Male voice: I ask them, „What's help?“ They say, „Well, help is assistance.“

Thank you.

Mm-hm.

This is the third lecture of the 20th ACC, July 16th, 1958.

Male voice: Or they say, „Help is aid.“

Now, I understand some more people got onto Clear checkout. Hm? You got it down a little bit further.

Mm-hm.

I understand there's some slight hope that somebody will get out of the second TR class - understand there was a hope that there was one or two that would make it before the end of course.

Male voice: Well, from my viewpoint they're substituting one noise for another. And I usually do ask them to explain that a little bit, rather than just taking that as such. Not to have them change it but just to have them qualify it so I have a little better idea of what they're talking about.

I see some of you have probably had a little difficulty in handling a meter - making it stick and making it rise.

Well now, you've got this - you've got this, is, you may not be satisfied with their definition. But if you do the same thing a few auditing commands later, it'll gradually sink into their heads when you've done this a few auditing commands later that you're not satisfied that they're doing all right. So they'll begin to investigate this thing while they're running an auditing command.

And we're continuing today this rundown on 20th ACC Procedure and I will give you a datum there: If you are a good auditor, it is very hard for you to make a meter stick because two-way communication will unstick a meter. And if you're conducting a very intelligent, good ARC discussion of the Rock, you probably won't get a stuck needle. You have to reverse yourself and talk about hate and interrupt the preclear and not be so ARC about it in order to get a stuck needle.

Audience: I see.

There is a process known as Two-way Communication, you know, and it is probably the most effective of all processes in reaching the Rock. But if carried out properly it unsticks the needle. So you needn't feel too bad if you can't make a needle stick. You needn't feel too badly about it. It merely means that you're probably a fairly good auditor.

And you've channeled their attention. And you possibly will get a change of mind more rapidly. Just another trick.

Talk about hate. That is the thing for you to talk about when you want a needle to stick. Whom do you distrust? Whom would you distrust instinctively? And then change the subject quick and you can make a needle stick. Okay?

Male voice: Thank you.

All right. Let's carry on with this procedure here.

All right. Question period of third lecture.

We're going into this now on how to clear a command. This is very interesting, how to clear a command, extremely interesting, because nobody could possibly have imagined the number of ways people have invented to do it wrong.

Anybody have anything that is - let's call first for injustices. Injustices and betrayals. Are there any injustices and betrayals so far?

This is the fate of procedures. That's why they are written down with such exactness. You write a procedure down with great exactness and then the next thing you know, a whole body of Scientologists, someplace or another, will be doing this thing in some complicated way that makes it utterly unworkable.

Audience: No.

What have they done? They've simply dramatized the cycle of action of this universe. They just made it more complicated; they made it do this and that to survive more. In other words, they changed it somehow to make it persist and, of course, this inevitably destroys the simplicity and actually destroys the drill.

No injustices and betrayals?

If you're instructing, you will find that your biggest bugbear. You say to a student, „Now, I want you to sit there,“ and ask him over and over if cows draw flies. „Now, I want you to just do that.“ And every time he gives you an answer, regardless what, why, you say, „Okay.“ All right, that's simple. There's nothing to it. Nobody could possibly go astray with it.

Audience: No.

And you come back. You find out that - person couldn't answer the question. Well, why couldn't they answer the question? Well, because they didn't know what a bear was. And you will in vain try to bridge this gap between your simplicity and this strange impasse.

None?

This, actually, is the biggest single menace to Scientology itself - is that it is placed as a simplicity which has been found workable and then it goes astray with a complexity. People change it, vary it and then all of a sudden it isn't and it doesn't work anymore.

Female voice: No.

I'm acutely aware of this because Book One is a very good example of having been pushed astray. I was doing all right and then I had to explain it. And I had explained it several times before I wrote Book One. And Book One carries with it the fruits of explanation but they happen to be much more complicated than the original clearing process, which was simply the rising confidence of the preclear to confront his locks, engrams and secondaries. It was just a gradual little gradient scale. And we give the person some security in seeing a lock, just work on it hour after hour. The person comes in - make the person go outside, come back in again, take a look at the room, sit down in the preclear's chair. „All right. Now, do you have a picture of the room just as you entered it?“

Boy, I think your Instructors must have you cowed.

„Uhhh, I don't know.“

Female voice: Oh, no.

„Well is there anything wrong here with the room?“

Second female voice: Yes, they do!

„No. No. No.“

Instructor is back there saying, „Yeah.“

„Well, why don't you go outside again, come in, take a look at the room, sit down in the chair?“

I might tell you that your Instructors are very happy concerning this particular ACC. They say this is the brightest, alertest ACC we've ever had.

And he would.

Male voice: That's not what we hear.

„Now, have you got a picture of the room?“

Second male voice: That's not us.

„Well, I've got a little vague blur. It sort of looks like a room.“

Third male voice: I don't believe it.

„Well, that's fine. Now, go outside again, come in, take a look at the room and sit down in the chair.“

Female voice: ... like that is what they tell us.

All right. When he finally had a picture of the room, we'd then erase it. We'd go back to the moment he walked into the room and we'd take it from that moment on to the point when he had told me about it. Not only then could he see this lock, but he could also erase the lock. So therefore it was safe to create.

Male voice: That's what we hear but that's not what we think.

But the number of factors involved in this simplicity were actually, at that time, much too great to be embraced by the existing understanding. There were tremendous factors involved in this. One didn't know, for instance, that a person will not create that which he cannot get rid of. Truthfully, whole track. Birth, by the way, was quite a discovery at that time and the various factors which could enter in if you plowed more deeply were overwhelming. It actually required many years of study before this - we could come back to a simplicity.

Female voice: I'd like to say it the other way around. It's the best planned, best run and the best carried out one.

And if you're worried about how one of these factors works, you'll certainly find it in some lecture or some book, someplace. You certainly will. That's for sure. Because I could not have told anyone with confidence at that time, „This is all the phenomena there is to be looked at or this is the only phenomena that is important.“ See, I couldn't have told anybody that. Now, there might have been many other phenomena involved and I was just neglecting them and I would tell anybody who asked, „Well, I don't know that that's important to it. It might be but I don't know that it is.“

Here-here.

Well, you find yourself, undoubtedly, occasionally in the same frame of mind. You think that there's a tremendous sea of phenomena surrounding this simple datum and you think these other things are in your root of explanation. You know, you've got to explain these things before you get on with something else.

Your potentials here are terrific - potentials of really producing something with this ACC. But only if we work at it.

Well, I'll just ask you to thoroughly examine a simplicity. This was the rule which would have saved the bacon in '47 to '50. Just examine the simplicity and find out if it is adequate. And after you've found out it's adequate - that means then you won't lose it - then go on and explore the complexities which surround it.

I don't think we're getting enough blows.

Now, the next thing we have on this procedure is how to clear a command. And to discover that a command could be cleared in so many complicated, different ways was quite a shock to me because the whole import of this is to make sure that the preclear doesn't think you're talking hog Latin. See, it must be a communicable statement or command. You tell a Chinese to walk over to that wall - he speaks no English. Well, that's not fair. It's not within his frame of communication reference, you see?

Yes?

Now, you clear a command to increase the understanding of the command, not to do anything else. Now, this readily goes into a process and all these little odds and ends readily go into a process. You could make a process out of anything, and some people do. But clearing a command - clearing a command is not here a process. It's a prelude.

Female voice: The - I'd say the - possibly you're not, because the control and ARC and good positive direction is too good. On the part of the Instructors, I mean.

What would you do with this Chinese?

Sure. Sure. Well, of course these Instructors are getting to be pretty old hands at this sort of thing. They're all excellent auditors themselves and this makes a bit of a difference. And the Clear state of case or near Clear is sufficient to guarantee you some rather positive direction.

Well, you'd have to give in a little bit too, wouldn't you? You'd have to find out what this action, walking - what name would you assign to this action, walking? And what name would you assign to this object over here, wall? And that object there, wall, wall, wall, wall.

I think you'll find them occasionally impatient of too many vias. I think about the only place you'll find them impatient - I've found this to be kind of standard about Clears - they'll boggle at too many vias. If there's five or six extra vias on the line they occasionally - occasionally look at it and only then if they understand that it's a game do they then become reasonable concerning it. Then they understand it in the framework that it's just a useless game like crossword puzzles or something.

You could transmit this intelligence and after that you could say, „You walk over to that wall.“ You could probably continue to use English because he now knew what you meant by that. But you would stick him in the whole session at that point of clearing the command if you didn't again, pretty soon, clear the command again. So you maybe only tell him, „Walk over to that wall,“ twenty-five times and it would as-is. Why?

Yes?

Because that's what processing does. It kicks computations around. It destroys these understandings. It builds other understandings. And if you never expected processing to change anyone, of course, only clear a command once. If you just clear a command once and think that is adequate and sufficient, then you have also said that the processing you're going to give is not going to change this person on the time track or alter his understandings or throw him into occlusions and into areas of brightness and so forth. You've just up and said that you aren't going to do anything. Because once you move a person around in time you, of course, move him off the spot in time when the command was cleared.

Male voice: Ron, I'd like to change the subject here and ask you, does a preclear know when he is chipping at the Rock?

Well now, some people have been taking another tack. They clear it often enough in the first time so they'll never have to clear it again. Something like storing up boojum. And they run a process with the thing. They say, „Now, we're going to run a process called 'How can you help me?' 'How can I help you?’” and so forth. „Now, we're going to clear this command.“ And they get on the word help and the guy gives them some kind of a super-aberrated definition of help.

Oh, yes!

You know, he says, „Well, help is that which you do when you're trying to get even with somebody.“

Male voice: He does know?

And you say to yourself, „Boy, that's all wrong. I just haven't got a clue of how he could get that wrong.“ So you, being reasonable, which is the greatest sin an auditor could commit, clear the command „Help“ again! And you keep clearing the command „Help“ until you get a reasonable response, to you.

Oh, Yes. Yes.

But, listen! That's what the process is supposed to do. And all you've done is substitute for the standard Help Process another process known as Descriptive Processing: If you make a fellow describe something often enough and long enough, he'll certainly as-is it. And you know, instead of clearing the command you wind up with an unintelligible syllable which means nothing, called „help.“ If you don't believe it, have somebody or yourself say a name over and over and over and over and over. You say your own name over several times right now and you say, „Who the hell am I?“

Male voice: Will he admit this?

No, he's given you a definition for help, and the process is going to - get this one. Now, he'll only become upset, his havingness will run down, he'll become very restive. I've made some tests on this recently. I tried to clear the command, „Problem,“ and I said, „What is a problem? What is a problem? What is a problem? What is a problem?“ And I had the preclear practically up the spout. But I was running an as-ising type of process with malice aforethought to find out what occurred when you did something like this.

Yes, yes!

The right way to do it would have been this: „What is a problem?“

Male voice: Good. I see.

Preclear would have said, „Well, a problem is something that can never be solved, yes.“

When you start chewing into it, man... I did a little experimental run last night of comparative value of processes in bringing down a rising needle. I'm still studying this. And the fastest one was Responsibility. That was bringing it down much more rapidly than anything else.

It was up to me then to say, „Thank you,“ and then run a process gauged to change this state of mind about a problem. And after a little while - then after a little while, clear the command again with just - just once, just clear the command once, you see? And again, in clearing the command, „What is this problem?“

But the rapidity of its coming down with Responsibility did not measure the stability of the process. In other words, it came down more rapidly but it wasn't more stable. Help is the most stable process which you have. Responsibility is awfully quick and looks quite spectacular, but you get resurgences on responsibilities.

Now, it was an interesting thing that in this particular case I'm talking about right now, that the definition of a problem was what was changing the whole way as I ran the process. As I ran a proper process the person kept coming up with a new definition for problems and then a new definition for a problem and then - so on. The most stuck point around there was the definition for problem.

Havingness is another method of bringing a needle down and is a very good method. But, unfortunately, Havingness is not as stable as Help. Horrible to behold, but it's not. Not on all preclears does havingness remain stable. You fix up their havingness on Monday and it's shot on Tuesday and you fix it up on Wednesday and it's gone on Friday. You know, that sort of thing. Something is chewing up their havingness. Well, of course, this is standard. This is the Rock that's chewing up their havingness - they've got vacuums of various kinds.

Well, the most stuck point on anybody's case, anybody's case anyplace, is help.

I had a - on this test run - it was quite interesting - preclear was getting all sorts of manifestations and all sorts of things and finally realized that they were using the Rock to produce a certain enthusiastic, ecstatic feeling. Hadn't done it for years, but used to use the Rock to do this. And was getting it and turning it on again and then letting go of it and then getting it and turning it on again. And finally said, „You know, that's kind of silly to have to pull in an energy mass to make you feel enthusiastic.“ Which was a good enough goal for that run, believe me.

Now, you think because you can say, „The definition for help is to assist somebody to survive,“ that you yourself to the depths of your being have defined help. Well, what you have is a superficial, intellectual understanding of this syllable: help. And you start running Help back and forth and around on various subjects that are associated with the Rock on a case and, boy, the individual's idea of help certainly shifts.

The person had begun to question the advisability of subsisting entirely off of a type of havingness and centering their whole life and personality around some kind of a stupid mass. The person said, „But after a while it wears off and then I feel awfully tired.“ He thought this over. We were doing nothing but Two-way Comm. I was simply trying to bring something down and good Two-way Comm on the subject of the Rock was quite stable and we were getting someplace with it and so on.

But you don't shift that idea of help by clearing the command. See, that's running another process and not a very good process. It'd be all right to - if you could, just by clearing the command, change the person's mind totally on the subject of help, everywhere on all dynamics; then we would have no more procedure than clearing the command. And you would just clear the command and you would ask him, „What is help?“ five, six, eight thousand times and he'd be Clear and that would be the end of that. Doesn't work that way and I'm sorry that it doesn't work that way, but it doesn't. But you do - you have to run Help in brackets on selected terminals. And as you do that, you go round and round on these things, why, his resistances to help and so forth unjam his definitions of help and the next thing we get is probably a cognition.

But because we didn't clean it up and run any Help, or isolate the terminals Help should have been run on, the preclear finished up at the same height with the tone arm that they had begun the session on, but theoretically had gone way down, had gotten much better and so forth. And this cognition they got, of course, made them less likely to hold on and protect the Rock and made them more runnable. That was the sole gain of the particular session.

Well, help isn't something you only do to sick people. Help is something that you could also do to somebody who felt all right, providing he didn't hit you. Well, that's as good a definition as any other definition and that's the one you'd now run on.

Yes?

Now, what then are you trying to clear? In clearing a command are you trying to clear his idea of this word? No. What are you trying to clear then?

Female voice: Ron, would OT start somewhere on the Chart of Attitudes, say 11.0, 22.0 or go bang on 40.0?

You're trying to clear an understanding, within his frame of reference, of your command. That's all you're trying to clear so that you can run it.

Well, now give me that again, here, mostly for the record.

Now, when do you sweat over it? When do you really have to get down and sweat over it? When it is simply gibberish to him. He has no understanding of it at all. Then you had certainly better work on it.

Female voice: Would OT start somewhere on the Chart of Attitudes, say 11.0, 22.0 or go bang on 40.0? They'd go all up and down and over the thing. Because here is an educated BP and the gamut of his reactions and actions in life are actually described by this chart. So the individual himself would probably hang somewhere around 40.0 or up and he would use other manifestations.

So the only time you get in and work hard on the clearing of a command, the only time you really press on it is when you get gibberish as a reply. In other words, well, now that could be misinterpreted - that statement - until he says it's gibberish. Get the idea? You say to him, „All right, how can I help you?“ Now, that is the command.

We've had so much talk about the beautiful serenity of holy men and that sort of thing that we expect somebody that's very high-toned to be stuck up there. And what amazes people is they become more volatile in their emotional responses. And they turn these responses on fast. And they turn off fast. And it sometimes makes them a little bit hard to live with until you get used to this sort of thing.

And by the way, in running this sort of thing in clearing the command, the preclear very often makes the mistake of thinking you have uttered your first auditing command. So one of the smart ways of auditing is to tell him, „This is not an auditing command; we are merely clearing the command.“ And you tell him he's not supposed to follow this one and we're going to clear it. And just to put a little time in on this helps you escape an ARC break with the preclear.

A guy comes in and his favorite plate is busted and he says, „Wow!“ See? „Rrrr!“ And you'd think the dining room table was going to blow up, you know. And then a couple of minutes later, why, you mention this plate to him and he says, „Well, it's all right; we'll get another one.“ But, you get the idea? You got an impersistence. He didn't go around the rest of the week fussing about this plate. You got the idea? But he could get mad about it.

But you say, „How can I help you? Now, we're going to clear this command, 'How can I help you?' and I want to know what 'how' means to you.“

Now, he didn't get mad because he had to get mad. He almost computed the fact that if he didn't get mad about his plate being busted he'd lose another one. Get the idea? So he said he thought he'd better do this at that point.

And he says so-and-so. And you say, „Could?“ He says so-and-so.

Now, later on he'll find, maybe, that this is not an effective approach. Let's say he's working with a child. It's not an effective approach. It doesn't protect plates. Get the idea? So he's just as likely to say, „Oh, my favorite plate. Don't you like me anymore?“ he'll say to the child. The child will say, „What's this?“ you know? I pulled a gag the other day - not giving myself as any kind of example - I pulled that gag the other day upon Suzette with malice aforethought. And Suzette - it was on a matter of some spilled cleanser. And Suzette flipped the whole deal the other way. It was very funny and she said, „But I was just trying to clean up your bathroom.“ It didn't land at all. Becomes a little game. One of the things that you can say and the only certain thing you can say about a Clear and his behavior or an OT and his behavior is that we don't get obsessive persistence along a certain line to prove that it is right or to prove that it is or to convince forevermore and for there on out. They don't hold on to data to suffice them in every situation everywhere. And you'll find the estimates to Clear - when you try to estimate the length of time it takes to clear somebody - it's the persistence of the reaction on the needle, not the fact you can get reactions, which monitors it. As a matter of fact, the more reactions you can get and the faster they fade out, the faster you'll be able to clear somebody.

„'I' - what does that mean? 'I.'”

Also I don't want you to get the idea that a Clear or somebody better than Clear or striking upward toward OT cannot influence a meter. And I had somebody look at me very peculiarly the other day. I picked up an E-Meter and somebody was mocking up a female GE. So I said, „Well, can you mock up a female GE and get a reading on the E-Meter? Can you actually mock up a good solid female GE and connect it with the body and take ahold of an E-Meter and make it read 'female'? Will it read 'female' if you do that?“ And so on. So I slammed one in there good and hard and the meter read at 2.0. I threw the cans down and I said that's that. Somebody else was standing there, they had seen me pick up an E-Meter and make it read at 2.0. And they had the most puzzled expression on their face.

„Well, in this case it means you, you know.“ „Help.“

Now, I don't pretend to be in any fabulous state of case particularly, but I would feel peculiar if I could no longer influence the physical universe. I think this would be very peculiar. And I don't think this would be Clear at all. I think this would be below apathy. Get the idea? Okay.

„Help. Help. Help. Help. Help. What language is that from?“

I remember somebody had so many vicissitudes in being Clear. He was Clear three, four years ago and for a while he was - his idea of a good joke was to influence the living daylights out of an E-Meter. And he'd get in the vacuum tube or something of the sort, you know, and start pulling it around and short-circuiting it. And the meter would read high, you know, and stick and then it'd read low and it'd stick. What kind of a case was he, you know? And he'd sit there and look - with nothing, you know, just blank. The auditor would go nuts. Nothing was doing what it should do.

Now you've got a real rough one. It is an incomprehensible. So a wrong understanding gets no further attention from you - just as a little rule, see? You got to that „help“ and he said, „Help! That's what my mother used to scream.”

Well, that isn't necessarily a characteristic of being Clear or Operating Thetan either, because that's one of the characteristics of a psycho. The ambition of a psycho is to be totally unpredictable. That's his main ambition. So he becomes totally predictable, which is to say he'll go nuts. Okay.

And you say, „Fine. Thank you. Now, what does 'you' mean?“ See?

Yes?

„You? In that case that's me.“

Male voice: Ron, I would like a little more on this idea of the auditing time track as distinct from MEST universe time track.

„Fine.“ You've had it. But he did define it, didn't he? You buy it. No matter what he says, you buy it, making a little note on your cuff over here to say the whole command and its clearance again in about twenty-five commands. Certainly no more than twenty-five commands, probably less, and you just mark it down that this command needs clearing later on.

Well, yes. The auditing time track. There is this thing about an auditing session, is, that the auditor and the preclear are setting up a separate agreement to that of the physical universe. The physical universe and general time track agreement of event and so forth is a very set thing and it's supposed to go on a cycle of action from create to survive to destroy and it's supposed to tick off on all the clocks. And there's tremendous agreements that are supposed to register all these things.

Now, if he starts cogniting on what help means and what the command in general means; if he starts cogniting on this, don't beat the thing to death again by clearing it because he's cogniting his way to a clearer understanding of the command. Got the idea? And that's all you're trying to get him to do. You're directing his attention toward the command so that he will get new ideas concerning his aberrated ideas of this.

Well, you get an entirely new agreement on what is supposed to happen in a certain period of time between two people and you'll get a sort of a new time track. Only it's a new time track. And your auditor should be aware of the fact that he is creating an artificial universe with auditing and part of it is a little shadowy track.

Now, many a person will say, „Help. Help is assistance.“

We used to pay sufficient attention to this to actually scan out the auditing at the end of the session. Well, we find out we're using processes today which knock the auditing out eventually anyhow so we don't care about that.

And you say, „Fine. Fine.“

But a time track becomes important - an auditing time track becomes important to you - when an ARC break occurs and we get the dramatization of help-betrayal or help-destroy in the middle of an auditing session. The auditor is there, supposed to be helping the preclear, and he does something the preclear considers is destructive. And we can get the preclear hung up on this artificial time track just as he can be hung up on the physical universe time track. You see? And now we've moved him over and parked him on the auditing time track and we've disassociated him from the physical universe time track. Which is quite amazing. And every once in a while you'll find your preclear still on only an auditing time track. He's not on a physical universe time track. And it will depress his profile. And it's the only thing that'll depress a profile. Processes won't. We've learned all sorts of things about this lately.

And you go on and you. . . „Help is assistance,“ boy, they're seven miles south of nowhere. You would be - you'd be quite amazed if you watched their mental processes a few commands later to have help just become a shadow of real, you know, just a little bit. And help all of a sudden is defined as „the best way in the world to murder anybody.“ See? „Help is the best method of killing.“ „Help is the most terrible thing you can do to anybody.“

A violation of the Auditor's Code, an ARC break, real or imagined and fancied or actual, on the part of the preclear, will park the preclear over on this artificial auditing time track. Do you get the idea? And therefore he doesn't return to the physical universe at the end of session. There is always a little tiny period at the end of session when he fogs over into the physical universe, see? You'll find in his bank and mocked up on the line, you'll find that this auditing time track is something distinct, separate and different from his physical universe time track. And when he clears he, of course, ceases to mock up the auditing time track. Auditing is so valuable to him that he usually keeps a fantastically accurate record of it entirely independent of any other universe. And when he no longer needs it so desperately he blows this too.

That, by the way, is a perfectly valid clearing command remark. You say, „What is help?“

Male voice: Uh-huh.

„Well, help is the most horrible thing you could do to anybody.“

Okay?

You say, „Thank you. Now, what does 'you' mean to you?“

Male voice: Yes.

It's what does it mean to you? You understand? Not what it means to the auditor.

All right.

The greatest sin of the auditor is being reasonable and if it doesn't sound reasonable he very often halts right at that point and bays at the moon. He said, „This defies any comprehension or understanding I have of this universe and this is not the way it ought to be!“ It's actually an invalidation of the preclear and it comes under the heading of the Auditor's Code. The preclear's considerations are sacred until you work them over. But a wrong way to work them over is to work them over by repetition until the command is meaningless.

Male voice: One more thing, Ron.

Now, should you clear every side of a bracket?

Yeah.

In the first place, what is a bracket? A bracket is the directional flows of me to thee and thee to me and him to you and so forth. You see, the directional flows. So there's any number of directions that a flow can occur. You give me a stick. I give you a stick. In other words, the direction that the stick is being offered is the direction of the flow.

Male voice: Definition of time track?

All right. So you embrace these various flows. And you will find, wherever you have a thoroughly stuck needle, an interesting condition existing and that condition is: a bracket which will only flow one way, one command. And your stable datum is: when you are operating with a stuck subject - that is to say, the terminal you've selected is stuck (and that will be most of the time in looking for the Rock) - you run, „How could I help you?“ once, „How could you help me?“ once. You see, you shift right there. And you don't clear it every time because you clear the whole thing right here at the beginning.

Hm?

And you say, „I'm going to run a series of commands that has to do with me helping you and you helping me and you helping other people and other people helping other people and you helping yourself and myself helping myself,“ and so on. „And we're just going to find and explore this area“ something like this, „and the basic command is, is: 'How can I help you?' and this command we're going to clear and then we'll take the others from there.“ And, if it's all right with the preclear.

Male voice: Would you give me a definition of time track?

And you say, „How could I help you? Now, what does 'how' mean? What does 'I' mean? 'Help you?'” you know. “How could I help you?” Clear them all. And then you say, „Well, you understand I will ask you immediately after that, 'How could you help me?' And 'How could other people help you?' and so forth”. “Now, what do we mean by 'other people?' Or what do you mean by 'another person?'” You're going to use that word too, you know: „another person.“

Consecutive changes.

„Aw,“ he says, „somebody that ain't here.“

Male voice: Okay.

That's all right. Doesn't matter, as long as he embraces these things, these terms that are going to be used. All right. You've cleared that command. Now, don't weight the processing down with endless repetitions of the command or by clearing and bridging every time you're going to run a part of a bracket because you're just wasting time.

Every time you get a change you get a moment in time. And when you have an orderly process or progress of changes you get a time track.

The test of correct procedure is effectiveness and the number of commands you get in per unit of time is the speed that you will get the person cleared. Those are two stable data on which you can always operate, is: That is the correct procedure which is the effective procedure, and as I was just discussing about clearing these things broadly, the most commands per unit of time gets the most auditing done. So instead of getting there firstest with the mostest, you want to get there consistently with the mostest in terms of commands. The more commands you get in per unit of time, the more auditing you're going to get done.

Male voice: That's good. Thank you.

I've been amazed at the slowness, and this is a criticism, with which auditors get across, let us say, five or six commands. It is very slow. It is very slow. And then somebody comes around and wonders why there's this tremendous disproportion between me auditing somebody and maybe an HGC auditor auditing somebody. Get the idea? There's a disproportion. We've even tested it out and have records on it. And they start listening to me auditing and they get some kind of a clue that this isn't the same picture that they themselves present. They present a picture like this: „Now, how could I help you?“

Right.

And the fellow says, „Well, and so on, and so on, and so on, well, uh, could I help you? I don't know.“

Yes, Jack?

Then the auditor sits there for a while. Preclear answered him. The preclear said he didn't know. It was all fogged up but he didn't know. So the auditor sits there for a while and he waits, makes sure, he's very courteous and he finally decides, „Well, maybe I'd better ask you that question again. Hm?“

Male voice: Yes. You mentioned help-destroy. And help in going down in that direction - what is it - you can get betrayal and then blame. Looks to me from what you were saying that betrayal comes just above blame - I mean, follows betrayal.

Preclear says, „Yeah. Yeah.“

Yeah.

The auditor says, „Well, all right. How could I help you? Now, that's the command. Have you got the command there now?“

Male voice: Okay?

They come in and they watch me running this thing, I take intention and shoot the guy between the eyes with it and around the back of the head so the bullet meets both ways. And I say, „How could I help you?“ Bang! See, right in there. „How could I help you?“ All right, bang!

The only difficulty with help is this; is help isn't a dichotomy with destroy, it isn't a dichotomy with betrayal, and it isn't a dichotomy with blame. Destroy, betrayal and blame and injustice are all methods of help. One of the ways of helping somebody... Well, I'll give you an old gag, an old story about a Jewish merchant and he teaches his young son about business. So he takes him up and he puts him on top of a big, tall ladder and he's going to teach him his first lesson in business. So he stands down at the bottom of the ladder, puts his son up at the top of the ladder and said, „All right, now Izzie, I'm going to give you your first lesson in business.“ And Izzie says, „All right, Papa.“ And Papa says, „All right now Izzie, jump. Papa will catch you; now jump.“ And Izzie jumps, Papa steps aside and lets him hit the ground with a crash. Papa pats him on the back and says, „Now Izzie,“ he says, „that's your first lesson in business: don't trust nobody, not even your Papa!“ Now that story does illustrate this fact that people will use betrayal to teach people a lesson.

And he says, „Uhhhh - by talking a little slower.“

Yes, and it's an odd thing but you would be surprised that there are undoubtedly some atomic engineers around who believe that the best - they wouldn't do this unless they believed this - the best possible way they could help the human race would be to wipe it out. It can't do anything, it can't go anyplace and there's no hope for it anyhow and they're all miserable and suffering. You know? Shooting the horse with the broken leg sort of a computation. And how many ways can you help people includes destroying them.

„Thank you. Now, how could you help me?“

So you can - the reason - the only reason I'm stressing this, Jack, the only reason I'm putting any stress on it at all, is because I was fooled in the original investigation of this into believing something odd here. I believed that if you ran Help you would put destroy on automatic. And therefore, didn't fully use the process for some little time. Because I found out that if you ran Help for a little while, automaticities of destroy would show up. And then one day I rolled up my sleeves, tested a little bit further, and found out that Help run further took out the automaticities of destroy. But run just so long, where the person would not accept destroy as a method of helping, run just so long, it would put all destroy on automatic. And the fellow would be running around willing to cut his own head off and shoot anybody, you see, even though he was „helping“ everybody. Then he goes right on over and he comes up in a kind of an inversion.

„Uhm, uhm, uhm, uhm, uhm, uhm, by answering up.“

His next strata is to shoot people.

„Good. Thank you.“ Pang. Pang. Pang. Pang. Pang. See?

„How would you help your mother?“

The guy yawns, starts to go anaten, something of this sort - don't pay any attention to it beyond, perhaps, flipping the direction of flow one is running.

„Well, take her and cut her up into very small pieces and put her in a stew.“ Perfectly valid method of helping Mother. And auditors will look at this sometimes and be appalled.

You know, you can knock a guy anaten by running a flow too long. The whole Scientology 8-80 tells you why people go unconscious. It's a stuck flow. It's a flow running too long in the same direction. Well, the way you heal that is to shift the bracket and shift it quick and don't waste any time in the order of your going. Somebody starts to go anaten, starts to yawn and so forth. It's running the wrong way, that's all. You're saying, „How could I help you? How could I help you? How could I help you? How could I help you? How could I help you? How could I help you?“ and he goes, „Uha-uha-uha-uharh-uharhrrh.“ Boy, it's about time you said, „How could you help me, son?“

But running Help takes over the automaticity, destroy, which is the final test on it. So what you want to do is to put together - if a scale were to be put together - I would suggest that a scale would go together which was the help band and it itself would not include help at all, but all of these methods of helping would go up the band and down the band. You see? They're fantastic. They're fantastic, some of these methods.

Well, they look at this number of commands per unit of time and they say, „Well, there is no real puzzle as to why you get in twenty-five hours of auditing in five hours,“ because that's essentially about the ratio.

Yes?

8-C commands. You watch people running 8-C, get the number of commands they get in per minute. You'd be amazed how slowly. Time has very little to do with it beyond the fact that your auditing is being modified by MEST universe time. So one of the ways of whipping MEST universe time is to be quick and precise with what you do. MEST universe time is all based on wait: most people are here to find out what happens at the end of the universe. Sole purpose.

Male voice: Ron, what is the difference between a Theta Clear and an OT?

And I'm not offering myself as any vast and incredibly excellent example of auditing. I merely am effective, try to be effective and so on. Undoubtedly - undoubtedly many other - many other much more artistic presentations could be made. Now, I'm not beyond - I'm not beyond making an Auditor Code break or challenging a preclear or doing something like this, mostly because I'm not scared of what effect I'm going to make, but when I do I can usually see it and patch it up in a hurry. Any auditing style that I use is relatively overt. It isn't apologetic and it doesn't have as its first consideration maintaining ARC with the preclear. I maintain ARC with a preclear in spite of auditing him rapidly. It's an ARC in spite of, see?

Well, there really is no grade called Theta Clear.

In the first place, for some reason or other he usually doesn't have any idea that I'm on some other side. He generally knows I'm on his side. And if he gets too recalcitrant, I'll normally take this up with him. „Do you think I'm on your side?“ or something like that. „You think I'm here cutting you to pieces?“ Or „What do you think my basic purpose is in auditing you?“

Male voice: Oh, there isn't?

And he'll shamefully say, „Well, to make me well,“ or something like that.

There really is no such grade that makes much sense between OT and MEST Clear. You get the idea? A Clear, who is independent of a body, you cannot stop on the direction to OT. I mean, you get him going up the line and you don't find there's a finite stop. Well, there is a finite stop at Clear.

„All right. Shut up. Let's get the show on the road.“

Male voice: Which Clear?

Now, similarly with clearing a command. Now, you can hang around with this clearing a command half of the day and your preclear will be no wiser. And the reasons you hang around with it so long is because you don't buy his understanding of what you said. If he tells you he doesn't understand it, that it's incomprehensible or that it's hog Latin as far as he's concerned, then you have to get down and give graphic examples of what you are talking about and get his reaction to these examples and finally define and explain the word practically for him. And then you go on an agreed-upon definition of what this word is and as soon as you've achieved any shadow of an agreed-upon definition, take off from there. He'll find out shortly what exactly, what you are talking about.

MEST Clear. See there, that's a finite stop. The fellow is without a reactive bank. It's quite finite. Quite absolute, as a matter of fact. It is.

It is possible for a person to be so plowed in on help that they would not even be able to understand the word itself.

Now, as he goes around and mocks up other people's banks and does this and that temporarily in this way, his state will vary a bit. But the final analysis is he doesn't have a compulsive, obsessive bank kicking him to pieces. You know? You must realize that the body is a mock-up in a certain number of agreements. And a body can obsessively do this and do that and do something or other, but then it is persisting and that's already obsessive and it is just a mock-up. So as long as he is fooling around with a body he doesn't have necessarily the tendency to go down scale, but he does have the tendency to be variable in his appearance. That is, the apparency of the state becomes variable. His own state, however, is not varying. Now, that's quite finite.

Now, clearing a command is done rapidly. It is not a repetitive process. Its end goal is understanding from the viewpoint of the preclear, not from the auditor. You clear a whole bracket up with the same clearing and then saw forward.

Now, merely getting him out cures up this vagary. See, if he's stable exterior and no bank and able to control and handle the immediate body and so on, we've just deleted this apparency or vagary. We've improved the state of Clear a little bit, you see.

To repeat what I just said a moment ago, when you have a stuck needle on a certain terminal you want to run one command of the bracket at a time. „How could I help you? How could you help me? How could another person help you?“ Get the idea? „How could you help yourself?“ You want one per command, one side of the bracket per command and you'll see this thing free up.

Now, we go for broke from there on up. You see, a Clear can't necessarily do anything. See, by definition he doesn't do certain things. Do you see that? Of course, this means his abilities are up too, but this wasn't the goal. It was to stop him from doing a lot of things which he really didn't want to do in the first place. OT is an educated Clear. Now he's educated, see. He's doing. And he's a fellow who can do. You see? You might say you uncover the basic personality of a preclear by clearing him. Well, that's fine, but all you've done is uncover his basic personality. Yes, this is a miraculous state: the entire systems of religion have pegged at this thing since time immemorial. I mean, this is glorious and all that, but remember something: that he can't do anything.

Why do you do that?

Now, he gets so that he can do things which are out of agreement with, so that he's at cause over matter, energy, space, time and life, and we've educated him. And the funny part of it is that it's education that makes the OT, or confidence in the exercise of his abilities, which should be a better definition for education.

If you were smarter and could look into the preclear's skull and watch his flows, you would know that it would be running one, six, three, five commands for each side of the bracket, you see. Funny part of it is, you never get in trouble running one. One per side, you never get into trouble.

Male voice: What were we trying to educate him to do, Ron?

You can check this up with a preclear. I sometimes run this way. „When is it getting black?“ I say. „Tell me when it starts to get black.“ And the - it's - grays up a little bit and he'll say, „It's getting black.“ „All right. Fine.“ Now, shift the command run. That's a person with a field and I'm trying to clear up somebody's field. I'll run it until it grays down. And if I ran it just one more command the field would go black. This is old Ridge Running.

To be at cause over matter, energy, space, time, life. That's all we educate him to do.

In fact, a black field, whatever else its reason, is simply the end product of the mechanic of flows. Something that's flowed too long in one direction will wind up with a black field. It doesn't even have any further nonsense connected with it; there isn't any further explanation. It's useful. There's things can be done with it. It materializes into certain objects. You know, on and on and on. And you can do things with it. And you can turn them on and off with thought patterns and so forth. But the mechanic that gets a black field there, regardless of why it is there - you see, why it is there would be one modus operandi but the mechanic of its being there is caused by a stuck flow.

Now, there comes a great liability in this because people's hair stands up when you say, well, you'd educate somebody to destroy this, that and the other thing. I'm afraid that if he interfered too much and violated the rights of too many dynamics he would no longer be an OT.

If you could find the right flow that was stuck and you would just trigger that flow on a black field - this is pretty smart auditing - just trigger the flow on the black field; it'd run off on an automaticity that would sound like a machine gun. And the preclear just is looking at this circuit, see, and the circuit is going. He's just sort of looking at it and energizing it and it's flowing. And he's getting more answers to how could people help him than he ever dreamed could exist and he occasionally says one to you just to keep you happy. But he couldn't articulate them if he tried. They're running too fast. That's an automaticity.

Male voice: How long would he remain there?

That's a highly desirable manifestation in running any kind of brackets, by the way. And if you trigger one and interrupt it, you ought to be shot. Let it run right on out. You know, it's going automatic and flying in on him and flying away from him or something of the sort. Just keep up that particular bracket.

Hm?

You can usually tell because of his dog-with-a-cocked-ear, you know, attitude. It'll keep going as long as he answers one every now and then in the same direction. Then eventually it'll go out and then he'll take over the automaticity of it.

Male voice: How long would he remain an OT if he started this action?

On any aberrative help computation you will get one of these automaticities. Help is one of the fastest ways of turning these things on. Just, „How could Mother help you?“ You know? And brrrrrrrr! Thing has just been waiting there to avalanche. So you get an avalanche of thoughts rather than an avalanche of masses and you're back onto avalanches again.

Well, I don't think an OT could be persuaded to do it because, you see, I've already tried. Every once in a while somebody will come around to me and they'll say, „Well, why don't you get an OT to do something about Russia?“ And I've tried to tell them - I think it's even on tapes of earlier ACCs - you try to persuade them that there is some necessity to do something about Russia. They laugh at you. You know, they think this is funny. And so they go over to Russia on agreement with you - if they're going to be pals - and they start looking around and they get interested in a washerwoman who has dropped all of her clothes in the stream and they go pick up her clothes for her and return it to her. And this stands her hair on end and they pat her on the head and say it was her faith in religion that made her do it and she becomes very happy with her life then. And they're all set and they come back and they say they've really done something in Russia. See? This is a matter of dynamics. A Clear is a first dynamic awareness of considerable magnitude. You see? An OT spans on up the rest of the dynamics. And unfortunately, he'll work just as hard to protect somebody's illusions of the Supreme Being as he will their illusions of his identity. You get the idea? And it becomes a much broader game. And when you're looking at it from this side you look at it and you say, that's nuts. You know? I mean, why doesn't he realize that we're in trouble and we should do this and that? Well, his realization that we're in trouble would be worked out like this: he looks at you as having some responsibility in the matter. See? And he says, „Well, why don't you just - what do you want all that enturbulance over in that area for?“ Like I was talking to you about yesterday, you see? Not accusatively, but he finds it a little bit hard to appreciate a limited viewpoint.

All right. When you clear a command, you are asking for the preclear to understand what you are doing, even though you have a dim idea that he understands what you're doing. Never demand of him the total understanding of what you're doing. He's incapable of it in the first place. Demanding that he clear a command satisfactorily to you so that he understands totally what you're doing, of course, is you just being pedantic. You're just stressing it too much because he couldn't understand all that you're doing anyhow, even if you and he were auditors of equal training and skill and intelligence.

And, of course, pan-determinism enters into OT at some enormous extent. So to get him involved in a fight he really has to postulate like mad. He has to say to himself, „I'm not a cop; now I can have a fight with a cop.“ See? Only he just postulated it, he wasn't serious about it, he didn't bury it; halfway through the fight, why, he's liable to start laughing like hell and the cop starts laughing too for some peculiar reason and there goes the fight. You don't get a persistent condition whereby he fights cops now for the next two centuries. This is very - it's very odd. The best way to get a view of it is to get there and look.

Why?

A Clear - a Clear you should understand as a first dynamic awareness of magnitude. It's a pretty terrific thing for a - to have a fellow just aware of himself.

Because you're auditing his case without his blind spots.

But now his education proceeds in getting aware of you and others. You find a Clear maybe for the first month or so after he's cleared or something like that, he sort of fumbles around with people a little bit and he's groping his way.

So you always understand more about his case than he understands about it himself. Hence auditing occurs. Now, just like everybody knows what's wrong with everybody else in the world and never notices what's wrong with themselves, this is a standard manifestation.

Well, what's he groping his way for? He's groping his way for OT.

All right. So far so good. I've beaten this clearing a command to death. I don't want any one of you in giving a command or doing anything like this to make an error with it because it actually bungles the understanding of the whole processing session that follows. A bungled clearing of commands.

We got time for just one more question here.

And I don't want you clearing a command and then going for the next twenty-five hours on the same preclear without ever clearing it again. Oh, no. Didn't you ever expect the fellow to change his mind?

Female voice: Ron, you said in a lecture the other day that all aberrations was on the third dynamic. Did I get that clearly?

And if the fellow's cogniting on the meaning of these words as you go along, I don't want to catch you clearing the command. You see how that works out? Because you're invalidating his cognitions, aren't you? He says he's gotten four cognitions on what help really means in the past fifteen commands, so you clear the command. He'll just throw further dependence on you. That's all he will do, or get mad at you.

The aberrations - let me modify it. Thank you for bringing it up again. The aberrations in which we're involved are, at this stage of the game, are the manyness of things, which are confused with things with which we want no association. You got this? All right.

Auditing is always a matter of judgment and as I've told old-time auditors, Dianeticists, Scientologists alike, auditing is what you can get away with. It's really a very fine definition and the best or standard procedures are the things you're most likely to get away with - things you're most likely to get away with. And if you did them all perfectly you would get away with all of them because they're get-away-able with.

To most people, if you ask them one after the other, they won't even talk about the sixth dynamic or even the fifth; they'll just talk about the third. So the basic aberrations which you hit in clearing somebody are third dynamic aberrations.

But if you do something a little bit off the side and get away with it, fine, fine. Just don't be so puzzled when you don't get away with it next time. The only way you can be wrong is not to get away with it. See? That's the only way you can be wrong. So you could probably clear a command in all the ways I have told you not to on some preclear who's very complacent and get away with all of them. Be all right.

Female voice: I understand that now.

But certain conditions would be present, which would be quite amazing as conditions. And these conditions would be that the preclear was full of sweetness and light and understanding and didn't have any real objection to auditors or auditing and could be run on Descriptive Processing. So by clearing the command you clear the preclear's ideas on the subject of „help“ and the preclear would clear on the subject of „help.“ See? Person was already a Clear but you, of course, could get away with it. You get the idea?

Got it?

Now, what we try to teach you here is what you can expect to get away with on all preclears. And then if you go ahead when you're auditing somebody and get away with something else, why, that's fine. Two things to remember: good auditing is what you can always get away with on all preclears. But that doesn't mean that on some preclear you can't get away with something. Hence you can omit clearing a command on some preclears. But then don't be amazed to get your next preclear and find nothing happening. He absolutely had to have commands cleared. You never got anyplace until you did.

Female voice: Yes.

All right. Now, clearing a command, then, goes for any and every command you're going to utter and every word of the command. And you clear it once with the end goal of simply getting some understanding between yourself and the preclear what it's all about. You're not trying to make a perfect command.

All right.

But sometimes you'll have to rephrase a command. Trying to run Havingness on somebody once in England - they had been brought up in some part of England - they evidently had no such word as have. As near as we could find out, the person from that day to this had just never had any connection with „had“ or „have“ except being gypped, and to possess something meant to take it. And Havingness had to be run with the word „take.“ Worked perfectly well with the word „take.“

Okay. Now, anybody started auditing yet?

Now, we take Spanish. Spanish has no word for „have.“ Really, there is no clear, clean word for „have.“ There's tener which is again this word „take.“ Isn't that fascinating? So if you run it in Spanish, why, you've got yourself a similar problem. But the command must communicate. The command must communicate.

Male voice: We're still working on the number two today - ARC Straightwire, Communication part.

Now, you could run a command in gibberish. Just draw up a set of new artificial symbols and get an agreement on which one meant what and run the command with those, too. You know you could do that. You could run them nonverbal. You say to somebody, „When I do this (tap, tap, tap) that means 'walk.' Got it? When I do this, that means 'wall.' Got it? When I point like this, that means 'you.' Got it?“ See, and you could exchange this even in writing. See, and get this all straightened out so that you could point at him, make a walk symbol and a wall symbol and you would have said, „You walk over to that wall,“ and that would be clearing a command.

Oh, very good. Then I had better give you a little tiny rundown on this. Shall I?

Sometimes you audit somebody who is unconscious or cannot talk; you think they're unconscious until you find out that you have a command system available. „When you press my hand once, that means 'yes.' When you press it twice that means 'no.' Do you understand that? Good. Now, I'm going to ask you a series of questions and when you press my hand once that means 'yes' and when you press it twice that means 'no.'”

Male voice: Yes.

Person been lying in a coma for three weeks (this is an actual case, by the way, I'm giving you) and they take hold of your hand, you know - I mean you pull their hand up to a point. First they're very, very feeble since they have no confidence in the communication. And then you ask them, „Are you in pain?“ You know? And they eventually flip, flip, „No.“ Next thing you know you're in communication with this person with a fractured skull that will never talk again or walk again and is just slowly dying and so forth.

All right.

About the time they merely - they brought them up the communication line to a point of talking to you, why, generally if you're doing this in the hospital, the medical doctor will kick you out and so forth. And if you've told them as somebody did in some quarter of the world that you will stay with them until they get well or made some such outrageous promise, they'll kick the bucket. It's a betrayal, you see, betrayal on the help line.

Male voice: Yeah.

You can expect, one, a medico to object to any improvement in the case and - that's right, not occasioned by himself - which is one of the help factors; and, two, a patient to get worse when any betrayal of promise is effected by the auditor. These are standard data.

Would you like that?

But within those limits your establishment of communication can be very simple; it can be tactile, it can be anything. Someday you're going to audit a blind person who is also deaf and dumb or something like that. And you'll say, „How in the name of God...“ Well, listen, think of it in this framework and you've got it: „How do I clear the command?“ And you think of it in that framework, you will clear the command and the next thing you know...

Audience: Yes.

I've audited people in as bad a shape as that. Totally paralyzed, couldn't do anything. Had one fellow, one time, who could wiggle one eye. And I got a yes and no system going and then audited him with yes and no verbal questions. You know, just on the flick of one eye. Pretty wild. Almost - I found out somebody was abusing this person, by the way, and from one session to the next the person had gotten a little worse. And I asked if somebody had abused him in the intervening period and by adroitly phrasing my own questions got the story of exactly what happened, turned around to the male nurse, chewed him out, kicked him in the shins, so to speak, verbally, and he was in a state of shock. It really put him in a horrible state of shock because he didn't know how I could possibly be communicating with this person. Or how this person could possibly have told upon him. And he went into terror, sort of thing.

I wanted to be sure you were auditing some of this. I was trying to straighten out some of these other points.

After that I'd come in the door, he'd stand back and he'd just kind of go white.

Now, to run a bracket is the end goal of a process you were doing. Practice in running a bracket. If an Instructor comes up and says, „That's for the birds,“ it's not going to upset your preclear very much. He's just a little bit back on the track maybe or something like this, but he's not handling anything that is terribly significant, you know? He's not going to be so involved. So we use a light process to keep you from bungling a heavy process like Help. Get the idea?

But all this comes under the heading of simply clearing a command. If you clear a command well, you guarantee that you're in communication with the preclear.

Female voice: Yeah.

All right. Let's take up here in the next few minutes here, continuing on with this, the exact application of the TRs to a training activity. Now, the TRs do help a training activity simply by installing an agreed-upon discipline, don't they? And that would be enough use for them and after you'd used them for that, why, then you wouldn't bother with them anymore in auditing. Would you?

This is just to give you practice. This is not the most therapeutic version of Communicate. I want you to understand that. The most therapeutic version of Communicate is just first dynamic one flow out. „Recall a time you communicated with something,“ if you're going to recall. See? „Good. Recall a time you communicated with something. Good. Recall a time you communicated with something. Good. Recall a time you communicated with something. Good. Recall a time you communicated with something.“ And this will free a stuck needle. Just on one side only. You got that? So the process you are doing here is a very artificial process. It's teaching somebody to handle a bracket. And grooving you in to being able to handle a bracket so it doesn't upset you when you get into some beefy stuff. Got it? So we're just increasing familiarity here with this process.

I saw some people yesterday, day before yesterday, particularly, clearing commands, pardon me, checking out with an E-Meter. Saw these people checking out with an E-Meter and they didn't think the TRs had anything to do with it. „Well, actually, it wasn't an auditing session by definition so therefore the TRs didn't apply.“ Well, that unfortunately is beyond criticism. But the abandonment of the TRs when we get in so deep as choosing a process and opening a session and clearing a command - abandoning them then - that is actually sort of abandoning any hopes for the session.

Now, I don't want you to think for a moment that this is the way to run Communication. A better process is, „Look around here and find something you're willing to communicate with.“ But a person who is heavily fixed on a Rock doesn't benefit too much from it.

The first and foremost TR that goes to pieces is confrontingness. It's the basic, associated with all TRs, TR. It is the basic TR that permeates all TRs. You can normally tell when your TRs are going to pieces when you are no longer confronting your preclear. When you are.

Now, you can study it, if you'd like; as you're running Communication, watch the behavior of your needle. Do you change the needle behavior very much with this series? Or don't you? See? The probability is you won't.

Now, holding a body stiffly in a chair in a certain position is only uncomfortable if the body is not at ease. So if you've - suddenly catch yourself winding yourself around the chair legs and up through the back or something like that, ask yourself, „What's going on here? What am I doing?“ And you could normally find out that the preclear has done something that annoyed you in the last minute or so.

So that is this and this is more of a drill than otherwise. You got that? Now, I don't know - you've handled PT problem already, then, if you're running this. And I want you for sure not to gloss over PT problem. Don't gloss that one over and don't gloss over goals, which I took up - both of which I took up a little bit in the lecture. Don't gloss these things over. Get your sessions started and get your sessions ended. And get them wheeling; get some goals for them and make sure no PT problem has come up and patch up those ARC breaks that might occur.

Now, keeping yourself going on the subject of the TR is no trick but you have to do it all the time. It isn't something that the ACC builds in and then runs on automatic from there on out, don't you see? We're just showing you that you can do it. Now, you have to take over from there and prove to yourself that you can do it too. It actually makes very easy auditing. And familiarity with auditing improves or should improve your ability to follow the TRs. And as your familiarity with actual auditing increases, your facility in following the TRs should improve and you should find them easier and easier to follow the longer and longer that you audit.

Now, there may be some cases present who will have to have a special variety of Help. But that, again, simply comes under Help and is given down here and all of you can do it. That's part 5a, clear down here at part 5a; to clean up all past auditing. Now, you got that?

I used to make a practice of - well, some time ago I made a practice of exactly - auditing exactly by the TRs for a while. You see? I mean, I just did everything exactly according to Hoyle - exactly, right on the button - didn't vary a hair. And I found out I could do it hour after hour and it actually seemed to be a little easier to do it hour after hour, and as the hours followed, the easier it got. I decided in that one case to do exactly what I told others to do and see if it killed me, you know? It didn't.

Audience: Yeah.

The only time I seem to get sloppy these days is when I'm trying to find something on an E-Meter. And then I find that invalidation has its role because a person will resent like mad an invalidation on a sore button. They'll really react if you invalidate them a little bit or - when I say invalidate, interpret it as challenge - if you challenge one of these lovely betrayal buttons, you know. You can just watch the behavior of the needle. You can't make the needle do anything, you can't make the meter do anything. You say, „Well, what do you think would betray you if you entered in upon it in this lifetime? What would betray you?“

All right. Now, if you're going to clean up all past auditing clear down here at 5a, then you shouldn't be getting too upset or demanding too much of this upper communication process.

„Oh, schoolteachers, you know, schoolteachers.“

So, I would advise you to go so far as to do this: To start a session, all the way through - goals, PT problem - get it all set; run this bracket (clear the command of it, see, do it very nicely) run this bracket two or three times, watch the cyclic action. You want to know when that communication took place and when it's near present time you can drop it. But don't drop him way back on the track somewhere. You say, „When?“ And he says, „Oh, I was - when I was about four.“ And so you keep on with the command.

We still don't get much reaction. If we wanted to confirm their reaction, we could make some offbeat remark - remember we're not auditing, we're diagnosing here - offbeat remark like, „Oh, I don't know. Schoolteachers don't seem to be very vicious. Do you - really, do you think they are?“ Watch that needle, brother! If that's a hot button it'll go down about fifteen dials, you see? Then patch up your ARC break, pat him on the head and run Help on teachers and you've got it made. See?

And you say, „When?“ again.

But if he didn't resent it, if he giggled and said, „Well, I guess you're right,“ come off of it. It's no importance, no importance to anybody.

And he says, „Well, that's - I don't know, some past life, I guess.“

Now, I'm going to mention right here and now and then talk about it considerably in the next lecture: goals and PT problem or CCH 0. Now, CCH 0 includes many other things than goals and the PT problem but CCH 0 has in it two processes: one is a process known as goals and the other is a process known as PT problem.

And then you keep on with the command. You run it a few more times and you again ask, „When?“ And he says, „Well, that was yesterday.“ Off. Off with it.

Now, the goals process is not as important as you might believe but to set up some kind of a goal for the future is to get the preclear more able to look into the future and is a little therapeutic trick that you must never neglect in going by. It'll help a session enormously. A person can actually sit in an auditing chair for twenty-five hours with no goals and arrive with none either. He starts with no goals and arrives with no accomplishments. You say, „Did you reach anything that - did you attain anything in this auditing session?“

Now, you're faced with this horrible problem. How do you throw in the bridge? How do you throw in the bridge? Well, the funny part of it is if you throw the bridge in right there, he'll tend to stay in PT unless he's mad at you. And you say, „Well, we're going to - if it's all right with you we're going to ask this just a couple more times.“ You know? Real quick. And get off of it and out of it. So you start asking more „Whens?“ when he gets toward PT. Got the idea? Now, the best and most technically accurate method of throwing in a bridge is - he's coming up toward PT - the last was four, now it was when he was about ten. Now, let's be smart and right at that point throw in a bridge, „Now, I'm going to ask this question a few more times and then we'll end the process. Is that all right with you?“ And he says, „Yes, that's all right with you [me].“

And he says, „No.“

Now, you ask him „When?“ each time. This is the very proper way of doing this. And when he gets up to yesterday you say, „Well, that's it. Thank you very much. Now, what did you get out of this session?“ Here we go. See? Now, let's clean up it and let's end the session. Let's stop that session right there. Crunch. See? Cut. Off. Gone. Through. Take a little break. See? Tiny little break, a minute, two-minute break, see? Let him get up and turn around and walk around the chair and look out the window. Get the idea? Get him back again and start a session. Run the same process. You get how this is, fellows? You're going to run five-hour sessions that are only fifteen minutes long. Got that? Now you're going to start the thing all over again. „Is it all right if I audit you?“ And you're going to set up some goals and you're going to look for that PT problem.

And you say, „Well, why don't you think you attained anything on it?“

Now, don't be amazed if the third time you start a session with this preclear you find he now has a PT problem. That doesn't have anything to do with you. He really did have a PT problem. But this has some therapy connected with it, this communication thing, and you scared one into view. Got it? Now, I would advise your doing this particular one of just getting practices in starting sessions, running a bracket, ending a session, take a little break, start a session, run a bracket, end a session. You get the idea? Okay? And as soon as your Instructor thinks you are doing this surprisingly well (that dirty remark), you get going on Start-C-S. Hm? Okay?

And he said, „Well, I just - just - it just didn't do very much for me.“

Audience: Okay. Yes.

What's wrong? Well, you didn't set any goals at the beginning, goals that could be reached.

This is merely drill that we're doing up to here, but you've got to be able to do it well.

Of course, you let him set the goals that he wants. And you keep talking about it and if his goals seem too wide and too outrageous to you, you particularly try to find some little tiny goal that you've got some chance of making in this session. Perfectly all right for him to say, „Well, I will - I've got the goal of being cleared.“ Naturally. But let's also get a goal for this session, huh? And then let's bang his head in at the end of the session to make him realize he achieved it. And do you know that this is a method of moving the guy on the auditing time track?

Do you know this is the hardest thing we have ever tried to teach? CCH 0. Sounds peculiar, but it's true. The hardest thing we've ever tried to teach.

Now, there are those here who have heard me speak of this before, but an auditing time track is a different time track than the physical universe time track. Things happen much more rapidly and it's vis-÷-vis - thetan versus thetan, you see - and it has the potential of making a brand-new universe all by itself.

Yes?

So if you don't haul him up that time track bodily you're going to be in trouble. So one of the reasons you use goals is to haul him along on the auditing time track, which otherwise would have no motion to it.

Female voice: When you're auditing a Scientologist a lot of times they won't give you a goal until they know what process is going to be run. Then they know what the goal will be.

So make him set something that he can attain in this session and at the end of it don't think you're through with CCH 0. Nearly everybody to date is making this error. They think CCH 0 is ended in its entirety at the beginning of the session and you never further pay any attention to it of any kind whatsoever. Very erroneous. „What goal could you have for this session?“ „What goal could you have for this intensive?“ „What goal could you have for this course?“ are each of them legitimate questions and probably all should be asked.

Well, I'd batter that one down. Of course, an adequate goal is just to get finished with this particular run. I've given somebody who was bound and determined to audit me that goal occasionally, you know? Well, to get the auditing session over with, you know. And then have them argue with the goal. I says, „Perfectly valid goal, isn't it? Perfectly valid goal: get through this auditing session.“ Well, they don't like that too much, don't like that too much. And they argue around about it and go north and go south of the point and so forth. And nearly always I can find a little goal that is actual, absolutely actual on the thing. But the first goal is actually adequate. Perfectly adequate goal: get the session over with. To arrive at the end of the session would be to move up the time track a little bit, you know? That's just about the tiniest goal - tiniest beneficial goal there could be. It's not necessarily an apathy goal or anything of the sort. If you couldn't think of anything else, that's it. But if you talk around about it without mentioning the process or anything of the sort, they can generally fish up some little goal, one kind or another.

But you should keep hammering on this goal for this session until he gets some kind of a little idea. „Well, I'd...“ He tells you, well, he'd like to rule earth or something of the sort. But get it down to a point of where he finally says, „Well, I've got a little pain in this eye and I'd like to get rid of it.“ That's certainly minute enough. You sure can - for sure do that in that one session.

But don't be surprised if we start these sessions and run these sessions through a few times if you suddenly find somebody coming up with a PT problem that they were not aware of previously, because this communication thing will scare one into view.

„And I've been feeling sort of dopey lately. Goal for this session, maybe, yeah, get rid of that.“

Somebody told me the other day the way to scare a present time problem into view was to run Connectedness for a short time and then come back to PT problem. We've got to run some experimental runs on this, but that sounds very good. But this for sure will do this.

Boy, those are real goals. You see? I mean, you could do something with goals of that character.

I want you to get very excellent in starting session, clearing goals, finding a PT problem.

Now, you give away all of your golden accomplishment when you never mention it again. Here you had the chance to triumph, to crow, to come over him, to say, „Look! Look what I did for you; I've helped you, you've got to admit it.“ You see? You never again ask him about it. He said he'd like to get rid of the little pain in his eye, he said kind of pathetically. And you audit him for two, three, four, five hours for that day, whatever it was, and then you never collected your candy.

Do you realize that a PT problem in restimulation can absolutely prevent a session from improving an APA? It just stops it right there, it ends it.

It's quite interesting to ask a preclear at the end of the session, „Well, how's the pain in the eye now?“ At the risk of its returning you can ask him. Go ahead. If it's going to return that easy, it's unstable anyhow. See, don't worry about getting - get him to get the somatic back. He might get it back just a little bit, restimulate the session, you know. We don't care, it'll go. If you've gotten rid of it once it'll go.

Why? He can never come over onto an auditing time track. He stays over here on the physical universe time track and never moves into session. So you've got to get that one good because you could theoretically put out seventy-five hours on some preclear and never move his APA and never get him any closer to Clear or anything else.

All right. You say, „How's that pain in your eye now?“

Why? Well, all this time, why, he had a big PT problem going forward. He was being sued or something or other was happening all this time. And he says, „Well, I'll just put that aside,“ crunch! „and then I will get through the auditing session. Maybe I'll get enough out of the auditing session so I can do something about the problem.“ You know? Nah! Have any questions about this proceeding?

And it's very interesting to see a preclear just go blank. „Pain in my eye? Pain in my eye? This eye? Pain in my eye? My eye? Oooh, oh-ho, oh yeah! You mean the... Yeah, it's gone.“

Female voice: Do you clear goals both before and after present time problem? You clear goals before PT problem really. Clearing goal before a PT problem or after a PT problem has this: if you clear it before, he's not really in-session too well. You get the idea? But part of the auditing is actually a PT problem. See? So it's part of the auditing and a goal should be engaged upon before the session begins. If you wanted to be safe you would clear a goal, a PT problem and a goal. If you wanted to be awfully safe you would make a PT problem sandwich.

You say, „Well, we accomplished that little goal. Now how about feeling tired, feeling tired all the time and upset all the time? How do you feel about that now?“

All right. Any other question about this?

„Tired, tired, tired, tired, upset. Tired, upset. Well, I don't feel tired and upset. Are you trying to invalidate me or something?“

Yes?

„Well,“ you'd say, „well, I guess we reached that goal, didn't we?“

Male voice: I wanted to ask about this nine-way bracket on communication in respect of do you have to clear the word „recall“ nine different times or is once enough?

So when you set up these little goals, make sure that they're real, attainable, and then collect your candy. Got it?

Once.

Now, I actually take some of these never-can-change-me preclears and bang their heads in to get them up the Effect Scale or get them down. I don't care which. When they start telling me hour after hour that I'm having no effect on them, I know their main interest is not having any effect made on themselves. There's two way to convince them: that they can be successfully immune to all effect or to convince them that you have had an effect upon them or something can change them. I always choose the latter.

Male voice: Once is enough.

So, we take this thing about goals and we run it, mildly, hardly a process at all. We do set up something that finitely could be reached and then we make sure he reaches it. And very often I make people look at pictures before the session and after the session and ask them if they're any brighter. And they say they don't know; I return them to the beginning of the session and have them look at the picture as it looked at the beginning of the session. And then take - later session and have the picture as it looks now. And they say grumpily, „Well, yes, it is much more bright and solid.“

You clear this whole bracket in one command. If you've been told any differently, it's my fault in not getting a meeting of minds on this. You're going a little faster than I had anticipated with the training. But the trouble with clearing a command is that if it is not done you're liable to have no understanding and if it is done too arduously you're liable to just hold up the session. See, you can err two ways on this.

And I say, „Thank you very much. I guess we've attained that, haven't we?“

Male voice: Thank you.

You must remember something. The auditor is the god of that time track. And if he won't take responsibility for hauling the preclear along the auditing time track, completely disassociated from any other time track, if he won't take the responsibility for hauling the preclear along it, why, he very often leaves the preclear stuck in session.

You see, you have words here like „recall“ and „a“ and „time.“ And then you have „communicate.“ And then you have „with“ and „something.“ Now the only additional words you have in here is „you“ and „I,“ „someone else“ and „yourself“ and „himself.“ And you look down and you clear each word individually. Don't you see? Just clear all of the words that appear and clear each word once. Got it? And you explain to him that you're going to ask him these in various combinations. That's perfectly all right with him.

As far as problems are concerned, the auditing command that we use here is, „What part of that problem could you be responsible for?“ And we very arduously dredge up a problem and make sure that there's no slightest chance that a present time problem is in our road when we're auditing the preclear. Now, some of you are going to get into that almost at once. So I have mentioned these two things so as to give you a little bit of a kickoff in that direction. Okay?

And then a few commands later, twenty-twenty, twenty-five commands later, something like that, clear them all over again. Find out if he means anything different here. And he might have an entirely different interpretation of „recall.“ You may not have run into it yet, but a lot of people are pretty foggy on how you recall something.

I understand you're doing very well and your Instructors are doing fine and that everything is going along swimmingly and that somebody might even get out of the TRs someday.

Any other questions germane to this particular part of it?

So, thank you.

Well, you people that are still in TRs, get them flat and get out of there. Get the show on the road now. Okay? You can do it. If you can't do it on your confidence, do it on mine and get out of there.

Okay.

Thank you very much.