Well, okay. What's the date?

Well now, we have a point here this morning. We either answer the questions or continue the lectures on clearing. What do you want?

Audience: The third. February third.

Audience: Lectures.

February third?

All right. The lectures have it. Okay.

Male voice: Yeah.

Probably in these lectures most of the questions that are here will be answered.

Good.

Then we do have something to talk about at once and that is the phenomenon of an inability to identify mock-ups as one's own — the phenomena of entrapment in the physical universe, in other words.

The formula for Clear is as follows: You get them there — CCH 0 — and the most elementary description of CCH 0, of course you know, is find the auditor, find the auditing room and get wheeling.

This is a remarkable thing. We could answer this very smugly and rapidly by saying that an individual makes problems so as to keep himself busy. So we could answer that. But actually, that is a brushoff; that is simply an accusation. There is an actual phenomenon which fools a thetan into thinking that he is trapped in the physical universe and that his bank is not his own. In other words, there is a phenomenon which makes the individual feel that he is not mocking up his engrams, facsimiles and reactive mind.

Present time problem is only important in that it makes the preclear believe he should be elsewhere doing something else rather than being audited, and so keeps him totally out of session the whole time. A present time problem which does not bop is not one you run. No bop, no run. You understand?

Now, how is it that an individual does not clearly recognize the fact that he mocks up his own reactive bank? How is it that an individual does not see that these pictures are not — his own? How does he believe that they are something else's? How does this come about? All right.

Now, you'll run into preclears that say, "I have a present time problem, and it's all horrible, and it's terrible and I'm just going all to pieces," and all that sort of thing. And the E-Meter just sits there. Pat him on the shoulder, sympathize with him and carry on. All right.

Let's look at the anatomy of this situation. We have in mental parts, from old Dianetics, we have the analytical mind and the reactive mind. Well, all the analytical-minding and so forth is, as far as we're concerned today, more or less part of the reactive mind. In other words, it might just be an upper strata of logical machinery or something of the sort. But logical machinery is not very logical. The only thing logical around the place is a thetan. And when he is gone then he no longer is fluidly logical. What he does is exercise patterns of logic which are preconceptions with him. You see, he gets this series of things that appear reasonable, but they are actually only now-I'm-supposed-to's.

So you've got to find the auditor, find the auditing room, find the preclear to some slight degree. And then the next step is get him under control. You get him under control. You get him under control. Quite different than getting him to get a process that controls him. Do you understand that?

Thus, we get generals acting like generals, you know? And you can stand in front of such a man and explain to him carefully that if you don't relieve Corregidor, or if you don't send supplies and quinine and rifle ammunition to the people in the Philippines, that the war is gone. You know? And this fellow says, "Now I'm supposed to, now I'm supposed to, now I'm supposed to."

Audience: Yes.

Now, the difficulties of the matter is, is his now-I'm-supposed-to's are reactive, and they are added up to another situation than the one he is in. Hence, you find a Pentagon down here all set to fight the last war — always. Because its logical machinery is set up to fight one enemy of one type, and a war with a certain set of weapons, don't you see?

I'm not even vaguely interested in having Scientology control people. You could make a system of bric-a-brac out of Scientology that would control people. That I can assure you. All you'd have to do is delete a few essential elements, curve it around a little bit different, explain how it was for their own good and you'd be on your way.

Now, the reason I bring up the military, actually — because the higher ranking military, in any nation in any age, has more or less behaved in this same way. It isn't just this particular military, this particular high command at this particular time. They could have fired a rocket and put something in orbit a couple of years ago, but there was no now-I'm-supposed-to to take care of it. You see? So they didn't do it.

I'm sure that JC back at the turn of the millennia had a system which actually would have freed people. He was obviously — by the way, this might be of interest to you — he was obviously trying to attain bodhi, trying to tell people how to attain bodhi. Most of the activities he was engaged upon were basically Buddhist activities. He was reputed to have studied in the East, as you know. He did not come to prominence until he was thirty years of age, was only prominent for three years and then exteriorized. Took his body along with him, which is a little bit unnecessary and which, by the way, is the primary booby trap that you run into in Tibetan Lamanism.

Now, this is essentially this equation at work: "That which has happened, I have lived through, therefore it is safe." And that is what is known as logic by security.

We've got preclears around, we actually do have, who are still working on some sort of a Tibetan mechanism laid down on the backtrack whereby you totally vanquish the body, make the body become totally invisible, make it evanescent to a point of where it's totally incapable of stopping a light wave, and you take it with you. Did you know that? Did you know that was part of the booby trap of Buddhism? As I've just described to you, it would be utterly impossible to do so.

As a matter of fact, that's the most unsafe supposition that you could make. But it again is a reactive familiarity.

There's no reason why you couldn't mock up a body just like it, that everybody could see. But that is not the same thing as taking your body with you. Do you understand?

Instead of, then, getting familiar with an existing situation, they take familiarities with a past situation, which are composited and beaten into some sort of a logical pattern. And these past familiarities, then, are made to serve in the present situation.

So a lot of people are trying to get Clear by making nothing out of the body. See that? In fact, it's the primary method. Of course, it doesn't work.

Hence, you know the truism with regard to this in Scientology: you know the fellow has got to examine present time. In order to examine present time, he must be able to confront present time. As he is unable to confront, so he then substitutes for familiarity a bunch of engrams and reactivities — engrams and reactions he substitutes for being able to look. The machinery, then, looks for him, and it doesn't look.

Well, now, whatever happened to that body — and you could say that JC simply mocked it up in the first place, don't you see? You could say that well, it was not a body. They evidently had an awful time getting any backtrack for it. There's more mysticism and monkey business mixed up in how Christ was born and all of this sort of thing, and everybody's very insistent on it. And they even run it back to the Magi. That's very interesting, you know, because the Magi, actually, is simply a wives' tale, which may have some truth in it, which goes right straight back to space opera.

Be perfectly all right for somebody to have some machinery that did the looking for him if it gave him the dope. But remember, that machinery isn't looking — it is simply reacting.

You know the seven stars of the Big Dipper? Seven of the stars of the Big Dipper are a confederation, and this particular system is merely a step-point into the main galaxy. You look it over and you'll see how this is true, because of your distances and so forth. And this is called the Marcab Confederation. I'm telling you now backtrack stuff, space opera — a little more credible today than it was a few days ago.

Now, therefore, an analytical pattern — what passes for an analytical pattern — is actually a reactive pattern. So we are really dealing only with the thetan and the reactive mind. Do you see that? We could narrow that down in Scientology. That was a fairly good approach that we had in Dianetics. It talked. There's nothing wrong with it. It still serves to the guy out in the street that thinks he's dead in his head and he's a brain.

These — the Marcab Confederation actually survives in our history as the seven archangels. If you want to go look up their names and find out some bric-a-brac about it, it's quite interesting — of course, Michael the tough one, and Uriel and the rest of them. In other words, these people were still dominant over Christianity at the birth of Christianity. It's quite amazing. It's quite amazing to find out that it required their stamp of approval before we could have a miracle. Interesting, isn't it?

The truth of the matter is the only logical thing around would be that thing that could look, could draw conclusions from actual evidence. In the absence of actual evidence, in the absence of observation, we then get reactivity, stimulus-response mechanisms. And stimulus-response mechanisms are never the result of observation. Now think that thing over for a moment.

Actually, much of the knowledge we have about the spirit and so forth, comes to us from that particular route. Fourth Invader, Fifth Invader: This is a bunch of stuff by which you had a resistive body, here, based on Mars which was resisting this migration from the Marcab Confederation deeper into this particular galaxy. And you have the seven archangels as simply being the mocked-up nonsense, more or less, which is representative of the imperial government of the Marcab Confederation, which consisted of seven brothers.

I've just told you that he takes a set of observations and then uses the past observations and so forth. But now I tell you on the other side of the picture that reactivity is never the result of observations.

It's very interesting. If you want to look this up on an E-Meter sometime, you'll be utterly fascinated, because it gives you the background of this particular civilization we have here on Earth, which has been just merely a saw back and forth, push — pull between the Marcab Confederation and those who were here originally. It's a big fight. You look at it over a period of years, however, and you find that the Marcab Confederation is still winning. It's still — but its time schedule was something like about thirty-eight or thirty-seven thousand years, and it's well on schedule. As a matter of fact, it's about fifteen thousand years ahead, right this minute.

Anything that is the result of an observation will clear itself. See? Those things which are direct observations clear themselves. Therefore — well, let's be very, very flat about it: The reason you want to go look is you know it'll clear. It doesn't matter how bad the oil tank fire is, or it doesn't matter how bad this is or how bad that is. The funny part of it is as soon as you've looked at it, it is less bad. Now you are — you get the result of your observation, don't you see? And if you continued to observe it, you would find that you were able to do something about it.

But this is — has a magical background. It has a background that is spiritualism — all about religion, exteriorization. And there are certain patterns and so on, which are called off in this particular space-opera show.

Now, how far that would go I don't mean to say as a flat statement, but the probability is this: That as you continued to observe it, you would find it less and less necessary to do something about it, and you would finally come out the top with regard to it, and you'd even be able to alter the situation without touching it. Now, that's the reductio ad absurdum; it's way up topside. In other words, you go — you hear of an automobile accident, you don't observe it — see, it is just a big via. And then you go look at this automobile accident and then you think you should do something about it, don't you see? And if you really inspected the automobile accident without an interposition there — no screen between you and the accident, you see — you just looked at the accident, the probability is you'd as-is it. We're now talking about a very high state of being able to observe.

The whole idea of the savior and the sacredness of things and so on, is about one and a quarter million years old. The earliest implant about Jesus, and so forth, is one and a quarter million years old. Now, you can say that's very remarkable, very, very remarkable, because Jesus was supposed to have been here about nineteen hundred and fifty-seven years ago. And to find preclears with this implant one and a quarter million years old then rather tells us some odd tales.

Now, these screens that you run into in a preclear are interpositions which work this way: Here is the actuality, here is the world of observation, and then here is a screen, closer to him and between him and the world. And somewhere in the vicinity of the screen or inside the screen, we get a series of reactivities which take the place of observation. Now, this is based on this interesting datum: It is dangerous to look. That is (quote, unquote) "It is dangerous to look. It is dangerous to experience."

I'm not just gibbering, you know? I mean, this is history the way you should have been taught it in school, if people had been honest.

You could cause automobile accidents by training children into "safety." You would eventually raise a whole generation that would do nothing but go out and have accidents. You see this? You gave them no familiarity with accidents and you told them they should flinch from accidents.

But exteriorization — let's get back on that subject again. The whole idea of bodhi and exteriorization and so on, is persistent in most religions. That is because it's a fact. See? I mean, this is a fact. All religions have to have some grain of truth in them to get a widespread agreement. Well, now the way it gets booby-trapped is, you take your body with you. And you'll find preclears all over the place trying to make nothing out of their bodies. You understand that?

So you could say all flinchingness and all reactivity is the result of erroneous training which forbids observation. You see where we got here? Now, this is no condemnation of the American university. It's no condemnation, at all, of training in any particular field. But it does show you that training could have two sides — there could be two sides to this coin called training.

Audience: Mm-hm.

You could train toward observation or train away from observation. It isn't training that is at fault; it is a type of training that is at fault. The reason you become upset occasionally with your father and your mother and the way they handled you is because they gave you so much training away from observation. When you protect people from observing directly, you debar them from as-ising.

And I've just given you a lecture on how you don't make anything out of your body because you're not connected with it.

Now, give the American newspaper another fifty, sixty years, and the American Psychiatric Association will never again have to worry for patients. A careful analysis of the American newspaper demonstrates that it, however, is not trying to observe for you on a via. It has a pitch. It is "how bad it all is over there." That's the pitch. Now, its pitch has nothing to do with service; it has lost its idea of service, information and so forth. This idea is lost. In its place is the Effect Scale.

That it operates is fantastic. The real miracle is how a body operates with no energy connections. Of course, you can make a body operate by postulate. But if you can do that, then, of course, you can make up — any body walking up and down the street operate, too. And that is one of the things a Clear eventually finds out. He makes a postulate in somebody's direction and says they should stop, and they stop. He decides he'd better not make postulates like that, because he's liable to stop them in front of a truck — that's how he ceases to be Clear. You can remember that.

Now, you know what the Effect Scale is: As a person goes downscale, he thinks he has to do more and more to create an effect. The lower he goes on the scale, the more violent he believes his effect must be. The higher he goes up the scale, the more he is capable of producing an effect and the less effect he thinks he has to produce, which is quite remarkable. Both of the things go together. In other words, an individual who could produce a tremendous effect very often really doesn't believe he has to produce any effect at all.

In other words, the control of body by telepathic interchange is possible; by energy interchange is impossible, unless you go on a tremendous number of vias.

Hence you get the ARC triangle, whereby somebody who is very friendly, who can communicate, don't you see — all these high-toned things — his ability to communicate, his high level of reality, he can postulate. Yeah. And we go right out the top of the ARC triangle, don't you see? The second an individual comes up to a total postulation he, of course, comes up to total effect. But to come up to total ability to postulate — simply say it is so and it becomes so — he has already departed from the agreement strata and everything else. Now, he is the one who could produce a total effect. People are so well aware of this, they assign this virtue only to God.

Now, if you try to make somebody fight energy and make nothing out of a body and have a body disappear right where it is, I suppose you'd have a Clear of sorts. And you could probably unmock a body and make it disappear where it is, by postulate. But if you were in good enough shape to do that you would be in good enough shape to also realize that you had no energy connection with it in the first place, and therefore would not be obsessed with the idea of making it disappear.

Now, as we go up the scale, then, an individual has to work less and less hard to produce an effect, don't you see? As we go down the scale, he thinks he has to do more and more and become more and more violent to produce an effect. And we get the teenager, we get people in prisons and so on. They're absolutely certain that they have to just kill. See? The only thing they could do is — is not kill anybody quietly, they'd have to — have to kill (pounding) somebody completely and violently, and — and — and even then, they don't really think they produce an effect. You get the idea? See? They think the way to produce an effect on a baby, the only way you can produce an effect on a baby is take a double-barrel shotgun, maybe about four gauge, and fire both barrels simultaneously. And then they would sink back in terrible disappointment because they'd know, after they had fired the shot, that it didn't produce any effect.

Now, the total dramatization of destruction is a dramatization. It's been one of the long, lingering questions: Is man actually destructive? No. He's only destructive on a third dynamic. He is trying to keep something going and something else destroys what he has. If it overwhelms him enough then he goes into its valence and after that dramatizes destruction. All destructive impulses are dramatizations, which is quite amazing. I mean, that's the truth of it. This is a funny datum I give you suddenly out of the blue. But, they're all dramatizations.

Well, that's what's weird. As the individual thinks he has to be more and more violent, and use greater and greater effort, and more and more damaging things to produce an effect, so, at the same time, does he become unable to observe an effect. He cannot observe an effect produced. At the same time, effects become more and more unpalatable to him. He cannot receive an effect, certainly. But his production of an effect directly is less and less observed the lower he goes in tone. In other words, the less he can communicate, the more effect he has to produce and the less he is able to see that he has produced an effect.

A person doesn't worry about having mass around. See, what's the thing coming out here? Havingness. Increase of havingness makes a thetan feel much better. And if increase of havingness makes a thetan feel much better, why, then destruction is no part of it. If making nothing out of everything in sight makes him feel bad, and having him put a nothingness before him and behind him, above him, below him, and to the right and the left will make him sick as a pup in no time at all, therefore destruction is not in his best interest.

And you see this oddity as you live along in life in this particular universe, and I'm sure you have seen it: You have seen somebody produce a tremendous effect and then go off and mope because he lost. And what do you think the cycle of rage-sympathy is?

And we find out that in Fundamentals of Thought we have — the cycle of action is all in terms of create. Destruction, you see, would be accomplished in its final goal, best, if you just stopped creating something. You understand that? You don't have to destroy something to have it cease to exist. Therefore, destruction: it is dramatization and is so, always, otherwise owned on its original postulate and impulse. Therefore a person who is destroyed or overwhelmed too many times, he gets the idea that he's been destroyed too many times, he's been overwhelmed too many times, therefore, he falls into this JC mechanism of taking the body with you. Because it's destroyed, so therefore he makes nothing out of it, see? And his ambition, then, on a dramatization basis, gets to be making the body totally transparent, you see, just wiping it out. Well, that doesn't work.

Somewhere as we come down the scale, before a person becomes totally blind, he is still able to recognize that he produced an effect. So in a tremendous sweep of rage, he damages somebody and then sees that he produced a little bit, see — sees he produced an effect — and feels sympathy for them. You get that? Well, that's in the medium range of the scale, you see? Knock hell out of somebody and then weep over them — which is kind of silly, just between ourselves. It's very, very silly.

Now, where you have — where you've had difficulty in your first week, you auditors in auditing these preclears — where you had difficulty with the preclear in the first week, where he didn't make satisfactory progress is, he is over the borderline too far on a dramatization of destruction. See? His screen is resist incoming destruction. Get that? He has automaticities of destruction. You get that?

Now, do you know this goes down just a little bit deeper to this: We knock hell out of a fellow and then weep over ourselves. Huh. That's weird. There's the guy lying in four bisected parts, and we feel sorry for ourselves. Quite amazing. Now, this is your overt act — motivator sequence, your ARC triangle, this is your Cause — Effect Scale and so on. You know all those things, but it is also this one: It's the scale of observation. A person is less and less able to observe, the more effect he has to produce.

Now, whether to audit it or not is a question. That's an unanswered question. But we just changed a preclear all over the place in the HGC by sending her out and making her run it — a Waterloo Station-type or Union Station-type process of "Invent a method of destroying that (indicated person)." We ran out the automaticity. Now, this preclear had been going for fifty hours without much change. And I said, "The devil with that," and I said, "Take her out on the street and let her get rid of this 'destroy the body,' " which is the mechanism I've just been talking to you about. Let her get rid of that. Her eyes changed color, her attitude changed, so forth. She did take over the automaticity.

So you could say conclusively, then, that a newspaper which was doing nothing but trying to produce a total effect on you — the American newspaper is trying to do that. It is trying to produce a total effect on you, see? And if it could just have enough — enough data in it about kill, (pound) you see? And if — if it — if it could just — if it could just — just, you know, just — just — just have bloody enough stories, you know? If — if it — you could just make it somehow, and — and get it — get it under you that everybody was dying every place in horror and agony, you know, why, somehow or other it'd make the grade. Whew!

It was interesting that for — I don't know the time, the auditor didn't say — but for a long period of time during the five-hour session, the person could not face the people who were indicated. At first she could look at the people and say, "Well, cut their heads off, stab them," do this, do that, you know? The auditor would say, "Invent — you invent a method of destroying that woman," and indicate the woman, you see, an actual live woman walking down the street. And the auditor would say this, and the preclear would say, "Oh, stab her, jump on her, throw her under a truck." She wasn't really inventing methods. But that was working just fine.

Aw, just read the stories. You want to know how much accuracy there is connected with these stories?

And after a short time, the preclear was no longer able to look at the people she was destroying, see? And, "The woman over there," you know, the preclear would turn her head way over here and say, "Well, I'd — I could feed her — feed her poison." And then finally worked up to a point of where she could look at the person, spot them and then look away, see, and then say how she'd destroy them, and then look back. You get the idea?

Take any story — we learned this: We have actually a lot of histories on this. The newspaper reports were found to be wildly at variance with the actual circumstances in almost every case. Wildly! Oh, it's just all hopped up, I mean it's just completely backwards — gorgeous — to such a degree that, with the data that has been sent in to me and so on, and that I've seen on this . . . You know, it says that Mamie Jones had a skull fracture, was run over by a truck and was in a coma, was not expected to live. You get there, you find out it was her mother and it was a bicycle. I mean, there — it's just weird, you know?

Well, now please add this up to what I've just been telling you in the first hour: The destruction was on a via and she dramatized the via. Get that? Nonconfront, then, was a destruction via. She'd look into the bank, you might say. She would not look at the person. Well, this mechanism of "destroy the body" ran out. This mechanism of destruction as a dramatization, per se, ran out.

So you get this factor entered into the woof and warp of living: An incorrect report of what the observation is. Now, this begins with a dependency on the observation as a via. We start to depend on the observation, see? We say, "Well, there's no reason to go over and look because this will tell us what it is." Something that's just as accurate as an RAC "know before you go" map. The Royal Auto Club, for instance, has got maps written up for every section of the world, their little section maps and strip maps, and they tell you where the little stone bridge is at the bottom of the trail and how it curves over to the left and a hundred feet beyond that, why, people leave out milk cans — I mean, it's the most fantastically accurate survey of routes you ever wanted to see, you know? So you know before you go, you see? And you get this "know before you go," and it comes back, and you say, "That's very fine." Well, you find out that's dependable.

Now, I'm not advising you that this is a method or anything of the sort. But you do find that some preclears have destruction mixed up with clearing. And you say "clear" and they think you mean "destroy." You see? They think you mean destroy the body. Their fixation is on whether or not the body disappears. You got that? And if you got into that, it is probable — not an accomplished fact — that the shortest method of getting over it is simply to get them to take over the automaticity of destruction with some Union Station, such process as I just gave you. Got that?

Well, having started a groove in that direction and said these vias are now, then, dependable, then we pick up a newspaper and find out about travel in North Tunafish, you know? And the newspaper says, "And the tribes are all running loose and everybody has been killed and everybody's being murdered and everybody's dead, and it's compounded and made much more horrible by a cholera plague," and so on.

Now, where a screen itself doesn't surrender rapidly and where it's being a very, very sticky, long-drawn situation, you know you have somebody who is resisting destruction.

And we say, "Well, see here now, there's no reason why we should go to North Tunafish because we would just get all chewed up into small bits." See, the RAC gives you a correct rendition of what the track is. And we look around to another source of information about the same area and, instead of going and looking, we stay dead in our heads and read a newspaper on the subject.

Now beware of somebody who no longer resists destruction but just is it. Lucrezia Borgia — historic example. She was destruction, see? She was the destruction.

Then we do the most remarkable thing, if we do this other remarkable thing — we seldom have this experience, however; we seldom have this second experience. We just take it for granted that the data is correct, and we don't spend any time examining it. "And the tribes are all up in revolt and cholera plague is sweeping the area," and that sort of thing. If we were to go — we seldom do this; we read the report. But we go down to North Tunafish, and we find out that the local telegraph operator had a bellyache from eating green melons, and we find the tribes that are in revolt are two criminals that busted out of jail. And we find out from the officials of North Tunafish that they consider themselves highly put upon for being cost some of their tourist traffic, for the excellent reason that their roads are wide open, well policed, and they're doing the best they can. You get the idea?

You would, I am sure, have to work out the automaticity. It would be necessary for you to do this Union Station sort of thing. (I'm just passing you along dope as it accumulates here.) So there is that step which could intervene, there, and become another step to clearing.

Well, now you can have a reverse observation on this: "Everything is calm and peaceful in North Tunafish." So we go down to North Tunafish to find out how calm and peaceful everything is. And the second we arrive there's a ha-ha-ha of a machine gun going over on the quay, and we get our baggage ashore, but there are no porters because they're all dead from cholera and . . . You get the idea? The government is totally wiped out and upset and the land has been turned over to the rhinoceroses.

Now, we've had one case already that we had to give up the ghost on and say well, we'll step back into this. This person is total destruction. We ran her on a Union Station-type process, took her outside, showed her people, had her invent ways to destroy these various people, one after the other — took over the automaticity of destruction. And all of a sudden this preclear began to sail right on upstairs, because the destruction had been taken over. You got that?

You see, we would get either observation, good or bad, being incorrect, for the excellent reason that the fellow who wrote it didn't go and look. He might have been right there in North Tunafish, but he wrote it from the south end of the longer bar in town. See that?

Yes?

Now thus, observation by via, I'm merely pointing out to you, is terribly inaccurate. Terribly inaccurate. Intelligence agencies try to overcome this by saying — by a code of evaluation. And they have it all worked out to a fare-ye-well. They say that the observer is A, B, C, D grade, and the probability of the information is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. So we get such a thing as A-l as being an expert observing something that sounds highly probable. See, "A" means an expert and "1" means highly probable. And we get D-5 as a person who is totally disassociated from that particular field of observation, and well, let's say, a farmer from Iowa inspecting naval affairs or some naval circumstance, and 5 is an improbable information.

Male voice: Is there any way that you know of now to spot this so that you can avoid wasting the original fifty hours?

You could have "D-l." In other words, you could have this highly inaccurate or unpracticed observer, a farmer, observing something that was highly probable. You see, he reports to you that there are many milk cans along the road to town. Well, this is for sure in Iowa, see? Very probable. But supposing he reports a Japanese battleship ten miles up a creek in his immediate vicinity in Iowa? You see? And it's only two feet deep all the way up the creek. So we would get a piece of information that was graded D-5. Well, that's fine. Intelligence can shake it down. But I've seen intelligence make an awful lot of errors.

Oh, look at their eyes. Best method I know of. There's a little glee in the situation or a little gleam about it. If it looks — they look like they're, "That's — rrowm!" You know?

But the primary error of intelligence is in not being able to get their information read by the commander. See, the commanders don't read the intelligence data. Well, of course, intelligence — now get this — is being used as a via by the commander. See? That is already one via. Well, on such a via we get such things as Munich and Chamberlain. At the time of Munich, the British foreign service had a tremendous amount of information concerning Herr Hitler, his plans, his armaments, his storage of them and so forth. And it was stacked up on, I believe it was, the left-hand side of Mr. Chamberlain's desk. And it was damning! And Chamberlain, according to foreign service, never read it. He never looked it over; he never found out what the data was. And he went happily over and signed this pact, which was the worst thing he could have done at that particular time. I only know this because I knew a couple of foreign service officers who were very bitter about it.

This is not a usual case, by the way. I don't know that there are any here.

And for some time, we have been suspecting that Eisenhower used as his sole intelligence media, Newsweek, and took occasion to check up on this to see what he was going to say in his announcements after having read what Newsweek said about it. And never found any variation at all, until one day found a foreign policy 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 points in Newsweek — well, here we go. We will hear this from the president as the foreign policy situation here in a few days. And sure enough, the president came out with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, with not even a comma changed.

Yes?

Well, on the heels of this, we get a complaint from Allen Dulles — he's knee-deep in Dulles, this Eisenhower is — and Allen Dulles is the head of CIA, which is Central Intelligence Agency. And Allen Dulles, unfortunately — he should have been muzzled because he didn't really, I guess, in his rage, know what he was exposing. But he said that it didn't do any good for CIA to have agents and people all over the world collecting information everywhere if nobody ever read it. And according to his statement, it was just stacking up in the White House and nobody ever read the reports. And Eisenhower confirmed it. Eisenhower said, well, if it was in a digestible form so you didn't have to read all that stuff, why, he might be able to persuade somebody to read it. I mean, why didn't he confess that he wasn't doing his job?

Female voice: And how do you know when this is flat, when you're running that Union Station? When the person is able to confront the people they destroyed?

Now, what I'm telling you, by the way, is easily traceable just through the newspapers of the last few weeks of January, here, 1958. Fabulous, see? I'm not railing against it. It's perfectly normal. Every time you get a fellow who is somewhat shaky in the knees and so on, you'll get him looking on a via but then not looking at the via. But this odd situation can then develop: is, the via can now tell him what to do without his ever finding out the via is telling him what to do.

No. That would be one symptom. It would be beginning to get flat when they were able to invent methods of destroying the people and still look at them.

If Dulles is real clever he might find out that he got all his dope from Newsweek and after that would publish his CIA reports in Newsweek. And they would get to Eisenhower anyhow. (laughter) You see that? Well, that's certainly hidden control, isn't it? Hm?

Female voice: Oh, that's what you meant?

All right, if there is such a thing as hidden control then, if there is such a thing possible, don't you think it might happen occasionally in the mind?

That would be — that would be one little ridge passed over. But the one that would come about is when they really did invent it.

And so it does. And that is the reactive mind — what we used to consider the reactive mind. The fellow didn't even know it was there, and it was feeding him data all the time. All of that data added up to just this one datum: observation on a via. Observation on a via amounted, finally, to not even knowing what the via was but obeying it implicitly. Do you see that? All right.

Female voice: Oh.

Then a reactive mind could be built into somebody by giving him all of his education on a via and never letting him look at what he was being educated in. And the next thing you know, you would have somebody totally (quote) "educated" (unquote) who was not able to observe but who was totally dependent for his observations on something else. You see that? And he'd even forgotten what this thing was looking at, for him. And we would get a reactive bank.

They stopped running off the dramatization and actually did start to get in and pitch. They were themselves, then, for the first time at cause-point.

We could build in a whole reactive bank just by training engineers to engineer without ever letting them see any concrete, without ever letting them see any slide rules or grades or railroad locomotives or bridges or anything. We just carefully kept them from looking at anything and we kept feeding them textbooks by the shovelful. You see? And that's information on a via. We never let them even read any direct observation; never let them pick up a textbook like 7 Was a Civil Engineer in Central Africa and Built a Railroad, you know? Never let them read anything that was a real blow-by-blow, up-close-to-it description.

Here you actually have a cause-effect line which has swapped ends. The person is being cause by being the effect and so forth.

When we were trying to educate officers for military government, one of these things occurred early in the education. We'd educate somebody as a military governor for an area, and he would go over and he would find everything was completely reverse, or not there at all, or the situation was not even vaguely analogous to us, that he'd simply wasted time being in school before he took over his duties. He had to unlearn everything he learned. Well, the funny thing, this situation was so acute and so on, that they did do the reverse. And this was answered by dumping on the heads of students, then, actual reports written in the field on the subject of military government.

Does that answer your question?

In other words, what was put in there was direct observation. Everything the fellow had seen, the logs of officers who had been in various areas and so on. This was then — all of a sudden accelerated the training problem to such a degree that they were able to cut it from nine to three months. Fascinating. Now, the fellows going over now at least knew this: that no amount of study would tell them what they were going to see when they saw it. It taught them to expect the unexpected, you see? And do something about the unexpected. And they were pretty good officers — so good that the US government has never called them back to service. Now, these boys did a terrific job.

Female voice: Yes.

Some of the early lads in this particular field were on Saipan, for instance, and they weren't really able to cope with the situation. Particularly since the military, the army and the more military aspects of the navy, were on the back of their necks. They had stockaded all of the Japanese people on the island, put them in a stockade, and they were having an awful time and they couldn't cope with the situation at all. And the island had been totally overrun and these Japanese and Chamorro natives were in pretty foul condition. And they were losing seven babies a day — seven babies were dying every day. That's pretty fast because there were only about fifteen thousand people. That's an awfully high thing.

The actual one is: When do they actually invent it?

So, what did our — well, Civil Affairs actually sent over a couple of newer officers. They took a look at this situation; they were better trained than the older ones. And they looked at this situation, realized that this was pretty horrible. And they couldn't get milk, couldn't get supplies, they'd write out requisitions and so forth, and the military would simply tear them up, wouldn't pay any attention to them. The military was damn mad at Japanese and Chamorros, and they were not differentiating between babies and soldiers — identification was going on.

Female voice: Mm-hm.

Well, one of these new Civil Affairs officers wormed around through the communication center and got on the line to Vice Admiral Towers, and all he had to say to him was, "You'd better come here quick and take an inspection before the newspapermen do." And Vice Admiral Towers got on a plane, went out to Saipan and — seven babies were dying every day. He was the old transatlantic flight hero, by the way, ten years before Lindbergh. And the Old Man said, "Wow!" He said, "You make out every requisition you have made out to date, regardless of whether or not it will be duplicated or filled." And the Civil Affairs boys did and Towers sent it at once straight through. And actually one complete ship came out for the relief of civilian duress on the island of Saipan.

You bet.

Now, it just stopped (snap) right that — that moment. The second that you got somebody to come in who was trained in the idea that something could be done — that was all the new officers knew — and as soon as you got somebody who could talk or make a postulate, like Towers, you see — to act. You see, you got him to look; he acted. And the situation straightened out at once. It practically as-ised.

Yes?

"Yes," you say, "well, an awful lot of canned milk and a lot of other things were necessary to straighten out this rather disgraceful situation." But the funny part of it is, is I think if they'd looked a little harder, it would — all would have straightened out without the canned milk. I'm sure of this. The point is, is there was milk on the island, you see, and there were cattle back in the boondocks. And they probably could have reassembled the community one way or the other if they'd just looked a little harder. They didn't. They did it all on an emergency basis.

Male voice: What is the best test for invisible field? I understand there's been some new discovery on that and that. . . It had an enemy that. . .

This I've just told you is a very, very true story. I had a hand in it. So I know what I'm talking about.

I'm giving you the best new discovery on an invisible field right this minute.

But here is a matter of getting somebody to look.

Male voice: Oh, that is?

Well, as long as a newspaper sits there and says, "Horror-horror-horror, terrible-terrible-terrible-terrible," everybody gets the idea that the world is in such terrible condition, we can do nothing about it. You see that? It gets in this horrible condition, "we can't do anything about it, and therefore we just ought to go on the same point of the Tone Scale which the newspaper is on." If you asked the newspaper to do anything practical, it would quit. (snap) Bang! That would be the end of that activity. Don't ever ask a newspaper to do anything. Their boys are sitting down in the end of the bar and dreaming the stories up that they think will best please the editor. I mean, that's possibly what journalism has become.

Making the body invisible. Attainment of bodhi or state of Clear by making the body invisible.

I know journalism today is unable to cooperate when you ask it for direct cooperation. We've had an incident just in the last three or four days where a newspaper, by releasing a certain story, could have done something very, very good. And the newspaper looked over the story and found out some entheta over here which was a cousin to the story, you see, not intimately related. And they right away started to investigate the entheta so they could publish the entheta, but that wasn't even important. In other words, you ask them to make a direct observation, and they themselves now saw how bad it was over there. Only they didn't look in the direction you were pointing, they looked some other direction. Quite amazing. See, they can't directly observe. All right.

Male voice: Oh, I know.

Just on this basis of observation, this is the way a reactive mind gets going. We don't look. The newspaper, for instance, tells us how bad it is over there, how bad it is over there, how bad it is over there. It's telling us it's so bad that we can't do anything about it, which is quite a trick and which is usually a lie. Look, if you individually cannot do something about it, then there's nothing anywhere that can do anything about it. I mean, that's a horrible thing to tell anybody. That's a great way to lose a PE audience, by the way, is say — tell them, "You can do it."

And you generally get that as a symptom of an invisible field.

But the reactive mind starts looking, and all the observations are on a via. And these observations, then, sum up to "It's all bad and you can't do anything about it," and we get the mechanism we know as a screen. That is the direct birth of the screen. Because the next postulate after "I can't do anything about it" is — is "Well, I shouldn't, then, worry myself with it all the time." And we put up a protective screen and don't look at it anymore. You see that?

Male voice: Oh, I see.

But what are we not looking at? We're not looking at something that wasn't true in the first place.

It's something that's coming in on a person. It's invisibility sweeping in on the person.

Possibly you have — contained in these vias and wiggle-waggles and inability to observe and letting something else tell us how bad it all is — probably we have the genesis of pain itself. Probably pain is totally a postulate. It's highly probable that there's nothing in the whole universe that hurts unless we say it does. It's very probable that if we weren't so convinced about the injuriousness of this and that happening to the body, that we could take our body and throw it up against the wall, drop it over a cliff, pick it up, dust it off and have it running again. There's no reason for a body to retain an illness or an injury unless we ourselves retain it in the body. We have to work very hard to get an injury stopped in the body so it will continue to deform. Now, that's amazing but true. There's no reason why a body should deform simply because it's cut up.

Male voice: And how does that affect a preclear as you're auditing him?

Occasionally you've seen miracles of one kind or another, sudden changes of healing, sudden changes of body aspect. These things all add up to the fact that somebody was in charge of something there, and if he had been in charge of it from the beginning, it wouldn't have happened.

He goes awful slow.

Now, any time you wish to actually heal up a psychosomatic illness, there is one thing that heals it up — there's one thing that heals it up — one process. It's long, it's arduous, it's not the best process, it runs down havingness. There's lots of things wrong with it, but it always works. It's sort of these things — "Well, we probably could save him with some chamomile pills but an operation with a cleaver is better." Well, chamomile pills may or may not take care of it, but the operation with the cleaver certainly would take care of it in this particular case. This is that sort of process. It can be run as a present time problem solution on a limited basis and usually works very well, providing you as the auditor select out the terminals involved with your preclear's problem. That is always the first action — that is always the first action of the PT problem — is find the terminals.

Male voice: Okay.

In other words, get him to identify the terminals connected with the problem. Up to that time the problem has no mass. The acquisition of mass alone may blow the problem into no importance. You see? All right.

Or it's terribly resistive. Or you're just not making your headway.

So we have him isolate these terminals, and then we ask him, "What part of that terminal could you be responsible for?" See, we isolate the terminals — terminal or terminals — that are most intimately associated with the problem. We ask him, "What part of that terminal could you be responsible for?" What part of it? And if we use that on both terminals, or if we simply use it very sloppily on "What part of that problem could you be responsible for?" — that's a very incorrect version. But like the cleaver will amputate a leg, that'll amputate the problem. See, it's very grim but it'll work. See, any part of this will work.

Male voice: Mm-hm.

Now, we take a psychosomatic illness and we simply say to this fellow — let's say he has a bad leg — and we simply say to him over and over and over and over and over, using this as a repetitive question, "What part of that leg could you be responsible for?" And we use that over and over and over.

You go round and round and round on this person, and you don't seem to be able to get anywhere in particular with it. You don't get changes, in other words. It's actually best answered by the Auditor's Code: "Continue to run a process as long as it produces change and no longer." Well, conversely, of course, you don't run a process very long which isn't producing any change.

We did recently, may — run this on about — for about twenty hours on a preclear who had a very bad leg, and the auditor was just going for broke. Had no such instructions. Actually should have torn the preclear to ribbons. It did make the preclear very uncomfortable along the line, but the funny part of it is the preclear recovered from that psychosomatic illness.

Male voice: Uh-huh.

In other words, here is one of these killer processes. It knocks out the psychosomatic illness. It's a usable process and it's something that you could use if you wished. You find — see that?

And this is the main stumbling block — this destruction manifestation confused with getting Clear. This person is actually, usually by the way, not around willingly. I'm now talking about the person who won't be willing to be cleared, by the way. You get somebody and they have to be forced into auditing, and that sort of thing. They're usually on a total destruction bent. That doesn't apply to anybody here. See? Interesting.

Now if we wanted to get into real butchery, we could use this — this is not a recommended process, I'm merely showing you the direction we go here, and we're getting back to this phenomenon that makes a screen and makes a reactive bank happen in the first place — we could say, "What part of that screen or field could you be responsible for?" Nyaaow! Oh, he'll tell you at first — that's the one thing he'll tell you about the field, you know, about this screen. That is the one thing he has no responsibility for. See, that's the one thing he has no responsibility for.

I'm telling you a phenomenon you may not at all run into. But if you find a screen resistive or something, why, maybe just two or three hours of this, "You invent a method of destroying that person (indicated person)," around outside, may speed it up enormously.

Responsibility sort of adds up to ownership, adds up to taking care of, adds up to willing to say, "I made it," you see, it's what we mean by responsibility. Willing to take the authorship of the thing.

Yes?

Oh no, the screen is the one thing. He might say, "Well, I'll take responsibility for all the deaths and tortures in the Napoleonic War. Yes, I'll take responsibility for all of the miscues of the Korean War. I'll take responsibility for all of the misconduct of Hirohito in the war with Japan. But don't ask me to take responsibility for that black screen." This is sort of his general attitude toward it, you see?

Male voice: And maybe — this may be the opposite or not: I remember one time last week the preclear happened to mention that my acknowledgments, just the last — a few of them in that last — were not coming through too strong. Well, I took a look at my — we're running cellos. My god, there were mock ups of cellos around there, she's mocking them up heavy. Now then, when I would give the acknowledgment, as I usually did it strongly, it would destroy the mock-up. If I didn't quite get the acknowledgment there, the mock-up would stay there. Now, why . . .

Well, in view of the fact, if you remember Ownership Processing, in order to as-is anything you had to get the exact ownership for it. Do you remember that? You can ask a person, "Who made this" and "Who made that" and so on, and we get a remarkable change. The answer, unfortunately, all the way — the correct answer is "I did," as far as the preclear is concerned.

That is the basic phenomenon of acknowledgment.

You say, "Who made that screen?"

Male voice: Okay. In other words, is there any . . .

"I did."

That's the "Great Okay." The "Great Okay" would wipe out every facsimile in the whole universe.

"Who made that facsimile?"

Male voice: I see. In other words, there — there's nothing unusual about that, or... That is standard phenomena.

The correct answer is "I did."

Male voice: That's standard phenomena. Thank you.

You see? But you just ask him to say this, and he will do it on this kind of a basis: "Well, if you say I have to say that to get well, then I will say that, 'I made them all.' " Isn't that wonderful? In other words, he doesn't take responsibility for it at all. He says, "If this will let me off the hook, then I'll say it." Now, it's quite remarkable. Quite remarkable.

Yes?

The very fact that people could be audited should have told us this years ago — and possibly did tell some of you about it. But I was more stupid, and I had to see it the hard way and see one come all the way out just on one factor alone: "I'm responsible for it."

Male voice: If you started to use this Invent a Method of Destruction process on a person — on a preclear — and the preclear refused to do the process, what would be the next step? Just absolutely refused to do it.

Now, as the individual refuses to take responsibility, so he refuses to take ownership for the bank. And his gradient scale of irresponsibility — getting more and more irresponsible for what is happening in his bank and his environment — told that he can do nothing about it, he retires from it and says, "I can't help it anyhow, why should I look at it?" And he keeps retiring from the bank, retiring, retiring, retiring, and eventually he can't handle any part of it because it's all otherwise owned. This was the popularity of Dianetics: It said, "Somebody else did it, you didn't." Well, Dianetics was not being dishonest, you could erase engrams regardless of who made them.

Well, the person — in the first place, you would have violated your second step if the person refused to do the process.

But let's look at this — let's look at this: His pictures are copies of what he saw go on in the physical universe. Now, his picture of Mama is a copy of Mama. And he knows Mama is self-determined and is her own author. Right? But he has a picture of Mama, so he says, "That is Mama, therefore I am not responsible for it." Perfectly true — he is not responsible for Mama, you understand? Physical-universe Mama, he's not responsible for, this is true. But the picture of Mama he was responsible for. But he gets the picture of Mama in the bank and he says, "I'm not responsible for Mama, therefore I'm not responsible for that picture." And when an individual starts copying the physical universe exclusively, he copies nothing but things he's not responsible for. So the total summation of his bank is an irresponsibility. Do you see that? The total bank becomes an irresponsibility, but he's responsible for every piece of the bank.

Now, you under stand the steps of clearing consist of CCH 0, get the preclear under control and run your mock-ups — Creative Process, six sides. Clear the field and run this six-side proposition. All right. Now, those are the basic steps of Clear.

What he's not responsible for is the significance of the pieces of the bank which have been copied, but he did the copying. So, see the tangle he's in? He's not responsible for Mama's character or personality, but he is responsible for Mama's character and personality, which we call a valence, as it is in the bank because he made the picture. And when he thinks of Mama, he makes another picture of Mama to help him think about Mama, but that is Mama and it's something else, don't you see? He's made a picture and is responsible for a picture of something else he didn't make and isn't responsible for. So the total content of his copied pictures are irresponsibility. And the total authorships of his copied pictures is responsibility. You understand this now?

This other one would come in, that I've just given you about destruction — would be CCH 0. And then the next one would be, get the preclear under control. You do that with SCS and Connectedness, you see? And then your step on destruction, and then to the subjective clearing process. So that it merely means if your preclear did not do that (to answer your question very directly), you would simply have skimped your getting the preclear under control and would have to go right straight back through the process of under control. If you don't get a preclear under control the first time, if you have to get him under control again, you actually injure the case a little bit and make a slow rise, there, for a while, because the person has already got out from under you. So to regain it is harder than to have established it in the first place. So you always very carefully establish control, particularly before you do this.

Audience: Yes.

But the odd part of it is, in Dianetics we used to say, "If you could just get the mind to do what the mind is doing you've got it made." Well, when the mind is doing totally "destroy" they do this process. The most resistant preclear who's just about to blow a session, oddly enough, will go out and do this process just (snap) bang! It's quite remarkable.

All right. Because he's made pictures of the physical universe consistently, and because he's got them in the bank and because he's obsessively mocking them up all the time, he feels that his pictures of the physical universe are impinged on the physical universe, and therefore he's trapped in it. Well, he's got a picture there, he's misowning and it's a picture of a wall, and it is pressed against him in some fashion or another because a wall pressed against him. And he says, "The reason I am stuck is because that wall back there in 1812 pressed against me, see — the wall pressed against me. The picture of the wall is pressing against me, therefore the physical universe has me trapped." Oh, but he's mocking up the picture of the wall that's got him trapped!

Okay?

Probably at no time did the physical universe ever trap anybody!

Male voice: I see. Thanks.

Now, because he has pictures of a body and he, being the author of the pictures of the body, is saying, "I am not the author of the pictures of the body," is therefore stuck in the pictures of the body. Do you understand that? And therefore says, "I'm stuck in a body."

You bet.

It's highly improbable that anybody is stuck in a body. As a matter of fact, it's so highly improbable that it isn't true.

Yes?

You fish somebody out of his head sometimes with, "Try not to be three feet back of your head," and this fellow is stuck in a lot of facsimiles or something of the sort, and he'll go out with a total mass. You never saw anything move out of the body so easily. There is no stuck-to-the-body at all. He can move in and out of the body. He gets out of the body over here, and he says, "Oh, I'm out of the body!" and he goes in, flip! "Oh-oh, I'm out of the body," he says. But if he looked himself over, he'd find out that he was out of the body, but what he was stuck in was still with him. How interesting. How interesting. Well, that — what he's stuck in — must be a field then of some sort or another, and sure enough it is.

Male voice: Well, a year and a half ago, there was a process about mocking up a wall and touching your nose — could we use some such variant in this clearing a field?

Nobody's stuck in a body. I've already conducted this test — made people sick enough to leave, in any event, and they have finally left, and they didn't even — no slightest grate as they slid out. See? Not the slightest hindrance in sliding out of the stiff. See, there they were, they were out. They're out. They're in. They go back and forth with the greatest of ease. The facsimiles which they're packing around are not stuck to the body, which is fantastic because it tells us, then, that the body agrees that the facsimiles can hurt it, and caves in at those places where the facsimiles are placed.

No. Why?

Here we have the neatest little plot you ever saw in your life: The body itself is obeying the facsimile — senses it in some fashion, probably telepathically, and obeys it. But it's never touched by it. There is no evidence of any kind that any facsimile mocked up by a thetan ever touches a body at all. There is no evidence of any kind that any facsimile ever touched the physical universe at all. The body, when it registers on an E-Meter, is apparently merely being obedient on a telepathic basis. It gets tense and undense and dense and so forth, to the degree that it's supposed to by a telepathic interchange of some sort or another. Now, it's very probable that all there is, is telepathy. But that's beside the point. We're not trying to wipe that out. We're saying that no thetan's facsimiles evidently ever touched a body; no thetan's facsimile ever touched the physical universe. Therefore, we are telling you exclusively that the impossibility is to get a connection between thetan and mind, thetan and body, and thetan and physical universe. But a thetan manages it.

Male voice: I thought they might — it might be handy — it seemed to be a perfect process.

Now, you say he does all this just to keep himself divided up and so forth, and keep himself fooled. The funny part of it is, he can do it all so easily by postulate that there is no reason to keep himself fooled. Now, that's the final gist of the situation.

Yes. Yes. But actually that is the same step of mocking up something and pushing it into the body. You know, the complete classic step on this "Mock up a terminal like the field and push it into the body" also contains "Keep it from going away." You know that?

He's going on a certain series of rules, and these rules all add up to "I'm stuck." Funny part of it is, it's an impossible phenomenon. It's not credible, except on the basis of "It's a picture of Mama and therefore I'm not responsible for it."

Yes?

A total butcher's Clear could probably be arrived at on the basis of "Look around here and tell me what you could be responsible for," and then let the individual pick on facsimiles or body or anything that came up. He would eventually go Clear — sort of like you'd pull a daisy apart. It'd be a rough deal — be a very rough deal. But, nevertheless, it'd be a total button.

Female voice: What about the subjective process of destroying a mock-up, front of that body . . .

It is a total button on a psychosomatic. We can do so well with psychosomatics, even if we merely used that one or Expanded GITA, or anything else, we can do so well on them that we are not justified in not telling people that we are experts in the field of spiritual healing. This we're definitely experts in.

It works.

Well, with the mechanism, with a person who is ill, is not taking responsibility for the illness because they've seen the illness in the physical universe and therefore they consider that it is not theirs. But they keep it mocked up and they don't realize that they're doing it because they didn't know what was doing it in the physical universe — which is all part of the reactive bank. The more reactive a person becomes, the sicker he becomes.

Female voice: . . . behind that body? Is that — is that the same . . .

Therefore, the road out for any clearing or psychosomatic illness or anything else has to do, then, with responsibility, or doing it directly or direct observation of the various universes. You could probably effect a Clear merely by direct observation and nothing else — the person would eventually blow Clear. But it's a very long route. The next longest route on the thing would be the responsibility route. And the shortest route we know would simply be making the facsimiles themselves.

It's a subjective variation . . .

Do you understand this now?

Female voice:. . . of the Union Station . . .

Audience: Mm-hm.

. . . of this objective process.

See it a little better?

Female voice: Uh-huh. Oh, I see. So you run it subjectively. And it works just as well, or it takes longer?

Audience: Mm-hm.

' No, it, as a matter of fact, works a little better to chase them outside.

Thank you.

Female voice: Oh. Better to do it outside.

Yeah. And when you're taking over an automaticity, automaticities take over most easily in the presence of a great deal of havingness. See? Yes. As — automaticities sweep in as you reduce havingness; automaticities sweep out as you increase havingness. So therefore, running this — this is the same process, you see? But running it on bodies outside, if the weather makes it possible at all, of course, is the best thing to do.

Yes.Yes?

Female voice: I was going to ask about how long should it take to clear a resistive field?

About how long should it take?

Female voice: Yes.

Oh, if I was fooling around on it five or six hours, I'd think something was awfully wrong, just to give you what my look at it would be.

Female voice: Well, then . . .

That's not necessarily your look at it. But I'd think that was kind of sour.

Female voice: Well, what would you say — would you recommend that if it's getting to be any such amount of time that something else be run?

Well, I just — I'd get experience first, and then just inspect the field and look at the guy physiologically and say, "Well," — begging the pardon of the ladies being present — I'd say, "this is a bitch kitty," and take him outside. Get the idea? This person is evidently just packed in solid darkness, eighteen feet thick, and it's all gluey, and — the constituency [consistency] — and they don't handle it easily and they apparently go anaten and so on. I'd take a run at it, though, subjectively, just in case.

I've cleared up most of the fields I've cleared up, by the way, in a half an hour. That's me, though. I mean, I'm not trying to do anything about that or even call my auditing better than yours or something like that. But I am saying that that is as long as I have given to it, and with good results, without having to do something else.

Yes?

Male voice: When you say "clear up the field" you mean until they break clear of observation of a sphere around the individual. . .

What is Clear?

Male voice: . . . of their present time environment?

You didn't hear me here Friday night?

Male voice: No, I went home.

Yeah. Well, there's a test for this: "Close your eyes. What are you looking at?"

The fellow says, "Nothing."

You say, "Well, look at the room," (keeping his eyes still closed). "What do you see?"

He says, "Nothing."

And I say, "Well, what's between you and the room then?"

You go over this several times. You got that? "Close your eyes. Look at the room. What are you looking at?"

He says, "Nothing, nothing, nothing ..."

Hey, now wait a minute, he ought to at least be seeing his eyelids, see? And if he's seeing nothing, he's doing a very obsessive flinch. So if you go over that a few times, he'll eventually find a field. There must be a field there or he would see the room. I mean, it's as easy as this. See, there's nothing to that. He would never be looking at nothing, you see?

Male voice: No.

All right. Now, as we clean this up all the way, we would get the final test of a clear field this way: This would be the final test, see? You say, "Close your eyes. Look at the room. What do you see?"

He says, "I see blackness."

You say, "What is it?"

He says, "My head, my eyelids."

You say, "Fine. Mock up something. Look at it. Is there anything between you and the mock-up?"

He says, "Nothing."

You say, "Fine." (snap) He's got a clear field. Those are the tests for it, don't you see?

Now, if he was outside of his head and you said, "Close your eyes, look at the room," and he says, "Yes."

You say, "What do you see?"

He says, "The room." He's got a clear field. In other words, he's holding no interposition between that, but he would be seeing the room.

Then, therefore, anybody who doesn't see the room has got a field of some sort or another. Well, this tells you that about 99 percent of your preclears have fields and don't even suspect it. But they clean quick.

Another thing that you should be doing is clearing this business about mock-up. "You mock up something." "What can you mock up?" Spend a little time on this. Don't just sail into it. Because the basic automaticity is form, and the automaticity of form will catch up with him. For instance, he's mocking it up but the same phenomena I talked about in the lecture is in his road. He mocked it up, but it is a picture of the wall, therefore he doesn't feel it's his mock-up. So therefore if you have him mock up simple shapes and objects, why, he finally does find out that he is mocking it up. If you get over that step fast, then you'll find clearing is fast. You understand? And it's worthwhile just putting in a little time on it. "What can you mock up? Oh, you can?" And get him to handle it and mock it up a few times and fool around with it, you know, until he gets a little bit of a certainty before you sail into a complicated process with it. Get over that one. That one is probably hanging fire on every preclear that's on the preclear list here this week.

You say, "What can you mock up?" And the fellow says, "I can mock up a man."

Well, personally, I doubt it. You know why I doubt it? Because he's mocking up a picture of a man that is probably taking its shape or form from an actual man, and therefore he himself has no certainty on it at all. Another answer would be to hand him a piece of paper and say, "All right, draw a man."

He says, "Well, I couldn't do that."

Well, wait a minute, if he can't draw a man like Rembrandt, he certainly can't mock one up. You understand? But he can draw a sugar cube; he can draw one of these crazy slate houses — you know, I mean the kind the kids drew on their slates. He can draw a ball bearing. You understand? He could draw an egg. You see, in other words, his automaticity of form must be bypassed in order to give him conviction.

And you'll take somebody that's been happily mocking up men and complicated tapestries and everything, and you all of a sudden say, "All right, mock up a ball bearing. Can you mock up a ball bearing?"

The guy says, "Yeah. Well, I'll try." And all of a sudden, whew! "Wow! Does this feel different!" You know, he is mocking up this thing. "Wow!" You'd be amazed at what tremendous (snap) zing the guy will get out of this. Simplicity of form is a very necessary adjunct to this.

I didn't mean to beat that question to death, but it was definitely on the groove.

Yes?

Male voice: Well, I found that color was another one on that, too. That is a major automaticity . . .

Yeah.

Male voice: ... on colors.

Uh-huh.

Male voice: Get the guy to mock up the color, too.

Uh-huh.

Male voice: And...

Oh, yeah.

Male voice: . . . it was about equally important as form.

Right. Right. If he ain't Rembrandt, he's not going to mock it up. You'll be amazed just after you give a person security and certainty on being able to mock up simple form — and your point is very well taken — color. After you've given him this, he will be able to do some interesting things with his pencil. I've already put it to test. Person all of a sudden is able to draw, and he never could draw before. Fascinating.

Yes?

Female voice: Well, in my case it's just the opposite. I was able to draw very well and paint, and I lost the ability — can't do it. I can hardly draw a ...

Well, you go back to simplicity of form and you'll be all set.

All of these abilities, a person has a tendency to put them on automatic. When they start coming off automatic, they get lost. I have actually cost a preclear his ability to speak English. And for a couple of hours could speak nothing but "Geranium" or something that nobody knew what it was. All of his language was on a machine. He himself could not speak. Rather fantastic. And if I'd dropped him right at the middle of it, we would have had the village idiot, don't you see, according to everybody. Well, I just kept up doing what I was doing, we came out at the other end. And now he began to speak like an Oxford professor. But he was speaking; he was doing the speaking. He hadn't been before. You get the idea?

Where you have an ability to paint or something like that, and a person did it, and he said, "Well, I can do that, and some force is making me do that — that isn't mine," he disowns it a little bit but keeps doing it. Now, we audit it, it comes back over here and then returns to him. And in the transition — in the transition it'll be lost somewhere, no matter how briefly, it'll go. It's very interesting. I've had preclears cease to be able to walk, cease to be able to talk, and so forth. Now, I would have been quite frightened if I'd not known about this transfer from automatic to self — very often carries a total non compos mentis.

Female voice: Do some people pick up lots of valences, and other people only pick up one or two?

I don't know. Some people are versatile about it.

Actors: Actors are about the wildest thing to process you ever processed in your life — you're always processing a valence. This is a good tip for you: I always clear with an actor the valence I'm processing, by doing — asking him, "Now, what should a preclear or a patient act like?"

"Well, just like they did in East Lynne, of course."

This is all I do: I'm clearing up finding a preclear, see? I try to clear that valence up. And one very famous actress, one time, really started to snap and pop on this. I audited her for about an hour and said, boy, that's just intolerable. She was going through the "perfect patient." You know? I said, "This actress has just acted it too many times — this is it." And sure enough, in a picture she had done a psychoanalytic patient. She was just doing this valence for me. And, I cleaned this up, wiped this up very thoroughly, grooved it down to the point of — and found a preclear, and after that, boy, we just started to do a rocket climb. Because she was a very able person to begin with.

Yes?

Male voice: You gave the test for a clear field: that if he were in his head and you told him to look and see his head, for example . . .

See blackness.

Male voice: Yeah, inside of the head and . . .

If he were outside, he'd see the room.

Male voice: ...if he were outside. What if he couldn't get outside?

I said if he were outside.

Male voice: Yeah.

I didn't say . . .

Male voice: If he were inside?

If he were inside he'd see total blackness, but he'd be able to see any mock-up he mocked up with great clarity, with nothing between him and it.

Male voice: This would be a clear field whether he could get outside or not?

Yeah.

Female voice: Yes. That's a clear field.

Male voice: Okay, check.

Yeah, you've got a lot of people that'll say, "I see blackness." Then you say what the heck, this guy has got a field. No, he hasn't got a field. A skull is a field any day of the week.

Female voice: Yeah. As long as he sees — as long as he sees nothing that's between himself and . . .

That's right.

Female voice: . . . the mock-up, then it's clear.

So the second he says blackness, you say, "Well, mock up a mock-up. Do you see anything between you and the mock-up?"

He says, "No." Well, you got it made.

Yes?

Male voice: Then your first actual probability is nobody is ever in his head.

Oh yeah.

Male voice: I mean the picture. The picture . . .

A person can be in the pictures, which are in his head.

Female voice: Oh . . .

This is the . . .

Male voice: Isn't that a field?

Huh?

Male voice: Doesn't that constitute a field?

Yes, he'd have a field. But here's the point: A person isn't necessarily held in his head by an energy mass of his own making; he may simply be in his head by postulate.

Male voice: Yeah.

And he would simply move out.

Second male voice: Hm. So Chuck's question wouldn't arise, then, because he couldn't just be in his head with no field and not get out.

Oh, he could get out.

Male voice: Thank you.

That just isn't part of the test. That's all. He was reading too much into the test. That was the only thing I was correcting. A person could have no field, be in his head, he could also move out on postulate. But Chuck wasn't talking about exteriorization, he was saying that if a fellow happened to be in his head and you ask him what he was looking at and he said blackness, he doesn't have to have any field at all. As a matter of fact, a thetan nearly always has a little field of one kind or another, whether he likes it or not. And after he's Clear, he'll probably mock up a little field of one kind or another — just to get him started on his next cycle.

Yes?

Male voice: As I see it then, first, if the thetan had a completely clear field, by definition nothing interposing between that which he was — between him and that which he was looking at. . .

That's right.

Male voice: . . . he'd be clear anyway.

Well, if it was total.

Male voice: As I say, if it was total.

If it was total. And he was in control of his own actions. We'd have to add that to it.

Male voice: Well, he would be, actually, in that condition.

Oh, he might be postulating that he wasn't.

Female voice: Hmmmm!

Hmmmm! Now we're really shaving carrots.

Yes?

Female voice: Would a person be in his head so other people could find him?

Could be. I imagine there are eight billion reasons why a fellow would be in his head. I find out that it's necessary sometimes to be in a head.

One of the ways — one of the best ways — I work on an automaticity of closing my eyes. And I close my eyes so I can see blackness and just use the eyelids as an automaticity for it. But then I have to be back of my head. And I found out that that is very silly, to close my eyes to shut off the automaticity of sight and so — first place, because I can also use my jacket.

Okay. We're way overdue. That's mostly because it's Monday morning. Are you a little bit further along in your way now?

Audience: Yeah.

You understand a little bit better what you're doing here?

Female voice: Yep.

Hm? Think you can do it better than you did week before last?

Audience: Yes.

All right, let's go.

Thank you.