Thank you.

Well, what's the date?

Audience: September 12th.

This is the 12th?

Audience: Yes.

Twelve Sept. 61 AD 11, more properly called.

Well, it's very nice to be able to come down, have a quiet cigarette and talk to you about nonessentials. And to discuss a few things with you.

I have, actually, a complete new plan of clearing, which makes this a rather interesting day.

Practically everything that has been done or known in the last eleven years — perfectly valid. But an integration of all this material is periodically necessary because new discoveries are made and these lead to new simplifications. They don't lead to new complexities.

As you look over the history of Dianetics and Scientology you'll see a cycle is in operation. We get more and more complicated, more and more complicated, more and more complicated and then suddenly we get to a new, higher level of simplicity. And then this simplicity gets complicated and more complicated and more complicated and then we get to a new, higher level of simplicity. That's just a history of me outguessing you.

Probably the only games condition which exists in Scientology is along those exact, direct lines. Auditors can find more things to do wrong that aren't explained and you lay down new rules for these things, you see, and these new rules all become much more complicated and then they find new things which they consider vagaries or differences and then these become much more complicated. And then all of a sudden, why, a common denominator of all these things is arrived at and you have a new plateau of simplicity.

So we've been climbing a mountain which consists of a number of tables stacked up, each table higher than the next. And we have arrived at such a table. I can give you a new plan of clearing, which will probably be the title of this lecture. It's very elementary. Extremely elementary. It's Routine 3, just as you have learned it or as you haven't. And it is only possible because there is no shadow of a doubt now of any kind as to why people could not find goals readily and smoothly in preclears. The rudiments are out, that's all. I mean, that just the rudiments are so wildly out that the goals submerge in their readings. That means it's very rough auditing has been the history. It means this auditing must be awful damned rough.

Now, a new simplicity has been found in that particular line: Why is auditing rough? Auditing is not rough because your TR 0 is out. Auditing is rough because you haven't a clue what a bank looks like, where your auditing is bad. I can make that just as a didactic, horrible statement.

The remedy for it is to give an auditor a reality on the bank. As soon as an auditor has a reality on the bank, ten thousand, seven hundred and sixty-five million rules all disappear. And he said, "Oh," he says, "that's the way it is."

He doesn't have time to think of rules when he's handling somebody's bank. He just doesn't have time, that's all. He's got to know. And he's got to be able to understand what is going on and if he understands what is going on, he does the right thing. And if he doesn't understand what is going on, all the rules in the world will not make him understand what is going on.

Well, that's a rather tough beef that you are suddenly assigned in Scientology and throughout the world. Because it means that the initial and basic auditing will have to be done by possibly the bulk of auditors with no reality on a bank. So that means that's going to be a rough spot, overcoming that, in any given area of the world. You've got a bunch of people, they're perfectly willing and they fumble around and finally one of them manages by some mystery and at vast torture of the pc to get the pc actually through an incident with good reality on the bank. After that, that pc will be able to audit. Now, that pc can turn around, of course and audit somebody else and give them reality on the bank. But what have you got now? That's an easy progress.

What is the first hump? The first hump would then be, with no reality on the bank, giving somebody a reality on the bank. Great!

All right, but that one has to be overcome. Now, there's probably a thousand ways that can be overcome, but it is the main point and that is the hump. That is the one where the wheels slide. That's the one where it's all grease clay as the jeep tries to go up. Do you understand? Once that one is overcome, the rest of it becomes very easy. I think we will get a lot of reality on that in very short order.

All right. So much for that.

Routine 3, in essence, remains unchanged. But that of course, Routine 3, simply consists of finding the goal, finding the terminal and giving the person Security Checks. Now, to that old Routine 3, we add this one: That we run some incidents. When? When the pc has been run long enough on the Prehav Scale that he's found himself in valence in several incidents and skipped handily and neatly out of them. And the way we handle that is very easy.

I51 give you that again in very, very brief review. And this time I will give it to you exactly as it would be done in an HGC. Exactly as it would be done.

Pc comes in, we give him the pc Assessment Sheet. We tie into them at once on a Goals Assessment: we have him bring in a list of goals. All right. We start a goals check. At the same time, during a different period of the day, we do a Security Check. Only we do an ordinary, routine Security Check. On an old-time Scientologist we do HCO WW Form 6, old-time auditor Security Check. On a staff member we do some of these staff member checks. You're going to see them, more of them. There's more Security Checks coming out. There's even an Executive Check. But we do that kind of a Security Check.

What are we trying to do? Why are we doing this kind of a thing? We're just trying to get the fellow's withholds off so he won't blow. I'll tell you the liability of doing a bad Security Check or not doing a Security Check. Recently a girl in Johannesburg sat down in the HGC and the auditor read his ashtray and missed a withhold.

All you've got to do is miss one withhold as you go by and you've had it doing a Security Check. It's just no good from there on. The pc knows now that you can't find out and you've had it. you must get every withhold off of every question that is available at the time of the Security Check. Normally a case improves and more withholds start to appear.

That's the way you tell whether or not a case is improving, is whether or not you do the same Security Check again and find out he's now got more withholds. That doesn't mean that it wasn't clean the first time you did it. It merely means the case has improved in terms of responsibility and now has more withholds.

All right. This auditor sat down there and he asked something on the second dynamic and the girl said, "Oh, no, nothing like that." So he read his ashtray and he went on to the next question. And she went around telling everybody there was no such thing as Clears and it was terrible and she wrote lots of letters to people and she got very excited, she got very upset and there were all these rumors were floating around for a day or two or three. And finally our detective corps got into action, ran it down, found her, made her sit down in a chair, went back over the same Security Check, pulled the second dynamic withhold and that was that. Interesting flurry, isn't it?

Well, your pc will blow. All kinds of weird things will happen. The pc will ARC break. You'll get all kinds of upsets, and so forth, because you're not doing a Security Check.

So it's necessary to do a Security Check. That's the point I'm trying to make here. And it's necessary to do the Security Check well. And it's necessary to get all the withholds available at the time the Security Check is being done without going on to the next question.

Now, this means, with the routine I'm giving you now, that we're just returning to the old-time Security Check. It's just a straight Security Check. "Have you ever raped anybody?" and that's it. you get the idea? Asking it any way you can to get the thing reading and clearing up and getting off any of the material. Don't bother with Not-Know. Don't bother with anything on that Security Check. It's just a straight Security Check. You got that? Because I find out auditors can do that very, very easily and because the Not-Know version has now moved over into a tremendous difference — importance and I will tell you about that in a moment.

All right, we go right on and every session that we run this person in the HGC we just beat the rudiments to death. As of today you've got a whole new set of rudiments. They have come out in a bulletin and there's no reason for me to go over them right now. I've given you more satisfactory rudiments. Having told you a few weeks ago that they were necessary, why, I got them in line and they're very good rudiments. They will clean up ARC breaks and they will do various things. All right?

There's only one difficulty. One of those rudiments will walk the person right straight into the engram necessary to resolve his case. That is, "What would you be?" and "What would you rather not be?" It — it's rather gruesome. So if "there's something wrong with the auditor" and you run that till the tone arm ceases, you will actually find the pc sitting in the engram necessary to resolve his case.

Anyway, that's beside the point. It's just a point in passing. The rest of them have no great liability to them at all. And I have done the anatomy of an ARC break and I find out exactly what an ARC break is. An ARC break is the inability to tell an auditor. I don't care whether it was a withhold or otherwise and it isn't necessarily the auditor who is running the session. It's an inability to tell an auditor something. Inability. Not unwillingness. Inability. You pick up ARC breaks that go back for years with this exact process and the pc feels that the auditor has done something or has not done something. Actually the way it is given is "What has an auditor failed to do?" is the other side of the question. "What have you been unable to tell an auditor?" "What has an auditor failed to do?" Actually, there is a third question that can come up, which isn't mentioned in the original bulletins and that is "What did an auditor do?" You see? It isn't necessarily only what an auditor failed to do, it is also what an auditor did. So you ask these two questions. It doesn't sound like a dichotomy, but it is to the pc from the viewpoint of an ARC break. In other words, "What have you been unable to tell an auditor?" and "What has an auditor failed to do?" That is the way it is given. And that can also be "What did an auditor do?"

All right. Now, that will cure up ARC breaks. In other words, you can get the rudiments in and as far as present time problems is concerned, well, there's a new process for that and we won't bother to go into it because it's all in the bulletins.

All right. Now, there is a new set of rudiments. You can get the rudiments in. There is no excuse now for not getting the rudiments in. And it is very important while doing a Goals Assessment to get the rudiments in and keep them in, keep them in, keep them in.

Now, there's such a thing as middle rudiments. Not only end rudiments and beginning rudiments, but you have middle rudiments. Middle rudiments, however, don't get articulated as middle rudiments because what you actually do is end the session and give the pc end rudiments and then give him a break and then start the session by giving him beginning rudiments and so forth. But those two sessions are only five minutes apart and what it consists of is two cracks at the rudiments in the middle of the session. You get the idea? It's really middle rudiments. But it's end rudiments, beginning rudiments. You see that?

All right. While keeping these rudiments in gorgeously, you take that first list of 150 goals and you find the pc's goal in that list and don't monkey with it. Let's not go to 5,782 goals, eighteen weeks, rarr-rarr. To hell with this racket. That goal was in the first 150 goals. The pc gave it to you. You've got it. Now, what can get in the road of these things? Rudiments. Pc's got a present time problem. I'll give you one right here. (Person is present, but I don't care.) Pc was being audited on the second deck (for the benefit of Americans, that's the third floor) and — that's right. They have a ground floor, first floor and second floor in England. And that's because, I suppose, at one time or another there was a floor tax. But anyway, it's actually the third floor and it was fairly high and the pc could look sideways out onto the terrace. And the terrace was a long way down and the pc was so afraid of height that during the entirety of the Goals Assessment only this goal would come up: something to do with not falling, whatever it was. Some oddball goal that had to do with not falling on her 'ead or something That's the only one that would come up.

Well, why do I have to furnish all the genius? See? You have some latent quantity of genius back on the track someplace, dig it up, man.

So I suddenly said, "Well, this is odd." That I got the report that had nothing to do with this, but the goal was something to do with falling and every time the pc was checked out on the goal the goal wouldn't stay in. So I said, "Well, where is the pc being audited?"

"Well, the pc's being audited on the second floor."

"Where's the pc being checked out?"

"The pc is being checked out in the basement."

So I said, "Well, audit the pc in the basement." So they did and they found the pc's goal. Which wasn't "falling." Had nothing to do with falling.

Female voice: It was the first one on the list.

You see how this thing would mess up? Well, there's all kinds of screwball things, but do you realize that should have showed up as a present time problem every session? It should have shown up on the room. "Is it all right to be audited in this room?" Well, every time, if anybody had been looking at the meter, he should have been able to read, pang! "No, it's not all right to be audited in this room! This room is several feet above the height where I like to be." See? Should have shown up. Present time problem. Should have shown up. "Do you have a present time problem?"

"Yes, I'm scared I'll fall out the window. We're already ten feet from the window, but I'm liable to pitch out of it at any minute."

Had absolutely nothing to do with the pc's assessment. It just had to do with the pc's case. See? Assessment's different than case.

All right. Now, let's take a look at this. It means that any pc goal can be found in the first 150. And it takes me an hour and forty-five minutes, so you shouldn't take more than fifteen or twenty or thirty hundred hours. Sarcastic, huh? But that's only in revenge because all summer long I haven't been able to figure out, "What's all this?" See? "What's all this? What's all this? Why this long, long, long Goals Assessment?" Well, it just boiled down to just one thing: rudiments were out. Every pc on a Goals Assessment being run with the rudiments so badly out that the goal disappeared.

Now, a goal is very easily invalidated. Very easily knocked in the head. And so is a terminal very easily invalidated and knocked in the head. So you've got to have these rudiments clean as a whistle in order for the thing to emerge and keep on reacting. That's as simple as that. pcs are delicate on the subject of goals and terminals. But you can find it providing you don't knock the rudiments out and providing you keep them in.

So, all right. This pc is put immediately into a Goals Assessment. And we find the pc's goal and then we put him into a Terminals Assessment and we find the pc's terminal. This is HGC auditing I'm still talking about. Anything odd that is coming up about this, it all centers around the rudiments.

The rudiments — there aren't — there aren't more rudiments that you should get in. There are just those rudiments which already exist in Model Session even though they have new processes to run them. Nobody has changed the number of the rudiments. The last addition was withholds and it looks like that's static from there on out.

All right. This means, then, that a pc would not be audited on 1A or any other breed of process which is preparatory or anything else. you just audit them into the goal and the terminal. When you have the pc's goal and the pc's terminal and when these have been proven up totally, checked by another competent person. . . Always have your goal and terminal checked by some other auditor, no matter whether you're in an HGC or otherwise. And the other auditor should simply check the rudiments and if the rudiments are out go no further.

The way you do a check like this, you just check the rudiments, you don't run them or get them in on yourself, see, if you're checking some other auditor's. You then pass the thing back to the original auditor and say, "Your rudiments are out, and when you get them in, I will check the goal and terminal."

And he says, "Oh, well they weren't out for me." you can always — always depend on him making that remark. "They weren't out for me!" Well, maybe they weren't out for him but they were out for you doing the checking. And when the rudiments are then put in, the pc is turned back for the goals and terminal checkout. Okay?

Okay, if there's something odd about it and they're going out and they're going in and the auditor hasn't been sure and he's sent the pc to you with two goals. You say, "There are two goals reacting. End of check. When you have one goal reacting I will check it out."

Same way with terminals. If he turns a pc over to you with two terminals reacting and doesn't know which one. you say, "Well, after you've got them flat, I will check this out." Simple.

That's the way you do one of these crosschecks. You don't audit the pc. You find out what should be done with the pc in order to check it out. Don't you see? And then you get the other auditor to do it whose pc is that. Otherwise you get cross-transferences and all kinds of oddball phenomena.

All right. When you've got the pc's goal and terminal and when the pc has successfully completed the HCO WW Form 3 Security Check, you will have a Release on your hands and that is all there is to it.

So redefine the definition of Release. You cannot have a Release who has not found his goal and terminal and who has not completely passed through the most vigorous of the Security Checks. That is not the basic definition of Release and that is not in its original intent a Release. That is just meanness on my part. So just assign it to that. Because you cannot guarantee any stability on a pc whose goal and terminal have not been found. So therefore, you cannot say that the pc will hold that state at all. you see? But if the pc's goal and terminal had been found, even though no runs have been made on it one way or the other, you have already changed the living daylights out of this person. This person now knows they are going in some direction or another and you can say safely, "Well, the person's a Release." Got it?

So it doesn't take very long to make a Release, does it? Remember, a Form 3 Security Check, totally completed and the pc's goal and terminal found.

Now, you'll find out that along about this state, and along about this stage, they don't want to pause long enough to get checked out for Release and other oddball things of this character. They will go right straight on along the line. So we're not going to worry about this particularly.

But supposing somebody was in the HGC and they could only be there fifty hours and the D of P had been careless with auditor training and the Assoc Sec had been careless with auditor training and the HCO Sec had been interested in the congress or something like this and it took fifty hours to find the goal and terminal and complete the Security Check. Well, and the person has to go now or something like that. Well, you can at least give him a Release certificate if these things have obtained. If they are correct. So that gives you something you can do there.

But mind you, everybody would have to be sort of asleep at the switch in order for this kind of a condition to obtain. Don't make any mistakes about that or settle for the fact that fifty hours to finish one Security Check, do a Goals Assessment and a Terminal Assessment is anything like good, fast technical auditing. It isn't. But at this time it's acceptable. It's acceptable as of this time. Why?

Because we have an awful lot of people around with no great reality on the bank, don't you see? And we have a lot of people around who are studying at the same time they're doing and all this kind of thing is going on. So you can expect this sort of thing to happen. Okay? All right.

Now, we've gotten this fellow this far now. We've got a Security Check — and, by the way, the Security Check doesn't have to have been completed by the time we start running the goals terminal. The Security Check is just something we do as industriously as we can do and devoting as much time to it as seems natural, but devoting never any more than fifty percent of one's auditing time to the Security Check. You see, that's the maximum, and the minimum would be one hour and five. So you've got a maximum and minimum for how much to security check the pc.

Now, if there's a hell of a hang-up in this case one way or the other and the case has been around for a long time, you, of course, do more Security Checks. The way to solve a case that is obviously hanging up on the goals-terminal setup is more Security Checks, done better. You understand? Don't just keep slogging at them with goals and slogging at them with terminals or something like that. Let's get down and get smart with Security Checks. Let's find out the actual conditions where this person ran into Scientology. Let's find out the actual circumstances of this person's association with what's happening And then let's security check accordingly. Got the idea?

Well, let's say we found out this person had been around an aunt who was interested in Scientology for five years and herself was never interested and then all of a sudden one day came in for some auditing oh, this sounds awfully interesting. What was going on during those five years? And we're liable to get all kinds of upsets, resentments, negative postulates with regard to Scientology. You see? And the whole thing is holding up. It's all a holdup from here on.

See, all kinds of things like this can occur. So if there's holdup, look in the area of withholds via Security Checks. Even if you have to tailor up some kind of a special check for processing. You understand?

A person — you'll get cases like this. you will get cases like this. A person has been an assistant instructor in psychology for the last eleven years and suddenly has come in for some processing. You'll get cases like this. Every time a ship is going to sink, why, just look at those hawsepipes, you know and those mooring lines and you'll see shadows on them.

But eleven years? Hey wait a minute. He's heard of Dianetics, he's heard of Scientology, he's heard it lambasted. He himself has engaged in some of it or he has been in a "Well I don't know, I keep an open mind." They do, they do keep open minds, drafts go through them, and . . . Well, look at this. Look at this. The guy's actually hung up on his own overts of some kind or another.

But I wouldn't bother too much with this. Just except in the normal course of auditing, it suddenly looks like this person is hanging up badly with goals and terminal. Well, the rudiments are out and let me point out something to you: that withhold is part of the rudiments. So to get that one in, you sometimes have to be a little bit extraordinary if the case is hanging up badly. And you have to actually look over the circumstances and conditions of the case in order to find out what kind of withholds the person might possibly have had during a period of time. Hm? You see that? Is that very evident to you? Yeah. The person isn't coming into session because somehow they've forgotten all about it but, at one time, you know, something was going on and so on.

I saw a case held up on this instance. This was a very interesting instance. A fellow and his father. And Dianetics: Modern Science of Mental Health had come out so they both read it — you know, read it, read a couple of chapters and decided to try some auditing. So one audited the other and then the other audited the one and then they both agreed it didn't work. Then the person went on and read the book completely and came in and got to be not too bad an auditor and went on for years and years and years, but his case never moved. It was the weirdest thing.

And then one day an auditor — very, very smart — got the earliest overts on Dianetics. And that was it. Both he and his father both agreed that it was just bunkum and it didn't work. That was enough. And it had actually held him up in processing something on the order of a thousand or fifteen hundred hours' worth. How do you like that! And all of it was being done across that basic postulate on the subject and of course, it never worked either. Grim, huh?

I get a letter from somebody every once in a while that is lambasting HCO and screaming about things being returned and all kinds of wild things occurring. And I'm saying, "Well, I wonder who that person's auditor is?" Because this person has just fixed himself up but good. I get them in every once in a while. Has nothing to do with us, particularly, but there's a person chattering around madly, lambasting everything in all directions. And, of course, it's usually a totally uninformed lambaste. Oh, we do lots of things that could be criticized, there is no doubt about that whatsoever. You handle this much volume, you certainly are going to make some mistakes, but they're very seldom intentional mistakes. Now, here — here's just a bunch of overts.

Now, somebody's going to get that person and they're going to be in session, they're going to be trying to find their goal, and remember it's the goal that's submerged. Ordinary auditing on a chronic somatic or something like that or a present time problem, this will all work, you see. But the goal is delicate. And it can actually submerge or disappear on this kind of a background of overts and withholds. See, that's all it takes. Interesting, huh? And unless you get that straightened out, you're not going to find the goal and terminal. Okay?

All right. You've gotten up to this stage now, you've got a Security Check done or in progress. You've got the goal, you've got the terminal of the pc. Now, what do you do?

You assess it. Now, let's enter into another very factual part of this particular rundown. You assess it on the Prehav Scale, just as always, doing your good assessment, running from the bottom — the lowest point of the Prehav — on up to the top, and then marking those points that reacted on the needle and then going back only over those points which reacted and marking again that they reacted on the way back and now taking up only those that have reacted twice (now got two dots after them) and separate those out and we'll wind up rather rapidly with the proper level. That's very easy. And we run him, just as before, five-way legs, and so forth. And we run this pc.

Now, I don't care how long we run the pc. It hasn't been established yet how long you should run the pc. But this must be very, very, very clearly understood. When we run the pc on the process, we must include in that statement that the pc is doing that process and not something else or something also. you see? When we talk about a run on the process, we include in that that the pc is doing the process and not something else. you got it? In other words, we actually process this pc.

Now, at this stage of the game we don't care whether he's in valence or out of valence or anything else. We're not worried about that or interested in that.

But we go on and we audit him very happily and cheerfully and time goes on. We might run him this way for, heh, ten, fifteen, twenty, twenty-five hours. He's making progress the whole way. Don't think about that for a minute because he is. But at some time, the exact method of determining same cannot be laid down at this moment. I suppose it'll emerge one of these days with a whole new series of complications. At some stage, why, we assume that he's been through some pictures. He couldn't have helped it, not with the Prehav Scale and so forth. And we probably will have run an emotional level and we will have run some odds and ends. I mean just on your ordinary assessment, flattening your levels. And now we're going to ask this pc a burning question. And if we ourselves have not had an engram run and have no reality on the track and never been through one from Hell to Halifax and don't know it, we're now in trouble. We're now entering the land of never-never. Now, we can make more goddamned mistakes and upset more pcs and get more ARC breaks, and so forth, in this exact stage I am talking to you about, if the auditor hasn't got a tremendous reality on the situation, than I would care to list in a long Encyclopedia Run-on-ica.

The only solution for it is as soon as possible yourself get some reality on this thing I'm talking about. And after that you won't be going into the theory-theory of it all. See? Because it just is what it is, that's all. And with Not-Know versions and the Forget, Not-Know, Unknown types of commands we chock him into it.

Now, this is the exact way we do this. We ask him if he's had any pictures where he himself was in himself looking at the things that were going on around him. And we check these over very carefully and we ask him very searchingly about all these things, and we actually determine that there probably have been by now two, three, four, five or maybe just one picture in which the pc was in himself and something was going on and that answered the Prehav level command. And so he answered the command out of that picture, maybe once, maybe twice and that was it. But that picture existed and he was in himself.

Now, we're going to count those up, find out how many of them there were and we're going to assess them on the meter. And we're going to take that picture which produces the greatest needle reaction, because that is the picture which can be run.

And then we are going to roll up our sleeves and getting the rudiments in very nicely and finding out if all is wonderful in all directions and we are going to run that picture with Unknown, Not-Know, Shouldn't-be-known, all the rest of the categories.

And you're going to come along and ask me what are the commands that you should use for this and I'm going to respond — I hope my patience holds out — I'm going to say, "Goddamn it, get one run." And then you won't be asking me how many repetitive commands of this, that or the other thing. It's the number necessary to resolve that particular phase of what it's all about. Do you understand?

And you're going to get that picture run from beginning to end and all of it complete and all resolved and that is going to be that. And then you're going to find the next picture. And if there is no next picture, if he's only had one, you're going to have to give him another five or ten hours of Prehav run. Got it? And then you're now going to have another assortment of pictures. And you're going to take them apart like — just like I said. Got it?

And then you'll find all of a sudden the case starts to accelerate and the terminal blows and you're going to have to find a new terminal, but you can't find the new terminal because it's gone. And then you're going to have to find a new goal and then the new goal goes. And then the pc is going to be hung up in another picture and you're going to have to remember that and run that thoroughly. And then try to do another Goals Assessment. And then you can't find the goal because they keep blowing. And then you can't find the goals and they blow and you can't find any more goals. And meantime, you're trying to do Security Checks and the pc is doing them on a whole track basis. And you're in a mess! Next thing you know the meter's broken. Won't operate. Won't operate. You could ask him questions and the needle just floats.

And you keep this up, actually, for a long time. And you try to locate any residual pictures and so forth. Keep on trying to audit the pc. you got the idea?

The end product of all auditing is fruitlessly trying to audit the pc: pc is cheerful, the rudiments stay in, everything is going along gorgeously, the pc stays well in-session and the meter's busted. Once in a blue moon the needle reacts. And yet when it reacts now you generally will have an incident of some character. And you run it just the same way that you ran the other incident. You're locating odd bits of track that are still extant.

Now, the length of time necessary to stabilize a Clear has not been established. But I'd say the only safe figure is, after the person goes Clear, at least another twenty-five hours of auditing and preferably another fifty. You've got it made then. Audit the twenty-five or fifty hours with your broken meter that won't work. Got it? Because they will run into things and they will run into incidents.

All right. Now, there is a new plan of clearing, now. You'll find that is a much more rapid, much more factual plan of clearing. And it comes up and confronts for the first time the fact that an auditor must handle incidents and that the Prehav Scale will not handle incidents, except on a run of such tremendous length as to make it unprofitable. To shorten up clearing, you've got to handle the pictures they're stuck in. Okay?

Now, that is the setup. And that will clear. And that will clear fairly rapidly. The goal will be found as rapidly as the rudiments are in. The terminal will be found as rapidly as the rudiments are in and the pc will run as smoothly as he's got his withholds off, particularly in the zone of Dianetics and Scientology.

And then in running it, there is a point where running generally on the Prehav Scale ceases to produce much of a result. And that is because the pc has been in and out of one, two, three, four, five good solid 3-D pictures of one character or another and he actually is now hung up in every one of them. He feels much better, maybe, but he really is hung up in every one of those pictures and the easy way to get out of it is to run them.

And if you yourself have never seen a picture and you're trying to run somebody who has a picture, you're going to be sitting there trying to run TR 0 and thinking about giving the proper acknowledgment and how do you get in a bridge and you're going to be thinking about all these things. And hells bells, you shouldn't be putting in any bridges. You shouldn't be doing a thing but just in there pitching with the pc, you see and taking his attention and shifting his attention around and running the various phases of it all. Now, that's what you ought to be doing

And you'll see at once the folly of putting in a bridge because you're going to run a different command. You've been running "What is not known about that incident?" and you're going to shift to "What is not known to others about that incident?" And you go and the wheels creak and if you have never yourself been through one of these things, why you're liable to put in a bridge and yank the pc's attention out of it all and fiddle with the E-Meter leads and worry about a lot of things, when all you ought to be doing is just simply say, "Well — here's another version of this command now and — What shouldn't be known about this to others?"

"Ah, well, that's so-and-so, and so-and-so," and the pc's right in there pitching, see. It's just smooth as glass.

And then eventually when you get to be an old-time expert, you will be able to do such things as we have learned over the many years, as you find out there's a hell of a fall in this thing and you know at once that the way to resolve the fall is to put the pc at the bottom of the fall and make him fall to the top. And after you've done this four or five times then he can complete the fall down, but until you do this he very often cannot fall. Why? Because his resistance is against falling. And his resistance against falling is run out by making him fall in reverse. Sounds weird, but that's very good.

Pc is going around in a circle counterclockwise, why, make him spin the engram reversewise. And you'll find out the engram will spin ten times as fast reversewise and this will be very, very funny. The pc won't comment on it's being funny but you've got all the resistance of going forward on the spin. Don't you see? And you can't slow up that resistance. And after that, why, the spin runs out. It's very simple.

And then there will come a time in the engram when you will say to yourself, "Well now, Ron said you had to run Not-Know on this and that's all you're supposed to run." And the pc will tell you there isn't anything else unknown about this whole ruddy, cotton-picking engram. And you'll keep on saying, "Well, what isn't known about the engram?" And, of course, he'll come right out of session and you'll have had it.

Now is the time you've got to run the "knows" out of it and run through it a few times. Just let him talk to you about it and the engram will just discharge from a certain point. And it just discharges from that point there on out, providing you keep the pc's attention on it, keep asking him questions about it and letting him tell you all about it and adding it all up and how it got that way, and so forth.

Now, that is the running of engrams in clearing Now, why is this all of a sudden so important? Why do we make this shift? It isn't much of a shift, actually; it's a simplification of what we're doing Why?

Well, I'd better give you this why now so that you won't be asking me again — you can if you want to.

Well, I've learned something new. I've learned that a somatic cannot be unburdened. Hmmmm. A somatic is where it is at the tension and velocity that it is, and it is nowhere else and is totally independent of all other incidents. I finally got the gen on it. A somatic is where it is on the track and is what it is and discharges only as what it is and not as any lock or any other additive. And a somatic, no matter how thoroughly it has been unburdened, will come on with the same intensity when you find it where it is. And that all the pc's hidden problems and present time problems of long duration stem from the first engram that you will be able to contact and run after the assessment. All the pc's chronic somatics and difficulties are in the first one that you will contact. Contacting it just as I gave you just a moment ago and sorting it out. You'll find all those — all those somatics and everything else, and so on. Nothing under the sun, no generalized process has ever made them less. They've put them out of the way and they've kept the pc living, but when you finally contact them again in the actual incident where they reside, they are just as tough as they were the first time. And they are there and they are rough and you've got to run them through.

And when you discharge that engram, the pc's present time problem of long duration will vanish and that is the only way that thing can be solved. And I know that's very adventurous for me to say so but in actual fact it's true. The is-ness of the situation is in the time and place of the situation and nowhere else.

Of course, one could have concluded that years ago, but we do have success in unburdening, we do have success in doing those other things. And isn't it interesting that after we've done all these things, we go back and find the exact incident from which it all came and find it just as rough in that incident as it ever was. And then the whole thing blows up and that's it. It's still the engram necessary to resolve the case.

All right. Let me give you another datum here. The engram necessary to resolve the case didn't resolve in 1950 for one very excellent reason. The only reason an engram never reduced when run was because it was not on the goal-terminal line of the pc. It wasn't an earlier incident. Earlier incidents supported it and so forth and you could undercut it, but the engram necessary to resolve the case is on the goal-terminal line of the pc and unless you've found the goal-terminal line of the pc, the engrams aren't going to reduce rapidly. And if you find the goals-terminal line of the pc you're in for an hour's run. And if you're not on the goals-terminal line of the pc and he's not in valence, you're in for seventy-five hours to no reduction. Now, that's something to know, isn't it?

So, of course, the engrams that come up by running the Prehav Scale are the engrams that will resolve within an hour and they're very resolvable. They're not dependent on anything else. The somatics in them blow and everything else goes and the motion in them runs and all the difficulty you've ever had running engrams disappear. Because you've got the engram on the goals-terminal line of the pc. You've got the pc in the terminal valence that was the destructive valence of his case and of course, you're running him in that valence because it's on his goals-terminal line.

And what you've solved — in essence what has been solved here is how do you get a pc in valence on an engram and also how do you find an engram on the case that will run and also what is the engram necessary to resolve the case? You got those things? Those are all very important things.

Now, the reason you have trouble with engrams in the past in auditing and have difficulty with them is they didn't lie on the goals-terminal line, the pc was not in valence in them and they would not resolve independently because they were associated with some other chain. But on the goals-terminal chain they resolve, bang! And they are the engram that is producing the present time problem of the pc. So this is a terrific solution here. This is a big jump. See? And it's quite cute.

Anybody now can keep the rudiments in and run the — find the goal and find the terminal and run the terminal Prehav level, find it and run it. That's a very mechanical auditing job.

But, now, something else is needed when we take off from that point and that is a reality on what a bank looks like. You'll never ask the right questions unless you know. I could just sit here and tell you by the hour what a bank looks like and all that kind of thing and maybe should because it might help you out in the first stages, but at the same time one hour's reality on going through an engram with all the screaming fits in the engram and after that, you'll never ask any silly questions about, "Well, should I put in a bridge?" you see or a silly question like, "Well, maybe the pc wasn't getting my acknowledgments." Hell, he's not interested in your acknowledgments and you'd know that then! Nor would you be sitting back in your chair, comfortably and somewhat pompously, going off like a wound-up doll. You'd say — that would be about the cruelest thing you could do to anybody while he was running an engram. You realize that?

Because the only reason you can get through the engram is because you have an idea that the auditor is right there with you helping you out and so you can confront it. That's it. And you can go through it and you know that he'll go — ask you questions. And you'll be feeling snappy toward the auditor probably the whole time or you'll be feeling something toward the auditor the whole time. It'll all be kind of misemotional. Right up to the time when you find the misemotion is in the engram.

And then when you've located that — then the old line which Suzie just dug up in the old Book One: the auditor shouldn't pay much attention (rough paraphrase) to the emotion of the pc, because whatever emotion the pc is expressing while he's running an engram is to be found in the engram. It hasn't anything to do with the auditor. If there's antagonism in the engram, the pc's going to be antagonistic right up to the point when he as-ises the antagonism. If the engram is full of apathy the pc will be apathetic right straight through. Not anything the auditor's doing But the auditor can compound it, you see, and snap the apathy in on himself or snap the antipathy in on himself by, of course, just not knowing what the hell he's doing And the only way he can not know what he's doing, of course, is to have no reality on what the pc is doing. When he's got a reality on the thing himself, why, that's it.

I can tell you something else about this. There are people around who tell you all about their engrams. This isn't true of everybody who tells you about his engram. But some of these people are telling you glibly that during a Prehav run they ran into this situation and so-and-so, and such-and-such, and so-and-so, and so-and-so was the case. Now, they didn't run the incident and it's an engram hotter than a firecracker. And they haven't been near it and they haven't been in it. And they tell you that's an engram.

Oh, if you've run a real one you'll know that's — you'll know that's not true. Because a real engram is only an engram because one doesn't know and can't seem to find out a damn thing about it. Now, of course, after it's been run expertly by somebody else and the person has gone through it and knows all about it now, naturally he can give you the story. But the story of an engram is never quite like that. Oh, yes, a person can give you sequences off the backtrack that aren't engramic. But the engrams necessary to resolve the case are not in this kind of condition. They're complete not-know hodgepodge. They're a mess. A person just hasn't a clue. And that's the first thing that the auditor contacts about the engram — that there's just nothing known about it.

And then you'll get some kind of a silly interchange like this if you haven't got a good reality on that. "Well, what is unknown about that engram now?"

You see, you've got it — this person with the stilts. There's a pair of stilts and they seem to be sitting out in the middle of this plain and a snake — very Freudian, you see — and a snake seems to be between the two stilts.

Well now, Papa Freud or some of the boys in psychiatry run into this sort of thing and they would build a mountain of pretended knowingness on top of this.

No, it happens to be a pair of stilts out on the plain and there happens to be a snake between them. And what this is all about and why the person doesn't know anymore about it is this doesn't make any sense at all.

So the psychiatrist has been busily pretending all sorts of knowingness about all this. Well, you'll also find pcs who won't go near an engram telling you all about it. Ha-ha-ha-ha. They're no better, you see, they're no better. They've still got this burning right ear, you see. And they still go like this all the time.

"Yes, I was running this engram the other day in which I sunk Britain. I destroyed it utterly." Oh, man! How the hell could they run any engram at all unless they ran the engram necessary to resolve the case? And if he ran the engram necessary to resolve the case, they wouldn't be doing that. Got the idea? So it totally — it totally disproves itself

And you get this silly situation — just to continue with what I was saying — you get this kind of an oddball, silly situation. And the auditor, who has no reality on engrams at all, you see, says, "Well, all right. What is unknown about that?"

And the pc says, "I don't know anything about it."

And the auditor says, "Well, come on now, certainly you must know something about it."

Well, of course, the oddball thing is, is the pc answered the auditing question, which is perfectly true, he didn't know anything about it! And the auditor takes this literally, you see and says, "Well, we couldn't possibly run the engram because he doesn't know anything about it." you got the — you got the kind of cross play that can go on here?

That — because the auditor wouldn't understand that when you really enter one of these bitch kitties on the time track that that is about your first reaction: "What the hell?" you know, "A pair of stilts and a snake! How Freudian," you know, "What is that all about?"

"I don't know. I don't know anything about it."

"Oh, come on, now," the auditor, you know, "you should have…" Yahyahyahyah!

What he could say is, "Well, all right. What else don't you know about it?"

"Well, I just — nothing. Nothing at all. It is just a total blank."

"All right. Good. What don't you know about it?"

"Nothing. Not a single thing" And the pc isn't ARC breaking or anything else. He's just answering the auditing question. This has got him totally baffled. He has never looked at anything in which there was no information of any kind before that could be extracted from it.

And a pc could go on this way for a half an hour. Perfectly happy. He's looking at it. He's getting his head kicked off, of course, there are somatics in the thing and he's being bisected and trisected and a few other things. But the nice part of it is if he's running the engram that is found in the fashion that I just told you — on the goals-terminal line — if he's running that one, when he contacts one they go and they don't come back. Isn't that nice?

Now. What we've really done with goals-terminal Routine 3 is find the direct route to find the engram necessary to resolve the case and find the engram in a sufficient condition that it will resolve and it's only an hour's run. It's nothing. It's nothing. It's agony but if the auditor's got some idea of what an engram is, the pc's perfectly willing to go through the agony. You just never saw anybody so anxious to go through the agony. He also never saw anybody quite so upset as an auditor who doesn't want him to go through any agony. Hm? "Oh, well, the poor fellow, he's uh — I don't know, he seems to be in trouble. Are you in trouble?"

"Well, for Christ's sakes, what do you think!"

"Well, I don't know." Auditor says to himself, "How can he be in trouble? He's sitting there in the auditing chair and this room is a perfectly quiet room." And he has no idea whatsoever that the pc is in a thenness which is more real than nowness, but actually to the pc it appears to be now. And the pc is in the middle of this thing which might be a torture chamber, it might be a Safeway store and on the other hand it might be the cockpit of an airplane. Who knows? Lord knows, he doesn't.

And then you say to him something on the order of "Well, I don't think really that uh . . . Seems to be too rough for you, you know, and uh, you ought to really, uh, come out of it somehow and you realize that we've only got a few minutes left till the end of session."

This would speak, you see, with absolutely no reality on the auditor's part what the hell the pc's going through. That's the hill that's got to be climbed. Because in a lot of places and a lot of times, these things will have to be run by somebody with no damn fool reality on them of any kind whatsoever. And somehow or other they'll have to muck through and get the thing run. They'll have ARC breaks by the ton and snapping the guy out of session and snapping him into present time and collapsing the bank on him and getting him twice as confused as he should have been and turning somatics up five times as high as they ought to be. But somehow or another it'll get run. you understand?

But in the bulk of cases we've just taken off maybe, oh, I don't know, a thousand hours of running to Clear. This is why people aren't going to Clear.

They go into an engram on a Prehav run and they say, "Well, that answered the auditing question. It's perfectly all right for me now not to have anything more to do with that. Good." They don't notice it's all their chronic somatics or anything like that. They're too glad, you see, to just hide the thing under the chair seat and skip it.

And they run into another one. And there's a bunch of harquebus men standing on the palisade and they say, "Well, when have you failed to endure?"

"Well, I failed to endure right there in front of that palisade. Yeah, there they go, pluzoom! you see, and boom. And so on. I sure failed to endure. Yeah. Well, that's the end of that engram. Okay. Let's see. Let's have another one." Another command. "I answered the command. That's it. Nothing to do with me." Because, of course, the keynote of these things is total irresponsibility. "Nothing to do with me."

And then he goes on and he goes through another one. By the time he's hit about five of these things, why, man, it's about time somebody threw him a lifeline. Because he will now hang up from there on out and ordinary Prehav runs will not do a thing for him on any kind of a progress line that you would consider a fast progress line. So they could just actually be audited for weeks. Why? Well, they'll see these things again and then they say, "Well, I ran that once," and so on. you get what happens?

They're running an escape mechanism of some kind or another on these incidents.

Now, you sort them out on an E-Meter, find the engram necessary to resolve this out of these five the person has contacted and you just have to start talking to him about the incident, you don't have to do anything fancy about going into it. Well, hell, he's in it. He's got all the somatics of it. Where else would he be? How could he have the somatics of it if he wasn't in the incident?

Well, there's no trick in putting him in the incident. And, of course, the keynote of all engrams is "not-know." And you ask him all the not-knows out of the incident and what shouldn't be known and what isn't known and what he doesn't know and all of a sudden it starts to run. It starts making a story and he builds it up more and he can tell you more about it and does. And then you run more "not-know" and get some more stuff off of it. And then you find out that he just seems to be stuck in one particular place and he isn't going anywhere now. And no matter how much "not-know" he seems to run and you say, "Well, what is happening there? What is going on?"

And, "Well, I'm sitting at the wheel of this car and it just doesn't seem to be going anyplace."

"Well, where is the car?"

"Well, I don't know."

"Well, what don't you know about it?"

"Well, I don't know — I don't know where this embankment leads to. Car's halfway up this embankment."

"All right. Run the car backwards onto the track."

"Huh! I can do that!"

"Good. Run the car backwards onto the track. Thank you. Well, good, run the car backwards onto the track again. Do that a few times. Back on the track. Back on the track. Back on the track. Back on the track. Back on the . . . All right. Now, what don't you know about this?"

"Oh, God!"

What you've done is run the resistance, the tremendous resistance toward going over an embankment into a crowd. Don't you see? And the resistance is such that you've got to run it backwards. You've got to get the pc's effort not to go into the crowd off. And the engram will now start running again. And all of a sudden the car does go up over the embankment and turns over eight times and comes down squash on the head of fifteen spectators. The pc very cheerfully will do that then. Got the idea? And you just have to keep it moving, keep these points of hang-up resolved and you have to know what you're doing, that's all. There's no substitute for it.

And we know all the tricks there are to run engrams. And there aren't very many. And you've got the common denominator of engrams. You know how to find the engram necessary to resolve the case, the engram that will run and the engram where the somatics are all residual that isn't dependent on any other engram for its somatics. You've got all those things. What the hell more do you want?

Well, what more do you want is actually a subjective reality on what they look like and how they go and where they go.

Now, it hasn't anything to do with the occlusion of a case. This is another piece of news. Case is occluded, muted," to hell with it. What is an occluded case? Stuck in an engram which is an occlusion engram.

You've got this fellow down in the engine room of a spaceship and the lights go out and he doesn't know what happens. Three seconds later his engines blow up and they've never blown up before. There he is. Of course, he doesn't ever move forward into the blowup of the engines. He sticks there at the point where the lights went out. He has a black field. "What don't you know about this?"

"Well, I just don't know anything about it."

"Well, what are you looking at?"

"I'm looking at nothing."

"What's the nothing look like?"

"Well, it looks black like any other nothingness."

Idiotic type of questioning that goes on, you see. If you've got a subjective reality on it, you know what questions to ask.

You say, "Well, all right, what happened just before this?" Because the auditor can always move to the somatic strip faster than the pc can. "What happened just before this?"

"Whew! What happened before this? Oh, oh, that's another thought!"

"What don't you know about it?"

"I don't know why the lights went out."

"Oh, you got lights on there just before that?"

"Yeah!"

"All right. Well, move back into that area there. All right. Now, what don't you know about that?"

"Well, I don't know where the ship is going."

And, of course, we've got an engram running right there, bangity-bangbang And this was an occluded case. Or the case with the little rockets that keep going across the line, the little rockets that keep going across the line. It's just a section out of an engram.

There is a condition here of pretended knowingness which can get in our road. And this must be looked on by you simply as an escape factor to end all escape factors. When the knowingness is too horrible and the not-knowingness is too thick and then the person feels too stupid about it, they're liable to dream it up. And these dreamed-up ones all go off like hot butter. There's nothing unknown about any part of them.

That's an engram?

Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha. The hell it is. This is dub-in of Book One.

Now, you're not going to find any of it running this way because you're going to get the guy into the engram necessary to resolve the case. You're going to ask him if there were any of these pictures that he was in, in himself, and what he was looking at, at the time. You're going to get it located on the meter, you're going to hold him in that instant of time and so on.

Your Prehav Scale normally discharges obsessive change and other things of this character so that these things are to some degree taken care of But you are going to run into people that are pretty hard to settle down into that one. Just the second you say, "Well, which one were you actually in and looking at the scenery? And the scenery was in 3-D during this Prehav run."

"Oh, you're talking about that one I ran into a long time ago, the last — couple of weeks ago. Oh, yeah, well, that one, that's nothing to that. Actually that was a time when I was a young subaltern and we were over in France and uh — I uh — was.. . I know what I was responsible for there, you see. I was uh...."

Well, just look at it. What is this? This is defense, defense, defense, defense, defense. He doesn't know a thing about it or it wouldn't be an engram. It wouldn't be acting on your meter when you asked for an engram.

You say, "Well, now, just as you — where, where'd — how did you pick up this picture? Just what's — what did the picture itself look like?

"Well, I was there, and there was — well, there was a trench in front of me. Parapet. Periscope. That's the picture."

Oh, "Is that the picture?"

"Yes. And I know what it was because, you see, I made a mistake in the firing parapet, and I telephoned it all back wrong, you see, and then the whole regiment was wiped out. And so forth. I feel very guilty about the whole...."

"All right. Good. Thank you. Thank you very much. Well, what don't you know about that parapet?"

"Oh, know everything about it. Uh — except uh — where it is."

Now, you know you are getting somewhere. "Where is it? What else don't you know about it?"

"Well, what it's made out of Is it concrete or something?"

"What else don't you know about it?"

"Well, why it's so fuzzy."

"Well, what else don't you know about it?"

"Well, what I'm supposed to be looking at."

"Well, what else don't you know about it?"

"Well, where I was."

"What else don't you know about it?"

"What I was."

"What else don't you know about it?"

"Who I was. Where I was. What this is. What am I doing here?" You know?

And we find out it is not a trench, it was not World War I, he was not a subaltern, it was not on this planet. It's an atomic power plant observation parapet. He was guilty of something, he did get the right angle there. But that was about it, see. That's as far as the data was factual. Get the idea?

The keynote of an engram is the pc knows nothing about it. Pretended knowingness is going to get in your road and you're going to buy garbage. And then some day you're going to invalidate some pc's straight dope. You'll be sorry. It wasn't garbage, see? It was an implant script. Something weird, you see, this kind of thing.

But you can find these things and you can run them. And you can run them with no great reality on them providing you don't keep jerking the pc's attention out of it with a bunch of technical nonsense like "All right, is it all right with you if I give you two more commands of this unknown process?"

"Dad um-dad um."

"Is there anything you would care to say now before I end this process?"

"You're goddamn rights there's something I would care to say! Here I was a here in the middle of this whirlpool minding my own business and where are you?" The pc can get pretty revengeful.

All you've done is a painful shift of attention. When you start running an engram, you'll run an engram.

Well, you can ask all kinds of oddball auditing questions. And you'll actually use repetitive questions in streams or bursts like you fire a machine gun. "What isn't known about that? What isn't known about that?" You know? "Thank you. What isn't known about that? What else isn't known about that? Well, what isn't known about that? All right. Is there anything else around there that isn't known about that? Is there anything else that isn't known about that? Thank you very much."

There isn't anything else known about that. And he seems to be kind of slowing down on this now.

And we say, "Well, is there something there that others don't know about that? All right. Thank you. That's good. Anything else others don't know about that? All right. Anything else others don't know about that? Anything else others don't know about that?"

Now, we seem to have that kind of cleaned up and we say, "Well, is there any effort to forget anything in here? Oh, there isn't? All right. Thank you very much. Well, what isn't known about that? Good. What isn't known about that? Good. What isn't known about that? Good. What isn't known about that now? All right. Is anything known about it? Do you know anything about it now? All right."

"Oh, so-and-so and so-and-so."

"All right. What are you looking at there? All right. Good enough. Is there any spot there that's consistent, that just stays there, or anything else like that?"

"Yeah, well, this rock projection on the wall, that seems to be something."

"Well, what don't you know about that? Okay. Good. What don't you know about that? All right. What's unknown about that rock projection? Thank you. What's unknown about that rock projection? Thank you. What's unknown about that rock projection? Thank you."

"Oh. Oh, oh!"

"Oh, that's where you hit your head."

"Ooohhh!"

"Okay."

It's pointless to ask any further because the pc, of course, has got the unknownness off it.

You say, "All right, now what's unknown about that incident? Good. What's unknown about that incident? What's unknown about that incident? What's unknown about that incident? What shouldn't be known about the incidents? Good. What shouldn't be known about it? Good. Oh, all right. Well, what shouldn't be known about it? All right. Well, what else shouldn't be known about it? Oh, thank you. All right. What else shouldn't be . . . What's you doing What do you run into? What's happening? Oh? What are you looking at? What's it look like? Oh, all right. Well, what shouldn't be known about that? Okay. All right. Now, what shouldn't be known about this incident? All right. What shouldn't be known about that incident? Good. All right. What's unknown about the incident? Oh, you say everything's known about it now? All right. Well, what happened? All right."

He tells you, you know. "So-and-so, and so-and-so, and so-and-so."

"All right. Are there any other unknowns in there that you can spot, one place or another?"

"Yeah, well...."

And of course listening to him you know damn well he knows nothing whatsoever about a certain sequence of it because he hasn't noticed that at one time he is standing on a cliff and another time he is standing on the top of a spaceship; he never noticed that he has never transited between these two places so it doesn't make sense.

You can ask him something blunt, you know. Don't be unreal about it. "Well, how did you get on the cliff?"

"What cliff?"

"Oh, the cliff. The cliff you're standing on every once in a while."

"Oh, that's right, I was on the cliff. Standing on the top of a spaceship. They're two different places. Ha-ha. I didn't know they were two different places."

"All right. What else don't you know about that?"

"Well, how I got from one place to the other."

"What else don't you know about that?"

"Well, the condition I'm in on the cliff."

"Okay. What else don't you know?"

"Ouch!"

"What happened then?"

"Well, I don't know. Gee whiz! There's a whole other sequence up here on the cliff I didn't know I got up here on the cliff. For heaven's sakes, I must have gotten blown out of the spaceship and . . . No, I didn't get blown out of the spaceship, I walked. No, I didn't walk. There was another space.. . No, there's a space. . . oh, I see, there's the space lifeboat down there wrecked at the bottom of the cl — I get it. Oh, I see."

"Well, what do you see?"

"Well I — don't you see, you idiot? You know, I — I — I thought I'd get away in a space lifeboat. And I didn't make it. But actually I teetered on top of the cliff and then just as I got out of the thing I was hit with this withering blast of fire. That's what that is all about. See, simple. That's why I got all these face somatics I've got right now."

"Well, what don't you know about those face somatics?"

"Well, I don't know where they came from."

"Okay. What else don't you know there? Good. Thank you. What else don't you know? What else is unknown? Good. What else is unknown about the top of the cliff there? Good. What else is unknown about the top of the cliff? Good. What else is known about the top of the cliff? What else is unknown about...."

"Well, I guess I've got it now."

"Well, what have you got?"

"Oh, well, there are a bunch of natives up there, a bunch of wogs and so forth, armed with electronic cannon."

Wogs armed with electronic cannon. Doesn't makes sense, but you say, "Well, all right, what don't you know about those wogs?"

"Well, I don't know if they're wogs."

See, you'll see his impulses to write script. And then all of a sudden you'll see he does find out what happened. And you'll see the gradual arising of the situation and the gradual integration of it. Pretty soon all the somatics will be gone and the whole thing will be clear from beginning to end. Ask him to run through it a few times. Just — just running an engram as offhandedly as this. This is — of course, the thing is all cleared up. There's no pieces left in it that you can detect.

And you say, "All right, why don't you start in at the beginning of this engram and run on through to the end a few times, see if you can pick up anything else." He does. you don't say, "Go to the beginning of the engram and run through the engram to the end of the engram. Now, give me the phrases necessary to resolve the case...." See? Just go on, run through it a few times. He does. He does. He does.

"Oh, there is something here!"

"What?"

"Well, I don't know why this ship was only equipped with one lifeboat."

"Oh. Well, what else about that?"

"Well, there's two lifeboat hatches, you see and one is empty."

"Oh? Well, is there anything happened before this incident that you have omitted?"

"Oh, I get what this is about. The pilot of the ship had already deserted the ship and left me and I didn't know anything about running the ship. Now, it makes sense." And, bong! he gets the rest of the somatics.

And you say, "All right. Now, is there anything else that's unknown about that incident?"

"No, no. I've got it all taped now. Got it all taped."

"Well, run through it a few more times and see if you can get anything out of it that you might have missed."

"No, I've got it!"

"Well, just run through it anyhow."

And he does and he says, "Well, it's all gone. There's nothing else there."

And you say, "I'll check over these various points. Now how about the top of the cliff?"

"Oh, yeah, I got that."

"How about the wogs?"

"Well, they weren't wogs, you know. It was the other part of the army. We were mutineers, you see. I thought I told you." And so on and the guy got that and we got this all straight. All fine. It's all running okay. It's fine.

"Well, you got any somatics?"

"Nope. Nope, don't got any somatics."

"Got any sensations?"

"Good. No sensations."

"Any places where you don't feel anything at all?"

"No. Well, come to think about it, I don't have any sensation from the waist down."

"All right. Is that in this incident?"

"Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, as a matter of fact, yeah, yeah. That's when we first crashed. Yeah. Oh, I got that. That's very early in the incident. Yeah."

"Well, how are your legs now?"

"Well, they feel all right."

"Well, what did you pick up there?"

"Oh, I just picked up crashing."

"All right. Is that okay now?"

"Yeah."

"Well, what are you looking at?"

"Oh, the ground down there about five feet."

"Well, is the ship on the ground?"

"No. No, it's about five feet up from the ground."

"Well, it hasn't hit yet, is that right? All right. Good. Crash backwards a half a dozen times."

"How do you mean?"

"Well, just — just go backwards from the crash spot."

"All right. Okay. Move. Move. Move. Oh, I see. I see what you — I was stuck!" He had a big, big cognition, see.

"All right. Now, how are your legs?"

"Well, they're all right."

"Now, tell me about the crash."

"Oh, went down and so and so. Oh, there's the last of it. Now, that's it."

"How are your legs now? Got sensation in your legs?"

"Yeah."

"Well, are there any more somatics in this thing anyhow? Look it over carefully and tell me if there are any more somatics in it?"

"Nope. There are no more somatics."

"Any more dead feelings? Any more sensations? Anything else in this incident at all? Good. Well, do you have sonic in the incident?"

"No. No, I haven't heard anything."

Leave it alone. Don't bother to turn on the perceptions any higher than they're turned up. Just mark it down in your book that after you've run two or three more incidents off this particular case, you're going to go back and find the sonic in this incident. Okay?

Perceptions are the last things to turn on. There will be a sense of smell in there someplace and so on. you just — a careful auditor makes sure that he just gets all the perceptions out of it eventually. So he should keep it in his auditing record that he didn't get the perceptions out of this, such as smell. Got what I'm talking about? He didn't get the sound out of it.

Sometimes pcs will really flash back at you if you start asking them for smells or sounds or something like that. You're turning it up too real on them. That's just turning up too damn real and actually can be suppressed one incident to the next. At the time they had this crash on the plane, their sonic had been off for the last eight or nine trillennia. See, their sonic isn't off in this — is off in this incident, but didn't turn off in this incident. Got the idea? Because perception is something that declines gradually over a long period of time, but somatics are something which are right now. see how that would be?

It's very funny when the pc's sonic starts coming on. Of course, he hears everything all played backwards and upside down in one hell of a jumble. So he — his natural impulse is to turn it off promptly.

You'll get somatic impulses turned off during auditing. And if you're eventually smoothing the case out and giving him sonic and all the rest of this thing, you'll have to pick up the turnoffs in the auditing too, you know?

There was this awful crash and they decided they didn't want to hear any part of it. And the sonic went off Sonic is very easy for a pc to turn off. Okay?

Now, running an incident is your fast way out. And that shortens this down considerably. And we continue on with our efforts to shorten clearing as much as possible. And I think when you see this thing in action you will really know you've gotten someplace. The first thing that you've got to learn, however, is how to do a good Security Check and how to do a good "keep the rudiments in." How do you keep the rudiments in, in a session? And then how to do a good Goals Assessment. How to do a good Terminal Assessment. How to do a good Prehav Assessment.

If you've got these things, why, you've got the thing taped right up to that point where you have to know how to run an engram. And the one thing that's going to teach you that is running one, yourself — inside, you, with somebody else auditing And that will teach you everything you want to know about it.

And then you will be telling me all the knuckleheaded stunts auditors can pull. Well, that's fine as long as you get through it and as long as you push pcs through engrams.

Shouldn't take more than an hour, two hours, something like that, to run one of these incidents. If it's taking longer than that, your rudiments are so wildly out, you shouldn't have been running it in the first place.

I'll give you an example. I was doing this last night and before I started the session I took up for the fifteen or twenty minutes with the pc — this was auditing but it was not in session — why the pc did or did not deserve auditing. I just wondered if the pc deserved auditing or not. And so we discussed this for fifteen or twenty minutes in oblique ways and got a lot of locks off and did a lot of little Straightwire stunts, and so forth. Cleaned this sort of thing up and then started the session. Because I was going to run an engram in that session, I didn't want anybody running an engram in a session who didn't think they deserved any auditing. Okay?

Do you see this is a finite package of skills?

It is a finite package of skills. It is not very many. Of course, we assume that you can do your TRs. We assume that you can do a Model Session. We assume you know E-Meter essentials. We assume these things.

And I'm almost of a mind to just go on assuming them and kicking people's heads in who don't know them. Because I'll tell you, for all of these things, a person's got to know how to run an E-Meter, a person's got to know to do a Model Session before they can do any auditing at all and their TRs have got to be in before they can do any of these things at all. But these you can look on as elementary skills.

Now, you're looking at another level of skill. The level of skill of keeping rudiments in. The level of skill of actually finding somebody's goal rather rapidly. It's easy to do just to the degree that they're not ARC broke with sessions. Finding somebody's terminal very rapidly. Assessing the person. And then, first and foremost, of course, after that comes the ability to run an engram. These are finite.

But, of course, that whole thing falls down if you can't do a Security Check. I think that whole package there sort of rounds it up. If you can do these things, you can make the grade. If you can't do these things, you can't make the grade.

Clearing consists of that. There is what clearing consists of. Because every case I find now that is hanging up in clearing has contacted incidents and these incidents are now blooey — you know, they're unrun and should be run — or the pc has not done any of the auditing commands. That's part of the basic skill of auditing, is making sure that the pc does the auditing command, isn't it?

But in this one lecture I've actually discussed all of the elements of auditing. I may not have given you all the details. I've given you an awful lot of the engram running and, actually, the engram running is not really more complicated than I have given you; it is no more complicated than that.

Using these materials you should be able to clear. Clearing is overdue. Overdue in a lot of your hands and so on.

And now I have an announcement to make. That anybody who makes a Clear from scratch automatically gets a DScn. And there's no other way to get one.

Thank you. Okay?