Golden era productions

107

108

13 FEBRUARY 1958

worry too much about doing so. Be as perfect as possible and communicate as straightly as you can. And don't be diffident with the pc.

The earliest method of getting a person used to handling somebody else's mind was done with Self Analysis—the old ARC Straightwire in the back of it. And we would give this person who was being trained to be an auditor this little page, and we would have him read it to some other person. You know, read a line and then see . . . And we told him to do this (I see that there's one or two here that's been trained with that process earlier)—told him to do this. Now see if the fellow blows up or anything. He found out he could actually ask him questions about the mind or that influenced the mind in some way, and the person could answer them and no horrible results occurred. It was quite an interesting little exercise.

Now, that's merely a gradient scale of approach. Well, the point is, I don't want you to hang up in training people or in handling preclears, either one, on the basis of carefulness or on the feeling of absolute obsessive necessity that you must always do always your very peak, top, rightest, best. Some people don't deserve it! (laughter)

But you'll get into as much trouble with auditing as you are protective, interruptive, flinching. The more you save a preclear, the more you'll probably kill him. You say, "Well, I shouldn't be too overt about this person. I'll sort of audit from back here someplace, and I won't speak very loud to him and maybe he'll live through it."

I assure you he has far more chance of dying when you have that attitude than if you say, "I said (pounding) go back to birth!" (laughter) You know, you could still say, "Goddamn it, come up to present time! (pounding)" That attitude much better fits into the framework of auditing, I assure you, than "I don't know whether I ought to do that or not because I might hurt him."

Please, you're handling something that's indestructible—a thetan. Be overt, be aggressive, be forward toward a preclear. He likes it much better. He says, "Somebody's in control of the session, I can relax."

What's his level of acceptance of somebody in control of something? Happiest ship I ever saw had a raving madman on the bridge. The guy's idea of a calm conversation was a high 1.5 scream. It was quite interesting. It was quite interesting. He was not even reasonable. It was a very happy ship. They sure knew who was captain! There was no doubt about it any day of the week. Actually, the man was not unfair. But I didn't even think he was fair, either. It was just the fact that he was a certainty.

A certainty was better than a reasonability, which is the only point I'm trying to bring across to you. Any day of the week, a certainty is better than a reasonability.

A communication is better than a diffidence.

Now, you'll find in running Help that it becomes flat when the person goes into communication. We're running a girl who is pregnant. The girl is asked this question: "How could you help an unborn baby?"

And the girl says, "Well, I could—I could not throw myself down in chairs."

You say, "Good. How could you help an unborn baby?"

"I could not throw myself onto the bed."

"Good. Fine. How could you help an unborn baby?"

"Well, I could stop drinking."

"Good. How could you help an unborn baby?"

OTHER PROCESSES, THE HELP BUTTON

The person would probably hit a comm lag about that point. "Well, I could eat the right food."

Now, get the difference of these replies. One is a withhold, withhold, not communicate, not communicate. Don't you see? It's a not. It's a not-reach. Person must be having trouble with the baby if she's not reaching. Right? All right.

But we finally get the person to embrace this baby into the perimeter of reality. And it's "I could eat the right food," "I could see to it that I have enough rest," "I could choose the right hospital." You know? Here we have communication, communication, communication.

Well that, ordinarily, if you're not auditing with an E-Meter, is a fine rule of thumb: no more restrained communication.

Now, similarly with you—similarly, just on a training basis, not an auditing basis because there's something wrong with your case or something of the sort—you should recognize this: that as long as you feel terribly restrained toward a preclear, you're not communicating with him. As long as you have to not do a lot of things in order to get the preclear to go along well, then you're not communicating with him.

Oddly enough, the preclear senses this and taxes you with some more not-doingnesses, until these become almost insurmountable. They become numbered in the billions. The more diffident you are, the more diffidence you breed—the more diffidence you'll breed in the preclear.

If you want to get auditing done, you go right about it and get it done. You go right on and get it done, that's it! You have to cause it. A Clear is something you make. It is not a co-prosperity fear of co-agreement.

It's quite amazing. I mean, a lot of auditors sit there and they say, "Well, let's see, definition of auditing: I agree I'm auditing him, he agrees I'm auditing him—fine. And we both agree and we agree and we agree. And we agree and we agree and we agree."

And we look in vain for anybody there to say, "The postulate is now made that a Clear will occur."

No, I'm afraid that an auditor, in order to make the grade on it, is most successful when he abruptly and intimately addresses the problem and is at cause on that end of the line.

I have seen auditors get very, very worried when they produced an effect of some kind on a preclear. The effect you want to produce on a preclear is to put the preclear at cause with regard to the rest of the universe, excepting you.

Now, why you want him at cause with regard to you, I wouldn't know. That looks like that's too high a reward. That looks like too high a pay. Why should he be at cause with regard to you? He's a lucky boy: you're auditing him.

Now, similarly with processes. We have a tremendous number of processes stretched back over the track. Many of these processes were good; many of them were lined up to special things. Let's take a specific for a nervous stomach. Six times around in the walls: "You put the thought into that wall, 'This means go to . . .'" and so forth. Six times around. And then, "This means don't go to . . ." and, "This means stay in . . ." and, "This means don't stay in . . ." and so forth. Running those things around with a preclear furnishing the location each time is a specific for a terror stomach.

Unless you get a strange terror stomach that is an after-the-fact stomach. The after-the-fact stomach has turned up, oddly enough. And the

109

110

13 FEBRUARY 1958

one I just gave you isn't a specific for it. No. The stomach in the first place is saying something is going to happen. The specific is, "This means go to . . ." "This means don't go to . . ." "This means stay in . . ." "This—stay . . ."

No, there's another kind of terror stomach evidently, and it is an after-the-fact. It says something has happened—just exactly the reverse. Evidently the specific for that, if you want to just audit it as such, would be something like, "This means you've been to . . ." "This means you haven't been to . . ." It'd have to be after the fact. "This means this has happened." Preclear furnishes the event.

There's putting fear in the walls; putting various emotions in the walls. Interesting sort of process. Tremendous number of these things. Why omit them from a repertoire? You'll find that they're bad or good.

Now, oddly enough, Havingness all by itself is something that you should always use, in any version. It answers many difficulties. Preclear feels low in havingness. All right, run some Havingness. Havingness answers almost any problem and, oddly enough, will run out problems and solves this problem closure mechanism. You ask this fellow to have this and have that, he's actually promoting an inflow toward himself, so therefore the problem mechanism will go off.

You've solved the problem up until it's about knocked off your own nose, then look around and find something you could have, and you'll find the problem unclosing, which is quite an interesting factor.

And in addition to that, you have good old 8-C. Lord knows how many things 8-C will do, how many things it does do. Quite amazing.

For unconscious people you have CCH 1.

You also have TR 5 in all of its versions. "You make that body lie in that bed. Thank you." People respond to that, particularly if you take them by the hand while they're lying there in a state of coma they've been in for seven weeks, everybody despairing of their living. You bring them back to life.

And so there are many processes. And we have not thrown these processes away. We haven't superseded them. We do have a highly specialized series of processes. These processes are just as specialized toward their goal as any other process would be toward its goal.

The reason why the processes which you're using here and have used in the 19th were so specialized is because you were going toward Operating Thetan with them and arriving toward the state of Clear or at the state of Clear with them, you see? Highly specialized. It happens quite incidentally that they also, then, must be senior to all other processes and undo them to some degree. Yeah, that follows. But it's totally accidental.

If you thought you shouldn't know Waterloo Station (fantastic process, Waterloo Station), if you thought you shouldn't know just the old-time Creative Processes, just learning to mock something up—you find out he can't mock up a nurse he had while he was sick. You're not clearing the fellow, you understand—I mean, you're just giving him an assist or something. You find out that he can finally mock up a shoelace that belonged to the nurse, and he can mock up two shoelaces, and he can mock up finally two shoes, and two shoes and some stockings. And (that's where his eyes were most of the time anyhow; they're most of the facsimile)—and you have him mock up a uniform cap and some hair and so forth, and he can eventually mock up the nurse and all of a sudden, the nurse's valence no longer bothers him. Fascinating, isn't it?

That which you can create you don't have to have. That's the rule.

OTHER PROCESSES, THE HELP BUTTON

Now, let's take the whole subject of professions.

You're trying to clear this fellow; you can't get anywhere. It just seems to be terribly resistive. He just doesn't seem to get anyplace. It would be in the zone of a present time problem. And the likeliest place to look for a present time problem . . . See, it doesn't violate the rules that you have right now for Clear. It says clear PT problem; then it says clear Help. There's no reason to clear Help if you haven't cleared the present time problem. And this present time problem you didn't suspect or you didn't linger on long enough and this case is hanging up like mad.

You would suspect that it was in the field of his profession and that is the common denominator of it. It must be, now, in the field of his profession. That would be your principal hang-up. You would run the tools of the trade.

With what? Well, the most fruitful one is a problem of comparable magnitude, if it's really resistant. But if you just want to knock it off lightly, it'd be, "What part of that tool could you be responsible for?"

Now, let us say that an individual is a painter. Then obviously it's brushes, paint pots and painting canvases, isn't it? It also would be dealers and exhibitors and buyers, wouldn't it? So you'd take all the bits of his profession and the types of people he's associated with, and you could handle all of those. And you could just knock his present time profession to flinders. You'll find out it has him so worried, his case cannot advance, which is quite amazing.

A machinist, that's obvious. The type of machine he would use, the type of tools he would use, the type of foreman or boss, the type of building he would work in. All of these things are problems of comparable magnitude, too.

We get a teller in a bank. Obviously, problem of comparable magnitude: money, wire cage, cash drawers, assistant cashiers, tellers, other tellers, managers and particularly vice presidents. And you'd run all of these things —Problems of Comparable Magnitude.

But you'd have to be smart, wouldn't you? You'd have to be quite clever in order to spot the fact that this individual did have a profession, and in present time he was having difficulty. And although he said he didn't have a present time problem, obviously he seemed to be very difficult to audit. And you'd have to be clever enough to understand, then, that it was up to you to select out the PT problem. And I'll clue you—the easiest way to do it is to look somewhere in the vicinity of his profession and get this problem going.

Now, the odd part of it is the first responsibility you may be able to get him to assume is by running a PT problem. And he assumes a responsibility, and his case will go forward from there.

There are many things to know about auditing. Don't think you will ever make an auditor who simply utters a magic word with a red cape around his shoulders and zooms off to the moon. It's a product of hard work. Application of auditing is done with intelligence. It's done with skill, with the auditor aggressively at cause. And his tools are all the processes we have.

Thank you.

111

A LECTURE GIVEN ON 13 FEBRUARY 1958

Yes?

Male voice: Say, on that problem—test—/ think it was last congress, you were studying about how the problem disappears in the mest universe when the problem of comparable magnitude to this particular problem is really flattened. Have you gained any new data on this subject?

Yes. Yes. Sufficient that I have now a series of about four cases where the problem folded up in the mest universe when a problem of comparable magnitude was run on it. And they were done with malice aforethought.

Male voice: Uh-huh.

Malice aforethought. In one case, the file even got lost. Somebody was in trouble and ran Problem of Comparable Magnitude to this circumstance and ran it and ran it and ran it and ran it, and he was at last only intellectually curious about the experiment we were doing. He tried to go locate the file, and it was no longer in existence. I mean, it just went poof. I don't know what happened. It's quite an amazing, amazing phenomenon.

Male voice: Have you, in working with this particular thing, have you noticed any, really, disappearance of mest—something like "Invent a problem of comparable magnitude to a dog" or something like that and have the dog (snap) disappear?

No. This file's the closest we've got to it. And that can always be explained by a bum clerk. Right.

I just—I have another experiment. Let me tell you about this experiment— may I, just one moment?

Audience: Yes.

This experiment was already on the docket, and it was an opportunity to make it ahead of schedule. Somebody came in, a man, he was dreadfully upset. He was a professional auditor once upon a time, HCA, non-validated. He was terribly upset. His marriage was going to pieces and everything was going to the devil. And I just turned him loose with Help. I gave him the sheet, Part 2, HGC Procedure of February 6, 1958. And I handed him that sheet and I said, "Well, just wipe up your tears, there, and go home and run this thing. That's all."

His wife was spinning. He went home. He ran it. His wife promptly got a good night's sleep. He flattened it off pretty well the next day and squared

113

114

13 FEBRUARY 1958

it around. He didn't understand about flows; he overran some of the flows too long in one direction, knocked her anaten. And this was the only question he had about it.

Here was a man in a terribly disturbed condition of mind auditing somebody who was quite antipathetic to his auditing, and he got away with it. And that was on the docket, to find some and see if they could. Quite amazing. I think we've got "maritalosis" whipped. That's one of our more serious diseases.

Yes?

Male voice: What would be a good process or series of processes to use on retarded child, age five, to bring the child up to par?

The first process in any event would be a communication-line, communication-type of process. This would be a touch process of some kind or another whereby, perhaps, you would touch the child in various places and say, "Feel my fingers," or something like that. It's an assist-type process. Quite amazing, but it creates a communication line.

CCH 1 has been found to work in this particular regard, with the session well opened and so forth.

Help has not yet been tried.

But the same processes that you would run on an injured person or a person who was pretty anaten would be run on a retarded child. They are not very awake. And you have to actually wake them up.

But the age five is really not old enough to run a repetitive-type command and expect an answer with. Their attention span is very, very poor. And for that reason I have not tested clearing procedures at that age yet. I intend to, however.

Does that answer the question?

Male voice: Thank you.

You bet.

Yes?

Female voice: I'd like to know what kind of procedure to use on a man who's been—something—stammering and stuttering practically all his life.

He's been what, psycho?

Female voice: Stuttering or stammering, I don't know just which you would call. . .

Stuttering and stammering—a very interesting type . . .

Female voice: He's married and he has children, but. . .

All right.

Female voice: . . . he's able to work.

Let me answer it this way: I've always answered this thing the same way. This is a pretty stable datum with this. We have found that a communication inhibition, such as sight, speech, anesthetic touch—you know, they couldn't feel anything they touched—these types of communication breaks or cuts are the last to surrender. And they are, as far as a person is concerned, symptomatic of much more sweeping difficulties. And one never starts to walk in on this case with the communication break in mind, or he will always fail. It's quite interesting. He's just asking for failure. If he tries to clear a person who is stammering by aiming at stammering, he is aiming at the wrong target.

Now, he actually should aim at something much more fundamental, which would be the basic end of the Reality Scale. He should work this case

OTHER PROCESSES, THE HELP BUTTON: Q&A PERIOD

up from a very, very low level, well suspecting that the realities of the case and the certainties of the case were extremely poor.

And you would audit this case just about the way you would audit the same case George was asking about—a retarded child of five.

Female voice: I thought so.

That answer it?

Female voice: Yes.

All right.

Yes?

Male voice: This has some application to what my auditor is doing at the moment. As far as I'm aware, it is an intellectual question, but I'll tell you that so you can answer it or not. If you're running a person on Help, nine-way bracket, and it's quite sticky and you find one or two individuals on which the Help bracket is stuck pretty damn tight, would you feel it would be faster to more or less stick to those individuals and get them loosened up ?

Good. Let's sort this out with regard to a present time problem.

Male voice: Okay.

Now, if this person has a couple of people in the environment who are being present time problems and actually have him a little distracted from the session, they will distract him from running Help.

Male voice: Okay.

And they should probably be the first targets of Help.

Male voice: Okay.

That answer it?

Male voice: Yes.

Good.

Yes?

Male voice: On the question of how Help is working out on mentally retarded people, a case that is running at the moment, a twenty-year old, mental age four, hemiplegic spastic epileptic: Sit That Body in That Chair produced a desire to help. Just started running Help. The first reaction was that he pushed the window out of the room—out of the room.

He pushed a what?

Male voice: Kicked a window out.

Oh no.

Male voice: Frame and all.

Yes. This is an interesting thing, isn't it? A ...

Male voice: She'll be reporting on that.

Good. Well, the psychosomatic case is normally—hits several violent destroy strata in running Help. But it's been my experience they came right back into session. Did he?

Male voice: Well, I haven't heard yet. She was upset because the window got kicked in, I know.

All right. Thank you.

Yes?

Female voice: I have a question about problems. Suppose you ran somebody on a problem that didn't concern him—I wonder what would happen to that problem. Like you got a guy who'd never been to Omaha city, and suppose they were having government trouble there.

I think this is a very interesting thing.

Female voice: If you ran a problem of comparable magnitude to that, he might eventually begin to see this was a problem enough to run it.