This is a - evening prep course lecture here at the HASI, and the whole lecture I'm going to give you is an overt act to you. Everything I'm going to tell you is actually an overt act against you. I want you to get that plainly and clearly, you understand. The reason I am saying these things right now is totally, entirely and completely to do you in.

The material which we're covering in this prep course is interesting material, very interesting material. It is a great oddity that man would be liable to so much in the way of quirk or oddity. The fact of his overt actmotivator opinions, the actual attempt on the part of the body to achieve, evidently, as many motivators as possible, the attitude of puzzlement on the part of a thetan, wondering just why this body doesn't get along so well, how the thetan has been rather blanked out concerning the actual attitude of the body, makes a picture of complexity, if not perplexity.

Everything I am saying has malice behind it, no matter how kindly it is actually put. There's a certain malignancy in the propaganda itself that I'm about to give you.

Here we have people trying to get a job done, trying to get around and straighten up things and live a good life, and all that sort of thing, and they're using a robot which is obsessed. The human body is a biological robot. I hope you don't mind my taking that interesting attitude toward it. Nevertheless, its muscular-mechanical arrangements are not much different than those of an electronic doll, except that it is intensely destructible, and it is capable of a great deal of feeling, and it seems to be capable of independent thought and opinions.

Now, if you understand that thoroughly then this lecture won't upset you; but if you only halfway believe me when I tell you that, then I'm afraid the lecture will sit out in front of you and you'll have pictures of it. And if you believe that the whole thing is kindly meant, you'll remember it.

I know the last time I had anything to do with a robot, I said, "All right. Now, let's walk through this fire here," and the robot did. And its legs got warm, and they cooled off, and that was that.

So, we wouldn't want you to do anything like that, remembering this or something of the sort, and so, you just understand that this is entirely malignant, that every size part of it is malicious.

But the last time I said to a body, "All right. Now, you stand here, good and solid on this bridge, while we run in under the counter of this burning freighter," and the body said, "Aaahhhh, no, you don't!" And I said, "Yes, we do," you know, and it's - argument. So, we might say that the body is a biological robot capable of argument.

All right. And we got that now?

Now, in handling this, a thetan gets rather serious. He gets the idea, after a while, that this problem is serious. He's been trying to handle it for many, many generations. He's been miscuing and, he feels, misdirecting these biological robots, and he has found that the direction of them leaves a great deal to be desired.

Audience: Yes.

He doesn't know all there is to know about this. Nobody ever gave him an instruction book. He took one over at birth sometime or another, picked one up, and he looked in vain for an instruction book on how you ran this thing. And he was quite sure that it did not have any opinion or goal different than his own or the physical universe. He was quite sure of that. The goals of this thing were quite similar to his own, and they were quite similar to the physical universe; this he was sure of.

Got that real good? Fine.

And therefore, any error which he made was his fault. Any error which was made in his running of this biological robot became his fault. It didn't run right because somehow or another he wasn't good enough, or he wasn't bright enough. It was quite a puzzle to him.

It's just this one lecture, not what I always do. You know?

Now, we do not, must not and cannot assume that every thetan in this universe, or in any universe, is dedicated totally to the receiving of motivators. We must not assume that, because it's not true. He could align himself with this, he could get into this frame of mind, he could adjust his considerations this way, but he doesn't necessarily do so.

Now, for a very, very long time, a very long time, we have known about the overt act-motivator phenomena. We have even gotten very technical about it, and we have said that an unmotivated act against another was a DED, d-e-d, and that an act received in response to a DED was a DEDEX In other words, there were various kinds of overt act-motivator sequences.

And by and large, those thetans that you will run into and say hello to, in the largest majority, are not subscribing to anything like "I must pick up as many overt acts against myself as I can." They just aren't doing this, that's all.

Now, what do we mean exactly by a motivator? It means something one receives in the way of pain, punishment or duress which then, thereafter, permits him to execute the same pattern and design against another without being guilty.

They're saying, "I'd like to have a good time. I would like to know a few more people. I wonder what kind of a game we can make out of this," you know? "A lot of people need help. We'll help them." He's doing this, and he's doing that. And somehow or other, however, we find - at least on this planet, at this time - a great many who believe utterly that they're failing in some fashion and cannot exactly tell us how.

And an overt act, actually, is any action done against another. We use this sloppily too. We say also, "He is overt-act hungry." Well, that's just our pandering to people who don't know terminology. Actually, he's motivator hungry. In other words, he's done more to others than has been done to him, and therefore, he is left in a spot of being minus on the subject of motivators.

Nobody gave them an instruction book, you see? They took over this body, probably a Mark I barbarian-type, and juggled it around and tested out the levers and so forth, and it apparently worked. When they said, "Walk," it walked; when they said, "Stop," it stopped. When they said, "Eat," it ate. And you know, it worked all right; worked all right. But it kept going wrong somehow, you know. It just kept running off of the rails in some fashion. They would say, "All right. Now, this is a worthy cause. Attack that palisade you see here." And all of a sudden, it'd go collapse.

Well now, an overt act, for the purpose of this lecture and in Scientology, really means anything done to another, but because people understand an overt act is an overt act, we could say the individual wants overt acts done to him, see? He wants others to act against him. But we're going to use it in this wise: We're going to use the word motivator. He wants a motivator.

"I didn't tell it to go collapse, " the thetan says. "Now, what's the matter with it? There are plenty of bodies. They're being made all the time and so forth. And it seems to me that it'd be a better world to make another body into if we attacked this palisade and wiped this thing out. And so it gets nicked, so it gets clipped, so it gets knocked off. Well, it can always get another mock-up. This is not tough. This is not hard to do." And yet it didn't do that.

And, from here on in Scientology, the word motivator gets very, very technical: motivation for "separation from." A motivator would be an action received by an individual which thereafter permitted him to consider all obligations cancelled from that sort. You got that?

So, he says, "Well," (and this was his mistake) "the body is cowardly. It doesn't like to use itself as a backstop for cold steel. Well," it says, "therefore, I am driving this thing harder than its courage level will tolerate. So, the thing to do is just drive it a little less - high courage level, you know. Just let's not be quite so adventurous."

Quite important. We have changed the definition of motivator because the old definition is not factual. We weren't wrong, but we were not basic. And the basic reason, it turns out, why an individual wants or has to have these motivators is to permit him to then consider that he has had cancelled out for him any and all obligations which kept him connected to anyone or anything.

And having been a little bit less adventurous, then, in driving it, it said, "All right. Now, let's attack the boss's office," and the body goes, "N-a-a-a-a-a-h" collapse.

And so, we run in immediately into the splitting of universes, and we run into that mechanism most subscribed to by the body - that mechanism most subscribed to by the body, but usually unsuspected by the thetan. And we get the difference between a GE and a thetan. The GE's idea of a motivator is an action occurring to it, a body-genetic entity (merely meaning "a body") - an action happening to it which then permitted it to no longer consider binding any former ties to a certain sphere, activity or person. Got it?

The thetan says, "Oh, I guess we'll just have to lower its courage level a little bit. We just can't expect that much of this body. There's something wrong in the way I'm handling it. I'm probably mocking up on this switchboard the wrong combination. Something is odd here."

How does the body feel it could separate away from others? By receiving enough motivators. It's the motivation for separation. Got it?

And about this time, about this time - in any era, when he has dropped down below the point of "Soldier, attack the palisade" and then dropped down below the point of "Worker, attack the foreman and get a couple of grapotniks more pay" - when it's dropped down that low, why, the thetan begins to worry about himself, in any era. And we find him calling on the gods or doing strange and peculiar things - entering into unholy rights, such as going to the local spa and getting some chuckupnuk water or something to remedy this situation.

Now, the thetan gets into this because of his association with the body and expresses it most arduously under these circumstances, and you will see, at once, what I'm talking about and be able to get this thing turned right-side up, even though you've had it upside down for a long time.

And some of them even have gone so far as to dip into philosophy in order to discover something about this. And this, you could see, would be likely to happen in any condition where nobody had ever furnished an instruction book.

You'll think an overt act is bad, that a body doesn't want one. That isn't the case. A body is so motivator hungry that if you just sat and conceived everybody to be entirely motivator hungry for a while, probably the whole puzzle would come apart. It would explain or rationalize each and every part of life's activities. They seem to be inexplicable. That's because there's a basic lie.

You see, if you were trying to run a car without any instruction book and you'd never had any experience with another car, you'd be having some interesting experiences; but they wouldn't even compare to the experiences of handling a body. See, because the body had, evidently, another built-in mechanism which says, "I must have motivators. I must have things done wrong to me. I must be abused. I must be put in a position of sacrifice. I must be offered up to the gods in some way or another. I must have enough people mad at me so that 1, myself, can then continue to exist in a calm state. I must get killed in enough bizarre ways to make life justified" - all these peculiar things.

Everybody and anybody is apparently starved for good things to happen to him, and each action he takes, each and every action he takes, is apparently because he wants something good, and is actually because he's dying and is starved for something bad.

Here's a thetan running something, and as far as its reaction is concerned and all the reactive mechanisms in it are concerned, he believes that he must not tell it to walk through a live fire. And here is something that although it is protesting against walking through a live fire, it feels it absolutely must have a nice overt act, like a burn.

Horrible condemnation, but you'll understand this much better when I say this: Exteriorization and death are synonymous. Death is a sufficient motivator to permit exteriorization from a body. Now, just look at death that way: It's a sufficient motivator to permit exteriorization from the body. Right up to that moment, the individual felt himself so obligated to take care of that body and the other bodies associated with it and the environment in general, that he could not go off and leave it. He was bound there by contract, by agreement. His own high ethical level somewhere back on the track or at upper levels was such as to prevent him from breaking these ties, but death comes along and is a sufficient and adequate motivator to permit him to go off and do what he pleases.

Witness: It walks through the fire. Does its legs heat up? Even if they're not badly corroded or burned, the burn will hang on for a long time; the burn will stay there for a long time. You mean this biological machine is incapable, with its many capabilities, of healing up a burn rapidly, of building up a certain amount of skin area?

He is not permitted to forget the whole thing unless the whole thing has done enough to him to cause him to break his contract. The basic agreements of tie, then, are ARC of one sort or another; and the body's mechanism for separating these ties and breaking off these contracts, these agreements, this ARC with life, of forswearing all of its responsibility, is to receive enough motivators. And if it can receive enough motivators, it then feels that it can shove off and do what it pleases.

That's not true. It is capable of doing these things. It can heal itself. You mean to tell me that if it breaks a bone, that it can't put the bone back together again? Well, all right. You take a robot. A robot can't put the bone back together again, either - a metal robot.

The body feels this; the whole body is built more or less on this principle. And a thetan going along is only skating on the surface of this principle. He's skating so thinly on the surface of it that although he occasionally obeys it, he is not cognizant of it; he is not aware of it, but the body is aware of it.

But if you take a bent leg on a metallic robot and straighten it up and solder it in place, there is no aftereffect; but if you do that with a biological robot, there is an aftereffect. It now has something called a psychosomatic illness. It can't have another broken leg, so it keeps the old one. Get the idea?

And you have, then and there, the totality of the phenomenon known to Freud as the subconscious or unconscious mind. He was trying to account for this unconscious, this unknown, yet thinking reaction, which lay below the surface of knowledge of the individual, a thetan.

So, a thetan unaware of this, is - and believe me, you - right here in this generation, he was unaware of this. He's walking down the street one day, and he has a twinge. And he says, "What on earth is this?" And, "Well, I guess I've just been pushing this body too hard. It's my fault, again, in some fashion or another. I've been pushing the body too hard."

There was some rationale which a person couldn't quite grasp. There was a rationale of some sort which lay beyond the consciousness of the thetan which he couldn't quite grasp and, having grasped it, he couldn't quite credit. The body had gone along so long using only this mechanism of enough motivators to separate, that it had one method of exteriorization from any group or situation: Get some motivators. And if it got some motivators, it could leave; but if it didn't get any motivators, it couldn't leave. It was bound by contract, by agreement, by ARC, by responsibility.

And he's got another twinge. And he goes home, and he's got arthritis. And he calls in a doctor, and the doctor looks it over and says, "Well, this is caused by this or that or something or other, and we must put it in mudpacks or do something with it. And you must lay it up here for another two or three weeks, and you'll get over it."

So, we have the teenage child-give you some very practical examples of this-we have the teenage child demanding from Mother and Father a sufficient number of motivators. Mother and Father must do something to the teenage child. Actually, the teenage child wants to separate from the bosom of that family, wants to go out and get married, raise a family and go off on his own. But he can't do this unless somebody has been mean to him. Get the idea?

Maybe he does. But having gotten over that, he's out walking again - this time it's a bright, sunshiny day, not a rainy day like the other time - and he has a twinge. And nobody right here in our generation actually, positively knew that it was simply an old broken leg, you know. They didn't know that it was an old injury. There was a suspicion that it was an old injury.

So, he's got to accumulate, one way or the other, some motivators. So, he finds this or that wrong with his parents. They're doing this or that to him or her. And if the parents just went on being noble, the kid never would leave. So, a failure to grasp the situation gives us familial difficulties with children. The parents don't grasp this at all.

Freud, with his theory of trauma, was doing some mighty fine speculating, very, very fine speculating; but remember, he was speculating. It was an oddity that the medical profession accepted the theory of trauma, that some kind of a psychic trauma could occur, and it was an oddity that psychosomatic illness could arrive and be established without ever any slightest proof of source.

Actually, you could tailor up some customs which would match this reality and which would vanquish the actions of this - you can't call it an "unconscious mind," because it's not an unconscious mind; it's a totality of impulse on the part of a GE.

This is the wildest buy of this century, by the way. Nobody could prove, trace or do anything to actually demonstrate that such a thing as an arthritic swelling was traceable to mental causes. People suspected this, but they accepted this thing called "psychosomatic illness" without proof. We came along; we have the proof that there is such a thing as psychosomatic illness.

How does he get out of things? He gets motivators. He holds down the number of overt acts he does and accumulates motivators, and when he's got enough of them, he blows. Got the idea?

But we look a little bit further than that, as we're just now doing, and we discover that it isn't an accidental stimulus-response, unintentional thing. We discover this great oddity: that so far from the body being really victimized by the fact that the broken leg recurs - that's the original trauma, the broken leg, which recurs as arthritis - so far from this, is the fact that the body doesn't ever want to give up that lovely broken leg. You see?

So, he'll go out of communication. He won't talk to anybody. You see, that's reaching, and it might be an overt act. And he'll just sit there, quiet, you know, waiting for somebody to gouge him. Of course, he'll occasionally look with a certain way or quite by accident do a certain thing, all by accident, which will then cause somebody to give him a new motivator. And if he's got one, he can shove off.

There is actually, evidently, not just a stimulus-response mechanism here, but an actual desire on the part of a body (which, of course, goes through many inversions, and so forth) to continue to have a broken leg. We won't worry about the number of reasons it can have a broken leg or how it justifies this. We can immediately arrive at forty or fifty ways of justifying the body's state of mind concerning a broken leg. You see, we can really do that.

The preclear, who is eternally blowing the session, will conceive anything to be a motivator. This person has almost got enough to leave life, you know, almost got enough; and if they just see an auditor, a bad auditor preferred ...

We can say, "Well, a broken leg gets attention; it got sympathy. There were certain rewards for having a broken leg. The body didn't have to work; it could take it easy." We can do all these various justifications, and believe me, if you want to go over the whole list of them, there are probably fifty, sixty of them. They're good and solid, but they're only rationale. They are after this interesting fact: The body wanted a broken leg. The others are just "why a body wanted a broken leg," you understand. First and foremost, it wanted a broken leg.

You haven't started the session yet, you just walked into the auditing room, and you drop your handkerchief. And you start to pick it up again, and right away they're going to go. Incomprehensible. Worse than that, you're three minutes late for the session; they're five minutes late, but they know you were three minutes late. Get the idea? And they're going to blow.

So, here's a thetan, he decides that he'll have a good time. He'll have a couple of drinks of beer, and he'll go home now. And he takes his attention for one moment off this robot. He thinks he has its automatic pilot nicely set, you know. It's going to walk right on down the sidewalk. And he takes his attention off of it, and it steps off the curb and bumps into a truck.

Now, you, in your interest in the case or something like that, hold up and don't give an auditing command promptly, you give them a two-second comm lag or something like this before you give them the next command - they're off. They're already going to walk to the door, you know? What's happening here? They're looking for it.

And he says, "Isn't this careless of me." He's been taught, sort of, by the body to blame himself. The body never blames itself - never! Has never been known to blame itself about anything. It always has to blame the other guy. Doesn't operate like a thetan, then. Thetan can blame himself

Do you know - here's the great oddity, here's the great oddity: If you were to actually tell this person brutally something very harmful, you know, then they could leave with a clean conscience. They would at least be able to exteriorize from life - they see it.

He says, "Look what I did. I got careless." He doesn't even go so far as to say, "What a lousy automatic pilot this thing's got!"

But they would get out to the sidewalk, and they'd find they were still in a body - the body was still there, the body was still connected to this universe that it wasn't enough of an overt act. So, now they've got to go tell somebody a bunch of lies about you in order to at least get a general agreement on the part of the society that they have received one. Got it?

If you were to take your directional control off of a biological robot anywhere in London, outside of the house and so forth, you wouldn't have any biological robot left, that's all. It'd be gone - squash! All right.

Now, the thetan ordinarily isn't, as we say in the US, isn't "hep" to this. A thetan doesn't really know this is going on. He will obey it sometimes because it seems to be so much the thing, on a sort of a response mechanism, but he will not at once recognize what his body is doing. Therefore, he will find himself going into sudden little flurries of upset that he doesn't quite understand, and he'll find suddenly that he's said something or done something that has a whole roomful of people very upset with him.

Now, if you had, you might say, a metallic robot or some chemical robot walking along and you set it to walk in a straight line, it wouldn't get any other ideas; it'd just walk in a straight line. Maybe it'd strike an unevenness of ground which would tip it over, but you could have seen that in advance. You'd say, "Look, there's an unevenness of ground down there. I'll set this thing to walk a little bit shorter with the right leg than the left leg when it hits that unevenness, and it'll get over that," see? In other words, you could predict the course of this metallic robot.

How did this come about? And he'll say, "Well, it's not because I - it's because I - I'm not so good. It's because of this, because of that." He's just cut right straight across into one of these things. The body for a moment, or one of its entities, has suddenly made an expression or done a thing which says, "Please, please, come on. Give me some motivators," see?

Oh, you set up a biological robot to walk over this course: You're lost in the woods, so you set the automatic pilot. You say, "This thing must have some homing instinct or another; even pigeons do that," and you set it to walk home. The next thing you know, you notice some curious footprints. You say, "There's somebody else lost in the woods." A little bit later you notice another set, and then you say, "Good lord, they're mine!"

Everybody says, "Rrrhhh."

Well, this, of course, makes you wrong. So, it looks like the body has, as part of this thirst for a motivator, an obsession to make something else or somebody else wrong. It looks like this is just a straight-out built-in mechanism. It doesn't have a good automatic pilot, but it certainly has a good make-you-wrong mechanism.

Well, that's enough. See, then the fellow can leave the group, leave the party. How do you get out of a trap? You accumulate some motivators. People have got to be mean to you. That's the way you get out of a trap if you're a body. See this?

And when a thetan agrees too long and too hard with a body, he begins to pick this up too. He begins to look around for somebody else to blame. He gets tired of blaming himself; that was all he did for several generations, and now he's decided to blame something else for a change, he says. But he's actually learned the mechanism one way or the other, usually, from the body.

Well, that isn't really the way a thetan does it, but a thetan is overtly interested in reaching. He's overtly interested in looking at this, looking at that, reaching here, reaching there - in a mechanism which is covertly interested in being reached. Different thing, see: being reached by anybody and everybody - a mechanism which wants to withdraw. Thetan is reaching, body is withdrawing.

And when he does this, he's in too close in agreement with the body. And you, an auditor, come along and you start to process him. You say, "you" to him, and he thinks you're talking about and to him, a body. Got it?

And between these two actions you get a continual enturbulence between the thetan and the body. You get a miscomprehension. They're going in two opposite directions. At length, the thetan goes into apathy and he says, "All right, I won't reach anymore." He's just in total agreement with the body, see that? Just as easy as that. "Well, I won't reach anymore. I'll wait until they kick me out."

So, this condition of "I am a body," is a state of beingness attained by thetans who have failed for too many generations to understand or run a biological robot, and that's just the totality of it. He just failed too long, too often, so he adopts other means of rationale. He says, "I am a body. I will die." He just adopts the philosophy of this thing, because it has been a champion, as far as he's concerned.

And this is the preclear that you stand in front of him, and you say, "Be three feet back of your head." He can't. But I - in the field of research you're liable to do almost anything. I have done this; I have done this: I have said to a preclear, "Well, it's all right with me, of course, but if you stay in your head one second longer, I'm going to take this fist right here and I'm going to knock your silly head off." And the guy will be very sad about this and back three feet back of his head.

It was incomprehensible. Starting from a state of no instruction book, it arrives at a totality of bewilderment, as far as he's concerned. But the only bewildering factors in the mock-up - and I will put this very strongly to your attention: The only actually bewildering factors in it were, one, "Somebody else must be wrong; I can only receive injury."

Now, sometimes they try to kick themselves out of a situation by getting a picture of a motivator, see? They get a picture of one in front of them. And they say, "Well, that's good enough," only they can't quite convince themselves that it really was intended wholly for their destruction. "That was good enough," they say. "Look - look what - look what this person did to me. That's enough. I can shove off. I mean, I don't have to be responsible around here anymore. I can shove off, I guess, I hope."

Now, those two factors are completely bewildering to a thetan, because both of them say, "Don't get any job done, if you please. Don't get any job done." It says, "In order to correct the fortunes of Earth, we will have to attack Russia. Russia can be wrong; we can't be wrong. Therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to straighten out our own household; there is every reason to attack somebody else's household." Do you get the idea?

And they get obsessed on the subject, and they tell you all about how horrible this person was to them. They're trying to build it up - build it up, until at last they, themselves, are convinced through having convinced you, that they can now shove off from any situation or responsibility with regard to that.

Which is the very germs of war. "We must always straighten out way over here someplace or go way over thataway in order to get anything done, because they're wrong; we're never wrong."

Some people have never exteriorized from their families, although they have left. And as the years go along, they'll feel sadder and sadder about the whole thing. They're not living up to their obligation, you see. And then one fine day, out of nowhere, they will suddenly conceive all the horrible things their family has done to them. And they'll start to dream up things, or they'll start to kind of rake at them, you know? Scratch at them a little bit, you know? And there will be an awful uproar going, terrific uproar going on, that they didn't really start, because that is the condition of the motivator: They didn't start anything. There they were standing there, perfectly innocent, and all this happens.

Now, if a fellow has a number of factors sitting right in front of him which are rather easy to adjust, and he never takes a moment to adjust these factors, he's going to get into an interesting condition. He's going to run into the wrongness of somebody else, but he's going to be tripped by the wrongness which is in front of his own face and in his own house. You get the idea?

Well, that's the way a motivator must be and so they rig it up that way, and away they go. Now, just exactly why or how they can receive as many motivators as they do and still not be convinced is simply a matter of consideration. "How many motivators do you need?" is some kind of a process, untested, see.

It isn't necessarily true that he should correct everything that is wrong in his own house before he corrects somebody else. See, that's fallacy too. You can correct both of them at the same time. But don't become totally unaware of the fact that there might be some factors that need shifting around close to home.

You've known one human being that you - one morning, weren't feeling too good, and you walked into the dining room, or something like that, and you just didn't say anything. As a matter of fact, it was beyond your capabilities to have talked to anybody. And they look at you and suddenly say, "Well, if that's the way you feel about it!" and leave. Well, that's their consideration of how much motivator they need in order to leave the dining room.

With what wonderful aplomb can a nation adventure upon war, to correct some ideological eccentricity on the part of some other nation; itself, all the while, worshiping mud turtles. This is the kind of thing that a thetan will do, by the way, because there really isn't anything wrong with him, except maybe a little lack of understanding. Got the idea?

Now, you understand that a thetan falls into this. He falls into this only by example and stimulus-response and not by his understanding. His understanding is very hard to match up to this. Actually, you have to sit down and think for a long time before you get this thing entirely measured out, and then you'll never have it in the frame of reference of a body, because the body is just plain starved, and starvation isn't a thinking process. It begins with a consideration that one needs something. All right.

But a thetan is still capable of saying, "Boy, there's an awful lot of this machinery we're using right here that needs fixing, and it's a good game to go over and run into some of their machinery too." But that's the way a thetan would look at it. He could look at it rationally unless he's driven blindly by these impulses of "We're all perfect here, see, and therefore we're going to attack over there because over there is the only area that needs any straightening out," see? A thetan would be nuts if he did that, and a body is that crazy.

Now, how did it ever get in this condition? How did it ever get in this condition? If you took a highly ethical being and tried to trap him, what is the first condition necessary to the trap? Supposing he were not only highly ethical, supposing he were highly athletic and penetrative. Supposing this being could walk through anything, anywhere, at any time, be anywhere at any time, and you wanted to trap him. How on earth would you go about doing it?

It says, "I'm perfect. They're wrong." At the same time, it is saying, "I can only receive injury and be put upon. My total goal is to be put upon or to receive injury." It's utterly mad. It is not a logical sequence. And an understanding of that, of course, does make it a logical sequence.

There'd be one condition necessary to the execution of this design. Do you anticipate it?

You can always understand an illogic. And there's where the body could lose 100 percent: You can understand an illogic. You can understand that something thinks that kiddies' blocks and tank cars are identical.

Audience: Yes.

Now, you might at first protest against this, but you could say to yourself, "Well, I can understand how that thing believes that kiddies' blocks and tank cars are identical. I understand that it does so. It's not logical; it's illogical. It is stupid. But I can still see that it does so."

You'd have to get him to agree that he was under some sort of an obligation. No matter on what flimsy excuse, you would still have to get him to give his word, his contract, his bond, that he was under some sort of an obligation, see? This would be the first condition.

Therefore, you could say about your body, "I still understand that this body can never do anything like straightening itself out. It's always got to wrong or find wrong somebody or something else. Somebody and something else, you see, is the wrongness, and the only intention which the body can accept is, of course, injury to itself."

Now, because he gives this at a time when he is highly ethical, as he's punched around and thrown downscale, he doesn't ever change it, because he can't as-is it. He isn't at the same position of the Tone Scale, and it's always out of his reach.

You can understand these two things as a modus operandi, but it certainly doesn't run like a thetan, does it? It looks like a big overt act on the part of somebody who mocked them up, see? It looks like a nice swindle, it looks like a nice problem of some kind or another.

So, the way we would go about trapping a thetan or a livingness that we wanted thereafter to move along certain definite patterns, would be to make a bargain about obligation. We would claim this individual had responsibilities. We would claim he had certain debts to pay.

It's an interesting problem right there, if you want to look at it as a problem, is how come they got built this way? Because if you were a thetan building something and you wanted to play a good, solid practical joke on somebody, you are actually not above giving them a gimmick which makes their switchboard short out every thirty-sixth hour of its operation; you're no above doing that. It's a good gimmick to do something like that, but you don't expect it to go on like that forever.

Now, thereafter if the individual were highly ethical, he could not conceive himself to be absolved of these contracts since the contract maker suddenly becomes evaporated or unknown or unreachable, you see, and he would be left with this mechanism, then: The other person would have to break the contract. It would be up to somebody else.

You expect that sooner or later they're going to find out that their switchboard is shorting out every thirty-sixth hour and then, having found it out, will find out you did it, and then realize they've been had. Otherwise, there's no cream to the jest, you see? There's no reason to do anything unless somebody is going to discover it sooner or later.

But how would you ever get the contract really broken? How would you ever get it broken? The other person would have to break it, right? And that would have to be by pushing away, by doing something against, by saying, "We're no longer operating in the same frame of reference," that "We are some other being," you know, something else would have to occur. And out of all possible chances, evidently the one that the body has adopted is motivator: "You do enough things to me, and I am no longer held or bound by this contract; therefore, I can break the contract."

And I don't think that the biological robot's mechanism of motivator hunger was ever intended to be discovered. I don't think so, for the good reason that - I've been working on this problem for a quarter of a century, and during the last five years a lot of you good chaps have been working on this problem right along with me, too. And it wasn't until very recent - we even had the principle of the overt act-motivator sequence. We knew that if you did something to somebody, you expect it back. The body doesn't do that. It is simply motivator hungry. And to do an overt act is unthinkably horrible, see?

Death by violence, which can, to some degree, be traced immediately to an intent, is of course desirable over and above a nice quiet death where everybody is being very kind. If you really looked up and down the time track, you would find the individual stuck in incidents, situations, environments and places where everybody is being damned nice - the weak universes, the nondangerous spots. Got the idea? Because there's no motivators possible, and the individual will hang on to these pictures. Quite fascinating, quite fascinating.

Well now, maybe you could justify this, but only on the basis of complete distrust of every life form that ever lived. You could say therefore there is no such thing as an ethic or moral principle or factor anywhere in the world or anywhere in the universe. You could say that no life form is capable of an ethical act.

I used to run into all kinds of violent deaths when I was researching past track deaths. Oh, my, you talk about violent deaths, you just run into them by the ton. You can take an E-Meter, and you just turn them up: death by shooting, death by drowning, death by this, death by that, you know. And they're just endless, it seems. And so, you run them. You run them out, and you erase them, and you run them out, and you erase them, you just ... You say, "Well, this guy isn't changing. Where the devil is he stuck?" Well, he's stuck with everybody being nice.

If you believed that badly, you could rig up a mock-up to keep him in line, but listen, that mock-up wouldn't keep him in line. It'd make him a criminal. So, the goal of it isn't justified, either. So, we look in vain for a good reason for this condition to happen with regard to this biological mock-up.

One notable case was stuck in the last life as a miller somewhere in Europe. And he had about seven or eight kids and they were all standing around and they were all crying. And his wife was there and she was crying. And he was dying rather comfortably in a very, very comfortable bed.

If it were a practical joke, it would have been discovered a long time since. If it were done to make you moral, ethical and fall into line, there are just too many other ways of going about it which are rather practical. You don't put every doll you have out of action in order to have a well-arranged and obedient horde of dolls. You don't knock them all flat, you know.

And when we spotted this one, the E-Meter didn't jiggle. It was just stuck right there, straight up, nonbudging. He had no reason whatsoever to exteriorize from this situation. All right.

So, we could wander around at great length in the midst of a logical labyrinth of contradictions to say, "How did the body get this way?" We could say, "Well, it got hit and hit until it finally developed a thirst for being hit."

With this new understanding, running that same incident, what would I have done? I would have conceived that he didn't have enough reason to separate, and I would have had him mock up the bed, the wife, the children, each one, one after the other - mock them up, not run the original engram, see, so as not to upset his havingness. And we mock up each one of these things, each time, as totally constructed to do him in. Each one of it was born and raised and placed there with no other intent or motive of any character than to do him in, see. Total intention. And the whole incident would have blown, just as easy as this.

Oh, now wait a minute. That's fine. That's good. That's one of my explanations, real good; it's real sharp. I thought of it myself. But you'd have to have a patterned consideration in order to make that happen, you see? You'd have to consider that this was going to happen before the condition would happen. So again, it's not a logical sequence of events but is an expected sequence of events.

And we would not have forgotten the space or any shadows in the mockups. The space was made to do him in. The shadows were made to blind him or do him in. And we'd only have to get him, with his mock-ups, to get a conviction on each part of the scenery and every part of the scenery, selectively, and so forth, to blow him entirely out of the incident, swish. You never saw an incident disappear so fast in your life as one that is run in this fashion.

One would have to say, "This mock-up, after it's been hit so often, will develop a thirst for being hit." Ah, that's no good. You mean, the thing's going to develop such a thirst for being hit, it'll gradually vanish.

And what I'm telling you tonight is a solution across the boards for Dianetics and the running of engrams and also of an understanding of these strange motives that people have - you mean, strange motivator hungers they have, not strange motives they have. All right.

All right. Let's get over into something very new and very sharp and very practical -Axiom 55. Do you want to hear a little bit about Axiom 55, hm?

Now, let's look at this and realize that we're dealing with a nice scale, interesting scale, which at the bottom is solid - real life; and a little bit higher on the thing is mock-ups, pictures; and a little bit higher on the thing is problems. Problems are motivators - problems are the considerations of motivators. I'm sorry, but that's the way it runs. This isn't a theoretical stunt, this is just it. And just above that you have contracts, and just above that you have pure agreement.

Audience: Yeah.

In other words, proceed from the top: The thought "I agree" can be seen on this scale to become more and more solid; first, in the form of a complicated agreement, known as a contract; and then a little bit more, as a problem, which is a non-isable contract, you see? I mean, a good problem is one that just never solves. It's just - it's got lines in all directions. And just below this is the mock-up, you see, the solid. And just below that is the solid, real universe, which is the time agreement of us all. You see what that scale is?

All right. Axiom 55 could be stated with very scholarly words. It could probably be stated with great length and unctuousness. But the fact of the matter is, Axiom 55's sense is as follows: Any cycle of action is a consideration. Any cycle of action is a consideration. It's not an inevitability.

And the odd part of it is that almost any part of it runs, but for cases in general, you have to pay attention to it as a scale. So that you might be able to run it in mock-ups; you might be able to run it in mock-ups, or you might have to go down into real life, sort of thing. Or you could run it as problems, or above that you could run it as contracts, or above that just as plain agreements.

The cycle of action of this universe, which is create, survive, destroy, is a consideration and does not necessarily hold true, is not necessarily true for any part of this universe at any given instant, but is simply a consideration.

But of all these theoretical things, the oddity is this: that there are two parts of the scale, so far as Homo sapiens are concerned, and they run on almost any level you can conceive. And the first of these is mock-ups with intent to harm; each part of the mock-up has an intent to harm.

It's interesting because it wipes out what was to be Six Levels of Processing, Issue 6. Now, you're sitting here looking at Issue 7, you wonder what happened to Issue 6. I'm always doing that to somebody. But the goal and modus operandi of Issue 6 was stated; it was stated very clearly. It was stated in just so many words in a recent Operational Bulletin, which is circulated to HAS staffs from my office.

This causes a great deal of careful auditing. You must get every part of the mock-up the preclear made to have an intent to harm, see - every part that he made. You don't leave scraps and bits and pieces lying around, such as the space and the bedspread and the clothes and that sort of thing. The shadows, and so forth - you don't leave them, because they'll just stay there, on this system. See, they don't go away. You've got to take up each part of the mock-up.

You're not missing anything. It's mostly gossip and my general bad temper. I have to make everybody think I'm good tempered, you know, and a nice chap; but it gets to be a strain after a while, because I'm not, you know. And so, I at least issue these Operational Bulletins, with all these catty remarks and so forth that I dam up, to the staff.

You tell him to mock up something which would intentionally harm him, and he'll get all sorts of things, and the landscape and so forth, and all of a sudden the central figure will come out of the landscape. Now you've got to dispose of the rest of the landscape. You get how each part of it intended to harm him, too, and was created just to harm him and so on. All right.

And anyway, the Six Levels of Processing, Issue 6 was advertised in this Operational Bulletin to be something which put the stress on create so as to get the chap over to the earliest portion of the cycle of action. And that was fine. And so, I then proceeded to make a series of tests and investigations concerning the exact processes which would do this. And I found out they were just fine, and I found out they were all limited.

Now, whatever commands are used or how this is done, that is what you are doing. Get that? And when he has enough of these motivators mocked up and vanquished, as an auditor said it, this ought to be SOP Sschlup, because the way these mock-ups, when they're rigged in that fashion, go into the body is horrible to behold. I mean, they go in so fast, they are digested in its entirety so quickly, that they almost make it impossible to trace them, where they went.

And I said, "What is this?" see? Wow. They're just fine, and they're all limited. They run just so far, they improve just so far, and then they cave in. Why?

And your preclear, the first few of them, will say, "I wonder where that went." He doesn't even realize that it moved from out there to in there, see? The whole mock-up goes that fast. And it doesn't matter how much trouble your preclear has getting rid of mock-ups or how much difficulty he has making mock-ups, you can still do something of this with this process.

Looked it over closely and found out that the second you ran out the consideration or tampered or monkeyed up the consideration of "create, survive, destroy" by running "create, create, create," you were no longer taking the fellow to the first part of the curve; you might be taking him to the end of the curve. You get the idea? You might be finishing up his time for him as well as starting it, you see?

He gets nothing but blackness. All right, have him mock up nothing but blackness which is totally intended to harm him. Don't let him as-is the blackness he's got sitting there already. If it's there, he hasn't enough motivators yet. You've got to create some more. And the body best communicates on solids - solid objects. You have him mock up some more blackness and mock up some more blackness - each time the blackness and the space in which it's located. He gets the idea about that, that it's totally intended to harm him, blind him or do something wrong for him.

So therefore, they just ran just long enough to unsettle the agreement of the cycle of action. And without his cognition of the fact that this agreement had been unsettled, we then discovered the unworkability of a cycle of action. It's quite interesting.

An auditing command suggested on this, is you just ask him after he's made the mock-up, about each part of the mock-up, is "What threat could that be to you?" And, the second he gets a threat that could be to him, it'll come in, swish, and away it goes. The next thing you know, his field clears up because he's had enough of this sort of thing.

So, I looked this over a little closer and got a little smarter and realized where I had first heard of the cycle of action. It's Vedic hymn number 4, "Hymn to the Dawn Child," the oldest piece of writing man has any record of. And it says that all things follow this curve. It isn't very flowery language, but it says they get born, and they grow, and they - so on, and they finally kick off.

And this is body havingness. The body's idea of real havingness is something that does him in. Hence, we find the avidity of little boys to go around carrying dynamite caps in their pocket. That's real havingness. Now, wherever we look in life, we find this principle being pretty well obeyed.

But that's about the earliest piece of stuff that man has. It was traditional for thousands of years before it was written down; and having been written down, it's still the oldest piece of writing he has. See, that's pretty ancient.

We get another, higher level on this in just plain problems. We say, "What problem could that be to you?" There's only one proviso here, is that you never address this to a condition; you always address it to a communication terminal. You be sure you do that.

So, I became suspicious. It looked to me like anything that would survive that long would be the least admired thing around. It's using our old law of "Those things which are least admired persist."

Now, what I mean by that is, you say, "What problem could (blank) be to you?" Let's say that this fellow has a bad leg, he's lame. Now, this runs out a chronic somatic, by the way; it just does that. And that's very interesting, because we've been trying for five years, one way or the other, and for a long time we didn't even touch one because we'd make it worse. And certainly enough we'd make it worse: if we took away that problem, why, there wouldn't have been any other problem to replace it, and our preclear would have been in the soup.

And then I looked over a chap by the name of J.C. and realized that there's a rather large organization dedicated to having us believe that a fellow was born, lived a life of the greatest piety and service, and was then crucified like a miserable criminal and then was born again. And this sure looked to me like a cycle of action, advertised. It looked to me like an advertisement much better done than the Bovril advertisements, over a long period of time.

But we can now, with this, run a chronic somatic. So, it becomes the responsibility of the auditor in Level One, just in starting the case, to clear up any chronic somatic the fellow has. He has TB or two heads or something like that, and you clear this up, just to get the case rolling. All right.

Here you had a chap stuck on a cross, like a common criminal, that people were supposed to worship. Do you know that Christianity was at once - one time was actually booted out of an Eastern nation because the head of that nation could not understand why anyone would want to take its headman and disgrace him to that degree? And he got such a poor opinion of anybody who would display his headman on a cross with spikes in him that he disallowed Christianity throughout the whole of his kingdom and wouldn't let anybody come in or talk about it anymore, because he said it must be awfully degraded.

Now, this fellow has lameness. Take this "condition versus communication terminal." All right. This fellow has a lameness in his leg. And we don't run, then, "What problem could lameness be to you?" See? That's the problem. I mean, we're running "What problem could the problem be to us," see? That's wrong. A condition, that's off. You'd say, "What problem could your leg be to you?" or ". . . could legs be to you?" Any way you want to put this, see. But it's the terminal that you're running.

Well, knowing these little odds and ends and these little items and having some good idea that we might not be dealing with the purest of the pure - this has nothing whatsoever to do with Christ or whether he really lived or anything of the sort; but it does have to do with the fact that we have an advertised cycle of action for the last two thousand years of "He came to grief by being a good man," you know?

Now, the wording of this is very important, very important. The exact wording, since we have had problems - we've had lots of commands that ran problems; but we'd better make the wording of this, for just the classic example of the wording, exactly what we mean, because all of this, you seewe had it, but we just didn't quite have it. You get the idea?

"He was born, he survived for a while, and in spite of all that power, they still did him in. And of course, that will happen to you, too. Ha! You know, that will happen to you, too. It doesn't matter how good you are, how much good you do, or anything else."

Well similarly, on this problems, we had problems as processes, but we just didn't quite have problems as processes, you see?

And then we get this chap:

So, it's "Invent a specific problem (blank) could be to you." Boy, that communicates exactly what you mean.

"The boast of heraldry, and the pomp of pow'r, / And all the beauty, all that wealth e'er gave, / Await alike the coming of the hour: / And paths of glory lead but to the grave." (Part of a poem entitled "Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard," written by English poet Thomas Gray (1716 - 1771).)

Now, we don't have a process here that we're going to use. We do have a process here that does have some workability, but we're not necessarily going to use this thing, and that is, of course, "Invent a specific problem you could be to (blank)." We're not going to run that side of it.

Cheerful little piece, you know? Looks to me like this is a swindle. Does seem to me that it is, because it doesn't hold true.

Why aren't we going to run that side of it? That's the overt act side of it. And we're just going to cut his motivators to ribbons, and we'll just pin him down all the tighter on this same thing.

There are numerous incidents in this universe, in terms of absolute mechanical, chemical things, where this principle of "create, survive, destroy" does not hold true - just doesn't hold true.

So, we're going to run just this one side on this lopsided thing, and we're going to say, "Invent a specific problem (your aunt) (grandfather) (legs) (ears)," whatever it is, "could be to you." Always a terminal, never a condition.

Take the cycle of matter. Matter is quite interesting. It comes from a sort of a radioactive point, which is hardly a creation; it's a nothingness. And then we seem to get some matter in a radioactive form. And then as it exhausts itself, we fall into a solid. Doesn't look like decay at all. It looks like survive is on the end of the cycle. No decay occurs.

Now, do you know why, in SLP Issue 5, we were not getting the gains on the first level, we weren't getting psychometric gains, and why preclears were hanging up a bit? It's because we were solving some problems? Uh-uh. You just solve one problem for the preclear and you've solved one too many. Therefore, you must never evaluate for the preclear or solve his problems for him. He must always solve the problem himself, after he has a sufficiency of motivators to be able to leave or stay there at his own choice.

As far as the radioactive material is concerned, there's some decay with it, and as long as we take a partiality to one item that we're studying and saying, "radioactive material," we can see something vaguely similar to a cycle of action there. But if we look at the actual energy of this radioactive material, we find out it sets itself up and survives and then goes on and creates things. Isn't that cute? I mean, there's something wrong.

So, we just don't solve people's problems for them. We don't come in and say, "Well, I don't know what I am going to do because so-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so."

You have to think it over. And don't worry too much about thinking it over, because there isn't any real cycle of action there, anyhow. So, the whole thing gets kind of slippery under your hands.

We can communicate, we can forward a communication line for them, but we certainly can't solve that problem. We're liable to make them quite ill. We're likely to make them quite antagonistic, quite upset. No, we must give them some more problems. All right.

We can then consider, and with ease we can consider this, since it is our earliest consideration and one which is with us all the time, because it is the fundamental of the biological robot. You got that, now? A thetan doesn't believe this. He couldn't possibly believe this 100 percent because it's not workable.

Now, this individual will actually hang up every time you lessen his havingness in terms of problems, and his case will not advance. You've got to increase the number of problems because this is body havingness. And he'll never be able to get out of any situation; he'll stick all over the time track, if you solve any of his problems.

You mean to say that after he studies how to become a bricklayer, age in and age out, he will eventually decay? No, he'll be a good bricklayer.

So, that is what we were doing in SLP 5. We were too intrigued with this problem of comparable magnitude and "Solve it," see? And we could do that, bang, bang, bang. Didn't increase his havingness at all. We're liable to stick him right there. We took one problem away. Ha! Ha! He can't leave now; he hasn't enough motivators. You got the idea? So, we just keep asking him about the problems.

Yeah, but you say, "Then if he lays bricks for a while, he'll decay." Why? He run out of bricks or something? He can determine that he's now tired of bricklaying and do something else, or he can become a master bricklayer, or he can do other things with regard to bricklaying, but it's not necessarily true that everything he picks up is going to bring him to destruction.

Now, one way to go about this would be quite interesting. We take what he conceives to be the weakest universe. This would be, by better definition, that universe - by universe we mean any person, which is also a communication terminal, so on; any body or environment could be called a universe. We take any universe, and we ask him - and we discuss weak universes, and we get a universe; let me state it that way, see. He finally tells us the weakest universe he'd ever heard of.

And that is what the cycle of action seeks to teach you: that anything you pick up or anything you do will bring you to destruction; that if you begin to write, you'll go stale in two or three years, and that will be the end of your writing career.

We've actually gotten that universe which gave him the least number of motivators; that's the weakest universe. And that's the way it'll turn out after a while. It really isn't the weakest universe; it's the universe which has given him the least motivators, and he can't exteriorize from it. He's liable to have all the chronic somatics of that universe and everything else. He can't get away from it; he can't get out of it. He's stuck.

You understand that? That if you join a circus and become a performer, after a while, you will come to grief. Your tightrope will snap. Not necessarily true at all. It might snap and you might land in the net and build a better tightrope.

And you say he's in Mama's universe or Papa's universe? No. You'd better find out the person he's really stuck in. And he's possibly not stuck in Mama's or Papa's universe. You say, "Did your papa ever say a single bad word to you?"

But it is laid in as an almost unarguable fact in these biological mock-ups. They are born, they grow, they decay, they die. And boy, we just watch that cycle, and we watch that cycle, till the best thing we know, as we see John Jones walk down the street, is someday we're going to bury him. That's the best thing we know about John Jones.

"Oh, well, yes, many times."

We see a little boy, we know that he'll grow up. Of course, in this Atomic Age, we don't know that as clearly anymore. But we see him, and we know he's going to grow up and he'll get married, and then he'll slop off and he'll die.

He's not stuck in Papa's universe.

Why? Why? We know that a mammal grows one-sixth of its total life. That's another law that comes out of all this. It's quite interesting. Nearly all mammals except man grows one-sixth of its normal life span. It's an interesting law. For instance, if you grew for ten years, you would live to the age of sixty. That is one of the little laws that comes out of this.

"All right. Was your mama always good and kind to you?"

It applies to every mammal but man; it doesn't apply to man. Man grows for eighteen years and lives to be' seventy. But it goes - it even applies to sharks and elephants and snakes and all kinds of bric-a-brac, so that we have here an interesting thing. We have, with the animal kingdom, we seem to have a certain law of growth and death.

"What, that old bat?" You know, yap, yap, yap.

And we say, "Well, this is a good thing because the whole world would be populated by sharks if sharks didn't die sooner or later." Oh, I don't know that it would be. How about getting a cycle of action for sharks that they were born and created in full maturity and then dwindled gradually away, you see, to birth, and then disappeared. You don't have to have them destroyed; you could have them becoming more and more active and younger and younger.

No, it wasn't Mama's universe he's stuck in.

Now, it takes a little consideration, rather than persuasion from me, to look over and discover the falsity of the cycle of action. There's no reason why you, right at this moment, could not advance in time up to the age of twenty-one years and look it and then stay there. No reason why you couldn't do thatexcept the consideration that "All things are born and survive and then die."

Well, we go on talking either about the weakest person he knows or the person who was best to him that he knows, and we're liable to wind up with the same person. It's the person he has no excuse to back up from.

And if you're sold on that one, as a thetan, and if your body continues to be sold on that one all the way along, of course, it will be true. But Axiom 55, a cycle of action - any cycle of action is only a consideration. And you start fooling around with this, and it gets quite interesting as you find out that there are an - infinite numbers of cycle of action. They can do the darnedest things, and they don't necessarily have to follow this body curve.

And then if we were to ask him what problems could that person be to him, invent a specific problem that person could be to him, over and over and over and over and over and over and over, he'll all of a sudden sigh with relief and cease to have that person's somatics, and all other sorts of interesting things could occur.

So, there was another little gimmick to know about this biological mockup that should have been in an instruction book you should have been issued. It should have said, "Mark I Barbarian is furnished with a series of beliefs of which this is one: that there exists such a thing as a cycle of action, and that anything which is born will then grow, and anything which grows will then decay and anything which decays will then die.

Now, when you had that totally remedied and he was really in good shape and he had an enormous superfluity of problems; he just dreamed them up (he has lots of them) you could possibly ask him, if you wanted to, "What problems could you be to that person?" You just give it an additional push; but it's really not an essential part of the process at all.

"And this is an installed mechanism, which you find just two centimeters south-southeast of the medulla oblongata. And this is installed so as to keep the Malthus theory from working out; but in times of stress, when you are losing your husband, it is two centimeters south-southeast of the medulla oblongata. And the age scale on the cycle of action can be reset to sixteen."

You see how this is? An accumulation of motivators permits him to separate.

See, that's different - different sort of thing. That would be the sort of thing if somebody had played this fair. They issue you a mock-up, and then they don't tell you how it works. Well, you don't even know who issued you the mock-up. That's the least its instruction book should say, "Made by the War Ministry First Roman Legion," something of the sort, "Issue: Speed: 130 paces to the minute."

Now, you could run plain separateness and as a thetan he would happily go along and try to separate from that person, see? And as a thetan he might make the grade. Body's still stuck. Got it?

Well, when something defeats you as often as a body, in that you have certain goals and predictions, and then you're unable to reach them, you begin to get superstitious after a while because logical has failed; and religion and all sorts of other things start to enter in. That's the long and short of it. You begin to consult the gods because you didn't have an instruction book. Somebody has to know.

So, that was a happy strike when we made it; and when it was tested and so forth, it looked good because the thetan was separating from that weakest universe; but with experience, we found out that the individual body was not. It was still stuck. Got it? So, we had to run problems that could be to him. All right.

And this has nothing to do with the fact there may or may not be gods. There are gods; there are plenty of them around, but I don't think they're watching the sparrows fall. I think that was another piece of propaganda.

Now, we can take anything under the sun, moon or stars and either by having the individual mock up, create solidly, items of that character dangerous to him - let's say, for example, he has a bad leg. We just have him mock up legs and have how they could be a threat to him, menace to him, see? Legs that are totally dedicated to his eradication, if you want to get very possible about it; and all of the scenery, then, and the ground it's standing on - that all has to be dedicated to his eradication too. Don't leave bits and pieces around there.

Now, here we have a condition where an individual is defeated. And so, yes, he's defeated because he does not predict well. He says, "I am not predicting well."

Or we could simply ask him this question and get more or less the same result, more or less the same result-variable: "What problems . . ." "Invent a specific problem . . ." Of course, just the statement "What problem could legs be to you?" is the process and the wording of the process is "Invent a specific problem legs could be to you" or ". . . a leg could be to you," see?

He said, "This mock-up is going to walk from point A to point C and is going to arrive at point C." Biological mock-up doesn't do that. It starts at A, and unless it is readjusted, guided, and predicted with every step, it doesn't arrive at C. It arrives over here at point X, see? X marks the spot where the body was found.

He's got two bad legs, or he has trouble with his legs, why, let it be "legs." If you've only got one bad leg, better make it "a leg."

You set it up to go in any particular direction. You say, "Now, I'm going to teach this whole thing how to lay bricks," and it winds up to be a very, very fine ditch digger; somehow or other can't lay bricks. You don't know why, but it just can't seem to lay bricks. You know how to lay bricks, and it just doesn't lay bricks, that's all.

And make sure that he invents one. Don't let him go as-ising the problems already in the bank. Hound him. And we come up with this fantastic thing, we come up with the complete understanding of the situation. He'll eventually tell you exactly why he's got that leg that way and so on. He'll cognite on it, one way or the other, and he'll get rid of it.

You say, "Well, I'm going to teach this thing to become a piano player. Fine. We're going to play the piano. Everything is going to be fine. And we're going to run along and it's going to be a good piano player." And it goes just so long, and it ceases to be a piano player. You invest seven, eight, ten years at the piano, and at the end of that time you're a complete failure. And you say, "What on earth is this all about? I mean, naturally, the more I practice on the piano and the more used I get to playing a piano, the better piano player I'd be," but it doesn't work that way with a body, because a body is following a cycle of action.

Now, we could do it another way and still cure him. We could talk about weakest universes; separate out and find a weak universe of one kind or another, locate one, nice as you please, and then ask him what problems it could be to him. And if we were really searching and we were real clever, we'd never have to ask him, "Did that person have trouble with his leg?"

You create a new skill, the skill will grow for a while, then it will decay, and then you can't play the piano anymore. Well, this is a wild thing to have happen. You mean, the mock-up has got a say in this whole thing? Well, that's all right. It's perfectly all right for another mock-up to have a say in the whole thing, as long as you're a mock-up; but you're not a mock-up.

That person did; or if that person didn't, then the weak universe married somebody or was connected with somebody that had a bad leg. Got the idea? There's two connections possible: Either the weakest universe had a bad leg, or the person the person married had a bad leg, and there is where the somatic is buried. And there is the way and the part and the place and the source of the service facsimile, of which you have heard a great deal, and there is its basic anatomy.

You try to use a body along a certain ethical pattern, you try to get it into good shape, you try to straighten it up and make it survive and live and somehow or other carry on and be a credit to all hands, and when you finally get up, why, somebody drops it in a box and pats it in the face with a spade. Doesn't seem to be much of a reward for all your activity.

All right. The individual, having to create motivators, then stuck in places where he didn't have any. And not only stuck in these places, but tried like mad to dream some up; the body dreamed them up for him. Bad leg? Well, this person got a bad leg from Uncle Josie or something, huh? Person's got a bad leg, and so therefore, Uncle Josie has done him wrong.

And this seems to be the inevitable fact. This is something from which you can't escape. This is it. Well, it looks to me like it's a strange and peculiar little rat race a guy gets into. That's the way it's going to be; that's the way it is.

Get the rationale that goes on behind the service facsimile? Totally unworkable. Getting away from Uncle Josie by having Uncle Josie's bad leg is not good sense to anybody, but it is to a body. Body thinks that's real smart: "That's the way we do it."

Well, I don't know any reason at all why it should be that way at all because, in the first place, I have occasionally looked at some kind of a machine that was very difficult to run. I remember a monocycle - you know, monocycles are quite interesting. Did you ever try to run a monocycle? Just one wheel and a crossbar across the top of it, and it has a couple of pedals like a tricycle, you know. And if you balance the pedals just right, this monocycle will stand up on one wheel, and you sit up there and go round and round in circles and so forth.

"The way to get away from sickness is to get sick, and that makes sickness a motivator, and therefore I can get away from sickness," see? It's good logic, wonderful logic. But whether it's logical or not is beside the point; it happens to be the function. That is the way it happens. All right.

I took a look at this monocycle and got up on the top of it and ran it round and round in circles and stopped and stepped down off of it. Fellow came in and said, "What are you doing? It takes a long time to learn how to run one of those."

This opens up to us, this opens up to us a considerable vista, a considerable understanding, which was occasionally entangling our processing and preclears.

And I said, "Oh, it does?" and got on the monocycle again and fell flat on my face. Now, something had believed him.

Now, the usual course of action is, in walks Mr. Preclear, here he is and he's saying, "Look at this horrible leg, see. Well, I've just got to get rid of this horrible leg. I'm chronically, somatically ill. I had poliomyelitis ever since it got advertised so well."

Now, we at least, a few years ago, rooted up this idea of the cycle of action. We brought it into view and said, "This is a very, very important principle." Latterly, during the days of Scientology, we have still said, "That's quite an important principle, that 'create, survive, destroy."' And as long as we were laying our bricks, you might say, in a good solid agreement with mock-ups and we weren't pushing them around too hard and we weren't trying any wild stunts, this is true; the cycle of action stayed there, and so on.

And you say, "That's fine," and have him start locating the walls. He just doesn't belong there. He knows he doesn't belong there, not him. They came to the wrong place. He's trying to show you.

But the second that we really started to use modern techniques and include with those modern techniques that the cycle of action was a fact, not just a consideration, we found out the cycle of action didn't hold - didn't hold.

Now, very oddly, this would work as a sort of a freak sometimes. You'd say, "By golly, you know, that is just about the worst bad leg I ever saw." You know, he's liable to exteriorize out of the bad-leg universe. See, that's a freak.

You get a guy - create, create, create, create, and at first he starts to wind up, you know, earlier; and at first he does all right, and he finds his position and tone change, and then all of a sudden, he'll do a skid, and he's liable to wind up anyplace.

That happens often enough in a medical doctor's office to give him an odd idea concerning psychosomatic illness, see? He believes that a spontaneous remission can occur which is unassisted by anything. He doesn't look at the fact that he was there, and he looked at it, and he agreed it was an awful bad leg. He said, "My, isn't that a wonderful, horrible, terrible, fear-shattering motivator you've got! My god, did they do that to you?" is what he's said, see?

What he does, actually, is run out the fact that "create" is at the beginning of the cycle of action. See, he just runs this out. And this leaves him adrift, without any understanding, somewhere on a cycle of action he has himself not determined. In other words, the cycle of action itself can be run out.

And they say, "Gee, you know, maybe this is enough. Okay, I'll exteriorize."

Now, it's an interesting thing that if the cycle of action were not a consideration, the most horrible, grimmest thing that you could imagine would be laid in your laps. If it were actually an unalterable fact, if it were actually native to the beingness of a thetan, you would have to confront something pretty grim, and this grim thing would be this: That anytime you tried to make anything better, you would regret it.

But there is no such thing as an unassisted spontaneous remission. See, something had to occur in the thinking or talking line in order to make this thing happen. Well, that is exactly what happened. You know the mechanism now of a spontaneous remission, so-called.

Now, if you look that over carefully, you will see how it works. You try to make something better, you will follow a cycle of action with it; and the end of the cycle of action is destroy. So, you are trying to run only part of the cycle of action. But the actuality is you don't start to make something better until it's well decayed. It needs repair. So, now you're trying to turn the cycle of action backwards, and running backwards in time is regret. The definition of regret is to return something through time, to run time backwards.

You can play this trick. It's a fantastic trick. You take some guy - you take some guy, and he's got a bad scar, let's say, down the side of his face.

If you ask somebody to do this, by the way, just as an exercise - to run an engram backwards a couple of times - he'll start regretting it. The emotion of regret is a run backwards.

And you say, "Good god, man! Hoo! What a horrible scar! What a dreadful accident that must have been."

So, the cycle of action, if it were true, would cause you to regret every bettering action which you took. You would be inevitably dedicated to crucifixion by trying to better the human race.

And he starts to tell you about it, and you - "Oh, I'm sure that it was worse than that. You're just minimizing it. You're just making nothing out of the whole thing. It was worse than that."

In other words, they've even blocked that lowest-level step "Who can you help?" If the cycle of action is true, you can't better anything or anybody without winding up sacrificed yourself. And that chap they've got impaled on the cross is an advertisement of this which says, "You'd better not improve the human race. You'd better not do anything about this." It's the warning, like the big sign on the empty dog kennel which says, "Ferocious dog. Beware." Only there's no dog in the kennel, except this one thing: cycle of action.

And you see him a couple of days later and the scar will have diminished or disappeared. You get the idea? You see, it's just a stunt, with workability, oh, I don't know, 20 percent, 25 percent, you know. It's minor workability, but it's something you might expect to have happen occasionally. See, you convinced him that the motivator he already had was good enough. You get it?

Isn't that fascinating? It tells us that we'd better not help anybody. Well, you can look back over it, you can prove this to yourself. You know there's some chap that you've tried to help, and you sure regretted it.

Now, if you walk up to him and say - did you ever do this with anybody? This is the reverse way. This is the way to make him sick. He walks up to you, he's got this scar. And you say, "Oh, I don't know. That will probably heal up; probably be okay."

Well, the whole race is getting a better and better agreement on this. If nobody is going to better anything anywhere, I ask you, if you please, how is it ever going to wind up in anything but "destroy"?

And if you kept this up with him enough, the thing would probably become livid, and he'd probably go out and get cut again. See how it'd be? You've told him, "That's not a good enough motivator. Whatever universe you're stuck in, it isn't good enough to get out of it." Do you see how it'd work? Both ways.

That is the surest way in the world, then, to confirm the cycle of action. That is the surest way in the world to keep everybody convinced that the cycle of action exists - is to let nobody help anything. If you help anything, you'll be destroyed, of course. You'll regret it; that's the least that will happen to you. But just the forward motion of time, all by itself, does not carry with it the cycle of action.

Now, if, when you're talking to - within a body's hearing - you're talking within a body's hearing, you're talking on one or these others. You're either saying, "You can have more motivators" or "The motivators you have are plenty good enough" or "They aren't good enough," you could produce some interesting results.

By the way, just an understanding of this, just a good grip on this, just looking over how it might be arranged otherwise, just looking over the factors involved in it, just finding an example or two where it doesn't hold true, and all of a sudden you become free, just to that degree; you become much freer. Because it tells you, "Look, you can make yourself better, you can make anybody else better, and there's no slightest incursion of karma as a result thereof"

Now, if you said, "You can have more motivators; there are more available" (not "more necessary," but "there are many more available"), you'd probably not only exteriorize him out of this one obvious universe, but you'd probably take him out of five or six more and out of his body.

It doesn't matter who you help. You can help people. You can make things better. You can repair a car, if you want to; it will be a better car. It won't just destroy you.

And if you went along a little bit further and said, "Look, you can have even more than this," you could probably take him right on out of this universe, see, or he could be in and out of it at will. See how that would work? All right.

Now, it's an odd thing for a self-enforcive mechanism of this character to be built into this biological mock-up. I'd say that it had more to do with philosophy than good, solid biology or electronics. And I think somebody was stretching a point.

That's one system. Another system would be to tell him the ones he has and these are not usable systems, you understand. I mean, they're just illustrative.

I wouldn't build a robot like that if I were that. If I were building some robots, I'd like to have some robots that were good robots that would be active and operative. I wouldn't build a line of operating robots which would build new robots, you know, and wipe out the old robots and then fix it up so that anytime you tried to repair a robot, you'd wind up wrecked, see? I wouldn't fix it up that way.

You could tell him, "The one you have - or the ones you have are plenty good enough." You've had it. "You're in terrible - I never heard of such an awful accident. God! You know, last night I went home after you told me about that and I dreamed about it all night long!" The guy's liable to blow out of that particular type of incident.

I'd be a better craftsman. I'd have more respect for myself and what I was making. I don't mean that as any snide comment, but I just do have ideas on this line. I have ideas of what is ethical and what isn't ethical. I wouldn't build a chain of robots that would eventually wind up to be lousy robots that would just get worse and worse as robots, you know; that issue by issue, from Mark I to Mark X to the nth, would just get worse.

And the other one, reverse, which would just pull him in right tight up against - into that universe he's stuck in, and stick him somewhat in yours, would be to say, "Oh-ho, that thing. Ha! You mean, you rolled off the mountainside, and there were only twelve people killed in the bus? Well, I knew a bus accident one time in which there were . . . " And he'll start dramatizing the incident.

Wouldn't do that, unless I wanted to get even with somebody, or unless I myself were afraid of all life forms, or unless I were doing something odd or peculiar that I wouldn't do. Or unless I were just playing a joke.

All three of these conditions you should understand in order to handle this particular mechanism. All right.

Now, you could have your own speculations concerning this of just why you'd go about this or what you'd do about this, and it's an interesting philosophical field; but all the philosophy about it, again, is just the why. It's the rationale on the fact. The fact is there.

As we look over the Six Levels of Processing, Issue 7, we find out that we're really handling very little else in there but these two factors: We're trying to make sure that he doesn't receive or get a thirst or get the idea that we're the executioner he's been looking for, see? Therefore, we follow the Auditor's Code, we use two-way communication, we give him communication bridge. You got the idea? And all of these things tell him "We're not the executioner. Wrong party." Get the idea? So, then he doesn't suddenly alert.

Now, I don't know how many of you have had anybody mock up something and then have it - various parts of that mock-up - be considered by him a threat to the body. I don't know how many of you have done this or how many of you have run anything vaguely resembling problems. But if you run these, the principles about which I am talking to you are very easily demonstrated. These are some of the easiest principles to demonstrate.

Now, if we do something wrong, the body suddenly wakes up and says, "Gee, maybe I'm facing the best executioner yet. Maybe this guy Will just cut me to ribbons. Of course he could cut me to ribbons! He knows all about the mind; he's an expert. Oh, boy. Now, if I could just get him good and mad at me. . . " And away we go, see? And we just now can't have anything but Auditor Code breaks and "Scientology is horrible" and we're all doing her in and ... You know, this kind of thing is the only thing that can happen from here on out, because the person's got the idea that you're the executioner or that we're executioners, see?

It is obvious that you do not want to be eaten by tigers, that you do not want your body to be eaten by tigers, right? In fact, you don't want to have anything to do with tigers. If a tiger came walking in the room this moment licking his chops, you would say, "Well, let's see, where can I put this mock-up? How flat can I press it against the ceiling?"

Now, it's sometimes lucrative and remunerative to be in the role of an executioner. You could hang out your sign and say, "I ruin everybody," and you would probably have the darnedest business that you ever heard of. And this is quite fantastic, but it'd probably occur. Probably be one way to exteriorize everybody.

Now, the mock-up, however, doesn't think that way. It actually has an impulse in it which would say, "Aahh, tiger. Dine well, tiger. Have another arm." And you've gotten this in dream states when you were a kid. A terrific danger shows up, and you're not able to run from it; you just stand there. That is the body's action. The body either stands there or walks into the menace.

However, the odd part of it is that by pandering entirely to this thirst for motivators, the society would eventually get the idea that you were guilty of too many overt acts, and it would say, "Look, we have an excuse to play the other side of the drama. This person is guilty of enough overt acts, he is sufficiently bad. He eats babies alive, you see. Every day he goes down and monkeys with tram switches and makes things go wreck, and he has a steady contract with BOAC to interrupt their turbojets and so forth, in midflight over unpopulated areas of wilderness.

Now, the proof of this is the reactions on this basis, the reactions are quite interesting. And you have somebody mock up a ravenous tiger, and then have him get the idea that that tiger and the ground the tiger is standing on is totally there as a threat and menace to the mock-up, and the distance between the tiger and the mock-up goes slurp - no distance. There is a hunger in the mock-up to be in the tiger and to have the tiger in the mock-up. Quite interesting. There is a starvation for distance closure. Wow!

"This individual has all sorts of horrible and terrible things that he does, and so therefore, we might be able to get up to an overt act - in view of the fact he deserves it, you see, we might be able to get up to an overt act of actually walking along and frowning at one of his footsteps," you see?

Now, this is compounded additionally by having this fact: If you ran the process "Invent a specific problem a tiger could be to you," you would find the body just going, "Slurp. Oh, boy. Oh, luscious. Mmm, lovely."

That's what it would take to get an overt act against you in a society, see? Got it?

Well, now, you want to keep the mock-up on the road and keep things squared around and keep life running. Well, you're not going to keep life running being hungry for being eaten by tigers, see. So, you don't want tigers to dine; and the body would just love to have a tiger dine.

Now, eventually you would work yourself up to a point, though, where a few guys who had a lot left over, you know, they'd say, "Gee, there he is," and shoot you. You see how it'd work? How it would work. The other mechanism is, then, that in a society which is motivator hungry, only an individual who is agreed upon to be totally bad will ever be even vaguely attacked, see? And he'd have to be really totally pluperfectly bad.

Have you ever run an eating engram off of the track somewhere? Have you ever run an old past-life genetic-line eating engram and gotten the point where "Oh, boy. Now I'm really serving. I'm being eaten," you know. "Lovely, lovely, lovely on being all et up. Isn't that gorgeous." I don't think you feel that way.

The newspaper, actually, is - used to be something which released events of note and so forth. The newspaper today is really just an advertisement sheet of people who could have an overt act performed against them. That's about all it is; it's an advertisement sheet this way. Or "These motivators are now available in this society." It talks about one or the other, and this passes for news.

Well, something feels that way, and it's the biological robot. It says, "Oh, boy, being et up. Oh, fine. Tigers. Oh, wonderful. Look at the truck coming in over the top of me. Ha! That'll squash me in a couple of seconds. Lovely!"

Now, your preclear, remember (and this we must have very clearly) is a thetan. He doesn't know this any more than any of us really knew this, see, as such, in articulate fashion; but it is happening as the mechanism on which his body does its exteriorization. And the second you talk about exteriorization, it starts thinking in terms of motivators. See, any thinkingness the body has on the thought of exteriorization thinks in terms of motivators. You get how this is? It's just an identification.

Did you ever see such an avidity to quit in your life? Now, you wonder why somebody didn't issue you an instruction book. I think it would have been all very well. I think, to many a thetan, you could have issued a very specific instruction book and the thetan could have read it from beginning to end, and he never would have believed any part of it. It's too incredible.

So, you have a thetan that you're trying to do something for, being pinned down by a mechanism which we did not entirely recognize or have the anatomy of. Well, we have the anatomy of this thing now; and it's a fantastic thing, how fast and furious that you can kick out of existence such a thing as a chronic somatic. You ought to try it.

But we have to take these things into account if we're going to separate a thetan from one of these biological robots or get one of these biological robots straightened out. Number one, you do not have to assume that a biological robot will always inevitably follow a cycle of action. This is not necessary to assume that at all. You can change considerations concerning that. You can get the biological robot in much better shape by getting it capable of receiving orders of any kind or being willing to give orders of any kind. You can practically civilize one by running processes of this kind. You can get these vacuums and weak universes and starvation mechanisms eradicated by running problems of one kind or another. You can do things with this biological robot today in Scientology that you couldn't do before.

Now, naturally, an individual who is out of communication with you as a thetan and so forth, is not going to be able to handle his body very well. We, therefore, have to start into some sort of a session there which is careful, which builds up a good ARC level, which eases in on it gently, because the individual isn't very strong in handling this body.

I don't guarantee that you will make it a perfect robot. I, myself, if I were going to get a perfect robot, would go up to Marcab or someplace and pay a few grabutniks into the factory and get a nice mechanical robot issued. You know, one that had an automatic pilot, and when you said, "Walk from point A to C," it would arrive at C. It's possible to play a game with such a robot.

The body has totally run away from him, so that everything you do to the guy, he will then concur, in that it's an overt act, you see? He's just gone downhill to a point where he's almost totally agreed with the body and is following and falling right in with, without understanding, its motivator phenomena. All right.

It's also, to some degree, possible to play a game with one of these biological robots - to some degree - if they're straightened out. But I don't know how anybody could play a game with one, actually, unless he himself had a good command of the exact modus operandi on which it was working, which is, give it a chance to fail, and it'll fail. Give it a chance to get injured, and it'll get injured. At the least propitious moment, it gets sick. It does anything illogical it can think of, evidently, to defeat the purposes of the game.

This curiosity, then, is that you are trying to make somebody well who is somehow or another being impeded by something from becoming well. Something is impeding him. And it has been my task for a great many years to find out what impedes the bulk of these cases that don't improve, and I have tried to locate this and isolate it one way or the other.

These are not thinkingnesses; they are simply considerations built into a mass, just like the command "I am a wall" is that wall. You get the idea? That wall is a wall. It is a wall because it is a solid command which says, "a wall." It also says, "I am solid," and "I'm enduring." Now, when you want to see that wall, you have to be willing and able to receive the order "I am a wall" or the statement "I am a wall" in order to see the wall. You see that.

There are many, many mechanisms which can release cases, that do well and so forth, but there has always been a little something hanging around the fringes, you might say. There is something that's not been quite understood about the exact mechanism of why the guy did it.

Now, if you have a biological mock-up that says, "I am sweetness and light, and I mean to serve you to the end of your days," but which is actually cutting your theta throat from one end to the other, it simply has a number of commands of this character built into it, and that is to say, "Injury is better than anything we know about." Sounds horrible, doesn't it? "The cycle of action is an inevitable fact." It has enormous numbers of concepts built into it. They are not thinkingnesses any more than that wall is a thinkingness, and yet the biological robot will function within this realm of action. And therefore, if you knew the realm in which it was functioning, and you knew the limits in which it was functioning, you would then not be very surprised, so as to be thrown out of order with regard to your own prediction, when it didn't quite go the way you intended it to go.

We know and have said that if we take away too many of his problems, he'll get some new ones. But that's an old remark; this is not even new with me.

If you had an instruction book, it would cease to have power over you to the extent that any failure on its part became a failure on your part. Do you see that?

We have said, well, some guys just are ungrateful. They're just completely unappreciative of anything, you know. And we've said that, and that sure didn't solve it. Recognizing that some guys just ought to really have had their teeth kicked in was the truth of the matter. They wanted their teeth kicked in. They were sitting there to get their teeth kicked in. That was the way they wanted to exteriorize, you see?

Audience: Mm-hm.

Now, almost anything that you know that would straighten out these things, would straighten it out if you straightened it out within this rationale, understanding this about people: that a thetan goes along doing his best, trying to reach out, trying to get something done, trying to guide these various things along the line, and that he is running something which has this deadly germ of its own destruction: that it must have more motivators and more motivators and more motivators.

And an understanding of this, all by itself, would serve to assist you, a thetan, to be much freer than you ever were before.

Now, when a person is in very, very, very good condition physically, so on, this mechanism is not very apparent. It's only there slightly, you see? But after a person has been beaten around for a while, the mechanism works both ways. Logically, the thetan no longer conceives any reason to hang around the environment because it's no fun, see? This is "Daahhh, why hang around here?" which keys the body in instantly. "Oh, we're on this motivator kick, huh? And now we'll collect them."

Thank you.

Get the idea? So that this, in a person who is in fairly good condition, is not very apparent. But in a person who has started to go downhill, where the thetan is really stuck in and doesn't want to stay there, and he wants to exteriorize, he wants to get out, he doesn't find the thing very well in keeping with his ideas of how life should be run - this is all rational. A thetan is rational to this degree, you see.

Male voice: Thank you.

He doesn't want to stay there. All of a sudden he keys in this other phenomena and mechanism that he really doesn't know anything about. And from that time on, he's going to take it. He's going to get it from left and right. He's going to go around, and he's going to do the darnedest things. Boy, is the body helping him out. You get the idea?

So really, from the first thought that an individual wants to go his own way and chuck it all, his body is assisting him by accumulating motivators. And therefore, he gets psychosomatically ill, he gets aberrated, he gets this, he gets that. He starts to throw his abilities away. One of the best ways to do it is say, "You know, I used to be able to paint, but after Grandma got through with me, I can't paint anymore."

In other words, his lack of an ability to paint is the evidence that he has had something done to him. You see that? Just that. That's a negative proof, you see? Now, that's as bad as a chronic somatic. It's an absent talent. Who cost you painting? Mama, see? Grandma, somebody - your opposite talent. All right.

We look on the other side of it, and we see the individual there with all sorts of, oh, shoulder deformity, something like this. And he's got a bad shoulder and he can't raise his arm or something like this. This is just reverse evidence: "I have received a motivator." Now, he's undecided. He doesn't know whether he ought to leave or shouldn't leave. And there he is, see, stuck right there. All right.

So, we say to the guy, "What problems could shoulders be to you?" something like that. The universe, the condition, and so forth, is liable to show up quite rapidly. He invents new ones. He gets enough motivators. He feels, then, free to leave these situations. And actually, the body is so childishly easy to handle that it doesn't take much stressing. The thing is not a difficult thing to handle, if you understand it.

Now, the thetan, he'll comply with you. He will try to go along. Something is interfering with the processing; you're not quite sure what's interfering with the processing. It's probably the body and its motivator hunger. But it could also be the auditor and the auditor's hunger for motivation.

"Preclear refuses to get well. All I did is keep dropping ashtrays and change the auditing command twenty times an hour, and I didn't do anything wrong. And the fellow has really given me an awful overt act. Here I have sweated and slaved. I've just worked my brain to the bone, trying to help him out, and he treats me this way." You get the idea?

Well, if you find yourself breaking the Auditor's Code and that sort of thing, just stick out your - side of your face, something like that, and practice some Christianity, which is "Sock me!" And just have the preclear sock you two or three times. He won't know what it's all about, but after that, you'll handle him fine. You've got enough motivators as far as he's concerned; you could leave him anytime.

Well, now, this rather puts a new light on what we're doing, which is, really, kind of an old light too. But if you still think it's an old light, then you better take a look at this new light, because it's used a little bit different.

And if you want a little indoor sport, and if you want to do something in an idle moment or during a bus ride or something, sit down and try to conceive how every body (you understand: not "everybody," but "every body"), in the world is trying to run on this basis of being motivator hungry.

I'm sure you'll understand a great deal. I've been trying to do it and I haven't quite made the grade yet myself. I only know that it works in processing - but maybe some of you will.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.