Yes?

Well, here we are, coming down the homestretch. I have purposely not peered over your shoulders very hard in this Unit — seeing how you'd make out all by yourselves, to some degree. And I think it's been rather successful.

Male voice: Say, on that problem — test — think it was last congress, you were studying about how the problem disappears in the mest universe when the problem of comparable magnitude to this particular problem is really flattened. Have you gained any new data on this subject?

This is what? February the 13 ...

Yes. Yes. Sufficient that I have now a series of about four cases where the problem folded up in the mest universe when a problem of comparable magnitude was run on it. And they were done with malice aforethought.

Audience: Yes.

Male voice: Uh-huh.

. . . AD 8. And our immediate discussion today will be other processes. Other processes.

Malice aforethought. In one case, the file even got lost. Somebody was in trouble and ran Problem of Comparable Magnitude to this circumstance and ran it and ran it and ran it and ran it, and he was at last only intellectually curious about the experiment we were doing. He tried to go locate the file, and it was no longer in existence. I mean, it just went poof. I don't know what happened. It's quite an amazing, amazing phenomenon.

Now, it's quite a remarkable thing to have a package of processes which attain a certain state of case. Several things of sweeping importance have occurred here in the last very short period of time with my search. One of the first of these was to discover a goal and definition which permitted one to attain some halfway point. A goal and definition of Operating Thetan permitted Clear to be reached rather easily.

Male voice: Have you, in working with this particular thing, have you noticed any, really, disappearance of mest — something like "Invent a problem of comparable magnitude to a dog" or something like that and have the dog (snap) disappear?

Now, this was the largest single jump. That was a major breakthrough. But there were other breakthroughs of almost as great an importance. These things started to happen fast, and as they started to happen the material rolled itself up into a nice big fait accompli.

No. This file's the closest we've got to it. And that can always be explained by a bum clerk. Right.

Now, one of these was this — an answer to this problem: the unwilling preclear. Now, this was also answered earlier by CCH 1 — "Give me that hand" and so forth. But not to this extent. A much better answer came up to the unwilling preclear.

I just — I have another experiment. Let me tell you about this experiment — may I, just one moment?

At the same time, the exact answer to the "destroy anybody who is good in the society" came up with it. That was quite important to us — much more important on the third dynamic, present time, than you realize.

Audience: Yes.

When Bum Business Bureaus, the I Will Arise Political Society, when the Afghan Psychiatric Association and — these organizations come around and start cuffing an activity such as has been conducted here for eight years, you're looking at a sick society. Because somebody tries to give somebody a hand or to find out what it's all about so people can live better lives, they slap you around. Oh, no thank you! They must be a lot of screaming idiots.

This experiment was already on the docket, and it was an opportunity to make it ahead of schedule. Somebody came in, a man, he was dreadfully upset. He was a professional auditor once upon a time, HCA, non-validated. He was terribly upset. His marriage was going to pieces and everything was going to the devil. And I just turned him loose with Help. I gave him the sheet, Part 2, HGC Procedure of February 6, 1958. And I handed him that sheet and I said, "Well, just wipe up your tears, there, and go home and run this thing. That's all."

When the power of the press is degenerated to "How many lies can we tell and how much trouble can we make?" once more we're looking at a sick society.

His wife was spinning. He went home. He ran it. His wife promptly got a good night's sleep. He flattened it off pretty well the next day and squared it around. He didn't understand about flows; he overran some of the flows too long in one direction, knocked her anaten. And this was the only question he had about it.

And to be truthful with you, it is not safe to push theta into it unless you know the exact route. Hence you've seen me going rather softly and quietly here for the last six, seven years. My motto with regard to things was: "Keep the peace." Let's get — let's keep the show going here and keep the peace, and see if we can't make this mountain without a tremendous number of boulders being turned loose on us.

Here was a man in a terribly disturbed condition of mind auditing somebody who was quite antipathetic to his auditing, and he got away with it. And that was on the docket, to find some and see if they could. Quite amazing. I think we've got "maritalosis" whipped. That's one of our more serious diseases.

Now, that paid off. That paid off as a policy. It was a policy which actually originated in the fall of 1950. "The subject will go as far as it works" was the summation of it. It will not go as far as it has good organizations, it will not go as far as it has aesthetic publications, it will not go as far as this and as far as that; it will merely go as far as it works.

Yes?

In order to make it work the support of a great many people was necessary. And that support was gratifyingly present all during those years. And I thank those people very much for that, because it would not have been possible otherwise, at all.

Male voice: What would be a good process or series of processes to use on retarded child, age five, to bring the child up to par?

The idea of advancing theta into the society has gathered to itself many legends. Not to classify our activity with the Christian legend, but nevertheless to point it out as probably the most powerful and sweeping example: Somebody came along and he healed a lot of people, and they killed him. Well, it's an odd thing that the church itself has kept that to the forefront, and the largest Christian organization has carefully kept a crucifix with a naked man nailed on it in front of the public gaze ever since. An interesting thing. Interesting thing. It was a solid sort of truth, wasn't it?

The first process in any event would be a communication-line, communication-type of process. This would be a touch process of some kind or another whereby, perhaps, you would touch the child in various places and say, "Feel my fingers," or something like that. It's an assist-type process. Quite amazing, but it creates a communication line.

Now, this particular culture at this time is especially dangerous in this regard. America, as I have said before, is obsessed with hero-killing. Anybody who has tried to help this country sweepingly over a period of time, has gotten his throat cut. That is an enviably bad record — it's a horribly bad record.

CCH 1 has been found to work in this particular regard, with the session well opened and so forth.

England doesn't have too many good points along this line either. But she hasn't been as sweepingly uniform as America.

Help has not yet been tried.

Knowing all these things, I knew that sooner or later for any one of you to do anything in any community where you worked, it was necessary to have a straight arrow; anything with a via on it would not work because it'd let the other fellow draw a deep breath so that he could spit poison at you. You understand?

But the same processes that you would run on an injured person or a person who was pretty anaten would be run on a retarded child. They are not very awake. And you have to actually wake them up.

This, actually, was the circumstance on the third dynamic. And I'm not dramatizing — as a matter of fact I'm underplaying it. It's an understatement, if anything. But you needed something which went straight to the heart of man. And it went there so quick that nobody would be able to bark back without instantly "demising." You get the idea? It didn't only have to be a technique, it had to be a weapon. And it'd have to be so straight on the exact intention that the backflow on the line would be minimized.

But the age five is really not old enough to run a repetitive-type command and expect an answer with. Their attention span is very, very poor. And for that reason I have not tested clearing procedures at that age yet. I intend to, however.

In other words, a key-in of an engram is always only an approximation of the engram. The engram itself happening all over again, often enough, would eventually make a person totally familiar with these circumstances. But something which is only similar as a circumstance, each time tends to stack up a series of engrams. Do you see that? In other words, you cannot have a via.

Does that answer the question?

The answer to the mind, then, on a broad third dynamic approach had to be the answer to the mind, didn't it? Horribly factual. Terribly blunt. And brutally incisive. And you have that answer with the dichotomy destroy-help; the cycle of action, create, survive, destroy, on an apparency. But that is not the cycle of action. The real cycle of action and the one that really works is, create, create-create-create, no create. And destroy is an alter-isness.

Male voice: Thank you.

Now, destroy has another side to the coin. It has help. Where help fails, destroy ensues. You get one or the other, horribly enough.

You bet.

And what I was talking to you about early in the course — worship, deification and so forth — is actually a lower harmonic of help. How could you help God? You could worship him. How could you help Mother? Deify her.

Yes?

Unfortunately, there must have been some overwhelming occurring around there before deification set in. You see that? So we had to have somebody able to walk up through these awes, superstitions, deifications, as well as his desires of sweeping and impressive destruction, in order to get him out where he could stand in the sun.

Female voice: I'd like to know what kind of procedure to use on a man who's been — something — stammering and stuttering practically all his life.

Well, the answer to the third dynamic, the answer to dissemination, the answer to basic processing all occurred at the same time. And this was one of the more seven-league boot strides that I've been able to make.

He's been what, psycho?

Now, look. Never before with any great certainty could we take a preclear without his prior consent and accomplish any result with which he would be satisfied. We could do it now and then. We could talk him into it. It took some work, though, on vias.

Female voice: Stuttering or stammering, I don't know just which you would call. . .

You have a process now. Just grab a fellow by the nape of the neck, make him sit down, run him. Open the session just because you've been trained to do so, not because he'll agree to it. And that button is Help. He can't escape from running it because here's what you're doing.

Stuttering and stammering — a very interesting type . . .

Now, we used to run the reverse side of this, and this was the closest approach we had to it. "Why don't you want to be audited?" Do you remember that one? You got the guy to explain why he didn't want to be audited. In other words, you were actually getting him to as-is some help. All right.

Female voice: He's married and he has children, but. . .

You have a society which has been lied to by the drug companies, butchered by the medicos, dismayed by the psychiatrists, and it "knows" that there's no remedy, there's no cure. As a matter of fact, you read the Bum Business Bureau publications, the AMA publications, so forth; you'll find out that it's a criminal offense to pretend to cure some things. Well, that's fantastic for anybody to lay this many railroad ties across the rails to progress. It's quite interesting. It's as much as saying, "Well, at no time must you ever research on the basis that a cure may exist for such things as cancer and arthritis and some other things."

All right.

Of course, this doesn't apply to the drug companies. Their branch office down here, the Pure Food and Drug Administration, makes sure that they're kept solvent. They can advertise cures, no matter how specious.

Female voice: . . . he's able to work.

But to handle this situation of a preclear who would rather be anywhere else, to audit him and make him like it, is in your grasp today. It's the Help button. You haven't realized it to the extent you will.

Let me answer it this way: I've always answered this thing the same way. This is a pretty stable datum with this. We have found that a communication inhibition, such as sight, speech, anesthetic touch — you know, they couldn't feel anything they touched — these types of communication breaks or cuts are the last to surrender. And they are, as far as a person is concerned, symptomatic of much more sweeping difficulties. And one never starts to walk in on this case with the communication break in mind, or he will always fail. It's quite interesting. He's just asking for failure. If he tries to clear a person who is stammering by aiming at stammering, he is aiming at the wrong target.

One of these days you're going to see this old flub that's been running around and giving you a bad time, arguing with you — one of your wife's relations or one of your husband's distant relatives or something of the sort — sneering at you. And you tried to tell him what you were doing, you know? You tried to explain this to him a time or two, and he said, "Nyaah," so forth. And you'll all of a sudden take the bit in your teeth and push him in the chest and get him in a chair, and you'll say — any part of the bracket that seems to work. Get him talking about it until you get some point of the bracket where he has a reality on help.

Now, he actually should aim at something much more fundamental, which would be the basic end of the Reality Scale. He should work this case up from a very, very low level, well suspecting that the realities of the case and the certainties of the case were extremely poor.

You could even open a session with this one: "I understand that you do not think it's a good thing to help people." Vicious, isn't it? He can't stand up to a direct arrow. He could stand up to a via.

And you would audit this case just about the way you would audit the same case George was asking about — a retarded child of five.

Here's a via: "I understand that you think there's no remedies for certain illnesses." Oh, he can fight like mad on that one. But not on Help. You can say all sorts of things — all sorts of things. "Is it true that never in your life, have you ever — you've never helped anyone? Is that true? Oh, well, they're wrong about you — you have helped someone? Well, how would you go about helping someone? What would you — what could you do, for instance, to help another man?" He's in-session!

Female voice: I thought so.

Now, the funny part of it is that there are instances on records where psychos have spoken of help and have broken out of their psychosis by being asked to help. Just that.

That answer it?

Now, there are also instances on record of them breaking out of psychosis and so forth on many other things. And the psychiatric profession has filled the books full of records where everybody "got well" the moment you shot them with 110 volts between the ears. Knowing what we do about cause and effects, we can doubt that.

Female voice: Yes.

So, it isn't that this is well backed up in the field of insanity and as far as I know it's never been tested with a Scientology-type approach in the field of insanity. But I'd think it would be one of the first things you would think about if you were trying to handle an insane person — how you would handle this Help button.

All right.

Well, if it works in these levels and if its opposite side is Destroy, then you can anticipate this sort of a reaction on the third dynamic: that violent, and to many people incomprehensible, reaction will occasionally take place in your direction because you say you are helping people. Violent reaction with this beautiful dividend: Nobody will be able to understand that much violence. It's just as you pull off a wolf skin and find a werewolf underneath it, so this Help button unmasks the reaction to help.

Yes?

This is quite important. And we get this type of possible approach in the dissemination of Scientology: We now have something that is safe to disseminate because it kicks out the liability of dissemination. So we can talk. And one of the books which will be published in the very new — near future will be called, "Help One Another." In other words, on the third dynamic you put this button right in their teeth, somewhat in this wise. Now, this is a very casual rundown and I won't try to read it like a radio announcer. But here's just the text rapidly written here of a radio advertisement:

Male voice: This has some application to what my auditor is doing at the moment. As far as I'm aware, it is an intellectual question, but I'll tell you that so you can answer it or not. If you're running a person on Help, nine-way bracket, and it's quite sticky and you find one or two individuals on which the Help bracket is stuck pretty damn tight, would you feel it would be faster to more or less stick to those individuals and get them loosened up ?

"Scientology helps people help one another. An activity, a family or a government which does not take into account the spiritual part of life cannot but fail. Loud words and large weapons have never solved a problem wholly nor made a nation great. The poor, the stupid, the afraid alike need help. The way of a strong man is to help his less fortunate fellows. The essence of all spiritual life is to assist those too weak to help themselves. Scientology helps people to help one another. This is the message of all prophets in all ages: Help one another. It is a formula for life that cannot fail. It is the message of Scientology.

Good. Let's sort this out with regard to a present time problem.

"Books on Scientology can be bought atbookstore."

Male voice: Okay.

(applause)

Now, if this person has a couple of people in the environment who are being present time problems and actually have him a little distracted from the session, they will distract him from running Help.

Thank you.

Male voice: Okay.

Now, I would say that that was a machine-gun approach, wouldn't you?

And they should probably be the first targets of Help.

Very well. Very well. Now, I say that we have hit several very interesting and important points of Scientology here just recently. We've made major breakthroughs in the processes and techniques we have used. These major breakthroughs are quite apparent. They are very spectacular. And I will tell you the other side of this now. They do not in any way wipe out anything that we have known. And if I wished to tell you anything, I certainly want to tell you that.

Male voice: Okay.

We have gone on and on to higher and higher echelons of knowledge. What you know today very easily makes understandable much that was known yesterday. An elucidation of what we used to know is much easier today. But what we used to know is true, too.

That answer it?

And very often you will find somebody unable to reach, all at one swift flight, the high points that you know are the high points. And the funny part of it is, you'll have to start him in, in the cellar. And you may very well find, sometime in the future, somebody having to climb these stairs just as we have climbed them, in order to eventually know his subject.

Male voice: Yes.

I can see now, in a few years, somebody getting a brilliant idea: that a study of Scientology should be undertaken over a period of eight years. For sure the student would arrive; he'd arrive with an enormous amount of understanding which he would never otherwise have. The mind is more or less stacked up on its entrance to the labyrinth, and the labyrinth itself, on this same course that we have traveled.

Good.

We were tremendously well along the way, let us say, in 1952, 1951. You listen to some of those tapes now, you say, "For heaven's sakes, we knew all this then." Oh no, we didn't! No, we didn't! No, we didn't. But we sure knew an awful lot then. And the things which couldn't be done then can't be done now. Particularly the negatives are true. The things that we could not do then we cannot do now. We had so many cannots, however, that they themselves made a labyrinth in which one could get easily lost. There were lots of cannots.

Yes?

Today we have swept these aside to a large degree with the communication formula and the TRs. And these TRs, as we see it today, are very simple things. Oh wow! The vast enturbulent sea of wrongnesses in which each one of these stable data in the TRs sits is much larger than the TRs. There are so many wrong ways to audit, it would be almost impossible to catalog them.

Male voice: On the question of how Help is working out on mentally retarded people, a case that is running at the moment, a twenty-year old, mental age four, hemiplegic spastic epileptic: Sit That Body in That Chair produced a desire to help. Just started running Help. The first reaction was that he pushed the window out of the room — out of the room.

Therefore, it is necessary to hold on to certain stable data in this subject and to continue on a certain plotted course until one can look around and coordinate all of the other things that are wrong, and then he'll understand why this certain plotted course is right.

He pushed a what?

But unless you gave a student the opportunity to look around and find that there was something else in the world beyond this certain plotted course, and let him understand that this certain plotted course was right simply because other things were wrong in the attainment of the goal, you would have a very weak, wobbly, poorly informed student.

Male voice: Kicked a window out.

Furthermore, a great many processes and techniques have enormous validity. So much so that an HCA/HPA Course today does not teach people clearing. We feel that would be a mistake — a thorough mistake. You could make a technician. You could teach him the drills indifferently and give him the formula of clearing, but don't — don't think that an HCA or HPA would ever be a professional auditor if he only knew clearing.

Oh no.

Therefore, the basic professional certificate has this very definite requirement: that an individual know his TRs thoroughly, know his theory, know his publications and know the six different types of process there are. Because we never know when one of them is going to pop up and become very useful.

Male voice: Frame and all.

What are these six types of processes?

Yes. This is an interesting thing, isn't it? A ...

Well, this is not a lecture on HPA and HCA. You'll find them on the wall of the Academy in Washington and in London. There are six different things or approaches. Like an Objective Process. Like a Creative Process. Like a Thinkingness Process. You see?

Male voice: She'll be reporting on that.

He must be taught these various categories. He must be taught the parts of man. And I would say it'd be a pretty sad professional auditor who had never run an engram. So there are various things — there are various things here which would have to be known basically.

Good. Well, the psychosomatic case is normally — hits several violent destroy strata in running Help. But it's been my experience they came right back into session. Did he?

Similarly, because you know a high road is no reason you cannot occasionally walk in a valley. There are other things to do with a preclear than use these exact processes you have been taught here — many other things to do.

Male voice: Well, I haven't heard yet. She was upset because the window got kicked in, I know.

Supposing you took the Expanded GITA list in Scientology 8-8008 and item by item had the individual waste and desire these items. Don't you think you'd make a change in a case which would be quite interesting?

All right. Thank you.

Well, I'll give you an example of a process. Do you know that you can watch a clerk at work in an office and spot exactly what he's trying to waste? Listen, he's always trying to waste something! And it will be the main fault that is found with him by his boss, although his boss will never quite have noticed it. Perhaps the thing he's trying to waste is quite significant, but he will be trying to waste it.

Yes?

The driver driving on the highway is trying to waste something. The housewife cooking over the stove is trying to waste something. And you watch them and it becomes rather amusing after you've been with this for a little while to spot exactly what they're trying to get rid of. It's very apparent. Very amusing.

Female voice: I have a question about problems. Suppose you ran somebody on a problem that didn't concern him — I wonder what would happen to that problem. Like you got a guy who'd never been to Omaha city, and suppose they were having government trouble there.

I have watched a file clerk talking to the file clerk's boss — just watched the file clerk at work — and found that the file clerk was trying to waste names. It's an interesting thing for a file clerk to be wasting, isn't it? But it's probably why the person could only be a file clerk, which is most striking. The person was attracted to the position by this great opportunity to waste names and identities. I watched this file clerk at work and he was doing several different things, all of which added up to wasting of names. It was quite a little puzzle and an amusing little contest on my part to see if I couldn't find him out.

I think this is a very interesting thing.

So I said to his boss after I had this spotted, I said, "What do you do about the files that turn up missing?"

Female voice: If you ran a problem of comparable magnitude to that, he might eventually begin to see this was a problem enough to run it.

"Oh, god," he says, "it's just horrible," and on and on. And all of a sudden he looked at me and he said, "How did you know?"

Naturally a person higher on the scale wouldn't consider it a problem to him — or lower on the scale — wouldn't consider it a problem to him. You'd have to be sure that this fellow really didn't consider this a problem. He might merely be in apathy about it, which time he would walk up to the level of problem.

One of the symptoms: The person could never remember anybody's name including his own. Had a miscellaneous file — he chucked all names he didn't quite know how they were spelled. Pretty wild. Pretty wild.

But an individual, let us say, to whom that would not in any event be a problem, running it might very well — because a thetan, higher he goes up the scale the more effective he is — might very well knock it out much faster.

So I said to this file clerk (before I left I cornered him) and I said, "Can you get the idea of wasting a name?"

Maybe we ought to find somebody to whom the atom bomb is no problem at all.

"Oh yes," he says, "oh yes. Yes."

Female voice: That's what I was getting at. I wasn't worried about the pc. I was concerned about. . .

I said, "Well, good. Now, waste a name. Waste a name." No auditing session, you know? Just "Waste a name. Go on."

That's very good. Female voice: . . . whether this would in fact help the city.

"Well, it's so-and-so and so-and-so."

Yeah, that's good. That's a very good question. I'll have to make a note of that, try something on it.

"Well, go on, tell me another way you could waste a name. Go on."

Yes?

"So-and-so and so-and-so."

Female voice: Well, along the same line, I thought — I had two women whom I processed who were separated from their husbands. And there was no influence. And when I ran the husbands off of them, the husbands, completely separated, completely changed.

And I left. Ruined the man's game. He quit a couple days later.

That's right.

Isn't this fascinating?

Female voice: You see that?

Now, here's a technique and an observation that doesn't seem to quite fit within the perimeter of clearing. Well, as a matter of fact, you bypass things like this in clearing. You bypass them. Clearing in its processes takes care of these things somewhat automatically.

Right. This is a weird one.

But there's a tremendously interesting segment of spiritual, mental behavior. No reason to forget about it. In fact, there's no reason to forget anything in Scientology 8-8008. It's probably our most compact, scientific work.

Female voice: Mm-hm.

But let's look — let's look at another technique. Another technique. Another process: Problem of Comparable Magnitude.

This is a weird one. If it gets much worse, we'll have to buy Buddha's "oneness of all," won't we? (laughter)

Now, one of you asked me the other day, "What is this mechanism of problem closure? What is this mechanism of problem closure?"

Yes?

I tossed off the question because it actually answers mechanically on "Mock it up and keep it from going away" — you actually undo problem closure. The mechanism is this: As a person solves problems, they tend to close with him. This is the explanation for that very, very baffling Freudian mechanism of healing somebody and getting his illness. We cure somebody's headache, we find we have a headache. Now, that is problem closure. We solved his problem and it closes.

Female voice: What kind of process would you use to help a person handle time?

Now, the funny part of it is, it closes solution by solution, which is quite interesting.

Time. Dianetics 1955: Make Some Time. However time, in the final analysis, is havingness. Time and havingness go close together. And as a person runs out of havingness, he runs out of time, which is quite interesting. The whole society dramatizes this until we consider it the natural thing. We just don't think it's a problem, we think it's natural.

Now, almost anybody who has a problem can give you a geographical location for the problem if you ask him. Let's say just that morning — as I was, yesterday afternoon, threatened with arrest and being thrown in jail for offering my services and pretending to be a registered engineer of Washington, DC. I don't know what it's all about. Neither does the people who complained. Our public relations man evidently wrote a radio ad or something of the sort, and said in it that I was an engineer. There's nothing wrong with saying I'm an engineer, I don't care how many district laws they've got. But one of the members of the board, evidently, driving to work, heard this description of me and promptly wrote me a mad-dog letter — the fact that it was a five-hundred-dollar fine and a year in jail to represent yourself as a registered engineer.

You should beware of these things that are so "natural" because they actually are problems that have sunk into subapathy. An individual, let us say, has to have a great many things in order to do something so that he can get some money quick enough to pay his debts before everything he's got is taken away from him. Now, that is routine in this society. And Havingness all by itself, just a Trio, run for seventy-five hours on a case that is not in very good shape, finished off with the case reporting on time for work every morning thereafter for the last two and a half years. And the case has not been late. And the case never before was able to get to work. The only thing that was run on the case was Trio. See, there's the coordination between havingness and time.

Well, of course, he wouldn't stand a prayer. He couldn't prosecute this for a moment because you'd have to prove that I had advertised it. You would have to prove that I wasn't an engineer. Now, that would take some doing. And you would have to prove that there was an intention there to offer services in engineering.

But as you move somebody upstairs, if you wanted to just take over this particular button, you'd ask him to make some time. I've had a preclear say — never answer the auditing question for two hours, hour and a half, just not even answer the question; give all sorts of oddities and got rather annoyed with me after a while because I kept saying, "Now, I will repeat the auditing question, 'Make some time.' "

Well, we're straightening him out and getting him un-mad-dogged, and then I'm going to write him and ask him to pass another law in the district that heads of churches will never be permitted to offer their services as engineers!

I said, "I'll repeat the auditing command, 'Make some time.' "

There's just some nutty people out there, that's all you can say. You see? Nutty people. All right.

And the individual said, "Well, to make some time I could walk over and wiggle the window shade. That'd make some motion, and we'd have the apparency of some time made." And he'd smile smirkingly.

Now, let's say this was run as a problem — just give you a problem out of the hat here. The preclear on whom it was run (not me) would have said it was over there somewhere. See? He'd have a place it was.

And I'd say, "I'll repeat the auditing command, 'Make some time.' " About a half an hour deep he woke up to the fact that I was repeating it. I wasn't giving him a new question.

Now, if you said to him, "Give me a solution to that problem."

He said, "What's the matter with you?" Said, "I'm answering this question every time. I'm telling you how I could go about it."

And he said, "Well, I could write my congressman."

And I just kept it up. "I'll repeat the auditing command, 'Make some time.' "

You'd say, "Now, where is the problem?" And he would give you another, nearer, location.

And the individual says, "Well, I could fly around the room somehow or another, and we could do something or other, and that would make some time."

And then you said, "All right. Solve that problem again."

I'd say, "I'll repeat the auditing command, 'Make some time' " — no acknowledgments anywhere along the line.

And he would say, "Well, the Potomac River could be totally concreted over, and I could get the credit for it, and then they'd have to admit I was an engineer."

An hour and a half, we finally had to knock off, but we arrived. The individual had a tremendous cognition. He said, "Well, I'm not answering the auditing command. I am not making time. Now, let's see, make some time . . ." So he says — and waved his hand up and down.

You'd say, "Where is the problem now?"

I said, "Thank you! End of session."

It's closer, and it still has a geographical location.

Yes?

And now on a final solution that he would give you, the problem would go thunk!

Male voice: A question on time. Does the solution appear with the problem, ahead of it, or can you have it either way?

You'd say, "Well, it's gone somewhere."

The solution to the problem of time appears immediately and exactly with the thetan. Because he is making time. It's in his present.

It certainly has. It's collapsed on him. All right.

Male voice: I was thinking about problems and solutions to problems.

Now, let's reverse it. Let's use our therapeutic version here. You say, "Give me a problem of comparable magnitude to being threatened with arrest because you were practicing as an engineer when you weren't," or any such thing. "A problem of comparable magnitude to that letter you received." Any way you want to word it. We don't care how.

Yes, that's right. It will actually go up the track, back down the track. It goes into the past, it goes into the future. Any process which is directly processing time moves all over the place, but eventually winds up exactly parallel with the thetan because he finds out that he himself is never moving in time.

And he'd give you a problem of comparable magnitude. Didn't matter how ridiculous or disassociated it was.

Male voice: I didn't say it right. It's — do the problem and the solution occur simultaneously?

And you'd say, "Where is the problem now?"

They would have to, wouldn't they?

And he'd point right out here in front of his face and say, "It's right there."

Male voice: That's my opinion.

You'd say, "Good. Give me another problem of comparable magnitude to that."

Yes.

He'd dream one up one way or the other. Proper command is "Invent a problem of comparable magnitude." And he'd give you another problem of comparable magnitude. He'd say, "Well, all the dogs in Washington, DC, screaming like mad, and my being arrested because I stepped on their tails," or something like that.

Yes?

And you'd say, "Where is the problem now?"

Male voice: Wondering if you could give an estimate of the total amount of auditing hours that have been done in the last eight years on Dianetics and Scientology processes.

And he'd say, "Well, it's out here about a yard."

I wouldn't even be — I wouldn't even make a guess. You mean by all auditors everywhere?

And with problem of comparable magnitude after problem of comparable magnitude that thing would go out, out, out, out, out, phoof, phoof, phoof, phoof.

Male voice: Mm-hm.

Now, if it goes out far enough, oddly enough, you say, "Give me a solution to it. Give me a solution to it. Give me a solution to it. Give me a solution to it," and it doesn't appear again.

Oh, I don't know. I suppose it's easily in terms of the millions and millions. It must be.

Obviously, the proper process is "Invent a problem of comparable magnitude to that problem." Right? That gets rid of it.

Male voice: It's something of havingness, isn't it?

Very valuable. Very often this, worked on a present time problem, is tremendously efficacious. And if "Tell me some part of that problem you could be responsible for" fails, you've got Problems of Comparable Magnitude. And it might very well fail, by reason of havingness, by reason of problem closure. Problem of Comparable Magnitude is longer. The "part of it you could be responsible for" is just a quick brush-off. And if you don't get away with it, you don't.

Hm?

And remember, auditing is something . . . Auditing is auditing if you get away with it. Auditing is that with which you get away. Any way you want to define it, it's the result that counts. It isn't how you held the pinkie on your left hand, it's what you did with the preclear that counts. Very often you overshoot, and in tremendous desperation you chew him up and spit him out. Well, you didn't get away with that.

Male voice: Something of havingness for all isn't it?

Scientology in its key processes now could be described as a method of getting away with auditing. All right.

Oh, yeah. It's way upstairs. Goodness.

Here's this Problem of Comparable Magnitude. All by itself it does all kinds of things. It'll blow valences, it'll move ridges. It's quite an amazing process. Funny part of it is, Help at first glance seems to violate this if you say that every time he answered "How could another person help you?" he was solving something. Do you see that? See, apparently you'd get problem closure there, wouldn't you? Apparently these things would be solutions.

Yes?

Actually they aren't. And they don't work out that way very often. But beware. An individual could very well get down this track and run into the problem closure mechanism. And you'd be sitting there with your hands in your pockets wondering what the score was.

Male voice: I'd like to know if clearing — just mechanical fact of clearing would handle postulates and decisions? Or would you have to do something else?

You say — the individual is feeling worse and worse, and his chest is getting very sore. "I must have done something wrong." No, you didn't do anything wrong. The fellow just didn't have the right pitch on the process. He was doing something else and he had a specific problem, and usually a present time problem, which he was not talking about, you know? And when he started solving Help, he was thinking all the time about a PT problem that was worrying him, and it closed in on him. It wasn't much of any other thing that closed in on him but a PT problem. And a fellow always could have some minor PT problem, an auditor could miss on the thing.

No. The exact processes you're running, the last process of which is simply Mock Up Something and Make It a Little More Solid, has a tendency to just null out, and the individual moves up, then, into postulates. He's already found that he could do it in session; he's already found all the mechanics of it, but he goes on a wobbly course of actually doing it in life. And it sometimes takes him weeks to unwind this thing.

Don't get baffled, then, when the fellow's field gets blacker and blacker and thicker and thicker and inkier and inkier the more you run Help. You simply have not properly cleaned up a PT problem before you embarked on it.

And he sometimes will drop back down to agreement because he says it's too complicated. And he'll drop back down to agreement, and he'll go along for a week or so and he'll say, "Well, this is a silly thing to be doing — use all these other old shopworn postulates. I can make postulates." And he eventually gets used to it. And his familiarity with it is necessary before you can make a pronunciamento on the subject. Okay, does that answer the question?

Well, all right. How about this fellow you're going to audit under duress?

Male voice: Yes.

You grab him by the nape of the neck, you put him — sit him in the chair and you start talking about help. You broaden the session out into Help Processes. He isn't sufficiently under control to run a problem of comparable magnitude on. He does have one, it walks in, it glues itself to his chest and so forth. Well, after the intensive is over and so forth, straighten it out. That's the answer to it.

All right.

You overestimate consistently the value of discomfort and its importance — always overestimate it. Now, that isn't a bloody-minded remark. There isn't a person here who isn't too careful about hurting somebody else. And all it is, is a diffidence about communication. And a horrible conceit on your part that you can split his brain asunder with a single, solemn glance. It's a very conceited attitude, having to be very careful in handling somebody.

Yes?

You know that in training new auditors, a very good Instructor gets them over this early and thoroughly. And if you're auditing somebody, that's one thing; if you're training him, that's something else. These are two different things. They're not substitutes for each other, by the way. Training will not clear. We put it to test and it didn't come through.

Male voice: I'd like a stable datum on just what the dividing line is between the desirability of invalidating and evaluating a trainee in a training drill, and not evaluating or invalidating a preclear.

We also found that an auditor is always senior to a Clear, which is interesting. If an individual wants to be cleared, let him be audited; if he wants to be trained, let him be trained. And if you're training him, then you train him. Don't be diffident about it.

There is an Instructor's Code. And we have found that the only way that you can be effective in instruction is doing almost exactly reverse the Auditor's Code. And we had trouble with Instructors in Dianetics and Scientology consistently until we wrote up the Instructor's Code. And they were all being auditors, and they were afraid to evaluate for, they were afraid to invalidate.

The iron constitution of the wits is greater than you think. It's much harder to drive a person stark, staring mad than you believe. As a matter of fact, it's very hard to make a person worse. Some people manage it, but it's very hard to do. It's very hard to do. What a person can stand up to, how much abuse he can take without worsening, is something you should understand. That doesn't give you a wide-open invitation to be technically incorrect, to use bum communication and do all the rest of it. But it does tell you that you worry too much about doing so. Be as perfect as possible and communicate as straightly as you can. And don't be diffident with the pc.

Now, just earlier I told you, the direct line — you get the idea — the aggressiveness, actually put the person you're teaching, as well as the person you're processing, directly into the sphere. Well, you cannot put a preclear into the sphere with invalidation, evaluation, but you can a student.

The earliest method of getting a person used to handling somebody else's mind was done with Self Analysis — the old ARC Straightwire in the back of it. And we would give this person who was being trained to be an auditor this little page, and we would have him read it to some other person. You know, read a line and then see . . . And we told him to do this (I see that there's one or two here that's been trained with that process earlier) — told him to do this. Now see if the fellow blows up or anything. He found out he could actually ask him questions about the mind or that influenced the mind in some way, and the person could answer them and no horrible results occurred. It was quite an interesting little exercise.

Male voice: What makes the difference?

Now, that's merely a gradient scale of approach. Well, the point is, I don't want you to hang up in training people or in handling preclears, either one, on the basis of carefulness or on the feeling of absolute obsessive necessity that you must always do always your very peak, top, rightest, best. Some people don't deserve it! (laughter)

The difference is exactly what the goal is — what the person is trying to do or trying to be. You have the preclear pared down to a third dynamic, don't you? And the individual to that degree is rather inverted, introverted, he's a little bit fogged out, he's not quite as alert, ordinarily, as he would be in the walkabout world. You're actually training on the third dynamic — you're training well up on the third dynamic. And as a result, the individual is expected to be alert, he's supposed to be on his toes and he himself is learning to handle certain things.

But you'll get into as much trouble with auditing as you are protective, interruptive, flinching. The more you save a preclear, the more you'll probably kill him. You say, "Well, I shouldn't be too overt about this person. I'll sort of audit from back here someplace, and I won't speak very loud to him and maybe he'll live through it."

And we found out that an Instructor had to be gotten over his unwillingness to evaluate, his unwillingness to invalidate, before he was a good Instructor. It's quite a trick for an auditor to be both an Instructor — have one beingness for an Instructor, another beingness as an auditor. But this is rather necessary.

I assure you he has far more chance of dying when you have that attitude than if you say, "I said (pounding) go back to birth!" (laughter) You know, you could still say, "Goddamn it, come up to present time! (pounding)" That attitude much better fits into the framework of auditing, I assure you, than "I don't know whether I ought to do that or not because I might hurt him."

Now, funny part of it is, is as he is trying to handle this and as he's still having a little difficulty with it, and he's still being diffident, he will evaluate and invalidate more savagely than when he gets into good handling of it. And he goes on up through such a stage up to a point of where his help factor is very high and where he can say, "I have never seen anyone quite as clubfooted in an auditing session as you were today," and it helps this auditor audit his preclear. It's his intention to help that answers this. We find the best way to help a student is overwhelmp him. The best way to help a preclear is to set him free. It just works that way. There actually isn't any more reason to it than that.

Please, you're handling something that's indestructible — a thetan. Be overt, be aggressive, be forward toward a preclear. He likes it much better. He says, "Somebody's in control of the session, I can relax."

But the question is, do you make a student into an auditor? And the question is, do you make a preclear into a Clear? It's the way you make the pudding. And it's almost a trial-and-error proposition.

What's his level of acceptance of somebody in control of something? Happiest ship I ever saw had a raving madman on the bridge. The guy's idea of a calm conversation was a high 1.5 scream. It was quite interesting. It was quite interesting. He was not even reasonable. It was a very happy ship. They sure knew who was captain! There was no doubt about it any day of the week. Actually, the man was not unfair. But I didn't even think he was fair, either. It was just the fact that he was a certainty.

You'll find, however, that you can most err on being diffident and keeping the Auditor's Code with a student. You keep an Auditor's Code with a student, and he'll get out of your class and he won't know what he's doing. He has to know what makes you excited, then he can evaluate the importance.

A certainty was better than a reasonability, which is the only point I'm trying to bring across to you. Any day of the week, a certainty is better than a reasonability.

Who hasn't asked a question here for a while? Yes?

A communication is better than a diffidence.

Female voice: Is there any other way of auditing a baby besides this one, reach and withdraw from objects?

Now, you'll find in running Help that it becomes flat when the person goes into communication. We're running a girl who is pregnant. The girl is asked this question: "How could you help an unborn baby?"

Oh yes. The golden rule about auditing a baby is to give him something to do that he can do, and "Lie in that crib. Thank you," that sort of thing, don't you know?

And the girl says, "Well, I could — I could not throw myself down in chairs."

Female voice: Yeah, but he can't understand the words.

You say, "Good. How could you help an unborn baby?"

Give him a win — I beg your pardon!

"I could not throw myself onto the bed."

Now, here's somebody that's got a wonderful experience coming. It's everyone's assumption — I never jump on anybody for not knowing — but it's a wonderful assumption to say a little baby cannot understand you. As long as you make that assumption, they won't. But the very funny part of it is that most of them have just gotten through a life of being erudite, and they're tired of it. And they'll fake it as long as they can. But if you talk to them as though they understand you, they very rapidly do.

"Good. Fine. How could you help an unborn baby?"

That's been one of the more interesting experiences that every auditor has had in handling children, in handling babies and so forth. What can the baby understand? Well, the baby can understand almost anything.

"Well, I could stop drinking."

It's like Diana. She's a little bit angry with us because we haven't sent her to school. And her I'm-supposed-to runs that at five she should go to school.

"Good. How could you help an unborn baby?"

Now, the main difficulty is here that she thinks, evidently, that she ought to be learning something. So she is now going around being very forthright about it, and she'll hand you box tops and labels, and she'll say, "Read this." And you read it and it says, "Royal Crescent Turkish Delight" — a candy box top, you know? And she'll look at this.

The person would probably hit a comm lag about that point. "Well, I could eat the right food."

I said to her the other day, I said, "Do you know, you put up a wonderful mock-up of not knowing how to read." I said, "You're really doing well at it. Congratulations." I said, "It's the nicest job I've seen in a long time."

Now, get the difference of these replies. One is a withhold, withhold, not communicate, not communicate. Don't you see? It's a not. It's a not-reach. Person must be having trouble with the baby if she's not reaching. Right? All right.

She looked at me rather oddly. Of course, I can't say anything wrong to her. Oddly enough I can yell at her and she just smiles. She knows that we're having a good time. The most terrific trust level, see?

But we finally get the person to embrace this baby into the perimeter of reality. And it's "I could eat the right food," "I could see to it that I have enough rest," "I could choose the right hospital." You know? Here we have communication, communication, communication.

Well, she went and thought this over and this morning, why, was busy reading a paragraph to me out of the newspaper.

Well that, ordinarily, if you're not auditing with an E-Meter, is a fine rule of thumb: no more restrained communication.

Here's the point, you see? It's what you consider is their communication potential. And if you consider a baby's communication potential is zero, it's liable to remain so. But the truth of the matter is, he knows how to talk.

Now, similarly with you — similarly, just on a training basis, not an auditing basis because there's something wrong with your case or something of the sort — you should recognize this: that as long as you feel terribly restrained toward a preclear, you're not communicating with him. As long as you have to not do a lot of things in order to get the preclear to go along well, then you're not communicating with him.

Now, you could theoretically get a child who has only spoken Asiatic tongues who now picks up a white mock-up, he'd probably have a rough time. He'd have a rough time learning if — we might not have this child talking until he's three or four years old. And then he'll really start to gear up on it.

Oddly enough, the preclear senses this and taxes you with some more not-doingnesses, until these become almost insurmountable. They become numbered in the billions. The more diffident you are, the more diffidence you breed — the more diffidence you'll breed in the preclear.

But that's an experience you're going to have.

If you want to get auditing done, you go right about it and get it done. You go right on and get it done, that's it! You have to cause it. A Clear is something you make. It is not a co-prosperity fear of co-agreement.

Female voice: Thank you.

It's quite amazing. I mean, a lot of auditors sit there and they say, "Well, let's see, definition of auditing: I agree I'm auditing him, he agrees I'm auditing him — fine. And we both agree and we agree and we agree. And we agree and we agree and we agree."

Okay.

And we look in vain for anybody there to say, "The postulate is now made that a Clear will occur."

Yes?

No, I'm afraid that an auditor, in order to make the grade on it, is most successful when he abruptly and intimately addresses the problem and is at cause on that end of the line.

Male voice: I just want to say in answer to the question about how many hours have been spent in auditing, I recall when you were up in Ireland one night we worked it out as, I think it was eight thousand hours a month. I don't think it was a week. That's what it averaged out at, over the last. . .

I have seen auditors get very, very worried when they produced an effect of some kind on a preclear. The effect you want to produce on a preclear is to put the preclear at cause with regard to the rest of the universe, excepting you.

Must have been.

Now, why you want him at cause with regard to you, I wouldn't know. That looks like that's too high a reward. That looks like too high a pay. Why should he be at cause with regard to you? He's a lucky boy: you're auditing him.

Male voice: . . . well, it would be over the last eight years, now. About eight thousand hours a month, it was.

Now, similarly with processes. We have a tremendous number of processes stretched back over the track. Many of these processes were good; many of them were lined up to special things. Let's take a specific for a nervous stomach. Six times around in the walls: "You put the thought into that wall, 'This means go to . . .'" and so forth. Six times around. And then, "This means don't go to . . ." and, "This means stay in . . ." and, "This means don't stay in . . ." and so forth. Running those things around with a preclear furnishing the location each time is a specific for a terror stomach.

That would be a very definite minimum.

Unless you get a strange terror stomach that is an after-the-fact stomach. The after-the-fact stomach has turned up, oddly enough. And the one I just gave you isn't a specific for it. No. The stomach in the first place is saying something is going to happen. The specific is, "This means go to . . ." "This means don't go to . . ." "This means stay in . . ." "This — stay . . ."

There have been more preclears in processing and more hours of Dianetic auditing delivered as such — I figured this out in '53 — in the three years immediately prior to that, than there had been handed out by psychoanalysis or psychiatry or both. So it's high.

No, there's another kind of terror stomach evidently, and it is an after-the-fact. It says something has happened — just exactly the reverse. Evidently the specific for that, if you want to just audit it as such, would be something like, "This means you've been to . . ." "This means you haven't been to . . ." It'd have to be after the fact. "This means this has happened." Preclear furnishes the event.

We're the people in the world who have been processing people. Other people have been talking about it.

There's putting fear in the walls; putting various emotions in the walls. Interesting sort of process. Tremendous number of these things. Why omit them from a repertoire? You'll find that they're bad or good.

Yes?

Now, oddly enough, Havingness all by itself is something that you should always use, in any version. It answers many difficulties. Preclear feels low in havingness. All right, run some Havingness. Havingness answers almost any problem and, oddly enough, will run out problems and solves this problem closure mechanism. You ask this fellow to have this and have that, he's actually promoting an inflow toward himself, so therefore the problem mechanism will go off.

Female voice: I'd like to know if you can run a present time problem with a terminal by running Help. If it would work as well as Problem of Comparable Magnitude.

You've solved the problem up until it's about knocked off your own nose, then look around and find something you could have, and you'll find the problem unclosing, which is quite an interesting factor.

Yes, I've run an experiment on this, and I find that the processes which handle a PT problem in the mest universe, however, are in this order:

And in addition to that, you have good old 8-C. Lord knows how many things 8-C will do, how many things it does do. Quite amazing.

One, limited process: some part of it that the person could be responsible for.

For unconscious people you have CCH 1.

Two, Problem of Comparable Magnitude.

You also have TR 5 in all of its versions. "You make that body lie in that bed. Thank you." People respond to that, particularly if you take them by the hand while they're lying there in a state of coma they've been in for seven weeks, everybody despairing of their living. You bring them back to life.

Three, Invent Something Worse Than and Problem of Comparable Magnitude.

And so there are many processes. And we have not thrown these processes away. We haven't superseded them. We do have a highly specialized series of processes. These processes are just as specialized toward their goal as any other process would be toward its goal.

And then Help.

The reason why the processes which you're using here and have used in the 19th were so specialized is because you were going toward Operating Thetan with them and arriving toward the state of Clear or at the state of Clear with them, you see? Highly specialized. It happens quite incidentally that they also, then, must be senior to all other processes and undo them to some degree. Yeah, that follows. But it's totally accidental.

They go up in this line when it's a — when it was a real present time problem which is present out here in the physical universe.

If you thought you shouldn't know Waterloo Station (fantastic process, Waterloo Station), if you thought you shouldn't know just the old-time Creative Processes, just learning to mock something up — you find out he can't mock up a nurse he had while he was sick. You're not clearing the fellow, you understand — I mean, you're just giving him an assist or something. You find out that he can finally mock up a shoelace that belonged to the nurse, and he can mock up two shoelaces, and he can mock up finally two shoes, and two shoes and some stockings. And (that's where his eyes were most of the time anyhow; they're most of the facsimile) — and you have him mock up a uniform cap and some hair and so forth, and he can eventually mock up the nurse and all of a sudden, the nurse's valence no longer bothers him. Fascinating, isn't it?

Female voice: Mm-hm.

That which you can create you don't have to have. That's the rule.

Now, I couldn't even tell you at this moment exactly why it falls into this as a test pattern. But it does.

Now, let's take the whole subject of professions.

Female voice: How about if it's a chronic problem, something that's in sort of a wise . . .

You're trying to clear this fellow; you can't get anywhere. It just seems to be terribly resistive. He just doesn't seem to get anyplace. It would be in the zone of a present time problem. And the likeliest place to look for a present time problem . . . See, it doesn't violate the rules that you have right now for Clear. It says clear PT problem; then it says clear Help. There's no reason to clear Help if you haven't cleared the present time problem. And this present time problem you didn't suspect or you didn't linger on long enough and this case is hanging up like mad.

Well, understand, I am sure that Help will run on this. But a chronic problem has already been tested, and it was only chronic problems that were tested to give these results I've just given you.

You would suspect that it was in the field of his profession and that is the common denominator of it. It must be, now, in the field of his profession. That would be your principal hang-up. You would run the tools of the trade.

Female voice: Thank you.

With what? Well, the most fruitful one is a problem of comparable magnitude, if it's really resistant. But if you just want to knock it off lightly, it'd be, "What part of that tool could you be responsible for?"

You bet.

Now, let us say that an individual is a painter. Then obviously it's brushes, paint pots and painting canvases, isn't it? It also would be dealers and exhibitors and buyers, wouldn't it? So you'd take all the bits of his profession and the types of people he's associated with, and you could handle all of those. And you could just knock his present time profession to flinders. You'll find out it has him so worried, his case cannot advance, which is quite amazing.

Male voice: Is that the order you'd use them in, Ron?

A machinist, that's obvious. The type of machine he would use, the type of tools he would use, the type of foreman or boss, the type of building he would work in. All of these things are problems of comparable magnitude, too.

That's the order of attack, yes. Yes, definitely. That's the order you would use them in. This first one is quite limited. And if it didn't produce a satisfactory result in a short time, I'd get off of it and I'd go on to Problem of Comparable Magnitude. And if that didn't get it, why, I'd say, "Boy this is really something!" And I'd start him inventing things worse than that. And I would undercut the whole thing and take over the automaticity of the dwindling spiral — get in ahead of it before he sank out of sight. And then run Problems of Comparable Magnitude. And that would take care of it. I don't know that it — it wouldn't survive any longer than that.

We get a teller in a bank. Obviously, problem of comparable magnitude: money, wire cage, cash drawers, assistant cashiers, tellers, other tellers, managers and particularly vice presidents. And you'd run all of these things — Problems of Comparable Magnitude.

And then to finish it off, so that there was no liability connected with it at all, you would run Help. And if you were to run a fifth process on the same thing, it would be the first process: "What part of that problem could you be responsible for?" And you would come right back to the beginning.

But you'd have to be smart, wouldn't you? You'd have to be quite clever in order to spot the fact that this individual did have a profession, and in present time he was having difficulty. And although he said he didn't have a present time problem, obviously he seemed to be very difficult to audit. And you'd have to be clever enough to understand, then, that it was up to you to select out the PT problem. And I'll clue you — the easiest way to do it is to look somewhere in the vicinity of his profession and get this problem going.

Yes?

Now, the odd part of it is the first responsibility you may be able to get him to assume is by running a PT problem. And he assumes a responsibility, and his case will go forward from there.

Male voice: You mentioned the other day about setting up a clinic. I just wondered if you'd staff it with HCAs or graduate students?

There are many things to know about auditing. Don't think you will ever make an auditor who simply utters a magic word with a red cape around his shoulders and zooms off to the moon. It's a product of hard work. Application of auditing is done with intelligence. It's done with skill, with the auditor aggressively at cause. And his tools are all the processes we have.

What's this, a ...

Thank you.

Male voice: A Scientology clinic. I just wondered . . .

Where?

Male voice: Oh, you just mentioned that if someone did, in passing.

Audience: Missions. In the field.

Oh, it'd be perfectly safe to staff it with HCAs today. And you just won't find that many graduate students. They're quite rare.

The HCA who's going through school today is quite able when he finishes up. We have a lot of little private jokes about that. We had a pc who was going through the HGC and who was being hand-petted through the HGC, nice as you please. You should understand, the HGC has been considerably crippled because of this ACC, see? Some of its people are down here. And this person didn't have the best auditor in the world but had a very passable auditor.

Well, this auditor couldn't get this fellow Clear within the length of time, and it was very upsetting to this auditor. And everybody in the HGC figured out that this fellow must be in much worse shape still than he had been. We turned him over to the Academy, and he'd gotten a student intensive from a raw student who had only been there about three weeks. And the student cleared him. The guy is Clear today. And the Academy is laughing at the HGC now like mad.

Of course, what happened is the HGC set him up, but the student ran it off. But it makes awfully good telling the other way.

You understand that an HCA in the future will have a very thorough earned HAS before he goes into HCA. And then he studies in HCA, training drills. And then he studies the types of processes. And he yet is not specialized in them at all. And he comes out of there, then, a technician and a theoretician.

Now, if he was to go — if he were to go to HAA, or something like that, he would be taught how to clear people. But then you could teach him now, certainly after this course, how to clear people.

Male voice: Yeah. Now, did I understand you to say that before a person is allowed onto the HCA Course sometime in the future, he'll have to have an HAS?

That's — you said it. Mm-hm.

Male voice: Thank you.

Yes?

Male voice: When we're auditing in the field, is there any way of determining when we've got a preclear to a point on Clear Procedure where he will just go on and flatten out to Clear?

Oh, yes. If he answers the various requisites which are part of the HCO Bulletin of a couple, three days ago . . .

Male voice: Yeah.

... a week ago — if he answers up to those requisites, you can count on the fact that a lot of his time in the next two or three weeks, all by himself, will be drifting out of it. You see, you didn't solve his life or give him back all of his things. He will — in any event, even if he passed all the tests — will drift higher than he is.

Male voice: Mm-hm. Would there be a point where you could say, "Well, now I've got him halfway or three-quarters of the way, he will now flatten out"?

Yes, there is a point when he can make things not go away, hold still and be more solid in mock-ups by postulate alone. And you can let him cruise out at that point. He's not confirmed and so forth, and you will have to pick him up again somewhere along the line and check him up. But that is the point up from which he will drift. But I don't know how long it would take him to drift up from that very, very minimum point.

Male voice: Gives me an idea. Thank you.

But that's the minimum point, for sure. Well, all right.

Tomorrow is the last lecture. Saturday is the last day. And I don't even think Saturday's an official course day, is it?

Male voice: No, it's just testing.

But you'll take your tests. And then there is a Clear questionnaire sheet that'll be handed out, and it'll have to be filled. And then I will — I have a Clear check sheet and I will check those out in the afternoon that want to be checked out on this.

Male voice: What time?

Oh, that will be in the afternoon after you've finished up your ... It will certainly be after one o'clock — yeah, Saturday. But — up in my office. It doesn't take very long.

There are and will be this co-auditing, professional co-auditing that we're trying to get squared away here. And any of you, of course, are welcome to continue co-auditing here after the course officially ends if you wish to do so.

I think that there are some here that could stand a little bit more. And you may wish to do this in the same atmosphere, rather than to get wracked around and go someplace else and do something else.

Also, HGC schedule is pretty crowded, but some professional auditing is, of course, available from the HGC at your professional rates if you want to do it up the quick way, without paying for it with any auditing.

HGC staff, of course, goes back together again after this ACC. ACCs are always ruinous to the HGC. Always. See? Take some of its people away and throw the administration haywire and so forth.

For some reason or other we normally have more preclears during an ACC.

Okay. Yes?

Male voice: Are you going to repeat this ACC or any of the data on it, in London?

Highly probable. Later at the end of summer, perhaps.

The 20th ACC, by the way, has an advance enrollment of one hundred and five people.

Audience: Wow! (whistles)

The news has gotten around!

Audience: (various responses, laughter)

Male voice: Anybody from Chicago in it?

Oh yeah.

Pretty wild, huh?

Audience: Yeah!

Because usually — usually not more than half of an ACC pre-enrolls, and that, two months before. And this is what? Six months before, almost. Five months ahead of the time, and a hundred and five pre-enrollments. Therefore, I would say that there's some possibility of having an ACC that's almost as big as a congress.

Audience: (various responses)

Pretty wild, isn't it?

Yes?

Male voice: What are you going to do, hire a hall?

We don't even have this building.

Male voice: No?

What we will do with that is in the lap of the gods.

Audience: (laughter)

Yes?

Male voice: Ron, in the normal run of events field auditors do not get HCO Bulletins, but since a lot of the graduates of this ACC, for example myself, people I can think of who are a little outlying, will be spending quite a lot of their time clearing up field auditors — clearing field auditors — would it be possible for us to receive HCO Bulletins concerning Clear Procedure, since we've got most of the understanding of it?

Well I think that you can receive HCO Bulletins on this in terms of compilations. That's what I am doing right now.

Male voice: Mm-hm.

They are available in any event at the HCO.

Male voice: Got a few of those ?

Second male voice: No, Ron. You can't get those . . .

Pretty hard to pry them out, huh? Well I can promise you compilations. Rapid, rapid compilations.

Now, one of the things is these — the notes you're taking, for instance. There will be a set of notes compiled and sold on these lectures which are just past. There will be that already because this is a fairly broad subject that we have just embraced. And what I have given you is pretty snap-up-to-PT and it will probably continue so for quite a while. For instance, the 20th ACC will probably run on the exact pattern of this ACC. Probably almost the exact thing. Their technique or procedure will probably be better, to some slight degree, from what we've learned from this one. But that's always the case.

But I wouldn't say there'd be all that difference that there was between, for instance . . . The 18th, you know, was a training ACC, and people who went through the 18th learned how to train. They learned how to validate. And it's very possible that we may alternate ACCs — a training ACC, a processing ACC — one, two, one, two, something on this order.

Now, I am trying to get together some system of compilation whereby these materials will be readily and easily available. Now, I can't tell you exactly what that system will consist of because the communication lines will only stand so much. But I think some arrangement could be made to give you these materials rather easily.

Male voice: Okay, so we'll just sit tight on it and expect that something will come out.

Yes. It certainly will be done.

I'll tell you, the secret of success is the subject of the next — of an article in the next Ability magazine, and this might interest you, "The Secret of Success." A lot of people believe that the way to be a success is to grab hold of some materials and sit on them. Well, they act that way. Somebody has some tapes and he wants somebody to come in and hear them, and he says, "Well, that'll be two hundred dollars apiece." You know? I mean, something on this order.

Now, the truth of the matter is that this doesn't pay — doesn't pay. It doesn't work out that because you have the materials you will necessarily triumph unless you hand them out. The secret of success, then, is passing them along. And the more and faster you can pass them along, why, the more successful you are. Now, this has proven to be the case over a long period of time.

For instance, almost anything that was really known about Dianetic auditing was included in Book One. Some people, a year later, read Book One and said we hadn't covered it at all during the year. In other words, there were a lot of things in Book One that were in advance of what we were teaching. And that was quite interesting. But as long as we just handed processes out and everything out, just wholesale, you see, auditors had preclears, the Foundation was jammed and so forth.

After a while people started to sit on materials and hold them down, and the whole parade slowed down.

The secret of success is: Pass it along. Fortunately, as I was telling you earlier in the lecture, it is possible to pass them along now without getting your block knocked off by the AMA or somebody.

Thank you very much.