6208C09 SHSpec-182 Clearing

What are you, as an auditor, trying to do? You are trying to clear
people! You should recognize that all processes are subordinate to this end.
To be clearable, a person has to be auditable. If someone can't talk, listen,
or respond, he is unauditable. You aren't concerned with states of
["insanity"], as defined by kraepelin. This is a subject that is subordinate
to scientology. We have used the words "sanity" and "insanity" for PR
purposes, but actually we have nothing to do with either. There is not a
person on earth who is sane. They are all batty, Or they wouldn't be here!
Someone who is sane is someone who resolves problems for the greatest good of
the greatest number of dynamics. That is sane action and a definition of
sanity. Very few people apply that rule.

People fall into a gradient scale of auditability. That is what you
should study, if you are concerned with states of Man. A person who isn't
clear won't resolve things for the greatest good of the greatest number of
dynamics. Even a first goal clear won't, ordinarily. There is no processing
short of clearing that is worth long, arduous hours, now that we have 3GA. So
we become interested in auditability. The trick at the moment is to clear
someone while he is clearing someone else. The struggle for LRH is not to
clear people. It is to get people to clear people. People in the ruds and
havingness group are there, not because they are unauditable, but because they
are not able to audit well enough to receive auditing.

A person, to be unauditable, has to be pretty bad off. His auditability
is determined by how many overts he is secretly committing while being
audited. The lowest level of auditability is the person who can be cleaned
up, who will keep his snoot clean long enough for you to clean up his needle.
Below that level is the PC who will never tell you, who won't cooperate or be
frank with you. At this point auditing ceases to the degree that the auditor
can't get the PC to communicate. It isn't that the meter won't read, though
that would also debar auditing.

Almost anybody, if not auditable, is "preparable". He is still auditable
on CCH's and thus he can be "prepared" for auditing. This would also apply to
someone who is bleeding to death or in a coma. The unauditable case will get
a new body, sooner or later, so you can get him later, if the technology is
still there. The only case that can't be reached is the one that isn't there
and will never hear of scientology.

Don't spend more time than necessary to get the goals. Any case that can
be forced into a groove can be audited. The case that breaks your heart,
though, is the one that appears auditable, but is not really preparable. We
don't have the tools to handle such a case at present. The auditability of
people depends in large measure on the sphere of influence of the scientologist. The sphere of action that will do the world the most good is that of auditable cases. They may be nutty, amnesic, spin-bin cases, but if they are auditable, they can be straightened out. Some people have a nutty idea and know it is nutty. Others don't know. The one who has some hope, who knows he can get better, can be audited. The one who knows no one can be helped and that it is all someone else's fault, etc., may be a lot harder to Audit. The bugginess of their ideas makes no difference. A person's goal could make him sound batty, but they could still be audited.

There is nothing wrong with somebody, except that he has upped and got
himself a basic purpose for reasons that are unknown to him. Then, when his
basic purpose is disobeyed or blocked off, you get a bank developed. At this
point, a lot of other purposes he doesn't want get hooked on to the first, and
he follows those, and he doesn't know who he is, and he gets a body, etc.,
etc. It is incredible that a clearing process to unsnarl all this was
developed. Previous efforts at clearing peeled the guy away from the GPM, but
it was still there. So no matter how good the PC felt, the chance was there
that it could key in again.

The PC's goal is a random, chance factor for instance in running
repetitive processes, e.g. help processes, communication processes, etc. The
goal could be "never to communicate to anyone" or "never to help anyone". The
index of how much good it will do to find and clear the PC's goal is the
amount of case gain you can get on a person who has had a wrong goal found.
If you sit down with him on a meter and handle that goal with the "to be a
tiger" drill [Reference: HCOB 29Nov62 "Routines 2-i2, 3-21, and 3GAXX -- Tiger
Drill for Nulling by Mid-Ruds". See Fig. 10.], clean it until all sensation
and pain have gone gone off it, you will see more case gain than you have seen
for some time. What is happening is that finding the wrong goal did a key-in
of what was there anyway. It could have keyed in at any time. Now you clean
it up and it has no further effect on him.

This could lead to a wild Problems Intensive:

1. Have the PC write a list of all the problems that he has had this
lifetime.

2. Ask him, "What decision would have solved the first, second, third
problem, etc., etc.?" Don't date them. They are really goals.

3. Dust them off lightly with the tiger drill.

It is a little chunk of doing a goals list, and the PC will get phenomenal
relief. Not that you would necessarily do this on someone. It is workable
because of the value of a decision. The bank is a basic decision, or purpose,
which has on top of it a concatenation of purposes. So every time he makes a
decision, he adds a look.

It is simpler, though, to just do 3GA in the first place. And this is
also faster and more to the point. If you can clear somebody, there is no
reason to do anything else.

What this means for this planet is quite amazing. Three-quarters of Asia
became civilized just because of a hope that this could be done.

295a

FIGURE 10: THE TIGER DRILL

Small tiger uses: Suppress Big tiger uses small tiger
buttons.

Invalidated Plus: Nearly found out

Suggested Protest

Fail to reveal Anxious about

Mistake Careful

Procedure:

A) If the goal reads, check inval, etc., until null; then check
suppress repetitively to null. Recheck goal.

B) If the goal doesn't read, check suppress.

Patter:

A: To be a tiger.

C: Null.

A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?

C: Read.

A: That reads. What was it? ... Thank you.
On this goal has anything been suppressed?

C: Null.

A: To be a tiger.

C: Read.

A: On this goal has anything been invalidated?

C: Null.

A: On this goal has anything been suggested?

C: Read.

A: That reads. what was it? ... Thank you.
On this goal has anything been suggested?

C: Null.

A: To be a tiger.

C: Null.

A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?

C: Null.

A: To be a tiger.

C: Null.

A: Thank you. That is out.

* * * * * * *

A: To be a tiger.

C: Read.

A: On this goal has anything been invalidated?

C: Null.

A: On this goal has anything been suggested?

C: Null.

A: On this goal is there anything you have failed to reveal?

C: Null.

A: On this goal has any mistake been made?

C: Null.

A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?

C: Null.

A: To be a tiger.

C: Read.

A: To be a tiger.

C: Read.

A: To be a tiger.

C: Read.

This goal is now ready to be checked out.