FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

LEVEL 2 ACADEMY LECTURES 07/15

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

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

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


SHSBC-113 ren 119 20 Feb 62 What Is a Withhold?

WHAT IS A WITHHOLD

A lecture given on

20 February 1962

[Clearsound checked against old reels. This lecture has
many omissions in the clearsound version. The omissions
are marked ">".]

(60 min)

> OK. You have, by the way, seen an example of sec checking
> on rudiments, as opposed to prepchecking, and you had three
> or four rudiments live on the other session, the first session
> you saw, you remember that? The earlier session, same pc. 
> And the auditor just swept these by grandly - you remember - 
> and you gasped with horror - you remember gasping slightly
> with horror?
> 
> And today you saw me handling them with sec checking, and
> going in and straightening up every rudiment or trying to,
> and bypassing prepchecking. We never got to prepchecking,
> did we? We never got to our business at all. If it is
> all right with you Fred, we will now ask the pc.
> 
> You understand, this is not preordained particularly - it
> just isn't taped so as to give you and example of which is
> which - it just turns out that you now have an example of
> which is which.
> 
> All right, which session gave you the most gain, Fred?
> 
> Fred: The first one.
> 
> The first one. We handled the whole ruddy lot with 
> prepchecking, didn't we? And in the other one we never got
> any auditing done to amount to anything. Go ahead and tell 
> them what you told me at the end of the session about having
> the areas confused.
> 
> Fred: Well - you'd asked me about the withhold on something - 
> had to do with money, and I had three different areas, you
> notice, the Center Theatre, The American Theatre Association,
> a big area there, and this area here. And I wasn't sure about
> which area the withhold was in. And on Thursday, in prepchecking, 
> coming around to "What about such and such", the number one 
> question - every time you came around to the number one question,
> I knew where I was. I could locate myself kind of on the track, 
> and what are we working on together here. I knew where I was 
> every time the number one question came around. We got a new 
> number one question, we had it narrowed down to one area and
> cleaned that up before we went on to something else. This time 
> I wasn't sure and like I say - well gee - where? you know? what? 
> Something like this.
> 
> Okay, All right, good enough.
> 
> Okay, you see this? Well we learn what we learn. That was
> not scheduled to teach you these two things. You should 
> understand these are live sessions, they're not demonstrations.
> You learn what you learn out of something like this. Of course
> I feel silly when I don't get a pc pressed on forward.
> I didn't intend actually to run into this much crash on this,
> and frankly an hour or an hour and fifteen minute session is a
> very short session for me. I normally will audit three to five 
> hours in a session. And I'm having to scale my sessioning down,
> see, and that's a demonstration.
> 
> Frankly, it it my opinion after this session, that the
> more you monkey around with rudiments except for havingness
> why the less auditing you're going to get done. That's just 
> what we sort of meet. That does not apply to 3D criss cross, 
> but we've got prepchecking now, and it is a highly precise 
> activity, and I don't think that sec checking even vaguely
> compares to it. That's my opinion. I couldn't get it off 
> the launching pad. If we'd gone on auditing, I would've given 
> him a break and said "Well none of this is clear, none of these 
> things are null". I would've given him a break and we would've 
> had a cigarette. I would've brought him back into it and started
> a new session. See? I would've ended that session and started
> a new session instantly, and I would have swung right into the 
> rudiments. "All right, this one's live and this one's live", 
> I would've told him, see? And then I would've come down on 
> prepchecking and I would've said "Well, what about money?", or 
> "What about taking money?" or "What about this subject?",
> because this seemed to be the subject we were on. And then I
> would have gone ahead and cleaned it up by area and type of 
> withhold and so forth, and I would have cleaned it up properly.
> But I was trying to clean that up with the who and the when,
> if you will notice, just who and when, and man it didn't spring
> did it? So scrub it. It didn't spring. If I can't do it, I can't 
> expect you to. Okay?
> 
> There's no substitute, apparantly, for just full dress parade,
> clean zone, troups to colors, prepchecking. Get a zero, proceed 
> from the zero, go to your one. Proceed from your one to your
> one sub one. You know? Whatever it is. There's no substitute 
> for it.
> 
> I've run a couple of sessions since I was that ... Well, I ran
> another session particularly, I was just standing on my head. I 
> could've been sitting there knitting, like the children's tutor 
> does, teaches in school without strain.
> 
> This requires no strain on the auditor. This puts quite a strain 
> on the auditor. You don't know where you are going. And this
> other ... I ran a 3 and a half hour prepcheck session, terrific 
> numbers of withholds blowing off the line, just giddy, there was 
> nothing to it - Sunday night. I woke up ready to go to a dance
> There wasn't anything to this on the auditor. Okay?
> 
> Do we have ... Peter, is that ... that's all right ...
> Oh, we didn't put that demonstration on, did we? Oh you
> did, well three cheers, that's a good experience, that's a 
> good experiment, thank you, thank you very much.
>

All right. This is Saint Hill Special Briefing Course.
What's the date?

Audience: 20th.

Thank you. What's the month?

Audience: February. 

Oh, thank you. What's the year?

Audience: A.D. 12.

A.D. 12. All right. All right. We will let you away with
that. Thank you very much.

> Special Briefing Course Saint Hill, and we have some
> new students in our midts. We have some new students
> in our mitt. And I think you actually should ...
> We shouldn't introduce some of these. (laughter). Well,
> here's the one we can introduce: Hazel Booker, stand up!
> 
> And Essie Shaefer, stand up!
> 
> And somebody we're glad to see, you haven't seen for a long 
> time, Jim Skeleton, stand up!
> 
> And here are two students that I must empathize - I'm very
> glad to see here and were ... we let them on in spite of their 
> HDA, HCA classification, (laughter), and so forth, but we did
> let them on course, so you be kind to them, and that's Jan and 
> Dick Halpern, stand up!
>

Okay. Now, I'm going to talk to you about withholds. And
this is all about withholds, so a rather relatively brief
lecture. I have now found the common denominator of
withholds. You didn't get an opportunity to see it in
today's demonstration, but that doesn't make any difference
to that.

What is a withhold? A withhold is something that a person
believes that if it is revealed, it will endanger their
self-preservation. In other words, a withhold is something
that endangers the self-preservation of the PC. And that is
a very important definition. It's taken me a very long time
to get that definition. It gives us a new line for 3D Criss
Cross, although this is not about 3D Criss Cross.

And it, worked back and forth, is an absolute killer,
because this is the reason whole track is occluded. This is
where your whole-track memory went. And this is the button
on which it is sitting.

So this is a very important discovery. Therefore, we would
consider that that person who had very little whole-track
recall would consider themselves in a very dangerous position.

In other words, you've got a gradient here. The less
whole-track recall, the more the person considers they are
in danger, and the less likely you are to get a withhold
off of them. The more fantastic the whole-track recall, the
same thing. We are dodging here, somehow or another, with that.

Now, that's quite important to you, because it gives you
and gives me ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha - the exact reason ...

This is why you get off such as I am now going to say, and
call them withholds. These are actual student withholds.

"I went outside and looked at the sky and felt strange."
And an auditor bought it as a withhold and worked it over.

"I had a picture of my mother's bedroom, and I don't know
why." That is a withhold.

"I spoke crossly to an instructor." "George and Bill told
me that they had heard that Agnes ..." And that is a withhold. 
Why is that a withhold?

All right. Let's start with the first one first. Of course
it's safest to get off other people's withholds. These are
all safe withholds. They are so safe. And that is all
students tend to get off on each other, is safe withholds.
I'm sorry to send that arrow so deeply. They get off safe
withholds. If they reveal these things, it'd be perfectly
all right to reveal them, because it's perfectly safe to
reveal.

Now, why do we get into a tacit consent of this particular
kind? Very interesting why we do: overts on other people's
withholds. We take somebody's withhold and we yap-yap at
them, and we trip them up with it, and we make them guilty
with it and we sort of punish them a little bit for having
gotten off a withhold - we yip-yap on the subject. And after
that, we are a little bit afraid to get off a withhold of
ourself, because we have an overt against the other
person's withhold, so therefore, we don't consider it safe
to get off a withhold. Do you see what the rationale of the
overt is? We have an overt on other people getting off
withholds, so we don't get off withholds, you see? Because
it isn't safe to get off a withhold.

Now, of course, the more unsafe you make it to get off a
withhold, the battier it all becomes, until you get a
civilization like this one.

Now, the one thing by which the communist profits in
Australia and Suid-Afrika are the laws against perversion.
The state, of all means, is regulating how you are going to
perform the sexual act. I think that's very interesting.
I've seldom seen any police officers in my bedroom.

And I'm afraid if I did they'd have short shrift.

Of course, I have had the people the police officers are
supposed to restrain trying to crawl into my bedroom
windows, and a few things like that, you know, but that, of
course, they wouldn't be interested in.

Now, what are they doing? They're just trying to invent
some new withholds, aren't they? I think that's
fascinating, because the communist uses blackmail of this
particular kind as a means of controlling heads of state.

In other words, if the state itself lends its weight to
punishment of withholds, see, it has just laid itself out
to be crazy. Because now, anybody in the state can be
blackmailed so as to overthrow the state, because the state
will punish the overthrow or the withhold. Do you
understand this? Or any part of this?

Audience: Yeah.

All right. Now, there it is on the third dynamic. The state
makes it unsafe for anybody to confess to anything. So
everybody is withholding from the state. What happens if
you withhold from the state, or the state misses withholds
on you? Of course, you begin to hate the state, and that is
the downfall of nationalism.

Of course, this may be very fortunate. But nevertheless,
they have sown the seeds of their own destruction by the
number of great laws which arise on how a person shouldn't
get off withholds.

Let's apply that to an auditing session. The auditor upsets
the PC or tries to make the PC guilty every time the PC
gets off a withhold. Therefore, the auditor is making it
unsafe for the PC to get off a withhold. All right. Or the
auditor trains the PC not to get off unsafe withholds. The
auditor then trains the PC to get off only safe withholds.
And we read on an auditor's report, "I went out at night
and looked at the sky and felt strange." And that is a
withhold. Great day in the morning. That's a safe withhold,
isn't it?

Well, of course, the funny part of it is, there it is. It's
not a withhold. It's not a withhold at all.

So you can actually get into a games condition with your PC
by punishing the PC for his withholds. You can actually get
into a games condition where the PC will only try to get
off safe withholds. And there you go.

Now, if a PC isn't giving me withholds, I'm afraid that I
would become persuasive. A withhold is something that, if
revealed, would be prejudicial to his survival.

Now, naturally, his individuation comes from his withholds.
This hyper individuation of the PC, this only-oneness, this
withdrawal into only self - all of that - and withdrawal out of
groups, and withdrawal here and there and so forth, all of
these things stem exclusively, and only and entirely from,
of course, withholds which, if gotten off, the person
believes would injure their survival.

Now, the funny part of it is, is this is not true. The
person gets an aberrated idea of what would injure his
survival if be got it off, don't you see? And it's this
aberrated idea of what they dare get off that brings about
the condition of aberration. I think that possibly you've
got one, two, or three apiece - some kind of an average like
that - that if you revealed it in the wrong quarter, it's
factual that somebody would be likely to take action. See,
if the state of New South Guinea, or something of this
sort, found out about this, well - huh! - might be a poor show.

You've all got some that were factual. There are some
factual ones, see? Some real ones. You get those real
buried, and they get very encysted. And the other aberrated
idea builds up on those. And we get a build-up of that.

Now, the punishment of our parents, of course, we feel
offhand that - this comes from past life; 3D Criss Cross gets
these areas cleaned up - but when we started this life, we
already had the idea that if we disclosed certain things to
our parents, or we did certain things, or we didn't
withhold mean words and so forth from our fathers or
something like that, we'd find ourselves suddenly without
food, clothing and shelter. In other words, we get this
exaggerated idea. Well, it's built on our past-life structure. 
But that's a bad enough basis.

Now, we take off from there, and we move into areas and
then do commit something which, if revealed, would be very
upsetting, or would have been very upsetting. And then
other little things start piling up on the top of that, and
so on. And we get up to a point where we become quite
aberrated, quite individuated, and we get so we can't even
communicate with parts of our body.

The result of all this, naturally, is a feeling of high
antisocialness.

Somebody comes close to these withholds, and we believe
implicitly, you see, that if we got off this withhold,
naturally we could just see the police running in. My God,
the sirens are going in all directions, you see, and police
by the squad coming bursting in the front door, probably
with battering rams, you know? And they got handcuffs, and
they're all ready to put them on you, you know, and drag
you off. And naturally the cell they're going to drag you
to is not any of the modern jails, you know, which just
dramatize withholds; it's probably one of the old-time
dungeons, you know, where they bury you up to the neck in
water and leave you there for forty years or something like
this, you see? You get an aberrated idea of the punishment
in a jail, and this all of a sudden rekindles, you know?
The auditor gets close to one of these things, and this
idea, ooooooh! you know. Oooo-oooooo-ooooo-ooo, you know?
At any minute this horrible series of circumstances are
going to occur, and naturally we consider the auditor
dangerous.

No, listen, the auditor is only dangerous if he doesn't
pull the withhold. And that is a recurring phrase that is
starting to happen here in the school. There are certain
auditors that we designate as dangerous auditors.

Why are they dangerous? Because they will only tick and not
pull a withhold. And we call those people dangerous
auditors. Why? Their PC's are going to be mad at them, they
are themselves going to goof up and get lots of loses one
way or the other, and they're going to always be involved
in ARC breaks of some kind or another, they're going to
have people going around gossiping about how bad Central
Organizations are, and how bad they are, and how bad
everything else is and so forth. And they are dangerous.

But from the PC's viewpoint, the person becomes dangerous
the moment they might find out whatever this thing is, you
see? The auditor appears for a moment dangerous. The auditor
might find out. And the PC gets ARC breaky, however, only
when the auditor fails to find out.

The auditor has to go the whole way. And an auditor who
won't go the whole way, an auditor who will only get off
safe withholds off of a PC is dangerous. And that is
today's adjudication on whether a person can audit or not:
Are they a safe auditor or a dangerous auditor? Oddly
enough, it's a complete reversal. The auditor who gets off
safe withholds is dangerous.

And the auditor who will get off unsafe withholds is safe.
You understand that? Now, you've got to bust through any
feeling you have on this and look at this square in the
teeth and follow it through, because actually, all of your
activities as an auditor are totally, 100 percent, based on
this one little fact. It all cones down to this: An auditor
who will not pull dangerous withholds from a PC is a
dangerous auditor.

You're going to have an ARC-breaky PC, your PC is going to
be upset with you. There are only two or three ways you
could possibly mess it up, but how could you fail to do
this? One, you could fail to use an E-Meter. You could fail
to make an E-Meter play any tune that was ever written by
Bach, Beethoven and Brahms, you see? You could just fail to
make an E-Meter talk. In other words, you look at the thing
and the needle falls off the pin, and so forth, and there
it is, and the parts are all collapsing and so forth, and
we say, "Well, that needle, that's null. Ha-ha. That's a
null needle. Ha-ha."

Hm. God, man. Well, you don't have to clean it up in one
session, but you have to make sure that you've got another
session.

> You notice that I had about two or three rudiments banging
> there in that demonstration today and even "missed a withhold"
> is banging and the pc didn't spit at me, because the pc
> knows I know that they're missing. The pc knows I know
> where we're going on this sort of thing - has confidence
> in me.

All right. But you go a whole intensive, and you never pull
any of these things, and you never ask for missed
withholds, and you never try to inquire any deeper into any
of these things, and that PC blows up in your face.

Every ARC break you ever got off of a PC was due to missed
withholds. Although missed withholds is brand-new as a
principle, it's been functioning this whole time. And every
time you fail to get off a withhold - you missed a withhold
on the PC, you ticked it - you had an ARC break. That
accounts for every ARC break you have ever had with a PC,
that accounts for every PC who never wanted to be audited
again by you, that accounts for all of your own
difficulties with PC's, right there in one fell swoop.

Now, you could accomplish it by not operating with an
E-Meter. You could accomplish it by a very unreal or nasty
auditing approach. Every time the PC said something, you
say, "Nyaaaaa." You know, something like this. You could
accomplish it by just having your technology all backwards
and shuffled into another deck. You could accomplish it by
just poor auditing. But in the final analysis, poor
auditing only exists if a person is determined that they're
never going to help a PC by getting off any nasty
withholds. They're going to be nice to PC's and they're
only going to get off safe withholds.

You almost have to use sjamboks and clubs on some auditors.
I'm not kidding you. My method on the thing is just to
stampede the auditor on the subject; there's more than one
here who's already been stampeded by me straight at the
subject. You know?

The only thing you should really worry about is when I give
up on you. I've done that, too; just quit, you know? And
then you get very nice auditor reports. You get an initial
or something like that. I just won't do anything more about
it. Why? I know you won't. But that doesn't include very
many, and the other one is you start missing withholds ...

PC goals and gains: "Well, l didn't make any goals and I
didn't make any gains" and so forth.

Well, it might as well have been printed in letters of
fire' "Auditor has missed withholds on this PC. Auditor did
not clean up things on this PC. Auditor read the E-Meter
upside down." Something wild went on here. That's all. I
mean, because frankly I have to tell you this. But I've got
you in a box right now with Prepchecking. You're taped and
targeted.

The auditor who cannot get a result with Prepchecking will
not audit. Uuuhhrrr! It's been weaving closer and closer to
this point, see? We've been converging on this point.
Technology has been getting better and better and better
and better, and here we sit looking at Prepchecking.

Well, Prepchecking gets a little better. There was a little
change the other day in 3D Criss Cross.

As soon as I found out that this applied to 3D Criss Cross,
I realized that you can't let a PC cross out anything on a
list. That's you, not me - because the PC says, "That's
pretty dangerous. Let's see, that's pretty dangerous. Let's
see, that's pretty dangerous. And I think this ... this
item, I think that's awfully dangerous. I think we ought to
have that off the list, and that off the list, and that off
the list," and we just cross the whole list off. It's all
too dangerous. And then you have missed an item, which
actually amounts to a missed withhold, and so the person
gets upset with 3D Criss Cross.

So we can't allow the PC, once he has put it on the list,
after we've blackjacked him, tricked and hoodwinked him
into getting it on to the list, we can't let the PC take it
off, even though that makes more work on differentiation's.
I found this is the case. I find PC's will take live items
off the list if you don't watch them. So, there it is.

So some of your lists are disappearing into smoke, and some
of your items are being crossed off because your PC has
misgivings upon the safety with which they can be revealed,
since all of these items went out of sight, to some degree
or another, because it was very unsafe at sometime or
another to reveal them.

I'm looking at somebody right now that was going around
with a very, very hot terminal tucked under her arm in a
family who believed implicitly that the exact reverse of
this terminal was a way of life and how to be closer to God.

And this PC just had to withhold this one like mad. And of
course the whole - more the PC withheld it and so forth, why,
the hotter it got. This would have been heresy. It's like
the son of a priest, you know; he wouldn't believe in God.
(Nobody gets that joke. Boy, you're slow today. You're very
slow today. Wake up.) The son of a priest, and he has a
terminal called "atheist." See? That would be very
upsetting, very upsetting. He'd have withholds. So would
the priest.

But anyway ... 

> As you get this straight across the boards, we find that
> a hundred trillion years ago, why ...

Well, let's take an example. 

> We had it mentioned in session today.

Well, let's just call it out of thin air "embezzler," or 
something like that, you see? And this fellow was born in a 
banking family where integrity is all, you see? And he hears 
from his father, and he hears from his mother, and he hears 
from his brothers and sisters in the business and so forth, 
and he's got a hot terminal. He's been one of the best 
embezzlers that the country has ever had, don't you see? 
Something like that.

And here he has to live in this atmosphere with this
terminal. Hot, you know! So all the time he's pulling this
terminal back. (I'm not saying that's the terminal but ...) 
You get the idea? That's a withhold! Man, would it be
unsafe to be that embezzler. Right? And he might dramatize
it at any moment. And so he fights it and he fights it and
he fights it, and then one night he goes into the bank
vault and he cleans out the whole thing and goes over the
hill. See, the wrong time, wrong place, wrong terminal,
see, for his environment.

And when these things get badly restimulated and so forth,
why, they've had it.

All right. Now some auditor is auditing him, see, and we
get down to this terminal. And, "Who or what would enforce
an outflow from others?" see?

And he puts down "An embezzler."

And he goes down the line, and the auditor goes down, and
he had a little ARC break with the auditor, something of
this sort. The auditor looked at him crosswise, or didn't
acknowledge him just right - and it's not really an ARC
break; it was just that. And he clicks on that other
one, you see? "You know this ... I don't ..." - auditor
has already missed a withhold on him, and so forth - and 
he says, "I ... I don't know." He ...

We're differentiating the list, and we get down to
"embezzler," and we ... He thinks we better cross that
off, so he says, "Well, it ... it really wouldn't enforce
an outflow. Cross ... cross that off the list."

Gives him a second thought, and we mustn't let the PC have
that second thought. So there's that little change in 3D
Criss Cross. You see why it is?

All right. Now let's take up Prepchecking. These two
things, you see, suddenly go hand in glove. In other words,
we have one straight line. We have Prepchecking as a basic
for this lifetime that keeps the PC in session, and then we
have its extension, 3D Criss Cross, and both of them are
devoted to the same thing of letting the guy stand in the
sun. They're both devoted to the same thing, you see?
Getting him over all of his oddball notions about how
dangerous it would be to reveal the fact that he had a
crooked left ear. Nothing to it. I mean, he looks at this
after a while and laughs. But he isn't laughing at the time
you start auditing him.

You say, "All right, now. Okay. Now, what about that
activity there that was going on in Tacoma?"

"(sigh) Now, let's see. If I think of something else, or if
I can get the auditor thinking or talking about something
else..." You know, this is all reactive, you know? So
let's move it all over onto some other perimeter. Then he
says, Well, it has to do actually with uh ... Mexico
City." In other words, he's trying to throw red herrings.
He can get into a point of reactively regretting having
mentioned it. And you'll see him pass through that little
band of regretting he brought it up in the first place.

Now, if the auditing is bad, he does this often. If the
auditing is good, he only does it once in a while. It is
always present, no matter how good the auditing is.

"I'm kind of sorry I brought this up. Now what is going to
happen to me?" Of course, all the time he's being sorry he
brought it up, you're just crossing into the actual zone
and area. You actually have tremendous unknowns left on the
whole subject. And the PC does not know much, and a great
deal, about this. That's what the difficulty is. In other
words, he still has tremendous unknowns.

Now, in Prepchecking, also, there's been a little discovery
here about when the PC equivocates, you know you're looking
at the package. When he starts to explain. Watch when the
PC starts to explain. At that moment add a What, One
sub-three, or whatever it's coming up this time. And let's
find out what this little hot subject is he's going over
right this minute. He's explaining.

Now, there's a rule. There's a rule about this, about
asking What questions. And this isn't really about What
questions, but I'll just show you what this is.

The first rule is: When the PC gives you a motivator, you
know you're on hot ground; and so you always ask a What
question that's rather overt.

Says, "Well, my mother beat me every day."

My What question, I'm afraid, at the moment is "What have
you done to your mother?" l would not even monkey with this
motivator, see? I wouldn't fool with it at all.

Now, the next gradient up, that would be the most certain
ground to mine. Motivator, motivator, motivator - man, that
just takes the What question and practically writes it in
legible script in front of your face, you see?

Your next one up the line from that is the person is
critical. The person is being critical of somebody. Well,
the criticalness - you can go on and pull criticism forever
without getting anyplace. You want to know what he did,
did, did, did, did, done, done, done, done, action, action,
action. There must be action back of that criticism.
Otherwise, we wouldn't have it, see? So, criticism is a
sure indicator of an overt.

Now let's take the milder form of it, which is explaining
why it happened. The PC starts explaining, I don't let the
PC explain very long without giving him a new One
sub-something-or-other on the What question. I give him a
new What question to clean up.

PC starts explaining and says, "Well, actually, the truth
of the matter was that I was on the ferryboat. I hadn't uh
.. uh ... I hadn't actually uh ... meant to be on
the ferryboat, you understand, but I was coming down from
the taxi rank, and I just saw the ferryboat there ..."
I'm liable to cut him off at that moment, on whatever we
were talking about, and ask a little more pinched-in-close
What. "What were you doing?" you know? Something like this
- And he says, "Well, oh-oh. Oh, that!" And it alerts him.

So you have these various indicators. They make a gradient.
PC gives you a motivator; oh well, that's an absolute
certain indicator, and you must pull the overt
straight-away, just convert the thing into an overt without
any slightest ...

Person says, "Well, my ... just my mother beat me every
day, just on and on and on. And beat me every day and so
forth."

It's just a lead-pipe cinch. "What have you done to your
mother?" I mean, it might as well appear - be printed - on the
auditor form, you know? I mean, it'd be that inevitable.

Your next one is criticism, criticism, criticism. Well,
there's a real overt back of this, and so forth.

Now, we're not going to dignify getting off other people's
withholds by even classifying it. An auditor who would do
that, oh, man. That's very safe, but it's so safe that
they're not withholds. They're not his withholds. What are
you doing monkeying with somebody else's withholds? They're
not this PC's actions. Perfectly safe to reveal other
people's withholds, isn't it? Or it might be, unless they
find out about it.

Then your area of explanation. And then there is the actual
withhold. Now, of course, the actual withhold: the person
says, "Well, I ... I used to stand down on the Battery
and ... uh bung paving stones through the windshields of
cars - see? And you've got your tailor-made What question
standing right in front of your face, because it's not
"What about bunking paving stones through windshields of
cars on the Battery on July first, nineteen hundred and
sixty-two?" or something like this, you see? That's not the
question. The question is, "What about damaging cars?" or
something. But there's your What question. It's tailor-made
because it's the withhold.

Now let's drop downstairs a little bit, and we find the PC
is explaining something. So we get the What question out of
the bulk of his explanation.

He's saying, "Well, I actually ... I actually would never
.. never really liked ... liked uh ... liked my wife, and I 
really never liked her, and uh ... so forth. And this was easy 
to understand. I of course was ... came home late and all
that sort of thing, but she never kept herself up, and she
never really did anything for me around the house. And she
never really paid much atten ..."

Actually, he hasn't given a motivator, you know, he hasn't
given an overt. It's just an explanation of how it was all
messy. And you could just cut him short on his explanation, 
get your new What.

> I'll give you an example out of your session today.
> We had two or three periods of explanation when I wasn't
> doing prepchecking. In view of the fact that I wasn't doing
> prepchecking, I of course could never get to the bottom of
> it. I was just crippled, you see, because I couldn't slide 
> in the What. Because, during rudiments I was avoiding Whats
> and I certainly wasn't prepchecking, I was sec checking - 
> doesn't work.

All right. So next indicator is the PC is being very
critical about something or other. He's being very critical
of you, the auditor. That's a very special case. If he's
being critical of you, the auditor, you have missed a
withhold, and you better find out what it is. What should
you have found out about? "When did you think I was a
fool?" Anything that you could possibly mention that would
throw a missed withhold into view - that would be the stage
at which you pulled this particular one. But it's the
criticism. You want to find out what has been done.

The missed withhold underlies all of these things, by the
way. But you can find an actual doingness at the point of
criticism. He's saying, "Well, natter, natter, natter, and
actually I always thought ... always thought that he wore
the wrong color ties. And uh ... that was why I didn't
like him," or something of the sort, and so on. Well, he's
done something to that person or done something to a person
like that. So your What question is tailor-made out of that.

And then there is: your fundamental fundamental is
motivator. Man, red flag! Let's just find out what he's done
to the source of that motivator or the type of beingness of
that motivator.

Just overtly find out what he's done. In other words,
you're getting off overts and so on.

Now, if you look at this as a scale, you will find out that
the withhold is measured by the degree of danger - the only
reason I'm giving you this scale; I'm not talking about how
you ask What questions - the degree of danger the PC
conceives to be present on the subject of getting off the
withhold.

All right. If the PC doesn't think it's very dangerous,
they give it to you directly and straight. If the PC thinks
it's a little bit dangerous, they explain around the
fringes of where it might lie. If the PC thinks it's rather
confoundedly dangerous - it's getting just a little bit grim,
maybe on the jail borderline on that chain - the PC will
criticize. See, criticism enters.

And if it is so dangerous that the PC believes - you
understand I'm saying PC "believes"; I'm not saying it's
factual - the PC is right up to the point where, with a
jingle jangle the patrol wagon arrives, the officers pick
up the battering ram, they knock down the front door, they
come crashing in with the handcuffs and leg irons, you see,
and drag him screaming off, towed back of the Black Maria,
you see? Something like this. And they can see this is
going to happen if that withhold is missing; they give you
the motivator. They always give you a motivator.

Flat, flat, total motivator - a hundred percent.

Now, how do you use this? Well, it gives you the gradient
scale and indexes of all cases. A case is not as bad off as
he is crazy. A case is not as bad off as he is aberrated. A
case is not as bad off as anything, except how dangerous he
considers it would be if he revealed himself.

And so you have from the top to the bottom, all cases on
that gradient, just like you have the What questions and
the degree of the withhold and the safety on that gradient,
so you have all cases on that gradient. And the person who
will die before he will reveal himself is also on that scale.

So you have them, from the case that you could audit to
Clear in twenty-five hours. See, bang! You sneeze, the
person is Clear. Well, this person has not had any great
idea that it'd be dangerous to tell people things. That's
the index of that case.

All right. Now, the person who went 150 hours to a
Routine-3 kind of Clear, well, that person doesn't have
very much he considers is - be all right. Pretty easy.

Now we have the case that we went two hundred hours on only
finding a goal and terminal.

Well, ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha, that case has got quite a
little hatfull. There is a nice little hatfull of stuff
that if the individual revealed any part of that, he
thinks, he believes, that hmmm it would be ... well, it'd
be rough. It would be pretty rough. He'd probably lose his
family, and he'd lose this and that, you see?

And now you take the person who went five hundred hours
with no goal and no terminal and no gain, and that sort of
thing. Now, we know darn well this person has [is] moving
up into the perimeter of the police breaking in the front
door, if it were learned about this person, see? And now we
take the case that actually goes to the spinbin rather than
reveal things. Well, man, that's in extremis. Because
insanity is the last protest against punishment. See, "I
cannot feel your punishment. I do not even know about it.
I'm not even a rational being. You've driven me out of my
mind." You see, that's a total motivator on the subject of
punishment.

So, where we go. Then you've got your whole thing. It's
just length of time in auditing. Your length of time in
auditing is indexed by the danger the individual believes
would be present if he revealed certain things. And danger
to reveal is the direct index of length of time in auditing.

There it is. Want to know how long it takes to clear
somebody? Well, how dangerous does this person consider it
would be to reveal certain things.

Now, how could you cut down this length of time in
auditing? Well, I've given you the answer. Don't pull safe
withholds. Just move in and pull actual withholds. Don't
fool around with it. And use Prepchecking. And you've got
that, all right. Now, that gets this lifetime's danger out
of the way.

And I've even given you a new type of line and a slight
change in 3D Criss Cross that does not permit the person to
escape once you've got the item on the list. And the type
of line is - the line for 3D Criss Cross, of course is "What
identity would it be unsafe for you to reveal?" or some
such wording. See? And they will blow into view. And "What
identity would it be safe for you to reveal?" of course,
could be a relief line, which would just be nonsense. But
it would sort of balance the thing off and throw the other
one into view; in other words, just be a trick line.

In other words, you could drag these things out, and you
know now what the PC is doing, so it becomes relatively
simple. That is what the PC is doing. While he is there
sitting in front of you, he would like to reveal himself.
He would like to reveal this, and he would like to get out
of it, but he does not know how to get out of it. And the
person is always hoping that somebody will come along and
give him a shot in the gluteus maximus with some magic
fluid by which he will not have to reveal a thing and
become totally Clear.

And any time anybody has ever proposed that to me, why,
I've had an instinct on the subject.

Now I know why! I should go back through the files and find
out who's proposed it, because we would have an index of
some of our roughest cases. It'd be the person who wants to
be cleared without revealing anything.

Now, the people who get spinny in processing, you must be
tripping right over - falling right over something.

Well now, Prepchecking will get it for you. There is no
contest about it. This is a very easy, easy activity,
because a person moves right up into it. But the basic
Prepcheck question that would get them all would of course
be one of these "unsafe to reveal" questions.

Your Zero: "Have you ever done anything that might have
been unsafe to mention?" See, that would be your Zero. "Is
there anything you've ever done that would be unsafe to you
if you told about it?" "If you reveal certain things about
yourself, would it be unsafe to you?" Some such Zero, don't
you see? Doesn't matter how it expresses to the PC. Then
you get your What off of what the PC said. Then you'd mine
that down, you'd strip the whole bank. Interesting.

"Safe to reveal." This is the index on it.

Now, you must figure it's awful safe to show up with a MEST
body, a meat body, you see; and then you get the idea that
it's unsafe, so you begin to take it down. That must be
what old age is. That must be the only thing old age is. So 
take heart, girls.

Now, you just look at this, as the idea of apparency,
appearances, disappearances, being there, not being there,
well, it all passes over into the field of fact. Offering
the fact is dangerous.

Withholding the fact is apparently not dangerous. All it
does is pull the person to pieces. That's the trick of the
Body Builder. That is the basic trick of this universe. And
the basic trick of this universe is, if you withhold it, it
won't hurt you any. And of course, that is a stinking lie.

So they get everybody to withhold things. They invent codes
of law and that sort of thing, and these things are all
supposed to get everybody to withhold a thing, and then the
thetan gets to packing up mass and occupying less space.
And he occupies less space and less space, and he can
permeate less and less things, and here he goes. He's got
it made. Yeah. But who's got it made?

Of course, that is a game nobody wins. Scientology is the
only game where everybody wins.

Now, there is your index of withholds. There is your...
what they're about. That is why your PC won't talk to you.
That is why your PC reveals what he reveals. That's why you
sometimes look very silly writing down, "Well, the PC has a
withhold that the PC has a bent toe," and why, after you've
prepchecked a bent toe for five or six sessions, there has
been no gain on the part of the PC.

You see? You see how this might work? Does this straighten
out anything for you? 

Audience: Hm-mm.

Now, you could use this principle, but if I give it to you,
you'll work it to death, instead of using it as a Zero, you
can flip over, and you mustn't work this to death.

"Who would it have been dangerous to have revealed that
to?" could be a version of the Who question. But you get on
some hot line, and the person is talking about having
robbed every restaurant in the entirety of New York - and
he's robbed every restaurant in New York practically, and
so forth, and he just keeps going on and on and you don't
seem to clean this up - the Who that will clean it up is
"Who wouldn't it have been safe to have told about that,"
and "Who didn't find out about it?"

And of course, he'd say, "Well, the restaurateurs" - and he's
been saying "the restaurateurs" all this time and all of a
sudden he looks at you, and he says, "Well, all right. The
police." "All right. When did they fail to find out about
it?" And we get the rest of the chain, and it blows. Do you
see that?

Now, there is your gradient of the value of the withhold to
the PC. And I call very strictly to your attention that I
have said the PC "believes" it would be unsafe. And that is
what is most interesting: "believes" it would be unsafe.

And of course, these things ... I think the crime you
committed - I think they probably run out of witnesses. I
don't think the government would spend a cent trying to dig
up enough witnesses, or even find the records, in order to
prosecute you and so forth, particularly if it was a real
crime. The government is much more interested in minor
crimes than real crimes.

The essence of the situation, however, is one little thing
like that gets stacked up on other little things, and
something else gets stacked up on that, and the next thing
you know a person believes it's very dangerous to put his
nose out-of-doors. Can't! Can't go outside. And there's
your "can't go outside" thing. God-awful things are liable
to happen to this person if they go outside; liable to be
recognized as the person who committed the murder, only
they kind of vaguely think maybe they have committed a
murder, which is quite interesting.

You have very few backtrack things on this that are hot,
but every case must have a few on it.

You suddenly say, "Oh man, I bet they're still waiting for
me. I bet they're still looking for me someplace or
another," and the PC is liable to have his hair almost
stand on end for a moment when he hits one of these things.
And then he suddenly "Well, that's nonsense. Been a long
time ago. Long, long time - I wonder if they are."

But this equally applies to 3D Criss Cross and to
Prepchecking, but is most salient in your use of
Prepchecking. And there is where you should use it. And I
won't get nasty or mean with you, or anything. I will just
forbid anybody to get off your withholds if I hear any more
session being spent on "I went out in the evening and
looked at the sky and felt strange." I wouldn't even try to
make anything out of it, except that some PC had a hot area
someplace and had just thrown me a great big floppy,
squishy red herring. And I don't like red herring, so I
would let that one drop.

There are certain withholds you let go by. You just let
them go by. You don't do a thing with them. And there are
certain withholds that you hang to till grim death until
they are all revealed, and you'll just have to learn which
ones. And the index of it is, what is it the PC consider it
safe to reveal? What does the PC consider it unsafe to
reveal? And that unravels the whole problem for you.

Thank you.

[End of lecture]
