This is 9 Oct. 62, lecture number two. N better talk to you about something that you're more interested in.

Well, what are we here? We’ve arrived at the what of what?

Just a final comment on that: I haven’t given you all the information I have on that, but the final question I was asked here was about the technical, "hope it'd be more simple." Yeah, your technical will be more simple, but remember there's two HPAs on the floor in any one of these co - audits. Listing will probably be meterless - most of their auditing will be meterless. And it’ll be worked down to a point where if a guy can get into trouble with this - with experts watching the thing - why, he'd really be quite a guy.

Audience: October 9.

There are several technical little bugs that have been worked out already.

Nine October AD 12. What planet is this?

You give a See Check as the person comes in and you have a dunce unit - the rock slammers. And because you’ll have all kinds of people, why, you’d just better take the rock slammers and you'd better relegate them to a certain category and certain handling, you see. That immediately takes the sour apples out of your co - audit and they'd run fairly smoothly.

Audience: Earth.

Now the technical aspects of this are either whipped or whippable. And they give me no qualms at all. If that's all I had to worry about, it'd be a long snore.

Oh, ho, Earth

The various aspects of clearing . . . This is about clearing. This is just a lecture on clearing. I'm very interested in this. I´d be very happy to go on talking about it the rest of the evening, don't you see? But I want to talk to you about some of the aspects of clearing as they are influenced by auditing quality: clearing and auditing quality. And these two things are extremely closely associated when done by the expert.

Anyway, the general situation is that I was going to give you an extra week of lecture here, and then skip two, and then give you an extra week on the other side of it so you don’t lose out. And take Mary Sue down and show her the Mediterranean for a few days. She needs it. Me, I’ve been riding around, doing nothing, you know, and so on, but she’s entitled to it.

He clears as fast, in actuality, as he is bright and delivers good quality auditing. Now, that's as fast as he clears. He clears then as slowly as he flubs.

I want to talk to you tonight about a very strange subject - a very, very strange subject: Scientology, its organizations. Now, this is a strange subjectScientology organizations.

Well, you want to find out why somebody isn't getting Clear fast ... You know, your - it's a hell of a criticism of the auditor when that tone arm goes up to 5.0 and sticks. It's already proven that it's the right goal and yet there's that tone arm up there at 5.0 and it's not now moving and it's not coming down and that is the right goal, and you're listing on 114 lines. And as far as you can tell it's all going off like hot butter and yet there is that tone arm at 5.0. Now, that is not criticizing the pc. Learn right here at the incept that it is a criticism which is leveled straight at the bosom of the auditor doing the auditing. Learn that and you will have learned a great deal.

There comes a time in any activity when you have to look forward to the shape of things to come and what they will be. Now, let us envision this as an activity. We do nothing cohesive, everybody just goes his own way, we have no central control of any kind, and people just wander out and process people and so forth; and all of this has into its teeth the combined efforts of people with supervested interests in making slaves. And that supercombined vested interest then pick us up, one by one, and throw us on the nearest dung heap, and we thereafter find Scientology being practiced with electric shock by the governments.

When I say learn that and you will have learned a great deal, I know what I'm talking about, because there are some people who won't learn that. They will resist learning that for a while. You see, they'll keep looking for what is wrong with the pc. There's nothing wrong with pcs. There's a lot wrong with auditors.

Now, just look at that, not as necessarily an extreme picture, but one which very well might happen. Now, let’s look at the other side of this picture. The other side of the picture consisting of a well - unified, a united Scientology with sufficient international esteem, force and wherewithal, that somebody suddenly decides to use Scientology exclusively to electric shock the Chinese to make them work on the farm and collectivize it all, and we sneeze and they fold up.

Now, some pcs require more cleverness on the part of the auditor than others. Because they - apparently the individuality of life was all attained by goals. Now, that doesn't mean that people are individuals because of goals. It means that they are odd individuals because of goals. They were all different people, don't you see, and then they postulated themselves a great cracking, big goal and here we went.

Now, Scientology would go the way of many other good things unless some thought is put upon its future. Buddhism went its way, collectively, and actually wound up enslaving people. Bum show. The East, the paralysis of the East, the fatalism of the East, and so forth, are as attributable to Buddhism as to any other single item. I don’t know what Gautama Siddhartha said, but I sure know that people have been saying since, „If you just sat and regarded your navel for enough years and did nothing, you would become part of nirvana.“ And nirvana, as far as I can figure out, is the GPM. Well, just see a picture of it. It looks like a human being surrounded with a lot of little valences. Nirvana. Look at pic - look at a Buddhist picture of nirvana sometime, and you got the GPM - bang.

Well, a goal is a symptom of individuation. And from that point on, this guy is going to act differently with a different set of overts. And therefore, each person acts slightly differently in processing.

So, they eventually found out how to put people into the GPM. And all kinds of squirrel, offbeat offshoots like Zen Buddhism, If you know the answer, I hit you; if you don’t know the answer, I hit you; because force is knowingness and never the twain shall be separated.“ Well, isn’t that the way it must be? I don’t know if you’re acquainted with Zen Buddhism, but after you’ve done a tremendous amount of study on the subject, you finally can make up your mind that if you’re hit, you know. That’s the end product.

But when you realize that YOU can pick up such a goal as "never to be detected" - well now, that's quite interesting. What does that speak of the technology? Well, this thing says it must never be detected and yet we detected it. That's quite interesting, isn't it? That speaks very well for the technology.

Now, Lamaism, with ghosts and devils and more GPMs, splintered off from Buddhism, everybody went into apathy, and there it went. Of course, they didn’t have the technology. I just say that very advisably. The East has never known how to do it. That I can tell you out of the depths of my own experience.

So, I can tell you right at the incept that there is no goal that is too difficult to be found and therefore no individuation that is too difficult for you to crack. You've got to do it by the book and you've got to be clever. And you've got to be able to audit smoothly - auditing quality.

I can show you an Indian rope trick, the small boy going up the pole. I can do it. Hypnotize the lot of you; you’d see most anything. Never did anybody any good. Anybody wants to dramatize Axiom 10, by all means dramatize Axiom 10. But there’s a point where even that catches up with them. Indian rope trick is mass hypnotism.

Many a fellow has the idea, many a girl has the idea that auditing quality is associated with sternness or is associated with immovability or is associated with being able to repeat the auditing command or is associated with "the auditor must always be right," or some other quality that has nothing whatsoever to do, in actual fact, with auditing.

The last fun I ever got out of mass hypnotism was hypnotizing the staff of Saint Elizabeth’s Hospital in Washington. I don’t know if I ever told you that story. I needn’t bother to now. But this, this is all nonsense. They didn’t have the technology in the East, they have never had the technology. They knew a few answers. And they all wound up in the soup.

Some new individuation has moved into the sphere of auditing and whenever this new individuation is moved into the sphere of auditing, you get some new difficulties.

So this is the first time on this planet, certainly - and I think the first time in this universe - when there’s ever been a kickback against the ignorance, when man’s - or sentient beings were capable of bettering themselves without worsening somebody else. Scientology is peculiar and unique. It is the game in which everybody wins. That’s very peculiar. That’s very unique. If somebody were to fight Scientology, and win over Scientology, then everybody would lose, including that person.

So to an Instructor watching a half a dozen auditors audit, he may think that he needs a half a dozen different sets of rules to overcome the peculiar difficulties which these students are experiencing and that is not true.

Now, any time you ascend above the level of games condition and get out of that mire, this other thing takes place. And that’s what we’re looking at. We’re looking at a tremendous amount of force, which is not the kind of force that you put behind bullets and in ballistics. It is the force of reason. It is the force of knowingness. You might say - to use a Scientology phrase - it’s theta.

What he needs, as an Instructor, is a tremendous ability to detect variation from the standard rule. And man, this variation is sometimes so clever and is sometimes so adroit and is sometimes so well hidden, that one never does connect with it apparently.

And you’re used to seeing a man who was being good all of his life get sat on, hard, and squashed. You’re used to seeing this example in this universe. This fellow was good, and he got clobbered. And this grasshopper was being a good grasshopper and somebody squashed him. And this bird was being a good bird, and somebody throttled him. And it begins to look after a while that goodness is not a force. It begins to look after a while that goodness is weak, and that evil is strong. And of course, that’s the lesson which this universe would love to impart.

IM give you an example: This person is apparently unwilling to have the pc talk. Apparently this person has to stop the pc from talking if the pc talks. The pc must be stopped. You'd swear their goal was "nobody must talk." Pc says, "I have a pain in the head," and the auditor almost holds up stop lights and stop signs, and hands out speed tickets and breaks out a dog muzzle and so forth, you see, because the pc has said something, the auditor's upset.

It doesn’t happen to be a true lesson. Evil is not strong, it is weak.

So we work on it on a straight basis of communication and we tell this auditor that the auditor must let the pc talk. And by golly, we don't solve it. We just don't solve it.

Let me give you an example: Once upon a time there was a Central Organization. I saw that it was failing, financially, and realized suddenly that it was not giving service to the public - not giving service to the public. It was using the technology of Scientology internally on a favored few. And not giving service to the public, of course, it was failing in all directions, because the one thing you daren’t do is not audit. It must audit. This organization, if it’s there, it must give service. It’s its only reason for being. Everybody was about to get very mad at this organization if it had gone very much further. It would have probably gone bankrupt.

These sessions this auditor is running continue to produce fantastic ARC breaks. And yet now the auditor is apparently letting the pc talk, to all intents and purposes. Then we come in one day and we find out the pc has been talking for an hour and a half in answer to one auditing command and is getting very ARC broke in the process. So we didn't spot that one. That was wrong. This auditor was not trying to stop the pc from talking.

So I was apprised of this very suddenly and also apprised of the fact that this organization had failed to file certain papers with the government; there were a great many administrative omissions. And so I sent them a cable. And I put the Association Secretary of that organization into the HGC to find goals on HGC pcs because the HGC was all stacked up with people for their goals to be found, you see. Had long lists of people, but of course they couldn’t do anything about it because there was nobody there to find goals. Took the staff clearing auditor, put that person into the HGC to find goals. (They were both Saint Hill graduates; that was all there was there.) Told them to start finding people’s goals and turn in the proper reports into the government.

The ARC breaks this auditor got stemmed from the unwillingness of the auditor to face any confusion of any kind in the session and went on giving the auditing command even faster the moment it appeared there was going to be a confusion in the session.

This happens to be the entire length and extent of the perception and the directions given to counteract it. Are those unwise orders? I don’t think you would think so. Perfectly reasonable orders. „Just get busy and give some service, and you’ll be solvent, and everything will be fine.“ See? But no, no. No, no. Evil must triumph.

Now, that's an interesting point, isn't it? Some confusion arose. Did the auditor acknowledge it or did the pc answer it? And this auditor's answer is to get away from the confusion and so gives the auditing command five more times, even more rapidly, to get five commands away from that confusion. But, of course, they can never get away from the confusion.

Somebody there sent out a whole string of telegrams to everybody they could lay their hands on to cable me as to how these orders and directions were all bad and couldn’t be obeyed, and that they were about to follow anything I told them to do, except what I directed them to do. Something like that. They’re perfectly faithful to me and were perfectly willing to follow my orders, while not having followed any of my orders for some time.

Now, the pc is only interested in doing only one thing: stopping the auditor to get back to the confusion to unravel it. Did he answer the question or didn't he? So they have the auditor trying to get on with the session and the pc trying to stop the session and then you'd think offhand, well, there's something wrong with the pc. No there isn't. There must be something wrong with the auditor, if the auditor didn't take up something in the session that makes it necessary for the pc to stop the session to get it taken up. You see this?

Well, I know what I’m doing. That was a perfectly valid direction with a perfectly valid goal in the end in view. And exactly what happened? I’m not setting this up as anything in the way of anything that I personally can do it. Get off that line. I mean, I’m just talking about a theta communication, you see. They’re told to start clearing the public - which is a very theta action, I think you would agree - and to straighten it out and turn in the accounts and things like that they were supposed to turn in. That’s all they were told to do, you see?

Audience: Mm - hm.

And then somebody sends out telegrams in all directions, tries to get everybody excited as to how this is the most terrible and awful thing that could possibly happen to them, and drags somebody else into it - who wasn’t even part of this picture, by the way, and who was going to stay down clear at the other end of the continent, just because you had to have somebody to wear that hat while this organization straightened itself out.

It looks like the auditor's trying to keep the pc from talking. See, but that really wasn't what was happening at all. The auditor wants the pc to talk, but on some other subject, if you please, than a confusion.

And honest to Pete, the explosion is something to behold! I every now and then… I got ahold of this in 1950. There was somebody cutting a line in the New Jersey organization. Somebody cutting a line. You can always derive power by taking a theta line and tapping it and holding it up, don’t you see. There’s always a certain amount of power residual in the line and can be transferred to the person, you see, by tapping this line and blocking it. But at that time, knowing pretty well the mechanics of this situation, I made a remark to some of the auditors around that, by golly, that was just about the most adventurous thing for anybody to do I had ever heard of And I said the end product would be that the guy will explode and spatter all over the landscape.

One method an auditor uses to take off, then, is discoverable only in this zone: that an auditor can leave the session on the forward track, as well as walk out of the room. You follow that?

I actually didn’t take any action. Believe me, I took no action of any kind whatsoever. And a few weeks later this guy spattered all over the landscape. It was just a pale pink mist. Nobody did anything to him, you understand.

Audience: Mm - hm.

What I’m talking about is the mechanics of the situation. These have intrigued me for more than a dozen years. Somebody tries to stop a theta line, or buck a theta line, and the resultant explosion is something fantastic. Now, so far as anybody knows at this exact moment of reporting, all is in order down there, all these orders are being carried out - the exact orders which I gave you - everything is smoothing out like mad. But the jolt is what I’m talking about. Because of the slowness of surface and air mail, letters concerning this explosion are beginning to land in other places, and some people are quite shu - were quite shaken up getting reports of what happened, you see. But in actual fact, the explosion occurred. It wasn’t that I said this line. You get the idea? I’m not telling you that. But those were just very valid actions. See, they’re very valid actions: Clear the public, and file your account statements, see. Very valid orders.

The pc can be left at time - point A in the session, while the auditor is taking off and trying to get to time - point G, without ever paying any further attention to time - point A. The auditor is ignoring time - point A and is trying to leave the session by progressing forward to point G as rapidly as possible.

And somebody tried to horse them up and throw red herrings around, and mess it up, and tried to stop those orders from occurring and, honest to Pete, the explosion was fantastic. Wasn’t even an experiment on my part; it’s something I count on. And it occurs. That if something like that, something very sensible, that somebody is asked to do - if they don’t do it, something happens, something weird happens. There’s a funny magic concerning this sort of thing.

You’ll find somebody is having difficulty reading his meter during the rudiments only because rudiments are something this auditor has had enough bad luck with that the auditor wants to get over them fast. And the auditor gets over these rudiments fast, while the pc gets stuck in rudiment one. And the auditor is clear up there to the body of the session, but the pc is left in rudiment one.

Now, how would an organization get in that shape in the first place? By individuation. An organization pulls off a few overts, pulls off a few more overts - I don’t mean pulls them off, I mean it commits them - commits a few more overts, and gets into a bit of a games condition with other organizations around, and the next thing you know, starts considering itself something strange and different. And it can’t talk well anymore, and it can’t communicate well anymore, and it can’t function or perform anymore.

Now, in an effort to avoid giving a session, you see, in an effort to avoid facing the confusion in the session - let me put it that way - the auditor actually refuses to set up a session, unwittingly refuses to set up a session. Do you see how this could be?

Now, this cycle of individuation by overt is a very interesting phenomenon. It is amongst you. You see this, you see this every day. On a casual walk through a town, you will see examples of individuation by overts. Overts, of course, are normally followed by withholds. That is the still after the confusion. All a withhold is, is the still after the confusion. There is the confusion, which is followed by the still. So you’ve got the stable datum is - very likely to be, much of the time, whatever somebody happened to think after the fighting was over, see. Not necessarily the thing that held it all straight at all. But it is - you get an apparency that it is a stable datum.

The auditor knows he can't get in rudiment one - always had trouble getting it in - so he doesn't get it in. Gets a conviction that it can't be put in, don't you see, and therefore rapidly moves to two before one is in. Now, of course, two won't go in, because one is out. And then moves to three before the pc can stop him to get two in. And then goes into the body of the session with the pc madly out of session.

Well, let’s take this battle has been going on, and all of a sudden, accidentally, why, a cavalry horse rides across the scene and trips over into a machine gun nest and wipes it out. And the other side says, „You know,“ he says to the fellows around him - all the shooting’s over, you see; it’s awful qui - awful quiet all of a sudden, and he says, „By golly, you know, that must have been by divine intervention. Some hidden hand must have directed that cavalry horse across the battlefield and dumped him into that machine gun nest, you see, to obliterate it all.“

Now the pc, somewhere in his skull, unwittingly is trying to work out the session and get in - session while the auditor is running the session.

Now, if you look on this, it’s a hell of an overt against the cavalry horse to go dropping him in on top of machine gun nests, and all sorts of things. How about the cavalry horse’s rider? He must have gotten shot and messed up some place or other. We look around here, we find really nothing but overts, and we don’t find any divine intervention involved with it. I don’t think God would muddy his hands up with that kind of thing, see, if you subscribe to the Big Thetan theory.

And most of the pcs that give you the most trouble are the pcs who do the least. They never explode in your face, they never walk out of session, they're not dramatic - they just aren’t in - session. Auditing isn't biting. Auditing isn't biting at all, because they're not in - session. And they apparently are very easy to audit, except they never make any forward progress.

But here’s this point. The other fellows around this soldier, as the years go on, they look back at that battle and they’re all at this still stuck point: See, „We won the battle by divine intervention.“ They can invent all kinds of fancy stories as to how divine intervention divined at that particular moment, you know. It materialized in the sky, forty feet tall, you see, and all kinds of odd things occurred right at that exact moment. And all these things happened. And we get stories coming out of wars, time after time after time, which are the most miraculous things you ever listened to.

And the - it doesn't much matter what the auditor does. The auditor can go over and try to get all the rudiments in, and so forth, and they all kind of go in. "Meter isn't working," don’t you see? They kind of get all the rudiments in and he gets into the body of the session, then he starts this and that, and doing this and that, and asking him some questions, and ...

Well, there’s one fellow said that religion had saved him, and he had been saved utterly in the war, and he carried around with him a little YMCA Bible. And a slug had gone into it and torn halfway through it and had stopped just before it entered - or exited from the Bible, you see, and shot him in the heart. And obviously his life had been saved by the Bible, don’t you see? You can see it now: This guy - big state of shock, he’s in a state of withhold, he’s in a state of „what happened?“ And he reaches, you know, to feel the blood, and he pulls out the Bible, and he looks at it, and it - you know, there it is. This is the quiet moment. Well, that one will tend to stick, don’t you see? That sticks the incident, right there nicely. Tsk!

The wonder of it is that anything happens at all. But you get about a quarter of an inch of gain out of that session - very undemonstrative session. It's just sort of sitting there, sawing wood, doing nothing, you know. Only get a quarter of an inch of gain out of that session and should have had five miles.

Well, the story is perfectly all right except I knew a sailor one time who collected pornographic pictures, and he had a… So you see his still after that!

Your "good" pc is produced by an auditor who never gets the pc in - session in the first place. This pc isn't sufficiently in - session to ARC break. Pc is ARC broke.

Ah, well, anyway. That’s rather risque and bawdy and blasphemous and that sort of thing. Anyway, the only point I’m trying to bring in here is you get the overt followed by the withhold. And the withhold becomes an action. That is, it becomes dramatized. It becomes a source of action. That sounds very funny. But it’s the withhold that becomes the source of action, not the overt. Very peculiar anatomy.

Oh, it's a very funny thing. You could start sawing into a session of this particular character - somebody's running the session in this way - and you know, sort of getting it all in with a lick and a promise and it's sort of a tacit consent that very little auditing will occur and so forth.

PR show you how that happens: Bill shoots Joe, and then doesn’t tell the police. Now, the way that happened was, is he fired the shot, Bill fell dead, and he thought immediately afterwards (his rage now evaporating, you see), he said, „My God, what have I done? I mustn’t tell the police.“ So this becomes a monitoring datum. See, shooting Bill doesn’t really become the monitoring datum, but not telling the police does. He doesn’t necessarily dramatize, you see, the killing. What he does dramatize is not telling the police.

You want long listing, you see, this is the way to get it. Everything is sort of shallow, nothing is very deep, nobody really inquires into anything very hard and we’ll sort of sit here and get it all dusted off one way or the other, and when we finally wind up, why, we will not have had an ARC break, which is apparently the primary objective of the session. Well, of course, they didn't have an ARC break by having one the session's entire length. In other words, no communication, no understanding.

So now he’s not sure what he mustn’t tell the police as time goes on, and he begins to imagine that he’s guilty of many things. And in order to get rid of the source of pronouncement of his guilt, he will then commit many more overts. And each time he commits one of these overts - do you see the substance of „I mustn’t tell the police“ - he might as well have said, „I am different than and distinct from the police.“ See, he’s made a declaration of individuation.

See, everything is just kind of out on the fringe and nothing is ever really introduced in. Don’t you see this?

Now, in actual fact, in the field of action, he mustn’t be Bill. Bill is full of holes, bleeding and dead, and he is not a thing to be. So we get our individuation there in the field of action. Joe shoots Bill, and then has to realize also that he’s different than Bill. So right on the same action we get a differentiation, an individuation of self from the shot person and an individuation of self from the society, all in one fell swoop. So actually here’s two withholds, and one of those withholds is a sneaky one.

Audience: Mm - hm. Yes.

Now, he can possibly remember and give you the withhold „I mustn’t tell the police.“ But this other is an action, unarticulated, low - level, lowconsciousness sort of a withhold. And that is that he mustn’t be Bill. See, that’s by example he mustn’t be Bill. Yet there’s a sort of a low - order decision in that too. So, here you get individuation. Do you see that?

You've stood alongside and watched a session run, I'm sure, whereby the pc is just "Yeah, birds swim? Yes. Yes, birds swim. Oh, yes, birds swim. Yes, yes, birds swim, yes. Yes, birds swim and so forth."

By the commission of an overt, we get an individuation. That’s the only point I’m trying to make. And the more different and the more separate we are, of course, the less we can communicate, and certainly the less we can understand.

And the auditor is saying, "Do birds swim?"

If you want to see somebody really muy estúpido, completely incapable of „what’s the score?“ find something, find anything, on which this person has a bunch of overts. And ask him to explain it to you. And that is just about the most hilarious activity you ever wanted to engage in.

“Yes.”

And some mathematician with a very fancy eye for equations perhaps someday would like to do this. Well, I did it once. I never bothered to keep the notes. But I derived all mathematics from affinity, reality and communication. All mathematics can be derived, of whatever kind, from those three factors. It’s really fantastic. Affinity, reality and communication. This - you’re working in the field of symbolic logic, you see. You’re using - instead of numbers, you’re using meanings. You work these things out. But you can derive all mathematics from ARC. You can derive all parts of life from ARC, and therefore you can derive all understanding from ARC, and the complete complement of an understanding is ARC.

"Do birds swim?"

In the absence of ARC, there is no understanding. Of course, if you have - the reductio ad absurdum - no knowledge whatsoever of affinity, reality or communication; if there’s no affinity, no reality, and no communication, there can be no knowledge. Do you see that? You get no knowledge as the end result of this. The fellow has never felt anything for it, he has never seen it, and he’s never heard about it, that’s sure he doesn’t know a thing about it. Do you see that as a fact?

“Yes.”

There’s an iron bolt, let us say, buried twenty - five feet deep out in the field in front of the manor house, and for the last three hundred years nobody’s felt anything about it, nobody’s felt it, and nobody’s seen it, and there isn’t even a via on which these is done, such as disguised in old records or something like that - there’s no bolt as far as you’re concerned. You see? So you have to have A, R and C to know anything.

"Do birds swim?"

Now, the lower one’s A or the lower one’s R, the lower one’s C, the less one knows about anything. It’s very, very remarkable.

'“Yes.”

People consider those things dangerous which they’re afraid to communicate with. Well, what’s their definition of dangerousness? Afraid to communicate with.

And everything's going on, and they move through to the - they use up every bit of the auditing time. That's the one thing that you can say about that session, is it used up the entirety of the auditing period.

Now, you can make people… You can always reverse these decisions. This might be interesting to you. You can always make a person feel he has done something if he has a withhold about it. That’s an interesting mechanic of the mind.

All right. You get somebody in there who isn’t avoiding ARC breaks, who isn't avoiding upsets, who is trying to look good as an auditor, who's doing all kinds of additives. His slew of additives have been added to what he's supposed to be doing, you see.

Now, let’s say we tell this person we’re going to burn him (which I think is the highest level of ARC achieved by governments), we’re going to burn him in the electric chair, see, or something like that, and do you know this fellow will turn around and dream up who he’s murdered? I tell you this is a fact. He’ll come around on the other side of the thing and he’ll dream up a crime to fit the punishment. He’ll get delusions about it.

You get somebody in on the same pc and the guy says, "All right, now." He says, "Now, are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?"

He’ll keep protesting his innocence, but he’ll go and sit down in quiet and wonder just who he did kill, see. This is quite remarkable. In other words, if the punishment exists, therefore the crime must have existed. You see that? We can work almost anything backwards this way, and a human being will begin to believe the other thing.

The pc says, "No. No, no, not me! No. No, no. No, uh - uh."

Let me give you an example: I tell all of you carefully, when you come up to the desk or come by the desk or during the daytime when you’re in this room, to be very, very, very, very careful not to touch this black wire. Don’t touch that black wire. I tell you this every lecture. Even though you knew it was a joke, do you know that sooner or later you’d begin to believe that wire was dangerous? You get th - this is the reverse action, don’t you see? People’s definition of dangerousness is something you don’t want to communicate with very much, see. So you just turn it around and you say to them, „Don’t communicate with this very much,“ and they’ll believe it’s dangerous. You see how you can reverse ends?

"All right. All right. What difficulty aren't you willing to talk to me about?"

The mind is very funny. It normally operates on two - pole conclusions. In other words, there’s - one conclusion’s dependent on another conclusion. You see the crudest example of this: Somebody walks up to you and says - they say, „You’re a Scientologist. What is that? Is it like… T,

Pc says, "Ooh gee, I guess just about everything that's wrong. I mean . . . " And all of a sudden starts opening up as a pc and suddenly you’ll find that old tone arm just coming on down, just as nice as you please. What? With standard auditing.

Well, of course, you’re stuck at this point, to describe Scientology, because of course it isn’t „like“ anything. There’s never before been Scientology. So therefore, there isn’t another Scientology extant in the society to compare Scientology to, and therefore the logical pattern and the communication pattern breaks down at that point and leaves you stammering.

But what is standard auditing? What is the standard from which we are departing? Well, it's this cycle: It's asking the auditing question of the pc who is sitting in that chair - see, not some synthetic pc - but of that pc that is sitting in that chair, getting a response or an answer from that pc, which is then understood by the auditor and is acknowledged by the auditor in such a way that the pc knows he said it. This pc knows he said the answer and did properly answer it. Now, that is the auditing cycle.

You say, „Well, no, it’s not like Christian Science, and it’s not like religion, it’s really not like Buddhism, it’s not like…“ See, you can define it by negatives. And then they will begin to believe it isn’t. And your combat - if you look back on some of the things you’ve done in the past - of assertions of this character is just to deny the similarity. You find yourself in a big argument of denying the similarity. Of course, all the time you were talking you were actually saying, „Scientology isn’t“ to the other person. That’s the way the other person understood it.

Now, when anything interferes with that auditing cycle or additives go in, you get one of these corny, weird, offbeat, god - 'elp - us sessions. Do you s e what runs it adrift?

You see, if there’s - or they say, „Oh, it’s like Christian Science.“

Now, it's - this auditing cycle is a terribly simple cycle. And terribly simple people such as myself don’t seem to have too much trouble with it. But more brilliant people figure their way through this thing and arrive at some kind of a mutated answer to it that produces a no - auditing situation. And how they've managed to do this is the subject of his Instructor's nightmares. That's what the Instructor is there for.

And you say, „No, no, no, no, no, it’s not like Christian Science. Christian Science believes that…“ and we go on and on, and potter around about it and so forth. We all the time are saying that Scientology doesn’t exist because it’s not like anything. Then we wonder, mysteriously, why the other person isn’t interested in what we’ve been talking about.

He's trying to find what else they are doing and point it out to them in such a way that they realize they are not doing what they should be doing. It is a terribly, idiotically simple thing. And of course, some very bright person could very easily miss it.

You must always dream up something Scientology is just like. You want to talk to people about Scientology, realize that logic is two - pole; there are two sides to an equation; there must be comparison; there’s data of comparable magnitude to enter an understanding - all of these, oh, a whole stream of these things I could go into. There must be comparable data. They understand something about something and therefore Scientology must be compared to the something something. And then they understand Scientology because it’s compared to, you see?

You would be amazed if you engaged in a catechism - Catholic church hasn't got any monopoly on the English language, we might as well take part of it - if you engaged in a catechism of an auditor who consistently was getting the TA swinging up high on the pc and asked that auditor searching, seeking questions regarding what was supposed to happen at these various parts of the auditing cycle - what a pc was supposed to think and what a pc was supposed to do at various parts of it, and you will find something that is completely astray. Inevitably, you're going to find something that is really goofy.

Well, this is quite an interesting, quite an interesting complication. Because you could get over it every time if you realized that you had to compare Scientology to something. The only thing you have to do is make up your mind of what you’re going to compare Scientology to so the other person will understand it.

IM give you one, an actual one: "Well, so long as the pc refuses to make up his mind to be audited, there's nothing you can do about it." How do you like that one? In other words, all auditing is on automatic. It depends on the happy accident of a pc deciding to be in - session. And the auditor has nothing to do with getting the pc in - session. You understand that?

Well, the more agreement or the more familiarity or the more ARC which he has with the thing you’re going to compare Scientology to, the better he is going to understand Scientology. So you always compare Scientology to himself.

Now, why do these things exist? I’m not just being hard on people who have that sort of theory. I'm trying to make it easy for them to audit. Where do these things come from? They're all a bunch of oddball considerations that exceed this terrible simple simplicity. And when I say they're oddball, I mean!

This sounds idiotic, but let us say, „Oh,“ he says, „Scientology. What is that like? What - what is that like?“ Well, he really means „What is that like?“ He wants a datum of comparable magnitude.

But where do they come from? Now, it's all right for you to say, "Well, it stems from their goals." We know that and nobody need emphasize that piece of technology. Somebody who has the seventh dynamic, "thetans," as an oppterm or "an introverted person" as an oppterm or has "people interested in themselves" as an oppterm or "people who talk" as an oppterm are going to have a hard time with auditing.

And you would be amazed how often you would get away with this crude - unthinkably crude - rendition of this: „Well, it’s like you.“ You’d just be amazed how often this would intrigue the person. It’s almost an idiot’s argument from that point thereon. You say, „Well, it’s like you.“

Well, you can see that and I can see that and oddly enough we can surmount it fairly easily. Oddly enough, we do. It makes a tremendous change in one of these people when you get that item, and it adds up to something that interferes with auditing - makes a big change to them. Big change. There's hardly any substitute for it. When you find their goal, it makes a big change. When you get the goal listed out, that's a terrific change. See, s there are big changes along this line.

And he’d say, ”Well, how is it like me?”’

But if I were to tell you that because a person had an oppterm of suchand - such a characteristic, he then could not audit, we have entered upon 0 very dangerous piece of ground. We have said that no man can rise superior to his aberrations and that is not true.

„Well, you want things better, don’t you? Everybody does. I don’t care what they’re doing in life, man’s basically good. And underneath all of this ”got to gyp 'em all” or something of this sort, why, you’re going to find some impulse that…“ so on.

A man can rise superior to his aberrations - as even some character who has some horrible oppterm that he just discovered has realized that somehow or another he was getting by and he was trying. And his oppterm and his goal are right in the teeth of his ever getting anything done about it, don't you see? And you is yet getting somewhere.

The fellow says, „Oh, yes, I’m trying to make things better.“

No, a man does not have to act his aberrations out to the full, that's for sure. Man can rise above them. He may not be able to stay above them, but a couple of hours of session, yeah, he can rise.

„All right, Scientology’s trying to make things better.“

Now, when we get down to eases on the subject of auditing, then, it is not good enough to say that his item and his goal oppose his being a good auditor and therefore he can't do it. That is not good enough.

You get that? You say, „All right, now, you probably have a lot of basic wisdom about life. Maybe a lot of it is out of sight; maybe it’s buried and so forth. But nevertheless you have a lot of wisdom about life. You’ve been around. You’ve observed things. You - you know certain things.“

We know that his auditing will enormously improve. We know he’ll probably never become a top - notch auditor until we've got these things wrapped up and he's Clear, but nevertheless he can audit.

Guy says, „That’s right.“

So there is another channel which might - because this other one is so heroic - it rises up there like the Colossus of Rhodes, you know. It's completely visible, you know. It's his item, it's his goal and so forth. And it's so visible you might never see this other one. You say, "Well, get him cleared and he’ll be able to audit." Ha! Fine.

You say, „Well, Scientology’s just like you in that respect. You’d like to be free. You’d like to be out of whatever mess you’re in. Well, Scientology wants that.“ You get this? This sounds like a weird argument, but you would be surprised how much appeal even the argument rendered that blatantly and that nuttily - that crudely! - would appeal to the bank manager or the janitor.

There's another one, even when you get him cleared, he might run into and that's the one the Instructor works with. That's the one you’ll be working with when you’re trying to make a co - audit function, when you're trying to make some HPA student toe the mark.

Here - just - guy would say, „Yeah, that’s right, I’m trying to make things better; Scientology’s trying to make things better.“

This one: He's got a hangover from some group or some philosophy or some activity - not necessarily associated with his goal line - as to what is supposed to happen, what he's supposed to do to make something happen and what's supposed to happen when he, the auditor, does it. And you will get things out of the pc - you’ll get things out of the pc and then you do something with them and what does this indicate with the pc. You know? I mean, you ask him questions of this sort. Now, you've asked the pc something, and he's responded such - and - such a way. Now, what does that mean? See, this is a searching type of question, see. You actually can get - likely as not, get the auditor actually laughing at himself over some of the things he expects.

I had an uncle who was a thirty - third degree Mason and Scottish rite, and other odd things, and Dianetics and Scientology were never quite right with him, but he finally figured out that we were trying to do exactly what they were trying to do in the Scottish rite, and after that he’s figured out it’s all right. You couldn’t now disabuse him of the fact that we’d do everything that is done in the Scottish rite. We don’t. But that is his channel of understanding. And he’d have to be processed before he’d change his mind.

Let's say he was part of a society that preached only one philosophyonly one philosophy: that there was no reason why you couldn’t decide to be anything you wanted to be and immediately become it. And all men were weak and evil and guilty and stupid simply because they couldn't do this. That, by the way, is a rather familiar one on the track.

Now, I don’t even think he knows what he means by this, but he’s satisfied with it. Because he has a familiarity with A, therefore something is shown to him to be like A, then he understands this something that was like A. Except he didn’t really understand it. But he has a tendency to understand it. In other words, ARC then monitors understanding to this degree.

"Well, why don’t you decide to be Clear?" You know? "Go ahead. Go ahead, decide to be Clear. All right. Can't do it, huh? Hah! Shows what you're made of!" See, it's a sort of a weird way of making nothing out of thetans and so on.

Now, in the absence of any ARC you have no observation or no knowledge of. That’s the unobtainable absolute, of course. But this is - the something exists but you have no affinity for it and no reality about it, and you’ve never communicated on the subject, so you don’t know that it exists.

Well, this person actually is operating in an auditing session on the basis "Well, if this person just made up their mind to be Clear, I wouldn't have to go to all this work." See, they think the other person is terribly weak because the other person just cant suddenly make up their mind to be Clear and they're having to audit the other person, don't you see, and they're auditing past this limitation.

All right, let’s take the next level of that. Something that you feel something about, and you have a tiny reality on (you have an idea it exists) and you’ve communicated to its vicinity, slightly - see, you won’t have very much understanding of that thing. Understanding of it will be poor but you’ll know it exists.

They don't recognize they themselves are doing it. But an Instructor talking this little point over with them might discover a great deal concerning this, you see.

Oh, IM give you an idea. I’m sure that you realize there is a British constitution, and probably a constitutional society of some kind or another. lf there’s a constitution, there’s usually a constitutional society of some kind or another. That’s a supposed existence. You could understand that. You got an idea that you might be capable of understanding that, but you don’t know what you should understand about it. See, you don’t really know it exists, but you think it probably exists, and therefore if it did exist, you could understand about it. Do you get how this works out?

And they say, "Ah, well, if he’d just make up his mind to be Clear, I mean, there - I mean, I have to go through all these motions, you know, and ask him these questions and so forth. And actually there's no particular reason why I should, because all he's got to do is make up his mind - what am I saying? All he's got to do is - all he's got to is make up his - well, no, I couldn't do that."

Well, that’s a very thin fringe into the range of understanding. Now, you go up through all of the - all of the misemotional buttons on the subject of understanding, and you get various understandings. There’s an understanding goes along with each one of these things. Even if one only understands that it is bad, one understands something about it. And this moves up into a total understanding.

See, he's got a terrifically fixed idea of what's supposed to happen, so therefore everything he is doing is being done in the realization - according to him, you see - is being done in the realization that it doesn't have to be done anyhow, so it doesn't matter what he does because the other person should simply be able to make up his mind to be Clear and then be Clear. So therefore, the other person is guilty of having a session. You see?

Now, if you have total ARC, you would have total understanding. And if you want to know the road to wisdom - the road to wisdom, of course, presupposes a situation which the Buddhist would interpret as a nirvana. That is part of everything. To understand everything you’d have to be part of everything. It’s a marvelous booby trap, man, because that’s the reverse of individuation: enforced association. So, just as an individual Can back away and become individuated from something, he can also enforcedly move on into it and obsessively become it. So there’s two sides to this pattern.

All right. That would be only one of thousands. See, only be one of thousands. "Why should you ask anybody a question?" Give you another one: "Why should you ask anybody a question?"

Now, oddly enough this follows a cycle. With an overt, with the first overt, usually quite unintentional, you begin the cycle of individuation from something, and then that individuation cycle winds up with a reverse. And a person obsessively becomes what he is fighting.

"Because, you see, they know the answer to everything and they know what you know, beaus they - what am I saying?. " See, it comes to a dead end here. The guy all of a sudden realizes he's talking pure, unadulterated idiocy.

How many of you in auditing your pcs have run into your pc’s oppterm?

You know that people go around aware of the fact that everybody can read their minds? And so therefore there's no sense in anybody asking them questions, because everybody should know everything about them anyhow and every question is a complete insult.

Well, the PC associates himself with his own oppterm. And you’ll find this in varying, degrees. Sometimes the pc believes absolutely he’s his own oppterm. Sometimes the PC merely hates his own oppterm, see. There’s varying attitudes. From PC to pc you do a Dynamic Assessment and you’ll get a different degree of obsessed association or obsessed beingness of the oppterm, and individuation from the oppterm. You get this in varying degrees. It varies from PC to PC.

Do you know that there are people around that every moment of the day is a missed withhold on the part of everybody? Do you know that people are a missed withhold? You know how you become a missed withhold to such a person? Do you know how you manage to become a missed withhold to them? You said, "How are you?" And you should have known! You should have known! You get the idea? And because you didn't know how they are and therefore asked them a question how they are, why, this immediately indicates that they are a missed withhold. And they go around all ARC broke and upset twenty - four hours a day. You see? Because they're a missed withhold to everybody. Because people keep asking how are they: "Have you just been to class? What mark did you make?" Doesn't matter what question is asked them ' they are sort of going on the basis of all the time everybody should know what they're thinking: some kind of an obsessive idea. And they never inspect these things. So therefore the pc should know what they're thinking.

One PC is more his oppterm than another, and another pc is more individuated from his oppterm than others. Do you see? You’ll see this phenomenon throughout existence.

Do you see, that's very far - fetched and far afield. I'm - all I'm saying here - I'm not trying to give you a multiplicity of examples - it's just "What is this person doing when he is sitting there running this cycle of auditing?"

Now, this fellow has been committing overts - you know, that one - the old one about „tend to become what you resist.“ Well, let’s clarify that and put it with more truth. One certainly will become that eventually which he has overts on, if he obsessively continues overts against a certain target and goes the whole gamut. He’s been shooting penguins. That’s the only thing he really does well. He shoots penguins, he shoots penguins, and he shoots penguins. And one day you pick him up, and he says, „I’m a penguin.“

"Who makes the E - Meter read?" This is the type of question you would ask an auditor, see.

Now, he actually hasn’t just directly interiorized into the penguin by the overt. Actually he has, through overts, has individuated from (because of the withholds he has from them and so forth) he’s individuated from the penguins and become more and more individual. He is himself and penguins are penguins, you see. And more and more, more and more individuated, and then his wheels start to skid. See, he’s got this rubber band now stretched as far away from penguins as he can get it stretched, and his efforts now to stretch it actually contract it. And every time he tries harder not to be a penguin, he skids a little bit forward to become slightly more a penguin. You see that whole cycle? That’s a very interesting cycle.

"Who makes the E - Meter read?"

That’s a cycle of beingness and overts: the relationship to the individual’s beingness an overt act has. Yeah, you go out here and you shoot a sparrow; you don’t become a sparrow. But let’s say you just had a ball, and you got up to a point where you just had to. And all of this logic is backing it up, how you have to shoot sparrows. And you do shoot sparrows, and you go on shooting sparrows, and you go on shooting sparrows.

"Well, the auditor does."

I almost died one time. I - you can’t laugh in people’s faces, directly. The most comical incident I think that’s happened to me in many months - the most comical thing I have seen - many - long time ago I was up at Lowestoft (a little town up on the North Sea), and a couple of herring merchants were getting rid of some of their ships. So I wanted to buy one of these ships, you know. Their names didn’t sound like herring.

"All right. How does the auditor make it read?"

But I met these fellows, the pair of them, and of course they have run since time immemorial a fleet of herring boats. And, man, this pair had everything but gills! They - if herring ever talked, they would talk just like that, you know? Their whole facial structure was that of a herring! Who was it that illustrated Dickens, you know? That boy couldn’t have done a better job of portraying a herring. It was interesting that their method of handling things were sort of herring methods. They were sort of resistive to being slaughtered but it was inevitable. I offered a small sum of money for the boat and sailed it away, and they knew they had to sell it. That was enough of a lose so they knew they had to sell it.

"By asking a question."

This is the result of something like that, you see. I don’t know what they’ll pick up in their next life, but sooner or later…

"All right." Now, the Instructor has to be a little slippier. "All right. If the auditor makes it read by asking a question, what does the needle fall on?"

Anyway, to make a long story short, this is the cycle of individuation and obsessed beingness. And that cycle is very interesting to you, because you start picking up sight of it with the dynamic and you get a very clear view of it straight in the teeth when you get the item. And that is exactly how the person got there, and is exactly how the meter rock slams.

The auditor says, "The question."

Now, let’s go back and talk about organizations for a moment. Somewhere along the line there was an inadvertent overt by this organization. And that built up, and then they became more and more different, and they became more and more different, and they became more and more different. And if they’d been permitted to go on this, they would have become a sort of a lower - level - which I think they actually had become - a sort of a lower - level beingness. You see, they could go through a whole cycle and come back to becoming an apparency.

And the Instructor says, "That's right," and goes happily upon his way. And he missed the freight train, don't you see. It's way over there and over the horizon by this time. See, he's missed it.

Do you know that a thetan will actually run a whole cycle on Clear this way? And you pick him up on the meter, he’s sitting exactly at 2. 0, dead thetan? Well, that’s how he got there. He’s run the whole cycle. Now, he’s obsessively being what he started out to be. See, he’s obsessively being what he once was part of. He’s relatively unprocessable. You’ll have more trouble with that character than with any other. I am intrigued by this, you see. He’s now a fake thetan!

Actually, this person is actually there and thinks that when he says, "Do fish swim?" that this action of his voice here makes the needle respond over there, although, he can observe that the pc has hold of the cans, that he himself doesn't have hold of the cans, and that there is no voice impact in this meter, he actually has always gone around believing . . . And the Instructor who didn't ask carefully, you see, would get an apparency of answer that sounded very logical. It sounded quite correct. "Yes, the thing reacts to the question. Yeah, the needle reacts to the auditor's question."

And so that organization would have become a fake organization. Fantastic. You come to think about it, would have been a lower - level Clear - mockery.

Completely overlooks the fact the auditor in all sessions - and the auditor has overlooked it too - is actually sitting there in front of his meter and he asks the question which makes the meter read, and all the time sort of thinks it's silly that he's clearing these things, because he knows the answers to them. So therefore says, "Well, what's the use of a meter?" And he's never answered this question satisfactorily to himself.

Now, I´ve looked over very carefully, this, and the organization plan that says that this Scientologist is a field auditor and that Scientologist is a staff member, and therefore of different breeds and areas, and that this Central Organization is Johannesburg’s or Melbourne’s or something; and I’ve picked up a very fruitful source of inadvertent withholds. If we’re planning anything broad in the way of organizations, the first thing we have to take out of is the incipient individuation. Otherwise we’re going to wind up with a fake Scientology which will enslave the multitudes.

In other words, these are things that the person has never revealed to himself. These are things that a little searching and look - over of just the auditing cycle, with or without a meter, would suddenly disclose to the auditor's own view because they look silly, even to him, you see. They look silly to the auditor.

The HCO 10 percent is, for instance, a bid for individuation. See, it says, „Well, 90 percent of this is ours and 10 percent of this is yours, so therefore you must be different than me.“ Doesn’t that sort of get understood at this line?

This auditor all of a sudden says, "You know, I realize that there is no point in ever clearing up an ARC break, because the pc - reactivity is hate and the pc hates everybody, and you’ve got to as - is all this hate. And if you don't as - is all this hate, then the pc isn't going to get any better. So the best way to do is to get the pc into a level of hate and get the pc to hate you and then he’ll be in ARC. So therefore, you should always ask your auditing command in such a way as to stir up the latent hate of the pc."

I’m not at this moment wiping out that, and so forth, because we’re dealing with the - were dealing with 1970. What’s it going to look like in 1970? Well, the first rule that one must apply to it is that all the way around this planet it’s got to be just one organization and that is Scientology.

You start examining these - the rationale behind this and examine some of the other things that go into just this cycle, and repeated cycle of auditing and you're going to get astonished.

And you look at this, you find that every organization breaks down into individuations and messes up, and so forth; they have no strength, and they don’t stand, but when they finally do stand, why, they’re sort of a false mockery of what they started out to be. They say that an organization’s ethic is never stronger than it is at its inception. That is a comment that is made very sadly by people - philosophers along this line. There’s no reason why its ethic shouldn’t be much higher than at its inception.

It's the auditor who makes the tone arm go up and hang at 5.0. Auditors should be in command of session. This is stable datum to this auditor. He hasn’t got any other stable datum to go along with it, see. Auditor should be in command of this session. Auditor is in command of session. Therefore when pc suggest anything or pc say anything, then this means auditor no longer in command of session, so therefore pc must be suppressed. You get this?

Therefore, I don’t see that it’s possible, looking out across the years, for organizations to be different than other organizations in Scientology, to be different than the Central Organization, to be different than the International Organization - to be different than, don’t you see. Because you’ve set up the incipiency of the inadvertent withhold the inadvertent overt may follow, and then you get a cycle there which will follow on through and everybody will wind up under the sword, ”Being the Scientology organization or get your head cut of” Inevitably that would occur. But nobody would be free, and you really wouldn’t have Scientology.

Audience: Mm - hm.

And the way to set it up is set it up as close to the fact as that not happening, and then keep it picked up along the line. And you get an organization that looks something like this. Would you like to take a look at the future on that?

Now, people who that - who don't even have command or control in their goal, see. I mean, there's some side play or another. Do you get this?

About 1970 - might look very much like this: The basic building block would be the district office. I don’t care what that district office is called. Whether or not it’s the „Suburban Center“ or the this or the that - but the district office. And it covers only a few square miles of houses, if that. It is tiny. Its influence is in terms of, oh, ten thousand people - no greater than that. But that is your basic building block.

You say, "Do fish swim?"

And it has a building which is provided for it, which has an assembly hall, and it has some offices, and it has a couple of individual processing rooms, and it has a reception area, and you know. It’s a little hall, actually, with some offices attached to it. And that is a district organization.

And the pc says, "You know, I’ve just had - well, I've had a whole avalanche of answers to that question Do fish swim?' and the answers could be yeah, no, and. . . "

In charge of it is an administrator, who is an administrative person, and who, although he may be a trained auditor, is - still belongs to the administrative side of the picture. So you have the administrative side of the picture and the technical side of the picture running throughout this. You get occasional swaps across from one to the other. But nevertheless, they are distinct branches of action. There’s two distinct actions.

"Ah! Now, now, now, that's enough. That's enough. Now, there's just one, just one, just one - just one answer. Now, that’ll be quite plenty."

The administrator is to keep things there and keep it paid and keep the place clean, keep the people walking in and out, and handle the money and the mest, and that sort of thing. And the technical side of it is to keep them processed and keep them happy, and so forth. That’s all the technology of Scientology.

”Yeah, I know, but I have a little avalanche here."

So this little center is actually in the charge of an administrator, and he has a couple of receptionists. They relieve each other. And they sort of act as the mail clerk and the switchboard operator and his private secretary, and anything else you can think of. You see, this is all in vignette.

”No, don’t give me any more, now. That's it. That's it." "I guess I stayed in command of that session! See, I. . ." He's sitting there watching, you see, and he says, "I guess I stayed in command of that session!" You see?

And alongside of this administrator, there’s a secretary there and you call her the HCO Secretary. Actually, she’s the librarian, and the - she handles all the book stocks, and she issues the publications, and she does checkouts and examinations. She’s a very busy person. She wears all factors of an HCO, actually, all in her own vest pocket, you see. And she’s there actually to make sure that the material is available and stays straight, and so forth. She’s not even there to see that any money is collected or anything like that. She’s just there to see that the material’s right, and that the material has library materials, and, you know, that’s it - you know, that you have adequate supplies of these things, and to be able to get on the telex and communicate with other organizational centers, and that sort of thing. Because these things are all hooked up, one to the other, communicationwise. Well, of course, there’s also a janitor and there’s a maid.

”All right. Do fish swim now? Do fish swim?" Two hours later, "Do fish swim?" He's added the bank mass by suppress, see?

And there’s two technical crews. And these two crews consist of two HCAs or HPAs (depending on where you are), and a Saint Hill graduate. And one of these crews is senior to the other crew, depending on length of time that they’ve been auditing, and so forth. So, actually have two crews and it - each one is composed of one Saint Hill graduate and two HPA/HCA level people. And the senior technical member is the senior Saint Hill graduate. That is the senior technical member in this particular unit.

Now, his cycle of action, you see, is being just alter - ised to that degree. There's something awry in the cycle of - the auditing cycle of action. There's something missing here or there's too firm an adherence of some kind or another. There's too this or it's too that. There's something wrong with it.

And what do they all do for a living? That’s very simple. They engage in mass clearing. This is easy. This is the easiest one to do, so that’s what they do. And they’ve got this little specially built building that’s exactly tailormade to their exact requirements to handle this sort of thing.

And basically, you’ll find that there is some misconception on the part of everybody who's having any trouble auditing. There's some misconception there someplace of what they're doing.

And what odds and ends of things do they handle? Well, they don’t handle many odds and ends of things, because that’s all handled for them in the city office which is mainly an administrative center. Doesn’t do anything else. It’s got a big account system, and it pays all their bills and pays their salary and banks their money, and does everything for them.

Now, you say to them, "All right, what happens if the pc makes a suggestion to you about the session that you examine the rudiment question again? Would you do it or not?'

You wonder how a little district office like that’s going to make any money or get forward or handle anything. Well, there are several ways that this takes place and several ways they go about this. The main way they go about this is they have an afternoon co - audit and an evening co - audit, six nights a week. And one afternoon co - audit goes, of course, MondayWednesday - Friday; the other afternoon co - audit goes Tuesday - ThursdaySaturday. One evening co - audit goes on Monday - Wednesday - Friday, and the other evening co - audit goes Tuesday - Thursday - Saturday. And you have the Monday - Wednesday - Friday crew under one Saint Hill graduate and two HPAs and a receptionist, and you have the other Tuesday - ThursdaySaturday people under the other technical crew. In other words, stagger their week days.

Some fellow will say, "Absolutely not! Absolutely not. Not under any circumstances."

Now, what happens? Well, if you look over the economics of this situation, it becomes rather interesting. Because at fifty people in each one of these co - audits, you have two hundred people in that center a week. This is not going to be very difficult to manage. There are various ways of recruitment. There are various other ways of going about this. But the truth of the matter is that at ten dollars a week this gets to be a rather staggering piece of income. That’s a lot of money. Ten dollars per person per week. That’s all you’re charging them to go Clear. Well, of course, you’d never charge them ten dollars per person per week, the cost would undoubtedly be much higher than that.

And we wonder why this is and then we discover something like whenever there's a confusion in the session, the auditor doesn't want to confront the confusion, and so the best way to get away from the confusion is to put time track between self and the moment of confusion, so therefore give eight or nine more auditing commands very rapidly, please. And that puts time track in between them and the confusion. And of course, the pc at that particular time can’t leave that confused area, don't you see. Pc can't leave it because there's a confusion in it, and pc doesn’t understand it. And then we come back and get the brass ring as the merry - go - round goes around and we find out that the auditor does not understand the pc a lot of the time and fakes understanding of pc. Does not know whether auditor understood or not. See?

But they enroll in the co - audit and they’re fed on through. Doesn’t cost them anything extra to have their goal found, and so forth. You just have this co - audit and you kick them out the other end Clear. It’s just assembly line clearing. They do co - auditing in the meantime, and so forth. Technology’s going to get even faster. You’ll find goals faster. They found out eight goals, I think, in one week, down in Bulawayo - a couple of Saint Hill graduates working down there right now.

And, we find out that the auditor has interpreted that he would look bad if he did not pretend to understand - when auditor does not understand. So there's the source of your confusion and it's right part of that auditing cycle.

So, anyhow, you see how fast that assembly line could work? But the funny part of it is, it’s a staggering amount of income. It makes a Saint Hill graduate capable, in a center, of earning 250 dollars a week, or maybe 100 quid a week. That would be looked on as rather ordinary income. It means this is your Woolworth aspect. This clears everybody. And the funny part of it is the Woolworth aspect is where it makes the money, not taking a lot of money from one or two people.

Auditor asks the question of the pc and the pc hears this question, and the pc thinks of the answer to this question, and he says it to the auditor, and the auditor understands that answer, and acknowledges it, and the pc now knows that he has answered the auditing command. And all is as - ised and we go on along the track, see.

And as far as I can see, that’s the basic building block, and it goes into an administrative center in the middle of that city. And you’ve got an HCA or HPA Academy set up with the Central Organization. And you’ve got some hospitals around which give clinical processing. And your big Central Organizations or your Continental Organizations are mainly administrative aside from running this little Academy - this Academy that takes care of that continent. And then you have your International Organization. It runs a university and doesn’t do any processing. And it all just feeds through. There aren’t 10 percents and exchanges and what’s mine and what’s yours, and so forth. And somebody…

And this auditor is running his sessions this way: Ask the question of the pc, pc answers, auditor understands half of the answer, doesn't quite get the other half of the answer, decides that he'd better pretend that he understood it, acknowledges the pc's answer - which says that it's understood, don't you see - and the pc at this time gets a funny feeling about it - and all of a sudden there's a little confused area in the session and the auditor asks the auditing question again.

The biggest crime that has been - ever been pulled off, is an auditor gets an area all stirred up and interested and then he departs.

And the pc says, "I'm confused about the last answer.”

Well, so somebody in Scientology gets tired of being in lower South Amboy, well, they can always be transferred to Chicago. Oh, say, a guy says, „I’m awful tired of being here, I want to go to Chicago.“ And you say, „Well, all right, why don’t you write Chicago?“ And they write Chicago, and Chicago would say, „Yeah, we’d be happy to have you.“ And you go to Chicago.

And the auditor says, "Well, answer this question."

Now, there’d be money all over the place, as far as I can see. And in the Central Organization - just looking a little bit further ahead than thatthere’ll be a political officer. You want to know what happens when you clear everybody in that neighborhood, the only thing that center can become used for is a political center. Because by the time you’ve done all this, you are the government and you’ll never be able to refuse it.

And the pc says, "I'm confused about the last question."

Therefore, these things should be provided for, and this thing should be looked over. And everybody in Scientology should be eared for. And the idea of asking for somebody to go out and sweat it through and stumble and fall on his head and collect his funds and that sort of thing - that day should very soon come to an end. It hasn’t come to an end yet.

The auditor says, "Answer this question."

I’m just giving you a little glimpse of 1970. And it looks to me like a world that someone could walk down the street in. The situation between us now and that then is far closer together than you might think at this present moment. It’s just within an ace of coming true. Any comments you have upon what I´ve said, I would certainly like to hear, because this is your world too.

The pc says, "I'm confused about the last question."

Thank you.

"Answer this question."

"I'm confused about the last question."

"All right. Well, listen here, now, have I missed a withhold on you in this session?” That's another process, see. "All right. Let's have - have I missed a withhold on you? Missed a withhold?"

Pc says, "Well, I'm just confused. I - I don't know quite whether

"Missed a withhold? Missed a withhold? I know there's a withhold here, missed someplace. Yes, yes, that's right, that's right. All right, well, we can't get the withhold so let's run some O/W, O/W, O/W. Yeah. What have you done? What have you withheld? What have you done? What have you withheld? What have you done? What have you withheld? What . . . Pocketapocketa - pocketa - pocketa - pocketa - pocketa - pocketa. See if we can get down the track, here, a distance from this." Because the auditor has committed a crime. He's lied to the pc. He has said, "Thank YOU." And that was a lie.

The auditing question was "Do fish swim?" and the pc said, "Well, often time, but not in hot bean soup."

And the auditor heard - the pc had said, "No." That's all the auditor got out of it, see, "No."

And the auditor says, "All right. Thank you."

Well, the pc knows very well that he didn't really put across this statement which was "Well, fish don't swim very well in hot bean soup." And the pc somehow or another knows the auditor never got that. And the pc doesn't know if he answered the question or not and it hangs right there. To some tiny little degree, the auditing cycle hung up right there.

And then the auditor, not wanting to take up the auditing cycle, can fly off down the track and do something else, but not take up what was really wrong. You see that?

So a simple study of the auditing cycle - or what is understood by the auditing cycle, or what the auditor is trying to accomplish in a session, or what the auditor thinks he should do in a session - just a simple take - up of this sort of thing produces sometimes the most revelatory results.

You say, "Well now, how does a pc . . ." You know, the Instructor has to be clever on these things. "How does a pc get over an ARC break? Hey, come on - how does a pc get over an ARC break?"

Auditor says, "Well, he uh - had a missed withhold, and so forth, and uh - you pick up the missed uh - withhold, and uh - well, I don't know how a pc gets over an ARC break."

And you say, "Well, why don't you figure out how a pc could get over an ARC break? What's an ARC break? How does a pc get over it?"

This auditor might have been telling you, "Pcs can never get over ARC breaks." But the pc (auditor) had not defined either the AR - what is an ARC break, or how you got a pc over an ARC break. And on the examination of this situation, was actually condemning the pc on the point of ARC breaks because "nice people never get angry." See, nice people never get angry. So if nice people never get angry, of course, this is the answer. This is the idiot's answer, see.

Therefore, if the pc doesn't get over an ARC break, then the pc is not a nice person. Now, where the hell does that wind up a session? May I ask you that? Where's the session supposed to wind up?

Well, of course that doesn't solve it at all. But the person, in articulating this, has always thought that was a sort of a solution to the session, see. That sort of solved the whole thing.

No, it absolved them. And they mistook the absolution for the solution. They made themselves not guilty of putting the pc into an ARC break by adjudicating that the pc who had an ARC break was not a nice person.

I know, it sounds completely idiotic, but this has been sitting there as a substitute for not getting pcs out of ARC breaks. So therefore, they have never studied the thing any further. No further study has ever been given by this auditor on that subject. There wasn't another moment's study ever given to it. Why? Because he had a solution.

All right. Now let's get back to the Achilles heel of all training.

Psychiatrist has eighteen thousand electric shocks behind him, and you're going to teach him Scientology. You think he’ll make it? The man's been in a university or a spinbin or something for twelve years.

You know, it's a good thing we don't recruit from people with the standard requirement that they be in a crazy - house for a half a dozen years, you know, like the psychiatrists do. I just thought of that one. I think that's delicious.

Now he's been trained for a dozen years and he's all diplomaed up. And the state supports him, and the hospital supports him, and everything supports him but results - he hasn't time for those. And now you come along and you're going to try to teach him to be a Scientologist. Well, that's very interesting, because the one thing that stands in your road - there's one thing he doesn't know: he doesn't know that he doesn't know. See, that's the one thing he doesn't know.

Now, what makes it so apparent that he knows? Impacts of overts. I refer you to what I was saying about Zen Buddhism. You know, some people run a car into a brick wall sometime and come up with the idea that they know something.

You know, an impact is always substituted for a knowingness. They know.

Well, when you've committed a tremendous, fantastic number of overts against anything, you conceive that you know something about it. But it's an inverted knowingness. You see, it's the total cycle of individuation.

Individuated out, individuated out, out, out, out, out; knew absolutely nothing and then came back on the reverse curve and came back into the center of impact; so now one knows one knows.

Only, of course, you ask this psychiatrist what does he know - well, actually he can't tell you anything that he knows.

If you were to sit there and harp at him as to what he knew - I don't know, I think it might be an interesting thing for a Scientologist to do someday: go call on a psychiatrist and ask him what he knew. You're liable to get some of the most brain - cracking responses, because you're going to de - individuate him out of an obsessed interiorization into whatever he's doing. Insanity. He'd be liable to start gibbering, you know that? He's liable to go mad! You know, maybe I’ve found a button here on how to drive a psychiatrist nuts. "What do you know?"

Now, you'd follow this cycle, you see:

You'd try to teach him something to know. But, of course, that room has already been rented. It has occupants. So you can't, because he already knows. So, of course, there's no way to teach him anything that you know.

But at what level does he actually know? He knows at the level of impact. That is, he knows at the level of obsessive interiorization. This is how he (quote) knows (unquote). You got to reverse that cycle. See, the one thing he doesn't know is that he doesn’t know. And you're - sometimes can be completely fooled, just flabbergasted in instruction in trying to teach somebody something. You can absolutely be flabbergasted. Stonied, I think is the better word.

You say to somebody, "All right. Now, this building is fifty - five feet long, fifty - seven feet long."

And they say, "All right. Good. I know."

"And it's twenty - two - and - a - half feet wide."

"Yes, I know."

You know, you'd fly in their face and say, "Well, how do you know? You never measured it."

The fellow will never tell you it's on the basis of "Well, I just looked and I'm good at estimating distances." You won't get that type of response out of that type of person, see. He will just say, "Yes, I know."

Well, if you're getting that type of response out of somebody, become a little bit puckish and a little bit adventurous about the thing and start skirting out, just a little bit further, to things that are more and more impossible that he knows. They’re liable to do some of the weirdest reactions this way.

"Well, you know everybody in this block hates you, you know?"

"Yes, I know. Because - no! Wait a minute, wait a minute, what are you talking about?"

You say, "Well, I knew if I knocked long enough on that door, somebody would open it. Hello!" You get the unorthodox method of approach here.

You'd be fascinated about this cycle of the individuation, and the person tries harder and harder not to be part of it and finally becomes what he's trying not to be, all because of the overt and the withhold, and how that compares to knowingness.

And you've got this individual, then, that you're trying to teach something to and he already knows and doesn't know that he doesn't know.

Now, you try to attack this in many ways. You say, "Well, there's a great need for knowledge of the mind in your profession."

You know, a psychiatrist is liable to say, "Why?"

You're going to get the most - the most weird, erratic responses along this particular line. I'm just trying to give you a notion about it. And if you can keep up asking questions - this is a sort of coffee - shopping, on an unorthodox nonrepetitive command basis, you see - you keep asking questions, punching around one way or the other - all of a sudden the guy will realize that he's looking at complete idiocy. And you can spring him out of something like that.

We're not now talking about bad auditors or Scientologists or something like that, I'm talking about this on a much wider front: somebody who is absolutely fixated on the idea that he knows, but boy, he sure doesn't know what he knows.

You come along to somebody who is running an auditing session and you say to him, "Well, why are you asking the questions of the pc?" Well, you're going to get randomity. The answer is going to be this and the answer is going to be that. The answer may be sensible and the answer may not be sensible. But the end product of all this will be that the person either now knows he doesn't know or knows that he knows. And a new piece of certainty is added to his auditing.

As long as you leave all of these things uninspected by the auditor, as long as he thinks why he is doing it is something or other - it isn't a matter of criticizing him or showing he is wrong. Now, don't get the idea that that is what one is advocating. You're not really trying to disprove what he is saying, call him a liar or something like that. You're merely trying to get him to inspect something and what you do to furnish the inspection is the simplest possible cycle - the auditing cycle in the simplest form. Just ask him to inspect this.

"All right. Now, why do you ask the questions? Good. Good. Now, why do you think the pc answers in the first place? All right. Why does the pc keep on answering?" These, of course, are imponderables, man. These are braincrackers. These actually are considerable questions, you know.

All right. Why - but you're asking "Why do you think?" See. And "All right. Now, why do you think the pc requires an acknowledgment from you and feels lost if he doesn't get it?" And make him go over this cycle and ask it two or three times. He’ll jog out all of his memorized reasons and he all of a sudden will take a look at "Well, why the hell? Why does he ask an auditing question? And why does it make any sense anyway to the pc?"

And you may do this to the Auditor: you may cause him to - like the centipede, you know. You ask a centipede how he walks, you know. It's a fatal action, you know. Maybe this auditor can't audit for a day or two but the truth of the matter is you've made him inspect the action. You've made him inspect the action. And in inspecting - well, he's asking a question: "Now, what does the pc do in an ARC break? What actually happens?"

Now, don't call him out, just accept whatever he says, don't you see. "Well, exactly why does a pc - ?" Now get very searching, you see. "Why does a pc recover from an ARC break?" Oh, buy any stock answer you've got, see, but come back and ask him again, maybe.

The guy finally says, "Why does he recover from an ARC break? Because he doesn't want to be mad at me anymore." And he sort of looks up and he says, "What do you mean, he doesn't want to be mad at ... What did I say?" you know. "He doesn't want to be mad at me anymore? Well, he didn't want to be mad at me in - well, yes he did. By George, you know, I think all pcs really are just sitting there waiting for a chance to be mad at me." The guy's auditing will improve.

I'm giving you an idea about the - the fellow is inspecting what he is doing. This is a very crude rendition I'm giving you. But a fellow - get the fellow to inspect what he's doing and try to find out where those deviations are coming in from the ordinary auditing cycle. Because when he's got some cockeyed reason for it, there's going to be some cockeyed action following it.

It's the reason why he will never let the pc give the extra end items toward the end of session. Toward the end of session the pc is never permitted to give the additional items. Well, why? You could stand there and pound your brains out and guess and guess and guess. The thing to do is to askthing to do is to ask. Ask the fellow why he does that.

Only you don't even know what he's doing wrong if you just ask him to inspect the cycle of action. Ask him what he's puzzled about in auditing. "What puzzles you in an actual session?"

"Ohhwee!" And right away he's halfway to answering the question. He starts telling you what puzzles him in session; well, it's what he's having trouble with in session. And it usually isn't anything that he's being taught. It's something that he has added into the situation which doesn't exist there in the first place.

This is all off the cuff, but it comes on the basis of - . All additives occur in the presence of misunderstanding - or in the absence of understanding, to state it the other way.

When you get an additive, you didn't have understanding - until you've got all additives and no understanding.

You want to see somebody doing something idiotic that he thinks is the exact, right way to go about it? Then obviously there was no understanding of how to do it in the first place. Don't you see?

But you don't look at it perhaps on this other very, very narrow viewvery tiny view. You say the understanding is the reason for no additives and the misunderstanding is the reason for the additives, because it may look to you that the person understands what he's doing and yet you have these odd additives.

Well, when you see an additive you're looking at a misunderstanding. And this is picked up on meters as "disagreements with." Well, a disagreement simply registers as a no - comprehension - of

And educating by disagreement is a fascinating activity. You simply get the fellow to pass over the thing while he's holding a meter - a pair of electrodes and everytime it ticks you ask him what have you disagreed with. You wouldn't ask him, by the way, "What didn’t you understand?" Now, I'm showing you there's a synonymous action here, see. You wouldn't ask him this, "What did you misunderstand there?" or "What didn't you understand?" This wouldn't bring anything out. You ask them for the symptom of the misunderstanding. It's the disagreement. They'll wrap with a disagreement.

Well, underlying that disagreement there's a misunderstand.

Oh, I am sure some fellow has felt awfully silly. He has gone out and he has jousted windmills and he's torn things down, and he's busted up the millstones and he's just fixing the thing, you know, just fantastic, you know. And then he finds the fellow standing there was not a ghost but a miller. See, his whole destruction was based upon his misunderstanding of who was standing outside the mill.

That is the subject of comedy. That is also the abundant subject of tragedy in life. But in knowledge itself, which is the woof and warp that you deal of - with, and so forth, disagreement occurs after the misunderstanding.

And the way to set some auditor back to battery, of course, is get him to inspect the cycle of auditing and find out what's doing. But a much surer method you are using in your classes all the time right now: And that is simply that you are consistently - you're putting people on the meter; you ask him to read a bulletin while on the meter, you clarify the thing. Or ask them, "What - give me twelve things out of that bulletin that you can agree with." And you, of course, will inevitably have drop into the hamper the twelve things in the bulletin they disagree with, you see. Those can be clarified. You can trace it back to them.

Because a person cannot do what he does not understand.

He can give certain limitations to his understanding and do some small sphere of it. Like a girl running a computer does not have to build a computer, but let me point out to you that she is not building computers. She is running computers. Therefore, she understands the running of the computer and therefore she can understand the computer. If somebody were to ever come along and tell her why she was running the computer and enlarge her understanding of it, she would be a good - better computer operator, any day of the week.

You can always increase work output, you can always increase comfort and you can always make people more relaxed by letting them find out what they're doing and why they're doing it. This is inevitable, because you've increased the understanding. But people cannot do what they do not understand.

Those are two facts that I don't think any philosopher has ever joined up before. They are facts that stand very squarely in the road of good auditing. Listing will go badly, sessions go badly, Model Session falls apart and so forth.

There is some misunderstanding on the function of the auditor or the cycle of auditing action. It does not depend on the person being evil and therefore he's a bad auditor because he's basically an evil person, see. That is not the explanation. There is a misunderstanding of what he is doing or trying to do.

And sometimes as in your part on the subject of psychiatry - I no longer make this mistake - You can't dig psychiatry or understand psychiatry. That's truth. That's truth, you can’t understand them. The reason you can’t understand them is you really don't realize that they haven't any goals or aren't doing anything that you would think they should be doing. So therefore they're incomprehensible to you. They're perfectly comprehensible to themselves - perfectly comprehensible. They are not trying to cure anybody. They are not trying to make anybody well. They are not trying to make anybody sane. They don't have anything in common with any of those things. They no longer care for them or understand them or want to have anything to do with them.

You're trying to understand them on your own framework. You see, you'd like to make people well and you'd like to make them feel better and that sort of thing. And, of course, psychiatry is not understandable upon these basics. It's just not an understandable subject, then, because the basics by which it's being understood are incomprehensible.

Now, on a fantastically minor scale, some auditor isn't doing a good job because he just totally misunderstands what he should be doing as the auditor. Well, he doesn't have to have a very esoteric understanding of it. He doesn't have to be very informed as to what he is doing, but his misunderstanding will be so wild as to sometimes just make you feel like you've been snatched baldheaded. You’ll say, "What? Not really!" See?

I'm trying to straighten out this person's mind. I'm trying to straighten out this person's thinkingness. And therefore, the things they think, I’ve got to correct. Now, the only way you can straighten anything out is to correct it, isn't it? And the only way to correct anything is to change it, isn't it? So therefore, in order to change the pc you've got to correct the pc. So therefore, you have to tell the pc something different every time the pc says something." Of course, you're going to find far more idiotic responses to this in some kind of a co - audit than you’ll ever find in any group of studying auditors. And there, it will become so ridiculous as to be fantastic.

But you can bet your bottom dollar that if you do not understand what is going on in a session that you won't be able to handle that session and at the bottom of all error is misunderstanding. That's not said on a think basis.

Some fellow's car, you know - this is an old problem of ours, is why does somebody's car go enmest? Why does this guy's car fall apart, and why does that bird's car stay together? And why does one cook turn out good pie and another cook who has twice the intelligence always turn out lousy pie? See, what are these vast differences?

Well on the subject addressed, the person doing it has adequate understanding to the task.

See? This fellow's car that isn't going enmest, the best way of expressing it or a good translatable way of expressing it, is just to say, "Well, he understands cars." See?

This fellow who makes the good pie, well, he just understands pie, that's all. You'd find out that would follow through and be true. Now, this fellow who makes bad pie, you ask him about pie. And by golly, you're going to find out he doesn't understand pie.

You put him on a meter and ask him - now, this is the meter question that compares with this - you put him on the meter and you ask him what he disagrees with about pie. And you can run it down, pull it as a Prepcheck chain and after that you've severed his individuation channel, see. I mean, he's ceased to be - go this cycle of individuation on the subject of pie. All of a sudden he can understand pie and he can make one.

There is the whole subject of recovered abilities. There's how you recover any ability which you once had. You just restore your understanding of it. How do you restore your understanding of it? Well, it's unfortunately a very negative thing. You delete your disagreements with it. And if you can take your disagreements out with it, your understanding of it will restore. Then you can study it. You can look it over and familiarize yourself with it. And you can do it.

Well, in this lecture I’ve taken up some of the bugbears of an Instructor.

There are many ways you could go about the subject of instruction. But I think if you go too long and try to instruct too long without taking to heart the principles which I’ve just given you, I think you will come a cropper in a large percentage of cases. And they're the ones that’ll break your heart.

A person can’t audit - they don't understand what they're supposed to be doing. Why don't they understand what they're supposed to be doing. Because they disagree with certain things that they are doing.

If you wanted to follow it back down on an instruction - auditing back - check basis, pick up the disagreements. They could then familiarize themselves with what they are doing and then they could audit. Doesn't matter what their goal is - you'd still get by it.

Okay? All right.

Thank you and good night.