610824 SHSBC 49 - Rudiments 24 August 1961

610824 SHSBC 49 - Rudiments 24 August 1961

Сообщение auditor » 04 янв 2016, 11:44

Web auditing in any place on the planet http://webauditing.org/

610824 SHSBC 49 - Rudiments

A lecture given on 24 August 1961

All right, what's the date?
Audience: 24th.
Twenty-fourth of August, AD 11. And you better ask some questions. Come on,
ask some questions. Nobody knows anything, huh? You haven't got a single
question in your mind? Here you've had a whole rash of new data and there
hasn't been a single question crossed your mind concerning any part of
this. Yes, Kay?
Female voice: When you're running the Prehav level on the terminal, does
the Confront and Have alone stabilize your person for Clear?
Mmm. When you run the Prehav on the terminal does the Confront and Prehav
Female voice: No, the Confront and Havingness. Is that what stabilizes your
Yeah, but you've said the Confront and Havingness on the terminal
stabilizes the Clear?
Female voice: No, when you're running the terminal.
Another female voice: When you're running the terminal on the Prehav Scale
is it the Confront and Havingness Processes that stabilize the person?
Absolutely not. They have practically nothing to do with it. They just make
it easier to run sessions. They just have nothing to do with it. The
stabilization of a Clear consists one hundred percent of checking out
goals, finding more goals, doing terminals lists (long terminals lists) for
those goals, assessing the goal found - the terminal found on the Prehav
Scale and trying to find the command for that and getting a command for
that and running that level of the Prehav Scale. And when you've got that
terminal flat, why, go back and check the goal. And if you can't find
anything left of that goal, make sure that your rudiments are in one
hundred percent. And then check it over again and go back to the original
goals lists. Find out if one of those goals are now alive, try to get some
more goals. When you finally got a new Goals Assessment clearing all over
again, you find a new terminal. In other words, you just do that same
operation of Routine 3 over and over and over. You assess for goal, assess
for terminal and run on the Prehav. Assess for terminal, assess for goal.
That's all. Once you've got a goal, well, let's get every terminal that
applies to that goal flat, as long as the goal itself registers.
I mean you don't go back and find a new goal every time you flatten a
terminal. You go back and check the goal. The goal is still alive, you find
a new terminal for it, and run it on the Prehav, see? It's just a
continuous cyclic process. And anything else you're doing, such as running
rudiments, such as running problems of any kind, and anything to do with
Security Checks, anything like that is simply aimed straight at keeping the
preclear in-session. And if the pc gets out of session, if the rudiments go
out, if your Security Checks are not kept up-to-date, and so forth on the
case, the goal will disappear, the terminals disappear, and the person
won't go Clear. Then you get endless runs to Clear. Endless runs to Clear.
And they all add up to rudiments out, rudiments out, rudiments out. And in
case you haven't noticed, there are broader processes now for the
One of the broader processes is at the level of withhold - the pc registers
on withholds - you've got the whole of Security Checking. That vast
panorama of action all fits at that level of the rudiments. And you keep
the rudiments in, in other words. You keep them in. You keep them in, you
keep them in. The goal disappears, you find out if the rudiments are in.
All right, now see if the goal still disappeared. All right, if the goal
hasn't disappeared - you flattened one terminal for this goal. Make sure
those rudiments are in, in, in, in. Make sure that terminal is, is, is
flat, and then make sure the rudiments are in, in, in, in. And then check
the goal again.
And with the goal: All right, is that goal still alive? Find another
terminal for it. If that goal is now gone and your rudiments are in, in,
in, why, you've got to go back to your original goals list and add whatever
goals now occur to it and do a new Goals Assessment. And then do a new
Terminals Assessment. And then do a new Prehav level for it. And then get
your command and do the Prehav level run. And there you go, you see?
It's just - the process of clearing somebody actually only consists of this
and nothing more. It consists of getting a list of goals, and assessing
that list to find one goal which is constant and continuous with the pc,
which of course means that goal has to be run. So you take that goal, and
you do a Terminal Assessment for the goal - the cause and effect end of the
line - and then you'll find a terminal which stays in, in, in, in, in and
doesn't go in and out and fluctuate around, but it's just in. And that is
the terminal. And then you assess that on the Prehav Scale, and then you
form up a command for that, and then you run it. And you run it until it
produces no more tone arm action, all the while keeping the rudiments in,
in, in, in, in. And you're all set.
Now that thing is finally flat. It doesn't respond anymore, you can't even
get a fall when you mention it. It is all run off of the Prehav Scale and
when that is finally accomplished then you'd better make a special activity
of making sure the rudiments are in. But now, let's check that goal, find
out if that original goal is still alive. If it is still alive and it still
gets a fall then you had better do another Terminals Assessment, find
another terminal for that goal, move the terminal found over onto the
Prehav Scale. Assess on the Prehav Scale. Form up a command and run, run,
run. Assess on the Prehav Scale, and run, run, run, and assess on the
Prehav Scale and run, run, run. And then no more action for that terminal;
now go back and make sure your rudiments are in, of course. Go back and
find out whether or not the goal is still alive.
All right, you can't get a peep out of this goal now. Now make sure the
rudiments are in. Now try and find out if you can get a peep out of that
goal. No, you still can't. Okay. Now you've got to go through a whole cycle
I've just said, once more. And you start in right there at the beginning
and you find out whether or not the individual has a new goal that won't
hang up. And he does have, he will have, and that moves over into the
terminal list and you get your new terminal and then you move over into
Prehav Scale, and it's just the same cycle over and over and over - it's
just exactly those steps.
Now, anything else, running Prehav - running a Havingness Process on the
pc, running a Confront Process on the pc, doing a Security Check, running
problems, doing rudiments, other things to keep the case running, anything
that you do to keep the case running and cleaned up and so forth, is
totally and completely auxiliary to clearing. Clearing only consists of
Routine 3 and nothing else. And nothing else will make a Clear known to man
at this time except that exact process I just gave you. And that is really
And the only thing that booby-traps that particular operation is, one, a
bad command of technology on the part of the auditor. That's the only thing
that booby-traps it. If the auditor knows his business, if he knows his
TRs, if he can follow a Model Session, if he's willing to run a session, if
he's willing to flatten the processes that he runs into, if he can read an
E-Meter, keep these things going, so forth, the rest of this is just
Well, where the auditor has gaps and goofs, and where he's very, very poor
on this, or very, very poor on something else or where he isn't quite sure
whether you read the sensitivity knob or the trim button, you're not going
to get Clears.
So all of these other things, such as learning how to do a Model Session,
learning the TRs, learning the E-Meter, knowing that when you contact
processes you flatten them, and on, on, on, on, on, on, everything that you
learn about auditing - even going back to Axioms, the behavior of the pc,
what are engrams, anything in Book One, anything in Scientology 8-8008 -
all these things are simply contributory things. And there aren't very many
an auditor today really has to know. He has to know his TRs, bang! He has
to know his E-Meter, boom! He really has to be able to make it talk Arabic,
Greek, anything, you see, or Marcabian. Only I notice that the Sullivan
type individual tries to make it talk Marcabian, but it's actually just
talking Sullivan.
When you get into this kind of action, knowing these various things, and so
forth - those things known - now clearing works. And I can tell you right
now that clearing works on every individual, every person, man, woman,
child. And if you could talk to the flowers it'd work on that too.
It hasn't anything to do anymore with case level. Has nothing to do with
case level. Not a thing! But it has everything to do with an auditor being
able to run a session. And the degree that an auditor can run a session,
the excellence with which he can run a session, totally monitors how fast
and how many he will clear.
That's an extravagant statement but what proves it is this: I've been able
to make Clears on offbeat processes. There's a process way back. . . You
see, in vignette, doing the Dynamic Assessment, doing the old Dynamic
Assessment, and finding the terminal and running Help on it, and so forth,
it got Clear - and as clear as Help would make anybody Clear - those people
who did have Help as a hot button on the Prehav Scale, see. That's how many
it cleared. That was right there. But that still depended very exclusively
on the ability of the auditor to audit.
But let's go back to the oldest clearing process there is, which is way
back when, and that process is so esoteric, it can't be handled! Requires
such insight, such sensitiveness, and takes so damn long, and is so
questionable and a whole bunch of things like this. It's like, well,
building a watch in the dark blindfolded with a couple of elephant's feet
for hands.
It wasn't even very reliable, you know. But it's taken something on the
order of all these years, here, of about - whee, it's getting something on
the order of about thirteen years now, something like that, to develop
technology which was handleable, which was predictable, which didn't
require all these super-unknowns and this super-insight and all of that
sort of thing, and to develop the auditing technology which we have today.
Now, the only thing that slows down clearing is the command of the auditor
of that exact technology. And when I say that exact technology, I mean
simply the ability to do the TRs, the ability to do a Model Session, the
ability to handle an E-Meter and the incidental knowledge of doing a good
Security Check, of running an assessment and that's it. You see, it just
stacks up into that very small package - your importances.
And you possibly still have some idea of this vast panorama of unending sea
of data going out in all directions that you have to know. Get rid of it.
It's a very finite little area. And frankly, when you look over E-Meter
Essentials, there are only two data missing in E-Meter Essentials. There
are two data missing in it. One data is instant read - the difference
between instant read and latent read, and which one you use (of course, you
use instant read), and what it looks like and so forth. That's missing in
there. And there's one more datum that is missing out of the E-Meter
manual. What is it? It'd be fatal for me to say there was one missing and
then not tell you what it was. It's something very incidental. Twenty
minute rule? I don't think that's in.
Female voice: No, it isn't.
But otherwise it's a complete book. And we'll print up an errata sheet and
paste that into the copies and so forth, and that'll be that. It'll be
All right, your TRs - they're all up-to-date. You've got them right here.
Model Session, you've got it right here. As far as rudiments are concerned,
you've got an awful lot of rudiments processes, but because rudiments have
mounted up to such importance, we're kind of throwing them away, using
beefier processes, giving the rudiments more attention, giving it more
umph. And, once more, you've got those right on these lectures: 1A and
Unknown. And actually you've had this data consistently and continually now
since about the 10th of August - the tape series going right straight on
through about this "unknown," use of, in Security Checks, and all that kind
of thing.
But that's just beefing up the rudiments, beefing up the rudiments, beefing
them up, beefing them up, making them stronger and stronger and tougher and
tougher. And then finally we'll get down to this kind of a desperation, I
can guarantee you, that after you've got the most powerful process of
Scientology to bear on the pc on any given rudiment, and when that rudiment
is totally vanquished, then you assess, or something like this.
Actually, this amount of rigor is not necessary at all. It's precautionary.
>From - I am operating with you now in an unreality. That would be a
withhold on my part to tell you otherwise, but I am in an unreality. I
don't see how you can miss, you see. And therefore, I'm just making sure
you don't. Only I am now something on the order - it looks to me as though
from an engineering standpoint that we're taking this bridge, you see, and
it's built totally out of concrete by this time, and it's got girders which
had nothing but sixteen-inch thick steel, you see. And it's totally
weatherproof girders, and these things are hung together, you see, with
huge clamps. They're not even drilled to weaken them, you know. And this is
going across this little tiny brook. Isn't very wide, wouldn't hurt anybody
to fall in it, but this huge, massive structure, you see, is going over
there. And then the bed of this bridge, you know, is all fixed up with huge
Roman-road-type construction, you know. Nine feet of ballast, you know, and
then match stone and then match stone on top of that, and then we of course
have put final, modern, hammered concrete in it, see.
And that's the kind of a bridge we've got, and I kind of feel like you're
asking me to put up some staying rods to make sure the steel won't fall
down, you see. And to repave this thing in some character with a thicker
pavement, and so on. That's kind of the way it looks to me. I'm not running
you down in any way, but this is the record that is being run up at the HGC
from this unit and other classes and so forth. Apparently this is what it
demands, don't you see.
Now, I'm trying to find these additional holes in the fence, where it looks
to me like there aren't any, you know? I'm trying to find out where this
bridge breaks down. It makes me feel as though you drove across a wide
plain blindfolded, you'd run into this bridge; you just couldn't help it,
you see. And then the bridge has got guide rods on the side of it that even
though you hit at a slant you'd still go across it, you see. That's the
kind of the way it looks.
All right, from this point on, we're super-building. Because I'll tell you
this: Any one of you could run an assessment in two-and-a-half hours on a
pc and find his goal and find his terminal and find his level on the Prehav
Scale, see, right to start.
And we're running a real goofy one right now. We're going to make a Clear
for you. We're going to make Tinny-Tin Clear, little Quentin. And Suzie's
busy auditing him for a few minutes each day. And this little kid, he's got
his full goals list, amounts to about thirty. One of them is "to run a
candy store" and he's got the lot. And it's assessing right straight on
out. And he's down - I think he's got about six, seven of these.
Female voice: Eleven left in.
He's got eleven left in on this list. It's moving on down. He'll do a
Terminals Assessment. When we get a Terminals Assessment, going to assess
it on the Prehav Scale, and going to run it, you see. His needle's loose.
It's getting looser. You know. Well, of course, there's good altitude at
work here and the rudiments are in, but that's what's happening.
That isn't being done as a show-up or something like that; it's just his
turn to be processed. So instead of running him on CCHs or something like
this or trying to straighten up something - nah! let's go for broke; let's
clear him! Not take too many hours at it, either.
All right. Now, that's possible. That can be done. But, let me call this to
your attention, it is - this is the controverting fact. It is not being
done. Now, you can't argue with that, can you? Now, I could get down and
scream and howl and beat the floor, and Hitlerize the room. But let me tell
you something, that isn't going to do any good. That isn't going to do any
good at all. That's in the line of reason, or something like this mounts
If you looked at it very broadly you could say, "Well, nobody can audit." I
mean, that's the first thing you'd say. "Nobody can run a session in the
whole world, except just this little handful or maybe five," you know.
Something like that. But that's an unacceptable datum that isn't true, see.
So it must be that there were some great big broad bugs on this, and the
biggest bug - and I finally located what it was, a very simple bug - it's
just the fact that the goal and the terminal easily disappear in the face
of an out-rudiment. And I know what I have to convince you of, is what is
an in-rudiment, see. You don't recognize a rudiment when it's out. And you
think that this machine here is going to fall off the pins, and that
there's going to be a neon light, which isn't in the machine, appear along
this whole red band of the dial on an E-Meter. And it's going to appear on
there, and it's going to blind you when a rudiment is out. Well, let me
point something to you, there is no neon light back of that to do that,
see. And you expect maybe a bell to ring in this thing or something, you
know. But there's no bell in it, see. I've got to show you what is an
in-rudiment. I know what my job is, you see.
Now, in addition to that, we've got to analyze why a pc doesn't stay
in-session and why he isn't in-session. And what happens that he doesn't
remain in-session long enough to be audited. All of this becomes a very
important study. See, but it has to become one of these studies of adding
the additional five coats of concrete to this already superpaved road, see.
But it's got to be done, because there's obviously something awry here.
I know you can audit. I have no doubt about this whatsoever, and so forth.
But I think what you don't do is recognize an out-rudiment. And then I
think maybe you don't handle the out-rudiment. And then I look over our
tools, and I find out the tools are rather inadequate, perhaps, for the
handling of an out-rudiment.
All right, well, let's go for broke! Let's give you some tools that work,
invariable, and that you have great confidence in. That seems to be a good
solution, right? All right, so let's be able to set up a case at any given
moment. And we at this moment do not care how long it takes you to clear
somebody as long as you're progressing, see. We don't care how long it
takes you to clear somebody, so long as you are clearing them. But we do
care if you are auditing somebody and just wasting time. If the case is not
advancing under your auditing, aw, that's just nowhere.
You see it could easily, profitably take fifteen hundred hours to clear
somebody and you would clear somebody in fifteen hundred hours. Well,
people would still work at it. They would actually still work at it and
they would still go in that direction, if they were progressing all the
time and all that fifteen hundred hours was useful auditing, don't you see,
the case was making gains during that period of time. All right, that would
be within man's finite limits of observation.
Well, it isn't anything like that. It is something on the order of about a
hundred. See, we're dealing with about a hundred hours. If all the auditing
is effective, you have a Clear in about a hundred hours.
All right, therefore, you can afford one hundred percent margin of error.
You can have a hundred hours of wasted auditing and a hundred hours of
effective auditing, and you're still going to wind up at the other end with
a Clear. Well, now that's very well within your ability to deliver, don't
you see. Only a couple of hundred hours.
All right, what we're chipping at now is trying to reduce off of the
hundred wasted hours. That's what we're trying to do. Because the cases
which you are auditing are making progress. But I can tell you now what is
wasted. And perhaps you'd like to know that. What is wasted time?
Goals Assessments that go on and on and on are wasted time. You can just
peg it down. Let's set an arbitrary figure, something on the order of six
hours. If your goals, terminal, Prehav Assessment is requiring longer than
six hours, then from the seventh hour on, including the seventh hour, is
wasted. There's waste here. It's just being wasted. There's something
wrong; your auditing was something wrong. It is not right. And the
something wrong is, a rudiment is wildly out. So time from that moment
thereon, that is just wasted time. It's just a waste of time.
I've got enough cases now and I've racked up enough cases and done enough
observation and let enough people flounder long enough, studied enough
graphs of the flounders, that we have proven conclusively that it is a
waste of time to go more than six hours with a Goals Assessment.
Interesting, isn't it? Beyond that point it's not therapeutic. Doesn't
damage a case but it doesn't help anybody. It isn't advancing the case and
the case is not going toward Clear from that point on. Interesting, isn't
it? It's just not going toward Clear from that point on. That is a stall.
So, number one of your waste is excessive time consumed in finding the
goal. Time is wasted.
All right. Next item of wasted time is running a Prehav level on the found
terminal with the rudiments out. That is wasted time. Running it and it's
taking too long to flatten, it isn't smoothing out, it isn't changing.
You're getting a tone arm action, and so forth, but the pc is not coming up
out of it.
All right, you can apparently grind one of those things forever. And I've
got records on that, too. Because you're running the pc with a rudiment
out. Actually, the terminal has disappeared, and you are not running
anything that is real to the pc. It's just like the goal disappeared and
you couldn't find it. Well, during the Prehav run, if the rudiments are
out, the terminal disappears, and you're running nothing.
So you can go on and say, well, "How far over the hill would a little girl
go?" and so forth, or whatever the auditing command is, "To leave home," or
something. And "little girl" - "little girl" is the terminal, but the
rudiments are out and this terminal is not real to the pc.
Just as it disappeared on the assessment, so, by out-rudiments, it can
disappear during the run. Therefore, the Prehav run isn't biting on the pc
because the rudiments are out.
There could be the biggest span of wasted time. Because that could go on
forever, and the auditor is just hopefully going on auditing "little girl,"
"little girl," "little girl," "little girl." Great day! "Little girl"
submerged back there in about the third hour of run. Auditor never sits
there and says "little girl" to the pc and notices that there is no fall on
the meter. What you're doing is running a Routine 2. You're running some
kind of a Routine 2 with a wasted phrase in the auditing command now called
"little girl." See how that would be?
Well, it's obvious - this is just extrapolation, but it's very logical -
that if a terminal can disappear from the E-Meter read during an assessment
because the rudiments are out, certainly rudiments out can make it
disappear during a Prehav level run. That's obvious. If it can disappear
one place, it certainly can disappear another place. And that's a good
enough explanation to me, backed up by a bunch of evidence - not as solid
as the first, but acceptable.
This will account for an enormous period of run on a terminal. Terminal
long since ceased to be real to the pc. Not because it disappeared or was
flattened, but because the rudiments are out. And you're not really running
this terminal. So therefore you're not running the case to Clear. And the
answer to it is, keep the rudiments in.
That - so those are the two biggest areas of wasted time in clearing. And
they are both summed up to running with the rudiments out. So, when we keep
saying rudiments out, rudiments out, rudiments out, well, we haven't
described the reverse side of the coin. The reverse side of the coin is, of
course, rudiments in.
What is an in-rudiment? Well, I saw an auditor not too long ago, had too
much action on the needle at sensitivity 16, so turned it down to 8. And
then asked several combinations of a phrase on withholds and thought this
was all right. And was willing to leave withholds.
But the definition of in-session is this: interested in own case and
willing to talk to the auditor. And of course "can't" was the missing -
"can't talk to the auditor." This produced a very wild drop. But do you
have a withhold from the auditor? No, pc didn't have a withhold from the
auditor. Pc couldn't talk to the auditor. Why couldn't the pc talk to the
auditor? The auditor wouldn't listen. This was a conviction and this added
up to a "can't-talk-to-the-auditor," so obviously the pc was out of
So that's an out-rudiment, but a rather oddball out-rudiment, isn't it? Pc
feels he can't talk to the auditor. Why? The auditor never receives a
communication. So therefore it's a withhold. That's kind of a strange one,
isn't it? See? "I can't say anything to this auditor because it doesn't
matter. It isn't that I can't speak. It's that the auditor can't hear." So
if you have an "I-can't-speak," that would be a different kind of withhold,
too. Well, "Do you have a withhold?" Well, that therefore, is not an
adequate guarantee that the rudiment is in. Because that rudiment
guarantees talking to the auditor. Doesn't even guarantee willing to talk
to the auditor, but it has to do with the ability to talk to the auditor.
Well, I better go at this in a very orderly fashion. Let me tell you what
an in-rudiment is. That's another - that's branched off of your question.
You got that answered.
Female voice: Mm-hm.
Would you like to know what an in-rudiment is? All right.
In the first place you are processing a valence. Even though the valence is
hidden and unknown, you are processing a valence. The valence does not well
respond to conditions. So all rudiments are monitored exactly in this
bracket: that any rudiment process, no matter how beefy and how strong is
relatively ineffective. Just put it down in your book! By definition! You
are processing a valence. See, this pc is in a valence. And therefore, the
answers he is giving are valence answers. You cannot change the conditions
of that valence short of Routine 3. That's the only thing that'll find and
discharge this valence. So that all rudiments are monitored with this
particular limitation: that to change the conditions of a valence is next
to impossible. And yet your rudiments processes are addressed to changing
the conditions of the valence in which the pc is sitting. "Faschinating,"
isn't it?
That puts you a hurdle that Epsom Downs steeplechasers up here would balk
at. See, most of the horses would pile up right there. Unless we went just
a little bit further. But you must recognize that as a fact, that no matter
what process you run on a pc short of actually separating off valences -
spotting them with goals and running them as valences - short of that, you
are not going to get very sweeping results. We have been at it for years
and we might just as well recognize the truth for what the truth is. If you
run anything on a pc other than the location of his goals, the separation
of the valence which is the solution of the goals, and knocking that out on
the Prehav Scale, then you have this condition resulting, and this is going
to be the condition which follows through, but the results are very
limited. So anything that has to do with keeping rudiments in is monitored
by this fact.
Now, let me give you an example. I'm just going to show you how rough it is
to keep a rudiment in. I'm not going to paint any golden picture and say,
"Well, if you weren't so stupid you'd be able to keep the rudiments in very
easily. And it's just because you're stupid that you can't keep them in,
and you're really doing a very bad job of auditing." You see, a fellow -
one could go off on this wild tear, if he didn't know this other point. It
is next to impossible to keep them in. Because, by definition, conditional
processes on a valence are trying to change the characteristics of the
valence and those characteristics are not owned by the pc, and therefore
are an other-being's characteristics. And you are changing an other-being's
characteristics which are none of the postulates of the pc.
Do you see then why that is? And do you see then why no matter how many
fancy processes were dreamed up over the years, if these processes did not
immediately separate off the valences and orient and restore the person to
himself, they, of course, had a limited workability.
Now, that series of conditions applies to all rudiments processes. So you
handle rudiments processes with your eyes wide open that they are not easy
to keep in. Because by definition they are going to be very limited.
So, how do you get around this? How can we get around this? Now, we've got
Epsom Downs and tons of horses piled up all ready for the meat packer, see.
Because I tell you frankly that it's an impossibility. Now, it's an
impossibility only to this degree: Remember as part of this definition -
this is very tricky technical stuff I'm giving you here; you get it very
straight. If you haven't got it, go over it again, because it's - otherwise
you're going to break your heart on it someday.
To change the characteristics of a valence without removing the valence
from the pc is almost impossible. You got that? But you get the
modification that is in that? "Change the characteristics without removing
the valence."
Now, right in that, the booby trap, you see, there is a road out, right
there. A rudiments process which does not tend to shift valences is
nonfunctional. So the functional rudiments processes would be those
processes which shifted or lightened valences. And rudiments will go in
very easily if you pay attention to that particular rule. And that is
probably the most important rule of keeping rudiments in: that the
rudiments process that works must tend to shift valences, and the rudiments
process that doesn't work is one which seeks to shift the conditions of a
And the pc as he sits before you being audited, pre-Clear - and this word
takes on enormous significance right at that point - is of course a
valence. He's in a valence and he cannot shift the conditions of this
valence or change the conditions of this valence, and it's been driving him
to despair for eons! He cannot change himself. He doesn't know quite how he
is going to act. He's an unpredictable being to himself. That's because
once, long, long ago, he lost faith in himself as himself and so adopted
other beingnesses and reposed his entire hopes of survival in these other
beingnesses. And now these other beingnesses are unchangeable in their
All right, I'll give you an example: "What part of that problem could you
be responsible for?" Well, let's look it over! Has a very limited
workability, doesn't it? Why? Because it seeks to change the condition of a
valence. It seeks to get a valence to be responsible for the problem, but
remember the valence had the problem and if the valence had been
responsible in that zone or field he wouldn't have had the problem.
Now, that it works at all is absolutely a fantastic tribute to Hubbard and
you! You see what I mean?
Now, let me give you an even more gruesome example. Goal of the pc, unknown
and hidden to the auditor at this stage, see - he's trying to get rudiments
in. He doesn't know this goal, see. He doesn't know the terminal. He
doesn't know anything. But let's say it was this: "To make problems." Let's
just say it was that. All right, you've got Mr. Pc, Mr. Preclear, sitting
there, and of course you're talking to a valence, and this valence will be
something that carries out this goal. Now you're going to get problems
Why, the person's going to have a problem every few minutes. They're going
to have problems. They're going to start with the beginning of the session,
and you're going to clear up the problems and you're going to go ten
minutes deep in getting something you want done, and you're going to have
another problem, you're going to have another problem, you're going to have
another problem, you're going to have another problem, you're going to have
another problem, you're going to have oh-nun-nnn. And pretty soon we just
say "Whoa, it's impossible! You can't clear anybody! Because look, you
can't get past the present time problem. So we'll just ignore the present
time problem of this particular pc and we will just carry on anyhow." And
eight thousand goals later you suddenly decide you can't find the pc's
goal. Why? Because the rudiment is obsessively out. Because that's the goal
of the pc. But that isn't known to you at the time you're trying to get
that rudiment in. You see the example?
All right, a person who creates problems all the time and the terminal is
going to be "agitator." See, he's going to run "agitator." All right,
you're talking to an agitator. Well, look, if the British government and
the electricians union, and so forth, can't function in the basis of the
agitator, why, how in the name of common sense do you think, in the
auditing chair, you're going to function with an agitator? Well, you're
just going to have to what? You're going to have to soften up this goal and
soften up this valence before you handle it.
So therefore, this process would have a prayer. "What problem could you
confront? What problem would you rather not confront?" Ah, ha! Why? Why
does that have a prayer? It hasn't got much of a prayer, but it's got a
prayer. It's a workable thing because of course all valences are accepted
by the pc originally as a solution to some overwhelming problem - by
definition. That is how he got the valence. He himself failed, so therefore
he had too many problems. He had so many problems that he failed. So he
adopted a solution called a valence.
Well now, the possibility is that two thousand hours later, 1A would run
him to Clear if you took every single possible slightest cockeyed version
of problems, you see. You just almost set them up on electronic computer to
get enough versions of problems, you know, and you just flattened
everything, just flattened everything about the problem.
Of course, because you're flattening them in the teeth of a machine that is
making problems, see, all the time, you'd be going slowly! See, but you
nevertheless would have a slight uphill grade all the way. You'd be making
it as you went. Why? Because the valence is being separated.
So, therefore, every rudiments process which separates valence as its
primary action will handle the rudiment. And every rudiments process which
seeks to handle a condition will be of minor importance. Win a little bit,
go flat, lose from there on. You can't keep the rudiments in. You see how
that is? All right. Let me give you an example of this. This fellow who has
a thing "to make problems" - that was his goal. An agitator is going to be
his terminal but you don't know anything about this yet, because you
couldn't get this goal and terminal, you see, because the rudiment of
"problem" is out. Kind of an auditing problem that you stare in the face,
you see.
All right, now you're going to run something on "What problem could you
confront? What problem would you rather not confront?" You're going to win.
But, if you ran this kind of a thing - if you ran this sort of a thing -
and you said, "What part of that problem could you be responsible for?" of
course, you're just asking the fellow to pick up his whole case and say,
well, "responsible for the formation of it." But, of course, he isn't the
person who is forming it. He is a valence and the valence is forming it.
And, of course, he has no responsibility for the valence, it just goes on
operating, so of course he can't do it. Follow this? So it would tend to
knock something down momentarily and then this thing wouldn't be very
successful and it would pop up again.
All right, but let's take a much worse problems process. Let's think of a
much worse problems process. Let's say - I'm set up so that I only think of
good processes. I have to get in practice thinking of bad ones. Let's see.
Well, let's take, "Now, what condition" - this problem is about his wife -
"What condition of a wife would you be able to tolerate?" "What condition
of a wife would you be unable to tolerate?"
Well now, of course, this is asking a valence called "an agitator" to run
plus and minus toleration on a wife in order to handle a problem. And, of
course, we are not going to get anyplace with it. Because, of course, he'll
make another problem that has nothing to do with his wife the second that
you come off of the other problem, you see? Even if you did manage to
somehow or other ARC break the thing down to a point where it no longer
fell - which is not an accepted method of handling a rudiment, but which
has been used - that is addressed straight to the condition and is trying
to alter the characteristics of a valence directly and so, of course, won't
operate as a process. Okay?
All right. Now let's move on down the line. And let's take up the auditing
room. Now, let's say the pc has a goal "to help mankind" and the terminal
is a cow. You get the package of characteristics which would go along with
this. And now we are auditing him with a meat chart on the wall. This takes
a wild example of it, you see. "Is it all right to audit in this room?" you
see. Hell, no! It isn't all right!
But you have - the goal and the terminal of the pc is totally obscured, you
cannot find it until you get the rudiment in. You cannot, of course, get
the rudiment in because the goal and terminal of the pc are totally opposed
to it. If you could find this out directly and immediately that he was
opposed to that chart that was up on the wall, you see, you naturally could
get it in, but then you would have had to have cleared the case before you
could audit him in the room. You see?
All right. So the type of process that wouldn't work on that sort of thing
or would have very, very minor workability would unfortunately be TR 10.
Very minor. It'd run for a long time and it'd run with somatics, see? And
the person would kind of get familiar with it and find out there wasn't
anything really going to bite. And the thing would cease to fall, but the
rudiment wouldn't be well in. See, because you just kept - every time he -
"Notice that chart." "Yes" - of course, he couldn't confront any part of
that meat chart. You get the idea? "Notice the fireplace. Notice the table"
- table-eat-food, you know? "Yes, yes." And just be more and more somatics.
Well, the fact that any familiarization with any piece of mest produces a
gain in a case, come hell or high water, because it itself - the common
denominators of all valences is mass, energy, space and time. So the
familiarizing with mass, energy, space and time on a very, very long look
might possibly do it. Therefore, TR 10 has had some workability. It has had
some workability, as you know and I know. But that is the degree of
workability and that is the length of time it would take to do anything for
the case, because it's altering - trying to alter the condition of a
valence and of course you're not going to alter the condition of the
valence until you clear the guy.
So, I'll give you a good valence process, and it would have to be a valence
process in order to handle the auditing room. And you'd have to say
something on the order of "who." Valences - "who." The magic button back of
all this is merely the "who/what." The list, the "who/what." You're doing
some kind of a Terminals Assessment long before you should be doing a
Terminals Assessment, don't you see.
You say, "Who couldn't be audited in this room? Who could be audited in
this room?" You get the idea? Or you say, "What could be done in this room?
Thank you. What couldn't be done in this room? Thank you." Some such
approach as that, of course, is an effort to separate the terminal. And
what you're doing is just keying the thing out, momentarily, so later on
you can get a hold of it and key it in.
Now, some such approach - I'm not giving you those as pat, perfect auditing
commands but I'm just giving you the key of it. You'd have to handle it on
a valence proposition. "Who would you have to be to be audited?" "Who would
I have to be to give you a session?" See, that was an old one. And that was
a nice working process. "Who would you have to be to be audited?" "Who
shouldn't you be to be audited?" All of this starts listing terminals and
to list people, you see, and beingnesses and objects and - pcs can be
objects, you know, valences can be objects.
By the way, in your assessments (just as a side comment) if you omit
objects you're going to miss some pcs, do you realize that? You keep
saying, "Who, who, who, who, who," you turn yourself into an owl! And you
better say once in a while, "What, what, what, what, what," see. Goal: "to
go fast." "Who would go fast?" "Who, who, who, who, who," just on and on
and on, doesn't seem to be any sense to it, you know. It's, "What would go
fast?" Pc's in the valence of a vehicle, see, and actually might slip the
valence of the vehicle during the session and give you a "who." See, so
it's "What, what, what," and "Who, who, who," and "What, what, what," and
"Who, who, who," and that sort of thing, and you'll get more terminals that
way on an assessment. All right, well, enough of that.
Let's get back to this other thing. Anything that you dream up, then, to
shift valences on the subject of the room, or desensitize momentarily
valences on the subject of the room, or let him have some more valences
that could be audited in the room, or anything like this, that would have a
better degree of workability and should work faster.
All right. Now, let's take up another one here. "Is it all right if I audit
you?" Well, "I" is a valence, remember - in the valence column, you know.
As far as the pc's viewpoint is concerned, it's some kind of a pat
beingness. Well, the same thing applies about the auditing room, you know.
It'd be, "Who would I have to be to audit you?" and get him to make a list
of terminals. "Tell me who could audit you? Good. Who else could audit you?
Thank you. Who else could audit you? Thank you. Who else could audit you?
Thank you. Oh, thank you very much. Who else could audit you? Thank you
very much." And you'll find yourself a screwdriver, an oil can. You're
liable to find almost anything, you see. But nevertheless, you make some
kind of a thing if you say, "What would I have to be to audit you?" see,
"Who would I have to be to audit you?" You'll find a lot of people would be
perfectly willing to be audited by a tape recorder, but not by a being. You
get this?
So once more the "who/what," and we've got a valence approach here and you
will find that... I'm not telling you this will work in three minutes, you
know, because you're working uphill, all the time you're running valences,
you're working up against the key valence of the case. And you haven't got
it yet. All you're doing is shaking up valences or remedying his havingness
on valences or doing something about valences and you'll move out the other
end with some kind of a result.
But don't expect that this won't occasionally be spectacular. It'll be very
spectacular. Sometimes quite painful, sometimes quite upsetting, because
you're really kind of doing a Terminals Assessment on the guy, you see. And
you just have to run it across the bumps and have to wear ship while you're
running the thing. Keep your other rudiments in, don't make flubs. Run a
very, very good technical approach to this thing. Have an auditing
environment that the person would have some confidence in. In other words,
it's "Who/what would I have to be to audit you?" and that pretty well
should take care of the stuff he is immediately and directly stuck in. He's
liable to settle down. "Who am I?" is the earliest successful auditing
command that solves that rudiment. You'll find that in the Model Session,
by the way, present Model Session processes.
All right, let's take the next one. Withholds. Well now, actually, it's
withholds that caused him to hold the valence, so withholds work. As you
get withholds off you do shift valences. And you do have the answer to that
in the Security Check. But you can whipsaw back and forth on questions as
you ask in the rudiments, "Do you have - are you withholding anything?" "Is
there anything you should tell me?" "Is there anything that couldn't be
said to me?" "Are you trying to communicate anything to me?" "Do you feel
you can't talk to me?" Now, I'm talking about whipsawing all possible
varieties with this, because we are trying to restore the ability of the pc
to communicate with the auditor. Now, that is a brand-new statement in
Scientology. It's a brand-new phrasing. We're trying to get the pc able to
talk to the auditor, not willing and we're shifting a word there. Although
willing and able are very close together and one depends on the other, we
want ability to talk to the auditor. It's just a matter of more bluntly
"Can you talk to me?"
Once more, you don't seem to be able to clear it up - you don't seem to be
able to clear it up - you've got your "who" and you've got your "what."
"Who could talk to me?" "What could talk to me?" You've got your whole
routine of Security Checks which are right where they belong and as
important as they are, you see. And you've got the lot of those and they're
all devoted to getting this rudiment in, see. So in a session, as you pass
it by, you nevertheless should get it squared away. You find out if there's
anything he's withholding and all that sort of thing, just as you have
been, but in addition to that, you can also find out if he feels able to
talk to you and if there's been any part of any session that you've given
the pc that he has felt or she has felt unable to talk to you and why. And
you'll reestablish these old cut comm points. And if this doesn't seem to
be producing too much results and you still can't get that thing clear,
you'd better find out "Who would be able to talk to me?" "What would be
able to communicate to me?" You'll be surprised sometimes: "What would be
able to communicate with you?" "Well, a bullet." And you'll get a lot of
the misemotional feeling of the pc off with that type of an approach. Have
you got the various ways to handle that?
But remember you have a whole battery of processes devoted to this
withhold, called a Security Check. You've got a big broad thing called a
Security Check, and that is terribly important. So if the rudiments seem to
be consistently out on this pc at the level of withhold, then, of course,
you should be devoting the bulk of your time to Security Checking the pc
with the various HCO WW forms. And until you've got him pretty doggone well
security checked one way or the other, even though it took fifty hours to
get all these Security Checks straightened out. Voilà! You nevertheless
have won all the way and the pc's feeling better and better, and so forth.
It's a winning process and a winning approach. You see how this would be?
All right. Now let's take havingness. There is no substitute for havingness
except finding the Havingness Process of the pc. And we've got thirty-six
Havingness Processes, and it's a very good thing to find the Havingness
Process of the pc. And instead of randomly remedying havingness, find the
one that does remedy havingness. Because it's quite a trick to remedy
havingness on the pc.
Now, a common denominator of all valences is matter, energy, space and
time, so that any approach to matter, energy, space and time has some
slight - as I was telling you about TR 10 - has some slight power of
shifting a valence. And in view of the fact that it does - we have
demonstrated it for a long time - you go on and use havingness just the way
you've always used havingness, but I would prefer that you had the
Havingness Process of the pc early in processing, okay? Now, that seem
rather sensible as an approach? All right.
Now, the willingness of the pc to be assessed is great. The pc will be
interested in his own case under assessment. But the pc gets terribly
interested in his own case on these other things I have given you, too.
They get very interested in their own case. It becomes very curious to
them, some of the phenomena which occur. And if you think a person you're
trying to security check successfully is disinterested, you're wrong.
They're never disinterested. They're in a sort of a games condition,
because it's a withhold sort of a basis, but nevertheless they're terribly
interested in it, and they can become very upset if you fail. The only way
they can get upset with you on a Security Check is if you fail to knock a
question totally out. If you pass a question and they know they still have
a withhold on that line, their respect for you as an auditor goes down,
down, down! And that is the fastest way in the world to lose altitude with
a pc, is pass a question in a Security Check where there is something still
on it that you haven't got.
But now remember, a Security Check is done in Model Session. So a Security
Check will most aptly function with the rudiments in. But the power of a
Security Check is so great, and in view of the fact that it is one of the
rudiments, that the particularities of keeping the rudiments in to do a
Security Check are nowhere near as great as they are in an assessment and a
goals terminal run on the Prehav Scale. You see it's just you haven't got
the same value for rudiments in doing Security Checks as you have
apparently in assessment and running. There's a lesser value. But still
keep them in.
The way you can bust up a pc on a Security Check is just as I said. This is
one that has not been well learned in HGCs. Somebody says, "Well, I'll just
report this pc is terribly unwilling, and he ARC breaks very easily when I
run a Security Check on him." That auditor has said in effect just this -
they've said one, two, three, four: They've said, "When I first started in
the list of questions I found that it was hot and I went by it and I didn't
buy - strip it down and it didn't go hull and the pc has been in a mess
ever since." It might as well have been written in that terminology because
that's what the auditor has said.
Now, it's a surprising thing, you wouldn't think how many people will sit
down and take a Security Check right off the street, which just is a
Security Check, not even a shakedown type of check. You just go down the
list. And if they are left with the impression that they have passed the
Security Check and you have found nothing, whereas they know very well a
couple of the questions were hot, the odd part of it is that they're
disgusted with you and consider that your whole operation is a fake.
So you must always at least tell the pc that the question is hot, broadly,
whether you clear it or not. Always tell him it's hot. And that is the one
restriction I'd put on you. Not necessarily, it isn't mandatory then in
doing Security Checking for employment to clear every level. But it is
mandatory to say "That one is hot." "Question is" - well, you say to the
fellow (you're on question thirteen) - you say to him "still falling, still
reacting," and so on. "We'll go on to the next question but that thirteen
is still reacting. All right. Anything you care to tell me before I go on
to the next question? No? All right, okay. Here's question fourteen." This
guy says, "Wo-oh-oh-oh-oh." He knows! See?
And your altitude can suffer faster doing a Security Check than any other
single operation in Scientology. You can lose altitude as though you had
dropped in a bomb case. Just by failing to do that. And you yourself might
have spotted it, you see. You might know very well the pc is withholding;
you still might have a reaction, but the meter is facing you and you
haven't informed the pc. And all of a sudden you find yourself in a bad ARC
break situation of some kind or another. You can't quite find out how you
got there.
Well, you got there very simply. You went by a question without informing
the pc that it was hot and that you knew there was something on it.
So if you can't in one session strip down a particular question and get all
of it, at the end of that - now, I'm talking about a therapeutic Security
Check - at least say, "Well, we'll have to work on that one tomorrow
because it is still hot." Don't leave him with any kind of a remote idea of
any kind whatsoever that he has cleaned it if he hasn't. Otherwise, he's
liable to go home and say, "Ah, well, I can get away with that." And next
day he comes in and, by golly, you can't get anything off of him at all.
He's ARC broken and he doesn't think you're so good and, you know, it's all
messed up.
But although it's a games condition, apparently the individual is totally
convinced that he loses if you lose. Now, isn't that odd? That holds good.
That holds good with the men in the street and the cop in the park and it
holds good to anybody. If you the auditor lose in failing to get one, why,
they know they lose. The mind seems to know what the mind is doing. They
know that it wasn't so good that they didn't give that up.
So that's the proviso I would give you on a withhold while handling them in
the rudiments. If you want to have no altitude for the remainder of the
session, go by your rudiments point of withhold and leave one warm, hot or
undetected, or not searched out. If you really want to lose altitude for
the remainder of the session, why, just flub on that.
So be very careful that you ask this question in a whipsaw fashion, and it
just must go left, right, center. Any possibility of ability to talk to the
auditor? Anything they're withholding? Anything they haven't communicated?
Anything they've failed to communicate? Anything they've wanted to
communicate and didn't communicate? Anything they felt they couldn't
communicate? Any effort they have made to communicate which was not
received by the auditor? You get the idea? Any type of questioning of that
character. Now, when you get all of the fall out of that, your altitude
goes up. And there is a primary altitude factor, you see.
All right. Now, in handling rudiments there is another thing: "Who should I
be to audit you?" (let's go back to that one for a moment and take another
look at this thing) comes into the basis of "Who would you have to be to be
audited?" - this sort of approach. And you still consistently, here and
there - I say this advisedly - have a pc who is doing something else. This
is the old one. Now, it's not quite a part of the rudiments - not quite -
but is apparently something that is slowing up things. And it comes in
there "Is it all right if I audit you?"
Now, we had an earlier rudiment at some time or another that had to do,
"Who would you have to be to be audited?" or "Who are you?" or "What are
you doing?" I think that was the original one, wasn't it? "What are you
doing?" That was 1955. And to some degree that has dropped out of the
lineup. And don't be too surprised if on the next release of rudiments you
find that back in the lineup again, because we have just caught a case out.
And we catch too many auditors out on running a pc who is doing something
else. Not being a pc; they're doing something else during the session. And
because it's personal I'll operate on that as a withhold. There's a couple
of these are screamingly funny. And it's too bad I can't give them to you,
but I won't be able to. They're doing something else. They are not being
audited, see.
So "What are you doing?" - some version of it - belongs in a rudiment
setup. And possibly its missingness is accounting for some of the
difficulties. "Is it all right if I audit you?" Somewhere in that vicinity,
you would have to have this other question of "Are you willing to be
audited?" or "What are you doing?" or something of this sort. But what you
want to find out - what you want to find out: is the pc willing to be a pc
and willing to follow the auditing commands? That is what you are trying to
find out. Or is the pc all set to do that and something else? That's what's
the most amusing part of this. Is the pc going to do something else while
he's following the auditing command, don't you see. And you want to know
all about this.
And somewhere in a session if you notice any peculiarity about a pc, an
in-rudiment makes it necessary that you enquire occasionally about that
rudiment and we get middle rudiments, or running rudiments. And we get the
same rudiments. If they look like they're going out, well then you're
wasting session time. So you had better just break down, just right there
at that point, and just interject a rudiment. Handle that rudiment as
you're running.
So that would be an in-rudiment and that would be keeping the rudiments in.
And something like this, you notice that this pc is sitting there
obsessively crossing and uncrossing his feet, crossing and uncrossing his
feet, crossing and uncrossing his feet, crossing and uncrossing his feet.
Well, you'd run this rudiment about "What are you doing?" or "Are you
willing to be audited?" you know, or that sort of thing. The pc's crossing
and uncrossing his feet and you ask him what's he doing. Well, he's going
to be in a track race tomorrow and he's getting some exercise while he's
being audited. You'll find some wild ones, man!
And of course, this is all in the package. This would all go back to the
package. He's got a present time problem: he's spending his time here being
audited when he ought to be out on the track. Only he didn't bother to tell
you this in the beginning of session, and so on, and you better handle this
right away, you see. And there's all kinds of oddities then. He obviously
is not only not willing to be audited but he has a present time problem,
and this is going to amount very shortly to an ARC break and here we go.
We're going to have all the rudiments out here before we can say "scat."
Why? Because we didn't observe something peculiar.
Now, a pc does not mind particularly being nagged. They don't mind it. It
is all interest. It's all havingness. "What are you doing?" "How'd you do
that?" and so on. This is one of the oldest wheezes that I use and one of
my heavier failures in getting auditors to do it, is "What are you doing?"
occasionally. "What is that all about?" "How are you answering the auditing
question?" "What else are you doing?" "Now, tell me now, exactly what
happens - ?" You notice that this is getting pretty grindy. This is getting
awfully grindy. You say, "Well now what are you doing with the auditing
command?" something like that?
Well, he'll say, "Answering it, of course! What the hell are you talking
"Good." You say, "Do you have a present time problem?"
"Yes, I sure do!"
"What is the present time problem?"
"Well, I - I haven't been able to understand the auditing command since the
beginning of session. What am I supposed to be do...
You'll find this session was going, you know, kind of grind, grind, grind,
grind, apparently wasn't going anyplace, pc wasn't ARC breaky, he's just in
a constancy, you see. You're getting some tone arm motion, because you
practically can't stop an auditing process these days from working
somewhat. And about that time you've all settled down for the long grind of
some kind or another, you just apparently are not getting anyplace. Well,
you shouldn't upset the session, you shouldn't suddenly depart from what
you are doing wildly and never come back to it and leave pc in a big
not-know about it, but you say, now, "How are you doing the auditing
And the pc says "Well, I'm uh, hmmm - well how the hell am I doing the
auditing command?"
"Well, is there one of the legs of this bracket..
"What did you want to know?"
"Is there one of the legs of this bracket you're finding a little bit rough
to do?"
"Well, yes, you can't do the third leg of the bracket at all."
"Well, have you done the third leg of the bracket since the beginning of
the session?"
"What do you do?"
"Well, I just say, 'Yes.'"
"All right, can you recall the first time you did that? All right, that's
fine. Next time you did that. Next. Ah, good, good, recall several times
you did that. All right. Now, how do we phrase this third leg of the
bracket so that it is answerable?"
And you rephrase the third leg of the bracket so that it is answerable and
just carry right on, not stopping anything, starting anything. You haven't
stopped anything, you see. And you just give the auditing commands you were
on and get the thing answered and keep on going. You had to be pretty
smooth to keep from upsetting a pc who is deeply interiorized into some
fantastic problem.
Usually there's something going wrong, however, when a pc is not
experiencing gains and it'll be a rudiment out. And the basic rudiment, we
haven't paid enough attention to is "Are you being audited," see. Person
isn't being audited; the person is sitting there figuring out the command.
All too often you'll get an old-time Scientologist sitting there auditing.
Happens every once in a while. He'll be putting a curve on the auditing
command so it works. Because he can't answer the auditing command. So you
better straighten that out, see, straightaway. Is it a feasible command?
Another thing you often run into and maybe don't handle is self-audit. And
you say very coolly to somebody, "What self-auditing process have you been
running that isn't flat?" Well, this is not the same thing as asking him
"Have you been self-auditing?" He'd say "No," or something. You might or
might not get much of a reaction. But "What self-auditing process have you
been doing that isn't flat?" That's an awfully good way to start a session
on an old-time Scientologist. "Which of these self-auditing processes now,
haven't you flattened? Yeah, well, let's take a list of the things here.
Now, that's good. You got several of them here. All right, and so on. Good
enough. Well, when did you have a lose on self-auditing?" you know that
kind of thing.
"Oh, so-and-so and so-and-so."
"Well now, all right."
See, this is just chatter. You're just asking for information and make a
list of it one way or the other. You could ask him, "Well, have you ever
been without an auditor when you needed one?"
"Oh, yes."
"Well, when was that?"
"So-and-so and so-and-so, so-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so and
so-and-so and so-and-so."
"Oh, yeah, all those times. All right. Well, that's good." And, "Who would
you have to be to audit you?" And, of course, you're right into the middle
and could kick right straight out the self-audit crisscross valence.
These are the various problems you run into that'll slow down clearing.
These are all handleable things. What is an in-rudiment? It's somebody
interested in his own case and willing to talk to the auditor. That's by
definition. But, of course, it is also somebody who is doing the process.
And this, of course, is also somebody who is being audited, and that's up
to the auditor. So all of these things count, all of these things list up,
all of these things are important to an auditing session.
Now, if it's very difficult to keep the rudiments in, you shouldn't
particularly become self-critical about it. But there's the old R-factor -
the old, old R-factor, way back in the Fourth London - is you want to ask
yourself if you're being real with this pc. Because the first thing a pc
smells - "Is it all right if I audit you?" This comes under rudiments, you
see. One of the first things he smells is a missing R. The reality of the
situation is not present. The auditor is not leveling with him. There is
something else here. There's an ingredient in this auditing session that he
knows nothing about. And it may be quite innocent, but nevertheless it had
better be leveled with the pc.
An auditor who sits down, who hasn't had any lunch, who's had to rush back
for the session and so forth and who doesn't say to the pc, "Well, I had to
rush back to session so I didn't have any lunch. It's all right with me
that I don't have any lunch," and so forth, "but nevertheless I haven't had
any lunch and so on. So bear with me" - and the pc's fine. That's all
right. He's not really at a position where he wants to be guilty of the
overt or anything like that. You make it so that he doesn't feel he is
guilty of the overt, but you give him a reality.
You'll find a pc will ARC break, go out of session, have a present time
problem. What is the present time problem? The present time problem he's
groping for is the auditor doesn't seem real. This is up to the auditor. It
isn't something the pc is doing; it's something the auditor's doing. An
auditor, by the way, wonders whether or not he's breaking the Auditor's
Code or what he is doing if he told a pc, "Well those last eight withholds
you gave me, man, you've rocked me back on my heels. I am but upset." You
know? He feels something like that. Well, does he break the Auditor's Code
to do this, or does he break the R-factor? Got the idea?
Now, when the R-factor starts to break, the pc always does something of
this sort: He says, "What did you think about that?" or "Did I upset you?"
or "Are you nervous about that?" You got the idea? He says something. He
will ask the auditor a question about the auditor. And this is a symptom of
coming out of session. And it means the R-factor is gone for the pc. And
you will be absolutely fascinated to note how many times the pc's right.
Now, the fastest way to handle the R-factor is to put the R on the line.
It's withheld R. And you say, "Well, no, I wasn't upset about that." Then
you right away find out if there's an R-factor. "Is there an R-factor
here?" or "Are you withholding something?" or "Has something gone awry with
you in the session one way or the other?" when the pc suddenly says,
"What's going on?" you know, or "What did you think about that?" He makes
an inquiry of the auditor concerning the auditor. "Did that upset you?" The
auditor should not say "Oh, no-no-no, not-is, not-is, not-is, not-is,"
because the R-factor just goes by the boards, you see. It's actually a
healthier symptom - a much healthier symptom in a session - for the auditor
to say, "Yes, well, actually, for the last ten minutes I've had to go to
the WC. and is it all right with you if we break the session right here at
this point? And I'll be back in a moment." Comes back, sit down, that's
fine, pc says, "It's all right."
You'll be surprised how often this is all right and you'll be utterly
amazed how often it is all wrong if you don't level. That R-factor, it's
quite an interesting factor. The reality disappears out of the session
because the auditor in essence is out of session. The auditor's thinking
about something else, or the auditor has had something happen, or the
auditor is over the hills and far away and is not in the session. And when
the pc detects this, the auditor had certainly better ask this question of
himself too. And if he is over the hills and far away, if there is
something wrong about the thing, the auditor should promptly and at once
put it right as nearly and as diplomatically and as tactfully as he can put
it right.
You get a withhold off some pc that makes your hair stand on end, you know?
Pc knows this. See, the pc sort of senses this. In the first place the pc
is in a subjective, somewhat telepathic state very often about these
things, you know. "Did that shock you?" You'll get something like this, you
know. The pc looks at you, "Did it shock you? Did that upset you?" And you
say "No."
All right, watch all of the rudiments go out. Watch the auditing room go
out, the present time problem go out, the Is-it-all-right-if-I-audit-you?
go out. Watch the lot! Because the R-factor is gone.
And you say, "Yes, as a matter of fact it just never occurred to me that
you'd go around stuffing babies under culverts. It just never occurred to
me, and so on. But now that you have, why, you have. Yeah, it did shock me
for a minute." Pc sits back and waits for the next auditing question.
That's all there is to it.
So it requires somewhat of a brassy nerve on the part of the auditor to
face up to the fact that he actually can be real with the pc, because all
the rules of the game evidently indicate that you should be unreal with the
pc and you've got to be in a brace, you see and so on. Now, you watch this
the next time it comes up, that the pc suddenly looks up and he says,
"What's wrong with you?" or "What's going on?" or "Did that shock you?" or
"Are you nervous?" or "Are you upset?" or something like this. Any type of
question of this character that concerns the identity of the auditor. This
is what? This is a symptom of being out of session, isn't it?
All right. And your action right at that time should be, "Well, is there
anything?" Think it over, you know. "Is there anything?" Take a moment out.
"I don't know. Am I disturbed by all this? Have I got something on my
mind?" And if you have, for God sakes, tell him! If you've been disturbed,
for God sakes tell him. "Yeah." You say "Boy, about eight withholds ago I
started to get absolutely dizzy. I must have one like it."
And the pc says "Oh, is that so?" you know, and he gives you the next
withhold, just like a soldier. Perfectly all right.
And pc says "What's wrong?" and eight withholds ago you've started to feel
very dizzy. You say "No, nothing is wrong. No, nothing's wrong," just go on
and next auditing command, next auditing command, so-and-so. "We'll just
carry on here." Watch all those rudiments go out, man. One by one, they
will just go by the boards, because there isn't a person auditing the pc.
Got it?
So these are what makes rudiments in - what makes rudiments in. And they
are actually very simple to keep in, they're very easy to keep in. But
you'd better not, with the type of auditing you're doing today, except on a
Security Check when you can be a little bit careless, except with a present
time problem - when you're doing sessions, boy, you'd better be thorough.
You'd better be thorough as thorough as thorough as thorough as thorough. I
don't care if you occupy three quarters of the session to get the rudiments
in. End rudiments of course are nowhere near as important as beginning
rudiments. But they have an importance too, because you're doing them for
the next session. This pc is going to come back and be audited well and it
all better be smooth, well, you better get the session out of the road.
End rudiments are normally devoted to getting the session out of the road.
Beginning rudiments are normally devoted to getting the atmosphere and
environment out of the road so that you can audit the pc, and middle
rudiments are rudiments used one after another, inquiries about various
rudiments during a session, of course, are used to keep the session
progressing and keep the rudiments in. Okay?
Well, I want you to get your hand in about this, because you've got to get
smart with this. You've got to get awful good with it. Okay? All right.
Thank you.
Professional auditing in any place on the planet http://webauditing.org http://0-48.ru http://galac-patra.org Auditor class X, skype: timecops
Сообщений: 698
Зарегистрирован: 28 дек 2015, 12:01

Вернуться в L Ron Hubbard original LECTIONS, TAPES

Кто сейчас на форуме

Сейчас этот форум просматривают: нет зарегистрированных пользователей и гости: 5