PREPCHECKING
A lecture given on 3 May 1962

Okay. Here we go.
Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, 3 May 12. And it's lecture 2 and I haven't got anything to lecture to you about at all. Nothing, nothing to tell you. Everybody flinching. Oh, that's a fact. I haven't got anything to talk to you about, practically, nothing
So I might as well give you an incidental lecture that doesn't have too much to do with anything, called Prepchecking
There's an alternate title on this lecture: "Oh, My God." And there's a subtitle below that: "How could you."
The art of making Prepchecking work. There is no science in the art providing—well, I'll tell you how to make it not work. Let me put it that way, see. Ignore the pc. Don't pay any attention to what the pc's doing and omit this interesting datum: Why do you suppose in Routine 3 it is easier to get deep in the Goals Problem Mass with a goal than with an item? You'll find out this is true. you can get much deeper into the Goals Problem Mass with a goal than an item. Now, why can you do that? Figure it out. Why? Why can you do that?
It's much easier for a pc to confront a think than a mass. And an item is a mass. And a goal is a think. And therefore in the mass he can pluck the think out of the middle of the mass without having to confront the mass.
So there he sits in the GPM comfortably, sometimes not quite so comfortably, but he's undisturbed because he knows the goal has nothing to do with it. He can confront that. He can confront the goal. Well, you could probably go all the way through a GPM confronting all the goals in it. I suppose. It'd be a horrible mess by the time you got through, and the pc would be splattered all over something, but it's theoretically possible.
You see, a GPM item is a thought chamber surrounded by mass. And the pc is perfectly happy to look at the thought chambers, but he is not happy at all to look at any of the mass. Do you see that?
So having whizzled him down into the GPM and had him pick up the mass item without confronting any of the mass—you know, he's got his goal now; he's actually sitting in the middle of "God help us," see—we then have him confront the mass on a gradient scale. So he confronts all the little locks which are the items and he confronts those little locks and the next little locks and then a little bit steeper. And how—why do you think it is that the goal usually shows up, and oddly enough, the goal starts showing up toward the end of the list, providing you haven't overlisted and got a lot of invalidations on it and that sort of thing. I mean a smoothly taken rudiments-in goals list starts containing the goal toward the end of the list. It will be somewhere down there. That would be the ordinary practice.
It wouldn't be true if you were running a rough goals list. you know, with the rudiments kind of out and all this kind of thing. Lord knows where it'd occur. Sometimes by some freak it might occur toward the beginning, but that would be a freak. In the ordinary course of events, it starts occurring toward—late on the list.
Well, of course, why? Well, you're going huh-huh-hu-hu and he finally goes down to a point where it's—it's sticky, and that's why the goal keeps ticking. See, we've arrived in the peat bog You see, and it goes tick-tick-ticktick-tick. Well, you know it's part of a GPM.
Why does it tick? Very interesting. It ticks because it's surrounded by mass. And the pc, in confronting the goal, isn't altering the mass to amount to anything. And now we start listing the item. And when we list the item all the way on down we'll find the item will appear at the later end of the mass. Why is that? I mean at the later end of the list because it's mass. You're actually asking him to confront more and more powerful mass. And he does it sort of on a gradient and he kind of gets used to it. And he finds out he doesn't get his head knocked off by announcing the thing and so he announces mass down into the GPM and will finally give you the item. See?
You went there on the wings of thought. And you follow through with the ugly burr and buzz of heat, cold and lightning See? It's something like the fellow who takes a trip in a jet plane from here to South Africa. See, and it's—you've got hot and cold running stewardesses, and everything is being served so very nice, and it's all so sweet, and it's comfortable, and everything is fine, and you don't hardly have to look out the window, you know. Everything is scenic. All right.
Now how about walking? How about walking from here to South Africa? Or taking an automobile from here to South Africa? I think you'd find—I think you'd find you'd get certain sensations on the route.
Well, that just gives you some kind of a comparison. Of course, the jet plane is, you get there with a goal. That's easy. Anybody can do that. And the funny part of it is, you don't know where you are when you get there. But then you walk or take a car—it all depends on what type of auditor you have.
Now, why do you suppose—why do you suppose it's like that? That's because pcs would rather—this is why 3D Criss Cross is more arduous and harder on the pc, you see, because you're not sending the pc anywhere much with thought. You're going down the Prehav Scale and you go that little shallow distance that you get with the Prehav Scale, you see, and take the first level that keeps banging and you list for that. And of course, you're—that was minimal travel by thought, you see. And then you make him travel by item. And traveling by item is much rougher. You don't get anywhere near the distance into the GPM by that system. It would all come out all right in the end. I'm sure of that, but there's the—there's the difference.
All right. Now this is not a lecture about this, although you might profit by some of that data concerning Routine 3 Processes. He does the same cotton-picking thing with his withholds and his missed withholds.
Pcs is built that way. They will confront any God's quantity of thought, particularly if it's a God's quantity of thought for which they have no responsibility of any kind whatsoever. They can confront an infinite amount of thought and ideas.
So you'll find that without the auditor pushing, shoving, getting out gunnysacking and put it under the wheels of the truck, getting out long pieces of timber and prying them against the rear axle, shoving bulldozers up against the tailgate every once in awhile, you'll find the pc will go no place except on the wings of thought.
And if you sit there and watch a pc wing his way around the bank and never follow it through with anything, your pc will never get anyplace.
Now, in 1956 I put this proposition up. I had noticed that a lot of think-think and figure-figure and a lot of confronting of thought and a lot of stirring up of thought and that sort of thing, didn't ever particularly improve a graph. Or if it did, sometimes it did, and most of the time it didn't.
So I had to say, "What do you confront? Do you confront thought or mass?" And that was the question I asked at that time. Do you confront thought or do you confront mass? What is this all about?
Well, it's taken a long, long, long, long time. I finally found out, oh, I don't know, a year or two or three ago, that you had to be able to confront the mass before you would get any pc anyplace, don't you see. But it took quite awhile to become absolutely sure of that answer.
No, it's confronting mass that gets the pc places, not confronting the thought, because the pc is working on second-hand thought. The pc is actually not thinking his own thunk. He is pulling thunk out of locks of the GPM. So he can pull these inevitably and forever. He can confront them for always. Sometimes they change. Sometimes this and that occurs. But unless these thunks are attached in some fashion or another to some mass, nothing much happens to give a permanent change of case.
The funny part of it is you—you will get fooled with this one because of such adroit processes as Rising Scale Processes. You do a Rising Scale Process and obviously it's all thunk. See, it's all postulate, you think. But really, if you did it and had a lot of good luck with it, it's because the pc accidentally confronted some mass too. Even though you are asking him to think thunks, he winds up confronting mass. Or he changed his position in the GPM. Or there's a lot of little freak things that could happen there. But it gives you—it gives you an impure observation.
See, you do the Rising Scale Processing See. All right. You ask the pc to get the idea you can, get the idea you can't. See, "Get the idea you can drive, you get the idea you can't drive. Get the idea you can drive, get the idea you can't drive." And every now and then, so help me, Pete, the pc all of a sudden says, "Boy, I sure can drive!" you know. This is what fools you. This is a fooler.
You can get results handling thought—sometimes. But it's sporadic. And it's just accidentally, "What did you do to the mass while you were getting the thought thunk?" That theoretically is what happens when you do get a result with thinking thunks. See?
So don't say that you will never get a result if you always just buy the pc's thunk. See, you'll never get a result if you just have the pc pick up his own thinkingness and that sort of thing. Don't say you'll never get a result because you will—every now and then. And because a pc or a thetan is much happier confronting thunk, you are then given evidence which proves to you that it's all right just going on thinking thunks. 
See, you've proven the wrong thing because of your willingness—your own willingness—to go on thinking thunks. See, it will happen often enough that you'll get this accidental rearrangement of mass that gives you a tremendous change on the part of the pc. This will happen often enough with Concept Processes, Rising Scale, getting ideas about this and that. It'll happen often enough that a pc has a considerable resurgent and drops his lumbosis or loves his wife or some other unlikely—or some other probable activity. And you get yourself—a beautiful red thunk goes across the path, you see.
And you now say to yourself, "Aha, aha. Thank God. Thank God." You'll say, "It's perfectly, perfectly okay. Haaaah." And all we have to do is to get the pc to go on thinking thunks and I don't have to confront any mass and you don't have to confront any mass, and we go on from there. And the next time you do it, it doesn't work. you lay an egg. And think about it.
Now there's why it was a hard problem to solve. Do we get there on the wings of thought or do we get there by shoving the heavy masses about? I'm afraid we get there routinely by shoving the heavy masses because that is what shifted when we went on the wings of thought. And it'll happen accidentally often enough to give you data which you then can prove the wrong point with. It's quite important to realize that because every once in a while you're going to get this subjective reality on the situation.
You said, "I had him think a thunk and he thunked it and he thunked it and he thunked it, and then so help me Pete, he now has absolutely no trouble drinking vodka. And it's marvelous. And so obviously we should have him think thunks."
So we say, "All right. What other problems does this pc have? This pc has problems? He beats his children daily. All right."
"Now, get the idea of beating children. Get the idea of not beating children. Get the idea of beating chil--- " Seventy-five hours later: "Get the idea of beating children. Get the idea of not beating children. Get the..." you can't audit the pc, you see, because his hands are too bruised to hold the E-Meter cans, you see, because he just goes on beating children. And you get a big—you'll have—this is a tricky one. This is a tricky one.
But actually, if you'd gotten ahold of the mass, which was the circuit which had to beat children and blew it—he wouldn't. And that happens every time, see. That is your constant. If you move the mass you get a constant gain. And if you just think thunks, you don't.
Now, it's like this in Prepchecking One of these days you'll be prepchecking somebody, and because it's so easy to confront a thunk, the pc will tell you he thunk a thunk, and you, if you're too willing to confront thunks and too unwilling to confront actions and masses, will go on—let the—and let the pc do this.
And every few pcs you'll get a terrific Prepcheck win—every few pcs— every few sessions. And you'll keep on prepchecking because you say, well, it's not in vain, every once in a while we get a nice win. See, Prepchecking is not a complete waste of time, is the conclusion you will come up with, see. If you have that opinion right now that Prepchecking is not a complete waste of time, it is allied to this other fact, but you're letting the pc thunk thinks. See. You're buying thinks off the pc, not masses, not doingnesses, not flows, not actions. See?
You've got to get the doingness—the action, in order to get the pc to push around the masses. You got to have action to get a mass to move. 
"Have you ever criticized anybody?" I don't ask you to make a test of this, but if you did, use your Zero question, "Have you ever criticized anybody?" And then find a time when the pc actually criticized somebody and put that down as a What: "What about criticizing women?" And then go the chain. And then work for that session and the next session and the next session and the next session and then run into the pc out in the hall criticizing women. Because that's a think. See? That's just pure thunkingness. It's all you're doing is running thunkingness. And you can go on get—getting up his thunks. And let me call something to your attention. It's like letting the frog walk up two inches and fall back two inches every night. Because a pc can add thunks to his case faster than you can pull off thunks. And if you don't believe it, find a goal on some pc sometime who is a bit disturbed and his rudiments are a bit out. And he can thunk more missed withholds than you can get them unthunk.
Now, you have to pull thunks, you understand, when they're going on as thunks. You have to keep a session cleaned up. And remember there's nothing going on in the session but thunkingness on the part of the pc. He is not leaping, see. He's just thunking
And if you say, "In this session have you—have I missed a withhold on you?" of course, you're going to be repaid with a thunk. And sure enough, your meter's going to read again. But remember that in that session he didn't have any opportunity to do anything but thunk.
And you're dealing in your most delicate sense with items which are closely allied to thunks until you get down to a final item on a complete list. You go in on the goals line and of course it's all thunk! So any think that the pc thunks, of course, will cancel out the thunk that you're trying to record, naturally. See, he can cancel out the thunks in present time.
Frankly, getting a pin stuck in your finger in present time is more important than losing your whole civilization a hundred trillion years ago. In other words, present time is far more important by emphasis in the pc's mind than the past. But of course, the past is far more important in creating aberration in the present, you see.
You got these two things always at work. It's much more important to the pc, this present time problem, see. You're trying to get off the blasted civilization of a billion years ago, see.
He didn't do anything there. He really didn't mean to. He was flying over it in an airplane and it was all by accident, and some mechanic—some mechanic back at the base there—they had a bunch of bad mechanics at the base—hadn't fixed the trip, you see, on the bomb release. And he just happened to be flying across the capital city at that particular time that it tripped, you see. And the plane actually happened to have a warhead in—actually, shouldn't have had at that particular time, and he didn't know that it had any bombs in it. But it fell and actually wiped out the whole technical library and all the scientific center and the remainder of the capital and so forth—the bomb did.
On the second run you'll find out that he had some inkling that the plane was loaded with a bomb. And on the third run across this you will find more and more responsibility, see, gathering up, and you'll eventually find out that he was ordered to do it. And he went over and threw the lever and blew the place to smithereens, and then you'll find out that he was the fellow who gave the order. See? You see your responsibility rise.
It's very wonderful watching these things. "Well, it was totally accidental," and—and so forth, "And there was—nothing was meant by it, but—" you're going to see develop into: "Well, I did it." See? It goes up the scale.
Well, present time the pc is being terribly responsible for everything. The pc's responsible for sitting in the chair and being in the body and all that sort of thing. So you're closer to the present time responsibility of the pc. So therefore the pc thinks a thunk in present time, it has tremendous importance on the meter. Actually not however, in his aberration.
Ah, that's nothing—the aberration. See, his present time thought is not aberrative. It's merely interruptive. It's terribly important to him. That's why your rudiments go out, you see. How can a rudiment knock out the read from blowing up the civilization? Well, it's just terribly important. His responsibility is very high for PT. Present time—responsibility high. Past time—no responsibility. You reverse this state of affairs, but the rudiments can go out.
Therefore, his difficulty taking a wrapper off of a candy bar in present time is far more important to him than something that happened a billion years ago. So you have to clean up the PTP.
The PTP is far more important. It outweighs every other consideration. It's quite amusing And of course, this PTP has the power of aberrating him not at all. It has no power of aberrating him. In fact, I'll let you in on something. Nothing that's happened to him in this whole lifetime has had any effect upon his degree of aberration—not a single thing.
But auditing, let me call to your attention, is being done in present time. And therefore the pc is always trying to sell the auditor two things: One, that is his—it is his thunk that has got everything awry—his thinkingness has shoved everything awry. That's one of the first bill of goods he tries to shove off on the auditor. And the other one, that present time is far more important than anything the auditor is trying to go into.
He always tries to sell these two bill of goods. Why? Because they are built in just like the plates and grate on a stove. They're just built in to the pc. He isn't doing this maliciously or viciously.
Now, the auditor may not Q&A with his own grate and plate. See? What's got to be built into the auditor is the other consideration entirely: "The longer ago it happened the more important it is to the pc's aberrated state." That's quite different, isn't it, than: "Present time is more important than the past." you see, pc says that. The auditor says, "The longer ago it happened, the more influential it is to the case."
And then the auditor has to say, or has to work on the basis, that the doingness and the havingness are much more important than the thoughtingness. See? He's got to have doingness. That's as close as an auditor can usually push a pc to heavy mass short of a Routine 3 Process. So he's at least got to have doingness. And he's got to skip thunkingness. Well, the pc is selling the auditor thinkingness and he's selling the auditor presentness.
In the session the pc says, "Oh, what you are doing to me. you just missed a command. This is absolutely fabulous and fantastic. And besides, one week ago I something or other, something or other and something or other. And I have come to the conclusion that . . ." and so on. And he fires off in some direction or another and actually thinks that this charge is prompted by something that has happened either today or in the last week. And of course that charge is not from today or the last week at all.
Now, it all depends on what an auditor is doing. An auditor can Q&A with this—just—not Q&A with it—but an auditor can pay attention to this and buy thunk, of course, if he's trying to keep the pc in-session. Because what he's doing in session has the relative value of what the pc is thinking in session. You get the idea. I mean the pc with a thunk in-session can momentarily outweigh the pastness of things with his present time thunk. See?
You've got this—you've got this situation going and the pc is having a hell of a time, and the rudiments are out. And you ask the pc, "Missed withhold? Invalidation? Missed withhold? Upset? ARC break?" Anything else you care to ask the pc, and it goes clang. And you say, "What was that?" And he says it was so-and-so. And you say, "Thank you very much." And your rudiments are back in, and you carry on.
But the only reason you carry on is not because the pc is getting aberrated by these out-rudiments, but because auditing is being done in present time. And the pc's invalidations and out-rudiments are occurring in present time. And you do not have time or inclination to go back and clear them up on the whole track, because you are doing something else. So therefore, you clear up rudiments as close to present time as possible and prepcheck as far from it as possible. You get out of this a natural rule, you see.
The pc gives what's happening right now in session tremendous value. It has nothing to do with the price of oranges.
So you can pick it up as easily as it's going in. Now, if you think it has undue importance, you will try to pick it up too hard. You'll be like the phony strong man, you know. He's got five-hundred pounds written on both ends of this barbell, you know, and it's made out of balsa wood. And you'll go over there and you'll try to pick this up and you'll struggle—reading five-hundred pounds on the end of it, you will know that you have to exert five-hundred pounds worth of strength in order to get it off the floor. You're liable to throw yourself through the top of the stage.
But you can approach the subject as arduously as it's advertised. Then you find it blows up just like that. Bang! What happened? What happened? Where did it go? Where did it go? Mmm. Bzzzz. Oh, he has a terrible present time problem. You're only getting a little tick on the missed with—I mean on the whole track withhold that you're trying to get off of it. Whatever it is. You're only getting a little tick on that. And yest—as of yesterday you didn't have it cleared, got a little tick. And today he comes in—he's got a half-a-dial drop, man!
He's agitated. You can see the physical agitation and so forth, and huhAhh and so forth. And you say, "Well, what's the matter?" And you go down the line and you read your rudiments in. "Present time problem?" Oh, there's that half-a-dial drop, you see. you say, "What happened?"
He says, "Well, Agnes didn't speak to me this morning"
All right. Now, if you think that weighs five-hundred pounds, see, you'll roll up your sleeves, you'll sigh deeply and you'll struggle out there, flex your muscles and biceps, you know, and pick this thing up as though it weighs five-hundred pounds. Actually, all you have to do is say, "Well, all right. Thank you. Do you have a present time problem? That's clean."
What happened? Where did they go? You'll notice that. You'll notice that phenomenon. But that little tick that you were working on that happened when they were seven years old keeps going tick, and it keeps going click, and you say, "Well, what happened there?"
And they say, "Well, so-and-so and so-and-so," and it keeps going tick, and it keeps going tick. you apply the withhold system to it again, you see. It ticks a little less and a little less, and it's wearing out a little bit slow. And then you find a little earlier basic on it now that you've worked it over enough for the pc to get earlier. You find a little earlier basic on it, get the unknownness out of that, and bing. And then it'll blow. But it took you a half an hour or so, see. It took you an hour. It took you an hour and a half. Do you see why this is?
Now, if you continue to believe that by pulling the thinks—you see, because you can do so much in the rudiments by pulling thinks, don't be so fooled—you think you can pull thinks off the pc and get anywhere in Prepchecking, you're going to be very badly mistaken. You can only get anywhere in Prepchecking by pulling "do's." "Whatcha done, Bud?" "Okay, Mac. Where'd you hide the hammer?"
He says, "Oh, I just didn't do anything to my wife. I didn't do anything to her at all. I never laid a hand on her much. And—I've been awfully critical of her. I actually had some uh, uh—really, when we got married I had some reservations. I thought to myself. . ."
See, you're liable to buy this if you notice how easily those thinks go out in the rudiments. You see how you can handle those thinks in the rudiments. You're liable to buy this as aberrative.
And then he said, "And actually I criticized her once to a friend," you know.
Well, you start soaring in on the line and you say, "Ah, you criticized her once to a friend. Well, very good now. What about criticizing?" you see.
Ah, pack it up. Everything from there on is just a waste of time. And it's, "Whatcha do, Mac?" See. "How'd ya splint up the broken bones?" "Where'd ya hide the corpse?"
He's done something. And unless you pull doingness, you of course, make no permanent progress. And he squirms around, and he says, "Well, as a matter of fact, I never did anything to her." And it goes clank. 	And you say, "Well, what was that?"
"Oh well, that—that teh-heh. It didn't have too much to do with it, but the night before we got married I slept with her best friend."
"Oh, what about sleeping with your wife's best friends?" It's your Prepcheck. Now let's soar.
Now, odd part of it is, it runs down to sleeping with his sister's best friend, see. And it runs down to having something to do with his mother's best friend or something like that, see. It won't stay on this groove absolutely, but you'll pull it all out down to the bottom. And you come back up and you find out that's null, and that's that. All right. And you may have pulled a major charge off the case, you see. And you'll get a resurgence. This person will look different and act different. It's "What'd ya do, Mac?"
Now, he will mark those dumbbells one ounce. And you go out there to pick up these dumbbells marked with one ounce and you give one yank, you see, and you go through the planks. Got it?
We're working basically with a basic disagreement of evaluation between the auditor and the pc. Things that are actually heavily weighted are given minimal weight at first by the pc. And things that actually have no weight at all are given tremendous weight by the pc. Because the pc would like you to stay in present time and pull all the aberrations of yesterday.
He lived through yesterday. He remembers yesterday. Yesterday's safe. Furthermore he didn't do anything yesterday but think. And that's perfectly safe to think yesterday.
And furthermore, it actually seems to him to be tremendously important what he thought yesterday. So he's got all these sells. One, yesterday. Ah, that's nice and close to present time so therefore it must be tremendously important. And I thought, and actually I can confront thinkingness, so therefore thinkingness must be terribly important.
And the auditor knows very well that thinkingness has no importance whatsoever and that if he hangs around yesterday he will get a lot of nowhere.
So your auditor goes counter to what the pc would like him to go counter to. And if you continue to Q-and-A with this and do exactly what the pc thinks is important, hm-mm, you'll get nowhere with Prepchecking
You have to drive with Prepchecking. You cannot hand the wheel over to the pc, because the pc will drive in the beautiful flight of thunk. He will soar through thunkingness and thunkingness and thunkingness. He'll fly with great beauty through this thunkingness. And he will stay marvelously close to PT because everything that's important in his life is important in PT.
The great saw that he will give you is, "Well, it happened a long time ago and therefore isn't very important. And we have forgotten all that now and we have laid it to rest." A psychoanalyst one time gave me that as an argument.
She said, "Well, now we had this psychoanalyzed two or three years ago and we put it all aside. And so therefore it happened quite a long time ago and it hasn't any value anymore, and so forth. And I'm over that. Now, what is really wrong with me is the way I was jilted last week and stood up for a dinner date by my boyfriend. And we haven't spoken since." See, this kind of thing
So I had this psychoanalyst lie down on a bed—1949—and go back to the first moment that the death of the relative was imparted and go through it step by step. And man, you would have thought it was made out of solid sponge rubber the way she kept bouncing out of that. I put her through that and she cried several buckets full of tears. And we got the secondary off of it beautifully. Utterly changed the appearance of the pc. "But it had all been handled, and it was all a long time ago. And what was important was last week." See?
So if you had let the person drive, where would you have wound up? You would have wound up—after a long route through the world of think, you would have wound up at, "Thoughtport." And it would have been very, very close to where you were sitting right this minute. So you can't let the pc drive. You have to make it very clear to the pc that the wheels are being guided and the throttle is being handled by some other person.
And if you don't have a pc under good control, Prepchecking is almost impossible. You've got to have good auditor control. And you've got to direct the pc's attention to doingness and to yesterday. And that is what you direct the pc's attention to. To what he has done, done, done, done, done, done—a long time ago.
And the pc says, "Let me think, think, think, think yesterday, because yesterday is important." And if you let the pc drive and if you haven't got a solid grip on the wheel, the pc will stay with think and stay as close to now as possible. And of course you will plow nothing, you will get nothing done. The pc will not resurge, nothing will happen at all.
The funny part of it is you can often key things out by getting a yesterday, but it's a sort of a shallow job. You can get tired of plumbing the track sometime and kick out a lock that occurred last week and brush it off, but it all depends on what you're doing.
If you just try to get a pc's rudiments in, well for God's sakes, handle it that way. Handle it shallow. Just handle it shallow. Rudiments by think, by close to PT—absolutely. That's perfectly all right. But that's rudiments. Now, the body of Prepchecking.
Well, he says, "When I—when I was thirty-two I had some difficulty with my father's business associates and so forth. Let's see, that was two years ago, and so forth. And I said some very nasty things about them as a matter of fact. I told some of my friends that they were old—I hate to tell you this—but I told some of my friends they were old fogies."
And although I am never this blunt unless somebody has circumvented me in all directions for about fifteen minutes, if they had been doing so I would say at that moment, "Well, did you—after you had stolen the money, did you take it out the front door or the back door? That's all I'm interested in. When you were six—we'll just shoot for six. Just—just . . ."
They sometimes look at you and say, "How—how the—how the—how the—how the hell did you know? I used—used to r—r—rob the cash b—box."
"All right. What about robbing your poppy's cash box?" See? "Do" and "yesterday," and you got it all set.
And you say, "What about your father's business associates?"
"Oh well, what—what about them? Were we talking about my father's business associates?"
It's absolutely magical, you see? It looks magical to the pc because the pc knows that it was yesterday that was important, and he knows that thinkingness was important. And you went on the range of "way back" and "do." Now, with that artillery you blow him out of the water.
And he'll be stonied. He'll be quite astonished very often. He'll just sit there marveling. "How the hell did you get into that?" You know.
Now, the equation on which you operate is that the chain is long and has a bottom which is unknown to the pc. you always operate on that basis—the chain is long and has a bottom which is unknown to the pc. So the basic is there. You also operate on the assumption that it is totally available to you. It all depends on how quietly you climb down that ladder. You climb down and keep polishing up the rungs and by George, he can see a rung below it, and so on. you take him back as fast as you polished up the rungs, by the way. I don't get all the grit off the rungs. I make pcs work on awful dirty ladders just as long as I can get that basic. You see, by taking locks off the top you can arrive more positively at the basic.
It's true that the pc couldn't go back there originally, but by taking a few overts off the chain and polishing them up somewhat and differently, he can get to the bottom. See. Astonishingly. But he can only get there if he's under heavy auditor control. And you've got to have heavy pc—you've got to have heavy control of your pc. you tell him where to go. And you tell him where to go because if it happened once it happened before. And you operate on that as your magic formula. "If he is thinking about it now, he did it then," is your other formula.
And then you have a magic biblical maxim: "If thy pc is making a stink about somebody yesterday, he done him in two years ago." Whatever your pc is being critical of in present time he's done something to in the past. You'll find it's an infallible formula.
Of course, to reach ultimate depths—to reach ultimate depths on this thing requires that you go into the Goals Problem Mass. And in Prepchecking it isn't—that isn't your course. You don't go into the GPM with Prepchecking But you can go a hell of a distance with Prepchecking You can go back two, three, six, eight, ten thousand years. You might wind up in the most unlikely places.
And just remember that you are getting the pc at your behest to climb down a chain which he doesn't, as you started, think has any validity at all, has no R. because he has no C. And you just ride him down this chain and you just get things scrubbed off, scrubbed off, polished up, scrubbed off, and he can see just a little bit deeper, and you dust this next overt off lightly. I don't care if it still reacts or it doesn't react. We're going down this chain because it isn't that the charge isn't there, see, because everything that is charged is dependent upon an early charge. And the charge is all on the earliest charge.
But you can, nevertheless, point his vision past something if you sort of show it doesn't have any individual charge on it. Any charge that it seems to have on it tends to disappear with your withhold system, you know?
You're saying When? All? Appear? Who? Do it once. Do it twice. He'll all of a sudden say, "Yeah, yeah." And he expects to—he's in a profession now. He's got a profession that is, "Wiping out my blacking my brother's eyes when we were seven." See? That's his professional . . . He's perfectly willing, by the way, to work on this for the rest of the session because it's got lots of charge on it, and it's this and that and the other thing
And you say, "What did you do to him when you were six? And five? And four? And three? And two?" Maybe your What question is, "What about blacking people's eyes?" you know?
And he's all set now. He's safe, see. He got down to years where they were both in diapers and they're both in separate couches, you see—cots. And they couldn't possibly have blacked anybody's eyes, you see. It was good.
"Whose eyes did you block—black in your last life?"
There's no charge. I mean you're down there, obviously, to a point where the thing is still charged and the charge isn't erasing, so you couldn't possibly be at the bottom of the chain. And the whole test is, is does it go phssst. It doesn't go phssst, so let's just scrub a little charge off of it and go south, man.
And the funny part of it is the pc can actually remember it. The pc can actually go there. Doesn't matter whether you think he can or not. He—hell go. Hell go. If you find out he's still got charge on blacking his little brother's eyes when his little brother was one and he was two, we're getting at a margin. That's marginal. It must be leaving this life. And we can't go any earlier because he didn't walk until he was one year, eleven months.
And all of a sudden, why, we find him someplace and he's standing on the sands of Smyrna or something And he used to have a nasty habit when he was a legionnaire. Heh-heh. He used to take a copper or a bronze ball on a chain, you know, and he used to always hit for somebody's eyes with it somehow or another.
Here's all these busted corpses lying around. And you think this is perfectly all right, but you find him doing it to his commanding officer. Something like that. And then you drift back—that—he's all set to make a profession out of this. Christ, he's never been there before, you know. Heh-heh. "Look at this," you know. "Palm trees, you know. Where the hell am I?" you know.
You see this thing isn't discharging, well, "Whose eyes did you black earlier than that, man?" 
"Whose eyes did I black? What do you mean?"
"What earlier . . ."
"Oh, well, there's this . . . Yeah, yeah. Hmm. You take a space gun and if you set it up on high gain, and you shoot somebody in the eyes, their eyes char. Hmm, I never realized that before."
Go over that one. Go over that one, man. And by golly, you can make Prepchecking work that way. I'm telling you an extreme example now, running whole track. You wouldn't believe it was possible. And you scrub the overt enough so that you can see earlier. And then you scrub that overt enough so that you can see earlier, and it's all there on the chain. God 'elp ya if you go completely clang-bang into the GPM with it. But persevere. Find an incident that happened before the GPM.
Memory is occluded by the charge on the last overt. That's what occludes memory as far as running a chain is concerned. And if you can get some of that charge off he can remember earlier, and if you get some of the charge off the earlier overt, why, he can remember earlier. And you get enough charge off so that he can see earlier, and that's all the charge you get off because actually all the charge is residual on the earliest one.
I'm not telling you, by the way, that you must run whole track with Prepchecking But I'm telling you that the rule applies unrestrictedly. See, the rule applies.
You don't try to rub the charge out of every overt that you encounter. That would be nonsense, man. Be nonsense. Because all the charge is held in place by the first unknown incident, see. Of course, there can be seven hundred interim unknown incidents but they become known fairly rapidly. They become known rather rapidly. The incident that you're gunning for is the basic on that particular chain. And you'll find out that one will pull.
It's incredible that it will pull. You'll take people back into the backtrack who would sit there and swear that there is no past lives. Well, you want to rub out just enough to make it feasible.
Incidentally, a recovery of memory of who one was in the past life has a tremendous case resurgence connected with it. Quite fascinating to somebody—has practically no therapeutic value.
But it's fascinating. And the pc will stay with it. And it's a very interesting thing And he can feel very good. He thinks this is good.
For instance, your pc finds out he was clubfooted in the last life and has always had trouble with his foot in this life. And you think we're all set now. We find out the last death and some of his overts in the last life, you see, and you get this all cleaned up, that whole clubfooted life, you get the whole incident out of the thing. Everything is just fine and polished up, you know, even to catching his foot underneath the carriage. And aaaaah-yah-ah, oh man, you're just excited, and he goes right on having trouble with his foot. That's because you too, fell for the idea that it must be important if it's close to present time.
Well, as a matter of fact, the—he was the fellow who invented the lead boot. Something like that. That's eventually where you'll find his clubfootedness.
But Prepchecking has to be approached within this realm of understanding in order to produce interesting results. I don't want you to go on being afraid of stirring something up and not finishing it off. I want you to get the idea of working on a chain. And I'd like you to finish the chain up. Get the idea that you should finish up the chain. But don't get the idea you should finish up incidents.
Now, with Prepchecking today, you're prepchecking chains of similar incidents. And all charge, actually, is built up out of the first unknown. In Routine 3 you are not dealing engram by engram with the track. You are dealing with packages of engrams called identities. See? So Routine 3 deals with whole lives of engrams, all in a bundle.
Similarly, Prepchecking doesn't deal with incidents. It deals with chains of incidents.
Now, to get a Routine 3 item to blow, it has to have had all lock charge bled off of it, be totally identified and opptermed in theory. If you got that package pretty perfect, why, you've got a chance of having the thing blow, because that's the mechanics of it held in place. And Prepchecking, all you've got to do is get the earliest unknown into view and you'll find the whole chain will blow up, see. These are the mechanics on which you're operating and these are the things which occur.
If you do your Prepchecking in that frame of mind you won't be making many mistakes. You won't be asking the pc . . .
The pc says, "I got a big—a big withhold. I picked my toenails last night. I'm pretty ashamed of it. That's a doingness."
"Well, all right. All right. Let's find out about toenails, huh? Heh-heh-heh-heh. There's no telling where well wind up."
"I thought my mother's hair didn't look good yesterday," probably winds up with, "So I struck this box of matches and set her hair on fire."
You know what I mean. That's the way it develops, you know. But has no importance on what I thought yesterday, of course, until he connects with the bottom and then it's all related.
That's Prepchecking Don't expect anything out of Prepchecking except the pc understands his case better, sees where things come from, and feels better about life and the people and environment around him. Expect that will be a perfectly permanent gain and it is worthwhile attaining. There's no doubt about that. Don't expect it to solve the whole case from one end to the other. But adroit Prepchecking is very impressive to a pc. But it's only impressive when the auditor is going for the earliest and the doingest, and keeps the pc from staying with the thinkingest and the most recent. And then you'll get yourself some good results.
Of course, I have heard that Prepchecking done in good Model Session with the TRs in and a considerable expertness on the meter is more effective than Prepchecking which is not done that way. But of course, this could only be rumor.
Thank you very much.