How are you today? Audience: Fine.

Now the subject at hand is the E-Meter and its use in the location of past 'present times'. The actual title here should be "Use of the E-Meter in Locating Engrams."

Well, looks like you're doing well.

This is quite a subject. This requires a great deal of practice. It's not terribly rough on a subject to have a bunch of engrams located, providing you locate them accurately. Because I've already told you they have a tendency to slam back to their proper position of the track the moment they're located.

Today I'm going to talk to you about a thing called present time. This is a subject. Present time is a subject. It has many ramifications. And a Scientologist who doesn't know about present time isn't in it.

So there is a process which is a very good process of simply sitting down and locating for a person engrams on the track. Locate them carefully and accurately and don't ask for any fast description of them. Take just what the pc gives you and carry on to either a sharper location or the next engram.

The concept of a time track is something that you will be living with for some time. A time track is roughly a concatenation of experiences plotted against time, or a series of experiences plotted against time. That's all.

If you do that, you don't run into an engram running rule called the last largest object. This is an engram running rule and is one of the maxims of running engrams - the last largest object. The way to get a person back into an engram that he has escaped out of is to find out what was the last largest object that he observed in the engram. And when he tells you, get him to describe it to you, and he will be right back in the engram just as nice as you please.

It is not a mock-up of a thin line with little rails on it. That's a dub-in track.

So if you ask a pc to describe the content of the engram while you are locating engrams on him, you have gone in for the rule of the last largest object. And, of course, you are returning him fixedly and heavily into the engram, aren't you? And you're wrapping him up then in a large series of unrun engrams. And in view of the fact that you will probably - certainly here, be doing - not necessarily here, but I mean on Earth, you'll be doing this on Homo sapiens - you'll find nothing but a string of motivators.

People do not see their time track as a whole. They usually see it incident by incident. But you'll become aware of somebody's time track very easily by running ARC Straightwire. And you'll find them going back in time and then up to present time and then further back in time and then up to present time. And then usually further back in time, then up to present time and sometimes just a little bit back in time and up to present time. They're going actually into other time periods and then recovering this time period. And what they are seeing and experiencing is their time track.

And you get a pc who is already motivator hungry - that's a technical term, motivator hunger. He's got to have things happen to him, you know. He's got to have - he's got to be abused.

Now, when too many overt acts, which are too hidden and which are too collapsed with motivators occur, we get a thing known as a grouped track - which merely means too many incidents are apparently in one piece of time. Too many incidents are in one piece of time. That is - that's what a grouper is.

A lot of people around - you wonder why do people put up with some of the governments and so forth they have. The government is a good government that furnishes the adequate amount of motivator to the population. People will then consider that a good government. It's the adequate amount of motivator, which explains to us at once why so many lousy, heavily mismanaged governments have been permitted to exist on the track.

Now, somebody can have on his track "It's all coming in on me at once," as merely a symbol, a symbolized statement which is engramic, which is other-determined to him and which makes him believe that that's his determinism, and his track will tend to group.

And why - and I hate to drag this in but we have to mention it - why democracy has liabilities so long as it is a democracy of aberrees. Because they're very likely to vote only for the person who can be guaranteed to give them motivators. And therefore they're liable to get cruel or capricious rulers or leaders.And you ask a bunch of criminals to elect a leader and they'll elect somebody like Blackbeard or something like that - that his idea of a good time, while he was sitting at a table with his fellow pirates, was to slide surreptitiously a pistol out of his sash and fire it blindly underneath the table. And yet they just kept on electing Blackbeard as the leader. He was the most destructive, the least successful, the most unlucky, the most doped-up character that they had in their midst. Well, they elected him.

Now, that is a phenomenon simply of too many incidents apparently occurring at the same instant in time. In other words, it's an absence of time.

Now, a democracy is only possible - inevitably, is only possible, if you have a majority of sane people. Well, when we say sane, we still aren't out of the band of motivator hunger. And we get all kinds of freakish things happening.

Now, a grouper, basic rationale of, is simply absence of time. That's its simplest statement. It apparently gets grouped mechanically or forcefully and there are tremendous forces involved in some of these groupers. Groupers can be induced in various ways - you know, make time vanish in various ways, by just terrific duress.And you throw a great deal of duress against an individual, who himself has a great many overt acts, and you get an overt act-motivator sequence of such severity that it results in a grouper. All times appear to be that time. But basically, it is an absence of time, isn't it? Single source of aberration is time, conditions of time, aberrations concerning time and so on.

Now, the reason I bring this up is because some pcs keep going to the auditor who gives them the worst auditing. And you will very often find some "auditor" (quote) (unquote) having quite a few pcs or having a reputation who doesn't deserve it at all. This is not the rule, but this has occurred.

Mechanically, these are best explained by the overt act-motivator sequence. An individual tries to turn his time backwards on this rationale. He walked up to a little child, picked up an axe, split the child's head in half. Now, he tries to explain that by saying it happened to him. Well, later on it will probably happen to him. He'll get himself into some sort of an arrangement whereby he gets hit over the head with an axe. And then he'll say this came first which gives him a reason for having hit the child over the head with an axe. And he'll flip his time. You'll see this - you'll see this many times

Some chap, he's been indifferently trained, his Instructors didn't particularly want to let him out of the course, you know, that sort of thing. And next thing you know, why, this fellow's going great guns. And he goes great guns for a year or two till - till finally he just has not gotten any results and he's caved in so many and he's caved in himself, and his case is in such lousy shape anyhow, and he doesn't want to be audited anyway, you know. And all of these things all eventually catch up with him, so on. It has happened. It doesn't happen these days in periods of better training, better know-how and faster processes. But it has happened. It's something to know.

Now, this we call the DED-DEDEX sequence, which is a specialized case where the individual does something and then afterwards, has it done to him. It's illogical that he would do this to anybody, unless it were done to him first, you see? So, he makes it logical by flipping the time.

I've known - I've known somebody to have a tremendous reputation. I wouldn't let a - I wouldn't have let him audit Khrushchev's dog. And this is this thing called motivator hunger, this thing you've got to guard against. Here is probably the only place where we act for the person's own good.

He said incident A comes after incident B - where as a matter of fact, it's quite the reverse. Incident A is where he hit the child over the head with an axe. Incident B, he got hit over the head with an axe.

Now, it's a very shaky thing to legislate to protect man against himself. That is a very shaky thing to do. Laws such as "It is against the law to lose your pocketbook," you know, that sort of thing. "It's against the law to leave your keys in your car because somebody might steal it and victimize you, and so forth. That's all nonsense, you see. That's protecting the individual or the public against himself and it's rather poor legislation.

So he says, "Well, incident B came first, I was hit over the head with an axe and after that, I had a compulsion to hit people over the head with an axe."

Well, let's just look at the - at the - what an auditor has to do here, though, and he has to do a little bit of that.

This thing's all tailored up so that he believes it and hopes everybody else does and so forth, and the result is a source of groupers. But just an ordinary overt act- motivator sequence can be a grouper.

Recognizing that an individual needs motivators in order to occlude his overts - this will become more and more real to you as you, as you practice - recognizing that he needs motivators in order to occlude, explain, whatever else you want to say, his own overts, you have to guard a pc against seizing upon motivators. And even when he appears to be totally willing to run some process that is going to cave him in, you have to know better. You get that? Don't run it.

The effort to say it didn't happen or it happened some other way at some other time is best expressed by the individual in trying to make it come out differently, by time rearrangements.

Now, the first glimpse you will get of this will be some pc - every time you wiggle your left nostril, he says, "ARC break, ARC break, ARC break." You see, you cough a little bit as you're auditing him, he says, "ARC break, ARC break, ARC break."

And about the easiest thing for him to attack, change around, mess up, is time. About the easiest thing for him to make disappear is time. For instance, nearly everybody has some time-space identification. He says, "Well it's - it's now four hours to Los Angeles by jet." See, not thirty-six-hundred miles - it's four hours.

Now, he actually doesn't want you to remedy that ARC break so much as give him another one. Now, if you were going to satisfy his reactive bank - this is the difference between auditing a preclear, you see, and auditing his reactive bank - if you're going to satisfy his reactive bank and his mechanics and his automaticities and all that sort of thing, when he said, "ARC break. You did so-and-so and so-and- so," you say, "Yes, and I'm going to do it again and again and again, now. And break a couple of more clauses of the Auditor's Code, and the bank would get sort of docile. But the pc wouldn't. He'd be out of session.

He says, "Oh," he says, "it was a long way. It took many days on the boat," see, time-space. In other words, space is measured by time.

"You just say ARC break," - you, the auditor, saying this to him, "You just say ARC break to me one more time and I'll really show you an ARC break. Now, are we going to get on with it?"

"The world is said to be getting smaller because you can get around it so much quicker." See? This is all very silly, you see.

"Oh, well, if you're going to talk that way," and so on.

But there is an apparency of more space where there is more time. But this can get inverted and it can get very badly mishmashed because any identification can become inverted and then disassociate, you see. People just don't identity and then just hold the identification. They identify harder and harder and then it gets to be different again. You realize that? I mean identifications spring about into disassociation.

Actually, you've driven him downscale, however, and you've defeated your own ends. That's what he wants. That's what he's hungry for when he gets into that frame of mind.

You can get somebody, by the way, who is so crazy that they are totally disassociating. Someday you will run into somebody who is totally disassociating. It takes a pretty sane person to talk gobbledygook to you on disassociation - or a totally insane one.

So you start running a pc up and down the time track and making available to him on your determinism this engram and that engram and the other engram, you very often - now, this is very far from all pcs - but you very often will have somebody going, "Schllp! Oh, boy, I got my head cut off. There's the - Oh, there's a javelin through my... Oh, boy, that's real good. A safe falls on... That's fine. Ah, that's nice. Yeah, and there I go right into this.. . Oh, there it goes, there it goes. There it - Oh, man! A terrific crash here, I mean, terrific crash. And there's just pieces of ships scattered all around and - and so forth. And here I am lying here with an awful pain in my throat. Yes, I've got my throat cut. Oh, yes, that reminds me - that reminds me. I was robbed. Here's another one where I was robbed. Yes, and here I am lying in a ditch with my throat cut and there's blood all over the place," you know.

"You know, it was shortly after the submarine got all the air out of its spokes, you see, that they buried the chrysanthemums." You see, it's gobbledygook.

Man! You'd think he was happy as a jaybird till he tries to get out of the auditing chair and you find he can't walk! He just got it all keyed in, that's all. He's just working overtime to key it in.

All right. Now, at the same time, an individual who's totally identified goes into gobbledygook obsessively. He's obsessively trying to differentiate. And he talks about the submarines and the beer and thinks it's perfectly logical. It's quite a trick to get your mind to disassociate. It's a rather uncomfortable frame of mind to be in, unless you can disassociate at will.

So, you say to a pc when you're trying to do a time track scout - if you want it to be therapeutic, in any fashion - you say, "When was it?" not "What was it?" It's totally a case of when, when, when, when? That's all you want to know - when, when, when?

You walk up to some serious-minded fellow and start talking to him about letting all the air out of the spokes, and so forth, and he'll - he's liable - he's liable to give you the eye. It makes him very uncomfortable, It's well outside of his realm of ability to disassociate like this And as a matter of fact, he slightly fears disassociation. Got the idea?

And he says "Well," he says "it's a big castle and - there's a big castle, and there's a gibbet outside the thing."

So, just as people can identify and then disassociate on a subject, so this other one can come up. Another one can come up now, which is to say they can identify times and then disassociate times.

You say, "Well, exactly when was that?"

They say, "Well, as a matter of fact, there was a great many things happened in that particular day." So, they say one of them happened in their childhood. See, it's just one day they're talking about. And so many things happened and that happened in their childhood, they say. See, they disassociated things on their time track.

"Well, when. Oh, well, that's something else. It's a great big castle, though, and there's a gibbet outside of it."

So, not only can a track group, but it can disperse. And you will run into pcs who have spattered tracks. An old clown phrase that we used, and have used for years is we call them "buttered all over the universe." It's an everywhere case. This fellow is everywhere, all at different times which are the same time, you see. It's just a case of time disassociation.

You say, "When?" Got to be very firm. "When?"

Time, evidently for most people, is a little bit difficult to be at the cause-point over. They take as long as they take. Time is an other-determinism. When they are going through a certain operation, they do not make it faster or shorter.

All of your questions must add up to when, not what. Otherwise, he goes into the rule of the last largest object and motivator hunger. And you get him close to these things - of course, he's got motivator hunger when he is closest to these things.

Now, that of course is the butt end of nowhere. Because just doing something faster and doing something shorter - quicker in an effort to change time, of course, is in itself somewhat nonsensical since time is basically a sequence or series of incident - or a sequence or series of occurrence. That's all time is.

You're changing the person's environment all over the place. In other words, you're changing his PT. His present time is shifting. Don't be amazed if his personality apparently shifts, too. And he'll run this motivator hunger on her - on you. He'll find some life where he was hungry for one. And then, boy, can he slop them up. "Schllp! Delicious, delicious pain, agony, murder, duress, degradation." Here he goes.

And in Dianetics 55! you'll find a one-shot Clear command in there, "Make some time." Well, run it on somebody sometime. You're liable not to get an answer for the first hour or two. He'll tell you all sorts of things like, "Well, I could do this and it might be possible to do that." But he isn't answering the auditing question, just "Make some time."

You got him into that, you're in trouble, because that isn't the process you're running. Now, of course, a good auditor getting a pc accidentally into something always runs a process to alleviate what he just got the pc into, doesn't he? Don't you ever let me catch you doing it. That is always the mark of the ruddy amateur.

Now, to excuse various misdemeanors, to explain away his life, to occlude many unhappy circumstances, to avoid the responsibility of having done as many dastardly deeds as he has did, an individual attacks time. He rearranges, groups, does things with time.

You're auditing this fellow's nose and he gets a pain in his stomach. You make sure you keep on auditing his nose! You hear me?

This you'll run into. It's a headache - it's a headache in a pc. You start running ARC Straightwire on this fellow. He has no concept of any differences in time.

And he says, "But this pain in the stomach, it's terrible, it's terrible, it's getting awful, and I can't keep any attention on my nose. And you keep asking me this question..."

You say to him, "When was that?"

"Your nose."

He says, "Well, I - something - any time I communicated with somebody. Well, that's, I think that was - yes, yes, I've got one."

"Well, all right. If you're talking that way, it's my nose. All right."

And you say, "Well, when was it?"

That's what we know as Q and A. Pc changes so auditor changes. See, pc changes, so the auditor changes the process.

And he said, "Well, I think it was in - let's see, it's last year's - no, it was the first - no, it was the - it was down the corn... no - It's not tomorrow, I know that. It's. . ." You see, time is so other-determined to this person that he can't place anything.

There's one squirrel who has continued persistent throughout the history of Dianetics and Scientology, who actually, in trying to show people something about auditing has gone so far, consistently, as to say, "Whenever the pc changes, it is absolutely necessary that the auditor change. You've got to change the process every time the pc changes." And, of course, what will that do? That will just wind the PC up in a ball. That will be a horrible total mess.

Well, now the magic of placing something in time is magic. You take an E-Meter - you know many auditors believe that an E-Meter should remain a secret to the pc. It's a magic box and the pc mustn't see it, you know. Ah! Let the pc see his own E- Meter. Don't let him look at his E-Meter while he's trying to spot something or he will run a race with the needle. Yes, he will. He'll try to regulate his answers so as to get needle drops. And he flies out of the auditor's control. He goes into contest with the needle.

The process - now, here's - here's one of the truisms of Dianetics and Scientology: the process that turned it on is the process that will turn it off. The process that turned it on is the process that will turn it off. Now, that takes into account only this - that you are running a decent standard process. And if a decent standard process, such as the processes which you are learning in this course, turns something on, the process will turn it off.

But if you found something that dropped very severely, and you're looking at it, there's nothing at all wrong with saying, "Well, that sure dropped." Or showing him the needle just for a glance you know, say "Look at that, look at that." Show him the needle and then you say, Priestess," or something and it says, "Glog, glog, glog."

That's why it's very adventurous to use such a thing as TR 10, Locational Processing. Very, very adventurous. Because Locational will turn on somatics, and you have no choice but to continue with Locational until the somatics go off. And it's such a slow- freight process and it's so unworkable on so many cases, that you may find yourself stuck for eighty hours with a case that would do much better on some other process, with "Notice that wall, notice the ceiling, notice the floor, notice the chair, notice your auditor, notice the ceiling, notice the floor, notice the wall," see? Locational and 8-C will very often turn on a somatic. Now, nothing is going to turn it off but Locational and 8-C.

He says, "What do you know, what do you know."

Scientology is just a little bit larger than life. That's always something to remember. You're always just a little bit larger than life when you're handling life. About the only thing that can shoot a pc down on a graph is bad auditing. You can actually reduce a pc on the graph with bad auditing. Life might take two or three more lifetimes to shove him down on the graph, but you, in two or three hours of bad auditing, can shove him down.

You say, "That's - that's what I thought - what do you know."

Now, you do use and will use 8-C, and you do and will use Havingness as a process. And this particularly applies to those two processes. When you're running 8-C or you're running Havingness, and a somatic or sensation or a condition of any kind turns on, you're honor bound - not necessarily in that session but certainly in another session, at the very least - to run that process and not change that process until that particular condition turns off again. The process that turned it on will turn it off. So you never, never, never Q-and-A with a pc.

Similarly, the magic of locating an engram, which has been afloat, down to a few minutes in the time stream, is great enough to make it disappear in present time and go back to its proper time slot.

Of course, the answer to any question is the question, according to the communication formula, which is where your Q and A comes from. Somebody says, "How are you?" The exact answer to the question is "How are you?" according to the formula - duplication. People aren't very satisfied with it because it crunches their social machinery.

So, you start running over and under on some sort of an incident to somebody, as I will talk about later, and getting this thing bracketed in time and you bracket it right on down.

So when the pc changcs, it's very easy for the auditor, running his own somatic strip in some peculiar fashion, to change, you see?

"May the 13th, 2:13 P.M., 1562." Clang! The incident just goes - slams itself back on the track, just like that. It disappears.

"Pc changes, Oh, he changed, so therefore, I'm supposed to change." That's only a case of the pc's determinism becomes the auditor determinism. And the auditor at that instant ceases to be the auditor, loses control and command of the session and is not making his intention good! His intention was the original process he started, because it produced change, he changed. Mustn't happen. See, that's about the number one, super, major exclamation point, skyrockets and flaming tar barrels thing you must not do - is change when the pc changes. When the pc turns something on running a process, the process will turn it off.

You have a pc who is just floundering and - oh, he's just having a dreadful time. He's trying to run some Straightwire process and he keeps getting locked up in an incident.

All right. Now supposing we're running scout on the time track - scouting for engrams, secondaries and locks on the time track. Supposing we're just scouting that time track. Well now, you're at the thinnest barrier you can approach. The track is so interesting. There's so many things on the track. There's so much the pc would love to get at and hasn't been able to get at, that he goes though that barrier over into engram running faster than you can sneeze.

ARC Break Straightwire is the greatest offender in this. And just to recall an ARC break is the total command. It's a sort of a process that's used amongst Scientologists more than on the public. It has a great deal of use and it also has its own liabilities.

So therefore, it requires very good auditing and very good self-control on the part of the auditor to do a time track scout. He wants to know when. His own curiosity - the pc starts saying, "Woof! Woof! Woof, woof, woof, woof! Woof!"

And you can get back down the track, while being run on this thing, and start flashing and flashing and trying to yell for help and going on through an incident, you know, engramic - and you go through and - just recall an ARC break, you know. And for an hour just flounder on through. The headsman's axe comes down, only it may or may not be a headsman's axe and there's a horrible pain and you run on through. And you recall another ARC break and it's all in the same incident. You get the idea?

And you say, "When?"

And actually, somebody's trying to make you run an engram with "Recall an ARC Break." You get stuck in these engrams and just flounder around. You eventually come through on the other side, but it's awfully uncomfortable.

The PC says, "Woof! Woof, woof, woof! Woof, woof, woof! Woof!" Why in the hell is he saying "woof'?

Actually, the proper action on the part of an auditor, when he sees you getting into very, very heavy weather of it on the track someplace, is to find out when. And find it out with great accuracy and that alone will cause the incident usually to go back to its own place on the time track. It's quite magical.

It's so easy, you know, just to say, "Well, can't you just tell me just for a second and then we'll get back on this other process over here?"

Now, time and the time track is the basic mechanical thing back of aberration. The various significances of aberration, such as this fellow thinks he's a chicken and therefore, so on, so on, or this other chap has an enormous - he has an enormous aversion to girls, or something like that, you know. That's the particularity. Now, when we go locating it, it is an incident on the time track that is causing the situation. But just under that, is - there must be something wrong with time and this person, to have his incidents this mishmashed.

You think I'm kidding, though. I have had - I have had real psychos try to please me by turning on this, that or the other thing. They couldn't understand what I wanted, you see. It never got through to them. They were just trying to be very pleasing about the whole thing. Had them get down on the floor and bark like dogs, get up and moo, and climb on the chandelier, and be a fan dancer, and be a man talking with a gruff voice, and be a young girl talking with a shrill voice, you know. Just racketing around in all directions and do all this almost in a random number of beingnesses between auditing commands, you know?

Well, the fact of the matter is you have to straighten out a lot of incidents before an individual gets up to a point where he can tackle just time, or conceive of time just as itself, or conceive of being causative about time.

I just wonder, where the devil are they going? What are they doing? What is this mechanism that's turning this on? And why every time I say, "Recall a time you spoke to your mother," why does this girl always say, "Woof" before she answers the question? Just what is this - this mess?

You start asking a preclear who is ten plunges deep into a - well, he was, he spent twelve lifetimes as a hangman and then he got hanged, you see? And boy, he's so mixed up in the particularities of the smell of hemp. He's so busy cogniting on why he never wore neckties - He is so fascinated with all the peculiarities and betrayals and everything else that went on along this line, that if you were to ask him, "Now, could it be your sense of time which is out?" he's liable to pick up the chair and throw it at you, if he could move.

You do a time track scout, the best way to do is to get yourself a long piece of paper, legal size, and just take one sheet and without trying to work a PT at the top of it, put down somewhere on that sheet the first drop you find on your E-Meter. See?

You see, this is - this is much too simple. Now, you've thrown a simplicity at him which is so simple that in the duress he finds him self in, too much confusion blows off too quick. And he just can't handle the confusion. He just goes right into the confusion more. You see? It's too simple.

You're not asking for the engram necessary to resolve the case. You're asking for a circumstance or an incident that bothered you. And then just orient it in time.

Nevertheless, it is the basic modus operandi behind why engrams get in restimulation and why pcs keep them mocked up and clutched to their bosoms and all this sort of thing. It's time, time, something wrong with time.

"When? When? When? When? When? Well, when did something else happen to you? When? When? When?" See, nothing more. Get the idea? And spot it! Write 1685 and then as you get it thrashed out - August the 42nd at 18 o'clock or whatever you found on the track, see, just put it down. And then put down on the opposite side of the page - you've made a little line there for a track down the opposite side of the page - more or less what the pc announced it was without your asking him.

Now, his - it isn't that time is wrong. It is always the individual's regard for time, or attitude toward time, or his opinions about time or something. You'll find time gets a person into a lot of trouble. If you've failed to report sometime at the time you were supposed to report, you know that there was some... something said about it, you see. Also, it's very easy to blame time, you see.

"Oh, yeah, I was killed. Yeah, yeah. That was 1685. Yeah. That's when I was - I was - I was killed. I was killed with a-with a bolt, with a crossbow bolt, Yeah, that's 1685 and it seems about August, August - it must have been sometime - no, July, August, July, uh, June. No, that was 1686. No, June July, August, August, September! No, no, August." See? And just write down "crossbow bolt," see, incident at that point.

And this individual has an atomic-powered multi-cellular biospestroscope with which he can look at the progress and course of the spaceships of his shipping company, and he sees one going hellbent into a black planet.

When you've got it pegged, it will cease to bother him then go off and find another incident. Question him any way you wish so as to discover something that happened to him. When did something happen to him? That's what you want to know. And you can plot and plot and plot on this thing and just keep going, each time locating each incident as exactly as you can in time not as to content or context, just time.

Now, if he just had time, he could send them a message. But he hasn't got time. So, it's all of time - it's the fault of time, you see? He blames time. Once more, he makes time other-determined to him.

Pc will always crop up and tell you something about it before you can stop him, so you'll get enough information there to draw your track. And you can just keep on drawing a track this way and you'll find out it will go further into the past and further into the future, and you seem to be developing more time track. You also seem to be developing more incident. Don't be surprised because that is the exact result of this particular drill. You always develop more incident. Unless you let him go back to the rule of the last largest object and describe the last largest object he saw in the thing and get a better description of the incident and tell him, "How many horsemen were there charging at you there at the battle? Oh, yes, well now, which is the biggest horse? Oh, that one. All right now. What kind of armor did he have on?"

And people are always saying this, "If I just had more time," you know. "It's time's fault," sort of; they're implying, "that I don't get more things done. If there was just more time, I would get more things done."

There's a dull clank in the room, and he's just gone over backwards having been hit in the forehead with a morning star. See? You just led him right into it, see? Well, you can do that - if you're looking for an incident to run, you can do that.

Whereas anybody can conduct an idiotically simple experiment - just get busy someday and see how much time there is in the day. Get very busy.

Now, what are the questions that you ask to locate this when? Time. You do it by time. And you want over and under, over and under. And you get a little bit over and a little bit under and a little bit over and a little bit under and a little less over and a little less under, and so on, and you gradually bracket it. It's like firing shells. When people fire shells experimentally to find the range on something, they generally fire several shells at various ranges. And then they find the exact target was between two of them. Well, then they sort that out and get it down to the last square inch. They want the captain's hip pocket on the opposite ship, you see?

Not very long ago, I got extremely busy - very, very busy. And did, oh, I don't know, thirty or forty things in the space of maybe an hour and a half and got them all wrapped up, and everything was squared away. And thought, "Well, isn't that nice, now I can get down to the office and get today's work done," you know.

Now, what you're trying to do is to locate occurrences in time and then by continuous hazarding of questions or suggestions, pin it, first to the year, then to the month, then to the day and then to the hour. And that's usually good enough.

The weirdest thing, I was riding through the park. And gee! that was a long ride! It was just a very long ride, that's all, you see, just very long. (quote) It took an awfully long time to get through the park (unquote). Because my concept of how long it took to go through the park had been stretched because I'd gotten very busy and gotten a lot of things done, you see? I was in effect, in life, making time. So therefore time - there appeared to be more of it.

You must keep in mind that there was a fellow by the name of Gregory, who was Gregorying around on chants, I think too - but who fouled up the calendar. I don't know whether this new calendar is better than an old calendar, but your pc's liable to come up with the fact that it was - it was well past nones. It was well past nones. Or it was in the moon of the sixpence or something, see. He's not necessarily accounting for this in terms of modern time. But amazingly enough, he usually does account for it in terms of modern time which, some way or another, he translates through.

You sometimes see some fellow sitting behind a desk saying, "Well if I - I'm just so under pressure all the time, and if I just had more time and if I could just get things done and so on, and I can't because I don't have more time." Watch him carefully. He doesn't get a single thing done. That's one of the wildest things. You can point this out to him, "Well, look! If you just do something except sit there and moan about this, why, you'd find out you'd have broken the dike." But, he never will. He just keeps on moaning about how he doesn't have any time to get anything done.

So, if he's insistent that it's - if he's not sure whether it's just before nones or after nones, it's all right to say, "What's a none?"

Actually, the day appears very brief to him - very brief. Hardly enough hours in the day to eat breakfast lunch and dinner.

"Well," he'll say, "you know what that is," and so forth. And you're still in time, see, you didn't get off of time.

Time then, is subject to different considerations. It is subject to upset. It's subject to various mechanical behavior such as appearing to be totally grouped or totally dispersed. The idea of a black screen that you very often run into in a pc is simply a grouper in operation of one type or another. The individual has curtained out his reality.

"Well, what happened at nones?" That's the wrong question. You're way off - way out of gear on that question.

"Well," you say, "that's very simple, he's curtained out his reality." But what's the finest way in the world to curtain out reality? To say - to say there was no time track on which it could exist. Now, wouldn't that be one of the finest things you could wipe out reality with? You say, "Well, it never happened!" Automatically, there is no tinme. Right? So, there's no time for that span? Well, voila! We have solved it.

Now, the second that you start to plot a time track on a certain percentage of pcs all you're plotting is the before and after of an implantation. And you will learn a great deal about implantations. One of the favorite games of thetans is to give other thetans false time tracks. Implantations.

Eureka! Q.E.D. - and other Spanish expressions.

The stanaard implantation that you'll run into occurs between lives. Now, I'm not talking about anything but technical data here. You run into this in trying to plot a time track every time you turn around. And it is the baffler. And there's many an old-time auditor that has never learned this one. It's been an elusive thing, very elusive. He just goes - he'll go astray on the thing, get led astray.

Individual's not got anything to look at - which proves that that time never existed, you see. There he is and you say, "Look at your bank, look at your bank."

But a person died, and they have something called a reporting station. And he automatically returns to this reporting station. And they do him the great favor of wiping out his past for him, and then he comes back and picks up another body. It's called between lives. And that's done in various ways and fashions. And you'll find that is pretty chronic for the last few thousand years. Now, implants of this character are also discovered a million two hundred and fifty thousand years ago in Fac One type of incidents.

"Yep, yeah, yeah."

Now, what's this got to do with your plotting a time track? It's only that a whole time track was gratuitously given to the preclear about as fast as you could snap your fingers, with a full dissertation of how long it was ago. And all of these implants have that as a common denominator. They tell him when the incident was in terms of how long ago it was. They don't tell him when it was in a precise time, but they locate it from the present time of the incident, which throws him totally astray.

When he gets a little worse off; you say, "Look at your time track." And he gets a thread out here, with some little cross-ties on it. And it's all tabulated very nicely. When he's really got it nailed down, why, he has some facsimiles all right. And if you look down in the lower left-hand corner of them, something like that, why, you'll see the date written out. Sometimes the date is in Roman letters and it takes a little figuring for him to read the date.

You have to run into one of these things, either in a pc or in your own auditing session, to really appreciate how bogged down, fouled up and miserable one of these confounded implants can be and how it can get in the road of an auditor.

And you ask this chap, "When, when was that?"

It's fantastic. I mean the fellow will have a whole concatenation of incident. "This happened to you - this happened to you a thousand years ago, and this happened to you eight thousand years ago, and this happened to you a hundred thousand years ago, and this happened to you a million years ago, and this happened to you a hundred million years ago, and this happened to you a billion, eight hundred and sixty-two million years ago, and this happened to you five trillion years ago, and this happened to you three hundred trillion years ago, and this happened to you three hundred and eighty-nine trillion years ago." But all this is going on, you see, just brzzzzt.

And he says, "Just a moment," and so on. You make the mistake of believing he's thinking. He's not. He's trying to read the date off the bottom of the facsimile. It's a fact. I mean, it's - this is a true case.

And they only blow up when you find their exact location in time and it gets to be accurately spotted - when it's accurately spotted. When did that implantation take place? That will knock out the bulk of implants.

Somebody - somebody that you ask, "When," will sit there. And you say, "Well, he's trying to orient it, you know, he's trying to . . . " No, he's not, he's waiting for a little cuckoo that appears out here and says, "The time is now 1536 A.D."

And the dickens of it is the pc will for some little while, as he's looking at it, believe implicitly that it's a real incident and he's looking at a real facsimile. And I've seen them go mucking around with one of these implant tracks just by the hour, till they finally, "You know there's something wrong with this, ya-da da-yah da-dah. Well, this isn't a falling spaceship. It's a wooden dummy on props in a - some kind of a thing that looks like a hangar And there's a couple of operators standing outside and one of them is talking. Well, what's this?" You know? Big surprise.

Total dub-in. He'd be the first one to ask you, "Doesn't everybody have a little cuckoo that does this?"

The time track he's running has been totally implanted. They put a sort of a visoscope in front of him that throws pictures, like a modern television set with a bigger screen. And that gives him all the hot dope. That gives him life after life and sequence after sequence. The only trouble is, it doesn't make sense. The pictures don't move very much. They're all stills and he's always detached and so on. They have nothing to do with the price of fish.

It's like the pc - you ask him for an answer and the little railroad car - cars run around from in back of his head on a cute little track and there's a sign in each car - and one word per car. And all the little cars go by and he reads off the proper answer to the question. That's all dub-in reality.

Now, these implants have traps within traps within traps. And it gets to be very complex when you're trying to spot one of these things out. Fellow will say, "Well, I know it's an implant because the truth of the matter is here's the picture of my brother and I being captured and being - yeah, that's right. We're captured and taken over and thrown into this trap. And the trap has got these pictures and here's the trap. Now, that's funny. Oh, yes, well obviously it's a fake trap because here's the dismantling of the trap. So, I know it's a real incident, us being shot down, being - I... Now, what is this all about? Now, brother and I were shot down and - know it's a real incident because - because here's the incident whereby we were implanted and here's the implant and there's the implant station. Oh, yes! I see why this is. It's an overt act-motivator sequence because here I am in the implant station implanting a bunch of people. Yeah well, all I know - that's real, that's - I think."

He finds it's intolerable to live without that time span he has actually experienced. So, he just dubs in another one on total substitution, hasn't anything to do with the price of fish.

No, it's just a series of implants showing them shot down, showing them being taken to an implant station, showing them implanting other people, and being implanted themselves. And it's all part of an implant! And it isn't even the place or the thing or the scenery of the implant at all. You see it's - they just fix up a complete labyrinth from which the pc - every time he moves on the track at all, he actually moves a split second and he gets into an entirely different circumstance and sequence, which explains it all.

You'll find the phenomenon that in some life an individual has dub-in and in another life won't have. Quite interesting. An individual from life to life gets varying states of sanity, varying states of reality. It depends on his environment - how often the environment is repeated.

And he'll sometimes tell you that, "Three hundred trillion years ago, or three hundred million years ago," or something like that, "I had some bad luck, and they knew what was going to happen to me, and they plotted my whole existence because a hundred and fifty trillion years ago, or a million years ago, why, here's happening exactly what they said would happen at three hundred trillion years ago, you see. No, wait a minute, now, now..."

Let us say he had a life in Greece, stark, staring mad. And he got some sense into his head and he went to Gaul and he lived very happily in Gaul for a number of lifetimes. And then he dropped something in the wrong slot and wound up back in Greece. Yewww, see. That life wasn't so good, you see.

Well, of course, they could predict it. It only happened a split second before. You see, people appear very wise because they tell a fellow what is going to happen to him and then show it happening to him all in five minutes. So naturally it's true.

And then he goes - he says, "Well, that's - huh! - that was all for the Greeks." And he lives a nice beautiful life up on the Volga boating along and everything is happy. And he lives another life up in the - up amongst the Eskimos and he lives another life over in Poland. And he's getting along all right. And then drops the wrong penny in the slot and winds up back in Greece again.

Just this method of throwing out motivators - now, you say, "What silly thetan would keep on mocking up an implant that long?" Well, just about every thetan on this planet is silly enough to do that.

Well, about this time, it's getting pretty dubby. He wants nothing to do with Greece. Every time he gets to Greece, why, they massacre him. Something bad happens to him and it's getting worse and worse and worse and worse. And he may have perfectly sane lives as far as you can tell all up and down the track - interspersed with areas of total "dub."

It's only necessary to locate the actual implantation in time to cause the whole fabric to fall to pieces.

There will be a life - the life from 1275 to 1352 is just a total dub-in the whole way. But the life - the life in the latter part of the fourteenth century, nothing to it. It's perfectly sane, he's doing well.

Now, I'll give you an example. Implantation 1135 A.D. - carries a story of a whole time track for 560 years. A fellow wanders up and down during the latter part of the first millennia here on Earth - this mocked-up time track, you see? And he wanders up and down this thing and he can't make sense out of it, and it just doesn't seem right, and so forth. And all of a sudden you get 1135 and the whole thing starts going bzzzzt, bworp, thud, crack, creak! And you get it spotted down to the exact part of the year and the moment and when it happened. And the next thing you know the implant triggers.

You say, "What's this all about?" Well, you have actually run into a similarity of lives. These Greek lives will eventually tend to jam independent of lives he's led elsewhere.

"Well," he says, "well then, what did happen to me in 1134? And what did happen to me in 1100? And what did happen to me in 900 A.D. and so on, if that wasn't the case?" Well, that's a job for an auditor, see. But he's at least off a phony track.

You could eventually say to this fellow - you could eventually say to this fellow "urn" or even as disassociated as "Keats," you know, and the E-Meter would start falling off of its pin.

Now, these implantations are no - are no myth. I mean, they actually occur. And the individual - the individual has a hard time differentiating amongst them because they're purposely confusing. The key is: the somatic is constant. No matter what happens in the picture, he's got the same somatic. That doesn't mean that he is stuck at one place on the track viewing other pieces of the track so much as he's in an implant. See, he's got one somatic. There's this hard pressure under his chin and a weak feeling in his legs. And that's the whole somatic.

Anything that - even vaguely connected with Greece, see - anything, and you'll have this thing occurring. You've got his lowest level of reality. It's a good thing to tackle, by the way, in a case - clears up rather rapidly.

And he says, "This knight rushes at me and I rush at him and I knock him off his horse, and then there's this other picture, and so forth. And I'm in a sort of a cave, and the cave falls in on me and buries me up, and there's a big bear comes in and eats my head off" and so forth, and goes on and on. Only the somatic is pressure on the chin and weakness in the legs, see.

Now, there is where an individual has one type of time track, with another type of time track, you see? He's evidently got two time tracks. One, he's got a dub-in track and the other he's got a real track. And the dub-in track of course is in total occlusion before you finally get it into any level of reality. His time track is liable to go into various segments.

That's actually done by electronics. That somatic is given to him by electronics during the implant. So implant somatics are similar. They can vary and they do vary only when they are varied in the implant mechanism, but not by the implant pictures. So the somatics don't agree with the incident, suspect an implant.

Now, worse than that, his time track is liable to just totally ball up into another valence in a time track he never lived. He just never lived this time track at all. It's the time track as seen by somebody that he had a fight with sometime or another, or something of the sort. He's just done a valence flip and he's in another valence. And wonderful way of as-ising any experience and time he had isn't it? He just isn't that person.

Now, a person can also be in a valence running on another track, but you can get him out of that easier than you can get him out of a series of implants. Individual is stuck in a lot of implants, is very hungry to have the track wiped out and himself has done a great many things to other people. So overt-withhold processes and so on tend to spring these implants out of existence. But they will give you trouble in processing a preclear and particularly in spotting a time track.

See, right on the track he does what he does every life. He picks up another body and becomes somebody else. Well, now he just deepens the mechanism and he is in somebody else's valence and has never been himself; so therefore, Q.E.D., eureka - he doesn't have his own time track anymore so nothing hurts, of course. He's just parked someplace in time, isn't he?

And they, in error, invariably use 'ago'. How long ago, invariably. So what do you do in searching incidents? Do you talk about years ago? No, we've learned better. We've learned better, because it tends to key in implants.

In other words, he goes off of his own track out of valence. He starts getting everything with a detached view. You ask him to get a picture of himself and he's always over there. He's always seeing himself from some other viewpoint. This is the first mechanism that you run into that has anything to do with this. That doesn't mean that he is in another valence in that time, though. It means that he's just dubbing track from some other valence viewpoint someplace else on the track. You got the idea?

You talk about A.D., B.C., dates and you start your track with somewhere like 1800 or 1700 or something like that, and you go north and south - you might say later and earlier than 1700. So your questions come into this wise. You say well, this will - this fouls up your flexibility in asking questions, let me assure you! Because it's very easy to say to somebody - a lot of people you run this on, they go along fine.

All right. Now, if you understand something of this mechanism - that a person does have a series of experiences plotted against time, he has lived them, he has lived through them and those are his, and they will always be his, but that he does peculiar and odd things about them to make them vanish - such a mechanism of saying they never existed, such a mechanism of being somebody else who didn't have that time track, you see. Such a mechanism of saying, "Well, past lives don't exist." It's just another mechanism of disowning a time track. And you get - you get these complex views.

You say, "Was it five hundred years ago? Was it longer than five hundred years ago? Was it less than five hundred? Oh, less than five hundred years ago. Was it - was it earlier than two hundred and fifty years ago? Was it earlier than two hundred years ago? Oh, two hundred and fifty. Is it more than two hundred and fifty years ago?" Get the type of patter that you have.

But this must never disturb your definition of a time track because the time track we're defining has not ceased to exist! Quite interesting, but that time track has not ceased to exist just because he's taking up other mechanisms to defeat it. He's still got this time track. It's still there.

Well, that's a very, easy method of locating incidents in time, see - years ago. But it's booby-trapped, so it's not the safest thing you can do, see - that series of questions.

I'm afraid he never wins in getting rid of one. And the only way basically they can ever get clear of a time track, is to confront it and experience it. If he's unwilling to confront it and experience it, all other mechanisms are not-is mechanisms. He's trying to not-is this track, and he has all sorts of weird ways of doing it - and they are the ways of the Reality Scale, of course.

"Now, is the incident we're looking for earlier than a thousand years ago? Is it closer to present time than a thousand years ago? Oh, it's closer to PT. All right."

They go down to simply confront it; that's all right. He has pictures. They're not very real usually. He has pictures, he can see his time track - "they're just pictures though," he carefully reassures you - into invisibility, into blackness, into a total substitute track and this can disassociate on substitution almost ad infinitum.

See, that would be an indicated source of questioning, wouldn't it? But it runs squarely into these doggone between-life implants.

Now, this individual is drawing away from time, isn't he? And as he begins to handle a time track more and more incorrectly. Right? He's trying not to have anything to do with the time through which he has lived. He's trying desperately to come off of that. And you're auditing him; you're putting him back on it.

So the best thing you can do is to say something on the order of "What date did the incident we're looking for occur?"

A person who is on a time track can move on the time track. He can certainly move on an auditor's determinism. That is the easiest thing in the world to have happen. A person who can move at all, can be moved by an auditor much more easily, usually, than he can move himself.

And the person says, "Oh, it seems like something flashed through my mind about at 1800... 1800."

You are in a position of greater power with regard to his time track than he is - any day of the week. You can say, "The preclear will now move to 1599, July 3rd, 4 o'clock." He can't help himself. He usually just moves there. Similarly, you can also utter a very magic command which is "Come to present time", which ought to be used more often.

"Now, good. Is it earlier than 1800 or later than 1800?" Meaning closer to PT than 1800, or further from PT than 1800. "Oh, further. Ahh." That's what you got a bigger drop on, you see? The E-Meter in this wise is always saying "yes" when it falls. E- Meter falls, it says "yes."

You could walk through an insane asylum and stop every patient you met in the corridors, and say to them -just look at them, say, "Come up to present time." "Thank you." And go to the next one that you meet, "Come up to present time." "Thank you." Just go through the whole place like that. You know, you would have taken a certain percentage of cases into total - from total insanity to sanity. And they would be quite miraculous and nobody would be able to understand this great magic that you had exerted, if they didn't know about time tracks.

Now, you can go right on talking to the E-Meter. You don't have to pay too much attention to the pc because he's very other-determined on this whole line. You hardly have to talk to the pc at all. He kind of sometimes feels left out of the picture. It's a session kind of between you and the E-Meter, you know? You've got to keep him in- session somewhat and keep his attention and interest.

You can tell a person to come to present time, and he does. This was done one day as an actual experiment. And that evening, one of the girls that had been addressed, that had been a (quote) incurable case (unquote) got up and made a speech to the assembled patients of how nice it was to be there. Quite interesting!

One of the mechanisms by which you do this is, "When I snap my fingers, a date will flash." Just - this is cold, see, just pure - just cold.

Now, this is - this is well worth knowing, that you can simply say to somebody, "Come up to present time," and do things. That its percentage of workability is small is no reason you should forget it. Maybe in an insane asylum it wouldn't be more than two or three percent. But look! That's worth remembering - two or three percent, you see?

He sits down in the chair. You say, "I'm going to run a little track scout. Is that all right with you? I'm going to run this little track scout."

Now, people who are not in insane asylums, maybe it might work as often as - I don't know what the percentage would be, but it might work thirty-five, forty, fifty percent, somewhere in that range.

He says, "Well, I guess that's all right."

Some fellow's going down the street and he's having a terrible time because he's got arthritis and they're afraid they'll make him secretary of state or something. And he's going down the street, and he's having a terrible time and so forth. And you come along to him and you say, "Come up to present time," and he hasn't got arthritis. In some percentage of cases, that would occur. So you see, that's a piece of magic that's worth remembering. He just simply moves out of the engram that he's stuck in and comes up to PT.

"Are you sure you don't have anything worrying you particularly, like a present time problem or something like that?"

Now, before you think up too many complex ways to run engrams, look at the first and simplest, which is, "Come up to present time."

"No no I don't have anything worrying me.

Now, there's another way of tackling the same thing that we call havingness. Havingness can have many aspects and this isn't the total aspect of havingness, but it's certainly very germane to this. Objective havingness is another way of saying, "Come up to PT". There's more to it than that, but it gets the individual up to PT. By doing what? By letting him find the walls and find present time.

"All right. Now, when I snap my fingers, a date will flash." And he says, "Sixteen."

Well, you'd better go to the E-Meter because you've just probably - ordinarily on some crude number like that -you've just run into a number circuit or something.

When an individual is too thoroughly stuck in an engram, or when he hasn't been told to move in time, noticing the environment, however, sometimes does not move him in time. In fact, most of the time it doesn't move him in time. So therefore, TR 10 is no great answer.

There are pc's around that no matter how many times you snap their - your fingers at them, they'll still say, "Twelve." Eventually you'll run down what is "twelve," but it's something like twelve boys or it's twelve dogs or it's twelve pieces of silver or it's something of the sort, you see?

Havingness has other ramifications. Running "Look around here and find something you have," just that and no more, also has the side effect of moving somebody into PT. It also has other effects. It gives him mass, makes him aware of mass, gives him reach, does other things. But it has this little portion of it over here - brings the individual to some degree up to PT, you see?

You try to get a date. Now you can, however, recognize that the number twelve might be developed by you into a date. See, you say, "When you - when I snap my fingers, a date will flash."

So, it's this moving up to PT, or moving on the time track that causes a cyclic aspect of somatics that you so often see in a pc.

And he says, "Twelve."

Individual's first got a pain here and then he's got a pain here, and then he's got a pain down here. Well, the truth of the matter was, what happened was somebody hit him over the head and then ran into him with a horse, and then later on ran across his legs with the same horse, you see.

Well, you could get other questions like, "Yes or no, is that a year? Yes or no, is that an hour? Yes or no, is that a month?" And watch the E-Meter, and get further responses on the matter.

And you move him into different portions of time track, and there in a space of maybe a minute and a half or a minute, he has three serious illnesses which could be called migraine headache, asthma and multiple sclerosis. See?

Your questions then have to do with eliciting a date. Now, as easily as snapping your fingers - that's one method of doing it. Where that fails you - and the individual just says, "Twelve," or something and he can't develop it into a date and so forth, now your imagination is the limit.

It's just where he's parked in that incident. It's where he's - at the moment, you see? Now, an auditor can move him back and forth in the incident at will. So, an auditor could actually turn on multiple sclerosis, asthma or a migraine headache at will in a pc. He could choose what part of the incident to move him into. The pc would get the somatics or duress of the incident and he'd have some illness that could be described medically. Quite amazing!

You'd say, "What would you consider historically to be the most dangerous century of the past two or three thousand years?"

You move somebody into a time when he was very sick with a fever, and if you get him thoroughly embedded in the area, he'll develop a fever. You can put a thermometer in his mouth, he has a fever. Oh, this just kills doctors. When they observe this one, they say, "What! A fever without physiological or bacteriological cause? Oh, no! You'd better get that patient to bed."

"The most dangerous century..." he will say, and you'll watch that E-Meter start to react.

Now, you just run him a little further through the same incident up to a time when he was well, he doesn't have a fever. Stick a thermometer in his mouth, take his temperature - he doesn't have a fever, you see?

"Well, I can tell you what the most uninteresting century would be." "That'll do. That's all right, good."

See, all the - all the odd tricks here of positioning somebody on the time track. Because when you position them in a point - at a point or during a period when things were totally other-determined as far as they were concerned, and they had no determination at all they suffer totally from the duress. And that duress expresses itself mentally and physiologically.

"Oh," he says, "seems to me like the dullest, well, the most completely useless period was around 1700 and something. That seems to me - I certainly would hate to... ha-ha, I just..." You know, "1700, ba! ba! Rha!"

Voices speak to them, pains occur to them, any one of fifty-three perceptics can happen all over again. And if the other-determinism is extreme, why, they won't be able to keep their head for instance from going back, back, back, back, back, back. Weird thing - you can do some odd things with this, do some odd things. You can put a person exactly at the instant he was inoculated with a needle and watch the flesh go down. Well, but there's no muscles that make his flesh go down like that, you see. It's just an engram.

Just say, "1700 and what?"

If you've ever seen somebody in a sperm sequence writhing on the bed, you know very well there aren't sufficient joints in the human body to permit any human body to wiggle in that fashion. There are neither muscles nor joints that would wiggle - make a body wiggle in that fashion.

"Well, 1732 - that just - that... What are you asking me 'what' for?" And you've coaxed a date out of him.

It's fascinating to - the number of muscular reactions and physical reactions and so on, to say nothing of the sounds, to say nothing of the of the smells and so forth.

Now you say, "Now, we're looking for a moment when something happened to you there." Run it down. He said 1700. You want to know if it's a little later than 1700, a little earlier than 1700.

There's one fellow we had at the last ACC, he located himself on the track by - he could smell it. He smelled his way up and down the time track. He knew it was real because he could smell it. And this was his total perceptic - that he was traveling on. Sort of running up and down the track on his nose.

"Now, if it's a little later than 1710? Or earlier than 1710? Ah, earlier than 1710. Is it later than 1705? Is it earlier than 1705? Oh, it's later than 1705. Is it later than 1708? Or earlier than 1708? Ah! It's a little bit later than 1708. Is it 1708? Ha! Is it 1709?" See, you got a drop on 1708. "Is it 1709?" No, not as big a drop. "1707?" No, not as big. "It is 1708, is that correct? All right.

I had a lady come to me one time, she was terribly upset. She said that - said that this was so drastic and so ghastly that she didn't want to tell anybody about it and all that sort of thing, but she was smelling dead cattle all the time. She'd just smell these cattle all the time.

"Now, would you say it was in the middle of the year? Was it later than the middle of the year? Or earlier than the middle of the year? Oh, later. All right. Now what month would you say it was?"

Well, there was some kind of a mix-up on cattle and cattle dying out in the pasture and that sort of thing. All I got her to do was just to create the smell of decaying cattle for a little while and she no longer smelled it. But she'd been going around smelling that for a couple of years. Now I could have possibly just as easily have said to her, "Well, move to the time when you got to the house." And the smell would have turned off. See, the smell was there in the field where the cattle were dead and she was evidently stuck in the field, in the mental image picture. It was a mental image picture of a field full of dead cattle and they smelled. And she was still smelling them. And the realest thing about it is she couldn't confront all those nice cattle being dead so she could - but she still was smelling them. Get the idea?

Don't be surprised if somewhere along the line of your questioning the pc suddenly says, "It was October the 4th, and it was at 5:27 when they sprung the trap." See, he just all - gets it.

So awfully, awfully complex and hard to understand and all messed up and twisted up significances and manifestations and so on, all stem from this - it's just position in time, position in incident.

Also, don't be surprised if it's all muddled up. And 1708 seems to drop, and then 1704 seems to drop the most. And then you really find out it's 1706, but realy it's 1712. All you're doing is wiping out a confusion of time.

Now, you just think of an incident, see. Just think of an incident. Just say, well, a fellow runs out here and steps under a lorry. All right. Fine. What somatics would he have? All right, now imagine that fellow as a pc two hundred years afterwards. See, here he is two hundred years hence. He's forgotten all about the lorry. He, at no time, apparently, has a clue about all this, but he has heart trouble. That's what he says. He tells you he has heart trouble. Well, that's his error. That's just dub-in. The truth of the matter is, he has a pain in the vicinity of his heart. That's much more accurate, isn't it? Now, what caused it?

And if you keep at it and say, "Well, now, is it earlier than 1712? Now,. is it later than 1712? It's earlier. All right. Now, is it later than 1705? Or is it early - Oh, it's later than 1705. All right. Now, is it later than 1708? Or earlier than 1708? Ah, earlier than 1708. Ah, yes. All right. Is it 17--?" Because this - now we're into a finite number of years and we can just count them. "Is it 1706? Is it 1707? Is it 1708? Ah, it's 1707. All right.

Well, you could fish around on an E-Meter and you'd finally find a lorry. Possibly it would be associated with what he was doing and it might not be too closely associated - maybe the fellow is a lorry driver now, you see? And he's just got through wrecking a lorry himself or running over a pedestrian and after that he has this pain in his heart. Well, it isn't enough just to find out that pain. What if - what if he rolled over and over and got up and staggered and fell down and hit his head on the curb? So you could have moved him up about thirty-five seconds in the incident and he would have had a headache, not heart trouble.

"What month?" See. All right, now we find out it's May. Okay.

You get the idea?

"What day of May? Is it the last part of the month? Or the early part of the month?" you see. "Oh, the early part of the month."

So the significances of what is physically wrong with a person or what he's experiencing give you a myriad of complexities which you just would never be able to wander through, except in terms of tremendous cataloging. You'd have to have an illness for every cell in the body for every way a cell could get ill.

Well, you can count them, see. "Is it May 1st? May 2nd? May 3rd? May 4th? May 5th? May 6th? May 7th? May 8th? May 9th? Nine-lOth?" And you say, "May 8th." You've already gone across it, and it's now slacking off. "May 8th. All right. May 8th, 1708. What hour of the day?"

See, there's just this tremendous, vast - now multiply it by fifty-three perceptions, and you'd have various facets of the illness, you see.

"You know, this floor's feeling mighty shaky," he's liable to start telling you.

You have to think of a poor medico. Look at the - look at what he was slogging into here. You look at the complexity. How many incidents could an individual or could anyone or all people have, you see? How many types of incident, how many types of pains, then, could he have?

"Well, just - that's all right. Now what part of the day do you think it was?"

You know, if you took out a hundred fellows and threw them off a cliff, one after the other, they would all wind up with different injuries. One fellow would hurt his ankle, another fellow would hurt his head, another fellow would hurt his arm. So, it isn't even enough to say, "Well, the - what this fellow is suffering from is falling off a cliff" See? Every time you start to get into the significances of injury or the significances of chronic somatics, or something like that, you're just into too many significances. See, it's too much.

"Sunrise. Sunrise. Sunrise. Or at least the sun is low on the - sunset. Yeah, it was about 5:30. You know, that doesn't agree too well. That doesn't agree too well because the sun actually sets later than that in May." Figure-figure-figure-figure- figure. He's just doing a big dispersal out the window, and so forth.

What you have to find out is when. Get right down to that fundamental - when. Now you're getting someplace, you see. He may - he might not appreciate it totally, that you're getting anyplace.

You say, "Well, you say it was about sunset." "Well, about an hour before sunset."

He says, "When? What do you mean when?" "Well, when did something happen to your head?"

"Well, would you say an hour? Or a little bit less than an hour? Or a little bit more than an hour? Oh, a little bit more than an hour. Would you say about an hour and ten minutes? An hour and fifteen minutes? One hour and ten minutes? Hour and eleven minutes? Hour and twelve minutes? Hour and eleven minutes? Hour and eleven minutes." Oh, you've done it now. The floor fell out.

"When! Well, I'm talking about - nothing happened to my head. I'm telling you I have a headache!" You see -you're not liable to get much cooperation at first.

"Boy," he says, "this feels terrible being hanged, you know? Scares you."

But you say, "When did you have something happ- ah-ah, there it is on the meter. Now, what did you think of?"

This is over and under. Get a figure, get a date and develop it with over and under.

"Well, I wasn't thinking about my head, as a matter of fact, I was thinking about my little cousin's head. Ha ha. Yes, the time I hit it with a hockey stick."

See, he gives you 1700. You want to know if it's more than 1700 or less than 1700. Because if he gives you about 1700, it might be 1695, don't you see? Take the biggest fall. Always pick the next biggest fall that you find and just develop it, over and under.

And you say, "Well, when was that?"

See, he says it's later. All right. You want to know how much later. Is it later than 1715? Or is it earlier than 1715? Well, earlier than 1715 drops more than later so we now subdivide the periods earlier between 1700 and 1715 until we get it on the head. Then we divide up the year, and then we divide up the month - the - into the month, and then we divide up the month into days. And then we divide the day into hours or periods and we finally snap it right on down. When we've got it snapped down, we mark it on our time track chart.

"Oh well, that's a long time ago - heh heh. Huhh! Got out of that!" You say, "When was it?"

It's quite an exercise. When I tell you that it's therapeutic, you will not want to believe me the first few incidents that you locate on the pc because if he's going to do anything like react to the incidents located, he's liable to react quite considerably. Or he's liable to just say "Well it doesn't make any difference to me." He'll just sit there. "Yes, that was when I was hanged last and I was hanged then. I think I was probably hanged earlier too. It serves me right to be hanged that way. And yes, I - I see the corpse hanging there now, and so on. I... Yes, that's right. It was about sunset when they hanged me and so on. You want to - you want to know anything about it, I'll tell you anything about it. It doesn't matter, you know and..."

"Oh, well, we needn't go into that. I came in here with a headache, it's all better - Ow! What are you doing to me?"

Somewhere or another, you're going to collide with the incident that he's stuck in, you see, more thoroughly than other incidents. You're going to get him moving on the track. Something is going to develop here and you'll snap him out of this particular monotone because he's stuck in an exact instant when his emotions are in exactly that state. Don't you see?

"All I'm doing is asking you a simple question of when." And then we get it located in time on the E-Meter, when he hit somebody with a hockey stick. Actually you'll do a flick-flack overt-motivator, DED-DEDEX - something will happen with regard to the thing. Tell the person now, "Come up to present time." He's liable to be missing a headache, you see?

Then you'll find the boy who is tenuously hung between an instant of total agony and an instant of total terror But right between the two instants, there's a no-sensation. And he's been hanging onto it for just years and years and years. And you try to move him ten seconds up or ten seconds back, he goes alternately toward agony and then toward terror And he does not want to be in either place! Thank you. And he's doing just fine up here on the edge of the building no matter how narrow it is. And if he can just keep carefully at this point, he isn't going to have anything bad happen to him. You'll see this. This is the tightrope case.

Very often things will clear up merely with two-way comm. Very often things will simply clear up by locating them in time. That's all. More rarely, they will clear up simply by telling the individual to come to PT.

Now, I'll tell you a vicious one - a very vicious one. There's another way of doing the whole thing. This wrecks cases and so forth. Every now and then smashes somebody up quite considerably, but is nevertheless something that can be done. You can get away with it a lot of the time.

You understand something about this track now and how it affects people? Hmm? Audience:Yes.

Say, "Go to the beginning of the time track and scan forward - to present time. Thank you. Good. Go to the beginning of the time track and scan forward to present time. Did so? Did that now? Good. Go to the beginning of the time track and scan forward to present time. Now, you looking at anything?"

All right. Well, then let's look at this PT factor. What is PT to the preclear? What's present time to this preclear?

You'll land him up more and more thoroughly, more and more thoroughly, more and more thoroughly in the incident necessary to resolve the case. This is the desperate measure on the guy you can't do anything with particularly. You can still do something like that. You can always find an incident on somebody if you're heartless enough.

If you took a hundred fellows and threw them off a cliff, a few of them would have that as PT for a long time. The moment of impact at the bottom of the cliff would be present time. Oh yeah, maybe they would be walking around the village and all that sort of thing, but present time would be at the bottom of the cliff. But what do vou know? Maybe a large percentage of them wouldn't have that as PT. Well, they wouldn't get stuck there at all. They'd get stuck somewhere else in the incident or they wouldn't get stuck at all.

I have seen a man go into a terror charge so thorough that the couch he was lying on - he was lying on a couch, he wasn't sitting on it, you know - have its legs chatter against the floor, just like a pneumatic drill. He was shaking so - in such terror And that was the way that incident was found. There - this can be done.

It's whether or not it added up to their composite of experience. It's whether or not it added in the right way to, to add up to their own overts and so forth - as to whether or not it got into restimulation and stuck.

It always winds them up more thoroughly in what they're in. But don't think you can wipe out a time track by causing a person to scan it, because that's not going to happen.

God help the Russians. They go out and they try to brainwash somebody by giving him a lot of motivators. Nah! They - you can't brainwash anybody by giving them motivators. Man is a sponge for punishment. The only reason he's stuck on the track at all - he probably has not gotten as many things in the teeth as he has put in other people's teeth.

Now, whenever you put an individual into an incident and you do not precisely and accurately locate the incident and you do get the individual to describe the incident, you have a new PT for the individual. Only it's aii old PT and it's not this one. Any incident can lie treated as an existing present time. That's a rule - rule for you to remeniber. Any incident can be treated as an existing present time.

Now, if we - if we regard this principle of present time properly, we will conceive of present time as that moment which you and I agree we are in. Now. That moment which you and I agree we are in. But for purposes of processing, any point where the individual is stuck on the time track or grouped on the time track - and any grouper, by the way, has one particular time point which is the grouper. You find that and the grouper starts to fly apart. Even though all time is grouped, it's grouped on something. It's grouped on a moment in time.

You throw the pc back into an incident that's 1216, 4 o'clock in the afternoon of July the 23rd. You develop it. Get him to describe it, Get him to look it over. Plow him into it more and more and more, and you've got yourself a new PT for the PC. That's PT.

We can regard that instant in time, where he is stuck, as a 'present time' to him. That, to him, is to some degree present time. That's the pc's present time. And the more he is stuck on the track, the less he is in real present time and the more he is in some other - according to him - present time. Now, he's really not out of present time when he's stuck in an incident. He's in a spa... - he's in a present time - the incident. That's the present time he's in.

Now, if you've not gratuitously given him a PT on the backtrack, the least you can do is to try to give him a PT at the end of session which is the one you agree is PT. But this is something that you're going to have to learn how to do.

Now for purposes of processing, you can treat any incident as a 'present time'. And in watching a pc run through an incident, you must not neglect this fact, that as far as he is concerned, the incident he is running through is present time. And you are just a foggy distance away, Let me tell you, you're a long way out.

You recognize that if you took an individual in present time who was immediately the victim of an accident in present time - by the way, you should get a good reality on this sometime - just do this. Find somebody who's been in an accident and locate all the people connected with the accident - all the people connected with the accident that you can locate. Just make a list of them. And then run Overt-Withhold on each person that he named, Overt-Withhold Straightwire, and that accident will blow away.

And you say, "Well, what's he looking like that for and how does he look so different, and what's all this about? After all, he's sitting right in the chair. Why can't I just talk to him?"

Now, if the person wasn't in too bad a shape, it'll blow away. If he's in a little bit too bad a shape, you've got to add some objects. You've got to get a list of the objects that were there in the accident because he's stuck up against objects in this accident, you see? Sometimes in an automobile accident, you have to include the automobile as one of the offending parties. Person blames the automobile, that sort of thing.

Well, you can't talk to him because it's hard to get a man who is being beheaded to hear you. First place, he's about to lose his ears, and there's various many reasons why. From the auditor's present time viewpoint, he has a body in a chair. There's a body sitting in a chair. Yeah, but where's the pc? Where's the pc? He's in the point in time the auditor put him in - that's where he is.

Now, you can free an individual's difficulties in PT by running Overt-Withhold Straightwire on the dramatis personae of present time.

So, you actually audit across a span of time as well as two or three feet of distance. So, therefore, when a person is finished with an incident, or you're finishing with the session, it's a very, very good thing to tell him to come to present time, isn't it?

Now, more pertinently, a pc is exteriorized from the auditing room. He doesn't seem to be in-session. You're having a hard time. His mind is on something else. You've got to handle a present time problem. The way you handle a present time problem - person has a present time problem, and he can't get his attention on the session because he's so in - his attention is so drawn up in this problem of his.

Now I'll tell you something else that's a little trick. When he gets there, say, "Hello." He always feels to some slight degree that he's been on a journey, he's been away, that he's not been here. And a pc can sometimes become peeved with you because you don't - aren't apparently glad to see him after he came back. No ARC with him, obviously you weren't glad to see him when he arrived. "Arrived? He was just sitting in the chair, wasn't he? And he - just sitting in the chair before and he's sitting in the chair now." No, he wasn't. He was in some other present time before and you've called him back to this agreed-upon present time and he likes to be - have that fact noted.

There are two ways to handle it. One is problem of comparable magnitude. "Invent a problem of comparable magnitude to that problem. Describe the problem. How does it seem to you now?" Those are the commands.

One, call him back to PT and, two, why, tell him, "Hello." It's an interesting mechanism.

A more modern way of holding forth on the subject of problems is get him to name all the people connected with this problem. Find the one who drops the most and run Overt-Withhold Straightwire on this person for a while. Take another one, run Overt- Withhold for a while, and sort these people out. Run Overt-Withhold Straightwire on each of the people connected with the problem. And you'll find the problem will desensitize very rapidly, in the usual course of human events if the fellow can audit at all. You see that? Now that's a way of getting rid of a PT problem. And that's a very modern, very fast way of getting rid of one.

Now, when an individual comes back to PT, it takes him some time to get back to present time from where he is. Now, maybe this is only three seconds maybe it is only fifteen seconds, maybe it is only thirty seconds, but it is some time.

Now, any engram of the past has been a problem, and it's a problem because of the overt act-motivator sequence back of it. So any engram was a PT, and it must be a very fixed and a very important PT to still have the pc stuck in it hundreds of years later. All you have to do is locate the people and sometimes the objects, but mostly just the people in the incident and run Overt-Withhold on each one of these people to have the whole engram kick out. That's the most modern method of running engrams.

You can tell if an individual didn't very easily. You say, "Come to present time."

Truthfully, you can run any process that you can run on a PC in present time on the incident. You can treat any incident as a PT and, therefore, run any PT problem.

He says, "Okay," and opens his eyes. Ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah - he's right in the incident.

Now, it's difficult to get them going on 8-C in a past track incident, but has been done. Hmm. But you start getting a thetan to do 8-C - that was the first person it was evolved for - in present time and you've got some doingness. It's not necessarily a good process, but you can do it.

Now, what do you do to keep from evaluating for him? Well, the best thing to do is to run a little Havingness on him and get him back up to PT covertly - because you knew he didn't arrive. He didn't travel on any track to get here, so you know now, he isn't here.

Therefore, you can treat any incident any place as a present time. And then any process that works in present time, theoretically, will work on that incident, if you treat the incident as a present time of the PC. It's quite workable. But the best one to use is Overt-Withhold Straightwire.

You'll see this while you're examining some incident. You'll tell the indiv-- "Come- come to present time," you'll say.

Now, I hope you've learned something about present time...

And he'll say, "Okay," and open his eyes.

Female voice: Yes.

"Di-duh-di-dut..." No. Factually, it takes a few seconds. Now, don't get impatient with him. It can take as long as ten or fifteen minutes. But, also, don't let him hang around like that to some degree - keep tabs with him. Because he can actually wind up in some other incident someplace and go flying out the window practically and you wouldn't know about it at all. You see?

... something about E-Meters, something about track scouts, behavior of a pc on the track. And if you've learned anything about it at all, I can recommend just one thing: Use it!

So, if he's taking a long time to come back to present time, you check on his progress. "Well, where are you now?"

Thank you.

"Well, I'm all right, I'm . .

"Good. Now, you can leave that. Well, come on to something else, now. Come on up to PT." Coax him up there. He'll get there.

It's quite a trick. Actually it's a very bad thing to leave a preclear totally out of PT at the end of session. It's an unkind thing to do. And almost any process you run may throw him out of PT to such a degree that he is out of PT in some private PT of his own at end of session. And he walks out and misses the door, and hits the wall and that sort of thing. So it's unkind of you, factually. It is unkind of you not to tell him to come back to present time. Okay?

So much for present time. Thank you.