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.

     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.

