SHSBC 18


SEC CHECK QUESTIONS, MUTUAL RUDIMENTS
A lecture given on 20 June 1961

Thank you.
Give her the applause, she's doing all the work! I don't know how she does
it. I think she's got you all fooled.
I've seen her tremendously popular. I've seen her step up on a congress
stage and I didn't think anybody on the whole continent had ever heard of
her, you know. And, you know, for the local Assoc Sec everybody applauds,
you know, a little bit. And everybody applauds, and applauds for the
others. And all of a sudden, you introduce Mary Sue, and the chandeliers
jump! You know? I don't know how she does it.
I'm sure that being a very excellent D of P, always getting results, all
that sort of thing - I don't think that has much to do with it.
It's the prevailing opinion in most Central Organizations and Scientology
areas, current moment, that getting tremendous results and big wins has
nothing to do with administration or income or keeping the show on the road
or doing anything about the world. And this we are trying to change. And
one of the things this Saint Hill Course is devoted to is trying to change
just that. Okay?
Now, let's see. This - when I last looked - it might have changed since I
came down here - but it was the 20th of June when I was upstairs, and it
was 1961. But looking around here, I see that it isn't 1961, in a couple of
cases.
Now, I see a note here, that a question has been asked sufficiently of Mary
Sue, that she wants this answered by me in this briefing lineup.
She says, "When doing..." I haven't read this in advance. "When doing a
Security Check, don't just keep repeating the same question, allowing the
person to say, 'I don't know.' Vary questions, so as to give the pc a hand,
returning always, of course, to your original question in the Security
Check."
Oh, man! This is a wide-open invitation to a Q and A, like I was talking to
you about the other day. And every time auditors get turned loose on
varying the question, a tremendous amount of randomity enters into
auditing. And tremendous auditing failures occur, madly, in all directions.
So, when I tell you that this is something you have to know very well - the
difference between varying a question, and Q-and-Aing with the pc.
Now, if you can get that down, you can really do a red-hot Security Check.
But let me tell you, that this has been a very difficult point to get
across.
Now, I'll give you - try to give you a couple of examples, here, off the
bat, that are like this:
Auditor:        "Have you ever stolen any cats?"
Pc:     "Well, I don't know."
Auditor (having seen a reaction on the meter): "Well, do you know anybody
that has stolen any cats?"
The pc says, "Yes, my aunt once stole some cats."
The auditor: "What was her name?"
Now, that is a Q and A. In the first place, who does it - what does it
matter who else stole some cats? We're not auditing his aunt. Well, we
couldn't care about this. This is not a varied question.
The next point is, that is a direct Q and A. Now, a Q and A is defined,
this way. The reason it exists - it is question and answer. But there is a
technical fact that the perfect answer to any question is the question. It
is colloquially used.
This is the Philadelphia Congress of 1953 - Philadelphia Congress, fall
1953 took this up, completely, and it's never been mentioned since.
It is an oddity, and a perfectly worthwhile one to know, that the perfect
answer to any question, of course, is the question. Therefore, when the
question is phrased exactly right, it answers itself. This is the
engineer's version of this.
There's a fellow by the name of "Ninety-nine Percent Johnson" at MIT, and
every student from time immemorial called the man "Ninety-nine Percent." I
don't know that he ever knew this. But he was fond of saying, "The question
which is asked right is already 99 percent answered."
And this is very true. You can take an engineering problem, or any other
kind of problem, or a human problem (if there's any vast difference), and
if you can ask the right question - the exact question - it's already
practically answered.
You're trying to lay out, let us say, the location of serving equipment or
something, in a hotel kitchen. And you keep pushing escalators and dumb
waiters and so forth around on your drawing paper, you see. "And you get
this and so on." And you finally wake up and say, "Well, what the hell am I
doing here?" You know?
This is all a good thing to do, sooner or later, after you've been working
on some problem, it hasn't solved itself in a few hours or days. "Why, what
am I doing? Just what am I doing?" And that is an awfully good question.
And you suddenly wake up to the fact that what you have been doing is
arranging machinery. But what you are really doing is trying - trying to
arrange serving equipment in a hotel kitchen.
And you say, "Well, what am I doing?" you see. And the answer is "What am I
trying to arrange?" or "What am I trying to get accomplished?" And these
questions are different questions.
And you all of a sudden say, "Well. Ah, yes! I'm trying to get food." I'm
not fooling with an engineering dra-."
This is why there's very few good layout engineers, or very few good design
engineers. A country's mechanical progress goes along as fast as it gets
good design engineers, by the way. And they're, accidentally, only as fast
as or only as good as they are able to ask questions of themselves or their
work or the world at large.
And a smart one will go down - after he's worked with this for a long time
and he can't seem to get all his pantry equipment in straight - he's liable
to get the actually brilliant idea of going down and finding the man who's
going to use it, and asking him, "What do you try to do in a kitchen?" you
see? "In getting-what are-what are you trying to do in a kitchen?"
And the fellow gives him this terrific, revelatory answer, you see? Which
is, "Well, we're preparing food for the guests."
"Huuuu. . ." That's a new one, see? "Aw, then, all of this stuff I've been
fooling with on the drawing board... You mean, I'm trying to get food from
the kitchen to - how many rooms? How many dining rooms?"
"Well, there's eight private dining rooms. There's the staff dining room.
There's the main dining room for hotel guests. There's a public dining
room. And all the food comes from this one galley - this one kitchen here.
And it all goes...
The guy says, "Yeah! Now, let's see. You're trying to get food there. What
condition must the food be in when it arrives?"
"Well.. ." The guy says, "Well, it must be hot. It must be still crisp. It
must be this, it must be that. It must be easily identified, and it must be
very rapid. And there must be a place, down here, for the cooks to get
orders, to put it together and throw it up onto things, and then it can be
recovered and shunted..
"Oh," the fellow says, "what you need is a - an IBM sorting system."
The fellow says, "An IBM sorting system in a hotel kitchen? What are you
talking about?"
And the dining engineer says, "That's what you need. That's what you're
going to get, too."
And then so all of a sudden, mysteriously, at the Conrad - the Conrad
Filcher, new hotel in Glasgow - which never before has it ever happened
that anybody in the dining room ever got anything to eat - all of a sudden,
this starts occurring. And everybody gets very happy all up and down the
lines, and so forth. Why? 'Cause somebody asked the right question. That's
all.
Well, old Ninety-nine Percent Johnson-he claimed that if you phrased the
question that you were asking exactly right, that it was instantly
answerable, see? Well, theoretically, the 100 percent - not the 99 but the
100 percent answer to "How is the weather today?" is "How is the weather
today?"
See, that's a perfect duplication on the cause-distance-effect
communication line in Scientology, see? So, "How is the weather
today?"-"How is the weather today?" Now that's the 100 percent.
What you're trying to do is come as close to the 100 percent as you can.
You want this withhold. So it's "What am I trying to do? I'm trying to get
the not-knows that this character is running on the world off of the case,
so that he'll brighten up and get on the run." See, "What am I doing here?"
That's the first thing you've got to ask yourself.
Now, that you know - I told you just the other day - this is why you are
giving a Security Check. Not to be nosy, not to make people feel
embarrassed, and not because Ron said so, see, but actually, to get the
characters to release these tremendous overts of not-knowingness, because
it's got them parked in total stupidity. You're not running failed withhold
on the pc. You are running overts called "Keep 'em stupid." Got it?
Now, when he stole something, it disappeared and its owner couldn't find
it. And a tremendous not-know was entered into the owner's sphere of
livingness, right? It's an overt. To hell with whether or not mest passed.
That is the basic overt.
So when you make these things known and scrape them out of the pc's
reactive bank and get them up into his zone of knowingness, you raise, of
course, his intelligence. Therefore, you raise his knowingness. Therefore,
his responsibility comes up enormously, right?
Processing, in general, raises his responsibility and throws these
not-knowingnesses into restimulation. And unless they are released or
vented, then the pc does not make any further progress. And the fastest way
in the world to stop a pc's progress is to do a lousy Security Check.
Now, you can audit with your finger just exactly, properly, correctly held
in holding the E-Meter. You can say all the right incantations and rituals.
You can have incense in your electrodes, swinging from right to left in a
rhythmic way. You can do your auditing with the proper Latin chant going in
the background.
No matter how good this auditing is, no matter how expertly you have
assessed your pc, no matter how minutely you have followed through the
auditing command and cleared each one, no matter how well you've gotten the
rudiments off; you are still going to run into this one: You're going to
get that case along just a few yards up the line, and you've increased his
responsibility to a point where his overts now hurt.
These withholds, these not-knowingness overts now hurt. Because you're
increasing his knowingness, so therefore they're being revealed to him. And
they're not-knowingnesses, and he cannot vent these things, and he can't
get rid of it. And that not-knowingness just stays like a cyst in his mind.
See, his case progress stops right there. Boom.
This makes another method of stopping case progress.
One of those methods is to audit with a rudiment out. The way you can
deteriorate a case is to audit with an ARC break in existence. A case will
deteriorate with the ARC break. A present time problem? The case will not
change. With a withhold on, the case will not change.
And by failing to give expertly administered Security Checks at routine and
regular intervals throughout processing, you stop the overall progress of
the case, just as though you had let him run into the bumpers on the end of
a train track.
He's going to get unhappy. And the better you audit from there on, the
unhappier he's going to get. Why? Because auditing begins to hurt. So he
all of a sudden realizes that it wasn't a smart thing to do to jilt these
nine girls in high school, that he really upset them. That years
afterwards, actually, he found out that he'd made a tramp out of a couple
of them, you know? And this was not smart.
You're auditing away on the "Failed Sneeze." And he all of a sudden goes,
"Uuuuu." You're asking this boy to confront his life, aren't you?
Well, the reason he didn't ever get well in the past, automatically, was
because it was too painful to take responsibility for the things he had
done. It hurt. So he'd take his theetie-weetie, Dale Carnegie Dramamine
pills, and get to feeling a little bit better. And he'd go thumm!
This, by the way, is the manic-depressive. He feels wonderful until he
suddenly realizes he has an overt. So he feels lousy. Then he recovers from
this, and then he feels wonderful till he realizes this same overt again.
Well, it just will keep going in the same stupid, dizzy cycle, on and on
and on and on. It'll never release.
So when Scientology got hot and its case advances got rapid, all of a
sudden this new factor showed up. And it was a brand-new factor: that cases
exceeded - could be made to exceed, through auditing, their ability to
tolerate their improved condition, and what you had to do was let the steam
off. And the mechanism to let the steam off - that was absolutely necessary
in this particular case - was what we're calling Security Checks, more
properly called processing checks.
And unless those are given well, wow! You're just going to park a case. And
your rudiments can be out, and you won't get gains on the case. You can
have a wrong assessment - that'd really be a nice way to get no gain on a
case. And you can fail to give Security Checks properly and, man, then
you'll get no gain on a case, beyond a certain zone.
Why does this fellow's leg hurt? You audit it, it feels better, and then
the next day it hurts. Why? Well, you audited it up to a point where he
could recognize his responsibility for it, and then you didn't give him any
chance to come off of it. Isn't this cute? Isn't that fascinating?
About the cruelest thing you could do to a case would be leave its
withholds on it, for any reason under the sun, not to clean up this case's
withholds.
Now, we found that auditors don't do well when they're just turned loose to
ask, "Do you have any withholds? Thank you. Do you have any withholds?
Thank you. Do you have any withholds? Thank you. Do you have any withholds?
Thank you." They don't do well this way. So you have a Security Check that
particularizes all types of withholds.
As a matter of fact, there are some new Security Checks. We were dreaming
them up the other day. I said there could be Security Checks. Jan got real
busy, Dick got real busy, and man, they really whipped you up some Security
Checks. There's some staff member Security Checks, there's an HGC pc
Security Check, Academy student Security Check. The staff member Security
Check isn't being yet, but the others are.
Now, that's just particularized types of withholds that would be - if any
of them were out-it's like rudiments - if any of those were live, the case
would only do so much advance and then stop advancing. Unless that withhold
is gotten off, in other words, the case is going to stop in its advance,
right there. Screaming brakes - boom! Do you see this?
Why? Because the auditing increases his ability to take responsibility. His
ability to take responsibility blows into view the withholds!
As soon as the withhold comes into view to him, if he has no chance to
impart this withhold, oh, he's miserable! So of course, he says, "I'd feel
better if I were aberrated." And he's absolutely right. He'd feel much
better being stupid and aberrated and president. You got the idea? I mean,
he halts his own forward progress.
And there's the primary reason why you had Clear slumps. That's the reason
for your Clear slumps, not the guy postulating himself into the ground. He
ran into his own bank. He had to confront it all at once. And gradually, as
time went on... I said there was a settling out period for a Clear? Well,
if any time during that settling out period he all of a sudden found
himself confronted with the tremendous irresponsibilities of his own
background, and it became too painful, he said, "I better be aberrated."
        Absence of Security Check, then, is the most effective way of halting a
rapid case gain toward Clear. Have you got that? This was a bug.
        We used to have another mechanism, and actually have had for seven years
another mechanism, which we used rather constantly. And we don't find it in
our midst right now. We used to do this with a responsibility process of
one version or another - Confront or Responsibility. You got it?
We used to accomplish, less ably, the same mechanism. Unless you ran
responsibility on an engram, we used to say, why, it wouldn't stay stably
gone. Okay? You remember that? All right. Well, now that was the same
mechanism at work there, but not well articulated, not well understood, and
so forth. Now, we've got another mechanism that supplants that and that
does it a thousand times better. So, you've got to learn how to use that
ably.
But just as the pc does not clear up well on "Have you got a withhold?
Thank you. Have you got a withhold? Thank you. Have you got a withhold?
Thank you. Have you got a withhold? Thank you. Have you got a withhold?
Thank you. Have you got a with-" You know you can run him for a week and a
half on that process with no difficulties whatsoever? They did it on the
22nd American, didn't you? And it didn't arrive anywhere. All right, why?
Well, the pc is trying to avoid all of his withholds. And if the auditor
can't remember all of the viciousness of man all the time, you then don't
get any interrogation which results in a release of the exact withholds the
pc is withholding. So this is fast! Presession 37 went back to the oxcart.
You know? We relegated it to the Metropolitan Museum.
I heard from them today, by the way, or yesterday. And I find out, they
have all the art objects of any kind that they will ever need, and know all
there is to know about the whole track.
And I'm on an awful withhold today from the Metropolitan Museum. On two or
three occasions, I've been doing work with Scientology organizations and
other things - sitting up at my desk, talking to Peter, doing other things.
And it's a terrible temptation to write them and say, "Congratulations."
You know? "Congratulations upon the abundance and finality of all of your
collections."
How I'd come to hear from this, I'd asked them an embarrassing question or
two, and I found out that they don't need anything in their museum.
Nothing. They've got everything.
I wasn't trying to give them anything. I was - I thought that there was a
possibility that there was a place they might get something. And we find
out they have everything they want.
I think that's pretty good, isn't it? It's like some self-satisfied pc. And
you'll get this self-satisfied pc that doesn't want to improve. Well, why
doesn't he want to improve? Because it might be painful, and something
might show up.
You would have to audit the curators - combined and collected - of the
Metropolitan Museum, and get off their whole track overts, before they
would accept the specimens that they ought to have in the Metropolitan
Museum of Art of New York City. Because it shows up grandly that these
characters are restimulated by the crown jewels of Ophir. Because they, of
course, stole them once. That's why they're there. They're now in the
valence of the brass watchdog they used to have on them.
But any more collection would lead to more knowingness. And more
knowingness to these characters - because of the peculiarity of their
position - might be painful. So we have whole societies becoming very
self-satisfied about what they know. They know all there is to know about
everything. That is a mechanism.
"Let's not run into the pain of having taken responsibility for what we've
done. If we knew that, it would be painful. So therefore, if we know more,
it might be possible that we would come to know that, too. And if we came
to know that, then that would be very painful.
"So we'd better keep telling everybody, 'Well, psychology, that's -
ha-ha-ha-ha-heh-heh - that... that's... that's the kind of a science we
want - haha-ha-heh-heh!' Doesn't reveal anything. Ugh-ugh. Yeah, that's
what we want. Nice, nice, stupid sort of thing, you know? And the more
stupid the people we can get in it, why, the happier we'll all be."
That's true, too! The crazier they'll all stay! That's true, too. And the
crazier they'll get. That's true, too.
So pcs play this game on you just like societies do. And you'll find the pc
sitting there - Dianetics 1950. That was enough for him, that was it. He's
got it. Doesn't care to know anything since. Doesn't care to know anything
since. That's it. Why?
It might be painful if he found out his own overts. If he knew a little bit
more about the mind, he might find out about overts. And so, you had
something on the order of a third to a half of the people who were
interested in Dianetics 1950, and so forth, very content to stick with that
level of it. And not at all willing to advance up into Scientology. Do you
remember that as a phenomenon in the States? It was interesting, wasn't it?
Male voice: Yes.
All right, that's the mustn't-know-any-more factor.
Now, the mustn't-gain-any-more factor and the mustn't-know-any-more factor
is something that you, as an auditor, can Q-and-A with the pc with. If you
yourself aren't getting auditing and getting off your withholds, then
you're liable to get into a situation where if this pc found out more, it'd
be very painful. So the kind thing to do is not to do anything else but
just say the process. Let's do the minimum; let's do the minimum.
So, when we ask, "Have you ever stolen any cats?" the pc gets a fall on the
meter and it says, "I don't know." Do the minimum.
The minimum is "Have you ever stolen any cats?"
And the pc says, "I don't know."
And so you do the minimum. And you say, "Have you ever stolen any cats?"
Believe me, you're just going to get nowhere from there on. That is the
slow way to go about it. But you've found a nice eddy from the mainstream
of life. And you can sit there, under the banks, with the willow trees full
of pigeons. And use it as a repetitive question.
The Security Check is not a repetitive question process! It's not!
Now, because you might Q-and-A, your Instructors don't get enthusiastic
about turning auditors loose with this.
So we get the "Have you ever stolen any cats?" - fall.
"What was that?"
"Now, well, uh. . . hmm... Uh, I don't know."
"Well, have you ever stolen any cats?"
See, that's the extreme one. "I don't know."
"Have you ever stolen any cats?" Repetitive question.
All right, now here's the next version: "Have you ever stolen any cats?"
This is a Q and A.
"I don't know."
"Well, what was that fall?"
"Uh, well uh . . . hmm, I don't know."
"Uh, well, has your. . . has.., do you know anybody that has ever stolen
any cats?"
The pc says, "Oh, yes, my aunt stole some cats."
"Now, well, uh, what was your aunt's name?"
Now, of course, this is the same mechanism as the repetitive question. This
again, blocks any further knowing on this line, which we all know will be
painful. But in a Security Check this is the only way to take the pain off.
The only way you can reduce the pain, of this additional knowingness is
give a decent Security Check. So the Q and A is-is well-poorly situated.
So what do we get here? "Have you ever stolen any cats? What is your aunt's
name? Where did she live? Do you remember what she used to wear? Have you
got a picture of your aunt there? Uh, do you have a picture of the house?
How long did you live with your aunt? Do you have any of the illnesses your
aunt had?"
That is a mechanism of denying further knowledge. Because you don't get any
more knowledge on the subject of has the pc ever stolen any cats? And
that's all you want to find out.
So now, here is a non-Q-and-A, knowledgeable, advance version of this. And
here's - here's - here's the way it'd go:
"Have you ever stolen any cats?"
Pc (gets a fall) says, "I don't know."
And you say, "Well, what was the fall?"
And the pc says, "Well, I don't know, because I have never stolen any
cats."
All right, now there's a dozen things you can do. But they all have to do
with the direct and immediate question of the cats and the pc having stolen
them. Not his aunts, cousins, sisters or the moon.
Now, the way to illuminate this, the first rule - don't try to do this by
rules. But a rule, that goes back of this is compartment the question.
That's one of the nice, handy, good things to do with any security
question.
You're asking somebody, "Have you ever - have you ever been in DC before?"
The pc falls off the pin. And you say, "Well, when was that that you were
there before?" And you don't get a reaction. And it's all very mysterious
and gets very confused.
DC were the initials of Davy Crockett. The pc is in full restim on this. So
whenever you say "DC" to the pc, you mean Washington, DC, and he means Davy
Crockett. And believe me, you're not getting anywhere.
All right. So you ask the question, something of this order:
"Have you ever stolen," (no reaction) "any cats?" (reaction)
"Well, what gives with you and cats? Have you ever stolen any cats?"
(reaction)
"Any cats?" (reaction)
"Have you ever stolen. . .?" (no reaction)
Phuh. Promptly, the whole thing clarified.
"What gives with this cat? Cats?"
"Yu-uuhh."
"Well, what about cats?"
"Thh-uhhh!"
Now, you're pressing the button that the meter fell on. And it's awfully
smart to stand there with the unlimited switchboard of the pc and your
great big wide thumb.
You need bartender thumbs, see, from the mother-lode district. They used to
hire bartenders with inch-broad thumbs, because a drink was a pinch. And
the bartender would reach into the prospector's poke, with his thumb and
forefinger, to take out the pinch of gold for the drink. So they'd get this
inch-wide thumbs, you know?
        Well, you need these great, big, inch-wide thumbs, actually, to run this
here switchboard called the pc; it's not just the E-Meter.
And what you're trying to do is find out "what is the meter falling on?"
And you may come to one of two conclusions: that it's falling on one or
more parts of the question, or that it's falling on the question. Now, it's
falling on something in the question.
There's nothing mysterious about this. You don't have to clarify the
question on this basis of "Well, are you allergic to cats? Have cats often
disturbed your sleep?" No. Once more you're off the line, because you're
trying to find out what the pc has withheld about cats.
And by compartmenting the question, "Have you ever stolen... ?" That's
null.
Why are you pursuing this question, then, "Have you ever stolen cats?" as
long as you get a fall on cats?
So this kind of questioning opens up, "What's a cat?"
And you find a cat is a feline object that has long teeth and is colored
purple, and is very often forty feet high, and is used to moor ships.
And you say, "Aw, come off it."
So, you clarify the question. And you say the whole question again, because
this was the question you were trying to clear.
"Have you ever stolen any cats in this lifetime?" No fall. Go to the next
question.
All right. You say, "What's cats?"- clarification.
The E-Meter says, there are certain parts of the question that are alive,
or all of the question is live. So it's up to you to find out what part of
the question is burning. And then take your bartender thumb and step on
that button hard, hard, hard, hard.
And the pc all of a sudden says, "All right! All of my life, I haven't been
able to understand cats. I just haven't been able to do anything about
cats. That's all I can do, is just every time I see a cat - heh! I used to
keep this Holland and Holland .50-caliber elephant gun. And every time I
heard a cat meowing outside, I would shoot him! Hooh!"
Or you hear something remarkable, "Well, I used to have a trap in the
backyard. And whenever a cat would get into it, I would take him down in
the basement, where nobody could hear him, and I would cut his paws off one
after the other. And I've begun to realize, recently, that this probably
isn't nice."
Now, the E-Meter says there's buttons to be pressed. And you in your
interrogation are only trying to find out what button. Exactly what is the
button?
So, for a while you press with your bartender thumb. And then you take your
little finger, which has a long, pointed, Chinese fingernail that you can
actually press very delicately, and you press the exact combination. And
the pc goes-boom! And it's in a hurry. It happens fast.
You say, "Have you ever PDHed anyone?" And you get a big fall.
Well, for God's sakes! say "Have you ever?" You get a fall. "Have you ever?
Have you ever?" - get a fall and get a fall.
All right, "PDHed someone? PDHed someone?" Null.
"Well, have you ever what? What? What? for pity sakes? Have you ever what?"
"Huh-I was afraid you'd ask that."
See, it means something, exactly and immediately and directly to the pc.
And he finally tells you, "It's just you asking all the time, 'Have you
ever, have you ever, have you ever, have you ever,' and I have never."
And you say, "All right, what have you never?" if that's the button.
"I've never had nerve enough to ask a girl. I haven't dared tell anybody."
Bang! You've sprung the trap. You see how that would work?
It is a matter, actually, of not playing any instrument more complicated
than a one-finger version of "Home Sweet Home" and "God Save the Queen" on
a piano. And you can even play it out of tune and still get it done. But
you will never get it if you do this other thing.
Either you just take no responsibility for getting the question answered,
and you say, "Have you ever stolen cats?"
''Don't know."
"Thank you."
"Have you ever stolen cats? Have you ever stolen cats? Have you ever
stolen?"
Did you ever hear of this process, "Have you ever stolen cats?" I've never
heard of this process. I've read all my bulletins and I don't read it in
them anyplace. "Have you ever stolen any cats?" No such process. So it
certainly is not a repetitive question.
The other way of debarring information is to w-a-a-ander.
You see, here sits this console keyboard in front of your face, and lights
are lighting up. You know, like a pinball machine. You know? The meter is
saying "Something's hot! Something's hot! Something's hot! Something's hot!
Emergency! Emergency! There is smoke in Number Ten compartment!" And you
say, "Well, well, what do you know!"
Well, this is no time to say, "Well, there's too much motion in that thing.
I think I'll put that aside, and we'll go on with this calm thing of
finding out... Because I very well suspect that he doesn't like pea soup. I
think so. And I think I've found the person here, in his aunt, who made pea
soup. I think I'll just find that out now."
And this poor console is sitting over here and "Smoke in Number Ten
compartment, smoke in Number Eight compartment, smoke in Number Two
compartment, smoke in the engine room. Abandon ship! Abandon ship!" You
know?
And you say, "Well, it's got too much motion in it. Let's get rid of that
thing. And let's carry on something here with a true professional mien,
that has dignity and aplomb. And let's not get into any of this wild
excitement." Because it can get pretty exciting.
It's like if you don't know how to interrogate on an E-Meter, you can get
the E-Meter to say anything, anything, anything! You can say that it's
PDHed the pc, and so forth, just by associated think. Because it falls on
this, it falls on that, it falls on something else. You find out what it's
falling on. You got that?
Now, we had somebody the other day who had the word "shop" mixed up with a
business. Got the idea? So it's a good thing to say "What's a shop?"
You take everything apart, almost syllable by syllable if you're having any
trouble, and give them each one of these things. And you say, "Aha! That's
hot, and that's hot, and that's hot. And these three things, added up
together, make something else. Now, what gives here?" See?
And the person says, "A shop. A shop. Well, a shop - that's a business."
"What kind of a business?"
"Well, that's an administrative office, a shop is."
"Oh, it is?" And right away, why, the interrogation, of course, narrows
down promptly and instantly.
And your taking something on the order of twenty-five hours to clear a
question, is a bad comment on your ability to compartment a question and to
step on the buttons. Because the pc is very often quite willing to answer
your questions if you ask them. So if you don't ask the right question,
you're not going to get a right answer. Follow that?
Now, this is very true. In fact, nearly all of your Security Checks depend
utterly on your skill in taking apart each question, asking the fringe
questions necessary to it. Now, what do I mean by a fringe question? Well,
your fringe questions actually occur after you've taken the question apart.
You say, "Have you ever stolen a cat?"
"Have you ever stolen. . . a cat?"
'A cat" is dumb - numb. You get no reaction on it. You get a latent
reaction. Pooh! Ignore it.
"Have you ever stolen?"
And the pc says, "No, really, no! No, no!" and so on. You say, "Well, you
ever stolen?"
He said, ''No."
Aw, come off of it. Get good. Get good, right at that point.
"Have you ever been accused of stealing?"
"Yes. Yes, yes! And I didn't do it! I didn't do it! I... I really didn't do
it, and nobody'll believe me," and so forth.
"Well, were you lying at the time?"
"Well, yes, I was."
Smooth, swift resolution of withholds depends upon the auditor asking the
right question. You've got to be right there on the ball.
The pc actually needs help, because the thing is still about two-thirds or
better in his reactive sphere. He is not very conscious of what it is.
The borderline between the reactive mind and the analytical mind is the
broad savanna of "I don't know." And when something moves out of the
reactive mind of total unknown, it moves into the foggy mist that is coming
up off the bayous. And it's just a mist. The pc needs help.
It isn't this kind of a situation:
You say, "Have you ever stolen a cat?"
Instantly name, rank, serial number of all cats stolen appear, magically,
and go by in a little railroad car, and all he has to do is read them off.
Well, that isn't what happens.
You say, "Have you ever stolen a cat?"
The reactive mind says, "We've had it boys," and so forth, and goes clamp!
And the mist goes up.
And the pc says, "Whoo-ooo-ooo-ooo!"
Because there he is attached into the "I don't know" of reactivity, you
see?
And he says, "Whoo-oo, wait a minute, wait a minute. Whoo-whoo-oo.
What-what's going on here? Phoo! Just a moment ago, I could look clear out
there. And I could see the palm trees and the city in the distance. And
there's nothing now but this horrible miasma which is coming up around me,
and so forth, smelling of dead fish. I wonder what this is!"
He's wondering what it is as well as you are, you see?
But it's just moved into view, he knows something is there. You ask the
question again, it clarifies the question a little bit. But that's about
all you'd ever accomplish on a repetitive question.
You say, "What fog are you in, Mutt?"
And, of course, this machine is going to tell him. Tell you and tell him.
Because "Have you ever stolen...  a cat?" Pang!
"A cat? Well, what gives with cats? What have you done to cats? What have
you done to cats?" Pow! See?
"What have you done to cats?"
"Oh-oh-oh-oh," fellow says, "Didn't amount to very much. Never felt bad
about it before. This just doesn't seem right, right now. But when we were
little boys, why, we used to lower them into boiling oil, an inch at a
time. Because their screams annoyed our mothers. And I don't think that was
so good."
Get the idea? And right away, why, your Security Check picks up in
velocity, picks up in velocity, picks up in velocity, you got it?
You must also be able to compartment a goals question. All of these things
are subject to compartmentation. You got it? All right. So much for that.
All right, there's one other thing I want to talk to you about. I have just
discovered something of magnitude. This is a magnitudinous, cum laude, ne
plus ultra discovery that ranks with a cognition on the part of one of our
early pcs. It's big. No kidding.
We for a long time have known there was difficulty in some co-audit teams -
for a long time, knew there was difficulty in a co-audit team. They make
slower progress.
They sometimes kind of went out of this world. And they would go on
grinding, grinding, grinding, grinding. And per hour of auditing, their
auditing was less effective than HGC auditing, or something like this, you
see? It's been a big mystery. And this has been on the track for years and
years and years and years. They make slow progress. And I found the answer
to it. And the answer you wouldn't really suspect.
Now, the first inroad I had on this "Why do they go so slow?" - the first
clue I had for this - was that when a D of P checks the rudiments on an
auditor's pc, he often finds them out, even - that the rudiments are out,
even when the auditor, having just checked them, found them in.
This is rather constant. This is rather constant. All right. Take it from
there.
This has led Ds of P into the belief that the auditors were careless and
couldn't run rudiments, and has lessened executive opinion of auditing
ability, and has lessened Instructor opinion of auditing ability, and so
forth.
The truth is that the rudiments weren't out with the auditor. Because that
auditing crew, grinding together, even so much as twenty-five hours, can
develop a mutual set of rudiments. This is the dizziest thing you ever
heard of, and yet this phenomenon exists. They develop mutual rudiments and
their mutual rudiments are out.
The rudiments they have in common are flat to each other but not to anybody
else. And they make a solid, small island in the middle of the sea of
not-know, where they don't have their rudiments out to each other, but
their rudiments are out to the rest of the world.
Now, let's get a good one on this. Let's get a good one on this. They are
both agreed that the family of one of them are a bunch of swine. So, of
course, no rudiment really goes out on the subject of the family, because
the pc is in perfect agreement with the auditor and the auditor is in
perfect agreement with the pc about the family being a bunch of swine.
But somebody else comes along and checks the rudiment and what does he
find? He finds there's a fall on "family." Because he's not a part of the
agreement. You got that? He's not a part of the agreement. This is quite
remarkable.
It's almost as if the auditor is saying, "Now, has anything unusual or is
there anything unusual going on about the family?"
And the pc says, "No, it's just the same old grind. The stinking swine, the
skunks, are just the same as ever."
And the auditor knows they're swine, so he says - he's out with them too,
you see? And he says, "Well, all right. Well, there's nothing new or
unusual about that." And of course, there's been no fall on the meter.
Why is there no fall on the meter? Because the meter registers
disagreement, and you have a pair of people who are in perfect agreement.
And it's as simply, mechanically, as that. Don't you see?
Now, this is the dizziest one that has ever come up. And you know, I've
been tracking this thing and sneaking up on the edges of this thing and
sniffing at a spoor seen in the far veldt for years.
Why didn't co-audit teams make more progress, or more rapidly? Because,
actually, their ARC should build up easier, and they know each other's
cases better - every reason in the world why they should get along well.
Well, I attributed it, to a marked degree, with the fact that they had
spats and upsets with each other and ARC breaks with each other, and they'd
chew each other up. But therefore husband-wife teams had a liability, or
guy-and-girlfriend teams had a liability, you see? That the two - something
like this.
That isn't the answer. That isn't the answer, because auditors have these
things with pcs, too, anyway. No. The answer is mutual rudiments.
Now, there's a dozen ways to solve it. The most thorough way to solve it is
do a new - do an old-time Formula 13. List of all the people, you know, in
the physical universe at this present time. Let's make a list of them. And
now, let's run them each and individually.
Let's assess the list for a fall, and then let's run something on that
person. And then, let's assess it again for another fall and run something
on that person. Assess it again for another fall. Have you got the idea?
And just clean up all these people, irrespective of whether one agrees with
this or not.
Now, one of the things odd about this - I must mention it in passing is -
the reason I never noticed it is Suzie and I never have this trouble. This
is one - one spot where we've evidently had a variation of some kind or
another from the norm.
We're both sufficiently cold-blooded about auditing. That is to say,
auditing is auditing, you see? And evidently, there's a recognition that if
you feel bad about something or somebody, whether it is agreed with or not,
it will show up. And I will go in like a small or a very large
pavement-breaker, one of these widow-making drills they use to bust up
concrete, you know?
And I'll finally say, 'All right, what is it? What is it?"
"No, I don't have an ARC break with the maid. No, I don't have one," and so
on.
And I can understand it perfectly, that the maid is probably giving her a
bad time, and that sort of thing. But I don't buy it. Because she - I know
she probably has an ARC break with the maid. And I want to clear it up with
the maid, you see, something like this.
So I'll keep on going on with the pneumatic drill, and I will finally spade
up the fact that, agreed upon or not, "Yes," and actually knock out the
mutual-agreement factor practically every time, and so forth. And she'll do
the same thing.
You got an ARC break; well, that's it, you know? An ARC break with is an
ARC break with, and an ARC break is an ARC break.
So I was slow to notice this. I don't say we're better than others, but
we've ... Co-auditing has its adventurous aspects, you know?
The auditor, who has just run all of the mean, vicious, violent things he
has ever done to the pc, out of the pc, has had to sit there, tamely,
listening to the damnedest distortions, the wildest interpretations of
things he never could have been guilty of, you see?
And the - and on the reverse-wise, why, it goes reverse end to. But for the
twenty-four hours after that session the auditor, willy-nilly, will be
rather cool. But the pc, in this case, is galumphing up and down the halls,
feeling sprightly and wonderful to get rid of all of that burden of woe.
And then they get to the next session. And now the pc is the auditor. And
the guy goes in, sits down, suddenly settles into the irresponsibility of
being a pc and starts to give.
He'll say, "Well, goddamn you!" Some polite opening! You get this kind of a
notion? Well, it's real bravery. It's real bravery.
The only time you can't make it is when one - a party is - just won't
audit, won't do any auditing, and won't be audited. And that's a total
impasse. And those people are nuts anyway. So... hell, you could probably
even do it with the CCHs.
But the point I'm talking about is that a co-audit can have its ups and
downs. And I thought these ups and downs of, you know, the overts and the
withholds and the this and the that, and "Now all is revealed. And that is
why, all during 1957, you treated me like a hound dog. O-ohh-hh! No
kidding! And you'd been out with that guy five times, and didn't even tell
me!"
You see? This kind of thing. "Blaa-hhh!" You know, that gets rough.
All right. Now, what do you do? What do you do? It must be that, that was
keeping co-auditing teams from advancing. Well, it wasn't. That was just so
dramatic, and it was so well known, that it looked logical.
And the thing that slows down a co-auditing team is the mutual rudiments
out. They have an agreed-upon regard toward the rest of the world. And they
begin to settle more and more into this agreed-upon "that's the way things
are." And so their rudiments aren't out to each other.
The first way of blowing it up, as I say, a Formula 13 (even old-style
Formula 13) or a Prehav 13. You take an assessment of everything- everybody
the person knows in the physical universe, and you assess them all for the
heaviest terminal at the moment. Run that terminal on the Prehav Scale,
preferably with a two-way command "What have you done to them?" "What have
they done to you?" That sort of thing, you know? Two-way command, at
whatever the level they assessed at, see? Not a five-way bracket, but just
two-way. Bang. You find out it'll knock out fairly rapidly. Prehav Scale is
very powerful.
You don't even make a twenty-minute test on that sort of thing, you know?
That's - you just take the needle action out of it, and go on to the next
person and assess them. And you just clean up everybody they knew in the
physical universe in this particular fashion. That is new Formula 13.
That's Prehav 13.
All right. There's another, simpler way of doing it - is just substitute
"we" for "you" in the Model Session rudiments, beginning and end rudiments.
And you won't find those rudiments are now calm. Just substitute "we."
"Have we got an ARC break?"
And you'll find out that all of a sudden the thing livens up and becomes
very wild. We've got an ARC break, but I haven't got an ARC break, don't
you see? It's an incorrect question. It's very sequitur to what else I was
telling you, about Security Checks. It's an incorrect question.
You say, "Have you got an ARC break?"
No, he hasn't got an ARC break, we've got an ARC break, you see?
"But I haven't got an ARC break that you don't know about. And you would
agree, perfectly, with this ARC break that I've had. Because all day long,
salesmen have kept coming to the door. And you know how busy the place can
get around here. And I have an awful ARC break with salesmen." That might
be the actual answer.
But you say, "Do you have an ARC break with anybody today?"
The pc knows that the auditor would totally understand that salesmen
interrupting every fifteen minutes when they're trying to get something
done would be very annoying. And he'd say, "Well, that's too bad." But he
knows, also, that's usual.
And the present time problems are usual. And the ARC breaks are usual. And
the withholds that they have, mutually, are all usual. And their opinions
of other people are all usual. And their unkind thoughts are all usual. And
so they don't fall on the meter.
And that is quite a discovery. And you can count on the fact, this isn't
just a co-auditing team. This is any auditing team that's been going longer
than twenty-five hours. It happens that fast. It happens in HGCs all the
time.
Somebody has been going for a hundred hours, and the D of P calls him in,
checks the rudiments to find all the rudiments out. Yeah, but they're not
out for the auditor. And the auditor'll stand there practically jibbering.
You've seen them, you know?
And they say, "But the rudiments..." (they always say the same thing, the
same words) ..... but I just checked them before I came down here and they
weren't out!"
And the D of P thinks an unkind thought about the auditor and says, "I'll
bet you did, you knucklehead!" or something like that. Or maybe he didn't
think that exact question or that exact answer, but it's something like,
"Well, yes, yes, we'll have to get some more expert auditing done here.
He's kind of..."
Actually, that was a totally incorrect judgment. It was absolutely true,
the rudiments were checked and they weren't out. And he came down to the D
of P, and the D of P checked them, and boy, were they out!
Now, we made enormous progress in the South African ACC, 3rd South African,
by making everybody... All the students were checking the rudiments of all
the other students' pcs and pointing it out with a nasty, long, bony and
critical finger. In other words, on an auditing team, we were routinely
making other students do D of P checks on other auditors' pcs. And we were
making very nice progress.
And I thought this would be a good idea, in case any of those people ever
got to be auditors or Ds of Ps, they would know what this was all about,
and it'd - already had the advantage of doing a police job, you see, on the
thing.
And there was an accidental lying in that whole thing. There was an
accidental.
But it is the mutual - the mutual rudiment. And that could hold up cases,
that could keep them from advancing, that could get them all upset, that
could just slow it down to a walk. You got the idea?
So I found a new method of slowing down auditing. Just get into total
agreement with your pc that his viewpoints against life, and get in total
agreement with your auditor, that this viewpoint against life is ordinary
and usual, and therefore isn't out, but would be considered unusual by
somebody else. So if somebody else checks the rudiments, of course, they're
out. And if the auditor checks the rudiments, they're in. You got that?
That's a sneaky one, isn't it? Well, you should think it was sneaky,
because let me tell you, it has taken I don't know how many years. I don't
know how many years this observation has been made by me or how often.
And I looked that over and my eyes popped, and I said, "By golly, here's
this old problem sitting here in front of me again that I've tried to solve
time and time again. Maybe I'd better look it over a little more closely."
And just the night before, I had checked a co-audit team where this exact
thing had occurred again. And I just looked at it, and I said, "Oh, wow,
now, what is this? There's something here."
And then, Mary Sue - I was checking rudiments on Mary Sue with her auditor,
and they were out. And then she gave me some data about this other team.
And all of a sudden I' said, "Oh, no!" And that's the way it is. That's the
way it is. It just fell out of the hamper, just like that.
You see it, don't you? It's perfectly crystal clear what'll happen. You've
got an island against the storm of the world. And it doesn't react to the
rest of the world, after a while, because, of course, the E-Meter reacts
only on disagreement. Got it?
Three solutions. I repeat, three solutions. Old Formula 13, the failed-help
proposition on everybody you know under the sun, moon or stars - that's the
longer one, but very thorough. And I point out that the first Clear made in
South Africa had fifty hours of Formula 13 immediately before she came on
course. Not a bad process, huh? All right.
The next one - next one would be to do Prehav 13, which is just Prehav
Formula 13, which is just to make a list of everybody they know. Assess the
terminals very rapidly. Take the one who falls the most on that particular
assessment. Assess it, then, on the Prehav Scale. Form a two-way command
for that particular level. Run the needle action. Just that.
Soon as the needle is still on this person, you ask them again, "How do you
feel about this person?" You get no twitch? Come off of it, right now.
Do another terminal assessment. Take that terminal; do another primary
Prehav Scale assessment. Form another command for that particular level
you've now found this next person at.
Run the needle action out until you can say, "How do you feel about Joe?"
and they say, "Oh, I feel all right." And the needle - the needle now
doesn't react on Joe.
That might happen, you know, in five minutes or fifteen minutes or an hour
or two hours or it's a very undetermined period of time. So you ask the
question often "How do you feel about Joe now?"
All you're trying to do is clear Joe as a mutual rudiment. You're not
trying to run processes here, you see? You're trying to clean this person's
ARC breaks out of existence as a rudiment.
And what you're doing is broadening the question "Do you have an ARC
break?" And you're broadening this question to include everybody they could
possibly have an ARC break with in present time.
And you're just running - you're assuming they're - all these people might
have ARC breaks. And you're clearing all these people off for the immediate
lifetime. And then the pc doesn't get ARC breaks and interrupt the
auditing, and the case doesn't worsen, and it speeds up. Okay?
There is that Prehav 13. Okay?
The next one is a very fast one - maybe not as good, but certainly more
broadly applicable - is "Do we have an ARC break with anyone?" See?
"Do we have a present time problem?" Got it?
"Is it all right if we audit in this room?" You got it?
"Now, do we have a withhold?" You got that?
This is sparked up by the fact that I found out there was another pc who is
having difficulty and is worried about Security Checking because he thinks
he is holding some data that has to do with another person that might be
discreditable in some fashion. Well, part of the data is correct and part
of the data is false. But this pc has not bothered to clarify this data but
is afraid of being security checked to protect somebody else. Interesting
state of affairs.
Now, this could be broadened up into a basis where they have to have a
special auditing team. This fellow has to be specially security checked by
some special person, and now the two of them think they're going to make
some progress. Let me tell you, they're not going to make any progress
because we now have a withhold. Do you see that clearly?
So the road out is not a special Security Check by a special person so that
all will not be revealed.
I happen to know, by the way, that about three-quarters of the data which
this pc thinks he has is a lot of bunk. So he's not only holding on to
something that way, but he's also holding on to something that's highly
fallacious. Well, boy, how about - how about having a delusion as a
withhold? Pretty grim, huh? That's what this person is doing.
So you got this "mutual rudiments out"?
And I think we can end, right now, a lot of slow gain on the part of an
awful lot of long-drawn co-audit teams. And we can also end slow gain in
HGCs when the auditing goes up to a hundred hours, or something like this,
or fifty hours.
After about twenty-five hours you've got a unit there. You've got an agreed
unit. The auditor agrees that the pc has been treated badly, and the pc
agrees this, and so on. And they agree so thoroughly that it's never a fall
on the meter. Okay?
All right. You're welcome to that one. And we're already overdue, so go and
get your mutual rudiments in!
        Thank you.


<!-- text below generated by server. PLEASE REMOVE --></table></script></style></noscript>