That lives which is validated. A body is dependent upon granted beingness. It is dependent upon granted beingness. It itself does not grant very much beingness.

Now, a thetan after a while could also become dependent upon granted beingness. And let's tie this back in to license to survive, approval, applause, all these other factors that we have struck from time to time, and we see that that individual who objects to the granting of beingness by other individuals, of course, is immediately going to deny his body the right to be. A horrible little backlash. If the body is dependent – this body, this mock-up that he picked up is dependent – upon endowment from the environment, and the thetan objects to endowment from the environment, we then see that the body is being denied the very substance on which it lives.

Here is eating; here's applause. People get below the level of accepting applause, by the way – accepting praise, accepting applause, applause – people get way below this level. At that time, why, they could only be appreciated if they were paid in money, or appreciated if they were fed. They would recognize this as appreciation, but would not appreciate praise or applause. And when you would give them praise, you would upset them. Above this level, a concert pianist might very well feel, after a good, solid round of applause, like he'd just had a full meal. He would feel very good. He would have a glow about him. He's been granted beingness.

Well, maybe he as a thetan hasn't been granted beingness, but certainly his mock-up's been granted beingness, see. And this demonstrates itself very peculiarly.

Now, you understand, in that, it can be measured in the physical universe. You understand now that we are not talking about a philosophic concept. I hope we're being very clear on this. We're not talking, in granting of beingness, about a philosophic concept; we are talking about a totally mechanical, measurable concept.

The experiment which backs this up is this beep-meter experiment: You've got this beep meter and you have somebody hold it to his cheek, and then you go off someplace and you turn on the beep meter. By doing what?

By looking at him and connecting the guy with the electrode. Over a distance with a beam from you to him? No, just by seeing that there is a connection between the body and the electrode, and at that moment you'll get a beep, and the meter up to that time has been completely silent.

This is the granting of beingness, and it is a measure of the ability of an individual to endow. And this is in direct coordination with the ability of an individual to heal, and this has a lot of other indexes that go right along with it. But we're talking together now not so much as therapists or philosophers or a "Gee whiz, I hope" sort of a thing. What we are talking to and talking about is a very mechanical arrangement, such as we would discuss electric lights, or something like that. I mean this field of granting of beingness is of that order of certainty. It is as certain as that.

Now, when you get into running this you could then conceive, as I told you, the complexities of it could very well weigh down the entire case. In other words, you could make this so complex that a case would simply get lost in these interchanges, because these interchanges are very complex. It isn't just in eating or in sex or in other things that we get this interchange. We get it all through existence. Everywhere we have a third dynamic, we have beingness being granted to some degree. And so we of course have a terrifically complex system.

And you could draw this society, if you had that much patience, for any given moment on its complete current hookup on the granting of beingness. You could, if you had that much patience and you looked far enough and so forth. You could get who was granting beingness to what and where and so on, and you'd just take it all. And it would just be like wiring graphs.

Curious, very curious, but certainly not as curious as electricity. Get that: This is not as curious as electricity. Electricity is studied from this assumption: The first postulate one must make to study electricity, it says right in the electrical textbook, is that nobody knows anything about electricity.

Well, we're not starting with that postulate. We can see very clearly that this occurs, much as we see an electrical current occurs, and as we exteriorize and so forth and begin to know ourselves a little better, we can see it actually happening and we can do it. In other words, there is no beingness, we can create beingness. And beingness can come into existence simply by our own postulate that it can come into existence. So we know the genus of the thing. The genus of the thing is a postulate. This postulate goes into an agreed-upon communication system, and results immediately take place. And we can consider it from this angle, and we'll be very successful in processing.

Now, you could use a tremendously complex process to process this. Oh, man. You could use some kind of a Straightwire process, for instance. I don't say that you should, but I say you could use such a Straightwire process that would run something like this: "Now name three people that you wouldn't mind granting some beingness." "Now name three people that you wouldn't care if they refused to grant beingness to you." "Now, name three people it wouldn't matter if you denied beingness to." "Name three people you wouldn't mind granting beingness to." "Name three people, now, you wouldn't mind taking beingness away from." "Name three people you wouldn't mind if they took a beingness away from you." And we could go on down the line, and if we got this with certainty each time, why, we could do ourselves quite a job here.

The only trouble with that process on the granting of beingness, is it doesn't possess sufficient certainty to be processed. That's all that's wrong with it. Otherwise, it's a fine process.

There's a little rule of thumb here: A process which will not obtain certainty, with the one exception of Havingness… Anybody can pull in havingness; he's certain there's something coming in. He does have a certainty of that. He may not be certain what it is or certain whether it has form, but there's where certainty belongs in the Remedy of Havingness. You're absolutely certain it's there, and so forth. You challenge him like this, why, he might not be, but there is something coming in and he does get certain of it.

Actually, the Remedy of Havingness is the thetan's operation in granting beingness to the body. He grants energy masses to the body by mocking up things and pulling them in on the body, which is in essence granting beingness to the body. And so the body will eventually get well as you continue this process.

All right. The common denominator of processes which determines their workability is, do they bring about a condition of certainty on the part of a preclear? If a process does not bring about or cannot be worked with certainty, then you haven't got any business using it on the preclear as an auditor.

What processes should you work on a preclear? Those processes which can be performed by the preclear with certainty. Certainty, knowingness, recognition, so forth – all the same breed.

So, that tells you then that you could work somebody for a hundred hours without paying any attention to this whole thing of certainty. The preclear would possibly like to call it reality, he'd like to call it a lot of things, but you could work a hundred hours on this preclear and get no advance on his case – I mean, just practically no advance on his case. You see why you could do that? The little factor there of certainty. You didn't get him anything he could do with certainty, which is to say, you never increased his knowingness. Never forget, that's our target. We have a synonym for knowingness: certainty.

All right. In selecting processes to work on a preclear, or any kind of procedures, you have to keep this in mind, and you have to keep it in mind very solidly. And when you don't keep it in mind you go awry.

Some of the people in Scientology who have been trained over a long period of time now (one or two of them along the line haven't done too well) may have learned one thing – because that one thing has been pounded on and pounded on and pounded on – and that is you must attain a certainty on the part of the preclear on the process being done. And when those people have learned that, they have learned a tremendous thing. That is a big thing. That, omitted, makes processing unworkable, and that, included, makes processing workable.

And here we are right there on this business of certainty, which we say is knowingness. Does he know that he knows this now? Does he know that that is the case? Is he certain that's the case? The same type of words. You see, we're not processing words, so we can use any kind of words that will convey our meaning to the preclear. Our only difficulty is, just exactly what do we mean by these words? Well, what we mean by this word certainty: Is he sure? Is he certain? Is he positive? Does he know? Is it real to him? See? It's all those things under this heading of certainty.

All right. Then it follows that if this granting of beingness could be worked by a Straightwire with a great deal of certainty on the part of the preclear, hurrah, fine, wonderful. Work it. Only you won't find that's a bulk of your preclears. You could throw it in just to find out, and if it worked that way, why, wonderful, boy, would you – you'd be going right out along the line. Your preclear already would have a pretty good certainty, though, wouldn't he? And he'd be pretty high toned. He'd probably be a thetan exterior to begin with. And so your Straightwire: "Who wouldn't you mind granting beingness to?" "Who wouldn't you mind taking beingness away from?" "Who wouldn't you mind somebody giving beingness to?" "Whom wouldn't you mind receiving some of your being-ness?" "… receiving your mother's beingness?" I mean, we could just go into the most tremendous category here of Straightwire questions, which if they could be answered with certainty, would certainly resolve beingness in all directions.

But you as an auditor are up against this: Certainty and knowingness are not a dichotomy, they have no comparative line. It says in the Logics and Axioms there that a datum must be evaluated by a datum of similar magnitude. And when we have the problem of certainty staring us in the face, we don't have data of similar magnitude to compare it with. Certainty is certainty, and it's an unfortunate fact that it doesn't have another certainty with which to compare it. See that?

Now, there could be two kinds of certainty, and you could try to get out of it this way. I have tried. You could say there's subjective certainty and objective certainty. And you could compare the subjective certainty to the objective certainty, and you would have something like that. And you start to run this in on a preclear and, by the way, he practically goes through the roof or dives down a manhole.

By the way, awareness is a viewpoint of dimension of alertness, of alive-ness, of this and that, and could be included in this package of being certain. "Are you aware that your mother has granted some beingness to something?" You could ask them, see, "Are you aware?" "Are you certain?" "Do you know?" "Does that seem real to you that she could grant some beingness to it?" Any one of these questions would produce the same thing.

Now, we don't have a dichotomy here, merely because he is under this suppression: If his subjective reality equalled his objective reality, he wouldn't know where the hell present time was. Present time is established by this fact: "What's the realest thing you can contact?" And if that's an engram, he's got high certainty on the engram, God help him. I mean, he's got high certainty on the en-gram and no certainty on the wall, you're looking at a psychotic, see? This engram is really real to him. In an auditing session this can take place: the en-gram is tremendously real to him, and of course the environment at that moment is not real to him at all. But you could have people walking up and down the streets all the time where this is taking place: The alligator that's following along wearing the alarm clocks and snapping at the fellow's heels (shades of Peter Pan) is a certain thing, but the sidewalk is not.

And that is this difficulty: Subjective and objective reality are then a gradient scale of certainty, and we again do not have a dichotomy. Present time is where the greatest certainty is at that moment. That would be the time the fellow had. This is no reason he couldn't be in five times simultaneously and be certain of all of them, but he'd certainly have to be able to differentiate like mad in order to pull off that trick.

There are a lot of people, by the way, who think they can only see or concentrate on one thing at a time. Curious thing. Fellow showed up (Burke was telling me) at the Freudian Foundation who knew absolutely well that everybody could only contact one thing at a time. And the auditing command was "Hold the two back corners of the room." And the fellow knew this was impossible because you could only hold one, of course. And Burke solved this and he began to do himself a fairly good job of processing afterwards. Burke solved it by asking him to be aware of his right ear and his left ear and his right ear and his left ear, and then asked him "Now, well, do you know you have two ears?" And the fellow of course was certain of both ears simultaneously, so naturally he could know two things at once. And this solved it. He could grab ahold of the two back anchor points of the room.

Well, to some degree or other this scarcity of concentration, which is a scarcity of attention, is in itself the dwindling scale of the condensation of attention. As the individual's attention becomes scarce, he begins to get masses of attention which he mocks up. That's machinery. He starts setting up machinery, because he knows he can't keep attention on this many objects. Therefore, he sets up something to covertly get attention from him while he's doing something else. And that is a machine. A machine is a covert mechanism by which to put attention on more things than the preclear feels he can comfortably put attention on. And so we get machinery and automaticity coming into view with the dwindling spiral, scarcity of attention. Scarcity of attention.

Well, attention and beingness are not quite the same thing. You see, you could have a bored attention, an inactive attention, a vague attention. See? You don't ever have a vague granting of beingness. It's not a vague thing. I mean, a person is either – well, of course he'd say," Well, I'd just as soon the police of New York City would live, I'd just as soon, I…"This is an apathy. It really isn't a bored attention. It's granting of beingness in apathy. So attention and the granting of beingness just don't quite come a par, because granting of beingness has a different consideration to it.

Please note: At this point in the lecture, a gap exists in the original recordings. We now rejoin the class where the lecture resumes.

An auditor went out of here with his right foot pestering him. It was moving when it wasn't moving. He could sit still and he knew his right foot was moving, but if he looked down at it, it was planted very solidly on the floor.

What had happened here? This individual was carrying around a considerable amount of granted beingness in his body, see, he's carrying around a big mass. He might, you might say, have two bodies. One is his physical-universe body. See that? There's his physicaluniverse body. And with this body he has another body, and this other body is a mass of granted beingness or stolen beingness or something of the sort. But this body could be coincident with his physical-universe body, and he as a thetan could be in contact with his grantedbeingness body, not his physical-universe body. He wouldn't have any sensitivity of being able to touch his forehead, but he could touch a ridge which was sitting somewhere where the forehead was.

There you get your occluded case. He's packed in tight. There you get your person who, when he exteriorizes, exteriorizes as a body. That body is made out of granted beingnesses. He wouldn't have that body unless he objected to other people granting beingness. He's just as mobile as he doesn't have one, by the way. His mobility is reduced to that degree where he's packing around objected-to beingness.

How mobile is a thetan? How able is he to exteriorize? He's as able as he doesn't have large energy masses held in suspension – standing electronic ridges, in other words, massed around him as a thetan. And that's how mobile he is. The more he gets of these, the less mobility he has – the less he's able to be certain too, the less he's able to fix himself in space and so forth.

Now, these beingnesses will talk to him, and we get voices. These being-nesses will dictate him questions and answers, and we get machinery and the whole stimulus-response activity of the mind and body. Now, there's where this thing goes.

All right. If that's the case, then we certainly ought to tackle this thing and tackle it at that level of certainty which we have. In Issue 1 of Procedure 30, we have this process used: "Give me somebody you feel it will be safe to have grant some life, some beingness, to things." They select somebody out. They get the least objectionable character, sometimes. Sometimes they get somebody – they're perfectly free to get this person. And now you ask them what they're willing to have this person grant some beingness to. And you fish around and find out if they're doing this with certainty. Are they absolutely certain that they're willing to have this person grant this beingness?

Now, you follow through with your questions: "Something else that you would be willing to have this person grant some beingness to" and "Something else you would be willing to have this person grant some beingness to" and "Something else," each time ascertaining if this is certain, you see, until you've got enormous areas.

Now, does the preclear do this in mock-ups? Does he get pictures, does he do it in masses, does he do it in geographical areas? Well, the funny part of it is, yes he does, but that isn't what you want him to do. The less mass in the process, why, the better the process works.

When you first start working with your preclear, you're right into the middle of all these tremendous masses of granted beingness. And of course, he starts doing this thing with all kinds of masses of this and masses of that and recalls of this and facsimiles of that. And he has a picnic for himself in terms of when he puts up Father – perfectly safe to have Father grant some beingness. You say, "Well, what could he grant some beingness to?" Well, he thinks for a long time and finally finds out it would be all right if Father granted some beingness to the bowl of his own pipe. He gets Papa, he gets the pipe – not in the geographical area where Papa used to load pipes; it'll be someplace else, probably very close to him.

Well, you just ignore that to a marked degree, according to Procedure 30, Issue 1, anyway. Just ignore it to a marked degree. And you'll discover that the individual will gradually drop away from doing this. If you were to question him what was going on, simultaneously, he would find that there are energy ridges moving, there are these standing electronic waves moving. This so-called electronic gel, which I have talked about in other lectures and so forth, would be shifting quite markedly, shifting very markedly. A lot of interesting things occur in terms of phenomena – a lot of phenomena occurs, in fact. You're not terribly interested in the phenomena, and you're not really interested in anything but, is the preclear absolutely certain he would be willing to have that person he has named grant beingness to?

Well now, if you just don't find any person of any kind whatsoever, you'd better hit it on some kind of a gradient scale. And you could hit it on a gradient scale like this: mest universe. All right, "What thing would it be safe to have grant some beingness?" And of course, you're on to the problem of orientation point at a late inversion. And above that will be a person, and above that will be another orientation point.

Now, how far do you go with this, and is this the only process you have to run? Well, yes, by theory this is the only process you have to run. And in actual processing, it's the only one which is going to produce a lot of result.

But in practice, throw in some dunnage, because it will get very monotonous on the preclear. You can vary it this way, because you don't want him spotting, particularly, what you're up to. You say," Well, what wouldn't you mind granting beingness to Papa?" you know? "Are you absolutely certain of that? It's all right for the bowl of the pipe, now, to grant some beingness to Papa?" Okay.

That's not run as a dichotomy, see, but just thrown in. He seems to be hung up for a moment, he's on a little lag, he seems to be nonplused or confused. Let's give him a win. He's always willing to have something grant beingness to one of these people. He's always willing to, but it so happens these things don't grant beingness to. That's a reverse flow. So it's not processing in the direction of truth, so you use this sparingly. But he'd be perfectly willing, for instance, to have a sawed-off shotgun grant beingness to the sheriff. Oh, he'd be real sure of that, see? I mean, you get these queer ones coming up, they're reversals and inversions. So if they come up, so handle them.

I mean, just throw that one in. Throw any kind of a process in. If you think you have to shift off to another person, this is probably what's happened: You haven't picked up the key personnel. You might sort through five, six, eight people before you finally had one that was really rolling on this case, where he was really getting some idea of certainty.

I say that: You should be able to pick it up the first shot, but I can't guarantee that you will pick it up the first shot, you see? We're just assuming rather unreasonably that there is only one case – one person – who hung this person up on the track with granted beingness. And we're assuming unreasonably that the first one that you got a response from on the preclear would be the right one, see? We're making two assumptions here: (1) that the preclear will give you the right one first, and (2) that your preclear in all cases is staying right in the groove with you as an auditor in terms of imparting information. We are assuming these things, and it's not really the thing to assume.

So let's handle it loose, let's be effective, huh? I mean, we know what we're trying to do. We know somebody has granted this person, possibly when he was quite young… Young, though, you see – this is age we're talking about now. We're talking about a span of years but we're also talking about masses of energy, and so when we say "quite young" or "past," this becomes a meaningless thing. We just delete energy out of it, we don't have a past, see?

Somebody granted this person an awful lot of masses of energy which he's sure packing around one way or the other and which are hindering him in performing his proper functions. And in view of that, why, we've got a solution for him. Now, it may be that as this is audited out along the line, an auditor will find very routinely that he will have to handle a number of people and a number of geographical areas before his preclear feels real good about the whole thing.

If that's the case, all right, we handle it that way. But in Procedure 30 we're handling the granting of beingness in this direction, and this is the goal of that section of 30: To make the preclear happy to have other people – beings – grant beingness to the society at large and to himself. And when he's totally willing to have this happen, you will have a saint on your hands, and who knows, he may even have a halo back of his head, because it's quite an unlimited process. But that's our goal.

Now, how we arrive at that goal, I give you one choice of auditing commands. There may be many.