Course Date _______________

This is SCIENTOLOGY, the overall study which embraces DIANETICS, the science of human thought.

A student of this course, with reasonable intelligence and attention should be able to possess himself of the basic data of though and mind operation in a few weeks and to enable himself and his fellows to reach higher goals of civilization than have ever before been attained.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

1. Theta, operating in the physical universe, can be said to do two things: it can be said to BE, and it can be said to receive and record impressions of the physical universe. A mind, then, can be said to be made up of an initial and constantly reiterated decision to BE, plus many recorded impressions of the physical universe which are used in controlling the physical universe. This description, however, though useful, is misleading when applied to a living human being, since the mind of a living human being is apparently made up of more than one BEING and, consequently, of more than one set of recorded impressions.

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

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.

3. We may begin our enumeration and description of the entities which make up the human mind with that entity which is least surprising, the somatic entity. The somatic entity is that being which carries on the evolution of an organism, following the genetic line. The somatic entity would include under its command all the epicenters of the organism. The somatic entity would be independent of the protoplasmic line, the undying organic line without which no organism but the simplest is brought into existence but it would follow the course of that endless flow of organic life closely in most cases. We might suppose that a certain somatic entity might be named Smith in many succeeding organisms.

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.

It is interesting to speculate upon the relationship between the somatic entity and the protoplasmic line. Probably the closest approach which can be made at this writing is that the somatic entity is like an individual running along a road, expertly rolling a great many hoops. He would be the captain of a company of little life organisms, the cells, and particularly the reproductive cells, of the body. Other somatic entities might be supposed to stand by the side of the road, waiting for some of these hoops to become detached by procreation, and expecting to take charge of them and roll them when they became detached from the hoops of the first entity. There might be a group of Smith entities which had charge of the Smith line so long as there were enough Smith hoops to go around, or who called in help from elsewhere or split themselves when too many Smith hoops were created by procreation.

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.

These hoops would, of course, have a certain amount of forward motion of their own. They would contain enough theta to continue their life briefly as cells, but their organization into more complete organisms would depend upon the guiding hand of the somatic entity. If left to themselves, they would soon slow and fall (the death of the cell.) If left to themselves as groups (human beings) they would slow down and break up (the death of the more complex organism.)

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.

The somatic entity might be supposed to be quite similar for an animal and a human being. The difference would be only that the somatic entity of the human being would be "bigger" and would have more work to do.

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.

Those incidents which are run by pre-clears, the Boo-Hoo, the mytosis, the helper, etc, which are on the genetic line, are part of the memory of the somatic entity. 4. There are three or four other classes of entities making up the mind, besides the somatic entity. The somatic entity is far from being in command of the mind, although like any other entity it may take command under the proper circumstances.

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.

5. The entity which is superior in the mind is called the theta being or THETAN. The thetan is the true "I" of the individual. It is the being which would be in command of the mind of an individual who had become completely self-determined. The thetan, however, is not in command even most of the time for most people.

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.

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

7. The thetan apparently co-exists with an entity which is almost its equal, but not quite. This entity may be called the PARTNER.

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.

8. Any entity may take over the whole of the organism and may exist as the whole organism but each entity has a position of its own, where it may be considered to act, customarily.

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,

9. The Thetan occupies the head, facing forward.

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.

10. The Partner occupies the head, facing backwards.

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.

11. The next entity is the RIGHT INSIDE or RIGHT INBOARD entity.

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.

12. The next entity is the LEFT INSIDE or LEFT INBOARD entity.

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,

13. The next is the STOMACH entity.

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.

14. Two more are the LEFT OUTSIDE or LEFT OUTBOARD entity and the RIGHT-OUTSIDE or RIGHT OUTBOARD entity.

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.

15. Last in rank is the faithful SOMATIC entity.

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.

16. Now the question arises, if the somatic entity is the only one which is intimately connected with the genetic line of the organism, when do the other entities join the organism? The most accurate answer which can be given at this time is that the thetan and the other principal entities join the organism just before birth. The two outboard entitles, however, seem to be added after birth, although not much evidence has been examined on that subject at this writing.

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.

17. Besides the thetan and the partner and these principle entities and the somatic entity, there may be a number of second-rate entities, called the IDLE ENTITIES.

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

These join the organism at the invitation of some entity. They appear to be gathered up by the entity for the purpose of life continuum. If the individual, under the command of a particular entity, performs an overt act, killing someone, he may as that entity invite some entity of the victim to join his organism and be a part of his organism. This invitation would be for the purpose of continuing the life of the victim and "proving" that no overt act has been performed after all.

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.

Idle entities are characterized by a certain decadence. They have apparently not enough force left in them to make them capable of running an organism, and so they drift about at the beck and call of other entities.

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."

18. Any of the principle entities may have another organism, or MEST body, besides the one which is the individual in question. As we have seen in the previous demonstrations, an entity may have a body on another planet.

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."

19. Therefore, we have two kinds of sharing: one organism may be inhabited by many entities; and one entity may inhabit more than one organism.

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.

20. Any entity which inhabits an organism is capable of producing a somatic in that organism. This should indicate the futility of embarking upon an auditing procedure of running out somatics, to the exclusion of thought, emotion and effort. Somatics can be run out, but there is an almost infinite number of them, since each entity may have millions, to be over-conservative.

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.

21. Different entities respond to different auditors. For this reason, a case which is being audited by one auditor, say a man, may turn into a very different case when being audited by another auditor, say a woman. If the auditor understands why this happens, he can do something to correct it.

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.

22. Sometimes the auditor will find himself auditing an incident in which the pre-clear is "out of valence" The pre-clear is an observer, watching the organism go through the experience. What is happening is that the auditor is auditing an entity which was aware of the experience but was not in command of the organism during the experience. This entity will have some charge on the experience as an observer and may be audited as an observer. The main charge will be on the entity which was in command, but that charge may have put that entity to "sleep", leaving some other entity in command. Auditing the observer through the incident will usually wake up the former command entity in the incident, and then the main charge may be run.

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.

23. Second and third year students will readily recognize the same old phenomena with which they are so familiar being explained more profitably in the light of new phenomena turned up by later research. In all these theories as they develop, the mind remains the same. We are just getting a better and better picture of it as we go along. And as the picture improves, so do results.

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.

24. Many of the phenomena which have been observed and then evaluated by former theories have now to be reevaluated by this new theory. Some of them are the File Clerk, Valence, Circuits.

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.

25. If the auditor asks the pre-clear to give the first answer which occurs to him in terms of yes-or-no, or a number or a name at the snap of the auditor's fingers, the preclear may give information which he has been otherwise unable to give. This phenomenon has been called the File Clerk phenomenon. Later research and theory suggests that "File Clerk" answers are solutions to problems which are being offered by the thetan, which is operating at a reduced level of awareness but which still retains enough awareness to overrule the commanding entity now and then, particularly when directly addressed by the auditor.

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.

26. A circuit is a theoretical item, described as a portion of the mind, compartmented by a postulate which is enforced by pain, acting as another person within the mind. (An even earlier definition substituted "phrase" for "postulate", but since a phrase is only a counter-effort unless accompanied by a postulate, the presence of the postulate was understood.) This definition has now been improved upon. It has been improved upon so much that the word circuit is not longer a necessary word in the vocabulary of the auditor. A circuit may now be considered an entity ("a portion of the mind... compartmented... acting as another person within the mind...") which is out of present time (under the influence of a postulate which is enforced by pain.) An entity which is out of present time. The new definition simplifies the old, clarifies it, and renders the word "circuit" obsolete.

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.

27. Some entities are out of present time, When they take command of the organism or conflict with the entity which is in command, the postulates which are keeping them out of present time and which are present in the incidents in which they are caught are entered into the thinking of the organism.

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.

When an entity which is psychotic, because it is out of present time, takes command of the organism, the organism becomes psychotic. The thetan retires for the duration and we say that the "I" of this individual has disappeared.

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.

28. A valence is a mimicry of another person. There is much in common between the vaudeville performer who imitates Lionel Barrymore and the individual who has assumed the identity of his deceased grandfather. The main difference is that the vaudeville performer has assumed the identity of Lionel Barrymore for a few moments, knowingly, for the purpose of entertaining an audience, and the other individual has assumed the identity of his deceased grandfather during a period of years (or even centuries) "unknowingly" for the purpose of continuing the life of his grandfather in order to prove that the overt act which he committed against his grandfather did not really happen, since grandfather is not really dead. This mimicry will be carried out by one of the individual's entities.

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.

29. A valence is, then, only a mimicry. An individual would no longer be said to be "out of his own valence" when his thetan was not in command, since the idea of entities relieves the word valence of double duty. (Formerly, "valence" meant both the mimicry and the entity which was doing the mimicry, a doubling which caused some confusion.) The individual does not mimic himself, he IS himself. Valence becomes purely and simply mimicry. Various of the individual's entities mimic various other persons. He shifts his valence by shifting entities. Or, if he is a vaudeville performer, he shifts valence by deciding to mimic first one person and then another.

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."

30. This subject of valence, in reference to the actor, has long been of high interest to many people. Just what does an actor do when he "becomes his part"? Why do some actors walk onto the stage or before the camera, do their part well and convincingly, and then walk off and immediately drop the character which they have assumed? Why do others "throw themselves into their parts" so deeply that sometimes traces of the character which they have played stick to them ever afterwards. We say of one actor, "Jones can play any part you give him. He is a good workman." We say of another, "Elsie is a great actress. She becomes the character. She lives her part." We say of another, "Ever since Jukes played the Corsican Bandit he wears a sword, even around the house." What makes these differences? We may, perhaps, come closer to an explanation at this writing than anyone has come before. We may say that Jones assumed identities consciously, like a vaudeville performer, and casts them off as quickly. He is good at mimicry. He has his facsimiles well under control. Elsie, on the other hand, may not have her facsimiles so well under control. Her "greatness" may come from putting an entity in command which has a valence or which IS a character much like the one she is supposed to play. This entity may continue in command throughout the production, changing Elsie's personality considerably for that period. After the production, she may say to herself, "Well, I'm through with that character! Whew! What a relief! At times I really felt that I was Lucretia Borgia! And she may succeed in getting her thetan or some other entity back into command. Poor Jukes, however, has given command to some entity in order to take advantage of the personality of that entity or of some valence of which that entity is capable, and then he has been unable to get that entity out of the driver's seat. He wears a sword around the house. Many actors do this. Sometimes it is a great success.

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.

31. The goal of the auditor is to restore complete self-determinism to the thetan.

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?

32. All entities other than the thetan have been brought into the "family circle" by the thetan or by entities which were brought in by the thetan. The thetan has agreed to have these entities. If full self-determinism is restored to the thetan, he will no longer have to have these entities.

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.

33. When the auditor is auditing a pre-clear of whom a certain entity is in command, the auditor, is, in effect, auditing that entity.

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.

34. The auditor may choose which entity he wishes to audit.

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.

35. The purpose of the auditor in auditing an entity other than the thetan is to clear the way for auditing the thetan.

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.

36. If another entity is in command, the auditor may have to bring that entity to present time before he can get very far with the thetan. This procedure will produce the effect of bringing the pre-clear from a more or less psychotic frame of mind to comparative rationality.

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.

37. Some entities will have elsewhere bodies which will have to be abandoned.

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.

38. If an entity is stuck in an incident, this entity can be freed by running the incident in the ordinary way, with thought, emotion and effort. If the entity is too low in awareness to go through the incident, the thetan, working with the auditor, may be able to push this entity through the incident in spite of itself.

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.

39. Successful and unsuccessful self-auditing may be decided by this one factor: what is the intention toward the individual of the entity which is doing the auditing? What does this entity wish to accomplish? If it is the thetan which has learned to audit, some very good results may be obtained. But if it is some aberrated entity, who has been controlled and controlled and controlled until the only goal left for him is to control and enslave whatever organism falls into his clutches, the auditing results may be horrendous.

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.

40. Any case which does not run easily for an auditor is most likely not under the command of the thetan. Other entities will have to be gotten out of the way before the case will run easily. It is not necessary to clear these entities. It is necessary to bring them to present time and help the thetan to take over their control of the organism.

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?

41. Some cases used to be called "out of valence" This meant that they were not "themselves". We would say now, of such a case, that one entity had been in command at one time, and now another entity was in command. The auditor is, perforce, auditing the entity which is now in command. If he tries to run the pre-clear through an incident which occurred when the former entity was in command, he will discover that the pre-clear recalls this incident as though he were only an observer --- which is just what this entity was.

Male voice: "Index of Forbidden Books."

42. The auditor has to know which entity he is auditing in order to know what he is doing. Accuracy in knowing which entity is being audited will depend, in most cases, upon the use of an E-meter. The added view into the mind which the E-Meter gives the auditor will make it much easier to know to whom he is listening.

"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.

43. In what used to be called "perceptic shut-off", the entity which is being audited is either stuck on the track or else it just did not experience the incident which the auditor is trying to run. The incident was experienced by some other entity.

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.

44. An individual, for this reason, might well be on his way toward self-determinism and still have poor recall on some incident which had happened to another entity. In order to find the data on that incident, the auditor would have to ask the entity which had experienced it.

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

45. An amnesia case may be suspected of operating on a data bank (memory) which is not from the present life.

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.

46. In a homosexual, an entity of the opposite sex is in command.

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.

47. Theta is creative. It can make new things. The rule which we have all heard so many times, that imagination is merely a recombining of old experiences, does not hold, evidently. The power of theta to create extends much deeper into the MEST universe than our former educators would have had us believe, It may be possible to give some estimate of the depth of this creativity in subsequent writing. As the relationship between theta and MEST is examined, the borderline between them becomes harder to find, and theta emerges more and more as CAUSE. It begins to look as though theta may be the cause not only of the organization of MEST but also of the very existence of MEST. Even this subject is within the second echelon of knowledge. We may suppose that the question "What is the cause of theta?" lies within the third echelon.

48. EXPERIENCE is a sort of MEST substitute for KNOWING, which is a function of theta. We have seen how some quick-thinking individuals can learn an operation so rapidly that they appear to have known it all along, while others may experience the same operation many times and still make mistakes in it. These differences between individuals are very great, even as we observe them in daily life. There is no reason to suppose, however, that these great differences account for more than a very narrow band of the spectrum of KNOWING. At the upper end of this spectrum, experience may be something which is just not necessary, or is necessary to such a slight degree that it could hardly be called experience.

49. If this idea of the importance of experience is a valid one, then the value of facsimiles is also altered. The computation of courses of action by comparison of facsimiles comes under the heading of experience to a larger degree. Possible, an individual who KNOWS (who is at the upper end of the spectrum of KNOWING) would consider any facsimiles which he had bothered to keep as mere relics of something he had decided for the moment to call "past", and possibly he would not compute any courses of action from facsimiles but would merely look at present time and KNOW what course to follow.

It may be that the intellectual processes which we have come to regard as the highest possible activity of the beings which we are, admirable as these processes may seem to us, are merely aberrations and perversions of the true state of KNOWING. (This is not a new idea, of course, and many will recognize it from antiquity, It may be, however, that we have come to a point where we can do something about this idea.)

AUD: How old are you?

P.C. Ages.

AUD: Is it worse than ages? How about trillions of years? Or millions?

P.C. Three or four trillion years old.

AUD: Were you originally just one entity?

P.C. Yes.

AUD: (Begins to plot the theta time-track of the preclear on a blackboard.) What did you think of? (There has been a drop on the E-Meter.)

P.C. Some ancient buildings.

AUD: Are these in the theta universe or the MEST universe? (Watching meter) Between lives? Or before there were any between-lives? Is that where you live? In this planetary system?

P.C. Very far away. I get an impression of a very bright star.

AUD: How long ago was this?

P.C. Eight million years.

AUD: What happened there? Did things blow up? Is that whole civilization blowing up? Were you a slave?

P.C. No.

AUD: Was that a point of high charge on your track? What happened to you there that was bad?

P.C. I just killed everybody.

AUD: Why? Was it a dull afternoon or something? Was there any cause for it than that? That's all right. That's the way we used to be.

P.C. I did something. I did an experiment, and the whole place blew up.

AUD: Get a good clear recall; get the clearest moment in that. Is there another moment that is real to you? Any part of that cycle?

P.C. A very tall man.

AUD: Is he real to you? How is your communication with this very tall man? Does he like you?

P.C. No.

AUD: Was that the trouble?

P.C. No, I just did something I shouldn't have done. I was fooling around with something I shouldn't have been.

AUD: Was this man related to you?

P.C. No. He was just the head of it. Not a ruler. Just in charge of the laboratory.

AUD: Do you like chemistry sets?

P.C. Oh, no.

AUD: Does your theta being (thetan) need education?

P.C. No.

AUD: How does it feel to be educated?

P.C. Not necessary.... the education.

AUD: Okay. Well, we have here, then, an incident that is a minor overt act on the fourth dynamic-would you say that it was the fourth dynamic?

P.C. Definitely.

AUD: Have you ever been put together with some other souls?

P.C. Yes.

AUD: When?

P.C. I did a damn fool thing, I Was curious. I don't get any visio. I was curious and cut off my nose to spite my face.

AUD: How long ago was it?

P.C. A long time ago.

AUD: What did you do, volunteer?

P.C. No. Somebody told me that I'd better watch out.

AUD: And you were curious?

P.C. I wanted to find out what would happen.

AUD: Is this after the civilization blew up?

P.C. A long time after.

51. This demonstration, though fragmentary, shows a little about procedure In establishing the time track of the thetan. The auditor is looking for overt acts and for a time when other entities were added to the thetan. The pre-clear has said at the beginning the thetan was alone.

1. Is a mind's memory limited to one sequence of past lives? Explain.

2. Can any organism exist independent of the protoplasmic line?

3. When can a somatic entity take control of the mind? What is its rank?

4. What past phenomena must be re-evaluated in the light of new theories ?