Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Today I did want to take up, then — if you’ve asked me to, I will — I did want to take up CCH and some of the various aspects of it.

Well, now, there’s practically nothing you don’t know already about this. The sober truth of the matter is, you do know all there is to know about this. Otherwise, I couldn’t tell you a thing about it at all.

And the game here has been trying to find out what postulates you’ve made to get you in this much trouble.

Good evening.

You’ve sure been busy!

Thank you. Thank you very much. And here we move into the evening of the second day of the congress. Is it?

Very few people will recognize the actual constitution organization — of Scientology as being based entirely upon what life made up its mind to be. Somebody comes along and speaks to me about “my theories.” Ha! It’s always somebody who isn’t taking very much ownership of their own.

Audience: Yes!

My theories: I’m glad I’ve added very few of my theories to this. There were enough there already. Because, you remember, I had a little experience in the field of fiction writing. And if I really wanted to add some theories onto this, we could get fancy!

All right.

Yes, sir. Yes, sir. It’s quite remarkable, though, that only — those people who speak about “my theories,” you know, to me, they say to me, “Well, Ron, your theories about this and that . . .” you get them in a processing session, and they don’t move, you know? They’re not right up there on top right away and so on.

Well, this evening - this evening I would like to start out on this evening's lecture by getting down to business on this thing called Training Drills. And I'd just like to skip and skimp and skid over these Training Drills and CCH drills, not in the hope that you learn anything from them, but just so you'll get the idea that they're terribly difficult. Actually I gave you a session, a group session, in the last two hours of this afternoon that might have seemed to you different than other Group Processing I had given you. Seemed just a little different, didn't it? A couple of people around, they thought they'd do another command or think something else and they didn't.

Well, what coincidence is there here? What coordination is there between these two things? Well, one is that if an individual has assigned proper ownership to postulates, proper ownership to existence and to creations in existence, they are relatively weakened. They are not fixed concrete.

Well, of course, I'm not the expert on this. I'm not the expert on this. The people who gave the group intensives are the expert on this. But that's actually Tone 40. And the only reason I modified it at all was - just at the beginning there and took it off of Tone 40 a bit - was to get a few acknowledgments through, get you used to the idea.

The way you want to get something to be fixed concrete is very simple. I’ll just give you a little example of this. You want me to give you an example?

But Tone 40 is, of course, indescribable. It is something that has to be experienced by an auditor. Now, at first you say, „Well, that's easy; it's just a high-toned - you know, you just audit high-toned and you ignore everything the preclear says and does.“ And of course Article 16 of the Code of the Auditor - that goes by the boards; there's no two-way communication there.

Audience: Yes. Sure.

Article 16, if you remember, says remain in two-way communication with the preclear. And of course Tone 40 violates that, doesn't it?

All right. Take that curtain there. Now, let’s get the idea that John McCormick owns that curtain entirely. He is the sole proprietor. Can you look at it and get that idea? Hm?

Now, something's very odd. I will give you a drill you can practice at home and you will know what it is after you've done it for a few hours. To describe it to you just as such really is not feasible, because it is, you see. And for once we're auditing above verbal. And therefore if you audited above verbal you certainly wouldn't describe above verbal. Would you?

Well now, look at it and get that idea more thoroughly. Get a conviction that this is the case. Now sort of wonder what it’s doing up here, since he owns it entirely.

Well, what's very fascinating is that we have managed to articulate in Dianetics and Scientology and verbalize existence. This is a rather fantastic thing.

Well, by now that curtain ought to either look more solid or rather peculiar. All right. Now get the more proper idea that that curtain is simply part of the physical universe. Now, get what your earlier conviction was, that it’s the property of the Shoreham Hotel.

Somebody who was an expert on semantics said to me, one day, he said, „That's impossible.“

Audience: Mm. Mm-hm. Yeah.

And I said, „I know it. That's why I did it.“

All right. Now get the idea that you own it exclusively. You’re the only person that owns it, the sole proprietor and nobody else can have any use of it. It’s right there.Okay, now answer this. Is there any differences to the appearance of the curtain as you do those things?

But there is one thing which does not verbalize, and that is Tone 40. We could just... I could stand up here and say, „Well, Tone 40 is so and so and so,“ and read Science of Survival. You could learn something about it in Science of Survival. Look it up, read it up... . Of course, serenity, you've known people in serenity before.

Audience: Yes. Yes.

But it fortunately is not beyond the bounds of experience. You can experience it as a preclear. And you can certainly experience it as an auditor. So it is not describable, but it is experienceable. That's quite interesting. And in view of the fact that it is very easily experienceable and really rather easily assumed - after you've killed yourself a few times - there isn't any real reason to go at it and chew it up and describe it and formulize it and lay it all out cold on the table and so forth, because there's a Training Drill that communicates what it is to you. And that Training Drill is called Tone 40 on an Object. And we'll get around to that in due time.

Do you have any difference of concept concerning the texture or solidity of the curtain? Audience: Yes.

The essence of modern auditing is intention. People wonder what an intention is. Well, intention is the command factor, as much as anything else. If you intend something to happen, it happens - if you intend it to happen.

Well, the truth of the matter is, you can take an engram that you yourself made with your own little theta paws — shaped it up, grooved it, put in all the bad perceptions — and you could say “Mother did that!” The engram come — clunk!

Somebody came around one day, and he said, „You know, after you've given the command with full intention, shouldn't you have a signal to tell the fellow?“

You say, “Well, maybe that’s not the right answer to it. Father had a hand in it, too.” Clunk!

If you have full intention on an auditing command, I assure you of something - that the preclear does it. Now, it's more than just knowing the preclear is going to do it. Your intention itself puts it straight across. Well, the only reason I start out this dissertation - having already covered that dirty word control - the only reason I start out the dissertation on the Training Drills and CCH which we are now embarked upon with Tone 40 on an Object is that it as a drill imparts to auditing a rather new flavor. A British auditor said, „You've finally told us where to audit from.“

Then we say, “It was really made by this universe and they’re all against me,” see? Then you can dramatize it, see?

Now, there's an old method we used to use whereby we took the preclear on the Tone Scale - we matched the tone as an auditor - and we audited him. If he was a preclear in grief we found out we got along just fine if we sort of said, „Well, (sniff!) go over it again. (sniff! sniff!)“

Ownership. Unless one assigns the proper ownership to energy, masses, thoughts, postulates, and so on — proper cause, in other words — he gets at the wrong end of the communication line.

That was an old system. And we sort of pulled out of that and said: Well, an auditor's a rather disciplined individual, and he gives his commands in an orderly way, and he acknowledges what the preclear says, and he does this and that and the other thing. And we came up a bit Tone Scale - up a bit with our auditing, but we didn't expect to land at this new level.

Unless he says, to some degree, the truth concerning the proprietor or the creator, unless he says this with some accuracy, why, he gets a very great deal of solidity, which he can then do very little with.

Now, I don't pretend that a lot of auditors who are doing (quote) „Tone 40“ (unquote) auditing are auditing at Tone 40. They are maybe hitting 22.0 or 20.0 or 18.0 or something of that nature.

By assigning improper ownership to things, one then gets a continuation or perpetuation of the item or object. And the reason one does it is called havingness. This is one of the minor tricks that a thetan pulls in order to continue to have something to have, which he can’t duplicate, so it’ll give him trouble.

At the ultimate if you with full intention from Tone 40 were to tell your chair to rise in the air, there it would go! Do you see that?

If you continued to blame Henry Ford for your automobile or for the numbers of automobiles on the highways, actually automobiles would get thinner to you. So it’s better to blame the police, or somebody, see? And then automobiles get thicker.

Well, we don't have to get that extreme to have this work.

To give you an idea of this: You say, “This is my body. I have this body, and I am the one who has this body and I am the sole proprietor of this body. I created this body. I am this body” — all kinds of nonsense of this character, you see and never give the family a break or the genetic line a hat tip, see? One day you’re in an auditing session and somebody says, “Be three feet back of your head” — they don’t do that anymore, but you just get there. It’s different.

Tone 40 on an Object is a very interesting process, which we will take up later. The essence of it is very simple. All you do is tell an ashtray, preferably not a clear and invisible one but a colored ashtray, to sit down. You thank it for having sat down. You tell it to stand up. And you'll thank it for having stood up. And because you're not quite to Tone 40, you use your hand to make it obey you. And after you've done this drill for a little while you will say, „Now, wait a minute. Intention is not the words.“ So there's a part of Tone 40 on an Object, while we're doing this, by which we just say gobbledygook, you know? We say, „Gobbledygook; gobbledygook; gobbledygook; gobbledygook.“ You see, anything like that. Or we say, „Psst.“ Or somebody says, „Eeny-meeny miny-moe.“ Verbalization is not the intention. The intention is the carrier wave which takes the verbalization along with it.

You are in an auditing session, and the time comes when you should exteriorize, take a broader look at things. Concrete. Heavy. Mass. Can’t get out of it. The body is thick, heavy, solid, merely because you put into action this favorite trick of yours: To make solids it’s only necessary to misown.

So we've stopped counting totally on telling auditors that they must speak clearly - they must intend clearly, now. And if they intend clearly, how they speak doesn't matter. If you do a Tone 40 intention, you can give an apathetic command. It wouldn't make any difference at all. You know, sound apathetic. Give a Tone 40 intention and say, „(Sigh) Sit down.“ It wouldn't matter.

Of course, from the beginning it wasn’t your body. It isn’t your body. Couple of people in the audience just at that moment said, “Zzzth! I’ve been found out!” They did, didn’t they?

Now, just how high and how far Tone 40 goes has very little bearing on case. For a long time we said, „Well, that auditor couldn't audit well because his case was in bad shape.“ We don't care what kind of shape his case is in now. He can do it or he can't; and it's just as open and shut as that. He can do it or he cannot. And if he drills long enough at it he can do it; so QED.

An interesting factor here: If you assign exactly proper ownership to the body and insist on it and think that way, hard, fast and thoroughly, the body has a tendency to get rather thin, rather flimsy. The liability of knowing the truth could be a loss of havingness, unless the person has recovered from his obsession to have solids and possessions.

Now, here's something very peculiar. Somebody who has been drilled thoroughly in this and who has been practiced considerably in auditing gets to a very interesting state. He walks out and he says to a waitress, „Bring me a steak,“ and he gets a steak. His intention is sufficiently clear that handling of Homo sap becomes one of the easier things he should do.

If a person has a great deal of obsessiveness about solids, or if he has gone on the inversion, if he has dropped down a few scales and he no longer can have anything, somebody comes along and they hand him a ten-dollar bill and he’ll say, “Oh, I couldn’t have that. Couldn’t have that.”

And anybody who's worried about people and who studies and drills up on these various Training Drills, all by himself will discover with great subjective reality that auditing does not end in the auditing room, but how does one live without it? It's a livingness proposition.

A chap right here in the audience — a very fine fellow, to whom the London HASI owes a great deal — I am going to tell this story on him. He was out to dinner with a couple of London Scientologists. And he had been associating with the general public a lot and he had been playing this gag on the general public: He had been taking out a five-pound note, putting it down in front of them, and say, “That’s yours.”

For instance, I thought I was slipping here last night. It was quite late and I said thank you to a elevator boy. He opened the door for me and said something or other and I thanked him. I said, „Thank you.“ And I threw a thank you at him, you see, with his intention to receive it and so forth. And he just stood there and - you know, getting ready to shut the door. And so I walked out of the car and I turned the corner, and all of a sudden he stepped out of the car and he said to me, „Good night!“ How much circuit did that thank you have to soak through! Well, I didn't particularly intend to impress this man, I wasn't auditing him. And our mission and goal isn't to make every human being into a puppet.

So the general public, people out of it, would immediately say, “Oh. Mine? What for? You know. It’s not mine. I mean, what are you giving me that for? I . . .”

Funny part of it is that you can take a preclear and get an acknowledgment through to him or get a command through to him; just one acknowledgment or one command. You're liable to change his case just like that!

So, he had these two Scientologists out to dinner, part of the London HASI, and he took two five-pound notes and he laid one down in front of each one and he says, “Those are yours.” And they picked them up and put them in their pockets.

Well, a bunch of people going irresponsibly through the society giving people orders and thank-you's and that sort of thing and having these people wake up and say, „Hey, what do you know - a world!“ It'd be very damaging.

You see, these people had gotten over the idea that they couldn’t have money.

The psychological department of the Bide-A-Wee Social Agency, which runs up in Silver Spring in a state near here that is a traitor to the Confederacy... Never joined the Confederacy, you know. Us Southerners have never forgiven it. Even us Northerners think it should. And us Westerners know we got founded because as a result of. Very important state up here - Maryland. And this state - this state has a social agency with well Marxist-trained people running it.

Well now, just above that you get over the idea that you have to have money. But money is a game, and it’s barter and it makes carrying eggs around in your pockets unnecessary. And as a result, the whole society apparently moves and exchanges, and goods and havingnesses change position and place and so on. There’s some sort of reward, it’s a method of approval, and all that sort of thing. So people tend to hang on to this.

By the way, I'm sorry. I meant... I meant to keep sweet-tempered and Tone 40 all the way through this congress. And... But I read this in the paper last night and I'm sure you did too. Some people had a little two-and-a-half-year-old girl and they'd given her an intelligence test and she was so bright that the people were then not going to be permitted to adopt any other children.

But they can get up to a point where they don’t have to have it and still use it. There are a lot of Scientologists in that position, who used to be in the position of — give them a dime: “Oh-ho-ho you. What are you giving me that for? I mean, I couldn’t have that!” That’s for true.

The people who were realizing her and her IQ were not associated in the minds of the - hah! - psychologists. See, they didn't think then that another child put in that atmosphere would increase in IQ or change in any way. And we know that a decent home life and that sort of thing can markedly affect children's IQs. If we can change them, then, there must be other things, such as mother's love and that sort of thing that can change an IQ. There must be other things.

I am telling tales out of school, but they were running one of the people on staff on money one day, and they had him waste money and waste money and waste money and do other things in order to improve his havingness and his ability to possess money. And they got him up to where he could have a nickel.

Psychologist, because it best... I was going to say because it best suited the Kremlin. That's unfair. I know two psychologists in the United States who are not members of the Communist Party! They died before it was formed. I'm going to keep it hightoned, now, I give you my word.

It was very funny how a state of mind influences possessions such as money. Very, very, very remarkable. They’re tremendous, I mean, an individual who can’t have money seems in some fashion to reach over an invisible hand and unmock and sweep away any source of money. He just gets rid of it. He just won’t let the money come anywhere near him.

But they wouldn't let this couple adopt another child because their first child was too bright and the new child coming into that atmosphere would have probably been made unhappy. One of the former staff members of the FC went out to get a job out in - as they sometimes refer to it - the outside world, and went over to Skiplanger's... uh... Klipinger's. They publish a libel sheet, a slander sheet of some kind or another, here. I don't know, it has to do with senator's wives; I don't know what they publish. But this organization gave her an intelligence test before they would take her into employ. And she came back and the personnel director was saying, „Tsk-tsk-tsk-tsktsktsh-tsk. We really hate to employ you, you know. You're too bright for the position.“

Nobody ever walks up out of a quiz show and says, “Well, here’s the sixty-four thousand dollars for missing the question.” They’re going to start running a quiz show on that basis after a while, you see? Going to have to do that because havingness on money is getting so poor they now have an inflation. People won’t take the stuff, and it keeps piling up in the streets.

This is gorgeous, you know. I don't know what they think they're pulling by telling people they're too bright or could be too bright, or something like that. I suppose their idea of brightness ... It'll get worked around by the slave mongers yet, where brightness will be defined as „that ability to tell how bad it's going to be.“ That probably will be intelligence. At least that seems to be the trend.

No kidding. A society could get into that condition. Make sure that your havingness on money at that time isn’t so obsessive that you keep putting it in wheelbarrows and carrying it around with you when it won’t buy anything. Many people do that. Every once in a while they . . .

But an individual, an individual who is in communication with the environment around him, can recognize the factors of the environment; he can observe; he can find out what's going on. And if he is capable of outflowing a high-toned intention, command and so forth, then he's also capable of communicating with those things in the universe which are not in too bad a condition. Don't you see? Out-in.

It’s always an old building, and it’s always on Park Avenue in New York, and it’s always a brother and a sister, and they starve to death in this old building, and then the police come in to remove the cadavers (the corpse delicious) and they dig into the mop boards or something of the sort, and they find out that they had $150,000 in cool coin. And yet they couldn’t buy anything with it. Well, that’s in a very obsessive condition.

So I just wanted to tell you this so you wouldn't think you were going to go totally out of communication with your entire neighborhood. You go around and buy the morning paper and you say, „Give me the paper,“ and „Thank you,“ in a good Tone 40 way - not like that, I'm not trying to blast you out. And the next thing you know, in the next couple of days, why, the grocery man that you bought the paper from, he's saying, „Hello, how are you?“ you know? „Nice to see you.“ People are liable to get into communication with people in your vicinity.

These various conditions just vary from one to the other rather easily. Well, this is simply a subject of havingness — of havingness. And people put ownership vias in order to increase the perpetuity, the survival value and continuity of money. And if you put enough vias into the line so that nobody can tell who made the stuff, why, the money tends to perpetuate. And if there’s no vias in the line, why, it doesn’t.

Of course, we know that would be bad. We know that there's nothing but badness there to be communicated with. Psychology has proved... I'm going to keep this on a high tone.

Truth of the matter is with money, is somebody runs something through a printing press and gives it to somebody, tells him he can spend it. I mean, that’s all there is to money. Rather simple.

But there you see a new hope that has nothing to do with auditing at all. If a strata of the society suddenly came up here that the rest of the society would then get in communication with, boy, we'd have it made.

Congress, under the Constitution, was the only organization that had the power to coin money. Fellow by the name of Alexander Hamilton, who served his country up to the time he no longer was part of the artillery in the Revolutionary War, he got to be an aide of Washington and then started to work for the New York bankers. I think that was an interesting switch. He introduced a system of banking here which is quite remarkable.

So don't think of all of these Training Drills as entirely and completely dependent upon auditing. And don't think of auditing as a profession which cools down overheated skulls.

And the government sometimes comes off of it, as in the days of Andy Jackson and other times, but the point is that this system of money, whereby somebody else had to be the author of the money than the U.S. government, in spite of what the Constitution says, was simply the introduction of a number of vias into the line so nobody could trace the ownership of money. And the government has bought this. They think this is a wonderful idea.

Somebody wrote me one time, said apologetically, „I'm sorry I haven't been doing very much for you. I meant to when I left HCA class, but I came back and the accounting business which I had kept increasing in volume and is now consulting with other accounting businesses, and we're in the organizational business of accounting. And, of course, we use Scientology in this all the time, but I'm awfully sorry I've failed you because I'm not auditing professionally.“

For instance, you can go right down on the Hill and ask senators, who should know better, concerning coinage and issuance of currency and so on. You say, “Well, now, how about just printing three billion dollars and just passing it out in public works, and so forth?”

That's quite interesting. It's quite interesting to watch the curve of success of Scientologists. Well, nothing, nothing curves it up faster than these Training Drills I'm talking about right now. They don't leave very much to the imagination on how to handle people.

“Oh, God, you couldn’t do that,” he’d say. “That’s — that’s printing-press money.” I’d like to know what any of it is. Printing-press money. The funny part of it is, I suppose he thinks the money is enfranchised by some church out in the Middle-West or something, I don’t know. It’s some righter power that has something to do with higher beings than senators.

If you're talking to somebody who is a pretty comm-laggy sort of a fellow (you know, you say, “Good morning,” and he says, „Don't want any“), and you have to do business with this fellow; it's rather interesting to be able to talk to him in such a way that he will not comm lag on you and will answer your questions rather directly and then go off and do what you asked him to do. It's very interesting. It makes it possible for a successful sphere to operate even on Earth today.

Truth of the matter is, when he says — that’s pretty high — when he says “Yea” for a bill on the senate floor that authorizes a further indebtedness for the United States, all he authorizes is for somebody in New York to write in a little black book the number of figures that he has — oh, two billion dollars or something like that — and then they send it down to Washington and Washington issues some bonds and then the bonds go back up to New York, and then New York sends it down to the Treasury Department, issues the two billion dollars in cash, and that’s the way it is done. And so there’s nothing to it. It’s better than a magic show trying to find out where the money came from.

Therefore, the stress on this was at first auditing, because it does make a crackerjack auditor. All of the auditing drills we have now are all pointed - were pointed - at the direction of auditing. And they have all emerged into a training series on how to communicate and control and own things and have things and do things, you see? And it's just as though we had opened up a brand-new door that we didn't have any intention of doing.

Once in a while some nation gets foolish enough to borrow a central banking idea, whereby the government is the bank, the government issues the money, and then they wonder why they get inflation, why people have very little faith in the money.

Now, a person who doesn't know how to audit well couldn't talk to this comm-laggy fellow that said he didn't want any. In the first place you'd flip him if you didn't throw a comm bridge into your conversation. He's liable just to, „Whoow, what's happened here?“ and go completely out of communication, you see?

All they have to do is put a few more vias in the line. They could have a central bank very easily, providing the central bank was totally managed by the farmers in some other county, you see? And it was managed over there. and it was their say-so that permitted the money to be created. But they had to consult with their wives, and their wives had to consult with the Druids in a cave. And they just keep burying it off over here somewhere, you know, and tracing it down. All of a sudden the money becomes more and more solid, more and more real to people.

You talk to people all the time without - well, I'm sure not you, but other people - who would not respond to anything less than an auditing technique. And if you give them something else beside auditing in your communication with them, they go thuuuuh, wobble-wobble, and they don't know which way they're going.

We know that all you do to issue a dollar is simply to print it and issue it. That’s the truth of the matter. Pushing it through several terminals, up to the point of its entrance into the public hands, has no bearing on the situation at all. But the public thinks it does. They’ve misowned that dollar to a tremendous degree.

Now, of course, lots of you, being auditors - you being an auditor or you knowing something about it - may have a subjective reality on this from your own viewpoint. But you've got to be outside watching an auditor or two work on the public before you really get a full objective reality on this.

For instance, there are people right here who thoroughly believe that the dollar bills possibly are issued by the Federal Reserve. There are people here who believe that their tens and twenties and so on are issued by the U.S. Treasury. And yet you look at your tens and twenties, and you’ll find across the top of it there “Federal Reserve Note” issued by a private bank. It’s quite amazing.

I'll give you an idea how things can change. There's another Training Drill called High School Indoc, which teaches mayhem. Its whole thing is to demonstrate that mayhem is feasible, possible and legal.

There are silver certificates and silver notes. The government is getting more and more involved. They instinctively know the right answer. They know that all you have to do is put more vias on the line and you get more reality as far as substance and solid is concerned. In other words, the thing can’t be unmocked.

High School Indoc is very important because most people when they start to audit, they come out of the swamp and they say, „Well... look at the wall.“

You mock something up over here and you say, “Joe mocked it up”; you did it, and then you say Joe did it and it would then continue. Why does it continue? Because to unmock it, it is necessary to conceive of its creation — and part of-its creation is who created it. Part of every creation is who created it.

They have a certain diffidence about all this. Well, you take somebody that's been in Scientology for a little while and he's run through High School Indoc and he says to this fellow, „Look at the wall.“ And the fellow who is a Scientologist goes over - clank!

And you have to get that idea of who created it at the time that you look at it, and it will simply go aft! It’s quite interesting.

„Now, walk over to the wall.“ There's the... there's the essence of the thing. He gets over his diffidence about touching things. Well, after all, touching is merely communication. The person must have been diffident about communication. Let me tell you, us old guys in Dianetics were practically licked when the preclear said, „No, I won't run it!“ You see? There he was lying on the couch suffering, and we said, „Go over it again.“ And he said, „I won't!“

That’s why shame, blame and regret are so interesting. Somebody is so ashamed of what he did, and you check up with him and you find out that he, usually, is upset about things somebody else did. Now, you have a whole philosophy in existence in this modern age which is quite interesting: that is, if you take all the blame on yourself, if you did it all yourself, if you alone were totally responsible for everything that is wrong everyplace, and if you just own up and admit this, you’ll feel a great relief.

Well, you could persuade and plead and so forth and so on. Well, there isn't any way we knew of then to give the engram a tap on that side and slide it through.

Well, the funny part of it is, is you might have done a lot of it, but somebody else did too. Always remember that when you’re going over your shames, blames and regrets. Otherwise, the bank will collapse on you. It’ll get totally solid.

But this person wouldn't have us licked today because we wouldn't be running engrams on him until he could follow orders. See, we just wouldn't be running engrams on him. We just wouldn't be running a subjective process that we couldn't watch ourselves with great ease.

Why? Well, you aren’tguilty of everything that ever happened in this universe. You personally are not-guilty. You’re guilty for some of it; guilty of some of it — but not all of it. And this philosophy, then, whereby you take the blame for everything, is simply an effort to do what? It’s simply an effort to have more solids, to make the things which you have unmockable. In other words (un-unmockable, I should say), fix them up so that nobody can trace where they came from, so there’s no getting rid of them. They’re there.

All right. We take this High School Indoc. Well, you run into somebody in a bar and he's abusive. You walk in and he's abusive, rrrr-rrrr-rrrr-rrrrrrrr. The only answer we had in the past was if he took a poke at us was to take a poke at him. You get the idea? That was the closest man came to contact with each other - a good, swift uppercut.

And the idea of trying to put an object there by masking who crested it, where it came from and so forth, is quite prevalent. But it only gets us into trouble when we run into shame, blame, regret, and we say “Well, I’m responsible for — I’m guilty,” by which we mean “I’m guilty. I’m to blame. That’s the way life is. Well, look at all the horrible things I did,” when, as a matter of fact, nearly every crime of the body required somebody else. See that? There’s usually two present. Maybe there was just you and your body. There’s still two present.

But I saw something fantastic in a restaurant in London. A little pint-sized girlauditor. It was a German restaurant. There was a fellow going „Rrrr-rrrr-rrrr-rrr. Rrrrrrrr.“ And she turned around and saw that he was finished with dinner and took him by the shoulder and said, „Get up, turned him around”. Said, „See the door?“ He said, „Yeah.“ He didn't have another word to say. He felt very cheerful. He probably - being in a sleepwalking state, he probably never realized that he'd been mad. But maybe he went outside and woke up, who knows? Now, there's an oddity.

It’s very funny, you know: bodies have machinery laid into them from other times. It’s quite interesting. You’ll find some preclear wallowing around one time or another: “Well, look what I have done to this body. Look at the horrible machinery and things I have set up.” Then he wonders why it runs much faster and gets much more solid. Well, some thetan that had the thing on the genetic line way back when has already installed a tremendous number of items. You didn’t install everything that’s wrong with your body.

Originally over in London, why, you'd see a couple of Scientologists - British are very polite - and one would open the door for the other outside of the headquarters and so on. Open the door, you know, and then follow through, you know - not touching him. Now, why, two Scientologists walk along and they walk toward this door and one takes the other by the shoulder and puts him through the thing. You see it all the time. I mean, you've gotten to think of this as totally ordinary.

Now, you can trace the moment when you decided to use it. You can trace the moment when you decided to reactivate some of this machinery. You can trace the moment when you wanted to have something wrong. But if you yourself try to trace the moment when you made up all the machinery and the gimmicks and whatnots in the body that would or are going wrong, boy, you’re looking down a blind alley, because you didn’t make them all. But the idea that you did will make those that are there solid.

Those of you who have seen High School Indoc, have been through it and so on, you think this is very ordinary. It's not ordinary! Not out in the society! No sir, not a bit. Not ordinary at all. People are still going this way, you know, „Oh, excuse me.“

Now, why do you it’s just this subject of havingness. Havingness is a sort of an A-number-1 game. It’s one of these gorgeous games. Here is a thetan who is — that thing that was looking at the cat yesterday. And here he is, and there’s a cat and there he is. Well, actually, by his own laws of communication, nobody else’s, nothing cannot duplicate a something. You have to be willing to some degree to be a thing before you can see a thing. A thetan can be what he can see; he can see what he can be.

We're getting as bad as the Japanese who go „Hss-hss-hss.“ You know what all that hissing is about, by the way? You know it's not an outflow hiss. You knew that. It's a hss-hss-hss. It's an inflow hiss. And they mean by it, „I withhold my foul breath from your face.“

Don’t take great pride in being able to notice tramps. And don’t think it is your social consciousness that won’t let you look at beautiful girls. Sometimes your wife has nothing to do with it at all.

Well, auditors even breathe on each other these days.

Here’s the situation: You often see some girl, some woman sneers at some gorgeous gown that’s in some shop window, you know, and says, “Oh! That horrible rag! Tzh! It’s horrible. It’s horrid.” There’s no duplication there.

Well, what brings about such changes? Just Training Drills like High School Indoc, with which nearly all of us are familiar.

She is probably to some degree defending herself against the possibility that she will never be able to have a gown like that, you see? She has various ramifications concerning this.

But what brings about reality in any of these things? Well, the funny part of it is, is you could talk all day and all night to somebody in an actual auditing session, telling him - you know, prodding him along, coaching him and so forth. We did this years ago. We used to take tapes of people auditing and then analyze the tape and then put them into a new session and so on. Just groove them anyway we could, and explain how it is to them, give them examples and so on. Boy, that's the slow way.

Well, once in a while, once in a while she looks at somebody and once in a blue moon she says, “My, I’m — I wouldn’t mind being that person.” And as a matter of fact, the person becomes brighter and more visible. So you have these two factors that associate themselves with solids.

What I've done here is take auditing apart into its various parts, which is to say take human relations apart into their various, tiny, fragmentary parts. Then you teach a person to do all the parts, and then progressively teach him to do two or three of the parts at once. And the next thing you know it's - there he is, see? And it's this type of synthetic drill which has made it possible for us to come up to a level and which made it possible for us to venture into this - well, from 1950 viewpoint - impossible height of auditing. We could have talked about this and probably did, all day and all night, back in 1950, about how an auditor should audit from a high-toned level, and that sort of thing.

Being able to see something requires that you at least have some willingness to duplicate it or be something like it. And then you get you here — nothing — looking at this mass over here. And you say, “I’m not unwilling to be that mass.” Well, you’re all set, see? You can see it clearly.

But what was it? What did it look like? And how could anybody be taught to do it? Well, there are ten Training Drills. Deceptive because there's Training 0, which you did the other night and got a... just a little taste of; just hardly any. Confronting somebody doesn't get tough until about the second hour, then it starts.

But every once in a while the mass comes up and hits some other mass that you’re fond of, and you say, “I don’t like all that mass. That mass is treacherous.”

These first ten drills also have some alternate drills or accompanying drills. They're training... like Training 5B, which is another Training Drill. For somebody coming through later, the first basic Training Drills teach a person to do the most important steps; and these others are sort of putting the parsley on it, you know?

And you can get so bad that you could walk down the street and see this mass over here that you now consider treacherous, without seeing it at all. In other words, you could stare straight at it and not even notice it was present. Quite interesting, isn’t it?

There's Training 13, for instance, which is called Fishing a Cognition. That's how you fish a cognition out of somebody. Well, it can be phrased as a drill and it can be done as a drill. But this is not as important as being able to sit and confront somebody and audit them, you see? Therefore it takes a secondary importance.

Objects very often disappear out of an auditing room. An individual is looking around the auditing room and he says, “I could have this in the room and I could have that in the room and I could have something else in the room,” and the auditor wonders why he never has noticed a shotgun on the wall or has never noticed a waste basket or has never noticed a desk ornament or has never noticed his own body — and sometimes never notices the auditor.

Well now, the development of these drills began many, many years ago really. We worked them out and we did pieces of them, we set examples and so on. But they didn't get specialized until the middle of '56, and then it was just the communication end of it, which was 0 to 6 - Training 0 to 6.

Well, you can be absolutely sure that these are masses which the person cannot be.

Training 0 is simply confront somebody.

Now let’s put these two things together. Let’s do a little mental gymnastics here and get the idea of misowning solids. We get the idea that somebody else created what we created. You get the idea of that, see?

Training 1 is Dear Alice. And getting a phrase or statement or remark across to a person, regardless of the tone, but getting it across to the person is the goal of Training 1.

Now, that makes it solid. Then we say, “I am now unwilling to perceive that. I don’t want to perceive that because it’s treacherous.” We say that more in a roundabout fashion: We say, “I’m unwilling to be that thing. I’m unwilling to have that thing continue to live. I’m unwilling to have that thing’s existence in my vicinity.” And we get these two things combined.

And then Training 2 is how to acknowledge. How to acknowledge a statement that has been made or an action that has been executed - how to acknowledge.

The first time one said, “There it is and I want it solid.” Then he found out it was dangerous and he didn’t like it. So he walks over this way and he says, “I don’t want that.”

Training 3 is repetitive question. Then how to handle originations.

He never bothers to undo the mental gymnastics by which he made it solid. We get an engram bank.

And, finally, how to put these together in a nonverbal fashion.

The persistence of a bank is quite interesting — the persistence of masses, of one kind or another. He first said, “Oh, these beautiful pictures. These gorgeous pictures of the world, these gorgeous pictures of — oh, battles and gorgeous pictures of crashes and lovely, lovely pictures of people being murdered.” Those too those too are beautiful, as well as the beautiful pictures of the temples and all that sort of thing. “Well, all these pictures are just gorgeous. Now, I’ll get the idea . . .” and you put a machine over here that mocks up the pictures over here, that shows them to him here, so that he can say, “I wonder where they came from?” See? And “This body is making pictures ‘ or something of the sort. It’s a very, very unusual thing.

Well, these are quite elementary. A person ordinarily goes all the way up through - those I've just described constitute the Communication Course because those are the steps of communication. And they constitute no more and no less than the communication formula, and take the various parts of the communication formula in Scientology, which are important, and show a person that he can use each one of them. And then he gets a little practice using them all and the next thing you know he's doing a good job.

And then he gains experience. Experience is a synonym for “knowing better.” Another synonym for experience, which is much more germane, is “not wanting to be” or “not wanting to perceive again.”

Well, we move then rather rapidly up toward Tone 40 when we get into the upper - what we call Upper Indoctrination - the upper steps. Now we get - as one of the Training Drills, the first one of those, we get Plain 8-C which is just plain 8-C. People in Scientology say, „It could not possibly seem adventurous to give direct orders to a body, telling it to walk around the room and touch the walls. That's just nonsense. I mean, easiest thing anybody ever did.“

Well, look. He’s got a mechanism that says this must be solid. And now he has some experience, and he says that sort of thing is bad and mustn’t be solid. Now he’s in trouble. Just as simply as this, he’s in trouble. Why? He gets a mental image picture . . . gets a mental image picture of his fifth or sixth wife standing there looking pathetic. He can’t get rid of it! He says, “Pftth.”

But if you thought a little bit you could remember back to a day when this would have been a rough one for you to do. So we have to look at it from a student's viewpoint. A student comes in and he takes a look at this and he says, „You know, that's not quite as easy as it sounds.“ That's just verbal. That's just verbal; we just give him the orders and we hope he executes them.

And you see men walking down the street, particularly in New York, talking to the air, you know? “Yap, yap, yap, yap, gob-gob-ra-ra-arr-arr-arrarr-arr, gob-gob, yap-yap, arr-arr-arr.”

Now, we move upstairs from this and we get into a much beefier sort of thing. Now is the first time that a coach gets his revenge - a Training Drill called High School Indoctrination. That was its name, is its name, and all of this training, all it consists of is somebody who will not do, in an orderly and decent fashion, 8-C. The coach gets a chance to abreact all of the boo-boos and nonsense that have been pulled on him by preclears. Very, very healthy to run that side of it as a coach. But that isn't what we're teaching people to do.

I had a fellow one time come into a white-arm restaurant there in New York. I was up there — the automats — up there on the second floor. This fellow raced up the stairs and he went and put two chairs up against a table, reserving two places, and went over and got his sandwiches, or whatever that was, and brought them back on a tray and set his food down, and opened out both chairs and says, “You sit there.” And he sat down, and then got raving mad at this empty chair — argued and pounded on the table and growled and snarled, and . . . There were a few people around looked up; they minded the noise. Truth of the matter was, however, very simple: They were used to that sort of thing.

And there the coach, in this particular case, and the auditor are, you might say, at tooth points. The only thing that's not allowed in there by modern rules is that the coach must not lie down on the floor. Anything else goes. The one reason why is because 8-C by definition is something that is run on a person who can stand up. That is actually today what we say is the necessary basis of running an 8-C process: the person must be willing to stand up. And that is the basis of running it. We have processes that undercut this.

Well, this fellow was carrying a spook of some sort or another. That’s a technical word, a spook. Every once in a while you find a spook. Somebody right down there, second row, looked at me one day and he says, “What do you know?” He says, “We were running this thing, and there, right — standing there all the time, he had been there all the time, was my cousin.” He’d been walking around with his cousin.

But we move up into that bracket and actually we have seen, then, all of and the last of what you might call „yak-auditing.“ „Interchange. We're all human beings here together. Let's discuss it all.“ Not really communication. But a person knows, then, these basic rules and we have a new style of auditing which surmounts this. But we have always had to some degree this yak, conversational, relatively informal - a lot of them excuse it by saying it's high ARC auditing; it isn't.

Well, there’s hardly anybody doesn’t have a spook of one kind or another, and there’s certainly nobody who doesn’t have some sort of a persistent picture that he’d better not look at because he can’t be that thing, which . . . so therefore must be invisible to him — you get the idea? — which is totally solid. And this is about all that gets wrong with the mind.

And we have two distinct auditing styles. And one of those auditing styles is just yak. But it isn't careless yak. It actually follows through all those early Training Drills. Pc originates something, says, „My God, my mother-in-law has just appeared in the middle of the room:” Or „I am eight feet back of my head,“ such as happened to some of you here at the last group auditing session. Now, he originates and the auditor takes it up and discusses it, understands it and acknowledges it and goes on about his auditing.

When you say a specific experience is bad, let me assure you that any experience, according to a thetan, is better than no experience. There isn’t probably any such thing as an immoral experience, except by another consideration that something was immoral. You have to make another consideration, you see?

Now, just as we leave High School Indoc, we get into this breed of cat known as Tone 40. And we get Tone 40 on an Object and Tone 40 on a Person as the two upper drills there. And these things are fascinating drills. They're very fascinating.

It isn’t such a thing that there’s no such thing as immorality. Oh, yes, there is such a thing as immorality: People have considered certain things immoral, and they decided that that was the way to go about it, and these things must be prohibited, and everybody gets solid pictures of them — they become them.

A person can tell whether or not he's doing Tone 40 on an Object and is his severest critic. It really doesn't need much of a coach except somebody to stand there saying, „Come on, let's give it - give it the orders from Tone 40 now. Let's Tone 40 it now.“ And, you know, nag, nag. Or give him an idea, „Let's just stand there and put intentions into it; stop

Well, we get to this second stage, now. There is one thing a thetan can do with something he doesn’t want to look at. He can wear it. That’s one solution, isn’t it? Huh? Now, here is something funny: If you took a horrible-looking dress and you put it up in the living room so that every time you entered the living room, or entered or left the house, you saw this dress there. And you’d say, “Boy, I got to ragbag that thing quick.” But you wouldn’t let yourself do so, see? It’s just there. There’s that dress. Every time you found yourself putting it away, put it back there again. The next thing you know, you say, “Well, it’s not a bad dress,” you put it on. At least you don’t have to look at it when you’re wearing it!

talking to that ashtray.“ And we're up there to what I was talking about at the beginning of the lecture.

I have seen people do this with clothes. But they certainly do this — it accounts for some of the fashions that come out of Princeton. I’ve seen people do this with physical objects. But they do as they do with physical objects, with mental objects. In other words, anything a person will do with a physical object he will also do with a mental object and vice versa, because they’re just objects. They are not a special kind of objects, they’re simply an object.

We're doing this ordering MEST objects around. Bodies are an awful lot of MEST; and a person has to be able to order MEST around in order to get much anywhere with a body. But he gets the intention across; gets the intention across into that ashtray until he's completely surprised that it didn't stand up all by himself. Well, a person knows whether or not he can do it, and nobody can fake it. And that is the experience line.

The only reason other people don’t see your facsimiles is they are not that heavy; they don’t stop light that well. They stop light for you because you’re the one that sheds the light on them.

Now, we do that to a person on an 8-C level. And we walk the person around giving the commands with the intention at this tone of auditing. And do you know that it's a very, very interesting thing to find a good coach at Tone 40 on a Person. That's very fascinating. You can always find willing, ambitious coaches at High School Indoc. See, where the auditor says, „No, I don't want to walk over to that...“ I mean the preclear, you know, the coach, „No, I won't touch the wall, no. Make me! Your shoe's untied.“

Every once in a while you run into an auditor who can see other people’s facsimiles. Every once in a while he really can see other people’s facsimiles. He’s not seeing something he mocked up himself.

The auditor in this case says, „Oh, it is?“

It’s very easy to get in somebody’s head and take a look at the mental image pictures that are stuck. Rather simple. You, or an auditor, can quite often see things, or sense things, or perceive things, or get a feeling about things that the person himself will not sense, feel, experience or see. Why?

The coach says, „Flunk.“

Because he’s gone through this goofball thing I just showed you: He gets a machine over here which mocks up something over there which takes some pictures over here, and he gets something solid. See? Then he’s over here and he says, “Boy, I don’t want to be that. That’s bad. That’s bad.” And he says, “Get out of here! Move. Unmock. Vanish.”

The auditor running the coach in this is very, very - at High School Indoc - he's very, very prone to backflow, and so forth. The coach says to him, „You know, you're doing a pretty good job.“

Now he says, “Okay. At least I don’t have to look at it.”

And the auditor says, „Thank you.“

Well, in view of the fact he’s not looking at it, we get this oddity that an auditor can do more for a preclear than the preclear can for himself, providing they don’t both have the same aberrations.

And the coach says, „Flunk!“

You see how this works? Well, we get these stuck manifestations in the mind.

Well, you can always find people who will wrassle around and resist and dig in their heels and walk too fast and walk too slow. But it is a little rougher to do a good job of coaching at Tone 40 on a Person, if the individual has successfully passed and has really mastered Tone 40 on an Object.

All right. We say, “Well, that’s what’s wrong with it. Now let’s do something about it.” See, that’s very easy now: “Oh, let’s do something about it,” and so on.

Why?

Dianetics. The only thing that is not in Book One Dianetics is havingness. There’s some tiny reference to it, but it’s just not there. And it’s a terribly important subject: a thetan’s desire to possess mass. Any mass is better than no mass. He just wants mass. He wants havingness. He wants possession. It’s quite amazing.

Because the body just simply goes on and does the commands. See that? I mean, that's the difference. A person auditing from Tone 40 says, „Look at that wall.“ There he goes. „Look at the wall. Walk over to the wall.“ You really have to put on the brakes. You know, you have to resist.

Now, what happens here? Auditor comes along and with force and duress wears this thing out, this fellow had here, see? You’d think the thetan would have felt better, but he doesn’t feel so good. Because the other factor has come along: His havingness has been reduced.

The place to learn Tone 40 on a Person is in Tone 40 on an Object. Because I see people go into session all the time when the auditor is doing a good job of Tone 40 on a Person. They just go zzzp and into session.

In spite of the fact that it was bad — he didn’t want to see it, he couldn’t observe it, he couldn’t experience it, he really couldn’t own it one way or the other — its absence, nevertheless, profoundly affects him.

That's interesting, isn't it?

This is quite weird. Police, social workers, and so on, are always struck by this phenomenon. I think it’s Oliver Twist, isn’t it, where Bill Sikes had the dog that he kicked all over the place, and so on? And I’m sure that the dog was very upset when Bill Sikes went to Tyburn or wherever he went. You know? Thing kicked him all the time, but he still had something there.

It means that a thetan is willing to respond to that high a tone no matter what low tone he himself is in. That's all it means.

So somebody is always trying to solve this problem of separating a husband and a wife because they’re both so unhappy together, and then they go spang! There they are back together again, see? You say, “Well, he beats her, and she nags him. And between the two of them, they’re going to ruin their lives.” So you say, “Well, obviously the proper solution is that-a-way.” So, we get it all fixed and they go that-a-way, and they’re either very unhappy or they come this-a-way all over again. See that?

These are processes which are addressed to the thetan. Nearly every preclear a person has ever had was a computer and a valence. Anybody out in the society could be characterized as a computer and a valence. The computer is his IQ and the valence is his personality that he borrowed off somebody else. Computer and a valence. These things are both artificial and neither one of them are under his control.

That’s merely havingness. The total explanation of it. The lack of mass, loss of mass, and 80 on, is quite fundamental. In order to take a wife away from a husband, you would have to at least give him a clothes dummy in return. And what do you know? He’s liable to be satisfied with one, too.

Now, a thetan does have and has mocked up on the whole track a personality of his own. And he is an individual. But out in the society he's never being the individual he intended to be at all. He's in one of these things where „I can't face it, so I'll be it,“ you know? Obsessive closure.

That is one of the riddles. But it isn’t really a riddle. It’s simply a consideration that havingness is valuable and one should have havingness, and so on.

Well now, an individual then is behaving along behavior patterns, quite ordinarily, which have nothing to do with his own desires. He's just walking through life on a behavior pattern he never heard of. See, he's never heard of it, he just does it. It's now-I'm-supposed-to, you know? A car skids a little bit and a little tape goes across and says, „Now I'm supposed to scream.” - „Aaah!“ See? And he sees a table. And someone sits him down at the table and he gets down at the table and a little tape goes across and says. „Now I'm supposed to eat.“

Actually, as one runs processes aimed at remedying havingness, a person gets over the idea that he has to have everything in sight without criteria. He gets over such ideas as greed, and he also gets over such ideas as “can’t have.” He gets over the idea that he can’t have anything, and he gets over the idea that he’s got to have everything.

He's taking orders all the time - orders which really aren't .. haven't any decent intention in them at all. Orders which probably have nothing to do with the present reality. They might have a lot to do with 1775 or something, but they have nothing to do with 1957. And the orders are all backtrack orders. Well, his thinkingness, his intelligence, is mocked up as a computer. It's like he has an adding machine or something, you know, and he says, „Let's see now, the multiplication table ...“ I told somebody, one time, „You know, it's possible to derive all multiplication. Are you aware of that?“

Quite interesting. He can get out of this. Unless he gets out of this havingness bracket — it’s not bad, you understand, it’s just something he has to get over if he’s ever going to shift his attention very much. And so he gets out of this havingness bracket, he can do all sorts of things. He can exteriorize, he can tolerate space, he can do various things that he couldn’t do before.

And he says, „It is?“

The anatomy of a trap, of course, is an inability to have it but have to have it. A trap is better than no trap if a person has to have mass. This is the great weirdity: You wonder why criminals who have been in jail always go out and commit more crimes and go back to jail again. The police prefer to be very baffled about this.

I said, „Yeah. You can take addition or even on your fingers and derive the whole of the multiplication table.“

Well, there is nothing baffling about it at all. They moved in the havingness that close, they got him used to that much — you know, small mass, small confines, rather small space as a cell, and so on. They move the guy out of it and to some degree he feels unhappy about it, he steals something. He’s trying to remedy his havingness already on a criminal basis. He can’t really have something so he has to steal everything. And he’ll do this sometimes just to get back in jail.

„No...“

And he goes out and he leaves clues around so that Dick Crazy and the FBI and other people can go out and arrest him, bring him back and give him that much havingness again.

And I said, „Well, where did you get the idea you couldn't?“

In other words, it’s hard to keep thetans out of traps, unless they have some fairly sane notion of possession; and their notions of possession, havingness, what they can perceive, what they should have solid — unless these things are fairly straight, well, the fellow is leading a very confusing existence. He doesn’t quite know what the existence is all about. He hasn’t a clue.

„Well,“ he says, „I memorized the multiplication table.“

Well, we look at the problems of mass, the problems of ownership, the problems of perception, and we find these things are very intimately connected.

And I said, „Well, you did. Well, how much is six times seven?“ And he says, „Forty-two.“

And the entrance point is quite interesting. The entrance point of havingness — and this apparently is way over the hills and far away from what I’ve just been saying — is control.

I said, „That's pretty good. Now,“ I says, „I want you to add up six sevens.“ I got him to do this a few times on eight times nine and other things like this, you know. And I finally - my parting question on the thing is, „How much is six times seven?“

Now, let’s get down to the basic factor of what makes things bad. Things are bad which exert an influence a person doesn’t want. Got that? That’s a bad thing. A bad thing exerts an influence a person doesn’t want.

And he says, „Uh...“

Therefore, it is attempting, you might say, a control of the person. And when a person has this happen to him too much, when too many things attempt to influence him without his consent, then he gets into a state where he blurs out. He says, “Nothing must influence me.”

Well, believe it or not, he was in better shape counting on his fingers than he was listening to a machine out here. At least he was doing the multiplication! And if I could break down his machinery, believe me, life was in the process of doing so!

Well, because control is a two-way proposition, right hand in glove with it is “I mustn’t influence anything.” We also get this phenomena where he says “This object here mustn’t influence anything,” and then he moves over here and becomes the object — he also inherits the idea that it mustn’t influence anything. Control. Control. It’s fortunate that that is the entrance point. Earlier we had communication as an entrance point. Now, communication doesn’t go as far south as control, because communication has to be as significant as control to have any reality on an unconscious person. In other words, to communicate with an unconscious person it is necessary to add the additional significance of control, and also a communication line and also some mass.

And here's somebody years out of school. You say, „How much is six times seven?“

Communication all by itself is too simple. Somebody is lying there unconscious, we walk in, we say, “How are you, Daisy?”

He says, „Yaah-ahh-uuh - I don't know; it's been a long time.“

She wakes up and she says, “Oh, I’m not bad.”

And don't think the Internal Revenue doesn't depend on this exclusively. They sent me a bill the other day; I sent it back. Unfortunately somebody paid it by accident somewhere along the channels and so forth. But the fact is they said my addition was wrong. I just think they have a stamp there. The addition on the Internal Revenue form wasn't wrong; and actually there's a little follow-up going through giving the proper addition on the thing and requesting the check be refunded. They just count on it. In other words, they have somebody - every fifteenth return they stamp on it, „Multiplication and addition incorrect,“ see? And nobody down there can add or subtract either.

See, if communication worked, we could walk through a hospital ward very easily and simply open the doors and say — ”How are you people?” wouldn’t work, by the way. Communication is a fairly individual thing. We’d have to say “How are you?” and “How are you?” and “How are you?” and “How are you?” and “How are you?” and “How are you?” And theoretically they’d all wake up and get well, and that would be that.

Anyway, here's an idea of a computer. In other words, husband leaves wife; answer is suicide. See? You know, one of these computers. See, it figures out the proper answer to all routine situations. And that's his IQ.

But you have to add the additional significance of control before they pay any attention to the communication. We have processes now which do this. Control, a solid communication line, communication, all added up together, will reach, evidently, almost any level of unconsciousness.

So his valence is somebody else he's forgotten he ever knew - that's his personality And his intelligence is a computer that's giving him wrong answers. Neither machine can stand up to anything like a high-toned approach. These machines are pitched around .5 or 1.1 or - the highest level machine anybody ever had was at about 2.0. That's a pretty high-level machine; I'm being optimistic there. And you start whamming into the case from a high tone and the machines go da-da-da-da-da-du! And the thetan has to wake up and say, „What's happening? What's happening? What's happening? Did somebody talk to me?“

Now, what advantage is there? Why should an auditor be worried about unconscious people? Scientologists wake up rather easily. They’re generally awake before they have anything to do with Scientology. It’s quite remarkable that very few of them have any reality at all on the general state of Homo sap. It’s quite remarkable.

You're auditing straight past his machinery. Every once in a while his machinery says, „I will not go on!“

Most of them have always considered themselves a bit of an oddball. That is almost a common denominator of a Scientologist. Up to the time he came into Scientology he considered himself was just slightly an oddball. He was not quite — he’d look at things, and he would see that they weren’t quite right. And the other fellows around would take a look at them and they’d say, “Well, there’s nothing wrong with that.”

And the auditor says... And the guy does, unless the auditor himself has been dead drunk and stood on his head.

The person who was going to become a Scientologist someday would say to himself, “Well, there must be something wrong with me.”

But that is the situation. That is what one faces in preclears. And that's what one faces in training and processing - is the necessity to bypass all this. The next time you take a pass through the Communication Course and the lower Training Drills, having now understood and run the Tone 40 on an Object - see you go through them all again - you find out all of a sudden that those difficulties which you had previously in trying to get an intention across to somebody have just gone; they've just melted away. You see, you have to have the communication formula in order to know what to have an intention about. So it's absolutely necessary to take these things twice over. Hit them both.

Well, there was something wrong with him. He was awake.

So the ladder one climbs these days in training, no matter how it's done... It might only be a copy of The Student Manual, which will be out in a month or so and which is... which are all the facts of Scientology. No opinions or data or theory; it's just fact, fact, fact. You know, scales and processes and axioms. You know, all the pertinent data is all that's in that book. Doesn't matter if he's only going through something like that, he would still be able to follow this track upwards. Of course, it is best followed under a very; very good Instructor.

Any person who has served a rather adventurous career has sooner or later, in times of stress, had an occurrence happen to him where, sound asleep, he has acted and behaved as though he was wide awake, and then has suddenly awakened finding himself in action. You know? Almost anybody that’s been around has had some sort of an experience like this. You know?

Actually, the student starts down here and comes up through the Comm Course and comes up through Upper Indoc and says, „I've arrived.“

It could be as innocent as you were up all night at a party, and you have to get up and get everybody’s breakfast in the morning, and so you know that. You go to sleep, and you know that. Next thing you know, you’re standing over a stove making coffee! And you say, “Hey! How did I get here? I don’t remember getting out of bed!” And yet, obviously, for some little time you were performing actions. Got that? For some little time.

Yes, he has. He's arrived at Training 9, ready for Training 0. And he comes up through the next ten drills and he hits Training 9 again. He says, „Where did I think I was when I was there?“

You must have gotten up, gotten dressed, lighted the fire, put the coffee in the pot, to wake up all of a sudden with yourself standing over a stove with the coffee in the pot. You’ve had that happen. Something like that.

And you say, „You're here now.“

Don’t have it happen to you when you’re driving a car.

Well, usually he's in pretty good shape. But if he's not he can always go up this one, hit Training 9 again. And if he adventured up this staircase, I don't know where he would get to because Valhalla's plumbing is all busted.

Oh, on an expedition one time, been about three days in a storm (four days), and I remember distinctly going below — I was back on deck again! I’d evidently been acting all right, because I woke up in midsentence of somebody else. Somebody else was talking to me and I woke up in the midsentence.

What we have here is a trail, a staircase, a series of levels which have no absolute height. And all levels reached via that are better than the lower levels a person's passed through.

“What the hell am I doing here? I went below a couple of hours ago. I distinctly remember it!”

Here is a new look. Here is a new thing to do. Here is a new thing at which to practice. The best way to do it is at the Academy or the ACC, something like that. But you could do it at home, fool around with it. Get so snarled up that you have to be instructed on it probably. But it's something new for you to do. And it is yours. And it is well described. And I will take these steps up in detail in the next hour.

Well, if you have any subjective reality at all upon such an experience, let me invite you to apply that experience to a great proportion of your fellow man. He hasn’t awakened. He is walking around, going through all the proper mechanical actions: He’s going through life, he goes to school, he studies his textbooks, he gets up, he goes to work, he thuh-thuh-thuh.

Thank you.

And you’ll see this every once in a while when you’re auditing somebody. He all of a sudden will say, “Clonk! What am I doing here? Who am I?” You woke him up.

What did it take to wake him up? Well, processing, processes. Therefore, for you to be able to process, individually or collectively, mankind as a whole, then you had to have the clue and the key as to how you processed an unconscious person, because that’s mostly what you’ve got. You wonder, “Why do people tolerate this sort of thing?” They’re not tolerating it. They’re just there, you know?

And back in the old days when you thought of yourself as an oddball, and so forth, just reapply this thing: You were standing there, and you were the only one present who was awake. And then you thought something was wrong with you? Yes, there was something wrong with you. You were awake.

Now, havingness — havingness has a great deal to do with this. When a person loses too much too suddenly, he thinks he can’t see at all, thinks he can’t experience, and assumes, himself, this state that we call unconsciousness. And that is the one thing that is personally assumed.

Actually, there is no such thing as a bank full of unconsciousness. When the stress gets too great, the individual says, “I can’t have that thing which I misowned into solid. I am about to see it, and my only defense is to see nothing.” So he goes clonk! — unconscious.

A thetan turns this on himself. I’m sure that there are girls around that you could present them with a gold-plated Rolls Royce or something, and they’d just go Long! — just go out cold. Possible. It’s just too much havingness too fast.

Well, this other manifestation is, any time an unwanted bit of havingness appears, any time something appears in the bank that they really shouldn’t look at, they themselves shut down their attention. And that we call analytical attenuation, or anaten, or just plain dope-off or boiloff, or other technical terms.

Now, here, here is this phenomenon. We have havingness versus unconsciousness. The havingness is mocked up on vias and Disowned, and many times is no longer perceived because the person is unconscious toward that object. He hasn’t really got an automatic mechanism which makes him unconscious. He just all of a sudden begins to know that’s bad to look that way and he just fluuuuh.

Only reason people go to sleep in the dark is because the dark is dangerous. Then they get on an inversion to it. They get on an inversion to it, and they say, “It’s so dangerous I better keep prowling around in it.” And they sleep all day.

They get various odd ideas, strange ideas concerning how alert and awake they ought to be, but the remedy for anything you don’t want — and remember that it’s better to have something than nothing — the remedy for that is to go unconscious.

And this mechanism is pretty well under the control of a thetan. And it’s demonstrated by the fact that in an auditing session when somebody goes unconscious, the best thing to do is to wake them up — just like it said in Book One.

Actually, there’s a method of doing it. And that is, you acknowledge them until they wake up. And an acknowledgment all by itself, if it’s good enough, will wake somebody up. It’s very funny when you see them wake up. Sometimes they’ll wake up and then wish to God they hadn’t, and then go to sleep, and they’re just . . . Very amusing.

A thetan wants and has to have, and really basically is unhappy unless he does have, and uses against this the defense of unconsciousness if he finds himself having at any time. Confusing, isn’t it?

An individual creates something and makes it perpetuate beyond his control, because he says, “I must have this, and I want it to go on forever.” Then he says, “This thing is bad, and I mustn’t perceive this, and I can’t possibly be it,” and so on. Therefore, he just shuts his mind, he shuts his eye to it. He said, “This is no longer there,” while it’s standing in front of him.

Until he can tolerate havingness for its own sake, you can’t expect anybody to wake up. So, in reality, the clue to consciousness, the clue to unconsciousness and the ways to resolve it, is totally in the field of havingness. And havingness gets bridged over to the person with the significance’s of control and communication.

And if you can get control and communication between the person and havingnesses, you got it made. Person wakes up. He finds there was something to look at, he finds he could look at it, and discovers, therefore, that it’s possible for him to be awake though alive.

This is evidently the basic mechanism of havingness, the basic contest in which we find a thetan involved. And the co-relation between havingness and consciousness is simply that a person becomes unconscious if he believes he cannot have. And so we reverse the thing around the other way, and we showed him that he can have and he therefore becomes willing to be conscious.

We do not resolve unconsciousness or the somnolent state in which the human race finds itself by simply running unconsciousness, because this mechanism is really never otherwise than under his control.

So we have found the entrance point to a case, and that is havingness, and we have found how to get it across to the person, and that is by control and communication — thus CCH. And this is the basic mechanism and theory of CCH.

Thank you.