Want to talk to you now about R1-6.

Okay. Here we have now, Route 1, Step 11. R1-11: "Have preclear be problems and solutions in havingness." And this would, of course, be sequitur in having disabused him of his most favorite idea that two things cannot occupy the same space. Having disabused him of this obvious, known, practical and convincing idea, we would be able to go on to R1-11. Or, having failed utterly to disabuse him of it — you know, having failed utterly in R1-10 — we would go on to R1-11.

If we had no other process anywhere than "Have preclear hold two back anchor points of the room for at least two minutes by the clock," and we didn't have any other process but that, do you know we'd have more people well? That's one of these important processes; that's one of these interesting, important processes which has quite a lot of history back of it.

Now, you see, you could fail in R1-10 — you could fail — by not running it long enough, by having a preclear who is having a lot of difficulty while exteriorized, by having had this preclear be sloppily audited before. You know, there'd be various reasons. And you've asked him this question: "What things wouldn't you mind occupying your same space?" And, boy, he's vague, and he's this way and that. And after you run it for a little while, he gets unhappy, and then you get it kind of flat. But you're not satisfied with it at all, you could actually just go on to R1-11 — if you weren't getting anyplace with it. Now, that's not to encourage you to change a process just because it isn't getting a result. But I'm just telling you that R1-11 is independent of R1-10.

This is making space. Here we're immediately and directly applying viewpoint of dimension.

Why is it? Well, we're in a basic process again, you see? And do you know that all those basic processes — conceding the fact that the Remedy of Havingness and Spotting Spots are actually very much associated with each other — all those basic processes are workable processes. And here we've simply moved on to two-way communication. And we'll see, back here at the be-ginning, we asked him if he had any present time problems — you know, we got into communication by talking about problems? — well, here, tucked way down here at R1-11, we have a basic process. This is a basic process.

One of the things which a thetan is very afraid of is that he is going to get up against this stuff or put a beam on it — this MEST, you know — and stick. He's afraid this will happen to him. Also, he's lost his ability, to some degree, to make space. And this is a very essential thing — that he make space — because he won't have any space to exteriorize into unless he himself makes space. A person has as much space as he makes, not as much as he sees.

You could have started a process of this character the first time you ever talked to him. You could have started this process if you just had been introduced to him. So it's got to be in R1 someplace, so it's just there. It's not dependent on the one above it or below it. Problems and Solutions in Havingness.

You just assume you've got space and you've got space; if you assume you don't have space, you don't have space. It's as easy as that.

Now, you'll also discover this over here in a later process, won't you? You will discover that this could have followed Opening Procedure by Duplication, hm? And you'll find it again appearing as R2-20, Use of Problems and Solutions — another way to run it. But it's still a very basic process, two-way communication. It's a problem that you're in communication with him at all.

But "the two back anchor points of the room" is an old process. It has many, many variations, and amongst those variations would- be "Now, find one corner of the room — upper corner of the room. Now find another upper corner of the room. You got those two? All right. Hold on to them. Now find a third upper corner of the room. Now put your attention on all three. Now find a fourth corner of the room. Put your attention on all four. You got the idea? Find a fifth corner of the room. Put your attention on all five." Sneak up on it. There's a group process in the Auditor's Handbook, printed edition — one of the back group processes in the book — which is just that process. Only you do this for fifteen minutes at a time. You add a corner every fifteen minutes. This just makes the fellow make space and gets him over being afraid of the material universe.

So this fellow is exteriorized and we use this form when we have some-body out of his body. You know, he's exteriorized. He's an awareness of awareness unit. He's aware of his differentiation. He is somewhere up close to Clear. He's still associated with energy masses or something of the sort. Well, a thetan is unhappy unless he can have a few problems, and so on.

An important part of this is "don't think." The reason why "don't think" is an important part of it is the thetan keeps postulating himself, all the time you're processing him, into various conditions. He could postulate himself into anything or any frame of mind.

And you could ask him, "What kind of a problem can you be in havingness?" — specialized use, see. "What kind of problem could you be in havingness?" It's rather significant, but he'll give you some problems he could be in havingness. "Let me see, I could be a pauper, and I could be this and that." And all of a sudden it will occur to him, sooner or later, as you're asking him that question over and over again, "I could be exteriorized." That's one of the reasons he's not stabilizing outside: he's being a problem in havingness. You know, there's the body, and there he is. He should be in the body; if he's in the body, he has it.

So, you've said to somebody, "Be three feet back of your head"; you've had him copy things; you've had him copy nothingness; you've remedied this havingness problem with him; you've got all that whipped. Now let's get him a little bit more stable in the immediate environment, and let's let him find out the environment is actually there. And we do this simply by having him locate a couple of the back corners of the room and hold on to them and not think.

Actually, he's having to hide, protect and own bodies in order to be happy in life. Well, that's a problem of havingness. Hiding bodies, hiding objects, hiding gold, burying treasure — that's a problem in havingness, see. Hiding, protecting, owning — these are problems in havingness. So you'd just go on asking him this: "What kind of a problem can you be in havingness?" Well, we've sometimes used this along this line: "What kind of a problem can you be in havingness?" and then "What kind of a problem can you be in not-havingness?" just to shake it up — you know, to give him the idea. He gets havingness as a positive and not-havingness as a negative affair. And this is just to make sure that you're covering all squares.

While a person is exteriorized, he can make and break masses and do all sorts of things just by thinking, you see. So we just tell him not to think; we hold on to the two corners and not think.

So you'd ask him this question. He's exteriorized, and you say, "What kind of a problem can you be in havingness? What's another kind of a problem could you be in havingness?" And you'd run that until its comm lag was pretty flat. And then you would say, "What kind of a problem can you be in not-havingness?" and then "Give me some more problems you could be in not-havingness. Some more problems you could be in not-havingness." And then we could run it a little longer, till that communication lag was flat on that, and then we could ask him, while exteriorized, "What kind of a problem can others be to you in havingness?" And again, "What kind of a problem could others be to you in havingness?" And then we'd say "What kind of a problem can others be to you in not-havingness?" And right away he gets the feeling of the walls pulling the energy out of him as a thetan, you know — parasites, people standing around. "What kind of a problem can others be to you in not-havingness?" brings up immediately the vacuum-cleaner quality of this particular universe. It really pulls the energy out of people.

Quite important that he doesn't think — and that's all he does. And if you do that for less than two minutes, you're just wasting your time.

And we would go on with that till its lag was flat. And then we could go into solutions and say, "What kind of a solution can you be to havingness? What kind of a solution can you be to not-havingness?" In other words, we'd just use those questions.

Now, why do we say just two minutes? Well, two minutes is a long time to a thetan. The equivalent in the body would be two or three hours. See, it works faster while he's exteriorized than when he's inside.

But every time we use a solution, we have reduced his problems, haven't we? You see, a lot of the places on the track where you'll find this individual stuck, it's when he's got attained, suddenly, a solution.

So let's ask this boy to do this stunt. Let's ask him to hold on to the two back corners of the room and sit there and not think. And then let's take him two minutes by your clock, huh? Let's not take him two minutes out of his hat. Because two minutes to most auditors is usually twelve seconds. A minute is a long time when you're sitting in an auditing chair. So really, actually take it two minutes by the clock — long time to the thetan.

What's a basic solution? What is the ultimate solution? The ultimate solution is demonstrated by this proposition: The solution to a problem is the problem. This is demonstrated in Perfect Duplication. The solution to a problem is the problem.

You'll find out his visio will pick up and other things will occur, but most important, he can find out that he can look that far away from himself with-out everything falling in on him. His body is liable to get somatics, various things are liable to occur. And if things start to occur simply because he's doing this process, why, of course, you know, the natural thing to do would be to go on to the next process just because it's the next process. Is that right or wrong? Huh?

If you have a solution to a problem which is the problem — in other words, if you have duplicated the problem perfectly — the problem will cease to exist, and you will have no energy, no mass, no location in space and no time, won't you? In other words, the solution to the problem is the problem. But the second that you did that perfect duplicate, you would have as-ised the problem, which would leave you with nothing. So solutions are the most destructive things to havingness you ever saw in your life.

If anything starts to happen by reason of his holding on to the two back corners of the room — his comm lag goes down, he starts to get dopey, he gets groggy, he gets somatics, he gets some violent perception changes, he's having a hard time fishing for them — any one of these things occurs, that is a communication lag boosted up to the dignity of a process lag. In other words, the process isn't finished yet.

A fellow gets a real top-flight solution, he'll wind up with nothing, won't he? And that is what people kick about when you talk to them about exteriorization. It is a solution. It is the solution to existence. Naturally. It has no further wavelength, and a fellow actually can exteriorize into no position in time, you see, or location in space. I mean, if he can't place himself somewhere he's in bad shape. But he basically can simply place himself some-where, not being anyplace, you see, and he would be an orientation point.

And so, although I say two minutes by the clock, I say that because it usually takes that long for the fellow to forget himself enough to let things start to happen.

But what a silly thing this is. People fight away from having solutions. Do you know that if you got a Black Five, and you asked him to really solve something — you know, make a perfect duplicate of the problem? — he'd start to get sick at his stomach. You've asked him to look at nothing. Every time you ask one of these fellows who is figure-figure-figure-figure-figure-figure every time you ask one of these fellows to actually get a solution to the problem he's liable to get sick.

Now, two minutes by the clock ... And now suppose something really is happening with this fellow — you know, he's er-wrr and he's getting perception changes and so forth. Well, you'd just better do that process until he ceases to get changes — until as long as he's getting a change, you do that process! It's a process all by itself. Savvy? So he gets perception changes. So you do this thing for five hours; this guy is exteriorized and he's still getting changes at the end of five hours. Fine, it obviously was the best process that you could have given him at the moment, because it's the one that's producing all the change.

One of the finest things to make a person sick you ever saw in your life is come along, for instance, and point out the solution to a problem. The ultimate solution is nothingness. "Be three feet back of your head"; now he's in perfect condition.

Well, you know, you ought to be chasing this fellow around over the moon, and you ought to be doing all sorts of things. "And Ron said that he ought to be exercised and he ought to be able to patch up his body and he ought to be able to heal people, and so forth. Well, that's the thing we ought to be doing, then, isn't it?"o, No! It says right in the Auditor's Code: "Run processes flat." Run a process as long as it produces change. If a process is producing no change, why, go on to the next process. Give it a fair trial. Well, a fair trial for "Hold the two back anchor points of the room" — a fair trial for it is two minutes for a thetan exterior. A good trial for it for a person when he's in his body is fifteen or twenty minutes.

But after a person has gone downscale to a point of where he's very heavily embedded in energy, and so forth, now nothingness becomes very antipathetic for him to look at. So if you start asking him about solutions, you start asking him — just willy-nilly ask him about what solutions he's had in the past ("Now, give me some solutions you have arrived at"), you know he'll get sad?

You know, you ask the fellow while he's sitting there in a chair, "Hold the two back anchor points of the room." He holds them. And he holds them for fifteen, twenty minutes and then things start to happen. All of a sudden then he's getting whoom! bing. It kind of takes a little while for it to wind up sometimes, so a fair trial exteriorized would be a couple of minutes — well, let's say fifteen minutes for somebody who was still interiorized. See, that would not be a Route 1 process then, would it — if he were still interiorized.

You give him some things — "Well, now what problems have you had in life?" — and for a little while, until he gets the bank drained down too much, why, he gets happier and happier and happier, you know. "Oh, my parents were so mean to me. And my father beat me. And my mother beat my father, and they both beat my little brother. And that made me beat my dog. And we all never had anything to eat but chicken and ice cream, and we had no place to sleep but a featherbed. Boy, I've had problems, problems, problems; I'm just about out of my mind." And you say, "Now, what solutions have you had in the past? What are some of your solutions?" The fellow says, "Solutions? Have I ever had a solution for anything? Let's see, solutions? Solutions? (Sigh!) Solutions, yeah. Yes, I had one: I left my family, was a solution. Let's see . . ." You trace back down the track and you'll find out that every solution is a reduction in havingness. You got that?

The difference between Route 1 and Route 2, you know, of course is just the fact a Route 1 is run while a person is exteriorized. You'll notice some Route 1 processes are the same as Route 2. This one, by the way — "Hold the two back anchor points of the room" — also appears in Route 2, done in a different way. Done almost the same way, but it's done for a fellow interiorized.

Well, you, you dog, are sitting there asking a preclear to solve his case. Bells ring? He's liable just to sit there and give you more and more and more and more and more problems, and more arduous, and more involved and further down the line, and so forth. Why? Because it'd make him awfully unhappy, he feels. If he is his body, a solution to the body is to have the body disappear utterly.

So this is the way you'd do it, and you run that as long as he would get a change. If he got no perception change by reason of holding on to the two back anchor points of the room, then there are two possibilities — three possibilities: (1) he went back inside; (2) he wasn't doing the process (you know, he didn't hold on to the two; you told him to and he's sitting there, but he's not doing it — that possibility, you see, occurs); and the other one is that he's in such good shape that merely contacting some MEST doesn't disturb him any. See, so you just pays your money and you takes your chance.

You get in religion the fact that a great saint is supposed to be able to dematerialize his body. I don't know what he's dragging a body for or where he's taking it to. But this is supposed to be the stuff. That's just a booby trap on the line, you see. Actually, he himself is no mass.

But listen, if he's still interiorized, if he went back in, he'll come back out again on this process. So you just go on doing the process. Two, if he isn't obeying your orders, then you didn't sound the case — you know, you didn't size this case up; you didn't do a good human evaluation on him before you started to process him. You know? He's not doing what you're telling him to do, what you should be doing with him is Standard Operating Procedure 8-C's Opening Procedure. Good old R2-16 — that's what that fellow needed.

Well, a person has to be willing to solve something before he'll exteriorize. That's a little maxim I give you and bequeath to you this afternoon. He has to be willing to attempt a solution before he will exteriorize. And he won't attempt a solution until he has a great number of problems, and until he knows down to the core of his awareness of awareness that he can dream up problems ad infinitum.

And, by the way, let me go into it right away (I may or may not have mentioned it elsewhere), but the place where you discover whether or not a person should be entered in Route 1 or Route 2 is not "Be three feet back of your head." It's whether or not he's got a comm lag while doing Steps 1, 2 or 3. You're doing Steps 1, 2 or 3, applying your knowledge of human evaluation, this fellow has lots of comm lags, and so forth — don't bother with Route 1, just go on over to Route 2. See, he won't be three feet back of his head. Long comm lags, and that sort of thing, and he's fouled up and he can't give you direct answers and so forth — go to Route 2. Run R2-16, Opening Procedure of 8-C. You see?

So what's the goal of this process? He's a little bit unhappy about being exteriorized. He feels calmer and he feels better, but there's something a little bit queasy about it, unstable about it and so forth. Well, the best thing that you can do to him, really, is show him that he hasn't had his havingness go all to pieces; he can always have something more. Actually, being exteriorized and being free, he can now have far more easily than previously. Well, you just don't tell him that; you run this process and he'll convince himself of it.

I should have made that clearer there: you're only on Route 1 where the fellow had practically no comm lag. You were able to talk to him, get straight answers, and so forth. And you did this, and all of a sudden you said, "What do you know!" Route 1: "Be three feet back of your head." He probably is, you see.

"Now, what problems can you be in havingness?" and on and on and on.

All right. So this "Hold the two back anchor points of the room" refers to somebody that's already entered and gone down Route 1, right? All right.

What's the limit and goal of the process? He will at first believe that he could get a great many problems. He starts to think and invent them after a while, you see. You didn't tell him to invent them, but he will have to because he's drained the bank flat, which makes him very unhappy. He's got all the problems which are obvious. Now he has to start dreaming them up.

How long would you do it? Well, you could do it as long as it produced change. You give it two minutes to really make sure that it is.

You say to him, "Now, what about this business about problems in havingness now — problems in havingness here? How many of these do you think you could dream up?" "Oh, I could dream up quite a few." That's not the answer you're looking for. The answer you're looking for is "I could probably go on forever dreaming up problems in havingness and not-havingness." Got that? "I could probably go on forever." In other words, he has to have some conviction that he can invent an infinity of problems in havingness and not-havingness. He must be able to invent an infinity of it, and know that he can, for him to stay stably exteriorized. You follow me?

I'll go over that again with you. You have no business being on Route 1 with a person who would have snapped back in his head. If he has bad comm lags and things like that, if you did get him out, he'd just snap back in. Furthermore, he won't obey your auditing commands, he won't do what you're telling him to do anyway, so there wouldn't be any reason to be running him on Route 1.

It's a very important process, then, isn't it? But, then, we said that in two-way communication you could just keep asking a fellow "What kind of problems could you be to yourself? What kind of problems could you be to yourself? What kind of problems can you be to yourself? What kind of problems can you be to yourself? Give me some more problems that you could be to yourself. Some more problems you could be to yourself." And then for a little variation, "What problems could others be to you? What problems could others be to you? What problems could others be to you?" At first it'd be a limited number, but quite a few. At first he's hard put for them; he doesn't want to surrender any. And now he starts dreaming some up; he could invent quite a few. Now he can invent an infinity of them. If he can invent an infinity of problems, he can exteriorize.

You understand that you can't walk around back of a thetan, making very sure that he is where he says he is. They're deceitful! And so the best thing for you to do is to size him up by comm lag and then choose your route.

Why? Because a solution is zero; the ultimate solution is zero. Recently I discovered the ultimate truth and the ultimate solution. Prove it too. It's right in your Axioms in the printed edition. The ultimate truth and the ultimate solution — they're quite obvious.

You could, of course, choose your route by going into Route 1, say, "Be three feet back of your head," and then he couldn't be, so you go on to Route 2. But you've given him a failure, haven't you? And that will stand in the road of his later exteriorization. So don't give him a failure; exteriorize him when he's ready to exteriorize.

Therefore, an individual who is short on problems will not exteriorize. He has problems in lieu of objects; he has problems in lieu of havingness. And you'd better have him have an infinity of problems before you go on up-stairs to heavier masses.

Route 2, by the way, run all the way on down — somewhere along the line of Route 2, he's going to blow out of his head anyhow, whether you've told him to or not.

Okay? Very well. I hope you know how to run that particular process now. You should, because it's right there in two-way communication and it's no different than that.

All right. So we got as far, then, as holding the two back anchor points of the room, and he just seemed to hit a big comm lag at this point, and he's snarled up, and so forth. Well, his behavior right up to this point has demonstrated that he's exteriorized — he didn't have much comm lag and so forth. Actually, the process is just working like mad. That's the only thing that's happening here. So you let it work as long as it works. This is the least "workful" process imaginable.

You could ask this thetan the same thing that you would ask him in a two-way communication: "What kind of problems could you be to yourself? What kind of problems could you be to yourself?" All kinds of machines will start to show up, and all kinds of problem machines and so forth. That'll stop him from using all this daffy machinery, by the way — all this daffy machinery that he keeps inventing and showing up with and asking you to unmock and so forth. That's all set up there so he can have an infinity of problems. He has problem-making machines, and a problem-making family, and he has a problem-breaking-down car.

The only thing really wrong with this process is the auditor always feels that he ought to get in there and pitch, you know? — he ought to kick around things and run a show and keep things popping, one way or the other. And the preclear sitting in the chair — his chair — and the auditor is sitting in his chair, doesn't deliver to us the idea that a great many things are occurring. No lion acts or anything, you know? And the fellow simply sitting there, holding the two back anchor points of the room, minute after minute after minute after minute after minute after ... doesn't seem to be very therapeutic. Well, it's one of the more therapeutic things that you could do, if it is producing change.

Okay. That's all.

So we'd ask the preclear every once in a while, "Have you got them? How is it?" We ask him quietly because we don't want to jar him. This is one of those quiet processes. And we ask him to hold on to them, and ask him how it is and if he's having difficulty with it.

And he'll tell you, "Yeah, I'm getting quite a perception change." "You know, there's a lot of locks flying off," he'll say. And you'll get various manifestations. "Yes, I'm remembering a lot of things that ..." You say, "Well, just sit there and don't think, huh?" Of course, this is a lead-pipe cinch — to give him a lot of locks flying off — because the main common denominator of things he's suppressing is that he mustn't think about them. You follow how that would be?

So, if you tell him not to think, all the things that are suppressed in his life will start to fly through the air, and they'll start to come right on up by him. That's a curious thing. You're just as-ising the blocks which keep him from remembering.

Well now, you shouldn't advise him of that. He'll actually eventually get to a point where he actually can sit there and not think. And this will be the first time in his life he ever sat still and didn't think.

Freud and fiction writers and other people have long told us that there isn't a single moment of the day or night when associative reasoning isn't taking place. Well, this was the way Freud made his bread and butter. He said it wasn't possible for a person to be quiet and not think. This was beyond his capabilities.

Actually, a stream of consciousness — which is followed by the very best fiction writers (Dash Hammet and the rest of the boys all do it; I used to be guilty of it, too) .. .

"One thought leads to another thought leads to another thought leads to another thought." The psychologist really turns a shotgun on your chest with that one. He says, "Well, really, all of your thoughts are being motivated and caused by the last thought you thought." Or, "What you saw in the environment, you see, that's what really started you thinking. And that starts this stream of consciousness, and it starts at the beginning of life and it ends at the end of life. And that's stream of consciousness, and that's the way people think." Well, that may be the way some nut that's teaching psychology thinks, but it's not the way people think.

So you're telling somebody to sit still and not to think. This is a new, strange experience — if you just wanted to do that, you know — sit still and don't think! He's exteriorized: "Hold on to the two back corners of the room. Sit still and don't think." He would eventually get to a point where he'd as-ised out his main suppressed thoughts, and he would be able to sit there and not think. And it'd be the first time in his life he had ever experienced peace! Up to that time, it's all been the chatter-chatter-chatter, gob-gob, walla-walla of machines. You know? They have critical demons and, you know, all their demons going, and .. .

That, by the way . . . the psychologist thinks this associative reasoning is reasoning. It's not. It's demon chatter. People really don't even act on this associative stream of yap-yap that goes through their heads. When you take a bite of food, you don't say to yourself, "Now I am going to bite my food," do you? Okay.

Well, so you get him out of the habit of associative reasoning with this particular process.

Okay.