Thank you.

And here we are at the 28th lecture, Melbourne ACC.

Your progress at large is pretty fair thanks to your excellent Instructors in whom I have every confidence.

Good!

Now with all due respect to that, now I want to tell you what I'm not satisfied with.

Aside from your case gains, which we won't worry about because there are no cases in this class, your general performance of the TRs which is pretty bad and your rather diffident approach — ARC breaks going all over the place — you're neither as clever nor as poised as I want to see you.

You're doing all right in these other categories, I'm just teasing you. But I'm not teasing you now, this could go for any Scientologist, but his cleverness and confidence, willingness to tackle cases and so forth, could definitely, defi­nitely be improved. Hardly anybody here whose general approach and will­ingness just to tackle them head-on and so on couldn't be improved.

You go along the lines of improving your technical accuracy, your accu­racy in giving acknowledgments and that sort of thing, actually some of these demonstrations I've given you here have technical errors in them. The last demonstration I gave you had an ARC break in it. Not necessarily the best auditing I do by a long ways. I actually wasn't trying to audit, I was trying to show you something. I was trying to do something specific with a case which is just a little bit different — no alibi.

But you go in the direction of making sure that you get an acknowledg­ment in every time and making sure that you sit there every time and hold your E-Meter just right every time and go — all of your TRs every time and all of this every time, and so forth and you're not measuring up to my stand­ards. It's something for you to think about. You're not measuring up to my standards.

We take all those things for granted. That's just something that you ought to be able to do or not do as the case may be. You understand? Because auditing, technically, is what you can get away with.

Now, let's take up your state of mind and general handling of cases and let's find fault with that, shall we?

Audience: Yes.

I never saw such an incurious lot of people. I'm not trying to restimulate your curiosity but I'm just saying, "Well, I never!" You're not curious enough. You just aren't.

Now, listen to me. Every case is a story. A very long story. A very compli­cated story with tremendous plot twists. And not one single case you will ever face is an easy case. Just get over thinking they are or that you'll someday find one or that someday by some necromancy I conduct in a laboratory someplace, I will push a button, all cases will become easy cases and you simply stand off and chant at them with a small facsimile of an E-Meter in your hand, and they will all go Clear. They aren't! They aren't! That isn't the way cases are.

All cases are rough cases.

Now, you as auditors shouldn't be setting any example as a rough case. But, you'll find out that every case has its doglegs, and its zigs, and its zags, and its fantastic complications.

And if you're not interested or watching, and if you don't know what those cases are, you're going to miss! And miss! And miss! And miss! And then you're going to stick yourself on the track by blaming Ron!

Now, auditing is your ability to read and straighten out a pc. How do you suppose anybody could ever fix a radio set without ever looking in the radio set? That would be pretty rough, wouldn't it?

Well, now we could get around this by training a lot of blind mice to run on a certain pattern and then never wiring a radio set up in any other way but that.

Now, minds consist basically of postulates which, of course, are also con­siderations and agreements, matter, energy, space, time and forms. That's what minds are. That's all they are.

And a thetan is just a thetan. And the thing he does best and worst is create — postulates, considerations, agreements, matter, energy, space, time and forms and the significance and complications thereof. Now, that's all!

But boy, the things he can do with that simple number of factors exceed anything any electronic brain will ever turn out as a number. That's for sure — the complications.

Now, basically, the only reason a case is a case, is because it's an overt act. That's simple enough, isn't it?

And the basics you're operating with are simple enough. Well, for God sakes, learn those well, so the complications of these various basics that you get into in cases don't throw you for a loop!

And you say, "Well, there must be something else." You've lost the second you say there must be something else.

Now the most basic overt act there is is to make somebody guilty of an overt act. That is the most fundamental overt act there is. It's to make some-body guilty of an overt act.

Hence we get victim with its tremendous power. Because victim is an effort to get the perpetrator to duplicate the horrible state of the victim.

But all a victim is trying to do is to make somebody else guilty of an overt act. So that you could run a whole case with this one command:

"Think of someone you've made guilty of an overt act." Or any variation thereof

That's very complicated. You see, that's the apparent effect-point has flipped to a cause-point. But that's the basic cause-point of aberration.

Causing somebody else to be guilty of an overt act is the most overt act one can overt.

And these cases sit in front of you as a demonstration of how to make other people guilty of an overt act. And that's all a case is.

It's a composite of efforts to make other people guilty of an overt act, culmi­nating in the almost perfect combination of how to make people guilty of overt acts.

That sounds pretty horrible, doesn't it? That's what a case is. That's what a reactive bank is built out of and that's its basic postulates and considerations — is how to make somebody else guilty of an overt act.

Why do the police arrest people? That's to show those people that their acts are overt acts. That's why police arrest people.

Why have you struck an animal or another human being? Why? Why have you struck this person? That's to make him guilty. So much so that if you strike some people, they know they've done something. See? That's just automatic. You hit them, they know they've done something. See? They feel guilty at once — bing! You say, "Bang! Bang!" They say not "What have I done?" but "I have done something." See? So much stimulus-response.

Now, you bang at a case and he knows he's done something. You bang at a case too hard and he assumes too hard that he's done something. Right?

Audience: Yes.

Now the reason they put people in prisons is to make them aware that they've done something. See? The reason they beat people, kick people and so forth is to make them realize they've done something.

Well, the reason people get sick is to make somebody else realize he's done something. And we get the old service facsimile. But let's redefine serv­ice facsimile as that facsimile most used to make other people realize they are guilty of overt acts.

So therefore, a service facsimile is totally itself an overt act. You recog­nize it as such and when you start auditing it out of somebody, you realize you're taking away from him the source of his overt acts and you're removing one more overt act from the world, so you'll think you're doing a good thing — and by golly, you are! Get the idea?

But it's much better — that was Dianetics style — now, it's much better Scientologically to get the person over doing this.

See, why is everybody running around trying to make everybody else guilty of having done an overt act? Well, you'd say this is a social discipline. It may be social discipline but it's pretty crazy.

Now every case that sits down in your auditing chair divides into two categories, two broad categories:

Those who are obsessively going to make you guilty of an overt act, as a highly specialized case, this is what we call the ARC breaky case. All he's trying to do is make you guilty of an overt act. Your auditing of him makes you guilty of an overt act, see? And that's his total mission! And everything he does and puts up is to make you guilty of an overt act! That's the person who is ARC breaking at you. He's trying to make you guilty of an overt act. So after a while, you begin to consider auditing an overt act and you stop auditing. Do you understand? Because these people have been sitting there convincing you that it was an overt act.

You get too many of these cases and the next thing you know, why, you fall for it, and you say, "Well, I'm guilty of an overt act. Auditing is an overt act and I shouldn't be plowing into minds this way. And I shouldn't be doing this because it is an overt act. And look what I did to poor Jehepsuba. Smashed her, I did, ruined her completely. She went away from there and spun for 19 days. So, it's a hell of an overt act, see?"

Why do you think she spun? Made you guilty of an overt act, right? Well, you get a good reality on that one and you'll never be fooled again along this line. It's the pc's overts against the auditor that make the thing aberrated.

Now of course, an auditor can throw a bunch of overts against the pc in controlling the overts which the pc is throwing against the auditor and the auditor can play this game in reverse.

Every once in a while you'll find yourself doing Code breaks and you say, "Well, I didn't intend to do a Code break." Yet you did one!

Well, how'd you Code break? Well, it was an ARC break as far as the pc was concerned, but your Code break was entirely prompted by an effort to handle the overts of the pc. And you tried to handle the overts of the pc, you became guilty of an overt yourself. So, you get this one sawing back and forth and it blows you out of auditing and blows people out of session, and gets everything going round and round because the only source of a blow is too many overts — by the pc — not the auditor.

And the next thing you know, you haven't got auditing in progress, you've got a contest in progress by which the auditor is trying to convince the pc that the pc is guilty of an overt act, and the pc is trying to convince the auditor that the auditor's guilty of an overt act. And nobody wins on this one. Nobody at all. Nobody would ever win on this one.

Now, let's be very factual about this. There was a good reason for man to begin this one. He was actually trying to protect others more than himself.

You see, it's impossible for a thetan ever to get trapped on a theta trap. It's only possible for a thetan to believe that other thetans get trapped on a theta trap and then commit an overt act against people who plant theta traps which, of course, makes him then get caught on theta traps. You get the cir­cuitous thing that it has to be.

There is no trap will ever be made, none could ever be constructed — the way the rationale goes of the mind — no trap could ever be made of any kind that would just plain, ordinary catch people. See? Or just ordinary, just plain catch thetans. A thetan wouldn't stick on one!

There has to be this other rationale. You see, he has to believe thetans get stuck on it. And then he has to have overts against people that put them up or overts against traps, or he himself has to start this thing going so that he puts up traps and gets people to believe that people get stuck on them and then to get them to do overts against him, so that they get caught on the traps.

See, that's the only way a theta trap will operate. Take it from me. A person can never be trapped in anything that he has no overt act against. It just isn't possible to be trapped by something you have no overt act against. That's it.

A criminal is perpetually being arrested by the police. Perpetually, snap­snap-snap!

We had one person who — we didn't have him but he was around — and one fine day he was standing on a street corner and son-of-a-gun if a couple of cops — he was just standing on a street corner, it was broad daylight and everything — a couple of cops come up, take him, put him in a squad car and take him down and interrogate him about something or other that they didn't even know what it was. They just knew the thing to do was to pick him up, and take him down to the jailhouse. They just knew that. They just looked at him. It wasn't even that he flinched or anything, he just — bang!

Well now this fellow, of course, has tremendous overts against cops. And his overts against cops eventually add up to a total overtness against cops which make him stick anyplace cops say. See, that is the place to stick — jail.

You're never going to get a criminal in any other frame of mind than being a criminal by putting him in prison. You cannot put criminals in prison and have anything happen. They remain criminals. They are confirmed as criminals because now they know that it works.

It's a very, very dull thing, a very, very dull thing for police to put some-body in jail for two years and then let him out, and then put him in jail and let him out, and put him in jail — because they're going to put him in jail a second time. And they put him in jail again and again and again and again and again and again and again. Most fabulous thing you ever watched.

There are people who have never been arrested who are guilty of overt acts against the society but they kind of punish themselves. But this game called "cops and robbers" is a game which plays itself off in an exact way but it has to do not with the society at large. The criminal goes around, makes sure that there's some police handy and robs a store. See, he plots it all out.

He always leaves clues. Why, Sherlock Holmes never could have operated if it hadn't have been for this basic mechanism. The criminal always walks in carefully, looks all around, finds a nice, wide place on the glass showcase and takes his thumb and rolls a print off on it. Always does.

All a cop has to do is look for where the criminal wrote his name and address. And police work is as good as you can find the name and address on the crime. That's about all it is. It's fantastic.

People don't even commit crimes to get anything. They go in, they — they get five dollars or something like that off of somebody, or two pounds or something, and they — they get that and — but they don't use it for anything. They take it out and throw it away.

They go and rob a hock shop, something like that, they take all the clocks and junk they got — you'd think they'd sell them for money or some-thing like that. They don't, they leave them in garbage cans and give them to girlfriends and break them up and pick their teeth with them. It's the most fantastic thing you ever saw.

And they'll steal some of the most unlikely objects. And they'll do some of the most unlikely things. It drives cops almost batty trying to outguess these super-unpredictable people. And the cops still think that men steal money because they want money. That isn't true. Men steal money because they want to go to jail. Because those who steal money because they want money are never detected by cops.

Now, here is this oddity of overt acts versus a particular segment of the society. And if you were to take the police out of the society, then the people who — and just remove the police from the society totally, no police in the soci­ety at all. I know this would be pretty gruesome in the present state but you do that and you'd have an awful lot of criminals walking around trying to find out who they attack now.

See, they'd be very puzzled, and they'd be very upset, and they wouldn't know what to do. Because the fine course of human affairs has been totally interrupted. There's no jail to go to, there's no cop to spit at. See, here we go.

If you ever see a criminal, you face him with a cop, he'll go into one or two states: He'll absolutely go ravening mad, or he'll totally succumb and go into utter propitiation and terror. See, it's a violent reaction against law and order.

Now, similarly, if we put a great deal many more police in the society than we have, we have people all of a sudden going into criminal activities who weren't going in before. There's enough police around to make lots of overt acts against. See? It's this crazy game starts up. You get the idea?

So that law and order shouldn't be this game. Law and order should actually be picking up the people in the society who are guilty of overt acts against it and rehabilitating them. That's — would be the only effective police work that anybody ever did.

Similarly, similarly, insanity is based on this fact. You get people — will actually go to a psychiatrist and get an electric shock and go back the next day and get an electric shock and be told to report at ten thirty on next Tuesday and they will be right there to get another electric shock even though it busts their spine every time. It's the wildest thing you ever saw — the repeater along this line. Guilty of an overt act in that direction and it just keeps on being guilty of overt acts in that direction one way or the other.

Now, insanity is the below death manifestation of "Look what you've done to me." See? Insanity is below death. And you start curing up the insane or start bringing them up through the band, they start talking about dying, committing suicide and so on.

This was something that Freud knew nothing about and it almost wrecked him. They have carefully kept very, very secret the tremendous number of people who undergo psychoanalytic treatment who commit suicide in the first three months. It is an enormous number, big percentages.

The psychoanalyst always says, "He came to me too late." Now, if he got any effect at all, he started bringing people up through death. Well, he has to bring them up through death rapidly enough so that the individual starts to live.

Insanity, however, is a manifestation or mechanism put up to show people they've been guilty of being cruel — being cruel, unreasonable, thought-less and so forth.

You'll find it manifesting itself in such a place as — well, more wealthy families are victimized by it, or political families are more victimized by it than poor families. Because a poor family, can — a boy can always come along and shuffle by in some terribly disreputable shoes. See?

But how about the rich man's son? He can't drive by in his Cadillac con­vertible to show the old man that the old man is guilty of an overt act. See? He can't show the old man is guilty of an overt act. It's not possible. See, MESTwise he's cared for in this way and that and they very often go into neu­rosis or psychosis or something of the sort to show how mean they were. They've been out-succumbed, you might say, or something of the sort.

Now, this is a crazy thing about insanity, that it is as crazy in its ration-ale as it is. And there's nothing to understand about insanity except that it is a method of convincing someone they have been guilty of an overt act — and that is what insanity is.

Now, oddly enough, and horribly enough, the person may be way, way, way back down the track, they're trying to convince. The person they're try­ing to convince, basically and originally may not be in PT at all. But there must be people in PT who are substitutes for those past people, otherwise the manifestation doesn't come about.

So, you can always find somebody in present time that the person who is manifesting insanity is trying like mad to convince they've been guilty of an overt act. See, these would be the late locks on the same dramatization. But insanity can be a winning dramatization in this particular fashion since it carries with it no responsibility and so forth. Probably has its own ideas and payments, and so on, but you don't have to understand its complications beyond just this one complication: that insanity is a demonstration to some-body else that they've been guilty of an overt act and is the basic mechanism that shows they have driven them to a point where they can't even die. They're really gone. They've lost their reason. See, they went!

Now, to cure an insane person would sound then theoretically and tech­nically very easy. All you do is — have to locate those people. You just have to locate those people that the insane person was trying to convince somewhere on the track that those are the people were guilty of an overt act. See?

It's a last protest. Let's say some fellow has been very fond of a doll body or something like this, and he has lots of overts against doll bodies so he can lose this doll body. And somebody starts zapping and pounding up this doll body and punching it and so forth, and it's getting beyond the state of repair. And this fellow starts to then act in an aberrated and protesting fashion of "Look at what you've done to me, you shouldn't have done it," sort of a situa­tion, you see. And they keep on punishing the doll body, and they keep on mishmashing it up, and he's identified with the doll body, and he keeps show­ing them more and more and more.

He's gone past the point of dying. He can't die. He figures out that he can't exteriorize. That wouldn't show anybody anything — that's the easy way out — so he just stays in there and goes mad. And this proves to those people conclusively that they're guilty of an overt act of great overtness.

Now, in view of the fact that that is a below death mechanism, an audi­tor is peculiarly susceptible to being dragged in with it. When the pc starts to look like he's spinning — or starts to look like he's dying first — why, the auditor's liable to feel that he's doing something too extreme and is guilty of an overt act. That's just the double mechanism, see, at work.

The auditor's restimulated in his former beliefs and convictions that he has driven somebody insane or killed them, you see? He — that's restimulated, so he believes he's doing something bad to the pc and you get this thing going back and forth.

If the pc has been driven below death — well below death too many times — why the pc will start to spin as a protest to auditing and that sort of thing. Therefore you have to take some care that the mechanism isn't acci­dentally or artificially turned on. The mechanism is best turned on by dis­obediences of the Auditor's Code one way or the other. Particularly those lines that have to do with eating and sleeping and times of auditing and that sort of thing. He'd have to have some lineup on that.

However — however, this person is trying to convince the other person, originally and early on the track just as a gag. See, a person was trying to convince other people just as a game, you see. But that goes into a (quote) real rationale (unquote) or a "reality," (unquote) and people actually feel, and hurt and so forth, and their pains and hurts and so forth are supposed to telegraph to the other people they've been guilty of an overt act.

As a matter of fact it's very funny what you can do to restimulate overts — you sometimes miss predicting them. A dog comes up to you and growls, you say, "Ow! Ow! Ow!" and start backing off and so forth. Why, if he's a friend of yours, why, he'll look at you very hurt, you know, like "I didn't mean to do that, I was just playing," you know, that sort of thing.

However, if he's a very low-scale dog, he will come up high enough to become very savage! And you start backing off and say, "Ow! Ow! Don't! Don't! Don't!" and so on, why, it just makes him as brave as brave can be. You know, he starts redramatizing overt acts against people. And he'll come over — all over the top of you. See?

You can startle a little baby half out of his wits. A little baby grabs hold of your finger or something like that, or is twisting your finger around and say, "Ow! Ow! Don't!" you know? The baby is liable to look at you and say, "What, I'm guilty of an overt act! Here I am only this size and I'm guilty of an overt act!" Well, then he finds out you're just playing a game with him, so he — well, he gets all right after a while but you have to keep it up for quite a while before he understands it's a game. I mean you have to do it over pe­riods of days. You can't all do it in a minute, usually. After that it gets to be quite a game. And you pat him on the head and he's liable to say, "Ow! Ow! Ow!" and grin at you, and so on.

But, this complication makes it necessary, even more necessary, for you to understand what a pc is all about as a complication. He's a complicated case to that degree.

You know his mechanisms. His case state is that state of case best calcu­lated to make somebody else, somewhere, feel guilty of an overt act.

Now, in view of the fact that it may be copied from another person, it could be a valence. He's copied another valence that had this as a successful convincer. And this successful convincer you see, is copied from somebody else — therefore he took the valence over — but that makes who guilty?

Who now is to know that he or she has been guilty of an overt act, see? That's complicated.

And don't break loose until you as an auditor sort it out. You've got to find out who the pc has been guilty of overt acts against — that's just an entering wedge, see, that's a little light touch-off — followed by, "Who is the pc trying to convince is being guilty of overt acts?" See, that's the more funda­mental thing.

And you start sorting that out on an E-Meter, it takes a lot of cleverness, observation and curiosity on your part — lots of it. And you're not going to find out that it was their schoolteacher in the seventh grade. That school-teacher might have looked just like Messalina or somebody or other but it's way back, or it's upside down and backwards and all cockeyed and weird. And the pc doesn't understand it but oddly enough, the pc wants to understand it, and the pc's overt act of becoming stupid, you see is an effort to get back at the other person; and convince the other person they've committed an overt act to show them that they've made him stupid. See? And he hopes that their duplication (the communication formula enters in here — on the victim basis) that the duplication will bring about a state of stupidity in the other person.

It's quite an overt act being a victim. It's all covered under victim, see? Well, you look over these complications and unless you — sometimes the pc is so wound up and so upset, and so forth, and so grogged, and can't make it out, that you just run Confront, Confront, Confront, and you just run lots of Confront, Confront, Confront, and it doesn't start shaking out at all. See.

Now, it will eventually shake out one way or the other, see, on a long haul. And as your Instructors — Dick was looking into and so forth — Continuous Con-front will evidently run on a lower-scale case than we thought it would run on, see? It'll run way down.

A person who isn't making progress on Confront evidently can make bet-ter progress — I don't know what the end view of this is — but can evidently make better progress on "What could you continue to confront?" See, Contin­uous Confronting as another thing. But that's beside the point.

This Confrontingness as it shakes out and so forth — undoubtedly you could shake it all out and just run Confrontingness and it'd eventually all unwind somehow.

Except for this one thing: The factor of your interest is so missing that the pc practically never gets the acknowledgments the way he should. He gets the idea the auditor doesn't care and it doesn't matter, and he runs kind of flat, and he runs with no enthusiasm or he — and he's not in there pitching. And furthermore, the auditor isn't looking at this too and — isn't looking it over — so you don't get the add up of minds over this material situation or series of significances. And not getting this add up of minds, of course, you don't get fast auditing.

And I tell you that it will work out if you just run Confront and Contin­uous Confront, things like that, see? It would work out eventually.

But works out much more rapidly if the auditor hunts it out and looks it over. Because this adds in the auditor's interest, which, of course, adds in a speed of running.

So, there are two more factors. The pc is now running on known factors instead of "What wall?" An auditor can always settle a set of facsimiles back on the track and get them out of the road and handle the immediate bundle. By just locating things accurately in time, he can always get rid of a patch of facsimiles.

And also the auditor's interest bearing on the thing speeds running. And your pc sits there and just grinds away and all of a sudden looks up and says, "I think I was Cromwell."

Ah, look, this is no time to say, "Yes, good," and go on with the next command.

And it takes a nice piece of judgment. You mustn't go in and immedi­ately audit, "What part of Cromwell would you be willing to confront?"

But he's come up with something. And it's worth your while and his to just look this over. Chances are you find out he wasn't Cromwell — he was Cromwell's executioner. That's usually how it goes on the track, see? He'll stay convinced he's Cromwell for some time. On the other hand, he might have been Cromwell! See?

I know of a case that I'm absolutely certain was George III. This case doesn't suspect it. And gives a rather different story for that same period. But it's very unreal and so forth. I think this guy is George III.

Every time he gets anywhere near England he starts to go crazy. You put him in a post of very high command and he goes stiff as a board. He's a tremendous guy. Quite an interesting thing. I've never looked it over on the case but I'm still interested.

Now, every pc is a story and not only one, you might say he's volume after volume of novels. And he has all kinds of complications and interweav­ings and so on.

And you start pushing a fellow for OT, you get him all cleaned up and he knows all the score, he knows everything he's doing and everyplace he's going, he's got it all straight and the knowingness of his immediate past goes back for oh, three, four thousand years, and everything is fine and you get him all cleared up and he's feeling wonderful. Well, great! Great! That's just fine.

Now, all you've got to do is start moving around on the meter and get smart enough and run a little Create on anything that creaks and you'll throw into restimulation a whole new novel.

Now, of course, he'll be able to handle that novel much better than he handled the first one, you see. He'll be able to go much faster but, at the same time, you better look into it. See, now you restimulate, selectively restimulate some factor of an earlier period.

Now, to pass over a period without finding out much — most of every-thing there is to know about it that's really important — who was in it and what was it all about — is not, of course, to just let the pc run on automatic telling his life's histories over and over and over. Because he'll — all he'll do then — that isn't just bum auditing, it is itself an overt act because you let him as-is his havingness.

Something I've never told you, is when you're having difficulty with a pc's havingness reducing on a Confront or Communicate Process, you should run "Think." You shouldn't let the pc talk because communication has a tend­ency to as-is the havingness.

And you could sit right there and watch a pc who has just found out that he was Cromwell. Only he wasn't Cromwell. Or was he a staff auditor of Cromwell's? You generally find out it's the fellow that killed Cromwell, or he's the guy that really dished in Cromwell's plans or something — it's all skidded sideways. The overt act — motivator sequence in the thing gets it mishmashed. Whatever you find, he just found this out, see?

Now, it's all right to find out the rest of it selectively, as long as you're controlling the find out with this meter! You're controlling the find out with the meter.

But, just to let him run on, and on, and on, means that you must be acknowledging very weakly and he's still trying to make you interested. He doesn't feel you're interested because he's trying to interest you, see.

So, that's different than auditing. He must have felt originally that, you see — or maybe he feels you couldn't possibly be interested so he doesn't even tell you. See, and then you go by and you wonder what this is all about and it's kind of snarling up and he finally tells you, "Yes." You say, "Well how have you been making out for the last hour, since I asked you a question?"

And he says, "Oh, I uh — I um — I've been looking at this same facsimile. I've been confronting parts and not confronting parts of this same ..." The guy's been running an engram for an hour — same picture. Boy, if you find yourself guilty of that one, then remember what I'm telling you: Get inter­ested. Get interested in the pc's case.

It must have been that you just didn't have a clue what was going on with the case and you sure better find out!

Now, you'll get some wild, weird and wonderful stories from pcs. And remember this: some of them are true! And they're all based on some sort of a mishmash like this:

He's in bad shape because he was a German in the Franco-Prussian War and fought against the French. And then became a Frenchman and fought against the Germans. See? And you can find him in 1914 just having a ter­rible time fighting against the Germans — only he's a Frenchman this time. Get the idea?

Well, he can't stand this situation anymore, so he becomes an English-man. See? And he — he has terrible occlusion on the fact that the English were fighting the Germans in 1914 — 18. He just doesn't seem to ever react on this one. Never thinks about that because that would put him back in the same condition he was in the life before, you see, when he was a Frenchman fighting the Germans. he said — so that's bad.

So he's just stepped out sideways. Somebody'll tell him that most English kings have German ancestry. He's liable to write great treatises demonstrating this is entirely incorrect. See? He goes way off into the left field to prove this isn't so, and so on.

In other words, he's got various methods of not-ising or he just doesn't notice it at all. Well, when he goes along a long time and then he gets stupid or something and re — forgets his past and forgets it all, or runs into a light­ning bolt or something happens and gets brainwashed and goes over and picks up a German body, everybody says, "What a sickly child."

See, he doesn't know anything about being a German body but there he is being a German body but he isn't being a German body and so forth.

And then we find out the house he was born in was the house that — he was the artillery captain that shelled it to bits. See, he shelled that chateau to pieces you see — when the Franco-Prussian War. But it got rebuilt and then he carelessly picks up a body in that same house. Something stupid like this gets lashed up where your time and space is identified, overlapped, and your overt act — motivator sequence gets overlapped, so he doesn't know who he is or where he is, and he's a lost dog.

Well, you're finding lost dogs. See? You got to fish him out of all this crisscross and he needs lots of help. And it's quite a story; it's always well worth listening to.

If you don't get these things as stories, you get nothing. And he could just go on and it would all work out at some fabulously — it would work out — but at some fabulously slow rate, and so forth.

Now, if you're auditing a machine case that is sitting right about in there, and never anywhere along the line touch, crack-up or have anything to do with knocking machines out of existence, why, you will have the pleasure sometime of finding that your pc has been confronting beautifully all the way along the line. He's just been confronting beautifully. He is a machine and the machine has been confronting beautifully and the auditing command had nothing to do with him and nothing happened to the case. Apparently he was doing just dandy.

Now, when you find these machine cases, you want to crack them up. You crack up a machine case.

All you have to do is, "What part of a machine could you confront?" "What part of a machine would you rather not confront?"

Even that, you just find the fellow sitting here at 2.5 and you decide he's a machine case and you start running a machine, just as that, you know, no further research into the situation at all.

Naturally, you get more and more this way, and more and more that way, and all of a sudden whirrrrrrrrrrrrr — wham! Something's going to happen somewhere along the line there.

Now, you just keep running the auditing command and saying, "Well, Ron will be responsible for anything happens. If anything bad happens, why it's Ron's auditing command, and therefore he's responsible for what hap­pened here." You're probably in a comfortable frame of mind but you're not getting anything done.

No, it's got to be your auditing command and it's got to be your pc and you've got to know the story of this pc. You follow me?

Audience: Yes.

Now, as I say, it's lots of novels. Now, that's purely a writer's simile — that pcs are storybooks. It's — but it fits quite well.

And if you've ever taken any interest whatsoever in reading storybooks, why go ahead and read them, and of course you always have taken such an interest.

I only feel sorry for those pcs who have auditors that are only interested in space opera, you see, as books. Because they'll inevitably grab ahold of space opera bits and pieces and start examining them and so forth. They'll wind up learning a lot about space opera but they may be auditing the wrong part of the track.

Maybe their pc, unfortunately, was the best minuet dancer in the French court and that's where he's stuck.

You've got to read the book that is there to read. You know, it's just like it's in print, you can't open a book up to the first chapter and read another book. Some people are able to do this in some way but it's pretty poor read­ing. You've got to read what's there, you've got to find out what's there and it's always rewarding both casewise and in interest.

Now, I berated you and I saw you all cringe and say, "What have I done wrong?" and so forth. And the only thing that I see broadly that you're doing wrong is being more interested, much more interested in keeping your — your E-Meter tone arm properly poised, or something of this sort, or keeping your confronting correct.

I love these people that are obsessively doing a TR 0, trying to use an E-Meter at the same time. I mean, it's the most gadgeous thing. They ask a question looking straight at the pc, you know, and so on. And then after the needle has ducked, they look down and they say, "Well, there's nothing there."

No, you ask the question and watch the reaction and then look at the pc.

But going through these marionette type responses of the pc — they have their value, you understand. I mean there's a right to do this, nobody's down-grading that, but you're just expected to know how to do that. And it has nothing to do with you being able to lean over and find out what the ruddy hell is going on, pc? See?

Every once in a while the pc says ... And you say, "What was that all about?" Well, that isn't quite the auditing question, you understand, the auditing question, "What would you confront?" And the pc went this way, and then you got interested enough, you said — the pc went that way — and you said, "Let's see, I'm supposed to acknowledge and I'm really interested in what that was about and so forth, and the proper procedure is that I acknowledge. Good! Fine! Thank you! Fine! Good! Thank you! Thank you! Good! Fine! Thank — thank you! Thank you very much! Thank you very much! Now, what was that all about?"

Of course, the pc's blown into the next county and wouldn't know on a bet. You just as-ised the whole works.

No, I'm afraid it had to be like this. The pc went like this, you know, and you say, "What's that all about?" Well, he hasn't answered the auditing ques­tion. The important thing is that you want to know! Get the idea? You want to know!

And the only procedure about wanting to know is that you ask him in the current language you're speaking. See?

That's it. You want to know. Now, you go on a discipline, well fine, a discipline is a discipline.

And I'll tell you that somebody who hasn't been through various disci­plines ca — he'd play hell doing this. He just wouldn't be able to make it. You know? He wouldn't know whether he was supposed to hang the E-Meter this way or this way, or confront standing backwards to the pc, or lie down on the floor and look up at the pc. He wouldn't know anything about this. See? He'd be all thumbs and he — unaccustomness and so on, and falling all over himself.

Well, you're out of that now. I've just graduated you from that stage. Do you hear me? You're out of that.

I expect you know how to do that. And I can turn you in any day of the week a letter-perfect job of auditing. You'd be the envy of each — any Academy Instructor you ever saw.

But if I get interested in a pc, I am interested in the pc and I am not interested in him via TRs. The only via I use on the line is usually English. Get the idea?

Audience: Yeah.

Even though sometimes I may ARC break a preclear slightly, or some-times I may become much too emphatic and afterwards find I was being much too forceful, I — talking too loud, or something of the sort was wrong with all of this, you know? It's me that wants to know. You got that? See, it was me that wants to know.

And I don't think you'll find any pcs I've audited that will tell you I wasn't interested in what they were doing. They knew I was interested. They usually audit fairly smoothly. Sometimes they balk! "You're too damned interested," you know.

And sometimes I begin to believe that a pc is not doing anything along the line and rightly and wrongly my interest will carry me over to putting the pc under a heavy control of one kind or another. And very often maybe the control is too heavy! But they sure did the next auditing command!

And sometimes I think a pc's lying to, me or something like that. Well, it's a Code break! But it's I that thinks he's lying.

Now, look, I didn't surrender my thetan just because I'm an auditor. I don't think the pc's with it, something like that.

The reality that you get in a session is because I don't counterfeit my own reactions ten times a minute. I can audit, I don't have to prove that to anybody.

In five hours I can get more done — any professional auditor in the busi­ness in 25 hours. This is very well-known — been authenticated.

Well, how come you're still trying to prove you can do TRs? See? We're not interested — not this stage of the game. All we're interested in is you doing something with that pc. Get the idea?

Audience: Yes.

I don't care whether you do it standing on your head. Do it!

I don't care if at halfway through the thing you totally, wrong-headedly decided that you were being totally wrong-headed in the way you were going about the thing and do a flip.

Well, if I'm satisfied you didn't flip because you chickened but changed because you thought you ought to, to find out some more or to get a further progress and so forth, I'd be the last person on the world to chew your ears off.

But if I thought you just got scared and thought you were going to kill the pc or drive him insane or something if you kept on with the process — you'd hear from me. Pcs don't go insane on processes.

But about the only crime you could really commit as far as I'm con­cerned, is not getting anything done! And not being interested in the pc you are auditing and auditing that pc, not a textbook pc. Do you understand?

So, auditing is auditing, and it facilitates getting something done. But ritual, for its own sake, should be left to the pope!

Well, just get right in there and audit. You can't hear what the pc said, well put your ear over close to his face! And he seems to be trying to blow or something of the sort, or appears very nervous, well hold him in the chair! And you don't think he's listening to you very good, give him a solid comm line of an arm.

But you're an auditor, and as such you are not an unimportant person, and as such your interest in the case is essential. And that's first, paramount and foremost, and you're going to get the most auditing done by auditing! You understand?

Audience: Yes.

Well, do it! Do it! Do it!

Thank you.