Yes?

Male voice: Could you enlarge on the matter of understanding an origination? You know, when preclears are in comm lag, for example, and he makes an origination, you said this origination should be understood and acknowledged.

Uh-huh.

Male voice: Now, what is understood?

Well, you couldn't acknowledge something you didn't understand unless you acknowledged an un-understandability. You can also, you know, acknowledge one of those.

Male voice: Mm-hm.

You might try it sometime. If you see somebody doing something that's utterly incomprehensible — you know, they're spinning out in the street and pinning tickets on cars or something, I mean, totally incomprehensible — just look at them and say, "Okay." You know? But what you're okaying is the incomprehensibility of it or the un-understandingness of it. Do you understand that?

Male voice: Uh-huh.

You can okay or acknowledge an incomprehensibility. There's a trick that you mustn't overlook because insanity, basically, is only incomprehensibility. It's the bottom of the ARC triangle. There's no understanding left there. You know that understanding is made up of A, R and C. But in your preclear's particular case, his ARC is broken down if you go and — you can do this by the way: You can acknowledge his incomprehensibility and kind of put him out of session. The guy is being utterly nutty, and when you acknowledge the fact that he is being utterly nutty you've gone into agreement with his nuttiness. And in view of the fact that you're in a position to postulate his condition in the first place, it tends to confirm the condition. Don't you see?

Male voice: Mm-hm.

It's only because psychiatry keeps acknowledging that every criminal that comes in that can't control himself is crazy, that he stays in such close proximity there. The psychiatrist — all he does is acknowledge craziness with some kind of labels that he doesn't understand, and he's in a hopeless morass of incomprehensibility, so any acknowledging he does is simply total agreement with insanity. You see? And he actually tends to confirm it, to some slight degree, because he doesn't know how to acknowledge.

Now, you possibly might be able to acknowledge sufficiently strongly to actually sweep out of existence an insanity — you know, the Great Okay. You acknowledge its incomprehensibility. But this doesn't go well with a preclear. Preclear says, "Ug-gug, walla-walla, yug-yug."

And you say — if you say yes to that you will sound awfully stupid to him — vague and stupid. So, sort it out! And that's what's meant by understand. Sort it out. What the hell did he say? What did he mean and how did it employ? In this particular — how was it employed in this particular session? What's the connection?

And I have even been — "Well, how the — how the ding-dong does that connect with what we're doing?"

And he explains it to me, you know? Here's the sacrifice of "I'm not being sweetness and light."

I say, "Now come off of it. How does that have anything to do with what we were doing?" You know. I mean, I'm — but even though it's rather forceful, it is certainly a sincerity.

And the fellow says, "Well, it's very, very plain — very, very plain. The reason that I do not like skyscrapers is because of my mother's brooms. You see?"

"Come again? Come again, come on now — brooms, skyscrapers?"

Well, what's this do? It makes him understand it. And he is a creature of understanding. It pushes him up Tone Scale on it at once. And he says, "Well, come to think about it, that is kind of goofy — skyscrapers and brooms. Well, let's see, how will I explain this to you? Skyscrapers, brooms — well. Well, I guess a little baby on the floor looks up at something very high .. . Oh, it's Mama that looks like a skyscraper! Yeah, yeah. That's right. Well, I'm trying to say — I'm trying to say that there's a connection between Mama and skyscrapers. You understand that, don't you? Because they both look very high."

And you say, "Oh, I get it. All right. Thanks. Good." And that clears that up. Otherwise you leave a little stuck piece of stupidity on the track that he should have cognited on, and he didn't.

Therefore when we say, in the handling of a preclear origin, you understand and acknowledge, we don't mean that you sit there with a sympathetic vapidity on your face and acknowledge it or mock up an understanding. Because, believe me, it's got to be real.

If after ten minutes, it is obvious that it is totally incomprehensible, even to the preclear, he'll probably recognize it too. And then you acknowledge his recognition that it's totally incomprehensible anyhow. See? Don't Q-and-A with the incomprehensibility.

This is a neat piece of work — always, the handling of a pc origin is a neat piece of work. But it becomes nonmechanical the moment that you decide to understand it. You say, "Well, I'm going to figure this thing out." And without putting on an auditor mock-up or doing anything artificial at all, you just go puppy to the root and understand what the devil he said. You say, "Of all things — what are you saying?" I don't care how incredible you sound or anything else. It's how you felt about that particular remark, see? You finally understand it.

Now, it's not for you to give him data concerning it or lead him in any particular direction and so forth, in — other than just simply making an effort to understand it. Trickiest piece of data there is in auditing is the understanding and the handling of an acknowledgment. Okay?

Male voice: Thank you.

Right.

Male voice: If that should come . . . When you've given a command and he hasn't replied, he's in a comm lag, and the bank just throws something up — remember what you were talking about the other day?

Yeah. That's the circuit moves in.

Male voice: Do you handle it in exactly the same way? As you would have...

Oh, that — you are left now with judging whether or not a circuit popped up or the preclear did. And if you are super-plus-expert in this particular line, you are capable of noting that he didn't notice it either. And if he didn't notice it either, and he said, "Well, rruh, zuh, zwum" and so on, then why should you make an issue of it? But you can actually err more in differentiating than you can in simply understanding and making sure that it's understood and so forth. It's quite an amazing piece of judgment you have to exercise.

Instructors quite normally step on overacknowledgment because they want some time made in the auditing. That's reasonable. And some auditors, you'll give them a small amount of line, and they promptly think they've got all of the cordage factory back of them. And so every once in a while, why, you'll find an auditor who's tired of auditing, which is very understandable. And so the preclear says, "Ump-gump, walla-walla," and the next thing you know, an hour later no auditing has happened, see?

Whenever I feel like I'm tired of auditing, I always find out that it isn't auditing I'm tired of. I generally pick myself up by the nape of the neck and make myself sit very alertly and go right into it with ferocity. You know, I go right into it and find out all of a sudden that I was being lulled to sleep by the whir of the motors or something outside, or it was something entirely disassociated from auditing.

Yes?

Male voice: Thank you.

Second male voice: I have, on looking back on preclears — there is a distinct difference between a preclear origination where he doesn't necessarily expect anything to be done about it and one where he does expect something to be done about it.

That's for true. That's for true.

Second male voice: If the auditor can recognize the difference between these two, he's got it made in the shade.

He's got it made in the shade, that's right. There is no argument with that at all.

Yes?

Female voice: I guess this is rather simple, but in living, when somebody finds somebody, usually after that he can find other people better. Isn't that right?

Oh, for sure.

Female voice: Okay.

Right.

Yes?

Male voice: Sometimes, even the — seems like the preclear doesn't even go out of session, and might say, "I did that mock-up better," and he's all ready for the next command.

That's right.

Male voice: So I say, "Okay," and give the command?

Right.

Male voice: Okay.

Sure. You get so that you know what's expected.

By the way, I want to say something about — this particular line of approach, here, is based, basically, upon understanding. And here you would get an understanding with no necessity to follow through with an acknowledgment. Don't you see? So understanding is still the more important spot above the acknowledgment.

I do want to tell you this — something which I think needs punching up because you'll run into it sooner or later. You've simply been told that an auditing command on your Step 5 is, "In front of that body mock up a whirligig and keep it from going away. Did you? Thank you." And you might think there's some latitude there. In the last ACC we didn't even have this explanation of this. You might think there's some latitude there; you might think you could say, "Well, that's just a way of not overacknowledging the preclear. It might be just as well to say, 'In front of that body mock up a whirligig. Thank you. Now keep it from going away. Thank you. Did you? Thank you.' "

And I merely wanted to punch it up — the fact the fellow mocked up the thing, and if you gave him a good acknowledgment you would unmock it before he had a chance of keeping it from going away. And you could considerably interfere with the mechanics of his auditing. It's very, very funny.

Found somebody doing that the other day and the person didn't notice the preclear's mock-ups were getting terribly thin — they were getting thinner and thinner and thinner.

Yes?

Male voice: Fields and anaten — any data on the mechanics of taking it apart?

Anaten, of course, is a withdrawal. And anything which can persuade him not to withdraw to that degree, of course, handles anaten. But we have to differentiate between anaten of the body and anaten of the preclear. They're both distinctly different. Now, handling of anaten is best done by merely continuing to audit without disturbing him.

But now, you spoke about new ways of taking a field apart. I know so doggone many ways of taking fields apart that it's very, very hard for me to realize that this is very hard for somebody — at any time. It is a point where we're too prone to hang up, merely because it is a point of judgment and so forth. But a field is not all that tough.

Let's look at what a field is: A field is the mocking up of what the preclear can still mock up. Let's just define it sort of that way. He can define that very easily. Do you see that? So the mocking up of the field or sections thereof is, of course, something the preclear can do well, so it is a very easy thing for him to do.

Now, he is doing several things with this field. And the field has significance, it has reason and purpose and games condition and so on. And we have to recognize that this is the case. So if we say — this individual — suppose this individual is in session and he can mock up. And we say to him, "What can you mock up?"

And the individual says, "Well, I can mock up a cat."

And you say, "That's very fine. Mock up a cat. Good. All right. Now, we're going to use that in session. Now, in front of that body, mock up a cat and keep it from going away. Did you? Thank you. All right."

Now, let's do exactly the same thing with a field. This is rather interesting. I mean, it's not any different. We say, "What can you mock up?"

The fellow says, "What I can mock up? What are you talking about?"

You explain it — "Can you put up a mental image picture of some kind or another?"

"No."

Well, now we go into a test, and "What are you looking at?" and all of this sort of thing.

And he eventually says, "Well, I just don't see anything, just anything." And we finally persuade him out to a point of where he is looking, and he sees that he has some jellylike substances which sort of combs away from in front of him. Well, it's very fascinating. What is it but formless energy? He can still mock up energy, but it is without form. There's total formlessness.

Now, if we simply say the same commands to him, "All right, in front of that body, mock up some formless energy and keep it from going away. Did you? Thank you," we will still, sooner or later, conquer a field. Because what is it but an obsessive mock-up? It is what he can mock up, you see?

Now, as he begins to get better at mocking it up he, of course, takes more adventurous steps, and he may turn it yellow. It may get to be yellow or green or purple, or with splashing dots in it or something of the sort. Now, we shouldn't Q-and-A with it too much. But remember this: He did have the ability to mock up this mass. But did he recognize that he was mocking it up? And so we would take that up at this point, at the field change, rather than Q-and-Aing with it and giving him the new type of mock-up which he was getting. Otherwise we'd just be running on total automatic and validating his copying of the physical universe.

So, taking off from that understanding that it is just — it's maybe the last-ditch thing that the preclear can mock up on his own almost-determinism, and it is a field, and he does use it to resist things, and all other kinds of rationale — we could proceed from that point and clear a field, couldn't we?

Male voice: I got lost on the pronoun "his." Is that four universes? Three universes?

No, it's merely a mind. Merely a mental image picture.

Male voice: Does he produce . . .

His own mental image picture. Now, he can still produce a mental image picture that is a formless mass of glyuphh. Or he can still produce a rather able shield, which is still, however, merely resisting things he is still producing but doesn't any longer take responsibility for.

Male voice: A double defense system"?

Yes sir. So you got a defense system mixed into these fields, which isn't necessarily there with other mock-ups. So they appear to be much more complicated because they're self-protective mechanisms. They appear to be much more complicated. And people know instinctively these are self-protective mechanisms, and so they take rather remarkable flights of fancy with regard to them. They don't like to encroach on somebody else's privacy to this degree. They say, "If this fellow is protecting himself to this degree, may — I shouldn't tackle him. The fellow is lying on his back with a — disemboweled, and I'm supposed to come along and pour salt in the wound." An auditor very often has this attitude toward a field. Well, he doesn't know why he has this attitude, but it's just there.

Now, there's one method, which is the method you have of simply doing Step 5, only you just use the field instead of the mock-up, you see? You just do nothing more than that. You've got a method. All right.

Now, we can increase his havingness by adding an additional step. But we could do any mock-up this way, and we know it. You could say, "What can you mock up?"

The fellow says, "I can mock up a paper doll."

You say, "Fine. All right, in front of that body mock up a paper doll. Shove it into that body. Keep it from going away. Did you? Thank you." Got the idea?

Now, why do you do that? Well, because problem-closure, snap-in, is an automaticity, and you're taking that over, too. You're just taking over one more action of the field, which is snap-in on the body. You know, when a person solves a problem it snaps in on his body? Well, shoving it into the body takes it in — a snap-over mechanism. (snap) See? All right.

Now, let's go on from here. Supposing we just took the self-protective mechanism and disabused him of that and forgot all about the mock-ups? We'll say, "What action could you take against that body?"

And the fellow says, "Oh, I can smash it up and throw it over the hill," and so on.

You say, "No, no, I want something — I want you to be very certain of this, now. What action are you very certain that you could take against that body?"

And the fellow thinks it over for a long time. He says, "Well, I could tickle its nose with a feather."

You say, "Good. Do so."

Now, you build him upstairs with this, on a gradient, following certainty, and he eventually gets over the idea that he has to protect himself this violently, and you can cure him of the protective mechanism. Well, that's another method of clearing a field and that will do it all by itself. But remember, it's his ability to mock up that you're trying to regain, so you may be getting right back to having to mock up black smoke, after all. But you've taken the protective mechanism out. All right.

Let's take another complete rationale on field. Let's forget those and take another one. We'll say, "What part of that field could you be responsible for?" Well, oddly enough, this is apparently a very adventurous method because it would cut his havingness down. Oh no, it wouldn't. Because every shield he has out in front of him is preventing him from having. So he'll tell you what parts of the field or the shield are justified.

And he'll say, "Well, I can take responsibility for the shield I have erected against my fifth wife." He'll tell you all sorts of things like this. And you can run that down, and the next thing you know he's more relaxed and he doesn't know quite why. You could do the whole thing on responsibility. Again, there would go the field.

Another method is, "Between you and that field, what can you mock up?" See?

And the fellow says, "Well, I don't know. Men, women, (mumble). I don't know."

And you say, "Well, how about some simple object? How about a sugar cube?"

"Yeah, I can do that." And again, by just having him mock up sugar cubes on the six parts of the body and not do anything with them at all, the field will go. You see this?

So here's rationale after rationale that cleans up a field. And you can probably, knowing the mechanics of a field, you could probably sit there and figure out, looking right straight at a preclear, a half a dozen more. But a field is a very tenuous situation and surrenders rather easily.

Male voice: We used to do this by creating it new each time . . .

That's right.

Male voice: . . . and deciding what to place . . .

All right.

Male voice: . . . which I thought was a shortcut.

That's perfectly all right. You have the individual create a field and invent things to protect himself with it. There's another method: "Protect yourself against that wall." "Protect your body from that wall." "Invent a method of protecting your body from that wall," will, again, take over an automaticity of field.

"What would be a good thing to mock up that would ruin everybody?" That auditing question is also workable.

The fellow would say, "Cyanide gas."

You say, "What? You got a field there?"

"Yes, as a matter of fact."

"Does it have any odor?"

"Yes, as a matter of fact, it does. It smells just like cyanide gas." That answer it to some degree?

All right.

Male voice: I don't understand the double defense system. To me laughter is a double defense system. When somebody laughs it's one defense gone and he's laughing from the other one.

All right. That's right. But if you say "double defense," you might as well move it on up numerically because a person is probably simply a complex of defense systems after he gets into trouble. You got it?

Okay.

Male voice: I've been using Creative Processing — probably one of the few auditors who have, right straight through — and certainly using it with every preclear I've ever had, Step V of SOP 5. Because I found that he gets more gains. Now then, I haven't come up against all those complicated means you're talking about, but I've always found that no matter, practically, who they are, that they mock something up and you get, "No, I can't see it, it's black out there."

I say, "Well, can you get the idea you got it out there?"

"Yeah."

"Copy it. Copy it. Copy it. Copy it. Copy it. Copy it." My gosh, you — you get — and then, they keep on doing that long enough — I never thought of fields as a problem, and this business of validating fields is rather novel to me.

Well, it's not much of a problem. If you just tell a fellow to copy the walls and copy the ceiling and copy the floor . . .

Male voice: Yeah.

. . . and go on copying it. And if you ask him, particularly, to run it with responsibility — "Look around here and find something you could be responsible for copying, and now copy it" — you're again taking over the automaticity which goes into fields, and which goes into bank. But a field is merely a serious condition of bank. You're handling bank all the way, don't you see? And when it gets very serious, we consider it serious only because we say the fellow can't see anything. Well, it's our . . . The biggest task is to get him to see something, even if it's just a field. Now, actually, that's tougher to handle than a field. And now, once you've got the field — if you can't handle a field, believe me, you couldn't handle the rest of Step 5, 6 and 7.

You can run 5, 6, and 7 with the field, you know?

Male voice: Mm-hm.

"Destroy" is another factor involved in it. If you — you can blow a field, change somebody's mind, put him on a Responsibility Scale — well up on the scale. You wouldn't — it doesn't run to the bottom. But you just ask him for, "Invent methods of destruction" in direction of certain masses. And again, you will take over the other side of the screen, and something will happen to the field. All of which is very interesting.

But you should realize that in handling a field, you are handling the whole works as a field. And the only thing you are destroying between a non-Clear and Clear is the various symptoms and interlockings of what you could, rather erroneously, call a field. But it is all the mass in which a thetan is packed up. And you're just separating this whole thing out. And if you're pushing at one part of this problem, it must be because you don't recognize that it is the only problem there is there. And Keep It from Going Away takes care of the problem manifestation so that there is no liability to a solution. And you can solve this field, then, or solve this mock-up difficulty or solve the whole works all the way up the line, without having the solution take his head off. And that's about the only reason you keep it from going away and hold it still and make it more solid. Got that? It's quite important to this.

You all should be out of this stage by today. I mean, today should be the end of anything you're doing about a field as such. You'd be better off just to go on and run Step 5.

Yes?

Female voice: Did you say "Shove it into the body and keep it from going away"?

Yes. You can — that's just compounding the felony all the way up the line.

Female voice: I used to think I had to be in the body and receive it, so I'd be certain that it got there.

That's why we say, "Shove."

Female voice: Oh, I see.

You know, there are a lot of cute little gimmicks scattered around through Scientology . . .

Female voice: Thought that was certainty. ... if you look it over. Yeah, all right.

Yes?

Male voice: I can see a difference, but I'd like you to explain it. Why — well the rationale behind mocking things up with your eyes open and mocking them up with your eyes shut. I personally have . . .

The rationale is totally that if you mock them up with your eyes open, you continue to have the havingness of the room, and it doesn't run havingness down as fast. But if a preclear can't do it, there's no sense in beating him to death because he can't. That's the rationale behind it, totally.

Male voice: Which is senior?

Hm?

Male voice: In that case, which is senior?

Eyes open.

Male voice: I see. Eyes open is a senior ability?

No, no. Senior ability, of course, is eyes closed.

Male voice: Uh-huh.

But the senior process is eyes open. It's a better process than eyes closed. However, there's no reason to blow somebody's head off. You're running it, here, on choice. I always give a preclear total choice in this — eyes open, eyes closed. And after he makes his choice, I say, "Good. Open your eyes and mock it up." (laughter) Never interfere with his power of choice.

But, conversely, I never let a preclear's power of choice interfere with my auditing.

Okay. Are there any other questions here?

Are you doing rather well on fields today?

Audience: Yes.

Well, how about auditing? Are you doing well on auditing?

Audience: Yes.

You getting somewhere?

Audience: Yes.

Good.

If you had somebody create a field with pen and ink, which would match up his field, or with a paintbrush, you know, you'd get a long way with that, too. As long as he knows he mocked it up. Actually, knowing he mocked something up can be more important than a field. See? Knowing he mocked it up can be more important than the field, therefore we go into simple objects, we go into things that he knew he made and so forth.

Yes?

Female voice: It could be just like something you saw and you still could know you mocked it up, couldn't you?

What's that now?

Female voice: It could be just like something you saw and you could still know you'd mocked it up. Or couldn't you?

No, you'd have to pretty well know you made it. If that ability isn't increasing with your preclear . . . It's a very nervous thing to handle, by the way. You can invalidate a preclear just scat, just by asking him, "Did you mock it up?" You can get a drop of a point or a whole 1.0 tone just by asking him that one question. Nevertheless, sooner or later it becomes necessary to ask it.

I generally ask it by bridging out and then saying, "Now mock up something you're certain you can mock up." He's been giving me fire engines and Miss America, and that sort of thing, and we get down to a bone button. And then he'll — but because he's been invalidated, he's liable to go on, now, on an invalidative line: "Well, let's see, did I make the energy? Did I? I don't know. Did I — did I make that form? Am I sure that isn't an automaticity?" Fortunately, in a very short period of time, this runs out. But you've just asked for it to run out. That's what happens. It wasn't your invalidation that made him collapse, it was there to happen. And it can run out in a matter of a minute or so. And he's immediately over it. But it's a dangerous thing to fool with, and you must fool with it with kid gloves.

Yes?

Male voice: Well, the pc is very curious about how the meter is reading all the time . . .

That's fine. I'd make sure that that pc never saw me fooling with the meter, and that the meter was always turned toward me and never where the pc could see it. And I would also hide my hand in moving the tone arm.

Male voice: Mm-hm.

And handle it as little as possible.

Male voice: Well, would you handle the pc origin? Say if you get continuous pc originations concerning the meter and how is it reading — what's this and what's that — would you just. . .

Well now, don't you think that's a present time problem?

Male voice: Hm?

Doesn't that sound like a present time problem?

Male voice: (pause) Yeah, it does.

It does, doesn't it?

Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you.