Subject: FZ Bible FIRST POSTULATE TAPES 05/35 (20th ACC)
Date: 24 Nov 1999 21:45:49 -0000
From: Secret Squirrel <squirrel@echelon.alias.net>
Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.clearing.technology

FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

FIRST POSTULATE TAPES 05/35 (20th American Advanced Clinical Course)

**************************************************

Contents

20th ACC - First Postulate Cassettes [clearsound]

New #    Old #   Date     Title

20ACC-1  (1)   14 Jul 58 OPENING LECTURE
20ACC-2  (1A)  14 Jul 58 OPENING LECTURE - Q AND A PERIOD
20ACC-3  (2)   15 Jul 58 ACC PROCEDURE OUTLINED E-METER TRS
20ACC-4  (2A)  15 Jul 58 ACC PROC OUTLINED - E-METER TRS - Q AND A PERIOD
20ACC-5  (3)   16 Jul 58 COURSE PROCEDURE OUTLINED
20ACC-6  (3A)  16 Jul 58 COURSE PROCEDURE OUTLINED - Q AND A PERIOD
20ACC-7  (4)   17 Jul 58 BEGINNING AND ENDING SESSION
20ACC-8  (4A)  17 Jul 58 BEGINNING AND ENDING SESSION - Q AND A PERIOD
20ACC-9  (5)   18 Jul 58 ACC TRAINING PROCEDURE
20ACC-10 (5A)  18 Jul 58 ACC TRAINING PROCEDURE - Q & A PERIOD
20ACC-11 (6)   21 Jul 58 THE KEY WORDS (BUTTONS) OF SCIENTOLOGY CLEARING
20ACC-12 (6A)  21 Jul 58 THE KEY WORDS (BUTTONS) OF SCN - Q & A PERIOD
20ACC-13 (7)   22 Jul 58 THE ROCK
20ACC-14 (7A)  22 Jul 58 THE ROCK - Q & A PERIOD
20ACC-15 (8)   23 Jul 58 SPECIAL EFFECT CASES,  ANATOMY OF
20ACC-16 (8A)  23 Jul 58 SPECIAL EFFECT CASES, ANATOMY - Q&A PERIOD
20ACC-17 (9)   24 Jul 58 ANATOMY OF NEEDLES - DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE
20ACC-18 (9A)  24 Jul 58 ANATOMY OF NEEDLES - DIAG. PROC - Q&A PERIOD
20ACC-19 (10)  25 Jul 58 THE ROCK: PUTTING THE PC AT CAUSE
20ACC-20 (10A) 25 Jul 58 Q&A PERIOD - CLEARING THE COMMAND
20ACC-21 (11)  28 Jul 58 ACC COMMAND SHEET - GOALS OF AUDITING
20ACC-22 (12)  29 Jul 58 ACC COMMAND SHEET (cont.)
20ACC-23 (13)  30 Jul 58 ACC COMMAND SHEET (cont. 2)
20ACC-24 (14)  31 Jul 58 RUNNING THE CASE AND THE ROCK
20ACC-25 (15)   1 Aug 58 CASE ANALYSIS - ROCK HUNTING
20ACC-26 (15A)  1 Aug 58 CASE ANALYSIS - ROCK HUNTING (cont.)
20ACC-27 (16)   4 Aug 58 CASE ANALYSIS - ROCK HUNTING (cont. 2)
20ACC-28 (16A)  4 Aug 58 CASE ANALYSIS - ROCK HUNTING - Q&A PERIOD
20ACC-29 (17)   5 Aug 58 ARC
20ACC-30 (18)   6 Aug 58 THE ROCK - ITS ANATOMY
20ACC-31 (19)   7 Aug 58 THE MOST BASIC ROCK OF ALL
20ACC-32 (19A)  7 Aug 58 THE MOST BASIC ROCK OF ALL - Q&A PERIOD
20ACC-33 (20)   8 Aug 58 AUDITOR INTEREST
20ACC-34 (20A)  8 Aug 58 REQUISITES AND FUNDAMENTALS OF A SESSION
20ACC-35 (21)  15 Aug 58 SUMMARY OF 20TH ACC

The clearsound set includes an Appendix containing two HCOBs.  This
has been included with the first lecture above.

Note that old 15B "Q & A PERIOD" of 2 Aug 58 was marked as missing in
the Flag Master List and was later found by Gold.  Its absense here
probably means that they found it to be the same as old 16A (20ACC-28
in the above list).

Old number 19B "Q & A Period" of 8 Aug in the Flag Master List
is also omitted but 20ACC-32 (old 19A) is extremely long and probably
contains both old 19A and 19B.

Note 20ACC-2 (1A) does not appear on the Flag Master List but
appears to be genuine.

We were able to check ten of these against the old reels and
found minor omissions [marked ">" in the transcripts.]

**************************************************

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

Our purpose is to promote religious freedom and the Scientology
Religion by spreading the Scientology Tech across the internet.

The Cof$ abusively suppresses the practice and use of
Scientology Tech by FreeZone Scientologists.  It misuses the
copyright laws as part of its suppression of religious freedom.

They think that all freezoners are "squirrels" who should be
stamped out as heretics.  By their standards, all Christians,
Moslems, Mormons, and even non-Hassidic Jews would be considered
to be squirrels of the Jewish Religion.

The writings of LRH form our Old Testament just as the writings
of Judaism form the Old Testament of Christianity.

We might not be good and obedient Scientologists according
to the definitions of the Cof$ whom we are in protest against.

But even though the Christians are not good and obedient Jews,
the rules of religious freedom allow them to have their old
testament regardless of any Jewish opinion.

We ask for the same rights, namely to practice our religion
as we see fit and to have access to our holy scriptures
without fear of the Cof$ copyright terrorists.

We ask for others to help in our fight.  Even if you do
not believe in Scientology or the Scientology Tech, we hope
that you do believe in religious freedom and will choose
to aid us for that reason.

Thank You,

The FZ Bible Association

**************************************************

20ACC-5 (3)    16 Jul 58 COURSE PROCEDURE OUTLINED

COURSE PROCEDURE OUTLINED

A lecture given on 16 July 1958

[Based on the clearsound version only.]

Thank you.

This is the third lecture of the 20th ACC, July 16th, 1958.

Now, I understand some more people got onto Clear checkout.
Hm? You got it down a little bit further.

I understand there's some slight hope that somebody will
get out of the second TR class - understand there was a hope
that there was one or two that would make it before the end
of course.

I see some of you have probably had a little difficulty in
handling a meter - making it stick and making it rise.

And we're continuing today this rundown on 20th ACC
Procedure and I will give you a datum there: If you are a
good auditor, it is very hard for you to make a meter stick
because two-way communication will unstick a meter. And if
you're conducting a very intelligent, good ARC discussion
of the Rock, you probably won't get a stuck needle. You
have to reverse yourself and talk about hate and interrupt
the preclear and not be so ARC about it in order to get a
stuck needle.

There is a process known as Two-way Communication, you
know, and it is probably the most effective of all
processes in reaching the Rock. But if carried out properly
it unsticks the needle. So you needn't feel too bad if you
can't make a needle stick. You needn't feel too badly about
it. It merely means that you're probably a fairly good auditor.

Talk about hate. That is the thing for you to talk about
when you want a needle to stick. Whom do you distrust? Whom
would you distrust instinctively? And then change the
subject quick and you can make a needle stick. Okay?

All right. Let's carry on with this procedure here.

We're going into this now on how to clear a command. This
is very interesting, how to clear a command, extremely
interesting, because nobody could possibly have imagined
the number of ways people have invented to do it wrong.

This is the fate of procedures. That's why they are written
down with such exactness. You write a procedure down with
great exactness and then the next thing you know, a whole
body of Scientologists, someplace or another, will be doing
this thing in some complicated way that makes it utterly
unworkable.

What have they done? They've simply dramatized the cycle of
action of this universe. They just made it more complicated;
they made it do this and that to survive more. In other words,
they changed it somehow to make it persist and, of course,
this inevitably destroys the simplicity and actually
destroys the drill.

If you're instructing, you will find that your biggest
bugbear. You say to a student, "Now, I want you to sit
there," and ask him over and over if cows draw flies. "Now,
I want you to just do that." And every time he gives you an
answer, regardless what, why, you say, "Okay." All right,
that's simple. There's nothing to it. Nobody could possibly
go astray with it.

And you come back. You find out that - person couldn't answer
the question. Well, why couldn't they answer the question?
Well, because they didn't know what a bear was. And you
will in vain try to bridge this gap between your simplicity
and this strange impasse.

This, actually, is the biggest single menace to Scientology
itself - is that it is placed as a simplicity which has been
found workable and then it goes astray with a complexity.
People change it, vary it and then all of a sudden it isn't
and it doesn't work anymore.

I'm acutely aware of this because Book One is a very good
example of having been pushed astray. I was doing all right
and then I had to explain it. And I had explained it
several times before I wrote Book One. And Book One carries
with it the fruits of explanation but they happen to be
much more complicated than the original clearing process,
which was simply the rising confidence of the preclear to
confront his locks, engrams and secondaries. It was just a
gradual little gradient scale. And we give the person some
security in seeing a lock, just work on it hour after hour.
The person comes in - make the person go outside, come back
in again, take a look at the room, sit down in the
preclear's chair. "All right. Now, do you have a picture of
the room just as you entered it?"

"Uhhh, I don't know."

"Well is there anything wrong here with the room?"

"No. No. No."

"Well, why don't you go outside again, come in, take a look
at the room, sit down in the chair?"

And he would.

"Now, have you got a picture of the room?"

"Well, I've got a little vague blur. It sort of looks like a room."

"Well, that's fine. Now, go outside again, come in, take a
look at the room and sit down in the chair."

All right. When he finally had a picture of the room, we'd
then erase it. We'd go back to the moment he walked into
the room and we'd take it from that moment on to the point
when he had told me about it. Not only then could he see
this lock, but he could also erase the lock. So therefore
it was safe to create.

But the number of factors involved in this simplicity were
actually, at that time, much too great to be embraced by
the existing understanding. There were tremendous factors
involved in this. One didn't know, for instance, that a
person will not create that which he cannot get rid of.
Truthfully, whole track. Birth, by the way, was quite a
discovery at that time and the various factors which could
enter in if you plowed more deeply were overwhelming. It
actually required many years of study before this - we could
come back to a simplicity.

And if you're worried about how one of these factors works,
you'll certainly find it in some lecture or some book,
someplace. You certainly will. That's for sure. Because I
could not have told anyone with confidence at that time,
"This is all the phenomena there is to be looked at or this
is the only phenomena that is important." See, I couldn't
have told anybody that. Now, there might have been many
other phenomena involved and I was just neglecting them and
I would tell anybody who asked, "Well, I don't know that
that's important to it. It might be but I don't know that
it is."

Well, you find yourself, undoubtedly, occasionally in the
same frame of mind. You think that there's a tremendous sea
of phenomena surrounding this simple datum and you think
these other things are in your root of explanation. You
know, you've got to explain these things before you get on
with something else.

Well, I'll just ask you to thoroughly examine a simplicity.
This was the rule which would have saved the bacon in '47
to '50. Just examine the simplicity and find out if it is
adequate. And after you've found out it's adequate - that
means then you won't lose it - then go on and explore the
complexities which surround it.

Now, the next thing we have on this procedure is how to
clear a command. And to discover that a command could be
cleared in so many complicated, different ways was quite a
shock to me because the whole import of this is to make
sure that the preclear doesn't think you're talking hog
Latin. See, it must be a communicable statement or command.
You tell a Chinese to walk over to that wall - he speaks no
English. Well, that's not fair. It's not within his frame
of communication reference, you see?

Now, you clear a command to increase the understanding of
the command, not to do anything else. Now, this readily
goes into a process and all these little odds and ends
readily go into a process. You could make a process out of
anything, and some people do. But clearing a command -
clearing a command is not here a process. It's a prelude.

What would you do with this Chinese?

Well, you'd have to give in a little bit too, wouldn't you?
You'd have to find out what this action, walking - what name
would you assign to this action, walking? And what name
would you assign to this object over here, wall? And that
object there, wall, wall, wall, wall.

You could transmit this intelligence and after that you
could say, "You walk over to that wall." You could probably
continue to use English because he now knew what you meant
by that. But you would stick him in the whole session at
that point of clearing the command if you didn't again,
pretty soon, clear the command again. So you maybe only
tell him, "Walk over to that wall," twenty-five times and
it would as-is. Why?

Because that's what processing does. It kicks computations
around. It destroys these understandings. It builds other
understandings. And if you never expected processing to
change anyone, of course, only clear a command once. If you
just clear a command once and think that is adequate and
sufficient, then you have also said that the processing
you're going to give is not going to change this person on
the time track or alter his understandings or throw him
into occlusions and into areas of brightness and so forth.
You've just up and said that you aren't going to do
anything. Because once you move a person around in time
you, of course, move him off the spot in time when the
command was cleared.

Well now, some people have been taking another tack. They
clear it often enough in the first time so they'll never
have to clear it again. Something like storing up boojum.
And they run a process with the thing. They say, "Now,
we're going to run a process called 'How can you help me?'
'How can I help you?'" and so forth. "Now, we're going to
clear this command." And they get on the word help and the
guy gives them some kind of a super-aberrated definition
of help.

You know, he says, "Well, help is that which you do when
you're trying to get even with somebody."

And you say to yourself, "Boy, that's all wrong. I just
haven't got a clue of how he could get that wrong." So you,
being reasonable, which is the greatest sin an auditor
could commit, clear the command "Help" again! And you keep
clearing the command "Help" until you get a reasonable
response, to you.

But, listen! That's what the process is supposed to do. And
all you've done is substitute for the standard Help Process
another process known as Descriptive Processing: If you
make a fellow describe something often enough and long
enough, he'll certainly as-is it. And you know, instead of
clearing the command you wind up with an unintelligible
syllable which means nothing, called "help." If you don't
believe it, have somebody or yourself say a name over and
over and over and over and over. You say your own name over
several times right now and you say, "Who the hell am I?"

No, he's given you a definition for help, and the process
is going to - get this one. Now, he'll only become upset, his
havingness will run down, he'll become very restive. I've
made some tests on this recently. I tried to clear the
command, "Problem," and I said, "What is a problem? What is
a problem? What is a problem? What is a problem?" And I had
the preclear practically up the spout. But I was running an
as-ising type of process with malice aforethought to find
out what occurred when you did something like this.

The right way to do it would have been this: "What is a
problem?"

Preclear would have said, "Well, a problem is something
that can never be solved, yes."

It was up to me then to say, "Thank you," and then run a
process gauged to change this state of mind about a
problem. And after a little while - then after a little
while, clear the command again with just - just once, just
clear the command once, you see? And again, in clearing the
command, "What is this problem?"

Now, it was an interesting thing that in this particular
case I'm talking about right now, that the definition of a
problem was what was changing the whole way as I ran the
process. As I ran a proper process the person kept coming
up with a new definition for problems and then a new
definition for a problem and then - so on. The most stuck
point around there was the definition for problem.

Well, the most stuck point on anybody's case, anybody's
case anyplace, is help.

Now, you think because you can say, "The definition for
help is to assist somebody to survive," that you yourself
to the depths of your being have defined help. Well, what
you have is a superficial, intellectual understanding of
this syllable: help. And you start running Help back and
forth and around on various subjects that are associated
with the Rock on a case and, boy, the individual's idea of
help certainly shifts.

But you don't shift that idea of help by clearing the
command. See, that's running another process and not a very
good process. It'd be all right to - if you could, just by
clearing the command, change the person's mind totally on
the subject of help, everywhere on all dynamics; then we
would have no more procedure than clearing the command. And
you would just clear the command and you would ask him,
"What is help?" five, six, eight thousand times and he'd
be Clear and that would be the end of that. Doesn't work
that way and I'm sorry that it doesn't work that way, but
it doesn't. But you do - you have to run Help in brackets
on selected terminals. And as you do that, you go round
and round on these things, why, his resistances to help
and so forth unjam his definitions of help and the next
thing we get is probably a cognition.

Well, help isn't something you only do to sick people. Help
is something that you could also do to somebody who felt
all right, providing he didn't hit you. Well, that's as
good a definition as any other definition and that's the
one you'd now run on.

Now, what then are you trying to clear? In clearing a
command are you trying to clear his idea of this word? No.
What are you trying to clear then?

You're trying to clear an understanding, within his frame
of reference, of your command. That's all you're trying to
clear so that you can run it.

Now, when do you sweat over it? When do you really have to
get down and sweat over it? When it is simply gibberish to
him. He has no understanding of it at all. Then you had
certainly better work on it.

So the only time you get in and work hard on the clearing
of a command, the only time you really press on it is when
you get gibberish as a reply. In other words, well, now
that could be misinterpreted - that statement - until he
says it's gibberish. Get the idea? You say to him, "All
right, how can I help you?" Now, that is the command.

And by the way, in running this sort of thing in clearing
the command, the preclear very often makes the mistake of
thinking you have uttered your first auditing command. So
one of the smart ways of auditing is to tell him, "This is
not an auditing command; we are merely clearing the
command." And you tell him he's not supposed to follow this
one and we're going to clear it. And just to put a little
time in on this helps you escape an ARC break with the
preclear.

But you say, "How can I help you? Now, we're going to clear
this command, 'How can I help you?' and I want to know what
'how' means to you."

And he says so-and-so. And you say, "Could?" He says so-and-so.

"'I' - what does that mean? 'I.'"

"Well, in this case it means you, you know." "Help."

"Help. Help. Help. Help. Help. What language is that from?"

Now you've got a real rough one. It is an incomprehensible.
So a wrong understanding gets no further attention from
you - just as a little rule, see? You got to that "help" and
he said, "Help! That's what my mother used to scream.

And you say, "Fine. Thank you. Now, what does 'you' mean?" See?

"You? In that case that's me."

"Fine." You've had it. But he did define it, didn't he? You
buy it. No matter what he says, you buy it, making a little
note on your cuff over here to say the whole command and
its clearance again in about twenty-five commands.
Certainly no more than twenty-five commands, probably less,
and you just mark it down that this command needs clearing
later on.

Now, if he starts cogniting on what help means and what the
command in general means; if he starts cogniting on this,
don't beat the thing to death again by clearing it because
he's cogniting his way to a clearer understanding of the
command. Got the idea? And that's all you're trying to get
him to do. You're directing his attention toward the command
so that he will get new ideas concerning his aberrated ideas
of this.

Now, many a person will say, "Help. Help is assistance."

And you say, "Fine. Fine."

And you go on and you. . . "Help is assistance," boy, they're
seven miles south of nowhere. You would be - you'd be
quite amazed if you watched their mental processes a few
commands later to have help just become a shadow of real,
you know, just a little bit. And help all of a sudden is
defined as "the best way in the world to murder anybody."
See? "Help is the best method of killing." "Help is the
most terrible thing you can do to anybody."

That, by the way, is a perfectly valid clearing command
remark. You say, "What is help?"

"Well, help is the most horrible thing you could do to anybody."

You say, "Thank you. Now, what does 'you' mean to you?"

It's what does it mean to you? You understand? Not what it
means to the auditor.

The greatest sin of the auditor is being reasonable and if
it doesn't sound reasonable he very often halts right at
that point and bays at the moon. He said, "This defies any
comprehension or understanding I have of this universe and
this is not the way it ought to be!" It's actually an
invalidation of the preclear and it comes under the heading
of the Auditor's Code. The preclear's considerations are
sacred until you work them over. But a wrong way to work
them over is to work them over by repetition until the
command is meaningless.

Now, should you clear every side of a bracket?

In the first place, what is a bracket? A bracket is the
directional flows of me to thee and thee to me and him to
you and so forth. You see, the directional flows. So
there's any number of directions that a flow can occur. You
give me a stick. I give you a stick. In other words, the
direction that the stick is being offered is the direction
of the flow.

All right. So you embrace these various flows. And you will
find, wherever you have a thoroughly stuck needle, an
interesting condition existing and that condition is: a
bracket which will only flow one way, one command. And your
stable datum is: when you are operating with a stuck
subject - that is to say, the terminal you've selected is
stuck (and that will be most of the time in looking for the
Rock) - you run, "How could I help you?" once, "How could
you help me?" once. You see, you shift right there. And you
don't clear it every time because you clear the whole thing
right here at the beginning.

And you say, "I'm going to run a series of commands that
has to do with me helping you and you helping me and you
helping other people and other people helping other people
and you helping yourself and myself helping myself," and so
on. "And we're just going to find and explore this area"
something like this, "and the basic command is, is: 'How
can I help you?' and this command we're going to clear and
then we'll take the others from there." And, if it's all
right with the preclear.

And you say, "How could I help you? Now, what does 'how'
mean? What does 'I' mean? 'Help you?' " you know. "'How
could I help you?'" Clear them all. And then you say,
"Well, you understand I will ask you immediately after
that, 'How could you help me?' And 'How could other people
help you?' and so forth. Now, what do we mean by 'other
people?' Or what do you mean by 'another person?' "You're
going to use that word too, you know: "another person."

"Aw," he says, "somebody that ain't here."

That's all right. Doesn't matter, as long as he embraces
these things, these terms that are going to be used. All
right. You've cleared that command. Now, don't weight the
processing down with endless repetitions of the command or
by clearing and bridging every time you're going to run a
part of a bracket because you're just wasting time.

The test of correct procedure is effectiveness and the
number of commands you get in per unit of time is the speed
that you will get the person cleared. Those are two stable
data on which you can always operate, is: That is the
correct procedure which is the effective procedure, and as
I was just discussing about clearing these things broadly,
the most commands per unit of time gets the most auditing
done. So instead of getting there firstest with the
mostest, you want to get there consistently with the
mostest in terms of commands. The more commands you get in
per unit of time, the more auditing you're going to get done.

I've been amazed at the slowness, and this is a criticism,
with which auditors get across, let us say, five or six
commands. It is very slow. It is very slow. And then
somebody comes around and wonders why there's this
tremendous disproportion between me auditing somebody and
maybe an HGC auditor auditing somebody. Get the idea?
There's a disproportion. We've even tested it out and have
records on it. And they start listening to me auditing and
they get some kind of a clue that this isn't the same
picture that they themselves present. They present a
picture like this: "Now, how could I help you?"

And the fellow says, "Well, and so on, and so on, and so
on, well, uh, could I help you? I don't know."

Then the auditor sits there for a while. Preclear answered
him. The preclear said he didn't know. It was all fogged up
but he didn't know. So the auditor sits there for a while
and he waits, makes sure, he's very courteous and he
finally decides, "Well, maybe I'd better ask you that
question again. Hm?"

Preclear says, "Yeah. Yeah."

The auditor says, "Well, all right. How could I help you?
Now, that's the command. Have you got the command there now?"

They come in and they watch me running this thing, I take
intention and shoot the guy between the eyes with it and
around the back of the head so the bullet meets both ways.
And I say, "How could I help you?" Bang! See, right in
there. "How could I help you?" All right, bang!

And he says, "Uhhhh - by talking a little slower."

"Thank you. Now, how could you help me?"

"Uhm, uhm, uhm, uhm, uhm, uhm, by answering up."

"Good. Thank you." Pang. Pang. Pang. Pang. Pang. See?

The guy yawns, starts to go anaten, something of this
sort - don't pay any attention to it beyond, perhaps,
flipping the direction of flow one is running.

You know, you can knock a guy anaten by running a flow too
long. The whole Scientology 8-80 tells you why people go
unconscious. It's a stuck flow. It's a flow running too
long in the same direction. Well, the way you heal that is
to shift the bracket and shift it quick and don't waste any
time in the order of your going. Somebody starts to go
anaten, starts to yawn and so forth. It's running the wrong
way, that's all. You're saying, "How could I help you? How
could I help you? How could I help you? How could I help
you? How could I help you? How could I help you?" and he
goes, "Uha-uha-uha-uharh-uharhrrh." Boy, it's about time
you said, "How could you help me, son?"

Well, they look at this number of commands per unit of time
and they say, "Well, there is no real puzzle as to why you
get in twenty-five hours of auditing in five hours,"
because that's essentially about the ratio.

8-C commands. You watch people running 8-C, get the number
of commands they get in per minute. You'd be amazed how
slowly. Time has very little to do with it beyond the fact
that your auditing is being modified by MEST universe time.
So one of the ways of whipping MEST universe time is to be
quick and precise with what you do. MEST universe time is
all based on wait: most people are here to find out what
happens at the end of the universe. Sole purpose.

And I'm not offering myself as any vast and incredibly
excellent example of auditing. I merely am effective, try
to be effective and so on. Undoubtedly - undoubtedly many
other - many other much more artistic presentations could be
made. Now, I'm not beyond - I'm not beyond making an Auditor
Code break or challenging a preclear or doing something
like this, mostly because I'm not scared of what effect I'm
going to make, but when I do I can usually see it and patch
it up in a hurry. Any auditing style that I use is
relatively overt. It isn't apologetic and it doesn't have
as its first consideration maintaining ARC with the
preclear. I maintain ARC with a preclear in spite of
auditing him rapidly. It's an ARC in spite of, see?

In the first place, for some reason or other he usually
doesn't have any idea that I'm on some other side. He
generally knows I'm on his side. And if he gets too
recalcitrant, I'll normally take this up with him. "Do you
think I'm on your side?" or something like that. "You think
I'm here cutting you to pieces?" Or "What do you think my
basic purpose is in auditing you?"

And he'll shamefully say, "Well, to make me well," or
something like that.

"All right. Shut up. Let's get the show on the road."

Now, similarly with clearing a command. Now, you can hang
around with this clearing a command half of the day and
your preclear will be no wiser. And the reasons you hang
around with it so long is because you don't buy his
understanding of what you said. If he tells you he doesn't
understand it, that it's incomprehensible or that it's hog
Latin as far as he's concerned, then you have to get down
and give graphic examples of what you are talking about and
get his reaction to these examples and finally define and
explain the word practically for him. And then you go on an
agreed-upon definition of what this word is and as soon as
you've achieved any shadow of an agreed-upon definition,
take off from there. He'll find out shortly what exactly,
what you are talking about.

It is possible for a person to be so plowed in on help that
they would not even be able to understand the word itself.

Now, clearing a command is done rapidly. It is not a
repetitive process. Its end goal is understanding from the
viewpoint of the preclear, not from the auditor. You clear
a whole bracket up with the same clearing and then saw forward.

To repeat what I just said a moment ago, when you have a
stuck needle on a certain terminal you want to run one
command of the bracket at a time. "How could I help you?
How could you help me? How could another person help you?"
Get the idea? "How could you help yourself?" You want one
per command, one side of the bracket per command and you'll
see this thing free up.

Why do you do that?

If you were smarter and could look into the preclear's
skull and watch his flows, you would know that it would be
running one, six, three, five commands

for each side of the bracket, you see. Funny part of it is,
you never get in trouble running one. One per side, you
never get into trouble.

You can check this up with a preclear. I sometimes run this
way. "When is it getting black?" I say. "Tell me when it
starts to get black." And the - it's - grays up a little bit
and he'll say, "It's getting black." "All right. Fine."
Now, shift the command run. That's a person with a field
and I'm trying to clear up somebody's field. I'll run it
until it grays down. And if I ran it just one more command
the field would go black. This is old Ridge Running.

In fact, a black field, whatever else its reason, is simply
the end product of the mechanic of flows. Something that's
flowed too long in one direction will wind up with a black
field. It doesn't even have any further nonsense connected
with it; there isn't any further explanation. It's useful.
There's things can be done with it. It materializes into
certain objects. You know, on and on and on. And you can do
things with it. And you can turn them on and off with
thought patterns and so forth. But the mechanic that gets a
black field there, regardless of why it is there - you see,
why it is there would be one modus operandi but the
mechanic of its being there is caused by a stuck flow.

If you could find the right flow that was stuck and you
would just trigger that flow on a black field - this is
pretty smart auditing - just trigger the flow on the black
field; it'd run off on an automaticity that would sound
like a machine gun. And the preclear just is looking at
this circuit, see, and the circuit is going. He's just sort
of looking at it and energizing it and it's flowing. And
he's getting more answers to how could people help him than
he ever dreamed could exist and he occasionally says one to
you just to keep you happy. But he couldn't articulate them
if he tried. They're running too fast. That's an automaticity.

That's a highly desirable manifestation in running any kind
of brackets, by the way. And if you trigger one and
interrupt it, you ought to be shot. Let it run right on
out. You know, it's going automatic and flying in on him
and flying away from him or something of the sort. Just
keep up that particular bracket.

You can usually tell because of his dog-with-a-cocked-ear,
you know, attitude. It'll keep going as long as he answers
one every now and then in the same direction. Then
eventually it'll go out and then he'll take over the
automaticity of it.

On any aberrative help computation you will get one of
these automaticities. Help is one of the fastest ways of
turning these things on. Just, "How could Mother help you?"
You know? And brrrrrrrr! Thing has just been waiting there
to avalanche. So you get an avalanche of thoughts rather
than an avalanche of masses and you're back onto avalanches
again.

All right. When you clear a command, you are asking for the
preclear to understand what you are doing, even though you
have a dim idea that he understands what you're doing.
Never demand of him the total understanding of what you're
doing. He's incapable of it in the first place. Demanding
that he clear a command satisfactorily to you so that he
understands totally what you're doing, of course, is you
just being pedantic. You're just stressing it too much
because he couldn't understand all that you're doing
anyhow, even if you and he were auditors of equal training
and skill and intelligence.

Why?

Because you're auditing his case without his blind spots.

So you always understand more about his case than he
understands about it himself. Hence auditing occurs. Now,
just like everybody knows what's wrong with everybody else
in the world and never notices what's wrong with
themselves, this is a standard manifestation.

All right. So far so good. I've beaten this clearing a
command to death. I don't want any one of you in giving a
command or doing anything like this to make an error with
it because it actually bungles the understanding of the
whole processing session that follows. A bungled clearing
of commands.

And I don't want you clearing a command and then going for
the next twenty-five hours on the same preclear without
ever clearing it again. Oh, no. Didn't you ever expect the
fellow to change his mind?

And if the fellow's cogniting on the meaning of these words
as you go along, I don't want to catch you clearing the
command. You see how that works out? Because you're
invalidating his cognitions, aren't you? He says he's
gotten four cognitions on what help really means in the
past fifteen commands, so you clear the command. He'll just
throw further dependence on you. That's all he will do, or
get mad at you.

Auditing is always a matter of judgment and as I've told
old-time auditors, Dianeticists, Scientologists alike,
auditing is what you can get away with. It's really a very
fine definition and the best or standard procedures are the
things you're most likely to get away with - things you're
most likely to get away with. And if you did them all
perfectly you would get away with all of them because
they're get-away-able with.

But if you do something a little bit off the side and get
away with it, fine, fine. Just don't be so puzzled when you
don't get away with it next time. The only way you can be
wrong is not to get away with it. See? That's the only way
you can be wrong. So you could probably clear a command in
all the ways I have told you not to on some preclear who's
very complacent and get away with all of them. Be all right.

But certain conditions would be present, which would be
quite amazing as conditions. And these conditions would be
that the preclear was full of sweetness and light and
understanding and didn't have any real objection to
auditors or auditing and could be run on Descriptive
Processing. So by clearing the command you clear the
preclear's ideas on the subject of "help" and the preclear
would clear on the subject of "help." See? Person was
already a Clear but you, of course, could get away with it.
You get the idea?

Now, what we try to teach you here is what you can expect
to get away with on all preclears. And then if you go ahead
when you're auditing somebody and get away with something
else, why, that's fine. Two things to remember: good
auditing is what you can always get away with on all
preclears. But that doesn't mean that on some preclear you
can't get away with something. Hence you can omit clearing
a command on some preclears. But then don't be amazed to
get your next preclear and find nothing happening. He
absolutely had to have commands cleared. You never got
anyplace until you did.

All right. Now, clearing a command, then, goes for any and
every command you're going to utter and every word of the
command. And you clear it once with the end goal of simply
getting some understanding between yourself and the
preclear what it's all about. You're not trying to make a
perfect command.

But sometimes you'll have to rephrase a command. Trying to
run Havingness on somebody once in England - they had been
brought up in some part of England - they evidently had no
such word as have. As near as we could find out, the person
from that day to this had just never had any connection
with "had" or "have" except being gypped, and to possess
something meant to take it. And Havingness had to be run
with the word "take." Worked perfectly well with the word
"take."

Now, we take Spanish. Spanish has no word for "have."
Really, there is no clear, clean word for "have." There's
tener which is again this word "take." Isn't that
fascinating? So if you run it in Spanish, why, you've got
yourself a similar problem. But the command must
communicate. The command must communicate.

Now, you could run a command in gibberish. Just draw up a
set of new artificial symbols and get an agreement on which
one meant what and run the command with those, too. You
know you could do that. You could run them nonverbal. You
say to somebody, "When I do this (tap, tap, tap) that means
'walk.' Got it? When I do this, that means 'wall.' Got it?
When I point like this, that means 'you.' Got it?" See, and
you could exchange this even in writing. See, and get this
all straightened out so that you could point at him, make a
walk symbol and a wall symbol and you would have said, "You
walk over to that wall," and that would be clearing a command.

Sometimes you audit somebody who is unconscious or cannot
talk; you think they're unconscious until you find out that
you have a command system available. "When you press my
hand once, that means 'yes.' When you press it twice that
means 'no.' Do you understand that? Good. Now, I'm going to
ask you a series of questions and when you press my hand
once that means 'yes' and when you press it twice that
means 'no.' "

Person been lying in a coma for three weeks (this is an
actual case, by the way, I'm giving you) and they take hold
of your hand, you know - I mean you pull their hand up to a
point. First they're very, very feeble since they have no
confidence in the communication. And then you ask them,
"Are you in pain?" You know? And they eventually flip,
flip, "No." Next thing you know you're in communication
with this person with a fractured skull that will never
talk again or walk again and is just slowly dying and so forth.

About the time they merely - they brought them up the
communication line to a point of talking to you, why,
generally if you're doing this in the hospital, the medical
doctor will kick you out and so forth. And if you've told
them as somebody did in some quarter of the world that you
will stay with them until they get well or made some such
outrageous promise, they'll kick the bucket. It's a
betrayal, you see, betrayal on the help line.

You can expect, one, a medico to object to any improvement
in the case and - that's right, not occasioned by
himself - which is one of the help factors; and, two,
a patient to get worse when any betrayal of promise is
effected by the auditor. These are standard data.

But within those limits your establishment of communication
can be very simple; it can be tactile, it can be anything.
Someday you're going to audit a blind person who is also
deaf and dumb or something like that. And you'll say, "How
in the name of God..." Well, listen, think of it in this
framework and you've got it: "How do I clear the command?"
And you think of it in that framework, you will clear the
command and the next thing you know...

I've audited people in as bad a shape as that. Totally
paralyzed, couldn't do anything. Had one fellow, one time,
who could wiggle one eye. And I got a yes and no system
going and then audited him with yes and no verbal
questions. You know, just on the flick of one eye. Pretty
wild. Almost - I found out somebody was abusing this person,
by the way, and from one session to the next the person had
gotten a little worse. And I asked if somebody had abused
him in the intervening period and by adroitly phrasing my
own questions got the story of exactly what happened,
turned around to the male nurse, chewed him out, kicked him
in the shins, so to speak, verbally, and he was in a state
of shock. It really put him in a horrible state of shock
because he didn't know how I could possibly be communicating
with this person. Or how this person could possibly have
told upon him. And he went into terror, sort of thing.

After that I'd come in the door, he'd stand back and he'd
just kind of go white.

But all this comes under the heading of simply clearing a
command. If you clear a command well, you guarantee that
you're in communication with the preclear.

All right. Let's take up here in the next few minutes here,
continuing on with this, the exact application of the TRs
to a training activity. Now, the TRs do help a training
activity simply by installing an agreed-upon discipline,
don't they? And that would be enough use for them and after
you'd used them for that, why, then you wouldn't bother
with them anymore in auditing. Would you?

I saw some people yesterday, day before yesterday,
particularly, clearing commands, pardon me, checking out
with an E-Meter. Saw these people checking out with an
E-Meter and they didn't think the TRs had anything to do
with it. "Well, actually, it wasn't an auditing session by
definition so therefore the TRs didn't apply." Well, that
unfortunately is beyond criticism. But the abandonment of
the TRs when we get in so deep as choosing a process and
opening a session and clearing a command - abandoning them
then - that is actually sort of abandoning any hopes for the
session.

The first and foremost TR that goes to pieces is
confrontingness. It's the basic, associated with all TRs,
TR. It is the basic TR that permeates all TRs. You can
normally tell when your TRs are going to pieces when you
are no longer confronting your preclear. When you are.

Now, holding a body stiffly in a chair in a certain
position is only uncomfortable if the body is not at ease.
So if you've - suddenly catch yourself winding yourself
around the chair legs and up through the back or something
like that, ask yourself, "What's going on here? What am I
doing?" And you could normally find out that the preclear
has done something that annoyed you in the last minute or
so.

Now, keeping yourself going on the subject of the TR is no
trick but you have to do it all the time. It isn't
something that the ACC builds in and then runs on automatic
from there on out, don't you see? We're just showing you
that you can do it. Now, you have to take over from there
and prove to yourself that you can do it too. It actually
makes very easy auditing. And familiarity with auditing
improves or should improve your ability to follow the TRs.
And as your familiarity with actual auditing increases,
your facility in following the TRs should improve and you
should find them easier and easier to follow the longer and
longer that you audit.

I used to make a practice of - well, some time ago I made a
practice of exactly - auditing exactly by the TRs for a
while. You see? I mean, I just did everything exactly according
to Hoyle - exactly, right on the button - didn't vary
a hair. And I found out I could do it hour after hour and
it actually seemed to be a little easier to do it hour
after hour, and as the hours followed, the easier it got. I
decided in that one case to do exactly what I told others
to do and see if it killed me, you know? It didn't.

The only time I seem to get sloppy these days is when I'm
trying to find something on an E-Meter. And then I find
that invalidation has its role because a person will resent
like mad an invalidation on a sore button. They'll really
react if you invalidate them a little bit or - when I say
invalidate, interpret it as challenge - if you challenge one
of these lovely betrayal buttons, you know. You can just
watch the behavior of the needle. You can't make the needle
do anything, you can't make the meter do anything. You say,
"Well, what do you think would betray you if you entered in
upon it in this lifetime? What would betray you?"

"Oh, schoolteachers, you know, schoolteachers."

We still don't get much reaction. If we wanted to confirm
their reaction, we could make some offbeat remark - remember
we're not auditing, we're diagnosing here - offbeat remark
like, "Oh, I don't know. Schoolteachers don't seem to be
very vicious. Do you - really, do you think they are?" Watch
that needle, brother! If that's a hot button it'll go down
about fifteen dials, you see? Then patch up your ARC break,
pat him on the head and run Help on teachers and you've got
it made. See?

But if he didn't resent it, if he giggled and said, "Well,
I guess you're right," come off of it. It's no importance,
no importance to anybody.

Now, I'm going to mention right here and now and then talk
about it considerably in the next lecture: goals and PT
problem or CCH 0. Now, CCH 0 includes many other things
than goals and the PT problem but CCH 0 has in it two
processes: one is a process known as goals and the other is
a process known as PT problem.

Now, the goals process is not as important as you might
believe but to set up some kind of a goal for the future is
to get the preclear more able to look into the future and
is a little therapeutic trick that you must never neglect
in going by. It'll help a session enormously. A person can
actually sit in an auditing chair for twenty-five hours
with no goals and arrive with none either. He starts with
no goals and arrives with no accomplishments. You say, "Did
you reach anything that - did you attain anything in this
auditing session?"

And he says, "No."

And you say, "Well, why don't you think you attained
anything on it?"

And he said, "Well, I just - just - it just didn't do very
much for me."

What's wrong? Well, you didn't set any goals at the
beginning, goals that could be reached.

Of course, you let him set the goals that he wants. And you
keep talking about it and if his goals seem too wide and
too outrageous to you, you particularly try to find some
little tiny goal that you've got some chance of making in
this session. Perfectly all right for him to say, "Well, I
will - I've got the goal of being cleared." Naturally. But
let's also get a goal for this session, huh? And then let's
bang his head in at the end of the session to make him
realize he achieved it. And do you know that this is a
method of moving the guy on the auditing time track?

Now, there are those here who have heard me speak of this
before, but an auditing time track is a different time
track than the physical universe time track. Things happen
much more rapidly and it's vis--vis - thetan versus thetan,
you see - and it has the potential of making a brand-new
universe all by itself.

So if you don't haul him up that time track bodily you're
going to be in trouble. So one of the reasons you use goals
is to haul him along on the auditing time track, which
otherwise would have no motion to it.

So make him set something that he can attain in this
session and at the end of it don't think you're through
with CCH 0. Nearly everybody to date is making this error.
They think CCH 0 is ended in its entirety at the beginning
of the session and you never further pay any attention to
it of any kind whatsoever. Very erroneous. "What goal could
you have for this session?" "What goal could you have for
this intensive?" "What goal could you have for this
course?" are each of them legitimate questions and probably
all should be asked.

But you should keep hammering on this goal for this session
until he gets some kind of a little idea. "Well, I'd..."
He tells you, well, he'd like to rule earth or something of
the sort. But get it down to a point of where he finally
says, "Well, I've got a little pain in this eye and I'd
like to get rid of it." That's certainly minute enough. You
sure can - for sure do that in that one session.

"And I've been feeling sort of dopey lately. Goal for this
session, maybe, yeah, get rid of that."

Boy, those are real goals. You see? I mean, you could do
something with goals of that character.

Now, you give away all of your golden accomplishment when
you never mention it again. Here you had the chance to
triumph, to crow, to come over him, to say, "Look! Look
what I did for you; I've helped you, you've got to admit
it." You see? You never again ask him about it. He said
he'd like to get rid of the little pain in his eye, he said
kind of pathetically. And you audit him for two, three,
four, five hours for that day, whatever it was, and then
you never collected your candy.

It's quite interesting to ask a preclear at the end of the
session, "Well, how's the pain in the eye now?" At the risk
of its returning you can ask him. Go ahead. If it's going
to return that easy, it's unstable anyhow. See, don't worry
about getting - get him to get the somatic back. He might
get it back just a little bit, restimulate the session, you
know. We don't care, it'll go. If you've gotten rid of it
once it'll go.

All right. You say, "How's that pain in your eye now?"

And it's very interesting to see a preclear just go blank.
"Pain in my eye? Pain in my eye? This eye? Pain in my eye?
My eye? Oooh, oh-ho, oh yeah! You mean the... Yeah, it's gone."

You say, "Well, we accomplished that little goal. Now how
about feeling tired, feeling tired all the time and upset
all the time? How do you feel about that now?"

"Tired, tired, tired, tired, upset. Tired, upset. Well, I
don't feel tired and upset. Are you trying to invalidate me
or something?"

"Well," you'd say, "well, I guess we reached that goal,
didn't we?"

So when you set up these little goals, make sure that
they're real, attainable, and then collect your candy.
Got it?

Now, I actually take some of these never-can-change-me
preclears and bang their heads in to get them up the Effect
Scale or get them down. I don't care which. When they start
telling me hour after hour that I'm having no effect on
them, I know their main interest is not having any effect
made on themselves. There's two way to convince them: that
they can be successfully immune to all effect or to
convince them that you have had an effect upon them or
something can change them. I always choose the latter.

So, we take this thing about goals and we run it, mildly,
hardly a process at all. We do set up something that
finitely could be reached and then we make sure he reaches
it. And very often I make people look at pictures before
the session and after the session and ask them if they're
any brighter. And they say they don't know; I return them
to the beginning of the session and have them look at the
picture as it looked at the beginning of the session. And
then take - later session and have the picture as it looks
now. And they say grumpily, "Well, yes, it is much more
bright and solid."

And I say, "Thank you very much. I guess we've attained
that, haven't we?"

You must remember something. The auditor is the god of that
time track. And if he won't take responsibility for hauling
the preclear along the auditing time track, completely
disassociated from any other time track, if he won't take
the responsibility for hauling the preclear along it, why,
he very often leaves the preclear stuck in session.

As far as problems are concerned, the auditing command that
we use here is, "What part of that problem could you be
responsible for?" And we very arduously dredge up a problem
and make sure that there's no slightest chance that a
present time problem is in our road when we're auditing the
preclear. Now, some of you are going to get into that
almost at once. So I have mentioned these two things so as
to give you a little bit of a kickoff in that direction. Okay?

I understand you're doing very well and your Instructors
are doing fine and that everything is going along
swimmingly and that somebody might even get out of the
TRs someday.

So, thank you.

[End of lecture.]


