All right. It comes down to field trouble, right? You picked fields for randomity, isn't that right? Somehow or another the auditor has, and the preclear has. How about, as of now, skipping it, huh? It's very, very easy to pick something for randomity and then carry on with it as a stumbling block. It's one of the things that man does best: find a new way to stumble, and then stumble. Men will do that all the time — something you could almost expect.

There would be a certain amount of stumbling — would happen — if I said, "The main difficulty with cases are the automaticity and motion of the mock-up." And we could be absolutely sure that some of us — not because we're pcs or auditors, either one — some of us would immediately concentrate on the automaticity of a mock-up.

Because why? Not because I said so. Because it's a posed problem. It looks like a new problem. It looks like a new game. Right?

So I will teach you a lesson you have been learning the hard way, right now. Any time you see that something has been chosen out for — as randomity, while you're running Clear Procedure as an auditor, studiously ignore it and skip it.

Now, we've fallen into fields again, after all of these years. We've fallen into them before: We fell into it at Elizabeth, we fell into fields at Wichita, in Phoenix, and here again we're falling into fields, right?

Male voice: Philadelphia, too.

Philadelphia. Fields.

Well now, I'll tell you something real wild about this. It is possible to bypass them utterly. It's also possible to bypass any other automaticity that could be construed as randomity and used as such.

It's possible to run a case this way: A fellow says, "The trouble with me is Mama. Mama has been cutting me to ribbons all my life. She's living with me right now. She tells my wife what to do. She tells me what to do. And I'm going mad. I'm going crazy, I tell you, because I can't stand another minute of it. I can't stand another minute."

You say, "That's fine," and studiously never thereafter mention her! And you would be obeying your "null to null," wouldn't you?

A new method of auditing has arisen here recently: null to null. And somebody pointed it out very brilliantly: He says, "One of the reasons why they're having field trouble is because they're not picking nulls — not picking a null black object to push in."

Aha! That's true. There's an even extended truth on that, as bright as that is. His fields aren't a null subject, no more than Mama. A thetan becomes terrified at the idea of going blind, not being able to see. So you scare him to death and you freeze him into it. See?

I'll tell you the mechanisms you've got to get out of the road, and they are not field. They are mechanisms. One, an individual who has been badly beaten around is liable to have a destroy automaticity move in on him, for which he will not take responsibility, and is liable to continue to obey it, and therefore is liable to have a destroy automaticity going on and on and on chewing his mock-ups up. You get the idea? This will be particularly true in the next generation — conscription, that sort of thing. There's too much talk today about destroy, destroy, destroy. People set their ideas of making nothing of it over into, and interiorize into, these destroy valences very easily.

Well, you can take that one to pieces. It's there to be taken to pieces. But it's not randomity, and you never have to tell the preclear about it. You can take this not-isness apart and thus speed up clearing. I say you can, I'm not saying you must. You could speed it up. You can take over an automaticity of one kind or another which is directly going to defeat you, by paralleling — by making the mind do exactly what it is doing.

Now, it isn't the preclear's fault that he's gotten into one of these destroy valences. The thing was trying to destroy him — trying to destroy him, and he failed. And sometime or another he must have tried to destroy something like that or he wouldn't be in difficulties. But it isn't his direct, immediate, present time fault that he's got one of these valences moving in on him.

Well, this is very close to fields — very close to fields because it also operates on the next step. All right.

But we'll just say a destroy automaticity, and we'll take somebody out and make him do a Union Station on it. Funny part of it is, just walking out and spotting people will relax him as a preclear regardless of the significance that's added into it. See, here's a good process all by itself, just walking out and looking at people. So let's add the automaticity of destroy into the thing, and we will probably get rid of the destroy valence that'll keep knocking out his mock-ups. Very interesting. That's a speedup. That's a shortcut.

Now, the second one as it moves on top of this — same one almost — is the protection mechanism. An individual is almost picking up a destroy valence, his field is resisting, and he's doing the one thing he mustn't do.

You know why women get along better in this universe than men (they do, you know, they live several years longer and so forth) is they are more closely an inflow mechanism. They expect to inflow; their expectance is inflow. A male expects to outflow, even if only on the second dynamic. You see? It's a different construction mechanism. A woman, then, doesn't fight against inflowing as hard as a man fights against it. Therefore you'll expect to find more fields amongst men than women. This is an interesting side comment — but merely a side comment.

A girl who is having too much trouble with a field has normally been too often overwhelmped by a destroy mechanism, whether it was Papa or some lover or something like this, or life in general.

But destroy is the basic mechanism, and protection is the other mechanism — resistance toward a destroy area, resistance toward a destroy valence. There is the other area. And so, as he seeks to protect himself, he seeks not to be touched. And you're making him deny himself with step — with the mock-up step, see? You're making him directly deny himself, see? He says, "Nothing must come in toward me at all. Nothing." And then you say, "Mock it up and push it in."

Well, you're not then doing what the mind is doing. The mind is trying to keep anything from coming in — aren't you? So you can do it circuitously. And you can get this protection mechanism with this process — key process: "What action could you take against that body?"

Now, you have to say "for sure," you have to have him be certain that he could take that action against this body. He'd have to modify it until he was absolutely certain he could take that action. And after a while you've run the gradient scale of touch on the body, and the field will go. No attention, however, was paid to the field, in either case.

Now, you get this now? You take care of the destroy automaticity: He's taking, covertly, some responsibility and ownership of this thing by himself postulating inventions of destruction.

And then the next step, you take over protection, and you permit him to get the idea that he could touch his body. And because you've already cleaned the way of the most violent objections, you could then go on directly onto a step we should have been on in the first place, which is a very interesting step: "What can you mock up?"

And we clear mock-ups. We just clean those up real good. The individual is mocking something up. He knows he's mocking it up, he can see it, he has a certainty of mock-up, and we just clean him up on mocking up. You got the idea? Not even necessarily on sides of the body, we just want him to mock up something.

And after we've got him sure that he's mocked up something, why, then we could put it on various sides of the body. In other words, break him in gradually, here. And he complains about a red fog or a green fog or a blue or a brown or a black — still, we carefully pay no attention to it at all. We simply ignore it. And we just coax him into being able to mock up. And then we coax him into being able to mock up and keep it from going away. And then we coax him to do that on six sides of the body.

And if he falls from grace somewhere along the line, then we clear mock-ups again with him, very carefully — what can he mock up — all over again. And keep him coming. And you'll find out he'll get as Clear as anybody else.

What is wrong with every case? A field. Or at least too tight an association.

But all of this is expressed in no responsibility for mocking it up. While he is mocking it up, he takes no responsibility for mocking it up. Let me call this back to your attention again, that an individual can be audited because he is mocking up all of his difficulties. He does not clear Father; he clears the picture he is making of Father. Do you get that? He cannot possibly clear up, directly, a case that is not there. He must, therefore, be clearing up something that is there. And as he is the only one present — this I guarantee you — he is doing it.

Now, if you accuse him of doing it, he doesn't like this. But he's got the significance of the picture mixed up with the picture.

Now, there's probably ... I was — the one I was fooling with last night, I was just trying to disentangle these two things on a fast shot. I took a specific engram that had been bothering a person for a very long time and asked them what significance in that engram could they take responsibility for? And all of a sudden the whole thing blew. Just repetitive question on this: "What significance in that engram could you take responsibility for?" It was a rather gruesome experience. But the person came up at the other end of the thing realizing that it was a picture of a death, not the death. And a little later on, recognized that she must be mocking up the picture of the death because there was nobody else there to do so. And this picture, by the way, has resisted all other processes, except Clearing Process — it would have cleared up on that. She wouldn't buy the significance, and therefore wouldn't buy the picture. She was mocking it up; somebody else must be mocking it up because she wouldn't do that. That's perfectly true — she wouldn't do that, but she could take responsibility for certain significances.

The reason I picked on significances is because they do not knock out mass. You can take the significance out of a mass without knocking out the mass. Don't you see?

See, here was a cute gimmick just to run an engram. If we'd have had that in 1950, we'd be cheering all over the place. Just a gimmick, though, today.

So to coax somebody into mocking up a picture they know they mock up, and then to coax them into keeping it from going away so that they know they're keeping it from going away, is to do this whole step.

Now, the reason you would get away with destroy and protect, and the reason you'd knock these two out, is so that it becomes obvious you can control those too. And it's simply part of a control mechanism, rather than what they actually do to the bank.

So we don't care what shape the bank is in immediately after he has run "destroy" on a number of people — objective — outside. See, we don't care. Nor do we care what the state of the bank is after we have run, "What action could you take — could you certainly take against that body?" See, we wouldn't care what shape the bank was in. It would have changed, but this is not our concern. We're showing them we can take this over too.

These are the two most outstanding barriers that he would expect to have crossed by the auditor. And we get him off obsessive destroy and obsessive protect, then he won't be putting these up to stop us. Or these won't arise to stop us. And we find it rather easy, then, to build him into making pictures.

Now, this is a reswhat I'm telling you is a result of direct test. And we have found out here very recently that on tests, those who had a bad field and who were doing mock-ups and keeping them from going away, that they could barely see, that they were very thin, that it was very upset in general. They made better gains than those who had their fields cleared. Got it? Quite interesting, isn't it?

What is it but a field? What is a whole bunch of unconsciously mocked-up, no-responsibility-for pictures but a field? What is a bank but a field? What are you trying to do in clearing but clearing a field? Look at it that way.

We know the basic mechanism is to take over the automaticity. Well now, problems collapse on somebody if he solves them. That's an automaticity, isn't it? So of course, we have to keep things from going away, or even shove them into the body, to get this mechanism of collapse of solutions. In no way at all could we get away with clearing if we didn't take over this mechanism of collapse. Well, the funny part of it is, the mechanism of collapse is much more important in this universe — the mechanism of inflow, collapse, keep it from going away and so forth — is much more important than destroy or protect. So these are two easy ones that he could take on a gradient. And he could move it right on upstairs.

Do you realize that every black screen a fellow has out there is resisting something coming in? And every time he resists something coming in, he builds himself into a piece of granite because it can't come in in the first place. There is no "in" for it to come to. The whole mechanism of inflow is the mechanism of un-clearing.

So by gradient scale you could take over these various functions and factors. And these, of course, would be destroy and protect and then create. Destroy is a not-isness. True destruction comes about simply by not creating. A person has to create everything which bothers him, one way or the other — has to contribute to its creation.

Yes?

Female voice: I guess I've been pushing these questions about goals. It's my habit to set a goal as a preclear that corresponds with the process I'm to be run on. And it's not my auditor's habit to have the preclear do that. And I think that her opinion is more agreed-upon than mine. So when you set your goal, can you set it on ...

Oh, boy, this . . .

Female voice:. . . the basis of the process you're going to be run on? Or can't you?

. . . this would not be interfered with, as far as I'm concerned. I mean, I'd just ignore this whole thing if I were auditing somebody, and I would say, "Well, how do you know I'm going to run you on that process?" That'd be one of the things that I would ask.

Female voice: Oh, I guess it was me, then.

And I'd say, "Well, I don't know, you say you want a goal. Fine. Fine. Set it any way you please as long as you know you want that goal — if you'd like for that to happen."

Yes?

Male voice: It's not the past death, it's the picture of the past death.

So true.

Male voice: It's not the bank, it's the picture of the bank.

Right. If you look over the mechanism of pictures you'll find something that's quite amusing: You look at a wall, that wall is there. Maybe you are or are not mocking it up on god knows what via, that's beside the point. That's an OT problem. We're not worried about it. We found out we didn't have to pay any attention to that problem to get the rest of the thing whipped out, which is quite amazing all by itself. All we had to pay attention to was clearing a mind. All right.

So there's that wall. You conceive that wall may bite you, so you resist it, so you take a picture of it. Got it? You take a picture of the wall. Now, this is fine, except for this: When you take a picture with great resistance and lots of energy, you are left with a black side facing you and a picture of the wall on the other side.

If you could ask anybody — get anybody brave enough to turn around one of these screens and look at it that way, he'll see it's a picture of something. And he'll say, "There are lions outside the screen."

Oh no. That is not true. The screen is a picture of lions. Get the idea?

Now, you can ask somebody a silly question like this and turn a bank all upside down — it doesn't take any time to clear a bank, I swear, it really doesn't. You could ask him a silly question like this: "What part of those screens do you feel you're justified in keeping there?"

Of course it adds to somebody's havingness. So it's actually not a bad process. "Well, the screen that resists my mother. I'm justified in keeping that there!" And all of a sudden it's not there.

Yes?

Male voice: On these pictures, are they the result of a compulsive and mechanical duplication which is a mockery of true duplication which would produce an as-isness?

Right.

Male voice: Okay.

Yes?

Female voice: So we mock up something simple, like I decide, well, I'll do a brick, and so I kind of like see a brick somewhat. But I've seen bricks, and I'm not saying that I'm doing it, necessarily.

Why don't you draw a brick?

Female voice: Well, I did yellow ones and . . .

I've even made a preclear take a ... He says, " I'm making a brick, and I don't know whether I'm making a brick or not because I've seen a brick, and therefore I don't know whether I'm copying a brick or making a brick."

One of the ways you can do it, one of the older methods, is to turn it various colors, and after a while he knows that this brick did not turn those colors, so he must be making it.

Another way to do it is have him saw out of wood the shape of a brick, no matter how crudely he does it. And then take a crayon and color the piece of wood he has mocked up — this is all in mock-ups, see — and go about it on the total, arduous, mest universe build-it basis. And then put it up in front of him. And he says, "Yes, by god, I created that brick!"

Another method some of — I was telling you the other day of a guy with black disks: I made him take some pen and ink and draw the disk and scribble it black and so forth. And he finally wound up knowing he'd made this disk. And after that, why, for the next six, seven commands, he scribbled the disk black, and after that he just put it there.

Female voice: I guess I can't see that well. Okay. Thank you.

All right. Well, there's no doubt about it that you could be swung up into seeing that well.

Your — the main things that overwhelm a fellow, of course, are the necessities of destroying as they have been conceived in a person's vicinity, and the necessities of protection. These are absolutely true, aren't they? A thetan must protect himself — above all else he has to protect himself. Darwin told him so and so on. He's on a self-protective mechanism. These are automaticities which, when overcome, give him a considerable amount of courage with regard to the rest of the bank.

Too many ways through on this. It's possibly just that there are too many ways through that baffles some of you auditors. This probably could be done by an auditor who was in very good shape — he could probably just postulate the bank out of existence. And he possibly is continuing to postulate it in existence the longer he runs it.

Remember, we have the basic mechanism of gradient scales. We know somebody can get there on a gradient, don't we?

Male voice: Yes.

Well, all you've got to do is stretch out a gradient scale of how you're going to get him to mock something up and keep it from going away, and you've got it. Any gradient that gets there would get there.

But too many auditors are hanging up on the bank as a big, nice piece of randomity. Well, of course, it is the randomity of unclear people — that is it. And it consists of destroy, it consists of protection and it consists of not having to look at it and, oh, all kinds of things and so on. Vias, dependencies, nonconfrontingness. Tremendous number of factors enter into this, but the principal factors are destroy, protect, gradient scale of making sure he made it and so on up the line.

Now, I'll tell you this about all of these processes: If you were very sharp and you were very ornery and you were very mean, and you sat somebody down and you wouldn't have it any other way but that he mock something up, and you wouldn't have it any other way but that he would keep it from going away and know he did it, and you wouldn't have it any other way but what he completed that whole clearing step all by itself with no frills, you would probably produce a Clear. The rest of this is just a gradient scale to make it easy. Got that?

An auditor who sits there and postulates the bank — the field — who sits there and says, "Well, we'll have to clear this field first, we'll have to clear this field first," will do just like this auditor did a couple of days ago in the HGC, which is to say, override the whole thing and get the field all back again. Had it clear, had it clean as a wolf's tooth, but had no goal for the session and so never arrived. The guy was sitting there looking at snowcapped peaks all around him and recognized that the gray he had all the time was a snowstorm. And the auditor gave it a very, very bad acknowledgment and went on mocking up gray shapes. This invalidated the whole thing.

All the auditor had to do at that moment was say, "Well, well, well, well, well! When was that, do you suppose?"

"Oh, I don't know. It seems unfamiliar, familiar . . . something way back when."

And the next thing you know, why, could have been pulled out of it. "Well, we don't need that one anymore," I might have said. "Come up to present time. All right. Now, mock up something, and let's get the show on the road."

He would have been slightly overwhelmed, but I would have put him in shape where it didn't matter.

There is such a thing as being too brash, and there is such a thing as being too careful, and in your infinite judgment you will have to decide which is which.

Thank you very much.