6205C31 SHSpec-155 Middle Rudiments

The middle rudiment consists of a package question that handles
suppressions, invalidations, missed withholds, and "careful of". Middle ruds
may also contain the "half-truth, untruth, impress, and damage end rud [See p.
244], the "question or command" end rud, and the "influence the meter" end
rud. ["Have you failed to answer any question or command I have given you in
this session?" "Have you deliberately tried to influence the E-Meter?" See
HCOB 21Dec61 "Model Session Script, Revised".] To expand the middle ruds
further, you could run in the auditor and the room. The former less
advisedly, and the latter only if there was a lot of disturbance in the
environment. If you need more, You would do better to short-session the PC
with end-ruds, break, then beginning ruds. It is sometimes more economical to
start a new session than to patch up the one you are running.

Ordinarily, in prepchecking and Routine 3, only one package middle ruds
question would be mandatory. You always do middle ruds in prepchecking and
Routine 3. You should use, "(Time- or subject-limiter) is there anything you
have (suppressed, invalidated, failed to reveal, or been careful of)." The
first blank could be "In this session", "On goals", "On listing", or even, "In
auditing". When it gets outside the framework of one session, it becomes the
equivalent of a prepcheck and must be regarded as such. In this case, it is
best to take, "On the subject of goals, is there anything you have
suppressed?" as a zero question and prepcheck it. If you did this before
starting Routine 3, the PC would come up shining. If you do one of these as a
prepcheck zero question, do all four. They obey all the rules of
prepchecking. You get the overts; you should realize that the overt is often
against self. The chain may only go to last year. OK, so it goes very
rapidly. The buttons you are using are good strong think buttons. Prepcheck
buttons are the basic think buttons of the thetan.

[The above section on middle rudiments is of interest as part of the
ontogenesis of "modern" prepchecking. The first term used was "prepclearing",
which was intended as a euphemism for "sec checking", when sec checking was
used as an auditing action intended to be preparatory to clearing (See p.
184). The term "prepchecking" replaced "prepclearing" for general usage after
a short space of time (See p. 186). Prepchecking was here defined as a way to
get each rudiment in fairly permanently so it wouldn't be likely to go out
during 3DXX. At this time, the withhold system was used for prepchecking.
Later (p. 194) LRH made a distinction, "It's a prepcheck and the whole
activity is prepclearing." In May of 1962, LRH suggests the possibility of a
repetitive prepcheck process, using some of the mid-ruds buttons (p. 249).
The middle ruds buttons also began to be prepchecked as a standard thing (p.
251). Repetitive prepchecking came in officially in July 1962, as an
application of repetitive rudiments technology to prepchecking (See HCOB
3Jul62 "Repetitive Prepchecking"). While any zero question could be used for
this type of prepcheck, prepchecking of middle rudiments (= modern prepcheck
buttons) was emphasized. Use of the withhold system was soon cancelled
because it was too hard to teach (p. 278). Modern prepchecking was
essentially present by the end of July, 1962(pp. 291-293), except that more
buttons were added to the mid-rud buttons. The final list of prepcheck
buttons was brought out in HCOB 14Aug64 "Scientology Two -- Prepcheck
Buttons".]

Middle rudiments have a use in prepchecking. You can use them to get
rudiments in. When you use them as rudiments, run prepchecking like any rud,
where you acknowledge and check on the meter, assuming that the PC has
answered the question. You may have to get the PC to repeat it, if you didn't
understand. Take the onus on yourself by saying, "I didn't get that." This is
part of TR-4. Don't ever be a fake. If the PC has a heavy accent, you will
do better to ask for a repeat on every answer than to fake understanding,
which leaves you with missed withholds on the PC. This applies particularly
to these middle rudiments, since the PC has to have answered the auditing
question.

The other use of middle rudiments is prepchecking them as a zero
question. The question, "Have you ever suppressed anything?" is a zero
question, not a middle rud.

Use middle ruds with great thoroughness but with great discretion, not
just willy-nilly. Don't distract the PC with them when he is thoroughly into
something else. You can ask the four middle ruds as a package: "In this
session, is there anything you have suppressed, invalidated, failed to reveal,
or been careful of?", watching each one. If one falls, stop there and get the
rud in. When that is done, don't repeat what is clean or what has been
cleaned; just go on.

The general rule in Routine 3 is to put in middle ruds when shifting
doingnesses. This is more frequent than the use in prepchecking, so it should
be done short, sweet, speedy, and expertly, though carefully. You can't
afford to drag or fumble on it. Don't insist on getting the PC's overts.
Short-session if necessary. Don't distract the PC with middle rudiments.

When listing for the goal, you can use middle rudiments when the PC looks
confounded and stops listing; when he really gets boggy. They should not be
used every time the PC stops to think. If it is hard to get the middle ruds
to go or to stay in, in the next session, use the middle ruds to prepcheck
listing.

The middle ruds play against themselves. That is, "fail to reveal",
"careful of", and "suppress" can mean the same thing to the PC, or they can at
least be similar. E.g., the PC who is being "careful" to reveal everything is
really failing to reveal something. So with the middle ruds, you get several
cracks at the same thing.

Where did "careful of" come from? It came straight from psychoanalysis,
because all psychoanalytic patients end up being very careful. We don't want
that in scientology, and it is an embracive attitude or action. It isn't
really suppression or help. It is just a common denominator. The end product
of all aberration is being very careful. This goes hand in glove with LRH's
recent research into the overt-motivator sequence. The more people consider
doingness dangerous, the less they do. That is a direct index to aberration:
the level of inactivity is a measure of the degree of aberration. The more
sane activity, the less aberration. "Careful" fits right in there.

What the PC gives you in ruds is seldom what you should run in the body
of the session, since if the PC knew what was wrong, it wouldn't be wrong. So
don't run body-of-the-session-type processes on things that come up in
rudiments. As a rule, the PC knows too much about it.

You can go astray in prepchecking by taking up some out-rud, unless it is
a PTP of long duration. Of course, it must react. Frequently they don't.
Never correct anything that isn't out. If you can't get something in, and it
is still reacting and you are going to leave it, tell the PC.

Don't make a profession out of one middle rudiment. Be honest. If it is
still live and you are leaving it, tell the PC. Dust off ruds lightly; don't
make a whole session out of ruds.