Thank you

We have a congress yet?

Audience: Yes!

All right.

I think perhaps you'd like to hear a lecture about clearing. Would you?

Audience: Yes.

All right. All right.

Now, it happens - it happens that this subject called clearing has been heard of before. You have read about it for a number of years. And about a year ago probably despaired of its ever occurring. And you said, „Well, this is just one of Ron's sells, you know, he's trying to keep up our enthusiasm and so forth. He's told us about this mysterious state. And there's no reason to go on with it because it'll probably never happen.“

Right now it's happening I admit it's happening with some randomity. But it is happening, and it is a fact.

Here was the main difference about Clears. The first Clears were made in 1947, and then I tried to teach other people to do it. And very quickly and briskly in ten years was able to do that. Only took ten years which is pretty good.

Clearing happens to require auditing of an expertness that is seldom achieved in two or three weeks' training. The truth of the matter is it probably takes a year or two of hard work on the part of an auditor to get up to the skill of training, and right now we have said in our new training schedule that we don't guarantee anybody can do anything like clearing. Oh, he can cure illnesses and do things like that but he can't do anything like clearing in under two years of training.

The fact of clearing depended upon the skill of auditing and that was the only real barrier.

When I tried to communicate to the first auditors that were trained, the skills of clearing, I found out it was a hit or miss proposition. And actually had to turn the whole subject around more or less so that it would teach them how to audit, teach them to handle cases that were in poor condition, teach them to make people well who hadn't been well before, teach them to do a great many things and teach them to do - to handle a tremendous amount of phenomena in the mind. And they could do all these things rather well - But that wasn't enough, that wasn't enough. It's true that a man can learn to be an auditor, or a girl can learn to be an auditor who can cure somebody of some disease that has plagued them a whole lifetime or something like that and yet not be good enough to clear somebody! It's a tremendous upgrading.

Because the moment you start to trifle with this thing called clearing, you run into problems that you don't run into in simply making a person survive. People become very sensitive when you start monkeying around with their Rocks!

ARC breaks, and their presence require a skill that is absolutely incredible! And as usual we're doing the incredible.

The training drills which we have, have to be done perfectly! They have to be done with superb smoothness in order to avoid these ARC breaks and in order to handle cases in the direction of Clear. Now, that is the fact of clearing today. It is auditing skill.

We have these TRs, these drills. We have other things. We have ways of training today which themselves, as we compare it to clearing, are just as important as the techniques of clearing. That's something to know, isn't it?

But here was a whole technology over here called „education up to the level of being an auditor,“ which compares to this other thing called „clearing, techniques required therefore.“

Now, you can give somebody a technique, and you can say, „Well, you just run this for enough hours and it'll clear somebody.“ No, no! To whom did you give the technique? That's the fascinating question: To whom?

The funny part of it is you can put two auditors side by side, running two cases somewhat similar, and give one, less skilled, Process A, and give the other one, well skilled, Process A, and the case of the preclear being audited by the first one gets a little improvement and feels better only he isn't sure that it wasn't the Bromo Seltzer or something he took before the session. And the case audited by the second auditor gets Clear.

Now, what's this all about?

Well, it isn't any sensitive touch. It isn't any necromancy. It isn't how many beams you put out and throw into the preclear's skull. That has nothing to do with it But this does have something to do with it: How well can the auditor get the preclear into session, and how smoothly can he keep him there? And that has everything to do with it.

Now, know that a technique capable of clearing somebody must make an atomic bomb look like a damp firecracker. You address this technique, which can clear somebody, to a case and don't give the case all the backup needed to maintain this level of boom and the case does kind of go boom! You see that? So, we can't say today, „All you've got to do is just read this short pamphlet, read it carelessly, take some section of it, grab ahold of somebody off the street, get him to sit still for a few minutes and have a Clear.“ We can't say that. Because it wouldn't be true.

People, when they are - start in the direction of Clear, find more reasons why they can't go there. And Clear means so many different things to so many different people that it takes some very skilled, delicate auditing.

And as you take one of these techniques capable of clearing somebody and address it to a case and handle it poorly, all you get is the result of a great number of ARC breaks with the case. That's interesting, isn't it?

The old psychoanalyst, he ran into this phenomena all the time. And he said, „Just about the time you start to get somebody well, you know, he decides not to get well, and so therefore you really can't do anything for peoples, but you just try.“ This was the reason he talked that way.

The second he started heading in toward some desperately hot button, the case was sufficiently unstable emotionally during the approach to that button, that anything the analyst did wrong at that time amounted to an ARC break which made the case go out of session. And in view of the fact that an analyst did not have a few small items in his training - he lacked a few of these items such as the Auditor's Code, TR 0, TR 1. TR 2, TR 3, TR 4, TR 5, TR 6, TR 7, TR 8 and TR 9! And never did any of these things; it's a wonder that he ever got to first base at all. But there is what happened to a case in analysis when one of Freud's theories started to reach. The case would blow the session. The case would become angry. The case would decide not to get well. You see this? See how easily this could be?

And then you could decide at that time that the technique was not the right technique, that the question was not the right question. Well, the question probably in some cases was the right question.

You could head a person in toward getting rid of the major thing wrong, and handle the case just a little bit wrong and get boom! And the person wanted no more auditing, no more analysis, no more anything.

Therefore skill is required to clear people because you're really heading this boy out from the security of being aberrated into the unknown of being happy. And that's a long jump!

After all, he's very securely aberrated. I think from the days of Aesculapians, psychoanalysts, witch doctors, mamalois, papalois, psychiatrists and the corner butcher alike must have believed that people love their aberrations, and that people got along in the world simply because they were crazy.

And you'll hear this thread running through most dissertations of last century's psychology and psychiatry and psychoanalysis. By the way just in passing, I am sometimes accused of being critical of these subjects. It's an unjust criticism, I'm not critical of these subjects. I am savage on them.

Did you know that these three subjects are all the product of the last century? Were you aware of the fact that psychology as it exists today was developed in 1879 by a Professor Wundt in Leipzig, Germany, that Freudian analysis was first conceived before 1894 and was announced in 1894? And that psychiatry goes as far back as we can read Russian history?

Now, it's an interesting thing that these are all old hat! Those are all yesterday's ideas. And they fit poorly in the framework of a modern society because this society is more enlightened than the society in which these things were developed, and that is the reason as much as anything else that they are outreached. You have better educated people today.

These fellows when they fail are likely to blame anybody, including us, when the truth of the matter is they fail because they didn't grow. They didn't grow. They're still the same size they were the day they were born. That's not true of Scientology. I think you will agree with me when I say we've had a few changes.

Now, there's no reason to get dizzy about these changes, however, at this time. We are the product of the mid-twentieth century, we are more than fifty years after any development in the field of psychotherapy; we're half a century in advance of all of these things.

Therefore, that we do different things should occasion no wonder, because covertly I am sure we have profited by the bad lessons taught by last century's psychotherapy. We would be fools if we hadn't learned something about it.

The psychoanalyst who sits there and evaluates, evaluates, evaluates. He's - typical psychoanalytic session, you know, the fellow sits there and - he's a patient, you know - and he sits there, and the psychoanalyst says, „Now, is there any-any-any-any experience you had with little girls when you were a little boy? Huh?“

And the patient says, „Uh-well yes, I knew a girl named Maggie one time, and-uh - I remember I was about four and I think she was about seven. And uh-uh ... “

The psychoanalyst says, „That's it! Now, tell me more about this experience with Maggie.“

„Well, as a matter of fact we were walking home from school one day, and-uh-there was an open field there. And...“

„Yes! Yes! Yes!“

„And-uh-there was a clump of bushes there in the open field...“

„Go on now! Go on now! Now, we're getting right to the middle of the case. That's what was wrong with you. We've got it absolutely bracketed, and we know all about your case now! Now, the thing of the matter is that you had an envy! That's right! You were envious! And uh-our conclusions here: that you are suffering from an - a Oedipus/Electra complex based on bush clumpiness. Now we've got the whole thing solved.”

„What happened between you and Maggie, incidentally?“

„Well, as a matter of fact, I went over in the clump of bushes and I found this small mouse and she ran like hell.“

If you - if you listen to a psychoanalyst at work, you wonder how in the devil he ever got - gets anyplace with anybody, if he does. Because he evaluates, evaluates, evaluates. He tells a person what's wrong with him before they have a chance to open their mouth.

And having evaluated, when the person says, „I know what's wrong with me. I was beaten every day of my life by my father. And all the time he beat me he called me a skunk. And now girls won't go with me no matter how much Lifebuoy soap I use.“ The psychoanalyst says, „That isn't what's wrong with you. That odor is because you're envious of your mother.“ You can't be right.

Now, on a broad level that is an ARC break. And the person to whom that is done suffers an out-of-sessionness. They say, „I do not want to be here anymore. In fact, I want my money back. My impulse toward elsewhereness is now paramount.“

Now, you don't have to go that far when you're starting to clear somebody and you invalidate or evaluate. You're clearing somebody, he's getting very near the Rock, he's approaching it like a very small girl and a very icy cold pool of water, you know? Very delicately. Very delicately. And you say, „Ahem.“

And he says to himself, „He's laughing at me. I hate him!“

And every bit of diffidence he felt toward approaching the incident, he instantly picks up and throws straight at the auditor - boom! That „ahem“ was too much for him. He's now out of session and has a large dose of elsewhereness. And that's what happens. That's invalidation. Humph!

Now, evaluation can be as little as „Mm-hm.“

„Yeah?“ he says, „so he's telling me 'that's it'.“ You see? „He says, 'Mmhm.' Well, he's forcing this cognition on me, and telling me 'that's it' and I now have a desire to 'elsewhere'.“ He goes out of session.

The art of keeping somebody in-session while you're driving him toward that thing which he has not dared to approach for seventy-six trillion years ... Those, by the way, who do not believe in past lives do not have to believe in past lives, you understand that. You don't have to buy this at all. If you were born and you are living one life and you're very happy about it and you're going to kick the bucket, and that's very satisfying to you, by all means go on believing, but don't get audited! Well, anyhow ...

So, here's this - here's this fellow - for seventy-six trillion years he has never dared look out of the corner of his eye at that thing. And the auditor is saying ... And the smoothness with which he has to turn the preclear's head to look at that thing is, to be colloquial, out of this world. It really has to be very smooth.

And any misplaced „Mm-hm“ and „hm-hm“ doesn't go.

In other words, to clear somebody an auditor has to be one of the best disciplined people anybody ever had - ever heard of.

It would kill a psychoanalyst to go through this much discipline. We know; we've tried to put one through this much discipline. And the Instructor got there just in the nick of time, just as there was one breath left in the body, was able to put artificial respiration in on it and get him out of there quick!

I remember one analyst reading Book One, and he says, „Doctor Hubbard,“ he said, „you really have something there in Dianetics. You really have something there! Something that we can use! Because I know,“ he said, „I had a patient the other day and I used your repeater technique. And like you said, he went right back down the track. And he was simply using the phrase, an innocent phrase, 'I hate you' and he went straight back down the track just like you said, just like you described the time track, and he got back into an incident that we've been trying to reach with psychoanalysis for just years and years and years and years that he's been in analysis.”

„We got back to the point where his father is standing over him in the crib throttling him. And as soon as he got there, and as soon as he got this picture of his father throttling him, I was able to get right in there and pitch. And I said, 'Now, there is why you hate your father, and hate your mother!'”

I said, „What happened to the patient?“

„Well, as a matter of fact he quit analysis. You know how they are? As soon as you get them near the real aberrative material, you know, they leave!“

No responsibility. No responsibility.

I told him two or three times that you didn't evaluate for pcs but he missed it.

Now, the skill necessary is the trick. That is the trick in clearing. It isn't the process.

And the 5th London ACC will be taught the oldest clearing process known - the process learned by me in 1947 which has never been released. But it's a very easy process - I have described it indifferently a time or two. It's a rather rapid process of clearing. Only now have we a sufficient discipline that we can bring up this rather easy process. It's only taken eleven years. I think that's pretty rapid, isn't it? That's - isn't that the average time in analysis of most patients? Now, it was the skill of the person, the skill of the person.

You know when a pc is getting toward his Rock chain because he starts getting ARC breaks, he starts trying to blow the session, he starts trying to disappear, he gets a case of elsewhereness.

The expertness required to keep him headed into the session and to get him over his elsewhereness every time he gets the impulse is tremendous and is even more important than the technique itself because if he left, you wouldn't have a preclear to audit. People miss this.

Now as we - as we look at a person - here's a person walking down the street just - we'll go outside, we see a person walking down the street. The old-time Aesculapian, the practitioners, the priests of the Roman god Fever, their more modern counterparts would conceive this person to have a great many incomprehensible mysteries and would believe that this man was being motivated by his own aberrations.

If this man wishes to work it's because he is afraid of starvation. If he is going to do a bettor job, it will be because he has been rewarded with a bit of meat. You get the idea? I mean, he has definite ideas, and he feels that the incidents and the complexity of this person's life are such that no one could understand them.

Now, to understand what we have done, we have to compare it with what was known and what we know. We know now that that person's mind has a certain number of parts, and that it is not his brain. And this certain number of parts adds up to a certain number of potential wrongnesses. And that when he is freed of these wrongnesses, he is more able to function, not less able to function, because we have proven it time and time again. Therefore we have taken off the excuse for not helping people.

You see, if you go around believing that if you help somebody you'd destroy his ambition, if you believe that if you help somebody you would des- this writer for instance, that you would destroy his wish and ability to write, then you'd have a good alibi for not helping him, wouldn't you? You would be guiltless.

Because you say, „If we could just keep these people sufficiently aberrated, why; we'll have great arts, we'll have all kinds of things that we should have. And therefore we shouldn't look any further for any answer to de-aberrate them because everything he is doing is motivated by his craziness.“

In other words, the most beneficial person in the world is, of course, the craziest person in the world. They never carry it through to that reductio ad absurdum. Otherwise, they would look only into insane asylums to find people to lead them in the arts, in the sciences and in music, that sort of thing. You see?

They would say, „Well, it's impossible to find a musician in the society unless we go down to the local spinbin. If we go down there, why, we'll find the world's greatest musician.“

If aberration is going to drive anybody, it is certainly going to drive the psychotic harder than it is the sane person. Right? So, naturally the great musicians are crazy, and everybody is crazy that has ever done anything for anybody.

Well, you get this much agreement around, a fellow to appear great will start to act crazy.

I remember a gag on this one time; I can't resist telling you. I always prided myself on being a fairly sane writer, you know. I had, of course, my favorite slippers and I knew I couldn't write anything unless I was wearing this particular pair of slippers. And I had, of course, certain feelings about the typewriter. If I wrote on a different typewriter, I would get a different offbeat mood in the story I didn't want, you know. And I knew that unless I scented the paper I wrote on with sandalwood incense that it wouldn't sell. But otherwise I was totally free of superstition.

You wouldn't certainly call putting the stamps on horizontally always in order to make the thing sell, superstitious, would you?

And I never went to the lengths other writers went to. Other writers felt that if they made out a deposit slip or picked up their checkbook and deposit slips before they went to the post office, there'd be no check in the post office. You know? You know, just being ready to deposit a check would keep a check from coming, you see, from the publisher. And I never went that far I simply made arrangements to leave these things at the bank. You see?

In other words, I was totally free of superstition. I was a very sane writer. As a matter of fact, I was very workmanlike. I seldom had temper fits and that sort of thing. As a matter of fact that's perfectly true. I just used to work along at a very even temper.

Down in Hollywood - you've heard of that place?

Audience: Yes.

It's - well, there's a place in California called Napa and Napa is where they have the insane asylum, you see. And when Napa has an overflow they send them to Hollywood!

Well, these people down in Hollywood occasionally are - get kind of loose in the brains and they get to rattling around, their ridges no longer hold them squarely in the middle of their heads, you know. And they'll hire a writer. This dooms them to a certain amount of success because if they film what he writes, they generally have a picture that sells. They seldom do that, however.

And anyway, I got down there, I fell for the god Mammon and I decided to worship Mammon for a while. I went down there and their - payday used to be very embarrassing. They would take hundred-dollar bills, and they would say, „One for the government and one for you. And one for the government and one for you. And one for the government. And one for you.“

And they'd say, „Tell me when we've counted far enough.“ You know? Tremendous quantities of money and all that sort of thing.

So, one day I realized I wasn't getting along well. I was being thrown into petty conferences about stories, you know. I was being thrown in with the cousins and nephews and so forth of executive producers and that sort of thing, and things I suggested were greeted sometimes with a sneer. You see, they weren't writers, but writer is a word that covers anybody and particularly those who can't and they'd therefore be assigned as writers, and nobody would ever find out otherwise, and the family could draw a payroll, too, you see A very interesting system they have down there.

And anyway, I was busy - busy hammering along and minding my own business, but I wasn't getting anyplace.

And one day the producer of my particular unit, Columbia Pictures, called me in, and he said, „Ron, I don't think - I don't think you wrote those last scenes you wrote. I think they must have been ghostwritten for you.“ He says, „You can't write that bad.“

So, I walked out and I said, „You know, I'm not getting along too well. I wonder what's the matter?“ And all of a sudden it burst on me - because I'm not showing any artistic temperament.

So, I went back to my office and I got a blank contract and I came back to the producer's office and I says, „Now,“ I said, „here's your job! Sue me if you want to!“ And tore it up into bits, and threw it up in the air so it came down like snowflakes! Rushed back to my office, started throwing things out of the desk into the nearest wastebasket, you see, madly throwing things out and screaming at a high-pitched tone of voice the while!

After a while the producer's assistant came in and he looked in the door cautiously avoiding the things that were flying around and he said, „Ron, Mr. Weiss didn't mean what he said.“

I went right on throwing things into wastebaskets and dumping things out of windows and getting ready to leave the place, you know.

Next thing I know there's the producer. He says, „Ron.“ „Ron,“ he says, „can't we be friends?“ Says, „Ron,“ he says, „we won't sue you. We give you a bettor contract. We give you a better contract.“ He said, „We - we give you better story titles. We give you better credit lines, how's that? We give you another secretary!“ So I went back on the job.

After that I was very careful to exhibit some artistic temperament now and then. You know, like holding my head suddenly and - while I was looking at the rushes, you know, and they'd done a particularly bad job of mangling the dialogue, you know, just hold my head quietly. And then turn my chair around so that my face faced the opposite direction than the screen. That sort of thing, you know, quiet. Very effective. When I left there I never did these things again in my life.

I think an artist is forced into looking crazy so that people will accept him.

I don't think you could be a scientific genius in England unless you kept mice in your pockets or something like that. Nobody would accept you as such.

In other words, it's pretty widespread that you have to be crazy in order to get along in life. But is it true? That's the question: Is it true? And definite findings in Scientology say that isn't true.

But you run into this in trying to clear somebody. This artist has got the sudden notion - this is his excuse for not coming any closer to the Rock - „If I get rid of this that I can't quite see out of my eye, then I probably won't be able to write anymore, so I'd better not get rid of it.“

Actually, all he wants is not to look at it. So, he tells you this as his best excuse, don't you see, and he's got another reason for not getting Clear. Well, it takes an auditor to get around these things, let me assure you, it takes an auditor.

Don't think that just because we know the parts of the mind and the number of vagaries that these parts can distort into - because we know this - because we know the combination to the safe does not mean that the amount of randomity we can encounter has diminished in the least.

And we have to have somebody sitting in that auditors chair who knows how to handle it.

Well, that is - in no way invalidates the auditor who was trained years ago, who was trained last year, who is being trained now. These people are doing a great job. The people trained years ago probably right now are in a state where they could handle somebody to Clear. Don't you see? And the people trained just last year are probably in a state that they could handle somebody, and the fellow who has just been trained just now knows darned well he's got to have some experience before he can do it.

I'm not trying to invalidate anybody's training. I'm just going to say that everybody has got to be a little bit better if they expect to clear them like that!

In the first place, they'll never clear all this like that! You don't want to have randomity in the auditing; there's already enough in the preclear, I assure you. So, clearing - clearing as a fact depended on discipline. It depended on a familiarity with these various parts of the mind. It depended on being able to confront these parts of the mind. It's all right maybe to confront your own engrams and go around coughing and having headaches and small swords sticking in your back and that sort of thing. Perhaps you can go on confronting those things and not complain very loudly. But when you start to complain is when you start seeing them on a via. And you begin to consider yourself pretty guilty.

You say, „Well“ - not that this is a clearing technique, say - using an old process as an example, „assign an intention to that wall. Thank you. Good. Assign an intention to the front wall. Thank you.“

And the PC does so. Innocent, there he is, totally under your control, there he is, a babe in arms, you might say. Totally unsuspecting. It's all going along beautifully and you say, „Well, assign an intention to the ceiling.“

And he goes „Aruh!“ And you say, „What happened?“

„Oh! This great big double-bladed spear has just gone straight through my stomach and has bisected my spine and is still there, and I feel like I'm dying.“

Well, an auditor who really isn't experienced and calm and pretty Clear himself is liable to feel that he's just shoved a spear into the fellow. So, therefore he tends to give the next auditing command something on the basis of „Well, let's see. Uh - what could we do to get this spear out of him? Let's run Hellos and Okays to his stomach.“

He's borne down, in other words, by his own guilt into doing something desperate because he has just wounded a fellow human being. Well, it's all right to be merciful but not that merciful. You get that merciful, you're liable to kill some preclear.

The thing to do at that moment is to say, „Oh, a double-bladed spear? Just where? Where did it go through? Oh, right there. Good. Well, when did it happen?“

„When I started to put an intention in the ceiling, and the second I-upp! - there it goes, when I started to put an intention...“

„When-when did it happen?“

„When I started to put - ouppp!“

„Now - now I can understand that it hurts, but I-I do want you to answer the question: When did that occur?“

„Well, it was when I started putting in-in-intention in-in the-in-in the ceiling.“

„Well, you go ahead, and I'll repeat the auditing command now. Now, put an intention in the ceiling.“

„Yeah. Yeah. Uh-oouuss. I wonder where the hell that spear came from?“

You've got to have an auditor that never flinches. And you can always flinch at the unknown. Anybody will flinch to some degree at the unknown. And unless things are pretty totally known to a person, why, you have somebody who flinches.

In other words, an auditor must not only be able to confront, he must be able to confront on a via. And he must not only be able to cure somebody, he must also have the evidence presented to him on a silver platter that he has just killed somebody and give the next auditing command with complete aplomb. That takes quite a lot of discipline, doesn't it?

You don't want anybody nervous when you're speeding at ninety miles an hour down Marylebone High Street, do you? You don't want a nervous man on the wheel. Well, when you start going for the Rock and you find yourself skidding on the time track and the incidents are whizzing by at ninety miles an hour and projectiles much bigger and much more savage and much hotter than any found on Marylebone High Street start racing by, you don't want a nervous auditor in the chair; you want total confidence sitting there, don't you? And if you feel you have total confidence sitting there, you'll go ahead and get Clear for him. But you wouldn't really do it for yourself when the push came because it requires more nerve than you had at the time that thing happened which prevented you from being Clear thereafter. Get the idea?

It's not that in present time you couldn't handle your own aberrations. You can. You do all the time, and some of you do a wonderful job of it.

But this mechanism of returning to the actual incident, and being surrounded once more by these dinosaurs or flying saucers, or whatever it is you used to consort with and lying under the foot of the dinosaur just as you feel the first bones in you go scrunch and to reassume that frame of mind and handle your aberrations is impossible. It is impossible. So, auditing is a third dynamic activity.

It took a third dynamic to aberrate you. You didn't have any trouble till you met somebody. Let me point that out. It doesn't matter where on the track you met somebody, you weren't in any trouble till you did.

I'll also point out to you that you never had any fun either.

Now, if this thing breaks down to what aberrates somebody; it has to be in the vicinity of the third dynamic - groups, people, othernesses - other dynamics perhaps, but certainly at least the third. We'll just ignore the Freudian second. After all, it's not looked on in this day and age with any mystery.

Just ask any of the teenagers concerning it and they will tell you all about sex. I remember - I remember this Royal Marine that just came home on leave and his mother pointed out the fact that his little brother had never been told certain things about life and - his little brother was about seven - and the Royal Marine was asked by his mother to tell his little brother about the birds and bees.

And so, the Royal Marine went out and not attempting to imitate his Royal Marineness, he said - he said, „You know,“ he said, „you want to know about the birds and bees?“

His little brother said, „Yeah, what about the birds and bees?“

And the Royal Marine says, „Well,“ he says, „uh-you know,“ he says, „when you-when you take a car, you pick up a girl, and you take her some dark place. And you know what happens then?“

The little kid says, „Yes, yes.“

He says, „Same thing with the birds and bees.“

You might say really the second dynamic is the third dynamic but a little closer and more so.

Now, it takes an otherness to get this thing called aberration going. As I say, you were perfectly happy before you met anybody, but your perfect happiness didn't include having any fun. There was no randomness at all, and that was that.

So, what you did was trade in your ticket to total serenity from here on out for a little companionship. And after a while you began to believe when you didn't meet any worthwhile people that you had made a bad swap. At that time you assume the personalities of the people you have made, and some of those were batty; and then you can't sort out which ones were batty, and you say, „Well, I've had it.“ And that's it. You're now aberrated. That's about all there is to aberration.

It takes your idea of the conduct of the other fellow because you, yourself left to your own devices, would have a hard time hiding from yourself as much as you would have to hide from yourself in order to be aberrated. You would have to get a misconception of somebody else and then assume his beingness and go through a lot of vias and around a lot of short turns and into a lot of complexities before you could actually wind up with a good, stable aberration that not only drove you but drove others stark staring mad. So, in the - in the final analysis as we look this thing over, we find out that it took a lot of doing to get aberrated. It took a lot of doing to get aberrated. It's taken ages and ages to get as crazy as you find them today.

Stresses or lack of them, balances or imbalances add up to unhappy people. Well all right, if these people are all unhappy, and they want to be some other way, it's mostly because they have lost their power of choice over their own existence. They no longer can associate with people on their own choice. Something in them tells them who they should associate with. Some thing in them tells them what they should read and where they should be and what they should do. Now, the people you deal with in Scientology have already overwhelmed this one. They are already up to a level of self-determinism which is interestingly higher than people out in the society at large. But they are still in this category of not having total choice over what they will do or where they will go or what will happen to them. They are not up to a point where they no longer care whether they have choice or not. You see, you can get up to a point where you have total care, and then it ceases to be that important and you can get into some more randomity.

But if you could just hold your own from here on out, you'd be all right. But that isn't the way life has the chips stacked. People aren’t holding their own. They're - from a certain point on they skid.

Well, Scientology in its earliest stages certainly permitted a person to hold his own. And in later stages permitted a person to gain on himself just a little bit.

Well, now this - that'd be good enough by the way. That'd be worth doing, you see; right there, that'd be worth doing.

And almost any auditor by reading a book carelessly and working with somebody for a short time could achieve some part of this, you see. He'd at least get somebody to hold his own, feel that there was some security there, particularly if he didn't make him face into anything really tough. You know, he kind of took it easy on him.

But how about this thing called clearing? Well, that is another look.

That's way up here. That isn't just holding your own, that isn't just getting a little better. That is attaining a goal which has been considered a worthwhile goal for various reasons for the last 2,500 years right here on Earth.

Really, if you talk to Buddhists, if you talk to Buddhist followers, you'll find out that somewhere kicking around someplace they feel that if they meditated long enough or concentrated long enough or thought the right thought or got it all in the right balance, they would somehow or other blow out of their heads, and that's that, you know. And they wouldn't have to worry anymore about coming back in this endless cycle of birth and death and going through it all again and getting drafted and, you know, facing up to being a father or a mother again and getting somebody through school, and you know, doing all the various things.

Of course, that isn't what I worry about. I'm just afraid somebody will send me back to the first grade again. I never have gotten along with first grade teachers, not for the last several lifetimes.

Anyway, this goal, 2,500 years old and - it's been articulated for 2,500 years. What he really evidently was talking about - that an individual would be clear of those things that he didn't want to cycle through anymore. And that was evidently what he meant. And they - the word bodhi, by the way, simply means that somebody attained Clear under a bodhi tree, that's really why they say „a bodhi“ which means Clear.

There's even been a word for Clear here on Earth for 2,500 years. But who was around to make one?

Well, it's interesting that somebody could dream about this for 2,500 years and that it could conquer and civilize about two-thirds of the world's population without it ever happening. That's quite a dream, isn't it? To never have any evidence of its occurrence, and yet have it dominate thinkingness of two-thirds of Earth's population. This is very interesting.

And all of a sudden we come along and nonchalantly say, „Well, we can do it!“

We can do what? We find out that we make - our ideas of Clear are superior to any earlier ideas of Clear, and we're much more specific about it, and a Clear is a distinct thing! It is a beingness. It can be sensed, measured, experienced. It can be tested. It's quite interesting.

Well, if this is the case what does it take to make one? Well, some skilled auditing and the original processes, which we had in 1947, and the later developments, taught carefully to an auditor, then permits that auditor to clear somebody. And it isn't very difficult. It merely takes a little time. It merely takes a little work. It doesn't take a big accident of being smote on the brow with the lightning of Yahweh! You get the idea?

It's no longer in the field of superstition. It's no longer in the field of believing that if you make the right signs in the air and - you may be visited by some Earth deity who then will give you a power, which if you do so-and-so with it, will.... You know-get the idea?

It is! It occurs.

And in the remainder of this congress, I will try to tell you more about it.

Thank you.