And this is the second lecture. What’s the date?

Audience: 19 March, 12.

Nineteen Mar. 12. And the first lecture that was not dated there was „The Bad Auditor.“ And this lecture has to do with the mechanics of suppression.

The – that clock up there is two-and-a-half minutes slow. Beg your pardon. Five minutes slow. Shows you. I go away two weeks you lose five minutes worth of time just like that. Five invaluable minutes. Now, you can think back down your time track when five minutes would have been a long time. Just before you ran into the brick wall. Another five minutes. Wouldn’t that have been marvelous? [laughter]

Now, for a long time you’ve had a lot of Axioms. You may have heard of them. And they actually contain the basic data on suppressors. The Axioms, of course, are way ahead of us. Always have been. Trying to get technology to catch up with the Axioms is one of my tougher jobs.

Well, tonight we have a subject which I must approach with considerable diplomacy. A subject which, however, means much more to you than you would at first glance recognize and one which if you’re ever going to train anybody, you had better know pretty well. It took me quite a while to work this out. I sniffed around the edges of it and finally hit it right on the button. The bad “auditor.”

But the suppressor is already forecast in the Axioms under the heading of not-is. And it is simply not-isness and what is not-isness. And I for a long time have played with not-isness from various angles and you get a simple statement there in the Axioms – simpler than I’m making now, actually.

You notice the bad “auditor,” the auditor is in quotes. Because there is no such thing as a bad “auditor” the auditor is not in quotes. Do you see? But frankly, before I go any further, do not expect me to do a condemnatory dissertation and spit my teeth out on the subject of how bad a bad “auditor” is. Because I’m not going to.

And that is you get the isness of something, you get the alter-isness of something and you get the not-isness of something. And a not-isness is, peculiarly enough, a suppressed isness and that is all it is.

Frankly, people who have this combination wrong with them deserve an enormous tribute for auditing at all. It must drive them straight up the wall.

And if you redefined not-isness as a suppressed isness: it is the effort to put out of existence energywise an isness. It is an effort to suppress an isness. Elephant is standing on the front steps, we say, „Well, elephants don’t belong on the front steps, so there is no elephant on the front steps.“

Now, this is based on HCOB of 8 March, supplemented 15 March 1962, AD 12. I notice these are two different time strata. It’s HCOB of 8 March 1962 and HCOB of March 15th, AD 12. And so there are two entirely different time tracks.

Now, whenever you find that running out lies out of a bank – has enormous numbers of applications and there are tremendous numbers of ways you can apply these particular Axioms – when you run lies out of a bank, you, of course, are running alter-isnesses or not-isnesses.

Now, I am not at any time ever going to be found in a situation where I am ranting and roaring about how bad auditors are. This is not true. I have enormous confidence in auditors. And I always feel when an auditor is not able to make the grade with a pc that it is I who am at fault, not the auditor. Because the willingness and good heartedness of auditors has been proven to me time and time and time again over a long period of time.

Now, a lie could simply say it was something else, that it’s a child’s toy on the front steps – it’s a live elephant, you see – we could say, „Well, it’s a toy. It’s an advertisement,“ you see? „It’s something made out of rubber so they’re advertising something.“ Or we could say, „It doesn’t exist,“ you see? And you’d get a lie actually covers an alter-isness and a not-isness.

The difficulties which people have in learning to audit are two-fold. One is technology, adequacy of – that comes under the heading – and two, my lack of experience with their troubles in auditing. Now, those are the first and foremost difficulties with auditing. As soon as I find what you don’t understand or I found out that you don’t understand it, under the second heading, I can pretty well be counted on to remedy it rapidly because I only have my auditing to judge by until I observe somebody else having trouble auditing.

Now, alter-isness is change. And it sits between an isness and a suppression. And therefore, we’re getting nicely tied up with time here because time is basically, only mechanically so, but is change. Time is change.

Most of the modifications which you have gotten throughout 1961 and thus far into ‘62 have been modifications which have come directly out of part two of which I just gave you. They actually don’t come out of the first part – technology, adequacy of.

Now, a cycle of action does run from a nonexistence to an existence to a nonexistence. That is a cycle of action. And if you look over the time track, you’ll find that a cycle of action goes from: there’s nothing there; there’s a creation there; and then there’s changes in the creation; and then deterioration-type changes, but they’re nevertheless still changes; and then we finally get a nonexistence again. So we run from nonexistence to existence to nonexistence. And that is a cycle of action.

But now we have a piece of technology which gives us the key to an auditor’s having difficulty. So you see, we’ve got a number one boost in the first part I just mentioned to you – technology, adequacy of.

They are all types of creation and so on, as we know. We know a lot about this sort of thing. But let’s look and see how this directly applies. The first material we have on this is Science of Certainty. The Something-Nothing Process. Process in England. You know, they don’t work in England unless you call them processes.*Editor’s note: LRH here plays with the different ways to pronounce „process“ in England and in America.

Now, this technology, of course, pervasively speeds up cases and does a lot of things. Every time you get a new piece of technology, it of course speeds up all cases. That’s about the first thing you can expect of it.

And the cycle of action was never entered into this. We just talked about, „Think of something. Think of nothing. Think of something. Think of nothing.“ You know, that type of alternate, to get out the maybe. And that was under the heading of the „anatomy of maybe.“ A maybe, an uncertainty, a guess or as most people conceive unknowns, an unknown – that isn’t really what an unknown could be but it could be a mechanical variation of unknown – is simply the no-man’s-land between the certainty that something is and the certainty that something isn’t.

But this does more than that. This tells you why people make mistakes. And that is all there is to it. This tells you why people have difficulty learning and so on. This tells you an enormous number of odds and ends about human behavior. And therefore if I weren’t so interested in making you an excellent auditor, this would have come out under another heading entirely, advance, which it came out under March the 15th, you see. It wouldn’t have come out under the heading “The Bad ‘Auditor’.” It would have come out under the heading of “Suppressors.” But I wanted to call this to your attention and I was most interested in the fact that this does explain the diffidence and difficulty of an auditor.

So we have these two things. The certainty that something is and the certainty that something isn’t. And between those two things, we have the maybe. See, we have „It is,“ and then we have „It is… It is? Uh… it is. Uh… it isn’t.“ And we get the cycle of action.

And therefore, if you are ever a D of T, this data is absolutely priceless because this tells you why you’re going to have trouble with every student that you’re going to have trouble with.

So you can stack a cycle of action alongside of maybe. And you could say change is maybe. These are approximations, not exact things, you see?

This person that we’re talking about who becomes a bad “auditor” would, of course, have rather an exclusive corner on this aberration. In other words, you recognize that all aberration is, is a concentration on a single ability. For instance, the communist is crazy because he is totally concentrated on the third to the utter abandonment of the first. That makes him crazy, you see. I mean, his concentration is so enormous that he looks insane.

Now, it looks in the reactive mind, then, as though a cycle of action is a maybe – the middle of a cycle of action. So that all change is a maybe. And therefore, if anything’s changed, maybe it isn’t, you see? And you get all kinds of things.

Now, if you look this over, you’ll see, then, that a person who is utterly mad, as viewed from a psychiatric viewpoint, is describable as sane. Let’s look at this now. The psychiatrist collects madnesses and when he’s all through collecting all the madnesses, one sample of each madness in his spinbin – they call them hospitals; they don’t know better – when he’s got one sample of each, he then actually has a chart of sanity, you see? And that’s why the psychiatrist has never been able to understand sanity and that’s what he can’t understand. The psychiatrist can understand insanity, but he can’t understand sanity. And this is the main difficulty that the whole society has with the psychiatrist.

If we change techniques in Scientology, a lot of people don’t think Scientology exists. See? They say, „Well, he – Ron’s just changing his mind again.“

You know, he never has a sane conduct. He has insane conduct and to him the absence of insane conduct gives us sanity. But by that same definition, the only sane man would be a dead man because he’d have a total absence of insane conduct, with one exception – catatonia. And that would throw that out, too, you see?

Oh, Ron hasn’t changed his mind about this in a long time, see? But they never look at the certainties we have. They look at the middle, see? And we get something that’s very peculiar. We get a new process. And this is a process.

So the psychiatrist has nothing like sane conduct. He could not describe sane conduct. He has no observation of sane conduct. Therefore, any one of you or any citizen in the United States or England or France and particularly Russia, brought up in front of a psychiatrist to find out whether or not he is sane or insane, could be taken with any response to be insane by the psychiatrist. You see?

Now, to show you how difficult it is to immediately approximate this semantically so that it can be run by a mind, I’ll call attention to the fact that the Something-Nothing Process is quite limited in use. It has some value. It – you could do various things with it. And other types of processes all about not-is and so forth, had practically no use at all. There have been many of them. There have been processes about lies, processing lying and that sort of thing and their use put it off into the Step 6 phenomena – Creativeness. We started beefing up a bank and various other things have occurred by lying – the processing lies, you know?

And he said, “Well, do you eat?”

That wasn’t very successful. There’ve been a lot of efforts here. Only thing I’m trying to sketch out for you here is this has a long history and a lot of efforts involved with it.

“Oh,” the fellow said, “I eat. Oh, yes, I eat. I…”

Well, a lot of things come together at the same point, so we’ve been around the fringes of these things and a lot of people on the whole track have been around the fringes of us.

“Crazy, he eats.”

But the point I’m making here is I came across a process which is a runable process, which is a Class I process. You’re perfectly at liberty, by the way, to run this process on somebody. I don’t care whether you do or don’t. It isn’t an exactly tailored process yet. You probably have to fish for the wording of it. But actually the process is, simply: „It is. It isn’t. It is. It isn’t. It is. It isn’t. It is. It isn’t. It is. It isn’t. It is. It isn’t.“

“Well, you – you think this is right?”

After you’ve gotten the pc to do the „It is and it isn’t and it is and it isn’t“ for a little while, he’ll move on the time track, but he ordinarily will give you a direct application of this process to his case. And he’ll deliver up to you the chronic automaticity of his case or the chronic present time problem or the chronic something of his case almost at once. This is quite peculiar.

He says, “Well, have you ever eaten any strange objects? Or eaten anything odd? Or anything strange?”

What you’re doing, of course, is running the cycle of action on him. You’re running those two portions of the cycle of action which are important to him. And in view of the fact you have said, „It is“ followed by „It isn’t,“ you haven’t said whether it was vanishment or not-is. And hell always run it as a suppressor.

“Oh,” you say, “well, in the normal course of human events, I was out camping one time. We used to eat ants and dirt.”

So you’re running direct suppressors. And the thing which he is most closely and most immediately suppressing is the most likely to come into view. His hidden standard or the thing that immediately is wrong with him is liable to appear almost at once.

“Ah, well. You’ve had it.”

Now, of course, the thing he’s trying to make up his mind about stems from the fact that he at some time or another had said that it is and then he didn’t like that, so he has said that it isn’t. And this has left him in the maybe of whether or not it ever was or is or ever will be.

Now, of course, what he should ask and possibly even does, is whether or not the person exclusively eats ants and dirt. Now, this person eats nothing else but ants and dirt, you see, he’s perfectly insane. That’s for sure.

See, there is – you wouldn’t ever get anyplace processing a person this way: „Maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe.“ See, you would get no place processing this. „Get the idea of maybe. Maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe.“ A person will fog up, go out, go anaten, that sort of thing. Basically, there is no such thing as a maybe. See, there is only a creation and the conditions of the creation. Because even when a cycle of action has been run, it still stands there as a memory. The person remembered there had been.

You see that insanity is a nothing-else-than. That’s what insanity is. It’s a fantastic concentration on any sanity to the exclusion of all other sanities and then the fellow goes nuts. There’s no reason why you shouldn’t be able to eat ants and dirt. But if you never wanted to eat anything but ants and dirt and you felt you couldn’t ever digest anything but ants and dirt and you felt it’d kill you to eat anything else but ants and dirt and you never thought about anything else except eating ants and dirt and you never did anything but go find dirt and ants to eat, you’d be crazy.

See, he got married, got divorced. He actually doesn’t get a nonexistence again. He gets a remembrance of having been married. And more deeply in the bank, he gets a recording of having been married. I don’t care at what fabulously far-away time it was in time, he’ll have a slight inkling of it.

Do you see that it’s the degree? Now, that’s why you, time to time, have thought you were crazy. You see, because all sanity has its lower harmonic, its mockery. Every sane impulse, every sane action has its lower harmonic and mockery. It’s intensity of and to the exclusion of anything else that makes something that is pretty nutty. Do you see?

In other words, so you don’t get – ever get a pure nonexistence after you get any existence, see? The only pure nonexistence is prior to the existence.

We would not consider a person mad for drawing squares on walls, but now we get a person who does nothing but draw squares on walls and doesn’t do anything else but draw squares on walls and doesn’t want to do anything else except draw squares on walls and couldn’t draw anything else on walls except squares and must fill up all possible walls with squares; we don’t get an architect, we get a nut. [laughter] You see, it’s to the exclusion of other things.

So you get a positive assertion of is-ness followed by a positive assertion of it isn’t, you will inevitably get memories and cognitions and various other mental phenomena will occur. And oddly enough, this fantastically simple process – “It is. It isn’t. It is. It isn’t. It is. It isn’t. It is. It isn’t“ – will produce practically every other phenomenon in Scientology. It stems out of existence and nonexistence, which of course stems out of perception and don’t want to perceive – which, of course, goes over into creativeness and destruction. And all the time you’re jumping across wild bands of change.

And so, with that small preamble, you must view this subject of the bad “auditor” as one of degree. Now, you are often leery of your own sanity, as I started to say a minute ago, only because if you ever read a full catalog of insanities, you would find you in it repeated several times. You see?

So you’re getting the certainty that it is and the certainty that it isn’t and the certainty that it is and the certainty that it isn’t; and all of a sudden you get all this change boiling up and boiling over. Because, of course, change is simply the different conditions of an existence leading to a nonexistence or a new condition of positiveness.

“Insane patients do…” And then we just list a whole bunch of things, you see? And then you look down this list of things and you say, “Huh, wait a minute, I do that. Huh, well, wait a minute, I do that. Huh, I do…” [laughter]

The uncertainty of the case blows off. Now, the fellow with the open mind, the fellow who doesn’t know, the fellow who isn’t sure, the fellow who just grinds and never gets a cognition, this fellow who can’t find out, the fellow who has no memory of the whole track, the fellow who just doesn’t ever recognize that maybe it – “Well, I can say that it does and I can say, yes, I suppose I could assume. Uh-huh, maybe, uh, well, yes…“ and all of his conversation is like this. You ever read any scientific papers of the last twenty or thirty years, you know?

That puts you on a beautiful withhold because you go out in the society, you don’t tell everybody you think you’re nuts, you see? Inevitable.

„If the universe exists…“ They don’t want to get stuck with any isnesses. See, they don’t want to be guilty of any isnesses.

This is one of the most generalized mechanisms you could imagine. The person – what does he do? All of these various things. An insane person, you see and what does he do, you see?

„I was sitting in front of the meter, of course. I was sitting in a Mark VI type chair using hung-over type lamps. And the reflective qualities on the screen were X970 and I uh-uh-uh-believe that I perceived uh-uh – apparently, uh – as the needle registered – uh – that is, if the machine were on, which would have to be verified by the machine operator – uh – that uh – if I uh – recall properly, uh – and if I am not controverted by the faculty or my immediate superior, there were 230 volts on the mains that day, I think.“

And actually, if you listed all insane things that all insane people did, all you would do – you know, without any degree of it mentioned – you’d just get a sane person, that’s all. You’re liable to do any of these things, see? There’s no accounting for what people will do. It isn’t even in an unguarded moment. They will do some of the wildest things, but if they don’t do anything else, that’s what makes it insane, see? I’m sure maybe sooner or later, you have had an impulse to join the army or something like that. Well, it’d just be degree of how you join the army. And of course, if you joined a new army every week, we would get it up to a highly insane level.

That is a forthright, scientific statement. That’s just about as flat out as a scientist these days could get without being shot by his brethren.

But you, reading this list of what insane people do – this has “impulse to join an army.” And you’ve had an impulse to join an army, so you classify yourself, you see? And similarly, every auditor reading this bulletin, “The Bad ‘Auditor’” – let me say this: Every auditor except those who should have thought this – said to himself, “That’s me. That’s me.” He wasn’t even grammatical about it. Just that was it. We had him labeled now.

Most of the boys get upset about me in the field of science is because I will say something is or something isn’t. And I don’t qualify it. I don’t say, „Well, if the faculty gives me permission,“ you see, or something like that, „then I could guess that maybe adjectival clause modifying paragraph B. that adverbial phrase modifying verb G. might finally turn out to be a guess,“ you see? And in view of the fact that I don’t talk that way, they think I’m unscientific. You have to be doubtful to be scientific.

That wasn’t true. That wasn’t true. Everybody’s got a little bit of this. Well, the last time you saw a buzz saw buzzing and didn’t put your finger in it is easily explained. You didn’t want to see your finger lying on the floor, no longer attached to your hand, you see? Well, that’s perfectly rational and understandable.

Well, it sure hangs these guys in an awful muddled mess, doesn’t it? Now, the very funny part of it is you could take that exact frame of mind and have the boys say, „It is and it isn’t and it is and it isn’t. Get the concept that it is. Get the concept that it isn’t.“

Therefore, you would say to yourself, “Well, I must be trying to suppress things if I don’t want to see my finger cut off lying on the floor.”

Fellow says, „Get the concept of what was? What?“

Well, nobody does want to see his finger cut off and lying on the floor, at least until he can mock up a new finger in exactly the same place with the same mobility as his old hook. A little bit easier in space opera. You go down to the tin shop and they bang you out a new finger. But… That is if you’ve got pull with the commanding officer of the armorer or somebody, you can always get a new finger.

You say, „Well, just it. It. Anything. It. It. It.“

But these humanoid bodies are triggered to live only once. The philosophy of “live only once” the philosophy of “when you are dead, oh, boy, are you dead” gives you a superprotect, a superpreserve, a supersurvive computation with regard to the body and you get so that you mind losing fingers in buzz saws. And so you don’t want to find your finger on the floor, so you tend to suppress actions which would lead to finding your finger on the floor.

„Uh… I don’t know what you mean by that,“ you see?

Well, that doesn’t mean that you classify under this heading. Anybody could run any of these processes and lines with a considerable benefit. Anybody could run any of them, see? And they’d get something out of it. Don’t worry. But the case we’re talking about starts running this thing – and this isn’t even the worst case – and they start running this thing and they say, “Agggghhhhh!”

He might have quite an argument on this other. It’d be very laughable because, of course, he is trying to get the idea that it is and he runs into the maybe, see and he can’t get a clean idea that is, see? Nor can he get a clean idea that it isn’t.

And you say, “Give me another one.”

You’d have to actually rehabilitate him into being able to get a clean idea that something was and something wasn’t. You watch. The boys in charge of the A-bombs and the stuff we breathe right at the present moment*Editor’s note: This refers probably to the fact that at the time of the lecture there was a lot of radioactivity in the atmosphere due to the testing of nuclear weapons. are mostly in that frame of mind.

“Agggghhhhh! Oh, no, no.”

You know, the H-bomb marchers missed their bet, you know? They miss their bet all the time. If they wanted really to wipe out the H-bomb, they wouldn’t worry about that. They’d just insist that all the atomic scientists and politicians that had anything to do with the H-bomb produce proper sanity certificates so that they could be – and that they should be examined by psychiatrists and so forth. They’d drive everybody batty.

And you say, “Well, give me another one.”

But the funny part of it is none of these guys could pass, see? Because „It may be all right to drop it, maybe, see, but it might not be all right, but that’s neither here nor there. That doesn’t have anything to do with us.“ To even that they add irresponsibility, you see? They all stand in this middle ground. It’s the no-responsibility attitude.

“Agghhh. Oh, no, no. No thank you. Mmmm.”

So you’d have a hard time on that type of case. That’s very low scale as a case. You’d have a hard time getting that person to get positive idea of something was and something wasn’t. And they could get no such clean-cut idea. They’d get „Something was, I guess,“ and „Something wasn’t, rrrrrrr, perhaps.“

And you say, “What’s the matter?”

So they’re always on the verge of having something being revealed suddenly. And it would scare them to death. They make very bad auditors. They in fact won’t talk to you about auditing anybody. They’d much rather jump out of their scientific boots and instantly and immediately hold forth with Pope Pius, who said that nobody should monkey with the human mind. I think that’s a direct quote. „Nobody should monkey with the human mind.“ „You or I would not want somebody coming into his basement.“ I think that was a direct quote. I think it was. It’s a papal bull. „And therefore, you shouldn’t want to have somebody come into your mind.“ That’s right. „In view of the fact that we got withholds, we don’t want to be invaded.“

“Oh, I don’t know. My God.”

Now, there’s a frame of mind that is always on the idea of revelations. Only their revelations, let me call to your attention, are delusory revelations. Tremendous numbers of angels are going to sing on heads of pins, you see? You’re suddenly going to get a vision of some holy messiah holding his head in a saucer or something of the sort, standing in front of him.

“Well, what’s happening?”

You’re going to get a word which is going to come down from a shaft of light through the heavens, you see, and suddenly all is going to be well; only the shaft comes over the left shoulder. You get terrific superstition. You get all types of religious revelations.

“Well, my whole spine just turns into total, solid pain. Let’s not think about it anymore, huh?”

So you get scientific revelations. Well, of course, our current scientific revelation is so out of control that it takes the form of an H-bomb. Now, that’s a revelation. Boom! And of course, nobody can face that much revelation, so they say, „well, it doesn’t exist.“ So people keep calling attention to the H-bomb, the H-bomb, the H-bomb, the H-bomb, the H-bomb, the H.

You ask them a question and you get, “Oh, no!” And then they finally give you one, see?

Nobody can look at this H-bomb, see? What they got to do is call attention to the fellow who pushes the button, the fellow who pushes the button, the fellow who pushes the button, the fellow who pushes the button. Ha-ha-ha-ha. People would look at him.

That’s the case I’m talking about. You see, that’s the reaction we’re talking about. Not, “Ugghh. Hey, what do you know? Ooomp, you know. Ooomp. Haw. My stomach feels funny. Urp.”

And you say, „Well, we want to see a psychiatric investigation of all the fellows who are going to push the button.“

“All right. Here’s another one.”

Immediately, the whole public is liable to get very interested, see? Because they can face the guy who’s going to push the button and they can face a button, but they can’t face the bomb.

“Oh-oh. There went a bullet.”

So you see, the H-bomb marchers are trying to get too much revelation for the public to assimilate. So all they got to do is cut back the revelation. Very simple mechanism. Cut back the revelation, to ping, ping, see?

See, we’re not talking about that reaction. We’re talking about, “Oh, no, my God, please. Not another one. Oh, no.”

Now, you do that with Scientology. You say, „Well, we make the Clear, we do this and do that and you get healthy and all that sort of thing. And it’s terrific and you get more intelligent,“ and so forth and it’s just too much revelation.

You know, I audited a guy through a terror charge one time. He was lying on a couch. Tell you how I got that terror charge off of him one time. It might – it might amuse you. You might find somebody sitting on a terror charge and you might want to try this. I told him to, “Go to the beginning of track and scan all the way forward to present time. Thank you. Go to the beginning of track. Scan all the way forward to present time. Thank you. Beginning of track. Scan all the way forward to present time.” Take him four or five minutes each time to come the whole track, see.

Now, if you said to the fellow, you know, „Have you got an ache or pain?“

Of course, I was sticking him in the engram necessary to resolve the case. That’s all. That’s the only reason you do that. You’re not trying to erase track. You just erase the illusion of moving on the track because the guy’s been stuck in this particular engram for a very long time. And after about the third or fourth one of this, the terror charge turned on and he was lying on the couch. And I am not kidding you. The couch was perfectly even and its legs sat perfectly on the floor and there was nothing uneven about this floor. And the person started vibrating. He was shaking with such terror and such violence that the couch was picking up and banging against the floor. I’ve never seen this happen before. I watched it with some amazement. I told him that was very well done. [laughter]

The fellow says, „Well, yeah, as a matter of fact I got a bad pain in the back of my neck – back of my neck, back of my neck.“

And found him in an incident that he’d been sitting in since mmm, whereby he and his friend were out on scout and they got captured by the other tribe and he watched his friend spitted on a stake alive and broiled to be eaten. And then he went mad and they threw him over the cliff. They didn’t eat him. And he had been stuck in that thing ever since. It isn’t even much of an incident as incidents on the whole track go, see? Boy, he really must have been – what we know now about him is, man, man, he must have really served it out of the deep-freeze every day: human steak, you know?

Well, you say, „Well, Scientology would take quite a while to help that.“

But he actually was in such a terror charge that that whole couch just beat against the floor at some low, droning note. Well, it was beating up and down just about an inch and a quarter, something like that. Just banging! I thought the whole couch was going to shatter. I ran him through it. I just sat there and ran him through it from beginning to end, having stuck him in it with scanning, you see?

„Say, it must be pretty true.“

“What’s going on?” Ran the thing out. He was sure never the same again. It took a tremendous terror charge off of him.

Then you could do this weird stunt with him, see? You could say, „Well, I’ll show you. I’ll just show you. Now, get the idea there’s pain there. Good. Get the idea there’s no pain there. Good. Get the idea there’s a pain there. Good. Get the idea there’s no pain… „

Well now, if a person can contain this much terror on the whole track in a single incident, imagine – because that must have been free track or I would never have discovered the incident, you see – the amount of charge that’s possibly there in a valence which is dictating terror, you see and which is all composited on terror and that sort of thing, which is terrified of anything appearing anyplace.

„Ow!“

Well, now what is the exact action of a person who is terrified? It isn’t just terror that this is in, but terror is a very good one to describe it with. Terror is as the result of something having appeared engramically and then later on threatening to appear again. Remember that a secondary or emotional charge can only exist later on the track than a physically painful incident – technology of 19 – late 1951, early 1951.

You’d say, „There, you see? That’s Scientology.“

The only way you can ever get a grief charge or a terror charge or an anger charge or something like that is after the fact of physical pain. If you trace this back – if you find a loss of an ally. Let’s say you find this girl and her father’s dead. And you run off the death of the father. And you’re bleeding tears off the death of the father and that’s fine and you run this thing out and it looks like it’s disappearing and so forth: do you know that you can ask them a question which drops them immediately into the similar engram which lies below that terror charge, see? You’ll find that there’s some similar physical pain engram, overt or motivator, which lies immediately and directly below that grief charge that the person is experiencing.

The fellow says, „You just about blew my silly head off! That’s Scientology?“

In other words, a person cannot, actually cannot experience a misemotional charge independent of having received physical pain.

Well, you could say – you could say, „Well, can – is the pain still there?“

In other words, your emotion is always lighter and is always secondary to actual physical contact and pain. That’s why it’s called a secondary. That’s where the word came from.

„No, as a matter of fact, it isn’t.“

So you – one day you’re riding in the car. You’re nine years old, you’re riding in the car, the old man has had a few snifters too many and he goes off the edge of the road and you bung your shins up and you feel bad about the whole thing – physically. You’re not hurt seriously.

„Well, there you are. No pain? Scientology.“

You’re twenty-eight years of age and you read in the newspaper how a little child has been killed in an automobile accident and you feel very sad. The very funny part about it is you wouldn’t feel sad if you yourself hadn’t had some pain connected with a similar incident. Do you see?

„No pain; Scientology. There was a hell of a pain there a minute ago.“

The way to knock out all secondaries, of course, is to get at the engrams and run them out and the secondaries pour off like mad. But sometimes the secondaries lock up an engram, so if you don’t get the emotional charge off, you can’t get at the engram. And that’s very important. And a lot of auditors have noticed this. Before they got off a grief charge or six or eight or ten or fear charges or anger charges or something like that, they never did find the lower incident. But after that they found that after they’d run this grief charge or something like that off…

Nevertheless he could confront it because it’s slightly on. Did you ever stop to think about that?

And you realize any misemotional charge compares with a grief charge. You can run off terror, you can run off fear, you can actually run boredom off, you can run apathy, any of these things as well as grief. I don’t know why the psychoanalyst only found grief as his tone scale. His tone scale consisted of just two things: apathy and grief. That’s as far as he ever got up off the launching pad. Because he really didn’t consider euphoria an emotion. That was life. But he thought euphoria was bad, too.

He may have an awful pain. His stomach may be in absolute agony, but he’s got it totally suppressed. So he doesn’t know that. See, he’s going totally to pieces, but he doesn’t ever find out about that until you started running just a general, „It is or it isn’t.“ And he was functioning on this and was thinking the ideas. I’d check on this, „Have you followed the auditing command?“ or „Have you missed any auditing commands?“ I’d do that about every six or eight commands if I were running this, you know. Just check the end rudiment. Do five, six commands. „Have you missed an auditing command?“

Now, when you got into a physical pain situation, you could later on expect to get an emotional reaction to a similar situation. Now, that is everything on which this bad “auditor” proposition depends. I mean you remember that relationship between the engram and the secondary.

„Well, yes, I didn’t get that one.“ I’d make him go get that one and then give it to you a few more times. Get him so he was really doing it. And you’ll be amazed. Some of the most fantastic pains that people are totally unaware of will suddenly turn on in parts of the body where they’re having malfunction.

After you’ve had a few automobiles wrapped around your head, you do one of two things: You either get used to having automobiles wrapped around your head and decide that you are now familiar with this phenomena and to hell with it and go on or you decide that the threatened appearance of an automobile or the threatened – well, anybody is in this state – a threatened accident must be instantly suppressed, you see?

„Nonpainful malfunction“ is what drives the medico mad. This the medico can’t understand. What is a „nonpainful malfunction?“ You see, there’s no agony connected with it. There’s no pain connected with it. The person is just all out of gear. you see, he should be standing up straight and he makes a picture like a corkscrew. Doesn’t hurt.

You’re going down the road and you see a fellow coming your way and he’s weaving from side to side and you go ‘Agggghhhhh,’ and the passengers all try to put on the brakes and that sort of thing, you know? Suppression. They’re trying to suppress something from happening. They’re trying to keep something from happening. That’s their action there because it’s obvious that an accident might occur. Well, that’s visible, isn’t it?

Now, you try to do something for this fellow and, of course, it doesn’t hurt and nothing happens. Well, why does nothing happen? Well, he just suppresses you, too.

All right. Let’s take this person who has been in fifteen wrecks and hasn’t become familiar with them yet. Hasn’t lived along the M1. And this person – accident before last was with a red car. And they just look way up the road and they see a red car and it’s parked. But that’s enough. They instantly suppress the red car.

And you want to see one of these guys twisted up like a corkscrew and all messed up like a fire drill – you try to do something for that person, he lets you, he won’t have any cognition and nothing will happen and he’ll break your heart. The only thing that happens is he just suppressed you and the treatment, too.

Now, you could ask them immediately afterwards, “What automobiles and what color were they, have we passed in the last five minutes?” and he’d tell them all, but he wouldn’t tell you the red car. See, he’d omit the red car because that must be suppressed. Now, that person’s pretty batty. He’s not just around the curve, he’s a bit around the bend.

Ah, but you get him to say, „It is, ha-ha, it isn’t, ha, it is, it isn’t.“ I don’t care how you get him to say it is or it isn’t. You could probably do it by „Feel it, is it there? Don’t feel it, now. Don’t feel it, feel something else. Don’t – don’t feel it. All right. Now, feel it, feel it. Good. Now, don’t feel it.“ Probably something wild would happen.

Now, in earlier activities we called this a restimulator. The red car was the restimulator of an accident. And then car, any car, would be a restimulator… Well, car tire tracks would be an associative restimulator for a restimulator.

I mean, there’s various ways you could do this. It appears, it doesn’t appear. It appears, it doesn’t appear. You see, that’s the „it is, it isn’t.“ There’s various variations. But you, oddly enough, don’t have to go off into these variations. The mind tries to go off into dozens of variations the second you start to think of it because it gets into this obsessive change, see?

All right. These are all substitute, substitute, substitute. You have the real car in the real accident. Now, the person substitutes similar situations to the first accident. He associates those to the first accident. So every one of those he starts reacting to as though it were the first accident. Now, you call that a restimulator. So any situation or environment which is similar to that first accident in which he was really hurt he tends to suppress.

If you were trying to run this on yourself, I guarantee that within five or six commands you’d be running another command. See, I just guarantee it. Because you’d be running another command and you’d never really notice a change. You got on to something that was hotter. That’s how you’d explain it to yourself, right? How the hell did you get onto something hotter if „It is, it isn’t“ turned on the hotter thing. Ha-ha-ha. You get back to run „It is, it isn’t, it is, it isn’t.“ And the thing that you got on to that was hotter will blow off.

And the very funny part of it is if you ask him to spot everything in his environment at the moment of restimulation – you see him turn pale all of a sudden and you ask him to spot everything in the environment – just that way. You just say, “Well, now point out everything there is here.” That’s a good auditing command on somebody like that. Experimental I’m talking about – experimental auditing command.

That’s just the isness and the not-isness, is really what you’re asking somebody to run. You’re asking him to run directly suppressors.

You say, “Point out everything there is here.” And you just keep that up, see? And every time he slows down, you tell him, “Go ahead, now. Point out everything there is here.”

You say, „There sits the object unsuppressed. Good. Ha. There it sits suppressed. Ha-ha. Good.“

And he points out a few more.

You’re running this identically, you see? „There sits the object, freshly, beautifully created. That’s fine. Now, there sits the object beautifully disappeared but still there. Thank you.“ Get the idea?

And “Well, point out everything there is here,” you see? And he’ll point out everything and he’ll point out everything.

„Now, there it sits unsquashed by you. There it sits squashed by you. Thank you.“ That’s what you’re getting. And of course, you get continuous, consecutive appearances. Because you get all the appearances coming up that the guy has squashed.

Now, look. If you’re what’s wrong with the auditing session, do you know he’ll never point to you. If you are a restimulator for this person, he will never point to you. He will always omit you. By the mere process of elimination, havingness and familiarity with the environment, he may very well, finally, point his finger at you and at that moment heave a sigh of relief.

And you get him moving on the time track and you get this cycle of action going. You start him completing cycles of action. We don’t care which way he completes them. Some people complete them like, „It is, it isn’t,“ see? And that’s a cycle of action. But the other people are completing them, „It isn’t, it is.“ Quite weird. Do you see how this works?

Well, you’ve all of a sudden ceased to be a restimulator for that particular accident. In other words, that is the action of keying out. The person without knowing what the earlier instance was has the lock vanish. That’s a key-out.

Now, there’s only two things can happen to a person is to have nothing appear and have something appear. That’s the only two things that can happen to a person, see.

The first key-in is the first time he ever got a restimulator for the original accident. This accident’s been riding along just fine. All of a sudden, the same car’s coming, the same circumstances, under the same situation, all from the same direction, at the same time of day, the same day of the year, you know, riding with the same girl, you know, with the same guilty conscience and all of a sudden, boom! He has an awful pain in his stomach and he goes on having this pain in his stomach. And doctors analyze him. And they give him barium meals. And you don’t dine well on barium meals, you know. And they decide that he has to take bromides and listen to political speeches – anything – anything, you see? Put him to sleep. Get him quiet. And just nothing does anything for this stomach.

See, even the consequences of having made something appear is just getting something else to appear. So the two conditions of any game are appearance and nonappearance. And we get the anatomy of games, which is where I studied this thing out originally.

And then you come along one fine day and you say, “Well, have you ever had an accident to your stomach?”

I was studying games when I finally calculated down to a level of that. We don’t have to know too much about games. We – Scientology: Fundamentals of Thought gives you about all there is about that.

“No. Never have.” See?

But you get down to a more fundamental fundamental and you get down to this fact of that is a game. Something is, something isn’t. And there are all kinds of ramifications of, „It is,“ you see? You don’t have to say what it is, you know, but you can say, „Put anything in the game in it.“

That’s a dead giveaway. He’s given you the suppressor. Now, just think about it for a moment. A person walking on this planet in the space of any two years who has not had something give him a knock in the stomach or who has not knocked his stomach against something doesn’t exist. Or who has not eaten something that slightly disagreed with him. You get the impossibility. Almost anybody would say to you normally (no somatic in the stomach, you see), “Well, did anything ever happen to your stomach?”

Take the opposite player. All right. He is or he isn’t, see? He is behind your goal post or he is in front of your goal post or he is in front of his own goal post or he is in front of you.

“Yeah, yeah. I suppose. Yeah, probably. Oh, yeah.”

You see, that’s isness by location, which is a via. But now, let’s just take the overall purpose of the game. And the overall purpose of the game is you were the catch-alots and he’s the sharks. And „Up catch-alots and disappear sharks,“ see? So totally the end of the game is, „is catch-alots“ that you want, you see and „no sharks.“ And he wants „is sharks, no catch-alots.“ And you get your basic disagreement which gives you a game.

But not this guy, see. Not this guy. You say to him, “Anything ever happen to your stomach?”

Now, this, „It is, it isn’t“ is all that reads on an E-Meter. The middle between is what reads on the meter. The amount of „is“ that the person can conceive compared to the amount of „isn’t“ the person can conceive finds the disagreement between the „isn’t“ and the „is“ which gives you a read.

“No. No. No. Never has. Never has. No. It just mysteriously got ill.”

All the meter reads is disagreement and that is the basic disagreement. A basic disagreement – you’re sitting in the room with a Presbyterian and he says an angel has just descended in that rocking chair. And you say there isn’t any angel in the rocking chair. And he says there is an angel in the rocking chair and that’s a basic disagreement.

Here’s the somatic, you see, which calls him a liar at once. You as a Scientologist know damn well something’s happened to his stomach; he’s got a somatic in it.

Well, if you had two valences in one mind, an atheist and a Presbyterian – let’s say these are two valences that have occurred in the Goals Problem Mass, see, there’s those two valences – you get a terrific registry when you hit either one.

“Anything ever happen to your stomach?”

Well, why do you get a terrific registry when you hit an atheist? Well, that’s because of the pressure over here from – the unseen pressure of the Presbyterian. And why do you get such a tremendous charge whenever you hit Presbyterian? Well, that’s because of the unseen atheist. Quite fascinating.

“No. No. No. No.”

You know, you’ll blow just as much charge off by getting the oppterm as you’ll get the term. If you list the terminals, if you make a list of pc’s terminals – they’re giving him pain the whole way – and you get so much tone arm motion, so much charge and so much blowdown and so forth, if you oppterm that right away, you’ll get the equal amount, if you get the exact oppterm.

“Well, now, are you sure nothing has ever happened to your stomach.”

Sometimes you get gradient scales of oppterms. In other words, you get associated oppterms that are out here some distance and gradually walk in and you eventually collide with the actual oppterm. So you can get your hands on one side of the picture and then get your hands distantly on the other side of the picture.

“No, No. I couldn’t think of anything.”

But you will eventually – if you blew a tremendous amount of charge off a case by assessing the case out to atheist, eventually, on some other line, some other time – maybe when you opptermed it – why, you got idol. But somehow or another, you got another thing and you finally wound up and you found out the thing, the package, that put that Goals Problem Mass, you see, the problem versus the problem. You’ll all of a sudden find this terrifically hot other side, see, the other side. You know when they hit this atheist that it just blew zooooom, see? Well, you’re doing – this is ten items later and on a totally independent line, you all of a sudden hit this Presbyterian, see? And it all of a sudden goes squash! boom! crash! And it’s just the same amount of force and power there was in atheist because those things had to be equal to be in balance. And the whole mass goes out of balance when you discharge one, but that one won’t discharge totally. It’d discharge the other one, then they all both go. They tend to go out of line when you discharge one and sometimes you don’t find the oppterm at once because it’s kind of slippery. I’m just giving you examples of the thing.

Well, he’s not going to try either. Ha-ha. You’ll finally get him on the E-Meter and spot it on the time track. The person goes through horrible sensations, something is liable to appear or something like this. And then if you’re lucky all of a sudden, this time he socked somebody in the stomach or time he got socked in the stomach suddenly turns on and this automobile accident, you see, turns on, whereby he hit his stomach on the dashboard or something like this, you see and there’s the accident.

Now, why are those two valences counteropposed and why do they get so much charge, one versus the other, on the E-Meter? Well, that’s because one is saying certain principles are and the other is saying certain principles aren’t. And the second one I just mentioned are saying certain principles are and the first one I just mentioned is saying certain principles aren’t. So they’re in violent disagreement.

The person who says to you, “No. Under no circumstances has anything like this ever happened. I tell you now! Never! It never did!”

And you’ll notice this is the common denominator of every opposed Goals Problem Mass package, is the fact that you get the atheist versus the priest or something. You get the virgin and the harlot. You get the child and the mother. You get things that make problems, one’s against the other. They’ll be opposites in various ways.

Of course, this fellow’s lived for 200 trillion years. You know it’s a damn lie. You see? Just on the law of averages. On the law of averages. Not with any degree of aberration. But you, as you sit, have certainly done to some slight degree practically everything that could ever be done anyplace with and to anyone, you see?

So you have a saintly person versus the devil, devilish person, you see? Well, it’s the disagreement between these two things. And one stands for certain isnesses and certain isn’tnesses and the other stands for certain isnesses and certain isn’tnesses.

And this person tells you – he’s sitting there. “Well, what kind of weather are you having? Well, you’re having weather? Fine.”

It isn’t that one stands for „is“ and one stands for „isn’t.“ But it’s practically everything that one conceives is, the other conceives isn’t. And then that is reversed the other way to. So that everything the second one conceives is, the first one conceives isn’t.

“Yes, I like to go fishing.”

So you have this tremendous number of items. All these isnesses are opposed by all these not-isnesses. And then we have all these isnesses opposed by these not-isnesses. And so it – everything is just blah. And you hit these two, you get a heavily charged mass and of course, it won’t discharge and the person gets somatics and everything goes mad every time you hit the thing in the bank. And it restimulates and has total command over the person, and it’s violent. Well, it’s simply violent because of all these disagreements.

And all of a sudden you ask him, “Well, did you ever have an accident or ever have anything happen to your stomach?”

Well, how could you find it on the meter? Well, it’s just because it’s full of disagreements, that’s all. And that’s the „is“ and „isn’t.“

“No!” “No-ho-ho-ho. No. Never have. Never.”

The funny part of this is, is this theory could probably be put into any process. You could probably – I don’t say you should – but you could probably prepcheck with this – with this type of a Zero question: „Have you ever considered another didn’t exist?“ Or „Have you ever insisted another didn’t exist?“ Use that as a Zero question. Well, it’d be rather hot and very lengthy, but it’d sure run.

Sort of “What are you going to do about it?” you know?

I don’t recommend it. As it merely would run. „Well, have you ever insisted something was?“ You’d get a – you’d get a tremendous number of overts because, of course, every overt he’s got either consists of asserting that something was or asserting that something wasn’t. And there are only really two classes of overts.

You can find it with the E-Meter and suddenly present him with some interesting pictures and he can fit these into place and you can work these out and probably get rid of his somatic.

When you damage something, you’re trying to insist that it isn’t. And when you’re creating something, you’re trying to assert that it is. And when somebody else is trying to create something, you may be trying to help him create it or trying to keep him from creating it.

What you’ve run into is a suppressor. A person is suppressing restimulators using the original power of suppression in the original painful incident. And that is a suppressor. Just before he was hit with the car, he tried to unmock one car – crunch! You see, he’s had a terrific impulse to unmock this car. It hit him anyhow, so that made him lose. But later on, it’s that same crunch, see, that comes down and unmocks the restimulators.

And when he’s trying to not-is something, you are either trying to assist him not-is it or you’re trying to prevent him from not-ising it. And these frames of mind, I’m afraid, are very black and white, Aristotle to the contrary.

Now, he finds out he can unmock the restimulators and because it’s no longer there in the bank, the first incident appears to be unmocked. A thetan never gives up. See? There he is lying there, you see, squashed as a bug, you know. Green juice. I don’t – some – on one planet or another it’s different colors, you know. [laughter] Splattered all about, you see? And there is the car utterly triumphant, snuffing contemptuously through its radiator. Not even a slight dent, you know. Not even any green stains on its bumper. Not even ruffled. But in this guy’s bank, you have a totally wiped out car. There he lies stone dead, but his picture is of a totally wiped out car. Thetan never gives up. He couldn’t mock it – unmock it in actuality, he will mock it in the bank.

Now, Aristotle said that everything was black and white and non-Aristotelian logic is the favorite logic of semantics and modern science. And of course, it insists that they’re fantastic numbers of shades of gray. And that there are no positives and no negatives. Well, that sounds to me like an awful big Goals Problem Mass. I admit there are lots of shades of gray. And I admit a lot of gradient scales and I admit a lot of these things, but to say that positives don’t exist, from a standpoint of somebody’s reality, is going pretty far. That’s going pretty far.

That’s why it takes you so long to run an engram. You’ve run off the unmock. And then you can find the actual incident, don’t you see and then you eventually can erase the incident and get the pain.

You can say ultimates are unobtainable. That’s a fact. That’s a fact. It – course – that’s telling you an infinite, an infinite, a total presence or a total absence of zero. These things are – but it would not be maintainable. But to say that merely positives, not ultimates but positives couldn’t exist, that would just be pure nonsense. And I’m afraid that is the nonsense on which modern science is making its basic errors.

And you know how long it takes very often when you’re doing a Touch Assist for the physical pain to turn on. You – sometimes you’ll audit the guy for a half an hour before he gets any physical pain out of the incident. Well, you’re running into the suppressor. And you have to get the suppressor all the way off before the physical pain is connected with and all of a sudden ouch! And there it is, you see? And then you get off little other pieces of the suppressor and you get these little flicks. That’s why he doesn’t get the somatic all at once. And that’s why it didn’t run out instantly after the accident.

But you start dealing with positives – after all, you’re positive. You’re sitting in a chair right this minute, aren’t you? Well, you are. It’s a good enough positive. We don’t say you’re the ultimate. But you certainly are, see?

Now, if he wasn’t suppressing and if he wasn’t in such a games condition with MEST, this is what would have happened: The car hits him, splat. Knocks him into a telephone pole, splat. He comes around and drops on the road again and gets run over by a bus, splat! And if he didn’t feel so undignified, he simply would have said, “Well, splat, splat, splat. What’s a few…?” [laughter] And he would have picked the body up and dusted its clothes off and so forth and it would have been totally uninjured.

And you aren’t at home, are you? Right at this moment, you aren’t at home, are you?

In other words, the somatic would have run out as fast as it happened. But because of his not-is, the somatic stays in place. And this alone is disease, aberration, physical malformation and all the other difficulties he suffers from – are all contained under the heading of not-is.

Male voice: No.

Now, a person goes through various phases of not-ising – suppression – talking about the same thing. He goes through various phases of not-is. He not-ises slightly or not-ises more. And a person’s impulse toward not-is, if failed, can turn into an alter-is.

Well, that’s fairly positive, isn’t it? You’re not at home. Now, to the degree that you’ve left something home or are going to return home, that reduces the ultimate of homeness, not youness, you see? And to the degree that you’re not going to sit here all night, that’s no ultimate of hereness.

Now, a person’s alter-is can turn into a not-is and his not-is can turn into an alter-is. So a person can have a suppression stacked with a change. And that is dub-in. See, you get a – you get a suppression and he knew the suppression wasn’t successful, so he alter-ised. He knew he couldn’t suppress, so he alter-ised, you see? So you get dub-in. It usually happens below the level of unconsciousness, hence dreams. And they’re just alter-ises of the things you can’t not-is.

So what you get is as time drags out, positiveness reduces. The less concept a person has of time, the less concept they have of time, the less positive things seem. Get the idea?

Now, when you get into a situation as an auditor where you feel a little bit leery about auditing somebody, you have entered a specialized field of suppression.

So we get all of our concepts of present time, the hereness and nowness of it. Have you ever had Havingness being run on you and all of a sudden the walls got awfully bright? You know, I mean, common experience.

Now, some auditors have difficulty only auditing a certain type of pc. In HGCs this gets to be traditional. A D of P who knows his staff auditors very often will have to be very careful with one or two auditors. One, he doesn’t dare assign a certain auditor to audit a young man because no auditing occurs. Or the pc will just be torn to ribbons or some mal-auditing activity will occur. You don’t dare let a certain staff auditor audit an elderly lady. Something bad will happen as a result of the session.

What you actually did was not having the walls get any solider or brighter, but you became more aware of the nowness of the instant. That’s actually what happened. All you have to be is very aware of the nowness of the instant and you get quite a lot of is-ness. And the odd part of it is you get a lot of not-isness.

And yet, these two staff auditors, one that can’t audit the young man and one that can’t audit the elderly lady, you see, can audit every other type of pc with perfect equanimity but can’t audit one type of pc. Now, that’s what you call the most selective condition of a suppression.

But your not-isness goes from not not-isness to nonexistence.

Their suppression on this particular type of being is the prevention of a restimulator. They’re afraid something is going to appear. That is the only way you can state it adequately. They’re suppressing something.

Now, the person is sitting there and he’s surrounded by these masses. There’s just masses, masses, masses. You know, he’s just got masses, oh boy, you know, just packed in blah, and so on. Although he’s a rather thin person, he has to have a truck move him, you know?

This person puts them into a certain frame of mind, so they have to suppress this person. And what result do you get? We get the immediate result that one way or another, in a – ten thousand different guises, this pc must not talk to that auditor. Pc mustn’t give up withholds. Pc mustn’t do an auditing command. Pc mustn’t ever change. Pc mustn’t ever originate. And how many ways can this be expressed? Well, they’re just invariable, the number of manifestations we get out of a suppressor.

And he got masses, masses. Those are all not-isnesses. Those are all nonexistences.

How many ways can we keep a pc from communicating? Well, we can let the pc go on forever without an acknowledgment. You wouldn’t have thought of that at first glance as just a method of preventing the pc from communicating. You see, you never let the pc – you never direct any of the pc’s communication, so the pc is just left to fish and wander, you see and steers all over the place and doesn’t know where he’s going. And the auditor says, “Well, if I just let him go get good and lost, he’s not going to say a thing. Ha-ha, ha-ha. But if I got in there with a couple of smart questions, ho-ho. Oh, well. That’s a different proposition. He might suddenly reveal something. Something might leap up about this that would be harmful to one and all, particularly me or him. who knows?” But that’s a good way to keep him from communicating – by never directing his communication. Don’t you see?

The first thing he’d say about all of them is they’re nonexistence. That’s – that’s what – his first declaration concerning them: „They don’t exist.“

Oh, there’s many ramifications of this. Pc starts to answer the auditing question and the auditor instantly acknowledges. The pc doesn’t answer the auditing question, you see. Pc says, “Mm-hm. Ah…”

So you see, as he came up to present time, the walls got brighter, these things would disappear, see? But when you’re running some people on Havingness, it comes from not-isness to nonexistence on such a clear-cut track that as you run Havingness on them and make the walls more real, their bank materializes and they have people standing in the room, you see?

“Thank you! (We’ll keep him under control here real good.)” “Now, have you ever seen any mice?” “Ah, yes. I…”

What you do is run off the not-isness by running on the isness of the wall, see? The wall gets very real to them and they’re getting their time track stretched out, you see, and they’re getting more here in this particular instant of nowness, you see, and they keep looking over at the corner and you finally say, „What’s the matter with the corner?“

“Thank you. What are you upset about?”

„Well, it’s just that my Aunt Agatha seems to be standing there and I know she isn’t there, but she’s awfully three-dimensional.“

“Well, I wasn’t upset about anything.”

A few more commands. „Well, how’s Aunt Agatha?“

“Oh, well, you look upset to me” and so forth.

„Well, she’s gone. Why – why are you worried about Aunt Agatha? I wasn’t worried about it.“

“Oh, well, yes. I was a little…”

In other words, the not-isness which pushed this mock-up of Aunt Agatha into invisibility released as the person’s reality on the wall increased. You ran out the invisibility of the isness. Here you understand that a person could actually conceive this – these sheets of paper to not exist while at the same time he was looking straight at them. Well, there’s a funny mechanism in the bank where he can go kind of squash with energy, you know? And he makes the mental image picture just disappear. Well, you make the wall get real and of course you make this not-isness run out and what do you find the fellow beholding? He beholds this three-dimensional picture, ulp! He beholds Aunt Agatha in the middle of the room.

“Well, you – I don’t see any ARC break registering here. Thank you. Now, let’s see, let me see.”

Sometimes in auditing somebody, if you’re being very successful in running some process or another, doesn’t matter what process – Havingness or bank or Prepchecking or anything else – he might have two or three dead bodies lying in the room at the same time, awfully solid. So solid that he’s absolutely sure he can reach out and touch them and they’d be solid. But if the fellow’s fairly well adjusted in existence and the auditor is running a smooth session and that sort of thing, you very often aren’t told this fact.

How many ways could you keep a pc from revealing something? How many ways? Well, there are just thousands and thousands and thousands of ways. And it’s the composite, one or another or composites of one or another of those ways that combines every auditing fault. Once an auditor knows the form of auditing, once a person is trained into the form of auditing, if he persists along any of these ways, I can tell you now, since I’ve gone through this with a fine-toothed Ron, to recognize exactly what he’s doing. This took an awful lot of worry and work on this thing, of trying to sort it out and exactly what the conditions were.

He says, „All right,“ he knows what they are. They – it’s a bank manifestation and they’ll go away. And they do. And he forgets about it.

No, he’s just using a method of suppression and that’s all.

What you did is, they’ve always been there and he had them not-ised so that he never saw them. But my God, did he have to be careful in life. Every time he sat down in a room he’d have to make sure that this body, this body and that body were not-ised. Somebody would say, „Well, how are you, Joe?“

I’ll give you a method. If he doesn’t ever learn how to audit, he won’t ever get anything revealed, will he? But he’s willing, isn’t he? Perfectly willing to audit, but can’t ever learn how to audit. You never get the pc to reveal a thing, do you?

And he’d say, „I was reading the stock exchange papers today and I saw some very interesting things.“ People wouldn’t ever notice that he’d never said it – answered how he was. Ha-ha. Well, monkey.

Well, that is the slow freight out. See, that’s the slow freight. You see that mostly in an Academy. A person grinding on through – can’t do the TRs, ha-ha-ha. Just can’t seem to get any of the TRs, you see? Can’t sit there and look at somebody, you know. Just can’t do it, you know? Can’t do 1, 2, 3 and 4, you know? Just muffs one or another of these things. Goofs up, see. Does it for months and months and months. They actually have been.

You say, „How about giving you a little auditing, Joe?“

Well, the actual fact is that if you keep a person at it long enough, he will run this out. He will find out – unless it is absolutely potty, you know, totally neurotic and psychotic in intensity – a person will eventually run it out.

„Well, I don’t think I’d… well, actually, we don’t have much time, you know.“

Person says, “Oh, well, pcs. They don’t – aren’t going to reveal anything that’s going to knock my head off, you know.” They get used to it.

You’re liable to have a materialization of dead body number one, dead body number two and dead body number three. And he just doesn’t like to look at them. I mean, after you’ve killed people, been responsible for their deaths, you don’t like to stand around looking at them. Some people don’t. They’re peculiar.

In other words, they get used to it by familiarization. Now, that’s the only cure we had to the bad “auditor” in all former training. Some of them, however, never did get used to it by familiarization. There are two courses you can take about automobile accidents. You can either have enough of them so that you get familiar with it, you see and skip it. Or you get to a point where you totally suppress all automobiles. And some people, in studying auditing, take this other route. They are in a minority. They are only about 20 percent or something like that. But you just keep it up forever. You can train and train and train and train and train and train and train and train and train and train and train. And it’s just taking them so long to get over this by the route of familiarity that it hardly counts.

I know I have at times gloated. Not like you on the track, you’ve always been social about the thing. I’ve actually been crass enough to stand there and say, „Ha-ha,“ but it’s not the thing to do, you know? So I have to withhold that.

Now, that’s 20 percent. Now, about 30 percent get over it rather slowly. Well, it’s a case of, “Well, another six or seven ACCs, we’ll have an auditor.” [laughter]

Actually, he knows, because he’s learned, that if he sits down in a certain type of room, this thing starts to loosen up and he starts to feel sort of peculiar, so he has to get very interested and he has to get very occupied and he never can sit quietly.

And then 50 percent of them, in varying shades of gray, get over it rather rapidly. Rather easily. Well, they’re all getting over the same thing. Every one of them whether they’re nutty on the subject or it only bothered them for their first week of training. We don’t care which. But they’re all on that band.

A woman made a funny remark to me one time. I told her – I said, „Well, I think I’ll sit down for a while and rest.“

The length of time required in training is directly proportional to the number of suppressors you are trying to overcome in the student. And that establishes the length of time in training.

And she said, „Well, what are you going to do?“

Now, I think, from what I’ve seen around here, that a person would be pretty darn well trained after about four months. A person should be pretty well trained. They should be putting up a pretty good show after about four months.

And I said, „Nothing.“

If they go into their fifth month or six month, we can consider them at least guilty of having a shade of gray, here. There must be a shade of gray. If they go into the sixth month and haven’t learned yet at all hardly, we’d say, well, that’s starting to look suspect. That’s starting to join up with the 20 percent, don’t you see?

„Oh, you’re going to read, huh?“

But it all comes from the same thing, is how – how much is a person going to suppress. What is this effort to suppress? How great is the effort to suppress? Because, you see, they’re dealing with the root stuff of human aberration and of course there is likely to be revealed from the pc… Don’t think of this now in terms of withholds and how somebody would spank them if they found out. Well, let’s not worry about that.

„No, no, no. Just nothing.“

Let’s just take the idea that if they had an automobile accident and if another automobile accident showed up like that, they’d have to go through all the pain and agony of the automobile accident they had, they’re not going to have anything to do with the automobile accident, that’s all.

„You’re going to think about something.“

So they say to the pc, “All right, now…”

„No, no, no.“

They were – they were fine. They were doing fine. Their first two weeks at the Academy, they just did swell. You’ll find this, too, by the way. You’ll find this abundantly. Just did fine. And one day they were saying, “Something you wouldn’t mind forgetting “ – they’re running this as an exercise and they’re sitting there all keen. And the person says, “An automobile accident with an E-type Jaguar.”

„Why?“

They didn’t even hear the answer. See, the suppressor is right there on automatic, see? They quit.

All of a sudden she practically spun in, you know? The idea of just sitting down and not doing anything and not thinking about anything and not having your mind occupied – this caused her to get a sensation of spinning in.

“Oh, well. Something you wouldn’t mind forgetting. Where’s the Instructor? Do you have an ARC break? Why not?” [laughter, laughter]

What was that sensation? Well, you had to keep yourself distracted. If you didn’t keep yourself distracted, something would appear.

And they all of a sudden don’t like auditing The one thing they mustn’t reveal and the one thing they were trying to get rid of in their own case without ever revealing it to them, you see, was an automobile accident with this type of car. And by God, the pc sat right there and handed it to him, you see?

Well, the question is what would appear? It’s actually a mental image picture that will appear. And that’s all that will appear. And they’re deathly afraid of mental image pictures or the appearance of something.

And the person says, “Brakes, see, scream, you know. No, thank you. No. Ha-ha. No. Ha-ha.” “Now, why don’t you answer the auditing question?”

All right. The fellow that you audit and audit and audit and audit and audit and go on and on and on and on and on and audit and audit and audit and audit and audit and audit and audit and audit and they never get any pictures – oooh, you’re dealing with a classic. You got a total suppression. Nothing’s going to appear. What’s the matter with him? Well, what’s he afraid is going to appear? That’s a simple question.

They frankly wouldn’t even have heard the answer to the auditing question. Because they just would have gone clunk. Gone. Everything would appear rather dazed. If you run them through the session and tried to find that piece of the session, it’d be gone. And you’d know what it was, too. Because you went over it long enough, you’d at least get what the pc said, but you wouldn’t be able to analyze what the reaction of the auditor was or why. You’d know it was because the pc said a restimulator of the auditor and the auditor’s suppressing that.

You make a list of things, „Who or what would be afraid to find out?“ You’re asking for appearance, you see? Just to have him list that. Ahhhhhhh! That would be the most horrible thing you ever tried to do to that poor fellow. Ruin him. Ruin his case. The odd part of it is, as you went at this and went deeper into it and opptermed the terminals you found and found other analogous lines and so on, you would get appearances. Place gets haunted from time to time, you know, the dead bodies start to show up. Yeah. He’s got them all beautifully squashed. And sometimes they bleed green and this is very startling.

Well, then you just check back kind of similar incident in the life of the auditor and – bang! – that would knock out that suppressor. But in view of the fact that several hundred trillion suppressors exist in every case, to run out each and every one of them, individually, would be very nearly impossible. Therefore, it requires a much better approach.

Now, sometimes somebody has been in a weakened condition, has suddenly taken his attention off one of these things and it’s materialized. Auggggggg! Fair slaughtered him, it did. Actually, practically scared him out of his wits.

It requires drills of suppression, familiarization with suppression, not familiarization with incidents. Let’s familiarize with the mechanism and the identity of who or what would suppress. And we get these things sorted out and these things out of the road, we can start clearing up this particular mechanism.

He’ll say he’s been blanketed. I know of a case sat down in – well, this case absolutely shattered – sat down in a dentist’s office, I think it was, something like that or away in a doctor’s office and all of a sudden, this fantastic, terrible, dizzying series of cones turned on over the body.

Now, who is the person – who is the person with the field, the Black V, the invisible field and so forth? This is a person only in a tremendous suppression.

Case went stark staring mad. Went home and never left home from that year to the next until finally audited on an engram in old Dianetic days. Now, that’s not one – just one case, see?

A person with a black field, of course, is more prone to suppress at night than in the daytime. It’s natural. You go around walking around the dark streets of the town and you’re liable to have things appear that you can’t recognize because you don’t have enough light to recognize them, so you just go walk around the corner and you go oomph, “Oh, well, that’s a newspaperman,” and you go past an alley and you oomph, and, “Well, that – that’s a horse – old tie-up stand for a horse,” and you go around the next corner and you go oomph, and you say, “Oh, that’s a – just a restaurant sign.” By the time you’ve finished a few blocks of walk, you’ve got a black field for a while, see, because you’re suppressing all the blacknesses, see? Blacknesses are just difficulty of recognition, that’s all.

The case for a moment, peculiarly, just didn’t not-is this particular mass and it went into action. Case changed its mind in a certain way and got this thing materialized, see?

Invisibility is rarer, but people who are suppressing glass objects, we learned a long time ago, will develop invisible fields. Yeah, you can actually put out a glass ashtray and tell them to, “Try to make it disappear. Thank you. Try to make it disappear. Thank you. Try to make it disappear,” and their field will change.

Well, it was always there except they took their not-is off of it and it went zzzzzzt, and then they stopped it, see, with a new suppression.

“Make the window vanish. Thank you. Make the window vanish. Thank you. Try to make the window vanish.” And you’ll get a change in their field. Those are not good processes, but they give you an idea of an invisible field.

And they said something had happened to them. Yes, that’s true. Something had happened to them. They’d stopped not-ising for a moment. Pretty desperate. So this case in being audited, of course, afterwards, would be – very carefully not-is and then answer the auditing question. Not-is and then answer the auditing question. Except they wouldn’t do it consciously, so that it’d never wear out. Well, the case wouldn’t ever really ever make any progress, would it, at all. Ha-ha-ha-ha. Case knew they’d better not let their mind change.

And of course, the person who is suppressing thetans has an invisible field. He has a total nothingness involved and other types of suppression. So you’ll have suppression of visible things, suppression of invisible things, suppression of matter, energy, space, time. You get suppression of almost anything you can think of.

Now, actually, there are some pretty hideous phenomena occur. There are various sensations and motions and sick stomachs and terror stomachs and backs of heads falling off and noses disappearing and all of a sudden the pc looks down and can’t see himself from the thighs down; you know, it’s just all vanished. You get upset.

And anytime you suppress anything in a certain time stream, you, of course, are also suppressing time. So time becomes the primary suppression. And therefore, you get the instantaneous quality of the reactive bank, so that all time is now in the reactive bank because of the suppression of the reactive bank. And that is simply not-isness in the reactive bank.

Well, the thing to do is to go on through, see, and not let the pc stop on such a thing or be upset about such a thing because you’re just running into an „is“ and „it isn’t“ type of manifestation. And if you can get an „it is,“ you’ll certainly sooner or later get an „isn’t.“ And this used to upset auditors once in a while in the old days, when we were running Not-Know – notknowing people’s heads and hats and so forth and „What could you not-know about this one?“ And auditors would go mad on this, you know, every once in a while. That’d – you’d never hardly get anybody to run this cleanly because the pc would say, „Well, yes, I did that.“

All right. As we look this thing over, then, we see that almost anybody is trying to suppress something. Anybody is trying to suppress a lot of things, not just something, lots of things. I’m not now talking about trying to suppress bad things about their past or anything like that. They’re just trying to suppress things, see?

And the auditor would say, oddly enough and mistakenly, say, „Well, did what?“

They suppress the impulse to put their finger into a buzz saw. See, people just – normal human conduct calls for suppression.

„Well, I not-knew his head, all right. He’s walking down the street with no head.“

And now we go from that into suppressing things which are likely to appear. And then we go from that into suppressing things which are likely to become known about them – we get the withhold. And then we get suppression of things that others are liable to think. You’re really doing a honey then, suppressing other people’s thoughts, you know? Man, I tell you. If you want a good failure, try that. It leaves more invisible fields scattered around and various things like that. And you get various complications of suppression and various automaticities of suppression.

And the auditor would get so curious at this moment – this was the worst trouble with this process, why we don’t use it anymore – the auditor would get so curious that he’d stop and question the pc as to what happened and how it happened and everything else and then walk around in circles and not finish the process and skip the whole thing. Well, of course, this was terribly restimulative on the subject of this „not find out“ button, wasn’t it? You were running straight into the not-is and the auditor all of a sudden had been running a process – he didn’t realize that he was in that much danger but he was running a process which would turn off and turn on not-isness. Ooooooooooh, ooooh. Maybe it’d all go the other way, you see?

Now, it’s only the person who has suppression of banks on total automatic, completely out of their own control, utterly lost and completely nuts on it, that actually are damaging as auditors. And such people are damaging as auditors because they will not let a pc ever reveal anything. So therefore, the pc gets totally stuck in everything he utters. And if a process works today, that auditor is going to change it to another process tomorrow because if he kept on with a workable process, uuuuuu. That auditor will only run processes which are totally inactive on the case. He will only run processes that are flat. He will only change processes that are changing. There’s the primary source of Q and A.

Many people don’t have a time track. They have a series of not-isnesses. Many people don’t have any present time at all; they just have a generality of comfortable not-is. They are the calm people, you know? Calm as a whiz-bang on Guy Fawkes, Fourth of July.

It’s actually quite horrible when you look it over. If the pc is trying to get rid of a withhold, the pc is trying to reveal something, the auditor will totally Q-and-A with him and say the pc must never reveal this thing. Doesn’t matter what it is. Just it mustn’t be revealed, that’s all.

Anyhow, the manifestations you see as a result of this particular activity of not-is brings about an isness. Because when the not-isness disappears, the isness materializes. And of course, it can be guaranteed to occasionally scare pcs spitless.

So the auditor’s attitude is to goof, ARC break, not find it on the E-Meter or only pick up something that he’s well aware will be very, very safe, out of which nothing will occur.

And after it’s happened to him once, after that they make sure nothing happens to their case. „Oh, it’s not going to happen to me again. No. I want to keep that from happening again,“ which is a no duplication and nothing happens. You see that?

“Now, do you have any withholds?”

An isness appeared because a not-isness ran out. Then you get a manifestation. You get pictures. Actually, solid objects will appear in a room right with the pc. All kinds of wild things will occur.

Well, he just misses that one and that one and that one and that one and then picks up this withhold where the person says, “Well, yes, I do have a withhold. This morning I sneezed.”

I know what this is because one time I was running – being run through something and ran into something. And I ran into a European battle where the columns of soldiers and the grass and the soldiers and everything and the guns and the smoke and all perceptions were much more there than present time was there. They were all lined up firing at each other in volleys, you know? It was quite a surprise, do you know? Quite a surprise.

That’s safe. That’s all right. He can have that one. So he works on times the pc has sneezed. There’s going to be nothing ever reveal itself on this channel and he’ll work that channel endlessly because it’s a perfectly safe operating channel, because nothing is ever going to be revealed out of it. Perfectly all right with him.

It didn’t last very long I didn’t have hardly time to duck before the… But it was startling to say the least. Now, much brighter than this room appears at the moment, you see.

You come around to the back of this auditor and he’s running the end rudiments, “Have I missed a withhold on you?”

Facing up to and exchanging volleys with other company – in company front formations, you see. What bigger overt is there. About twenty paces between the ranks. Slaughter, you know?

Clang! the needle goes, you see and goes spung! and shivers on the side of the pin. This person says, “All right. That one’s straight,” and goes to the next end rudiment.

Well, there is a lot of isness there, man, because, you see, firing the gun is an insistence on beingness, see? Somebody comes along and says, „You’re not so much.“

They’ll do it. And that, of course, we know by present technology is a dangerous auditor. Now, that is a real dangerous auditor because that auditor, willy-nilly, all with the very best of possible intentions, doing their very, very best, will ARC break anybody that is ever audited by them and drive them out of Scientology. He isn’t trying to do this, see? All he’s trying to do is do a good, safe job that isn’t going to upset anybody.

And you swell up at once like a frog, you know. Pooooof. See? „I is,“ see? „Here I is. I is. I’m big. I’m big shot. I’m not this thing you’re trying to not-is.“ You see? Get the idea? „Ooooo.“ See?

And they know how to do a good, safe job that isn’t going to upset anybody: You just never find anything out. You never let anything be revealed.

Girl immediately puts on more lipstick. Men swell up or fire guns. It all depends on what civilization you’re living in. Girls adopt bustles and falsies. There’s no telling what they’ll do in the manifestation. But that’s representing an isness, see!

Now, naturally, you refer this to the field of study. If the person looks at the paper and never lets the paper reveal anything to him, he never can learn, can he? And if he’s hearing a tape or something like that and he never lets any of the sense or meaning of the tape ever come through to him, why, he never has anything revealed, does he? So that’s a perfectly safe action. Funny part of it is he’ll sit there and listen to hundreds of tapes. That’s a fact. I mean, he’ll sit there and listen to tape after tape after tape and never register anything off of any of the tapes because that’s a safe thing to do.

Somebody else comes along, says, „They’re no good,“ see. „They shouldn’t do that.“ „Paint’s bad. Dresses are bad.“ These things. „Everybody should be natural.“ All kinds of campaigns.

Everybody to some degree is suffering from a staggeringly bad memory. I’d say if you’d killed as many women as you have or killed as many men as you have or something like that or disrupted as many lives as you have, normally you’re going to have some slight suppression. So you listen to a tape four or five times before you’ve got it verbatim, you see? I’m talking about this as a – as a total thing, you see. A person sits there and listens to this whole tape and it’s on the subject of how you should do the TRs, you see and listens to this whole tape from beginning to end and comes through at the other end and the Examiner says to him, “All right, now, what does TR 0 consist of?”

„Oh, my dear, what a beautiful hat. I’ve liked it ever since last year.“

And the person says, “Well, it’s like the twist, only different.” [laughter]

Various types and degrees and grades, you see, of isness and not-isness, you know?

And he really can’t understand how he doesn’t know anything about it. It looks like such an innocent activity. But the last person to notice this about himself is the person. That’s what makes it grim. Because, of course, that person is in the total suppression.

Well, of course, where a person in the bank has been asserting isness and somebody else has been asserting not-isness or somebody else has been asserting isness and where he has been asserting not-isness, you get – there are various bank phenomena. And they turn on and they turn off and one hardly knows what’s happening.

So the one that you worry about when you’re training people is the person that doesn’t have this wrong with them and they know it.

But it’s where they get stuck that the pc gets worried. So if he gets into these things, he gets afraid to find out. Things will materialize, you see? Something is liable to materialize. Something is liable to appear. God knows what will happen. He’s got somebody talking about his bank, so Lord knows what’s going to appear. He’s just shocky on the subject of things appearing. That is the only thing wrong with this bad auditor.

“That doesn’t apply to me. You see? It has nothing to do with my auditing. It’s perfectly normal and natural that Isabel today, while I was auditing her and so forth, she had an ARC break. Any auditor auditing her would have had an ARC break. And when she left the session, I went and got her back, didn’t I? How can you perfect – say that I was ever trying to suppress anything about Isabel? I’ve been trying and trying and trying to find out about why she drinks water.” [laughter]

He gets leery having things appear. Pc is liable to materialize something. He’s liable to get restimulated. No telling what might happen.

And this doesn’t seem reasonable to you. You can assume that this auditor was suppressing something on the subject of Isabel because he won’t let Isabel give or get rid of her case or get audited. And yet the auditor will audit Isabel, which is very fascinating.

Well, the thing to do is get him over being scared of this sort of thing. As I say, you can get him over it educationally. You can get him over it directly with a process. Before we only had education to get him over it. Now we have a direct process to get him over it. You can get a person over not-isness in various ways.

So frankly, the person would help them out and this is the only exception to a person’s helpingness – there’s just this one exception to helpingness. A person will help another to the degree of his tolerance to stand something being revealed. And that’s to what degree he will help another. Revealing something establishes the degree he will help, so that this works into blackmail and dossiers and everything else. “If you don’t help me, I am going to reveal about you.”

„It is. It isn’t. It is. It isn’t.“ That’s kind of lengthy.

You get that mechanism. Well, it works the reverse. The person will help somebody unless that person is likely to reveal something. That would be the most natural thing in the world. That consists of the coordination of the suppressor and the bad “auditor.” It also is a bad student.

3D Criss Cross, various types of not-isness in Prepcheck questions. And more important than these other manifestations at the moment is… you can go ahead and do this and I’ll give you a bulletin on it. And if it doesn’t work out, why, that’s fine. But I know it’ll work out because I gave it a little more testing and checking – and that is a change in the Withhold System that gives you this same manifestation. Now, your Withhold System goes What, When, All and Who. Isn’t that right?

But remember, I’m not saying these in any reproving tones. I am simply calling to your attention that we have the mechanism. And it’s taken us an awful long time to find this mechanism and you’ll find this mechanism will work like a bomb. Once you get used to using this mechanism, why, you will understand why auditors won’t pull withholds.

Audience voices: Mm-hm.

In other words, this is what keeps people from employing the technology of Scientology. And I’ve been looking for that for a long time – the – that little point. Well, why won’t they employ it even when they know it sometimes? And if I could find that button, why…

And that’s the totality of the Withhold System.

That actually is all the importance the button has. It’s the importance of learning rate and the importance of application. It has, of course, vast case repercussions of one kind or another. It produces dub-in and various things.

All right. Now, let’s buck the Withhold System up and have it take care of suppressors. And I think you will find – although I don’t guarantee this; I haven’t done as much testing on this as I should have – I think you will find and that you’ll be on safe ground, that it will run an engram if you do this. So that you could prepcheck and if you ran into an engram… And that’s the primary reason why you shouldn’t go whole track with the thing; it might not run an engram, you see? I think with this additive, I think you will find it’ll run an engram – that’s just a good guesstimate. That’s an expert piece of guesstimate by my part – if you add Appear before you add Who…

But frankly, from our point of view and from the point of view of this lecture, we’re only interested in the degree that it inhibits good auditing.

You’ve got your Zero question. You get your What question. I’ve been working on this trying to make Prepchecking a little easier for you. And I have some other little changes in Prepchecking I’ll give you later, but you can use this one at once. Now, these are just how you get the subject of your Zero question, so it doesn’t influence what I’m talking to you about right now.

And I stand for that.

And you say When, just as you have been, All, just as you have been, Appear and Who. Now, how do you say Appear? „Well, what might have revealed itself at that point?“ Or „What might have appeared at that point?“ Or „Is there anything that should have shown up?“ Or „Is there anything that didn’t show up?“

Thank you.

You see, any variation on this subject of appear. „What might have revealed itself at that moment?“ And just run that in before you say Who and What.

You say, „Well, what might have appeared?“

And the pc says, „Well, ha-ha, the cops.“

„Well, who didn’t know about it?“

„Well the police of course.“

Yeah, here we go. And you took the suppressor off the police. See? So this is just removing suppressors. Just a little mechanism for the removal of a suppressor off of a withhold, which should make the withhold much more rapidly cleanable.

I’m aiming in the direction, however, of using the – this question system of running an engram. I haven’t expected it to run engrams. I’ve just been expecting to run locks of withholds.

But I think beefed up to that degree, there’s a possibility that it will directly run engrams. Not that you use it directly on an engram, but if your pc got into one, there it’d go.

„What might have appeared?“ Do you see?

„Should anything have appeared?“ Anything that makes sense and just use the word „reveal“ or „appear,“ (question mark). You get the maybe off of the thing. And just run that in. It’s all right. You can go ahead and make a few mistakes first time, you’re getting used to the When, All, Who. Well, it’s When, All, Appear, Who.

„Is that all of it? Well, what should have appeared? Okay, and who should have found out about that and didn’t?“ And I think it’ll take the suppressors off.

Well, now there is the constituency and the consistency of the mind as regards to auditing. Talked to you first in the other lecture about the inhibitions of the auditor. This has been more on the basis of what happens with the pc.

And if the pc has something materialize which then mysteriously disappears and the pc sits there comfortably forevermore, ha-ha. I think you must have missed. Do you see how it would be?

Pc says, „Awful pain in the – . Well, that’s all right now. Go ahead with the next auditing question. It’s all right with me.“

He just suppressed the living daylights out of that one. Well, how’re you going to work around it? Don’t. Because if you’re running on suppressors, the rest of it will run out. Doesn’t require any particular or special handling if you’re running an appearance.

So the suppression that you often got – you know on running early sessions – have you noticed that running some early sessions, a person repressed past lives or repressed this or repressed that and so forth? Well, now running withholds, you’ll probably pull off those suppressors and the thing shows up.

Now, there are possibly other ways of handling suppressors. There undoubtedly are. There are possibly neater ways of handling this and so forth and they will be developed as they develop. I personally at the present moment consider the ways I’ve given you completely adequate to your purposes.

All I need to give you now to smooth out your Prepchecking completely is a method of finding the Zero questions and so forth, accurately and instantly on this particular pc and I got that worked out, too. But it’s late and I will talk to you about that next time.

Thank you.