 
Subject: FZ Bible 4/9 LEVEL 1 TAPES 
Date: 1999/06/26 
Author: Secret Squirrel <squirrel@echelon.alias.net> 
   Posting History    
 
FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST
 
LEVEL 1 TAPE TRANSCRIPTS (SHSBC LECTURES) 4/9
 
**************************************************
 
Contents 
 
1 Contents + Appendix HCOPL 10 Oct 61 Problems Intensive
2 SHSBC-18  renumbered  20  22 Jun 61  Running CCHs
3 SHSBC-21  renumbered  23  27 Jun 61  CCHs-Circuits
4 SHSBC-46  renumbered  50  29 Aug 61  Basics of Auditing
5 SHSBC-64  renumbered  68  10 Oct 61  Problems Intensive
6 SHSBC-65  renumbered  69  11 Oct 61  Problems Intensive Assessment 7 SHSBC-295 renumbered 324  15 Aug 63  The Tone Arm
8 SHSpec-17 renumbered 379  21 Apr 64  Problems and Solutions
9 SHSpec-42 renumbered 405  13 Oct 64  Cycles of Action
 
Based on the modern clearsound academy cassettes plus 6 of the 8 lectures were also checked against the old pre-clearsound cassettes (omissions marked ">"). 
 
Note that two of the tapes posted by Zenon in the FPRD cassettes are also often included in level 1.  These are:
 
SHSBC-61  renumbered  65  3 Oct 61  The Prior Confusion
SHSpec-12 renumbered 374  19 Mar 64  Flattening a Process
 
Note that two of the Freedom Congress lectures are also
included in the modern level 1 academy cassettes.  We will
be doing these as part of the complete Freedom Congress
later this summer.  They are
 
FC-4  5 Jul 57 Basic Theory of CCHs
FC-15 7 Jul 57 CCH: Steps 1-4 Demo
 
A complete list of Freedom Congress, SHSBC, and all other tapes
can be found in Pilot's tape master list available at fza.org.
We recommend it for use in keeping track of tape renumbering.
 
**************************************************
 
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE 
 
Our purpose is to promote religious freedom and the Scientology
Religion by spreading the Scientology Tech across the internet.
 
The Cof$ abusively suppresses the practice and use of
Scientology Tech by FreeZone Scientologists.  It misuses the
copyright laws as part of its suppression of religious freedom.
 
They think that all freezoner's are "squirrels" who should be stamped out as heritics.  By their standards, all Christians, 
Moslems, Mormons, and even non-Hassidic Jews would be considered to be squirrels of the Jewish Religion.
 
The writings of LRH form our Old Testament just as the writings
of Judiasm form the Old Testament of Christianity.
 
We might not be good and obedient Scientologists according
to the definitions of the Cof$ whom we are in protest against.
 
But even though the Christians are not good and obedient Jews,
the rules of religious freedom allow them to have their old 
testament regardless of any Jewish opinion.  
 
We ask for the same rights, namely to practice our religion
as we see fit and to have access to our holy scriptures
without fear of the Cof$ copyright terrorists.
 
We ask for others to help in our fight.  Even if you do
not believe in Scientology or the Scientology Tech, we hope
that you do believe in religious freedom and will choose
to aid us for that reason.
 
Thank You,
 
The FZ Bible Association
 
**************************************************
 
 
BASICS OF AUDITING
 
A lecture given on 29 August 1961
 
SHSBC-46 renumbered 50  29 Aug 61 Basics of Auditing
 
[rerecorded by Pubs WW]
 
[Checked against the old pre-clearsound academy cassettes,
material missing from the clearsound version is marked ">"] 
 
 
> (applause)
>
> Thank you.  (applause)
>
> Oh applaud Suzie. She was talking to me ... (applause)
>
> Thank you.  (to MSH) Thank em.
>
> MSH: Thank you.  (laughter)
>
> Now thank me for getting you some applause. (laughter)
 
All right. This is the 29th of August 1961. And I'm often
gagging about using notes in lectures. But this particular
lecture I have some notes for, believe it or not. That's
because this is a very, very tricky subject. And I'm going
to talk to you about something that is going to make you
more auditing gains in less time as an auditor and make us
more Clears than any other single subject we have opened up
on in recent times.
 
Now, this is quite an important lecture. This lecture
should be a basic on HPA and an absolute necessity at the
level of HCS/B.Scn. And if a D.Scn. is missing these
points, we ought to revoke his thetan! But this is quite
important, this material - not to give it an overstress of
some kind or another, because I don't think it could be
overstressed.
 
Now, you see, earlier this summer I was confronted with the
fact that with all the materials in hand as to how to clear
people, very few Clears were being made. Interesting, huh?
But every time we have borne down on the subject of
auditing and accuracy of auditing, all of a sudden we have
people finding their goals and terminals, you see, finding
goals and terminals on PCs and we have more Clears being made.
 
This is very direct. We have had this experience here. We
are all, I'm sure, agreed that it was a matter of the
rudiments were out. And just as soon as I said "Well, we've got some kind of a games condition going here, and the
rudiments are out, and you'll find it in the first 150,"
it's proven true. I think maybe we got, maybe, something on
the order of one or two goals out of fifteen cases that are
still not found since that was released just a few days
ago, right? 
 
Female voice: Yes, two cases.
 
Just two cases, see? Interesting.
 
And in every case, the goal was within the first 150, and
yet they had assessed for weeks and weeks and weeks after
that first 150. See, they'd added it up to a thousand and
all gone up and on and on and more and more goals, and
longer and longer assessment. And I said, "Well, go back to the first 150 I think that's where you found them, isn't
it? Interesting, isn't it? So that all the time after the
first 150, certainly, goals were taken, then the rudiments
were out during auditing. Obviously the rudiments were out.
The goal was buried. And as soon as the rules were put
right, the goal came back in, perked up and
pangity-pangity-pang, and everything was going along
gorgeously. As my friend Paul said the other day, we were
all off at a smart trot.
 
Now, here's a point, then. Here's a point of some interest:
that by improving auditing technology and the skill of
individual auditors, we then come closer to very broad
clearing. It is not case difficulties that are restraining
the PC, now, from getting Clear. All the evidence is in,
and that's what it adds up to. All right.
 
Therefore, the stress must be on auditor technology, the
handling of technical aspects of Scientology. Now, the
better that is, the more Clears you're going to make. We've
got the weapons with which to make Clears. There aren't any
bugs in it. I haven't written up your last Prehav Scale,
but you mostly have it right now. There's no missing items
of any importance that would restrain this from happening.
So therefore we come back on auditor technology.
 
Now, I don't want you to accept anything I am saying as
accusative, casewise, or anything like that. I'm simply
going to give you data here, and this data is very well
worth having. This data was arrived at the hard way. It
would be a withhold from you to tell you otherwise than that it
was arrived at, at a hard way, on the hard line. I've been
getting some auditing. Sessions have been going out. We sat
down and analyzed, and we have analyzed, now, all the
points where sessions were going out and so forth. I got a
good reality on that, and Suzie got a good reality on it,
and we were straightening out these points. Because,
frankly, we weren't doing it particularly to find out more
about auditing, but it's just stuff that came up and we
analyzed accordingly. And apparently, what it boils down to
is not auditing attitude or anything as nebulous as this.
It boils down to very concrete data, which you'll be happy
to find out.
 
Now, as an auditor, perhaps, you say, "Well, there are so
many rules of auditing, and which one of these rules of
auditing should I be following, and how much memorizing of
rules and all of this sort of thing should I do?" Well,
basically, first and foremost, if you are worried about the
rules of auditing, there is something wrong with your
auditing approach.
 
We can count on that, then, as a stable datum: that if
somebody is worried about the rules about auditing and the
zigs and the zags and so forth about auditing, and terribly
concerned with these things and so forth, then there's
something basically wrong. Because auditing, fundamentally,
is simply this - it goes back to the Original Thesis: The
auditor plus the PC is greater than the PC's bank. And the
auditor is there to direct the PC's attention and to keep
the PC in session and to remain in control of the session
and get auditing done.
 
Aside from saying what auditing is therapeutically - supposed
to be doing this and that, and making Clears and freeing up
attention and the various theoretical and technical aspects
of Scientology - when you've talked about auditing, you've
said it when you have said that.
 
Auditor plus the PC is greater than the PC's reactive bank.
And the auditor is there to direct the attention of the PC
and get the PC in there and get these objects confronted
and straightened out and the unknowns off and the bank
straightened out and the track straightened out, and so
forth, and he winds up at the other end with a Clear. That
is what it amounts to with the technical knowledge of what
you do with a PC. It all boils down to that. You are there
to get auditing done. The less auditing you do which is
effective auditing, the more upset your PC is going to be.
 
Now, let's take the first object lesson here: The auditor
sits down in the auditing chair; the PC sits down in the
PC's chair. What is the contract? What is the understood
contract as of that instant? That understood contract is a
very simple contract: The PC sat down to be audited.
 
What does the PC understand by being audited? He basically
understands it as getting on toward Clear. What he means
"toward Clear," we're not sure a lot of the time, but even that: he senses it is there, he senses he's got a direction
to go, he senses that he can arrive at a certain
destination, and he's there to get that done. Now, he's not
there to have ARC breaks run, present time problems
handled; he's not there to straighten out the auditing
room; he's not there to have any of these things done at
all that we call rudiments. He is there to get audited
toward Clear.
 
Well, the first observation we can make: that rudiments go
out to the degree that auditing doesn't get done. That's a
direct ratio. Rudiments go out to the degree that auditing
does not get done.
 
Now, this poses you a problem. If you are using no session
to put rudiments in - if you use up no time at all to put
rudiments in - of course, you're apparently around the bend
as far as handling the PC, because the rudiments are out.
You see, here's a puzzle that we face at once.
 
If you're not spending any time putting the rudiments in,
of course the rudiments are going to go out. But the more
time you spend putting the rudiments in, the more rudiments
you've got to put in. Have you got that?
 
So, somewhere here there's an optimum amount of rudiments
putting-in, and it's not very much. It's on the order of
five minutes. You know, five minutes and the rudiments are
in: The PC will bear with that, but not much more. And when
it goes to a half an hour, his present time problem is
actually, basically, the fundamental problem of getting
auditing.
 
Now, he'll say the present time problem is something else,
is something else, is something else, is something else;
but his basic problem: is he going to get any auditing? And
after he's had half, three-quarters of a session thrown
away on a bunch of things that he didn't care about, why,
of course, now he has a new present time problem called
"getting auditing." In the next session, he comes in with this new present time problem: "Am I ever going to get
audited?" because he doesn't consider any of these other
things auditing.
 
Now, that's quite fascinating: He doesn't consider them
auditing. So therefore, of course he's out of session. From
a PC's viewpoint, auditing is a direct press forward,
getting himself straightened out so he can get a good Goals
Assessment, and finding his terminal - if he knows anything
about it at all, this is what he demands - and getting
auditing straight along on the road to Clear, and knowing
he's getting someplace and all of that sort of thing. This
is what he really settles for. This is by experience.
Because if you want to keep somebody in session -  they will
even hang on for months, as we know now, getting assessed
for goals; even though the goals are all invalidated and
everything else, they're still interested and they'll still
go to session, don't you see? Even though the thing is
being run completely crosswise, you see, they'll still go
to session and still be assessed. You got that?
 
Well, they won't be run endlessly on general processes that
don't approach them any closer to Clear. They'll only go
for maybe seventy-five or a hundred hours and they'll leave
the HGC.
 
And they take a lot of persuading to get back and they
won't want to be audited by you anymore, you know, in
private practice, and so forth and ... What are all these
things from? From the basic present time problem of not
getting auditing. So actually your main chance is simply to
audit the PC.
 
If it comes to a question of whether to audit the PC or go
through some arduous flipperoo on straightening out some
kind of a super relationship, or something, audit the PC
first. See? Now, you've got to find out what the PC's
attention is on and what he considers auditing, and he very
often considers it a chronic present time problem of some
kind or another - a long-duration problem. And he judges
everything as to whether or not he's making process by
whether or not this problem is getting stronger, getting
weaker - the hidden standard sort of thing; he's got all that
sort of thing. Well, he'll be interested in that. Why?
'Cause his attention is on it. So that's auditing.
 
So auditing could be defined, to the PC, as anything which
is handling the things his attention is fixed on. See?
That's what he considers auditing. If his attention is
super fixed on it and it's being handled, he considers that
auditing. And of course his attention is super fixed on
goals, so you can get away with assessing practically
forever. He will stay in there being assessed longer than
he will stay in there being run on oddball, bit-and-piece
general processes that don't lead toward Clear. Isn't that
fascinating? That's an observation that I think you'll find
is quite valid.
 
Now, if it came to a choice as to whether or not we went
about it endlessly, endlessly, endlessly running rudiments
to get them in, or auditing the PC, you would always choose
what the PC considered auditing. You would always choose
what the PC considered auditing, and let the rudiments go
to hell. And the next thing you know, they'll disappear in
importance.
 
Remember, what you validate becomes important. You start
handling too many present time problems and ARC breaks too
arduously and too long and, believe me, you'll get more ARC
breaks. Why do you get more ARC breaks? You get them simply
because auditing itself is a present time problem, because
he isn't getting auditing. In his viewpoint, he is not
getting auditing he is not sure he will get auditing;
therefore, his contract is violated so he is in
disagreement with what is happening in the session. Do you
follow that?
 
Now, a PC will sit there and endlessly run 1A. Why? Well,
his attention is stuck on it. His attention is stuck on all
these problem points, you see? He considers it auditing as
long as you are auditing in the direction of his problems,
of course. So he will settle for 1A. It's amazing
how long he will run how many versions of 1A. See? This is
amazing, too. If you were to flatten 1A, then, as we
already have talked about, and gotten problems and Security
Checks totally out of the road, you would find your PC
would stay in session and think he was going someplace, and
of course he is going someplace. And if you were to flatten
1A, giving the rudiments a lick and a promise, before you
did a Goals Assessment, you'd find out your rudiments were
in when you were doing the Goals Assessment, because, you
see, the PC now can confront problems. You've already
brought him up to the point of being able to confront the
rudiments before you started fooling with the rudiments.
You got the idea? Although you run rudiments every session,
although you try to find out what they are, although you
try to knock them out, although you do run some havingness
on the room and you keep the rudiments in ... Nobody is
saying just forget rudiments, but don't consider rudiments
anything like a session. Don't ever make the mistake that
the PC will think he is getting a session when rudiments
are being run.
 
You'll find PC after PC, when you ask him, "Do you have a
present time problem?" will groan, because he knows now
that his session is going to be endlessly chewed up with
the "John and Mary" of life, and he doesn't consider he's getting anyplace. Why doesn't he consider he's getting
anyplace? Because he knows he's getting no place with his
wife, and so forth. Well, you say, "Well, that's a
problem," but he doesn't consider this the general problem
of his case, by any means.
 
You have found a problem: He is worried about having to
write Blitz & Company. And you say, "Well, we'll have ..." and you just start to make the motion toward handling
this problem of having his attention on Blitz & Company and
the letter he's got to write to them, and you get, "Oh, no! My God! (sigh)" You've heard him, huh?
 
Well, why do you get this? He doesn't consider Blitz &
Company auditing. He doesn't consider Blitz & Company as
any difficulty. But he does consider that not getting
auditing will produce an enormous difficulty.
 
The value which a PC assigns to auditing should be
appreciated by you. It is terribly highly valued - very
highly valued by the PC. And this is a great oddity,
because actually, psychoanalysis was never highly valued;
hypnotism is not highly valued; psychiatry they spit on.
They go back for their electric shocks like wound-up dolls,
but you say, "Well, what do you think would happen to you
if you didn't have any psychiatric treatment?" 
 
"Oh, I'd probably be just the same as before. What's the 
difference?"
 
You say, "Well, would you walk across the street for
psychiatric treatment?" 
 
"Hell, no."
 
Well, that's an oddity in itself. See? This is an oddity,
that you're dealing with a commodity which is very highly
valued and which the society has been trying to put into
the field of psychotherapy, but psychotherapy is not highly
valued. So what you're doing, basically, is very highly
valued by the PC. So the more you don't give him of it, the
more difficulty you're going to have with him.
 
If there's ever a crossroads of decision as to whether or
not we're going to endlessly get on with this, even a crude
remark of this character: "Well, I see you've got a present time problem, yeah, and you got a little bit of an ARC
break. All right. Well, okay. To hell with those. We're
just going to run now ..." and you give him the process
and you go on and run it.
 
And you'll be amazed how often the PC will say, "Hey, you
know, he's right in there pitching." He might grump for a
minute, you know, and say, "Well, it's not according to
Hoyle, you know?" But you'll just be amazed how many times
that will win where the endless handling of rudiments won't win. 
 
The endless handling of rudiments is a limiting factor in
auditing, because it produces eventually the ARC break of
obtaining no auditing. So the decision is, audit. You'll
have less ARC breaks the more auditing you do. And of
course, if your auditing is flawless from a standpoint of
Model Session and if some of these other things I'm
bringing up are also present, smoothly, in the session,
your days of having ARC-breaky PCs end as soon as you
recognize that point: that he is there to be audited, and
his basic contract is the basic contract of being audited.
And the more you audit him on the things his attention is
fixedly on - I mean fixedly on, on the long track basis, you
see -  and the more attention you give to that and the more
you handle that, the more he knows he's being audited, the
less ARC breaks you're going to get.
 
It's amazing what a PC will put up with to get auditing,
quite amazing what they will put up with to get auditing.
Why make them put up with anything? But, at the same time,
go on and audit. So the best, hottest message I can give
you on that exact subject is audit! Don't fool with it;
audit! See?
 
What a PC responds to best: "Oh, well. All right. You're
here to be audited. Good enough.
 
Fine. Now, we're going to go over the rudiments. All
right," and you rip on down the rudiments line. You notice
there's a bad flick of some kind or another. You say,
"What's that?" He says, "Well, that's so-and-so." 
 
You say, "Good," and you ask it again. "All right. That's good, good. It's still flicking. Is it still worrying you?
Anything else about it worrying you?"
 
"Well, so-and-so's worrying ..."
 
You say, "All right. Good." Get the next one, bang! The next one, bang! You say, "All right.
 
Now, now let's get down to business. Now, this is the
process I'm going to run, and here it is."
 
And he says, "Well, I don't much care for that process." (I'll take this up in a moment.) And you say, "I don't
care." You say, "I care for it. Do it." You know, that kind of an aspect.
 
And he says, "But so-and-so technically, and it said in
bulletin so-and so ...' You say, "Well, all right. I read it, too. Do it."
 
And you find the guy doesn't go into apathy; quite the
contrary. He goes spark, spark, spark, spark, spark, and
you'll get good gains.
 
All right. There are some more aspects in that. But that
whole first section of what I want to talk to you about is,
for God's sakes, just audit the PC. Don't fool with it,
just audit. You see? Just go right in there and saw it up
and chew it up and push his attention around and get him
through to the other end and ... Well, get 1A all
straight and handle whatever you want to handle. I don't
care what you handle, because this would hold, possibly, if
1A ever became ancient history - this would still hold. Run
the PC toward Clear, and have minimal chop behind your
back, you see, minimal unkind thoughts, minimal ARC breaks,
minimal difficulties in sessions. These all just tend to
disappear.
 
Because he might say, "Well, that auditor of mine is a
cross son of a bitch, but, jeez, he sure audits!" You know, this would be kind of the idea. You got the idea? "He sure
audits." It might be terribly profane, the opinion, you
see? "Well, you don't do right in a session, she's a real
bitch, that auditor, you know?" - you know, that kind of an aspect and that kind of conversation -  "but I'd rather have her audit me than anybody else I know." You know, that
kind, and so on?
 
The HGC, as soon as an HGC auditor - as soon as that became
prevalent in an HGC and as soon as HGC auditors - you just
try and change the auditor on the PC. They had this auditor
last year, or something like that, and they just - well, they
just don't want to be processed unless they can be
processed by the same auditor, because they're very sure
that auditor can audit. But it's not "can audit," although they always use "can audit." The secret is "will audit." And the auditor who kind of won't audit, they don't want.
That's the secret of "being wanted by" as an auditor, is how much you get down to business and how much business you
get done.
 
All right. Now let's take up something a little more
esoteric, here, under the heading of "escape" as a
philosophy. This is a very complicated subject.
 
This is the orientation of an auditor - has to do with his
orientation. This is the only point where an auditor's
orientation can seriously get in his road. As long as he
follows Scientology and goes on auditing and using the
principles of Scientology, this one can get in his road.
All those levels of the Prehav Scale that have to do with
escape that is, abandon, leave, anything like that - if these
are in any way, shape or form hot or if they're not
thoroughly flat on an auditor, you'll get two aspects.
You'll get the auditor letting the PC escape; he wants the
PC to escape, because this is the auditor's modus operandi
of handling situations. And this is as wrong-headed as you
could get, because the only way a PC will ever get Clear is
by turning around and fighting down the devils that pursue
him. And if the auditor's philosophy is "the only thing the PC should be permitted to do is escape," the auditor will
never control the session. And this is why an auditor
doesn't control a session when the auditor doesn't control
a session. He thinks he's being good. He thinks he's being
nice to the PC.
 
Now, let's go about this on a little wider basis. And oddly
enough, under that same heading comes case reality
necessary in an auditor. And we've got the same heading:
It's escape as a philosophy. Case reality is necessary in
an auditor.
 
Exactly what is this that we are looking at when we find
that a Scientologist has never seen or gone through an
engram, when we find that a Scientologist has never
collided with a ridge, when a Scientologist is not aware of
the thenness of incidents? If the Scientologist is not
aware of those things, he will continue to make mistakes,
and no amount of training will overcome it.
 
Knowing this - just knowing this - will overcome it, because it
all of a sudden sees lots of light. Lights begin to flash in
all directions.
 
If a Scientologist has never been through an engram, if a
Scientologist has never been stuck on the track, if a
Scientologist has never seen ridges or any of the other
mental phenomena, it is because his basic philosophy in
life is escape. Now, there is all the wisdom there is in
it. I will go ahead and tell you all about it, but there is
all the wisdom there is in it.
 
Of course, if he's never seen an engram, what is he trying
to do? He's trying to escape from engrams. So he escapes so
hard from engrams that he sees a little flick of a picture
and he's away, man, he's away. He's off like a rocket. He's
off like the Russian never went. See, he's over the hills
and past Arcturus. There's a little twitch of a somatic and
pshew! he's gone.
 
Why?
 
His basic philosophy is that if you can run fast enough you
never get bit. So, of course, he doesn't have what we call
case reality, because of course he's running from his case.
His basic philosophy is "The best way to handle a case is
get out of it," so that's all he ever does with the PC:
takes the PC out of his case. So therefore a PC will never
be in session with him.
 
Oh, lights begin to dawn, huh?
 
It is pure kindness. This auditor will find the PC getting
interiorized a little bit and he'll know that this is the
wrong thing to do. So he will take the pcs attention out
of session. Some of them do it very flagrantly and some of
them do it very pleasantly. It is nevertheless true. One of
the ways of doing it is to change the process. Another way
of doing it is Q and A.
 
PC says, "I don't want to be here."
 
The auditor says, "Of course, you dear fellow; you do not
want to be there. Let's be somewhere else at once."
 
PC shows the slightest inkling of digging into it in the
bank and the auditor pulls him out. The auditor is selling
him freedom. At what cost? The cost of never getting Clear.
But the auditor sells him freedom, and it's a good thing.
It's kindly meant.
 
This same auditor well might have a penchant - doesn't
necessarily, but might have a penchant for going around
opening all the canary-bird cages in the world. But then,
by George, never follows up the fact that the canary birds
are inevitably eaten by cats or killed by hawks, promptly
and at once. Don't you see?
 
The auditor is saying, "Escape, escape, escape." The
auditor is actually saying, "Don't confront it, don't
confront it, don't confront it, don't confront it, don't
confront it." The processes he's running are saying,
"Confront it, confront it, confront it," don't you see? But the auditor, with his auditing technology, prevents the PC
from confronting it, and so therefore runs rudiments
forever, does other things, doesn't quite let the PC go
into session, "makes mistakes," "changes the process often," "ends the session irregularly," does something odd. 
 
And all of these oddities could be said to be backed up by
this one philosophy, the philosophy of escape: The kind
thing to do is to let him out.
 
The guy is settling down on the track in some fashion or
another and he's going out of present time - oh, let's not
let him do that, because that's the wrong thing to do.
 
Now, this is compounded; this is a complex subject, which
is why I said this - earlier in the lecture, it was. The
auditor who has no case reality of course dramatizes this
point. You cannot see engrams while you're running from them.
 
Let's take a model engram that this person is in, and let's
take some of the things that this person has happen to
them. The model engram he is in - he's being whipped. The
Jesuit fathers, or something of the sort, have decided to
really lay it into him on the backtrack, you see, at some
time or another. And they've got him tied to a post, and
he's being whipped. So he cannot leave that post, so he
fixes his attention on a section of sky and says, "It isn't happening." That's escape, isn't it? So what does he find
when he gets into that engram? He finds an invisibility
called sky. He doesn't find any whiplashes, he doesn't find
any post, he doesn't find anything - he finds a section of
sky. That is the final mechanism: escape.
 
Now, he escapes mentally. He doesn't just run away; he
escapes mentally. Don't you see? All right. So that worked;
he didn't feel them after that. So it was a workable
philosophy, perfectly workable philosophy. Unconsciousness
is also a workable philosophy.
 
So he's being tortured on the rack - ah! he fools them all:
He goes unconscious; he can't feel it anymore. We don't
have, then, an engram of the rack; we have a period of
unconsciousness.
 
You see that? He's actually in the incident, but he's only
unconscious.
 
All right. Now, let's go a little bit further here, and
let's take a look at this - a little bit further -  and we'll
find this person has odd somatics and odd difficulties that
he cannot account for. And if he never sees any engrams or
sees them very rarely, of course he can't account for these
difficulties at all. In Book One, it says they're all
contained in pictures, and he doesn't see any pictures, and
yet here are the somatics, and there's no pictures. Of
course there's no pictures, because his attention on any
given point is the solution "escape." Escape mentally: escape mentally by forgetting it; escape mentally by
looking at nothing; escape mentally by saying it isn't
there, you know? - the various mechanisms of not-is.
 
Yet the somatics have not been not-ised. And this person,
every time he "contacted an engram," actually contacted a nothingness and then was left with a nagging somatic or a
sensation that he could not then account for and which
seemed to be very mysterious to him, and therefore didn't
connect any of these sensations much with his bank - don't
you see? - and knows he feels uncomfortable, but can't really
connect it with any given engram. Got it? All right. Let's
take an actual case in point. Person does, in running on
the track, contact an engram, and there it is, all 3-D and
so forth: people standing on the bank throwing a spear. All
right. Spear comes across the river, goes through the PC's
ribs, and the PC has a hell of a somatic and that is the
end of the picture as a PC.
 
This person, now, auditing, says, "Well, why doesn't this
PC handle incidents like that? Well, nothing to it. Spear
went through you and of course phssst - momentary, you know?
Tsk! Flat and gone and you're out of it, and that's it. Now
don't get this idea of being stuck on the track," you see?
"Hooh! Nobody should be stuck on the track. Why doesn't
this PC just flick his attention out, you know? Well, I'll
fix this PC up so he can flick his attention out. I'll pull
this PC's attention out." Don't you see? This is the best
mechanism.
 
You ask this same person (this is an actual case) ... You
ask this same person - you say, "Do you ever have a somatic in that area you just indicated that the spear went through
during that incident?"
 
"Oh, yes, all the time."
 
"Well, does it have anything to do with that spear?"
 
(Person didn't say "all the time"; person said, "Yes, very occasionally.") But, "Does it have anything to do with the spear?"
 
"No, uh ... well, uh ... or does it?"
 
"Well, do you have a lot of odds and ends of somatics of
this particular character?" 
 
"Well, yes, I do."
 
"Are they connected with pictures?"
 
"No." (Actual conversation that took place.) "But I thought all that went out with Dianetics, and in Scientology you no
longer had to confront all of these things."
 
Well, here immediately, of course, you have the tag end of
every engram that the person has contacted - is just stuck,
stuck, stuck, and where are they all? They're all in PT. So
what is PT to this person? PT is certainly just PT, but
actually it's a jam of engrams; so therefore the PC should
be in PT all the time - because the auditor is. The auditor
is never out of PT, so therefore the PC is never out of PT.
 
And this auditor will not actually guide the PC's attention
through an engram, because there's no reality on it. The
best thing to do is to yank the attention out of the
engram. So the auditor will not control the PC's attention,
because escape is the better philosophy. Don't you see why
this is? So there's reality.
 
Now, there's a direct cure for this, and if you wanted to
get anybody who didn't have "any reality on the past
track," "no reality on engrams," no reality on this and that as far as these things are concerned. and was thinking
people are being unreasonable who go into engrams and get
stuck and whose attention are not in present time - this
person, then, is not operating on a reality. They can't
quite tell what the PC is doing, don't you see? So they're
always worried about what the PC is doing because they
themselves have never been in this identical
situation; they get a little bit impatient with the PC,
don't you see? So they're not actually doing a guided tour
of a bank; they're doing a guided yank of a bank.
 
And if you were to run this process on that unreal
case - it's just one process, a one-shot process - you would
suddenly find that they would have an enormous shift of
reality on what we've been talking about all these years.
And the process is "What unknown might you be trying to
escape from?"
 
That's the process. And at first glance, that'll become a
very brutal process, of course, because it'll just start
unstacking this. And one of the first things this PC would
see, who had this brilliant reality on the people on the
bank who threw the spear, would be to find out the water
was cold. And the PC, I happen to know, has cold feet all
the time. Of course. There's that piece of that engram,
see? So that piece of that engram would be contacted.
 
And you just keep contacting these pieces of the engram,
because of course you're running the reverse mechanism now,
not the philosophy of escape. But the only philosophy that
works in Scientology is "confront it."
 
It isn't that you have to erase it; it is only that you
have to become familiar with it. All you have to establish
is familiarity with the bank; you don't have to establish
an erasure of the whole bank. It would take endless time to
do that.
 
And all of a sudden, this auditor who's been having trouble
guiding a PC's attention will not have that trouble anymore. 
They will recognize at once, "Oooh-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho, I've been trying to get the PC - oh! Hm! My - my -  pardon my red 
face! Oh, boy, is this what it's like down here!" You know? "Huh!"
 
Now, what happens is every time this auditor yanks the PC's
attention, the auditor is not aware of the fact that he has
got the PC in one time stratum, called engram time, and is
pulling the PC's attention to present time, and locks the
incident the PC was in, in present time, by an attention
shift. Any kind of a mechanism, whether you call it faulty
technology, changing the process, changing one's mind,
doing something of the sort - whatever you want to define it
or whatever rationale went with it, this is actually
occurring. And, of course, it is painful to the PC to have
this happen, so the PC of course protests and this is a
basic difficulty with ARC breaks. You get a basic
difficulty at once, because the PC was there and now he's
here, only he's not here and he's not there and where the
hell is he?
 
It isn't that a PC should be regressed on the track and
totally impressed by this past-time incident to a total
point of overwhelm; but the PC is in another time stratum,
usually, when he's being audited, even on a conceptual or
permissive process. PC appears to be sitting in present
time, and the PC is not in present time. So of course the
PC can neither be talked to nor handled as a person would
be handled in present time. It is not a social tea party,
auditing isn't.
 
The PC is not there, really; the PC is in another time
stratum. And if you practice the philosophy of escape on
somebody who doesn't have to escape but is trying to do the
bank, the auditor's goal is different than the PC's goal.
And the PC is saying, "Well, I'm confronting it and I'm
getting familiar with it, and here it all is."
 
And the auditor is saying, "Come away, come away, come
away; it's dangerous." Reactively, this is what is happening. 
 
So the auditor is saying, "Come away," and the PC is
saying, "Let's stay here," and between the two you get ARC breaks and arguments. You would inevitably, wouldn't you?
And as soon as the auditor takes a guided tour of this
thing called an engram bank, you see, with the spears
whizzing from both banks of the river... This auditor has
never - this particular person has probably never noticed
that not only were there spears coming from one side of the
river, but that probably there were whole volleys of arrows
coming, too. Those somatics haven't appeared yet. You got
the idea? There's other things missing in all this, and of
course it all looks very mysterious. But the person gets
down there, they're trying to escape from it; that
would be their first action. Spear goes through them: they
say, "Escape." Boom, "Let's go." Well, it's one of the basic thetan mechanisms. It's why he never as-ises much
track; it's why he doesn't become familiar with his bank.
So look how prevalent this thing is. Very prevalent.
 
A thetan would be in a bad way if, when you killed his
body, he couldn't exteriorize, see? So it's an absolute
survival mechanism for a thetan. So, you see, it's not a
bad thing to have escape philosophy or to be able to
escape. But let me tell you, when a person is compulsively
escaping, he of course never escapes. And when you get a PC
that you're getting to escape all the time, of course he
never escapes, and his case just winds up in a little black
ball. You got the idea?
 
So therefore we can say that escape as a philosophy very
much gets in the road of auditing when the auditor has this
as a total philosophy, you see? And we can say also, then,
that a case reality is very necessary in the auditor. But,
of course, what do we mean by a case reality? Well, a case
reality is willing to stay there and take a look, you see,
instead of running out on the incident when it comes up.
 
These two things, then, are under the same heading and they
are the same subject. A person who doesn't have a reality
on the bank has consistently escaped from the bank, and
then that person of course does odd things in auditing. And
then we say, "Well, that person is a bad auditor," "That person is not so good," or "That person doesn't get
results," or something like that.
 
Well, we can say that much more succinctly and much more
kindly now, much more effectively. We can simply say,
"Well, this auditor has escape as a philosophy and hasn't
got much reality on the bank. So therefore, when he audits
a PC, he doesn't know what the PC is doing." And when the
auditor doesn't know what the PC is doing and can't fathom
what the PC is doing and the auditor thinks that the PC
shouldn't be looking at all that stuff, too, of course we
don't get any clearing, because clearing depends on a
familiarity with the bank. I'm not telling you, you all
stick on the track; I'm merely saying that it's necessary
to have a familiarity of what can happen. You know, there
you are in the middle of the river and the stuff is coming
from all directions, and you're confronting it and you've
got it and you've got a sensation of fear or something, or
confusion, already that's going with it, and all of a
sudden the auditor says, "Well, that's the end of that
process. Let's run something else." God, you don't know
whether you're on the track or in present time or something
like that. You've been betrayed, in other words.
 
But you could educate this auditor endlessly - just
endlessly - without producing a single change in that
philosophy, unless you hit the philosophy itself. Got it?
You cannot educate an auditor who has that as a philosophy
into giving what you would consider a smooth session of
keeping the PC in session and his attention on his bank. Do
you follow that? So that's exactly where that button sits,
and that's exactly what button you press. And when an
auditor makes consistent mistakes, when an auditor yanks
the PC's attention or the auditor is doing a lot of Q and
Aing - there's more about Qing and Aing - but when he does a
lot of this, a lot of shift, we just assume that: that the
auditor has a total philosophy and fixation of escape, and
therefore is letting the PC escape.
 
And he isn't being vicious, he isn't trying to cut the PC
to pieces. He knows what's best for the PC: Get out of
there, man! Not even "Get rid of it," just "Get out of there." PC starts to look a little bit indrawn, go into
session, the auditor will pull him out every time.
 
You probably couldn't even list the number of mechanisms
auditors use to effect this, so there's just no sense in
putting up counter-laws to each one of these mechanisms
that's used, is there? There's no sense in doing that,
because we have the basic mechanism for it.
 
All right. Now, let's go a little bit further here. Here's
another subject on this. Responsibility for the session: 
in the Original Thesis, way, way back when, you had the 
rules, the laws, the basic laws, of auditor plus PC greater 
than the PC's bank; PC less than PC's bank. Obvious -  a PC 
must be less than a PC's bank or the PC would never be 
troubled by the bank, don't you see?
 
So that's why self-auditing doesn't work, by the way: the
PC is less than his own bank. Also, he never can get in
session, because a bank won't go in session. You can audit
valences and that sort of thing. Oh, don't mistake me; I
mean, you can't say that self-auditing does not produce a
result. It does produce a result but the result is quite minor.
 
And actually all self-auditing is, is remedying havingness
on auditing. Self-auditing always, always, always begins on
scarcity of auditing. A PC would always rather be audited
than self-audited, but they could get to a point finally
where it is - auditing is so scarce... You know, people have
been "auditing them" without auditing them, and auditing thereby gets scarce; so PC starts auditing and can come up
to a point where the scarcity becomes so great that they
begin to assume virtues, like the fox who loses his tail,
you see? The great virtues of having no tail: the great
virtues of self-auditing. Simply the lack of havingness of
auditing can result to the fact where self-auditing can
become quite a virtue.
 
Occasionally, you'll find - once in a while, rarely, you'll
have somebody say, "Well, I want to do it myself," as far as self-auditing is concerned; "I ... I really want to
make the grade myself." And you look back over the history
of the case and you'd find out they didn't feel that way a
year before. They just didn't have auditing.
 
So you can actually have somebody sitting there, and an
"auditor" there, and the person getting no auditing, don't you see? And this denial of auditing, denial of auditing - by
being yanked off the track, by endless rudiments, by never
getting anything on the road, by never really getting in
there and pitching, you see, one way or the other, the
person is being denied auditing. And the person will be
denied auditing to a point where they self-audit. That's
what self-auditing is.
 
You find a PC self-auditing, you can be sure that the PC
has such a scarcity of auditing that your auditing is
having considerable difficulty arriving. You don't have to
do anything about it except just reestablish the PC's
confidence in the fact that he is being audited and will be
audited. That's basically what you do, is just audit, and
the PC will come out of this. But it requires auditing.
 
But the PC less than the PC's bank - otherwise the bank would
never be giving him any trouble. Yes, I know he's creating
the bank, on how many vias and that sort of thing. But he's
created a Frankenstein monster - and it's about to eat up
Frankenstein, you see - called a bank.
 
And the Frankenstein's monster inevitably will eat up
Frankenstein. He's created a bank. He's created all these
various valences and that sort of thing. He's denied full
responsibility for having done these things, and so on, and
the result is that he's having difficulties with a bank.
 
This is not self-auditing, now; I'm just talking about PCs
in general. I'm talking about Homo sap, I'm talking about
the farmer that's walking down the road and I'm talking
about this guy and that guy and the other fellow, you see?
And these chaps are all in this sort of a state of less
than the bank. When we say a man is aberrated, we say he's
less than the bank. And when we say somebody is psychotic,
of course this person is not just less than the bank; this
person is nonextant and is the bank. You see, there's a
total overwhelm, and that's all psychosis is: total
overwhelm by own bank.
 
Now, the gradients of cases is the degree to which a person
is overwhelmed by the bank.
 
Now, recognizing this, that you're auditing somebody who is
a bit overwhelmed by his own bank, and recognizing these
laws in Original Thesis (simple and elementary as they are,
nevertheless they're very sweeping in their truth in
auditing), we get this kind of a condition, here: The
auditor has got to be cooperating and running the PC's
bank, you see, and running the PC at the bank in order to
get auditing done, inevitably. When the auditor withdraws from
doing this, he collapses the PC's bank on him. You see?
 
When an auditor is auditing and suddenly stops auditing - 
like, you know, a shift of attention, spills the water glass, 
tips over the ashtray, something of this sort - he of course 
has to some degree withdrawn his control of the PC's bank, 
and you get a minor collapse.
 
But there is a way to get a major one, and this has never
been articulated before in Scientology, and it's terribly
important: When ever you take a direction from a PC and
follow it, you collapse the PC's bank on him.
 
These poor guys - I know two or three fellows who will only
let some very, very weak auditor audit them, you see, and
give the auditor all sorts of directions as to how to audit
them. And of course this is just a self-audit. They don't
make much progress. They make some, but they don't make
very much progress. They're usually in misery. They've set
up a booby-trap situation here, because of course the
auditor is taking directions from the bank and following
them. That's part of it. And the other part of it is, you
see, the auditor subtracted himself from the basic equation
of auditor plus PC is greater than the bank. You see? So,
when the auditor takes the PC's directions, then it looks
to the PC at once as though only the PC is confronting the
bank; and he loses the illusion of the auditor's confronting 
the bank, and of course the bank then collapses on the PC. 
Do you follow this carefully? It's one of these simple 
arithmetical propositions. It's one plus one is greater than 
one and a half, but one is not greater than one and a half. 
And what you've done is subtract a one from the one plus one, 
and of course you get immediately the one and a half greater 
than the one. You've only got one left, you see?
 
You haven't got a PC sitting in the PC's chair; you've got
an auditor sitting in the PC's chair.
 
So the PC is now both the auditor and the PC, only it
doesn't add any ones. So instantly and immediately you of
course get the bank greater than the PC, and so therefore
the PC is promptly and instantly overwhelmed.
 
PC says, "I think you really ought to ask about that
present time problem another time." Oh, yes, PCs can do
anything they like and they will say things like this, you
see, in a perfectly good situation. They have sort of taken
over - because of anxiety for auditing and other
things - they've taken over the idea of auditing and they're
afraid some auditing is not going to occur. And so they
sort of merge up and something in the bank is this and that
and they sort of say, "Well, I think you ought to ask about that one more, because I think there is one ..." and the
auditor does ask that one more. And instantly, pshew!
 
The bank collapses promptly and instantly on the PC.
 
Got an ARC break. You never notice it, because it takes an
hour or so to swell up, but the PC thereafter is running on
auto. All you've got to do is take one direction from a PC
and you collapse his bank on him. You must understand
exactly how that occurs, you see? Here's the PC and the
auditor and the PC's bank, and the auditor plus the PC are
greater than the bank. Now, of course, the moment that the
PC becomes the auditor, even to any tiny degree, you no
longer have the equation of auditor plus PC: You have the
equation of PC plus PC-being-auditor, which of course still
adds up only to one person - the PC - and of course this is not
greater than the bank. So you get a collapse of the bank.
And I do mean a collapse of the bank. You can make the bank
go pshew! - just hit him in the face. Blango! Now, just look
this over, because it's the first time we've ever examined
this mechanism, in spite of the fact the laws are some of
the oldest laws we have. I think the only two laws earlier
than that is Survival is the dynamic principle of
existence, and the purpose of the reactive mind, purpose of
the analytical mind; those are the only laws that are
earlier than these laws - I mean, in terms of time and
development.
 
So, let's take another example: Auditor says, "Do you feel
all right now, and uh ... or do you feel too tired to go on?" 
 
The PC says, "I feel too tired to go on."
 
And the auditor says, "All right. We won't go on." At that exact instant, you've collapsed the PC's bank on him. I
mean, it isn't a simple thing, that the PC is suddenly
dismayed or goes out of session or something like this. An
actual mechanical fact happens: Whether the PC perceives it
or not, the bank collapses on the PC, of course, because
the bank is being held out, basically, and the PC is being
held in position and the bank is being held in position
only by the equation of auditor plus PC. And the second the
presence of the auditor drops and the auditor ceases - 
that's what we mean by "ceases to take responsibility for
the session."
 
Now, that's an esoteric statement; it hasn't any mechanics
with it that give you any explanation, but that is the
primary method by which the auditor does not take
responsibility for the session.
 
And that is the exact mechanism by which an auditor gets
into trouble - the exact mechanism.
 
It's down there to a hairline. All the auditor has got to
say is "Is it all right with you if we uh ... um ... is it all right with you if we uh ... run this uh ... an hour and 
a half?"
 
And the PC says, "No, I don't think so."
 
And the auditor says, "Well, all right. Then we won't." 
 
Well, on the surface of it, it is the socially acceptable,
kindest thing you can do: The poor fellow feels tired, so
we just won't go on with it. And at that moment, we just
picked up the stewpot and hit him in the face with it. See,
we collapsed the bank on him. The bank will collapse - can be
counted on collapsing - instantly that this occurs. He'll get
a reaction from the bank, bang!
 
That means actually, probably, that the Model Session
should be rephrased, on a discovery of this magnitude.
Don't worry about it until you see it in an HCOB, because
it may be and it may not be, because basically the Model
Session is written up just to get the illusion of courtesy.
 
I say, "Well, is it all right if we end this session now?" 
 
And the PC says, "No, it's not all right. I'm having a
great deal of trouble here and I'm struggling around," and
so forth.
 
I say, "Well, all right. I've made a mistake, and we're now going to end the session." It's always all right with the
PC. I decided to end the session. If I decide anything else
now, merely because the PC told me something else, I've had
it, because the bank just will go splat! Now if I don't
want this PC to be butchered up, I certainly better stick
by my own ideas of what I should be doing, no matter how
wrongheaded or inopportune or upsetting those ideas may
appear to be.
 
So you just have to take fate in your own two fists on such
a situation. You say, "Is it all right if I end this
session now?" It's courtesy.
 
And the PC says, "Well, yes, it's all right. Uh ...
except uh ... I'm pretty far back on the track." All this
is, is a comment to the effect that "Well, you knucklehead, you didn't ask me where I was on the track before you
sprung this other one," don't you see? Well, if you now say "Well, all right. We will run it ten minutes longer in
order to get you up to present time," you've had it at
once! You'll never get him to present time. Why won't you
ever get him to present time? Because you just collapsed
the whole track on him, that's why! And then you probably
didn't do anything to reassume the control of the session.
Do you see what happens?
 
So you just never, never, never, never do what the PC says.
You just never do what the PC says. I don't care how
logical it is, I don't care how wrong you are. If you've
given him a totally wrong, upside-down, incorrect
instruction, you can do something more wrong than that.
 
You know, English doesn't permit the deepening of the word
wrong. You can't be "wronger," apparently, according to English. But boy, I'm telling you, you can be wronger. It
doesn't matter how idiotic the auditing direction was, how
noncompliable the auditing direction was - it just doesn't
matter. If the PC now gives you some advice concerning it
and you take that advice, you are promptly and at once
wronger. You have just lost the control of the session, but
that isn't what's important. Mechanically, you've collapsed
the PC's bank on him.
 
So you just must never do it! That's just something an
auditor must never do. He says, "All right if I end this
session now?"
 
And the PC says, "No, it isn't all right. I'm stuck down
the track."
 
And the auditor says, "All right. I'll run the process for
ten minutes longer." Why, this is the kindest, most
sensible, decent thing you can do, isn't it? And it winds
you up every time in the soup. Then you probably will spend
the next five hours trying to end that session.
 
Why? Because you are no longer auditing the session; the PC
is. You haven't got an auditor plus PC greater than the
PC's bank, so the PC of course can't come up to present
time, so he just struggles. See? The mechanics are just
dead against it. That's the way the reactive mind is, not
the way I think it is.
 
So that is a primary method of getting into trouble. A
primary method is to violate that original equation.
Auditor plus PC must both be there in order to be greater
than PC's bank, and when the PC says to the auditor,
"Advice, advice," and the auditor takes it, of course then at once, immediately, instantly, then, the PC becomes
easily the auditor: He is running his own bank on a via,
he's no longer greater than the bank - it only takes a split
second to happen - he's in the soup. Got the idea?
 
Well, it isn't that PCs mustn't give advice to auditors. By
all means, as a PC, give the auditor all the advice in the
world. You understand? Give him all the advice in the
world. If he takes any part of it, he's a lousy auditor,
that's all. Because he at once passes over control of the
session. It's something tantamount to walking out in front
of the troops and handing your sword over, see? I mean,
it's something of this order of magnitude. Promptly and at
once you've lost the war, and that is it. There's going to
be reparations charged and the United States will be
sending three quarters of the national income over to
rehabilitate the country. But if the United States doesn't
hear about it, then nobody is going to rehabilitate anything.
 
Now, there's the whole situation in controlling a session.
And there is the primary difficulty an auditor runs into.
Once more, it looks like pure kindness and it turns out to
be total viciousness.
 
All right. Let's take up one more point here. You can also
put a PC at responsibility for the session by a bunch of
"PCs ought to," and individual considerations about what ought to be going on. This is a little more esoteric, but
becomes less so when I say something like this (this also
comes under escape as a philosophy): "Well, he ought to be
able to get out of that very easily." See, the auditor
says, "Well, he couldn't be in any great trouble. He ought
to be able to get out of that very easily."
 
Well, you see, what did he do? Even if he did it silently
to himself, he says immediately, "Well, the PC is
responsible for the condition he's in." And you will find
the one-plus-one-greater-than-the-bank also operates. That
promptly operates, and the bank will cease to behave.
 
It's quite esoteric, it's quite odd.
 
You say, "Well, PC shouldn't be in that much trouble." "A man - a man of that age uh ... shouldn't have all of those 
difficulties with women. After all, after you've lived for 
forty or fifty years, you certainly should know something 
about women." You know, something like this. You have some kind of a little unkind thought of this character, but it's 
an ought-to-be, you see? And you have just shifted responsibility for the session over to the PC, just as neatly as though you'd
suddenly crowned him with laurel wreaths. You see how you'd
do that? The PC "ought to," the PC "shouldn't ought to." Now, here is a whole class of things, you see? "The PC
shouldn't be screaming at me." Well, that would be the best way in the world to bring the scream up four more decibels.
Don't you see? That would operate at once to put this PC at
cause, so of course immediately eliminates and deletes the
auditor plus PC over bank - it eliminates the auditor and, 
of course, collapses the bank on the PC. You get how this
would work, you see? The PC "ought to," "shouldn't ought to." 
 
"Well, men are always like that." That isn't so bad, that type of consideration; it just denotes an inability to do
something about it, so an apathetic acceptance of a
condition which one is confronting. Well, this merely
lowers control over the PC's bank slightly; it's not a very
great thing. Well, that doesn't amount to a great deal.
It's when you really drop it out - when you really say "Well, the PC should be" or "the PC shouldn't be," or something of this sort -  bang! You see, you've gone into the same old
violation of this original rule.
 
No, a PC is doing what the PC is doing, and the PC ought to
be doing what the PC is doing.
 
You see? And the PC oughtn't to be doing the things the PC
isn't doing. And the PC does what the PC does. You get the
idea? And considerations as to what the PC should be doing,
up on top of this, of course interrupt responsibility for
making the PC do something. You get the idea?
 
Now, of course, as long as your intentions are totally
wrapped up in what the PC ought to be doing with inspecting
pictures and so forth, you of course are making this occur!
You are doing this, you see, so it isn't an ought-to-be or
a shouldn't-be or something like this, see? The PC is going
up and down the track and around the bank: Well, he ought
to be doing these things, you see? And you know that he
should be doing these things; he knows that he should be
doing these things. He should be following the auditing
command, and you know that he should be following the
auditing command, and all that sort of thing.
 
I'm not talking about that class of thing. I'm talking
about another class entirely: that instead of making the PC
do or become what you want the PC to do or become, you add
this sneak one into it, you see? The PC "ought to," you know, and you sort of said faintly to yourself, "Well, I'm
not doing anything about it, and he shouldn't really be
upset about that ARC break. That's really nonsense; he
shouldn't be upset about it. He shouldn't be - oh, well, it's
a ..." "Well, he shouldn't have that present time
problem, not now. We've only got two hours here and, God,
he shouldn't have this present time problem now. No.
Heavens on earth." No, the PC has got what he's got, don't
you see? You just look at what the PC's got, and then you
can go ahead and you and the PC can make him "got"
something else, don't you see, with greatest of ease. But
if the PC "ought to" without any further action on your part, of course what do you wind up with? You wind up with
a collapsed bank. Is that clear to you? That is not as
serious or as general as the other.
 
Now, Q and A, Q and A: Every time the PC says something,
you follow it, is the most prevalent method of Q and A.
 
You say, "Well, how's that about your mother now?"
 
And "Well, it's not my mother now, it's my father."
 
"Well, how about your father?"
 
"Well, it's not my father so much, it's ... uh my father's okay, but it's actually my aunt ... uh ... uh ... my aunt Bessie." 
 
"Oh, well. Well, all right. Now, what - how does that apply to your aunt Bessie?" And by the time you've done this, of
course, you of course are doing two things: You're letting
the PC spot what you ought to be auditing - you've dropped
responsibility, then - and you of course permitted him to
escape from the original questions and you haven't followed
it through.
 
You're permitting the PC to escape, and the PC will go
along a whole sequence and series of escapes; and if you
follow along this sequence of escapes without ever once
saying "Whoa, now, PC! I asked you about Pop. I want to
know about Pop and I'm not interested in Aunt Bessie. Now,
Pop!" You can say it as rough as you want to; it won't
affect the PC, because he knows confoundedly well that's
what he ought to be doing.
 
And he says, "Oh, oh, oh, I - ha-ha-ha-ha. Fly cops are on my trail. I didn't get a chance to duck up that alley. Well, I
guess I just better not do that and I better come back here
and uh ... take a look at Pop. Okay. Well now, what did you 
want to know about Father?" 
 
You say, "Well, all right. I just wanted how - to know how that was about Father?" 
 
"All right. Well, it's all right about Father." 
 
Now, what else about this? "Yeah, well, how is it all right about Father?"
 
"Oh, kill the son of a bitch as quick as look at him,
that's how all right it is about Father," and so forth, see? 
 
"Oh," you say, "well, all right. Now, you got a picture there or some "Well, sure I got a picture there! What else
do you think I have?"
 
"You've had a picture there?"
 
"Oh, yes, of course I've had a picture there!"
 
"Well, all right. Now, what don't you know about it?"
 
"Well, I don't know this and I don't know that and I don't
know that and I don't know that and don't know that and
don't know that, there, there, and ..."
 
"What else don't you know about it?"
 
"Well, I don't know so-and-so."
 
"All right. That's fine. Now, you still got a picture there of your father?" 
 
"No."
 
"All right. Now, how about your father?"
 
"Well, all right. Take him or leave him."
 
"Okay. All right. Nova, we'll go on to something else." 
 
Got the idea?
 
The PC never wants to handle what you want him to handle.
You can just put it down: He never wants to handle what you
want him to handle. I don't know a PC yet that'll handle
exactly what you want him to handle!
 
When a PC sits there smiling sweetly, I get very, very
suspicious. I say, "What are you looking at?"
 
He said, "The same incident you told me to look at."
 
"Yeah, well, what incident was that?"
 
"Oh, this incident about picking these flowers out here in
the field."
 
And I say, "No, we had an incident there about burning down a house. What happened to that?"
 
"Oh, you caught me. Oh, well, all right. Burning down a
house ..." and so forth, and somewhat grumpily they'll go
back in and look at it. But they don't like you when you
let them escape, because they know way down deep that it's
wrong. They know way doves deep that it's wrong. They know
the road out is the way through, and the road out is not a
bounce.
 
The guy has been running away for two hundred trillion
years, and he's looking for somebody to stand and hold the
ground and say, "All right. Let's pick up these devils one
by one and fight them down."
 
He will say, "That is the most horrifying, shuddering
thought that anybody has ever pushed in my direction. but I
know damn well he's speaking sooth."
 
Now, it actually hasn't worked for the last two hundred
trillion years, running away. So, he says, "Well, here's a
picture."
 
And you say, "Good. Got any other pictures?"
 
"Uh... (These guys are gonna let me run away.) All right.
Yeah, I got some other pictures." 
 
"Good, you got any other pictures in there?"
 
"Oh, yes, I've got some other pictures in there."
 
"Oh, yeah. Well, how's your mother?"
 
"All right, Eme."
 
"And how's your father?"
 
"Okay. Fine. Oh, yes," and so forth. And the fellow says, "Well, it wasn't my mother I was thinking about, actually.
It was my aunt Bessie."
 
"Oh, well, how's your aunt Bessie?"
 
And the PC right at that time says to himself, way down
deep someplace, "That's all we're going to do now is
escape, and I know that it isn't the road out." So he has
ARC breaks because he knows he's not getting auditing.
 
It's a very funny thing. Not overwhelming a PC, not
pounding him down: PC says, "I have to go to the bathroom." 
 
You say, "You damn well sit there and don't go to the
bathroom," and so forth, and the PC says, "Well, I have to go to the bathroom; it's a present time problem," and so forth. 
 
And you say, "Well, I'm not going to let you go to the
bathroom till 4:35; that's the end of session - and that's
the end of it," and so forth.
 
Well, you keep this kind of thing up forever and eventually
the PC gets an overwhelm. He's pounded into a position.
See, all of this stuff is moderated with reason, don't you
see? That isn't any kind of a session direction. PC says he
has to go to the bathroom. All right, say, "Go to the
bathroom." All right. Now go into session. You'll find he's slightly out when he comes back. So put him into session
again; put him into session again with a crunch.
 
But five minutes later he says, "I have to go to the bathroom." 
 
You say, "I've heard that before; we're now going on with
the session." He'll be back in processing again.
 
Invalidation is the basic overwhelm. The PC says, "Oh, it
was my father doing all this." And the auditor says, "It couldn't possibly have been your father." You get the idea? Now, there's where overwhelm comes from: invalidation.
 
PC says, "I - I think it's ... I think it's an automobile
mechanic. I think it is." 
 
"Couldn't possibly be an automobile mechanic," you know? 
 
You could run a whole case, possibly, by saying, "Who's
been invalidated?" See, what's death? Death is
invalidation - invalidation of a terminal. What's sickness?
Invalidation of a terminal. What's punishment? Invalidation
of a terminal. I mean, all things add up more or less to
the invalidation of a terminal, don't they? And as a
result, why, you've got a button there that you've got to
lay off of, which is just invalidation.
 
PC says, "It's made out of green soup."
 
You say, "All right. Solid green soup." As far as he's concerned, that's the way it is. It's just that's the way
it is.
 
And this sort of a matter-of-fact situation is, in a few
minutes the PC says, "I made a mistake. It is not green soup." The wrong thing to do is to tell him "Why, I could have told you that earlier."
 
You're taking him on a tour of a bank; you're getting him
familiar with various things by various mechanisms: He'll
wind up in the other end not afraid.
 
Now, what, basically, then, would best answer up these
conditions? Certainly not escape.
 
Don't let him escape. Make him face it up. You're always safe.
 
PC starts using rudiments for escape - omit them. Always the
better choice is to audit; always the better choice.
 
If the PC gives you directions as to what you ought to be
doing in the session, give him the cheeriest acknowledgment
he ever received and go right on doing what you were doing.
Don't ever shift. Now is the time not to shift, because
you've run into some kind of a valence or a machine which
tells you "Change, change, change, change"; and you start going change, change, change with the PC, it's a Q and A,
and of course you're going to get no place at the other end.
 
Now, these are very important considerations in auditing,
and if an auditor were to do these things, pay attention to
them and handle those things, he actually could be quite
ignorant of some other facets of technology and he'd still
win. He'd be right in there pitching.
 
No, there is no substitute whatsoever for having a reality
on the bank. There is no substitute for it at all, because 
now you know what's happening to the PC, you know where his 
attention is, you know where he's going, you know what he's 
doing. And you don't make the mistake of believing he's in 
present time and this is all a social chitchat that we're 
indulging in. We've known auditors who've thought auditing 
was that, and they always of course wound up with PCs with 
no gain and tremendous ARC breaks and rudiments out all the 
time and that sort of thing, because the PC's attention was 
never in session.
 
The basics of auditing, however, require that the PC feel
able to talk to the auditor, so you don't necessarily shut
the PC off about things like this or directions like this;
you let the PC tell you. But it's a great oddity that when
the PC has told you that the process is wrong and that he's
having difficulty answering it - it would be a great oddity
if, when you acknowledge this and you say, "All right. I'm
sorry, but that's the process we cleared, and here is the
next auditing command," the PC will say, "Oh, hell," then he'll go on and audit it, and you'll wind up, oddly enough,
without any much of an ARC break.
 
But you say, "Well, now let's see, let's just shift the
process. He says he can't answer this, so let's change the
wording of the process." And, of course, don't be amazed
that for the remainder of the session, and maybe for the
next couple of sessions, you get absolutely no change of
case. Why? There's no auditor there. Why? Because the PC
did the auditing.
 
So these various considerations are right there amongst the
fundamentals, and they're things to pay a great deal of
attention to. And if a PC is moving through a bank, you
should have some idea that people can get stuck on the
track, and you'll get an idea of other-timeness than here
and that things can happen, and that somatics, and so
forth, are directly connected with pictures - which they 
are - and that sort of thing. There's no substitute for 
that sort of thing.
 
And in training auditors, one of the things you should
always ask an auditor is "Well, do you have any reality on
an engram? Do you know what an engram is? Have you ever
seen one? Have you ever had a somatic out of one?" Not
necessarily "Have you ever had sonic?" or something like this, but "Have you ever seen one of these engrams?" and so forth. "Well, have you ever had a moment there when you
were - on the track when you did not quite know what was
happening?"
 
"Uh ... oh, yes. Yes, yes, I have. Yeah, ooh-ooh, yeah,
ooh, well, sure, yeah. I was runnin' this one about
elephants and these elephants were walkin' all over me.
Goddamn it. And uh ... I don't think it ever got flattened. 
Feel an elephant's footprint on my chest right now."
 
Ah, this is a safe auditor. Why? He's not running a big
philosophy of "escape, escape, escape is the road out," don't you see?
 
If you asked this auditor - you say, "well now, have you had any reality on the track?" "Well, I've read about it in Dianetics: Modern Science of Mental Health." "Well, have you ever run into an incident? Have you ever run into an
engram?" "No. No, I know they exist, intellectually. I have good intellectual reality on them. Ron wouldn't lie to me
about that."
 
No matter how kind this auditor appears, this auditor is
not safe as an auditor. Why? Because this auditor practices
escape. That is the only reason why the auditor has never
seen an engram, you see? So if they've practiced the escape
from the bank, they have practiced the escape in auditing.
and they will yank PCs out of session. Okay?
 
These various considerations are very pertinent to
training. to auditing. to understanding, and I give them to
you at a time when they're easily remediable. There is no
difficulty with these things. I am not citing you any
120-foot board fence that you have to climb over with your
fingernails. That process which I gave you is the most
revealing process to somebody who has no reality on the track. 
That is most revealing. 
 
They say, "Ooh, wow," you know? "This is what I've been pulling people out of - and it was a good thing I did, too! " Okay. Well, possibly many interpretations could be made of this
particular lecture. But just remember that it, too, just
means exactly what it says, which is do the auditing, get
the show on the road, get the most auditing done in the
least time that you can. Your PCs will be very happy with
you and they won't ARC break, either.
 
And you'll be amazed how seldom you have to put the
rudiment in. When you come into session, you bang yourself
down in a chair, you move the PC's chair slightly, you tell
him, "Sit there; hold the cans. All right. We are now going to start a session. Start of session. Good. Now, process we 
left unflat yesterday was so-and-so and so-and-so. The first 
auditing command is..." Bang!
 
The PC will say "(pant, pant, pant)." He'll say, "But w-wait a minute. I'm not even in session. You haven't run any rudiments. You haven't done any this or that and so on." 
 
"The first auditing command is ..." Bang! "Answer it, answer it, answer it. Answer it!" 
 
The PC  says, "Well, let's see. What is it again?"
 
"You heard it. Answer it."
 
"Ohh-uh ... Yep, what unknown stomach? What unknown stomach ... ?" 
 
You say, "Good. What unknown stomach don't you know nuthin' about?"  (laughter)
 
The PC answers the auditing question, chops back at you
maybe a little bit here and there says, "Boy, this is
rough, man. You're rough, rough, rough, you know? You... Do
you realize I'm stuck all over the track here, I got
everything all messed up, I don't know whether I'm going or
coming, and you just keep pouring these auditing commands
at me?"
 
You say, "Good. Here's the next one."
 
PC, at the end of twenty-five hours - he may or may not tell
you anything about it - goes around and tells the D of P or
another student or somebody like this, "My God, that person certainly gets a lot of auditing done! We've certainly had
a lot of auditing done. Yes sir, that person really will
audit." And the whole aspect of the thing changes.
 

 
