Golden era productions

CONDUCT OF CLEAR: Q&A PERIOD

Female voice: And the other would be, what sort of a clearing to accept from a preclear, or any?

You'd never clear a command entirely. You never say, "Walk over to the other side of the room and put your hand on the wall. Now, what does that command mean to you?" He's just left in a fog. You clear it piecemeal. You clear it word by word—how. You'll be amazed. He'll all of a sudden come up with something on how. Could. "What do you mean, could?"

You see, you give him a clue of what you're doing. You say, "The command is, 'How could I help you?' Now, we're going to clear this command. Now, what does how mean to you? What does could mean to you? I? Help?" Wow! "You?"

It's a very odd thing; if you clear a command, you will knock out all the old circuitry difficulties we used to have. We used to have circuitry difficulties of who was auditing what. And if you clear each command as you go along, these—it's a constant clearing of I, and it's a constant clearing of you. And all of a sudden the fellow will find himself, just in clearing commands. It's too valuable a piece of auditing to overlook, and we're rather heroic in the way we overlook this. Rather heroic.

Female voice: Would you ever stick a preclear onto the clearing that you started with?

Hm?

Female voice: Would you ever stick a preclear so that he continued thereafter using the clearing that. . .

Uh-uh. You're unsticking him.

Female voice: Okay.

And if he starts saying this . . . You know, there's another angle to this that just your good sense would tell you about. He starts somewhere along the line saying, "Let's see, how could I help you?" You asked him a question. You said, "How could I help you?"

"How—could—I—help—you?" Well, he hasn't got the command.

So, you say, "Now, I'm going to repeat the auditing command," or "I'll repeat the auditing command. How could I help you?"

And he says, "How could I help you?" Boy, we'd better clear that command! Get the idea? Just bridge out of it. Clear the command all over again and so forth. Don't leave him at a stuck point. But ordinarily clearing a command unsticks him. It gives him a sufficient familiarity with the words that he's not stumbling.

But somewhere along the line he's liable to fall out of a valence, into a valence, the command goes boggling, we don't know where he is or what he's doing. And his usual manifestation on that is to be puzzled. Well, his puzzlement is very often occasioned by the fact that the command needs clearing again.

Female voice: Mm-hm. One idea I had about that was on this, "You get the idea of making that wall connect with you." Well, the auditor could clear it until all he wants is an idea—if he starts clearing it word for word.

Yeah.

Female voice: Well, then you're starting the process at the end, aren't you?

What's this? You're starting a process at the end?

Female voice: Well, you're just getting these ideas like he tells you to, and that's all you're doing. You're not making it—you aren't . . . You're just here, and you're getting these ideas.

Well, that's what he's asked you to do.

47

48

10 FEBRUARY 1958

Female voice: That's right. Okay. Well then, maybe that's all you want. Very good.

Maybe. All right. All right. Ever hear of Rising Scale Processing?

Female voice: Sure.

All right. Now, I've taken somebody who was eight miles deep and without a diving suit and run Rising Scale Processing on this person— altered his ideas and everything else, all over the place. He hadn't a clue what was happening. No cognition came up along the line. He was a different person when I finished. Get the idea?

Female voice: Yeah, I do. Thank you.

"Get the idea?" That's a joke!

Okay. Well, that's it today. Thank you very much.

Male voice: Thank you.

A LECTURE GIVEN ON 11 FEBRUARY 1958

Well, I'm glad to see that you're all in such fine fettle today. I understand a few of you, as auditors, having a little trouble running Help. If you have too much trouble, I'll cry because there's nothing simpler, but I'm going to give you a rundown right now on the key processes of clearing. The key processes of clearing.

This is what, by the way? This is February something or other . . .

Audience: Eleventh.

Eleventh. Good. AD 8.

It might have been thought that a great many processes were necessary to clear somebody because there are so many angles and complexities to the mind. And it's very amusing. There have been tremendous efforts made in the last seventy-six trillion years, or seventy-three trillion years—tremendous efforts made to keep people from finding out what they were all about. And these, themselves, are booby traps.

Amongst them was "it would take an enormously long time to do anything." Hence you get Tibetan Lamanism—Lamaism—twenty, thirty, forty years. Interesting, isn't it? Because by the time the fellow got thoughtful enough to hear about it, why, he might be thirty or forty, and so that made it impossible, didn't it?

So they could always say, "Well, you didn't come to us soon enough." That, by the way, is the standard cliche of psychoanalysis and psychiatry. They say this about practically every case. As a matter of fact, I never heard them say anything else.

A guy comes to them, treated for two or three months, goes out, takes arsenic and kicks the bucket, blows out his brains, hangs himself, drops in front of a truck. A tremendous number of suicides follow the first three months of a psychoanalysis, for instance.

And you ask this boy what happened here, and he says, "Well, he didn't come to me soon enough." Well, it's an old gag. I suppose witch doctors back in savage tribes have said, "Well, the patient didn't come to us soon enough."

But Lamaism had the perfect answer. They had such a long look that nobody ever lived long enough to find it out—whether or not it worked. Do you get the idea? And I think, by this mechanism alone, they kept themselves afloat for twenty-five hundred years. It's an interesting mechanism, isn't it?

Somebody says there's a goal there, but you can't persevere long enough to attain it. Well, specious and spurious as this is, it did keep somebody

49

50

11 FEBRUARY 1958

afloat but it's not very honest. Because Lamaism would never have attained it. Never. They were going toward an inverted eight—an inverted eighth dynamic—and brother, that was something.

"Be one with all the cockroaches; be one with everything." It's all very well if you, on your determinism, could get the idea of being anything you saw. You'd be in pretty good shape. But if on everything's determinism you had to be it, that would be pretty—you'd be in pretty terrible shape. As a matter of fact about as terrible a condition as anyone could possibly envision. Stark, staring mad would be like a light headache compared to the condition you'd get into if you had the other one.

Now, these are booby traps of one kind or another. And another one is, "You mustn't have anything to do with the mind because something terrible will happen to you." Now, I don't think there's a person here who was not subjected to that, one way or the other, along through the years. "This is something you mustn't tamper with."

Kill the man who tells you so. Don't bother, don't wait, because he's beyond help. That's for true. He has a pitch and he knows it. Because it tells you you mustn't touch or look at your own mind, and it is another invitation to go into an inverted eight.

The mind is too complicated, perhaps, for Wundt, Pavlov, psychologists, psychiatrists and so forth, but in actuality it was too simple for them. They were of a complex stupidity that could never grasp a simplicity.

The main difficulty that may occur, as the years go on, is that somebody summarizes the number of points that have to be covered in a mind and then says, "Clearing is complicated to get a complete and thorough Clear because the mind is too complicated to be reached by any simple series of processes."

You hear me now?

You watch this carefully, because you're drifting right straight back to "the mind is too complicated," and you're drifting right straight back to "it takes too long to achieve." Got that?

And I'll tell you here and now that there are basically just two processes involved in clearing, and all the rest of it is window dressing and rococo to permit it to be done. And don't you ever think anything else until you've got enough experience to see it with a clear blue gaze. You hear me?

There are just two processes. One permits the person a sufficient stability to stay in-session, permits him a sufficient communication along the various dynamics to grasp the substance of the situation and knocks out his destructive machinery. That process is Help.

Took me quite a little while to find out how you run Help. I had to watch you people, by the way. Now I'll watch you some more and find out how to do it wrong. (laughter) That's a dirty crack because all of you, nearly all of you are doing wonderfully well. But I can be allowed a few dirty cracks, I hope.

Help is survival. We are evidently straight back to the old survive-succumb. I had a look at this myself yesterday. And I was quite interested to see that destroy was an alter-isness but help wasn't. Now, help could be an alter-isness low on its own scale, but fairly high on the scale is not an alter-isness. It is simply the create-create-create section of the cycle of action. This stuff wouldn't even stay there unless you helped it stay there.

So in order to have, you have to help, regardless of interpersonal relations. This is then true on every dynamic.

On every dynamic, if you want to have a dynamic there, you've got to help, and you've got to be able to help. And because the second you stop

THE KEY PROCESSES OF CLEARING

helping it disappears, then the entrance upon the idea of destroy brings about a persistence of rubble. It's pretty wild when you look at this.

An individual who will not help and who is dealing totally with destroy will, after a while, not be able to see. One, he would stop seeing when he stopped helping because the create-create-create part of the cycle of action, as given in the Fundamentals of Thought, would no longer be carrying him along. But in view of the fact that he's alter-ised—alter-ised with destroy (very destructive alterations)—he would see only debris.

Now, you've run into a debris case: skyrockets and pinwheels or the fellow has a vast view of a bunch of purple, he doesn't seem to be able to see much else. There's no condemnation of him. He's just fallen for the Q and A.

Somebody said, "I will destroy you," and he was a fool—he reactively said to them, "Well, I'll destroy you, then." You trace this back, you'll find out he or she has been a member of armies or cat clubs, and they've gotten into this Q and A with the games condition of destroy. You know the proper answer for "I will destroy you"? It's "I'll help you." The other person will then either collapse or get in line.

You saw this in Christianity: "Turn the other cheek." Maybe that helped somebody, I don't know. Never helps me when I'm booting somebody around and he turns the other cheek. It usually makes me mad.

But, "Love thy neighbor." Do unto thy neighbor as you would be done in. (New England interpretation.)

All of these phrasings were gropings toward something—they were gropings toward something. In Buddhism you'll find them, gropings toward this and that. You'll find all manner of facets of this button, because it's quite a button.

But they could have said it much better had they said "What we would say—is, 'Help one another.'" Now, you would have gotten a show on the road with that. See, "Help one another."

As soon as a man tries to destroy, he alter-ises and he inherits the debris.

There was an amusing incident—it wasn't amusing to Hannibal or the Romans, but it was amusing to me when I read it. The great Hannibal decided to get even with Rome after he had invaded the Italian peninsula.

And there was a huge valley which produced tremendous quantities of food, practically the mainstay of Rome itself. And Hannibal went in there, and just to get even with Rome, he laid the whole thing waste. He destroyed the lot.

And then he found out that Fabius, the Roman general, was sitting on all the passes. And here's Hannibal with an army of about twenty-seven thousand men in a valley that a bird couldn't have lived in, and they started to run mighty short of chow.

He was almost defeated by his own destruction. That was the battle where he tied torches to the horns of the cattle and drove them up over another pass so as to draw Fabius aside and himself escape. But he managed to escape it. But it took Hannibal to: one, be stupid enough to destroy in order to get the Roman allies to join him (they never did permanently, you know) and two, destroy enough so that he didn't have anything to eat. And of course, typical to this concatenation, he had to come up with a brilliant stroke of military genius and get a pass open slightly so he could get his troops through quick and get out of there. This is a wonderful example—the effects of that campaign stayed with him quite a while, too. He inherited a lot of debris.

51

52

11 FEBRUARY 1958

We get some politician. He speaks of flag, country, mother, other sacred symbols, and he comes down here to Washington, never goes near the Senate chamber except check in once in a while—pork barrel, pork barrel, pork barrel.

In every piece of news and emergency, he sees an opportunity to get some more pork barrel. He sees, "Ah, everybody is interested in missiles and rockets now. Now, I—let's see, I could get a big bill out. And I know Joe. And we could get a—then get—use this emergency, and Joe would get a certain amount of money, and then we get this over here and . . . Hey, you know, that's a pretty nice stunt. Maybe I'll get myself twenty-five thousand shares of General Electric." He does.

He never does anything about the emergency. He uses the emergency in order to accumulate what he considers wealth.

Well, the joke is on him. He keeps saying, "Well, you only live but once"— the sucker. And after he's utilized every emergency to pad his own pockets, after he's used everything that should be investigated simply to get his head in the papers when it should be on somebody's pike, after he's gone through these shenanigans, he leaves just a little more debris—just a little more.

Well, he kicks the bucket and he lives again, and he kicks the bucket and he lives again, and one fine day he's trying to get a job as a street sweeper, only the country has been drained dry and gutted. And he stands there starving to death—lives some miserable existence. He says, "I wonder what could have happened to this country?"

If there is an interested God in the affairs of this particular country, I trust he has a sense of humor. It's quite wonderful—it's quite wonderful that these men who do these things actually inherit them again and again and again. Maybe if they had a truer perspective, maybe it would rather restrain them from their rapacity. But I'm afraid each one would have to be cleaned up on Help.

And all I'm trying to do is demonstrate to you that you can resolve or understand any situation on the button Help if you recognize it as a survival. There's nobody going to put anything there but you. If you put things there which destroy other things, you get in trouble.

The United States when it built an atomic weapon got in trouble and has been in trouble ever since. It even came up to a point of getting John Foster Dulles. I mean, a cataclysm to end all cataclysms. It built something that was totally dedicated to destruction. And now it seeks to propitiate all the small nations with gifts of food and that sort of thing. It's sort of like, "We didn't do it. We didn't do it."

The hell they didn't do it. They aimed a knife straight at the throat of all life forms on Earth. And they will never recover from it, that I assure you. That is why I am perfectly happy to curse the government, although it's something like kicking a dead dog.

They will never recover from this amount of threat and generating this amount of fear. Probably nationalism itself will cease. Probably these peoples will go on in one form or another, but under some different scheme, because a terrible sin has been perpetuated against man.

You would have to figure out defenses against this weapon. You would have to take extraordinary actions to nullify this weapon before you could even begin to climb out of the mudhole of the destruction threatened. It's

THE KEY PROCESSES OF CLEARING

tremendous. It reaches every person on Earth, it reaches every cat, it reaches every life form that breathes in air. It probably does not reach all of the animals of the sea.

And I was speculating the other day and wondered whether or not these sea cycles didn't start with all land animals being wiped out by fission. Sea animals, still there. We have to go pick up a fish and eventually graduate out on the beach and start the evolutionary cycle all over again. I mean to check, by the way, with E-Meters and so forth, the possibility that these sea cycles aren't to some degree mixed up with fission, radiation, and if there aren't many of them. There might be many of these evolutionary cycles as described by Darwin and as confirmed by us.

Now, here—here's a point. Here is morality. Here is sin. Here are all the incalculable small zigzags in the thinkingness of a preclear. Here is the basic warp of his intentions. Here are all the things man is worried about, essentially; all in this basis of, "Is it right to help people or should I really destroy them?"

Now, all of this pursued from this one point—a very interesting point: Did a thetan actually and natively desire to as-is and knock out everything? Or did a thetan natively desire the survival of many things? Now, what did a thetan desire? Which one?

Now, we could answer that by opinion. We could have an opinion on it. But I tell you that the opinion which is normally used as a scientific fact isn't one. It isn't one at all.

We had to know whether or not a thetan was really going toward the destruction of everything on all eight dynamics, you see, that had any mass, space, energy, time connected with it. In other words, was he really going to some nirvana of nothingness or was it all right for something to survive? That's an interesting, interesting question, and that question is at the crossroads and was the crossroads of Dianetic and Scientology research.

It was an opinion. Just like "Man is basically good" might have started out as an opinion. But here was something that needed proof before processes could be engaged upon that would confirm one or the other.

And the process that came up in the train of research that proved it was "Havingness." Havingness was the little tag that was left out. Now, here— here you have survive and havingness. If a person benefited from havingness, he then benefited from survival, right? And if a person became upset when his havingness ran down, then again, his goal must be toward survival.

But if all you had to do was take everything a person had, kill his body, fix him up so he couldn't see space anymore and make him well thereby, then of course the goal was in the direction of "Nothing must be left." See, in other words it was proper for him to make nothing out of everything, don't you see? And then that would have been the direction of processing, and you would have gotten a Clear, per se.

The oddity is, and the horrible—the horrible jest is this: People think that's the direction they're going. But those people are inverted.

Out of disgust and despair alone will a person abandon his mass and possessions and engage upon succumb activities. Disgust and despair—he's given up, he's quit, he's through when he starts that. That he can engage upon them at all is quite miraculous in that he can really destroy himself. We look at the other side of the fence here, and we have to make up our minds that it's all right for certain things to survive.