Jump to content

Training; Duplication (SHSBC 620123): Difference between revisions

From scientopedia
← Older edit
VisualWikitext
Upload missing SHSBC lectures
Tags: Manual revert Reverted
Upload 15ACC lecture series
 
(11 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 7: Line 7:
----
----


Twenty-third Jan. 62, AD 12. And how are you this week? Fair.
← [[Lecture_Index_SHSBC|Back to Series]]


We have three good people from California. I hope that you don't get as chewed up as the others do in their first week or two. That's very insincere.
Thank you very much. It’s not deserved; I’ve been very mean to several of you in the last day or two; very, very mean, with good results. Okay.


The first action a new student has, they've been auditing all this time, they've been doing wonderfully, everything's been going along fine and of course there's nothing to learn. And then they collide with the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course. Crash!
What is this? Audience: 24th. It’s the 24th of Jan.


And somebody says, “All right. Now, what is the confusion and the stable datum” and so forth. And they say, “Well, the confusion uh – is uh – that was uh – mm-hmmm-hm-mm- hm.” And the Examiner says, “Flunk!” And they say, “What?
AD 12 – 1962 – in the Year of Our Travail, especially yours. All right. Now, I have some good news for you.


You have to know this stuff? That's something new.” And then they eventually say to themselves, “You know, I wonder why – if this was possibly why I've missed on a few pcs here and there, that I might not quite have duplicated something just right. I always thought before that the auditor held the cans and . . .” Well, it's not quite that bad.
Going to sit down in this lecture, if you don’t mind. But I have some very, very good news for you, some excellent news for you; that if you were beaten over the head, tortured, treated with sarcasm, hammered and pounded and generally abused, you eventually decide to find out – you go past, you see, merely attacking Ron, you see, that breaks down and you go past that, and you say, “Well now, if this much fuss is being made about it, maybe there is a right way to do it,” and so you try that for a while and nothing much happens. And then if you are hammered and pounded and beaten some more, then you decide to do it right, and then all of a sudden there’s tremendous dawning on every hand that there was something here.


It's worse. All right. Well, that's all due respect.
And that has just happened on this good day of our Dianetics in 1962. This just happened. Several of you in just the last session you ran discovered that 3D Criss Cross worked like crazy; just discovered it – brand-new discovery.


But everybody who comes to this course learns sooner or later that there is something to learn here. After about three weeks of griping, why, then they decide to buckle down. And there's a way to cut short your time on course, is take the first three weeks of griping, scrub them and buckle down now.
Some of you have not made that discov- ery yet, but many of you – the majority that were having any difficulty with this – all of a sudden it dawned that there was something here and that it did work and that the session ran like a hot bomb, and all became suddenly well. Now, the old-time student here who has had a great deal of training – I will say this, a great deal of training shows up along these lines – got results with 3D Criss Cross at once. The second it was presented to them they started getting results with 3D Criss Cross, which is quite interesting, see.


But this is a rough one as you will find out. All right. Well, now, today I haven't the least idea what to talk to you about.
They looked it over, they said “That’s okay,” they started listing and everything, and the next thing you know, they were getting results with it. But those of you who have just come up to the nervous state of newly created IIs didn’t measure up this well. And you’ve been floundering and falling on your heads now for  TRAINING DUPLICATION 2  the better part of two weeks.


You know everything there is to know. There's nothing left, and probably nothing I could teach you at all, at all – except Scientology, of course. That slight reservation.
It has been pretty gruesome. I mean I have actually suffered for you. I didn’t suffer for the PC.


Now, you're about to have – we've been upstairs. . . People think I work all the time. I don't.
I can always straighten out a PC. If I can straighten out a PC, why, I don’t worry about the PC particularly. But I suffered for the poor auditor, sitting there doing exactly what he was told (if doing it backwards), and with Ron shouldering the total responsibility of it all going bad because it probably didn’t work, suddenly waking up, decid- ing to do it right, and then the second step: finding out that it worked like mad.


We've been upstairs loafing this afternoon, testing around on the new TV setup and you will shortly be seeing live sessions on TV. And the reason it's on TV is not because the BBC wants it, but because pcs never respond like pcs when being audited in front of an audience. And you audit the pc with television cameras, one going on a meter and showing up on a  BASICS OF AUDITING 2  television set, and the other one showing up on the session.
Now, that is quite a win. That is a win for me. However, it tends to validate this sys- tem of activity, a system of activity which begins with apathy.


And you audit the pc just as you would run a session. And you run those things which the class is working on or struggling about. But you actually audit the pc and you'll be able to see then what it might possibly look like.
See, you confront somebody in apathy, “Nothing works anyway and there is no way to do anything right anyhow. But if you did do it right nothing would happen, because there isn’t any way to do it right because nothing would happen if you did do it right.” Now, it is sometimes necessary in action to throw a bit of a hand grenade into that par- ticular type of activity and just say “Yow, yow, yow!” outrageously, you see? Say, “Well, look a’here.


And this might help you out a lot. That is something we haven't ever been able to do. Frankly, nearly all sessions are very artificial when they're demonstration sessions because the auditor has to hold down the audience, has to hold down the pc, has to get something done at the same time, has to be careful of the pc's reputation and all that sort of thing You really don't get into a good auditing situation.
You’re only writing on one side of your auditor’s report.” And the person says, “Well, yes, of course I’m only writing on one side of the audi- tor’s report, and all auditors do, don’t they?” “Well, they mostly do, but you shouldn’t, you see?” And then, “You should have known better than that, see? It has never been published or released, so you should have known about it.” Expect the student to have picked it all up telepathically, expect the thing to have sort of leaked in through the pores by association with the tile, or something like that, you see? Doesn’t much matter.


So any auditing demonstration you've ever seen is actually an artificial demonstration, unless it's at long range such as this one. And we've just had a very lucky win here. We have a Grundig camera that apparently it was – it was photographing just fine under the light shined by my cigarette lighter.
Now, this is very pertinent to you in the training of Class IIs. When you start training Class II auditors you should recognize this for what it’s worth, and it’s a little lesson that I could teach you on the subject of raising hell. That’s the title of the lesson, “Raising Hell.” Now, there are two ways you could get somebody out of apathy, see?


So the pc, in this particular case, won't even be blinded by the lights of the television room. The auditing room, of course, is quite remote from here. It's upstairs on the first floor and several – oh, I don't know, one hundred and twenty-five feet from here or something like that.
They don’t know and there is no right way to do it and there are probably no results anyway. Now, there’s two ways to approach this problem. One is on the route of making auditors and the other is on the route of auditing.


I don't know how far. And the auditing session goes on there and you hear it and see it and so forth, down here on two screens. Now, because it's difficult for a class that is this big to see it up, we have two pictures of the session on twenty-three inch screens and we have two pictures of the E-Meter on, I think, seventeen-inch.
Now, the way you make auditors differs entirely, of course, from the way you audit PCs. There are two routes here that we employ, not necessarily for the betterment of cases but for getting the job done. Of course the net result of all this is the betterment of all cases, but there are two routes that we actually employ and you should recognize these as’ distinctly different routes.


Isn't that the way it's supposed to work out or are they . . . ? Male voice: Nineteen. Nineteen.
And the first of these is where a person is concerned as an auditor. And we have always had a bit of line on this, and you found in an Academy in the old days where they didn’t have this policy in force they made very bad auditors. Wow!


And two nineteen-inch screens that show the meter in full view and two twenty-three inch screens that show the session. The only thing that you're going to see that's a little bit different about it – of course, you won't see the green color or the red of my hair. Otherwise, it will be fairly real.
Terrible! And that was this type of an approach: “Well, we know you can’t audit because you have a case, and we’ll try to patch your case up, and if we get your case up, why, then maybe some day you will be  TRAINING DUPLICATION 3  able to audit.” That type of approach does not work in the making of auditors. Just write it down to that.


If you can mock those up and fill them in, you'll be all right. And the – Fowler and Allen has just undertaken to build a Mark IV with a black rough face so that it won't reflect and a gray card. And they didn't like leaving off the glass because they said some dust will get into that element and it'll all of a sudden cease to work and we'll have had it.
You see, if we admitted that the auditor had a case then nobody on this whole planet would ever be sprung. Do you see that? So this is just a piece of arbitrary snarl.


But I think we can do it with the glass on with a gray and a black faced meter. So that looks just like the meter you're using except it's duded up for television so that it registers well. Well, that's what's in the immediate future.
Do you see? This datum must not be true! It isn’t that it is true or isn’t true, it just must not be true!


This will probably be in operation within – certainly well within presentation operation within two weeks. We'll have it done before that actually, probably. But it all depends on the second camera that comes from the North Pole apparently and has a small wait on it of eight or nine years.
See, there’s no logic to it at all. It just must not be true, because otherwise you would never bail anybody out of anything because there would never be anybody to audit him. And true enough, over the years watching Academies that practiced the idea – the D of T. if he had the idea that “If we just processed all these students and somehow or another if I just gave them all a little bit of a case gain, and I got them all in shape so they could confront their PC and if I could get their cases from getting in their roads, why, then I could make them into auditors.” And this goes out as far as this: “If we only let ‘good’ people into the Academy. . .” We don’t know what this “good” person is.


You know, the usual manufacturer's delay. That's the only bug on it. Everybody's working on this at the present  BASICS OF AUDITING 3  time.
He lurks out someplace under the rhododendrons or someplace but he never seems to have come near any organization to date, this “good” per- son, you see? “Now if you could just get ‘good’ people,” that’s the other song you hear, but that’s just a little bit of a downgrade. Immediately after you hear this “good” people action the next tune that you hear being played on the out-of-tune street piano is “If we just could audit all of the cases in the Academy, why, then, you see, they would all be able to audit.” And they of course have propounded a piece of nonsense. You see, if there’s nobody to audit all these cases in the Academy, how the hell are they ever going to get audited?


You'll be seeing men down here stringing wire in all directions shortly. Cable in all directions and so forth. Well, now, that's the – that's the immediate view.
And you don’t have an Academy at all, you have an HGC. So this quickly defeats itself as a philosophy. So very early, I think it was about the 7th ACC, this philosophy was entered into the training of auditors.


This of course doesn't supplant any other training that you're getting or doing. We just add the other hour or two on to your training day and you do everything you're doing now and then this other comes on, too. In a month or two – in a month or two we'll probably have motion pictures going which give you meter reads.
And the philosophy is workable; it is not necessarily true, it is not neces- sarily easy, it is not necessarily kind, sweet or good. It simply works and it is in a workable line, true. But it’s only a workable truth.


And we are already on a scout of that camera so that we can photograph meter reads. And you'll have a mile or two of film and you can sit there and the Instructor can say, “What's that?” And the thing is falling badly. And you say, “A rock slam.” And he says in – he doesn't say flunk, he says, “Infraction sheet.” And you can get a – you can get a good hasty review of what meter reads should look like.
And that is, simply, “Auditors do not have cases,” period. That is the one thing that we must insist on. Now, it goes as far as this, that if he’s slightly warm and you can see a mist on a mirror held against his mouth, he or she is in shape to audit.


One of the things that's most puzzling to people when they show up here is what is a null needle. That seems to be a very controversial item and so forth. And other such things as that and we'll have those things taped, too.
If they can be dragged to the chair and if an E-meter can be propped up in their vicinity, they’re in condition to audit. This goes to a total extremity. They could be sitting there with both legs cut off from a street accident, but they are in shape to audit.


So we're moving up to it and I'm – we're hoping to get this in and operating so that those who are leaving mid-February get a week or two of viewing of this sort of thing so they can straighten out some little thing they may have been doing themselves such as sitting on the pc's lap. Spitting at the pc. Little odd tricks that they've developed unbeknownst to themselves in training, you know.
That’s it. That’s just it. It’s like when nations get down to the last – they’re getting the conscripts from their 14-year-old class, you know, and the 72-year-old class and the 15 year-old class; anybody who dares walk back in through, you see, from hospitals or anything else, anybody who dares come anywhere near the assembly officers who are putting together new regiments, you see, is  TRAINING DUPLICATION 4  instantly just stamped hugely “FIT FOR COMBAT,” see?


Like throwing – throwing the E-Meter out the window to demonstrate that they're dissatisfied with the pc's answers, you know. It's these small bugs that a person picks up in his auditing procedure that possibly could be ironed out. Now, we're very interested in you being a good auditor.
We don’t get it from that particu- lar thing, but it just gives you the idea. Now, when time goes on and a nation gets more fit to work, they start then saying “Well, this person is not fit for combat and should be audited,” and that sort of thing. But let me call something to your attention: that we are not a nation but we are certainly a people, and this is very germane.


And a good auditor's auditing begins first and foremost on an understanding of his basic data. It's quite a fundamental statement of fundamentals. And an awful lot of people pick up a datum and they sail at ten thousand feet with it, you see.
We are not in that condition today where we can say “Well, let’s take this person and let’s audit him for a while, and maybe he’ll learn how to audit some day and – you know, if we get his case out of the road, why, maybe he can audit.” We’re not in that condition. We’re not that wealthy. See, we’re just not that wealthy in people, nor are we that far advanced along the lines.


And they've never landed with this datum and they're still up in the air with this thing. And you'd be surprised how many data can get in crosswise. We're just now learning this in Central Organizations where morale is suffering because people are making them duplicate bulletins.
So this datum not only has been true but will be true for quite a while. Now, oddly enough this is a workable philosophy, totally workable as a philosophy. It does work, and today is one of those days when I have seen this philosophy work.


And they are writing us to find out how we keep up the morale in the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course. And I'm writing back and saying, “Well, it's a very simple answer. We don't.” But this tells you at once that if they have a morale problem, then this tells you that they have never enforced duplication in their Academies.
Some people with Class IIs who are so far from clear they would have to have a moon shot to com- prehend it (talking about cases now, see, just casewise, blcuuhh! see?) have actually been driven in toward the absorption of data, the regularities of practice, to an actual recognition that what they were doing ended in a very, very powerful, fine gain for the PC, and that they could do it. That’s much more important. Now, this is one of those days when that philoso- phy has worked out.


So that somebody's walking into something brand-new when he's asked to totally duplicate a bulletin or totally duplicate a tape or understand exactly what is on this. Or perhaps their examination is buggy. The examination  BASICS OF AUDITING 4  might be poor.
Now, I don’t say that you’re in horrible condition. I’d say when you get some proc- essing and so forth you will probably get up to being in horrible condition. Compare the way you – the condition that you were in a couple of trillion years ago, or 500 trillion or something like that, whatever the outrageous figure might be, and you’re not in such good shape these days, you know?


The examination might be on the basis of “What are the last seven words of the fifth paragraph of the HCO Bulletin of 22 December 1961?” And the fellow can't answer that and so they say, “Flunk,” you see. It's the data you're supposed to know on the bulletins. Of course, if you antagonize the Instructor, the Instructor has a perfect right to ask you what is exactly on that particular bulletin regardless if it contradicts some other bulletin.
And for you to actually start putting together a being – not a human being, anybody can put together a human being. You just take some elec- tronic shock waves and some implants and kick him and destroy all their self-determinism, then destroy other determinism, and then racket him between destroyed self-determinism and destroyed other-determinism, and you fix him up real good and get them to accumulate all masses and never as-is anything, and you’ve got a human being. All right, so you just – it’d be no virtue to make one of those.


What is that bulletin? All the auditor is expected to answer is what is on that bulletin. Not what is the right answer to the question, but what is on that bulletin, which is quite different, you see, than studying things.
Let’s move it up just a little bit further – but to make a functional being, to take a big seven-league boot stride in the direction of making a functional being. Now, that has happened, and that’s just happened just in the last couple of days. This sort of thing has been coming up.


You find out, then, they will develop an acuteness, an alertness to what the – what is being demanded of them. And they can measure up to this. Anyway, when you're studying and you don't have good auditing going forward at the same time and when you're under this much duress and there's no auditing going forward, I don't think it could be done.
I’m very happy about this because it’s far more significant than you might realize at first glance. It means that the thing can be bootstrapped. Now, we expect somebody that’s been under training for a half a year of heavy duress and so forth to be able to pick up a process and be able to do it, but I was very proud when TRAINING DUPLICATION 5  those older students just did that and were able to do that and just kicked it off from the starting line and that was it.


So of course, that makes an instant criticism of staff staff auditing in Central Organizations, see. If there isn't good auditing present by staff staff auditors on staff, why, of course their morale would suffer because you realize that if your ARC breaks with the Instructors were left even for twenty-four hours without being picked up by your auditor, you realize your whole bank would cave in. You recognize this – .
Well, that was a little victory in itself, but it was not particularly a victory for this other philosophy because they have had good case gains and they are a long ways from where they were. The other people who have just come up to Class IIs have not had very significant case gains yet and they were able to do it. Now, that was very important.


Joke. They take it seriously. It's almost true, you know?
Well, you see, this philosophy works, and it’s a distinct philosophy: If he’s warm he can audit. Get the idea? And that you can actually bring enough pressure to bear and enough training to bear on an individual so that he actually can do a properly laid out comprehension and action as far as the PC is concerned and arrive with a tremendously significant result.


And it takes good auditing to carry forward hard training And that's something for you to realize sometime when you start in on a small group of auditors someplace and you're going to make Class IIbs out of them, something like that. And you're really going to fix them up one way or the other and you're doing it while they work at the filling station or something of the sort. And they're all out of your sight and they aren't getting much cross auditing and nothing much is happening in the way of results.
Now, that’s a victory, because if that weren’t true we as a people would never make it. We’d just never make it, that’s all. There would be a few able guys and they would quickly go out the bottom through auditing seven and a half hours a day.


Their auditing is so poor that no results are occurring And then you hit them with this much duress, this much insistence, this much this, this much that, they're going to go up the chimney. They can't take it, that's all. The reason why you can get this high a velocity of learning in is just one little reason and that is because you are applying that learning at the same time and you are getting case gains while you learn, so that you're getting a reality on these various things – at least some are.
I’ve already scolded two or three Saint Hill graduates who have left and who all of a sudden sat down to a grind of auditing of about seven and a half hours a day and just didn’t do anything else, didn’t really bother to train anybody or try to pick it up or push it through. They were just going to audit people, audit people, audit people, audit people – well, they can’t audit enough people to do any good. It’s just a spot in the ocean.


And the person, of course, who has no basic reality on Scientology itself, who is still in a big question mark, of course, is actually stuck in some kind of a ridge, usually, of just no reality, you know. Big question mark. You recognize that.
Now, if you looked around you would find out that there aren’t on earth at the present moment enough auditors to give enough sessions to enough people to make any significant gain in the society at large in the next century. The mathematics are all against it. If you never made one more auditor, if we just took the auditors we had at this particular moment and eve- rybody audited hammer and tongs, seven and a half hours a day for the next ten years or something like that, you add it up and you compare it to the world’s population and you get a drop in the bucket.


BASICS OF AUDITING 5  You ask him also – the way to test that one out is to say, “Well, do you think medicine works?” And he will say, “I doubt it.” “Well, do you think that car repairing works?” “Well, I doubt it.” “Do you think that anybody ever painted a picture?” “Well, I doubt it.” And you begin to spot that the circuit hasn't anything to do with Scientology. He's just going on this way. When you run into that problem in learning, there's no sense in trying to shove it down the person's throat one way or the other.
It’s a discouragingly small amount. And if we never trained another audi- tor, the auditors that had been trained would have long since gone by the boards before they even got halfway through the population of New York City. You see, the mathematics are dead against it.


It's simply such a case problem that there isn't very much you can do about it except audit the person. That is the only real problem that anybody should ever encounter in an Academy. Somebody who comes around and says he has no reality on Scientology and then you try to give him one and he can't get one and all that sort of thing – well, most people's reality on Scientology consists totally of having read something about Scientology.
Don’t think that you, with your auditing, cannot make a change in the society. You certainly can, you certainly can, but you would be making actually a taco and a pobre society. In other words, you’d be making the society of the rich and the poor, the aristocracy and the slaves, and so forth.


They recognized that was true and that was all there was to it. But this other person is making a big fuss out of this, see. He has no reality on Scientology.
It wouldn’t help but do that, because of course you could pick out people here and there and put them into terrific condition and never fix it up so they’re ever backed up, see? Well, they – oh yeah! They’ve got a big zone of influence, that’s for sure!


He has no way – he doesn't know whether – and so on and so on. He's riding a ridge. You’ll find out that you have to run negatives and positives on that person because he's sitting in the middle of a maybe.
And they’ll get things done, that’s for sure; but let me assure you they would not, all of them, be tempered by the peculiarities that I suffer from which is that man should be free. Not even  TRAINING DUPLICATION 6  after you’d audited them would they suffer from that peculiarity uniformly, let me assure you. That just wouldn’t be done.


Of course, his whole life is in a maybe. Is he alive? No, he doesn't know that.
And give it a decade, give it two decades, something like that, and they would be starting to get a little bit impatient. Enough victims would have been deposited on their door- step for them to start erecting the stocks and the whipping posts. The next thing you know, we’d find we had two or three classes of citizen.


See, he's doubtful. This is about the only problem you'll run into in education is the ridge of doubt. There is another one which is rather easily overcome and that is pretended knowingness.
We would have the clear and the slave, you know? We’d divide the whole society up in some kind of a line. It would just be forced upon us to do this.


And that, of course, is another downscale mockery of knowing, is pretended knowing The person has a horrible sensation of pretended knowingness occasionally. You yourself have had this once in a while, I imagine. You all of a sudden recognize that you were pretending that you knew something or something like this.
That is actually a very dangerous direction in which to proceed because that direction has always led civilizations into decay and chaos. There is no such thing as a successful civili- zation which is made out of slave masters and slaves. I assure you that it is not successful.


And it gave you an odd sensation. And then that was gone. Well, think of somebody leading their whole life with that sensation.
It’s never been successful and it never will be successful. Now, it’s attractive and it can be practi- cal but it’s not successful. It has no great duration and it doesn’t make anybody much happier.


They're going around pretending that they know they're here and insisting to everybody they know they're here why they – while they know themselves that they are not here, you know. And it's a funny sensation. They just feel like fakes all the way through.
So this is quite interesting from a point of view of a long look. Very few of you ever give a long look to Scientology, you leave that up to me to a marked degree. Well, thank you; but when I look in the crystal ball and, look up the line a century I can see a number of pic- tures presenting themselves, a number of aspects of what might come of all this.


That one, however, is not as difficult – that, because it doesn't buck your data. It doesn't fly back in your face. It's only this – the person who doesn't have a reality on (blank) or can't get a reality on (blank) that you really worry about in instruction.
And don’t think you can fire a shot of this volume and magnitude in a planet of this type without creat- ing an effect. It might be a slow effect, just to the degree, you see, that it is practical. Its speed actually is determined not by the inertia of the masses but by the efficiency and effectiveness of what you’re doing.


BASICS OF AUDITING 6  Now, when you have that as a chronic thing, it is, of course, a very low case level. This is the “What wall?” proposition. I'm not being essentially hard on this particular person.
And you can’t let go of something like this in a society or a world of this type or size without having repercussions that don’t just go up a century. They’ll be still racketing up the line until this planet is a billiard ball. Now, it might become a billiard ball sooner than you think.


I'm just regarding it with regard to training people and training in general and that is a tough one to jump. Now, that's also very tough to jump on a pc and you'll occasionally see that in an auditing session. The pc will set goals, sometimes very extravagant goals.
But not all of you will for- get Scientology even if you go to another planet. So you see we’ve never fired this shot si- lently or without effect, you see? I’m not degrading what you, yourself, as one person can do.


You want to watch a pc, by the way, who sets extravagant goals for a session, see. Wants to be Clear by session end. Wants to be OT by session end.
But if you’re going to do the job fully and wholly or do the job effectively, then the job will be done rather swiftly; and in doing the job relatively fast you save many of the cataclysmic aspects of what might hap- pen because of the entrance upon this scene of Scientology. In other words, the more rapidly you do it the better the job is done. It’s just like auditing a PC.


You know, a person wants to be Clear, that's a perfectly normal goal. But this session, that's got to make him OT, you see, and so on. That person is in an obsessive games condition with the auditor and is attempting to give the auditor loses.
You see in one PC the world at large, you see? He is the microcosm and the world is the macrocosm; and you see that what is happening to a PC – you know that if you audit him slowly and poorly he makes thuhh, and he goes duhhh, and he gets a little bit better and in about two or three days he says, “Well, maybe I’ll make it. Maybe I’ll bla-bla-blah . . .” and all of a sudden he doesn’t feel so well, and so on; he didn’t get much of a result and he slows down and goes into third gear, and he puts it all on the back burner, and so forth.


That's the whole works about that. If you want to know if a pc is in an obsessive games condition, well, you look at those goals. And if they're too extravagant and they're just beyond anything that anybody ever could possibly have anything to do with anywhere, why, just recognize to that degree that the pc is in a games condition with you.
Well, those  TRAINING DUPLICATION 7  fits and starts would be the fits and starts of the track of the civilization in which we live if we did not approach this problem effectively and do it with fair effectiveness. And part of that effectiveness is make enough auditors. Now, you’re not enough audi- tors.


And watch it because this pc will go out of session at the drop of an electron. And to try to run very much on them is very hard because they're scat. They're insecurely in-session.
You just aren’t enough auditors, that’s all. There just aren’t enough. We’re not against a quantitative proposition here particularly, but when I say “auditor” I mean somebody who merely audits.


They're indifferently in-session. They are not under the auditor's control. And you can actually plunge them in over their heads and then can't control them in the session and then they get all upset and, you know, this kind of stuff.
You have to combine in your repertoire the ability to train auditors and then you’re enough, then you become enough auditors, don’t you see? Right away, just the people in this room would be enough auditors if they trained auditors. And providing you did your job superlatively well and you knew how to make an auditor do his job superlatively well, you see, if you knew that, with that kind of progress you would wind up with enough audi- tors.


It makes a messy session. And the thing to do with that pc is, of course, is run very easy, very fundamental processes – very, very fundamental. Audit him lightly.
Then you could do the job, you see? That could be done. But not otherwise.


Audit him with a feather. If you want to knock over a pc who is a no-effect pc, of course, audit him with a feather. Don't do what the psychiatrist does.
I know I myself at times have felt rather muscular – mentally muscular – and have stood up baring my breast to the tirades and freakerics of fate and fortune and have said, “Well, this is enough. Just – I could do this all by myself, you know, just standing on my head, you know? No help at all.


The less effect the person can have, the more effect the psychiatrist tries to give them. Don't do that. The way to handle such a case is give them the breath of air from a slowly wafted feather and you will just be absolutely amazed what will happen.
I’d just do it all by myself. That’s easy, you know?” I just felt tough that day, you know? And before noon I didn’t feel so tough.


Such a person can very often run 8-C. Oh, man, they'll touch those walls and they'll march over and they'll touch the other wall and turn around and they just go on and on and on. Never a comm lag, no change of any kind.
Now, in my particular levels of training and background I would have perhaps, not necessarily, but perhaps more reason than you to believe that I could do the job all by myself, see? I have done jobs all by myself and they were not necessarily easy jobs. Now, I did get away with them.


Just do it. Nothing to it. Well, why couldn't they do it?
I don’t think I could do this one all by myself, see? Different type of job, it goes out in terms of longevity. It embraces many more lives and beings than anything else that’s been attempted in this corner of the universe for a very long time.


They're not there. It doesn't bother them any. Doing it on the auditor's determinism; they have no reality on it at all.
Well now, the better it is done, the more rapidly it is done, the more effectively it is done, why, the smoother forward track it will have. So therefore you are busy learning to audit. You are busy learning to audit and in that you are making progress and that’s very, very good progress.


Perhaps many of you have seen this phenomenon in running 8-C. Well, apply that to mental reaction. In other words, 8-C, as simple as it is, is too far up scale for this person to run.
We do not have here the facili- ties much to train you how to teach auditors, but by training you we can certainly give you a model and you’ll know how to handle somebody else when you’re training them, and maybe you’ll profit by some of the mistakes we have made. But don’t try to profit in the direction of being kind. Don’t try to profit in the direc- tion of “If we just process him then he will be able to audit.” Don’t profit in that direction because there’s no profit to be had there.


That's all. Now, you sit down with a very tiny, microscopic object. I'll tell you a good gag for this person that can't run 8-C like that.
If he’s alive he can audit. He walked into the PE Course, he is a long-term Christian Scientist, until he got so many overts on Christian Science that he became a Rosicrucianist, and then had too many overts against Rosicrucianism to re- main anything but a theosophist, and has arrived to prove that Scientology doesn’t work. You can make him audit.


You sit down with a little microscopic object. Very small. Smaller than a cigarette lighter and sort of dull.
You could teach him to audit; you really could. TRAINING DUPLICATION 8  But now we’re getting to a dividing line: Why that many handicaps on the auditor, see? Why go quite that far afield to teach somebody to audit?


Well, actually, this piece of chalk would do just fine, see. Dull and can be seen and so forth. BASICS OF AUDITING 7  And just ask them to get the idea that the chalk is there and that the chalk is not there.
No, there are people around you at once, in your immediate vicinity, that could be taught to audit well and those are the people to put lots of time in on. They are the people to put time in on, because if you make them very good auditors, of course they can make auditors. And it is better to have – right now, the way we’re going – it is better to have a lot of crackerjack auditors than an awful lot of very medio- cre auditors.


Total process. And just do that one after the other, something like that. Man, you pick up more confusion.
See, that’s better. And you sometimes look over “Who are you going to spend time on?” Well, the natural impulse is to take this bird I just described who has so many overts on Christian Science that they had to take off into Rosicrucianism, got so many overts on Rosicrucianism that they became a theosophist, and have wandered in to prove that Scien- tology doesn’t work. Well, unfortunately you could make a tremendous error, and do you know that instruc- tors will do this?


More randomity will fly off “How can you say that the chalk isn't there when the chalk is there?” Ah, you just say, “Well, get the idea the chalk isn't there.” “Well, all right. I can get the idea maybe that the chalk isn't there, but the chalk actually is there and you can see it right in front of you,” and so on. “Well, go ahead and do the auditing command. Get the idea the chalk isn't there.
Even an instructor here, now and then, catches himself; fortunately he catches himself doing it. He’s so outraged by the performance he sees in front of him that he gives that person more time than he gives the apt auditor who needs just a little bit more coaching to do a very fine job. Instead of that he’ll give this total dud, you see, a tremendous amount of time and pressure trying to get them up to a high level of mediocrity.


I'll repeat it for you.” “Well, nobody can get the idea the chalk isn't there because the chalk is there, you see, and that defies all the laws of reality and so forth.” “All right. That's fine. Now, just get the idea the chalk isn't there.
Remember that, when you’re training auditors, take those that are very apt and give them the most time. See, that’s the way to go about it; and let the others drift along. Let them drift along.


I'll repeat it again.” “Ah, well, you can't do anything like that. You'd see the cloth through it if you got the idea the chalk wasn't there and so forth. And that would violate physical phenomena.” And you say, “Good.
They’ve got a certain rate of absorption. And it isn’t that you should let them go. You shouldn’t let this fellow go; oh no, oh, nothing like that, see?


Well, I'll repeat the auditing command. Now, get the idea that chalk isn't there.” Man, you go on like this for about a half an hour, you know, and you finally get it answered. I've even gone to this degree.
You might downgrade him a little bit in the zone or area in which he’s being trained but you don’t forget about him. But he plods along at a certain rate and that certain rate has very little to do with anything you’re trying to teach him. He’s just kind of sloggy.


I've said, “Now, look-a-here, see that – see that piece of chalk? Now, you see it right there right now. All right.
For anybody to assign the length of time it takes for somebody to learn something is adventurous. It can’t ever be factual. I’ll give you an experiment in this.


Now watch. Now, can you – can you see no chalk? Can you see no chalk?
Take one datum and try to teach it to somebody with the old educational processes of the 17th ACC. Those were very interesting processes, by the way. Try to teach him this datum.


All right. Now I'm going to put the chalk there and now you look at the chalk. Now get the idea there's no chalk there.
Take any datum in Sci- entology, say it to him and have him repeat it. This is the simplest of all these; just say it and have him repeat it, you see, and say it and have him repeat it, and then say it and have him tell you what it is all about, you know, by giving you an example of it. You say it, he gives you an example of it.


Can you do that? No. All right.
That is the wildest thing you ever did with anybody. That is quite incredible. As simple as this mechanism is, it has considerable horsepower and it is a very interesting thing.


Well, I'll do this again now. Now, here's your chalk. Now, you see, now you're supposed to get the idea the chalk isn't there and if you did that and this is what it would visually look like, see.
I have seen that datum move a very tough case, by the way. That was what was inter- esting about those educational processes. They were very limited in that they didn’t move very many cases, but they could knock aside this “no effect” proposition on training.


No chalk. Now, just watch that. Watch that.
Now, I recommend those to you. We actually don’t have any students bad enough to start chugging in with these educational processes, and assign somebody to say a datum and  TRAINING DUPLICATION 9  he’s supposed to say the datum back, and then he says the datum and they make an example, or any of the combinations of those processes. There were about three of them.


Good.” “By God, you're right, you know.” “All right. There's the chalk.” Work with the person. Work with the person until the person could actually take over the automaticity of not-ising physical objects.
But they’re awfully good for the fellow you have despaired of utterly; they are much better than auditing. You assign a student to teach him with this system, you know? You of course don’t have to use Scientology data.


And all of a sudden the room starts to go solid on them, you know, and things like this supposed to happen. Just keep on working “Get the idea now the chalk is there.” You haven't told him to see the chalk. You told him just get the idea the chalk was there.
You can say, “The cat is black. All right, now tell me ‘The cat is black.”‘ And the fellow says, “Well, there are a number of instances I could think of where a cat wouldn’t be black.” And you say, “All right, good, good. But now, just tell me this one datum, ‘A cat is black.’” And you’ll finally get them to actually be able to – you say something, they can say something.


You haven't told him not see the chalk. And you'll see the confusion blowing off on something stupid like this. That's what I mean, just take a feather and waft the wind off that  BASICS OF AUDITING 8  feather very gently past one ear at a distance of about a yard, you know, and they say, “God almighty, turn off that Pratt & Whitney engine.” See, you have an effect.
And then the second grade of that is you say something and they can understand it. In other words, let them duplicate the words and then let them duplicate the understanding. You in essence are doing this in training, only you’re doing it live.


What you're dealing with there, of course, is the old Effect Scale. And as the person goes down, down toward total effect, the effect that can be had on them is a breath of air. See, that's a terrific effect.
You see, you’re doing it all the way. You read a bulletin and then you go in and see Mike. Of course some of you wish you hadn’t but that’s all part of the game.


But if you were to blow them up, if you were to drop a building on their heads and so forth, they'd never find out about it. See, that's too much effect. Now, we see that clearly in our overt-motivator phenomena.
But look a-here, he’s not trying to be unreasonable with you; he’s just trying to get you to do one thing – that’s the one step of the educational proc- ess. In essence what is happening is this: I have said something to you and then he’s trying to find out if you can duplicate it. And don’t think this isn’t therapeutic.


The overt that the person has, we think it's a comparable motivator. No. The more motivators that the person has earned, the less motivator the person can have.
It is! It jolly well is! But we’re not interested in it from a therapy line.


So you'll be astonished sometime to say to somebody, “Sneeze” and the person has said, “What is the idea of killing me with that terrible, piercing scream which you just uttered?” Let's take last year's or last lives' Murders of the Rue Morgue character. Man, he had bodies strewn from one corner of Paris to the other. We pick him up in this life in the auditing chair, he actually taps his toe with the faintest of taps – you see, just a slightest tap, see, against it – in avoiding your toe, see.
We’re interested in it from the basis of the communication of a datum, and you get finally so that you can actually take a datum and so on. Now let’s look at this. This process has been going on for six months or more with some of the older students here; and 3D came out incomplete, not well stated, just brrrr! you know, and that’s it.


Your toe was there and he didn't step on your toe, but he tapped his toe against the side of the chair. Boy, is he upset. That's the motivator.
And they did it at once and got results with it at once. In other words, it took them – oh, perhaps 10 minutes to understand it; this is length of time to look at it and read it. I mean it was that fast, you see, and they could put it into action and they could do something with it, and all of a sudden this happened.


That's a motivator. That is enough to practically kill you for. Do you get the idea?
Well, this doesn’t mean that they’ve become puppetized, it simply means that their ability to duplicate it has now gone over into a second stage – understand – because of course they weren’t given any data to duplicate. Now, you look at the original issue of 3D, or the original mention of 3D that was given to you. Why, the first mentions of it are just some scribbles in the case histories, you know, in the case folders, the first mentions of it, and then there’s a rather incomplete description of 3D Criss Cross that doesn’t amount to a hill of beans, and then there’s class rumor.


And it's just nothing, nothing for a motivator. He thinks everybody is against him, as they go by him on the road because their wheels are going round or something, you know. That's enough motivator.
Well, what I’m showing you is there was practically nothing there to duplicate in the way of wording, and yet these people had actually gotten to this point, where they not only could duplicate the datum that was said to them but they could get what this was and they  TRAINING DUPLICATION 10  could understand what this datum was and put it into use. Now, look at that as a considerable gain, and look at it for just what it is, as a gain, a training gain. And that’s quite remarkable.


Well, the more overts a person collects, the less motivator it takes to blow him to pieces. That's an interesting principle. If you look this over, you'll understand auditing this no- effect pc rather easily.
Now, the comm lag on others who hadn’t had that much training has been something on the order of ten days to two weeks, to first duplicate the wording – and complain because there wasn’t any wording, don’t you see? They were still in a step where they had to have the exact words. And then finally, it took an amplification of a bunch of exact words and a lot of individual notations in case folders for them all of a sudden to do what they were doing and get a result, and the understanding is dawning.


The greater the person's overts, why, the less motivator. The motivator can be just absolutely, fantastically microscopic. Let's take this girl, she's gone out with other men.
See, that’s slightly different action. Do you see this as a training mechanism? Do you see where this winds up as a training mechanism?


She's stolen all your money. She's sold everything out in all directions. She's acted in a most outrageous fashion, you know.
Do you see what its stages are? In other words, your first gradient of the thing is no comprehension of the words. This is your first gradient, see, no comprehension of the words.


And then you give her a bunch of flowers and the petal of one flower is bruised. You hear about it. That's enough motivator.
Now, it’s quite shocking to find that morale is suffering, and all sorts of things are go- ing wrong in some HGCs, by being made to exactly duplicate a bulletin. Do you see where they are there? Do you see where they are on the training step?


That's a motivator. Got the idea? But frankly, you could throw her the length of the block and run over her head with a truck and it wouldn't be much of a motivator, you see?
It would not matter, by the way, as far as their ability to learn was concerned – let’s look this over. Let’s say we were just trying to increase a person’s ability to learn. Learning rate – that was the only thing we were trying to increase.


That's too much effect. It is – it's simply that she doesn't notice it. She can't perceive that much of an effect.
Let’s just think of that, see. It wouldn’t matter if we were teaching them automotive assembly books; you know, manuals used in Detroit for the assembly of automobiles, to a person who is never going to assemble an automobile and has never assembled one and hasn’t even played with toy cars. See, it wouldn’t matter if we were doing that.


So you get the idea of people perceiving large, explosive actions and people perceiving very small actions. Now, who could perceive a large, explosive action? Well, it'd be a person in fairly good shape.
Or the “Works Progress Administration History of Socialism and its Development in the Northern Part of Arizona,” you know, there’s probably volumes of books on that. They paid them if they got out some stacks of paper on the Works Progress Administration. They’d get somebody who was out of work, so they made sure he didn’t do any because otherwise he would have been in work, and all he had to do was pile up old clippings and papers, you see?


And he'd say, “Look at that, you know?”  BASICS OF AUDITING 9  And somebody else sees the large explosion and notices that a little puff of smoke, see, came up at the side. And they'll tell you about the little puff of smoke at the side, but not all the debris and the arms and legs flying through the air. See, they won't tell you about that.
They didn’t have to relate to anything. And then at gov- ernment expense they were published between very thick covers in very heavy volumes, and they were quite available for a while. You could get them to hold up corners of desks where the leg was missing, you know, and they were very useful; but they were the most non sequi- tur nowhere as far as data was concerned you ever cared to cast your eye over.


They take up that other. And that would be enough. That's a terrible explosion because of the little puff of smoke.
We could use that, do you see? We could use the “Legal Code of the Early Church of England as Interpreted by the Catholic Church.” We could! I don’t care what you’re using, as long as there’s some data stated.


And you say, “Well, how about all the arms and legs and the factory chimneys that were flying through the air?” And they'd say, “Well, where were those?” You get the idea the person wasn't viewing the same view that you viewed. The person probably wasn't in the same universe or something Well, evaluate it just on this: Their automatic not-is takes care of all large effects. And the little tiny effects are left on the fringes.
Doesn’t matter how much dunnage or how little dunnage as long as there’s some data studied. Is data there to study? You would still do this.


So they can really get upset with small things. Well, you'll see this in a session. And the funny part of it is you probably could give somebody no auditing I mean, gross auditing error, see.
You’d still use this as learning rate. You see where we are? See, we’d read it off.


Just no auditing. You know, I mean, do something or other. Crank up the E-Meter, ride him yappety-yappety-yap through the rudiments, you know and then say yappety-yap to him, and miss a half a dozen of this and don't do anything of that and then end rudiments and end session and that sort of thing.
We’d have the individual sitting there and we would read it off to the individual. This would be the stylized auditor type of approach on  TRAINING DUPLICATION 11  this, and we would say, “All the churches of Northumbria were deprived of their windows because of a window tax which was three and six per window per sabbatical.” (“Sabbatical.” That’s what it said, see.) And we tell the individual, “All right, say that.” You know? “Now, what did I just say?” you know? And he’d say, “The window tax – window tax?


Just a clown, you know, a total clown type of auditing with a bunch of crash in it, you know, a bunch of crushers, you know. The pc didn't instantly answer the auditing command. “Are you withholding anything” And you say, “Why the hell don't you speak up? Come on.
What about window tax is this? What’s sabbatical mean? What’s this?


For Christ's sake, you know.” Swear at him. But really no auditing at the same time because you don't care whether they answer or not, you know. Just a total no-auditing session.
Yeah. What book are you reading, anyway? Where did this come from?


And this person doesn't think anything has happened to them. The person doesn't think anything bad has happened to him. They didn't get any auditing, but that's all right.
What part of Northumbria are you talking about?” You get all this confusion? And you’ve got an example now of your first step. As you try to merely get him to repeat a line of sounds (you don’t even call them words, you see?) he gets tremendous confusion.


The auditing is so gross, you might say, the errors are so gross that they don't notice it's bad. All right. Now, let's take the reverse.
So your first state in which the person is in is one of tremendous data confusion which blows off at any attempt to duplicate data. So it blows off at once that there’s an attempt to duplicate data on his part, he starts blowing off this confusion. “Northumbria? What Northumbria?


They get a very good auditing session, somebody's going through perfectly all right and they miss one tick on an ARC break or something of the sort, you know. That's enough motivator. See, they take off like a startled gazelle.
What sabbatical? Two and six? Two and six window tax.


Doesn't have to be a good session particularly, but a mediumly good session. But just – it's the little tiny error that they will notice. They won't notice the rest of it.
But who would have been taxing them? Uh – who – what tax? What is a tax?


Well, we see this in critics of auditing They're always looking for the little error when the whole session is missing. Pc hasn't even sat down in the chair, you know, that sort of thing We see somebody trying to straighten up an auditing session on this. Well, what would he consider a motivator?
Was there anybody taxing anybody at that particular time?” Now you get down to the com- munist level of this, we would have had a communist cell meeting to discuss whether or not capitalists should exist, you see, because we’ve mentioned tax. In other words, it just would have hung up on some button some place or another, and would have come into a total collision with this button, and from there on we never would have moved off the button. This is of tremendous use, by the way, when you’re handling committees.


That's what he finds wrong with the session is what he would consider a motivator. Therefore, a critic of a session is also indexed, frankly, by his own ability to have an effect. BASICS OF AUDITING 10  Now, you get along in life with this and you'll notice that the Spanish people, the Mexican people, regardless of their reputation with revolutions of a bombastic and brutal governmental action, banditry, tortures, imprisonments, civil abuses of great magnitude and we think maybe that they're vicious people or something like that.
You know, the art of getting something done through a committee has never been perfected. This has never been perfected in the history of man. If you don’t want to get anything done, appoint a committee.


No, basically they're very good people. You could probably leave a bicycle lying all day in the middle of Madrid and nobody would touch it. Maybe not Madrid, but Seville for sure.
And don’t put anybody on it who has an individual responsibility for any piece of its work. Just give it in general to the committee. Now we’ve really got malfunction in screaming exclamation points, malfunction from here on out.


And you – nobody'd touch it. You leave your wallet on a counter in a store or something like this and my God, the manager himself runs five blocks to return the thing to you and make sure that you see that all the money is still in it and all that sort of thing. Fantastic, you see, their level of honesty, as you would call it honesty and so forth, is utterly fabulous.
Well, similarly, the way you can park any committee or any board – and some of you might want to know this sometime; it’s sometimes of great moment for you not to have some- thing discussed, and not permit them to come to any conclusion or pass a motion. Commit- tees, being only a medium of half-thought-out averages anyway, generally will arrive at the wrong decision about most anything. You know, they haven’t got much of the data, and they’re not really interested, and nobody there is responsible, and they sort of just want to get rid of it all, you know?


And this in the middle of countries – a country which tolerates enormous criminality in its government, atrocities in its wars and actions, exclamation points in its banditry and so forth. People don't object because they don't see it. See, it's not a motivator.
And they get into that state of mind, and they’re suddenly discussing something that is a very, very important point that is going to affect the longevity and man- agement of this company or group, and man, you just are not about to get something like that. TRAINING DUPLICATION 12  The way you want to do this is just introduce any button that will cause them to take zero responsibility. Just introduce any button that will reduce their responsibility.


Doesn't have anything to do with them. A democracy is only as good as people can observe what's going on. And a democracy goes to pieces promptly that people cannot see what's happening and get onto this enough- motivator kick.
Anything! It doesn’t matter. Give them a restimulative word.


Oh, my, you should see though what happens in a Spanish family if little Juan or something like that, accidentally loses a penny or a peseta or something or takes one off the living room table, you see or fails to sit for four hours in the sun waiting for his father to come in from fishing and so on. My God, you'd think the empire had just been torn to pieces, you see, just fantastic crimes have been committed here. It's something that everybody goes and cries about quietly in the corner, and Aunt somebody-or-other goes and – into the convent, you see.
Just do it by symbols. You see, you’re trying to paralyze this committee, that’s what you’re trying to do, you see, just overtly, so they won’t make a wrong act. They say, “Well, I don’t know.


It's just – it's just enough motivator, you know. It's just “Oh, my God, how could they do such a thing?” you know. He didn't sit there for four hours in the boiling sun.
Shouldn’t the pay plan that is being brought up some- place – shouldn’t the pay plan – this pay plan – maybe we could check with the guy – it’s being prepared by the accounts department. Pay plan, shouldn’t that be thought up by some- one – pay plan?” And you say, “Well, yes.” You can just see it now, some outrageous damn thing that nobody could put into execution, you see? Nobody’s particularly interested in this thing, so . . .


He went and sat in the shade. Terrible. Terrible.
One of the principal buttons that is used in this is the word study, see, and that just hangs everybody. Just introduce study into the thing, you see? Bang!


And yet their bandits, their governments, their supersystems of some kind or another. These things are utterly just blaaaah. Just total uncontrolled criminality from the word go.
And it just hangs the works here. And just say, “We’ll make a proposal that the matter be given further study,” and hit study hard. You get it parked right there.


That's Mexico. That's Spain. T hat's the way an old empire has gone.
It’ll just stop. It’s gorgeous! You don’t have to introduce like that.


It gets down to enough motivator. What's enough motivator? What can people see?
You can say something, “Well, wasn’t the last time this type of proposal was proposed, wasn’t that – “ you know, there was a fellow by the name of Bellham who was just hated throughout the whole organization, you see, just say this word and everybody went Eeeee! and so on – you say, “Wasn’t that last proposed by Bellham?” Everybody of course takes no responsibility for it instantly, you see? And then they will get into a discus- sion about Bellham, and you’re all set. But they just derail on a button like that!


Well, “What effect can they have?” is all this adds up to. And in auditing pcs, in auditing pcs, this shows up very strongly so that you in auditing low-level pcs could have a perfectly fine time auditing some spinning psycho. Oh, you could sit on his head and sit all over him and make him answer up one way or the other and push him this way and that way and he might get some big gain out of it, you see.
And you’ll see somebody do this, you’ll see it when they’re studying like this. This fellow’s got lots of overts on the Sabbath. So you say “sabbatical,” he’s wondering if this is connected with Sabbath, and you just get into a total discussion of “Sabbath.


With gross auditing errors, you could audit this psycho, see. I mean, it could just be fantastically bad auditing And he'd take it. It's perfectly all right.
Is it right to have a Sabbath? Where was the Sabbath originated? Really wasn’t it a pagan introduction in the first place?” and we go on and on and on.


BASICS OF AUDITING 11  Now, you take a person in the middle band of sanity, something like that and it's a different proposition. It goes from low-scale cases can be given, shouldn't be given by you, but could be given without their noticing it – I don't advise this, of course, but they could be given without their noticing it – very bad auditing and take it. All they'd notice is that it just wasn't happening very good.
It has absolutely nothing to do with what we’re studying. He’ll derail right at that point. That’s very interesting.


Nothing much was happening. But you could just knock their heads off, you know. Run everything backwards, upside down.
Now, you’d think this person would have to have lots of auditing to get rid of this. No, there is another system that gets rid of this and that is it sort of teaches him that he can ride past these hung points, see, that the hung points don’t keep him from duplicating. And he gradually learns this, you see?


And just be a complete, colossal mess. Do you see that? You could just give them a horrible session and you'd have no objection of any kind whatsoever.
These buttons that he’s got really don’t keep him from dupli- cating something. See, even if it’s upsetting and he doesn’t like it he can still duplicate it, and eventually he begins to see duplication in its proper light. Duplication is duplication.


You'd have no objection. Now, that's something for you to look over. You wonder why you don't get objections in some quarters and spheres and so forth, in auditing clinics or something like that, when very bad auditing is done by some auditor on lowscale cases and you got no objection to it.
It is not running out buttons, it is simply duplication. It just is itself, that is all. Now, you couldn’t see at all unless you could duplicate.


Well, that isn't the reason. It wasn't that it – wasn't bad auditing, don't you see. It's that the pc couldn't tolerate that big an effect.
You’ve got to be able to look down that row of doors or something like that, you look down the row of doors and you see TRAINING DUPLICATION 13  that there was a row of doors there. You can play this on some PCs in processing with the most fantastic results. You just say, “Well, what’s over there along that wall?” And some fellow will say, “Oh, uh – uh – must be students’ lockers.


Couldn't tolerate that big of an error. And if the pc were asked to criticize the session, if pushed very hard to find something wrong with that session, it's actually not even, you see, that the pc is in propitiation. The pc just doesn't see it, that's all.
Those doors don’t fit very well at the top, do they? Well, they must be some kind of students’ lockers. They were probably put in there for some purpose or another.” Then all of a sudden he’d say, “Well, do you have a carpenter working for you?” What did you ask him?


And if he was asked very hard to search over the session very, very hard to find something wrong with the auditing he had had, see, he would come up with the fact that the auditor one day was five minutes late for the session. And that was everything that was wrong with the auditing, see? It's quite fantastic.
You said, “What’s down that wall?” you see? Actually all he’s got to do is look down the wall and say “There’s some doors there,” but he always does it the hard way. Just watch him at first glance and he will just do it the hard way.


Actually pitiful. But in your middle-range auditing, people who are not in that kind of condition, the little tiny errors are registering and mediumly large errors are registering And it'd be pretty hard to audit wildly enough so that they couldn't see it. So that they'd see auditing errors, don't you see?
That’s the way it will roll off of this whole operation. You ask somebody, “What is over your head?” just ask them that sometime. “What is over your head right now?” Say it very meaningfully so that they really understand that it’s over their head, and you mean now. And brother, you’re going to get some of the most inter- esting discussions you ever heard of.


And these do have an effect on them. And as they come up scale, then they see the whole of the auditing error, you see. They see everything in the error that – in the auditing that is in error.
Things which are threatening them, and so forth; well, they’re not quite sure. Some girl says, “Well, yes, I know my hair looks rather messy, but uh . . .” You get all sorts of oddball, offbeat derailments of the whole thing. Well, what’s over your head right now?


And actually, it has less effect on them than it would have on the lower-scale case, you see. Don't make the mistake of thinking because the person didn't observe the effect that it didn't have an effect. It did have an effect on them, see.
The ceiling, of course, is what’s over your head right now. They always man- age to miss the obvious. And factually, it takes a lot of drilling before people will observe the obvious, and that is all there is to that step, is obnosis: the observation of the obvious. “What is in front of your face?” just ask somebody sometime who has low havingness and can’t reach much.


But you get an upper-scale case that audits pretty easily and so on. Man, he can see everything wrong with an auditing session from the word go. He could criticize the whole living lot of it.
Just ask that question, “What is in front of your face?” Of course, the obvious answer is “You are.” But, you know, you can get some of the most conditional and oddball responses you ever want to hear of from simple questions of that particular type. Well, that’s because the individual isn’t really adding significance’s into everything, it’s because every time he thinks of something significance plunges in and he thinks he’s got to pay more attention to the sig- nificance than he pays to what was going on. In other words, what is happening to him right now, you see, is less important than what might happen to him or what is coming in on him or the consequences of all of it.


Therefore, as you audit people up the line, your auditing has to improve. See, if you get them off the launching pad while sitting with your stocking feet on the windowsill and puffing a cigarette, you see and looking at the E-Meter now and then, don't you see and never  BASICS OF AUDITING 12  starting the session and never ending the session and never cleaning anything up that happens and always Q-and-Aing with the pc, auditing will still give some gain. All right.
He’s consequence-happy so he’s really not in present time at all. Well, when you take this parking button called “study,” people tend to go sort of “Ummmmm,” you know, on this anyhow, and that’s a very good button to work on because it’s inflow of data, therefore the duplication of data, and no more important than that, just the duplication of the datum spoken. You understand, I’m not now saying a datum like “a prob- lem is postulate-counter-postulate.” I’m not talking about a significant datum.


That person will come up to that gain point and your auditing would have to improve. Do you see how that would be? All right.
I’m talking about any datum, either signifi- cant or nonsignificant. You could say, “There is one Christmas in a year,” and some people  TRAINING DUPLICATION 14  will promptly say, “Well, that is insufficiently important. Of course everybody knows there’s one Christmas in a year.” You’ll get all kinds of chitter-chatter and so forth.


Now, you give this person – at your improved auditing status – you give this person a lot of wins and they get better and everything is fine along that level. And now to make them any better, your auditing has got to improve. You see where we're going with this?
The only thing you’ve asked them to do is repeat this after you, what you say. You say, “There is one Christmas in a year.” And the person would say, “Of course I know there’s only – any damn fool knows there’s only one – what – what kind of a thing is it – you think – what – what is this all about?” And you say, “Well, all right. Good.


Now, we're not monkeying around with improving your auditing while the pc is improving We're trying to put your auditing straight up at a high peak right now because there is no sense in Q-and-Aing with this. Just audit well always. I myself don't particularly follow that maxim.
But – just – just – let’s just repeat this after me, There is one Christmas in a year.” “Well, there’s no sense in it. Of course, everybody knows that there’s one Christmas in a year,” and so forth. And they’re into the terrible non significance of it, you see?


I've given lousy sessions. I've gotten cross and upset in sessions over the years and so forth, but when I sit down to give a session, I give a session. And unless I'm involved in some particular way trying to clean something up that doesn't have anything to do much with auditing – you know, using auditing to do something else with it – but as far as the sessions go, sit down to give a session, yeah.
You stated something sufficiently non significant that they can’t do anything about it. There’s nothing there to attack and they just get terribly disappointed, you see? You say, “Most men are male.” You know, “Most men are male.” Or you say, “Women are females.” “Women are females.


Well, I'll give something that's very, very close to the letter-perfect session. Well, what do you mean a letter-perfect session? Well, it just takes up what's wrong with the pc and handles it and pushes it along through and ends it up with the pc improved.
Well, of course we know most women are fe – what are you talking about? Naturally,” and so forth. “Naturally, of course, everybody knows that. What – what are you saying that for?” And you will get – all of a sudden the fellow becomes very curious about you, and what your motives are and what your intentions are and what you’re trying to do here.


That's a perfect auditing session. You couldn't be more perfect than that because that is exactly what you are trying to do, don't you see? It is-perfection does not necessarily derive with how you hold your little pinky in the air.
Well, it’s a fantastic proposition. You just say, “Women are females.” “There’s one Christmas in a year.” “Days begin at midnight.” Some people would not realize that, you know, and they’d say, “Oh, really? Do they?” And you say, “Well, all right.


You know, your little pinky up here and you must hold this finger as you hold the E- Meter, you see, this – the posture of this finger is important. Whether or not you have the index finger and the little finger up while your thumb is on the tone arm, you know, that kind of thing. It doesn't matter.
But ‘Days begin at midnight,’ I just want you to repeat that. Just ‘Days begin at midnight.’” “Well, that’s a funny thing. I never knew that before, you see?” And they’ve just flown off into interest, see?


It's whether or not your auditing communication with the pc is effective at the pc's level of case. That is what is it. Now, of course, in the forms which we have today, you have Model Session.
And they’re all stuck on the interest, you see? And you’re just saying, “ ‘Days begin at midnight.’ That’s what you’re supposed to say.” And the fellow says, “Ah, well. Why should I go into that, you know? ‘Days begin at midnight....’ What are we studying here?


And Model Session has been very arduously, very carefully worked out over a long period of time to pick up the maximum number of pcs and the maximum numbers of upsets that pcs can be prone to and the maximum numbers of things that upset sessions. So that's there and that's well tailored. But you come along, you knucklehead, and you lean on that.
Is this a lesson in Scientology or about time? Or is time part of Scientology? Are there any axioms about time?


And you got a beautiful tool, you see and there you lean on it. And you say, “Well, this will see me through.” No, nothing will ever see you through but auditing. That's all that will ever see anybody through a session as an auditor is just auditing.
Oh, I see! Oh, I see! Yes, I see!


Now, the second you start leaning on the Model Session – “Start of session. Is it all right with you if we audit in this room? All right.
The days begin at midnight! And it’s – oh, what axiom does that refer to anyway?” And you say, “No, no. Just repeat after me, ‘Days begin at midnight.’”  TRAINING DUPLICATION 15  “Yeah, but why?” You get the whole idea, see?


Good. Talking about (mumble), hmm? Withholding anything?
In other words, they have an automatic reflexive mecha- nism. They’re going on a total basis of stimulus-response and nothing else. Just total stimulus- response.


Oh, well, you don't want to go into that. All right. Have a present time  BASICS OF AUDITING 13  problem?
But what’s responding? The person or a bank? And this is just another way of dig- ging up a thetan.


Huh? Oh, well, hm? Hm?
Eventually you get to a point where the thetan responds. You say, “The day begins at midnight.” He says, “The day begins at midnight.” It doesn’t bother him any if the day begins at midnight or the day doesn’t begin at midnight. Has nothing to do with it.


Hm-mm. Ah, hm. Let's see, what are we going to audit in this session?
You just say, “The day begins at midnight.” He says, “The day begins at midnight.” “Good!” All right. You say, “Christmas comes once a year.” He says, “Christmas comes once a year.” Right? Now, people who don’t like this and are still enturbulated on it say, “Well, you’re making a slave there,” you see, “that’s slavery,” or something like that. “That’s something very deep-seated and very significant.


Oh, yes, Security Check. All right. Have you ever raped anyone?
There’s something very significant about this operation. If you can get a person to do this, he of course thereafter is a slave, see, obviously!” – except the data is never borne out. The only time you really get a person to talk back sensibly is when he can do this, because he can observe what he’s talking back about; and up to that time you get people talking back about things that aren’t happening, and that’s very disconcerting.


Thank you. That's clear. There . . .” What's phenomenal is without paying any attention whatever to the pc you can make a gain on the pc.
Somebody comes in and raises hell with you because of the hussars that are all over the front lawn. And you go and look, you don’t see any hussars on the front lawn. And you ask him to go look and see if there are any hussars on the front lawn and he says, “Why should I look?


You don't have to pay attention to the pc or get mixed up in his nasty old case. You see? What's carrying you through there is just the mechanic.
I just know.” And you say, “Well, that’s fine. Well, let’s go look at the front lawn and see if there are any hussars there.” “Why should I do that? Are you doubting my word?” And now we go off into a dis- cussion of whether or not you think he is a gentleman.


See, the ritual. And if you went through the ritual and went by the meter, you would wind up at the other end of the session with having done a session. And what do you know, you would have something done with the pc.
Do you see the various excursions that we get on this? He starts with some unreasonable premise and winds up with an idiocy. All you’re asking a person to be able to do is simply duplicate a datum.


Now, immediately you think, “Well, if that isn't good enough, if I'm not just supposed to sit there and reel off Model Session and read the E-Meter and take up what I see on the E- Meter and come out the other end, what the hell is auditing See, what's that?” Well, that you would ask the question shows that you have defined auditing as a Model Session going off in a certain unit of time monitored by an E-Meter. That's what – what you've been defining auditing by if you ask that question. No, auditing – auditing is a science, definitely a science, not an art, contrary to old Joe Winter.
You say, “Christmas occurs once a year,” and he says, “Christmas occurs once a year,” and it doesn’t bother him and it doesn’t not bother him. Now, at the same time this individual can turn around and do something else which is quite interesting. This individual can cause himself to be duplicated.


He used to stand up and tell students, “Auditing is an art.” Joe used to watch me audit, didn't have a clue what I was doing and it all appeared different to him every time he saw it, you know? So of course, to old Joe auditing was an art. It was rather fantastic.
So, he has a brand-new  TRAINING DUPLICATION 16  thought all of his own little own, and he said, “I’m going to paint this house green.” And he goes out and he says to somebody, “Paint the house green.” And the person says, “Um-hmmm-mmm. Viridian, eh?” “No, no, just green.” “Oh, well. There’s lots of greens, you know?


There was nothing scientific about auditing because it all looked different. Well, when we start TVing these sessions, you're going to get some of that reaction around here. You're going to say, “My God, you must have thrown away the whole rule book.” That's why we're going to have to run a tape every time we do one of these things.
Green, there’s lots of greens. There’s lots of types of paint, too. What paint store do you deal with?


So the arguments will cease. And you go back through and you'll find a Model Session and you will find the E-Meter and you'll find the readings of the E-Meter are taken up and you'll find it's all going off and after you get all the auditing off the top of it, you will find a Model Session and an E-Meter. Got the idea?
Well, I tell you what I will do. There is a house over in the next county that is painted a particular shade of green, and we will write them a letter and find out what paint company they got the paint from and what shade it was, but of course you will have to go over and take a look at that house first to find out what color that house really is.” And you’d say, “No, I want this house painted just common, ordinary, run-of-the- mill, just green.” And they will try again. They will say, “Some paints don’t last as long as others.” If you can do that, you yourself have developed the ability to get yourself duplicated on your own ideas.


I'm not talking to you about how wonderfully I audit. As a matter of fact, my auditing could improve. There's no doubt about that.
And you’d be surprised; if you can do this well, you’d be surprised as your ability rises how the duplication occurs with the greatest of ease. You go out and tell somebody to paint it green, he pulls a color card out of his pocket and says, “You want this one or this one or this one? You want that one?


As a matter of fact, right now because we're going to televise these things and so forth, I've got to learn the end rudiments perfectly. I had – I had them down perfect in the old version, you know and since I – since I rewrote them and worked them out, I haven't got these new ones taped. It's very funny.
That’s it. All right.” He goes and gets the paint and he paints the house green, does a good job of it and that’s all fine. This cuts down randomity like mad.


Even in my auditing now, I say, I always have to say to the pc, “Well, you'll have to pardon the lack of end rudiments here, but are you withholding anything How's your havingness? Anything you'd care to say before we end this session?”  BASICS OF AUDITING 14  I've gone completely off the old rudiments and I haven't picked up the new ones. But you can expect that to happen to you too, see?
In other words, by learning to duplicate you can get into a state where you yourself can be duplicated. Now, this is not exactly a processing activity. This is the process of life and livingness that is most significant.


The end rudiments weren't something I suddenly dreamed up. The end rudiments were a whole bunch of errors that were being made by auditors that were worsening cases and there was a wonderful opportunity to scrap the end rudiments as a repetition of the beginning rudiments and put all those beautiful stopgaps in at the end. And they were simply worked out rather arduously of what is the wording that works and what sounds good and what carries it in and that sort of thing They're all perfectly worked out.
And it’s havingness like mad because you start to have the things that you’re surrounded with. All right. Beyond duplication comes understanding.


But working them out wasn't memorizing them and I was caught right there. But if you took my auditing, if you took a session and you took all of the auditing off of the top of it, the bones that you would find would be an auditor, a pc, an E-Meter, Model Session and the TRs. But you'd have to take all the auditing off the top of it to find 'em, see.
Understanding comes after dupli- cation, not before. Now, how much understanding do you think this fellow did when you said “Christmas comes once a year,” and he said, “Well, why are we taking that up? It doesn’t seem to have very much to do with the process,” and so on and so on.


Now, get the idea of a very, very, very skinny girl. A very, very skinny girl, you know. You'd have to stand twice in the same place to make a shadow.
Well, you’ll find out nearly everything he’s asking you summates into not understanding, or trying to understand. You’ve told him the datum “Christmas comes once a year”; this is the datum you’ve told him. Now, he tries like mad to understand that datum and he can’t grasp it.


And now, if she had a little flesh on her, she'd just look gorgeous, you see. Well, your auditing may be looking like the skinny girl. Even the best of your auditing right now kind of looks a little bit like a skinny girl.
He’ll just work himself frantic trying to understand this datum, to understand what datum is there, understand your motives in trying to get him to understand this datum, trying to understand what the datum applies to, try to understand why there is nothing there to understand; and you’ll find out most of his “Ooooooo-oooooo-ummmm” is just some kind of an effort to understand. TRAINING DUPLICATION 17  And this is why study is such an important button, because that’s “getting somebody else to understand relieves anybody of any responsibility for understanding.” Every govern- ment in the world at the present moment is totally seized with this as a mechanism. This is their operating mechanism.


It hasn't got any flesh on it, see. Those bones show through. The pc is very, very aware of the fact that you are taking up beginning rudiments.
They don’t have to understand anything because they can always have it studied, you see? And that just absolutely stops any progress in a committee or any- thing else. You’ve stopped it instantly and at once.


Well, isn't it interesting that a pc even though he's a trained auditor is aware of your taking up anything What's the pc doing listening to the auditing bones? See? Well, he must be out of session.
You say “It’s going to be otherwise stud- ied so therefore you don’t have to duplicate any part of it; if it’s going to be studied, you don’t have to understand any part of it and therefore all we expect from you is to execute something which you have no comprehension of and haven’t found out in the first place.” And you get the usual democratic processes when they are totally abused. They’re pretty mad. See, democracy does not work in the absence of understanding.


He's supposed to be interested in his own case and willing to talk to the auditor and there he sits watching the bones rattle. See? Now, if you want a test of good auditing, did you know that the auditor was using Model Session?
It can’t work. Now, here’s your second thing, then. If responsibility for understanding depends on personal study – and it does – why, then of course you have raised the person’s ability to comprehend, or understand.


If you didn't he either wasn't using it or it was a perfect session. Smooth, man, smooth is the keynote of this sort of thing Auditing a pc the other night. Now, think what you would do in this situation.
Not only does Christmas come once a year, but now beyond that point he is capable of understanding and studying “Christmas” and “once a year” and what this refers to. Now he’s capable of finding out that it’s a totally unimportant datum. Up to that time it might be important, it might not be important; God help us, we never would be able to find out whether it was something we had to know, or something that we didn’t much care about, or something we’re liable to be shot because we didn’t know, or something that we’d certainly better forget in a hurry, or something that goes along with the fact that most peoples have shoes, the bottoms of the soles of which are dirty.


The pc's havingness isn't working. We've run the pc's havingness, we've given the can-squeeze test – all standard, you see, all perfectly nice – and it isn't working. All right.
You see that? So classification of the importance of data is the thing which lies up there as the second step. Well, that’s your third step.


Now, what's the textbook solution but not necessarily the textbook solution? What would you do in that particular case? Think what you would have done.
Your first is non comprehension, non duplication, confu- sion. Your second one is merely the ability to duplicate. And after that we get the ability to comprehend, to understand, and therefore get the ability to observe.


You'd have bridged out of what you were doing and you would have tested for a new Havingness Process and then you would have bridged out of that and run it. And a half an hour later, you would have gotten the session going again. Wouldn't that – isn't that the way it looks?
Judgment lies in that field and this is a road to judgment. Now, nobody has really ever bothered to teach anybody judgment before in the last 200 trillion years. And you’re not going to find much judgment in any bank you’ve got.


All right. That's fine. And I wouldn't for a minute take away any ability you have to do this because you often have to do it.
If there had been much judgment in it, you wouldn’t have it as a bank. Let’s look at that. If this valence had been capable of enormous study, differentiation and judgment, you wouldn’t have it as an aberrative valence.


All right. But what about this as a situation? Watching this session I was running, you would have – you would have been – “What the hell is this?” you know.
Isn’t that so? So this has been a scarcity on the track. So you have here in essence, a new skill.


You're sort of alert that something else was happening here that you hadn't quite noticed. BASICS OF AUDITING 15  Pc ran it – can-squeeze test. Run Havingness – can-squeeze test.
It’s going to be very difficult to process it into somebody because they’ve never had it. They were capable of observation once, but how did they observe? They always put a curve on the observation in order to make a game out of it or something like that.


Five more commands – can-squeeze test. Five more commands – can-squeeze test. Pc has a long history of having had Havingness run.
Pure observation, pure study, pure duplication, pure comprehension, or pure judgment have never been a study in the field of philosophy. They just don’t exist. You just will not find these things as subjects of discussion, even.


What's wrong here? So, without breaking pace and the pc never even noticed this, I just asked the pc how many Havingness commands the pc hadn't ever executed. And the answer was thousands.
They are touched on very  TRAINING DUPLICATION 18  slightly by the Plato’s and Socrates’ and so forth of yesteryear, but just touched on very slightly. Totally avoided in religions and religious philosophies. Oh, they’re just avoided like mad!


The pc had never done a Havingness command in the pc's entire history in Scientology. Had never done a Havingness command. Had told some early auditors, two or three of them, that this was not possible to do.
Oh, it’s just like showing them a snake spitting in their face, you know? Huuuuh! Comprehension, understanding, duplication?


And it cut loose on the Havingness Process and run it that way. All right. Here's some thousands of commands never done.
Oh, no, no, no, no, no! That’s what you’re not supposed to do! And of course we know what the source of all this is.


Thousands. Here's maybe three, four auditors, whole sessions, upsets, unanswered auditing commands, ARC breaks. Here's the whole mess, yawning wide for the auditor to dive into and get lost, see.
The greatest overt there is is en- forcing a non comprehension. That’s an overt! You don’t believe it?


Cleaned the invalidations off, shifted to a Havingness Process that was elementary – just an elementary Havingness Process, having gotten the invalidations off havingness. The unanswered commands. Having attacked that.
Take somebody some- time, you say, “What have you done?” Oh, this girl has got withholds, she’s got crimes, she can’t wear any of her frocks because they’re so bloodstained, you know? She doesn’t dare reach into any of her purses because of the asps she’s stacked away at one time or another, you know? She can’t even open up her own medicine chest with any feeling of security be- cause of the arsenic coming out, you know?


And simply asked this other command and got the can-squeeze test and it worked and went on with the Havingness session. And the total lapsed time was 2.5 minutes to straighten out a pc's whole history of Havingness. And the pc never noticed this, but thought that was very nice that Havingness was now operative, you know?
And we say, “What have you done?” And she says, “Done? Well, I ate dinner.” And you say, “Well, what have you withheld?” “I haven’t withheld anything.” “All right. Good.


They just thought it was nice, but never noticed that it was nice because the auditor had done it. In other words, there's no gears ever got shifted. There was no difference in the reading of the speedometer in the session.
Well, what have you done?” “Oh, I sat down here a while ago.” “Good. Well, what have you withheld?” “Nothing. I never withhold anything.


The pc never noticed any change of pace. This was a discussion between can-squeeze tests. This was apparently to the pc just a little two-way comm that went on and the auditor interested in the pC'9 case, you know.
My life is an open book.” And you go utterly mad trying to security check this person because you can’t find any responsibility on which to hang the Security Check. You’ve got to increase their respon- sibility before you can find any withholds. They’re there but they’re totally muzzled, you see, by the irresponsibility of the attitude of the PC.


No more important than that. No big resurges. No bridges.
You see, one of the ways you tell if a case is gaining is whether or not it’s getting more withholds off. Well, that’s just a way of saying “Is the case gaining in responsibility?” Yes, the case is gaining in responsibility, be- cause they’re getting more withholds off. Weren’t withholds up to that time.


Nothing. All in the middle of this. All right.
But you can take this same person, this same girl, and you could say, “What doesn’t your family know about?” “Oh, well, that is something else. Well, they don’t know that I poisoned Joe, that I shot Pete. They don’t know anything much about where I hid the body last month.


Now, you should be able to know the right way to go about things and find the Havingness Process and straighten out that sort of thing. All right. That's fine.
They don’t know what happened to the children. Ha-ha-ha-ha! They – ah...” see, and “don’t know” is still a button.


Well, how about this other thing Why make a production out of it? See? How come each one of these things has got to be a production?
All the way down “don’t know” is still a button, all the way down and all the way up. It’s a button the whole way. TRAINING DUPLICATION 19  You can always security check with “don’t know” and “not know,” when overts and withholds are passing right over the PC’s head like these orbiting space nights that aren’t tak- ing off, you know?


That's what I would like to ask you. How come? See?
See, “don’t know” goes all the way. So a study of not-knowingness has been approached by philosophy by two philoso- phers – notably two philosophers: one is Kant and the other one is Spencer. They’ve con- cluded that what wasn’t known couldn’t be known.


So the pc's Havingness Process isn't working and it was working yesterday. Well, you can find a new pc's Havingness Process and you probably should if it's some esoteric process like “Tell me the cubic inch capacity of that – what the cubic inch capacity of that wall might be.” If it's something this complicated and esoteric, why, certainly you'd better be working on it gradually, session by session, to improve their Havingness Process till it's something very simple like “What can you have here?”  BASICS OF AUDITING 16  See, I mean, that's the essence. You're trying to work toward a simplicity, by all means.
Oh, how interesting! In other words, the closest approach philosophy has ever made to “don’t know” or “not know” has been that you couldn’t know. That’s interesting, isn’t it?


But the pc is already running “Point out something Point out something Thank you. Point out something” The pc's running on this and it loosened the can squeeze – on the can- squeeze test yesterday and it isn't loosening on the can-squeeze test today. Well, why the production?
So, as I tell you, there has been no road to judgment. Now, for many years I’ve been trying to teach you characters judgment. It has been a tough and difficult job.


Isn't it perfectly obvious that the pc has invalidations or withholds on the subject of havingness? Isn't that all that would make that Havingness Process cease to function? It's too – it's an elementary process.
Judgment on the subject of another being, the ability to understand what was going on in a session, and operating with judgment so as to do the right thing about it. Now, do you know what bars you from judgment? It’s just the not-knowingness of it all.


Yes, we can see that other things, such as “What is the emotion of that (indicated object)?” We could see that that, for God's sakes, let's get off of it and get on to something else because that's a complicated process and we'd love to better it. But why make a production out of improving something which is very simple already? This is a perfectly satisfactory Havingness Process. “Point out something Thank you.
Well, where’s the not-knowingness of it all come from? It begins first with duplication. There is the entrance.


Point out something Thank you.” Auditor can just sit there and yawn. It's very easy. The pc thinks it's marvelous.
Oh, of course you could security check it out. “What don’t people know about you?” and so forth, and smarten the guy up no end; but that’s a processing approach, and we’re not now talking about a processing approach because there is nothing there to process to. You see, processing processes to what is there, see? Now, if a thetan ever got himself in bad condition, he’s invalidated his own judgment, he’s come off of his own judgment.


Everything is going along whizzingly. Well, it ceases to work, what should you do with it? Well, let's patch it up.
The whole lesson of this universe teaches a person not to duplicate, just as it teaches him not to communicate. You know, there are only two crimes in this universe that you have committed and that you have made others guilty of having committed: One is being there and the other is communicating. Those are the two crimes.


How long does it take to patch up something and get an invalidation off something? If the pc is in- session, doesn't take very long to find it. And the more the pc is in-session, the faster the pc will blow an aberration, the less afraid they are of things, the less they duck and dodge, the braver they feel.
There are no other crimes than that, being there and communicating. Now, if those two crimes are crimes, and those things have been made into crimes, then there’s only one other thing that you can possibly make up your mind about it: A person has to learn, you might say, not really learn, but become comfortable with being there and communicating. And the way and the route one would take to bring comfort on the subject of being there and communicating would of course be duplication of a datum.


And they’ll take on large masses and blow them and blow holes out of engrams and they're just brave as hell, you see, because they've got confidence in the auditor and they know the auditor will take it up if they go wrong. So why the production, see? This pc comes into session.
Now, a datum is a location which doesn’t have to be pinned down. A datum is a loca- tion, a cousin to a thetan, you know? All data is a sort of a cousin to a thetan.


This pc is saying, “Natter, natter, natter, yap, yap, yap and it was so-and-so and so-and-so,” got a roaring present time problem. The pc is right on the top of the present time problem, has nothing else but a present time problem, what are you going to do? Yank the pc's attention all over the room and on the floor and the ceiling and go through this and talk to you about your difficulties?
You know, he’s an idea, he thinks sometimes and he’s got ideas and he can communicate ideas. You can always put a whole stack of ideas into your thetan briefcase and have no mass at all. So it’s ideally portable, most portable thing in the world is an idea, so thetans chased out of here and chased out of there begin to use ideas for location.


Why, hell, they're talking to you about your difficulties and so forth. I'd handle the present time problem then start a session. See?
They feel comfortable when they have an idea, you known. And that idea that they feel comfortable about is an identity. Even though the identity  TRAINING DUPLICATION 20  is mobile, they feel more comfortable with an identity than without one because it gives them the sensation of being located.


You're auditing a case that's in front of you, not something else. The pc is stuck in a present time problem, it's perfectly obvious the pc is stuck in a present time problem, what are you doing handling anything else? What are you doing starting any sessions?
They like this. So what’s the conclusion here? The conclusion is that you can learn to have judgment, and the way you learn to have judgment is just those two steps: duplication of data, and, pur- suant to that, understanding.


Session got started someplace. Lord knows where the session got started or why it got started or something like that and if you want to square it with your conscience, why, just mutter, you know, “Well, start of session. What was that again?” But even that might distract the pc.
There’s the duplication, the understanding. You don’t get it this way: you don’t get understanding and then duplication. Now, what you should know about this is it’s any data would serve as long as it is data, any data. “Classification of the Geological Formations of the Middle East as Observed by the Geological Department, Serving After the Fact of the Appointments from the Rock- mount Foundation, Appertaining Only to Schists and Slides of the Lower Saudi Arabian Can- yons,” in 185 volumes, folio, see?


All right. She says, “Oh, my, this garage mechanic. My God.
That’s data, you know? It’s wild data, you know? “Anamorphic schists are often found most closely blended with hornblende.” You say to the PC, “Anamorphic schists are most closely blended with hornblende.” Well, this would be a “fascinating” situation. He would wind up, of course, with a drill.


And it took my car and I mean they took the rear wheels and put on the front wheels  BASICS OF AUDITING 17  and they got the flywheel off and they put on the steering wheel. And they just poured oil all over everything Right afterwards,” and so forth. And you're going to say, “Start of session.
He would wind up with an ability to do something, and he would also wind up with judgments on the subject of women, which I think is marvelous. Nobody could wind up with that. I’ve been trying all these years.


Is it all right to audit in this room?” Going to say something like this, are you? Well, how many ARC breaks can you handle at once? How many can you handle?
It’s impossible. And yet he could, by studying the anamorphic schists for the formation of hornblende. Very interesting !


That's all. Now, you've got the present time problem and an ARC break. You've got an ARC break with life and an ARC break with the auditor.
Now, beyond that you cannot go in the teaching of judgment. You cannot teach a man how he should judge something and still have him judge something. You understand that you can teach a person data.


Let's see if we can't dig up another ARC break someplace. Two doesn't seem like enough. Two ARC breaks and a present time problem and the auditor out of session – yeah, this'd be good, this would.
Yes, by force of beingness in you, you can relay communication and understanding to people and they do understand it. Well, I’ll give you an example of that. One ACC I did nothing but lecture.


No, the obvious thing is to say, “Well, what are you withholding from him?” “His payment. I'm not going to pay him a dime!” “What else are you withholding from him?” “Well, I've got the car. I've got the car outside.” “What were you withholding from him before that?” “Well, it was a wreck.” “Well, was there any earlier withhold on him?” “Ha-ha-ha.
Nobody processed anybody this whole ACC and they all had marvelous profile gains. I gave them two lectures a day and we went over all kinds of data and so on. Well, that was just a relay of un- derstanding and comprehension, and they felt better and they had a bunch of cognition’s on the thing and life looked better to them.


Well, I wasn't really going to pay for the repairs anyway.” “Oh, is that so? Well, all right. Any other withholds on that?
You understand? So that was in itself a kind of a proc- essing. That had one of the highest gain ACCs we ever had, which is interesting.


Any other upsets, withholds?” “No, no.” “How do you feel about that now?” “Oh, I feel all right about it, I guess. I guess.” “Well, were there any other withholds?” “Well, withhold from you that I had withholds from them.” “Well, all right. That's fine.
Now, this is totally possible, and without that possibility of course we’d never get anyplace. So that possibility natively exists. But let’s take the other one.


Okay if we start this session now? Start of session. Look around here . . .” There we go.
Let’s take the other one. Let’s raise a level of skill on the subject of judgment, just overtly and directly create a level of skill on the subject of judgment. We would do that by duplication.


That's auditing. That's auditing. It's auditing the case that's in front of you.
All right. What’s this amount to here? What’s this amount to?


At the time you do that, however, you are not absolved from any of the obligations of the auditor to have a proper Model Session running. You're not absolved from any obligations whatsoever, but you audit the case that's in front of you. You're just about to ask the pc, “Are you withholding anything” and the pc dopes off.
We are doing this – you do not see how this is working out according to the educational processes of the 17th ACC; first reason (to have no withhold from you, and so forth) is it wasn’t realized or rationalized  TRAINING DUPLICATION 21  from those directly. What you’re dealing with right this minute stems from prior understand- ing to the 17th ACC; 17th ACC is an outcrop of that understanding of how to go about these things. Nor are you dealing necessarily with a preconcerted effort to give you understanding.


You say, “Are . . .”  BASICS OF AUDITING 18  Well, what's the matter with you, that you can't shift gears at that point? You know the pc's Havingness Process. All right.
You’re not dealing with that either. You are dealing accidentally with two different things, and one of those things is just the action of understanding and duplication, you’re dealing with that, and at the same time you are dealing only with the data of Scientology which you can learn. But incidentally the data of Scientology is being used to develop in you judgment, not on the subject of Scientology.


Your classic method of starting that would be to say, “Is all right with you if I run some Havingness now?” But if the pc is so dopey he couldn't even hear it, I don't waste the English. I would just say, “Point out something Thank you. Point out something” And the pc does, you know.
Now, you don’t notice this because you’re learning judgment across a pretty high, beefy line. This is a high-voltage line, you see? So if you can learn judg- ment off of this line, marvelous!


Get the pc back up into session again and say, “Well, all right. Are you withholding anything” “Oh, well, that's something else.” Here we go. A lot of you are saying, for instance, “The elements, the items found – the items found – are going in and out.” Why do you say something like that?
Because this line, of all others, would tend to destroy your self determinism and judgment, wouldn’t it-! Yeah, you’re not given any chance to think what life’s all about. My God!


That's an odd thing to say. No. Elements never go in and out.
Is there anything else to think about than what life is all about? Isn’t that right? Well, I’ll give you what life is all about, and then you don’t have to think about it at all, and you’re all set, and that’s it, hm?


For them to go out, they would probably have to be audited or blown in some fashion that would be very arduous, so these items are not going out, but rudiments are. Rudiments are, which is cancelling the read. In other words, rudiments are going in and out if an item goes in and out on its read.
Well, the data is true so therefore it tends to stick, right? Do you know that a lot of you, unbeknownst to you, have run straight through having been taught it. And some of you haven’t noticed that you’ve gone through having been taught it.


The item doesn't go in and out. The rudiments go in and out and cancel the item's read. That's all.
You’ve come up on the other side of the thing into a realization of it; and now you have the realization of it, not because you’ve been taught it, but because you realize it. And this is what we know as “making it your data.” You’ve often said this to a student but some of you perhaps have not looked too closely on what we mean by “make it your data.” In other words, he has to go along the line of duplication of the data to an understand- ing of the data, and with that understanding of the data he has the final step, which is the reali- zation, totally self determined, of the existence of the data. And when you’re dealing with truth you always have this fourth step.


You get the rudiments back in, the item is reading again. Well, that doesn't mean that the item was going in and out. It wasn't, which gives you an entirely erroneous picture.
You have the ability to realize and to perceive. So you have first this “Thaa! What wall?


You now – you now present the fact that an item is not the item. Why isn't it the item? Well, because it's disappearing and appearing.
Don’t ask me to duplicate anything.” Then you have simple duplication, and that’s followed by understanding, and that is followed by realization or own comprehension. So therefore one’s own self-determinism is restored on such a track. Of course it’s most rapidly restored on such a track by teaching the person the exact truth of something.


Well, that would be characteristic of a bad item, a poorly assessed item, sporadic read. You're not dealing with that at all. The rudiments are going in and out and cancelling the reads.
There is the truth of something, he is able to duplicate the truth of some- thing after many travails, and this truth of something is immediately pursued by the under- standing of that something he has been taught. You understand that that is a stage; he’s still dependent on you for the understanding of what’s been taught. And your next stage up is a realization, which he reached at a sudden step up the line on his own bootstraps, so to speak.


No, you don't say even that the item is being cancelled by rudiments out. You say rudiments are cancelling out the meter reads. See?
He regained an ability to understand, and so then he himself could realize. That’s the route  TRAINING DUPLICATION 22  that you’re taking. That route has total self-determinism and other-determinism and, of course, therefore, pan determinism all mixed up in it, all at one fell swoop.


The rudiments are cancelling the meter. That's proper. That is to say that's factual.
The person becomes pan-determined over the data. The person can not only under- stand why they learned the data but why the data was taught to them, and understand and realize – of course the realization includes the independent truth of the datum regardless of having been taught the datum. And with that, of course, a person has reached a high peak of the ability to judge something.


That's what's happening. So you're whizzing on down the line – you're whizzing on down the line auditing somebody – what are you going to run into? Well, how many parts are there to a human mind?
A person then has judgment. There’s no other route that I know of. I mean if this is not a perfect route, all right, so it isn’t a perfect route.


And how many thinks can a person thunk, particularly if he's a thunky kind of thinker. Hm? How many?
There is no perfect route. Perhaps there is a perfect route, but there is no perfect route to hand at the moment if this is not a perfect route. But there is this, that it is the first route through to such an end product.


You're liable to run into any one of them. You're either going to handle him with TR 4 as an origin or you're going to have to take them up and keep your session going. That doesn't mean you Q-and-A all over the place.
It certainly is that. And it is married in against an entirely different function. So you get a side play of the same thing.


You have to know whether or not something is out of session or in session or going to throw the pc out or something. You have to have an adjustment. You have to have an idea of what you're doing.
That is to say, you’ve got this thing doing two things. It wouldn’t matter – well, your instructor has the horrible idea occasionally – he says, “All right. Now, what time span is there in an instant read?


In order to accomplish what you're doing, however, move heaven and earth to get the pc down that particular slot. See, just do anything you can do to get the pc down the slot. The  BASICS OF AUDITING 19  pc's trying to move away and you say, “There's the slot, see?
How soon must the read occur after the thing, an instant read?” I don’t know how many answers you’ve got. I wouldn’t set it right for worlds; not for worlds, I wouldn’t set it right. Gives the instructor a marvelous opportunity.


That's the cliff and we want you to go to the edge of the cliff and jump off.” And the pc is saying, “I don't like the cliff and I don't like the edge of the cliff and it's going to take a lot more than an auditor to make me jump off the cliff.” And you say, “Good, well, how deep is it?” Pc says, “Well, it's quite deep.” “Where you looking at it from?” “Well, from up here at the edge,” and so forth. And the pc says, “But I'm not going anywhere near that because another auditor ran that at some time or another and had a lot of trouble with it.” “Well, you got any withholds from that auditor?” “Oh, yes. That I didn't want to run it.
He can say, “Yes. But that tape, see? What does it say on that tape?


I just pretended to run it before.” “Good. Now, how deep is it? All right.
That tape!” And you say, “Well, actually, it’s a half a second, a quarter of a second, a fifth of a second, a tenth of a second, it doesn’t matter. I mean there – there it is.” “Ah, but which one is it on that tape?” “Well, I can’t tell you what that tape is. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a quarter of a second, half of a second, a fifth of a second, and so on, so on.


Jump. Thank you.” No, sir. A pc hasn't got a prayer if an auditor is a good pony wrangler.
I mean, all these answers and so on” – natter, natter, natter, natter. And he says, “Flunk!” And you go back and snarl, and run up a whole bunch of overts against me, and so forth, and listen to the tape again. And you say, “Well, what do you know?


He hasn't got a prayer. Now, if a – if an auditor is that good so as to keep a pc rounded up at all times and headed in toward the slot the auditor wants him to be headed into, don't you think it'd also be a good idea if the auditor knew what slots to head the pc into? Don't you think that would be a good idea, huh?
Hang on, let’s see, what was it on that exact tape? Oh, gorblimey! I never heard that before!


If an auditor possesses all this horsepower that he can head the pc down this particular slot, then he certainly ought to know the slots. That's why you duplicate bulletins and things like that, so you get some idea where the slots are. Of course, you take somebody that's been eighty-nine years a member of the Theosophy Society and two lives ago founded it, says, “Well, uh. . . tsk!
A twentieth of a second! Twentieth of a second! Kaaa!


Hubbard's a little bit wrong here. Actually, what he's talking about when he's talking about these black masses, he's talking about astral selves, which have begun to haunt the pc. And I know that, and so forth.
All right,” and you go in. “Twentieth of a second.” “All right, that’s it.” Now, you see, it’d be totally pedantic (and we’re not doing it on this other system) for the instructor to say “What are the first seven words in the fifth paragraph of the third bulle- tin written in 1959 in the month of June?” See, that is just becoming a memory contest, and if you’ll notice, nearly all study is devoted to memory contests. And nobody is asking you to  TRAINING DUPLICATION 23  engage in a memory contest. Somebody is asking you to engage in a duplication activity.


And so obviously the thing to do is every short distance in the auditing session, why, we will put in this cancellation thing so the astral selves, you see, will dissolve and so forth and that will make it all work.” And then he uses auditing techniques to head the pc down toward the astral selves slot. Of course, there's no slot there, so the pc doesn't know where to go and everybody winds up in a – in a horrible bash. No, you've got to have a slot there for the pc to go into and you got to know what the slot is and then you ride him into it and through it.
If you can duplicate the data your memory will come up sooner or later – even yours. It’s very, very horrible; some of you first confronting this thing, you find it ghastly! You find it utterly horrible.


And it's very easy to do if you're doing that. BASICS OF AUDITING 20  Now, I'll give you an idea of auditing on your feet, auditing there on the spot. I've just given you a flow process.
It’s the most terrible thing you ever confronted. Recognize the mechanism you’re up against, and recognize that not for a moment is anybody going to relent on this datum. Also find out, as you go along, all of a sudden you’re able to understand things you weren’t able to understand before, which is all quite peculiar; and you possibly have never noticed this, but you’re now understanding things you never understood before that have to do with other things that have nothing to do with training, nothing to do with the sub- ject matter you’re training on, which is quite amazing.


All right. There are four flows. One is outflow.
You get something going like this, why, you’ve made gains in another direction, and that’s what an auditor has to have. An auditor has to have comprehension. He has to be able to understand what he is looking at.


And the other, of course, is restrained outflow, which you know as a withhold. That's all a withhold is, is a restrained outflow. That's number two.
He has to un- derstand what is going on. An auditor who gets into this kind of a situation is a dead one, he’s lost. The PC says, “Ah, women are such a bore!” And he’s pulled the same gag you might have pulled on the committee, as far as the auditor is concerned.


And then there's an inflow and there's a restrained inflow. That's very simple. These are all selfdetermined flows.
He said that fatal word – two fatal words: He said women and bore. These things are not compatible, outrageous! One can’t possibly marry up those two words in the same sentence.


They're the most easy flows for a pc or a thetan to self-determine. Now, we have heretofore looked on the inflows as motivators and the prevented inflow as a sort of a motivator side of it. And that was very easy to do because these things are very snarled up.
Whoever imagined they could become bored with women? This is incomprehensible, and the auditor just sits there and he starts some kind of a natter, natter, natter, interrupt the PC, you see? “Women, bore? Women, bore?


But mixed up inside the motivators, there was a pc selfdetermined action to make the inflow occur and a pc self-determined action to make the inflow not occur. And of course, also, the pc's self-determined actions to make the outflow occur. Now, flows 3 and 4, which is the inflow and the restrained inflow, are not as important as the withhold and outflow.
What are you talking about?” And instead of saying “TR 4” cheerily, and going on with the session, he says “Natter, sub-natter.” He does all kinds of things, says Q and A, “What did you say? Where are we going? What are you doing?


Now, you handle the withhold and outflow all the time in a Security Check. You ask – on one hand you're asking, “What are you withholding?” and on the other hand you're asking, “What have you done?” In other words, you've asked for the outflow and you've asked for the withhold. So you've asked for flows 1 and 2.
Why? Why did you say that? Have you got an engram there?


Now, you've got flows 3 and 4, however, still available; and although these are fainter flows, they nevertheless can be selfdetermined flows. A pc self-determines an inflow. Now, oddly enough, a pc can self-determine a bad inflow and can practically force you into making an auditing error because he has to have a good inflow.
What’s happening in the thing?” and so forth. In other words the auditor goes into a “trying to understand,” do you hear that? PC can sometimes put you into a “trying to understand,” and you’ll find yourself having a hard time auditing the PC for quite another reason.


Good, nice ARC break is what he needs at the particular moment and he'll force you to inflow something. But he has something to do with it. In other words, however, the action is so much yours that you seldom notice that there was a self-determined action involved in it.
You don’t audit PCs by telepathy, and this PC isn’t talking very much or loudly, you see? And you say to the PC, “All right now, what is your opinion of women?” And the PC says, “Ummm-ummm.” And you have to say “What did you say?” Not to understand what the PC says is a misdemeanor of the first water. The PC is sort of putting you on a point where you are made to think that you don’t understand the PC because you can’t understand what the PC’s say- ing.


Now, he might have done this so he could thereafter outflow a make-you-guilty. So you've got these little, tiny inflow and braked inflows which are self-determined which are operative in a mass. Now, you have this in the Flow Process.
TRAINING DUPLICATION 24  I remedy this usually quite well; PC goes – tips over, is all curled up in a ball, head is down in the chair, mouth totally compressed against the curve of the arm, and is saying “Ummm, ummmm,” and so on. I don’t risk any ARC breaks on my part or theirs. I say, “Sit up.


You run the Flow Process fifty minutes. The reason you can't run it less, particularly early in sessions, is because it cycles too hard and it's too ridgy and it's too beefy. You can't run it slightly.
That’s right. Sit up. That’s good.


It's got to be run heavily. I already tested that out. I originally thought that it would be ten minutes of the Flow Process and twenty minutes and ten minutes.
Now speak up.” And the PC says, “Ummmmmm.” You say, “All right. Now, what was that answer again?” “Oh, women are such a bore.” “All right. Thank you very much,” you know? “All right.” In other words, I make the PC communicate to me, which may be tougher but you’ll find out that you’ll run up ARC breaks when you don’t.


But I've underestimated entirely the power of the process and the power of the process kicked it up that the minimum length of time the process can be run is about fifty minutes. BASICS OF AUDITING 21  Now, that's all right because that gives you fifty minutes of that and it gives you twenty minutes of Sec Checking and ten minutes of Havingness and twenty minutes of Sec Checking and ten minutes of Havingness and you've got ten minutes worth of rudiments before and after and you've got a two-hour session, which is fine. Now, that is all very well, but understanding this mechanic of the four flows...
You pays your money and you takes your chance. In other words, if you leave him in that condition, you’re going to have – soon you’re going to be totally out of comprehension of what’s going on with the PC. You’re also going to feel that you don’t comprehend what the PC is doing, and therefore you can’t observe anything that’s happening to the PC and all sorts of things go wild.


Of course, you know, there are some more flows. That is, it doesn't exhaust all the flows there are. There are the flows from left to right and right to left and there are all four flows for somebody else – the pc determining the four flows for somebody else.
But let’s get back on the other thing. Let’s take an auditor who cannot happily dupli- cate a datum, a non sequitur datum, but always insists that he hang up on a button. And the PC says, “Women are such a bore,” and he knows that this can’t exist, and he himself has lots of trouble with women, and his immediate response is “Why is women boring?


And you could be determining them for England. In other words, they could occur on the – on the third dynamic, you see. The pc's busily running “What should be outflowed?
What is this?” and so on, and go squabble out of session here. “You’ve challenged me. I don’t believe that. That hasn’t anything to do with this.


What should be inflowed?” and so on and he's running them for England. He isn't running them for himself. “What should be outflowed? Exports.
Just why did you come to that particular conclusion? I don’t see what there is in the auditing command that would make you come to that conclu- sion.” The PC finally says, “Well, it was just a cognition!” And the fellow says, “Well, it’s a cognition. That’s a remarkable thing to say when you come to think about it, you know?


What should be inflowed? Dollars,” you know? “What inflow should be prevented? Jamaicans,” you know.
It’s a remarkable thing to say – just a cog....” But the PC says, “But it’s just a cognition. You know, I just said it, you know?” He says, “Well, all right.” And the auditor goes on, you see, and audits him a little bit longer, and the PC says, “But all men are stupid, when it comes right down to that.” And stupid, you know, that’s a button, so the auditor says, “Stupid? Who?


All kinds of wild things. Actual answers that came out of a session. Pc was running what should be inflowed, you know, and that sort of thing, and I was – and the answers were well, food, you know, all logically.
Oh? Who? Who?


And then exports. Exports? What's this, you know?
Who? What did – what did you say again?” “All men are stupid.”  TRAINING DUPLICATION 25  “Why did you say that? Do you have a picture there?” and so forth. “What’s going on?


And three or four commands later, I suddenly realized the pc was running these for England. This was England. The pc ran out the whole British Isles in about eighteen or twenty commands.
I mean, have you got an ARC break? Got some withholds? Are you withholding some- thing?


It was quite remarkable. Now, you got a principle of four flows. I said there's the principles from right to left and left to right and the principles from bottom to top and top to bottom.
Is that what you’re withholding, that all men are stupid? Just exactly how does this add up?” and so on. And the PC says, “But it’s just a cognition.


And there's a lot of weird ones in that particular line. You could run into those on the basis of “What are you holding down?” and “What are you keeping from being held down?” And you see, you could get terribly involved in all this, but it isn't necessary to get that complicated to get an effect – get a proper auditing effect. Supposing you were to use these things in session to keep the rudiments in.
I – I just – just – I – I – I just had the idea. I’m sorry. I’m sorry.” And you then have a PC who won’t blow anything.


I'll show you something on the order of auditing on your feet and auditing by basic principle. This pc says, “Well, I'm very tired of being audited.” And you say, “Do you have a withhold?” Well, the pc – yes, the pc has a withhold. Withhold themselves from the session.
You have a PC who is punished for cogniting. You have a PC who is punished for auditing and therefore have a PC who is punished for getting rid of pieces of the bank. And if you audit the PC in that framework the PC will make no gain because they’re being taught not to blow anything, because they don’t ever dare mention anything; and they’re made sorry every time they open their mouths be- cause there’s no comprehension.


All right, good. We got that session withhold off and a couple of seconds later we have another session withhold and a couple of seconds later we have another session withhold, and there's just more session withholds than we can easily take off of the case. Well, if there are four flows, don't you think that it would be a simple thing if you tripped one of the other flows that was causing the person to withhold?
They look up, the auditor’s trying to understand, trying to understand, trying to hear, trying to hear, trying to find out what it is, what it is, what it is, where it came from, where it came from, wha – da-da-da-da-da – if you’ll just – you don’t – no, no – you’ve got the auditor on trying to comprehend, trying to comprehend, trying to comprehend. And of course you haven’t got an auditor at that stage who is capable of dupli- cating what the PC said. My God, I’ve heard PCs say some of the most outrageous things you ever heard of in your life.


BASICS OF AUDITING 22  So let's take as an auditing question, “Well, are you outflowing anything?” “Yeah, auditing answers. I answer just one more of – these list items, you know. Just one more and you keep asking and asking and asking me these items.
Now, this never startled me particularly, but once in a while I have been startled by something. You notice that you’re normally most startled by overts or withholds the PC has which pertain immediately and directly to you, or to somebody you’re close to or like, you know? You’re immediately influenced by these particular overts and withholds.


I – I – I – I – I – I – and I give you all the items there are and so forth.” “Well, good enough. Well, did you withhold any?” “Well, a ton or two, of course. Had to,” and so forth. “All right.” Now, all of a sudden you'll find the pc isn't going to get a withhold every two seconds.
Well, what if the whole session – supposing the auditor were in such poor state with regard to duplication that every bit of the auditor’s auditing was as reactive toward the PC as your sudden Rrorrr! when the PC has just told you some fantastic lying withhold about you. Now, you know your own startlement when you’ve heard one of these occasionally. Well, supposing they’re trying to understand – “Where did you hear that?” you know?


See, you tripped the outflow that was causing the pc to withhold. See, it was actually the being demanded to outflow – the demand to outflow, you see, was what had the pc withholding. You keep picking up the session withholds and getting the reads back in, but you had to keep picking them up all the time.
Right away you’re just yanked out of it sometimes, you know? He says, “Well I – I have a withhold. I – I saw you....” You say, “Yes, what?” “Well, I saw you up at the corner of the lane up there the other night with – well, you know who.” “Well, who?


And you're just mopping your brow, you know and “Aw, all right. There they went again,” you know, and you've gone down three lines, null, null, null. They weren't null before.
Who? Who?” you know, “Who? Who did you see me up there with?” and so forth. “Oh, well – well, you know.


And one of those items didn't even vaguely look like it was going to null. All right, that's out. Now, if you just say, “Are you withholding anything” “Yes, well, I'm withholding.
We needn’t really go into it.”  TRAINING DUPLICATION 26  “Well, what’s this all about? Where did you hear that? I mean, did you see that your- self?


I'm just – well, no, no. Just – yes. A few minutes ago I thought. . .” “All right.
Did you see it in person? Were you there? What time was it?


Good.” Get it in and you're reading again, see. Well, you have to keep doing that unless you balanced up the flows someplace. There must be something else he is upset about.
Well, did anybody else see it?” you know? You’ll get caught off base, and you will ask more questions about it than you ordinarily would ask about something else. That’s your effort to try to understand because you’re hung up on some kind of a button that concerns you intimately.


All right. So we say – we say, “Are you outflowing anything?” “Hell, yes. Can't you hear me?” you know? “I just had to outflow about four more of these things.” “Well, when did you decide that it was a rough thing to have to outflow?” He said, “Well, early in a session.
Do you see that? All right. Now, an auditor who can’t duplicate runs the whole session in that frame of mind.


I don't like to mention this, by the way. I don't like to mention these – this particular item. After all, it isn't nice for a young girl to have to list a whole bunch of opposition terminals to a policeman.
Not just things that relate to him, but anything that relates to anything, the auditor has the same greeting of that – the same greeting from the auditor. The PC says, “It’s been a nice day all day.” The auditor says, “What? What?


It's not seemly.” “When did you first think that?” “Well, I just thought it . . . just it was a bad thing to do and so on.” Of course, it is a specimen of withhold, isn't it? But nevertheless, it's the outflow they've been objecting to. All right.
Where? Where? Where?


You get the objection to the outflow off and of course the tendency to withhold vanishes. BASICS OF AUDITING 23  All right. Now, let's use another one of the flows.
I mean, where did you hear that? Oh, you – you what? Today.


You say, “Are you inflowing anything?” And the person says, “Yes, auditing commands. If I just get one more auditing command . . .” And of course, your tendency is, of course, at once to ask why and to be concerned about your auditing, but that just shows that you're ignorant and stupid and a knucklehead and were born that way. No, the person says auditing command – yes, they're inflowing auditing commands.
Oh, you’re talking about today, not yesterday. Well, I thought it was a nice day today too, that is, this morning, early. Yes, let’s see.


One of the troubles people have with auditing is they don't realize that these things blow and they take them up after the pc has got rid of them. In other words, a pc says, “Are you with – .” Auditor says, “Are you withholding anything” And the pc says, “Well, yes, I was withholding a critical thought about the nasal twang you were using in your auditing commands,” and so forth and so forth. And you, you knucklehead, all too often say, “Well, what is wrong with that?” or “What does that associate with?” Look, the pc spat it out, there it is, you've got the withhold, it is now lying on the floor and it's totally doggo.
What were we talking about? Oh, yes. The auditing command was – what was the auditing command?


If you jumped all over it, it couldn't be more dead, you see. And you carefully pick it up, attach an air hose to it, you see, and pump it up and put it back in the session. See, it's just the basis of the – you don't believe the pc ever blows anything.
Yes – yes. Have I withheld anything from you? All right.


The pc mentioned it and it's gone. The auditor is very often left stonied, you see, because the auditor gets in a bit of a games condition with the pc sometimes. Well, he ought to take this up.
Have I withheld anything from you?” You watch it, man. Therefore, if you get a zone or area where the auditors are having one awful time trying to duplicate a bulletin, what must you also assume? That they’ve been in there endlessly trying to understand the PC, trying to understand the cases, being hung up on all kinds of wild-ball buttons, and they’re right down there at the first stage I gave you.


The pc objects to his nasal accent, how in the name of common sense could he audit the pc? Well, it's all gone, you see. There isn't anything more on it.
They’re in that stage. See, if their morale is going down because they can’t pass any bulletin tests, you would know at once how they’ve been handling PCs. Do you see that?


Let it lie. The Shakespearian phrase of “Let sleeping dogs lie” is “Let blown withholds and overts expire.” Don't keep beating them to death because they're already dead. The pc blew them.
So duplicative training is absolutely essential. And it is successful. Now, you can make up your mind to that.


One of the ways to stop a pc from blowing is to take up everything he has blown after he has blown it. This is one of the nice ways to keep a pc from advancing because it's so innocent. Nobody ever quite notices what's happening The pc says something and the auditor takes it up.
Now, what I’ve talked to you about you may or may not have found very burningly interesting. Naturally, it doesn’t apply to you personally. But in training auditors you should know it.


He doesn't do a TR 4 on it, you see. He takes it up. The pc says something else and that's blown now.
The baptism of fire that causes people to look so pale and so drawn under the thing is, for instance, duplicating under resentment. See, they go through all kinds of emotional bars on this particular thing. Learn like mad but it’s all resented like mad, you see, because “Uhhhhh!


He doesn't express an interest in it or something like that. The auditor doesn't. He wants to know, now, how he can remedy this situation.
It couldn’t possibly be – uhrrhhh!” and so on. Well, they pass through that one too. But sometimes you see a student here who goes around for the first two or three weeks, and they get paler and paler, and shadowier and shadowier, more and more hollow- eyed, more and more gaunt, things looking worse and worse.


BASICS OF AUDITING 24  This is the way you really stop a session, see: The pc has just had a cognition. Now, the auditor wants to know how he can remedy it. You almost train the pc never to have a cognition after a while because the auditor is going to take it up.
Or they look more and more apa- thetic. You can hear them the way they start up their cars, and things. You can hear about how a new student is going, you know?


That's what's called Q and A, normally. Q and A is – covers a multitude of situations of this particular character and that isn't exact Q and A. But you watch; it's a specialized kind of it.
At first, why, they start up their cars in a sort of a puzzled way; and then they start up a car, you know, very angrily indeed, you see? You can hear the gears crash about three times as they get up the drive, you know? And then eventually they  TRAINING DUPLICATION 27  wander up the driveway running into both sides of the verge; you know about what state they have reached, and so on.


See, “Well, I just was having trouble because a nasal accent always upsets me.” “Well, when did you first withhold that?” “Oh, I don't know. I thought that several days ago.” “Well, all right. Have you thought it often since?” “Yes, yes, I have.” “All right.
That’s all done by training, and it is not the route of processing. Don’t consider it a processing route. It is just a route by training because it is a new skill.


Well, that's fine. Thank you.” That would be everything that you could do. That would be sort of polishing it off, you know and buffing it up and putting out a piece of velvet and setting it in the middle of the velvet, you see and turning a couple of spotlights on it, you see.
You very often have been asked in the past to memorize “the structural components of a Mark VII space vessel with gyro rotators, complete, all number parts.” I’m sure you’ve had to do something like this. I’m sure you have had at some time or another. And the funny part of it is you wound up at the other side being able to look at the space vessel; and on the other side of that somebody says to you, “Oh, well, these Mark VIIs – these Mark VIIs, they – they – they sure fly low, and they sure fly slow, Mark VIIs do.” “No, no, no,” you say, “you don’t really understand this ship, you know.


Everything you could possibly do is done in just that little phraseology I just told you, see? Oh, no. Some auditors won't do that.
You don’t understand how to run one. No, when you first get them into the outer area of an atmosphere, you see, you turn on the coolers, you see, at that moment. See, you don’t slow them down as you come in.


They say, “Well, did you ever know anybody that had a nasal accent? Did anybody in your family speak with a nasal accent? When you were in the army, did you ever notice anybody with a nasal accent?
Just turn on the coolers way out there, you see, so that you supercool the whole hull, you see? That’s the way you really handle these things. And then you come in, hit the atmosphere on a skip, always hit it on a skip the first time, you see?


Do you yourself ever use a naval accent?” And then the auditor suddenly wakes up and realizes he's talking about naval accents and the pc is talking about nasal accents and it's all – it's all bogged down somewhere. And then the auditor has an ARC break and the pc doesn't take it up and that's the end of the session. See, but that is a common error.
And then sort of smush in, you know, with everything super cooled. Come in fast, don’t lose your speed, you’re all right, you see? And then have your counter-blasters in excellent condition so that when you come down toward the surface, and that sort of thing, right at the exact proper – and so as not to waste any fuel – these Mark VIIs, you really have to pour that blaster to it.


Sometimes even the best auditor is startled into this error. He's just momentarily startled. It just took him a little bit off guard.
And if you pour it to it very suddenly and very quickly you stop, you see? And then you land all right. And the reason they’re having crashes with them is they just don’t understand them.” And somebody comes out and watches you land a Mark VII, you don’t land one that way at all, but you sure understand one.


It was something new and he has a tendency himself to satiate his own curiosity with regard to this sort of thing. He's sometimes trapped into this one, but my God, don't make it a habit, you know, that every time the pc blows something, hand it back to the pc and say, “Did you lose this?” Anyway, in handling this sort of thing, you could say to a pc, “All right. Now, have you inflowed anything” Or “Have you prevented an inflow in this session?”  BASICS OF AUDITING 25  “Yeah, I'm sitting here waiting for that picture – that picture to – to move the other way.” “Oh.” The pc hadn't mentioned this picture before, see.
You understand how to land one; but every time you land a Mark VII you land it entirely differently than at any other time you ever landed a Mark VII. You never land a Mark VII the same way twice, yet you always land them and they never crack up and everything is fine. You got the idea?


Prevented an inflow. There's the picture. “Well, how long has the picture been there?” “Oh, well, I don't know. It's been a long, long time.” “All right.
But you never drive the same ship the same way two days consecutively running. That’s because you understand it. Routine and rote, in other words, are a poor substitute for understanding.


Well, when did you first start preventing that inflow?” Not “What is in the picture?” Il1 clue you. That's wrong. That's wrong That's a gross auditing error.
And the place I’m trying to get you to is a place where you can process by realization, process by comprehension, process by the exercise of judgment. If I can get you to that point, I will have considered it very well worth doing, no matter “‘ow ‘eroic” it has been on the way. Thank you.
 
It'd be, “Well, when did you first prevent that inflow?” See, on any flow line, you want to know when is it first and has it been going on for very long You just want to know this in order to get their attention to pick up the – an early one. You don't want the first one. If you're auditing withholds or something, for heaven's sakes, get the first one.
 
Get the first tiny glimmering as it came out of the divine ether into the pc's left eardrum, see. For heaven's sakes, just hound it down with the meter, pin it down in time and find out what color the clock was painted. In other words, go the limit if you're doing something that is utterly dependent on this.
 
If that's the channel you're driving the pc into and no other channel, well, for heaven sakes, be thorough. But you are going down into channel Q and you're trying to get a list assessed. And all of a sudden you ask the pc something like this and the pc says, “Yes and it's that picture and I'm trying for that.” “Well, have you been preventing that long?
 
All right. When was that? Yeah.
 
Have you done it many times since? Thank you very much. All right.
 
Thank you.” And go on with the list because it’ll now be reading. You get the idea? In other words, when you're driving them into channel Q, don't change your mind and try to get over here into this other channel.
 
You weren't heading for that way. That's what Q- and-A really is. Pc dives for channel G and the auditor, who has heretofore been heading for channel Q, immediately reverses his monowheel bicycle and goes clear across to the other side of the plain and heads down what he thinks the pc's channel is, you see.
 
In other words, he doesn't keep on with what he's doing at all. He does something else. Now, these are the lick-and-a-promise sort of thing and the way you handle the flow on a lick and a promise is just bang, bang All right. “Are you?” see? “When?” “How often?” “How is it?” That's just about the limit of it.
 
You don't go any further into it than that. That's it. It's blown.
 
BASICS OF AUDITING 26  Now, you've actually got four flows that you could monkey with on this basis of keeping rudiments in and you'd find every one of them would trigger some kind of a rudiment. Pc who's sporadically getting rudiments out has got a flow off that you were not asking about. Now, that gives us a question.
 
On beginning rudiments, do we do something on this order? Do we say, “Well, all right. Are you withholding anything?
 
Are you outflowing anything Are you inflowing anything? And if you – are you holding off any inflow?” Yeah, it predicates that you very well might do something like that. It would certainly give you all the pcs you would ever audit.
 
Pcs have to outflow. They have to inflow. They have to prevent inflows, you see.
 
And they often think they have to withhold. So that's the score. It'd be perfectly legitimate, in other words, to balance out a person's flows with a simple question.
 
Or with two questions. Or with all four questions relating to those flows. It's just what is this pc doing that he isn't communicating about?
 
That is what the final analysis is. So it all comes under the head of a withhold. But which direction is the withhold?
 
See? Don't get lost on this and think that it is because the pc is outflowing that has got everything upset. It is because the pc is withholding his resentment and expression of that resentment that he is outflowing You got that?
 
See? It is not that the pc is inflowing your auditing commands. It's the pc has not bothered to communicate to you that he sometime since has started to resist the inflow of your auditing commands, that he has not communicated.
 
That is the button that is off, see? The pc has noticed for some time that there was a cold draft of air coming in some portion of the room and the pc is trying mentally to hold off the cold draft of air and it is not holding off the cold draft of air that is going to do anything to the session. It is the fact that he has not told you about it and that you haven't found out about it that has got the session off So you'd say there are four flows you could find out about in clearing up things and making lists read.
 
And those four flows will just be the four flows that are the four flows. And of course, it's withholding data about any one of the four flows that is the most aberrative thing to the session. So withhold is still king, but you have to remember these other things that go along with it.
 
All right. You could straighten up a pc and keep a session running under almost any circumstances providing one thing were present: an actual desire to assist the pc and to keep the pc in communication with you. Not necessarily to communicate with the pc but certainly necessarily to keep the pc in communication with you.
 
That is more important than communicating to the pc, although that has some importance, too. You see, you can be communicating to the pc, but the pc isn't communicating to you. BASICS OF AUDITING 27  Now, an auditor can interfere with a pc's communication to him in various ways.
 
There are things called obsessive withholds on other people. The cop is totally inspired in all of his duties in restraining people from undergoing dramatizations of these mad impulses known as kleptomania, homicide and other Latin phrases which all mean “a mess,” see? And those are all getting somebody else to withhold.
 
Now, the tax collector, of course, is up against an entirely different problem and he has to get people to outflow. So if you have an auditor who has a tax-collector background, why, probably they keep the pc talking forever and if you have an auditor who has customarily been a cop, why, he won't let – ever let the pc say a word. And actually an auditor can function so as to shut off the pc's communication line.
 
Not to keep the pc going down a channel, but just because pcs mustn't talk. Now, auditors always talk too much. That's one of the earliest criticisms I ever uttered of auditors.
 
They always talk too much. An auditor always says too much. This is – this is true.
 
You look back over a session and you won't be able to find places where you didn't, ordinarily, speak when you should have, but you will find several places where you should have kept your ruddy mouth shut. If you'd just kept your mouth shut, it would have been all right. You can always find those as you review a session.
 
So the point of the thing is, is some nice adjudication on the part of the auditor. Havingness is defined as that which a person believes he can reach. And no- havingness is defined as something that a person can't reach or doesn't permit itself to be reached.
 
So an auditor who is talking too much, too roughly, too crossly, interfering too much with the session appears to be a confused area into which the pc cannot reach and therefore the pc cannot talk into this confused area and the pc simply clams up. It doesn't matter how (quote) “interested” the auditor appears to be. It doesn't matter how the pc this or the auditor's this or that or the other thing or whether or not the auditor is monitoring the session with his little finger raised forty-five degrees or sixty degrees.
 
None of those things would count. It's just that the auditor appears to be such an enturbulated area that the pc could not possibly reach into that area. If the pc has this sensation about the auditor then the auditor is simply making too much confusion for the pc.
 
Now, in that pcs very often can't have much anyhow, a slight confusion and too much yap on the part of the auditor can cut the pc's havingness down and the pc will dope. See, any communication was almost too much communication for the pc. Well, that means the auditor is out. “Who would I have to be to audit you?
 
What don't I know about you?” Processes of that kind. Clean this up, you see? But it's a very bad thing for an auditor to use the auditor's body in any way in the session, by the way.
 
That's a good tip  BASICS OF AUDITING 28  for you. It's just bum, bum auditing for the auditor to call attention, for instance, to his body as a part of Havingness. For instance, you're running “notice that” and so forth and call attention to the auditor's body.
 
That's just poor auditing in general. However, regardless of that, a rather interesting phenomenon can be observed with a pc who has believed the auditor is too enturbulative to reach into. Just tell the pc, “Put your hand on my shoulder.
 
Thank you. Put your hand on my shoulder. Thank you.
 
Put your hand on my shoulder. Thank you. Put your hand on my shoulder.
 
Thank you. Put your hand on my shoulder. Thank you.
 
Put your hand on my shoulder. Thank you.” All of a sudden, the pc smiles and that's fine. You say, “All right.
 
End of that process.” That's never good to use the auditor's body in this lineup at all, but I'm just giving you that as an example. Give the pc the illusion of being able to reach the auditor and the havingness of the auditor picks way up. And what is more demonstrable by that than the fact that he could put out his hand actually and reach into the auditor's zone.
 
The pc finds this out and all of a sudden he's got an auditor. Now, when you have people around who are terrified of anybody coming into their zone and they say or attempt auditing, of course, they put the pc on – in an odd frame of mind. Now, the auditor who is trying to make the pc obsessively withhold “because everybody should withhold, because we know how to control life and we know how life should operate.
 
If everything withheld everyplace, then life would be okay, wouldn't it?” Well, anybody who is operating on that as a sole modus operandi, of course, makes a poor auditor because every time the pc speaks, the auditor makes the pc guilty for speaking. And “Boo,” you know. “How dare you?” you know? “All right. How tall is a bear?” The pc says, “Six feet.” And the auditor says, “Hmmmmm.
 
Are you sure you answered the auditing command? Oh, you are. All right.
 
Good.” You know, builds up high ARC. Now, just as you have that mechanism, so you have the other mechanism, which is the auditor to – into whose zone nobody must ever reach. Nobody must ever reach into the auditor's zone because the auditor should run away.
 
You see, the proper thing to do is to run away. And you will find the auditor changing the auditing process as a symptom of running away and doing many other things, all of which are classifiable under running away. See, punish the pc for reaching or run away to keep the pc out of your zone of area.
 
These are all basic auditing error mechanisms. And where those are going on, you will  BASICS OF AUDITING 29  discover that the pc is more aware of it than the auditor. The pc just knows he isn't getting an auditing session.
 
That's the way the pc sums it up. See, when he says something, it's never taken up. When he tries to do something, it's somehow or another handled.
 
And when he tries to speak, he's prevented from speaking, you see? When he asks the auditor something, the auditor isn't there. And all of this sums up to is, of course, out of communication in some fashion which then sums up for the pc of an inability to talk to the auditor which is unintentional.
 
See, he's on an unintentional withhold all the time because he can't talk to the auditor. The auditor's putting him on a continuous withhold. Well, if he's into that kind of a condition, why, of course, the auditor doesn't have the pc in-session and we get rather poor auditing There's numerous mechanisms I could mention in this particular line, but those are the principal mechanisms which make an auditor have trouble.
 
It's not that the pc gets these ideas but that the auditor fosters them. Oddly enough, a pc, how you could ever have trouble with a pc, I wouldn't ever know. That does exceed my reality.
 
When I tell people to sit down and do something, they always sit down and do it. Whether I have to pick them up and put them bodily in the chair or fast-talk them into the chair or sweettalk them into the chair or whatever I have to do and then to get it done, they always do it, see. And it just never enters my head that they won't.
 
So therefore, it really never enters theirs. I'm perfectly willing to carry out the auditing command on the pc, see, whereas perhaps other auditors are more willing to have the pc carry out the auditing command. Now, I'm perfectly willing to carry it out on the pc.
 
I have no illusions about the pc's bank. I know I have more control over it than he does. It doesn't scare me, so let's roll.
 
And the only thing that ever upsets me is when a pc starts out intentionally to give me loses. And I can even cure a pc of that. But I think that's the one thing that pcs do occasionally.
 
They just set out to give you a lose, you know, give you another lose, give you another lose. I don't like that. And I'm not above punishing them.
 
Drop them in an engram and say, “Well, it's getting awfully late. Don't you think we ought to end session?” But that's a bum thing to do. But then, I'll be human someday.
 
Anyway, the difficulties that you have as an auditor actually are basically of your own creation and they stem from using ritual to avoid auditing and various things of this character. And there is no substitute for just sitting down, taking the pc, sitting there and you audit his case and you use what you know about the human mind and so forth and putting it in the most optimum form and the most optimum presentation you can for that pc, just get that session rolling, fix it up, find it, what it is, tape it all out, square it up, bang! There it is.
 
Write it down on the auditing report. BASICS OF AUDITING 30  The pc always says, “Boy, that was a wonderful session, you know. And wooooeee, you know.” Ah, it wasn't any different from any other session, but it was for the pc.
 
And auditing was intended and if that's all you intend to do with a pc is audit them and improve them, voilà, you'll always have good sessions. But if you've got other considerations entering your mind continuously, of pcs should be better than they are, they should be worse than they are. This pc is too tall; we will make this pc thinner, therefore and so on.
 
And we're not really auditing the pc but sitting back in some long stream of criticism of the pc of some kind or another. Well, I don't know what could happen. There'd be ten thousand things that you could do.
 
It'd be impossible for your Instructors to enumerate the number of ways of doing auditing wrong. The easiest thing in the world is to articulate how to do auditing right. Audit.
 
Only one word. And it all really comes out all right. And you vacillate from trying too hard to not trying hard enough and so forth.
 
And when you get too baffled and too confused and you don't know what to do about it and you just think it's all up in smoke every way you possibly can think of, why, just remember what I've told you. Well, audit and I'm sure it'll come out all right. Thank you.


[[Category:Lectures]]
[[Category:Lectures]]
[[Category:Lectures SHSBC]]
[[Category:Lectures SHSBC]]
[[Category:Lectures 1962]]
[[Category:Lectures 1962]]

Latest revision as of 18:56, 26 December 2025

Series: Saint Hill Special Briefing Course (SHSBC)

Date: 23 January 1962

Speaker: L. Ron Hubbard

← Back to Series

Thank you very much. It’s not deserved; I’ve been very mean to several of you in the last day or two; very, very mean, with good results. Okay.

What is this? Audience: 24th. It’s the 24th of Jan.

AD 12 – 1962 – in the Year of Our Travail, especially yours. All right. Now, I have some good news for you.

Going to sit down in this lecture, if you don’t mind. But I have some very, very good news for you, some excellent news for you; that if you were beaten over the head, tortured, treated with sarcasm, hammered and pounded and generally abused, you eventually decide to find out – you go past, you see, merely attacking Ron, you see, that breaks down and you go past that, and you say, “Well now, if this much fuss is being made about it, maybe there is a right way to do it,” and so you try that for a while and nothing much happens. And then if you are hammered and pounded and beaten some more, then you decide to do it right, and then all of a sudden there’s tremendous dawning on every hand that there was something here.

And that has just happened on this good day of our Dianetics in 1962. This just happened. Several of you in just the last session you ran discovered that 3D Criss Cross worked like crazy; just discovered it – brand-new discovery.

Some of you have not made that discov- ery yet, but many of you – the majority that were having any difficulty with this – all of a sudden it dawned that there was something here and that it did work and that the session ran like a hot bomb, and all became suddenly well. Now, the old-time student here who has had a great deal of training – I will say this, a great deal of training shows up along these lines – got results with 3D Criss Cross at once. The second it was presented to them they started getting results with 3D Criss Cross, which is quite interesting, see.

They looked it over, they said “That’s okay,” they started listing and everything, and the next thing you know, they were getting results with it. But those of you who have just come up to the nervous state of newly created IIs didn’t measure up this well. And you’ve been floundering and falling on your heads now for TRAINING DUPLICATION 2 the better part of two weeks.

It has been pretty gruesome. I mean I have actually suffered for you. I didn’t suffer for the PC.

I can always straighten out a PC. If I can straighten out a PC, why, I don’t worry about the PC particularly. But I suffered for the poor auditor, sitting there doing exactly what he was told (if doing it backwards), and with Ron shouldering the total responsibility of it all going bad because it probably didn’t work, suddenly waking up, decid- ing to do it right, and then the second step: finding out that it worked like mad.

Now, that is quite a win. That is a win for me. However, it tends to validate this sys- tem of activity, a system of activity which begins with apathy.

See, you confront somebody in apathy, “Nothing works anyway and there is no way to do anything right anyhow. But if you did do it right nothing would happen, because there isn’t any way to do it right because nothing would happen if you did do it right.” Now, it is sometimes necessary in action to throw a bit of a hand grenade into that par- ticular type of activity and just say “Yow, yow, yow!” outrageously, you see? Say, “Well, look a’here.

You’re only writing on one side of your auditor’s report.” And the person says, “Well, yes, of course I’m only writing on one side of the audi- tor’s report, and all auditors do, don’t they?” “Well, they mostly do, but you shouldn’t, you see?” And then, “You should have known better than that, see? It has never been published or released, so you should have known about it.” Expect the student to have picked it all up telepathically, expect the thing to have sort of leaked in through the pores by association with the tile, or something like that, you see? Doesn’t much matter.

Now, this is very pertinent to you in the training of Class IIs. When you start training Class II auditors you should recognize this for what it’s worth, and it’s a little lesson that I could teach you on the subject of raising hell. That’s the title of the lesson, “Raising Hell.” Now, there are two ways you could get somebody out of apathy, see?

They don’t know and there is no right way to do it and there are probably no results anyway. Now, there’s two ways to approach this problem. One is on the route of making auditors and the other is on the route of auditing.

Now, the way you make auditors differs entirely, of course, from the way you audit PCs. There are two routes here that we employ, not necessarily for the betterment of cases but for getting the job done. Of course the net result of all this is the betterment of all cases, but there are two routes that we actually employ and you should recognize these as’ distinctly different routes.

And the first of these is where a person is concerned as an auditor. And we have always had a bit of line on this, and you found in an Academy in the old days where they didn’t have this policy in force they made very bad auditors. Wow!

Terrible! And that was this type of an approach: “Well, we know you can’t audit because you have a case, and we’ll try to patch your case up, and if we get your case up, why, then maybe some day you will be TRAINING DUPLICATION 3 able to audit.” That type of approach does not work in the making of auditors. Just write it down to that.

You see, if we admitted that the auditor had a case then nobody on this whole planet would ever be sprung. Do you see that? So this is just a piece of arbitrary snarl.

Do you see? This datum must not be true! It isn’t that it is true or isn’t true, it just must not be true!

See, there’s no logic to it at all. It just must not be true, because otherwise you would never bail anybody out of anything because there would never be anybody to audit him. And true enough, over the years watching Academies that practiced the idea – the D of T. if he had the idea that “If we just processed all these students and somehow or another if I just gave them all a little bit of a case gain, and I got them all in shape so they could confront their PC and if I could get their cases from getting in their roads, why, then I could make them into auditors.” And this goes out as far as this: “If we only let ‘good’ people into the Academy. . .” We don’t know what this “good” person is.

He lurks out someplace under the rhododendrons or someplace but he never seems to have come near any organization to date, this “good” per- son, you see? “Now if you could just get ‘good’ people,” that’s the other song you hear, but that’s just a little bit of a downgrade. Immediately after you hear this “good” people action the next tune that you hear being played on the out-of-tune street piano is “If we just could audit all of the cases in the Academy, why, then, you see, they would all be able to audit.” And they of course have propounded a piece of nonsense. You see, if there’s nobody to audit all these cases in the Academy, how the hell are they ever going to get audited?

And you don’t have an Academy at all, you have an HGC. So this quickly defeats itself as a philosophy. So very early, I think it was about the 7th ACC, this philosophy was entered into the training of auditors.

And the philosophy is workable; it is not necessarily true, it is not neces- sarily easy, it is not necessarily kind, sweet or good. It simply works and it is in a workable line, true. But it’s only a workable truth.

And that is, simply, “Auditors do not have cases,” period. That is the one thing that we must insist on. Now, it goes as far as this, that if he’s slightly warm and you can see a mist on a mirror held against his mouth, he or she is in shape to audit.

If they can be dragged to the chair and if an E-meter can be propped up in their vicinity, they’re in condition to audit. This goes to a total extremity. They could be sitting there with both legs cut off from a street accident, but they are in shape to audit.

That’s it. That’s just it. It’s like when nations get down to the last – they’re getting the conscripts from their 14-year-old class, you know, and the 72-year-old class and the 15 year-old class; anybody who dares walk back in through, you see, from hospitals or anything else, anybody who dares come anywhere near the assembly officers who are putting together new regiments, you see, is TRAINING DUPLICATION 4 instantly just stamped hugely “FIT FOR COMBAT,” see?

We don’t get it from that particu- lar thing, but it just gives you the idea. Now, when time goes on and a nation gets more fit to work, they start then saying “Well, this person is not fit for combat and should be audited,” and that sort of thing. But let me call something to your attention: that we are not a nation but we are certainly a people, and this is very germane.

We are not in that condition today where we can say “Well, let’s take this person and let’s audit him for a while, and maybe he’ll learn how to audit some day and – you know, if we get his case out of the road, why, maybe he can audit.” We’re not in that condition. We’re not that wealthy. See, we’re just not that wealthy in people, nor are we that far advanced along the lines.

So this datum not only has been true but will be true for quite a while. Now, oddly enough this is a workable philosophy, totally workable as a philosophy. It does work, and today is one of those days when I have seen this philosophy work.

Some people with Class IIs who are so far from clear they would have to have a moon shot to com- prehend it (talking about cases now, see, just casewise, blcuuhh! see?) have actually been driven in toward the absorption of data, the regularities of practice, to an actual recognition that what they were doing ended in a very, very powerful, fine gain for the PC, and that they could do it. That’s much more important. Now, this is one of those days when that philoso- phy has worked out.

Now, I don’t say that you’re in horrible condition. I’d say when you get some proc- essing and so forth you will probably get up to being in horrible condition. Compare the way you – the condition that you were in a couple of trillion years ago, or 500 trillion or something like that, whatever the outrageous figure might be, and you’re not in such good shape these days, you know?

And for you to actually start putting together a being – not a human being, anybody can put together a human being. You just take some elec- tronic shock waves and some implants and kick him and destroy all their self-determinism, then destroy other determinism, and then racket him between destroyed self-determinism and destroyed other-determinism, and you fix him up real good and get them to accumulate all masses and never as-is anything, and you’ve got a human being. All right, so you just – it’d be no virtue to make one of those.

Let’s move it up just a little bit further – but to make a functional being, to take a big seven-league boot stride in the direction of making a functional being. Now, that has happened, and that’s just happened just in the last couple of days. This sort of thing has been coming up.

I’m very happy about this because it’s far more significant than you might realize at first glance. It means that the thing can be bootstrapped. Now, we expect somebody that’s been under training for a half a year of heavy duress and so forth to be able to pick up a process and be able to do it, but I was very proud when TRAINING DUPLICATION 5 those older students just did that and were able to do that and just kicked it off from the starting line and that was it.

Well, that was a little victory in itself, but it was not particularly a victory for this other philosophy because they have had good case gains and they are a long ways from where they were. The other people who have just come up to Class IIs have not had very significant case gains yet and they were able to do it. Now, that was very important.

Well, you see, this philosophy works, and it’s a distinct philosophy: If he’s warm he can audit. Get the idea? And that you can actually bring enough pressure to bear and enough training to bear on an individual so that he actually can do a properly laid out comprehension and action as far as the PC is concerned and arrive with a tremendously significant result.

Now, that’s a victory, because if that weren’t true we as a people would never make it. We’d just never make it, that’s all. There would be a few able guys and they would quickly go out the bottom through auditing seven and a half hours a day.

I’ve already scolded two or three Saint Hill graduates who have left and who all of a sudden sat down to a grind of auditing of about seven and a half hours a day and just didn’t do anything else, didn’t really bother to train anybody or try to pick it up or push it through. They were just going to audit people, audit people, audit people, audit people – well, they can’t audit enough people to do any good. It’s just a spot in the ocean.

Now, if you looked around you would find out that there aren’t on earth at the present moment enough auditors to give enough sessions to enough people to make any significant gain in the society at large in the next century. The mathematics are all against it. If you never made one more auditor, if we just took the auditors we had at this particular moment and eve- rybody audited hammer and tongs, seven and a half hours a day for the next ten years or something like that, you add it up and you compare it to the world’s population and you get a drop in the bucket.

It’s a discouragingly small amount. And if we never trained another audi- tor, the auditors that had been trained would have long since gone by the boards before they even got halfway through the population of New York City. You see, the mathematics are dead against it.

Don’t think that you, with your auditing, cannot make a change in the society. You certainly can, you certainly can, but you would be making actually a taco and a pobre society. In other words, you’d be making the society of the rich and the poor, the aristocracy and the slaves, and so forth.

It wouldn’t help but do that, because of course you could pick out people here and there and put them into terrific condition and never fix it up so they’re ever backed up, see? Well, they – oh yeah! They’ve got a big zone of influence, that’s for sure!

And they’ll get things done, that’s for sure; but let me assure you they would not, all of them, be tempered by the peculiarities that I suffer from which is that man should be free. Not even TRAINING DUPLICATION 6 after you’d audited them would they suffer from that peculiarity uniformly, let me assure you. That just wouldn’t be done.

And give it a decade, give it two decades, something like that, and they would be starting to get a little bit impatient. Enough victims would have been deposited on their door- step for them to start erecting the stocks and the whipping posts. The next thing you know, we’d find we had two or three classes of citizen.

We would have the clear and the slave, you know? We’d divide the whole society up in some kind of a line. It would just be forced upon us to do this.

That is actually a very dangerous direction in which to proceed because that direction has always led civilizations into decay and chaos. There is no such thing as a successful civili- zation which is made out of slave masters and slaves. I assure you that it is not successful.

It’s never been successful and it never will be successful. Now, it’s attractive and it can be practi- cal but it’s not successful. It has no great duration and it doesn’t make anybody much happier.

So this is quite interesting from a point of view of a long look. Very few of you ever give a long look to Scientology, you leave that up to me to a marked degree. Well, thank you; but when I look in the crystal ball and, look up the line a century I can see a number of pic- tures presenting themselves, a number of aspects of what might come of all this.

And don’t think you can fire a shot of this volume and magnitude in a planet of this type without creat- ing an effect. It might be a slow effect, just to the degree, you see, that it is practical. Its speed actually is determined not by the inertia of the masses but by the efficiency and effectiveness of what you’re doing.

And you can’t let go of something like this in a society or a world of this type or size without having repercussions that don’t just go up a century. They’ll be still racketing up the line until this planet is a billiard ball. Now, it might become a billiard ball sooner than you think.

But not all of you will for- get Scientology even if you go to another planet. So you see we’ve never fired this shot si- lently or without effect, you see? I’m not degrading what you, yourself, as one person can do.

But if you’re going to do the job fully and wholly or do the job effectively, then the job will be done rather swiftly; and in doing the job relatively fast you save many of the cataclysmic aspects of what might hap- pen because of the entrance upon this scene of Scientology. In other words, the more rapidly you do it the better the job is done. It’s just like auditing a PC.

You see in one PC the world at large, you see? He is the microcosm and the world is the macrocosm; and you see that what is happening to a PC – you know that if you audit him slowly and poorly he makes thuhh, and he goes duhhh, and he gets a little bit better and in about two or three days he says, “Well, maybe I’ll make it. Maybe I’ll bla-bla-blah . . .” and all of a sudden he doesn’t feel so well, and so on; he didn’t get much of a result and he slows down and goes into third gear, and he puts it all on the back burner, and so forth.

Well, those TRAINING DUPLICATION 7 fits and starts would be the fits and starts of the track of the civilization in which we live if we did not approach this problem effectively and do it with fair effectiveness. And part of that effectiveness is make enough auditors. Now, you’re not enough audi- tors.

You just aren’t enough auditors, that’s all. There just aren’t enough. We’re not against a quantitative proposition here particularly, but when I say “auditor” I mean somebody who merely audits.

You have to combine in your repertoire the ability to train auditors and then you’re enough, then you become enough auditors, don’t you see? Right away, just the people in this room would be enough auditors if they trained auditors. And providing you did your job superlatively well and you knew how to make an auditor do his job superlatively well, you see, if you knew that, with that kind of progress you would wind up with enough audi- tors.

Then you could do the job, you see? That could be done. But not otherwise.

I know I myself at times have felt rather muscular – mentally muscular – and have stood up baring my breast to the tirades and freakerics of fate and fortune and have said, “Well, this is enough. Just – I could do this all by myself, you know, just standing on my head, you know? No help at all.

I’d just do it all by myself. That’s easy, you know?” I just felt tough that day, you know? And before noon I didn’t feel so tough.

Now, in my particular levels of training and background I would have perhaps, not necessarily, but perhaps more reason than you to believe that I could do the job all by myself, see? I have done jobs all by myself and they were not necessarily easy jobs. Now, I did get away with them.

I don’t think I could do this one all by myself, see? Different type of job, it goes out in terms of longevity. It embraces many more lives and beings than anything else that’s been attempted in this corner of the universe for a very long time.

Well now, the better it is done, the more rapidly it is done, the more effectively it is done, why, the smoother forward track it will have. So therefore you are busy learning to audit. You are busy learning to audit and in that you are making progress and that’s very, very good progress.

We do not have here the facili- ties much to train you how to teach auditors, but by training you we can certainly give you a model and you’ll know how to handle somebody else when you’re training them, and maybe you’ll profit by some of the mistakes we have made. But don’t try to profit in the direction of being kind. Don’t try to profit in the direc- tion of “If we just process him then he will be able to audit.” Don’t profit in that direction because there’s no profit to be had there.

If he’s alive he can audit. He walked into the PE Course, he is a long-term Christian Scientist, until he got so many overts on Christian Science that he became a Rosicrucianist, and then had too many overts against Rosicrucianism to re- main anything but a theosophist, and has arrived to prove that Scientology doesn’t work. You can make him audit.

You could teach him to audit; you really could. TRAINING DUPLICATION 8 But now we’re getting to a dividing line: Why that many handicaps on the auditor, see? Why go quite that far afield to teach somebody to audit?

No, there are people around you at once, in your immediate vicinity, that could be taught to audit well and those are the people to put lots of time in on. They are the people to put time in on, because if you make them very good auditors, of course they can make auditors. And it is better to have – right now, the way we’re going – it is better to have a lot of crackerjack auditors than an awful lot of very medio- cre auditors.

See, that’s better. And you sometimes look over “Who are you going to spend time on?” Well, the natural impulse is to take this bird I just described who has so many overts on Christian Science that they had to take off into Rosicrucianism, got so many overts on Rosicrucianism that they became a theosophist, and have wandered in to prove that Scien- tology doesn’t work. Well, unfortunately you could make a tremendous error, and do you know that instruc- tors will do this?

Even an instructor here, now and then, catches himself; fortunately he catches himself doing it. He’s so outraged by the performance he sees in front of him that he gives that person more time than he gives the apt auditor who needs just a little bit more coaching to do a very fine job. Instead of that he’ll give this total dud, you see, a tremendous amount of time and pressure trying to get them up to a high level of mediocrity.

Remember that, when you’re training auditors, take those that are very apt and give them the most time. See, that’s the way to go about it; and let the others drift along. Let them drift along.

They’ve got a certain rate of absorption. And it isn’t that you should let them go. You shouldn’t let this fellow go; oh no, oh, nothing like that, see?

You might downgrade him a little bit in the zone or area in which he’s being trained but you don’t forget about him. But he plods along at a certain rate and that certain rate has very little to do with anything you’re trying to teach him. He’s just kind of sloggy.

For anybody to assign the length of time it takes for somebody to learn something is adventurous. It can’t ever be factual. I’ll give you an experiment in this.

Take one datum and try to teach it to somebody with the old educational processes of the 17th ACC. Those were very interesting processes, by the way. Try to teach him this datum.

Take any datum in Sci- entology, say it to him and have him repeat it. This is the simplest of all these; just say it and have him repeat it, you see, and say it and have him repeat it, and then say it and have him tell you what it is all about, you know, by giving you an example of it. You say it, he gives you an example of it.

That is the wildest thing you ever did with anybody. That is quite incredible. As simple as this mechanism is, it has considerable horsepower and it is a very interesting thing.

I have seen that datum move a very tough case, by the way. That was what was inter- esting about those educational processes. They were very limited in that they didn’t move very many cases, but they could knock aside this “no effect” proposition on training.

Now, I recommend those to you. We actually don’t have any students bad enough to start chugging in with these educational processes, and assign somebody to say a datum and TRAINING DUPLICATION 9 he’s supposed to say the datum back, and then he says the datum and they make an example, or any of the combinations of those processes. There were about three of them.

But they’re awfully good for the fellow you have despaired of utterly; they are much better than auditing. You assign a student to teach him with this system, you know? You of course don’t have to use Scientology data.

You can say, “The cat is black. All right, now tell me ‘The cat is black.”‘ And the fellow says, “Well, there are a number of instances I could think of where a cat wouldn’t be black.” And you say, “All right, good, good. But now, just tell me this one datum, ‘A cat is black.’” And you’ll finally get them to actually be able to – you say something, they can say something.

And then the second grade of that is you say something and they can understand it. In other words, let them duplicate the words and then let them duplicate the understanding. You in essence are doing this in training, only you’re doing it live.

You see, you’re doing it all the way. You read a bulletin and then you go in and see Mike. Of course some of you wish you hadn’t but that’s all part of the game.

But look a-here, he’s not trying to be unreasonable with you; he’s just trying to get you to do one thing – that’s the one step of the educational proc- ess. In essence what is happening is this: I have said something to you and then he’s trying to find out if you can duplicate it. And don’t think this isn’t therapeutic.

It is! It jolly well is! But we’re not interested in it from a therapy line.

We’re interested in it from the basis of the communication of a datum, and you get finally so that you can actually take a datum and so on. Now let’s look at this. This process has been going on for six months or more with some of the older students here; and 3D came out incomplete, not well stated, just brrrr! you know, and that’s it.

And they did it at once and got results with it at once. In other words, it took them – oh, perhaps 10 minutes to understand it; this is length of time to look at it and read it. I mean it was that fast, you see, and they could put it into action and they could do something with it, and all of a sudden this happened.

Well, this doesn’t mean that they’ve become puppetized, it simply means that their ability to duplicate it has now gone over into a second stage – understand – because of course they weren’t given any data to duplicate. Now, you look at the original issue of 3D, or the original mention of 3D that was given to you. Why, the first mentions of it are just some scribbles in the case histories, you know, in the case folders, the first mentions of it, and then there’s a rather incomplete description of 3D Criss Cross that doesn’t amount to a hill of beans, and then there’s class rumor.

Well, what I’m showing you is there was practically nothing there to duplicate in the way of wording, and yet these people had actually gotten to this point, where they not only could duplicate the datum that was said to them but they could get what this was and they TRAINING DUPLICATION 10 could understand what this datum was and put it into use. Now, look at that as a considerable gain, and look at it for just what it is, as a gain, a training gain. And that’s quite remarkable.

Now, the comm lag on others who hadn’t had that much training has been something on the order of ten days to two weeks, to first duplicate the wording – and complain because there wasn’t any wording, don’t you see? They were still in a step where they had to have the exact words. And then finally, it took an amplification of a bunch of exact words and a lot of individual notations in case folders for them all of a sudden to do what they were doing and get a result, and the understanding is dawning.

See, that’s slightly different action. Do you see this as a training mechanism? Do you see where this winds up as a training mechanism?

Do you see what its stages are? In other words, your first gradient of the thing is no comprehension of the words. This is your first gradient, see, no comprehension of the words.

Now, it’s quite shocking to find that morale is suffering, and all sorts of things are go- ing wrong in some HGCs, by being made to exactly duplicate a bulletin. Do you see where they are there? Do you see where they are on the training step?

It would not matter, by the way, as far as their ability to learn was concerned – let’s look this over. Let’s say we were just trying to increase a person’s ability to learn. Learning rate – that was the only thing we were trying to increase.

Let’s just think of that, see. It wouldn’t matter if we were teaching them automotive assembly books; you know, manuals used in Detroit for the assembly of automobiles, to a person who is never going to assemble an automobile and has never assembled one and hasn’t even played with toy cars. See, it wouldn’t matter if we were doing that.

Or the “Works Progress Administration History of Socialism and its Development in the Northern Part of Arizona,” you know, there’s probably volumes of books on that. They paid them if they got out some stacks of paper on the Works Progress Administration. They’d get somebody who was out of work, so they made sure he didn’t do any because otherwise he would have been in work, and all he had to do was pile up old clippings and papers, you see?

They didn’t have to relate to anything. And then at gov- ernment expense they were published between very thick covers in very heavy volumes, and they were quite available for a while. You could get them to hold up corners of desks where the leg was missing, you know, and they were very useful; but they were the most non sequi- tur nowhere as far as data was concerned you ever cared to cast your eye over.

We could use that, do you see? We could use the “Legal Code of the Early Church of England as Interpreted by the Catholic Church.” We could! I don’t care what you’re using, as long as there’s some data stated.

Doesn’t matter how much dunnage or how little dunnage as long as there’s some data studied. Is data there to study? You would still do this.

You’d still use this as learning rate. You see where we are? See, we’d read it off.

We’d have the individual sitting there and we would read it off to the individual. This would be the stylized auditor type of approach on TRAINING DUPLICATION 11 this, and we would say, “All the churches of Northumbria were deprived of their windows because of a window tax which was three and six per window per sabbatical.” (“Sabbatical.” That’s what it said, see.) And we tell the individual, “All right, say that.” You know? “Now, what did I just say?” you know? And he’d say, “The window tax – window tax?

What about window tax is this? What’s sabbatical mean? What’s this?

Yeah. What book are you reading, anyway? Where did this come from?

What part of Northumbria are you talking about?” You get all this confusion? And you’ve got an example now of your first step. As you try to merely get him to repeat a line of sounds (you don’t even call them words, you see?) he gets tremendous confusion.

So your first state in which the person is in is one of tremendous data confusion which blows off at any attempt to duplicate data. So it blows off at once that there’s an attempt to duplicate data on his part, he starts blowing off this confusion. “Northumbria? What Northumbria?

What sabbatical? Two and six? Two and six window tax.

But who would have been taxing them? Uh – who – what tax? What is a tax?

Was there anybody taxing anybody at that particular time?” Now you get down to the com- munist level of this, we would have had a communist cell meeting to discuss whether or not capitalists should exist, you see, because we’ve mentioned tax. In other words, it just would have hung up on some button some place or another, and would have come into a total collision with this button, and from there on we never would have moved off the button. This is of tremendous use, by the way, when you’re handling committees.

You know, the art of getting something done through a committee has never been perfected. This has never been perfected in the history of man. If you don’t want to get anything done, appoint a committee.

And don’t put anybody on it who has an individual responsibility for any piece of its work. Just give it in general to the committee. Now we’ve really got malfunction in screaming exclamation points, malfunction from here on out.

Well, similarly, the way you can park any committee or any board – and some of you might want to know this sometime; it’s sometimes of great moment for you not to have some- thing discussed, and not permit them to come to any conclusion or pass a motion. Commit- tees, being only a medium of half-thought-out averages anyway, generally will arrive at the wrong decision about most anything. You know, they haven’t got much of the data, and they’re not really interested, and nobody there is responsible, and they sort of just want to get rid of it all, you know?

And they get into that state of mind, and they’re suddenly discussing something that is a very, very important point that is going to affect the longevity and man- agement of this company or group, and man, you just are not about to get something like that. TRAINING DUPLICATION 12 The way you want to do this is just introduce any button that will cause them to take zero responsibility. Just introduce any button that will reduce their responsibility.

Anything! It doesn’t matter. Give them a restimulative word.

Just do it by symbols. You see, you’re trying to paralyze this committee, that’s what you’re trying to do, you see, just overtly, so they won’t make a wrong act. They say, “Well, I don’t know.

Shouldn’t the pay plan that is being brought up some- place – shouldn’t the pay plan – this pay plan – maybe we could check with the guy – it’s being prepared by the accounts department. Pay plan, shouldn’t that be thought up by some- one – pay plan?” And you say, “Well, yes.” You can just see it now, some outrageous damn thing that nobody could put into execution, you see? Nobody’s particularly interested in this thing, so . . .

One of the principal buttons that is used in this is the word study, see, and that just hangs everybody. Just introduce study into the thing, you see? Bang!

And it just hangs the works here. And just say, “We’ll make a proposal that the matter be given further study,” and hit study hard. You get it parked right there.

It’ll just stop. It’s gorgeous! You don’t have to introduce like that.

You can say something, “Well, wasn’t the last time this type of proposal was proposed, wasn’t that – “ you know, there was a fellow by the name of Bellham who was just hated throughout the whole organization, you see, just say this word and everybody went Eeeee! and so on – you say, “Wasn’t that last proposed by Bellham?” Everybody of course takes no responsibility for it instantly, you see? And then they will get into a discus- sion about Bellham, and you’re all set. But they just derail on a button like that!

And you’ll see somebody do this, you’ll see it when they’re studying like this. This fellow’s got lots of overts on the Sabbath. So you say “sabbatical,” he’s wondering if this is connected with Sabbath, and you just get into a total discussion of “Sabbath.

Is it right to have a Sabbath? Where was the Sabbath originated? Really wasn’t it a pagan introduction in the first place?” and we go on and on and on.

It has absolutely nothing to do with what we’re studying. He’ll derail right at that point. That’s very interesting.

Now, you’d think this person would have to have lots of auditing to get rid of this. No, there is another system that gets rid of this and that is it sort of teaches him that he can ride past these hung points, see, that the hung points don’t keep him from duplicating. And he gradually learns this, you see?

These buttons that he’s got really don’t keep him from dupli- cating something. See, even if it’s upsetting and he doesn’t like it he can still duplicate it, and eventually he begins to see duplication in its proper light. Duplication is duplication.

It is not running out buttons, it is simply duplication. It just is itself, that is all. Now, you couldn’t see at all unless you could duplicate.

You’ve got to be able to look down that row of doors or something like that, you look down the row of doors and you see TRAINING DUPLICATION 13 that there was a row of doors there. You can play this on some PCs in processing with the most fantastic results. You just say, “Well, what’s over there along that wall?” And some fellow will say, “Oh, uh – uh – must be students’ lockers.

Those doors don’t fit very well at the top, do they? Well, they must be some kind of students’ lockers. They were probably put in there for some purpose or another.” Then all of a sudden he’d say, “Well, do you have a carpenter working for you?” What did you ask him?

You said, “What’s down that wall?” you see? Actually all he’s got to do is look down the wall and say “There’s some doors there,” but he always does it the hard way. Just watch him at first glance and he will just do it the hard way.

That’s the way it will roll off of this whole operation. You ask somebody, “What is over your head?” just ask them that sometime. “What is over your head right now?” Say it very meaningfully so that they really understand that it’s over their head, and you mean now. And brother, you’re going to get some of the most inter- esting discussions you ever heard of.

Things which are threatening them, and so forth; well, they’re not quite sure. Some girl says, “Well, yes, I know my hair looks rather messy, but uh . . .” You get all sorts of oddball, offbeat derailments of the whole thing. Well, what’s over your head right now?

The ceiling, of course, is what’s over your head right now. They always man- age to miss the obvious. And factually, it takes a lot of drilling before people will observe the obvious, and that is all there is to that step, is obnosis: the observation of the obvious. “What is in front of your face?” just ask somebody sometime who has low havingness and can’t reach much.

Just ask that question, “What is in front of your face?” Of course, the obvious answer is “You are.” But, you know, you can get some of the most conditional and oddball responses you ever want to hear of from simple questions of that particular type. Well, that’s because the individual isn’t really adding significance’s into everything, it’s because every time he thinks of something significance plunges in and he thinks he’s got to pay more attention to the sig- nificance than he pays to what was going on. In other words, what is happening to him right now, you see, is less important than what might happen to him or what is coming in on him or the consequences of all of it.

He’s consequence-happy so he’s really not in present time at all. Well, when you take this parking button called “study,” people tend to go sort of “Ummmmm,” you know, on this anyhow, and that’s a very good button to work on because it’s inflow of data, therefore the duplication of data, and no more important than that, just the duplication of the datum spoken. You understand, I’m not now saying a datum like “a prob- lem is postulate-counter-postulate.” I’m not talking about a significant datum.

I’m talking about any datum, either signifi- cant or nonsignificant. You could say, “There is one Christmas in a year,” and some people TRAINING DUPLICATION 14 will promptly say, “Well, that is insufficiently important. Of course everybody knows there’s one Christmas in a year.” You’ll get all kinds of chitter-chatter and so forth.

The only thing you’ve asked them to do is repeat this after you, what you say. You say, “There is one Christmas in a year.” And the person would say, “Of course I know there’s only – any damn fool knows there’s only one – what – what kind of a thing is it – you think – what – what is this all about?” And you say, “Well, all right. Good.

But – just – just – let’s just repeat this after me, There is one Christmas in a year.” “Well, there’s no sense in it. Of course, everybody knows that there’s one Christmas in a year,” and so forth. And they’re into the terrible non significance of it, you see?

You stated something sufficiently non significant that they can’t do anything about it. There’s nothing there to attack and they just get terribly disappointed, you see? You say, “Most men are male.” You know, “Most men are male.” Or you say, “Women are females.” “Women are females.

Well, of course we know most women are fe – what are you talking about? Naturally,” and so forth. “Naturally, of course, everybody knows that. What – what are you saying that for?” And you will get – all of a sudden the fellow becomes very curious about you, and what your motives are and what your intentions are and what you’re trying to do here.

Well, it’s a fantastic proposition. You just say, “Women are females.” “There’s one Christmas in a year.” “Days begin at midnight.” Some people would not realize that, you know, and they’d say, “Oh, really? Do they?” And you say, “Well, all right.

But ‘Days begin at midnight,’ I just want you to repeat that. Just ‘Days begin at midnight.’” “Well, that’s a funny thing. I never knew that before, you see?” And they’ve just flown off into interest, see?

And they’re all stuck on the interest, you see? And you’re just saying, “ ‘Days begin at midnight.’ That’s what you’re supposed to say.” And the fellow says, “Ah, well. Why should I go into that, you know? ‘Days begin at midnight....’ What are we studying here?

Is this a lesson in Scientology or about time? Or is time part of Scientology? Are there any axioms about time?

Oh, I see! Oh, I see! Yes, I see!

The days begin at midnight! And it’s – oh, what axiom does that refer to anyway?” And you say, “No, no. Just repeat after me, ‘Days begin at midnight.’” TRAINING DUPLICATION 15 “Yeah, but why?” You get the whole idea, see?

In other words, they have an automatic reflexive mecha- nism. They’re going on a total basis of stimulus-response and nothing else. Just total stimulus- response.

But what’s responding? The person or a bank? And this is just another way of dig- ging up a thetan.

Eventually you get to a point where the thetan responds. You say, “The day begins at midnight.” He says, “The day begins at midnight.” It doesn’t bother him any if the day begins at midnight or the day doesn’t begin at midnight. Has nothing to do with it.

You just say, “The day begins at midnight.” He says, “The day begins at midnight.” “Good!” All right. You say, “Christmas comes once a year.” He says, “Christmas comes once a year.” Right? Now, people who don’t like this and are still enturbulated on it say, “Well, you’re making a slave there,” you see, “that’s slavery,” or something like that. “That’s something very deep-seated and very significant.

There’s something very significant about this operation. If you can get a person to do this, he of course thereafter is a slave, see, obviously!” – except the data is never borne out. The only time you really get a person to talk back sensibly is when he can do this, because he can observe what he’s talking back about; and up to that time you get people talking back about things that aren’t happening, and that’s very disconcerting.

Somebody comes in and raises hell with you because of the hussars that are all over the front lawn. And you go and look, you don’t see any hussars on the front lawn. And you ask him to go look and see if there are any hussars on the front lawn and he says, “Why should I look?

I just know.” And you say, “Well, that’s fine. Well, let’s go look at the front lawn and see if there are any hussars there.” “Why should I do that? Are you doubting my word?” And now we go off into a dis- cussion of whether or not you think he is a gentleman.

Do you see the various excursions that we get on this? He starts with some unreasonable premise and winds up with an idiocy. All you’re asking a person to be able to do is simply duplicate a datum.

You say, “Christmas occurs once a year,” and he says, “Christmas occurs once a year,” and it doesn’t bother him and it doesn’t not bother him. Now, at the same time this individual can turn around and do something else which is quite interesting. This individual can cause himself to be duplicated.

So, he has a brand-new TRAINING DUPLICATION 16 thought all of his own little own, and he said, “I’m going to paint this house green.” And he goes out and he says to somebody, “Paint the house green.” And the person says, “Um-hmmm-mmm. Viridian, eh?” “No, no, just green.” “Oh, well. There’s lots of greens, you know?

Green, there’s lots of greens. There’s lots of types of paint, too. What paint store do you deal with?

Well, I tell you what I will do. There is a house over in the next county that is painted a particular shade of green, and we will write them a letter and find out what paint company they got the paint from and what shade it was, but of course you will have to go over and take a look at that house first to find out what color that house really is.” And you’d say, “No, I want this house painted just common, ordinary, run-of-the- mill, just green.” And they will try again. They will say, “Some paints don’t last as long as others.” If you can do that, you yourself have developed the ability to get yourself duplicated on your own ideas.

And you’d be surprised; if you can do this well, you’d be surprised as your ability rises how the duplication occurs with the greatest of ease. You go out and tell somebody to paint it green, he pulls a color card out of his pocket and says, “You want this one or this one or this one? You want that one?

That’s it. All right.” He goes and gets the paint and he paints the house green, does a good job of it and that’s all fine. This cuts down randomity like mad.

In other words, by learning to duplicate you can get into a state where you yourself can be duplicated. Now, this is not exactly a processing activity. This is the process of life and livingness that is most significant.

And it’s havingness like mad because you start to have the things that you’re surrounded with. All right. Beyond duplication comes understanding.

Understanding comes after dupli- cation, not before. Now, how much understanding do you think this fellow did when you said “Christmas comes once a year,” and he said, “Well, why are we taking that up? It doesn’t seem to have very much to do with the process,” and so on and so on.

Well, you’ll find out nearly everything he’s asking you summates into not understanding, or trying to understand. You’ve told him the datum “Christmas comes once a year”; this is the datum you’ve told him. Now, he tries like mad to understand that datum and he can’t grasp it.

He’ll just work himself frantic trying to understand this datum, to understand what datum is there, understand your motives in trying to get him to understand this datum, trying to understand what the datum applies to, try to understand why there is nothing there to understand; and you’ll find out most of his “Ooooooo-oooooo-ummmm” is just some kind of an effort to understand. TRAINING DUPLICATION 17 And this is why study is such an important button, because that’s “getting somebody else to understand relieves anybody of any responsibility for understanding.” Every govern- ment in the world at the present moment is totally seized with this as a mechanism. This is their operating mechanism.

They don’t have to understand anything because they can always have it studied, you see? And that just absolutely stops any progress in a committee or any- thing else. You’ve stopped it instantly and at once.

You say “It’s going to be otherwise stud- ied so therefore you don’t have to duplicate any part of it; if it’s going to be studied, you don’t have to understand any part of it and therefore all we expect from you is to execute something which you have no comprehension of and haven’t found out in the first place.” And you get the usual democratic processes when they are totally abused. They’re pretty mad. See, democracy does not work in the absence of understanding.

It can’t work. Now, here’s your second thing, then. If responsibility for understanding depends on personal study – and it does – why, then of course you have raised the person’s ability to comprehend, or understand.

Not only does Christmas come once a year, but now beyond that point he is capable of understanding and studying “Christmas” and “once a year” and what this refers to. Now he’s capable of finding out that it’s a totally unimportant datum. Up to that time it might be important, it might not be important; God help us, we never would be able to find out whether it was something we had to know, or something that we didn’t much care about, or something we’re liable to be shot because we didn’t know, or something that we’d certainly better forget in a hurry, or something that goes along with the fact that most peoples have shoes, the bottoms of the soles of which are dirty.

You see that? So classification of the importance of data is the thing which lies up there as the second step. Well, that’s your third step.

Your first is non comprehension, non duplication, confu- sion. Your second one is merely the ability to duplicate. And after that we get the ability to comprehend, to understand, and therefore get the ability to observe.

Judgment lies in that field and this is a road to judgment. Now, nobody has really ever bothered to teach anybody judgment before in the last 200 trillion years. And you’re not going to find much judgment in any bank you’ve got.

If there had been much judgment in it, you wouldn’t have it as a bank. Let’s look at that. If this valence had been capable of enormous study, differentiation and judgment, you wouldn’t have it as an aberrative valence.

Isn’t that so? So this has been a scarcity on the track. So you have here in essence, a new skill.

It’s going to be very difficult to process it into somebody because they’ve never had it. They were capable of observation once, but how did they observe? They always put a curve on the observation in order to make a game out of it or something like that.

Pure observation, pure study, pure duplication, pure comprehension, or pure judgment have never been a study in the field of philosophy. They just don’t exist. You just will not find these things as subjects of discussion, even.

They are touched on very TRAINING DUPLICATION 18 slightly by the Plato’s and Socrates’ and so forth of yesteryear, but just touched on very slightly. Totally avoided in religions and religious philosophies. Oh, they’re just avoided like mad!

Oh, it’s just like showing them a snake spitting in their face, you know? Huuuuh! Comprehension, understanding, duplication?

Oh, no, no, no, no, no! That’s what you’re not supposed to do! And of course we know what the source of all this is.

The greatest overt there is is en- forcing a non comprehension. That’s an overt! You don’t believe it?

Take somebody some- time, you say, “What have you done?” Oh, this girl has got withholds, she’s got crimes, she can’t wear any of her frocks because they’re so bloodstained, you know? She doesn’t dare reach into any of her purses because of the asps she’s stacked away at one time or another, you know? She can’t even open up her own medicine chest with any feeling of security be- cause of the arsenic coming out, you know?

And we say, “What have you done?” And she says, “Done? Well, I ate dinner.” And you say, “Well, what have you withheld?” “I haven’t withheld anything.” “All right. Good.

Well, what have you done?” “Oh, I sat down here a while ago.” “Good. Well, what have you withheld?” “Nothing. I never withhold anything.

My life is an open book.” And you go utterly mad trying to security check this person because you can’t find any responsibility on which to hang the Security Check. You’ve got to increase their respon- sibility before you can find any withholds. They’re there but they’re totally muzzled, you see, by the irresponsibility of the attitude of the PC.

You see, one of the ways you tell if a case is gaining is whether or not it’s getting more withholds off. Well, that’s just a way of saying “Is the case gaining in responsibility?” Yes, the case is gaining in responsibility, be- cause they’re getting more withholds off. Weren’t withholds up to that time.

But you can take this same person, this same girl, and you could say, “What doesn’t your family know about?” “Oh, well, that is something else. Well, they don’t know that I poisoned Joe, that I shot Pete. They don’t know anything much about where I hid the body last month.

They don’t know what happened to the children. Ha-ha-ha-ha! They – ah...” see, and “don’t know” is still a button.

All the way down “don’t know” is still a button, all the way down and all the way up. It’s a button the whole way. TRAINING DUPLICATION 19 You can always security check with “don’t know” and “not know,” when overts and withholds are passing right over the PC’s head like these orbiting space nights that aren’t tak- ing off, you know?

See, “don’t know” goes all the way. So a study of not-knowingness has been approached by philosophy by two philoso- phers – notably two philosophers: one is Kant and the other one is Spencer. They’ve con- cluded that what wasn’t known couldn’t be known.

Oh, how interesting! In other words, the closest approach philosophy has ever made to “don’t know” or “not know” has been that you couldn’t know. That’s interesting, isn’t it?

So, as I tell you, there has been no road to judgment. Now, for many years I’ve been trying to teach you characters judgment. It has been a tough and difficult job.

Judgment on the subject of another being, the ability to understand what was going on in a session, and operating with judgment so as to do the right thing about it. Now, do you know what bars you from judgment? It’s just the not-knowingness of it all.

Well, where’s the not-knowingness of it all come from? It begins first with duplication. There is the entrance.

Oh, of course you could security check it out. “What don’t people know about you?” and so forth, and smarten the guy up no end; but that’s a processing approach, and we’re not now talking about a processing approach because there is nothing there to process to. You see, processing processes to what is there, see? Now, if a thetan ever got himself in bad condition, he’s invalidated his own judgment, he’s come off of his own judgment.

The whole lesson of this universe teaches a person not to duplicate, just as it teaches him not to communicate. You know, there are only two crimes in this universe that you have committed and that you have made others guilty of having committed: One is being there and the other is communicating. Those are the two crimes.

There are no other crimes than that, being there and communicating. Now, if those two crimes are crimes, and those things have been made into crimes, then there’s only one other thing that you can possibly make up your mind about it: A person has to learn, you might say, not really learn, but become comfortable with being there and communicating. And the way and the route one would take to bring comfort on the subject of being there and communicating would of course be duplication of a datum.

Now, a datum is a location which doesn’t have to be pinned down. A datum is a loca- tion, a cousin to a thetan, you know? All data is a sort of a cousin to a thetan.

You know, he’s an idea, he thinks sometimes and he’s got ideas and he can communicate ideas. You can always put a whole stack of ideas into your thetan briefcase and have no mass at all. So it’s ideally portable, most portable thing in the world is an idea, so thetans chased out of here and chased out of there begin to use ideas for location.

They feel comfortable when they have an idea, you known. And that idea that they feel comfortable about is an identity. Even though the identity TRAINING DUPLICATION 20 is mobile, they feel more comfortable with an identity than without one because it gives them the sensation of being located.

They like this. So what’s the conclusion here? The conclusion is that you can learn to have judgment, and the way you learn to have judgment is just those two steps: duplication of data, and, pur- suant to that, understanding.

There’s the duplication, the understanding. You don’t get it this way: you don’t get understanding and then duplication. Now, what you should know about this is it’s any data would serve as long as it is data, any data. “Classification of the Geological Formations of the Middle East as Observed by the Geological Department, Serving After the Fact of the Appointments from the Rock- mount Foundation, Appertaining Only to Schists and Slides of the Lower Saudi Arabian Can- yons,” in 185 volumes, folio, see?

That’s data, you know? It’s wild data, you know? “Anamorphic schists are often found most closely blended with hornblende.” You say to the PC, “Anamorphic schists are most closely blended with hornblende.” Well, this would be a “fascinating” situation. He would wind up, of course, with a drill.

He would wind up with an ability to do something, and he would also wind up with judgments on the subject of women, which I think is marvelous. Nobody could wind up with that. I’ve been trying all these years.

It’s impossible. And yet he could, by studying the anamorphic schists for the formation of hornblende. Very interesting !

Now, beyond that you cannot go in the teaching of judgment. You cannot teach a man how he should judge something and still have him judge something. You understand that you can teach a person data.

Yes, by force of beingness in you, you can relay communication and understanding to people and they do understand it. Well, I’ll give you an example of that. One ACC I did nothing but lecture.

Nobody processed anybody this whole ACC and they all had marvelous profile gains. I gave them two lectures a day and we went over all kinds of data and so on. Well, that was just a relay of un- derstanding and comprehension, and they felt better and they had a bunch of cognition’s on the thing and life looked better to them.

You understand? So that was in itself a kind of a proc- essing. That had one of the highest gain ACCs we ever had, which is interesting.

Now, this is totally possible, and without that possibility of course we’d never get anyplace. So that possibility natively exists. But let’s take the other one.

Let’s take the other one. Let’s raise a level of skill on the subject of judgment, just overtly and directly create a level of skill on the subject of judgment. We would do that by duplication.

All right. What’s this amount to here? What’s this amount to?

We are doing this – you do not see how this is working out according to the educational processes of the 17th ACC; first reason (to have no withhold from you, and so forth) is it wasn’t realized or rationalized TRAINING DUPLICATION 21 from those directly. What you’re dealing with right this minute stems from prior understand- ing to the 17th ACC; 17th ACC is an outcrop of that understanding of how to go about these things. Nor are you dealing necessarily with a preconcerted effort to give you understanding.

You’re not dealing with that either. You are dealing accidentally with two different things, and one of those things is just the action of understanding and duplication, you’re dealing with that, and at the same time you are dealing only with the data of Scientology which you can learn. But incidentally the data of Scientology is being used to develop in you judgment, not on the subject of Scientology.

Now, you don’t notice this because you’re learning judgment across a pretty high, beefy line. This is a high-voltage line, you see? So if you can learn judg- ment off of this line, marvelous!

Because this line, of all others, would tend to destroy your self determinism and judgment, wouldn’t it-! Yeah, you’re not given any chance to think what life’s all about. My God!

Is there anything else to think about than what life is all about? Isn’t that right? Well, I’ll give you what life is all about, and then you don’t have to think about it at all, and you’re all set, and that’s it, hm?

Well, the data is true so therefore it tends to stick, right? Do you know that a lot of you, unbeknownst to you, have run straight through having been taught it. And some of you haven’t noticed that you’ve gone through having been taught it.

You’ve come up on the other side of the thing into a realization of it; and now you have the realization of it, not because you’ve been taught it, but because you realize it. And this is what we know as “making it your data.” You’ve often said this to a student but some of you perhaps have not looked too closely on what we mean by “make it your data.” In other words, he has to go along the line of duplication of the data to an understand- ing of the data, and with that understanding of the data he has the final step, which is the reali- zation, totally self determined, of the existence of the data. And when you’re dealing with truth you always have this fourth step.

You have the ability to realize and to perceive. So you have first this “Thaa! What wall?

Don’t ask me to duplicate anything.” Then you have simple duplication, and that’s followed by understanding, and that is followed by realization or own comprehension. So therefore one’s own self-determinism is restored on such a track. Of course it’s most rapidly restored on such a track by teaching the person the exact truth of something.

There is the truth of something, he is able to duplicate the truth of some- thing after many travails, and this truth of something is immediately pursued by the under- standing of that something he has been taught. You understand that that is a stage; he’s still dependent on you for the understanding of what’s been taught. And your next stage up is a realization, which he reached at a sudden step up the line on his own bootstraps, so to speak.

He regained an ability to understand, and so then he himself could realize. That’s the route TRAINING DUPLICATION 22 that you’re taking. That route has total self-determinism and other-determinism and, of course, therefore, pan determinism all mixed up in it, all at one fell swoop.

The person becomes pan-determined over the data. The person can not only under- stand why they learned the data but why the data was taught to them, and understand and realize – of course the realization includes the independent truth of the datum regardless of having been taught the datum. And with that, of course, a person has reached a high peak of the ability to judge something.

A person then has judgment. There’s no other route that I know of. I mean if this is not a perfect route, all right, so it isn’t a perfect route.

There is no perfect route. Perhaps there is a perfect route, but there is no perfect route to hand at the moment if this is not a perfect route. But there is this, that it is the first route through to such an end product.

It certainly is that. And it is married in against an entirely different function. So you get a side play of the same thing.

That is to say, you’ve got this thing doing two things. It wouldn’t matter – well, your instructor has the horrible idea occasionally – he says, “All right. Now, what time span is there in an instant read?

How soon must the read occur after the thing, an instant read?” I don’t know how many answers you’ve got. I wouldn’t set it right for worlds; not for worlds, I wouldn’t set it right. Gives the instructor a marvelous opportunity.

He can say, “Yes. But that tape, see? What does it say on that tape?

That tape!” And you say, “Well, actually, it’s a half a second, a quarter of a second, a fifth of a second, a tenth of a second, it doesn’t matter. I mean there – there it is.” “Ah, but which one is it on that tape?” “Well, I can’t tell you what that tape is. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a quarter of a second, half of a second, a fifth of a second, and so on, so on.

I mean, all these answers and so on” – natter, natter, natter, natter. And he says, “Flunk!” And you go back and snarl, and run up a whole bunch of overts against me, and so forth, and listen to the tape again. And you say, “Well, what do you know?

Hang on, let’s see, what was it on that exact tape? Oh, gorblimey! I never heard that before!

A twentieth of a second! Twentieth of a second! Kaaa!

All right,” and you go in. “Twentieth of a second.” “All right, that’s it.” Now, you see, it’d be totally pedantic (and we’re not doing it on this other system) for the instructor to say “What are the first seven words in the fifth paragraph of the third bulle- tin written in 1959 in the month of June?” See, that is just becoming a memory contest, and if you’ll notice, nearly all study is devoted to memory contests. And nobody is asking you to TRAINING DUPLICATION 23 engage in a memory contest. Somebody is asking you to engage in a duplication activity.

If you can duplicate the data your memory will come up sooner or later – even yours. It’s very, very horrible; some of you first confronting this thing, you find it ghastly! You find it utterly horrible.

It’s the most terrible thing you ever confronted. Recognize the mechanism you’re up against, and recognize that not for a moment is anybody going to relent on this datum. Also find out, as you go along, all of a sudden you’re able to understand things you weren’t able to understand before, which is all quite peculiar; and you possibly have never noticed this, but you’re now understanding things you never understood before that have to do with other things that have nothing to do with training, nothing to do with the sub- ject matter you’re training on, which is quite amazing.

You get something going like this, why, you’ve made gains in another direction, and that’s what an auditor has to have. An auditor has to have comprehension. He has to be able to understand what he is looking at.

He has to un- derstand what is going on. An auditor who gets into this kind of a situation is a dead one, he’s lost. The PC says, “Ah, women are such a bore!” And he’s pulled the same gag you might have pulled on the committee, as far as the auditor is concerned.

He said that fatal word – two fatal words: He said women and bore. These things are not compatible, outrageous! One can’t possibly marry up those two words in the same sentence.

Whoever imagined they could become bored with women? This is incomprehensible, and the auditor just sits there and he starts some kind of a natter, natter, natter, interrupt the PC, you see? “Women, bore? Women, bore?

What are you talking about?” And instead of saying “TR 4” cheerily, and going on with the session, he says “Natter, sub-natter.” He does all kinds of things, says Q and A, “What did you say? Where are we going? What are you doing?

Why? Why did you say that? Have you got an engram there?

What’s happening in the thing?” and so forth. In other words the auditor goes into a “trying to understand,” do you hear that? PC can sometimes put you into a “trying to understand,” and you’ll find yourself having a hard time auditing the PC for quite another reason.

You don’t audit PCs by telepathy, and this PC isn’t talking very much or loudly, you see? And you say to the PC, “All right now, what is your opinion of women?” And the PC says, “Ummm-ummm.” And you have to say “What did you say?” Not to understand what the PC says is a misdemeanor of the first water. The PC is sort of putting you on a point where you are made to think that you don’t understand the PC because you can’t understand what the PC’s say- ing.

TRAINING DUPLICATION 24 I remedy this usually quite well; PC goes – tips over, is all curled up in a ball, head is down in the chair, mouth totally compressed against the curve of the arm, and is saying “Ummm, ummmm,” and so on. I don’t risk any ARC breaks on my part or theirs. I say, “Sit up.

That’s right. Sit up. That’s good.

Now speak up.” And the PC says, “Ummmmmm.” You say, “All right. Now, what was that answer again?” “Oh, women are such a bore.” “All right. Thank you very much,” you know? “All right.” In other words, I make the PC communicate to me, which may be tougher but you’ll find out that you’ll run up ARC breaks when you don’t.

You pays your money and you takes your chance. In other words, if you leave him in that condition, you’re going to have – soon you’re going to be totally out of comprehension of what’s going on with the PC. You’re also going to feel that you don’t comprehend what the PC is doing, and therefore you can’t observe anything that’s happening to the PC and all sorts of things go wild.

But let’s get back on the other thing. Let’s take an auditor who cannot happily dupli- cate a datum, a non sequitur datum, but always insists that he hang up on a button. And the PC says, “Women are such a bore,” and he knows that this can’t exist, and he himself has lots of trouble with women, and his immediate response is “Why is women boring?

What is this?” and so on, and go squabble out of session here. “You’ve challenged me. I don’t believe that. That hasn’t anything to do with this.

Just why did you come to that particular conclusion? I don’t see what there is in the auditing command that would make you come to that conclu- sion.” The PC finally says, “Well, it was just a cognition!” And the fellow says, “Well, it’s a cognition. That’s a remarkable thing to say when you come to think about it, you know?

It’s a remarkable thing to say – just a cog....” But the PC says, “But it’s just a cognition. You know, I just said it, you know?” He says, “Well, all right.” And the auditor goes on, you see, and audits him a little bit longer, and the PC says, “But all men are stupid, when it comes right down to that.” And stupid, you know, that’s a button, so the auditor says, “Stupid? Who?

Oh? Who? Who?

Who? What did – what did you say again?” “All men are stupid.” TRAINING DUPLICATION 25 “Why did you say that? Do you have a picture there?” and so forth. “What’s going on?

I mean, have you got an ARC break? Got some withholds? Are you withholding some- thing?

Is that what you’re withholding, that all men are stupid? Just exactly how does this add up?” and so on. And the PC says, “But it’s just a cognition.

I – I just – just – I – I – I just had the idea. I’m sorry. I’m sorry.” And you then have a PC who won’t blow anything.

You have a PC who is punished for cogniting. You have a PC who is punished for auditing and therefore have a PC who is punished for getting rid of pieces of the bank. And if you audit the PC in that framework the PC will make no gain because they’re being taught not to blow anything, because they don’t ever dare mention anything; and they’re made sorry every time they open their mouths be- cause there’s no comprehension.

They look up, the auditor’s trying to understand, trying to understand, trying to hear, trying to hear, trying to find out what it is, what it is, what it is, where it came from, where it came from, wha – da-da-da-da-da – if you’ll just – you don’t – no, no – you’ve got the auditor on trying to comprehend, trying to comprehend, trying to comprehend. And of course you haven’t got an auditor at that stage who is capable of dupli- cating what the PC said. My God, I’ve heard PCs say some of the most outrageous things you ever heard of in your life.

Now, this never startled me particularly, but once in a while I have been startled by something. You notice that you’re normally most startled by overts or withholds the PC has which pertain immediately and directly to you, or to somebody you’re close to or like, you know? You’re immediately influenced by these particular overts and withholds.

Well, what if the whole session – supposing the auditor were in such poor state with regard to duplication that every bit of the auditor’s auditing was as reactive toward the PC as your sudden Rrorrr! when the PC has just told you some fantastic lying withhold about you. Now, you know your own startlement when you’ve heard one of these occasionally. Well, supposing they’re trying to understand – “Where did you hear that?” you know?

Right away you’re just yanked out of it sometimes, you know? He says, “Well I – I have a withhold. I – I saw you....” You say, “Yes, what?” “Well, I saw you up at the corner of the lane up there the other night with – well, you know who.” “Well, who?

Who? Who?” you know, “Who? Who did you see me up there with?” and so forth. “Oh, well – well, you know.

We needn’t really go into it.” TRAINING DUPLICATION 26 “Well, what’s this all about? Where did you hear that? I mean, did you see that your- self?

Did you see it in person? Were you there? What time was it?

Well, did anybody else see it?” you know? You’ll get caught off base, and you will ask more questions about it than you ordinarily would ask about something else. That’s your effort to try to understand because you’re hung up on some kind of a button that concerns you intimately.

Do you see that? All right. Now, an auditor who can’t duplicate runs the whole session in that frame of mind.

Not just things that relate to him, but anything that relates to anything, the auditor has the same greeting of that – the same greeting from the auditor. The PC says, “It’s been a nice day all day.” The auditor says, “What? What?

Where? Where? Where?

I mean, where did you hear that? Oh, you – you what? Today.

Oh, you’re talking about today, not yesterday. Well, I thought it was a nice day today too, that is, this morning, early. Yes, let’s see.

What were we talking about? Oh, yes. The auditing command was – what was the auditing command?

Yes – yes. Have I withheld anything from you? All right.

Have I withheld anything from you?” You watch it, man. Therefore, if you get a zone or area where the auditors are having one awful time trying to duplicate a bulletin, what must you also assume? That they’ve been in there endlessly trying to understand the PC, trying to understand the cases, being hung up on all kinds of wild-ball buttons, and they’re right down there at the first stage I gave you.

They’re in that stage. See, if their morale is going down because they can’t pass any bulletin tests, you would know at once how they’ve been handling PCs. Do you see that?

So duplicative training is absolutely essential. And it is successful. Now, you can make up your mind to that.

Now, what I’ve talked to you about you may or may not have found very burningly interesting. Naturally, it doesn’t apply to you personally. But in training auditors you should know it.

The baptism of fire that causes people to look so pale and so drawn under the thing is, for instance, duplicating under resentment. See, they go through all kinds of emotional bars on this particular thing. Learn like mad but it’s all resented like mad, you see, because “Uhhhhh!

It couldn’t possibly be – uhrrhhh!” and so on. Well, they pass through that one too. But sometimes you see a student here who goes around for the first two or three weeks, and they get paler and paler, and shadowier and shadowier, more and more hollow- eyed, more and more gaunt, things looking worse and worse.

Or they look more and more apa- thetic. You can hear them the way they start up their cars, and things. You can hear about how a new student is going, you know?

At first, why, they start up their cars in a sort of a puzzled way; and then they start up a car, you know, very angrily indeed, you see? You can hear the gears crash about three times as they get up the drive, you know? And then eventually they TRAINING DUPLICATION 27 wander up the driveway running into both sides of the verge; you know about what state they have reached, and so on.

That’s all done by training, and it is not the route of processing. Don’t consider it a processing route. It is just a route by training because it is a new skill.

You very often have been asked in the past to memorize “the structural components of a Mark VII space vessel with gyro rotators, complete, all number parts.” I’m sure you’ve had to do something like this. I’m sure you have had at some time or another. And the funny part of it is you wound up at the other side being able to look at the space vessel; and on the other side of that somebody says to you, “Oh, well, these Mark VIIs – these Mark VIIs, they – they – they sure fly low, and they sure fly slow, Mark VIIs do.” “No, no, no,” you say, “you don’t really understand this ship, you know.

You don’t understand how to run one. No, when you first get them into the outer area of an atmosphere, you see, you turn on the coolers, you see, at that moment. See, you don’t slow them down as you come in.

Just turn on the coolers way out there, you see, so that you supercool the whole hull, you see? That’s the way you really handle these things. And then you come in, hit the atmosphere on a skip, always hit it on a skip the first time, you see?

And then sort of smush in, you know, with everything super cooled. Come in fast, don’t lose your speed, you’re all right, you see? And then have your counter-blasters in excellent condition so that when you come down toward the surface, and that sort of thing, right at the exact proper – and so as not to waste any fuel – these Mark VIIs, you really have to pour that blaster to it.

And if you pour it to it very suddenly and very quickly you stop, you see? And then you land all right. And the reason they’re having crashes with them is they just don’t understand them.” And somebody comes out and watches you land a Mark VII, you don’t land one that way at all, but you sure understand one.

You understand how to land one; but every time you land a Mark VII you land it entirely differently than at any other time you ever landed a Mark VII. You never land a Mark VII the same way twice, yet you always land them and they never crack up and everything is fine. You got the idea?

But you never drive the same ship the same way two days consecutively running. That’s because you understand it. Routine and rote, in other words, are a poor substitute for understanding.

And the place I’m trying to get you to is a place where you can process by realization, process by comprehension, process by the exercise of judgment. If I can get you to that point, I will have considered it very well worth doing, no matter “‘ow ‘eroic” it has been on the way. Thank you.

Retrieved from "https://scientopedia.org/wiki?title=Training;_Duplication_(SHSBC_620123)&oldid=35449"