Thank you.

Thank you very much. My apologies for keeping you waiting. Actually, Stanley was keeping me waiting, even while he was right here in the room.

Well, this is going to be a very short lecture. And this is the last lecture of the 1st Melbourne ACC. And most last lectures have to do with future, what are you going to do and why shouldn't you do it.

Well, this is the supernumerary lecture. The 31st lecture and — of the 1st Melbourne ACC and you thought I was just going to come in and say, "Well, folks, you've had it. Goodbye. And gradually, as you sink into the mire, I will be thinking of you."

And this one has to de with processes.

But the fact of the matter is, is I can tell you a few more things and I might as well do so, of course, if you want to hear them.

Give me one of those slips. No, I mean your bulletin.

Audience: Yes!

And you just had a bulletin released here. I'm going to read it to you.* "Allowed Processes 1st Melbourne ACC."

All right. Very good, then I'll consider that as an invitation.

"The following processes are to be run in the last three weeks of the ACC at the option and discretion of the Instructors in consultation with indi­vidual auditors."

Now, I received a note this morning asking me something about "process." I distinctly remember covering it in about eight or nine separate lectures.

You have absolutely free choice in what process to run on your preclear as long as you run the exact one your Instructors tell you to.

So, when these tapes are played through again for this unit, listen to them. And you'll find now, that you know enough about what you're doing, to know that you don't know anything. Now, that's a big gain, never look on it as anything else. Right.

And we've named these after the ACC.

As soon as you decide that you don't know anything about some particu­lar line of action, why, then you could know something about it. Got the idea? Audience: Yes.

"Melbourne ACC 1."

The basic text of this course is Scientology 8-8008. The first lectures which immediately precede this course were the Philadelphia Lectures of fall 1952 — 64 hours of lecture. They're the immediate lectures which instantly precede this course. So, you see, we've done an awful jump on the time track. Do you see that?

"Arduous Case Assessment by dynamics and other means: Overt-Withhold Straightwire only on terminals having mass and no terminals of significance only. General terminals preferred."

Audience: Yes.

Which means that you're going to have to have something with some mass in it. And it better not be a "dead dog," "a boy with German measles." I don't want any adjectival terminals of any kind whatsoever, no matter what they read on an E-Meter. No adjectival terminals.

All right. You can look in Scientology 8-8008 and find a great many of the things I have been talking about.

If you're going to run "a boy with German measles" it's going to be run as "a boy." Do you hear me?

But the reason this has been a sensational gain is because I have found the anatomy of havingness. And you've been listening all about havingness here for weeks. And probably haven't even recognized that I was talking about havingness and what happens to it. The factor of havingness is the only saving grace a thetan has.

If you ever get to be D of P, any organization, the staff auditors inevitably will go off on a kick somewhere along the line of inserting adjectives because "a boy with German measles" or something like this is what drops on the E-Meter. Well, that only means they've got a boy up toward the destroy end of the curve and it means that a boy needs to be run. You got the idea? But you run "a boy with German measles" and you fix it on the curve, of course. You run "a dead dog" and you fix it on the curve of course, and after that the curve won't shift. And you wonder, what in the name of common sense. So, it isn't that you can't run a dead terminal but if you do run one the cycle of action on it will never adjust. Simple, huh? All right, very good.

Works like this: An auditor starts chopping up a pc, the pc's havingness goes down — completely aside from the ARC breaks and all the rest of that sort of thing — havingness goes down because he makes the pc individuate. Havingness goes down. The pc becomes more separate. Havingness reduces because the pc has been driven out into a further separateness. He's not been included as part of the auditing session. Rough auditing, invalidation and that sort of thing reduce havingness. Taking things away from somebody reduces havingness.

• [Editor's note: The bulletin being referred to is HCOB 30 Nov. 59, ALLOWED PROCESSES 1ST MELBOURNE ACC.]

The only reason you feel bad about a relative dying is loss of havingness, loss. Loss is practically the totality of all black cases, invisible cases, spin­ning cases. The keynote of it is loss. This is all old material.

That, by the way, is a process which runs on people who are still with-holding violently from the auditor without smashing the case up. But you run a Communication Process, much less a Create or Confront Process, on somebody who is withholding badly on life or any of the dynamics or the auditor, and you will blow that case just as sure as shooting. The case will sit there and ARC break with you, the case will — will try to blow the session because the case is merely reacting as the backfire to the withhold.

If you want somebody to turn on a black field, he had perfectly good pictures — probably dub-in, but — or something. It'd have to be a dub-in case to really have this happen, but if you want to bring him up a notch, see, all you've got to do is have him concentrate on having lost something. And you can very often turn the case black. Just turn it black as the ace of spades. Which is an experimental procedure, not a clinical or auditing procedure.

The withhold gets withheld so fast that it — they withhold themselves right out of the session. You got the idea?

And that tells you this: that a black case is black because of loss. Loss of what? Loss of havingness.

Or they start dramatizing the overt which means, "Look what you're doing to me. Look what you're doing to me. Look what you're doing to me."

So havingness is just as important as it's ever been but nobody could have told you, and there was unfortunately nobody around to tell me, as usual, what this thing havingness was all about.

Any young man, by the way, can always get a mock-up of a gun but they never like to be shot. Right?

It's kind of obvious, you know, you could have something, and you could not have something, and after you've lost something you can't have it and so on. But why did cases respond so badly when their havingness was reduced?

So, you either run off the overts on the subject of guns or you get him "willing to experience being shot." And until that happens, he will remain on the cause-distance-effect line at cause-point — violently, and never able to get off of it because if he did, he'd be shot. Is that obvious?

Now, rough auditing, actually, reduces havingness, by introducing sepa­rateness. The world at large as the time stream goes tearing along gets many people in the frame of mind of loss loss loss loss loss. It isn't one o'clock, two o'clock, three o'clock, four o'clock; it's loss loss loss. Every time another minute goes by, they've lost something. They've lost the whole universe. They get to looking on it on the negative side, see. They don't ever realize that they have a new universe.

Audience: Yes.

I straightened out a case one time with experimental procedure — very famous person by the way.

So, overt-withhold would basically be — if you had something like a gun, which in itself is a kind of a pin on the curve, because it creates death. Well, that's a very short cycle of action.

I said, "Close your eyes. Okay. Now open them up and find a brand-new world. Thank you. Now, close your eyes. Good. Open them up and find a brand-new world."

He gets on one end of this line — almost any man and a lot of very nice, sweet, inoffensive women, actually can get fantastic gun automaticities. Why? Well, they're not willing to be shot. Because their intention while shooting some-body was to kill them. And they don't want to be dead, so, there's only one place to be where a gun is concerned, and that's holding and firing one.

And I just kept this up for about a half an hour. The case shifted all over the place. Ran into the case two or three years later, it had considerable auditing in the meantime and had made gains and all of that sort of thing, it was still saying, "That was the most wonderful process I ever had in my life!" It was just reversing this time cycle, you see?

So, there's another process which isn't allowed to you in this course, but which you'd better have some comment on, is, if you assessed a terminal as in this Melbourne ACC 1 process, to be "a gun" it would go something like this. You could run it like this:

Instead of every successive second the person feels he's lost the whole universe, I made him in every successive second find he had found one.

You say, "It's a gun, has to be there" and so forth. You could say, "Who should be shot?" "Who should be shot?" "When did you shoot them?" "When did you shoot a similar person?" Any such wording, you see, would get the overts off.

Of course, you have to have a high level of trust and confidence that the universe is going to arrive with that next minute.

Now, that's a gag process. It works something on this order — that's an overt and a withhold and so forth all in itself. It's a gag process.

And cases that have great difficulty can't actually believe that there is any future. And when they believe there's no future, that means they're not going to get anything, that means they have to hold desperately onto everything they've got. And it balls their time track up because they're holding onto the facsimiles which represented yesterday's universe. Because there won't ever be a tomorrow universe. I see a few chests sighing here. Is that right? Never will be?

You see some object over here, you see a chair. You ask a person, "What bad thing could you do with a chair?" Answer that right now. "What bad thing could you do with a chair?" You got it?

One might say the basic of anatomy of a bank is that mechanism by which a thetan reassures himself that there has been one. That's all he's got left. That's all he's got left of being Pharaoh.

Audience: Right.

But a great oddity sets in. If that's all he's got left of being Pharaoh, then why in the name of common sense does he have Pharaoh's death but no live pictures of Pharaoh? Well, that doesn't make sense.

Good. When did you do it?

And we run into innumerable questions. Why does he do this? What is this all about? What are these factors that we're dealing with here that give us such a fantastic twist? Person mocked up obsessively and continually, a picture of everything he had felt, seen or heard, so that he could stack it up on a time track, and then have yesterday's universe, because he knew he probably wasn't going to get a tomorrow's universe. See?

Now, think it over, When did you do it?

And when he already began to doubt tomorrow's universe, why, he started stacking up yesterday's universe. Well, why does he eventually get down to a point where he stacks up only the bad of yesterday's universe? Well, you could say it's all he could have of it and other things, but there must be a better reason.

Did you find it?

Now, Scientology 8-8008 was written after the Philadelphia Lectures, and was written at 30 Marlborough Place in London, up in Saint John's Wood. I kicked the thing out. It was a theoretical representation. The proc­esses demonstrated its conclusions and so on. But you have actually the first broad, comprehensive and still valid picture of havingness.

Audience: Yeah. Sure.

But, there has been a jump of seven years. Seven years. Well, that's a split instant on anybody else's research track but long enough on ours, for heaven's sakes, because we make gains by — oh, I don't know — I think in any given month we make as many gains as man made in the last millennia — in any one millennia of the past as far as understanding himself is concerned.

Hm?

And here it took seven years to root out this data. And this data of course has been given to you. You know what this data is. Data concerns the cycle of action slip, the automaticity of travel from create, through survive to destroy. Trying to hold on to a universe, he also holds on to this law of the universe. And he can't continue to have something without going forward in time and finding himself in the inevitable destruction of it.

Interesting, isn't it?

And he carries all the laws of the universe into his own bank and they become the laws of his own bank — create-survive-destroy. And so he has something but if he has something he knows it's going to skid — above all else, that he knows.

Audience: Yeah.

If he buys an automobile, he dazzles himself with the new brilliance of it and knows very well that it will be an old car in a few years. Finally, in order to have anything, he himself begins to fit on a sort of a personal create­survive-destroy curve, and to have anything it has to be a destroyed car. That would be the only kind of car he had. He's gone into agreement with this thing — totally. He's doing a slide on the cycle of action.

Huh?

He cannot continue to have, he knows, because he will be destroyed. The havingness will be destroyed, everything will be destroyed and that'll be the end of it all. So his bank goes ahead and agrees with this and does this slip on the cycle of action.

You could just pick these things off the line like mad.

Now that is probably the key point of understanding of havingness, plus this — this is the key point in the behavior of a thetan toward havingness, and I won't say except this — I'll give you now the rationale which is immediately back of "having to have." And it's taken a long, long time to get this stuff together, so don't let the air blow between your ears there where your head is because, boy, you need this like the desert needs water. I'm not kidding you, you know, you're just not going to make it with cases, unless you have a grasp on this thing.

Now, running a person at the effect end of the scale is simply running him on a victim basis but there's a scale that goes this way:

A thetan gets in communication on an obsessive basis of being at cause or effect. And gets into a condition where he starts running separateness and he, of course — let's say for theoretical sake since we don't know for sure, we say he is separate at the beginning of this, you see, and then he gets obses­sively separate.

First substitute — and below that could be many substitutes of pictures — but the "first substitute" would be a dubbed-in picture of a picture.

Now, just as you cannot enjoy the characteristics of a person you do not like — oh, your parents always played this game on you: they always pointed out some little boy in the neighborhood that — or some little girl in the neigh­borhood that you must not be like or something of the sort, you know? That means those are characteristics you cannot have.

Then the next layer above that on the scale — above that would be black. Next, invisible.

He began, because of overts, to do things he couldn't be the effect of. And when he couldn't be the effect of his own cause — didn't dare to be the effect of his own cause — he got stuck on one end of the cause-distance-effect line. He got into an Axiom 10 ball up where he's obsessively creating an effect but he knows the effects he'll create are bad and therefore he must never be at the effect end of the line. Which also means, oddly enough, he must never come off the cause end of the line, because if he came off the cause end of the line, why, he's liable to slide over and become the effect of some other line. And this is very bad. So he gets pinned into Axiom 10.

Next above that would be the real picture.

Now, his overts teach him that cause-distance-effect, is also create-survive-destroy. So, being obsessively cause now — by the way, the further down scale he goes, the more obsessively causative he is, oddly enough, and the more individu­ated he is. And strangely enough, usually the more important he is.

But with that, of course, it'd be the real picture because we've got con-front, haven't we?

Ah, you never questioned or queried the importance of some drunk stumbling down the street that's been on skid row for years. Why, he's a most important fellow.

Now, above that, we've got a three-dimensional picture. And the thing that accompanies the three-dimensional picture is experience.

Now, why is he so important? Well, the fragments and splinters that comprise his bank and body are all the havingness he's got. He can't have anything else. Why not? Because he has done things that he could not be the effect of, he says. And not being able to be the effect of these things, aha, the only real place to be would be on the cause end of the line. So, you get the Effect Scale, the bottom of which is, "no effect on me, total effect on others."

So, "What would you be willing to experience that could be done with a gun?" is a process that would really fix up the overts on a gun.

Well, that's followed into over the line of overt acts. And the more overt acts a person is guilty of, of course, the less effects he can be because he created the bad effects. And he — gradually you have less and less beingness.

Now, you either run the overts off or add the "willing to experience" on, huh? One or the other.

Now, you get more and more separateness. And as his overt acts are against others and anything — they can be against anything — he starts indi­viduating from people. He starts individuating from possessions, he starts individuating from walls.

Only "willing to experience" is identified by most pcs as being at effect. And that's as bad as being at cause. So, that's your basic setup.

You had a case right here in this unit, by the way, that came down from 6.0 on the meter to about 2.0 or 3.0 or something like that, just by having her attention called to a wall. Bong! See? And we — there was some kind of an odd phenomenon of total separateness from the wall.

Now, a person in certain categories could only run on something like Overt-Withhold on some terminal in order to change their state of case. They're so fixedly at the cause-point on it that they're never going to move on the track, or anywhere else, than the exact location in time in the physical universe where they did that particular overt action. You follow that?

Well, I'll tell you. There's an old, old lecture which one amongst you will remember very well, "A thetan can be what he can see, and he can see what he can be." Remember that one? Well, boy, that's real true.

And that is your best bet, because it won't blow people out of it, for PE Co-audit, Overt-Withhold on some assessed terminal by the Instructor. Got it?

And you could say this. The more separate he has to be, the less he can be. The more separate he has to be, the less he can see. And you get being­ness declining but havingness — one of the methods of havingness is permeat­ing things. You know, being them.

Female voice: Yes.

You see little kids doing this all the time. They haven't got cars, so they go around being automobiles. Did you ever notice that?

All right.

Audience: Yes.

Here's "Melbourne 2."

Well, that gives them a car, sort of.

"Preclear's put in two-way communication with auditor by, 'Think of some-thing you are willing to let me know?' 'Think of something you could withhold."

Here you have a situation then of the further separate a person is from anything, the less he can have it. It's one of those goofball rules that's so obvious that it's a wonder anybody has to beat it over the head. But I'm beat­ing it over the head because it's so simple and so obvious that everybody seems to have missed it all the way along the line if they wanted to solve any part of these problems.

That's not "from me" you notice. It's just "could withhold." That's because you'll get other withholds.

Some of you believe that all the solutions are there and they've all been solved. Well, that is not true. All the problems and laws are there but the combination of how they fit together was never whipped.

"And by other means if indicated by Instructor. Occasionally auditor asks, 'How are you going?' 'Is there anything you'd like to tell me?' And this is followed by 'What would you like to confront?' alternated with 'What would you rather not confront?' "

You take a whole bunch of individual thetans, you see, busy individuat­ing further and further, believing more and more this and that and the other thing, you eventually had nothing but a kind of a chaos which had some kind of obsessive order here and there, but mostly chaos. Nobody quite under-standing what anybody else did, so everybody being different from everybody. Get the idea?

Well now, this of course would be a pc that you were trying to loosen up one way or the other and was getting into the run of the thing, and you just put the pc in some sort of a condition where in spite of a withheld overt or a terribly unknown obsessive overt of some kind or another that he and you, and nobody else could get to, or something of this sort, it would still make case gains on the thing. Because you keep running the Overt-Withhold on this, you see, and then he'll start running the Confront on it, and then the Overt-Withhold, and the Confront, and pretty soon he'll work out to a point, and, "Oh, is that what I am," you know? And he gets up into a pretty good state with regard to this. That's a pretty good process.

So, therefore nobody had the good sense to look at himself and find out what he had in common with anybody else. You get the idea? And nobody had the good sense to go out and look at some savages and some civilized people and some things like that and find out if they had anything in common, and find out if there was anything that ran true.

Now, "Two-way comm is reestablished frequently by above method where pc is in or near PT on process."

And this obsessive differentiation — very obsessive — prevented any real­ization that everyone had certain things in common with everybody else. And having those certain things in common, there was some slight tendency to kind of be others and so on, but basically an understanding could be reached and we reduced down all of the nonsense.

Now, don't go running off into, "Think of something you c — " you've been running, "What could you confront?" "What would you rather not confront?" And don't suddenly do a shifteroo here. You know, the pc is only back there about five billion years and stuck in a Fac One, and you sud­denly decide to shift the process and say, "Think of something you could withhold." Because you're going to run it right straight in the middle of the Fac One. And the process is not designed for that at all.

And you go around to a priest and you say, "What's life?" you know? And the priest says, "Well, if you just worship Yahweh Vishnu — if you just worship Yahweh Vishnu then you will know."

In other words, you could get somebody way back on the track, be very, very incautious about checking where he is, and run back to the withhold idea, change off the process and just foul the case up very, very nicely indeed. Got it? All right.

And you go around to a businessman and you say, "Now, what's life?" And he says, "Buying and selling!" "Buy low! Sell high! That's life!"

"Melbourne 3."

You went around and asked everybody what the answers were to this thing, of course you wound up with a lot of blublaah like that. A lot of non-sense, you know.

"Establish two-way comm with the pc and get tone arm down by getting off all overts and withholds on any dynamic."

If business ever falls on its silly head, it'll be because it thinks it consists of buying and selling. It doesn't. The only business that ever succeeds con­sists of service, whether they're selling or repairing or anything else. If they serve the public, they'll get paid.

That's talking down the tone arm. That's it. That's smoothing out, talk­ing down the tone arm just like we've talked about for a long time here. That's just that particular process in action.

But with all these bum answers all so different, how could anybody understand any similarities or were there any basic laws at all behind any part of any of this? And everybody would have told you, "No!"

Generally the way that goes is you peel the little ones off, and you find the bigger ones, and you peel the bigger ones off, and you find the bigger ones, and then you peel the bigger ones off, and then you — uhdahaahhlahahh.

Why? Because they were all being so confounded different than every-body else. Man has long since drifted below a society of cats. The most differ­ent thing there is than anything else in the animal kingdom is probably a cat. And a cat is most different from other cats. And man has gotten much worse than cats.

Then he all of a sudden says, "Gee-whiz, I didn't have any idea I was Hitler," you know? That's a joke. I know where Hitler is. No, I only have him located very indifferently. Can't imagine why he went to America.

Well, look through the world today, what do you find? Specialists! A fel­low by the name of Chic Sale wrote a book on the subject once, I recommend it to everyone.

Anyway. Then on — continuing on Melbourne 3, "Run Dynamic Assess­ment. Run small amounts of Alternate Create with large amounts of Alter­nate Confront on the same terminal Create was run on.

You go in and you see: medical building, you know, you see, uhuuuuhhh. You go into an advertising agency and you see, nyaaaah. All this is — I mean each person in the whole agency is a specialist, everybody's a specialist, every-body's different. All requires "super specialized" training. It all requires this.

"Commands of Alternate Create are: 'What part of a (blank) would you be willing to create?' 'What part of a (blank) would you rather not create?'

In other words, they're just Q and Aing with the fact that everybody is different than everybody — much different than everybody, impossibly differ­ent than everybody. So different than anybody that they couldn't possibly even talk to anybody.

"Commands of Alternate Confront: 'What part of a (same terminal as used for Create) could you confront?' 'What part of a (blank) would you rather not confront?'

And you find amongst the specialists themselves, eight specialists in the same line of work have graded themselves into a caste system of some sort so they can't talk to each other either.

"Alternate means two questions one run — run one after the other con­secutively, one command positive followed by one negative."

And you get this super-super-super individuation. And of course, with that comes terrific complication and it all becomes very incomprehensible, it all becomes very different, it all becomes this.

In other words, you say, "What part of a cat could you confront?" "What part of a cat would you rather not confront?" "What part of a cat would you confront?" "What part of a cat would you rather not confront?" All right.

Well, they've got lots of things in common. I've got news for every one of those specialists, real good news for them. Like I did to that attorney one day: a magic phrase, which if you say the magic phrase and snap your fin­gers, the body will roll up in a ball and fall on the floor — and it did. Well, I bet his first thought is, "This wouldn't work on a corporation counsel." That lawyer probably had that as his first thought, you see, that he would be so different than a corporation counsel, it wouldn't work. But you go around to the corporation counsel, same thing would happen.

Now there's a variation on this that isn't stated in this first bulletin which is perfectly allowable and that is the omission of Create, the Create step. This can be run without the Create step providing you do this — and by the way, it's very funny to have this be a side note because it is undoubtedly one of the best processes ever invented. You find out what the individual has been working at to produce. Find out what he's been producing. Well, we — don't get esoteric about this. Cats make kittens, you know. Painters paint paintings. You've got the notion here? Farmers grow wheat.

Scientology is inevitable in dissemination for the excellent reason that it is the story of the common denominator. And the only people you'll have any difficulty selling it to at all, are people who are very uncommon. Uncommon people. They're so uncommon they don't eat like anybody else or breathe like anybody else or spit like anybody else. They have various peculiar, peculiari­ties. They probably breathe through their ears or something.

And we just check this fellow over for the last lifetime and we found out what he's been producing. This is the assessment that you do on this. It says, "Run Dynamic Assessment" you got that? Run a Dynamic Assessment and find out what the fellow's been producing. You do this in lieu of the Create step, particularly on any case that's being at all sticky. Find out what he's been producing and then run it on Confront.

Where we have this terrific separateness, we have very low havingness and tremendous anxieties about it. Till we have to beg people to get inter­ested in and buy automobiles.

Look, he's already run the process Create. I've already mentioned this to you in lectures, you see. He's already run Create. Now, why do you want to come along and compound the felony. You won't want to do Create — artificial restimulation of Create — until you get him pretty well squared around on some other things and then you want to pull track in and that sort of thing, well, make him create a little bit of it. It's gone flat on the needle on you or something like that. You want to stir things up, get anything that assesses even slightly, run a little bit of Create on it and it'll be right there ready to run with Confront. See? It pulls it in.

The United States has to spend some incalculable sum, I don't know, must be two or three times the size of the national debt or something — that's a vast exaggeration but, of course, it's an exaggeration only because the national debt can't be computed. They spend it in advertising, trying to per­suade women to buy good-looking dresses that any dame in her right mind would dive through a plate glass window to grab. Do you get the idea? But they spend advertising to do it, you see.

So, what you're interested in here is what has a fellow been creating? And this is very important to you because this will be the subject of a book, The Rehabilitation of Artistry — Scientology, Its Use by Artists. And this is the primary thing.

They advertise like mad to get somebody to buy a new rug, a beautiful rug. They just put the pressure on at every side trying to get that havingness shoved down. And of course, the harder they shove out the havingness, the more the society deteriorates, why, the better the havingness they have to shove out and the more forcefully they have to shove it out, and the harder they have to shove it out into people's hands. And they say, "Here take it, you don't have to pay us anything right now. You can pay us sometime in the future. Uh, you can pay us when you get around to it."

We're going to find out what the fellow's been producing for the last few lives and any crisscross or variation thereof, and we simply run Confront on that as a terminal. We get some generalized form of it.

And I heard the other day some science fiction writer had written a story whereby a man when he died, handed his debts over to his son and so on, and the society had worked itself up to the point where even the grand-children yet unborn, were deeply in debt. Oddly enough, such a credit system would work but that's beside the point.

Now a generalized form of an airplane engine — the fellow's been making airplane engines — a generalized form of an airplane engine is, "a machine" or "an engine" or "a motor." But, if you said, "a machine" this thing's going to go way back, so you might want to take something a little less hot. So, you would take "a motor." But don't you dare take "airplane motor!" You hear me?

The point we're making here is that there's — has to be more and more coercion in order to have something and that's about the silliest thing any-body ever looked at.

Audience: Yes.

Boy, you just show me a beautiful house in a desert. It's a nice house and I want it, that's it! Don't go dangling a bright new tie under my nose because I'll acquire it.

See, that's an adjectival terminal! And just forget these adjectival termi­nals, see. It's a qualified motor. No, motors are motors.

But if I don't acquire it, I'm perfectly happy just to admire it. Get the idea? Audience: Uh-huh.

You'll find out the reason he's had a hard time in this life building air-plane motors is because he had an awful hard time building triple expansion engines back in 1915 in his last life up in Scotland. And here he has this fantastic job and he has a terrible time — great massive things — and he couldn't build enough of them.

Scientologists are dangerous people. They're very dangerous. A million­aire in London once took out two five pound notes — he had been playing this gag all day long with great success with all of his business cohorts — he pulled out two five pound notes and he'd hand them to the friends he hap­pened to be with and say, "Here, this is yours." And they'd say, "No. What for?" "Uh, you don't owe me that." "I don't need any money," and so forth. And the millionaire would have to put the five pound notes back into his pocketbook.

Here he is and he finds himself building motors again, you know? Only they're airplane motors and he hopes he'll get away with it because it's adjectival but he won't. Sooner or later he'll be building an engine of some kind or another.

So, he took out to dinner the Association Secretary and the Director of Training of HASI, London.

So, you want to fish around and get the plainest description, the most generalized description you could possibly get of this. "A motor." "An engine."

He told me later he never saw two five pound notes disappear faster. They didn't give them back either! He tried to convince them it was a gag but it wasn't any use.

Now, if you run "a machine," of course, you're going to go back and pick up the mental machinery. That's inevitable.

It wasn't that there was any virtue in suddenly being a vacuum for hav­ingness but neither is any virtue connected with not being able to have. And you'd say the two extremes of got to have, got to have, got to have, got to have! — of course, that finally winds you up with kleptomaniacs and things like that. Things sort of fly off hatracks and stick on them.

So, if a fellow has been actually building machines and motors in the last life-time or two, don't you dare run "machine" as a general process before you get this last one off Because boy, he'll be in a ball up the like of which you never heard of

Yeah, that's right — it's a total automaticity, just as you run into automa­ticity of the bank. Their hand will be on total automatic. There will be a silver spoon or something like that and they just — hand goes in and it sticks in their pocket. And they say, "How'd that get in my pocket?" And the police say, "Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! As if you didn't know!" And what they're being foolish about is he didn't know. "How'd that get in my pocket?" That actually is his first thought, "How'd it get in my pocket ..." You know? In other words, you've just got an automaticity — he's got no choice in the matter.

Take a case off the top. Don't keep going on this "total effect on you" basis. You got it? Cut a little cabbage leaf, you know, before you start digging for China.

And the other side of it is, is they can't have at all. Any time you offer them anything, whether it's communication or gold bullion, blondes or beauti­ful lifeguards; whatever it is this person is being offered, they just say, "No. Can't have."

Now, this rehabilitates artistry. And this would probably be one of the things for which you would be most thanked as an auditor.

Well, of course, having things fly into them and not knowing they're there and not being able to accept anything are equally can't-have. They can't have either one of them. Because havingness is a rather intellectual activity and that's the one thing that isn't a reactive activity because the reactive bank is simply a total network of reasons why one can't have. If one wants any defini­tion of it, well that's his can't-havingness pattern. It's quite remarkable, his can't-havingness. That's right.

The head of one of the largest banks in England — is not really a Scientologist but had a lot of Scientology processing — is actually also an amateur concert pianist and was getting to a point where he was hitting high C with a low Q, you know, and he wasn't making it.

What's an engram? That tells you that you can't have this, or you can't have that. It tells you that you must not go near fires that are burning very bright. You show me a thetan in good shape that can't have a bright, burning fire and sit right in the middle of it, and I'll show you one who isn't in good shape.

And an auditor got hold of him and processed him, straightened him out and all of a sudden, why, he was right back in there with championship qual­ity, see. He was doing a wonderful job on it.

Now, of course, you can't take bodies — by the rules — and drop them into roaring rivers, and so forth. But a thetan can go into roaring rivers and not even get his old, rusty chains wet.

It was quite interesting, I — this fellow actually was — moved a couple of small skyscrapers and some things like that to have me over to lunch and we sat there and talked about a lot of things. I realized that he didn't know terribly much about Scientology but he sure knew he'd gotten results. He sure knew he'd gotten results. He was right back in there tickling the ivories and polishing the rosewood the like of which nobody'd heard from a long time. See?

The point is that the more obsessively separate a person is, or the more resistively connected he is, the less he can have.

They'd found some kind of a series of lives playing pianos, got to be a habit. Naturally, one too many lives he decides to create the piano music — that was that. Only it wasn't the creation of music that was the hang-up. It was the odd bits and parts needed to create music and the scarcity thereof, you see? And the oddest, scarcest thing in the creation of music happens to be a musician — just for your benefit.

Now, the one thing he can do, is have — if he's in fair condition — but that's one of the best things that he does with MEST. Because you see, there's a new factor involved with a thetan — that I've known for a very long time but I don't think I've ever mentioned very much. I might have mentioned it once or twice — a newly discovered factor, first observed several years ago by myself but couldn't make much out of it.

Now, wherever you look in — in assessing cases, the pc has something to say about it. And on a hot terminal will tell you, "That's not it." "Well, you missed the boat that time," you know. "Bullfighters. I never had anything to do with bullfighters. I've never been interested in bulls. I've never had anything to do with anything. Don't get a quiver out of it. Does nothing for me." Except it moves the tone arm all over the dial. He's just running a total irresponsibility.

And that is that a thetan is actually incapable, really, of duplicating anything. That's his native state. A thetan cannot be a brick wall, really. Not really. Because a thetan becomes a brick wall or duplicates a brick wall, he of course is a thetan plus a mock-up. You get the idea? He's a thetan plus some-thing.

What he had to be was on the cause end, cause end, cause end, cause end — slip. Now, he can't conceive of it. Only he can't ever be in position any-more and in Book One you hear this described as valence, out of valence. Remember, Book One? "Out of valence."

But just a thetan all by himself, is just a thetan all by himself, and all else is mock-ups. Even the physical universe, see?

Well, he couldn't be in the cause-point anymore because he couldn't stand to be guilty of that many overts anymore. Couldn't be at cause-point, couldn't be at effect-point. Couldn't be at cause-point, couldn't be at effect-point and so went and got lost.

Now, he actually can't even be a location, really, honest and truly. He has to be able to pretend to be spaces, forces, masses. He can't perfectly duplicate them which is quite remarkable. Naturally.

And you get your "separate case." Only this case is not just separate from something like a wall. He's separate from being cause. He's gone. He'll very often put a machine in at cause-point or something like that, and say, "Well, got nothing to do with me." And the pc will sit there and say, "Well, it's nothing to do with me. Nothing at all to do with me, I don't know why you keep running it. I can't imagine anything more boring than a bulldog. A dog. A dog. I've never had anything to do with dogs. I never owned one. Don't ever remember any dogs being in the neighborhood. I don't think any of the neighbors ever had any dogs. I've never seen any dogs in any circuses. And I don't know why you're running dogs."

Because he is himself and all of these other things are creations, and he is the only uncreated creation. So, of course — oh, he has a good time, he can look at them. When he looks at them he has to say, "Well, I can be a brick wall." That thought has to go through, "I can be a brick wall. I can be a this. I can be a that."

Got total not-is on dogs, that's why we're running dogs. And of course he doesn't know it, and of course he can't take any responsibility for it. And some-times you're doggone lucky to get it just to click once on the — on the needle.

Now, if you show somebody some horrifying sight, some appalling sight — that is to him appalling — he'll get immediate dim down of vision. Did you ever notice this? He gets a dim down of vision when he confronts some-thing that he can't confront, see? Boom!

Everything else seems flat but "dogs" goes flip. And then you say, "What was that again?"

Well, what's this dim down? Well this dim down is he's observing some-thing he's decided that he can't be. Now, he has to be able to decide he can be things in order to perceive them at all, I guarantee you. And — so he's decided he can't be and of course the vision dims down. Has nothing to do with the wavelengths of anything traveling in any direction, it just has to do with him making up his mind what he can be. You might say, "What he is willing to observe." Well, if what he's willing to observe is what he's willing to in some fashion duplicate because the communication formula contains duplication.

"What was what again?"

Well, now there are many ramifications to this and I wish I could write them all down and show them all off but, actually, you could work them out rather easily.

"What I just said."

A thetan is able to pretend he can duplicate so long as he is even vaguely willing to pretend he can be something. In other words, he's willing to dupli­cate a wall or see a wall if he's willing to be a wall. But the second he gets taught that "I" is totally different from a wall and he's not a wall, and if he's taught conclusively and continually that he's not a wall, that he's entirely separate from walls and must have nothing to do with walls, one of these fine days he'll be looking right straight at a wall and see right straight through it. Nothing creditable about that, I assure you. You can look through any-thing because they aren't there anyhow. Only they are there. See?

"Well, I don't know. What did you just say?"

Now, let's take a look at a thetan and find out that he is so obsessively being different and obsessively refusing to duplicate, that he can't even see another thetan in some fashion — I mean, he can't observe one. It makes him sick to get the idea of duplicating himself!

"Well, what did I say?"

Yeah, run "Conceive a Static" out of The Creation of Human Ability on somebody sometime and — pick a case that's not in too good a shape, and just run "Conceive a Static" for a few commands, he'll get good and sick on you. Because, he, of course, is conceiving something with no mass. You're spoiling his game.

"I don't know."

He's gotten down to a point now where his final answer to duplication — and the first "in" answer to duplication — as he advances up toward being­ness, he can come as close as having something. So, havingness is the first — it's not an ideal condition at all. But it's the first condition which leads to perception. First he can have something and then he can do something with it and then he can be it. That's rehabilitation. It's reversing the cycle of dete­rioration.

"Did you say anything?"

The last thing he could do with something just before he faded out on it totally and entirely, the last thing he could do with something was have it. So, that's the first thing you've got to be able to get him to do with anything — have it.

"Yes, I said dogs!"

I used to run Op Pro by Dup on people and get four or five times the result as they later on got with Op Pro by Dup. Don't know if you've ever heard a demonstration tape by me on Op Pro by Dup but it's quite interest­ing. Because this step has been omitted and has been missing, since I think the — I don't know what ACC it was, maybe the 7th. Gave the person ashtray. "Could you own that?" "Could you have it?"

The needle's motionless. "Dogs." "Dogs."

"Well, no."

Now, if you really want to upset him, say "Dogs! Dogs! Dogs! Dogs! Dogs! Dogs. Dogs! Dogs! Dogs! Dogs! Dogs! Dogs! Dogs!" You really had to bring the pressure on there.

"Well, why couldn't you?" Argue, argue, argue, argue, argue. We had arguments, arguments, arguments back and forth about this ashtray. And then we finally took something else — some other object — and had arguments about that. "Could you have this?" "Could you have all of it?" "Are you sure you could have it?" "You could have it when it was broken, could you have it when it was new?" "Could you have it if it were stolen?" "Well, just under what conditions could you have this thing?" "Why couldn't you have it?" "Why could you have it?" Back and forth, back and forth.

Anyway, that is a highly effective method of going about things. To take what he has aberrated himself with creating, take the bits, pieces and stuff that his livingness, his life has thrown into view, you see? Oh, yeah, let's take somebody, any — anybody that's building anything has been producing, pro­ducing, producing. And let's take particularly the manufacturer of a textile firm. Boy, I tell you, that man will run on textiles the like of which you never heard of. Only you'll have to choose some appropriate terminal. Whatever it will be, "cloth" or something of that sort. It's whatever he has been producing a lot.

And at first they just say, "Rahhh," and "What are you talking about that for?" And snarl, "Of course, I can have the ashtray. Nothing to it, ash-tray, pooh, you know, just ffffooh. And they finally get it, they finally look at this ashtray, "Yeah, it's quite an ashtray. Uh, oh, yeah, yeah, it's uh — huh." And you'd see this change come over them and you realize they could have this ashtray, and then they could have this other object — whatever it was — book or something. And then you'd run Op Pro by Dup. Because you'd entered them into the first wedge of being able to go up and actually be and perceive and duplicate something and recover somebody's willingness to duplicate. But you couldn't recover their willingness to duplicate unless you entered them in at the bottom of the ladder of being able to have it. Do you follow that?

And you get, "What cloth or what part of cloth," or however you could put the thing together, "What cloth could you confront?" "What cloth would you rather not confront?"

A person does not really have to look at what he has. He doesn't have to use it. I know a fellow who drives Phoenix, Arizona stark, staring mad. All the camera enthusiasts in Phoenix, Arizona are a little bit wogged at this fellow. They feel all — they make him — he makes them feel a little bit crazy. Fabulous.

He's a textile manufacturer and the weird part of it is, is he will get burnt cloth, torn cloth, dirty cloth, ripped cloth, but he never gets a whole bolt of cloth. Bolts of cloth suddenly fly out that way, and go this way, and untangle themselves across the room and ...

Every time any company anyplace in the world issues a new camera, this fellow has a standing order in one of the shops to, come hell or high water, buy it for him, and he takes it home, never takes a single picture with it and puts it on a cabinet shelf — which has glass across the front of the shelf. And he's got whole walls covered with brand-new, never shot, beautiful cam-eras. For instance, he had every model up the line that Leica ever made. He has every model up the line — not even because he collects them.

He's wondered why he's felt tired. Huge ridges have collapsed on him and so forth. Whatever you can pick up in anything the fellow has been doing in that category, in other words, will come about and to a point where it forms ridges. And you get some sort of a general situation which is a very poor one in the case and the case will experience immediate relief and immediate satisfaction and become very, very happy with the processing.

What really drives them mad is he never asked anybody even to come in and look at them. This fellow can have cameras! And he can have cameras that thereafter he doesn't even have to reassure himself that he still has them.

Now, there's a — a highly effective process so don't lose sight of it. And don't go take some poor textile manufacturer that already has cloth on total automatic, and run "What cloth could you create?" See, don't do that. Life set him up for the process. Why do you have to?

Now, you have undoubtedly, once or twice been very critical of some old lady or some old man or something of the sort who had a brand-new hat or brand-new gloves or something of this sort, and had these — brand-new hat or brand-new gloves and they put it on — a person put it on a shelf and they never wear it. And you open up a drawer, and the drawer is full of all the gloves you've given them for Christmas for the last fifteen years, you know.

He by the way, will run it quite avidly. Boy, he'll. really run that process, "What cloth could you create?" He — he thinks — he thinks that's a wonderful process, that's just — just the right process. Down, down, down, just the right process. Down, down, down, just the right process, you know. Just the right proc­ess. Just the ri — . "Always very — I'm very happy with this process." That's what he's doing obsessively.

Well, you're outraged by it, perhaps. But the horrible truth of the matter is that was all they could do with them but that was enough. It was very satisfy­ing. And people never add up this other little interesting fact, that it is quite enough for these people to have them. It's all right to have them, don't you see?

One time wrote in Book One, if you could just parallel what the mind was doing, find out what the mind was doing and parallel it with processing, you had it made.

I hadn't hit anything like that on anything for a long time because I busily use almost everything I got. Nice equipment, it gets to be the most — well, it doesn't wear out very fast but it certainly gets an awful lot of knock­ing around, so on.

Well, that's absolutely correct. But the truth of the matter is, the mind has overdone it. The mind isn't creating and confronting, you see. It's creat­ing but it's not confronting and then it gets all messed up.

And I realized suddenly that I was still collecting cuff links. And people kept giving me cuff links. The last — a short time ago somebody gave me some jade cuff links — beautiful cuff links — and I accepted them, was very happy to have them and put them into a big leather case I have for cuff links. Well, I haven't worn any shirts with cuffs for years, frankly I haven't worn them for years. I'm still collecting cuff links. I have no use for them, any shape or form — not even really to collect them. And I said, "Well, at last, I've got a subjective reality on what it is to have something and never do anything with it and so forth — look at all those cuff links." There they were.

All right, let's go on to the rest of these.

Actually, the collection which I do consider a bit of a collection: I'm always shopping around for odd stickpins. I like those. I use the living day-lights out of them. You know. I'm always wearing stickpins of one shape, size or condition and so on. Well, that's fine, but that's an entirely different thing. That's a sort of a dynamic havingness. You see, you have them, and then you really have them, you see?

"Two-way comm established — Melbourne 4."

Well, I doubt I've come up to a point where I could be a stickpin as a body but I certainly could be a stickpin as a thetan. Now, if I could thor­oughly enough be a stickpin as a thetan, and I was good enough at it, I would say, "Stickpin!" and there would be one. And I'd say, "Persist." And it would. You see where this goes?

"Two-way comm established and continued by auditor with pc during session."

Audience: Yes.

And here — make a correction on your bulletin.

All right. Now, the cycle of action is what knocks out havingness. It's the automatic havingness disposer. Now, what havingness is all about is the low­est entrance point. Individuation ruins havingness, so any remedy of a per-son's individuation makes the room brighten up for him. He — things look brighter to him. You know, he's — gets off some overts which he wouldn't him-self want to be the effect of, don't you see. Soon as he gets the overts off he can see better.

"Get the story established." No, "Get the story, establish the overts, pin-point the incidents in time helpfully for pc." Those three things.

That's very funny. I mean, he can see better if he gets the overts off. You get eyesight changes the moment you find — get the case unburdened, find the right terminal and run the correct process on it. Eyeglasses are very revela­tory. They always tell you exactly where a case sits. They say this person is still fooling the auditor. Because when you start to knock out somebody's obsessive individuation on any given subject, I tell you the world no longer goes whngaroww.

Now, that's — that's pretty gorgeous processing if you can do that. I mean, if you can get a case to run this way and if you're good enough yourself to get a case to run this way, you've got it made, made, made. And it's very nice, very nice.

The odd part of it is, people's eyes aren't uniformly bad on all objects, so oculists are always having a hard time of it. The oculist goes in and he shows them a chart and he adjusts their eyes to the chart and then they go out and look at a car. Or they use them to drive down a road or something of this sort. See what I mean? Entirely different thing.

I'll read it to you again.

Person says, "My glasses aren't quite comfortable. I wonder what's wrong with my glasses?" Nothing is wrong with their glasses except there isn't a set of glasses made under the sun that do very much for anybody's sight. That's about — I see there are some pairs of glasses in front here, I'm actually not paying too much attention to it. Beyond wondering what's the matter with the auditor. I don't blame the person wearing the eyeglasses, I just think they're being a victim. Victimized by bad auditing, that's obvious.

"You establish two-way comm and continue it during session."

Now, here's the main show here. Scientology 8-8008, seven years ago, gives you remedy of scarcity and abundance of all things. Right? That sets that as an optimum condition and sets up a process known as Expanded GITA which is covered in the tapes actually as merely GITA. And which many people have read into it as having an Indian connotation — having something to do with one of the Indian GITAs and so forth — because there's some religious connotation of the word. The truth of the matter is it's "give and take." It's just a contracted "give" and "take," it means.

Now, that means very subtly that you don't establish two-way comm by clearing the needle and then skip it. You keep picking up the ARC breaks, you keep picking up the overts during session, you keep the needle clean, you keep it as clean as a whistle between auditor, pc and environment, so the pc can give some of his attention to the bank, and then you win everytime. You keep the environment clean of needle drop.

You had to be able to get rid of, or have, or receive anything anybody could think up. And the things that people were having a bad time with in life were the things they couldn't have and couldn't throw away. Now, those things were giving them a hard time. And any button on the case here — all these seven years later, I can tell you — any button on any case is purely, entirely and completely and utterly in a scarcity or abundance bracket, and that's all that's wrong with it. There's no further significance than that.

All right. Now, you plot out the story of the pc, particularly the last few lives as you start in. Get this squared around one way or the other by discov­ering the overts. Soon as you've discovered the overts, why you blow them.

If a person is at destroy on a curve on men, there aren't enough of them. If a person is at destroy at the cycle of action curve on women, there aren't enough of them. If he can't even get the idea of a woman, there aren't enough of them. And if he can't even get the idea of a man, there aren't enough of them. Got the idea? If he can't mock up a racing car, there aren't enough of them.

There are several ways you can blow overts. The best way of blowing overts is to get the pc to recall them. He won't do them to you. It's safe to get them recalled. And don't you — any of you dare ever let me hear you running a pc as though he were a victim.

Now, it goes further than that, much further than that. If an individual has a picture of a racing car, there aren't enough of them. Because what have you got? You've got the middle of the cycle of action — you've got a persistence of a picture and that's all there is to that. He's got a picture of a murder that has nothing to do with it because the cycle of action is a condition. It's a statement of condition. The thing has been or is being created. It is persist­ing. It is breaking up, or is broken up. Do you see that? That's a statement of conditions and has nothing to do with terminals except to describe their con­dition plotted against time.

You can occasionally say as he's weeping bitterly, you could say, "Well, that's okay." Understandingly. But, don't sit there and tell him, "Now, what did they do to you?" "Good. That's fine. That's fine." "Now, what did they do to you then?" "You sure you weren't betrayed about that point?" That's just a dramatization of being a cause-point on the part of the auditor. In other words, "get the story, establish the overts and you pinpoint the incidents in time helpfully for pc."

So, any terminal addressed in any way with no further significance will knock that terminal back and forth on the cycle of action. And routinely returns it back onto destroy and then finally onto persist and then back off the line onto create, at which moment that terminal will vanish from the bank — really vanish — never to come back. But it'll only do that when the per-son feels that there's a possibility he could at any time he wanted, have enough of them. Now, what do you know about that?

In other words, if he's got a stuck picture, something like that, and he can't do anything about it, let's move it right on down in time and let's get it pinned as close as we have to pin it to make it blow. Let's get the overts off of it, that'll also make it blow. Let's pin it in time and make it blow. Put it on the time track properly.

If you understood this and if you digested it and you've got it square, you possibly will feel sometime in the future that you may have trouble with a case. But if you've got that one square, you never have any trouble with a case.

Now, you may have occasion to run assists — not necessarily in this course — but if you have occasion to run assists, we have:

And if you don't get that one square and you do have trouble with cases, I'm telling you something, you didn't get it square, you're just a square. You're being a knucklehead.

"Melbourne ACC 5."

This is too easy. The guy has nothing but pictures of dead women. There's women that are dead and dead that are women. He has pictures of dead women, dying women, cut-up and buried women. All we've got to do is run Confront or any Havingness Process and the picture slides back to the middle of a cycle of action, and we remedy it further and it slides on back to the create. It's very funny, you keep remedying havingness on women long enough, and the pc is going to give you some very peculiar yickle-yackle that you think he's going to get off the subject.

"Assists on body to be run by Communication Processes."

He's going to tell you that he is (whatever the process is) handling women but the only pictures he's getting are little babies. And you'll think he has got the product of women and men, when as a matter of fact, he simply has women at the beginning of the create-survive-destroy curve and of course at that time they were little babies. Now, you run this out far enough and the cycle of action itself blows up.

This fellow has a bad arm, so we say, "From where could you communicate to an arm?" Now that — that's the fastest thing I know to clean up an arm. As long as you've got an arm present, a -Communication Process works like mad. As long as you've got something present that is in the process or one of the class of termi­nal you're trying to run, as soon as you've got one of a class of terminal you're trying to run in the room with you, a Communication Process runs very fast, is very rapid and is practically a different process than a su — totally subjective process.

You understand how an individual got so that he couldn't have anything. He got so he couldn't have anything because he didn't dare duplicate it. Why not? Because he was separate from it and different from it. He was too sepa­rate and he was too different and he couldn't be it and therefore he couldn't duplicate it and therefore, very definitely couldn't have it. His first action is being able to have this thing.

In other words, you got — the pc's got an arm, you can run arm. Got the idea? The pc's got a head, you could actually run head — not recommended. The pc's got a head that's upset or — by something or other, you can run — you know, he's got a headache or something like that, you could run head — rough process though.

Now, as he moves on up the scale on this one particular item, why he's more and more able to have it which means he's more and more able to be it which means there's more and more of it. And it's still the idea of scarcity and abun­dance. And all it comes back to is scarcity and abundance. And scarcity and abundance monitors all these other significances. And you never saw such a pianoforte in your life as scarcity and abundance plays when it's done right.

And here's a brand-new one: "To what could you communicate from this room?" Of course, you've got a room present so it's very easy to run a Com­munication Process.

Now, how do you — you could just keep remedying the scarcity of some-thing. It's always terminals, then these other phenomena would discharge off of it. Very simple.

Yeah, well what could you do with that? Why is it in there? Well, it has many reasons for being in there.

One of the ways of remedying the scarcity of anything is to have some-body confront it.. Now, willingness to confront something would be willing­ness to duplicate it and that's very simple.

This is a wonderful one to run on Registrars and so forth. Take her into her office, make her sit down at the desk and run on her, of course, "To what (or to whom) could you communicate from this room?" And you find out that usually the inflow and hammer and pound has got her cut off to the wall or something like that. Her letter volume and responsibility area goes way out because she begins to realize that she can communicate to the whole ruddy world from that room, you see, but she goes out in steps.

If you can't see a picture, you just aren't willing to be it, that's all. Well, of course, the first entrance point on the scale of be, do and have is to be able to have it. And the individual can't see the picture because he can't have it. Well, he can't have it because he can't confront it — he can't look at it.

But this is a nice one to clean up auditing sessions. It does all kinds of interesting things and if — it's down here because in this ACC, and later on, in running pcs for a long time in one room or something like that, you want to clean up the auditing session, you should get off the overts, clean up the ARC breaks, you see, and get the overts off, straighten all that up. And then when the needle is totally clean, then run this process at the end of an intensive for a little while. And you'll find out that all of the introversion the person's been doing has not necessarily as-ised and he'd get a great big win, see, right at the end of the intensive. He's won, you see, and he feels fine. But you don't wait for him to settle out, you just run this process and that settles the case out right then, bang! And that's pretty slippy. Very good, a very nice process.

Why can't he look at it? Because he's separate from it. Well, why is he separate from it? Well, because he's standing over here. No, that's not good enough because a thetan could stand over here and look at a picture without being obsessively separate from a picture. You understand that.

"To where or to what could you communicate from this room?"

But when he's got to be separate from it, when he must be different from it, there is no picture there. Now what do you think of that? So, as he becomes obsessively individuated, why these things all blow up in front of his face. I mean they disappear.

Now, as far as any other ways of cracking cases now known, these will only be run by the Instructors. But, I could mention one in passing.

Well, all right, what is this then in a basic run? What's it got to do with overts? Well, the individual has to be on the cause-distance-effect line if he's guilty of overts. He's got to be at cause, therefore he never goes into session. Did you ever see a session run with the pc at cause and the auditor at effect? It won't run, that I assure you. So, therefore, a case that's having a very rough time has to go obsessively at cause because he's guilty of overts.

One of the simplest havingness remedies if you dared get away with it, which someday you will probably be using — you may see your Instructors use

Well, what are his overts? Well, regardless of what his overts are they make him feel that he mustn't be at the effect-point. If he's not at the effect-point, then he is obsessively at the cause-point. If he is obsessively at cause-point and that sort of thing, he's excessively individuated. And when he's super-individuated, he can't see things. He can't have them. He can't be them. He's in an awful state of affairs.

this one. Well, it has to e run with very, very smooth auditing and with a total absence of ARC breaks and there must be a very clean needle, kept clean all the way on the thing — it's got to be smooth, you understand, so that it doesn't reduce havingness.

See, you now have two, three, four, five — wow! — how many methods. Each one of them very, very effective in an attack on a bank or the remedy of any given situation. You can just remedy it in dozens of different ways.

Because to chop up a pc makes him individuate further and you get hav­ingness reduction. And this process — fascinating process — in that you do a Dynamic Assessment of some kind or another and you fumble around trying to find the hottest automaticities on the case you can. In other words, what terminal turns on the hottest automaticity?

You can get off the overts so that he can dare be at effect. He can dare be the effect of his own cause. Well, that would get him so that he's capable of trusting himself not to give bad effects, well then he's willing to be some-place else than cause.

And you realize that there are a lot of cases around that turn on an automaticity with planets. They turn on automaticities with this, with that, with the other thing, they — just lots of automaticities. And you fish around, and see what you get there with the biggest drop and see what the pc is late — least willing to be responsible for and so forth, and then you remedy his havingness with it.

The only person that doesn't get hurt in a gunfight is the fellow who shot the other fellow — something for you to remember. And that's what overts boils down to.

Now, this is only a Remedy of Havingness if it's a totally smooth session which doesn't blow his havingness because it's a very delicate balance. And the process mustn't be run on a qualified terminal. It must be just a termi­nal. Otherwise it won't change on the cycle of action.

The only safe place to be in an overt is holding the gun. When a person is guilty of an overt, after that, the only safe place is to be holding the gun, and he goes on holding the gun harder and harder, and he's different and more and more different, and things start to dim out, and he doesn't know what the score is.

In other words, if you're going to run a man with this terminal, you sim­ply run "a man." Not "a frightened man" or "a dead man" or "a nuhdinahya."

Well, unfortunately, overts wind him up over on the destroy end of the curve not because he decides he'll destroy everything — not that simply — but an overt is to move an object toward destroy by a counter-create.

You could run "a soldier" you see, or "a painter" or something of this sort, or something of that sort. But not an adjectival man that would pin anybody on the cycle of action.

So, the more an individual has aimed at and knocked apart objects, the further he is along on the cycle of action, the less he can have of the object.

The auditing command of it is simply, "Think of a man. Thank you." "Think of a man. Thank you." "Think of a man. Thank you." "Think of a man. Thank you." "Think of a man. Thank you." "Think of a man. Thank you."

This is one of those super — you play it on a mouth organ and it comes out "Home Sweet Home." And you play it on a banjo and it comes out "Home Sweet Home." And you — you play it on a preclear and it comes out "Home Sweet Home." Do you get the idea? I mean, no matter what you do or how many angles you attack it from, you accomplish the same end goal. You knock apart obsessive individuation, obsessive differentiation, you knock apart the necessity to do overts; you knock apart the feeling that every time he looks at something it'll be destroyed, you knock apart the feeling that this object he is looking at is terribly scarce.

You're doing an odd thing here. You're taking over the automaticity of the engram bank with a postulate. The postulate concerns an existence and you're making the pc assert existence, existence, existence, existence, exist­ence. See, whatever the pc does, the pc exerts existence, existence.

And this with confront it, and not-confront it, dares to, and not-dares to, and all of this sort of thing — that finally winds up, of course, all with the same end goal. They all do more or less the same thing. They get somebody Clear because in that potpourri measured from left to right, upside down, right there in the middle of the scramble, is the reactive bank and the pc.

And the fact that something exists is contrary to his belief. He thinks it's become very scarce — doesn't exist.

And we've just got it taped and there're so many roads plowed through it by this time and so many bulldozers have been driven through it by this time, so many weights have been raised and lowered through it at this time; it's been unthreaded so arduously and lengthily, and so forth, taken apart, pene­trated with light, explored, paved, marked, mapped, and so forth, that with — even without auditing, how it's there at all right now, I am unable to see.

And the reason people kill off other people is because they believe they don't exist and they're too scarce.

Thank you.

You'd think the "scarcer something got the more valuable it is." Well, that's only up to a certain point.

Now, beyond that point, the scarcer it gets the more it's to be destroyed.

Many a marriage is going on the rocks because some man can't have a wife or some woman can't have a husband. So the remedy in such a thing is you simply set them down — clean up that needle, get that slicker than a wolf's tooth, you see — because there mustn't be any — any bad feeling or ARC breaks or anything, and there mustn't be any rough auditing.

And then you say to this — this man, you say, "Think of a wife. Thank you." "Think of a wife. Thank you." "Think of a wife. Thank you." "Think of a wife. Thank you." "Think of a wife. Thank you."

At first she gets it all invisible and then the next thing you know she gets a kind of a dull haze. And then after a while she gets only dead men for a long time. And then the next thing you know, there's a picture of somebody. Fantastic, first picture she ever saw. Get the idea?

Now, you could take this fellow who was short on machinery, and you'd say, you already assessed it, you've pegged it, you know what it is, and you say, "Think of a motor. Thank you." "Think of a motor. Thank you." "Think of a motor. Thank you." "Think of a motor. Thank you." "Think of a motor. Thank you." "Think of a motor. Thank you." "Think of a motor. Thank you." Every time he says, "Yes" you know, you say, "Thank you."

He's going to give you long, involved stories and you'd better listen to them, and particularly the last — the pictures which concern the last few lives, you'd certainly better look into those pictures because he's liable to get some kind of a disentanglement concerning this life that has his whole case licked. But nevertheless, it'll come out in the long run in any event. So, you pay particular attention to that.

But, you just — it's just, "Think of a terminal" you see? Whatever terminal he's scarce on, just, "Think of a terminal." And this has got — run in this fashion across a clear needle with an E-Meter and so forth, and the session kept clean of ARC breaks and so on as you go — this has got Expanded GITA beat about a thousand ways from the middle. But Expanded GITA has in its list several items which are qualified as adjectival terminals. In other words, they're too qualified.

A scarcity of various things, a scarcity, abundance of these various things — well, you just wouldn't have to worry about any scarcity of that — several of them are not terminals. So that list is not necessarily the best list in the world for this but could be resorted to and you could look that over in a case assessment.

If you just read the Expanded GITA list off to a person, watched the meter, took the thing that dropped and just said to the person, "Think of a man. Thank you," or whatever that terminal was, "Think of a man. Thank you." "Think of a man. Thank you." You'd have it licked. Because you would have remedied the scarcity, also remedied the postulate, also remedied the automaticity of the bank and also squared around the pc on cause and effect.

It's quite a process. And you can run it if you successfully graduate from this course as qualified to audit smoothly.

Okay?

Audience: Mm-hm.

All right, there's your candy. Thank you very, very much.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Well, all good courses come to an end as far as I am concerned, but this course isn't coming to an end as far as you're concerned. The hard work is ahead of you.

As long as I am around your Instructors are tenderhearted. Your Instruc­tors are — are kind. They don't let their tempers get away with them, they don't show their impatience and so forth. I serve as a check on them. I put them in weak valences in other words.

But, the second — it's happened before, during last weeks and things like that — is the second I have disappeared in the past, I have known them, actu­ally known them to go out and have their teeth filed.

Now, I am extremely — I am extremely happy that you are being left in very competent hands.

And as you realize, Dick and Jan's work in Scientology is entirely volun­teer and unrecompensed. Their being down here is actually a considerable sacrifice to themselves and nevertheless, why, I'm very glad they could come, but we're actually quite indebted to them. So, I want to thank them person-ally for being here.

I also want to extend my thanks to HASI Australia and HCO Australia for their very fine activities, and for their very good auspices, for an excellent congress and a good follow-through. And they've given me a very easy time of it. I had a staff meeting with them this afternoon and I was very pleased to be able to tell them with considerable truth — you know, you always say pleas-ant things at the end of the thing, you know, like when people die, you always say, "Isn't he a good fellow." "Doesn't he look natural."

But, the truth of the matter is — the truth of the matter is this is actually the first ACC I had anything to do with for some time where I wasn't totally overworked all day and all night with super administrative affairs — was actu­ally able to get something constructive done more or less off my own hook, and I didn't have to patch up anything at all to amount to anything in HASI while I was here in spite of the size of this course, and the strain on the communication lines, and some of my own despatches coming in. My own despatches came in very lightly but those that came in, they were, well, pretty well handled.

And I was quite amazed to be able to have as easy a run of it. Now, this HASI being ostensibly the least educated HASI, with the least orderly history and background back of last year — known by the way to be a holy terror. And as we've only had it straightened out and functioning well since some time in the middle of the year and it's been improving, and improving, and improving, and getting better and better and with the very good staff it's got, it surprised the living daylights out of me. I didn't expect it would get that good this quick. I am extremely pleased with it. And I think you've got a good HASI in Australia, and I want you to stand behind it and back it up. Will you do that for me?

Audience: We will. Sure.

Now I'll be going back to London from here and I was very pleased to find out that I would have a swim at Waikiki Beach. That's the only candy I get on the return trip.

Naturally, I've been — I'm overdue considerably on my return. HASI Lim­ited has apparently been pretty well finished up and has been sitting on the back burner, and South Africa let out one of the most painful little squeaks today that I heard of for some time. I don't know what's going wrong down there but it'll just have to go wrong — if they want it to.

But, I've got to take ahold of some reins back at Saint Hill and get things squared away. Saint Hill is a rather large running concern — oddly enough — you wouldn't believe that as much communication was handled by any small group of people as is handled at Saint Hill. There's only a staff there of a little more than 20, and wow, the amount of traffic and activity that staff handles is utterly fantastic.

The trouble with Saint Hill is everything that it handles is already out of proportion of a Central Organization — in other words, it — it's usually something Central Organizations don't handle. You know, I mean it's already too big for the Central Organization to handle.

Boy, if you don't think that isn't a staff personnel problem and a comm line problem and everything else because everything is going through there at about ten times the velocity of anything. I hope in the very near future that Australia will be connected with Saint Hill by telex, and if that is the case, why, we will be in much better shape, even though I don't think Australia needs all that help. I would be very pleased with that much ARC communication.

The basic immediate program of Scientology, you know all about, and if you don't, why, you just have to trust me. And you've got your own plans in many respects, and go ahead and carry them out.

It is a very, very, very bad officer of disciplined, veteran troops who does not exert discipline at every turn of the trail with such force and solidity that everything is totally held in tight grooves.

And it's a very, very bad officer of guerrilla troops who pays much attention when they start charging ramparts and rounding up and stealing horses and so forth, beyond trying to keep them out of trouble with the law. I've led highly disciplined forces but I'm not leading them now

You're definitely — you're definitely the guerrilla troops if I ever saw any.

But much more than that, you might think it was very flowery if I told you that you held the fate of this planet in your hands. And here in Australia particularly you hold the fate of this planet in your hands. You really do.

I won't bother to go into why, where, something of the sort, but you certainly do. And I'd add to it, except it probably exceeds your imagination but there are a great many planets in a very short day's sail, you might say, that you also hold in your hands. You don't know it yet, you haven't looked in your palm lately.

But the upshot of this is that we are for the first time reversing the current on the usual disintegrating, go-to-pieces, get very corrupt, totally dis­ciplined society. Where it all goes to pieces and it looks so good except every-body is horribly miserable with it and there's no real randomity in it and it's a total upset across the boards.

We're the first time, when a planet starts into this particular cycle and curve, we are sitting there with the answer, which is to say, they can get as good as they want, we can still make man better, and that's quite remarkable.

But these big automatic machines of planetary governments, and confed­eracies and so forth get going and there's nothing you can do about them thereafter — they've had it. Nobody can stop them. Nobody can stop these Frankenstein monsters after they get released — except us. We don't necessar­ily want to inherit the monster but we do hope that the hands on the mon­ster's reins will not be dropped and we can make sure that fairly able hands are placed in those reins. As long as Scientology exists, why, some freedom and decency can exist in this universe.

It isn't a very high mission from a standpoint of many goals and organizations and so forth of the past but I think it's a very factual one. And oddly enough all we have to do is keep going just the way we're going and we'll do just fine.

So, thank you for being here, and thank you for keeping going.

It's actually been a great pleasure lecturing to you, I haven't had an easier time of it for some time. I don't know if you know it or not but I have now given 38 lectures in a space of almost exactly three weeks.

And those — that's quite a lot of gen, and you were getting it so hot and heavy and there were some who came into the course late and some that were asleep early. And you're going to get a replay all the way through of these lectures.

But the exact course pattern which you are going through and the exact lectures which you have been given, will form in the future the BScn courses and so on. Naturally they will not be taught — the same Instructors, and they will not be taught to the grade and stiffness that this one is, perhaps, but never­theless we have established a pattern. These lectures will now be used by every Scientology organization at Continental level, and this constitutes the new BScn regimen and course. You understand? Well, that puts you on top as far as that sort of thing is concerned and it puts you up to the people who got the course.

Now where Central Organizations are trying to make new auditors and that sort of thing, why, they'll probably try to whistle at quite a few of you people one way or the other to get them to come over and show them how the course was really taught. And any assistance you can give them will be greatly appreciated by them and by me.

It's been a pleasure to be here with you. I'm leaving tomorrow morning, I won't see you again.

Goodbye.