Thank you. Thank you.

[the following opening sentence is on the clearsound tape in place of the edited out material. We assume it was copied from another tape.]

I take it by this time you've found the congress.

Very good, thank you. Thank you.

Audience: Yeah.

[The reel begins with the following: ]

Good. Good. Well, I have too.

& Thank you! You got a Congress here yet?

I have here a very, very, very impressive set of APAs. These were the Group Intensive APAs. And quite remarkable, quite remarkable the changes which occurred in that Group Intensive. Of course, these changes don't compare to an individual intensive, but that they changed this much is quite remarkable.

& Audience: YES!

For instance, I don't know whether you can see these or not, but for Group Auditing that's pretty good, isn't it? Can you see that? The blue line is the sordid wreck the person was. And the red line is where the person ended up at the end of the intensive. These profiles are quite deceptive, by the way, because people have a tendency to move on up a little bit as they settle out. And sometimes a person is on a total serenity, you know, totally serene, and they answer these things straight across the top. And then you give them five minutes of Tone 40 process and they go straight across the bottom. And then they start up. But it is quite remarkable.

& Well, good. Good. You got a Congress here.

Now, you take a profile of this character; that is a fairly high profile already. You see the blue line there? I don't know if you can see it all the way back there; you'd have to have a telescope to do so. But there's a blue line here in the middle. Here's the divisional point. This person was well above what you might call a danger mark on an intensive profile, and has moved up here with several spots clear at the top. Quite remarkable.

& Audience: YES!

Now, to get a change in a high-toned preclear is more than we used to be able to do.

& Well, alright. And I just want to ask you this one question. Has it begun yet?

Now, you take a profile of this character, which is still on the floor - see, that's down there, still down there. But this person moved up considerably, quite remarkably so for a Group Intensive.

& Audience: YES!

Now, a profile of this character is terribly interesting, because this was Tone 40 Group Auditing. And to have a profile of this character turn up on a Group Intensive is quite remarkable and is news. Because a person with that bottom profile would've come to your group or come to you, you'd have done some processing one way or the other on them and they would have said, „Well, nothing happened, nothing happened, nothing happened, nothing happened.“ And just to change the monotony, „Nothing happened.“ And then hideously enough the profile would have confirmed it.

& Alright.

But therefore, Group Auditing merits a little bit of a bow right here, because it has moved up. And using a Tone 40 type audit and the Tone 40 processes for groups, which were used on this particular group, you could be fairly sure that people coming into a Group Auditing session, which you as a Scientologist were conducting or which you as a Scientologist were interested in - you know you bring somebody to a group and you want to have something happen; somebody's auditing them, you're just as interested in something happening as the auditor - and this person is way on the bottom. Let me tell you that three years ago he would have still finished up on the bottom. And for cases that are all the way down to start moving up, that is really something. But it is so eclipsed by how far south we can go today with processes that we've just sort of overlooked saying anything about it. Group Auditing can pick people up off the bottom and do something for them and show them a remarkable increase.

& Today, we don't have very much to take up, so you can just relax about the whole thing. There's no reason to keep your attention. You can sit there and self-audit, that's probably much better. (laughter) There's hardly, really, anything worth taking up today in Scientology, we have it all wrapped up and there isn't much use straining at it, you know? I could talk to you a little bit about these new things, these new improvements, I could say a word or two about those, if you wanted me to.

How many hours of Group Auditing it would take to do something for this particular case, I would not be able to forecast since we've never made the test. But it'd possibly be something in the neighborhood of seventy-five hours of Group Auditing or something way up there. But this person changed quite markedly in just that.

& Audience: OK! (applause)

Furthermore it's quite significant that this person is in the age bracket which was particularly stated to be impossible by - huh! - psychotherapy.

& You're gonna have to beg harder than that. (laughter, more applause) OK.

It's very fascinating here.

Today I did want to take up, then - if you've asked me to, I will - I did want to take up CCH and some of the various aspects of it.

This Group Intensive, by the way, it might interest you, had a curiosa: the IQs were either low or high. That's fascinating. The IQs were low or high. In other words, Scientology doesn't include one breed of cat. Some of these IQs were down around 70. And some of them were around 160. See, I mean they're just zzhhh.

& And sometime or another, between now and the end of Congress, I'd like to give you a little group processing, providing you want it. You might not want it. (applause) OK. Well, if that's the case, then, I have good news for the staff of the, the FC staff, the „goon squad.“ And the auditors of the group intensive will operate as the goon squad here at the Congress and everybody else can get audited. OK?

Obviously people with that great a disparity do not associate with each other! But a great many of these people were... would have been described by an old-time Dianetic Auditor as impossible cases, or difficult ones to say the least. And several of these people who experienced significant changes in this Group Auditing were above the age level when any psychotherapy is supposed to act in any way. But we don't think they knew anything about it.

& Audience: Sure. (applause)

Here's an interesting intensive, here. I'm probably avoid... I wasn't an auditor of this group so I've just had this material handed us. So if you happen to see somebody's name on this or something of the sort, why, it's out of my responsibility. The group auditors could complain, but I wouldn't.

& OK.

Now, you notice this profile was way down here, way on the bottom and moved all the way up to the top. Well, just to show you that that was no fluke in answering the personality questions and so on, the IQ of this person went from 87 to 126. Yeah, it's true. Thank you.

Well, now, there's practically nothing you don't know already about this. The sober truth of the matter is, you DO know all there is to know about this. Otherwise, I couldn't tell you a thing about it at all. And the game here has been trying to find out what postulates you've made to get you in THIS much trouble. You've sure been busy! (laughter) Very few people will recognize the actual, the actual constitution - organization - of Scientology as being based entirely upon what life made up its mind to be. Somebody comes along and speaks to me about „my theories.“ Ha! It's always somebody who isn't taking very much ownership of their own. My theories. I'm glad I've added very few of my theories to this. There were enough there already. Because, you remember, I had, I had a little experience in the field of fiction writing and, if I really wanted to add some theories onto this, we could get, we could get FANCY. (laughter) Yes sir. Yes sir. It's quite remarkable, though, that only those - those people who speak about „MY theories,“ you know, to me, they say to me, „Well, Ron, your theories about this and that“ - you get them in a processing session and they don't move, you know? They're not right up there on top right away and so on.

This person, by the way, will have to be very, very careful around psychologists, because that's ... I think they're supposed to shoot people above 110. I think that's too bright, 110 is.

Well, what, what coincidence is there here? What coordination is there between these two things? Well, one is that if an individual has assigned proper ownership to postulates, proper ownership to existence and to creations in existence, they are relatively weakened, they are not fixed concrete. The way you want to get something to be fixed concrete is very simple. I'll just give you a little example of this. You want me to give you an example?

But it's quite amazing the number of people here who moved up into genius level; and the number of people who were at genius level who moved up into ranges that nobody's ever looked at before. Well, that's the way it is.

Audience: Yes. Sure.

I just wanted you to know we had the... we had the - what's this? Haven't those things gone off yet? Here's some sparklers. Well, the glorious Fourth wound up, I'm told tonight on the radio. The glorious Fourth wound up with the explosion of the biggest atom bomb in history. „And it shook the earth,“ the news report said, „It just shook the earth. It just shook it. Oh, boy!“ How do they know that wasn't us coming to the congress?

Alright.

When better earth shaking is done it will not be done by the AEC. Thank you.

Take that curtain there. Now let's, let's get the idea that John McCormick owns that curtain entirely, he is the sole proprietor. Can you look at it and get that idea? Hm? Well now, look at it and get that idea more thoroughly. Get a CONVICTION that this is the case. Now, sort of wonder what it's doing up here, since he owns it entirely. Well, by now, that curtain ought to either look more solid or rather peculiar. Alright. Now get the more proper idea that that curtain is simply part of the physical universe. Now, get what your earlier conviction was, that it's the property of the Shoreham Hotel.

Now, I mustn't get off into that particular line because I promised you that this congress was about you and that we are out of the business of what they laughingly call the third dynamic on earth.

Audience: Mm.. Mm-hm. Yeah.

The third dynamic, as it is mocked up here on earth, governments that are at the throats of other governments and so forth - third dynamic - isn't too good an example of what a third dynamic should be. Nor do I wish to make any questionable or disloyal remarks with regard to any government on earth, because we couldn't care less.

Alright. Now get the idea that YOU own it exclusively. You're the ONLY person that owns it, the sole proprietor, and nobody else can have any use of it. It's right back there. OK.

But it occurred to me the other day, something that I just must pass along to you. I promised you I wouldn't mention this, so I'll just glance over it and I won't mention it, see. Did you realize that the only people who can legally rob, kidnap, murder and commit other crimes is a government? If you don't pay your internal revenue the government can kidnap you and hold you for ransom. Did you realize that?

Now, answer this. Is there any differences to the appearance of the curtain as you do those things?

Audience: No.

Audience: Yes. Yes.

Well, it's true isn't it?

Do you have any difference of concept concerning the texture or solidity of the curtain?

Audience: Yeah.

Audience: Yes.

All right. Now, every time they execute somebody, why, they're committing murder. I don't care what you call it. Murder is the violent death of another human being, premeditated. They certainly premeditate it, don't they?

Well, the truth of the matter is, you can take an engram that you yourself made with your own little theta paws (laughter) - shaped it up, grooved it, put in all the bad perceptions - and you could say, „Mother did that!“ The engram come, clunk! And you say, „Well, maybe that's not the right answer to it. Father had a hand in it, too.“ Clunk! Then we say, „It was really made by this universe and they're all against me,“ see? And then you can dramatize it, see?

And if you had neighbors that shouted at their neighbors to the degree that these nations shout at nations, you'd get the idea after a while that they were batty.

Ownership. Unless one assigns the proper ownership to energy, masses, thoughts, postulates and so on - proper cause, in other words - he gets at the wrong end of the communication line. Unless he says, unless he says, to some degree, the truth, concerning the proprietor or the creator, unless he says this with some accuracy, why, he gets a very great deal of solidity, which he can then do very little with. By assigning improper ownership to things, one then gets a continuation or perpetuation of the item or object. And the reason one does it is called havingness. This is one of the minor tricks that a thetan pulls in order to continue to have something to have, which he can't duplicate, so it'll give him trouble.

But I was very interested in this phenomenon that rage, psychotic rage, kidnapping, murder and all these other crimes are only allowable to a government. And I had that thought and I sat and looked at this thought for a little while and I said, „You know, we better get busy! We're getting... we're slowed down there.“

If you continued to blame Henry Ford for your automobile, or for the numbers of automobiles on the highways, actually, automobiles would get thinner to you. So, it's better to blame the police or somebody, see, and then, automobiles get thicker.

Now, I've told you I would tell you something about the actual practice of CCH. And you have been experiencing some of this in your seminars. Want to show you something about how to do these various drills. Okay?

I'll give you an idea, I'll give you an idea of this. You say, „This is MY body. I have THIS body, and I am the one who HAS this body and I am the sole proprietor of this body, I created this body, I AM this body,“ all kinds of nonsense of this character, you see, and never give the family a break or the genetic line a hat-tip. See? One day, you're in an auditing session and somebody says, „Be three feet back of your head.“ They don't do that anymore, but you just get there - different. You're in an auditing session and the time comes when you should exteriorize and take a broader look at things. Concrete. Heavy. Mass. Can't get out of it. The body's THICK, heavy, solid, merely because you put into action this favorite trick of yours. To make solids, it's only necessary to misown. Of course, from the beginning, it wasn't your body, it isn't your body. Couple of people in the audience just that moment said, „Ehhhh! I've been found out!“ They did, didn't they?

Audience: Yes.

An interesting, interesting factor here. You assign exactly proper ownership to the body and insist on it and think that way, hard, fast and thoroughly, the body has a tendency to get rather thin, rather flimsy. The liability of knowing the truth could be a loss of havingness, unless the person has recovered from his obsession to have solids and possessions. If a person has a great deal of obsessiveness about solids, or if he's gone on the inversion, if he's dropped down a few scales and he no longer can have ANYTHING, somebody comes along and they hand him a ten-dollar bill and he'll say, „Oh, I couldn't have that. Couldn't have that.“ A chap right here in the audience - a very fine fellow, to whom the London HASI owes a great deal - I am going to tell this story on him. He was out to dinner with a couple of London Scientologists, and he had been associating with the general public a lot and he had been playing this gag on the general public. He'd been taking out a five-pound note, patting it down in front of them and say, „That's yours.“ So, the general public, people out of it, would immediately say, „Oh. Mine? What for? You know, it's not mine, I mean, what are you giving me that for? I ...“ So, he had these two Scientologists out to dinner, part of the London HASI, and he took two five-pound notes and he laid one down in front of each one and he says, „Those are yours.“ And they picked them up and put them in their pockets. (laughter)

All right. The first drill requires two chairs. (Get me two chairs.) This drill is totally devoted, 100 percent dedicated to just one thing, and that is to get a person over having to be or having to act in a peculiar fashion just because he has another human being in front of him. Got that? That's its total purpose. Total purpose.

& That's right, isn't it, Reg Sharpe?

Now, you'd be surprised how in the old days auditors used an auditing technique to cover up the fact they were nervous about facing somebody. We've learned this since I invented this and put it into the Comm Course. (That's all right, you can sit right there. Thank you.)

You get, you see, these people, these people had gotten over the inversion that they, the idea that they couldn't have money.

We discovered, oddly enough, that this one was tougher to do than the rest of the drills, which is why the lamas - you know, they were the squirrels of Buddhism I've told you before; they took Buddhist stuff and corned it up - why they run this tremendous gradient scale. See, they have a terrific gradient scale which starts with human being and mind essence. You see? And those are the two steps on this gradient scale.

Well now, just above that you get over the idea that you HAVE to have money. But money is a game, and it's barter and it makes carrying eggs around in your pockets unnecessary. And as a result, the whole society, apparently, moves and exchanges, and goods and havingnesses change position and place and so on. There's some sort of reward, it's a method of approval and all that sort of thing, so people tend to hang on to this. But they can get up to a point where they don't have to have it and still use it. There are a lot of Scientologists in that position, who used to be in the position of give them a dime, „Oh-ho-ho you, what're you giving me that for, I mean, I couldn't have THAT!“ That's for true. I am telling tales out of school, but they were running, running one of the people on staff on money one day, and they had him waste money and waste money and waste money, and do other things in order to improve his havingness and his ability to possess money, and they got him up to where he could have a nickel. (laughter)

And the way they get there is this process, modified somewhat. Now, all they do in order to do this process is simply sit here. That's all there is to it. He's been run on it.

It was very funny how, how a state of mind influences possessions such as money. Very, very, very remarkable. They're tremendous - I mean, an individual who can't have money seems, in some fashion, to reach over an invisible hand and unmock and sweep away any source of money, he just gets rid of it, he just won't let the money come anywhere near him. Nobody ever walks up out of a quiz show and says, „Well, here's the sixty-four thousand dollars for missing the question.“ They're going to start running a quiz show on that basis after a while, you see, that's, gonna have to do that because havingness on money is getting so poor, they now have an inflation. People won't take the stuff and it keeps piling up in the streets. No kidding, a society could get into that condition. Make sure that your havingness on money at that time isn't so obsessive that you keep putting it in wheelbarrows and carrying it around with you when it won't buy anything. Many people do that. Every once in a while they... It's always an old building, and it's always on Park Avenue in New York, and it's always a brother and a sister, and they've, they've starved to death in this old building, and then the police come in to remove the cadavers, the „corpse delicious,“ (laughter) and they dig into the mopboards or something of the sort, and they find out that they had 150 thousand dollars in cool coin, and yet they couldn't, couldn't BUY anything with it. Well, that's in a very obsessive condition.

[to student] Flunk.

These various conditions just vary from one to the other rather easily. Well, this is simply a subject of havingness, of havingness. And people put ownership vias in order to increase the perpetuity, the survival value and continuity of money. And if you put enough vias into the line, so that nobody can tell WHO made the stuff, why, the money tends to perpetuate. And if there's no vias in the line, why, it doesn’t. Truth of the money, matter is, with money, is somebody, somebody runs something through a printing press and gives it to somebody, tells him he can spend it. I mean, that's all there is to money, it's rather simple.

Flunk. You laughed at the audience. Male voice: Oh.

Congress, Congress, under the Constitution, was the only organization that had the power to coin money. Fellow by the name of Alexander Hamilton - who served his country up to the time he no longer was part of the artillery in the Revolutionary War - he got to be an aide of Washington and then started to work for the New York bankers. I think that was an interesting switch. He introduced a system of banking here which is quite remarkable, and the government sometimes comes off of it, as in the days of Andy Jackson and other times. But the point is that this system of money, whereby somebody else had to be the author of the money than the US government in spite of what the Constitution says, was simply the introduction of a number of vias into the line so nobody could trace the ownership of money. And the government has bought this, they think this is a wonderful idea.

Okay. You pass. That's all there is to it.

For instance, you can go right down on the Hill and ask senators, who should know better concerning coinage and issuance of currency and so on, and you say, „Well, now how about just printing three billion dollars and just passing it out in public works, and so forth?“

Now, move your feet around. All right. Now just start moving your feet, see. If I were the coach here, I'd say, „Flunk.“ „Flunk.“ They get this fixed look on their eyes sometimes. You know, get an absolute daze. That's what he's got now, whether he can see it or not, see.

„Oh, God! You couldn't do that,“ he'd say, „That's, that's printing-press money!“ I'd like to know what ANY of it is. Printing-press money. The funny, funny part of it is, I suppose he thinks the money is enfranchised by the, some church out in the Middle West or something, I don't know, some right or power that has something to do with higher beings than senators. Truth of the matter is, when he says - that's pretty high - when he says „Yea“ for a bill on the Senate floor that authorizes a further indebtedness for the United States, all he authorizes is for somebody in New York to write in a little black book the number of figures that he has - oh, two billion dollars or something like that - and then they send it down to Washington and Washington issues some bonds and then the bonds go back up to New York, and then New York sends it down to the Treasury Department, issues the two billion dollars in cash, and that's the way it's done. And so, there's nothing to it. It's better than a magic show, trying to find out where the money came from.

Well, that's it. That's confronting.

Once in a while, some nation gets foolish enough to borrow a central banking idea, whereby the government IS the bank, the government issues the money, and then they wonder why they get inflation, why people have very little faith in the money. All they have to do is put a few more vias in the line. Yeah, they could have a central bank very easily, providing the central bank was totally managed by the farmers in some other county, you see, and it was managed over there and it was their say-so that permitted the money to be created, but they had to consult with their wives and their wives had to consult with the Druids in a cave, and they just keep burying it off over here somewhere, you know, and tracing it down. All of a sudden, the money'd become more and more solid, more and more REAL to people.

Now, I point out to you that necessary equipment in order to do these drills consists of two chairs, space in which to put them, something solid for them to rest on, such as an earth, and a couple of bodies. Now, that's actually not very much equipment. Almost anybody can drum this up one way or the other here on earth.

You, we know that all you do to issue a dollar is simply to print it and issue it. That's the truth of the matter. Pushing it through several terminals, up to the point of its entrance into the public hands, has no bearing on, on the situation at all. The public thinks it does. They've misowned that dollar to a tremendous degree. For instance, there are people right here who thoroughly believe that the dollar bills, possibly, are issued by the Federal Reserve. There are people here who believe that their tens and twenties and so on are issued by the US Treasnry. And yet, you look at your tens and twenties, and they, you'll find across the top of it there „Federal Reserve Note,“ issued by a private bank. It's quite amazing. There are silver certificates and silver notes. The government's getting more and more involved. They instinctively know the right answer, they know that all you have to do is put more vias on the line and you get more reality as far as substance and solid is concerned. In other words, the thing can't be unmocked.

Now, the best way to do the process is just that way. One acts as auditor or student, and the other acts as coach. And for a coach to sit here... That is not the role of the coach. It's quite rough to be a coach, by the way; it takes hours and hours of this sort of thing to make a good coach. A coach is quite active. But a coach mustn't use his activity to mask the fact that it makes him nervous to see somebody sitting there. And you'll find some coaches doing that.

And you mock something up over here and you say, „Joe mocked it up.“ You did it and then you say Joe did it and it would then continue. Why does it continue? Because to unmock it, it is necessary to conceive of its creation, and part of its creation is WHO created it, part of EVERY creation is who created it. And you have to get that idea of who created it at the time that you look at it, and it will simply go fffst. It's quite interesting. That's why shame, blame and regret are so interesting. Somebody's so ashamed of what he did, and you check up with him and you find out that he, usually, is upset about things somebody else did. You have a whole philosophy in existence in this modern age which is quite interesting, is, that is, that is, if you take all the blame on yourself, if you did it all yourself, if you alone were totally responsible for everything that is wrong everyplace, and if you just own up and admit this, you'll feel a great relief.

Now, it really requires three to six hours of this confronting before it's fairly flat. And things happen while a person is practicing it. Three to six hours - fairly flat.

Well, the funny part of it is, is you might have done a lot of it, but somebody else did, too. Always remember that when you're going over your shames, blames and regrets. Otherwise, the bank'll collapse on you. It'll get totally solid. Why? Well, you AREN'T guilty of everything that ever happened in this universe. You personally are not guilty. You're guilty for SOME of it - guilty of some of it but not all of it. And this philosophy, then, whereby YOU take the blame for EVERYTHING, is simply an effort to do what? It's simply an effort to have more solids, to make the things which you have unmockable - in other words, un-unmockable, I should say - fix them up so that nobody can trace where they came from, so there's no getting rid of them. They're THERE. And the idea of trying to put an object there by masking who created it, where it came from and so forth, is quite prevalent. But it only gets us into trouble when we run into shame, blame, regret, and we say, „Well, I'm responsible for it. I'm guilty,“ - by which we mean, „I'm guilty, I'm to blame. That's the way life is. Oh, look at all the horrible things I did,“ - when, as a matter of fact, nearly every crime of the body required somebody else. See that? There's usually two present. Maybe there was just you and your body, there's still two present.

Well now, if a team of two was doing this, one would be the student and the other would be the coach. And then they would do that maybe for three hours and take a turnabout, you see? Well, in view of the fact that if you were doing this by yourselves you wouldn't be going through it on a regular schedule - you'd be doing it evenings or something like that - you'd certainly better lay out a period at least three hours long in order to do this particular one in it.

It's very funny, you know, bodies have machinery laid into them from other times. It's quite interesting. You'll find some preclear wallowing around, one time or another, „Well, look what I have done to this body. Look at the horrible machinery and things I have set up.“ Then he wonders why it runs much faster and gets much more solid. Well, some thetan that had the thing on the genetic line way back when, has already installed a tremendous number of items. You didn't install everything that's wrong with your body.

The only other process that has a demand on time... This has a demand on time, because actually the longer a person sits there, why, the worse off he's liable to get, up to a certain length of time; and that certain length of time is from three to six hours. But an individual... an individual who puts himself into this particular drill ought to have at least three hours to carry it on. Don't you see? The only other process that has this duress on it that I can think of at the moment is what we used to call Op Pro by Dup, which is old Book and Bottle, which is duplicative command. And if old Op Pro by Dup starts to bite, you don't stop.

Now, you can trace the moment when you decided to USE it, you can trace the moment when you decided to reactivate some of this machinery, you can trace the moment when you WANTED to have something wrong. But if you yourself try to trace the moment when YOU made up all the machinery and the gimmicks and what-nots in the body that would or are going wrong, boy, you're looking down a blind alley because you didn't make them all. But the idea that you DID will make those that are there, solid. Now, why do you do that? It's just this subject of havingness. Havingness is a sort of an A-number-1 game, it's one of these gorgeous games. Here is a thetan who is that thing that was looking at the cat yesterday and here, and here he is and there's a cat and there he is. Well, actually, by his own laws of communication, nobody else's, NOTHING cannot duplicate a SOMETHING. You have to be willing, to some degree, to BE a thing before you can SEE a thing.

Somebody, the other day, took this literally. We're doing it again at the Academy. And somebody took it so literally that it started to bite on the preclear and the auditor wouldn't let the preclear go for the entire period of its biting, which was fifteen hours! That's pretty good. Give him a hand.

A thetan can be what he can see, he can see what he can be. Don't take great pride in being able to notice tramps and don't think it's your social consciousness that won't let you look at beautiful girls. Sometimes, sometimes your wife has nothing to do with it at all. (laughter) Here's the, here's the situation. You often see some girl, some woman sneers at some gorgeous gown that's in some shop window, you know, and says, „Oh, that horrible rag! Tzh! It's horrible. It's horrid.“ No duplication there. She is probably, to some degree, defending herself against the possibility that she will never be able to have a gown like that, you see, she has various ramifications concerning this. But once in a while, once in a while, she looks at somebody and, and once in a blue moon, says, „My, I wouldn't mind being that person.“ And as a matter of fact, the person becomes brighter and more visible. So, you have these two factors that associate themselves with solids. Being able to see something requires that you at least have some willingness to duplicate it or BE something like it. And then you get you here, nothing, looking at this mass over here, and you say, „I'm not unwilling to BE that mass,“ when you're all set, see, you can see it clearly. But, every once in a while, the mass comes up and hits some other mass that you're fond of and you say, „I don't like all that mass, that mass is treacherous.“ And you can get so bad that you could walk down the street and see this mass over here that you now consider treacherous, without seeing it at all. In other words, you could stare straight at it and not even notice it was present. Quite interesting, isn't it?

All right. Well, we've got the first one of that. Now, you've had a taste of the second one of that.

Objects very often disappear out of an auditing room. An individual's looking around the auditing room and he says, „I could have this in the room and I could have that in the room and I could have something else in the room,“ and the auditor wonders why he never has noticed a shotgun on the wall, or has never noticed a wastebasket, or has never noticed a desk ornament or has never noticed his OWN BODY, and sometimes, never notices the auditor. Well, you can be absolutely sure that these are masses which the person cannot BE.

(Give me a book. You got a program or a book or something? Okay. Good.) All right. You can start there. You can start there - across there.

Now, let's put these two things together. Let's do a little mental gymnastics here and get the idea of misowning solids. We get the idea that somebody else created what we created. You get the idea or that, see? Now, that makes it solid. Then we say, „I am now unwilling to perceive that. I don't want to perceive that because it's treacherous.“ We say that more in a roundabout fashion. We say, „I'm unwilling to BE that thing, I'm unwilling to have that thing continue to live, I'm unwilling to have that thing's existence in my vicinity.“ And we get these two things combined. The first time one said, „There it is and I want it solid.“ Then he found out it was dangerous and be didn't like it, so he walks over this way and he says, „I don't want that.“ He never bothers to undo the mental gymnastics by which he made it solid. We get an engram bank. The persistence of a bank is quite interesting, the persistence of, of masses, one kind or another.

Student: (chuckles) „That is the end of this issue. If you intend to take a subscription, let's get with it. Don't leave those intentions hanging around in the bullpen. They will hurt you and sure won't help you.“ That's the end of it. No more. Blank page.

He said, he first said, „Oh, these beautiful pictures, these gorgeous pictures of the world, these gorgeous pictures of, oh, battles and gorgeous pictures of crashes and lovely, lovely pictures of people being murdered,“ those, too - those, too, were beautiful, as well as the beautiful pictures of the temples and all that sort of thing. „Well, all these pictures are just gorgeous. Now, I'll get the idea...“ and you put a machine over here that mocks up the pictures over here, that shows them to him here, so that he can say, „I wonder where they came FROM?“ See? And, „This body is making pictures,“ or something of the sort. It's a very, very unusual thing. And then he gains experience. Experience is a synonym for „knowing better.“ Another synonym for experience, which is much more germane, is „not wanting to be or not wanting to perceive, again.“

LRH: Well, read the blank page.

Well look, he's got a mechanism that says this must be solid, and now he has some experience and he says that sort of thing is bad and mustn't be solid. Now he's in trouble - just as simply as this, he's in trouble. Why? He gets a mental image picture, gets a mental image picture of his fifth or sixth wife standing there looking pathetic, he can't get rid of it! He says, „Ffwttha.“ And you see men walking down the street, particularly in New York, talking to the air, you know? „Yap yap yap yap, gob-gob-ra-raarr, arr-arr-arr-arr, gob-gob yap-yap arr-arr-arr.“

Student: Oh... .

I had a fellow one time come into a white-arm restaurant there in New York. I was up there in the automats, up there on the second floor. This fellow raced up the stairs and he went and put two chairs up against a table, reserving two places, and went over and got his sandwiches or whatever that was, and brought them back on a tray and set his food down, and opened out both chairs and says, „You sit there.“ And he sat down and then got raving mad at this empty chair, argued and pounded on the table and growled and snarled. And there were a few people around, looked up, they minded the noise. Truth of the matter was, however, very simple, they were used to that sort of thing.

LRH: Okay! All right, do it again. Read the blank page.

Well, this fellow was carrying a spook of some sort or another. That's a technical word, a spook. Every once in a while, you find a spook. Somebody right down there, second row, looked at me one day and he says, „What do you know!“ he says, „We were running this thing, and there, right, standing there all the time, he had been there all the time, was my cousin.“ He'd been walking around with his cousin. Well, there's hardly anybody doesn't have a spook of one kind or another, and there's certainly nobody who doesn't have some sort of a persistent picture that he'd better not look at because he can't be that thing which, so therefore, must be invisible to him - you get the idea - which is totally solid. And this is about all that gets wrong with the mind.

Student: All right. The cow came walking down the road.

When you say a specific experience is bad, let me assure you that ANY experience, according to a thetan, is better than NO experience. There isn't, probably, any such thing as an „immoral“ experience, except by another consideration that something was immoral. You have to make ANOTHER consideration, you see? It isn't such a thing that there's no such thing as immorality. Oh yes, there is such a thing as immorality. People have considered certain things immoral and they decided that that was the way to go about it and these things must be prohibited, and everybody gets solid pictures of them - they BECOME them. (laughter)

LRH: Didn't say that. That cow he's got there isn't walking. All right. Just take any line here. Just read me any line. Now, read it as badly as you can read it. Now, go on now.

Well, we get to this second stage now. There is one thing a thetan can do with something he doesn't want to look at. He can wear it. That's one solution, isn't it? Huh? Now, here's something funny. If you took a horrible looking dress and you put it up in the living room so that every time you entered the living room, or entered or left the house, you saw this dress there, and you'd say, „Boy, I got to ragbag that thing quick.“ But you wouldn't let yourself do so, see, it's just there, there's that dress. Every time you found yourself putting it away, put it back there again. The next thing you know, you say, „Well, it's not a bad dress.“ You put it on. At least you don't have to look at it when you're wearing it. (laughter)

Student: The thetan is a glutton.

I've seen people do this with clothes, but they certainly do this - it accounts for some of the fashions that come out of Princeton - I've certain-, I've seen people do this with physical objects. But they do as they do with physical objects, with mental objects. In other words, anything a person will do with a physical object, he will also do with a mental object - and vice versa, because they're just objects. They are not a special kind of objects, they're simply an object. The only reason other people don't see your facsimiles is they are not that heavy, they're not that, they don't stop light that well. They stop light for you because you're the one that sheds the light on them.

LRH: No! No.

Every once in a while you run into an auditor who can see other people's facsimiles. Every once in a while you really, he really CAN see other people's facsimiles. He's not seeing something he mocked up himself. It's very easy to get in somebody's head and take a look at the mental image pictures that are stuck. Rather simple. You or an auditor can quite often see things or sense things or perceive things or get a feeling about things that the person himself will not sense, feel, experience or see. Why? Because he's gone through this goofball thing I just showed you. He gets a machine over here which mocks up something over there which takes some pictures over here, and he gets something solid. See? Then he's over here and he says, „Boy, I don't want to be that. That's bad. That's bad.“ And he says, „Get out of here! Move. Unmock. Vanish.“ Now he says, „OK. At least I don't have to look at it.“ (laughter)

Student: No?

Well, in view of the fact he's NOT looking at it, we get this oddity that an auditor can do more for a preclear than the preclear can for himself, providing they don't both have the same aberrations. (laughter) You see how this works? Well, we get these stuck manifestations in the mind. Alright. We say, „Well, that's what's wrong with it. Now let's do something about it,“ see, that's very easy, „Now, oh, let's do something about it.“

LRH: No. No. I won't pass that. Read it again.

Dianetics. The only thing that is not in Book One Dianetics is havingness. There's some tiny reference to it, but it's just not there, and it's a terribly important subject. A thetan's desire to possess mass, any mass is better than no mass, he just wants mass, he wants havingness, he wants possession. It's quite amazing. Now, what happens here? Auditor comes along, and with force and duress, wears this thing out this fellow had here, see? You'd think the thetan would have felt better, but he doesn't feel so good, because the other factor has come along - his havingness has been reduced. In spite of the fact that it was bad, he didn't want to see it, he couldn't observe it, he couldn't experience it, he really couldn't own it, one way or the other - its absence, nevertheless, profoundly affects him.

Student: The thetan is a glutton.

This is quite weird. Police social workers and so on, are always struck by this, this phenomenon. I think it's Oliver Twist, isn't it, where Bill Sikes had the dog that he kicked all over the place and so on, and I'm sure that the dog was very upset when Bill Sikes went to Tyburn or wherever he went. You know? Thing kicked him all the time, but he still had something there.

LRH: No. No. Now, listen. You pick up the sense off the page and then you get that as your own thought and then you say it to me.

So somebody is always trying to solve this problem of separating a husband and a wife because they're both so unhappy together, and then they go spang! There they are, back together again, see? You say, „Well, he beats her and she nags him and between the two of them, they're going to ruin their lives.“ So you say, „Well, obviously the proper solution is that-a-way.“ So, we get it all fixed and they go that-a-way, and they're either very unhappy or they come this-a-way all over again. See that? That's merely havingness, the total explanation of it. The lack of mass, loss of mass and so on, is quite fundamental. In order to take a wife away from a husband, you would have to at least give him a clothes dummy in return. And what do you know? He's liable to be satisfied with one, too. (laughter) That, that is about, that, that is one of the riddles. But it isn't really a riddle, it's simply a consideration that havingness is valuable and one should have havingness, and so on.

Student: I understand. The thetan is a glutton.

Actually, as one runs processes aimed at remedying havingness, a person gets over the idea that he has to have everything in sight without criteria. He gets over such ideas as greed, and he also gets over such ideas as „can't have.“ He gets over the idea that he can't have anything, and he gets over the idea that he's got to have everything. Quite interesting. He, he can get out of this. Unless he gets out of this havingness bracket - it's not bad, you understand, it's just something he has to get over if he's ever going to shift his attention very much. And so, he gets out of this havingness bracket, he can do all sorts of things, he can exteriorize, he can tolerate space, he can do various things that he couldn't do before.

LRH: Well now, that's better. But I'm sure you can do better than that. Now, let's try it again. Let's try it again.

The anatomy of a trap, of course, is an inability to have it but have to have it. A trap is better than no trap if a person has to have mass. You, this is the great, great wierdity. You wonder why criminals who have been in jail always go out and commit more crimes and go back to jail again. The police prefer to be very baffled about this. Well, there's nothing baffling about it at all. They moved in the havingness that close, they got him used to that much - you know, small mass, small confines, rather small space as a cell, and so on - they move the guy out of it and, to some degree, he feels unhappy about it. He steals something, he's trying to remedy his havingness already on a criminal basis - he can't really have something so he has to steal everything. And he'll, he'll do this sometimes, just to get back in jail. And he goes out and he leaves clues around so that Dick Crazy and the FBI and other people can go out and arrest him, bring him back, and give him that much havingness again.

Student: Got more beef than mutton.

In other words it's hard to keep thetans out of traps unless they have some fairly sane notion of possession. And their notions of possession, havingness, what they can perceive, what they should have solid - unless these things are fairly straight, well, the fellow is leading a very confusing existence. He doesn't quite know what the existence is all about. He, he hasn't a clue. Well, we look at, we look at the problems of mass, the problems of ownership, the problems of perception, and we find these things are very intimately connected. And the entrance point is quite interesting. The entrance point of havingness - and this, apparently, is WAY over the hills and far away from what I've just been saying - is control.

LRH: More beef than mutton? All right.

Now, let's get down to the basic factor of what makes things bad. Things are bad which exert an influence a person doesn't want. You got that, that's a bad thing. A bad thing exerts an influence a person doesn't want. Therefore, it is attempting, you might say, a control of the person. And when a person has this happen to him too much, when too many things attempt to influence him without his consent, then he gets into a state where he blurs out. He says, „Nothing must influence me.“ Well, because control is a two-way proposition, right hand in glove with it is, „I mustn't influence anything.“ We also get this phenomena where he says, „This object here mustn't influence anything,“ and then he moves over here and becomes the object - he also inherits the, the idea that it mustn't influence anything.

Student: The thetan is a glutton.

Control. Control. It's fortunate that that is the entrance point. Earlier, we had communication as an entrance point. Now, communication doesn't go as far south as control, because communication has to be as significant as control to have any reality on an unconscious person. In other words, to communicate with an unconscious person, it is necessary to add the additional significance of control, and also a communication line and also some mass. Communication all by itself is too simple. Somebody's lying there unconscious, we walk in, we say, „How are you, Daisy?“ She wakes up, she says, „No, I'm not bad.“

LRH: Well, okay. That's better. That's better. That's fine. But you can do better than that. Let's try it again.

See, if communication worked, we could walk through a hospital ward very easily and simply open the doors and say... „How are you people?“ wouldn't work, by the way. Communication is a, communication is a fairly individual thing. We'd have to say, „How are you?“ and „How are you?“ and „How are you?“ and „How are you?“ and „How are you?“ and „How are you?“ and theoretically, they'd all wake up and get well, and that'd be that. But you have to add the additional significance of control before they pay any attention to the communication. We have processes now which do this. Control, a solid communication line, communication, all added up together, will reach, evidently, almost any level of unconsciousness.

Student: The thetan is a glutton.

Now what, what, what advantage is there? Why should an auditor be worried about unconscious people? (laughter) Scientologists wake up rather easily. They're generally awake before they have anything to do with Scientology. It's quite remarkable that very few of them have any reality at all on the general state of homosap. It's quite remarkable. Most of them have always considered themselves a bit of an odd ball. That is almost a common denominator of a Scientologist. Up to the time he came into Scientology, he considered himself was just, just slightly an odd ball. (laughter) He'd look at things and he would see that they weren't quite right. And the other fellows around would take a look at them and they'd say, „Wehl, thes nothun wrong withat.“ (laughter)

LRH: All right. All right. Okay. All right. That's good enough. Read another line.

The person, who was going to become a Scientologist someday, would say to himself, „Well, there must be something wrong with me.“ Well, there was something wrong with him. He was awake. Any person who has served a rather adventurous career has, sooner or later, in times of stress, had an occurrence happen to him where, sound asleep, he has acted and behaved as though he was wide awake, and then has suddenly awakened finding himself in action. You know, almost anybody that's been around has had some sort of an experience like this. You know? It, it could be as innocent of, as you were up all night at a party, and you have to get up and get everybody's breakfast in the morning and, and so you know that, you go to sleep and you know that. Next thing you know, you're standing over a stove making coffee! (laughter) And you say, „Hey! How'd I get here? I don't remember getting out of bed!“ And yet, obviously, for some little time you were performing actions - Got that? - for some little time. You must have gotten up, gotten dressed, lighted the fire, put the coffee in the pot, to wake up, all of a sudden, with yourself standing over a stove with the coffee in the pot. You've had that happen, something like that. Don't have it happen to you when you're driving a car. (laughter)

Student: For more than beef or mutton.

I very often - oh, on an expedition one time, been about three days in a storm, four days, and I remember distinctly going below - and I was back on deck again! I'd evidently been acting all right because I woke up in midsentence of somebody else, somebody else was talking to me and I woke up in the midsentence. And I, „What the hell am I doing here? I went below a couple of hours ago. I distinctly remember it!“ Well, if you have any subjective reality at all upon such an experience, let me invite you to apply that experience to a great proportion of your fellow man. He hasn't awakened. He is walking around, going through all the proper mechanical actions, he's going through life, he goes to school, he studies his textbooks, he gets up, he goes to work, he thuhthuh-thuh. And you'll see this, every once in a while, when you're auditing somebody. He, all of a sudden, will say, „Clonk! What am I doing HERE? Who am I?“ (laughter) You woke him up.

LRH: No. Okay.

What did it take to wake him up? Well, processing, processes. Therefore, for you to be able to process, individually or collectively, mankind as a whole, then you had to have the clue and the key as to how you processed an unconscious person, because that's mostly what you've got. You wonder, „Why do people tolerate this sort of thing?“ They're not tolerating it. They're just there, you know? (laughter) And, back in the old days, when you thought of yourself as an odd ball and so forth, just, just reapply this thing. You're standing there and you were the only one present who was awake. And then you thought something was wrong with you? Yes, there was something wrong with you. You were awake. (laughter)

Well, that's all we do on this Training 1, don't you see? The fellow picks up a line, he reads it as his own thought. And we don't care how... We're not going in the direction of elocution. Whether he says it with his little finger raised or not verbally is completely beside the point. What we want him to do is get some idea that it's his own thought and say it to us.

Now, havingness, havingness has a great deal to do with this. When a person loses too much too suddenly, he thinks he can't see at all, thinks he can't experience, and assumes, himself, this state that we call unconsciousness. And that is the one thing that is personally assumed. Actually, there is no such thing as a bank full of unconsciousness. When the stress gets too great, the individual says, „I can't have that thing which I misowned into solid. I am about to see it and my only defense is to see nothing,“ so, he goes clonk, unconscious. A thetan turns this on himself. You present, I'm sure that there are girls around that you could present them with a gold-plated Rolls-Royce or something, and they'd just go glong, just go out cold. Possible. It's just too much havingness, too fast. Well, this other manifestation is, any time an unwanted bit of havingness appears, any time something appears in the bank that they really shouldn't look at, they themselves shut down their attention. And that we call analytical attenuation, or anaten, or just plain dope-off or boil-off or other technical terms. (laughter)

Now, run a gradient scale as a coach and don't keep knocking a fellow's head in when he's doing not too badly. You see? Give him a little bit of hope. And as he does it by the hour he will get better and better, don't you see? And then become more and more strict.

Now here, here is this phenomenon. We have havingness versus unconsciousness. The havingness is mocked up on vias and misowned, and many times is no longer perceived because the person is unconscious toward that object. He hasn't really got an automatic mechanism which makes him unconscious. He just all of a sudden begins to know that's bad to look that way and he just, uuuuh. The only reason people go to sleep in the dark is because the dark is dangerous. Then they get on an inversion to it, they get on an inversion to it and they say, „It's so dangerous, I better keep prowling around in it,“ and they sleep all day. They get various odd ideas, strange ideas, concerning how alert and awake they ought to be, but the remedy for anything you don't want - and remember that it's better to have something than nothing - the remedy for that is to go unconscious and this mechanism is pretty well under the control of the thetan. And it's demonstrated by the fact that in an auditing session, when somebody goes unconscious, the best thing to do is to wake them up - just like it said in Book One.

Now, we don't worry too much about intention in a Comm Course until a person hits it the second time. He goes through it once, he can get through and he does fine, as I showed you that little stair-step. All right. The next time he hits it though he's been through Indoc and he knows about intention, so it's whether or not the intention gets across to the preclear that counts. But that is what you're coaching. And that is the only thing you are looking for. You want, of course, confronting, which is good posture and able to sit there, plus the ability to say a line to a preclear so it sounds real and natural. Now, you see how far we've gone there? All right. Now let's take the next step. (You're still auditor.)

Actually, there's a method of doing it.

Now, in this particular case, the coach does the reading of the line. And the only thing that the auditor is supposed to do is acknowledge it. That's all there is to it. And this is just a drill in acknowledgment. This is TR 2. Now, you see we've added up being able to sit there, being able to read a line and now being able to acknowledge. See that? All right. (Now, don't be any better than a student would be. Now, come on.)

& You were practicing it here this morning.

LRH: See you at the Freedom Congress.

And that is, you acknowledge them until they wake up. And an acknowledgement, all by itself, if it's good enough, will wake somebody up. It's very funny when you see them wake up. Sometimes, they'll wake up and then wish to God they hadn't and then go to sleep, and they're just... (laughter) Very amusing.

Student: All right.

A thetan wants and has to have and really, basically, is unhappy unless he DOES have, and uses against this the defense of unconsciousness if he finds himself having at any time. Confusing, isn't it? An individual creates something and makes it perpetuate beyond his control, because he says, „I must have this, and I want it to go on forever.“ Then he says, „This thing is bad, and I mustn't perceive this, and I can't possibly be it,“ and so on. Therefore, he just shuts his mind, he shuts his eyes to it. He said, „This is no longer there,“ while it's standing in front of him. Until he can tolerate havingness, for its own sake, you can't expect anybody to wake up. So, in reality, the clue to consciousness, the clue to unconsciousness and the ways to resolve it, is totally in the field of havingness. And havingness gets bridged over to the person with the significances of control and communication. And if you can get control and communication between the person and havingnesses, you got it made. Person wakes up. He finds there WAS something to look at, he finds he COULD look at it and discovers, therefore, that it's possible for him to be awake though alive. (laughter)

LRH: Let's try that again. See you at the Freedom Congress.

This is, evidently, the basic mechanism of havingness, the basic contest in which we find a thetan involved, and the co-relation between havingness and consciousness is simply that a person becomes unconscious if he believes he cannot have. And so, we reverse the thing around the other way and we showed him that he CAN have and he therefore becomes willing to be conscious. We do not resolve unconsciousness, or the somnolent state in which the human race finds itself, by simply running unconsciousness because this mechanism is really never otherwise than under his control.

Student: Good.

So, we have found the entrance point to a case and that is havingness, and we have found how to get it across to the person, and that is by control and communication - thus CCH. And this is the basic mechanism and theory of CCH.

LRH: No. No. See you at the Freedom Congress.

Thank you.

Student: Fine.

LRH: See you at the Freedom Congress.

Student: All right.

LRH: That wasn't bad. That wasn't bad. I'll let it get by. The thetan is a glutton for more than beef or mutton.

Student: Good.

LRH: Okay. That got by in spite of him. He yearns for games and pelf for threats to home and self

Student: Thank you.

LRH: All right. He loves a combat fair, on earth or in midair.

Student: Thank you.

LRH: This is no fair. You're running Tone 40 now. Now, come on, come on.

Student: I'm sorry.

LRH: He loves a combat fair on earth or in midair.

Student: Okay.

LRH: See, that's good. Good average low tone. A problem he will find, no matter what its kind.

Student: All right.

LRH: Oh, do better than that. A problem he will find, no matter what its kind.

Student: Fine.

LRH: No. A problem he will find, no matter what its kind.

Student: Good.

LRH: You got to get it across. I got to get it. Now, come on, I've got to get it. A problem he will find, no matter what its kind.

Student: Fine.

LRH: I didn't get it. A problem he will find, no matter what its kind.

Student: Thank you.

LRH: Well, we'll let him squeak by on it. So long as it is snappy, the thetan is quite happy.

Student: Thank you.

LRH: All right.

That is actually all there is to this. Now, you see what we've done: taught him to confront, to issue a line, you see, read it to the coach and then acknowledge. And that's... we re up there now to Training 2.

The reason we call it Training 0 is simply for the excellent reason that it got numbered that way.

All right. Now, we go into the Duplicative Question. Training 3 - Duplicative Question. Now, it isn't ... doesn't require just a little skill, just a little skill, to duplicate an auditing question.

For a person to say the same question over and over and over and over again - this is regardless of end of cycle or anything else - but for a person to say a question, repeat the same question over and over again usually taxes Homo sap most horribly. He can't duplicate it that much. And in some auditing session he all of a sudden pulls some awful boo-boo. He was saying, „Look at that wall,“ and he says, „Notice that wall.“ And then he doesn't like that so he says, „Well, take a glimpse of the wall.“ And he keeps varying the question. And we've found this is necessary... It enters a terrible amount of confusion to a preclear to have his auditing question that he is receiving not duplicated. Makes a very rugged, ragged session.

Give you an idea of just the powers of a duplicative statement: Little boy, he's crying. (Now, this is not an acknowledgment; this is something else.) We say, „Hello. Hello. Hello. Hello. Hello. Hello. Hello.“

All of a sudden he says, „Hello.“ That's just the power of getting through.

Now, the favorite Homo sap method of getting through would have been this: A little boy's crying. He'd say, „Hello. What's the matter with you? Damn it! Why don't you answer me!“ Doesn't work. It is totally unworkable.

But try it sometime. See somebody who's being misemotional one way or the other - you think it might sound funny maybe, if out in the workaday world somebody sailed into the office with a big snarl on his face and he hates the world, you know, and you say it'd sound very funny if you kept repeating, „Good morning.“ You'd say, „It would look funny to him.“

Listen, he's out of communication. You're making a mistake. You believe these people are in communication, that they can observe, they see things and so forth, just because you can. They don't. This person doesn't notice it; it doesn't seem queer to him that you do this. You say, „Good morning.“

The fellow, „Ynah-grrr-ynah.“

You say, „Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning.“

Actual case history on this is that one fellow had to tell his boss good morning, repetitively for over a month, before he finally got a cheery good morning back. The boss had never noticed that he was saying good morning repetitively to him. Quite amazing. So that all by itself has a therapeutic value. Well, now listen. Does acknowledgment have a therapeutic value? Does training on acknowledgment have a therapeutic value?

Boy, I tell you. You ever hear of the Great Amen? Huh? The Great Amen. It just ended everything; everything quit right at that moment. Well, theoretically we're talking about something of the same order of thing. If you could give a good enough acknowledgment - if you could give a good enough acknowledgment - everything would stop everywhere and vanish. Because all an acknowledgment is, is an end of cycle, you see?

So this has terrific therapeutic value all by itself. You just tell somebody „Okay“ or „Good.“ You give him the great, not amen, but the Great Okay. And an individual is at once... an individual is at once ended on that cycle of action.

Are you aware of the fact that if you can give a good enough acknowledgment the facsimile the person is working upon disappears in its entirety? Were you aware of that? That every place he's been halted on the track by the auditing process is swept away by that acknowledgment. It's a great big broom. It is so effective that a person can be sitting there running a problem of comparable magnitude to his job or something of this character - running problem of comparable magnitude to the office, see. He has a picture of the office, people moving around in the picture, he's all interiorized and introverted and everything else. And you've asked him the question, he gives you some kind of an answer and then you tell him, „Okay“ - phht - there's no picture of the office and he's in present time. Quite therapeutic, isn't it?

Well, do you realize there's therapeutic value in having somebody speak to somebody? You know there's a lot of men died in this world because nobody would speak to them anymore. Well, there's value in just being spoken to. Ah-ha. And for somebody to sit down comfortably is itself havingness. Look at the number of processes which we have combined right up to this simple level of the repetitive question.

You see the processes? That somebody would give you his interest (which is confrontingness), plus somebody would speak to you (therapeutic), that somebody would acknowledge (ah-ha), and that somebody would make a question repetitive until it's thoroughly and completely answered - all these things added together in just the woof and warp of an auditing session accomplish miracles all by themselves. And you can use such an odd question as „Do fishes swim?“ Which is the one we're going to get at now.

(Go ahead - „Do fishes swim?“) This is merely the repetitive question, that Training Drill devoted to that.

Student: Good or bad?

LRH: Bad.

Student: Do fish swim?

LRH: Sometimes.

Student: Good. Do fish swim?

LRH: Sometimes.

Student: Good. Do fish swim?

LRH: No.

Student: Do fish swim?

LRH: No.

Student: Good. Uh, do fish swim?

LRH: No.

Student: Uh.... . do fish swim?

LRH: No.

Student: Yeah, okay. Uh .... do fish...

LRH: I think so.

Student: Oh. Do fish swim?

LRH: I don't know.

Student: Good. Do fish swim?

LRH: All right. Now, I want you to speak more loudly.

Student: All right. Do fish swim?

LRH: No, not quite that loudly.

Student: Do fish swim?

LRH: Yes.

Student: Good. Do fish swim?

LRH: Now, are you putting the intention across with that? All right. Let's put an intention across with this. Let's intend for me to wonder about „Do fish swim?“ at least.

Student: All right. Do fish swim?

LRH: Gee, I don't know. Oh, I'm the coach!

All right. Now, that's all there is to a repetitive question. „Do birds fly?“ „Do fish swim?“ You got the idea? A person gets to a point of where he can flawlessly utter the repetitive question and acknowledge the reply. That is all there is to it. And he just keeps that up and practice gets him good. See that?

The finishing touches on a perfect duplication is done by getting run and running on something like Op Pro by Dup. But we're not trying for these high ranges; we're just trying for the repetitive auditing question.

All right. Now, let's take the next one. Right with „Do fish swim?“ - the repetitive question - we have comm bridge. Now I'm going to give the fastest comm bridge on record. Now, I'm going to be the auditor and he's going to be the coach. Okay?

Student: All right.

LRH: Do fish swim?

Student: Yes.

LRH: Do fish swim?

Student: Yes.

LRH: Do fish swim?

Student: Yes.

LRH: Do fish swim?

Student: Yes.

LRH: All right. I'm finished with that process. Are you in-session?

Student: Yes.

LRH: All right. This is the next process. Do birds fly? Do birds fly?

Student: Yes.

LRH: Do birds fly?

Student: Yes.

We found... You see, we've gotten pretty smart here in the last seven years. We know a lot of oddities and odds and ends floating around. Such as, we know that a sudden change of process throws somebody into a stuck. A swift change of process sticks the preclear on the track. You can find a lot of old-time preclears who are stuck on the track merely because the auditor kept changing the process all the time. You know that?

To keep this from happening, when you change a process you use a communication bridge. And all a communication bridge is, is three agreements: an agreement to end the process we are running, an agreement to continue the session, and an agreement to begin a new process. It's three agreements, and that's all a communication bridge is.

Now, I'm very glad to have this opportunity to tell you that there's been a bad communication bridge drifting around. People have been saying, „I will ask this question five more times and then we will end the process. Is that all right with you?“ Boy, that certainly could never be all right with anybody because when do you end a process? Well, you end a process when the comm lag is flat or when an ability is regained or when a major cognition has come up. And you mean that if you re going to say „five more times,“ you will never really get the process smoothly ended, because it flattened on the second command and then you were pledged to do three more commands! And by that time it unflattened and you're stuck. So you say, „Well, can I run it five more times?“ hoping you come out even.

A proper communication bridge is always phrased „some more“ or „a few more.“ „Well, we'll run this process a little more.“ „We'll run this process some more. 'We'll run this process a few more commands. Is that all right with you?“ see, leaving it indefinite.

Now, if you're going to be terribly precise, you're going to throw in something like „This is the last command.“ You can risk one more command. Particularly since you've said it's the last command, the preclear usually doesn't execute it. All right. Then that's „a few more times.“

Now, I'll give you an example of a rather fast, crude communication bridge. But it's nevertheless a communication bridge. Now, the process we were running on the preclear or the conversation we were talking about to the boss or the salesman - it doesn't matter; what's the difference the process we were running on the preclear was „Do birds fly?“ And we want to ... change that because it's kind of flat - not for the old-time HDA reason that we're bored with it. I'm not being hard on HDAs. Do you know that your Validation Committee is working hammer and tongs, and they wanted to issue a new certificate on validation. And I think it's a direct insult to the old HDAs. We've got some old HDAs around in the operation; when they... whenever we move their offices the first thing that goes up on the wall - clank! - is an old Los Angeles HDA with a gold border, you know.

But we say, „Do birds fly? Do birds fly? Do birds fly?“ and then shift over, with this communication bridge, to „Do fishes swim? Do fishes swim? Do fishes swim?“ Now, I'll just run this - a crude, fast bridge. Okay?

LRH: Do birds fly?

Student: Yes.

LRH: Good. Do birds fly?

Student: No.

LRH: Good. Do birds fly?

Student: Yes.

LRH: Good. Now, I'd like to run this process just a few more times and then end the process. Is that all right with you?

Student: Mm-hm.

LRH: There's no reason I shouldn't do it?

Student: Hm?

LRH: It's okay if I do that?

Student: Yes. Yes.

LRH: That's okay?

Student: Mm-hm.

LRH: All right. Do birds fly?

Student: Yes.

LRH: Good. Do birds fly?

Student: Yes.

LRH: Good. Do birds fly?

Student: Yes.

LRH: Good. Do birds fly?

Student: Yes.

LRH: Good. All right. And this is the last command. Do birds fly?

Student: Yes.

LRH: Good. All right. Now, that's the end of that process. Now, how do you feel about this session?

Student: Good.

LRH: All right. Is it all right with you to keep on with the session?

Student: Hm-mm.

LRH: Notice anything happening that you ought to tell me about?

Student: No.

LRH: All right. Good. Then I'd like to run another process. And this is „Do fishes swim?“ Now, the actual wording of it is „Do fishes swim?“ And is it all right with you if we run that process?

Student: Hm-hm.

LRH: It's all right?

Student: Yes.

LRH: Okay. Now, here's the first command. Do fishes swim?

Student: Yes.

LRH: Good. Do fishes swim?

Student: Yes.

LRH: Good. Do fishes swim?

Student: Yes.

LRH: Good.

That's a bridge. You see all it was, was in essence three agreements. You got that?

Audience: Yes.

An agreement to end a process and let him down slowly, an agreement to continue the session, and an agreement to run a new process. You got that?

Audience: Yes.

Now that's a good, smooth bridge. And you can even take a preclear with a process not really very flat and shift him with a bridge and it doesn't upset him very much. Of course, I know you're not supposed to do that, but once in a while it's necessary. You're running a process on him and his Havingness is going down, down, down; he's going gug, gug, gug, gug, wug. And you say, „What do I do now?“ Well, don't keep on running the process because you'll be picking him up out of the cellar. Run a fast bridge on him, see, and bridge him into Havingness of one kind or another, then bridge him out of Havingness onto another process or flatten the same process. You see? But anytime you change a process you use this bridge.

Well now, that comes under the heading of a repetitive question simply because it is very easy and we are not trying an endurance run in the Communication Course. You got the idea? Now, he'll get his endurance run later on when he runs Book and Bottle, Opening Procedure by Duplication.

But a fellow has to be able to get this knack. And you'd be surprised how few people could really, at first glance, say this twenty-five times without stumbling. Just say one of these commands twenty-five times: „Do birds fly? Do birds fly?“ They get into all sorts of arguments. They get ways and means of shifting off the process. Let's show them one.

LRH: All right. You ask me the question.

Student: What? Do birds fly?

LRH: Yeah.

Student: Do birds fly?

LRH: Well, what do you mean by birds?

Student: Well, they have wings.

LRH: Oh? What kind of wings?

Student: With feathers in them.

LRH: Oh? I don't remember seeing any feathers around here.

Student: Well, the question was „Do birds fly?“

LRH: That was a belated yank back. See?

Now, people do that. They're not supposed to do that. They're just supposed to ask the question. It doesn't matter what answer. You get the idea? Because they're not doing the next one which is Pc Origination. You got it? So any reply from the coach is a reply. That reply gets acknowledged and the repetitive question is asked again. Do you see that? Now, we just add to this little house of cards just a little more steeply. You see, we've already got this now; we've got the repetitive question, we've got the comm bridge. And now we get Pc Origin and take care of this problem which we just mocked up here. See now, he was not supposed to have done this far out of session, you see, on the repetitive question. And the coach would have called him on it.

All right. Now, let's take this next one however; and let's take Pc Origin. All right. I'll be the auditor and you be...

Student: Okay.

LRH: All right. Do birds fly?

Student: Um, yes.

LRH: Good. Do birds fly?

Student: How come you have dragons in your auditing room?

LRH: Huh?

Well, as coach he would call me on such a thing, see. Now, that's a pc origination. You got it? Now, just exactly what I did is what usually happens with a green auditor. He gets some terribly surprising remark handed to him right straight off the cuff. He was sitting there minding his own business, and the pc wanted to know if he had dragons in the auditing room, see. And he goes glah!

Now, there are various ways to handle this. And we've had some arguments about it. It's still a debatable question. The first series we had on it would take care of this. Actually there are different types of origin; all of them come under the heading of „understand, acknowledge and get the pc back into session” - they all come under this heading. Now sometimes you have to state this variously; you have to say „answer it“ - „understand it, answer it, acknowledge it, maintain ARC and get the preclear back into session.“ And that would be the fullest description of it that you could possibly make.

So properly speaking, this should happen this way. This would be properly done. (Give me the same one.)

LRH: Do birds fly?

Student: Uh ... Yeah. But how come you have dragons in your auditing room?

LRH: We don't ordinarily keep them there. Do you see some?

Student: There's a little fire going in the eyes there and the mouth.

LRH: Okay. Where is that?

Student: Right there.

LRH: Oh. Good. All right. Is it all right with you if we continue the process?

Student: Yeah.

LRH: All right. Do birds fly?

Student: Yes.

LRH: Good. Do birds fly?

Student: Yeah.

LRH: Good. Do birds fly?

Student: Yeah. How many ribs do mice have?

LRH: I don't know. I don't know.

Student: Oh, all right.

LRH: All right. Is it all right with you if we get back on the process?

Student: Mm-hm.

LRH: All right. Do birds fly?

Student: Yes.

This is the most debatable of one of these. But to be safe, to be absolutely safe and to teach it so that it would always be well done, you would say „You answer it, acknowledge it, maintain ARC and get the preclear back into session.“ You see that?

Well, to answer anything you have to understand it. So actually this could be handled this way: „Understand it, acknowledge it and get the pc back into session.“ Now, those are the essential points. But sometimes they make a rugged, thud, crunch, thud!

I'll give you an example of how thuddy this can be.

Student: Same one?

LRH: Yeah. Do birds fly?

Student: Yeah.

LRH: Do birds fly?

Student: Yeah. But how come you have dragons in the auditing room over there?

LRH: Oh, yeah. Okay. Do birds fly?

Student: Yes.

LRH: [to audience] See, that's not handling a pc origin. Actually an origination not handled can throw a pc down into apathy very quickly.

[to student] Let's try it again. Do birds fly?

Student: Yeah. But how come you have dragons in the auditing room?

LRH: Where abouts?

Student: Right over there in that corner.

LRH: Oh? How big are they?

Student: About six, seven feet high.

LRH: Okay. They been there very long?

Student: Oh, for five, six minutes.

LRH: All right. Are they doing anything now?

Student: No. Just smoking.

LRH: Okay. Thank you.

Student: All right.

LRH: Thank you. That's okay. Are you doing all right?

Student: Yeah, I just wanted to tell you about that.

LRH: Okay, good. All right with you if we get back into session?

Student: Sure.

LRH: All right. Let's do it. All right. Do birds fly?

Student: Yes.

LRH: Good.

See? Now, that bridge would handle most anything. You say „you understand it, you answer it, acknowledge it, maintain ARC, get him back into session.“

You realize, don't you, that if you don't handle it adequately - if you handle it too choppily the preclear will go out of session, if you handle it too lengthily he'll go out of session. You want me to give you an example of how too lengthily to handle it?

LRH: All right. You ask me the question.

Student: Ask you the question?

LRH: Yeah. You be the auditor.

Student: All right. Do birds fly?

LRH: Yep.

Student: All right. Do birds fly?

LRH: Yep.

Student: Okay. Do birds fly?

LRH: I'm eighteen feet back of my head! Say, isn't it a funny thing!

Student: Um...

LRH: It's awfully hot in here.

Student: Is it?

LRH: Have you been very uncomfortable too?

Student: No, I haven't. Where are you?

LRH: Who?

Student: You.

LRH: Well, I'd said I was eighteen feet back of my head and it's terribly hot.

Student: Hot?

LRH: Say, have many preclears been... been hot that way?

You see? I mean, the guy is no longer in-session. He's just swap-pow and out he goes. And if the auditor mucks it up, you see, and doesn't catch it quick, why, we've got a bad deal on our hands.

Now, it would be preferable, rather than let him get out of session, to handle it with a complete chop.

Now handle that one with a complete chop. Go ahead.

Student: All right. Do birds fly?

LRH: Yeah.

Student: All right. Do birds fly?

LRH: Yep.

Student: Good. Do birds fly?

LRH: I'm eighteen feet back of my head. It's awfully hot...

Student: Good. Do birds fly?

LRH: Yep.

Student: Good.

That is the direction to err. But you should recognize it's an error.

Now, Tone 40 auditing doesn't admit of a pc origin at all. It's a different auditing style entirely. All right. I'll give you an example of that. We don't run this one on Tone 40, so I'll run Give Me Your Hand on you and you originate, okay?

Student: All right.

LRH: Give me your hand.

Student: Uh, all right.

LRH: Thank you.

Student: Say, you look nice this evening.

LRH: Give me your hand. (This is the wrong way to run Give Me Your Hand, by the way.) Thank you.

Student: What are we here for?

LRH: Give me your hand.

Student: How come you want my hand?

LRH: Thank you. Give me your hand.

Student: I didn't eat breakfast this morning.

LRH: Thank you.

Student: I'm starving!

LRH: Give me your hand.

Student: I have a stomach ache.

LRH: Thank you.

Student: Goodbye.

LRH: Give me your hand.

Student: I don't wanna.

LRH: Thank you.

Well, now you've actually covered the essential drills-the essential drills right up to that point - in the field of communication. We put these together on what we call Hand Mimicry, which you have seen in other years; but it is not necessarily a basic or important part of the Comm Course. It's not anywhere near as important in the Comm Course today because we have CCH processes which are quite like Hand Mimicry.

Now, we have covered, just as I've given you, the basic steps of communication. And these exact drills are done just as I've been showing you here - just as we've been showing you.

Thank you very much.

Student: Thank you.

The beauty of them is that they don't chop anybody up or ruin anybody to practice them.

Now, Tone 40 drills can be quite ruinous. Even High School Indoc can blow somebody out of a session.

But these are pretty easygoing.

What you would do if you were doing these just as a practice: you would simply make out a slip of paper and you would make them off as a checksheet, and you would do them with somebody, with him as auditor, yourself as coach for a few hours at a time on each drill until you really had them down and thought you could do them rather well. And you'd find out quite amazingly that even just with those, and even poorly done by you, that your communication level toward your fellow man would come up quite amazingly. Something would happen, in other words, just with that all by itself And it's a pretty good indoor sport; it's a pretty good thing to do.

And a fellow who has had to do an awful lot of auditing probably every now and then should get himself checked out. A couple of auditors ought to get together and check each other out on these things, find out how they're doing. Mostly to discover that they're much better than they've ever been before and much better than they were last time. Auditing doesn't damage you.

People used to think that auditing did damage you. Well, the only thing it damages is the valence and the computer. And it raises the devil with those. Modern auditing is non-restimulative. That's one of the big arguments in favor of Tone 40 auditing. And these drills have a tendency to knock out any factor of restimulation.

We've worked up to a point now where concourse with the human race is not aberrative in any way. That's pretty good. That's pretty good.

I'll take up some more of these tomorrow afternoon. And we'll go on upstairs with some High School Indoc and a few other things if you would like to go into that. Would you?

Audience: Yes.

All right.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you for being a good audience. Good night.