# TRAINING ON TRs,
TALK ON AUDITING

## A lecture given on 30 June 1961

Okay. I think this is the 30th of June and 61, Briefing Course Saint Hill.

The first item that we should discuss today is the fact that I'm going to give you lectures after this on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday because you look so exhausted, you know. you look so exhausted come Friday that it's actually very—hard talking to you, you know. The CCHs are what are getting to you, I think, and—not so much receiving them, but doing them on people. The Security Checks, they're probably the most exhausting. They exhaust all sorts of charge on cases. Anyhow, all joking aside, I'll be lecturing on Tuesday, Wednesdays and Thursday afternoons.

Oh, yes, I have a news item. I have ceased to own two boats in the last twenty-four hours. Not having gotten my hands on them very solidly, and apparently have gotten hold of the—a Fairmile B. an old antisubmarine warfare vessel, 116 feet. They're good, solid weather boats—they were in their day. But the luck of the Irish, it's very interesting. I mean, it's the middle of the year, you see, it's way off season, and the most fantastic buys are just going begging, you see. So I couldn't resist one. We need one anyhow for this expedition. That's what I've been trying to find. So I finally connected with this boat, and you'll be hearing more about it.

Matter of fact, it has enough staterooms on it to set up an HGC. Yeah. But don't worry. Of course, if you got audited under those circumstances, about the middle of the session you'd hear a howl coming through the loudspeaker system, you know, "Now hear this!"—I wouldn't be able to keep out of that valence, you see.

Well, anyway, I think you're making pretty good progress; by and large, making pretty good progress. I notice one or two of you are changing your minds about things anyway. Life should be looking a little easier, and if you're doing your Security Checks in this mood that I've been telling you about—of course, it's the technical precision, but there's a mood goes along with it. That's practically the first time I've ever introduced, to amount to anything, for many years the subject of mood in auditing.

And you can classify it now precisely as a technical asset. The medicos never did that. They just said a doctor had a bedside manner or he didn't have a bedside manner, and he would be a good doctor or he wouldn't be a good doctor, and that was the end of the description, see. But you can say that an auditor who does not encourage the pc to overwhump his reactive bank and remember things and so forth has a poor auditing manner.

But what is it? It's just encourage the pc to overcome his aberrations and surmount them and get the show on the road, you see. I'm not talking about, now you tell him to invalidatively or something of that sort, but you audit him encouragingly. You know, "Come on, you can do it" instead of "You schnook," you know. And that would be the difference between a good auditing manner and a bad auditing manner: was whether or not the element of hope, confidence and encouragement were entered into the session. Now you enter those three elements into the session, and it becomes comprehensible what we're talking about. And as soon as you enter those in, you'll find the pc runs faster, considerably—completely aside from anything else.

All right. Well, you now probably have a much deeper insight into the TRs. Do you have any insight into the TRs? You think you can do these? I'll give you a note here in passing.

Time after time you're going to find somebody in organizations or something trying to teach the TRs this way: Go on to TR 0 and stick. And now it's—eight months from now, we'll still be doing TR 0. You got that?

You're going to find that consistently because the element of endure enters into it, see? Now, that is improper.

Here is the way you do the TRs, and that's probably—you'll find very valuable.

You do TR 0, flunking only TR 0.

You do TR 1. The guy didn't pass TR 0, see. He just got accustomed to it a little bit. TR 1: You do TR 1 flunking only TR 1. Don't flunk anything else.

TR 2: Flunk only TR 2.

TR 3: Flunk only TR 3.

TR 4: Flunk only TR 4. You got the idea?

Now come back to TR 0. Get the guy better at TR 0, and go on through it again, flunking only the TR they are on. you got it?

It's kind of like running the CCHs. You get a better idea of it, you know. They get a little bit of a win at it, and you go on to the next one. you got the idea?

Now you go back, and maybe the third, maybe the fifth run through, according to your judgment, you start TR 0 and you insist that it's pretty good. And there's another element I've just missed. About the third run through you should really start cuffing them around. Flunk only the one they're on, but start cuffing them around hard, see. Give them the business. Give them things they can't possibly confront, you know. Try to shake them up, see. Let them coast in on it easy. I better review that so that you don't get a double confusion.

TR 0, TR 1, 2, 3, 4, flunking only the TRs 0, 1, 2, 3, 4; flunking only the TRs, not giving the student much trouble. All right.

Now! Start in. TR O and give them the works.

TR 1 and give them the works; 2, 3, 4. Flunk only the TR that they're on, but give them the works. You understand? Don't give them a chance.

All right. Now, run through them that way a couple of times flunking only the TR that they are on, giving them the works, pushing their buttons, you know. Give them something to confront for sure.

And then start this business of TR 0—mess them up.

TR 1—mess them up and flunk TR 0s. Flunk TR 1 and TR 0.

TR 2—mess them up. Flunk TR 2, TR 1, TR 0.

Get them on TR 3—you're messing them up. And flunk TR 3, TR 2, TR 1, TR 0.

Get them on TR 4—messing them up. And flunk TR 4, TR 3, TR 2, TR 1, TR 0.

And thereafter, running the TRs, always give them the works. Flunk everything in that battery of TRs. You got it?

If you do that, you shorten the time it takes to learn the TRs considerably. You see how this is?

In other words, you approach this with a gradient scale. We did learn about gradient scales many years ago. Now we should continue to apply that knowledge. Let the guy get used to it, and you'll find out they progress much faster if you do it that way.

Now, learning Model Session. Model Session actually can be learned concurrently with learning the TRs, but for a while just let them learn Model Session. When you've got somebody that's got all of his TRs pretty good, make them do Model Session, which they've already learned and they can rattle it off and all that sort of thing They've got it letter perfect, you understand.

Now there's another Model Session. And that's Model Session with all the TRs in. They can do Model Session, you see. Is it all right if I don't bat this pc's ears off or something of that sort? They can run this off, see, rapidly.

And then when they've got their TRs flat, your next gradient step on TRs is Model Session. You run the TRs with Model Session. And you let them go through it with Model Session, sitting back, not giving them a bad time but just letting them go through it but flunking all the TRs, O to 4. Just flunk those TRs. Let them go through the Model Session. You see, they already learned the Model Session, probably while they were doing their TRs. And now you put them over the jumps, flunking each TR from O to 4 inclusive that they flop on. Give them the business, you see. Just flunk them on these things as you're doing the Model Session.

Now step it up. And give them a lot of trouble as they're doing the Model Sessions, and flunk all TRs. You got the idea? Long since, you should have finished flunking Model Session flubs. They should be—before you begin any of this, you see, they should be in a position where they can go over the Model Session without laying eggs or flubbing, you see.

So now when you're giving them the business up along the line—you see, you just flunked TRs while they were doing the Model Session. All right. Increase the tempo. That is to say, give them a bad time while they're trying to do the Model Session and flunk all the TRs that they flub, see. Because— but now they're going to start flunking on the Model Session too, because it'll rattle them. Got the idea?

So you flunk the rattles and you flunk the TRs, and you flunk the lot, and eventually you get a guy up to a point, no matter what button you push, no matter what you do to him, his TRs don't go out and he can continue to do the Model Session. And boy, he's got it made. It gives an auditing presence that is utterly awesome.

But the steps I've just given you here are probably the steps which you should use in teaching staff auditors and people around, field auditors and so forth, to do it. And if you follow those steps and insist they work at it, why, you'll get there, but if you insist that they sit and grind on nothing but "Model Session" (quote), you see, or you sit—they sit and grind on nothing but TR 0, or you know, you just stop the whole thing Actually, you in effect stop their learning They sit on to an endure. It's just like you wouldn't run a CCH after it was flat, see. It's what you're doing See, you run TR O and the guy has gotten a couple of jolts out of it, and he's uuunh, and he's this way, and he's that way. And then all of a sudden, why, he can do it kind of, you know. Well, that's it. That's it, you know. Knock it off then, and go on to TR 1. Got the idea?

So you're running on a gradient scale of wins and you don't keep giving him loses all the time, and he'll eventually get up to where he has a professional presence which is awesome to regard, you know. The room blows up, and he says, "I'll repeat the auditing question," you know. And anything happens, why, he's competent to take care of it. He doesn't get thrown out of session himself, then, just because some extraordinary emergency occurs, you see. He's not so nervous about the way he's running a session that he can't handle a session, you see? Hm? There are no TRs for the—as such, tailor-made so that the person will just sit there and give the auditing command in the CCHs. But remember that the balance of the TRs which are taught in Upper Indoc are there to back up the CCHs. And you can do those much the same way by gradient scale. Got it?

Of course, it really gets something. You get probably far too complicated when you start doing Upper Indoc TRs, you see, and flunking the lower TRs. That sounds a little bit complicated. You know what I mean, you know? A guy is wrastling around madly with you and so forth, and you all of a sudden flunk him on TR 0. As a matter of fact, it'd be a good gag to pull on somebody, you know. But it shouldn't have any part of the training program.

All right. That should—that should get you over the hump in teaching large numbers of people to do the TRs. If you follow that type of gradient, why, you'll find that you'll be very successful with it. Okay?

All right. Now, what burning question do we have today? You mean nobody in this—all right, Reg.

Male voice: Routine 1, CCHs—what is the guiding factor when you come off Routine 1 ?

When do you come off Routine 1?

Male voice: Yes.

This is the established criteria. You'd come off of Routine 1 when they were nominally flat. Nominally flat. you don't have to grind them to pieces to the non plus ultra, but you don't want a pc who is getting big changes on Routine 1 to be shifted off of them suddenly. That's your main criteria.

The time to take them off, and the only time you can take them off, is when you have gone over CCH 1, 2, 3, 4, and they are, all of them, temporarily flat. you could take the pc off at that time. you could. But the best time to take them off is when they're going through them, not at the beginning of the run when they're not getting any reaction and before you get into the reaction stage of the case.

You know, twenty minutes, no change. Twenty minutes, no change. Twenty minutes, no change. Twenty minutes, no change. "Well, we've done the CCHs." Like hell we have. You've got to go over them a few times and run through that gamut a few times and all of a sudden gog! you know, and whew! and zoog! and so forth.

Now, when you've got that out of the road, you'll find out that CCHs have bitten. That's the criteria, you know. Have the CCHs bitten on this pc at all?

All right. If they've bitten, then you'd run it up to a point where you are actually back to—this is the theoretical perfect end of the CCHs—where they were all running routinely twenty minutes apiece, without any change. And of course, it would be a break of the Auditor's Code to run them any longer. After you've gone through them maybe three times with no marked changes, man. the CCHs are flat—with the proviso that they have actually bitten, while being run. Okay? Does that answer the question?

Male voice: Yes, it does.

Good. Security Check, by the way, has nothing to do with it. It is not an influencing factor because it's carried on over into Routine 2 and Routine 3. Just the CCHs influence it. Okay. Any other questions? Yes, Ken?

Male voice: A run-through of Routine 2. I'd like a run-through of 2— Routine 2.

You'd like a run through of it?

Male voice: Yeah.

In what respect, beyond what's in the bulletin?

Male voice: The scale itself, primary.

The what?

Male voice: The Primary Scale.

Yeah.

Male voice: How is that exactly run? I've heard two ways: run generally through it, just naming off the various different items, levels. and using the terminal.

What terminal?

Male voice: Hm?

What terminal have you got in Routine 2?

Male voice: we don't have any terminal.

That's right. How could you name a terminal? I see where his confusion is. Male voice: Ah, okay.

He's got Routine 2 and Routine 3, and where he has come across the crossroads here is that he's heard that in Routine 2, you can run Prehav 13 which, of course, gives you a list of terminals over in the chronic PTP of the pc.

Male voice: Ah.

So, you see, that could slop over into Routine 2.

Male voice: Okay.

All right. So therefore, you would have a terminal in Routine 2. There's where that is, but you wouldn't name a terminal unless you were doing Prehav 13 or the fellow has always had trouble with his leg and he just has an awful time with his leg You can, by the way, take anything like this. you do an assessment. Actually, Routine 2 general runs encroach on goals, but you shouldn't get them confused. They're distinctly different because you're only giving Routine 2 terminals a lick and a promise. You're not doing anything with them to amount to anything. Nothing serious.

So what do you get here? You say to this—you never run a terminal without doing a Terminal Assessment. Always a Terminal Assessment. This individual just keeps telling you, "Well, the reason I want to be audited is because I have this ringing sound all the time in my ears, see." He keeps telling you this, and this is his hidden standard and a bunch of other things, you know. And so you say, well, let's do something about this ringing sound in his ears. It's even coming up as a present time problem. It's getting in our road something fierce. The corollary is, every time you come into session, they have a big problem, present time problem with the husband. And it takes forty-five minutes of the session to clean this up, session after session. Well, you say to hell with this, because "What part of that husband have you been responsible for?" is not about to clean up everything there is to clean up about husbands. You got the idea?

Similarly, by the way, the confusion area here is that sometimes a pc on a Goals Assessment assesses out to his present time problem, but you're still running SOP Goals, you see. I'm talking about this other thing.

This pc just keeps having this present time problem, present time problem, and it keeps getting in your hair. Or the pc has a hidden standard. Just these two conditions. The pc has a hidden standard, hidden standard, hidden standard. What auditing result do you expect? You know, he keeps crabbing, "No results, no results." What's he mean? Let's clarify it.

And he says, "Well, well, doesn't mean anything. I'm just not getting any results."

"Well, what would have to happen for you to know that Scientology worked?" That is the golden question.

And he says, "Well, the ringing would have to stop in my ears, of course. And I know whether auditing has worked, you see, as to whether the ringing in my ears gets louder or softer. And sometimes it hits high C and I know I've had a good session," and so on. you can find all kinds of weird things like this going on, see.

All right. Now let's do an assessment on the ringing in his ears. What is it? Is it ears? Is it ringing? Is it heads? You know, what is this difficulty? And we just make him keep saying terminals, terminals, terminals, terminals, terminals. You get the idea?

We keep writing them down, writing them down, writing them down. We get a whole bunch of terminals for this ringing in the ears, you know. A whole gang of them. And if it hasn't disappeared in getting the terminals, which it very often does, then you turn around and you run an assessment on these terminals. Find one which falls the most. you don't have to do it by elimination, by the way. That's just getting just a little bit too purposeful. Just take the one that seems to be the most reactive in that list, gives the most change, you see.

We take that and we assess it on the Prehav Scale. It's a kind of a mockery, you know, of SOP Goals, and we assess it on the Prehav Scale, same way. We give it great seriousness. We run it. We run it, see, on the Prehav Scale, but you'll find out that very often you have to run it by the needle. The level doesn't last long enough. And sometimes it grinds out longer than you would think, and you'll be quite surprised, but keep it going. And get it a bit flat. Sometimes it might take you two or three sessions, or something like this to get this thing really flat. When it seems to flatten, by any criteria, assess it again on the Primary Scale. Don't bother with Secondary Scales. Not for something like this. And assess it again and run it again. And maybe you might have to assess it again and run it again. But that time's gone. Now you've gotten the chronic present time problem that you were handling session after session wasting time on, with a poor process, see, with a rudiments process, and it was a very weak process. Well, let's get in there and pitch. See.

All right. The Prehav Scale opens up. you can run this particular terminal. You can run it ragged. If it goes more than three or four sessions though, you'd better ask yourself if you're doing right, you know. Something wrong here. I'd do it all over again. Do a Terminals Assessment on it all over again or something. It's going too long. All right.

Now the other operation, that's the PT problem sort of thing. That's PT problem of long duration to be absolutely technical. A person's had this for a number of years but not more than one lifetime, see. you do the same thing with Prehav 13, which is pretty gorgeous, by the way. That's a pretty gorgeous one. you—you just better get that in your working kit because it'll run on practically anybody under the sun. And it just is marvelous. So far, all the reports I've had on Prehav 13 were utterly rave reports. So it's got lots of velocity. And it's called 13 not because of the position on the Primary Scale, which is what you're liable to confuse it with, because it's a successor to Formula 13.

And what you do, the way it's done is very easy. All you do is make a long list of everybody the preclear knows, even faintly, but personally, in his whole lifetime, this whole lifetime. Just keep putting down names.

Now, as the pc runs along, he's also going to think of other names, and every time you do an assessment on this list, he's going to think of more names. Well, you add those to the end of the list. you don't assess them when they came up. you got the idea? Don't Q-and-A with it. Just keep putting these new names he thinks of on the end of the list.

In other words, there's just a stable datum there that every time he thinks of a new name after he's ended his list—you know, the list is over. "That's everybody I know." Now he thinks of twelve new names, see. you add those to the end of the list. you don't assess them at the time he gives them to you. you just assess them in turn. you got it?

All right. You take this list and it'll be a rather imposing, overwhelming affair, and you're liable to think the first time you ever do this, "Good heavens, we're going to spend the next 875 hours of auditing doing nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, but go over this list, list, list, nothing. Kawow!"

Well, that isn't true. As you do the assessment and try to find out which person it is, and as you pick one of these names because of its greater reaction... By the way, you—you assess down the list—you could assess something on the order of taking twenty of the names as a block, and just assess that twenty, and find the person in that block of twenty that has the deepest fall, you see. you don't have to assess the whole list like you would in SOP Goals. It actually doesn't much matter how you do it, you got it? You're straining at gnats; you're the ensign out there on the bridge, looking through the sextant with chewing gum in the eyepiece and pointing it and taking a very fine meridian altitude on the truck light. And then he goes below and spends the next seven or eight hours, you see, figuring it all out to the ninety-fifth decimal point, you see?

So he figures out—the point he finally arrives at was—is actually far smaller than a pin punched in the ocean, you know. The accuracy of his action is, however, anything that would put him anywhere on this planet with a sextant. You got the idea? I mean, this is a standard one. It's one I joke about because frankly it's one I've seen many times. This tremendous— I've seen engineers do this, you know. I've had engineers—well, you've seen them, too. It's just horrifying.

And sometimes these guys will be horrified at what you're doing, you know. And you say, "Well, we're going to throw this bridge across this stream here. We've got to fix up this—this steel column here so it's going to support the roof," you know, and golly, you throw in all of these factors. You think it over, you know, and you say, "Well, let's see, there's going to be a lot of tonnage up there, and then there'd be tonnage moving in and out. And there'd be this and there'd be that. And the mass of the roof is so forth, and our factor of safety, let's call it 5, and so forth." And you say, "Well, let's make the thing so it'll hold up 192 tons."

And this fellow you're working with says, "Aren't you going to measure it?" you know.

And you say, "Measure it, why?"

"Well, well, I know, but good heavens, such inaccuracy you know

And you look at him and you say, "But there isn't any way to get a totally accurate down-to-the-last-ounce weight on any building. The wind blows, people move a machine upstairs. After you've built the building, why, they drag in another machine, and they overstress the area and they understress it, and during certain times of the day it has lots of foot traffic, and other times it has none. How are you going to stabilize the load on this beam? There is no such thing as a constant load on . . ."

"Oh, well, yes, there is, you know." And they just believe this so implicitly, it's pathetic, you know. And half the time those guys will put up a beam, and you'll put one small electric motor or something up above this beam, and it crumples, you know, like a piece of taffy. But, boy, have they figured it. Man, they've got the last piece of gravel that is going to be on the roof, you know. They have figured out even the weight of the seeds of dandelions that are going to blow, you know, and touch the top of the building. They got them all. And then they'll frankly go on by the hour, and they will take this figure—which is at best a very rough, rough guesstimate, see—and then they'll take this figure and with what agony will they reduce it to what accuracy. See? And golly, you watch this. But they watch you equally in horror, you see, as you're doing an inexact operation.

For instance, I happen to know that the stresses on a helicopter airfoil had never been measured. Nobody has ever measured one because we don't have men that endure enough to get out there on an actual helicopter blade, you see, and put spring balances on them this way and that. And a slow motion picture demonstrates that a helicopter wing, while spinning—they're wings really— they've got a twist in them as much as thirty-five to fifty degrees. And you'll see this—this blade going this way and this way under actual use. It's the most horrifying thing to watch. You say, "How can any piece of material ever do this," see? And as the helicopter wing swings forward, it's got one set of stresses, and then as it goes around past the nacelle and goes back, it's got another set of stresses entirely different. And somebody's going to calculate this? Man, that is just unimaginable. After they've calculated it, you see, what have they got to do? They've got to carve out a helicopter blade and swing it around to find out what it's going to do in actual service, and then make it a bit stronger, and they've got it. And that's the way it's normally done anyhow.

So I don't want in any respect to give you any idea that an exact formula, you see, exists in an area where the most wild, rough, slapdash is going to do some good, don't you see.

Now, it's quite one thing with what precision—because boy, it is precise if you do it right. And a lot of you have got reality on it, when you've run out all the guy's goals and you've got all of his terminals flat, man, the final one is just sitting there, and it's inevitable, and explains everything that's been going on and so on, and there it is.

In other words, you're up with a single answer because you're trying to achieve this single answer, you see. And there isn't any other answer. It isn't a dozen answers. It's just one.

Well now, that's quite a precise activity, and you then assess this particular one answer on the Prehav Scale and you're running for blood because you're running the fellow's whole track. Well, you have to do it pretty precisely. You have to make sure that's the right level, after making very sure that it's the right terminal. Oh, yeah, a very precise activity. But look-a-here: Prehav 13? Look, for heaven's sakes, there's no way to determine how fast these things are going to disappear. They may disappear on his mentioning having remembered them. They may disappear on charge on having them included in the list and read a couple of times as you're going over assessments.

They may disappear on the basis of you're—you've just got them, and you say, "All right. Now we're going to take Joe Jones, and we're going to run him on the Prehav Scale. Now, would Joe Jones be Cause?" You know, and here we go, you know, anything on the Prehav Scale, and all of a sudden we're looking at the Prehav Scale, we're trying to assess Joe Jones, you know. Oh, we got a fall, you see, at Cause, and a tick at Faith. And we go back to those, and we can't get any reaction. No, you blew Joe Jones in the process of trying to get him on the Prehav Scale.

All right. Let's say we've got Minnie Gulch. And Minnie Gulch is over here, and we get her, see, on the Prehav Scale. And we actually find a level and it assesses out beautifully. And Minnie is sitting right there at Withheld Effect or something, and here she is. Man, we're all set, and we're forming the auditing command, and we're all set. There's no reaction on this thing, let's see now. She's gone.

And then you're suddenly startled out of your wits by having Mr. Zilch suddenly turn up on the case and not only hold good for a whole assessment, but hold good for the whole of the formation of an auditing command and hold good for about five hours of auditing Kawow! See? This throws you out of balance totally.

So every time you have to go through the same action. But don't expect that there's going to be anything very definite about how long that name is going to stay hot, because it isn't going to stay hot in some cases and it is in others, and it's very inexact. Well, in view of the fact that you've got this many vagaries of behavior of the list—yes, it is done precisely the same way every time, but it doesn't much matter whether you assess the whole list or assess part of the list or do what. It's all in what would be the most effective or efficient on how you handle this list—actually, how you assembled the list and so on. This is rough because you're doing a very inexact thing And I'll tell you why it's very inexact. Do you think there's a single person on that list that he's going over that had actually power enough to aberrate him the way he is?

So if you make the mistake of believing you were doing anything else but making the case happier or easier to run and getting all the present time problems out of the road, taking these people off as locks. You're just making things easier for yourself, you see. That's the only reason you're doing Prehav 13. In spite of the fact that it makes the preclear happy, it isn't going to do a great deal for his case at large. It's just going to make him easier to audit.

You haven't gotten any of his major aberrations out of the road. If you got one out of the road, don't get silly and believe that you've done something fabulous for this case because, let me tell you, you haven't. There isn't anybody on the list he'll give you for this lifetime that had power enough to aberrate him. Not a single soul. And this guy says all of a sudden, "Oh, I just had this wonderful result and thank heavens you finally found out the fact that my father used to beat me every evening, and I never forgave him for this. And isn't that fine, and isn't that nice?" Aw, pishtash!

It'll last at best only about twenty-four hours, forty-eight hours, something like this. Now, if you could get all of his recall back on this lifetime, ah, that would be a big step forward. If you got all the not-knows off on this lifetime, that would be big. Because you'd be opening the track to his other lives. There's another Security Check that's coming up which is the whole track Security Check. You got it?

Audience: Yeah.

Of course, you wouldn't use that until the person had some kind of an idea that he'd had a past. I imagine it's quite something to struggle with, isn't it? Well, don't take it unless it falls. Unless you get an instant fall, don't pay any attention to it. A lot of these things are intriguing, you know. And you could wind the pc up just bragging.

Here's this other Prehav 13 though. Well, you're just smoothing out the auditing and you're smoothing out his life, and you're keeping him from getting rudiments out while you're auditing him. Now, don't mistake it. This is very valuable. But that's all you're doing. So to lay you down any precise estimate of "For 3 minutes and 57 seconds point 9 if the tone arm is registering at 7.1, but preferably if it is registering at 7.199264, this you do and that you do and so forth. And then it's this way and it's that-a-way and so forth." No, it's just one of these crude, rough, kick it over, let's find out what's biting him. Let's get these PT problems all out of the road effectively on the Prehav Scale, you see (which is pretty powerful), instead of kicking them in to sessions and having to get rid of them in rudiments all the time.

That's actually the basic use of Prehav 13, is keep yourself from being messed up all the time by having the rudiments out, you see. That's its basic use. And its auditing value? The pc'll think it's marvelous—actually very slight.

Compared to a Security Check, it's nothing. Therefore, this type of action gives you all of the latitude in the world. How do you find all these people? Well, if you just took everybody you knew and took them one after the other, crudely, and assessed them on the Prehav Scale, most of them would blow out. Oh, you leave five hot. So what! They didn't do anything to him, anyhow. Got the idea?

See, its a very highly imprecise action. It's just something that you get out of the road. you can go over this list. You'd end it when you could go over the list without getting any kicks on the needle. That's all. Not even with a very high sensitivity, you know. you know, third-of-a-dial drop.

Oh, I got a joke on somebody on sensitivity. I told you Herbie was having trouble, and I put him back on the line, and I had it put up on the board here. But he says, "Sure enough." Only, it was—surprised me, the observer on the ground found something that I didn't necessarily predict, see. I thought that he'd find that they were setting the sensitivity knob too high while they were doing rudiments. This isn't what he found. Being right on the ground, he had an opportunity to observe it. No. None of them knew what a third-of-a-dial drop was. you see?

Remember what I was telling you. It's just fantastic. It's just the unguessable. Don't bother to guess it. Just look. We used to have a slogan: Look. Don't think. And it sure applies to this kind of thing, you know. Some guy is having an awful lot of trouble. Well, go look, man. Go look.

All right. The running of Prehav 13, the running a PT problems on a goals-type assessment, are done in Routine 2. And Routine 3 isn't clobbered up with this stuff at all. And there's where you got your crisscross.

Now, when you're just doing a general run as called for in Routine 2, you do your assessments just as you would assess for a terminal, but you certainly aren't mentioning any terminals. And you just go down the line. Same way. What I do is I take the list from the bottom and I run on up toward the top until the needle starts rising consistently. I do use a needle rise. And when it starts rising, I say, well, why go any higher, you know. And as I've gone up, I simply make a mark after the Prehav level that reacted. Every one that reacted. I didn't linger around on it.

You never repeat Prehav levels. You just say them, and it reacts, and you go on to the next one. And then pretty soon you'll find the needle starts climbing and climbing, and you say, "Well, we've hit the end of this fellow's reality."

All right. So we start back down again, and now we only take those points that we have a mark after. And we read those over once and find which one of those is still live. Any one of those that's still live, we make the same mark after it. Now you've got about two, three levels, or something like this you've got, with two marks after them.

Now, you read that second-mark level again to the pc, you see. you know, the one that got the reaction again, and you read those three over. And one of them falls out, and then you play the two against each other that remain. And one of those will fall out, and that is the level. And that is the fastest, most accurate way I know of, of doing a Prehav Assessment with a terminal, with a general level or anything else.

If you were to find that—while you were running SOP Goals—I'll make this comment because it—there were several checks here as to whether or not you're on the right track and you're doing all right as an auditor. I'd better mention them.

One of them is you do—this is about the third time—second or third time you've assessed this pc—preferably about the third time—on an SOP Goals run, and you're assessing this terminal which you have long since established on the Prehav Scale the third time, you see. You've already gotten rid of a couple of levels. You've run them. And all of a sudden you find twelve, fifteen levels of the Prehav Scale are alive. Uh-uh-uh, oh-oh, mm-mm, da-dadat-dat. Wrong terminal. Wrong terminal. You goofed. And the thing to do is to end the assessment there. Right now.

Don't go on with it. You've got twelve, fifteen levels live. Something is awfully wrong. First find out what's been going on. Has the pc been selfauditing this thing? Has he been auditing some other terminal to himself? Has somebody else been running him, you know? Ask the obvious questions. No. None of these things.

So you sort of assume, well, I've goofed. So let's go back to the terminals list, and let's take the whole terminals list that we had, and let's read it all over again to the pc and find out what's wrong with it. And we may find that we have bought a cognition surge or something like this, and we selected that terminal too rapidly or something of the sort. Let's go back, because now we will find, possibly, that it wasn't quite the right terminal. Now we get the right terminal. Now just go on and run. Don't bother to go back to check your goal. That's certainly not going to be out. Your goal is kind of uncheckable anyhow, because the moment the pc's attention is put on terminals for the goal, the goal desensitises

All right. So that's the—that's one test as to whether or not in Routine 3 you're on the right track. There is another test of similar validity. And when you're doing a level and, without being even questionably flat, the tone arm just goes up, particularly between sessions—the tone arm just goes up. This doesn't happen every time, but between sessions, you know. He left reading at 3.5 and he comes back in reading at 6.0. Or you're running him, and fantastically you've got a tone arm which goes—it's been running between 3.0 and 4.0, and all of a sudden it starts to run between 4.0 and 5.0, and then starts to run between 5.0 and 6.0. Well, that's another check. Your rudiments are out. That's all that means. Your rudiments have gone out somewhere along the line, see. The pc's got a withhold from you. The pc's got a present time problem. The pc's got something or other.

Now, this is a little bit confusing to read because toward the end of a line, just before the level gets flat on a terminal, this also happens to a slighter degree, but it also happens. Your level is just about going to get flat, and the tone arm will go up half a point, and it kind of gets sticky and goes up and so forth. Well, so naturally, the best way to get around this is to check the rudiments before you reassess. If you think something is flat, your end rudiments should be very thorough. You think something is flat, you should end the session and hit those end rudiments very thoroughly, before you do your next assessment. And of course, you've got another crack at it in your beginning rudiments.

Now do your assessment, and if the level that you have been running is still alive and it was only an ARC break, it'll become obvious to you because the rudiments were badly out. you understand? And if the thing appeared flat, but then you went into the end rudiments, and the rudiments were very badly out, you would then assume that it really wasn't flat. And the—really the safe thing to do even before you reassess or test anything or anything else is run another twenty minutes of it. See, after you've got the rudiments straightened up, run another twenty minutes before you finally get down to assessments. You see that?

That's the careful auditor. You won't make any goofs this way. A pc can go out of session, and the level you're running on SOP Goals appears to be flat. This is normally signalized by—when it's apparently flat, but reason is an ARC break or something, the tone arm is going to go pretty well up before it flattens. It's going to go pretty well up. So as I say, in—before you assess again, you should run those end rudiments, run some beginning rudiments, and if you found the rudiments were wildly out, just assume that thing wasn't flat and run another twenty minutes of it. Another test, in other words.

Now, this is—works exactly the same way in running Routine 2 on general runs. That general run is a highly precise action. And all of a sudden you're running Fail Leave on the pc, and you're running it and run it and running it and running it and running it and run it and run it and run it and run it. And all of a sudden the tone arm goes up about two dial-divisions. And all of a sudden there's no motion. Well, one of two things could be the case.

Case 1: It's flat. And Case 2: He's gotten a violent ARC break or a violent PT problem or something else has happened, very harsh, very rough on the case. And in either case, whether running Routine 2 or Routine 3, you should make a very careful rudiments check. So therefore, you end the session. You don't say "Well, that process is flat. We're going to reassess for a new process." No, sir. That'd be a bum one to do. What you do is go over those end rudiments. Now see if they were wildly out. you know, he had a PT problem. He had an ARC break. He had a withhold. I mean, you know, wow! See?

And you notice while you're doing this that the tone arm comes down. You'll see that happen, if this is the case, you see. And don't ever make the mistake of thinking the level you were running was flat because it isn't. And the safe thing to do is to, of course, give it another twenty minutes.

Now, if it is flat, of course, it'll remain flat. There isn't anything mysterious going to happen here. Nothing is going to unflatten it. There isn't any walking on the term edge of anything. Go ahead. Test it again. So you might say, to absolutely guarantee the results you're going to get, the proper thing to do is, when a level is flat—whether Routine 2 or Routine 3—the proper thing to do is to run end rudiments, beginning rudiments, and if these things markedly shifted the tone arm down, run it for another twenty minutes to find out if it was flat. Okay?

Of course, this even means an ARC break for the pc sometimes. But so what? I'll tell you this. I've never had it fail that when a preclear was ARC breaking on the basis of "You are running this level, and this level has long since been flat!" and so forth, and I have never seen it otherwise in the case that the level was just about as flat as the Tasmanian Sea, which everybody knows measures waves seventy feet between trough and crest. Not flat.

Just the fact that the pc is saying, "Mow, you, you, you, you, you, yow. And I know it's flat, and I'm tired of it, and I want to get off of this, and you just keep running it. And actually it's killing me because you're bringing in these other masses on me, you see. And it's all very ruinous and yippety-yap, yippety-yap, yippety-yap." I don't even look at an E-Meter. I just go on running it. Not to punish the pc, but I know the pc is just on the verge of a startling and horrendous gain, and sure enough you'll see it every time.

The pc will all of a sudden say, "Oh, well, what do you know. Gee. Wow, uh-huh-huh! Heath!" They never tell you though, "Boy, it's lucky you kept on running that, man." They never say that. I never heard them say it anyhow. They only say, "Mow, you, you, and it's flat, and you know it's flat, and you're just running it to punish me. You're just running it because I said I didn't want to run it. That's why you're running it."

It's like the CCHs. When anybody says, "No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No! No! No CCHs. That's only for nuts, psychotics. That's for bums. My case isn't in that bad shape. Actually, I had the CCHs totally flattened in 1952." And, oh boy, is that a good enough reason to run them. I mean, it's a perfect assessment. Something is overwhumping the pc here. Because a fellow, let me tell you, that has the CCHs flat will simply sit down and run the CCHs, bang! There's nothing to it, see. you just sit down, he'll run the CCHs. You got a reality on that now, I'm sure. They sit down, they run the CCHs. So what's that? That's nothing very drastic. The auditor will find out in exactly eighty minutes that they are flat.

All right. Good. Of course, if the pc asks you to put it in writing so that it won't happen again, once more we have another test. The only place that the CCHs can really fool you is on the beginning of the run, and that's the only place a level can really fool an auditor. There is no telling at the beginning on many cases, whether the CCHs are flat or the level is flat. Because in one case the pc has no reaction; in the other case, the E-Meter has no reaction. You don't get any reaction out of the pc in the CCHs. You don't get any reaction out of the meter on the level. And you go on. you run it and you run it and you run it, and you go through them once, And you go through them twice, and you go through them again. Aaaahhhhh. Nothing happening here, and all of a sudden the pc says, "Thuuuup!" Thud!

And then they get liver, and they get liver, and they get liver and liver, and then they're getting real hot, and the pc's going along just dandy, and everything is fine, and only after they've hit a peak of some kind, do they then cool off.

Similarly, with a level: you take some case, particularly that has to have a high sensitivity knob setting. And you start to run this level, and it's Failed Cause or something, you know. And here you go. "What have you done to the Confederacy? What has the Confederacy done to you?" Failed Cause, something of that sort. And you get to run it along, and here you go. And you're getting an eighth-of-a-dial tone arm motion. Eighth-of-a-dial tone arm motion. Eighth-of-a-dial tone arm motion. Every twenty minutes it shifts a sixteenth of a division, you know, that kind of thing, you know.

And it'll shift an eighth of a division, and then it'll shift a quarter of a division. Then it'll shift a half a division, and then it'll shift a division, then it'll shift two divisions, and it looks like it's doing a rock slam over on the tone arm read, see. And then it's hot, hot, hot, hot. And it runs hot. And it runs for a long time, and then it starts running cool, cooler, cooler, cooler, cooler, cooler, flat.

And you can expect this cycle of action to occur on the unflatness of any process in the three routines. That can happen anyplace in the three routines. The person is getting no reaction to something at all. And then the reaction suddenly increases. Okay?

All right. Is there—are there any other questions? I answered that one rather obliquely, but it's some data I thought you ought to have. Is there any other question?

Okay. Well then, you've had a successful week, have you?

Audience: Yes.

All right. Now, on this weekend, you're not going to have anything to do this weekend. Nothing for you to do this weekend except, well, do SOP Goals and run the Security Checks and routine things like this.

I want you to check over with yourself—have a heart-to-heart talk with your thetan—and check over yourself, "Now, are my TRs pretty good? Do my TRs stay in while I'm in a Model Session—doing Model Session? Do I really know everything there is to know about this here E-Meter? Or is there some things that I don't know about this E-Meter?"

Find out definitely if you really think you've got a good grasp on Security Checking, and find out if your idea of running the CCHs—if you're running those okay; if there's anything you need to know about those. And then look over very carefully, and find out if you got a good grip on general assessments and the Prehav Scale, and so forth, on doing an SOP Goals Assessment.

Sort of do a review on yourself on those seven points, and let's see whether or not you have anything else to learn on these points that you feel terribly stupid about. And if, while you're checking these over, a horrible feeling of stupidity comes over you, while you're just checking these over, then ask your thetan what it is. But don't let it stop there. Don't let it stop there. Let's tell your Instructors about it and see if you can get some point in it straightened out. Okay?

Don't hide from yourself a lack of knowledge along these lines. Don't kid yourself, because there's no point in it. You're not getting any grades. Nobody is giving you any grades at all. It's the world that's going to grade you. why should I? Okay?

Thank you.