HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 3 JULY 19621
As the Prepchecking we have been doing is a complicated skill and as recent rudiments developments open the door to simplified handling of overts, you may lay aside all versions of previous Prepchecking and Security Checking and substitute the following.
This is in the interests of improvement of auditing and keeping pcs from being enturbulated by unskilled auditing. The version herein is far easier to train students into as it uses the same actions as repetitive rudiments.
We will still use the term “Prepchecking” and do all Prepchecking by repetitive command. We will refer to the older version as “Prepchecking by the Withhold System” and abandon it as of this date as too complicated and too susceptible to restimulation of pcs in semiskilled hands.
THE AUDITING PROCEDURE
We handle any Zero question exactly as in repetitive rudiments, (HCOB 2 July 62).
The session is started exactly as per Model Session, HCOB 23 June 62, (or as may be amended). A Mark IV Meter is used (using earlier meters on Prepchecking can mean disaster as they miss withholds).
The auditor then announces for the body of the session, that a Prepcheck will be done on such and such a subject or form.
The auditor then takes an already prepared Form (such as Form 3, 6A, Prepcheck mid ruds, Goals Prepcheck Form [not yet released] ).
Without now looking at the Meter, the auditor asks the Form question repetitively until the preclear says that’s all, there are no more answers.
The auditor then says, “I will check that on the meter” and does so, watching for the instant read (HCOB 25 May 62). If it reads, the auditor says, “That reads. What was it?” (and steers the pc’s attention by calling each identical read that then occurs). “There… That… That . . .” until the pc spots it in his bank and gives the datum.
The auditor then ignores the meter and repeats Step One above. Then goes to Step Two, etc.
When there is no read on Step Two above, the auditor says, “Do you agree that that is null?” The auditor watches for an Instant Read on this and if there is an Instant Read on it, does Step Two above, then Step Three. This gives a double check on the flatness of a question.
This is all there is to Repetitive Prepchecking as a system. Anything added in the way of more auditor questions is destructive to the session. Be sure not to Q and A (HCOB 24 May 62).
Be sure your TR4 is excellent in that you understand (really, no fake) what the pc is saying and acknowledge it (really, so the pc gets it) and return the pc to session. Nothing is quite as destructive to this type of auditing as bad TR4.
THE ZERO QUESTIONS TIME LIMITER
There must be a time limit on all Zero questions. Although it says, “Have you ever stolen anything?” the auditor must preface this with a TIME LIMITER such as “In this lifetime . . .” “In auditing. . .” or whatever applies. Form 3 (the Joburg) has to be prefaced with “In this lifetime . . .” on every question. Form 6A, as it speaks of preclears, etc, is already limited in time.
In Prepchecking the Middle Ruds, use “In auditing . . .” before each question or other appropriate limitations.
The Zero must not swing the pc down the whole track as middle rudiments then become unanswerable and a fruitful source of missed withholds.
In Repetitive Prepchecking the middle rudiments can be fast checked (HCOB 2 July 62), (using the package question “In this session is there anything you have suppressed, invalidated, failed to reveal or been careful of?” If one of the four reads, use it singly to clean it in the same worded question and do the remainder of the middle ruds singly: “In this session is there anything you have failed to reveal?”).
Use the middle rudiments fast checked every time you clean a Zero Question, whether the pc had answers for it or not.
PREPCHECKING THE MIDDLE RUDIMENTS
To begin or end a series of sessions (such as an intensive), prepcheck also the middle rudiments.
In such prepchecking the middle ruds, for Havingness sessions, the Zeros are as follows:
“Since I have been auditing you is there anything you have suppressed?”
“Since I have been auditing you is there anything you have invalidated?”
“Since I have been auditing you is there anything you have failed to reveal?”
“Since I have been auditing you is there anything you have been careful of?”
To these standards add, in the same question form, “suggested” “failed to suggest” “revealed” “told any half truths” “told any untruths” “damaged anyone” “influenced the E-Meter” “failed to answer a question” “failed to answer a command” and “Since I have been auditing you have you shifted your attention?” Flatten off with O/W as below.
As a Prepcheck by form and even beginning rudiments are not calculated to handle a pc who is very distraught before the start of session by reason of upsets in life (howling PTPs accompanied by misemotion) or who is too ill physically to settle into auditing, an earlier rudiment immediately after start of session can be used. This is general O/W (Overt-Withhold):
“What have you done?”
“What have you withheld?”
These are run alternately. This is never run on a terminal (i.e. What have you done to George? etc). Only the general type command is now used.
When the pc is much better, go into the usual rudiments.
(Note: This is, by the way, the best repetitive process for an assist.)
This is run to a null needle on both questions. If either gives an instant read, continue to run both until both are null, much as in steps One, Two, Three and Four of Repetitive Prepchecking.
When used to flatten off a Prepcheck on the middle rudiments, whether for Prepchecking or for goals type or ordinary Repetitive Prepchecking, the O/W command wording is as follows:
“Since I have been auditing you, what have you done?”
“Since I have been auditing you, what have you withheld?”
Both must be nul to conclude the process. If either is found alive on the needle, run both.
When used to begin a session, or when used to Prepcheck the Middle Ruds, O/W must be followed by a fast check of the mid ruds.
This type of Prepchecking—Repetitive Prepchecking—is more easily done and more thorough than Prepchecking by the Withhold System and its earlier forefather Security Checking. It replaces both of these.
In view of the fact that the same system is used for Repetitive Rudiments (HCOB 2 July 62), by learning one, the student also learns the other, thus saving a lot of time in study and training.
Repetitive Prepchecking replaces former auditing requirements for Class IIa and is the Class II skill.
It should be thoroughly instilled in the auditor that extra doingness by the auditor is detractive from the system and that every additive is a liability, not required in the system and liable to upset the pc. It is a must that the auditor be very capable with TR4 and that the auditor makes no attempt to shut off routine pc originations as the intensity of “In Sessionness” generated by modern Model Session used with Repetitive Rudiments and Repetitive Prepchecking is such as to make the ARC breaks quite shattering to the pc if TR4 is bad. If Repetitive Prepchecking is run right, with good metering, the only remaining source of missed withholds is the inadvertent withhold caused by bad TR4. (The pc said it but the auditor didn’t understand it.)
This bulletin culminates three years of exhaustive research into the formation of Model Session, Rudiments and the handling of overts, and overcoming the limitations of the auditor and student in handling sessions. This, coming with the broad success of Routine 3GA, rounds out auditing from raw meat to clear for all cases capable of speech. These techniques represent a data span of 13 years and a general research of 32 years.
L. RON HUBBARD
Hubbard, L. R. (1962, 3 July). HCOB: Repetitive Prepchecking. Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology (1991 ed., Vol. VI. pp. 554-557). Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.
- Document studied on the Hubbard Senior Security Checker Course. ↩
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.