FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

LEVEL 2 ACADEMY LECTURES 03/15

**************************************************

LEVEL 2 TAPES

CONTENTS:

01 SHSBC-62 ren 66 4 Oct 61 Moral Codes: What is a Withhold? 
02 SHSBC-63 ren 67 5 Oct 61 Sec Checking: Types of Withholds 
03 SHSBC-72 ren 76 26 Oct 61 Security Checking: Auditing Errors
04 SHSBC-75 ren 79 2 Nov 61 How to Security Check 
05 SHSBC-100 ren 104 16 Jan 62 Nature of Withholds 
06 SHSBC-117 ren 117 14 Feb 62 Directing Attention
07 SHSBC-113 ren 119 20 Feb 62 What Is a Withhold?
08 SHSBC-131 ren 135 3 Apr 62 The Overt-Motivator Sequence
09 TVD-4A ren 149 2 May 62 TV Demo: Prepchecking, Part I
10 TVD-4B ren 150 2 May 62 TV Demo: Prepchecking, Part II
11 SHSBC-142 ren 151 3 May 62 Craftsmanship: Fundamentals 
12 SHSBC-151 ren 159 22 May 62 Missed Withholds 
13 TVD-7 ren 161 23 May 62 TV Demo:Fish & Fumble-Checking Dirty Needles
14 SHSBC-206 ren 235 1 Nov 62 The Missed Missed Withhold 
15 SHSpec-26 ren 389 2 Jul 64 O/W Modernized and Reviewed 

Like most levels tapes, these are SHSBC (St. Hill Special Briefing
Course) lectures. The original numbering has the TV demos (TVD)
numbered independently and restarts the numbering from 1 again
in 1964 (designated SH Special instead of SHSBC). The clearsound
renumbering combines these (SHSBC + TVD + SHSpec) into one
continuous set of numbers shown as "ren" above.

These are based on clearsound and were checked against the
old reels in most cases (as noted). Omissions are marked ">".
Most omissions are of introducing new students etc. but there
were significant omissions of technical material in item 07
"What is a Withhold". Also, item 13 (TVD-7) had significant
omissions in the old reels, marked "#", which were restored in
the clearsound version.


**************************************************

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

**************************************************


SECURITY CHECKING: AUDITING ERRORS

A lecture given on 26 October 1961

Tape# 6110C26 SHSBC-72

SHSBC-72 ren 76 26 Oct 61 Security Checking: Auditing Errors

[Clearsound, checked against the old reels.]


======== BEGIN LECTURE ========

Thank you.

> Well now that Mary Sue has headed you into the right place ...

The subject of the lecture today is Security Checking. And this is 
the 26th of October A.D. 11. It better be called A.D. 11, because 
something new and strange is happening. There are some cases breaking 
up in a fine way.

Of course, you probably don't think so. Do you think anything is 
happening to cases?

Audience: Yes.

Oh, you think something is happening to cases. Isn't that nice? Isn't 
that nice?

Is anything happening to your case? No. Nothing is happening to your 
case. Is that right? Tell me the truth. Do you think anything is 
happening to your case?

Audience: Yes!

All right. Do you think anything is happening to your pc's case?

Audience: Yes!

Well, is your goal to make something happen to cases?

Audience: Yes!

You sure? All right.

Okay. I want to talk to you - why things don't happen to cases.

There are certain definite fundamentals of processing which must be 
observed before a result is obtained in auditing. There are certain 
safe things you can audit: You can audit concepts, ideas; you can 
Security Check and get overts, by getting the times an individual's 
attention was pinned on another terminal on the track; you can find 
the goal and terminal of the pc and run it; you can run engrams on 
the goals-terminal line after a long run has established that they 
are on a goals-terminal line. And that is about all you can do. 
That's just about all you can do, successfully, to a case.

If you try to do anything else - such as run a generalized terminal 
(to run Mother out of the case while his terminal is "a tinker"), if 
you try to make him create things which are off his goals-terminal 
line, if you try to do many other things having to do directly with 
terminals and running terminals which are not his goals terminal, or 
if you ask questions too searchingly so that they are repetitive and 
are newly attracting his attention to a terminal which his attention 
was not on before - you're going to get a slowdown. His bank is going 
to become more solid and he's going to be upset.

I'll give you an idea. Your idea of what's wrong with the pc is he's 
having trouble with his father; well, your idea stems from the fact 
that the pc has told you repeatedly that he's always having trouble 
with his father. So you say, "If I could just get Father out of the 
road, then we're all set here. And we will therefore run Father." 
"Now, what have you done to Father? What have you withheld from 
Father? What have you done to Father? What have you withheld from 
Father? What have you done to Father? What have you withheld from 
Father?"

You see, it sounds almost right. Sounds just like you're going to get 
away with it, and everything is fine, and then the pc doesn't 
recover, and things look a lot different to the pc - all bad. You see 
that?

Because you're saying "Father, Father, Father. Your attention on 
Father? Put your attention on Father. Put your attention newly on 
Father. Put your attention - brand-new attention - let's search for 
more things which you have done to Father." Guy has already given you 
everything he's done to Father, you see? "So put your attention on 
Father. Put your attention on Father. Put your attention on Father." 
And of course, that means "take your attention off your goals 
terminal. Take your attention off your goals terminal." That's the 
one thing he must not do.

At no time must he take his attention off his goals terminal. He 
knows this. This is the one thing he knows better than he knows that 
there's air and sunshine. He never found that out yet, that there's 
air and sunshine. But he does know that there is this terminal "a 
tinker."

Of course, he knows it so well that he doesn't know it at all. It's 
buried completely down in the further deep reaches of the coal mines. 
Yet it is nevertheless there and it is reactive. So we can say 
bluntly, what some of these oddities that we have run into 
occasionally - we've piloted our way through them; don't think that 
we've just [been] making mistakes left and right and front and 
center. We've had things that prevented any casualty from occurring 
along in this line.

But let's take a look at what you could do that would be wrong. Let's 
take a list of wrongnesses that an auditor can pull: (1) he could 
disobey the Auditor's Code; (2) he wouldn't know his business; (3) he 
audits a pc with a screaming present time problem; (4) he audits a pc 
when the pc knows he can't communicate with the auditor - which is 
Clause 16 of the Auditor's Code, after all - goes out of two-way 
comm, but that's a particularly serious one. And he could run the 
case with tremendous withholds on it, and of course, this is another 
violation of Clause 16. It's a violation of the Auditor's Code to run 
a case with tremendous overts undisclosed on the case, because the pc 
is not in two-way comm with the auditor. So that would be dead wrong. 
And the other dead wrong thing he could do would be to pick a 
terminal at random and run it ad nauseam. And that's dead wrong.

That's the first time you've heard that that was dead wrong. This is 
the first time we've known that was dead wrong. Before, we said only 
do a terminals by assessment, and only do this and only do that. 
These are little preventives which kept very much bad from occurring. 
But now I can tell you broadly that you just shouldn't fool with it. 
You just shouldn't run any terminal but the goals terminal of the pc.

All right. Now, if you can't run any terminal but the goals terminal 
of the pc, where does this leave you on the subject of Security 
Checking? Because you've got to find out what he has done to his 
mother and what he hasn't done to his mother and what he's withheld 
from his mother and so forth. Is that running a terminal? No. It is 
not running a terminal as long as it's run against the E-Meter and 
you're only asking for it every time the meter falls. Because every 
time the meter falls, the pc's attention is stuck on that other 
terminal. It is a violation of his attention being off his goals 
terminal.

And every time your meter falls on a security question, you have 
located a time and zone on the track where the individual has 
violated "attention must be on the goals terminal." This is the basic 
modus God-'elp-us of the pc. This is the stuff of which he is built. 
His attention must be on the goals terminal.

So every time you get a knock on the meter, and you say "Have you 
done anything to anybody? Have you withheld anything from anybody?" - 
you actually find a knock on the meter, you find a reaction on the 
needle, it immediately says his attention is stuck in violation of 
the goals terminal. That's for just Security Checking. That isn't 
what's back of every fall you ever get on a meter. But that's the 
violation of the goals terminal.

So, on an E-Meter where you get a needle reaction, you have a 
violation of a goals terminal. Now, if you leave him in a violation 
of the goals terminal, you have an upset pc. If you find one, you got 
to clear it. That's the rule which goes along with it.

This assumes tremendous importance, because here, there, I've been 
picking up cases, time after time after time, where an individual has 
been left with an uncleared withhold. And I've found in every case 
that he's squirrelly, he's thinking unkind thoughts, he's wondering 
about things, he's wondering if Scientology works or doesn't work, 
he's having an awful time. Actually, he dreams up all sorts of gossip 
trying to lessen the overts of one kind or another. And he just gets 
into a terrible spin.

And this is an empirical datum. This is a datum which I've been 
watching now through auditors' reports coming in from Central 
Organizations, from this particular class, and they are just mounting 
up to be legion. They are innumerable, This is a datum which is being 
forced upon me by constant, constant, constant observation of that 
datum. And it is not a datum which you can ignore - any more than I 
have been able to ignore the datum. So I say, "Well, all right. Huh - 
Susie Ann is in an HPA class, and she doesn't know what she's doing, 
and so she misses a couple of Security Checks. Ha-ha-ha-haha-ha-ha-
ha-ha-ha. So what?"

Oh, I'm afraid that an auditor has to learn how to swim perfectly the 
first time he's thrown in the bay on a Security Check. Isn't that 
interesting? Because frankly, you could get blows out of the Academy. 
Every time a student sits down and he picks up the E-Meter and he 
says, "Let's see, these are the - that's the tone arm. No, no, no, 
that's ... that's ... that's ... Ah-ha," and so on. And he hands it 
to somebody diffidently, and he says, "Now, let's see."

The instructor finally comes around disgustedly and says, "This is 
the 'on' button," and throws it on.

"What's this moving needle? When you turn it on, the needle moves. 
Move the tone arm, needle moves. Ha-ha! Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! Ha-ha-ha! 
Move the tone arm and the needle moves. I see what they're doing. 
When the auditor gets something on the pc, he moves the tone arm and 
that moves the needle. Now I understand an E-Meter."

And he understands it all for two days. And then a pc actually has a 
stray, unkind thought about what he's doing, you see - one of his 
fellow students - and the needle moves when he isn't touching the 
tone arm. "Broken."

And during that period of time, unfortunately, although he has to be 
practicing in something vaguely resembling meter actions, and so 
forth, he is asking people questions. And these questions, any of 
them, can become Security Check questions. And he doesn't know enough 
at this period of time that he's got to clear it off. The needle 
moved: What's he supposed to do? Well, he writes it down on the piece 
of paper he has: "Needle moved."

The instructor comes around and says, "Where's Pete?"

And this fellow that's just written it down, "I don't know. He went 
out ..."

And you have the HCO squadron of cavalry riding all over the 
neighborhood trying to round up Pete. By this time he has socked a 
policeman, he has done this, he's done that, and slept with his best 
friend's wife.

Well, somehow or another they get it patched up, but that is the 
immediate consequence of what would happen if he missed a Security 
Check question. We can't ignore the fact. That is what happens. It's 
just in from every place. Some of the most confoundedly weird things 
have occurred you have ever heard of.

Girl in an HGC: they missed a Security Check on her. She rushes 
straight out, she sees every friend she's got, she says, "All 
auditors are doing in that organization is sleeping with their pcs, 
and there's all this going on, and there's that going on, and it's 
all terrible, and it's awful over there, and horrible things are 
occurring in that organization." And then this girl went and wrote a 
whole bunch of letters on the subject, and all this in relatively a 
few hours. She was the busiest person you ever saw.

And you know, it took the organization about a week to round this up. 
They got a hold of the girl and they put her down and had enough 
sense to realize, that the last thing she was doing was unflat. That 
was probably all that was really known about it.

So they made her do the last thing she was doing, and it was a hot 
question on a Security Check. And it was something to do with the 
second dynamic. And the auditor had simply gone on, you know, and not 
asked any questions about it, and then sort of ended the session, and 
it was never going to come up again, and boom! Immediate 
repercussion.

So hell hath no fury like a pc whose withhold isn't pulled. It works 
completely reverse. I don't know whether the pc instinctively 
realizes he's been done wrong or if he has had something reactivated 
so that he must compensate for it or if he is making - trying to make 
nothing out of the overt by making nothing out of the people who 
might have gotten the overt, so that nobody will believe them when 
the overt does come up, you see? But an unpulled overt has horsepower 
in it. It has real horsepower. And it drives people to the most 
confounded excesses you ever heard of.

I think the excesses of the criminal are simply on the basis of just 
tremendous numbers of overts against the society. The overts, which 
are a withhold, then become the horsepower which make the criminal. 
Not quite that the man goes wrong, you see, and then who hides it 
from the society, the way we ordinarily look at it. I think it's 
quite different.

I think, because the individual is withholding something, then you 
get horsepower. I think this is a source of explosive reactor fuel of 
some kind or another.

So a restimulated withhold becomes a lighted charge of dynamite. And 
when you ask the pc if he has a withhold and then you don't get it, 
you have just the same as stuffed a stick of dynamite down his throat 
and litten the fuse. You've lit the fuse, and then you say, "Well, 
you don't have anything," you see? That's it.

After a while, in the distance, there's a dull boom! You see? And you 
say, "What's that? It has nothing to do with me. Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha. It 
has nothing to do with me. I audited him. I tried to help him. Tried 
my best, but he came to us too late."

You see, you could get off into all sloppy things. You realize this, 
a psycho-anal-ist always and totally excuses every failed case on 
that one phrase "He came to us too late," which I think is quite 
amusing. He believes this, too, you know? He believes it implicitly. 
Fellow has been with him five years and "He came to me too late." 
Always. I've talked to these birds, and they tell me with a perfectly 
straight face. Well, three of his patients have committed suicide in 
the last month. And he tells you this, quite frankly: "Oh, yes, they 
committed suicide in the last month. Yeah, a lot of them. Well, 
there's Bessie. She came to me too late. And there was George. If 
he'd come sooner, I could have done something. And then there's 
Mehitabel. Well, long, long overdue. She should have come to me much 
earlier."

You say, "Well, what were you doing with these patients for that 
time?"

"Well, they just lay there on the couch and talked."

"Well, did you ask them any questions?"

"Well, uh ... of course. I asked them what had been done to them in 
their childhood." Restimulate every overt in the bank, don't you see?

Boy, I tell you. You talk about people who have taken people's lives 
in their hands, look into that field. But it'd be any field where you 
didn't pursue the question.

Now, the poor old Catholic church, that I have raised so much the 
devil with occasionally, from time to time - the poor old Catholic 
church - for the lack of this datum which we're talking about right 
this minute, has developed all of its heretics, its Martin Luthers 
and the lot. The boys they've had all the trouble with, they 
manufactured at the confession box.

Person comes up, he's just groveling in the dust, you see, and he's 
just got through having intercourse with his sister, or something. 
And he scratches on the confession box, you see, and he says, "I have 
something to confess."

The priest is sleepy that day, you know? He says, "Yeah, what - my 
son."

And he says, "Well, I've done something very ..." And his courage 
fails him, as you see in pcs all the time. Guy's courage fails him, 
you see? And he says, "Well, I - I heard some nasty gossip about the 
mayor."

And the priest says, "Well, what was it, my son?"

"Well, I heard the mayor was sleeping with the alderman's wife, and 
that the alderman - and that the alderman has committed incest with 
his sister."

And the priest says, "Well, that's eighty-nine and a half 
paternosters and two umpteegahs. So, tool off now."

And the fellow says, "Whew!"

And a little time goes on, and the Inquisition all of a sudden is 
called upon to find out what all this sin is going on over there, and 
what's all this commotion against the true church. And all this 
commotion against the true church is getting more and more 
commotional.

Well, they managed to burn most of them. After they'd missed their 
withholds, then they had to burn them. But they managed to burn most 
of them. But they missed just enough to cause an overthrow of the 
Catholic church, because it's no longer the dominant church on earth. 
Well, I forget, we in the white race consider ourselves extremely, 
egocentrically, as being the races of earth. But as a matter of fact, 
there are so many other churches elsewhere that are bigger than any 
church we have anywhere that - that was it. Well, one time the 
Catholic church could have numbered up along with some of the great 
Eastern churches, and so on, and it doesn't anymore.

But that's it. There's your Martin Luther. There's your Calvin. 
There's your - there's ... so on. I'm sure that it happened right 
there at the confession box. Priest didn't have an E-Meter. I think 
it's very poetic justice, because he buried most of the knowledge - 
the Church buried a great deal of knowledge that came out of ancient 
Greece and Egypt, and so forth. They put a lot of this knowledge 
away, because they didn't think it was good for people. They kept it 
in the catacombs. Actually, they released Aristotle. Just in the 
Middle Ages, they suddenly broke out Aristotle complete and released 
it to the scholarly world.

Nobody had ever heard of Aristotle and Plato before that. They broke 
out Plato so as to prove that Catholicism was the true religion. All 
of these various things occurred, and they sort of shut off 
knowledge, one way or the other. And they didn't have an E-Meter. 
That's what it amounts to.

Well, what problem are you faced with then? You're faced with an 
immediate heretic. He doesn't like you. He doesn't like your 
organization. He's going to dream up all sorts of wild tales and lies 
about you and your organization, or about others, or something, 
because of a missed withhold. And what are you supposed to do then?

Well, let me caution you against following the policy of our 
immediate forebears on this particular planet. Firewood is very 
costly. If only on economic grounds, why, you shouldn't have to go 
burn every person, you see, who has been missed on a Security Check.

Now, that's what it would amount to, sooner or later. You're walking 
up the line, you see? You're walking into a heavy - a heavier power 
position on this particular planet, and that's what it would amount 
to. You already have means and ways of cutting down the overts 
against the group, to keep the group from being sundered, and keep 
individuals of the group from being cut to pieces. You have that, 
inherently, in a Security Check.

Now, supposing the Security Check becomes badly done and overts get 
missed left and right. Well, the very mechanism which is supposed to 
prevent dissension and upset and slowed-down cases and all of this 
sort of thing - that very mechanism is the mechanism which 
restimulates an heresy, of some kind or another, which eventually 
brings about an overthrow of the group.

So it's no very light thing I'm talking about now. And this has been 
presented to me so many times, on so many folders, by so many people, 
and it has happened so often, that we must conclude that it - not 
that it is an invariable reaction. No reason to conclude that it is 
invariable, that because somebody has had a withhold and it hasn't 
been pulled, that this person immediately tries to destroy everything 
under the sun, moon and stars. We're not justified in concluding 
that, because it's happened many times without repercussion. And some 
auditor got it later, or didn't get it at all, and the case merely 
stalled. And some Director of Processing or some auditor someplace 
noticed the case wasn't moving sooner or later, and decided to get 
ambitious and went back and found the withhold.

And the only thing that happened there is the case stalled, which is 
an overt enough, but nothing happened to the group and nothing 
happened to individuals. But you can count on the fact that it will 
happen sufficiently often that a repercussion will follow the act, 
but in the cumulative centuries it could utterly destroy anything 
we're trying to build up.

It is not at all a tiny mechanism. It is a big, important one. You 
could disobey most of the Auditor's Code and you wouldn't get into 
terribly serious trouble, except pc would be upset, and case gains 
and ARC breaks and you'd feel unhappy, and a few things like that. 
But Clause 16, "Stay in two-way communication with your pc," is 
violated the moment that you find - that is, you tick, that you come 
close to - a hot withhold and don't get it.

You're asking a Security Check question, you say, "Well, have you 
ever raped anybody?"

And the individual says, "Well, people who rape people ... Actually, 
I heard about a terrible rape, and there was an awful situation 
occurred over in Northumbria, and so forth. There was a number of 
rapes over in Northumbria, and I think this is pretty terrible. And 
that's what the needle is falling on."

And the auditor says, "Well, I guess it is pretty terrible," and goes 
on to the next question.

As I say, it isn't invariable that he burns the house down. It's 
amusing that the psychoanalyst in - Freudians - in dealing with 
kleptomania make statements of this character.

They're the most generalized, sweeping statements you ever wanted to 
hear in your life. It's something on the order of "every time a 
kleptomaniac fails to steal anything, they burn the house down." I 
don't think there are that many houses. That statement is part of a 
text. It's a direct quote. (The bad English in it is not mine.) 
"Every time a kleptomaniac fails to steal anything, they burn the 
house down."

Well, it isn't of this order of generality. It's every now and then 
when you fail to get a withhold, you set off an atomic bomb. And it's 
often enough as a group repercussion, and far too frequent, as an 
individual repercussion, because you get a stall.

The individual goes through this cycle: The overt, having failed to 
be pulled by the auditor, restimulates the necessity for the pc to 
minimize the overt that he has done by running down the target 
against which the overt was committed. So the pc, far from having an 
overt pulled or having a withhold pulled, has been tricked into 
committing a new overt on top of the withhold, against the people who 
tried to get it. Do you see the mechanism?

All right. The Rosicrucians were trying to get the withhold, and they 
failed to get the withhold. The individual would then go "natter, 
natter," and his withhold, then, is against the Rosicrucians. So he 
immediately tries to blow up the Rosicrucians. You got the idea? They 
have no such mechanism as this. But I'm just giving you an example.

If his overt is against the ETU, and he's withholding it like crazy, 
and it's the ETU that ticks the overt - see, that tick the withhold, 
but not get it in any way - he is liable, if it's a center-line 
withhold of some sort or another, fly into a fantastic potpourri of 
yip-yap against the ETU, don't you see?

The overts are always against the people who fail to pull the 
withhold. Knowing that, I think it might put a little spurs to your 
ambition never to miss one, because the succeeding overts are always 
against you. You fail to knock out the withhold, and you or your 
group will get the benefit - questionable benefit - of the succeeding 
overts. And this is one of the primary principles of mental reaction.

They try to lessen the overt, to make nothing of the people who might 
find out. They've had the overt restimulated, so now they have to 
make nothing of the people, to everyone, so that nobody will ever 
believe the people, if the overt-withhold is suspected.

You see, as long as the thing is unpulled, it has dynamite. The 
second it is pulled, there's no dynamite connected with it. It's just 
- they just throw a flounder out on the table, you see? It's a very 
mysterious action, this whole thing of pulling a withhold. You reach 
down into the pc for this smoldering volcano, you know, with lava 
running all along and the villages burning on all the mountainsides, 
everything going to pieces, you see, and the steam flying out of the 
sea. And you've reached down his throat to pull out this unsavory, 
bombastic object, and you drop on the table a dead haddock.

Just in the process of it passing from his throat to the middle of 
the table, it goes flop. There isn't even a cinder. Have you noticed 
this? A cleanly pulled withhold transmutes from the most bombastic 
explosive manufactured to about the limpest fish ever caught, in the 
process of being pulled. It is just nothing. The pc sits there and he 
looks at it and he says, "What on earth is that?"

And he's mystified. There's always a little "unknow" follows this 
thing, which doesn't do him any damage at all: "I wonder why I was so 
upset about that." He always has this kind of little action. You 
yourself who have had a withhold of magnitude pulled on you have 
probably experienced the same thing, you know? You just grind and you 
worry and you search, and so forth, and you're - "It's, well-mm-ulp. 
Oh, I'll try - I don't know. Well, let's see if I can get away with 
not telling them. Well actually, the truth of the matter is, I really 
have never had anything ... Well, I'm gonna tell him. Hm-hm-hm-mm. 
All right. Well, I'll come out with it. All right! All right! I pick 
my teeth. I pick my teeth. I pick my ...

"What is the matter here? There's nothing very important about 
picking your teeth. Now, why was I so upset about telling the 
auditor?"

And when you've had a big one that you've been sitting on for a long 
time, you can see the partnership in that particular series of 
reactions. It absolutely feels ghastly just before you hand it out. 
Have you had something like this occur? Or something? All right.

Now, supposing it went this way: "Well, on the subject - well, you - 
you got reaction on it. You ... you sure your meter is working? Are 
you sure your meter is working? Oh, you're not sure your meter is 
working? Oh, well. Oh, well. That's ... it's ... Okay. Well, I feel 
much better now. Let's go on to the next question. All right. That's 
good."

And the auditor goes on to the next question. And you get outside the 
door, you know, and you say, "Should have told him. No, I couldn't 
have told him. Uhrrrr."

You get home at night, you know. Wheels start going around, and you 
say, "God, he's a lousy auditor. Well, that's terrible. Horrible 
things. I remember something Ron did once. Let's see. Hm. Hm. And I 
heard of an auditor one time who - who charged too much for auditing, 
and so forth. And see? see? see? see? see?" - immediate reaction of 
that kind of thing on a withhold of magnitude that's missed.

And a guy sits around - actually, he's disappointed. He's left 
sitting on the middle of something. It's too much for him. He can 
practically feel the steam coming out of his ears, and nobody did 
anything for him about it. He basically is disappointed.

Also, he knows that it is so forceful and so powerful that if he had 
told about it there might have been great repercussions on the 
subject. And therefore, it's much better that he didn't say anything 
about it, and he has really won because, you see, if it got around 
that he'd picked his teeth ... oh, well, I don't know, lots of things 
might have happened. The Dental Association might have gotten on to 
him, and all kinds of things might have occurred. They might be ... 
"So it's a good thing. It's a good thing. A lousy auditor, and he 
should have known better. And actually, truth of the matter is ..."

But that's all because the withhold is simply restimulated, don't you 
see? And the person is fighting back and forth, and he's left sitting 
on a charge of steam, dynamite, volcanic lava, and so on, all of 
which amounts to, when he finally gets out and looks at it, in the 
final run, why, he picks his teeth. He picks his teeth. He picks his 
teeth.

Well, what was so important about picking your teeth? And when you've 
seen that mechanism occur, you'll realize that if you interrupt it 
before it is displayed, you've left the pc with a full head of steam. 
And of course the pc is liable to do almost anything. Do you see 
this?

And he might as well face up to the fact there are liabilities to 
auditing. There weren't liabilities to unsuccessful auditing. There 
weren't wild liabilities to very mild auditing. There weren't 
liabilities to simply running out a few engrams, if you could get 
your hands on them, and so forth. There weren't any great liabilities 
to it, nor were there any great liabilities to running concepts. No 
real mess on that. So we got away with that fine.

Now we move over into the heavy artillery, and we bring up parks of 
155s, and German 88s, and we string it out along the line. And then 
we put a bunch of rocket launchers in the lineup. And then we say 
well, that's fine. Let's take some B-47s and line them up over here 
and put atom bombs in their stomachs.

And now let's go ahead. And along about this time, you're possessed 
of sufficient tools, that what - the stuff you are handling, which is 
the root stuff of human aberration, and so on, has to be handled as 
it should be handled. That's all.

Now you'll go, in this basis, from one extreme, perhaps, to the 
other. I don't remember if this was the exact sequence, but it makes 
better telling this way: A bunch of recruits who were just out of 
boot school were assigned to a ship, and they were afraid of 
ammunition. And the main battery was sitting there, and they, of 
course, were the loaders. And they were handling the ammunition and 
slamming it into the breech - they were supposed to, you see? And 
they'd pick up a long shell, you know - a shell about that long, you 
know, with an explosive-fuse nose, that if you ever dropped it, you 
know, it'd go boom! and that would be obliteration with magnitude.

And they'd pick up this thing, you know, and they'd - they'd pick it 
up with their ... you know, and hand it to the next one, you know? 
You can see, in a rapid-fire action, that shells being passed with 
that slowness and that care into the breeches of guns, you see, are 
not going to obliterate anything. It's quite the contrary. They're 
liable to be dropped on the deck and blow everybody in the gun crew 
to smithereens.

Well, I adjudicated that they had been talked to too long about the 
great care that they must use - the great care they must use - in the 
handling of ammunition. I assume that they probably had been talked 
to by fellows from the ordnance department, that explained to them, 
"These were the nose fuses of the goodygumps, and if you ever dropped 
one, why, it went blang! and so forth. And you must always be careful 
to keep the ammunition in its proper cases and in its proper slots, 
and you must always keep it marked and flash-marked, because it's all 
very dangerous. It's all very dangerous. It's all very dangerous."

By the time they got to the ship, of course, they were afraid to 
touch a piece of ammunition. They had no familiarity with the 
ammunition. They just had the sensibility that the ammunition was 
dangerous.

Well, I saw this at drill, you know, that sort of thing. They're 
trying to whip this gun crew together and so on. And at drill it was 
just this matter of "Huh-huh-huh-huh-huh-huh-no-ooooo. Uh ... you got 
- you got it, Joe, you got it, Joe? Ha-ha-ha! Oh, thank God, you've 
got it, Joe. All right. Now open the breech very carefully. Don't hit 
its nose against anything, you know?"

Oh God, it was terrible. So I asked them if they had any dummy 
shells. I asked the gunner's mate if he had any dummy shells. And he 
said "Yeah, I got some dummy shells."

And so I had all the gun crews of this particular type of gun in the 
main battery around and line up in a ring on the foredeck. And I took 
one of these dummy shells and I handed it to them and told them to 
play catch with it. It was the same size and weight as everything. It 
was just what was used in order to demonstrate or drill-load 
something. And of course, they were very happy with that. And they'd 
catch it back and forth and kicked it around. They got so they'd 
throw it so it was spinning to one another, and toss it back and 
forth across about five, ten feet of deck, you see, to one another. 
They were happy with this dummy shell. Of course, not live, no fuses 
in it, no powder, nothing.

And they kept doing this and doing this, and I had them do it for two 
or three days, if I remember rightly, or maybe a day or two. And I 
saw they were at it one morning, and they were having a fine time 
playing catch. So I went down, opened up the magazine, had the 
gunner's mate hand me a real brass-case, fuse-loaded, nose-fuse-set 
piece of artillery.

And I said, "Here you go.

And the first guy in the line - they were looking at me sort of like 
snake - staring at that thing, you know, like birds who just sighted 
a snake or something, you know? I took the first shell and I said, 
"Here you go." And I just threw it to him across the open deck, you 
know?

The guy caught it. "God!"

Three days, they were throwing that live shell with a set nose-fuse 
fifteen feet across the deck to one another, playing catch with the 
thing. Some ordnance officers came down from ordnance and saw this 
ship lying there alongside of the pier, and its gun crew was playing 
catch with a live shell, and he went straight up and a mile south.

He had no authority over us. He pointed out to us, though, if anybody 
had dropped it, it probably would have been the end of the USS 
Washington which was lying alongside of us. And I said I didn't like 
battleships anyway. But he totally was overlooking some of the 
principles with which we are now totally familiar, that a person has 
to become familiarized with a dangerous object before he can use it 
easily and well and not have accidents with it.

The way you can have accidents with a dangerous object is to know it 
is dangerous and not know there is any way to handle it. And if you 
know a dangerous object is dangerous, you can always have accidents 
with it.

Now, the actions of an auditor are given publicity on this particular 
basis: Because people are generally very nervous about auditing and 
very nervous about looking into people's human minds, and because 
"everybody knows" you mustn't have anything to do with a human mind - 
oh "everybody knows" that.

Some of your friends - you say, "I'm studying Scientology."

And they say, "Oh, well, what does that have to do with?"

You say, "Well, that just has to do with the human mind."

And they say, "Oh, well, you shouldn't - I don't know if you ought to 
tamper with that or not. It's a pretty dangerous situation. You 
mustn't have anything to do with it."

Well, why don't you point out to them at that time, "Well, you 
mustn't have anything to do with it? Don't you think they have an 
awful lot of casualties with this thing they mustn't have anything to 
do with, you know? Don't you think it's kind of dangerous not to have 
anything to do with it? Haven't you got one? Have you got one? Well, 
don't you have anything to do with your own mind?"

That would be a staggering thing, but the guy is liable to go into a 
funk when he realizes that every time he figures out an arithmetical 
problem, he is tampering with the human mind.

And we're liable to err along this line. We're liable to say to 
people, "Oh, well, auditing is very easy. You can't make any 
mistakes. There's no way to make a mistake. There is nothing you can 
do wrong, and you just sit there, and you go through a certain ... 
There's nothing to it. You actually can't do any damage." And there 
is a tendency on our parts and on the part of instructors, and so 
forth, in order to give students confidence, to say that you can't 
really do anything very damaging or very wrong.

There's a tendency on our parts to do that. And that is in the effort 
of restimulating their courage because, well, students in an Academy, 
and that sort of thing, are awfully nervy characters. They sit there 
and they pick up the E-Meter and wonder if they're handling a thirty-
megatron hydrogen bomb, you'd think, to look at them. They can't even 
look at the thing. The needle wobbles, and they don't even know what 
it's all about. They think it's a dangerous weapon.

So we say, "Well, it's not dangerous, and there's nothing you can do 
to hurt anybody, and so on, and so on."

Well, we've actually leaned too far in the other direction. All this 
attitude was possibly perfectly justified in 1956 when we were 
running a tremendous number of concepts and sort of havingness 
processes and SCS and things like that - all of which are perfectly 
valid. (Add to your list of processes early in the lecture, 
"objective, physical-universe processes," as a safe series.) But all 
of these things are valid. You don't get into danger with them, and 
they don't blow anybody's head off. But look, for years and years and 
years, now, Ronnie has been at work. And I've been trying to get the 
hydraulic jacks underneath of the basic core of human aberration to a 
level that any case - without paying much attention to the auditor - 
that any case could be resolved fairly easily within some finite 
period of time. Well, they're resolving Clears now, and some of the 
places are making Clears, and so on. We're resolving Clears maybe, in 
something on the order of two, three hundred hours - some top figure. 
It's a finite period of time. Last Clear made in Australia was 118 
hours. This is finite time, you see?

Yes, but what have we paid with? With what coin have we paid for the 
speed-up? Ha-ha-ha-ha. We have paid for it with stripping the safety 
precautions off, because now we have to run things that, run wrong, 
wouldn't spin somebody in but it'd certainly make a pc unhappy as 
hell. It'd certainly mess things up. It won't do any permanent or 
lasting damage, but it'll certainly make somebody awful sad. And 
it'll certainly make them very uncomfortable.

And done wrong, we have moved into a strata of processing - done 
wrong - that will make somebody awful miserable, because you've got 
hydraulic jacks. And all you have to do, you see, is you just take 
another little notch on one of these jacks, and it puts thirty tons 
of pressure against this particular engram. And the pc says, "Well, 
it isn't resolving." And all you've got to do is lean over and put 
another notch on the thing, and put another thirty tons of pressure - 
another inch, you see? And the pc still says, "Well, it isn't 
resolving." And you're dealing with technology that it is very easy 
just to pick your finger up and just put that jack over another inch.

It's the wrong object you got the jack leaning against - wrong 
target. And your pc, of course, gets very uncomfortable and blows 
session, gets very upset with you and gets extremely disturbed, and 
he acts like a nut. And part of his shame is the fact that he doesn't 
know how come he is acting like a nut. This is a mystery to him, 
don't you see?

You've sat there being nice and sweet and kind, and you're not doing 
anything wrong. Obviously, you're sitting there to help him, and all 
of a sudden he feels like hell. Well, what is this? You didn't do it, 
so he feels guilty every time he gets upset, and you have a much 
harder time with it. And he's upset, of course, because something has 
gone awry in his bank. Don't you see that a gross error has to be 
entered in.

Don't think that it's a minor error the auditor would be making, you 
know, like running a command one time too many. No, it'd have to be 
the wrong terminal and the wrong command, run on top of a present 
time problem and an ARC break.

But the auditor, because of the processes he is handling, and so 
forth, actually can, in spite of all this, hold a pc in session and 
throw that hydraulic jack an additional notch. And of course, that's 
the one notch it shouldn't have been thrown, because the whole thing 
is awry anyhow. You see what I mean? I mean, you're dealing with high 
horsepower, highly skilled technology. And if the technology is 
wrong, or if you do some of the most obvious wrongnesses that can be 
done, you're going to get a repercussion. And the repercussion is 
considerable. I don't wish to minimize it, so I'm just leveling with 
you, you see?

So on the one side, we could say "Oh, auditing is easy, and anybody 
could audit, and there's nothing you could do to hurt anybody's human 
mind, and so forth." Well, it's true. There's nothing we can do to 
permanently injure or damage somebody's mind, but oh, brother, could 
you give somebody a very nasty cold, for instance. Could you give him 
an awful bad bellyache, could you do a lot of other things, don't you 
see, that would be damnably uncomfortable. They'd all fade out in 
three days or ten days, or a couple of weeks, or something like that. 
But it wouldn't be good.

Now, there's no sense in saying, "Well, you can't do anything. You 
can't hurt anybody, and nothing will ever upset the pc, and so 
forth." That's an extreme, and it's a dangerous extreme, because it's 
not, strictly speaking, true.

And on the other hand - on the other hand over here - we say, "Oh, 
well, auditing the mind is very dangerous, and there is no way 
possibly that you could really tamper with somebody's mind. It ought 
to be done by an expert. Call an electrician," or something like 
this, the way the psychiatrists are doing these days. And you get 
over to this and you can say, "Well, it's very dangerous, and you 
shouldn't have anything to do with it at all," you see?

Between these two extremes, there is the sensible level of "Yes, 
there are tremendous numbers of things you can do with the human 
mind, if you don't make gross errors. "

Now, the errors that you can make that will be damaging errors to the 
human mind are all of them under the heading of gross errors. They 
are glaringly large. They are huge. They loom up out of the rundown 
like Marble Arch up in Hyde Park. I mean, they're big. You can run 
into that with a car, and you'd know it was there. And if you've got 
the idea that an auditing error is the size of a twig that just fell 
off a tree on Rotten Row, change your mind, you see? You go over that 
with a car wheel, it just goes flick! or something like that. You 
hardly know it's there, and so on.

Auditing errors are not of that order of magnitude. The auditing 
error, to produce a bad result on the pc, has to be absolutely huge. 
And you, in running auditors or directing an HGC or doing something 
in this particular zone or area, do a good job only when you get your 
eye off the twigs and start looking at the Marble Arches that have 
gotten across the road.

You know that that's quite interesting? It's quite an interesting 
fact, that people directing auditing and supervising auditing, when 
they get auditing reports, and see that the case is not running well, 
or something like that, always look at twigs. Yeah, the little tiny 
things. And they say, "Well, are you very sure that you're giving him 
an acknowledgment every time? You know? Are you very sure you're 
acknowledging well? How is your TR 0 as you're auditing him?" You 
know? Little, little things.

Of course, the auditor's TR 0 has to be good, but an auditor's TR 0 
can be totally out and the case will still make gains. It's fact! And 
the acknowledgments can be nonextant. You can say, if you're running 
a goals terminal or something like that, you're running some level, 
"Well, how have you helped a mugwump?" "How have you helped a 
mugwump?" and "How has a mugwump helped you?" "How have you helped a 
mugwump?" "How has a mugwump helped you?" The preclear probably 
wouldn't notice from one second to the next whether you acknowledged 
him or not. Do you realize that? He's just so interested in the 
thing. He follows the auditing command, and so on. He doesn't notice 
it.

On the other hand, he gets so interiorized into high-power techniques 
that you acknowledge him perfectly, your TR 0 is perfectly in, 
everything is perfect, and he never notices that either. You get the 
idea?

So these are tiny. These are tiny. You've got to know your TRs to be 
a good auditor, and the combined effect of all TRs out can be rather 
interesting. But let's not, when we say something is happening with 
this case that is wrong, go into these tiny things. And do you know 
that you will most often avoid the gross errors, you know? And it's 
the gross error ... Now, what's a gross error?

Well, was the auditor there for the session? Now, that would be a 
gross auditing error, don't you see? And you know, in directing 
auditors, you almost never ask these burning questions.

"Did you have your E-Meter turned on? Does it work?" "Have you gone 
into any screaming fits at the pc?" These are all gross auditing 
errors, you see? "Now, when you clear the rudiments, do you clear the 
rudiments?" Gross error is "Do you ever look at the needle while 
you're clearing rudiments?" That's a gross auditing error! Of course, 
how the devil can you audit and find out anything about the pc if 
you're not looking at the meter? And you would be amazed how often 
this is the auditing error which causes the miss. The auditor under 
training is doing everything but looking at the meter. He asks the 
question and then looks at the meter. The meter's reaction takes 
place in a tenth of a second, and he takes a half a second to look 
from the question to the meter. So he misses all reactions.

And do you know we've had that going on right here? That comes under 
the heading of a gross auditing error. It's just not doing auditing.

All right. Now, you read along and this auditing report is just fine, 
and everything seems to be okay about the thing, and you just can't 
understand why this pc isn't making any advances and you say, "Well, 
now, are your rudiments all in?"

"Oh, yes, rudiments are all in. Yeah."

"Well, as you're running the goals terminal on the run, you're not 
overrunning the assessment? Still getting tone arm action?"

"Oh, yes, getting tone arm action."

You check it all out. Everything is perfectly beautiful. And you're 
running in some Podunk, someplace, where you've got auditors there, 
you know, that haven't been very well trained, or something like 
that, on the line. Whole case becomes a total mystery, and you say, 
"Well, gee, we must have some wrong combination or the technology is 
wrong," and we start adjusting the little things, and we say that the 
auditor's TR 0 has got to be improved, and there must be a different 
command used here, and there must be a this and there must be a that, 
and we fix it all up, and we get a whole bunch of extraordinary 
solutions.

Truth of the matter is, if we went back and checked it up from 
beginning to end or if we had a motion picture of the session, we'd 
find out that the session went along just fine, except right in the 
middle. Because after the break every day, and after they go back 
into session every day, the auditor gives the pc a total spinal 
adjustment!

Now, you think I'm kidding, but this kind of thing is the usual - the 
usual gross auditing error. It belongs in that category, don't you 
see?

All right. Gross auditing error: You could actually audit a pc on the 
technology you have today with somewhat of a present time problem. 
You could get him through one session, and he has a bit of a present 
time problem, and just kind of bully it through and somehow or 
another arrive at the other end, and he'd get a little bit of gain. 
It'd be almost impossible to miss. But you couldn't do it with all 
rudiments out. Or not running any rudiments at all. You say to the 
auditor that - it's this Pumpkin Center that you're running - and you 
say to him, "Well, now, are you sure you got your rudiments in?"

"Oh, yes, sir. I got my rudiments in. They're all in," and so on.

And then a brilliant stroke of genius comes to you, and you say, 
"Well, when you're putting the rudiments in, do you put the pc on the 
E-Meter?"

He says, "Oh, no. Never."

"Well, how do you know if the rudiments are in?"

"Well, the pc tells me so."

"Well, how does the pc tell you so?"

"Well, I ask him, 'Are all your rudiments in?"'

Now, this sounds utterly, fabulously idiotic to you. But do you know 
that auditing errors of this magnitude exist? And when you're 
supervising a large number of auditors and so on, you will always 
have some people who are just out of the Academy, who are pretty 
green, that sort of thing, and you can just beat your brains to 
pieces trying to figure out why the technology isn't working.

The technology always works. But is it being applied?

And the gross auditing error comes in the application of the 
technology. And that's the zone you should look in, in order to 
correct a case.

Now, we can add to these gross auditing errors "leaving a withhold in 
restimulation." Because then, I assure you, the case is not going to 
make any progress.

We right now have a course running someplace in the world, and in 
weeks of run they have only found, in a number of students, a goal or 
two. And those they have found a goal or two on, early, they found no 
terminals for. You'll find this quite common in various places, by 
the way.

A whole group can go sailing along and getting no terminals and no 
goals and no nothing, and so forth; we were doing it right here, till 
I finally just got right down and figured out what the devil this was 
all about. And I found out the rudiments were just wildly out, and 
the auditors were actually in a games condition on the subject of 
goals. You know? I mean, just frankly that. They were in a games 
condition. They were so ARC broke on their own goals, they were 
damned if they were going to let anybody else have any goals. I think 
that was about the way it added up, something of that sort. So, by 
straightening the rudiments out, and raising the magnitude of 
importance of keeping rudiments in, why, what are we running into 
now?

Well, I was just asking a question. There's a student been here for 
about two weeks and two days, and we don't have his goal and 
terminal. I'm starting to ask questions. What is happening? Because 
this is not usual now.

You see? We've learned to keep our rudiments in before we do goals 
and terminal assessments, and having learned that, why, we find our 
goals and terminals, and that's about all there is to it. That was 
the gross error; it was just not having any rudiments in.

It wasn't that we needed new trick methods of finding goals and 
terminals, we just had to have somebody sit there and actually ask 
for the goals and ask for the terminals and not invalidate any of 
them and not add a bunch of things to the nonsense that was going on. 
Keep the rudiments in, we found goals and terminals, just bangity-
bang! It's very easy to do. And some of you right here have 
experienced that particular gruesome experience. And that was 
gruesome, wasn't it?

You see, the light and dark of the situation was too fantastic for 
words. The first course I taught, immediately ahead of this course, I 
found all the goals and terms - I think they were all found the first 
few days, weren't they?

Female voice: Yes, it wasn't very long. We did Presession 38 first 
and then -

We did Presession 38 and shook down a lot of - 37 and 38, wasn't it?

Female voice: 37 and 38 too.

Yeah, and we'd had them - we had their PTPs and their withholds all 
off, and bang! Assessment, there was just nothing to it, just fell in 
your lap. Nothing to it.

Well, now this unit, at great distance from here, happens to be 
running into the same difficulties right this minute. And I have sent 
over cables about "Get your rudiments in. Get your rudiments in. Get 
your rudiments in." And I don't know whether this will be heard or 
not, because this has to amount to looking at the E-Meter. And I've 
just had a datum from that particular unit, that some of the students 
on that particular course can be forced to stand and look at an E-
Meter which is reacting and be asked what the reaction was, and they 
can't tell you that the needle moved.

Well, we look for a gross error, so I tell them, "Get the rudiments 
in, get the rudiments in, get the rudiments in." I probably ought to 
be saying "Show them an E-Meter and find out for them where the tone 
arm is. Show them which is the knob, or black object, that wiggles." 
We'll find out it's some gross auditing error, you see, of that 
magnitude.

It always defies your imagination when you run into these gross 
errors, and running a great many people, a great many auditing teams 
or a great many staff auditors, or a great many students, it all 
boils down to the same thing: You're just sure that you have a dog 
case that has avoided technology, and then you try to do everything 
under the sun, moon and stars you can with technology in order to 
straighten out this case. And you find out the case hasn't advanced 
for some time because "Well, you see, actually we're supposed to look 
at tapes at four o'clock, and the auditing session is also at four 
o'clock, so we, of course, have been skipping the auditing session."

The case wasn't being audited. I mean, this sounds idiotic, but that 
is how idiotic, and that is how gross most of these errors are.

"Oh, yes, I always get the rudiments in on the pc. Yes, I always get 
the rudiments in on the pc. That's very good. I make sure that the 
needle is moving when he says he has withholds. When he has no 
withholds, if the needle moves, then I know I can pass on to the next 
rudiment."

I know, they're all so stupid and all so incredible that they get 
missed. And you are very often persuaded into being very inventive 
about technology. This is - even I have been. On the basis of 
persuading some - of being persuaded that you just "You've got to 
think of some new solution, that's all, because this case just isn't 
moving," you know? And then we find out that, well, he doesn't get 
audited, either. Tapes are at four o'clock, and the case is supposed 
to be audited at four o'clock, so he just doesn't audit the case, but 
hasn't really had nerve to tell you. Or something wild like this, you 
know? And it comes down to something fundamental.

The common denominator of all of this is no auditing done. It'll be 
some degree of that, and I wanted to give you the common denominator 
of it. It's some degree of no auditing done: Whether they just - the 
auditor never reports to the auditing session at all; or, after he 
gets to the auditing session, omits some large section of auditing. 
Oh, doesn't run the goals terminal of the pc, decides actually that 
he's got to get Mother out of the way first. And he just goes on for 
ages auditing Mother. Mother, Mother, and we audit more Mother, and 
supposed to be auditing "a tinker."

And you'll get errors of this character, and I hate to say it, 
because staff auditors are actually terrific. I have lots of 
confidence in staff auditors. I've never had staff auditors balk at 
doing anything; I've never had them do anything but, when they 
followed through results, just try their level best to deliver. 
Terrific willingness. Main failure has been - is me telling them, 
comprehensibly enough, what I wanted done, so that it could be 
understood. I consider that any main failure, because the willingness 
- there's never been any want of that.

So therefore we come down to a simplicity, and they can do this, and 
everybody goes off at a smart trot, and everything is working along 
fine this way.

But I've seen some of the wildest miscomprehensions of a relayed 
communication, such as this: "You run the level" - this actually 
happened - "you run the level until the tone arm gets moving and then 
reassess for the next level." And that was the way the auditing 
direction was interpreted. You know, "you run a level long enough to 
get the tone arm moving well, and then you assess for the next level 
of the Prehav Scale, and you run it."

Man! I can tell you that if you did that for about four or five 
levels, the whole case would come down to a slow jam and the pc would 
feel like he was going crazy. It'd take him about ten, twelve days to 
get over the idea, too. He'd just feel like he was going crazy!

If you want to audit the pc into a feeling that they're nuts, don't 
do a terminals run on his goals terminal, but just take some kind of 
a general Routine 2 run, and assess the pc - very carefully assess 
him, and find out a real live level, that good level. Find his level 
real good, and then audit it and audit it until you get the tone arm 
moving good, see? And then just skip it. And then do another 
assessment (and ignore the fact that that one is still going), and 
pick up some other level of the Prehav Scale, and then run it - don't 
get rudiments in - and run it, run it, and run it hard and run it 
hard and run it hard and run it hard, and all of a sudden the needle 
will freeze up and the tone arm will freeze up or something. Well, 
insist that that isn't so good, you see? That isn't so good that it 
did that; run it a little bit longer. And don't get in any rudiments 
- no need of end rudiments, either. Now, on the next line, assess 
again, get some other level of the Prehav Scale, and just run that 
one till you finally get the needle broken loose - just get it broken 
loose - and then reassess again. And your pc, about this time, will 
go "Hmmrh! What's happening? Everything is going green! I have this 
horrible sensation that this ear keeps tying a bowline with this ear! 
Ha! I knew I shouldn't have drunk the coffee."

He'll actually have a sensation of going mad. He won't go mad! A few 
days later it'll drift out, and he will merely spit every time he 
sees you.

But that actually is the direct results of not flattening levels of 
the Prehav Scale. But that's a pretty gross auditing error: Every 
time you get the needle moving, every time you get the tone arm 
moving well, reassess and get another level; and when you get the 
tone arm moving well, reassess and get another level - never flatten 
anything. And on the Prehav Scale, of course, a person feels like 
he's going mad if you do that, because you're using one of the most 
powerful set of boosters you can.

You talk about thirty-ton hydraulic jacks! The commands can't help 
but move his mind around. You know, he could sit there and resist 
even doing the command, and suddenly he realizes, well, he does it, 
you see, and rrrr! rrrrrr! It's running a ship on a rocky ocean, 
believe me.

Do you see what could happen? Because the technology is quite 
adequate to really pushing the thing down the line, you see? He will 
do it, willy-nilly, and he goes far in, much further in than you 
would ever dream that anybody could be pushed.

It'll all drift off in three to ten days, and he will feel fine, 
whether he gets any auditing or not. But that's not the point. You've 
wrecked a pc and you may have wrecked a goals-terminal line. And, 
believe it or not, this actually occurred in a Central Organization. 
This actually occurred.

Yeah, the interpretation of my request was - wasn't any backwards 
reason - is as soon as you get some motion in the tone arm, you 
reassess and do a new level.

All right. Gross auditing errors is what you are dealing with here. 
That is a far, wide departure.

Now, technically, there aren't too many of these things. One would 
be, right now, to run any terminal but the goals-have terminal. We 
would consider that a very gross auditing error, because it would 
really make a mess out of things.

Leading that, in terms of violence, or even worse than that, is 
leaving a withhold question unflat. That would be a gross auditing 
error. We have to move it up to there, because it produces a gross 
mess when it is done.

Doing a wrong assessment, or using an assessment that was done 
carelessly, indifferently or incorrectly and not getting it checked: 
that would be a gross auditing error. Getting or using an assessment 
that was briefly and carelessly done, or even lengthily and 
carelessly done. But use an assessment that you just aren't sure of: 
It's a gross auditing error.

Failing to continue to security check a pc as his case advances, 
because again this is quite case-damaging and is a gross auditing 
error.

You haven't heard that one for some time, have you? But nevertheless, 
it's very much present right now. Do you realize the faster the case 
gains, the more withholds are going to come to view? And if there's 
no Security Check to pull them off, your case can ball up in a knot 
quick as scat. So, the auditor who is running the line should think 
of his withhold point of the end and beginning rudiments - and the 
withhold should be left into the end rudiment, also. Just add another 
one in there. You know, add a "Have you told me any half-truths, 
untruths?" and so forth. And also add withholds in, because your 
technology is going too fast. It gives you another crack. So you got 
an additional one, additional crack at it.

I haven't given you a new write-down of this, because I'm still 
redoing the end rudiments. You'll see it shortly. There are two or 
three things that I'm questioning and don't know quite what to do 
with, yet, but I'll know pretty well, very shortly. That's why I 
haven't issued you a new slip on it.

The auditor who is running a run on a goals terminal - having found 
it and he's running a run on it - and he doesn't pay a considerable 
amount of attention to withholds in beginning and end rudiments, is 
actually guilty of a gross auditing error, because the withholds are 
going to appear by the reason of the case is making advance, and the 
case will advance just to the degree that the withholds are off of 
it.

And he'd say, "Well, I got all the withholds off at the beginning of 
the week, and it was just clean as a wolf's tooth. And so the 
rudiments are in, so I don't have to pay very much attention to 
withholds on this particular case just now." And then we had two days 
of marvelous and wonderful gain and everything was just going along 
beautifully, so of course we're going to have a third day, aren't we?

Ah, that's an unjustified assumption, because there is this about 
withholds: The withhold which is not pulled - which is restimulated 
but not pulled - can raise hell.

That's "missing a Security Check question"; can just raise the 
dickens with a case. And a case advance is also marked by an advance 
in responsibility, and being marked by an advance in responsibility, 
brings to view more overts than were formerly available to a Security 
Check.

That is a test: Is a case advancing? If a case is advancing it 
develops more withholds; more withholds come into view if a case is 
advancing.

Now, I'll give you an example of how a case is not advancing. We've 
done a Security Check, we've cleaned the rudiments, we asked a sort 
of a Presession 38-type of question in the rudiments, and "What 
question shouldn't I ask you?" And we've done a good job and we've 
got the rudiments all clean, and he's just had a Form 3 and 
everything of this sort. We already have his goals terminal; we go on 
a goals-terminal run. And we run it Tuesday, and we run it Wednesday, 
and we run it Thursday. We pay no more attention to withholds, see, 
and we - Thursday and ... What the hell happened? Everything is 
stuck, and so on. The pc is very unhappy and appears rather blowy. 
And Friday - oh, well, it's an ARC-breaky session, and it's all very 
upset.

Well, what could possibly be wrong with the case? Well, the case 
advanced, that's what's wrong with the case, and if a case advances 
it develops withholds.

Now, this is how it should run, according to some auditors. Let's 
look at this one: Now, you get all the withholds off and you get it 
all straightened out, and you run him Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, 
Thursday, Friday. And you do another Security Check and you're just 
very careful of withholds on Friday, and you make sure they're all 
polished up and the end rudiments, and so on, and so forth. You don't 
find any more. There are no more withholds than there were on Monday.

And you say, "Boy, I'm sure doing a good, clean job of auditing" - 
with absolutely no advance of any kind whatsoever. It's almost 
unthinkable you could do that these days, but it theoretically could 
happen.

And if you got no gain on the case of any kind whatsoever, it will 
occur, then, that the case will not raise in responsibility of any 
kind whatsoever. So it will occur, then, that at the end of a 
considerable period of auditing, the person will not have remembered 
any new withholds of any kind whatsoever, because no raise in 
responsibility, no additional or new withholds that he hadn't 
remembered before. See?

Gross auditing error not to keep the withholds off a case while 
you're running it. It's the one thing that can really stall it down 
to a walk. It can just go to a sudden thud! and so on.

Withholds, then, make a good test of case advance. Actually, you 
could take a short Security Check and shake a case down at an end of 
a short period of auditing, and find out whether or not the case was 
winning. You do the short Security Check at the beginning, then you 
audit him for a little while, and do the same, exact Security Check 
at the end, and he has remembered nothing new: no advance in case. 
Much more reliable than a profile. A profile is reliable, too, but 
it'd tell you directly and immediately.

Yeah, because in the first place, remember that withholds are not 
relegated to current lifetime only. What happens if you start opening 
up whole track? Don't you think anybody has got any withholds on the 
whole track? You mean they - you mean they lived all these lifetimes 
right up to this lifetime, and so forth, and they never had any 
withholds in those lifetimes. They just died by natural acts and 
causes, you see, and everything would go along. Yeah, but this 
lifetime is different; in this lifetime they have withholds.

Well, you start opening up a track, and you, frankly, will see it in 
running this groups terminal process. Individual will all of a sudden 
realize he has a withhold from a certain particular group. Uhh! He 
didn't tell them that!

And then it finally occurs to him, at the long end of a run or 
something: "You know, I'm not in that group any more? And this 
amounts to the fact that I am actually withholding my body and my 
beingness from that particular group. Yes! I have a withhold on that 
group."

He'll recognize with great clarity that he isn't in the group, and 
therefore is withholding himself from the group. He recognizes things 
like this, and they didn't occur to him earlier.

"Oh, yes, well, there was the Marcab government, and there it was, 
and - still there! Yeah, I was part of it once, and it's still there. 
No, I haven't anything on them. No withhold. No. There isn't anything 
I've done they wouldn't like. It's funny, your asking me that, 
because, actually, I've never done anything, you know, as far as they 
didn't like. I never have, never have. They get along fine, I got 
along fine with them, and there's just nothing, you know; and it's 
all kind of imaginary anyway, and [doesn't] have anything to do with 
me."

And after you've run the process for a while, why, you come back 
across the same thing, and he says, "Well, the Marcab government is 
.. uuuuhh!"

And you say, "What's that?"

And he "Ugh! Well, the last time I was there they had a warrant for 
my arrest. Ha-ha-ha, ha-ha! I'm not about to go back there!"

Every time, of course, you run across one of these: "I am not about 
to go back there." "I am not going to there anymore." "No, I do not 
want to be a member of that group! No!" "What? Become a member of 
that church? Oh, no! Under no circumstances! Well, that's silly! 
Stupid! I mean, I don't want anything to do with them, you know, I 
mean, ruhh!" and so on. "Of course, I'm totally unemotional about 
it."

"Have withholds from the subject?"

"Oh, no, I don't have any withholds! What made you ask a - ? Oh, wait 
a minute. Ha-ha-ha! We had a treasurer once that robbed the exchequer 
and took all the cash that was in their account. I know that 
happened, and the group was pretty mad about that."

And then we go through, and we mix up, and a few questions later, 
maybe the next auditing session, all of a sudden the pc goes back 
across this church group, and he says, in a little small voice, "You 
remember my telling you about the treasurer that embezzled all the 
money? Ha-ha-ha. That was me!"

Well, what's the phenomenon? It isn't that he didn't recall it. It's 
that it was below his level of responsibility. And if his 
responsibility increases, he eventually remembers more clearly what 
the situation was and takes responsibility for his own overt.

So actually, the number of overts and withholds that show up newly on 
a case haven't very much to do with what a criminal the person has 
been. Everybody has plenty of withholds. You can just assume that; 
everybody has got plenty of withholds.

The question is, how many are available at any given instant? How 
many can be pulled or how many are they willing to talk about, at any 
given instant? Well, it's a direct coordination with the amount of 
responsibility the case has.

Now, I'll give you a brand-new way of thinking about this: Everybody 
has a number of withholds. Let's just say everybody has a number of 
withholds. This would be pretty close to a fact, you see? It's a 
finite number of withholds - eight hundred billion, or something. But 
it'd be the same for every person. People aren't necessarily 
different from one to the next. But that number could be considered 
more or less constant, person to person, pre-auditing - before 
they're audited.

All right. Now, what is different? What is different is the degree of 
responsibility the individual can take for his withholds. So that you 
have a criminal sitting there. And he says, "Yeah, I robbed a bank, 
and I did this and I did that, and I did the other thing, and I did 
.. Oh, yeah, yeah, I murdered babies and so on. And I just killed my 
wife and children one time and left home," and so on. There's not 
even a knock on the E-Meter.

Well, his irresponsibility is down to such a level that they're not 
even withholds. All right, he gets some auditing progress, and he 
finds out that out of this whole potpourri of crime, one time he was 
standing outside of a bank and he turned the dead guard over with his 
foot. And that's an overt. That's a real withhold. And he hadn't 
remembered that, and now he's telling you. And he sort of feels a 
little bit bad about it, and he's happy to get it off of his chest.

Then we go on, a little bit more auditing, and we got, a session or 
two later, and other things are coming and going, and so forth. And 
he tells you, "Well, uuuhhh, I just realized I'm wanted in Chicago," 
even though that was two lifetimes ago. "Remember that bank guard I 
said I turned over my foot? Actually, I shot him."

You say, "All right."

Few sessions later, you're running across things, and so on, and 
you're getting off withholds and so forth, and that's fine. And the 
criminal comes back across this point, and he says, "You know that 
bank guard I told you I shot? Well, the truth of the matter is, I 
shot him when his hands were up and his back was turned to me. And I 
read later in the papers that he was the sole support of his wife and 
children and two aged parents."

And you say, "Well, all right. Good. All right." And he's glad to get 
that off of his chest.

And then you audit him a while and he comes back across this thing 
later, and he happens to be clicking down the line on his various 
overts, and so forth. And he says, "You know that - that bank I was - 
told you I robbed in Chicago. And I was just a hood - I was just 
nobody, and so forth. Actually, I was a leader of the gang. Ha-ha-ha-
ha. Ha-ha-ha. Hate to have to confess this, but uh ... I was, and uh 
.. we dealt exclusively in bank robberies, and we brought about the 
panic of 1929. Yes. Ah-ha. I hate to have to tell you about that. 
There - there it is. There it is, you see?"

You get the idea? Perfect pattern of it was pulled by a fellow one 
time - I mean, a pc, a very famous guy. I won't particularly expose 
parts of his case, but he said, "We had a plan, one time. And this 
plan ... Well," he said, "it was just a bunch of us fellows, and we 
put some people in ice cubes, and we just got rid of them - and, you 
know, heh-heh just - it was nothing. Didn't have anything to do with 
thinking of anything. Nothing much going on, so we just thought 
this'd be a good thing, and it was a gay thing to do. And we - later 
on ... I realize it was bad now, but we just froze 'em up in some ice 
cubes and dumped 'em in an ocean on another planet, and that's all 
there is to it."

Well, on a little further questioning, why, it turns out that, well, 
actually there was some plan in it; there was some reason they did 
it, and so forth. And it went on, on this kind of a stupid gradient, 
and so forth, and we find out that we're talking to the fellow who 
thought up the plan, and executed the plan, and directed the plan 
that had to do with the implantations of all planets in this corner 
of the universe.

That was just too much overt, don't you see? It starts out with the 
basis, "Well, a bunch of us got together, and some people weren't 
behaving very well. And just some crummy little people, didn't amount 
to anything very much, you know? And we just put them in some freezer 
compartments, and we took them over and dumped them in an ocean. Ha-
ha-ha! Funny joke, wasn't it?"

You get the difference of magnitude in how these things walk up. Of 
course you don't know what series of withholds are going to develop 
into big ones, and what will really remain little withholds.

But the only thing dangerous about it is not clearing the question 
that you come to as you go across it. So it amounts to one of the 
greater auditing goofs, and it is a goof of magnitude. The individual 
that you let sit there and "natter, natter, natter, natter, natter," 
you're actually ruining his case, because you're letting him sit 
there and lessen the overt, lessen the overt, lessen the overt, 
lessen the overt. And you should realize what he's trying to do. He's 
trying to tell you "I have a withhold!"

And you never say, "Yes, yes, but what did you do of that type and 
kind that would make you feel that way yourself?"

And the individual says, "Nothing!" and the needle falls off the pin. 
And then you find out, "Well, yes, as a matter of fact ..." and it is 
quite something else, the time you do this. And all of a sudden it 
clears! And the case starts going Clear.

But by finding things which other people have done on the pc, you 
see, getting the motivators, and finding that the pc's - other 
things, and so forth, you worsen a case.

Only thing you ever want is what the pc does, and what the pc did.

But it comes under one of the headings of one of the finer crimes to 
leave a Sec Check question unflat. It can do more damage per case, 
per question, than any other single action; obviously, from the case 
histories which I have immediately and directly at hand.

So take it to heart, that's something you should never do. Make sure 
that it's flat before you leave it. And then don't think that a 
little later, when the person has had a lot more auditing, that the 
question, if found unflat now, was left unflat at the time it was 
hit. It wasn't. This is a whole new series of withholds coming up 
under the heading of the same question. And you differentiate that 
particular difference.

Okay?

Audience: Yes.

Well, will that do you any good in your auditing?

Audience: Yes, sir!

All right. Thank you.


======== END OF LECTURE ========
