FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

LEVEL 2 ACADEMY LECTURES 15/15

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

LEVEL 2 TAPES

CONTENTS:

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

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

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


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

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE 

Our purpose is to promote religious freedom and the Scientology
Religion by spreading the Scientology Tech across the internet.

The Cof$ abusively suppresses the practice and use of
Scientology Tech by FreeZone Scientologists. It misuses the
copyright laws as part of its suppression of religious freedom.

They think that all freezoner's are "squirrels" who should be
stamped out as heritics. By their standards, all Christians, 
Moslems, Mormons, and even non-Hassidic Jews would be considered
to be squirrels of the Jewish Religion.

The writings of LRH form our Old Testament just as the writings
of Judiasm form the Old Testament of Christianity.

We might not be good and obedient Scientologists according
to the definitions of the Cof$ whom we are in protest against.

But even though the Christians are not good and obedient Jews,
the rules of religious freedom allow them to have their old 
testament regardless of any Jewish opinion. 

We ask for the same rights, namely to practice our religion
as we see fit and to have access to our holy scriptures
without fear of the Cof$ copyright terrorists.

We ask for others to help in our fight. Even if you do
not believe in Scientology or the Scientology Tech, we hope
that you do believe in religious freedom and will choose
to aid us for that reason.

Thank You,

The FZ Bible Association

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


O/W MODERNIZED AND REVIEWED

A lecture given on 2 July 1964

Tape# 6407C02 SH Spec-26

SHSpec-26 ren 389 2 Jul 64 O/W Modernized and Reviewed 

[Clearsound, checked against the old reels. Omissions in the
clearsound version are marked ">".]

(95 min)

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

Thank you.

All right. What have we got here? Have we got a date?

Audience: 2nd of July.

2nd of July. There is a date. All right.

> And you ...
> 
> Actually, you know there was two new students came in and
> I was not apprised of them - the week before.
>
> The two students -
>
> (unintelligible voices)
> 
> I want the two students.
> 
> We'll get this list straight yet.
> 
> There we go. I'd like to introduce two new students, stand
> up and take a bow! Leon Steinburg and John Wotten.
>
> All right. That's various methods of discipline. (laughter)
>
> Now having comitted an overt, I'm going to talk to you today
> about overts.
>

And this is the subject of O/W, modernized and reviewed.

Now, this lecture is given into the teeth of the fact that it is 
notorious that very few Scientologists would ever inquire very 
deeply as to just exactly what was did. This is given into the teeth 
of that knowledge. And there's a good reason for that: In order to 
do something for somebody, you have to have a communication line to 
that person.

Communication lines depend upon reality and communication and 
affinity. And where an individual is too demanding, the affinity 
tends to break down slightly. And the Scientologist is very afraid 
of breaking that affinity line with his pc. And so he doesn't want 
to break that affinity line with his pc, so he never, then, gets to 
the second stage of processing.

Processing goes in two stages: one is to get into communication with 
that or which you are trying to process - that's number one. And 
number two is do something for them. And many a pc will go around 
raving about his auditor, whose auditor has not done anything for 
the pc. All that has happened is a tremendous communication line has 
been established with the pc. And this is so new and so novel and so 
strange to the pc that he then considers that something miraculous 
has occurred. Well yes, something miraculous has occurred, but in 
this particular instance the auditor has totally neglected why he 
formed that communication line in the first place.

He formed the communication line in the first place to do something 
for the pc. And he very often mistakes the fact that he has formed a 
communication line - and the reaction on the pc for having formed 
one - with having done something for the pc.

There are two stages here: is (1) form a communication line, and (2) 
do something for the pc. Those are two distinct stages. That is 
something like walking up to the bus and driving off. Do you see? 
There's two stages: You walk up to the bus, and then you drive off. 
If you don't drive off, you never go anyplace.

So many an auditor bogs down at this one point of walking up to the 
bus, which is putting in a communication line with the pc, and then 
they never go anyplace. Do you see that? And where auditing broadly 
breaks down, and you say, "Well, Mamie Glutz had lumbosis and ..." 
(We're going to have to make a list of Scientology diseases. That's 
one of them.) "Mamie Glutz has lumbosis and she loves her auditor, 
but she's still got lumbosis."

Now, exactly what has happened is the auditor has formed his 
communication line to the pc - has actually done this heroic thing 
of getting in communication with the pc - and that is very tricky 
and that is no small shakes. That's something, to be able to 
communicate to a human being who has never been communicated to 
before. This is quite remarkable. And that is such a remarkable feat 
that it appears to be the end-all of Scientology to some. But you 
see, that's just walking up to the bus. Now we've got to go 
someplace.

Now, how do we go someplace? Well, actually, any upset that the 
individual has is so poised, it is so delicately balanced, it is so 
difficult to maintain. You know, you look at this fellow. He's in a 
wheelchair, you know? And you say to yourself, "How is he keeping 
himself in a wheelchair?" And you think, "Well, it'd be very 
difficult to get him out of that wheelchair." Oh, no, no! It's very 
difficult to stay in that wheelchair. That is what's difficult. 
Unless you learn this reverse look, you'll have trouble with 
psychosomatics and things like this - particularly battinesses, more 
than psychosomatics. Psychosomatics are not a good example. A 
battiness of some kind or another is a much better example, because 
they surrender so easily.

This individual is very sure that horses sleep in beds. Now, you 
don't look at what it takes to maintain that. That is based on such 
slippery logic that the least little cogwheel goes adrift in it, 
it'll collapse. In other words, it's very hard to remain batty. It's 
not difficult to get well, but it's hard to remain batty. A fellow 
has to work at it. You'll see an odd look coming into somebody's eye 
sometime or another, when you're getting right close to. And you'll 
see a pc suddenly start veering sideways from you when you start 
approaching too closely to a piece of battiness.

Let's - supposing that having formed a communication line, we merely 
and only did this (we just did this and we didn't worry about these 
vast complications in this terrific sea of aberration) - we didn't 
do any of that: we just said, "Now, what are you doing that's 
sensible? And why is it sensible?" And you know, a guy's case will 
just fall to pieces right in front of your eyes. This is a zone to 
which I invite your attention, because it's untrodden; it's virgin; 
it's native; it's the bush in a completely unspoiled condition.

You see, this communication line is only valuable to the degree that 
you can walk around in your big muddy feet in the midst of all this 
morass. And if your communication line is very good and very smooth, 
and if your auditing discipline is perfect - so that, you see, your 
auditing discipline is perfect so you don't upset this communication 
line - then you can walk around in this wild jungle that he calls 
his ideas. And if you just made a foray of no more importance and no 
more breadth than "What are you doing that's sensible?" and "Why is 
it sensible?" and kept your communication line up the while and kept 
your affinity up with the pc the while, did it with perfect 
discipline, you would see more aberration fall to pieces per square 
inch than you ever thought could exist. See? Now, that's what I mean 
when I'm saying to you "do something for the pc."

See, I tell you, "Audit well. Get perfect discipline. Get your comm 
cycle in. Don't ARC break the pc. Let the cycles of action 
complete." Don't you see? All of that. Well, that is simply an 
entrance to the ... You see, the discipline of Scientology makes it 
possible to do this. And one of the reasons why other fields of the 
mind never got anyplace: they never could get near anybody because 
they couldn't communicate to anybody, see?

So that discipline is important. That is the ladder which goes up to 
the door. And if you can't get to the door, you can't do anything. 
You see? So there's two stages here - two stages. And you're busy 
completing communication cycles and so forth. And I will admit 
sometimes I get impatient with you, you see, because I'm merely 
trying to teach you how to communicate to somebody so that you can 
do something for him, you see? And I sometimes believe that your 
whole attention gets tremendously absorbed in merely communicating 
with somebody. And you use that as an end-all, see, and I get a 
little upset.

Because it's something on the order of, well, let's say you're 
trying to make an actor, you see, something like this, and you get 
him all set on the subject of makeup, you know, but he keeps 
standing in the wings, made up, and thinks he's acting and he isn't. 
He's standing in the wings, see?

So this perfect discipline of which we speak: the perfect 
communication cycle, the perfect auditor presence, perfect meter 
reading - all of these various things - are just to get you in a 
state where you can do something for somebody. And because this is 
so new, strange and novel, and is so unheard of in this universe, it 
looks so startling that you can say, "Well, that's auditing, that's 
processing. That's it. That's the end product."

Man, that's no more the end product than a can of dog food, see? I 
mean, it's still there in the can. It's supposed to be eaten. You 
know? It's the difference between reading a recipe book and dining.

So when you're real slow picking up the discipline, when you're real 
slow picking up keeping in a communication cycle - when you're pokey 
on this subject and so forth - you see, you're just still nine miles 
from the ball, you know? You're not even attending yet. See?

So what you want to be able to do is audit perfectly. By that we 
mean keep in a communication cycle, be able to approach the pc, be 
able to talk to the pc, be able to maintain the ARC, get the pc to 
give you answers to your questions, be able to read a meter, get the 
reactions, be able to do this, be able to do that - all of those 
little things, you see? They've all got to be awfully good, because 
it's very difficult to get a communication line in to somebody 
anyway. And they all have to be present and they all have to be 
perfect. But if they're all present and they're all perfect, then we 
can start to process somebody! Then we could start to process 
somebody! And all of that looks so beneficial that you can mistake 
it for processing.

Now, I'm giving you some kind of an entrance point here of if all of 
your cycles were perfect, if you were able to sit there and confront 
that pc and meter that pc and keep your auditing reports and do all 
these other multiple various things and keep a pleasant smile on 
your face and not chop his communication, and if you can do those 
various things, now let's find out what do you do. Because there is 
something you do with those things.

Well, at Level VI this is very easy: You run GPMs. But that's doing 
something for somebody. And try to run GPMs sometimes without all 
these other factors near-perfect. It's not possible. But let's take 
it down to a lower level. What could you do for somebody if you were 
a perfect auditor from the basis of your auditing technique and 
presence and handling somebody? Now, what could you do? That's the 
burning question: What could you do?

Now, we used to have this all on backwards. We used to try to teach 
people what they could do for somebody, but they could never get in 
communication with him to do it. See, so therefore you had failures 
in processing. Well, the most elementary procedure, the most 
elementary procedure: "What are you doing that you think is 
sensible?" and "Why is it sensible?" - that's a perfectly elementary 
procedure, and the guy would all of a sudden gawp at you.

So he'd say, "Oh, no!" you know? Because these things are very 
difficult to maintain as an insensibility. You have to work hard to 
have something in crosswise. "Horses sleep in beds."

All right. You say, "Well, what do you think is sensible?" or "What 
are you doing that's sensible?" or anything of this sort.

And the fellow says, "Well, I think horses sleep in beds. That's 
sensible." 

"All right, now why is that sensible?"

"Well ... That's nuts!"

You actually wouldn't have to do anything more than that, see? See? 
Now, one of the things that's horrible about all this, it's so easy 
to do that you keep looking for some magic. Well, your magic was 
getting into communication with the person. The rest of it is very 
easy to do. All you had to do was remain in communication with the 
person while you're doing this, and realize that these huge boulders 
that he's got in his skull are poised with the most fantastically 
delicate balance on little pinheads, see - little pinpoint balance. 
And all you have to do is go whooh, like that, and this thing goes 
brrroomm, crash!

Now, if you're not in communication with this person, he takes it as 
an accusative action; he tries to justify thinking that way; he 
tries to make himself look good to you; he tries to put on a public 
front of some kind or another sitting in the pc's chair; he tries to 
hold up his status. And any time I see a bunch of pcs around jumping 
happily to something else because it's "Only sane people can run on 
that, you see, and crazy ones run on something else" - well, 
everybody immediately will have the "sane" computation, so they 
never have to be run on the crazy one - I right away know their 
auditors are not in communication with them and that auditing 
discipline itself has broken down, because the pc is trying to 
justify himself and trying to uphold his own status. So he must be 
defending himself against the auditor. So the auditor couldn't 
possibly be in communication with him, could he?

So we're right back to the fundamental of why didn't the auditor get 
into communication with the pc in the first place? Well, you get 
into communication with the pc in the first place by doing the 
proper Scientology discipline. That is not any trick. It goes off 
one, two, three, four. You sit down, you start the session, you 
start talking to somebody and you start handling the pc and you 
start handling his problems and that sort of thing, and you do it by 
completing your communication cycles and not cutting his 
communication and by this and by that - the very things you're 
taught in the TRs - and you'll find you're in communication with the 
person. And where you fail, and why he maintains his status, is 
you've gotten into communication with the person and then you've 
never done anything for the person.

Unless, having gotten into communication, you now do something for 
the person, you lose, of course, your communication line, because 
the R-factor breaks down. He doesn't think you're so good and you go 
out of communication with the person. You understand? You can get 
into communication with the person, then not do anything for the 
person; the R-factor of why you're in communication with the person 
can break down and break down with you. You say, "Well, here I am, 
in communication with the person. What am I supposed to do now?" 
You'll go out of communication with the person, and you've somehow 
taken a little circular trip which was in toward the person and then 
away from the person, see?

All right. That having happened, now the person will be sort of 
defensive in status and wonder why he's being processed, and ... You 
see, he could wonder all these questions.

It takes a process now. Now you've got to do something for the 
person, and it takes a process. But it takes an understanding of 
what a process is. And a process is simply a combination of mental 
mechanisms which when inspected will pass away. All auditing is 
negative gain; you never add anything to the case. All auditing is 
subtractive; you're as-ising things on the case and that's all 
you're doing.

So you say, "All right, what do you think is sensible?"

The guy says, "Horses sleep in beds. Ah! Hey, that isn't sensible." 
Cognition. Total duration of process, see, was that.

You actually will get a - probably get a big blowdown or something 
like that on your E-Meter - be a huge blowdown on your E-Meter. Now 
you try to get more tone arm action out of the fact that "horses 
sleep in beds"; you don't get there. You flattened the process.

So it requires a sensitivity to know when the process is flat. You 
can over-audit and under-audit. You can try to run the tone arm 
action out of things which have no tone arm action left in them and 
you can walk off and leave things which have a ton of tone arm 
action left in them. You can do one or the other of these things. 
But this requires observation of the pc, and it only answers this 
question: Have you done anything for the pc? Once more, you only 
have to answer that question: Have you done something for the pc?

Well, if you've done something for the pc, you are not likely to get 
any more tone arm action out of it. This becomes elementary, you 
see? We're breaking this down into (1), (2). So, (1) there's the 
auditing discipline, and (2) there's doing something for the pc. If 
you've done something for the pc, you've gotten the tone arm action 
out of it. It isn't that you really even do anything for the pc by 
having the tone - getting the tone arm action out of it. You see, 
that's simply an indicator of whether you're doing anything or not.

I'm beating a dead horse to death now, don't you see, because this 
is not - it's not that complicated. It's less complicated than 
anybody imagines.

You say to the pc, "What's sensible?"

"Well," he says, "Oh well, uh ... so ... oh well, uh ... yes. 
Psychiatry and psychoanalysis and congressmen and elections and 
governments. They're all sensible and something is sensible, and 
something else is sensible, and so on and so on, and they're all 
sensible."

Well, let's observe the pc. Have you done anything for the pc yet?

Well, the funny part of it is that your tone arm is going to be 
moving during this period. See, you really haven't done anything, 
really, for the pc yet. And he goes on and he says, "Well, my old 
teacher was sensible. My old teacher used to tell me, well, I'd 
never succeed in the world, and he was right. And he was sensible." 
(And you're still getting tone arm action, see?) "And he was ... I 
don't know."

"Was he sensible or wasn't he sensible?

"I don't know. You know, I have done some things in life. You don't 
suppose I could be failing all the time because he was so sure I 
would? Uhh ... this doesn't make any sense. You know, I think that 
man was a blitherin' ass! I think he's a complete fool. How would he 
know that I would never succeed in life? He's silly. I don't think 
he was sensible. No, we'll forget about that being sensible. That 
.. that wasn't sensible. Uh ... that ... heh ... You know, that's 
why I failed in life! Because he was so sure I would and I always 
thought he was so se- Well, I'll be a son of a gun!"

Right about that moment your TA action go bzzp, bzw, bzp, thup-bu - 
there's no more TA action, see?

Now, you, knucklehead, not having noticed - I should be polite. I 
laid down a maxim "Always be polite to somebody who is trying to 
learn something," you see? You don't notice this one answer has come 
your way. You have done something for him. So now you start beating 
up the brush to do something for him. This is very bad timing, don't 
you see?

Now, you could go on with the process in some other way, in some 
other field or some other channel, but you've handled something and 
you've done something. And if you keep him working on that one thing 
that you've now done something for him on, your TA action will 
disappear and your pc will get resentful. And not only will your TA 
action disappear, but you'll lose your comm line.

Now, let's try to press him. "What about this old teacher?" see? 
He's already had the cognition, see? Wow! See, "What about this old 
teacher? When did you know him? Did you have any overts against 
him?" and so forth. Notice your TA. TA is not moving. You're now 
restimulating the pc. You've gotten your key-out; destimulation 
factor has occurred right before your eyes. You've done something 
for the pc.

Now, hear me now, it's just a matter of have you done anything for 
the pc or not? And on any given subject, when you have done 
something for the pc, your TA action in that zone and area will 
cease. If there's any TA action to be gained in that area while you 
are doing something for the pc, you will get tone arm action. But 
sooner or later it is going to run up to having done something for 
the pc, see? Your TA action is "about to do something for the pc," 
you see? That tells you there's something there that can be done for 
the pc, and your TA action will go on toward the point where you 
have done something for the pc, and now this is past tense. Now 
you're going to get more TA action on his dear old teacher? In a 
pig's eye you are! That is a "went" proposition now.

So, it requires of the auditor discipline to keep in his 
communication line. He's got to stay in communication with this pc. 
Those cycles have got to be perfect. He can't be distracting the 
pc's attention on to the TA. "I'm not getting any tone arm action 
now." That's not staying in communication with the pc, see? Has 
nothing much to do with it. You're distracting the pc from his own 
zones and areas. So don't keep his attention out of session, you 
know? Keep him going on this; keep that communication line in. And 
the next requirement is do something for the pc. Do something 
productive; use the communication line. Now that you've got the 
telephone in your hands, for God's sakes, talk! See? There's nothing 
quite as silly as receiving a transatlantic telephone call where the 
other person then doesn't talk.

They phoned you - I got one not a month or two ago, and the person 
actually at the other end of the line stood there with a live phone 
in their hand with nothing to say. Undoubtedly they had something to 
say, but they just couldn't think of it, time it finally got 
through.

And many an auditor who isn't getting a result with a pc is sitting 
there with the telephone in his hand not saying anything, see? He's 
got all the lines in.

"Hello, hello. Are you there?"

"Oh yes, I'm here. Bright and cheerful."

"Oohh!"

See? Now, too much astonishment to say anything to the pc, see?

So we go back to putting communication line in, see? Best thing to 
do is to call back central and find out if we really do have a call 
to the pc, you see? Find out if it was the correct number after all. 
Call up the rate operator and find out how much it's costing.

Do you see? Do you see? You can walk right up to this crucial point 
and then die on the vine. You can start getting tone arm action on 
the pc and then never press it home. This thing - all of a sudden 
there's a big drop. You said - well, just take this weird little 
process, "What's sensible?" see?

And he says, "Well, the most sensible person I ever knew was my old 
instructor." Wiff.

You know, you've got some tone arm. You make a note over here: 
"Instructor gave a tone arm action."

And so on and so on, and "What's uh ... what's the question again? 
Sensible. Sensible. What does sensible mean? Is sensible a sensible 
word?" And so forth. No tone arm action there, you see?

And you say, well look, there was a bit of a tone arm motion there 
when he said "the old instructor."

"You said something about this old instructor being sensible."

"Uh ... oh, yeah! Oh, terrifically sensible man." More TA, see?

"Well, have you adopted any of his views or anything like that?"

"Oh yes, my whole life has been monitored by his views," you see? 
See, big TA going on. And we'll go on this way and all of a sudden 
he's - he knew the pc was going to fail. Pc suddenly gets that in 
crosswise, you see? You'll see a big reaction and then the more 
reaction, the more reaction, and all of a sudden the pc suddenly 
cognites, "Maybe that's why I'm failing all the time. I am 
bluuoooow-bloo," see? "Yeah! That guy is a fool. I ... I didn't ... 
He wasn't sensible at all. Ha! What do you know about that!" You 
see? Big TA action occurs right before that moment. If you're riding 
right up on your toes, you won't expect another whisper to come out 
of that old man. You won't ask for another whisper to come out of 
it, nothing. That's gone. That is dead. That's as dead as 
yesterday's newspaper.

You see, that's where the tone arm leads you into this. And if I was 
trying to teach you totally mechanically, I'd say you go ahead and 
make sure there is nothing flat in there, but actually your 
communication line is at risk all the time you're trying to find out 
if anything else is in that. Your communication line is at risk. 
You're liable to unplug the whole switchboard.

"Well, hell, I told you! I had the cognition, you know? I told you 
already! I have ... How many times do I have to ...?"

There goes your communication line, you see? And after a while, 
you'll get the point. You'll say, "Look, we're pulling switches out 
of the switchboard here. We're messing things up," and come off of 
it.

Actually, if you're very, very clever, you'll run a process that 
cyclically produces this sort of thing by a general question, so 
that you don't make that particular goof. You don't have to make the 
piece of judgment which I just gave you all the time, see?

It took me a long time - really, it took me as an auditor a long 
time to learn when to give up on somebody. You know? Learn when to 
give up on a subject. And I finally got clever and tuned my antenna 
up on a Martian wavelength and got it up to a point where that thing 
was flat, I could see that was flat, see, and where, if I pursued it 
any further, I would now get into trouble - where I had done 
something for the pc and trying to do anything further along that 
particular line would put my communication line at risk. And I got 
to a point where I could judge that, just like that, you know? - pc 
happy, tone arm increasing every session, everything going along 
swingingly. But let me tell you that it is a very interesting point. 
It'd be something I would be very happy to be able to teach you. But 
I'm afraid it's something that you learn on the basis of 
observation.

Now, in Level VI you're learning that: there is nothing deader than 
a dead item. When it has give up its ghost, there is no more tone 
arm action there. If there is any more cognition in it, any more 
read in it, yes, yes, you could get it out. But you develop a 
sensitivity after a while as an auditor. You know when it has given 
up its ghost. And you know that just mentioning it or referring to 
it one more time is practically fatal. Your pc just feels like he's 
being ground into the dirt.

See, just one more mention of that item and you've had it. See? And 
you'll start to get a tick-tocky needle, and other undesirable 
phenomena sets in. And if you keep it up ... "You know, well, I'm 
not sure whether the item has read or not. I didn't have my eye on 
the meter at the time." (Call a pc's attention to the meter, always, 
if you want ARC breaks.) "I didn't have my eye on the meter and I 
don't really know whether it read or not. And of course, I must, I 
must have seen it read before I can go on, but maybe I missed it." 
That's one of the most marvelous ARC-breaky situations that I could 
possibly set up, and yet it's one of the commonest ones.

Now let's take this same situation. There was only so much charge, 
see, on this old instructor or something like that. See, there's 
only that much charge on him. You've got it! He wasn't an item. He 
was a lock of some kind or another. But boy, you blew it! You've 
seen it blow; you've seen the pc change before your very eyes. Now, 
that's the time to unload; that's the time to swing off that freight 
train and hit the gravel and grab another one - not necessarily 
change the process, but certainly don't press that guy any further 
in the direction of what has just given TA.

You could now ask him - but there's ways of asking auditing 
questions that are part of the communication line; there is a way of 
dismissing everything you have been talking about while asking the 
same question as you did before. You know? Sort of like "Well, all 
right, we've taken care of that. You've gotten all of that. Good. 
Good, I'm glad we've finished off with that. All right, now let's 
get back to the original process now: What's sensible?"

You get an idea? There is a thing an auditor can do. He doesn't have 
to say all those things I just said, but that is the way he is 
building the atmosphere. You know, he acknowledges on the idea, "Oh, 
that old tutor you had. Yeah. All right. Well, we got that. Good. We 
got that. Let's ..." so on - even do a little business here about 
crossing it all off, you know? And, "All right, now we're getting 
back on the original process. Okay."

Here, you see? Now, we say - same auditing question - we say, 
"What's sensible?" But he obviously knows that it's now being 
addressed to some entirely different zone of the mind, and as such 
you shift that. You're still doing something for the pc. Do you 
follow this?

So there's getting up to the bus, and then there's getting in it and 
going someplace. And you could become a past master at auditing 
discipline and motions and so forth (and actually have to be a past 
master at it anyhow before you can carry on the rest of it), never 
carry it another sixteenth of an inch, have a lot of pcs that 
absolutely loved you and swore by you, who went right on having 
lumbosis. And you would say, "What in the name of heaven has 
happened to me? What terrible catastrophe am I looking at here?"

Well, everything is fine, except you're not doing anything for the 
pc. You got right up to there and got in the bus but you never drove 
off anyplace and you never did anything. That's the whole secret of 
auditing. It's in two sections.

Of course, Level VI, you do it so fast that you hardly get a chance 
to ... You call this, and boom! it goes, and that's the end of it. 
And of course, there it's predicted where the charge is going to be, 
and you know what's going to fire and all that sort of thing. So you 
say, "Well, this is something different." No, it isn't any different 
at all. Cleverer auditing is below IV. See, you've got to be clever. 
There's ways of asking auditing questions, which is the same 
question, which could make the pc believe implicitly that his answer 
had not been accepted.

I'm sure we've all had, at one time or another, this trouble: We've 
repeated the auditing question, and the pc thinks his cognition has 
been invalidated. So then, to prove to him that his cognition has 
not been invalidated, we preserve our communication line by wildly 
changing a process that is not flat as a general process. And that 
is one of the most flagrant examples, and that is the most general 
reason why auditors run lots of processes. They haven't mastered the 
trick of convincing the pc that his cognition has been accepted, and 
that they're all done with that particular zone or area of the 
process, and that the process that is being run is now expected to 
go into some other zone or area.

Direction of attention, this comes under. You can do some pretty 
wild things with direction of attention. You can exaggerate this up 
like mad. Pc says, "Oh! Oh yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! You're asking me 
'sensible.' Oh, yeah. Textbooks. Yeah. Ho-ho-ho-ho-ho!" Big 
blowdown, see?

You say, "What's with textbooks?"

"Oh well, God, you know, they pretend they're sensible, and nobody 
can make any sense out of them at all. Ha-ha!"

Gone - that TA now is gone, man. You understand it; that's as far as 
you're permitted to pursue it. You've now done something for the pc. 
It isn't manifested in any degree that you will notice right there 
at that moment. But how do you now convince the pc that your next 
same auditing question is not actually going to be addressed to 
textbooks? Well, there are crude mechanisms for doing it.

"All right. We've taken care of textbooks. Now, in some other zone 
or area, what's sensible?" That's doing it with an ax. "We got your 
communication. We consider that that particular zone or area is 
complete and we're not asking you to do anything more in that zone 
or area because you've already gotten the tone arm action out of 
that. Now, asking exactly the same auditing question, but addressing 
it to some other zone or area of the mind, what's sensible?" See, 
this is the message which you're putting across in the middle of 
your communication line.

Now, you can make - you could do some weird, weird, weird things 
with cases. It's quite unbelievable what you can do with a case, 
steering him around in this particular zone on some general process. 
Now, this is not running an alternate process; this is really not 
running itsa. This is merely a finished method of handing a process 
to a pc: is run him to cognition, run him to cognition. And that's 
actually not new. It's running the pc to cognition. But it's on the 
same thing.

And nearly everybody has understood running to cognition, "change 
the process when the pc has cognited." Well, that is very far from 
true. You change the sub-subject of the process on the cognition: 
you don't change the process.

Your process can be far too specific. It can be a sub-process. 
"Right around the vicinity of this rug," you see, "have you ever 
made a footprint?" See? Well, it's so circumscribed as an auditing 
question that it's really a sub-question anyhow. So what you really 
want to run on a pc is a broad question which you've already
established, and running to cognition is knocking off the sub-
cognitions on it. Now, you take something as broad as "What's 
sensible?" Oooh, that's broad.

Now, of course, "Putting footprints on this rug," see - that's 
sensible. "I don't know why it's sensible," he suddenly says. "There 
doesn't seem to be any reason at all why I should put footprints ... 
Do you know, I see a rug of this particular type and I always have 
to put a footprint on it. That's real crazy. That's real crazy. I 
think that's Wadsworth or somebody, 'Footprints on the sands of 
time,' yeah. It already ... yeah. Yes, I learned the poem when I had 
scarlet fever. Yeah. Yeah, there was a rug in the room the same as 
the rug in this room. Oh, that's what that's all about."

"All right. Good." (And you've had your blowdown.) "All right. 
That's fine. Now, aside from that and footprints and that sort of 
thing, which we've got, and so forth, what's sensible?"

See, this is parking it. That's how to really, smartly run by 
cognition. You can be smarter than a tack if you pursue this 
particular course. But I'm warning you that that particular approach 
requires some sensitivity on the part of the auditor. He has to ask 
himself this question continually: "What have I done for the pc?"

I used to run an auditing session until I had done something for the 
pc. You take a short-attention pc, particularly: The session was 
exactly as long as it took me to do something for the pc. And 
horribly enough, some of those sessions would go four or five hours, 
and I had thought they would run as long as fifteen minutes. But 
that's because we never got into the communication cycle necessary 
to do something for the pc. And it'd take maybe that long to 
establish a communication line before we could start to ask the pc 
what's cooking. See?

You'll sometimes start asking an alternate question of a pc, back 
and forth, and notice that the answers are dodgy. These are dodgy 
answers. Well, merely and completely recognize out of that dodginess 
just one thing: that your communication line to the pc has failed in 
some particular way.

I'll give you an example. You start to process a child; you start to 
process a child on the idea of "What problems do you have?" You're 
going to process this child, you see? And the child is sitting there 
very dodgily answering this question. And they appear to be very 
reluctant to answer the question. You realize that this reluctance 
isn't really any withhold or anything, it's just that the child 
cannot talk to you. Then you suddenly realize that the process you 
should have started in on was "What could you say to me?"

You maybe process the child on something very fundamental, like 
"What problems do you have?" and get no place because you aren't 
doing anything for the pc. So therefore you get minimum tone arm 
action and so forth. Well, you haven't established a communication 
line to the pc. You shift your gears and ask something that has 
nothing to do with ... The child has been sick, let us say, and the 
child feels badly and there's a lot of things wrong with this child. 
And you shift off onto a process such as "What could you say to me?" 
and "What would you rather not say to me?" And you say, well, 
there's lots of mechanisms in this such as withholds coming off and 
all that sort of thing. But the surprising thing about it is you now 
have tone arm action, you now have a session running because you're 
getting in your communication line. At the same time, you're 
incidentally getting off a few withholds, which is doing something 
for the pc, too, at the same time you're getting in a communication 
line.

A process like that tends to confuse you. You see why it'd be 
confusing? Because it's putting in the communication line and it's 
doing something for the pc at the same time.

Well, there are a great many of these processes in Scientology which 
get in the communication line and do something for the pc at the 
same time.

So therefore, this breakdown of getting into communication with the 
pc and then doing something for the pc, becomes obscured because 
you're doing them both at once. And then you begin to become 
confirmed in the idea that getting in the communication line is 
what's doing something for the pc. See? So the whole subject now 
gets lost all over again. Even though you do, then, use a 
combination that accomplishes both at once, don't lose sight of the 
fact that there are two actions, and you won't make very many 
mistakes along this line.

Now, all of this is really a prelude to O/W. Because O/W is just 
about the greatest, handy-jim-dandy little communication wrecker 
that an auditor ever had very much to do with. And an auditor loses 
the ARC he has with the pc a time or two and he becomes very timid. 
And he starts asking, "Do you have any overts? Have you committed 
any overts?"

And the pc says, "Uh ... yes. Well, I thought people were mean to 
me, and it was really an overt to think that against myself."

And the auditor says, "Well, he got off a big overt," and so forth. 
And they will go on this way and on this way and on this way and on 
this way as sort of a motivatorish, critical think, you know? And 
the auditor never tags it and never nails it and never does anything 
about it and never corrects it, and nothing happens with the pc and 
the communication line doesn't improve because the pc is actually 
running a falsity. And it just winds up in a pile of garbage. You 
see, we really never get anyplace.

So we're really adventuring on something that is very, very 
intricate when we're adventuring on O/W. It's not a simple 
mechanism. Because although handled rightly, it would put in the 
communication line at the same time it was doing something for the 
pc, the auditor protects his communication line to the pc - he 
protects his communication line to the pc - by not asking anything 
embarrassing. And he permits his pc to sit there with withholds in 
the session, half ARC broke, with the communication line flying out 
the window. And he never presses home to find one of these things 
out. He can even get a read on the meter that it exists and never 
really ask for it because he doesn't want to risk his communication 
lines. So this makes O/W dicey.

Now, another thing that made it dicey in the old days is the fact 
that withhold occurs in the bank. And you should not use the word 
withhold.

Of course, withhold is an out-of-ARC condition and it's an out-of-
ARC process and actually cannot be run solo. You can take an out-of-
ARC process and run it in combinations with an ARC process. You can 
say, "What have you done? What have you not done?" You could say, 
"What have you said? What have you not said?" You could say, "What 
have you thought? What have you not thought?" or something like 
that. But again, "thought" is a risky one because that also occurs 
in the bank. But "done," fortunately, really doesn't occur in the 
bank.

Now, I've told you that O/W is senior to the bank. Now, this might 
lead you to believe that once you'd got the bank gone you'd still 
have O/W. No, this is not the case. It is senior in that it will key 
out the bank.

Now, let's look at this a little more intimately and find why it 
keys out the bank: because the whole common denominator of the bank 
would be "done." That's the common denominator of the whole reactive 
bank. In other words, a high order of lock. Anybody who knows the 
constituency of the bank could look those things over and he'd 
certainly say, "Heh-heh! Yeah, that's true." It's just a high order 
of lock, don't you see?

So it's a lock on all parts of reactivity. Now, when we specify what 
things have been "done to," we err because we might run into another 
piece of the bank, you see? So the generalized statement, or a 
common - or the proper name of somebody, is quite allowable.

We find our pc has a present time problem with Oswald. Perfectly 
proper to say, "What have you done to Oswald?" We're not running 
into any bank because he hasn't got Oswald as part of the basic 
reactive mind. "Men" - that might be different; that might be too 
close in. But this guy Oswald - what have we done to Oswald?

Now, we'd find, weirdly enough, that the communication line to 
Oswald would have been interrupted because of an overt to Oswald, so 
therefore, one couldn't communicate to Oswald.

A present time problem is also produced by failing to complete a 
communication. There is really one for the book. That's something I 
don't think I have told you. I've known it for a long time but I 
just think I've omitted mentioning it. I might have. I might have 
mentioned it, but I doubt it. A present time problem can be created 
by a failure to complete a communication cycle. This is so much the 
case that if your pc, coming into session, were asked - you were to 
ask your pc coming into session - "Is there any communication you 
haven't completed?" the pc would rattle off several and the pc would 
not register on present time problem. This is another method of 
handling PTPs. They tend to vanish under this.

Now, you're not trying to erase the PTPs anyway. All you're trying 
to do with these PTPs is get them out of the road so that you can 
audit somebody. You never erase, in rudiments, anyway. Actually, you 
never erase in anything below Level VI now. So your action here is a 
destimulative action and that question all by itself will adequately 
destimulate the pc so the pc can be audited. You'll find it very 
seldom that you will fail to get around a present time problem with 
that question. Of course, the problem can still be there, but the 
pressure is gone on it.

Now, "I got PTPs," the pc says.

You say, "Well, what communication have you failed to complete?" or
haven't you completed with regard to these?"

And the pc says, "Brrop, brrop, brrrop, brrop, brrrop, brrop" and 
that's the end, and you don't get - none will register on PTP That 
would be a common experience.

Now, the reason he has PTPs with these people and hasn't completed 
the communication is because he's got overts. So we get the 
secondary consideration on PTPs: You never have a PTP with anything 
you don't have an overt on. Of course, that's primary, really. Your 
PTPs stem from overts. If you have an overt against a telephone 
pole, you will have a PTP with a telephone pole - something like 
this.

Psychosomatics go back to PTPs, which go back to overts. So you can 
actually run out psychosomatics on this, but it's a rather 
adventurous undertaking. You're liable to get the pc into more than 
you can easily get him out of. But you can, in extremis, handle a 
psychosomatic illness on the basis that it must be a present time 
problem. See? The guy's got lumbosis. All right. Then, immediately 
you have two approaches.

The least adventurous of these approaches, and the swiftest one to 
handle, is the guy has got lumbosis of the blumjum, and you say, 
"Well, what communication haven't you completed to or about the 
blumjum?"

"Oh, well, that's simple. I had an appointment at the hospital, and 
I was aust-auf-hauf-nauv and I had an appointment there. And I was 
supposed to go to the drugstore and then get some stuff, and uh ... 
so forth. And I ... actually, I was telling my aunt Maizie the other 
day about the blumjum - was a very obstructive mechanism as far as I 
was concerned. And I didn't finish the letter and ... What? The 
somatic is gone. What happened?" The pc is liable to be very 
startled at this point because they are apparently not talking about 
anything that has anything to do with doing something for the 
blumjum. That's what I mean by it's very, very difficult to keep 
lumbosis around. It is. It takes a lot of doing.

So we have these two approaches, not just one: the unfinished cycle 
of communication to or about the "it"; the unfinished cycle of 
communication to or about the object that you're trying to handle, 
which is a PTP, Guy has a present time problem with Internal 
Revenue. Well, we don't much care about wondering and settling this 
problem but we certainly want him less obsessively concerned with 
it. So let's do something to get rid of this problem.

All right. The easiest pitch is an unfinished cycle of communication, 
and the second one is a "done."

And let me call to your attention, you have now followed out the 
exact one-two that I gave you for the auditor to a pc. See, this is 
the way the mind stacks up.

Now, it's quite sensational just getting a communication line 
straightened out to something. This is quite sensational. It doesn't 
really finish off everything there is to finish off. It is merely 
sensational. So the best thing to ask a pc who has a PTP - the best 
thing to ask this pc to get rid of his PTP - is "What cycle of 
communication have you failed to complete with regard to this?" - to 
it or about it.

See, he's given you a present time problem: "Present time problem 
with my wife."

"All right. What cycle of communication have you failed to complete 
.. or have you not completed" (better wording) "to your wife or 
about your wife? Hm?" And it all sort of goes bzz-bzz-bzz, and 
an awful lot of the time this problem evaporates as a problem. 
But you haven't taken very much care of this problem yet because 
you've approximated the one-two of the auditor, you see? You've 
really not done anything about the problem. You've just eased it 
off. See? You've gotten in there so that you could do something 
about it.

But you will very often find out quite magically that for the 
purposes of destimulation and getting on with the session on what 
you were doing yesterday and so forth, that it's quite adequate. And 
you very often find that in the field of psychosomatic auditing that 
it's quite adequate.

The severity of the illness has nothing whatsoever to do with the 
ease or difficulty of its release. These two things are not 
comparable. You'll find some guy with some sniveling little sinus 
condition that merely nags him that takes a thousand hours of itsa 
before it finally surrenders. And this other bird has got a busted 
back and can't even move his feet, and you might cure the whole 
thing up in five minutes. Don't ever measure the length of auditing 
by the violence of the condition, because they are not necessarily 
in keeping, one after the other. They're not.

So anyway, there's your first chance. Just with an auditorian 
auditor can sometimes sit down and audit a pc for a few minutes. He 
just gets in his communication line, you see? The other fellow finds 
out there's somebody he can talk to: the auditor with his good 
discipline and everything. And all of a sudden the guy feels 
wonderful, see? And he says, "Well, it's all settled now."

And the auditor says, "Wait a minute, that can't be; I didn't do 
anything, you know?" That's true, but as far as this guy is 
concerned it's all settled. He's got one human being out of the 
whole sun, moon, or stars he could talk to, and this was enough to 
momentarily key him out and make him feel better - perfectly 
adequate action. And then you go around waiting for this miracle to 
happen again, don't you see?

Well, the miracle maybe won't happen for many a pc because, of 
course, what the missing thing was, is you didn't do anything for 
this first pc and you knew it. So you get lazy and you expect to go 
on through auditing, not doing anything for people and have them 
feel marvelous.

I think that's the one-shot Clear and so on. You see, if that 
existed, we'd all be out of work. So you can bless your stars it 
doesn't.

But you occasionally get this type of a reaction: You'll get 
somebody reading - just reading a book on Scientology - and all of a 
sudden going well all over the place, you see? Well, that's because 
somebody understands them or somebody knows what it's all about or 
somebody has put his finger on what the score is with life. And just 
the fact that this data could exist all of a sudden gives a guy a 
resurgence and he gets out of his sickbed. This has happened many, 
many times. That's just the first step, see? That's the 
communication step.

Now, this other step, when it doesn't occur automatically, you want 
to be able to do something about it. You don't go around expecting 
the accident to happen all the time, you see? So you ask this - let 
me take it up in the most elementary session form possible; terribly 
elementary session form - and that is, "Do you have a present time 
problem?"

"Oh, well. Yeah. Oh, yo ... oh boy, do I have a ... Oh-h-h, man! Ha-
a-a. You ... you should ask."

"All right. Well, is there any communication you have not completed 
with regard to those problems?"

"Oh, brr, brrzz, brzzzz, brzzzz, brzzz, brzzz, brzzz, brzzz, brrzzz, 
brzzz." Problem is all gone. You say, what magic! How marvelous! All 
right. That's fine. That's fine. But remember what you have just 
done is the lick and the promise. See, you have not gone any more 
fundamentally into it than that.

Now supposing you were in the horrible condition of having said 
"What communication have you failed to complete about those present 
time problems?"

Pc says, "Oh well, none of that would do any good. Nothing. One 
couldn't, you know? That's it." Now what do you do? Your favorite 
card trick has laid an egg. Now where do we go?

Well, there's number two. You see, you should realize that up to 
this point you haven't done number two. You haven't done anything 
for the pc; so this second one is "done." You see, "doing something" 
is mostly "done." See, they rhyme; they go together very nicely.

Now, why? Because it's the highest common lock of the whole reactive 
mind. If he has a present time problem with something, he has overts 
against it. And if you really want to do something about these 
things now, you had better get off those overts. If this has been 
getting in your way consistently and continuously, you jolly well 
better get off of those overts. You better get them off of that 
case, man, because they are big and they are flagrant and they are 
mad.

If your card trick won't work of "What communication have you failed 
to complete?" (I keep saying "fail to complete." You should never 
use "failed" as an auditing command. It's an old habit.) "What 
communication have you not completed?" or "haven't you completed?" 
You got the other one - the other one. Now, that's doing something 
for a pc. And there is such a vast difference between the amount of 
skill required, between saying [to] somebody "What communication 
hasn't been completed?" See, brrrrda, da, da. It doesn't upset him; 
it's not embarrassing; there's no social status challenged here. 
You're improving his communication so your communication with him 
improves. It requires nothing of your auditing discipline. See, 
that's the lazy, long sleep. Why? Because it's really just step 1 
again.

Now you're going to have to "done." And man, that takes auditing - 
that takes some auditing. I know of seventeen different ways that 
you might have to approach a case in order to get off a series of 
overts, to actually throw out of existence all of the pc's upset 
about it. And you might have to use every single one of them.

There are lots of them. There's overts in chains; there is the 
subject of recurring withholds; there's the subject of the recurring 
overt; there is the subject of getting the basic-basic of something; 
the formulation of the proper question to ask so that ... This can 
get pretty complicated. We've had all that technology here over a 
period of time. A lot of you are here who have been here before, and 
so forth, have sweat it out. But it's very valuable technology.

Some individual keeps telling you that he threw mud at a car when he 
was sixteen, and this is an overt. And he gives you this overt and 
he gives you this overt and he gives you this overt - nothing 
happens. But he keeps telling you this overt. Well now, you have to 
know what is happening here and know what to do about it. Otherwise, 
he'll just keep on giving you the overt. This is part of a chain of 
overts. This is what's known as a recurring overt.

And the trouble with it is, is you're nowhere near its basic. And 
now you have to be able to codify the question necessary to get the 
basic of the chain. And you have to be able to audit this sort of 
thing by chains. And this can become very interesting indeed. And 
then you have to be prepared to find no overt as the bottom of the 
chain. And that is one of the more mysterious things. The guy has 
always believed that he had an overt there and none was there. 
There's that phenomenon which can hold a chain in. In other words, 
there's plenty to know about this.

But man is basically good, despite his reactive bank. The reactive 
bank is only composed to make a man commit overts, which is against 
his better nature. If he commits these overts, therefore, he'll trap 
himself because he won't go on communicating, having committed them. 
So it's the perfect trap. You do not want to talk to people you have 
wronged. I'm very shy of letting anybody wrong me, not because they 
will do me any damage, because they can sure cut themselves up. They 
commit an overt act, don't you see, and then they will try to
withhold and sever the communication line for fear that they will
commit another overt act. That actually is the fundamental think of 
man.

After a while he goes out of control and he just starts dramatizing. 
And then you have the murderer and the thief and the rest of the 
fellow who has no responsibility or anything. He's actually left the 
human race by this time. But along some line, that individual will 
still have a sensibility; he will still be sensible of his 
responsibility in some zone or quarter. And, in handling such a 
person, an auditor has to be terrifically good. He has to find some 
zone in that person's existence that that person could commit an 
overt on.

Oh, the person has slain cities full of people, don't you see, and 
he's done this and he's done that. Put any crime on the book; this 
person has done this crime without the least qualms. Ah well. The 
auditor contest there is to find what ... You see, he's totally out 
of communication with everything; that's why he can commit the 
crimes. He's gone. He's just dramatizing. He's not even there. He's 
wooef! All right. You've got to find, as an auditor, some zone he 
can still commit an overt against. What overt would be real to this 
individual? And you'll find some little corner of his existence is 
still an overt.

Now, there is other ways to build up overts in an individual. You 
say, "All right. What have you done? What have you done?" And the 
individual will give you perhaps something which is a rather banal 
statement. You can ask him, "Well, why was it all right to do that?" 
And he will give you a lot of justifications and so forth. There's 
that approach.

Now, what terrible, vicious, mean thing ... This is another thing, 
you see? Just "done" is just "done." You know, "What have you done?"

"Well, I've eaten breakfast." That's a perfectly adequate answer to 
the question, see?

But "What mean, vicious thing have you done?" Now, this would be 
another branch that we call overts. See, just "What have you done?" 
- that can be used; that can be used all bby itself as an auditing 
question. "What have you done?" But you wouldn't, really, except if 
you educated your pc into answering the question under some special 
connotation, you really wouldn't get nothing but overts, you see? 
But it's perfectly valid to do that, to get such answers and so 
forth. The only modifications which you require are "What are you 
absolutely sure you have done?"

Now, let me tell you why that is vitally necessary that you 
understand these two branches of "done": One of "What have you done 
that is socially reprehensible that will prevent you from 
communicating and doing something else?" That's what we call an 
overt. And the other one is just having taken an action in the 
direction of. That's just done, see? It means just that. It means 
having taken an action in the direction of, see? Nothing. No 
significance with regard to it at all.

Now, if we run just plain "done" on the individual, we could be 
totally knuckleheaded as an auditor and not guide the individual in 
any way, and he would immediately start doing something else. Now, 
what would he start doing? He would start looking for the 
explanation. He's running a process.... You're running - you're 
saying, "What have you done? What have you done? What have you 
done?" and the pc is no longer running that process.

Now, hear me now. This is the big liability of this done: The pc now 
starts looking for an explanation for what has happened to him. And 
he's now running the process "Explain what has happened. Uh ... uh 
.. maybe this will explain what has happened to me."

You might as well be asking him, "Explain what has happened to you. 
Explain what has happened to you. Explain what has happened to you." 
That's the process he's running. He's running "Explain what has 
happened to you," but you're running "What have you done?" Now, 
unless you're aware of the fact that almost any pc under the sun 
will convert the process "Done" to "Explain what has happened to 
you," you will never be able to run a pure done on a pc. If you 
don't know this, then you can't run done on a pc. He'll convert it. 
He starts looking for the explanation, and he will start inventing 
things he has not done in order to get rid of the consequences which 
he is experiencing. He's trying to find a good enough overt to 
explain what is occurring in his life.

Now there is your considerable difference in these processes. And 
what an auditor has trouble with there, then - we'll recapitulate 
very rapidly - an auditor then has trouble differentiating between 
communicating with a pc and doing something for a pc. And then when 
he gets into running "done," he doesn't want to sacrifice his 
communication line in order to press home any nasty personal little 
facts, you see? So he never really presses home his question. And 
the next action is, he runs into the square brick wall of the pc 
doesn't run the process. The pc runs "Explain what has happened."

Well, a fellow is subject to continuous headaches. So he will 
actually, in a desperate condition, start giving you fictitious 
deeds - fictitious deeds. He'll very often go onto the far backtrack 
to give you a fictitious deed. You always want to beware of that 
because you know at once that this happens that the individual has 
done this to you. "I shot fifteen Praetorian Guards in Rome." Oh, 
no, no, no, no, that is not an answer to the auditing question, 
because the auditing question is, understand, "What do you jolly-
well, damn-well know you've done?" But what auditor is going to 
sacrifice his communication line by cutting off a pc - shooting him 
down in flames to that degree? No, you'll listen to a couple of 
these, but all right, steer it back to where it belongs! Because 
he's looking for an explanation.

He isn't trying to find what he'd done. All you want is "What are 
you certain you've done, bud?" That's all the answer you want. "What 
are you real certain - what do you know, absolutely, that you have 
done?"

You could work a gradient scale up from "I know I've eaten 
breakfast. In fact, I know that sometime during the last year I've 
eaten. Uhh ... yes, what have I done? What am I absolutely certain I 
know? I know I've spent some money. I know I must have spent some 
money in the last few days. I don't really have any exact 
recollection of any money, but I have less money now than then, so 
therefore I must have spent some money in the last few days."

"All right. Well, do you know you've spent some money in the last 
few days?" Well, this is an actual auditing sequence, you see? "Do 
you know you've spent some money in the last few ...?"

"Well, I must have because I have less money now."

"Well, that is to say, you're just computing that you spent some 
money in the last few days. Do you know that you spent any money in 
the last few days? Come on. Where did you spend some money in the 
last few days?"

"Oohh, my God! You ask me a question like that. I ... oh-ong-oo-oo-
oo. Mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mmm. Done. Hm-mmm-mm. Ha-ha-ha. Sixpence. I spent 
a sixpence for a lolly."

"All right. Good enough. Here's the next question: What have you 
done?" "Well, well, well, let's see. What have I done? What have I 
done? Let's see. Let's see." Starts squeezing his head a little bit. 
"What have I done ... done ... Well, I was a headsman once that 
worked up in the Tower and I missed Anne Boleyn's head and hit her 
in the flat of the head with an ax." You know what he's figured out? 
He tried to answer the question, he got a headache, so he tried to 
explain why he had the headache, so he reaches back into the fast 
[past] and he gets some uncertain piece of something. So he tries to 
offer you something that is enough overt to give him that much 
headache. And that's why it's very difficult.

Now, you'll find that people who answer the question that way - the 
test is do they ever get well? No, they have an awful time. They 
have a pretty bad time.

No, it isn't, actually, whether they did do it or didn't do it. It's 
their degree of certainty on having done it! See? I can very easily 
go five hundred years ago back into France and give you the name, 
rank and serial number of a lot of things, see? And I can give these 
things to you, but after I've run a few of them I start running into 
"Let's see, was her name Mary? Or was it Marie? Or was it ...? And 
did that happen at Agincourt? Or was that at Poitiers?" Next thing 
you know I'm in a fog. And if I go on this way very long, I'll start 
wondering whether I even was alive yesterday, because I haven't 
entered it from a zone of certainty - See? I've entered it from a 
zone of dim recollection or something like this, you know?

So "done" is built up on a gradient of certainty, not built up on a 
gradient of explanations of what is happening to the pc or has 
happened to the pc. You might even convert the question so that it's 
"What are you quite positive that you have done?" You want to be 
careful about saying "absolutely certain." (audience laughter)
[We assume that "absolutely certain" approximates some implant 
platen known to the students - Ed.]

See, it's no criticism of the pc or even the pc's memory, but that 
pc is actually trying to explain something or they wouldn't be 
shooting back on the backtrack trying to give you an explanation. 
See, that's the thing you've got to watch; that's the thing you've 
got to be awful careful of. Because they're going to dig themselves 
in, in an awful hurry.

So, again, you wouldn't be doing anything for the pc by running 
"done." So, again, it comes under the heading of doing something for 
the pc. Well, there's a lot of things you could do with a pc without 
doing anything for the pc. There's a lot of phenomena that you can 
achieve without achieving anything for the pc. You can turn on some 
very, very handsome somatics at one time or another on a pc without 
turning them off, too.

So anyway, you've got a problem here in doing something for the pc 
because you're liable to be doing A and the pc is doing B. And then 
you go on doing A while the pc is doing B, and then somewhere down 
the line you wind up in a hell of a mess. And you say, "Well, what 
happened?" Well, the pc never did what you said, so you didn't do 
anything for the pc. There was in actual fact no barrier to your 
willingness to do something for the pc but there must have been a 
tremendous barrier to your understanding of what was going on. That 
you could ask A and the pc answered B in itself showed the auditor 
observation was very poor. So therefore the auditor wasn't in 
communication with the pc, so again the communication factor was 
out. So once more we weren't doing anything for the pc.

Now, this is where the thing adds up. Now, if you're going to 
communicate with the pc - if you're going to communicate with the pc 
- it's to the end of doing something for tthe pc. Now, if your 
communication with the pc is good, you will wind up then in a 
position to do something. But having gotten in a position to do 
something, for heaven's sakes, now do something. See? Don't halfway 
do something or partially do something. This isn't difficult, what 
I'm talking to you about; it's just putting things in their right 
boxes in their right compartments.

Don't ever think, because the pc likes you and everything is going 
along fine and you get along together so well, that you're doing 
something for the pc. No, you're communicating well to the pc. So, 
in communicating very well to the pc, you now have an opportunity to 
do something for the pc. But then your own communication channel to 
the pc could go out, and you could be asking the pc A and be getting 
answers for B. And then again you wouldn't do anything for the pc, 
if there was a second place where it can break down.

Now, your gist - the gist of the situation then is that O/W is 
liable to be the most productive zone or area for big recovery on 
the part of the pc, providing the auditor knows how to steer it and 
will steer it and isn't being too tender about it.

There's dozens of ways to run this sort of thing. You can get in 
there and you can say, "All right. What big overt have you committed 
in this lifetime?" That was to take O/W from the version of overt, 
you know, so on.

All right. "What overt have you committed? What big overt have you 
committed in this lifetime?"

Think, think, think, think, think, think, think, think, think. 
"Well, I upset Joe. Yes. Yes, that was about the biggest overt in 
this lifetime. I really upset Joe."

"All right. Fine." You think you've gotten someplace now. Of course 
you haven't gotten anyplace: your tone arm hasn't moved; there's 
been no cognition - there's been nothing like this. This thing is in 
a situation where it can be set up in a dozen different ways. You 
haven't gotten anyplace yet but you've gotten a "big overt."

Now, you think perhaps that his having told you, now, should somehow 
or another magically discharge this thing. No, why should it 
magically discharge it? He hasn't answered the auditing question, 
for one thing. He doesn't think it was an overt.

"What big overt have you committed in this lifetime?"

"Well, this horrible thing I did to Joe." He tells you what it is, 
rather proudly.

And you say, well, O/W doesn't work because nothing happened. Man, 
you didn't even get your big toenail wet on the side of the Pacific. 
The sixty-four dollar question now is "Well, why wasn't it an 
overt?"

"Oh, well, it wasn't an overt because Joe is a heel and because of 
this and because of that, and so forth; and he deserved it, and it's 
the common thing to do in those circumstances; everybody expected me 
to do it, and of course it was natural that I would because I have a 
reactive bank, and it forced me to do it."

Now, a guy can go on for some time on the justification of this 
overt. And you start to get tone arm action, tone arm action, tone 
arm action. Now you're watching the increase of responsibility along 
certain zones or lines. And this person has not flattened the 
process because he has not come up to a cognition or a recognition 
of anything yet, but he's sure working on it. And that tone arm is 
a-moving and it's a-moving and it's a-moving and so forth, and we're 
going along on this. "And after all, Joe really was a heel. And he 
wrote me a nasty letter once, which was greh-ta-jub-zra and it was 
absolutely inevitable and impossible that I would have done anything 
else but this because everybody expected me to do this, don't you 
see? And if I hadn't done this, it would have committed an overt 
against a great many other people. (sigh)"

"Now, on this overt against Joe, is it really an overt after all?" 
and so on.

All of a sudden the guy is liable to get this little sensation of 
the glee of insanity, or something like that will start to come off. 
I'm not kidding you. There's a sort of a glee of insanity that 
starts coming off the surface, and so forth. And some little corner 
of him is taking a look at this though, "You know," he said, "that 
there was some part of that that was an overt - mostly against 
myself, of course, because ..."

And a guy will actually worry that and worry that and worry that. 
Now, I'm not prepared to tell you how many hours he could go on 
worrying this, producing tone arm action all the way. I don't know. 
Might be a twenty-five hour intensive on one overt, don't you see? 
Until you get the thing worn down and eventually, all of a sudden, 
he says, "Well, even though it could have been explained, you know, 
that was a hell of a thing to do to Joe. I shouldn't have done that 
to Joe. I'd completely forgotten. I - I'd completely forgotten. II 
had it completely in my choice whether I did it or didn't do it. And 
I did it. Whoo. Yes. Yeah, I committed an overt against Joe. Yeah." 
Boom. S-phewww. You see it blow. And you won't get another scrap of 
TA out of that whole thing.

You got one "done," see, one "done" off the pc. See, there are 
numerous ways to handle these things.

Now, while you have him going through all of this, and so forth - 
particularly because, his being a Scientologist, he may know all the 
ropes - keep him guided into this channel and keep him going right 
on down the line; keep your communication channel, and so forth, 
open to the pc during this period of time. That's all a trick. This 
all takes some doing. But in the final analysis you will have done 
something for the pc - for the pc, not to him.

Now, there is the auditing of O/W. Now, a lot of this lecture, I 
apparently have not been talking to you much about the process O/W, 
I've been talking to you about the version and guises of auditing. 
But unless these things are understood in their proper relationship 
one to another, you will never run any O/W and never get any overts 
off anybody, and really never get any withholds off anybody. You 
know? See, you have to know the technology, you have to know how to 
audit and you have to yourself be in communication with the pc to 
know how to handle this situation.

Now, all the way along the line of what I've been talking to you 
about, you are raising the cause level of the pc. All the way along 
the line you're raising the cause level of the pc. You do these 
things fairly slippily, fairly expertly, you're raising the cause 
level of the pc. And he's walking right up and he'll be able to as-
is more and more and more and more and more and more and more and 
more. Your pc will be changing under your eyes: Your pc doesn't come 
into session with so many PTPs; your pc is much more able to get the 
show on the road; the pc is this and the pc is that. And you're 
seeing this thing progress, don't you see?

Now, you could go into "done" in numerous other categories. I'd 
swear, I don't know, if you piled up all the bulletins on the 
subject of O/W and running withholds in chains and all of this kind 
of thing - man, if you stacked those all up together, you wouldn't 
be able to hardly look over the desk. There's lots of technology. 
You don't need all that technology, perhaps, but it's very nice to 
have it. If you're going to be very expert along these lines, why, 
there it is. Because the mind is quite funny in the various ways 
that it works.

Very often you get a tremendous failure in this particular field in 
trying to direct somebody to do something in this field. They don't 
understand some of these ramifications I've been pointing out to 
you.

I've asked somebody ... A girl is lying dying in a hospital for no 
apparent reason, or something of the sort. And somebody asks me 
frantically - frantically, they'll say, you know, over a long 
distance line or something of this sort, "What can we do to bring 
this girl back to life?" and so forth. And frankly, it's not with 
any hope at all that I tell them what they can do, because I know 
that ordinarily they won't consider it heroic enough. I tell them 
the exact fact of what to do. In such a case as that, the exact 
thing to do was find out what her family doesn't know about. That, 
actually, was enough - they were in sufficient communication with 
the girl in this particular case - that was enough to have gotten 
her out of that bed and back on her feet again.

It wasn't that I knew anything she had done, but I just knew, from 
the sudden discussion of it, that having retreated from home to 
this, and then gone to that point, and then suddenly gone to a 
hospital with an exclamation point and fireworks, and lying there 
dying from no apparent reasons or causes and so forth, that 
obviously there was a withhold there. And that would have taken 
enough off the edge of it, don't you see, because I knew that any 
situation like that, no matter how heroic it appears, must have been 
terribly hard to maintain. That situation like that is so unnatural, 
see? Look at how hard somebody would have to work at it to put it 
all together this way. And it's just like any other complex 
situation: you touch one corner of the house of cards and down it'll 
come. Well, that's the good point to touch.

Some stranger saying to the person, you know, "What doesn't your 
family know about?" - the girl might have opened up, "Well, they 
don't know I had this affair with Bill and so forth, and that I'm 
enceinte," and then all of a sudden have felt much better, don't you 
see? And said, "What am I lying here dying for?" you know, and 
gotten out of bed.

Because people look at the heroicness of the condition, they always 
add it up that it must be an heroic comparable action, and it's not. 
Might be very complex, the reasons they're there, but the very 
complexity makes it untenably hard to hold on to.

No! A madman down here in an asylum, he has a hell of a time - poor 
fellow must work day and night staying in there. He just must work 
overtime! You can see him, "Now I will be ferocious," you know? The 
point of entrance on the thing - it's just, actually, the same 
points I've been talking to you about. You get into communication 
with him and you ask him what's sensible, see, or you ask him what 
he's done or ask him what he's withholding. And you'll just see it 
crack up in front of your eyes.

And that's actually the magic of the world of auditing. That's the 
magic that can be done with auditing. You get the long-grind 
situation, looks like a long grind to you, because you say "What 
have you done?"

"I've murdered the local vicar."

And you're stopped right there; where do you go from there? You have 
no responsibility, you have no nothing, and so forth. So recently we 
have developed ways of handling these no-responsibility - it's 
actually a new development - and compartmented them out so they're 
much more easily handled.

Well, I wish you lots of luck with it, but when I ask you to get 
some withholds off somebody or get some overts off somebody or raise 
somebody's cause level, now at least you know what I am talking 
about.

Thank you.

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




