Okay. Here we have now, Route 1, Step 11. R1-11: "Have preclear be problems and solutions in havingness." And this would, of course, be sequitur in having disabused him of his most favorite idea that two things cannot occupy the same space. Having disabused him of this obvious, known, practical and convincing idea, we would be able to go on to R1-11. Or, having failed utterly to disabuse him of it — you know, having failed utterly in R1-10 — we would go on to R1-11.

Now, you see, you could fail in R1-10 — you could fail — by not running it long enough, by having a preclear who is having a lot of difficulty while exteriorized, by having had this preclear be sloppily audited before. You know, there'd be various reasons. And you've asked him this question: "What things wouldn't you mind occupying your same space?" And, boy, he's vague, and he's this way and that. And after you run it for a little while, he gets unhappy, and then you get it kind of flat. But you're not satisfied with it at all, you could actually just go on to R1-11 — if you weren't getting anyplace with it. Now, that's not to encourage you to change a process just because it isn't getting a result. But I'm just telling you that R1-11 is independent of R1-10.

Why is it? Well, we're in a basic process again, you see? And do you know that all those basic processes — conceding the fact that the Remedy of Havingness and Spotting Spots are actually very much associated with each other — all those basic processes are workable processes. And here we've simply moved on to two-way communication. And we'll see, back here at the be-ginning, we asked him if he had any present time problems — you know, we got into communication by talking about problems? — well, here, tucked way down here at R1-11, we have a basic process. This is a basic process.

You could have started a process of this character the first time you ever talked to him. You could have started this process if you just had been introduced to him. So it's got to be in R1 someplace, so it's just there. It's not dependent on the one above it or below it. Problems and Solutions in Havingness.

Now, you'll also discover this over here in a later process, won't you? You will discover that this could have followed Opening Procedure by Duplication, hm? And you'll find it again appearing as R2-20, Use of Problems and Solutions — another way to run it. But it's still a very basic process, two-way communication. It's a problem that you're in communication with him at all.

So this fellow is exteriorized and we use this form when we have some-body out of his body. You know, he's exteriorized. He's an awareness of awareness unit. He's aware of his differentiation. He is somewhere up close to Clear. He's still associated with energy masses or something of the sort. Well, a thetan is unhappy unless he can have a few problems, and so on.

And you could ask him, "What kind of a problem can you be in havingness?" — specialized use, see. "What kind of problem could you be in havingness?" It's rather significant, but he'll give you some problems he could be in havingness. "Let me see, I could be a pauper, and I could be this and that." And all of a sudden it will occur to him, sooner or later, as you're asking him that question over and over again, "I could be exteriorized." That's one of the reasons he's not stabilizing outside: he's being a problem in havingness. You know, there's the body, and there he is. He should be in the body; if he's in the body, he has it.

Actually, he's having to hide, protect and own bodies in order to be happy in life. Well, that's a problem of havingness. Hiding bodies, hiding objects, hiding gold, burying treasure — that's a problem in havingness, see. Hiding, protecting, owning — these are problems in havingness. So you'd just go on asking him this: "What kind of a problem can you be in havingness?" Well, we've sometimes used this along this line: "What kind of a problem can you be in havingness?" and then "What kind of a problem can you be in not-havingness?" just to shake it up — you know, to give him the idea. He gets havingness as a positive and not-havingness as a negative affair. And this is just to make sure that you're covering all squares.

So you'd ask him this question. He's exteriorized, and you say, "What kind of a problem can you be in havingness? What's another kind of a problem could you be in havingness?" And you'd run that until its comm lag was pretty flat. And then you would say, "What kind of a problem can you be in not-havingness?" and then "Give me some more problems you could be in not-havingness. Some more problems you could be in not-havingness." And then we could run it a little longer, till that communication lag was flat on that, and then we could ask him, while exteriorized, "What kind of a problem can others be to you in havingness?" And again, "What kind of a problem could others be to you in havingness?" And then we'd say "What kind of a problem can others be to you in not-havingness?" And right away he gets the feeling of the walls pulling the energy out of him as a thetan, you know — parasites, people standing around. "What kind of a problem can others be to you in not-havingness?" brings up immediately the vacuum-cleaner quality of this particular universe. It really pulls the energy out of people.

And we would go on with that till its lag was flat. And then we could go into solutions and say, "What kind of a solution can you be to havingness? What kind of a solution can you be to not-havingness?" In other words, we'd just use those questions.

But every time we use a solution, we have reduced his problems, haven't we? You see, a lot of the places on the track where you'll find this individual stuck, it's when he's got attained, suddenly, a solution.

What's a basic solution? What is the ultimate solution? The ultimate solution is demonstrated by this proposition: The solution to a problem is the problem. This is demonstrated in Perfect Duplication. The solution to a problem is the problem.

If you have a solution to a problem which is the problem — in other words, if you have duplicated the problem perfectly — the problem will cease to exist, and you will have no energy, no mass, no location in space and no time, won't you? In other words, the solution to the problem is the problem. But the second that you did that perfect duplicate, you would have as-ised the problem, which would leave you with nothing. So solutions are the most destructive things to havingness you ever saw in your life.

A fellow gets a real top-flight solution, he'll wind up with nothing, won't he? And that is what people kick about when you talk to them about exteriorization. It is a solution. It is the solution to existence. Naturally. It has no further wavelength, and a fellow actually can exteriorize into no position in time, you see, or location in space. I mean, if he can't place himself somewhere he's in bad shape. But he basically can simply place himself some-where, not being anyplace, you see, and he would be an orientation point.

But what a silly thing this is. People fight away from having solutions. Do you know that if you got a Black Five, and you asked him to really solve something — you know, make a perfect duplicate of the problem? — he'd start to get sick at his stomach. You've asked him to look at nothing. Every time you ask one of these fellows who is figure-figure-figure-figure-figure-figure every time you ask one of these fellows to actually get a solution to the problem he's liable to get sick.

One of the finest things to make a person sick you ever saw in your life is come along, for instance, and point out the solution to a problem. The ultimate solution is nothingness. "Be three feet back of your head"; now he's in perfect condition.

But after a person has gone downscale to a point of where he's very heavily embedded in energy, and so forth, now nothingness becomes very antipathetic for him to look at. So if you start asking him about solutions, you start asking him — just willy-nilly ask him about what solutions he's had in the past ("Now, give me some solutions you have arrived at"), you know he'll get sad?

You give him some things — "Well, now what problems have you had in life?" — and for a little while, until he gets the bank drained down too much, why, he gets happier and happier and happier, you know. "Oh, my parents were so mean to me. And my father beat me. And my mother beat my father, and they both beat my little brother. And that made me beat my dog. And we all never had anything to eat but chicken and ice cream, and we had no place to sleep but a featherbed. Boy, I've had problems, problems, problems; I'm just about out of my mind." And you say, "Now, what solutions have you had in the past? What are some of your solutions?" The fellow says, "Solutions? Have I ever had a solution for anything? Let's see, solutions? Solutions? (Sigh!) Solutions, yeah. Yes, I had one: I left my family, was a solution. Let's see . . ." You trace back down the track and you'll find out that every solution is a reduction in havingness. You got that?

Well, you, you dog, are sitting there asking a preclear to solve his case. Bells ring? He's liable just to sit there and give you more and more and more and more and more problems, and more arduous, and more involved and further down the line, and so forth. Why? Because it'd make him awfully unhappy, he feels. If he is his body, a solution to the body is to have the body disappear utterly.

You get in religion the fact that a great saint is supposed to be able to dematerialize his body. I don't know what he's dragging a body for or where he's taking it to. But this is supposed to be the stuff. That's just a booby trap on the line, you see. Actually, he himself is no mass.

Well, a person has to be willing to solve something before he'll exteriorize. That's a little maxim I give you and bequeath to you this afternoon. He has to be willing to attempt a solution before he will exteriorize. And he won't attempt a solution until he has a great number of problems, and until he knows down to the core of his awareness of awareness that he can dream up problems ad infinitum.

So what's the goal of this process? He's a little bit unhappy about being exteriorized. He feels calmer and he feels better, but there's something a little bit queasy about it, unstable about it and so forth. Well, the best thing that you can do to him, really, is show him that he hasn't had his havingness go all to pieces; he can always have something more. Actually, being exteriorized and being free, he can now have far more easily than previously. Well, you just don't tell him that; you run this process and he'll convince himself of it.

"Now, what problems can you be in havingness?" and on and on and on.

What's the limit and goal of the process? He will at first believe that he could get a great many problems. He starts to think and invent them after a while, you see. You didn't tell him to invent them, but he will have to because he's drained the bank flat, which makes him very unhappy. He's got all the problems which are obvious. Now he has to start dreaming them up.

You say to him, "Now, what about this business about problems in havingness now — problems in havingness here? How many of these do you think you could dream up?" "Oh, I could dream up quite a few." That's not the answer you're looking for. The answer you're looking for is "I could probably go on forever dreaming up problems in havingness and not-havingness." Got that? "I could probably go on forever." In other words, he has to have some conviction that he can invent an infinity of problems in havingness and not-havingness. He must be able to invent an infinity of it, and know that he can, for him to stay stably exteriorized. You follow me?

It's a very important process, then, isn't it? But, then, we said that in two-way communication you could just keep asking a fellow "What kind of problems could you be to yourself? What kind of problems could you be to yourself? What kind of problems can you be to yourself? What kind of problems can you be to yourself? Give me some more problems that you could be to yourself. Some more problems you could be to yourself." And then for a little variation, "What problems could others be to you? What problems could others be to you? What problems could others be to you?" At first it'd be a limited number, but quite a few. At first he's hard put for them; he doesn't want to surrender any. And now he starts dreaming some up; he could invent quite a few. Now he can invent an infinity of them. If he can invent an infinity of problems, he can exteriorize.

Why? Because a solution is zero; the ultimate solution is zero. Recently I discovered the ultimate truth and the ultimate solution. Prove it too. It's right in your Axioms in the printed edition. The ultimate truth and the ultimate solution — they're quite obvious.

Therefore, an individual who is short on problems will not exteriorize. He has problems in lieu of objects; he has problems in lieu of havingness. And you'd better have him have an infinity of problems before you go on up-stairs to heavier masses.

Okay? Very well. I hope you know how to run that particular process now. You should, because it's right there in two-way communication and it's no different than that.

You could ask this thetan the same thing that you would ask him in a two-way communication: "What kind of problems could you be to yourself? What kind of problems could you be to yourself?" All kinds of machines will start to show up, and all kinds of problem machines and so forth. That'll stop him from using all this daffy machinery, by the way — all this daffy machinery that he keeps inventing and showing up with and asking you to unmock and so forth. That's all set up there so he can have an infinity of problems. He has problem-making machines, and a problem-making family, and he has a problem-breaking-down car.

Okay. That's all.