Subject: False Purpose Rundown Auditor Course Lectures Transcripts and Glossary
Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 11:38:15 +0300

  HUBBARD FALSE PURPOSE RUNDOWN
  Auditor course lectures transcripts and glossary
***
  INTRODUCTION
  The five lectures of this series were delivered by L. Ron Hubbard
between October 1961 and October 1964 to the students of the Saint Hill
Special Briefing Course in Sussex, England. This era represents one of
the most exhilarating periods in the history of Scientology.
  From the research and testing of this time came much of the
technology standardly in use around the world today, including fantastic
advances in E-Meters and their use, prepared lists and remedies, the
full technology of study and the codification and standardization of the
Bridge to total freedom.
  In the first of these lectures Ron covers the composition and
structure of the mental masses which a being has accumulated over his
existence. In the second, he takes up the problems Operating Thetans
have had in dealing with the physical universe and how these have led to
entrapment. Lecture three takes up key mechanics an auditor must deal
with in unraveling a pc from the postulates which restrain his
abilities. In the fourth lecture, Ron disclose why a very few cases
refuse to be helped, while apparently cooperating, and how the auditor
should handle this. The last lecture covers why a thetan adopts
aberrated stable data which then cause his decline, and how this is
addressed in auditing.
  Though this package has been designed especially for training
auditors to deliver the False Purpose Rundown, the data contained in it
is invaluable to any Scientologist seeking to broaden his
understanding of and ability to handle the reactive mind, in auditing
and in life.
  While these lectures were originally recorded many years ago on
equipment which is long since obsolete, the most meticulous care and
procedures were used at all stages of production to reproduce these
priceless lectures with the highest possible quality, using Ron's
Clearsound[tm] state-of-the-art sound-technology.
  It is our great pleasure to present these lectures to you now.
  The Editors, 1990
***
  THE GPM [page 1]
  STATE OF OT [page 15]
  FLATTENING A PROCESS [page 31]
  THE FAILED CASE [page 51]
  THE PRIOR CONFUSION [page 73]
  About the Author [page 93]
  Glossary [page 95]
***
  Published in the United States of America by:
Bridge Publications, Inc.
4751 Fountain Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90029
  Published in all other countries by:
NEW ERA(r) Publications International ApS
Store Kongensgade 55
1264 Copenhagen K, Denmark
  Copyright (c) 1990 L. Ron Hubbard Library
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
  First Printing 1990
  No part of this publication may be reproduced without
permission of the copyright owner.
  These transcripts have been prepared from the recorded
lectures and written materials of L. Ron Hubbard in
accordance with his specific directions for the publication of his
recorded lecture materials.
  DIANETICS, SCIENTOLOGY, FALSE PURPOSE RUNDOWN,
E-METER, FLAG, HCO, LRH, SCIENTOLOGY CROSS,
ARC STRAIGHTWIRE, BOOK ONE, THE BRIDGE,
HUBBARD, FREEWINDS, NED, NEW ERA DIANETICS,
OEC, CLEARSOUND, OT, and PURIFICATION, are
trademarks and service marks owned by Religious
Technology Center and are used with its permission.
  Printed in the United States of America.
  Any outness found in these transcripts should be reported to:
  LRH Book Compilations
  Tape Transcripts Editor
  6331 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 1006
  Los Angeles, California 90028-6313
***
  IMPORTANT NOTE
  In studying these lectures, be very certain you never go past a word
you do not fully understand.
  The only reason a person gives up a study or becomes confused or
unable to learn is because he or she has gone past a word that was not
understood.
  The confusion or inability to grasp or learn comes AFTER a word that
the person did not have defined and understood.
  Have you ever had the experience of coming to the end of a page and
realizing you didn't know what you had read? Well, somewhere earlier on
that page you went past a word that you had no definition for or an
incorrect definition for.
  Here's an example. "It was found that when the crepuscule arrived the
children were quieter and when it was not present, they were much
livelier." You see what happens. You think you don't understand the
whole idea, but the inability to understand came entirely from the one
word you could not define, crepuscule, which means twilight or darkness.
  It may not only be the new and unusual words that you will have to
look up. Some commonly used words can often be misdefined and so cause
confusion.
  This datum about not going past an undefined word is the most
important fact in the whole subject of study. Every subject you have
taken up and abandoned had its words which you failed to get defined.
  Therefore, in studying these lectures be very, very certain you never
go past a word you do not fully understand. If the material becomes
confusing or you can't seem to grasp it, there will be a word just
earlier that you have not understood. Don't go any further, but go back
to BEFORE you got into trouble, find the misunderstood word and get it
defined.
***
  DEFINITIONS
  As an aid to the reader, words most likely to be misunderstood have
been defined in the glossary included in this volume. Words often have
several meanings. The definitions used in this glossary only give the
meaning that the word has as it is used in the lecture. This glossary
is not meant as a substitute for a dictionary.
  The Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary and Modern
Management Technology Defined are both invaluable tools for the student.
They are available from your nearest Scientology church or mission, or
direct from the publisher.
  [page 1]
***
  THE GPM
  A lecture given on
  28 March 1963
***
  How are you today? This is the 28th of March, AD 13. And I don't
have any messages here saying any of you people have gone Clear or
anything like that here today. I guess you must be all slowing down,
huh?
  Well, it's getting toward the end of the week. Spring is here.
That's it - spring. You're suffering from spring fever.
  We have a new arrangement here today. We've got a ... I've got a
board here I can draw you some pictures on and it's about time, because
if you can't get it verbally you can always get it through pictures,
huh?
  All right. Now, let's see. Want to talk to you today about the
GPM - the GPM. The composition of the GPM - the GPMs - and
the composition of any single GPM, actually marvelously enough,
can be found in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health
in the description of how an engram is formed. And we're right
back to basics. Every time we've had anything that was true and
anything that was very useful and usable to us, it is traced back,
oddly enough, to the dynamic principle of existence is to survive.
That is the primary take-off point - to survive.
  And of course, the oddity of that problem is, how can a thetan be so
fixated on the effort to survive when actually he can't do anything
else. And that is his basic problem. His basic problem is he can't do
anything else and therefore he works at it.
  Truthfully, some thetan worries about will he get through or will he
make it. He worries about that in processing. Well, I've been wrapped
around a few telegraph poles myself in processing, pioneering the way,
as you very often are. Pioneers fall into ice crevasses and that sort
of thing. I've had my share of ice crevasses.
  But the basic problem here is that you haven't got any other place to
go. That's something for you to remember. That's something to keep in
mind.
  Some pc says, "I don't know whether I should be processed or not.
Haha-ha-ha-ha." Hah, that's silly. That's a silly thing - "Whether I
should be processed or not."
  Well, you see, he in actual fact hasn't got any choice in the matter.
He's definitely in trouble. He may tell you he isn't, but he is. And
he's trying very hard to survive.
  One time after I wrote the first book I thought there was a dichotomy
here. And I thought that it was succumb was the opposite to survive.
And it isn't. There isn't any. The trap of this universe is you can't
quit.
  Now, we've had a student who arrived over here and - he isn't a
student, really - and he's been playing footsies with the idea that
maybe he shouldn't go on course. He thinks maybe he ought to quit.
Did you ever try to quit? Let me tell you something - you can't. It's
not possible to quit. You'll always rise up again and try again
because there isn't anything else you can do.
  Now, if you digest that basic datum - "How can a man quit?" - you
go back on the track and what do you find? You find he's still trying
to fight the Battle of Antietam or something. He's still trying
to fight this battle. He has not been able to quit.
  You go back a hundred thousand years and he's still trying to play
the game of knighthood was in flower. Only right now he's still trying
to play this game. He wants to be a gentleman or he wants to treat the
ladies nicely or something of that sort. What's this impulse stem from?
He's still trying. Well, this game has been over for ages.
  In fact the first game of this nature I know is about a hundred
trillion years ago. And there's another sort of knighthood-in-flower
game earlier on the track than that even. And he hasn't ever quit. Oh,
become degraded, become miserable, become bogged down; but he never
quit. He can't! Even though he says, "Well, I quit. Well, that's it."
  Well, let's take a businessman. And the government officials are all
over the shop and all day and all night, every day and so forth; and the
tax people and the licensing board and the food surveyors and the this
and thata's; and he's always mixed up in some way or another; and he
just can't get the help to go on. And after a while, why, he says,
"Well, the hell with it, I'll quit." Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha. Let him try, let
him try.
  You know you always can pick up such a person a few months later,
and you can ask him whether or not they should have quit. Well,
you see, they've had to work twice as hard, because all the papers
that had to be filed have now got to be refiled and so forth. And a
bankruptcy or something like this is the most overworked activity you
can possibly engage in. People come around and they say, "Well, how
about this tin of sardines that you didn't sign a receipt for in 1952?"
He says, "1952, tin of sardines? Were we even in the sardine business
back then?"
  "Oh yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. Well, you'll have to figure that out,"
and so forth. He can't quit.
  You take a box fighter. He has been in there shifting around in the
ring and he's gotten himself well up toward the championship and so on.
And then one fine day, why, he loses a fight, so he says, "I'll quit,
I'll quit." Only he hasn't got any finance with which to quit. And here
he is fooling around trying to quit and he has a few minor fights so he
can have enough money to quit, you know. And he has a few other fights
so that he can have enough money to quit. Eventually, here he is a
sparring partner, you see, for five dollars to go three minutes, or
something like that. And he hasn't been able to quit there and
eventually there he is walking around in the street with the birds going
tweet, tweet, tweet on every side of him, still trying to quit the fight
game.
   These fellows who quit the war are all very interesting to me. They
quit the war. They stopped fighting the war. They stopped. And by
God, they're still in the war.
   Every place a thetan has ever been, he is still trying to be, or
trying not to be. But as far as an absolute succumb, this he cannot
obtain. And his basic problem on the track is that he can't quit. I
say that very advisedly, he is not permitted to quit.
  I remember one time pulling a gag on the stellar organization.
There's an organization they used to have. You know, they used to have
ships on the sea before they had missiles. You probably wouldn't
remember that; it's a long time ago. And they had these ships, and they
went around and shot at each other and that sort of thing. Interesting
game. And I finally worked out how to be left alone. I decided I was
tired. And day after day, why, I just laid down on the job. I was on a
base and I didn't care anything about it and so forth. Why, I really
got reamed out. I was supposed to be in there every morning and read
that bulletin board and that sort of thing. I found out about as close
as you can come to quitting, and I said ... This commander - I mean, he
had gold lace and all sorts of things - and he says to me, he says,
"You're supposed to be here every morning. You're supposed to read that
bulletin board. You're supposed to go out here and muster
oh-oh-ah-rruoww." You know, rocks and shoals, perils of the sea."
  And I looked at him and I said, "Oh, Commander, it's been a long
war."
  "Oh," he says, "you can't talk like that. You can't talk like that.
Oh, come on now. Well, we can find an easy billet for you and so forth,
and be a good boy and so forth, and you can't just quit, you know." And
God, after that, why, anything I wanted on the base they let me have
because they thought I was about to quit. So all life actually
conspires to keep people in there pitching.
  Now, a thetan exteriorizes out of some mangled body that has
unfortunately got in the road of some scientific achievement, and he
gets out of the skull and he looks around and he says, "I quit." Well,
he may have quit, but what are you and I doing as auditors finding this
guy still exteriorizing and still trying to quit. I don't care if it
was a hundred trillion years ago or otherwise; we find the engram of him
doing that. Isn't that interesting?
  Now, engrams - engrams are there to provide methods of survival -
methods of survival. There's a long discussion of this in Dianetics: The
Modern Science of Mental Health. He's long since found out that he
can't quit so he adapts methods of survival. And these methods of
survival are quite interesting. He learns lessons which he
instantaneously applies. The one thing he finds out is that life permits
him no time to confront. If he were given unlimited time to confront,
he could then work out any situation he is likely to encounter.
You see that? You know that with a reality; if you just had time to
confront everything in your environment you would then be able to
get yourself enough familiarity with it in order to handle it.
  Well, the one thing which this universe and life omits in the platter
of goodies they give you - the one thing they omit - is enough time to
confront. That's the main thing - enough time to confront. That's the
whole crux of the situation.
  Lacking enough time to confront you have to develop instantaneous
reaction. Gradually the individual becomes convinced that he no longer
has time to confront, so therefore he builds a house which will
instantaneously react on given stimuli.
  Here's the way this works. Fish swims into an area which has a
yellow sand floor and gets bitten. So he just solves the whole problem
of being bitten - he hopes, since he can't solve the problem; he didn't
have an opportunity to confront it, and he just never seems to get
around to having enough time to confront being bitten - that every time
he gets over a yellow sand floor he goes away. That is his solution to
the problem - yellow sand floors are dangerous so you don't stay
around them, you leave. So he has this engram and he keeps this
engram up, so that if he doesn't leave over a yellow sand floor, if he
doesn't leave, he experiences the pain of being bitten. So when he
experiences this pain he is reminded that he had better leave, so he
gets out of there.
  Do you see that mechanism? That's an engramic mechanism. Then he
develops a crazy jerry-rig-built house, whereby when he sees a certain
stimuli he then replies with a certain response. And you've got a
stimulus-response mechanism which is built in, in the form of engrams.
  Father speaks loudly: drop food on floor. Well, it's a good answer.
It sure shut the old man up. He stopped talking about that, didn't he?
Huh? So there's a whole little series of pictures here that go along
with this and they operate as a stimulus-response basis. It's all
survival mechanism. It may not look that way, but it is.
  Remember all the data of the service facsimile. The service
facsimile was one the fellow used to get out of trouble. This is how he
operated. Well, it was very useful, very useful. By observing a
certain stimuli, he recognizes danger may be present. Lacking the time
to adequately confront that danger, he is now placed in a situation by
the engram of reacting in some way or feeling the pain of former
accidents.
  In other words, he sees the stimuli and he gets the response. And he
either executes the response or he forces himself instantaneously to
execute the response by inflicting upon himself pain - pain,
unconsciousness, something like this. There's always ... These things
are infinite in the number of ways they can be worked out. This is all
discussed in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health.
  Well now, what's this got to do with the GPMs, or a GPM? Well, we're
dealing with the engram on a very easily recognized and recognizable
level. But the engram is hardly a lock onto an item in the GPM. Every
single item in a GPM is to some degree active, and the RIs are
compulsively active and they all have the same purpose. When confronted
by a certain situation the thing to do in order to survive is the
terminal RI. When confronted by the oppterm RI one then assumes the
terminal RI. This is survival; one knows what to do.
  When confronted with too many loud voices one becomes, or when
confronted by an hostile audience, one becomes a cabaret singer. That's
the dictates of the RIs.
  Well, what about this goal? Well, a thetan was going along minding
his own business and he finally found out he couldn't trust himself.
That is always the common denominator of the formulation of any pattern
such as a GPM, an engram or anything else. The lesson he learns is
that he cannot trust himself. He did not have enough time to confront,
so therefore he could not properly react. That's elementary. He
found out that his efforts in some direction became nullified through an
incompetence in himself.
  Well now, it's slightly more gruesome than this. That's his first
determination before he enters these things. But before he enters that,
there's a slightly earlier one. And that is he gets the idea of
possession and protection. This is compounded later by using things to
create an effect with. But early on he is simply trying to protect what
he has. And he protects what he has and eventually he has areas as a
thetan, you know, like King of the Wood, talked about in Frazer's Golden
Bough, so on. He plays this game of King of the Wood and he's
protecting the wood, don't you see? And somebody comes along and
decides to cut down the wood and he protects the wood.
  He's playing a game there of havingness, and havingness is an
integral portion of this. And then he finds out he can't trust himself
to protect the woods, so he fixes up an automatic mechanism.
When confronted with an axe-man, he becomes a storm, something
like that. Oppterm, axe-man; terminal, storm. All right.
That's a solution to the situation and he'll put it into effect. He
knows that he won't have enough time to confront the situation and
analyze it. He's lost trust in himself as an analytical mechanism. He
has made mistakes is what he has done, so then he no longer can
quite be himself. In other words, he can only continue to be himself
as long as he had a reliance upon his own judgment and upon his ability
to protect things which he considered his.
  Those are the mechanisms on which he is operating. And when he finds
out that he cannot trust himself, he has made a mistake. He then, as a
being, himself, a thetan, tends to degrade and tends to become some
other thing. And these, then, are repeated over and over with - that is
to say, his disasters are repeated over and over with consecutive
removals.
  Here you have the individual himself, right here. Now, here he is.
And as himself he is being perfectly happy here, he's - so on. Got a
nice halo and so on. He's just a happy thetan. And he's not bothering
anybody particularly, and so on. Somebody comes along and they say to
him, "That halo looks silly."
  And he says, "Well, it's worn by all the very best saints," and so
forth.
  And they say, "It's still silly."
  And he says, "Well," he says "I'm ... I'm ... Got a perfect right; I
have a perfect right to wear this halo." And he gets mixed up in a glare
fight of some kind or another, and so on. And instead of being himself,
here, totally capable of having a halo or not halo, he becomes fixedly,
he becomes fixedly an identity: a thetan with a halo confronted by a
critic. So a critic, here appears a critic; when confronted by a critic
he becomes a thetan with a halo.
  Now, he's had some wins this way, don't you see? He's had some wins
this way. He finally manages to spread the word around that thetans
with halos are actually, are actually the chosen of the big thetan. And
the critics are actually daring the wrath of the big thetan if they
criticize thetans with halos. He's had to then adapt a secondary thing
over here which is an imagined force or an imagined power.
  But he's now an identity. That's an item. He's no longer, actually,
feels safe as just himself. See, he's protecting the havingness of the
halo and he is (quote) "a thetan with a halo" (unquote).
  Well, that would be some kind of a way-back-track sort of a glare
fight area thing and we wouldn't have any GPMs yet. But he finds out
through many encounters of this character, he finds out that,
eventually, that he had better have a purpose in life. And that is
about the first identity that he assumes that he never really gets rid
of. And the common denominator of all thetans who have ceased to trust
themselves is a thetan with a purpose. It is easier to survive with a
purpose, he thinks, and he's got this all worked out, but he's always a
thetan with a purpose. Therefore he never becomes himself. He never
becomes himself. He's always a thetan with a purpose.
  What is this purpose? Well, it's any postulated action which he
feels will get him out of the trouble he's been in. That is his
purpose. And one of these purposes is characterized just that way.
It's a postulated purpose which will get him out of the trouble which he
has been in.
  Now, I covered that briefly. I said here he was, and one day he
mocked up a halo and somebody criticized it and so forth. Well
eventually, eventually he will have a goal "to be Godly." He's now a
thetan, not only with a halo, but he'll have a purpose.
  Of course, this is way back. Later on he gets this idea of having a
purpose, and he'd better have a purpose or else. That's the thing - to
have a purpose or else. So he says - about the time he adopts God
here - he says "to be holy," or "to be a holy person," or something of
that sort.
  Well, "to be holy," this is perfectly all right. There's nothing
wrong with this. But in the process of "to be holy," he starts out as a
thetan with a purpose. There he is; he's a thetan with a purpose. All
right. That's fine.
  Now, what's his next action? Is to assert the purpose. He's doing
this all for survival, don't you see? He's already learned the lesson
that he can't trust himsels. He's already learned the lesson that he
had better protect things, and he's already learned the lesson that the
real way to survive is to have a purpose. So here he is, thetan with a
purpose.
  Now, let's take our next progressive action here. And he isn't a
thetan who has a purpose, he's a thetan who is a purpose. Now, this we
just have as the stated purpose. This will just be the purpose here,
"to be holy."
  But this, by the way, will be an all-dominating thing, and he'll call
this the goal "to be holy." Now, this becomes the thing, you see.
That's becoming more important than he is. And now let's take it one
more stage - one more stage here - and we've got a purpose and then
we also have him as somebody. "Somebody with the goal to be holy"
or "somebody who wanted to be holy," something like this, and we get
the first three stages of evolution of a goal.
  First it's just the goal. You see, all by itself, it's just the
stated postulate. And then the postulate gets a little more massy and
becomes "the goal to ..." And then gets a little more massy, "somebody
with the goal to ..." you see. And that succeeds in every case. There
is no variation from this.
  Now, he goes further than that. And as he goes up the line here, he
eventually finds himself in a very fine state of affairs.
  Let's take it the way you find it. Here's a purpose and over here is
some kind of a provocation, and here is the goal stated as the
goal - purpose - you know "the goal to ..." And that has some kind of an
opposition. And then over here, here is "somebody with the goal to ..."
and more opposition. And then, so on, and then so on; and then here
he is, his terminal lines, don't you see. Well, a lot of these things.
But when we look this over we find out that he is down here; he's down
here and that's just the stated purpose. And then it becomes "the goal
to ..." and then "somebody with the goal to ..." And now look, if this
is holy, this will be "a holy person," see? The purpose is now
getting more and more massy, don't you see? It's interiorizing
more and more.
  In other words, the more he conflicts with these things over
here - these opposition terminals which are the difficulties he finds in
life - the more he conflicts with these things, why, the more massive he
himself becomes and then, of course, conflicts with something else; and
then the more massive he becomes, and then he conflicts with something
else; and the more massive he becomes, he conflicts with something else;
don't you see? And then to assert that he becomes more massive like
this, and there he goes, you see. Rather fascinating the way this thing
winds itself up along the line.
  In other words, he's asserting this same thing based on the fact that
he can't trust himself, based on the fact that he wants to protect or
defend something or to survive in general, and based also on the fact
that he can't quit.
  Now, he gets up the line here and - well, "a holy person," you see.
And now he's liable to go into some postulate character like this. He's
"being holy." You see? He can't quite be a "holy person," but he's
"being holy."
  Well, that's fine, that's fine. Now, what's our evolution up here at
the top, as we get into the top of this thing? Here he is "being holy,"
and what he's confronting here, what he's confronting, you see, is
"critics" was the first one, you see. And then "critical people" was
the next one. And when we get up here, why, we'd say "sneering,
overwhelming people." And then over here, see, this is "being holy"
- in sequence to the other one that we just had - this is "being holy."
And over here are "critical church people."
  Oooh, what's this? Well, his purpose is beginning to cross over
here, don't you see. He's getting a crossover purpose. So now he's got
"critical church people," you see. Waah, what's this? Golly, he's now
fighting "critical church people," so what you resist you tend to
become. And he gets up here and he's got here a new identity which is a
crusader. Well, that's not quite a holy man, you know, that's somebody
who fights. And over here he's got "religious bishops who
excommunicate," or "excommunicators" or something of the sort. And now
as we go on up he finally gets to these top terminals and here you have
him being "a critical thetan." That's "a critical thetan," see, and then
over here what do we find? We find "holy people." You see the evolution
of what he did there, see. And here we have "a critical thetan."
  Now, what have we got? What are we looking at? We're looking at the
bottom-to-the-top proposition. We're looking at a situation here where
the individual is being called on to defend mass. He postulates himself
new identities in order to do this. He can't trust himself, so he has
to postulate these new identities to keep it going. And of course, he
starts in fighting critics and he gradually mingles his identity until
the whole thing crosses over and changes over.
  Well, what do you know? This is still a survival situation, just as
the bottom of the thing was a survival situation.
  How did you handle a critic? That was his problem. And he solved it
by becoming a holy person, and he winds up here fighting holy people.
  Now, there is the course of existence as far as he's concerned. To
some degree he becomes these too, don't you see. So he's less and less
his goal, and more and more the enemy becomes his goal.
  Now, you ask, in running off goals, you say, "All right" - here's
oppterms - "What would be the goal of holy people?" See?  And he'd say
"to be holy." Bang, and you'd get the thetan's goal. You ask, "What
would be the goal of a critical thetan?" He'd say "to be critical."
And it won't check out because that's actually the goal of the
oppterm throughout.
  Now, this is very interesting. These things contain ... I haven't
drawn the complete number of items which are actually to be found in one
of these GPMs, whatever it is, twenty, thirty, forty. And it all takes
them - how long it takes them to graduate, you see. And here he goes
right up to the top.
  Now, when he gets here he's got a new problem, he's got a new
problem. He no longer considers this a survival activity. This he
doesn't like. It's a violation of his own purposes. So he has to do
something new, and this becomes extremely important to him.
  Here's the bottom of one of these - here's the same two that you
just saw. Here's "holy people," right here, and here's a "critical
thetan." This game is worn out. This game is worn out. The old
game, you see, that's gone. That's gone. He's not got anything
more to do with this.
  How do you get out of a spot like that? How do you get out of the
spot of being "a critical thetan"? Well, you would do it by
postulating - you go into a sort of a blank area and you say, "I'm
completely lost now. I haven't got a goal. It's all gone." Get into
this blank area - you've still got, however, over here, "holy people."
  How do you handle these dogs? Not as a "critical thetan," that's all
unsuccessful and he feels pretty degraded. No, he's got to postulate a
new goal. A new goal has got to be postulated here which handles these
"holy people."
  How are you going to postulate this goal? Well, you just up and
postulate it. But you see postulating and insisting upon is quite
interesting. You don't just sit off ... You've probably got an idea of a
thetan sitting off in space, in the blackness of space saying, "Oh, I
think I will postulate a goal. Yes, 'to be a good boy.' Yes, that's what
I'll do. All right. Now, that's postulated."
  No, man, that isn't the way that goal is postulated. That goal is
postulated something on this order, see. He says, "It's gone. I just
feel like the devil, you know. And everything's gone to pieces here.
And these confounded 'holy people.' God! What are you going to do about
them? There's only one thing that would work, I'm sure, only one thing
that would work, only one thing that would work: To be a devil.
Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha. That would work. Yes, yes, yes. I think ... I
think I'll try it out tentatively."
  "Well, how are you today father? You probably don't recognize me.
I'm a devil."
  Oh, holy people say, "Eeek!  God Almighty."
  "Oh," he says, "that's terrific." He says, "That will handle them."
So he says, "To be a devil. All right, that will handle it. To be a
devil. To be a devil. To be a devil. To be a devil! I'm going to be
a devil! A devil. I'm going to be a devil. Now, you got that now?
You hear me now? Me, you know. Listen! I'm going to be a devil, a
devil, a devil. Rrrr-rrr. I'm going to be a devil. I've got to
concentrate on that, you see. To be a devil, that's the thing to be.
Brrrrr." Finally, finally, "That's pretty good, you know, that's pretty
good; and it handles this. There, it handled it." And he finds he's now
the enemy of "good people."
  He's got a new enemy. He handled these "holy people" but now all the
"good people" in the community turn on him as a man and they say, "Oh,
oh. He's a devil. Ho-ho-ho." And he recognizes these are good people
so he begins to detest good people. So he dramatizes this one. And of
course he has to become the goal "to be a devil," and he runs into
self-righteous people. And then of course he has to be much more - more
mass involved in the thing, and he's got to say, "I am somebody who is a
somebody with the goal to be a devil. That's who I am. I'm somebody
with a goal to be a devil, who else I am, that's me, somebody with the
goal to be a devil. I mustn't forget that." And of course runs square
into "inquisitors." And there we go again. And what does he finally
wind up at the top of the next bank? (Just amputating this.) Winds up at
the top of the next bank "devilish people - a good thetan."
  You see how this goes? It's his effort to survive. You don't even
have to mild it up to the point of saying "the effort to have a game."
You understand? It is frankly very correct that at the bottom of this
bank it is a violent effort to survive. He's finished. He's absolutely
finished at this point. He's a critical thetan. He hates himself. He
is faced by holy people; he can't stand that. It's an intolerable pair,
so he postulates himself a brand-new goal.
  Now, how come thetans do this? How come they do this time after time
after time with such great regularity? How do they do this? Why do
they always do the same thing? Well, they are faced with exactly the
same problems. The problems are identical. You have the problems of
this universe; you have the problems of formulation of MEST and mass,
matter, energy, space and time; you have the thetan's effort to cope
with this situation; you have a common denominator that he actually
can't quit; you have a common denominator that he will wind up not
being able to trust himself, you have the common denominator that he
inevitably will try to protect some of this MEST and as a result he
winds up with the identical solutions.
  And it actually rattles off on a whole set of axioms. These axioms
are unwritten at the moment, but they are a whole set of axioms like the
MEST universe axioms. And they consist of now-I'm-supposed-to's or
laws. And he actually forms his GPM by law. And that law is all agreed
upon and, at any time, that it's this and that. Actually they are very
simple laws and they're based on the very elements which I gave you
earlier in the lecture.
  Now, that's how that GPM parades. To some degree, you see, each
time, he becomes "holy people." To some degree he becomes here, "good
people." To some degree he becomes, in each case, the opposition
terminal. So when he's finally through this mess and mass and
potpourri, we have you, and actually have me. And when we start going
on the back track, what do we run into? We run into the top of the bank
(or we should), and we find the thetan in his most degraded form
opposing an exalted opposition terminal. And then by opposition we go
on down through and we finally come down to the bottom, and in every
case you find somebody with the goal to be a devil. You'll find
somebody with the goal to be a devil or somebody who wanted to be a
devil. You'll find in every case an item down here which will be "the
goal to be a devil." In every case you will find right here "to be a
devil." That's inevitable.
  Over here you get variation. This is variety at the bottom of the
bank. You say, "Well, listing these things out, if a pc knew they were
there he could simply put them on the list." Yes, pcs who know they are
there put them on the list. But the trick is just this - if you're not
overlisting madly - the one that belongs in the position will fire.
  Let us say at this position of the bank we've got an item here, "a
devilish fellow," see. This is this item here, that's "a devilish
fellow." All right. And the pc says, "Well, let's get down to the
bottom of this thing and get the show on the road and let's put 'to be a
devil' on the list," see. Well, he'll also, of course, list "a devilish
fellow," and he'll list two or three other things. And he'll also list
"to be a devil." It won't fire. What will fire on your short list is a
devilish fellow."
  All right. Very well and good. Our next action in here when we come
down, the pc says, "Well, I - I - I know what this would be. I know
what this would be; this is obviously somebody or something who wanted
to be a devil. That's obviously that." So he puts that and two or three
other things on the list. And if he, at that same time put on "the goal
to be a devil," and "to be a devil," on the same list, only the one in
sequence will fire.
  You're saved from this embarrassment. We don't care how well he
knows the bottom of the bank. In fact, I'd prefer him to know that
there are three down there at the bottom of the bank. When he puts them
on the list, if he's way up here somewhere, "a devilish fellow," they
just don't fire. You say, "Well, that's the goal. Of course that will
fire." No, the goal won't fire as an RI when expressed as an RI if it's
not in proper sequence.
  In other words, it will come out by 3M correctly unless you are
overlisting. But that's what occurs on the bottom of a bank. And
there's a border between these two banks like that, and you actually go
over the border of the banks. Well, they're two different GPMs. They
exist as great big black masses all in their own right, which is a
compounded squeeze-together of all of these items I've been talking
about. In other words, one goal, one black mass.
  Well, what happens if you have four or five goals all jammed
together? No, they still come apart: one goal, one black mass; one item,
one black mass; one, inside the goal, but part of the black mass. In
other words, every GPM is a black mass. And the GPMs, if they're apart
or separate or stuck together or anything else, constitute what looks at
first glance like a mass; but as the pc begins to run them his
perception picks up, he begins to recognize one mass from another
mass. Quite interesting.
  Well, why are they so burned down? Why are they so black? Well,
it's just that he's exhausted all the energy out of them, that's all.
You'll find he'll still dramatize these things. They are apparently
moving on forward into present time and always under formation. He's
always in some stage or another of the GPM in its formation. He's
always forming the top of it, but he also very often dramatizes that
which has gone yesterday.
  You see he couldn't quit, so he's just as likely to use this goal of
his, "to be holy," in some given circumstance. Well, he goes into a
church and all of a sudden he's restimulated. He feels kind of weird
and kind of sick, but he's restimulated. He goes into this church and
at first he - well, let's say he starts to church as a career. And, oh,
he gets along all right. He goes to church for a little while, he goes
a lot of Sundays, a year or two, or something like that. One day he
starts to feel kind of sick. He gets into the - sits down in the pew,
and he starts to feel kind of sick. And he looks around and
suddenly he realizes that that priest is pretty critical, pretty
critical of him. Or maybe the priest did say a critical thing.
He's all set, you see.
  And the next thing you know, why, he gets this horrible feeling that
he had better do something devilish. Inexplicable. All of a sudden he
does something devilish. In other words, he just picked up an old area
in an old GPM, was restimulated momentarily, he lived through it, did
its responses and so forth.
  Why? Because it's the now-I'm-supposed-to. He's got a whole system
of now-I'm-supposed-to's. And these now-I'm-supposed-to's routinely
will give him the right answers and the right responses for any given
condition instantaneously without further inspection on his part. He
just knows what to do, man, and then he will survive. The only trouble
is these things have never been very survival, and formulated to match
the times of Charlemagne, they don't go very well in the days of
Khrushchev. They don't match anymore.
  "I know what I'm supposed to do - a swordsman. Ha-ha. Golly, ain't
nobody wielded a sword for a long time." He feels sort of out of place.
He feels upset. He is faced with something and it says to him that he
must be a swordsman, but, thhuh, he can't make it. He goes and reads
books about sword collections. That's about as close as he can come to
it. The more he reads, the more he's got to read. The more he reads
the sicker he gets, but he's still got to read these books about sword
collections. But he's in an interplay here of the universe around him
and these things still have survival answers.
  This girl is faced by a loud man and she knows what to be. She knows
what to be - a cabaret singer. And she goes ahead and tries to be a
cabaret singer and fails at it most gorgeously. Whereas the girl could
probably be an opera singer with no difficulty at all. See opera
singer, that wasn't going to be very upsetting. But a cabaret
singer - oh-ho-ho, that's the thing she's got to be and can't make.
  You'll find people all the time trying to do things that they can't
do, whereas they can do something superior to them superiorly and won't
do it. That's one of the puzzles of human behavior. Well, those puzzles
of human behavior are contained in this.
  You can explain these things by engrams for the excellent reason that
that which sticks and has a command value in an engram is actually one
of these GPM items underneath the engram kicking in. And when you ran
the engram you actually ran it off the top of the GPM item and it didn't
trouble the pc. Old repeater technique, or something like that would,
as likely as not, as often as not, key the thing out and free it.
  This is why processes have worked where they have worked, and also
why they haven't worked where they haven't worked. Because these items
here, the fellow has lived, he's lived those things with ferocity.
Those goals haven't just been, "Well, I now think I will put a goal in
'to be a devil.' Yes, I think I will postulate that. All right, 'to be
a devil.' That's postulated." Ah, God no, man. He worked at the
postulation of this goal day in and day out, week in and week out, year
in and year out. And he just got it so it would stick. Never, never
again is he going to be caught in any such situation as "to be holy."
Never. Never. "To be a devil. That's the thing to be; to be a devil.
Now, you hear me now; you hear me now. Now, listen - to be a devil,"
and so on. In other words, he trains himself into the thing. And then of
course he inevitably gets its enemies and then he partakes of those
enemies, and then he partakes of those and those and those, and finally
this thing betrays him and he can no longer have that goal or basic
purpose.
  A thetan has a basic purpose - a thetan has a basic purpose when a
thetan can no longer trust himself after trying to protect something in
the physical universe. That gives him a system of goals, and out of
that system of goals you give him the piled up system of items which you
get in a GPM.
  When a GPM fails to survive anymore, I mean, to serve anymore as a
survival mechanism - when the GPM fails, our next immediate action
after that is to create a new goal and to go the limit on it as long as
it is useful. And when that one wears out and one is no longer able
to see anything in it but a totally degraded form, to achieve the
next - to postulate the next goal to solve the GPM that's just past.
So we just have nothing but a solution to a solution to a solution to
a solution to a solution. In other words, the cures become the illness.
  Now, we go back and look over this situation, and we find out that
the reason this fellow can't stand this universe, can't stand closed
places, can't stand anything in a dress, can't stand this and can't
stand that; and yet can't stay away from them is because of this goal
"to be holy." And the reason he can't do that, of course, is because
he's got a goal "to be a devil."
  I'm sorry if anybody has these actual goals. I'm sure they will be
found. I'm not using synthetic goals in this lecture.
  But there's the whole mechanism. There's the whole mechanism of the
GPM. There's why it exists. There's how it evolves, and so on. It is
far simpler than you would believe.
  Now, when you realize - I said why they were black - when you realize
that this item here, the "goal to be a devil," may very well consist of
lifetimes, each lifetime having a full array of pictures, and that that
has all been burned down and charred to nothing but cinder by the hammer
and pound of existence, you'll see why it's a black lump and you'll see
why the GPM is a black lump. Actually, the GPM is a lump of burned up
residue, but its postulates are still there, the charge is still in it,
and it still separates and it still squares away.
  Now, as you recognize, an individual has gone through a great many
very weird and terrible adventures on the course of postulating a goal
and becoming the various items in a GPM. And you recognize also that he
has been through GPM after GPM after GPM in order to get where he is
today, and so on. And he's got a lot of overts, and he's got a lot of
difficulties on the backtrack and he's having a lot of difficulties in
present time - that it is not easy, it is not easy to find the goal, to
find the top item, to go back on exactly the right number of items and
to walk all the way through a GPM; to never skip, to never jump out into
another GPM; to get down to the bottom of the GPM and list it out and
find your next goal, and so forth. None of this, none of this could be
considered to be easy. It isn't easy. But oddly enough these GPMs are
so much a carbon copy, one to the next, from pc to pc, they only vary in
the significance of the goal and the significance of the items. They
don't vary in the pattern of the goal.
  You'll find the person's goal there and you'll find the item, "the
goal to be a devil," or "the goal to catch catfish," or "the goal to be
a tiger." "Somebody or something who wanted to be a tiger" - you'll find
that there. You'll find out up here "a tigerish person" or "a devil" or
something like that. And we go up the line and we get up to the top of
the thing, we inevitably find in this column of terminals, we find "a
saint," something like that. "A saintly person," something. It's
totally reversed from the situation.
  We find out that the similarity of items in this GPM here ... Well,
let's say we have an item "people who care for nothing." Nothings pile
up more than anything else. We have "people who care for nothing"
as an oppterm here. And down in "the goal to be good," "people who
give up nothing" or something. And those two items are liable to
collapse one on the other. And because they are liable to collapse
one on the other, these GPMs bang.
  In other words, very similar items sometimes group. And you'll be
auditing along, minding your own business, and all of a sudden the pc
will go whop, or whoop, or urp, and so on, and he'll have felt a couple
of GPMs smash together.
  You'll have excited - through some wrong listing, or something of this
sort - you'll have excited a similar item in another GPM and have
collapsed it on.
  Well, all this is avoided - the randomity is avoided - by being
particularly careful to get the items that belong in sequence, in
sequence. And that is normally done by not overlisting on an RI oppose
list and not underlisting on a source list. There's nothing much to it.
You can even find on the last R ... the goal as an RI oppose is a source
list, and you can even find the next goal on that if that last source
list from here down into this bank is completed.
  There's all kinds of mechanical arrangements here and we haven't even
really begun to exhaust the number of possibilities that you could do to
get a GPM. It very possibly is not necessary to do a goal-oppose
terminal to get this top GPM up here. You just say, "All right. Tell
me an item, who or what would be the least likely to have the goal 'to
be a devil'." And the guy says, "A saintly person." It RRs and you put
it in as a beginning terminal line. I mean these things - these
possibilities are great, but they are mostly assistive in recovery. If
you do the goal right in the first place, you don't run into these
things.
  And then there's the admonition that in actual fact you should make a
Clear before you try to make an OT. You'll find auditors will go on at
a fantastic rate of speed, GPM after GPM after GPM, and they never
clean up the GPM they're in. And they never look for these various
items; they don't try to get the pc; they don't ... They find something
still ticking so they just list it further. They don't go back and
patch it up. They don't try to find any of these bypassed items.
They don't try to get these bottom items in the goal line. They don't
try to neat this thing up before they go along. As a result you've got
three or four or five GPMs alive and, they frankly, are maybe not as
easy to patch up as it would have been if you had just patched up one
and done it right in the first place. You haven't lost any time. You
can patch these things up. You can take care of them.
  The way to take care of them best, however, is to know the anatomy
of the GPM. To know what you expect to find in the pc. Not go on
expecting that every pc is different, that every pc is going to have a
different pattern, that all of these things are going to be so
difficult, and so on.
  Well, I saw a GPM just today which - well, I won't try to quote the
items out of it, but it's something like this: "the goal to be a lady,"
and the first oppterm, "a steam locomotive," and the first terminal,
"astronomy." Well, come out of it. I mean, how does this relate? The
auditor has banged off into three different GPMs. He's got a goal for
something, but he hasn't got any terminals for anything. In other
words, he's very dispersed on the thing.
  Now, if you know - you get experience as to what these are all about,
and you know what the thing should look like, and you know whether
you're right or not, and you know how this thing should add up; you'll
all of a sudden become aware of the fact that you've skipped
something - both by the pc's ARC break and behavior and so forth, and
because you can't go on, and for other reasons; but also because you
just know your stuff on the anatomy of a GPM.
  The easiest way to run a GPM is know what you're running. I've given
you the picture of the GPM, its basis, modus operandi, and the
repetitive characteristics of the GPM. If you know these things quite
well you won't have too much trouble clearing anybody.
  How many GPMs are there? I don't know. You've sure been around long
enough. I can hear you now on Marcab and on this place and in that age
and that age. "All right. So that's failed. So I can no longer be a
holy person, and so forth. I'm going to be a devil. Yes, to be a
devil. Now, listen carefully, to be ..." You know? You've been doing
it for a long time.
  I don't know how many GPMs you'll cook up in somebody. I'd say the
more complicated the GPM first found sounds as a goal, the more GPMs
there are in the bank. I think you'll find out that's a working rule.
If the first one - first goal you find of a person is "To be somebody
who plays a pipe on various clouds and looks sad," I think you've
got an awful lot of GPMs in the bank.
  There's the other factor. The first GPM you encounter is sometimes
truncated there, so you just have a new thetan, he looks like. His
behavior will be very brash. Next one will be truncated up here
someplace and he'll be a conservative. He'll be backing up the
conservative. And up here someplace it just happens to be where you
find him in that GPM. And you get him up here at the top ranks of the
thing, he will inevitably be a beatnik.
  It's funny how coincidentally we have so many people who are just
winding up their banks in this present society at this particular time.
But remember we also have the new ones.
  So we have somebody cycling down the track, at sometime we'll have
the fellow being a great success. Well, he's in this part of the bank,
the lower part. He'll be a rather conservative mediocre, he's in this
part of the bank. And we'll have somebody very degraded, he'll be in
this part of the bank. Actually his current conduct depends to a large
extent on where he sits in his first GPM.
  All right. Well, that's all the data I had for you on the subject. I
hope it'll do you a lot of good. I know it's been very difficult to dig
the stuff up, get it hinged together and make sense and get processes
that make it work. But we're at this point and the information is there
and it is stable and it's yours.
  Thank you very much. Thank you. Good night.
  [end of lecture]
***
  [page 15]
***
  STATE OF OT
  A lecture given on
  23 May 1963
***
  Well, thanks for bringing me up to present time. What is the present
time?
  Audience: Twenty-third of May.
  Twenty-third of May, AD 13, the year of the OT. Everybody is calling
it the year of the Clear, and we never had a chance. We ran right over
that, you know.
  Well, we could say that we've started the ball rolling to a very
marked degree in Australia and California. We've got things pretty well
going around the world in general. There are some rough spots. I was
presented with a bunch of government-type corporation data and tax
structure data, and so forth, today, and was actually trying to get some
time in a little bit earlier in trying to put this stuff together.
  This is very amusing. Every now and then an accountant or
somebody of that sort wonders why I have not paid more attention to
this particular facet of our activities. The only lesson I have learned
is when I let the control and copyrights of Dianetics and Scientology
get out from under, it gave some very aberrated wog a wonderful idea
that he could knock us all off, and it caused a lot of trouble. So
that's about the only thing I've been careful of, and the idea of
putting together Earth-type corporations, government-type
corporations, you see, has always been rather amusing to me.
I'm afraid that's the truth of the matter.
  And at a very - much earlier time in the development of Dianetics and
Scientology, I was able to look this over and realize that there wasn't
any government on Earth that had any right to give us a license to
survive. They all try to assert this right, don't you see, and I didn't
go into any vast games condition with them. But it was the realization
that we needed a structure fitted to our needs rather than a mildewed
Earth-type corporation that made me somewhat lackadaisical in
breaking my neck to put together Earth-type corporations, you see?
  And I've now collided with the necessity of setting up a better
corporate structure. And the Earth-type corporation, of course, must be
there, because of taxation, because of this and because of that, and so
on. But to expect an Earth government to protect us one way or the
other is laughable. It isn't like setting the lion to protect the lamb;
I'm afraid that is not it, you see? It's setting an ant, you see, to
guard the citadel. And it just ... it doesn't ... you know, it's just
silly.
  So I'm faced with this and quite a few other problems at this
particular time. And with everything else you say, well, how
could he be faced with those problems too? Well, I manage to
get faced with a lot of problems.
  I learned the other night that a present time problem is only caused
by not having enough time. That actually blew all my present time
problems. It was just a cognition. If you want to know why you've got
a present time problem, well, you just don't have enough time, do you
see? Time factor is missing out of it, so therefore it's a present time
problem. It's as simple as that.
  Now, very many things come up and looking over and examining the
state of planets and civilizations before the Helatrobus implants - call
them the "heaven implants," public will understand it a little bit
better. But they are the implants implanted by this - wasn't even a
confederacy, this interplanetary nation called Helatrobus - little
pipsqueak government, didn't amount to very much.
They had gold crosses on their planes, like the American Red Cross
or something of the sort. And everybody thought they were nice,
ineffectual people. Nobody could trace down who was doing
all of it. They had developed some technology. This technology
probably was not totally unknown around about the place, but
nobody put it together or combined it with an energy which was
peculiarly commanding upon a thetan.
  Now, that energy was cold energy. And that's probably the big mystery
about - you wonder what this energy was. Actually it's frozen energy.
It's based on the fact that certain energies do not thrive in sub- sub-
subzero temperatures. And this is a cold energy action, so therefore
your pcs get very cold and get very hot and so on while running it.
  Now, they were able to put significance very directly into this energy
so that it tended to talk, and which was an interesting electronic
trick. But all of that so commands your attention that you overlook
another factor. They had figured out, above all things - this is
fantastic - something which looked to everyone else like a natural
phenomenon. And I can see the learned MIT -type scientist now,
sitting around explaining the presence of radioactive clouds;
we call them in Earth's astronomy lingo a Magellanic cloud. Those
exist in tremendous profusion toward the center of a galaxy.
There are tremendous quantities of these huge radioactive clouds.
  Anybody that's ever been through planet building or anything like that
recognize these things. It's the cloud that you bung a big mass into to
make it fission and collect all the particles to become a sun. And
anyway, these are in enormous profusions toward the center of
a galaxy. Now, when we say galaxy we mean one of those wheels
which you see in the astronomy textbooks. And when we say an island
of galaxies or an island galaxy, or so forth, we mean six or eight of
these wheels, and they're clustered together. And this universe is
composed of a galaxy, a collection of galaxies isolated from other
collections of galaxies, you see? They've recently started to call
these things "island universes." I don't know why, but that fits in
with Earth technology on the thing.
  Well, anyway, one of these great spinning wheels has, of course, in it
just literally billions of stars. I don't know what the factor is. I
was going to say trillions; I don't - perhaps not that high, maybe
it's higher. And every one of these stars is capable of having planets.
And it's a greater oddity to find a star without planets than it is with
one. The egocentric characteristic of man dictates Earth as the only
planet that goes around a sun. I consider this very, very interesting,
but it just shows you how bad off you can get after you've been
implanted. Anyway, the system of stars in its greatest aggregate, of
course, is visible as this thing called a galaxy. And you'll see
pictures of them in astronomy textbooks. You want to get one
of these kid's astronomy textbooks, if any of this is beyond you.
As an auditor you may have need of the data to know what the
devil the pc is talking about - not because you tell the pc, but
there it is.
  And one of these great wheels tends to be rather oblong and the
stars tend to be massed up toward the hub. They're not a sphere,
they're a flat wheel. They've got a hub, and they've got a rim, and
this pattern of stars scattered in.
  When you look up toward the Milky Way, and when you see the
whitest portion of the Milky Way on a clear night, you're looking
straight at the hub of this particular galaxy. And when you look
in the opposite direction, you're looking at scattered patterns of
stars, even though some of them are quite large, and you're looking
out away from the hub. And doing that you recognize that Earth is
an awful long way from being at the center of this galaxy. In fact it
is classifiable as a rim star.
  Now, these galaxies in composition are, of course, a great condensed
radioactive cloud of some kind or another that existed at one time or
another, and you've got a condensation. And this condensation brings
about a sun, and then because of the orbital influences of bits of
matter and so forth, these collect around the edges of it and are formed
as planets. And these planets sometimes shatter, they have political
accidents or something, and you'll get a belt of asteroids. And the
planets vary in numbers, and classified at a higher level of astronomy
each type of star has its own classification, depending not so much
on its order of magnitude, although that is there too, but on the
brilliance per mass. It's the brilliance per mass of a star. So that
you get actually coal black stars. They look coal black. You get up
right close to them and you find out they're red-hot. Well, that's been
referred to as a dead sun, or something like this. And it's pretty
grisly if you ever happen to not navigate correctly, because they get
in your road most god-awfully. They don't radiate enough to be
detected.
  And that moves up to your dull reds. The dull red sun, you can see
these things. Let's see, where is there one around here? Which one
is it? Aldebaran I think, is a dull red one. There's one up there in
Taurus, the constellation Taurus, and it is bright red. And then you
move up from that, you get to a yellow sun. And that is more or less
the characteristic of Earth's sun; it tends to be more yellow than
otherwise. And then you move up to a higher radiation factor, and you
get a white sun and you get a blue sun. Those are the various
radiation factors. Your white and blue there may be interchanged.
But the point I'm making is, is there's different brilliances, and then
there's different masses for these brilliances. And all these things
have some relationship.
  Now, you go down into the tropics in a meat body, you're liable to get
ultraviolet poisoning. Because the sun's rays are so directly ahead
that you get too much ultraviolet. Well, around a brilliantly blue sun,
of course, these types of rays are just pounding away, all the time,
all the time, all the time, and you'd fry in the type of body you're in.
Nevertheless, just because a meat body is at a highly critical
temperature and mass level - that is to say, it can only live on a
planet of so much mass, it can only live on a planet of so much
heat or cold, you see - is no reason why life forms or bodies,
which have two arms and two legs and a head and so forth, no
reason why bodies don't exist that can stand these extremes.
And the upshot of this is that the science fiction writer is always
trying to tell you about ... You see, the science fiction
writer's memory is faulty, and he gets himself all restimulated and so
forth, and he doesn't remember straight. Some of them remember it
quite well, but then they reverse their time - we wouldn't quite know
why that is - and put it all into the future, which I consider quite
interesting. They, of course, wouldn't know anything about the
implants that turn all time backwards.
  Now, I imagine in the days of Columbus, you go along the docks, you'd
hear some old salt who has been actually outside the breakwater
explaining to some young aspirant as to why Columbus cannot reach the
other side of the ocean, and you hear tales of monsters and that sort of
thing - because you mustn't go out there, you see - and the horrible
monsters of the sea, and they have huge tentacles and they gobble you
up, you see, and they swallow whole ships, and all of this sort of
thing. You would have found that very current in Cadiz, the port of
embarkation there, just before Columbus' sailing.
  Well it's worse than that. These tales were probably spread by the
Phoenicians, who made regular voyages from the Mediterranean to England
to pick up tin and didn't want anybody else cutting in on their racket,
see? And, so they talked about these monsters that existed at sea and
it was all terrible and you didn't dare venture out through the Pillars
of Hercules or out of the sight of land, because you'd get et up.
  Well, mothers have the same trouble; they tell their little children
if they aren't good that somebody will get them or the bogyman or
something like this. In other words, this is a standard mechanism about
the bogyman and the terrible beings and all of that sort of thing. It's
a standard mechanism that's used for various reasons in various places.
And that has existed through this universe. So that most people have
parked somewhere in their consciousness the idea that if they went to
the planet Gyppo, you see, that there they would find huge tubelike
creatures, you see, that would pfssse suck you all up at a glup, see?
You know, bogys. And the science fiction writer, being the furthest
from reality on the situation, is liable to perpetuate the bogy faster
than he perpetuates fact. I should not decry him because he's done
a very good job.
  But the truth of the matter is that most planets are inhabited by and
lived on by and run by animal forms quite similar to Earth's. Actually
they're classified by rings. So many planets out from a yellow or
twelfth-rate sun has a certain type of flora and fauna for each one of
its continents. You see, it's all classifiable. But you get this
modified, then, when you go out into the next planetary ring and you get
this modified when you go into the next planetary ring, you see? But
it's more or less classified. It's pretty standard, it's what can adapt
to that particular type of environment. And although I don't think
you'd have very much pleasure out of kissing a girl from
Jupiter - that's a heavy-gravity planet, and if you stepped on the
planet Jupiter in one of these meat bodies that you presently have,
you would become a pancake promptly, you see? And what
atmosphere it has lies in seas of liquid air and so on. You might say
that this is somewhat rigorous as an environment, not completely
similar to Russia but ...  And so you do get these various variations.
And it's not all that horrifying, however.
  You find somebody running around planet Jupiter, he'd be built to
withstand that climatic condition and that gravitic condition and so
forth and his legs might be a bit modified and his arms and that sort
of thing, but he probably would look like an Eskimo. The truth of the
matter is, then, that the universe is not a strange place filled full of
terrifying beings of one kind or another, but in actual fact is
a rather pleasant place, except where people have been very,
very busy making it an unpleasant place.
  Now, if you face up to what has happened to meat bodies, and what
has been done with this universe, you could become very disheartened
and you could become very caved-in and you could say well, this
universe then is fully and completely a trap - until you recognize that
this factor has occurred: The thetan is helped all the time by MEST -
all the time, all the time, all the time, all the time by MEST. It gives
him consecutive scenery, gives him location; these are all things
which he does not ... is not ... just been overwhelmed by, but things
which are actually things that he likes. It gives him a permanent,
persistent structure of matter. He can put up a little shadow of a
house today or something like that and it's there tomorrow, you see?
If he forgets about it, it doesn't disappear. All kinds of problems that
a thetan had have been solved by this universe and he's on a one-way
help flow when he gets too far down: Universe helps him; he doesn't
help the universe.
  Somebody who is in that frame of mind, you can simply ask this simple
question: "How could you help the physical universe?" You get the degree
it helps him; makes a stuck flow. All right, "How could you help the
physical universe?" see? And he's liable to comm lag on that first
answer for a little while, but he suddenly will come up with a whole
bunch of answers and he'll suddenly feel better about this universe.
  In other words, if the universe is anything, it's too good for you and
people can't stand this, so they decide the MEST universe is evil. So
every once in a while you'll get some bloke that decides to make it a
very evil place. And he'll get some wild, weird idea of what is wrong
with it. What he thinks is wrong with it is inevitably that it has free
beings in it. He always comes to this conclusion, if he's that degraded
and therefore starts to get very busy to make beings unfree.
The net result of this is chaos.
  The origin of the universe in the first place is probably - and this
is very hypothetical, even though we have found this type of thing time
and time again, it hasn't been too well explored - probably was a
collision of home universes. Everybody was busy building a universe,
and it wasn't in any time period and its collision one by one and
another by another, would form this big universe. It's probably made
out of fragments of home universes - some such thing.
  Well, the problem of why everybody stays in present time is one of the
more fantastic problems. And I got a short breakthrough on that not
very long ago, which was just this as a breakthrough: There's a
vibration, response to a vibration. And that response to a vibration is
so uniform that from one end to another of this universe you have
one present time. I don't care if it takes you a long time to reach
some other galaxy, it's still vibrating in this exact instant. Or even
if its light takes so long to get from it to you, that cuts no ice.
In this very split second it is vibrating at exactly the same vibration
not only that this universe, this galaxy, you see, is vibrating at but
that you and your bank are vibrating at. In other words, your
bank is a bank because it has a vibration of MEST. Interesting,
isn't it? The only variation in that vibration is time, so therefore you
can move somebody on his time track and you can get different
sections of the vibration.
  One time or another somebody was overwhelmed by or did a lot of overts
and overwhelmed others with vibration. It was a very minute vibration,
now; we're talking about a very minute vibration. Not the vibration of
sound, that's terribly coarse, or even supersonic sound or even the
vibration of that; we're talking about the vibration of a light
particle. We're talking about the vibrations of the L-ring of the
electron. We're talking about a vibration now which is
unimaginably far away and forgotten as far as a thetan is
concerned. And the unison of this vibration of matter is something
to which the thetan responds. All of that is very hypothetical, but
I've been looking for things which would detach a time track and
this was an hypothesis I came up with which might explain the
phenomenon of present time. And I couldn't think of anything else that
would explain the phenomenon of present time, offhand.
  Now, the time track itself is formed by an involuntary intention. Now,
in studying the power of an Operating Thetan, I have had very many
pauses in my thinking. I knew intellectually the power of an Operating
Thetan. This I knew and have discussed it and you'll find it in various
books and writings and lectures and so forth about Operating Thetans.
And we all know what we're talking about when we talk about Operating
Thetan. That's what's another weird thing, you see? Something that
interdefines itself. But instead of just this intellectual appreciation
of the data, I myself have, in very recent weeks, have been exploring
the actual potentialities of an Operating Thetan. And I was giving a
demonstration the other day in the Instructor's meeting. You take the
cellophane off of a packet of cigarettes and set it down all by itself
and ask somebody to pick it up without denting it. And don't let it dent
even slightly. And he actually won't be able to do it. If you don't
believe me, why, make it as an experiment sometime. It's quite
impressive. You think, well, you can get your fingers on it, and
so on, you'll always see a flutter of dent. You can't handle it
delicately enough to pick it up without denting it. It isn't just
the structure or fabric of it; it's the fact that if you could actually
exactly measure the exact pressure to put on that cellophane
packet, you could pick it up without a dent occurring in it and
without any collapse of its wall or side.
  That's probably the basic problem of an Operating Thetan. And that
problem itself may give him his time track. This is a wild bow, isn't
it? I mean, how do you make that connection of logique? Well, it's this
way: The power of an Operating Thetan is such that if he were to pick up
a steel cylinder capable of resisting several hundred pounds to the
square inch, he would have that same problem that you have with the
cellophane.
  His problem is How does he touch things without crushing them? He
picks up this steel cylinder and he looks at it and it's got a dent on
both sides. And you actually should practice this with some cellophane,
with this cellophane cigarette wrapper, to get the exact sensation of
being careful that an Operating Thetan has in handling MEST. You'll find
it quite restimulative.
  Now, in handling this then, he seeks another method of handling. After
you've politely picked up a little boy's toys for him or some friend's
mock-up to give it back to him, you see, and it's now lying there in a
remarkable state of crumple, you get the idea that you're quite
destructive. This brings about the idea of destructivity. As Suzie said
the other day, "I think the reason they do this is they're just jealous
of an Operating Thetan." People who haven't that level of action then
are coaxed into believing that an Operating Thetan - or a free thetan is
a better designation, because we knew of ourselves as free thetans, you
see? There were various kinds of thetans and a free thetan was somebody
who was free of a body. He wasn't free of organizational commitments or
ethics, but he was free of a body; he didn't require any body.
  Now, this would coax them to believe that a free thetan was
destructive. And they would then lay this into him and even trap him
with the idea of making him touch something to break it up and
even build something that looked strong but was fragile to convince
him even further, don't you see? That's your first trap. Because it
caused the free thetan to pick up a new trick, instead of squash
things by picking them up: doing things by intention.
  Now, we've always thought of that as primary, and it is not primary,
it is secondary. The postulate and action through a postulate is
secondary to action through energy. You have to be able to do both.
It is more natural for a thetan to pick up this crayon by picking it up,
not necessarily mocking beams to pick it up, but by picking it up. You
understand? Just picking it up. But if his idea of his own destructivity
is so great, he then will develop a secondary means of picking it up.
And this secondary means of picking it up is operation by intention.
He'll pick it up by postulate; he'll pick it up by intention - he will
intend it up. You understand? And he can do that, too, but it imposes a
great restraint on him, and is in actual fact a great downgrade from
simply picking it up.
  You sit over something and strain at it to make it move, and this will
tend to prove to you that you can't make things move anymore. Whereas a
matter of fact that is quite unnatural, what you're doing, intending to
make this move. Intending to make this move. That's quite unnatural.
Your actual bent is just to move it. Just move it. Do you get the
difference? There's a world of difference. And the reason one stops
moving it is because he's afraid he'll destroy it. There won't be
anything there to move, except some powder. So he develops this
trick, which we call an intention.
  Now, this intention he trains to become involuntary. The involuntary
intention. Now, that is very far from imaginary - the involuntary
intention.
  You have involuntary muscles which make your heart beat, involuntary
breathing arrangements and we're used to this sort of thing. Now, I
don't know, they taught me in school about voluntary and involuntary
meat bodies one way or the other and I used to get awfully mixed up as
to which was the ones which went off by themselves and which was the
ones that didn't. Let's just bypass the mix-up and let's say that it is
a type of muscle which you don't have to pay any attention to to have it
work or continue to work. It's a nonintentional action, you see? Same
thing as you're saying when you say an involuntary intention.
  You intend things. Get that as a big difference. To intend this piece
of chalk to rise. A thetan can do it, but he doesn't have to touch it
and doesn't touch it. He intends it, and it will rise. And that's very
downscale. That's monkey business and nonsense. That's the same as
putting yourself on a fantastic withhold. You'll get that same sensation
when you do this one with the cigarette-packet cellophane. Take it off
the cigarette pack and after you've seen that you can't pick it up
without making it ripple in some way or another, then do the rest of the
exercise and sit back and get the idea of intending it to rise. And
you'll at once get what you once did with other things.
  Now, on the involuntary intention, it sounds very funny, an OT
answering a telephone. You say what would he be doing answering
a telephone? Well, he'd be doing everything answering a telephone.
Telephones existed before Alexander Graham Bell. Oh well, I don't
know that that's true. But anyway, the telephone is actually a
problem to an Operating Thetan: Things are fragile; they short-circuit;
their lines fuse.
  Now, once in a while you'll see this come up in a co-audit. It came up
the other day in some co-audit some place or another; I've forgotten if
it was in New York or Sydney. But they threw the goal "to forget" into
the co-audit and one of the first reactions was somebody fused
an E-Meter, melted the lines. We've had, before, somebody drive
a hole through an E-Meter electrode but not fuse an E-Meter.
That was the end of that. So I think probably we'll have to
put a fuse ...
  Well, what did that? That was actually some involuntary reaction on
the part of that thetan was triggered. Here he is sitting here in a meat
body, holding himself down and being good, and somebody just suddenly
triggered this, see, and he went psssheww! see, and that was the end of
those leads. Melted. Yeah, but you can only do that in a blast furnace.
Blast furnace! We were talking about power, heat; we're talking about a
thetan.
  Well, unless you understand this as too great an exerted power and
force within the ethical limits of the individual, then you will never
understand the problems an Operating Thetan has. Strong men and big
people very often have these problems. They're afraid they'll hurt
somebody, and they always go around talking about hurting somebody and
so forth, you know? And they pick up the little woman in their great
blast of enthusiasm, you know, and they set her down and they're just
about to say "Dear, I brought you a box of candy to celebrate the
anniversary," and she's standing there with two cracked ribs, you know?
What they never get through their thick skulls is that really she didn't
object. But the point I'm making here is a thetan, in dealing with
himself, is dealing with somebody who is stronger than the fragility
with which he is surrounded. And he compensates for this by reducing
his power.
  Now, let's talk about this telephone again. How do you answer a
telephone as an OT? Well, the right way to answer a telephone is simply
to pick it off of its cradle and put it up somewhere in your vicinity
and talk into it. That's very simple, isn't it? But supposing you get
mad at somebody on the other end of the phone? You go crunch! And
that's so much Bakelite. The thing either goes into a fog of dust in the
middle of the air or drips over the floor. How about the telephone line?
Well, that fuses of course if you say into it "Now listen! Oh, it's ...
oh, Lord - severed your connection." That was the end of that.
  All right. Now, there are two solutions to this. And this is the
solution that the Operating Thetan ordinarily took and was wrong. And
that's to develop an involuntary intention. When the telephone rings it
springs into the air in his vicinity and he talks. It actually will
spring into the air and stay there. In other words, he's got an
automatic action. Ring telephone, telephone springs into the air, you
talk. Got that? Involuntary intention. He's got a postulate then which
does things without his having to actively intend them.
  There's nothing wrong with this, but why an involuntary intention?
Well, that's to keep from crushing telephones. And that makes it very
easy to answer telephones, and the telephone stands there in the
air and you think this is very tricky. Well, that's all very well.
That's all very well. But it's that same thing that gives you a time
track. Apparently there's no difference between an involuntary
intention to act and an involuntary intention to duplicate and an
involuntary intention to create. And that's probably the genus of
the time track. That's hypothetical. The other I'm giving you is
absolutely actual, the telephone bit is the McCoy.
  I'm trying to get at the basis of this time track, you see, to strip
away the whole time track. It gets into this, so you mock things up
according to certain vibrations and it gets to be an automatic
intention. And then he doesn't know what this automatic intention is.
And then somebody comes along and gives him things for the
automatic intention to mock up which are things that'd be bad for
him, or they jam the machinery of his automatic intention, don't
you see? And they make him fight his own automatic intention.
And the next thing you know, he's got a messed-up time track, and
the next thing you know, he's solid, and the next thing you know, he
picks up a meat body. See how it goes?
  But the withhold begins with the piece of cellophane. Steel is
cellophane.
  And the other solution that I just spoke to you about is surround
yourself with things that don't go boom! Get the idea? What's the idea
of having a telephone that you can't pick up? That goes to powder of
Bakelite and fused wires every time you pick it up? Well, the devil with
it. It's something like you're trying to play croquet with a lady's
watch as a mallet. You wouldn't do that ordinarily. You'd go out and
find a croquet mallet. Well, you see a telephone like this that you're
supposed to use all the time, recognize what's happening to you and put
something there that you can handle - that's a simple solution - and you
won't be going downhill. If you find yourself on a big withhold all the
time, what are you doing? You're withholding. You know the basis of
withholding. That sets you up to all sorts of things.
  But the main thing it sets you up to is this mechanism of automatic
intention, and that sets you up to an automatic time track. Next thing
you know, why, somebody's running out your engrams. Who's putting the
engrams there? Well, you are. How do you stop putting the engrams there?
Well, there isn't any way to stop putting the engrams there, unless you
eventually track it back to your automatic intentions and get your early
track material which undoes this. But you're not going to undo this time
track so long as it's so charged you can't come near it or run anything
with reality. Don't you see? You've fixed up your own theta trap just
because you've been betrayed by theta traps. All sorts of things like
this occur.
  All right. Now, that's ... so much of that. But what's this got to do
with this galaxy and that sort of thing? Well, it has a lot to do with
this galaxy. I don't think you could go into an ant house, one of these
anthills, with human fingers and rebuild these various places where they
lay their eggs and store them, and I don't even think you could pick up
very many ants with human fingers without crushing some. Well, what's
the idea, see? What are you trying to do? What are you doing fooling
around with an anthill? That's one of the questions.
  Now, these questions actually have to be answered from a technical
viewpoint. But they have a great deal to do with the organizations of
Scientology. A very great deal to do with that. Oaah! What's this?
Where are we going? Because the second we look at the character, the
actual true character of an Operating Thetan, we'll recognize what we
are dealing with here; we see very clearly that all this could be very -
uah! - upsetting in various directions. I think we have some
responsibility in at least heading it off in the right direction and
organizing it to some degree. And this is the only point of upset which
I feel about this; is early on, conceiving that free thetans were very
dangerous and should be shot down in their tracks, people such as this
group in Helatrobus started laying in implants and picking people up and
weakening people down and doing all this sort of thing and all this
nonsense and worked on it very hard. What industry! Think of what would
have happened if that industry had been devoted to a worthy cause. And
this you possibly have not run into, but you will eventually before
these implants.
  Planets were surrounded suddenly by radioactive cloud masses. And
very often a long time before the planet came under attack from these
implant people, waves of radioactive clouds, Magellanic clouds, black
and gray, would sweep over and engulf the planet, and it would be living
in an atmosphere of radioactivity, which was highly antipathetic to the
living beings, bodies, plants, anything else that was on this planet.
  Now, this period might be as long - well, it could be billions,
certainly, quite ordinarily a million years before the first capture of
your pc or something like that, and certainly was a hundred or two. All
of a sudden these otherwise clear skies that would ordinarily have
merely rain clouds in them, would become radioactive. And this was
explained by the wise savants of the day; they sat there stroking their
long, useless diplomas. They explained it as a disintegration of the
universe, natural phenomena and so on. How did they explain it this way?
  Well, the hub of a galaxy has in it a great deal of radioactive
material. It's not that it doesn't have stars and planets in it that are
perfectly free from this, but there just happen to be more Magellanic
clouds scattered around there than other places. And a universe has
vectors of force. They go out like a - not really like an Archimedes
spiral, but I don't know quite what the geometric figure is. It's the
line that goes from a center out to the rim in a curve and hits the rim
at an oblique. You've seen some old wheels - spring wheels and so forth
are made this way sometimes.
  Anyway, there are lines of force in a galaxy. And these
cookies had actually found how to detach matter along a line of force.
And so they'd set a Magellanic cloud loose along one of these lines of
force and it would swing out of balance and move on out and engulf a
system. And then swinging out further would engulf another system. And
would spend an awful long time hanging around the system as it went by,
you see? And frankly, these clouds would get to systems which they
didn't come near for maybe thousands and thousands of years. They didn't
direct these clouds intimately, they just set them loose. And they would
drift out through space. And these wise professors (I've never trusted a
professor since) would sit around stroking their diplomas saying, "Well,
this is the natural consequences of the disintegration of a galaxy. A
certain period in the life of a galaxy, the Magellanic radioactive
masses at the interior of the hub begin to disperse themselves out
toward the rim. And this is known as the Keplin-Spreplin law and the
Booplum-Booplin law, and the calculations are M to the gup-gup squared
or the rippety-rip-bop to the tenth power."
  Everybody sat around being very, very amazed, see? The truth of
the matter is somebody was letting them loose. And because of that
scientific theory, nobody found out about it for a long time, that it
was being done. Because it was incredible that anybody would do it.
The natural law of it was not known, that you could do it.
  And so planetary systems would become engulfed in radioactive
masses, gray and black. And the earmarks of such a planetary action
was gray and black - gray towering masses of clouds. These
Magellanic clouds would not otherwise have come anywhere near
a planetary system.
  Well, there's such a thing as the Dark Horse Nebula in Orion today.
You can maybe see some pictures of that in astronomy books.
Well, that is one huge radioactive black mass, towering up there.
It's, oh, light-years across, you see? It's heavy, it's thick. Well, any
piece of that - is such a mass existing at the hub - any chunk of the
Dark Horsehead Nebula set loose in the galaxy would spin on out
and engulf systems.
  Now, when a system had been engulfed - and they had it on their
timetable - they would send ships in. And they had little orange-colored
bombs that would talk, and speech and so forth was frozen into
electronic capsules. It was all very clever. The utter insanity, you
see! This makes it so incredible nobody believes it, you see, and that
was one of their greatest protections. Why would anybody go to this much
trouble?
  So the clouds would talk. And here you'd have a gray cloud going by
and it'd be saying, "Hark! Hark! Hark!" you see? "Watch out! Look out!
Who's there? Who's that?" You know? Sounds like a fun house.
Or somebody would find his front yard all full of black spots that
looked like rabbits and he'd come within them and they'd suddenly
explode. And all the vegetation would start dying off around there,
and he'd say, "Ouugh, something's going wrong here." Or they'd plant
something up like this: You'd see a big tangle of barbed wire on the
edge of the sea coast and a wrecked aircraft, and a pilot in a doll
body pinned on a theta pole. And he'd say, "The poor fellow! I wonder
what happened to him?" you know, and he'd go over and here's this
aircraft and so on. "He must have crashed," and investigated this
thing - what's wrong here, see? Of course, it's just a plant. You walk
into it and the ground all of a sudden starts going crack-bap-grap! and
saying various things. Well, the thetan didn't know what the devil
was happening.
  For some reason or other the symbol of aircraft goes through all of
this, weaves its way through this. Aircraft. They looked like Pan
American planes - rather stub-winged. Well, actually that begins much
earlier. That's back around eighty-some trillion, you will find aircraft
being used as part of implants. Because the aircraft is the translating
symbol of "You need a machine to get you off a planet or into the air."
You can't just levitate, see?
  Anyway, here you might find, then, that for some years or for
thousands of years or for even some much greater, higher figure of
years, that a planet had been engulfed with radioactive clouds and
nobody had done anything at all on that planet. It went along like that
for a long time. And then all of a sudden one day there was an orange
burst and it said, "Hark! Hark! Look out! Watch out! Come here!
Go back!" you know? "Come here! Can't come here!" It's always
the double, you know? "Come here, can't come here." Where we get,
I guess, the idea of double talk. Then they'd hang around.
  Now, don't think that your pc as a thetan, was picked up the first
time. Oh, they'd try and they'd tug at him, and they'd pick him up and
try to pull him into the sky. It was very clever. They had some means
of contracting a beam. Traction beam. These guys were pretty smart
electronically, way advanced. And he'd resist it. But in a year or two,
why, he'd run into another one of them, and again he'd resist it. And a
while later he'd run into another one of them, and again he'd resist it.
And then he ... finally, he hasn't got his attention on it and he's
already been weakened down and he's collapsed a bit himself already, and
he's beginning to worry. And the beam goes tsccup! and pulls him up into
the sky, encloses him in a capsule and there he goes.
  One of the ways this was done: a small capsule evidently could be
placed at will in space. It shot out a large bubble, the being would
grab at the bubble or strike at it and be sucked at once into the
capsule. Then the capsule would be retracted into an aircraft.
Very interesting technology. All of this assaulted his credulity.
He couldn't understand what was happening. Nobody had ever seen
anything like this before. Puzzled him.
  And then, of course, they'd ship him off, and anywhere between the
next month or six months or something like that they would shoot him
into this period of the implant area, and fix him on a post in a big
bunch of stuff - probably looked like railway sheds, I haven't had
a very good look at it myself - put him on a post and wobbled
him around and ran him through this implant of goals on a little
monowheel. Little monowheel pole trap. And it had the effigy
of a body on it. You see, he didn't have a body and was put on
the pole trap; the pole trap has a body on it. They didn't care
whether somebody was used to having bodies or not used to
having bodies. And away he'd go through this thing.
  Well, he'd eventually get off of it and go home, and then sooner or
later he was liable to have been picked up again, and this time he would
be found much weaker, and they would throw him through. Now, whether
they could identify somebody who had been implanted once, which I rather
think was the case, and send him through a second implant series because
he'd had the first one, or not, I don't know. We'll know when we find
our first person with only the second, and so far we haven't. We have
found two and we've found four, but we have not found one or three.
We'll know more about that, but that's not particularly the subject of
my lecture today.
  Now, the Helatrobus implants (call them the heaven implants for the
public), these things were preceded, then, by a tremendous period of
unrest. You could imagine what would happen on a planet which has been
going along its peaceful ways minding its own business - no trouble, no
wars, nothing like that - and suddenly its clouds turn into radioactive
masses. Well, maybe there wasn't a great deal of trouble for a while,
but then all of a sudden you'd have these orange bursts suddenly
coming down out of these clouds, representing God and chariots,
or something, you know, and all kinds of rumors being thrown around,
and talking, this and that. After that period, the planet would be
almost totally in revolt. No organized government was possible,
people were going out sacrificing themselves, everybody was in
a terrific state of gloom or fantastic warfare, they would fight
anybody they laid their eyes on because they didn't know what
was happening. Trying to hold the fort during any period such as
that was well nigh impossible.
  During those days, planetary forces usually consisted of territorial
or terrestrial officers, terrestrial governments and galactic officers,
who more or less didn't interfere particularly in the terrestrial
affairs but supervised its activities. You had a higher level of
technology. In other words, a terrific chaos, terrific chaos.
Looked like this planet during the last couple of wars, during the
last half century. You had this kind of an operating atmosphere,
you see? Madmen suddenly get up and say, "Down with the Jews!"
you see? "Kill all the Jews!" and so forth, and we'd have all kinds of
people piled into the front-line trenches shooting at all kinds of
people or something, you see, and mad stuff going on. And troops
got madder and madder, and everybody got crazier and crazier,
and things were more and more armed, and so on. So it got to be
usual, almost, that your brave boys were charging over the top
just fine and they turned around to a man and shot you. Got so
you just didn't know what to do, what to control, anything, see?
That's that period before the implants.
  You had a very worried thetan by that time. Now, what were these
planets like before the implant occurred, and before all this nonsense
took place? Well, occasionally some eager beaver would show up and
plant a few theta traps. Various things would occur from time to time
and cause an ARC break and so forth. Actually it didn't disturb too
much. There have been periods of tremendous activity in the past,
but the time when the Helatrobus implants took place were a period
of great tranquillity which had gone on for quite a while. These
planets were pretty peaceful.
  And if anybody wants to say then that free thetans are the
cause of revolt, upset and unrest on a planet - ha-ha! He had
better examine the facts off the track, and find out that it was
only when they were threatened and made unfree that the
government of planets became a chaotic mess and you got such
loathsome things as the government of Russia, or the United
States as it exists today. Just a bunch of corn. These were bad
boys. "Appropriate sixteen billion dollars for the psychiatrists.
Electric-shock everybody. Oh, they don't like us, well tell them
they're insane, and uh ..." you know, I mean, just corny,
you know? Nuts.
  That is the atmosphere - that is the atmosphere of an ungovernable
area. That's the atmosphere of hysteria. You're going to find the
world going crazier and crazier in that particular direction. Why?
Because radioactive fallout is adequate enough to start keying it in.
Various other little symptoms will fly up in the air. Now, we are not
looking at a calm future on this planet. If we weren't sitting here
today doing our job, Lord knows what would happen on this planet.
Now, I don't wish to overemphasize it because it's there. This planet
would be a billiard ball in just a few years and anything left would
just be a madhouse.
  But we have some responsibility in this direction ourselves. What do
you think a thetan feels like when he suddenly finds himself freed,
or a third free and perhaps able to operate some much and sees
around him the symbols which have been carried forward on the
track, which destroyed his civilizations in the past? Now, what do
you think his reaction is going to be? I consider this very interesting,
and this becomes to you and me, boys and girls, a very interesting
problem. Because I've gotten mad a few times about it myself. It's all
right for me to say, "Well, actually it isn't the Kennedy government
that planted the Helatrobus implants." And I can say this to myself,
you know, sit there very rationally, and say, "Well, they didn't do it,"
you see, "and they're just implanted too, and the reason they act this
way and so forth is they're just implanted too, and just implanted
too ... Why the hell do they have to carry along all of the symbols?"
you see? "Why do they have to act this way?" you see? "They don't
have to perpetuate the misery that this created in this universe."
And the next thing you know, I'm roaring mad about the whole thing,
you see?
  Well, all you'd have to do with something like that is just let go of
some of your voluntary intentions, you see? Well, I can appreciate
this frame of mind. I can appreciate this frame of mind.
  This planet is in sort of a situation, at least for a while, where
they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. Because if we start
in with our program, we can do everything we possibly can to make it go
smoothly. I'm sure that it will, over any kind of an operating period of
time, go quite smoothly. But this does not avoid a period of chaos. We
can make that minimal, and should. And if we plan like mad and work like
mad in that direction, we will make it minimal. But I don't think we can
eliminate it. Because the chaos out of which all this travail was born
was in itself too chaotic. Some of that will restimulate, one way or the
other.
  Look at it this way: The planet is doomed if we don't operate. So
therefore we should do all we can to operate smoothly and orderly. And
my attention is therefore on organizational concerns which have very
little to do with the legality of corporations under governments.
  How do we move through such a period? Oh, I leave it to your
imagination what might happen. You remember the fisherman
and the genie? You know, the first time they let him out he said,
"The first man that lets me out, I will reward him with the riches
of Earth." And nobody let him out for ten thousand years. So in
the next ten thousand years he began to nurse a grouch.
And he says, "The next ten thousand years, if somebody lets me
out, I will ... ha-ha-ha-ho!" see? And the very clever fisherman
asked him to get back into the bottle. But I don't think that was
clever of the fisherman.
  No, thetans are mad, down deep, they're mad. You get them
halfway through one of these things, you'll find out they'll start
getting madder and madder, not more apathetic and more apathetic.
They philosophically have been understanding everything, and
they've understood it thoroughly, and so forth. Well, as long as
they have that much rage in their hearts, their ability and power
will, of course, be remarkably curtailed, just by the nature of the
situation. That in itself is to a marked degree a safeguard - they
who have power who can control it. That stands in our stead
and in our favor.
  But if we're just totally irresponsible for what we are doing and
just let it happen, and don't make any plans of any kind whatsoever,
and make no organizational structures of any kind whatsoever to
handle anything, not hook anything up in any way, but just let it
happen on a big, broad chaos, I think we will greatly have slowed
down our forward progress over the thing, and I think we have
some responsibility for straightening that out before it happens.
  It even answers up to the state of the universe. We're not even
interested in that island of galaxies over there, or the galaxies
which are up the line, next galaxy, or something like that. We're
not even interested in that. We'll find ourselves, however, in almost
immediate collision with the forces and powers of this galaxy. This
is inevitable. If Earth hasn't already cut her own throat. She's been
sending out space probes; she's about ready to fire on the moon.
Her actions are quite interesting. And it's only her extremely isolated
position and condition and other people's comm lags that won't do
anything about this at all, so there's another factor immediately
interjected into the situation. Earth has blasted herself off into
meat-body space opera. Nuts, you know! Absolute nuts. It's
impossible to make them do it, you know? But there she is,
attempting this sort of thing. Somebody may not appreciate this.
  Now, we talk about the man from Mars, and that sort of thing,
and we say this is very far-flung and this is very unreal to the
people of Earth. As a matter of fact, it is so unreal to the people
of Earth that the last time anybody announced a landing from
Mars - Orson Welles's broadcast - they practically tore everything
to pieces in the United States.
  Well, that didn't interest me. That didn't interest me at all that
they tore things up in the United States; we've had a lot of
science fiction around and that sort of thing; people could be
worried, they'd be hysterical and so forth. No, what interested me
was that in Quito, Ecuador, it had no space opera, it had no
tradition along in this line (it might not have been Quito, but it was
one of their big cities). Their main radio station put on Orson
Welles's landing of the men from Mars. And the people rose up
in the streets as a spontaneous action and tore that radio station,
a skyscraper, to bits and killed seventeen people in the process.
Bang! Well, this answered an interesting question for me. These
people we call the "natives" of Earth, they're blood brothers as far
as this is concerned and they know all about this, otherwise they
wouldn't become that hysterical.
  So there's several factors that confront our immediate future.
These are political and organizational factors; they have to do
with facts of things as they are, not as things as we would like
to have them. Well, if we handle the things as they are, it may
possibly come about that we can also have things as we would
like to have them. But I'm afraid we have to take it in that order
and plan and work accordingly. And if we do, everything will be
well.
  Of course, your job at once is to make somebody Clear, make
somebody OT. Of course, you're trodding on my heels. See, this
is happening fast. People who couldn't handle 2-12 can handle
this material we're issuing right now. Oh, they handle it in a very
knuckleheaded fashion, I assure you, but they are handling it.
  Therefore, this process that we are using, and these processes
we're using are far more workable. They're fast and finite. And
therefore with everything else I have to do, I've got to look at this
other side of the picture. What happens next? Well, let's hope it'll be
as pleasant as possible.
  Thank you.
  Audience: Thank you.
  [end of lecture]
***
  [page 31]
***
  FLATTENING A PROCESS
  A lecture given on
  19 March 1964
***
  How are you today? Good! Thank you.
  What's the date?
  Audience: 19th of March.
  19 March. 19 March, 14.
  All right with you if I begin this lecture now?
  What would you like to know about today? Anything you want to know?
  Well, in view of the fact that you have no preference, I'll talk to
you about auditing. This is some of the basic know-hows of
auditing.
  Somewhere along the line, many an auditor lays aside some of his basic
information on the subject of auditing. He hides it under his E-Meter,
or something of the sort, and starts doing something silly and then
wonders all of a sudden why he's having trouble. And it's very
interesting how silly some of these things can be.
  Now, there was a subject called "flattening a process." Now, this has
been mostly forgotten. It's even part of the Auditor's Code, but it gets
forgotten. It gets forgotten.
  And what you need to know about this - what you need to know about
this is that there are two aspects to ending a process. There are two
aspects to this thing, and they are both concerned with What are you
doing with the process? That's the main question. What are you doing
with the process?
  Well, what you are doing with it tells you how to end it and how you
can end it. And these two things are, you're trying to fix up the pc so
he can be audited - that's number one - and number two, you are trying
to audit the pc. And they give you two different endings.
  Now, you can see at once that number one is basically concerned with
rudiments.
  "You got a present time problem?"
  "Well, yeah. I have a present time problem. So on, so on and so on."
  "All right. Very good. All right."
  "And I - yeah, I did. I had an awful problem and so forth. And, well,
I guess it was mostly my fault." Cognition, see?
Serves as a cognition.
  "All right. You have a present time problem?" No, you don't get any
read on the meter, you don't have anything, and that's the end of
that process. What was the process? Well, the process was just
doing enough to cure the elsewhereness of the pc. Trying to get him
into the room.
  Now, if you don't know that there are two different directions in
processing, then you will seldom have a pc in front of you to be
audited. And you will never finish a cycle of action.
  Let me show you what happens to a cycle of action. You start in a
Prepcheck on "gooper feathers," you see? You start in this Prepcheck on
"gooper feathers" - that's the fuzz from peaches. And you start this
thing and you got it going in the session on the twelfth; and you got it
going and you got one or two buttons in.
  And the pc comes into the next session with a big present time problem
about Los Angeles or something. So now you run a process about the
present time problem in Los Angeles, and you get a couple of buttons in
on that.
  But he comes to the session the next time, you see, with an even worse
problem, you see, about Seattle. So you audit the problem about Seattle,
so forth. Well, that's just because you as an auditor wouldn't know the
purpose of your tools.
  You got a little hatful of tools that takes out of the road what is
getting in your road in trying to complete a cycle of action on your pc.
You have no business whatsoever - present time problem, storm, rain,
night, income tax, any other catastrophe, see? - you have no business
whatsoever permitting any present time catastrophe to get in the road of
your auditing.
  Well, you've been presented with a little kit and it says on it, "How
to get the pc going in a session." And included in that is keying out,
knocking out, destimulating, getting rid of the things which have him
so distracted that you can't go on. Now, if you never use that kit,
you will do nothing but Q and A, you will do nothing but leave unflat
cycles of action.
  Do you see what happens? You get something started in session A, and
the pc comes into session B and he's got a present time problem about
something or other, and he's just had a big cognition, what's really
wrong with his lumbosis is something or other - so you audit this!
  No! No, no, no, please! Please, please, please! What - in essence have
you done? You have mistaken your tools. Made a complete bust as far as
what you're supposed to be doing is concerned.
  You got this big set of tools over here, you understand? And they got
hydraulic high-pressure drills and dump trucks, and all that sort of
thing. That's all sitting over here, you see? And you got this little
bunch of shiny instruments of some kind or other over here, and they're
just supposed to get something out of the road fast, see?
  And the pc comes in, "Oh, I had this big cognition about once upon a
time in Los Angeles. Wohwohwog!" You're halfway through this Prepcheck
on gooper feathers, you see? So look! look! look how idiotic it is! You
reach for these dump trucks and hydraulic drills and over here to handle
this problem about Los Angeles!
  Oh man, you know, just sad. It's sad! All you need is this little
whisk broom. See? You're supposed to take this problem and this
cognition and you're just supposed to take this little whisk broom - the
little kit that comes in on top, about half the size of the tool box on
the hydraulic drill, see? You're supposed to take this little kit, and
you take out the little brush out of it, and you go fzt, ztt, fzt.
That's the end of that process, see? And you put that back in again and
you say, "All right now. On the subject of gooper feathers ... on gooper
feathers, in this lifetime, has anything been ..." And we're away. You
understand?
  So, it's just basically making a mistake in the purpose of the tools.
And therefore, this leads an auditor into this kind of nonsense: Well,
he's always had trouble ... he's always had trouble with his back.
So for some reason or other, we're doing a Prepcheck on his back.
I don't say this is a good process or a bad process, you see, but
we're doing a Prepcheck on his back. And we're going to end this
after five minutes on a cognition? Hey! What's this? Now, that is,
we have shoved the hydraulic drills and the dump trucks over here.
And we've picked up this little tiny kit, and we've got this thing
that's bothered him all of his whole lifetime, and we've taken this
little brush out of the kit and we've gone "flick, flick," and nothing
happens, see? So we kind of brushed the brush off, see? And we
take this other little thing and brush at it and nothing happens. And
we say, "Well, auditing doesn't work."
  You're using the wrong pickax. You see what I mean? Naw. This is a ...
Really, you have to audit a thing proportionately to the amount of
trouble it has given the pc.
  So there are two ways to end a process, and they all depend on what
you're trying to do. So we're processing this guy on gooper feathers.
Big Prepcheck in progress. It's all compounded with all kinds of
oddities, ramifications and cognitions, and it's going on and on and on
and on and on. Well now, that is done only with one blunt instrument
called a tone arm. And that tells you when it is flat. And you, frankly,
have to unflatten the whole subject before you flatten it. He's got it
beautifully suppressed. That's tone arm flattening. And today you only
flatten with the tone arm while using dump trucks, hydraulic drills, and
so forth.
  You're handling the big case. You're handling the big stuff of the
case. And you handle that by tone arm. And that is how you end the
process, and that is the only way you end the process. And that is
auditing, with an exclamation point! That's main-session auditing! All
done with the TA.
  Rudiment-type auditing is simply there to have an undistracted,
comfortable pc who is happy about sitting in the chair and getting the
main performance on. And that's rudiment-type processing. And what I've
seen of your auditor's reports, what I've heard of your auditor's
reports, in recent times ... I may be very unjustly cruel. Maybe I am
being cynical and sardonic, professorially "sneeresque," but the truth
of the matter is, I think you are using rudiment approach to
main-session processing. I think you've gotten it mixed up to the point
where you take the main-session process, the big Prepcheck on, and
you're ending it as though it were a rudiment process, as though you
were merely trying to get the pc to sit still so he could be audited.
How much auditing do you think you're really going to accomplish? You're
not going to accomplish very much, because you're using the wrong
ending.
  So, you take this big thing over here: You're going to get rid of this
bad back, you see? And "On a back, has anything been suppressed?" See?
  "No, I don't think so," pc says.
  I would sit there with my eyes rather wide open, as an auditor. "Does
your back bother you or doesn't it?"
  "Well, yes, it bothers me."
  "Don't you think someplace in your lifetime, somewhere or another in
your lifetime, in some place or another, there's a po ... for instance,
you ever have any accidents with it when you were a kid? Something like
that? You ever have anything going on?" (You know, a restimulation.)
  The guy gives it away, "I guess I have! Must have, because I have a
bad back now."
  "All right, now you let me repeat this question: On a bad back, or on
a back - now, listen to me carefully now. Lis ... lis ... listen to this
auditing question. Listen now: On a back, has anything been suppressed?
Suppressed? You got that now? Got the question? All right, now go ahead
and answer that question. Got it now?"
  Huh, we're away for the long haul, man. Now, this is the reverse.
That's the main session. That's the big show way of getting this thing
on the line, see? That's the way of getting it all squared!
  Now, get this approach. Just get this other brush-off approach: "Well,
you say your back has been troubling you. All right. Is that a present
time problem?"
  "Yes, it is. Y-heh! Come to think about it, it is!"
  "Well, good. You've had a cognition. That's the end of the session."
  Do I make my pernt? You got to get in there and sweat!
  You know, you can take one of these old - you're going to see a lot of
Auditing by Lists. This is moving up. The first Auditing by Lists we saw
was O/W and so forth, but there are many types of lists that can be
designed. And I've got this right on the assembly line for HGCs:
Auditing by List. It's Auditing by List, not ARC Break Assessments by
list. But you could use an ARC Break Assessment sheet to audit by list,
you see? But you do it differently. It's handled like old R2H was. Take
each point that you get a read on up with the pc, see?
  So you take this old O/W, this list of overts, you know? The old
Johannesburg - the Joburg Sec Check list.
  Well, do you know that by very carefully modulating your voice and
making no impingement on the pc - being very careful not to make any
impingement on the pc; covering the questions in a sort of a throwaway
tone of voice, you see? - "You ever stolen anything?" "Ah, I guess not."
"No. Well that's fine. That's flat. Nothing to that. All right. Did you
ever work under an assumed name? Of course you wouldn't; I know that,
and so on. I sort of got that. Well, that's flat."
  "It's all flat. It's all flat. It's all flat. Oh, this fellow's passed
his Prepcheck!"
  I've seen Herbie here almost just growing sparks out of his head on
the subject of checking out somebody who has been sec checked
on that old Joburg list, you see? Keow!
  As an auditor you should be able to make an impingement. So the
Instructor checking the thing out, with that altitude, fixes the person
who is being checked out for a clean sheet, you see, with a gimlet eye
and says, "Have you ever worked under an assumed name?" Pow!
The meter blows up, see?
  The poor student says, "Why didn't that happen to me?" See?
  You know, "That's a flunk! flunk! flunk! Your checksheet is not
complete! You've got to do this whole case over again. You know?"
  "What's happened to me?" You know? "How come? How come?"
  Well, he didn't bother to restimulate anything to pick up, that was
how come!
  Well, now, in main-session auditing, that which fits between the start
of the body of the session and the end of the body of the session, that
sort of stuff is laid in with a club! You purposely restimulate what
you're trying to pick up! You don't want this to end in a hurry, you
want this auditing to go on for a while.
  Now, the auditing that occurs outside of the body of the session, you
know, in the rudiments: that is just "Well, you don't have a present
time problem, do you? Good. Ah, thank you!" See, that's the approach you
use, then you restimulate nothing.
  "Well, you look pretty good! How are you doing? Oh, you're doing all
right. All right. Is it okay with you if we start the body of the
session?"
  I know you don't have that in your Model Session right now, but I'm
putting it down here as emphasis, and maybe it ought to be put into
Model Session to show you where the "club" fits! But that first, before
that starts, you see, that's just "Well. All right. Well, your tone arm
is nice and loose here. Tone arm seems to be low, rather. And your
needle's nice and loose and everything seems to be okay. Nothing
worrying you, is it? All right, all right. Good. Good. Good. I'm glad
of that. Yeah. All right. Oh, you say you do have a present time
problem? What was it about? Oh, yeah? Yeah? All right. Yeah? All right.
All right. Good. Good. All right. Well, how's the present time problem
now? That didn't read! All right.
  "Now ... now, is it all right with you if I ... we get to work here on
this subject of gooper feathers that we were prepchecking, now? You had
any thoughts about this since the last time I audited you there, you
know? You gone over this in your mind? Any improvement at all on the
subjectof anything? So forth? Oh, you have, huh?"
  (Restimulation, see? Getting his mind, getting his main
concentration.)
  "Oh, you have, huh? Oh, is that so! Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. You tell
me you used to ... you telling me you used to have nightmares about
this. Did you have a nightmare about it or anything like that last
night? Oh, yeah? Yeah? Is that so?
  "Well, let's see. We'd gotten along here pretty well down on the
subject - we've gotten on to "suggested" here pretty well. And I think
your last answer to this had something to do with what ... what was your
last answer to that?
  "Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, that was on this subject. Yeah! All
right. Well, here's the next question on that. Here's the next question
on that: On gooper feathers, has anything been suggested? You got that
question? All right. Good. Now, on gooper feathers, has anything been
suggested?"
  All right. And here we go, watching that tone arm. It's just sitting
there taking down the tone arm reads and keeping the pc going. And the
pc finally said, "Well, that isn't any more. There ... it just ... that
... there isn't any more. I haven't got any more answers to that. I'm
protesting the question."
  "All right. Is this question being protested? I'm sorry, there's no
read there.
  "Now what ... what else might we have run into on this? You might run
into something else there that you haven't told me or something like
that? Did I miss an answer or something of this sort? Oh, I did miss a
'suggest' answer? Oh, all right. Well, good. Thank you. I'm glad we got
that cleared up. And here's your next question: On gooper feathers, has
anything been suggested?"
  Get the idea? You're just keeping it in there, man! Keeping that in
the groove. Keeping that grinding on and on and on, see? Tone arm
action. When do you leave it? Needle isn't flashing around anymore and
the tone arm isn't blowing down on this particular subject - well, let's
unload!
  Tone arms have tendencies to go very, very quiet. I give you something
like a twenty-minute test. That's a little bit cruel on the pc sometime.
An auditor can tell when a tone arm is flat: It isn't moving. Also, when
you tend to flatten one of these things the meter starts to look gummy.
  You can tell when they're flat. Shift to your next question.
  You're trying to cover a subject in the main body of the session, and
you are trying to recover a pc for your session in the rudiment
approach. So realize that there are two targets for auditing in a
session. And that gives you two different endings. You don't want this
pc to be dispersed out of what you are already doing, so you put in a
rudiment-type approach. "Since the last time I audited you, has
anything been suppressed?" Well, you spend fifteen, twenty minutes
getting in those "since" BMRs - oh, marvelous! Marvelous! That's good!
Now you can start in your main session.
  But it is not with the same approach! You're not doing the same thing.
  I could be very cruel at this point and say, "Well, I want to
congratulate most auditors, because they've gotten up to a point now to
where they are ready to learn how to run the body of a session, having
handled rudi - " That would be a shade too cruel, wouldn't it? Bitter!
Bitter. But I watch this; I watch this consistently. And I notice that
auditors vary in this approach. And they very often start treating
body-of-session material as though they're just rudiments. And believe
me, they don't do very much for pcs. In fact, they damage pcs. How? By
leaving unflat cycles of action.
  If you really want to lash a pc around the telegraph pole, man, just
start cycle of action after cycle of action and don't flatten any of
them. You just get enough cycles of action unflat on your pc and he'll
be in a mess.
  Now, let me give you some idea of how to really sock a pc. Let's take
Class VI. Not because we have to reach into that zone. Because that is
the most brutal area, where things stand up in tremendously bold relief.
You make some mistakes in that area and you know it. You get the
evidence immediately. The little men in the ambulance backs up to the
door, don't you see? And it's quite embarrassing. The neighbors talk.
  You start to sort out goal A, but you don't sort it out; and then you
get interested in goal B, but you never bring it to a conclusion. And
then you wonder if something is happening with the E-Meter, because you
don't seem to be able to get any reads. (In other words, you really
can't think of anything to ask the pc that gets a read on it.) So you
start asking some questions about the E-Meter. But you really don't
clean up the subject of the E-Meter, don't you see? And then you wonder
if there's any wrong goals that the person has had that are troubling
him, but you really don't find all of those and clean those up.
  Believe me, about that time the pc practically goes straight through
the bottom of the chair. He will be dealing with a wog and he'll be
turning on pain. He will be turning on dizziness. The corners of the
room will start going out of plumb on him. He can't focus the auditor.
The winds of space start blowing his eyeballs into the back of his
skull. You know you've done it!
  And what happened? It's just incomplete cycle of action followed by an
incomplete cycle of action, followed by an incomplete cycle of action,
followed by an incomplete cycle of action. You really didn't do anything
wrong. You just didn't do anything complete. And that all by itself will
wind a pc up in a ball.
  Well, now, that's a very exaggerated level, but things stand out in
such bas-relief at that level that it brought me around to inspecting
the lower levels of auditing. And I found out that the lower levels of
auditing are peculiarly subject to this, but it's not so dramatic. In
other words, it takes a while for it to sneak up. And you don't see it
all in twenty minutes of auditing, you see? You see it over a year's
worth of auditing. You get lots less action. And the pc is just feeling
sort of groggy these days. He just doesn't feel too good, and so forth.
  Well, if you were to take almost any pc in the place and say, "Has any
process ever been left unflat on you?" and you just ran that as a
process ... Don't Q-and-A with him and try to flatten any of the
processes, just run a process, "Has any process ever been left unflat on
you?" And you'll see your pc start brightening up. Somebody who's had
quite a lot of auditing, he'll start brightening up. Even though it is
not serious on his case, it is quite capable of producing a considerable
improvement or result.
  He'll give you the considerations concerning it just in the matter of
fact of the question. But it's just a repetitive question process.
  Now, what do you think happens when you start a Prepcheck on gooper
feathers and shift over to a bad back before gooper feathers are flat?
And get into a bad back and then get into this and get into that. All
kinds of oddball things start occurring. The pc's ability to be
prepchecked starts blowing up, amongst other things. Pc can't be
prepchecked easily anymore. The auditing tool starts getting all blunted
up and messed up. Oh, I think that's quite remarkable. The tool has
been abused.
  Now, you can put in bad comm cycle with an auditing tool also, like
Prepchecking, and get the tool very badly blunted up.
  So that you can actually prepcheck Prepchecking. See? Prepchecking.
Just put in all the Prepcheck buttons on Prepcheck.
"On Prepchecking ..." and so forth. You can do this several ways:
"On Suppress, has anything been suppressed? Has anything been
invalidated?" You know? Put in all the buttons on Suppress. There are
several ways you could go about this. Just as a general subject, put
in all the buttons, you see? As each button.
  It's quite remarkable. I've seen a case all hung up in a mess on the
subject of a goals checkout and so forth, till somebody was suddenly
bright enough to say, "On Suppress, has anything been suppressed?" All
of a sudden it's an operating button again. Quite a remarkable
revelation.
  But the basic reason the button goes out is an incomplete cycle of
action.
  Now, you should, as an auditor, be very, very well aware of this thing
called a cycle of action. It predicates this one basis: that things have
a point where they start, that they have a period when they continue and
that there is a point when they end. Now, that is a cycle of action.
It's your create-survive-destroy cycle of action. It's start, change and
stop.
  Actually, you could put it down probably less effectively as a
philosophic definition, but more workably, as "a start and an action and
a stop." See? A start and an action and a stop. You could be more
explicit by saying, a start, an action which then continues, and then a
stop. And that is a cycle of action. That is just in that whole line.
  Life is probably cruel because things seldom stop. There is a great
deal of thought put into continuation. Continuance is one of the bugs
that thetans are addicted to. They like to see things continue.
  And you've got actions going right now which began with the beginning
of the universe and nobody has stopped them since. See? They've never
been stopped. And that alone gives the longevity and mass of the
physical universe. Actions which were begun were never unbegun, you
know, or stopped. Time itself is probably some basic agreed-upon
postulate which nobody has ever thought the end of, so you've still got
time, you see?
  Now these things, of course, are done by postulate, but at a low level
an individual is subject to them. And any case is subject to the cycle
of action. Maybe he will get up to a point sooner or later where he is
above the cycle of action. Oh, I say maybe: Yes, undoubtedly! Class VI,
we've got all the stuff to put him there. And you get such oddities as
a guy being able to move around in time. This is one of the more
peculiar aspects of high-level action. You're not fixed in a time span.
You can widen your time span almost at will. And there doesn't have
to be anything there in the past time, but you can be in that past time
period, and so on. It gives you all sorts of involvements. For instance,
you can be at the event while it is occurring by having been in the
future and come back to it, and undo it before it goes on.
It's very confusing.
  Well, because it's confusing and because it's upsetting - let's take
two armies fighting each other. And army A attacks army B. So therefore
army B knows that if it is in this position where it is being attacked
at the time it is attacked, why then, it will be attacked. So the thing
to do is to be in yesterday and not march to that place. And we very
soon have generals out of a job. We have various things going awry. A
game becomes very difficult to follow and trace. So the thetan settles
for the simpler life. And that is "What is, is. What will be, will be.
Insh'allah," see? "Fate ..."
  Well, what they're involved with there - kismet and everything else -
they're just involved with the inevitability of the cycle of action.
Fatalism is the total subjugation of the individual by the cycle of
action. "What will be, will be." "If he starts going ... the car, he
will then go down the road, and eventually the car will stop." Well,
they even have it rigged that way. They've got oil prices up to a point
where it'll run out of fuel. And they've got tires to a point where they
wear out. And the time payments will catch up with him, and the skip men
will come and get him. Something will stop this car.
  In the main universe by friction and other conflicts, a particle
traveling is acted upon until it stops. In other words, it's all ...
below the level of time, everything is sort of geared up to follow in
along the time. If an action begins - I mean a single, individual
action, not a postulate like time - if it begins, it is sort of geared
up to stop.
  Now, there are some of these things have not stopped, as I said a
moment ago, which might be the composition of matter and such things as
that. But even those things have a tendency to deteriorate as they go
along.
  Now, the point I'm trying to make here is that everybody is used to
and in agreement with this thing called a cycle of action.
  You aren't using it in your auditing because it is true. I spoke to
you the other day about gradient realities. Well, it's one of the
realities and it reaches pretty high at case level. It's a reality which
fades out just before a person can put some universal laws under
control. I mean, it's way up! So the reality of the pc that you process
is tied in from the very lowest to a fairly advanced level with this
thing called a cycle of action. And because the pc's reality is tied in
with it, violations of it bring about an unreality.
  So if you want to tell him "What can you find unreal?" just start
busting his cycle of action as part of the auditing. Start a process,
don't end it. Get a process going, drop it. And the next thing you
know, he starts going all unreal on you.
  You've got an agreement with him that he is going to get processed in
a certain direction to a certain distance and then that's going to all
come about. He's still sitting in the middle of his bank, not yet having
as-ised all the material available on this, and suddenly there he is
parked. There is nothing more done about it. And he's got this mass now,
and these questions which he finished up - (quote) "finished up" with,
since he didn't finish up - and then he carries those on over into
the next process. And then he never gets that finished, so he carries
on both of these now into the next process. And he never gets that
finished so he carries all three into the next process. And you'll find
yourself all of a sudden dealing with a pc who is unflat on four
processes.
  Well, he won't smoothly as-is anything, only for this reason: Because
it looks very complicated to him. It's getting more and more
complicated. He's not getting free, he's getting bogged down! His idea
of freedom is finishing up some cycles of action. And let me assure you
that that is a very, very good observation, well within his zones of
agreement. He knows that if he finishes his work he can quit. See? These
are realities. Their truth is ... Well, it's very funny to tell you
this, but their truth is limited. But everybody agrees with it.
  So therefore, when you start snarling somebody up, you have these two
factors: The mass he is mixed up with in his mind is restimulated but
not as-ised, so he's left with some mass hanging around. And he carries
this incomplete cycle of action over into the next-begun cycle of
action. And he will start accumulating mass and start accumulating
upsets and he'll start getting loses.
  Now, the idea of a win is very closely tied in with the cycle of
action. Very intimately. This fellow wins, ordinarily, by having
accomplished something. You could even win to the point of having gone
to a point and then not having been destroyed when reaching that point,
so therefore you would have accomplished something. You could even have
a negative approach, you see? "Well, I've accomplished something: I came
downtown today and didn't get killed." See? Even at that low level,
that's a win.
  Now, where does all that come from? Now, what is the upper echelon to
what I've just been talking to you about? What is the upper echelon of
this?
  Let's really have an esoteric flight here. It comes under the heading
of intention. Intention is part of the comm cycle. But intention is
senior to the comm cycle. Intention: the ability to intend. An intention
contains in it every power the thetan has. Every power the thetan has.
The ability to throw a lightning bolt, the ability to hold something in
position, the ability to make something continue, the ability to do away
with something, strength, accomplishment, power, wit, ability - these
things are all wrapped up on the one common denominator of intention.
Intention.
  When you're just half, oh, no, no. When you're just half-shot as a
thetan, and you've almost had it and you think you're on your last legs
... Not ... not ... in the condition you're in, I mean, but pretty bad
off, you know. You're not yet wearing a body. You're probably packing
around an effigy. You have to be recognized and people have to say good
morning to you or you're unhappy, this kind of thing. You're pretty
gowed-in with mass. Your own actual GPMs are wrapped around your
gullet. Your intention (this is a low-level skill, this is not a
high-level skill) is quite good enough to, for instance, intend this
crayon into the air in front of you, to intend this E-Meter over to the
other side of the desk. This is low-level stuff I'm talking to you
about. A guy is, oh, practically on his last legs when he can do this.
  Answering a telephone, one simply intends the telephone up into his
vicinity where he is listening and can talk. He intends it off the
cradle up to his (quote) "ear" (unquote) and intends it back onto the
cradle. Giving you straight stuff now. This is almost recent time.
You've been able to do this in recent times. It baffles you sometimes
when a piece of MEST does not instantly and immediately obey you.
But that's simply intention. That's low-level intention.
  I'm not talking to you now about something very esoteric. This would
sound very startling and make a newspaper reporter turn gray overnight.
But, intend him in a horizontal position outside the door, five feet off
the pavement, and let him stay there for a while and cool off. I doubt
he'd write it. Because he of all people knows he couldn't do it.
  But there is intention. You get what I mean, now, by intention? You
intend something to happen and it happens. The ability to intend. And
that is all there is to a thetan's power. There is no more to his power
than that. There is his ability to throw a lightning bolt, to set a
house on fire, to make the roof fly off, to turn a planet upside down.
That is everything. His intention. So all you have to do to weaken a
thetan is to get in the road of his intentions. Foul up his intentions.
  Now, if you can foul up a thetan's intentions, you can weaken him.
  Now, what do I mean by weaken him? A person picks up, on Monday, a
five-hundred-pound weight, but on Tuesday can only pick up a
three-hundred-pound weight. Between Monday and Tuesday he has been
weakened, right? Do you understand? It's this graphic. It's not the
philosophic derivation of his morals become weak, don't you know?
  Well, on Monday he can throw a raw energy beam a hundred yards. On
Tuesday morning he can only throw one ten feet. Between Monday and
Tuesday he has become weakened. That's what I mean by weakened, see?
And the way that is done is to give him loses on his intentions. All
you've got to do is foul up or counter or blunt his intentions and he
becomes weaker.
  Weakness and strength in a thetan, and of course, well, his weakness
is the only thing that holds him entrapped. Weakness is the only thing
that keeps masses pulled in on him. Weakness is the only thing that
keeps him pinned down. You can only trap a thetan when he is weak.
  And you need only really be afraid of things that are very weak, with,
of course, the proviso of certain magazine editors; they ... skip them.
Leave them out of that category, because they've had it.
  The main thing that we have to watch in this, then, in auditing, is
that we do not weaken the actual intention of the pc by blunting his
actual intentions. And in order to do this, we must differentiate
between his reactive intention - his dramatization, in other words - and
his own intention. So we have the subdivision of the pc and his bank.
  A person who is dramatizing during an ARC break actually is not
intending anything they say. This is simply bank dramatized, do you see?
It's all bank dramatized. "Rowr, rowr, rowr, rowr, rowr!" He isn't
intending anything. That falls out, then. That's a recording or
something going off, you see? That is not his intention. So we don't say
that everything somebody must do we must validate. You start validating
the bank 100 percent and you've had it as an auditor.
  But we're talking about, now, the actual intentions of the person.
  He intended to have a two-hour-and-a-half session. And you give him a
three-hour-and-a-half session. You have blunted his intention. He
intended to get off this stuff about Aunt Hattie, and you called the
process flat long before it were flat. So therefore, you have blunted
his intention.
  You can't ruin a pc. I'm just talking about how smoothly you can
audit. You understand this? Because you're not going to spoil anybody's
intentions or cave them in by auditing, let me assure you, see? But you
can key in incidents on him, and so forth, where his intention is very
badly blunted by simply taking an auditing cycle of action and not
completing it. In other words, he intends, so forth. You intend, so on,
you ... so on. And there you go. And you finish it off, and you wind it
up. You've completed a cycle of action. That intention has gone
through a complete cycle of action then. If you interrupt it halfway,
no intention.
  Goals for the session. Goals for the session. Here's a good point. You
get a pc to put in goals for the session; that's actually a
participating intention. So I always work hard on giving a pc goals for
the session. I almost work harder to give the pc his goals for the
session than I do to give him a session. See?
  I can give anybody a session to cure anything or straighten him up,
see? That doesn't worry me. But this pc sitting down there has just got
through saying, "To feel better about my lumbosis." I'll put that in. I
won't take up the body of the session till I've got the oddball goal out
of the road. But I can ... any pc that is trying to break or stop or not
go through with a flattening and so forth, putting in a bunch of
sideways goals, could actually stop you from auditing or completing your
cycle of action and roll himself up in a ball.
  A reactive barrier can arise out of this situation. So he puts in a
lot of oddball goals that don't have anything to do about the price of
the thing. I'll still clean them up. I'll still clear them up.
  But I take out the little kit, you know? The little kit with the
little whisk broom. I get those out of the road. And notice the pc
apparently has a present time problem. This is in R6 auditing. This is
not our ordinary auditing. I mean, this is ... therefore, any kind of
auditing, if you'd pay attention to the pc's goals for the session at R6
when you're totally capable of getting a hundred TA divisions, you see,
in two and a half hours, well, good heavens, how much would it apply
down at the levels when he's getting fifteen in a two-and-a-half-hour
session and lucky to get it, see? So this very definitely applies.
  So here's ... here's ... the person's got goals for the session. I'd
look those things over - pickety, pow, pow! "He's got a present time
problem here. Ha-ha-ha-ha-ho, ho-ho-ho. Let's get the considerations
for that present time problem." "Are you ... I suppose you have a
present time problem here. What ... what considerations have you had
about that? All right. That's fine. Okay. And you had a bad neck? Been
bothering you, and so forth. All right, is that an R6 phenomenon? Is
that from goals and ... ? It doesn't seem to be from goals, GPMs.
  "Something else seems to have gone on here with regard to this. What
was the first you noticed this? All right. Good. All right. Well, let's
date this." Pow! Pow! Pow!
  We're doing about a four- and five-minute process, don't you see? I
mean, we're driving it right straight along the line. We got the pc on
it. We're just brushing this thing off, see, getting this out of the
road. But we're doing this other thing: We're giving him the goal for
the session, see?
  Oh, we got that out of the road. We dated it, the somatic blew and so
forth. You have to be quick on this kind of auditing. He's made that
goal for the session right there. I haven't even started the body of the
session.
  The session, now, is ... with "since" mid ruds and everything else
that has happened, is only thirty-five minutes deep, and we're away into
the body of the session on what I want to do. He's already made his
goals for the session.
  You want to see the good indicators come in? Ha-ha! Make sure the
person gets any PT-problem-type of goal for the session and so forth,
get him a win on it in the first five minutes of play. Then get down to
something important.
  "Oh, yeah," you say, "this takes very skilled, very fast, very tricky
auditing. You really have to know what you're doing to be able to get
rid of somebody's lumbosis that's been keeping them up all night in the
first ten minutes of the session." No. No, no, no. Who's getting rid of
it? We just keyed it out. We just gave it a swift kick, so it isn't
bothering the pc. Made his goal for the session too. Therefore his
intention level is up. So therefore he's more powerful in the session.
Therefore he can look at his bank better. See this?
  That's why a person makes no progress while he has a PTP: His
intentions are being blunted or overlooked. And so he cannot rise
superior to his bank. So he makes no progress.
  What is a PTP? It is postulate-counter-postulate. You could just as
easy interpret this as intention-counter-intention.
  You will not find a present time problem where a person's intentions
have not been blunted. Something is fighting his intentions. And he ...
it seems to him that it's of equal magnitude. Intention versus
intention. He has an intention, somebody else has another intention.
These two intentions lock together and you get a present time problem.
It tends to hang up in time. And that's how you get a time hangup, basic
time hangup: intention-counter-intention.
  Let's look at Class V for a moment - not because we're teaching you
anything about Class V but because this is a marvelous field of
demonstration.
  Why do you think, in the Helatrobus and the trillions-two, and other
implant areas, oppose was in vogue? It isn't even the actual GPM. The
actual GPM is a subvolitional intention which is way downstairs. It goes
in with an ax. "Everything inevitably brings about something else. It
doesn't matter what happens if something else is going to be brought
about." It's very apathetic. Very low.
  But these brisker levels, more ambitious levels: how did they knock
out the power of a thetan? How could they possibly do anything to a
thetan? Well, the implant means, by using key goals like "to go," "to
stay," "to move," "to go away," "to forget," "to remember" - this type
of goal, all mucked up with innumerable variations of that goal, serve
as key intentions. So what he intends to remember, he of course will get
"nix to remember." He'll get an automatic and instant blunting of
intention. That was the intention of the implant.
  Very far from flawlessly works. Thetans transcend this stuff rather
easily. But there, there is the woof and warp of implants and how they
are done and why.
  Anybody setting up implants that are going to be successful would
simply blunt intentions. Blunt intentions, that's the whole thing. So he
says "to move," he immediately gets "not to move." See? And then the
implant GPMs interact one against the other, so if he gets the idea to
stay, then he feels he has to move. And if he gets the idea to move,
then he feels he's got to stay. So they counter-oppose each other too.
  So opposition or oppose is the keynote to an implant. And this is the
only way that they're aberrative. There is no other reason. Bah! The
amount of mass and - mass-schmass, the thetan only keeps the
mass of these things around because he can't get rid of them and
he's automatically creating it and he's doing other things, but
an implant GPM has too little mass to be very upsetting to the
individual, but it upsets his ideas. So he gets the idea to go and he
gets the counter-intention, hits him in the face.
  The way they "civilize" a child, for instance, is to ... all they have
to do is break all his intentions. Somebody talking about spoiling a
child or upsetting a child: That's very silly to say that by giving a
child everything, you spoil the child or by being nice to a child, you
spoil the child. They're just drawing a longbow. They couldn't be
further from the mark.
  It's blunting every intention the child has. And remember that there
are reactive intentions and that there are analytical intentions - two
varieties.
  So we let the reactive intention have its way. Child cries, screams
and throws a tantrum, we instantly give him what he wanted. That
validated the reactive intention. The child wants to sit quietly and
look out the window - analytical intention - so we get him busy doing
something else. By the time we've crossed these things - in other
words, validated the reactive intentions by rewarding the child and
obeying the reactions, and blunted every analytical intention the child
has - we'll of course have weakened the thetan (becomes susceptible to
illness and that sort of thing), simply because masses move in on him.
  I mean, a very ... a person who is weakened is unable to hold anything
at a distance, so everything collapses on him.
  You understand what I'm talking about? This is terribly simple. And
there it evades understanding just by being in itself so idiotically
simple.
  So that your pc has two types of intentions. And one is totally
reactive. It's just a dramatization. So we won't call it an intention;
we call it a dramatization. Every time your pc dramatizes, you let him
have his way. And every time your pc pleasantly, nicely wants to do
something analytically, you blunt his intention. After a while, you're
going to have your pc practically spinny on the subject of auditing
reaction. He won't be able to handle things in session. You'll find the
pc isn't cogniting. You'll find this and that, and so forth. There's
many an auditor pays nothing ... no attention to the pc until the pc
starts ARC breaking.
  Now the auditor knows something is happening, so he decides to do
something for the pc because the pc has ARC broken. But actually the pc
has been sitting there auditing splendidly, beautifully and smoothly.
His pcing is very nice. And he sort of timidly brings up the fact that
he would really like to ... you know, he'd really like to look at this
engram he's seeing there just a moment longer. He brings this up; he
says it's bothering him a little bit. He doesn't quite know what it's
all about. It's a little bit of an origin, you see? It isn't going to
take any time. You don't give him an additional restimulation. You say,
"Yes? All right. All right. Well, what's it all about?" (Something like
that.)
  "So-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so."
  "All right, that's fine." You get that out of the road and you go on,
don't you see?
  But every time he says, "Well, I uh ... I don't know ... I don't
really ... I don't really have any more answers to that question. Uh ...
I uh ..."
  "Well, you're damn well going to answer the question!" See? This is
getting on to the borderline of intention, don't you see? So he kind of
gets upset one way or the other.
  The auditor doesn't pay any attention to what's going on, there. We've
got an uncomfortable situation. Pc's intention, cycles of action, what
he's doing and so forth - they're all kind of getting mixed up. And the
auditor's paying no attention to this because the pc is still in a
fairly sweet frame of mind, you see? When the pc finally loses.
  You understand, a pc doesn't turn nasty, a pc gets overwhumped by his
bank. That's always the case. And the pc, own intentions having been
blunted badly, then loses control. And the bank, powered up, overwhelms
him and takes over control, and on an automaticity, starts blowing its
head off! Going into all sorts of dramatization of one kind or other,
even though it's just the dramatization of apathy. Bank is in a
dramatization. Well, of course the auditor acts. That's what we know as
acting too late. Catching a slipping situation too late gives you these
explosive ARC breaks. They generally telegraph themselves way ahead. But
what's happened there is really the pc has become overwhelmed by his own
bank. You're not watching the pc's intentions now, you're watching the
pc's dramatization. But you don't do anything about the pc's intentions,
you will eventually get the pc's dramatizations. That's quite an
elementary situation. It's one which an auditor should understand.
  Now, I spoke to you some time ago in a lecture about what is a win and
what is a lose. Just going over that cursorily, a win is accomplishing
what you intend to accomplish or accomplishing the not-accomplishment of
something you didn't intend to accomplish. You get the idea? You
intended not to have any ARC breaks, and in the session you not-had any
ARC breaks. You understand? Well, that's a win, see?
  And a lose is just exactly the reverse - just exactly the reverse.
Things you intended not to happen happened, and things which you
intended to happen didn't happen. And that's a lose. And that's all a
win is and that's all a lose is. That's all.
  So when we compare this situation to auditing, we find out, then, that
the auditor's intention is valuable to the session. And because he's
less susceptible to dramatization from the bank in the pc - since he's
not really at all greatly susceptible to the bank in the pc; it's the
pc's bank, it's not hitting the auditor - and because the auditor is
capable of standing outside that perimeter of potential dramatization,
the auditor's intention in a session is therefore senior to the pc's
intention. But if the pc's intention is totally neglected with regard to
a session, we again get a weakening of the pc and an encroachment of
dramatization.
  So the auditor intends to flatten off such-and-such a process. And the
pc intends to take care of something else he has thought about
overnight. Well, that pc has been subject to dramatization because of
restimulation. You'd be very foolish not to flatten out the original
process, because that was the original intention, wasn't it? That wasn't
finished, and yet the pc wants to do another one. Well, this is going to
hang him up with an intention loss whether he likes it or not. And the
auditor, standing outside this perimeter, of course, can complete the
cycle of action on which he began. And that gives a win to the auditor
and the pc. You follow this?
  Pc's analytical intentions, then, are valuable to a session. And they
are very often expressed in the goals of the session, and they are
cared for accordingly. That's the way it is.
  Now he intends to get a certain distance, and actually, down deep he
really intends to become OT. He's never investigated this. It's running
far too deep. But way down underneath all the layers of God-help-us he
intends to get to be OT, that's for sure. In other words, he intends to
recover. He doesn't even, though, have enough analytical awareness of
where he is going to know what he intends. He intends freedom and a
return of power - which is to say, he intends freedom and a return of
intention. Well, he now can go all the way. He now can go all the way.
That is well within grasp. If he walks along a certain path, and doesn't
keep jumping off the cliff and so forth, why, he will arrive. Well
therefore, the intention for him to arrive is very sotto voce in him.
And an auditor with some experience and action on this, intending him to
arrive. The auditor's intention is actually more reliable than the
pc's, even though the pc is more deep and fundamental than the
auditor's. Why? Because every time he starts coming up the line, this pc
is going to short-circuit into some direction, fail to complete a cycle
of action someplace, leave a rock in the road somewhere or another. And
he'll get some wild idea and well, I've seen it happen, man. You ...
  This pc is supposed to be prepchecked on something or other in order
to get something or other accomplished so that he won't always be coming
to session with this gross PTP about his domestic affairs or something
like this, don't you see. And somebody has decided to get this out of
the road so they can proceed. And he's thrown that all sideways, and
he's spent the night listing goals. See?
  Well, in the first place is, the reason he listed goals had to do with
the fact that his intention about his marital problem was being blunted.
So case advance is now reinterpreted into some kind of an escape from
his present time problem. So he doesn't know which way he's going; he
doesn't know what cycle of action he's on. Is he on the cycle of action
of completing his present time problem with his domestic affairs? Or is
he on the cycle of action of becoming a free being? Well, he's on the
cycle of action of becoming free from his wife. He's not on the cycle of
action of becoming a free being.
  Well, something weird goes on when you've got this kind of thing
happening. He's on a small perimeter. He's on a little cycle of action,
and he's using a huge cycle of action potential to accomplish this
little cycle of action, you see? He's using a 20-millimeter machine gun
to shoot a grasshopper, see? And of course he can't shoot this
grasshopper, because actually you can't get the muzzle depressed enough.
You get this kind of ... He's got freedom mixed up with escape. He wants
to fix it so he doesn't have to confront things any more. All this kind
of thing goes on. All that can get in an auditor's road hugely.
  I'm talking to you now about fine points. You know, in spite of all
this, you can blunder through. You know? I'm just giving you some fine
points here.
  You could get there somehow, prepchecking the rough edge off of a
person's lumbosis, and somehow or another this. And somebody puts him
together with sticky-plaster because too many unflat processes exist on
the case. And then somehow or another you finally find the GPM, and you
get enough tone arm action out of the GPM to - you get the idea - to
sort of cancel out some of the other sins and ills that have occurred in
it. You'd get there somehow; you could muddle through.
  But these are the fine points. These are the fine points of the
business. He's as weak as his intentions are blunted. He will become as
strong as his intentions are free. The greatest holder-backer of
intentions is the person himself. Because he puts himself in danger
every time he has a dangerous intention.
  I think your international champions in boxing, let us say, or
something like that, probably have an awful time. They probably educate
themselves right out of a hard punch, merely because they are walking
through the society all the time. It'd be very, very dangerous indeed
for them to uncork a hard punch in the Bide-A-Wee Cocktail Bar, see?
That's supposed to be reserved only for the stage, see? So here's an
intention that is becoming narrowed and specialized. They eventually
become quite weak.
  I'm not talking about something that you could measure by the diameter
of the biceps, the number of foot-pounds of punch deliverable. You see,
they're having to withhold this intention. This intention has got to be
very much pulled down. They've got to condition this intention.
  If they have a trainer and a manager that tells them "Now only hit
with your right hand during moments of something or other. Some fellow
across - as their opponent in the ring - could stand there with his
guard dropped. The person's left hand, in perfectly good condition to
deliver the final blow that would end the whole match, you see, and yet
would never strike the blow. See his intention ... his intention, now,
is far, far too specialized and channeled.
  Now, you ask a fellow, "What restraints do you have to put on yourself
in your everyday living?" You're going to get almost a roaring
automaticity, see? He has been taught that his intentions are dangerous
to him. He's been taught that he can get a dangerous intention. He's
been taught as well that his intentions can get out of his control and
he can accidentally intend something.
  So every once in a while you have somebody walking around in circles -
there's been a fire in Birmingham or something of the sort - and there
will be somebody walking around in circles worrying because he might
have let an intention out from underneath his hat and started the fire
in Birmingham. See? And he'll actively worry about this. You see?
Whereas the guy couldn't even warm up a cup of coffee if he had
a stove, see?
  But thetans become very worried about this sort of thing. And they
become very protestive. And one of the big games is to make somebody
protest his intentions, you see. "What are your intentions toward me,
sir?" You see, that's the standard girl's question. "Clarify your
intentions," and so forth.
  Wasn't it Voltaire that won every argument before he even began it? He
said somebody had to define his terms before he could argue with him.
Well, that's very interesting. But if you carried that a little further,
you'd find the guy would get so busy defining his terms that his
intention to have anything else happening would be nil. And you wouldn't
find much of a debate in progress here. Don't you see?
  "You must define your intentions or what you're doing." Society does
this to us in Scientology. Fortunately, they don't know what our
intentions are. And frankly, we've never really sat down and mapped it
all out as to what our intentions should be. Which is probably the way
it should be, don't you see? Because therefore there's nothing to blunt.
Nobody has ever expressed the matter. That's sort of a lazy way to go
about it.
  But they have all sorts of assignments to us in Scientology as to what
our intentions are. They wouldn't believe our real intentions, so we'll
probably make them. But we lose, for instance "a world without insanity
or war," or something like that. It's a perfectly valid intention. Well,
they consider this too high-flown. "What are their intentions?" So they
assign a whole bunch of false intentions to the Scientologists, see?
Well, let them. That's what makes their attacks look so silly, because
of course they're fighting on a set of intentions which don't exist. So
it makes them look like they're walking around talking to shadows,
or something like that. It leaves us completely free and rather
unwound, into the battle.
  Actually, any broad intention we have is quite clear-cut, appears in
many books, but it's way over their heads, you see? They can't figure
they could blunt that intention because that's ... Well, you take a
world without insanity; you take this as an intention. Well, that's good
roads and good weather; of course, very unreal, unaccomplishable.
Anybody who'd look this over, they therefore couldn't have anything to
do with that. One of these days they're going to be awful surprised!
See?
  We'll have that intention moving. See? I even spent a little time in
on "How would you handle vast numbers of insane?" and so forth, see? Out
of that original speculation, we get Scientology 0 processes, by the
way. I mean, they're just an offshoot of that. I'd hate to have to
confess that to you, but that was the body of research that came out of,
which is just destimulate the environment. Give a stable datum for the
environment.
  So, intention ... intention here is everything in case recovery. If a
person is regaining his power or ability or something like that, he's
merely removing out of his road what blunts his intentions and what has
blunted his intentions, and that's really all he's doing. So if we look
this over with a very critical eye, we find out that the auditor, going
through almost any sincere job of auditing - even if clumsily done -
will inevitably unblunt some of this pc's intentions. They will be
unblunted one way or the other. And we're talking about the upper
esoterics of auditing - how to keep auditing from blunting the pc's
intentions, you see.
  Well, an intention is a cycle of action. Any time you say "do," you
add time. So a doingness intention or accomplishingness intention has
time added to it.
  The moment that you add time or doingness to the thing, you've got a
cycle of action. So an intention is at its highest echelon, totally
independent of time and the cycle of action. Intention is simply pure
intention, and is not necessarily tied into time at all! You could just
as easily make a postulate in 1492 or in 2658 as you could in 1964.
There isn't any intimate and immediate relationship.
  But as the individual has gone down scale, he has of course more and
more associated his intentions with a cycle of action. You make the
intention and then a certain thing occurs, or the intention goes across
a space - as in communication, you see - and then it arrives at the
other end, and a certain result therefore takes place at the other end.
So we have a cycle of action. We have the intention, now, worked into
time and space.
  So the intention originally is totally free of time and space and has
nothing to do with it. And in actual fact, time and space have, as their
only reality, the fact that they are made out of an intention. Doesn't
matter whether this intention is an agreed-upon intention or otherwise.
There's a basic intention which gives us time and space. So it is
actually superior to all MEST. And you'll have your fingers on
something, it doesn't have to be MEST; but as it comes down scale, this
becomes expressed to the pc, particularly at the lower levels of a case.
  Lower levels of cases, this fellow's having a dreadful time
(exclamation point)! See, he's just staggering through life, man. He's
hitting both walls and walking backwards and falling on his knees every
time he turns around. Well, that individual's agreement with a cycle of
action means that an intention ... There are no intentions any more.
There could however - might be a cycle of action. See? The intention
has disappeared out of the cycle of action, and you simply have this
cycle of action. When he goes down any further, he goes down
into pure chaos.
  So therefore, you can take a person who is having a terrible time and
tell him to touch the wall, and you've shown him an intention and shown
him a cycle of action. You can short session him. You can start a
session, run a session and end a session. Ten minutes' worth, see? Then
start another session, run a session and end a session. All you're doing

is showing him cycle of action, cycle of action, cycle of action. The
auditing command: cycle of action. The auditor's command, the
acknowledgment, and the answer, the acknowledgment: It's a cycle of
action. All you're showing him is you're demonstrating the existence of
a cycle of action, cycle of action, cycle of action - any one of these
things as they come through.
  And eventually, his own in ... the reason he cognites is his own
intentions start to free up out of the obsessive MESTiness of it all.
And he starts seeing things. And he starts coming back to battery. He
starts adding up what's going on. Well now, the only way the auditor can
get in his road in all this, of course, is to foul up his own cycle of
action - the auditor's cycle of action. Now we could foul this up. One
of the ways of fouling it up is to leave processes unflat. Or
misinterpret what we're doing with a process. We're trying to get rid of
this fellow's lumbosis or lifetime problem here, so we treat it like
it's a rudiment. We give it a little dust-off and so forth. Well,
misapplication of tools. Well, you're not going to get the intention
clear because that back is not going to get better under that kind of
treatment, so the auditor's intention is blunted, the pc's intention to
have a better back is blunted, everybody loses under that situation.
  So our intention on the thing laid out: if we're going to have wins
then we must validate analytical intention, knock out dramatization and
be very consistent with completing cycles of action. Even though it's an
auditing command or getting rid of his lumbosis. And those are the
factors with which you are dealing. The auditor must flatten the process
within the reality of what he is processing. In other words, within the
reality of What's he got here?
  He's got a little problem that's been generated since last night. So
he stops auditing the back, which has been going on for nine or ten
years, and starts using heavy artillery on this little problem that came
up last night. Well, he didn't complete the big cycle of action, he's
trying to make too much out of this other cycle of action - he's
misapplying his tools, in other words.
  He's working on this bad back and the only reason he gets last night's
problem out of the way with his little dust kit is well, just so he can
go on and complete this bigger cycle of action. You've got to keep the
pc on the main chance. You've got to flatten the big stuff that you
start. You're doing a problems intensive; I don't think you could
prepcheck it in under ten or twelve hours. If you did a proper
assessment on the thing, you'd ... ten or twelve hours, I'd think that
would be a long ... a short haul to cover everything - let us say, from
1949 July on up to present time.
  Well, how do you make it run that long? Well, it isn't how long you
make it run: how much is there there? Well, that depends on how much you
impinge on the pc. That depends on how much you make the pc work at it.
That depends on how hard you sweat over this particular action, and
how clean you keep the pc from ARC breaks, and how clean you
keep his interim session difficulties - the between-session
difficulties - from interrupting you from doing a cycle of action.
And for that kind of thing, we've got little brush-off things. We just
destimulate this stuff. The rudiment approach, then the main session
approach. And therefore, we can achieve the intentions of the pc,
we can achieve the intentions of the auditor.
  We flatten a process within the reality of what is there to be
flattened, and how much is there to be flattened? How much are we
tackling here? Well, the fellow has always had a little problem that
had to do with - he's always had this problem, and so forth: he thinks
he's inferior. Well, that's great. That's great. Now, you're going to
handle this with a rudiments process. No, I don't think so.
  The individual comes into session and he stubbed his toe outside the
door and it hurts. You're going to give this a fourteen-hour Prepcheck.
  So the magnitude of what you're trying to handle, the duration of time
of what you are trying to handle, to a large degree establishes how much
time it is going to take you and how much heavy action you will have to
take on it and how thoroughly you'll have to flatten it. And those are
the establishing factors. But when all out ... when all else is worked
out, you're trying to complete a cycle of action. And on the very
bad-off case, that is all you can do. That is the most basic process
there is, is simply get a cycle of action completed. And I imagine that
an auditing question like this: "What did you have to eat for
breakfast?" Guy is having an awful time. Practically blind staggers type
pc, you see? And two and a half hours later, with a great deal of
two-way comm and discussion and so forth, he has answered the auditing
question. It sounds incredible, doesn't it? And yet, you know the pc
would have a win? Pc would have a big win.
  You went in too high. It should have been "Did you come to the
session?" That wouldn't have taken so long to do. But if you can get an
auditing cycle completed, you get a win, and if you don't get an
auditing cycle completed, whatever else you look at or what you think
you are looking at, you're going to get a lose. Elementary as that.
  So when the whole thing is squared away, what you're trying to do as
an auditor depends on what you're trying to handle in the pc, the order
of magnitude in terms of time and trouble, duration and so forth, and
that determines on what kind of flattening you use.
  And the flattening of the main chance, the big long-term one and so
forth, is done very arduously indeed. It's all done by TA. It's never
done by anything else but TA. And of course your little stuff that
you're trying to get out of the road so you can keep on with your main
action is just a rudiments-type kick-off and you just flatten it to
cognition or till it isn't bothering the pc and it's out of the road and
you're away. You see why this is now? You see how this is? All right.
I hope you can have some wins on this.
  Thank you.
  [end of lecture]
***
  [page 51]
***
  THE FAILED CASE
  A lecture given on
  27 October 1964
***
  Thank you.
  Now, this is what date?
  Audience: October 27.
  October 27th.
  Now, AD 14, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course.
  All right. You're going to have a good lecture today for a change!
(Joke.) I have to get these jokes in, you see, because ... And the name
of the lecture is "The Failed Case."
  You're about to have put in your paws, The Book of Remedies, which
takes all of these failed cases, and all you have to do is look up and
find out what your pc is doing and what's gone wrong, and it tells you
what to do. And if you follow the directions intelligently, why, you'll
find out the case ceases to be a failed case in almost all instances.
  This lecture that I am giving you has some bits and pieces of that in
it, but is mostly - or in part devoted to the real failed case, that
will fail in any event. There is such a case, and I have begun to
understand this of recent times: that we cannot totally, 100 percent ...
  Now, there's always going to be a failed case. You can just make up
your mind to that, and you can get just as starry-eyed as you want to in
saving the whole of the human race and so forth, but you're still going
to collide with the totally failed case. And the reason for this, I must
make very clear right at the outset, does not lie with the auditor and
does not lie with Scientology, does not lie with technology.
  Let's begin at the beginning on this: Along about 1954 I went into a
spate of research on the subject of people who had turned against
Dianetics and Scientology. And I tried to find a common denominator
amongst these people by which they could be understood. So I looked them
over very carefully and I listed their names and so forth. And I finally
was able to collect irrefutable evidence - something you couldn't
contest - that about twenty-one different people had been in Dianetics
and Scientology, but had been, during that entire period, very active
against Dianetics and Scientology, and it's caused a great deal of
trouble for us.
  And, so then I made it my business to run down these blokes. And I got
up to seventeen names. You've heard of this little project before. I've
never laid it out to this degree, because frankly I never really
understood it until the other day - not in its total entirety. Its first
echelon is very easy to understand. Seventeen of that twenty-one
had criminal records. I thought that was very, very significant.
I thought that was very, very interesting. Because these people had
all had auditing. And the other common denominator is they had had no
case change - no slightest, faintest case change. The reason why
I haven't got twenty-one criminal records is because I got tired of
looking them up at number seventeen. Because they had so far, all
the way up the line, been one for one. This was a totally failed case.
  Well, I started thinking the other day - no, not the other day, a few
months ago, on the subject of case remedies and put together this Book
of Case Remedies. And I have to add to it this little addendum - this is
not in The Book of Case Remedies; it is mentioned in passing, but it is
a very highly specialized type of case. And the other day I realized
what the other factor was - the other factor with this totally failed
case. Now, he doesn't have to be a totally failed case; that is to say,
you could do something to make it not a totally failed case, do you
understand, if you understood the mechanics of what would otherwise be a
totally failed case. Do you follow me?
  But this is as far south - as far south as you can get is no
communication possible of any kind whatsoever. That, by the way, just
goes south of the English language and actually goes south of what you
normally call unconsciousness. It goes into a - almost a total absence.
Because you can take a puppy dog, you know, and you can process that
puppy dog up tone the like of which you never heard of, you know? Well,
that doesn't require any language. See? So, your processing exceeds
language. And right now, knowing that people get hung up on definitions
in study and that sort of thing - well hurrah! We've now exceeded
language, don't you see? So, what does this case do that is the failed
case?
  Now, you, in the kindness of your heart, are always thinking about his
past, and you're always willing to give somebody a break, and not hold
his past against him. But you're not dealing with the man's past, and
that's what's fooled you. In the totally failed case, you're dealing
with his present. He commits more overts between sessions than can be
picked up in a session. Do you see that ratio at once? He commits more
overts between sessions than can be picked up in a session.
  Now, in view of the fact that it takes you quite a little while to dig
for and get up an overt, don't you see .... He doesn't as-is things
well; life is on a big, beautiful alter-isness of it all, you know? He's
changing everything around. It's all sort of dub. It's all sort of
justified. He's pretty detached.
  This was Freud's failed case too, by the way, only he never realized
it and I've never spoken of it in these terms before. The person had no
responsibility for any place he was or anything he was doing. Freud
called him a detached case. I don't know why he'd be detached. I think
he'd be dead in his head to end all dead-in-your-heads, see - undetached
case.
  It'd take you quite a while to get in communication with this bloke,
and his responsibility level would be down around zero. See? The
responsibility level would be very bad.
  Well, it takes some degree of responsibility to put one's self into
the scene. Do you see? You know, "My hand stole the pocketbook." Well,
that's an irresponsibility to end all irresponsibilities, don't you see?
And it wouldn't as-is because he hasn't said the rest of the
communication, you see, which is "I saw the pocketbook and I picked it
up with my hand." He doesn't say that, so you don't get, really, an
as-isness of the action. Do you follow? The action then doesn't vanish
or key out or deintensify.
  He's putting an alter-is on the line. You say, "What have you done?"
He said, "Well, I've picked up a pocketbook." But he says this because
it's social, don't you see, just to use "I." But if you question him
very closely, you would find out that actually his hand had picked up
the pocketbook; he hadn't had anything to do with it at all. He's
quoting you something it said off the police blotter.
  These people are not all criminals, by the way. They're not caught;
they're not this; they're not that. But you understand here that he
isn't really giving you a factual answer, so therefore isn't answering
the auditing question. You say, "What have you done?" and he says,
"Well, I'll be sociable about it, and I've done this, and I've done
that." And sometimes the auditor is completely spun in by the fact that
this guy is getting off fantastic overts, see, fantastic crimes of some
kind or another - guy just sits there and gives them to you by the
bucket-load, don't you see? - and you say, "Well, good heavens, anybody
getting off that much would undoubtedly experience a case change," and
you find out that his case sits just exactly where it was.
  That's because he never answers the auditing question. You're saying
to him "What have you done," or something like that, or "What overt have
you committed?" or something like that. And he never answers this. He
answers something like "The society has forced me to commit ..." Or "My
hand picked up the pocketbook," you see, "and it was purely an accident
that the money was found in my pocket." See, you're saying "What have
you done?" but he's not answering "What have you done?" because he'd be
incapable of assuming that much social responsibility. So what he's
doing is answering some put-off as far as you're concerned. Yes, he'll
say the things which occurred in his lifetime, but in his own mind, he
isn't answering any auditing question. It doesn't really matter to him.
It didn't matter if he did these things.
  And then there's the fellow who turns around and tries to make himself
look good all the time, don't you see? And his concentration is totally
on how he looks to the auditor, you see? He's got to look good. He's got
to put up a social presence. So he never gets off a harmful act, don't
you see?
  Well, that's peculiar to this failed case. Either one: He's either
giving you tons of things he didn't do ... In his own mind he never did
these things. He says, "Well, that's a social response. I'm in a sort
of a police court; that's where I am. It's not an auditing session. All
right. Well, I'll tell them all these crimes - doesn't matter." Or he's
done some wild things, don't you see - some crazy things - and he's
withholding these things like crazy. "Oh, I've always been a good boy."
  The one that sticks in mind was a pc who was the sweetest, dearest old
lady you ever laid your eyes on, who had led an exemplary life, but had
had a lot of bad things happen to her. And it wasn't until we used one
of the remedies in The Book of Remedies (which you'll find there today),
after finding out completely that she had never done anything in her
whole life - you know, never even stubbed her toe; life was just one
beautiful song, you see; a lot of things had happened to her, though -
why, we got the happy idea of asking her, had she murdered anybody?
Questions of that character - total exaggeration, you see? Had she ever
raped any small children, don't you see? This dear sweet old lady. It
was quite obvious that if she'd had this many motivators in her
lifetime, that she herself must have been very, very busy, see? But
according to the record that she was putting up, she was just looking
nice and sweet and social to the auditor. And the trick that was worked
there, you see, is by presenting "Well, have you ever murdered anybody?"
you know?
  "Oh, that's so terrible! Well, no, I've never murdered anybody, but,
of course, I made somebody awfully sick once." And it's the trick of
"Oh, you can look much sadder than that," don't you see? It's the trick
of giving them a much worse overt than they had committed as a yes-or-no
type of question. And they start unloading real overts, you see?
  But I'm just showing you, then, the normal run of cases; and this I
would consider the normal run of cases. You have problems and you have
to apply special remedies very often to get off overts. Sometimes
auditors blunder in getting off overts because they don't get the pc in
communication with the auditor. You know very well that there are people
you'd say "Good morning" to, but they are not people that you would tell
your family troubles to. Well, similarly the pc is willing to sit there
and say "Good morning" to the auditor, you know, but not go any deeper
into his life than that. Do you see? It's a standoff sort of an attitude
toward the auditor. Well, the auditor would have to work on that.
  The pc is in this condition of perfectly willing to say "Good morning"
to the auditor, and say, "Yeah, it's all right to be audited," but
that's about the end of the intercourse, don't you see? That's as far
and as personal as this must go. And then the auditor says at once, "All
right, now tell me a harmful act you have committed." Well, good
heavens, the person really wouldn't even describe breakfast with the
auditor.
  You know, you'd have to build up this communication gradient. "What
are you willing to talk to me about?" which is a far more effective
process than you ever realize until some day you run it on some pc
you're having trouble with. You find out, well, hell's bells, you've
been auditing him for twenty hours and they've not been willing to talk
to you about a blessed thing. And you get these long comm lags on "What
are you willing to talk to me about?" "Well ..." Finally they get an
answer that's real to them, you know - "Well, I'm willing to talk to you
about this room." You've been trying to get overts off this guy, see?
Oh, poo! You've been trying to run ten thousand volts on no wire and it
just wouldn't go, you see? Or too thin a wire - too little communication
line. And that's so tiny a wire that if ten thousand volts ever started
over it, it'd blow up the wire, and you'd have an ARC break, of course,
see?
  So that there are all those little nuances. This is, by the way, where
an auditor lays the most eggs, is in the field of overts. That's where
they chicken the most. That's where they buy the wrong things and so
forth. So, it is a difficult zone of auditing. I won't say that it's
unsurmountable, because it's pretty confounded easy.
  I've gotten to be an old warhorse on this now. And the pc says, "Well,
I have a withhold. I thought the other day that you were ..."
  I say, "Oh, yes. That's very interesting. I'm very glad you can think.
Now, I want something that you're withholding from me."
  "Well, I was withholding that."
  "No, I'm afraid you weren't even bothering to withhold that. You were
simply being critical. Now, I want the withhold that's back of this."
See, I just don't ever let a pc get in there and chop me to ribbons, and
I sit there, you know, and say, "Well, that's the lot of an auditor,"
you know? You think this will produce an ARC break. No, no. The other
way is the way you produce an ARC break. Because you've just got
missed withholds by the ton on the case after a while.
  No, what you do is the guy starts to get off "withholds" about you and
starts to get off "withholds" that's somebody else's withholds. You
know, "Well, I have an awful withhold here. I was auditing Betsy Ann the
other day and she told me - yap-yap-yap-yap-yap-yap-yap-yap-yap." When I
run into that in a pc, I go pheew! Chop!
  "Now, look, we're auditing. We're interested in you; we're not
interested in other people's withholds. We're not interested in what
you're withholding of critical thoughts. Nothing of that sort, and so
forth. I want to know what you're really withholding." The needle goes
beuuuw.
  "I spilled a whole ashtray full of ashes over your new rug the other
day. Oh-ho-ho-ho. And you can still see 'em."
  "All right. Thank you. Any other withholds?" Now they give them to you
very cheerfully. You don't get these circuitous critical thoughts of the
auditor and other people's withholds and all this kind of nonsense,
don't you see?
  But as I started to say before (and complete saying), pulling overts
is dependent upon the degree of communication with the pc, the degree of
responsibility of the pc. It's also in the ability of the auditor to
really know what one is and pull the right one. In other words, we're
dealing here with stuff that can't be done crudely. We're dealing with
stuff that has to be done rather slippily and very well. An auditor has
to be right on his toes.
  Well, even if you were right on your toes, the case that's the failed
case still couldn't have his overts pulled fast enough in a session to
keep up with PT. And that's why he's a failed case. So, it's his present
that you're in collision with, not his past.
  He leaves your session: He cuts you to bits with his friends; walks up
on the front porch, sees the dog lying there happily asleep in the sun,
gives him a good, solid, swift kick in the ribs; goes inside, finds out
that his sister hasn't got dinner on time, breaks a couple of plates;
finds somebody else's piece of mail, steams it open and reads it. Rather
incredible!
  I want to interject a note here, which seems not apropos of anything
else - just as an aside here at this particular point. But did you know
that you could audit all sex and so forth you want to on a pc and it
isn't going to do very much, but you can audit any God's quantity of
it - because it doesn't happen to be an end word. You very often find
GPMs and that sort of thing. They are things that it can lock on in root
words and end words, but it itself is a humanoid action and the GPMs
aren't, don't you see? So you could pull all the sexual overts that you
want to. Don't think that it's going to make all that difference to the
case, however, because you aren't on down to the roots of the reactive
bank, you're just taking the very surface of locks off. I think why
Freud did this is because that's about as far as people could go, you
know?
  But he probably has a lot of second dynamic overts on the subject, you
see? He has probably all kinds of tangles and withholds, but his life is
just one long, harmful action. See? Active, man, active! Not the crimes
of omission, even. Good and active, and you never spot these. So,
therefore the case remains undetected, because you can't even get off
his shallow overts, don't you see, from his past. So you're not about to
get off these overts in his present. Now, you wouldn't even have to
classify this fellow as a criminal personality. Maybe this fellow is
simply a foreman of the works, or something like this, and he's always
figuring out how to get somebody sacked. And he's doing this, and he's
doing that, and he's just chopping them up left, right and center, don't
you see? And taking the stuff out of the company till in the bargain.
  The guy is really heavy at it, you know? He's working - he's working
at it, you know? He's dedicated. You get him in session and you just
can't pull those overts fast enough to keep the case in balance to
return any degree of responsibility. And you wouldn't really know what
you were looking at. You just wouldn't really know what you were looking
at until you got right down to brass tacks and put a shadow on his trail
throughout the entire day, which is outside the province of auditing.
Because, you see, he's so irresponsible that those things don't react on
an E-Meter.
  An E-Meter reaction takes a certain degree of reality, a certain
degree of responsibility, and the reason you take - always take your
biggest action is you've got that thing the pc feels the most
responsibility for. The E-Meter works, then, at the level where the pc
has reality and responsibility at any given time. And therefore if you
run things that you know the pc has done, but which don't react on the
E-Meter, you are then either running something that's already been run
out or you are running into a zone on which he has no responsibility or
reality. And in either case, you will practically do him in. See? Asking
a guy to run out something that's been run out is pretty grim. But
trying to run out something for which he has no responsibility of any
kind whatsoever is almost fatal.
  You can take a list and (this is Auditing by List) you can take the
key word on the list - isn't reacting, but you, through some insight or
observation of the pc, determine that this is the key word - you take
that thing and you audit it. And you'll have an awful sick pc on your
hands. Didn't react on the meter, see, but you knew it must be, so you
audited it. Therefore, the thing that falls best is the thing that's
nearest and realest to the pc.
  In R6 if you skip a GPM, you of course haven't got the thing which is
nearest and realest to the pc, so you don't get much reads. That's
practically the total source of small reads on R6. You're just running
him where he ain't. So if you're running him where he isn't, why, you've
bypassed something where he is.
  Another little remedy that goes along with this: you go over ARC break
lists - you know, in Auditing by Lists - you go over your L6, or L4 at
lower levels, and you don't get any reads on this. Well, that doesn't
mean anything, except that the pc has got lists suppressed. That's all
that means. The lists are all perfectly accurate. So what you do there
is a very simple remedy: If the pc is getting small reads, and you can't
find out where he is because he doesn't respond on any of the lists,
then you must assume there's something wrong with the lists.
  Now, there's two things can be wrong with the lists: He's never
learned the parts of the GPM or the bank. If you're auditing some green
pc (as some auditor undoubtedly, stupid-headedly will do sooner or
later), uneducated, totally uninformed pc ... One recently, by a name
that I won't mention (but I will send a bill to for not mentioning),
sent a student into the Academy in Washington the other day with orders
that they must not audit her because she had been run on R6. And the
understanding was that if anybody had been run on R6, they couldn't be
run on anything else. That's just about as wild and crazy a datum as
you ever heard.
  No, they can't be run on processes which involve words; that's all
they can't be audited on. A process whereby you're trying to get them,
you see, to define whole track type words, like Clay Table Clearing
or definitions of earlier subjects or something like this - something
involving words - you're going to lay an egg because this person is
already in the slot of the GPMs, and of course the only thing that's
going to read is the nearest GPM. And you're just going to key them
in. So eventually if you were stupid enough to force them into some
word that they considered was wrong, which was way down the bank
someplace, you'd bypass all that, they'd turn on a tremendous somatic
and they'd feel like the devil. But it's just those things which - those
processes which - would use words.
  Now, you actually could get them to define Scientology terms, except
some of those terms are also in the bank. That's a liability; but you
could get them to do that, if you watched it. And if your meter started
to go high, or something like that, you'd say, "What's the matter?" And
you'd better jolly well find out what's the matter, don't you see? You'd
have to take it very delicately even to do Scientology definitions. But
you definitely could not do definitions of Clay Table Clearing. And you
definitely couldn't do definitions of earlier subjects. And you
definitely couldn't list words to assess. Those things would practically
wreck your pc.
  But good God! As far as I know, that leaves some hundred thousand
processes! And, you know, there isn't a single process in The Book of
Remedies that violates it, except the earlier subject, definitions of.
That's all. All the rest of those processes in The Book of Remedies,
whether they came from 1950 right straight on up the line - all these
tons of processes that are on tapes and everything else - could be
audited on somebody who's running R6 out of his ears.
  And the other thing is, who ran R6 well, well, well. That's the clue.
  So if somebody is running R6 and they're not running R6 well - well,
you possibly don't even have the liability of Clay Table - they're not
in the slot; they're not going down the bank. Lord knows where they are!
You might even be able to run Clay Table Clearing on them or run any
stupid kind of definitions or run anything that comes into your head or
anything in The Book of Remedies on them. You're not going to do
anything to them. And you could prepcheck them. Perfectly valid to
prepcheck them on various things, providing you prepcheck. Very often
people go completely astray by taking a Prepcheck and think a Prepcheck
is very harmful or upsetting because of end words that might occur in
the Prepcheck, when as a matter of sober fact, they don't know how to
run a Prepcheck.
  Well, you overrun the Suppress button on a Prepcheck, you, of course,
got all the other answers he would have thought of on the other buttons
coming up and hitting him in the face, and then you make some
recommendation, "I think I will have to have this pc itsa." (This
happened right here the other day. I won't have any withholds.) And
having overrun Suppress madly, you see, you audited the process wrong -
why, of course, the pc now had all kinds of additional answers. So the
auditor's solution to it was to go off Prepchecking and go on to itsa
because the pc had so much to say. No, the only thing that had happened:
the pc had all of his answers to Invalidate and Change and every other
darn button in the Prepcheck. You see, the tone arm action had been run
out of the Suppress button, see? You don't flatten a Prepcheck button to
a point where a steamroller appears to have run over it, you know? The
pc says, "Well, I really haven't got any more answers."
  "Well, you'd better get me another answer. I'm still getting tone arm
action on it." No, the tone arm action is on the process; it's not on
the button. If you don't think it's flat, go through the buttons again
in rotation, and so forth, and see if you get anything. But,
that's actually the mechanics of it. You'd have to prepcheck properly,
you have to audit properly to get proper auditing results. And one of
the things is, is when the pc hasn't got any more answers - and he
really hasn't got any more answers - you don't ask any more
questions.
  I mean, it sounds elementary. I know of no auditing situation where
the pc, who has been getting proper tone arm action - proper tone arm
action in the session - who says, "I don't have any further answers to
it," has ever had any further answers to it. I know of no such
situation.
  But occasionally you'll get a pc who is getting wonderful tone arm
action on something like O/W, who runs into mea culpa. (Latin morals of
the Catholic Church: "I am ashamed," or "It's my blame," or "It's my
fault" - mea culpa.) I mean, they practically never got off mea culpa as
a therapy. The Catholic Church could be very pleased with this boy
because he really now knows shame, blame and regret, see? And he doesn't
bother to give you the withhold. He just simply says, "Well, I don't
have any more answers."
  Well, actually, if you took a pair of magnifying glasses and looked
across the table at your pc and cut the smog out of it and so forth,
even in Los Angeles you could tell that this pc has not answered all of
his answers. Because he's sitting there - there's various symptoms that
you could notice, you know, like chewing his fingernails, looking
cringing like this, you know; he's backed up in his chair; he's turned
bright red; he's sweating; the palms of his hands running rivers of
moisture. I mean, there are some small indicators that says he's simply
hit something he don't want to talk to you about no more, brother. He's
not going to say any more about it - hah-uh! Oh, no! Well, at this
point, of course, in O/W, you press it home; but it's only in O/W that
you press it home.
  If he says "I haven't got any more present time problems," you say
cheerily, cheerily, "Good." He can withhold all the present time
problems he wants, really, without getting him or anybody else into very
serious trouble. He'll only withhold them if they've got overts
connected with them that he's ashamed of, and you'll get that on the
overt line, don't you see?
  Not to push it home, but you could actually run a Prepcheck so that it
looked like you were restimulating end words and messing up the pc.
Don't you see? You could run it in such a way that it looked like
catastrophe that was occurring. The only thing that was occurring is you
just happened to have flattened the button and you aren't listening to
the pc in the session. He says, "Well, that's all the answers I got.
There aren't any more answers."
  And you say, "Well, I think you'd better answer this two or three more
times, or five or six more times." And - hm-mm-mm-mm-mm - about that
time he starts imagining answers and dreaming up answers. You now have a
condition where he isn't answering the auditing question, and because
Prepchecks are Prepchecks, you now start getting answers to the other
buttons on the same subject. So he now doesn't answer the auditing
question at all. So now he looks like he's got a - floodgates of Niagara
would open at any minute, see? Because he's thought of this to tell you
but that doesn't answer the question, and there's no way he can. Well,
what fouled it up in the first place, you see? Somebody forcing him to
answer a question he had no more answers for.
  Now, some pcs change faster than others, and on this particular
course, you can get very, very used to a case going at a certain
pace or rate of change, and all of a sudden be totally thrown for a
loop. The case will start to change at a faster rate. It's the auditor
that worries in this particular case. Case is changing at a faster
rate than is believable according to auditing experience, and so
processes are madly overrun, particularly at the lower levels, you
see? Because of the supervision and other factors involved in the
course, don't you see - it's very tight auditing - you'll find the
rate of change of the pc is increasing. It's faster.
  He's changing faster and very often, why, we run into the sin of
overflattening, don't you see? The case will suddenly come up with a
cognition. Now we try to audit this process again and it's blown.
  That won't happen with GPMs. You'll find out the GPM was just
suppressed at the time, and you'll go back a couple of days later after
you've run something else and all of a sudden, why, it's got all of its
reads too.
  But rate of change of the case increases in ratio to the auditing. The
slowest change period of the case is at the start of the case. So if
you've actually started a case, then it's rate of change increases. Do
you understand?
  Your very failed case - coming back more solidly to that - doesn't
experience any rate of change at all. There is no rate of change but
one. See? And that will change more slowly as you go on, because the
case is a failed case. Do you follow this? The length and rate of
change, you say - well, this actually has very definite indexes. You can
measure how long it takes for a pc to get a cognition on something. How
many hours of auditing does it take a pc to come up to a cognition on
something fundamental about himself?
  Let's say it starts out early on when he's being audited at the HAS
levels, or something like this, and it's about twenty-five hours, or
something like that, and he comes up to some recognition about himself,
you see - some bigger recognition. You'll find out as he goes on up the
levels, why, it'd take him maybe an hour to come to some conclusion of
similar magnitude, don't you see, about some facet of his life at a
higher level. You get what I mean - rate of change. And you sometimes
can get somebody who has been audited well, and whose case is moving
very well who almost audits by inspection and this gets pretty weird.
And sometimes then the auditor will overestimate the power of the engram
or something that the pc has collided with and think he can get rid of
that, because he got rid of all of the others, you see, and audits him
too short on it and comes a bit of a cropper. Don't you see? It's a
variable thing. It doesn't stay constant, but it goes also along with
comm lag: How long does it take the pc to answer the question?
  And one of your indexes of rate of change is the posture of the pc in
auditing. Pc always assumes the same physical posture while being
audited. Never assumes an additional or changed posture really. Always
comes back to one posture, if they do change to another posture.
  It isn't any particular posture; you'll just have to understand it
like that. The pc is always dropping into Rodel's [Rodin's] (or whoever
it was) Thinker. Don't you know? You'll see that the pc - very
frequently in session the pc has his head cocked, way over here -
something like that. Some posture. He keeps returning to this posture.
He keeps returning and returning and returning to the posture. Don't you
see? Always auditing like that - being audited like that.
  Has a habit of doing a certain type of fiddle with the can. Always has
this mannerism in auditing. To the degree that the pc's mannerisms in
auditing remain constant, he is not experiencing a rate of change of
progress. Do you follow that? You can do that by inspection. You see
some pc: He's ... always sits down, or he always slumps in some
position, or he always sits in a certain way, or he always looks in
a certain way in a session. Always seems to return to this mechanism
in some way or another - I mean this posture, this pose, this
diddle-fiddle. That thing keeps recurring. You want to watch for that as
an auditor, because that case is parked. That case is definitely parked.
Quite important for you to recognize that.
  When you see that, you know that you're looking at a case which needs
remedying. That means that you've got to look this case up in The Book
of Remedies and do something about it. You understand? No rate of
change. Now, the rate of change hasn't changed at all. I mean the case
has still got the same posture, same reactions, you know, very often the
same overts. But you don't have to go off into that direction to find
out that they're stuck. They're not progressing, and you can tell that
actually from the consistent physical posture in a session. As simple as
that.
  Tone arm action on such a case is minimal - very little tone arm
action. Their other symptoms are all there. They just go on down. Your
bad indicators are all there. I mean, everything that you'd shake a
stick at is present.
  But as an Auditing Supervisor, you actually can go through a room on
Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and if your memory is very good, by the time
you've gone through Wednesday (it's this fast a rate of change is what
is expected) you notice that you've still got a pc - by George, you
still have a pc - who is sitting there with his cans like this. On
Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, he held his cans flopped down at his
sides with his back bowed and his head hanging, and that's the way he's
responding in auditing. Well, you wouldn't have to look at his auditor's
report or anything else, you wouldn't have to look at his auditing, you
wouldn't have to study anything particularly and so forth, to know the
case wasn't changing. Follow that?
  Now that you know the case isn't experiencing a rate of change, now
let's look at the case, now let's look at the auditing reports. We're
trying to find something wrong, and you're trying to find that and match
that up against The Book of Remedies. And when you get those two things
matched, well, you give those directions, and if you did it Wednesday
night, by the end of session on Thursday, you would find the pc sitting
with his cans in his lap. He's no longer sitting like this; he's sitting
like this. You get the idea? I mean, it's that superficial an
observation. You follow that? There's nothing very fantastic is required
in the way of instinct to know somebody isn't changing. They've always
had a green complexion; they've still got a green complexion. Well, you
know their rate of change must be lousy. A nonoptimum condition
persists, is another way that you spot this.
  Well, when a person starts in, in auditing, in spite of everything you
do, in spite of anything anybody else does, in spite of all the think
and everything else, and the sweat and so forth, you've got one thing
left that isn't in The Book of Remedies. Because that's a book of
remedies. It could very easily include this one, of course, but it
wouldn't necessarily emphasize it. You've got this present time
condition of a concatenation of overts which is too rapid to be picked
up. That's your boy; that's your boy.
  If after a hundred hours of auditing and all the sweat and change
(particularly with The Book of Remedies in your paws), you didn't see
any change in this pc, there is no reason for you as the D of T or the
Auditing Supervisor or something like that (or the auditor), to go
considering that you have failed in some particular line. I mean, you
haven't failed in any line. You did your best.
  You'd better start looking at the pc's PT. You'd better look at that
PT environment. What's he do when he leaves this auditing session? It's
giving it a fair trial, don't you see? That's a long look, you know?
Well, what's he doing? You don't know of any big flubs that weren't
corrected. Nothing has been done to victimize this character one way or
the other. Yet there he is - no change. Well, that's the other zone
which you yourself would not find it very easy to inspect, but which
you'd better jolly well find some way to inspect, if you're going to do
anything with this case at all.
  You're going to be horrified at the conduct of some parts of the human
race. You're going to stand your hair on end on some of these
characters, you know? And it's so pathetic, because they've done so many
overts, they get so many motivators. You see, it's not a one-for-one,
even. I don't suppose it's that neat a ratio. But it's a type of overt
for a type of motivator, so you could actually run it down in auditing;
you could search this thing out. You must realize it's not something the
person has done, but it's something the person is doing.
  Now, it's pretty hard to spot that this is what you're handling,
because, of course, you never get any communication about this from the
pc. But there is one method of spotting it, and that is what the pc
complains about in the conduct of others.
  And you could just get him busily complaining about what he complains
about in the conduct of others and go over this right on down the line,
and you'll finally find out that one of them is very, very consistent.
Well, that is what the pc does between sessions.
  Now, you see you wouldn't go to an heroic measure like this. Pc has
merely got some motivators and they're talking about this and that. And,
their present time is all upside down or something like this. But you're
auditing him and you're getting a change of case, see? Well, you don't
take any such measure.
  I'm talking about the fellow who was audited and everything is done
for him that can be and he still comes around - he says, "What are you
going to do - what are you going to do about my lumbosis?" (They drive
the medical doctor mad.) "What are you going to do about it'? You've
done nothing for it," you know, "You've done me in," and so forth. Now
you're probably part of the overt-motivator package. He's got enough
overts against you out of session, you know, to make a book like
Fanny Hill.
  Anyway, we got a whole bunch of stuff going on here that is outside
the observation zone of the auditor. So the auditor is looking at his
mind, he's looking at his past and he's looking at his own auditing of
this pc. Don't you see? Well, those are legitimate areas of inspection.
But there is another area, and that's what I'm calling to your
attention, and that is the failed case - that other area. It's the
present time series of overts, and I could add the word involvements,
but this is rather false because it's not really - he's involved because
of overts and don't kid yourself otherwise, you see?
  Now, that's the PT of this pc who keeps coming back after 150 hours,
saying you haven't done anything for his lumbosis. There's your boy.
Overts! - comes down to, straight dead on the line. And this case could
be so bad and his environment could be so enturbulated that you just did
not have a prayer of being able to pull any part of the overts which he
commits. You audit him for five hours in a day; that leaves nineteen.
  You can audit him on a ratio of five to nineteen. Of that nineteen,
let's say he sleeps eight. Let's give him credit, then, for not
committing overts during one of those hours. That leaves ten hours
of the day for five hours of your auditing, and it's already two for
one. Now, if it takes three times as long in auditing to pull the overt
as it did to commit it, you're just straight up against nothing but
pure, honest-to-God arithmetic. That's what you're up against.
  And I don't care, these people are the first to tell you how innocent
they are and how inactive they are. They're the first. You give them a
stack of Bibles a mile high and they'd do something about it. Now, that
person is a failed case where it comes to general practice for this one
reason: is you can't monitor his environment strongly enough. He's
walking into your zone of influence, which extends maybe the size of the
organization, maybe the size of your house or your auditing room, don't
you see? Maybe even to your front sidewalk. That's your zone of
immediate influence, as far as this case is concerned, see? Your zone of
influence may be much wider than that, but as far as that case is
concerned, that's your zone of influence.
  Now, the second he steps one foot beyond that zone of influence, he's
away. And the way you handle this case, if you could handle the case,
would be to establish your zone of influence as far as the case is
likely to go between sessions, for long enough to pull the case
out of it.
  Now, it would mean a shift of environment. This isn't the normal thing
whereby the guy is simply in an enturbulated environment and so you
change his environment during the period of auditing, see? That's a
common remedy. And that is not - enters into the failed case. This other
fellow would take a lot more; he'd take a lot more than just that. If
you changed his environment, don't you see, he'd go on committing the
same overts over a long-distance telephone or something. He'd do some
way, you know? He's getting even with all of existence.
  Now, where you have such a case and where you do not have control of
the environment, you can be absolutely certain that this will become a
failed case. The only possible remedy that you could have is to project
the fear of the auditor, or something like that, to such a degree that
perhaps you keep him under. But then you're defeating yourself, of
course, because you're spoiling your ARC; and you're doing an overwhelm
of the pc and you're more likely to get a religious reaction. The fellow
kisses the hem of your tablecloth before he leaves, you know? Keeps
facing your front door as he goes back up the walk, don't you see? You
haven't got anybody in a very healthy frame of mind, so that's
self-defeating too.
  But you can do some of it. You can do some of it. It's worth trying.
Recognize what you're looking at, you see? You don't have control of the
society in which this fellow lives or his family or something like this.
Well, recognize what you're looking at here. You can say to him, "Now
look, the reason your case isn't progressing is because you are doing
things which you suppose I have no inkling of, between sessions. And
you're thinking things and you're saying things and you're acting in
certain ways between sessions which is highly detrimental to your case.
Now, if you change these habits and actions and cease to frequent the
same places that you've been frequenting and so forth, why, maybe we can
go on, and even then I would have to be very, very convinced before I
would pick up the meter on you again," see? It's this kind of thing.
  Now, you actually, at this point, have simply to some degree located
and indicated the bypassed charge; because this would be true. You've
audited the bird for a hundred hours and he's had no rate of change.
And you've applied the whole Book of Remedies and you've done
everything under the sun, moon and stars, and this guy isn't changing
in any way, shape or form; he isn't getting any better. Ah well, you've
only got one left. And that one left is his environment is being so
reacted upon by him that he is laying in more overts than you can
get up. And that's all there is to that. You could try a lot of things,
but that one I don't think you will ever totally catch up with until
you've totally controlled the environment in which the person exists.
  Now, you could say, "Well, now, if you'll go to the Bide-A-Wee Hotel
and let me put a couple of guards on your door - if you're willing to go
through this for a couple of months and pay the price of the We Spy For
You Detective Company to relay ... put a relay of watch and shadow on
you during this particular period - why, I'll go on auditing you; but
not otherwise." See? You might, you see, just on the occasional one,
crack through and so on. But you wouldn't do 100 percent, because these
people are dedicated.
  The environment looks so dangerous to them or so provocative or so
hostile or so something (we don't care just ... we're not just talking
about a particular type of reaction to the environment) - but it looks
so something - that the only way you can exert your livingness at all or
even breathe is to do a certain line of actions which, even though they
are socially unacceptable, nevertheless are vitally necessary. And the
person's conviction along these lines are to the degree that if you told
them to stop them, you have practically told him to stop eating or stop
breathing, see. It just totally violates his reality.
  Now, therefore you sometimes look for the fast one - the fast, fast
process. What'll get in and undercut this case, you know - zooommm!
Well, there isn't anything to get in and undercut that case, because in
the first place, you've got to be able to have the case in communication
with you. The guy's got to be able to be in communication with you
before you can do anything for the case. And it's going to take more
than one session to get him in communication with you. But, of course,
after you've gone to the second session, you now have a bunch of overts
in which you're included in the perimeter of overts, and this will just
go on going in that particular direction.
  So there's the social liability (doesn't give us one). But that gives
a justification to the psychiatrist: One, he didn't have any processes -
well, one, he didn't have any understanding of the situation. Two, he
didn't have any processes to handle the situation. But those cases,
then, which can't normally respond just by talking to somebody about
their troubles (and you know that wouldn't be very many cases) - you
know, I mean the case that wouldn't get well just because he said,
"Well, I been sick lately." That would be a pretty high-toned case that
can do that, see. All the rest of these cases look crazy to the
psychiatrist and look unsolvable to the psychiatrist.
  Now, because we've gone so far in an understanding of the subject in
which we are dealing, because we've gone so far in having processes,
because we've now gone so far in having remedies for these particular
odd difficulties which the people come up with, we of course could get
very, very cocky and say, "Well, we can go the whole way."
  And I call to your attention the Axiom "Absolutes are unobtainable."
You're always going to have this case. Unless you can exert what amounts
to political control of the activities of the environment, don't you
see - almost to that degree - you wouldn't be able to sweep them all in,
and even then I imagine he'd still find ways to commit overts in a
locked room. Do you see this?
  Now, about the furthest-south process that operates on such a case
you, I'm sure, would be very interested in and that is (you already got
it), it's justifications. I'd like to put in a word here. If you can get
the person to talk to you, why, you've already won your first round with
overts. This is true of all overt running. The first round you've got to
win is to get the person to talk to you about things, see, without being
reticent as he would be with a stranger, see. That degree, he's got to
be able to talk to you. And then you can get off some of his lighter
overts and then you can get off some of his heavier overts, you see. And
that's about the gradient that it will go on, don't you see.
  Now, you actually, oddly enough, can audit the case who isn't
obsessively committing overts, but he's been so busy in the past that
he's got them stacked up to the roof. Now, that case is actually not
today very hard to audit. As long as you remember to get the case in
communication with you as the first requisite of all overt pulling, and
as long as you don't ask for the whole basket load with the first
auditing question, why, you can do this. Don't you see?
  But this bird you will run into, and he's commoner, fortunately, than
the bird who is committing overts to such a degree that he can't
possibly catch up with it, don't you see. So you'd handle this bird.
They look quite alike, by the way: One is ... They're both very
detached; they're both very irresponsible. They very often will give you
fantastic things they have done in life and expect you to be shocked
over them or something of this sort, but they aren't. There's all kinds
of odd manifestations which make these cases look similar so you can
make a mistake.
  So on either type of case you would try this one. You'd try to get
them into communication with you. It wouldn't matter what case it was -
you would do that, don't you see? - or what you were trying to do. And
then on a gradient you'd get more and more, heavier and heavier (more
voltage on the line) and you could go deeper and deeper on the subject.
  And remember this one: that for that long-gone case who can take no
responsibility whatsoever for his overts, or for the recurrent overt -
the guy keeps giving you the same overt; you know, he really ... he
really can't get off of having done this terrible thing. The secret of
what holds it in: that overt has become a problem, then, hasn't it?
  Well, the anatomy of a problem is postulate-counter-postulate, isn't
it? You got that as the anatomy of a problem. It's exactly balanced so
therefore floats in time, you see. There's just as much force against it
as it's pushing, see. And you've got this thing exactly poised in time
here, and it's floating along with present time. Well, he can't get this
overt off and he can't get rid of this overt: You must recognize that
you are dealing in actual fact with a problem as far as the overt is
concerned, don't you see. Well, you don't bother to address it as a
problem. He's got this overt and he tells you about it, but that doesn't
get it off. This is true of any of these, whether it's from total
irresponsibility, you see, or the guy just feels so guilty about it, you
know. Whatever it is, the answer is the same at both ends of the scale:
It wasn't an overt in his view. It was justified.
  Now, I want to give you a note on running this process, because you've
run off the rails on it. Wherever I've heard it being run and when I was
wrestling with it, I tried to straighten it out here in the class - and
I may have succeeded and may not have succeeded. But if I had to
fight that hard to get it back on the rails, I'm sure it's gone a little
bit off the rails again. So just let me make a few notes, particularly
for those who weren't here when I was fighting to get it on the rails.
  Let me make this few notes here about this, and that is, there is a
process of justifications which is really not a repetitive process,
which is a wide-open invitation to run as a repetitive process: "What
have you done? How wasn't that an overt?" You could say this, see. You
could sit there as an auditor with a silly smile on your face going,
"Yeah," being ... he's totally irresponsible as an auditor and run a
repetitive process called, "What have you done? And how did you justify
it? What have you done? How did you justify it? What have you done? How
did you justify it? What have you done? How did you justify it?" Well,
that's the essence of the process, but it's not a repetitive process.
Let me call that to your attention. It is not a repetitive process. It
requires handling.
  You can say, "Well, what ..." (we don't care what words you use) "What
harmful act have you committed? What harmful act have you really, really
committed now? Let me see it." Now, this is not a repetitive process,
you see, and it's not itsa. This is taken up the case, see - crash!
  And he says, "Well, I did this."
  And I say, "All right," and you don't challenge it or anything.
  "And I did that. And I did something else." And he's giving you a lot
of balderdash as far as you're concerned, because you and the society at
large don't consider these things very harmful acts. Fine. Let him get
them off. He's just trying to run some variety of O/W. Okay, but that
isn't what you ask him. And so you just go on getting your auditing
question answered and you ... doesn't matter if it took you twenty-five
hours to get this auditing question answered. You get something that he
really did that he thinks was an overt act - it was a harmful action.
  That's what you're looking for and it's a sort of a chitter-chat,
don't you see? It's not "What have you done? How have you justified ...
?" That's not the process. Let me put this other form of action across
here. Let's sort it out. And he finally says, "Well, I threw my little
brother in the river one time." And that was one hell of an overt act.
You've got a ... Finally he says something like this. Now you've got
your meat. Now let's cook it. I don't care if it took you one minute or
twenty-five hours to get an answer that both you and he would consider
an overt act. We're not dodging around now about social mores and some
people's considerations are different. So the both of you consider this
thing as an overt act. All right. That's fine. Now that's the one you
start to put on the front burner.
  And this is the way you put it on the front burner: You say, "All
right. Now, let's just start out and count 'em up. Now, how wasn't that
an overt?" And that's not a repetitive question, because he'll just go
on answering that, and he'll get lost after a while and go off
maundering someplace and you say, "The auditing question was 'How wasn't
that an overt?' " - because you haven't got that one answered yet
either. Do you understand? These are two auditing questions you're
getting answered.
  And it's going to take you sometimes one awful long time to get each
one of them answered. And it's not a toss-off process, the way those
repetitive processes are. Don't you see? It's not a process by which you
could say "Recall a time you communicated with somebody. Good. Recall a
time you communicated with somebody. Good. Recall a time ..." you see.
It's not a process "What would you confront? What would you rather not
confront?" and so forth. Because he's got certainty on these questions.
No, you've asked him right into the guts of aberration. You've asked him
this question, "What have you done that was a harmful act?" You see.
  Now, that actually ... he has to clip that thing in his mind - he's
got to get a hold of something that answered that question. See, you're
not going up on it on some gradient and hoping some accident will occur.
You're driving right down the center of the road now, and you're driving
all the way as an auditor, and you want to know just that: "What have
you done that was a harmful act or action," and so on. That's what you
want to know. It doesn't matter much how you phrased it and so forth.
And he'll give you something that, yes, even he at the moment considers
it harmful and it's something that you recognize as harmful as the
auditor. And we finally got this one shaken out. And we can even get
into arguments with the pc about what's harmful and what isn't. That's
all part of the game, don't you see?
  We got this one. Now he's clipped one side of it. Now, let's take the
other side out with "How wasn't it an overt act? How wasn't it harmful?
Why was it justified?" I don't care how you phrased it. He really, in
his first sputterings, is not really answering that question. He isn't
telling you what he really justified - what he really thought was
unharmful about it - why he really had to do it. So, he hasn't really
answered the question, don't you see.
  And it's going to take an awful lot of answers before you really get
the answer to the question. When you finally get the answer to the
question, it goes something like this, you see: "Holy suffering Godfrey,
I hated his guts! I'd been trying to get rid of him for years."
  "Oh, is that so?"
  "Yeah, I guess that's why I thought ..." - and you'll notice a change
to past tense. "I guess that's why I thought it wasn't a harmful act to
throw my little brother in the river. Now what do you know about that!
Well, well, well, well, well." See you get a what-do-you-know!
  It was one overt and it was one reason. Do you see? In the getting of
it you got fifty overts to choose from. You got twenty hours' worth of
reasons, but there was one reason which kept the violence of the action
pinned into this thing of postulate-counter-postulate, see. He and
society really considered this an overt, and there was an awful good
reason for it. And there it is - hung. And it's accumulated locks, and
it's influenced his whole life, don't you see. And if you've got
patience and skill as an auditor to go through that drill, you've got
what I first released as justifications, and which easily degenerates
into some lousy, relatively unworkable process in which nobody is
answering the auditing question, don't you see?
  You can ask "What have you done? What have you done? What have you
done? What have you done? What have you ..." Well, you're not asking for
anything. "What have you done?" "Well, I ate breakfast." "All right,
that's fine. That's a perfectly valid answer." He knows he's done that.
But I shudder to think of how many answers you could get to that before
you would get ... The gradient is so long that it's very worthwhile to
go at it on this other basis, you see, and cut it down to size, because
this other basis can be reached. Because he's been sitting in that ever
since the day he threw his little brother in the river.
  Now the unchanging condition comes from a postulate-counter-postulate.
So an overt which created an obsessive problem or which sought to solve
one, hangs in time and becomes both an overt act and a present time
problem. It's not in present time according to time span and calendars,
it's in present time according to the mind.
  And you'll find out that most overts are committed as solutions. So
you have another little in whereby you could trip this case into a
change and you could trigger off a chain reaction in this case that's
committing overts all the time. It's just accidental that you would hit
it because he's not much in communication, you see. Almost every
session, he's further out of communication than before, you see. He's
really sending himself over Niagara Falls without even a barrel and a
publicity agent. And nothing could be drearier, could it?
  You've got this other one, is you handle the overt as a PTP that he is
trying to solve, and you try to cut in back of it. You say you're trying
to do this with this guy who's the failed case - who's committing these
overts. You're trying to do this with somebody who isn't in
communication with you anyhow but is just pretending to be, see. So
don't pat yourself on the back and say, "Well, we can always trigger
it," because you won't. It's worth ... it's very worth trying and it's
very valuable on other cases, see. It's very valuable on cases who
aren't, who are just normally going along trying to get better. A very
valuable process is just find out what present time problem they're
trying to solve with their overts. Very amusing.
  It's very amusing that you'll all of a sudden have a stream of overts
pour into view that the person doesn't even remember having done. This
is very amusing. I mean, if you want to suddenly expose to the pc's view
over here a whole chain of actions that he never suspected that he
himself had done or would never have considered an overt and has now
totally got occluded, just start approaching overts as solutions to some
problem. Go in through the backdoor, don't you see?
  There's a thousand ways you could dream up to do this even on a
repetitive process. I'm not trying to run down repetitive processes. The
repetitive processes are ... can be repetitive processes only when they
can be answered. See, when they can be answered with good reality on the
part of the pc and he knows he's answered the question, why, you can ask
repetitive. But you can't ask him on something that is far-fetched as
"What harmful act have you committed, you know, that you consider
harmful?" And he says, "Well, I did so and so," and he doesn't think so,
and it's not a harmful act, and he's got it totally justified, and so it
doesn't answer the auditing question. So the guy is even further out of
session afterwards.
  But approaching this other one now - approaching that as an overt - a
harmful act is an effort to resolve a problem. Ninety-nine percent of
the cases you collide with (oh, a higher percentage than that), this
just works like a bomb. A terrific process all the time, but it even
works on the guy who is categorized at some tiny percentage of the time,
see. You find out, well, all men are Martians or something wild, see.
That's the problem he's trying to solve. How to get rid of the Martians
or ... it'll be probably some crazy problem that hasn't got anything to
do with reality, see. This is fact. It'll be some problem that existed
a long time ago that doesn't exist any longer, or something. But the
obsessive commission of overts means that there ... the pc must have
some oddball problem that's got a tremendous lie connected with it
somehow or another. And all things that persist have lies connected with
them. And you could try it from that door. You could try to open that
door.
  The only reason that'd fail is you don't get problems, you get a whole
bunch of motivators out of such a case. A normal case you say, "Well,
what problem are you trying to solve with overts?" You said something
like that and he'd say something like this. Well, he'd say, "Well,
a continuation of my business. I have to commit one God-awful number
of overts to keep afloat."
  "Well, how do you have to commit these overts?"
  "Well, actually I commit 'em against the customer by cheapening the
product. And I commit 'em against the staff by demanding more work at
less pay. And actually, you know, it's the goddamned government. If they
weren't taking ..." - and then he'd say something like this to you, you
see - "If they weren't taking the additional profit that I might be
making, you see, then I might not have to commit that many overts. Hey,
you don't suppose I'm trying to make the government guilty, do you? My
God, I am! Hummm!" See, one of these brassy, ten-thousand-volt
cognitions, don't you see.
  You've all of a sudden done something very tricky with a case, that
looks absolutely magical, see. What you did is, you recognized that
overts are an effort to solve some problem. Not all overts are an effort
to solve some problem - some are accidental, some are habitual, see. I
mean, some are just ignorance. There are different kinds of overts that
are harmful acts a guy can commit, see. He didn't intend to commit an
overt. Well, an overt and a harmful act normally require some intention,
don't you see. Even the law: Accidental death, you know, is manslaughter
and homicide is premeditated - even the law makes a difference between
what was intended to happen and what happened, don't you see.
  Well, all of these various wild considerations, you needn't tangle
yourself up and get too involved with them. I'm just trying to say that
it isn't true to say that every overt that was ever committed was an
effort to solve a problem, don't you see. That's one of these data like
"jewelers never go anywhere," see. It's completely
non-sequitur-to-anything type of data, you see. It's a total generality.
It doesn't work. Not all harm in the world stems from the existence of
problems, see. You could run this down. You'd probably make a pretty
good case for it, don't you see; but its logic is going to fail
someplace or other along the line.
  But where a fellow is absolutely a dedicated hombre - where this bird
gets up in the morning and crosses his heart and takes the hilt of his
tiepin and presents it to his forehead before the mirror on how he's
going to get even today - he's solving a problem. And this person is
going around saying, "Well, I really don't want to commit the overt, but
I've got to." This also gives us a strange view to it all.
  He's withholding committing the overt, but he's got to commit the
overt and so forth. Well, now look at that. Get an insight on this. He's
obviously trying to solve some problem, isn't he? No other avenue of
solution, so he commits the overt as the last resort. Usually an
intentionally committed harmful act - this is ordinary in life - an
intentionally committed harmful act is committed in an effort to resolve
a problem. And so when you get some horrible thing that the person has
done in life, as "threw his little brother in the river," he agreed it
was an overt. He knows it's an overt now. It wasn't just an accident. He
didn't drop him in the river. He picked him up and he threw him in the
river, see. We've got this thing now, and he knows it's a bad thing. And
you know that's a bad thing, too - it's not done. And now he's answered
the question, don't you see?
  Well, when you ask him on the reverse current, you see, why that
wasn't an overt, you're unlocking the door to an ancient problem of some
kind or another, see, and you're taking locks off of it. So you let him
chatter on and on and on, and give you more and more and more on this
one question, until all of a sudden the real reason - the real reason it
wasn't an overt - shows up and you've unlocked it. He will say,
quite incidentally, and pass it off shortly after his cognition, that
that was a hell of a thing to do. He'll say, "Well, I just didn't
figure ... I just didn't figure I'd ever have anything, if he was that
young. He always used to tear up my things. Parents would buy
everything for him." You've already heard all these things, why it
wasn't an overt, don't you see, but he explains it to you. He'll sum
it up. It was a problem. It was a problem actually in havingness.
So why he threw his brother in the river was a problem in havingness.
Don't you see?
  You can sometimes be completely magical with this and very lucky. If
your pc is very bad off, you're very lucky if you make this work, don't
you see, because his recognition of responsibility is out the bottom.
He's not about to be responsible for any quarter of anything he's doing
or has done. Therefore, he's not even responsible for sitting and being
a pc in your auditing session, you see. So trying to reach this gone
character, this totally failed case, is - blahh. But this may even
occasionally work with him, don't you see. Treat his overts as an effort
to solve a problem.
  I don't care how you treat it. You say, "What problem are you trying
to solve? Now, you know, let's see, what have you done" - this is a good
gambit on such a thing - "let's see, what have you done in the last
twenty-four hours that was pretty antisocial?" Ahhh, but before he
starts to even say, "Oh-ohoh-oh. Well, nothing, you know," you've
already got this guy taped, you know. Just brush it off; don't even
acknowledge it. It's a lie anyhow. "Let's see, now. What would it be in
the vicinity of? Would it be something to your family or somebody around
that's close and near and dear to you, or would it be me or the
organization? Well, the needle just fell on me. Now, what have you done
to me?"
  Actually, the last time he left the session - you couldn't find your
overshoes - well, he took them and threw them in the garbage can or
something like that, see. You run it down. You say, "All right. Now,
let's take this action now, and what problem were you trying to solve
with that?" See? Let's go at it on a kind of head-on proposition so he
really doesn't get the motivator off. Sometimes by lucky chance, you'll
come through. You could ask him "Well, why wasn't it an overt act?" He
could give you a lot of justifications, don't you see. He could give you
a lot of other things and so on.
  But you could also undercut the thing and have some chance of getting
through just with a blunt, "Well, what ... by being mean to my
possessions, what problem are you trying to solve?" And he'll some way
or another start coming up with "Well, I'm trying to solve the problem
of how the hell I'm going to stay sick."
  Of course, your immediate response, "Well, why do you want to stay
sick?" See? You probably would ask him that, maybe before you could
check yourself. You'd be too startled, something like that. An auditor
should never be startled, but they occasionally are, me amongst them.
"Ah," he'd say, "well, I'd cease to draw a pension."
  "Well, what problem are you trying to solve by getting auditing?"
  "To show 'em how sick I am."
  But I'm afraid this really failed case would not have that much
insight or that much directness to approach it. You can try, you
understand? With other cases that are having trouble and so forth, oh
yes, this will work. They've got some responsibility for life. They're
going to do something in life. They're of some use and benefit to
somebody in existence and so forth. Yes, these processes are terrific.
I probably err in putting such processes at this lowest, unworkable
level, don't you see.
  I'm just trying to show you these processes are terrific processes -
work on almost any case. On this case they sometimes sometimes nudge it.
Sometimes budge it. Sometimes get it off of the kick. Sometimes
straighten it out and get them along the line.
  But you must know what you're dealing with when you're dealing with
this failed case. You must know what you're dealing with. You are not
dealing with a person who has committed overts in the past. You are not
handling a problem that has to do with the past. You are handling a
problem that has to do with today. You're handling a problem that has to
do with the session-yesterday-to-the-session-today time period. You're
handling that consistently and continuously.
  You handle that with every case that you have anything to do with one
way or the other to some degree, don't you see. Well, with this case
it's all totally hidden. It's all gone. You're never going to find out
about it, and he's not enough in communication to tell you, and you
probably can't hire enough detectives to find out about it, don't you
see. So you are actually not failing in any quarter, except failing to
restrain an individual from committing so many overt acts that he can't
be audited. And that case is the failed case, and that's the only one
there is.
  You can say, all right, well, there's another failed case: the fellow
who died. No, I don't know that he's a failed case. We'll pick him up
later on. You keep Scientology going and workable, you pick them all
up, see, no matter what happened to them. So that doesn't classify, see.
And, of course, somebody who's unconscious and can't be talked to and
that sort of thing: you can get them into communication with their
pillow and wake them up. I mean it's quite interesting.
  We've got a dog up to the point now where all she does is try to talk.
It's having an awful time trying to get along without vocal cords.
Trying to make up for vocal cords: Yummm wumm gumm yumm yumm. Through a
little bit of processing from day to day or from every couple of days to
every couple of days and that sort of thing - just touch assists sort of
thing, you know - why, she's coming up in tone. I notice her
communication level is rising, rising, rising, rising, rising. And she's
up to a point now where she - well, at first she would only moan and
groan around about her chow, see, something very intimate. Now she moans
and groans around because she's glad to see you. And now she's gotten up
to a point where she's moaning and groaning around in other ... using
other voice intonations now, complaining about how cold it is outside.
  So these things are not terrific barriers, see. You can process almost
anything or anybody up along the line, providing you haven't got this
other condition. And what you've got to recognize in dealing with cases
at large is that when easy auditing isn't there with continuous case
progress - when that isn't present - that you are facing a circumstance
which has to be remedied before ordinary auditing works. There's
something odd about the case or something peculiar. There's something
that has to be handled about the case, and this is very, very general.
This isn't isolated, but it is handleable. It's very easily handleable.
It's only when you don't recognize that something is there which has to
be handled that you then have any trouble with the case and that you
would fail on a case, you see.
  Now, there's a big difference between that, you see, and the failed
case. Now, cases which have appeared to fail in your hands have only
failed for technical reasons and for lack of remedies. And you have The
Book of Remedies now; it is very easy to use and it'll be out in a few
days. This, you will see, is going to make an immediate difference.
Because I notice in doing auditing session reports on somebody
who's busted down in the line of auditing and so forth, we don't give
them anything new. We're giving them stuff that's very old and creaky
and antique and so forth: "Look over the auditing report and find the
first time the pc set a sour goal. Now go back to the session
immediately ahead of that and investigate that session." It's almost
perfect formula, see. Pc set a sour goal: he hadn't been running well
since 1958. What? Well, it doesn't have to be that extreme. But you
might run somebody down to an unflattened process, don't you see,
or something of that sort. And you set that up and they all of
a sudden flatten that process up and zooommm - they're away, don't
you see. Something has happened, they've left a process unflat or
a process has been messed up or something has occurred
and so forth.
  It's just sensible material of this particular kind, and it takes that
sort of thing. I recognized that I had not in actual fact released all
the technology of Scientology, through not having released the auditing
remedies used in case supervision, which was done over the many, many
years, and that was to a point when the student came to Saint Hill, why,
of course he got case supervision of one type or another. He got case
supervision, see. And then in trying to relay this material on, the
material was too complex to be relayed at a breath, don't you see? There
are a lot of them; there are a lot of them. Well, it's around a hundred
or less, but they look bewildering at first glance.
  You know, I mean, if you didn't have any book and you had no guide and
you had no map, no chart or anything of this sort, and you try to teach
somebody - sit down and teach them - he actually would have had to have
had each one (one each almost) of all these various case manifestations,
which aren't very many. There are less than a hundred of them. Each one
of them would have had a different manifestation, don't you see. He'd
had to have handled the case each time. Well, they don't happen that
frequently. And it's very hard to train on a practical-experience basis.
And I all of a sudden realized that section was missing and so got
together and "writ it up." And then I corralled Mary Sue, who is
old-time experienced supervisor from way back when in HGCs and so forth,
and I went over all of those, and that she could think of - and we got a
bunch more - and put them all together in a ready-reference
type of form.
  You'll have to learn how to use that book, but that takes care of the
cases that you normally are considering cases that are hard to audit or
cases that you're failing on and so forth. I wanted to make it very
clear from this point on what a failed case was. And a case that is
utterly an unauditable, God-'elp-us, catastrophic bust - with you, with
The Book of Remedies with some area of auditing, with somebody able to
do something for the case; the case doesn't progress at all - you've
still got this one case left, you see.
  He's committing overts faster than you could ever get them off. And
through that, why, you will occasionally spell yourself a disaster. So
I'm pointing that one up as a great big set of rocks that lie under the
water up there someplace on some case. And if after you've done your
very, very best to handle the case and done everything possible that you
could possibly think of, and you - so forth and so on - why, just hark
back and recall this one. There is such a case. Now if you want to have
him hire a couple of private detectives to chase him around and lock him
up in a hotel room and so forth, you could still solve his case, you
understand. But under ordinary auditing conditions, this case is
unsolvable and so therefore would be a failed case.
  Okay?
  Thank you.
  [end of lecture]
***
  [page 73]
***
  THE PRIOR CONFUSION
  A lecture given on
  3 October 1961
***
  Thank you.
  Okay. This is one of those days. What's the date? Third of October?
  Audience: That's right.
  And my watch stopped last night. How would I know? And 1961, Special
Briefing Course, Saint Hill.
  Now, Suzie's been giving you an explanation up here as to the prior
confusion. And I'd better give you some material on this and some other
things. I could give you a lecture on a brand-new series of discoveries,
but you haven't caught up with these. I'll mention these in passing just
to get them as a matter of record, however. There is a great deal to be
known about mutual motion. Mutual motion is a terribly interesting
subject. It's the motion of two generating sources. This has something
to do with problems. And mutual motion runs with great rapidity, and so
on. There's a lot more about that, but I just wanted to get this little
slight note on record.
  You're interested in the prior confusion, the hidden standard, because
this puts into your hands what the hakim, the witch doctor, the bone
rattler, the medical doctor, and all such ilk have been trying to do
something with here now for a good many thousands of years. This puts
something into your hands. And if you grasp this, you've grasped
something. And if you haven't grasped it, you're stuck in one.
  Chronic somatic is a stuck moment on a time track which is the stable
datum of a prior confusion. A hidden standard is the stable datum of a
prior confusion. Prior confusion. Now, in trying to explain this to you,
you take a look at a chronic somatic, you try to look at the prior
confusion and you swing back up into the chronic somatic again, and you
don't even know that you looked at the prior confusion. This is a very,
very easy one to forget. It's a very easy one to slip on because it is
actually, the basic anatomy of how pictures and illnesses and concepts
of one kind or another get very, very stuck.
  Now, the way they get stuck is the confusion and the stable datum.
Now, that confusion and the stable datum has been known to us for many,
many years. And what we've done to it is add time to the span. The
confusion is in one place and the stable datum at a later place. So in
all time-track plotting, you get the confusion, and then you get after
that, the stable datum. So actually, they're linear in time. In other
words, you don't have the stable datum and the confusion occurring
necessarily - and certainly not very aberratedly - you don't have these
two things occurring simultaneously in time. In other words,
the stable datum and the confusion do not occur in time, if they're
going to become aberrative, which is the same time - you don't
have the stable datum and the confusion in the same
instant of time.
  Now, by that we mean twelve o'clock, second of October 1961: There's a
confusion while a person is sitting at a table. Well, the confusion
doesn't make the person necessarily sit more solidly at the table.
That's not the kind of stuck that we're mixed up with. This is the way
we get the person if the person is going to be stuck at the table: At
eleven o'clock there was a hell of a confusion, and the person had an
upset and had an upset stomach and so on at twelve o'clock, and sat down
in the table ... at the table to ease their upset stomach, and somehow
or another it didn't ease.
  Well, there was no confusion at twelve o'clock. The confusion was at
eleven o'clock, just an hour before. Do you see this now?
  In other words, the confusion is at an earlier instant of time than
the stable datum that the person adopted afterwards. But we find that
the stable datum which is adopted afterwards is the sticker. Of course,
you can always adopt a stable datum in the middle of a confusion. This
is it. But that isn't the one that sticks. The one that sticks is where
you have a stable datum adopted after the fact of the confusion.
  The United States goes to war with Japan; nothing much occurs as a
result of the war - perhaps. And then we all of a sudden have President
Eisenhower talking about loss of face. Well, it's very interesting to
have an American president use a Japanese term. We give the Wehrmacht a
hell of a shellacking, and during the war nobody is being the Wehrmacht,
that's for sure. The 88s are going on one side, and the 22s are going on
the other side, and we have a good, solid, flat-out, knockdown-drag-out
war. And nothing happens during this period of time that is at all
upsetting, except people getting killed and buildings blown down, and so
forth. But everybody is too interested to have any stable data to amount
to anything.
  And then after the war, there's a discussion about "should American
troops goose-step?" There was, you know? And American troops - now we
add in World War I to it and we find American troops wearing German
helmets. It's fascinating. This gets more and more fascinating.
  Now, we can understand the Confederacy all wearing Federal uniforms
during the Civil War, because they didn't have any but there were lots
of Federal dead to take them off of. That wasn't much of a stable datum.
But today we find the Confederacy is very stuck in the Confederacy.
  Now, we think that something happened, like the assassination of
Lincoln or something, and all of this. Well, we certainly know all about
Lincoln's assassination. Well, how about a lot of the other people who
got assassinated by bullets in that war? You see, we're not worried
about them. That stable datum isn't sticking, but something that
happened after the action is sticking like mad.
  This is a peculiarity, and it's not necessarily sensible. It doesn't
necessarily follow any logic; this is an empirical fact. By empirical
fact I mean one that is established by observation, not established by
theory or reason. This is true only because it's observed to be true.
  Now, you can develop a lot of theories about why water doesn't flow
uphill. There could be lots of theories developed about it, but you
stand alongside of a river, and then you go find another river, and then
you go find another river, and then you go find another river, and you
observe all of these rivers, and you find out finally that the common
denominator of all rivers was that water was flowing downhill.
The points downstream are at less altitude than the points upstream.
And we establish the fact, then, that water flows downhill. We
don't have to have the theory of gravity; we don't have to have
any other theory connected with it at all. All we have to have is
the observation that all rivers we are able to contact are flowing
downhill. That's an empirical datum.
  All right. Now, this "prior confusion" is an empirical datum, and that
is all it is. It's empirical. It's just observed that this is the case:
that the person is not stuck in the marriage that they are complaining
about but are stuck in the marriage because of the confusion that
existed before the marriage; they're not stuck in the marriage because
of the confusion of the marriage.
  Now, you've always been assuming that the marriage got stuck because
of the confusion of the marriage. All right. Now, let's get down to
workability - solid, sound workability. How many marriages have you
squared up by knocking all the confusion out of the marriage? Well, it's
sort of a lot of little failed lines on that. We've straightened up a
lot about marriages, and so forth, by knocking out their confusion.
We've done a lot about marriages by knocking out the confusion of the
marriage. But the reason we couldn't do it rapidly, and the reason we
got bored stiff trying to do something about it, is if a person is stuck
on the subject of a marriage, the reason they are stuck has nothing to
do with that period of time but has to do with the prior period of time
that predated the marriage. And if you free up that prior period of time
to the marriage, the marriage blows - the difficulties of the marriage
blow. Now, this is an empirical oddity, an oddity of magnitude.
  We've got somebody who has got to have their liver operated on,
something wrong with their liver. We find them stuck in an operation on
a liver. They've got to have another operation on a liver. They know
it's their liver. Their attention is stuck solidly on the liver, and so
we go ahead and process the liver, but we never find the basic-basic on
the chain of when their attention got stuck on the liver.
  When did their attention get stuck on the liver? Actually, it got
stuck on the liver immediately after a confusion. Immediately after a
confusion. So the way to blow this operation on the liver is to blow the
confusion which preceded the difficulty with the liver. It's so
peculiar. I mean it's sufficiently peculiar that this occurs when you
try to learn it: You immediately think of your own chronic somatic. You
try to swing your attention before you had the chronic somatic, and you
wind up with the chronic somatic. And you say, "Well, there is the
chronic somatic, and of course, that is all there is to it."
  And then one tells you again right away, "Now look. Let's look before
you had that chronic somatic."
  And you say, "Yes. Chronic somatic." It's just as though we're trying
to put your attention on top of a spring. And as you put your attention
on the spring, it rebounds, and blows you back into the chronic somatic,
do you see? And your attention just doesn't go onto the prior confusion.
It's quite remarkable.
  You say to somebody, "All right" - you'll do this as an auditor, now,
many times. You'll say, "Put your attention now on the period," or "What
happened" - you say in some other fashion - "What happened just before
you got all upset with this marriage?"
  And they say, "Well, I got all upset with the marriage."
  And you say, "Well, what happened just before you met this person?"
and so forth.
  "Oh, well, just before I met this person, um ... uh ... yeah, well, we
certainly had a hell of a time in that marriage."
  And you say, "Well now, look-a-here. We're talking about just before
you met the person. What was the date before you met the person?"
  Well, they're liable to do something like, "Well, I had an awful lot
of trouble when I was a little child."
  And you say, "Yeah. But just before this marriage. Just before the
marriage."
  And they say, "Yeah. Well, I had an awful lot of trouble in that
marriage."
  What's happening is, is the pc's attention bounces to later periods of
time. Chronic somatics are always the result and solution of an
unconfrontable disturbance which occurred immediately before them.
Hidden standards and present time problems are always the result of a
confusion which immediately preceded the difficulty. And when you get
the pc to put his attention on the confusion, you are asking him to do
what he couldn't do, and why he pinned his attention just after the
confusion. You see? He looks at the confusion, and then his attention,
without his recognizing anything, bounces straight into the stable
datum.
  Man has a broken leg. And this broken leg has just been going on and
on and on for years and years and years. He doesn't recognize it as a
broken leg. The medicos say it's a tibiosis of the filamoriasis, and
that he's suffering from a decay of the tendon. Well, he busted his leg
sometime or another. Let's get it down to simple language us folks can
understand. And, you see, if you don't know anything about a subject,
you can get awfully fancy. As a matter of fact, the more fanciness and
the more oddball opinion and crosscurrent of opinion you find in a
subject, you can assume that that is in direct relation to the amount
known about the subject.
  The more confusion in the subject, the more crisscross, the more
learnedness, the more pretended knowingness there is in the subject, the
less is actually known about it. You can get a terribly complicated idea
about life and the mind from fields where it isn't known. You
understand? There's a lot of invented, pretended knowingness on the
thing. For instance, I don't know how many medical terms there are for a
leg, and yet this leg won't heal, and they can't make it heal fast, but
they can sure call it by lots of names and have lots of opinions on it,
don't you see?
  Well, they're sort of bouncing off the confusion. All right. So the
person's got a busted leg. Well, the leg should have healed up in five
or six weeks and that should have been all there was to it, and that's
it - finished. But it isn't. Seven years later, like the children's
doctor, the fellow is still limping - I think two years ago. He kids me
every time he sees me. You know, he comes in limp, limp, masking the
limp very consciously as soon as he's on the premises, trying very hard
not to limp. He was in a skiing accident a couple of years ago, and I
told him I was going to process him, and it scared him within an inch of
his life. And so he always has some kidding remark to make to me, when
he comes in to look at the children's tongues, about whether or not I'm
going to process him. But look, it's been two years and he's still
limping. Ah, well, then this isn't just a skiing accident, because
there's nothing really in bad shape about the bones. They were all put
together by the very best orthopedic surgeons. He had the best of care;
he's a doctor.
  So what must have happened? Well, he busted his leg in a skiing
accident. And two years later it has yet to heal, really. Oh, well, the
bones are grown together and it isn't bleeding anymore, but it
isn't operating. All right. Now let's take a look at that.
  Was it the instant of the accident? Ah, well, we know more about the
mind than they do. We know very well that before some fellow does a
practiced action, if he's in a smooth frame of mind - he's used to doing
this action - he goes down the slope and slaloms like mad, and
everything is just dandy, and he winds up at the bottom upright and
saying "Whee!"
  But if a fellow is in a disturbed frame of mind, and his attention is
on many other things - he just received a letter from his wife or his
girl saying, "Well, I've just gone out again with Pete," don't you see?
And there's nothing he can do anything to but himself. He can't do
anything to anybody but himself. There's nobody else around or he's
powerless or something like that. Then this practised skier starts at
the top of the slope, and he goes halfway down and he says, "This is a
good place," and wraps himself around a tree.
  Then they put him pathetically in the hospital, and bring him home by
ambulance plane, and so on, and it goes on for years, don't you see?
  So the high probability is that the accident had nothing to do with
the motions of skiing. Skiing probably has nothing to do with the
confusion which resulted in a broken leg, mentally. Because we have to
ask the question, how did he get himself bunged up, and why?
  Now, a fellow doesn't get himself bunged up by accident. See, it's not
by accident. That's the first thing you have to recognize. That there's
some kind of a postulate in there to bung himself up. And he'll manage
it every time.
  All right. So this medico, all right, we ask him, "Now, what happened
just before you broke your leg?"
  And he'll say, "Well, the snow was flying all around, and the wind was
going whee, and so forth. And then there was this condemned Switzerland
pine tree, and it pulled itself up by the roots and moved over in the
middle of the ski track."
  And you say, "Good."
  And we keep on running this. And at the end of many hours, we actually
do get the thing to remove to a marked degree. We get an abatement of
the chronic somatic. Yes, we can do that. We have done that many times.
  Well, how would you like to see that chronic somatic vanish? Well,
that would be a much better procedure and much faster than that. Ah,
well, we'd have to find out what went on before he went skiing that day.
  Well, he was on vacation, we know, and we know that he felt he needed
a vacation. Why did he feel he needed a vacation? An odd thing to
need - me particularly, I never get one. So I don't dare need one. He
needed a vacation. Well, what was the randomity that preceded that? What
was his mail like while he was on vacation? Let's search in this area.
Let's find out anywhere in the last six months what had been going on.
And all of a sudden we wind up with the damnedest, knockdown-drag-out
confusion. But if it was enough to make him break his leg, it will be
sufficient to bar out his inspection of it. And at first he won't be
able to inspect the prior confusion.
  It takes an auditor sitting across from him to chunk his attention
into that period and do an assessment of it. And all of a sudden he
finds out that he thought the broken leg happened last year, when it
happened two years ago. And he's completely forgotten that he broke the
same leg when he was five; and all kinds of oddball forgettingnesses
turn up.
  Now, what causes forgettingness? It's the inability to confront a
motion. The inability to confront a motion brings about an occlusion of
that area of time. Now, you've got postulate - the first-, second-,
third-, fourth-postulate theory. The first postulate is not-know.
The second postulate is know.
  All right. So you've got a big not-know, you see? He had a lot of
mysteries and a lot of confusions he couldn't confront, and nothing he
could do anything about of any kind whatsoever, and he got himself a
know which immediately succeeded it in time. In other words, this
not-know area, this confusion area, is followed by a know area later in
time. Now, this is quite interesting because he follows a not-know by a
know, and the know might be quite stupid, and it might he quite painful,
and it might be quite destructive, but nevertheless it's a knowingness.
Some fellow who is gimping around with a bad leg certainly knows
something: He knows he's got a bad leg.
  You might say all psychosomatics and hidden standards are cures for
mystery. They give themself a knowingness, following a period of
not-knowingness.
  Now, people can get stuck in relief, and very often when your pc feels
better, he will feel better momentarily and quite artificially and not
feel better at all. Now, for instance, supposing we were all sitting
here and we heard a high whine and a dull thud out in the park, and an
airplane full of screaming passengers had apparently just crashed, you
know, and we could hear the whole works, sitting here. And so we in a
big flurry crowd out the door and rush outside to see this airplane
that's crashed, and so on. And it's just Peter left one of his record
players on.
  See? Quite a feeling of relief, but the relief followed a period of
confusion. Now, I'm not saying this is very aberrative. This would be so
light that it's very easy to face indeed. But we would then, you see,
we'd have a little period of relief, and it actually would stick
slightly on the track. See, it's a period of relief. It's a period of
know.
  Now, you see, at the moment we heard it crash, we didn't know what was
happening, so we've got a not-know. And then we go out and we find out
what happened, we find out nothing happened and that it's all all right,
so we know. You get this, this is just in vignette. What I'm talking
about is not at all aberrative. It takes much greater volume of
magnitude to make one of these things.
  All right. Now, let's go into what Mary Sue was showing you here just
before I came in. And we have ourselves a period there, which we see as
a big, white chalk mark up at the top, and then there's a little chalk
mark down the line, and we've got a vertical time track here; and it's
got a big blob of white chalk at the up part, and a little blob, and
then below that, a big blob, and then below that, a little blob, and
some more little blobs. All right. Now, I'm not making fun of her
cartooning. But anyway, taking a look at this now, we see the time track
plots linearly. Now, she's got herself plotted from the zero at the top
to 1961 at the bottom. Well, all right. We'll take it that way because
time tracks don't run in any direction. So, all right.
  Now, we take that little tiny, last, bottom white blob, and that's a
chronic somatic. The person has a chest wheeze, and every time you
process them, they look at their chest to find out if they're still
wheezing. And they know the auditing command worked because the wheeze
is less, or they think the auditing command didn't work because the
wheeze is more. This is how they know, you see? This is how they know.
Well, isn't it interesting that this know would occur in connection with
a chronic somatic?
  Now, a person must have a hell of an avidity for knowingness if they
have to find out if their back is still broke, or their chest is still
caved in, or if their rib cage is squashed. What kind of knowingness
is this? Well, it must have followed one God-awful confusion, man.
If that's the acceptable level of knowingness, wow! What must have
happened before that? So we take this pc, and we say to this pc,
pointing to that last white blob there, "Well, what was going on in
your life immediately before you noticed this difficulty with
your chest?"
  And your first, usual, immediate response, if this is a hot subject,
is "Well, my chest has always hurt me." It'll be something intelligible
like this.
  They haven't answered the question at all. You say, "No, no, no. Just
before you noticed this - before you noticed this - what happened in
your life?"
  And they say, "Well, um ... I don't know."
  That's right. There you got it hot. That's hot and heavy. And, boy,
they never spake more sooth than that. They were spaking sooth with all
front teeth. They didn't know, that's for sure, or they wouldn't have
this chest difficulty. All right.
  So we punch it a little harder - you see, it's the auditor compelling
the pc's attention into that area - and we say, "Well, when did it turn
on?  What period of time was it when it turned on?"
  "Well," he said, "well, it must have been ... must have been the
summer of '59 or something like that. I know I had
it then."
  You see, they haven't said anything "before" yet, you see? They know
they had it in the summer of '59. You say, "Now, that's good. Now, just
what happened just before the summer of '59?"
  "Well, I had it in the spring of '59 too."
  See, they haven't answered your question yet, you know? All right. But
you see what's happening here? You're plowing their attention back
toward an unconfrontable area. So you say, "Well, all right. What
happened before that? Well, what was going on before you noticed this
chest somatic and so forth?"
  And they say, "Well ... Oh, well, uh ... yeah, well, it uh ..." (And
we notice this little upper white blob here, see?) They say, "Yeah,
well, it turned off for a long time." Haven't answered your question
yet. See, it's off from the first white blob to the second white blob,
see? Well, it's off.
  "Yeah. Well, I wasn't troubled with it then, and uh ... I remember
now -  Oh, yes! Yes, that's right. I recall in '56, I had medical
treatment for this." See, they've told you nothing about "before" yet.
But they've got it stretched back in time. And then all of a sudden
they'll come up and say, "Well, let's see, '56." (And we'll call that
earlier blob there 1956.) They'll say, "Well, let's see."
  You say, "What were you doing in '55?"
  "Well, I ... '55. That was when I was down at camp in Cornwall. No.
No, no, no. Come to think about it, that was '52." And they're liable to
come up with the adjudication that they don't know what happened from
1952 to 1956. This is a curious blank period. And they figure it all
out, and they say, well, it must have been this and it must have been
that, and it might have been this and might have been that. And then all
of a sudden they say, "Well, the truth of the matter is I was ... Well,
I'm not sure. I'm not sure. But do you know, I had this when I was a
child?"
  See, way back now. See, way, way back. Boom!
  "Yes, I had this when I was a child. They thought that I had
consumption and so forth, and I ... actually I hadn't remembered that,
but I had a lot of consumption, and I remember I was living with my
grandmother, and so forth. And they had me to the doctor a lot of
times, and that sort of thing. And I just had overlooked this fact."
  Now we're up at our first white blob up there, see?
  You say, "Well, what happened just before you were living with your
grandmother?"
  "Well, I wouldn't know. I was awfully young. I was eleven."
  "Well, yeah. Well, where were your parents at that time?"
  "Well, let's see."
  And brother, we've got another blank spot, and we've got a nice, big,
juicy blank spot. Now, we keep plowing into this blank spot, and we
finally find out that Mother and Father had agreed to separate just
before this, and there had been a lot of domestic difficulties, and we
think we've got it now, and we're trying to really pin it down - we
think we've got it. And they were trying to separate, and this was
happening, and that was happening; it was all very clouded up, and it
was all very this and that. And we're just about to get a touching
short story about this whole thing, when suddenly the pc remembers that
he burned down the house.
  And that will be the end of that chronic somatic. Just by assessment
only. See? That's just by assessment. But your assessment is doggedly to
find out what happened before they noticed this.
  Now, perhaps it's a bad thing to say "for the first time" because this
is always a lie. One of the stable data of auditing is always make your
auditing question as truthful and as factual as possible. Don't make
auditing questions that are nonfactual. So you say, "Well, what is the
first time you remembered this?" or "What is the first time you noticed
this?" Of course the pc cannot answer this because he's going to give
you fifty more first times after he's given you the first time. So it's
much cleverer to say, "What is a time that you noticed this? When did
you notice this? What happened before you noticed this?" And then just
keep chugging it in.
  Now, it's not a repetitive command, and this is actually getting rid
of chronic somatics by assessment. If you are very clever at assessing,
you can just go on and assess and assess and assess, and you finally
find out the confusion; and you pin the confusion down to such a degree
that you've made the pc confront the confusion, the confusion will
as-is. Right there. Bang! And everything else will blow after it, and
that is it. You can do it by assessment only with an E-Meter. That
requires a rather clever auditor to do the whole job by assessment only.
  Now, here's an easier way to do it. We finally spot the area of
confusion by assessment, and then we put together Security Checks to fit
that area. We find out that this person had this when they were eleven:
Well, it's some kind of a childhood activity that is all messed up.
Well, you can actually take the Child's Security Check, and bend it
around one way or the other, question by question, and add your own
questions to it, and so on; and you're going to get yourself some
interesting data that this pc has never seen before.
  And you're going to blow out those zones of confusion, and you're
going to find the dissipation of the hidden standard of the chronic
somatic. That is a more standardized method of going about one of these
things.
  All right. Let's take another example. This girl finds that she has
headaches. She finds she has lots of headaches. And in auditing, she's
always sort of aware of this headache, and she knows the auditing
process is working because the headache turns on, or turns off, and if
nothing affects the headache, she of course doesn't think the auditing
process is working. That's her hidden standard. That's by which she
finds out whether or not auditing is working. That is the definition
of a hidden standard.
  Well, naturally, your rudiments are out as long as the pc has this
condition. Why? Well, the pc is via-ing the auditing command.
  Now, in all cases where a pc is not making progress on Routine 3, you
can bet your bottom peseta that the pc has not and is not doing the
auditing command. They might be doing the auditing command plus, plus,
plus, see, or they might not be doing it at all.
  I do remember back in Wichita, long, long ago, a pc coming around to
me after a twenty-five hour intensive and bragging to me that they had
succeeded in not answering an auditing command once, and they thought
this was awfully clever of them. Yes sir, the pc was really bragging
about it. What was the matter with the auditor that he didn't find it
out?
  Now, here is the more usual thing: The pc does the auditing command
and applies it to a certain area of the mind or body in order to find
out if it has affected something else. And they do the auditing command
by applying the auditing command to something in the mind, and then they
look over here to see what is going on and if anything happened. And
they do this continually. They're not just doing the auditing command.
They are doing something else. Now, they know they did the auditing
command right, or they know they did it wrong, or they know the command
is right or wrong in direct comparison to how much happens to alleviate
this difficulty.
  You are auditing a pc who has an attention fixed, not on the bank in
general, but on some particular, peculiar activity. And they're doing
something peculiar with every auditing command. You feed them the
auditing command, they do something peculiar with it. Even though they
verbally answer it, and so on, and apparently have executed it, they do
something else with it.
  And when a pc is not making progress, you can say his attention is
stuck someplace. Well, that's a shortened form of saying the rudiments
are out. One of the rudiments are out. The pc is not really in-session.
The pc is on auto. The pc is not under the auditing control, the pc is
under his own control. He's under his own control to this degree: You
say something, then the pc takes over as auditor and executes the
auditing command, and then gives the session back to you. And you ask
the next question, and when you ask the question, then the pc takes the
auditing command, goes on auto, audits the auditing command on himself
and then gives the auditing session back to you. Have you got the idea?
And the pc, during the entire period of execution of the auditing
command, is not in-session. Any pc who hasn't gone Clear in 150 hours
is doing it. Pc has got a hidden standard.
  What is this hidden standard? Maybe he's got six hidden standards.
Well, every one of those hidden standards is totally this stable datum
stuck after the fact of the confusion. They all have the same anatomy.
Pc takes the session away from you, does the auditing command, finds out
whether or not it moves this electronic, then sees whether or not the
electronic is affecting whether or not he's a boy or a girl. That's
right. That was how we moved into this, with just that action on the
part of a pc. We knew about this for a long time, but we've never really
seen it in action to this flagrant degree.
  This pc had been audited for about a thousand hours, and had applied
every single auditing command ever given to the pc to the resolution of
an electronic incident, which the pc was convinced, if it were run out,
he would turn from a man to a woman. Thousand hours - no progress. Well,
why? The pc was never in-session.
  So the rudiments are out. The basic rudiment that is out is present
time problem of long duration, where you have a hidden standard.
  All right. Very good. Now if we take ourselves a pc, and we audit
along with Routine 3, we can find the pc's goal, we can find the pc's
terminal; oh, yes, with some difficulty, but we can find them in
relatively short order, certainly under twenty-five hours of auditing,
if we're really in there. We keep the most flagrant rudiments in, don't
you see? But we haven't noticed this hidden standard yet. And then we
assess the pc on the Prehav Scale, and we run the pc on the Prehav
Scale, and we run the pc and we run the pc and we run the pc and nothing
happens. Well, there's where it'll show up.
  See, we can do the action of finding a goal, because the pc's
attentions are very, very solidly on goals. We can certainly find the
action of a terminal, we can find this terminal, because we actually
haven't really asked the pc to do an auditing command. It's all between
you and the meter, see? We can find the assessed level of the Prehav
Scale very easily, but now we go into the repetitive auditing command
and the pc goes on auto.
  Why does the pc go on auto? Well, the pc's got a hidden standard. The
pc is auditing himself on making his nose well. Pc is not running, not
at all running, the terminal of a railroad engineer. He's running a
nose. And so he doesn't go Clear.
  Now, very often, in worse cases, the pc will be very resistive toward
an auditor's inquiring questions. The auditor says, "What are you doing?
What did you do with that auditing command?" You've all of a sudden got
a knockdown-drag-out fight on your hands. Pc does not like you inquiring
into it. The first time you ever notice anything like that, you say to
yourself, "This pc has a hidden standard. Let's find out what it is."
  Now, although you can find the person's goal, terminal and level, you
actually can't run the pc on that in the presence of hidden standards.
It is a waste of time.
  Now, there's one earlier action that can be taken with the pc, that
the pc will do and that will produce results. But there is only one
earlier action can be taken before a Routine 3 assessment, and that is a
Security Check. This can be done without knowing the pc's terminal and
will produce lasting, excellent results. There is no other process - now
we have all the facts in over the years - will produce easy and lasting
gains on a pc. No other process will produce easy, good, solid, lasting,
positive gains on a pc. You have a Security Check and you've got the
assessment and you've got the running of the assessment.
  So, this leaves us with a Security Check as a very powerful auditing
weapon, because it will operate whether you're running the goals
terminal or not. The Security Check will operate. And those gains you
make with a Security Check will be lasting gains.
  Hence, we divide up auditors into Class I: Run any process on which
they have a certainty. This will probably be some kind of a control
process, by the way. It'll be some cousin to the CCHs, if the auditor is
wise. Because that at least works out the control factors of the pc, and
you do make a sort of gain. You're running in order, and something is
going to happen with this pc, and it doesn't come under the heading,
however, of a fast, easy gain. It is not a fast, easy gain. It is a
lasting gain, but it is a hard, long gain. And that's all you can say
for it. That's the CCHs, S-C-S - all these various things. They are
long, hard, arduous things to handle, and they do produce a lasting
gain, but at what cost! So it doesn't come under the heading of
a nice, easy, stable gain achieved by the auditor at all.
  But Class I Auditors had better be employed, even though it is very
hard to achieve a long, lasting proposition. No matter how arduously,
they had better be put to work doing some auditing, because any auditing
is better than no auditing, and this type of gain will be quite
beneficial in the long run, and so forth, and this argues that a Class I
Auditor is doing something, as long as he's doing one of these types of
processes.
  All right. We move up to Class II Auditor, and a Class II Auditor can
security check. All right. Security Checking produces a lasting gain,
and it is very easy. It is very easy to do. It is very nice. It is very,
very fast, and it is a lasting result. So we have the Class II Auditor
doing Security Checks. And actually when we're talking about the hidden
standard, and that sort of thing, we can envision that a Class II
Auditor would have set up a pc on the basis of having gotten rid of all
of his hidden standards, and that's what we look to a Class II Auditor
to do, not just to sit there and prate off a Sec Check 3.
  We're asking him to do something else. We're asking him to sec check
in the direction of getting rid of all of the stuck points in this
lifetime. We're asking him to get rid of the confusions of the first,
second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth marriages. We're asking all of
the ... we're asking him to get rid of that crooked neck. We're asking
him to get rid of the odd habit he has that every time you say something
to him he goes drvvvvvkh! It seems rather odd this person would do that,
you know? Because you haven't asked him to smell a thing. In other
words, these things all surrender to Security Checking. All of them,
now, the lot. But what kind of Security Checking does it take? Well, it
takes a standard Security Check. That is always a good thing to bang
into a case. The first and foremost thing you do. That's a good thing -
just go on and pick out the probable Security Check.
  Let's take an old-time auditor, he's been knocking around and into God
knows what. Well, the first Security Check we want to shove into him is
the last two pages of a Sec 3, plus Sec Check 6. There's no reason to do
the first many, many pages of 3 or do anything very fancy, because he's
not going to get any benefit of something that he has overts on, and so
on. So let's get that out of the road.
  And now having done this, let us get clever and apply this data about
the stable datum and the prior confusion. Now this is different than the
stable datum and the confusion - the idea that we get all of the stable
... we get all the confusions off the case and we will of course knock
out at once all of the person's activities, and so forth. No, that isn't
quite true. We have to knock them out selectively - has to be very
selective.
  So after you got the last two pages of a Form 3 and all of a 6 done,
you should roll up your sleeves at about that point, and let's go for
the hidden standards. Let's find out if there is anything by which this
person measures gain or no gain. "What would have to happen for you to
know that Scientology works?" That's the clue question.
  And you get these things, and sometimes these things are detached
things. Sometimes these things are "Well, my mother would have to get
well." Well, he doesn't really mean - perhaps he does - but he really,
probably, doesn't mean that his mother would have to be sold on
Scientology and brought to an auditor. No. The auditing command which he
is doing, if applied to himself, would have to cure his mother. You see,
he often means that, too. So this idea, this ... he says, "Well, my
mother would have to get well." Well, this is marvelous. It means his
mother is a stuck ... a stuck chronic somatic.
  Now, the way you would have handled this in the past ... a way you
would have handled this in the past, is not the fastest way to handle
it. You could have handled it in the past, and it would have worked out
all right in the past, but that is not the fastest way to handle it. I'm
just giving you a much faster method.
  When did this occur that Mother became a stable datum? And what
confusion preceded it? Ahhh! In other words, we don't run O/W on Mama,
and we don't security check Mama, and we don't have very much to do with
Mama. We want to find out what happened before Mama became a chronic
somatic. Because Mama's a stable datum for a confusion before the fact
of accepting Mama as a stable datum. There's some confusion prior.
Remember, it's always prior.
  Let's reorient your thinking on this. Now, the fellow says,
"Well, uh ... I just have to get over hating my father. That's what
would have to happen. Yes sir. To know Scientology worked,
I'd have to get over hating my father."
  "Well," you say, "that's good." So obviously you can do something
about that. You do a Security Check about his father. That's obvious,
isn't it? This is past thinking on it. And you get all of his overts
against his father, and all of his withholds from his father, and you
clean up Father. And what do you know? You could do it, too - I mean,
you could have gotten a long way in this direction. Ah-ha, there's a
much faster method.
  Let's find out what happened before "hating Father" became his stable
data in life. "Hating Father" must be an activity he can confront, as a
retreat from earlier activities he can't confront. And they probably
have nothing to do with his father. Hatred of Father was much more
acceptable to him than the tremendous confusion he had with - who knows?
Probably not Father. Who knows who it is? Lord knows.
  So, what do you do? You assess. And you find the area of prior
confusion to the hatred of Father. Now at first the pc is going to tell
you it's something that Father did, and it's something that had to do
with Father. But remember, it can't have anything to do with Father if
Father is the stuck somatic. Can't have anything to do with Father, you
see, if Father is the stuck personnel. If Father is the broken leg on
this case, it hasn't anything to do with Father, because he can confront
Father. For, if he can confront Father, and he's spent all these years
confronting Father, and so forth, and it hasn't got him well - why do
you, in an auditing session, put in more hours confronting Father? Waste
of time, see?
  No, let's find out what happened before this occurred. So you'd want
to know, "When did you notice that you hated your father, and what
happened before that?"
  First answer, well, inevitably, "My father did this, my father did
that."
  And you say, "Good, fine." Give him a cheery old acknowledgment and
then find out what happened before that with other people. Oh, you find
out his old man hasn't been anybody - man, his old man has been nobody
in this fellow's life. There is some kind of a person on a broomstick
that has been flying around in this person's belfry.
  You know, as a child, why, this person would see - well, maybe it was
his father's mother or something, you know? And the child would see her
sitting there quietly knitting and rocking in the rocking chair, or
something, and he absolutely just couldn't resist, you see, spilling the
cat on her, or you know, or pulling up the ball of yarn, or somehow or
another stealing all of the bread dough, or putting salt in the plum
pudding - just anything, see, anything. And you'll find that these are
overts, but they won't come through that way at all.
  He will finally recover the character on the broomstick, see? Total
occlusion. Recover this character on the broomstick, and you will try to
do a Security Check on this, and "She beat me and she socked me and she
used to hold me over the well and say she was going to drop me ..." And
he'll just go motivator, motivator, motivator, motivator, motivator,
see? Of course. Why? Because he can observe the inflow, but he can't
observe his outflow.
  Yeah, but what did he do? That's what's getting interesting here.
What did he do? Did he steal her broom? Because you'll find inevitably
that this is what happened. So you make up some kind of a roster of the
personnel involved, prior to the stuck personnel. And you make a roster
of the "missing persons bureau." And your little list is a "missing
persons bureau." And boy, you're really going to find missing people. Pc
doesn't even know they exist. There's going to be sections out of his
life he don't know are gone.
  And you're going to find those sections and find out who is in them
and then write up a Security Check, any old kind of a Security Check, to
find out what he did to them; these other people, not Father. Skip
Father; he was a confrontable character. Why bother with Father? Just a
waste of time. That's what the pc is complaining about.
  Now, whatever the pc complains about, do something earlier. There is
your stable datum. Whatever the pc complains about, you do something
earlier. And don't pay any attention to handling the object about which
he is complaining. You pay attention to his complaint; but if you
continue to handle the object about which he's complaining, such as his
big ears, why, you're not going to get anyplace. He's complaining about
big ears. "Well, I'm seeing ... Every time I ..." You find out every
time he answers an auditing command that he finds out if his ears
shrunk.
  He'll find stuff, weird like this, man. Well, did his ears shrink?
Okay. "Now, when is the first time you ever notice ..." Oh, par - that'd
be wrong.
  "Now, when did you notice that you had big ears? When did you notice
this?"
  "Oh, well, I have had big ears for some time," you see? That's your
inevitable reply.
  Now, if you get a reply of this character which is a non sequitur, you
know you are onto a hot area of disturbance, because the pc's attention
went onto it, and then flick! - came right up the track to the big ears.
Your effort to put his attention on the area of confusion, results in
putting his attention on the object. Whenever you try to put his
attention on the area of confusion, and then you only succeed in putting
his area ... attention on the object, you know you've got it made. You
know you're looking at one God-awful area of occlusion.
  You say to him, "When did you first notice that you had big ears?
Now, what happened before you first noticed you had big ears?" Any such
question.
  And he says, "Well, I've just worried about it for years - my big
ears."
  Well, now, you see the mechanism at work? You asked him about a time
before "big ears," and he answered "big ears." So it's obvious that his
attention deflected from the area you tried to put his attention on. You
have located a hidden springboard. He doesn't know it's there, but you
now do. He coasts right up the track to it. Every time you put that hull
in the water it goes straight to that particular dock with a crash, see?
It won't head out to sea. It won't go anyplace, you see? You just put
it in the water, and it hits this dock. "Father," or "ears," or
something, see? Bang! And there it is.
  You say, "Well, now in your ... in your early life ... what went on
there? What went on in your early life?"
  Now, this would be just asking for a whole bunch of balderdash. Now,
it would take an awful lot of millions of words for the pc to tell you
every single, horrible thing that's been done to him in his early life.
There's no sense in having much of a synopsis on it. It's up to the
auditor to continue to direct the pc's attention where he wants the pc's
attention directed. Not to listen to a recount ... a blow-by-blow
recount of all the beatings the dock gave him. See, that's silly,
because that's all he's going to tell you.
  He hates his father - this is his hidden standard - he doesn't feel
better yet about his father, so not feeling better yet about his father,
he knows the auditing isn't working. And you say, "Well, tell me about
your early life."
  So he says, "Well, my father ... and he used to take me out in the
woodshed, and then he did this to me and he did that to me. And he did
this and he did that, and my father this and my father that." Well, are
you doing anything for this pc? No. No, you're not doing anything for
him at all because you're leaving his attention stuck on a refuge.
  Any chronic somatic, any stuck personnel, anything of that nature is a
refuge on which the pc can put his attention. And you are not doing your
job as an auditor unless you get his attention eased over onto what
makes him stick his attention on it. And you do that by a gradient
scale, and the pc can get very restive if you jump your gradient too
hard.
  So you say, "All right. Big ears. Now let's see. What uh ... what
happened just before you noticed that, or when did you notice that you
had big ears? Tell me a time you noticed you had big ears. What's some
early period when you noticed that?"
  And the pc says, "Well ... uh, well ... uh, well ... uh, well ... uh,
well ... well, I was working in London for an attorney's firm. I used to
notice it."
  "Good." You say, "Is there any earlier time than that?"
  "Oh, well uh ... no. In the attorney's firm ..."
  Oh, well, hell, you got his attention stuck there. And you say, "No,
earlier - earlier than the attorney's firm. What'd you do earlier than
that."
  "Oh! Oh, well, what did I do earlier than that? Uh ... I don't know!
What did I do ear - ? Let's see now. I went to prep school, and then I
went to college, and then - so on, and that was 1952. And then I - and
then '52 and then 1955 ... 1955 when I went to work. Yes, it must have
been '55 I went to wo -  I remember that, yes. It was '55. Went to work
for the attorney's firm in 1955. And I got out of college in 1952."
  "Oh good," you say, "Well, what did you do between '52 and '55?"
  "I just don't know. Now let's see, what did I do? No, I ... I met a
girl. Ah, yes, I remember now. I met a girl, and she uh ... yeah, I met
this girl and she had a boyfriend. And we had an awful ... No, that was
'58. Let me see. No, no. I'll get it in a minute. It's 1952, 1955. Now,
there's a period of three years. Now, let's see. After I got out of
college, I must have gone home for a little while. And then I must have
done this, and then I must have done that, and I must have done
something or other - probably. Yeah, I'm sure I must have done something
like this because, you see, you just wouldn't ordinarily just go from
college to an attorney's firm.
  "Now, let me see. Oh, I know. I had an awful fight with a fellow.
Yeah. Oh, that was pretty terrible. We met down in this bar, and he had
some kind of a criticism of me one way or the other, and we had
this hor -  No, that was '57. No, no. That wasn't '55, that was '57."
  And that's the way he'll go on. You understand? And you say, "Well,
what happened in this period of -  anything that might have occurred
between 1952 and 1955?"
  "Oh, uhh-uh, ruh, ruh, ruh, ruh-ruh, ruh, ruh-r."
  "Well, did you ever think about big ears before 1952?"
  "No, no, no, no, no, I didn't think about that before 1952," and so
forth.
  "Well, did you ... you think about big ears after 1955?"
  "Well, yes. Oh, yes, oh, yes, all the time. Used to sit there at my
desk with ink all over me, and I used to sometimes get it on my ears,
and they used to call me 'ink ears' sometimes, and so ... That was
probably it. Actually, the firm really hated me. And the senior partners
this and that."
  And you say, "That's good. Thanks! Good! Good! Good! Fine! Thank you!
Thanks. Good. All right, now. Good. Now, we want '52 to '55. Now, who
did you know in that period?"
  "Well, I must have known my father and mother."
  "All right. Well, who introduced you to get work at the attorney's
firm?"
  "Must have been some connection with my father."
  And you know you're liable to find some damn-fool thing like a
marriage? You're liable to, man. You're liable to find anything. But
you will find something, and it'll be a period there of total occlusion.
  You've got to find ... What you're trying to do is not necessarily
solve the big mystery of it all. If you were very clever, you could do
the whole thing by assessment. On the meter, one of the ways you do it
by assessment is "Well, '54. Did you have a long vacation there after
you left college? Was it two years? One year? Six months?"
  "Oh, I went to work, something of the sort. I was doing something. I'm
sure I was doing something. I must have been doing something. Over a
period of three years a young man doesn't do anything, you see? And I
went up ... I'm sure. Yes. Yeah. I'm absolutely sure. No."
  You finally dredge up a name, Agnes. Ohhhh, Agnes. Ahhhh. All right.
Now, in essence, as much as you can find out about Agnes, you just do it
on an interrogation basis and assess "The worst confusion you ever had
with Agnes. When is the worst time you ever had with Agnes?" and so
forth. And this finally peters out and you find Agnes is just a red
herring. She's hardly a girl at all, and in actual fact it was Isabel.
  Isabel turns up along about this time, and now we have got a honey by
the ear. And we find out that she used to stand there constantly, and
say what she said, and she used to do this and do that, and she was the
one who got him arrested. Arrested? Where - where - where the hell did
this come from? Don't you see? We don't find out, usually, anything
about big ears. Agnes never said anything about big ears, nothing of
this sort, but she went off with a boy who had big ears. And Isabel -
Isabel, she went off with a boy who had big ears. Something stupid like
this. So big ears got to be something in here. And in some of the wild
devious way that all of a sudden works out and becomes completely
sensible, we find out how he wound up with a stable datum of big ears.
  This person says, "Well, I have a ball of light and it is just back of
my eyeballs, and when the ball of light glows, then I know the auditing
question works. And when it doesn't glow, it didn't work. You want to
find out "When did you notice this?"
  And then you want to find out what happened before that. "Now, what
happened before that?"
  And the person said, "I ... well, I haven't got the faintest idea.
I'm ... Let's see, now. What happened before that?"
  And we run into some kind of a blank period. Then all of a sudden,
marvel of marvels, we find out that between 1945 and 1948, the person
was deeply immersed in the Temple of Black Magic, someplace or another,
and all this seems to have dropped out of sight. And what they did
really there was "see the light." And he's been seeing the light ever
since, but it was one awful confusion. Because after the police raided
the joint, you see, it wasn't so much that, it was being sued for being
the father of the child. That was what got him.
  But all of this has been fantastically occluded, you see? And all of
these stable data that the person has lead back to a prior unknown, and
it's just the not-know followed by the know. It's the confusion followed
by the stillness. The confusion, then the stillness.
  All right. Now I'll give you something I've got some kind of a reality
on. It works like this: You find the bird ... This works out on a
broader track basis. You find this pc standing on a rock in the middle
of the sea waiting for somebody to pick him up. And he has this pain in
his stomach, and he had that pain in his stomach for many lifetimes.
Many, many lifetimes he's had the pain in his stomach.
  And you say, "All right. Let's run this out." So we run him standing
on the rock in the middle of the sea. And we - I guarantee you - we can
run it and we can run it and we can run it and we can run it and we can
run it, and he will still have a pain in his stomach and still be
standing on a rock in the middle of the sea. And this is the old engram
that wouldn't resolve.
  And this is why finding the earlier on the chain resolved the later
engrams - the engrams that wouldn't erase. Because, of course, in
finding the earlier engram you accidentally went across the confusion,
and you got the confusion knocked out. Well, there's nothing precedes
that incident that's hardly worth recounting, except mutiny, shipwreck,
sudden disaster, half-drowning seven times, and there's something kind
of strange and spooky about the whole thing. And then we finally find
out that he's standing on the rock without a body and hasn't noticed
he's dead, and this finally resolves the whole thing.
  Up to that time he knew all about it. But trying to get his attention
immediately before the incident when this occurred will be one of the
tougher jobs, because you say, "All right. How did you get on the rock?"
  And he says, "I was just standing there. Well, I must have gotten
there some way. Oh, I get a picture now of the surf. I must have come to
the rock through the surf."
  Well, any fool could tell that, man. He didn't land there by
helicopter, that's for sure. He'll make these suppositional actions.
  Now, a person trying to do this, all by himself, begins after a while
to appreciate an auditor, because his attention is pinned in a certain
category. And as it tries to go back to areas that are unknown to him,
it of course deflects onto the chronic somatics. So he tries to put his
attention back on this and then comes up into the chronic somatic, and
then he's stuck with the chronic somatic; his attention is on it, so he
starts auditing the chronic somatic, and he never does put his attention
back on the earlier incident, see? So he leaves himself stuck with
chronic somatics.
  His attention goes back up, and he needs an auditor sitting there to
tell him to put his attention back again. You know? "What happened
before that? What's the worst kind of motion you possibly could
experience on a ship?"
  "Well, it wouldn't be a ship. It'd be a submarine. I don't know why I
said that."
  "Well, what's the worse kind of motion you would experience on a
ship?"
  "Well, being torpedoed by a submarine. Let's see. Or torpedoing a ship
by a submarine? Being torpedoed by a submarine. Let's see, torpedoing a
ship or a ship torpedoing yo - ? No, a ship wouldn't torpedo you, you
see? And the ship t ... sh ... It's the worst kind of motion ... worst
kind of motion ... Be standing on a rock waiting for a ship to come in."
  That's exactly where the attention goes. Then he'll get all interested
in the thing. "Worst kind of motion. Let's see. Well, what might have
preceded that? Must be some kind of bad motion."
  "What kind of a bad action could a person perform that that would pay
for?" You know, asking him for a direct overt - just suppositional.
  "Oh, oh, oh, well, you've really asked one now, you know? I get a
picture of a foredeck of a galley. And all the galley slaves are there.
And they're all chained, and their blood is running down underneath the
fetters. And the overseers walk up and down the ramp, and the whips go
wham! you see, and so forth. And in a battle, in a battle, when they
start throwing Greek fire in amongst the galley slaves ... No, that was
much earlier. That isn't the same period at all. I got that. That was
much earlier. Much earlier."
  And you say, "Well, how much earlier was that?"
  "Well, that was another lifetime. That's a completely different
lifetime. I don't know what I was doing in this thing. It just seems
kind of blank, the whole thing seems sort of blank. There's this sailing
ship, you see? And it's sailing along, and I think I actually stood on
the rock, and I managed to coerce a ship to come in and wreck itself on
the rocks ... or maybe ... or maybe."
  And we finally find out that it wasn't very dramatic. He just got dead
drunk as a captain of a ship and ran it square aground on the rocks and
killed off all the crew, and they all died in the jagged reef, and they
were all screaming around him, and so forth. But it wasn't so much that.
He had stolen the ship and was guilty of barratry.
  Oh, we're getting someplace now, yes. Actually, he had murdered the
owner's agent the second day out of port. Now we're getting someplace.
And the next thing you know, he isn't standing on the rock anymore. See
what happens? You get the overts and that sort of thing off on the prior
confusion, and it blows. And that is the end of standing on the rock.
  But the more you Q-and-A with the pc and let him stand there on the
rock, the less you're going to get done. It gets pretty obvious? The
less you're going to get done.
  Now, you can keep chasing a pc's attention back, back, back, back,
back, back, back, and wind him up at the beginning of track, probably.
Of course, that's a kind of a Q and A too, because that's a method of
not confronting. He puts his attention on an incident much earlier that
he can confront, rather than confront the incident immediately before.
We're much more interested in that span of time, just before, that seems
so mysterious, and that keeps landing him back on the rock. That's the
period we're interested in. We're not necessarily interested in his
whole career as a space commander. We're not interested in that period,
because space commanders very seldom take ships to sea. All right. So
what we're interested in is the period which we have encountered.
  Now, you're going to find this technique very interesting in the
handling of engrams, just to branch off onto something else. You're
going to find this very, very interesting.
  When you've got a person's hidden standards and he's been running
well, and he's running his goals terminal on the Prehav Scale, and you
get up to Class IV type auditing and you're going to run some engrams,
you find these are usually very easy engrams and you haven't got to
resort to very much trickery to run them; because the pc, with the
rudiments in - he's in valence, he's already contacted these pictures
many times as he runs up and down the track, and you find out they kind
of run like hot butter. Take about a half an hour to run one of the
things, an hour and a half; three hours is the longest I've had so far.
And they run very easily.
  But let's suppose in some peculiar way that we didn't really get this
thing wheeling, and the person seems to be stuck in it, and there's a
hell of a burp someplace in this engram we're running, you see? And the
person goes ... every time they go through this area, they go "burp."
And every time they go through the area, they go "burp." And we're
having trouble running the engram, we should assume that something
confusing happened just before that, and try to get that up rather than
try to knock the burp out. Get the incident just before, and he will
blow whatever is hanging.
  Now, of course the whole engram is hanging up, isn't it?
  Now, how does a person get stuck on the track in the first place? Oh,
let's ask a much more important question than that. How does a person
get on a time track in the first place, and what are you doing on the
time track in this universe? That's an interesting question. Why are you
plodding along the time track with such orderliness? Could it be that
there's a confusion at the beginning of track that you can't face? I
find that a very fascinating question. I won't bother to give you any
answers to that particularly. But what is time? Time very possibly
could be retreat from a confusion we cared not to confront.
So we retreated en masse and have been going ever since.
  But that gives you, now, a basic rundown on the prior
confusion - trying to find the prior confusion to find the stuck datum.
A person's ability to confront confusions, improved, of course will
blow a lot of chronic somatics, but I wouldn't count on it. I wouldn't
count on just improving their ability to confront, and then having it
all work out magically. I would much rather that you just sawed into
it from the word go and picked up these things and blew them
selectively, one by one and very intelligently. Because a goals
terminal run on the Prehav Scale will give them lots of
confrontingness and it'll give them lots of changes and that sort
of thing, and you're much more interested in that.
  Trying to run a person, though, with a present time problem of long
duration - one special kind of which is a hidden standard - trying to
run a person on the Prehav Scale with five-, six-way brackets and
that sort of thing is highly profitless, because the pc never does
the auditing command.
  When analyzing whether or not a case is running, look to find out
whether or not the pc is materially advancing, the sensitivity is coming
down and the needle is getting progressively looser.
  All right. That all betokens advance of the case. Now, we go just a
little bit further than that, and we say: If the case has not gone Clear
in 150 hours of Routine 3, which includes, of course, Security Checks
and assessment and runs, we'd better say to ourselves right about there,
this case has never done an auditing command. This case has done
something else too, or has done something else, or has not done it
at all; and before that time - that would be the ne plus ultra of being
kind of stupid to wait that long, now that we know this.
  But if it did reach that time, then we would say, well, there's hidden
standards here, and we would determine what they are. And determining
what they are, we would get rid of them on this basis of a prior
confusion or any refinement thereof. We'd blow these hidden standards.
We'd straighten out these things. We return to a goals run. If the case
still hung up, we would suspect another hidden standard. We would blow
that and go on. So it might be a very good idea to blow all the hidden
standards that you could blow on a case before you do very much worrying
about the case getting on the way with a goals run.
  In other words, by all means get their goal. By all means, get their
terminal. By all means, assess a level on the Prehav Scale. By all
means, give them some running on this sort of thing.
  But on a Security Check angle, first, let's get off those last two
pages of Form 3, and let's get off all of Form 6 on an old auditor. On
new people, let's straighten up Security Check in general, let's get
this pretty well ironed out, and then let's find out if the person has
any hidden standards. And then let's undercut those by finding the prior
confusions; let's fill in these blank spots, at least in this lifetime.
Let's get them sailing so that they can actually do a straight auditing
command, and then, doing that, you'll find you make very rapid progress
with clearing.
  All summer and all last spring, I've just been working on speed of
clearing. That is all I've been working on. And this is another
seven-league-boot stride in that particular direction.
  Thank you.
  [end of lecture]
***
  [page 93]
***
  ABOUT THE AUTHOR
***
  L. Ron Hubbard is one of the most acclaimed and widely read authors of
all time, primarily because his works express a firsthand knowledge of
the nature of man as a spiritual being - a knowledge gained not from a
lofty study of ancient "mysteries," but by ceaseless work and research
in direct contact with mankind in all walks of life.
  As Ron said, "One doesn't learn about life by sitting in an ivory
tower, thinking about it. One learns about life by being part of it."
And that is how he lived.
  He began his quest for knowledge on the nature of man at an early age.
When he was eight years old he was already well on his way to being a
seasoned traveler, covering nearly a quarter of a million miles by the
age of nineteen. His adventures included voyages to Central America,
China, Japan and other points in the Orient and South Pacific. During
this time he became closely acquainted with twenty-one different races
in areas all over the world.
  After returning to the United States, Ron pursued formal studies in
mathematics and engineering at George Washington University, where he
was also a member of one of the first classes on nuclear physics. He
realized that neither the East nor the West contained the full answer to
the problems of existence. Despite all of mankind's advances in the
physical sciences, a workable technology of the mind and life had never
been developed. The mental "technologies" which did exist, psychology
and psychiatry, were actually barbaric, false subjects - no more
workable than the methods of jungle witch doctors. Ron shouldered the
responsibility of filling this gap in the knowledge of mankind.
  He financed his early research through fiction writing. Ron became one
of the most highly demanded authors in the golden age of popular
adventure and science-fiction writing during the 1930s and 1940s,
interrupted only by his service in the US Navy during World War II.
  Partially disabled at the war's end, Ron applied what he had learned
from his research. He made breakthroughs and developed techniques which
made it possible for him to recover from his injuries and help others
regain their health. It was during this time that the basic tenets of
Dianetics technology were codified.
  In late 1947 he wrote the first manuscript detailing his discoveries
about the mind. Though it was not immediately published, Ron gave copies
to some friends who reproduced it and passed it among their friends who
then passed it on to others. (This manuscript was formally published in
1951 as the book Dianetics: The Original Thesis and later republished
as The Dynamics of Life.) The interest generated by this manuscript
prompted a steadily increasing flow of letters asking for further
information and requesting that he detail more applications of his new
subject. Ron soon found that he was spending all his time answering
letters, so he decided to write and publish a comprehensive text on
the subject - Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health.
  With the release of Dianetics on 9 May 1950, a complete handbook for
the application of Ron's new technology was broadly available for the
first time. Public interest spread like wildfire. The book shot to the
top of the New York Times bestseller list and remained there week after
week while more than 750 Dianetics study groups sprang up within a few
months of its publication.
  Ron's work did not stop with the success of Dianetics, but accelerated
with new discoveries and breakthroughs as a constant, normal occurrence.
His continued research brought him face to face with the spirit of man,
and the philosophy of Scientology. His confirmation of man's true
immortality formed the foundation for many further discoveries and
methods for returning man to his full potentialities of self-determinism
and control over his life. These discoveries included such breakthroughs
as the formula of communication, the relationship of affinity, reality
and communication to life, and the basic mechanisms that keep a thetan
locked in a humanoid state.
  From 1961 through 1966, while teaching students on the Saint Hill
Special Briefing Course, Ron made many milestone breakthroughs in both
Dianetics and Scientology procedures. The full technology of Security
Checking was developed; the exact structure of the reactive mind was
mapped out and resolved; the quality of E-Meters was vastly upgraded and
the basics of its use were thoroughly communicated; the exact tech of
Listing and Nulling was evolved and codified; ethics technology,
including PTS/SP tech, was developed and put into use ... Nearly all of
the basic technology of auditing was precisely codified at that time.
  But he didn't stop there.
  Among innumerable later developments, in 1984, Ron made it possible to
remove major barriers to a being's way up the Bridge with the release of
the False Purpose Rundown. Based on upper-level research breakthroughs,
the False Purpose Rundown is a laser-precise procedure which slashes
straight to the root of false purposes and unwanted intentions which a
being has accumulated, restoring tremendous freedom of action and
ability to the being.
  As outlined in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, his
ongoing effort was to build a better Bridge. From its lowest levels to
upper reaches of OT, he streamlined the route and made the road
travelable by all.
  The quantity of Ron's works forms a legacy unparalleled in history.
Today his books, lectures, instructional films, demonstrations and
briefings are studied and applied daily in hundreds of Scientology
churches, missions and organizations on every continent.
  With his research fully completed and codified, L. Ron Hubbard
departed his body on 24 January 1986.
  Ron opened a new door for mankind, out of the trap of the MEST
universe. Through his efforts, there now exists a totally workable
technology by which the native abilities of beings can be restored and
rehabilitated.
  Millions of people all over the world consider they have no truer
friend.
  [end]
***
  [page 95]
***
  GLOSSARY
***
  American Red Cross:
  the American national chapter of the Red Cross, an international
organization to care for the sick and wounded in war and to relieve
suffering caused by floods, fire, disease and other calamities. In 1864
the red cross was adopted as an international symbol for neutral aid and
this symbol is used by the American Red Cross as well as other medical
and relief activities.
  anatomy:
  what something is made up of or how it is put together.
  Antietam, Battle of:
  the bloodiest battle of the American Civil War, fought
between Union and Confederate troops at Antietam Creek in the state of
Maryland on 17 September 1862.
  apropos of:
  with regard to.
  Archimedes spiral:
  [a picture of Archimedes spiral]
  a specific type of spiral, mathematically defined by Archimedes (c.
287 - 212 B.C.), Greek mathematician, physicist and inventor.
  Auditing by List:
  a technique using prepared lists of questions. These isolate the
trouble
the pc is having with auditing. Such lists also cover and handle
anything that could happen to a student or staff member.
  Auditing Supervisor:
  at the time of the lecture, the individual who supervised all the
auditing in a course activity and whose job it was to ensure
students could audit, by direct observation of sessions, study of the
auditor's reports and observation of the preclears.
  auto:
  short for automatic.
  back to battery:
  (slang) an artillery term. A gun, after it fires, is said to go out of
battery, which is to say, it recoils. Then after it is fired it is
supposed to go back to battery, which is sitting the way you see them in
photographs. It is used as a slang term to indicate somebody who is now
fixed up; he will be all right for something, or what he has had will
now be over.
  Bakelite:
  a trademark for any of a group of thermosetting (permanently hardening
or solidifying on being heated) plastics having high chemical and
electrical resistance and used in a variety of manufactured articles.
  balderdash:
  senseless talk or writing; nonsense.
  barratry:
  fraud or gross negligence of a ship's officer, or seaman, against the
owners, insurers, etc.
  basic-basic:
  the first of a chain of similar circumstances repetitive through a
person's whole track.
  bas-relief:
  a kind of carving or sculpture in which the figures are raised a few
inches from a flat background to give a three-dimensional effect. Used
figuratively in the lecture.
  beatnik:
  a member of the "beat" movement in the United States in the 1950s.
Beatniks frequently rejected middle class American values, customs and
tastes in favor of radical politics and exotic jazz, art and literature.
  belfry:
  a slang term meaning the head. In the lecture, LRH is making an
allusion to the phrase have bats in one's belfry, which means to be
crazy in the head (bats here referring to the winged creature and belfry
referring to a tower for bells, usually attached to a church or other
building).
  Bell, Alexander Graham:
  (1847 - 1922) Scottish-born American inventor;
patented the first telephone (1876).
  Bide-A-Wee:
  a made-up name.
  bird:
  (slang) a person, especially one having some peculiarity.
  Birmingham:
  the second-largest city in England, and industrial center about
100 miles northwest of London.
  blind staggers:
  any of several nervous diseases of horses, cattle, etc., that make
them stagger or fall suddenly. Used figuratively in the lecture.
  bloke:
  (chiefly British, informal) man; fellow.
  BMRs:
  an abbreviation for big middle rudiments, a middle rudiments package
more extensive than that used prior to their development in early 1963.
See also middle rudiments in this glossary.
  bomb, works like a:
  does something extremely well.
  bone rattler:
  a witch doctor or medicine man; from the practice of witch
doctors in some primitive cultures using charms made out of bone in
rituals and incantations.
  Booplum-Booplin law:
  a made-up name for a "scientific" law.
  brass tacks, got right down to:
  (colloquial) concerned oneself with basic facts or realities.
  bung:
  (British slang) throw or shove carelessly or violently; sling.
  bunged up:
  (US slang) bruised.
  bust:
  a failure.
  by George:
  an oath or exclamation, originally referring to Saint George,
Christian martyr of the early fourteenth century A.D., and patron saint
of England from the fourteenth century. "Saint George" was the battle
cry of English soldiers, and from this arose such expressions as "before
George" and "by George."
  Cadiz:
  a seaport in southwest Spain, on a bay of the Atlantic.
  Charlemagne:
  (742 - 814) king of France (768 - 814) and first emperor of the Holy
Roman Empire (800 - 814). His name means "Charles the Great." He is
especially remembered for his encouragement of education.
  chicken:
  short for chicken out, a slang expression meaning to cancel or
withdraw from an action because of fear.
  chitter-chat:
  (slang) talk, especially relaxed and idle conversation.
  chunk:
  (south midland and southern US) toss or throw; chuck
  Civil War:
  American Civil War, a conflict lasting four years (1861 - 65) in the
United States between eleven Southern states, which asserted their right
to withdraw from the United States, and the States and Territories of
the North, which were determined to maintain the Union.
  Clay Table Clearing:
  a type of Clay Table Processing in which the auditor (1) has the
preclear find a subject or activity where the preclear has desired to
improve himself, (2) establishes something about it the preclear didn't
understand; (3) has the preclear reduce that idea to a single term; and
(4) has the preclear represent that word in clay. The entire effort by
the auditor is to help the pc regain confidence in being able to achieve
things by removing the misunderstandings which prevented that
achievement.
  Columbus:
  Christopher Columbus (c. 1446 - 1506), Italian explorer who believed
that the Earth was round, and that trade routes with Asia could be
established by sailing westwards. In August 1492, with eighty-seven men
and three ships (Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria) he set sail for the west
and discovered the Western Hemisphere.
  comes a bit of a cropper:
  (informal) fails; is struck by some misfortune.
  Confederacy, the:
  the group of eleven Southern states that seceded from (withdrew
formally from membership in) the United States in 1860 and 1861; the
Confederate States of America. See also Civil War in this glossary.
  consumption:
  a disease causing a wasting away of the body. Now applied
specifically to consumption of the lungs.
  cookies:
  (slang) people.
  corn:
  (slang) something trite, of poor quality or banal.
  Cornwall:
  a county at the southwest tip of England.
  croquet:
  an outdoor game in which the players use mallets to drive a wooden
ball through a series of hoops placed in the ground.
  cuts no ice:
  (informal) has little or no effect.
  Dark Horse Nebula:
  the Horsehead Nebula, a dark cloudlike mass in the constellation
Orion, composed of opaque cosmic dust and resembling the
head of a horse.
  dead in his head:
  a Scientology slang reference to a case which totally associates all
thought with mass. Thus he reads peculiarly on the meter. As he is
audited he frees his thinkingness so that he can think without mass
connotations.
  depressed:
  pressed down; pushed down; lowered. Used in the lecture in reference
to the barrel of a large gun.
  diddle-fiddle:
  a coined expression from diddle with (handle casually, idly or
nervously; play with) and fiddle (make aimless movements; play
nervously; toy).
  dogs:
  mean, contemptible fellows.
  doll body:
  a body composed of inanimate MESTwhich can be activated and operated
by a thetan directly. Such bodies are disposable and do not have the
uncomfortable circumstance of being themselves any more alive than any
other MEST.
  down scale:
  into lower-level emotions of the Tone Scale.
  dub:
  short for dub-in, having the manifestation of putting, unknowingly,
perceptions which do not in actual fact exist, in the environment. (It
is a phrase taken from the motion picture industry, meaning to record
dialogue and various sounds and then integrate them into the film after
it has been shot. This is done for scenes where the original recording
is faulty, for scenes where it is simply more convenient to add dialogue
and other sound later, and for films playing abroad which require
new dialogue in the native language of the host country.)
  eager beaver:
  (US informal) a person who works very hard at a task, especially in
order to surpass his fellows.
  88s:
  88-millimeter antiaircraft, antitank guns, well known for their use by
Germany in World War II.
  Eisenhower, President:
  Dwight David Eisenhower (1890 - 1969), US general and 34th president
of the United States (1953 - 61): commander of Allied forces in Europe
(1943 - 45; 1951 - 52).
  electron:
  one of the negatively charged particles that form a part of all atoms.
  electronic:
  short for electronic incident, an incident in which a thetan is
implanted with electronic waves to intentionally install fixed,
contrasurvival ideas.
  Eskimo:
  a member of a people living in the arctic regions of North America and
northeastern Asia. Eskimos are short and stocky, and have broad, flat
faces, yellowish skin and black hair.
  et:
  (US colloquial) eaten.
  Fanny Hill:
  an elegant, flowery work of pornography describing the activities of a
London prostitute, written by John Cleland (1709 - 89).
  Federal:
  (US history) a supporter or soldier of the central government of the
United States during the American Civil War.
  fiddle:
  make aimless movements; play nervously; toy.
  first postulate:
  not-know. For the full theory on the Four Postulates, see
Professional Auditor's Bulletin 66 in the Technical Bulletins of
Dianetics and Scientology.
  flat-out:
  absolute; outright.
  footsies with, playing:
  (US slang) carrying on or starting a flirtation with; allying or
cooperating with in a covert manner.
  foredeck:
  (nautical) the part of the main deck nearest the bow.
  Form 3:
  see Sec Check 3 in this glossary.
  Form 6:
  see Sec Check 6 in this glossary.
  fourth postulate:
  remember. For the full theory on the Four Postulates, see
Professional Auditor's Bulletin 66 in the Technical Bulletins of
Dianetics and Scientology.
  Frazer's Golden Bough:
  a comprehensive work on comparative religion and mythology by Sir
James George Frazer (1854 - 1941), Scottish scholar and anthropologist.
Its opening passages describe an ancient Italian folk custom regarding
the King of the Wood: Near Lake Nemi in Italy was a sacred grove of the
goddess Diana. In it was a special golden tree. To become a priest of
Diana and King of the Wood one had to succeed in pulling down a bough of
this tree and thus earn the right to duel to the death with the current
King of the Wood. If he won he would then assume the position until
another, stronger aspirant came along and succeeded in killing him,
becoming in his turn the King of the Wood. Frazer's initial intent was
to trace the source of this legend. Drawing from similar traditions and
rituals of other peoples, his work expanded and tied together (sometimes
incorrectly) many myths and legends from around the world.
  Freud:
  Sigmund Freud (1856 - 1939), Austrian physician and the founder of
psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysis is a system of mental therapy. It
depended upon the following practices for its effects: The patient was
made to talk about and recall his childhood for years while the
practitioner brought about a transfer of the patient's personality to
his own and searched for hidden sexual incidents believed by Freud
to be the only cause of aberration. The practitioner read sexual
significances into all statements and evaluated them for the patient
along sexual lines. Each of these points later proved to be based
upon false premises and incomplete research, accounting for their
lack of result and the subsequent failure of the subject and its
offshoots.
  front burner:
  the opposite of on the back burner, which means in or into a condition
of low priority or temporary deferment. From the custom in cooking of
placing pots not requiring immediate attention toward the rear of the
stove.
  galley:
  a long, low, usually single-decked ship propelled by oars and sails,
used especially in ancient and medieval times: the oars were usually
manned by chained slaves or convicts.
  gimlet eye:
  a sharp or piercing eye.
  gimping:
  (slang) limping.
  glare fight:
  a contest back on the whole track wherein two individuals tried to
stare each other down by directing flows of attention units at one
another. The winner of the glare fight was the person who got the most
attention units out in the least possible time and drove his opponent
into apathy.
  goal:
  the prime postulate; the prime intention. It is a basic purpose for
any cycle of lives the pc has lived.
  goal-oppose terminal:
  the reliable item yielded by the source list (goal-oppose list); the
first reliable item found in certain GPM auditing procedures (such as
Routine 3M). See source list and RI in this glossary.
  goals terminal:
  (Routine 3 nomenclature) the valence into which the pc has
interiorized and which carries the goal and aberration which the pc
attributes to self; the target of Routine 3.
  God-help-us:
  a coined expression for something which would inspire the plea "God
help us!" from its observer.
  goose-step:
  a straight-legged style of military marching used by the armies of
several nations, but associated particularly with the army of Germany
under the Nazis. The term is sometimes used to suggest the unthinking
loyalty of followers or soldiers.
  gowed-in:
  a coined expression from gow, a drug, specifically opium.
  GPM:
  abbreviation for Goals-Problem-Mass, a mental mass created by two or
more opposed ideas which, being opposed, balanced and unresolved, make a
mental energy mass. GPMs are composed of beingnesses that the person has
been and has fought, these identities being hung up on the
postulate-counter-postulate of a problem. Each GPM is founded on a basic
goal. Some cover 2.5 trillion years and some much more, though the last
one formed may be only partially formed and cover as little as 60
thousand years. The auditing of goals and Goals-Problem-Masses is the
subject of numerous processes developed by LRH in the early and
mid-1960s in the process of discovering the exact structure of the
reactive mind. See also goal in this glossary.
  Greek fire:
  an incendiary (causing or designed to cause fires) material used in
medieval warfare, described as able to burn in water.
  grouch:
  a complaint or grumble.
  Gyppo:
  a made-up name for a planet.
  hakim:
  (in Arabia, India and other Moslem countries) a wise or learned man; a
doctor.
  hark back:
  go back in thought or speech; revert.
  havingness:
  the concept of being able to reach. By havingness is meant owning,
possessing, being capable of commanding, taking charge of objects,
energies and spaces.
  Helatrobus:
  the Helatrobus implants, a series of implants given between
38.2 trillion years ago to 52 trillion years ago by the Helatrobus
civilization. These implants were preceded by blanketing a planet with
radioactive clouds and, after a time, capturing beings by pulling them
up into the sky by means of a beam or by trapping them in a bubble.
  hell's bells:
  (interjection) an exclamation of impatience, anger, emphasis, etc.
  Herbie:
  the name of a Course Supervisor at Saint Hill at the time of the
lecture.
  holder-backer:
  a coined word for something which holds something back.
  holy suffering Godfrey:
  an exclamation of surprise, dismay or disgust. Godfrey is a euphemism
for God.
  hombre:
  (slang) a man or fellow.
  honey:
  (slang) a difficult problem or task.
  implant GPM:
  an implanted Goals-Problem-Mass; an electronic means of overwhelming a
thetan with a significance using the mechanics of the actual pattern of
living to entrap the thetan and force obedience to behavior patterns.
  Insh'allah:
  (Arabic) If it should please God, or If God will. It is a very common
expression among Moslems, indicating a dependence on divine will.
  item:
  any one of a list of things, people, ideas, significances, purposes,
etc., given by a preclear to an auditor while listing; any separate
thing or article, in particular, one placed on a list by a pc.
  jerry-rig-built:
  built cheaply and flimsily.
  jolly:
  (British informal) extremely; very: He'll jolly well do as he's told.
  Kennedy:
  John Fitzgerald Kennedy (1917 - 63), president of the US from 1961 to
1963. His presidency ended with his assassination on 22 November 1963.
  Keplin-Spreplin law:
  a made-up name for a "scientific" law.
  Khrushchev:
  Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev (1894 - 1971), Soviet leader; first
secretary of the Communist Party (1953 - 64); premier of Soviet Union
(1958 - 64).
  King of the Wood:
  see Frazer's Golden Bough in this glossary.
  kismet:
  fate; destiny.
  knockdown-drag-out:
  (US slang) characterized by great violence, especially hand-to-hand;
rough; violent; raging.
  knuckleheaded:
  stupid.
  L4:
  List 4; in 1963, a list of possible sources of bypassed charge in
running GPMs and all goals sessions. It has since been revised for the
repair of all Listing and Nulling errors, and now has the designation of
L4BRB (the letters "B" and "RB" indicate revisions made to the list).
  L6:
  List 6; at the time of the lecture, the list for handling bypassed
charge or ARC breaks in running Routine 6. See also R6 in this glossary.
  lackadaisical:
  without interest, vigor or determination; listless; lethargic.
  last legs, on one's:
  about to fail, collapse, die, etc.; at the end of one's resources.
  lays the most eggs:
  fails the most. From lay an egg, a slang phrase meaning "fail utterly;
flop."
  like mad:
  furiously; very hard, fast, etc.
  Lincoln:
  Abraham Lincoln (1809 - 65), president of the United States during the
American Civil War. He was assassinated several days after the surrender
of the Confederate states. See also Civil War and Confederacy in this
glossary.
  listing:
  a special procedure used in some processes where the auditor writes
down items said by the preclear in response to a question by the auditor
in the exact sequence that they are given to him by the preclear.
  logique:
  (French) logic.
  longbow, drawing a:
  exaggerating. A longbow is a large bow drawn by hand, as that used by
English archers from the 12th to the 16th centuries. It is said that a
good archer could hit between the fingers of a man's hand at a
considerable distance, and could propel his arrow a mile. The tales
told about longbow exploits fully justify the application of the phrase.
  long haul:
  (slang) a long and arduous period.
  look-a-here:
  an everyday-speech expression meaning simply "look here."
  loop, thrown for a:
  (slang) thrown into a state of confusion or shock.
  Los Angeles:
  a city in southern California, sprawling over nearly 500 square miles.
Los Angeles suffers from serious smog pollution created by industry and
large numbers of automobiles.
  L-ring:
  (physics) the second shell of electrons surrounding the nucleus of an
atom and containing, when filled, eight electrons. The inner four rings
or shells of an electron are called the K-shell, L-shell, M-shell and
N-shell.
  lumbosis:
  made-up name for a disease, coined by LRH and used humorously in many
of his lectures and writings.
  main chance:
  (figurative) the venture or course of action from which most is
hoped; the likeliest course to obtain success.
  Marcab:
  the Marcab Confederacy, various planets united into a very vast
civilization which has come forward up through the last 200,000 years,
formed out of the fragments of earlier civilizations. In the last 10,000
years they have gone on with a sort of decadent kicked-in-the-head
civilization that contains automobiles, business suits, fedora hats,
telephones, spaceships - a civilization which looks almost an exact
duplicate but is worse off than the current US civilization.
  mass:
  a quantity of matter forming a body of indefinite shape and size,
usually of relatively large size. On a thought level, mental mass is
actual mass; it has weight (though very small) as well as size and
shape.
  Mccoy:
  the genuine article; the person or thing as represented. From the
phrase the real McCoy, which originated in Scotland as the real Mackay
and referred to people and things of the highest quality, and in
particular to a brand of whiskey. Later, in America, the phrase was used
in reference to an outstanding boxer by the name of McCoy, retaining its
basic meaning of "the real thing."
  Milky Way:
  (astronomy) the spiral galaxy containing our solar system. With the
naked eye it is observed as a faint luminous band stretching across the
heavens, composed of innumerable stars, most of which are too distant to
be seen individually.
  middle rudiments:
  a package of rudiments questions, asked one after the other, which
handle suppressions, invalidations, missed withholds and
"careful of," etc. This type of rudiments was first used mid-session to
inquire about various rudiments during a session and so the term middle
rudiments came to be applied to these rudiments used at any point in a
session.
  MIT:
  Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a leading technical school of
university level, with schools of architecture, engineering and science.
It is located in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
  monkey business:
  frivolous or mischievous behavior.
  ne plus ultra:
  the utmost limit. (From the Latin no more beyond.)
  Niagara:
  Niagara Falls, a set of waterfalls, partly in Canada and partly in the
United States, on the Niagara River. The river is nearly a mile across
at the falls and flows approximately 15 million cubic feet of water per
minute over straight drops ranging from 158 to 167 feet. At times
individuals have gone over the falls in a barrel, though few have
survived the ordeal. The first successful attempt was made in 1901 by a
43-year-old woman, witnessed by thousands of spectators.
  nix:
  (slang) refuse; deny.
  oddball:
  (slang) strange or unconventional.
  Orion:
  (astronomy) an equatorial constellation near Taurus, containing the
bright stars Rigel and Betelgeuse.
  Orson Welles's broadcast:
  a radio dramatization by Orson Welles (in 1938) of H.G. Wells's War of
the Worlds. It was done in the form of a newscast and caused a panic
when people thought that the Martians had actually invaded the Earth.
  overlisting:
  in listing for an item, the action of an auditor going on past the
point where the pc gave the right item. See also listing and item in
this glossary.
  overwhumped:
  a coined word for being extremely overwhelmed.
  Pan American:
  a large international airline.
  paws:
  (slang) the hands.
  pernt:
  point said with a New York accent.
  peseta, you can bet your bottom peseta:
  variation on bet your bottom dollar, meaning "to be absolutely
assured; count on it." The peseta is the monetary unit and a coin of
Spain.
  Peter:
  the name of a staff member at Saint Hill at the time of the lecture.
  Phoenicia:
  an ancient region in the eastern Mediterranean Sea famous for its
far-reaching trade.
  pieces, gone to:
  lost (his, her or its) strength, ability, etc.; collapsing.
  Pillars of Hercules:
  the opposite rocks at the entrance to the Mediterranean Sea, one in
Spain (the Rock of Gibraltar) and one in Africa (Mount
Hacho). The tale is that they were bound together until Hercules tore
them asunder in order to get to Gades (now Cadiz, Spain).
  pipsqueak:
  small or insignificant. Often used contemptuously.
  pitching, in there:
  (slang) putting forth one's best efforts; working hard,
busily or steadily.
  pole trap:
  see theta pole in this glossary.
  police blotter:
  a record of arrests and charges. A blotter is a book for recording
events as they occur.
  police court:
  a court for settling minor charges brought by the police. It has the
power to hold people charged with serious offenses for trial in higher
courts.
  Prehav Scale:
  Prehavingness Scale, a scale giving degrees of doingness or not
doingness. It was developed for use in certain auditing procedures to
find charged areas to run and contains items such as "withdraw,"
"desire," "waste," "wait," etc. Before one attained havingness he ran a
"before havingness" process, hence "pre (before) have." When the full
scale was achieved he could have. For further information see
Scientology 0-8: The Book of Basics.
  Problems Intensive:
  a procedure wherein the auditor gets from the pc self-determined
changes he has made in his life (such as deciding to move, get a
different job, etc.), locates the prior confusion to the change by
asking the pc for it and cleans the area up using a specific auditing
procedure.
  Quito, Ecuador:
  a city in and the capital of Ecuador, in the northern part.
  R2H:
  Routine 2-H, a very precise procedure developed in 1963 for disposing
of ARC breaks. The full procedure of Routine 2-H may be found in HCOB 25
June 1963 in the Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology.
  R6:
  Routine 6, a clearing process addressing GPMs which was taught at
Level VI on the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course at the time of the
lecture. See also GPM in this glossary.
  racket:
  an easy or profitable source of livelihood.
  rails, off the:
  in a disorganized or confused state.
  reamed out:
  (slang) rebuked harshly.
  red herring:
  something intended to divert attention from the real problem or matter
at hand; a misleading clue. Red herring is herring that has been cured
by smoke, a process that changes the color of the flesh to a reddish
hue. Its persistent odor is very useful, if trailed over the ground, for
training a dog to follow a scent. But a dog which gets a good whiff of
red herring will lose any other scent that it has been following.
Criminals who have been chased by bloodhounds have used this knowledge
to advantage. Thus the expression to drag a red herring over the trail
and similar expressions are used to refer to anything which misleads one
or causes one to lose the trail.
  RI:
  abbreviation for reliable item, in GPM auditing procedures, a rock
slamming item obtained from a list, which could then be used to obtain
further items. A reliable item is a black mass with a significance in it
which is dominated by a goal and which is part of a GPM. Called a
"reliable item" because it has been proven out as an actual GPM item.
  ribbons, chop to:
  insult or disparage thoroughly.
  RI oppose list:
  in GPM auditing procedures, a list to find the item which opposed a
reliable item (RI). Given the reliable item "catfish," the listing
question would be "Who or what would a catfish oppose?" or "Who or what
would oppose catfish?" This list would result in another reliable item.
See also RI and source list in this glossary.
  Rodin:
  Auguste Rodin (1840 - 1917), French sculptor. The Thinker is his best
known work.
  Routine 3:
  (1961) a procedure consisting of assessment and running on SOP Goals,
giving a Joburg Security Check and use of the pc's Havingness and
Confront processes. For further information see HCOB 5 June 1961 in the
Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology. See also SOP Goals in
this glossary.
  salt:
  (informal) a sailor, especially an old or experienced one.
  savants:
  learned scholars; wise men.
  Seattle:
  a major city and seaport in west-central Washington state, in the
United States.
  Sec Check 6:
  HCO Worldwide Security Form 6, an HGC auditor's Sec Check. The modern
version of this form is HCO PL 7 July 1961R, Confessional Form 3R.
  Sec Check 3:
  HCO PL 22 May 1961, HCO Security Form 3, entitled "The Only Valid
Security Check," which laid down the policy that a Security Check for
any organizational reason must be done from an HCO WW form and no other
is valid. It also gave further tech on Security Checks and contains,
itself, an extensive list of Sec Check questions. The last two pages of
the original mimeo issue of this policy letter deal specifically with
overts against Scientology organizations, Scientologists and Scientology
principals; in the lecture LRH refers to these as "the last two pages of
Sec 3."
  Sec 3, last two pages:
  see Sec Check 3 in this glossary.
  second postulate:
  know. For the full theory on the Four Postulates, see Professional
Auditor's Bulletin 66 in the Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and
Scientology.
  seven-league-boot stride:
  a step taken in seven-league boots, fairy tale boots enabling the
wearer to reach seven leagues (about 21 miles or 34 kilometers, a league
being approximately 3 miles or 4.8 km) at a stride.
Figuratively, a seven-league-boot stride is significant forward
progress.
  shadow:
  follow after, especially in secret; trail.
  shake a stick at:
  (US informal) take notice of.
  shellacking:
  (slang) an utter defeat.
  show on the road, get the:
  get (an organization, plan, etc.) into active operation; put (a plan,
idea, etc.) into effect.
  "since" BMRs:
  big middle rudiments questions which begin with "Since the last time I
audited you ..." or a similar phrase. Example: "Since the last time I
audited you, is there anything you have been careful of?" See also
middle rudiments and BMRs in this glossary.
  skip men:
  (informal) also called skip tracers, investigators whose job it is to
locate persons who run off without paying their bills, debts, etc.
sneeresque:
  a coined word from sneer (a look or words expressing scorn or
contempt) and -esque (a suffix indicating style, manner or distinctive
character).
  sooth:
  (archaic) truth, reality or fact.
  SOP Goals:
  Standard Operating Procedure Goals, a procedure developed by L. Ron
Hubbard in early 1961 for processing goals using the Prehavingness
Scale. See Prehav Scale in this glossary.
  sotto voce:
  in a low, soft voice so as not to be overheard. In Italian the
expression literally means "under (the) voice."
  source list:
  the initial list in certain GPM auditing procedures (after finding the
pc's goal), listed from a question that asks what that goal would oppose
and yielding the first reliable item (RI). Also called a goal-oppose
list. See also RI oppose list in this glossary.
  south:
  in or into poor condition.
  space opera:
  time periods with space travel, spaceships, spacemen, intergalactic
travel, wars, conflicts, other beings, civilizations and societies, and
other planets and galaxies. Space opera is not fiction and concerns
actual incidents and things that occur and have occurred on the track.
  spake:
  (archaic) spoke.
  spate:
  a sudden flood, rush or outpouring.
  spring fever:
  the laziness or restlessness that many people feel during the first
warm, sunny days of spring.
  stack of Bibles a mile high:
  an allusion to the tradition of placing one's hand on a Bible while
making a solemn oath, as a symbol of the truth or bindingness of what
one says. "To swear on a stack of Bibles" is a common phrase, sometimes
used ironically, meaning to affirm with absolute confidence and
considerable vehemence.
  starry-eyed:
  with eyes sparkling in a glow of wonder, romance, visionary dreams,
etc.
  sticky-plaster:
  same as sticking plaster, adhesive material for covering a slight
wound, usually a thin cloth gummed on one side. Used figuratively to
mean a temporary or superficial remedy for a serious or complex problem.
  Suzie:
  Mary Sue Hubbard, wife of L. Ron Hubbard.
  Switzerland pine tree:
  (usually called simply Swiss pine) a tall pine having dark green
leaves in bundles of five, short spreading branches and cones.
  taped:
  for certain; under control.
  telegraph:
  (colloquial) signal (an intended action, decision, etc.)
unintentionally to another, as by gesture or look.
  Temple of Black Magic:
  a made-up name for an occult practice or group.
  terminal:
  an item or identity the pc has actually been sometime in the past (or
present). It is "the pc's own valence" at that time. In the
Goals-Problem-Mass, those identities which, when contacted, produce
pain, tell us at once that they are terminals. The person could feel
pain only as himself (thetan plus body) and therefore identities he has
been produce pain when their mental residues (black masses) are
recontacted in processing. See also GPM in this glossary.
  theta pole:
  a type of theta trap made up of a piece of metal or other material
which, when a thetan begins to push against it, absorbs his energy and
pulls him in harder. The really effective ones have no energy of their
own at all but only use the energy of the thetan himself. The more he
pushes, the more he is stuck to the trap, because it is on his
wavelength, it's his energy. He could postulate himself off of the trap,
but this thetan has lost the power to postulate and thinks the smart
thing to do is to push the trap away from him. It is not unusual for a
thetan to spend 18 to 20 thousand years on one of these traps.
  Thinker, The:
  a bronze statue by Auguste Rodin. The seated subject is supporting his
chin on his wrist and his arm on his knee.
  third postulate:
  forget. For the full theory on the Four Postulates, see Professional
Auditor's Bulletin 66 in the Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and
Scientology.
  3M:
  Routine 3M (1963), a procedure for auditing the pc's own goals.
  tibiosis of the filamoriasis:
  a made-up name for a disease.
  toss-off:
  (slang) done easily and casually.
  trillions-two:
  a period of the time track trillions of trillions of years ago.
Trillions-three = trillions of trillions of trillions; trillions-four =
trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions; etc.
  20-millimeter machine gun:
  a machine gun having a bore (inside-barrel
diameter) of twenty millimeters.
  twenty-minute test:
  a test for the flatness of a process, based upon a quarter of a tone
arm division motion or less for a period of twenty minutes.
  22s:
  refers to American M22 light tanks used in World War II. M is a
designation used in the numbers for tanks.
  2-12:
  Routine 2-12, a process which was simply an effort to locate one of
the GPM items that seemed to be in present time to the pc. It was an
effort to locate that item in present time and find its opposition.
  vignette:
  a short verbal description.
  voltage:
  a measure of the electrical "pressure" with which current flows
through a wire. Used figuratively in the lecture.
  Voltaire:
  assumed name of Frangois Marie Arouet (1694 - 1778), French author and
philosopher who believed in freedom of thought and respect for all men,
and who spoke out against intolerance, tyranny and superstition.
  Wehrmacht.
  (German, literally "defense force") the armed forces of Germany,
particularly of Nazi Germany.
  We Spy For You Detective Company:
  made-up name for a private detective company.
  Wichita:
  a city in Kansas which was the location of the Hubbard Dianetics
Foundation in 1951 and 1952.
  winds of space:
  a feeling of being blown upon, especially from in front of the face.
  witch doctor:
  (in some primitive societies) a man who attempts to cure sickness and
to exorcise (expel) evil spirits by the use of magic.
  wrapped around a telegraph pole:
  (slang) refers to the pc who has been so poorly audited that
"auditing" has created a charged-up condition on the case or the
individual is so restimulated in his environment that the same condition
occurs. In both cases the charge which has been restimulated causes the
person to get wrapped up in his case, resulting in severe upset and
dispersal. Taken from the US West where a tangled-up man in a confused
condition was likened to a person, horse or cow who had run into a
telegraph pole and gotten wrapped around it. It infers the situation or
person needs to be untangled and straightened out.
***
  [The end]
***