The mind, after all, has been granted supernatural tendencies, it back through all of his lives has been very definitely connected with the supernatural, He has many things against touching the mind of somebody else. Quite in addition to that, Service Facsimile One, plus its overt acts, practically prohibits touching somebody else’s mind, Service Facsimile One says, “Touch them,” And then its overt acts finally pile up and says, “Don’t touch anybody else’s mind.”

Course Date _______________

Well, this is something which you as a - an instructor would have to overcome, You would have to demonstrate to this student that it was possible for him to do something to somebody else’s mind without himself blowing up or inverting or having somebody come along and issue him a summons to appear before the great temple priest or something of the sort.

This is SCIENTOLOGY, the overall study which embraces DIANETICS, the science of human thought.

Now, it is perfectly true that a person beginning to audit is subject to, to some degree, restimulation. It’s not very dangerous. Actually is overrated in the amount an auditor becomes restimulated and gets somatics, But do you know, I don’t know of any auditors going off the pin because they were auditing. So that theory and danger isn’t there.

A student of this course, with reasonable intelligence and attention should be able to possess himself of the basic data of though and mind operation in a few weeks and to enable himself and his fellows to reach higher goals of civilization than have ever before been attained.

You’ll find them superstitious to this degree: You will find that when they audit somebody, they think if they audit somebody, then they’re going to have to take over the facsimiles they’re taking out of that other person. Well, the way this really works out is quite simple.

The student starting to audit, or the auditor starting to audit somebody else, suddenly clips some overt act of his own and he thinks - at the moment, he fails to differeratiate, and he thinks he’s actually rendering these pains to the preclear, and it merely turns on his motivator against himself. You see how that would be?

So he’d pick up the somatics the preclear is picking up because anybody has literally billions and billions of incidents which they can turn on, and so they would just match up an incident. They’ll say, “Look what I’m doing to this preclear, I’m sorry I did to this preclear,” and so on. So he gets the somatics himself in an effort not to get the preclear to get the somatics.

Actually if you want to play around with it, you can move over into the body of the preclear. You can move the preclear’s body into yours. You can do all sorts of weird, weird things that are quite valid, but you don’t have to. And just routine auditing doesn’t contain these things.

All right. The best way, I would say, to get over this would be to demonstrate to your student, as an instructor, the existence of a facsimile and the storage of pain. Remember you’re probably dealing with somebody who has no indoctrination in the mind at all. Or if he does have any indoctrination, it has been in some other direction.

Let’s take an indoctrination that a psychoanalyst has had. He’s had a pretty good medical background and so on, and he still tends to treat with structure. He still tends to dramatize overt acts against his patient. He evaluates. There’s one of the main differences. Your psychoanalyst, in his attitude, evaluates for the preclear. He tries to own the preclear. He tries to get the preclear, his patient, to transfer to him. He wants to be boss instead of letting this person free, whereas an auditor is trying to set this preclear free - give him his own self-determinism back. See, that’s an entirely different viewpoint than your psychoanalyst has.Now, it’s interesting to note that if your student is grounded in some old-time psychotherapy, he will still tend to try to translate everything which you tell him into the terminology in which he was trained. This is something like taking MERSIGS [Merchant ship signal flags] and translating them into Japanese, and Japanese - translating them back into English, in order to get a signal through. You don’t need the Japanese as a step. If you could just translate it straight through, just as what it is, Scientology, and the application thereof, you find it much easier.

Your Jungian, your Adlerian, and your Freudian - classic Freudian - are doing a wonderful thing. They have taken Facsimile One without recognizing what it is - Freud did this right out of the blue. He must have keyed in Facsimile One in 1894, the second he started to work on somebody else’s mind and burst forth with his libido theory. Because Facsimile One has a lot of sexual shut-off in it; it has a lot to do with sex. And Lord, it’s got a censor in it - the censor that keeps you from doing anything else. All of these various conflicts and complexes in it are just set up as a routine.

1. Theta, operating in the physical universe, can be said to do two things: it can be said to BE, and it can be said to receive and record impressions of the physical universe. A mind, then, can be said to be made up of an initial and constantly reiterated decision to BE, plus many recorded impressions of the physical universe which are used in controlling the physical universe. This description, however, though useful, is misleading when applied to a living human being, since the mind of a living human being is apparently made up of more than one BEING and, consequently, of more than one set of recorded impressions.

In other words, he did have a map of Facsimile One, but he was trying to say that Facsimile One is the human mind, and it’s not, The human mind doesn’t operate that way; Facsimile OIle operates that way.

So you’d have this trouble with a person grounded in psychoanalysis. He would try to tell you all the time, as you tried to instruct him, how this translated itself into the censor, the libido, the thisa, the thata, and he’d keep on restimulating for himself, and try to restimulate for you, Facsimile One. That’s why their people don’t get well. They come in and they have all this stuff pointed out to them and they - just getting Facsimile One, Facsimile One, Facsimile One - restimulate yourself, boy; restimulate yourself, boy. This is the way to get well, this is the way to get well. Restimulate yourself. They might as well be standing there with a machine and cranking it.

3. We may begin our enumeration and description of the entities which make up the human mind with that entity which is least surprising, the somatic entity. The somatic entity is that being which carries on the evolution of an organism, following the genetic line. The somatic entity would include under its command all the epicenters of the organism. The somatic entity would be independent of the protoplasmic line, the undying organic line without which no organism but the simplest is brought into existence but it would follow the course of that endless flow of organic life closely in most cases. We might suppose that a certain somatic entity might be named Smith in many succeeding organisms.

So, training this student, it is absolutely necessary for you as an instructor to demonstrate to him the existence of a facsimile and the extreme simplicity of this facsimile - the very, very simple thing this facsimile is. And that’s what you should do immediately and right off the bat.

It is interesting to speculate upon the relationship between the somatic entity and the protoplasmic line. Probably the closest approach which can be made at this writing is that the somatic entity is like an individual running along a road, expertly rolling a great many hoops. He would be the captain of a company of little life organisms, the cells, and particularly the reproductive cells, of the body. Other somatic entities might be supposed to stand by the side of the road, waiting for some of these hoops to become detached by procreation, and expecting to take charge of them and roll them when they became detached from the hoops of the first entity. There might be a group of Smith entities which had charge of the Smith line so long as there were enough Smith hoops to go around, or who called in help from elsewhere or split themselves when too many Smith hoops were created by procreation.

The best way to do it is with an electropsychometer. Set him down, put the cans in his hands. Pinch him - good and hard so he can feel the pinch - and show him the needle of the machine, Watch it dip the second he’s pinched. He watches that thing dip. And pinch him hard enough till it dips. And then say, “All right, go back to the moment I was pinching you” - well, he can do this easily. “Now run through and feel again this pinch.” He does and the machine dips. Well, that’s very, very peculiar - the machine dips.

These hoops would, of course, have a certain amount of forward motion of their own. They would contain enough theta to continue their life briefly as cells, but their organization into more complete organisms would depend upon the guiding hand of the somatic entity. If left to themselves, they would soon slow and fall (the death of the cell.) If left to themselves as groups (human beings) they would slow down and break up (the death of the more complex organism.)

“Now run through - run through your resistance to this effort I’m putting into your arm. This effort I am putting into your arm, run through your resistance to it.” And he’ll watch the machine dip, dip, dip, dip. Many times you’ll have to go through it a lot more times than you’d have to through a real incident. And shift his attention, if you have to, to get that up, shift his attention to the top of his shoulder, whereas you pinched him on the arm. And get that effort. And get that effort to register on the machine. All of a sudden, he says, “That’s very strange. The pinch that went into my arm was stored or recorded somehow.”

The somatic entity might be supposed to be quite similar for an animal and a human being. The difference would be only that the somatic entity of the human being would be "bigger" and would have more work to do.

Now get his emotion as he was pinched, and you’ll see that there’s a little emotional curve bob. Particularly - you want to pay attention to this - do it suddenly. Pinch him suddenly Just reach out suddenly and pinch him, without telling him you’re going to pinch him, and you’ve got a nice emotional curve to show him on the machine.

Those incidents which are run by pre-clears, the Boo-Hoo, the mytosis, the helper, etc, which are on the genetic line, are part of the memory of the somatic entity. 4. There are three or four other classes of entities making up the mind, besides the somatic entity. The somatic entity is far from being in command of the mind, although like any other entity it may take command under the proper circumstances.

Now, he knows he’s got the somatic out, Now show him this curve bobbing. Very often they’ll run the somatic and the curve. You see the effort - somatic is part of the effort.

5. The entity which is superior in the mind is called the theta being or THETAN. The thetan is the true "I" of the individual. It is the being which would be in command of the mind of an individual who had become completely self-determined. The thetan, however, is not in command even most of the time for most people.

Sometimes they’ll just run the pain without running the effort. But you direct them through on this, time after time, and get their thoughts when they were pinched. And then have them try to get some feeling of your emotion while they were pinched. And they’ll see all of this registering on the machine, and all of a sudden they will see the machine settled back to where it was before you did this to them. And you see - “Now, you see, you recorded a facsimile, and I rubbed it out. And it was on record.”

Actually, as simple as this may seem to you, it is quite revelatory to some people. It would knock a psychoanalyst practically off of his chair. He would try to say, “Well now, let’s see, you got a delusion or a hallucination or something of the sort that this was taking place, and that hallucination deluded it?” or something of the sort. He would not care to look at a real recording unless you were to show him a picture and you were to say, “Now look, that’s a picture. It’s got a house in it. And I take this eraser and I erase the house. I’ve still got the sheet of paper. Now, that’s all we’re doing. Simple. Nothing to it. But let’s not try to make it complicated, because it’s easy.” All right, The next thing that you could do, still showing him the machine, would show him that his thoughts had recording value. You say, “Do you remember your father?” The machine does a little bob, rather, “Did your father ever punish you?” The machine does a bigger bob. “Let’s recall a time when your father punished you.” The machine does a big bob. “Now let’s remember it, remember it, remember it.” Bing. All of a sudden the machine isn’t bobbing, and he is not bothered. And he realizes suddenly he isn’t quite as bothered about this.

7. The thetan apparently co-exists with an entity which is almost its equal, but not quite. This entity may be called the PARTNER.

Now, that’s straight memory. That demonstrates that he can be in present time without very - any close contact with this facsimile and pick things out of it.

8. Any entity may take over the whole of the organism and may exist as the whole organism but each entity has a position of its own, where it may be considered to act, customarily.

That’s memory: picking things out of a facsimile which isn’t even brought up.

9. The Thetan occupies the head, facing forward.

Or, as in the case of being pinched in the arm, you can take the euhole picture - the whole facsimile - and hold it up and run it across him again. This demonstration will demonstrate to him that this exists and that something happens. You demonstrate phenomena to him.

10. The Partner occupies the head, facing backwards.

That’s the first thing your student has to know. The phenomena exists. And you show it to him with a psychometer and with pinching him and a few other things - just the basic phenomena.

11. The next entity is the RIGHT INSIDE or RIGHT INBOARD entity.

All right. The next thing, if you’re teaching him to audit, is not to ask him to try his skill 100 percent on a preclear the first time. Actually, he’ll be scared to death. This is something he mustn’t touch. He’s superstitious about it. He has gained the idea that the phenomena exists, You can even show him that past lives exist by the machine behavior. You can account for various things for him. But this still has not gotten across this one bridge - he hasn’t touched a preclear’s mind yet.

12. The next entity is the LEFT INSIDE or LEFT INBOARD entity.

Now, he expects the preclear to blow up or something strange to happen if he does something to this mind. So what you do is take a - old copy of Self Analysis or the Handbook for Preclears, even better, and you put it in his hands and you give him a preclear. And you make him read this thing to the preclear, Make him make the preclear recall these things. And give him a little indoctrination along in this line and his confidence will come up the line.

13. The next is the STOMACH entity.

Then have him run what you might call emotional curves on the preclear a little bit: feeling this emotion, feeling that emotion, getting it here, getting it there. He’ll find out the emotional curve exists. And then you can assign to him running a secondary.

14. Two more are the LEFT OUTSIDE or LEFT OUTBOARD entity and the RIGHT-OUTSIDE or RIGHT OUTBOARD entity.

Now the running of the secondary, as you know, is not very complex, but many secondaries are badly shut down. You have him run a secondary: have him go from the beginning to the end, get the exact moment and all the perceptions on the preclear when the preclear received some bad news, and run those through to the end of the incident - maybe ten minutes later, maybe an hour later or a day later - and keep running that through, over and over and over and over. But remembering that if it doesn’t spill, it has overt acts before it, so have him go find the overt act again. But again, this is just emotional. Just emotion - that’s all you want out of these incidents. That is running a secondary.

15. Last in rank is the faithful SOMATIC entity.

You could even permit him to run an engram and validate for himself, either in himself or on a preclear - particularly on a preclear - the fact that things are recorded during periods of unconsciousness.

16. Now the question arises, if the somatic entity is the only one which is intimately connected with the genetic line of the organism, when do the other entities join the organism? The most accurate answer which can be given at this time is that the thetan and the other principal entities join the organism just before birth. The two outboard entitles, however, seem to be added after birth, although not much evidence has been examined on that subject at this writing.

Now, oddly enough, this is not hard to demonstrate. Your psychologist, whenever he moved in on this science, tried to give somebody a PDH and then run it out. And, of course, the PDH would lie on... That is to say, he would drug him and say things to him and so forth, and then say, “Well - well, this - this science doesn’t work, you see, because we can’t get it back.”

17. Besides the thetan and the partner and these principle entities and the somatic entity, there may be a number of second-rate entities, called the IDLE ENTITIES.

Well, every time you PDH somebody, it’s liable to lie right on top of Facsimile One, and it’s impossible to pull the thing off. So therefore they say he can’t record during unconsciousness. Great.

These join the organism at the invitation of some entity. They appear to be gathered up by the entity for the purpose of life continuum. If the individual, under the command of a particular entity, performs an overt act, killing someone, he may as that entity invite some entity of the victim to join his organism and be a part of his organism. This invitation would be for the purpose of continuing the life of the victim and "proving" that no overt act has been performed after all.

Now, you see, it isn’t necessary to do that. If you want to prove this, just shut off somebody’s blood flow. There’s a jugular vein here - their blood flowing on either side of the esophagus. And you just press those with your thumb and forefinger a little bit and the guy will get a little bit dizzy. And then you say, “Run back through it again,” Ask the fellow, “Now, did you perceive anything in the room while you were feeling that dizziness?”

Idle entities are characterized by a certain decadence. They have apparently not enough force left in them to make them capable of running an organism, and so they drift about at the beck and call of other entities.

He’ll say, “No.” Or “Yeah, I know everything that was going on,” One way or the other.

18. Any of the principle entities may have another organism, or MEST body, besides the one which is the individual in question. As we have seen in the previous demonstrations, an entity may have a body on another planet.

Run him through this little period of uncon- you don’t have to hurt him. He goes through it a few times, and all of a sudden he becomes aware of the fact that there was an automobile that went past when he did that, there was this that went past, there was this or that that happened, the sensation of him sitting on the chair. All of these things were there. But to straight memory they were covered up.

19. Therefore, we have two kinds of sharing: one organism may be inhabited by many entities; and one entity may inhabit more than one organism.

Now, better than this, take him down the track to an incident where he hurt himself - the preclear hurt himself. And take him back to a time - maybe he hit his thumb with a hammer. Crash! Well, obviously he knows everything that was there. But after you’ve run him through it a few times, all of a sudden the incident gets wider and wider and wider and wider. There was more and more data concealed in that hammer blow. And this demonstrates to him that effort and emotion do cover up perceptions - effort and emotion cover up perceptions. And that there was data buried in a moment of unconsciousness, because there was a moment of unconscious when he hit his finger with a hammer. You see? So you can demonstrate this phenomena to him. Very simple.

20. Any entity which inhabits an organism is capable of producing a somatic in that organism. This should indicate the futility of embarking upon an auditing procedure of running out somatics, to the exclusion of thought, emotion and effort. Somatics can be run out, but there is an almost infinite number of them, since each entity may have millions, to be over-conservative.

If you want the student to get a further reality on this subject, make him be masochistic to this extent: have him take his right foot and stamp on his left toes. And then take his left foot and stamp on his right toes. And then run out the right foot only. Run out the right foot only. And he will be able to see that his left foot keeps on hurting, but his right foot isn’t hurting now. That’s a very simple experiment, but it demonstrates to him that a facsimile was what kept his right foot hurting, and it demonstrates to him that you can do something about it. And that that’s what auditing does. These are little proofs, easy ones.

21. Different entities respond to different auditors. For this reason, a case which is being audited by one auditor, say a man, may turn into a very different case when being audited by another auditor, say a woman. If the auditor understands why this happens, he can do something to correct it.

But his first address to the other mind, as I say, ought to be the handbook. Let him take it easy. He will get up to a point where, if he hit a terror charge, he would run it out instead of run away from it. Let him become accustomed to his tools, little by little, each time gaining reality on what he is doing.

22. Sometimes the auditor will find himself auditing an incident in which the pre-clear is "out of valence" The pre-clear is an observer, watching the organism go through the experience. What is happening is that the auditor is auditing an entity which was aware of the experience but was not in command of the organism during the experience. This entity will have some charge on the experience as an observer and may be audited as an observer. The main charge will be on the entity which was in command, but that charge may have put that entity to "sleep", leaving some other entity in command. Auditing the observer through the incident will usually wake up the former command entity in the incident, and then the main charge may be run.

He has to have subjective reality, furthermore. An auditor who does not have subjective reality on this subject finds it very difficult to understand what is happening to the preclear. He can study until he is the best-read person in Scientology, and he still will not be a good auditor if he has never touched physical pain in himself, if he’s never experienced an emotion out of a facsimile. If he doesn’t have any reality on this, he is not a good auditor. And he will actually cut down the preclear.

23. Second and third year students will readily recognize the same old phenomena with which they are so familiar being explained more profitably in the light of new phenomena turned up by later research. In all these theories as they develop, the mind remains the same. We are just getting a better and better picture of it as we go along. And as the picture improves, so do results.

Now, I have seen somebody trained in an old psychotherapy doing a jobs of auditing when auditing had never been done on them, And I stress this “an old psychotherapy” for this reason: there you’re going to have the most trouble. A medical doctor with a terrific, terrific fund of information, with enormous backlog of skill, with obviously a basic purpose of making people well, would apparently be the most valuable student that you could get. And so he is the most valuable student that you could get. But unfortunately, when you try to train him, you’re training up against preconcept that structure monitors function, not the reverse.

24. Many of the phenomena which have been observed and then evaluated by former theories have now to be reevaluated by this new theory. Some of them are the File Clerk, Valence, Circuits.

And you’re going to have to scan him through practically his whole medical education. Because he will do this to a preclear: He will run the preclear to find some reality for himself. And he’ll keep asking the preclear, “Now, how do you know? Are you sure this wasn’t just this right hip’s calcification?” or something of the sort, And his unreality to a preclear who is a bit foggy with anaten will knock the preclear right straight on down the Tone Scale.

25. If the auditor asks the pre-clear to give the first answer which occurs to him in terms of yes-or-no, or a number or a name at the snap of the auditor's fingers, the preclear may give information which he has been otherwise unable to give. This phenomenon has been called the File Clerk phenomenon. Later research and theory suggests that "File Clerk" answers are solutions to problems which are being offered by the thetan, which is operating at a reduced level of awareness but which still retains enough awareness to overrule the commanding entity now and then, particularly when directly addressed by the auditor.

So when you’re training a person who has been in psychotherapy or in medicine, you take particular pains with the establishment of subjective reality to that auditor; otherwise you will be losing a potentially very valuable auditor, because he’ll be a bad auditor when he ought to be a good one.

26. A circuit is a theoretical item, described as a portion of the mind, compartmented by a postulate which is enforced by pain, acting as another person within the mind. (An even earlier definition substituted "phrase" for "postulate", but since a phrase is only a counter-effort unless accompanied by a postulate, the presence of the postulate was understood.) This definition has now been improved upon. It has been improved upon so much that the word circuit is not longer a necessary word in the vocabulary of the auditor. A circuit may now be considered an entity ("a portion of the mind... compartmented... acting as another person within the mind...") which is out of present time (under the influence of a postulate which is enforced by pain.) An entity which is out of present time. The new definition simplifies the old, clarifies it, and renders the word "circuit" obsolete.

Now, you pay attention, then, to establishing subjective reality in him, knocking out preconcepts, his old postulates - not so much what he has been taught, but what he himself concluded during his boyhood and during his medical training with regard to the body. It doesn’t take much time to swamp this up. And he can then reevaluate an enormous amount of data, which immediately becomes available to Scientology and to his preclears.

27. Some entities are out of present time, When they take command of the organism or conflict with the entity which is in command, the postulates which are keeping them out of present time and which are present in the incidents in which they are caught are entered into the thinking of the organism.

There is one doctor in New York City who was taught Straightwire. I taught him Straightwire. He learned it crudely. He hobson-jobsoned it; that is to say - the reason I use this word hobson- jobson is because when the British soldier went to India he learned how to speak Hindu, or something of the sort - at least he thought he did. And the Hindus had a word they call - that sounded like hobsen-jobsen. And so the British Tommy went in there and he said that that word after that was Hobson-Jobson. That’s what you call hobson-jobsoning something.

When an entity which is psychotic, because it is out of present time, takes command of the organism, the organism becomes psychotic. The thetan retires for the duration and we say that the "I" of this individual has disappeared.

You will find these people will hobson-jobson, They’ll take a word... All of a sudden you say, “Now, this machine goes whirrr, whirr, whirr and bap, bap, bap, and this guy is told that he will no longer be able to experience sexual pleasure,” or something of the sort.

28. A valence is a mimicry of another person. There is much in common between the vaudeville performer who imitates Lionel Barrymore and the individual who has assumed the identity of his deceased grandfather. The main difference is that the vaudeville performer has assumed the identity of Lionel Barrymore for a few moments, knowingly, for the purpose of entertaining an audience, and the other individual has assumed the identity of his deceased grandfather during a period of years (or even centuries) "unknowingly" for the purpose of continuing the life of his grandfather in order to prove that the overt act which he committed against his grandfather did not really happen, since grandfather is not really dead. This mimicry will be carried out by one of the individual's entities.

And the psychotherapist is liable to say to himself - without telling you - he’s liable to say, “Oh, yes, yes In other words, that machine restimulated his libido theory and gave him this concept.” “Oh, no. The machine installed the libido theory.”

29. A valence is, then, only a mimicry. An individual would no longer be said to be "out of his own valence" when his thetan was not in command, since the idea of entities relieves the word valence of double duty. (Formerly, "valence" meant both the mimicry and the entity which was doing the mimicry, a doubling which caused some confusion.) The individual does not mimic himself, he IS himself. Valence becomes purely and simply mimicry. Various of the individual's entities mimic various other persons. He shifts his valence by shifting entities. Or, if he is a vaudeville performer, he shifts valence by deciding to mimic first one person and then another.

“Well, how did it install it? I mean, after all the human mind works in this fashion and ...” You see, you’d be off to the races immediately.

30. This subject of valence, in reference to the actor, has long been of high interest to many people. Just what does an actor do when he "becomes his part"? Why do some actors walk onto the stage or before the camera, do their part well and convincingly, and then walk off and immediately drop the character which they have assumed? Why do others "throw themselves into their parts" so deeply that sometimes traces of the character which they have played stick to them ever afterwards. We say of one actor, "Jones can play any part you give him. He is a good workman." We say of another, "Elsie is a great actress. She becomes the character. She lives her part." We say of another, "Ever since Jukes played the Corsican Bandit he wears a sword, even around the house." What makes these differences? We may, perhaps, come closer to an explanation at this writing than anyone has come before. We may say that Jones assumed identities consciously, like a vaudeville performer, and casts them off as quickly. He is good at mimicry. He has his facsimiles well under control. Elsie, on the other hand, may not have her facsimiles so well under control. Her "greatness" may come from putting an entity in command which has a valence or which IS a character much like the one she is supposed to play. This entity may continue in command throughout the production, changing Elsie's personality considerably for that period. After the production, she may say to herself, "Well, I'm through with that character! Whew! What a relief! At times I really felt that I was Lucretia Borgia! And she may succeed in getting her thetan or some other entity back into command. Poor Jukes, however, has given command to some entity in order to take advantage of the personality of that entity or of some valence of which that entity is capable, and then he has been unable to get that entity out of the driver's seat. He wears a sword around the house. Many actors do this. Sometimes it is a great success.

So you must be careful when you’re training students to know that they know what you’re talking about. Don’t leave anything hanging up in the air with them.

31. The goal of the auditor is to restore complete self-determinism to the thetan.

All right. Now, all the training in the world is not going to overcome a lack of this subjective reality. And all the training in the world is - that’s only education, after all - is not going to make an optimum individual or a Clear. Your best auditor is euay up the Tone Scale. He has been completely swamped up himself. Then he can commit all the “overt acts” he wants to against this preclear. In other words, he can make him get well, and that might be an overt act to the preclear, you see?

32. All entities other than the thetan have been brought into the "family circle" by the thetan or by entities which were brought in by the thetan. The thetan has agreed to have these entities. If full self-determinism is restored to the thetan, he will no longer have to have these entities.

And he can do most anything in this. Furthermore, he can think faster. And furthermore, he doesn’t have any difficulty with the realities of the thing, because his own sense of reality is very, very high.

33. When the auditor is auditing a pre-clear of whom a certain entity is in command, the auditor, is, in effect, auditing that entity.

So any time you’re training auditors, you better encourage them, by this process of taking it a little bit at a time and a little bit at a time and a little bit at a time, to get their hands wet, you might say, and dirty up to the wrist in other people’s engrams. And get them to work on each other and get your advanced students to work on the earlier students up to a point - with good auditing - so that you wind up with students who are cleared.

34. The auditor may choose which entity he wishes to audit.

Now there’s - you got all the tools, there aren’t any bugs left in this. There are no bygs left in it. There’s nothing left hangincg out. You’ve got the tools, you learn the tools, you apply them with good reality, with good confidence, well learned - you get Clears. All right, then you’ve really got auditors. Then you’ve really got auditors.

35. The purpose of the auditor in auditing an entity other than the thetan is to clear the way for auditing the thetan.

If you could, for instance, clear a medical doctor, you would have somebody that could go around creating more miracles in less time...

36. If another entity is in command, the auditor may have to bring that entity to present time before he can get very far with the thetan. This procedure will produce the effect of bringing the pre-clear from a more or less psychotic frame of mind to comparative rationality.

Now, as I was saying, this medical doctor in New York City was doing very, very bad Straightwire. He was unable to give more than about fifteen minutes, at the outside, to a patient.

37. Some entities will have elsewhere bodies which will have to be abandoned.

Patients come into their office just in streams, you see, one after the other. And they have to do a short stopgap something or other for them. The patient wants something done for them; they’re not going to stay around there for hours and audit and be audited. One of the ways a doctor can do this is have some auditors around to handle his patients - but, beside the point.

38. If an entity is stuck in an incident, this entity can be freed by running the incident in the ordinary way, with thought, emotion and effort. If the entity is too low in awareness to go through the incident, the thetan, working with the auditor, may be able to push this entity through the incident in spite of itself.

This doctor was a specialist in Parkinson’s disease. And people would come in there with Parkinson’s disease just on assembly lines. And i this doctor knew enough about Straightwire to knock out some maybes... And, by George, he was turning off Parkinson’s disease something like three out of five.

39. Successful and unsuccessful self-auditing may be decided by this one factor: what is the intention toward the individual of the entity which is doing the auditing? What does this entity wish to accomplish? If it is the thetan which has learned to audit, some very good results may be obtained. But if it is some aberrated entity, who has been controlled and controlled and controlled until the only goal left for him is to control and enslave whatever organism falls into his clutches, the auditing results may be horrendous.

And how much time was he giving on the thing? It was just patient after patient. And he called me up one day and he said, “Someday I’m going to learn some more about your subject.” He says, “It must be able to do better than this,” And I went over and talked to him for a little while over in New York one day and found out that he was using the lowest possible order of Straighnvire and was getting results like this. Why?

40. Any case which does not run easily for an auditor is most likely not under the command of the thetan. Other entities will have to be gotten out of the way before the case will run easily. It is not necessary to clear these entities. It is necessary to bring them to present time and help the thetan to take over their control of the organism.

He was a doctor; people went there to get well. He would knock out a maybe; it gave them an excuse to get well. Bang! So their Parkinson’s disease would turn off. He was completely unaware of how long it would stay turned off, but, mind you, he’d never been able to get anybody turned off on Parkinson’s disease with regularity before. So he was quite interested. But the odd part of it was, he was taking it as routine. Nobody said to him, “Well, there’s times when this can’t be done and times when it can be done, and so forth.” He just happened to come over one day and heard a talk by me, and he said, “That’s a very interesting idea.” And he went back to his office and went to work and never talked to anybody else about it.

41. Some cases used to be called "out of valence" This meant that they were not "themselves". We would say now, of such a case, that one entity had been in command at one time, and now another entity was in command. The auditor is, perforce, auditing the entity which is now in command. If he tries to run the pre-clear through an incident which occurred when the former entity was in command, he will discover that the pre-clear recalls this incident as though he were only an observer --- which is just what this entity was.

By the time he was talked to and told “Well, this can’t be any good,” and “Really you should do all of this with a globe of the world hanging as a pendant from the left chandelier,” or something - when he was told that “all this other stuff ...” and “it was a modification of something else” - he had so much reality on it that he just looked at these people and he said, “You’re crazy! This works,” And went on collecting twenty-five dollars, twenty-five dollars, twenty-five dollars, twenty-five dollars. It was a wonderful business he was generating over there. I think he’s still very, very much in business. I haven’t heard from him from [for] ages. He never did learn any more about this subject than that.

42. The auditor has to know which entity he is auditing in order to know what he is doing. Accuracy in knowing which entity is being audited will depend, in most cases, upon the use of an E-meter. The added view into the mind which the E-Meter gives the auditor will make it much easier to know to whom he is listening.

You get the person out of the maybes, and then he gets well. He went away with this thought firmly fixed in his head. He didn’t even know some good smart ways to get them out of the maybes. He just sort Of said, “Are you in a maybe?” and “What was the last time you felt indecisive?”

43. In what used to be called "perceptic shut-off", the entity which is being audited is either stuck on the track or else it just did not experience the incident which the auditor is trying to run. The incident was experienced by some other entity.

And the fellow said, “Well, I guess I was on the train going in from Long Island,” “And what were you doing?” “Well, I was reading a paper.” “What were you reading in the paper?”

44. An individual, for this reason, might well be on his way toward self-determinism and still have poor recall on some incident which had happened to another entity. In order to find the data on that incident, the auditor would have to ask the entity which had experienced it.

“Well, about a stock market crash. I remember the incident very well. As a matter of fact, that was about four days before I got sick,” “Oh, yeah? Stock market crash. How did that influence you? What did you have in the air at that time?” so on.

45. An amnesia case may be suspected of operating on a data bank (memory) which is not from the present life.

And the guy says so-and-so and so-and-so. “And I didn’t trust my partner,” “Well, has your partner worked out since?” “Oh, he turned out to be an awful crook.”

46. In a homosexual, an entity of the opposite sex is in command.

“Oh, well, then you found out that he was crooked and the stock market crash was imminent and so forth, and this...” And the doctor doesn’t even know what the fellow’s business concern is, you see? And the fellow says, “Yeah?” and laughs suddenly and stops shaking. Well, so he said, “This is fine.”

47. Theta is creative. It can make new things. The rule which we have all heard so many times, that imagination is merely a recombining of old experiences, does not hold, evidently. The power of theta to create extends much deeper into the MEST universe than our former educators would have had us believe, It may be possible to give some estimate of the depth of this creativity in subsequent writing. As the relationship between theta and MEST is examined, the borderline between them becomes harder to find, and theta emerges more and more as CAUSE. It begins to look as though theta may be the cause not only of the organization of MEST but also of the very existence of MEST. Even this subject is within the second echelon of knowledge. We may suppose that the question "What is the cause of theta?" lies within the third echelon.

Now, you understand that if you give an auditor just the conviction on one tool - like your Chart of Attitudes There are auditors out all over the country now, they have the Hundbook for Preclears. It gives them a chart of attitudes. They’re not even working overt acts with that chart, by the way. They don’t know about it, most of them. They’re working it as counter-attitude. “When was this done to you?” And they take this chart and they take this book, and they’re giving a few hours this way and that. They’re using it. Sometimes they don’t even give this book to the preclear, They just work with those techniques.

48. EXPERIENCE is a sort of MEST substitute for KNOWING, which is a function of theta. We have seen how some quick-thinking individuals can learn an operation so rapidly that they appear to have known it all along, while others may experience the same operation many times and still make mistakes in it. These differences between individuals are very great, even as we observe them in daily life. There is no reason to suppose, however, that these great differences account for more than a very narrow band of the spectrum of KNOWING. At the upper end of this spectrum, experience may be something which is just not necessary, or is necessary to such a slight degree that it could hardly be called experience.

And the next thing you know, you have a preclear who is way up the Tone Scale, And they call these people swamped-up, optimum, super, something of the sort, merely because they never saw anybody up that high before. It’s somebody - like saying, “Look at that fellow standing up there on the Empire State Building.” Look at him, clear up in the stratosphere!” Oh no, he’s not in the stratosphere.

49. If this idea of the importance of experience is a valid one, then the value of facsimiles is also altered. The computation of courses of action by comparison of facsimiles comes under the heading of experience to a larger degree. Possible, an individual who KNOWS (who is at the upper end of the spectrum of KNOWING) would consider any facsimiles which he had bothered to keep as mere relics of something he had decided for the moment to call "past", and possibly he would not compute any courses of action from facsimiles but would merely look at present time and KNOW what course to follow.

But what I’m telling you is that a broad, foggy, unreal knowledge of this subject is nowhere near as valuable as one scrap of real information which you have seen produce a result. The techniques in the Handbook for Preclear will produce that result.

It may be that the intellectual processes which we have come to regard as the highest possible activity of the beings which we are, admirable as these processes may seem to us, are merely aberrations and perversions of the true state of KNOWING. (This is not a new idea, of course, and many will recognize it from antiquity, It may be, however, that we have come to a point where we can do something about this idea.)

If you were to take these students and train them to deliver Straightwire processing - just straight memory on all the attitudes in the charts as overt acts by themselves against the other dynamics ... If you were just to teach them to use this chart, to ask the questions column by column, and you were to tell them - by the way, there’s two additional charts on that. There’s two additional columns - there’s fourteen buttons, not twelve.

The top of the column is “win” and the bottom of it is “lose.” A preclear who’s low on the Tone Scale can’t win - he won’t win - and up at the top he will win. And the next button: He’s completely free at the top of the scale and at the bottom he’s completely restrained; he’s dead. So what you do is run “restraint” and “degrees of restraint.” When he’s tried to put restraint on the world around him, he has restrained himself. Now, you just run these, then, as a Straightwire process.

AUD: How old are you?

If you trained a student to do nothing but that and sent him out to the old soldiers’ home to practice, he would come back saying, “Well, what do you know, what do you know. Gee! There’s a couple old fellows out there in the Spanish-American War, and one of them had lumbago so bad he couldn’t walk, and you know, I worked on him for about a half an hour this morning, and he’s walking!” Sure, we know he’s walking, It works.

P.C. Ages.

But that is a lot better than to give him a whole bunch of odds and ends of technique which he unclearly understands - willfully misunderstanding - and he has no subjective reality himself.

AUD: Is it worse than ages? How about trillions of years? Or millions?

In other words, introduce the subject to him step by step with all the reality which you can give him on the subject - not by telling him he has to believe, because he natively, inherently, is himself belief.

P.C. Three or four trillion years old.

Not by telling him he has to have faith, because he natively is faith, but by telling him that “Here is data, phenomena which you can understand, which can be understood, which is real. We’re only asking you to find out for yourself that it is real and then apply what you know out of it is real to others and get results.”

AUD: Were you originally just one entity?

P.C. Yes.

AUD: (Begins to plot the theta time-track of the preclear on a blackboard.) What did you think of? (There has been a drop on the E-Meter.)

P.C. Some ancient buildings.

AUD: Are these in the theta universe or the MEST universe? (Watching meter) Between lives? Or before there were any between-lives? Is that where you live? In this planetary system?

P.C. Very far away. I get an impression of a very bright star.

AUD: How long ago was this?

P.C. Eight million years.

AUD: What happened there? Did things blow up? Is that whole civilization blowing up? Were you a slave?

P.C. No.

AUD: Was that a point of high charge on your track? What happened to you there that was bad?

P.C. I just killed everybody.

AUD: Why? Was it a dull afternoon or something? Was there any cause for it than that? That's all right. That's the way we used to be.

P.C. I did something. I did an experiment, and the whole place blew up.

AUD: Get a good clear recall; get the clearest moment in that. Is there another moment that is real to you? Any part of that cycle?

P.C. A very tall man.

AUD: Is he real to you? How is your communication with this very tall man? Does he like you?

P.C. No.

AUD: Was that the trouble?

P.C. No, I just did something I shouldn't have done. I was fooling around with something I shouldn't have been.

AUD: Was this man related to you?

P.C. No. He was just the head of it. Not a ruler. Just in charge of the laboratory.

AUD: Do you like chemistry sets?

P.C. Oh, no.

AUD: Does your theta being (thetan) need education?

P.C. No.

AUD: How does it feel to be educated?

P.C. Not necessary.... the education.

AUD: Okay. Well, we have here, then, an incident that is a minor overt act on the fourth dynamic-would you say that it was the fourth dynamic?

P.C. Definitely.

AUD: Have you ever been put together with some other souls?

P.C. Yes.

AUD: When?

P.C. I did a damn fool thing, I Was curious. I don't get any visio. I was curious and cut off my nose to spite my face.

AUD: How long ago was it?

P.C. A long time ago.

AUD: What did you do, volunteer?

P.C. No. Somebody told me that I'd better watch out.

AUD: And you were curious?

P.C. I wanted to find out what would happen.

AUD: Is this after the civilization blew up?

P.C. A long time after.

51. This demonstration, though fragmentary, shows a little about procedure In establishing the time track of the thetan. The auditor is looking for overt acts and for a time when other entities were added to the thetan. The pre-clear has said at the beginning the thetan was alone.

1. Is a mind's memory limited to one sequence of past lives? Explain.

2. Can any organism exist independent of the protoplasmic line?

3. When can a somatic entity take control of the mind? What is its rank?

4. What past phenomena must be re-evaluated in the light of new theories ?