There is some difference between a theta line and an organism, the difference being that an organism is MEST universe. An organism is a carbon-oxygen motor, low-heat engine, runs at a temperature of 98.6, has a circulatory system. You could actually, in a biological laboratory, build and grow a muscle engine. Wouldn't have a bit of theta in it. A muscle engine. You could hook up a flock of muscles to a crankshaft and grow the muscles and it would run the crankshaft. I mean, as simple as that. A carbon-oxygen engine should therefore not be confused with the human mind.

Any subject which is attempting to codify knowledge wants as little as possible to do with loose ends – with exceptions. I love these so-called laws which begin "Now, the following theory so-and-so and so-and-so is absolutely true." And then it lists exceptions and it lists practically everything that should have been covered by the law, and then it lists doubtfuls – everything else, We don't want any loose ends hanging out on this at all. As a consequence, I have to go into this subject to keep it in the MEST universe and to handle it in the second echelon, the MEST universe. I am not talking to you now, particularly, in the third echelon.

Now, the human mind, again, should not be confused with a theta line. When you consider a mind, you consider a unit mind. It is a – in most of your concepts of the mind, you think of the mind as something which an organism has to pilot and monitor it. An organism – one organism has this one mind.

You see, now there are three echelons: The first is simply considering the organism. First echelon, which was Dianetics, is considering the organism as it. It is just it, that's all. It's an organism. It is a body and it is a mind and it is a brain and it's all one. And it's a unit and it's an individual, and it gets conceived and is born and it dies and that's that. And it considers it as very much a part of the MEST universe. Now, considering it from that angle, you can still produce very good results.

Well, that would be a subdivision of the theta mind or the theta line. The theta line would be a timeless, spaceless influence, capable of making recordings, capable of animating and motivating and controlling, forming, destroying, conserving: matter, energy, space and time. Now, that is theta, and you could consider that this sort of a situation existed.

The second echelon considers the identity or the description of – an accurate and demonstrable description of – thought itself as something which is not of the MEST universe.

You understand now that I am not talking to you from the field of mysticism. I am talking to you from an embracive field which also embraces the field of mysticism. This data neither admits the principle of mysticism nor debars the principle of mysticism. It neither admits the principle of science nor debars the principles of science as it is practiced today.

Now, the third echelon is a study of why did it all come about in the first place and why is it happening.

This is merely – these subjects, mysticism and so forth, are just routes toward discovery. A lot of data has been collected out of them.

We are still very much in "how" when I start talking to you about the MEST line, the MEST body line – that is to say, the genetic line – its offshoots of the dead body line, and the theta body line.

Now, let's look at this subject both as to theta and the material universe and see if we don't have something vaguely resembling order coming out of the chaotic concept which most people have regarding mind.

You will find cases to which you will have to apply the knowledge I am about to give you in order to resolve those cases.

What I am telling you here is not necessarily true. It happens to be very workable and is relatively more true than anything which has been so far presented, since it embraces and organizes many fields which have been, in the past, merely specialized fields.

It will sound, perhaps, mad and wild to you, but that's nothing compared to how it will sound to the preclear. And that is nothing compared to the confusion in which you will find the preclear because of this.

Let us consider the subject – the whole subject of knowledge.

Now, anything which tends to reduce the amount of confusion and upset in a preclear, in other words, to advance him further up the track toward knowingness, is legitimate processing – anything. Education, anything. You can teach a person Scientology and find them coming up in tone, just because it's closer to the truth than they have ordinarily been progressing.

Scientology would be the study of knowing, or the science of sciences. Therefore, the basic concept on which it is built should be of interest to you. This is an analogy which will tell you something about that.

In all of the fields of knowledge, a unification of knowables is desirable.

Up here we have what we will call bin 1. Bin 1 is full of data. Knowledge is perforce concerned with data. If you consider a datum broadly enough to also include a motivation, a cause or an existence, then bin 1 up here has nothing in it but data.

And when I start talking to you about the individual and individuality, I have to take in factors which, when you look at preclears, you will find to be very, very much in evidence. These factors consist of the fact that one theta body can take care of several individuals and ordinarily does.

But let's consider that bin 1 has in it nothing but TRUE data. Here, for instance, would be, if it exists anywhere, the data considered in transcendentalism – the organization of knowledge which exceeds and goes above all knowledge. In other words, all knowledge is above the range of human experience, according to somebody like Kant, Hegel, – Hegel particularly. Hegel haggled around and got himself to be a very confused boy, and he got himself so confused that he says, "I'm just going to abandon the whole shooting match, and I'm going to tell you and me that anything that is worth knowing is beyond the realm of human experience. It cannot be sensed, measured or experienced by a human being. That gets me out of my difficulty and you're stuck with it." Typical Scholastic thinking.

What happens on the theta body line is very interesting. You find the theta body line starting out as an individuality. It progresses a little way through the MEST universe and may unite with another theta body line or two more, and then spread out from that and become several lines again.

And yet the world was stupid enough, by the way, for a hundred and some years, to let Hegel lie across the path of human advancement. For instance, the astronomer Piazzi discovered the eighth planet. Hegel simultaneously had published a monograph demonstrating conclusively that there could only be seven planets, because seven was a perfect number indivisible by itself and others and the Constitution or something.

In short, here you have your original theta body line, it comes along, it goes along fine, and this lifetime, it's one. And then it hits a lifetime strata and it becomes three or four. And then these three or four come in again to just one individuality again.

And so do you know that nobody went out and took a look! Nobody went out and took a look at Plazzi's planet, They just read Hegel, And the planet was up there. All you had to do was look through a telescope and see that it was in – its path was influencing other planets, and there had to be a planet there. But it took them a long time to get around to being smart enough to say, "What we can sense, measure and experience is more valid than what we can guess." Now, oddly enough, the ... You know Ohm's law – that very important law in electricity? Well, I've forgotten how long Ohm's law was considered to be beyond bounds, but it was fought and not used by people of Hegel's complexion. Actually here was a natural law, and a person like Hegel could come along and repeal it. Well, of course, nobody would get any electronicking done if you didn't have Ohm's law. Nobody bothered to measure it. They just said, "Well, it says here on page 86 that Ohm's law ain't, so it ain't." I'm sorry to use the word ain't, but it better fits with the complexion of such thinking – thinking quote unquote (laughter) – as these lads were using.

The only conflict here is the fact that you're accustomed in the MEST universe to arithmetic. And of course when you're dealing with something which is out beyond the MEST universe, you are not dealing with arithmetic. Arithmetic is based on the MEST universe. Mathematics apply to this universe and nothing else.

I had a doctor come in – he saw my name on a grip – down in Washington, DC, about a year ago. And this doctor came in and he was going to give me a shot. I'd just come across the country and I was coughing – probably had Service Fac One in restimulation. Anyway, a little penicillin would have fixed me up.

Now, here you have this operation: this body line then, may go out as two bodies. You could actually track somebody back and find him living twice through the same age period. You can find him living twice in the past, through the same years. But more importantly, more important to you as an auditor, you can find a preclear living in four or six or ten entities right here on this universe at this moment. And you can demonstrate it in any way you want to demonstrate it, and even write letters to the other identities, if you want to go that far, and tell them what they had for breakfast.

So I whistled up this doctor and he came in, and he saw my name on top of a grip. And he came in very sunnily, and the second he saw my name, he sort of froze up. And he said, "What do you do'" and "What are you?" and so on, He was a very nasty fellow anyway. And I said, "I'm an engineer," and – which is quite truthful. And he knew damn well who I was So he tried to give me a big breakdown on the fact – he said, "Well, there are people around that think things are useful just because they're workable and that people ought to have something to do with them just because they're workable." He says, "That's no argument at all" – jabs an eighteen-gauge needle into my gluteus maximus (laughter), and says, "I couldn't consider why anybody would work in that field anyway," pulls the needle out, doesn't bother to stop the blood flow, packs up his kit and leaves.

Now, up above the line of knowingness – this knowingness is a sort of individuality; it's a sort of a manifestation in front of a curtain. Here, let us say, [marking on blackboard] is a curtain, and here is "I" over here, but back of "I" there's a lot of knowledge can be concentrated, and "I" sort of shuts that off and says, "Well, that doesn't apply to me." Well, very often it applies to him so strenuously that if he doesn't know about it, he's going to be a sick man. Now, that's no good.

In other words, we still have Hegelism around. They'd rather read on page 82 that this is so than go and look.

So, we'll go down the line here, and we'll find this "I," let us say, in this life. That was one "I". Now, we take this span here with four lives, and we've got "I" here, and we've got "I" here [blackboard]. That's not back of each other, you understand; these are just curtains. And there's an "I" in front of each curtain, but actually back of this is the same theta line. Actually, back of this you have just this theta line going along; it's the same line. It just depends on how many individuals come off of it this time.

Well, this bin of knowledge up here might contain absolute knowledge. It might contain absolute knowledge. And if it did, it would also contain all this knowledge which Hegel himself couldn't experience. There would be no limit to the amount of data contained in this, but it would all be true. It would all be true. It'd be close to absolute truth, if not absolute truth. Now, this is just for an analogy.

You'll find a situation back through the evolutionary stretch where the "I" is dividing ∑, as in the Helper, And you'll find this division, division, division, division, then you'll find all the divisions sort of coming back in together, and then going all out and being different entities again and coming back in and – it's wonderful.

Now, if we consider – consider knowledge to be a circle, we find out that we have a continuing line here. At this point on the circle – just draw this circle, and then from the center out draw a line. Now, on the right side of that line – exactly on the right side of that Line – is one datum known. One datum, that's all. Now, existing right with it, but perhaps a tiny bit out of alignment with it, would be another datum. There'd be two data known,

It could be very confusing if you permitted it to confuse you. The only reason you could be confused about it is you're fairly low on the Tone Scale and you said, "I'm going to be me, and that's all there is to that," and "There's nobody else is going to share any part of anything I'm doing," and "I can't be anybody else but me."

Now, as these would advance in a clockwise direction, we would find that we would be accumulating more and more data. This would be what would be known as thinking by figuring out a theory and then looking and seeing whether or not you found data to support the theory.

Well, that would be very nice if it would work out like that; however, it doesn't. If you notice on the column on the Chart of Attitudes, up at the top of the column, at some unimaginable number height way above 40 – you've got "everyone." You would have everyone; you really would have. It'd come back to the main theta body, the BIG theta body. And if you could back up the Tone Scale far enough or high enough, theoretically you could be everyone, theoretically. As it is, you only back up far enough usually to be a few. And very few people have backed up into "knowing" far enough to be more than a rather aberrated "me." So you see, it's just how many, how far you want to go up the line.

Now, around the clock here would come more and more known, more and more known, more and more known, more and more known, until just before we got to that zero, we would have all things known – not a single missing datum. Everything known. They're right next to each other – everything known, nothing known, and two data known actually occupy the same spot. They actually occupy the same spot on this circle.

Now, in the old days there used to be this sort of an arrangement: The mystic considered this would be a master. [marking on blackboard] You see, there would be a master, and this master had in charge this many individuals, and this master monitored those individuals.

But as we move clockwise on this wise, we collect more and more and more and more data. And finally, as we go all the way around, it's all known.

The second you start to clear up a preclear any distance at all, he will come up the line just about so far, and then he'll get to a point where he'll start short-circuiting.

Now, philosophy, extrapolative thinking, that horrible word, pragmatic thinking... Pragmatism, by the way, used to be a good word until the universities got ahold of it, and now it says that it's – oh, the most wonderful definition. It says "humbuggery" and "bellicosity" and "thinking by induction" and it has about – oh, a whole bunch of meanings. I'm being jocular about what it says there, but there are all these meanings surround this word pragmatism. Actually, basically and originally all pragmatism meant is you just took some data and went out and found out if it was true by measuring it up against the physical universe,

Now, you notice these are closer and closer together. Now, theoretically this master is a master line. It's very "knowable" – I mean, it knows a great deal; it's quite high up the Tone Scale. That's sort of like – it isn't a master. What you've run into there is your consecutive whole theta body as applies to the individuation.

Well, if we started backwards from all things known, up this way, we would just getting into the – be getting into the more and more theoretical. Now, it's very hard to advance from everything known and keep abandoning things you know – keep abandoning things you know, counterclockwise here, until you finally get down to two data. In fact, it's practically impossible to do that.

You know, there originally, I drew this circle of theta, and showed you how this little bit broke off here and started down the line. Well, this is the little bit, really, and little bits of it are off here. And those little bits are "I."

But you can start here with two data known and inductively locate phenomena in the physical universe. You can do this. You have, then, a yardstick by which you can find out what's known and what isn't known. And you can locate phenomena. You can say, "Well, look, this phenomena is supposed to exist; according to – according to these two data, that phenomena – there's a lot of phenomena that exists. Let's go and see if we can find it." So we go and look and it's there. Well, that's fine; we find a lot of phenomena.

Now, it'd be all very well if it worked out that smoothly, but it doesn't work out that smoothly. What happens is that they're at different degrees – they're different proximities, you might say, to this single master thing.

But coming back this way, you're just dumping things off the freight car, so to speak, all the time, and you're not looking for new phenomena. You're trying to somehow explain old phenomena by throwing away what you have, and so on.

So here's one that is very close in and here's one that's just a little bit out. And here's a line which is a spur line and has two. In other words, there's these various patterns.

The latter method which I'm describing to you is the method which, in all seriousness, science has been using for a long time, It results in such things as super specialization.

Now, this one which has the two down here at the bottom, you clear up this preclear and you'll get him there. And as soon as he gets there, he can sense the fact that he's somebody else, too, somewhere else. And he'll become quite confused. And then he'll say, "I'm me, and that other person can go to blazes."

Why. you go down a hall in a medical building and you check in and you say, "There's something in my eye."

He may do that and as soon as he does that, you get a sort of a jealousy factor entering in between these two individuals who are the same individual. They won't admit their similar individuality. You can put a preclear on a machine and you can demonstrate to him how he actually has several personalities. Actually, he's in contact with several personalities which aren't aware of one another's existence at all. You make them aware of one another's existence and they'll start to demonstrate some jealousy, one to the other. One is going to be more powerful than another and so forth. Fascinating.

And the doctor looks at you and he says, "No," he says, "I'm an optic specialist and you'll have to go next door. An optic surgeon is next door, and what I handle is the cornea.

So here you have this fellow, and you're going to back this fellow up here until he lies across that line. Well, the next thing you know, he's going to start to run this person's engrams. Just like that. Well now, you're fairly all right if you go well back on the track to run engrams for this person, because then you'll run engrams which are mutual to each. What you do is run engrams that are sitting around in this, and it'll influence both of these and they'll come out to parity. They'll also come out into awareness of each other. They'll go through a symptom of worrying about "Let's see, Now, if I am me, and I am thee, too, then will I have to be aware of thee 100 percent or me 100 percent!" and "What are we going to do?" and "Supposing we're going to get all our thoughts tangled up." Well, actually, their thoughts were most gorgeously tangled up. They were really tangled, up to the time you started to process this person, because this person was being influenced from quarters he had no idea of at all.

And you go next door and you find out he handles the pupil. Well, this spot of dirt is in the white. And you have to shop around for quite a while, and you find somebody with this – that handles the white part of the eye, you see, and he takes the spot of dirt out ONLY if he is a surgeon for the white spot of the eye. By the way, I'm going along with old Doc Pottenger. I know the old man – he's a great old man. And he says, "If there was just some way we could break down this G. D. blankety-blank-blank specialization," he says, "maybe we could cure something."

For instance, every once in a while you'll find a preclear who will sit around and listen to advice from somebody. He will. He'll sit around and he'll get inspirations or he'll get something from somebody else or something else, and what he's doing there is about the same equivalent, but much different – a mind-reading act, sort of. He's over on the other side taking tips from what somebody else knows. And he says, "This is inspiration. This is my intuition at work."

Well, this method of thinking, then, going back here counterclockwise, is scientific thinking "Let's go and gather a whole bunch of data. Let's gather a lot of data and let's look at a lot of phenomena. And after we've gotten everything we can find on the subject, then let's go find a theory for it. And let's just take any old theory that happens to come along and see if it explains some of this data. If it does, we're all set."

And here's some other fellow sitting over someplace, working like mad, working something out and figuring something out. Well, that's where he's getting the data. Now, for instance, you take Kelly and Bessemer. This is a notable example – Kelly and Bessemer. One sat in England and one sat in Kentucky, and they invented – within two days of each other, completed the invention of – a process of making steel. And they call it today the Bessemer process. They might as well call it the Kelly process, because it was invented simultaneously in both places. Same guy.

As a consequence, science won't advance around here counterclockwise, but just keeps sort of wandering off, and it gets off here and there and gets all confused about it. And it has been doing so, so that you get cytology arguing with biology, arguing with evolutionists. And these theories are all different. These theories were not arrived at inductively, and these theories do not predict new phenomena.

There's nothing much to this. Alexander Graham Bell busily invented the telephone here; it was simultaneously invented all over the world. There was practically every country in the world had some facsimile of Alexander Graham Bell – wonderful transfer.

Scientology is an effort to go around the clock clockwise – to take data and then look for material, look for the phenomena predicted by that data and see if it exists in the physical universe.

What's quite remarkable about all of the research in which I have been engaged is it hasn't flashed up anyplace else. And that's remarkable! It has not come up anyplace else on earth. On earth. (laughter)

Well, it's an interesting – an interesting field, Scientology, because all it's trying to do is pick up all the loose ends of people who were trying to travel backwards in this circle. It's trying to get a unification of science, combine it with a unification of anything – the humanities, religion or even mathematics, aesthetics. It's trying to bring these things all into the same field so that they can all be used.

But this jealousy of identities was such, actually, that in the early days when I was working on this I was experiencing a terrific anxiety. I knew the next five minutes somebody was going to appear on the stands with this first book I wrote on the subject. You see, I knew somebody else knew. I knew somebody else was working on it too. And they were. But not here on earth. Anyway ... (laughter)

Now, that all by itself is a worthwhile goal. It wouldn't have to have anything to do with processing or application, curing up anything in people, to be quite worthwhile as a goal. As a matter of fact, it does that. It does that.

Well now, what I'm talking to you about, you'll find applicable. There are preclears right here in this audience that are sort of vaguely "not me." And it's kind of "not me" a little bit. And they think to themselves, "Well, any moment now I'll be me." But you start them up the line, you get them going a little bit further and evidently something kind of bats them down again. You can't figure out what's batting them down. They start up Tone Scale and BAT – they'll go down again. Put them on the machine and simply ask them this question: "Is there somebody else holding your aberrations in place?"

It'll predict – by the way, you can take Scientology and you can predict what should be the whole field of biology and where it should mesh with cytology and where that should mesh with evolution. And you will come out with a package of data and phenomena which, if you presented them to the cytologist, to the biologist and to the evolutionist, you would find a point of agreement. They would agree on the data which you had there.

It says "Yes" – bang, machine operates.

Now, I'm giving you that to show you that, theoretically, there is just one set of data, but that set is of infinite size, and if it were all true we would put it up here in bin 1. Bin 1, this square.

"Where is this person?" and there'll be a little twitch, and you'll ask him – well, according to continents, Earth, anyplace else, stars, so on.

Now, there would be a third bin, however. How do you get to be human? Well, as a matter of fact, the only way you can be human is by being wrong. Actually the wrongest you can get is dead, you see, but you're pretty close to it when you agree to be human. For instance, you sense that – a person, for instance, tells little social lies and he says – he's polite and he's this and he's that, and he doesn't exert his own self-determinism very much in social concourse with the rest of the human race. And as a net result, he is permitting himself to be thrown out of his actual course of existence. It's wrong – social lies are wrong and so forth. But he has to be wrong to be human. He couldn't be very right and be human.

All of a sudden, BOW, you'll get something. Maybe the fellow is in Birmingham or something of the sort, and you've got across on the line. Well, the second you get this awareness, two things may start to happen. You may start to pick up the fellow's engrams from Birmingham. And if you do, go ahead and run them. They're common engrams on the line. But all you're doing is running locks off of common engrams. You see, it's theta, it's facsimiles, and they've got, actually, banks in common.

Now its the same way with all this data down here. This is bin 3. Down here is bin 3. Now, bin 3 contains in it relative truths, workable truths, things you can sense, measure and experience. You don't have to be able to sense, measure and experience anything in 1, but down here in 3, that's human knowledge. And this is varying and shifting continually. And there isn't a datum in it which is absolute. Every datum in it has a little bit of wrongness about it. It's only relatively true; it can be sensed, measured, or experienced.

Well, your preclear has never had, really, this feeling of "I am." He never quite had this feeling, "I am." He always has this feeling, "Well, I might be if ..." Well, that "I might be if," is he's just a little bit off the line back to the main individual. He's just a little bit off the line.

This includes how to make clam chowder. It includes what they will be wearing in 1953. It includes the field of biology. It'll include literature, anything – just data, data, data, data, data – all relatively true, subject to opinion, subject to viewpoint and so forth. But it's what has passed in the human race for knowledge.

You can put him back on the line again. You'll have to jockey him around a little bit, and the next thing you know, why, he'll be responding up as an individual. Nothing much to it. He will go through a period of worry.

It all depends on what strata of truth or what degree of truth you're demanding from this bin. And you can go out and get a lot of opinions – each one of them is data. You can learn all about painting simply by going and taking a critic's manual of the great masterpieces of the world and memorizing it. You don't ever look at the paintings. Something here is van Gogh, and it said there in the critic's manual – he's an authority; you just read that, that's a perfectly valid datum – he says in there, "Van Gogh was yakety-yakety-yak, wela-dee-da-blah-blah-blahdeblah-blah and showed at various times a tremendous inclination toward power and strength, but he blahdeblah-blah-de-dah-da-blah. Now, the list of his paintings are so-and-so. This is known in Europe. This painting is known here and that painting is owned there, and this painting is particularly good for being balanced on all seven tricycles," or something.

Anyway, here we have – here we have here an individual going down Tone Scale. Now, actually an individual could go down Tone Scale simply by having more and more things happen to him, and he becomes more and more individuated. And he becomes so individual that he doesn't even exist in the theta body at all; he's dead. And that's very individual, to be dead. It means simply that as long as you consider the MEST organism as the only identity a person can be or have, you get into terrific complexities, because how individual can it be? Well, when it's gone 100 percent MEST, of course.

And you get this – you get a whole command of the subject of van Gogh without even faintly getting any command of aesthetics. But do you know, you could go out, with having memorized that entire manual on the famous paintings and paintings of history, and pass for a tremendously aesthetic person. You could. You could go around and any time anybody mentioned something by – well, some obscure Finnish painter, and you'd say, "Oh yes, yes, his Blue Girl, I always thought was terribly 'rankatewa' don't you think?" And they would look at you and they would say, "Hm, an authority, an expert." And they would be very polite.

Now, watching this, then, you'll find there are complexities in auditing for which you will be, sometimes, at a little bit of a loss to account for. And by the way, this is quite remarkable: There is a mystic practice of concentrating until you get a visio. And you'll get visios in far cities, in far places, without doing any teleportation of yourself or your soul or anything of the sort. You just lie down and concentrate and get a visio. And you'll get a visio of your – of doing something. Some of this is accounted for simply by, all of a sudden, being the other you – being the other you.

Now, you could know all there is to know about painting, about music, in that wise, without ever knowing how to paint, never knowing anything about music, really, and with knowing nothing about aesthetics, having no more taste than a cow, and yet get by. And all of that's perfectly valid information. That's all – that's a valid performance. After all, people have been acting like that for centuries. And it's a perfectly valid performance to memorize a bunch of this data and say, "I am now cultured."

There are probably as many as four or five fellows on earth that are almost my duplicate, for instance, physiologically. Almost – poor fellows. Now, one of these fellows used to get me in trouble all the time.

What's cultured? Well, that all depends on the time. For instance, a fellow couldn't be cultured two hundred years ago unless he was prepared to sit down and lose a thousand pounds every night at the gaming table. Well, our definition has changed – definition has changed. Now he has to lose it on dog racing or something.

I walked up the steps of the Cuban Embassy one day and – in Washington, DC, and there was a Spaniard coming down the steps and he said, "Ay, Pedrito, como esta?" And I said, "I'm very sorry, I'm afraid I don't know you."

But all of... You see, I'm giving you this to try to show to you that the word cultured – without any definition of what we're going to agree on to he cultured, well, we can have all sorts of oddities here. A fellow memorizes a book and becomes cultured. Well, then, what's cultured? It's just whether or not we've agreed on the formula one is going to pursue to get cultured. That agreement will take bin 3 and rearrange what a person has to know or do to be cultured, you see?

And "Oh, that's all right, Pedrito. I won't tell anybody you're here." (laughter)

So that a large segment of the human race that was more or less knowledgeable about data in the world could get together and sort of agree – sort of agree that hereinafter people who were to be considered in the line of the arts had to be able to practice the art. They had to know aesthetics and practice the arts – not memorize. And right away, all this alignment of data in bin 3 would change.

And I said, "Well, that's fine"

The difference between bin I and bin 3, then, is what we happen to be using at the present time and what we've agreed upon is relatively useful to us. You see? That's all there is to it. In here comes fashion, styles, changes, and so forth.

He said, "Well, you can even pretend you don't remember me. It's still all right, Pedrito, I'm your friend" and so forth and "I hope everything. comes out all right."

For instance, fashions in physics have changed markedly. It was fashionable once upon a time to be entirely different and quite otherwise than the modern physicist. It's most fashionable now to use mathematics that he himself doesn't understand, and to sit around and hope that something won't blow up in your face. To – it's fashionable to say, "Well the law of conservation of energy is in question but it's not in question and so on. Fascinating subject right now. But just twenty-five years ago, this science – this exact science of physics – was quite otherwise, quite otherwise. It was a precision science. Nobody worried about a thing. All the data in here was just in beautiful condition – oh, wonderful! And nobody questioning it – everybody agreed on it. It was solid, It was almost a static. It was almost as though it was bin 1.

And I said, "Well, thank you," and went on into the embassy.

And then, of course, somebody comes along and digs up a little more of Maxwell's work and Einstein's equations, and quantum mechanics gets invented and the Germans do this and we do that, and all of a sudden here's the whole subject – it's just up in air. You don't know from, actually, one month to the next, what's happening in physics: This month light is a particle, next month it's a wave and so on. And the fashions – fashions in the mathematics used in it change. So, again, the whole subject is in flux. It's random now as a subject.

I forgot about it until one time I was in Puerto Rico, and I was trotting down a trail and three Brazilians – Brazilian engineers – were coming up the trail on horses. They took one look at me and they said, "Ay, Pedrito, como esta?" and threw their horses across my path. And they wouldn't let me go anyplace. And then this stuff – "You can tell us. We won't write anybody. We won't let anybody know we saw you" – a big routine. And they finally had me cornered so tightly that nothing would do but what I went over and drank brandy with them and played chess; and they sure figured out I was putting on a good act. (laughter)

So knowledge changes in bin 3 in accordance with what we've agreed upon about the physical universe. It doesn't matter what we've agreed upon, that data can get into bin 3. And we can agree that something is true which is utterly false, and it'll still appear as a datum in bin 3. We can agree that all of us can make the tides of the ocean overflow and drown the Land on Shrove Wednesday or Ash August." And we can agree upon this. It doesn't necessarily have to happen. It's a datum. Now we can work on that.

To this day, none of those fellows would do anything but claim that I was putting on a good act.

For instance, a lot of people agreed once upon a time that the Roman Empire – Rome itself was suddenly going to disappear in a boiling mass of lava, red hot lava, and that every Roman in the town was going to perish in that boiling mass of lava. And they agreed upon this and they agreed upon it and they agreed upon it, and everybody sat around and waited for it to happen. Every body hated Rome. And they waited for it to happen and they waited for it to happen and they waited for it to happen, and it just didn't happen! And this became discouraging.

Well, a little more time went by – in another place down in Latin America, and a fellow walked up to me. I was sitting in a bar. He reached in his hip pocket, and if I hadn't kicked hard at his shins, I probably would have been a dead man.

One time, by the way, they set fire to it just to make it come true, and then blamed the emperor. And then blamed him again when he crucified some people for having done it. Very interesting.

They threw him out promptly, and I scratched my head and I said, "I'm not in trouble with anybody down here that I can think of," Till all of a sudden I remembered, "By golly! I bet that fellow would have jumped if I had said I was Pedrito.

But the point is that they had agreed upon it. It was an accepted datum. It was so thoroughly accepted that men would have killed each other rather than to have overset this datum: "Rome is going to go up in a cloud of hot lava." And Rome didn't, so they had to invent hell. (laughter) And that's right; that is the source of hell. They finally said "So we're talking about a symbolical Rome." We couldn't make this town go, so we had to change data in bin 3. My authority for this is Edward Gibbon. Edward Gibbon is a thorough Christian – thorough. Only I'm very – I'm sure, I'm sure that the Church and so forth is very happy that he has written with such long words so that so few people read him. Actually, he reads like a dime novel, and his blasts on this subject are – they really char the paper.

Well, fine, fine. Until, one time in Panama – one time in Panama, a girl took one look at me (the most scathing, scorching look you ever saw) in the street, sniffed, put her nose very high in the air and crossed the street diagonally. So I said, "Pedro's been here." (laughter)

But anyhow, there's bin 3 – even contains Gibbon. It also contains the endowment lists, that is – what do you call them? Oh, the index – what is that thing they called – what do you call it?

I finally found out who Pedro was. He'd undoubtedly run into me, too. I finally found out who he was. He was the son of a rich Brazilian family and he had the wrong political color. And he had gone bad in an awful hurry down in Brazil, and he was being looked for by the police of about five or six countries, as well as the parents of several girl.

Male voice: "Index of Forbidden Books."

And during the war – during the war, I got a report that I had reported in at a place where I hadn't been. And my ears went up like a foxhound's, ha-ha-ha-ha, because Pedrito was a Nazi. And my picture was on file with the Federation Aeronautique Internationale as an international pilot, and those were in France. And full records of me were captured when the Germans took Paris. And, of course, all they had done was backtrack me, look me up, take ahold of Pedrito and cross orders.

"Index of Forbidden Books"! Well, it's something like that. & I knew the Latin. & Well, just to be blunt here, we have the channels between 3 and 1, and those are the channels of search. Mysticism, religion – all of those things come on this second-channel level. That's 2. And those are the routes of knowing. And the data in 2 is just how you get data out of 1 and into 3.

I don't know what happened to Pedrito. I often wondered what would have happened if I'd ever met Pedrito in the line of duty during the war.

Scientology is actually a route which pretends to embrace everything here in bin 2. It doesn't matter what route is used, will be used, can't be used or anything else, or what argument is against using it – that is bin 2.

I am sure, though, to this day – to this day, that there is more there than just a physiological resemblance.

And what Scientology is, is bin 2: How do you get knowledge from 1 to its relatively highest degree of truth, into bin 3?

Now, possibly many of you have had this experience. You've probably seen people who looked like you or who acted like you or something of the sort.

I hope you understand that so that no holds are barred in this subject. If you can find out that the Arabs had a method of blowing sand into certain shapes and finding out what was in bin 1, believe me, that is in the sphere of Scientology. Just like a slide rule, topology, the science of physics, or US government orders – US government orders – they're all in the same bin. Now, they're all embraced by Scientology.

Oddly enough, when you meet them you are apt to be a little bit cross about it. It is almost a byword that people who have the same name will be hostile to each other. People who have the same looks may be hostile to each other if they meet themselves accidentally. And it is just in that wise that – it's just in that wise that people who have or are operating from the same theta line become jealous of each other. They will actually flick across and louse each other up.

And I hope you get a little better understanding, then, of what we're trying to do. We're trying to get the highest level of knowing that we can get, and this is a system of trying to get that highest level of knowing. So, no holds are barred in this subject.

I am sorry to have to report that, because all should be sweetness and light. But you, every once in a while, will run into somebody on the theta line through the preclear. And if I didn't tell you this could happen, then I would not be doing well by you at all. I would be hiding something which you might need to have.

And when you do, you or the preclear may think you have run into some manifestation similar to the guardian angel manifestation, which is entirely different again. And you will be apt to believe that the other individual is far smarter and knowledgeable than your preclear. Not so. They're both aberrees. And you will find that it's just as difficult to convince this other person to do something.

Now, I don't know how successful you can be in running out somebody else's engrams while he's walking around, eating, sleeping and so forth. I don't know how this can be done at all, but I do know this: Your preclear can go back before the point of separation and run out engrams in common which will unburden the track. And that, as near as I know, is about as far as it can go.

We have conducted an experiment of trying to run out all the engrams for the human race. That's right. We've actually sat down, with far greater thoroughness than would ordinarily be demonstrated in a laboratory, and tried to run out all the engrams of all the race.

Interesting experiment. And the only trouble is, after we had reduced these engrams which theoretically should have been in common to everyone, we still had aberrees.

And the point is there, do we all come from a common source and is this common source, at its first impingement upon the MEST universe, subject to an aberration which if run out would then loosen up the tracks for everybody?

Nope. It's not a common source to that degree. You can't find the first engram in common to everybody, as far as I can find out at this time.

Now, this may all sound very peculiar to you, but when you're exploring with new, efficient tools you're apt to find and come across data which is unknown.

People are quite ordinarily afraid of the unknown. They would rather have a religion than a mysticism. That's right. They would rather have – by and large, broadly, they'd rather have it all codified and presented as being very finite and down to earth, and there's one God (except there's twelve). "There's one God, and we worship twelve idols and one God. And you bat yourself this way and that and that straightens you all out. And there's somebody that you tell all this to and that squares the rap."

Now, that's good and simple, but it unfortunately does not make well people. So we have to look a little bit further for this line. And in all of this research, a very cold eye has been kept on fact – a very cold eye.

What I've just told you about branch lines and so on may be something you may never run into in an auditor. Don't go asking for trouble. But you will have preclears come to you who will not be able to run their own engrams. They will start right out running somebody else's engrams. And then those engrams will promptly look, to them, highly unreal – something that couldn't have happened. And they will practically spin on it unless they know that they can run somebody else's engrams. Now, there may be a half a dozen people in the world whose engrams they can run.

And it may be that you can get your preclear so far up the Tone Scale – way, way up the Tone Scale in all manifestations, registering very high on the machine and so forth – that you could bat around and pry into almost anybody's engram bank if you wanted to.

That would be something else entirely. But boy, a fellow would really have to be high to do that.

All right. What you are interested in doing is returning to an individual all the knowledge of which he is capable as an individual. Where you want to stop his being an individual and start his being a saint, or something of the sort, is pretty well up to you and to him.

But I can tell you that the borderline is something that can be overstepped. It can be passed, and it will be passed with considerable upset and confusion unless you do have some inkling of what you can meet.

Now, all of our work is directed toward knowing more about more. There is a history, a complete history, to this theta line, as pertains to the inhabitants of the planet Earth.

This line is very much in common, it has a certain history; its theta background is in common. Its genetic background is to some degree in common, but not to the degree of the theta line. The constant line is the theta line. The constant line is the theta line, and by the theta line I mean that line where the individual uses the genetic line to make one or many bodies that pass through time.

And the theta body inhabits the other body from just before conception until slightly after death. And this theta line is subject to several individual bodies, and it passes very happily through time.

Now, that body we have in common pretty well – I mean, its history. The history of your theta body and the history of my theta body has terrific, terrific differences, but it has its principal incidents in common. That doesn't mean that the incident happened to you and happened to me too, but it means that an incident happened to me like the incident happened to you.

& And I'm now going to give you a talk on what these incidents are &