You think of an elephant, you think "elephant." There's an elephant, mental image picture, only it's one you saw in the zoo or one that chased you a few generations back.

We have — we have — now that we've put aside a few of these minor details, we have something that might be of interest to you.

What kind of a universe is this? Well, it's very personal because those particular scenes and pictures actually do record and make a permanent record of — until a Dianeticist gets hold of you — events through which you have passed. You have a picture of something that happened.

We have some material — material concerning Scientology which is the difference between a workable process and an unworkable process. This material is just a little bit technical. I hope those of you who are not fully acquainted with earlier material in Scientology won't find this too abstruse.

Now, once in a while you actually mock something up or you get a picture of something you would like to invent — something of that sort — and you get a similar picture. That we call a "mock-up" — something that is not a picture of the physical universe.

We will start in by saying at once that life is a game. What is life? Life is a game. "Yes, I know. But what are people doing?"

Now, one of these mental image pictures we actually call a "facsimile," which means a copy of, and it's just a copy of the physical universe. And you will find out that the facsimiles which a person most readily has to hand are facsimiles he has taken or manufactured to record items which he is about to lose or is losing. And he cherishes those. He keeps the picture of the item, instead of the item he lost.

They're playing a game.

Now, if you had a universe of your own, I'm sure that the floors in that universe would be as solid as this one.

"Well, yeah but what kind of games are they playing?"

Now, just take a look at your own bank. Go ahead, take a look at this universe of pictures. Get a picture of something. Got it?

Well, they're playing games they know they're playing and games they don't know they're playing.

Audience: Yeah. Uh-huh.

"Well, there must be more to life than that."

All right, now, I want you to stamp on the floor. Okay, how solid is that floor?

Yes there is, there's no games.

Audience: Real solid.

"Well, do you mean to tell me that there's only — only one item, then, do you — really concerned with games? That's impossible because there wouldn't be just one thing going on."

Got that?

Well, it isn't just one thing. All life in its various involvements is involved in games. That's all there is to it.

Audience: Yeah.

It works out that way. It processes that way and the whole problem and difficulty solves that way. Do you see this? No matter what, and no matter how we try to analyze and reanalyze existence, there doesn't seem to be any method at this time which is better than calling it a game.

All right, now get that picture you had of something. Now stamp on it. Is it as solid as the floor?

A game has many factors and these factors are all very nicely answered so that we have four types of games — that is four game conditions you might say. There is a game condition "knowing." A man knows he is playing a game and therefore he is living. A man thinks he is playing a game of living but is actually playing five or six other games he doesn't know he's playing. Well, that's an aberrated condition.

Audience: Yes. No.

What is the aberration? The aberration is totally concerned with a unknowing game condition in which he is involved. If he doesn't know he's playing these games, why, then they are aberrative to him.

All right, maybe it is and maybe it isn't, but there's a difference, isn't there?

Well, how about no-game conditions? Well, actually no-game conditions are quite interesting since they are the stuff of which a thetan is made.

Audience: Yes.

For many millennia man, able to write, has sought for truth. Able to write, able to talk, able to think, observe — he's sought for truth. Scientology might have been called at one time or another just another search for truth. It's a hideous thing to realize that man's search for truth was bound to failure. It could not have been possible for man to discover truth since the totality of the barriers which lie between him and truth consist of games, lies, difficulties, and unless he goes in a game condition, unless he goes into a condition of nonfactuality, he never arrives in a condition of truth.

Now, the other fellow's universe may or may not be solid, but certainly there is something very comforting and reassuring about this floor. Would you tell me why it is that an individual gets sick to the degree that he cannot tolerate a physical universe solid such as that pillar? And why does he get well when you tell him he can have the pillar or to look around and find things he can have? In other words, when you increase his physical universe possession, he observably gets well. This is therapy.

It was almost more likely that some gambler, some drunken gambler on a Mississippi River steamboat, would have discovered more about living than a swami sitting on the highest mountain in the Himalayas. It was almost certain that such a condition would have benefited in its chances the gambler. Why? The gambler is in a game condition. Not because he plays games with cards — because he's living. He is in contact with life. He is living life and therefore he has to estimate the elements of life. And estimating the elements of life, he is then and there capable of coming up with some truth.

Doctors dramatize this. They can't let people have too much, so they take little grains of barbiturates or something and they take little grains of the physical universe and little granules of the physical universe and little capsules of the physical universe and ... And they think it'll make some-body well.

The road to truth, for a man who has been living, lies through lies. By examining and processing the lies that are told, he achieves truth. If he tries to achieve truth directly, he perishes on the road. And thus we've had a narrow squeak.

Well, I told you that we Scientologists are always thinking big. We don't know how to think small and the theory is that if you can ... and make somebody well, well let's get him to take a building.

We were seeking for truth and if these factors had not been discovered, it is very, very likely that our search would have dead-ended since a man cannot handle truth alone and come up with answers to anything.

The question is: Does it work? Does it work? All right, you tell me, Scientologists, does it work to increase somebody's havingness?

This is the most hideous little booby trap that was ever rigged. Life is a game. You have to address the games the man is playing and has played in order to restore him to a condition where he is able to sit serenely or play a game at will.

Audience: Yes!

The road out led through the path of lies. Pilgrim's Progress is a terribly interesting thing. I've run it out of enough preclears. But they talk about the primrose path, and it goes this way and that way and winds up in thises and thatas and it's a — it's pretty tough, you know. It's a pretty tough path. So what you want to do is stay on that straight and narrow path, brother. That straight and narrow path that just goes on and on and on and is — fades into the far distance — straight and narrow. And that would be a method of dying slowly by inches or millennia.

Ah, what the devil do you suppose does that? Is it actually true that this stuff that these floors and ceilings and walls are made out of are therapeutic in some fashion? Is it actually true that they are?

The primrose path which you were supposed to avoid is the trouble with truth. This is for sure. One goes through the dark and thorny ground and over and under and around and above and below and he says, "Sooner or later, I'll come out on the highroad." Well, I'll tell you, it's a funny thing. He does, providing he's willing to walk the primrose path.

Audience: Yes.

But if all he's interested in is just walking down that straight and narrow road, I wouldn't give you that for his chances of survival, for his ability or for anything else. In other words, the road to truth detoured through games, through aberrative conditions, through stress and strife; games is the common denominator of it. And those games contain freedom, barriers and purposes.

Yes, well that's a peculiar thing. What's the matter with a preclear? What is the matter with a preclear?

And the road back is the same road. And to sit with a nice turban on and contemplate your navel or whatever they do in the upper, snowy regions of India (pronounced Indjuh) might benefit other people whom you would not trouble but is not likely to do anything for you.

Male voice: He can't have any planets.

Life comes apart at the seams and is understood and restores itself to any condition you care to have, only so long as — only so long as it follows through games.

That's right, he can't have it. And up here we have "Know" and then of course, we have "Not Know," "Emotion," "Effort" and "Solids," but we'll put "Solids" here. And under "Solids" we have "Think." Down here we have "Mystery." As an individual decreases in mental capability and ability he goes down this scale — "Eat," "Sex," "Mystery" — whatever it is. He gets stuck on some part of this scale.

You haven't got much choice about it. We would love to say to somebody, "Be three feet back of your head. You're Clear." I hate to confess to you that there were numbers of processes that we had, that violated these conditions. They were no-game conditions.

Actually, if he were at the top of the scale and he could really think a thought, in other words, postulate a thought, he would be able to do some-thing quite interesting. He would be able to make that thought felt on anything else in this scale of Know to Mystery.

We didn't have the information, so we can't say that we were right or wrong, but there were a number of them that violated these principles I'm talking to you about. In other words, a process which was a game condition process — you process straight at games — was workable and I don't care when that was. But a process which was not a games condition process, which was a no-game condition process, just dead-ended, thud!

In other words, here he's thinking about something; up here he thinks at something. This is the difference between a pocket adding machine and a lightning bolt! This thing called "Solids" in a game condition is of course a barrier, or it's a missile. And when an individual can't tolerate a solid, he can't have a playing field and if he can't have a playing field, he can't have a game. And that's all you can say about it.

Now, where you have a great deal of difficulty — where you have a great deal of difficulty with a case, where somebody's being aberrated, where some-body's doing something that is incomprehensible to you and the rest of the world and is damaging to those around him; it all seems to sum down to just this alone. And this is the one thing it summates to — he is in this sort of a condition: He's played a game; he was hurt while playing that game; the game itself is now a sort of an engram. He doesn't even know he's playing it and he is still playing that game.

An individual who could think a direct thought, cause — a direct thought, by the way, is quite interesting — a direct thought is exactly a communication. It is cause-distance-effect. Cause-distance-effect. He thinks a thought — boom! Now, if he is very aberrated indeed he can only think thoughts that cause horrible results. It isn't necessary to think that kind of a thought unless you are hard to convince that you have achieved an effect.

The game itself is actually a no-game condition because it's lost and gone and back on the track, but it was a game. There was some sort of a game that he was playing at some time or another. Now he's forgotten he was playing that game and there he goes. You take an old football player — take an old football player. All right, he doesn't play football anymore. To some slight degree he still plays football, but that's not aberrative. His football was not aberrative. He could have been chewed up and walked over with, however they do it at Notre Dame with their cleats on guys' faces and chests. He could have just been stamped on. He could have lost his girl because he played football. He could have had his career ruined. He — I mean, you know, I mean you can just pile this on. You say, "Well, obviously, what's wrong with this man is he was playing football and he no longer has a game," and so forth. Boy, that would be about the shallowest look at it you ever saw. Why? He knows he was once a football player. So, at once it takes it out of the aberrative category.

These individuals who work so hard to achieve an effect actually are not achieving one or they simply can achieve a bad one. A nation which can only kill another nation on a battlefield is already so disabled that it can't really tolerate a game; it can't think a nice direct thought, and your cause-distanceeffect is, however, possible only up here.

Yes, he is suffering to some degree from a game condition but that is not what is wrong with the case. The unknown games condition — the games condition he does not know about — is the condition from which he is suffering. All aberration must contain the element of unknowingness. When it becomes known fully, it will no longer be aberrative, which makes people ransack their pasts. But there are many ways to make these things become known — very, very many ways to make these things become known.

Now, did you ever read a book written by a professor? I mean one of these real lovely articles that say, "This is the story about — this is the tale of ice ages. This is the cause and so on of ice ages. The ice ages begun, it is said according to Professor Wumph, at a certain period of time which by an analysis of the fossilized remains by the archaeology department of the University of Michigan did seem to occur. However, this is contested by Professor Spath."

We have processes today that do it much more rapidly than preclears like. The force and velocity of processes is of great interest to us today because their force and velocity and effectiveness depends entirely upon the rock foundation of games condition and no-games condition.

You know, I well remember the first time — the first time I ever ran up against this phenomena, because it's phenomenal, believe me. I got into a state of mind — I wanted to write a story about the ice ages back in the good old days, so I, of course, went and got the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and I opened it up and it says, "Ice Ages." So I read and that was what I read: "According to the fossilized remains of Professor Spath," why, and so on and so on and so on. And I read, read, getting groggier and groggier. I couldn't find in there anywhere where the ice ages had been caused by anything! Evidently as far as I could discover about these ice ages is they were being discussed. There was no description of when the ice ages began, why they began, what happened, no direct statement of any kind. But, boy, was there a lot of discussion! That subject of the ice ages was so thoroughly discussed that I was disgusted. In fact, I almost became allergic to ice ages.

This isn't just something that I thought up. This is something that was gradually being borne in upon me, that there was a category here that was one thing and a category that was another thing, and these things didn't agree with each other, and there was something wrong here. We — I tried in vain really to discover fully why some processes worked and some didn't work. Some were limited processes. That is to say they'd only process, but maybe even very effectively, for two or three auditing commands or two or three hours or in the case of running engrams, probably maximally about five hundred hours. Those processes were all limited. They dead-ended somewhere. Why did they dead-end? And what were these other processes which were, you might call, unlimited processes?

Needless to say I wrote the story about tropical times.

Well, they were elements here for which there was no accounting. Now, I'll give you an example: We have a fellow who is having trouble with the fact that his mother has been rather mean to him. So we say something on the order of this, we say, "Look around the room and tell me something your mother can have." Now, we can say, "Look around the room and tell me some-thing you can have." And the fellow gets well. We tell him, "Look around the room and tell me something your mother can have," and he gets sick.

Well, look at the difference — the fellow who writes about something and the fellow who writes something. Get the difference?

What is going on here? It's practically the same auditing command. Well, you say, "His self-determinism, or his basic greed or this and that, something else was being violated here." Yes, something else was being violated but I'm afraid it was nothing that you could brush off with a word like greed.

Now there is nothing wrong with writing something about something or discussing something — there is nothing wrong with this at all. It's a common pastime. It's perfectly okay, but don't seriously pass it off as the thing. In other words, because we write about something we are not writing the thing, you see that?

There was something going on; some great difficulty probably sufficiently complex as to make it escape attention entirely. Why wouldn't the auditing command run on Mother as well as the preclear? It just wouldn't though.

Male voice: Yeah.

Well, we say, "This is very easy. This is easy. Look around the room and tell me something your body can have," undoubtedly would work because most preclears are their bodies. So, we tell him "Look around and tell me something that you could have." It's just a process. "Look around the room and tell me something your body could have." We already know "you could have" works and makes him feel better; why not "body"? "Look around the room and tell me something your body could have" does not work. He runs it an hour or so, he's got a headache. Why? Now that is the goofiest little puzzle that I ever got mixed up with.

It should be very clear.

I won't give you a blow-by-blow account of the — of the oddities and the peculiarities which were fought through and the number of staff auditors which all but blew their brains out auditing little slips of paper which would be passed to them on preclears, you know. They'd audit something on a pre-clear and they'd say, "Well, Ron says this was a good process so, heh, go ahead." And all of a sudden the preclear goes . . . They say so and Ron checks off another one. Ptock!

A handbook on how to start and maintain diesel engines has great value. If you read it, you know how to run, handle and use diesel engines. Another book which gives types of diesel engines and their inventions and that sort of thing is actually equally interesting. There is nothing wrong with it. A fellow who is in good shape should be able to write all over the Tone Scale. But, how about the fellow who writes a book entitled How to Start, Handle and Maintain Diesel Engines and then starts it out this way, "The first diesel engine was evidently discovered or invented — whereas there is some question about this — by a Swedish individual who — however, in his own writings credited his idea to the Italians."

Some long time ago I made up a list of about five hundred different reasons why. They were the reasons why life was living. What was it living about or for? There were five hundred possible motives, more or less. Life was being lived on the basis that one — give you sort of an idea, what is the motive of life — so that one could love one's neighbor. That's why. Dzzzzt! You audit this on a person, they go tzzrrruuuu boom.

Chapter Two: "Diesel engines are said to be very difficult to maintain at times, but other authorities claim they are very easy to run."

All right, so we had all these various types of things. You see, philosophers, from the beginning of time practically have been saying, "Why, it's allwhyness," and Skip-skop Schopenhauer, a German that had more bad temperthan good grammar ... He — pardon me — Schopenhauer does write impeccably good grammar. The only trouble is you can't understand it even inGerman. A sample of Schopenhauerian wit is "Stubbornness is the state ofthe will taking the place of the intellect." It's nicely involved, isn't it? Itdoesn't go anyplace. Well, anyway, he said that, "Life was living in order todie." Oh, so I put that down on the list, too, you know. "Life was living inorder to die." All this sort of thing about death wish. The only thing youcould really do about life was really get even with it and just kill everything.Well, such things as this, scraps and bits and pieces from the Greek, theGerman, from the various barbaric philosophies and so on that one runs across; put all these things down and almost accidentally, along about 205, why I remember they use — people used to say all the time that writing was a game and business was a game and this was a game, so I put down "life is a game." And went on, you know, happily on down the rest of the list, putting down very deep philosophic things, you see, that had good substance and solidity and had been respected for generations.

Chapter Three: "In maintaining diesel engines there are many books available ..."

And then I went back and started this, tested this one, tested this one precomputation, you see; all possible types of reasons why. I got down and almost, oh, about a 150 down the line, I found games again before I came across it on the list.

You see, he's written a book here that pretends to be here. Get the difference? In other words, the difference is that of honesty. If you write a book about something and say it's about that something, all right. But if you write a book about something and say it is the thing, you are being very dishonest.

"Can-have" on self works. "Can't-have" on body does work. You see, "can-have" on body doesn't work. "Can-have" on Mother doesn't. Why? Because everybody alive is engaged with playing a game and is capable, particularly as he falls down through the dynamics, of taking on any item as an opponent and he is very, very scarce on opponents. And to let your opponent have some-thing is defeat. And this works out so fantastically. You just put a preclear in the chair and you smile like a crocodile, you know, on the Nile and you say — you say to him very, very cheerfully and very happily, you say, "All right now, look around the room and find something that your mother can have." Just keep it up and obviously it's a generous, good, self-sacrificing impulse that no child should be without. And your preclear goes "Duuuuhhhh, duuuuhhhh, duuuuhhhh," and finally says, "You know, something is wrong with my head." And you say, "Well, that's all right. Just look around the room and tell me something else that Mother could have." And he eventually just sort of drops out the bottom and you sweep him over to one side and make another experiment. Anyhow .. .

There is a subject called — I forget its name — just a minute, it's phrenology. Phrenology. It's taught in most universities. No, it's not its name. "Psychic phenomena," I think it's called. It's taught in most universities anyway. I have forgotten — it used to be taught and it says that it is this book on the subject of the mind, when it is this book on the subject of the mind. You got the difference?

What — what on earth though, if this were a game condition, then there would be only one command that would run about Mother as far as Havingness is concerned.

Male voice: Yeah.

We'll take up Havingness in a little while. I'll give you just a fast pass at it. You know that yesterday I told you about solids lie below effort. Well, that's Havingness. Anyhow, tolerance of solids is first approached by this process called "What can he have."

That's a singular difference, isn't it? Because this book will never do anything else but shy away from solids. This material will never think or pose a causative thought. It's perfectly all right to write about things if you're writing about things and it's really necessary and interesting to have books about things.

Now, we take this next person and we process this ungenerous, mean, vicious thing that nobody would subscribe to, particularly parents. And we start running this fellow on "Now, look around the room and tell me some-thing your mother can't have."

You ever read a book about stamps? Well, it's perfectly legitimate to have a book about stamps; they're a lot of fun. A book about paintings, a book about this, a book about that — perfectly all right. But a book which discussed paintings from Rembrandt backwards or something of the sort, but had a title — all it did was discuss paintings and say what museums they were in and how much they cost people — and title itself, How to Paint and Become a Famous Painter, is a fraud. It's a complete fraud, see?

"She can't have? She can have everything." No-no-no.

So, we have to differentiate between the professorial figure-figure material which pretends to be the subject and actually this. You see that? Well, it's all very well to look over that and run down those good people who actually are making a living. I wonder if they sometimes don't go on an interesting motto.

And it just runs by the hour and he gets better, and he gets better, and he gets better and better. But it sounds so outrageous that only somebody as monomanic as myself on finding the end of track on Scientology would ever have let it be run that many hours because obviously it's not right. It isn't. Goes against the Ten Commandments, the Bureau of Ordinance, even goes against the apparency of the case that every time you really ask that: "What could your mother have?" You walk up to somebody on the street and say, "What could your mother have?" He'd say, "Oh, I would buy her the world if I could."

Anyway, an interesting book can be written on any subject under the sun — about it. But if the book pretends to be it, what use is it? What use is a universe which is only about another universe? What is it? What use is a book that is only about things except as a matter of passing interest? It's not a causative book, is it? What use really is a universe which is only about another universe? It's a sort of a discussion. What most people call their own universes are a discussion of the physical universe. And that which you have been calling and which I call "own universe" is only a false universe picture gallery of the physical universe.

See, people don't even — people — people don't even cognite on this one. Now, another funny thing — if you ask an individual what a jail could have. Ask him "What can a jail have?"

I told you I didn't have anything very important to talk to you about. All I am describing is the actual anatomy of the reactive mind and that's dead so long that it's hardly any use at all.

Did you ever run into anything quite so greedy? And a preclear will tell you at once, "A jail can have anything. Everything! You, him, us, we, every-body. Yes! It can have that pillar and that clock and that ceiling and the roof and so forth." He can't find enough things that a jail can have.

So, do you have your own universe? Is there a universe that you can call your own universe? Is there one? Hm? Is there one, really?

And we say, "Now, look-a-here, look-a-here. We obviously had an aberration there, and it was that the jail could have things and if we simply fill up the jail vacuum . . ." See the reasoning that is all wrong? "If we just fill up the jail vacuum, he'll get over being afraid of jails."

Audience: Yes.

Ah, another phenomenon occurs that escaped all of us. And I'll show you what was fouling up our research from beginning to end as well as games. Did you ever hear of this small matter of a below zero Tone Scale? Audience: Yes.

What is it?

Did you ever hear of that? Boy, I tell you, I looked back at myself with absolute awe here the other day. I said, "You know, that's three years old?" I said, "Gee, boy," I said, "are you bright. Think of that. Three years ago you wrote this thing." And I said, "You dumb (blank). Why didn't you ever use it?" That's the question "Why didn't we ever really use it?" We had it right there. We've had it for years. And it tells us something that we even knew in 1950. We used to say, "You know arthritis, you can always process the fellow into apathy so he'll lose his arthritis." You know, we know that's the case.

Audience: This one.

Well, what's this below zero thing? Preclears on at least one or more items are below apathy and have to be processed like mad before they ever get into apathy. And the processes which were being functional were bringing preclears up to apathy and I thought it was driving them down to apathy.

Huh, you're right. That's your universe. Well, why do you think that you don't have a total ownership on the thing? That's because in the process of games, people disenfranchise people gradually, a little bit. They say, "You can't play this game. You can't come close to it." They say, "You have to have a deed before you can walk on this property." Get the barriers? "You have to pay a certain sum of money with the Recorder of Motor Vehicles before you can drive this car." You got the idea?

I'm afraid that my first reaction of "Gee, Ronnie, you're smart," has never been able to counteract the feeling of stupidness which I've had since. Whew!

Well, it changes our thinking considerably on this whole subject. This universe — physical universe was evidently actually built by us. We built it. And then after a while we mocked up things that we couldn't stop often enough and we decided not to create that solidly anymore, and we stopped mocking things up that solidly. We stopped putting things together with that much glue and we said, "You know, we get in trouble mocking this stuff up and never unmocking it." Or "We sold ourselves and other people sold us a bill of goods and they told us we had to get out of the universe somewhat." And a fellow draws back at last and he only keeps pictures of the physical universe and he said that's his own universe.

I'll give you — I'll give you the pat example that sets this. How could anyone guess that on one or more subjects anybody would be so far below apathy that he didn't even know he was in trouble. And he could process in that band and evidently feel all right and feel better about it and never get over it. Most fabulous thing you ever saw.

Why can't you or don't you mock up a better floor, a better car, a better house? Why? When a bullet comes at you that's traveling mighty fast and you can't stop the bullet, why don't you mock up a piece of armor plate in front of you? You know, these bodies don't stop bullets well. There have been many clinical tests made on the subject. Well, why don't you mock up an armor shield to have the bullet go clang against it?

And that some cases across the boards were below apathy — body plus thetan. The body would have had to have gotten well to die.

It's because you began to be intolerant of solids. That's the answer. You said, "There are enough barriers around already. I won't be guilty of mocking up another one." Here's this huge universe, huge, with a handful of planets in it and a few suns, and we decided there was already enough walls. There were already enough walls. We didn't need any more. Let's not be quite so solid in our mock-ups.

Now, up here — up here we have our — our Tone Scale just as I was showing you yesterday. It contains know, not-know, on down the line. Perceive, emote, all the various categories of emotions in their proper light, and then effort and then solids and then think and then on down through symbols, eat, sex and mystery. Well, we could get all the way down there. Where are these things called think and mystery? Where are these things? Well, I'm afraid — I'm afraid that they're down here at 0.0 and that's mystery. And then we go south.

We ourselves as thetans are not solid. We therefore begin to find fault with solids because we cannot completely duplicate a solid, and a solid never duplicates us and so the communication formula is violated.

The preclear's problem is clear down there, so far below zero, it's in a band where he cannot think about it particularly. But he can think about it, but it doesn't worry him, but there's no emotional content to it but it's all right; he doesn't care, it doesn't make any difference to him, it isn't worrying him a bit. And you process him on it for about three hours and he all of a sudden says, "I feel like I'm dying." And you say — obviously, under old research, we would have said, "You know this process isn't working. This process isn't working because he's getting worse." And that was not right because we processed him another three hours on the same problem and he came right up the Tone Scale. He got to a point of where he could be apathetic about his problem. And from being apathetic, he could move up and he'd cry about it and he'd be afraid of it and he'd be angry about it and antagonistic and bored and then he'd be enthusiastic about having such a lovely problem.

And a communication formula has this interesting fact connected with it. Here we have at cause a certain idea or entity. At effect, a perfect communication would have the same duplicate or entity, don't you see? Supposing at cause we had a small pebble; at effect we would still have to have a small pebble. When we have effect — small pebble — we would have a small pebble back here at cause. In other words, for cause to hit with a pebble, it is really necessary for cause to be able to tolerate a pebble back. Therefore, we get that thing called, "Love thy neighbor. If thou does not smote the other cheek thou shalt be in violation of Covenant 83" or whatever it is. I'm not quite sure what the quotation is. You possibly could help me out.

We used to think, you see, that your preclear went down scale when we processed the wrong process on him. Because he would start to feel some-thing. We'd run a process for a little while and he'd feel bad. And we'd say, "Well, that's not a good process; it doesn't make the preclear any better at all."

Now, we have this situation here. We've got a problem in cause and effect. A thetan looks at a solid. Here's this board here — it's solid. I am back up here about three feet of my head — I look at that board, see the board real well. I sort of have a feeling like I ought to be a board. If I'm unwilling to be a board I don't see the board very well at all. You get what the problem is? Well, as an individual is disabused of the idea that he should mock up things, that he does own this universe — as he gets disabused of this idea, he is less and less willing to perceive it. And in view of the fact that if he doesn't mock it up all the time it isn't there as soon as he falls down on the job and stops mocking it up that solidly, he starts to have trouble with it!

And this was the observational factor which was messing up our test processes. It's unthinkable that somebody could be processed for a couple, three hours on a very heavy biting process with no reaction at all before they reached apathy. But having reached apathy, be processed two or three more hours up scale gradually until they are over the hump on the problem and feel very, very good about the whole thing.

Now, let's get the idea of a great big ice cube here — great big ice cube and we look at this ice cube and we realize that it's going to melt. If we don't put more ice cube there, we're not going to have any ice cube. Is that right?

In other words, the processes that were really good processes were then disguised and hidden under the fact that when they were used on the difficulties the case was really having — when they were used for a little while — the case felt worse. I'll give you one. Let's take separateness. Do you know that separateness runs easily, runs well. People feel better with it. You don't even run into havingness problems particularly if you're a very gentle auditor. You say, "Look around the room and find something you wouldn't mind being separate from." And he gets to feeling a little bit better, and so forth, and it just processes on and on and on and on and then all of a sudden he gets jittery. He gets — you say it's a loss of havingness or — something is wrong.

Audience: Yes.

But he is incapable, usually, on such a line of expressing any emotion for the excellent reason that he is below the tone in which he can feel. He can't feel, emote or react. He's below that tone in which he can actually experience.

It's inevitable.

That's a fantastic thing. So we run the other one. Now, the reason why this is important is we made a basic test and this was the deciding test as to whether or not a thetan was going into things or coming out. And the test went this way: "Look around and find something you wouldn't mind being connected with." And that run for about twenty minutes practically plows a guy in. He starts feeling bad; he doesn't want to have all these things happening to him. He gets upset; he is — he feels miserable. So, we said his ambition is to be separate.

Well, what's the difference between that ice cube and that pillar? There is no essential difference except the ice cube leaves some water when it disappears, and the pillar leaves a headache.

Separateness is the truth. Connectedness is the lie. And you have to process the lie in order to reach the truth. And if you process connectedness, he gets to feeling worse and worse and worse and worse and we always thought feeling worse was going down scale. In this case, it's going up scale. And he keeps feeling worse and worse and finally gets to be apathetic about it.

When you become the total effect of the physical universe, you believe it is no longer your universe. You can still see it because misownership is at work, but you don't mock it up anymore, you don't assist it to appear, you don't keep time going clickity-clack, all because of what? Because you don't want to look at solids anymore. You think that solids are something you want to avoid here. You want to stay below it.

We ran a preclear who had had no results on his case at all for about two or three years. He'd not been audited by anybody very significant or they probably would have done something to him. But he had never seen an engram, never done this or done that. And he finally was running a problem and — problem came up to apathy and he says, "I'm bored with it." And the next day he came back to the auditor and said, "You know, I've made a fantastic discovery. You know that apathy and boredom are different." And he says, "I wasn't being bored, I was being apathetic about it and that's what I've always mistaken for boredom."

Let's think about walls, let's don't mock them up. It's very funny — we've had this for a long time, "Look, don't think." Got a car, it isn't running. You take it into a garage mechanic who is in terrible condition — the garage mechanic is. You run the car in the garage and he says, "Well, let's see, what could be wrong with that car?" Drive on, find another garage. When you get back the wheels will be off of it, too.

Now there — there was a case that was functioning, evidently doing all right, and so on. But we had to know the games condition of it even to process that much. We had to know that. Connectedness. People are always getting into games. A game condition is to get into it. So you process "get into it." A no-game condition is "get out of it." So we don't process "get out of it." The only way he could get out of his old unknowing game condition would be for you as an auditor to shove him into it. And there's where we get "the way out is the way through." And that has always been true.

But you drive into a garage, drive your car in — something wrong with it — mechanic doesn't start arranging with you about the bill or anything. He-up with the hood . . . It's quite remarkable. Why? As one becomes allergic to solid masses, walls, books, brooks, pebbles, kings, cats and coal heavers, he stops looking at them. Some part of him is still mocking them up sort of back over here, you know. "I'm scared of that thing." See? But he can't remedy anything about them.

So, this thing untangles. Starts to make very, very interesting sense. And it becomes remarkably easy. Now, quite by accident, we had the exactly correct game condition formula.

In order to solve a problem it is necessary to confront the solids connected with the problem. If you can confront the solids connected with the problem, you can solve the problem. We explain this in many ways.

A long time ago when we had our first rudimentary communication formula, it says, "Cause, distance, effect." Cause, distance, effect, with the preclear at cause. And that is the way you have to process. You have to get the preclear to do it and the preclear to create an effect. And that is the proper formula: cause, distance, effect.

A fellow is mad at us; he's going yap-yap-yap-yap, chop-chop-chop. We say, "I'd better not go over there and talk to him, he's mad. Better stay away from that." I believe Scientologists know better now. They have rationalizations and explanations for it. That fellow is over there chop-chop-chop and he's saying, "Hiya, Joe! What's wrong? Is something wrong?" Joe ... You see, confronts the solid.

With the preclear at effect, a process that's supposed to put him at effect is a process which will spin the preclear in, because it's a no-game condition. Did you ever see a dead man playing a game? Well, death's a no-game condition. Follow me?

Now, it isn't true that thetans are solid. They're not — they're not solid. I was talking to a thetan one day and he said something. He was using American slang or something and he said, "That's solid, Jackson."

Now, here in this Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought, in the printed edition which was the Translator's Edition, we have in here at the back a partial list of game conditions. And these game conditions are, and I'll read them very rapidly: Attention. Now, part of attention is interest. Attention is a heavy button. Interest is a light button. These are all parts of games. You see, games are basically — basically freedom, barriers and purposes. That's basically a game. But none of those things process. Which was — what was remarkable to make this discovery of games — and at first, by the way, in research this would have knocked your brains out if you had been doing it; it's — was horrible — that although I knew it was games conditions, none of the elements I could isolate as a games condition worked on a preclear.

I said, "What?"

Games consist of freedom, purposes and barriers. Now, you tell a pre-clear to, "Mock up a wall so that you can't go through it. All right, that's fine. Mock up a wall so that you can't go through it." You know it's not a good process? "Figure out some way to restrict somebody else's freedom." It's not a good process? "Invent some purposes for life." It's not a good process?

He said, "That idea."

And so if a game was what life was doing, why didn't its three basic elements process? Well, that's because a thetan is a tricky little fellow. He's tricky. He's much worse than that. He's devious. He only plays games that have specialized conditions. He's a snob. And you get these games conditions, then, arduously arrived at by just trial and error. Because once we had games condition — that wasn't enough because freedoms, purposes and barriers wasn't — it describes a game perfectly. And you can write things and talk to people and they'll agree with you, but they don't process.

I says, "Is it? I can't see it."

So, games had to be all broken to pieces — just broken flat down into pieces in order to make the full conditions — all of the conditions — valid — that were valid processing conditions. And my golly, here was another list of about a thousand possible game conditions. And out of these, only these seemed to work in processing. There are undoubtably some others. I'm sure of it. But in a couple of months, I haven't been able to find any. I'm sure there are some others.

"Oh," he says, "you're just being a purist." He says, "You belong down here in Hubbard's symbols."

And these are the processable buttons, game conditions:

But as we put this universe back together again, as we're willing to put this universe back together again, we can handle it, we can control it. There isn't anything in it which can stand before us and if we can handle it and control it, we can also make it disappear.

• Attention

There is a process that rides right up here just below Know, which is Not Know. Auditors have a lot of fun with this process. They take a preclear out — it's very, very hard to train an auditor to run the process who himself has not experienced the phenomena. Very hard.

I've thought of several examples. Takes a preclear out and you audit him. "Well, all right look around here. Tell me if there's anything you wouldn't mind not-knowing about that wall, about that person, about this, about that." Person — "Well, I wouldn't mind not-knowing that curtains were hanging on it. Wouldn't mind not-knowing that Declaration of Human Rights is hanging on it. Wouldn't mind not-knowing it had a light hanging on it. Wouldn't mind not-knowing this. Wouldn't mind not-knowing that," so forth.

He goes along — auditor is perfectly happy — nothing is happening. "All right, now, tell me something you wouldn't mind not-knowing about that person over there."

"Well, wouldn't mind not-knowing her head, wouldn't mind not-knowing her shoes, wouldn't mind not-knowing her dress."

The auditor says, "Okay, that's enough. Tell me something you wouldn't mind not-knowing about that girl over there."

Preclear says, "Well, I wouldn't mind not-knowing her hat. Hey!"

The auditor says, "What's the matter? What's the matter? Something happen? Get a somatic?"

Preclear says, "I did!"

And the auditor says, "You did what?"

"I not-knew her hat!"

Auditor says, "You did? What do you mean?"

"Well, her hat disappeared."

"It did? How did that happen?" Auditor spends the next two hours trying to find out what occurred.

I was being audited on this subjectively one time by an auditor whose name I won't mention. And I really won't mention it because of the Code of a Scientologist, but I ought to.

He was giving me a quick assist. He walked into the office and I'd just got through talking to a couple of preclears. I wasn't auditing them; I didn't have a chance to. They came in the office, they were screaming at each other. They were both in training and they had gotten into an argument during an auditing session over some breach of the Auditor's Code. And they were in the contention that they were both — they were both auditors.

You can just add that into your notes. Control: start, change and stop. And it was actually Control, which has to be added to that list, that was the most significant of these buttons.

And I had just finished a couple of lectures — or anything like that — and they were so mad at each other. I was sitting there listening to this. I finally settled it; I said, "You guys, you think you are both auditors. As far as I can see you are both preclears. Go on back and find some more about it." So they did.

But regardless of all that, what on earth were we doing fooling around with somebody who had to do something or be processed in a direction which was something more than desperate. You have to process him in the direction of "How would you kill everybody?" "How would you stop everything from going?" "How would you knock off your mother?" "How would you cut your own throat?" in order to get any recovery, because his former action on these things so badly violated truth that he himself was unable to return to truth thereafter. You see that?

This other auditor walked in the office immediately afterwards and says, "What's the matter with you?"

By entering an untruthful circumstance to the degree that your preclear has entered it on life's track, his recovery of truth lies through the eradication of the untruthful condition.

I was sitting there at the desk, "Oh, no," you know. And I says, "This is just too much."

Now we get — we get no-game conditions and we get knowing all; being able to not-know everything; serenity. These are no-game conditions. I said it about — I think it was the 8th ACC, Phoenix — just the last one. You know, it's a funny thing, but everything that seems to be wrong with a thetan is a — is a — evidently some lower harmonic on what he is.

And he says, quickly, brightly, you know — coffee shop auditing — he says to me, "What wouldn't you mind not-knowing about what just happened?"

It's an odd fact. A thetan is motionless and dead bodies are motionless and therefore a dead body is a harmonic on a thetan. You see? And that's true, too. Listen to this list. These don't process. You just don't dare pay any attention to these at all. These take place if you process games conditions. "Serenity," "namelessness," "having no identity at all" — doesn't process. "No effect on opponent," "effect on self or team," "have everything," "can't have nothing," "solutions." If you ask a guy for a solution and solution and solution and solution and solution — a little mistake that was made on a Release at one time, he just spins right in.

And I says, "Oh, I don't know, that they were standing there. Hey, what do you know, ha, I did not — wait a minute. What was I supposed to not-know? I've not-known it."

You have to ask him for a problem and don't let him solve it, and a problem and don't let him solve it, and a problem — don't let him solve that one. And all of a sudden he says, "You know I can have a problem. I don't have to solve it."

And he looks at me and he says, "The two students that were just in your office!"

Now, we get this thing called "pan-determinism" — doesn't process. Self-determinism process: "How could you be more of an individual than you are?" That processes like mad. "Invent some additional names for yourself." That processes. "Invent some more names for yourself." "Invent some more faces you could wear."

So, at the next meeting of the board we yanked his thetan.

But, "Pan-determinism of being able to run both sides of it" doesn't work."Friendship for everybody" doesn't work. "Understanding everything and every‑body" doesn't work. "Total communication; being in communication with every‑thing." "No communication whatsoever; being in communication with nothing."Win and lose are no-game conditions. The dirtiest thing you can do tosome athlete — he's been in there fighting you know and he's getting all setand he wins the championship and they put him up or whatever they do to him and hang him up with belts and give him a cup, and so forth. And there he stands. You come along and process him. There he stands. But the funny part of it is, you can't process it. It's a win or a lose. He got knocked flat; he lost the championship and never boxed thereafter. There he lies on the canvas. You say, "Obviously, that is the engram to run on the case, obviously, now." Boy, you'd sure better leave that alone. Leave a win or a lose alone.

Anyway, you can actually not-know this stuff. Well, that's one action — it disappears for you. In other words, you remove your participation from it. This is an absolute phenomenon. There's another phenomenon which is of a higher level; that is merely the first stage of it. You actually can not-know such a thing as a pillar, so thoroughly, evidently, that nobody could see it. Something like this could occur. But certainly an individual can not-know it himself personally.

Having no universe whatsoever, having no playing field, arriving any-where and dying — these are all no-game conditions. Now, that's a fabulous state of affairs, isn't it. Those are all the things where the thetan should arrive. They're the things a thetan should be. An able man should be able to have and assume those things. Those are the truths of life. These are the precious jewels of life. Hah. You try to process them directly and he flips his lid, and hence the enigma.

Now, you want to turn on mock-ups with some pc, all you have to tell him is, "Decide to put a beautiful mock-up on that wall. Now decide that if you did it, it would spoil the game and don't do it." And he makes these decisions in order and you just keep telling him just those same phrases. "Decide to put a mock-up on the wall — a beautiful picture. Now decide that it would spoil the game if you did it and don't do it." And he does this and he does this. He does this a dozen times and all of a sudden this fellow that has never had mock-ups suddenly has a 3D, full color, full visio, full smellio mock-up.

Now, we're not talking about the enigma of Scientology. We're talking about the enigma of about fifty thousand years of figure-figure on this same subject. Why didn't anybody crack it? That was because this: Obviously, if a person was in good shape, he'd know an awful lot.

Evidently we keep thinking that this sort of thing would spoil the game.

Obviously if he's in good shape, he'd be able to forget or not-know anything — obviously. He'd be serene. He wouldn't have to have a name or fame or identity. He'd have to be willing to have no effect on anybody; let them do as they please. "God bless you, my son, go and sin some more."

Now, why can't you mock up a body right there, you see, that everybody can see? Why can't you do that? It isn't lack of talent. It's evidently merely aberration. An "aberration" is simply falling back from your fullest capabilities. You can run this one, you can say, "Now decide to mock a mock-up there that everybody can see. Now decide that if you did that it would spoil the game and don't do it." You just keep running this drill, running this drill, running this drill. All of a sudden he says, "Oh, no, you don't."

It should be possible for him to have everything there is. He should be pan-determined about everything. It should be able — he should be able to solve things. Obviously these things should be able to take place. He should be able to be anybody's friend. He should be able to be — to understand any-thing. He should be able to communicate or not communicate. He should be able to take wins and loses. He should be able to have no universe or a universe. He should be able to have a playing field or no playing field. He certainly ought to be able to arrive. And he ought to be able to die comfortably — after all, it's pretty things, these funerals.

You say, "What's the matter?"

Although Scientologists, I notice, are getting more and more perfunctory. They say, "My mother died this afternoon, would you like to come down to the funeral? Well, I know you're busy." Then they say, "That's besides the point," and then they tell you how she's got some mock-up picked out in Portugal. That's right. I mean it's real wild. They tell you some mock-up that they got — baby being born in Portugal tomorrow morning at eight o'clock so she died this afternoon.

"Look, if I put that there, if I started mocking up mock-ups it would spoil the game. It would. I could mock up dollar bills that would pass. I could mock up banks, trucks, cops, armies, anything. There wouldn't be any game; it's a no-game condition. You would be able to mock up everything."

You hear these wild things. I'm not — I'm not responsible for them. I mean, people just come around and tell you and they happen to be true. I'm not trying to put anything off on you.

Well, I left him in that because it was in session. But a couple of days later I was having lunch with him and he went over this routine. And I said, "Did you — it ever occur to you that if I drilled on it too, it wouldn't be a no-game condition?"

Now, if you can't process any of these truths, then how could you ever attain them, since they are desirable. Because unless you can have some part of those truths, you can't enter games knowingly, willingly or play them well. Now, you take somebody who is really in a good, high level of truth in a no-game condition — if he's in a good level of truth, he should be able to turn around and play almost any game that he ever confronted. Any game — he ought to be able to think one up, play one, have a good time, enjoy it and knock it off when he wanted to knock it off. He should be able to do this. Very interesting, isn't it, that by processing him straight at that condition, of a no-game condition, he never arrives. You have to run out, you might say, the old games. You have to run him through games conditions.

"No," he says, "you're a friend of mine, I wouldn't go into contest with you." Well, evidently we are restrained for fear of spoiling the game one way or the other, for fear of as-ising the universe and so forth. But we get to a point where we are not aware of what we are doing, we hide it too carefully, we hide it too thoroughly and the next thing we know we can't do it. About then we become human. And a long time too late we send for an auditor.

All right, "Now, let's figure out a way where you could be a lying — a lying, thieving cheat. That's good, that's good. Oh, invent a better lying, thieving cheat." "Mock up an identity for yourself which would actually cope with it. Oh, get stronger, get bigger." Now, "How — how — how could you get to be taller than that?" "Invent a way to use more strength on your wife."

But I will tell you what importance this little theory of universes has. And it's very important. In February of this last year I made myself quite ill. I was trying to resolve atomic fission, body reaction to, doing quite a few experiments on this line. Some understanding of why I was not in the United States will come to you when you realize that actually you're not supposed to do experiments with fission in the United States. There are some people down here that frown at it. I've written a series of letters asking whether or not one could indulge in experiments in atomic fission in the United States these days, and the government has answered them very promptly, but each time has said that I ought to go contact some nonclassified, nonsecurity university group someplace. I don't know what the university group has got to do with it. I was talking about practical research, and actually there is no answer. They say, "Well, maybe you can and maybe you can't, and is it — it's against the law, but maybe it isn't against the law," and they are quite confused about it. But there's nothing about atomic fission in Ireland, I assure you.

You see the — you see the type of process that you run? Well, now it's very odd that he runs this stuff, he gets straightened out and all of a sudden, "Gee, that's a funny thing. I feel — I feel much better. We've been doing all this and all of a sudden I feel . . . By the way I was going to go into business a couple of years ago and I just never got up to do it. I think I'll do it now, and I don't think I can finish the intensive, because I have an appointment with the fellow who was going to finance me." And swish! It's awfully hard to hold on to preclears. I told you this before, that they get into action. Now, why do they get into action? They come up so high and they're able to enter the game of life again and you don't get a chance, really, to process them all the way to zenith, unless you have an agreement that you are going to continue the intensive until you say "quit."

Well, anyway we were doing some experiments along in this line, and it was obvious that the best way to keep an atomic war from doing anything interesting to the country such as denude it of its population — which is, of course, I realize not as full an effect as a usual nuclear physicist would like to have a country have — I realize it's below his acceptance level, but it's the best he could do. You know, you've got to make allowances. He's a scientist, he has his drawbacks and his level of acceptance is — well, they're trying to figure it out now, so, they suffer for six or eight months before they finally kick off. But there are some humane generals around by the way who object to this. They say that it ought to kill everybody instantly. They have a much higher level of acceptance.

Now, what is wrong with a man? He's been playing a game. What's right with him? That he can recover. All games are aberrative.

Anyway, I'm being very snide, but I don't think that the atomic efforts which are being made actually merit anything but very snide remarks. I don't know if you agree with me or not, but that's the way I look at it.

You play a game — a game of marriage. You go out, you find a man. You tell him a whole bunch of stuff. You get married, you have a bad time, you fight, you separate, you get back together, and so on — zzz-www-boof — the game of marriage. And you patch it all up and that's good. And it works out or it doesn't work out, and so on. Somebody comes along and he wants to process out your marriage so that you'll feel better. Your remark would simply be, "You know, I know I've been married." Well, the actual fact is it couldn't possibly be aberrative. If you know you've done it, if you know you've been married, if you know you've played football, nothing can ensue. But when you come along and play football for years and then all of a sudden switch your identity and say, "I've never played football in my life," and you yourself don't remember ever having played football, and so on, boy, are you in for it. That's a tough one.

Well, I was trying to do what I could in order to discover whether or not auditing could actually proof a body up against atomic fission. In other words, could you audit somebody in such a way that when they were hit with gamma and the rest of it, they would not be badly burned or affected. Could you do this?

So as hard as it is for people to take, I hate to mention this thing called past lives — they've been outlawed! In the minute books of the — of the Hub-bard Dianetic Research Foundation, Elizabeth, New Jersey, you will see a motion discussed there to just make Ron shut up on this subject because it's unpopular. Well look, if it's so unpopular, somebody must have some kind of a resistance to it of some kind or another. I don't think anything aberrative happened to you during your whole current lifetime. Your mother beat you, fed you through a sausage grinder. Your father was mean to you. You were dropped on your head when you were one. You had fifteen AAs and you were boiled in oil and you were captured by the Japanese and shot regularly every morning. So what. See? You know all about it.

Ha, I learned it the hard way. I do not think it can be done. It is a total failure. That project dead-ended in February. And when I got well sometime in March I had to postulate a new line of research on the same subject. And I said, well, the silliest line of research, the reductio ad absurdum that would end all absurdities everywhere would be to solve atomic fission this way: All you do is fix a preclear up so that if he loses a body he could mock up one. And mock it up with a postulate that atomic energy doesn't affect it. See? Somebody drops a bomb on you, you mock up another mock-up, move over here and say, "Well, hello, Joe."

You can sit there — now, the auditor sits there and he says to a preclear, he says, "Well, now, let's see. What's happened to you?" Nuts! Why should we ask such a question? If he knew, it wouldn't be wrong. You get the colossal joke about the whole thing? If he knew, it wouldn't be wrong! And the funniest thing happens to a case when he's processed these days. He starts arguing with the auditor. They always do. They say, "But there's nothing on this! There's nothing on the subject of books!" You know, he's going, "Daaa," some kind or another. "There's nothing on books. I have never had any difficulty with books! I've never been hit with a book. As a matter of fact, don't even read when I'm sick."

Well, life, when I am doing research, may not be sensible but it's always interesting. Well, that was — that was the one solution I put down. That was one way to go about it, one direction for research to take; and I wrote down five or six more, but five or six more, they just were nothing. I looked over the situation. If you cannot fix up a civilization so that it will dispose of its man-killing weapons, then the next step would be to fix up the civilization so that it would be defended against such things. But if you can't do that and both of these things have failed, then the next best thing to do would be to fix up its population and the food supply so that it wasn't too allergic to atomic radiation. And if you couldn't do that, let's at least cure some of the burns which have occurred. Well, we can do that; we're on safe ground there.

And the auditor somehow or another, by making him spot objects, has all of a sudden found that he couldn't spot a book. He said something outrageous like, "Well, I don't spot books because they're angry at me," or something like that, and just passed it along, you know — perfectly normal. And the auditor says, "Well, all right. Let's spot that book over there."

People who would probably die within twenty days, something like that, could probably be saved rather uniformly with some good auditing. We do have the only known cure for atomic fission.

And he says, "Well, I — there's nothing wrong with books. What's the matter with you? You're nuts!"

Well, it may be the only cure but it's not good enough; it's not good enough. Too many people go up in smoke when these bombs hit. There aren't enough auditors around to patch them all up right at once, so it's not very good unless we got on an all-out program and squared it around. It's almost easier to go out on a program which actually takes care of the bomb itself, which insists on international control in a sensible wise, and straightens out this mad tangle. Nevertheless, it's a very good thing to have a cure.

He'll say, "I know what's wrong with me, it was my mother. That's what was wrong with me. And the fact that I was in boarding school and every day, why, there were three older boys who beat me. That's — that's what's wrong with me, and so on. That's what you're supposed to be auditing."

All right, we are — a book*[Editor's Note: The book discussed here was subsequently published in 1957 and is entitled All About Radiation.] is in composition right at this moment, by the way, which informs the public as to the exact status of atomic radiation warfare and burns and situations — a factual book which is not any flight of fancy. It's merely a fast rundown on what it is and what could be done for it — a practical book, not something by, you know, "It is said that there's atomic radiation, and molecules and atoms and they all wiggle ..." Something ...

You say, "Spot another book."

What this book takes up is — for about three-quarters of its length — is simply the cause and prevention of radiation difficulties. And the last third of the book, or a little less, takes up how you solve the serious — or less serious burns with Scientology processes. This book is in composition at this time and probably will be written — completely written in a few months, since my part of it has to be written after the other part is finished. It's a composite of practically all of the books on radiation that have been written, but more importantly it's a composite of armed forces courses on the subject of the prevention of radiation. But that book will be out in a few months and we'll at least have this little bit and piece in the bookstores for people to read, because there is nothing else for them there on the subject.

"But there's nothing wrong with books. I don't see what you're talking about. You're just not making sense. You're not a good auditor. They told me you were a good auditor, but I don't believe it now."

The US Government Civil Defense Program says the first thing you have to know about civil defense: "That in the event of an attack by enemy atomic bombs, you're on your own. There's nobody going to help you." That's right.

And all of a sudden, why, books start looking so funny to him. They start leaping up in the air and doing peculiar things. Figures start walking out of them. I mean, with his naked eyes. Books lying on the table and a figure suddenly walks out of it and says, "You jerk," and drops off the table. He's liable to tell the auditor, "Well, I've had it now. I didn't know I could ever have a delusion."

That's the first paragraph of their book — you think I'm joking. "Nobody is going to help you. You're on your own." In other words, the country is gone the moment an A-bomb goes boom. That is as far as I can figure out. That may not be their program but I have been given to understand that it is, by their own literature. They should write their literature a little bit better.

And the next thing you know, why — say, "Good golly. You know, I believe I've had some connection or another with a publishing firm somewhere. But I don't know what that's all about." Oh, you've gone about twenty past lives back when he was the — when he was the — you understand, it had to be a games condition — he was cause. We're not looking for the victim now. You can tell your preclears we are, if you want to, but don't process them in that direction. We're not looking for victims. We're looking for villains.

Well, this book — this book will be of interest to you because it will attract attention to you. People will be very happy to have about — to have some solution about this but that still was not a line of research, was it? And I was left in this horrible state — I was left in a horrible state. Something terrible! I was left with the only direction of search being you mock up a body — "Hiya, Joe." You know. Somebody burns down your mock-up — you'll have to be able to mock one up yourself. It's the only direction of research there was so I followed it — silly thing to do. And since March have wrapped up the subject.

And we find out that during the Spanish Inquisition he had sole charge of burning all heretical books and heretical authors. And then what really loused it up in the next life, he was an heretic!

Thank you.

And that's — that's — that's just the way it goes.

So you see, it wasn't as silly as it sounded, but it led one into some other conclusions which were quite evident — that an individual, as he becomes incapable — as he becomes incapable of mocking up pillars, floors and walls, falls out of the game. He thinks about it, he doesn't do anything about it and he doesn't play it.

It really isn't the old overt act — motivator phenomena. This is a later sequence. Now, you understand that way up high, here, are these games conditions and no-games conditions. That's a very high theory. Proceeding from those are all sorts of theories and phenomena that we've been studying; thou-sands of them. The overt act — motivator sequence — that is explained by game phenomena but it isn't at the same level. It's actually a new and different phenomena. It is a planned or agreed-upon phenomena which can bite only because a games condition has existed.

It became obvious that there were three universes: the other fellow's universe that he could mock up in addition to the physical universe if he were Clear, the physical universe that you and he mocked up and the universe that you could mock up if you were Clear. So, there is such a thing as your own universe, and it's very solid, but we haven't seen any yet. Now, that's quite important.

Now, we've studied the ways and means of effort on how people resist being shot and we run Effort Processing one way or the other to get them "unshot." Well, it has some workability. But the funny part of it is, is what are they doing getting shot? Now, what explains that? Why can they get shot? You understand? And it's a silly question for anybody to ask, but how is it that you could walk out and get in front of a bullet which would enter your body and shoot you? Boy, that takes some doing. You figure that out. It takes some doing. What are you doing in a position where this can happen? How did you get there? "Well — " you say, "well, I — I was mean to bodies and finally they all fell in on me."

We mistake the reactive mind for our own universe. You see how that would be? Because it has pictures, because it has barriers, we say, "Well, that's my universe and the other fellow's reactive mind is his universe, and mock-ups, mock-ups, and then there is this big solid thing called the MEST universe." No, reactive mind, MEST universe, reactive mind is the way it is at this time, but it could be home universe, physical universe, the other fellow's home universe. Do you see how that could be?

Well, this is overt act — motivator sequence. It's a very low reason. No, there was a game sometime or another way back on the track that sort of ran like this: You saw a body walking along and you said, "Isn't that cute. Ha-ha. Very interesting — walking around and so on. Ha-ha. Well, what do you know.

Well, that's highly theoretical — that's almost Alice-in-Wonderlandish, a book we have become acquainted with lately. And these universes are possible.

What do you know." And then you said — decided it — liable to fall over some-thing, so you tried to get it to work in another direction, and it didn't obey you worth a nickel. You said, "Walk to the right." You know, "Better move over that way." And it didn't. And you said, "Why, the disobedient little something-or-other. Psssst." Well, that was the end of that body. You forgot all about that. Time went on. You had — did a lot of other things and there was another body one day and you saw that body — psssew. And you killed that one for some reason or another.

But a thetan makes a reactive mind solid and comes into control of it. Or he becomes causative in making pillars and walls and houses solid and gets in control of them. And the road up evidently is simply to become better at it. We have the processes; you just have to become better at it. That's all. What's that take?

And then you get way down the time track someplace and there's a body walking along and you feel a little bit suspicious of this body somehow or another. And you reach over to feel of its head or something with a beam and chooomp, in you go. And you say, "Now, look what happened to me. Look what happened to me. I touched a body and it pulled me in. Bodies are vacuums. I am a victim."

It takes a little practice and a few wins, a little reassurance. That's all. It's evidently a solved problem — requires to be placed into effect, however — with what disasters we don't know.

How did you get into a position to be a victim? And that is what you audit out of the preclear. Just how did you make it possible for you to be a victim since being a victim is one of the doggonedest positions for a thetan to get into? It is almost impossible for a thetan, which has no mass, no motion, so on, to be a victim. You see with what pride an individual would display the fact that he was stuck in a paraplegic body, see? Proud. "Look at how much of a victim I got to be." And somebody else's sympathy is really probably more or less awe. Boy! And that — that's — that's kind of the way it is.

I can expect sometime in the future legislation that reads like this, "Scientologists will refrain from mocking up barriers across city traffic during rush hours." "A thetan who is married must not mock up more than one body every twenty years." "People who like pets must keep all the pets in their yard that they mock up." "Completely mocked-up fingerprint and identification cards are not acceptable at FBI." "Mocked-up money will be accepted only to the sum of 10 dollars only, when detected." "On anything mocked up, a 3 percent of current value tax will be assessed." Well, it wouldn't be a brave new world; it would be an awfully complicated one, but by golly it's in the direction of more game.

And then you come along and you audit out his being a victim. Won't work. Doesn't work. He doesn't know how he got to be a victim. He really is a victim. He's upset about life. He can't cope with it. It's out from beyond his control. But you come along as an auditor — you have to find the game he was playing wherein he was cause which precedes all these other games where he got adroit enough to be a victim. Do you follow me?

Well, that's this story of universes. It's something quite valuable. A person becomes a victim of a reactive mind or mental image pictures or engrams merely to the degree that he cannot tolerate their solids. He doesn't become a victim of their thought — he becomes a victim of their thought only when he cannot stand their solids. Do you see that? So if you make them solid the thoughts come off of them. You don't run the thought out of them, you run the solid into them.

Well, there — there we had this weird, weird riddle of life. A thetan was truth. A spirit was totally capable and it fell from grace and it doesn't regrace itself until you run out the "fell from grace" by giving him enough "falls from grace" to make it worth his while.

When you can take an engram and throw it up against the wall contemptuously and have it go clank, your reactive bank won't bother you. Well, this is a new way of making a Clear. We used to have a — in the navy ... "Oh, God," somebody says, "he's going to get off into that." No, no, we're not going to get off on the navy. We used to have a signal system and there were code words that carried the communications through. There was "Roger," oh, I don't know "30s" and "73s" — there were all kinds of signals and symbols, and so forth, but they were kind of long and complicated. And I got so that when-ever I would sign off from other ships in my squadron, why, I would say, "Roger, wilco, over, under and out." The other boys started picking this up. We kept hearing, "Roger, wilco, over, under and out," as the final communication. That was, of course, a complete stop. That was a complete period. You shut off the set then and removed the tubes — full stop!

You have to increase the number of falls from grace on the track before he'll unfall. That's an interesting thing.

Well, I don't know why it is but some people have time tracks that run this way and some people that — have time tracks that run this way. And I have met a few nuts that went down this way. But we have been referring to this "Before and After Solids," are run on the engram bank as Over and Under, as a slang phrase, because obviously an indiv — most individuals you run on it have the sensation of diving from something when they get an earlier one, and sort of pulling back on the throttle and the stick at the same time when they get a later one. It's quite interesting, but you can take an engram bank and you can straighten it out and you can get it solid. It is a level of entrance of the preclear, because the solidity of the facsimile is probably more real to him than the solidity of the wall. A picture of the wall is more solid than the wall. Sounds incredible but it's true. He'd rather have a picture of it than the wall.

So, to say offhand that an individual must get in and must play vigorously and must play life desperately, is not true. That's not true.

So, when he starts down scale he gets to a point where he sees pictures of walls with his physical eyes. He doesn't see walls, he sees pictures of walls. You start running a person on modern processes that hasn't been getting along well on processing, you can fully expect this to happen. The individual says, "Wait a minute."

To say that because a man plays life desperately, he suffers from it, isn't true either.

You say, "What's the matter?"

To say he must be calm, isn't true. To say he must be active, isn't true. What is true?

He says, "The wall is rippling."

That if you've played a game, admit it.

You say, "Yes, what's the matter?"

Well, I had a little something to tell you there about game conditions and I hope they've made a little sense to you. There's much more material on this and some of these processes that stem from this are too violent to audit unless you have a perfect and thorough command of modern procedure. It's for true. I mean, a preclear just doesn't stay under control. They just go psewww and blow. Neurons all over the ceiling, so to speak.

"Oh," he says, "it's moving!"

But, there are processes along this level which are very auditable. It tells an auditor at once what he can audit and what he had better not. And it tells us also, more important to us, how man got into this mess and gives us ways and means to get him out of it.

Did anybody have anything move today?

Thank you.

Male voice: No.

Well, it means that you had a — some kind of a picture of the thing inaddition to the thing or it was just all picture. You got the idea? And afteryou work at it for a while the preclear finds something very astonishing. Hedoesn't any longer see a picture of pillars or walls, he sees pillars or wallsand it's very upsetting to him for a while. That's right, very upsetting to him.Now, you can make an engram sufficiently solid — let us say it's anengram received on Brandywine in 17 — whatever it was. You can make that solid enough — if the preclear could hold it — that he sees himself fully and completely and utterly and only at the Battle of Brandywine — smoke, powder, flame and all — the British Redcoats lined up. Got the idea? In other words, he can construct a strata of time sufficiently solid that it fools him for a moment. He just goes all the way back into it, just boom! "What's this? What's this?" It's the Battle of Brandywine going on, of course! Yeah, but the Battle of Brandywine was 100 and Lord knows what — how many years ago. Or was it?

Well, if you say it was Lord knows how many years ago, you're saying, "You know, I can't bring that thing up fully solid. I can't make it now." You'll hear a preclear one of these days complaining bitterly, he is not in good shape. He can only get a thenness of the discovery of America. He's — feels rattled today, he feels upset, he can only get a thenness of the Spanish Inquisition. You know, he only gets pictures of the thing, he — you know, they're not very solid — it's not very convincing.

This sounds very peculiar but this is evidently an open sesame as to what the universe is about in relationship to time. We have many questions to ask. Do forms actually change? Is the Battle of Brandywine still in progress? Has the future been formed already and we are merely living toward it? Do you really mock up your own body or do you steal one? Terrific number of questions unanswered, but these are merely observational questions having to do with the anatomy of the physical universe, all of them more or less solvable. The trick is to get the procedures and the processes that solve them. We have those and that's what I meant when I said — I was very silly when I said, "The game of research is over." Now, the game of research might have been over, but that merely meant that the game was starting.

Well, you might say here we are at the beginning. Boy, if this is the beginning, what was that we've been through?

Well, the congress has begun by this time, hasn't it?

Audience: Yes!

All right. You're here, aren't you?

Audience: Yes.

All right, that's good.

You're in very, very good condition, you know .. .

Male voice: Sure.

... very fine condition. You're in sufficiently good condition that I have a feeling, I have a definite feeling, that tomorrow I'll really be able to pull out a good, beefy process. I have been going light on you. Trying to — what's the matter? Well, I have, I've been going light on you in order — so that — to let you catch up so that I wouldn't startle you or something of the sort.

But tomorrow after the first lecture — and I've got to look at that pro-gram again to see if there's anything . . . After that first lecture tomorrow, why, we'll be able to get in some processes that are effective. I've got you built up now to them.

There isn't really any more data to tell you about this congress and — given you most of it. There's hardly anything to take up. But somehow or other I think we'll manage to have a couple of more days. We'll get through them somehow. I hope that something will happen. Maybe you'll think of something that will be interesting.

So, thanks a lot for being here. Thanks a lot for listening. Good night.