6206C28 SHSpec-166  Rudiments

     [Part of the data on this tape is contained in HCOB 2Jul62 "Repetitive
Rudiments -- How to Get the Rudiments In".]

     Here is why you have difficulty with rudiments, when you do.  Let us
consider an E-meter on a totally ARC broken PC.  It won't read.  The gradient
on this is: the more ARC broken the PC is, the less the meter reads.  It
should go by the opposite gradient:  the more the ARC break, the greater the
needle response, but it doesn't.  The fact is: the more the rudiment is out,
the less the needle responds.

     In a session, you often find the second, third, and fourth ruds out when
checked later.  This is because, when you don't get a rud in, the later ruds
don't read well.  A auditor can blunder by not checking what he is trying to put right, after getting something answered.  For instance, say you are putting havingness in in beginning ruds. You run the PC on some havingness, then skip checking the question ["Tell me if it is all right to audit in this room."] on the meter.  The omission of that step throws the remainder of your rudiments out.  You would be amazed at how many answers the PC has that he never has a chance to give you, all of which become missed withholds.  He only stops giving you answers after you have made a flub on metering rudiments.

     There might be several ways to get ruds in.  The current one is to ask,
get the PC's response, and test it on the meter.  If it is clean, leave it.
This works fine, as long as you never miss.  If the PC is a bit ARC broken and
you don't get a response, you say it is clean, and from then on you have had
it.  That is the frailty of that system.

     There is another system: Ask the ruds question.  Indicate, "That reads.
What was that?" The PC answers.  Check the question.  If it is clean, ask the
PC, "Do you agree that that is clean?" That gets you off the hook, somewhat.
Another system is the one that used to be used in sec checking.  Ask the PC
the question until the PC runs out of answers.  Then check the meter.  If
there is a read, get what it is.  Recheck.  If it reads, say, "There is
another read here." This is the correct phrasing, while "It still reads," will
make the PC wrong and ARC break him.  This system prevents missed withholds
from developing because it gets the PC talking to the auditor about his case.
You get a more fundamental read that way, but you will have to steer the PC,
because what you have got is unknown to the PC.  You are plumbing the bank.
The disadvantage of this system is that some auditors can't leave the middle
rudiments alone.  They spend all their time on them in a goals session.  You
should be getting middle ruds in only when everything goes null and you are
getting no reads of any kind on any goals.  You won't go over several goals
without getting a read unless the middle ruds are out.  Don't try to cure
no-situations.  If the PC says something while you are nulling the goals list,
just use TR-4.  Be sure you acknowledge him, or you will have to put in middle
ruds, because he will feel you missed a withhold.  You expect the goal to read
at least once on your three-time repetition.  Get middle ruds in when you get
consecutive X's.

     On listing, you put in middle ruds when the PC runs out of items.  You do
it when you change from one list to the next, also.  But the important time to
put in mid-ruds is when one of the four-lists is shorter than the others and
the PC runs down.  You use mid-ruds as a booster, in listing or nulling and to
test flatness of a "what" question in prepchecking.  In you overuse them, you
will drive the PC out of session, because it is a no-auditing situation.

     So using the "sec check" system to put middle ruds in can overdo the
amount of time spent on mid-ruds.  But this system will get out the unknown
rud that is the real killer.  Watch out for the PC who says,
"No...." Also, don't get caught up in repetitively asking ruds
questions against the meter.  Three times, maybe, but if they are that hot,
the PC can find the answers.  This system does get the PC into session if not
used senselessly and at length in the middle of goals listing.

     The best time to use this system in a prepcheck session is on beginning
ruds, to be sure everything is grooved in.  There is a problem there.  LRH
can't say there is one perfect system.  There are a number of types of pcs,
but all pcs agree that auditing is scarce and that it must take place and be
effective.  So any system that wastes auditing time, or seems to, will rut
ruds out.  So ordinarily, in a prepcheck system, get beginning ruds in really
well using the "sec check" system, but polish off middle and end ruds.

     Routine Three is not as interesting to the PC as prepchecking, though it
is important.  The PC is anxious during nulling, more than interested.  So
don't use the "sec check" repetitive ruds system on Routine Three.  The PC is
impatient; he hears the padlock rattle.  If you have to use an extraordinary
system to get ruds in, the PC is too nervy for Routine Three anyway.  The
system is just too time-consuming for any PC in the middle of Routine 3.  He
should already be in shape to stay in session when you put him on Routine 3,
anyway.  Don't give ruds that much importance.

     Suppose your PC always has latent answers after you have found the rud
clean.  In this case, you can say, "We have the significant withholds off of
that," or "That is clean of important answers," or At least we have the
reactive answers off it." You want to indicate that there is no needle
response, not necessarily that the PC may have no more answers.  However, you
don't want the PC to carry on after it is clean, nor to invalidate his having
thought of something.  The PC can get a whole theory worked out on how some
thoughts aren't important and some are reactive, etc., etc.  If you are going
to make an evaluative statement, at least make it an accurate one.