Golden era productions

HELP—HOW TO GET STARTED

unless they simply drool. They aren't doing anything very effective, and most of the lines which they're letting out are so antipathetic to the people who are receiving the material that, although it's very idealistic and it's very pretty, they're looked upon as being dreamers and very impractical. They're not getting very far.

It's quite wonderful though, that they are actually totally on the fourth. It's too bad they aren't also on the third, second and first. So it must be an inverted fourth. If you've read much of their material, you'll know what I'm talking about: They are not being real. They are for man without being for a single individual man, you see? And when you get that condition, you've had it. Now, that's an inversion, isn't it?

Well, you take, today, the third dynamic. Man is beginning to realize that the greatest bane of his existence is, of course, nationalism—invented not too long ago and going out quite rapidly. Nationalism has actually given us more wars than "emperorism" in the Roman Empire gave them. The serious wars fought by Rome in its earlier, formative days were nationalistic wars. Her civil wars, except perhaps the Battle of Masada, which happened just before a barbarian invasion and, therefore, wiped out most of her army just at the time she needed it, actually did not terribly reduce the Empire.

Nationalism. One of these days you will hear nationalism as a very wicked thing—extremely wicked. We will live to see a time, unless we ourselves do something about it, which we undoubtedly will, when the idea of a nation or borders or something of this character is an act of viciousness.

And there will be TV plays, probably three-dimensional in full color by that time. And they'll be TV plays. And the villain in this particular thing will be a nationalist. You know, he's one of these dirty, foul, stinking beasts; he has the idea that you ought to have a nation. And man has gone the whole gamut on this nationalism, now. The more great wars he fights over nationalism, the less he likes the idea.

I'm not preaching for or against nationalism, just showing you that it has a curve.

And the second dynamic was once something that occurred to have babies. Well, don't go to Hollywood to study it today. You wouldn't recognize it. It was help in creativeness. And you can see that very directly because it is very intimate to the first dynamic, you see? Help in creativeness. Two thetans got together and created something and, boy, did that make it persist! You see? And eventually it got down to this point.

Now, there isn't much you can say about a first dynamic, except it, when it goes, gives the person the idea that he cannot help and he cannot be helped. But the funny part of it is that it will flip and run the whole gamut of the dynamics backwards, all as self. Quite amazing. There hasn't been a dictator in good shape for so doggone long—they're all on inverted thirds. They're self as a third dynamic, you get the idea? They're self as mankind. They're crazy.

And then you get clear on down the inversions to an inverted eighth, which is self as god. And you get the Indian doctrine—which was not introduced by the people it's authored to—of the oneness of everybody. Boy, you've really got it made there: You've got an eighth that's a one. That's really fabulous when you come to think it over. The oneness of everybody. You must recognize your oneness, that you are everything else and you are everybody else.

Funny part of it is, if you can't communicate to everything and everybody else, you're in trouble. But if you are everything and everybody else, and can't get out of those valences and can't withdraw in any way, you're in trouble. See

11

12

7 FEBRUARY 1958

this? The first, because it's a fact and does not consist of any further agreements—it is a fact, you see—never wholly disappears. But it shifts into other things rather easily.

Now, on the first inversion there really is an eighth, there really is a seventh, there really is a sixth. There's isness of mest—it is. It isn't that it's a product of your imagination, you see? It isn't that it's something you thought up in a loose moment while you were drunk. The highest significance of it is—which is why everybody misses it—is that it is. You can argue with that all you please. Mary Baker Eddy argued with it, and she said it's infinite mind. I'm sure that it is not infinite mind. It is. It is what it is, it is not something else—like Popeye. See, it just is.

Funny part of it is a thetan, liking to doll things up, always loves to add a thousand more significances. So after it is, then he adds something else, see? You have an awful time with somebody to get him to come right down to the fact of the case that the physical universe simply is. We don't care whether it will be or was or who created it or anything else. It is a fact.

Now, taking that fact apart is another problem. Adding to that fact is another problem. You see? It happens that it is a fact. But it doesn't even have to be a fact to the degree that the first dynamic is a fact. Now, Mary Baker Eddy would have uttered something a little truer had she said that the spirit is always senior to matter. That's true. That is a fact. But it is not true that because that is true, matter isn't. You get the idea? That is unjustified logic, and is only logic.

Now, the common denominator of this whole cave-in is just the white going into the black. Don't you see? As you see those dynamics fold up, you see the white into the black. White is help, help, help, help, help, help, gone, gone, gone, gone, gone, gone—kill it. You were never so mad at any other person as you have been at the person you sought to help and couldn't.

Audience: Yeah.

I've seen the most amazing thing. I've seen a corpsman working like mad giving blood transfusions, you know, bottle after bottle, and sewing somebody up, and working like mad and working like mad and working like mad and trying to pick up this dog soldier he fished out of the landing craft, you know? And all of a sudden, why, the guy says—groan, creak, rattle, bang. He's gone. The corpsman stands up and looks at him (and I'll quote it directly because the ladies present are Scientologists) and he says, "Why, you dirty son of a bitch!"—that very healthy attitude. Don't think it was otherwise. The dog soldier didn't cooperate at all. He didn't even come back and help anybody pack him up and throw him into the icebox, either. That was that.

And you say men get calloused. I rather think he had become very uncalloused.

Now, we look at these dynamics and we see that if you could get a picture of the upper sides of one to eight—and even the inversion down here as gray—if you could get the upper side of one to eight, the upper side of the dynamic as white and then just fading on down into gray and then going black and then disappearing utterly, you would get some sort of a color scheme that most people seem to agree with. That isn't a fact either, that's just a dream-up, but it seems what usually happens. And that will occur. Don't be amazed when you find someday that the blackness of the physical universe is simply your cave-in on the sixth. Don't be amazed when you discover that, because you'll run into it someday when you go for OT. You'll say, "There's not dark out here, what's the matter with me?"

HELP—HOW TO GET STARTED

It becomes a not-know; it becomes an irresponsibility when it goes totally black. It's now even gone beyond destroy, you see? When it is totally, inkily, armor-plate black it is simply, "I've got nothing to do with it, I am no part of it. It's over there and I'm over here, and I hope it stays over there but good." Got that thoroughly? And it's just help flipping in, over to that.

Now, the only reason I'm beating this to death—and I am beating it to death—is because it needs to be beaten to death. It tells you to start a session before you run one. It tells you to get a train from Omaha to Chicago. You may expertly locate a station at Kansas City, but if you never get the steam up in Omaha, it will never get to Kansas City or Chicago. It'll never go anywhere.

Similarly, if a preclear is sitting there out of session, he never gets auditing. And it is not auditing that has failed at all because it never happened. A condition of auditing is being in-session.

What is meant by being in-session? That the requisites, to some degree, of CCH 0 are met.

And the two wildest things that'll keep him out of session are PT problem and Help. And if he doesn't think he can help you, and if he doesn't think you can help him, and if he doesn't think any help is possible, he's not going to go anywhere. And his field won't clear up, either.

Now, his field isn't necessarily the button Help totally gone sour. You understand this? But it's the entering wedge, which, if not unwedged, will not permit any other technique to operate on the field.

You've got a little drill called CCH 0, and you're trying to build an archway through a mountain—it looks to you—and you've got this little hand-drill that drills a sixteenth of an inch hole an inch deep. I assure you, you've got to start out with some kind of a hole, some kind of a drill. And you'll be surprised how less of a mountain it looks when you have at least drilled the first hole. And the first hole is Help. It's really got to be drilled. Just to talk to him, you have to handle the PT problem. But to actually get auditing in progress, you have to be able to clear Help and get it out of the road, get it swept aside, open the gates, because up to that time those gates are closed. The windows of his soul are shut and barred. And if he's bad enough off, he's got howitzers sitting just under the casement.

He will only get better if he gets help. Conversely, he will only get better if he gets over the idea that he cannot be helped and that he cannot help you.

And he got into that idea in the first place because he thought he needed help at some time or another, and it's sitting on that postulate. But if it's sitting on that postulate, it is still a fact as far as you're concerned in an auditing session that he is hung up on this particular basis.

And you would be better off to clear Help for five solid hours or ten hours, or to clear it, for Pete's sake, until there was no black, gray, pink, orange field left, than to go off and abandon it and skip it. You've got to start a session all over again if no session was ever started. And the way to start it: PT problem and Help.

Thank you.

13

A LECTURE GIVEN ON 7 FEBRUARY 1958

Okay, what questions do we have here?

Male voice: Question regarding Group Processing: What rationale would one use on Group Processing today and what general process would one do?

The last and most effective Group Process that came out was issued in a PAB.* I don't know the number of the PAB; I didn't number it. I've never seen a copy of it, but it's a Group Processing PAB—very recent, certainly the middle of 1957. And that Group Processing bulletin was retested here in November, December.

I don't say that that is the best one that could be dreamed up in view of what we know now, but I will tell you definitely that it's good.

Yes?

Male voice: Do you think that "be as you are" and "do what you're doing" would lend itself at all to Group Auditing?

Oh yes. Oh, for heaven's sakes, you're Scientologists, you can do anything in a Group Auditing session. But you certainly had better not go into any fancy, high-flown group clearing, because I'm sure it won't work.

Male voice: Another part of the question was, how does this new data that we have...

It doesn't.

Male voice: It doesn't apply at all to groups?

Hm-mm. Would apply in your understanding as you handled a group.

Male voice: I see.

But you're touching two hot buttons—they're too hot. You can run them on a Scientologist who is rather blase toward processes, you understand? You can run them up here in sessions. But the normal reaction in the HGC is what makes HGC processing a little bit different than our co-auditing here or staff co-auditing or something of the sort—is people are coming in there and sitting down and it's just one long "Wow, gee, for Christ's sakes, my god," and other blasphemies, you know? And it's just blowing them—they blow and they threaten to blow and they fall apart and they do this and they do that, and the dramatics of it are too high for a group.

Male voice: Okay.

* The PAB referred to here is PAB 114, the context of which is covered in HCOB 8 Apr. 57, GROUP AUDITING.

15

16

7 FEBRUARY 1958

That's why I say that.

Male voice: Yeah.

Anything that we've been over here, except maybe engram running or Lock Scanning or something—maybe even Lock Scanning could be done by a group, but I don't think any of these later clearing processes are adaptable at this time.

Jack, you had a question; you seldom ask one.

Male voice: Yeah, after the eighth inverts and you get a society like India, is there anything lower except savagery?

Boy, that's pretty savage. When the oneness of it all lets them down . . . You certainly put your finger on something, that is true. I'm not observing that, you observed it. But that, I think, probably is what happened to ants. Maybe they were all running along, running railroad trains at one time or another.

Possibly every strata of life has gone out that bottom. Of course, the oddity of it to us, is evidently Buddhism picked it back up from savagery, and that was a higher concept than they had. But that's not very high, is it?

Anything else?

Male voice: No, that's all.

Does that answer the question?

Male voice: Yeah.

All right.

Yes?

Male voice: What would you recommend for a Clear project—for a clearing project for a field auditor? How would you recommend as a stable datum for setting it up?

How do you mean this now? You mean you're going to take a field auditor and audit him, or he's going to audit somebody else?

Male voice: No, for a field auditor to go out and set up a clearing project somewhere in the field.

Yeah, what about it?

Male voice: Not just as he is going to audit somebody, but get people to co-audit to Clear. I want to know, do you have any . . .

Oh yes.

Male voice: . . . stable datum for it?

Yes, yes, yes. That's why you had your HAS Manual published recently. You make a technician out of them. It's all been worked out. Thank you for asking. But you make a technician out of them. And you make damn sure you make a technician out of them. Don't try to get them to understand anything. You say, "You shuttle this cube of sugar into that bowl and you're all set." And you don't give them any difficulties to jump across, you don't tell them what they can run into, you just say, "You do this." And it becomes a monitored project. There will have to be somebody around who isn't a technician before you can do that. But we've been running that way for years—what's so different about it, see?

Director of Processing, somebody like that, he can actually have people on staff, sometimes, that he just steers. Of course eventually as they go along, why, these people themselves move out of the grade of technician and—in actual practice—and they become a theoretician. And they get pretty hot about it and they start picking cases to pieces and putting their fingers on

HELP—HOW TO GET STARTED: Q&A PERIOD

this and that and so forth and generally people go around then and they ask them for a while, and then they get the dope. And—you know? And that's the way it goes.

But that project has been laid out and that's why the HAS was started as a degree, you know? We even thought of making another certificate but we had too many certificates already and we never activated it. We mentioned it in a publication, I believe—HTS or something like that, or technician.

Actually, an HAS should be pushable right in that grade and unit up to technician, and I would consider, however, that a clearing project would start out with schooling. And you're running a model of a clearing project right here in this particular Unit, plus one single fact which makes it an ACC, and that's the fact that I'm giving you lectures. Got it? Which tends to boost you out of being technicians, see?

Yes?

Female voice: I'd like to know if clearing Help could be used as a standard way of—in opening in a session, in an intensive, to use it each day . . .

Well now, just a minute.

Female voice: . . . for a short while.

It is CCH 0.

Female voice: Uh-huh.

And you never bypass CCH 0 to start an intensive or to start a session.

Female voice: Yes. Well, that's what I mean . . .

Now . . .

Female voice: . . . to start the session every day for a few minutes, to just have...

Oh, that's for true.

Female voice: That would be good?

But it is actually better to take the button and beat it to pieces if there's anything wrong with it at all. And you've got to make up your mind whether or not you're running two-way comm . . .

Let me say a word about this, may I? I'm glad you brought this point up—not because you need this, particularly. But when you're running clearing, all of the CCH 0 processes have two versions. One is two-way comm and the other version is a repetitive command. See, it's one version as two-way comm, and it is another version as a repetitive command—formal auditing.

Don't mix the two up. I found somebody the other day who thought that two-way comm was a sloppy repetitive command audit. And it is not. And this person was not bridging, was not standardizing the command, was not clearing the command, wasn't doing any of the things that you would do in formal auditing. And, wow, was Help going down for the last time!

Now, if you're going to clear Help utterly, you're going to have to do it as formal auditing and as a process which runs as a bracket and which is cleared—each command is cleared as you go; you bridge carefully between each point of the bracket and you run it as a process.

Now, early in the intensive, if it apparently needed it, you understand— early in the intensive, you would undoubtedly run it, if it was needed, as a repetitive command, formally audited process, you understand? But day by day, you would simply check it as two-way comm. You got that?

Female voice: Yes.

So there is a slight difference there between the two. I'm glad you brought that up.

17

18

7 FEBRUARY 1958

You can really beat this one to pieces—this thing called Help. And actually you run his havingness up all the way. It's one of these processes which—like destroy: you can run an awful lot of destroy without, you know, as-ising destroy, and get havingness. You can also run Help and get havingness. But it is a little bit more critical, and therefore the auditing of it has to be more careful, and it has to be a better formal audit.

You start just clearing the word help in the auditing command and you're liable to have a picnic. Clearing a word isn't explaining it to the preclear, either, by the way. You want to know what he thinks it means, and his considerations of it are what you're trying to get. You're not even trying to get him to get it straight. You're trying to get him to get some idea of it, and he's liable to get an awful lot of cognitions on clearing Help.

And as you go up the line, if you're sloppy enough to use "others"—you know, "Do you think others could help you?"—this is a highly improper command, by the way. "Do you think others could help you?" Boy, you're liable to run into more trouble than a pack of monkeys, because you've gone onto the psychiatric-communist school of thought.

You, by the way, probably think I beat this psychiatric-communist join-up— it's not a piece of propaganda—more than is necessary. But the truth of the matter is, they're the same breed of cat. You only have to talk to a psychiatrist to realize that he does believe there is a "people," there is a "mass" and there are "others," and he's protecting those "others" by victimizing the individual. And that is the rationale on which he proceeds.

It's the same as communism: "You mustn't ever have an individual. The cult of the personality is something that must be crushed and squashed at once. You must never have an individual. You must only have a mass." "The masses," see? This whole idea of "the masses." It's just a big, blurred identification, don't you see?

Well, you try to run "Do you think others could help you?" and a fellow is liable to answer this auditing command four or five times before he starts to chunk into it and realize that it can't be answered. It's rather weird. "Can another person help you?" "Could a doctor help you?" And the plurality of the bracket, to that degree, is something that is very unproductive of results. Because you're auditing against a consideration, not a terminal. And it immediately violates the idea that you run problems, you run other things, most beneficially against terminals. You do not run them against considerations. And this thing—"others," "masses," "the people"—these things are simply considerations, and in essence do not exist.

So clearing up these various commands one way or the other is actually necessary. You clarify every side of the bracket, you use it—a repetitive command, you scrupulously use bridges between them. You use a bridge between "Could I help you?" and "Could you help me?" or "Is there any way you could help me?" or "Think of a way you could help me," or "Imagine a way you could help me." We're not trying to give you the magic incantation here on Help because after you've cleared the command you may find out that it has to be phrased in a certain peculiar, particular way in order to get across. This is the hottest button on the case and you're running it first when he won't even sit still. Get the idea?

A field will stay in suspense evidently, by actual test now, just as long as a person doesn't believe there's any help. Of course, we've got all sorts of nonsensical stupid ideas in this society. We have phrases which are (shades of Dianetics) fantastic. Our phraseology, our cliches are wonderful. "I can't