Thank you.

Do you know that they talk?

Okay, did you learn anything?

Audience: Yes.

Audience: Yes.

Do you know that they're talking about the pc?

All right. You think you can carry out that assignment?

Audience: Yes.

Audience: Yes.

Do — oh boy, that's ...

Well, it's curiosity, wonder in your minds that I would ask you such a thing — just being polite.

Let's go over that again.

Now, I'm going to give you a demonstration of some sort. I don't quite know whether to give you a demonstration on a disrelated subject or not. Auditing this one is falling off a log. And I don't want to run it in front of you and simply stir you up because it turns on automaticities. I don't want you to have to do this as a prelude to auditing this Entering A Mind Process.

Do they register the pc?

By the way it's second hour, second day, First Melbourne ACC.

Audience: No!

But I don't want you to get the idea that you're supposed to do this on each other to audit this particular process that you're going to run. Got the idea? You don't have to do the thing I'm going to start giving you demonstra­tions about — just to run the process you're going to run tomorrow. But sooner or later in this course you're going to have to do this with some of the people in this course.

What do they register?

And I would like — just like to give you a demonstration of knocking down a tone arm. Crude.

Audience: The bank!

Maybe if I showed you something about this, why, you'd take a little more confidence in being able to sit there and rawrr at a case because this is quite interesting.

All right.

But with that proviso, would you like to see a small demonstration on knocking down a tone arm?

Can you find out something about these things? With these things, can you find out something about what's wrong with somebody?

Audience: Yes.

Audience: Yes. No.

Now, knocking — knocking down a tone arm in front of a group like this would be about eighteen hundred times as tough as knocking down a tone arm just in a private four-walled, just entre nous sort of session — be real rough. And I frankly have never tried to do it in front of a group. Might be attended with fantastic consequences. But we'd have to ask the question of who's got a high tone arm?

Male voice: No. Not the pc, the bank.

Well, this is a real risky thing we're embarking on, I'm not just trying to be dramatic because if you've got a high tone arm I'll knock it down. Don't — don't volunteer in vain.

That's right! That's right, he's correct.

Male voice: About 4.0.

Now, I'll ask the question again. Now, can you find out something that's wrong with somebody, hm?

Have you got a very high tone arm?

Audience: No.

Male voice: About 4.0.

No. What can you find out?

About 4.0, that's not awfully high.

Audience: Something is wrong with the bank.

Who's got a tone arm riding about 6.0?

You can find out something is wrong with the bank.

She's got one about 4.0, huh? Well, we'll knock a 4.0 down. Okay, come on up and sit down up here and let's see what we do. We won't necessarily just do it on one person here.

Now — now in view of the fact that you know how to use one — first proc­esses which you're starting in on tomorrow aren't going to use one. I'm going to give you a little rest and vacation on them. Give you some idea, though, you can hold one, those that we have and you can fool around with them and so on. But the next process that you're going to run — the first valence split­ting process OT — that you're going to start running tomorrow, no matter what your schedule says.

Okay, now because my voice is very loud and so on, we will make it even worse by putting it on tape, you know. We will give you the crown of thorns here. And we'll take our good friend the electro-physical-psychometric detec­tor as it's known briefly and — I've got a girl here reading at female Clear.

The pc can hold the cans and you can watch the thing wobble, get famil­iar with it.

Male voice: She cheated.

Now I know that there are people here that used E-Meters before. I know you've had E-Meters around, I know you feel very accustomed to E-Meters. Until you can make an E-Meter talk the way I can make an E-Meter talk, I'm not satisfied with you, you understand?

Female voice: It worked.

Audience: Yes.

Male voice : Nice work.

You can do some of the darnedest things with an E-Meter. It's pretty incredible.

LRH: Well, squeeze them anyhow. Squeeze the cans. Just give them a squeeze. All right, give them another squeeze.

For instance, you can turn off a newspaper reporter with an E-Meter so fast he doesn't know what's hit him.

Is this meter operating?

Let me give you an idea of what I was doing with E-Meters a short time ago just to put you in a little better mood.

Give them another squeeze. That-a-girl.

Kept getting reporters down from The Daily Mail group, which is a very large chain of English newspapers. They've got a managing editor or some-body who has a horrible past, evidently, because anybody that can find out anything about anybody, it just scares the pants off of them. And they alter­nate between love and hate, you see, and they'll write a very nice story about me, and then they'll write a rotten story about me, see.

Give them another squeeze. That's better.

But recently they've been interviewing me without writing any stories about me. We don't want any stories. The dickens with the press. The press is not a good medium of communication. It isn't. Because you're asking some uninformed individual to tell the public about Scientology and that's almost fatal any day of the week. You can get along just fine without the press. Don't avoid it particularly, but don't — don't hand out too many interviews either.

That's it. Okay, let me see how active this thing is. Now, just sit right there. Think of death.

We have a stable datum in Central Organizations about what you do with a reporter: you kick him downstairs. And when they say, "We've got a story about you and we're going to run this story and there's nothing you can do about it," you say, "That's very fine. Let's have the name of your solicitors, because you run the story, we sue. Ha-ha!" And they sometimes don't run the story.

PC: Mm-hm.

But I have found a much better method, is you say, "Oh, you want to know about Scientology." Well, you hand the reporter the cans. You say, "Think of death. You see that needle wobble? You see that little bop there — death. It's very interesting, isn't it? You're thinking about death? Oh, you stopped thinking about death. Now, start thinking about death again. Some-body that's dead, you know."

LRH: Yep. Yep. Set too high. Okay, thank you very much. Stop thinking about death and come up to PT. All right.

And you turn on that theta bop and you show him the theta bop, you know, you say, "Isn't that fascinating?"

Now, what we're interested in here more than anything else — we were interested — was knocking down a tone arm. And it's been my experience however that they very often go up when they come down this suddenly. But you evidently decided to tell me all, didn't you?

And you say now, "This instrument is about a hundred years old. There's nothing new about this instrument. It simply demonstrates that Scientology is factual. Of course this is a refined version. Scientology developed a transis­tor version which is much better — much better version than they've had before. And it's much lighter and much more accurate because every time you turn on the current in the mains why it makes anything connected to the mains go flip! and so on. You don't want that, you just want to read this needle. Now, think about death again," you know. And you get the little hunt there and so forth.

PC: I did. Oh yeah.

You say, "You ever been in an automobile accident?"

LRH: Yeah, you decided to. And that was it. That's — that's very interesting. But you're still thinking about death. What death are you thinking about?

And this fellow says, "Well, I don't know."

PC: Well, I'm — I don't really know. I've got the idea of death more.

You say, "Well, I'll show you something now. Don't you say anything! Don't you say a thing. I don't want you to answer me. We'll just take this meter right here and we'll find out all about it. Now, don't you say a word.

LRH: Got the idea of death. Who is it, death of a child?

"All right, now, have you ever had an automobile accident? Oh, you have, all right, that's good. How many years ago was it? Was it more than ten? Less than ten? More than five? Less than five? Six? Seven? Six. Six. Six years ago, let's see, that's 1953, yeah, 1953. You had an automobile accident in 1953. That's right, I thought so!

PC: No, I don't think so, no, a woman.

"All right, now were you a passenger or were you driving? A passenger? Driving? Passenger! That's very good.

LRH: Death of a woman. PC: Mm-hm.

"Was anybody else hurt in the, well, in the crash and so on? Oh, there was, huh. Well now, was this a relation or a friend? A relation or a friend? A rel — friend. Girlfriend or boyfriend? Girlfriend, well, that's right. Right, girlfriend was hurt.

LRH: Bum show? You had some responsibility in it?

"Now, were you hurt? Oh, you were hurt. All right, now were you hurt in the upper part of your body or the lower part of your body? The lower part. That's good.

PC: Oh, no, not at all.

"Now, was it the right leg? Left leg? Right hip? Left hi — ? Right hip? Right hip! You hit the front seat? Panel? Door? Panel! Panel, you hit the panel with your right hip."

LRH: Well, the thought of having some responsibility in it produced a reaction here. You didn't have any responsibility? What — what death are you responsible for?

By this time this poor reporter, see, he's going ...

PC: Well, I might have been responsible for this death.

You say — the possibility is he hasn't kept still all this time. Somewhere along about the last few questions he'll suddenly say, "You know, that's right. I'd forgotten all about that. And that's right. That was my girlfriend! And that's right — that's right, yeah, I must have hit the pan — I didn't ever real­ize that before — that I must have hit the panel and I came around here and so on and so on and so on ..."

LRH: Hm. Well, let's start this real big, real properly. Is it all right if I run a little scout here on you and look over the situation with an E-Meter?

Then I say, "Well, the reason I'm not pressing this any further now — of course we could do something about this but — you have a pain in the hip now? Oh, you do. Well the reason we're not pressing this any further is we don't want to turn on what we call the somatic any stronger because if I kept calling your attention to it, you see, the somatic would just turn on stronger and stronger, and we don't want to do anything like that to you and so forth, so we just drop the whole thing there.

PC: Yes.

"Now, you know all about E-Meters, Scientology — I'm sure that you find that very, very interesting that somebody can look that deeply into your mind and find out what the score is about something like this."

LRH: All right. Okay. Our goal here has already been pretty well achieved but we find a chronic needle bop and I might as well take this needle bop out of the run. And if I take that out, why, maybe we'll get this other — meter reading turned off more or less permanently.

This guy, by this time his hair is standing on end, you know. I haven't told him anything about Scientology.

Now, I did tell you to think of death.

The other gag is to say, "What question now shouldn't I ask you? Ha! Ha! You know. Yeah, I thought — I thought you were holding something back!"

PC: Yeah.

One reporter came down, I said, "Now, are you going to write a good story or a bad story? Well, it's a good thing you're going to write a good story" He agreed with me, had to now

LRH: Maybe you remember my doing that?

In other words we didn't have much of an interview. All I did was inves­tigate him when he was trying to investigate me. It made an overt act — motivator sequence out of the whole darned thing. They gave him a nice reverse flow of what he was supposed to do.

PC: Yeah.

Whenever I've done that these fellows have yet to simply say, "Well, it's fakery, quackery or nonsense." They know it's not nonsense, just like you know it's not nonsense.

LRH: Didn't fall out. All right. Now, do you know a death of which you're responsible?

But how are you going to stand there and explain everything technically to one of these fellows? You can't explain it all technically to these fellows. They couldn't grasp it in the first place in two minutes. But they can grasp their own experiential track, and they know that you can find out things about them; therefore, you must know something about their mind that they them-selves don't know And as soon as they see something like that happening before their naked eye, they say, "There must be something to Scientology"

PC: Well, I had some responsibility in a person's death because I was one of the group. That's all.

LRH: Mm-hm.

Audience: Mm. Yes.

PC: That's the only one I'm knowing about.

Tremendous numbers of things you can do with an E-Meter.

LRH: That's the one. That one. That cooled it right off.

This lecture, however, doesn't concern E-Meters, it's just a little side note. I want you to simply note the characteristics, now, of people reading on a meter as you run a tough valence process.

PC: Mm-hm.

And the process you're going to run first up — naturally it would be some simple process that wouldn't do anything, because after all you're all a little bit green, you know, at this and you haven't tackled anything this frontally and so on, so we'll take it easy on you. We will simply run the A number one OT valence splitter. That's all. And as the valences fly off and plaster them-selves on the ceiling and so forth — and it's not the one I gave you at the con­gress. Most anybody could run that one, most any auditor could audit that one, one way or the other. Quite an amusing process, that one, because the masses move out and that one if you remember went like this: well basically, "Conceive a difference between yourself and somebody else," "Conceive a similarity between yourself and somebody else." Basic process, run as an alternate question. Auditing command, most favorable auditing command, would be to select out — better a general than a specific terminal, but this one oddly enough will run on a specific terminal. Like you find "Joe." Well, it will run on Joe or something like that. But of course there's other Joes and other terminals in the bank so it runs best actually on a general terminal. An auditing command would be dependent upon your E-Meter assessment of what should be run on the case. And then you'd take that as the terminal in a general form.

LRH: That cooled it right off. When was this?

Now, when we say "general form" we mean a blank, a dog, a cow. You understand? Specific form, we mean "Rover." We'd put Rover in the auditing command, you see that's a specific terminal — "Rover" or "Bessie the cow" or something like that. Do you get the idea? But general form would be "a dog," not "Rover," "a cow," not "Bessie." Get the idea?

PC: Well, about ten years ago.

Now, the specific form pins the person down on the time track — tsk. Well look, this pc is about 76 trillion years old, see, and you're going to clear this pc up by running "Rover." Now the maximum age of a dog is about fourteen years, so the most you'd get off the track if you ran "Rover" would be fourteen years' worth. Isn't that right?

LRH: About ten years ago. Mm-hm. That's right. And do you remember when you felt responsible for that?

Now the maximum age — not maximum, but a pretty long age for a man, is probably about eighty and to run George, you see, would only get eighty years at the absolute outside off the track. And of course the pc didn't know George for eighty years, so when you run a specific terminal you're taking a small interval of time and expecting it to clean up a tremendous long area of case and it won't do it.

PC: When I was laying out the body.

It's good for PT problems. It's good for a fellow who is terribly upsetabout Isabelle. He can't see whether he-why he should live because Isabellehas turned out to be "a woman." And you could — his attention is so thoroughly on Isabelle that you couldn't get it off to run a general terminal. Well,all right, run Isabelle. This valence splitter that I gave at the congress workson Isabelle. It would work on "Isabelle" or "a wife" or "a girl" or whatevercategory Isabelle is, you see. Be better to run on the general form unless he'stotally enmeshed in the PTP and he can't get out of it and you have to run it.So, the auditing command would be, "Tell me a difference between you and Isabelle," "Tell me a similarity between you and Isabelle." Just one after the other, alternate form, meaning one question follows the next question one time each.

LRH: Yeah. Hm. Not until you were ly- laying out the body. You didn't feel responsible for it, but you did then?

General form would be, "Tell me a difference between you and a girl," "Tell me a similarity between you and a girl."

PC: Mm-hm.

Undoubtedly the semantics of this could be much more easily worked out and so forth, and undoubtedly more optimum, but you see exactly what we are getting at. Well, actually as they run this thing you will see a mass, oddly enough, starts to move with relationship to the pc and then eventually move off. Now, that's the whole gen as far as commands are concerned — the one I gave at the congress.

LRH: Hm. Little bop here, hardly amount to anything. What other deaths are you — been responsible for?

And I'll give you one more datum on it, is you have to go back to Scientology 8-80 and look up dichotomies to understand what we're getting at. It comes under the heading of the anatomy of maybe. The anatomy of maybe is two opposed positives, see, it's — now, people say there's such a thing as a negative. Well, maybe they're right. But some — that something is not there is a positive fact, isn't it? And that something is there is a positive fact.

PC: Well, I was a nurse and ...

And when one can't make up his mind whether something is there or is not there he gets something that's maybe there. Right? So the anatomy of maybe falls between the two extremes of a dichotomy, plus and minus, if you want to call it — anything else you want to call it. Nevertheless, there are two positive facts, and those facts are yes and no. Aristotelian logic. In between these two, you get maybe.

LRH: Ahhh. Ahhh. Don't — isn't it true you feel a little bit responsible for all of them?

Now to take all the mystery off a case it is only necessary to run "yes" and "no" and pay no attention to mystery.

PC: When they died, I did, yes. LRH: Yeah, when they died, you did.

You can run mystery and very recently I butchered up a poor pc for your benefit by having this pc run on "Recall a mystery" and the pc got nowhere. We could have gotten the same thing — you could have gotten much better results by running the actual anatomy of maybe which would be as follows: "Recall an existence or a thing that existed" and "Recall something that doesn't exist." See, "Recall something that does exist," "Recall something that doesn't exist." And we'd have run off all the maybes.

That-a-girl, now we're getting down to brass tacks. Was there a case of you injecting the wrong anything or — a little sixth sense tells me here there was a case of you deciding that it wasn't the right medicine and you kept your mouth shut. It wasn't the right treatment and you kept your mouth shut and the person did die.

Now, maybes, aside from being basically a postulate — see, there's a postu­late that an uncertainty exists — stem from unknown location, unknown mass, unknown form, unknown relationship. That's a mystery, that's all a mystery is.

PC: That doesn't come to my mind really. But I did give a patient an overdose of something at one stage but she

And for some reason or other, because the Curiosity, Desire, Enforce, Inhibit Scale — thetans look at an unknown and go tsk. They just love those unknowns for some peculiar reason. They can't get plus and they can't get minus, and they take halfway between and they just snap terminals like mad.

didn't die.

The fact of the matter is anything that holds you in your head is mys­tery. The body and the thetan are the two pieces of bread of a mystery sand­wich. Got the idea? It's mystery that's the peanut butter between those two pieces of bread that keeps them together. That the fellow doesn't know he's a body and doesn't know he's a thetan and doesn't know his relationship to the body, doesn't know the body's relationship to him and doesn't know the own­ership of the body and doesn't know what created him, and so, doesn't know and doesn't know and doesn't know and doesn't know — dunnggg. All the same he'd be in — stuck in flypaper.

LRH: But she almost did. Or — made her sicker.

Which is to say, he cannot make up his mind. He has no power of deci­sion. The power of decision more loftily is the power to postulate. The reason people can't make decisions is because they're too immersed in mystery. They can't say yes and they can't say no.

PC: No, she didn't seem to be aware that she had an overdose.

And there's many a poor girl who while trying to decide whether to say yes or no has lost her reputation. And practically every human being out there on the street that's having a bad time, is walking down the street maybe-ly, maybe-ly walking down the streets. You understand me? He hasn't said yes and he hasn't said no and he's going through some middle ground because he can't say either way.

LRH: So, that — that wasn't part of it, huh?

For instance, he doesn't want his job, he doesn't not want his job and there he is on his job because he can't make up his mind and get out of his job and so on. You walk up to people. Very often you say, "Here's a job." And they don't say, "I'll accept the job," they don't say, "I will not accept the job."

PC: No, I don't — but there were times when I were wishing some of them would die.

I'm talking about aberrated people now Scientologists have gotten out of this some time ago, by the way. It's absolutely fatal for anybody to offer a Scientologist a five-pound note. It is! It's absolutely fatal!

LRH: Ah! Bang! Because that would be more merciful.

Whereas, the general public — you can go around and offer people five-pound notes and they won't take them because they can't decide what's hap­pening. See. And they have to decide what's happening. A Scientologist has evidently, long since — kind of gets this cleared up just in the run practically without being audited. He — a person to accept a five-pound note has to make up his mind to accept a five-pound note, you know. Either that or be totally unconscious and go through some kind of an automatic action of just sticking it in his pocket and later on saying, "What's that?"

PC: Yeah.

Now beyond this postulate that there can be an uncertainty, the anat­omy of life and the universe and all that sort of thing breaks down with the fact that all in-betweens are made up of positive extremes.

LRH: All right. You can stop shaking. All right. It's okay.

See, you've got two opposed positives. You've got a fact versus a fact.

You have wished some of them would die. Is that an overt act?

There's many a man stays married simply because he can't make up his mind whether his wife is a good woman or a bad one. See, he just can't make up his mind. Women know this. They're always saying, "Dear, I have something to tell you, something I have been meaning to confess to you for some time."

PC: Oh, I — I did consider it so sometimes after they had died.

The husband will say, "I knew it. I knew it. Here it comes!"

LRH: Mm-hm. Hm. Okay, we're cooling this thing off. We're changing its pattern a bit and so on. Just — just name some of those. You know, just ...

She says, "I didn't get any coffee for tonight."

PC: I knew them mainly as their case.

Nyaahh.

LRH: Mm-hm.

Men know this too. You'll find particularly very young men absolutely ruin girl's morale with her, "Does he love me? Doesn't he love me?" And they play it hot and they play it cold, you see. They come around and they drop an armload of flowers in their lap and say, "Boy you're — you look terrific, you know, and how wonderful you appear tonight" and so forth, and then don't call up for a week. You know, the girl just zizzzz.

PC: I didn't always know their name.

But understand that's made out of "He's there, he isn't there" see, and those two things — a person can't light on either one of them and so they just, you know, they're just nowhere.

LRH: Well, all right. But just check them off.

Now, you'll find then that all valences are held down in and compressed to the thetan's bosom (I'm sure thetans have bosoms) by an inability to select out the plus and the minus, you see. They can't select out the positives. The facts are not there.

PC: There was a young fellow who had disseminated sclerosis and they proceeded to give him morphina in increasing doses.

"Was mother a good mother or a bad mother?" They never make up their minds.

LRH: Mm-hm.

"Was father a good father or a bad father?" They never make up their minds.

PC: And then he died.

"Have I been a good boy or a bad boy?" They never make up their minds. Get the. idea?

LRH: Yeah.

"Was Roscoe a benefit to my life or a hindrance to my life? I don't know." There's Roscoe. You get the idea?

PC: And there was a woman who died of complications of venereal disease.

Therefore, to strip one of these things off it's only necessary to take the two key certainties. You just lift out the two certainties and the maybes go and the valence flies off. You get the — actually it isn't very difficult. It's so simple that before this week is out you're going to make — have made a lot more out of it. That's right! That's right! You're going to get around and — you're going to get around and say, "Well, it's very much — very complicated. Actually, she said she would be with me a million years ago, and therefore the valence is still there, and that is the only reason it's around, except she actually didn't stay with me, and it was my feeling that she should be there, is why she's there." And big bunches of rationale. Well, go ahead and ration­alize all you please as a pc. That is up to you. But, listen, as an auditor, don't make any flubs on this.

LRH: Yeah.

Once you catch the certainty of certainty — that it's a certainty plus and a certainty minus — and as soon as you catch a certainty plus and a certainty minus and you see if these two things aren't doing something to a valence, for heaven's sakes, realize what you're looking at. And if you see it, all right, I'm glad you see it and that's fine.

PC: And Teppie died of — I never did find out what the trouble was. They just let him die, I think.

I could tell you, "Well, if it isn't true for you, it isn't true." I won't in this case. Boy, if this one isn't true for you, you're stupid.

LRH: Mm-hm.

Now, the basic difficulty that you have with a pc is of course getting the pc to sit still to be processed, and you don't think this is a basic difficulty because all the people you audit are willing to sit still. The largest number of them aren't.

PC: I don't know.

Therefore, entering a case with this process on somebody who is new, strange, different, odd, peculiar, probably would not be advised. I'd say the case had better be run — on the one I'm going to give you now — the case had better be run on something milder, something more interesting, something more personal, something more any way you can think of it.

LRH: You're checking them off. A little bit of charge on these, isn't there, huh?

Now, the valence splitter that does it by difference and similarity is quite interesting to the pc, and that is an interesting thing to run on a pc. So, if you're going to take a new pc, something like that, why, you run him on this kindergarten version. Have you got that?

PC: Mm-hm.

And that's the "Tell me a difference," "Tell me a similarity."

LRH: Just a little bit of charge. Did you feel that your feeling that way about them assisted them to kick off?

You split valences that way and if you split them on somebody like George or your wife Agnes or whatever it is, why, this has good reality to the person. They go ahead and chew on it and it's not the fastest way to get there but it's the most interesting way to get there to the pc and if you don't give him an interesting way to get there — now, hear, hear, you PE Co-audit Instructors and so forth, if you don't give them an interesting way to get there, they don't stay around. You make sure that such things on a new pc, particularly a demonstration type of audit and that sort of thing, you run something interesting. If you do that then they'll start talking to you. If they start talking to you, why, acknowledge them and hear them.

PC: No, I don't think I was helping them to live.

I'm not going to buy any wound-up doll auditing, by the way, in this ACC. I want you people looking good and relaxed when you're auditing. You're all pretty well trained, and anybody at HPA level that can look like a good wound-up doll I'll pat on the back. But I won't pat any of you on the back if you wind up here as a wound-up doll. You understand? No mechanical auditing. I want you interested in that case. I want you interested in that pc, and I want you auditing that pc.

LRH: You didn't help them to live? PC: No.

Now, an interesting process is more valuable than a therapeutic process early in a case, for individual audits, and this is much more important in a co-audit. You get a co-audit going, boy, you better find the most interesting process you can possibly dream up and let them run it. I don't care what it is.

LRH: Well, when did you decide everybody had to live? Do you remember deciding that?

I don't care what this most interesting process is. I don't care whether it runs them upstairs, downstairs or sideways. I don't care whether it increases their graph to amount to anything at all. Your job at that stage of the game is to make it possible for these people to go on and get good processes run, and part of getting good processes run is getting interested in the early proc­esses they are run on! You got it? That make sense to you?

PC: Well, because I didn't like death really.

Audience: Yes.

LRH: Didn't like death?

So, don't you go feeling odd when you — you've been auditing Gracie and Grade's mama has kind of gotten interested in being audited too, and she doesn't know very much about it, but Gracie sort of talks you into giving Mama a few-minute session, you know.

PC: Uh-huh.

Don't you run anything Mama needs run! No sir, you run something Mama would find fascinating, utterly fascinating. I don't care what that would be. It would be something highly introvertive at her reality level. You could be so crude as that — crude as this: You could say, "Mama, what are you interested in?"

LRH: But you don't remember deciding something like that, do you?

"Oh, I'm not interested in very much."

PC: Yeah.

Well, you've had it. I wouldn't even give her a test audit. Because she's just going to flub and flounder and so forth. It will take hours and hours and hours to develop the case, but that would not be the usual case.

LRH: Yeah. When?

And you say to Mama, "Mama, what are you interested in?" And Mama says, "Oh, I love cats."

PC: I can't tell you that, Ron, I don't know. But I've seemed to have had it with me for a while.

You say, "Good! Now, Mama, from where could you communicate to a cat?"

LRH: Mm-hm. Well, we've certainly knocked this needle pattern away from what it was anyway.

The next command, it's going to be right there down the alley, you know, or anything about a cat. You don't care. But if it's too therapeutic about a cat, why, you're going to start running out cats and this might make her unhappy, so let's run cats in.

PC: Yeah.

But anything you do — hang the process on top of the pc's interest and you'll win, because then you're starting the person toward session.

LRH: See what it's doing now?

And the process I'm going to give you now is not necessarily the most interesting process in the world. It is simply the most automatic, and it is one of the processes that a Scientologist ought to have run in any event.

PC: I see.

I say the interesting version of valence processing is the difference — similarity. The one I'm giving you is not really the interesting version at all, it's the therapeutic version. It's therapeutic with an ax. As you will agree it's fantastically effective.

LRH: Now it's checking a little bit of a theta bop, but you notice it's getting a more irregular theta bop. For a while there it was just doing a straight theta bop. That's why I was talking about death just to calm this thing down.

It, however, is for no beginner. If there is somebody here that's never had a case gain, that's been audited for 1,000 hours, we'll put them on some-thing else — or maybe we won't. But the process consists of this. It's a dichotomy — "Think of entering a mind," "Think of not entering a mind." That's the process.

PC: Oh, it was good to look at them. I feel better for looking at them.

Now, it's peculiarly apt for an auditor. You almost might say it's an audi­tor's process. But it's not true that it's designed for an auditor's process or it's designed to get a person's interest in the mind under his own determin­ism. Actually winds up by increasing one's interest in the mind rather than running it out.

LRH: Hm?

What it does basically is strip valences. Now, of course, as you can see from the auditing command it would take in the full track.

PC: I feel better for looking at all these things.

Now, what is the anatomy of it? Of course, it's merely reach and with-draw from the mind, isn't it, in a highly specialized version.

LRH: Oh, yeah. Well, that's swinging around one way or the other.

So, don't be too surprised if the pc starts peeking out of his skull and doing other things, but also don't be too surprised if five commands later he finds out that's not his skull he's peeking out of.

Now you're sitting down here pretty square and if — if you thought of something, though, along this line we might get it to go back up. So, let's see if I can get this thing to go up and then come down again. There's a high possibility that we can.

Now, there's no real variation on this. The basic test process on this was "Recall entering a mind." Of course, it could be — have been stated just as well, possibly even a little more true as "Recall reaching a mind," "Recall not reaching a mind." I'm just giving you its various versions, because if it flops for you somewhere along the line, the pc's got it in his head sideways or something like that and he just can't seem to make headway out of it, there are some other versions of the process, and those versions are "Recall enter­ing a mind," "Recall not entering a mind," as an alternate process. And, of course, if he can't get this idea of entering: "How would you enter a mind?"

What question shouldn't I ask you? That's the one.

"Ah, blah-blah-oo-oo-oo mind, mind, mind ... What do you mean mind?" and so forth. You've got, "Recall reaching a mind" and "Recall not reaching a mind."

PC: You shouldn't ask me about past lives, I've got no really — no reality on them.

Now, you've got some downgraded version of it is "Recall reaching a person," "Recall not reaching a person." Or "Think of reaching a person," "Think of not reaching a person." And of course, what do you have? You have Overt-Withhold Straightwire, don't you?

LRH: Well, is that an overt act against Scientologists?

Audience: Mm-hm.

PC: Yes, it may be.

Mm-hm, in its most fundamental form. "Think of reaching a person," "Think of not reaching a person."

LRH: Did you ever think of it that way?

However, believe it or not, that's too beefy.

PC: Yes, I — I felt that I couldn't discuss this, not really, because I had no reality on it.

Now, I'll tell you what not to run with this process. This fellow says, "Mind? Mind? What do you mean a mind? What is a mind? You mean a Freudian mind or a dog's mind or a Pavlovian mind? What kind of a mind are you talking about? Mind? Mind? I don't mind anybody." That's a CCH case. You understand? No thought they think is going to have any effect on the bank anyhow, so why make them think!

LRH: I see. All right. Good enough. Good enough. That's one of them. All right.

Now, it's necessary — in running a person on a think process — it's neces­sary the person be able to produce some effect on the mind by thinking. See, that includes almost anybody.

Now once more: What question shouldn't I ask you? That's the one.

But you'll find these cases that are real bad off: think-think-think — "That's a machine ... I'm thinking. Isn't that nice, I'm thinking." "What did you think?"

PC: I don't know what it was.

But no thought they think produces any effect on anything. That's the interestingly low-grade case, that is particularly and peculiarly a CCH case.

LRH: All right. There it is. What question shouldn't I ask you?

Now, I said there was a version of this you better not have anything to do with for quite a while. And let's go back to the basic valence process, "Think of a difference," "Think of a similarity."

PC: I don't know of any.

And now what would you think of this process? "Think of a difference between you and a body," "Think of a similarity between you and a body." Anybody falls off their chairs, tell those students to pick them back up again. That's no excuse for not attending this lecture.

LRH: You don't know of a single one?

That, of course, is a direct Theta Clear process. That's a direct and immediate Theta Clear process. But it just tears up bank faster than a thetan can handle it, that's all. Not a good process, you understand. There's all kinds of processes and many of them are very fancy and many of them are very wonderful. And I could practically sit here and chatter processes at you hour by hour by hour, and you'd all agree with me that they were wonderful processes, but they're not. They just sound good.

PC: No.

You can be very reasonable about why they're such good processes, too. Now, if you would just think of that process, boy, that's a bearcat. "Think

LRH: Now you watch this. What question shouldn't I ask you?

of a difference between yourself and a body," "Think of a similarity between

PC: That's all right. I don't know what it is.

yourself and a body."

LRH: Is it about death?

Pretty soon the thetan goes rahhhh-raaahhh. Next thing you know you're pulling in past deaths like mad because he gets outside, exteriorizes without separating any real valences — he starts exteriorizing out of past deaths, gets the exterior stuck point, you know, of looking back at the body, say, "Well, alas, poor Yorick." See?

PC: Nope.

And all you do is run him into all exteriorization stuck points on the track. The next thing you know he's just out of valence all the way up the track. And possibly it would run flat, but nobody has lived that long. It just turns on death all over the place, of course.

LRH: Sex?

Processes which directly run in the direction of exteriorization we know to be bad processes, unless they cancel out their liabilities. And you'd have to run out an awful lot of significance off a case in terms of valences.

PC: No.

How can a fellow possibly exteriorize from Joe Doakes, 1959 A.D., when he first has to exteriorize from a robot, Lord knows what date, eight million years ago.

LRH: Taarrrrp, boom!

Or maybe the guy is stuck in a machine or maybe he's in a spaceship. Maybe he isn't in a body at all; maybe he's in a bedpost. See, and the com­mand just doesn't answer up to the case. That's all.

PC: Ah, that's not fair ...

Now you make sure that a command answers up to a case on this differ­ence and similarity process by doing an assessment, and make sure that this difference and similarity is then immediately addressed to the terminal the person is stuck in. That's why you do an assessment.

LRH: Now I'm not trying to do anything bad here to you. As a matter of fact, trying to help you out.

Well, this other process that I've just given you as an OT process is "Entering a mind" and "not entering a mind," and so forth. "Reaching a mind" and "not reaching a mind" is almost a direct communication process, and it simply assumes minds. But then, what have you been doing for 76 trillion years but assuming minds. It's an unlimited number of things.

PC: As a matter of fact that does — does add up because I — I feel there's probably — if there is any past life I should get a reality on, has something to do with a — a sex crime. I felt ...

And it's the gradient scale. It is what a thetan is stuck in. A thetan is not stuck in a body. A body is — a mind is stuck in a body, and a thetan is stuck in a mind. So we're just — that's right. You blow people out of their heads, don't be surprised if they're not instantly and immediately in wonder­ful condition because you blew them and their mind out at the same time. They're still in the center of their mind. They move out in masses.

LRH: Ah! I see. I see. That's,-well, there's no use asking you if it would be better not to remember that. That would be a stupid question because it's obviously something to do with that.

The old mystics call them "astral bodies." They say "astral walking" and "astral bodies" and they kick out of a — of a human body and find they're in an astral body and so forth. Well, that astral body is nothing more than a series of control masses of one kind or another that are imposed inside of this body and — well, if you know exteriorization you can by one process or another, kick somebody's astral body out of his fleshly body, you see, and then kick the thetan out of the astral body. See? Tsk-tsk.

Do you feel anybody has tried to force past lives on you?

Well, the reason you can't do that smoothly, and the reason it has liabil­ity connected with it and doesn't go smoothly and doesn't do anybody any good to do that, is because he's stuck on a gradient, and all you've handed him is a big bunch of surprises. He wasn't ready for these surprises at all, you see.

PC: Yes, I do.

You better exteriorize him from a series of minds that he is already stuck in. He's stuck in minds, that's what he's stuck in.

LRH: You do. Good. All right, that's my girl now. Who's forced past lives on you? Come on.

Now, if about a third of the way through you decide that you're in a very silly business trying to enter people's minds with Scientology and so forth, well, just keep going a little bit, and you'll find out there was some compul­sive factor involved in this that made it no fun; that once you get that off and you go the rest of the way up, you say, "Aha." With what calmness after that you can say to some poor pc as he's sitting there saying, "Help me! Help me! Help me! I am dying! I am dying! I am dying! My head, it goes round and round and round. And I never know what to do, to do, to do about anything. And it's awful, awful, awful. Bugs all over me, you know." Instead of saying, "Ehhh" or instead of saying, "Oh, I've got to help this poor guy," you say, "All right. All right. Sit down in the chair."

PC: Well, we ran a Rock clearing course after an HPA Course.

And you start processing, and you get interested in what he's doing. You get interested in what he's doing. See, it is quite different than having to process him, you know, because the poor fellow is a victim.

LRH: Right.

There's hardly anybody made up the same mentally as anybody else in terms of significances and relationships, see. They're all made out of the same woof and warp. It's all matter, energy, space, time and thoughts and form. But the interrelationship of these things — the personalities and so forth they've met and their experiential line and all that sort of thing — these things are all different, and they're all quite interesting to me.

PC: And we were all students together.

You'd think that an old seasoned campaigner like me — I don't know how many — actually I basically don't know how many thousands of minds, or tens of thousands of minds, I have looked over or reviewed or something like that. By golly, you'd think after a while — after a while, why, I'd get mighty tired of it, you know. Nah. Nah. Never found two alike yet. They all run on the same common denominators, but brother, what they make out of those common denominators!

LRH: Mm-hm.

This fellow was a girl is a boy is a boy is a girl is a girl is a boy. And he just can't face his mother-in-law. And you say, "Well, this is a perfectly nor­mal thing. Can't face his mother-in-law. Who could face his mother-in-law? According to the standard textbooks, why, you're not supposed to be able to face a mother-in-law, so he's perfectly normal and perfectly human and therefore, nothing much wrong with him."

PC: And I just couldn't get this — any reality on this.

You don't pay too much attention to this and after a while you've gotten noplace with the silly case and you finally come back and you say, "Let's see, what did he tell me?" You look over your notes — I look over my memory — and you just say, "He couldn't face his mother-in-law. I don't know."

LRH: Right.

Take a shot in the dark, and you say, "What's a mother-in-law?" He says, "It's a green lizard, of course!"

PC: And the auditor at the time, I felt was...

"Yeah, ha! What do you know. Ha. A mother-in-law is a green lizard. How big a green lizard?"

LRH: You say, "the auditor." Who?

The guy is perfectly sane in all directions but the one area, you see, where you knew he should be normal on, because nobody really should be able to confront a mother-in-law. He's nuttier than a fruitcake. He's all ready to be sliced for Christmas. And there the whole case fell apart, and he laid it in your lap. When you get real clever about people and real clever about cases and so forth you will realize that ordinarily in the first half-hour of conversa­tion with a case — a hundred hours of processing later, you will realize that in that first half-hour, he took his whole case out, dusted it all off, and just one, two, three, four, laid it right in your lap! Ptock.

PC: It was a student here.

And then you said, "This is normal, and that's usual," and added your own script of evaluation to it and said, "That's it" and didn't pay much fur­ther attention to it and said, "Well, we'll get him over all of this on a sort of a shotgun basis," you know, and you came back and the shotgun basis wasn't working too well — you had to pick up the fire irons and say, "All right now, there's a green lizard that keeps coming up here. What ..." You know, you've asked him, you know. The guy goes into a trance, you know, and you say, "What are you looking at?" you know. You're supposed to do that once in a while, you know.

LRH: Who?

You know, it's a very bad thing to run a preclear and not know what they're doing. Did you know that? You'd better learn that. It's the mark of an awful corny auditor. Running along, doesn't know exactly what the pc is doing, but anyhow, he goes into this funny stare once in a while. You finally say, "Hey! What are you looking at when you go that way?"

PC: Cable Hill was his name ...

He says, "I'm looking at a green lizard."

LRH: All right.

You say, "Oh?"

PC: ... is his name.

He tells you that three or four times, you buy this.

LRH: Right. Okay.

You know, you say, "Good. Cheers. Fine. Fair dinkum."

PC: And I think he — he felt he was onto something and he was trying to get it and I — I did get a bit resentful about it.

And you say, "Now, what does this green lizard mean to you?"

LRH: You did, huh.

"Oh," he says, "it's my mother-in-law, of course." He says, "I told you. I told you the week before last, you know."

PC: Mm-hm.

Cases go wrong on stupid and silly identifications. And when they have these terrifically, fantastic identifications and cross-ups, they're crossed up! And that's what you are looking for. And you sometimes just never quite look at what they're saying is crossed up, and then you just lose Lord knows how much.

LRH: Now what was your overt against him?

Now, you're going to run some case on this sometime or another that's going to identify a mind as God. You'll be running the process this way: You say, "Think of entering a mind."

PC: I tried to blow the course. I really took control of the session a few times.

He thinks, "Going to heaven in the cathedral." You see?

LRH: Mm-hm. Tried to blow session?

You say, "Think of not entering a mind."

PC: Mm-hm.

"Burning and brimstone forever," you see. What they're supposed to think.

LRH: What did you think of him?

By the way, there's some Christian publication around Australia here says that we have a limited grasp on Christianity or something of the sort. We do. We do. It just appeared — day or two ago, a long and involved column about — it said though, that it's well studied — the subject is — the subject is well studied out, but of course it doesn't have the same grasp as Christianity does have of the subject. And I agree with that, too. Boy, they've got a grasp, all claws.

PC: He couldn't control me very well.

I don't mean to get off into — into that sort of a ramification. But got to realize that there's closures — where you suppose there's a similarity, there will be some total identification. And it doesn't make any sense to you, but it makes sense to the pc apparently. Well, that's what you audit.

LRH: Yeah. All right. Are those your overts on that particular line? Do you consider any of those overts?

And you've got to watch these cases when they say, "Well, the mind?" And so this command you've really got to clear, you understand, "Recall entering a mind."

PC: Yes, they were.

"A mind? A mind?"

LRH: Right. Okay. Now what overt have I done to you? What have I done to you here that's bad?

You say, "What's a mind?"

PC: Nothing.

And the fellow says, "A mind? That's — that's God."

LRH: That's right. Nothing you thought of at all? No? He's caused something there.

Why, you'd better run something else. That's right, because you — you can't get the semantics of the thing straight immediately and he's all hung up on the eighth dynamic. So, if you do a reassessment, you can run some simpler process, like, "Think of a difference between you and God" and "Think of a similarity between you and God" or something like this. It's not a bad process, as a matter of fact.

PC: I said I've got a twitch in my foot.

But you found his identification, don't you see, and then you used a sim­pler process, not so beefy, to knock out identification.

LRH: Oh, is that bad?

You've got to be on the ball to audit. That's all. I mean you've got to be quick. You've got to hear what you hear. You can't just go on grinding it like turning out coffee, you know, out of a mill.

PC: No, I feel a bit of a shake, that's all.

And no process you're getting here now can be audited in the absence of judgment. You've got to use some judgment on the darned thing, you know. You've got to audit what you're looking at! You've got to audit the pc!

LRH: Just stop shaking because it's all right. I'll tell you something. I'll let you in on something. You're amongst friends.

Now, we do know the fundamentals of what's wrong with a pc, but once in a blue moon one of these fundamentals will mishmash — and jammed in a pc's mind, you see, they — inseparably and unauditable. You got the idea?

PC: I know.

You don't sit there and argue with him and say, "Well, where did you learn that the mind was God, huh? What are you saying to me," you know. "What are you saying to me?"

LRH: Isn't that true?

You say, "Well, where did you get the idea the mind was God? Oh, what are you saying?" He can't get you. Don't ever try to educate him while you process him. See, process what's wrong with the pc, not what's wrong with his education.

PC: Yeah.

Don't ever educate a pc, just assess the pc, look it over, and try to audit something effective. On a very early case audit something very interesting, and for sure get up to a point of where he starts slipping off valences.

LRH: All right. Now do you think I'm trying to force anything off on you here in any way?

Now, on some cases, you're not going to be able to run "Think of entering a mind," "Think of not entering a mind." It's duck soup to you, 'cause it's — but it's rough! It's rough, but — but easy. You understand?

PC: No.

It's easy to understand, easy to run. You know what we're talking about and even then you could still run on "Think of reaching a mind," "Think of not reaching a mind." You can still run that.

If that just doesn't seem to have anything to do with it, you'd better take that E-Meter which you've just been observing casually in your lap, and you just better run down an assessment and find out what this fellow is so identi­fied with in terms of valences — which is all a valence is, is a total identification — that he can't conceive what you're talking about and can't understand what you're doing and that will come about that you'll have to find out what he's stuck in and then run a valence splitter of similarity and identity on some specific terminal that you find him immediately, directly stuck in. You understand?

PC: Yes, I might be.

So you take a shot at this other one, the broad one, "Think of entering a mind," "Think of not entering a mind." It just — isn't there, then you'd better undercut it and find out by good assessment what that person is stuck in and separate him out of that valence, and then find another valence he's stuck in, by your E-Meter, and get him out of that valence, find out another one. And you just have to take him apart not on a shotgun basis — you'll have to take that pc apart (and there's no dishonor in being taken apart that way), you just have to take him apart valence by valence, mind by mind. Do you get the idea?

LRH: Mm-hm.

And he'll get up to a point sooner or later where "Oh, yes." You know, you're liable to hear something like that. "Oh yes! Yes! Well, I exist." You say, "What's the matter?"

PC: No, I don't think I am, no.

"Ha-ha-ha. It's very funny, my father was a Christian Scientist." You say well, you know, this was fifteen hours of processing ago, you've forgotten all about that. He hasn't. "Well, I was a Christian Scientist. Mind, all is mind, all is infinite mind. Oh, you say, you're talking about mind now. That's why — and the mind is God, so everybody who has a mind is God, and I am just a little subject, and so everybody is ... What do you know! Boy, I've been nuts, you know!"

LRH: Yes, calmest needle anybody ever wanted to see here. Life without a little crime, though, isn't well spiced.

So, you'll get the thing bailed out sooner or later, and you'll get the iden­tifications out of the way.

PC: I have a bit of time yet.

But the basic identifications you're going to try to get out of the way at once are unwanted valences — unwanted, unneeded valences. And remember that at about three-quarters of the way through a run, a pc turns on one God-awful amount of degradation. If he's coming out of a serious valence, run him on through it, because they come up being themselves on the other side.

LRH: Huh?

Okay, we got this one taped?

PC: I've got some time ahead of me yet.

Audience: Mm-hm. Yes.

LRH: All right. You've got a little time ahead of you. This thing about past lives does worry you a little bit, huh?

All right. Thank you.

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: It does worry you a tad. Well have you ever heard me say that if it's true, it's true, and if it isn't true, it isn't true?

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Yeah. Well, are you willing to pick and choose amongst that, hm?

PC: Mm-hm. Oh, yes.

LRH: All right. Okay. I never saw anything sitting more solidly on Clear or a more comfortable needle.

PC: Well, I feel all right, too.

LRH: You feel pretty good too. The shakes died down?

PC: Yeah.

LRH: All right. Is it all right with you if we end this scout?

PC: Yes. Thanks, Ron.

LRH: All right. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Well, there was more luck in that than otherwise.

But at least I hope you can get an impression that you can talk to a pc. All right. Did any of you consider there were any Code breaks involved in that? That I evaluated for the pc in any way or something of that sort? Did you — did you think so?

Female voice: I was too interested to notice.

It's a nice fine division toward keeping the pc in comm and talking and so forth, and evaluating for him. You can ask a pc if such and so is the case. But you watch it. A Code break is what the pc considers is a Code break. Do you hear me?

Audience: Yes.

And auditing is what you can get away with.

Female voice: Yes.

Do you understand that?

Audience: Yes.

And you'll find that there are darned few pcs could you get away with the whole gamut of the Auditor's Code. In fact there aren't any.

But as far as evaluation is concerned, you'll get into your worst trouble in the pc supposing the pc has been evaluated for. And sometimes you can say the most innocent things, and if it's an, you know, borderline sort of evaluation — you know, you say, "Oh" you say, "is that because of that sexual incident in high school?" You know. Code break! Code break! Code break!

"Evaluated for me. He's trying to tell me that this thing is bearing on this incident in high school! It's totally in confidence, and has nothing to do with it. And yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap." You understand?

Well, you can probe for information up to the point where the pc consid­ers it's a Code break. And if the pc considers it's a Code break you'd certainly better take it apart as a Code break.

And TR 5N requires you to find out what you did in the pc's estimation, and what the pc did. See, the pc did something too. And if you let a pc sit there without getting the pc's overts off the ARC break, of course, the ARC break never cleans up. Got that?

Audience: Yes.

All right. Now, as we look this over we didn't have too successful a run on knocking the needle down because that needle came down magically — bang!

Now, who's got a high needle?

You got a high needle?

Female voice: I think I might have, actually.

Well, come on up and let's see if you've got a high needle. Let's see if they run higher in New Zealand.

LRH: Sit down, Grace.

PC: Thank you.

LRH: You're very courageous to do this, you know, because Hubbard has a reputation of finding out all, and so forth.

Yes, she does as a matter of fact have a little bit of a high needle.

How about you squozen those cans once? That-a-girl. That's fine. Your needle is not what you might call a championship high needle. It's just halfway between male and female Clear But she should not be reading halfway between, of course, but this is a dangerously high needle, you understand.

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: Tone arm way up here. Ah, blahhhh! Wooah! You know, pc practically dead. But she's just sitting down here on a little bit of worry mostly because probably she's got some overts against me.

Here.

This charming lady has been treated just a little bit rough — around with appointments and so forth, and it's very nice of her to give a little bit of time on this line.

And here she's busting right on down toward 2.0 too. Must be Hubbard at work.

Okay, is it all right if we run a little bit of a scout here ...

PC: Yes.

LRH: ... and examine this tone arm?

PC: Yes.

LRH: Okay. Now, we can start this out more formally the way an auditor would.

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: Do you think you could talk to me freely about...

PC: Yes.

LRH: ... about your life?

PC: I think so.

LRH: You think so?

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: About your case?

PC: Yes. LRH: Good.

Ah, about your misdemeanors?

PC: Yes.

LRH: Yes. You think you ... She's sitting in a little tiny theta bop. Little tiny theta bop here of one kind or another. I'd say just as a stupid guess that somebody exteriorized you somewhere along the line in auditing or something. Is that right? Just a stupid guess.

PC: Oh, yes, I think I have been exteriorized.

LRH: Yeah!

PC: Mm-hm. Mm-hm.

LRH: All right. You have been exteriorized in auditing.

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: Do you remember when that was? Yes, sir. There it is.

PC: I seem to get the room.

LRH: You seem to get the room, huh?

PC: Yes, where I was.

LRH: Mm-hm.

PC: Ah, yes I think it was the first time that I went on a weekend intensive just shortly after I went into Scientology.

LRH: Oh, that-a-girl. And you didn't have an auditor there, did you?

PC: No. No. It was a group.

LRH: Yeah, a group.

PC: Mm.

LRH: And you blew out of your head?

PC: Well something happened. I hit — I hit grief. I saw a face of a baby that had died.

LRH: Oh, yes.

PC: And I don't know what happened after that.

LRH: Mm-hm, kind of went blank?

PC: Yes, so they took me out of the room.

LRH: They took you out of the room?

PC: Yes.

LRH: Oh, all right.

-PC: And — yes, I remember who the auditor was now that took me out of the room and sorted it out.

LRH: You remember who it was?

PC: Yes, it was a Keith Parker in New Zealand.

LRH: All right. But remember they took you out of the room, didn't they?

PC: Yes, because I'd broken into grief

LRH: Well, that's — was that an exteriorization?

PC: Ah, yes.

LRH: All right.

PC: You didn't mean that sort, though, did you?

LRH: Well, no, I was just — I was just gagging.

PC: Yes.

LRH: I just thought you might have confused the two.

PC: Hm.

LRH: [to audience] Now, you understand why I picked on that, by the way, is because it was just a little tiny theta bop and it was inexplicable and seemed to have been turned on the moment that somebody started to audit her. So, I kind of said, "Well, I don't know, take a wild guess, you know, that's all, just a wild guess, look in the pc's head and see what it is."

[to pc] Very good. Well, that's kind of cleaned that a little bit, but I see you still hanging on to your tone arm reading here.

What do you — anything else you'd like to say about that, Grace?

PC: About that ...

LRH: Yeah.

PC: ... incident?

LRH: Mm-hm.

PC: Well, I'm — I feel I'm aberrated on sex ...

LRH: Mm-hm.

PC: ... and child and ...

LRH: Yeah.

PC: ... losing this baby ...

LRH: Yeah.

PC: ... and responsibility for losing it.

LRH: Yeah.

PC: Melbourne means something to me. Since I've been here rue had a lot of somatics.

LRH: You have, huh?

PC: I was here twenty-one years ago and ...Oh! That's when I exteriorized!

LRH: Oh!

PC: Ah, yes.

LRH: All right.

PC: Yes, that's right!

LRH: All right, what happened?

PC: It was in Melbourne.

LRH: Yeah.

PC: In the hospital out here. I got pneumonia ...

LRH: Yeah?

PC: ... and I — I was ...

LRH: Right.

PC: ... I was exteriorized then.

LRH: Okay.

PC: And then the nurse came along and put oxygen up my nose and, well, I guess I went back into the body.

LRH: No kidding.

PC: Yes.

LRH: Well, all right, very good. And that's that's — that was the end of that bop.

Well, all right. All right. Is it a different Melbourne today?

PC: Yes, it is.

LRH: All right.

PC: Yes.

LRH: All right.

[to audience] And we lost, by the way, the second we got that recovered. This actually is not a very classic demonstration because I'm not dragging - any information out of people. This thing you'll notice now is sitting only a quarter up from female Clear to male. See.

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: It backed off just that much in what little she has told me right up to this time.

[to pc] It's all right if I make side comments?

PC: Oh, yes, it's quite all right.

LRH: See, it's backed off that much, see. It's getting right on down to there. See how it sits?

Audience: Mm-hm.

LRH: Well, good enough. Did you have a rough time seeing me?

PC: When I've seen you it wasn't rough.

LRH: All right.

PC: Waiting for you was.

LRH: Well, waiting for me was. Was that an overt on my part?

PC: Oh, I don't know about that.

LRH: No. All right. Was it an overt anywhere on your part?

PC: I did think, well, it doesn't matter if I don't see Ron after I'd seen you lecture.

LRH: Oh, I see, was that an overt in some fashion?

PC: Don't think so.

LRH: Yeah, all right.

PC: And then I wondered perhaps if you didn't want to see me.

LRH: Yeah. All right.

PC: I have had those thoughts.

LRH: Okay.

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: Well, that's pretty smooth and clean. You can see for yourself it's not diving on any of that.

PC: No, that's good.

LRH: All right. Do you mind if I make a comment?

PC: No. Not at all.

LRH: Most auditors you know, they're riding in mystery, you know.

The reason you don't let a pc watch the meter when you're looking for a time or looking for charge or something like that is the pc starts putting his or her attention on the needle, you see, not on their case. And the needle stops reading. That's all. It stops reading anything. But they're running a contest with the meter. They see the meter going up so they try to think, "Well, I don't know. Should it go up, should it go down?" and so on.

It doesn't do any harm to show a pc what the meter says.

Well, good enough. Now these somatics drop out about Melbourne now?

PC: Oh yes. Yes!

LRH: Well, all right.

PC: Yes.

LRH: Okay.

PC: Yes.

LRH: Good enough. Good enough.

Now what — what question, Grace, what question shouldn't I ask you? That's the one.

PC: When am I going on an ACC.

LRH: Oh, all right.

PC: That's what I thought of

LRH: All right. When are you going on an ACC?

PC: Oh, it depends on my husband.

LRH; I see. Is that a rough one?

PC: Oh, he's here.

LRH: Huh?

PC: He's a rough one sometimes.

LRH: Is he here?

PC: Yes, he's here.

LRH: Yeah, he's here. Let's give him a bad time.

Well now does your husband beat you much?

PC: I don't think ... I'm more liable to beat him.

LRH: Yeah, yeah, that was just a joke. Okay. Now, is that a serious question to you? Why shouldn't I ask you that question?

PC: Oh, I think I could have made more effort to get on an ACC.

LRH: Mm.

PC: Mm.

LRH: Mm-hm. You think you kind of let it coast or something of the sort?

PC: Mm, I did.

LRH: Mm.

PC: Hm. I did put it up as a sort of a goal and then I put it away again, you know.

LRH: Mm.

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: Hm. Well now, what failure in your life would be so marked as to cause you to go on the cycle of deciding it would be very nice and trying to do it and then deciding it didn't matter?

PC: It's just sort of blank.

LRH: Baby?

PC: Oh, yes! Yes! That's right. Boy, you're clever.

LRH: All right.

PC: That's right. Yes. Yes.

LRH: Is that right?

PC: That's right. Uh-huh.

LRH: Been kind of riding along like that?

PC: Mm-hm. Years, oh yes. See, we lost this baby and then we couldn't seem to get a baby ourselves so we adopted a baby.

LRH: Yeah.

PC: And got one little girl, and then we thought about — of adopting another one.

LRH: Mm-hm.

PC: And well, we've still just got the one little girl.

LRH: Mm-hm.

PC: And I have been sort of in the maybes — oh yes, I should; yes, I shouldn't, you know.

LRH: Mm-hm.

PC: And it's been like that for a few years.

LRH: What would you call — do you think that it was your fault that you lost that first baby?

PC: Yes, I do now.

LRH: You do now?

PC: Mm-hm. Yes.

LRH: Anybody tell you it was?

PC: No. No, I found that out in processing.

LRH: How'd you find it out in processing?

PC: Through looking at my overts.

LRH: Yeah.

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: Mm-hm. What do you think about babies?

PC: Well, I think they're nice but then I think they can be a damned nuisance too.

LRH: Yeah.

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: All right.

PC: I've got a sort of a two-sided thing on them.

LRH: Uh-huh. You're rather whumped on the subject then?

PC: - Urn, not entirely but I don't think I'm — I think I'm aberrated.

LRH: You think you're aberrated on it?

PC: Mm.

LRH: You'd feel better if you got this one out of the road, do you think?

PC: Oh, yeah, that would be real nice. LRH: Oh, good. All right. All right.

Now, did you ever know anybody that felt this way about babies beside yourself?

PC: Well, I thought of my sister then ...

LRH: Your sister?

PC: Yeah, much the same sort of case.

LRH: Yeah.

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: Yeah. Well, your sister — she was raised by who?

PC: My mother.

LRH: Yeah, well what about your mother on the subject of babies?

Let's get down to brass tacks here a little bit.

PC: My mother. Well, Mother didn't tell me the facts of life. I mean, I ...

LRH: Didn't?

PC: No.

LRH: No. Is that a — all right.

PC: I was quite a girl in my teens really. I sort of didn't know much about ...

LRH: Mm-hm.

PC: ... that life and sort of got involved, you know.

LRH: Mm-hm.

PC: Unwillingly.

LRH: Mm-hm.

PC: Really.

LRH: All right.

PC: What else do you want to know?

LRH: Didn't tell you the facts of life and you got involved?

PC: Yes, I sort of got involved.

LRH: Yes. All right.

PC: Hm.

LRH: Go on. Was that an overt act against your mother?

PC: Oh, well it could have been.

LRH: It could be?

PC: Yes, it could be, Mum wouldn't really expect me to get involved in any way ....

LRH: Mm-hm. How about ...

PC: ... with sex.

LRH: How about yourself. Was it an overt act against yourself?

PC: I don't know.

LRH: All right. How about the boy involved, if there was one?

PC: Oh, yes, yes.

LRH: It was an overt act against the boy?

PC: Yes.

LRH: You think so.

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: All right. Okay. How do you feel about that?

PC: Oh, I don't mind much now. I've sort of had a look at it.

LRH: Yeah. PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: You still lost a sixteenth of a mark on the tone arm. Okay.

PC: Um.

LRH: Down there another sixteenth, see. Picking these little — little charges off the line and that looks very interesting to me. You — if you'd been informed you would have done a better ...

PC: I would have, but I don't know whether my bank would have.

LRH: Ah. All right.

Now, did you — did you mind mentioning this or my mentioning this to the people?

PC: No. No, I don't mind.

LRH: You've gotten over that, haven't you?

PC: Yes.

LRH: Yes, indeed you have. All right.

Now would you call that a discreditable — that original misadventure, would you have called that a discreditable creation?

PC: Yes, I would have.

LRH: Yes.

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: Yes, yes. And how about the baby that died, would you call that discreditable?

PC: No, I think that was a real failure.

LRH: Hm.

PC: Hm, I can hit grief on that one still.

LRH: Mm-hm, right, right. Does it trace back in any way to the earlier incident?

PC: No, I don't think so. It seems to go back further on the track.

LRH: Where to?

PC: Oh, something to do with a baby in a dustbin or ...

LRH: Hm.

PC: ... or burying a baby, a newborn baby.

LRH: Mm-hm.

PC: Abortion ...

LRH: Mm-hm.

PC: ... either being an abortionist myself ...

LRH: Mm-hm.

PC: ... or — these are all bits I've looked at on the track ...

LRH: Mm-hm.

PC: ... in processing.

LRH: Mm-hm.

PC: Victim actually. Then, there also seems to be one further back than that where there was a tribe of women.

LRH: Mm-hm.

PC: Women ruled and they — they worshipped a stone penis.

LRH: Mm-hm.

PC: And I seem to have something to do with that and go off and get men and use them — make them work and use them in every way we wanted to. I've looked at all these bits and pieces. And I haven't sort of followed anything right through on them.

LRH: Mm-hm.

PC: But there seems to be ... Incidentally when my Rock was scouted out it was a cone.

LRH: Yeah.

PC: Mm. And I don't know whether that's got anything to do with it or not.

LRH: All right. Okay. Well now, looking this over, we asked you a question there: Who would you say that you've known in this lifetime now ...

PC: Mm.

LRH: ... that would have reacted this way toward babies and children and so forth? You know anybody that would have reacted this way?

PC: I immediately think of my sister.

LRH: You think it's your sister?

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: All right. Not your mother?

PC: - Mother would have been like that, I should think.

LRH: Mm-hm.

PC: I've always had a feeling that Mother had to get married. I don't know why.

LRH: Oh, yes.

PC: I don't know whether she did or not. But I've had that feeling she had to get married.

LRH: All right. Okay.

PC: I hope she's not listening.

LRH: Well is there any ... Now, what's that fall on? Mother might be listening.

Yes. There is a nice steep fall. Hm! You withholding something from Mother?

PC: Well I'm withholding my presence at the present time but ...

LRH: Mm-hm.

PC: ... in the way of information?

LRH: Mm-hm.

PC: Not that I know of

LRH: All right. Good enough. Good enough. You think it might be your sister, huh, that feels like that? How about ...

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: How about some other female relative?

PC: I get no woman — no — no relative.

LRH: All right, how about a man?

PC: Well, I've got a cousin who showed me his penis.

LRH: Oh, all right, okay.

PC: When I was a kid. He said, "Well, I've got this."

LRH: There we are, there's a nice fall.

Okay. You know, Freudianwise that would have ruined your life. You realize that?

PC: Yes.

LRH: How do you feel about that now?

PC: Well, that's okay.

LRH: All right.

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: Okay. Now, in just looking around here, is there anything else I shouldn't ask you about?

There's something.

PC: I didn't catch what it was.

LRH: All right. What shouldn't I ask you?

PC: Oh, you shouldn't ask me to audit you.

LRH: All right, that was what it was. Okay.

PC: It was about auditing.

LRH: All right. It was about auditing?

PC: Yes. Yes. Mm-hm.

LRH: All right. Well, is there any other question I shouldn't ask you about auditing? Yes. Come on. What is it?

PC: Oh, well, it's probably got to do with HASI Auckland.

LRH: About what?

PC: About HASI Auckland.

LRH: Oh, yes, well what about auditing HASI Auckland?

PC: Well, I don't know. I just wouldn't like you to question me too much, that's all, about HASI Auckland.

LRH: You just wouldn't, huh?

PC: That's the feeling I got here.

LRH: Yeah, that's what it says here. That's what it says here.

PC: Yes.

LRH: That's fine.

PC: Hm.

LRH: Now, who would that louse up?

PC: Oh, people.

LRH: People. Ah, yes. Oh boy!

[to audience] We're getting a fall here. There was something the pc was unwilling to tell the auditor and that accounts for that last eighth.

[to pc] All right. Now what are you coughing about?

PC: I know what it is. I had twenty-five hours run on "From where could you communicate to a chest" and it was flat and — and — of course since I've come to

Melbourne I've been coughing something dreadful and I got this chest somatic.

LRH: I see. Well, what did you have out here in the hospital?

PC: Pneumonia. Hm. That's right. I sort of knew that, you know. I knew that I was on a much higher level, at least I wasn't going to get pneumonia this time.

LRH: Yeah, all right. Now, I'm not being accusative along the line. I just couldn't ...

PC: Hm.

LRH: ... help but ask you that question.

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: Was that all right?

PC: That was quite all right. Mm-hm.

LRH: All right. And we've got about a thirty-second of a tone to go.

Okay. I don't imagine you're a very difficult pc. I imagine you run very well, don't you?

PC: I have got that reputation.

LRH: Right.

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: Right. But let me ask you once more, what else — what other question shouldn't I ask you?

There it is.

PC: But I didn't grab it, I didn't — didn't see what it was.

LRH: Some question I shouldn't ask you here, it says. Is it still about ... ?

PC: I should think it would be about HASI.

LRH: It is about HASI and so forth.

PC: Hm.

LRH: Ah.

PC: Because I would like you to come.

LRH: Uh-huh. It looks awful cooled off about now.

PC: I guess it is now ...

LRH: Is it or isn't it? Is it or isn't it?

PC: No. I'd be quite prepared to tell you anything.

LRH: Yeah, all right. All right. That's what it says.

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: Okay, all right. You don't feel that you're protecting then numerous people about being revealed in horrible crimes then?

PC: Oh, no, I don't think that.

LRH: No, no. Ah, dear, that upset you that I asked you that question?

PC: It did a little.

LRH: Yeah.

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: Good, now, why did that upset you? Come on.

PC: Hm, oh, just on account of something that was said. But I don't want to talk about it here.

LRH: Yeah, that — that's right. That's what it says.

PC: Ooh!

LRH: Well, somebody say I was a tramp and a bum and should be shot? Is that the…

PC: No.

LRH: ... size of it?

PC: It was just implications about HASI Auckland which I resented very much. And that's about it.

LRH: Is that about it?

PC: Yeah. Yeah, that's it.

LRH: Well, that's awful cruised off here. There doesn't seem to — that's cooling it off some more.

What did you do out of your resentment?

PC: Well, I sort of thought about things myself I just was sort of interiorized into myself about it.

LRH: Hm.

PC: And got into a confusion.

LRH: Mm-hm. Mm-hm.

PC: I struck the maybes.

LRH: Mm-hm.

PC: The still got a lot of little maybes on it.

LRH: Sure?

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: Sure?

PC: Mm-hm, but I'll find out.

LRH: You'll find out.

PC: Yeah, I'll find out.

LRH: Well, who will you find out about?

PC: All the people concerned in it.

LRH: All right. Now, who were the people concerned in it?

PC: Well, there's — there would be the terminals in Auckland.

LRH: Right.

PC: Um.

LRH: And what are they — who are they?

PC: There would be Frank.

LRH: Right.

PC: And Betty.

LRH: Right.

PC: And Steve.

LRH: Right.

PC: And there'd be some here ...

LRH: Right.

PC: ... in HASI here.

LRH: Right.

PC: Um.

LRH: Right.

LRH: Have you been worried that I might find out something about this?

PC: Well, I would like you to find out about it if there's anything there to find out about.

LRH: All right. Okay. Okay.

[to audience] She's sitting on female Clear.

[to pc] Okay, well is it all right with you if we call that scout ended, hm?

PC: Yes, Ron.

LRH: Anything else you'd like to say about this little scout here, hm?

PC: I think it's been wonderful.

LRH: All right, well thank you very much. And it was very — very nice of you to come up here and expose your psyche to view and so forth.

PC: Thank you for helping me.

LRH: Yeah, but I think — I think it's a mighty — mighty clean, well-washed psyche. I think it's in good shape.

PC: I hope so.

LRH: You betcha. Thanks a lot, Grace. PC: Thank you.

LRH: Okay. Step down.Well, that's the extent of our demonstration. Anybody want to ask me any questions about all, this?

Come on, come on, come on, come on, don't be so bashful, would you? Male voice: Ron, can you tell us the value of doing that, the relative importance of doing that to begin the session?

Are you asking so I'll tell them?

Male voice: No, I'm asking ...

You asking because you want to know?

Male voice: Yeah. In other words, you've got a hot process that's running on a pc that ...

You've got a hot process running on a pc, you start monkeying around with the session you ought to be shot.

Now, listen. All right, now — now state your question again Peter.

Male voice: What is the relative worth of doing this before running a ses­sion given that you've got a process, not necessarily that you've run, but it looks like it's — but the pc's, got a — say a 4.0 or 5.0 tone arm?

All right. Let's take a look at this. How much auditing have you had? Female voice: Me?PC: That's about all.

LRH: That's about all?

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: Okay. And do you think you'll find out about this sooner or later?

PC: Oh, sooner or later I will.

LRH: Sooner or later you will.

PC: Yes, I'll understand it.

LRH: Well, is it discreditable of you to try to find out?

PC: Oh no, I think it's real good of me.

LRH: All right.

PC: For me it is. I've got to find out for me.

LRH: All right. You've got to find out for you.

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: That's exactly right.

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: Have you been worried about this?

PC: Yes, very.

LRH: Have you been worried that I might ask you about this?

PC: Yes.

Yeah.

Female voice: About — probably about seventy-five hours of auditing or more.

All right, how much auditing have you had, Betty?

Female voice: Well, I've had a few thousand now.

And where were — these cases reputedly ... One was sitting on 4.0 and the other one was sitting on for sure 3 and a half.

There was something along the line that was restraining the case from going completely into session in each case. I think both — they both could tell you this. See, something, no matter how undefined, something that wasn't quite free or clean or clear with the auditor, you might say or with the audi­tor's behavior or whether or not the case had confidence in the auditor. This had to do a lot with confidence probably or something like this. These are indefinable, practically, items.

All I'm telling you is the technical fact that you could probably audit a case sitting at 5.0 that isn't totally freely discussing things, and isn't totally freely visible to the rest of the world for several thousand hours without reducing it down below 5.0. Do you get me?

Audience: Mm-hm.

Get me?

Isn't that interesting?

Audience: Mm-hm.

Hm? You get the — what I'm talking about?

Now, therefore we were establishing a communication factor. And all I'm trying to show you is that with just establishment of a free communication with the preclear, can establish a Clear reading for the tone arm. And that's the total of this demonstration.

Now, the significance of that will become very visible. If I tell you at the same time that failure to establish two-way communication and free session­ing with the preclear — I have seen a preclear personally run fifteen hundred hours at 5 and a half with no real reduction but occasional fluctuations down to 3.0 and 2.0 and then right back up again because two-way comm was never established with the pc by anybody anywhere. You follow this?

Audience: Yes.

You'll find there's a part of the Auditor's Code says, "stay in two-way comm with the pc," doesn't it, huh?

Audience: Mm-hm.

Well, then, I will tell you directly that running a pc with a high tone arm is a break of the Auditor's Code! You got that?

Now I won't tell that to an HPA, but I'll tell you that: that running a pc with a consistently high tone arm is a break of the Auditor's Code because two-way comm has not been established. Do you follow that?

Audience: Yes.

And you sit there and you say to the pc, "Well, is it all right if we audit you, if I audit you and so forth, and na-thuh-ta-thuh. That's fine. I don't see any — I don't see anything thuh-ta-thuh."

"No, there isn't anything I have to tell you. No, I'm willing to tell you anything." And the pc is sitting at 5.0 or a girl is sitting at 4.0.

It's a break of the Auditor's Code because no session has been established — interested in own case and so forth.

Now, a pc has visible known data which separates the pc from the rest of the human race. And when the pc feels that he or she is separated from the rest of the human race you get a high tone arm. And if that pc feels very separated from the human race, and can't be talked to, can't be talked about, can't freely discuss things with the rest of the human race, they can't be audited.

But an auditor, by establishing two-way comm, as you have seen me do today — and this maybe — to some of you, did this look too clever to be done? Audience: No.

It didn't, did it?

Audience: No.

Looked fairly simple, didn't it?

Audience: Yes.

You see me in there pitching because of what I know about cases, mainly — I mean I just know that cases go this way. I see a theta bop and I know they've blown out of their heads someplace. You get used to that sort of thing.

All it means is that a pc to clear up and become clear by this demonstration — what you saw me doing here has to be clear before they're cleared, doesn't it?

Audience: Yes.

Well, that's right. Well, let's do it folks, let's do it. Simple, huh?

And don't you let me catch you sitting around let — waiting for a process to reduce a tone arm. Not when you've been through this class.

How do you reduce a tone arm?

Audience: Two-way comm.

Establish two-way comm with a pc. That's it. You've learned your lesson. Good night.