Thank you. Thank you.

And here we are at the 13th of November in the 1st Melbourne ACC. And everybody's doing pretty good.

Well, the upshot of the situation is, with regard to clearing, regard to OT, a few dozen other things, is you got to know how to audit.

If you go flipping into a weak valence every time you face a pc; you go — you take the E-Meter, you know, and you go ... Drop it, you know and ... That's just a weak valence.

Some pc all of a sudden says, rrrrrowwww. Up to that time you're just doing fine, you know, and he said, rrrrrowwww! And you go pop! See, weak valence.

Now, just don't let me catch you doing that. You boot these things out. The way you got into one was pure laziness. It was so easy to communicate to something which pulled your line in. Got that?

Audience: Yes.

That was so easy. And the next thing you know, you just kept communi­cating in that direction, and you just — you went in, too.

Now, there is a pleasure, which I am told that is akin to sexual pleasure and it's very much the same thing, that you probably haven't experienced lately. It's called "the joy of being eaten." You haven't experienced that in this lifetime. But it's a fact. It's a fact. It's an actual pleasure. The joy of being eaten.

And there's recompense to sliding down that line. And of course — probably the main disappointment is, is when you've got at the totally weak, pull-in, effect-point, of the cause-distance-effect line — when you got at the totally weak effect-point, it probably didn't have enough energy to eat you. You see this?

The difficulties of communication are totally involved with you main­taining you. Now how do you suppose I have communicated in the past — well, very, very heavily in the past twelve or thirteen years to all kinds of pcs, and mind you now, I've audited one awful lot of psychos and — and stuff like this, audited a tremendous number of experimental processes, audited pcs with just total failures in all directions, you know, because I was bound and deter-mined to make a process work out or not work out regardless of what hap­pened to the pc, you know. Overt act, just overt acts by the ton!

Well, you say, sooner or later Ronnie will slide down that line, you know.

I'm still hitting at cause-point. And the basic reason for that is, is I don't have a pitch on auditing, you see.

And today an HGC pc wrote a note through with some franticness and said, "Why are you making op ..." — this is a paraphrase but, "Why are you making Operating Thetans? You're making Operating Thetans for some basic political purpose?" you see? And two, "Are you making them to get back at the people in the implant areas?" Naw, I'm not making Operating Thetans to do anything.

The answer of course, I'm making Operating Thetans for their own sake and so they can be free. See? There's no pitch. There's no curve. And I don't always tell the truth, that I assure you. I learned a long time ago that there were two brands of lies, and after that I could become a fiction writer. There were the lies that hurt people, you see, and then there were the lies told to involve them, and twist them up and plow them in. Get the idea?

Now it's indicative of something in this society today that they say that all imaginative utterances are lies. See? So we have to pull back out of that and realize that you're perfectly — one is perfectly free to create the past, present or future. See? One's perfectly free to do this. Unless he creates it with a pitch to injure, enslave or upset. See? You got a big curve on the line.

And an overt act very definitely is an overt act, basically in the pc's own consideration, but in the area of relative truth — relative truth you see, not the absolute truths of the first axioms, but in the area of relative truth. An overt act is an overt act to the degree that it violates the optimum solution; greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics. See? And when an action is taken which suppresses several dynamics and maybe benefits only one or two, that's an overt act. Got the idea?

Audience: Mm-hm.

But it's the optimum solution is the degree of overtness of an overt act.

Now, in view of the fact that there are only such a tiny handful of abso­lute truths — there is a thetan, you see, and he creates things, you know. That's about it. In view of the fact that there's so few absolute truths, and that everything after that fact is created — you have been involved for many, many eons in the creation of an existence. And you had truth or telling the truth, you see, substituted for and identified with, doing the most good. Get the idea? You've got these two things crossed. See? Telling the truth isn't doing the most good.

I could go out here and walk up and down the street and tell the truth for a half an hour, and there would be about twenty suicides. You realize that?

Matter of fact it — we don't have any of this swami stuff in Scientology and Dianetics. Mostly because it's a super effort, you see, to hypnotize, over­whelm and bring about worship. See? That — it's just — it's just nonsense. It's the creation of slavery. It is a real big overt act, see? A real big one.

You know, tell everybody that you're in communication with Yahweh or Cheese Wits or some god, and he's just given you the Word and — and use some perfectly obvious thing like reading the obvious symptoms on some-body's face or reactions or something like that. Or looking at his facsimiles if you please. Reading his mind and so forth to — not to tell the truth about it but to give him a big curve, see? Overwhump him so he believes the lie in some fashion. This is big twisty stuff, you know? The effort not to create an effect but the effort to make a slave. See? That's a different thing.

So that truth is a word actually; it doesn't even belong in the perimeter. There are facts. But the vast — you can't even say "the vast majority" because it's — practically all facts are simply created facts which, agreed upon, have become truths. Now this is a very queasy world to walk into when you realize that!

And when you're busy laying out these vast facts, these absolute truths — well, as a professor of physics you're pretty safe. See, you're pretty safe. You can get away with teaching physics without totally plowing in so long as you don't teach it as absolute and irrevocable facts that will never be altered, changed, shifted in any way, shape or form. Because here we come along, and we can upset physics.

Now, it's all right to teach something as "absolute fact," (quote) (unquote), if you say, "This absolute fact is apparently agreed to and held by most people, and those that don't hold it aren't here. But to that degree it's an absolute fact."

But beyond the first little handful of axioms, you see, there are no unal­terable facts. All facts are alterable beyond the first few axioms.

I know it kind of stretches your imagination to think that something like Boyle's law or laws of fulcrum and balances and so forth could be altered, and apparently that, but they're — they're simply part of the agree­ments of the creation of this universe. And as one agrees to this universe and agrees to its various laws and so forth, why, after all, these things are true but they're true by agreement.

So, don't be too surprised someday if you take fulcrums and balances and set them up and put a hundred-pound weight, one foot away from the knife edge and a two-pound weight, one foot away from the knife edge and stand back and watch them balance. Because if you haven't subscribed or if you've cancelled your subscription on any of these agreements they tend to cease to be true.

Well now, codes of conduct are efforts to delineate what are overt acts. You'll find most moral codes are simply a list of overt acts and they're an attempt to get everybody to agree that these overt acts are overt acts.

You know, they keep talking about the Ten Commandments. The only reason I talk about Christianity rather than another religion is you happen to know more about the tenets of Christianity than some other religion. It doesn't mean that Christianity is the worst or the best amongst religions or actually the funniest.

But it is true that this is the case that they give out Ten Commandments and everybody says these Ten Commandments are the Ten Commandments and that's swell and so on.

But you go back and read some of the earlier translations of the Bible, which weren't monkeyed with to put a new pitch on the line, and you find out that there aren't Ten Commandments. That's one of the first facts about the Ten Commandments that aren't true; there aren't Ten Commandments, that's it.

They just go on and on and on and on and on. I mean I don't know how many there are. I got tired counting or I could tell you right now. I think I stopped at about a hundred and sixty-two.

There's such things as, "When you have killed a pig and found that its flesh was tainted, do not sell it to your neighbor, sell it to the wayfarer and traveler as he comes along." That's in there.

Now, these super, absolute, moral codes have liabilities basically because they're not true! Now, once in a blue moon in this lifetime and others, why, some fellow has — take, "Thou shalt not kill," you know. Some fellow has jumped up big as life and knives in his teeth and all that sort of thing and is going to hack down the — the kids or the family or sink the ship or do some-thing of the sort, you know. Well, just look at the dynamic balance here. See, you've got — one fragment of the third dynamic is represented by this bird with a knife in his teeth, see, and the whole ruddy lot of the rest of them are under your protection, and at this moment you are not going to kill, huh? Ha! Ha! "Thou shalt not kill" just falls by the wayside as an absolute code. See? It does. Boom! It's gone.

And as I say, in this lifetime or earlier ones or that sort of thing — come up against this particular situation — why, as far as I was concerned some-body bit the dust and I never considered it much of an overt act. It isn't.

Got the idea?

Audience: Yes.

For instance, we've just been through a war and the conduct of the Japa­nese in their original capture of Nanking demonstrated that they were not very pleasant people, in the military form at least, to have around, no matter how pleasant they are in their houses at home, see? And they raped and slaughtered and burned around Nanking until there was practically nothing left of the thing, and when I looked that over, it wasn't — it wasn't an atrocity story, it was just a fact. They had a ball. And most of the Japanese troops misconducted themselves and so did white troops and so on. People get going on war and they don't know when to stop.

I remember one sergeant going around with a — during an amphibious landing toward the end of the war, with a carbine butt, knocking out the gold teeth out of the mouths of the wounded. He had a nice collection of gold when he finished up, but I thought it was a little extreme.

Now, overt acts tend to breed overt acts. And you enter in logic along this line someplace and you can begin to speciously logicate out of existence all overt acts. You can explain how they're all logical.

And there's fellows down here in the local jail right this minute, that you talk to them, they could explain it's perfectly logical, absolutely perfectly log­ical how all dynamics, having been violated except some fragment of a valence of the first — they're totally correct. See, it was totally correct to vio­late all dynamics, all their life. It was so logical.

So, you see, that it — it somehow or another takes a — it takes judgment to experience in a society, free conduct. You can't have a bunch of slaves and not have super moral codes and laws. You see that?

Audience: Mm-hm.

In the absence of judgment you have to have all kinds of laws. And you can just put it down in your book that the more laws there are, the less judg­ment there is.

In the development of Dianetics and Scientology, as practitioners and pcs were found to have less and less judgment, then more and more laws were developed. Got the idea?

Audience: Mm-hm.

See? Auditor couldn't exercise judgment on the processing of a preclear, we — we'd have — he couldn't see it himself, you see, and it was — wasn't obvi­ous to him — we invented a law. I invented a law to point this fact out. Got the idea?

Audience: Mm-hm.

Well, if you notice I am very chary of adding more laws because we're going in the more optimum direction of adding more judgment to the people. Got the idea?

Audience: Mm-hm.

Entirely different look.

Now, it isn't those — that those laws don't help, they do. In fact we wouldn't be where we are if we hadn't gotten some people over the rough points of them and so on.

But that's why I say, every once in a while I say, "Never under any cir­cumstances do this, that, or the other thing with the pc." And then, certainly within a day or so, if not within the hour, you will also hear me say, "Judg­ment is necessary to auditing." And one of the ways of expressing that is, "Auditing is what you can get away with," which is an old saw, but a very true one.

All the laws notwithstanding, auditing is what you can get away with. And if you didn't get away with it, it's not auditing. It's Code breaks and everything else, you see?

In living a free life, there's one thing that you give up: you give up to some degree a security against getting hanged because if a slave follows down an exact grooved course of conduct and always minds and obeys all the laws, every single law, he never gets hanged or punished, does he? Usually he makes it. It's good, safe, stupid and weak. Yeah, but it's safe; never moves a hair out of line.

But there's a security connected with that. In a loose way it's analogous to the fellow who holds down a job and gets a regular paycheck, and it's a fairly safe job, and he isn't liable to be fired off of it. He — he never drives any Mercedes-Benz but he always eats. See? Life doesn't have any peaks but doesn't have any abysses, either. See, it's security! An unchanging monotony.

Nothing really wrong with it. It's a method of living. One obeys certain laws, and subscribes to certain codes, and after that he's okay!

Well now, this starts to go up the spout the moment you start introduc­ing freedom — what the great empire, which Great Britain, under the socialist regime, gave up. The socialist bragged that at the beginning of the rule of the socialists there were some four hundred million people in the British Empire, and when they'd finished up, they only had thirty million people in it. Pretty good. And they've had nothing but riot, tumult and revolution in a lot of those areas ever since. They gave out a lot of freedom but they didn't give out any wisdom. A very serious error.

The only way that they could have accomplished any proper end goal would have been to have either restored the original native law in some of these areas or to have brought the people up to where they understood and could abide by English law, but not leave them halfway between and then just skip it.

Judgment is the factor which has to be substituted for law. And a man can be as free as his judgment is rehabilitated. And that's as free as he'll ever get, because oddly enough, he himself will discover himself making a mistake and then put laws on himself. If you don't do it for him, he'll do it for himself.

He'll say, "Well, I must never do that again" as he watches the bashed-in head of the baby. See? He just says, "I must never do that again."

He has said, in essence, without putting Article 4, Section 8, Code Penal: "Infanticide: The slaughtering of babies shall be accompanied by punishment." You see? That isn't the way he phrases it. He just says, "Well that's a bad act. A bad, stupid, senseless act, and I am guilty of having accomplished one, and therefore after this, I shall not do this."

He makes up his own law and he says, "I shalt not kill babies." Bang! Get the idea?

Men — they live within their own area. He almost never says to himself another thought: he says, "Well, if I'm going to be around babies, I've got to raise my judgment with regard to them." He doesn't do that. He usually puts on the emergency brakes and makes up a law. He doesn't really make an effort to further understand what he is having difficulty with and he's liable to make laws about.

So, you see, there were two choices he could make as he bashed the baby's head in. One of them was to make up a law "Infanticide: I shalt not commit infanticide hereinafter, as aforestated, me." See, that was one direction.

And he had an entirely different choice, which was: "Hereinafter, as aforestated, if I can commit actions of this character with the consequences appertaining thereto, then I'd better not be so damned stupid about it. I'd better find out something about this. And I had better increase my judgment on the subject of babies."

Now that doesn't appear to be to you a very strange new thought. Because you're you and you're here, so you have already made that decision long ago. You have decided that the proper way to handle a given, moral, legal, dynamic situation, was by increased judgment. Long ago you decided that, or you wouldn't be here, or you wouldn't be interested in Dianetics and Scientology.

And the reason it's so hard to interest the police department in Dianetics and Scientology is most of these fellows have taken the entire oppo­site course. They bash in the head of a baby, and they say, "Huh! There ought to be a law. I'll go out and make a law to make sure that I don't break it. I mustn't be so familiar with babies." Get the idea?

There's almost two routes, you might say, two main routes toward decency or rightness, or being able to walk in the sun with your head held up. There are two routes and one is to be very lawful; and the other is to have excellent judgment.

And if you don't have excellent judgment, you've got to have lots of laws. And if you don't have lots of laws, you've got to have excellent judgment, and that's the way it works.

And therefore, particularly at this stage of the game, it behooves you to realize that you won't let yourself have more freedom than you feel you have judgment to cope with it.

You're not going to let yourself — I don't care who — who runs what on you. I can blow you out of your head and turn you upside down, and make you put out 100,000 kilowatts, see, p000. And you take a look at that, and if you don't think you're ready for it — you'll be very agreeable and you'll go out and throw 100,000 kilowatts around for me if I ask you to, I know. Next day, why, you just tell your friends, "Well, that was an interesting experience." And you're not going to throw 100,000 kilowatts around anymore. No, sir.

You've apparently gotten well off and then spun in, you know, gotten worse again. That wasn't what happened at all. Your capabilities were increased without the increase — consequent increase of judgment. See? You increased your horsepower but you knew you hadn't increased your judg­ment, so you wouldn't use that much horsepower.

There's an old mystic yip-yap about, "Thou shalt have the power from the mighty, all seeing, Yahweh or Snitzboo that you showeth the ability to be trustedeth with." It's an old mystic law.

Well, that's a nice other-determined lot of bunk! The facts of the case are, is you will permit yourself to have as much power as you think you've got judgment for and you won't let yourself have any more power than that.

Now, judgment therefore is a subject which we have played with for many years. I won't tell you the subject of judgment's totally wrapped up. But I can tell you what judgment consists of.

Judgment consists of familiarity and the ability to evaluate relative importances. Relative importances.

A guy jumps on deck with a knife in his teeth, you don't want any stimulus-response machine which just shoots him, because he might be a friend of yours who is simply skin diving, see?

Audience: Mmmm.

You don't want a stimulus-response machine that simply polishes him off.

And you want judgment enough. Well, the judgment consists of the impor­tance of the fact with relationship to its surroundings. There he is, what are you going to do? Well, you're going to do, to the degree that you recognize and observe and evaluate. You know why he's there and what is he, and what he's doing and so forth. That all depends on fairly quick observation.

The more laws you have the less you observe. You settle into the security of just following the law and one day the law goes out of style, and there you are still following the law. All of your aberrations are just laws that have gone out of style. You're still obeying laws that applied to the Minoan civiliza­tion. Laws which apply to the conduct of officers of spaceships of the Imperial Empire.

Oh, I could dig some up, right out of you right now, see. Article 62: Royal Code: 13th Galaxy Confederacy, "Restriction of punishment of lower ratings" — something of this sort, you know? It's total nonsense. You find you have been applying it.

You find that, as a man, why, you knew exactly how hard to hit some-body, and see, if you had to hit them at all, you hit them just to this degree, and so forth. Possibly he even made sure that they weren't near any gratings so that you knocked them down any ladders, you know. There are certain ways and means, there was a definite amount of injury which was all right to deliver and that was in the Royal Code of God knows where. You see? Mil-lions and millions and billions of years ago. It's still part of the script.

One day you become a boxer, still following the exact amount of punish­ment that you can mete. And naturally, all codes have something to do with the regulation and handling of force and its direction and that sort of thing. Well, that depends on judgment.

And the exact amount of force to use is the exact amount of force that will accomplish the exact effect that you consider should be accomplished. And the only places where you considered your judgment very bad is when you've applied too much or too little. And you didn't do the job. And you might say judgment, then, is valid as far as you have been able to follow Axiom 10. See. That's what judgment is basically, to you. See? Production of an effect.

Well, the production of the correct effect desired. In other words, the expression of an intention. The expression of an intention is what that is. You wanted to make a certain effect. Well, believe it or not, not all effects are bad.

And that simply consisted of expressing an intention. Well, that inten­tion required that you make a certain postulate, and not too much and not too little. You see? Probably its usual force, not too much, not too little force.

You see? Probably that you utilized, altered or changed some mass, but not too much and not too little, see that? And if you came right there in the groove and you produced that exact effect, then you had confidence in being able to follow out Axiom 10. See, Axiom 10, the production of an effect, you had confidence that you could produce an effect.

And I'll show you the exact way to reach judgment. The exact way to reach judgment is to just rehabilitate confidence of the production of a proper effect. That's all. Because one of the fundamental laws that is above all other laws is Axiom 10! It's just a law like everything else, you know.

You say, "What's this game all about in this universe?" Well, the game in this universe is production of an effect.

Well, the production of the intended effect would be an obedience to that law. See? You intend an effect and you produce it! And that obeys it. Got the idea?

Audience: Mm-hm.

So, if you are going to have that law at all, why, the production of an effect would be the production of the intended effect, not some other effect. And you will become free to the degree that you have confidence in producing the effect you intended to produce. Right?

Audience: Yes.

So, therefore in Dianetics when you intended, and in Scientology, when you intended to produce a certain effect on the pc and you didn't produce it your judgment worsened. Right? But when you intended to produce a certain effect and produced it, you figured you were a pretty good auditor. Right?

Audience: Yes.

All right. Therefore I invite you to follow through any such line as this with caution and simply walk yourself up scale to a number of wins!

Now, I'm telling you that this, that and the other thing will do this, that and the other thing for pcs. And as you have noticed, my summer without a Central Organization hanging around my neck at Saint Hill, has not been without certain results. There have been certain techniques and know-hows produced here, which you're getting the full benefit of. Now those techniques and know-how actually are adequate at this time simply to pull the floor out from underneath any pc.

Now you want to hurt somebody's aberrations, well you don't hurt the pc. You mess up his aberrations. To mess them up then, you'd better use — this sounds horrible — but you had better use a technique which you know will produce that effect. Well, of course that requires experience, which is to say familiarity.

Now, possibly all right for me to tell you to sit here in this class and produce a lot of OTs, but as far as an auditor is concerned, I would rather tell you to produce a lot of effects that you intend to produce. You'll go out of here with better judgment, don't you see?

Now, I've gotten so cocky of recent years, particularly during the last year, on healing up somebody's sciatica or straightening out somebody's left auricle, this is just, pffft! Not necessarily intending to straighten it out from here till the end of the time track, you understand, but getting a good, stable release of the situation right then, stabilizing them up, knocking them out so they don't have that particular illness and so forth. I've gotten so cocky in this particular direction that I would say offhand, medicine — ha! What you want it for, see?

There are certain biochemical products, endocrinological effects, possibly certain surgical or obstetrical effects that could be produced in the field of medicine.

Very possibly if some guy's arm is hurting him you cut it off, it doesn't hurt him anymore.

But, I've begun to believe that the answer isn't in physical manipulation in any illness! The answer isn't in physical manipulation.

I see somebody's infection cured up very nicely, somebody's infection is all cured up and so forth, and he's okay now, isn't he? And then five years goes by and the thing finishes out the rest of the cycle of action. Yeah! Yeah, you cure up this fellow's suppurating ear, and he's all straight, and his ear's all cured up, and so forth — and this is in the absence of any other processing, you see, than just putting medication and squirting him, and killing off bugs and doing this and that, and then he goes up the track a ways and all of a sudden he has this strange illness that nobody can quite diagnose. Well, the strange illness that he has that nobody can quite diagnose is of course the remainder of the cycle of action of the illness that was started and cured earlier! And that's it. And it appears in many peculiar versions.

No, the answer lies not in cure at all. The answer lies in resolving a person's desire to be ill.

And everybody, even the medicos would tell you, why, they'd say, "Hubbard is correct about this. Known this for years! Years! Preventive medicine is much better than curative medicine. Known it for years!" Well, they've known it for years, why the hell didn't they do something about it?

Because you can't prevent illness, physical illness with other physical means. Get the idea? You can't prevent physical illness.

Because illness is basically a creative function. A person has mocked himself up an illness. Now, you're going to cure somebody's mock-ups, by shooting him — excuse me ladies — shooting him in the butt with a ten-inch needle. You're not going to cure any mock-ups that way, I can absolutely assure you! You're going to give him another mock-up. You get the idea?

Oh, don't be so shocked.

That's not the way to cure mock-ups.

Actually you can do some weird things with mock-ups by physiological reaction. Just rapidly I can tell you, you can — you can make somebody's mock-ups eight times as big as life with physical manipulation.

You can take oxygen, for instance, pure oxygen; slap it on somebody's nose and let him breathe nothing else for quite a little while, keep the ciga­rettes away from him, because if he explodes of course, he'll blow up like a punctured balloon. If he's got a couple of steel teeth and clicks them together he's had it, you know.

But you would be fascinated at how many pictures he sees. See, oxygen does something to pictures. Well, that's fine, that's fine.

CO2 does something to pictures. And you take an awful lot of CO2, don't take it in the ice version, and stuff it into somebody's lungs, he's going to see a lot of pictures! Something's going to happen to the pictures of the case. That's for sure.

And you take a lot of cyanide gas and push it into his lungs, he's going to see a lot of pictures. In fact, you can make people see a lot of pictures.

Now, you can give somebody old-time Dianazene, which consists of enor­mous quantities of calcium, enormous quantities of ascorbic acid and vitamin B1, maybe a few little other things to put edges on it. You can give him a lot of these, just cram him full. You can actually move him through some rather fantastically chronic engrams. He just moves to a different place in the engram. Does something to cancer. I don't know what. I don't say it cures cancer. It just does something to it. Skin cancer and things like that, I've seen it turn on on a pc, just giving them doses of this stuff, and then it runs out. Fellow has had kind of a poor skin before, he winds up with a fairly good skin.

If you don't carry it on through to a full course — of course the other factor involved is nicotinic acid, is the main thing that does this.

If you don't carry it through to a full course of it, you leave him hung up in something. And a full course is — nicotinic acid turns on so many hot flashes and all kinds of other things with them and it's so damned uncom­fortable, if you'll excuse me, that finishing up a course is highly unlikely. You got the idea?

Well, you talk about physical manipulation. I talked to you a few min­utes ago about swami work. Well, man, there's nothing — nothing to it, if you want to — somebody to see pictures or change physical form, or — or something like that, all you do is utilize the other-determinism on the case, considering it's stronger than the pc, and bring about a result through hypnotism. All you've got to do is lower the responsibility of somebody to zero, and you've got him hypnotized, that's the total action of hypnotism. Just explain to some-body carefully and over a long period of time how he's not responsible for anything and he'll eventually go flutter, bang! That's the exact mechanism of hypnotism, and of course you can change the physical form of the body one way or the other. There's nothing much to this.

You could hypnotize him, it doesn't even take any time to hypnotize somebody. And the reason they don't hypnotize everybody is because hypno­tists are just chicken. That's right. They're scared. They're cowards. You don't realize how far you've got to go sometimes. And it's of no real value, of no value at all. It improves the forces and masses of the body maybe but totally at the expense of the pc. There's nothing there if you haven't got a pc there, so why bother to shift the mass around, you know. You can make a girl look twice as good in some fashion, physically. Make this thetan's body look nicer physically. The thetan however, after that, is going around in a total fog. What good's a body, see?

Oh, if you want to decorate the universe learn to be a sculptor and just sculpt up some bodies. You don't have to pick on thetans.

The point I'm making here is the physiological shift about, and the hocus-pocus and the monkey business, and the overwhelming and — and all of that sort of stuff. Oh, I could have told you this years ago, and it mostly would have been opinion, or you would have assigned it to my own penchants or something of this sort. But today — today I've — I've had to face this whole question all over again.

And I find out that sure, if somebody has got a broken leg, for God sakes put a splint on it. If he's bleeding to death, why put a tourniquet on him, patch him up, hook him together, and then for God's sakes process it out if you want him to get anyplace. Because he's the one that had the broken leg, he's the one that got the broken leg, and it's very unpalatable — and you needn't go telling the public this — that each fellow is carrying with him his own self-germinated germ of destruction. See?

It's an awful thing to saddle people with. You just take somebody that's not a Scientologist, and hasn't ever come up two inches and has got no reality on nowhere, and say, "Well, you know that operation you had there in 1949?"

And he says, "Oh, yeah. Yeah, it's there all right."

You say, "Well! You mocked the whole thing up. Did it yourself exclu­sively. Totally! That was just you. That was nobody else."

You know, he won't buy it.

And yet actually the only way out of it is for him to process it from that viewpoint.

Old Dianetics worked because, covertly, the person was taking responsi­bility for having done it.

And quite incidentally in erasing the engram you erased his overts in the engram itself, somehow or another, and it worked itself out and came on up the line. Well, that's rather clumsy compared to what we do now.

You could simply sit a fellow down, and say, "Think of an overt against a woman. Thank you." "Think of an overt against a woman. Thank you." "Think of an overt against a woman." You know, or "Think of something you've done to a woman." "Think of something you might have done to a woman." Or anything like that. You know, any overt, any way you want to phrase it, just call it over and over and over and the bank will just start stripping off one way or the other, you know. There it goes.

The fellow says, "I've got a nice, great big, juicy engram here. And they're killing me. And they're hanging me. And ..."

Killing him and hanging him, be damned. He had to cooperate across the board to get killed and hanged.

And he says, "They're killing me and hanging me. And, and ..."

And you say, "All right. Now, just let's ..." The Scientologist would sim­ply say, "Well, let's get your overts off of this." Mm, he'd strip them down and all of a sudden the picture goes!

Now, he doesn't have to experience the whole picture and be hanged all over again, the way he did in Dianetics, see?

Now, the difference between taking responsibility for being the cause of it and not, is that you keep on going through the same incident if you don't take the cause-point on it. You have to relive it and reexperience it and re-this-a-that, and re-so and so on.

Well, you can just kiss this one goodbye the second that you can get a pc to take cause.

As soon as he starts taking the cause, you find out that he's plotting all the way through this hanging, you see. Plotting at this and plotting at that and plotting at the other thing and so on.

It's easier to do if you say, "Where'd the hanging take place?"

"Ah, you, I don't know and so on, this planet — this planet! Yeah, it was this planet."

"Well, what country was it?"

"Well, that doesn't matter much. This planet. This planet. It was on this planet."

And you say, "Good. Well now, think of an overt against this planet." Just as stupidly simple as that, you see. And his track with regard to this planet frees up. His memory restores and he snaps back into power again. You see?

Now, you're erasing overts, however, I call to your attention. You're eras­ing overts, you're not necessarily rehabilitating a person's judgment. Got the idea?

"So, what effect could you or would you be willing to produce on this planet that you think you could produce on this planet?"

That's a very long, clumsy auditing command. There are much better ones but I'm just trying to give you the full, horrible substance of exactly what an Axiom 10 command would be.

What effect — you know, he's got this hanging and he said it's this planet.

"What effect would you be willing to produce on this planet that you could produce on this planet?"

That's not an auditing command, that's just the substance of what you'd have to ask him.

And after a while, he says, "What effect could I ... Oh, man. Oh, wow! Oh, no! Well, let's see, if I was down at a beach, and there was a footprint in the beach, I could probably blow a grain of sand a quarter of an inch across the footprint. Yeah, I could produce that effect. I guess."

Now, with that process he comes up with judgment as the final product. Get the idea? You give him exercise in judgment and so forth, and he starts letting go of all the laws that restrain him.

The restoration of judgment is a necessary ingredient to the making of OTs. And, practice in reestimating effects will attain this. And those things are pretty necessary to what you're doing. Somebody's got to get back to that.

The odd part of it is he won't erase the laws until he thinks he's got judgment. He's got to have some judgment. Nothing I'm telling you here is upsetting anything you're doing. I'm just telling you that there's a further ingredient.

This answers the age-old puzzle of "How does the pc become aberrated?"

Well, he becomes aberrated by plotting it up himself to restrain himself from breaking his own ideas of proper moral conduct. In the absence of moral codes, why, he substitutes them for himself. And although he'll live whole lives of being lawless, he sooner or later returns himself to being a monk. Got the idea? And he runs various miscompensations for this sort of thing, and eventually winds up in a fairly aberrated condition.

But judgment, not trustworthiness so much, but just judgment of being able to create effects which match up to an optimum solution, is in itself an adequate rehabilitation for a thetan, and would of itself bring him back up to OT, no matter what process, type or route did it.

Okay?

Audience: Mm-hm.

Thank you.