Thank you.

Thank you very much. This is the briefest demonstration on record. Got an announcement to make here first. This is the second lecture of the 20th of November, 1st Melbourne ACC.

And here we are at the tenth lecture day, so it must be lectures nineteen and twenty, huh?

And I have an announcement to make here.

You know if the accounting departments could do arithmetic as well as I do, they wouldn't have any trouble.

I was going to have to go back tomorrow to England and it was heavy pressure because HASI, Limited is through and everything is waiting on the back burner. But in view of the thing, that you're such a good ACC and you've been so nice and you're making so much progress — in view of the fact you're making a little bit of history, and so forth — why, I decided to stay until Tuesday a week.

All right. Now, let's see, how are you doing?

Okay.

Oh, dear. You're doing all right.

This is a demonstration hour on 20th November, 1959, 1st Melbourne ACC. And we've got a lot of cases running now, haven't we? Huh? Audience: Yeah.

He's doing fine. You're doing all right.

And you should take a good look now at a solution to something that first cropped up in 1951, about June. I first started noticing it in 1950. The number of bit and piece cases that were coming in, totally black, couldn't get pictures, nobody could get out of it and were totally stuck, or less frequent but just as puzzling, the fellow you couldn't hold in an incident and was all over the track all the time. He was into this one, out of that one, so-and-so.

Not so good.

Now, recognize these as simply plus randomity and minus randomity cases that have created themselves into a state where confrontingness has to be run before any real progress can be made.

Doing terrible. Oh, that's a staff member. Excuse me!

You got that one?

Now did you find out anything ... Boy, you're doing all right, aren't you? Did you find out anything about confront and create?

Audience: Yes.

Audience: Yes.

All right. Now, it has taken me actually since June of 1951 until clear up to early fall (Northern Hemisphere) of 1959 to lay that one in the grave properly.

Did you? Find anything about their relatively different actions? Did you do that?

That took some doing. It's the first time I've announced it as broadly as right this minute!

Audience: Yes.

Now, it's taken an awful long time. Because just as I couldn't get it through my head that people were in their heads, and just as I couldn't get it through my mind that people were stuck in their minds — I'm afraid my own subjective reality on this was not as good as it might have been.

Okay. Good enough.

But on a couple of occasions, I have hit picture series on my own track which were all balled up like fire drill, and so on, and have never bothered

Now, I'm going to give you the rationale back of this Create Series. Pretty important for you because you'll probably be processing these proc­esses for a long time, and there's a very, very, very great deal to know about these processes.

with them particularly, and actually in looking them over, more or less, erased them. There are still a few small sections that are sticky and so forth, and I am afraid that I looked at those real hard trying to get some kind of a subjective reality on a total minus randomity.

Whenever I take months to dream up processes, they're usually stand­ard for a long while.

It was a good joke on me. It's just before this life, I had a bad time of it and got electrocuted when I was about four and a half years old by a tram line, the full power of a tram line, and so on, and it — it remained somewhat occluded. You know, I didn't know this was the case, and so on.

If you'll notice there are a bunch of component parts here which have been around in Scientology for a very long time but haven't been assembled before. Did you — have you noticed that?

But how in the name of common sense would anybody add something like this up to creativeness? There's something — nothing creative about hav­ing a tram line's power circuit dumped full voltage on your head, nothing creative about it at all.

Audience: Yes.

I've looked at some of these incidents and pictures, and in scouting around have tried to think it out or confront it out. Some of these things have remained occluded just until very recently, by the way; this one escaped my notice. But I had a nice area there that probably was nicely occluded but I got run into it the other night and as-ised it before I could grab ahold of it.

That is usually the earmark of a peak or a plateau — gone back and picked up the gains of years.

And it just plain hasn't made sense to me, frankly, that an incident cre­ated by the individual himself could operate to this degree, as to trap himself. You understand?

Now, one of the first, most spectacular processes in Scientology, as opposed to Dianetics — Dianetics having to do only with the treatment of the pictures in the mind, "Dia nous." And you very often think there's no differ­ence between these two things. Actually there's the same difference as between anatomy and theory.

Well now, just that same way, you're going to have a lot of trouble, or would have had a lot of trouble and probably have had a lot of trouble as an auditor, trying to understand some case.

"Dia nous," means, Greek, "through mind," and Dianetics is addressed exclusively to one universe, exclusively. The whole shape, size and form of

I give you my idea of trying to get a subjective reality on some of these "never get anyplace, never do anything, can't do anything" sort of cases. You get the idea?

Dianetics is covered in The Original Thesis, Dianetics: Evolution of a Science — Dianetics: Evolution of a Science covers it a little wider than Dianetics, it gives you some theory of rationale of how you work out problems — and Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health.

All right. Similarly, you're going to sit in an auditing chair sometime and you're going to look at somebody, and — or have, you know — "God knows what he's doing," you know, and "It does seem to me so weird." This is not within your level of reality.

Now, the second that we started moving out of that into Science of Sur­vival, we had already escaped what you could do with pictures and we were doing with characteristics, patterned characteristics. And the Tone Scale, and so forth, actually, although it was born in Dianetics it has been carried out in Science of Survival. And in Dianetics you could have no such Tone Scale as you see with a plus and minus scale. And that wouldn't be possible at all, because the factor of the source of life does not occur in Dianetics. Do I make myself clear?

And you probably plowed around a little bit and wondered if you had any similar circumstance you could look at, you know, and it just didn't seem rea­sonable. And the cases that were real different than yours, why, if you did have anything like them, why, you up and as-ised it or something of that sort, and it tended to remain a little bit incomprehensible to you. That's why I want you to get a real good reality on this Confront dichotomy and its put­ting cases back together again and so on. Because it actually, basically does away with most of these curiosa that you've run into.

Audience: Yes.

And it's a great relief to me to find out that the persistency of creation on the part of these cases ran underneath some kind of a created — newly created force which in itself destroyed the old creation, but the old creation was still there and when you tried to run out the old creation, its persistency ran under the force and restimulated the force.

Now that is an anatomy and Dianetics is quite successful and is itself. Now, naturally it gets included into a wider horizon that includes more uni­verses than the universe of the mind. Instantly and immediately Dianetics would be included into something else, and so we have Scientology including Dianetics.

You didn't have the old creation at all. All you had was bang! Got the idea?

But, Scientology is its own rationale, and Scientology was born the day I found the source of minds and had isolated the source of minds, and looked it over, and so on, in some other way than yogi-pogi, swami-guri, you know. They all had ideas of walking and doing other things, and so on.

That's evidently the basic mechanism of this whole universe.

Oddly enough, I myself well realized I wasn't a body but I never added in this fact into any scientific regimen which is a very, very humorous fact, I mean, that — that's a funny joke.

Now, a mind is no different than a universe. It has the same spaces and the same anything in sort, and as a matter of fact this universe, this real universe around you — kind of silly to call it the real universe, the physical universe around you, because the mind's a real universe — it's got these spaces and masses and so forth in it and it's also got postulates in it. And its postulates are things like Ohm's Law and things like gravity and accelera­tion and Boyle's Law and stuff like that, you know.

A fellow goes on and he works and works, you know, to try to find out ... Well, it's just like, you know, somebody working and working to find out what a body is. Medical doctors do this all the time. They're always cutting up dead bodies and so forth. They're always working with bodies and that sort of thing, but they seldom recognize that they're a body, you see, and if anybody is a body, the current medical doctor is one.

Things like — oh, what do they call it — the limit of elasticity of materials, and cohesion and adhesion. These are just postulates, you know, that are — boy, they're in there! You know? Everybody agrees on them, the stuff goes on persisting and all that sort of thing.

And — this is a very funny joke on me — I go along as long as I did, and you know, look at bodies, and look at minds, and wander around and sit in corners of rooms, and get kicked in the teeth, and chewed up and so forth. And go sit on the back of some armchair and sigh about it, you know. And then go back and pick the body up, and go through all this, really not reac­tively at all, but quite knowingly, you know, and then sit around and wonder what the source of life was. Very silly, you know.

Well, a mind has a greater variety of these things and is less solid. Has a greater variety of laws. Guys can make any kind of postulates — any, any, any, any kind of postulates. And that's the darnedest thing, the postulates that a thetan will make. You know? Just utterly untrackable.

But I got out of this silliness when I found whole track phenomena which was covered in 1951, the results of which are more or less sparsely covered in the only publication on the subject, really, aside from Have you Lived Before This Life? which isn't comprehensive but the whole track was scouted in 1951 and is represented today in your publication, History of Man.

They are just almost infinite in their variety. And they'll do some of the weirdest things. You know, the little innocent remark by him, some kind like this, it just goes on and persists, and is a basic law of his case.

Now, it took about a year to knock that thing together and by the time I got the thing knocked together it became very obvious, extremely obvious that you're going to have an awful time clearing anybody of this much stuff.

Well, it gets into his mind just as strongly as Boyle's Law, or expansion laws, or any other darned thing, you know. It's a law! "All goats are black." So he mocks up a goat, he gets a black goat. That's it. "Horses sleep in beds." Any piece of nonsense you can think of. More obvious ones that run into are those that deal with identification, such as, "All women are alike. All men are alike."

Well, in the process of doing this, I ran into all sorts of odd phenomena concerning death that called Darwin a liar! Evolution and all this kind of thing. Yeah, I found evolution, and I go back before evolution and find space opera! And I find another evolution, and back before that find some more space opera of some kind or another. Yeah, what kind of evolution is this?

If you ever run into a girl who tells you as a man, that "All men are alike," — or as a girl runs into a man that says, "All women are alike," why, that's a good time to get out your microscope and see if you can see that. Because it's very visible. It means a totally jammed bank. And these are the postulates that do it.

So, we had to discard the accidental theory of "somebody put a bunch of mud pies together and life arrived as spontaneous frogation. That the acci­dental mixture of several chemicals might represent the biochemist's brain but didn't represent life."

But, the postulates basically, that you have trouble with, are those which aberrate association or differentiation. And so we get the rest of the combination of processing.

"Any item which behaved as we clearly could observe in studying whole track phenomena, like this thing called a person, behaved; well, it certainly wasn't with us." See, this is a weird one.

See, there's another combination beyond the physical universe. Just like the physical universe, we know, more or less, what laws to run out of the physical universe, you see. So, there are all kinds of laws in the mind.

As far as our technology was concerned it just wasn't around. You look in vain. We look into Hinduisms and mysticisms and other things like that. Lamaism, oddly enough, came as close to it as anything else. But who was up there to tell us that Lamaism was closest to it? Of course, it's an awful long way from it. The study of — Lamaism is squirrel Buddhism. That's what it is. That's what it is. They carted it back off a little higher into the hills, and something like that, and made up some kind of a mess-up on the teachings of Gautama Siddhartha and found out some other things.

Well, the master ones that give us the most trouble are the identifica­tions there on Axiom 10 level. Axiom 10, cycle of action and the communica­tion formula, these things are all rrrrrff All, more or less, the same thing to the fellow and they're all jammed, mishmashed.

And one of the things that utterly ruined them (I almost said a naval term there — now none of the ladies are supposed to laugh on that one) was that they evidently kept running into the detachability of existence, and they couldn't quite figure out how to detach this existence. Of course, this was actually one of the goals of Buddha, and he was supposed to have sat under a Bodhi tree and done a bunk, I mean, gotten exteriorized.

But, of course, beyond that — man, you couldn't predict for a moment what — what nonsense is in his mind as postulates, that have become consid­erations and the other-determinisms he's been with have agreed upon them, you see?

One day he sat down under a Bodhi tree and found out he wasn't him. See? That made him a Clear.

For instance, you get an awful lot of kids raised during a war. They'll get, "The enemy is bad," you know. And they agree on this totally and they say, "All Japs are bad." See, that's — becomes a stable datum!

Now, if that's as easy — if it's as easy to make Clears as that, then we find he didn't research very far because I could make a Clear out of most anybody under these circumstances.

Well, it's not stable when the war is over. And then they get somewhat dismayed. Everybody's giving the Japs things and people are going to Japan and that sort of thing, and they say, "What's this?" You know?

And even the cops or gangsters could make a Clear out of anybody over these circumstances by taking a Webley .38 or a Smith and Wesson or Colt or something like that, and doing R2-45. That exteriorizes most anybody!

All kinds of individuation occurs because they have made a statement to themselves that they can't become something. They can't become this thing so when they say they can't become this thing, they debar themselves from a section of thing and cause an individuation from it. And when that is pushed or shoved around in some fashion or they shove it around or develop a few more overts, they blow through on it and become the thing they can't become! And you've got this valence problem.

Now, the way the Lamas got there was to sit and meditate. We've had somebody sitting and meditating, I guarantee you, our research has included it.

Well, that's peculiar to the mind and the thetan and not very peculiar to this universe. The postulates mix up into forms and identities and peculiari­ties and package beingnesses which actually are just more postulates. And boy, you can get some of the things, they look so silly. Because they are silly. And you get all kinds of random laws, such as "Anything I become, I there-fore can't be." You know? That makes a game. "If I ever experience any good luck that means something bad is going to happen to me." Basic law. "All beingnesses which are not myself are bad." Yeah, but after a while he says, "Not myself, let me see, myself, I know ... "

As a matter of fact, when I was a kid, I used to wonder what they were talking about. I couldn't figure out what they were talking about. I just listened to them in India and China and so on. I couldn't figure out what they were talk­ing about! It was just so much pea soup as far as visibility was concerned.

Somebody tells him, "You're the hall porter now." So, he knows at once he's dead and bad. Get the idea? All kinds of triggers go off of one kind or another but they're simply forms, association, that sort of thing.

And what crossed it up was — is I knew I wasn't it. You see? You see? And they were talking about being exterior, so I couldn't figure out what you were supposed to be exterior to! And therefore it sounded like a lot of balder-dash to me that these guys were trying to take themselves out of themselves. That's how stupid and inarticulate I was about the whole thing.

Now, we get off into the special field of machinery and we just get a bunch of new forms and combinations of masses and gimmicks and so forth. And machinery and circuits are machinery and are circuits. And we — as I've said many times, this is not used in a careless form. A circuit is a circuit! It is a set up circuit as it is understood by an electronics man, see. It's a bunch of vias which winds up in a total disassociation from self which talks or which occludes or which does this or which does that or which has some other automatic function it's set up for, just like a wired-up piece of, oh, elec­tronic nonsense of some kind or another.

The guy could sit on my left shoulder, you see, and listen to all of this conversation, and occasionally use my ears. And they were talking about being out of yourself. This worried me no end! How the ruddy dickens did you get out of yourself?

And machines are machines. Now, they have wheels and gears and all kinds of crisscrosses and lever arms, and so forth, and some of them have stacks and some of them are wired and some of them aren't and they have shapes and sizes and they're covered with metal and they're screwed together with nuts and bolts and they're fitted together with flanges and when we say a machine, we mean a machine! See, we're not thinking of somebody's idea of a machine.

Later on I realized what I was up against because making somebody exterior isn't good enough. When you exteriorize them, you exteriorize them very often in a mind and you get all sorts of nonsense, old Fac One bodies, and so forth go along with them. The mystics call this an astral body. You'd call it, actually, no more, no less than a stuck facsimile or a combination of facsimiles. It isn't a body at all.

But because some thetan thought them up without further inspection from any other thetan and no building code was ever observed in their construction or manufacture, man, you'll find some weird and wonderful machines!

Of course, you turn somebody loose with a Fac One gun and he'll make a lot of Fac One bodies. See, all he does is plaster heavy force all over somebody

You'll find a machine which feeds me porridge or something like that, you know. Only it's also taken over consuming women. That's right, because eating porridge and consuming women are practically the same thing. That's the postulate, see.

and after that this person carries this as a ridge, you see. And when the thetan moves around this other stuff moves with him.

Ah, there's machines that consume matter and machines that make matter and machines that do this and machines that do and undo and all sorts of things.

Actually, those things can be very upsetting. I moved in and out of one one time, and there was a tablecloth near at hand, and I evidently had had a body that I — you know, one of these kinds of bodies, an old Fac One type of body — that had been extinct for Lord knows how long and I'd forgotten all about it, you know, and one fine day I put out my hand and it's got five elec­tronic claws, you know my hand! You see? And it hasn't anything to do with this body, put out five electronic claws and I'll be a son of a gun if it didn't stick to the tablecloth, and I started to pulling it away and I moved the table-cloth. It upset me no end!

Well, just as this universe, the physical universe, has a tremendous num­ber of gaudy bits and pieces of machinery in it, and in space opera days has particularly wonderful pieces of machinery in it — machines that repair machines that repair machines, for instance — all kinds of odds and ends of this character. We get into some kind of a hurdy-gurdy arrangement here of machines which build cars and then the cars run around and service facto­ries which have machines in them, which build machines, and you get machines waiting on machines sort of a thing. And all kinds of great oddities and so forth.

And I realized the thing worked on postulates, and I simply said, "Let go of the tablecloth" and went phewwww! You know? If you ever get caught that way, just remember it works on postulates.

Well, just as you see those in the physical universe at this time, so you'll find all kinds of nonsense of this character in the mind.

So, anyhow if making a Clear is simply the basis of bopping somebody out of his ruddy head there's nothing to it! Because if people don't respond to "Get three feet back of your head" they will respond to "Try not to be three feet back of your head." And if you fail in all else, you can try R2-45.

Now, when the fellow starts to get irresponsible for creation, he has many roads out. And this is to assign responsibility to some creation of his for which he's taking no responsibility, and after this he says, "I have no slightest liability in creating something. I have no slightest liability in creat­ing postulates because here's a postulate-creating machine." Of course, it just creates any kind of a postulate you want, just like that! Bang! And sure enough, you'll run into such machines. Guy needs this postulate on the spur of the moment, the machine gives him one.

Now, here's the — here's the gen on this. This is what caused the trouble, not getting people out of bodies. .That didn't cause any trouble, it caused no trouble at all. What caused the trouble was very simple. It's they didn't appear in this universe! That was a brand-new one on me. How the dickens can he not appear in this universe?

Well, boy, if you think that doesn't make a horrendous lot of super stable data that has nothing to do with anybody anyplace, you ought to see one of these things work.

One of these confounded pieces of nonsense. We had it made, you see. Actually in 1952, we made more Bodhis than you could count; Buddhas, under the Bodhi tree. We just made more Buddhas than you could count.

The fellow has no responsibility for the darn machine and it just starts grinding out postulates, you know. Every time he needs a postulate, that's the trigger that makes the machine go off. You see? And he gets postulates. Sometimes the postulates come out on tape and all kinds of darned foolish­ness. Circuits, circuits. Anytime he needs a song, he thinks, "I'd like to hear some music," circuit goes on, plays him some music.

Anybody that's been out of his head has filled the full requirements of Buddhism. That gives you then the total peak of research along this line because Buddhism never realized what made these minds, energies and uni­verses. He didn't know that that was that thing generating, you see. So he's still looking for life source and nirvana and all that sort of thing.

The basic difference between a machine and a circuit is that a machine is built out of metal and circuits are usually fairly invisible in their construc­tion, or if they are visible in their construction, their construction isn't appar­ently a machine construction at all. It's just like they're robots in biological bodies. A circuit is more a biological sort of a — of a gimmick that the thetan has built up. He's got lots of excuses for it. Sometimes it's built out of wires, sometimes it's a couple of ridges that rub together, it's all kinds of odd stuff, bunch of foolishness I'm talking about.

But much to my dismay the bulk of people kicked out of their heads feel they've lost something. And the bulk of people kicked out of their heads feel something else: they feel they aren't in this universe because they're looking at facsimiles. They are too thoroughly stuck in minds to be able to see when they're simply removed from a skull. They take the mind with them.

Well, all these things and all these combos manage, is to do things with-out his having to (he thinks) accept responsibility for the creation of those things. Therefore, he doesn't perish because he creates a postulate.

Now, if I hadn't known all about Dianetics at the same time this was happening, I would have been very baffled, but the individual goes out of his head and winds up with a picture of a hospital bed and a few other things that he shouldn't have, and that aren't apparent to your naked eye. Or it's all black. And you sneak him out of this blackness and he all of a sudden sees the pattern of his coat and goes half mad. Goes back into the blackness, goes back into the head and so forth.

Now, all you've got to do is have somebody create a postulate, create a postulate, create a postulate, create a postulate and all of a sudden run into death postulates! Because postulates go on the cycle of action, too. See?

Well, of course, the instant he did see the pattern of the coat, he had fulfilled the requirements of Buddhism, for a Clear. It didn't matter how brief because there's no time span stated on it. But it scared him stiff!

He makes postulates, makes postulates, makes postulates, makes postu­lates and after a while, why, he says, "I shouldn't make any more postulates. Therefore every postulate I make will destroy postulates." And he gets all set so then he makes a postulate and bang, he's got a destruction postulate.

Every once in a while some fellow carelessly backs out of his head, doesn't bring his mind along with him, looks around and "My God!" Sees a wall! "Oh, horrible!" Bang! Back in his head. You see. Scares him half stiff.

And basically military orders will go this route. Generals early in their career win battles, early in their career.

Well, that's basically what I didn't know. I didn't know that people would do this. Therefore, most of the work then of 1952 on this subject went up the spout, see. How to exteriorize people.

The orders of the day, the orders of the day, the orders of the day just make more and more deathly postulates, more and more deathly postulates. See? They start to slide because they're already dealing in death and they very easily go out the bottom. And all of a sudden you get order of the day saying, "Destroy yourself Company B. Destroy yourself Company G. Destroy yourself Company K."

Well, you exteriorize people, they get restimmed on a moment of loss, death, they take their minds along with them, and this is a terrific answer.

World War II wasn't so much fought as — that way, as World War I. They had a good time in World War I. They knew nobody could win it and it was a wonderful opportunity to simply put out destructive postulates with no responsibility because nobody took any responsibility for the war. It wasn't going anyplace.

Now, don't look-overlook the fact that some small percentage, ten, fifteen, twenty, twenty-five percent of the people around maybe, or maybe only a half a percent or, I've never counted noses on it, but it's maybe somewhere between twenty-five and a thousandth of a percent, that's for sure, move out of their heads, see the room, and say, "Well, what do you know!" you know, and they're Clear and stay that way! See, don't forget that this does happen. And also don't forget that an individual has sufficient control of facsimiles run on Dianetic processing that all of a sudden he says, "Well, what do you know!" And doesn't have to make any more of them. And don't forget there's a certain percentage of people that can do that if audited with enough altitude! Enough confidence! Got the idea? See, so Dianetically there's a road to Clear. If you've got enough alti­tude as an auditor, if you get somebody who is easy enough to run, who is not on a substitute of a substitute of a substitute. You understand?

Now, the basic mechanism that we're dealing with here is that postu­lates don't necessarily stay in place on the Confront dichotomy. You get some postulates running off on a Confront dichotomy. The rehabilitation of Operat­ing Thetan, unfortunately for you, undoubtedly will require a rehabilitation of the ability to make postulates without consequence.

You get some guy that's looking at the straight pictures, you audit a few pictures, you say, "For God sakes, is that what these things are? Ha! I'm making the things!" (only basically and earlier they never told me this), and you've got a Clear on your hands.

So, we get another type of — another type of process, which is almost the same type only you use postulate instead of some other object.

Another guy, you say, "Be three feet back of your head. Look around. What do you see?"

There would be, "What postulate would you be willing to make?" And after a while, why, you'd find that was going — run downhill. The easiest way to do it is, "Make" and "What postulate would you rather not make?"

He says, "I see the room."

Then, "What postulate could you confront?" Nobody ever thinks of confront­ing them, you know. And, "What postulate would you dislike confronting?"

You say, "Fine, let's move around the room. Let's take a look at it. Let's pat the body on the shoulder. Fine."

You always get the one-two. It's very tricky. It's very tricky. You get the one-two. The postulate that he blows off is the postulate he as-ises with the sec­ond part of the dichotomy. In other words, he creates one, it blows the other one into view; you as-is the other one with the other part of the auditing com­mand. Every time he creates one, why, he'll blow one. And you just keep them as-ised. And eventually he'll balance out and the fellow will be able to make postulates.

The guy says, "Okay."

That is the basic thing that a thetan has lost the ability to do.

Now, not always will he remain outside but a certain percentage of the people would and you've got an instantaneous Clear! Now, let's not forget that one! Let's not get so sweated up about what we're doing that the real easy ones always get missed! Do you hear me?

And the process at first glance will appear a bit unreal to you, perhaps, as absolutely vital and necessary and different and strange. But you'll find most people are going so stimulus-response, that you ask them to do any-thing and they promptly start moving things around with forces and masses. They never think of making them with a postulate. That's because they know what would happen if they made it with a postulate. They — just uncomfort­able with a postulate. And the reason it's so uncomfortable is, every time they start to make a postulate they go over to a death postulate and they get tired of postulating suicide. That's all. That's all that's basically wrong with making postulates.

Audience: Mm-hm.

And you'll find very, very, very few people still make postulates. They don't handle anything with postulates. Now, a person can get terribly irre­sponsible with postulates also and you've got to teach somebody that a postu­late requires data. A postulate or a decision requires an agreement or a knowledge of the situation.

Some of these cases run like baby carriages, you know.

Postulates are done in company with understanding. And that's the facility which has to be recovered for the OT. That's why you have to run them all by themselves.

And you feel sometimes that if you don't have auditor calluses over a case, that you aren't doing your job. Well, I'll tell you, if you take one of these cases that could just go whewwww! see. Run a few engrams, whooo-whooo-whooo-whooo. "Well, what do you know!" you know. "Gee-whiz! What? What engrams? Oh, fine! Put them there and bring them back! Ha-ha! Ah, that's what's been kidding me along. Well, what do you know about that!" You've got a Clear. Let's not forget you can do that because you can do that.

Somebody wrote me the other day, he says, "Any fool can make a deci­sion. It's a wise man that makes a decision in the presence of data. He makes the decision for the situation." See, anybody can make a decision. But to make the decision that is necessary to the situation, is only done in the pres­ence of observation, and so on.

And let's not forget exteriorization. You say to somebody, "Be three feet back of your head." He says, "Fine."

So, a person gets to a point where his postulates are automatic and his machines are feeding him automatic postulates and everything seems to be going in this particular direction. Ha! He gets to a point where, if he handled anything with a postulate, he'd just knock everything off. He — so he knows better than to make postulates. And he gets all kinds of via systems by which he can escape making postulates.

You say, "What are you looking at?"

Same process as you had on masses and energies, and so forth, and pos­tulates too, because they'll crop up along the line but sooner or later, you're going to have to run the postulate process on your pc. It's done with the same commands, done with — exactly the same way except you're using that spe­cialized item.

He says, "I'm looking at the room."

Now, I better mention something else as long as we're on pure data and oddities, and so forth. And one of these is that an individual very often gets himself into a situation that he can't postulate himself out of. He says, "That's impossible because the postulate would then wind up in a death postulate; if I postulate myself out of it, I'll kill myself." That's because his postulates are doing a slip on the cycle of action. So, he never postulates him-self off of theta traps, never postulates himself out of bodies, never — never does anything sensible about it.

You say, "Good. Go over and pat the wall" and he does. Move him around a little bit, old Route One. But you've got a Clear! Only you've got a Theta Clear. So, don't forget that that happens. See, there are some few cases that are so close to this they're practically naturals.

He'll stand there and push against a theta trap, see. One of these pole traps. Actually, all a "pole trap" is is a piece of metal or material which absorbs all the overts and pushes them back at the thetan. See, and it's just a reflective mechanism of some kind or another. In other words, they never have any energy in them. None of the real effective ones. Those that simply are full of energy would blow somebody off.

Now, there's a golf champ right at this moment, an American golf champ who is over here, who, looking at his body you wouldn't think he amounted to too much. But he lays into a tough course that he hasn't had anything to do with, you know. And knocks himself out a championship sixty-five, see, boom! Bah! I can tell you something, knowing something about these super athletes, he isn't in his head!

Only those traps which are energized by the thetan are effective. So this thetan has lost the power to postulate. See? He knows what would happen to him if he postulates.

You take a pistol marksman, a nationwide pistol marksman or some-thing like that, some bird who has terrific accuracy in the handling of force.

He starts to think, if I postulate, "I will now be separate from and off of this trap," he knows this will come out as, "I will be stuck to this trap forever." See, because the slip on the cycle of action. So he knows the smart thing to do is to push the trap away from him!

And you take somebody like maybe old Babe Ruth, or somebody, you know, some real champ along the line, and you say, "Well, why aren't there more champions?" Well, there just aren't more Clears, that's all.

Of course, he puts energy into the thing and he's dead. See? Puts energy into it, he — that pulls him into it, you see, but he pushes himself off of it, that pulls him into it, because he's already using energy all reversed and messed up. The more energy he puts into it, of course, it's right directly on his wavelength because it's his energy. That's a wonderfully horrible game.

And this boy, if you gave him the Axioms to read — we've actually done this with some of these athletes — give him the Axioms to read, "Oh!" he says, "is that what that's all about! Sure, sure, sure!" You know, cognite! Cognite! Cognite! Cognite! "That's right! Oh, yeah. Well, I didn't know that! But, that's true! Yeah! That's right!" Bang-bang-bang! Blows the bank up!

How did he ever get into traps in the first place? Well, he must have decided that thetans could be caught on traps, or he must himself have erected or put up traps on which thetans could be caught. In other words, he has to have the overt before he gets any motivators.

It's fantastic to behold.

So, of course, by the time he himself gets onto a trap, he's already an overt — motivator sequence, like mad, so he pushes against the trap, the trap energizes and pulls him into it.

One of these fellows was having explained to him one time what a thetan exterior was. And he pulled the same stupid gag that I'd been pulling for years, you know.

It's not unusual for a thetan to spend eighteen, twenty thousand years on one of these traps. You run it back on some of your pcs and you'll find out. Talk about minus randomity.

He listened to him and listened. He tries to get some kind of — and he can't figure out what the guy is talking about. He finally pulls a long blue spark. "Oh," he says, "what you're talking about — yeah, whenever I hold a rifle — you mean, when I, when I get down back of the sights, you know, and steady the hands up and steady the gun up and fire it, that's what you're talking about! That's right!" Guy hadn't been in his head for years! Now there the circumstance existed in nature but nobody knew how to ask ques­tions, and sometimes if you ask the question of the guy who is in this circum­stance, he didn't know what the hell he was talking about or you were talking about. Because, you'd say something like, "Well, you know, you get out of your body, and you do this, and you do that." And the guy would say, "You do? You get out of your body!" A brand-new thought: "Somebody is in his body!" And they just get to puzzling over this, and it just doesn't make sense in any direction. Got the idea?

And right now you say to your thetan (pc) you say (to your pc), "Put a beam over on the wall." See?

So, they occasionally, very, very rarely, just as rare as there are great golf champions and that sort of thing, or just as few Babe Ruths as there have been in the world, you know, well, they're — they're Clears. Get the idea?

And he says, "All right. Don't care if I do," you know, slap, yaaaa. "I feel so degraded."

Now, these birds are at varying levels of ability, varying levels of ability to handle force, varying levels of exteriorization and so forth, but they actu­ally don't come into the category of moving out of their heads and seeing a hospital room. See, they're not stuck-up, or hung up. You see that?

Now, that's energy gone out the window. Got the idea? So, there may be some necessity on some cases to rehabilitate energy as well, just purely energy instead of pictures or masses. Got that? So, that may come in on it, too. Because he may feel that if he uses energy he goes into instantaneous degradation. But, similarly, you can use this process or this pattern of proc­ess on anything a thetan creates. Use it on machinery.

Audience: Mm-hm.

"What part of a machine would you be willing to create?"

All right. Now, Scientology has to handle then, source of universes, not source of life. That's a fantastic misnomer, unless you say life is a life form. But, a thetan creates universes, and any universes there are are created by a, or several, or many thetans. It's an elementary proposition.

It would have to be followed by — because you'd get splinters, you'd get bits and pieces, disintegrations and all sorts of darned things. You would now have to flatten this out and square it up with "What part of a machine could you confront? What part of a machine would you dislike confronting?" That would flatten machinery, don't you see.

Now, you say, "This assaults the idea of God and the Supreme Being" and that sort of thing. Oh, I don't know. You may get good enough sometime to create a universe all by yourself and if you did, you'd be God! Got it? I mean you're in the same order of magnitude but boy, you'd sure have to do some awful fine selling, and you'd sure have to have an awful hypnotized lot of thetans in order to bring it off! That would be God. God doesn't fall out-side of these classifications or ramifications at all.

Circuits same way. If he finally knows what a circuit is you could run circuits out this way. Postulates, force, energy, you could also address this process to spaces but don't try it early on a case.

Now, somebody is liable to come along and try to make a slave out of everybody, and say, "Well, each one of you have a small spark of God in you."

You could rehabilitate anything a thetan can make or create by running Confront and Create, see, in that order. Running the Confront until it all flattens out and it's all straightened out and it's all okay and everything's fine. Then make him create some more until it all goes to pieces and then make him confront it until it's all okay. And then have him create some more until it all goes to pieces, and you'll find out it'll go less and less to pieces, and he's more and more able to handle it. The next thing you know he's stripped the bottom out from underneath whatever's worrying him. After that it's simply a matter of, he can create what he wants to create and change his considerations about the liabilities of having created it and that's about all there is to be said about it.

Well, if he said it straight it'd be, each one of you could probably blow up to this kind of a stature in some area if you weren't careful. In other words, you could get promoted up to this kind of a stature and you could be God.

Now, somebody's going to come along and say, "Invent a liability for hav­ing created something" is the perfect process.

Now, if he said that, why, he'd be factual. But telling you that you're a part of a divine being which is hovering over, and looking over your shoulder and keeping your conscience and so forth, is obviously a slave mechanism.

It's not. Not.

You listen to my remarks about Christianity, I'm very sorry if they assault anybody but the truth of the matter is, I despise any organization or activity which specializes in slavery, and I don't care whether that's commu­nism, or religionism, or politicalism. I don't care whether it's something Hit­ler's doing or the Pope's doing or anything else. You understand?

Because you'd have to have him then confront liabilities. Do you see that?

Audience: Yes.

Audience: Mm-hm.

If it's not good for people, I'm agin it! That's an awfully flat statement. But I don't believe infanticide, arsenic, you know, a lot of things I don't believe in. And it's just a personal peculiarity.

So, you see, anything that he would create has to be confronted to pat it back in place. Got that? Hm?

But you should never get wound up on — that I'm against this, that or the other thing specifically, it's just all covered in that one line. I just don't believe in things that aren't good for people and it's an oddity in this time and place. That's all. And, if somebody down here is starting a political party which is going to take all ... Everybody says, "Well, he must be against unionism if he's against communism and socialism." See.

Now, a demonstration of this, a good demonstration of this — let — let's take a look — let's take a look right now at some item in this room, oh, book-case over there. And it's pretty higgledy-piggledy, not a bad bookcase but it's been around for quite a while.

And, well, that's total identification. Unionism has done a heck of a lot for guys. I remember when ships crossing the Pacific and calling in the ports of Australia had crews they paid forty dollars a month to and they were fed rice and fish — white men were — and they were living like pigs down in their forecastle. Well, it's been nothing but unionism that has lifted the crews of merchant vessels out of this category to a point of where they can have decent rooms and decent food and aren't worked all day and all night, and kicked in the teeth. See? It's been nothing but unionism's done that.

Now, on a combined basis, there must be an awful lot of combined former creations, many generations of them, that go back to the materiel of the bookcase. Now, let's take it back at once. It goes back to the destruction of a tree. Right?

What I object to is the guy who comes along and takes something bene­ficial like unionism and collective bargaining, and turns it into some kind of a cockeyed political weapon by which he tries to convince all the people in the union that they ought to be slaves again! And I'm agin that! That looks like a dirty trick to me! And again, that's a peculiarity of mine.

Audience: Mm-hm.

So, just — if I don't think it's good for people, I'm agin it, that's it!

Hm?

I'm not against psychiatrists or anything else. As a matter of fact, I feel the poor psychiatrist has got to be fished out by us someday. He'll both be so far back down the corridor, in such a deep padded cell, that we'll hardly be able to get him out into the light of day. Because they go mad quite easily. And when they start shotgunning us, they're acting just like any psycho who would kick you in the teeth if you tried to process him. See?

Well, that's — that's simple. Actually from the destruction of a tree, it goes back to growing in soil which was full of destroyed material and picking up this (quote) "material," these bits and pieces and forming them into a tree, so it'd go back to that next destruction level. Huh?

Well, just because psychiatrists are off the beam is no reason they ought to drive people that we could salvage out, further off the beam, so our job is harder to salvage out. That's all I've got against psychiatry. You got that?

And of course, these things go back to particles and matter which was originated and basically you could say, more or less as a rule, not a hard fixed rule because the thetan can do anything, that bits and pieces of energy flying around, that you use in the physical universe, are disintegrated masses. They are not mocked up themselves usually. They're disintegrations of masses. So that would — the minerals and so forth that were picked up by the tree — minerals are present now in that bookcase, you see, causing its col-oration and all that sort of thing. They, of course, go back to some mass that we wouldn't know about, offhand, which disintegrated from some destruc­tion, which is to say, some counter-force. So it goes back through the counter-force to that mass.

Now, your various limitations in processing are the fact that there are many things which seek to reverse this process. Not just in the society, you know. But there are things in the mind that seek to reverse the process which you are doing.

Now, Lord knows what that mass was. But I can already tell you this winds back up into some activity like the planet builders, see, but planets are usually built out of fragments of radioactive and destroyed, burst masses, which are floating around in space. Well, we go back to what burst the big mass, you see, that made those fragments which were reassembled into a planet.

A person has become enamored with being a slave. He looks upon him-self as a victim, he's a professional victim. And that's the toughest one that you can possibly get there.

Well, if that's the case and if there was that big a mass around, why, the possibility is that it was assembled out of fragments, too. So, there's back through another counter-creation, a destruction back to another form. And however far this would have to be run back, if you ran that up on a basis of Create-Confront, you found out whatever it was — you ran it back to basic Create-Confront — theoretically, you could disintegrate that bookcase. Do you understand that?

And the professional victim, when you start to process him, he instantly starts blowing his stack if he gets any better, because you've taken his profes­sion away from him.

Audience: Yeah.

The beggars with leprosy that you see in some countries, so on, sitting

The funny part of it is, you'd have the power of putting the bookcase there and telling it to persist if you'd gotten back so far that you could as-is the most fundamental part of a bookcase. Do you see that?

there, would be the last people in the world to avail themselves of your help­ing hand. They have become enamored with that particular beingness.

Audience: Mm-hm.

And the way they become enamored with that beingness is very simple. They become hit so hard so often that to survive at all they have to make up their minds that they like it. That's the only way they can possibly move out of that category, or endure at all.

Well, now, demonstrating how one of these things worked, the swami of the past — and once in a while people say, "Well, why don't you occasionally lift people's hats up or do something, you know, and so forth? And show the people that Scientology really works, you know." Yeah, that's great, that would just fix everything up, that would. Particularly something like making explosions on a stage. That would really fix things up.

In view of the fact there's no other release than that one, why, don't par­ticularly think that one is strange or peculiar. They decide at last that the thing they really like to be, that causes no strain, or pain, that they enjoy a great deal is being a leprous beggar on the streets of Venezuela. See, they think that's a beingness! Huhhhhh!

That shows you what? Just what does that demonstrate! That demon­strates that something is sitting there as a vase is just one more step removed into flinders. Which flinders will be picked up in some fashion and made into some new combination, then here we go, here we go, here we go, you see. And we're just that much further up the track which proves abso­lutely nothing.

But the funny part of it is, you can trigger that liking being a victim so quickly in processing somebody. It's very often not more than a dozen com­mands of "What would you like to create?" or "What would you like to confront?" or some such command, you see, that triggers them right out of being that, and they hate it!

Now, it'd prove something entirely different if you unmocked that book-case and then put the bookcase there. Well, that's very interesting because nobody would notice you had done anything and would be absolutely certain that you had simply hypnotized them into not seeing the bookcase for a short time. Right?

So, it's the most nebulous state of being to remain in a state of being a beggar. See? That's very difficult to do.

Audience: Mm-hm.

Now, oddly enough, if you hit somebody and hit him and hit him and hit him and hit him and bring it to bear upon him that he has hit people and hit people and hit people and then get him to hit people and hit people and hit people, and get this overt act — motivator sequence going anyway it can be gotten going, he will wind up loving hitting people or loving being hit, which has nothing to do with love! He doesn't like anything, actually.

Now, the difference would be that you'd have an entirely different book-case sitting there. Probably made out of entirely different materials. It'd — might look exactly the same but it would not be the same bookcase. And it would be running there basically on your postulate that it persisted. Well, let's carry this action way back on the track and find out that was always the postulate you put into things — you nut!

But this is the only mechanism he has, short of processing, to make life endurable! And when he's been totally overwhelmed, he says, "I like it."

"It will persist!" "I now make the great god Ra!" "Gumph! God that's good. A little heavier pedestal, I made it too light. See, we have it. Ah! 'It will persist!' "

And you'll sometimes see children giving you this, and you won't — you just don't dig what this is all about. They seem to think this is fantastic. This child says he likes something. And don't argue with it. No reason to argue with the child. The child has found out that he couldn't possibly endure it! So, he gave up and reversed his mind on it and said he liked it.

It is. There it is. The fragments of what would persist are still obeying the law "It will persist." Persistence and confrontingness are quite similar. But if you ran into a total stuck on this the way to phrase it would be contin­uous confrontingness solves persistence.

It's a very unstable state. You process him any distance at all and he hates it, and starts coming up scale on this thing.

And this gives you one that I knocked your Instructors' ears off with one night over at an apartment in London and they're saying, "Wow! I will tell you, the last ACC ..." Some auditing command would be something on the order of, "What could you continue to confront?" "What could you continue to confront with?" Can you think about that for a moment?

Now, that is not true of everything everybody likes! That's the next mistake that you could make there. People can like things! But, what you're looking at is the low scale, aberrated beingness. An inversion of the ARC triangle, a utiliza­tion of one peculiar, particular factor in order to make life endurable. In other words, a person has come into terrific, out-of-phase emphasis on one thing "He likes being hit over the head with a hammer!" That's, you say, crazy.

"What could you continue to confront?"

Well, somebody says he likes ice cream. Obviously he has been over­whelmed with ice cream. No, that doesn't follow at all. The rationale isn't the same on all likingnesses.

You know, just stand right there and continue to confront? Do you know of anything you could continue to confront?

Now, fixed beingnesses that a person likes which are highly degraded have fixed it up so nobody could find out what man was all about. Because he looked — you looked at man who was sick, and you looked at man who was well, and the sick man said he liked being sick and the well man said he liked being well. And everybody said well, man is peculiar and just gave it all up.

Male voice: Nothing that I want to.

See, you never learn from man what man was all about. Oddly enough, you almost never learn from yourself what man was all about. Because there you were, you see, in one state, and he obviously was in another state, and then you insufficiently examined your state. So, you didn't know what you were all about.

Hm.

Well, the final standoff in processing and so forth is that you are trying to regain a state where a person's own abilities can function and where a person can function.

Well, that's why you're here and not stuck on some space station or something of the sort out in space, is you didn't continue to confront some-thing. But that's the basic command which undoes terrific persistence.

Now, you'd have all sorts of limited degrees of being able to function. See, you'd have a lot of these things that just — well, he couldn't quite func­tion in another society, so he'd function in this society or something. Various levels at which he could function, you see.

"What would you dislike continuing to confront?" of course, would be the opposite side of the dichotomy. Only, I'm afraid the opposite side of the dichotomy would be what would run off with you right now — brrrrrr.

Until you break his opinions of what he can function in, he's not going to function any different than what he's functioning in right at that present moment. So, you're changing beingness basically by changing capability.

Now, can you think of something that you would dislike continuing to confront?

Well, capability is regulated by willingness. That is the thing. A person is willing to do something, why, they can do it. But a person is unwilling to do something, he won't do it. In other words, their willingness to do has a lot to do with the consequences they may think occur as a result of doing some-thing. It has a lot to do with their adjudications, and so on. It becomes an extremely complex subject. Very! A subject we don't have to know very much about.

Hm?

Their ability depends upon only one basic ability, and that is their abil­ity to create. All abilities depend on the ability to create!

Is that easier?

A person who is holding down a job as a janitor has to create that job every hour of the day to do a good job as a janitor! Furthermore, to keep from wearing himself out on his creativeness, he has to kid himself that he doesn't have to create it. At the same time he's busily creating it, he just says, "I'm going on doing my job as a janitor." So, you have the atmosphere of survival.

Audience: Yes.

Well, now, he can confront the things connected with being a janitor. That's what he can confront. To get him to be anything more, or get him to aspire any higher — not that there's anything wrong with janitors, I wish we had a few good ones in HASIs. We very often do have, sometimes not.

All right. Well, anyone who fell halfway between and couldn't think of either one, of course, is in a nowhere on the subject. That would be a medium ground.

But his confrontingness is evident. But running confrontingness isn't the whole answer, and so confrontingness has to go back to creativeness, or creatingness. But between create and confront you have pretty well the whole answer. Pretty darn well the whole answer.

But, confrontingness works gradually up to continue to confront rather easily, and one's tolerance of time depends on continuance of confronting. Or, what creation would it be safe to make persist? That's not an auditing com­mand because again that's merely more confronting. See, "What creation ... continue to persist, yeah." And of course, nobody these days is willing to make anything continue to persist. They even build skyscrapers over in America now, on the basis they're only supposed to last twenty-five years and then fall down. That's supposed to be their total longevity.

Now, the original processes way back contained a very successful proc­ess called Creative Processing. It's covered in Scientology 8-8008, and is pretty good stuff, except that, as you cause the preclear to create he may run into the second factor of automatic slips on the cycle of action.

And they used to build shoes, man. They got the sledgehammer and the spikes out and they tanned the leather into solid steel, you know, and they carved it and they beat them and they hammered, and they drrrrr, and so on and they built a pair of shoes. You know? And these days they run them through on a couple of lathes and tack a couple of tack hammers to them and sell them to a lady for fifteen or twenty times the price. And she walks down the street, the heels come off, the soles tear off — not the same degree of per­sistence. And we get this impersistence of things going down scale till you find in some very old race, the fantastically flimsy things that are used in construction. It's fantastic some of the flimsiness used in China, for instance, on construction materials, if you've ever seen these things.

He gets a bank swollen up on him because any time you improve one picture in a bank, you improve them all, because a bank depends on the per-son's ability to create pictures. You improve the person's ability to create pic­tures, and all the beheadings, and the drownings and everything else improve, too. That's the trap.

And in Japan — nobody in America, up probably until they defeated Japan, you see, and we all defeated Japan, we probably got the same thing coming over. I noticed we now have new contemporary gardens. I've looked at them years ago in the Imperial Palace in Tokyo, see, the new contemporary garden and all that sort of thing. They probably got paper walls over in America by now. But nobody but the Japanese on an old line like this, and so forth, would think of making a wall out of paper, you know. Terrifically impersistent materials.

Now, we improve his ability to create, we're going to improve the ability of pictures, aren't we?

Of course, the Chinese, the funny stuff that the Chinese build in — out of paper and out of mud, and so on. The amount of artistry, for instance, that goes into the makeup of an Amoy cat. Have you ever seen an Amoy cat? Well, it's a little tiger, and they have various types of felines and they have bal­anced heads and the heads are shoved through a hole in the body and then they have a balanced tail with a counterbalance inside the body and it all hangs on a little string. And the faintest breath of air hitting one of these Amoy cats will cause the head to go this way and the tail to bounce in some other way. I used to think these things were made in some super, super molds, you know, and it was all done on a machine basis and it must be because there were so many of them around.

Audience: Yes.

And I got very curious about them because I left one sitting in a — next to an open porthole one night when I'd been up along China Coast, many, many years ago. And the sea came in, and when I came back in I — this funny looking cat that I had been packing around, he wasn't there! And I said, "Well, he washed overboard." No, he hadn't washed overboard. He dissolved. There he was lying there, just a little mound of mud — a little mound of mud and yellow paint.

Well, they're going to slip on the cycle of action, so therefore the more he creates on certain subjects and objects, the more destruction gets run in on the thing, or the more plus — minus randomity.

So I took another one of them that I had there, and just dampened him slightly, you know, and he started to disintegrate. They're made out of mud, just nothing but mud. But, they're made by hand, and — most of them and they're painted by hand and there's no operation but basically, what are they making? They're making a mud cat. Nothing to hold the cat together. I don't know how the devil they last on the store shelf much less when they pass into the hands of the first purchaser.

We get him to create something, it does a slip over here and we've now got plus and minus randomity, one or the other, or both.

And the impermanence that a race as it grows old gets down to — well, take automobiles. They're not down to a total collapse yet but you look at what they thought they had to put into an automobile in 1910 or 12 and look at what they put into an automobile today. And let's forget about prices or comparable performance or that sort of thing, it was just the heaviness and weightiness of the thing.

We run "Create, create, create." And the next thing you know the person is going dzzzzzzzz. "I'm dead" or "I've got to kill them" or "I've got to kill me" or something of the sort, et cetera. Got the idea?

And I remember an American design engineer was sacked by a British company about thirty-five or forty years ago because they were making rail-way carriages and the brass rails that were at the top of the carriage tended to overbalance it, and give it too — you know, the tops of the carriages were too heavy. Well, this American designer was working with this British com­pany and he came along and he said, "Well, these — all these brass rails up here at the top, make them hollow, you know, lighten them up and so forth." And they fired him. It just went against the principles of the solidity of Brit­ish manufacturing.

In other words, you get him started creating. He's already prevented him-self from creating.

Now, you watch any item go down that road of impermanency and you watch any person go down the road of impermanency and the less perma­nency they're willing to take responsibility for, the more permanency they get on automatic. Right?

Now how did — why did he do that?

Audience: Yes.

Well, such civilizations as Arslycus depended entirely upon enslavement of a thetan into creativeness. He was made to create! Well, he could only be made to create because he himself had made others create. And there's enforced creation all over the bank.

So, that is the permanency that you see in a bank and that is the exact mechanism of what that is. Just as you're unwilling to stand and confront something for a hundred thousand years, you see, you'd similarly be unwill­ing to make something that permanent anymore. You know?

Now, his argument against this very early on the track was to set up a series of postulates which only processing would eventually undo, that if he creates too much, and he doesn't like it, why, something will get destroyed. He had arguments on the subject of creating too much.

Naturally, if you won't take — if you don't instantly and easily span the idea of a total permanency, of infinite permanency, how you going to as-is it in the bank? It won't as-is. So, the bank apparently gets solider and solider, and the dirt in China gets thicker and thicker, and deeper and deeper, you see? And the customs of China become more and more fixed. More — I — oh, these poor commies, oh, these poor commies, oh!

Just as the Bank of England would be very upset about somebody who could mock up one pound notes. If the guy mocked up perfect one pound notes, the Bank of England would think up some method of dimming down his creativeness.

I remember what happened one time in a factory where they had finally succeeded in teaching a Chinese mechanic to use a band saw. They'd made it — Chinese mechanic was very clever, he thought — he knew when he saw a good thing, that band saw. But they taught him with no guard. Safety engi­neer came around and said, "Hey, the guard's off that band saw." So, he got it and he showed it to the fellow. He says, "Where's the guard?" The fellow pulls the guard out and says, "There's — there's the guard off of it." "Put it on and you leave that on the table. That's there to keep you from chopping your hands off and so forth, and you leave that guard there on the table."

Now, there's the basic bar and barrier on the track. And to fish some-body out, it is necessary to improve his ability to create without consequence. And you can make a strong mark underneath that particular classification.

The next day he came by and no guard! And he says, "Well, where's the guard that goes on this band saw?" And the mechanic says, "Well, there it is, there it is." Pulled it out and put it on the table and screwed it on and so forth. It's okay.

A person has to be able to create without consequence!

The guy came by the next day and, "The guard. Where's the guard?" "The guard's under there." And he pulls it out and he puts it on the table and

If he can create without consequence then he will be able to create, then he will be willing to exert more of his capabilities! But he will not be able to exert more of his capabilities if he cannot create without consequence!

so on. And this inspector, after about fifteen or twenty weeks of this let it go with no guard. He had simply been worn out by this automatic persistence. And he said, "Well, I just — that's too persistent for me."

If he has consequences that nail down his creativeness, then he won't create. Therefore he won't do a better job. Therefore he won't improve as a case. Therefore he won't make his body look better. Therefore he won't improve his marriage.

And that's true of almost anything in China. The old China hand that rushed out to China, you know, he was going to do the country this way and that and change it all, and mechanize it, and fix it all up and alter all their customs! And-and-and-and-and ... Pretty soon you saw him with his feet on the banister at the club, you know, sipping a drink. Too much persistence for him. He couldn't, himself, span that much idea of persistence, particularly of odd bits and pieces that didn't fit anymore. All the mechanics of the place were still in bits and pieces. Yet, nevertheless, these people managed to do a fairly fantastic job!

He knows what kind of a marriage works! A horrible, brickbat, frying­pans-out-the-back-door sort of a wife is absolutely necessary, you see, to a calm, quiet, orderly marriage!

I've seen a Chinese workman with a fish bone and a stone and a little stick and a piece of string, drill a hole, as perfect and accurate as anything was ever drilled with a Stanley drill and darned near as fast. He didn't have any nails, so he was using whittled pegs. And he just whittled pegs and so forth. I was very overawed about this. He was building a sort of a little bam­boo pavilion and he was drilling holes and filling them up full of carved pegs and neaten it all up and, boy, he was making quite a job.

Now, she knows what kind of a husband is necessary to a marriage. Absolutely! She's got him absolutely taped. He sits home all day in his stock­ing feet and never does a tad of work. And that's a safe kind of a husband to have. In spite of all the randomity that occurs around it, this person is not willing to have, or do, or make a better existence than that because there is too much consequence connected with doing so!

I said to the British officer that had this particular job being done, a partic­ular pal of mine, you know, I said to him, "Well, you know these guys really can get something done! You know, this is quite a thing! This is fairly terrific! Look at him building this pavilion and so on. Working like mad and so on."

This kind of an existence you could make and get away with, but don't make that kind of an existence!

He says, "Yeah, the hell with him."

Right in the middle of London they're building some of the most beauti­ful stores you ever wanted to see. They're gorgeous. It's going to take years before the public ever goes in them. There was a beautiful shopping center from a British public standpoint up on Notting Hill Gate, along the gate there. That was an absolutely gorgeous shopping center. Little tiny shops, fish stores that you slipped all over the floor on, and absolutely slimy side-walks in all directions, and very narrow, and too much traffic and you couldn't move through anything, you couldn't get anything done. But the stores were there, you could buy anything in them, and everything was all covered with dust. The place was jammed as a shopping center.

I says, "What's a matter with you!" I say, "He's a perfectly good native workman and he's doing a good job and he's building a nice pavilion."

Now, they've swept it all out and put in great big beautiful stores. Well, somebody is trying to create! Good! But it's sure going to take a while before anybody really patronizes it.

"Yeah," he says, "it's a nice pavilion all right. About the first rainstorm that comes along, why those pegs will swell up, or burst or break, or some-thing of the sort, and stuff will come down, and then he'll have a job of repairing it and so on."

There's an interesting fact!

I says, "But look, he hasn't got any tools, he hasn't got anything to work with. And so forth ..."

Now, your — your creativeness monitors your havingness. Because you

He says, "He what?"

will have but very little more than you can create, see. One way or another, if you feel like you can create some part of this thing, you'll have it.

And I said, "Well, he hasn't got any tools. He hasn't got anything to work — look, he used his fish bone, and little stone and drill, just doing a terrific job of drilling these holes and cutting these pegs out and putting them in."

Therefore, we see somebody with an old, wrecked car. Well, that car doesn't run, the tires all go flat and the battery is never able to start it, and so forth. Give him a good car! I dare you! Man, he's going to be unhappy with that car. He's going to run that into walls, and flatten the tires, and let the battery go out. And you say, "That boy is certainly doing terrible things to that new car."

"Ah!" he says, the British officer said, "Really now!" Went over to the side of the porch and opened the guy's toolbox and there the British embassy had given him a Stanley drill and all the drills and parts and all the ... That was the way it went. God help the communists.

No sir! He's making that car at a level he himself could have. And he knows what kind of a car he would make, you see, which is just a little bit worse than the car he could have. See, he'll have just a little bit better than he could make, because that kind of puts enough ceiling on it so he won't mock it up carelessly or unmock it carelessly, see. Gets it all taped one way or the other.

Now, persistence in the bank then requires that you do an awfully good job on Confrontingness. Right?

Therefore, a thetan will not have a cleaner, clearer mind, or a weller, better body than he himself feels it would be comfortable to create. That's a fantastic thing!

And if something just failed utterly to surrender, and you just had this pc, and it was absolutely impossible to get rid of this black screen and just nothing was happening, and it was all terrible, and you knew you had the case straightened out and the needle down and nothing on the case and you were auditing it all right and it just keeps on being black-black-black-black-blacker, all splintered-splintered-splintered-splinter-splintered and you couldn't get anything at all. You'd certainly better run in "Continue to confront." He'd have had it then.

He is able to create, his ability to create never dims but his willingness to exercise it monitors the living daylights out of it. That's fantastic when you begin to look it over.

And gradually build him up on the length of time he's willing to con­tinue to confront and the postulate of "Confront it forever" would fall out of it. It's possibly a necessary tool in your kit. And that keeps you from continu­ing to confront the pc forever. But continuance of confrontation is definitely a part of all of this because that gives you something vaguely resembling ulti­mate survival and all of this sort of thing is all wound up in that.

Therefore, you could change a fellow's postulates, you could move him all around, you could shift his bank left, right, and center. You could change him, shift him, make him well, anything you cared to do in Dianetics.

Time might have to be handled somewhere on the road to OT but if time were handled directly it would be on continuous confrontingness. There might be some other method of handling time come up. Possibly the old one, "Make some time." But, "Make some time" we know now would have to be followed with, "Confront some time." See? And "Continue to confront" would be the time process. And you'd probably never enter time into it at all. You'd just say, "Continue to confront."

But until you have changed the attitude of the source of universes toward those universes, he won't create a much different universe than he's been creating before.

As far as time itself is concerned, time is an idea, it is a postulate, it is an agreement, it's this, it's that, it's the other thing. And it falls out along with almost anything else and probably itself, would not require too much inspection or direct processing. But maybe in some case, maybe you'll run into some case where "Continuous Confront" is about the first thing you have to run.

You, of course, could come along and shift his universes! Hardly even ask his permission.

Some case that you say — if you ran something like this: "What could you be absolutely sure would be here in one minute?" If you get more than a half-hour comm lag on that one, the time button is so far out that you've got to build him up on continuous confrontingness. See?

Auditors used to do this in Dianetics all the time. Run out some series of pictures, and this fellow could walk! Guy says, "Wow, you know, look what I did."

So, you tell him, "Look around the room." And say, "How long would you be willing to confront that wall?" or something like this. And you could work him up the line where you bammed his confrontingness. Probably do it with room objects, something of this sort.

Yeah, that's right, "Look what the auditor did." The pc had nothing to do with it.

Now, the flexibility of these processes are enormous. Therefore, I don't want you to lose sight of the basic principles that I've been trying to demon­strate to you.

A few days later, as an auditor was telling me the other day, you know, the pc lands up in the hospital with ulcers. Somebody speeded the mock-up up, so he's got to slow it down. He's been overwhumped.

The basic principles are simply this: that Confront and Create are the two parts of existence that have to be treated on a case level. And that those can be addressed to anything.

Without making him willing to do more in life, we remodel life. The way to make him more willing would be ... Oh, there are several ways: You could get his overts off. You could do this. You could do that. But you'd have to change the willingness of the creative source. And that creative source is you! It may be you via a circuit. It may be you via a mind. It may be you via this physical universe and your body and a circuit and a mind. See!

But creation is prevented by the thetan by running into the cycle of action over to an apparency of destruction. You never handle, as itself, destruc­tion. You just handle creation, because creation is a brand-new — destruction is a brand-new creation. It's a counter-force.

I don't care how many vias are on the line, it's still — not necessarily you, I'm talking about the highly generalized you, as you speak to a pc, see. It's not a different id, ego, on the left side of the ventricle, you see, which is wound up by the censor, which looks in a looking glass and sees something through the eyeballs. It's all a bunch of balderdash that's been kicked up. It's too darned simple to hardly confront.

Whatever you ask the pc to create in a process and that includes make, lie about, think up, invent, see? Any of those things is create. You've got to get him to confront, face, live with anything that you could think of that had anything to do with that, which added up to the same command.

There's a guy, and that's it. And he has capabilities, and these basic capabilities are to create, and to continue created.

That alone will pat back into place what has been stirred up by the Cre­ate and you'll bring him up to a tolerance of creation without consequence.

Now, the funny part of it is, is after he's created something, he can look at it. He can combine it, associate it, recombine it, do this, do that and so forth, but each time he does that he's creating a new combination of forms, terms,

You can run this on a dichotomy in either the Create or the Confront and reduce the amount of confusion on the bank or incident to the bank. And that's the way that you'll get somebody out of the soup.

relationships or something of the sort, and continuing in creation old forms, types, sizes and shapes of relationship. You got the idea? But he's creating!

Okay?

And we're right up now at the top of the Axioms. That's why we're deal­ing with OT processes. We're right pushing the top!

Audience: Yes.

And right on down to Axiom 10, you have trouble. Below Axiom 10, there's no trouble. You could probably undo the things below Axiom 10 but down to Axiom 10, you start to shake any of these things up very much and you shake up the rest of the situation, and you get back to the Create Series whether you would or not.

Thank you.

Well, now, the Create Series has tremendous liabilities. Why?

Because, so help me, he's still creating the first thing that he ever cre­ated! He's obsessive on the subject of creativeness. And if there's anything wrong with a thetan, that could be stated down to be totally wrong with a thetan, it's the fact that his creativeness has now become totally obsessive, and almost never self-determined!

There's nothing wrong with creativeness but there's a great deal wrong with obsessive creativeness, and that's pretty different.

A fellow going on and creating and not even knowing he's creating? Why, he's nuts! And yet, that's what makes a mind, that's what makes a body, and that's what makes a universe. He knows nothing about that he's doing any of these things. He couldn't take any responsibility for it at all.

Why? Because he already knows the consequences of making them so he's going on making them because the consequences of making them are so great that he'll slide over here, and he's liable to get into serious trouble if he — even if he found out himself he was making them, you see. He'd get into trouble. So he — although he goes on and makes them, he doesn't let himself find out!

And demons, and dragons and things that go boomp in the night are always appearing before him, and around him, and things are going haywire, and zraaahhh, and so on, and after a while he gets so confused that he can't really occupy ability level or do anything particularly and he's just kind of fogged up, and — and then he says, somebody must be fogging him up. By golly! That's sure right, he is!

But, he's not going to find it out, with you just coming along and saying to him, "Well, you're creating everything and it's all your fault, and it's just your obsessive creativeness that's gotten us all in trouble and ..."

I'm afraid that would not be the proper approach. But, there is a proper approach and you're doing it right this minute!

Now, you're running Creativeness, and then taking the edge off. Because as far as functions of life is concerned in seniority there are just these two things: Create and Confront.

You say, "Yes, but the cycle of action says create-confront-destroy." No, destruction is simply a new creation against an old one. So, there is no destruction. Even though things lie around in flinders, it's only there because of creation. Both the creation of the thing originally, and the creation of a force which destroyed it. Now, that's — that's the score.

You've got create and confront, and that's all you've got. Confront is sur­vive. Continuous confrontingness is continuous survival. That's it.

Your track then is run out, squared around, done this, done that, the liability is taken off the case, all this kind of thing occurs one way or the other, by a person cogniting on this or that, or looking it over and reassessing his values, and stopping the automaticity of it all on the subject of create and confront. And if you've got create and confront out, most of the other

postulates will fall out, and only one thing has to be rehabilitated strongly after that, as an individual thing, and that's postulates. The making of pos­tulates has to be rehabilitated, but that's a kind of a creativeness, too.

You wonder why you don't make postulates anymore, well, you just made postulates, made postulates to a point where they slide on the cycle of action, and apparently go over to destroy.

The only two points of the cycle of action then you're interested in are create and confront. All right.

Therefore, the commands that would run create and confront are very simple commands, and they're very easily run, and they're very easily han­dled on a case. The most extreme method of handling this would be by the following method.

An assessment, a very good assessment which has to do with any item that drops, as you've learned to do on any of the dynamics, see, that had to do with it. This assumes, of course, the person's got a clear needle on overts before you — before you start that.

All right, assessment — he's in session by the time you do an assessment. All right. Now, you do an assessment, you pick out that one thing there that drops, and you run on that one thing, "What part of a (blank) would you be willing to create?"

Now, I'm going to give you the extreme form, not the form you have to use, but the most complex form of this. "What part of a (blank) would you be willing to create?"

With the alternate question, "What part of a (blank) would you be unwilling to create?"

Now, that takes some of the randomity off right at the beginning. Now, this is an extreme version, you don't need this much, but there it is, see. And that for a case that got very easily confused, it would probably be what you would have to use.

Now, you do have to, with most of the cases that you're going to audit, run a dichotomy on Confront. Now you scare up a lot of splinters. Let's lay the splinters back again, and put the mind in shape, see.

Now, why do those splinters come about? Here's an object, and this object comes along here and then it runs awhile in time, and then it's destroyed. Well, you start to run Create, and you bring into being the first impulses creating this object, you're going to run over here and get into its splinters. And then you're going to take this object again, in some other cycle, and you're going to take this object again, and you're going to get some more splinters, and more splinters, and more splinters, and they keep running over here, and running over here, and after a while the guy goes "Wog-wog-wog. What — what's this all about?"

I think a lot of you have had a subjective look at this thing, or should have had by this time. Right?

Audience: Right.

All right, he goes "wog-wog-wog! What are all these splinters about?" And he'll so on and so on and so on.

Now is the time to find out what he's got, so you run an alternate ques­tion, "What part of a could you confront? What part of a (blank) would you dislike confronting?"

Now, that for sure would lay it in the grave, see. It's going to slide over the rest of the way onto destroy and it gets all the splinters out of road, and it lays it all in the grave, and it gets it all set and moves it back here on the track and

gets it into its obsessive persistence which is what's basically wrong with it in the bank. What's wrong with the bank is obsessive persistence of mock-ups.

So, the guy gets it back, moved back, squared around, gets it center cycled again, gets various impulses connected with it off, with this alternate question. Which is just, "What part of a (blank) could you confront?" And "What part of a (blank) would you dislike confronting?" Now, that — that-just one-two, one-two, one-two, one-two.

And you'll find occasionally, you'll pick up a case that's been confronting very heavily and he gets along the line, and he's ripe for that right at the beginning. You get noplace till you could run, "What could you confront? What would you dislike confronting?" And that's one of your black cases, your cases that are all messed up or so stuck on the needle and you don't seem to be able to do anything with the case, and you can't get anyplace. You still better break down those overts, however.

You could bust right into a case with this, get at — the case somewhat straightened out right then, and then do an assessment, don't you see. It's as though somebody has already run Create on him in some way. Well, you clean that up regardless of what it is, and then get it over.

And what you do basically is this, you restimulate the bank selectively and flatten it out.

Now, the Create is very therapeutic all by itself, but it also artificially restimulates the bank in any form or version that you care to restimulate it. You don't wait for the pc to walk outside and get restimulated, and you don't depend on the pc walking in restimulated on the proper buttons in order to clear him. You got it? You just pick up the case and restimulate it artificially with running Create on anything you think has to be run, and that could be all of the subjects and items which would carry right on out to OT.

We don't even care whether the tone arm went up, down, or when you shifted the process, or anything else. That we don't care about because you're going to run it some more. You're going to run this confront on it for a while, you see.

And you say, "How long?" Well, I'd say run a couple hours of Create, or a day of Create or something like that, and then follow it through with as much Confront as is necessary to settle a needle down to Clear, or somewhere near it.

And you say, "Fine, we've got all that keyed out very nicely. Now, let's go right back and run the same restimulative button and bring it up here, and get the whole joint spinning again."

What are you doing? You're running the — you're running the ashtrays out from underneath the busted ashtrays. You got the idea?

Audience: Yes.

Because in every piece of matter there's a bunch of busted ashtrays. See that?

Now, you could selectively take anything you wanted to then, and run it up into a point where the bank was just in flinders! Yeah, but what's in flinders? And you start reassembling the ashtrays. You reassemble them with Confront.

You artificially restimulate anything you want to restimulate with Create. You find any disability in the bank is expressed by a disability in creation. Apparent disability in creation, actually only an unwillingness to create.

You make that guy buck right straight up against that unwillingness to create. And he says, "Well, I've got you, the second you asked me to create this. Quite a long time ago I learned what to do about that. Ha! Ha! Here I lie, getting deader and deader and deader. And everything is going to pieces more and more. And look at the dishabille which you're causing." Right — fits right into his victim valence — bang!

All you've got to do is run Confront, you know: confront–not confront; confront–not confront; confront–not confront, see.

Plus and minus randomity starts flying off. "Hey, what do you know!" The bank straightens out, and everything starts to look clean, clear and slick as a whistle, and he starts running into lives that are stuck, and minus ran­domities, and starts running into this and that, and straighten all that out. And starts going back on the track, and things start fitting back into place again, and he has realizations of one kind or another, and he's got postulates flying off. And he's just doing fine.

When he got that pretty well straightened out, and he's feeling real good now, and he said, "Well, it's just fine and I think you should end the inten­sive, I've never felt better in my life," you go right back and run the same item on Create!

The next thing you know, he'll be able to create it without consequence! Furthermore, he will know, and remember now why he put consequences on creating it in the first place.

And he'll say, "well those circumstances don't fit the circumstances I'm in anymore, because they don't!" And he'll say, "I'll change my mind. You've got me."

I know of no other way to make an OT. Because all of them, you're going to run into the same mechanism.

Take your old Lies Process. Well, that's Create, isn't it? You try to make a new man, and he starts to die on you. The same mechanism, isn't it? Audience: Mm-hm.

You keep running into this phenomenon, and I finally isolated it as the principal phenomena that is keeping cases from advancing or going to Clear where it appears on any given subject.

It's a Step 6 phenomena, every picture in the bank, the better it gets the better all the pictures in the bank get.

Well, Confront damps off the liability of that. You can take any Step 6 phenomena and damp it off with this Confront, alternate dichotomy on Con-front. The Step 6 stuff can be knocked right straight out.

And so can the stuff stirred up by Create, and the increased abilities to create, and so forth. You can run those out again with Confront.

Now, there's a shotgun process and version of this which is very simple, which I've already given you, but I must mention. And that is you start in and run the case something on the basis of: "What could you create? What would you dislike creating?"

And then, "What ..." this is the pattern, "what could you confront? What would you dislike confronting?"

Two dichotomies. Right now you're simply running one side of Create which is all you need to do with the cases you've got to hand.

Do an assessment. Run one side of Create, run that into a superrestimu­lation. Run the Confronting on the same object. And you're selectively restimulating and then running the restimulation and consequence off that. You can go all the way.

Now, you tell me how fast you can do this. You tell me how well you can do this. And I will tell you how long you will have to do this. But as far as making merely an OT or something low like that, why, you needn't worry too much about that. Because if you carried this out all the way, why you'd make God, and know more about Christianity than the Pope.

Thank you very much.