How are you? Thank you.

Thank you!

How are you making out, huh? Audience: Okay. Fine. All right. Well, it looks like you are.

Going to have a little talk now about codes. Going to take up the Code of a Scientologist. There are probably several codes that you should know a great deal about. And one of them is the code of chivalry, but you're not practicing that now, so it's purely a philosophic and historical significance - but not the Code of a Scientologist. That certainly isn't of historical significance.

Today we're going to talk about codes. Now, this could also be an answer of what does an auditor do, or how does an auditor bring about results on a preclear. And if we approach codes from this viewpoint, we discover ourselves in an excellent position of understanding. If we do not approach codes from this viewpoint of codes are the answer to how an auditor produces results on the pc and the public, the codes then simply become rules of conduct and relatively meaningless.

How to get along with a preclear is the way you could say the Auditor's Code reads. But how to get along with the public is the subtitle of the Scientologist's Code. And these are two codes on two different dynamics. It's very important that you should recognize that they have the same basic rationale on both dynamics. This is how to get results on a pc - the Scientologist's Code is actually, to a marked degree, how to get results on the public.

Now, these codes have been evolved. In the earliest stages of Dianetics, we find that the Auditor's Code was simply highly theoretical. But still, out of that earliest code, I still like to point out a thing which did not appear in the later codes - and that is courage, an auditor is courageous. This is quite interesting in that the only trouble you'll ever get into is when you lose your nerve. All you have to do is lose your nerve and pull out on the pc, pull back, stop the process, go into a dramatization of elsewhereness on the Reality Scale and you've had it! You've had it right then. You'll pull the preclear right in on top of you.

It's very fascinating that very few people have ever understood that ethics are basically, merely good sense.

So first and foremost, an auditor should be courageous, and that is a salvage from one of the old codes and line-ups from clear back in the early years of this subject.

Kant, I think, wrote a book, didn't he, proving that man had an innate moral sense? Of course I don't trust the man, I don't trust the man. I don't trust him because he said that there were things which transcended things that we could know about. Not having had the opportunity to discuss the matter with him, I never had the opportunity of asking him this one burning question, "If there are things that transcend all the things that we know about, and if we can never know about these things which transcend all the things that we know about, then how is it, Mr. Kant, that you have the cheek and the brass to tell me you know about them?" Unfortunately, we never got in this withering blast.

Now here we have - here we have an example. I could say it's very nice if you would be courageous, and it's the nice thing for you to do. It is the proper thing for you to do and our public repute will suffer, or something of the sort, unless you do this. But as a matter of fact, you're the one who's going to suffer if you don't do this!

Now, codes are usually how to get along in the world. A moral code - you know that morals and ethics are interchangeable now in most dictionaries? Certainly a sign of the times. You take small dictionaries, you look up morals, it says "ethics." And you look up ethics, it says "morals." Believe me, there's a world of difference between a "moral" and an "ethic," a tremendous difference.

We've had a couple of examples in ACCs of an auditor suddenly wanting to be elsewhere while the pc ran into a hot one. And what happened? Those are the only auditors we've had who have been beaten up by pcs. Get the idea? That's it - they pull out.Now, it sort of works like this: The preclear, if he's getting well, if he's recovering, if he's straightening himself out, is going through a large number of dramatizations of things he has done to other people. And of course, they ran, didn't they? They ran. So all you've got to do is flinch and it restimulates, on a pc's part, attack. Quite interesting. So when you pull out on a pc, you invite yourself to be, at the very least, simply talked about badly. This is just a low level of attack, you see?

But let's look at these things, rather than impractically, let's look at them very practically. A moral code is something written up for a bunch of dumb clucks that wouldn't get it otherwise, see? A bunch of squares, you understand? They'd never dig it. So you make it a law. A moral code is a system of shackles by which we restrain man for his own good, without letting him in on what we're restraining him from.

On the other hand, the most dangerous murderer, psychotic murderer that you could possibly find in an institution could undoubtedly be processed by you if you just kept your head and your nerve.

Somebody comes along with a big moral code and - oh, I don't know, writes it down with an electro-pencil while standing on a skyscraper or - I don't know, I'veforgotten. There's some famous moral code, I think, was written in that particular fashion. It was written with a flagpole, or something like that, on a - on a tablet of beryllium or something, or maybe it was - maybe it was a different period.

I recall one auditor had a paranoid schiz - that's what they call somebody, you know, when they don't know what's wrong with him. It's just a dirty word like any other dirty word. It has no technical significance. There's really no such thing as a paranoid schiz. A paranoid schiz would be somebody who had everything against him Dianeticwise - that's paranoid. Schiz - who is split in two pieces. Now, you tell me how everybody can have anything - everything against him and yet be breaking in half. That's pretty good.

But they're always getting written this way. Lightning comes down and traces them out, neon bulbs or something, you know. And then somebody comes down from the mountain, he says, "Hear ye! Hear ye! This is the word. This is the law, and you've had it, you clucks. If you don't toe the mark now and walk the straight and narrow hereinafter, if you're not just grooved totally to this little set of handy rules, God's gonna get you. Now, we hate to let you in on this, but we can't even tell you where God is. As a matter of fact, he lives so far away, that you wouldn't even get there if you could get there."

All right, Mr. Paranoid Schiz leaped off the auditing couch while being audited, drew a large knife from his pocket and looked fixedly, and somewhat hungrily at the auditor. Now, if that auditor had made a move toward the door, that would have been that.

I don't say that has any resemblance to Kant's transcendental logic, but sounds like it though, doesn't it? This thing that you could never reach and that you could never know about is going to get you unless you follow this moral code.

The auditor in this particular case said, "Well, close up the knife now and put it in your pocket and we'll go on with the process" and this dangerous psychotic did. None of these problems - none of these problems, you see, are very difficult if you know the answers.

"Always at night, when clipping your toenails, enclose the big toenail in a small casket and hide it underneath the foot of the bed." Thus spake Waganaga!

So, if it is something of a mystery to you how an auditor gets results with a pc, I invite you to peruse the Auditor's Code with this in view. How do you get results with a pc?

Well, I don't know, I've always thought - this is just a peculiarity with me - but I've always thought that laws which are made to keep man from hurting himself personally, laws which are passed to restrain man from doing himself injury without letting him in on what, were very stupid laws. Or laws which simply seek to protect an individual against himself - to be more technical - were very bad laws.

Now, auditing all by itself is beneficial. It wouldn't matter whether you said, "Gub- gub," instead of an auditing command, you see? It's still beneficial, will still work on a pc. This is demonstrated, always to somebody's astonishment, in a communication course. And the communication course is going along and the auditor - student is saying, "Do fish swim?" and "Do fish swim?" you know, and so forth, going on with fish swimming, and all of a sudden gets a result on the other student. Well, he's very mystified because, obviously, the question of whether or not fish swim was not what was wrong with the person he was processing. No, it's his address to the subject, it's merely his address to the subject, and the repetition of the command and that he is getting an intention through to the other person. This all by itself has enormous value. Now, that's in the mechanics of communication.

I'll give you an example of it. There are certain cities in the world, where if you leave your automobile keys in the lock, the police come along and take the key out and take it to the nearest precinct. Now, you tell me why. That's to keep you from getting your car stolen. But wait a minute! It's your car. It has not been stolen. It is your private property. If you're silly enough to leave the keys in the car so that it can be driven off at any moment, that's your lookout.

Now, if without running a process, you can get results just by being an auditor - just that and no more - then it behooves you to know the best approach to a pc or the best conduct toward a pc, you see, because the modern Auditor's Code is entirely founded on data which has been discovered, noticed, located over the years by many, many auditors. And it has been found to be workable because its tenets are all selected on the basis of what worked and what didn't work. Therefore, the Auditor's Code gives you the answer of why processing works, and amongst other things, why self-auditing has very limited value.

And if such things are not left open to choice by people and by individuals, man never learns anything, never improves anything, never has any power of choice, simply goes downhill and becomes a slave. So after a while, somebody has to make up some kind of a law about it. They say the - like this law, "Thou who leavest thy keys in thou car shalt be forced to come to local precinct to get them and thou shalt pay two quid." Silly, silly!

Self-auditing has very, very limited value, but it does have some value. If you're out in the middle of the desert someplace and you sprain your ankle, you would just be very silly indeed not to sit down and run out the sprain. You understand, that would be silly. But at the same time, trying to make Theta Clear by self-auditing is one of the rummier things that you could try, because you would find yourself wound up in small balls in many directions.

All such laws are unreasonable. So after a while, man becomes unreasonable enough to rebel against unreasonable laws. He might see that there's some sense in this. I know I asked a cop one time - cop, I think, is a polite word for policeman, which is becoming a dirty word in some corners of the world - and I asked a policeman concerning this, and he said, "Well," he said, "you have no right to provide access to your property by a criminal."

The auditor is necessary to auditing. This too should be a part of the Auditor's Code, because many auditors omit it.

And I said, "Well, is it against the law for me to leave a window in my house open?"

Now, we look at the character and beingness of an auditor, we see some danger of an auditor becoming much too cocky, much too overbearing, much too this, much too confident, you know? This could all be frowned on and one oould say; "Well, the thing we should do is shut down the auditor a bit," and so on. Well, that is not the intention of this code.

"Well," he said, "you could say that, you could say that. Yes, yes, it's against the law because you're aiding a felony."

Give you an example of self-confidence. There was a riot down in Dallas, Texas one time at a World's Fair. And the riot had been going on for some time and somebody sent for the Texas Rangers. And after a while, why, a big fellow in his sombrero and a gun on his hip came around to find out about the riot and they looked at him and they said, "But you're just one Ranger!" He said, "Well, there's just one riot."

"Well, is it against the law for me to leave a door unlocked?"

Now, this sort of - this sort of cockiness and confidence is very far from discouraged. It adds up to what is known as altitude, which is another factor that sort of weaves its way around in one of these codes - altitude. It's merely an expression of confidence. Your beingness is excellent - quite certain. You know what you're doing. You're doing what you're doing quite positively. And you'd be amazed how many riots you could take control of just this way.

"Yes, yes, you could say that. You could say that. You're aiding a felony."

Well, that is attitude of mind. That is the number of wins you've had. That's the amount of confidence you have in your own ability and so forth. Well, therefore, it doesn't properly belong as part of a code. But that confidence, that courage - these things are definitely germane to an Auditor's Code in that if an auditor doesn't have these in his beingness, he tends to get very poor results.

How far could we go with this sort of thing, you know? We could get down to the point where you can't leave your shoelaces untied because your shoe might drop off and this might encourage somebody to pick up the shoe that didn't own it and run away with it, so therefore you'd go to jail if you lost a shoe because you would have been an accessory to a crime. You see how nebulous this whole thing gets.

By the way, there's only one thing wrong with the CCHs - CCH 1, 2, 3, 4 - those processes. There's only one thing wrong with them, in that in the hands of an indifferent, imprecise auditor who cannot make his intention reach the Pc, they do not work. That's an interesting thing. We'll sometimes be combing over research results and we'll see that somebody was run on CCH for forty or fifty hours or something like this, and there was no change at all in the preclear's condition. If we go and find the auditor and we review him, we find he is missing in these quantities of certainty, courage, confidence, belief in himself. You see, those are definitely missing.

Well, when it gets so unreasonable nobody can anymore understand any part of it anywhere, it becomes a moral code. Nobody can understand any part of it and somebody is absolutely certain that there's a great deal of sense to it. But he's also certain that nobody will understand it or comply with it unless he's subjected to terrific duress.

Well, if those are missing, we might as well forget about the rest of the Code because we start right back to what I said before, in order to get auditing done we have to have an auditor. And if we don't have somebody with a beingness and certainty there, in the auditing chair, we don't have an auditor and we don't have a session.

They say, "If you are a good boy, this is what you do" or "If you are a good girl, this is what you do." And there's no reason to this. It's just, "You just do it. If you don't do it, I'll knock your silly head off" See, no reason involved, no rationale, no purpose. Now, maybe there still was an inherent purpose in the thing but the code is not given out this way. It's given, "If you don't do it, we shoot you." That's it! That's the way it is. Nobody ever finds out anything about it.

So there's a supposition here, when we go over the Auditor's Code, that there is an auditor. And that would say beinguess, certainty, confidence, personal altitude and so on. These things would go along with this. Given those things, then we can get into the rest of this.

The next thing you know, people stop objecting to have their heads knocked off, you know, they get very hardened. So they have to invent something up in the sky or out in a cave or something that is going to pounce on them. And if they do die in the process of disobeying this code, why, after death something will get them, too. And you've just got to invent all kinds of duresses and punishment it all surrounds - surrounding this one thing: Once upon a time, it made good sense, usually.

You understand that? All right.

But this good sense got departed from further and further and further. And it became less and less complied with and less and less believed in and after a while enforcement became almost impossible. So unusual enforcement comes in, you have moral codes. This is my peculiar way of looking at it.

If we had all those things and if we knew our business, most of the things in the Code would be unnecessary to repeat. Most of these things would be unnecessary to go over. Nevertheless, we keep them here, we keep them alive, we keep them in view because when any one of these nineteen rules of auditing are violated in a session, we get a preclear suffering to some degree from lack of gain.

Ethics is the study, as much as anything else, of the equity of human intercourse. You might say it's how to keep overt-motivator sequences from forming easily. An ethic or an ethical code is not something that is really enforceable. If a person can't see it, don't expect him to follow it. He can't see it, don't expect him to follow it.

Now, the way to keep a preclear from getting gain is just to close your eyes, spot one of these rules blindly. Here's 12: Always reduce every communication lag encountered by continued use of the same question or process. See, I just... If you want to really keep somebody from getting up, just hit the thing with a finger and - at random - and then do it. Not be guided by what the Code says to do, but do the mistake. You see?

Don't make up a whole bunch of laws about not eating pigs. See, "Don't eat pigs, don't eat pigs, it's unholy. Somebody will get you for eating pigs. Eating pigs is sinful," that sort of thing.

In this particular case, fail - every time the pc got a comm lag, you wouldn't reduce it. Every time he started to lag between question and answer - your instructors about half die at the thought of doing this. This would be a pretty awful thing to do.

No, you tell somebody, "Well, pigs occasionally have trichinosis and it's quite poisonous. You get quite sick from it. And if you want the rest of the people to be healthy, why you - don't feed them pigs because you're liable to hurt them one way or the other." That's the sense of the thing. That's it.

A comm lag, you see, is the exact length of time between the question and the exact answer to that question. That is the lag. That's the time from the question to the exact answer to the question. We'll go into this in another lecture.

People say, "Well, what do you know," you know? "You mean pigs have germs and..."

But supposing you said to the pc, "All right, now. Put a thought in that wall."

Well, people would have to learn something, wouldn't they? They'd have to learn about infection, and they'd have to learn about bodies, and they couldn't be ignorant anymore, could they? And if they could read and write and weren't ignorant anymore, why boy, they'd be hell to govern. Particularly by people who can barely read with a small amount of lip movement.

And he says, "Mmm-raaw-woah-mmmm-yhhh-rrrr-mmmm. Oh, seeef rraw-zzz- [http://www/ www.]"

So right away you get into ethics and you get into education, you get into enlightenment and you get into awareness and you get into dangerous realms for people who really can't govern. Actually, if you really could govern, there's no trick to government. But if you've got big anxieties on the subject, you better keep everybody less powerful and more stupid. Get the idea?

You said, "Well, that's fine. That's fine. I see you don't - you don't seem to be able to do that easily. Let's get - let's get the light shade there to put a thought into the wall."

So ethics is not a direction you will find many societies taking because ethics is in the direction of more awareness.

And he'd say, "Oh, hum-mmm-rrrrr-wrr-dowrr."

Now, I told you there were two directions you could go in processing - not in processing but in handling minds. You could make them less and less aware and more and more automatic and more and more spun in and less and less capable and so forth, or you could make them more and more aware, more and more alert, more and more understanding, more and more capable, you know, more knowingness.

And you'd say, "Well, don't seem to be winning with that either. I think the best thing you can do is spot your right foot."

Well, if you go in the direction of ethics, you get into more knowingness, see, more capability, more understanding. And if you go into morals, you go into more conditioning and less understanding and more unconsciousness, don't you see?

Well, there are other ways to get murdered more pleasantly, let me tell you. It's not that he would do anything desperate to you but you certainly would not have accomplished anything in auditing.

"Why do you dance that dance around that tree?" "Well, I - that's good luck."

So you could reverse this Code and do the reverse, and you would be absolutely certain to produce - probably the only way you actually could produce a tremendous decline in intelligence, mentality and personality would -simply turn this Code upside down.

That's great stuff - luck. I can show you how to change somebody's luck. You don't have to dance around a tree to change somebody's luck though. But people will tell you this, little kids particularly when they're pretty fogged up and so forth, when they're just coming out of it, you know? Little kids are in a tough spot. They just died a short time ago and it takes them a little while to get over it. And they'll go by a certain tree and stick a pin in it.

Oddly enough, the processes of Dianetics and Scientology, and Dianetics and Scientology auditing, are the only things that can run a pc down. A pc is much harder to run down than to run up. It's very easy to run a pc up scale. It's very hard to run him down scale but if you reverse this Code, you'd manage it.

You say, "What're you doing that for?"

Now, here and there, tremendous data has accumulated around this Code. Here and there somebody who had a very difficult time in auditing has been carefully interviewed and gone over and put on a meter and spotted exactly what was wrong with the session - that was the most wrong with this session. And then that has become a clause in the Auditor's Code. They're the isolated - carefully isolated things that happen that depress a pc in session.

"Well, when I do that, that brings me good luck if the pin stays in all day, you know?"

Well, let's start at the beginning - the Auditor's Code. And the first one is: Do not evaluate for the preclear.

You'll see them going down the street and there are squares in the sidewalk and if they touch any of the lines that's bad luck, and if they miss all the lines that's good luck and so forth.

What do you mean, "evaluation"?

All these things go back to some unconscious, reactive practice that had something to do with something at some time or another. It's almost impossible to trace where these things come from. But you could probably follow it through on an E-Meter.

It's very funny that some Scientologist who for some time has been the director, pardon me, the head of testing or the Director of Processing or the Registrar in a Central Organization, has had to sit there for a long time, person after person after person, week in and week out, and tell them what their tests mean. Now, this is all right for the public, you see?

You'll probably find the exact rationale that disappeared from view.

A person comes in and they say, "What's this little curlicue down at the bottom here? Lllldah-da-daz-daz. Says 'unstable.' What's that mean?"

So when anybody - if anybody ever does try to foist off a code of morals on you, you know what to do with them. I leave it up to your imagination what to do with them.

"Well, I'll tell you. What that means is that perhaps your 'stability' could be improved somewhat."

The only thing you want to have anything to do with in any kind of learning, much less codes: If it's true for you, it's true; and if it's not true for you, it's not true. You understand? That's - it's as simple as that.

"Oh, what do you mean, 'stability'?"

If, after inspection, and if after your awareness has been invited along a certain direction, you do not find what is supposed to be found in that direction, you cannot observe it, there is no reality to be had on it - that's it. There's no reality to be had on it and you can't observe it and that's it! You understand? And that is the only test of true knowledge - if you want to call this true knowledge. It's the only test of true knowledge.

"Well, evenness of your ways. You're evidently not very even." See, we're off on our evaluation, You get that?

Truth is what is true for you.

Well, this person gets over into an auditing chair - I've actually seen this happen several times! you see. Somebody's been on - every once in a while a public gets upset because posts change in an organization. They say, "One day there's this person on, then I write a letter and the next day there's that person on and what's going on around here?" It's the fact that Central Organization favored positions are the technical positions.

Now, you get some poor devil down in the local spinbin, and every night ghosts and demons and devils and dark things dive on him. And they're all built in the shape of dive bombers or something of the sort. And they come whizzing and screaming and passing in and out of his head and tearing his nose off and carrying it away and slicing it up into small onions and putting it in a stew. I'm afraid that's real to him. It's on the Reality Scale - dub-in. But that is real to him because that which caused it could not be faced by him.

And people who are over into administration very often - very often want to be over in technical. And sometimes, people get a little bit tired in technical and they want to be over in administration. And then organizations expand and contract in size. And everybody's kind of wearing all the hats in spite of the fact that we have very precise hats. And we get mishmashes because people in these Central Organizations or in Scientology are practically the only people who can keep up with it. It's a very funny thing.

So whenever you find yourself into a whole mass of substitutes of one kind or another for anything resembling truth, look a little bit higher up scale and see if you can find if there's something here which isn't being confronted or experienced. It's just an awful lot of substitutes and it's an awful lot of this and it's an awful lot of that and there's a lot of shilly-shally and there's terrific contradictions of one kind or another and it's all just messed up. Well, you just can't look at that much substitute and see anything but substitute. Well, let's just look just a little higher on the scale and see if there isn't something curtained or made invisible that somebody is trying to escape from into that much nonsense.

We just had an example of interviewing I don't know how many accountants. Some vast number of accountants have stood in a queue being interviewed to take over the Accounting Department and - which right now is almost totally unmanned except for a Scientologist doing a little bit of work on it at night, keep it current. And each one of these people, as is our custom, has been tested. And after the person doing the hiring was all through, this person found there was just one profile that showed a personality that we would care to have in the place. And it turned out to be a

When you can do that, you have the exact mechanism of obnosis. To observe the obvious, it is necessary that you be able to confront the real. And when you start falling away into, "Well, this is the way it is because Ron said so," or "This is the way it is because I read it in a book. And this is the next thing we do." We get into something like the old, old, old story of the great teacher who taught a neophyte.

Scientologist who hadn't announced himself.

And before each lesson, the great teacher tied his cat to the edge of the bed - the bedpost - and then sat down on the bed to teach the neophyte some of the secrets of life - spiritualism, in this particular case. So the years went on and one day the neophyte, now become a master, got ahold of a student to teach the student all the secrets of spiritualism.

Now, you get over into administration, you have to handle the public. Don't you see? They come in and they say, "I have terrible pains in my head. What is that?"

Now, he says, "The first thing you do is tie a cat to the post of the bed." He knew all the motions without understanding anything that had gone on, right?

All right, that has nothing to do with the Auditor's Code. That's a casual conversation you're embarked upon. You can tell him anything you want to. Not your pc.

If you look at codes of behavior, which are reasonless, which appear to you to be totally irrational, then you can just count on it, there's something being avoided. It's a very odd thing but the nonsense, the weirdities that have been conceived on the second dynamic by very many religions - I'm not speaking now of Christianity, I'm speaking of almost any religion that's deep in the cave or up the pole - they all pick on the second dynamic for their randomity.

"Pains in your head? Well, I'll tell you, did you ever have a fear of knitting needles?" Fellow says, "Yes."

The reason for that is the second dynamic is creativeness. Creativeness to them is totally other-determined. So they invent a god, they say he created everything and they can't permit man ever to feel or think that he ever created anything, so they attack the second dynamic.

"Well," you say, "There you have it. There you have it. Get the idea of a knitting needle sticking half in this side and out that side. Got that? Got that? Well, that's it!"

And you'll find these boys going up and down the land. Oh, the Manichaeans - that's a religious order, it was part Christian - ah, oh and many, many, many, many, many of these - Indian cults. There are various practices of sexual interest that have been practiced in the religions of Africa and so on. Most of them forbidding -forbidding the second dynamic to occur. You see, forbidding any part of creativeness to occur on man's behalf It's very funny.

Person says, "No, that isn't it."

The person who started it, I understand in the Christian faith, by the way, was a eunuch. And he had been -when he came over to Rome, he was death on the whole subject of sex and so forth. Well, he'd been pretty badly mauled on the subject. He couldn't confront sex. And one of the first things he started to do was talk about sex this and talk about sex that and you must and you mustn't do this and you mustn't do that and so forth. And then, just this great big pyramid of nonsense grew up out of the fact that he couldn't confront sex. And when you put it that way it - you feel sorry for the guy, you know?

You say, "Well, that's just your hard luck." And you say - you're telling him, "That's what the pain in the head is." See? It's this or it's that. This is how you are so depressed on this stability factor here, this is why you're so low on the line.

But when you figure out how many young girls and young men and civilizations the thing has attacked and made worm-eaten, it doesn't appear to be so innocent a crime, does it?

You can tell him, "Well, you had a hard childhood, didn't you? I can see it right here in my crystal - I mean, my OCA." Get the idea?

Now, no code has any validity to you which is beyond your reason. That's it.

"Is it true that you hate women?"

And, the Reality Scale I gave you the other day has another older and more basic parallel scale which can be stated very interestingly. And the top of that scale is a postulate. This, by the way, is the "R" Scale in terms of the broadest look. At the top of the thing is a postulate. That's not the total top, the total top is "no postulate necessary." But, as far as man can see, the reality is a postulate.

"What do you mean? I don't necessarily hate women."

Then it becomes a consideration. Consideration, meaning an enduring or continuing postulate. That's all a consideration is. It's a postulate that continues or endures.

"Well, I don't know. It says here that you haven't very much empathy and so forth and... How about it? Do you hate women?"

These are technical data I'm giving you, by the way.

"Uh, well, I don't know." "Well, I think you do."

Now, when we say, "That's his consideration," we don't mean a hit-and-run consideration in Scientology. We mean that is his enduring opinion. And earlier I was talking to you about confusion and the stable data. Well, these stable data that people get hanged with - whether or not they are actual or not actual, they're still hanged with them - those are considerations. They have a certain consideration which means a continuing postulate.

Totally not allowed in an auditing session. Don't you see?

All right, we look down the line a little bit further and we find this continuing postulate gets agreed with. And we have an agreement.

Auditors sometimes, when they've been doing tremendous quantities of auditing, forget to shift their hats the other way. Now, here you had an example of people who have been a Registrar or something like that won't evalu.... they keep on evaluating for a PC. Then they get into session and they kind of tend to - all of a sudden, why the D of P, after they've been a staff auditor for a little while, you know, he's got them down on the carpet. And he says, "You know - you know those explanations - those explanations you were giving the pc for the engram I found very, very interesting. But you're wondering why the pc was trying to blow during the session. Well, that was why. You were telling him what his engram was all about, and it's up to him."

All right now, no terminal necessary, no postulate necessary - that was the top of this thing. And as we went down, we found out that reality was a postulate. And we go down a little bit lower - what is reality? It's a consideration. Go down a little bit lower, it's an agreed-upon consideration. And we're getting into the solidity of agreement. And if we want to form a reality with somebody, we have to get agreement. Agreement is the by-word of reality.

Well, the person says, "Oh, yeah, well, I'll get my hats straightened out, here, and one way or the other."

And we go down a little bit further along the line and we find that the agreement becomes solid. And we get something like the physical universe. That wall is solid because we agree that it is solid. And it's a postulate that maybe is agreed with or native to or caused by each and every one of us but it's still solid. And we're into solid terminals, and there's where solid terminals belong on this scale as we go on down. And as we move a little bit further south - further south, in Scientology, means worse off - "amongst the auks and penguins" is a colloquialism that goes along with that - the individual, from solid terminals, passes into lines.

Well, reversely an auditor can come out of session, go down and meet Joe and run right straight on through the line working with the Auditor's Code. But no, no - he's having dinner with a friend, don't you see? And he's bound by the Auditor's Code. Oh, no, he isn't bound by the Auditor's Code. The Auditor's Code applies to a session and that's it. Got the idea?

Now, the line exists, but the terminal ceases to exist. And even though terminals were at both ends of the line, the terminals are invisible. So, you get an invisibility of the solid terminal, but the solidity of a line. And then the line winks out. And the - below that - there might be all sorts of things above this point, but as far as the individual can view, there is no communication line amongst terminals. Above that, no terminals - nothing's really solid. Above that, 'Agreements? Agreements- smeements, what are these?"

So he finds Joe is going on and on and saying, "Well, I don't know what I'm going to do. I don't know whether I ought to stick around or not because it just seems so fruitless - keep on arguing all the time."

Writing a contract with such a person is an adventure indeed because he is incapable of an agreement. You wonder why people break contracts all the time. Well, contracts are based on an agreement. In the absence of agreement, you can't have a contract, that's it. People are not up to agreement, they can't have contracts. All other kinds of agreement - they can't agree with anything anyplace at any time.

And this auditor is perfectly at liberty to say, "Well, I think it's just because you've got a nasty temper. I think that's - you keep flying into people's faces and so forth. And that's why they're mad at you and if you just learn to cool your temper down a little bit, why, you'll get along."

And we go up a little bit further up the line, we find out - this consideration, and above that, "Consideration?" The person hasn't any idea that anybody else has any considerations about anything. "What? People think? People think? Ah, that's not possible. I think? Oh no, my brain tells me things; I don't think."

Boy, he couldn't do that in a session, don't you see? But he sure could do it in social intercourse because in the social world conversation is almost totally evaluation, see? But not in a session.

And up a little bit higher than that, "Postulate! What are you talking about postulates? What is this thing called a postulate?"

All you have to do is explain the pc's aberration to him, or explain the nature of his mother, or explain to him the factors which are involved in his case, and how these things have mounted up in his life, and tell him what they mean, and he's had it. And you've had it too. That's all - that's all you've got to do and that's it. This boy is not in-session, he's not going to get any gains, he's not going anywhere. It's something to remember.

"Well, it's a thought. A person says it, he generates it, he creates it and it's a statement, a condition that he has announced or somethitig of the sort."

Any part of this Code is something to remember. You ought to know it by heart.

"Oh, people don't do that. Oh no! Don't kid us." You get the idea?

Now, in handling a preclear, then, his case is his case. And his case is what he says it is, not what you say it is. Nothing like evaluation could be done while you're running an engram. It's just unthinkable to evaluate for somebody while he's halfway through an engram. Wow! Oh, boy! He's mired way down, he's in physical pain, he feels a great deal of duress, he's already snorty and out of ARC with the environment of the engram, which tends to make him out of ARC with the environment of the auditing session. And then you say to him, "You know, I think that last part you ran was dub-in." That's it! He's had it! Get the idea?

See how this Reality Scale would look from the bottom? There's just nothing nowhere!

The funny part of this thing-this goes even further than this. If you tell him what the engram is all about or something like this, why, it just caves him in terrifically.

Now, as a person goes up scale in processing, you'll find it takes him quite a while to get to a point where he starts undoing postulates. He can't yet make them, but he can run into them and erase them. They turn up in engrams and things like that. But they'll run the longest time without any engram. And then he'll run - see, on the Reality Scale properly, it goes down below this into invisibility, blackness and substitutes. That lies below the scale I just gave, you see? This is the older scale.

Now, you will see, just from this, why older psychotherapy practices failed so terribly. They were always explaining to people what their aberration was. Look at- look at psychoanalysis, huh. "Now, the reason why-the reason why you don't feel so well, Mr. Jones, is because you had that altercation with your sister when she was four. Yes, that's why. I've got that settled in my mind now. You're well now. That's it."

And these - this individual, he doesn't have any pictures, you know? He doesn't have any pictures. And all of a sudden a terminal shows up and he goes, "Yeah, da-da, da-da, da-da, whatsa-da whatsa, mmm mmm mmm. Or sometimes he says, "What is this long line going off into space?" And then gets up to solid picture, you know?

Well, of course the basic evaluation of "You were sick" or "You were well," these things cannot be practiced in an auditing session. But remember they are perfectly admissible outside of an auditing session if the person isn't your Pc. This doesn't bind a Scientologist up across his whole social activity. When it does, he finds himself rather uncomfortable.

And he comes all the way up through these agreements and he comes up through considerations and so forth and then after a while he finds a postulate on this whole thing. He's practically got the thing licked and the postulates turn up. Got the idea?

Just out of plain viciousness sometimes, somebody walks in, says, "I have a terrible headache what's wrong with me?" I look at him piercingly and tell hirn. They're not my pc.

This is how a person goes up scale and down scale. Well, don't look for Anybody on moral codes or anything like that to be above the invisibility line. I mean if it's morals, if it's duress by strange superstitions and so forth, it's just the people are in a state of "from there on down" at the bottom of this old Reality Scale. Of course, we've added in the new Reality Scale. You see what we have added there. We've gone south from invisibility to blackness to dub-in or substitutes. See? And that finishes out your Reality Scale.

Now, sometimes this might cross your mind - you say the process that you select to run on the pc is an evaluation. You decided what was wrong with him and you ran this process on him. That does not classily to the pc as evaluation. Philosophically it could be classified as evaluation, but from what viewpoint?

Now, as the individual - as the individual can't see anything and he can't feel anything and he can't think, obviously, the best thing to do is to give him everything by duress. No, it isn't at all. It's to bring him up to a point where he can be ethical. Where he can see the reasons for things, where his agreements in life will carry on well without a great many rules of conduct.

So, let's get just a little bit further on this - the whole Code - and let's find out something about it. It's from a specific viewpoint, which is to say, the pc's viewpoint. Now, if the pc says you're evaluating, I'm afraid you are. Got it? If he thinks what you just did or said is evaluation, that's fine.

He's agreed upon this and he's agreed upon that. Now we don't need tremendous restraints. Well, I don't care how many rules of conduct you have but just - you don't need tremendous numbers of restraints. Why don't you need restraints? Well, people are communicating. If people agree that they are not going to spit in each other's faces, they don't spit in each other's faces, that's it, see? That's enough. That's enough. Why don't you spit in each other's faces? Well, the answer "Because it's impolite" is just as good as any other answer because it's simply a consideration.

But he will sit there just as happy as a clam while you choose homosexuality as the center action of your process. And what are you doing, actually? You're saying, "This is what I think is wrong with you, son," see, and you're processing directly right straight down the groove at homosexuality. And he sits there, perfectly happy. So it's not evaluation, is it? Because the pc doesn't say it is. He doesn't think it is, he doesn't say it is.

We go down scale further below communication lines again, and we'll get explanations of germs, but that's still perfectly reasonable. That's practically behind - Oh, I don't know - half of the moral codes in the world are germs. That's right!

Just like an engram is what the pc runs, not what the auditor tells him it is. Similarly, that is an Auditor Code break which is viewed as a Code break by the pc.

That's right! You look them over and you'll find out that it's prevention of illness and that sort of thing and-long lost sight of and they don't know what's the beginning of all this.

Very often in session when I'm processing somebody - I'm in a terrific hurry, something like that, I evaluate for them, I invalidate them, I push their buttons. It's not from their viewpoint. Now, that may seem - sound very strange, and I don't recommend it until you're a real old hand at this.

So we're only interested in the fellow who can keep an agreement when we're interested in such a thing as the Code of a Scientologist. Now, only that person can properly reach the public. And you might say - you might say that in order to communicate with the public, it is necessary for you to follow something like the Code of a Scientologist.

But I've had a person going on and on and on and on and saying, "You've just got to process my mother because I know that's my mother - it's - no, no it's my mother - that's wrong with me-and my mother, my father They were both Presbyterians and that could - and that's wrong - and that's what you've got to process

Now, this code wasn't as carefully built empirically, but it's just as workable. And it's an odd thing that where this code has failed, consistently and continually, we have a person who has failed consistently and continually.

"Shut up," I have said.

One of the surest things they say in Scientology - and this has nothing much to do with anything but just the lecture, it's not any moral lesson in disguise. People who go around chopping up Scientology, while trying to do something in Scientology - chopping up the people in Scientology and chopping up their fellow Scientologists and spreading rumors one way or the other - don't look in their bank account because you won't find any reality there, it'll just be invisible.

First, I've said, "Good," you know. "You - thank you, yeah, that's fine."

The surest way in the world - we can always tell who is going to fail. They go around, chop, chop, chop, chop, chop, chop one way or the other. Well, it's not communication. Let's forget whether or not it hurts people or whether or not it influences other people and so on.

"And I know this is it... and so on, so on, and yabba-yabba-ya. And I've got it all figured out and this is what we got..."

The only time I ever get interested in people saying bad things about me is because it - to some degree, it hurts you. It upsets communication lines and so forth. Such people think they can really hurt you by saying something about you and so forth, you must be in a fine state of overt act-motivator sequence, don't you see? They can't hurt you, they can simply turn your communication lines a bit.

"Shut up."

In the absence of what we used to call theta communication, as opposed to entheta communication, you'll find that apparently entheta communication has tremendous power, force and lots of speed and zip. But if you look around, you'll find only theta communications are amongst us.

"Huhh!"

There's another word that we should note in passing, is this thing entheta. It means "enturbulated theta," if you can imagine such a thing. This is an old, old saw. This is a confused thetan - enturbulated theta. They call a theta communication one which is upscale above 2.0. And those things go, even though they're - apparently have no power whatsoever. Only the upper scale theta communication, the good ARC communication has power. The enturbulation of it requires that the theta communication had to exist first.

"Now, shall we get down to business?" "Well, all right, if you say so."

So you'll find people around chopping at maybe your good repute. Well, why chop at theirs? They're wiping themselves out. There is no natural law by which an individual who wipes somebody else will himself get wiped out. No, no, that's no natural law.

You know - you know my favorite definition of auditing is: Auditing is what you can get away with.

Guy can't communicate - why worry about him? He doesn't reach anything. You say, "Well, other people at that same level of communication listen to him." Well, let him have them.

Every once in a while some old-timer will come around to me real starry-eyed, and he'll say, "Say, you remember that process - that Concept Process that you ran once on so-and-so and so-and-so on a demonstration? You remember that process? And then you said afterwards that it was no good because it reduced havingness. Well, you know, you know, I ran that the other day for five hours on somebody and it produced terrific results and it didn't reduce havingness at all."

He doesn't reach - the people that are listening to him don't know what he's talking about. They haven't enough power of reality. They haven't enough ability to observe reality to know what they're hearing one way or the other.

I always tell them, "Auditing is what you can get away with." It's true! He got away with it. That doesn't mean it's true. You get the idea?

Oh, you get a mad swirl going - who caves in? Usually the person who gets a mad swirl going, and you'll understand that so thoroughly sometime when you run an overt act-motivator sequence.

There are a lot of rules in the game you can disobey. But I'll give you a clue about disobeying rules in the Auditor's Code. Know what they are and know how to follow them, and then you will be good enough to here and there disobey them.

There's a fellow set him up - self up one time, and he was, oh man, he was dead against the organization. He was dead against this and he was dead against that. I never think about people being dead against me. But he was dead against anything that looked live.

All right. Number 2: Do not invalidate or correct the preclear's data.

And people told me, "Boy, that guy, he's really constructing a big organization." And I said, "Who's with him?"

Now, you say that's the same thing. No, evaluation is explanation, explaining to him something or other, something or other, something or other. Invalidation is something else. It is actually punching in - this is a Scientology colloquialism - punching in his anchor points, or pushing his anchor points in. Pushing in his anchor points. Invalidation means he isn't right.

And they named off about four people. And I said, "The poor fellow, send him my condolences."

Now, I'll give you a wonderful example of this. The pc says, "You know that wonderful run we had yesterday?" You know what the wonderful run was, it was 8-C. You piloted him all around the room. "You know that wonderful run we had yesterday and how much good it did me?"

"Your condolences- what are you talking about? The guy's chopping everything up and he's saying Scientology's bad and he's just spreading it all around, and he's just raising the devil and so on."

And you say, "That's fine," you know, "Yes, I know."

I said, "Send him my condolences!"

"Well, I wish - I wish you hadn't have carried on 'Give me that hand' for quite so long."

And they arrived in time for the - just before the doors were locked on the organization by others. Awful complicated situation had occurred. But this individual had gathered unto himself only people who could chop. And of course he was chopping them and they were chopping him and the aggregate amount of chop was of course going no-place and the only place that the lines were gettiug any power at all was because a better communication line existed.

And you say, "What?" You spent the former day, you see, running him on 8-C, and to the best of his knowledge and belief you ran "Give me that hand." Well, you say - it's only human to say at that moment, "What?" Yeah, but you're not human, you're an auditor. You want to cave him in, very properly and thoroughly? Say coldly, or warmly, "We didn't run 'Give me that hand' yesterday." Get the idea? That's an invalidation. It tells the pc he is wrong.

And wherever an organization or a field auditor has failed, it's because his communication wasn't straight. He disobeyed this first one.

I'll give you another excellent example of invalidation. Pc was moaning and crying and weeping into the session at a mad rate about how he'd been abused. As a matter of fact, he probably had been abused. And he was running out an overt motivator sequence on his mother. And he was getting down on - into the prenatal bank of all places - and everybody knows that's been discredited. Keeps occurring though.

1. To hear or speak no word of disparagement to the press, public or preclears concerning any of my fellow Scientologists, our professional organization or those whose names are closely connected to this science.

By the way, the whole American medical profession has now accepted prenatal banks because of Dianetics.

Oh, it simply says communicate, don't mis-communicate. Look at it from a very practical viewpoint. If you want to get communication going, if you want to hear from the world at large, you have to be in communication with it. Well, chop around and you go out of communication with it and that's just about it.

Anyway, way down into the prenatal bank going real wog-wog, all mixed up with engrams, and the auditor says to him - complaining about his mother, you know - the auditor says to him, "Well, she probably had her reasons." That was the end of that session. See, he was saying his mother was wrong; the auditor said, "Mother's right." That was an invalidation.

That there is such a thing as an ARC break, this we admit. But ARC breaks are something that are handled in sessions, not on the street.

All right, the pc says, "You remember that engram I ran in 63 B.C.?" and you know doggone well it was 565 A.D. If you say, "Oh, you mean that one in 565 A.D.?" - boom!

One of the oldest gags in the business: A public would walk up to the front door of some clinic or something of the sort and they say, "We teach Dianetics here," and so on.

The repercussion of this on a pc is far greater than it is in the social world. And the repercussion of this from the auditor is a denial of the auditor's goals. The auditor is trying to make this individual better, isn't he? And then proves him wrong.

And the public would say to them, "Oh, you do. That's good. Well, when's your next lecture," that sort of thing, you know.

Now, people who are trying for a total effect will very often use it - use this mechanism of correcting the PC just to cave the pc in. And these total effect boys can always be spotted because they instinctively do all these things in reverse.

And they'd say, "Well, of course we teach things a little differently than Hubbard," and so forth.

All right. Those are the two "shuns," by the way. The one and two - the two "shuns," evaluation, invalidation. The HCAs, HPAs, old HDAs had to learn this. The two "shuns."

The public would say, "Thank you." And close the door and go away.

Number 3: Use the processes which improve the preclear's case.

It wasn't whether the public knew what I was teaching or had any confidence in me. It was the fact that they started a ripple on the line. Don't you see? And the public knew instinctively they weren't going to get any straight communication one way or the other on the subject. And the public just stayed away in droves. And that was it.

There's a lot could be said about that. I give you processes, I tell you they'll improve a preclear's case. I come along in a couple of months and I tell you to run something else and improve the preclear's case. I'm right both tbnes, but I changed my mind - somebody says - I must have changed my mind, No. Had later data or a better look, You Understand? And so will you from time to time.

This is one of the surest tests of how long an organization is going to go along. How much is it in ARC with itself, how much is it in ARC with other people in Scientology, how much is it in ARC with me, is merely - all this thing measures is how much ARC is it capable of being in with. See, that's all it measures.

Be running somebody like mad on some process and so on and you're coming up the line and everything's going fine and so forth. Few months later, knowing more, being better at your business and so forth, this guy comes back and you say, "I know what I should have run." You now run it.

And if they're capable of ARC, they're going to communicate. And if they communicate, why, they're going to be very successful and here we go. See?

Now, that would tend to mean that you didn't run, the first time, the best process to improve the preclear's case, because the one that improved his case was the run - one you ran some months later. You understand? Don't bother with that, Research, as it's come up the line, has produced better and better and better and more consistent results.

I don't know why it has to be a code at all. Just seems to be good sense.

As a matter of fact, one of the reasons why you find the public at large has had confidence in my research is a very simple reason. I've been at it for years. When any mistake has been made, I've been amongst the first to yell about it. And when any errors come up, I'm the one who said so. And in addition to that, we've kept right on improving people's cases better and better and faster and faster. And this has been a very - a very steep up-curve line.

1. To use the best I know of Scientology, to the best of my ability, to better my preclears, groups and the world.

Now, you'll run into this same thing. You'll run into this same thing as your experience goes along, as your experience in assessing people improves, as you get more and more capable of obnosis. Obnosis - a gorgeous word - observing the obvious. Learn to observe the obvious. That's called obnosis. You get better and better at obnosis.

Well, naturally, if you're not effective, you're not going to get anyplace is the other way of saying this. If you don't get results on your pcs, the first thing you will hear about is your bank manager. Quite interesting! If you don't get results, why, that's it.

A person who comes in on crutches is processed by you on a proper process, not a process that improves the crutches.

Well, it's the best of Scientology that gets results. And so this clause is again self- evident.

Now, here we have - here we have a matter of judgment entering in. So you should interpret such a thing as "use the process which improves the preclear's case, according to extant knowledge and conditions of the session." You could add those right on the end of it and you'd have it. "Extant knowledge and conditions of the session."

1. To refuse to accept for processing, and to refuse to accept money from, any preclear or group I cannot - I feel I cannot honestly help.

Now, if you've only got 20 minutes to process an accident victim - you know what would really improve the accident victim. You can tell with half an eye that this individual has been in an hypnotic trance for Lord knows how long, that he's totally overwhelmed, that he could never be cause, that he has various immediate things wrong with him that should be remedied in order to make him straight up. But he's smashed up and he's in pain and he's having a hard time and he's all rattled and disoriented. All right, you're certainly not going to open up on a process that'll improve the whole case of the preclear when all you're trying to do is improve his disorientation and general body dishabille. Are you? So it's a matter of judgment - a matter of judgment -conditions of the session.

Well, if you want to maintain smooth relationships with the public, why you'll promise them the service that you deliver and you'll deliver the service that you promise. And if you don't, God help you - I won't. It's just good communication, that's all.

Every once in a while, some Instructor with great enthusiasm forbids coffee-shop auditing. That's a certain type of auditing, it is practiced in coffee shops. Somebody sits down across from you and says, "Well, I learned something today in class and it was a very interesting thing. And all you do is think a thought this way, and then you think it that way."

And number 4. To deter - is it's proper wording - to deter to the fullest extent of my power anyone misusing or degrading Scientology to harmful ends.

And the other fellow says, "Ah, yeah, that's right. So it is. Uh-huh," and gives a few auditing commands.

People objected to this word punish - that word appeared in the original code.

Or somebody says, "I have a headache."

Every once in a while we find some madman, some hypnotist-not that all hypnotists are madmen - but we find him doing something weird, so forth, and he said, "This is Scientology." Well, he's guilty of a lie. We do our best to keep them from lying.

Auditor sits down across - "Oh, you've got a headache, huh? Well, feel the top of your head, feel your chin, feel your right ear and your left ear."

We've gotten as far as we have basically because we're quite alert to the misuse of Scientology.

Coffee-shop auditing. An amazing amount of improvement is done in coffee-shop auditing. And there is never any advantage in trying to stop auditors from auditing, they just will do it. They just will do it.

We still own Scientology because we haven't sold it out to some government to teach it how to brainwash the Russians or brainwash the Americans or brainwash the South Americans or something, you know?

So go ahead and audit. But be real about what you run. Don't run something that's going to take five hours or ten hours to flatten on somebedy you're only going to have for fifteen minutes. Conditions of the session.

We can brainwash somebody in twenty seconds. The only people we practice on are people who come and give us contracts to brainwash people. Test after test, terrifically successful.

Furthermore, you could run a process in a very noisy, troubled environment and get away with it, whereas another process, you couldn't get away with. So it's according to the conditions of the session.

They say, "Who is this? Who, where am I? What's..."

Always run the best process, though, to improve the preclear's case. And that, we have boiled down - that now understands the addition which I have just added on to it. And if you look at it again, yes, the process that would improve a preclear's case would be the one you could get away with in those conditions. That right?

That startle you a little bit when I say we could brainwash somebody in about twenty seconds? I think that's a long time - twenty seconds.

All right.

Man, when you know as much as we do about the human mind and you start using it in reverse, two things are going to happen. You're getting yourself all set for a straitjacket, see, because it's an overt act to end all overt acts. Take something that could make man well and happy and live in the sun, you see, and turn it around backwards to make him live in a dark coal hole. That's quite an overt act, you see?

Number 4: Keep all appointments once made.

The other way, why, individuals don't just get a terrific kickback from it, they just kind of fade out along the line.

There is a thing known as betrayal. A betrayal is: One is coaxed to reach and is then prevented from reaching. That is betrayal, definition of. He's coaxed to reach and then he's prevented from reaching or he is made to withdraw, which is an extreme betrayal.

One of the reasons governments are so transient on earth here - they're very transient. Oh, they last two, three, four, five hundred years, usually. I think the Roman Empire - but you really couldn't call it the same empire; it changed character about four different times, lasted about seven hundred or something like that. Well, of course they tell you different, but it certainly didn't last in its basic state.

This individual is told, "Fight for your country, fight for your country, fight for your country. The Picts are coming, the Picts are coming. Fight for your country." You know, some routine war speech. "The king needs you." You know, that sort of thing. Well, all right, maybe the king does. Fine. So you join up - fellow joins up. And he finds out that because he's five minutes late getting into the chow line, they throw him in the brig for 20 days, see? So, he's all full of beans and enthusiasm and patriotism, you know, and so forth. And then he finds out the only reason they wanted him there was to knock his anchor points in. Get the idea?

The republic went by the boards fairly early and then it changed over into another type of a government and then another type of a government and another type of a government. I think the last of it - the last head of the Holy Roman Empire lives in the Vatican right this minute. Isn't that true? Well, that government certainly doesn't look much like Cicero down there fighting Julius Caesar.

So he experiences this thing called betrayal. Betrayal is a lead out and a smash back in. You see that? Well, believe me, when a preclear has come up to a location where a session is supposed to take place, he has been made to lead himself out to this situation. And when the auditor is late for the appointment, the preclear suffers the mechanism of betrayal. Isn't what you should do, it's an actual mechanical fact. He's been betrayed.

Now, the transiency of governments is because they take what they know in terms of science and start specializing in victimization or duress or force or something like this. They take the best of what they know and they turn it over into the manufacture of weapons and so on. Well, that's a sort of a despair. One could feel very sorry for people who did that sort of thing. It's a despair.

Well, the weird part of it is, it's all out of proportion to merely being socially late. I've seen pcs just splintering their teeth into chips of enamel over this thing, you know? The auditor was consistently, all week long, ten minutes late for each session. Profile will show it, enormously. We have to get this fellow out and the next thing you know we're auditing - we audit this one auditor that was always late for an appointment. If a pc is rather rocky, if a pc's orientation leaves something to be desired, he'll begin to believe all sorts of weird things about his auditor.

It doesn't matter what you do with what you know is the despair. See, use it to kill people or something like that - it's despair. It means that one can't be effective so he better shoot everybody. See, you can't do anything.

"Well, I don't know. Maybe the auditor will learn these data from me and then turn me in to the police." Get the idea? Spooky thoughts come to his mind. "Maybe he's really after my wife," you know? And one of the ordinary ones is, "He's just after my money. He doesn't care about me, he's after my money."

I'll give you a wonderful example of this in Hitler. This man - the chemical industry had developed a tremendous number of new things. And they were very tremendous developments. See, he had the chemical industry of the world practically under his thumb. He had his war almost won right there. And so help me, he didn't do anything with it. He - I think he made some feeble pass. He said, "We will give you Bayer 205," or whatever it was, which was a cure for sleeping sickness or some such thing, "in return for a return to us of our African colonies. And we'll give you the secret of this." And of course, the other governments around heard that there was a cure, figured out about what it was by reading German chemical papers and synthesized the thing and built it behind his back. This might have been upsetting to him.

Well, you can cause havoc, utter havoc in knocking that particular one in the head and forgetting about it. Just keep your appointments. Pc's supposed to be there at 10 o'clock, you're supposed to be there at 10 o'clock, be there at 10 o'clock. That's it. If you break your leg, be there at 10 o'clock. There's no excuse ever excuses late for appointment. It's different than a social condition. This person's laid his whole case out all ready to run at 10 o'clock. And then you say, "I don't want it." Betrayal.

But, what business did this man have trying to trade or gimmick or enter into politics a cure for sleeping sickness? See, that itself is a misuse, isn't it.

Five: Do not process - this is the most disobeyed part of the Auditor's Code. Do not process a preclear after 10 P.M,

He didn't just say, "Well, here you go." And send a couple of shiploads on down to Africa to pour these pills down the throats of all the natives and knock out sleeping sickness. And "We're the German commission that are knocking out sleeping sickness. Yeah, well, that's right. Thank you very much. Where's your line? Form up on the left, yeah, here we go."

People are always processing preclears after 10 P.M. and every once in a while they get real sorry they did it. But you take a husband and wife team, something like this. They're both working. They don't get home till way late. She's got a headache, something like this. It's already 10:15. Auditing is what you can get away with. Just remember it is a Code break. And don't feel real amazed, because of the lateness of the hour, that the pc keeps going downhill faster than you can keep him pushed uphill. And don't be amazed to find yourself still there at 3:30 in the morning trying to flatten something, which, if it had been run at 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock in the afternoon, would have flattened easily. After 10 P.M. they don't flatten so well. And if a pc gets into something that is very difficult, it's very arduous, Aha, he'll go right on down the chute in it after 10 P.M. Might not have even fazed him at 6 o'clock in the evening, but at 10:30, 11:00, 12:00 - ah, ah, ah, ah, ah. He just catches it!

Think what would've happened if he'd had a real militant attitude toward helping. Think of what would have happened.

That's because mostly, most humans think of night as being a thing of which they are the effect. And they are more readily an effect at night. They have been - they've lost bodies at night, they have been eaten. But it goes clear on back to the little old monocell floating on the bosom of the ocean which scientists like to think we all came from, which we didn't.

He had the chemical industry, he had all sorts of things, he had his communication lines up. He couldn't take it. He declared war - against what or why, I've never been able to figure out. That is the mystery of World War II, nothing else. Unless we simply say it's incomprehensible, and we understand it by understanding that it's incomprehensible.

But on some planets, we've occasionally been luckiess enough to be lying as a monocell on the bosom of the ocean. That little monocell drifting along there was totally dependent on sunlight for its food and body structure and so forth - in the absence of sunlight believes it's going to starve to death. It gets very anxious.

But all governments seem to use what they know to further their own ends and to destroy. And it must be a sort of a despair. It must mean that they are terribly ineffective.

The reason most people - the bulk of deaths from natural causes certainly - ah, well, I don't know what an unnatural cause is - occur between 2:00 and 4:00 - is that this is about the time a little monocell just gives up, that's all. Because the monocell lives on photons, that's its food. And bodies are built out of these things, so they say.

Most of the actions that we take in Scientology of a punitive nature - that are apparently punitive - are simply to take somebody off of the line and shut him up for a short time, till we can get the ARC breaks patched up and get some reality back in the bank and get him on the road.

All right. That doesn't mean that you can't get away with it, but it certainly means that some day when you do it, you're going to regret it.

And there's such a thing as the HCO Manual of Justice which advises you can't have justice without rehabilitation. It's no justice because it omits the first dynamic. There can be no justice without rehabilitation for punishment. If there's got to be punishment, well then, there's got to be rehabilitation.

You'll process some preclear at 11 o'clock and then you'll look for a place to stop. And it's 11:15 and you're trying to find a flat spot, anything to stop. And it's 11:30 and you're still trying to find a flat spot, only it's worse now. And it's 11:45 and you're trying to find this flat spot, and the pc just seems to get groggier and groggier and dopier and dopier, going down flirther and further. And it gets to be midnight and you're trying to find this flat spot. And you say, "Hhhh! Why didn't I stop at 10:30? That wouldn't have been so bad, but if I'd even stopped at 11:30, I wouldn't have killed him. But here he is practically in death throes. And I'm really getting into a hot one, and why didn't I get him into this in the daytime?" It wouldn't have acted that way in the daytime, is the secret. One-thirty, you're liable to still be sitting there running a writhing pc. Ten o'clock tomorrow morning after he's had some sleep, something like that, why, you see him again and you'll find out the session didn't do him any good. Interesting, but true. There's a mechanical fact - 10 P.M.

Probably the individual would be resolved simply by rehabilitation. And so it works out. It's true. People are resolved by rehabilitation. If you take anybody who is chopping you to pieces and rehabilitate them, why punish them?

Six: Do not process a preclear who is improperly fed or who has not received enough rest.

So deter is actually the proper word there. And how would you best deter them? Process them till they get some reality. And you'll find in every single case - not because your processing overwhelms them in any degree - in every single case, where your processing sufficiently increases the awareness of the person and his alertness, he begins to look around and see what is really going on, understand what is going on and either helps square it around or at least go into ARC with his fellows again.

This is a wonderful way to ruin your own results. There's a method of testing the basal metabolism of a person with an E-Meter. And you can take a person who has not had breakfast, and he will read one way on an E-Meter after he's taken a deep breath, and if he has had breakfast, he'll read in quite another way. Quite amazing. People are accustomed to eating breakfast, people who aren't accustomed to eating breakfast - if they don't eat breakfast, they process badly. One of the reasons why is they chew up the energy in the bank. They breakfast off their engrams. Keep pulling things in on them. Sort of like food.

And all of these protests that you hear, all of these chops, all of these degrading aspects, all these degrading uses, misuses, anything that you hear in this direction in Scientology is being done by somebody who has no high reality. And rehabilitation is the best answer in every case.

A person who hasn't received enough rest is so susceptible to being an effect, that any time you throw something into restimulation, it kicks his teeth in. See? So you're just - you're just running a pc who isn't rested - terrific effect, terrific effect, terrific effect, terrific effect, no matter what you do it's terrific effect. And he doesn't seem to be able to get over the hump at all. He's just getting awfully cuffed around by the processes. You're not doing him a tremendous amount of good, either.

It isn't that anybody who doesn't believe like we do is insane. That is not true. It happens to be empirically true, just by actual discovery, that people when rehabilitated can be social.

If a person goes without sleep - and you cannot make an HPA or an HCA without adding this - if a person goes without sleep for about 3 nights because of worry, upset and so forth, man, don't process him! Hit him in the head with a baseball bat, throw an ether mask on their face, sit on their chest and stuff them full of sleeping pills. Anything you can do to get them to rest, but don't process them! You see that? It's fatal! It's utterly fatal!

Now, what do you mean by rehabilitation? Increased awareness of the exact conditions with which the person is surrounded. And when he's aware of these actualities, he's aware of these real conditions and he's aware of the real situation, he can then act sensibly.

This is what happens to people in institutions, you know. They get so they don't sleep, and then they get less and less rest, and they get less and less rest, and then they're more and more agitated, and they'll become more and more an effect and they cannot rest, they can't stay still and so forth. And then somebody comes along and tries to give them psychotherapy. Oh, yeah? Nuh-uh.

Because a person who is living in an environment he is not living in cannot be sensible in the environment he's living in. He's only sensible in the environment he's not living in. And this looks very silly to the rest of us.

A PC who is very tired should not be processed. A pc who is totally exhausted should be left alone until he has rested. This is primarily the reason why pcs who are physically ill respond less easily to processing. You have to run lighter and lighter processes on pcs when they are more and more ill or tired.

So number 4, you would be right every time if you said: "Rehabilitate to the fullest extent of my power anyone misusing or degrading Scientology to harmful ends." Get the idea?

Pc might have been soaring up there around Tone 4 the last time you audited him - he hasn't slept since. You get ahold of him, he audits like somebody at about 0.5.

But we would be guilty then of accusing people who didn't agree with us of being crazy. And even though we're right, we mustn't do it.

Everything you say to him, he cries. Everything he runs, he cries some more, so forth. You say, "What's happened here?" Well, what's happened here is you disobeyed the Auditor's Code. You processed a preclear who did not have sufficient rest. Okay.

1. To prevent the use of Scientology in advertisements of other products. Well, that's for sure. I can just see - I can just see, "Have Campbell's Soup after you've been processed."

Seven: Do not permit a frequent change of auditors.

1. To discourage the abuse of Scientology in the press.

Very often you can't prevent a person from having two, three auditors. But this has been one of the common denominators of people who have had a rough time in processing and have been unstabilized during an intensive. They have had changes of auditors. They get all set and oriented with the known quantity of an auditor, they know what to expect from him - all of a sudden somebody changes auditors on them. They have a new quantity that they have to get used to, somebody changes auditors on them, a new quantity they have to get used to, somebody changes auditors on them. They spin in. You understand that? Frequent change of auditors is a very, very, very, very poor practice. Sometimes it has to be done. Sometimes you actually do have to have changes of auditors even during an intensive - sometimes. But it's very poor practice. And a frequent change of auditors can practically spin somebody in.

Well, you notice that's somewhat covered by number 1. To discourage the abuse of it in the press which exists in the middle of this twentieth century is very difficult to do. Because the reason newspapers are failing and going broke and having a hard time in all directions is they're not communicating. You know, it's just all bad news, bad news. And you talk to their poor reporters, and these boys are going total effct, total effect, total effect.

And here's an old, old, old one. Do not sympathize with the pc.

And you say, "Yes, and I think I'm leaving tomorrow."

Could be said there are several things that you could do for a pc. What you want to do is something effective. All right, if you can't do anything effective, what can you do? You can make him comfortable. All right. If you can't make him comfortable, what can you do? You can sympathize with him. Well, we're not down that low.

And they say, "Hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmmm. You say you're not going?"

The basic reason for this is that it responds very badly on the pc. It makes too much identification between the auditor and the pc. And he starts flipping valences more easily and so forth - a lot of weird things happen. This isn't a terribly serious one, but it's just something that you don't have to do because you can be effective.

It's almost impossible to be interviewed by somebody who's giving a total effect because he can receive no effect. How can he interview you? Therefore he has to make up the story before he comes and talks to you.

Nine: Never permit the preclear to end the session on his own independent decision.

Oddly enough in all the press we have had, I think I have only had - just one occurred not too long ago - I think I've only had only one press conference in a decade.

I have known Instructors, hearing of this having happened, who themselves almost ended session. Practically hang themselves on this one. This is about the most dreadful thing - this, this is about the most dreadful thing you can permit to happen.

Nobody's ever come around and asked me what the score was. Nobody's ever come around to ask me what we were doing. Obviously, they can't confront me. They never do. They go off and they write reams and they publish them all over the place. But they never come around and ask me anything and - isn't that a wonderful thing?

All of a sudden the pc gets up and says, "Well, that's all. I've had enough. Goodbye, now." And the auditor that still sits there and let's him go - no friend of ours!

How can some of the most powerful magazine media in the world today publish columns and pages on Dianetics and Scientology and this sort of thing (they're still at it - pops up every once in a while) and never, never, never talk to me or even anybody in a Central Organization directly. How can they do this? Well, they obviously, obviously have a very low sense of reality.

You say, "Well, that's just fine. Now, will you sit down in that chair. Yes, thank you. Thank you. Now we're going to run this process a little while longer."

Every once in a while, our people get (quote) suckered in (unquote). And a reporter comes around and he said, "I'm going to give you a good story and I'm a nice guy and we've got it all fixed up and we're going to give you a good story, and everything. It's all set," and a pat on the back and so on and, "Give me the hot dope," and so on.

"Bla-bla-bla-bla-bla." ARC break, ARC break, ARC break.

You spend hours, you know, you process, you make his wife well from lumbosis and you square him all around. And he goes out and writes the story that he wrote the first time before he came to see you, which is that you're all bad and you should be shot or something of the sort.

"Well, that's all right, we're still going to run the process a little while longer."

Well, the press is here serving a very necessary action in the evolution of any particular subject. Just before a subject overwhelms people, they say it's pretty bad. It's always encouraging. I get upset if they don't throw a few brickbats.

And then you find out you win because you're running good 8-C. But pcs who terminate the session on their own decision and disappear hence, are simply blowing, no matter how cheerful they look! And an auditor that will let a pc blow is hardly worthy of the name.

By the way, the Einstein theory in 1928 was pronounced at the International Conference of Scientists, held in Berlin, as the greatest mathematical hoax of all time. Did you know that? It was really fabulous.

"Well, I feel great, now," this pc will say, "I just feel great, I just feel dandy. Yeah, just end the session right here. Well, goodbye now." That's just a blow. He knows he'd better not take one, two steps further.

Best thing to do with the press: don't talk to them. Skip them. That's right, that's right! It's the best thing to do to them.

Now, of course, there is the condition of being inexpertly audited past the point of session end - like the cyclic aspect in ARC Straightwire - and the auditor getting into difficulty and can't end the session. That's a technical problem of the auditor's, however. The pc can protest because there is no code by which a pc runs. But nevertheless, it's a technical problem on the part of the auditor. He can't find a flat spot to end the session on. We just discussed it a moment ago - auditing too late at night.

1. To employ Scientology to the greatest good of the greatest number of the dynamics.

Similarly: Never walk off from a preclear during a session.

Well, a person's able to do that to the extent that he has good reality on all the dynamics. Right? So if you're sane, you obey it. Why write it, almost.

Now, I've seen auditors go five and six feet away from a pc, eight or nine feet away, still in the line of sight, and get away with it. But I've seen an auditor step out a door, just out of line of sight and the pc blow the top of his skull off practically, or just fall to pieces as a case - just go to pieces. And yet it seemed to be perfectly all right. The pc said it was all right, the auditor thought it was all right, and it was during a session.

But that, by the way, is put in there to preserve a very important datum. This you should know about this particular number 7: that is to preserve the definition of an optimum solution. The definition to an optimum solution is "the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics."

If you want to walk away from a pc, you end that session, and when you come back to the pc, you start a new session!

Find out that people solve instantaneously on as many dynamics as they are aware of. I could go into a long dissertation on that. I can actually know at once how alert a person is on the dynamics by asking them for a simple solution to any existing social problem. And he'll give me an answer which computes instantaneously the exact number of dynamics he's aware of and no more. And it's very often the first and it's very often an inverted second and it's very often an inverted third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth.

12: Always reduce every communication lag encountered by continued use of the same question or process.

1. To render good processing, sound training and good discipline to those students or peoples entrusted to my care.

Ah, very, very vital. "That which turned it on," we always say, "will turn it off" The pc is being audited on Third Rail - ruins him, screams. Nah, don't leave the process!

Well, that certainly requires more technical ability than it does a good heart. Tremendous skill processingwise is one thing; trainingwise, it might be quite something else.

We had an example of that. Fifth London ACC, a girl was run on Third Rail. Auditor decided that that was what was wrong with the pc - been run on Third Rail - Third Rail had never been flat. And they went back to their home several thousand miles from here. When they got back home, so forth, started running her on the engram which was stirred up and - started running her on the engram that was stirred up, and they ran and they ran and they ran and they ran and they ran and they spent about 350 hours trying to flatten this engram that came up while running Third Rail. And he got on the transatlantic telephone to me and he said, "What do I do, what do I do, what do I do, what do I do?" over a very bad connection.

You know, the Instructor's Code is quite different than the Auditor's Code, you know? It's - the gag beginning on the thing - you could just read down the Auditor's Code, you know, and just give it the reverse all the way down the line, you got the Instructor's Code. "Never fail to evaluate for a student" - way it starts.

And I said, "What turned it on?"

You know why we had to get an Instructor's Code? Because people got too fixed on the Auditor's Code and they couldn't instruct. And they'd go into class, you know, and the student would say, "Well, I know what a thetan is. A thetan is the ring - the ring of warm light which shines around my head. That's what a thetan is."

"Oh," he said, "it was that terrible process that they were running in the 5th London ACC. It was that Third Rail. It was terrible, it turned the engram on. We haven't been able to..."

And the Instructor, of course, he couldn't evaluate for the preclear, so he'd say, "Well, that's right, that's right."

I said, "Flatten Third Rail!" "What?"

And the person would go along for a year or so thinking that's what a thetan was, you know?

"Flatten Third Rail! In English, flatten Third Rail. Flatten that process! Flatten it! Do you hear me? Flatten it!"

"Really?"

"Oh, flatten Third Rail."

Then the person would say one day, "I know what a thetan is. I'm a thetan, you know? Well, why didn't the Instructor tell me that?"

"That's right! You got it! Ha-ha-ha. You got it! Ha-ha!"

Well, I'll ask right along with him, why didn't the Instructor tell him that?

And he did and I got a cable, and I've had a couple of cables since of what wonderful progress the preclear is making. Well, of course the pc would make progress. Third Rail gets progress, but the auditor didn't flatten Third Rail.

Proper answer for an Instructor is saying, "That's very fascinating, that's very interesting. Thank you," if he wants to follow the amenities. But certainly, "No, that is not what a thetan is!" Got the idea?

You could, by the way, go back and find the first process anybody was ever processed on that was left unflat, and flatten that. And the next process he was never flattened on, and carry him right on up to PT, flattening all processes that were left unflat on the case and produce a tremendous gain. That's what's known as parasitic auditing, using the other fellow's starts.

I've seen Instructors in the old days so anxious to preserve ARC that they never got anybody trained. That's right, that's right! They never got anybody trained. People would walk out not knowing a thing. But they'd be awful happy with the Instructor and very unhappy with everybody else. And they couldn't quite figure this out, see? Instructor has to set them straight.

Number 13: Always continue a process as long as it produces change and no longer. That's it.

Well similarly - similarly, if you're going to do any kind of a job that - be effective in any way, you're going to certainly render good processing, sound training and good discipline to those students or people entrusted to my care. Otherwise, you haven't got anybody, you haven't reached anybody, nobody's reached you, you're not getting any show on the road - why would you do it in the first place unless you did this? But why do it in the first place if you're not going to do it well? It's as simple as that.

14: Be willing to grant beingness to the preclear.

1. To refuse to impart the personal secrets of my preclears.

15: Never mix the processes of Scientology with those of various other practices. These are self-explanatory, certainly.

Boy, is that a Q and A with the world at large. I might as well spot that one for you as pure corn. I'll just bluntly spot it as just corn - meaning old, untrue and nonsense. But you'd better not do it!

16: Maintain two-way communication with the pc.

This should read: "To refuse to impart the personal secrets of my preclears." Underscore that "pre-." A person who is in good shape hasn't got any. He doesn't give a darn whether you talk about him - his case or not! He hasn't got any secrets. It's the person who is all fouled up that's creeping around in the woodwork saying, "Well, I hope nobody ever finds this out about me," you know? He's gotten over this idea that he can be destroyed, you know, by having something breathed about him. That's all very well. That's true of every nuttiness. It's a total withholdingness. Every nuttiness is a total withholdingness.

And we must say that muzzled auditing violates the Auditor's Code. But muzzled auditing doesn't take into account that we have an auditor yet. This is how we audit without an auditor - muzzled auditing. When an auditor is an auditor, he runs by this Code. Until he knows this Code and runs by it, he's not an auditor.

If you're going to process people up to the point where they become sane, you'd certainly better help them safeguard their secrets. Because they're not going to give a doggone about them afterwards and nobody will be taking any care of them after you get them processed up to sanity on all the subjects. But, the public at large demands that. And that's how to reach the public.

Maintain two-way communication with the pc, it says. And that sure means it. Pc wants to say something, let him talk. If he talks too long, shut him up.

If you're going to talk about a case, you better disguise it or give it a number. Got the idea? You can't stop auditors from talking to each other about cases. But they do have good enough sense to talk about them without naming names most of the time. But most auditors are in a kind of a condition where they don't feel that there's any sensibility to this thing, hence, that does belong in the Code of a Scientologist. Has to be pointed out all the time. Got the idea?

17: Never use Scientology to obtain personal or unusual favors or unusual compliance from the preclear for the auditor's own personal profit. Very explanatory.

I generally handle it this way: I find out from the preclear the things I know about the preclear that I'm not supposed to talk about. If he forgets any, that's his hard luck.

18: Estimate the correct case of your preclear with reality and do not process another imagined one.

And number 10. To engage in no unseemly disputes with the uninformed on the subject of my profession.

That's just - points your attention to this thing called observing the obvious - obnosis.

When you have to teach somebody a whole communication code, when you have to take a long time to learn the subject, you're certainly not going to teach anybody in an evening.

And 19: Do not explain, justify or make excuses for any auditor mistake, whether real or imagined.

The thing that you want to do with somebody like that instead of engaging in unseemly disputes, which is very nonsensical, is put them down in the chair and give them a couple of cans from the E-Meter and process them. That's the way to handle them, not to engage in unseemly disputes.

Don't explain your mistakes; handle it with an ARC break process; 'What have I done wrong?" "What have you done wrong?" But don't explain it.

All right. There's the Code of a Scientologist. It makes good sense. It's an ethical code. Where it disobeys ethics, why, Scientology itself will fail. Because Scientology is not a moral subject, it's a subject that's dedicated to awareness, and not to the dark shadows.

You were called away to the phone. You left the pc. It made an Auditor Code break. Comes back, pc says, "What's the matter, what'd you do, why'd you leave me?"

Therefore all you've got to do is keep your communication lines up in the lights, stay in good communication with the public and your fellows, and you got it made. You've already obeyed the code - so that one you really don't have to know by heart, do you?

You say, "I was called away to the phone," you're guilty of another Code break! You say, "What did I do?"

Thank you. Thank you.

He says, "You walked away." "What did you do?"

"I felt bad about it."

"Well, how do you feel now?" "Well, I feel all right."

"Okay, let's carry on."

Okay? You understand this Code a little better? Audience: Yes.

All right. So be it. Thank you. Thank you.