Do you know that they talk?

Audience: Yes.

Do you know that they're talking about the pc?

Audience: Yes.

Do — oh boy, that's ...

Let's go over that again.

Do they register the pc?

Audience: No!

What do they register?

Audience: The bank!

All right.

Can you find out something about these things? With these things, can you find out something about what's wrong with somebody?

Audience: Yes. No.

Male voice: No. Not the pc, the bank.

That's right! That's right, he's correct.

Now, I'll ask the question again. Now, can you find out something that's wrong with somebody, hm?

Audience: No.

No. What can you find out?

Audience: Something is wrong with the bank.

You can find out something is wrong with the bank.

Now — now in view of the fact that you know how to use one — first proc­esses which you're starting in on tomorrow aren't going to use one. I'm going to give you a little rest and vacation on them. Give you some idea, though, you can hold one, those that we have and you can fool around with them and so on. But the next process that you're going to run — the first valence split­ting process OT — that you're going to start running tomorrow, no matter what your schedule says.

The pc can hold the cans and you can watch the thing wobble, get famil­iar with it.

Now I know that there are people here that used E-Meters before. I know you've had E-Meters around, I know you feel very accustomed to E-Meters. Until you can make an E-Meter talk the way I can make an E-Meter talk, I'm not satisfied with you, you understand?

Audience: Yes.

You can do some of the darnedest things with an E-Meter. It's pretty incredible.

For instance, you can turn off a newspaper reporter with an E-Meter so fast he doesn't know what's hit him.

Let me give you an idea of what I was doing with E-Meters a short time ago just to put you in a little better mood.

Kept getting reporters down from The Daily Mail group, which is a very large chain of English newspapers. They've got a managing editor or some-body who has a horrible past, evidently, because anybody that can find out anything about anybody, it just scares the pants off of them. And they alter­nate between love and hate, you see, and they'll write a very nice story about me, and then they'll write a rotten story about me, see.

But recently they've been interviewing me without writing any stories about me. We don't want any stories. The dickens with the press. The press is not a good medium of communication. It isn't. Because you're asking some uninformed individual to tell the public about Scientology and that's almost fatal any day of the week. You can get along just fine without the press. Don't avoid it particularly, but don't — don't hand out too many interviews either.

We have a stable datum in Central Organizations about what you do with a reporter: you kick him downstairs. And when they say, "We've got a story about you and we're going to run this story and there's nothing you can do about it," you say, "That's very fine. Let's have the name of your solicitors, because you run the story, we sue. Ha-ha!" And they sometimes don't run the story.

But I have found a much better method, is you say, "Oh, you want to know about Scientology." Well, you hand the reporter the cans. You say, "Think of death. You see that needle wobble? You see that little bop there — death. It's very interesting, isn't it? You're thinking about death? Oh, you stopped thinking about death. Now, start thinking about death again. Some-body that's dead, you know."

And you turn on that theta bop and you show him the theta bop, you know, you say, "Isn't that fascinating?"

And you say now, "This instrument is about a hundred years old. There's nothing new about this instrument. It simply demonstrates that Scientology is factual. Of course this is a refined version. Scientology developed a transis­tor version which is much better — much better version than they've had before. And it's much lighter and much more accurate because every time you turn on the current in the mains why it makes anything connected to the mains go flip! and so on. You don't want that, you just want to read this needle. Now, think about death again," you know. And you get the little hunt there and so forth.

You say, "You ever been in an automobile accident?"

And this fellow says, "Well, I don't know."

You say, "Well, I'll show you something now. Don't you say anything! Don't you say a thing. I don't want you to answer me. We'll just take this meter right here and we'll find out all about it. Now, don't you say a word.

"All right, now, have you ever had an automobile accident? Oh, you have, all right, that's good. How many years ago was it? Was it more than ten? Less than ten? More than five? Less than five? Six? Seven? Six. Six. Six years ago, let's see, that's 1953, yeah, 1953. You had an automobile accident in 1953. That's right, I thought so!

"All right, now were you a passenger or were you driving? A passenger? Driving? Passenger! That's very good.

"Was anybody else hurt in the, well, in the crash and so on? Oh, there was, huh. Well now, was this a relation or a friend? A relation or a friend? A rel — friend. Girlfriend or boyfriend? Girlfriend, well, that's right. Right, girlfriend was hurt.

"Now, were you hurt? Oh, you were hurt. All right, now were you hurt in the upper part of your body or the lower part of your body? The lower part. That's good.

"Now, was it the right leg? Left leg? Right hip? Left hi — ? Right hip? Right hip! You hit the front seat? Panel? Door? Panel! Panel, you hit the panel with your right hip."

By this time this poor reporter, see, he's going ...

You say — the possibility is he hasn't kept still all this time. Somewhere along about the last few questions he'll suddenly say, "You know, that's right. I'd forgotten all about that. And that's right. That was my girlfriend! And that's right — that's right, yeah, I must have hit the pan — I didn't ever real­ize that before — that I must have hit the panel and I came around here and so on and so on and so on ..."

Then I say, "Well, the reason I'm not pressing this any further now — of course we could do something about this but — you have a pain in the hip now? Oh, you do. Well the reason we're not pressing this any further is we don't want to turn on what we call the somatic any stronger because if I kept calling your attention to it, you see, the somatic would just turn on stronger and stronger, and we don't want to do anything like that to you and so forth, so we just drop the whole thing there.

"Now, you know all about E-Meters, Scientology — I'm sure that you find that very, very interesting that somebody can look that deeply into your mind and find out what the score is about something like this."

This guy, by this time his hair is standing on end, you know. I haven't told him anything about Scientology.

The other gag is to say, "What question now shouldn't I ask you? Ha! Ha! You know. Yeah, I thought — I thought you were holding something back!"

One reporter came down, I said, "Now, are you going to write a good story or a bad story? Well, it's a good thing you're going to write a good story" He agreed with me, had to now

In other words we didn't have much of an interview. All I did was inves­tigate him when he was trying to investigate me. It made an overt act — motivator sequence out of the whole darned thing. They gave him a nice reverse flow of what he was supposed to do.

Whenever I've done that these fellows have yet to simply say, "Well, it's fakery, quackery or nonsense." They know it's not nonsense, just like you know it's not nonsense.

But how are you going to stand there and explain everything technically to one of these fellows? You can't explain it all technically to these fellows. They couldn't grasp it in the first place in two minutes. But they can grasp their own experiential track, and they know that you can find out things about them; therefore, you must know something about their mind that they them-selves don't know And as soon as they see something like that happening before their naked eye, they say, "There must be something to Scientology"

Audience: Mm. Yes.

Tremendous numbers of things you can do with an E-Meter.

This lecture, however, doesn't concern E-Meters, it's just a little side note. I want you to simply note the characteristics, now, of people reading on a meter as you run a tough valence process.

And the process you're going to run first up — naturally it would be some simple process that wouldn't do anything, because after all you're all a little bit green, you know, at this and you haven't tackled anything this frontally and so on, so we'll take it easy on you. We will simply run the A number one OT valence splitter. That's all. And as the valences fly off and plaster them-selves on the ceiling and so forth — and it's not the one I gave you at the con­gress. Most anybody could run that one, most any auditor could audit that one, one way or the other. Quite an amusing process, that one, because the masses move out and that one if you remember went like this: well basically, "Conceive a difference between yourself and somebody else," "Conceive a similarity between yourself and somebody else." Basic process, run as an alternate question. Auditing command, most favorable auditing command, would be to select out — better a general than a specific terminal, but this one oddly enough will run on a specific terminal. Like you find "Joe." Well, it will run on Joe or something like that. But of course there's other Joes and other terminals in the bank so it runs best actually on a general terminal. An auditing command would be dependent upon your E-Meter assessment of what should be run on the case. And then you'd take that as the terminal in a general form.

Now, when we say "general form" we mean a blank, a dog, a cow. You understand? Specific form, we mean "Rover." We'd put Rover in the auditing command, you see that's a specific terminal — "Rover" or "Bessie the cow" or something like that. Do you get the idea? But general form would be "a dog," not "Rover," "a cow," not "Bessie." Get the idea?

Now, the specific form pins the person down on the time track — tsk. Well look, this pc is about 76 trillion years old, see, and you're going to clear this pc up by running "Rover." Now the maximum age of a dog is about fourteen years, so the most you'd get off the track if you ran "Rover" would be fourteen years' worth. Isn't that right?

Now the maximum age — not maximum, but a pretty long age for a man, is probably about eighty and to run George, you see, would only get eighty years at the absolute outside off the track. And of course the pc didn't know George for eighty years, so when you run a specific terminal you're taking a small interval of time and expecting it to clean up a tremendous long area of case and it won't do it.

It's good for PT problems. It's good for a fellow who is terribly upsetabout Isabelle. He can't see whether he-why he should live because Isabellehas turned out to be "a woman." And you could — his attention is so thoroughly on Isabelle that you couldn't get it off to run a general terminal. Well,all right, run Isabelle. This valence splitter that I gave at the congress workson Isabelle. It would work on "Isabelle" or "a wife" or "a girl" or whatevercategory Isabelle is, you see. Be better to run on the general form unless he'stotally enmeshed in the PTP and he can't get out of it and you have to run it.So, the auditing command would be, "Tell me a difference between you and Isabelle," "Tell me a similarity between you and Isabelle." Just one after the other, alternate form, meaning one question follows the next question one time each.

General form would be, "Tell me a difference between you and a girl," "Tell me a similarity between you and a girl."

Undoubtedly the semantics of this could be much more easily worked out and so forth, and undoubtedly more optimum, but you see exactly what we are getting at. Well, actually as they run this thing you will see a mass, oddly enough, starts to move with relationship to the pc and then eventually move off. Now, that's the whole gen as far as commands are concerned — the one I gave at the congress.

And I'll give you one more datum on it, is you have to go back to Scientology 8-80 and look up dichotomies to understand what we're getting at. It comes under the heading of the anatomy of maybe. The anatomy of maybe is two opposed positives, see, it's — now, people say there's such a thing as a negative. Well, maybe they're right. But some — that something is not there is a positive fact, isn't it? And that something is there is a positive fact.

And when one can't make up his mind whether something is there or is not there he gets something that's maybe there. Right? So the anatomy of maybe falls between the two extremes of a dichotomy, plus and minus, if you want to call it — anything else you want to call it. Nevertheless, there are two positive facts, and those facts are yes and no. Aristotelian logic. In between these two, you get maybe.

Now to take all the mystery off a case it is only necessary to run "yes" and "no" and pay no attention to mystery.

You can run mystery and very recently I butchered up a poor pc for your benefit by having this pc run on "Recall a mystery" and the pc got nowhere. We could have gotten the same thing — you could have gotten much better results by running the actual anatomy of maybe which would be as follows: "Recall an existence or a thing that existed" and "Recall something that doesn't exist." See, "Recall something that does exist," "Recall something that doesn't exist." And we'd have run off all the maybes.

Now, maybes, aside from being basically a postulate — see, there's a postu­late that an uncertainty exists — stem from unknown location, unknown mass, unknown form, unknown relationship. That's a mystery, that's all a mystery is.

And for some reason or other, because the Curiosity, Desire, Enforce, Inhibit Scale — thetans look at an unknown and go tsk. They just love those unknowns for some peculiar reason. They can't get plus and they can't get minus, and they take halfway between and they just snap terminals like mad.

The fact of the matter is anything that holds you in your head is mys­tery. The body and the thetan are the two pieces of bread of a mystery sand­wich. Got the idea? It's mystery that's the peanut butter between those two pieces of bread that keeps them together. That the fellow doesn't know he's a body and doesn't know he's a thetan and doesn't know his relationship to the body, doesn't know the body's relationship to him and doesn't know the own­ership of the body and doesn't know what created him, and so, doesn't know and doesn't know and doesn't know and doesn't know — dunnggg. All the same he'd be in — stuck in flypaper.

Which is to say, he cannot make up his mind. He has no power of deci­sion. The power of decision more loftily is the power to postulate. The reason people can't make decisions is because they're too immersed in mystery. They can't say yes and they can't say no.

And there's many a poor girl who while trying to decide whether to say yes or no has lost her reputation. And practically every human being out there on the street that's having a bad time, is walking down the street maybe-ly, maybe-ly walking down the streets. You understand me? He hasn't said yes and he hasn't said no and he's going through some middle ground because he can't say either way.

For instance, he doesn't want his job, he doesn't not want his job and there he is on his job because he can't make up his mind and get out of his job and so on. You walk up to people. Very often you say, "Here's a job." And they don't say, "I'll accept the job," they don't say, "I will not accept the job."

I'm talking about aberrated people now Scientologists have gotten out of this some time ago, by the way. It's absolutely fatal for anybody to offer a Scientologist a five-pound note. It is! It's absolutely fatal!

Whereas, the general public — you can go around and offer people five-pound notes and they won't take them because they can't decide what's hap­pening. See. And they have to decide what's happening. A Scientologist has evidently, long since — kind of gets this cleared up just in the run practically without being audited. He — a person to accept a five-pound note has to make up his mind to accept a five-pound note, you know. Either that or be totally unconscious and go through some kind of an automatic action of just sticking it in his pocket and later on saying, "What's that?"

Now beyond this postulate that there can be an uncertainty, the anat­omy of life and the universe and all that sort of thing breaks down with the fact that all in-betweens are made up of positive extremes.

See, you've got two opposed positives. You've got a fact versus a fact.

There's many a man stays married simply because he can't make up his mind whether his wife is a good woman or a bad one. See, he just can't make up his mind. Women know this. They're always saying, "Dear, I have something to tell you, something I have been meaning to confess to you for some time."

The husband will say, "I knew it. I knew it. Here it comes!"

She says, "I didn't get any coffee for tonight."

Nyaahh.

Men know this too. You'll find particularly very young men absolutely ruin girl's morale with her, "Does he love me? Doesn't he love me?" And they play it hot and they play it cold, you see. They come around and they drop an armload of flowers in their lap and say, "Boy you're — you look terrific, you know, and how wonderful you appear tonight" and so forth, and then don't call up for a week. You know, the girl just zizzzz.

But understand that's made out of "He's there, he isn't there" see, and those two things — a person can't light on either one of them and so they just, you know, they're just nowhere.

Now, you'll find then that all valences are held down in and compressed to the thetan's bosom (I'm sure thetans have bosoms) by an inability to select out the plus and the minus, you see. They can't select out the positives. The facts are not there.

"Was mother a good mother or a bad mother?" They never make up their minds.

"Was father a good father or a bad father?" They never make up their minds.

"Have I been a good boy or a bad boy?" They never make up their minds. Get the. idea?

"Was Roscoe a benefit to my life or a hindrance to my life? I don't know." There's Roscoe. You get the idea?

Therefore, to strip one of these things off it's only necessary to take the two key certainties. You just lift out the two certainties and the maybes go and the valence flies off. You get the — actually it isn't very difficult. It's so simple that before this week is out you're going to make — have made a lot more out of it. That's right! That's right! You're going to get around and — you're going to get around and say, "Well, it's very much — very complicated. Actually, she said she would be with me a million years ago, and therefore the valence is still there, and that is the only reason it's around, except she actually didn't stay with me, and it was my feeling that she should be there, is why she's there." And big bunches of rationale. Well, go ahead and ration­alize all you please as a pc. That is up to you. But, listen, as an auditor, don't make any flubs on this.

Once you catch the certainty of certainty — that it's a certainty plus and a certainty minus — and as soon as you catch a certainty plus and a certainty minus and you see if these two things aren't doing something to a valence, for heaven's sakes, realize what you're looking at. And if you see it, all right, I'm glad you see it and that's fine.

I could tell you, "Well, if it isn't true for you, it isn't true." I won't in this case. Boy, if this one isn't true for you, you're stupid.

Now, the basic difficulty that you have with a pc is of course getting the pc to sit still to be processed, and you don't think this is a basic difficulty because all the people you audit are willing to sit still. The largest number of them aren't.

Therefore, entering a case with this process on somebody who is new, strange, different, odd, peculiar, probably would not be advised. I'd say the case had better be run — on the one I'm going to give you now — the case had better be run on something milder, something more interesting, something more personal, something more any way you can think of it.

Now, the valence splitter that does it by difference and similarity is quite interesting to the pc, and that is an interesting thing to run on a pc. So, if you're going to take a new pc, something like that, why, you run him on this kindergarten version. Have you got that?

And that's the "Tell me a difference," "Tell me a similarity."

You split valences that way and if you split them on somebody like George or your wife Agnes or whatever it is, why, this has good reality to the person. They go ahead and chew on it and it's not the fastest way to get there but it's the most interesting way to get there to the pc and if you don't give him an interesting way to get there — now, hear, hear, you PE Co-audit Instructors and so forth, if you don't give them an interesting way to get there, they don't stay around. You make sure that such things on a new pc, particularly a demonstration type of audit and that sort of thing, you run something interesting. If you do that then they'll start talking to you. If they start talking to you, why, acknowledge them and hear them.

I'm not going to buy any wound-up doll auditing, by the way, in this ACC. I want you people looking good and relaxed when you're auditing. You're all pretty well trained, and anybody at HPA level that can look like a good wound-up doll I'll pat on the back. But I won't pat any of you on the back if you wind up here as a wound-up doll. You understand? No mechanical auditing. I want you interested in that case. I want you interested in that pc, and I want you auditing that pc.

Now, an interesting process is more valuable than a therapeutic process early in a case, for individual audits, and this is much more important in a co-audit. You get a co-audit going, boy, you better find the most interesting process you can possibly dream up and let them run it. I don't care what it is.

I don't care what this most interesting process is. I don't care whether it runs them upstairs, downstairs or sideways. I don't care whether it increases their graph to amount to anything at all. Your job at that stage of the game is to make it possible for these people to go on and get good processes run, and part of getting good processes run is getting interested in the early proc­esses they are run on! You got it? That make sense to you?

Audience: Yes.

So, don't you go feeling odd when you — you've been auditing Gracie and Grade's mama has kind of gotten interested in being audited too, and she doesn't know very much about it, but Gracie sort of talks you into giving Mama a few-minute session, you know.

Don't you run anything Mama needs run! No sir, you run something Mama would find fascinating, utterly fascinating. I don't care what that would be. It would be something highly introvertive at her reality level. You could be so crude as that — crude as this: You could say, "Mama, what are you interested in?"

"Oh, I'm not interested in very much."

Well, you've had it. I wouldn't even give her a test audit. Because she's just going to flub and flounder and so forth. It will take hours and hours and hours to develop the case, but that would not be the usual case.

And you say to Mama, "Mama, what are you interested in?" And Mama says, "Oh, I love cats."

You say, "Good! Now, Mama, from where could you communicate to a cat?"

The next command, it's going to be right there down the alley, you know, or anything about a cat. You don't care. But if it's too therapeutic about a cat, why, you're going to start running out cats and this might make her unhappy, so let's run cats in.

But anything you do — hang the process on top of the pc's interest and you'll win, because then you're starting the person toward session.

And the process I'm going to give you now is not necessarily the most interesting process in the world. It is simply the most automatic, and it is one of the processes that a Scientologist ought to have run in any event.

I say the interesting version of valence processing is the difference — similarity. The one I'm giving you is not really the interesting version at all, it's the therapeutic version. It's therapeutic with an ax. As you will agree it's fantastically effective.

It, however, is for no beginner. If there is somebody here that's never had a case gain, that's been audited for 1,000 hours, we'll put them on some-thing else — or maybe we won't. But the process consists of this. It's a dichotomy — "Think of entering a mind," "Think of not entering a mind." That's the process.

Now, it's peculiarly apt for an auditor. You almost might say it's an audi­tor's process. But it's not true that it's designed for an auditor's process or it's designed to get a person's interest in the mind under his own determin­ism. Actually winds up by increasing one's interest in the mind rather than running it out.

What it does basically is strip valences. Now, of course, as you can see from the auditing command it would take in the full track.

Now, what is the anatomy of it? Of course, it's merely reach and with-draw from the mind, isn't it, in a highly specialized version.

So, don't be too surprised if the pc starts peeking out of his skull and doing other things, but also don't be too surprised if five commands later he finds out that's not his skull he's peeking out of.

Now, there's no real variation on this. The basic test process on this was "Recall entering a mind." Of course, it could be — have been stated just as well, possibly even a little more true as "Recall reaching a mind," "Recall not reaching a mind." I'm just giving you its various versions, because if it flops for you somewhere along the line, the pc's got it in his head sideways or something like that and he just can't seem to make headway out of it, there are some other versions of the process, and those versions are "Recall enter­ing a mind," "Recall not entering a mind," as an alternate process. And, of course, if he can't get this idea of entering: "How would you enter a mind?"

"Ah, blah-blah-oo-oo-oo mind, mind, mind ... What do you mean mind?" and so forth. You've got, "Recall reaching a mind" and "Recall not reaching a mind."

Now, you've got some downgraded version of it is "Recall reaching a person," "Recall not reaching a person." Or "Think of reaching a person," "Think of not reaching a person." And of course, what do you have? You have Overt-Withhold Straightwire, don't you?

Audience: Mm-hm.

Mm-hm, in its most fundamental form. "Think of reaching a person," "Think of not reaching a person."

However, believe it or not, that's too beefy.

Now, I'll tell you what not to run with this process. This fellow says, "Mind? Mind? What do you mean a mind? What is a mind? You mean a Freudian mind or a dog's mind or a Pavlovian mind? What kind of a mind are you talking about? Mind? Mind? I don't mind anybody." That's a CCH case. You understand? No thought they think is going to have any effect on the bank anyhow, so why make them think!

Now, it's necessary — in running a person on a think process — it's neces­sary the person be able to produce some effect on the mind by thinking. See, that includes almost anybody.

But you'll find these cases that are real bad off: think-think-think — "That's a machine ... I'm thinking. Isn't that nice, I'm thinking." "What did you think?"

But no thought they think produces any effect on anything. That's the interestingly low-grade case, that is particularly and peculiarly a CCH case.

Now, I said there was a version of this you better not have anything to do with for quite a while. And let's go back to the basic valence process, "Think of a difference," "Think of a similarity."

And now what would you think of this process? "Think of a difference between you and a body," "Think of a similarity between you and a body." Anybody falls off their chairs, tell those students to pick them back up again. That's no excuse for not attending this lecture.

That, of course, is a direct Theta Clear process. That's a direct and immediate Theta Clear process. But it just tears up bank faster than a thetan can handle it, that's all. Not a good process, you understand. There's all kinds of processes and many of them are very fancy and many of them are very wonderful. And I could practically sit here and chatter processes at you hour by hour by hour, and you'd all agree with me that they were wonderful processes, but they're not. They just sound good.

You can be very reasonable about why they're such good processes, too. Now, if you would just think of that process, boy, that's a bearcat. "Think

of a difference between yourself and a body," "Think of a similarity between

yourself and a body."

Pretty soon the thetan goes rahhhh-raaahhh. Next thing you know you're pulling in past deaths like mad because he gets outside, exteriorizes without separating any real valences — he starts exteriorizing out of past deaths, gets the exterior stuck point, you know, of looking back at the body, say, "Well, alas, poor Yorick." See?

And all you do is run him into all exteriorization stuck points on the track. The next thing you know he's just out of valence all the way up the track. And possibly it would run flat, but nobody has lived that long. It just turns on death all over the place, of course.

Processes which directly run in the direction of exteriorization we know to be bad processes, unless they cancel out their liabilities. And you'd have to run out an awful lot of significance off a case in terms of valences.

How can a fellow possibly exteriorize from Joe Doakes, 1959 A.D., when he first has to exteriorize from a robot, Lord knows what date, eight million years ago.

Or maybe the guy is stuck in a machine or maybe he's in a spaceship. Maybe he isn't in a body at all; maybe he's in a bedpost. See, and the com­mand just doesn't answer up to the case. That's all.

Now you make sure that a command answers up to a case on this differ­ence and similarity process by doing an assessment, and make sure that this difference and similarity is then immediately addressed to the terminal the person is stuck in. That's why you do an assessment.

Well, this other process that I've just given you as an OT process is "Entering a mind" and "not entering a mind," and so forth. "Reaching a mind" and "not reaching a mind" is almost a direct communication process, and it simply assumes minds. But then, what have you been doing for 76 trillion years but assuming minds. It's an unlimited number of things.

And it's the gradient scale. It is what a thetan is stuck in. A thetan is not stuck in a body. A body is — a mind is stuck in a body, and a thetan is stuck in a mind. So we're just — that's right. You blow people out of their heads, don't be surprised if they're not instantly and immediately in wonder­ful condition because you blew them and their mind out at the same time. They're still in the center of their mind. They move out in masses.

The old mystics call them "astral bodies." They say "astral walking" and "astral bodies" and they kick out of a — of a human body and find they're in an astral body and so forth. Well, that astral body is nothing more than a series of control masses of one kind or another that are imposed inside of this body and — well, if you know exteriorization you can by one process or another, kick somebody's astral body out of his fleshly body, you see, and then kick the thetan out of the astral body. See? Tsk-tsk.

Well, the reason you can't do that smoothly, and the reason it has liabil­ity connected with it and doesn't go smoothly and doesn't do anybody any good to do that, is because he's stuck on a gradient, and all you've handed him is a big bunch of surprises. He wasn't ready for these surprises at all, you see.

You better exteriorize him from a series of minds that he is already stuck in. He's stuck in minds, that's what he's stuck in.

Now, if about a third of the way through you decide that you're in a very silly business trying to enter people's minds with Scientology and so forth, well, just keep going a little bit, and you'll find out there was some compul­sive factor involved in this that made it no fun; that once you get that off and you go the rest of the way up, you say, "Aha." With what calmness after that you can say to some poor pc as he's sitting there saying, "Help me! Help me! Help me! I am dying! I am dying! I am dying! My head, it goes round and round and round. And I never know what to do, to do, to do about anything. And it's awful, awful, awful. Bugs all over me, you know." Instead of saying, "Ehhh" or instead of saying, "Oh, I've got to help this poor guy," you say, "All right. All right. Sit down in the chair."

And you start processing, and you get interested in what he's doing. You get interested in what he's doing. See, it is quite different than having to process him, you know, because the poor fellow is a victim.

There's hardly anybody made up the same mentally as anybody else in terms of significances and relationships, see. They're all made out of the same woof and warp. It's all matter, energy, space, time and thoughts and form. But the interrelationship of these things — the personalities and so forth they've met and their experiential line and all that sort of thing — these things are all different, and they're all quite interesting to me.

You'd think that an old seasoned campaigner like me — I don't know how many — actually I basically don't know how many thousands of minds, or tens of thousands of minds, I have looked over or reviewed or something like that. By golly, you'd think after a while — after a while, why, I'd get mighty tired of it, you know. Nah. Nah. Never found two alike yet. They all run on the same common denominators, but brother, what they make out of those common denominators!

This fellow was a girl is a boy is a boy is a girl is a girl is a boy. And he just can't face his mother-in-law. And you say, "Well, this is a perfectly nor­mal thing. Can't face his mother-in-law. Who could face his mother-in-law? According to the standard textbooks, why, you're not supposed to be able to face a mother-in-law, so he's perfectly normal and perfectly human and therefore, nothing much wrong with him."

You don't pay too much attention to this and after a while you've gotten noplace with the silly case and you finally come back and you say, "Let's see, what did he tell me?" You look over your notes — I look over my memory — and you just say, "He couldn't face his mother-in-law. I don't know."

Take a shot in the dark, and you say, "What's a mother-in-law?" He says, "It's a green lizard, of course!"

"Yeah, ha! What do you know. Ha. A mother-in-law is a green lizard. How big a green lizard?"

The guy is perfectly sane in all directions but the one area, you see, where you knew he should be normal on, because nobody really should be able to confront a mother-in-law. He's nuttier than a fruitcake. He's all ready to be sliced for Christmas. And there the whole case fell apart, and he laid it in your lap. When you get real clever about people and real clever about cases and so forth you will realize that ordinarily in the first half-hour of conversa­tion with a case — a hundred hours of processing later, you will realize that in that first half-hour, he took his whole case out, dusted it all off, and just one, two, three, four, laid it right in your lap! Ptock.

And then you said, "This is normal, and that's usual," and added your own script of evaluation to it and said, "That's it" and didn't pay much fur­ther attention to it and said, "Well, we'll get him over all of this on a sort of a shotgun basis," you know, and you came back and the shotgun basis wasn't working too well — you had to pick up the fire irons and say, "All right now, there's a green lizard that keeps coming up here. What ..." You know, you've asked him, you know. The guy goes into a trance, you know, and you say, "What are you looking at?" you know. You're supposed to do that once in a while, you know.

You know, it's a very bad thing to run a preclear and not know what they're doing. Did you know that? You'd better learn that. It's the mark of an awful corny auditor. Running along, doesn't know exactly what the pc is doing, but anyhow, he goes into this funny stare once in a while. You finally say, "Hey! What are you looking at when you go that way?"

He says, "I'm looking at a green lizard."

You say, "Oh?"

He tells you that three or four times, you buy this.

You know, you say, "Good. Cheers. Fine. Fair dinkum."

And you say, "Now, what does this green lizard mean to you?"

"Oh," he says, "it's my mother-in-law, of course." He says, "I told you. I told you the week before last, you know."

Cases go wrong on stupid and silly identifications. And when they have these terrifically, fantastic identifications and cross-ups, they're crossed up! And that's what you are looking for. And you sometimes just never quite look at what they're saying is crossed up, and then you just lose Lord knows how much.

Now, you're going to run some case on this sometime or another that's going to identify a mind as God. You'll be running the process this way: You say, "Think of entering a mind."

He thinks, "Going to heaven in the cathedral." You see?

You say, "Think of not entering a mind."

"Burning and brimstone forever," you see. What they're supposed to think.

By the way, there's some Christian publication around Australia here says that we have a limited grasp on Christianity or something of the sort. We do. We do. It just appeared — day or two ago, a long and involved column about — it said though, that it's well studied — the subject is — the subject is well studied out, but of course it doesn't have the same grasp as Christianity does have of the subject. And I agree with that, too. Boy, they've got a grasp, all claws.

I don't mean to get off into — into that sort of a ramification. But got to realize that there's closures — where you suppose there's a similarity, there will be some total identification. And it doesn't make any sense to you, but it makes sense to the pc apparently. Well, that's what you audit.

And you've got to watch these cases when they say, "Well, the mind?" And so this command you've really got to clear, you understand, "Recall entering a mind."

"A mind? A mind?"

You say, "What's a mind?"

And the fellow says, "A mind? That's — that's God."

Why, you'd better run something else. That's right, because you — you can't get the semantics of the thing straight immediately and he's all hung up on the eighth dynamic. So, if you do a reassessment, you can run some simpler process, like, "Think of a difference between you and God" and "Think of a similarity between you and God" or something like this. It's not a bad process, as a matter of fact.

But you found his identification, don't you see, and then you used a sim­pler process, not so beefy, to knock out identification.

You've got to be on the ball to audit. That's all. I mean you've got to be quick. You've got to hear what you hear. You can't just go on grinding it like turning out coffee, you know, out of a mill.

And no process you're getting here now can be audited in the absence of judgment. You've got to use some judgment on the darned thing, you know. You've got to audit what you're looking at! You've got to audit the pc!

Now, we do know the fundamentals of what's wrong with a pc, but once in a blue moon one of these fundamentals will mishmash — and jammed in a pc's mind, you see, they — inseparably and unauditable. You got the idea?

You don't sit there and argue with him and say, "Well, where did you learn that the mind was God, huh? What are you saying to me," you know. "What are you saying to me?"

You say, "Well, where did you get the idea the mind was God? Oh, what are you saying?" He can't get you. Don't ever try to educate him while you process him. See, process what's wrong with the pc, not what's wrong with his education.

Don't ever educate a pc, just assess the pc, look it over, and try to audit something effective. On a very early case audit something very interesting, and for sure get up to a point of where he starts slipping off valences.

Now, on some cases, you're not going to be able to run "Think of entering a mind," "Think of not entering a mind." It's duck soup to you, 'cause it's — but it's rough! It's rough, but — but easy. You understand?

It's easy to understand, easy to run. You know what we're talking about and even then you could still run on "Think of reaching a mind," "Think of not reaching a mind." You can still run that.

If that just doesn't seem to have anything to do with it, you'd better take that E-Meter which you've just been observing casually in your lap, and you just better run down an assessment and find out what this fellow is so identi­fied with in terms of valences — which is all a valence is, is a total identification — that he can't conceive what you're talking about and can't understand what you're doing and that will come about that you'll have to find out what he's stuck in and then run a valence splitter of similarity and identity on some specific terminal that you find him immediately, directly stuck in. You understand?

So you take a shot at this other one, the broad one, "Think of entering a mind," "Think of not entering a mind." It just — isn't there, then you'd better undercut it and find out by good assessment what that person is stuck in and separate him out of that valence, and then find another valence he's stuck in, by your E-Meter, and get him out of that valence, find out another one. And you just have to take him apart not on a shotgun basis — you'll have to take that pc apart (and there's no dishonor in being taken apart that way), you just have to take him apart valence by valence, mind by mind. Do you get the idea?

And he'll get up to a point sooner or later where "Oh, yes." You know, you're liable to hear something like that. "Oh yes! Yes! Well, I exist." You say, "What's the matter?"

"Ha-ha-ha. It's very funny, my father was a Christian Scientist." You say well, you know, this was fifteen hours of processing ago, you've forgotten all about that. He hasn't. "Well, I was a Christian Scientist. Mind, all is mind, all is infinite mind. Oh, you say, you're talking about mind now. That's why — and the mind is God, so everybody who has a mind is God, and I am just a little subject, and so everybody is ... What do you know! Boy, I've been nuts, you know!"

So, you'll get the thing bailed out sooner or later, and you'll get the iden­tifications out of the way.

But the basic identifications you're going to try to get out of the way at once are unwanted valences — unwanted, unneeded valences. And remember that at about three-quarters of the way through a run, a pc turns on one God-awful amount of degradation. If he's coming out of a serious valence, run him on through it, because they come up being themselves on the other side.

Okay, we got this one taped?

Audience: Mm-hm. Yes.

All right. Thank you.