Now, the next process I'm going to tell you about is a very, very interesting process, but it's very destructive of havingness, and it is one which is done with considerable caution on the part of the auditor — Route 1-7. Route 1-7: "Have preclear let go and find many places where he is not." Now, the auditing command associated with this is a very simple thing: "Find a place where you are not." And you repeat this command many times until any communication lag developed by the question has been rendered constant.

Okay. Here we have now, Route 1, Step 11. R1-11: "Have preclear be problems and solutions in havingness." And this would, of course, be sequitur in having disabused him of his most favorite idea that two things cannot occupy the same space. Having disabused him of this obvious, known, practical and convincing idea, we would be able to go on to R1-11. Or, having failed utterly to disabuse him of it — you know, having failed utterly in R1-10 — we would go on to R1-11.

Now, you understand that we have the preclear let go because that's the last part of R2-6. You tell him to let go before you tell him to do anything else. Actually, this little point belongs with 6, doesn't it? After you've told him to hold the two back anchor points of the room .. .

Now, you see, you could fail in R1-10 — you could fail — by not running it long enough, by having a preclear who is having a lot of difficulty while exteriorized, by having had this preclear be sloppily audited before. You know, there'd be various reasons. And you've asked him this question: "What things wouldn't you mind occupying your same space?" And, boy, he's vague, and he's this way and that. And after you run it for a little while, he gets unhappy, and then you get it kind of flat. But you're not satisfied with it at all, you could actually just go on to R1-11 — if you weren't getting anyplace with it. Now, that's not to encourage you to change a process just because it isn't getting a result. But I'm just telling you that R1-11 is independent of R1-10.

In groups — tell groups that or anything else — for heaven sakes, always tell them to let go. Because there's some yap who will go on holding on till the end of time — and doing the other process while he's still holding on to the back anchor points of the room. So you tell him to let go and find some places where he's not. And that really is the auditing command which immediately ensues after R1-6, which is "Hold the two back anchor points of the room." So you say to him — the next time that you say anything to him, which is R1-7 — you say, "Let go, and find some places where you're not." Now, this is very destructive of havingness, this process is. And it really shouldn't be run lightly on somebody whose havingness is very badly in question. If this person's havingness is very badly in question, you ought to be right back there at R1-5! You shouldn't be doing this process at all.

Why is it? Well, we're in a basic process again, you see? And do you know that all those basic processes — conceding the fact that the Remedy of Havingness and Spotting Spots are actually very much associated with each other — all those basic processes are workable processes. And here we've simply moved on to two-way communication. And we'll see, back here at the be-ginning, we asked him if he had any present time problems — you know, we got into communication by talking about problems? — well, here, tucked way down here at R1-11, we have a basic process. This is a basic process.

Find some places where he's not. Well, this is a curious thing. It can be run on interiorized people. What you're asking for is certainty. You want people to get points where they're certain they are not. Now, here is the first time in Intensive Procedure that we enter into this thing called certainty, and boy, we enter into it with both feet!

You could have started a process of this character the first time you ever talked to him. You could have started this process if you just had been introduced to him. So it's got to be in R1 someplace, so it's just there. It's not dependent on the one above it or below it. Problems and Solutions in Havingness.

If you let somebody say to you, "Well, I'm not in the room. I'm not in the backyard. I'm not into this. I'm not into that. A lot of places around here where I'm not, you know? Well, I'm not anyplace in the room. What are you talking about? I'm not anyplace around here! That's a silly question," you've got your nerve putting them on Route 1! Because this person would have shown up as an obsessive communication lag, or something of the sort, early in processing with two-way communication. He shouldn't be on Route 1. But let's say by some slip of something or other, you've got him on to Route 1 and you ask him this question: "Now, let go and find some places where you're not." And he says, "I'm everywhere. I'm not everywhere. I'm uh . . ." and yap-yap. "I'm not over there. I'm not over there. I'm not over there. I'm not over there. I'm not over there. Not over there. Not over there. Not over there." You can just count on the fact that you're dealing with a lot of junk. Let's slow this guy down (the way to run this process) — let's slow this guy down to a point where there will be one place in this or some other universe where he's not. Just get one where he's absolutely certain he is not. You see that? We want a place where he's absolutely certain where he's not!

Now, you'll also discover this over here in a later process, won't you? You will discover that this could have followed Opening Procedure by Duplication, hm? And you'll find it again appearing as R2-20, Use of Problems and Solutions — another way to run it. But it's still a very basic process, two-way communication. It's a problem that you're in communication with him at all.

So this fellow who's giving you yap-yap-yap-yap-yap-yap-yap-yapyap-yap! — he isn't certain he's in none of those places. Chances are, he's buttered all over the universe.

So this fellow is exteriorized and we use this form when we have some-body out of his body. You know, he's exteriorized. He's an awareness of awareness unit. He's aware of his differentiation. He is somewhere up close to Clear. He's still associated with energy masses or something of the sort. Well, a thetan is unhappy unless he can have a few problems, and so on.

By the way, the last person who did this to me, on a little bit of a test on the thing, said they were exteriorized ... They were run, by the way, right down to R1-7, and it was at R1-7 the auditor caught him.

And you could ask him, "What kind of a problem can you be in havingness?" — specialized use, see. "What kind of problem could you be in havingness?" It's rather significant, but he'll give you some problems he could be in havingness. "Let me see, I could be a pauper, and I could be this and that." And all of a sudden it will occur to him, sooner or later, as you're asking him that question over and over again, "I could be exteriorized." That's one of the reasons he's not stabilizing outside: he's being a problem in havingness. You know, there's the body, and there he is. He should be in the body; if he's in the body, he has it.

And the auditor came around to me afterwards, and he says, "You know, I don't believe this person is really exteriorized."

Actually, he's having to hide, protect and own bodies in order to be happy in life. Well, that's a problem of havingness. Hiding bodies, hiding objects, hiding gold, burying treasure — that's a problem in havingness, see. Hiding, protecting, owning — these are problems in havingness. So you'd just go on asking him this: "What kind of a problem can you be in havingness?" Well, we've sometimes used this along this line: "What kind of a problem can you be in havingness?" and then "What kind of a problem can you be in not-havingness?" just to shake it up — you know, to give him the idea. He gets havingness as a positive and not-havingness as a negative affair. And this is just to make sure that you're covering all squares.

"Why not?"

So you'd ask him this question. He's exteriorized, and you say, "What kind of a problem can you be in havingness? What's another kind of a problem could you be in havingness?" And you'd run that until its comm lag was pretty flat. And then you would say, "What kind of a problem can you be in not-havingness?" and then "Give me some more problems you could be in not-havingness. Some more problems you could be in not-havingness." And then we could run it a little longer, till that communication lag was flat on that, and then we could ask him, while exteriorized, "What kind of a problem can others be to you in havingness?" And again, "What kind of a problem could others be to you in havingness?" And then we'd say "What kind of a problem can others be to you in not-havingness?" And right away he gets the feeling of the walls pulling the energy out of him as a thetan, you know — parasites, people standing around. "What kind of a problem can others be to you in not-havingness?" brings up immediately the vacuum-cleaner quality of this particular universe. It really pulls the energy out of people.

"Oh, I don't know. It's just queer, but I've run these processes and this person says he can do these processes — she can do these processes all right. But, you know, for some reason or other, I don't think this person is doing these processes."

And we would go on with that till its lag was flat. And then we could go into solutions and say, "What kind of a solution can you be to havingness? What kind of a solution can you be to not-havingness?" In other words, we'd just use those questions.

"Well," I said, "Have you run any 8-C?"

But every time we use a solution, we have reduced his problems, haven't we? You see, a lot of the places on the track where you'll find this individual stuck, it's when he's got attained, suddenly, a solution.

"Well, no. This person didn't have any appreciable communication lag." So I got ahold of this preclear that this auditor had run up to R1-7. And this person would tell you ... Great glibness. They were insulted at the idea of being told that they couldn't find some places. Why, they could do all this sort of thing; "Do all this sort of thing very easily. Kindergarten stuff There's nothing to this! There's nothing to this. There wasn't anything to do this at all!" So you know what I did? I said to the person, I said, "What's your name?" And you know what that person said? Said "Why do you want to know?" And I said, "Well, what's your name?"

What's a basic solution? What is the ultimate solution? The ultimate solution is demonstrated by this proposition: The solution to a problem is the problem. This is demonstrated in Perfect Duplication. The solution to a problem is the problem.

"Well, do you mean my maiden name, married name? What name do you mean?" I said, "Well, what's your name?" And the person said, "Well, you've got my name around here! You know who I am. I mean, we're not strangers or anything. In Certs, you've got my name!" And I said, "What is your name?" I was still asking this person's name one half an hour later, and I had yet to get this person to say, "My name is Smith." (The person's name was not Smith.) How do you like that? In other words, this auditor had made a blunder up there with two-way communication, in that he had never understood communication lag.

If you have a solution to a problem which is the problem — in other words, if you have duplicated the problem perfectly — the problem will cease to exist, and you will have no energy, no mass, no location in space and no time, won't you? In other words, the solution to the problem is the problem. But the second that you did that perfect duplicate, you would have as-ised the problem, which would leave you with nothing. So solutions are the most destructive things to havingness you ever saw in your life.

Now, I'll give you a comparable one. The boys in the HCA course recently made the same blunder. Somebody had been around up there for three, four weeks, and they didn't think he had any communication lag. And do you know that in three or four weeks this person had never answered one question directly that anybody had ever put to him? These HCAs were perfectly willing to let this guy's utterance of sound be an answer.

A fellow gets a real top-flight solution, he'll wind up with nothing, won't he? And that is what people kick about when you talk to them about exteriorization. It is a solution. It is the solution to existence. Naturally. It has no further wavelength, and a fellow actually can exteriorize into no position in time, you see, or location in space. I mean, if he can't place himself somewhere he's in bad shape. But he basically can simply place himself some-where, not being anyplace, you see, and he would be an orientation point.

And to most people the utterance of a sound is a sufficient answer. You know, "What is your name?"

But what a silly thing this is. People fight away from having solutions. Do you know that if you got a Black Five, and you asked him to really solve something — you know, make a perfect duplicate of the problem? — he'd start to get sick at his stomach. You've asked him to look at nothing. Every time you ask one of these fellows who is figure-figure-figure-figure-figure-figure every time you ask one of these fellows to actually get a solution to the problem he's liable to get sick.

"What do you want to know for?" Well, there was no lag there, was there — no silence.

One of the finest things to make a person sick you ever saw in your life is come along, for instance, and point out the solution to a problem. The ultimate solution is nothingness. "Be three feet back of your head"; now he's in perfect condition.

Well, that isn't what you're looking for. You want a direct answer. You want this person to say, "My name is Smith." And this person at no time anywhere along the line had done other than give a completely indirect dodge. And the Instructor finally got this fellow by the tie, and got the students around and said, "Now, I want you people to look and listen here for a moment: 'Now, how many legs are there on the chair you're sitting in?' " The fellow said, "I'm not really sitting in the chair." Yap-yap-yap-yapyap-yap-yap-yap-yap-yap-yap. See? And we were going on at a vast rate, and the auditor kept asking this question and asking this question, and about forty-five minutes later got a straight answer. And all of a sudden, every HCA knew what communication lag was, see. He actually answered the question put to him: "How many legs were there on that chair?" So this person who's saying where he's not — you know, "Well, I'm not there. I'm not there. I'm not there. Not heh-hu-huh da-da-da-da-ta-" — that's a form of lag. And a little bit of a test on this person will demonstrate this person usually will be buttered all over the universe. They'll tell you they're Tone 8s and everything else.

But after a person has gone downscale to a point of where he's very heavily embedded in energy, and so forth, now nothingness becomes very antipathetic for him to look at. So if you start asking him about solutions, you start asking him — just willy-nilly ask him about what solutions he's had in the past ("Now, give me some solutions you have arrived at"), you know he'll get sad?

This person will also tell you they're exteriorized. They'll put a view-point out there someplace, an astral self or something, and tell it to walk someplace, and then they'll say they're exteriorized. A person who's exteriorized is looking from the place he is exteriorized into. See the difference?

You give him some things — "Well, now what problems have you had in life?" — and for a little while, until he gets the bank drained down too much, why, he gets happier and happier and happier, you know. "Oh, my parents were so mean to me. And my father beat me. And my mother beat my father, and they both beat my little brother. And that made me beat my dog. And we all never had anything to eat but chicken and ice cream, and we had no place to sleep but a featherbed. Boy, I've had problems, problems, problems; I'm just about out of my mind." And you say, "Now, what solutions have you had in the past? What are some of your solutions?" The fellow says, "Solutions? Have I ever had a solution for anything? Let's see, solutions? Solutions? (Sigh!) Solutions, yeah. Yes, I had one: I left my family, was a solution. Let's see . . ." You trace back down the track and you'll find out that every solution is a reduction in havingness. You got that?

Well, you'll catch that person simply on communication lag if you know communication lag. But it's the interval of time intervening between the placing of the question and the receiving of the answer to that question — the answer to that question, you understand, no matter what appeared between — the exact answer to that question.

Well, you, you dog, are sitting there asking a preclear to solve his case. Bells ring? He's liable just to sit there and give you more and more and more and more and more problems, and more arduous, and more involved and further down the line, and so forth. Why? Because it'd make him awfully unhappy, he feels. If he is his body, a solution to the body is to have the body disappear utterly.

So we only got to R1-7 with this preclear because the auditor had made a blunder. But he was at R1-7 and he'd started the process and there was no time to lock off this process. It left me with the necessity of discovering some-place in the universe where this preclear, who was obsessively communicating, was not. And we had a picnic. We had a picnic!

You get in religion the fact that a great saint is supposed to be able to dematerialize his body. I don't know what he's dragging a body for or where he's taking it to. But this is supposed to be the stuff. That's just a booby trap on the line, you see. Actually, he himself is no mass.

And we found out that this person was not in Universe 81, because there was no such universe — little did that person know. But this person, who finally got a certainty, slowed down to a completely silent lag. She said, "I think. No. Say, you know ... You know, there's a universe out that way some ... I'm not in it!" Gee. Good news, see. Big news. Big stuff. Wonderful thing had happened here!

Well, a person has to be willing to solve something before he'll exteriorize. That's a little maxim I give you and bequeath to you this afternoon. He has to be willing to attempt a solution before he will exteriorize. And he won't attempt a solution until he has a great number of problems, and until he knows down to the core of his awareness of awareness that he can dream up problems ad infinitum.

And then we found another place, finally, where the person was not. And I worked the person for a relatively short period of time. I actually worked the person less than an hour, and at the end of that hour this person was centralized and knew where he [she] was. And we had killed the communication lag.

So what's the goal of this process? He's a little bit unhappy about being exteriorized. He feels calmer and he feels better, but there's something a little bit queasy about it, unstable about it and so forth. Well, the best thing that you can do to him, really, is show him that he hasn't had his havingness go all to pieces; he can always have something more. Actually, being exteriorized and being free, he can now have far more easily than previously. Well, you just don't tell him that; you run this process and he'll convince himself of it.

Mind you, this person was invertedly exteriorized — that is to say, the person was in the body looking at a thetan out there someplace, saying, "I am over there." Nobody had caught this.

"Now, what problems can you be in havingness?" and on and on and on.

An awful lot of auditing had gone down the drain with this person. The primary error, of course, was flubbing a two-way communication. So, al-though we don't pay as much attention to it today as we used to, here in R1-7 we have certainty entering into the picture with exclamation points. Certainty. This person has got to be certain he is not in that place. And you can hound him and badger him (to the point where you don't break off two-way communication entirely), until you actually do find a place where he's absolutely sure he's not.

What's the limit and goal of the process? He will at first believe that he could get a great many problems. He starts to think and invent them after a while, you see. You didn't tell him to invent them, but he will have to because he's drained the bank flat, which makes him very unhappy. He's got all the problems which are obvious. Now he has to start dreaming them up.

And at that moment, an individual who is using remote viewpoints (a technical term, meaning a thetan who is afraid to look from where he is; he puts a viewpoint over there and looks from that) — a person who is using re-mote viewpoints of one kind or another is capable of seeing from where he is. And occlusion is simply using remote viewpoints and then having the remote viewpoints go blind. See, the fellow puts something over four yards from him and looks with that. He doesn't look from where he is. You see?

You say to him, "Now, what about this business about problems in havingness now — problems in havingness here? How many of these do you think you could dream up?" "Oh, I could dream up quite a few." That's not the answer you're looking for. The answer you're looking for is "I could probably go on forever dreaming up problems in havingness and not-havingness." Got that? "I could probably go on forever." In other words, he has to have some conviction that he can invent an infinity of problems in havingness and not-havingness. He must be able to invent an infinity of it, and know that he can, for him to stay stably exteriorized. You follow me?

By the way, you take a look: "How far is Los Angeles?" — you're spotting spots — and all of a sudden you'll get a picture of Los Angeles in front of his face. He's got a remote viewpoint parked over Los Angeles.

It's a very important process, then, isn't it? But, then, we said that in two-way communication you could just keep asking a fellow "What kind of problems could you be to yourself? What kind of problems could you be to yourself? What kind of problems can you be to yourself? What kind of problems can you be to yourself? Give me some more problems that you could be to yourself. Some more problems you could be to yourself." And then for a little variation, "What problems could others be to you? What problems could others be to you? What problems could others be to you?" At first it'd be a limited number, but quite a few. At first he's hard put for them; he doesn't want to surrender any. And now he starts dreaming some up; he could invent quite a few. Now he can invent an infinity of them. If he can invent an infinity of problems, he can exteriorize.

The only reason he sees with his MEST eyes, by the way, is because he's got two little gold discs, one over each eye, and he's looking with those discs. It's very amusing. He's got it all figured out that when he shuts his eyes, you see, the gold discs won't see. But the gold discs happen to be in front of the eyelids in most cases. He would keep on seeing if he didn't say, "Now my eyes are shut." So he has to turn off his own visio, see, in order to shut his eyes.

Why? Because a solution is zero; the ultimate solution is zero. Recently I discovered the ultimate truth and the ultimate solution. Prove it too. It's right in your Axioms in the printed edition. The ultimate truth and the ultimate solution — they're quite obvious.

Well, these remote viewpoints are buttered all over the place and a per-son, then, when he's asked where he is not, will suddenly tap in onto old remote viewpoints. And these darned old remote viewpoints, they'll give him the idea that he's there.

Therefore, an individual who is short on problems will not exteriorize. He has problems in lieu of objects; he has problems in lieu of havingness. And you'd better have him have an infinity of problems before you go on up-stairs to heavier masses.

So you'll have the guy totally badgered. Everything and everybody — he's there. No matter what he looks at, he's there. See? No matter what he thinks of, he's there. This is obsession; and this gets a fellow twisting and shifting valences.

Okay? Very well. I hope you know how to run that particular process now. You should, because it's right there in two-way communication and it's no different than that.

He walks up to somebody, and this fellow has got a cough, you know? The fellow is going "Cough-cough-cough-cough!" And this fellow with the re-mote viewpoints all over the place and so forth, he probably won't even notice it. But he'll walk away from there, at least for a little while, going, "Coughcough-cough-cough" — something wrong with his throat. See, he's buttered all over the universe; he's got remote viewpoints out there.

You could ask this thetan the same thing that you would ask him in a two-way communication: "What kind of problems could you be to yourself? What kind of problems could you be to yourself?" All kinds of machines will start to show up, and all kinds of problem machines and so forth. That'll stop him from using all this daffy machinery, by the way — all this daffy machinery that he keeps inventing and showing up with and asking you to unmock and so forth. That's all set up there so he can have an infinity of problems. He has problem-making machines, and a problem-making family, and he has a problem-breaking-down car.

Well, you're asking him to recognize his own actual location when you ask him places he's not. In view of the fact that the thetan really isn't any-where, he has to place himself by postulate. You see, "I am here, therefore I can see from here." See, he has to postulate that before he can do it. He has to be able to do that before he is stably exteriorized, and one of the ways of doing this is asking him places where he's not.

Okay. That's all.

He'll look around, finding places where he thinks he is, and he will as-is out of existence lots of these old remote viewpoints.

A curious process. We play it with absolute certainty. We work with the person no matter how long.

Other phenomena turn up with this, by the way. At first he finds spots way, way out, see? And then he finds spots right up close. And then he finds spots a little less further out. And then he finds spots closer. And then he finds spots a little less further out. And then he finds closer spots, and then he finds nearer spots.

For instance, "Give me some places where you're not."

"Well, I'm not in England. I'm not in South Africa. I'm not in China." He'll really be able to get these (not giving you these answers this fast). "I'm — I'm not in Siberia. Huh, I'm not in that chair right there in front of me, you see. I'm not in that other chair right in front of me. I'm not in Washington, DC. I'm not in Los Angeles. I'm not here in the rug. I'm not in New Mexico" — you know, all the time coming in closer and closer, and all of a sudden, why, bang, he's pinpointed. Here he is. And this time his visio will turn on if you'd kept up this process — marvelous process.

But remember, it's destructive of havingness. So remember, when you are running it. For heaven sakes, have him "Mock up some anchor points and pull them in. Mock up some anchor points and pull them in. Mock up some anchor..."

"What do you mean by anchor points?" he'll say.

"Oh, gold balls, or something of the sort. Just some mass. And pull it in on yourself' — not on the body: on a thetan. 'All right. Let's find some more places where you're not. Some more places where you're not. Some more places where you're not. Some more places where you're not. Eight anchor points and pull them in. Eight anchor points and pull them in." You'll have to remedy havingness as you run the process. It isn't mentioned in the Auditor's Handbook. That's why you're being trained as auditors — things I forgot to put in the Handbook. If I'd put everything in the Handbook you wouldn't have to be trained as auditors.

Okay. Actually, getting you to see the light — that there is no glaring light shining in your eyes, but that you are the glaring light of the world — is the real reason we're training you. Well, we'd never mention that to you.

Okay.