deja.com
Please visit our sponsor
Explore by clicking here
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
 Home  »  People  »  Humanities
 >>  Theology 
fz bible 11/19
Explore More:

5˘ long distance!
Save $$$$$.

The Best of ZDNet
Delivered to you free!

Earth's Biggest Selection
Shop at Amazon.com

The Ultimate Directory
Cool stuff from InfoSpace

Classifieds
Cool stuff from InfoSpace

Price Comparison
Cool stuff from InfoSpace

Rate it!
Emmaljunga Viking Plus
or choose another to rate
(1=worst, 5=best)
Safety
15
Ease of use
15
Comfort
15
Cost / Benefit
15

  • Compare it to others
  • User Comments
  • Shop new or used
     
  • top rated
    Baby Strollers
    1. Evenflo On My Way Travel System (Stroller/Car Seat)
    2. Aprica Quantum Royale
    3. Baby Trend Sit N Stand LX II Twin Stroller
    4. Baby Trend Sit N Stand LX III Twin Stroller
    5. Baby Trend Snap N Go
  • See the full list...
  • Deja Forums
    Atheism
    Atheism
    Atheism
    Satirical atheism
    Atheism
     
    Deja Communities
    IUCISD
    Public Participation
    VisionAction Community
    BidSnagger for eBay™
    The Thundernet Group

    Start your own community in Theology.  

    My Deja
    Get more out of Deja: Register to easily manage your discussions and communities, and improve your searches. Plus, get email alerts about new posts in your favorite discussions with Deja Tracker!
     
      discussions     ratings     communities  
      back to search results 
    Help | Feedback
    >> Community
    Next in Search
       >> Forum: alt.religion.scientology
          >> Thread: FZ Bible 11/19 CLASS 8 TAPES
            >> Message 1 of 19
     
    Subject:FZ Bible 11/19 CLASS 8 TAPES
    Date:1999/07/03
    Author:Secret Squirrel <squirrel@echelon.alias.net>
      Posting History Post Reply

    FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST
     
    CLASS VIII TAPE TRANSCRIPTS 11/19
     
    **************************************************
     
    CLASS VIII TAPE TRANSCRIPTS - CONTENTS
     
    01  SEP 24, 1969 WELCOME TO THE CLASS VIII COURSE
    02  SEP 25, 1969 WHAT STANDARD TECH DOES
    03  SEP 26, 1969 THE LAWS OF CASE SUPERVISION
    04  SEP 27, 1969 STANDARD TECH DEFINED
    05  SEP 28, 1969 THE STANDARD GREEN FORM AND RUDIMENTS
    06  SEP 29, 1969 MECHANICS OF TECHNIQUES AND SUBJECT MATTER
    07  SEP 30, 1969 CASE SUPERVISOR DO'S AND DONT'S:
    08  OCT  1, 1969 CERTAINTY OF STANDARD TECH
    09  OCT  2, 1969 THE LAWS OF LISTING AND NULLING
    10  OCT  3, 1969 ASSISTS
    11  OCT  7, 1969 ASSESSMENT AND LISTING BASICS
    12  OCT  8, 1969 MORE ON BASICS
    13  OCT  9, 1969 ETHICS AND CASE SUPERVISION
    14  OCT 10, 1969 AUDITOR ATTITUDE AND THE BANK
    15  OCT 11, 1969 AUDITORS ADDITIVES, LISTS AND CASE SUPERVISION
    16  OCT 12, 1969 STANDARD TECH
    17  OCT 13, 1969 THE BASICS AND SIMPLICITY OF STANDARD TECH
    18  OCT 14, 1969 THE NEW AUDITOR'S CODE
    19  OCT 15, 1969 AN EVALUATION OF EXAMINATION ANSWERS
     
     
    **************************************************
     
    STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
     
    Our purpose is to promote religious freedom and the Scientology
    Religion by spreading the Scientology Tech across the internet.
     
    The Cof$ abusively suppresses the practice and use of
    Scientology Tech by FreeZone Scientologists.  It misuses the
    copyright laws as part of its suppression of religious freedom.
     
    They think that all freezoner's are "squirrels" who should be stamped out as heritics.  By their standards, all Christians,
    Moslems, Mormons, and even non-Hassidic Jews would be considered to be squirrels of the Jewish Religion.
     
    The writings of LRH form our Old Testament just as the writings
    of Judiasm form the Old Testament of Christianity.
     
    We might not be good and obedient Scientologists according
    to the definitions of the Cof$ whom we are in protest against.
     
    But even though the Christians are not good and obedient Jews,
    the rules of religious freedom allow them to have their old
    testament regardless of any Jewish opinion. 
     
    We ask for the same rights, namely to practice our religion
    as we see fit and to have access to our holy scriptures
    without fear of the Cof$ copyright terrorists.
     
    We ask for others to help in our fight.  Even if you do
    not believe in Scientology or the Scientology Tech, we hope
    that you do believe in religious freedom and will choose
    to aid us for that reason.
     
    Thank You,
     
    The FZ Bible Association
     
    **************************************************
     
    6810C07 Class VIII TAPE 11
     
    ASSESSMENT AND LISTING BASICS
     
    And this is the seventh of October 1968, and I think the
    eleventh lecture. I want to point out with that caption,
    that the last lecture was the tenth lecture of three
    October, so nobody will think that there are three or four
    lectures pulled off the line up here.
     
    This, the amount of material which I can give you on the
    subject of auditing, of course is quite voluminous. And it
    is my job to find out how to codify and communicate to you
    the material concerning the mind and spirit, and the
    beingness and the universe, in such a form that it will be
    comprehensible and usable. The certain communication media,
    absence thereof, makes this difficult. These tapes,
    probably have a deterioration of only a few years span. One
    has to be alert to this kind of thing. And additionally, we
    get the wild enthusiasm of somebody, of placing material on
    the line which is completely additive, and has nothing to
    do with it, and sometimes do this and sign my name to it.
    And we have the wild enthusiasm for pulling key material
    off the line, which makes other things, then, not make any
    sense. And these various things have occurred in the past,
    and you right now have several instances of this. The major
    one of these has to do with assessment and nulling. And we
    will go into this immediately, and directly.
     
    Assessment is an action done from a prepared list. Please,
    for god sakes get that through your skull. Please. Please,
    please. For god sakes understand what it is. Because it has
    messed up thousands of preclears. This miscomprehension of
    what this is all about has messed up preclears all over the
    world. An assessment is an action done from a prepared
    list! A prepared list! Prepared by the auditor. Prepared by
    me. Prepared by somebody else. It is not given by the PC,
    it is prepared! Prepared! Made up. Listed by somebody else!
    Not the preclear. A prepared list! And that is the action
    of assessment! Assessment Assessment! That is the word that
    goes with that. There is no other word goes with that!
    Assessment does not go with anything else but that! That is
    all that assessment means. It is associated with a prepared
    list.
     
    Only a prepared list! Period! There are a number of laws
    and actions which go along with assessment.
     
    There's an entirely different subject, just as different as
    pulling up the anchor and splicing lines.
     
    A different, different subject. Different! Different!
    Completely, completely, completely! Utterly, utterly,
    utterly! They're even years apart in development. Called
    listing and nulling! Listing and nulling. This is something
    listed by the PC. Listed, listed by the PC! PC says it. It
    is from a questions The auditor asks the question. The PC
    then gives him items, which the auditor then writes down
    from the PC. That's called listing and nulling. Listing!
    Listing and nulling! Nulling! Nullingl Listingl Not
    assessment! Not assessment!
     
    Let me give you the background of this. Now the reason I'm
    being emphatic is because it's practically killed thousands
    of PCs! The confusion between these two things And they're
    two entirely different operations.
     
    Now the laws of listing and nutting do not apply to the
    laws of assessment. And the laws of assessment have nothing
    to do with the laws of listing and nulling! And I never
    would have DREAMED anybody would have mixed up the two.
    They've got nothing to do with each other. In the E-meter
    book, EM 24, has to do with assessment, assessment,
    assessment! Nothing but assessments. And that is assessment.
     
    Now let me not hear in the future that somebody hasn't done
    it. And done it correctly. Because it is assessment. And it
    is done. And guys come into the line up and they say that
    is old fashioned and we don't do it anymore, and yik, yik,
    yik, yap, yap, yap, yaps That's the additive. We DO do it.
    It is a key, vital piece of auditing! Assessment, from a
    prepared list. E-meter book number 24. And there's an exact
    way to do it! And it has nothing to do with listing and
    nulling. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing to do with listing and
    nulling. There isn't any connection with listing and
    nulling. None! There is no listing and nulling drill in the
    E-meter book.
     
    Listing and nutting has its' own laws. They're on tapes
    They've been on tape for years at Saint Hill! But people
    come along, and they've taken the laws of assessment, and
    they said, "Well, in view of the fact, we don't list and
    null them anymore. You don't assess, I dunno, yea, yea,
    well actually the law of assess...  of list...  and so on, is
    so actually to get something to one item on an S and D, you
    grind out every reading item on the list except one!" And
    by doing that, thousands of PCs have been ARC broken and
    chopped up. So I don't care to think it was unintentional.
    Because there is a list on the Saint Hill Special Briefing
    Course that tells you how to list and null. And the laws
    which you had recently issued in an HCOB, 1968, are all
    there on the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course. And they
    apply to the subject of listing and nulling. Listing and
    nulling. The laws of listing and nulling. You ask the
    question of the PC, the PC gives you item, item, item,
    item. The auditor writes them down, and then he nulls the
    list. And there must only be one item which has any read in
    it of any kind whatsoever on that list.
     
    So, the PC says, "Dog biscuits, roast beef, catfish," long fall BD. The auditor then goes over the list, "Catfish", or he goes over it, "Dog biscuit, catfish", doesn't read, doesn't read. And then, nothing read on the list. Anything
    been suppressed on the list?" "No." So, "Balderdash', he extends the list, "Balderdash, lemons, oranges.' And he
    goes back up to the top. "Good.
     
    Biscuits, dog biscuits, catfish, oranges, lemons", oranges
    reads, lemons reads. He's had it.
     
    There are two items now reading on the list. So he puts a
    bar over to the side, and he extends the list. And the
    answer is Manhole covers. And he gets a long fall BD. Now
    he goes back over the whole list again, clear from the top.
    "Biscuit, dog biscuits", right on down the list.
     
    Nothing reading, nothing, reading, nothing reading, nothing
    reading, "Manhole covers." That's the PCs item. It reads, he gives it to the PC. And that is the action of listing
    and nulling.
     
    And that is the whole action of listing and nulling, and
    that is the way it is done. And it is not done any other
    way! And these two actions are entirely, entirely,
    completely, utterly, different! But I know somebody's come
    along and says, "We don't do that anymore. We don't do that old drill, and we don't ever assess from prepared lists
    anymore", and so therefore nobody knows how to do it.
    Because I know at this moment, 1968, that is has not been
    taught for at least two or three years. But they knew how
    to do S and Ds wrong. They knew how to do those with three
    reading items on the list. And then wondered why their PCs
    were ARC broken, the cases weren't getting any better, and
    so forth.
     
    Do you get the enormity of mixing up two entirely different
    things? Now look, you've got to know, you've got to know
    how to assess a prepared list. You've go to know this. Now
    maybe earlier, maybe earlier I could have told you, I could
    have told you this separately, and so forth, and made it
    all very plain, but how the hell could I predict anybody
    was going to be a complete kook? Because there's an
    infinity of errors. An infinity of errors can grow up. The
    one line is a very narrow one.
     
    I could give you billions of words of lecture and
    bulletins, trying to predict every error somebody's going
    to make. And we would still get one missed. So you have to
    know what you know. And one of the things you have to know
    is a thing called assessment. And it is EM 24 in the
    E-meter book. And it has nothing to do with S and Ds,
    nothing to do with remedy Bs, nothing to do with remedy
    A's, those are all listing and nulling actions. Those
    haven't, have, they're completely separate. It's as
    different as a ship and a bus. Completely different.
     
    I'm using this as an example at this time to show you what
    can happen that wrecks a workable technology. One set of
    laws that has nothing to do with the subject is applied to
    the subject.
     
    The action to which the laws are connected is said to be
    old hat and not done anymore.
     
    Recently it was being brooded about very broadly and
    widely, "Oh well, we never run engrams by chain anymore.
    That's looked on as a squirrel action." How the hell are
    you ever going to get an F/N on an engram chain? How would
    you ever run engrams on somebody that was way up the bank,
    very very chopped up and charged up? You couldn't get him
    to run a single engram. Because the engram's up in the top.
    You can only go through 'em a couple of times and they go
    solid. So you have to do it by chains. And then it goes
    down the line, you finally find the basic and the whole
    cock-eyed thing blows - And somebody to come along and say,
    "That's old hat. We don't do that anymore." Well my answer to that would be, "We don't audit you anymore. You can go
    on and fall on your head." Because it's a dirty trick. It
    does in every PC whose case is only resolvable by engram
    running by chains at the level of running engrams.
     
    The reason you have trouble with cases is, the usual hasn't
    been done. The standard hasn't been done. Hasn't been done,
    hasn't been done. We had a case here the other day. Wildest
    thing you ever heard in your life. Auditors were doin'
    their nuts, going around in circles trying to resolve this
    case. This case was an unusual case, a fantastic ones "Oh a very difficult cycle, bla bla bla bla." Finally the case
    went into treason or something of this sort. I made it my
    business to try to find out something about this case. And
    what do you know? He was on upper OT Sections and he had
    never run a grade in his life. Never run ARC Straightwire,
    never run secondaries, never run engrams, never run zero to
    four, never been on Power, never run R6EW. He was an
    unsolvable case. Nobody'd audited him. So, you get the case
    who was audited with off beat tech, and you get the case
    who has never been audited on tech, and they alike can be
    failed cases. And the solution at once, to the two types of
    case - the one who's been audited on off beat tech, and the
    one who has not been audited at all - , same solution. Find
    out what hasn't been done on the road to standard tech and
    do it. And the case resolves right now.
     
    And that's how difficult it is. So all you have to know is
    what is standard tech, and then find out what hasn't been
    done in standard tech, and get it done.
     
    Now where tech is violated, and where standard tech is
    violated, you have to have repair actions which put them
    back together again. Now supposing we have a case which has
    eight hundred and sixty nine lists that have been done in
    Balderdash, North Slobokum. And then they lost his folder
    anyhow, and the auditor who did listed list couldn't write,
    and a bunch of things like this. You thought didn't have
    his folder, and so on. And this case is wrapped around a
    telegraph pole. He's in terrible shape. How you going to
    resolve that case? We haven't got the list to correct.
    Maybe you haven't even got the auditor who knows how to
    correct a list. And an auditor who doesn't know how to list
    and null, and thinks that listing and nulling is
    assessment, and who's all screwed up anyhow, he couldn't
    correct it by list anyway.
     
    But there is a way to correct this case. And that's very
    vital. It's a serious thing to lose somebodys' lists. But
    there is a way. There is a way. And it contains assessment.
    It's an action called assessment. And the auditor dreams up
    a list of things. And he says, "Auditing, auditors, review, sessions, Scientology, Dianetics." Do you see? "Lists." And then, that is put down in a column by the auditor and is
    assessed over and over until one item is left reading.
     
    And that is assessment. And you, all of a sudden, got
    staring you in the face, "Lists". Alright, turns out to be "Lists." Good. It could just as well turn out to be
    auditing, or just as well turn out to be review. But it
    turned out to be "Lists." That is the hot button in this field - Now that will come close enough to what's wrong with
    him to solve it. And then you've got a thing called L-1. So
    you say now, "On Lists," and you itsa, earlier itsa with false and suppress on any of the reads, on the L-1. You
    take up each item in order from the top down. "On Lists", boom. "On Lists", boom. "On Lists", boom. And you clean each one. And all of a sudden the PC goes F/N. And those
    old lists won't bother him anymore.
     
    It's absolute magic that you can undo a bunch of lists, and
    things like that. But it depends on the auditor being able
    to assess. Now is this technique of assessment so old hat?
    No, I don't think so.
     
    Now I'm going to give you some sort of an idea of an
    assessment as she is done. I will write it down here on the
    blackboard and a sheet can go along with this lecture. And
    this is this business of assessment. This now, is a
    prepared list. It's a prepared list, and it's something
    like, "Auditing, listing, review, Orgs, Scientology,
    Dianetics, grades." Now, the auditor makes that up or the
    case supervisor makes that up. And the auditor, he puts it
    into a line up like this. And he gives it, he gives it of
    course it's date, which is eleven, ten, sixty eight in this
    case, and he puts the PCs name on it, which is T.J. Pete.
     
    And here's the other one. All of a sudden at Saint Hill, I
    heard with horror that this was going on. They're doing S
    and Ds over ARC breaks and out Ruds. I couldn't understand
    it! Last November. I've been trying to unravel this since
    last November. Why?! Because people would say, "Well, an S
    and D isn't auditing. An S and D isn't auditing, you know?
    Ha ha ha ha ha." Assessment isn't auditing. Assessment
    isn't auditing. It is simply trying to locate something to
    audit! And you can assess anybody, at any time, anywhere,
    and there's no session involved.
     
    Assessment has nothing, but an S and D, that is auditing.
    But assessment is never auditing.
     
    You say the word right to the PCs bank. "Bombs, bombs,
    bombs." You can pick him up, I don't care if he's in an ARC break, I don't care what the hell is wrong with him. If
    your own TRs are OK you can just go bang, bang, bang, and
    you can get the item right out of the PC. He doesn't even
    have to be... if he's even doped off you can get the item.
    Just take a piece of paper, it's got these items on it,
    take your meter, and you say these things to the PC. You
    say the first one, like, "Auditing. Auditors. Lists.
    Reviews. Out. Scientology. Out." Now we've got one column
    and we've got two items reading. And this is assessment,
    this is assessment, it has nothing to do with listing and
    nulling, nothing, nothing, nothing! The PCs Ruds, we don't
    care, this can be done on a street corner if you've got
    some place to park your E-meter.
     
    Now we've got two reading items, haven't we? So we go down
    here the next time. And, we find out where this thing is.
    Lists. Scientology." We have one reading item left on the
    list. And that is all there is to it. And that is
    assessment. Ain't that difficult? But let me tell you, if
    you can't do this there are a large number of cases you
    can't crack. Because there are many types of prepared lists.
     
    Now let us get an entirely different action. We're asking
    the PC, "Who done it?" And this is listing and nulling. And it's in session. And we're saying, "Who done it?" That's not a legitimate question, I'm just giving it to you so you
    won't interiorize into your case while I show it to you.
    Sarcasm. A lot of people listen to me with banks.
     
    So we ask the PC, "Who done it?" And the PC says, "Joe, Bill, Pete", the auditor marks it fall, "Toger, Lige." Now we go over the thing, and we say to the PC, "Joe, Bill,
    Pete", second one here with a long fall, "Toger, Bob,
    Lige," oh brother. We have two reading items on the list.
     
    The list is not complete. Because there's two reading items
    on the list. Pete and Toger. And this is not assessment.
    This is nulling. Nulling. This is not assessment, this is
    nulling. And it didn't null. And we now know there's two
    reading items on the list, so we know the list isn't
    complete. So we put a bar over here, and we write
    "extended" on this little bar here, E-X-T we put. And under this we get, we say on this question "Who done it?" And the PC says, "Bigelow." Long fall, BD, as the PC says it. So now we go up to the top of this thing, and we say, "Joe", second X, "Bill", second X, "Pete", "Toger", out, out, "Lige", out, "Bigelow", long fall BD, 2.1. "Bigelow is your item." That's listing and nulling. It's an entirely
    different operation, isn't it?
     
    Now you ought to spot whoever told you that the laws of
    assessment applied to listing and nulling. Now you see how
    it can get mucked up? Look it isn't what I says it is, it's
    what works. And this operation of listing and nulling, if
    done wrongly, if those two items "Pete" and "Toger" are left on the list, and you simply scrub it out and grind it
    down so that "Pete" doesn't read and you've got "Toger" left, you give the PC that item, he'll go through his
    skull! Boom. ARC break, apathy, upset, become angry, out of
    session, and very often just finishes with auditing right
    at that point. That's the most ARC breaky action, is
    listing. And listing is a dangerous action for that reason.
     
    You try not to let green auditors list. You try not to let
    them list. When a guy has really got it down, great. They
    can assess, anybody can assess. There's nothing to
    assessment. Do you see the two different actions? Well,
    there's only one way to do both of them. There are no
    additional ways.
     
    Now when you get into 5A, running Power Plus, you'll find
    out that it's odd, but it's just a shortcut. 5A follows the
    laws of listing, but on the subject and the person and the
    place, person, place, subject, on those things, on those things
    it's just peculiar, but the first BD is always it. The
    first blow down is it. So to save time and because the
    subject is hot, and because this is a reliable action, all
    you have to do is grab that, bongo. And give it to the PC.
    And you know it will be true. But it's a short cut, and
    it's just peculiar to 5A. And you try to do it on an S and
    D, and you'll very often get your throat cut. List is
    incomplete on it. So 5A can be done in this shorthanded
    fashion, but nothing else I know of can. And it's
    unfortunate because it looks like a, a different set of
    laws. But there are no different laws, it just happens that
    is always comes out right if the PC in session.
     
    Now 5A can also blow on just the subject of persons.
    Persons. Long fall, BD, bong, F/N.
     
    You try to go past that and you're gonna rise the tone arm
    right up through the roof. Now these are such key subjects
    with an individual, that an individual can become
    seriously, seriously, seriously ill, or upset within two or
    three days after a wrong Power Plus. So if the PC comes
    back a couple of days later and he's sick, or something
    like that, you know his 5A is out. It's elementary.
     
    But now, when you put it in again, do all the laws of
    listing and nulling, with regard to it. Do everything. He
    says, you get such a peculiarity of, "Yeah, I thought of an item." And he didn't put it down. Or the auditor, he said
    it and the auditor didn't write it down, or something weird
    went on, don't you see? It's very off beat. It was a lousy
    session. It's not dangerous to do 5A, it is just incredible
    the amount of goof by which it can be done. The PCs who get
    very upset, and so forth, and they've had bad listing in
    their past, the best thing to do is to actually get the
    lists and correct them. Get the earliest list ever made on
    the PC and find the right item off of it.
     
    Sometimes you're lucky and you can do this. Sometimes you
    can get the list.
     
    And then you can be an idiot, too. You can get the first
    list, you can get the item off of it. It was suppressed.
    It's usually the first item, or something like that, first
    or the second item. And it's very suppressed. And here we
    are, first S and D he ever had. And out of that S and D he
    gets "The collector of taxes", or something, see? That was the item. It was never given to him.
     
    He's had twenty, thirty S and Ds since then. So, "Collector of taxes', long fall, BD, and you got the suppress in on it
    and so on. It was an eighteen page list. And this was the
    second item on the list. Oooh! Odd kind of comm. Boy, was
    that lousy. So anyhow, long fall, BD, you give him his
    item, he says, "Yeah, reads, reads, tears, yeah that's it" Now go to the next S and D and try to correct that. It's
    got the same item. Except by this time it was suppressed,
    and you stopped putting it on the list. Every S and D he
    had from the first S and D he ever had is always the same
    item. Now he can get little local locks on this suppressed
    item, and that comes out to be "The organization
    executives" or something, usually. 'Cause by that time he's turned kind of vicious. Do you see? What the hell? Why
    would you correct more than the first one? Now if you were
    lucky enough to get the first remedy B the fellow ever had,
    and get that on its' exact items. Well a remedy B for that
    command will be that remedy B, and that blew, and that's
    it. You're handling real horse power. You're handling
    tremendous horse power. See, those aren't light techniques.
    1950 you could overrun, 1955 you could go on and on, you
    could do various things. You can't do those things today.
    The technique is too powerful, it's too fast. Zing, boom,
    bung, boom!
     
    When we got into R2-12, R2-12 runs so... something minor.
    Something...  A minute, two minutes, three minutes, couple
    of items. Goes F/N and that packs up the whole subject. But
    somebody who had to have all of his intensive would some
    times get run twenty five hours on something that cleared
    up in two minutes. Well it was just at that point, at that
    exact point that we crossed the boundary line from
    technology which could be roughly handled and still come
    out, into technology which if it's exactly handled sent
    your PC flying. It was at that point.
     
    Now somewhere during that period the confusion here on
    assessment is because of this: Assessment was something
    done on what was called the pre-have scale. By assessing
    these things and running them, you could fix a PC up now so
    he could have something. So these old pre-have scales,
    something around 1959, '60, they became so numerous and so
    heavy, that I developed further technology and collided
    with the whole subject of listing and nulling. Let the
    PC put it down. Up to that time all the auditor ever did
    was put it down. So now, when the PC put it down, that was
    a brand new set of rules, and you had to know these new
    rules, because they didn't follow these old rules. It's
    quite obvious they didn't follow the old rules. So on the
    research line, as it came forward, you find somewhere
    around '59, '60, '61, you find the discussion is of
    assessment. And then time marches on, and later tapes when
    they talk about listing and nulling are talking about the
    subject of listing and nulling as I have just
    differentiated for you in this lecture. And they have
    nothing to do with assessment. But assessment was the
    pre-run. It was the forerunner. And all the laws of listing
    and nulling had to be learned, 'cause they were entirely
    different than those of assessment.
     
    Now oddly enough, you can't much upset a PC by getting the
    wrong item on his list, but wait.
     
    If the case supervisor, or the auditor, is hotter'n a
    pistol, and he's looked back through this case, here's a
    folder a foot and a half thick of review sessions given at
    the Bide-a-Hee Review Center. And he looks back through
    this. Ohh. Oh my god. And then he sees some clue that the
    fellow was audited before that in Bull Isle, but he doesn't
    have any of the laws, any of the S and Ds that came from
    that area. What's he gonna do? You can upset the case and
    do an over review of a review of a review, of a correction
    of a correction to correct the correction, and you'll get
    into a hell of a fire fight with some auditor, particularly
    if the auditor is not very expert. Trying to get him to
    correct a pile of lists. He just keeps plowing it in
    further. He himself hasn't differentiated between
    assessment or listing and nulling. He doesn't know what
    these actions are. If he just club-footedly goes in and
    leaves three items reading on the list which you told him
    to repair, but now we've got a repair of a repair, we have
    actually exceeded the ability of the auditor to correct,
    because he couldn't list and null in the first place.
     
    Now a very smart case supervisor, he says, "OK, this
    fellow's had a lot of auditing of various kinds whatsoever
    in various places, and has pretended to be a very tough
    case, and so on. The basic thing is that standard tech
    hasn't been applied here someplace. So let's find it out,
    and let's try and correct the case up so he's at least
    auditable." Alright, so he does a list. And the list is,
    "Auditing, auditors", anything he can think of that might be in connection with this.
     
    "Centers, franchises," you know, anything he could think of that might add up to this, and he turns it over to an
    auditor who looks bright, looks like he has a head. He
    hasn't got two heads, god knows. And then what's this,
    what's this quote, "Auditor", unquote do? He even messes up the little simple job of assessment. And he gets the item
    that isn't the biggest reading item on the list. He
    suppresses that. He suppresses that one.
     
    The first item on the list, still, in assessment, is likely
    to be the one most missed, because you don't have the pcs'
    attention or anything, and you haven't told him what you're
    doing, maybe, or something. So he misses that first one. He
    doesn't... nothing hears it, he just sort of goes, "Blup". But anyway, there's no R-factor, you know? You got to tell
    somebody you're going to assess. I usually tell them, "I'm
    going to assess a list on you. Keep quiet." My R-factor.
    And I don't want anybody talking on assessment. It isn't
    auditing, you're just trying to find something. And the
    more the PC talks, the more he's going to screw it up. So
    you want him to shut up. So you ask him politely, with
    complete ARC, to shut up. You say, "I'm going to do a list
    on you, and there is no reason for you to say anything. I
    would prefer that you did not", if he is prone to be yap yap .
     
    Now, you go, "Bark, bark, bark, bark, bark, bark, bark,
    bark, bark, bark", go up to the top of it again, "Bark, bark, bark, bark", go up to the last reading, "Bark, bark, bark, bark, bark, bark." That's the item. Now I don't care
    whether you give him the item or not. But somebody who is
    very inexpert, and who lets the PC itsa, "itsamamnfwhfmf", and has the PC squirming about and doing other things, and
    doesn't know how to get a PC to hold the cans, and a few
    things like this, you know, little outnesses. Like, PCs
    itsaing about his mother-in-law, trying to run a PTP while
    the auditor's trying to assess a list. That's something
    stupid, see? You get a wrong item. All of a sudden the PC
    ARC breaks, because there's a hotter item on the list.
     
    There is, usually on these lists, the hottest item. And it
    isn't enough to get the longest fall.
     
    That's not correct, to write down the longest fall. It's
    the one that's still in, because actually what happens is,
    is you sort of scan him up and down the track, and he
    eventually sticks in the falling area. It isn't that things
    scrub out. He will just, his mind, automatically will park
    where he has the most interest. It's a method of paralleling
    the mind. So as you go over the reading items, why his
    attention goes, zuuu uu. Now, if his attention was on one
    of these items and you give him another item, he'll
    therefore ARC break, because you've excited by-passed
    charge on the right item, and you've given him the wrong
    item. You try to prep check that, or do something with
    that, and he ARC breaks further. So you can, you can goof
    it up even with an assessment. So you have to know how to
    run an E-meter. That's elementary. You have to know how to
    run an E-meter, get the guy to sit still, so on. I've seen
    auditors losing their nut because the PC was boiling off, or
    doped off, or doped off in an assessment and therefore the
    assessment isn't valid. You know the assessment is valid.
    The assessment is valid on an unconscious person. You can
    actually take an unconscious person if your tone 40's good
    enough, you can assess a list and find exactly what it is.
    It's the auditor. It's the auditor. The auditor. That's the
    law.
     
    Now the net result of all of this is simply that assessment
    is assessment. But assessment requires that you do get the
    right item on the list you're assessing. It's almost
    inconceivable that anybody could get the wrong item on this
    list, but it actually could be done. You could get the PC
    so he's fighting it, so he's suppresses it, so he does some
    things, so he...  You know. So you can actually correct one
    of these assessment lists, but that becomes very idiotic.
    It's such a simple, fast operation, that the whole essence
    of it is getting in there and doing it before the PC finds
    out. And then he'll all of a sudden start saying, "Wait a
    minute. Yes." Of course, you've parked him right where the
    most charge is. Of course he then has a tendency to say, "I have just remembered that woof, woof, bluff, and itsa,
    itsa, itsa, itsa, itsa, itsa, itsa, itsa, itsa,... " Wait a minute. Woah, woah, woah. You're not processing him. You
    don't know what the hell he's going to itsa. You're going
    to prep check this thing. You're going to do something with
    this thing. You are gonna adapt it to a recall question.
    You're gonna run it on a list 1. Well he's pulling the
    wrong action on it already. So therefore, it's even stupid
    to indicate it to the PC .
     
    I see on some assessments very recently, as why they're
    done wrong, I see it indicated to the PC, and he agreed
    that that was true, "And he told me that trot-de-dot,
    waffle, waffle, waffle.' I imagine the PC walked out of
    session probably good and ARC broke. Because there's an
    excellent chance that this item has excited BPC. By passed
    charge, and so on. He don't itsa, because you're not
    running it. It isn't an itsa subject. He could probably get
    into severe trouble itsaing, because a hot subject. You
    wouldn't have chosen it, you wouldn't have chosen that list
    subject if it wasn't hotter than a pistol on his case.
     
    Oh, there's various things you could do about it. He's
    probably curious about what read on the list, and that sort
    of thing. Aw, yeah, give him his item, in a very unexcited
    sort of way. But it's not an auditing action. You're trying
    to find something to run. And there very often will be many
    hours, or even a day or two intervene, between the time you
    did the assessment and the time he's gonna be run on it.
     
    Well you're gonna run something real strong on it. And
    there is a good reason to run something real strong on it,
    don't you see? Now you can say, "Well yes, it'll F/N. If it just F/N'd on itsa whv not just itsa on F/N... " Aw bull.
    It's a key to the case. So if it's handled with the right
    process it will unblock the case. "But a yickety, yickety,
    yackety, yackety, bill code doo, yackety, do de do da do
    dee, do do", F/N. "Yeah, it's just the same old stupid PC as the other one, and we did an assessment, and we found
    out that it was auditing, and, and so forth, and he told us
    about the fact...  Awwawaw, he said all auditors are dogs,
    yeah, dogs, the, the, all auditors are dogs." F/N. ARC
    break needle. "Yeah, we itsa'd it. Didn't do anything for
    the case." You see what stupidity can enter in here? So you say, "Auditors. Good. That's thanks. Now we're going in to, and we're going to do this", and so forth.
     
    You're handling it when your PC is in session. You might do
    this before the session began, sort of thing, or do it after
    the session ended. And it usually is very puzzling to some
    green PC to have one of these assessments done after he has
    been flown on something. You've done; undertaken a major
    action, major action on the PC, fly the needle, wham, wham,
    wham, and then all of a sudden you pull out this list, you
    see, and you give him a list. And you just say, "Well, yes. Now you don't have to say anything about this, I'm just
    going to go over this just to see what's here, bark, bark,
    bark, bark, bark, bark, bark, bark, bark, bark, bark, bark,
    bark, bark. Thank you very much. Good. Now, to put the end
    rudiments in, why in this session has any charge been missed?
    Anything? Anything you care to say, anything?" Fellow says, "Well, no, what was that all about?" "No, we're just trying to, trying to see where you were now, and you're doing
    fine. Thank you very much." Evaluate, evaluate. "Good. Thank you." You don't tell him, "I am trying to find an item so that we can put it together and audit you on it in
    the future, because you've now continued a session."
     
    And boy, that is a grave blunder, see? So it's usually best to
    give it to him at the beginning of the session, really.
    Say, "Good. How are the cans, how are you today, Joe? Bark, bark, bark, bark, bark, bark, bark, bark, bark, bark, bark,
    bark, bark, bark, bark, bark. That's good. Thank you very
    much." He says, "What the hell was that all about?" Do you have an ARC break? "Well, yeah, I was very startled. Very
    good. Thank you. Good, fine. That's clean. Alright, do you
    have a PTP? "Yeah, what was that all about? That's a
    problem." Well, I was just doing an assessment of a list.
    Trying to get some dope here. "Alright", he says, "Great, great." F/N. Now you go into the auditing action that you
    were going to go into, or just knock the session off.
    You've got the dope.
     
    Now that dope, if it adds up right, can become a process.
    Now it can be done on L4A, it can be done on L1, it can be
    prep checked, you can pull a number of different gags out
    of it. But those are the major things you can do with it.
    "On bla bla, has anything been... ?" Do you see? List 1, or prepcheck. See, there's various standard actions that are
    undertaken with this item. But the item is hot, and you
    want to get it as good as you can. You want to run it right
    down and get what you can off of it, and then get an F/N
    that will stay that way for a while.
     
    Now, that is the use and value of assessment. The use and
    value of listing and nulling. Now you may find on Saint
    Hill tapes, you may find on older tapes that this
    differentiation has not been made, you may find it is
    missing in a tape line up, it may be this and that, but
    certainly I am making it clear to you. Now therefore you
    should be aware of somebody pulling something out of a line
    up that he himself doesn't understand what the hell it is.
    Do you see? There can be a serious action. It's actually
    wrecked I don't know how many cases.
     
    Now I don't say that this is now going to be wrong in the
    future, 'cause you guys are all going to make that right,
    and you guys'll probably for a long time been trying to
    straighten up little points like this, and so forth. And
    I'm giving it to you as a horrible example of what can
    happen. The technology that applies to ARC breaks is
    suddenly applied to missed withholds, to give you an idea,
    see? On a missed withhold, is it A-R-C-U, or C-D-E-I? On an
    ARC break, "Do you have an ARC break?" "Well yes I do.' "Weil what was it all about?" "Well, I was, they were very cross with me this morning." "Very good. Who nearly found out?" You could get that really screwed up, couldn't you?
     
    Now I don't mean to be profane about it, but I have talked
    to many peopie very sweetly, and I have taught them how to
    audit with great kindness, and they haven't learned. In
    many instances they haven't learned. So, you will forgive
    my emphaticness.
     
    Funny part of it is, in this particular unit at this
    particular time, your auditing picks up about a hundred
    percent every twenty four hours. That's a very remarkable
    line of gain.
     
    Now. The next action here is there are certain methods of
    teaching which go on on this course, and which should go on
    on this course, and which are exterior, actually, to the
    bulletins, and so on, which must be called definitely to
    attention. And that is, that case folders of cases
    supervised by myself are part of the course actions. Now,
    Power folders were done in another day and another time
    when we were trying to develop and handle Power, but they
    nevertheless greatly assisted people in the case
    supervision of Power. And they were totally removed from
    the course, so that nobody'd ever seen or heard of these
    things for over a year. And nobody knew how to run Power
    all of a sudden. So I call to your attention that case
    folders, supervised by myself, and case supervision by
    myself are part of the curriculum of this course. And those
    must be studied - And it is the best part of those, the
    sessions that are well done, rather than specializing only
    in session that are badly done, since there can be an
    absolute infinity of error.
     
    There is only one single track of well done. Also, auditing
    at this level is not what you get away with, it's what you do
    perfectly. We are auditing at a different strata, a different
    altitude.
     
    It is what you do perfectly. You're a total perfectionist.
     
    We don't care how the PC, and you don't care either, how
    the PC came out of the session and said, "Oh, I had a
    wonderful session." You look through the thing and it's
    something like this.
     
    "Do you have an ARC break? Who else has been ARC broke with you? Do you do things to make people ARC break with you?"
    You look over at the examiners' form, "What a wonderful
    session. Had a won... " There is a thing called
    propitiation. You are a perfectionist. You are not looking
    for the result. You are looking for the perfect rendition
    of the technology. We don't care how the PC felt
    afterwards. Because if it was perfectly administered on
    standard tech, you can, with perfect confidence, say that
    you will have achieved a perfect result on the PC which is
    lasting. But the rough TRs, the introduction of
    squirrelynesses, the failures to follow the exact things
    which are being taught, the failure to, "Do you have a
    present time problem? That's clean. Do you have a missed
    withhold?" Plunk! We don't care if he did or didn't have a
    present time problem. Why the hell did the auditor have to
    go and ask about missed withholds without getting an F/N on
    PTPs?
     
    Well you say, "Well of course the PC was stuck in a missed
    withhold. That's why it didn't F/N." Naahhh. You're an
    auditor. You're auditing from a level of Class VIII. What
    the hell do you mean? The guy comes into session with a
    missed withhold? My PCs don't. They're not supposed to have
    missed withholds, ARC breaks or PTPs, and if I ask them
    about it and they tell me something it F/Ns. Not because I
    say it F/Ns, because it does. TRs are in.
     
    Now, if this guy is all goofed up, and he's got out Ruds,
    and he's out of session like screaming crazy, and he's
    running the session, running the session, "No, I don't have an ARC break, but I have a PTP. Let me tell you my PTP. So
    and so and so and so and so and so." Of course there's a
    missed withhold mixed up in the thing. "Now what we're
    going to run in the body of the session... " There's only
    one reason, there're two reasons, actually that a PC does
    that. But we don't expect one of them to be valid, which is
    the auditors TRs are out. We expect the auditors' TRs to be
    in and perfect. But when the auditors' TRs are
    indifferently in, and a PC is out of session and behaves to
    control the session, the answer is out rudiments. Out
    rudiments, that's all. TRs fair...  See now, an auditor with
    perfect TRs could probably audit over the top of out
    rudiments. But that's asking a hell of a lot. So if his TRs
    are fair, his control of the session would normally be
    good, and the PCs madly out of session, we know that the
    Ruds are out. It's one of these A equals A. Out of session,
    Ruds out.
     
    Now the answer to that from the case supervisor is
    ratta-tat-tat. "Fly each rud to floating needle using
    suppress and false." Meaning simply that you don't leave
    one of the buttons unless you get in, it's itsa, earlier
    itsa to F/N on ARC breaks. And when I say it's flunk,
    flunk, flunk, because he said, "Do you have a PTP? That's
    clean. Thank you very much. Now you do have a missed
    withhold?" Why didn't PTP fly? Well it's either suppressed
    or a false read. If it didn't fly it is either suppressed
    or a false read. Let's get this level of think. That's a
    very extreme level of think, isn't it? When you ask the PC
    a question and the needle doesn't float, then it is either
    a suppressed or a false read. You've asked the PC a
    question, now let me put this again very strongly, and very
    exactly, you've asked the PC a question, and it was clean,
    didn't read, and it didn't F/N, then it's either suppressed
    because of false reads, or there is a suppressed something
    on it. Why didn't it F/N? Well. that's a hell of an extreme
    way of...  here we labor and sweat and go through twenty
    five hour intensives, and so forth, to finally get an F/N,
    and all of a sudden Ron looks at us here and says, "We ask
    the PC a question, we didn't get an F/N, there's something
    wrong with that."
     
    Hey. Now get this as a different viewpoint. You ask the PC,
    "Do you have an ARC break?" And the PC F/Ned, 'cause he didn't have one. Now if it didn't F/N either he's been told he has
    had ARC breaks when he didn't have, or he's told he read on
    them when he didn't, so he's eventually suppressed the whole
    subject. Or he's got an ARC break that is suppressed, or he's
    got one that reads. And he's got one that reads, you itsa it,
    find out what it was, get your A-R-C-U, C-D-E-I, get the charge off of that, and then check it and if it hasn't F/Ned yet, you
    ask him, "Is it suppressed?" See? Ana get the read.
    "Alright, is that false?" You got it? "Somebody told you you didn't have one?" I don't care what it is,
    you haven't got an F/N yet. So it's an earlier, similar,
    earlier, similar, reads; there is no such thing as an ARC
    break that reads clean. There's ARC break to F/N.
     
    A needle that does not F/N on a question...  Look at the
    extremity of this. A needle that does not F/N on a question
    has either been falsely called sometime or another, and has
    so been suppressed, or it is suppressed. Because it isn't
    an F/N. F/N is native state.
     
    I get out of bed in the morning and grab a hold of a couple
    of cans, and so forth, and have a dial wide F/N. Why?
    There's neither suppress, there's no suppress on it. I'm
    not asking myself anything. If I ask myself something on
    the meter and it stopped F/Ning, I would know there was
    something there. Or, that it was false, or that it had been
    suppressed. Or there was an answer. I answer it and it F/Ns
    again.
     
    You should be auditing a PC from an F/N, wondering why the
    F/N is not continuous, rather than trying to sweat it
    through for the next seventy five hours to possibly get an
    F/N. What the hell are you doing with no F/Ns?
     
    Now I know exactly how good your auditing is and how bad it
    is. I don't have to need anything more than the PC did not
    come to the next session with an F/N. That's all I need to
    know.
     
    Start of session he had to have his Ruds put in. He's
    losing some portion of the gain he should get. So I look
    over somebody who is an auditor, exclamation point (!), and
    I know that his PCs are going to start coming to session
    with F/Ns very soon. And to run a major action you have to
    wreck the F/N.
     
    Now if you ask a PC who had an F/N if he had an ARC break,
    perfectly reasonable to do, and the F/N stopped, then
    you've either got a false or a suppress. See, the F/N
    stopped but it didn't read. Then there's false or suppress.
    So you'd have to get in those buttons. So now let's go back
    to this. The guy says, the guy says, "Do you have a PTP?
    Clean. Do you have a missed withhold?" Plunk, plunk, plunk, plunk, plunk, plunk, plunk. He just passed a read that's
    either false or suppressed. He's been called falsely, so
    the guy suppressed the read or something, but it doesn't
    F/N. He doesn't F/N on the subject of missed withholds. He
    doesn't F/N on the subject of PTPs, so it's false or
    suppressed. Do you get the idea? Now that's a hell of an
    extreme point from which to audit, but that's the kind of
    case supervision you're getting at this particular stage of
    the game. If you wonder why you're developing such
    aeronautic proficiency, and such aquatic expertness, is
    because you and me are auditing from two different
    standards. And I'll tell you how to win in this game. You
    start auditinq from my standard. Not because I say so, but
    because you will find out that it works.
     
    Pcs that don't F/N when they come into session have been
    roughly audited. Not roughly taught, not roughly handled,
    they've just been roughly audited. Pcs whose F/Ns don't
    even last to the examiner two minutes later...  You mean an
    ARC break's handled, and PTPs handled, and his missed
    withhold's off, and a good session under his belt and he's
    just cleaned up some big section of his life and his F/N
    doesn't last from the auditing desk to the examiner?
    Balderdash. My god, mine even lasts doing case supervision
    on your folders. Horrible thing to say.
     
    Now. So therefore the methods of teaching include the
    inspection of these case supervision, and anything that is
    improved or done in any way, why case folders and so forth,
    which demonstrate this will be added to the course. So that
    this is definitely part of it. Now, something which is
    supposed to be taken up, something supposed to be taken up
    by the supervisor, and so on, to find out where the student
    is actually weak, and it's supposed to get him to do it in
    clay. The...  He's supposed to get him to do it so that he
    understands it. It's up to the supervisor to get the fellow
    clarified on these things, not asking a bunch of goofy
    question, but get it so that he can actually take a look at
    it. Because the basic cognition on this stuff is it's as
    simple as a shot arrow. I mean, it's just simple. It's like
    this assessment. It ARC breaks me, because I taught it for
    years and it's been done for years, and it's a very simple
    action, and assessment can be forgotten, or somebody can't
    do assessment? I wonder why an auditor would leave four
    items reading on a prepared list? What good it that to
    anybody? And then show me that one was three inches long
    and one was two inches long. I don't care how long they
    are. What stayed in? What stayed in? That's the whole clue
    to the whole thing. That's all you ever want to know as
    case supervisor.
     
    Now I assure you that every one of you, without going out
    of valence in the least, are going to be exactly in my
    boots as I am, trying to teach you how to come up the line
    on standard tech.
     
    Each one of you will be occupying these two boots. You're
    gonna have the same problems, you're gonna get twice as
    outraged, and you'll have to be able to do it in such case
    state that your needle floats through the lot. So those are
    methods of course teaching which I must remark upon.
     
    Students quite normally take up case supervision folders,
    take up case supervision folders in a group so that each
    one of the cases, the auditing sessions which got well
    done, definitely taken up why that is a well done session.
    Now you will see in some of these case folders that instead
    of being a raging beast, I actually am not much of a raging
    beast, I am more than kind, because you'll occasionally see
    little slips I don't say anything about. See? They're so
    tiny, and knowing that the auditor was so over strained at
    that particular point, that it would seem too damn petty,
    because it didn't mean anything to the session. Little
    points of out-admin. You know? Like he doesn't put the time
    down for four columns. So you can't find out when the hell
    he did the action in the, in the session report, because he
    never put down the time. So you know that the action, and
    so forth, and then there's no time put down on the list
    when he does the list. So you can't find where the list fit
    into the session. See? These little things. I know you'll
    find me not saying much about them, but you should move up
    into that level of perfection.
     
    Now, as far as tapes are concerned, and listening to tapes,
    usually the quality is so very, very bad on tapes over home
    recorder machines which you listen to through earphones,
    that this course at least is designed to play the tapes in
    a common hall to the students all at one time. But this
    poses the problem, this poses the problem of what about
    somebody who comes in late on a course, and therefore you
    could only give the course every so many weeks? Or,
    something like this.
     
    No, you'll find these tapes, more or less you can, somebody
    can start listening to these tapes anyplace. And you carry
    it on through. But all the tapes should be listened to.
    I've tried to tell you often enough on the tapes so that
    you don't have to take notes, it's a very embarrassing
    thing in an auditing session to have to take out your
    notes. I remember one time, back in 1950, when an auditor
    who was going to audit me had to find Dianetics the Modern
    Science of Mental Health to find out what the canceler was.
    And opened up my book and read me the canceler as part of a
    session. You're supposed to know your data very quickly.
     
    Now the student, you'll find the cases make out on the
    course best when students start to audit late on the
    course. The students who are auditing later on the course,
    rather than those who audited once on the course, turn in a
    far better session. They've got the data, the theory under
    their belt, and they've normally integrated it so that they
    can put it together into a session without a lot of
    questions popping up. So a student should audit relatively
    late on a course, not early on.
     
    Now, when I say late, well if he was going to be three
    weeks on course, why about the earliest he ought to do any
    auditing is after about a week and a half of very furious
    study. And it would have to be very furious study. One is
    expected to go through the checksheet on this course at
    least three times. I consider that a minimum, I'd consider
    nine optimum. If you knew it by the time that you'd hit
    nine, boy you'd know it. And you wouldn't be worrying about
    it, trying to remember it. The only reason you make
    mistakes is your're trying to remember something that's
    about as obvious as can be.
     
    Now the other thing is, is we teach auditors, not cases.
    And on this course, why auditors don't have cases. There
    are no cases on the course. And that is an old rule, but
    there are no cases on a course. And that's the most
    remarkable thing. I've tried to teach you without teaching
    you through my case, and you should be able to be taught
    without being taught through your case.
     
    Now the net result of that is, is auditors don't have
    cases. Every now and then a solo auditor gets going about
    his case, or something of this sort. Well all right, but he
    is also the auditor.
     
    And he can't have the excuse that he keeps bad admin and
    doesn't audit because his case is bad. He is a different
    thing as a solo auditor.
     
    Now the whole subject of this course that you sort out
    eventually are the relative importances.
     
    And you should have gotten this a long, long, long, long
    time ago. It should have been way, way, way back when. The,
    the final assortment of data is actually in the axioms. And
    you should have learned these a long time ago. Axiom 58:
    Intelligence and judgement are measured by the ability to
    evaluate relative importances. To a lot of people a datum
    in Scientology is just about the same as a data in
    Buddhism, is about the same as a drop of water in the
    ocean, and so on. The position of the E-meter is an equal
    importance to the TRs of the auditor. In other words,
    monotone importances. You should know this axiom 58.
    Intelligence and judgement are measured by the ability to
    evaluate relative importances. When you eventually sort out
    the material you're going through, you won't find that
    there are fifty data that are important. But you have to
    know the rest of them to back it up. But there are fifty,
    no more, no less, than.
     
    What is important? What is important? And that is the thing
    you have to break through.
     
    Somebody came in here on this course asking me questions
    about heredity. Well, I don't care anything about heredity.
    The Russians have heredity. Bysinko, I think, had something
    to say about it. Somebody dreamed it up sometime or
    another. But brother, it has the relative importance of an
    ink blot on a rock in the South Pacific. So your data has
    to be evaluated against other data. I've had somebody tell
    me that you could find everything there was in Scientology
    in Krishnamurti. Well, it was a hell of an exaggeration, so
    I said, "Now show me something." And they finally dreamed it up, and they said, "Well he said something about time." And I said, "Good. We also said something about time. Now
    show me where he said something about time." And they
    showed me one sentence which was in a whole book. And this
    one little sentence, by misinterpretation, could be said to
    be the fact that time exists in this universe. But nowhere
    in there did he give it any relative importance. And it was
    just of monotone to every other thing in there.
     
    So somebody comes up to you and tells you, "Well that's
    just like the Vedic something or other", they've got a lot
    to learn. Because they don't even know the relative
    importance amongst the Vedic actions. There is an important
    Vedic hymn, I've forgotten which one it is, about the
    fourth one, which gives the cycle of action. And it gives,
    actually, a very, very wise little piece of information. It
    defines the cycle of action, way back in Vedic times. And
    in the entire panorama of Vedic materials there isn't
    anything else but sand. That's a hell of a thing, isn't it?
    But there is one, was one datum there. Now, the people
    studying Vedic hymns I am sure think they're all of equal
    importance. There was only one useful datum in the whole
    line up. Very valuable datum.
     
    Now where, where a student has to shake himself loose,
    where he has to get himself squared around, is to find out
    what is important and what is unimportant. And when he is
    able to sort these things out he is then able to do what he
    has to do, he is also able to teach. And this is a primary
    job which is done by the student. Under the heading of
    methods of teaching, this is something that is up to the
    student to sort out relative importances. Until he does so
    he is just in one horrible maze. Every drop of water in the
    ocean is just like every other drop of water in the ocean,
    and all those drops of water in the ocean, they really
    don't relate to anything. Well he's gotta get that stacked
    up, and he's gotta find out what are the important data.
    What are the important data? And get those things arranged.
    And arrange those important data without recourse to
    whether or not they solve his case or not. For as a
    student, he couldn't care buttons about whether they solve
    his case or not. In the normal course of events they of
    course will resolve his case. But they actually won't solve
    his case unless they solve all the cases.
     
    Some people like to be individualists and have different
    types of cases. I'm sorry for those people, but we may even
    invent a C/S which satisfies their status-happy seeking.
    "We have to run on you now technique ST. And that is a
    technique of spotting the number of spots on spots. It's a
    very special process. It's for very genius people." If you
    did such a thing as that it would probably be dishonest,
    but I never let my sense of humor get the better with my
    case supervision. But sometimes when you hear what some
    people think is a missed withhold, that even I have heard
    half around the world, this girl's busy getting off this
    missed withhold, see? Well I've known that for years. I
    know one girl that went clear to Australia and buried
    herself in the bush and has never come out towards
    Scientology again, because she had a withhold that only she
    knew in company with; she never got it off in a session,
    but I don't think there was anybody in London didn't know
    it. She's down there busy hiding this withhold that
    everybody else knows. It suddenly strikes you with some
    pity, looking at some extreme action like this, that
    humanism and status, and a few things like that are put
    above power, decency and freedom. But those are the
    relative importances of the being. And he will sort those
    out as time goes along.
     
    Now, I could go on and give you a lot of data about this
    and that and the other thing, but I do have some very, very
    important data. I've already told you that no session
    control is out Ruds, and relative importances, but I want
    to tell you something very astonishing, something absolutely
    astonishing. And that is the one hand electrode, as used in
    solo auditing, can obscure floats to such a degree that a
    person overruns himself consistently. And you will find t
    in auditing of such people, you will be amazed, and he will
    be amazed, when you say there are four, five, six, eight,
    ten times they went clear on the Clearing Course, or
    something of this sort. They went release on it, or
    something. And he didn't see any floats. Well he was
    handling a one hand electrode. And it doesn't float.
    Furthermore, it gives a TA lie. It can be high, or it can
    be low. Now if you want to straighten this out for
    yourself, get a couple of cans with the alligator clip,
    couple of old tin cans the way those meters are designed
    against, I think it's a size eight or a size ten tin can.
    And they have alligator jaw lead-ins that clip to those tin
    cans. You take those two cans and you hold them, and that
    meter is calibrated to work in, calibrated to react to, two
    tin cans, one held in each hand.
     
    Now when a person gets up in the OT Sections, he is
    insufficiently in contact with all parts of the body to
    register worth a god damn on a one hand electrode in many
    cases. You very often will find the one hand electrode is
    registering 2.5, that the needle appears to be relatively
    loose, that this appears to be OK. If you were to take at
    that moment two one hand electrodes, you know, two, two
    different electrodes which are separated, each one held in
    one hand, making a two handed connection to the machine,
    the needle might be doing a float. And the TA might be in a
    completely different place.
     
    Now it's very amazing how completely erroneous this can be.
    The TA can be at 3, floating, on the proper two cans, and
    on a one hand electrode can be at 4, stuck. But because it
    actually is calibrated to be floating on the two hands, and
    is floating, and is actually floating, any effort to get it
    down from the stuck 4 is, of course, an overrun. Life can
    be marvelous, can't it.
     
    So those electrodes are best, and those electrodes are only
    reliable, which are held one in each hand, or which are
    connected to the two opposite sides of the body. Now a word
    of warning, if you try to hook up an electrode against the
    skin it very often, I mean like under the armpit, or some
    tender portion of the anatomy, watch it, because it only
    has seven and a half volts going through it, but it
    actually gives a sensation of burn, and can actually burn
    somebody. We do have somebody who tries to handle
    electrodes by lashing one to his leg, and he's always been
    thinking he is such a marvelous special case because it
    burns his leg. Well my god, it always burns anybody's leg.
    It'd burn your leg, too. Don't think I haven't made tests
    of that character all the way across the line.
     
    But this latest data here, about a one hand electrode is a
    result of a series of tests which I have taken in order to
    resolve some materials and some reactions on the higher OT
    Sections of research, and - I'm telling you this for the
    first tlme. It isn't that I've withheld it from anybody,
    but that it doesn't float as you go up into higher
    Sections. You don't get a float anymore. And you get the
    weird action then, of an overrun, and you put...  Now you,
    as an auditor, put the guy into a review session, and it's
    sort of packed up, and it's spooky, and the needle's doing
    this, that or the other thing, there's not only a false
    needle, but a false TA. So there's Worry about the TA" is
    one of the buttons which you must remember comes about in
    solo auditing.
     
    And you have to put into your line up. His TA. Worried
    about his TA. His TA is low, or his TA is high. He's
    worried about his TA. And it comes up as a problem and can
    act as a sufficient problem to operate as any other present
    time problem operates at no case gain. Every time he goes
    into session he has this problem with the TA. And in a one
    hand electrode he can read up to 6. Stuck. When he actually
    will be floating, dial wide, on two cans.
     
    Now you will see then, this mystery of this guy was all
    worried about his TA, and he'll be sitting on the meter,
    all of a sudden he'll have a dial wide float while you're
    auditing him, and he tells you he's worried about his TA.
    Well that is the mystery of it all, is he's got some flooky
    electrode set up, which messes him up. Now there's some
    material in progress on this, and this will be resolvable.
    But I'm just warning you that this condition does exist,
    and that you will run into this condition.
     
    Now, the actual actions of auditing on a solo level are
    very often very, very, very, very, very badly done.
    Incredibly badly done. Guys go into session, they don't put
    in their Ruds. The rudiments are out, and they try to use
    the OT Section in order to handle their PTP. You got it?
    And they then audit over out Ruds, out Ruds, audit over out
    Ruds, out Ruds. Now you get somebody that can't run an
    engram, can't run anything else, and he gets onto OT 3.
    Isn't trained, wraps himself around a telegraph pole,
    messes himself up most horribly. One are the difficulties
    is, that he will run an Incident 1 on one thetan and turn
    around and run an Incident 2 out of another thetan. I
    sometimes find somebody who says, when you're trying to run
    an Incident 1 on him, well he has no reality on it, and so
    on, and yet he claims to have done something with 3. He
    can't have done anything with 3 unless he ran some Incident
    1s. He can very often run his own Incident 1, blow quite a
    few body thetans. He doesn't necessarily have to be on it
    forever. But he certainly had to run Incident 1! And he
    certainly had to run it several times!
     
    Now, therefore, why didn't he? Well he doesn't know engram
    running . He can't run engrams. And not able to run
    engrams, my god, he couldn't run 'em on a PC, he couldn't run
    'em much less on himself, he hasn't any control of his own
    bank, he therefore is somebody who, by reason of training and
    by reason of a charged case, did not in actual fact have any
    business being on the OT Sections, because his case is too
    charged up. Now his case is too charged up because his grades
    are out. It isn't a very difficult thing. Engrams, secondaries, ARC Straightwire, back it down into that zone, he's had drugs.
    They have never been rehabbed, something like this. And god
    almighty, he, he's trying to get through the OT Sections.
    Well it's something like this. Standard tech rehabs all
    former releases on any subject.
     
    And if those things aren't rehabbed, I don't care whether
    it's done early or late on the case, if the person's not
    actually had ARC Straightwire run, if he's not actually had
    secondaries run, if he's not actually had engrams run, all
    correctly, zero, the real processes of zero, one, two,
    three, four, actual Power, R6EW, no fudge to it, actually
    run 'em. His case is too charged. His case is too charged up.
     
    Now one of the ways you can tell a case is too charged up
    is he starts to run secondaries or engrams or something
    like this, and he doesn't seem to be able to get much
    reality on it, and he sort of brushes it off, but somebody
    ARC breaks him, and he goes F/N. "Well, you're a clear.
    That's it. We've got you released now on engrams." Oh. Now
    you try to take him up through the grades. Kooky things
    like this have happened, but those are violations of
    standard tech.
     
    Standard tech includes that an F/N is not a valid F/N
    unless it's with GIs. But you say the thing did F/N, and he
    didn't have GIs, and when I started to run it further it
    packed up and the TA started up. My dear fellow, you now
    have found out that is was a real F/N. So, F/N with bad
    indicators. So you decide it's just an F/N with bad
    indicators, and I'm going to do something else with this
    F/N with bad indicators, and I'm going to run it a bit
    further, I'm going to do something else with this. All of a
    sudden the F/N packs up, the TA starts up, my god it wasn't
    an F/N with bad indicators, meaning an ARC broke needle. It
    was a valid F/N. You've had it.
     
    Now of course, you're going to have to come off of it and
    rehab it right away. Bongo. Rehab.
     
    Indicate the overrun. It goes back to its' proper F/N. He's
    just, sort of, a sour puss PC in general. But he never has,
    nobody's ever seen any GIs on him. Never seen any good
    indicators, and so on.
     
    Well the trouble with the case is, the trouble with the
    case is, it is simply super-charged. It's just a charged up
    case. The guy's just charged up like crazy. Well there's
    something wrong.
     
    And a person who has ARC broke needles is an over-charged
    case who is liable to go low TA.
     
    He's a potential low TA case. So the resolution of the low
    TA, it was very necessary to say that standard tech covered
    all cases. There are several ways to resolve a low TA, it
    is resolvable by valence shifting, it is resolvable by a
    proper run on OT3, it is even resolvable by PrPr6. So I
    have just pulled the rabbit out of the hat recently, and
    I've got low TA cases resolvable at the level of ARC
    Straightwire and secondaries and engram running. We might
    as well cure them up there as any other place.
     
    So I do pull some rabbits out of the hat every now and
    then. What's resolvable on the upper levels, I've made it
    now resolvable on the lower levels. All of which is part of
    the standard tech which you're being taught.
     
    Alright. Now the high TA is inevitably and invariably
    overruns.Inevitably and invariably. But there's a hooker on
    this overrun. It might be the profession of somebody that
    is overrun, and you have to find the person. He's just one
    damn too many dentists. And you find the dentist who
    constituted the overrun and the TA blows down. The subject
    of dentistry doesn't go, but the subject of dentists does.
    Do you follow? He doesn't blow down on operation, but it
    blows down on the subject of dentists. How would you find
    such a thing? Well you would normally find such a thing
    very easily by the interesting mechanism that he was PTS.
    PTS, you do an S and D, you get a big blow down on the
    thing, well he was actually overrun on this subject, and
    that made him PTS to it. And it's all very involved in his
    head. But we don't care how it is. So overrun is high TA,
    but it could also be the overrun of the person. You can get
    the phenomena of overrun showing up on an S and D, and
    you'll think maybe PTS makes high TAs. It doesn't. OK?
     
    So you got the high TA, you got the low TA, and other
    things with regard to that. And your technique is pretty
    straight. Now you think in my teaching of you that I, at
    this stage of the game, that I have become savage, that I
    have become brutal, that I have become utterably mean.
     
    I call to your attention that I have taught you kindly and
    sweetly before.
     
    Now I won't try to make you wrong by saying you have done
    it all wrong, because the actual fact before I arrange this
    course to teach you this, I did get a simplification of
    communication to try to find out where you might possibly
    be snarled up, and have done everything I could to unsnarl
    it. So I'm not trying to make you horribly wrong in
    everything you have learned. I'm just trying to make you
    horribly right by getting you to get all the gain there is
    as an auditor, and as a case out of standard tech.
     
    Thank you very much.
     
    **************************************************
     
     
    
     

    Track this thread for me

    Subscribe to alt.religion.scientology
    Mail this message to a friend
    View original Usenet format
    Post Reply

    << Previous in search   ·   Next in search >>

    Search Discussions
      For a more detailed search go to Power Search
    Search only in: People >> Humanities >> Theology
    All Deja.com
    Search for:
    Search  messages

     Arts & Entertainment   Automotive   Computing & Tech   Health   Money 
     News   People   Recreation   Sports   Travel 
    SHOPPING - Yellow Pages - Long Distance Deals - Free Stuff - Trade with Datek - Go to Gigabuys! - GET IT NOW @ NECX - FREE downloads! - Get FREE Health Info@drkoop.com - Apartments.com - eBay Auctions

    Copyright © 1999 Deja.com, Inc. All rights reserved.
    Trademarks · Terms & Conditions of Use · Site Privacy Statement.

    Advertise with Us!  |  About Deja.com