Nearly everyone here has been trained in these exact processes and, if anyone here hasn’t been trained in these processes, then everything on this Bulletin applies except Engram Running. The whole bulletin applies except Engram Running.
There will be a staff Theta Clearing Course, and those auditors who are on staff who have not been trained by an ACC in Engram Running will have an opportunity to get that training; and not too many months will go by before they are up to this, too. So this will apply at that time. Maybe it will have shifted slightly by that time, but I don’t think very much.
Now what you are looking at here is the aggregate know-how that was gained and assembled on the 21st American ACC.
UNDERCUTTING CASES:
Now the undercuts of cases became a vital necessity. This whole ACC was devoted to the R factor plus Engram Running. It was discovered that the thing that keeps individuals from running engrams adequately was their R factor, and when their R factor was very poor they could not run an engram adequately. Now the funny part of it is that an engram can be contacted and run and, if done persistently and well without ARC breaks, can run the following Scale of Confront. Here is the Scale of Confront, just to refresh your minds:
Now this is the Confront Scale, and it is the scale of disintegrating Reality. It is how a person handles terminals or a situation. A person handles terminals and situations above all this by not having to participate, by not having to confront, finding no necessity to do anything about it unless he chooses so on his own determination; and if he did so, could do so with no personal liability. He could experience or not as the case may be. Now you’ll find a lower harmonic on this in some philosophic level of somebody saying, “Yap, yap, well, I could, or I couldn’t, and that’s my choice,” etc, well, he hasn’t got any power of choice. He’s just using this as the final escape mechanism — a philosophic escape mechanism.
If I said “bottom” — the bottom mechanism — it would be the one most commonly contacted. But you are apt to get a mechanism which is philosophic, which is simply a figure-figure mechanism about a situation, and the individual feels that if he could just figure it out he would be all right. In other words, this is a thought-thinkingness figure- figure, and he not-ises by figure-figure. Such a case, not-ising by figure-figure, will turn into a dub-in case as soon as you start curing his figure-figure; would turn into a black case; would turn into an invisible case; would turn into a confront case; would turn into an experience case. Which is quite interesting.
Now it is true that an engram could be found, started, and, if the auditor were good and held the individual right on the time period and had the time period well spotted, and had the overt and motivator, no matter how crazy they seemed or sounded, contacted, he could theoretically, just by running that engram, run a person through the totality of this Reality Scale. See? So there’s another approach here. You get a guy who is figure-figure, find the engram necessary to resolve the case. First he figure-figures about it, and he’ll run it, and run it just with the auditing commands — the five auditing commands to run an engram — he figure-figures about it, then after a while he dubs-in about it, then after a while it all goes black; and then after a while it eases into an invisibility — it’s just not there — somatics are, and discomfort and other things are, but it’s not there — and its not- thereness suddenly turns into little flicks — little flicks of confront. And boy, he goes elsewhere. It just starts to turn on and he gets it for the least little Flick and he goes elsewhere. And then pretty soon he can confront the thing; then pretty soon he can participate — he can run it in valence, squarely in valence, right in its moment of time, at which time it becomes pretty damn real. And then he goes to being able to put it there or not put it there, and its importance-unimportance factor flattens out so that it’s neither important nor unimportant. And that engram is licked.
Theoretically, this could happen. That is actually the way I run engrams. But you will find in auditing in the HGC that the public expects of you a different thing than is expected of you by students. And that’s why I wanted to talk to you for a few minutes. They expect a different thing. They expect you to be interested in their case. And that is quite amusing — because it’s your job to get them interested in their case. But they want you to be interested in their case. A11 right, any case is interesting, so that’s a pretty easy one. But you can get so interested in their case that you do a lot of talking to them and burn up an awful lot of auditing time. So there is some point where your interest becomes an indulgence, and on the happier side of that, where the pc is pleased you’re interested in his case, and that’s enough. Then you get him interested in his case.
All right. Now, we have for a long time not used PT problems. I’ll tell you why very bluntly. It was not unusual for an auditor to burn up twelve and a half hours on a PT problem. It was not unusual. He did this with two motives: one just yak, letting the pc go on and on, poor control, not controlling the pc’s comm outflow, letting the pc get into non-essentials. And the other side of it: he was trying to run the whole case with the PT problem. Well, wonderful — you can run a whole case with a PT problem — but why? Since it’s slow freight. That’s a very slow way to go about it. So we take a PT problem now and handle the session in this fashion:
We establish the rudiments every time we establish a session. Find the auditor, find the pc, find the auditing room, establish a goal for the session. Do that rapidly. We don’t care what goal it is, so long as he has some kind of a goal. And then we ask for a PT problem. And we take an E-Meter (up to that time we didn’t care whether the pc was handling the cans or not) but we take an E-Meter, and we have this PT problem appear on the E-Meter, or we don’t run it. Got it? And we run the PT problem that appears on the E-Meter. So we get him to state this problem, and we don’t care how he states the problem, because all we want to know is “Did it drop?” That tells you at once you won’t run a PT problem on a stage-4 needle. Didn’t drop-see, that’s all within the requirements — it didn’t drop, so skip it. It isn’t going to be real to the pc anyhow. You’ll have to do something else with this case. He’s probably got thousands of problems; probably all of life is a problem. Probably every time he walks in a room he installs an engram. You know, the furniture’s there — that’s an engram. Get the idea? So why worry about a problem?
But if you got a PT problem that drops, you should remove yourself at that moment from all temptation. As soon as the problem drops, and as soon as he states that it is a problem to him and is worrying him in present time, you take the cans away from him and put the thing aside. Just lay the E-Meter aside. You’re not interested in an E-Meter from there on. The reason why is because you’ll increase the drop, you’ll increase more drop and more drop as you ask him about it. You’re already running it. And the problem is going to change. You have seen this phenomenon. You’re not interested in a problem changing. The fact of your laying aside the E-Meter will rather convince him that you have found it and that’s it. And you only want to know this: the personnel associated with that problem. You don’t want to know more about the problem. You just want to know the personnel associated with that problem. His wife, his mother, and his wife’s boy friend, or something of that sort. And that’s the personnel associated with the problem. You just check that off.
Now, I’m going to ask you to take a notebook and a ball-point into the auditing room, because you’ve got two or three things to do here that require a list. I want you to get accustomed to establishing a list and then flattening it, not trying to run the case all over new again every time the case changes. That’s one of the ways to waste time. You run one terminal, and of course the case changes, the problems change, everything changes on the case. If you re-assessed it at this time to find a new terminal, you’d for sure find new terminals. Well, the devil with it. Let’s just flatten what we contact, and when we’re contacting and scouting and using cans and the E-Meter, just write down what we find. Then put the E-Meter aside and run what we’ve found until we get rid of all of that. Now you’re going to do something new — give him back the E-Meter cans. Got the idea?
Pcs don’t much like to hold onto these E-Meter cans forever. Furthermore, they become restive, and they want to scratch their heads, and they want to do this, and they want to rassle around, and most pcs you get are slightly nervous in this direction. Why should you worry about it? Because the E-Meter is only going to give you a certain amount of the information that is quite valid. Now, you’re going to write down the personnel connected with this PT problem. You’re going to take SELECTED PERSON OVERT-WITHHOLD on each one of these people. And the commands for this are right here:
“Think of something you have done to (____),” and “Think of something you have withheld from (____).”
And you are going to run one of those commands and the next command, and then the next command — first command again, then the second command, first command, second command. In that way, you’ll never lay an egg on an unbalanced flow. No flow will unbalance on you. They’ll always stay there more or less stable. The case won’t suddenly turn black when it’s not supposed to turn black, and so forth. You won’t ever over-run a flow and the pc will never get upset.
Now, let’s look at this again. You have written down “wife”, “his mother”, and “his wife’s boy friend”. Which one do you run first? You have to ask this question to establish that terminal: “Which one of these things do you think is the most real to you?” The individual says, “Oh, Mother, of course.” Who cares? That’s what he says. All right, so that’s the first one you take. Then you take the two remaining ones: “Which one is most real?” That’s the one you knock out. That leaves you one more person. Knock that one out.
Now, there is something that is not stated here. I just typed this up rapidly for you — I didn’t have a backing sheet, so there are typographicals because I couldn’t even see what I was typing. This has a criterion, and it is an old criterion of all PT problems — it is, they are PT problems. By definition, a PT problem must exist right now in the physical universe. By definition. So therefore, the personnel involved in a PT problem must exist right now in the physical universe. He will tell you halfway through the run, that “It was actually my mother who influenced me this way” — ah skip it. That’s not a PT personnel in that problem. His mother isn’t really part of, let us say — it was her mother that was part of the PT problem. In other words, the people have to be actually associated with the problem and existing at this time in this pc’s life influencing that problem, for this to be a PT problem. So therefore, we don’t dive in any direction to pick up any new personnel we don’t care about.
We get this problem flat. It is only flat if it answers this question: “Now, what do you have to do about that problem now?” And the pc says, “Nothing.” It’s flat. For our purposes, it’s flat. The only reason we’re running it is we’re trying to get rid of the obsession he has to jump out of the auditing room and go do something about this problem. If he doesn’t have to do anything about it, it’s flat. But if he says, “Oh, it’s flat, because I could go and talk to my wife’s boy friend now, and I could handle him.” No. Start right back over from the beginning — the first person you wrote down — and run that person again for a short time — next person for a short time — next person for a short time — on these exact auditing questions. “Now, what do you have to do about the problem?” He’ll tell you, “Well, I don’t have to do anything about it just now.” That’s enough. You consider that flat. Got it?
All right. This will keep you out of all kinds of trouble. And it will keep the pc from being all hung up in trying to go elsewhere in an auditing session. So much for that.
This is done at the beginning of every session. That first section there — it says, “STARTING A CASE: AND BEGIN EVERY SESSION”. Well, you not only start each intensive with this, but you start every session with this, and you do the same thing.
If it takes you two hours to flatten the PT problem, I will think something is hung up. This is a rapid one. This is not a slow one. If it takes a couple of hours, well, something’s really haywire here. He didn’t say the problem, or he didn’t do something, or he’s holding something back. But notice we have said, “Think of something you have done to” and “Think of something you have withheld from”. This will also get the pc talking to you, because it gets rid of the withhold. Got that? All right. So much for that.
Now, DYNAMIC STRAIGHT WIRE you were taught in the 21st American, but the commands for the general public were not given to you. And they are given to you here on this sheet, this HCO Bulletin. Now, the only thing you are looking for is a represented substitute. In other words, you’re looking for substitutes. You ask him for a substitute for himself, and you ask him for a substitute on the basis of “Tell me something that would represent yourself.” And he says, “Represent myself? Oh, that’s very, very easy — a tree.” Get your ball-point busy at that point and put down “tree”. Got it? Now, if he even says “toothbrush”, get your ball-point busy. The proper answer, of course, is “Myself”. It’s just as simple as that. But the more a case is daffy on this line, the more attention you’re going to pay to it. So you just run this whole assessment right straight on through: Self, sex, family, children, groups, mankind, the animal kingdom, birds, beasts, fish, vegetables, trees, growing things, matter, energy, space, time, spirits, souls, gods, God. Just one question. Each time you say this you just take one of those: “Tell me something that would represent, for instance, souls.” The individual says, “Running water.” Get the ball-point busy. Write it down. When you have got this whole list assessed, take the list you have written and run:
“Think of something you have done to (a toothbrush).” “Think of something you have withheld from (a toothbrush).”
You’ll be amazed, but they have actually done something to a toothbrush, and they have actually withheld something from a toothbrush. This is pretty terrific. Quite amazing. But you are only looking for daffiness on this, and a sensible answer you don’t pay much attention to. You say, “Tell me something that would represent trees.” And the fellow says, “Leaves.” Now, there’s a matter of judgment involved here. What if he said, “Shadows”? Well, I don’t know. That’s a matter of judgment. Try to run it or not try to run it, as the case may be. If it looks daffy to you, run it. You’re the judge. Got the idea?
Now don’t let it look daffy to you when you say, “Tell me something that would represent spirits,” and he says, “Souls.” When you say “souls”, he says “spirits”. That’s not daffy.
But how about this guy that gives you the perfect representation all the way down the line like a little wound-up doll? You already, in looking him over, find out he has a sticky needle, he’s registering at 6 on your E-Meter when you first put the cans in his hands, and he gives you all the answers perfectly. That case is giving you an intellectual response which has nothing to do with any reality under the sun, moon or stars. Something he read in a book and a machine is rattling it off. So you do the assessment again. The second time you go through you’re liable to trip him on something. Got the idea? So, if you get a perfect assessment, run it again. I actually don’t care how many times you run it, but you’re apt to be wasting time, because by two-way comm and definition alone you may not get anywhere with a very badly machined case. Nevertheless, a couple of times through, he should trip somewhere. Machine case generally does.
The rule governing Dynamic Straight Wire is: That which doesn’t fall out by two- way comm just on assessment. He says it, and then it looks funny to him, and he laughs, and he thinks this is for the birds, and he says, “Oh, no, that wouldn’t be one-actually, a substitute for a tree would be a leaf, or a small tree,” or something like this. That’s fine. Nothing wrong with letting him correct himself, because you are actually auditing him just by asking him the question. People, when they straighten out things in their own categories, very often recover very, very easily.
All right. Let’s take up this next one here. That’s an easy way to run Dynamic Straight Wire, isn’t it, huh? I would ask you to do this, however, in view of the fact that you are doing a professional job of auditing for the public mainly, and that is, I’d ask you to memorize that list — rather than hold a bulletin in your hand and read it.
Now, the next thing we’re going to run into here is PAST AND FUTURE EXPERIENCE. This is a bid for two things: One, the lowest level case there is — because experience, to him, is a dub-in, usually. Or it’s a figure-figure, or it’s something, so it compares to the Reality Scale. His definition of experience compares with the Reality Scale.
His definition of experience is a direct index to the Reality Scale, by the way. What does experience mean? He’ll say, “Experience — that’s very easy. To consider.” There you’ve got your figure-figure level. “What does experience mean?” Well, “To write about it or make something out of it — experience is that thing which you use to manufacture the future.” He’s dub. “Now, what is an experience?” “Well, experience is that which you try not to have.” That’s probably black or invisible. Or, “It’s the thing you forget,” would be blackness. “Experience is something you try to forget” — invisibility level. “Experience is something you have to cope with.” Obsessive confront. “Experience is — ah — well, experience — that’s pretty hard to define — experience. I guess it’s to go through something.” You’re getting a fairly sane response — to go through something. To have an actual adventure, something of this sort. You’re getting a fairly sane reaction to experience.
So don’t think that Past and Future Experience is pegging up at the highest level of the Reality Scale. It isn’t. This process was found, in the 21st American, to be the undercut process. This was the lowest undercut process. And this is a killer, and it is very trying to an auditor. A very trying process, because it offers so many wonderful temptations. And that’s what’s wrong with this process.
Now, you run these two questions, one after the other, with no assessment, no E- Meter, nothing. You just put the E-Meter down after you’ve done the Dynamic Straight Wire thing, because on Dynamic Straight Wire, when you said, “Children,” the needle was going on a gradual shift over here, and a little theta bop now and then. You said, “Children,” and it fell a dial, or all of a sudden started doing a big theta bop in the middle. When you got off of children, it settled down to the other pattern. That told you that you had something to be run on the subject of children. That he will also, at the same time, give you a daffy reading, he will tell you some daffy terminal to represent — so you needed the E-Meter there. But you don’t need the E-Meter on Past and Future Experience, not even vaguely. You can just put the E-Meter aside and turn it off, and just run these two commands. Just clear them with the pc very bluntly. Say, “We’re going to run something about experience. Now, we’re going to see how you get along with this little process, and here are the commands of it: What part of your life would you be willing to re-experience? And the other command is: What part of the future would you be willing to experience? Now, here’s the first command: What part of your life would you be willing to re-experience?”
The answer actually called for is a time, isn’t it? And this is a time process. But there are very few preclears that will find this out for a very long period. They won’t give you anything but super-significances and ball-up, and the pc who is real bad off will give you a type of experience. You accept all these things. You say, “What part of your life would you be willing to re-experience?” He says, “Well, eating cake.” That’s an answer? That’s an answer. And that’s followed with this: “What part of the future would you be willing to experience?” He says, “Well, more cake.” That’s an answer. So you just accept any answer that he gives you on the line. It gradually will boil down to a time answer. And it will gradually go back-track. The longer you run it, the more track you’re going to cover, the more future you’re going to cover. And there will be periods when the individual is absolutely sure that he is totally predicting the future. He gets into implants, let us say, that tell him what the future is all about. He’s stuck 8000 years ago, but he’s telling you about the future. All kinds of odd phenomena show up. But engrams come up and slap you in the teeth, one right after the other.
You run this for a while, and the individual says, “OOOh, well, you know I really wouldn’t be willing — well, I would be willing — I don’t know — I would — oohh, well — I really don’t know — dental operation there, I was a young boy — I don’t know if I’d like to re-experience that — I guess I could re-experience sitting in the — no, no, no. I could re- experience — I could re-experience the next day after it.” You say, “That’s fine,” and just mark it down with the ball-point: “Dental experience as a child.” That one he can’t confront. Now, you’re never going to run it as an engram, but you’re going to have some tag of it as an engram. See, it may show you something.
As you go along and he runs into hot experiences, real, real hot experiences one right after the other, it is about time you put the E-Meter back in his paws. Get the idea? You don’t have to start it with the E-Meter, but if he starts running into hot experiences, or if he gets into an engram and he can’t seem to get out of the thing, the thing to do is not run the engram but give him an E-Meter and spot it in time for him. Get it spotted in time. If he’s running into them hot and heavy, one right after the other, just leave him with the E-Meter. But if there is only one you have to spot in time, and then in a little while he doesn’t seem to be running any more, take the cans away from him again and put the E-Meter aside. But if he starts running into one that obsessively sticks with him, don’t let him flounder in the thing for an hour. Don’t let him wallow in this one. Because he will just wallow in it, and this is no process-this is not a good process to run an engram with. So you let him out, OK? And the way you let him out is to locate it in time with an E-Meter. And you go on running the process. Now, as I say, it offers enormous temptations to the auditor — beautiful temptations to run the things contacted. As you sit this out, you actually are going to change the characteristic of the engram you will ultimately run on the case. But you keep listing engrams that he runs into. Keep listing engrams that he runs into, well knowing that he will favor motivators. For every one of those motivators there is an overt. Now an engram that he consistently and persistently keeps hitting and hitting and hitting, you are going to find in that engram probably the engram you will run, eventually. But not until he is in PT, out of the engram, it seems to have dropped out, and so forth, and he seems to be all smooth on this thing, are you going to reach for that one again. You are going to flatten the process and then go to the engram.
Here we go. ENGRAM RUNNING. Of course, that is run all the way through with an E-Meter. Give him the cans and start out on this engram that you more or less found with Past and Future Experience.
Now, this is going to undercut cases, and I don’t care how long you run it. I don’t care if you run it for two weeks, because this is a very productive process. But if you are going to run it over that period of time, it isn’t noted here, but some THIRD RAIL had better be brought in here some place. And he’d better be shifted up finally until havingness. And you put in PAST AND FUTURE EXPERIENCE, right after that line, “COMBINE WITH THIRD RAIL IF RUN MORE THAN 8 HOURS”. If you run it eight hours, this guy’s havingness is going to start dropping on him, and you are going to run into difficulties. You could get into difficulties. All right.
ENGRAM RUNNING. Well, Engram Running, when the case has been prepared this way, becomes very simple. A case will start running like a little typewriter, if you have got this Past and Future Experience pretty flat.
Once you have picked an engram, make sure you get its motivator not only its overt. If you have got an overt, get the motivator. If you have got the motivator, get the overt. And only when you have got that have you got an incident. Now, an engram that is having one side of the overt or motivator run will get sticky. You have got to find the other side, and you have got to get both of these things in date. Normally, this will start showing up on Past and Future Experience. Well, we are going to run this engram with an E-Meter, we are going to consider that we have an incident when we have got both a motivator and an overt that fit together. And if the thing is just awful sticky, and dubby, and shockingly poor, and a lot of other things, you just started running it too fast, that is all.
We have got several things you can do at this state of the case, and so forth. Probably the best of them is go back to running Past and Future Experience. You didn’t flatten it.
Now, here is this Engram Running. If you notice here, it says you run all the commands that run an engram twice. Run them all twice. That’s because “Find something unimportant in that incident” is going to stir up stuff that newly has to be confronted.
Once you have chosen an engram and you have begun to run it, you have had it. That’s it. That’s the engram you are going to run. So it has to be chosen with considerable care. Listen to me now: If you re-assess the case after you have started an engram, you will get almost any other incident that is hot to drop more than the engram you started, because most of the charge is already dissipated. So if you keep re-assessing a case, thinking another engram would be better to run for the case, you are of course always going to find another engram. You will never find the one you started to run again dropping with as much velocity. You see? That’s something you have to keep in mind. If you are going to run an engram, that’s the engram you are going to run. It’s got to have its overt or motivator; suppose you are running the overt side of it, you have got to have the motivator side of it. So you really haven’t got an incident until you have got both of these things located. And once you have started to run that, you have had it. Because it will discharge its charge and won’t register on a meter any more the way some other incident will.
You can get a case just stirred all up and run all backwards and upside down, and that’s the biggest mistake an auditor can make. I have given you the reason for the mistake-because now almost anything will drop better than the one you partially flattened.
If in doubt, run the engram you were running. If you are not getting rapid recovery, go back to the first engram you ran and considered flat and run it again. Sometimes, it will only take you fifteen minutes to run all five commands. You do it very fast. But very often something happened that it re-charged in some fashion. Very peculiar.
If you leave about a third of an engram missing and unflat, the whole engram has a tendency to charge up again. It is kind of funny. But you have got to flatten the engram you contacted.
Now the rule of the Last Largest Object is the only one I want you to pay any attention to in questioning the pc. Pc apparently is getting out of it. Change your auditing command. You are running, “What part of that incident can you confront?” He says, “Well, I don’t know, it’s pretty unreal to me, I don’t know whether this happened or not.” What was the last largest object? If he said anything that was offbeat and showed an unwillingness to run any more of the engram, you want to find out at once what was the last largest object that you contacted in there. And he says, “A house.” You are going to shift your auditing command now to: “What part of that house can you confront?” And you are going to run that simply until he is back in the incident, and then you are going to go off on to “What part of that incident can you confront?” Doesn’t require any vast bridge. You just tell him you are going to shift.
In that way, using that rule, you can actually pick up an engram where he was running as Abraham Lincoln, and in the engram he was shot in Ford’s Theatre — you know — and the date is obviously correct. Dropped and everything. And then he runs John Wilkes Booth — no, he wasn’t Lincoln, he was John Wilkes Booth. And so help me God, you may find that he was the Secret Service Agent who had a couple of drinks that night and wasn’t watching. You don’t care whether he runs it dub or not. Don’t give up because he’s running it wrong, because it’ll come out right.
There was a joke on us in the 21st American. We had our paws on Bowie. He was Jim Bowie. And of course everybody doubted this, because it is a famous historical figure. And they tried to do everything under the sun to shake him out of this engram, and they finally went back to running it, and it was the one that flattened out. The trouble was, he had dub on it, which made Bowie die the wrong kind of a death under wrong circumstances. But as he ran it, the more he ran it, the more he ran it, the more right the circumstances got. And it finally all came out in the wash. He did run the death of Jim Bowie.
Historical figures, however, are usually the yo-yo point used. The guy went out of his own body at the death; there was some current historical figure; he said, “That is the identity necessary to resolve this incident. That identity could handle it. So I will just be Catherine the Great.” And he goes and runs Catherine the Great. The only mistake is to let him escape out of the time period. Maybe he did yo-yo right into the palace, maybe he did go right through her skull. But the right engram will shake out, because the Reality Scale is run by running an engram.
Theoretically, you could clear a person just by running one engram well enough. So never get off onto quantitative engrams. An engram is merely something for him to get used to confronting, and creating, and mocking up, and so forth. It’s just a playing field you are using. The significance, the amount of change he gets in his life, none of these things have anything to do with it at all. It is just how well he can handle a mental image picture, and you have chosen a honey for him to handle. That is about all it amounts to. And when he finds out he can handle this thing from A to Izzard and beginning to end, and he can do it well, then the next engram to resolve the case will run quite rapidly. And you will run on down and finally run his basic, earliest shift of identity, which is the rock. And formerly he said, “There is a beautiful, clear sphere — that’s the rock. And that’s all the rock.” Oh, heck. When you get several engrams run and get the rock as one of the engrams, you find out this beautiful, clear sphere was something he customarily clamped around thetans as a trap, and they sometimes clamped it around him, and there were raiding parties, and there was all kinds of personnel and there is drama and there is strain, and there is scenery and everything else. When you contacted the rock first and ran the rock first, he was insufficiently able to contact things. The date when he was mocking up this thing, he was so capable of mocking up that later on this poor, little, weak ole thetan, years and years and centuries and so forth afterwards going back to mock up this rock-uh-uh — it’s too beefy. That’s too much engram for him to confront first off.
So you choose the engrams-it doesn’t much matter what you choose. You will find that every sexual incident you contact is a bounce from a death. A little rule for you. So don’t let me catch anybody in the HGC running prenatals, birth, conception, because that is a bounce. Those are all tied in with the death, and the death is the engram which is necessary to resolve the case. So you keep running Past and Future Experience until you get them down to that — OK? Leave the second dynamic incidents severely alone.
Now it can be that he died, and he died is followed by a conception sequence, and he goes back to the old body to see if it is still decently buried — you know — and then he can’t find the person that he thought he was going to be, get the next body from, and he gets all confused. And mess-ups of this character can occur. But keep him on the incident. Is this part of the text? When you finish a death and go through the exteriorization sequence, right at the end of it there is a conception or a prenatal or a birth. They quite ordinarily bounce into it, and you don’t want it. You want nothing to do with it. So you stop him when you have got all of the exteriorization run.
There is a lot to know about engrams. You have been taught all this, but I am just showing you what you can do to win in the HGC with Engram Running. This would be a good, clean job then.
Every time you run an engram, now is the time to use some Not-Is Straight Wire, with its ordinary commands which you know. They are:
Don’t ever let a pc run it in reverse, because it discharges havingness in about five commands. That is real rough the other way, too.
All right. Now there we have a rundown that will get engrams run, that will get ordinary, run-of-the-mill cases squared around, and that will get a lot done. But what about people who were not through the American 21st? And during that period of time up until they start in with a Theta Clearing Course, to run actual engrams on pcs, how about these people? Well, you have Selected Person Overts, with the “withhold” command added, and you will have a new bulletin out on these things, and so forth. We want that auditing to be relatively muzzled. It will win and everything will go along just dandy. But if you have got some case (and this is more for D.O.P.s than anything else) — if you have got some case that was awfully hard to start, very low random profile, you’d better turn it over to a graduate of the 21st American. And if you have got some case that, after he ran along for a while and was getting up to a point where he’d just run engrams beautifully, and the whole track’s opening up, everything is going along just dandy, and it is certain that the engram necessary to resolve the case is just waiting, give him an auditor that can run it.
In other words, you can run an HGC this way: You can get some auditors that set pcs up to run engrams. You got the idea? And then you can have some auditors that run engrams. This is not any real violation of the Auditor’s Code, because that will still give him the best processes and the best treatment for the pc that can be given.
Now there is no reason why, particularly after a staff Theta Clearing Course, that everybody can’t run a regimen of this sort. But running it in the HGC, with all the profiles being submitted to me and all the Case Analysis Reports — the Case Analysis Reports now are more vital than profiles, because R changed on a case does not necessarily change the profile at all. You should know about that. You can change the R of the case without changing the profile. The person answered the same questions, only he answered them with Reality. This is quite remarkable. We need a brand new test. That test is in development right at this moment. It is a confront test, and that test will be coming up, but there is no reason to rush it, particularly. Let’s just do it by Case Analysis.
I will get out a Bulletin that will take care of auditors who were not trained to run engrams, what they will run. But you already have data and material on this, and it is just as before, what you have been running.
Now, to start a case out with NOT-IS STRAIGHT WIRE is adventurous. That’s an adventurous thing to do. That’s a rough thing to do. We learned a great many things in the 21st American ACC. Learned a great many things, and that was one of them. Selected Persons Overt-Withhold is very, very superior in undercutting cases to Selected Persons Overts. The only main change we have got is that we run Selected Person Overt-Withhold commands, just as it is given here in PT problem. That is a wonderful thing to do with a case, as long as the terminal is real to the pc. And there is no real reason that running a Scientologist, who knows what the command is, why ARC Break Straight Wire cannot be run on a person by an auditor who has not been through an Engram Running Course. That’s a beautiful process.
I want to tell you something else. Can I tell you something here? A lot of research was done in the 21st American ACC, and students didn’t see me as much as they thought they should, I suppose, but I was around. And I never saw so many flips and changes and vagaries in my life as I saw in that particular unit. The reports which I got were very — very helpful to me — very, very helpful to Scientology at large. There was a great deal done in that course. I spent about three weeks of the course-did very rapid research — just in catching up with some of these undercuts. Because, let me assure you, the R factor in most of the cases you approach is so low that it poses a problem of running greater than we had ever imagined. Therefore, these are the processes that we are handing out.
Now, these are a Not-Is type of process. Dynamic Straight Wire runs a straight identification, but the rest of these things are Not-Is types of processes. To cure somebody from not-ising. When a person can confront something, he no longer has to not-is it.
But there was a funny command came up along the line, that I don’t fully understand yet, but it takes care of a theta body. Now this is part of the research that was never given to the 21st American. And this is a peculiar darned thing. You can write it down on the back of this Bulletin, if you want to.
It is:
“Recall a time when you thought something bad was unimportant.”
And that is just about the wildest thing you ever saw. Now that runs all by itself but can be combined with:
“Recall a time somebody else thought something bad was important.”
And you will run all the newspapers off the case. The second command there is really not essential, but you just run this first command repetitively, and if it seems to run down or something bad happens, flip over to the other command. But you will as-is a theta body.
This is the doggondest thing you ever saw. It is a perfectly wild pitch. I was just adding up all possible combinations and working in all possible directions, and this one fell out of the hamper, and it doesn’t integrate too well with the rest of our data. But this is the goofy one.
Now, something else came up in the 21st American that I should tell you in the HGC, and that is: After nine years, we have found out WHY. We had nine years of HOW, and now in the ninth year we find out why. Why people are aberrated. Why they are sick. Why they act the way they do. Why individuation takes place. And that is all wrapped up with WITHHOLD. I had withhold earlier, but didn’t shake it all out of the hamper, because I didn’t have the overts to go with it. We find out that an individual gets sick by having the overt impulse to make somebody else sick and then withholds it, because it is less social to give people illnesses. So he gets them himself. This is Freudian transference, it is a whole number of things. So when you run these overts, run the withhold with it and the case will start finding out why.
The theta body thing, and the masses and ridges, why, they run out when you ask a person to recall a time when he thought something bad was unimportant, or recall-well, that is the best command-recall a time when he thought something bad was unimportant. When you run this, you evidently run the center pin of the withhold. But you will get his tolerance. And this is the first straight ethical process, evidently, we have. It raises a person’s ethics. It as-ises a theta body. It takes demon bodies and things like that off cases. I tested it two or three times here, just monkeying around with this thing, and it is one of the wilder ones. This is a wild pitch, that particular process.
So you could say that when a field doesn’t immediately disintegrate, when you can’t get an individual easily in the engram, when the field stays persistently black or something like that, you have got another string to your bow, and I don’t care if you use it. But if you do use it, know this: It runs as an automaticity on such a demon case. He runs br-r-r-r-t — the last two thousand years he has been not-ising and saying it was unimportant that something was bad. And he will start coming up with, “Well, I should do something — no, I shouldn’t do something — well, what is this? I should do something about it. I shouldn’t do something about it. I have been very neglectful, but that really isn’t bad. Not really. Somebody dying from the bullet wound I gave ’em — that really isn’t bad. But — ” And he is stuck right with the consideration on all of his overts — consequences of overts. They all must be unimportant. And it reduces his ethical level. But I have now seen two demon bodies disintegrate just with that one command — just disintegrate-and this is the first time we ever had something that would disintegrate the astral body. So we find out at once that the astral body was an aberration. It isn’t a necessary thing to make a thetan stick in the head at all.
All right. Now I wanted to give you this rundown, because today you were having a little bit of a rough time doing a transition from student to pro auditor, and I wanted to talk to you, even though it burned up some of your valuable time and mine. And ask you to sic semper transit, huh?
Now are there any questions? Yes, Jean.
Q. I have two questions. In running of the engram, do you ignore what they were running in the ACC, or do you just go back and run them? My preclear has had several engrams started.
A. Now, if we look over this carefully, we see in running an incident: Find the engram necessary to resolve the case. Once you have chosen it and have begun to run it, be sure you have the motivator and the overt and then do not, do not, do not, do not, depart from that incident to run another that “drops better” or comes up. Now look here. The engrams that were run on them in the course are no longer going to fall. And an engram is not going to show on an E-Meter. And if there were several engrams run on somebody in the course, and the first one wasn’t flattened, then whoever audited them ought to be hit in the head with a sledge-hammer. There’s only one or two cases that got by with this, that I have checked up on so far, and it is about the most serious blunder that could be made. Now, what you do in a case that’s had an engram already started is get a lie reaction check — that’s all you want — of some sort or another, concerning this particular thing. You can put him on the E-Meter and ask him if it was run, and so forth, and ask him which one was the first one run. You could possibly get an occlusion, but usually the pc will tell you. There’s no particular reason to doubt the pc. Get the first one, and get that one flat, and then you have no choice but to pick up the next one and flatten that one.
This applies without regard to how many auditors were on the case. This also, you will find out, will sometimes apply to somebody who had an engram audited in 1950. The only trouble with a 1950 engram is that it is probably an operation in the current lifetime, or a prenatal in the current lifetime, and it was the wrong engram necessary to resolve the case, and you won’t get very far running the thing. And we have no data at this time, whether it’s best to pick that one up and run it or not. But I would say for sure that an engram that should have been run to resolve the case, such as a past death, if that was ever entered in all of those years, including 1950 — it may no longer drop on the E-Meter, because some of its charge is gone. That is the engram necessary to resolve the case.
Yes, got another one?
Q. Yes. The Dynamic Straight Wire — do you keep running this until you have picked up all the daffy terminals, then go through it several times and get the daffy ones each time?
A. If you get a daffy one, if you get several daffy ones, you take those you got on the first run and run them. Don’t bother to go through again, because it will have straightened out. Enough will have straightened out to admit progress of the case. But if you don’t get any daffy ones through once, then run it again. Any other questions? Dale.
Dale: I just had a comment on that. One 1950 engram, in which the auditor blew session because it was whole track, was the engram necessary to resolve the case and finally showed up. The guy had been black since 1950.
A. Good. Picked it up and flattened it. Well, that’s a good job. That tells you that a black case, then, doesn’t necessarily require five or six weeks of preparation before you run an engram. You pick up an engram as early as you can on a case and charge through. But it doesn’t get you around starting a case. You have always got to start a case or start a session. Yes?
Q. On this re-experience process, do I run it until I get 3-D pictures, and track?
A. Yes. Oh, 3-D pictures and back in PT. Back in PT. I’ll give you an example of one of these. Here’s the pc. He is sitting in a terror charge, in a total black freeze, at 1500 AD. One second later, everything went to hell. One second before, everything had gone to hell. And he’s sitting in this split second, at a rest point. Got it? Well, now, what do you think happens when you start asking him about future and past, alternately? He’ll move right off that rest point, won’t he? So this is an explosive, doggoned process. Now, I say you run it until he gets to PT. Some time or other you might find it impossible to get him to PT on the process. You just might. But the experience that has been had with it so far is that it does eventually move him to PT. Now is the time to take him back, at the auditor’s discretion, and have him run that incident in which he was stuck.
By the way, “What part of PT are you willing to experience?” has on several cases exposed the engram necessary to resolve the case. It is the engram he’s sitting in, and it is the one necessary to resolve the case. Yes?
Q. If you leave a process very unflat one afternoon, and come back in the morning and start questioning the guy, and you pick up first of all present time problems. Now supposing that process is the basic of his present time problem of the morning. Are he and you the terminals, the preclear and auditor the two terminals?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you run it that way?
A. Oh, well, if he got a lot of ARC breaks, it would be a good thing to run it this way. That would clean up all the ARC breaks, wouldn’t it?
Now I am going to give you that again on ARC breaks. This is the hottest one to run ARC breaks on. Just pick up the auditor and pick up the pc, as the two people involved in the present time problem. I am glad you brought that up, Joe.
This idea of throwing him back into session after you have ended a session the day before is another point of judgment. Just how do you smoothly get him into it? Usually he has piled up something on top of the engram. There is a process here, which is not really a very good process, but which kicks them out, and it was not given in this ACC. That is Problems of Comparable Magnitude to that Engram, or that Incident. It will actually de-intensify an engram. You should have that as a little panacea.
That is an interesting one to wind up an intensive on. About noon of the last day you all of a sudden realize, “Boy, this man isn’t going to make it.” And you could run a problem of comparable magnitude to that engram and get it keyed out. However, you are better than that, and you will have had it flat by the last day of the last intensive he has, that’s for sure. Any other questions? Don?
Q. Is “recall something” preferred over “recall a time”? I have heard “Recall a time you did something to somebody,” and also “Recall something you did to somebody,” which is slightly different.
A. “Recall a time” is always a superior process, unless the individual is consistently not recalling a time, at which time he is not obeying the auditing command. So you should say, “Recall something you have done to” to somebody who can’t spot something on a time track.
Q. What’s the difference there?
A. You are running really two processes with “Recall a time you did something,” and you are running only one process, “Recall something you have done.”
Q. Can he continue to do that without recalling a time?
A. Yeah. Definitely. Anything else?
“Recall a time,” all by itself — you just sit down and say to a pc, “Recall a time. Thank you. Recall a time. Thank you.” Some interesting things would happen to a case. Time, you see, is the single aberration. Joe?
Q. In running an engram, when you are tagging the engram for the first time, is it possible to peg, say, a 20-ton motivator and a one-pound overt, and that’s the incident?
A. Yes. Because until they get some of the overt flat, the motivator will come off. The right one to run there, by the way, is the overt. You get that overt damn real, and all of a sudden you’ll find the 20-tons have departed down to about 10-tons on the motivator. Now they’ll run on comparable lines. Yes.
Q. Couldn’t you have, say, a 20-ton motivator, as he was saying, and twenty one-ton overts tied to the same motivator, rather than one large overt?
A. You could. You could. Nevertheless, you’ll find somebody getting all loused up on this, and best remedy is just to play what overt you find against what motivator you find as the incident. And just keep playing them one against the other, back and forth, back and forth, and eventually the thing will come out right.
There are many remedies, and one is Selected Persons Overt-Withhold Straight Wire on the personnel of the incident. You could take any incident as a PT and run any PT process on the incident. That’s a little rule. I don’t advise you doing it, however, but you can do it. It’s very interesting: “Find something unimportant about that executioner,” is just about the same as, “Find something unimportant about this room.” If you want to get a reality soaring on a pc, just run “Find something unimportant about this room.” And he’ll start this not-is machinery going, you know, and he’ll run it out to some degree, and all of a sudden the room will brighten up. Very interesting.
“Think of something you did to an executioner” would be it, rather than, “Think of something you did to that executioner.” And he will come up with the overt, and he will find out he was the executioner in the same castle for about three lifetimes before he suddenly came back there and got executed. That usually is the way these things compare.
Any other questions? There is a burning question that you should ask, is: “Are we supposed to run these things muzzled?” Now, let me just say this, to do this for me: Let’s cut down the unnecessary yak. And if the pc seems to be ARC breaking at all, you voluntarily muzzle your auditing. You got it? Because what he’s got is an engram of being talked to or being interrogated in some fashion, and everything that he doesn’t consider exactly necessary to the auditing session he resents. So if you find a pc is ARC breaking, you muzzle your session. Any other questions before we break this up?
Thank you very much for your time, I appreciate very much your coming in. I know you had a hard day getting on to a new routine, and you have got auxiliary duties. Several people in the HGC have been split off of administration, and there are other things going on. Latch on to ’em, get wheeling, but let’s start making theta clears in this HGC and just make nothing else but theta clears. I have given you a pattern here that was thoroughly tested out in the 21st American ACC, and you can make theta clears-there’s no great difficulty to it. Thank you very much.
[Supplemented by HCO B 10 March 1959, Supplemental Data Sheet . . . ., page 439.]