Start your own community in Theology.  

FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST
 
CLASS VIII TAPE TRANSCRIPTS 15/19
 
**************************************************
 
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
 
**************************************************
 
6810C11 Class VIII TAPE 15
 
 
AUDITORS ADDITIVES, LISTS AND CASE SUPERVISION
 
Well I forgot my notes. Which lecture number is this?
(Fifteen.) Lecture number fifteen, and what is the date?
Eleventh of October. That brought you up to present time.
Eleven October AD 18.
 
The subject of my lecture this evening is auditors talk too
much. It's impolite, but it's the first discovery I made
about auditors when I was first training auditors back in
the late '40s. I did train a few, experimentally, and along
the line, and I found out they all had one frailty. They
said too much.
 
Now, when a C/S gets a session that looks nearly perfect,
and he gets it, and he says, "Great", and then a couple of days later the PC falls on his head, something has
obviously happened in the session which wasn't recorded.
The most frequent thing that hastened in the session is an
auditor additive of comment, or attitude, which is additive
to the business of auditing.
 
Now it isn't necessarily slight. The additive can be
fantastic. I'll give you an exact, direct example that is
exact and direct. The auditor asking for ARC breaks, not
noted in the report form, but the auditor asking for ARC
breaks says, "Now, if you knew anything was wrong you
wouldn't hold it from me, would you? You wouldn't refuse to
tell me, would you? Now you've, you're giving me the
straight dope?" That F/N's an ARC break needle. What you
see on the auditing report is ARCU, CDEI, something like
this. He was gentling an ARC break and apparently indicated
the thing. And then that craziness ensued. That isn't in
the report.
 
A C/S is actually at the mercy of the auditor attitude and
additive, because the attitude itself is also an additive.
When you look at an auditing session, and since my lecture
yesterday actually you're to be congratulated on the org 8,
you floated nineteen out of twenty one to the examiner,
which is fantastic. So, thank you. (Applause.) Thanks very
well done.
 
Now. The business of the smooth TR is simply to put across
to the PC, and keep the PC interested in his own bank and
his own case. So therefore, the auditor who would say, see
the PCs looking for an ARC break. All of a sudden he
shatters with this, oh well now, you wouldn't hold anything
from me would you? Yeah, you're really telling me the...  He
hasn't got the foggiest notion, don't you see? The auditor
as a personality isn't there. Bang! All of a sudden the
personality intrudes. What does the PC try to do? He tries
to hold it off. Stow it.
 
And he parks himself to that degree in the session. Do you
see that?
 
Alright. Now. Let's take another one. Let's take another
one. PC says, this is also an actual.
 
On the auditors report it reads, "What do you do to make
others wrong" PC says he doesn't do anything. F/N. But the
PC, an hour or two later, and the following day, was found
to be fantastically upset. Really fabulously upset. After
an auditing session the PC is upset. What the devil is
this? He's supposed to run his service facsimile, supposed
to have gotten a bunch of F/Ns. What's he doing all upset?
Well somebody could say, "well the technology doesn't
work." You know? Hmm. Look, the technology works, but
somebody just worked too damn well. What actually
transpired in that brief period between writing down a
question about making others wrong and what is noted as "PC says he doesn't have any was something on this order." You
say you don't have any? Ah, come Ant. Come off of it! Come
off of it! Come off of it! People have hundred of these
things! What do you do?" An ARC broke needle.
 
How would you like to have that blow up in your face in a
session? Totally unexpected. Totally unreasonable. Now when
it goes so far as just this. The PC has a cognition. He
says, "You know, I don't think I have that problem
anymore." You know? He's looking at this. He thinks that's
great, you know? It just F/Ned, and so forth, and the
auditor says, "Oh that's great, boy, that's great! Glad to
hear it. Boy, that's really with it!" Whew. It said F/N
there, the cognition is written here, but what happened
right afterwards? See?
 
What it is, is a distraction. A sudden distraction. And a
session is supposed to smooth out the PC. What happens to
the PC if enturbulance is run into it? So what an auditor
says just before the session, during the session, and right
after the session, in those three immediate periods, which
are additive to the actual business of the session, are all
additives of a highly useless, derogatory, backwards
nature. They're all for the birds.
 
An auditor who has to be interesting, who has to think he
has to persuade the PC, who does this, who does that,
actually is building up on top of the top of standard tech
a bunch of additives which prevent it from working. That
line of action has the C/S at its' mercy, because it isn't
recorded in the report. You can get a report, which
apparently looks OK, and from that standpoint, and if
you've not sending people to the examiner you've just about
had it. Then what you get, you hear from the doctor, or you
hear from somebodv else, or you hear from the family, or
hear from the registrar, "Jukes was here last week. And
when he came in he said he was signing up for fa fa fa fow,
and you know, he hasn't been back." "What's the matter?" You look at the session. There's nothing in the session
that indicates anything. Why? See, he came to get smoothed
out and got roughed up. Well what roughed him up? He put
his attention inside. You know? He looked inward, and
somebody forced his attention forcefully outward. And just
about the time he started to look inside, somebody flipped
his attention outward. So, he "goes out of session". That is the commonest source of out-of-sessionedness.
 
Now a rough TR is one thing that tends to. But it is not
actually as near a session destroyer as the additives, the
comments. Why comment? See, why comment?
 
Now some auditors think to be agreeable they have to laugh
with the PC. I never do. PC is not aware of me anyhow. He
wouldn't know whether I was laughing with him or not
laughing with him. Besides, I haven't got anything to laugh
about. It's his joke. (Laughter.) I've had PCs chortle and
burble, and giggle and cognite from one end of the session
to the other while I was sitting there not with any
expression on my face. Now it's rather difficult to assume
a no-expression.
 
You do have a face.
 
The next point of evaluation, you have somebody who is
ill-intentioned in some fashion or another on the examiner
line. PC goes to the examiner, and the examiner looks him
over and says, "Oh my god. What happened to you?" Pcs
feeling great. Actually maybe the examiner has a very bad
case of myopia, and he's trying to see what PC it is.
Something like this. And the examiner squints and looks at
the PC...  And the PC thinks there's something wrong with
him. And it kills the float.
 
So there is a subject called no-expression. There is a
subject. But this is normally what you will find back of
the false auditing report. It is the auditor additive.
 
Now there's another thing an auditor can do, god help us.
There is another thing he can do. Is to fail to give the
next command. In other words, he's not there at all. Now
this can also be deadly. When you have somebody who's very
green auditing he is liable to chicken. Get scared. And he
sees he's put the PC down the track in some fashion or
another, doesn't quite know what he's doing. All of a
sudden the pcs face turns red, or something like this, and
he goes...  He freezes. Now when he does that the PC then
has to extrovert, take control of the situation, and
somehow or another come out of it. But he's been put into
it by another being, and he has to come out of it by
himself. So he actually doesn't make it. To that degree he
doesn't make it. So it hangs him up on the track.
 
Now all of these actions act to hang the PC up on the
track. The additives, the comments, and on the other hand,
the failure to state. The PC comes into session, the
auditor all of a sudden forgets what he's supposed to ask
for, and sits there and looks at the PC, and tries to look
in his papers. He doesn't put in any R-factor. He doesn't
say, "I've got to see here what I'm supposed to do",
because it'd be too derogatory of his attitude, or
something, and he might sit there for a minute or two
without saying anything, racking his wits out. The PC goes
half way around the bend because he's expecting something
to happen that doesn't happen. Or, right in the middle
of a crucial situation the auditor fails to follow the
same patter that he has just followed. Engram one,
pattern correct, engram two, he blows it. He tells him
to go earlier and then in locating the incident, his patter
blows up. He forgets to ask for, well he forgets to ask for
the date. Forgets to ask what it is. What does he see?
Forgets to ask for the duration. And then just says, "Go
through it." Now that would be a maddening situation. Do
you see? There's an infinite number of varieties by which
an omission could also rough up a PC. So auditing, along
with standard tech, is that thin, narrow path through being
there enough to get the session done, and not being there
enough to put on a vaudeville show. Do you see? This is the
one thing that is usually hardest to teach.
 
If I were running an activity where I was very suspicious,
and I could be more suspicious of sessions than I am
sometimes. My level of trust is too good. But I would
actually put it on a slow play tape recorder, which is a
voice actuated tape recorder. So that the entirety of the
session would run off on tape. Something of this nature,
then it could be checked back. Now I wouldn't necessarily
put this on as a constant action, but if I had one PC, if I
just had one PC fall on his head after he was audited, and
I got a report in which seemed to be a well done resort,
and the PC promptly fell on his head and so forth, I would
be thinking in terms of listening to that session. I would
then want a spy system, you know, where a microphone can be
taped, or I would want that...  Now these, these spy systems
can be escaped. It's a simple matter. Just never use the
auditing room that's bugged. Yes, it's happened. Three
auditing rooms had microphones in them so that sessions and
auditors could be checked, and then they were never used.
Nobody ever seemed to give a session in those rooms.
 
Well at once one should have become very wary, because it
so happened at that particular moment the session were
very, very, very additive. The reports looked great and the
sessions looked like a clown show at the circus. A lot of
yik yak going on. Several cases messed up, and so on. It
was by auditor additive. So it isn't slight.
 
Now, one of the ways an auditor additive can occur is with
C/S. An auditor who is auditing his own PC, he doesn't have
a C/S around, and you will occasionally be in that
position, is already breaking down on C/S. In the first
place, he has talked to the PC. In the second place he
knows the auditor. So his C/S is busted on two counts. But
there is a thin way to get away with it.
 
And that is merely to make a rigid rule never to C/S during
a session. Never, never C/S during a session. Write up your
C/S before the session, follow your C/S rigorously and
religiously.
 
When you get to the end of the C/S end the session. Your
next C/S, write it up dispassionately as though you had
nothing whatsoever to do with it. Even cuss yourself out.
But if you hold that, you hold that as a very, a very
sound, rigid principle, you won't get auditor additives
into your session, which is to C/S at the same time
auditing is occurring, because nothing can be more
confusing, and it can lead you into an immediate and direct
Q and A. You excuse the Q and A on the basis that you've
changed the C/S. Do you follow? And gradually these two
things merge, until you become almost educated in Q and A.
"We'll just audit the PC on what he needs right now. Let's
see.' And you sit down.
 
Now the PC himself is distracting. He's somebody to hold on
a line. And if you want to deliver all your sessions into
the hands of the PC, why then just never C/S them. So
before the session, if you were doing this sort of thing,
before the session you would look over the folder, and you
would write up your C/S as a good C/S. That's what we're
gonna do. When you go into the session that's the C/S you
execute. And when you're all done with the session, with
that C/S done, and you write up another C/S before the next
session. And you just win.
 
You just win, win, win. You'd just be absolutely fascinated.
 
It gets this kind of an oddity. Somebody comes in and says,
"Would you audit me?" And you say, "Yes. Just a minute. Where's your folder? I'll get your folder. Yes, come back
in fifteen or twenty minutes, and I'll rive you a session." Get the guys' folder from wherever it is, go through the
thing, figure it out, write down your C/S from the folder.
Deliver your session.
 
Now the one, the one type of session that isn't true in, is
when it isn't a session, it's an assist.
 
Somebody comes bunging up to you, and they just got the
railroad rail run through their brisket or something of
this sort. You had better know the C/S for assists so
well that you simply go into that and don't do anything
else. If it's very handy, the spot where he was hurt,
you're going to do a contact. If it's not very handy,
you're goina to do a touch assist. If he is at all
auditable you are going to run him through the engram of
the incident. If it gets heavy and sticks you're going to
go to the earlier incident. Earlier, similar incident.
That's all the C/Sing there is.
 
As far as Ruds are concerned you could make some little
gesture at trying to put in the Ruds, but you don't have to
fly anything. You understand? Because he's got the PTP.
You're looking at it. He's actually in the rudiments. Now
you ordinarily wouldn't run a rudiment with an engram. But
ordinarily a guy like that isn't in a position to run the
engram on. You can do the contact assist, you can do the
touch assist, there's very often on a severe one there's
got to be some medical patch up of some kind or another.
Now when he comes back, remember this is not an assist,
this is a session, now you're going to fly the Ruds, and
you're going to run the engram of injury, or earlier, similar.
 
Now somebody's just lost their brother, or something of
this sort, and they come in to you crying, and they've got
to rush off to the funeral or the hospital or something
like that. I assure you there is so little you can do about
it that the more you try to do about it the worse off
you're-a-gonna be. Let them handle what they've got to
handle, when they come back, formal session, secondary.
Earlier similar, secondary. Those are the actions which you
take. If you don't take the two actions which I've just
given you, a lot of guys are going to hang up. You'll see
people going around in grief. Very upset. You ask them, and
somebody, somebody ran recall it or something. Keyed it
out. They didn't erase it. And it keeps keying back in again.
 
You see this guy all bunged up, and you say, "What's the
matter? What's the matter?" "Well" he says, "about two or three months ago I broke my leg." And you say, "Anybody ever run the engram?" "Yes. I had a touch assist." It's actually the formal...  Entirely different thing.
 
So that there is a formal auditing side of this, and the
C/S for that is very exact. You go in, you do just that.
You do what you're supposed to do at the moment of
emergency. You don't have to fly the Ruds. Contact assist,
or it's a touch assist if the objects and so forth aren't
available.
 
You bring 'em around any way you can. You have them tended
to by the plumbers. Give him a shot of morphine, anything
like that if they're in agony. And then when they have
progressed and they are not in a state of physical shock,
why they can stand up to run an engram. But by that time
they can also stand up to flying their Ruds. Do you follow?
 
So later on, when you run the engram or the secondary,
you're not doing an assist. That's just a session. Do you
get the difference between these two things? So an assist,
you can handle the apparent PTP that is in front of you
without a C/S, if you always know what the C/S for it is.
 
And I've just given it.
 
Now. If you want to commit professional suicide it's to
badger, badger around with somebody without a set up C/S or
a case study in front of you, because you're liable to run
into some very tiger-ish situations. I'll give you an idea.
You say, "Well he just mentioned this, he just mentioned
his brothers' death.' Something like this. "He just
mentioned his brothers' death."
 
But this secondary's never been run. I'll run it." Ahhh.
How, how, what were you doing? Well, you say it's OK
because it F/Ned, and I'll just add in, and I'll run this
secondary here, and...  You don't know if that case is going
to fly or not on this subject. You don't know anything
about it. Let's take a look at this.
 
Now I'll give you a few little tips of one kind or another.
In doing C/Ses, in doing a C/S you should be far more
careful to set up the case to be audited than an auditor
ordinarily would be.
 
You look for places to take charge off of this case. Let's
shave this case down. You look for symptoms and signs of a
very overcharged, or special-type case. Somebody carts you
in a six inch thick review folder. Ahh! Resistive case. You
don't immediately say he's been badly audited for the last
two years. Because the law of averages are that some time
during the last two years he has run into an auditor who
could audit, and if he'd run into an auditor that could
audit he wouldn't have it six inches thick, it'd only be
three inches thick. Do you get the idea?
 
So obviously, if all this period of time nobody's been able
really to pack up this case and figure out what it is all
about, why in that length of time if nobody has, there's
something very, very, very peculiar. And the thing that is
peculiar, this you have to keep in mind. The thing that is
peculiar is standard tech is out on it.
 
There's a dear old lady. I think she even wore, you've
heard me speak of this old lady before. She even wore the
little bonnet with the flower off the top of a long stem.
And when she walked, the bonnet flower bobbed. She was the
most precise, prim, proper little old lady you ever saw in
your life, and nobody could get to first base on her case.
I think her tone arm was a dirty tone arm. And nobody'd ever
been able to pick any withholds or overts off of her. What
we used was the exaggerated overt. Which is perfectly valid.
It works. It's perfectly valid.
 
Somebody won't give you up his overts, and so forth, you...
It's a rather harsh, but perfectly valid, way of pulling an
overt. You multiply the overt. What you are trying to get
them to confess to is so much more horrible than what they
are, than what they are guilty of, do you see? But you can
actually make up a list for the auditor. "Have the PC
questioned on the following points. Murder, bank robbery,
desertion, child slaughter, bigamy." See? You can put down
a list like that. Horrible. The little old lady said, no,
she wasn't guilty of any of those crimes. All she'd ever
done was commit adultery on her husband for the last forty
years. With all of his friends. And it blew the case sky
wide and handsome, and it rolled beautifully. What was
wrong with the case? The Ruds were out. That was all. But
this was one of the most resistive cases in a whole area.
It was a famous case. Ruds out. And so they go. So they are.
 
And in your C/Sing, in your C/Sing you want to get some
kind of an estimate of how, how tough is this cookie? You
can write up, you can write up and broaden, enormously, the
seven types of cases. They ougnt to be called, by the way,
special cases to your PCs. People like to be special cases,
not resistive cases. But you can write a very, very large
assessment sheet out of those seven resistive cases.
Furthermore, you can assess it sectionally. You notice the
first time it was ever assessed the former therapy read
once and then went out. And out of valence was the item.
Well now you could have another assessment done, or you
could just grab the brass ring as you went by and assume
also that there's former therapy, and your next action is
former therapy. Run the engrams of former therapy, you
already got the assessment out of it, see? It fell on the
first one.
 
Now, if you wanted to be more positive about it, you could
take a whole assessment sheet of just former therapy. You
see that it read once. Now you can broaden this. It slashed
once and then went out, so there's something there. Now we
can broaden, and we can list any kind of a former therapy
that we can think of. And we could shake out of the hamper
the exact type of former therapy it was. Now that would be
important, because you see some former therapies are
engrams, and some former therapies can be rehabbed.
 
Now in hypnotism and yoga, and several other analogous
practices and so forth, there is a rehab available.
Furthermore, drug therapy, under sedation for a long period
of time and so forth, is very often rehabbable. So, that's
already on the list, drugs. But it might not come up under
the heading of former therapy. People, this personal say,
"Well I never took drugs. I was just under morphine for
seven years in the general hospital. We see this all the
time. So you can do an expansion. You can do an expansion.
And what I told you earlier, in session you have got, in a
session, only to touch the corner of something and you can
slide in on it. It's as though the bank flew little, tiny
flags out to the side. And you can see these little flags.
And your job is to try to find one of these little flags
and slide in on it.
 
Now, you saw, for instance, the guy, the guy has sciatica,
or something of this sort. And this, you're not trying to
cure his sciatica, it's just an index of case. What the
hell's he doing with sciatica, or whatever it is? What's he
doing with this? He's a grade three release. He shouldn't
have a psychosomatic illness. You get the idea? I mean,
that's your think. "Hey, this guy's been audited. He
shouldn't be doing that." There's something goofy out,
here, some place.
 
Alright, let's see if we can pinpoint this. Now all you're
really doing is looking for an area of charge. You're not
trying to process against a sianificance. You just want to
discharge this case. When this case is sufficiently
discharged you couldn't care less about the flat feet of
humanoids. That's why I'm very insulted when the medicos,
and so forth, say, "You're busy healing." Nobody's
interested in healing bodies. But you take a fellow who is,
who is ill in some quarter or another, I can assure you
that there's a sweat deal of charge available in that area.
Do you see? The case is heavily charged. It's aberrated in
some fashion. So your job is, how do you discharge this
case as a case supervisor?
 
Now your first and foremost way to charge the case is send
him up through the grades. That's your first and foremost
way to charge a case. Next grade. He's made the grade,
good, send him onto the next grade. Great. Now let's say he
has had these grades, according to his record, and he's
still got lumbosis. Now you should get curious at this
point as to what this is all about. Because what it is,
actually, is that a grade is out some place, or a rud is
out some place.
 
Now, theoretically you could put in the Ruds ahead of the
sessions. You could also put them ahead of a major action
or an engram in life, you could also put them in at the
beginning of track. You could do all sorts of weird things
with rudiments. But it is a very, very touchy situation, I
assure you, to start running back Ruds which are not
limited in the command. Now you could put the Ruds in for
the last session, if you said the last session. You could
even put the Ruds in, in the last few sessions, by saying
"Lately". See? "Lately have you been audited over an ARC break?" Lately. Otherwise, you're liable to dive clear back to the beginning of track or...  You can actually earlier
similar, when you start putting in Ruds earlier, you can
actually do an earlier similar, clear on back to god help
us. Now you could say the date of the engram is 1862, and
you could say, "Just prior to that incident what rudiment
was out?" Now you're stuck with it, because you're gonna
have to say earlier similar. Earlier similar, earlier
similar, earlier similar, and oh my god, you're going to
have to start running this case on nothing but a rudiment,
clear back to the beginning of track. The case you're
running it on is in no shape to pick up an ARC break ahead
of Incident 1. He's never even heard of a body thetan.
 
You see why it's one of these things like R2-12. You hardly
dare trust it to anybodies' hands because it works so fast.
But it isn't, this isn't a matter of trust. It's simply a
matter of the second you start putting in Ruds on earlier
similar, you're liable to get a rud hung.
 
Now the only thing you can do with it is earlier similar,
you start putting Ruds that far back and you're getting the
whole track PTP, the whole track ARC break, and this is
going to be run on a case which isn't prepared to run
anything like that. And the case'll fall on its' head just
sure as hell. A case runs just below the level of its'
available reality. The current reality of the case
demonstrates how much charge you can set off the case. What
is the current reality of the case? Now a person who is at
low, down in the lower graces, and so on, he maybe has
many, many things wrong with him. But he has no reality
of any kind whatsoever. It wouldn't even read on the meter.
Do you follow? So your safest C/S is on something that will
read. And therefore you take the assessment.
 
You can actually have some fellow who is going around on
crutches and you say, "What is wrong with you?" And he could tell you, "I've got an ear ache." And you could say, "Weil then, something wrong with your legs or something
like that?" "Oh well, that. Yeah that's, that's just
nothing. It just, it bothers me." Well if he never got well physiologically, and after something or other, there's
obviously some terrific charge on the case or body that is
holding it that far out of line, and your task as case
supervisor is, is it available? Well it's only available if
he has some awareness of it. And the way you measure his
awareness is with a meter. Now you can look all the way
through a folder, find an awful lot of blunders, and have
somebody try to put these blunders to rights. Particularly
on somebody who wasn't trained. You try to put these
blunders to rights. You know them, you've seen them in the
folder. You order foolishly as a C/S to go through all of
the persons' earlier grades, and do all of the auditing,
and point out all of the overruns and BPC in all of the
earlier grades, and you're liable to find the auditor
you're C/Sing for in a sudden fire fight with the PC, under
the heading of invalidation. The guy thought his lower
grades were great. So that is why you take these little
assessments. Just let me teach you that.
 
You can see what's wrong. Is it real to the PC? The way you
measure whether or not it is real to the PC, is not what is
the most wrong, but what is the most real to the PC. And so
you write up an assessment. Now you know very, very, very
well that this guy goes out and wrecks cars. This seems to
be the thing he does. This is a life manifestation. Now
you, from your viewpoint, are very foolish if you're trying
to, going to get him over wrecking cars. If that's the goal
you set as a C/S, why to hell with it. But the symptom of
wrecking cars shows you there's something very obsessed
about this fellow someplace. And it's no magical one button.
 
It's just some kind of charge, and it'll eventually come
off in one way or the other. But it shows the case is very,
very heavily charged, because he seems to talk a lot in his
sessions about cars, and wrecks, and you know, it just
seems to be coming up. Well, let's do an assessment. Let's
write up. So you'd write up an assessment like, "Cars,
drivers, policemen, highways." Just get a whole bunch of... "Motors, speed" you know? "Rest." Anything you care to put together, and then have your auditor assess this and then
he assesses it very nicely, and he comes out with one that
is reading.
 
Now that is not what is the most wrong with him. It is what
he has got the best reality on. Now you could do an L-1 on
it, you could prep check it, you probable could even find
an engram chain on it. More rarely, if it indicated as
such, you might be able to find a secondary chain on the
subject. There's a lot of things that you can do with this.
 
Now you've got his item. Now you've got this item. And this
item doesn't mean...  It's just an assessed item, it's from
your list, it isn't the make or break of the case, but it
does show you a zone or area of available charge, which
when bled off the case will leave the case less charged up,
and with a higher level of reality. And the reality and
awareness of the case increases in direct proportion to the
amount of charge off.
 
Now the case supervisor's trving to solve things like this
when the case doesn't seem to be able to do what is asked
of him. He doesn't seem to be able to do these things.
He's...  Well it's represented by a high TA. Somebody has
been audited up through the grades.
 
Here's a typical case supervisor problem. And you'll go ahh
when you see this one. See? Something like this. A guy is
a, if he's a grade three, lower grade three, his TA is at
5, and he doesn't much like auditors. And he's come in for
a session. Now what's this? What's this? What the hell is
his TA doing up there? Well, your first action, of course,
is to take his folder if you can get your hands on it, and
you take his folder and you go back to a point where the
case was running well and the TA was not extreme. Now you
can come forward from that point and you can find some clue
as to what went on. It isn't necessarily, however, an
auditing overrun.
 
It isn't always auditing to blame. The guy got married
twice without getting divorced.
 
So that you in actual fact now, in coming forward from that
point, it could be as corny as this.
 
You found out that he didn't have any trouble getting F/Ns
last January. But so help me Pete right now, wow. This is
stuck McGluck, man. He's parked at high 6. And no parachute.
 
What're you going to do with him? Well you know, you can
run one of these lists which isn't a listing question, but
which will give you an item. Now when you use a question
like this it's a border line thing. It might list to one
item. But it also might not, because it isn't a proper
listing question. But you can still do it, and it won't
damage the PC any, providing somebody doesn't try to horse
around with it. So the auditor that does it has to
understand that it's not a one item list, and he's not
supposed to do anything with this thing. He's just trying
to find out what reads. What happened since January the
twenty eighth, which is the date of the session in which it
read. What's happened since January the twenty eighth date?
And he tells you this and he tells you that, and he tells
you something else, and tells you something else, and all
of a sudden something reads.
 
Without even discussing the matter of overrun, a prep check
on the thing might very well knock the TA down. But you
certainly have got to set this case up. This case has done
something since then. Something has happened, and if you
don't set the case up you'd better damn well not run four.
And this is where your expertise comes in. This is where
your expertise...  Now expertise is very standard. There's
nothing much to it. The only thing you're really trying to
do is find an area where charge can be removed from the case
and remove it.
 
Now you obviously have to remove it with a process the PC can do.
 
Now, all of a sudden, we find this guy, and we do an
assessment of seven cases, or we do this or that, or...  On
lower grade PCs like that the common action is a green form
with itsa, similar itsa, lists forbidden. And it rubs down,
and it finds zones and areas, and before it F/Ns, however,
you're liable to find another zone or area which wouldn't
F/N, because the process is not, not beefy enough. And you
find some interesting things have gone on.
 
Now it gives you another zone. Because anything down toward
that F/N, before that F/N, if it's on another subject on
the green form, which leads to it, is of course C/S bait.
Do you see? Now you could do an itsa, you could do an itsa,
early similar itsa on a Green form, carry it on down the
form. The thing doesn't go F/N all the way through the
form. You say, "Oh my god! Now what do we do? Because we
have just run out of ammunition. Well your first thought is
the form was badly done, very badly done. And your second
thought that it was badly done on the first page. So
therefore you look over all this carefully, and you could
now establish a little assessment that can be done, which
reestablishes your suspicion. And it's little items that
come off the green form. You can have these assessed. Which
one of these was out? Which one didn't the auditor set? Ha
ha. You can cross play this. Do you see what I mean? And
one of the most fantastic things is somebody with some,
some withhold like drugs. Drugs can shoot the TA up; The
guy got up to grade three, and then all of a sudden, for
some reason or another, he met some of his old pals that he
used to have trips with and he's busy...  He used to smoke
with them a lot, and so on. And just talking to these
birds. He doesn't take it up again. He'll tell you quite
truthfully, "No, I didn't do any." But just talking to these characters keyed in. He keyed himself in. Of course,
obviously it's a rehab action.
 
So, I'm just telling you the various categories of
entrance. And it isn't very tricky. It isn't very tricky,
because the law which governs it is, is you find an area of
charge on which the PC has reality, and audit it with a
simple action.
 
Now, you can find an area of charge on which the PC has
reality, and get it audited with a simple action. And now
you can find, and there is another area of charge where the
PC has reality, and audit it with a simple action. All of a
sudden the case is sitting there with an F/N.
 
That was all you were looking for in the first place. You
say, "Run grade four." And we were not interested in all the tortures of the damned he was going through as to
whether or not he was going to tell the auditor, we aren't
interested in the depth of the ARC break he had with his
cat. These things are not of interest. The actual interest
in the matter, first and foremost and right straight across
the line, is simply and only that you mustn't start a major
action without flying the needle. And this is gonna be one
of our big problems. You don't think so. But this is gonna
be your major case supervisor problem, because it'll be to
you, with great urgency and emergency, that all cases are
brought. You immediately get nothing but the tough cases.
The easy cases are wrecked independent of your
interference. (Laughter.) Right away you've got rough
cases. "Yes, what about this folder, what about this
folders" A foot and a half thick. And grade zero.
 
And you follow the same formula, go back to find a time
that the case was running well. Try to find out what
happened to the case from that time forward. Do some simple
action that will establish it further and get charge off.
And your whole action is find a simple action on which the
person has reality. Have something on which the person has
reality, perform a simple auditing action on it and get
charge off. If that didn't work, then you try to do it
forward, if that didn't work, you wanna find some action,
some sphere where the PC has reality, perform some simple
action which gets charge off the case, and then see if you
can push it. Do you understand? It's just a case of bmp,
pow. It's a case of hunt and punch actually.
 
Now it's not very hunt and punch, because you're using
standard actions to do all this, and you must keep firmly
in mind this one thing. Is it's the case that's variable,
not the technology you're applying. And man, these cases
have got an infinity of complexities. Infinite
complexities. What people can do, and how they can get
messed up, and what thinks can get cross wise in them,
probably couldn't be computed on an IBM computer:
 
Now it looks so big and so complex that you could confuse
the postulates and stuck ideas and incidents and
experiences of the individual, with the very simple actions
you have to work with. You see? They look so simple.
They're so easy. And your most progress you're going to get
on the case is the next grade. If the case is to be put on
the next grade, you've got to be able to fly the needle,
with GIs. If the PC is in such a state that the needle
won't fly, there is something wrong. There is something out
along the line of standard tech. He really didn't get as
far as he got. Or something weird has happened in his life
to key him in upside down and backwards. And it is your job
as a C/S simply to see that no new next grade or section is
started on him unless the needle flies easily.
 
Now I will go further than that in the OT sections. I will
monkey around with a case until it blows out of its' head.
This hunt and punch around with the case, until he finally
exteriorizes.
 
Now what am I doing? I'm just hunting and punching around.
He's gone, that...  Now actually I could get him up to 7 and
make him do 7 and 8, and all of that is great and so on,
but he actually should have blown out of his head at about
5. See? He should've blown out of his head at 5 or 6, and
if he hasn't blown out of his head at 5 or 6 then there's
an earlier section out.
 
Now there's probably an...  We can't go back and put the
case ready to fly and then do the earlier section, 'cause
it's done. Now what are we going to do? See? Well it did
get him a little bit further, and so on. But I would be, I
would hunt and punch around until I took enough charge off
the case. Start taking it off directly. An assessment of
exteriorization, death, release, beating it, doing a bunk,
leaving, responsibility, possessions, bodies. Do an
assessment. All of a sudden, pang! Death. This individual's
got being out of his head associated with death.
 
Now look at the number of things you could do with this.
Obviously can't get out of his head for some reason best
known to somebody. He's still got something, or somebody or
himself, has got some kind of a stuck death. So you could
actually run a chain of engrams of death. I mean,
elementary. Now you can vary that. It's how can you bypass
the F/N? You could key it out by recall, you could run the
overt, you could run the motivator. Usually run by key out
the recall, run the overt series to F/N. See? Recall to
F/N, overt series would then be the last action. See?
Recall to F/N, motivator to F/N, overt to F/N. There's
three F/Ns available on the same material. Then see how
he's doing.
 
Well, let's see we get a report something like this. "We
assessed out death, and when I tried to run a death the PC
said he, actually he went back down the track, TA 1.2, and
wasn't able to find anything. And however he felt good
about it. But actually there weren't very many good
indicators in at the end of the session."
 
Now what's that told you? What you know now, huh? What you
know? You know that the knuckle-headed auditor didn't make
a correct assessment. That's what you know. You had your
nice little list, and all of a sudden he gave you an item
that was in some fashion forced to read. The one that would
have read is the one on which the PC has the greatest
reality, and he obviously didn't have very much reality on
this because he couldn't get back and run anything.
 
Do you follow? That's your think. So you know you've got a
mis-assessment.
 
We had one the other day. Damndest fire fight you ever
cared to see. Ran something like this.
 
"I gave the PC the first command and told her what we were
going to run, and she said, 'You know, I didn't understand
that at the time it was assessed'. And so, I told her what it
meant, and then I said I didn't think we should run it. But
she said that it was alright to run it, and so we did." And it's one of those "Do not send to find for whom the bell
tolls." An assessment because of non-comprehension. Which
gives you a clue that your assessment should be checked.
Now if you give, now let me teach you a little bit of piece
about assessment. If you assess something, and then send it
to the C/S, and then the C/S says to run something on it,
when you start to clear the command, if you find out that
he didn't know the item is your face red. Because you assessed
against a misunderstood. The PC couldn't have even dimly been
in session or interested in what was going on, because all he
hung up on and read was the fact that he didn't understand you. So it must have been a very corny assessment indeed.
 
The thing to do in such a instance would be to quick, like
a bunny, get the misunderstood off, reassess it. Almost
cruelly on the basis. "Now are there any other... " When you've finished the assessment, "Are there any other words
on this assessment you didn't understand?" You know? Stick
it back in the folder and send it back to the C/S. You
know, it's an "Is my face red" type of submission.
 
But that is the correct action, not to run it. Because look
at the mechanics I'm trying to teach you here. The reality
of the PC is totally violated. A PC that doesn't understand
what some very simple word means. Well actually, you're
actually auditing then in a zone or sphere of "What was
that?" Is that in the direction of reality? It's in the
direction of total unreality. So you wouldn't dare audit
such a thing. It would be horror beyond horror. You
wouldn't dare audit such a thing.
 
Now you say therefore there ought to be some sort of a
drill on which we go over the whole list, and take us each
one of the words on the list before we assess it, in order
to clear if on the list there are any misunderstoods. No.
Instead of that we don't inspect before the fact any where
along the line. We ask the person, we can ask the person
before we run it. Now the reason why you don't hang up PCs
and give them the assessment is, they walk off and self
audit it. You've given him the item, you've given him the
item "dog chains". You didn't do anything about it, and then you finally say, "That's your item. Your item is dog
chains." So you get it mixed up with listing and nulling.
Then the PC goes out of session saying, "Dog chains, dog
chains, dog chains. Yes." They come back the next session,
it's overrun already, and then you overrun it. See? You set
yourself up to fall on your head.
 
If you trust the auditor completely, and if you're not
having any assessment trouble, and auditors can do the
assessment, the actual act of C/S is, "Assessed list fow
fow, or assess the following items, take what reads
and... ", prep check it, list one it, do what you will do
with it.
 
Find an engram about it, you know, whatever you're going to
say about it. See? Now the proper auditing action is after
the assessment is done you do the action at once. And then
the person says they don't understand that. 'Cause you try
to clear it with them at that time, which is proper
auditing procedure. You've got to clear the auditing
command. And they say, "Yeah, well I meant to tell you I
didn't know what that means." You say, "Thank you very much. Thank you. We'll clarify what that means. Yes, that
means boaga boo , so fwa fwa fwa , that's something you
lead a dog around on. That's it. Yes. Now we're going to do
an assessment." (Click, click, click, click.) Assess it out again, and you find it now comes out entirely different.
Not the other one that read, because what you were getting
were latent reads on top of the misunderstood. Now you'll
get the one on which he's getting a reality. So your
assessment is always assessed against the pcs' reality. And
the only reason you do an assessment at all is to get close
to where the pcs' reality on the situation is.
 
You can look in a six inch thick folder, and you can find
it in this six inch thick folder there are eight thousand
nine hundred and sixty two auditing errors. Now, question
is, I've already given you an example of this. You start
patching up the list but he didn't have any reality on the
list being wrong. It's also something a trained auditor has
to do to patch up a list. He's got to be very skilled on
the laws of listing and nulling to patch up a list,
otherwise he'll dog breakfast the list, again.
 
So your safest action, I then showed you, is assess a list.
Auditors, auditing, sessions, reviews, you know, any word
that you could think of in regard to this. Then you assess it.
 
Now you've got the pcs' greatest reality. Now you run that
on, and you'll find that the PC gets some charge off and it
starts straightening out.
 
Now how manv times could you do this? Well I don't know.
It's almost an infinity of times.
 
It's not a limited action. Now the funny part of it is,
that limited actions only occur in the presence of out TRs.
Almost any action becomes a limited action in the presence
of bad TRs.
 
Bad TRs, auditor additives, auditor omissions, and so on,
add up as nice as you please. You limit the processes. And
you can audit a guy so badly, believe it or not, that the
simplest process in the book, right here, this...
 
Now I've suddenly given you a no-comm bridge and changed to
an entirely different subject.
 
But it is relates to this. Because I've been telling you
how to C/S and so forth. Now I'm going to tell you
something else about it.
 
I started in to tell you that the C/S is a bit at the mercy
of the additives or omissions or the rotten TRs, and so
forth, of the auditor who is auditing for him. And that
might have left you in a slight puzzlement exactly what is
the extent? No, you're not puzzled about it because you
have a reality on it. You think you understand it. I got
news for you, you don't. This one you have to learn.
 
This is very upper level material. This is level 7 and 3
section material. So therefore, you go trying to teach
somebody this and you're gonna wrap him around a telegraph
pole if he isn't already up the sections. So I give you
warning. What you want to do is put it into peoples' heads
that they mustn't add, they mustn't do omissions, and
they've got to have good TRs.
 
Now I want to give you the reasons back of this. The
reasons back of this. It is under the heading of the
anatomy of an overrun. The anatomy of overrun is a very
interesting anatomy.
 
You would say, "Well, it's been run too long, so it goes
up. That's great. That's very simple.
 
But that is the overall mechanic of the thing and the
overall appearance, and the overall datum.
 
What is actual fact happens? Why is an overrun an overrun?
 
Well I can give it to you just one, two. At some time or
another the PC decided to stop it, and from that point on
it is getting overrun. And that is all an overrun is.
 
Let's take a series of engrams. The individual you're
running engrams on the track. It goes more solid, you have
to get earlier similar. Why do you have to get earlier
similar? Because you're running down a chain of incidents
where he has already got the consideration that it's
already gone on too damn long. You've got to go back and
get the incident where he first decided it had better stop.
You don't in actual fact get the first incident on the
chain. It isn't there.
 
The first experience he had in this particular line of
country he didn't stop. It was alright for lions to jump on
him. He didn't mind it. Thought, "What the hell?" So the lion jumped on him and chomped up a body, well he just
mocked up another body. To hell with it. A body, easy come,
easy go. So what. After a while he start deciding bodies
are very important and lions shouldn't do that, and so on,
so he decides to stop lions from jumping on him. And now we
have a chain of animals leaping upon bodies which goes on
for years and years and eons and eons, and you start
tracing this thing back. And it goes into the millions and
tens of millions, and hundreds of millions of years ago.
How the hell did you ever get a chain like that? Well it's
running back to somewhere in the vicinity of the original stop.
 
It's "This type of action must cease". That's what he has determined. This type of action must cease. And that is the
point which you have to get out of it. And that is why in
the materials of 3, you get my instruction to get the stop
out. And in ninety percent of the time if you don't take
the stop out of 3, it is already a bit late on the chain,
and it won't blow. Other incidents and actions have
happened before that.
 
So wherever we look on the track we find this is true. And
that is the datum which compares to all the other datum,
and is the datum which makes engrams stick, makes them go
more solid, which makes things overrun.
 
Alright. Now let's take the rudiments. Now this is very
interesting. In actual fact it is impossible to put in the
rudiments too often. That's theoretically. It's
theoretically impossible to put the Ruds in too often.
There is no limit on the number of times you can put in
somebodies' rudiments. Yet, you will look in a folder and
you will sometimes see this. ARC break, up TA.
 
Overrun, down TA. Well how the hell could that happen?
 
Now let me give you an exact way it could happen. At
fifteen minutes before lunch the auditor starts a two hour
session. He just has time to get in the Ruds. He gets these
Ruds in laboriously, they go to lunch. And he comes back
from lunch, he sits down, and puts in the Ruds. Ah, but the
PC expected a major action. So he stops the auditor putting
in the Ruds. And up goes the TA.
 
There's a folder kicking around which runs like this. It's
actually criminal. It's fly each rud to F/N, and then; and
it gives about six more instructions; so some time just
before supper the fellows flew each rud to F/N on a PC who
does an awful lot of itsa-ing. Alright. Just before supper,
flew each rud to F/N. Took a long time. You might have
known the PC. It always takes a long time to fly a rud on
this PC. The PCs gabby. Took a break, went to supped came
back, and once more flew each separate rudiment. Didn't
even just check 'em. Flew each separate rudiment. Even then
it took quite a while to push the TA up, but eventually the
TA went up to 4.25. On putting in rudiments. What two
things happened?
 
Now the PC could have had all the work she'd done to get
rudiments in invalidated while waiting for something major
to happen in the session, or the PC simply was trying to
stop him from putting in the Ruds. So the pass invalidated
or the PCs trying to stop. The PC invalidated, TA goes
down, trying to stos, TA goes up. So a C/S knows at once
whether or not the PC was overwhelmed by invalidation in
some fashion, or knows whether he was so rough and crude
and dull in his action or was doing something so stupid the
PC was trying to stop him. PC trying to stop him, TA goes
up, TA down, invalidation and overwhelm. You got that? Now
in the first place, what the hell makes one of these
chains? You're already aware that you're mocking everything
up. How come this damn chain can stay there? That's
curious, isn't it? Well, it's out of 8. Actually it's the
exercise of permeation for control. Control by permeation.
And if you want chairs to tip over, and that sort of thing,
without having a hand laid on 'em, of course you'll
permeate them and tip them over.
 
So let us take now this guy who had the lion jump on him.
And he's got a long chain of being destroyed by lions,
fighting lions, shooting lions, and he's clear, for god's
sakes. And you start dredging around and all of a sudden
you find this wild chain. Having to do with lions.
 
Well let me tell you the exact circumstances of how that
chain came into being. It used to matter, it used to didn't
matter a damn. And then one fine day he decided he was
tired of getting bodies mucked up, or lions mucked up, or
something. And so, as the lion leaped through the air he
permeated the lion, he permeated his environment to control
it in order to stop the lion.
 
This is very successful. You can stop things this way like
a bomb. There's no trick in this. It's done by permeation.
And, you're just every where at once. You know? Well it
freezes, or it does something else. Or it goes off in the
other direction, don't you see? You can make it do what you
please.
 
Alright, that was great. That was great. And then one day a
lion jumped on him. The frequency, the length of the track,
permits the most unlikely incidents to repeat. There's
sufficient variation that you finally you'll get on one of
these points again, somewhere up the track. So anyhow, the
lion jumps on him, he permeated the lion stopping him from
jumping, and at that moment a lion jumped on his back that
he hadn't noticed. This caused a dispersal.
 
He thought he had the environment under control, and there
was a piece of the environment he didn't have under
control. Which causes him to shift his attention from this
lion to that lion. So this lion hits him. And he loses his
body anyway.
 
Now on that failure chain he will have already got the
basic of stomping lions from jumping on him, and now you
get a can't stop lions chain. Now the damn fool will keen
on going through this permeation act long after it doesn't
work. And it gives him a chain of pictures. Quote, unquote,
"pictures". They're very funny looking pictures, they're very thin pictures. They're mostly energy, frozen. Do you see - the
mechanics? Well it takes a distraction to put him into a
chain of loses. And after a while he doesn't permeate
things, but he still does permeate things, and he can't
understand why, after he walks out of the room he has a
picture of a phonograph.
 
Do you see? Well, that failed, so he doesn't take
responsibility for the action any more, but a thetan can
permeate anything anyhow. And it's often a surprise to me
that things in my vicinity don't move. But my body will
move, my hands will move, but that doesn't move. That's
'cause I'm holding it still why my hand moves. A thetan is
very clever. See? And you have to he careful what you permeate. There are many things you shouldn't permeate, obviously. You
had better stop permeating. I suppose somebody who has done
that, and so forth, has a whole chain of invisible pictures.
Refraining from permeating.
 
But regardless of all of that, I'm telling you this
mechanic, which is simply a mechanic, the mechanics of
handling things, because it was a distraction which gave
him his first lose on stopping. Up to that time he didn't
care whether he stopped things or not. Now he becomes
frantic about stopping. And it took a distraction like, he
stopped, he permeated the lion in front, and turned him
around in the airs and sent him somewhere else. Right at
the same time the lion; he was going to do this, you see?
Right at the same time the lion hit him from the rear. So,
he starts for this lion, stops this lion, and he gets this
lion, but he hasn't got this lion under control, and he
gets so confused he didn't know what the hell lion he's
trying to control, and it's by distraction. And you'll find
then that distraction is an interesting point to handle in
the PC. It's handled just by discharging the case. But an
engram which has got distraction in it, if you were really
gonna run this thing out come hell or high water,
regardless of how late is was on the chain, will really
hang you up. Boy, you really can sweat as an auditor trying
to run out this engram which has distraction on it. Do you see?
 
He almost, he was running the car into a tree when another
car hit him in the side. Brother, you try to unwind that
engram and you're generally going to have a ball. It's
going to take earlier similar, earlier similar, earlier
similar, earlier similar, earlier similar, earlier similar,
earlier similar, do you see? Why? Because it's got the
failure point has been dramatized in it, which is the
distraction in it. Do you see? It's a whole chain of
distractions. And to get down to the earliest distraction
is some times a bit of a trick. There's too many
conflicting forces to rationalize. Do you see this?
 
Now we come right back to what I was talking to you about
in the first place. What do you think about a distractive
auditor in a session? That's interesting, isn't it? If that
was his first point of failure to permeate and if it's
dramatized on him at the same time he's trying to
introspect and handle his bank, and he's been distracted in
some peculiar fashion by some idiocy. Actually his
tolerance of distraction is fairly high. He isn't scared to
death. But interjected comments, evaluations,
invalidations, the auditor not taking care of the
environment, a gale of wind starts coming in through the
window and the auditor doesn't go over and close it, you
know? Any one of these things which causes a distraction in
the session, doesn't necessarily ruin the PC, because there
isn't anything really violent happening with the PC. But is
sure sort of hangs him with a session. And he can't get on
with it. The reason he can't get on with it is because it's
got the element of distraction. The unpredictability. And
there is where the importance of TRs begins.
 
Now have you got the whole mechanism? I suppose the auditor
not saying anything is, he was counting by that time on a
lion tamer to reach out with a noose and grab the lion, and
the lion tamer one time didn't grab out with the noose and
grab the lion, and it was an omission, so omission becomes
distractive too. He expects something to happen and it
doesn't happen. It's plus or minus side of the ledger.
 
Do you see then the essence of smoothness, of
predictability of doing what the auditor is supposed to do
in the session? Not adding to it, not subtracting from it,
and carrying on with the actions necessary to resolve the
case? Now part of the actions necessary to resolve a case
are the auditor auditing him.
 
Now I'll give you another little piece of this. It's the
auditor plus the PC, versus the pcs' bank makes it possible
then to audit pieces of the pcs' bank. So therefore, for
you to do an assessment of what the PC should go off and
audit, is bonkers.
 
Let's look at this again. You do an assessment on a list
which you now give to the PC, and you tell him to go off to
his solo session, or something, and do this L-1 on wuf wuf.
You assessed it. Now his reality then is always increased
in the presence of an auditor. His reality on his bank is
increased in the presence of the auditor, because he's got
that much more attention he can put on his bank, right? So
therefore the assessment will go deeper than he himself,
all by himself, has reality on.
 
This gives you three or four phenomena which sometimes make
you very curious as to what happened. A PC walks out of
session and says something entirely different happened. If
you look on an examiners' report sometime, this PC maybe
has been audited for half an hour, and the PC comes out and
tells the examiner, "All we did was assess a list."
Trimity - god, the persons' list...  "Yeah, we assessed a
list, but there were about fifteen other actions present
before the list was assessed."
 
Well, what was being done before that, is this is a
negative gain. What was done before is no longer important
to the PC. It's erased, they're gone. Not important. PC
doesn't comment on it. But the list hasn't been run yet.
Furthermore, it's been assessed by the auditor, so the
second the PC walked out of session, if the PC was given
the item, the PCs liable to walk out of that session
overwhelmed. 'Cause he got the item and it was actually not
the reality level of the PC. It was the reality level of
the auditor plus PC. The PC safeguarded was able to
confront the bank enouan to inspect what was going on. But
the PC all by himself couldn't. You got that?
 
So it enters into this equation. So there are many rules
the auditor plays in auditing which he really doesn't
really suspect. He actually increases the reality of the PC
during the session. The PC can become much more aware of
his own bank. The pcs' pictures in running engrams are
liable to be far brighter, go brighter, when the auditor is
auditing him. Then some auditor or other, I do a C/S for
him. The C/S is to run some engrams. I intend it to be
audited on him, and so on. And he goes off and audits
himself like, wow. You see I already have given him a C/Sed
action so it isn't likely that he'll run into this on his
own volition. I'm already undercutting his reality to some
slight degree by making sure that it's correct, but
nevertheless that it's pushing the case a bit. And that's
supposed to handle the situation. Well, it's audited.
 
He goes and audits it on himself, he wraps himself around a
telegraph pole. Do you see why? So, the auditor can be a
definite liability to the session by additives, or
subtractives from the session. He can actually provide
sufficient distraction to key in or hang up the PC in the
session. He can make an unlimited process actually appear
limited, because the PC is busy trying to stop his doing
it, which then gives you the whole phenomena of overrun,
because the PC has already decided it's overrun. I think
Ruds are overrun, TA up. See? Now a PC isn't aware he's
doing this. He's operating, however, to do this. Or, on the
other hand, the auditor in there pitching, sitting there
just doing his job routinely, nothing very magical about
it. He says what he has to say, he's got his TRs are in, he
gives the auditing command, he gets them executed, he
follows through and does his job right straight on through,
actually has enormously increased the reality of the PC as
he moves on up the line, and so has permitted him to
confront parts of the bank and handle it that he never
under gods' green earth all by himself would be permitted
to do. So there's a very plus and there's a very minus to
the situation. And there's a lot to be gained and a lot to
be lost all on the same subject.
 
Have you got a better idea of what sessioning is about?
 
(Yes sir.)
 
Alright. Very good.
 
Thank you very much.
 
**************************************************