is not part of the GPM.  What is a dead horse?  It is a list, whether
a represent or an oppose list, that contains no wide slams, after you have
gotten mid-ruds in for the session.  If you have gotten nothing but dirty
reads and dirty needles and nothing has slammed by the time you get up to
fifty items, you will lay an egg.  The best thing to do is to carry it to
fifty items, and if there is no slam, abandon it.

     The likeliest way to get a dead horse list is a wrong assessment.  The
auditor doesn't check, if he is in doubt about a read, he missed reads, ARC
breaks the PC, etc.  You can also have an item reading on an ARC break because
the PC doesn't understand the word.  The E-meter "is a reality indicator."
Another way to get misassessment is for the auditor to misduplicate what the
PC said on listing and to write down something else.  Then, when the auditor
assesses it, the PC will protest it, since it is not what he intended.  If you
don't understand what the PC said, you have to get it understood, even if he
ARC breaks every time you ask him.  The way you ask a PC to repeat something
is to take responsibility for not understanding, in a way that doesn't
challenge the PC.  You can ask him to spell it.  That's fine, unless he can't
spell.  Do not repeat the item after the PC! It will drive him around the
bend.  It can make him feel like he is spinning, and it tends to shut him up.
Don't ask, "Did you say _______ ?" That causes him to protest and can leave a
mark on the list.  It also looks like you are correcting him.  Also, never
point to an item on a list.  Don't ever point towards a PC anyway.  [Cf. not
pushing in anchor points] The thetan will put his theta beams against that
finger, and his theta beams will get bent.  This includes pointing to list
items.  It makes wrong items stay in.

     A PC must be able to put anything on a list, but he must never be allowed
to take anything off.  If he wants a word changed, take it down and add it as
a new separate item.  E.g.  the PC says, "Oh, that should be 'a cow' and not
'the cow'." Acknowledge and add "a cow" to the list, at the bottom of the
list, and leave "the cow" on the list.

     If you null a list that has given you a persistent dirty needle and then
oppose that, you won't wind up with much.  The invariable actions of R2-12
eliminate that pretty well.  If you are listing on a list and nothing is
slamming, get your mid-ruds in.  But don't get them in when the PC
originates.  If the auditor isn't sure whether or not he is doing it right and
has a guilty conscience about it, that auditor is very vulnerable, because he
thinks he might be committing overts.  Therefore, he tends to withdraw from
his PCs.  Even an auditor who is doing letter-perfect auditing can be shaken
up by a PC who snarls about mid-ruds being put in.  Treat this as an origin.
When the PC is protesty, keep him talking.  Don't punish him with the missed
withhold question.  But get it handled sneakily by finding what you haven't
found out about -- his state of mind, or something.  Then go ahead and get the
mid-ruds in.  That is the way to handle this situation, not with Q and A.

     The next big source of dead horses is an incomplete list.  If the PC says
that last item he gave you is it, that is a sure sign that the list is
incomplete and that there is a slamming item coming up.  Don't quit listing
when the PC tells you that the last item he gave you was it.  What he means
is, "That is the last safe item." The list is incomplete and the rock slam is
just over the horizon, and the PC has chickened out.  Don't ever quit until
the list is complete.  The PC will never forgive you for not getting the item,
however much he protests further listing.  So get the list done.  That is the
only road out, unless the PC has a legitimate beef.  For instance, if the PC
insists that an item is reading on protest, check "protest", clean it up, and
recheck it. Don't take items from what the PC is giving you as protest or 2WC.
That is robbing the PC!

     In the process of listing a list, you are liable to run into a dwindling
or sporadic rock slam.  If you don't get an item that slams while listing, you
don't have a list.  The classic dwindling rock slam is common.  Don't stop
listing just because the rock slam stops.  You can get mid-ruds in and ask the
question you are listing from to see if it reads.  That is not certain, but it
is a good indicator.  The proof that a list is incomplete is that when you are
nulling and the needle is dirty, when you ask, "Did you think of something?",
the PC gives you something that doesn't clean up the needle.  If you find
yourself having to keep using this question to clean the needle, it is an
indicator that the list is incomplete.  It also invites more items.

     The PC's ARC breaks about not completing the list do not stem from the
auditor or auditing flubs.  They come entirely from the PC's unwillingness to
confront.  When a list is complete, the PC will be willing to go on listing
forever.  He only balks when the list is incomplete.  So "any balk by a PC is
an indication of an incomplete list." So you keep going, on a list, until you
don't have to get mid-ruds in to null it.  On assessing a list, two
consecutive items in almost always means that the mid-ruds have gone out.

     The list will be more than ten to twenty items long, but some PCs go for
long lists -- 500 items or so.  80-150 items is more usual.  Anything that
restrains a PC or keeps him from giving a complete list will wreck R2-12, as
well as 3GAXX.  The more you harass or worry a PC, the less you will get
done.  Don't ever yap at a PC about his dirty needle.  It does no good. Never
stop a PC from listing.  You can get as many as three dwindling rock slams
from one item.

     There is an accidental on List One.  Since you didn't just do a list,
mid-ruds aren't in.  So get them in before you assess List One.  One reason
not to let the PC add items to List One is that once you start, the PC is
listing, and you will have to let him list it out, or you will have a dirty
needle.  So just don't start.

     In R2-12, what you are trying to do is to find a tag, first in
scientology, then in the present time environment, off of a GPM that is hooked
into PT by the A = A = A nature of the bank.  You are doing this because if it
is there, the PC has a chronic PTP.  Recognize that the other side of the
package -- the side that opposes the PT item -- is keyed in all the time.
Recognize also that it is a lie to say that it is in PT.  It is only keyed in
to PT.  The moment you start your represent list, the PC will fly out of PT.
That's fine.  On "represent", what else is there to list?  On the represent
list, very likely the PC will go back track.  Recall:

     1. Identities.

     2. Similarities.

     3. Differences. [See p. 198, above.]

The PC has the GPM mass identified with a PT item.  The PTP is in PT because
of A=A=A.  The GPM item is identified with the item in PT, minds being what
they are.  When you represent anything, you are peeling identifications off of
it.  This is not true of opposing.  Listing is auditing.  By taking anything
someone is worried about and by representing items, the PC will see
similarities instead of identities. Get the represent off first.  That helps
him differentiate. You could do this as an assist, not even on the meter,
using, e.g., "What does a bellyache represent to you?" Also, many PT items don't have opposites, you need the "represent" step for them also.  In fact, any time you say, "Who or what would _______ ?", you are really doing a represent list, so it is therapeutic, because it separates out items.  It separates what is true from what is false.  The more identified a person is with something, the more items will come off of that thing.  As you list or null, you are auditing like crazy. This is solid auditing and about the soundest and most condensed auditing you can do.  It produces the most gain per auditing hour.  So long lists are lots of auditing.  Every time you null, you are differentiating.  Done right,
getting items, it is fantastic.

