Well, here we are, coming down the homestretch. I have purposely not peered over your shoulders very hard in this Unit — seeing how you'd make out all by yourselves, to some degree. And I think it's been rather successful.

This is what? February the 13 ...

Audience: Yes.

. . . AD 8. And our immediate discussion today will be other processes. Other processes.

Now, it's quite a remarkable thing to have a package of processes which attain a certain state of case. Several things of sweeping importance have occurred here in the last very short period of time with my search. One of the first of these was to discover a goal and definition which permitted one to attain some halfway point. A goal and definition of Operating Thetan permitted Clear to be reached rather easily.

Now, this was the largest single jump. That was a major breakthrough. But there were other breakthroughs of almost as great an importance. These things started to happen fast, and as they started to happen the material rolled itself up into a nice big fait accompli.

Now, one of these was this — an answer to this problem: the unwilling preclear. Now, this was also answered earlier by CCH 1 — "Give me that hand" and so forth. But not to this extent. A much better answer came up to the unwilling preclear.

At the same time, the exact answer to the "destroy anybody who is good in the society" came up with it. That was quite important to us — much more important on the third dynamic, present time, than you realize.

When Bum Business Bureaus, the I Will Arise Political Society, when the Afghan Psychiatric Association and — these organizations come around and start cuffing an activity such as has been conducted here for eight years, you're looking at a sick society. Because somebody tries to give somebody a hand or to find out what it's all about so people can live better lives, they slap you around. Oh, no thank you! They must be a lot of screaming idiots.

When the power of the press is degenerated to "How many lies can we tell and how much trouble can we make?" once more we're looking at a sick society.

And to be truthful with you, it is not safe to push theta into it unless you know the exact route. Hence you've seen me going rather softly and quietly here for the last six, seven years. My motto with regard to things was: "Keep the peace." Let's get — let's keep the show going here and keep the peace, and see if we can't make this mountain without a tremendous number of boulders being turned loose on us.

Now, that paid off. That paid off as a policy. It was a policy which actually originated in the fall of 1950. "The subject will go as far as it works" was the summation of it. It will not go as far as it has good organizations, it will not go as far as it has aesthetic publications, it will not go as far as this and as far as that; it will merely go as far as it works.

In order to make it work the support of a great many people was necessary. And that support was gratifyingly present all during those years. And I thank those people very much for that, because it would not have been possible otherwise, at all.

The idea of advancing theta into the society has gathered to itself many legends. Not to classify our activity with the Christian legend, but nevertheless to point it out as probably the most powerful and sweeping example: Somebody came along and he healed a lot of people, and they killed him. Well, it's an odd thing that the church itself has kept that to the forefront, and the largest Christian organization has carefully kept a crucifix with a naked man nailed on it in front of the public gaze ever since. An interesting thing. Interesting thing. It was a solid sort of truth, wasn't it?

Now, this particular culture at this time is especially dangerous in this regard. America, as I have said before, is obsessed with hero-killing. Anybody who has tried to help this country sweepingly over a period of time, has gotten his throat cut. That is an enviably bad record — it's a horribly bad record.

England doesn't have too many good points along this line either. But she hasn't been as sweepingly uniform as America.

Knowing all these things, I knew that sooner or later for any one of you to do anything in any community where you worked, it was necessary to have a straight arrow; anything with a via on it would not work because it'd let the other fellow draw a deep breath so that he could spit poison at you. You understand?

This, actually, was the circumstance on the third dynamic. And I'm not dramatizing — as a matter of fact I'm underplaying it. It's an understatement, if anything. But you needed something which went straight to the heart of man. And it went there so quick that nobody would be able to bark back without instantly "demising." You get the idea? It didn't only have to be a technique, it had to be a weapon. And it'd have to be so straight on the exact intention that the backflow on the line would be minimized.

In other words, a key-in of an engram is always only an approximation of the engram. The engram itself happening all over again, often enough, would eventually make a person totally familiar with these circumstances. But something which is only similar as a circumstance, each time tends to stack up a series of engrams. Do you see that? In other words, you cannot have a via.

The answer to the mind, then, on a broad third dynamic approach had to be the answer to the mind, didn't it? Horribly factual. Terribly blunt. And brutally incisive. And you have that answer with the dichotomy destroy-help; the cycle of action, create, survive, destroy, on an apparency. But that is not the cycle of action. The real cycle of action and the one that really works is, create, create-create-create, no create. And destroy is an alter-isness.

Now, destroy has another side to the coin. It has help. Where help fails, destroy ensues. You get one or the other, horribly enough.

And what I was talking to you about early in the course — worship, deification and so forth — is actually a lower harmonic of help. How could you help God? You could worship him. How could you help Mother? Deify her.

Unfortunately, there must have been some overwhelming occurring around there before deification set in. You see that? So we had to have somebody able to walk up through these awes, superstitions, deifications, as well as his desires of sweeping and impressive destruction, in order to get him out where he could stand in the sun.

Well, the answer to the third dynamic, the answer to dissemination, the answer to basic processing all occurred at the same time. And this was one of the more seven-league boot strides that I've been able to make.

Now, look. Never before with any great certainty could we take a preclear without his prior consent and accomplish any result with which he would be satisfied. We could do it now and then. We could talk him into it. It took some work, though, on vias.

You have a process now. Just grab a fellow by the nape of the neck, make him sit down, run him. Open the session just because you've been trained to do so, not because he'll agree to it. And that button is Help. He can't escape from running it because here's what you're doing.

Now, we used to run the reverse side of this, and this was the closest approach we had to it. "Why don't you want to be audited?" Do you remember that one? You got the guy to explain why he didn't want to be audited. In other words, you were actually getting him to as-is some help. All right.

You have a society which has been lied to by the drug companies, butchered by the medicos, dismayed by the psychiatrists, and it "knows" that there's no remedy, there's no cure. As a matter of fact, you read the Bum Business Bureau publications, the AMA publications, so forth; you'll find out that it's a criminal offense to pretend to cure some things. Well, that's fantastic for anybody to lay this many railroad ties across the rails to progress. It's quite interesting. It's as much as saying, "Well, at no time must you ever research on the basis that a cure may exist for such things as cancer and arthritis and some other things."

Of course, this doesn't apply to the drug companies. Their branch office down here, the Pure Food and Drug Administration, makes sure that they're kept solvent. They can advertise cures, no matter how specious.

But to handle this situation of a preclear who would rather be anywhere else, to audit him and make him like it, is in your grasp today. It's the Help button. You haven't realized it to the extent you will.

One of these days you're going to see this old flub that's been running around and giving you a bad time, arguing with you — one of your wife's relations or one of your husband's distant relatives or something of the sort — sneering at you. And you tried to tell him what you were doing, you know? You tried to explain this to him a time or two, and he said, "Nyaah," so forth. And you'll all of a sudden take the bit in your teeth and push him in the chest and get him in a chair, and you'll say — any part of the bracket that seems to work. Get him talking about it until you get some point of the bracket where he has a reality on help.

You could even open a session with this one: "I understand that you do not think it's a good thing to help people." Vicious, isn't it? He can't stand up to a direct arrow. He could stand up to a via.

Here's a via: "I understand that you think there's no remedies for certain illnesses." Oh, he can fight like mad on that one. But not on Help. You can say all sorts of things — all sorts of things. "Is it true that never in your life, have you ever — you've never helped anyone? Is that true? Oh, well, they're wrong about you — you have helped someone? Well, how would you go about helping someone? What would you — what could you do, for instance, to help another man?" He's in-session!

Now, the funny part of it is that there are instances on records where psychos have spoken of help and have broken out of their psychosis by being asked to help. Just that.

Now, there are also instances on record of them breaking out of psychosis and so forth on many other things. And the psychiatric profession has filled the books full of records where everybody "got well" the moment you shot them with 110 volts between the ears. Knowing what we do about cause and effects, we can doubt that.

So, it isn't that this is well backed up in the field of insanity and as far as I know it's never been tested with a Scientology-type approach in the field of insanity. But I'd think it would be one of the first things you would think about if you were trying to handle an insane person — how you would handle this Help button.

Well, if it works in these levels and if its opposite side is Destroy, then you can anticipate this sort of a reaction on the third dynamic: that violent, and to many people incomprehensible, reaction will occasionally take place in your direction because you say you are helping people. Violent reaction with this beautiful dividend: Nobody will be able to understand that much violence. It's just as you pull off a wolf skin and find a werewolf underneath it, so this Help button unmasks the reaction to help.

This is quite important. And we get this type of possible approach in the dissemination of Scientology: We now have something that is safe to disseminate because it kicks out the liability of dissemination. So we can talk. And one of the books which will be published in the very new — near future will be called, "Help One Another." In other words, on the third dynamic you put this button right in their teeth, somewhat in this wise. Now, this is a very casual rundown and I won't try to read it like a radio announcer. But here's just the text rapidly written here of a radio advertisement:

"Scientology helps people help one another. An activity, a family or a government which does not take into account the spiritual part of life cannot but fail. Loud words and large weapons have never solved a problem wholly nor made a nation great. The poor, the stupid, the afraid alike need help. The way of a strong man is to help his less fortunate fellows. The essence of all spiritual life is to assist those too weak to help themselves. Scientology helps people to help one another. This is the message of all prophets in all ages: Help one another. It is a formula for life that cannot fail. It is the message of Scientology.

"Books on Scientology can be bought atbookstore."

(applause)

Thank you.

Now, I would say that that was a machine-gun approach, wouldn't you?

Very well. Very well. Now, I say that we have hit several very interesting and important points of Scientology here just recently. We've made major breakthroughs in the processes and techniques we have used. These major breakthroughs are quite apparent. They are very spectacular. And I will tell you the other side of this now. They do not in any way wipe out anything that we have known. And if I wished to tell you anything, I certainly want to tell you that.

We have gone on and on to higher and higher echelons of knowledge. What you know today very easily makes understandable much that was known yesterday. An elucidation of what we used to know is much easier today. But what we used to know is true, too.

And very often you will find somebody unable to reach, all at one swift flight, the high points that you know are the high points. And the funny part of it is, you'll have to start him in, in the cellar. And you may very well find, sometime in the future, somebody having to climb these stairs just as we have climbed them, in order to eventually know his subject.

I can see now, in a few years, somebody getting a brilliant idea: that a study of Scientology should be undertaken over a period of eight years. For sure the student would arrive; he'd arrive with an enormous amount of understanding which he would never otherwise have. The mind is more or less stacked up on its entrance to the labyrinth, and the labyrinth itself, on this same course that we have traveled.

We were tremendously well along the way, let us say, in 1952, 1951. You listen to some of those tapes now, you say, "For heaven's sakes, we knew all this then." Oh no, we didn't! No, we didn't! No, we didn't. But we sure knew an awful lot then. And the things which couldn't be done then can't be done now. Particularly the negatives are true. The things that we could not do then we cannot do now. We had so many cannots, however, that they themselves made a labyrinth in which one could get easily lost. There were lots of cannots.

Today we have swept these aside to a large degree with the communication formula and the TRs. And these TRs, as we see it today, are very simple things. Oh wow! The vast enturbulent sea of wrongnesses in which each one of these stable data in the TRs sits is much larger than the TRs. There are so many wrong ways to audit, it would be almost impossible to catalog them.

Therefore, it is necessary to hold on to certain stable data in this subject and to continue on a certain plotted course until one can look around and coordinate all of the other things that are wrong, and then he'll understand why this certain plotted course is right.

But unless you gave a student the opportunity to look around and find that there was something else in the world beyond this certain plotted course, and let him understand that this certain plotted course was right simply because other things were wrong in the attainment of the goal, you would have a very weak, wobbly, poorly informed student.

Furthermore, a great many processes and techniques have enormous validity. So much so that an HCA/HPA Course today does not teach people clearing. We feel that would be a mistake — a thorough mistake. You could make a technician. You could teach him the drills indifferently and give him the formula of clearing, but don't — don't think that an HCA or HPA would ever be a professional auditor if he only knew clearing.

Therefore, the basic professional certificate has this very definite requirement: that an individual know his TRs thoroughly, know his theory, know his publications and know the six different types of process there are. Because we never know when one of them is going to pop up and become very useful.

What are these six types of processes?

Well, this is not a lecture on HPA and HCA. You'll find them on the wall of the Academy in Washington and in London. There are six different things or approaches. Like an Objective Process. Like a Creative Process. Like a Thinkingness Process. You see?

He must be taught these various categories. He must be taught the parts of man. And I would say it'd be a pretty sad professional auditor who had never run an engram. So there are various things — there are various things here which would have to be known basically.

Similarly, because you know a high road is no reason you cannot occasionally walk in a valley. There are other things to do with a preclear than use these exact processes you have been taught here — many other things to do.

Supposing you took the Expanded GITA list in Scientology 8-8008 and item by item had the individual waste and desire these items. Don't you think you'd make a change in a case which would be quite interesting?

Well, I'll give you an example of a process. Do you know that you can watch a clerk at work in an office and spot exactly what he's trying to waste? Listen, he's always trying to waste something! And it will be the main fault that is found with him by his boss, although his boss will never quite have noticed it. Perhaps the thing he's trying to waste is quite significant, but he will be trying to waste it.

The driver driving on the highway is trying to waste something. The housewife cooking over the stove is trying to waste something. And you watch them and it becomes rather amusing after you've been with this for a little while to spot exactly what they're trying to get rid of. It's very apparent. Very amusing.

I have watched a file clerk talking to the file clerk's boss — just watched the file clerk at work — and found that the file clerk was trying to waste names. It's an interesting thing for a file clerk to be wasting, isn't it? But it's probably why the person could only be a file clerk, which is most striking. The person was attracted to the position by this great opportunity to waste names and identities. I watched this file clerk at work and he was doing several different things, all of which added up to wasting of names. It was quite a little puzzle and an amusing little contest on my part to see if I couldn't find him out.

So I said to his boss after I had this spotted, I said, "What do you do about the files that turn up missing?"

"Oh, god," he says, "it's just horrible," and on and on. And all of a sudden he looked at me and he said, "How did you know?"

One of the symptoms: The person could never remember anybody's name including his own. Had a miscellaneous file — he chucked all names he didn't quite know how they were spelled. Pretty wild. Pretty wild.

So I said to this file clerk (before I left I cornered him) and I said, "Can you get the idea of wasting a name?"

"Oh yes," he says, "oh yes. Yes."

I said, "Well, good. Now, waste a name. Waste a name." No auditing session, you know? Just "Waste a name. Go on."

"Well, it's so-and-so and so-and-so."

"Well, go on, tell me another way you could waste a name. Go on."

"So-and-so and so-and-so."

And I left. Ruined the man's game. He quit a couple days later.

Isn't this fascinating?

Now, here's a technique and an observation that doesn't seem to quite fit within the perimeter of clearing. Well, as a matter of fact, you bypass things like this in clearing. You bypass them. Clearing in its processes takes care of these things somewhat automatically.

But there's a tremendously interesting segment of spiritual, mental behavior. No reason to forget about it. In fact, there's no reason to forget anything in Scientology 8-8008. It's probably our most compact, scientific work.

But let's look — let's look at another technique. Another technique. Another process: Problem of Comparable Magnitude.

Now, one of you asked me the other day, "What is this mechanism of problem closure? What is this mechanism of problem closure?"

I tossed off the question because it actually answers mechanically on "Mock it up and keep it from going away" — you actually undo problem closure. The mechanism is this: As a person solves problems, they tend to close with him. This is the explanation for that very, very baffling Freudian mechanism of healing somebody and getting his illness. We cure somebody's headache, we find we have a headache. Now, that is problem closure. We solved his problem and it closes.

Now, the funny part of it is, it closes solution by solution, which is quite interesting.

Now, almost anybody who has a problem can give you a geographical location for the problem if you ask him. Let's say just that morning — as I was, yesterday afternoon, threatened with arrest and being thrown in jail for offering my services and pretending to be a registered engineer of Washington, DC. I don't know what it's all about. Neither does the people who complained. Our public relations man evidently wrote a radio ad or something of the sort, and said in it that I was an engineer. There's nothing wrong with saying I'm an engineer, I don't care how many district laws they've got. But one of the members of the board, evidently, driving to work, heard this description of me and promptly wrote me a mad-dog letter — the fact that it was a five-hundred-dollar fine and a year in jail to represent yourself as a registered engineer.

Well, of course, he wouldn't stand a prayer. He couldn't prosecute this for a moment because you'd have to prove that I had advertised it. You would have to prove that I wasn't an engineer. Now, that would take some doing. And you would have to prove that there was an intention there to offer services in engineering.

Well, we're straightening him out and getting him un-mad-dogged, and then I'm going to write him and ask him to pass another law in the district that heads of churches will never be permitted to offer their services as engineers!

There's just some nutty people out there, that's all you can say. You see? Nutty people. All right.

Now, let's say this was run as a problem — just give you a problem out of the hat here. The preclear on whom it was run (not me) would have said it was over there somewhere. See? He'd have a place it was.

Now, if you said to him, "Give me a solution to that problem."

And he said, "Well, I could write my congressman."

You'd say, "Now, where is the problem?" And he would give you another, nearer, location.

And then you said, "All right. Solve that problem again."

And he would say, "Well, the Potomac River could be totally concreted over, and I could get the credit for it, and then they'd have to admit I was an engineer."

You'd say, "Where is the problem now?"

It's closer, and it still has a geographical location.

And now on a final solution that he would give you, the problem would go thunk!

You'd say, "Well, it's gone somewhere."

It certainly has. It's collapsed on him. All right.

Now, let's reverse it. Let's use our therapeutic version here. You say, "Give me a problem of comparable magnitude to being threatened with arrest because you were practicing as an engineer when you weren't," or any such thing. "A problem of comparable magnitude to that letter you received." Any way you want to word it. We don't care how.

And he'd give you a problem of comparable magnitude. Didn't matter how ridiculous or disassociated it was.

And you'd say, "Where is the problem now?"

And he'd point right out here in front of his face and say, "It's right there."

You'd say, "Good. Give me another problem of comparable magnitude to that."

He'd dream one up one way or the other. Proper command is "Invent a problem of comparable magnitude." And he'd give you another problem of comparable magnitude. He'd say, "Well, all the dogs in Washington, DC, screaming like mad, and my being arrested because I stepped on their tails," or something like that.

And you'd say, "Where is the problem now?"

And he'd say, "Well, it's out here about a yard."

And with problem of comparable magnitude after problem of comparable magnitude that thing would go out, out, out, out, out, phoof, phoof, phoof, phoof.

Now, if it goes out far enough, oddly enough, you say, "Give me a solution to it. Give me a solution to it. Give me a solution to it. Give me a solution to it," and it doesn't appear again.

Obviously, the proper process is "Invent a problem of comparable magnitude to that problem." Right? That gets rid of it.

Very valuable. Very often this, worked on a present time problem, is tremendously efficacious. And if "Tell me some part of that problem you could be responsible for" fails, you've got Problems of Comparable Magnitude. And it might very well fail, by reason of havingness, by reason of problem closure. Problem of Comparable Magnitude is longer. The "part of it you could be responsible for" is just a quick brush-off. And if you don't get away with it, you don't.

And remember, auditing is something . . . Auditing is auditing if you get away with it. Auditing is that with which you get away. Any way you want to define it, it's the result that counts. It isn't how you held the pinkie on your left hand, it's what you did with the preclear that counts. Very often you overshoot, and in tremendous desperation you chew him up and spit him out. Well, you didn't get away with that.

Scientology in its key processes now could be described as a method of getting away with auditing. All right.

Here's this Problem of Comparable Magnitude. All by itself it does all kinds of things. It'll blow valences, it'll move ridges. It's quite an amazing process. Funny part of it is, Help at first glance seems to violate this if you say that every time he answered "How could another person help you?" he was solving something. Do you see that? See, apparently you'd get problem closure there, wouldn't you? Apparently these things would be solutions.

Actually they aren't. And they don't work out that way very often. But beware. An individual could very well get down this track and run into the problem closure mechanism. And you'd be sitting there with your hands in your pockets wondering what the score was.

You say — the individual is feeling worse and worse, and his chest is getting very sore. "I must have done something wrong." No, you didn't do anything wrong. The fellow just didn't have the right pitch on the process. He was doing something else and he had a specific problem, and usually a present time problem, which he was not talking about, you know? And when he started solving Help, he was thinking all the time about a PT problem that was worrying him, and it closed in on him. It wasn't much of any other thing that closed in on him but a PT problem. And a fellow always could have some minor PT problem, an auditor could miss on the thing.

Don't get baffled, then, when the fellow's field gets blacker and blacker and thicker and thicker and inkier and inkier the more you run Help. You simply have not properly cleaned up a PT problem before you embarked on it.

Well, all right. How about this fellow you're going to audit under duress?

You grab him by the nape of the neck, you put him — sit him in the chair and you start talking about help. You broaden the session out into Help Processes. He isn't sufficiently under control to run a problem of comparable magnitude on. He does have one, it walks in, it glues itself to his chest and so forth. Well, after the intensive is over and so forth, straighten it out. That's the answer to it.

You overestimate consistently the value of discomfort and its importance — always overestimate it. Now, that isn't a bloody-minded remark. There isn't a person here who isn't too careful about hurting somebody else. And all it is, is a diffidence about communication. And a horrible conceit on your part that you can split his brain asunder with a single, solemn glance. It's a very conceited attitude, having to be very careful in handling somebody.

You know that in training new auditors, a very good Instructor gets them over this early and thoroughly. And if you're auditing somebody, that's one thing; if you're training him, that's something else. These are two different things. They're not substitutes for each other, by the way. Training will not clear. We put it to test and it didn't come through.

We also found that an auditor is always senior to a Clear, which is interesting. If an individual wants to be cleared, let him be audited; if he wants to be trained, let him be trained. And if you're training him, then you train him. Don't be diffident about it.

The iron constitution of the wits is greater than you think. It's much harder to drive a person stark, staring mad than you believe. As a matter of fact, it's very hard to make a person worse. Some people manage it, but it's very hard to do. It's very hard to do. What a person can stand up to, how much abuse he can take without worsening, is something you should understand. That doesn't give you a wide-open invitation to be technically incorrect, to use bum communication and do all the rest of it. But it does tell you that you worry too much about doing so. Be as perfect as possible and communicate as straightly as you can. And don't be diffident with the pc.

The earliest method of getting a person used to handling somebody else's mind was done with Self Analysis — the old ARC Straightwire in the back of it. And we would give this person who was being trained to be an auditor this little page, and we would have him read it to some other person. You know, read a line and then see . . . And we told him to do this (I see that there's one or two here that's been trained with that process earlier) — told him to do this. Now see if the fellow blows up or anything. He found out he could actually ask him questions about the mind or that influenced the mind in some way, and the person could answer them and no horrible results occurred. It was quite an interesting little exercise.

Now, that's merely a gradient scale of approach. Well, the point is, I don't want you to hang up in training people or in handling preclears, either one, on the basis of carefulness or on the feeling of absolute obsessive necessity that you must always do always your very peak, top, rightest, best. Some people don't deserve it! (laughter)

But you'll get into as much trouble with auditing as you are protective, interruptive, flinching. The more you save a preclear, the more you'll probably kill him. You say, "Well, I shouldn't be too overt about this person. I'll sort of audit from back here someplace, and I won't speak very loud to him and maybe he'll live through it."

I assure you he has far more chance of dying when you have that attitude than if you say, "I said (pounding) go back to birth!" (laughter) You know, you could still say, "Goddamn it, come up to present time! (pounding)" That attitude much better fits into the framework of auditing, I assure you, than "I don't know whether I ought to do that or not because I might hurt him."

Please, you're handling something that's indestructible — a thetan. Be overt, be aggressive, be forward toward a preclear. He likes it much better. He says, "Somebody's in control of the session, I can relax."

What's his level of acceptance of somebody in control of something? Happiest ship I ever saw had a raving madman on the bridge. The guy's idea of a calm conversation was a high 1.5 scream. It was quite interesting. It was quite interesting. He was not even reasonable. It was a very happy ship. They sure knew who was captain! There was no doubt about it any day of the week. Actually, the man was not unfair. But I didn't even think he was fair, either. It was just the fact that he was a certainty.

A certainty was better than a reasonability, which is the only point I'm trying to bring across to you. Any day of the week, a certainty is better than a reasonability.

A communication is better than a diffidence.

Now, you'll find in running Help that it becomes flat when the person goes into communication. We're running a girl who is pregnant. The girl is asked this question: "How could you help an unborn baby?"

And the girl says, "Well, I could — I could not throw myself down in chairs."

You say, "Good. How could you help an unborn baby?"

"I could not throw myself onto the bed."

"Good. Fine. How could you help an unborn baby?"

"Well, I could stop drinking."

"Good. How could you help an unborn baby?"

The person would probably hit a comm lag about that point. "Well, I could eat the right food."

Now, get the difference of these replies. One is a withhold, withhold, not communicate, not communicate. Don't you see? It's a not. It's a not-reach. Person must be having trouble with the baby if she's not reaching. Right? All right.

But we finally get the person to embrace this baby into the perimeter of reality. And it's "I could eat the right food," "I could see to it that I have enough rest," "I could choose the right hospital." You know? Here we have communication, communication, communication.

Well that, ordinarily, if you're not auditing with an E-Meter, is a fine rule of thumb: no more restrained communication.

Now, similarly with you — similarly, just on a training basis, not an auditing basis because there's something wrong with your case or something of the sort — you should recognize this: that as long as you feel terribly restrained toward a preclear, you're not communicating with him. As long as you have to not do a lot of things in order to get the preclear to go along well, then you're not communicating with him.

Oddly enough, the preclear senses this and taxes you with some more not-doingnesses, until these become almost insurmountable. They become numbered in the billions. The more diffident you are, the more diffidence you breed — the more diffidence you'll breed in the preclear.

If you want to get auditing done, you go right about it and get it done. You go right on and get it done, that's it! You have to cause it. A Clear is something you make. It is not a co-prosperity fear of co-agreement.

It's quite amazing. I mean, a lot of auditors sit there and they say, "Well, let's see, definition of auditing: I agree I'm auditing him, he agrees I'm auditing him — fine. And we both agree and we agree and we agree. And we agree and we agree and we agree."

And we look in vain for anybody there to say, "The postulate is now made that a Clear will occur."

No, I'm afraid that an auditor, in order to make the grade on it, is most successful when he abruptly and intimately addresses the problem and is at cause on that end of the line.

I have seen auditors get very, very worried when they produced an effect of some kind on a preclear. The effect you want to produce on a preclear is to put the preclear at cause with regard to the rest of the universe, excepting you.

Now, why you want him at cause with regard to you, I wouldn't know. That looks like that's too high a reward. That looks like too high a pay. Why should he be at cause with regard to you? He's a lucky boy: you're auditing him.

Now, similarly with processes. We have a tremendous number of processes stretched back over the track. Many of these processes were good; many of them were lined up to special things. Let's take a specific for a nervous stomach. Six times around in the walls: "You put the thought into that wall, 'This means go to . . .'" and so forth. Six times around. And then, "This means don't go to . . ." and, "This means stay in . . ." and, "This means don't stay in . . ." and so forth. Running those things around with a preclear furnishing the location each time is a specific for a terror stomach.

Unless you get a strange terror stomach that is an after-the-fact stomach. The after-the-fact stomach has turned up, oddly enough. And the one I just gave you isn't a specific for it. No. The stomach in the first place is saying something is going to happen. The specific is, "This means go to . . ." "This means don't go to . . ." "This means stay in . . ." "This — stay . . ."

No, there's another kind of terror stomach evidently, and it is an after-the-fact. It says something has happened — just exactly the reverse. Evidently the specific for that, if you want to just audit it as such, would be something like, "This means you've been to . . ." "This means you haven't been to . . ." It'd have to be after the fact. "This means this has happened." Preclear furnishes the event.

There's putting fear in the walls; putting various emotions in the walls. Interesting sort of process. Tremendous number of these things. Why omit them from a repertoire? You'll find that they're bad or good.

Now, oddly enough, Havingness all by itself is something that you should always use, in any version. It answers many difficulties. Preclear feels low in havingness. All right, run some Havingness. Havingness answers almost any problem and, oddly enough, will run out problems and solves this problem closure mechanism. You ask this fellow to have this and have that, he's actually promoting an inflow toward himself, so therefore the problem mechanism will go off.

You've solved the problem up until it's about knocked off your own nose, then look around and find something you could have, and you'll find the problem unclosing, which is quite an interesting factor.

And in addition to that, you have good old 8-C. Lord knows how many things 8-C will do, how many things it does do. Quite amazing.

For unconscious people you have CCH 1.

You also have TR 5 in all of its versions. "You make that body lie in that bed. Thank you." People respond to that, particularly if you take them by the hand while they're lying there in a state of coma they've been in for seven weeks, everybody despairing of their living. You bring them back to life.

And so there are many processes. And we have not thrown these processes away. We haven't superseded them. We do have a highly specialized series of processes. These processes are just as specialized toward their goal as any other process would be toward its goal.

The reason why the processes which you're using here and have used in the 19th were so specialized is because you were going toward Operating Thetan with them and arriving toward the state of Clear or at the state of Clear with them, you see? Highly specialized. It happens quite incidentally that they also, then, must be senior to all other processes and undo them to some degree. Yeah, that follows. But it's totally accidental.

If you thought you shouldn't know Waterloo Station (fantastic process, Waterloo Station), if you thought you shouldn't know just the old-time Creative Processes, just learning to mock something up — you find out he can't mock up a nurse he had while he was sick. You're not clearing the fellow, you understand — I mean, you're just giving him an assist or something. You find out that he can finally mock up a shoelace that belonged to the nurse, and he can mock up two shoelaces, and he can mock up finally two shoes, and two shoes and some stockings. And (that's where his eyes were most of the time anyhow; they're most of the facsimile) — and you have him mock up a uniform cap and some hair and so forth, and he can eventually mock up the nurse and all of a sudden, the nurse's valence no longer bothers him. Fascinating, isn't it?

That which you can create you don't have to have. That's the rule.

Now, let's take the whole subject of professions.

You're trying to clear this fellow; you can't get anywhere. It just seems to be terribly resistive. He just doesn't seem to get anyplace. It would be in the zone of a present time problem. And the likeliest place to look for a present time problem . . . See, it doesn't violate the rules that you have right now for Clear. It says clear PT problem; then it says clear Help. There's no reason to clear Help if you haven't cleared the present time problem. And this present time problem you didn't suspect or you didn't linger on long enough and this case is hanging up like mad.

You would suspect that it was in the field of his profession and that is the common denominator of it. It must be, now, in the field of his profession. That would be your principal hang-up. You would run the tools of the trade.

With what? Well, the most fruitful one is a problem of comparable magnitude, if it's really resistant. But if you just want to knock it off lightly, it'd be, "What part of that tool could you be responsible for?"

Now, let us say that an individual is a painter. Then obviously it's brushes, paint pots and painting canvases, isn't it? It also would be dealers and exhibitors and buyers, wouldn't it? So you'd take all the bits of his profession and the types of people he's associated with, and you could handle all of those. And you could just knock his present time profession to flinders. You'll find out it has him so worried, his case cannot advance, which is quite amazing.

A machinist, that's obvious. The type of machine he would use, the type of tools he would use, the type of foreman or boss, the type of building he would work in. All of these things are problems of comparable magnitude, too.

We get a teller in a bank. Obviously, problem of comparable magnitude: money, wire cage, cash drawers, assistant cashiers, tellers, other tellers, managers and particularly vice presidents. And you'd run all of these things — Problems of Comparable Magnitude.

But you'd have to be smart, wouldn't you? You'd have to be quite clever in order to spot the fact that this individual did have a profession, and in present time he was having difficulty. And although he said he didn't have a present time problem, obviously he seemed to be very difficult to audit. And you'd have to be clever enough to understand, then, that it was up to you to select out the PT problem. And I'll clue you — the easiest way to do it is to look somewhere in the vicinity of his profession and get this problem going.

Now, the odd part of it is the first responsibility you may be able to get him to assume is by running a PT problem. And he assumes a responsibility, and his case will go forward from there.

There are many things to know about auditing. Don't think you will ever make an auditor who simply utters a magic word with a red cape around his shoulders and zooms off to the moon. It's a product of hard work. Application of auditing is done with intelligence. It's done with skill, with the auditor aggressively at cause. And his tools are all the processes we have.

Thank you.