I want to give you here, on - what is the date? The eleventh of July, is it?

Male voice: Right.

Nineteen fifty-five. I want to give you here the curriculum of the HCA Course, as it has been designed, redesigned and refined.

Actually, the HCA Course has been teaching, for a great many months, something it called the Six Basic Steps. And this is very interesting because the Six Basic Steps actually have never been-well, they haven't been for some months - six. They've been seven.

Now, this is a remarkable fact, but I'm not going to ball you up with what had been the seven. I'm going to sail straight in here and give you what are the modern auditing procedures.

Now, in the next to the last paragraph of the last article - article eight of Ability Major, issued mid-July 1955, you will discover several steps listed. These are the indoctrination week steps, and those steps you should know very, very well.

You would be surprised that it would take anybody a week to learn these steps. "We've just had somebody going through this and it would take a week, but the truth of the matter is these things have to be practically second nature before anybody can proceed along these lines. These steps are, very roughly, getting the auditor into communication with the preclear. Now, you get that as a different procedure than getting the preclear into communication with the auditor, see that? Getting the auditor into communication with the preclear.

All right. So the first week of the Indoctrination Course is spent getting the auditor into communication with the preclear. And the basic steps which you find-have you got that. Jack, by the way, that Ability Major? I'll read these off to you just exactly as they appear, and you will see that they are very elementary, but the odd part of it is they are so elementary that people look at them and say, "Oh yes, of course" and don't learn them.

And then the person moves into the HCA Course and starts co-auditing and there's a confusion somewhere and the Instructor gets complaints and he says, "I don't like Joe because Joe is not a good auditor."

Now, why is he saying this? He's saying this for this reason only: Joe is not into communication with the preclear. That's the only thing that has happened, the only thing that is wrong.

It isn't that Joe has a bad idea of Scientology, it isn't that he doesn't know his processes, it's just that he has never learned to get into communication with a preclear. That's why we spend a week on this and, thereafter, auditing in the course works. But if we don't have that basic indoctrination, the auditing doesn't work.

Now, you see that's very, very important the first week. The other thing which happens in the first week is, under the guidance of a professional auditor, we have some reality on one's own case. In other words, a professional auditor gives some auditing during the first week so as to deliver a reality on one's own case that Scientology can do something to one's own case. And those are the goals of the first week.

Doesn't seem like very much goals, because here are these steps, these exact rudiments: one, awareness of the auditor, the auditing room, that an auditing session is in progress. That's the first essential to a session, absolutely essential. The preclear must have awareness of the auditor, the auditing room, that an auditing session is in progress. Well, now the odd part of it is, in teaching auditors this, we go at it in the reverse. We've got to teach the auditor to be aware of a preclear, see that?

Now, do you know there's many an auditor sits there and he says, "All right. Give me some more things you wouldn't mind forgetting." And the preclear says, "Well. .. Say!"

And the auditor says, "Now come, come. Give me some more things you wouldn't mind forgetting."

And the preclear goes "Dahhh."

What did he try to do? He tried to tell the auditor that he had just discovered the fundamental erroneous principle of his existence and he had just now cognited on this and here is the only audience present, one auditor.

And the auditor says, "Huh?"you know. Goes right on-impatient-he's got to run that process.

That auditor is not aware of that preclear. And do you know that the majority of cases that are spoiled and have to be picked up by another auditor-in other words, an auditor spoils a case for himself and then this case has to be picked up by another auditor - is spoiled simply because the auditor did not look at the preclear and see that the preclear had something to say. Just as easy as that.

Sometimes the preclear doesn't know he has something to say. And that's the real sign of a good auditor: he all of a sudden knows the preclear has something to say and the preclear doesn't know it yet. He said, "Give me something you wouldn't mind forgetting."

And the preclear starts going like this... [laughter]

And the auditor at this point realizes the preclear has something to say!

Now, do you know that the dramatization of hand-talking (the terrific dramatization of the Italian, for instance, or other hot-country people, of hand-talking) is a physical communication and it lies just below the level of verbal communication. And just before an individual has something to articulate verbally, a very sharp auditor will know it, because no matter how slightly, there will be some small tremor on the part of the individual.

It may be the Italian: "Oh, I feel stupendo, wonderful, magnifico this morning. Wonderful world!" see?

Or it may be the Englishman's ... [deep breath] which is a big gesture for an Englishman. [laughter]

You'll find most conversation has these two levels going on at once. But the odd part of it is, is before a communication comes up to the verbal level, it ordinarily is in the form of a solid or action level. So an auditor always knows when a preclear has something to say and sometimes the preclear doesn't even know he has something to say. And the auditor says to him, "What happened? What went on? What went on just then?"

And the preclear says, "Did something go on just then? Oh, yes. Yeah, something. Oh yes. I was just remembering all those times my mother beat me. Yes, yes. It's very sad, except - I don't know, there's something wrong with it somehow or another. It kind of, it... I don't know, it-uh-uh, ahem ... Of course there's that time I beat my mother. Yes! [sigh]" And then the preclear didn't even know he had it to say.

In other words, this is a little bit of forced cognition on the part of the auditor. The auditor looks at the preclear and knows the preclear has something to say and, by asking him what he has to say, all of a sudden causes the preclear to cognite. And the preclear all of a sudden realizes he had something to say.

Therefore an auditor who knows this and who does this can get a preclear cogniting, bang, bang bang bang and the preclear never cognited on anything before.

You know, the rain was coming down and he didn't even cognite it was wet. But if somebody had said to him, just as an example, "Boy, look at this weather." [pause]

"It's wet!"

See? Now, this same mechanism is used, therefore the auditor has to be aware of the preclear.

Just being aware of Scientology and yourself is not enough in an auditing session. So we get this first rule again: Awareness of an auditor, the auditing room and that an auditing session in progress. Now, this is what's wrong with "coffee shop auditing." There isn't an agreement that a session is in progress and no real awareness that a session is in progress, because no agreement has been reached that a session is in progress, you know?

You keep asking this person questions, but he's aware that he's drinking coffee, not aware that a session is in progress. And therefore the auditing doesn't have any bite, punch, and very often will simply throw somebody into his bank somewhat.

Another thing is that a session is in progress-is a corollary to this, you have to tell a preclear that a session is over. So we use this "End of session." In "coffee shop auditing" very few people ever say "End of session."

All right. Let's take number two. Number two is two-way communication on a casual basis. You won't learn all there is to know about that for a year. I can just guarantee that. But you have to learn a lot about it in the indoctrination week and you have to practice it an awful lot during the HCA Course.

What is this two-way communication on a casual basis, what is it? Take Book and Bottle, old Dirty 30 as the process - Opening Procedure by Duplication, its correct name.

We have a person going from the book to the bottle and doing the same duplicative maneuver over and over and over and over and over and over and we find out, with auditor number one, nothing happens. Preclear gets unhappy.

What's occurring? Well, the auditor is simply not being aware of the preclear's desire to communicate and no two-way communication is carrying on.

Well, to give you the idea of what we're trying to reach, we could do Book and Bottle with 100 percent conversation - 100 percent. In other words, we never gave Book and Bottle commands at all, you know? No Opening Procedure by Duplication commands. We wouldn't say, "Now, did you see that book? All right. Walk over to it." We just never use those commands.

What we'd say: "Well, now there is this-how do you feel about this process now? Well, is that so? It reminds you of your grandmother. Well, that's fine. Yap, yap,yap, yap,yak, yak, yak, yak, yak." Get the idea? That wouldn't be two-way communication about the process or on the subject of the process, it'd just be random two-way communication. That's one extreme.

The other extreme is no communication on the process at all, just commands. "Do you see that book? All right. Walk over to it," see. "Pick it up." So on.

Just go on with these auditing commands and the preclear picks it up and he reels and he says, "Ohhh!"

And the auditor says, "All right. What is its temperature?" Honest, the preclear winds up after a while perfectly willing to kill the auditor.

Actually, do you know-do you know that it's perfectly simple and easy to run this Opening Procedure by Duplication with two-way communication without your preclear ever getting upset or blowing a session on it? Well now, that's just exactly how much two-way communication you would use.

The revolt begins, the process works, the revolt ends and the process continues. Bad two-way communication (none or too much) might cause, either one, the auditing session to end - right there. Preclear not even pick up his hat, just walk out and say, "Hell with you!" I've had it happen, I've seen it happen, so forth. And when this happens it's an error in two-way communication.

Now, although British auditors are ordinarily very, very good auditors-we got one over here, we made a citizen out of him in a hurry. He made a number of mistakes which are evidently being made in Great Britain and the preclear blew the session on Think a Thought. "Think a thought. Think a thought. Think a thought."

This auditor was not introducing enough two-way communication with the preclear in order to bring about an even affinity, reality, communication. See, no triangle. And the preclear blew the session. And the auditor followed the preclear out into the street while the preclear was getting into her car, still saying to the preclear, "Think another thought." The preclear left, has never been seen again. Now, what was the error there?

The error was simply no two-way communication. The moment the preclear started to look upset, the auditor should have said, "What is happening?"

"Oh, it's turning on my migraines."

"Oh, is that so? Had migraines for a long time? Is that so? Well, that's very interesting. Well now, what-what did you do just then?"

"Well, I thought a thought."

"Well, did you think the thought?"

"Well, I don't know. Who cares who thought-boy this is a horrible migraine!"

"Oh boy, they can sure be pretty bad, can't they?" auditor says.

"Now-well, what thought did you just think that did this?"

"Owl"

"Well, hey, that's interesting, every time you try to think this thought, you get that pain, huh?"

"Yeah, that's right! Hey, that's real curious. When I think this thought ..."

"Well, what thought are you thinking?"

"Ow! Uh-uh-uh-uh [sigh], that women are all alike."

Now, you see, your pc didn't blow the session. What would have happened if you'd just gone on saying, "Think a thought," see? Oooh! Because when there is no two-way communication, there's only one person present, as far as the preclear is concerned: the preclear. And only one person present as far as the auditor is concerned and that's the auditor. So, we don't have two people and we don't have an auditing session.

Each one has a viewpoint of only one person being present. And the preclear has been one person present, many times, in his or her living room or bedroom, with this migraine headache and has not been able to handle it and has immediately run out and found a doctor or an aspirin or a drink of whiskey or a glass of tea. They have numerous applications for a migraine and so forth, but why did they run out? Well, they couldn't handle it themselves. So you must conceive that any time a preclear blows the session that the preclear must conceive that he was there all by himself, incapable of handling the process or the thought which was occurring.

See, the preclear must have believed this-must have believed he was alone. Now, if you look in The Original Thesis, you will find out that preclear plus auditor equals more thought versus the engram than preclear versus engram. Preclear versus engram, the engram greater than preclear, see. Preclear plus auditor versus engram, that's greater than the engram. And how do you bring this equation into being? Two-way communication.

So, therefore you have to know the optimum amount of two-way communication in which to engage. You could engage in so much two-way communication that no processing would get done at all, except two-way communication. But if that is the case, remember, for heaven's sakes, to do two-way communication, not "analytic," huh, communication. There's no such thing as psychoanalytic communication, see. It just doesn't exist. It is either total evaluation by the analyst or total free association by the patient. You see that as not two-way communication? Well, that's just dead wrong. It's a wonder the analyst ever made any headway at all or stayed alive at all, just with that flaw. So we have to know this two-way communication on a casual basis.

All right. Let's take up three, the delivery of the question. You would be amazed how many ways there are to deliver a question.

You could say [slurred], ""Well, give me another thought."

Or you could say, "Well [sigh], give me another thought."

Or you could say [antagonistic], "Give me another thought."

The dominant type of auditor, "Give me another thought!"

Or you could say [apathetic], "Well, you might as well give me another thought-do anything for you anyhow."

That auditing question must be given in such a way as to bring about a state of mind on the part of the preclear that you, the auditor, are interested in him.

Now, the funny part of it is, you don't have to be interested in him at all if you know exactly how to give the auditing question. You don't have to get in there and sweat and strain and interiorize into his brain. You can be perfectly casual about it, perfectly casual. Don't run on the old Shakespearean adage that, in order to act, you must feel the totality of the part. That is not true. The actor who feels the totality of the part does not act. He's not acting, he's living. And it doesn't get across to an audience and it doesn't communicate well at all because it's serious, it's too real, it's too solid.

There's a very interesting story told about a very famous stage actress, I think it was Sarah Bernhardt, and the last scene is expressed by one hand. And she has this hand which is just outside the curtain and it does an expression of great grief. (This was quite a thing, this was back about 1918.) And the substance of the play was that she, in the play, receives a telegram from the War Department saying she, the play actress in the play, has just lost her husband in battle in World War I. And the audiences of New York were going wild about this-what grief, what pathos, what bathos, fascinating, wonderful, terrific-until, if I remember the story straight, one evening she went through the act and the audience booed her. They booed her. She had just received a telegram from the War Department telling her of the death of her son, in battle.

Now, you would say offhand, "Listen," you would say, "that must have been real then, she must really have been able to have expressed that." Quite the contrary, she did not express it. It was real.

So there is a certain amount of detachment present on the part of the auditor that delivers this. So if you ever go to feeling like there's something wrong with - a rather detached, not total-participant feeling in your auditing, you feel rather happy about the whole thing and the preclear's saying there, "Boohoo," you know, and you say sympathetically, "Well, that is too bad." You could think to yourself at the same time, because you're not telegraphing your thoughts, there is no telegraph machine set up between you and the preclear-you could think, well, in a little while you will think it is very, very funny, somebody kicking the bucket in this fashion. And there's the preclear crying and upset and so forth.

The funny part of it is, you remain in control of the situation as long as you yourself are not upset and as long as you yourself can express, a la acting, a proper respect for his grief, a proper participation in his grief.

Now that is a very narrow Hne, isn't it? We could go out on the basis of just a total insincerity, "Yeah. Well, what's so sad about your dog dying?" Youknow, this kind of an attitude, to "Oh, you poor fellow. It reminds me of my dog too," and the auditor starts to cry along with the preclear.

Now, somewhere in between these two extremes we find a mean whereby the auditor maintains the control of the situation, maintains interest in and affinity with the preclear and delivers that auditing question and puts into the two-way communication he's indulging in at the same time-just enough, not too much, not too little-just enough and the auditor himself does not entirely, wholly, participate in the grief or emotional response of the preclear. Not because it's bad, it's just because the auditor doesn't have to.

You notice that interiorization into a body brings about less control of that body, therefore total interiorization into the session brings about less control in the session. So we have to know how to deliver the auditing question, there's quite a bit to know on that one subject. All right And we get four, communication lag. And that is a technical point. It's the length of time between the asking of the question and receiving of a direct answer to that question, no matter what intervenes. And that's a communication lag. And it's quite interesting how many kinds of communication lag there are. There is also a process lag. How long does it take for a process to flatten? Understand that as a type of communication lag, which we call a process lag. It might take, as it did with one-Problems and Solutions-took on one preclear, what was it Julia?

Female voice: Seventy hours.

Seventy hours. Now, that was a process lag-seventy hours. Really got someplace with this preclear, though. But just this one process for seventy hours before the preclear could actually get easy, confident responses to the question. That's process lag. Well, look at the other lag and we get the length of time just between the answer of one question and the flattening of that one question.

So when you say, "Flatten the process," you don't mean flatten the question. See, there's two different things: flatten the question and flatten the process. So we have to know this about communication lag and understand how many kinds of communication lag there are. Now, the odd part of it is, there also is another little hidden lag that a good auditor gets to recognize and that little hidden lag is the acknowledgment lag. It's also a communication lag.

But it's how long does it take for the preclear to have it soak into his thick skull that his statement has been acknowledged. And when I say that, "thick skull," I mean it. Because a preclear ordinarily will go many hours of auditing before he finds out that you the auditor have acknowledged a single one of his replies.

And you're sitting there very confidently. You're saying "Okay." You're saying "Very well" and so on and you think the preclear is getting it. Preclear-you can shock him into getting it by saying "Did you hear me acknowledge that?"

Preclear says, kind of dimly, he'll say, you know, "Huh?" Kind of embarrassed.

If you do that two or three times in the course of an hour's auditing, the preclear will eventually be built up to the point of where he is receiving the acknowledgment. Now that's a hidden lag, you see? Because he doesn't respond to the acknowledgment. You just have to be aware that it's there.

Now, Gene, one day, got ahold of an old lady who was going on and on and on at the fastest rate you ever heard of, a compulsive communication lag. And this person, he suddenly realized, had never received an acknowledgment in her life and she was torturing her fellow preclear (they were both being audited)-her husband-just by yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap.

And finally Gene realized that this compulsive lag would go on until she recognized somebody acknowledged it. So he got right in front of her and he tracked with her eyes, right in front of her, and he held up his finger and got her looking at his finger and when she finally looked at his finger he said, "Good!" and she shut up.

The first acknowledgment she had ever received probably, probably since she was a little girl. Interesting, huh? So that's just all a part of communication and you must know that about this lag.

Now, five is the acknowledgment of the question, which I've just been talking about.

And six, the duplication of that exact question.

Now, I'll tell you why this type of processing, which we're doing today, was never done in the past, is a human being can't do it. Let's get that very clear: a human being can't do a repetitive-question process. A person who is dead in his head, doesn't know Scientology, is running off stimulus-response and so forth, will just-all the wheels will come loose and just blow up if you ask him to sit there and say, time after time after time after time, the same question.

Now, we're talking about the auditor. The auditor isn't being audited. And he says ... Julia just said seventy hours on one process and of course that had two questions. That could be varied a little bit with a discussion of the question, of sharpening it up somewhat for the preclear. "Some problems? Well, I don't know. Problems, you know. Well,how about a problem you know." Suggest a problem to him. "Can you think of a problem in connection with anything in particular-your father, something like that?" You know, coaching, just saying, "Oh come on, give me anything," as an auditor will occasionally do. Well, now, there was this little bit of variation which went on occasionally, but-the usual thing: "All right. Give me another problem you could be to yourself."

Just sitting there, repeating that question, repeating that question, repeating that question, repeating that question, is beyond the powers of Homo sapiens. Therefore an auditor has to be at least Homo novis. Honest, his neurons and synapses just fly apart. He just as-ises the words. They will suddenly cease to exist in his bank.

If you ask somebody to sit down (give you an example of this) and repeat his name-this is one of the oldest mystic processes I know of, by the way. This is a very old process. I first ran into this process when I was fifteen, in India. You sit down and say your name.

A very, very wise man who was a very good friend of mine had me do this one day. And he said this to me. He said, "Now, you just sit right there." He said, "Oh," he says, "you want to know something-you want to know something about the mysteries. Then sit in that chair and repeat your name."

And so I did. I sat-I've never used the name since, by the way-Ronald. I sat there and said, "Ronald, Ronald, Ronald, Ronald, Ronald, Ronald..."

Once in a while, why, he would drift through the room and "Keep it up," he'd say.

"Ronald, Ronald . .." All of a sudden, "Who the hell am I? Who am I? How did I get here!"

I was actually exteriorizing a little bit. I suddenly remembered feeling like this when I was two and three and four-feeling like this very vividly: "Where am I from? What am I doing here? What am I anyhow?"

Well, let's take any word-that, of course, is taking a person's identity and throwing it into a cocked hat-that's the end of his identity. After that, he will never really totally feel an identity if he really keeps this up for as many hours as you should do it, which is the basic of Repeater Technique, old-time Repeater Technique.

All right. Now, if we sit down and say, just over and over, "Give me something you wouldn't mind forgetting. Give me something you wouldn't mind forgetting. Give me something you wouldn't mind forgetting"-and the fact is, it's being acknowledged all the time. Well, communication just tears up mass and throws it away. And if you're saying this on a-an auditor will put it on a machine and the machine will tear up. And put it back on the machine and the machine will tear up. And he put it back on a machine basis, the machine-he's just sitting there as a machine, he's saying "I'm just an auditing machine," you know.

"Give me something you wouldn't mind forgetting. All right. That's fine. Thank you." "Give me something you wouldn't mind forgetting. Now, that's good, that's fine. How do you feel about that now? Well, that's fine." "Well, give me something you wouldn't mind forgetting. Good. Fine." "Give me something you wouldn't mind forgetting. Good." "Give me something else you wouldn't mind forgetting. Good."

"Well, give me something else you wouldn't mind forgetting. Good." "Give me something else you wouldn't mind forgetting. Good." "Give me something you wouldn't mind forgetting. Good." "Give me something you wouldn't mind forgetting."

He's varying it around just so the preclear will continue to get the question, but the fact of the matter is forgetting, forgetting, forgetting-"What is this thing called forgetting?"

He's actually restimulated a tremendous number of forgetters in his own bank and he'll start to go "Dzzz." The first thing you know, he will actually forget the process that he's running on the preclear. And the next question will be, "Well, give me some things you aren't hiding." You see how this is? This works out just flatly and consistently. He just can't help but change the process. Why? Because the old process disappeared. A machine won't do it. That's the secret of it: a machine can't run a process. And we realize that Homo sapiens is very, very much a machine creature.

Now, you cannot erase a thetan. So you ask the question each time newly, you ask it interestedly, and it just doesn't ever erase, that's all. It doesn't ever repeat itself out and an individual doesn't go into a set of jitters simply because he's had to duplicate, duplicate, duplicate, duplicate, duplicate.

Time itself is made out of no-duplication. So if you're depending entirely on the mechanical aspects of time-you see if you really did duplicate everything, the first moment of time would still be in the process of getting as-ised. You'd create time and then you'd as-is it, if you perfectly duplicated it, you see. And you'd create it and you'd as-is it. You'd create it and as-is it, and you never would have any time. You'd keep as-ising the postulate.

You say, "Now there will be time. Now there will be time." And if you got a perfect duplicate, you see, if you duplicated this perfectly, you'd-wouldn't have the time you'd just started out with. You see what would happen? "Now there will be time. Well, let's see now. All right. Now there will be - duhh!” Gone. Right after, you'd have no time. So therefore you must be able to be able to articulate a thing over and over and over again, each time freshly, each time newly - you a thetan, not you a machine.

Therefore an effort to teach a psychoanalyst, to duplicate, would not be impossible, but you'd practically have to do it with a shotgun. You would get the most awful arguments you ever heard of. The fellow would say, "You ..." He's not cognizant of the basic principles of this sort of thing, he's actually not studying them. You're just trying to teach him one thing. You're trying to teach him that he must keep on asking this question over and over and over again. See, he must keep on asking that question. "Well, why? I mean ..." He can give you all kinds of reasons, rationale and he'd say, "Well, I don't find anything in Breuer's writings about this." He'd give you all sorts of things.

He'd say, "Well, Sigmund Freud did this once." That's their old, old stock standby. They'll tell you, "Well, it's all old, it's all been done before."

All this is squirm, squirm, move sideways, get out of your road. "I cannot duplicate," it's saying, all the way along the line, because a person who cannot duplicate is a person who is running on machines. And a person who is running on machines can't duplicate, because the one thing a machine can't do is duplicate.

That's why Opening Procedure by Duplication just takes a person's machinery and tears it up in little shreds and throws it away. And the person exteriorizes eventually. Why? Because the only thing that's left is himself. That's the total modus operandi of that process. So the duplication of the exact question is something that an individual has to learn very sharply.

Now, the indoctrination week, concluded, should bring home a cognizance of these points, an understanding of and an ability to use them, also some reality on one's own case level. This is quite important.

Do you know that there are people around who are practicing Dianetics or Scientology on whom it has never worked? It's not possible. How could an individual practice something on which he himself has no reality?

Well, the answer to it is he doesn't practice it. He practices the word, not the science. See, he says he's practicing Dianetics, but he doesn't practice Dianetics. He will introduce enough curves into it, all of which are an effort to escape these various points, that it won't be Dianetics.

Then somebody goes to this person and they get-engram run on them or something of the sort and when they get all through with the engram being run on them, they feel worse. And then they go around telling people, "Dianetics doesn't work."

This is an inaccurate statement. The statement is "Dianetics audited by A on me does not work."

Now, we'll discover this oddity, then, if we trace it back: "Audited by A on me." Oh!

Has Dianetics ever had any reality to A? And the answer is no. He has never experienced anything as a result thereof, any betterment or, really, any worsening. There is no experience back of this, there is no reality, there is no agreement with this. So, of course, that is the other part in the indoctrination week.

The oddity is also, and I'll go into that immediately, is that these processes of which we are teaching are the processes which work. But these processes are not all uniformly workable on all cases.

Now, let's just look at this and we'll see that somebody sitting in the chair, he's doing Straightwire, having Straightwire done-it isn't

working. What's the matter? It's just too high a process, that's all. Just too high a process for the case. And how do we detect that?

Well, there's a great oddity about communication lag, very great oddity about communication lag, if you please. When it is absent, one of two things has occurred, if it is absent-the preclear isn't doing the process at all but is just running on a machine response, or the process is flat.

How do you know which one is happening? The reality level of the preclear. That's the only way you know. Requires a little sensitivity, then. So there is a way of knowing where to hit a case.

You could be running a case on 8-C and find the person simply walking around with no communication lag of any kind and getting no benefit or change out of the process. That is the test: There's no communication lag? No benefit or change out of the process. That means you're running the preclear.

Do you know that you can run a person's machinery?

You know, I can stand here, I can make somebody coming by on the street there probably turn into the alley and wonder what he was doing there and walk out again. It is no difficulty in monitoring somebody's machines and you as an auditor, no longer floundering around in a stimulus-response mechanism, you have some understanding of this. You already have moved out of Homo sap level. Let's take a good look at this. Of course you can monitor somebody's machines. You can walk a body all over a room.

You say, "Walk here, walk there, do this, do that," just as neat-without anything happening. Why? Well, the body doesn't need exercise particularly. You're trying to do something for a thetan. And this thetan's recovery depends exclusively upon your returning unto him a little of his self-determinism. And if we cannot return some self-determinism to the thetan, the guy, the individual, then we are not going to achieve any betterment of the case.

Supposing we did give this body some exercise-you know, we walked it around. Very often an auditor does not know he's doing this. Well, one of these days you will suddenly cognite yourself, "You know, I'm making that body walk around and touch walls and do all this-there's nobody there, nobody home. It's-a lot of this is in the colloquial patter of the populace, you know - "Nobody home" - that make you feel very odd the first time you really know this.

You're liable to go down and walk waitresses up and down restaurants and then you will hit somebody who's really got zip, you know, or hit somebody with a tremendous number of engrams in restimulation, something where commands don't go in smoothly. And you will say to this person-which is quite common-you will say to this person, "All right, let's walk over here." You're walking the person over to your table so the person will take your order. And they don't walk, they go back in the kitchen.

And you say, "Well, I failed" and then you will cease to be interested to some degree. You haven't answered this question, "Is that body controllable-by anybody? By anything?" Because very often a body works this way: it's running on a stack of engrams, engram-type machinery, and you feed it a command here and it comes out there. I can give you numerous processes. Ridge Running-it's an old process that used to do interesting things like this: you just ask the fellow to say "Walk" as long as he-he has his eyes closed and you have him say "Walk" as long as he can see white. See?

And then the second it goes black on him you have him say "Don't walk" and it'll turn white again.

And then you have him say, "Don't walk" as long as it stays white, but the second it turns black, you tell him "Walk" again. Get the idea, see? You reverse the command every time it turns black and you run it as long as the command is white.

By the way, people exteriorize on this, but when he gets all through with this, he has experienced a great oddity: he has sort of walked through a bank of certain dimensions. And latterly, in running the process-if the case isn't too bad off, jammed up or something of the sort-you get the oddest phenomenon. A person goes out about five or six light-years in his own bank, see? And then comes back on the "Don't walk"-five or six light-years and he's back in his head again. And then he goes out thataway for a thousand yards and then he's back here, so on.

In other words, you could use "move" or "don't move," any action command, to produce this phenomenon. It's the same phenomenon. You run the positive as long as it's white, and you change when it goes black and run the negative. Run the negative as long as it's white, and when it goes black or gets too dark gray, change and run the positive and you'll get this type of phenomena.