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 5/19
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!
Webpersonals
or choose another to rate
(1=worst, 5=best)
Listings
15
Ease of use
15
Features
15
Results
15

  • Compare it to others
  • User Comments
     
  • top rated
    Romance Web Sites For Divorcees
    1. Absolutely Free Personals
    2. Affair Of The Heart Personals
    3. Webpersonals
    4. American Singles Non-Profit Dating Service
    5. Singles Online
  • See the full list...
  • Deja Forums
    Atheism
    Atheism
    Atheism
    Satirical atheism
    Atheism
     
    Deja Communities
    WASHINGTON DC SINGLES
    walking in Sunken Meadow
    Children of Divorces
    During Separation & Divorce
    Divorce

    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 5/19 CLASS 8 TAPES
            >> Message 1 of 19
     
    Subject:FZ Bible 5/19 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 5/19
     
    **************************************************
     
    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
     
    **************************************************
     
    6809C28 Class VIII TAPE 5
     
    THE STANDARD GREEN FORM AND RUDIMENTS
     
    And this is what date? The twenty eighth of September 1968.
    Lecture number what? (Five) Glad you can still count. Thank
    you very much. Lecture number five of the standard tech
    Class VIII auditors' course.
     
    The situation with regard to standard tech at this time is
    we have had a few mice. And I imagine down through the
    years there will be a few other mice. A bulletin gets
    altered, a tape gets pulled off the line, some vital action
    is shifted. Somebody comes tearing in with a brand new idea
    that seems to be absolutely vitally essential, and the
    first thing you know, why we have trouble of one kind or
    another. And tech fails. And it suddenly ceases to give the
    results which it should attain.
     
    At that time morale goes down. "No, Scientology doesn't
    work." These are the danger points of the past and of the
    future. It is not unbeknownst to me to get proposals such
    as this through the mail line. It's a proposed HCO
    Bulletin. There are forty or fifty of these things which
    have been written and issued. And it does seem that a
    person, before he is permitted to have a Grade, should go
    to the examiner to find out if it was an ARC broken needle
    or if it was actually a release on the Grade he was
    supposed to be released on, and not an F/N on something else.
     
    Now I'll tell you, what does this stem from? Why? Why? Why
    would such a proposal come up? Standard tech is already
    out. It's already out with enthusiasm. What's out? The TRs
    are; would have to be so bonkers that the auditor was not
    able to attract the attention of the PC for the next Grade
    or action, and the PC chortling merrily, merrily to himself
    would be getting an F/N from a former action. You see what
    could happen here?
     
    Alright, we've just released this fellow on zero, and he
    says, "Ooh, gosh, you know, boy that was really some
    cognition." You know, needle's swinging. "Uh, it's really going great." And the auditor sits there and says, "Aw yaya, uh number one, it went awaw and it went by and
    ububuzub." And the PC thinking to himself, "Boy, that's really great, that communication process. Really great."
    And the auditor says, "Uh, why, that's a release.
    Uwuuwuwuw." And the pc'saying, "Boy, that, really. I can communicate, you know? "And the auditor says, Kenya you
    know, nyee," canned command, no TRs, no command, no
    impingement on the PC, can't operate his E-meter anyhow,
    doesn't even notice the PC isn't looking at him. "Uh, well
    it's raring' too', and so forth, and the needle's going on
    a swing and the PCs saying, "Gee, well what do you know
    about that? I really can talk to people, you know?"
     
    The only other condition this could occur on is if it was a
    busted E-meter. Now in the first place, if it's an ARC
    broke needle, you're getting the PC sitting here like this.
    "Duh." And the auditor says, says, "Catfish, gollawong." And the PC says, "Awawang. Yeah. Oogh. Nya, oog, Log." And the auditor says, "Well I'm glad that's a floating needle", and so forth. The PC never would answer on any of his
    questions.
     
    It could also occur on one of these kooky stage four
    needles. It goes up and does a little hitch and goes down.
    You ever heard of a stage four needle? I saw somebody just
    go "Uh!" What's a stage four needle? A stage four needle is a stage beyond three, which is dead. (Laughs) You can get a
    meter, you can get a meter on a PC and he sits down in
    session and goes up and hitches and falls, and it's doing
    about a two inch sweep. And it goes up and it goes, it
    hiccups at the top, and it goes down, and you say, "Have
    you ever been shot?" And it does the same thing, and
    "What's your name?" And it'll do the same thing. And you kick him in the shins and it'll do the same thing. And
    there's absolutely no meter change of any kind whatsoever.
    It isn't hardly connected to anybody. Which is really the
    truth. It isn't connected to anybody. And it goes on and it
    does this weird dance. Well if a person doesn't know what
    one of those needles is as far as an ARC broke needle is,
    you can get a swinging needle. It isn't connected to
    anybody either. And the questions which you ask don't
    change it. In ordinary auditing an F/N broadens,-narrows,
    responds just to that degree. You start overrunning it you'll
    see your F/N is going narrower and narrower and narrower and
    narrower and it packs up.
     
    PC, you get an F/N and then the PC has the cognition, he
    actually states the cognition on which he gets an F/N, and
    you see the F/N widen up. In other words, an auditor'd have
    to be a complete dolt to need such an arbitrary on his lines.
     
    Now this is based on the fact that somebody has trained
    some auditor in an academy on the TRs, something on this
    basis. "What is TR0?" "It's the TR in the book you... and I think I heard about it." "Good, fine. You passed. Now, what's TR1?" "That's the number of the other TR." "Good. What are the rest of the TRs?" "Oh, I know all them." And that would all... he could possibly know about TRs to
    require such a regulation.
     
    One of the conditions of auditing is that you have the PC
    in session. He has to be aware of the auditor, and in
    communication, and answer up, and so forth. Well, if he
    wasn't doing any of these things, naturally you would have
    to send him to the examiner to find out if it was a real
    F/N. But the situation would be so peculiar. But to stop
    everybody, everywhere from ever progressing in a session
    just because some supervisor hasn't been able to teach an
    auditor to audit, and just because there's been one PC last
    May who went all the way through the lines with a stage
    four needle and nobody ever noticed that he didn't know he
    had ever been audited, and didn't know he'd ever been in
    session, just to introduce that sort of an arbitrary would,
    of course, be completely nuts. Inspection before the fact
    is the standard line. If you're not having trouble on some
    line don't do anything about it. If you are having trouble
    on some line, do something about it. And it follows in
    auditing too. You're having trouble with the PC, well, you
    do something about it.
     
    Now when I berate and start tearing you apart for wanting a
    nickel in the slot-type approach to auditing it is because
    you are asking for something which will make you a rotten
    auditor. If you don't know what you're doing, and if you
    don't know what the standard action would be for that, you
    ought to go back and study your TRs and a few other things.
     
    It wouldn't be an occasion then to put a regulation in
    after the fact of not having trained somebody. Do you see?
    Now there are rote commands which are the standard
    processes. But you receive an order, something like, "Rehab former lifetime releases" Now what the hell do you wants
    What now; how could anybody under god's green Earth write
    down all the words that would have to fit in the ensuing
    action. They couldn't. It couldn't be done because it
    wouldn't fit all the cases. Because there are many
    different types of former lifetime releases or this
    lifetime releases, and, you see, what you're doing is
    rehabbing former releases. So you say "Rehab former
    releases." Well how would you go about finding these
    things? Auditor - that is your problem. And if you can't
    solve that with the PC sitting in front of you, you ought
    to quit. Do you see what you're doing? You have to know
    what you're doings And then do it with great economy. And
    then if the session is running like an express train,
    what're you going to do? Inspect after the fact every
    couple seconds?
     
    Now, I'll give you an idea, you know? "Do you have an ARC
    break? That reads." "Uh, oh, yeah. Uh, yeah, I was feeling pretty bad yesterday. I got a letter; very bad." "OK. Was it a break in A, R, C, U? U? That reads." "Yeah. I couldn't understand any part of it." "Good. C, D, E, I," using the words to somebody who isn't educated. "Curious." "Curious about what it was" "Curious about the understanding of it?" "Yeah, that's right. Hey yeah, that's, you know what? I
    thought it was the stuff in the letter, it wasn't in the
    letter. I never could dig it. I, I didn't dig it. Wow!"
    Skin tone looks good, good indicators, everything is fine,
    and the needle goes whum-whum. F/N.
     
    Now you're going to say, "Do you have an ARC break? Did
    that floating needle float on the ARC break cognition which
    you had?" Mm-mm. You're not going to say anything about it
    at all. You're going to say, "You're needle's floated.
    That's it. Thank you."
     
    Now. Your F/N is now in on the rudiments, which are simply
    setting the PC up, then you simply swing into the session.
    Now because there're this many variables you would now have
    to say, "It didn't clean. See? So do you have an earlier
    ARC break of a similar nature?" Or, "Do you have an
    earlier, similar ARC break?" "Did you have one like that before?" Man, we're talking about communication. We're not
    talking about words. You have to know what you're after.
    You're after the ARC break similar to this which occurred
    before.
     
    Now, it doesn't matter what language you say it in as long
    as it communicates to the PC, and you know what you want.
    Otherwise you're liable to get something kooky. You want
    similar, earlier ARC break. You got it?
     
    Now supposing you're auditing some guy. Supposing you're
    busy auditing some guy. And he doesn't know what the word
    ARC break is. Or, suppose he's got a complete
    mis-definition of the thing. He thinks an ARC break is an
    overt, or something he busted when he was a kid.
     
    You're going to have to know what you are asking for, so
    that you can communicate it as an auditor. As an auditor
    you are trying to communicate a thought or sense. Now why
    should anybody try to escape his responsibility on the
    whole subject to the degree of wanting a canned word by
    which to ask a perfectly ordinary routine question? If you
    know your business you don't have to have those.
     
    Now on the Grade processes, yes, you had better know those
    words exact, exact, exact, because they're very carefully
    worked out. But again you can't administer a Grade process
    if you don't know what you're asking for.
     
    It's your job as an auditor to, to, to deliver it to the
    PC. To receive the answer and know what the hell to do with
    it. And there isn't anybody under god's green Earth can
    give you a whole bunch of canned balderdash that does your
    job for you. Now I'll point something out to you. I have
    already done quite enough without also writing all the
    words you use. Now that is not a wide open invitation that
    every time you get yourself into a corner you suddenly
    shift processes. Now recognize the difference between a
    process and a question. There's a fantastic width between a
    process and a question.
     
    I'm going to give you a kooky one I read in a folder. You
    can have an infinity of wrongnesses, but some of them are
    funnier than others. You say that this auditor said to the
    preclear, "Do you have a present time problem?" And the preclear said, "Oh, yes." "Good. What postulate created that problem? Good. Now what counter postulate met that
    problem? Good. Now what postulate created that problem?
    "And the funny part of it is, that the TA sort of, went up, and the session all went to pieces, because I think the
    problem was that his chair was tippy, and it didn't have
    anything whatsoever to do with any problem. It had to do
    with the auditor didn't clear the environment in the first
    place. See, he's actually asking the; he had some canned idea.
     
    He got this from someplace, I don't know where, that you
    clear up problems by what postulate did you make, what
    counter postulate did you make. Now he of course is taking
    the definition of problem is a postulate, counter
    postulate. He tried to audit this by definition. But note
    that is was also in the wrong part of the session. He
    didn't notice that the PC was sitting there almost falling
    out of his chair, because one leg was busted. Now this is
    one hell of an awful, lousy level of awareness, if you want
    to even dignify it by calling it a level of awareness.
     
    So the auditor's supposed to be there, he's supposed to be
    on the ball, and he's supposed to do what he's supposed to
    do in order to come down on a certain, exact line and keep
    the PC herded on to that line. So we know that it would be
    the most fatal to audit over an ARC break.
     
    You audit over an ARC break, it's an absolute law, it's
    nobody's opinion I assure you, you audit a PC over an ARC
    break he'll go eventually into the sad effect. Yet, at
    Saint Hill one time I saw a PC who had been walking around
    for three months with an ARC break that people had audited
    in every session over the top of. She was in grief, she was
    in a complete sad effect, she was an absolute text book
    case of sad effect. And there wasn't one single person
    there ever asked her if she had an ARC break of long
    duration. Until I noticed this character walking around,
    and I got an auditor by the scruff of the neck, and I said,
    "Pull the ARC break of long duration, would you please?" And he did so, and the case cheered up and everything was
    great.
     
    You see, there're certain things that are meaningful. Like,
    an ARC break, audited over the top of, puts the PC into a
    sad effect. And there aren't any exceptions. And it is a
    rule. And it is a law. And any time the law is disobeyed,
    you cut your throat as an auditor, and the PCs throat.
     
    So you always pick up your ARC break as the first thing in
    the session. 'Cause it's completely fatal to audit somebody
    over the top of.
     
    Now, the person who has the ARC break who says he doesn't
    have an ARC break has had somebody tell him he did have an
    ARC break when he didn't. He protested, and since that time
    ARC broke has read. And, an educated auditor asks him
    immediately for, "Did anybody ever tell you you had an ARC
    break when you didn't?" Cleans up the false read.
     
    Or, this reverse thing can happen, more rarely. More
    rarely, but it can happen. He said, "Do you have an ARC
    break?" Doesn't read, the auditor says, "That's clean." And the PC says, "The hell it is." So the auditor says, "On ARC breaks, has anything been suppressed?" And you get the
    suppress off. Now you say, "Do you have an ARC break?" And the PC says, "Yeah, that was my ARC break. People never
    taking up my ARC breaks." So, it now doesn't read, but the
    PC is cheerful about it. So it can be positive or negative.
    But your educated auditor, your educated auditor takes this
    up. This is something he takes up. He doesn't sit there
    like a damn bump on the log waiting for the next piece of
    telex tape to pass through his skull.
     
    Auditing is something that is understood. You only get into
    fire fights over PCs if you don't know what you're doing.
    So we don't ever audit over an ARC break. And we never
    leave a false read on. And we never leave a false no-read
    on. We handle it.
     
    Now, the next thing we take up is a present time problem.
    And a present time problem means present time problem, the
    problem the PC has now, a problem which he does have. You
    never get into any trouble about this or a definition. It
    comes up or it doesn't come up. And the reason we take up a
    present time problem is very elementary indeed, as you will
    not ever change a case that is audited over the top of a
    present time problem. You won't do him any harm, but you're
    never going to get any change. He doesn't change. And that
    is proved by graph after graph after graph after graph
    after graph, dozens, dozens, dozens, dozens, dozens,
    hundred of PCs. I finally traced it back and isolated
    exactly what is was that gave an unchanging graph. The
    presence of a present time problem. Work was done in '55,
    '56, Washington. No change.
     
    So you going to audit this guy over a present time problem?
    Well then you're going to audit him to no change. Where you
    going to get an F/N? You're not. Where're you going to get
    the TA doing anything? You're not. What you trying to do?
    Cut your throat?
     
    Alright. Similarly, you asked him if he has a present time
    problem, and he says; you say that reads. And he says, "Oh, no, not againl God damn. Every time I get into session and
    I try to get auditing done, why that reads, and so on. I
    suppose I have got a present time problem." And you say,
    "Alright. Has anybody ever said that you had a present time problem when you didn't have one?" "Oh my god, yesl
    Bda-bda-da-da-bab-bda-bda-da-dabab. Bdee-dee,bdee-dee,
    bda-da, and so on and so on and so on, and I never can get
    into the body of the session because they all say there's a
    present time problem with the Ruds, and so forth, and all
    dba-ba-ba- pow-pow. Pow-pow-pow-pow-pow. Pow. F/N. You say,
    "The needle floated. We're going to take up whatever we're
    going to take up."
     
    Now the reverse can be true, more rarely, that you say, "Do you have a present time problem? That doesn't read." Funny, you see him look a little puzzled. Just but very often
    won't say, puzzled, it didn't read. Look a little bit
    baffled. And you could say, "Well, should it have read?" "Oh, yeah, gee, you know? I just have been served with a
    writ for federal income tax from the Eskimos", and so on.
    "And boy, it's a problem, because I don't know any
    Eskimos." Anyway, you say, "Alright. On the present time problem has anything been suppressed?" "Yeah, yeah I have to suppress it. If I don't suppress it I'll never get
    anything done." It doesn't clean up. "Is there an earlier time you suppressed a problem? Anything you care to say at
    this particular time? Do you want to tell me more about the
    Eskimos, or any damn thing you care to say?" It's itsa or
    earlier. Green form rule is invariable. It is itsa or
    earlier, or a listing process.
     
    That's all you ever do on a green form. Itsa, earlier, or a
    listing process. And there're certain things on the green
    form which you list. Says environment. Alright. If there's
    something wrong with the environment do a remedy B. If he's
    connected to a suppressive person or a suppressive group,
    anything in that department that comes up on the green
    form, you do an S and D. Continuous present time overts
    comes up, you do the prevent process. You say, "What about
    all black? Doesn't that require some special process?" No,
    not necessarily. I don't care if the PC goes on being all
    black. If he wants to be all black that's alright with me.
    Do you follow?
     
    But the PC is; you didn't follow. The PC is worrying about
    his Grades. He's worrying about his field. He's worried
    about this or he's worried about that. So it'll clean up on
    itsa and earlier. "Yeah, yeah, everything I see is black. I don't ever see anything. I close my eyes and it's all
    black." And so on. "Did you ever notice this earlier?" "Yes. Yeah." "Alright, when was that?" "Oh, I don't know. Spokane." "What was going on then?" "Oh that's right. We ran this engram and everything went black. Huh. What do you
    know?" Needle goes voomp. F/N.
     
    What the hell are you doing something complicated for? It's
    itsa or earlier. That is the law of the green form. On
    certain points of the green form you do a list. So. Itsa or
    earlier. If it doesn't clean on itsa, it cleans on earlier.
     
    Now I can see you putting together a beautiful, rote
    process. Knock it off! What you have to know is, itsa or
    earlier.
     
    Now, how do you ask for itsa? Knock it off. "Do you have a
    present time problem?" "Oh yeah, my god. I'm about to lose my job and oh, wow, and so on, and then how will I meet my
    alimony payments because, oh, my god, you know, woo. Wow.~
    "OR. Do you have a present time problem?" Read. "Is there an earlier, similar problem?" Didn't clean on itsa. So you
    gotta go earlier. And you can run it back, back, back,
    back, and all of a sudden you've got it. You got it back to
    basic. Then you have to know your mechanics, don't you? You
    have to know the composition of the mind. You have to know
    that you have to reach the basic point where the chain
    started in order to get total freedom on the total chain.
    You have to know that. You don't just know itsa or earlier,
    you have to know why. How come you run it earlier? Well, if
    it doesn't free late on the chain you; there's an earlier
    on the chain to make it free. If it does free late on the
    chain it hasn't got any basic under it. Or, it's a simply
    tripped off and released at that particular point. You've
    made him think the right thought that moved him off the mass.
     
    Simple. Too simple. It is so simple that it is the most
    easily misunderstood thing anybody can think of. In the
    first place you're trying to teach somebody something about
    something they very well may have. A reactive bank. Now,
    when you say present time problem there are so many people
    that say, "Oh yes, I've got a present time problem," and they miss the rest of the sentence. And you're trying to
    teach them this, you restimulate 'em. A problem.
     
    I brought up one here in yesterdays' lecture, and I said
    the incredible can hang up a track, and two students only
    learned this about it. That it applied to them. And I
    didn't tell them because it applied to them. And I couldn't
    care less that it applied to them. Do you understand? I
    taught them that because it applies to other cases. And I
    am talking to an auditor, not a case.
     
    There is a rule about this. A very broad rule about this,
    that in later years has been violated.
     
    Auditors and students do not have cases. When we first
    found out they had cases and thought they had cases was
    about thirteen years ago. And it became illegal, while
    being a student and while being an auditor it is very,
    violently illegal to have a case. You don't have one at
    that time. That's it. Do you understand? Those are the
    facts of life.
     
    We had a gag here happen the other day. Somebody says,
    "You're late. Why did you arrive?" And the person said, "I need a review because I've got an ARC break." How can
    anybody get up to Class VI and not know that a student
    doesn't have a case? Students don't have cases.
     
    So, when I'm trying to communicate to you I'm not talking
    about your bank. To hell with your bank. I am not talking
    out of my bank as philosophers and experts in this line
    have only done for the last four or five quadrillion years.
    So you can pay me the compliment of not listening through
    yours. It's very remarkable to have principles which came
    up way the hell and gone back on the track of Dianetics and
    Scientology, principles of the early years. They still hold
    good. They hold so good that they function at OT8.
    Fantastic The stuff which is being taught to the lowest
    grade auditor is valid all the way through to OT8.
    Fantastic! So when you're learning a simplicity of this
    character you are learning a simplicity of this character.
    Nobody's trying to solve your case. Nobody's even trying to
    give you a cognition. I'm just telling you what the hot
    dope is.
     
    Those three things, those three things that are absolutely,
    completely impossible to audit over the top of, include the
    withhold. So you've got ARC break, PTP and withhold. You
    will never get away with it. And neither will the PC. Nothing.
     
    How many ways can you pull a withhold? You can pull them
    the easy way, you can pull them the hard way. I have pulled
    withholds by moving my chair over in front of the door and
    said, "It's perfectly OK. I can sit here the rest of the
    night. I am going to hear it." But that was after I checked it over to make sure that it was a real withhold. That it
    wasn't a false read. That the symptoms and manifestations
    of the withhold were very, very present. And the PC wasn't
    going to tell me his withhold. Well I knew damn well there
    was no reason to proceed beyond that point. I would just be
    wasting my time, so I would just simply say, "Well, I can
    sit here the rest of the night until you tell me. There's
    another system which is highly workable.
     
    Alright. Good. We will sort this out on the meter. You're
    not going to give me the withhold, we'll sort this out on
    the meter. Have you murdered somebody? Good. Where did you
    bury the body? Have you robbed a bank? Do you strangle
    children? Are you a rapist by prof... " "Oh no, god, nothing like that." "Alright, what is it like?" "Oh, well, I just so and so and so and so."
     
    Huh. "I'm short twenty five dollars today in my cashiers'
    till and can't find it. And I didn't want to tell anybody." In other words, you exaggerate the withhold. But that's
    after you've made sure that it is a withhold. There's no
    false read in connection of it. Connection with it. It is a
    withhold. It does read.
     
    Now there is a slight danger about rock slams which turn on
    on withholds, occasionaly, is you can get them off with
    invalidate while they're still hot. Now you can turn off a
    rock slam by putting in the button invalidate on it. It
    doesn't mean the person's innocent, you've just cooled off
    the rock slam. Now the person may be innocent, but when you
    put in invalidate then you also have to put in suppress.
    You can't just put in invalidate and have it cool off,
    without then also putting in suppress to find out was it
    just smush out.
     
    A rock slam is basically an invalidation. Therefore, if you
    invalidate somebody hard enough on some subject he can turn
    on a rock slam. An invalidative question, asked with
    sufficient ferocity can itself turn on a rock slam. It can
    be done. But that isn't all the rock slams there are.
     
    We had a criminal, I use the word advisedly because it
    wasn't a very big criminal, but nevertheless a criminal,
    just the other day, that had a rock slam. We cooled it off
    with invalidate. And then it didn't read. And she was
    supposed to have stolen a hundred dracma. It didn't read.
    It exhonerated her. She even had two hundred dracma on her.
    And then, a few weeks later, a thousand dracma disappeared,
    and she had it. Too many coincidences. The rock slam,
    actually, was perfectly accurate. The person was a thief.
    But it did cool off with invalidate. So remember, if you
    cool a rock slam off with invalidate, you've also got to
    put suppress and not-is and a few other things in, and make
    sure that you don't turn it back on again. Your job as an
    auditor is not to turn off rock slams or turn them on, it
    is to discover the truth.
     
    There's any gods' quantity of ways you can approach the
    whole subject of withhold. There have been many bulletins
    concerning it. An auditor, if he understands what a
    withhold is all about, is all about, he can handle
    withholds. Now a missed withhold is what is in the
    rudiments. So you have to not only detect that it exists,
    but you have to find where and when it was missed. And I see
    folder after folder where it says, "Do you have a missed
    withhold?", the auditor says. "Yeah, yep. I stole a pin from HASI." "Good. That cleans the question. We will now go to the body of the session." PC doesn't think anything, natters, ble-blop-bloop-jep.
     
    Doesn't even repeat the question, doesn't ask who nearly
    found out, nothing. Just missing. Do you follow?
     
    So, this is, is kooky, kooky-Ruds. See? Now you wonder why
    you haven't, if you haven't flown the needle by the time
    you've got to missed withhold, and you wonder why it
    doesn't fly on missed withhold, it's just that the where
    and when, by whom it was missed has been omitted. You have
    to know the theory of a rudiment. It is not enough to know
    a rote.
     
    Now we go down into other matters but frankly, from there
    on you're on safe ground. You're on safe ground. Nobody's
    gonna do anything very weird. Now the only violations of
    this is taking up the obvious ARC break. The guy was given
    a wrong item. He's ARC broken about it in the last session.
    PC is ARC broken after the session, the session consisted
    of listing for an item. He obviously has a wrong item. The
    longer you spend asking if he has an ARC break, the more of
    a fool you are. Obviously he's got an ARC break, because
    that is what, a wrong item causes an ARC break. You look in
    the folder, there are eighteen items reading on the list,
    and he's given an item that he didn't list, and the auditor
    gave him the item. Do you know that was the first trouble
    on lists? We always have trouble on lists. First trouble on
    lists was the auditor suggesting items to the PC. We've
    come further than that now. We've only come as far as it
    doesn't matter whether he's given a wrong item or not.
     
    But this is important. The lads got an obvious ARC break,
    because you're repairing the last session which had a wrong
    item. You're repairing 5A and you find the third BD item
    was the one he was given. If you get a hold of this guy,
    wrrrr. Now you're going to put in Ruds to correct the item.
    Aw, don't be an ass. See, if you know your business, and
    you know you know your business, you know that a wrong item
    off a list is going to have produced an ARC broken PC. And
    if you ask for the ARC break he is seldom sufficiently
    technically oriented to know that that is the source of the
    ARC break. So of course you can't pull it. So you can box
    around for an hour and a half, auditing across the known
    ARC break, just busting him to pieces. So of course you
    handle the known ARC break. If it wasn't an ARC break,
    alright. So the PC comes into session, "Alright. In the
    last session we see we had a list here, it runs 118 pages.
    Oh, yeah, yes. We have this list, and how'd you feel about
    that?" "Oh god almighty, oooh." "Well, I wish to indicate to you the list was over listed. Alright. We're going to
    check this list now. Was it the first item?" Bong!
    "Alright, that's good. That was the first item on the list. Your item is free fall. Thank you very much." OK. Good
    indicators come in. You now say, Rudiments."
     
    Do you follow?
     
    I saw a session, there is a session in the case folders
    there that is in a complete howl. The PC was sent in by C/S
    to have a wrong item corrected, and the auditor asked for
    an ARC break.
     
    And it goes on for column after column, because the PC is
    insufficiently educated to know he's ARC broken because
    he's got a wrong item. It goes on and on. Well, they pull
    more ARC breaks without getting anywhere, because pulling
    ARC breaks over the existence of the ARC break can also be
    painful. It goes on for pages. Wound the PC right up in the
    rag bag.
     
    So the rudiments, Now that doesn't in any way violate the
    rudiments. The guy walks into session saying, "Oh my god,
    what am I going to do? Oh my god, what am I going to do?"
    He sits down in the chair, "Oh my god, what am I going to
    do?" Picks up the cans, "My god, what am I going to do?" You would be a very, very foolish auditor if you didn't
    say, "Do you have a present time problem". Elementary.
     
    You don't Q and A on other things then the rudiments,
    however. PC comes into session and says, "Well, I suppose
    you think you're going to do something with me. Heheheh.
    Myanyayaya. You think you're an auditor do you?", and so
    forth. My response to that is, "There you go, there are the cans. Do you have a missed withhold?" Pongl Booml
    "Something wrong?" "Oh, no, I'm sweetness and light. As a matter of fact I did have a little withhold. I
    stole a pin once from HASI." "Good. Thank you very much. Do you have a withhold?" "Yeah, I ate your lunch." You know, something like that. Well, it'll be obvious. And having
    handled that one, naturally then you go back through your
    actions.
     
    Now this is an auditor who knows his business. There is a
    folder that runs like this. "Do you have an ARC break?" "Yeah, they're doing us all in. Everybody's caving us in
    lately. We're sure getting shot down in flames," and so on. "I'm really ARC broken about it. Boy, what they're doing to us." And the auditor, like a god damned fool sat there for
    the next I don't know how long, continuing to ask for ARC
    breaks, and finally finished up the session asking for ARC
    breaks because he couldn't clean ARC breaks. Well it was
    very remarkable. He couldn't clean up ARC breaks because
    the PC didn't have one. The PC had a missed withhold, and
    was calling it an ARC break. And he'll notice in the old
    bulletins and so forth, says very often it occurs that when
    you have an ARC break it is really a missed withhold. The
    one thing I had a hard time teaching Class VI students way
    back when, was that they don't accept everything the PC
    says in violation of tech.
     
    He says, "Oh, they're doing me in, and all that last
    auditor, he cut my throat from ear to ear.
    And that is all bad. Yes, I have a terrible ARC break,
    because everything... they're doing me in, you see. And
    they're really pretty nasty to me. And that's off pmfodf
    fddouf, gobbldy, gobbldy, gobbldy, gob." Critical, missed
    withhold. Pcs, inevitably because it's more socially
    acceptable, will call a missed withhold an ARC break.
     
    So, if the ARC break doesn't clean he's got a missed
    withhold. Very simple. But it isn't something you wreck the
    PC with. All of this is...  We're traveling now in auditing,
    and a couple of thousand miles an hour at least. We're not
    traveling with that old fan job, Piper Cub fan job,
    anymore. Don't you see? If you know your business, it's,
    "Nya, nya, nya." "Now good. Do you have a missed withhold?" Zoom. "Thank you very much. Now, do you have, that's clean, do you have a missed withhold? That's clean. Good. Do you
    have an ARC break? No, that's good. PTP? That's fine.
    Alright." Didn't F/N? Green form.
     
    Now you've just asked these four questions, so are you a
    live being or a fool? Are you now going to ask those same
    questions again on the green form? All you're going to ask
    about is environment, you having trouble in your
    environment. And then you're going to bring it down to
    overts and motivators. Because you just got through
    covering them. Do you understand? And you get down the line
    and you suddenly find out that this PC has had an overrun.
    And you straighten up the overrun. And the needle flies.
    Good. Now you can get on with what you were supposed to do
    in the first place. That's the way it goes. With speed. It
    isn't any fumble-bumble stumble-bumble. "I wonder whatts
    wrong with this PC?" If you ever think that thought as a
    case supervisor you're an ass. I can tell you what's wrong
    with a PC - he's humanoid.
     
    That question's answered, don't ever worry about it again.
     
    On diagnosis, if you want to use such a word, the PC is as
    he is because he hasn't made the next Grade. Now let's set
    him up and correct any earlier errors, so that he can make
    his next Grade. We don't go into a figure-figure because
    he's got a pain in his side.
     
    PC comes in, he says, "I have this awful pain in my side,
    oh terrible pain," so on. He's just a walking invitation,
    boy, for you to go kooky. He's issuing an engraved
    invitations to the examiner, and everybody else connected
    with it.
     
    The two things that can be wrong with him are, the
    auditing he's had needs correcting, or he should be on the
    next Grade. And that sure requires a hell of a lot of you
    as a case supervisor, doesn't it?
     
    Honest. Papa'll spank you if he ever catches you pulling
    this line. "Well he's got this awful pain in his side. I
    wonder what it is." I can tell you what it is. It's either
    the living he's had or the auditing he's had isn't sitting
    well on his reactive brisket. Which can be corrected... He
    should be doing the next grade. It's always the next grade.
    That's all the think you do. You can know more doggone
    things about PCs.
     
    You can run a complete intelligence service on PCs, you
    know? They are this and that, and a woffa-woffa-woffle.
    Well it does you some good. Don't think that it doesn't. It
    does you some good. Because it tells you what you just
    solved. You don't have to know what you're trying to solve
    before you solve it.
     
    This fellow was a hop head, bank robber. Spent the first
    five years of his life in a cast. His uh,...  Do you see?
    Was a premedical school student and was expelled, uh so
    forth and etcetera, and etcetera. And for twenty two years
    studied yogi. See? And you've got this list, see. And you
    say, "Wow." See? And by the time you get him up to Grade IV he's flying, and you say, "Boy, look what I did." That's actually most of the use of it.
     
    You can get this kind of a situation, where you know that
    the PC is Lithuanian and doesn't speak English, and has
    been audited by a Dane who didn't speak Lithuanian. Your
    problem as an auditor is to find, is to find a Lithuanian
    auditor. Your problem as C/S is to find a Lithuanian auditor.
     
    I've had that here the other day, had that here the other
    day. Managed it too. We were embarrassed one time, along
    side of a dock somebody'd been handing out hand outs,
    talking about Scientoiogy. And some guy showed up and he
    wanted to be audited on his Grade processes. And he only
    spoke one language. Actually, I think we did get him some
    auditing on his Grade processes. He just showed up out of
    the blue demanding his auditing. Couldn't speak English,
    nothing.
     
    Recently, recently you talk about standard tech and the
    quality of auditors, and so on. We had an auditor who was
    absolutely the world's most experienced killer. This
    auditor was a Class VI, but had never audited anybody with
    any great degree of success, and had in the main neglected
    one certain an especial PC. And this PC had been
    especially, he wasn't a PC even.
     
    He had never been audited. He was the one who had given
    over all the money for all of her training, her Grades,
    everything. But she had never paid it back with a single
    Grade. So she was asking some favor of me, and I said,
    "Yes." And at that moment she was balled and chained on the whole subject, some of you are liable to take that
    literally, it was actually only forbidden to leave. And I
    said, "You, for the first time are going to really learn
    what a Grade process is. And you're going to run every
    single one of those processes, and you're going to run them
    perfectly, and you're going to produce results. Because as
    of this minute you have no certs and awards of any kind
    whatsoever, and you get 'em back just as fast as you put
    that PC together. Each Grade he makes you get your cert
    back on that Grade." Took him all the way through to Power, the guy was absolutely flying, you couldn't recognize him
    at all. It was almost over her dead body that she'd do
    this. She didn't like him, I think.
     
    But all of a sudden he made it all the way. She made it all
    the way. All came out right in the end. She wasn't auditing
    on her own determinism. (Laughs) That's how exact and good
    standard tech can be. It was quite remarkable. It was a
    remarkable feat. It's much more than I tell you in just
    this little thing. It was a win of years' duration. Years'
    duration. It's great.
     
    Now what did she have to do? She had to do exactly nothing
    but exactly what I told her to do, and if she so much as
    wiggled her little finger, god help her. And even though
    she was unwilling to audit him, even though she didn't even
    like the guy, even though so on and so on, it all came
    right on up the line.
     
    Therefore, the processes which you're using can easily,
    easily, easily bypass mere objection.
     
    You see, you're not dealing with 'Let us assume the ibis
    position'. You are not dealing with 'If you take a vitamin a
    day the dogs will go away.' You're not dealing with a bunch
    of old wives' tales. You're dealing with something that is
    a hot as a ninety foot circumference buzz saw. You got to
    learn how to run this buzz saw, 'cause it'll go right
    straight up the line. You don't monkey with this buzz saw.
    You do exactly what the buzz saw says. And if somebody under
    your direction doesn't do what the buzz, what you say, and
    does something else, well you just turn the buzz saw in to
    hLm a little bit sideways. You make it go. You make it go
    right. And it will go.
     
    You can make it go right in the most impossible situations
    you ever heard of, as long as you keep the guy right on the
    main highway. You've got channels and edges on that road.
    He can't go into the ditch. You mustn't let him go into the
    ditch. There is an infinity of ditch to go into.
     
    There is only one road.
     
    So therefore, the approaches to a session are simply the
    approaches I've been giving you.
     
    There aren't other approaches to the session. You really
    can't audit covertly.
     
    Wawafafaawagaaw. I can give you an infinity of other
    circumstances. These are the things which you handle with a
    session. And you don't go anyplace with a session unless
    you've got those things handled.
     
    Now the Grade processes you go up the line through have
    just about as much choice in wording as though they were
    branded four feet deep on a concrete wall. There is no
    variation.
     
    Not the faintest variation. Clearing the command, the exact
    command, the exact administration of the process, the exact
    end phenomena. It is a drill of tremendous precision. And
    that is what you're leading up to when you get those
    rudiments in, and so forth. You're leading to this moment,
    where the next Grade is to be done.
     
    And then you've got him all set up, and you do just exactly
    that. You tell him what it is, you clear the command, you
    get; make sure that he knows the command, and polly-volly.
    And he goes on through. He doesn't miss.
     
    And you fumble-bumble, "I wonder where the, where is the
    trim knob? Where's the directions for the E-meter? It's
    HCOB, let's see, the Grade Chart. What are the commands for
    Level 1?" and so on. "This meter's terribly... new
    meter... just take me a... I've seen it on the... " He won't go up the highway. Any fumble-bumble at all, any slightest,
    any slightest wiggle-woggle and indecision and have to
    think to get the datum, and, and so forth, it...  There is goes.
     
    You haven't got it. I mean they're...  Not it, you haven't
    got the session. You haven't got the preclear. He didn't go
    anyplace. You got it?
     
    It's like a marksman. Marksman, he's trying to find the
    trigger on the rifle. "Where is the trigger? Where's the
    trigger?" You think he's ever going to hit any bulls eyes? No.
     
    So, here you have the variability of the rudiments. The
    variabilities involved in setting up a case. The
    variabilities by which you can run a green form, or run an
    L4A, or an L1. And in each of those you just get the thing
    done, somehow. And the rule is uniformly, it sets itself
    right by itsa or it goes earlier.
     
    You can, on such a thing as L1, indicate the BPC. Reads.
    You can indicate the BPC. But you would be a very foolish
    person indeed to be indicating the BPC on something you
    didn't know what the PC had just read on, 'cause it might
    be a false read. You always have to find out what it is,
    which is itsa. Now you could indicate the BPC in the
    matter. Now that, that would take it out of the line.
     
    You can indicate the BPC very complexly. There's an old
    bulletin there that tells you how to indicate BPC, oh my
    god. It's perfectly OK to do it that way. But that's that
    body of auditing.
     
    Now those are the body of auditing of repair. Now you also
    have to know what the process was to know what you are
    repairing. See? Now that is working with the PC to set it
    right. And that is usually a backwards look, and you don't
    do review actions to get case gains. Only one thing to the
    contrary, and that's OT4. It is now a review action.
    Because the whole rundown, it can get so damn many gains
    for the guy, that there have to be done at OT4 before he
    starts OT5 that it's just a review action now. Only it's
    really not a review action, it's sort of a tech action.
     
    But you start sending people to review, it's because they
    can't get on the next process. "All my life I've had this
    heavy feeling in my stomach." Well you send the guy to
    review. Why? Is anything wrong with his auditing? No.
    There's nothing wrong with his auditing. What's wrong with
    him is his stomach. Well does that mean Scientology won't
    handle things like this? Yes, Scientology'll handle things
    like this. It'll handle on the next Grade or two. Sometimes
    it handles on the next Grade, and then, then drifts sort of
    back, and then two or three Grades later, or sections
    later, all of a sudden he runs into it head on, and it does
    solve then. For god's sakes. See?
     
    But you're not auditing the significances and peculiarities
    of individuals. These are infinite in number. You have the
    main road. Why are you running up and down these little
    side paths? Any of the Grades will handle anything, so to
    hell with it. I mean, walking up the Grade line will
    eventually handle anything. But anything. You don't have to
    have a process that handles this, and a process that
    handles that. Don't get yourself associated with a little
    doctor that has a little pill case. There are pink pills,
    green pills, orange pills and blue pills. Now if the
    individual has a toothache you give him a green pill, and
    so forth, waffa, waffa, waffa. Well you're not in that
    business. You're not in that business.
     
    Well there are undoubtedly processes which might do him
    this and that and the other thing, you could straighten
    this and that and the other thing out. But the truth of the
    matter is, on your main line of auditing, on your main line
    of auditing, it's always a Grade action that handles the PC.
     
    Now there are certain actions that run through the
    entirety. One, secondary running, engram running, and ARC
    breaks, also missed withholds and also PTPs, run all the
    way from a hundred lifetimes ago to OT8. Those processes
    still remain valid. Still remain valid. Well the faults I
    find with Scientologists is they very often will see
    somebody fall on his head, get run over by a truck, and do
    some kind of a light touch assist and say "That's that." And then wonder why the guy is limping. And then they sort
    of say, "Scientology doesn't work." Man, I've got a word for you. That auditor is afraid of work. Do you see?
     
    An engram could be run at any time, but then, this isn't a
    review action, it comes under the heading of an assist.
    It's engram running as an assist.
     
    Now you say, "Well god. If engram running can be done as an assist what couldn't you do?" Oh, yes, that's right. You
    can always run an engram, you can always run a secondary. I
    don't care where the grade is, but I got news for you. Know
    how to run it. Know how to run engrams.
     
    The funniest thing, engrams don't run if you don't know how
    to run engrams. I get so disgusted looking at somebody who
    allegedly knows how to run engrams. Or, know how to run
    secondaries. This is an actual one. And he says, "Recall a
    moment of loss. Recall of moment of loss." And I looked at
    the thing and I said, "What the hell were you doing, what
    were you doing in this session? What were you doing? What,
    what the hell was going on? What, what, what, what is this?
    What's this?" "It was running a secondary." Suffering Godfrey, if that's gotten into the line up. Holy Christ.
    Now you see, the truth of the matter is that you can take a
    thing like a secondary, which is in present time, near
    present time, the individual's got all of his restimulators
    for it, and you can key it out to F/N (snap), just like
    that. And then the person walks around the corner and meets
    Joe, who is associated with it, and it keys back in, just
    like that. And then you can, as an auditor, give the guy a
    slight recall of it and it keys out to F/N, (snap) just
    like that. And he can go around another corner and he runs
    into a restimulator of it and it thump, back in, just like
    that. And you can just keep this up.
     
    Eventually it'll wear out. But I call to your attention
    that it is about the slowest possible method I know of, of
    running a secondary.
     
    Now I have had to pick up two cases. Two cases who in
    actual fact were severely, severely bogged on an assist
    level of secondary and engram running, that auditors had
    stood right in front of them, sat down in the auditing chair,
    asked them what it was all about, and the individual is all
    boggled up. It comes under the heading of secondary can make
    somebody so depressed that they feel physically ill. They
    feel old. It's a peculiarity. - They feel energy-less and
    old, and used up and so on. And you're in to audit this,
    see, you're trying to audit this.
     
    And you're trying to audit this. Oh, nothing flies, there
    isn't any reason to run anything on the thing. Why? Well
    the guy... she just lost her husband. He isn't even cold in
    the ground. And some damn fool auditor will say, "Do you
    recall your moment of loss", and so forth. "Yes, I guess I do." "Oh good, that F/N'd." "Oh yes, I feel much better. Yes, I feel much better." She'll feel that much better for
    the next ten or fifteen minutes. Don't you see? What you
    have to know is the mechanism of release. And an auditor
    that does this sort of thing's a damn fool.
     
    Now a good auditor would say, "Now wait a minute. This
    character's, was doing all right, really fell on her head," you understand I'm talking to you about an exception from
    grade auditing. These are the things that can go the whole
    line, see? But what's messed up? Life's gotta be corrected.
    See? Some; it's gone this way in life. See? There's been a
    life intervention of magnitude that has driven this person
    off. And you can get the idea that if the cannon ball came
    along and blew off your PCs head, he wouldn't be able to
    make the next grade. He wouldn't be there to hold the cans.
    Well, I'd say at that exaggerated level it's the same thing.
     
    When a person was an innocent bystander, and all of a
    sudden, why they had this big secondary occur. Bombo. Big
    loss of some kind or another. And I've had a good auditor,
    a good auditor, if he was on the ball and he knew his
    business and so forth, he wouldn't ask questions about
    this, or something like that, he, he would know this and
    the C/S would be informed she just lost her husband. And
    the C/S would say, "Alright. Get in your Ruds and run the
    secondary of death." Only please, that would be "run the secondary of death." Run it.
     
    Run its "The first moment he enters the incident, What is
    the duration of the incident?", and so forth, "When did you first hear in the news of the subject?" You know? Bong.
    "What is the duration of the incident? Alright. Move
    through the incident... " And so on. Just like it says in
    the handbook. And you go through it and through it and
    through it and through it and through it, and you spill a
    few gallons and quarts of tears, and misemotion comes up.
    There's such a thing as a fear secondary. "I was
    terrified." the guy was terrified. He's been in a state of
    shock, he's dead white ever since. He can run a terror
    secondary. Perfectly easy to do this. But life has knocked
    him sideways, you can put him back on the line.
     
    Alright, he didn't get up high enough to get his grades
    fast enough in order to keep life from knocking him in the
    head. And to this degree you can give him an assist, and
    straighten him out.
     
    Another person was given an S and D, and I don't know what
    all, to straighten out a severe illness. I got a hold of
    the PC, found the pc'd been ill, asked the PC what's she
    been doing, told me at once. Ran him to the first moment of
    the incident, ran him through it, zoom, zoom, zoom, zoom.
    That was the end of the illness. And one of the, one of the
    lazy part of this problem, however, is do you know it can
    take nine hours to run a secondary? It can take ten or
    twelve hours to run a real engram? You only run it to F/N,
    of course. But running it, it doesn't just key out. It
    erases. You are now dealing with the category of clearing.
    You're erasing the engram. You're erasing the secondary.
    That's different.
     
    Alright, I'll give you the circumstances. This is an
    assist-type action. The individual was doin' all right,
    they were gain' on up the line, and they stepped under a
    truck. Now you've got to get him back on the main line
    again. How do you do that? Well, you can give them a
    contact assist, taking him to that place. If it is
    necessary, to where the accident happened and make him
    touch that place, and so forth, with the part of the body
    that was hurt, touch the object that hurt them, and work on
    it on a contact assist, just directly, one right after the
    other. Always the best type of assist is that contact
    assist, and the somatic runs out. You wait for the somatic
    to run out, and so on. It runs out when it runs out, and
    bang, that is it.
     
    If you can't get him to that place, and so on, you run a
    touch assist. And the touch assist is run with "Feel that
    finger" and so on. And if the injury was very severe
    indeed, after you've done the touch assist a little bit
    later you come along and you run the engram. And that is a
    complete assist.
     
    Now how come we're knocking off all of a sudden, this
    business of running the engram?
     
    'Cause the person might, it might go past an F/N? Now let
    me assure you, you'd have to be completely ignorant of the
    phenomena of an F/N. An F/N occurs when the person disconnects
    from the masses connected with something. He ceases to make
    them and ceases to be there, and he disconnects from them.
    Alright, so he gets an F/N.
     
    Now you can disconnect a person from his whole bank. Which
    is greats Which is great. And that is what is called a
    release. It's a release of this type, and a release of that
    type, and the central things you have to disconnect to
    bring him up the lines are the grade processes right to
    five. So find out what you're doing You're just making him
    disconnect. That's all. The only grades that that is not
    true on are secondaries and engrams. You're erasing
    something there.
     
    Now, he's gain' on up the line, and only when he gets to
    clear do you find the final mechanism as far as he is
    concerned, and why he's doing it. What he's doing. That
    isn't the end of it. But his bank at that moment, or what
    he knows of in his bank, goes brrrroooom! Erased, gone! Now
    it's the difference between this ashtray ceasing to exist,
    gone completely, and the ashtray simply being put off. A
    release is the ashtray being put away. A gone ashtray is an
    erased ashtray. A gone secondary is an erased secondary. So
    you can actually do this. You can key out a secondary, no
    longer thinks that kind of thing, you key out a secondary,
    and you can say, "Well. To key it out again would be an
    overrun." Oh, that's so true. To key it out before it had
    keyed in again would be an overrun. And to go on keying out
    something that has been keyed out would be an overrun. But
    do you know that you can key it out, turn right around and
    plunge him right straight into it again, and run it?
    Without the slightest consequences. The TA doesn't go up,
    nothing. The proof of the pudding of this whole thing is,
    what's the behavior of the meter.
     
    Now this is the only time you can go by an F/N. That is two
    different processes. One, you're releasing, and the other's
    going to clear it. So you could get a release on this
    engram and then erase it. Now it'd be much to your horror
    if you found out, actually at the moment of release he had
    also sort of blown it. He had done both actions at once,
    then you might be a little embarrassed. But I've never seen
    it happen. So you could get a release on a secondary.
     
    Alright, her husband's dead. Alright, good. Husband's dead.
    Now what are we gonna to do? We're gonna "recall a moment
    of loss. Good. Floating needle." She's saying, "Oh, thank heaven. I feel so much better." And she goes home, and she
    opens up her drawer to get out her powder puff, and there's
    his watch. Gaa! Well, your release did her some good, but
    she could come right back to you in session, and you could
    do the exact same thing as before, and get her to recall
    finding his watch, and it'd key out. And you go floating
    needle again. And then she could go home and open the
    closet and find his hat. And this could just keep up ad
    nauseas.
     
    She could keep keying it in and you could keep keying it out.
     
    Do you see then, such things about, the fellow has had a
    wreck in this car, and he drives to work in it every
    morning. It's repaired and he goes on driving to work in it
    every morning.
     
    And the next thing you know he develops this horrible
    neuralgia on the side of his head. Well it's restimulated
    all the time. Now if he drove it long enough, and
    restimulated it hard enough, and was in it often enough,
    and went past the place frequently enough where he had the
    accident, it would run the engram. It wouldn't just key it
    out, it would actually - Well, the familiarity, and so on,
    and would just sort of run it out.
     
    He is, he's running through it every time he goes about
    anything. So gone, you know, oooh.
     
    And then he sees a little picture go by. And then that kind
    of...  He'll keep doing this. Do you see? Well, so you have
    to choose whether or not this is an assist action which is
    necessary by reason of the restimulators of the
    environment. So a person can only be released; now when
    he's released on communications he doesn't release from one
    engram. Let's look at this. He doesn't release from one
    secondary. He doesn't release from one specific action. He
    actually may very well be releasing from hundreds of trillions
    of years of such actions. All in an own little flicker of an eye.
     
    Now the length of time it would take to key that back in,
    because he's not on those planets anymore, he's not even in
    that space and time. He's not even in that era anymore. So,
    it's a very valid release indeed. It'll take a, quite a
    while to key that one back in. Do you see? So, he's having
    difficulties with problems, and all of a sudden he has a
    cognition that just roars on the whole track. It isn't even
    that he can think on the subject of the whole track, but,
    he suddenly has a change of mind, concerning the subject of
    problems. Christ, how long is it going to take to key that
    back in again? Man, you'd really have to bail this guy
    under to do that.
     
    Do you see? Now you see why the releases are valid, but why
    releasing a guy from a specific instance in an engram that
    has to do with injury and unconsciousness, or a secondary
    that has to do with loss, you see how these things differ?
    They differ. They differ considerably.
     
    Now as a C/S, you are going to have this sort of situation.
    This individual has had something happen to him in life, is
    driven off the line, and you're going to have to order that
    the engram of it be found and erased. And you would only
    err if the auditor erred. Now, one of the little bits and
    pieces that's missing off the line is that if a secondary
    on the second run through becomes more solid you have to
    send the PC with the same procedure to the earlier secondary.
     
    To an earlier secondary. And if that secondary, by the
    second pass through it, running the PC through it becomes
    more solid and begins to become more solid, you have to
    send him to an earlier secondary. The test is that is
    becomes more solid. And if you don't do that, and if you
    don't know that, you can wrap a PC around a telegraph pole.
    But I notice that it is missing from the rundown on engram
    running by chains in this Dianetic auditors' course book at
    this time, and it is being reinserted into the book, and is
    the subject of, at this moment is the subject of HCOB 28
    September 68, Class VIII. I'm carefully inspecting back
    bulletins to find out what's been missed. What's
    disappeared out on the line up. And that, for some reason
    or other's disappeared.
     
    On the second pass through, if it gets more solid, you go
    to the earlier incident. Now that doesn't mean you go from
    a secondary to an earlier engram. It means you go from a
    secondary to an earlier secondary to an earlier secondary
    to an earlier secondary. On the engram line you go from an
    engram to an earlier engram to an earlier engram, and I've
    got news for you, this isn't just, this isn't just for,
    only for your little guy who's doing an assist. This is the
    only way you're going to solve some section threes. And
    section three is going to have to be audited just that way.
    So you better get hotter than pistols running engrams.
     
    A "none on three" is a this lifetime injury which has
    impacted all the body-thetans into one chunk. And is
    handled by running that engram. Loosens them all up and
    away they go. Now you can run three. There is no case,
    there is no case, there never has been a case that has none
    on three, that had one on three, that had two on three,
    that had five on three. No such cases.
     
    There isn't any case that suddenly read the instructions
    and all of a sudden, whee, they all went away. And he
    didn't have to do anything after that. Bullshit.
     
    So you have to know engram running. And you have to be a
    damn good engram runner.
     
    Because that engram is gonna run like a bitch. You're
    really gonna have to have session control to handle it.
    'Cause all the time pc'll be telling you, "Well I don't
    know why you're doing this. It's just evaluation on the whole
    thing, because that really has nothing to do with me." He's just talking out of the basic incident all the way. He isn't
    protesting the auditor, he's talking out of the basic incident. And you roll it right on down the line and smasho, bingo, thud.
    There is an exact rundown which you will have. Oh, looks to
    me like you better get very familiar with this 'ole process
    known as running engrams.
     
    As far as running secondaries is concerned, you can have
    somebody around, and this ARC break is so thoroughly
    encysted in grief, and so forth, that you can key it out,
    and it keys in.
     
    You key it out and it keys in. You get tired of it after a
    while. Run the secondary. Where is it? What is it? A person
    comes into session every time with a howling ARC break, in
    grief, and all upset. Cleaned up, and got a review three days
    from now. Gonna do the same thing. Clean it all up. Goes F/N.
    She feels great. A few days later, feels terrible, is all very
    sad. You look for a ARC break of long duration, you're
    liable to find yourself sitting there holding onto a
    secondary. Roll up your sleeves and audit. Why be lazy? Run
    it. Establish what it is. Because it won't, it'll just keep
    releasing and coming back and releasing and coming back,
    and this becomes one of these weird cases that you really
    can't quite do anything with or for. Don't you see?
    Rockety-bockety. It's one of...  it's one of the types that
    are very difficult to do anything for. They keep getting
    caught up in this present time situation. But if it were
    out of this lifetime I wouldn't bother with it. I'd leave
    that for seven, eight, way up the line, see? When they can
    handle such things.
     
    But you find out, two years ago she was doing all right,
    the case was doing all right, and then all of a sudden she
    vwaff, waff, waff. And there's a period there, and that has
    been handled before, and it's handled before, and it's
    somebody ran it before, and so forth. So you just roll up
    your sleeves and you run it. And that is the only real
    criticism I have of a modern auditor.
     
    You're perfectly willing to learn. I'm willing to take
    responsibility for the fact that some guys hooked things
    out of the line up, and so on. But the one thing I can't
    understand why you would omit from your repertoire, would
    be secondary and engram running for good. Good, solid,
    nothing but secondary and engram running. Running 'em to
    free needle of course, stopping them when you get the free
    needle. They're gone, they're erased, naturally. You run
    'em through, you get the free needle, only that time that
    needle, damn it, will stay free. After you've freed up the
    needle four or five times on the same subject I should think
    you'd get the word. Run it! The person's gonna keep falling
    on their head.
     
    The reason why you shouldn't, shouldn't drop it out of your
    repertoire, if you want advertising pieces. It's pieces on
    whom you have run a secondary or an engram that is close to
    PT. Because their before and after is extreme. And he's
    going around looking like he was an old lady about ninety
    years old, and creeping about, and so forth, and he's been
    digged in this way ever since the house burned down and she
    lost her all. And people know how this character looks like.
     
    Alright, you take this person, just run the secondary. If
    that one goes solid there's an earlier one with a loss. You
    have to run the earlier one. If that goes solid you run the
    earlier one.
     
    Follow the same rules, but you just go to that secondary,
    get the moment of it, get the duration of it, follow it
    through. Brooom, brooom, brooom. Grind away, grind away,
    grind away, through and through and through, and spill and
    spill and tears and sorrow and shame, blame, regret,
    apathy. Through it, and through it, and through it, and
    through it, and through it, and through it, and...  Some of
    these cases you wouldn't believe your eyes. You're sitting
    there; you're sitting there looking at somebody who looks
    like they're only about twenty years old.
     
    I've seen in a person running an engram, I've seen a person
    running an engram. A goiter, at least six inches in
    diameter, recede and completely vanish with all signs
    thereof, within a half an hour after the engram was
    finished. It isn't a for every time action. But there are
    miracles to be found on it. There are rather wonderful
    things that can happen.
     
    So you start omitting this from your repertoire, you've got
    rocks in your head. So a Class VIII should know how to run
    an engram, because there are going to be some cases you run
    into that won't, just won't go anyplace unless you run an
    engram. And there's the other little interesting thing, is
    you won't be able to shove anybody up through the later OT
    sections unless you can run an engram. They're just gonna
    hang right there unless you're sharper than a pistol on
    running engrams. But running engrams is a lot of fun. When
    you have a good meter, and you have the technology of
    engram running as it was finally developed, it's a gas.
    Nothing to it.
     
    It's a ball. And it doesn't take as long as you'd think,
    but don't, don't be suddenly upset if it, the session, is
    twelve hours long.
     
    You can break one of those sessions, but when you break the
    session you've got to get in all the Ruds, fly the needle
    again, before you start him back into it. See? You don't
    have breaks which go back to the same action. Every time
    you have this trouble with breaks, every time you have a
    break, every time you have a new session, you've got to fly
    the, you've got to fly the Ruds.
     
    So, you have to know this sort of thing. Now, to show you
    how far out it can get, and so on, I don't think people
    today really know how to do a touch assist. I don't know
    what happened to the touch assist, but I was fascinated to
    have a whole group of Scientologists not very long ago,
    absolutely amazed watching me with the most intense
    fascination. Watching me do a touch assist. Correct and by
    the book. They knew that you touch assist left and right,
    but they didn't know any of the fars or nears. They didn't
    know that you followed the nerve channels. It was quite
    interesting. Quite interesting. A touch assist is a highly
    complex action. It isn't just jabbing the guy in the ribs,
    saying something or other. And the action is elementary,
    actually.
     
    The area, the area that you're doing a touch assist from
    you approach on a gradient and recede from on a gradient.
    And if you have, for instance, an elbow injury or something
    like that, you would for sure go further from the head than
    the elbow eventually, but if you wanted to practically kill
    the guy, why you'd go immediately and directly to an area
    further down the arm than the elbow as the first touch.
     
    Now a contact assist also has its' gradients. And you do it
    equally on both sides of the body, and it's just a feel my
    finger and so forth, but you have to also go down the nerve
    channels, 'cause there's where the current is locked up. And
    there are twelve nerves in the spine. And any injury that is
    severe in the body has to have the whole spine released on the
    subject. And it's far and near, gradient approaches, coming
    back, going forward.
     
    So what, what, if we can forget an assist, or it can
    evaporate, a lot of things can evaporate on the lines. But
    your job is to hold standard. That's why I'm telling you
    these things. Your job is to hold it standard. Now I
    haven't told you all there is to know about a touch assist.
    But I will.
     
    I haven't told you all there is to know about engram
    running. But it is down, except for the one data I gave
    you. And as far as I'm concerned, the technology has stayed
    together pretty well.
     
    Pretty well. There aren't many pieces of it missing. Enough
    of it's missing to make some of you curious, and people
    have not held the standard well enough in its' application
    to put it where it should go. And now, assembling it all,
    putting it together, making a straight line proposition
    that is right down the middle of a highway with a wide open
    throttle, with everything we know about it, we're in a
    position to make it win. But it will keep winning just as
    long as you continue, as you continue to hold the standard.
    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