6809C28 Class VIII TAPE 5



THE STANDARD GREEN FORM AND RUDIMENTS



And this is what date? The twenty eighth of September 1968.

Lecture number what? (Five) Glad you can still count. Thank

you very much. Lecture number five of the standard tech

Class VIII auditors' course.



The situation with regard to standard tech at this time is

we have had a few mice. And I imagine down through the

years there will be a few other mice. A bulletin gets

altered, a tape gets pulled off the line, some vital action

is shifted. Somebody comes tearing in with a brand new idea

that seems to be absolutely vitally essential, and the

first thing you know, why we have trouble of one kind or

another. And tech fails. And it suddenly ceases to give the

results which it should attain.



At that time morale goes down. "No, Scientology doesn't

work." These are the danger points of the past and of the

future. It is not unbeknownst to me to get proposals such

as this through the mail line. It's a proposed HCO

Bulletin. There are forty or fifty of these things which

have been written and issued. And it does seem that a

person, before he is permitted to have a Grade, should go

to the examiner to find out if it was an ARC broken needle

or if it was actually a release on the Grade he was

supposed to be released on, and not an F/N on something else.



Now I'll tell you, what does this stem from? Why? Why? Why

would such a proposal come up? Standard tech is already

out. It's already out with enthusiasm. What's out? The TRs

are; would have to be so bonkers that the auditor was not

able to attract the attention of the PC for the next Grade

or action, and the PC chortling merrily, merrily to himself

would be getting an F/N from a former action. You see what

could happen here?



Alright, we've just released this fellow on zero, and he

says, "Ooh, gosh, you know, boy that was really some

cognition." You know, needle's swinging. "Uh, it's really

going great." And the auditor sits there and says, "Aw

yaya, uh number one, it went awaw and it went by and

ububuzub." And the PC thinking to himself, "Boy, that's

really great, that communication process. Really great."

And the auditor says, "Uh, why, that's a release.

Uwuuwuwuw." And the pc'saying, "Boy, that, really. I can

communicate, you know? "And the auditor says, Kenya you

know, nyee," canned command, no TRs, no command, no

impingement on the PC, can't operate his E-meter anyhow,

doesn't even notice the PC isn't looking at him. "Uh, well

it's raring' too', and so forth, and the needle's going on

a swing and the PCs saying, "Gee, well what do you know

about that? I really can talk to people, you know?"



The only other condition this could occur on is if it was a

busted E-meter. Now in the first place, if it's an ARC

broke needle, you're getting the PC sitting here like this.

"Duh." And the auditor says, says, "Catfish, gollawong."

And the PC says, "Awawang. Yeah. Oogh. Nya, oog, Log." And

the auditor says, "Well I'm glad that's a floating needle",

and so forth. The PC never would answer on any of his

questions.



It could also occur on one of these kooky stage four

needles. It goes up and does a little hitch and goes down.

You ever heard of a stage four needle? I saw somebody just

go "Uh!" What's a stage four needle? A stage four needle is

a stage beyond three, which is dead. (Laughs) You can get a

meter, you can get a meter on a PC and he sits down in

session and goes up and hitches and falls, and it's doing

about a two inch sweep. And it goes up and it goes, it

hiccups at the top, and it goes down, and you say, "Have

you ever been shot?" And it does the same thing, and

"What's your name?" And it'll do the same thing. And you

kick him in the shins and it'll do the same thing. And

there's absolutely no meter change of any kind whatsoever.

It isn't hardly connected to anybody. Which is really the

truth. It isn't connected to anybody. And it goes on and it

does this weird dance. Well if a person doesn't know what

one of those needles is as far as an ARC broke needle is,

you can get a swinging needle. It isn't connected to

anybody either. And the questions which you ask don't

change it. In ordinary auditing an F/N broadens,-narrows, 

responds just to that degree. You start overrunning it you'll 

see your F/N is going narrower and narrower and narrower and 

narrower and it packs up.



PC, you get an F/N and then the PC has the cognition, he

actually states the cognition on which he gets an F/N, and

you see the F/N widen up. In other words, an auditor'd have

to be a complete dolt to need such an arbitrary on his lines.



Now this is based on the fact that somebody has trained

some auditor in an academy on the TRs, something on this

basis. "What is TR0?" "It's the TR in the book you... and I

think I heard about it." "Good, fine. You passed. Now,

what's TR1?" "That's the number of the other TR." "Good.

What are the rest of the TRs?" "Oh, I know all them." And

that would all... he could possibly know about TRs to

require such a regulation.



One of the conditions of auditing is that you have the PC

in session. He has to be aware of the auditor, and in

communication, and answer up, and so forth. Well, if he

wasn't doing any of these things, naturally you would have

to send him to the examiner to find out if it was a real

F/N. But the situation would be so peculiar. But to stop

everybody, everywhere from ever progressing in a session

just because some supervisor hasn't been able to teach an

auditor to audit, and just because there's been one PC last

May who went all the way through the lines with a stage

four needle and nobody ever noticed that he didn't know he

had ever been audited, and didn't know he'd ever been in

session, just to introduce that sort of an arbitrary would,

of course, be completely nuts. Inspection before the fact

is the standard line. If you're not having trouble on some

line don't do anything about it. If you are having trouble

on some line, do something about it. And it follows in

auditing too. You're having trouble with the PC, well, you

do something about it.



Now when I berate and start tearing you apart for wanting a

nickel in the slot-type approach to auditing it is because

you are asking for something which will make you a rotten

auditor. If you don't know what you're doing, and if you

don't know what the standard action would be for that, you

ought to go back and study your TRs and a few other things.



It wouldn't be an occasion then to put a regulation in

after the fact of not having trained somebody. Do you see?

Now there are rote commands which are the standard

processes. But you receive an order, something like, "Rehab

former lifetime releases" Now what the hell do you wants

What now; how could anybody under god's green Earth write

down all the words that would have to fit in the ensuing

action. They couldn't. It couldn't be done because it

wouldn't fit all the cases. Because there are many

different types of former lifetime releases or this

lifetime releases, and, you see, what you're doing is

rehabbing former releases. So you say "Rehab former

releases." Well how would you go about finding these

things? Auditor - that is your problem. And if you can't

solve that with the PC sitting in front of you, you ought

to quit. Do you see what you're doing? You have to know

what you're doings And then do it with great economy. And

then if the session is running like an express train,

what're you going to do? Inspect after the fact every

couple seconds?



Now, I'll give you an idea, you know? "Do you have an ARC

break? That reads." "Uh, oh, yeah. Uh, yeah, I was feeling

pretty bad yesterday. I got a letter; very bad." "OK. Was

it a break in A, R, C, U? U? That reads." "Yeah. I couldn't

understand any part of it." "Good. C, D, E, I," using the

words to somebody who isn't educated. "Curious." "Curious

about what it was" "Curious about the understanding of it?"

"Yeah, that's right. Hey yeah, that's, you know what? I

thought it was the stuff in the letter, it wasn't in the

letter. I never could dig it. I, I didn't dig it. Wow!"

Skin tone looks good, good indicators, everything is fine,

and the needle goes whum-whum. F/N.



Now you're going to say, "Do you have an ARC break? Did

that floating needle float on the ARC break cognition which

you had?" Mm-mm. You're not going to say anything about it

at all. You're going to say, "You're needle's floated.

That's it. Thank you."



Now. Your F/N is now in on the rudiments, which are simply

setting the PC up, then you simply swing into the session.

Now because there're this many variables you would now have

to say, "It didn't clean. See? So do you have an earlier

ARC break of a similar nature?" Or, "Do you have an

earlier, similar ARC break?" "Did you have one like that

before?" Man, we're talking about communication. We're not

talking about words. You have to know what you're after.

You're after the ARC break similar to this which occurred

before.



Now, it doesn't matter what language you say it in as long

as it communicates to the PC, and you know what you want.

Otherwise you're liable to get something kooky. You want

similar, earlier ARC break. You got it?



Now supposing you're auditing some guy. Supposing you're

busy auditing some guy. And he doesn't know what the word

ARC break is. Or, suppose he's got a complete

mis-definition of the thing. He thinks an ARC break is an

overt, or something he busted when he was a kid.



You're going to have to know what you are asking for, so

that you can communicate it as an auditor. As an auditor

you are trying to communicate a thought or sense. Now why

should anybody try to escape his responsibility on the

whole subject to the degree of wanting a canned word by

which to ask a perfectly ordinary routine question? If you

know your business you don't have to have those.



Now on the Grade processes, yes, you had better know those

words exact, exact, exact, because they're very carefully

worked out. But again you can't administer a Grade process

if you don't know what you're asking for.



It's your job as an auditor to, to, to deliver it to the

PC. To receive the answer and know what the hell to do with

it. And there isn't anybody under god's green Earth can

give you a whole bunch of canned balderdash that does your

job for you. Now I'll point something out to you. I have

already done quite enough without also writing all the

words you use. Now that is not a wide open invitation that

every time you get yourself into a corner you suddenly

shift processes. Now recognize the difference between a

process and a question. There's a fantastic width between a

process and a question.



I'm going to give you a kooky one I read in a folder. You

can have an infinity of wrongnesses, but some of them are

funnier than others. You say that this auditor said to the

preclear, "Do you have a present time problem?" And the

preclear said, "Oh, yes." "Good. What postulate created

that problem? Good. Now what counter postulate met that

problem? Good. Now what postulate created that problem?

"And the funny part of it is, that the TA sort of, went up,

and the session all went to pieces, because I think the

problem was that his chair was tippy, and it didn't have

anything whatsoever to do with any problem. It had to do

with the auditor didn't clear the environment in the first

place. See, he's actually asking the; he had some canned idea.



He got this from someplace, I don't know where, that you

clear up problems by what postulate did you make, what

counter postulate did you make. Now he of course is taking

the definition of problem is a postulate, counter

postulate. He tried to audit this by definition. But note

that is was also in the wrong part of the session. He

didn't notice that the PC was sitting there almost falling

out of his chair, because one leg was busted. Now this is

one hell of an awful, lousy level of awareness, if you want

to even dignify it by calling it a level of awareness.



So the auditor's supposed to be there, he's supposed to be

on the ball, and he's supposed to do what he's supposed to

do in order to come down on a certain, exact line and keep

the PC herded on to that line. So we know that it would be

the most fatal to audit over an ARC break.



You audit over an ARC break, it's an absolute law, it's

nobody's opinion I assure you, you audit a PC over an ARC

break he'll go eventually into the sad effect. Yet, at

Saint Hill one time I saw a PC who had been walking around

for three months with an ARC break that people had audited

in every session over the top of. She was in grief, she was

in a complete sad effect, she was an absolute text book

case of sad effect. And there wasn't one single person

there ever asked her if she had an ARC break of long

duration. Until I noticed this character walking around,

and I got an auditor by the scruff of the neck, and I said,

"Pull the ARC break of long duration, would you please?"

And he did so, and the case cheered up and everything was

great.



You see, there're certain things that are meaningful. Like,

an ARC break, audited over the top of, puts the PC into a

sad effect. And there aren't any exceptions. And it is a

rule. And it is a law. And any time the law is disobeyed,

you cut your throat as an auditor, and the PCs throat.



So you always pick up your ARC break as the first thing in

the session. 'Cause it's completely fatal to audit somebody

over the top of.



Now, the person who has the ARC break who says he doesn't

have an ARC break has had somebody tell him he did have an

ARC break when he didn't. He protested, and since that time

ARC broke has read. And, an educated auditor asks him

immediately for, "Did anybody ever tell you you had an ARC

break when you didn't?" Cleans up the false read.



Or, this reverse thing can happen, more rarely. More

rarely, but it can happen. He said, "Do you have an ARC

break?" Doesn't read, the auditor says, "That's clean." And

the PC says, "The hell it is." So the auditor says, "On ARC

breaks, has anything been suppressed?" And you get the

suppress off. Now you say, "Do you have an ARC break?" And

the PC says, "Yeah, that was my ARC break. People never

taking up my ARC breaks." So, it now doesn't read, but the

PC is cheerful about it. So it can be positive or negative.

But your educated auditor, your educated auditor takes this

up. This is something he takes up. He doesn't sit there

like a damn bump on the log waiting for the next piece of

telex tape to pass through his skull.



Auditing is something that is understood. You only get into

fire fights over PCs if you don't know what you're doing.

So we don't ever audit over an ARC break. And we never

leave a false read on. And we never leave a false no-read

on. We handle it.



Now, the next thing we take up is a present time problem.

And a present time problem means present time problem, the

problem the PC has now, a problem which he does have. You

never get into any trouble about this or a definition. It

comes up or it doesn't come up. And the reason we take up a

present time problem is very elementary indeed, as you will

not ever change a case that is audited over the top of a

present time problem. You won't do him any harm, but you're

never going to get any change. He doesn't change. And that

is proved by graph after graph after graph after graph

after graph, dozens, dozens, dozens, dozens, dozens,

hundred of PCs. I finally traced it back and isolated

exactly what is was that gave an unchanging graph. The

presence of a present time problem. Work was done in '55,

'56, Washington. No change.



So you going to audit this guy over a present time problem?

Well then you're going to audit him to no change. Where you

going to get an F/N? You're not. Where're you going to get

the TA doing anything? You're not. What you trying to do?

Cut your throat?



Alright. Similarly, you asked him if he has a present time

problem, and he says; you say that reads. And he says, "Oh,

no, not againl God damn. Every time I get into session and

I try to get auditing done, why that reads, and so on. I

suppose I have got a present time problem." And you say,

"Alright. Has anybody ever said that you had a present time

problem when you didn't have one?" "Oh my god, yesl

Bda-bda-da-da-bab-bda-bda-da-dabab. Bdee-dee,bdee-dee,

bda-da, and so on and so on and so on, and I never can get

into the body of the session because they all say there's a

present time problem with the Ruds, and so forth, and all

dba-ba-ba- pow-pow. Pow-pow-pow-pow-pow. Pow. F/N. You say,

"The needle floated. We're going to take up whatever we're

going to take up."



Now the reverse can be true, more rarely, that you say, "Do

you have a present time problem? That doesn't read." Funny,

you see him look a little puzzled. Just but very often

won't say, puzzled, it didn't read. Look a little bit

baffled. And you could say, "Well, should it have read?"

"Oh, yeah, gee, you know? I just have been served with a

writ for federal income tax from the Eskimos", and so on.

"And boy, it's a problem, because I don't know any

Eskimos." Anyway, you say, "Alright. On the present time

problem has anything been suppressed?" "Yeah, yeah I have

to suppress it. If I don't suppress it I'll never get

anything done." It doesn't clean up. "Is there an earlier

time you suppressed a problem? Anything you care to say at

this particular time? Do you want to tell me more about the

Eskimos, or any damn thing you care to say?" It's itsa or

earlier. Green form rule is invariable. It is itsa or

earlier, or a listing process.



That's all you ever do on a green form. Itsa, earlier, or a

listing process. And there're certain things on the green

form which you list. Says environment. Alright. If there's

something wrong with the environment do a remedy B. If he's

connected to a suppressive person or a suppressive group,

anything in that department that comes up on the green

form, you do an S and D. Continuous present time overts

comes up, you do the prevent process. You say, "What about

all black? Doesn't that require some special process?" No,

not necessarily. I don't care if the PC goes on being all

black. If he wants to be all black that's alright with me.

Do you follow?



But the PC is; you didn't follow. The PC is worrying about

his Grades. He's worrying about his field. He's worried

about this or he's worried about that. So it'll clean up on

itsa and earlier. "Yeah, yeah, everything I see is black. I

don't ever see anything. I close my eyes and it's all

black." And so on. "Did you ever notice this earlier?"

"Yes. Yeah." "Alright, when was that?" "Oh, I don't know.

Spokane." "What was going on then?" "Oh that's right. We

ran this engram and everything went black. Huh. What do you

know?" Needle goes voomp. F/N.



What the hell are you doing something complicated for? It's

itsa or earlier. That is the law of the green form. On

certain points of the green form you do a list. So. Itsa or

earlier. If it doesn't clean on itsa, it cleans on earlier.



Now I can see you putting together a beautiful, rote

process. Knock it off! What you have to know is, itsa or

earlier.



Now, how do you ask for itsa? Knock it off. "Do you have a

present time problem?" "Oh yeah, my god. I'm about to lose

my job and oh, wow, and so on, and then how will I meet my

alimony payments because, oh, my god, you know, woo. Wow.~

"OR. Do you have a present time problem?" Read. "Is there

an earlier, similar problem?" Didn't clean on itsa. So you

gotta go earlier. And you can run it back, back, back,

back, and all of a sudden you've got it. You got it back to

basic. Then you have to know your mechanics, don't you? You

have to know the composition of the mind. You have to know

that you have to reach the basic point where the chain

started in order to get total freedom on the total chain.

You have to know that. You don't just know itsa or earlier,

you have to know why. How come you run it earlier? Well, if

it doesn't free late on the chain you; there's an earlier

on the chain to make it free. If it does free late on the

chain it hasn't got any basic under it. Or, it's a simply

tripped off and released at that particular point. You've

made him think the right thought that moved him off the mass.



Simple. Too simple. It is so simple that it is the most

easily misunderstood thing anybody can think of. In the

first place you're trying to teach somebody something about

something they very well may have. A reactive bank. Now,

when you say present time problem there are so many people

that say, "Oh yes, I've got a present time problem," and

they miss the rest of the sentence. And you're trying to

teach them this, you restimulate 'em. A problem.



I brought up one here in yesterdays' lecture, and I said

the incredible can hang up a track, and two students only

learned this about it. That it applied to them. And I

didn't tell them because it applied to them. And I couldn't

care less that it applied to them. Do you understand? I

taught them that because it applies to other cases. And I

am talking to an auditor, not a case.



There is a rule about this. A very broad rule about this,

that in later years has been violated.



Auditors and students do not have cases. When we first

found out they had cases and thought they had cases was

about thirteen years ago. And it became illegal, while

being a student and while being an auditor it is very,

violently illegal to have a case. You don't have one at

that time. That's it. Do you understand? Those are the

facts of life.



We had a gag here happen the other day. Somebody says,

"You're late. Why did you arrive?" And the person said, "I

need a review because I've got an ARC break." How can

anybody get up to Class VI and not know that a student

doesn't have a case? Students don't have cases.



So, when I'm trying to communicate to you I'm not talking

about your bank. To hell with your bank. I am not talking

out of my bank as philosophers and experts in this line

have only done for the last four or five quadrillion years.

So you can pay me the compliment of not listening through

yours. It's very remarkable to have principles which came

up way the hell and gone back on the track of Dianetics and

Scientology, principles of the early years. They still hold

good. They hold so good that they function at OT8.

Fantastic The stuff which is being taught to the lowest

grade auditor is valid all the way through to OT8.

Fantastic! So when you're learning a simplicity of this

character you are learning a simplicity of this character.

Nobody's trying to solve your case. Nobody's even trying to

give you a cognition. I'm just telling you what the hot

dope is.



Those three things, those three things that are absolutely,

completely impossible to audit over the top of, include the

withhold. So you've got ARC break, PTP and withhold. You

will never get away with it. And neither will the PC. Nothing.



How many ways can you pull a withhold? You can pull them

the easy way, you can pull them the hard way. I have pulled

withholds by moving my chair over in front of the door and

said, "It's perfectly OK. I can sit here the rest of the

night. I am going to hear it." But that was after I checked

it over to make sure that it was a real withhold. That it

wasn't a false read. That the symptoms and manifestations

of the withhold were very, very present. And the PC wasn't

going to tell me his withhold. Well I knew damn well there

was no reason to proceed beyond that point. I would just be

wasting my time, so I would just simply say, "Well, I can

sit here the rest of the night until you tell me. There's

another system which is highly workable.



Alright. Good. We will sort this out on the meter. You're

not going to give me the withhold, we'll sort this out on

the meter. Have you murdered somebody? Good. Where did you

bury the body? Have you robbed a bank? Do you strangle

children? Are you a rapist by prof... " "Oh no, god, nothing

like that." "Alright, what is it like?" "Oh, well, I just

so and so and so and so."



Huh. "I'm short twenty five dollars today in my cashiers'

till and can't find it. And I didn't want to tell anybody."

In other words, you exaggerate the withhold. But that's

after you've made sure that it is a withhold. There's no

false read in connection of it. Connection with it. It is a

withhold. It does read.



Now there is a slight danger about rock slams which turn on

on withholds, occasionaly, is you can get them off with

invalidate while they're still hot. Now you can turn off a

rock slam by putting in the button invalidate on it. It

doesn't mean the person's innocent, you've just cooled off

the rock slam. Now the person may be innocent, but when you

put in invalidate then you also have to put in suppress.

You can't just put in invalidate and have it cool off,

without then also putting in suppress to find out was it

just smush out.



A rock slam is basically an invalidation. Therefore, if you

invalidate somebody hard enough on some subject he can turn

on a rock slam. An invalidative question, asked with

sufficient ferocity can itself turn on a rock slam. It can

be done. But that isn't all the rock slams there are.



We had a criminal, I use the word advisedly because it

wasn't a very big criminal, but nevertheless a criminal,

just the other day, that had a rock slam. We cooled it off

with invalidate. And then it didn't read. And she was

supposed to have stolen a hundred dracma. It didn't read.

It exhonerated her. She even had two hundred dracma on her.

And then, a few weeks later, a thousand dracma disappeared,

and she had it. Too many coincidences. The rock slam,

actually, was perfectly accurate. The person was a thief.

But it did cool off with invalidate. So remember, if you

cool a rock slam off with invalidate, you've also got to

put suppress and not-is and a few other things in, and make

sure that you don't turn it back on again. Your job as an

auditor is not to turn off rock slams or turn them on, it

is to discover the truth.



There's any gods' quantity of ways you can approach the

whole subject of withhold. There have been many bulletins

concerning it. An auditor, if he understands what a

withhold is all about, is all about, he can handle

withholds. Now a missed withhold is what is in the

rudiments. So you have to not only detect that it exists,

but you have to find where and when it was missed. And I see 

folder after folder where it says, "Do you have a missed 

withhold?", the auditor says. "Yeah, yep. I stole a pin 

from HASI." "Good. That cleans the question. We will now 

go to the body of the session." PC doesn't think anything, 

natters, ble-blop-bloop-jep.



Doesn't even repeat the question, doesn't ask who nearly

found out, nothing. Just missing. Do you follow?



So, this is, is kooky, kooky-Ruds. See? Now you wonder why

you haven't, if you haven't flown the needle by the time

you've got to missed withhold, and you wonder why it

doesn't fly on missed withhold, it's just that the where

and when, by whom it was missed has been omitted. You have

to know the theory of a rudiment. It is not enough to know

a rote.



Now we go down into other matters but frankly, from there

on you're on safe ground. You're on safe ground. Nobody's

gonna do anything very weird. Now the only violations of

this is taking up the obvious ARC break. The guy was given

a wrong item. He's ARC broken about it in the last session.

PC is ARC broken after the session, the session consisted

of listing for an item. He obviously has a wrong item. The

longer you spend asking if he has an ARC break, the more of

a fool you are. Obviously he's got an ARC break, because

that is what, a wrong item causes an ARC break. You look in

the folder, there are eighteen items reading on the list,

and he's given an item that he didn't list, and the auditor

gave him the item. Do you know that was the first trouble

on lists? We always have trouble on lists. First trouble on

lists was the auditor suggesting items to the PC. We've

come further than that now. We've only come as far as it

doesn't matter whether he's given a wrong item or not.



But this is important. The lads got an obvious ARC break,

because you're repairing the last session which had a wrong

item. You're repairing 5A and you find the third BD item

was the one he was given. If you get a hold of this guy,

wrrrr. Now you're going to put in Ruds to correct the item.

Aw, don't be an ass. See, if you know your business, and

you know you know your business, you know that a wrong item

off a list is going to have produced an ARC broken PC. And

if you ask for the ARC break he is seldom sufficiently

technically oriented to know that that is the source of the

ARC break. So of course you can't pull it. So you can box

around for an hour and a half, auditing across the known

ARC break, just busting him to pieces. So of course you

handle the known ARC break. If it wasn't an ARC break,

alright. So the PC comes into session, "Alright. In the

last session we see we had a list here, it runs 118 pages.

Oh, yeah, yes. We have this list, and how'd you feel about

that?" "Oh god almighty, oooh." "Well, I wish to indicate

to you the list was over listed. Alright. We're going to

check this list now. Was it the first item?" Bong!

"Alright, that's good. That was the first item on the list.

Your item is free fall. Thank you very much." OK. Good

indicators come in. You now say, Rudiments."



Do you follow?



I saw a session, there is a session in the case folders

there that is in a complete howl. The PC was sent in by C/S

to have a wrong item corrected, and the auditor asked for

an ARC break.



And it goes on for column after column, because the PC is

insufficiently educated to know he's ARC broken because

he's got a wrong item. It goes on and on. Well, they pull

more ARC breaks without getting anywhere, because pulling

ARC breaks over the existence of the ARC break can also be

painful. It goes on for pages. Wound the PC right up in the

rag bag.



So the rudiments, Now that doesn't in any way violate the

rudiments. The guy walks into session saying, "Oh my god,

what am I going to do? Oh my god, what am I going to do?"

He sits down in the chair, "Oh my god, what am I going to

do?" Picks up the cans, "My god, what am I going to do?"

You would be a very, very foolish auditor if you didn't

say, "Do you have a present time problem". Elementary.



You don't Q and A on other things then the rudiments,

however. PC comes into session and says, "Well, I suppose

you think you're going to do something with me. Heheheh.

Myanyayaya. You think you're an auditor do you?", and so

forth. My response to that is, "There you go, there are the

cans. Do you have a missed withhold?" Pongl Booml

"Something wrong?" "Oh, no, I'm sweetness and light. As a

matter of fact I did have a little withhold. I

stole a pin once from HASI." "Good. Thank you very much. Do

you have a withhold?" "Yeah, I ate your lunch." You know,

something like that. Well, it'll be obvious. And having

handled that one, naturally then you go back through your

actions.



Now this is an auditor who knows his business. There is a

folder that runs like this. "Do you have an ARC break?"

"Yeah, they're doing us all in. Everybody's caving us in

lately. We're sure getting shot down in flames," and so on.

"I'm really ARC broken about it. Boy, what they're doing to

us." And the auditor, like a god damned fool sat there for

the next I don't know how long, continuing to ask for ARC

breaks, and finally finished up the session asking for ARC

breaks because he couldn't clean ARC breaks. Well it was

very remarkable. He couldn't clean up ARC breaks because

the PC didn't have one. The PC had a missed withhold, and

was calling it an ARC break. And he'll notice in the old

bulletins and so forth, says very often it occurs that when

you have an ARC break it is really a missed withhold. The

one thing I had a hard time teaching Class VI students way

back when, was that they don't accept everything the PC

says in violation of tech.



He says, "Oh, they're doing me in, and all that last

auditor, he cut my throat from ear to ear.

And that is all bad. Yes, I have a terrible ARC break,

because everything... they're doing me in, you see. And

they're really pretty nasty to me. And that's off pmfodf

fddouf, gobbldy, gobbldy, gobbldy, gob." Critical, missed

withhold. Pcs, inevitably because it's more socially

acceptable, will call a missed withhold an ARC break.



So, if the ARC break doesn't clean he's got a missed

withhold. Very simple. But it isn't something you wreck the

PC with. All of this is...  We're traveling now in auditing,

and a couple of thousand miles an hour at least. We're not

traveling with that old fan job, Piper Cub fan job,

anymore. Don't you see? If you know your business, it's,

"Nya, nya, nya." "Now good. Do you have a missed withhold?"

Zoom. "Thank you very much. Now, do you have, that's clean,

do you have a missed withhold? That's clean. Good. Do you

have an ARC break? No, that's good. PTP? That's fine.

Alright." Didn't F/N? Green form.



Now you've just asked these four questions, so are you a

live being or a fool? Are you now going to ask those same

questions again on the green form? All you're going to ask

about is environment, you having trouble in your

environment. And then you're going to bring it down to

overts and motivators. Because you just got through

covering them. Do you understand? And you get down the line

and you suddenly find out that this PC has had an overrun.

And you straighten up the overrun. And the needle flies.

Good. Now you can get on with what you were supposed to do

in the first place. That's the way it goes. With speed. It

isn't any fumble-bumble stumble-bumble. "I wonder whatts

wrong with this PC?" If you ever think that thought as a

case supervisor you're an ass. I can tell you what's wrong

with a PC - he's humanoid.



That question's answered, don't ever worry about it again.



On diagnosis, if you want to use such a word, the PC is as

he is because he hasn't made the next Grade. Now let's set

him up and correct any earlier errors, so that he can make

his next Grade. We don't go into a figure-figure because

he's got a pain in his side.



PC comes in, he says, "I have this awful pain in my side,

oh terrible pain," so on. He's just a walking invitation,

boy, for you to go kooky. He's issuing an engraved

invitations to the examiner, and everybody else connected

with it.



The two things that can be wrong with him are, the

auditing he's had needs correcting, or he should be on the

next Grade. And that sure requires a hell of a lot of you

as a case supervisor, doesn't it?



Honest. Papa'll spank you if he ever catches you pulling

this line. "Well he's got this awful pain in his side. I

wonder what it is." I can tell you what it is. It's either

the living he's had or the auditing he's had isn't sitting

well on his reactive brisket. Which can be corrected... He

should be doing the next grade. It's always the next grade.

That's all the think you do. You can know more doggone

things about PCs.



You can run a complete intelligence service on PCs, you

know? They are this and that, and a woffa-woffa-woffle.

Well it does you some good. Don't think that it doesn't. It

does you some good. Because it tells you what you just

solved. You don't have to know what you're trying to solve

before you solve it.



This fellow was a hop head, bank robber. Spent the first

five years of his life in a cast. His uh,...  Do you see?

Was a premedical school student and was expelled, uh so

forth and etcetera, and etcetera. And for twenty two years

studied yogi. See? And you've got this list, see. And you

say, "Wow." See? And by the time you get him up to Grade IV

he's flying, and you say, "Boy, look what I did." That's

actually most of the use of it.



You can get this kind of a situation, where you know that

the PC is Lithuanian and doesn't speak English, and has

been audited by a Dane who didn't speak Lithuanian. Your

problem as an auditor is to find, is to find a Lithuanian

auditor. Your problem as C/S is to find a Lithuanian auditor.



I've had that here the other day, had that here the other

day. Managed it too. We were embarrassed one time, along

side of a dock somebody'd been handing out hand outs,

talking about Scientoiogy. And some guy showed up and he

wanted to be audited on his Grade processes. And he only

spoke one language. Actually, I think we did get him some

auditing on his Grade processes. He just showed up out of

the blue demanding his auditing. Couldn't speak English,

nothing.



Recently, recently you talk about standard tech and the

quality of auditors, and so on. We had an auditor who was

absolutely the world's most experienced killer. This

auditor was a Class VI, but had never audited anybody with

any great degree of success, and had in the main neglected

one certain an especial PC. And this PC had been

especially, he wasn't a PC even.



He had never been audited. He was the one who had given

over all the money for all of her training, her Grades,

everything. But she had never paid it back with a single

Grade. So she was asking some favor of me, and I said,

"Yes." And at that moment she was balled and chained on the

whole subject, some of you are liable to take that

literally, it was actually only forbidden to leave. And I

said, "You, for the first time are going to really learn

what a Grade process is. And you're going to run every

single one of those processes, and you're going to run them

perfectly, and you're going to produce results. Because as

of this minute you have no certs and awards of any kind

whatsoever, and you get 'em back just as fast as you put

that PC together. Each Grade he makes you get your cert

back on that Grade." Took him all the way through to Power,

the guy was absolutely flying, you couldn't recognize him

at all. It was almost over her dead body that she'd do

this. She didn't like him, I think.



But all of a sudden he made it all the way. She made it all

the way. All came out right in the end. She wasn't auditing

on her own determinism. (Laughs) That's how exact and good

standard tech can be. It was quite remarkable. It was a

remarkable feat. It's much more than I tell you in just

this little thing. It was a win of years' duration. Years'

duration. It's great.



Now what did she have to do? She had to do exactly nothing

but exactly what I told her to do, and if she so much as

wiggled her little finger, god help her. And even though

she was unwilling to audit him, even though she didn't even

like the guy, even though so on and so on, it all came

right on up the line.



Therefore, the processes which you're using can easily,

easily, easily bypass mere objection.



You see, you're not dealing with 'Let us assume the ibis

position'. You are not dealing with 'If you take a vitamin a

day the dogs will go away.' You're not dealing with a bunch

of old wives' tales. You're dealing with something that is

a hot as a ninety foot circumference buzz saw. You got to

learn how to run this buzz saw, 'cause it'll go right

straight up the line. You don't monkey with this buzz saw.

You do exactly what the buzz saw says. And if somebody under

your direction doesn't do what the buzz, what you say, and

does something else, well you just turn the buzz saw in to

hLm a little bit sideways. You make it go. You make it go

right. And it will go.



You can make it go right in the most impossible situations

you ever heard of, as long as you keep the guy right on the

main highway. You've got channels and edges on that road.

He can't go into the ditch. You mustn't let him go into the

ditch. There is an infinity of ditch to go into.



There is only one road.



So therefore, the approaches to a session are simply the

approaches I've been giving you.



There aren't other approaches to the session. You really

can't audit covertly.



Wawafafaawagaaw. I can give you an infinity of other

circumstances. These are the things which you handle with a

session. And you don't go anyplace with a session unless

you've got those things handled.



Now the Grade processes you go up the line through have

just about as much choice in wording as though they were

branded four feet deep on a concrete wall. There is no

variation.



Not the faintest variation. Clearing the command, the exact

command, the exact administration of the process, the exact

end phenomena. It is a drill of tremendous precision. And

that is what you're leading up to when you get those

rudiments in, and so forth. You're leading to this moment,

where the next Grade is to be done.



And then you've got him all set up, and you do just exactly

that. You tell him what it is, you clear the command, you

get; make sure that he knows the command, and polly-volly.

And he goes on through. He doesn't miss.



And you fumble-bumble, "I wonder where the, where is the

trim knob? Where's the directions for the E-meter? It's

HCOB, let's see, the Grade Chart. What are the commands for

Level 1?" and so on. "This meter's terribly... new

meter... just take me a... I've seen it on the... " He won't

go up the highway. Any fumble-bumble at all, any slightest,

any slightest wiggle-woggle and indecision and have to

think to get the datum, and, and so forth, it...  There is goes.



You haven't got it. I mean they're...  Not it, you haven't

got the session. You haven't got the preclear. He didn't go

anyplace. You got it?



It's like a marksman. Marksman, he's trying to find the

trigger on the rifle. "Where is the trigger? Where's the

trigger?" You think he's ever going to hit any bulls eyes? No.



So, here you have the variability of the rudiments. The

variabilities involved in setting up a case. The

variabilities by which you can run a green form, or run an

L4A, or an L1. And in each of those you just get the thing

done, somehow. And the rule is uniformly, it sets itself

right by itsa or it goes earlier.



You can, on such a thing as L1, indicate the BPC. Reads.

You can indicate the BPC. But you would be a very foolish

person indeed to be indicating the BPC on something you

didn't know what the PC had just read on, 'cause it might

be a false read. You always have to find out what it is,

which is itsa. Now you could indicate the BPC in the

matter. Now that, that would take it out of the line.



You can indicate the BPC very complexly. There's an old

bulletin there that tells you how to indicate BPC, oh my

god. It's perfectly OK to do it that way. But that's that

body of auditing.



Now those are the body of auditing of repair. Now you also

have to know what the process was to know what you are

repairing. See? Now that is working with the PC to set it

right. And that is usually a backwards look, and you don't

do review actions to get case gains. Only one thing to the

contrary, and that's OT4. It is now a review action.

Because the whole rundown, it can get so damn many gains

for the guy, that there have to be done at OT4 before he

starts OT5 that it's just a review action now. Only it's

really not a review action, it's sort of a tech action.



But you start sending people to review, it's because they

can't get on the next process. "All my life I've had this

heavy feeling in my stomach." Well you send the guy to

review. Why? Is anything wrong with his auditing? No.

There's nothing wrong with his auditing. What's wrong with

him is his stomach. Well does that mean Scientology won't

handle things like this? Yes, Scientology'll handle things

like this. It'll handle on the next Grade or two. Sometimes

it handles on the next Grade, and then, then drifts sort of

back, and then two or three Grades later, or sections

later, all of a sudden he runs into it head on, and it does

solve then. For god's sakes. See?



But you're not auditing the significances and peculiarities

of individuals. These are infinite in number. You have the

main road. Why are you running up and down these little

side paths? Any of the Grades will handle anything, so to

hell with it. I mean, walking up the Grade line will

eventually handle anything. But anything. You don't have to

have a process that handles this, and a process that

handles that. Don't get yourself associated with a little

doctor that has a little pill case. There are pink pills,

green pills, orange pills and blue pills. Now if the

individual has a toothache you give him a green pill, and

so forth, waffa, waffa, waffa. Well you're not in that

business. You're not in that business.



Well there are undoubtedly processes which might do him

this and that and the other thing, you could straighten

this and that and the other thing out. But the truth of the

matter is, on your main line of auditing, on your main line

of auditing, it's always a Grade action that handles the PC.



Now there are certain actions that run through the

entirety. One, secondary running, engram running, and ARC

breaks, also missed withholds and also PTPs, run all the

way from a hundred lifetimes ago to OT8. Those processes

still remain valid. Still remain valid. Well the faults I

find with Scientologists is they very often will see

somebody fall on his head, get run over by a truck, and do

some kind of a light touch assist and say "That's that."

And then wonder why the guy is limping. And then they sort

of say, "Scientology doesn't work." Man, I've got a word

for you. That auditor is afraid of work. Do you see?



An engram could be run at any time, but then, this isn't a

review action, it comes under the heading of an assist.

It's engram running as an assist.



Now you say, "Well god. If engram running can be done as an

assist what couldn't you do?" Oh, yes, that's right. You

can always run an engram, you can always run a secondary. I

don't care where the grade is, but I got news for you. Know

how to run it. Know how to run engrams.



The funniest thing, engrams don't run if you don't know how

to run engrams. I get so disgusted looking at somebody who

allegedly knows how to run engrams. Or, know how to run

secondaries. This is an actual one. And he says, "Recall a

moment of loss. Recall of moment of loss." And I looked at

the thing and I said, "What the hell were you doing, what

were you doing in this session? What were you doing? What,

what the hell was going on? What, what, what, what is this?

What's this?" "It was running a secondary." Suffering

Godfrey, if that's gotten into the line up. Holy Christ.

Now you see, the truth of the matter is that you can take a

thing like a secondary, which is in present time, near

present time, the individual's got all of his restimulators

for it, and you can key it out to F/N (snap), just like

that. And then the person walks around the corner and meets

Joe, who is associated with it, and it keys back in, just

like that. And then you can, as an auditor, give the guy a

slight recall of it and it keys out to F/N, (snap) just

like that. And he can go around another corner and he runs

into a restimulator of it and it thump, back in, just like

that. And you can just keep this up.



Eventually it'll wear out. But I call to your attention

that it is about the slowest possible method I know of, of

running a secondary.



Now I have had to pick up two cases. Two cases who in

actual fact were severely, severely bogged on an assist

level of secondary and engram running, that auditors had

stood right in front of them, sat down in the auditing chair, 

asked them what it was all about, and the individual is all 

boggled up. It comes under the heading of secondary can make

somebody so depressed that they feel physically ill. They

feel old. It's a peculiarity. - They feel energy-less and

old, and used up and so on. And you're in to audit this,

see, you're trying to audit this.



And you're trying to audit this. Oh, nothing flies, there

isn't any reason to run anything on the thing. Why? Well

the guy... she just lost her husband. He isn't even cold in

the ground. And some damn fool auditor will say, "Do you

recall your moment of loss", and so forth. "Yes, I guess I

do." "Oh good, that F/N'd." "Oh yes, I feel much better.

Yes, I feel much better." She'll feel that much better for

the next ten or fifteen minutes. Don't you see? What you

have to know is the mechanism of release. And an auditor

that does this sort of thing's a damn fool.



Now a good auditor would say, "Now wait a minute. This

character's, was doing all right, really fell on her head,"

you understand I'm talking to you about an exception from

grade auditing. These are the things that can go the whole

line, see? But what's messed up? Life's gotta be corrected.

See? Some; it's gone this way in life. See? There's been a

life intervention of magnitude that has driven this person

off. And you can get the idea that if the cannon ball came

along and blew off your PCs head, he wouldn't be able to

make the next grade. He wouldn't be there to hold the cans.

Well, I'd say at that exaggerated level it's the same thing.



When a person was an innocent bystander, and all of a

sudden, why they had this big secondary occur. Bombo. Big

loss of some kind or another. And I've had a good auditor,

a good auditor, if he was on the ball and he knew his

business and so forth, he wouldn't ask questions about

this, or something like that, he, he would know this and

the C/S would be informed she just lost her husband. And

the C/S would say, "Alright. Get in your Ruds and run the

secondary of death." Only please, that would be "run the

secondary of death." Run it.



Run its "The first moment he enters the incident, What is

the duration of the incident?", and so forth, "When did you

first hear in the news of the subject?" You know? Bong.

"What is the duration of the incident? Alright. Move

through the incident... " And so on. Just like it says in

the handbook. And you go through it and through it and

through it and through it and through it, and you spill a

few gallons and quarts of tears, and misemotion comes up.

There's such a thing as a fear secondary. "I was

terrified." the guy was terrified. He's been in a state of

shock, he's dead white ever since. He can run a terror

secondary. Perfectly easy to do this. But life has knocked

him sideways, you can put him back on the line.



Alright, he didn't get up high enough to get his grades

fast enough in order to keep life from knocking him in the

head. And to this degree you can give him an assist, and

straighten him out.



Another person was given an S and D, and I don't know what

all, to straighten out a severe illness. I got a hold of

the PC, found the pc'd been ill, asked the PC what's she

been doing, told me at once. Ran him to the first moment of

the incident, ran him through it, zoom, zoom, zoom, zoom.

That was the end of the illness. And one of the, one of the

lazy part of this problem, however, is do you know it can

take nine hours to run a secondary? It can take ten or

twelve hours to run a real engram? You only run it to F/N,

of course. But running it, it doesn't just key out. It

erases. You are now dealing with the category of clearing.

You're erasing the engram. You're erasing the secondary.

That's different.



Alright, I'll give you the circumstances. This is an

assist-type action. The individual was doin' all right,

they were gain' on up the line, and they stepped under a

truck. Now you've got to get him back on the main line

again. How do you do that? Well, you can give them a

contact assist, taking him to that place. If it is

necessary, to where the accident happened and make him

touch that place, and so forth, with the part of the body

that was hurt, touch the object that hurt them, and work on

it on a contact assist, just directly, one right after the

other. Always the best type of assist is that contact

assist, and the somatic runs out. You wait for the somatic

to run out, and so on. It runs out when it runs out, and

bang, that is it.



If you can't get him to that place, and so on, you run a

touch assist. And the touch assist is run with "Feel that

finger" and so on. And if the injury was very severe

indeed, after you've done the touch assist a little bit

later you come along and you run the engram. And that is a

complete assist.



Now how come we're knocking off all of a sudden, this

business of running the engram?



'Cause the person might, it might go past an F/N? Now let

me assure you, you'd have to be completely ignorant of the 

phenomena of an F/N. An F/N occurs when the person disconnects 

from the masses connected with something. He ceases to make 

them and ceases to be there, and he disconnects from them. 

Alright, so he gets an F/N.



Now you can disconnect a person from his whole bank. Which

is greats Which is great. And that is what is called a

release. It's a release of this type, and a release of that

type, and the central things you have to disconnect to

bring him up the lines are the grade processes right to

five. So find out what you're doing You're just making him

disconnect. That's all. The only grades that that is not

true on are secondaries and engrams. You're erasing

something there.



Now, he's gain' on up the line, and only when he gets to

clear do you find the final mechanism as far as he is

concerned, and why he's doing it. What he's doing. That

isn't the end of it. But his bank at that moment, or what

he knows of in his bank, goes brrrroooom! Erased, gone! Now

it's the difference between this ashtray ceasing to exist,

gone completely, and the ashtray simply being put off. A

release is the ashtray being put away. A gone ashtray is an

erased ashtray. A gone secondary is an erased secondary. So

you can actually do this. You can key out a secondary, no

longer thinks that kind of thing, you key out a secondary,

and you can say, "Well. To key it out again would be an

overrun." Oh, that's so true. To key it out before it had

keyed in again would be an overrun. And to go on keying out

something that has been keyed out would be an overrun. But

do you know that you can key it out, turn right around and

plunge him right straight into it again, and run it?

Without the slightest consequences. The TA doesn't go up,

nothing. The proof of the pudding of this whole thing is,

what's the behavior of the meter.



Now this is the only time you can go by an F/N. That is two

different processes. One, you're releasing, and the other's

going to clear it. So you could get a release on this

engram and then erase it. Now it'd be much to your horror

if you found out, actually at the moment of release he had

also sort of blown it. He had done both actions at once,

then you might be a little embarrassed. But I've never seen

it happen. So you could get a release on a secondary.



Alright, her husband's dead. Alright, good. Husband's dead.

Now what are we gonna to do? We're gonna "recall a moment

of loss. Good. Floating needle." She's saying, "Oh, thank

heaven. I feel so much better." And she goes home, and she

opens up her drawer to get out her powder puff, and there's

his watch. Gaa! Well, your release did her some good, but

she could come right back to you in session, and you could

do the exact same thing as before, and get her to recall

finding his watch, and it'd key out. And you go floating

needle again. And then she could go home and open the

closet and find his hat. And this could just keep up ad

nauseas.



She could keep keying it in and you could keep keying it out.



Do you see then, such things about, the fellow has had a

wreck in this car, and he drives to work in it every

morning. It's repaired and he goes on driving to work in it

every morning.



And the next thing you know he develops this horrible

neuralgia on the side of his head. Well it's restimulated

all the time. Now if he drove it long enough, and

restimulated it hard enough, and was in it often enough,

and went past the place frequently enough where he had the

accident, it would run the engram. It wouldn't just key it

out, it would actually - Well, the familiarity, and so on,

and would just sort of run it out.



He is, he's running through it every time he goes about

anything. So gone, you know, oooh.



And then he sees a little picture go by. And then that kind

of...  He'll keep doing this. Do you see? Well, so you have

to choose whether or not this is an assist action which is

necessary by reason of the restimulators of the

environment. So a person can only be released; now when

he's released on communications he doesn't release from one

engram. Let's look at this. He doesn't release from one

secondary. He doesn't release from one specific action. He

actually may very well be releasing from hundreds of trillions 

of years of such actions. All in an own little flicker of an eye.



Now the length of time it would take to key that back in,

because he's not on those planets anymore, he's not even in

that space and time. He's not even in that era anymore. So,

it's a very valid release indeed. It'll take a, quite a

while to key that one back in. Do you see? So, he's having

difficulties with problems, and all of a sudden he has a

cognition that just roars on the whole track. It isn't even

that he can think on the subject of the whole track, but,

he suddenly has a change of mind, concerning the subject of

problems. Christ, how long is it going to take to key that

back in again? Man, you'd really have to bail this guy

under to do that.



Do you see? Now you see why the releases are valid, but why

releasing a guy from a specific instance in an engram that

has to do with injury and unconsciousness, or a secondary

that has to do with loss, you see how these things differ?

They differ. They differ considerably.



Now as a C/S, you are going to have this sort of situation.

This individual has had something happen to him in life, is

driven off the line, and you're going to have to order that

the engram of it be found and erased. And you would only

err if the auditor erred. Now, one of the little bits and

pieces that's missing off the line is that if a secondary

on the second run through becomes more solid you have to

send the PC with the same procedure to the earlier secondary.



To an earlier secondary. And if that secondary, by the

second pass through it, running the PC through it becomes

more solid and begins to become more solid, you have to

send him to an earlier secondary. The test is that is

becomes more solid. And if you don't do that, and if you

don't know that, you can wrap a PC around a telegraph pole.

But I notice that it is missing from the rundown on engram

running by chains in this Dianetic auditors' course book at

this time, and it is being reinserted into the book, and is

the subject of, at this moment is the subject of HCOB 28

September 68, Class VIII. I'm carefully inspecting back

bulletins to find out what's been missed. What's

disappeared out on the line up. And that, for some reason

or other's disappeared.



On the second pass through, if it gets more solid, you go

to the earlier incident. Now that doesn't mean you go from

a secondary to an earlier engram. It means you go from a

secondary to an earlier secondary to an earlier secondary

to an earlier secondary. On the engram line you go from an

engram to an earlier engram to an earlier engram, and I've

got news for you, this isn't just, this isn't just for,

only for your little guy who's doing an assist. This is the

only way you're going to solve some section threes. And

section three is going to have to be audited just that way.

So you better get hotter than pistols running engrams.



A "none on three" is a this lifetime injury which has

impacted all the body-thetans into one chunk. And is

handled by running that engram. Loosens them all up and

away they go. Now you can run three. There is no case,

there is no case, there never has been a case that has none

on three, that had one on three, that had two on three,

that had five on three. No such cases.



There isn't any case that suddenly read the instructions

and all of a sudden, whee, they all went away. And he

didn't have to do anything after that. Bullshit.



So you have to know engram running. And you have to be a

damn good engram runner.



Because that engram is gonna run like a bitch. You're

really gonna have to have session control to handle it.

'Cause all the time pc'll be telling you, "Well I don't

know why you're doing this. It's just evaluation on the whole 

thing, because that really has nothing to do with me." He's 

just talking out of the basic incident all the way. He isn't 

protesting the auditor, he's talking out of the basic incident. 

And you roll it right on down the line and smasho, bingo, thud.

There is an exact rundown which you will have. Oh, looks to

me like you better get very familiar with this 'ole process

known as running engrams.



As far as running secondaries is concerned, you can have

somebody around, and this ARC break is so thoroughly

encysted in grief, and so forth, that you can key it out,

and it keys in.



You key it out and it keys in. You get tired of it after a

while. Run the secondary. Where is it? What is it? A person

comes into session every time with a howling ARC break, in

grief, and all upset. Cleaned up, and got a review three days 

from now. Gonna do the same thing. Clean it all up. Goes F/N. 

She feels great. A few days later, feels terrible, is all very

sad. You look for a ARC break of long duration, you're

liable to find yourself sitting there holding onto a

secondary. Roll up your sleeves and audit. Why be lazy? Run

it. Establish what it is. Because it won't, it'll just keep

releasing and coming back and releasing and coming back,

and this becomes one of these weird cases that you really

can't quite do anything with or for. Don't you see?

Rockety-bockety. It's one of...  it's one of the types that

are very difficult to do anything for. They keep getting

caught up in this present time situation. But if it were

out of this lifetime I wouldn't bother with it. I'd leave

that for seven, eight, way up the line, see? When they can

handle such things.



But you find out, two years ago she was doing all right,

the case was doing all right, and then all of a sudden she

vwaff, waff, waff. And there's a period there, and that has

been handled before, and it's handled before, and it's

somebody ran it before, and so forth. So you just roll up

your sleeves and you run it. And that is the only real

criticism I have of a modern auditor.



You're perfectly willing to learn. I'm willing to take

responsibility for the fact that some guys hooked things

out of the line up, and so on. But the one thing I can't

understand why you would omit from your repertoire, would

be secondary and engram running for good. Good, solid,

nothing but secondary and engram running. Running 'em to

free needle of course, stopping them when you get the free

needle. They're gone, they're erased, naturally. You run

'em through, you get the free needle, only that time that

needle, damn it, will stay free. After you've freed up the 

needle four or five times on the same subject I should think 

you'd get the word. Run it! The person's gonna keep falling 

on their head.



The reason why you shouldn't, shouldn't drop it out of your

repertoire, if you want advertising pieces. It's pieces on

whom you have run a secondary or an engram that is close to

PT. Because their before and after is extreme. And he's

going around looking like he was an old lady about ninety

years old, and creeping about, and so forth, and he's been

digged in this way ever since the house burned down and she

lost her all. And people know how this character looks like.



Alright, you take this person, just run the secondary. If

that one goes solid there's an earlier one with a loss. You

have to run the earlier one. If that goes solid you run the

earlier one.



Follow the same rules, but you just go to that secondary,

get the moment of it, get the duration of it, follow it

through. Brooom, brooom, brooom. Grind away, grind away,

grind away, through and through and through, and spill and

spill and tears and sorrow and shame, blame, regret,

apathy. Through it, and through it, and through it, and

through it, and through it, and through it, and...  Some of

these cases you wouldn't believe your eyes. You're sitting

there; you're sitting there looking at somebody who looks

like they're only about twenty years old.



I've seen in a person running an engram, I've seen a person

running an engram. A goiter, at least six inches in

diameter, recede and completely vanish with all signs

thereof, within a half an hour after the engram was

finished. It isn't a for every time action. But there are

miracles to be found on it. There are rather wonderful

things that can happen.



So you start omitting this from your repertoire, you've got

rocks in your head. So a Class VIII should know how to run

an engram, because there are going to be some cases you run

into that won't, just won't go anyplace unless you run an

engram. And there's the other little interesting thing, is

you won't be able to shove anybody up through the later OT

sections unless you can run an engram. They're just gonna

hang right there unless you're sharper than a pistol on

running engrams. But running engrams is a lot of fun. When

you have a good meter, and you have the technology of

engram running as it was finally developed, it's a gas.

Nothing to it.



It's a ball. And it doesn't take as long as you'd think,

but don't, don't be suddenly upset if it, the session, is

twelve hours long.



You can break one of those sessions, but when you break the

session you've got to get in all the Ruds, fly the needle

again, before you start him back into it. See? You don't

have breaks which go back to the same action. Every time

you have this trouble with breaks, every time you have a

break, every time you have a new session, you've got to fly

the, you've got to fly the Ruds.



So, you have to know this sort of thing. Now, to show you

how far out it can get, and so on, I don't think people

today really know how to do a touch assist. I don't know

what happened to the touch assist, but I was fascinated to

have a whole group of Scientologists not very long ago,

absolutely amazed watching me with the most intense

fascination. Watching me do a touch assist. Correct and by

the book. They knew that you touch assist left and right,

but they didn't know any of the fars or nears. They didn't

know that you followed the nerve channels. It was quite

interesting. Quite interesting. A touch assist is a highly

complex action. It isn't just jabbing the guy in the ribs,

saying something or other. And the action is elementary,

actually.



The area, the area that you're doing a touch assist from

you approach on a gradient and recede from on a gradient.

And if you have, for instance, an elbow injury or something

like that, you would for sure go further from the head than

the elbow eventually, but if you wanted to practically kill

the guy, why you'd go immediately and directly to an area

further down the arm than the elbow as the first touch.



Now a contact assist also has its' gradients. And you do it

equally on both sides of the body, and it's just a feel my

finger and so forth, but you have to also go down the nerve

channels, 'cause there's where the current is locked up. And 

there are twelve nerves in the spine. And any injury that is 

severe in the body has to have the whole spine released on the 

subject. And it's far and near, gradient approaches, coming 

back, going forward.



So what, what, if we can forget an assist, or it can

evaporate, a lot of things can evaporate on the lines. But

your job is to hold standard. That's why I'm telling you

these things. Your job is to hold it standard. Now I

haven't told you all there is to know about a touch assist.

But I will.



I haven't told you all there is to know about engram

running. But it is down, except for the one data I gave

you. And as far as I'm concerned, the technology has stayed

together pretty well.



Pretty well. There aren't many pieces of it missing. Enough

of it's missing to make some of you curious, and people

have not held the standard well enough in its' application

to put it where it should go. And now, assembling it all,

putting it together, making a straight line proposition

that is right down the middle of a highway with a wide open

throttle, with everything we know about it, we're in a

position to make it win. But it will keep winning just as

long as you continue, as you continue to hold the standard.

Thank you very much.



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